Easa Flight Time Limitations Changes
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jeeze, superced there are some horrific accidents in that clip you linked to. Good to see that the issue is getting exposure elsewhere as unfortunately it's not likely to make the news in the UK if a.) it doesnt push the bbc's left wing agenda or b.) it doesnt involve wayne rooney.
This is an issue that should be under the media microscope.
This is an issue that should be under the media microscope.
Psychophysiological entity
I think the link leads to a well produced report, not much we don't already know, but interesting to see just how many PhDs it takes to change a regulation - either way.
The problem is the quality of sleep 'we' get even if we get say, 12 hours off. Being moved to a lesser hotel to save money - with a longer drive and the road being drilled up outside - was something of a last straw with me in one airline.
The drinking thing is so interwoven with pilot fatigue. In the 'good' old days, there was enough time for the hard-bitten old skipper to down a few ales, and snore his head off for the next few hours. Now, it's doubtful he'd be legal in the morning. It was a fix for a career-long difficult situation, but now new findings show there's a significant cancer risk in drinking. Shut doors every way you turn these days.
The problem is the quality of sleep 'we' get even if we get say, 12 hours off. Being moved to a lesser hotel to save money - with a longer drive and the road being drilled up outside - was something of a last straw with me in one airline.
The drinking thing is so interwoven with pilot fatigue. In the 'good' old days, there was enough time for the hard-bitten old skipper to down a few ales, and snore his head off for the next few hours. Now, it's doubtful he'd be legal in the morning. It was a fix for a career-long difficult situation, but now new findings show there's a significant cancer risk in drinking. Shut doors every way you turn these days.
The statement made by the EASA rep was further proof to me that this is being steamrollered through for "social and political integration" without ever considering the logical, scientific arguments. The bureaucrats want a level FTL playing field across the EU whatever the consequences.
It's beggars belief that EASA actually has the word "safety" in their title after these proposals - who side are they on?
It's beggars belief that EASA actually has the word "safety" in their title after these proposals - who side are they on?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
superced's post with link lost in the merge:
re post of link here : DasErste Mediathek [ARD] - Plusminus - Flugverkehr: Piloten im Sekundenschlaf (Engl. Version)
Note: From the report "EASA is claiming the proposal as a success" and the EASA representative is clear in presenting that economics are a driving factor in the decision making process, yet all those interviewed in the industry and outside the industry (bus drivers in respect of their legal time limits) think this a very, very poor.
And this proposal is from our regulator ?
re post of link here : DasErste Mediathek [ARD] - Plusminus - Flugverkehr: Piloten im Sekundenschlaf (Engl. Version)
Note: From the report "EASA is claiming the proposal as a success" and the EASA representative is clear in presenting that economics are a driving factor in the decision making process, yet all those interviewed in the industry and outside the industry (bus drivers in respect of their legal time limits) think this a very, very poor.
And this proposal is from our regulator ?
Engineers Never Play Well With Human Factors
Engineers do the technical calculations; when they get to management they become glorified beancounters (common to many technical endeavors).
Injuries and lives lost among the labor force (non-engineers) are covered by Workers' Compensation. As long as the relevant safety regulations are observed, the casualty rate doesn't count for much. Yes, the safety regulations are a fig leaf.
Engineers do not do human factors.
Injuries and lives lost among the labor force (non-engineers) are covered by Workers' Compensation. As long as the relevant safety regulations are observed, the casualty rate doesn't count for much. Yes, the safety regulations are a fig leaf.
Engineers do not do human factors.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget guys that EASA FTL is only an updated version of Sub Part Q so a lot of airlines in Europe have already moved towards it already (and in some cases things have improved because limited FTL's were in place).
Long way to go yet in my humble view
Long way to go yet in my humble view
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take this Hippie Guy of EASA on an 4-5 days early morning shift or on a 12 hrs night flight, well a diversion can't be organized....
If only a few cells in his marihuana brain are left, maybe he changes his mind....but I doubt it.
