Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The purpose of this morning's meeting is to meet with the Irish Airline Pilots' Association to discuss the new flight rules proposed by the European Aviation Safety Agency. On behalf of the committee I welcome Captain Evan Cullen, Captain Simon Croghan, Philip von Schöppenthau and Captain Paul Cullen.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give this committee. If a witness is directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and the witness continues to so do, the witness is entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of his or her evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and witnesses are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

The opening statement furnished to the committee will be published on the committee's website. I invite Captain Evan Cullen to make his opening statement.

Captain Evan Cullen:

By way of introduction, I am president of the Irish Airline Pilots' Association, IALPA, which represents 1,200 professional pilots who are employed largely in Irish airlines but also throughout the world. I am accompanied by Captain Simon Croghan, vice president of IALPA and Philip von Schöppenthau, secretary general of the European Cockpit Association, the umbrella group for pilot associations across Europe, representing some 40,000 professional pilots in airlines such as Lufthansa, Iberia, KLM and British Airways. Captain Paul Cullen is the director of safety and technical for IALPA. He is also an accredited air accident investigator.

At the heart of IALPA's concern is the failure for some time now of the European Aviation Safety Agency, EASA, to consider and include its own scientific research in the proposals on flight time limitations for pilots and cabin crew. We will highlight three or four specific examples of our concerns. The overall concern is that EASA, for reasons that have never been explained to us, continues to ignore the recommendations of its own scientific appointees, not just in the recent 12-month period of this continuing process but also in a previous process when scientific results were ignored.

The position of the airline pilots' associations across Europe is that we do not come to these discussions with anything other than the use of the scientific evidence that was procured by EASA itself. We are not using our own figures or any other figures except the figures supplied by the scientists. We cannot understand why EASA does not do the same. I will hand over to Captain Paul Cullen who will deliver a PowerPoint presentation.

Captain Paul Cullen:

The reason we are here this morning is to explain that a tired pilot is a dangerous pilot. I will give a brief explanation of fatigue and why it is a problem. As pilots we work in a 24-hour business, around the clock. We work irregular schedules involving night-time work, early starts, late finishes and time zone changes. Some of our duties are quite mentally demanding. Flight time limitations dictate how a pilot's roster is structured, defining the duty limits for a day, a week, a month, a year. The ICAO, the United Nations agency concerned with civil aviation, has stated that the sole purpose of flight time limitations, FTL, is to limit the working hours of pilots in order to minimise the threat of pilot fatigue.

Fatigue is a physiological state of reduced mental or physical performance capability. It impairs a crew member's alertness and ability to operate an aircraft safely or to perform safety related duties. It is caused by sleep loss or extended time awake, circadian rhythm disturbances - one's body clock - or mental or physical workload.

Much is known about the relationship between pilot fatigue and accidents. From 1991 to 2005, nearly half of all aircraft accidents had pilot error or cockpit crew as a contributory factor. The scientific consensus is that a large proportion of these accidents were related to pilot fatigue. The US National Transportation and Safety Board has stated that 20% to 30% of all transport accidents have fatigue as a contributory factor. Up to 20% of all aviation accidents have fatigue as a contributory factor.

The first case where fatigue was diagnosed in a fatal accident was in 1993.

Since then there have been many accidents where fatigue has been shown to have played a role. In 2009, in a major air accident in the United States - if the members are not familiar with it they should Google "Colgan Air" and it will come up - an aircraft operating a flight from Newark to Buffalo crashed resulting in 50 people losing their lives. The crew is shown on the slide. In the subsequent inquiry it was found that one of the pilots, who lived on the other side of America, had commuted across the United States the night before and spent the night sleeping in a crew lounge. They discovered that this was not uncommon. Pictured is the wreckage of the aircraft, which crashed on top of someone's house.

We fear that Europe might be closer to that scenario than we think. We believe that because of the results of some recent studies. A Scandinavian study of pilots revealed that 80% had made fatigue related errors, 40% had been involved in incidents where they felt that fatigue was a factor, and 50% had fallen asleep in the cockpit without warning their colleague.

