EASA (=More Hours at Work)

[RVR800]

BBC News - EU flying rules changes raise crash risk, say pilots (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19781688)

[fireflybob]

The UK's safety regulator, the CAA, said that overall the changes would keep passengers as safe as before.

Transport Minister Simon Burns said: "The safety of the travelling public is paramount and we have been quite clear that we would not support any proposals which the UK's aviation safety regulator - the CAA - advise do not provide sufficient protection against crew fatigue.

"We welcome EASA's final proposals which the CAA is satisfied provide a level of safety broadly equivalent to those already in place in the UK."

Am I the only one who is sick and tired of waffle like this from our regulators and Government Ministers?

All being pushed through simply for social and political "integration"!

[max alt]

Never a good idea to erode safety standards to the lowest common denominater.I have grave concerns over this issue.Who wants to be the one that says" I told you this would happen".What other workforce involved in public transport is now less protected against fatigue.
Those airlines and there are many that don't have a scheduling agreement will fly their crews up to the proposed new limit with scant regard for the implications.
Bloody madness.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Who wants to be the one that says" I told you this would happen".

I do because that means I'll still be alive and kicking!

[Danny2]

But the UK's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) disagrees, saying the changes will keep passengers as safe as before.

Note that they don't (can't) elaborate on why they "disagree". We wait in the forlorn hope that someone in the media actually has the ability to understand this point and is able to follow it up to the natural conclusion which is 'conflict of interest'.

"We welcome EASA's final proposals which the CAA is satisfied provide a level of safety broadly equivalent to those already in place in the UK."

Again, how many of those in the media have sufficient IQ to challenge the regulator and ask the simple question... is "broadly equivalent" the same as "equal to" or "better than"?

[Mr Angry from Purley]

max alt
"Those airlines that dont have a Scheduling agreement, and there are many"
BA unionised FRMS goes out the winodw if it suits the bid
Virgin Union
Thomson Union
Monarch Union
Thomas Cook Union
Easy, highly FRM driven Union
Jet 2 Union
Flybe?
DHL - exempt at moment from Easa FTL
Eastern
I'm struggling now for airlines in th UK you better update my list...
Can't be the rest of Europe as their working to Q or Industrial agreements already.
Fact is i'm looking forward to no limits on early / lates / nights - i can do a much better roster without them, supported by science,(i wont mention pilots responsibilities, managing their rest etc) and the daft factorisation rule on ETOPS.
:\

[max alt]

Should have said if your not in a european national carrier.Those in charter and low cost will join in a race to the bottom as boards of directors will want to know why their pilots are not working the same number of hours as their competitors ie Ryanair.If they can legally fly a thousand hours plus a year,up to seven early starts in a row,extending night ftl etc then fly them to it.
The scheduling agreements will be eroded usually by an increase in a pay award above inflation or a fleet change,sign here to fly the big jet.They will say they need the changes to remain profitable and in my view safety will be compromised.This is a step backwards.

[Basil]

Recollect, on a back-to-back, climbing on board feeling a bit shabby. Fortunately I was heavy crew so hit the bunk for six hours, slept better than any time before or since, and woke up feeling great.
So glad I wasn't operating crew on that one.

[Dan Winterland]

''But the UK's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) disagrees, saying the changes will keep passengers as safe as before''.

They replace a scientifically proven FTL scheme with a more liberal one with no scientific basis. So how do they know this?

[Mr Angry from Purley]

Max Alt
Disagree, Airlines won't be able to move to EASA FTL until they prove to the CAA their FRMS can handle it within their own working practices. Thereafter the rosters will be audited something that's never happened before.
I again re-iterate what happened with all the European Airlines when Q was introduced? If a UK AOC wanted EASA FTL that much they would have moved to Estonia by now? :\

[4Greens]

Does the UK CAA allow formal 'cockpit napping?' Any reference would be useful.

[angels]

''But the UK's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) disagrees, saying the changes will keep passengers as safe as before''.

Sadly this sentence will be entirely correct right up until the moment the first plane hits the deck.

As Danny2 says, the weasel words such as above that they use should be challenged.

[beardy]

4greens

'cockpit napping' is known to the CAA as 'controlled rest.' The CAA as the current regulator allows any AOC holder to provide for controlled rest. It is written into their General Manual Part A section 7 which is the legally binding section of flight time limitations as applicable to that company. This section can, if it can be shown to be safe, be significantly different from the example shown in CAP 371.

FYI the CAA has no blanket rules for Flight Time Limitations. CAP 371 states that a scheme must be set up as part of the company manual and that it must be approved by the CAA, it then goes on to give examples of what would be acceptable.

