EU plans to change Flight Time limitations
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Abeam the Trent and Mersey!
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I live on the constituency boundary of 2 wards, one red controlled and the other blue. Outraged by the Simpson FTL proposals, I wrote to both MP’s. Not long afterwards, I received a letter from both MP’s. Both MP’s forwarded my letter to the transport minister and the shadow minister respectively and then forwarded their respective replies back to me. The body of the letters from the transport minister and shadow minister were exactly the same. The style of the reply acknowledged my concern, was dismissive in style and contained ‘cut and paste’ extracts of the ANO stating it was my responsibility not to fly when tired.
I accused the government of sponsoring (CAP 371) limitations that were contrary to their own guidelines on Health and Safety. I informed the government that the new European FTL proposals were more of a political compromise than a well thought out set of rules designed to protect the flying public. I also strongly felt that any new set of proposals should include a scientifically base fatigue index to exonerate flight crew making decisions on their well being when they are least capable of making such a decision due to fatigue. To support my reasoning, I used many of the subject matters posted on these forums. I compared the effects of fatigue to the effects of consuming alcohol. I highlighted all the weaknesses in CAP 371 that operators take advantage of (18 to 30 hours between duties, check in 5 to a limit time etc, etc). I highlighted physiological points like circadian rhythms and the fact that sleep is not an on command function of the body. I also stated the regulations regarding the self management of rest are based on such strong circular reasoning, (a form of bullying?) it is almost impossible for conscientious flight crew to declare them self tired.
You may think that I would be disappointed having spent so much time and effort writing my concerns to the government only to have an ill conceived set of regulations pushed through Europe. I am disappointed about the regulation but by writing to my MP I have registered my concern about fatigue issues.
Many of you feel strongly about these regulations. Write to your MP. Even if the government does nothing, you have the letter for ever and the day Heaven forbid any of you should have an incident in the future but if you have a written to your MP expressing your concern over FTL’s, you could have your first line of defence at the subsequent inquiry.
I accused the government of sponsoring (CAP 371) limitations that were contrary to their own guidelines on Health and Safety. I informed the government that the new European FTL proposals were more of a political compromise than a well thought out set of rules designed to protect the flying public. I also strongly felt that any new set of proposals should include a scientifically base fatigue index to exonerate flight crew making decisions on their well being when they are least capable of making such a decision due to fatigue. To support my reasoning, I used many of the subject matters posted on these forums. I compared the effects of fatigue to the effects of consuming alcohol. I highlighted all the weaknesses in CAP 371 that operators take advantage of (18 to 30 hours between duties, check in 5 to a limit time etc, etc). I highlighted physiological points like circadian rhythms and the fact that sleep is not an on command function of the body. I also stated the regulations regarding the self management of rest are based on such strong circular reasoning, (a form of bullying?) it is almost impossible for conscientious flight crew to declare them self tired.
You may think that I would be disappointed having spent so much time and effort writing my concerns to the government only to have an ill conceived set of regulations pushed through Europe. I am disappointed about the regulation but by writing to my MP I have registered my concern about fatigue issues.
Many of you feel strongly about these regulations. Write to your MP. Even if the government does nothing, you have the letter for ever and the day Heaven forbid any of you should have an incident in the future but if you have a written to your MP expressing your concern over FTL’s, you could have your first line of defence at the subsequent inquiry.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point!! Never thought about that!
but if you have a written to your MP expressing your concern over FTL’s, you could have your first line of defence at the subsequent inquiry.
but if you have a written to your MP expressing your concern over FTL’s, you could have your first line of defence at the subsequent inquiry.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's amazing that such a safety concious issue is treated in such a manner. Even more amazing that it has been allowed by the unions to have reached this far. Compare unions in other industries, and all EU countries, and ask yourselves if their heirarchy would have allowed this farce to have developed. They would have had spokespeople on TV and held interviews to put the case to the public, and for sure, there would have been a national strike ballot hovering in the background. As said before, this mess has been simmering for over 10 years with 'square root of fanny all' having been achieved on behalf of the crews. Meanwhile, hard earned subs have been swelling the coffers of unions. In this day of competition how come so many have the common 1% as a sub. Extraordinary if they all have the same cost base. Cartel finances.
