Draft motion for a rejection on Flight Time Limitations : - extracts from the vote - statement by the rapporteur

Type: News   Reference: 94531   Duration: 00:04:51  Lieu: Brussels, Belgium - European Parliament
End production: 30/09/2013   First transmission: 30/09/2013
Pilots asleep in the cockpit and potential mistakes resulting from fatigue are strong reason for the European Parliament EP Transport Committee to send back the resolution to the European Commission to revisit rules on pilots' flying hours. The Commission is disregarding the results of scientific studies that they themselves have commissioned, said Michael Cramer , rapporteur (Greens/EFA, DE). In terms of these studies the pilots should be limited to 10 hours' flying duty, although the Commission aims to impose 11 hours

Only the original language version is authentic and it prevails in the event of its differing from the translated versions.
PDF version

TIME DESCRIPTION DURATION
00:00:00 Title 00:00:05
00:00:05 Exterior view of the EP, Brussels 00:00:05
00:00:10 Views with the pilots ahead the meeting (2 shots) 00:00:15
00:00:25 Views with the pilots inside the committee room ahead the beginning of the meting (5 shots) 00:00:16
00:00:41 Views during the vote: 33 total voters; 20 in favour; 13 against Applause 00:00:37
00:01:18 SOUNDBITE (English) Michael CRAMER (Greens/EFA, DE) , rapporteur This is a victory not only for the pilots , but for all the aircraft passengers. I will not be carried by a pilot who's working 22 hours. The Commission wanted to have a regulation which is worst than in the United states There you can only have 9 h of working, while here you have 11 h . So the Commission must now react on this, that was a bad proposal, and I hope now they will be waken from their sleep. 00:00:29
00:01:47 SOUNDBITE (English) Michael CRAMER (Greens/EFA, DE) , rapporteur There is a decision by the European Court , that the waiting time is working time , and this is done. So therefore they did ignore, they did ignore the decision of the European Court. 00:00:15
00:02:02 SOUNDBITE (English) Michael CRAMER (Greens/EFA, DE) , rapporteur The problem is that the flights to the US , the east cost will last 11h, and if there is a 3rd pilot they have to pay 2 Eur per passenger. So I can tell you the airlines get 30 billion Euros every years from European taxpayers , because they do not pay kerosene tax , so if they add it on their international flights 2 euro this is nothing, is less than peanuts . There fore security must have priority , and not the profit interest of the airlines (companies.) 00:00:34
00:02:36 SOUNDBITE (English) Knut FLECKENSTEIN ( S&D, DE) We are speaking here about safety and security , and this is for all passengers. If people are telling us, scientist, that 10h working during the night its enough, that there is the limit, I don't believe the Commission without any new arguments, why there shouldn't be 10h but 11h. So Commission should go back, think about and bring us a better proposal, maybe next year. 00:00:30
00:03:06 SOUNDBITE (French) Isabelle DURANT, EP Vice President (Greens/EFA, BE) The Commission proposal is a modification of a rule on pilot's working hours. They want to harmonise - which is normal - but that can not be done without taking in to consideration the normal working hours. They didn't discuss with the pilots, the pilots are unanimously to say that this decision must be revised, to preserve the travelers' security and the pilots' health. In the US they have taken the same kind of disposition after a plane accident where the pilots fatigue was one of the main accident causes. They decided to make less flying hours by pilot. I do not see why today the Commission propose us today a rule that is not well deep on their security, the passengers deserve strict security measures. Today it is ridiculous. Due to comitology rules we are obliged do make a motion of resolution to say 'yes' or 'no'. while under a normal procedure we have to have the possibility to say that doesn't go in the god direction we can do better and more. Today we will vote against because we think that doesn't go so far . Under a normal procedure, where the Parliament is consulted normally we have to have the possibility to debate the issues and invite the experts. Today the pilots are here, and we couldn't even hear them. It is not normal. 00:01:03
00:04:09 SOUNDBITE (English) Nico VOORBACH, Pilot , President of the European Cockpit Association Today's decision is not only in favour of the pilots. Its in favour of all our passengers, and the people who travel around Europe . This clearly shows that also the Transport Committee of the Parliament sais that this proposal is not god enough, so it should be rejected and improved before it is send to the parliament again. 00:00:16
00:04:25 SOUNDBITE (English) Nico VOORBACH, Pilot , President of the European Cockpit Association If the experts in science about sleep will say this is ok, than we will accept , and the experts are saying that 10h per night is maximum a human can work , while still the proposal is 11h or even 12h30. That's why we rejected. We say just follow science advice, don't mix up commercial interests or other issues. Jus follow the science (advice) and make a safe proposal for the European public. 00:00:26
00:04:51 END 00:00:00
Audiovisual Services
European Commission
ec.europa.eu/avservices
 
Conditions of use
© European Union, 2015