ECA komt met persbericht...
Long Haul· 17 jan
ECA laat weten dat de maat vol is:
De voorstellen van EASA voor versoepeling van WRR in Europa zijn belachelijk zegt ECA.
Morgen komt waarschijnlijk persbericht hierover uit.
Zelfs na een kleine aanpassing door EASA na kritiek van pilotenorganisaties blijft een versoepeling van WRR in strijd met een internationale trend van erkenning van pilot fatigue als tastbaar probleem.
Het lijkt erop dat EASA de druk van de industrie niet kan weerstaan. Daar hebben ze in de VS minder moeite mee....
Waar VS juist striktere regels hanteren na de 'Buffalo' crash doet EASA onder druk van industrie juist het tegenovergestelde.
Persbericht over strengere regels VS:
22 December 2011 - 10:56am
Yesterday, the US Federal Aviation Administration announced the publication of new safety rules, aimed at ensuring that pilot fatigue – due to long duty hours, insufficient rest/sleep opportunities, etc. – does not endanger flight operations. These rules come almost 3 years after 50 people died in the US Colgan Air accident in which pilot fatigue played a crucial role.
The new rules were preceded by a fierce battle with the airline industry. US operators strongly lobbied against stricter rules, claiming they would allegedly cost them billions of dollars. As a result, all-cargo operators are excluded from the new rules. However, the US political establishment backed the FAA in its defence of a comprehensive set of science-based rules, which will now apply to the large majority of operations.
“We will use the coming days to analyse in detail the new US rules, which at first glance – and despite some changes – seem to have kept the overall balance of the FAA’s initial proposal of Sept. 2010” says ECA President, Nico Voorbach. “The good news today is that the USA have taken a decisive step to replace their outdated regulations with a modern set of rules. These new rules bring the US much closer to what a wide body of scientific medical research recommends to be safe.”
“Here in Europe, the EU Regulators have not taken the same approach so far” he stresses. “When EASA issued its proposal for EU fatigue rules, one year ago, it disregarded decades of scientific evidence and produced a rule-set that would lower safety standards in many EU countries. We can only hope the revised EASA proposal – which we expect for early next year – will put safety and science first.”
“As in the US, Europe’s airlines are using an exaggerated cost argument to lobby against science-based rules” explains ECA Secretary General Philip von Schöppenthau. “The US example shows how powerful certain segments of the industry are. But it also shows that political leadership can put limits to vested interests. On our side of the Atlantic, it is time for EU decision-makers to show such leadership and to defend the most fundamental passenger right: the right to a safe flight.”
bron: www.eurocockpit.be
Hej,
LH
12 REACTIESDe voorstellen van EASA voor versoepeling van WRR in Europa zijn belachelijk zegt ECA.
Morgen komt waarschijnlijk persbericht hierover uit.
Zelfs na een kleine aanpassing door EASA na kritiek van pilotenorganisaties blijft een versoepeling van WRR in strijd met een internationale trend van erkenning van pilot fatigue als tastbaar probleem.
Het lijkt erop dat EASA de druk van de industrie niet kan weerstaan. Daar hebben ze in de VS minder moeite mee....
Waar VS juist striktere regels hanteren na de 'Buffalo' crash doet EASA onder druk van industrie juist het tegenovergestelde.
Persbericht over strengere regels VS:
22 December 2011 - 10:56am
Yesterday, the US Federal Aviation Administration announced the publication of new safety rules, aimed at ensuring that pilot fatigue – due to long duty hours, insufficient rest/sleep opportunities, etc. – does not endanger flight operations. These rules come almost 3 years after 50 people died in the US Colgan Air accident in which pilot fatigue played a crucial role.
The new rules were preceded by a fierce battle with the airline industry. US operators strongly lobbied against stricter rules, claiming they would allegedly cost them billions of dollars. As a result, all-cargo operators are excluded from the new rules. However, the US political establishment backed the FAA in its defence of a comprehensive set of science-based rules, which will now apply to the large majority of operations.
