A tired pilot is a dangerous pilot. Everyone can
understand that, and this was also the starting point in 2006 when the
EU adopted minimum rules on working hours and rest periods for civil
aviation.
But, as is always the case in EU matters, the aim
was also to create ”a level playing field”, i.e. fair competition
between airlines in different countries, in support of the principle of
free movement. And member states had different views of how to arrive
at the correct balance between safety interests and business
interests.
The existing rules therefore allow for countries to
adopt legislation and collective agreements with stricter limits on
flight crew working hours. There are also issues which don’t fall under
EU regulation at all, but which are decided by the member states alone,
e.g. how to calculate duty periods and rest periods when flying across
different time zones, when pilots and cabin crew are standby outside of
the airport, or in cases of so-called split duty, i.e. when a work
shift is lengthened by dividing it into two shifts. Denmark, Norway and
Sweden are among those countries which partly have stricter rules, and
cooperate closely in this area by subscribing to the same legislation
on flight and duty time limitations.
Scientific assessment
At the same time as the EU rules were adopted the
European Air Safety Agency (EASA) was asked to perform a scientific and
medical assessment of the rules. EASA consulted a group of experienced
flight fatigue experts. The expert group agreed on several
recommendations, but when the air safety agency presented its proposed
new rules on 1 October this year, it had taken only some of the group’s
views into consideration.
“The airlines industry criticised us for coming up
with unscientific and even dangerous suggestions,” the only Nordic
member of the group, Professor Torbjörn Åkerstedt from the Swedish
Stress Research Institute, said in an earlier interview.
Because of the criticism of the expert group’s
report, EASA gathered more expert advise and now writes: “It has
however become more and more apparent that a literature-based
scientific review of any FTL [flight time limitation] scheme has its
limits.”
The Authority concludes that a quantitative
assessment of a new set of rules before its implementation is
impossible. A complete scientific study would nonetheless be useful.
Such a study can however only deliver meaningful results if conducted
after the rules are fully implemented.
EU should practice the precautionary principle
Rather than carrying out such a full-scale
experiment with air safety, the EU should practice the precautionary
principle and choose what is safe before what is uncertain, thinks the
European Cockpit Association, which will protest alongside cabin crew
across Europe on 22 January next year.
EASA defends its proposal by focussing on a number
of improvements compared to the current EU rules, but these rules are a
strikingly low baseline and are by far outweighed by new provisions
allowing highly risky schedules, the association says.
Air safety authorities in the Scandinavian
countries also think crew risk fatigue if the EASA proposals go
through, according to Christer Ullvetter at the Swedish Transport
Agency. At the same time he underlines that, on some points, they would
lead to stricter requirements in Scandinavia too.
Today’s EU rules allow air crew to work up to 60
hours over seven days, but no more than 190 hours – divided as equally
as possible – over a 28 day period. That is a weekly average of 47.5
hours, the same as has been agreed at SAS. Flight hours are limited to
13 hours a day. Under certain circumstances it can be extended with an
hour, in other cases it should be shorter.
Swedish Transport Agency wants shorter working hours
The Swedish Transport Agency has suggested to limit
the maximum daily flight duty period to 12 hours, so far with no luck.
It has had better results with its suggested limit of 100 hours’ work
in 14 days, to prevent anyone from having to work two 60 hour weeks in
a row.
“By working tirelessly we have managed to force
through a 110 hours limit,” says Christer Ullvetter. He still hopes to
lower this to 100 hours as EASA’s proposal is being assessed by the
European Commission.
Another major worry is the long working hours which
the proposal could lead to when air crews’ standby time is followed by
a period of flight time. In extreme circumstances this could mean
pilots having to land an aircraft after 23 hours of service. The
Swedish Transport Agency says the rules on standby fail to take into
consideration the level of stress involved when you are on call and not
able to plan your rest periods.
Norway cannot vote
So there are still certain opportunities for
change. Regrettably, says Christer Ullvetter, Norway is not allowed to
vote when the member states decide on the final proposal, and Denmark
and Sweden only make up some 10 percent of the votes.
“This is unfortunate, since Denmark, Norway and
Sweden are in complete agreement on several suggested changes.”
To get the best EU legislation possible is
particularly important now, because member states will no longer be
allowed to adopt stricter rules. A company, for instance SAS, will of
course still be allowed to reach a collective agreement with better
conditions for work time and rest periods. But how many companies will
be able to do that in today’s competitive market?