If only a few cells in his marihuana brain are left, maybe he changes his mind....but I doubt it.
Last edited by hetfield; 11th Apr 2011 at 18:02.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunate Events
>Bloody hell , look at the einstein look alike french guy who represents >EASA , involved in proposing the new rules!!!!! Clearly never set foot on an >aircraft in his life. Just a Buraucrat , hippy .
He is focused on the "ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL" (its got nowt to do with safety!)
He is focused on the "ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL" (its got nowt to do with safety!)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LALALAND COZ THATS WHAT PEOPLE TINK!!!
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA
Have now left the industry because of the beurocracy plus a bit more and right now do not want to even think about going back to it. Not just about you guys that are flying but on the ground and maintenance as well. Sorry but I have 24 years experience and no longer want to carry on. Given up a lot but hey ho.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Spain
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reduced rest 7 and a half hours
NPA 2010-14c, recommends the following changes, to Subpart Q
Are they mad ? Reduced rest 7 and half hours
• 7 days free of duty per calendar month.
• The Home base may be a multiple airport location. Recommends operators not
to change the home base more than 4 times in any given period of 12 calendar
months.
• Limitation to 11:45 when the extension starts in the period 22:00 to 4:59 was
removed.
• Extension of flight duty period due to in-flight rest: extensions beyond 18 hours
could be addressed by a specific Appendix to OR.OPS.100.FTL if the need
arises.
• 1000 flight hours in any 12 consecutive calendar months.
• Reduced rest to a minimum of 7h30.
Are they mad ? Reduced rest 7 and half hours
• 7 days free of duty per calendar month.
• The Home base may be a multiple airport location. Recommends operators not
to change the home base more than 4 times in any given period of 12 calendar
months.
• Limitation to 11:45 when the extension starts in the period 22:00 to 4:59 was
removed.
• Extension of flight duty period due to in-flight rest: extensions beyond 18 hours
could be addressed by a specific Appendix to OR.OPS.100.FTL if the need
arises.
• 1000 flight hours in any 12 consecutive calendar months.
• Reduced rest to a minimum of 7h30.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
d&b,
That's a very honest post.
The EASA proposals and the way in which they have been derived is worrying It is an absolute travesty of a proposal. In fact, submitting Alice in Wonderland would be more beneficial. At least there would have been some prose within it.
1. This proposal is short term and factually incorrect which will decrease the levels of safety and increase operational overheads to operators in the long term (excluding possible accident scenario) as fatigued crews will invariably have greater sickness rates, calling in fatigued will require more standby crews (who will also become fatigued) with a higher attrition rate of its pilot base. So that puts down the 'economic' argument.
2. In terms of the safety argument, there have been enough studies (See CAP & FAA) to put this down at the safety level.
3. In terms of the 'social' benefits argument, what exactly does that mean, can we define the social group. The aviation community as a social group? See point 1 above. The travelling public as a social group? See point 2 above. Or is the social benefits relating to the EASA regulatory social group which is generating work for itself and thereby securing it's own revenue ?
There are about 10 pages i could write on the failures of this and the implications, not the smoking hole in the ground scenario, but the tangible detriments not just within the macro environment.
The huge worry here is that this is demonstrable of the way in which EASA will regulate. Fit for purpose ? Not in the slightest.
Worried ? You bet I am.
That's a very honest post.
The EASA proposals and the way in which they have been derived is worrying It is an absolute travesty of a proposal. In fact, submitting Alice in Wonderland would be more beneficial. At least there would have been some prose within it.
1. This proposal is short term and factually incorrect which will decrease the levels of safety and increase operational overheads to operators in the long term (excluding possible accident scenario) as fatigued crews will invariably have greater sickness rates, calling in fatigued will require more standby crews (who will also become fatigued) with a higher attrition rate of its pilot base. So that puts down the 'economic' argument.
