Some good news/bad news from the EU! EASA FTL rejected [Archive]

RAT 5

30th Sep 2013, 20:14

A little aside: I wanted a tree cut down in my garden and needed the council's permission. The authoritative person was a tree hugger and said no, even though the tree was dying. There was a violent storm and I and the neighbours claimed we saw the tree rocking in an unstable fashion. Still the tree hugger said no. The tree was next to the pavement and parked cars. I said that if the tree fell down in the next storm and injured children or damaged cars I would alert the victims to his ruling and he would be responsible.
The next day I received my permit for tree felling.
Ergo; if the parliament approved these new FTL's in the face of conflicting evidenced and opinion, and then there is a human factors related crash which could have been effected by these same FTL's, then a finger should be pointed at the aye voters. In this day of 'buzz words' let's educate the bureaucrats in TEM. Let's also educate the pax in the quality of risk management by their so-called leaders and those who are supposed to be taking care of the public. It is a classic case of profit versus risk at the travelling public's expense. Let's tell them.

AndyPandy068

30th Sep 2013, 20:49

Maybe not such good news. The spin has started. Passenger safety at risk after EU rejects changes to pilots? hours, transport official warns - Home News - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/passenger-safety-at-risk-after-eu-rejects-changes-to-pilots-hours-transport-official-warns-8849467.html)

f1yingwellie

1st Oct 2013, 09:16

As somebody in an earlier post said this is only one battle, see link below.

World governance: EU pilots to sleep in their cockpits (http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84367)

Basil

1st Oct 2013, 09:47

Vasco and Oldsalt,

When discussing FTL, Clarke refers to: "Public transport drivers - paid for much longer than they're in an aeroplane - public servants." and Hamilton says "Put a tin tack on the seat."

Do those people realise that they are in public positions and making public pronouncements which demonstrate their ignorance?

Basil

1st Oct 2013, 09:52

AndyPandy068, I think he's just trying a bit of bullying.

Mr Kallas hit back yesterday with his own examples of how the rules would be applied, saying that if the legislation is not passed, pilots and crew on rest time would have to sleep sitting up in economy, while some member states would have no limits at all on maximum stand-by and flight times. The night-time flying cap would remain at the current 11 hours and 45 minutes.

furball_t

1st Oct 2013, 10:20

It is a good news, sometimes they have to be stopped in Brussel. If you let them do what they want they will push the line to infinity :( (www.angelflight.org.au)

2Planks

1st Oct 2013, 13:16

Old Salt wrote:

None of the others on the panel were able to make sensible replies either so it shows that although BALPA having been working hard with their campaign, it hasn't reached far enough.

I have no axe to grind as a retired nav - but I watched 2 BALPA reps on TV - one put the argument very cogently and in language the man on the Clapham supertram could understand; the other spoke in 'aircrew speak' with a plethora of acronyms so I had to translate for the rest of my family. If you only get a few chances to make your point - the man making it needs to be the right one - and that includes coaching and much practice.

BARKINGMAD

1st Oct 2013, 17:29

Somewhere in the flurry of audio "meejah" reporting on this, I detected the phrase "there would be MORE fatigue-related accidents if the EASA proposals became the norm" or words to that effect.

Does anyone have a link to a database of "fatigue accidents", or any stats on the reports, which stress this as a significant contributory cause?

Presumably those at the front of the battle have access/knowledge of such data? :confused:

BARKINGMAD

1st Oct 2013, 17:38

"Just to say that there are also a fair amount of Pilots who are members of this " funny handshake" club..."

Once upon a time in a RAF long ago, we used to wonder how and why some particularly incompetent and noxious aviators managed to get promoted.

Then the same discussion would be heard amongst my civilian counterparts..........

Food for thought as the subject has now been aired? Maybe a new thread, but how long would it last before>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<I'm sorry, your're breaking up, we'll try and get back to you! :=

DozyWannabe

1st Oct 2013, 23:26

I am getting so sick and tired of these ex - communist politicans, who are so desperate to join the EU, and to impose on us their own s.... working conditions.

Err - last time I checked, Marxism was an (admittedly flawed) political movement intended to *improve* working conditions. Airline pilots were apparently considered something of an elite in the former Soviet Bloc, but I fail to see the relevance. Also, let's face it, corruption is as rife here in the UK as it is in any former Soviet state you'd care to name - but our great and good have been doing it in such a refined manner for so long that few dare call it corruption.

Don't get me wrong - this legislation sounds like it was poorly conceived and assumes altogether far too much in terms of airlines sticking to the intended spirit of the legislation as opposed to using it as a performance target. But ultimately the group of pilots' unions must make a case for involvement in drafting a revised version of the legislation, as to do otherwise runs the risk of having it railroaded through anyway.

Weary

2nd Oct 2013, 10:46

Have just finished reading through Siim Kallas's Wiki profile - somebody please explain to me how this person is appropriately qualified in any way, shape, or form, to refute or even debate robust scientific evidence regarding human fatigue or performance factors on the flight deck.
His curriculum vitae shows no evidence of interest, history, expertise or qualification whatsoever in the safety issues upon which he is pontificating.
Clearly he is an experienced politician - I dare say, lobbyist - but since his current administrative position in "Transport" does not bestow upon him any special relevant credentials or scientific insight into his subject, you might just as soon get meaningful counterpoint by quoting my cat.

RAT 5

2nd Oct 2013, 13:06

......and also shows extremely bad leadership, one who does not listen or communicate with people about such change would be a dictator.....

Seems like an ideal candidate for a good dose of CRM indoctrination.

Once again it is money/profit driving the show. In this time of so-called financial crisis (let's called it a common sense adjustment to attitude) the money men will always have the sway over the politicians. But I say again: just because the machines have increased their operating time without rest & re-fuelling does not mean the humans have done the same. If it was considered, some years ago, normal & reasonable for humans to operate 10-11hrs working days/nights, then just because an a/c can now fly for 15 hours it doesn't follow that the humans can stretch their natural endurance. And certainly not regularly over a short period. They will break down. If you over stress an a/c it will break or wear out faster. The humans are the same, except the breaking point is different for everyone and is an unknown unscientific quantity. The money men are guessing and the bowing scraping profit friendly politicians are too easily in agreement. Are the XAA's not supposed to be the guardians of the industry. Are they too swayed by bonuses and dosh? What other industries are going through this debate? What other groups of workers are being subjected to this assault on their lively-hood and life-styles. I suspect the medical profession has been subjected to something similar, but I doubt if there is any other transport, or safety related, industry that is under such stressful change. If there is then let's hear about it. If not, then why only aviation?

fred peck

3rd Oct 2013, 13:58

They're trying to push through a vote on the 9th - debate on the 8th.

Email your MEPs (WriteToThem - Email or fax your Councillor, MP, MEP, MSP or Welsh, NI, London Assembly Member for free (http://www.writetothem.com/)) asking them to attend and to vote IAW the Transport Committee findings.

Mr Angry from Purley

3rd Oct 2013, 17:20

golfyankeesierra

3rd Oct 2013, 20:25

Does anyone have a link to a database of "fatigue accidents", or any stats on the reports, which stress this as a significant contributory cause?

Presumably those at the front of the battle have access/knowledge of such data?

Perhaps in the colganair accident report? That was the gamechanger in the US

rick.shaw

4th Oct 2013, 03:29

Fred.

That link of yours makes it so easy to send a letter to all the MEP's for your area. Just a few keystrokes and you can get your message across. A link for the Transport Committee stuff is here:

MPs publish follow up report on flight time limitations - News from Parliament - UK Parliament (http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/transport-committee/news/flight-time---substantive/)

It's a must read.

Remember to keep the letters short and sweet, to the point, and please - keep the emotion out of it.......

J.O.

4th Oct 2013, 10:23

Remember to keep the letters short and sweet, to the point, and please - keep the emotion out of it.......

Excellent advice. It's about what is safe, not about who is right or wrong. There is solid evidence to support tighter duty day requirements. Remind them of that. Remind them that complaints they get from industry are no different than complaints voiced by auto makers that tighter safety requirements cost money. People pay more for new cars today because we've mandated safety improvements like air bags, ABS and crumple zones. Those safety improvements were based on evidence.

Linktrained

5th Oct 2013, 00:16

Golfsierrayankee

Perhaps the voyage report stating that he had not had suitable rest, written by the Captain before his Hermes aircraft G-ALDJ crashed at Blackbushe on 5th Nov 1956 may have influenced Parliament to introduce Flight Time Limitations in the U.K.

( I was required to have a medical if I exceeded 125 flying hours in a month. If fit, some said that I could do a further 125 hours...!)

Two Captains, two Flight Engineers, one First Officer, one Radio Officer and two Bunks were now required for a "Heavy Crew" who could, with Captain's discretion, be On Duty for 24 hours, but must be Scheduled for 16 or less, IIRC.

( Our Hermes had de-rated engines, using 100 octane, so we normally flew at around F/L 10.0 with the cabin pressurised to 2 or 3,000 ft. raising the cabin altitude for Nairobi.)

BARKINGMAD

5th Oct 2013, 12:03

Good idea to have a concerted push by us professionals to awake our elected representatives to the impending disaster!

However, having just finished trawling through the very comprehensive book "The Great Deception" by Booker & North, I fear the damage may be done already and we will end up being well and truly shafted. (If you can't afford the time/cost etc, try the review on Amazon?)

The EU "Project" has since the early part of the last century been built on lies, half-truths, deception and moving the goalposts when the leaders didn't like the score.

Witness the recent habit of forcing electors to vote again if the peasants failed to vote "the right way".

Witness the fact that their accounts have failed to be signed off for more than a decade and the treatment of whistleblower Marta Andreasen who flagged up the evidence of fraud of OUR money on an astronomical scale.

I could go on but I trust the message is clear, as we drift into a supranational state more like the old communist autocracy from post WW11, our FTLs are only a small issue but one which we should fight with all our enthusiasm.

And yes, I have e-mailed my MEP, have you..................? :ugh:

PS. Mods, should this thread be joined up with the pilots falling asleep thread, there appear to be too many postings with a common thrust?

Linktrained

5th Oct 2013, 13:40

Prior to ANY FTLs in Feb '56 we flew. as a single crew (Captain, F/O, F/E and R/O + Cabin crew) on a U.K. Government charter for the routine replacement of personnel between Salisbury (SR), Singapore and Lusaka (NR). Accommodation had been arranged by the Government for the passengers in Aden and Colombo ( each way).

We stayed on the Government's schedule for the 16 day trip. We flew for 119.10hours in 15 sectors but there could have been a further 3+ hours if we had needed to refuel at Karachi on our return flight. as well as outbound.

And that was a Government charter. LEGAL ? Yes, by the standards then current. SAFE (potentially) ? Not to today's standards, i'm sure.

I do not know just how much thought had been given. Many sectors were on routes with which we were unfamiliar.

The Captain was killed in the Blackbushe accident, some months later.

Cathar

5th Oct 2013, 13:56

They're trying to push through a vote on the 9th - debate on the 8th.

You make a vote sound like a bad thing. Do you not want a vote? Who do you mean by "they"?

TopBunk

5th Oct 2013, 14:50

from the BALPA wakeup (http://wakeup.balpa.org) site:

On Monday 30th September the Transport and Tourism Committee in the European Parliament voted to REJECT the EU’s Flight Time Limitations proposals. But the full European Parliament will now vote on the same issue on Wednesday 9th October - and there is hard work to be done to ensure they don’t reverse the Transport Committee’s vote.

The vote on 9th October will be by all MEPs on whether to adopt or reject the FTL proposals. It will require a majority of THE WHOLE PARLIAMENT to uphold the Committee’s vote. In other words, half of all the Members of the European Parliament need to show up and vote for rejection, if less than half turn, up it doesn’t matter what they vote, the proposals will go through. This is going to be tough. The rules are being forced through the Parliament by a ruthless and determined EU Commission who have utterly failed pilots and passengers. They need to be stopped.

This is the final countdown for BALPA members. We may have won a battle amongst the experts in the Transport and Tourism Committee, but members must now take this small window of opportunity to influence their own respective MEPs ahead of the plenary session. BALPA will be lobbying MEPs directly, but we need you to tell your own MEPs how you want them to vote.

Cathar, it is not the fact that anyone objects to there being a vote, but the indecent haste and vote regime that required 50%+1 votes to uphold the rejection of the proposals. Note also the timing of the debate and vote to be 1 day before a planned Air Traffic Control [almost] Eurpe-wide strike which will doubtless see many MEP's leaving the Parliament to return for the weekend before the vote takes place!

BARKINGMAD

5th Oct 2013, 15:20

Cathar

5th Oct 2013, 15:39

The rules are being forced through the Parliament by a ruthless and determined EU Commission

That is complete and utter garbage. This is just the normal legislative process being followed. With this type of legisaltion the Commission has to refer it to the European Parliament for scrutiny. The Parliament then has three months to consider matter and, if it deems it appropriate, to adopt a motion to oppose the adoption of the Regualtion.

It is the Parliament and not the Commission which detemines the dates for any debates and votes in the Parliament. I imagine it is fairly common for a motion to be refered to the next plenary session after it has been agreed by the relevant committee.

My understanding is that the three month scrutiny period ends in three weeks time. If the vote is not taken this week then there is only the plenary session in the week beginning 21 October in which a vote could be scheduled. You also have to remember that this will be only one amongst a very large number of issues under consideration by the Parliament that will need to be fitted into the Parliaments schedule. They will all be important to different groups of people.

The absolute majority required to prevent the adoption of such Regulations is again part on the normal legislative process and not something that has been introduced by the Commission for this particular vote.

