EASA FTL study already neglected by politicians

[JumpinJackFlash]

After a thorough study by EASA which ended in the following report the Minister for Transport in Denmark has already neglected the conclusions as "we already have a set of rules that works well and therefore it is not a matter of haste to implement further rules".

This is after implementing subpart Q to the letter without making any further restrictions on any parts therein, so we now have, from the operators point of view, the most forgiving rules regarding flight time limitations which the companies as usual use as a target instead of an absolute maximum.

The conclusion by the minister is "the road ahead must be joint EU rules so I will put it forward in the EU, but I cannot as Danish Minister of Transport, guarantee that the report will not end up in a drawer somewhere".

Thank you very much for the great effort you as responsible for air safety in Denmark put into this.


http://http://www.eurocockpit.be/media/EASA_FTL_Study_Results_Summary_09_0122.pdf

http://http://www.business.dk/article/20090206/transport/90206022/ (http://Article with the ministers quote (in Danish))

[SPA83]

Read also the airlines’ (AEA) reply to the scientific evaluation of EU laws on Flight Time Limitations (FTL). http://henrimarnetcornus.20minutes-blogs.fr/media/01/00/504990774.pdf

For example, Moebus Aviation recommends ”the FDP for minimum crew should not exceed 10 hours overnight.”

AEA comment:
This would have huge and devastating impact on EU airlines flying long-haul without
any safety justification (hundreds of millions of Euro). We predict that this would
result in a need for a typical AEA member to increase its crew numbers with 15%.
Based on the additional restriction certain long-haul flights would have to be
discontinued i.e. non-stop flights from Europe to Santiago/Chile, Singapore, Tokyo
and Los Angeles.
Moebus Aviation and ECASS have not take into account the fact that controlled
rest/napping is allowed in the cockpit during cruise phase according to existing safety
legislation and that this increases the alertness flight crew for the more critical phase
of flights.

[sky9]

AEA comment:
This would have huge and devastating impact on EU airlines flying long-haul without
any safety justification (hundreds of millions of Euro).

i.e Safety was the reason to introduce the 10 hr maximum

We predict that this would result in a need for a typical AEA member to increase its crew numbers with 15%.

i.e Putting costs ahead of passengers and employees safety.

Based on the additional restriction certain long-haul flights would have to be discontinued i.e. non-stop flights from Europe to Santiago/Chile, Singapore, Tokyo
and Los Angeles.

i.e Can't be bothered to put a heavy crew on board.

The AEA is a disgrace to aviation. The member Airlines and their Directors should be ashamed of themselves and their organization.

[seat 0A]

Some of the members of AEA have probably looked at this AEA "position paper" and have realized that it`s a disgrace. The paper is removed from the AEA website. But...the damage is perhaps already done.
Politicians are not known for their intelligence and AEA shouting that air operations between Europe and Asia will cease has probably already taken their effect. :ugh:

[JumpinJackFlash]

AEA reply is still there

http://files.aea.be/News/PR/Pr09-002.pdf

[Airbus Girl]

Where are all the journalists who lurk on this site, when we need them?
How about one of them gets hold of this and starts asking difficult questions - like why would an organisation/ airline wish to ignore important safety recommendations? And if that is their attitude, do the public wish to fly with them? Ignoring safety because it might cost a little bit extra is not really a good enough argument.

It would be interesting to know where they would stand if they had one of their crews (god forbid) involved in an accident which was partly attributable to tired crew.....after they had basically said "we ain't doin it because it will cost money, even though we know it will save lives".

And since when did a 5 minute nap negate all feelings of tiredness??

[Southernboy]

Sadly Airbus girl, journalists have shown an interest in the past. The subject gets aired and nobody takes much notice. This is not the only issue that we all know is a safety matter in need of attention but inertia in the system + the vested interests mean nobody with any clout will touch it.

This has been coming a long while and is entirely due to the horse trading nature of the way Sub part Q was implemented. It was deal based not science based. The same is true for ATC proficiency checks. The new EU rules require one every 2 years, when in the UK the requirement is annual. Why? well it's an improvement on some countries that had none at all.

How long before all airlines & ATC employers join the already long line of companies saying, "Well these are the rules & we're at a disadvantage now because you (the UK regulator & others who stick with their own) won't let us use the same regs as everyone else."

[shortfinals]

The AEA's argument amounts to this: no-one in a European airliner has died as a result of pilot fatigue, so until people die, do nothing.

Meanwhile it's not true there has been no reporting on this subject. I know it's a specialist title, but broadcasting and newspaper transport correspondents read it, so they know what the score is.

EASA under fire over pilot flight time limitations (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/02/03/322003/easa-under-fire-over-pilot-flight-time-limitations.html)

Comment: Time's up for Europe's flight time limitations (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/01/27/321577/comment-times-up-for-europes-flight-time-limitations.html)

Comment: EASA must stay clear of politics to meet its mandate (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/02/03/321997/comment-easa-must-stay-clear-of-politics-to-meet-its.html)