EU plans to change Flight Time limitations
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BALPA newspaper ads
BALPA has a half-page ad in today's Times protesting about proposed new regulations on pilots' hours. Not much detail in the ads - can anyone fill me in on the background?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sussex
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EU Pilots threaten to strike
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...263025,00.html
Anybody have more specific information, what hours exactly are being talked about??
Anybody have more specific information, what hours exactly are being talked about??
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This advert also appears on page 7 of today's Daily Telegraph - the favourite digest of Atlantic Barons at 30W.
To understand a little of this long story, please refer to
www.jaa.nl - the website of the Joint Aviation Authorities. This is the consortium of European & near neighbour authorities who have published common regulations for the general running of aviation in their countries. Unfortunately common flight time limitations (FTLs) for aircrew could not be agreed, so subpart Q of JARs says that each country chooses its own. In the case of UK this was CAP 371 which translated in our Ops Manual to Chapter 7 of Part A. UK FTLs are based on report time, number of sectors to be flown and whether or not acclimatised to the local time zone. Other countries in Europe - Italy for example - allowed considerably longer duty days.
Despite considerable medical evidence and exhaustive research, the JAA have adopted a very dubious approach which most airline unions believe to be wrong, hence the adverts.
I hope this summary - all from memory - will be a starting point for some more informed comment
Cheers, Y
To understand a little of this long story, please refer to
www.jaa.nl - the website of the Joint Aviation Authorities. This is the consortium of European & near neighbour authorities who have published common regulations for the general running of aviation in their countries. Unfortunately common flight time limitations (FTLs) for aircrew could not be agreed, so subpart Q of JARs says that each country chooses its own. In the case of UK this was CAP 371 which translated in our Ops Manual to Chapter 7 of Part A. UK FTLs are based on report time, number of sectors to be flown and whether or not acclimatised to the local time zone. Other countries in Europe - Italy for example - allowed considerably longer duty days.
Despite considerable medical evidence and exhaustive research, the JAA have adopted a very dubious approach which most airline unions believe to be wrong, hence the adverts.
I hope this summary - all from memory - will be a starting point for some more informed comment
Cheers, Y
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just caught part of this myself on SKY NEWS.
I may be wrong but BALPA is saying that they wont accept an increase in Flying/Duty hours.
Good for you Balpa.
This issue needs to be addressed.
I hope it goes to all European companies operating in and out of the UK.
This has been going on too long.
If you dont operate then your job is at risk.
Time for some accountability.
I may be wrong but BALPA is saying that they wont accept an increase in Flying/Duty hours.
Good for you Balpa.
This issue needs to be addressed.
I hope it goes to all European companies operating in and out of the UK.
This has been going on too long.
If you dont operate then your job is at risk.
Time for some accountability.
Last edited by Earl; 10th Dec 2004 at 16:14.
Is this a problem with proposals for JAR-OPS, where previously JAR has not been enforceable in Euro law, only when adopted by the home country or national authority?
Or, is this problem arising because EASA now runs Euro aviation; JAA is responsible to EASA for operational issues, but EASA can enshrine aviation rules in Euro law?
Whichever option applies it appears to be typical Euro thinking and regulation. Where there is difficulty in reaching an agreement, then the lowest common denominator is chosen. This invariably results in a reduction in safety standards. There are many examples in JAR-OPS, fortunately none as yet proven. However, as long as national authorities (with operator input) can alleviate the some of the novel JARs there is hope of marinating the current good level of safety.
Now we have EASA, lowest common denominator = lowest level of safety.
Or, is this problem arising because EASA now runs Euro aviation; JAA is responsible to EASA for operational issues, but EASA can enshrine aviation rules in Euro law?
Whichever option applies it appears to be typical Euro thinking and regulation. Where there is difficulty in reaching an agreement, then the lowest common denominator is chosen. This invariably results in a reduction in safety standards. There are many examples in JAR-OPS, fortunately none as yet proven. However, as long as national authorities (with operator input) can alleviate the some of the novel JARs there is hope of marinating the current good level of safety.
Now we have EASA, lowest common denominator = lowest level of safety.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done balpa. we need to give them all the support we can on this one.