2. In terms of the safety argument, there have been enough studies (See CAP & FAA) to put this down at the safety level.
3. In terms of the 'social' benefits argument, what exactly does that mean, can we define the social group. The aviation community as a social group? See point 1 above. The travelling public as a social group? See point 2 above. Or is the social benefits relating to the EASA regulatory social group which is generating work for itself and thereby securing it's own revenue ?
There are about 10 pages i could write on the failures of this and the implications, not the smoking hole in the ground scenario, but the tangible detriments not just within the macro environment.
The huge worry here is that this is demonstrable of the way in which EASA will regulate. Fit for purpose ? Not in the slightest.
Worried ? You bet I am.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This will align the pilots with how it is in the world of ATC. We are currently "allowed" to work 16h days, with up to 63h a week.
During the last week I worked:
Wedensday: Double shift (16h)
Thursday: Evening shift (8h)
Friday: Double shift (16h)
Saturday: Morning shift (8h) + Night shift to sunday (9h)
Sunday: Evening shift (7h)
Monday: Morning shift (8h)
Tuesday: Morning shift (8h)
80 hours in 6 days.
We can exceed the 63h limit because the the "weekly hour counter" is reset on mondays. Quite priceless.
During the last week I worked:
Wedensday: Double shift (16h)
Thursday: Evening shift (8h)
Friday: Double shift (16h)
Saturday: Morning shift (8h) + Night shift to sunday (9h)
Sunday: Evening shift (7h)
Monday: Morning shift (8h)
Tuesday: Morning shift (8h)
80 hours in 6 days.
We can exceed the 63h limit because the the "weekly hour counter" is reset on mondays. Quite priceless.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is lamentable. I know you guys on the ground are pushed hard and that we rely on you lot extensively to manage separation and effective flow of traffic. The ATC and the Pilot community can be considered unified in wanting a structure that enables both groups to do their critical work effectively and safely; It eases the burden on both parties in acheiving our objectives to moving large bits of metal through the sky quickly efficiently and safely.
What is it going to take for the regulatory base to get in the real world ? Do we as group have a representative body with the huevos to stand against this ?
I'm not one for industrial action, but if the representaive bodies of both Pilots and ATC were to state clearly, you bring this in, in part or in whole. then pilots and ATC within the EU will not be working until it is removed.
Faced with the potential *complete* standstill of all commercial traffic in the EU, they may well suddenly learn to listen. It would certainly open their eyes to the 'economic and social' influences and coupled with the global media attention a standstill would generate, caused by the failure of the safety regulator to act in the interests of safety whilst divergent from what the US is doing and what factual data supports, it may be the enema EASA needs.
What is it going to take for the regulatory base to get in the real world ? Do we as group have a representative body with the huevos to stand against this ?
I'm not one for industrial action, but if the representaive bodies of both Pilots and ATC were to state clearly, you bring this in, in part or in whole. then pilots and ATC within the EU will not be working until it is removed.
Faced with the potential *complete* standstill of all commercial traffic in the EU, they may well suddenly learn to listen. It would certainly open their eyes to the 'economic and social' influences and coupled with the global media attention a standstill would generate, caused by the failure of the safety regulator to act in the interests of safety whilst divergent from what the US is doing and what factual data supports, it may be the enema EASA needs.
Last edited by PPRuNe Towers; 14th Apr 2011 at 14:40.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1000 hours in 11 months
Dear Sirs
For any of you with yellow and blue tails, might I suggest that you read the FTL than are being proposed in the EU. They state that a limit of 1000 hours in any 12 months. (there is a paragraph about 900 in any Calendar year but this is superceded by the rolling 12 month rule, don't get stuck on this and miss the main point ) At the moment the 900 hours in 12 months limit translates to 900 in 11 months as pilots are forced to have a month off. So be sure that if this piece of legislation goes through you will be doing 1000 hours in 11 months. Now before you new pilots go kicking off that you don't work that much at the moment, they will never do it, I welcome the work etc, you will be missing the point. This legislation means that they CAN do this, and knowing the past history they WILL do it. The only question remains is are you going to sit there spineless and self serving with your heads turned, like fish in a net, unable to see the actual net tighten, drag you from the water and leave you flapping on the deck, by then its too late, or are you prepared to do something to not only protect your profession, but your lives and those of your passengers. For those of you who are young in the left seat, can you really see yourselves fit enough to retire at age 60/65 with possibly 42,000 hours of flying short haul 4/6 sector days. Did I mention the proposed reduction in rest also. What are YOU going to do about this, not someone else but YOU personally.
