Pilot fired for questioning airline safety

[Slats7]

I think Joe has been sacked for something more then just being critical of Singapore-based crews.

JETSTAR has sacked a pilot who spoke out about safety concerns in a move that could result in industrial action over the summer holiday period.

First Officer Joe Eakins, 31, criticised cost-cutting at Jetstar and the plan to hire air crews based in Singapore "on wages well below their Australian-based colleagues" and what effect this would have on passenger safety.
Eakins has been sacked for breaching company policy of speaking publicly about the airline in an article published last month.


Read more: Jetstar pilot Joe Eakins sacked for questioning airline safety | News.com.au​

 

[munitalP]

Yeah, more than probable Slats7

But if you have forgotten to put the toilet seat down, or parked in the CEO's car park or generally just raised your profile because you have P'ed someone off above you, then you go and publicly report you feelings about company policy - when it would be in his employment contract he can't talk to the media, they wouldn't hesitate to sack him.

 

[Slats7]

The media is having a field day with this story.

:-|

 

[jb747]

It gets across the message they intend....

we know best

we will always claim to listen, but we don't actually

we'll be gone and spending the bonuses before the chickens come home to roost

don't rock the boat

management school teaches all we need to know about operating an aluminium tube at 1000 feet per second, 35,000 feet above the ground

 

[MelUser]

We talked about this a couple of weeks ago on here and as I said then:

If I spoke publicly like this about my employer I would be dismissed.

This man was disloyal and Jetstar fired him.

Employment contracts have an implied obligation on employee to act in best interests of employer. This is in addition to anything that is expressly stated in the contract. Best interests of employer means not speaking negatively about them.

 

[rtyuiop]

Employment contracts have an implied obligation on employee to act in best interests of employer. This is in addition to anything that is expressly stated in the contract. Best interests of employer means not speaking negatively about them.

It's easy enough to make the case that if he genuinely believed Jetstar is compromising safety then that same obligation means he had to use any means at his disposal to try to rectify that - how would the Jetstar financials look after a piloting error crashed an A330 full of kids going on holiday somewhere?

Leaving aside the moral and professional obligation to act in the interests of safety, of course...

Danny

 

[Worldtraveller8888]

Sounds more industrial than safety related. Does he mean to say that anyone that flies on any Singapore based airline is at risk? Needs to be a bit more specific than just the broad motherhood statements in his original article.

The Captain presenting to the Senate Inquiry was more specific. Does his comments mean he too will be sacked?

 

[markis10]

We talked about this a couple of weeks ago on here and as I said then:

If I spoke publicly like this about my employer I would be dismissed.

This man was disloyal and Jetstar fired him.

Employment contracts have an implied obligation on employee to act in best interests of employer. This is in addition to anything that is expressly stated in the contract. Best interests of employer means not speaking negatively about them.

I am not so sure the employee in question was disloyal, it should be pointed out that the person in question is a union rep according to the ABCs AM program this morning, so accusations of trying to get around freedom of association laws could be made as well.

Jetstar has had significant issues with its CRM procedures and safety concerns in the past that to me indicate (despite the passage of time ) there is a possible culture of cover up in management at that airline when it comes to safety and this latest incident might be indicative of that, I point to the ATSB report published earlier this year that said:

• The aircraft operator had changed the standard operating procedure for the go-around. The change resulted in the flight crew being unaware of the flight
mode status of the aircraft during the first part of the first missed approach.
[Significant Safety Issue]

Other safety factors
• The aircraft operator did not conduct a risk analysis when changing the
go-around procedure, nor did its safety management system require one to be
conducted. [Significant Safety Issue]
• Flight crew undergoing initial endorsement training with the third party training
provider were not trained until later to the procedures and systems used by the
operator. [Minor Safety issue]
• The aircraft operator did not comply with accepted document change procedures
when modifying the standard operating procedure for the go-around. [Minor
Safety Issue]
• There was no provision in the current CASA Regulations or Orders for third
party flight crew training providers. As such,the responsibility for training
outcomes were unclear. [Minor Safety issue]

http://atsb.gov.au/media/793232/ao2007044.pdf

Its important to note that JQ failed to notify authorities of this incident when they should have, and that they have since corrected the systematic failures outlined in this investigation to the satisfaction of the authorities.

Its also clear by the complaints being raised by crew past and present in formal and informal media/inquiry channels that there would still seem to be smoke if not fire when it comes to safety issues, and while moving assets to offshore bases with lower costs of living or pay and outsourcing work to third parties is an industrial issue, cost lowering can have an effect on the safety of organisation as evidenced in the above linked report.

 

[JohnPhelan]

There are two issues here:

1. Making unauthorised and negative comments about JQ to the media - this would clearly be in breach of his terms of employment and should lead to dismissal.

2. The safety issue. I for one am sick and tired of hearing union officials tell us that maintenance and crew from anywhere outside Australia is substandard. Rubbish. And xenophobic rubbish at that. All they have to do is add the magic phrase - "this could compromise safety" and suddenly the story gets a run everywhere. If the engineers union (and in this case, the pilots union) want to destroy their own jobs, then they just need to keep pushing the line that their airlines are unsafe. In sport this is called an "own goal".

And before someone uses the 'whistleblower defence' - if the complainant believes safety standards are falling dangerously, then the right way to 'blow the whistle' is to make a complaint to the regulator (CASA) and provide supporting evidence. Following any other path takes it completely out of the arena of safety, and right into the 'industrial blackmail tactics' box ......

