Easa Flight Time Limitations Changes
It might be worse than that. It is possible that some of the people involved in this decision care more about their next job than they do about Safety.
(Some being the operative word).
There needs to be a clear trail of personal accountability with this decision.
So.................get the names of the individuals involved, and publish them.
(Some being the operative word).
There needs to be a clear trail of personal accountability with this decision.
So.................get the names of the individuals involved, and publish them.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let them know that if accidents arise, they will be pursued through the French Courts.
Two reasons...
The French already give a pass to AirFrance, with all their many hull losses, and will likely do the same with other larger Euroland aircarriers.
And secondly, all the regulators have to do is point to an airline like EK, which works their pilots far more monthly hours (some lines if time have 99:20...read about it all in the middle-eastern forum) and yet, EK has a rather good safety record.
Therefore, are Euroland pilots somehow less 'safe' than the sandpit guys?
Quite likely not, therefore, longer hours will have no effect, on safety.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Reclining on a Fluffy Cloud
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the EK guys spend much of that time in the bunk. (Or did I hear somewhere they don't count that?)
The low cost jockies will be flying zombies.
The proposed EASA changes could have been written by Michael O'leary'. He has already boasted he can take two hull losses. Quite the businessman.
The low cost jockies will be flying zombies.
The proposed EASA changes could have been written by Michael O'leary'. He has already boasted he can take two hull losses. Quite the businessman.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The low cost jockies will be flying zombies.
Some changes may need to be made with their ops duty period however...the low cost pilots signed up (imagine that
) for their planned ops (multi-sector) so...suck it up or, move over and let someone else have the job.I'm quite sure the line is long, outside the HR door.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so 411A, you advocate that pilots should be fatigued and if they dont like it to foxtrot oscar ?
March 10, 2011
Airlines' entry into the European Union's carbon market next year will add at least EUR€1 billion to their costs, make some operators less competitive and ultimately lead to higher air fares.
From January 1 2012, around 4,000 aircraft operators will be included in the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Most flights that land and depart from EU airports will be covered, regardless of the operator's nationality.
The airlines will join around 11,000 factories and power plants whose emissions are currently capped under the ETS, forcing them to buy permits to cover emissions above the caps.
Aviation is responsible for around 3 percent of the EU's greenhouse gas emissions, and its levels are growing at a faster rate than those of any other sector.
The cost of joining the scheme will be between EUR€1 billion (USD$1.4 billion) and EUR€1.4 billion in 2012, analysts estimate, rising to EUR€7 billion in 2020.
Lufthansa, Europe's second-biggest airline, expects the ETS to cost it an extra EUR€350 million a year from 2012, rising each year after that.
"Airlines do have a big challenge," said Peter Sharratt, global director for energy and sustainability at consultancy WSP Environment & Energy.
"It is extremely likely that the cost of airlines' carbon allowances will be passed onto customers."
--Airwise
Airlines' entry into the European Union's carbon market next year will add at least EUR€1 billion to their costs, make some operators less competitive and ultimately lead to higher air fares.
From January 1 2012, around 4,000 aircraft operators will be included in the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Most flights that land and depart from EU airports will be covered, regardless of the operator's nationality.
The airlines will join around 11,000 factories and power plants whose emissions are currently capped under the ETS, forcing them to buy permits to cover emissions above the caps.
Aviation is responsible for around 3 percent of the EU's greenhouse gas emissions, and its levels are growing at a faster rate than those of any other sector.
The cost of joining the scheme will be between EUR€1 billion (USD$1.4 billion) and EUR€1.4 billion in 2012, analysts estimate, rising to EUR€7 billion in 2020.
Lufthansa, Europe's second-biggest airline, expects the ETS to cost it an extra EUR€350 million a year from 2012, rising each year after that.
"Airlines do have a big challenge," said Peter Sharratt, global director for energy and sustainability at consultancy WSP Environment & Energy.
"It is extremely likely that the cost of airlines' carbon allowances will be passed onto customers."
--Airwise
Higher fares, airlines will demand more productivity from pilots.
Economics 101.
In short, IF you don't like it...find another job.
Airlines could care less...they will simply hire new pilots, under P2F contracts.
The writing is on the wall for those smart enough to read it.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bokkenrijder,
I disagree, 411A isn't management at all far from it, he's a pilot on the back side of flying career thats found him flying charter ops on a type that, while a great aircraft, is in its operational twilight years, rather like 411A, as such, he likes to express his knowledge and present an aura of all knowing.
The fact is Carbon Trading has little to do with pilot fatigue, it's hyperbole to present the notion that someone knows what they are talking about. Airlines, will pass on the costs of carbon trading to the customer, that's if carbon trading remains in place, its been coming more prevalent as a pointless exercise, a scam, and recent situations as the integrity of the scheme have also been forthcoming.