[4Greens]

Thanks muchly Beardy. It will save a lot of searching.

[Discorde]

Bear in mind that many air passengers will chose the cheapest fare options, regardless of the competence of the operators to provide a safe service (and fatigued pilots are, of course, less competent than non-fatigued pilots when we define 'fatigue' as 'debilitating tiredness'). It's a form of negative lottery: 'We only paid £30 and the chances of us getting to destination are very very good.' Air transport has, in a way, become a victim of its own success in achieving very high standards of safety. Passengers assume – with statistical justification – that their chances of being an air accident victim are vanishingly small. It is unlikely that this point of view can be changed unless a series of serious accidents were shown to be the result of fatigue-induced crew error.

You can predict the response of whichever politician is lumbered with the damage limitation PR exercise after a fatigue-related prang. It's answer #12 in the Government PR Media Briefing Document:

'Our thoughts are with the families of the victims. We will hold a full and thorough enquiry to find out the causes of this terrible accident and take action to make sure it never happens again.'

[Burpbot]

Mr Angry, to answer your question. Flybe locked Cap 371 rules into its scheduling agreement last year. Sub part q rules can only therefore be implemented if more restrictive! I think this is to be commended!

I also think balpa's best way to tackle the easa rules in the absence of government and media intelligence, is to push for a Flybe style agreement in all it's member airlines.

[beachbud]

I sadly agree that we may see Discorde's prediction come true when he foresees the quotes already prepared by airline lobbyists for the politicians.

'Our thoughts are with the families of the victims. We will hold a full and thorough enquiry to find out the causes of this terrible accident and take action to make sure it never happens again.'

[Spitoon]

Thereafter the rosters will be audited something that's never happened before.So how did they check that an operator was complying with CAP371 or whatever rules applied?

[RVR800]

Scientifically: No evidence base

Nobody voted for it (passengers, pilots, voters)
Nobody wants it (passengers, pilots, voters)

It's about money .. not about such people

Not democratic
Not accountable

Thanks EASA

[housecarl]

Colleagues, go to ECA website Home | Dead Tired (http://www.dead-tired.eu) and sign the petition.

http://list.flightdutytimes.eu/typo3temp/pics/5b540fffbb.jpg (http://www.dead-tired.eu)

[Mr.Bloggs]

Once nodded off locking onto the localizer of 28L at LHR on 4th sector of day 3 of 4-sector LHR-AMS-LHR days with Bishop's overworked bmi crew. (11 years back) And I saw similar events with colleagues. If only passengers knew!!

[RVR800]

Housecarl - OK signed the petition nearly 70,000 signatures - EASA will hate that - Democracy isn't something they are familar with (or an evidence base):ugh:

[Evening Star]

Further news report, Pilot fatigue 'one of the biggest threats to air safety' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19837178).

Speaking as a passenger, while economics does play a tremendous part in the decision of who to fly with, we do have a vested interest in the crew being well rested, just not in a position to make an informed choice as to which carrier has the most 'sensible' policies with regard to fatigue. Think Discorde is exactly right with regard to the whole situation.

[somethingclever]

Nothing will happen until we have a full 738/A319 planted in a hillside somewhere DUE TO fatigue. That is quite simply the rub. Until then necks will be buried deeply. The finger pointing blame-game after the fact will be unparalleled.

My guess is that we'll need a couple of 'em because hull loss number one and hull loss number two will be concluded with "pilot error". Not what led to said error of course. Nothing about the crew's personal circumstances leading up to the event. Nah. Just "pilot error" floating dreamily in the air high above the brussels bureaucrats as they sit down to another taxpayer-funded lunch, deciding how long we need to work for them to keep enjoying it.

Perhaps a global union is just the ticket. Until the leaders of it too cozy up to the fat cats to sell out their proteges for a slice of free.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Better EASA HQ than a hillside methinks.

[4Greens]

There already has been an admitted fatigue related crash in the US a couple of years ago.

[dusk2dawn]

EASA on new FTL as circulated from Oct. 10, 2012:


EASA News Special October 2012 (http://www.sac-crew.dk/docs/Q/EASA-news-special-okt-2012.pdf)
FTL Safety Improvements.pdf (http://www.sac-crew.dk/docs/Q/FTL_Safety_Improvements.pdf)
Opinion 04-2012.pdf (http://www.sac-crew.dk/docs/Q/EN_to_Opinion_04-2012.pdf)

[rexmundi]

Are EASA serious? They are referencing wikipedia to formulate their opinion on aviation safety policy! See Opinion 04-2012.pdf (http://www.sac-crew.dk/docs/Q/EN_to_Opinion_04-2012.pdf)

The safety of 100s of millions of people and the operations of an entire industry are being based on wikipedia!