BARKINGMAD

5th Oct 2013, 15:58

If their past record on "democratic" voting and "procedures" is anything to go by, then it is NOT utter garbage.

We're discussing the modus operandi of a group of humans who have lost touch with reality and the democratically expressed wishes of their populations. :=

TopBunk

5th Oct 2013, 16:05

Cathar

This a response from one MEP

Unfortunately I shall not be in Strasbourg at all that week which is very unusual for me. I never miss votes on the Thursday I always wait until it is completed before going home. My absence is entirely due to arrangements I made quite a long time ago when the Schedule did not show a Plenary session that week. The Schedule has since been altered and I cannot change my arrangements, which is very unfortunate because I would have wished to support you.

Now I don't know when the schedule was changed to add a plenary session for the 9th October, but at the very least it is very likely that many MEP's will have likewise made other arrangements believing there to be no need to be in Strasbourg that day. I stand by the BALPA comments.

Cathar

5th Oct 2013, 16:21

I stand by the BALPA comments.

BALPAs allegation that I quoted is quite clearly laughable. The Commission has no control over the Parliament.

I can see that there may be some issues with the timing of the Parliament's vote. However, all business which has been scheduled for next week will be affected. It is not a conspiracy against pilots.

RAT 5

5th Oct 2013, 16:47

Unfortunately I shall not be in Strasbourg at all that week which is very unusual for me. I never miss votes on the Thursday I always wait until it is completed before going home. My absence is entirely due to arrangements I made quite a long time ago when the Schedule did not show a Plenary session that week. The Schedule has since been altered and I cannot change my arrangements, which is very unfortunate because I would have wished to support you.

Extraordinary! You can vote for a whole change in national government by post, but you can't vote in a parliamentary vote. If there are too many of these fellows then the vote could go, not the way of majority thinking, but the way of a zealous few; who perhaps are having their brown envelopes stuffed a little extra by vested interests. In a real democracy the will of the voting members should count for something, but if the rules say you have to be present in person, and that is clearly not always possible, then the democratic will is denied its truth.

TopBunk

5th Oct 2013, 16:56

RAT5

Exactly! Not fit for purpose, by any modern standards.

Remind me, when the EU actually submitted an annual account that has been signed off?:ugh::mad:

BARKINGMAD

5th Oct 2013, 17:24

And just remember it's YOUR taxes for which the accounting is inadequate and possibly fraudulent!

If it was a small business in UK, the person responsible would probably be in court for failure to ACCOUNT for the monies various which had passed through their hands.

But it's one law for the peasants and another for the Jose Manuels of this world!

And it worries me that supposedly professional pilots on this forum can actually have the temerity to defend such a corrupt institution.

Obviously the psychometric testing is and has been failing for a long time.....:rolleyes:

Cathar

5th Oct 2013, 17:48

Extraordinary! You can vote for a whole change in national government by post, but you can't vote in a parliamentary vote
Exactly! Not fit for purpose, by any modern standards.

MPs certainly have to be present in the UK Parliament to vote. I think that this is the case in most parliaments. I can imagine the reaction in the UK if MPs were allowed to vote without attending Parliament!

Would you still support postal votes if the MEP had indicated that he would have voted to support rules had he been present?

BARKINGMAD

5th Oct 2013, 20:14

"I can imagine the reaction in the UK if MPs were allowed to vote without attending Parliament!"

I think it is (or was) called PAIRING and is done quite frequently in the House of Commons.

I wait to be corrected.........................................

BARKINGMAD

5th Oct 2013, 21:44

"FRANKFURT, Oct 4 (Reuters) - The air traffic controllers union in Europe (ATCEUC) has called off a strike planned for Oct. 10 after the European Commission signalled its willingness to renegotiate plans to liberalise civil airspace."

Sounds like the only language they'll understand?? :D

frangatang

6th Oct 2013, 06:58

I thought MEPS sign on in strasbourg, early, then bugger off home, and as l understand it they are largely tax free!

Cathar

6th Oct 2013, 10:24

Barkingmad

Pairing is not a voting system. It is a system to avoid the displeasure of party whips if for some reason you cannot be present to vote when they want you to.

BARKINGMAD

6th Oct 2013, 23:54

Cathar : "Pairing is an arrangement where an MP of one party agrees with an MP of an opposing party not to vote in a particular division. This gives both MPs the opportunity not to attend. Pairing is an informal arrangement and is not recognised by the House of Commons' rules. Such arrangements have to be registered with the whips who check that the agreement is stuck to. Pairing is not allowed in divisions of great political importance but pairings can last for months or years." Quote from Parliament UK site.

So you agree with your oppo in the other party that your vote would cancel out their vote, so it's off to the taxpayer-funded second home for a spot of R&R whilst effectively voting whichever way on whichever resolution!

I don't really see what difference this makes in your point, basically they can fail to be there if it's not important enough, like awkward issues such as pilots' working/rest hours?

Are you a professional pilot, as your details are sketchy to say the least?

If you aren't, I invite you to remove yourself from this forum and go argue in Jet Blast or somewhere more suitable.

From your postings I suspect you are

(a) NOT a professional pilot

(b) certainly NOT on our side trying to fight an important issue affecting the lives of all those in the profession, their families and their unsuspecting passengers.

:yuk:

wiggy

7th Oct 2013, 03:47

Well as an aside as someone who really does live in 09 I'd be fascinated to find out if there really is another pro down here in this forgotten part of the world..

Linktrained

7th Oct 2013, 11:08

Sorry, Wiggy, that I am not still current, but I did try in some earlier contributions to show what things were like 50+ years ago, Pre FTLs on long haul with a full crew (with F/E) and BUNKS.

I am sure that we were not as alert as we should have been throughout some of the flights.

The current FTLs MUST be an improvement or has little bean learned? Or have human beings changed in such a short time ?

(A relative was elected an M.P. several times. He felt that to be a " great honour" and attended Parliament very regularly. He was not paid. ( M.P.s were not paid before 1911.))

Ian W

7th Oct 2013, 13:08

BALPAs allegation that I quoted is quite clearly laughable. The Commission has no control over the Parliament.

I can see that there may be some issues with the timing of the Parliament's vote. However, all business which has been scheduled for next week will be affected. It is not a conspiracy against pilots.

The EC is well aware of the parliament timetable and the timing of when it went to the committee and therefore the probability of a subsequent vote. These dates are not accidental. Conspiracy is a loaded word - more like trying to get legislation approved rapidly by whatever means possible; all legislation is mishandled in this way to avoid having MEPs interfere with the running of the EU by the EC.

Mr Angry from Purley

7th Oct 2013, 20:20

Would BALPA get together with any other strong EU pilots' union(s) and threaten to bring the network to a halt if this proposal goes through?

Desperate times need desperate measures, and shirley this is now the time?!
BARKINGMAD

Barking - problem is most of EU Pilots are already working to near EASA limits, safely every day/night into the UK.
Also what makes you assume that should EASA FTL come into force in the UK that UK airlines will just turn the limits on and that's it?
And stop calling me Shirley, surely :\

Mr Angry from Purley

7th Oct 2013, 20:24

Unfortunately I shall not be in Strasbourg at all that week which is very unusual for me. I never miss votes on the Thursday I always wait until it is completed before going home. My absence is entirely due to arrangements I made quite a long time ago when the Schedule did not show a Plenary session that week. The Schedule has since been altered and I cannot change my arrangements, which is very unfortunate because I would have wished to support you.

Rat - I had a similar response also same MEP i guess. What made it worse was that he obviously just cut and pasted his reply about how he fully supported the Pilots - great, except to say i'd emailed him to say I fully supported the proposed change to EASA FTL. :\

jcjeant

7th Oct 2013, 20:51

Who is who
Kallas
Vice President of the European Commission in charge of transport since 2010, was, among others, President of the Bank of Estonia, Minister of Finance and Prime Minister of Estonia.
So no aviation culture and totally ignorant of the work of crews and the consequences of fatigue
Claude Chene
: Kallas advisor for aviation, French, he holds a DES in economic sciences and specialize in issues related to competition
which obviously gives it a great experience of air transport and the effects of fatigue on the effectiveness of teams.

:ugh:

Threethirteen

8th Oct 2013, 02:50

Thank you for contacting me to express concern about the proposed changes to EU rules on European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Flight and Duty Time Limitations and rest requirements for commercial air transport. I of course understand your concern that revision of EU rules should not run the risk of increasing fatigue, which is crucially linked to the safety of the pilot, the crew and the passengers.

The European Parliament's Transport and Tourism committee (TRAN) has indeed rejected to the European Commission's flight and duty time limitations measures, but the proposal is now set to be voted on by the plenary of the Parliament on October 9th.

Liberal Democrat MEPs, as part of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats group, support a 'Single European Sky' agreement, which will have numerous benefits for the European aviation market. My colleague Phil Bennion MEP, the Liberal Democrat European transport spokesman, is aware of the pilots' concerns but believes a set of common rules would mean "less unnecessary red tape for airlines, fewer delays for passengers and a more efficient and environmentally sustainable aviation market. British passengers travelling on other European airlines will also be far safer in the knowledge that there are robust, common limits on maximum flight time for pilots across the EU."

Phil Bennion has consulted the UK Civil Aviation Authority regarding the Commission proposal, and their view is that it provides a level of safety broadly equivalent to that provided by existing UK rules. Some provisions are less restrictive than the UK requirements, whereas others are more restrictive. Also, in addition to hard limits, the Commission proposal contains 'outcome requirements' that improve on current UK - requirements and in line with UK thinking on aviation safety rules.

On fatigue more precisely, the Regulation establishes outcome-based rules which will require airlines to manage fatigue actively rather than rely on compliance with set limits and ensure fatigue is being appropriately managed through additional regulatory tools. The 22-hour figure that has been widely quoted is argued to be disingenuous as it counts a 10 hour 'at home' period, where pilots can be asleep, as work.

The UK government supports the European Commission's proposal as they are satisfied the Regulation will not lead to any diminution in safety in the UK. Failure to adopt the Flying Time Limits Regulation will result in the existing, less effective, EU rules remaining in force with no scope for amendment for a number of years.

Yours sincerely,

MEP (withheld)

BARKINGMAD

8th Oct 2013, 08:25

I have to presume this means we'll operate to this new corporate friendly scheme, until the outcome involves tombstones, by which time they'll be far away as the minister for something else and everyone will have forgotten who were the architects of this dodgy edifice?

What The

8th Oct 2013, 09:09

The 22-hour figure that has been widely quoted is argued to be disingenuous as it counts a 10 hour 'at home' period, where pilots can be asleep, as work.

So this village idiot thinks that during a daytime standby I should sleep so that I can operate safely due to having rested all day.

What if I am not called out.

I am then on standby the next day having not rested well due to having rested all day. I hope I don't get called out as I have had a terrible night of sleep and feel very tired.

This idiot has NO idea of the way we manage our lives around reserve duties, back of the clock operations or ULR flying and HAS NO RIGHT to determine the way we will all have to work in future. This will flow on to other jurisdictions without a doubt.

The political class are getting dumber by the day.

J.O.

9th Oct 2013, 09:20

Not surprising but hugely disappointing.

FlightCosting

9th Oct 2013, 09:24

Idiot MEP's who sleep in the chamber when they are tired or still drunk from a heavy night out in Strasbourg, dictating how pilots should work at the bidding of the Airline bosses.

Fogie

9th Oct 2013, 10:26

The FTL rules have been adopted by the EU Parliament … (the motion for rejection has been defeated).

fireflybob

9th Oct 2013, 12:14

Suggest thread title be changed to "More bad news from the EU"

John Boeman

9th Oct 2013, 12:25

Thank you for writing to Mr (withheld) about this issue on which we have received many emails, so many in fact that we must apologise for the delay
in replying. (Withheld) is deeply concerned about the dangers which this latest EU-decree poses for air-travellers and for those who convey them.

The EASA is an arm of the unelected EU Commission, which creates rules and is completely unaccountable to anyone who is elected - MEPs have no power to repeal or initiate EU law (processes which are tightly controlled by the unelected Commission). EU harmonisation of safety standards will start a dangerous race to the bottom in the UK and (withheld) will certainly vote against this. With such little democratic oversight, it does not surprise us that these EU agencies use whatever evidence they like, in whatever way they choose - and ignore the expressed view of the Transport Committee of elected MEPs.

Until we free ourselves from the EU, faceless bureaucrats in Brussels (and such EU agencies as the EASA) will continue to bring forward such rules with little to no accountability.

The office of (withheld) MEP Brussels.

Bernoulli

9th Oct 2013, 12:54

Here's one more convert to UKIP. :mad:

Ian W

9th Oct 2013, 12:56

The EC is well aware of the parliament timetable and the timing of when it went to the committee and therefore the probability of a subsequent vote. These dates are not accidental. Conspiracy is a loaded word - more like trying to get legislation approved rapidly by whatever means possible; all legislation is mishandled in this way to avoid having MEPs interfere with the running of the EU by the EC.

It is as I expected.
You have to have worked with these bureaucrats to realize how much power they have and how little accountability. See how the MEPs are just an expenses farming talking shop with no power.

Capt H Peacock

9th Oct 2013, 13:07

Dear Mr Farage,

Can you use an ex-Tory?

Finals19

9th Oct 2013, 13:28

My MEP where I previously lived was Nigel Farage.

I wrote to him on this issue (via the BALPA template with my own bit added) and lets just say his response was rather robust.

At the time I thought he came across as rather dis-interested and not particularly receptive to my email. He basically said regardless of how much (and regardless of how many) we lobby through our MEP's the Euro parliament will push through what they want regardless.

