EU plans to change Flight Time limitations

[Beanbag]

BALPA has a half-page ad in today's Times protesting about proposed new regulations on pilots' hours. Not much detail in the ads - can anyone fill me in on the background?

[SPFlyer]

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13263025,00.html

Anybody have more specific information, what hours exactly are being talked about??

[yotter]

This advert also appears on page 7 of today's Daily Telegraph - the favourite digest of Atlantic Barons at 30W.
To understand a little of this long story, please refer to
www.jaa.nl - the website of the Joint Aviation Authorities. This is the consortium of European & near neighbour authorities who have published common regulations for the general running of aviation in their countries. Unfortunately common flight time limitations (FTLs) for aircrew could not be agreed, so subpart Q of JARs says that each country chooses its own. In the case of UK this was CAP 371 which translated in our Ops Manual to Chapter 7 of Part A. UK FTLs are based on report time, number of sectors to be flown and whether or not acclimatised to the local time zone. Other countries in Europe - Italy for example - allowed considerably longer duty days.
Despite considerable medical evidence and exhaustive research, the JAA have adopted a very dubious approach which most airline unions believe to be wrong, hence the adverts.
I hope this summary - all from memory - will be a starting point for some more informed comment
Cheers, Y

[Arkroyal]

More detail here (http://www.balpa.org.uk/)andhere (http://www.balpa.org/intranet/BALPA-Camp/FLTs/index.htm)

[Jordan D]

As a humble SLF, I'm happy to say I support BALPA 100% - I'd rather have a pilot who's awake and fully alert and not tired, then run the risk.

Jordan

[AIRWAY]

It's also on the Daily Mail...

[Earl]

Just caught part of this myself on SKY NEWS.
I may be wrong but BALPA is saying that they wont accept an increase in Flying/Duty hours.
Good for you Balpa.
This issue needs to be addressed.
I hope it goes to all European companies operating in and out of the UK.
This has been going on too long.
If you dont operate then your job is at risk.
Time for some accountability.

[safetypee]

Is this a problem with proposals for JAR-OPS, where previously JAR has not been enforceable in Euro law, only when adopted by the home country or national authority?
Or, is this problem arising because EASA now runs Euro aviation; JAA is responsible to EASA for operational issues, but EASA can enshrine aviation rules in Euro law?

Whichever option applies it appears to be typical Euro thinking and regulation. Where there is difficulty in reaching an agreement, then the lowest common denominator is chosen. This invariably results in a reduction in safety standards. There are many examples in JAR-OPS, fortunately none as yet proven. However, as long as national authorities (with operator input) can alleviate the some of the novel JARs there is hope of marinating the current good level of safety.
Now we have EASA, lowest common denominator = lowest level of safety.

[normal_nigel]

So while we are subject to Draconian alcohol restrictions and every driver/security guard etc smelling our breath they propose to let us work into potential extreme fatigue?

[sky9]

Deleted due to incorrect information.

[Boeingman]

Brian Simpson wasn't re elected at the recent Euro election.

[sky9]

Thanks Boeingman, glad to see that. I've edited the posting.

[ShotOne]

Well done balpa. we need to give them all the support we can on this one.

In principle harmonising duty hours across Europe is a good thing -we should have a level playing field. But we must not simply drop safety standards to the lowest common denominator

[Danny]

Just to get the perspective on this one sorted out, I have changed the title of the thread and include the details that are most likely to stimulate discussion from the BALPA website:

BALPA Press release:BRITISH PILOTS CONDEMN EU MOVE: CHALLENGE UK GOVERNMENT
TO PUT 'NOTHING WILL CHANGE' PROMISE IN WRITING

Pilot leaders have reacted with huge disappointment, dismay and disbelief to today's decision of the European Council of Ministers to adopt flying time rules that are unsafe, unscientific and a political fudge.

The British Airline Pilots' Association (BALPA) is concerned that market competition will compel airlines to follow the poorly drafted and incomplete EU rules and has already warned that if pilots are asked to fly hours which are unsafe then they will not take off.

The Council of Ministers' decision now puts the UK Government on a collision course, despite the British Government's promise that the UK will stick to the existing British rules irrespective of what Europe says.

Said BALPA Chairman Captain Mervyn Granshaw: 'We take our responsibility for public safety very seriously, and we don't deal in fudges.

'The Government has said the new rules won't change anything for UK airlines, but we have no confirmation of this, or of how long such a promise will last.

'The Government should come clean and confirm the position in writing, unequivocally, as well as explain to the public the logic of this appalling double standard. Pilots and passengers deserve nothing less.

'Our safety record in the UK is the best in Europe and should make us leaders in Europe, not followers. It is about time the UK Government set an example rather than join in this downhill race.'

