Some good news/bad news from the EU! EASA FTL rejected
"Many thanks for contacting me regarding your concerns over proposals to change Flight Time Limitation legislation, which was voted on by all MEPs on 9th October 2013.
Commenting on the European Parliament vote to approve common EU flight time limits for pilots, Liberal Democrat Transport Spokesman Phil Bennion MEP said:
"This is a sensible outcome. Despite concerns from pilots' unions, these rules will not lower safety standards in the UK. In fact, a common system for pilot flight times will raise standards in Europe across the board, ensuring that British passengers are safe no matter what EU airline they fly with."
The proposal harmonises at EU level a set of rules governing the maximum flight times and minimum rest periods keeping aviation safety as its main objective. The new rules reduce the maximum flight duty time at night from 11.45 hours to 11, the maximum number of flying hours per year from 1,300 to 1,000 and the maximum duty time (airport standby + flight) is capped to 16 hours, instead of the 26 or even 28 currently applying in certain EU Member States.
The claim from pilots' union BALPA that under the new rules pilots will have to land a plane after being awake for periods of up to 22 hours is untrue. In fact, crew members can spend a maximum of 16 hours on standby at home or in a hotel. After the first 6 hours, every additional hour on standby is deducted from the maximum flight time that can be performed afterwards. Thus, when a crew member is called out from standby at home to report for duty, the combination of standby and flight duty cannot realistically lead to a period of more than 18 consecutive hours awake, of which no more than 14 hours can be spent on board an aircraft. Currently pilots are granted two days or even less in some EU countries when crossing several time zones, while the Commission's text proposes up to five days.
I agree with Phil Bennion that we need rapid progress on this package. If it were not for this agreement, we would be stuck with the existing dogs' breakfast of 28 different sets of national rules. Applying common rules means less unnecessary red tape for airlines, fewer delays for passengers and a more efficient and environmentally sustainable aviation market.
I hope that this information is helpful to you."
It is a long time since I read something so misguided and considering that it came from a politician, that is really saying something.
Commenting on the European Parliament vote to approve common EU flight time limits for pilots, Liberal Democrat Transport Spokesman Phil Bennion MEP said:
"This is a sensible outcome. Despite concerns from pilots' unions, these rules will not lower safety standards in the UK. In fact, a common system for pilot flight times will raise standards in Europe across the board, ensuring that British passengers are safe no matter what EU airline they fly with."
The proposal harmonises at EU level a set of rules governing the maximum flight times and minimum rest periods keeping aviation safety as its main objective. The new rules reduce the maximum flight duty time at night from 11.45 hours to 11, the maximum number of flying hours per year from 1,300 to 1,000 and the maximum duty time (airport standby + flight) is capped to 16 hours, instead of the 26 or even 28 currently applying in certain EU Member States.
The claim from pilots' union BALPA that under the new rules pilots will have to land a plane after being awake for periods of up to 22 hours is untrue. In fact, crew members can spend a maximum of 16 hours on standby at home or in a hotel. After the first 6 hours, every additional hour on standby is deducted from the maximum flight time that can be performed afterwards. Thus, when a crew member is called out from standby at home to report for duty, the combination of standby and flight duty cannot realistically lead to a period of more than 18 consecutive hours awake, of which no more than 14 hours can be spent on board an aircraft. Currently pilots are granted two days or even less in some EU countries when crossing several time zones, while the Commission's text proposes up to five days.
I agree with Phil Bennion that we need rapid progress on this package. If it were not for this agreement, we would be stuck with the existing dogs' breakfast of 28 different sets of national rules. Applying common rules means less unnecessary red tape for airlines, fewer delays for passengers and a more efficient and environmentally sustainable aviation market.
I hope that this information is helpful to you."
It is a long time since I read something so misguided and considering that it came from a politician, that is really saying something.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"theoretical awake time"
Can anyone explain to me to what the Labour MEP in posting # 73 was referring when they used this phrase?
Alas our ACTUAL awake times and ASLEEP times appear to be getting mixed up inadvertently and sometimes we are in one state when we should be in the other!
Ghastly news about what passes for democracy in EU, I felt decidedly uncomfortable and almost sick, after hearing the midday news just before I walked to report for duty.
Retirement now looks more attractive, though flying as SLF looks far less.
