Mr Pony, you are quite right, a host of eminent experts were consulted. They produced a thing called The Moebus Report, which vindicated much of the existing CAP371 limts on crew fatigue.

The problem we have is that this report has been largely ignored in the drafting of the final proposals. The airlines, with Mr O'Leary leading the charge, produced their own 'scientists' that, surprise, surprise, produced a report that challenged most of the Moebus conclusions. It is this second report that is used as the 'science' behind the EASA proposals.

Remember, 'consulted' does not mean the same as 'listened to'.

RV - Mobeus Trips
 

As stated am no expert.

So, how does the final proposal differ from the Mobeus report?

Saying that one set of scientists produces something scientific whereas another, whose results are unpopular, has an unscientific product is very unsatisfactory without some evidence.

The proposals are in an extremely long and almost impenetrable submission by the EASA. It is not easy to give a concise reply to how they differ from a report as there is so much in them, most of which does not involve fatigue and its management.

But in essence, on the subject of fatigue, the proposals do not acknowledge the indepndent scientific evidence that was used to create the Moebus report, or even CAP371. For example, time on standby can no longer be included in duty time calculations. Theoretically you can be on standby all day and then, 10 minutes before the standby ends, be called out on a maximum duty day, as if you had just been woken after a full nights sleep. The restrictions on the maximum numbers of night duties and duty hours in a set period of time have been revised upwards, redefined or just ignored altogether. The list goes on and on.

CAP371 has the credibility of independent scientific scrutiny. It didn't 'just happen' but was created in 1970 by a committee chaired by Douglas Bader in response to concerns in the airline industry that crew fatigue lacked a formalised framework over what was and what was not reasonable and safe. Since then it has been revised, reviewed and updated in the light of new technology, new research and airline pressure.

None of these claims could be made by the EASA about their proposals. CAP371 is not a cosy little protectionist pocket to protect spanish practices in the airline industry. It affords those who do the job, day in and day out, with a measure of protection against the undeniably fatiguing nature of our job. The limitations within it have often been bought, quite literally, with blood.

The UK airline industry is at the forefront, globally, of commercial innovation and competitiveness. We achieve this with one of the highest levels of safety in the world, and within the limtations of CAP371. I, for one, would need to see utterly convincing evidence of necessity, before condoning any reduction in the safety regime we currently enjoy.

Mr P, its not the 'scientific' or 'unscientific' bit that worries me, but the independence of that science.

If the potato marketing board produced a 'scientific' report saying that eating chips was good for you, you would take it with a pinch of salt (as it were!)

Well here we have the same. The pilots unions and the CAA haven't banded together to produce the Moebus reort, it was produced at the behest of the EASA. It back up much of CAP371, again produced by scientists independent of the industry. The 'scientific' research submitted by the Association of Airline operators does not fall into that category.

There is a world of difference between an independent scientific paper that is peer reviewed and one written by a scientist for a lobby group with no peer review and for pay. The EU commissioned the Moebus report, then decided it did not fit in with what they wanted and decided to ignore it in favour of "science" done for the Airlines - hardly independent or unbiased or peer reviewed.

RV/JT
 

Great stuff - thanks.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm just curious really and am in no way implying that the Pilot community is anything less than properly motivated but when it is suggested that flight safety regulations are either unscientific or supported by science coming from a less than objective source, I find it deeply disturbing. We all know how science, like statistics, can be used to manipulate the truth.

If, as you suggest, the basis for the new reg's is not to be trusted then you have a professional duty to strike rather than observe them - get BASSA round the table and go for it together! But it won't come to that. I don't think you'll find that the extreme examples you give will ever materialise in your contract.

JT you say that the science the reg's are based on is:

written by a scientist for a lobby group with no peer review and for pay.........hardly independent or unbiased

What makes you say that?

RV
 

Actually RV your example:

..... time on standby can no longer be included in duty time calculations. Theoretically you can be on standby all day and then, 10 minutes before the standby ends, be called out on a maximum duty day, as if you had just been woken after a full nights sleep

....is, I believe, wrong. Please point out the relevant clause.

Interesting though Mobeus and EASA may be, what relevance does it have to the current dispute?

There is evidence BASSA has failed in its duty of care to inform its members, no change there, and obviously its lobbying activities have been minimal; another dereliction of duty.

But being a change in legislation/regulation it doesn't seem in any way connected to the current dispute.

- where are the accounts which must by law be made available on Tuesday 15 March?

- what is the feeling amongst crew about how the ballot will go (still estimating support of 5,000 cabin crew?)?

- has BASSA properly explained to its members what unsupported strike action is?

- is there any further news on Keith Williams recent meetings with McCluskey as he seeks a way out of the tricky situation BASSA have put Unite in?

VK,
No news but our new CEO KW is making himself available in our Report Centre every morning for the next two weeks before he starts work, early in the morning, specifically to talk to cabin crew, to find out how they feel and what would end this dispute.

I am sad because I wont be in work at the times he is there but I think it is fantastic that he is doing this and I really like his style of management. It is a breath of fresh air for me and I know a lot of other crew feel the same way.

Everyone should run with you on that BG. In fact I think you can all hang your hat on it. :ok:

Beware the smiling assassin!

I don't think so 'arem' and I have to say that a lot of us don't actually want him to give in to Bassa anyway.

We have been through so much because of them, the last thing we want is them lording around declaring a victory.

He is talking to ALL crew with all sorts of views and it is a good step forward and then he will again meet with Len.

I am optimistic that his attitude and it is totally different, will go some way to end all this.

A positive working relationship requires all sides to put in the effort to make it work, so at least give KW the benefit of the doubt, and let's hope his appointment as CEO can be a juncture for everyone to move forward.

Well, Holley's been busy these past few days uploading his old photos to flickr:

self-portrait via a matchbox | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lo...line/02_01.jpg

Well so far I am very pleased with what he is doing and it has made me more optimistic than I have been in a long time.

So fingers crossed X

Yes, I agree KW is doing good things, and Red Len seems desperate to extricate himself and BA's cabin crew from this mess. The link referred to DH.

EASA - Last Post off-thread
 

There is nothing to suggest that the new proposals have no scientific basis, or that their introduction will herald a rolling back of safety standards related to fatigue of air crew. Both these claims are made by BALPA on its website and have been repeated and regurgitated on this forum.
P.S. As SLF I am disappointed to note that the the dire proclamations made by FD about the EASA proposals turn out to be rather overblown. It's the shroud-waving I object to most. As for the attitudes of some FD about CC - the words condescending and presumptuous come to mind amongst many others.

So what happens when the 15 March deadline for BASSA making its accounts available to members passes...?

VK
 

Unless the Certification Officer has received a complaint from someone entitled to see the accounts, nothing. BASSA can carry on regardless unless it is challenged by the relevant authority.

BASSAwitch? Your guess as good as mine. Silenced by the 'mob'? Proceeding quietly with necessary legal moves?

VK
 

See CC thread. Hopefully we will start to see some answers soon