BALPA's three main concerns with the proposed Flight Time Limitations Standard are:
The document is incomplete and will NOT achieve the real objective of harmonisation – take standby: In UK after 6 hours the amount a pilot can be called upon to fly progressively diminishes whereas in Germany pilots can be on standby for 24 hours continuously and after 23:55 can be called to fly for a full 12 hours. Practices like this (and there are many) will not be harmonised to a safe level or stopped.
It has been poorly drafted by politicians and civil servants who know nothing about this complex subject – It is akin to allowing a politician to write the manual on open heart surgery procedures.
It reduces an already interesting fatigue boundary – let's take an alcohol comparison. In the UK the fly/alcohol is set at an appropriately low 20mg/ml of blood. The drink drive limit in the UK is set at 80mg/ml. Interestingly and coincidentally the UK Fatigue boundary is equivalent not to the 20mg limit but to the 80mg drink drive limit. If we allow this political fudge to come into force the end result will be that pilots will be able to fly aircraft when their performance is so degraded that if it were due to alcohol and they'd been driving a car in the UK they'd be illegal. Surely that is completely unacceptable?[/list=1]

Warning to operatorsSub part Q on Flight Duty Time

_These are the rules that may well regulate how many hours a pilot can fly. In the past these have been set by each country and in the UK they have progressively evolved since the 1972 Bader report based largely on scientific research and, as you are aware, are set by the UK Civil Aviation Authority under regulations guided by CAP371.

But on the 11th June - the very day after the European Parliamentary Elections in the U.K.- the Council of Ministers are being asked to set new European-wide rules that have less to do with science and more to do with political compromise. I am writing to advise you that if they are adopted as drafted they could well lead to disruption to operations where flight crew, in exercising their Licence provisions deem such operations unsafe.

A considerable amount of data has been collected over the past 20 years on the sleep and alertness of aircrew and the delivery, distribution and safety boundaries are widely understood._ The much respected European Committee for Aircrew Scheduling and Safety (ECASS Group) in a recent report concluded:

'Based on our current understanding of physiological and psychological factors contributing to fatigue in aviation operations, it is our view that there would be a significant increase in the risk of fatigue-related incidents and accidents if operators were permitted to operate to the limits specified in the EP-proposal.'

Our European umbrella organisation, the ECA, has written to the Commission pointing out where we believe science is being ignored and we are demanding that the European Parliament adheres to Article 95 (3) of the Treaty and uses the scientific evidence in drawing up laws. We have proposed changes to sub-part Q where we believe science is not being used. We have been pressing these points on Alistair Darling, as are our ECA colleagues on their Transport Ministers.

We do not think it enough to say that the UK will be immune from these changes; we are not. There will be pressure from Operators basing themselves in other countries that do not have the standards, or safety record, that we have in the UK. And, in any event, safety should be taken out of the competition equation, which is why we are pressing for scientifically based EU regulations.

Nor is this is about protectionism or restrictive practices; we need to be productive and competitive but not at the expense of safety. Indeed CAP749 from the Economic Regulation Group recently showed how we in the UK have exploited liberalisation.
So why is there potential for disruption to your operations? You should know that sub part Q contains provision 4.1 which says:

"A crew member shall not operate an aeroplane if he/she knows that he/she is suffering from or is likely to suffer from fatigue or feels unfit, to the extent that the flight may be endangered"

There are of course echoes of this in the ANO and, as we have seen over the Police Sky Marshal issue, in the event that these new provisions are enacted we will be supporting members who decide not to operate for the above reason. Our European pilot colleagues will be doing likewise.

We urge you to:[list]_____
intervene with your own operators' Association and ask the Council of Ministers to think again
ask the UK Transport Minister to support the ECA submission which is based on science.

Thank you for your time and if you wish to find out more please visit our website www.balpa.org

Yours sincerely,


Jim McAuslan

General Secretary

What appears to have escaped many of the people commenting here is that whilst here in the UK we enjoy (I use the word reservedly) relatively safe Flight Time Limitations (FTL's) which have evolved over many years with research and input from scientific experts, the main problem now lies in the fact that whilse we in the UK who work for operators with a UK AOC will not see any changes, the door has been left open for other European operators to operate to the new rules.

Whilst these new rules may be an improvement for many pilots who work to FTL's that are considered to be little more than a 'nod and a wink' between their countries regulator and the operators, and are without a doubt a danger to not only the crews but also the passengers who fly on those airlines routes, they are still less restrictive than the UK rules.

The new rules will not increase the total number of flying hours in a year but will lead to fewer rest periods and longer flight duty hours. Market competition will compel airlines to follow the "poorly drafted and incomplete" EU rules.

What this means is that our esteemed (NOT) politicians who gave the go ahead for these new rules have shown their usual lack of ability and understanding and we will now have more non-UK European operators able to operate in competition with UK AOC based airlines and get what the bosses will consider to be more 'efficiency' from their pilots. What those singularly imbecilic politicians have set up is a platform for the UK AOC operators to argue that the rules should now be relaxed here in the UK so that they don't suffer from unfair competition.

What's the bet that the pongos who run the CAA will buckle under the pressure of the operators to relax the FTL rules and come into line with the rest of Europe? We all know who butters the bread of the CAA. Now we have politicians deciding on safety related matters without any scientific input. Basically it is the 'blind/ignorant' leading the CAA and only a matter of time before we see our current FTL's being eroded to even more unsafe levels.