For any of you with yellow and blue tails, might I suggest that you read the FTL than are being proposed in the EU. They state that a limit of 1000 hours in any 12 months. (there is a paragraph about 900 in any Calendar year but this is superceded by the rolling 12 month rule, don't get stuck on this and miss the main point ) At the moment the 900 hours in 12 months limit translates to 900 in 11 months as pilots are forced to have a month off. So be sure that if this piece of legislation goes through you will be doing 1000 hours in 11 months. Now before you new pilots go kicking off that you don't work that much at the moment, they will never do it, I welcome the work etc, you will be missing the point. This legislation means that they CAN do this, and knowing the past history they WILL do it. The only question remains is are you going to sit there spineless and self serving with your heads turned, like fish in a net, unable to see the actual net tighten, drag you from the water and leave you flapping on the deck, by then its too late, or are you prepared to do something to not only protect your profession, but your lives and those of your passengers. For those of you who are young in the left seat, can you really see yourselves fit enough to retire at age 60/65 with possibly 42,000 hours of flying short haul 4/6 sector days. Did I mention the proposed reduction in rest also. What are YOU going to do about this, not someone else but YOU personally.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is VERY SIMPLE.
We are ALL hired to provide a SAFE flight for the passengers.
When fatigued, do NOT hesitate or hang on, but CANCEL THE FLIGHT!
It is our duty to do so in order to maintain our safety and to DO OUR JOB. We'll see how long the idiots of EASA and management across Europe will last...
Of course striking is another very good method, but only when it will SHUT DOWN EUROPEAN AIR TRANSPORT. Management and EASA ONLY listen when it hurts their wallet.
Any pilot who agrees with the new proposal is a completely unsafe, unprofessional and incompetent fool. So I presume that if no one is willing to accept the new proposals, we MUST ALL TAKE ACTION.
We are ALL hired to provide a SAFE flight for the passengers.
When fatigued, do NOT hesitate or hang on, but CANCEL THE FLIGHT!
It is our duty to do so in order to maintain our safety and to DO OUR JOB. We'll see how long the idiots of EASA and management across Europe will last...
Of course striking is another very good method, but only when it will SHUT DOWN EUROPEAN AIR TRANSPORT. Management and EASA ONLY listen when it hurts their wallet.
Any pilot who agrees with the new proposal is a completely unsafe, unprofessional and incompetent fool. So I presume that if no one is willing to accept the new proposals, we MUST ALL TAKE ACTION.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where are Bob Crowe, Arthur Scargill, Jack Jones & Scanlon when you need them. There is no way any of those union bosses would have allowed such an ultimatum to be imposed so quickly on their industries, and without membership discussion and input. It is driven by finance, nothing more, certainly not safety. This is not the same argument when they dumped the FE's. Pilots then cried saftey, took the extra cash and showed their colours. Same with 2 engines. This is very different; it's not an 'extra cash will generate acceptance' issue; it really is about safety and quality of life. The 2 are intertwined. If such an issue does not create a unity amongst the various national unions, including ATC, then nothing will. Surely the unions are there to protect the industry as a whole as well as individual companies. The industry is made up of their paying members and they owe it to them to protect it. Not a head in the sand coal miners' approach, even the steel workers', both were the victims of capitalism as were many other UK manufacturers, but this is much more fundamental to the safe operation that the pax assume and is taken for granted. National parliaments have a responsibility here. They need to be made aware and a PRO-active campaign started. I'm not suitable or as capable as others, before someone volunteers me, but there are paid officials who are. Let them earn their keep.