I found this rather harsh. His closing line (predicatably) was along the lines of "if you want real change, we need to exit the EU at a legislative level" He then suggested I vote UKIP to see to this.

In the light of todays news....fair point Nigel. :-(

Wirbelsturm

9th Oct 2013, 13:38

By way of background, Labour MEPs have long campaigned for higher flight and duty time limitations for pilots and cabin crew. Indeed, as the lead person for Labour on transport issues, I have met on numerous occasions with both pilot and cabin crew unions, including BALPA, to work with them to improve the rules on flight and duty time requirements.

The choice Labour MEPs faced in the vote this week was either to accept the changes on the table, or to reject them in their entirety.

We decided to support the proposed new rules, as we believe that they improve safety across the board, strengthening rest requirements and reducing night time flights. This position is also shared by the cabin crew section of the European Transport Workers Federation, which includes UK unions. After receiving certain assurances from the European Commission, they have now given their full backing to the proposals.

While we understand that BALPA would have liked to have seen further changes included, Labour MEPs could not accept throwing out the whole proposal in favour of a return to the present status quo. It is our belief that progress has been made with the Commission, which enables us to accept their proposal.

It is simply not true that the changes will lead to worse conditions for pilots and cabin crew. Fatigue management regulations are necessarily complex. It is not so simple as to isolate one rule from another. Instead it is about how the different pieces of the puzzle fit in together to offer overall crew protection against fatigue. That is the reason why the UK CAA supports the changes and believes that they are fully in line with the high standards of aviation safety we have here in the UK .

On long haul flights of more than 13 hours Flight Duty Period, the UK will now be required to ensure a minimum of four pilots on board. The present UK rules only allow for three. This is just one of the clear safety improvements.

Labour MEPs are also aware that there has been a lot of concern over the night flight limit. The new rules would set a limit of 11 hours. While that might not be the 10 hours some of the unions were campaigning for, it is better than the current 11h15 limit we have in the UK and certainly much better than anything that exists in the rest of Europe.

There are also claims being made that pilots could be forced to land a plane after being awake for 22 hours. Using the same, in my view, flawed arguments, it is also possible to claim that this is true under the current rules today. The misleading claims rely on theoretical awake time before a duty period begins, rather than the duty period itself, leading to a distorted picture of the reality.

Finally let me be absolutely clear. The new rules are about setting minimum aviation safety rules that the whole of Europe can work to. They are about ensuring an appropriate level of alertness to ensure the safe operation of an aircraft. To protect the health and safety at work of pilots and cabin crews, there is separate EU and national social legislation and, where they also exist, collective agreements between airlines and crew. The changes here do not jeopardise more protective collective agreements for the simple reason that the most protective rule always applies. What they clearly do provide, though, is added protection to aircrew, where no such collective agreements between themselves and the airlines they work for exist.

I hope that this helps explain why Labour MEPs voted to support the adoption of the new rules.

Best wishes,

That'll be an end to the freebie upgrades for the MEP :mad: to and from Brussels then.

Once again those unaccountable pen pushers delve into industries they know nothing about, listen to some non-scientifically based 'research' and conclude that one or two small airlines that have NO FTL limits in place will benefit from over all dictatorial governance whilst all the scientifically based rest and ftl rules go in the bin.

It's yet another fine example of dumbing down the system to fit the lowest common denominator.

UKIP are looking good again, the EU independence vote is looking even better.

Vobiscum

9th Oct 2013, 13:54

Finals 19, by chance I saw a copy of Nigel Farage's autobiography* in a half-price sale and I bought it out of curiosity. A good read, BTW.

In Chapter 7 (at page 110) Nigel describes how even if the full EU Parliament had voted against this type of proposal,

"..it will be subjected to a process known as 'conciliation' whereby the vote will simply be overturned and the original reinstated."

I used to be a Europhile, but my perception of the way the EU really works has been altered irrevocably. So, either the ConDems provide us with a true exit referendum before May 2015, or UKIP gets my vote next time.

[*Ironically in the light of this thread the title is "FLYING FREE"]

fantom

9th Oct 2013, 14:27

Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do.

RVR800

9th Oct 2013, 14:34

We have lost control; the final nail

UK Democracy is dead; Vote UKIP; Good timing to encourage you all to vote in the Euro Elections next year

:ugh:

Sprinkles

9th Oct 2013, 15:03

Name and shame this MEP. He obviously has no clue on how our lives work

I for one do not sleep easily during the day. Especially if I have been getting up at 9am the previous three days for midday check ins to the TFS, PMIs and DLMs etc. Only to report for an 8pm night DLM on day four. I'll naturally wake up at 9am, get little sleep then work throughout the night. Not easy and 'controlled rest' is often necessary. And this was under our [old] FTLs.

Perhaps we should set up a scientific experiment for these "men in power".

Basically have them do a normal days work Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. Then on Saturday tell them you have free reign to do as you please but you must report to us at 8pm for extra curricular activities. Sit them at a MS simulator and tell them to sit there for another 9 hours whilst it does a DLM and back while we engage in light conversation with the occasional simulated freq change. I wonder how much they'll like it? :zzz:

fireflybob

9th Oct 2013, 15:04

Be interesting to see which MEPs voted for or against!

Busbar

9th Oct 2013, 15:13

Never thought I would say this, but after today's result UKIP gets my vote all the way. I don't know how these people justify such decisions. Completely clueless individuals making changes that they know nothing about. You couldn't write it! :=

CaptainSensible

9th Oct 2013, 15:15

Herod

9th Oct 2013, 15:52

I wrote to ALL my MEPs, but only got one reply. Well considered, and a pledge to vote the bill out. To save guessing, he's UKIP. No reply from the several Conservatives.

hobnobanyone

9th Oct 2013, 16:08

I wrote to all my MEPs.

I got a very strong response from UKIP. A bizarrely coded one from the Green Party (effectively: we will be voting against rejecting these proposals) and a rebuffing from the Conservatives basically telling me my argument was not sound and poorly thought through. And it didn't rely on scientific evidence.

One more for UKIP next time around here...

tubby linton

9th Oct 2013, 16:22

Six UKIP MEPs voted in favour of the new FTLs!!
The voting record is here:http://t.co/XTB3WzJFbs
The vote record appears on page 41.

+ Against the new proposals
- in favour of the new FTL proposals

Ian W

9th Oct 2013, 16:26

Any information on the make up of the Lobby group and the Airlines behind it. The whole exercise, ie a mirror image of the campaign fought by the respective pilot groups, but for the aviation industry must have cost something and have been funded by someone?

Not necessarily. From the EC viewpoint the UK CAA regulations are an anachronism as they are not EU Standard. Everyone has to have precisely the same standards - no ifs buts or maybes. So minor minion bureaucrat gets all the standards and with a weighting for those from EC 'friendly' countries comes up with a EU wide standard. No thought will be given to what that actually means to pilots, it is an EU Wide standard so it must be better than individual state standards. This is then agreed in a bureaucrat back room and delivered as a fait-acompli to a technical committee, regardless of their vote the proposal goes to the MEPs to vote; if they vote yes the bureaucrats win if they vote no the bureaucrats reverse the decision and the bureaucrats win.

The EU parliament is an expensive camouflage behind with the EC runs Europe.

Mr Angry from Purley

9th Oct 2013, 16:40

From the BBC News on line
Under the new act
Under the new act

Flight duty time at night is cut by 45 minutes to a maximum of 11 hours

The maximum number of flying hours in 12 consecutive months is reduced from 1,300 to 1,000
Weekly rest is increased to two days instead of a day and a half, twice a month

After a significant time zone crossing, five days' rest are granted at home base, in contrast to the two days or less allowed by some member states

Maximum duty time during airport standby (ie standby plus flight time) is fixed at 16 hours instead of the 26 or 28 allowed by some member states

So given that EASA FTL will be managed in the UK either under FRMS or airline social / industrial agreements / Working Time Directive things perhaps not as bad as you make out?

Mr Angry from Purley

9th Oct 2013, 16:49

What the
So this village idiot thinks that during a daytime standby I should sleep so that I can operate safely due to having rested all day.

What if I am not called out.

I am then on standby the next day having not rested well due to having rested all day. I hope I don't get called out as I have had a terrible night of sleep and feel very tired.

The rules on sby are somewhat different in many EU countries than the UK. CAP371 allows similar such "worst case" scenarios also so its nothing new.
FYI in Germany for example they had 24hr standby duties and this was one of the areas that caused most discussion by the "village idiots"

tubby linton

9th Oct 2013, 17:28

This link shows the voting in an easier to understand format.
VoteWatch Europe: European Parliament, Council of the EU (http://www.votewatch.eu/en/technical-requirements-and-administrative-procedures-related-to-air-operations-motion-for-resolution.html)

Some operators saw Cap371 as a limit to be worked to , which was never its intent when it was formulated. They will see the EASA rules as a new target and because of the loopholes left in its framwork they will exploit these in every way imaginable.
I hope that the new Director of Chirp is ready for the avalanche of fatigue reports he will receive when these new rules come into force and I also hope that he is ready to go to EASA and get them to see sense based upon scientific fact.

Vasco dePilot

9th Oct 2013, 18:09

The EU is about to turn the clock back 40 years in aviation safety terms: To where we were before the Report of the Committee on Flight Time Limitations, chaired by Group Captain Douglas Bader. After UK CAA consideration of the Bader recommendations, the Flight Time Limitations Board was created and we had a significant improvement in FDTLs. Despite this, airlines exploited the limits specified in CAP371 as if they were rostering targets. Heaven only knows what lies ahead of us now.
The EU Commission's handling of this one issue is what is turning me into a Eurosceptic. It has demonstrated why so many people in the UK hate the EU bureaucrats with such passion. I am embarrassed to admit that it has taken this issue, an issue which I know something about, which I feel passionately about to join them in their hatred. I am old and bold enough to remember the days pre Bader Report. Is this the issue which will turn me into a UKIP supporter?

aguadalte

9th Oct 2013, 19:08

http://news.aviation-safety.net/2013/10/09/europe-adopts-new-flight-time-limitations-ftl-regulations/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (hhttp://news.aviation-safety.net/2013/10/09/europe-adopts-new-flight-time-limitations-ftl-regulations/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitterttp://)

Its done...:ouch:

tubby linton

9th Oct 2013, 19:35

Vasco , of the nine UKIP MEPs three didn't vote ,and the other six voted in favour of the new rules.

captplaystation

9th Oct 2013, 19:37

A - Money talks

B - The individuals expected to vote either a) didn't show up, or b) knew b*gger all about the subject they were voting on , or c) had been "lobbied" (polite word for bribed) by someone from our Darling Industry prior to the vote.

Whatever, we have been (as usual ) screwed & will now have the usual conversion of limits to targets that we have become accustomed to.

mm43

9th Oct 2013, 19:37

Seems there is a problem with the above link - try:-

ASN News » Europe adopts new Flight Time Limitations (FTL) regulations (http://news.aviation-safety.net/2013/10/09/europe-adopts-new-flight-time-limitations-ftl-regulations/)

Herod

9th Oct 2013, 19:47

Not so. The UKIP MEP I was referring to is listed as voting against.

Aerofoil

9th Oct 2013, 19:49

As quite rightly pointed out by a friend of mine 'the first smoking hole in the ground...they will turn around and blame it on pilot error!'

UKIP had my vote before and after this they now have my absolute unconditional support, vote, time, backing whatever it takes to get the UK out of Europe and out of the control of these unellected fat cats.
What right do YOU have to tell US how we run OUR OWN COUNTRY!? :ugh: :yuk: :=:=:=:=

tubby linton

9th Oct 2013, 19:59

Herod, the motion was to stop the implementation of the new FTL. All of the UKIP MEPs voted against it.(i.e. in favour of the new rules). I cannot believe that UKIP would promote European interests rather than our home grown ones but the evidence is below.

VoteWatch Europe: European Parliament, Council of the EU (http://www.votewatch.eu/en/technical-requirements-and-administrative-procedures-related-to-air-operations-motion-for-resolution.html)

gorter

9th Oct 2013, 20:18

UKIP are a bunch of two faced liars. They all said they would support the pilots in rejecting the proposals. Several emails to that effect were sent to me and my pilot colleagues. Yet EVERY SINGLE UKIP MEP either voted for the legislation, or they abstained.

Herod

9th Oct 2013, 20:29

TL, I stand corrected. I wonder how many MEPs got confused? Better than saying he's a duplicitous b*stard. So now we can't trust Con, Lab, Lib/dem, UKIP. Who's left?

Aerofoil

9th Oct 2013, 20:45

I do agree with you regarding the figurehead. However, as with previous elections going back a long way, its now a case of voting out who you LEAST want in power nowadays with career politicians. I believe this is the same in a lot of countries now? I think for many though that UKIP is fast becoming the party speaking and pledging how everyone is feeling and has felt for many years and so far is the only party making these feelings heard and giving these people a voice while others are too scared of offending rather than doing what is right for the country.

There are many examples of why europe does not work for us anymore and this FTL 'force through' is another prime example to add to the list! Its in the interest of nobody except the least safe countries in europe meanwhile it is dragging down the safety standards of the nations who have managed to build a fairly solid set of FTL's over the years and everyone is being ignored to satisfy a bunch of non elected politicians' wishes. But what would we know...we just live through these FTLs/rosters and have done for decades in many cases!

gorter

9th Oct 2013, 20:52

Well if you look at the FTL vote as a single issue, the greens are the only ones left.