Zeitgeber (from German for "time giver," or "synchronizer") is any exogenous (external) cue that synchronizes an organism's endogenous time-keeping system (internal clock) to the earth's 24-hour light/dark cycle. The strongest zeitgeber, for both plants and animals, is light. Non-photic zeitgebers include temperature, social interactions, pharmacological manipulation, exercise, and eating/drinking patterns. To maintain clock-environment synchrony, zeitgebers induce changes in the concentrations of the molecular components of the clock to levels consistent with the appropriate stage in the 24-hour cycle, a process termed entrainment. [.[source: Wikipedia].]

Airline executives are probably updating duty hours as we speak on wikipedia, in the hope some EASA plod will cut and paste these into the next EASA policy document!

It's there in black and white....EASA are deriving their opinion from a wikipedia page! Instead of talking to pilots.

I guess the best way to influence EASA policy is to log onto wikipedia and start reducing the duty hours....here is a good link to start with....

Continuous duty overnight - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_duty_overnight)

Thanks for info dusk2dawn

[stuckgear]

Are EASA serious? They are referencing wikipedia to formulate their opinion on aviation safety policy!

Like i said before, EASA's proposed tagline..

EASA - Working hard to make working in aviation harder.


or for a more 'stakeholder centric' presentation..

EASA - We're not happy 'till you're not happy.

[RAT 5]

Everyday the holes in the cheese will line up. If the last one stays closed we'll rarely here about it.How many are acceptable? Let's say there are 6 holes in total before an accident. Inevitably the last slice is a human, be it an engineer, ATC or pilot. It is very likely that the penultimate one is human also; we work in a chain, as a team. Is it acceptable to be blasé, casual in the early phases and rely upon the alert human or a piece of technology at the end to close the holes? Of course not, but that is what often happens. In the present age, due to cost cutting, the level of experience of those humans in the last 2 slices has been diminished considerably. It is also true that many human functions in the slices earlier on in the chain of events have reduced experience in their operation. If there is an over reliance on the experience of those in the last 2 slices it is beholden on those responsible to make sure those individuals are sharp and upto the task. An old stager with many years at the helm of whatever function can be below par and still notice the errors and close the hole. Take away the years of 'gut feelings' and then make those same people below par and the last 2 holes will line up one day soon.
Aviation has always been about prevention and proaction, not reaction. That is the philosophy of the NTSB. For solely commercial greed that philosophy is being rejected every day by the supposed police forcers of safety, i.e. the various and collective XAA's. Jo-public can take the odd bus crash and train crash, perhaps even a plane crash. Now put a senior politician in the crash and watch the headless chickens run around trying to fix it. How could this have happened? We must make sure it'll never happen again, etc. etc. Who's to blame? And then the usual will be trotted out: it was the organisation, the system, an unforeseen chain of events: never was it the fault of an individual. The fact that the corps of aviation personnel had warned of the failings in the system is poo-poo'd. Then the hero will arise out one of those original groups to stress that it will never happen again and a new system is being designed. The warning concerns of those in the last 2 slices will never be aired; too embarrassing. You hear this scenario many times on Panorama, Air Crash investigation, and recently some accidents on Air Crash Confidential. Yet these do not seem to have any effect on policy.
A few years ago there was a campaign on prune to contact your MP or the name of an interested MP whose name I forget. A newspaper journalist came on asking for help with research. The support written about on prune was enthusiastic, but where did it lead and what did it achieve? It doesn't seem very much. We have MOL charging up the steps in Brussels to argue his case as an owner an airline. He's demanding less regulation so he can crack his whip more, strengthen his feudal kingdom and squeeze more from his ever grateful crumb gathering peasants. Where is ECA in response?
Back to greed. I'm glad I'm out of it.

[fireflybob]

Back to greed. I'm glad I'm out of it.

RAT 5, me too!

At the current rate of progress it will end in tears for the dependents as it did for the Colgan accident.