[BusyB]

It shows a complete lack of concern for the safety of UK passengers flying on EU operators. When buying a package tour you don't get a choice of which airline you fly on.

UK operators really should put pressure on the Government to rstrict the airlines operating flights from the UK instead of trying to get alleviations to the UK FTL's

[JJflyer]

I flew 900 hrs in the last 12 months. Could have flown up to 1200 like my father did in the -80's.
However rest periods between flights especially those following duty periods during late hours of the night could be much longer.

I do not see the problem being the amount of hours we can fly but rather how much rest we get between flights or after a sequence of flights.

JJ

[Captain Mercurius]

One more from those “hard working people” in Brussels.


As far I concern, JAA has failed in all aspects to plan and to put in force a proper duty time limitation.

There is an extensive and detailed research program done for several years proving black and white that, we are overworked.

However, JAA was unable to put these limitations in force, due to a heavy pressure exercised by the European operators, in such extent that they remove it from the JAR-OPS documents.:{

Furthermore, EASA it was created and recently it was hiring bureaucrats to do the job of technical expertise people.:}


Ultimately, the message we can read is that, the guys working in Brussels do what they have being told to do by the operators, instead doing what should be done to improve safety to millions of people travelling around every day implanting the correct duty time limitations based on latest findings on crew fatigue.

The bottom line is that we have to produce more, work more; obviously, for less than the salary it is paid nowadays.

I believe that we shall be united and act as one body to be able to improve our working conditions, not do divide or try to bring pride or glory to such serious mater.

After this is said, Kevlar vest is already dressed.;)

Mercurius

[iqit]

on our way to our hotel (in uk),the other day ,i asked the bus driver how much he works in a week...his reply, was, 50 hours ( i am "allowed" to work for 55hrs a week )
i am not familiar with the uk laws and regulations ,but i assume hes duty time is regulated by the same ministry that regulates pilots duty timeministry of transportation?)....it seems that driving a bus MUST be more dangerous an occupation ,when compared with flying a full loaded a/c in bad weather.
it does make you wonder , how come ,a bus driver is not allowed to drive for more that 8 hours 20 min a day,in a 6 day working week,because it is potentially dangerous for him and his pax as well as the rest of the drivers ,and yet ,the "safety orientated "aviation world ,is pushing forward for , worse working conditions....
maybe we should all sign in ,in to bus drivers unions (air-bus drivers could argue that they are one of them) ...

[sky9]

A couple of years ago a driver, Gary Hart received a five year jail sentence for causing the death of 10 people by dangerous driving after the Selby train crash. It is acknowledged that the European FTL’s are not based on science and have nothing to do with fatigue. If there is an accident at the end of a long FTL and the pilot is found to be fatigued, would he find himself in the same position as Gary Hart or would the fact that he was within legal flight Time Limitations be a defence?

One solution is to email the Ops Director before a long night flight stating that you think that you will be fatigued if you operate the flight and ask him for his intentions?

[MercenaryAli]

So I am surprised that anyone is surprised that we have come to this - none of them even know what FTL means let alone what tinkering with them might mean in terms of Flight Safety. Perhaps ALL the pilots in the UK should make ONE specific day agreed upon by ALL to have a COLD!

Only solidarity will win the day here!

[Roobarb]

Trouble is we’re in the wrong business, I want to be treated like cattle:

The Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997 PART I

WATERING AND FEEDING INTERVALS, JOURNEY TIMES AND RESTING PERIODS FOR CATTLE, SHEEP, PIGS, GOATS AND FOR HORSES (EXCEPT REGISTERED HORSES)
1. Subject to the provisions of this Schedule, journey times shall not exceed 8 hours.

This is madness. The breathtaking hypocrisy in the philosophy behind alcohol and fatigue legislation is staggering.

Welcome to Blair’s Britain. All law and no justice.

Merry Christmas!, (while we’re still allowed to celebrate it.)

http://www.80scartoons.8k.com/roobarb3wee.gif

I’ll take on the opposition anyday. It’s my management I can’t beat!

[MercenaryAli]

Me too! I want to be a pig!

Why not increase working hours of pilots and therefore increase productivity whilst assisting with the pension crisis as writing off the odd aircraft (along with the pax and crew) will effectively reduce the number of pensioners!

Yes! Merry Christmas to everyone (unless you are offended by that - then you are free to ignore my wishes) and a Happy and Prosperous New Year 2005!!

[ARMGAT]

What I would like to see is. How much support does BALPA get from ECA on this one?

And on a second note, where is the voice of the Association of UK AME.

Maybe its better that FTDT is the same all over Europe and for all operators.

The lesson behind all this; being shafted by Brussels is in no way any different than being shafted by the UK government.

But once you have a common European law, it will be easier to get it changed in all countries at the same time then in every state separately.

[You splitter]

Just to clarify some of the confusion over the two entities that are being quoted here.

The JAA (Joint Aviation Authorities) is just an organistaion formed from various European (as in georaphical) Aviation Authorities, who agreed to work to a set of standard requirements, as laid down in JAR-OPS1. It is not an EU organisation and therefore its requirements are NOT legally binding. Subpart Q of JAR-OPS1 was meant to be a standard FTL scheme but as was stated most of the countries with less restrictive FTL schemes would not agree to it. Not much choice for the JAA there. What do you do...scrap the whole idea because of one area of disagreement.