Pilots must undergo regular medical check-ups at least once a year by what is known as aeromedical examiners. In the United Kingdom, 70% of these aeromedical examiners believe that fatigue is on the increase, 75% of the doctors believe that one quarter of UK pilots are too tired to fly safely, and 60% believe that the pilots are falling asleep in flight. A recent study of a UK airline revealed that 45% of the pilots were severely fatigued. What is most alarming about those UK figures is that UK pilots do not operate under the same scheme as those in the rest of Europe. They operate under more stringent rules called CAP 371.

That brings me to the European Aviation Safety Authority, EASA, proposal. EASA's proposal came about because it was required under international and European law. EASA commissioned what is known as the Moebus report which was compiled by ten independent scientists who were chosen by EASA. Those scientists concluded that the current flight time limitations are deficient. They came up with 33 recommendations and then EASA came up with a proposal which complied with only two of the 33 recommendations. As expected, there was uproar, and as a reaction, EASA appointed three independent scientists to review its proposal. The three independent scientists worked independently of each other. They used different methodologies, however, but came up with similar findings. Their findings not only supported the Moebus findings but contradicted EASA's proposal. EASA's proposal is required, under international law, to be based on science. However, we believe it is not.

For an airline to survive, productivity always must be balanced with protection, but in this case we believe that the balance is tipped in favour of protection and, economically, we do not agree that this is required. For example, in 2011, ten European airlines made a profit. Of those ten airlines, two are Irish. The two big Irish airlines made a profit.

We have three main areas of concern with the proposal, namely, night duties, stand-by duties and disrupted schedules. I will start with night duties. EASA has defined a night duty as any duty that encroaches on the period 02.00 to 04.59. EASA's own scientists have recommended that such duties should be restricted to ten hours, and EASA claims it has proposed 11 hours. However, the devil is in the detail. If one looks at the proposal, by EASA's own definition a duty could start at 3 o'clock in the afternoon and end at 3 a.m. That is 12 hours, not 11 as stated by EASA, and twice a week a pilot could start a duty at 1 p.m. and finish it at 3 a.m. That is 14 hours, which is 40% more than what the scientists claim is safe and three hours more than what EASA is claiming it proposed.

How do we make this safer? We propose that night duties should be limited to ten hours as a basic rule, with no extensions. We request that specific research on night operations is started now. If the airlines want to operate longer than ten hours they should wait until scientific research is done that says it is safe and if it says it is safe, we will agree to it. Until then, we should stay on the safe side.

Our second issue is stand-by duties. There is science that states that these duties, as proposed by EASA, are unsafe. However, I would ask that for now common sense be used. If today is day 4 and I go to bed tonight at 9.30 having worked early duties all week - tomorrow will be my fifth day on duty - sleep for eight hours and because I am scheduled to get up early I could be expected to wake up at 5.30 a.m. My stand-by duty would start at 5.30 a.m. I could spend almost eight hours at home on stand-by and not a minute of that time will count towards my duty. My telephone could ring at 12.25 in the afternoon instructing me that I am required to start a duty in the airport at 1.25 p.m. I could legally then operate a 14 hour duty which would have me finishing at 3.25 a.m. That is 22 hours after the start of my duty and possibly 22 hours after I have woken up. If I am being honest, it is unlikely that I would fall asleep at the controls when I am about to land an aircraft. Thanks to coffee and adrenaline the chances are I would stay awake. However, if I have been awake for 22 hours my co-ordination and judgment will be affected and, God forbid, if something goes wrong in those final few moments of the flight I will not be able to react as quickly as I would if I was a fully rested pilot.

Science has shown that there is a direct relationship between tiredness and performance degradation as there is between alcohol intoxication and performance degradation. Science has also shown that if any of us in this room is awake for 22 hours, our performance will be degraded to the same extent as if we have had four pints of lager.

I am sure in their jobs all the members have done a good deal of travelling throughout the country. Thankfully, in a car they have a hand-brake; they can pull over and stop. There are also rumble strips on the side of the motorway which will indicate that they are starting to sway. We do not have that on an airplane. We do not have a hand-brake we can pull in the air, nor do we have rumble strips.

How do we make this safe? We propose that a cap be put on the combination of stand-by and flight duty period. We propose 16 hours. Sixteen hours has been proposed and accepted in the United States, and EASA has also referred to a cap of 16 hours total duty if a pilot is on stand-by at the airport.