Captaintcas

9th Oct 2013, 21:03

As these MEP's are a clear threat to aviation safety, refuse them entry to your aircraft.

1 day of European wide Industrial action will very quickly stop this nonsense.
If ATC can make politicians listen, so can we.

The time of being nice and handing out pamflets is over boys, real action is required.
They ONLY listen when their wallet or votes are in danger.

newt

9th Oct 2013, 21:31

All sounds very interesting chaps but what are the practical implications of this result?

What will be the effect on annual flying hours ie 900 total?

How many extra trips will one have to do a month etc?

Just interested as I approach my next birthday and given a change in the retirement age after I retired at 55, how will this affect the more senior pilots ie those continuing to work to 65?:confused:

richxby

9th Oct 2013, 21:47

Does anybody know if the full document is available online? I've searched for it but to no avail?

B16a

9th Oct 2013, 22:36

Its a shame that this has been approved. Feels like of a backwards step in aviation safety which is sad after all of the improvements from tough mistakes. I wonder how pilots and cabin crews will view this. As if there working hours and job demands weren't high enough.

yamihere

9th Oct 2013, 23:07

More details available at Richard North's blog;
Global governance: the "fun" is over for the time being (http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84389)

A further link to:
Parliament votes not to oppose Commission measures on flight time limitations (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20131007IPR21623/html/Parliament-votes-not-to-oppose-Commission-measures-on-flight-time-limitations)

MaydayMaydayMayday

10th Oct 2013, 00:21

It's interesting that half the folk on the thread are suddenly supporting UKIP, you might want to consider the breakdown of votes across the UK by party:

Votes AGAINST the EU FTL proposal

British Democratic Party (1)
Conservative (1)
DUP (1)
Green Party (2)
Labour (1)
Liberal Democrat (1)
Plaid Cymru (1)
Sinn Fein (1)
SNP (2)
Ulster Conservatives and Unionists-New Force (1)
UKIP (1)
We Demand a Referendum (1)

Votes FOR the EU FTL proposal:

Conservative (20)
Independent (1)
Labour (10)
Lib Dem (9)
UKIP (7)

No abstentions and 12 didn't vote.

John Boeman

10th Oct 2013, 03:31

"Many thanks for contacting me regarding your concerns over proposals to change Flight Time Limitation legislation, which was voted on by all MEPs on 9th October 2013.

Commenting on the European Parliament vote to approve common EU flight time limits for pilots, Liberal Democrat Transport Spokesman Phil Bennion MEP said:

"This is a sensible outcome. Despite concerns from pilots' unions, these rules will not lower safety standards in the UK. In fact, a common system for pilot flight times will raise standards in Europe across the board, ensuring that British passengers are safe no matter what EU airline they fly with."

The proposal harmonises at EU level a set of rules governing the maximum flight times and minimum rest periods keeping aviation safety as its main objective. The new rules reduce the maximum flight duty time at night from 11.45 hours to 11, the maximum number of flying hours per year from 1,300 to 1,000 and the maximum duty time (airport standby + flight) is capped to 16 hours, instead of the 26 or even 28 currently applying in certain EU Member States.

The claim from pilots' union BALPA that under the new rules pilots will have to land a plane after being awake for periods of up to 22 hours is untrue. In fact, crew members can spend a maximum of 16 hours on standby at home or in a hotel. After the first 6 hours, every additional hour on standby is deducted from the maximum flight time that can be performed afterwards. Thus, when a crew member is called out from standby at home to report for duty, the combination of standby and flight duty cannot realistically lead to a period of more than 18 consecutive hours awake, of which no more than 14 hours can be spent on board an aircraft. Currently pilots are granted two days or even less in some EU countries when crossing several time zones, while the Commission's text proposes up to five days.

I agree with Phil Bennion that we need rapid progress on this package. If it were not for this agreement, we would be stuck with the existing dogs' breakfast of 28 different sets of national rules. Applying common rules means less unnecessary red tape for airlines, fewer delays for passengers and a more efficient and environmentally sustainable aviation market.

I hope that this information is helpful to you."

It is a long time since I read something so misguided and considering that it came from a politician, that is really saying something.

BARKINGMAD

10th Oct 2013, 07:47

Can anyone explain to me to what the Labour MEP in posting # 73 was referring when they used this phrase?

Alas our ACTUAL awake times and ASLEEP times appear to be getting mixed up inadvertently and sometimes we are in one state when we should be in the other!

Ghastly news about what passes for democracy in EU, I felt decidedly uncomfortable and almost sick, after hearing the midday news just before I walked to report for duty.

Retirement now looks more attractive, though flying as SLF looks far less.

I repeat my earlier suggestion, to those who have belatedly woken up from the slumbering as the EU state rolls its tanks over the lawn, find a copy of "The Great Deception" by Booker and North and try and fight your way through this well-researched account of precisely the sort of devious behaviour which has been the hallmark of the "Project" for decades.

Incidentally, during the Cold War, the tanks used to sport a red star, now they are proudly displaying the blue circle with the yellow stars!!!! :ugh::ugh::ugh:

deltahotel

10th Oct 2013, 11:27

Information from another site. The proposal in the EU parliament was to reject the FTL proposals, so to vote against the FTL changes they had to vote FOR the proposal. It seems that a number of MEPs voted against the proposal thinking they had voted against the FTL changes but in fact they have ended up voting the other way round. There is a mechanism for changing a vote within 4 days and some are/will.

So it is quite possible that any voting list won't clarify anything at all as some may have voted the way they wanted to and some may not, possibly in either direction! If you're not happy with the way your MEP voted, it might be worth getting in touch to ask if they voted the way they wanted.

Hope this makes sense.

Danny2

10th Oct 2013, 12:14

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 (http://ministryofaviation.com/index.php?threads/is-your-mep-a-sheep-or-worse-a-lib-dem-and-a-sheep.2/).

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 (http://www.votewatch.eu/en/technical-requirements-and-administrative-procedures-related-to-air-operations-motion-for-resolution.html#/)

Basil

10th Oct 2013, 12:32

Therefore, anyone who wanted to REJECT the EASA proposals should have voted to ACCEPT the motion.
Any representative who can't understand that should be stacking shelves.
Apologies, that's an unwarranted insult to people who do something useful!

Danny2

10th Oct 2013, 12:38

Sadly, the lobbying was to "reject the EASA proposals". Whilst the Greens, as a bloc, understood that the motion was to REJECT the EASA proposals, many others did not do their homework and thought that they were REJECTING the proposals rather than ACCEPTING the REJECTION.

Double negative and just goes to show how pathetic the whole EU voting structure is set out. We need a proper Ministry of Aviation (http://ministryofaviation.com/index.php).

BOAC

10th Oct 2013, 12:56

Good spot, deltahotel, and it makes you wonder how many other EU motions (good word, 'motions....?) have been voted on without being read properly..

Go UKIP:ok:

MaydayMaydayMayday

10th Oct 2013, 12:58

I really don't think it was that confusing. If they can't take the time or have the ability to understand what they're voting for or against then they really aren't competent to be representing anyone in the first place.

BerksFlyer

10th Oct 2013, 13:23

I agree Mayday. Just goes to show politicians really are as incompetent as many give them credit for. If any other professional made such errors there would be severe consequences. Eg. a crew misreading a chart and breaking a height/speed limit.

fireflybob

10th Oct 2013, 14:07

Typical of the EU bureaucracy!

If the MEPs who voted were that confused then surely BALPA should be lobbying for another vote?

Herod

10th Oct 2013, 15:41

From a Conservative MEP

Thank you very much for writing to me about the flight time directive. In the final days leading up to the vote there were last minute discussions between the European Commission and the International Transport Workers Federation (ETF) representing the unions of airline pilots. These meetings were strongly supported by members of the European Parliament Transport Committee. ETF wrote to MEPs to explain that various guarantees were made by the EC regarding the implementation of the new flight time limits and that they are now supportive of the regulation.

With this in mind, the European Parliament then voted to reject the proposal to delay the legislation and as a result the proposals to put in place new flight time limits will go forward but with the additional guarantees to support pilots' concerns.

I understand that this means that concerns have been addressed flight safety will not be compromised.

Interesting that, after months of research, "last-minute guarantees" were received (but not available in the primary document). Can you scratch someone's back at the same time as twisting their arm, or does that require a committee?

1066

10th Oct 2013, 16:18

This must mean that the MEPs trust the European Commission, an organisation that can't be trusted/bothered to publish audited accounts and sacks whistle blowers who highlight corruption.

I challenge any pilot to say that he would accept an unseen "blank cheque" guarantee from the Commission.

Is the ECA a member of the International Transport Workers Federation (ETF) that was convinced by these "guarantees? Yesterday's press release, reacting to the vote result, from the ECA gave no indication of any last minute 'guarantees' that would change their opposition to these FTLs.

Basil

10th Oct 2013, 23:07

A trusted friend who was a major airline trainer has looked into the new regs in depth and tells me that some aspects are more restrictive than those current in the UK. His feeling is that they are not at all disadvantageous to pilots or to the safety of their passengers; in some clauses quite the reverse.
If he has time to get his notes out he may post here.

RAT 5

11th Oct 2013, 16:54

The air traffic controllers union in Europe (ATCEUC) has called off a strike planned for Oct. 10 after the European Commission signalled its willingness to renegotiate plans to liberalise civil airspace.

Meanwhile the pilots & cabin crew?

wiggy

11th Oct 2013, 22:13

His feeling is that they are not at all disadvantageous to pilots or to the safety of their passengers; in some clauses quite the reverse

I think he's being a bit optimistic to be honest -there are some areas where I think once any euphoria has died down some long haul operators may have second thoughts about how their lobbying ( I'm specifically thinking about maximum night FDP with a non- augmented crew). OTOH I fail to see how a change to a allowable 22 hour stand-by plus duty period is advantageous to anyone currently working under CAP 371...

DozyWannabe

11th Oct 2013, 22:17

They've said that the 22hr plus duty period wasn't going to happen in practice, so it should be a simple case of contacting your union reps and going to the press if your airline tries to do so, no?

joe two

12th Oct 2013, 07:59

the only thing that will help is to get united in Europe with our unions and organize an European strike against those new European rules

J.O.

13th Oct 2013, 11:55

That's an oversimplification of the reality. The human body doesn't come with a dipstick to check if your brain has been topped up with enough rest to get you to your destination.

I've started plenty of duty periods where I felt adequately rested to complete a maximum duty day, only to find later on that I was fighting to stay awake during the latter portions of the flight. If those duty days had been shorter, there's less chance I'd have felt that way.

michelda

13th Oct 2013, 13:54

Hi guys,

I have a draft of the new ftl.....do you have the final law approved.

Cathar

13th Oct 2013, 14:17

The text of the Regulation that is under scrutiny (ie the text that the EP voted on) can be found here (http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regcomitology/index.cfm?do=search.documentdetail&k29A79JJWULzeFERTp4lOWT4Xffk605YBCh2afw2gep/I4e00Leqo6bxse1tPdnz). It appears that the Regulation still has to complete scrutiny in the Council of Ministers. Therefore there is no "final law" yet. However, the text submitted for scrutiny cannot be changed.

Herod

13th Oct 2013, 19:49

Truckflyer, agree with you totally. We tried it in a company I worked for, and suggested that the Rostering Manager (that dreadful title "manager" again) shadowed a crew for a week. By that we meant sitting on the flight-deck, with all the glare, noise etc, not in a passenger seat, and taking in his stride all the changes of hotels, report times etc. However, he "couldn't be spared" from his "managerial" job, so nothing changed.

In another company, we were working multi-sector days right to the limit of duty, and requested that some form of meal be provided. When this was refused, we stopped after the fourth sector and went into the terminal for a cup of tea and a sandwich before sectors five and six. Two crews, two discretion reports a day for two weeks, until crew meals began to be provided.

michelda

14th Oct 2013, 04:08

thanks very much Chatar

Wirbelsturm

14th Oct 2013, 14:20

Phil Bennion MEP

He is the prime driving force behind the EASA rules, I think he sees it as his Lib Dem 'Gift/Legacy' to Europe.

I am the Lib Dem MEP for the West Midlands region. As a Staffordshire farmer and economic policy expert I took office in March 2012, following the retirement of Liz Lynne MEP.

Obviously he's so fully up to speed on the difficulties of controlling his tractor whilst fatigued that he can be the instigator of telling us it's no problem landing a 200 tonne aircraft, in the dark at 150+ mph whilst fatigued. :ok:

As someone stated above Fatigue is a serious issue brought about by constant disrupted sleep patterns and exacerbated by time zone changes. The affect of fatigue on core decision making skills can be extreme and, in an Australian scientific analysis, can be considered akin to the effects of alcohol in the bloodstream.

More interesting will be the reaction of the FAA and other worldwide aviation departments when they realise that some of the flight crew operating into their airspace might well be labouring under the effects of fatigue due to the idiocy of the EU law making process.

BizJetJock

14th Oct 2013, 15:05

That'll be the FAA that has much less restrictive rules than the proposed EASA ones? :ugh:

Wirbelsturm

16th Oct 2013, 11:47

Perhaps for regionals and biz jets but not for Long Haul and as it will be the European Long Haul jets landing into the States that's where the problems will come.

Johnny Hotspur

16th Oct 2013, 16:18

Just had a look at the proposals and the FDP table. At the mo, off the top of my head in our outfit, we can do a 4 sector early starting at 0530 with a max FDP of 9 hours. With the new rules we can now do 11 hours 30 minutes?

If that's right... How on earth are these regs safer!! I honestly don't believe these politicians know what the ins & outs are and what it means to us and the passengers!! They must have been voting blind following what the party line was, having not read/understood the nitty gritty! Madness!!