EASA (European Aviation Security Agency??) is an EU organisation and thereofre any requirements will be legally binding under European Law. That is the big differance.

Please dont forget that for many countries these proposals will increase their FTL schemes and therefore improve overall European safety. So we shoudn't just dissmiss this as typical EU bureaucracy.

What we do need to ensure is that a reasonable MINIMUM is put in place. Therefore there would be no reason why the UK should not stick with CAP371, After all it would comply with the European minimums.

[Big Tudor]

The key point of the document is in one of the opening statements. I don't have it to hand but it basically states that member states have the autonomy to regulate above and beyond the limits imposed within Sub Part Q. For the UK there is nothing to stop the CAA overlaying Sub Part Q with CAP371, hence nothing in the UK changes. What will change is EU member states who have limits that are less than those imposed by Sub Part Q, in particular those member states that currently have no FTL limits for cabin crew!
In this case, surely the efforts should be directed to the CAA to ensure that they exercise their rights and impose the limits currently in place in the UK.

[ShotOne]

It is very important that we make these points not just on pprune but to our elected representatives, MP's MEP's and to the travelling public.

May I suggest that every pilot who reading or posting here also write to his/her Member of Parliament or equivalent if elsewhere in EU. If you don't know who he is it is in your phone book address is House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA

[Big Tudor]

Not sure whether the travelling public would be greatly sympathetic to the cause ShotOne. The general perception of pilots is one of highly paid salaries, luxuriating on far flung shores and a well regulated (albeit demanding) work environment. Trying to get sympathy from someone on £12,000 p.a. isn't going to be easy when they think that you are on 6 or 7 times that amount. (please note this is my comment on the publics perception, not reality).
I wouldn't hold out for much support from the elected MPs / MEPs either. Firstly they probably hold the same pre-conceptions about pilots lifestyles as Joe Public. Secondly there is a strong political will that the EU Parliament is seen to be an effective tool (sic) in European politics. Most MEP s (and MPs) would be reluctant to jeapardise that impression.

[2R]

All leave is cancelled until moralle improves!:}

[crundale]

sorry to be boring, but has anyone got a link to either a draft subpart Q, or the European initiative?
have found lots of debate about them, but not sure any of us can really comment until we have read them for ourselves.
would probably be the first question our elected representative will ask - "have you read the actual document".....
your help is much appreciated :)

[Big Tudor]

Sub Part Q (http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?PUBREF=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A5-2002-0263+0+DOC+WORD+V0//EN&L=EN&LEVEL=3&NAV=S&LSTDOC=Y</a>)
Not boring at all, crundale. A little bedtime reading. :rolleyes:

[Cathar]

I cannot open the link pasted by Big Tudor but as it links to the European Parliament website I suspect that it will not reflect the latest position as the Council has made a number of amendments to the Parliaments original proposal.
If this link works correctly you should be able to download a copy of the text of the proposal as it stood on 16 November from here (http://register.consilium.eu.int/servlet/driver?lang=EN&ssf=DATE_DOCUMENT+DESC&fc=REGAISEN&srm=25&md=400&typ=Simple&cmsid=638&ff_TITRE=technical+harmonisation&ff_FT_TEXT=&ff_SOUS_COTE_MATIERE=&dd_DATE_REUNION=&rc=7&nr=101&page=Detail). Click on PDF to the right of where it says content.

I understand that there may have been one or two minor amendments since 16 of November but this appears to be the latest text available at the moment.

Happy reading.

[Pilot Pete]

I added several comments to the original post which appeared when Balpa started their campaign in earnest earlier this year. I wrote to all my MEPs and MP only to get a 'cut and paste' reply from those who even bothered to reply (approximately 2/3), which had obviously been supplied by Brian Simpson MEP who was at the time the EU Rapporteur (sp?) and who had put the proposals forward.

For those who don't know, he is an ex-school teacher here in the North West of the UK who jumped on the gravy train that is the EU. He was apparently sponsored by a cabin crew union (not sure which one and quite frankly couldn't be bothered to find out) which gave him his impetus to push for a harmonised set of FTLs (mainly for cabin crew), which may be admirable but is a totally seperate issue from harmonising FTL for flight deck to less limiting times.

I also went to see him in his constituency office with a senior captain from my airline who was about to retire but still had the wish to assist Balpa with their campaign. Simpson was bombastic and refused to listen to any argument we put. He dismissed all our concerns with the fact that the CAA could keep their more limiting FTLs therefore we had nothing to worry about. The simplistic view was astounding and he dismissed as 'not his problem' the fact that pressure would be brought to bear on the UK CAA to change to the less limiting FTLs of the rest of the EU. We even pointed out that our airline is part of a German owned group, so there may be an incentive to re-flag under a 'flag of convenience' to get round the issue. Again, 'not my problem'. His sole objective was to harmonise, at any cost otherwise he would have failed. Why was he given the job in the first place? It appears that he had a passing interest in civil aviation and word got round the office when they were looking for someone to take on the role. He has no aviation background or experience in the field other than in the role as rapporteur and refuses to take any of the concerns about lack of scientific evidence because, and I quote, 'for every report you quote that says it is unsafe, I have a desk full that say that it is safe'. I asked for sources so that I could read these reports, but he couldn't think of any at the time...........

