ASOCIAȚIA PROFESIONALĂ ”FLIGHT PERSONNEL UNION” - Uniunea Personalului Navigant de Zbor
FPU Romania
The main purpose of the FPU Romania professional association is to organize and operate to optimize and strengthen the general framework necessary to promote and support the professional interests of its members.
ID: 887998544664-84
Lobbying Activity
19 May 2022
On behalf of our members, we have invested a lot of time to address EASA our concerns and questions regarding the applicable national provisions and flight time limitations of Aircrew operating in Eastern Europe.
FPU Romania’s focus remains on collaborating with EASA and all relevant authorities to exclude any health and safety concerns or malpractices that could impact our members, colleagues, and communities in Eastern Europe. At the same time, we will continue to monitor how the Council Directives have been introduced and implemented into the local legislation.
Seizing this opportunity, we want to emphasize that EASA in its capacity must be obliged to deliver in a timely manner official responses and statements to all such reports and questions, which usually should be considered up to 30 days. Based on our experience so far, there is an understated lack of personnel to carry out the necessary oversight activities since replies are solely at EASA’s discretion.
Another critical issue of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency is the website design and functionality! EASA should be setting an example, and promoting reporting channels that must be user-friendly and inviting, while the current situation clearly indicates the contrary. As a result, it comes as no surprise that the Fatigue Reporting systems of the airlines operating in EU member states are complicated and inefficient.
Is EASA aware that the fatigue reports in certain airlines might be too difficult and time-consuming to fill out? We have dozens of feedbacks from crew members that state they have not submitted a Fatigue Report due to the effort it takes to fill one out, although they were genuinely fatigued. Instead, they have preferred to call in sick, claiming that the design of the Fatigue Report system is simply ineffective since the reports and the assessment of the fatigue reports are all done by the airline itself.
We hope that the Commission with its legal obligation to evaluate how well EASA has fulfilled its objectives, mandate, and tasks, will take the appropriate measures to improve the agency's activity.
Read full responseResponse to Revision of the provision of air services
30 Nov 2021
REGULATION (EC) No 1008/2008 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (Recast) states that
(4) Given the growing importance of air carriers with operational bases in the several Member States and the need to ensure the efficient supervision of these air carriers, the same Member State should be responsible for the oversight of the air operator certificate and of the operating license.
The Member States National CAAs say that after consultations with EASA, according to them, since Wizz Air Hungary's controlling authority is EASA and they are the one who issued their AOC under EC 965/2012 in connection with EC 216/2008, we should forward our issues directly to EASA.
What rights and according to which regulations do the MS National CAAs have power over a foreign carrier based permanently in their country employing local pilots under local contracts?
This raises an important debate because Council Directive 2000/79/EC is brought into legislation by each MS, this can vary as to how, where, and who has the oversight. Council Directive 2000/79/EC has overseen for compliance by the MS and that MS is usually the one issuing the AOC. So for example, if Wizz Air AOC was issued and overseen by the Hungarian NAA then all crew regardless of the base would be subject to the Hungarian legislation on Council Directive 2000/79/EC for certain parts. There is an argument that a permanently based crew in another MS could fall under certain elements in that MS.
Now EASA issuing the AOC's for certain airlines, our understanding would be that Council Directive 2000/79/EC however transposed into MS legislation would apply to the permanently based crew in that MS except for H&S which falls to the issuer of the AOC.
Is EASA taking on this responsibility and oversight?
Read full response