New FTL almost approved by EU

[jedy]

Have you guys seen the new FTL that is about to be approved in EU.
Scary very scary.
If it goes ahead we will be working even more and I bet the likes of EasyJet, Ryanair, etc. can't wait.
Here is a link to the new proposal:

http://www.eurocockpit.be/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=421&Itemid=252

http://www.eurocockpit.be/media/FTL_In_Short_NT-05-1108-F.pdf

Long live to the 21 century EU.

:ok: :ok: :ok:

[outofsynch]

easyjet wont be able to do much because CAP371 and Ops manual A7 still overide.

[birdstrike]

Out of Sync
I would like to think you're right, but I think you will find that EU law has primacy, and that despite any protests from the CAA they will have no option other than to comply.
It's a hidden 'benefit' of being part of the EU, we are no longer in control of our own laws.

[Big Tudor]

Read the first paragraph that begins "The State of the Operator....." . Basically, each national authority will be required to put in place their own scheme, of which the EU proposal is the minimum that can be used. CAA will overlay this with CAP371 and the status quo is maintained, in fact it will be more limiting than at present as the max proposed FDP is 13 hours rather than 14 at present.

[Banzai Eagle]

BT
My understanding is that of birdstrikes, the CAA stance is that CAP371 will sit inside Sub Part Q BUT as it will become EU Law they will be forced to backdown and adopt Sub Part Q (much like they had to do with the Jar145 Engineering requirements). It may be that a legal challenge will have to be mounted.
In most cases (I presume Jedy including Belguim) EU airlines apart from UK will find the limits more restrictive (judging by the amount of wrangling that has gone on for the last xx years). UK Airlines would in most cases however benefit from Sub part Q, not so much the hours in the day but the removing of the early / late rules which force so many crap rosters to be worked.

It would however be hoped that respected UK Airlines adopt it with a sensible safety driven approach rather than imposing it without negotiation. I for one am uneasy about 10hrs rest away from base.

[Airbus Unplugged]

This sucks. The CAA will simply roll over under pressure from the majors and Mr Berlesconi's friend, the President of the UK. If they don't watch English Airlines become Italian Airlines, or Polish Airlines or whoever has the worst FTLs.

We seem to have been asleep since Simpson tried this a couple of years ago. Be afraid:uhoh:

[The Sandman]

Birdstrike: I think you'll find that EU law has primacy when it is more restrictive, however national law is specifically allowed in this case to be more restrictive than the EU legislation. However, as is pointed out, it may not be too long before commercial pressures to compete on an even footing pressurize the likes of the CAA and other "old school" holdouts to liberalize their own FTLs.

[Mr Angry from Purley]

Airbus unplugged

Its been rumbling on for the last 15 years at least, Simpson has been replaced. The whole idea is that the Airlines with no to little FTL wil have to adopt it, and those with the worst FTL (Spain?/ex Eastern Block countries) come in line with it.
UK Airlines? as the Sandman says.. may depend on the stance of the big boys such as BA/VS/EZY/Charter carriers.

:\

[critical winge]

Excellent, that will make a nice REST for the Guys in Emirates if it becomes mandatory.

[essexboy]

Don't know what the big deal is all about. The proposed limits are pretty much the same as they have always been.

[underread east]

Not if you work nights. I hope that the CAA holds out. This could prove a real killer for the freight dogs amongst us. The company I work for is already bandying this about as what WILL come.

[foxmoth]

I largely agree with Essexboy, even for those doing nights the increase does not seem that great by the time you have taken into account the reduction for that - though it will be interesting to see how we work out "The Window of Circadian Low" when operating back longhaul after a Bullet, also, some of it will depend on definitions - as Banzai says I for one am uneasy about 10hrs rest away from base., but if the definition of rest becomes time spent in the hotel, then again it is the same as you can do with a reduction at present. This is not ideal, but given what was origionaly proposed it seems a reasonable compromise.

[sky9]

If the regulations are broadly the same as that proposed by Simpson some years ago they do not take account of fatigue and are not designed to do so, the commander of an aircraft is however not premitted to fly when fatigued.
It follows therefore that an airline cannot rely on the regulations as reasonable limits and it is up to the individual to decide himself what is reasonable and when he is fatigued. I suggest an email to the CP copy to your FOI should do the trick.

[foxmoth]

and it is up to the individual to decide himself what is reasonable and when he is fatigued.
And if you think that will work in practice you are living in cloud cukoo land!:}

[Arkroyal]

Yhis really is old news, and has been known to be on the way ever since subpart Q was agreed by the EU.

The CAA is allowed to maintain CAP371 within it.

I am worried, however, about a certain Irish operator, and what they'll do. If they get a commercial advantage, watch the British airlines scream for parity in FTLs, i.e. worst case!

[Frangible]

No comment so far on the use of the term "calendar year" in the annual limit. CAP 371 specifies no more than 900 hours in any 12-month period. So, why introduce the calendar year in its place?
Extreme case. Imagine the FTL calendar year starts at Jan 1. You start flying 100 hours a month on April 1 and keep that up and have 900 hours at next Jan 1. Then, the clock is reset, and you start again and if you still did 100 hours a month you would have, by next April, clocked up 1200 hours. Improbable, perhaps, why allow it if not to permit occasions when airlines want to get around the intent of the FTL? "Any 12-month period" is the only logical approach to FTL.

[maxy101]

So what happens when RyanAir adopt the new FTL as they are "good Europeans" and want to "simplify" the rules ? I don't believe that EasyJet, and the other smaller companies wont fall into line pretty sharpish. I think many of the posters here are guilty of playing the short game . I would bet my pension {not a good bet at the moment, admittedly}, and say that these rules will be the norm in 10 yrs. Apart from in Air France, Lufthansa and Iberia. They have governments that are either scared of union action or are fairly sensible about these things and are willing to protect their workers from the excesses of the market.

[gone till november]

Ah good to see that EU pencil necked paper pushers cant be bought..........Oh hang on. Did i get that the right way around?:mad:

[Banzai Eagle]

Arkroyal

That certain Irish operator already has a commercial advantage to G Reg airlines, it has better FDPs and no limits on earlies / lates / nights. Sub Part Q may see a reduction in its ability to compete with the likes of EZY etc but I doubt it because its likely National variances will be allowed, the reverse effect of the CAA keeping CAP371. So the Germans will adapt Sub Part Q to meet their specific requirement to launch early to get back in time for the Night jet bans and so that their punters can get their towels round the pool first!

The CAA are stating that CAP371 will sit inside it, the is bit is likely to be tested at some stage. I suspect apathy will strike in the UK, we've been so used to CAP371 now we've began to love it! :\

[Kraut]

......So the Germans will adapt Sub Part Q to meet their specific requirement to launch early to get back in time for the Night jet bans and so that their punters can get their towels round the pool first!.............
Wrong! The Brits will be first at the pool, they even take off earlier because they have no nite ban!:D