LLuCCiFeR

16th Oct 2013, 17:00

I honestly don't believe these politicians know what the ins & outs are and what it means to us and the passengers!! They must have been voting blind following what the party line was, having not read/understood the nitty gritty! Madness!! Madness indeed!

Just like in the early 2000s when totally incompetent, easily manipulated and cheaply bought politicians worldwide removed the safety stops for the financial services sector, they now did the same for aviation! More crashes waiting to happen, but again the politicians and responsible authorities will claim that "they didn't see it coming." :ugh:

truckflyer is spot on IMHO. Under-reporting by already unfit and fatigued pilots is the crux of the matter.

gorter

16th Oct 2013, 18:29

Well the House of Commons have just voted in favour of the FTL's by a majority of 45.

drivez

16th Oct 2013, 18:56

Unless you have flown commercially I don't think you can understand the stress or fatigue crews deal with in the process of their duties, it looks too easy and for far too long our own self depreciation of "ohh it's all the autopilot" has been allowed to creep in to the public psyche. They don't and can't understand. Hence these ridiculous votes.

IcePack

16th Oct 2013, 23:47

I have noted once you become Aircrew, you become non-human. Some other species that can fly a plane after 22 + hrs but not drive a car or truck.
Weird or what!

Vasco dePilot

17th Oct 2013, 08:04

from Hansard on yesterday's vote

[QUOTE]Civil Aviation Safety

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 12864/13, a draft Commission Regulation (EU) No. .../… of XXX amending Regulation (EU) No. 965/2012 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to air operations pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council; notes that the Government recognises the importance of managing crew fatigue to support civil aviation safety; supports the Government’s view that the measures will establish safety improvements across the European Union and maintain safety in the UK; and further supports the Government’s view that the measures respect subsidiarity principles and help to deliver a level playing field across the EU.—(John Penrose.)

The House divided:

Ayes 272, Noes 227/[QUOTE]

So the new EASA FDTLs have been rubber stamped by the UK Parliament with MPs voting along party lines.
We will look forward to hearing from our colleagues early next year how the new regulations are working.

Al Murdoch

17th Oct 2013, 08:21

Phil Bennion MEP is on Twitter. You can make your thoughts clear to him on there.

RAT 5

17th Oct 2013, 10:23

.....Government’s view that the measures will establish safety improvements across the European Union and maintain safety in the UK; and further supports the Government’s view that the measures respect subsidiarity principles and help to deliver a level playing field across the EU.—(John Penrose.)

Here-in lies the problem. Firstly, the CAA have told UK government that the new EASA rules will not dilute UK safety margins. They didn't say they will not allow more work, as the example of an early start shows. The CAA seems to believe this increase not to be dangerous and the government has swallowed it. Secondly, the EU & UK governments have been told that there are some dodgy FTL's out there and a level playing field will improve safety. If we raise the standard of many FTL's and allow a few to deteriorate the overall average will be an improvement; so that's alright then. Rubber stamp. So many nationals fly on a/c of another state so the level playing field is necessary, but at a high standard not at the commercially driven lower standard.

Ultimately I believe it is down the sharp end drivers. Don't do the roster if you feel the slightest doubt. That is what has been rammed down our throats with all the new TEM stuff. Use it! Don't bleat about it afterwards. I know about the zero-hour contracts; that's another issue all together.

LLuCCiFeR

17th Oct 2013, 11:35

Ultimately I believe it is down the sharp end drivers. Don't do the roster if you feel the slightest doubt. That is what has been rammed down our throats with all the new TEM stuff. Use it! Don't bleat about it afterwards. I know about the zero-hour contracts; that's another issue all together. Good luck with that in the increasingly un-unionized world of low-cost airlines! Ignoring the possibility that people on zero hour contracts can be intimidated is simply totally unrealistic!

It's both funny and ironic to see how a lot of Anglo-Irish pilots are now kicking and screaming about the new FTL's, but that it's the same Anglo-Irish mentality that looks down on any pilot union going on strike to defend it's rights.

You can't have it both ways, and relying on regulators and politicians to stand up for you instead of a strong union has been proven to be fatally naive!! :ugh:

RAT 5

17th Oct 2013, 13:34

All I meant to say is that if you feel sick don't fly. Isn't that what you are supposed to do? If you get utterly stupid combinations that are going to burn you out and put you beyond the edge of your performance boundary then consider it very carefully. If necessary bail out of the 2nd one and perhaps, just perhaps, common sense might prevail making more sensible combinations. Ultimately it is you who decide not the max FTL's. They are written for equal humatons and you are all different.

LLuCCiFeR

17th Oct 2013, 14:09

I have to agree, aviation is stuck in the dark ages with regards to it's ways, and lack of unions.Well, don't you think we went back to the dark ages?

The low-cost, children of the magenta line generation threw out the baby with the bathwater, and opportunistic airline managers cleverly used this as a fulcrum to get rid of any coherency, professionalism (like the no blame culture) in our profession, whilst loading up on bonuses themselves.

As long as nobody crashes an aircraft then 'all is quiet on the Western front' for as far as any responsible manager/regulator is concerned.

So let's face it: nobody is going to deliberately bend/break/crash an aircraft on his/her watch. We know that, the airline managers know that and the politicians/regulators...they simply don't care. :sad:

...and so we push and push ourselves further and further on adrenaline and coffee, fighting fatigue (both short term and cumulative) and trying to adhere to an ever-increasing jungle of micromanagement rules that the office 'managers' throw at us...and all that on minimum flight plan fuel of course! :ouch:

Tick tock...tick tock...tick tock...tick tock...tick tock...

silverstrata

17th Oct 2013, 15:26

Rat5

All I meant to say is that if you feel sick don't fly. Isn't that what you are supposed to do?

And collect your P45 at the end of the week.
And collect your repossession notice at the ned of the season.
And collect your divorce papers at the end of the year.

Kerrching .... you have just won the Low Cost Lottery. Well done that man....

fireflybob

17th Oct 2013, 15:44

I think we need to do much better at marketing the reality of the pilot's job to all but in particular the legislators.

I think BALPA etc have done their best but there is still a long way to go. The reaction of the panel on the BBC Any Questions spoke volumes about our legislators knowledge (or rather ignorance) of the actuality of fatigue and the ramifications for flight safety.

Wirbelsturm

17th Oct 2013, 18:51

I think we need to do much better at marketing the reality of the pilot's job to all but in particular the legislators.

Unfortunately when we 'do' our job the public expects it to be done that way, when we 'don't' do our job then hundreds of people get injured/killed, training is questioned and hours/experience/fatigue are all considered. Look at Colgan and the campaign led BY THE FAMILIES OF THE DECEASED, not the airlines or the insurers!

The sad fact of life is that ticket price is king and the paying public don't care/want to know who is flying them, how fatigued they are or how poorly trained they are as long as ticket A price is less than ticket B price.

Always remember, if we do our job correctly to the limit of our professional ability and contain the problem/emergency/failure then we have done our professional best. But, the public, if we do our job right, will never ever see it and the airlines we work for don't care.

Hence we are in the position we are.

Tinribs

18th Oct 2013, 19:13

There have been several posts alluding to public opinion which seem to miss what it is;

The public the press and many "experts" think there is one set of Flight Time rules for all UK airlines. In fact basic guidance is translated into manuals by airlines which are approved by the CAA to grant an AOC. Airlines can then apply to change their manuals in light of their business operation and experience. Over time airlines manuals/rules change so much that it is difficult to believe they have the same origin.

Europe seem to agree by saying that by forcing the worst airlines/countries to improve while allowing the best to slip somewhat there will be an overall safety improvement since it tends to be the bottom of the safety pile who have accidents.

It is of course a basic tennet of the EE ideal that all businesses in all countries compete fairly by operating to the same rules

We at the pointed end want our bit to be the safest but they at the political end want to say that all EU citizens and undertakings are equal

Ian W

19th Oct 2013, 10:26

There have been several posts alluding to public opinion which seem to miss what it is;

It is of course a basic tennet of the EE ideal that all businesses in all countries compete fairly by operating to the same rules

We at the pointed end want our bit to be the safest but they at the political end want to say that all EU citizens and undertakings are equal

I believe this is also called 'leveling down'.

Is there somewhere a tightening of the rules or is it as suspected a relaxation to standardize on the most lax rules?

4dogs

20th Oct 2013, 09:21

At Post #72, there was a quote that said in part:

On long haul flights of more than 13 hours Flight Duty Period, the UK will now be required to ensure a minimum of four pilots on board. The present UK rules only allow for three. This is just one of the clear safety improvements.

Apart from the noise about EU voting procedures etc, there was a deafening silence about this part of the quote. :eek: :eek: :eek:

My reading of the Draft CS for flight time specification schemes that accompanied Opinion 04-2012 suggest that this statement is patently untrue. The draft CS states:

(b) The maximum daily FDP under the provisions of ORO.FTL.205 (e) may be extended due to in-flight rest for flight crew:

(1) with one additional flight crew member:

(i) up to 14 hours with class 3 rest facilities;

(ii) up to 15 hours with class 2 rest facilities; and

(iii) up to 16 hours with class 1 rest facilities; and

(2) with two additional flight crew members:

(i) up to 15 hours with class 3 rest facilities;

(ii) up to 16 hours with class 2 rest facilities; and

(iii) up to 17 hours with class 1 rest facilities.

Nowhere (that I have seen) has it been suggested that FDPs of greater than 13 hours will require 4 pilots. := :uhoh: :ugh:

Can anyone confirm that the Draft CS has not been further amended from that published on the EASA website?

Uplinker

21st Oct 2013, 08:13

Just for general interest, and to compare and contrast; Here are the EU rules for truck drivers, (from GOV.UK):-

Breaks and rest

The main points of EU rules on breaks and rest are that you must take:

at least 11 hours rest every day - you can reduce this to 9 hours rest 3 times in a week
an unbroken break of 45 hours every week - you can reduce this to 24 hours every other week
your weekly rest after 6 days of working - coach drivers on an international trip can take their weekly rest after 12 days
a break or breaks totalling at least 45 minutes after no more than 4.5 hours driving

My emphasis on the last point. And the turnaround is not suitable as the 45 mins rest.

In addition, the Health and Safety Executive specifies that a break of 15/20 mins should be taken after every 2 hours of driving.

silverstrata

21st Oct 2013, 20:57

Uplinker:

at least 11 hours rest every day - you can reduce this to 9 hours rest 3 times in a week

Just in case you think this rule is harsh on truck drivers, it is not. It is made for drivers who sleep in the cab, or pull up at a roadside truck-stop where the bedroom is 10 meters from the truck. And having done this, I can honestly say you are fully rested after 9 hours. You have 8 hours asleep in the cab and one hour in the cafe having breakfast and brushing your teeth - and off you go.

It is not the same in commercial aviation.

At the end of a duty pilots have to walk 2 km through the airport because walking is cheaper, fight their way through security, immigration, and customs; wait 45 minutes for the cheaper taxi to arrive, drive 45 minutes to a cheaper hotel; wait an hour for the cheaper room to be made ready; wash, eat and rest - and then fight your way through all that again in reverse order to get back to the cheaper aircraft.

AND DO ALL THIS WITHIN a 10 or 11 hour REST PERIOD.

Its not fun. It is not professional. And it is not safe.

r1pilot

21st Oct 2013, 22:37

ORO.FTL.235 Rest periods
(b) Minimum rest period away from home base.
The minimum rest period provided before undertaking an FDP starting away from home base shall be at least as long as the preceding duty period, or 10 hours, whichever is greater. This period shall include an 8-hour sleep opportunity in addition to the time for travelling and physiological needs.

Following is from: Certification Specifications for flight time specification schemes. (DRAFT)

AMC1 ORO.FTL.235(b) Rest periods
MINIMUM REST PERIOD AWAY FROM HOME BASE
The time allowed for physiological needs should be 1 hour. Consequently, if the travelling time to the suitable accommodation is more than 30 minutes, the operator should increase the rest period by twice the amount of difference of travelling time above 30 minutes.

Since it is quiet new and not that easy to find, above mentioned AMC might be a wrong document, but it was what i could find.

Any body knows when is the effective date?
It is mentioned:
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
It shall apply from [2 years after its entry into force].

RAT 5

22nd Oct 2013, 13:37

The time allowed for physiological needs should be 1 hour. Consequently, if the travelling time to the suitable accommodation is more than 30 minutes, the operator should increase the rest period by twice the amount of difference of travelling time above 30 minutes.

Do not forget the need to eat, shower, and make a transition from work to sleep. We are not autonomons. And, what do the zero-hour contractors do about this "íncreased "rest peiod?" The policing of it will be up to them and their relaltionship with crewing, should they have been delayed. Success.

Wireless

22nd Oct 2013, 13:46

I've flown for a regional airline. Always amazed me you could fly all day long with no rest breaks on the turn around. Sure we were given 30 mins 'dinner' on one turn around but absolutely no rest with cleaners, dispatchers, fuelers, crew yacking on. I've also worked as an HGV driver, and that 45 mins break after 4.5 hours driving had to be away from the controls at your leisure and away from any work. A couple of guys were switching their tachos onto rest whilst parked on loading bays at the distribution centres, pulled out after unloading and pulled over by VOSA who were checking drivers weren't claiming rest whilst truck was being unloaded. Guys were fined. A break was just that a break.

Wirbelsturm

23rd Oct 2013, 07:55

It's probably because the general public see the big nasty trucks every day in close proximity and can worry about what happens if one careens off the motorway in front of them.