I repeat my earlier suggestion, to those who have belatedly woken up from the slumbering as the EU state rolls its tanks over the lawn, find a copy of "The Great Deception" by Booker and North and try and fight your way through this well-researched account of precisely the sort of devious behaviour which has been the hallmark of the "Project" for decades.
Incidentally, during the Cold War, the tanks used to sport a red star, now they are proudly displaying the blue circle with the yellow stars!!!!
Alas our ACTUAL awake times and ASLEEP times appear to be getting mixed up inadvertently and sometimes we are in one state when we should be in the other!
Ghastly news about what passes for democracy in EU, I felt decidedly uncomfortable and almost sick, after hearing the midday news just before I walked to report for duty.
Retirement now looks more attractive, though flying as SLF looks far less.
I repeat my earlier suggestion, to those who have belatedly woken up from the slumbering as the EU state rolls its tanks over the lawn, find a copy of "The Great Deception" by Booker and North and try and fight your way through this well-researched account of precisely the sort of devious behaviour which has been the hallmark of the "Project" for decades.
Incidentally, during the Cold War, the tanks used to sport a red star, now they are proudly displaying the blue circle with the yellow stars!!!!
Information from another site. The proposal in the EU parliament was to reject the FTL proposals, so to vote against the FTL changes they had to vote FOR the proposal. It seems that a number of MEPs voted against the proposal thinking they had voted against the FTL changes but in fact they have ended up voting the other way round. There is a mechanism for changing a vote within 4 days and some are/will.
So it is quite possible that any voting list won't clarify anything at all as some may have voted the way they wanted to and some may not, possibly in either direction! If you're not happy with the way your MEP voted, it might be worth getting in touch to ask if they voted the way they wanted.
Hope this makes sense.
So it is quite possible that any voting list won't clarify anything at all as some may have voted the way they wanted to and some may not, possibly in either direction! If you're not happy with the way your MEP voted, it might be worth getting in touch to ask if they voted the way they wanted.
Hope this makes sense.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to show how corrupt and imbecilic the whole process was, it must be remembered that the motion put forward for the vote was to REJECT the EASA proposals. Therefore, anyone who wanted to REJECT the EASA proposals should have voted to ACCEPT the motion.
Clear as doggy doo eh?
The whole UKIP bloc of MEPs voted erroneously AGAINST the motion to REJECT the EASA proposals. They have since realised the error and have been advised by their party whip to change their votes to ACCEPT the proposal. Apparently you can change your vote within 4 days of the original.
To view the opinion and correspondence between myself and my MEPs, including the admission of error, go to the Ministry of Aviation.
See how your MEPs voted here: VoteWatch
Clear as doggy doo eh?
The whole UKIP bloc of MEPs voted erroneously AGAINST the motion to REJECT the EASA proposals. They have since realised the error and have been advised by their party whip to change their votes to ACCEPT the proposal. Apparently you can change your vote within 4 days of the original.
To view the opinion and correspondence between myself and my MEPs, including the admission of error, go to the Ministry of Aviation.
DID THE UKIP MEPS MAKE A HUGE BLUNDER YESTERDAY IN STRASBOURG?
I would like to express my disappointment regarding the decision by ALL my MEPs except one, who didn't bother to vote at all, to vote against the proposal to REJECT the EASA Pilot Fatigue Rules. Only one MEP, Stuart Agnew (UKIP), even bothered to respond to my email before the vote.
Whilst I appreciate the fact that there was a reassuring response from Mr Agnew stating that I could "Rest assured that your concerns are being taken seriously and we will do everything we can to oppose these changes..." I and every one of my colleagues are astounded at the bare faced audacity when we note that he voted AGAINST the proposal to REJECT the new rules.
Whilst I can appreciate that the rest of my MEPs voted along party lines rather than using their independent intelligence which says a lot when politicking takes precedence over safety, I sincerely hope that Mr Agnews' vote AGAINST the proposal to REJECT the new rules was made in error, as were those of the rest of the UKIP MEPs. It is just one more example of how confusing the politicians can make something as simple as a FOR/AGAINST vote when it comes to something as important as flight safety.