The third issue that concerns us is disruptive schedules. Disruptive schedules disturb the body clock, and that introduces fatigue. I refer to duties that start early in the morning, finish late at night or run through the night. EASA scientists have recommended that after more than three of those disruptive type duties there should be an extended rest period of three full nights. That is not three days off; it is three days during which the pilot is getting a full night's sleep. The EASA scientists have also proposed that early starts are stabilised, which means that as the days go on, the pilot cannot be expected to get up earlier each day. The start times have to be similar. That is what EASA scientists have said, and they have also defined an early start as a duty that starts between 05.00 and 06.59. However, the EASA proposal has ignored the scientific advice. It has proposed that up to seven of these duties should be allowed and rather than having three nights rest, the pilot needs only two nights rest. It has also disregarded the recommendation of the unstable early starts.

As recently as last autumn, due to pressure from the airlines, EASA has also introduced an opt-out mechanism where a country can opt out of these rules by declaring itself as an early type country. That window of 05.00 to 06.59 is now reduced to 05.00 to 05.59. That is purely due to airline pressure. That was not in the initial proposal EASA put out in January 2012. How do we make that safer? We must replace the early-late definition with a single definition as recommended by EASA scientists. As a compromise we propose three local nights, with an extended recovery rest, and four or more consecutive early-late duties.

It is not all bad news, however. We welcome some of what EASA has done including, first, on home base and, second, on the limits of 1,000 hours in a year and 100 hours in a 28 day period. Home base has been defined as the location where a crew member normally starts and ends his or her duties. EASA's latest proposal specifies the principle of permanence and that the travel time between bases should count as duty. We welcome that because this is an exclusive issue to Ireland where currently it is abused.

On the issue of the 1,000 hours and the 100 hours, I would point out that 1,000 hours and 100 hours relates only to flight time; it is not duty time.

It is equal to the time a Member spends standing in the Dáil, a solicitor spends standing in court or a doctor spends in theatre. As members will be aware, there are many more duties involved.

It has also proposed a limit of 1,000 hours in any period of 12 consecutive months, which we welcome. The current practice in Ireland is for pilots to work 900 hours in a calendar year but also to work 100 hours in a 28 day period, which could have them working up to 1,800 hours in a period of 18 months. When the Irish Aviation Authority presented to the committee last October, it pointed out that 1,000 hours worked out at 19.23 hours per week. That is 19.23 hours of flying time, not doing other duties.

Pilots do not work hard consistently all year around. Most aeroplanes spend considerable time being serviced in the summer, when pilots take most of their annual leave. However, during busy times pilots frequently work 100 hours every 28 days. I spoke about the additional time we work. Typically, a pilot will be working 45 minutes before a flight departs. A pilot can have four flights in a day and there will be duties to perform after the last flight. This can amount to two and a half hours every day a pilot goes to work, which is not included in the figure of 19.23 hours of flying time.

Typically a pilot will work a fixed pattern roster, with five days on and three days off. This means the pilot is not available to work 28 days but 16. This means we work 100 hours in 16 days. If we work 100 hours in 16 days, plus the two and a half hours, it works out at eight hours 45 minutes a day, which is 43 hours and 45 minutes per week, which is much greater than 19.23 hours.

Not every pilot works five days on and three days off. There are occasions when a pilot might work five days on and four or five days off. Then the numbers are even greater, with pilots working up to 50 hours. Pilots are typically working between 45 and 50 hours a week.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Irish Airline Pilots Association, IALPA, for its presentation. It has provided the committee with a considerable amount of documentation. It has made the point that the proposals are not based on the science available to the European Aviation Safety Authority, EASA, and there is a considerable gulf between the proposals and what is deemed to be safe and acceptable. As legislators, the onus is on us to use whatever means we can to ensure changes are based on scientific facts and passenger safety.

I suggest the committee engage with the IAA on the material the IALPA has submitted today. The committee could collaborate a little more with the IALPA to establish where the IAA sees these proposals going and why it believes they are safe to operate without the benefit of scientific facts. There is work for us to do to hold the IAA and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport to account on these proposals.