Our profession is not so much in the general publics view and we have been very successful at hiding the effects of fatigue for so long that it is not a concern except to a small minority.

This industry is run by the bean counters, to them we are indeed automatons.

Mr Angry from Purley

23rd Oct 2013, 10:11

Following is from: Certification Specifications for flight time specification schemes. (DRAFT)

AMC1 ORO.FTL.235(b) Rest periods
MINIMUM REST PERIOD AWAY FROM HOME BASE
The time allowed for physiological needs should be 1 hour. Consequently, if the travelling time to the suitable accommodation is more than 30 minutes, the operator should increase the rest period by twice the amount of difference of travelling time above 30 minutes.

Since it is quiet new and not that easy to find, above mentioned AMC might be a wrong document, but it was what i could find.

Any body knows when is the effective date?
It is mentioned:
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
It shall apply from [2 years after its entry into force]

R1 Pilot still waiting for the CS specs to be officially published. Personally dont see any UK in a rush to adopt EASA FTL I even think some might wait until they are told to by the CAA (there will be a gradual rollout towards the deadline)
10Hrs rest away from base is the current minimum in Europe whereas in the UK its 11. If the spec comes in it will be assessed under FRMS by the Airline.
So is there a difference between the requirement of 10 hours during the night vv the day?. What is the reward vv what is the risk, the risks might outweigh the reward given most airlines desire for OTP. If so what will be the mitigation.

:\

Uplinker

23rd Oct 2013, 16:26

Silverstrata, and Truckflyer; I completely agree with you.

I find it very curious that pilots do not have the same duty and rest limitations as truck drivers - in fact we should have more stringent limitations than them, since what we are doing is far more potentially dangerous; at much higher speeds, in 3 dimensions, in the part of the atmosphere where humans cannot survive*:-

A truck driver smells smoke, so he pulls onto the hard shoulder, turns off the engine and gets out.

Two pilots are in their 9th duty hour and are over the ocean at 40,000'. They smell smoke as one engine catches fire...............

Over to the Union(s).........

(*There are no hard shoulders at 40,000' ! Humans cannot breath outside at 40,000'. And the temperature is -56 centigrade or lower)

(By the way, in case I fall foul of 'office worker-gate' again, may I make it clear that I totally support truckers and agree that they absolutely should have proper rest and breaks :ok:).

Wireless

23rd Oct 2013, 23:39

I don't think the tacho rules are so strict to appease the public. Most of the public have little idea of how strict or not they are and how they are enforced. The rules are enforced with a pedantic viciousness by the regulator, VOSA (known with fear as 'the ministry!'). An infringement of even a few minutes into a rest period or break can result with a fine. Fiddle your hours and you're looking at prison. it used to be more common to find unscrupulous transport firms encouraging 'running bent' by fudging records. Recent changes to technology of recording hours and increased enforcement has eaten away at this. The aviation system is archaic and slack in comparison.

Getting down to brass tacks how can operating one bit of heavy machinery require you take take a rest away from ALL duty after 4.5 hours yet another bit of heavy machinery affecting public safety is ok to operate all day long with no proper breaks.?

RAT 5

24th Oct 2013, 09:29

In a 12 -13 hour duty day, with 4 or more sectors, there is no dedicated break period, where pilot's are not working, where they are from from any flight related duty.

I discussed this with a friend of mine who is a doctor, and he was appalled by this, however unless people unite, it is hard to see how it will improve.

Years ago, when Niel Kinnock was EU commissioner for transport, and the new EU workers' directive came in, he assured there would be a transition period for public transport workers. I watched the office at my airline transform. Perviously, in the open-plan space, there had often been 3or 4 people to one large desk/table. Paper everywhere and tempers frayed. Now with the 45cubic meter rule each office worker had their own desk and peace and harmony. And their break every 2.5hrs etc. and lunch break in the fresh air.
We wondered about the 12 hours 2 of us spent cooped up in 6 cubic meters with no room to stand up and none of the other 'workers' directive' goodies.

(This includes a consideration for the working conditions of the cabin crew. Compare their environment to that of a shop or restaurant worker. Way below with no privacy or break, especially in a LoCo cabin. Don't even think about the appalling conditions on a night flight.)

Kinnock acknowledged you couldn't redesign a/c overnight and some form of compensation arrangement should be devised. Over time a better more comparable set of T's & C's would be introduced so public transport workers were not disadvantaged under the EU workers' directive.

Sounded good, but look what has happened in reality; quite the opposite. Who allowed that to happen? Both politicians, having their strings pulled by the money people, the XAA's for the same reason, and the workers/unions for not standing up and being firm and holding the politicians to their promises.

That's where we are today. And think about how bad it could really be if there were no FTL rules. As a/c performance/endurance has extended so have the FTL's. The money people hold sway and the safety margins and acceptable way of life are both eroded to the very edge.

Captaintcas

24th Oct 2013, 14:41

This whole debacle is a direct result of the fact that we Flightcrew are not behaving as Officers but as greedy selfish children, noth worthy of our stripes, especially those "collegues" who allow pay to fly on their flightdeck.

Now is the time for a general and complete strike over the whole of Easa land, but again, most "collegues" are afraid, and do not have the slightest bit of Commander responsibility to act against a potential danger.

We as Officers have the DUTY to respond in SUCH A WAY THAT WILL INSURE SAFER REGULATIONS.

The ONLY WAY to do this is a GENERAL STRIKE.
Do not come up,with exuses like " but we are not allowed to strike in our company". :mad:. Every employee within the EU has the right to strike. Yes, also in the UK.

I guarantee that only the threat of a complete stop of aviation will ensure a new and this time proper look at the regulations.

RAT 5

24th Oct 2013, 17:20

Well said. To add another long forgotten snippet that illustrates the way in which the incumbents in the piloting profession started to allow conditions to deteriorate, for what ever the reason, is the upper deck B747-200. Remember this took place in the world's major legacy carriers who were all heavily unionised, as well; so I suspect financial gain had something to do with it. (Wide-body pay and all that guff at the same time; and later on the release to paster of the FE. More dosh solved many a thorny problem.)
The B707 had a reasonable range for a full crew on a single duty. B747 was designed to fly longer and crew needed some rest. The upper deck was so designed by the manufacturer and I assume authorised by the XAA's. It never happened, so ask yourselves why? Did the XAA's decide belatedly that it was not necessary and extended FTL's to suit the a/c, or did cash change hands with the crews? I don't know but I suspect.Whatever; the slippery slope was trodden upon and we've been sliding ever since. Is the bottom in sight? Not yet.

J.O.

24th Oct 2013, 22:40

Chances are those planners are not trained in anything other than putting bums in the seats at the lowest possible cost while maximizing their use of the rules to their advantage.

Big Pistons Forever

24th Oct 2013, 23:38

Sad to say but it sure looks like this is a done deal. The economics of it mean that the companies will lay on the full court press to get it through.

Every significant positive flight safety initiative has been the result of one or more smoking holes full of dead bodies. I don't see how forcing the adoption of sensible FTL's will be any different

RAT 5

25th Oct 2013, 07:57

Consider what the salary bill is for a large airline with 3000 pilots & 6000 C/A's. The bosses are in it to make maximum profit, not run a quality public service. They've established what the pax is prepared to pay and we see the subsequent profits. Imagine if they could get rid of 1 pilot: well a real qualified pilot. There have been, and continue to be, significant techno improvements and reliability enhancements that the chance of total failures is small. One pilot will be able to handle all the routine tasks of programming a computer. Taxi-takeoff- connect Autopilot-land, disconnect and taxi in. All with back up systems after back-up systems. You can fly a small jet with only 1 pilot, so why not a bigger one? The bag carrying apprentice will work for peanuts and keep an eye open.
Then the pax can take on board their own refreshments, self study the safety procedures before booking and sign a 'conditions acceptance' disclaimer. Then there only need be 1 C/A to smile and keep everyone happy.
The salary bill saving and increased profit - at the same ticket price - would be enormous; for the successful airlines. If the XAA's could be persuaded that there was not a safety consequence and it was necessary for the survival of the airline companies, the not so successful ones, and because there has become a shortage of numpties wanting to be pilots and C/A's, then it might just happen.

Tongue in cheek of course:

but I have worked for airlines where the FTL's were very flexible because the survival of the airline was more important than rigid compliance with the rules and blind eyes were turned. This is only the beginning of a thin wedge.

fireflybob

25th Oct 2013, 08:36

The ONLY WAY to do this is a GENERAL STRIKE.

Captaintcas, I share your sentiments.

Or just work strictly to rule - NO discretion, NO accepting of deferred defects, fly the full procedure irrespective, or even go sick when you are not fit to fly.

Either way this is the only way to get the message across, apart from a few smoking holes in the ground maybe.

Captaintcas

25th Oct 2013, 09:08

Please push your local Pilot Union to work together with ECA, the European Cockpit Association, to work out a EASA wide action-plan to counteract and eliminate the threat of diminished safety due to Eurocrat and EASA incompetence.

Now is the time to act if you have ANY sense of responsibility and pride for your profession.
Those willing to accept these crimes against safety are simply not worth the stripes on their uniform and have no place on a flightdeck.

Sorry to sound harsh, but imminent threats need positive and effective action.

Mr Angry from Purley

25th Oct 2013, 16:07

As I am just studying next months roster, I see I have 6 morning flights in a row, culminating with a few 4 sector day, now excuse the language, which DUMBWIT can NOT see that this is a safety risk.

Now by the end of this period, it will be natural for me to feel fatigue, if I feel fatigued should I just call in and say I am not fit to fly?

Trucker
Fatigued, you mean tired perhaps or suffer some sleepyness. Then how many days off do you get in the year. How much leave then we can make a judgement on fatigue. Don't just give us the nasty bits.
And which airline in the UK does 6 earlies in the row - which airline in the UK will do 6 earlies in a row when EASA FTL arrives. Want to have a bet with me? :\

Uplinker

25th Oct 2013, 16:34

Then how many days off do you get in the year

Ah that old chestnut.

I don't know about Trucker but I am contracted to work 39 hours per week - in other words the same as an office worker.

However, even our shortest flying day is the length of a normal office day, and usually we (and the cabin crews) work more like 9-12 hours in one shift - WITH NO BREAKS WHATSOEVER. AND WE EVEN HAVE TO EAT IN OUR SEATS WHILE FLYING THE PLANE.

So folk may think they see us at home more often than an office worker, but what they don't see is us getting up at 0330, or getting home at 0200 day after day and working 9-12 hour shifts. And they probably don't notice us working at weekends and over Christmas either.

I agree that the Unions and us members need to get much much stronger.

Another thought is to invite the CAA to join us in our cockpits for a whole week. Or two. Getting up the same time we do, driving in for briefing, then going through security and doing the whole day on the jumpseat. Then checking out, going home and doing it all again the next day - for a whole week, not just 2 short afternoon sectors. Lets have a couple of guys fly low cost short-haul, both earlies and lates. Another couple of guys fly longhaul bullets, and after a week or two ask them if they really think the FDP's are realistic and safe.....................

And where are Health and Safety - who rightly recommend that truck drivers have a 15-20 minute break every 2 hours? All HSE seem to do for us aircrews is tell us to do our hi-viz jackets up and don't bring yoghurt to work.

energiser

25th Oct 2013, 17:29

Trucker
Fatigued, you mean tired perhaps or suffer some sleepyness. Then how many days off do you get in the year. How much leave then we can make a judgement on fatigue. Don't just give us the nasty bits.
And which airline in the UK does 6 earlies in the row - which airline in the UK will do 6 earlies in a row when EASA FTL arrives. Want to have a bet with me?

OK..I'll bite..

No, not sleepiness (note the spelling)!

We're talking nodding off on the approach. Unable to keep your eyes open mid flight. Multiple time zones in a few days. Disturbed sleep in uncomfortable beds in noisy hotels. Deep night flights. Feeling physically sick with FATIGUE after a flight. 14 hour plus duty periods, with no mandated break. Finishing on lates, starting on earlies...with 2 days off. But 2 days isn't 2 days really..

Not sleepiness.

And 10 days off a month. So 2 more than you...possibly...unless you count bank holidays, which we don't get. But do tell how many nights you spend at home each month?

And what's the worst thing that would happen if you got 'sleepy'? Spilt latte on that report due in next Tuesday week? Or 300 people dead?

I'm not a betting man, but I'd rather bet with you on when the first fatal accident occurs due to fatigue in the EU than when the inevitable 6 earlies in a row comes about!

Edited to add...

RAT 5 / Maximum

8 days in 28 days is based on Officebod working 9-5 Mon - Fri
with Sat / Sun off and 42.5 hrs a week, with Crews its 190 hours in 4 weeks so average of 47.5 hrs per week. The logic that SRG quote is if you work a busy 7 days, chances are the 14 day limit will catch you then the 4 week limit if your being worked really hard. (you also need to work to rolling totals,not fixed weeks)

So, we agree that you work 24/7 so cannot be compared to Office bods. However,I would argue that whilst you shouldn't be compared to Office Bods like us Rostering idiots,how about being compared similar "well paid" jobs such as Office Managers / Docters / Lawyers etc. Which of these work an average 47.5 week?. Not many, more like 70+ / 280 over 4 weeks etc.

That's why you have CAP371 as it gives you a certain level of protection,maybe not brilliant but i still believe CAP371 is out of date and is in urgent need of modernisation to take into account social views as well.