However, when 'farthers for access' and 'pro-hunting lobby' can storm the Houses of Parliament; when lorry drivers can blockade roads and fuel depo's in protest at rising prices, when taxi drivers and can organise prosessions of protest, it makes the silent whinging of aircrew seem pathetic. You're correct, it is a PR thing; so where are the union fat cats?
If this issue does not raise the hackles of aircrew in general, and cause a tide of protest on the streets, then nothing will. Not only does this attack the heart of the so-called 'safety culture' of the industry, if attacks the heart of reasonable quaility of life for the employees. The public are not stupid, and when they here the truth of cost cutting etc, they will remember the parallel with the railways and cringe in horror.
However, when 'farthers for access' and 'pro-hunting lobby' can storm the Houses of Parliament; when lorry drivers can blockade roads and fuel depo's in protest at rising prices, when taxi drivers and can organise prosessions of protest, it makes the silent whinging of aircrew seem pathetic. You're correct, it is a PR thing; so where are the union fat cats?
If this issue does not raise the hackles of aircrew in general, and cause a tide of protest on the streets, then nothing will. Not only does this attack the heart of the so-called 'safety culture' of the industry, if attacks the heart of reasonable quaility of life for the employees. The public are not stupid, and when they here the truth of cost cutting etc, they will remember the parallel with the railways and cringe in horror.
Alba Gu Brath
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Merseyside
Age: 55
Posts: 738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rat 5
. But they will still go out and by the cheapest ticket they can! Unfortunately everone wants a bargain in life. Peoples perception of value for money relies heavily on how much something costs.
and when they hear the truth of cost cutting etc, they will remember the parallel with the railways and cringe in horror.
I've only made a few posts so I don't feel the need to order a Personal Title and help support PPRuNe
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, for heavens sake! If you're going to whinge about "...it has been allowed by the unions to have reached this far." then at least do your research properly. BALPA has been lobbying the various ministers since it was first raised. There was even a protest in Brussels and how many members of BALPA do you think turned up? Did you go? No but you are prepared to have a whinge about the union not doing enough.
Have you ever tried lobbying your MP? I doubt it. Have you ever tried to get an agenda on to the news? I doubt it. Just issuing a press release from time to time doesn't do it. Try organising a press conference and see how you fare trying to attract anyone to cover it.
As for wailing about Fathers4Justice or the fox hunting brigade... have we seen you doing anything outrageous, probably illegal and generating publicity for the "cause"? Again... nope!
It's precisely because we are not a bunch of hot-heads that it is so much more difficult to generate enthusiasm to do anything more than the daily grind of multi sector flying. The new rules won't affect our working hours because CAP 371 is more restrictive. What it will affect though is the ability of UK based AOC holders to operate profitably because non-UK based AOC operators will work their crews to the less restrictive EU FTL's with the subsequent better utilisation of their aircraft.
What the unenthusiastic UK pilots can't be arsed to do anything about is the long term problem for us which will be the lobbying power that the operators will put on the government and the Campaign Against Aviation is to relax CAP 371 rules and make them less restrictive to fall into line with Euro practice. It will happen, but until then no one will be arsed to make an effort about it until it's too late.
So RAT 5, are we going to see you lobbing flour bombs from the spectators gallery in the house of commons or dressing up in a batman outfit and scaling Betty's bedroom balcony? Probably not. Are you going to go to the next demonstration by pilots against the new rules?
Have you ever tried lobbying your MP? I doubt it. Have you ever tried to get an agenda on to the news? I doubt it. Just issuing a press release from time to time doesn't do it. Try organising a press conference and see how you fare trying to attract anyone to cover it.
As for wailing about Fathers4Justice or the fox hunting brigade... have we seen you doing anything outrageous, probably illegal and generating publicity for the "cause"? Again... nope!
It's precisely because we are not a bunch of hot-heads that it is so much more difficult to generate enthusiasm to do anything more than the daily grind of multi sector flying. The new rules won't affect our working hours because CAP 371 is more restrictive. What it will affect though is the ability of UK based AOC holders to operate profitably because non-UK based AOC operators will work their crews to the less restrictive EU FTL's with the subsequent better utilisation of their aircraft.
What the unenthusiastic UK pilots can't be arsed to do anything about is the long term problem for us which will be the lobbying power that the operators will put on the government and the Campaign Against Aviation is to relax CAP 371 rules and make them less restrictive to fall into line with Euro practice. It will happen, but until then no one will be arsed to make an effort about it until it's too late.