There is no use in comparing what happens in another region as different regions have different influences and different factors.
By the EU commission's own data, the EU market involves:
• European Aviation market : a €140 billion business in 2006
• +/- 150 airlines
• 730 million passengers in 2006
• 1,000 airports
• 25,000 aircraft on average per day
• 1,000 air traffic control sectors
• 12 traffic bottlenecks account for 80% of delays
That is within the EU alone. The EU market cannot be compared with what happens in another geographical region, much as the US aviation industry is unique to itself, as is the Asian market, as is the African market, as is the pacific rim market. Each are individually unique. This is an issue that is within the EU and is subject to the operational factors and influences of the EU.
A key point here is that we need to move away from presentations and assertions from those who have an agenda, like the self job creationists in the EU, or are just full of 'pi$$ and vinegar' because the only ride they can get is an aircraft which one step away from Marana/Davis/Goodyear (heck its not even worth parting out an L-1011 anymore as the parts market is pointless).
The significant issue here is that raising flight times and increasing fatigue is nothing more than a fools errand.
Lets leave the safety issue aside as that is without doubt, and lets look at the economic aspect from an operational standpoint.
For an operator, fatigue increases pilot turn over and also increases sickness levels, both of those have an immediate impact on the operator and costs.
The hard cost of identification of forthcoming pilot recruitment demand, sourcing suitable applicants, recruiting those applicants, induction and company specific training (if already typed) before being released to service is well understood by each operator (or it should be) now with a fatigued pilot base,resulting in higher turnover of its pilot base, that cost has just increased substantially as has the lead time required which is leaving your fleet short of flight crews.
Now with pilots out on the line, as an operator, do you really want pilots calling in at short notice due to being unfit for flight with a diminished source of pilots to cover due to fatigue across the pilot base ? no of course not. delays, missed slots, cancelled flights has just increased your operational cost base.
So, raising flight times and pushing fatigued pilots is going to cost you, as an operator, significantly more money. The thinking that increasing duty times will increase productivity and generate more revenue is a false economy and completely myopic. completely false.
Aside from the fatigue effects on flight crews, if you care about this industry and its economic future, yourself and your future, you should challenge this incorrect presentation of an NPA.
I disagree, 411A isn't management at all far from it, he's a pilot on the back side of flying career thats found him flying charter ops on a type that, while a great aircraft, is in its operational twilight years, rather like 411A, as such, he likes to express his knowledge and present an aura of all knowing.
The fact is Carbon Trading has little to do with pilot fatigue, it's hyperbole to present the notion that someone knows what they are talking about. Airlines, will pass on the costs of carbon trading to the customer, that's if carbon trading remains in place, its been coming more prevalent as a pointless exercise, a scam, and recent situations as the integrity of the scheme have also been forthcoming.
There is no use in comparing what happens in another region as different regions have different influences and different factors.
By the EU commission's own data, the EU market involves:
• European Aviation market : a €140 billion business in 2006
• +/- 150 airlines
• 730 million passengers in 2006
• 1,000 airports
• 25,000 aircraft on average per day
• 1,000 air traffic control sectors
• 12 traffic bottlenecks account for 80% of delays
That is within the EU alone. The EU market cannot be compared with what happens in another geographical region, much as the US aviation industry is unique to itself, as is the Asian market, as is the African market, as is the pacific rim market. Each are individually unique. This is an issue that is within the EU and is subject to the operational factors and influences of the EU.
A key point here is that we need to move away from presentations and assertions from those who have an agenda, like the self job creationists in the EU, or are just full of 'pi$$ and vinegar' because the only ride they can get is an aircraft which one step away from Marana/Davis/Goodyear (heck its not even worth parting out an L-1011 anymore as the parts market is pointless).
The significant issue here is that raising flight times and increasing fatigue is nothing more than a fools errand.
Lets leave the safety issue aside as that is without doubt, and lets look at the economic aspect from an operational standpoint.
For an operator, fatigue increases pilot turn over and also increases sickness levels, both of those have an immediate impact on the operator and costs.
The hard cost of identification of forthcoming pilot recruitment demand, sourcing suitable applicants, recruiting those applicants, induction and company specific training (if already typed) before being released to service is well understood by each operator (or it should be) now with a fatigued pilot base,resulting in higher turnover of its pilot base, that cost has just increased substantially as has the lead time required which is leaving your fleet short of flight crews.
Now with pilots out on the line, as an operator, do you really want pilots calling in at short notice due to being unfit for flight with a diminished source of pilots to cover due to fatigue across the pilot base ? no of course not. delays, missed slots, cancelled flights has just increased your operational cost base.
So, raising flight times and pushing fatigued pilots is going to cost you, as an operator, significantly more money. The thinking that increasing duty times will increase productivity and generate more revenue is a false economy and completely myopic. completely false.