He did indeed lose his seat in the recent EU elections, which was comforting to hear, but unfortunately the process had moved on from where he really mattered and was with the Council of Ministers, his proposals being complete.

It is a sad fact that not enough UK pilots are actively taking an interest in this subject, perhaps due to their misconception that we'll be alright with our get out clause. A colleague of mine attended the protest outside the EU parliament along with other pilots from throughout Europe. I know due to work commitments that not many would be able to attend, but only about 100 pilots were there and only 5 from the UK. Very sad indeed.

We must keep the pressure on and write to our MPs and MEPs and the Transport Minister to express our concerns. Balpa members can even get a template letter from the Balpa website. It couldn't be easier really, just half an hour on a day off. I personally think that the campaign must be pushed harder with the general public. OK they might have this image that we get paid too much and sit on beaches, but highlighting the differences mentioned above about bus and truck drivers and us with the associated effect on safety margins will eventually strike a chord. The public assume that we are highly protected and assume that we are never tired when sitting up front. They still assume that when we get to Tenerife we will be on the beach probably before them.............

PP

[Buitenzorg]

The provisions of CAP 371 make perfect sense in an airline operation, but maybe one reason why some other countries don’t want to adopt it is that these regulations ignore the needs and conditions of a sizeable sector of professional aviation: daylight VFR-only ops, especially single-pilot.

I’ve worked for several operators outside the UK whose governing bodies used CAP 371 as their regulatory text, and for us these rules were only just shy of a disaster. In day VFR work there is no disruption of a sleep pattern – when it’s dark you rest, you only work when it’s light, so there should be no need for early or late shifts. The important factors to consider are maximum flying time per day, and sufficient days off. But under CAP 371 the maximum allowable duty period means that one pilot can’t cover a normal day’s flying, so the operator must hire somebody else to cover just the last 2 or 3 hours, or close up shop while there are still customers wanting to fly. For the small operators which engage in this kind of operation, either option is a severe financial burden.

In the USA, there are separate duty time regulations for unscheduled Part 135 operations, which allow an operator to crew an aircraft for one day with one pilot, but no such option exists in CAP 371. This lack of flexibility may just be the reason why other European countries don’t want to burden their GA operators with its consequences.

[JJflyer]

Big Tudor and Cathar, Thank you for those links.

After reading the proposal there are very few changes to our national flight & duty time limitations. These seem to be very similar in all of the Nordic countries. So it will be ops normal to us.

JJ

[Thrush]

Pilot Pete,

I too have been in touch with my MEP, Linda McAvan.

In the letter I got back, I quote, "I'm aware that BALPA have publicly stated that the European Parliament's report on civil aviation and specifically the element which covers flight duty time would force British pilots to work longer hours. This is untrue........"

There is then a page which attempts to explain why it's untrue, all of which seems to me to be misinformed twaddle.

It has always frightened and amazed me how stupid and not-so-bright people can end up having a bearing on other people's lives by getting themselves into posions of responsibilty, such as MPs and MEPs!

The MEP's fax number for anyone who is interested is 00322 284 9438

[DFC]

When operating in busy airspace, packed in as tight as ATC can get, sliding down the glide 3 behind and 3 in front of another flight to land on a runway which the guy in front will have got off ASAP and there are others waiting at various holds to cross or line-up, not to mention the stream of VFR transit flights by PPLs traversing the overhead............................is itnot important that everyone is on top of their game?

If safety requires UK pilots to have adequate rest then it also dictates that every other flight in the same airspace should be operated by pilots who are as well rested.

Shame to be fully awake when the sleeping pilots spear your tin can!

Thus, if current European rest times are so bad that other countries could have fatigued and dangerous pilots.....is it not too dangerous for other people to fly there?

Perhaps BALPA are barking up the wrong tree (again).

Perhaps we need to look at the rest time of the refueler driver with 2 big tanks waiting to cross an active runway at 2200 in the dark!!!!

The lay person will simply see this as BALPA trying to protect their easy lifestyle.

Regards,

DFC

[steamchicken]

Question - if the fatigue limitation is comparable to the drink/drive limit in effect, why do you never hear of Dramatic Fatigue Arrests! (Tired Pilot Torn From Cockpit of Airbus 737 By Cops Drama!)

Would it be that drinking alcohol is up to the individual employee - but hours are a question for the employer?

[Lord Lucan]

I agree that pilots are widely seen by the public as highly paid. This is a PR problem. However the public is not stupid.

If pilot max work hours are compared with max permitted hours of other "drivers", or of other operators of critical machinary.
If (as I suspect) pilots can work much longer in comparison, the argument is, in part, won.

But I do not know the real numbers.