So RAT 5, are we going to see you lobbing flour bombs from the spectators gallery in the house of commons or dressing up in a batman outfit and scaling Betty's bedroom balcony? Probably not. Are you going to go to the next demonstration by pilots against the new rules?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lord Lucan
You raised the subject of how your hours compare to say a nucleur operator. I assume you mean somthing like a nucleur power station. I suggest you don't even think of going there. You fly maybe 800 hours a year. They do about 2000 on the sharp end for less pay than you with no maximum hours and 12 hour night shifts often as standard, plus if the morning shift don't turn up they don't go home, and that's the UK. Any surprsise many industrial disasters, Chernobyl, flix borough, 3 mile island tend to happen in the grave yard shift?
Train drivers, pretty much the same, but regularly are 'at work' for over 12 hours without travelling time. Lorry drivers, surprisingly, somewhat more regulated. I can't remember the actual hours at present despite having a class 1 HGV, but it adds up to an awful lot more than 800 hours a year. Just stick it in your calculator 800/52, thats 15 hours a week. Most lorry drivers do over 40 hours actual driving. Loading etc comes on top.
Flight crew are VERY LUCKY that their working day is duty hours not flying hours. How would you like 2000 hours flying?
The problem is that you think aviators are hard done by. If you try to get sympathy from MPs and £20K lorry drivers you may find some what less sympathy than you hoped for! That doesn't mean we should not defend what has been hard won though.
You raised the subject of how your hours compare to say a nucleur operator. I assume you mean somthing like a nucleur power station. I suggest you don't even think of going there. You fly maybe 800 hours a year. They do about 2000 on the sharp end for less pay than you with no maximum hours and 12 hour night shifts often as standard, plus if the morning shift don't turn up they don't go home, and that's the UK. Any surprsise many industrial disasters, Chernobyl, flix borough, 3 mile island tend to happen in the grave yard shift?
Train drivers, pretty much the same, but regularly are 'at work' for over 12 hours without travelling time. Lorry drivers, surprisingly, somewhat more regulated. I can't remember the actual hours at present despite having a class 1 HGV, but it adds up to an awful lot more than 800 hours a year. Just stick it in your calculator 800/52, thats 15 hours a week. Most lorry drivers do over 40 hours actual driving. Loading etc comes on top.
Flight crew are VERY LUCKY that their working day is duty hours not flying hours. How would you like 2000 hours flying?
The problem is that you think aviators are hard done by. If you try to get sympathy from MPs and £20K lorry drivers you may find some what less sympathy than you hoped for! That doesn't mean we should not defend what has been hard won though.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to Sunday Times (Travel section 19/12/04) flying is no longer a taxing job and therefore pilots have no excuse for fatigue. The advanced technology used nowadays and inflight rest means the claims are unfounded. Interesting. Maybe the truth hurts???
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Angry there was a potentially serious incident a few months ago when both pilots were woken up by the GPWS during an ILS approach to a southern UK airport at the end of a night flight. The resultant adrenaline rush enabled them to successfully complete the second approach.
jerrystinger: "inflight rest"? On an 11.5 hour/4 sector day at any of the low cost airlines? Try it, then you might change your opinion! "Truth hurts" indeed!
jerrystinger: "inflight rest"? On an 11.5 hour/4 sector day at any of the low cost airlines? Try it, then you might change your opinion! "Truth hurts" indeed!
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We need to look very carefully at what Subpart Q is and what it apparently sets out to achieve.
It opens with a section titled "FLIGHT AND DUTY TIME LIMITATIONS AND REST REQUIREMENTS" and requires an operator to establish a flight and duty time limitations and rest scheme. Compare that to the title of the UK CAA CAP371.Titled "The avoidance of fatigue in Aircrews".
Throughout its "objectives and scope" subpart Q does not identify that the avoidance of fatigue is its purpose, and the employer or operator is not required to produce a roster that takes account of fatigue. The only person or persons who are responsible for fatigue in the whole of Subpart Q are identified in paragraph 4 headed "Crew Member’s responsibilities".