“We will use the coming days to analyse in detail the new US rules, which at first glance – and despite some changes – seem to have kept the overall balance of the FAA’s initial proposal of Sept. 2010” says ECA President, Nico Voorbach. “The good news today is that the USA have taken a decisive step to replace their outdated regulations with a modern set of rules. These new rules bring the US much closer to what a wide body of scientific medical research recommends to be safe.”
“Here in Europe, the EU Regulators have not taken the same approach so far” he stresses. “When EASA issued its proposal for EU fatigue rules, one year ago, it disregarded decades of scientific evidence and produced a rule-set that would lower safety standards in many EU countries. We can only hope the revised EASA proposal – which we expect for early next year – will put safety and science first.”
“As in the US, Europe’s airlines are using an exaggerated cost argument to lobby against science-based rules” explains ECA Secretary General Philip von Schöppenthau. “The US example shows how powerful certain segments of the industry are. But it also shows that political leadership can put limits to vested interests. On our side of the Atlantic, it is time for EU decision-makers to show such leadership and to defend the most fundamental passenger right: the right to a safe flight.”
bron: www.eurocockpit.be
Hej,
LH
Koning Lucht· 17 janDit is gewoon een goedmakertje naar de industrie toe vanwege het carbon emission trade scheme... Soort koehandel dus.
17 jan
Long Haul· 17 jan
Beste Koning,
Beste Koning,
Ik zie het verband niet.
Een verlaging van ATC charges zou een compensatie kunnen zijn voor ETS.
Maar piloten meer uren laten maken.....?
Check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gYgL743Fws&blend=1&lr=1&ob=video-mustangbase
Hej,
LH
Beste Koning,
Ik zie het verband niet.
Een verlaging van ATC charges zou een compensatie kunnen zijn voor ETS.
Maar piloten meer uren laten maken.....?
Check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gYgL743Fws&blend=1&lr=1&ob=video-mustangbase
Hej,
LH
17 jan
Variatie· 18 jan
ATC komt dan echter uit dezelfde portemonee - en dat willen we niet. Het gaat om meer geld, niet evenveel geld.
WRR kost de staat niets, dus dubbele winst. Airlines happy, en de staat krijgt z'n ETS.
WRR kost de staat niets, dus dubbele winst. Airlines happy, en de staat krijgt z'n ETS.
18 jan
Nostradanus· 18 jan
Schan-da-lig! Gaan we hier eindelijk iets tegen doen (erosie van luchtvarenden-condities) of gaan we door het leven als een slap ouwehoerende bulletinboard-plushe, op elke slak zout leggend, wachtend op acties van bonden die niet komen?
Nu is de tijd gekomen om al die grote bekken eens te gelde te maken
Nu is de tijd gekomen om al die grote bekken eens te gelde te maken
18 jan
Jumbo· 18 jan
Nostradanus schreef:wachtend op acties van bonden die niet komen?
Hiermee bedoel je neem ik aan de Nederlandse bonden die er relatief weinig bekendheid aan geven richting het grote publiek. Alleen op het gesloten gedeelte schijnt er wat info te vinden te zijn op hun site (horen zeggen ben geen lid van het VNV):eek:
BALPA daaraantegen is wel degelijk al geruime tijd bezich om het grote publiek voor zich te winnen met diverse media campagnes, denk bijvoorbeeld aan de YouTube video van een paar maanden geleden.:)
18 jan
shockcooling· 18 janJumbo schreef:...
BALPA daaraantegen is wel degelijk al geruime tijd bezich om het grote publiek voor zich te winnen met diverse media campagnes, denk bijvoorbeeld aan de YouTube video van een paar maanden geleden.:)
Op zich logisch, in Engeland gaat het om een behoorlijke impact tov huidige regeling... Mainland Europa gaat er ook op achteruit, maar niet drastisch...