What are the max permitted working hours for truck drivers, (train drivers, bus drivers etc)?
What are the max permitted hours of Air Traffic controllers, nuclear power operators ...whatever.

This line of approach might bear fruit with the public.

[Big Tudor]

Lord Lucan,

Can't comment on any other than lorry drivers. There are no maximum duty hour rules, other than the EU Working Time Directive. The limits are set on driving time as follows:

Daily limit = Max 9 hours driving time (may be increased to 10 hours twice a week)
Fortnightly driving limit = 90 hours.
Max 6 daily driving periods between weekly rest periods.
1 x 45 hours rest period per week.
Drivers must take a 45 min break after 4 hrs 30 mins driving. No work may be undertaken during the break.

Min rest between daily driving tasks = 11 hours.

No early start / late finish rules. No reduction in driving hours for night work.

[The Sandman]

1.2 Cumulative Duty Hours
An operator shall ensure that the total duty periods to which a crew member is assigned do not exceed:
a) 190 duty hours in any 28 consecutive days,
b) 60 duty hours in any 7 consecutive days;

1.5 Duty period
A period which starts when a crew member is required by an operator to report for a duty and ends when the crew member is free from all duties;

1.6 Flight Duty Period
A Flight Duty Period (FDP) is any time during which a person operates in an aircraft as a member of its crew. The FDP starts when the crew member is required by an operator to report for a flight or a series of flights; it finishes at the end of the last flight on which he/she is an operating crew member or other time as specified by the responsible Civil Aviation Authority;

C. FLIGHT AND DUTY LIMITATIONS
1.1 Cumulative Limits on Flying Hours
An operator shall ensure that the total block times of the flights on which an individual crew member is assigned as an operating crew member does not exceed 900 block hours in a calendar year spread as evenly as practicable throughout the year;

So it appears that the referenced version at least has no weekly or monthly Flight Duty Period limits, only a 900 hour yearly limit (hopefully spread equally throughout the year), and a 190 hr Duty (Not FDP) limit per 28 days - all a bit goofy and reinforces that it was apparently all laid out by "amateurs" utilizing the standard EU consultative process (IE NONE - typical EU government by diktat).

[The Mystery]

I live on the constituency boundary of 2 wards, one red controlled and the other blue. Outraged by the Simpson FTL proposals, I wrote to both MP’s. Not long afterwards, I received a letter from both MP’s. Both MP’s forwarded my letter to the transport minister and the shadow minister respectively and then forwarded their respective replies back to me. The body of the letters from the transport minister and shadow minister were exactly the same. The style of the reply acknowledged my concern, was dismissive in style and contained ‘cut and paste’ extracts of the ANO stating it was my responsibility not to fly when tired.

I accused the government of sponsoring (CAP 371) limitations that were contrary to their own guidelines on Health and Safety. I informed the government that the new European FTL proposals were more of a political compromise than a well thought out set of rules designed to protect the flying public. I also strongly felt that any new set of proposals should include a scientifically base fatigue index to exonerate flight crew making decisions on their well being when they are least capable of making such a decision due to fatigue. To support my reasoning, I used many of the subject matters posted on these forums. I compared the effects of fatigue to the effects of consuming alcohol. I highlighted all the weaknesses in CAP 371 that operators take advantage of (18 to 30 hours between duties, check in 5 to a limit time etc, etc). I highlighted physiological points like circadian rhythms and the fact that sleep is not an on command function of the body. I also stated the regulations regarding the self management of rest are based on such strong circular reasoning, (a form of bullying?) it is almost impossible for conscientious flight crew to declare them self tired.

You may think that I would be disappointed having spent so much time and effort writing my concerns to the government only to have an ill conceived set of regulations pushed through Europe. I am disappointed about the regulation but by writing to my MP I have registered my concern about fatigue issues.

Many of you feel strongly about these regulations. Write to your MP. Even if the government does nothing, you have the letter for ever and the day Heaven forbid any of you should have an incident in the future but if you have a written to your MP expressing your concern over FTL’s, you could have your first line of defence at the subsequent inquiry.

[Thrush]

Good point!! Never thought about that!

but if you have a written to your MP expressing your concern over FTL’s, you could have your first line of defence at the subsequent inquiry.

[RAT 5]

It's amazing that such a safety concious issue is treated in such a manner. Even more amazing that it has been allowed by the unions to have reached this far. Compare unions in other industries, and all EU countries, and ask yourselves if their heirarchy would have allowed this farce to have developed. They would have had spokespeople on TV and held interviews to put the case to the public, and for sure, there would have been a national strike ballot hovering in the background. As said before, this mess has been simmering for over 10 years with 'square root of fanny all' having been achieved on behalf of the crews. Meanwhile, hard earned subs have been swelling the coffers of unions. In this day of competition how come so many have the common 1% as a sub. Extraordinary if they all have the same cost base. Cartel finances.

However, when 'farthers for access' and 'pro-hunting lobby' can storm the Houses of Parliament; when lorry drivers can blockade roads and fuel depo's in protest at rising prices, when taxi drivers and can organise prosessions of protest, it makes the silent whinging of aircrew seem pathetic. You're correct, it is a PR thing; so where are the union fat cats?