In my job as a long haul pilot I cannot afford the luxury of making mistakes and I'm sure that after the MEPs busy schedule, the 'fatigue factor' is bad enough without getting confused in how to vote on a very important issue such as Pilot Fatigue Rules. However, in this case, if Mr Agnew and his party have indeed blundered and voted the wrong way, does that not scream out how important it is to keep the very high standards we had here in the UK rather than dumb down in order to level the playing field?
Sadly, I am very disappointed with the way that every one of my MEPs has voted on this issue, as are every one of my colleagues. If, and more likely when, there is another major hull loss for a European carrier that has pilot fatigue reported as a contributory factor, I and my colleagues will be there to remind them all, and the general public, of their poor decision when it came to voting out the flawed and unscientific new rules about to be implemented by EASA.
Just because the UK CAA recommended the new rules because they were "broadly similar" to the existing UK ones, does not excuse the refusal by many political parties to take into account the conflict of interest by the regulator whose income is derived solely from those who they regulate. Not only were the new proposed EASA regulations rejected by two parliamentary specialist committees but they were also rejected by scientists and experts in fatigue studies as being sub standard and needing serious re-working. None of that has been taken into consideration by any of my MEPs and I, as well as the vast majority of my colleagues, shall remember this when election time comes around again.
At least when they make a serious mistake, through fatigue, poor advice or incompetence, the results are not likely to be fatal and certainly not as instantaneous as when I or my colleagues make one when doing our jobs. I hope theythe remember that, next time they board an aircraft.
I would like to express my disappointment regarding the decision by ALL my MEPs except one, who didn't bother to vote at all, to vote against the proposal to REJECT the EASA Pilot Fatigue Rules. Only one MEP, Stuart Agnew (UKIP), even bothered to respond to my email before the vote.
Whilst I appreciate the fact that there was a reassuring response from Mr Agnew stating that I could "Rest assured that your concerns are being taken seriously and we will do everything we can to oppose these changes..." I and every one of my colleagues are astounded at the bare faced audacity when we note that he voted AGAINST the proposal to REJECT the new rules.
Whilst I can appreciate that the rest of my MEPs voted along party lines rather than using their independent intelligence which says a lot when politicking takes precedence over safety, I sincerely hope that Mr Agnews' vote AGAINST the proposal to REJECT the new rules was made in error, as were those of the rest of the UKIP MEPs. It is just one more example of how confusing the politicians can make something as simple as a FOR/AGAINST vote when it comes to something as important as flight safety.
In my job as a long haul pilot I cannot afford the luxury of making mistakes and I'm sure that after the MEPs busy schedule, the 'fatigue factor' is bad enough without getting confused in how to vote on a very important issue such as Pilot Fatigue Rules. However, in this case, if Mr Agnew and his party have indeed blundered and voted the wrong way, does that not scream out how important it is to keep the very high standards we had here in the UK rather than dumb down in order to level the playing field?
Sadly, I am very disappointed with the way that every one of my MEPs has voted on this issue, as are every one of my colleagues. If, and more likely when, there is another major hull loss for a European carrier that has pilot fatigue reported as a contributory factor, I and my colleagues will be there to remind them all, and the general public, of their poor decision when it came to voting out the flawed and unscientific new rules about to be implemented by EASA.
Just because the UK CAA recommended the new rules because they were "broadly similar" to the existing UK ones, does not excuse the refusal by many political parties to take into account the conflict of interest by the regulator whose income is derived solely from those who they regulate. Not only were the new proposed EASA regulations rejected by two parliamentary specialist committees but they were also rejected by scientists and experts in fatigue studies as being sub standard and needing serious re-working. None of that has been taken into consideration by any of my MEPs and I, as well as the vast majority of my colleagues, shall remember this when election time comes around again.
At least when they make a serious mistake, through fatigue, poor advice or incompetence, the results are not likely to be fatal and certainly not as instantaneous as when I or my colleagues make one when doing our jobs. I hope theythe remember that, next time they board an aircraft.
Therefore, anyone who wanted to REJECT the EASA proposals should have voted to ACCEPT the motion.
Apologies, that's an unwarranted insult to people who do something useful!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly, the lobbying was to "reject the EASA proposals". Whilst the Greens, as a bloc, understood that the motion was to REJECT the EASA proposals, many others did not do their homework and thought that they were REJECTING the proposals rather than ACCEPTING the REJECTION.
Double negative and just goes to show how pathetic the whole EU voting structure is set out. We need a proper Ministry of Aviation.