Aside from the fatigue effects on flight crews, if you care about this industry and its economic future, yourself and your future, you should challenge this incorrect presentation of an NPA.
Last edited by stuckgear; 11th Mar 2011 at 17:51.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Jungles of SW London
Age: 77
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DB6
It not only needs to be fought, the organisation and individuals responsible should be identified, pursued and removed from authority. With extreme prejudice, to coin a phrase.
As to possible methods of resistance, there have been European 'Safety' pronouncements in my own industry - MRI scanning. The EU have been trying to reduce the amount of time radiographers spend in close proximity to the very strong magnetic field associated with MRI scanners, even though there is no direct or even circumstantial evidence that the field is in any way harmful. I have worked in very close proximity to such magnets for eighteen years and I'm KO(?)
The hours the EU propose could mean either doubling the number of radiographers or seriously reducing the number of scans possible each day/session.To this end, there was a serious plan on the part of many research organisations (within the NHS) to sue the EU collectively. The people I spoke to - some of them very senior and well respected - were confident that the EU bodies concerned were not immune to legal action, if neglect or recklessness could be shown.
It certainly seems from what I have read, that a good brief could hack an EU defending councel to ribbons, given the weight the public attach to safety issues.
I shall try to find out where this avenue of action has gone, as nothing has yet changed and there is little in the way of news or rumour.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: It wasn't me, I wasn't there, wrong country ;-)
Age: 79
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FTLs
Shag off 411 and your FAR91 nil regs. When I got our FSO (The Tiger's side of JFK) to look at CAP371 they were astounded with the background data that led to CAP371. So with your geriatric FAR 91 "we don't need regs" brigade, grow up
And to you nay sayers re CAP371, suggest to take an indeph look at the science behind the doc. You maybe surprised at what you learn.
And to you nay sayers re CAP371, suggest to take an indeph look at the science behind the doc. You maybe surprised at what you learn.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SWAPS Inner
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A is a Troll on just about every post he 'contributes' to and, as such, is not welcome on a serious topic like this. I started the thread to point out to many who seem to be unaware, of the very real threat of EASA increasing flying hours and decreasing rest periods.
Most flight crew already work hard and have had increases in productivity forced on them to 'lean off' the fat in the system. Anyone who thinks an airline will benevolently add a 15% fudge factor to future local agreements is sadly mistaken!
Most flight crew already work hard and have had increases in productivity forced on them to 'lean off' the fat in the system. Anyone who thinks an airline will benevolently add a 15% fudge factor to future local agreements is sadly mistaken!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget 411a and his baiting, his opinion on this is completely irrelevant. The ramblings of someone who refuses to see the danger inherent in what is proposed and is in any case at the end of their career doesn't count for much on this particular subject - it is the actions and words from those of us with many more years still to go in this profession that will be crucial to the final outcome.
The safety implications arising from the NPA are obvious and anyone who has witnessed the extent to which the likes of EZY and FR abuse the FTL scheme currently in place will shudder at the thought of these new ridiculous and commercially driven limitations that have been dreamed up by bureaucrats and pen pushers with 0% experience of what our day to day job actually entails.
It takes about 45 minutes to comment on the EASA website if you follow the detailed guidelines set out by balpa.
The safety implications arising from the NPA are obvious and anyone who has witnessed the extent to which the likes of EZY and FR abuse the FTL scheme currently in place will shudder at the thought of these new ridiculous and commercially driven limitations that have been dreamed up by bureaucrats and pen pushers with 0% experience of what our day to day job actually entails.
It takes about 45 minutes to comment on the EASA website if you follow the detailed guidelines set out by balpa.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: france
Age: 75
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
one of my comments
In the NPA, EASA refers to "crew productivity". What does that mean ? Could EASA give a definition of "crew productivity" ? Does EASA intend to add that requirement in the regulation and train pilots to be "productive" ?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: "this is where the magic happens"
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the NPA, EASA refers to "crew productivity". What does that mean ? Could EASA give a definition of "crew productivity" ? Does EASA intend to add that requirement in the regulation and train pilots to be "productive" ?
Viewing tip: watch The Inside Job (trailer here) to see how much faith we should have in our "regulators."
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bitmorerightrudder
Bit more info on how Easyjet abuse the FTL scheme please?. Your not mixing that with the ability to work hard when at work and have plenty of time off when not are you?......
Bit more info on how Easyjet abuse the FTL scheme please?. Your not mixing that with the ability to work hard when at work and have plenty of time off when not are you?......
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Angry
Although it was quite a few years ago when I worked for Easy I will give you an example of how it was/is quite possible to 'legally' take the proverbial.
Here is an extract from a past Easy summer roster.
Previously finished on deep nights. Two days plus rest day off.