Captain Evan Cullen:

We very much welcome the Deputy's proposal. It is important to note that with the three issues we have outlined, there will be limited, if not zero, impact on Irish airlines. We have members in all of the airlines in Ireland. Night duties are not a feature for the Irish aviation scene. Even the transatlantic operation is not affected by these proposals. While everyone is talking about safety, he or she will keep an eye on the competitive advantage the proposals can give. We would welcome a clearer statement from the IAA on where it stands in this process. Reading the committee transcripts, its proposals and replies were unclear to us.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it a statement from the IAA that Deputy Timmy Dooley is requesting?

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Based on the presentation, could the IALPA provide the committee with a more concise breakdown of its concerns concerning the three points? What it has stated so far in great detail has made an impression on me that what the EASA has proposed is not safe or acceptable. In the light of this evidence, I propose the committee write to the IAA and the Department requesting their views on the points raised by the IALPA and where they stand on the EASA proposals.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We can certainly do that.

Terry Brennan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Long ago when I was on “The School Around the Corner” with Paddy Crosbie, he asked me what I was going to be when I grew up. I told him I was going to be an airline pilot. Having listened to this presentation, I am glad I did not become one.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We all are.

Terry Brennan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It takes two years training to qualify to be an airline pilot. Are there many unemployed graduate pilots?

Dessie Ellis (Dublin North West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the IALPA for its presentation. The EASA has made proposals with which the IALPA is happy, except for the three issues raised today - night duties, stand-by duties and disruptive schedules. If these proposals become directives, will the Irish aviation sector be able to opt out of them? It was stated ten independent scientists did not agree with the EASA and had made contrary proposals. If the EASA is ignoring the advice of these scientists, could a legal case be taken? We hear much about pilot fatigue. I find it hard to get my head around the arrangements for rostering pilots.

With regard to long-haul flights, in particular, what is the position on stand-by pilots who are woken up to work having been asleep for several hours? Scientists have said this is very disruptive, that it does not constitute proper practice and that the number of hours slept by the pilots is insufficient.

Will the delegates outline the position of the Irish Aviation Authority on some of the points made?

Captain Evan Cullen:

I shall deal with the jobs opportunity and the position of the Irish Aviation Authority. Mr. Philip von Schöppenthau of the European Cockpit Association in Brussels will deal with the technical aspects of EASA.

With regard to the jobs opportunity, unfortunately, the vast majority who want to do what we do in Ireland need €100,000 for basic training and a further €30,000 to obtain a simple rating on a Boeing 737 or A320 jet aircraft. A significant feature of the Irish Aviation Authority's meeting with the committee was concern about what had happened in Waterford. The authority described what was occurring as a Ponzi scheme. What is regrettable about what happened in the school in Waterford is that it is not the first time it has happened. It is the third time, but nothing has been done about it. In the 1990s there was a school of aviation in Cork. A young pilot whose parents had remortgaged their house handed over £38,000 to start his training, but the school went bankrupt the following day and he did not get back one penny of the money. There were similar stories in Waterford last year when students were left high and dry. I do not know why young people are being exposed to this and why there is not more regulation and oversight to ensure they are not exploited.

There are students who will not make it through the course. There seems to be no rule stipulating that a school which is taking money from students must tell students their chances of making it through training. All the schools want is the money, as dreadful as that sounds.

Traditionally, becoming a pilot involved a different process. The three pilots present were cadets. We were selected through a programme in third level colleges and then went through a cadetship with one of the airlines. That system is no longer in place. The other source of pilots at the time was the military. Since the end of the Cold War, some of the military training budgets for pilots have been slashed by 98%. One can imagine what that did to the flow of pilots from the military sector into the commercial sector. The current trend involves self-sponsored young people using money derived from parents' mortgages. On qualifying, they proceed to airlines and are paid little or no salary as they operate as co-pilots.

The issue of the home base arises. Many of the young pilots are told from week to week that they are operating from a different airport. The current rule allows for the airline to define its new home base on a weekly basis. Therefore, it does not have to provide hotel or subsistence accommodation. It would be like telling Members of the Dáil that their home base would be Brussels for one week and that, as a consequence, they would not have to be provided with a hotel, expenses or a flight, and that at the end of the week the home base would again be Dublin. In the aviation industry this happens to young people weekly. They have already had to go to the banks and their parents for €130,000. They have no permanency of place. This practice is rampant in the industry, particularly in Ireland.