If this issue does not raise the hackles of aircrew in general, and cause a tide of protest on the streets, then nothing will. Not only does this attack the heart of the so-called 'safety culture' of the industry, if attacks the heart of reasonable quaility of life for the employees. The public are not stupid, and when they here the truth of cost cutting etc, they will remember the parallel with the railways and cringe in horror.

[Big Tudor]

Rat 5
and when they hear the truth of cost cutting etc, they will remember the parallel with the railways and cringe in horror. . But they will still go out and by the cheapest ticket they can! Unfortunately everone wants a bargain in life. Peoples perception of value for money relies heavily on how much something costs.

[cargo boy]

Oh, for heavens sake! If you're going to whinge about "...it has been allowed by the unions to have reached this far." then at least do your research properly. BALPA has been lobbying the various ministers since it was first raised. There was even a protest in Brussels and how many members of BALPA do you think turned up? Did you go? No but you are prepared to have a whinge about the union not doing enough.

Have you ever tried lobbying your MP? I doubt it. Have you ever tried to get an agenda on to the news? I doubt it. Just issuing a press release from time to time doesn't do it. Try organising a press conference and see how you fare trying to attract anyone to cover it.

As for wailing about Fathers4Justice or the fox hunting brigade... have we seen you doing anything outrageous, probably illegal and generating publicity for the "cause"? Again... nope! :rolleyes:

It's precisely because we are not a bunch of hot-heads that it is so much more difficult to generate enthusiasm to do anything more than the daily grind of multi sector flying. The new rules won't affect our working hours because CAP 371 is more restrictive. What it will affect though is the ability of UK based AOC holders to operate profitably because non-UK based AOC operators will work their crews to the less restrictive EU FTL's with the subsequent better utilisation of their aircraft.

What the unenthusiastic UK pilots can't be arsed to do anything about is the long term problem for us which will be the lobbying power that the operators will put on the government and the Campaign Against Aviation is to relax CAP 371 rules and make them less restrictive to fall into line with Euro practice. It will happen, but until then no one will be arsed to make an effort about it until it's too late.

So RAT 5, are we going to see you lobbing flour bombs from the spectators gallery in the house of commons or dressing up in a batman outfit and scaling Betty's bedroom balcony? Probably not. Are you going to go to the next demonstration by pilots against the new rules? :hmm:

[Mr Angry from Purley]

Only after a incident that is fatigue related will things change, look
at MK Airlines now avoiding deadheading practices..

[mgc]

Lord Lucan

You raised the subject of how your hours compare to say a nucleur operator. I assume you mean somthing like a nucleur power station. I suggest you don't even think of going there. You fly maybe 800 hours a year. They do about 2000 on the sharp end for less pay than you with no maximum hours and 12 hour night shifts often as standard, plus if the morning shift don't turn up they don't go home, and that's the UK. Any surprsise many industrial disasters, Chernobyl, flix borough, 3 mile island tend to happen in the grave yard shift?

Train drivers, pretty much the same, but regularly are 'at work' for over 12 hours without travelling time. Lorry drivers, surprisingly, somewhat more regulated. I can't remember the actual hours at present despite having a class 1 HGV, but it adds up to an awful lot more than 800 hours a year. Just stick it in your calculator 800/52, thats 15 hours a week. Most lorry drivers do over 40 hours actual driving. Loading etc comes on top.

Flight crew are VERY LUCKY that their working day is duty hours not flying hours. How would you like 2000 hours flying?

The problem is that you think aviators are hard done by. If you try to get sympathy from MPs and £20K lorry drivers you may find some what less sympathy than you hoped for! That doesn't mean we should not defend what has been hard won though.

[jerrystinger]

According to Sunday Times (Travel section 19/12/04) flying is no longer a taxing job and therefore pilots have no excuse for fatigue. The advanced technology used nowadays and inflight rest means the claims are unfounded. Interesting. Maybe the truth hurts???

[Max Autobrake]

Mr Angry there was a potentially serious incident a few months ago when both pilots were woken up by the GPWS during an ILS approach to a southern UK airport at the end of a night flight. The resultant adrenaline rush enabled them to successfully complete the second approach.

jerrystinger: "inflight rest"? On an 11.5 hour/4 sector day at any of the low cost airlines? Try it, then you might change your opinion! "Truth hurts" indeed!

[sky9]

We need to look very carefully at what Subpart Q is and what it apparently sets out to achieve.
It opens with a section titled "FLIGHT AND DUTY TIME LIMITATIONS AND REST REQUIREMENTS" and requires an operator to establish a flight and duty time limitations and rest scheme. Compare that to the title of the UK CAA CAP371.Titled "The avoidance of fatigue in Aircrews".