In principle harmonising duty hours across Europe is a good thing -we should have a level playing field. But we must not simply drop safety standards to the lowest common denominator
In principle harmonising duty hours across Europe is a good thing -we should have a level playing field. But we must not simply drop safety standards to the lowest common denominator
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to get the perspective on this one sorted out, I have changed the title of the thread and include the details that are most likely to stimulate discussion from the BALPA website:
BALPA Press release:
BALPA's three main concerns with the proposed Flight Time Limitations Standard are:[list=1][*]The document is incomplete and will NOT achieve the real objective of harmonisation – take standby: In UK after 6 hours the amount a pilot can be called upon to fly progressively diminishes whereas in Germany pilots can be on standby for 24 hours continuously and after 23:55 can be called to fly for a full 12 hours. Practices like this (and there are many) will not be harmonised to a safe level or stopped.[*]It has been poorly drafted by politicians and civil servants who know nothing about this complex subject – It is akin to allowing a politician to write the manual on open heart surgery procedures.[*]It reduces an already interesting fatigue boundary – let's take an alcohol comparison. In the UK the fly/alcohol is set at an appropriately low 20mg/ml of blood. The drink drive limit in the UK is set at 80mg/ml. Interestingly and coincidentally the UK Fatigue boundary is equivalent not to the 20mg limit but to the 80mg drink drive limit. If we allow this political fudge to come into force the end result will be that pilots will be able to fly aircraft when their performance is so degraded that if it were due to alcohol and they'd been driving a car in the UK they'd be illegal. Surely that is completely unacceptable?[/list=1]
Warning to operators
What appears to have escaped many of the people commenting here is that whilst here in the UK we enjoy (I use the word reservedly) relatively safe Flight Time Limitations (FTL's) which have evolved over many years with research and input from scientific experts, the main problem now lies in the fact that whilse we in the UK who work for operators with a UK AOC will not see any changes, the door has been left open for other European operators to operate to the new rules.
Whilst these new rules may be an improvement for many pilots who work to FTL's that are considered to be little more than a 'nod and a wink' between their countries regulator and the operators, and are without a doubt a danger to not only the crews but also the passengers who fly on those airlines routes, they are still less restrictive than the UK rules.
The new rules will not increase the total number of flying hours in a year but will lead to fewer rest periods and longer flight duty hours. Market competition will compel airlines to follow the "poorly drafted and incomplete" EU rules.
What this means is that our esteemed (NOT) politicians who gave the go ahead for these new rules have shown their usual lack of ability and understanding and we will now have more non-UK European operators able to operate in competition with UK AOC based airlines and get what the bosses will consider to be more 'efficiency' from their pilots. What those singularly imbecilic politicians have set up is a platform for the UK AOC operators to argue that the rules should now be relaxed here in the UK so that they don't suffer from unfair competition.
What's the bet that the pongos who run the CAA will buckle under the pressure of the operators to relax the FTL rules and come into line with the rest of Europe? We all know who butters the bread of the CAA. Now we have politicians deciding on safety related matters without any scientific input. Basically it is the 'blind/ignorant' leading the CAA and only a matter of time before we see our current FTL's being eroded to even more unsafe levels.
BALPA Press release:
BRITISH PILOTS CONDEMN EU MOVE: CHALLENGE UK GOVERNMENT
TO PUT 'NOTHING WILL CHANGE' PROMISE IN WRITING
Pilot leaders have reacted with huge disappointment, dismay and disbelief to today's decision of the European Council of Ministers to adopt flying time rules that are unsafe, unscientific and a political fudge.
The British Airline Pilots' Association (BALPA) is concerned that market competition will compel airlines to follow the poorly drafted and incomplete EU rules and has already warned that if pilots are asked to fly hours which are unsafe then they will not take off.
The Council of Ministers' decision now puts the UK Government on a collision course, despite the British Government's promise that the UK will stick to the existing British rules irrespective of what Europe says.
Said BALPA Chairman Captain Mervyn Granshaw: 'We take our responsibility for public safety very seriously, and we don't deal in fudges.
'The Government has said the new rules won't change anything for UK airlines, but we have no confirmation of this, or of how long such a promise will last.
'The Government should come clean and confirm the position in writing, unequivocally, as well as explain to the public the logic of this appalling double standard. Pilots and passengers deserve nothing less.