And Rat i know plenty of shift workers who do 7 nights,12 hrs (and have 6 days off) and quiet a few who do 2100-0530 Mon-Fri
off Sunday and start again (so just feel sorry for them)

The above from Mr Angry in 2003, so it appears I am indeed beating my head against a brick wall! Who can possibly argue with the logic of a roster manager?! :ugh: :}

Ian W

25th Oct 2013, 17:39

A simple clause should be added to the 'working hours directive' -

"It should be noted that the hours in this directive are maximum hours and flight crew are not expected to be continually rostered for maximum hours nor expected to work maximum hours continually. If an aircraft accident is investigated by the appropriate accident investigation body and fatigue is found to be a contributory cause, regardless of whether the crew involved reported fatigue, the rostering of the air carrier involved shall also be investigated to assess whether the crew rostering by that air carrier was a contributory cause to the aircraft accident."

Simple allocation of accountability to a beancounter - it works quite well.

BARKINGMAD

25th Oct 2013, 17:57

Ian W

25th Oct 2013, 18:05

Ian W, you are proposing the problem is solved by waiting for the tombstones and then trying to locate the relevant suit who organised/authorised that company's roster?

I thought we as ProfPilots were here to try to stop the accident BEFORE it happens?

The suit concerned will have long departed the location and your promised sanction is as toothless as a Pilots' Union! :ugh:

On the contrary - the current regulation could be looked at by the beancounters as the rostering target. No downside whatsoever in rostering you for every hour that it allows. If there is an inquiry they will say with an air of injured innocence - "but we rostered precisely what your regulations state!" ---

With the amendment that I propose they cannot use that defence they are obliged to take note of the fatigue effects of the hours they roster. I can assure you for a beancounter being up in front of the leather top desk is something they will avoid far more than over rostering you. They are not used to being held accountable for anything. What the addition does is place a duty of assuring that crew are not fatigued by their rostering - which I thought was the entire point.

BARKINGMAD

25th Oct 2013, 19:06

WELL SAID TRUCKFLYER ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Somewhat more informative and likely to stir the brain cells than proposed clauses tacked onto the looming Eurotrash FTLs.

The beancounters have been operating in this mode for far too long, but do we have to wait for the H F accident with multiple fatalities/injuries and lawyers hovering like flies around a lump of :mad: on a hot summers day?

I fear we will, unless some industrial muscle can be displayed.

C'mon BALPA and ECA and the rest of the subscription farmers, show us what you're made of, or stop wasting members' money and hope ! ! ! ! ! ! ! :ouch:

silverstrata

25th Oct 2013, 22:41

Definition of fatigued...

If you go to bed dog-tired and hardly able to function properly - have a really good sleep - but wake up dog-tired and hardly able to function properly: then you are fatigued.

BT DT and got several of the T-shirts.

RAT 5

26th Oct 2013, 10:56

The 'how many days off' question is a complete red herring. It has been said many times by sleep analysts that continued lack of sleep will lead to subtle fatigue; the worse kind. The kind which you may not realise you have, which therefore you can not counter by being extra careful; the kind that can even lead you to believe you are doing a good job when you're not; the kind that lets you think you are bullet proof and an ace. How is this continued loss of sleep achieved? By getting up at 03.30 repeatedly over a few days or going to bed at 01.30 repeatedly over a few days and having the sleep disturbed before it was completed in depth and fully. I.e. good REM sleep. The disturbance is called family life or hotel doors/vacuum cleaners. I once had 5 earlies where the last one was TFS, the longest roster in the network. I think common sense was absent in rostering.
How is this lack of sleep & acute tiredness recovered from? Only by good deep REM sleep. Not cat naps, not siestas. That's what the experts tell us. Days off are supposed to be to create a healthy balance between work & social life, not to sleep and recover from a continual and tiring lack of sleep. The sleep recovery needs to be immediate, so the total days off in a month, quarter or year is totally irrelevant. The blind eye that XAA's and the airlines are turning regarding contract crews commuting on unaccounted for 'rest days' is bordering on negligent and certainly way outside the moral spirit of the rules. There is no 'spirit of the rules'. A/c have limitations and we as pilots use them and so does maintenance. IR's have limitations and the TRE's use them; Ground exams have limitations and XAA's use them. FTL's have limitations and rostering uses them, regularly, but the spirit of those rules is ignored. The XAA's know this because it has been argued about for decades. The limits should be there to allow necessary flexibility in the often disrupted schedule. Discretion should be just that, not expected and subtly planned for; as was the case in 1 of my airlines, and where the XAA was conveniently deaf & blind.
Why not have an FTL limit AND IT IS JUST THAT. Maximum daily rostering is to limit -1.30hrs. Maximum week is limit -5hrs. Monthly is limit - 10hrs. Off duty is minimum +2hrs. Annual stays at 900. Then when the inevitable poo hits the fan the limit comes into play for a one off scenario, not the regular day in day out. The 'spirit' would return. I agree this is more for short haul operations. Long-haul ops, heavy crew with proper rest is another environment and needs its own tailored rules. If you've a bunk then perhaps the difference between 12 & 14hrs is not so great for a single duty. Much will depend on the recovery rest before the next duty.
One set of rules does not suit all. I wonder how much in-depth consultation into FTL's included the crews. It should have been extensive. We should not be arguing about this after the event; we should have been in there at the start of the consultation. If we were excluded, then would have been the time to protest. We live in an environment where proaction is always better than reaction.
Boeing trumpeted that crews had been involved, extensively, in the design of B777. We were going to use it; we knew the problems in earlier designs. Use our knowledge to prevent their re-occurance. Sound common sense. The same should have applied to FTL's. We are orientated to complete the mission. We are success orientated. This is a well known characteristic, not always to the benefit of the operation, but that's being addressed. We are educated and aware of the financial realities of a business in a cut-throat world. To the best of my knowledge no airline has gone bust through direct crew action, but nearly every airline has gone bust through direct management action, or lack of it. Treat us fairly with respect and we'll get the job done. We want to protect our careers and that means keeping the company flying. We are not short-term profit monkeys, we are in it for the long-term. I know of many airlines where crews have taken a reduction in salary & benefits, even job shared, to keep the airline going in rough times and help save jobs. The management doing the same? doubtful.
This whole debate is in great danger of creating a real us & them relationship. Them being company office workers, management, XAA's and the guys at EASA. This is not healthy and needs addressing very quickly. In an industry that screams TEM & CRM why is even EASA flying in the opposite direction? It does make you wonder why their mandatory training subjects are not part of their own philosophy. It's the "don't do what I do, do what I say," syndrome. Unprofessional and not worthy of the overall ruling body.

beamer

26th Oct 2013, 19:02

After thirty seven years of flying and thirty five being paid to do so, I am coming to the end of my busiest ever year in terms of hours flown. Quite frankly I am somewhat tired at the moment what with the endless changes from early starts to late finishes, shorthaul to medium to longhaul, hotels, time zones, delays, slots, tech issues and the like. I do not burn my candle at both ends, no smoking, no drinking, a bit of exercise from time to time, so I do try to manage my life accordingly.

Now some of the rules are now to be relaxed having been voted in by European politicians with no understanding of the aviation business. All airlines will take the first opportunity fo use these changes to their best advantage as one would expect.

To paraphrase the late lamented Peter Cook;

' Perkins, we need someone to make a futile sacrifice........'

fireflybob

26th Oct 2013, 19:14

Uplinker

27th Oct 2013, 07:56

And Rat i know plenty of shift workers who do 7 nights,12 hrs (and have 6 days off) and quiet a few who do 2100-0530 Mon-Fri
off Sunday and start again (so just feel sorry for them)

Perhaps, but are they flying an aircraft in 3 dimensions at 500mph with 200-400 pax on board? And having no breaks at all for up to 13 hours, let alone after every 2 hours that is recommended by HSE when driving a vehicle, or 4.5 hours that is MANDATED when driving a truck???

The point here is that our job is potentially extremely dangerous with a significant risk to life if we get it wrong.

Therefore, it should be ensured that pilots and cabin crew are most definitely properly rested before their duties.

How many more accidents will it take for this simple fact to sink in?

BARKINGMAD

27th Oct 2013, 10:38

Q. "How many more accidents will it take for this simple fact to sink in?"

A. Lots, or until the CEOs and others high in the food chain are seen on TV/press being led off to prison in handcuffs and their homes and assets seized following a successful quick prosecution for corporate manslaughter.

Meantime I will follow the high-speed taxying trials prior to the first solo pig flight with great interest and a few Euros on which will happen first..............:rolleyes:

From this clip we are told the NTSB looks at the last 72 hours of an accident crew's time before the accident. I presume their scheduling folks and higher suits are worried about what may crawl out of the woodwork?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6HwSeKOWPU

But why only 72 hours if there is an attempt to ELIMINATE FATIGUE as a contributory cause??

RAT 5

27th Oct 2013, 12:47

Another tack on the fatigue issue is the long term effects on health caused by constant long duty periods which disrupt the normal sleeping pattern etc.

I suspect in the years to come we will see more and more pilots losing their medicals or having to retire early due to health issues. And that's before we mention the affliction which is rarely mentioned viz. mental illness.

I see the convergence of many factors in the airline industry and the debilitating effects of constant and never ending disruptive work patterns is certainly one of them.

This will be an interesting one. Years ago there was a perception that pilots died young. We all knew of guys who croaked in mid-60's. It was conjectured that pressurisation, radiation, sleep disturbance, lack of exercise while at work, disrupted eating habits, bad or no balance between work & social life etc.We wondered why guys with a medical every 6/12 months then keeled over quite soon after retiring; and this was for guys who retried at 55-ish who should have looked forward to a reasonable life style & pension. Are some investigation we were told the death age amongst retired pilots was national average.

Now, with guys working quite a different life style, flying until 65, retiring to a hopefully reasonable life style, but with no or very little company pension, it will be interesting to see if the death ages change. Too early yet, but no question the strain of the working life is far greater than it ever was, and more much longer.

4dogs

28th Oct 2013, 02:19

At Post #150, I asked for any insight that any of you may have about the state of the proposed Certification Specifications for flight time specification schemes.

Can anyone update me on this technical stuff rather than the political stuff, please? :ok:

Mr Angry from Purley

28th Oct 2013, 20:42

4 Dogs - to my knowledge not published yet.
Here's a re-print from the Daily Mail of today
" A fifth nod off at the wheel"
Almost one in five drivers have dozed off at the wheel according to a report. Of them, three in ten did so on the motorway while doing up to 70 mph. The study found a quarter of men have fallen asleep while driving, twice as likely as women (13%)
The study looked at how often tiredness or lack of concentration caused accidents. 3 in ten drivers have experienced an accident because of a lapse in concentration from just missing a pedestrian to hitting another vehicle. Drivers are advised to take a 15 min break every two hours. However a third are so eager to reach their destination they will ignore feelings of fatigue

So truck driver, you feel tired your 6th early, absolutely agree. Where's the danger though - on the aircraft, two Pilots, automation, Atc, quick nap in the cruise (or break perhaps Uplinker), or when your driving home.
And why not email your Chief Pilot than the Rosterer????

Lastly - why if there is all this fatigue out there - EU FTL under SPQ has been out ther a long time now - why no accidents?

LLuCCiFeR

28th Oct 2013, 21:07

Lastly - why if there is all this fatigue out there - EU FTL under SPQ has been out ther a long time now - why no accidents? As I've said before, nobody wants to crash voluntarily in order to make a point, and the constant FDM and Stasi culture in most airline these days make sure that the adrenaline flows generously during approaches.

The fact that you die a few years earlier from all this stress, fatigue and adrenaline is only a plus in the eyes of the politicians/regulators and management because the government (i.e. politicians and regulators) no longer has to pay you a pension and the management can replace you with someone cheaper. :}

Think I'm cynical, funny or paranoid? Just look at how most airline are run by beancounters these days. They don't give a rat's @ss about you, your health, your private life or your family.

In the eyes of the empire builders men are not men, but instruments. - Napoleon Bonaparte

IcePack

29th Oct 2013, 09:49

Also our bodies are working quite hard during flight. (Not physically) due the cabin alt + dry air that in most pilots homes is not the case. Also lots of liquids drunk & most of it breathed out not pee'd out. So outside body thinks ah desert conserve water. Inside streuth it's a flood.
Funny how it is only after you have done the job for a while you realise how "knackering" it can be.

Ian W

29th Oct 2013, 13:11

The issue here is that the measures of fatigue are incorrect. It is extremely simple to measure just duty hours and hours off - but that is just an indicator of potential fatigue. All hours are not equal. If flights are difficult with multiple changes and replans in poor weather with challenging landings then the fatigue will build up faster; then add early starts or late finishes or time zone changes which all exacerbate the problems. But the nice simple hours on hours off metrics do not account for that.

I am not sure how the problem will be solved. Ideally there needs to be some kind of fatigue scale that actually measures fatigue.

Uplinker

29th Oct 2013, 17:12

Lastly - why if there is all this fatigue out there - EU FTL under SPQ has been out ther a long time now - why no accidents?

Luck, largely.

CAP 371 was supposed to represent absolute limits on rostering. However what is happening now - to save money - is that rosters are being routinely brought right up to the limits of CAP 371 on a regular basis. This means that airlines need employ fewer pilots (and cabin crew), but it also means that we are getting more and more knackered, because we are hitting the limits on a regular basis, instead of only now and then as it used to be.

Our maximum annual airborne hours are limited to 900, (this does not include traveling to work, pre-flight briefing, going through security, walking out to the plane, preparing the plane for flight, the turnaround at the destination or the post flight duties). I did 870 one year, doing 4 sector days and 6 on 2 off duties, and I was like a zombie.

We are trying to point this out BEFORE another accident occurs. It is about safety, pure and simple.

