EASA (=More Hours at Work)
 

Am I the only one who is sick and tired of waffle like this from our regulators and Government Ministers?

All being pushed through simply for social and political "integration"!

Never a good idea to erode safety standards to the lowest common denominater.I have grave concerns over this issue.Who wants to be the one that says" I told you this would happen".What other workforce involved in public transport is now less protected against fatigue.
Those airlines and there are many that don't have a scheduling agreement will fly their crews up to the proposed new limit with scant regard for the implications.
Bloody madness.

I do because that means I'll still be alive and kicking!

Note that they don't (can't) elaborate on why they "disagree". We wait in the forlorn hope that someone in the media actually has the ability to understand this point and is able to follow it up to the natural conclusion which is 'conflict of interest'.

Again, how many of those in the media have sufficient IQ to challenge the regulator and ask the simple question... is "broadly equivalent" the same as "equal to" or "better than"?

max alt
"Those airlines that dont have a Scheduling agreement, and there are many"
BA unionised FRMS goes out the winodw if it suits the bid
Virgin Union
Thomson Union
Monarch Union
Thomas Cook Union
Easy, highly FRM driven Union
Jet 2 Union
Flybe?
DHL - exempt at moment from Easa FTL
Eastern
I'm struggling now for airlines in th UK you better update my list...
Can't be the rest of Europe as their working to Q or Industrial agreements already.
Fact is i'm looking forward to no limits on early / lates / nights - i can do a much better roster without them, supported by science,(i wont mention pilots responsibilities, managing their rest etc) and the daft factorisation rule on ETOPS.
:\

Should have said if your not in a european national carrier.Those in charter and low cost will join in a race to the bottom as boards of directors will want to know why their pilots are not working the same number of hours as their competitors ie Ryanair.If they can legally fly a thousand hours plus a year,up to seven early starts in a row,extending night ftl etc then fly them to it.
The scheduling agreements will be eroded usually by an increase in a pay award above inflation or a fleet change,sign here to fly the big jet.They will say they need the changes to remain profitable and in my view safety will be compromised.This is a step backwards.

Recollect, on a back-to-back, climbing on board feeling a bit shabby. Fortunately I was heavy crew so hit the bunk for six hours, slept better than any time before or since, and woke up feeling great.
So glad I wasn't operating crew on that one.

''But the UK's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) disagrees, saying the changes will keep passengers as safe as before''.

They replace a scientifically proven FTL scheme with a more liberal one with no scientific basis. So how do they know this?

Max Alt
Disagree, Airlines won't be able to move to EASA FTL until they prove to the CAA their FRMS can handle it within their own working practices. Thereafter the rosters will be audited something that's never happened before.
I again re-iterate what happened with all the European Airlines when Q was introduced? If a UK AOC wanted EASA FTL that much they would have moved to Estonia by now? :\

Does the UK CAA allow formal 'cockpit napping?' Any reference would be useful.

Sadly this sentence will be entirely correct right up until the moment the first plane hits the deck.

As Danny2 says, the weasel words such as above that they use should be challenged.

4greens

'cockpit napping' is known to the CAA as 'controlled rest.' The CAA as the current regulator allows any AOC holder to provide for controlled rest. It is written into their General Manual Part A section 7 which is the legally binding section of flight time limitations as applicable to that company. This section can, if it can be shown to be safe, be significantly different from the example shown in CAP 371.

FYI the CAA has no blanket rules for Flight Time Limitations. CAP 371 states that a scheme must be set up as part of the company manual and that it must be approved by the CAA, it then goes on to give examples of what would be acceptable.

Thanks muchly Beardy. It will save a lot of searching.

Bear in mind that many air passengers will chose the cheapest fare options, regardless of the competence of the operators to provide a safe service (and fatigued pilots are, of course, less competent than non-fatigued pilots when we define 'fatigue' as 'debilitating tiredness'). It's a form of negative lottery: 'We only paid £30 and the chances of us getting to destination are very very good.' Air transport has, in a way, become a victim of its own success in achieving very high standards of safety. Passengers assume – with statistical justification – that their chances of being an air accident victim are vanishingly small. It is unlikely that this point of view can be changed unless a series of serious accidents were shown to be the result of fatigue-induced crew error.

You can predict the response of whichever politician is lumbered with the damage limitation PR exercise after a fatigue-related prang. It's answer #12 in the Government PR Media Briefing Document:

'Our thoughts are with the families of the victims. We will hold a full and thorough enquiry to find out the causes of this terrible accident and take action to make sure it never happens again.'

Mr Angry, to answer your question. Flybe locked Cap 371 rules into its scheduling agreement last year. Sub part q rules can only therefore be implemented if more restrictive! I think this is to be commended!

I also think balpa's best way to tackle the easa rules in the absence of government and media intelligence, is to push for a Flybe style agreement in all it's member airlines.

I sadly agree that we may see Discorde's prediction come true when he foresees the quotes already prepared by airline lobbyists for the politicians.

'Our thoughts are with the families of the victims. We will hold a full and thorough enquiry to find out the causes of this terrible accident and take action to make sure it never happens again.'

So how did they check that an operator was complying with CAP371 or whatever rules applied?

EU - None Democratic
 

Scientifically: No evidence base

Nobody voted for it (passengers, pilots, voters)
Nobody wants it (passengers, pilots, voters)

It's about money .. not about such people

Not democratic
Not accountable

Thanks EASA

Say no
 

Colleagues, go to ECA website Home | Dead Tired and sign the petition.

http://list.flightdutytimes.eu/typo3...5b540fffbb.jpg