'Our safety record in the UK is the best in Europe and should make us leaders in Europe, not followers. It is about time the UK Government set an example rather than join in this downhill race.'
TO PUT 'NOTHING WILL CHANGE' PROMISE IN WRITING
Pilot leaders have reacted with huge disappointment, dismay and disbelief to today's decision of the European Council of Ministers to adopt flying time rules that are unsafe, unscientific and a political fudge.
The British Airline Pilots' Association (BALPA) is concerned that market competition will compel airlines to follow the poorly drafted and incomplete EU rules and has already warned that if pilots are asked to fly hours which are unsafe then they will not take off.
The Council of Ministers' decision now puts the UK Government on a collision course, despite the British Government's promise that the UK will stick to the existing British rules irrespective of what Europe says.
Said BALPA Chairman Captain Mervyn Granshaw: 'We take our responsibility for public safety very seriously, and we don't deal in fudges.
'The Government has said the new rules won't change anything for UK airlines, but we have no confirmation of this, or of how long such a promise will last.
'The Government should come clean and confirm the position in writing, unequivocally, as well as explain to the public the logic of this appalling double standard. Pilots and passengers deserve nothing less.
'Our safety record in the UK is the best in Europe and should make us leaders in Europe, not followers. It is about time the UK Government set an example rather than join in this downhill race.'
Warning to operators
Sub part Q on Flight Duty Time
_These are the rules that may well regulate how many hours a pilot can fly. In the past these have been set by each country and in the UK they have progressively evolved since the 1972 Bader report based largely on scientific research and, as you are aware, are set by the UK Civil Aviation Authority under regulations guided by CAP371.
But on the 11th June - the very day after the European Parliamentary Elections in the U.K.- the Council of Ministers are being asked to set new European-wide rules that have less to do with science and more to do with political compromise. I am writing to advise you that if they are adopted as drafted they could well lead to disruption to operations where flight crew, in exercising their Licence provisions deem such operations unsafe.
A considerable amount of data has been collected over the past 20 years on the sleep and alertness of aircrew and the delivery, distribution and safety boundaries are widely understood._ The much respected European Committee for Aircrew Scheduling and Safety (ECASS Group) in a recent report concluded:
'Based on our current understanding of physiological and psychological factors contributing to fatigue in aviation operations, it is our view that there would be a significant increase in the risk of fatigue-related incidents and accidents if operators were permitted to operate to the limits specified in the EP-proposal.'
Our European umbrella organisation, the ECA, has written to the Commission pointing out where we believe science is being ignored and we are demanding that the European Parliament adheres to Article 95 (3) of the Treaty and uses the scientific evidence in drawing up laws. We have proposed changes to sub-part Q where we believe science is not being used. We have been pressing these points on Alistair Darling, as are our ECA colleagues on their Transport Ministers.
We do not think it enough to say that the UK will be immune from these changes; we are not. There will be pressure from Operators basing themselves in other countries that do not have the standards, or safety record, that we have in the UK. And, in any event, safety should be taken out of the competition equation, which is why we are pressing for scientifically based EU regulations.
Nor is this is about protectionism or restrictive practices; we need to be productive and competitive but not at the expense of safety. Indeed CAP749 from the Economic Regulation Group recently showed how we in the UK have exploited liberalisation.
So why is there potential for disruption to your operations? You should know that sub part Q contains provision 4.1 which says:
"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 unfit, to the extent that the flight may be endangered"
There are of course echoes of this in the ANO and, as we have seen over the Police Sky Marshal issue, in the event that these new provisions are enacted we will be supporting members who decide not to operate for the above reason. Our European pilot colleagues will be doing likewise.
We urge you to:
Thank you for your time and if you wish to find out more please visit our website www.balpa.org
Yours sincerely,
Jim McAuslan
General Secretary
_These are the rules that may well regulate how many hours a pilot can fly. In the past these have been set by each country and in the UK they have progressively evolved since the 1972 Bader report based largely on scientific research and, as you are aware, are set by the UK Civil Aviation Authority under regulations guided by CAP371.
But on the 11th June - the very day after the European Parliamentary Elections in the U.K.- the Council of Ministers are being asked to set new European-wide rules that have less to do with science and more to do with political compromise. I am writing to advise you that if they are adopted as drafted they could well lead to disruption to operations where flight crew, in exercising their Licence provisions deem such operations unsafe.
