Are the current FDP regulations sufficient?

[He-man]

He-man
Survival for the frontline of low-cost Airlines.
Are the current FDP regulations sufficient?

[He-man]

The low-cost airline business model started in the U.S.A. by Southwest Airlines in the early 1970’s. Great-Britten was short on the heels with the likes of EasyJet and Ryan-Air.
It is evident that this business model is very successful and will still continue for long while. Other industries have also started used some of the principles involved.
The lifespan of the airline will continue for as long as their airfare is inline or better than the competition.
The name of the game is to reduce the break-even point (cost of the ticket sale) as low as possible.

A concerning method to save money for the airline is to lower the headcount of crew needed to run the operation as mush as possible. This is legally accomplished by conforming to regulating standards.

My question is:
Are the current regulating standards (SACAA - FDP) sufficient for the modern day?

To bring in mind:

When last was the standards tested and updated?
How long does it take the average crewmember these days to travel to the airport, how long does it take to get back home and does it effect the rest time?
Are there any new information and studies that shows the results of radiation in flight at altitude?
What is the prolonged effect of loosing out on 4th stage sleep?
Have the overall stress in the work environment increased or declined since the last FDP limits were established?
My understanding is that there have been many tests done in the last few years on chronic stress, diabetics and hart attacks and how much of this is related to a career in the aviation sector?

On the road the max speed limit is 120km/hour.
What is the speed limit when there is mist?
If someone is on way to work, is it illegal to still drive 120km/hour in such conditions. What protection is there at work if he selects to drive 60km/hour and arrive late for sign-on?

At the end of the day all crewmembers are humans and they react to occurrences and conditions differently and must have individual barriers (speed limits) in place to operate safely.

I am of the opinion that regulations need to be re-tested and considered.
These new limits should be respected from all sides and brought into contention the day the break-even point is worked out.

What do you think, what is your opinion?

[rare bird]

not sure what you are really studying, He-men - there seems to be a lot all at the same time!
two issues that concern me relating to crew on low cost airlines:
1. many cabin crew are contracted / temporary - even paid by a "labour broker" type of arrangement, often with the training school, not even with the airline.
(the concern is that the person is "on-call" if someone else doesn't pitch for work - there is no clear schedule / roster for these crew "members". they have also never even worked with the rest of the team before in some instances!) To me it is important that all crew are psychologically prepared for the trip, ready, alert, and working together. (part of preparation is to understand the terrain & geographic areas being flown over - are we likely to have to evacuate passengers in a mielie field, in the sea, in a mountainous area etc), and what sort of passengers are on this flight - business people, sports fans, small kids, holiday makers, disabled people etc. It is not possible to properly prep if someone has to report within an hour for duty. (hey - you've got a job today! get to the airport ASAP!).
2. the crew are there for safety reasons / foremost duty is to be able to perform safety related tasks & responsibilities - however, when I observe cabin crew on Mango, Kulula, in fact any low cost airline - the crew are always very busy counting small change and sweets. This sort of distraction will kill people one day if there is a problem!

[rare bird]

short answer to your question: yes
(your question was:
Are the current regulating standards (SACAA - FDP) sufficient for the modern day?)

you cannot regulate or have effective laws against greed, against stupidity, and against people's own conscience or lack of. The effects of people's intrinsic values will surface - no matter how complex you make the hoops to jump through.
Also remember that, ultimately, the laws reflect the general consensus / "will" of the masses. If only 3% of the population flies, and 97% are voting, you can guess what trash will end up being promulgated.
keep it simple.
you used the example of driving. how many people have even read the full ambit of the law relating to using roadways & vehicles? most have probably only read sections / portions as presented during a driving course - to pass their exam. The simple stuff is sufficient for most, and is all that will be remembered by most. If you get too clever, you end up with the example in the picture (a red line and no-stopping sign planted on top of a Stop street sign! - and no - it wasn't a joke or kids playing!)

[jean]

That signage is not as stupid as you make it to be: the red STOP¨sign applies to vehicles on the road ie traveling, the Do NOT STOP applies to vehicles that intend to stop by the curb, ie on the side of the road. Goes to show that signs have meanings that depend upon their reference, in the first instance: on the road, traveling ahead; in the second instance, side of the road, parking.
This is why some pilots get very confused about converging, taking over etc (whether on a maneuvering surface or in the air): they think according to their own bias, and seek confirmation of their bias, just as you do here.

[Taildraggerdriver]

No

[Taildraggerdriver]

That signage is not as stupid as you make it to be: the red STOP¨sign applies to vehicles on the road ie traveling, the Do NOT STOP applies to vehicles that intend to stop by the curb, ie on the side of the road. Goes to show that signs have meanings that depend upon their reference, in the first instance: on the road, traveling ahead; in the second instance, side of the road, parking.
This is why some pilots get very confused about converging, taking over etc (whether on a maneuvering surface or in the air): they think according to their own bias, and seek confirmation of their bias, just as you do here.

Really......
And your point is.......
What relevance does your comments have to the topic