Desk-pilot

7th Nov 2013, 18:14

I'm curious given that the CAA regulates air traffic controllers why they think an air traffic controller can only work an hour or two without a break, why their shifts are limited to 6 hours and why they must have an hour break for lunch etc and yet the same CAA think it's quite safe for a pilot to work 11-12 hours continuously with no breaks and no lunch hour in a pressurised tube breathing thin air???

Is it as we always suspected that pilots are actually supermen compared to mere mortals, criss crossing the globe and rising before dawn day after day with barely a trace of a yawn...

I think not - hypocrisy - that's what it is and a complete lack of concern for either the welfare of staff or the safety of the travelling public by the airlines, the regulators and the politicians.

I spent over ten years as a manager in a very large UK company running multi-million pound projects and never did I feel as completely tired as I have done many times while at the controls of an airliner...

The simple reality is that as a pilot you just never get into a routine of sleep the way you can as an office worker and therein lies the problem...

Mr Angry from Purley

7th Nov 2013, 19:13

"Fatigued, you mean tired perhaps or suffer some sleepyness"

So Mr Bangly me Surely, in your opinion if is just sleepIness than it is acceptable to operate an aircraft?

Oxford dictionary definition " extreme tiredness resulting from mental or physical exertion or illness"

So according to the definition fatigue is caused by someone being tired. Do 6 mornings in a row, starting 4 in the morning, and you see gradually as the days go by, that you just get more and more tired, example the week before it's a mix of early and late flights, do you believe our body magically can switch a button getting used to these different times?

It is a part of the job, but it also shows stupidity beyond what is normal, these guys / girls who do the planning should try it for a month themselves, and than see what they they think of it.

No its not my opinion Trucky its the view of sleep scientists. I was trying to highlight that Pilots always go for the F word rather than the S word.
Having a dig at the average scheduler on 16k-18k a year doesnt stack up either, they are guided by prescriptive rules. EASA FTL in the UK will be prescriptive rules morphed with FRMS so in my view (bearing in mind the title of the discussion) fatigue (sleepyness) levels will not increase. Thats my own view and a UK AOC pilots can only be perceived at this time. If we don't switch to EASA FTL I can't see another medium sized UK AOC ever again, something the bean counters (who i can assure you do care about their staff and put in more time than any pilot does) do care about. :\

Uplinker

11th Nov 2013, 09:39

Yeah, look, don't have a go at the planners or the rosterers - they are just doing what they are told.

It is the bosses and the system that is wrong. And these are driven by "market forces", (in other words, making as much profit as possible).

Why don't we complain about fatigue? Well we do, but the system is geared up against us. They might look into a fatigue report, but we cannot have a national or pan-European pilot's strike because the law prohibits it. So we are in a situation that we know is not right, but we cannot do much about it. The system is skewed to save money by having as few pilots and cabin crew as they can get away with. This means we are rostered up to the max and we are getting tired. As has been said, why are truck drivers mandated to stop after 4.5 hours (and have to prove it with their tachograph), and why must ATC have regular breaks? because everyone knows that the human brain cannot concentrate reliably for more than a few hours without having regular breaks.

But it's not necessarily fatigue. How on earth did a BA jet get airborne with both its engine cowls undone? About five different people (including the pilots) missed the fact they were unlatched. That was probably not fatigue as such, but sheer pressure of work.

In addition to this, flight crews spend a lot of their time in a dry atmosphere at 8,000' altitude. Any program one sees of mountain climbers can appreciate how much strain that puts on the human body. 1 hour at 8,000' is probably equivalent to 2 or more hours at ground level.

Pilots and cabin crew have slipped through the net. But in the old days, a crew might fly LGW to PMI then get off and night stop ! Now somehow, that has become LGW-PMI-LGW and do it all again for the next 5 days, starting at Oh dark o'clock, thank you very much.

The CAA seems to have completely missed the change in our situation. They come and sit on our jump seat for one afternoon on two short sectors and have a nice day, soaking up some of the "glamour", and drinking coffee. What we really need to happen is for the CAA to spend a couple of weeks sitting on the jump seat doing low cost short haul rosters - getting up at 0330 every day for 6 days doing four sector days, and another couple of weeks doing long haul bullets. Then let them say to us what they think of the hours we work and the lack of breaks we have.

The CAA in Gatwick work office hours in lovely offices. They get up at sensible times and go home at sensible times. They have regular rosters - they have weekends off. They have a lovely (subsidised) canteen with wholesome food, and lovely quiet surroundings. I do not begrudge them any of this, but I wish they would realise that our jobs are not like they used to be, and that in todays low cost environment; flight crews now need more protection, not less.

LLuCCiFeR

11th Nov 2013, 11:34

Amen! An excellent synopsis of the predicament we're in and one of the best posts I've seen on PPRuNE for a loooong time! :ok:

BOAC

11th Nov 2013, 12:02

But in the old days, a crew would fly LGW to PMI then get off and night stop !?? Who ever told you that?

Cough

11th Nov 2013, 12:30

BOAC - Probably the same crew that said we never did LGW-TLV-LGW...

BOAC

11th Nov 2013, 12:51

Ah yes - those were the days - running out of discretion report forms...........................

lederhosen

11th Nov 2013, 13:05

I have heard of people doing Cologne to Palma and back three times in a day in previous times! That people night stopped due to curfews etc. is correct. But it is also true that it sometimes involved sitting for a few hours on the plane! Avoiding this kind of thing is exactly why sensible FTLs are needed.

That things were not always rosy in the past does not however excuse the farce that occurred in Brussels with the recent vote. I was also surprised to learn that the regulations do not come into force for a couple of years.

fdr

1st Dec 2013, 08:37

CAP371: limits are not the asymptotes that the regulator assumes them to be... They naturally become targets. As the cost-benefit of pushing your luck is a system that has catastrophic but infrequent/exceptional events, then the fact that the companies, CAA's, passengers and crew "get away" with risky processes is a reinforcement of the assumption that all is well. Coupled with inherently dysfunctional reporting systems, that is endemic at all levels of society, (messengers are a, er, um, "target" audience.... ) in all countries... The people who can end up bleeding from the immediate consequences continue to be the bastions of operational safety, with minimal support.

How many companies give operational risk management, CRM, HF training to the CEO, managers, rostering staff etc? When did any of the EASA/EC senior management undertake same? Invariably, the bleeding edge manager, the pilot, is left to make the decision that the wheels have come off the wagon, with the mute, but imposing and menacing presence of the corporation, and with the indifference of the regulator. Passengers vote with their wallets, as do share holders, and the immediate, non lethal outcomes that "normally" occur are resented, yet, the pilot will be held solely accountable post disaster as not having the fortitude to prevail, and for being fallible. After all, the PIC is "in command".

FTL is an issue, but it is only one of the symptoms of a seriously flawed system. Keeping on topic, fatigue results in damage and losses, on a relatively routine basis. Back when I cared about such things, I recall 2 events of severe structural damage done in flight that were, factually, directly attributable to the crews fatigue, and additional high headcount fatalities where fatigue should have been held as the primary contributory factor, not further down the lists. In these cases, the forces of darkness failed to accept moral responsibility, or modify their practices to reduce their exposure to operational risk.

The industry relies on the boy scout mentality of the flight crew, with the added incentive of punitive sanctions applied outside of the stated policies, (in contravention of the policies and in breach of the obligations of post holders duty of care). Nothing wrong with being boy (girl) scouts, but if you take a stand, be prepared for the outrageous fortune that may result, recall that "Unity" may sound like a group ideal of cohesiveness, but also means "One".

Having been threatened personally by an AOC postholder for a company that has a global public reputation for doing better, "if you put in [a] safety report, "we" will get you...", I am under no illusions as to the nature of our industry. Truckflyer's post on the state of the union I am sadly in concurrence

It was written rather optimistically

"Though the vicious can sometimes pour affliction upon the good, their power is transient and their punishment certain; and that innocence, though oppressed by injustice, shall, supported by patience, finally triumph over misfortune!" Ann Radcliffe

Which is a good bed time tale, great fodder for subjugation, unsubstantiated by recorded history.... A salve to fears and a carrot to righteous behavior, it is, however, wrong. Even Burke was overly optimistic and simplistic, with "for evil to triumph... ", as "The end excuses any evil" Sophocles said, and, Steinem contends, "Evil is obvious only in retrospect."

Each one of us that assume the mantle of professionalism in this industry are individually and collectively, held responsible for a safety outcome that is compromised by the regulator and the operator to a significant extent. How we manage that may end up defining us. At the end of the day, you all get to look in the mirror and can see whether the decisions that are made are those that you are either proud of, or not. I can personally say that standing up for your beliefs will always come at a cost, but it is far less than being a statistic, or losing your self respect.

One prime minister of a land down-under once described pilots as "bus drivers", and he was wrong; bus drivers have more public interest in their welfare and that of the general travelling public than pilots have.

"Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful". Samuel Johnson

Mr Angry from Purley

1st Dec 2013, 13:07

UpL
As has been said before ATC and truck driver are one man band. If you need a break ask your colleague to look after shop for you, isn't that called CRM?

getting up at 0330 every day for 6 days doing four sector days, and another couple of weeks doing long haul bullets

Um - not sure too many charter airlines do 4 sector days, so which airline is left that does mixed short haul and long haul......

As i've said before hadn't EU FTL come in I would hav bet there would be no other medium sized AOC in the UK. You also fail to highlight that for example under EASA FTL the FDP for example in the afternoon is less. You also fail to mention that most medium / large sized UK AOC have Union agreements and are heavily investing in FRMS.
Yes, it is all hard work these days, if you dont like it go work for the CAA as an IOA

RAT 5

1st Dec 2013, 13:56

Um - not sure too many charter airlines do 4 sector days, so which airline is left that does mixed short haul and long haul......

RYR are now going to operate Canaries to Sweden. That is going to be >6.00 each way. The next day you could do the more normal multi-short sector day. !2 hours in an aluminium tube with no exercise, not even standing up, except for 5 minutes on the turn-round, seems like arduous long-haul to me. Proper single sector long-haul a/c have a cockpit big enough to stand up and stretch in. IMHO using short haul a/c for long-haul trips is not the most healthy of daily occupations. Been there, done that, in both types of a/c and so have much personal knowledge; before the usual slagging off along the lines of if you don't like then quit. I didn't & I have.

lederhosen

1st Dec 2013, 19:47

My last couple of days consisted of 23 hours duty, nearly 15 hours block, eight sectors. A six hour single canaries leg sounds pretty good as the rules current or future would not allow a return. (Two five hours sectors are of course another matter particularly when scheduled through the night as they frequently are.)

Captaintcas

1st Dec 2013, 22:29

Denti

2nd Dec 2013, 05:01

Six hour sectors are possible actually. 45 Minutes report time, 12 hours flight, 30 minutes turn around. Works like a charm in the RYR world. However it is only possible twice within seven days.

But there are still those airlines out there that fly a mix of long and shorthaul, air berlin for example does it on the MFF fleet (A330/A320).

lederhosen

2nd Dec 2013, 06:35

Thanks for the correction Denti, I think they actually manage 25 minute turnarounds by the way! I personally would still prefer six or seven days of that and the rest of the month free. But I guess the grass is always greener.

Skyjob

2nd Dec 2013, 08:40

lederhosen & denti, you are both correct it seems on turnaround times.
RYR seems to adopt turnaround time in excess of 25 minutes where required, even up to 45 minutes in IBZ in summer on some flights.

look at their schedule in Canaries and compare arrival from and departure to any of their bases, e.g. flights flown by crew from that base, and you will see a mix of 25/30/35...

RAT 5

2nd Dec 2013, 08:51

Nothing stops you from standing up, getting out of your seat and walk around the cabin every hour or so. I would even call this practice a necessity for your own, and thus your crew' and passenger's health and wellbeing.

Since locked cockpit doors all the airlines I've flown for this is an absolute No NO. So forget about crew's well-being. No sure how the pilot strolling around then cabin helps with pax well-being. The captain strolling around the cabin on long-haul flights and shaking hands with all and sundry has been a thing of the past for many years in the EU world and USA I suspect.

Amazingly, speaking to mates in various airlines, a B737 crew can do Canaries - Scandinavia up and back with only 2 pilots locked in their box for >6.00hrs before a very short leg stretch and then a repeat performance. Same is true for flights from N.Europe to Egypt or Gambia. Meanwhile a long-haul carrier from the national carriers, with an a/c designed for the job and thus large cockpit, does a 12.00hr single sector with 3 pilots and bunks, even down to S.Africa with no time change. Go figure.

Aluminium shuffler

2nd Dec 2013, 10:17

A very good post by fdr at 308, I think. There is a complacency in the media and public that aviation is regulated to the highest standards and is safe, and so swallow the bait when any CEO trots out the line that the company operates to the legal criteria. I too have faced the wrath of a Chief Pilot when I was grounded by a doctor for chronic fatigue and refused to let crewing sign me of as sick instead of fatigued. The industry will punish those who do the right thing in this instance, and the authorities are wilfully turning a blind eye.

The authorities don't seem interested that limits are now targets, and that there are many ingenious re(mis)-interpretations or subtle floutings of regulations. Look at the disinterested replies in Chirp to see the casual disregard for safety by the authorities... No wonder fatigue events are rarely reported, with disdain form the authorities and punishment from management, why would anyone put their neck on the block with no chance of positive change and every chance of retribution?

The FTL schemes also seem to have been written with long haul in mind and provide little protection for multi-sector days, especially in airlines who give little ground support to their crews at ill-equipped minor airports.