A considerable amount of data has been collected over the past 20 years on the sleep and alertness of aircrew and the delivery, distribution and safety boundaries are widely understood._ The much respected European Committee for Aircrew Scheduling and Safety (ECASS Group) in a recent report concluded:
'Based on our current understanding of physiological and psychological factors contributing to fatigue in aviation operations, it is our view that there would be a significant increase in the risk of fatigue-related incidents and accidents if operators were permitted to operate to the limits specified in the EP-proposal.'
Our European umbrella organisation, the ECA, has written to the Commission pointing out where we believe science is being ignored and we are demanding that the European Parliament adheres to Article 95 (3) of the Treaty and uses the scientific evidence in drawing up laws. We have proposed changes to sub-part Q where we believe science is not being used. We have been pressing these points on Alistair Darling, as are our ECA colleagues on their Transport Ministers.
We do not think it enough to say that the UK will be immune from these changes; we are not. There will be pressure from Operators basing themselves in other countries that do not have the standards, or safety record, that we have in the UK. And, in any event, safety should be taken out of the competition equation, which is why we are pressing for scientifically based EU regulations.
Nor is this is about protectionism or restrictive practices; we need to be productive and competitive but not at the expense of safety. Indeed CAP749 from the Economic Regulation Group recently showed how we in the UK have exploited liberalisation.
So why is there potential for disruption to your operations? You should know that sub part Q contains provision 4.1 which says:
"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 unfit, to the extent that the flight may be endangered"
There are of course echoes of this in the ANO and, as we have seen over the Police Sky Marshal issue, in the event that these new provisions are enacted we will be supporting members who decide not to operate for the above reason. Our European pilot colleagues will be doing likewise.
We urge you to:
- [*]
- [*]
Thank you for your time and if you wish to find out more please visit our website www.balpa.org
Yours sincerely,
Jim McAuslan
General Secretary
Whilst these new rules may be an improvement for many pilots who work to FTL's that are considered to be little more than a 'nod and a wink' between their countries regulator and the operators, and are without a doubt a danger to not only the crews but also the passengers who fly on those airlines routes, they are still less restrictive than the UK rules.
The new rules will not increase the total number of flying hours in a year but will lead to fewer rest periods and longer flight duty hours. Market competition will compel airlines to follow the "poorly drafted and incomplete" EU rules.
What this means is that our esteemed (NOT) politicians who gave the go ahead for these new rules have shown their usual lack of ability and understanding and we will now have more non-UK European operators able to operate in competition with UK AOC based airlines and get what the bosses will consider to be more 'efficiency' from their pilots. What those singularly imbecilic politicians have set up is a platform for the UK AOC operators to argue that the rules should now be relaxed here in the UK so that they don't suffer from unfair competition.
What's the bet that the pongos who run the CAA will buckle under the pressure of the operators to relax the FTL rules and come into line with the rest of Europe? We all know who butters the bread of the CAA. Now we have politicians deciding on safety related matters without any scientific input. Basically it is the 'blind/ignorant' leading the CAA and only a matter of time before we see our current FTL's being eroded to even more unsafe levels.
It shows a complete lack of concern for the safety of UK passengers flying on EU operators. When buying a package tour you don't get a choice of which airline you fly on.
UK operators really should put pressure on the Government to rstrict the airlines operating flights from the UK instead of trying to get alleviations to the UK FTL's
UK operators really should put pressure on the Government to rstrict the airlines operating flights from the UK instead of trying to get alleviations to the UK FTL's
ZbV
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Samsonite
Age: 51
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight time limits
I flew 900 hrs in the last 12 months. Could have flown up to 1200 like my father did in the -80's.
However rest periods between flights especially those following duty periods during late hours of the night could be much longer.
I do not see the problem being the amount of hours we can fly but rather how much rest we get between flights or after a sequence of flights.
JJ
However rest periods between flights especially those following duty periods during late hours of the night could be much longer.
I do not see the problem being the amount of hours we can fly but rather how much rest we get between flights or after a sequence of flights.
JJ
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: The best in the world... of course!!!
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One more from those “hard working people” in Brussels.