[Mr Angry from Purley]

Colgan isn't the best example for fatigue due to FTL's. Poor pay, self management of rest, commuting, crash pads for sure, FTL not sure that roster was cited but i might be wrong
I again repeat i'm not sure that the average UK mainline pilot will be adversely affected, either FRMS or the Unions or both will prevent the extremes of whats being spun at EASA FTL. :\

[VC10andCounting]

Colgan isn't the best example
is the only example that BALPA can come up with (and boy, do they milk it for all it's worth). despite the fact that it has nothing to do with EASA and precious little to do with FTLs

[RAT 5]

I repeat a post of many years ago, and it is still relevant. In various airlines over the years, as duty times got worse & worse in the search of profit, I challenged the financial director and D.Ops, rostering boss and anyone else to work my roster in their cosseted offices. They have radios, Tv, coffee machines, can walk about and chat to friends, take lunch breaks in the park, relax and perhaps achieve 5 hours work out of an 8hr day. All they had to do was work my roster for 1 week to understand what I was talking about. Nobody ever took the challenge. They refused out of fear and thus remain ignorant about what they preach. Nuff said.
In my job, over 37 years, I report for duty, sign in and prepare a flight. I prepare the a/c and then fly the duty. I then close down the flight. At no time, except for perhaps 15 minutes during the turn rounds, am I not performing my duty and being alert and focused; up to 13 hours day/night with time zone changes. There is no lunch break with exercise; there is no stop for a chat by the coffee m/c; there is no radio to soften the background; there is no internet to browse and spend a few moments relaxing, etc. etc. I do not bemoan or regret my career, but I do get mighty pissed off by the desk jockeys and ignorant plonkers telling me they're going to make my life even worse and make their nest better feathered. And don't anyone tell me I should not have taken the job, ands say I knew what I was getting into. That is pure B.S. Over a 37 year career it has changed out of all recognition. It was not to be foretold that it would deteriorate to this level. Hence I baled out. DO NOT LET IT BECOME WORSE. Good luck guys.

[fdr]

Rex, I would have thought that wikipedia, as an uncontrolled, unaudited, open forum for free thoughts was easily an improvement on EASA anyway...


:D

EASA's latest variations to FCL alone places them somewhere outside of the orbit of the 3rd Rock doing their own thing. Add the changes to NAA Part 21 authority being rolled up into a Quango in the middle kingdom... the only thing going for the EU aviation field is that everyone else is actually worse, the US having shot themselves in the foot with the unworkable constraints of ITAR 2011 for defence matters, which now contaminate civil products as well, if only aviation was as good as wikipedia.


"There's nothing more convenient than Wikipedia if you're looking for some quick information, and when the stakes are low (you need a piece of information to settle a bet with your roommate, or you want to get a basic sense of what something means before starting more in-depth research), you may get what you need from Wikipedia. In fact, some instructors may advise their students to read entries for scientific concepts on Wikipedia as a way to begin understanding those concepts.

Nevertheless, when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. Users may be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in the field or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation. (Case in point: Four years ago, an Expos student who was writing a paper about the limitations of Wikipedia posted a fictional entry for himself, stating that he was the mayor of a small town in China. Four years later, if you type in his name, or if you do a subject search on Wikipedia for mayors of towns in China, you will still find this fictional entry.) Some information on Wikipedia may well be accurate, but because experts do not review the site's entries, there is a considerable risk in relying on this source for your essays.

The fact that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic research doesn't mean that it's wrong to use basic reference materials when you're trying to familiarize yourself with a topic. In fact, the library is stocked with introductory materials, and the Harvard librarians can point you to specialized encyclopedias in different fields. These sources can be particularly useful when you need background information or context for a topic you're writing about". - Harvard University Guidance.

[Sovi3tskiy]

More great news, seems like everyone just loves taking the p**s, ryan air just posted £477 mill in profit, but yet pilots have to provide their own water, EASA wants to increase the time you fly, airlines lowering salaries and increases in contracts...

At this rate we will be just regular joe bus drivers (no offence to them!), there has a to be a mass united front of pilots to tell all these "wonderful" ideas to :mad: off... Im sorry but this just gets so under my skin, its unbelievable. Guys spend £100k on training ect, then a small chance of a job, and if you do get one its not a life its survival, where you get other jobs to just get enough to scrape through, forget family life, your never at home and no money... This job is high investment so it should be high returns! Otherwise it not fair...

Pilots always under pressure to cut cost, do more and more ect, the airline chucks in more and more people on board, their proffits keep going while pilots are squeezed...

Unite to make a front to return the perks of the jobs, to make it worth your while... Yes we get paid by the airlines to fly but without us the airlines would be screwed, and go under, you may have the planes, you may have the passenger but if you dont have pilots your not going anywhere! I would even go as far as saying I would LOVE to see a pilot strike for a day for the entire Europe (i know hardly will happen) but that would show the airlines who holds the piece of the string at the end of the day! :}

[Mel Effluent]

An interesting view from Dr Simon Bennett, Director of the University of Leicester’s Civil Safety and Security Unit. What's even more interesting is that there hasn't been a single comment!