"4.1 A crew member shall not operate an aeroplane if he/she knows that he/she is suffering from or is likely to suffer from fatigue or feels unwell, to the extent that the flight might be endangered"
It follows therefore that Subpart Q has not been published to minimise fatigue, but is simply a common maximum limit for duty and flight times within Europe. This is reinforced by Article 8a paragraph 1 "Within a period of three years following the entry into force of the present Regulation, the European Aviation Safety Agency will proceed to a scientific and medical evaluation of the provisions of Annex III, Subpart Q" The clear inference of this paragraph is that Subpart Q is not the same as, or could replace CAP371, but it might be some time in the future.
This leaves aircrew with a problem. They are required by "Q" not to fly while fatigued, but given no scientific or medical guidance on which to base their judgement. Surely the answer is for ECA to provide guidance. I would suggest that as it is impossible for crews not rostered to CAP371 to adopt its guidelines on fatigue unless the companies agree to roster to 371 limits. The alternative is for the ECA to use the medical and scientific evidence that they already possess to produce a software programme that enables pilots not covered by "avoidance of fatigue" rules to enter their rostered and actual duties and provide guidance as to whether the rostered duty is liable to cause fatigue. If it was found to be so the obligation of "Q" is clear. The aircrew is legally obliged by Subpart Q not do the duty. More importantly, complying with "Q" will not absolve the crew from flying while fatigued because it clearly isn't designed to do so.
It opens with a section titled "FLIGHT AND DUTY TIME LIMITATIONS AND REST REQUIREMENTS" and requires an operator to establish a flight and duty time limitations and rest scheme. Compare that to the title of the UK CAA CAP371.Titled "The avoidance of fatigue in Aircrews".
Throughout its "objectives and scope" subpart Q does not identify that the avoidance of fatigue is its purpose, and the employer or operator is not required to produce a roster that takes account of fatigue. The only person or persons who are responsible for fatigue in the whole of Subpart Q are identified in paragraph 4 headed "Crew Member’s responsibilities".
"4.1 A crew member shall not operate an aeroplane if he/she knows that he/she is suffering from or is likely to suffer from fatigue or feels unwell, to the extent that the flight might be endangered"
It follows therefore that Subpart Q has not been published to minimise fatigue, but is simply a common maximum limit for duty and flight times within Europe. This is reinforced by Article 8a paragraph 1 "Within a period of three years following the entry into force of the present Regulation, the European Aviation Safety Agency will proceed to a scientific and medical evaluation of the provisions of Annex III, Subpart Q" The clear inference of this paragraph is that Subpart Q is not the same as, or could replace CAP371, but it might be some time in the future.
This leaves aircrew with a problem. They are required by "Q" not to fly while fatigued, but given no scientific or medical guidance on which to base their judgement. Surely the answer is for ECA to provide guidance. I would suggest that as it is impossible for crews not rostered to CAP371 to adopt its guidelines on fatigue unless the companies agree to roster to 371 limits. The alternative is for the ECA to use the medical and scientific evidence that they already possess to produce a software programme that enables pilots not covered by "avoidance of fatigue" rules to enter their rostered and actual duties and provide guidance as to whether the rostered duty is liable to cause fatigue. If it was found to be so the obligation of "Q" is clear. The aircrew is legally obliged by Subpart Q not do the duty. More importantly, complying with "Q" will not absolve the crew from flying while fatigued because it clearly isn't designed to do so.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Say the F word, Fatigue,
Some companies push you way past the legal limits now, by twisting the regulations and wordings to make them seem correct.
Damn near have to be a lawyer to prove you are correct.
Some companies push you way past the legal limits now, by twisting the regulations and wordings to make them seem correct.
Damn near have to be a lawyer to prove you are correct.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montsegur
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Throughout its "objectives and scope" subpart Q does not identify that the avoidance of fatigue is its purpose, and the employer or operator is not required to produce a roster that takes account of fatigue. The only person or persons who are responsible for fatigue in the whole of Subpart Q are identified in paragraph 4 headed "Crew Member’s responsibilities".
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cathar
You are right in which case they would have to have a programme that takes account of fatigue because the limits set out in Q do not take account of scientific or medical evaluation.
You are right in which case they would have to have a programme that takes account of fatigue because the limits set out in Q do not take account of scientific or medical evaluation.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 73
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only ONE way to beat increase in Duty Hours
With reference to the proposed JAA regulations to increase duty hours, it becomes obvious that Governments are caving in to economic lobbying.