18 jan
Pilotsince99· 18 janshockcooling schreef:Op zich logisch, in Engeland gaat het om een behoorlijke impact tov huidige regeling... Mainland Europa gaat er ook op achteruit, maar niet drastisch...
Ik ben alleen bekend met de Engelse wetgeving op dit gebied, maar kan me moeilijk voorstellen dat een hoop regels die EASA gaat uitvoeren al gebruikt worden in het grotendeel van Europa. Een CAO zal je misschien tijdelijk beschermen, maar als de concurentie met deze regels gaat werken, dan zal jouw baas zich op en duur ook moeten gaan aanpassen. Hier nogmaals wat ons te wachten staat.
Headline:
‘Short term re-planning’ would allow an operator the opportunity to extend an FDP, or reduce rest, without the need of commander’s discretion.
Where to look:
Page 24, section 104-106 Page 217, OR.OPS.FTL.110 Page 226, FTL.1.210(4)(a)
Background:
Section 3.7 of the CAA’s FODCOM 102009 makes it very clear that the extension of an FDP through the split duty provision should not be planned “on the day”. Reducing a rest period has always been controlled by Commander’s discretion, after taking note of the circumstances of other crewmembers. Under this NPA, both of these areas will be solely controlled by the operator if “unforeseen circumstances” are perceived to be the cause
Whilst the 190 duty hour in any 28 consecutive days limit is aligned to the current legislation held in CAP371, the 7 and 14 day limits are not. You will now be able to work 60 duty hours in any 7 consecutive days (an increase of 5 hours compared to CAP371) whilst the NPA is silent on a 14 consecutive day limit! This silence will allow a 14 consecutive day duty hour total of 120 hours (two 7 day limits added together).
The NPA only has a one hour window that will define an early start 05:00 – 05:59; this is at odds with the CAP 371 definition which is a two hour window 05:00- 06:59. The NPA makes no mention of any limits on the number of early starts even with the smaller window. This omission will make it possible to roster six early starts in a row.
Two Flight Duty Period (FDP) tables are proposed. One using a basic FDP of 13 hours and one which extends the allowable FDP by up to 1 hour; therefore giving a possible 14 hour maximum. The NPA is silent in regards to the number of early starts allowable. The proposal states there will be a FDP reduction for each sector flown, however this will only be from the 3rd sector.
An operator will be allowed to plan an individual up to a maximum of 14 hours FDP, twice in any 7 consecutive days, without any input from the crew member. Early morning allowable FDP’s shows a massive increase compared to those in CAP371. These figures have not been scientifically proved as being safe. The early morning allowable FDP issue is compounded by the fact that the NPA does not limit consecutive early starts or late finishes.
CAP 371 has a maximum of “900 hours flying in any 12 consecutive months”. Under the NPA proposal a Pilot could now effectively work an extra 100 hours in any 12 consecutive months.
It is the intension of EASA to reduce the minimum rest requirement when away from Base to 7:30 hours instead of 10 Hours. This will be further compounded by allowing another 15 minutes travelling time to and from the Airport/Hotel. We would suggest that a sleep opportunity of less than six hours will be the best that could be achieved. How can this amount of time be conducive to regenerative rest?
The text in FTL.1.235 allows just one 36 hour rest period (including 2 local nights) either side of 168 hours to address cumulative fatigue. In isolation, this rule could mean as little as three 36 hour periods free from duty per month. However, council directive 2000/79/EC requires 7 days free of duty per calendar month.
An individual on a 12 hour home standby between 00:00 – 12:00 is called at 04:15 for an 11:55 report. According to
the NPA, there is no “reduction on Max FDP” in this time band so an individual can be assigned a 13 hour, 2 sector
FDP which will give a “last on chocks” time of 00:55 – a duty of 24 hours 55 minutes. Even more disturbingly, if the situation falls outside certain parameters then the NPA is totally silent – there is no protection around a long standby being followed by a long FDP.