A warning: Pilot fatigue remains one of the biggest dangers in our skies - Mail Online - TravelMail blog (http://travelblog.dailymail.co.uk/2013/01/pilot-fatigue-remains-one-of-the-biggest-dangers-in-our-skies.html#comments)

[Magnetic Iron]

if a pilot flies 3 consecutive days of 11 or 12 hours FDP, that pilot should be limited or a have a day off, on the fourh day especially after 3 early mornings


Alos FRM training is positive thing

[somethingclever]

I have never understood the concept of working long hours or the so called "split duty" with very little rest and then excusing the whole thing with the rest that comes afterwards. The duty regulations need to be acceptable on a per-day basis. What does it help me that I have rest coming up if I am in fact too tired or overworked right now in the aircraft? If I ever experience an explosive decompression or a V1-cut, then Murphy dictates it will happen at the very end of a 13-hour shift when I woke up 3:45am and I am reduced to a semi-vegetative state.

It's like telling someone to hold their breath for ten minutes and then they can breathe as much as they like for the next three days. Makes no sense.

[stuckgear]

If I ever experience an explosive decompression or a V1-cut, then Murphy dictates it will happen at the very end of a 13-hour shift when I woke up 3:45am and I am reduced to a semi-vegetative state.



and if/when it does tango uniform at the tail end of a 13 hour shift or a week mixing earlies and lates, you cant be the result would be cited as 'pilot error'..

in terms of safety it's an error loop.

[deefer dog]

In a recent survey 43% of British airline pilots admitted to falling asleep while flying. Of those 43%, a further 31% said they had woken up to find their colleague asleep.

Second sentence I can attest to!

[Mr Angry from Purley]

Stuckgear

and if/when it does tango uniform at the tail end of a 13 hour shift or a week mixing earlies and lates, you cant be the result would be cited as 'pilot error'..


So if EASA FTL doesnt have limits on earlies/lates you can operate a series of earlies, or lates, but not combined. Scientifically proven to be a better mix.
So thats better!! :\

[RAT 5]

This earlies/lates nonsense. It's a new whizz-bang idea created from the LOCo's in very recent years. There is too short a history to say it is scientifically proven to be better etc. etc. I've worked under many different FTL's in long & short-haul. Nothing is perfect, and it sure ain't one size fits all, but that is what is forced upon crews. There is a 'scientifically proven' characteristic for people called owls & larks. Put them in the correct phase and they function fine: put them out of phase and they are below par: put them out of phase for 5 consecutive days and I leave you to draw conclusions. In such a safety related environment being out of phase for days is plain stupid if there is a better alternative. One day, OK, but 5 days...? Yet, when rostering was requested for continuous earlies or lates to suit your phase it was refused for everyone. One size fits all or you are in the wrong job. What utter bollox. For every scientifically proven Yes there will be another No. Ask the RYR pilots for their opinion about the NASA expert and their rosters. Computers are wonderful at what they were designed for, but they were not designed to be better than individual human experience of events.
The whole thing is not driven by science it is driven by greed of the airlines and the various XAA's are in their pockets. It is fact that FTL's have increased as the performance and endurance of a/c have increased. That is driven by productivity = profit and not human performance, and has been allowed by the various XAA's. It is also fact that human mistakes have been mitigated by technology, thus it is deemed an acceptable risk to allow the human in control to be depleted because the technological automatic systems and back-ups will compensate. You can go to sleep over the Pacific and the autopilot will keep you on track and level until you hopefully wake up before TOD. Not so years ago. With the advent of a superior 'George' the human can take a back seat and be knackered because good old Electron George will save the day. (What was the name of the computer on board in 2001 Space Odyssey? He was way ahead of his time, but his time is nigh). I've worked in non-union charter airlines where we had a night Africa up and down. It never made the schedule and was in discretion 2 out of 3 trips. The local XAA did nothing. It was our life blood contract for the winter. Eventually we lost the deal to a competitor unionised airline. After 1 month of total discretion trips the union said 'no more" and we won the contract back. This time the local XAA said we had to night stop for a few days until the next rotation. The original schedule had been driven by greed of the airline and allowed by the local XAA. If no stop is put to this it will just get worse and worse. The difference between the working life-style in union and non-union airlines is massive. The Tollpuddle martyrs were centuries ago, but they are needed once again. The vocational occupation we are involved in is being destroyed and our resistance is so low because it is vocational. We are our own worse enemies. When will the truth dawn upon the doubters? it did me and I'm out.

[Jimmy Hoffa Rocks]

Early-late

They schedule you four early mornings and the last day a late evening flight.
1st day start at say 0530 and last day finishing at 2330

Tiring