Day1(after rest day) : Ltn- Nce -Ltn. 0510- 1010
Day2. :Ltn-Gla-Ltn-Pmi-Ltn. 0820- 1720
Day3. :Ltn-Cdg-Ltn-Pmi-Ltn. 1740- 0245
Day4. :rest
Day5. :Ltn-Pmi-Ltn. 0145- 0725
Day6. :Ltn- Agp-Ltn. 0230-0905
A few weeks of that and you need a month off just to recover believe me.
All legal apparently but ridiculous IMO.
As for Cap 371 being acceptable the following sentence is taken from a Crew Notice from the crewing manager two years before the roster above.
'Although we are operating within our approved 'flight time limitation scheme', I am seriously concerned that we are now at the verge of inducing fatigue in large numbers of our crew.'
I personally emailed Webster the Chief Executive, expressing my concerns and saying '....and are clearly a flight safety hazard in my opinion.'
The following month an article by Andrea Felsted quoting Webster,said that ' Mr Webster says pilots have raised concerns about the new Rostering system but they have not questioned safety standards.If they had, this would be taken very seriously.'
I heard lots of 'words of support' from the top during my time at Easy but very little happened in reality.
In my experience any flexibility given in FTL schemes or anything open to interpretation can and will be abused as required by some major airlines.
As for Ryanair I can no longer defend much of what they do but the rosters are one area that have been very positive in my time here so far.They much more accurately reflect the point I believe you were trying to make.
I strongly second FireflyBobs opinion on the EASA matter, unbelievable!
Get tough or get screwed....... and dont expect outside help or support!
Although it was quite a few years ago when I worked for Easy I will give you an example of how it was/is quite possible to 'legally' take the proverbial.
Here is an extract from a past Easy summer roster.
Previously finished on deep nights. Two days plus rest day off.
Day1(after rest day) : Ltn- Nce -Ltn. 0510- 1010
Day2. :Ltn-Gla-Ltn-Pmi-Ltn. 0820- 1720
Day3. :Ltn-Cdg-Ltn-Pmi-Ltn. 1740- 0245
Day4. :rest
Day5. :Ltn-Pmi-Ltn. 0145- 0725
Day6. :Ltn- Agp-Ltn. 0230-0905
A few weeks of that and you need a month off just to recover believe me.
All legal apparently but ridiculous IMO.
As for Cap 371 being acceptable the following sentence is taken from a Crew Notice from the crewing manager two years before the roster above.
'Although we are operating within our approved 'flight time limitation scheme', I am seriously concerned that we are now at the verge of inducing fatigue in large numbers of our crew.'
I personally emailed Webster the Chief Executive, expressing my concerns and saying '....and are clearly a flight safety hazard in my opinion.'
The following month an article by Andrea Felsted quoting Webster,said that ' Mr Webster says pilots have raised concerns about the new Rostering system but they have not questioned safety standards.If they had, this would be taken very seriously.'
I heard lots of 'words of support' from the top during my time at Easy but very little happened in reality.
In my experience any flexibility given in FTL schemes or anything open to interpretation can and will be abused as required by some major airlines.
As for Ryanair I can no longer defend much of what they do but the rosters are one area that have been very positive in my time here so far.They much more accurately reflect the point I believe you were trying to make.
I strongly second FireflyBobs opinion on the EASA matter, unbelievable!
Get tough or get screwed....... and dont expect outside help or support!
Last edited by Quality Time; 12th Mar 2011 at 11:13.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Day1(after rest day) : Ltn- Nce -Ltn. 0510- 1010
Day2. :Ltn-Gla-Ltn-Pmi-Ltn. 0820- 1720
Day3. :Ltn-Cdg-Ltn-Pmi-Ltn. 1740- 0245
Day4. :rest
Day5. :Ltn-Pmi-Ltn. 0145- 0725
Day6. :Ltn- Agp-Ltn. 0230-0905
A few weeks of that and you need a month off just to recover believe me.
All legal apparently but ridiculous IMO.
Day2. :Ltn-Gla-Ltn-Pmi-Ltn. 0820- 1720
Day3. :Ltn-Cdg-Ltn-Pmi-Ltn. 1740- 0245
Day4. :rest
Day5. :Ltn-Pmi-Ltn. 0145- 0725
Day6. :Ltn- Agp-Ltn. 0230-0905
A few weeks of that and you need a month off just to recover believe me.
All legal apparently but ridiculous IMO.
Especially tiring...no.
Alba Gu Brath
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Merseyside
Age: 55
Posts: 738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quality Time
Should any duties be scheduled to be carried out within any part of the period 0200 and 0459 hours local time, for 2 consecutive nights, then crew members will finish the duty preceding this series of duties by 2359 hours local time such that the crew members can take a rest period during a local night
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legal, yes.
Especially tiring...no.
Especially tiring...no.
Last edited by Human Factor; 13th Mar 2011 at 08:52.