Where an operator decides to provide “accommodation” (EASA definition - a quiet and comfortable place not open to the public with the possibility to control light and temperature and with access to food and drink) and the airport standby is under 6 hours in duration, “the FDP shall count from the start of the FDP” (i.e. the normal report time for that flight).
As an example, should an individual report for an Airport standby at 06:00, with “accommodation” provided, and this is then followed by a 2-sector FDP being assigned with a report time of 10:45, the following limits could be achieved:
CAP371 would allow a Maximum Flying Duty Period ending at 18:15;
EASA’s proposal would allow for a Maximum Flying Duty Period ending at 00:45 the following day – a duty of over 18 hours.
Although not defined in CAP371, “Home base” is intended to mean a single and permanent location where the crew member’s duty starts. However the text above will allow a “catchment” area for an individuals’ report. The result of the proposal being:
1. You would have to get to any of the airports in the allocated area in your own time and;
2. The allowable FDP will not be reduced by any amount (even though your “commute/travelling time” may have increased in duration).
A number of terms used within this NPA are still not properly defined and must be – Sector, Scheduled Seasonal Period, Designated Reporting Point, unforeseen circumstances and Days Off for example. Concepts still missing include “planned”, and “contactable”
Although it is a positive step that further definitions have been included there are still areas in this
NPA that require further defining to avoid different interpretations. Examples of this are “as evenly as practicable” when stating how monthly duty hours would be distributed and “sufficiently in advance” when addressing roster publication to crews. Both these terms would be completely open to interpretation.
What the NPA is effectively saying is that the previous overarching requirement for all operators to incorporate FRMS into their operation now appears to have gone.
It is now not a general requirement! There are just 3 areas in which FRMS will be required - when utilising the proposed 7hr 30min reduced rest rule, using FDP extension within the 1800-2159 window and for certain night operations
Operators will now no longer have to prove that a proposed practice outside prescriptive limits would need fatigue mitigation by using FRMS. With no scientifically proved data available, judgements will surely be made based on subjective criteria alone, which obviously cannot be allowed to happen.
What this will now mean is prescriptive rules must be “watertight.” An example: One UK Low-cost operator had to prove (by using scientific evidence and a fully approved Fatigue Risk Management System) that it was safe to operate outside prescribed limits as mandated in CAP 371. This was done with additional fatigue measures being put in place. However, under the NPA proposals, another operator could fly the same programme with no need to prove any additional fatigue mitigation as the prescriptive rules allow them to do so. How can this be safe, if science has already identified a fatigue issue being present?
• We are extremely concerned that the NPA makes no provision, and is indeed silent, on several areas that are very much part of the UK’s CAP 371 Flight Time limitations. Examples are as follows:
• Restrictions around late finishes/ early starts (Section 7.1 and 7.2 of CAP 371)
• Restrictions around Night Duties (Section 7.3 of CAP 371)
• Options for Night operations (Section 7.3.1.1 of CAP 371)
• Control of a Delayed reporting Time in a Single FDP ( Section 10 of CAP 371)
• Restrictions after completing 6 hours of Standby (section 12.4 of CAP 371)
• Limits on Two Flight Crew Long Range Operations- factorisation ( Section 14 of CAP 371)
18 jan
shockcooling· 18 janHier is je persbericht LH!
New EU Pilot Fatigue Rules – Improvements, but not yet Safe
18 January 2012 - 1:50pm
Today, new rules to combat the safety risks posed by fatigued pilots have been proposed by EASA, the European Aviation Safety Agency. While the Agency makes urgently needed improvements to its initial proposal of Dec. 2010, more needs to be done to protect air passenger safety.
Scientific research shows where flight time limits and rest periods must be set to guarantee pilots are fully alert to bring their passengers safely to destination. And yet EASA ignores such research in key aspects of its proposal.
