Today the 4^th German Airline Pilot Day is conducted at Frankfurt/Main. This serves the discussion of the results and information about various subjects of the different working groups within German Airline Pilots Association, the  “Vereinigung Cockpit e.V.”. This years the main topics are: Safety relevant leadership behaviour, cyber security, laser pointer and unmanned aviation.

However, the main important issue is the focus on the upcoming legislation in regards to the new flight duty time regulations by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Its importance is not only limited to the directly affected pilots and flight attendants, it is also a concern for the traveling public.

Therefore the German Airline Pilot Association (VC), the Independent Flight Attendant Organisation (UFO) and the German Association of Aeromedical Examiners (GAAME) have adressed the German Parliament in an open letter. In this letter they call upon the respective politicians to protect the interests and the safety of passengers, aircrews and European aviation. They urge the parliamentarians to use all their influence to demand a revision and significant improvement of the currently proposed flight duty time regulations, by the EASA. Only this may ensure aviation safety in the future.

A new European regulation shall be based on the latest scientific findings and recommendations as well as the consistent application of the ‘principle of prevention’. According to the unanimous opinion of VC, UFO and the GAAME, EASA’s draft regulation presented in January 2012, does not meet these requirements. In the focus of criticism: In a dominat cost efficient enviroment the EASA puts the safety interests of the flying public and aircraft crews with their currently proposed regulation behind the economic demands of the airlines.

For pilots and flight attendants this will result in even longer flight duties and increasingly shorter rest periods. The three Associations are very concerend about the worsening of the situation with these new European regulations.

Statement from the Vice President of the German Airline Pilots Association (VC), Cpt. Ilja Schulz

Statement from the Chairman of the Independent Flight Attendant Organisation (UFO), Nicoley Baublies

Statement from the President of the German Association of Aeromedical Examiners (GAAME), Dr. med Hans-Werner Teichmüller

Open letter to the speakers/reporters of the German Parliament Committees for Transportion, Tourism, Consumer Affairs and Labour and Social Affairs as well as to all other Members of the German Parliament.

This dilemma is most obvious when looking at three examples, where the airlines claim scientifically-based limits would raise their costs, whereas EASA’s proposal would allow pilots to fly dangerously tired.

The first one is night flights, a critical period for pilot fatigue. Based on decades of research, each of the three scientific reports, concludes that flying at night should be limited to 10 hours to prevent critical levels of fatigue and hence potential safety risks. Nonetheless, the Agency opted for 11hours – fully in line with the airlines’ requests.

The second example regards standby, where pilots and cabin crew must stay available for a flight when called by their airline. Standby is a vital element for the airlines to remain flexible. However, EASA’s proposal allows a pilot to land an aircraft after 20 hours of duty and after having been awake for up to 22 hours. How could this be considered reasonable and safe?

The third example concerns long work days with multiple take-offs. Science shows fatigue increases with the length of the working day and with workload, such as multipletake-off sandlandings. The three scientiststherefore conclude that the totald aily flight duty time must be reduced as of the 2^nd take-off. But EASA requirest his only as of the 3^rd one – in line with the airlines’ requests.

These clear examples show that EASA disregards scientific recommendations. Even if one would take into consideration that in one specific point the scientific evidence would be insufficient or inconclusive another basic principle has not been respected: the ‘precautionary principle’. This is binding for the EU. If there ia any doubt, risks have to be avoided ny all means. So as long as it is not proven by scientific studies that a proposed regulation could be considered safe the EASA may not issue such a rule. In this case too, EASA has not followed this basic EU principle.

Therefore, if EASA does not change its proposal, a simple question will arise: who takes the responsibility when a fatigue-related accident occurs? Is it EASA who knowingly submitted to the Commission, EU Member States and the European Parliament a proposal that deviates from science and disregards the precautionary principle? Or is it the EU Member States who at the end of this year will have to approve the new rules?

Last month, EU Transport Ministers informally discussed the EASA rules. Several Ministers expressed their concern about the fact that pilot fatigue is a reality already today in Europe’s cockpits, and that EASA must take due account of scientific knowledge. But, there are still EU governments who have not yet woken up to the real safety risks of dead tired pilots. Nor have they woken up to the fact that, ultimately, the fingers will be pointed at them if they failed to take their responsibility of providing Europe’s travelling public with safe, science-based fatigue rules.

Here you will find further information:

Pilot’s Discretion decision a safety risk: Extending the maximum flight time limitations by the pilot-in-command to 15 hours causes an excessive increase in the risk of accidents.  Latest News: The latest proposal from 18th of January 2012 from the European Aviation Safety Agency provides an extension of this regulation even further up to 16 (!) hours  MORE

Split duty: A work shift that is interrupted by an extended break can legally be lengthened well beyond the actual maximum working hours permitted. The lack of available sleeping facilities during the breaks, however, hinders the necessary rest and recuperation. MORE

Overlong shifts: Contrary to scientific recommendations, work shifts are longer than 12 hours. The risk of accidents increases by more than five times on flights with duty times of over 13 hours compared to flights with a nine-hour duty period. MORE