As far I concern, JAA has failed in all aspects to plan and to put in force a proper duty time limitation.
There is an extensive and detailed research program done for several years proving black and white that, we are overworked.
However, JAA was unable to put these limitations in force, due to a heavy pressure exercised by the European operators, in such extent that they remove it from the JAR-OPS documents.
Furthermore, EASA it was created and recently it was hiring bureaucrats to do the job of technical expertise people.
Ultimately, the message we can read is that, the guys working in Brussels do what they have being told to do by the operators, instead doing what should be done to improve safety to millions of people travelling around every day implanting the correct duty time limitations based on latest findings on crew fatigue.
The bottom line is that we have to produce more, work more; obviously, for less than the salary it is paid nowadays.
I believe that we shall be united and act as one body to be able to improve our working conditions, not do divide or try to bring pride or glory to such serious mater.
After this is said, Kevlar vest is already dressed.
Mercurius
As far I concern, JAA has failed in all aspects to plan and to put in force a proper duty time limitation.
There is an extensive and detailed research program done for several years proving black and white that, we are overworked.
However, JAA was unable to put these limitations in force, due to a heavy pressure exercised by the European operators, in such extent that they remove it from the JAR-OPS documents.
Furthermore, EASA it was created and recently it was hiring bureaucrats to do the job of technical expertise people.
Ultimately, the message we can read is that, the guys working in Brussels do what they have being told to do by the operators, instead doing what should be done to improve safety to millions of people travelling around every day implanting the correct duty time limitations based on latest findings on crew fatigue.
The bottom line is that we have to produce more, work more; obviously, for less than the salary it is paid nowadays.
I believe that we shall be united and act as one body to be able to improve our working conditions, not do divide or try to bring pride or glory to such serious mater.
After this is said, Kevlar vest is already dressed.
Mercurius
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: europe
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bus drivers duty
on our way to our hotel (in uk),the other day ,i asked the bus driver how much he works in a week...his reply, was, 50 hours ( i am "allowed" to work for 55hrs a week )
i am not familiar with the uk laws and regulations ,but i assume hes duty time is regulated by the same ministry that regulates pilots duty timeministry of transportation?)....it seems that driving a bus MUST be more dangerous an occupation ,when compared with flying a full loaded a/c in bad weather.
it does make you wonder , how come ,a bus driver is not allowed to drive for more that 8 hours 20 min a day,in a 6 day working week,because it is potentially dangerous for him and his pax as well as the rest of the drivers ,and yet ,the "safety orientated "aviation world ,is pushing forward for , worse working conditions....
maybe we should all sign in ,in to bus drivers unions (air-bus drivers could argue that they are one of them) ...
i am not familiar with the uk laws and regulations ,but i assume hes duty time is regulated by the same ministry that regulates pilots duty timeministry of transportation?)....it seems that driving a bus MUST be more dangerous an occupation ,when compared with flying a full loaded a/c in bad weather.
it does make you wonder , how come ,a bus driver is not allowed to drive for more that 8 hours 20 min a day,in a 6 day working week,because it is potentially dangerous for him and his pax as well as the rest of the drivers ,and yet ,the "safety orientated "aviation world ,is pushing forward for , worse working conditions....
maybe we should all sign in ,in to bus drivers unions (air-bus drivers could argue that they are one of them) ...
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of years ago a driver, Gary Hart received a five year jail sentence for causing the death of 10 people by dangerous driving after the Selby train crash. It is acknowledged that the European FTL’s are not based on science and have nothing to do with fatigue. If there is an accident at the end of a long FTL and the pilot is found to be fatigued, would he find himself in the same position as Gary Hart or would the fact that he was within legal flight Time Limitations be a defence?
One solution is to email the Ops Director before a long night flight stating that you think that you will be fatigued if you operate the flight and ask him for his intentions?
One solution is to email the Ops Director before a long night flight stating that you think that you will be fatigued if you operate the flight and ask him for his intentions?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: NY
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E U in general
So I am surprised that anyone is surprised that we have come to this - none of them even know what FTL means let alone what tinkering with them might mean in terms of Flight Safety. Perhaps ALL the pilots in the UK should make ONE specific day agreed upon by ALL to have a COLD!
Only solidarity will win the day here!
Only solidarity will win the day here!