Terry Brennan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is discouraging young people.

Captain Evan Cullen:

In its soundbites the Irish Aviation Authority states it adopts the highest standards from Europe. In fact, from a flight operations perspective, it operates at the minimum standard permissible under international aviation law. It actually operates to the lowest denominator. Let me give an example concerning flight time limitations. Aer Lingus is commencing a Heathrow operation involving domestic routes within the United Kingdom. From our writing of the rosters, we know it was intended that the operation would be crewed as per Irish laws and rules. Aer Lingus is operating this joint venture for Virgin Atlantic which has insisted on it being operated to UK standards. This has meant an increase of almost 15% to 20% in the number of pilots required to do the work. The cost advantage associated with the manner in which Irish regulations are implemented, by comparison with the manner in which regulations are implemented in the United Kingdom, is very clear.

Mr. Philip von Schöppenthau:

On the questions put by Deputy Dessie Ellis, we are very unhappy about three key issues. There are actually more than three, but we are focused on three today. The European Cockpit Association has a shortlist of seven.

The Deputy mentioned stand-by pilots being woken up. This is one of the problem areas. If one is on long-term stand-by, called "reserve stand-by", there is no mechanism to protect one's rest periods and sleep opportunities. One could be called in the middle of an afternoon sleep or early in the morning, thus ruining one's sleep. One cannot get the sleep needed to operate later. There are a number of other issues, but these are really the key ones that have been mentioned today.

I was asked whether there was an opt-out mechanism. There is not. The new rules will apply all over Europe. The idea is to harmonise them across Europe. It is legally possible for individual member states to keep stricter or more protective rules at national level if they wish to. This allowed the United Kingdom to keep the significantly stricter CAP 371. Worryingly, however, under the EASA rules, this possibility will end. Therefore, countries which today have stricter rules in general or specific areas will be forced to downgrade their safety standard to the new EU-wide standard. We in Brussels are very much trying to safeguard the principle of non-regression, or what we call the safety-enhancement principle, in order that countries will be able to maintain or introduce stricter standards at national level if they wish to. This battle is not yet won.

Scientific evidence has been ignored. We asked EASA once and the Commission twice to meet scientists again to consider the latest proposal, published in October 2012. On two occasions we received a negative answer and did not get an answer to our last request. Therefore, neither EASA nor the European Commission wants to have the latest proposal subjected to another scientific review to determine whether the new package is safe. The package could be safe, but the scientists should be allowed to have another look in order that member states and the European Parliament which will have to deliberate on it will have all the information necessary to make a judgment. It would be better to do this because, if it is not done, there could be a legal case. The European Cockpit Association is examining very carefully the possibility of challenging these rules at the European Court of Justice, but we all know it will take between three and five years for the court to take a decision. In the meantime, the rules will have entered into force. It is better to listen to scientific evidence, make the system safe right away and apply the precautionary principle, which is very important.

When I examined the transcript of the committee's hearing with the Irish Aviation Authority, the authority's position was not entirely clear to me. It is important to know that the process can be influenced and shaped by the Government and the authority.

It is not over yet. We are approaching two key milestones. The first is on 13 February in Cologne when EASA holds a workshop on stand-by specifically because a number of member states were unhappy with the stand-by provisions in the EASA proposal. This offers the Irish Aviation Authority an opportunity to tighten up the position on stand-by. The other milestone is the so-called EASA committee of member state representatives who will meet in Brussels from 19 to 21 February. Member states, including Ireland, will be able to set out their positions and share their caveats with other states.

The European Parliament will be considering this proposal prior to the summer but two weeks ago it decided it had sufficient questions to hold a hearing in the transport committee with EASA, the Commission, airlines, aircrew and scientists in order to gather all the information they require to make an informed decision. We think this is good news which shows that the European Parliament will not simply rubber stamp what comes from the Commission. The European Commission Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport is ready to take on what EASA has proposed but the distance between their proposals is not sufficiently critical. It is up to member states to make their voices heard and Ireland has a particularly important voice while it has the Presidency.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. von Schöppenthau referred to the issue of fatigue. Are pilots medically tested for sleep apnea, which is now a major problem?