Night shifts: The unique stress caused by the human biorhythm during night work is not taken into consideration sufficiently. MORE

Rest periods during long distance flights: The allocated rest periods during long distance flight assignments often contrast sharply with scientific findings. MORE

Extreme workload within short time frames: The work shifts are not always allocated at the same times on each workday, and can therefore be concentrated within short time periods. This can have a powerfully negative impact on the pilot’s performance, especially towards the end of highly stressful work periods. MORE

Stand-by duty: To be able to react to possible irregularities additional cockpit personnel need to be scheduled on stand-by. It is vital that the pilot’s wake time is taken into consideration here. If they are first notified to report for work in the evening, by then they have already been awake for such a long time that by the end of their shift they may well have had to do without sleep for about 21 hours. MORE

Honeybunny

Die Dreharbeiten zu den Kampagnenclips gegen die Verlängerung der Flugdienstzeiten haben begonnen. In einem Flugsimulator in der Nähe von London werden zur Zeit vier Clips produziert, die zeigen, wie sich die Crews von Verkehrsflugzeugen in Zukunft wach halten werden, wenn es mal wieder später wird.
Die Stars der Miniserie sind Honeybunny, die Flugbegleiterin, Captain Roger Rodgers und First Officer Over.

Die Videos werden demnächst fertig gestellt und auf diversen SocialMedia-Plattformen veröffentlicht, um auf das Thema Flugdienstzeiten hinzuweisen.

Captain Roger Rodger

Captain Roger Rodger, gespielt von Karl  Maslo, kämpft am Ende seines langen Dienstes immer mit der Müdigkeit.  Er und seine Crew haben sich unkonventionelle Methoden ausgedacht, wach zu bleiben. Die humorigen Clips sollen zunächst neugierig auf ein Thema machen, dass alle angeht. Neben dem Unterhaltungseffekt sollen aber auch Informationen zu einem sonst ernsten und komplexen Thema vermittelt werden.

Um einen möglichst realistischen Eindruck zu vermitteln, wurde im Original-Cockpit einer Boing 737 gedreht. Das zum Simulator modifizierte Vorderteil der Maschine war der ideale Drehort für die Cockpit-Serie.

First Officer Over

Die fertigen Clips gibt es an dieser Stelle und in der Mediathek ab Anfang Dezember. Es lohnt sich also, öfter vorbei zu sehen oder den Newsletter zu abonnieren

Dokumentation über die Aufgaben und die Verantwortung eines Check-Piloten. Teil 1

Zweiter Teil der Dokumentation

Dabei wird unterschieden zwischen CPL(A) für Flugzeuge (A = Aeroplane) und CPL(H) für Hubschrauber (H = Helicopter).

Die nachfolgenden Aussagen beziehen sich schwerpunktmäßig auf die Berufspilotenlizenz für Flugzeuge, CPL(A).

Sie erlaubt dem Piloten, beruflich und gewerbsmäßig (d. h. als Pilot gegen Bezahlung) Flüge durchzuführen. Diese Berechtigung kann nach 150 Flugstunden bei durchgehender oder 200 Flugstunden modularer Ausbildung erworben werden[1], sinnvollerweise sollte nach mindestens 100 Stunden zuvor noch die Zweimotorenberechtigung erworben werden.

Die Berufspilotenlizenz wie auch die Verkehrspilotenlizenz Airline Transport Pilot License (ATPL) wird in Deutschland vom Luftfahrt-Bundesamt in Braunschweig nach den Regeln der Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) ausgestellt (JAR-FCL, Joint Aviation Regulations – Flight Crew Licensing) erteilt. Die genaue Bezeichnung dieser Lizenz lautet: “Lizenz für Berufspiloten (Flugzeug)”

Die CPL berechtigt zum Führen von Luftfahrzeugen aller eingetragener Muster als Pilot in Command (verantwortlicher Flugzeugführer), sofern der Flugzeugtyp von nur einem Piloten betrieben werden darf. Dieses Recht ist jedoch in Bezug auf Wetterbedingungen (JAR-OPS 1.430 ff.) und Flugerfahrung (JAR-OPS 1.960) sehr eingeschränkt.

Für Luftfahrzeuge, bei denen mindestens zwei Piloten vorgeschrieben sind (MPA, Multi Pilot Aeroplane), ist für den Pilot in Command (PIC) eine ATPL als Pilotenlizenz vorgeschrieben. Der Erste Offizier benötigt eine CPL und eine Instrumentenflugberechtigung IR (Instrument Rating) und muss die ATPL Theorieprüfung erfolgreich abgelegt haben.

Die CPL kann um mehrere Ratings, z.B. durch eine Instrumentenflugberechtigung, oder ein Multi-Engine-Rating (MEP- multi engine piston), das wäre dann für Kolbenmotoren, erweitert werden. Im ATPL sind einige Ratings bereits integriert.

Im gewerblichen Betrieb nach Instrumentenflugregeln ist es in Deutschland vorgeschrieben, dass ein Flugzeug von zwei Piloten geflogen wird (§ 41 Abs. 5 in Verbindung mit § 32 Abs. 2 LuftBO).