Double negative and just goes to show how pathetic the whole EU voting structure is set out. We need a proper Ministry of Aviation.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good spot, deltahotel, and it makes you wonder how many other EU motions (good word, 'motions....?) have been voted on without being read properly..
Go UKIP
Go UKIP
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Gran Bretaña
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really don't think it was that confusing. If they can't take the time or have the ability to understand what they're voting for or against then they really aren't competent to be representing anyone in the first place.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree Mayday. Just goes to show politicians really are as incompetent as many give them credit for. If any other professional made such errors there would be severe consequences. Eg. a crew misreading a chart and breaking a height/speed limit.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
From a Conservative MEP
Interesting that, after months of research, "last-minute guarantees" were received (but not available in the primary document). Can you scratch someone's back at the same time as twisting their arm, or does that require a committee?
Thank you very much for writing to me about the flight time directive. In the final days leading up to the vote there were last minute discussions between the European Commission and the International Transport Workers Federation (ETF) representing the unions of airline pilots. These meetings were strongly supported by members of the European Parliament Transport Committee. ETF wrote to MEPs to explain that various guarantees were made by the EC regarding the implementation of the new flight time limits and that they are now supportive of the regulation.
With this in mind, the European Parliament then voted to reject the proposal to delay the legislation and as a result the proposals to put in place new flight time limits will go forward but with the additional guarantees to support pilots' concerns.
I understand that this means that concerns have been addressed flight safety will not be compromised.
With this in mind, the European Parliament then voted to reject the proposal to delay the legislation and as a result the proposals to put in place new flight time limits will go forward but with the additional guarantees to support pilots' concerns.
I understand that this means that concerns have been addressed flight safety will not be compromised.
This must mean that the MEPs trust the European Commission, an organisation that can't be trusted/bothered to publish audited accounts and sacks whistle blowers who highlight corruption.
I challenge any pilot to say that he would accept an unseen "blank cheque" guarantee from the Commission.
Is the ECA a member of the International Transport Workers Federation (ETF) that was convinced by these "guarantees? Yesterday's press release, reacting to the vote result, from the ECA gave no indication of any last minute 'guarantees' that would change their opposition to these FTLs.
I challenge any pilot to say that he would accept an unseen "blank cheque" guarantee from the Commission.
Is the ECA a member of the International Transport Workers Federation (ETF) that was convinced by these "guarantees? Yesterday's press release, reacting to the vote result, from the ECA gave no indication of any last minute 'guarantees' that would change their opposition to these FTLs.
A trusted friend who was a major airline trainer has looked into the new regs in depth and tells me that some aspects are more restrictive than those current in the UK. His feeling is that they are not at all disadvantageous to pilots or to the safety of their passengers; in some clauses quite the reverse.
If he has time to get his notes out he may post here.
If he has time to get his notes out he may post here.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The air traffic controllers union in Europe (ATCEUC) has called off a strike planned for Oct. 10 after the European Commission signalled its willingness to renegotiate plans to liberalise civil airspace.
Meanwhile the pilots & cabin crew?
Meanwhile the pilots & cabin crew?
Last edited by RAT 5; 11th Oct 2013 at 16:55.
His feeling is that they are not at all disadvantageous to pilots or to the safety of their passengers; in some clauses quite the reverse
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They've said that the 22hr plus duty period wasn't going to happen in practice, so it should be a simple case of contacting your union reps and going to the press if your airline tries to do so, no?
That's an oversimplification of the reality. The human body doesn't come with a dipstick to check if your brain has been topped up with enough rest to get you to your destination.
I've started plenty of duty periods where I felt adequately rested to complete a maximum duty day, only to find later on that I was fighting to stay awake during the latter portions of the flight. If those duty days had been shorter, there's less chance I'd have felt that way.
I've started plenty of duty periods where I felt adequately rested to complete a maximum duty day, only to find later on that I was fighting to stay awake during the latter portions of the flight. If those duty days had been shorter, there's less chance I'd have felt that way.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montsegur
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The text of the Regulation that is under scrutiny (ie the text that the EP voted on) can be found here. It appears that the Regulation still has to complete scrutiny in the Council of Ministers. Therefore there is no "final law" yet. However, the text submitted for scrutiny cannot be changed.