“The 50.000 comments from stakeholders on EASA’s initial proposal of Dec. 2010 sent a clear message to the Agency: this proposal is flawed, it must be revised, and it must be based on science” says ECA President, Nico Voorbach. “Today’s revised proposal does make a number of welcome changes. However, many critical points remain, such as the excessive working times when on standby. If not amended, a pilot could be asked to land the plane after 20-21 hrs of being awake. This is not what passengers deserve! Passengers and pilots expect the EU legislator to set strong safety legislation.”
“EASA mandated three scientists to evaluate its proposal; regrettably, it seems that EASA chose to ignore most of their recommendations when these could negatively impact the airlines’ commercial interests” explains ECA Secretary General Philip von Schöppenthau. “For instance, the scientists are unanimous that night duties are particularly fatiguing and must be limited to 10 hrs flight duty time. And yet, EASA gave in to industry demands and sets 11 hrs. Such provisions – and there are many more – are against EASA’s legal mandate, against the precautionary principle, and against the most fundamental passenger right: the right to a safe flight. EASA can and must do better!”
****************************************************** *
New EU Pilot Fatigue Rules – Improvements, but not yet Safe
18 January 2012 - 1:50pm
Today, new rules to combat the safety risks posed by fatigued pilots have been proposed by EASA, the European Aviation Safety Agency. While the Agency makes urgently needed improvements to its initial proposal of Dec. 2010, more needs to be done to protect air passenger safety.
Scientific research shows where flight time limits and rest periods must be set to guarantee pilots are fully alert to bring their passengers safely to destination. And yet EASA ignores such research in key aspects of its proposal.
“The 50.000 comments from stakeholders on EASA’s initial proposal of Dec. 2010 sent a clear message to the Agency: this proposal is flawed, it must be revised, and it must be based on science” says ECA President, Nico Voorbach. “Today’s revised proposal does make a number of welcome changes. However, many critical points remain, such as the excessive working times when on standby. If not amended, a pilot could be asked to land the plane after 20-21 hrs of being awake. This is not what passengers deserve! Passengers and pilots expect the EU legislator to set strong safety legislation.”
“EASA mandated three scientists to evaluate its proposal; regrettably, it seems that EASA chose to ignore most of their recommendations when these could negatively impact the airlines’ commercial interests” explains ECA Secretary General Philip von Schöppenthau. “For instance, the scientists are unanimous that night duties are particularly fatiguing and must be limited to 10 hrs flight duty time. And yet, EASA gave in to industry demands and sets 11 hrs. Such provisions – and there are many more – are against EASA’s legal mandate, against the precautionary principle, and against the most fundamental passenger right: the right to a safe flight. EASA can and must do better!”
****************************************************** *
18 jan
Long Haul· 18 jan
Beste Shock,
Beste Shock,
Dank.
Ik had 'm al gister, maar kon deze niet publiceren voordat hij formeel 'uit' zou zijn. Daarbij was de publicatiedatum gister nog niets eens 100% zeker....
Hej,
LH
Beste Shock,
Dank.
Ik had 'm al gister, maar kon deze niet publiceren voordat hij formeel 'uit' zou zijn. Daarbij was de publicatiedatum gister nog niets eens 100% zeker....
Hej,
LH
18 jan
Cpt Oveur· 21 jan
Duitsland doet ook mee met een website en commercials:
http://flugdienstzeiten.de
TIIobMV1jks
En nog 3 andere...
Strak stewardessen-unifrom trouwens....
http://flugdienstzeiten.de
TIIobMV1jks
En nog 3 andere...
Strak stewardessen-unifrom trouwens....
21 jan
Kace· 22 jan
Cpt Oveur schreef:Strak stewardessen-unifrom trouwens....
Wel typisch dat dat vooral een vrachtvlieger opvalt! :D
De materie zelf is natuurlijk helaas niet zo grappig. Het is echt te hopen dat er nog wat verbeterd wordt. Het is echt van de zotte dat de regels vooral ten gunste van de airlines worden opgesteld en de adviezen van de deskundigen gewoon genegeerd worden.
Iedereen ondertekenen dus!
22 jan