Captain Evan Cullen:

In regard to the air medical investigations we undergo every 12 months, the aero-medical doctor is usually a GP with a specialist consultancy qualification. I understand these doctors are trained to spot high levels of stress.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are pilots tested directly for sleep apnea?

Captain Evan Cullen:

No, we are not tested directly.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a growing problem.

Captain Simon Croghan:

It is huge.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a new condition.

Captain Simon Croghan:

A proper test would require an individual to be monitored in an isolated sleeping cell overnight. That would give rise to considerable expense. One can, however, understand the relationship.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A considerable number of people suffer from the condition.

Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I find the presentation deeply disturbing. The travelling public has been told over the years that safety is a high priority for airlines. Some would have concerns that shortcuts will be taken to arrest falling profits in a more competitive market. It is disturbing that an authority which is charged with the responsibility for maintaining safety should ignore scientific advice. To what extent did the previous protocols agreed with by EASA comply with the scientific advice available at the time? Have the issues raised in this meeting been put to EASA in direct discussions or written correspondence and, if so, what was EASA's response?

We also need to examine the issue of maintenance because if the public's assumptions about the state of readiness among pilots are at risk, we certainly need to determine whether shortcuts are being taken in other areas. I apologise for opening that Pandora's box.

Captain Evan Cullen:

Mr. Von Schöppenthau will deal with the question on EASA. On shortcuts, we have for the last 12 months been dealing with a situation involving a pilot who was put through a disciplinary process for calling in fatigued and refusing to take a flight. His roster complied with the legislation and rules but a number of experts found that the roster was what they called desynchronising. In other words, he was being flipped from an early start to a late start the following day. Just as his body clock was getting used to getting up at 5.30 a.m. and working until 3 p.m. he would be switched to a 2 p.m. start. As he had woken up at 5.30 p.m. and could not sleep, his body was slowing down. That is an ongoing issue for us and we had hoped that the IAA would back the pilot.

Mr. Philip von Schöppenthau:

I will comment briefly on whether the general public should be disturbed about what is happening. The European Cockpit Association launched an online safety petition on this issue and in a relatively short period of time we collected 100,000 signatures which we handed to the European Commission and Parliament two weeks ago. This indicates that members of the public feel concerned once they know about the issue. However, the problem is that pilot fatigue is not visible in the statistics. Fatigue often goes unreported by pilots. Only between 20% and 30% of pilots file a report when they are fatigued. Many others do not bother because they are too tired at the end of a shift or they fear negative repercussions. Several of our member associations carried out fatigue surveys among pilots, the results of which are summarised in our publication. They confirm the earlier comments about pilots falling asleep and being tired.

We have repeatedly confronted EASA with our arguments and the arguments of scientists. EASA argues that the scientists got it wrong on a number of issues and that as they do not understand the operational environment in Europe, it had to reinterpret the results and sometimes disregard them. We said that is fine but the scientists should be asked whether they agree with EASA's reinterpretation and doubts before it comes to a conclusion. EASA is aware that it disregarded scientific evidence on a variety of issue but it claims to know better. One scientist clearly stated that EASA reinterpreted and, in some cases, misunderstood the recommendations of the scientists.

Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the context of the current tight competition, are the witnesses aware of changes to aircraft maintenance procedures due to a desire to achieve savings? Is that a concern?

Captain Evan Cullen:

One of my difficulties is that the lack of whistleblower legislation in this country has held us back. The IAA is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act nor is it subject to the Ombudsman. We have run up against these issues and I wish I could provide further information, but I would be in trouble if I did so.

Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Captain Evan Cullen and his colleagues for attending the meeting and bringing the committee up to speed. They were very informative. I ask them to forward the key points in their presentation to the committee.

That would assist our ongoing work and the work we will do in the future, particularly in respect of Deputy Dooley's proposal.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for being late but I ask that a summary of the presentation be sent to all members.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If they send it to the Clerk he will circulate it. The main points are important in terms of proceeding with our work. I thank the witnesses.

We will suspend briefly to allow the next witnesses to come in.