Throughout its "objectives and scope" subpart Q does not identify that the avoidance of fatigue is its purpose, and the employer or operator is not required to produce a roster that takes account of fatigue. The only person or persons who are responsible for fatigue in the whole of Subpart Q are identified in paragraph 4 headed "Crew Member’s responsibilities".
"4.1 A crew member shall not operate an aeroplane if he/she knows that he/she is suffering from or is likely to suffer from fatigue or feels unwell, to the extent that the flight might be endangered"

It follows therefore that Subpart Q has not been published to minimise fatigue, but is simply a common maximum limit for duty and flight times within Europe. This is reinforced by Article 8a paragraph 1 "Within a period of three years following the entry into force of the present Regulation, the European Aviation Safety Agency will proceed to a scientific and medical evaluation of the provisions of Annex III, Subpart Q" The clear inference of this paragraph is that Subpart Q is not the same as, or could replace CAP371, but it might be some time in the future.

This leaves aircrew with a problem. They are required by "Q" not to fly while fatigued, but given no scientific or medical guidance on which to base their judgement. Surely the answer is for ECA to provide guidance. I would suggest that as it is impossible for crews not rostered to CAP371 to adopt its guidelines on fatigue unless the companies agree to roster to 371 limits. The alternative is for the ECA to use the medical and scientific evidence that they already possess to produce a software programme that enables pilots not covered by "avoidance of fatigue" rules to enter their rostered and actual duties and provide guidance as to whether the rostered duty is liable to cause fatigue. If it was found to be so the obligation of "Q" is clear. The aircrew is legally obliged by Subpart Q not do the duty. More importantly, complying with "Q" will not absolve the crew from flying while fatigued because it clearly isn't designed to do so.

[Mr Angry from Purley]

Max Angle

Potentially yes, big difference. Presumably as the crew did a ASR then what did the Company do about it?

[Yarpy]

jerrystinger. can you post the link from the Sunday Times article?

[Earl]

Say the F word, Fatigue,
Some companies push you way past the legal limits now, by twisting the regulations and wordings to make them seem correct.
Damn near have to be a lawyer to prove you are correct.

[Cathar]

Throughout its "objectives and scope" subpart Q does not identify that the avoidance of fatigue is its purpose, and the employer or operator is not required to produce a roster that takes account of fatigue. The only person or persons who are responsible for fatigue in the whole of Subpart Q are identified in paragraph 4 headed "Crew Member’s responsibilities".

I think that you may have overlooked paragraph 3 which deals with operators responsibilities and in particular 3.6 which states "Operators shall ensure flight duty periods are planned to enable crew members to remain sufficiently free from fatigue so they can operate to a satisfactory level of efficiency and safety under all circumstances."

[sky9]

Cathar

You are right in which case they would have to have a programme that takes account of fatigue because the limits set out in Q do not take account of scientific or medical evaluation.

[The Privateer]

With reference to the proposed JAA regulations to increase duty hours, it becomes obvious that Governments are caving in to economic lobbying.

So aircrew must fight 'fire' with 'fire'.

To refuse to fly will place pilots' careers' at risk, a poor return (from a pilot's Bank manager's point of view) for possibly saving lives in any 'theoretical' impendng accident.

The best way forward surely is to join forces with Consumer pressure groups to force airlines to declare how long the crew have been on any sort of duty prior to the flight so the passenger at the gate can make his own decision (helped by BALPA adverts in Travel magazines). Of course the praticalities of this are fraught with problems especially in the light of delays due to maint problems et al; I am sure some bright person could work something out.

The end result should be airlines being blacklisted by consumer groups for non compliance to declare. The rest is left to the airlines who, being in cut-throat mode already will do anything the fare-paying passenger asks to sell a seat that may have gone to a competitor.

The consumer is the best weapon anyone can have in a service/transport industry.

[Kuccier]

:sad:

Our union has already resisted management who wanted to impose a definition of OFF daywhich would have gone over and above what Q is proposing.... We told them that it would violate all known studies on fatigue. the UK cap 371, local laws, our CLA etc etc ..... They still went ahead and employed other non-EU pilots to man the operation.....

I'm afraid we're fighting a losing battle against greedy pigs.....

Maybe, just maybe, when both pilots fall asleep, they will have their answer......

:ooh:

[347.5]

In the post-smoking hole enquiry, it is easy to say through toxicology that a pilot had alcohol in their blood stream. Fatigue is much more difficult to prove.

Companys like the fatigue argument because, if a pilot rings up crewing and says I am fatigued, Whoops there goes the career. If you do have a crash, well it's not the company's fault as the pilot should not have flown in accordance with the ANO. Also how do you prove it?? was the roster they flew legal? Aha the "Too Difficult" argument therefore the result must be pilot error.

I must admit that I do get fed up from non-aviators who do not experience 12 hour days with constant disruption to sleep patterns making comments on something they know nothing about. Having worked on building sites and on power stations, I know what hard physical labour is, but it is the mental tiredness that is hardest to cope with and will ultimately lead to fatalities!!

[Mr Angry from Purley]

The understanding I have is that if a Countries FTL is more restrictive in certain areas it can be imposed over the Sub Part Q.
In effect CAP371 will sit inside Sub Part Q and UK airlines will not see any significant gains. Those Countries who will loose out are those who have less rigid schemes, and those who have higher limits, i think Portugal and Spain have been mentioned.
This will still not see a level playing field but after 20 years or so of managing without a EU FTL do we really care anymore?.
:\