Just to show how corrupt and imbecilic the whole process was, it must be remembered that the motion put forward for the vote was to REJECT the EASA proposals. Therefore, anyone who wanted to REJECT the EASA proposals should have voted to ACCEPT the motion.
Clear as doggy doo eh?
The whole UKIP bloc of MEPs voted erroneously AGAINST the motion to REJECT the EASA proposals. They have since realised the error and have been advised by their party whip to change their votes to ACCEPT the proposal. Apparently you can change your vote within 4 days of the original.
To view the opinion and correspondence between myself and my MEPs, including the admission of error, go to the
Ministry of Aviation.
DID THE UKIP MEPS MAKE A HUGE BLUNDER YESTERDAY IN STRASBOURG?
I would like to express my disappointment regarding the decision by ALL my MEPs except one, who didn't bother to vote at all, to vote against the proposal to REJECT the EASA Pilot Fatigue Rules. Only one MEP, Stuart Agnew (UKIP), even bothered to respond to my email before the vote.
Whilst I appreciate the fact that there was a reassuring response from Mr Agnew stating that I could "Rest assured that your concerns are being taken seriously and we will do everything we can to oppose these changes..." I and every one of my colleagues are astounded at the bare faced audacity when we note that he voted AGAINST the proposal to REJECT the new rules.
Whilst I can appreciate that the rest of my MEPs voted along party lines rather than using their independent intelligence which says a lot when politicking takes precedence over safety, I sincerely hope that Mr Agnews' vote AGAINST the proposal to REJECT the new rules was made in error, as were those of the rest of the UKIP MEPs. It is just one more example of how confusing the politicians can make something as simple as a FOR/AGAINST vote when it comes to something as important as flight safety.
In my job as a long haul pilot I cannot afford the luxury of making mistakes and I'm sure that after the MEPs busy schedule, the 'fatigue factor' is bad enough without getting confused in how to vote on a very important issue such as Pilot Fatigue Rules. However, in this case, if Mr Agnew and his party have indeed blundered and voted the wrong way, does that not scream out how important it is to keep the very high standards we had here in the UK rather than dumb down in order to level the playing field?
Sadly, I am very disappointed with the way that every one of my MEPs has voted on this issue, as are every one of my colleagues. If, and more likely when, there is another major hull loss for a European carrier that has pilot fatigue reported as a contributory factor, I and my colleagues will be there to remind them all, and the general public, of their poor decision when it came to voting out the flawed and unscientific new rules about to be implemented by EASA.
Just because the UK CAA recommended the new rules because they were "broadly similar" to the existing UK ones, does not excuse the refusal by many political parties to take into account the conflict of interest by the regulator whose income is derived solely from those who they regulate. Not only were the new proposed EASA regulations rejected by two parliamentary specialist committees but they were also rejected by scientists and experts in fatigue studies as being sub standard and needing serious re-working. None of that has been taken into consideration by any of my MEPs and I, as well as the vast majority of my colleagues, shall remember this when election time comes around again.
At least when they make a serious mistake, through fatigue, poor advice or incompetence, the results are not likely to be fatal and certainly not as instantaneous as when I or my colleagues make one when doing our jobs. I hope theythe remember that, next time they board an aircraft.
See how your MEPs voted here:
VoteWatch