So aircrew must fight 'fire' with 'fire'.
To refuse to fly will place pilots' careers' at risk, a poor return (from a pilot's Bank manager's point of view) for possibly saving lives in any 'theoretical' impendng accident.
The best way forward surely is to join forces with Consumer pressure groups to force airlines to declare how long the crew have been on any sort of duty prior to the flight so the passenger at the gate can make his own decision (helped by BALPA adverts in Travel magazines). Of course the praticalities of this are fraught with problems especially in the light of delays due to maint problems et al; I am sure some bright person could work something out.
The end result should be airlines being blacklisted by consumer groups for non compliance to declare. The rest is left to the airlines who, being in cut-throat mode already will do anything the fare-paying passenger asks to sell a seat that may have gone to a competitor.
The consumer is the best weapon anyone can have in a service/transport industry.
So aircrew must fight 'fire' with 'fire'.
To refuse to fly will place pilots' careers' at risk, a poor return (from a pilot's Bank manager's point of view) for possibly saving lives in any 'theoretical' impendng accident.
The best way forward surely is to join forces with Consumer pressure groups to force airlines to declare how long the crew have been on any sort of duty prior to the flight so the passenger at the gate can make his own decision (helped by BALPA adverts in Travel magazines). Of course the praticalities of this are fraught with problems especially in the light of delays due to maint problems et al; I am sure some bright person could work something out.
The end result should be airlines being blacklisted by consumer groups for non compliance to declare. The rest is left to the airlines who, being in cut-throat mode already will do anything the fare-paying passenger asks to sell a seat that may have gone to a competitor.
The consumer is the best weapon anyone can have in a service/transport industry.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our union has already resisted management who wanted to impose a definition of OFF daywhich would have gone over and above what Q is proposing.... We told them that it would violate all known studies on fatigue. the UK cap 371, local laws, our CLA etc etc ..... They still went ahead and employed other non-EU pilots to man the operation.....
I'm afraid we're fighting a losing battle against greedy pigs.....
Maybe, just maybe, when both pilots fall asleep, they will have their answer......
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UpNorth!!
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the post-smoking hole enquiry, it is easy to say through toxicology that a pilot had alcohol in their blood stream. Fatigue is much more difficult to prove.
Companys like the fatigue argument because, if a pilot rings up crewing and says I am fatigued, Whoops there goes the career. If you do have a crash, well it's not the company's fault as the pilot should not have flown in accordance with the ANO. Also how do you prove it?? was the roster they flew legal? Aha the "Too Difficult" argument therefore the result must be pilot error.
I must admit that I do get fed up from non-aviators who do not experience 12 hour days with constant disruption to sleep patterns making comments on something they know nothing about. Having worked on building sites and on power stations, I know what hard physical labour is, but it is the mental tiredness that is hardest to cope with and will ultimately lead to fatalities!!
Companys like the fatigue argument because, if a pilot rings up crewing and says I am fatigued, Whoops there goes the career. If you do have a crash, well it's not the company's fault as the pilot should not have flown in accordance with the ANO. Also how do you prove it?? was the roster they flew legal? Aha the "Too Difficult" argument therefore the result must be pilot error.
I must admit that I do get fed up from non-aviators who do not experience 12 hour days with constant disruption to sleep patterns making comments on something they know nothing about. Having worked on building sites and on power stations, I know what hard physical labour is, but it is the mental tiredness that is hardest to cope with and will ultimately lead to fatalities!!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The understanding I have is that if a Countries FTL is more restrictive in certain areas it can be imposed over the Sub Part Q.
In effect CAP371 will sit inside Sub Part Q and UK airlines will not see any significant gains. Those Countries who will loose out are those who have less rigid schemes, and those who have higher limits, i think Portugal and Spain have been mentioned.
This will still not see a level playing field but after 20 years or so of managing without a EU FTL do we really care anymore?.
In effect CAP371 will sit inside Sub Part Q and UK airlines will not see any significant gains. Those Countries who will loose out are those who have less rigid schemes, and those who have higher limits, i think Portugal and Spain have been mentioned.
This will still not see a level playing field but after 20 years or so of managing without a EU FTL do we really care anymore?.