 

[oz_mark]

And before someone uses the 'whistleblower defence' - if the complainant believes safety standards are falling dangerously, then the right way to 'blow the whistle' is to make a complaint to the regulator (CASA) and provide supporting evidence. Following any other path takes it completely out of the arena of safety, and right into the 'industrial blackmail tactics' box ......

On the other hand, firing someone for raising safety concerns is not likely to instill public confidence in the airline.

 

[JohnPhelan]

On the other hand, firing someone for raising safety concerns is not likely to instill public confidence in the airline.

But he wasn't fired for "raising safety concerns" - he was fired for making unauthorised and negative comments in the media, in breach of his conditions of employment.

The actual content of his comment is not the issue (industrially and contractually). The headline on this thread reflects the way the media summarises the issue, but both are simplistic and inaccurate!

And I repeat - the correct way to raise any legitimate safety concern is with the regulator!

 

[markis10]

And I repeat - the correct way to raise any legitimate safety concern is with the regulator!

But what is the escalation process if the result of step 1 does solve the problem?

 

[rtyuiop]

And I repeat - the correct way to raise any legitimate safety concern is with the regulator!

But the regulator can't do anything unless there are documented breaches of regulations: if there's just a worrying decline in general safety standards - "an accident waiting to happen", going to the regulator is completely useless (even if you believe CASA as an organisation is worth going to).

If the pilot has good reason to believe safety is being compromised (and we don't know why he might think that, and I strongly suspect we won't ever be able to assess his claims from public information in the media), and has tried to address the issue internally, doesn't he have an obligation to try to protect the company from issues arising from that compromised safety?

And that's just thinking of the contract, leaving aside the morality issue...

Danny

 

[JohnPhelan]

But the regulator can't do anything unless there are documented breaches of regulations: if there's just a worrying decline in general safety standards - "an accident waiting to happen", going to the regulator is completely useless (even if you believe CASA as an organisation is worth going to).

If the pilot has good reason to believe safety is being compromised (and we don't know why he might think that, and I strongly suspect we won't ever be able to assess his claims from public information in the media), and has tried to address the issue internally, doesn't he have an obligation to try to protect the company from issues arising from that compromised safety?

Danny

Indeed. So:
1. has he raised any specific issue with JQ/QF?
2. has he raised any specific issue with CASA?
3. if so, what has the response been?

OR - is this simply an industrial tactic - as we have seen so often from the QF engineers union - to parrott the mantra "overseas is bad because the fact that it's overseas makes it unsafe" when it comes to ANY staffing or maintenance issues?

If he has not lodged any legitimate safety complaints with the company or CASA, then this is simply an industrial campaigning tactic designed to frighten the public (and therefore scare the airline into doing whatever the union wants).

Do remember that with the recent QF A380 incident, the IMMEDIATE response from the engineers union was to blame the uncontained engine failure on "QF offshore maintenance", when clearly that has been shown to not have been the problem! My concern is that many of the unions just push the "safety" and "Australian jobs" buttons as an industrial tactic that actually has no link to safety at all!

 

[BAM1748]

But the regulator can't do anything unless there are documented breaches of regulations: if there's just a worrying decline in general safety standards - "an accident waiting to happen", going to the regulator is completely useless (even if you believe CASA as an organisation is worth going to).

If the pilot has good reason to believe safety is being compromised (and we don't know why he might think that, and I strongly suspect we won't ever be able to assess his claims from public information in the media), and has tried to address the issue internally, doesn't he have an obligation to try to protect the company from issues arising from that compromised safety?

And that's just thinking of the contract, leaving aside the morality issue...

Danny

Regulators can and should do audits or increase the audit regime.

 

[jb747]

Indeed. So:
1. has he raised any specific issue with JQ/QF?

There is no avenue available to him, or to any other pilot for that matter. Management have decided that 200 hour pilots are 'safe', and are not even slightly interested in his comments.

And, as someone who has been in this business a long time...200 hour pilots are anything but safe. The whole concept of gaining one's experience in a large jet is so stupid as to defy belief. When s**t happens you really need a decent, experienced, FO. It doesn't even have to be really nasty s**t. A min fuel diversion is sporting enough. Or, as so recently seen, even something as simple as a go around.

 

[markis10]

Regulators can and should do audits or increase the audit regime.

They do audits but that does not mean they are effective, CASA have themselves failed a number of audits by ICAO in recent times and has had a lot of issues with a lack of perceived action on feedback that could have prevented deaths:

Dodgy planes elude watchdog's radar | News.com.au

Parliament of Australia:Senate:Committees:Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport:Administration of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and related matters

Most people are aware for example of the Queensland Coroners report into the Lochardt River disaster and its comments on CASA:

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/LHR_findings1.pdf

Is it reasonable to expect a professional pilot (who has concerns) to let those concerns rest with a body that has been found to be allegedly lacking by both the Australian Senate and Court System as well as ICAO?

As with all news stories there is more to this than meets the eye, and we need to be mindful of this, but at the same time I think we can expect more of our pilots than just blindly following complaints procedure when its let them and the travelling public down in the past. Australian pilots have gone beyond the call of duty and care in the past with very positive results, when it comes to safety they need all the support they can get from us customers, especially if the regulatory framework is not meeting standards or expectations.

 

[Worldtraveller8888]

Or, as so recently seen, even something as simple as a go around.

Unfortunately that go-around was conducted by 'experienced' pilots, and not a 200hr pilot.

The OP and news story is more about the operation of Australian registered aircraft using SIN based crew, not the use of cadets as FOs.

 

[jb747]

Unfortunately that go-around was conducted by 'experienced' pilots, and not a 200hr pilot.

Quite true. But, that's a good occasion for an FO with experience to step up and put things back on the rails.

Things go wrong no matter how experienced the crew, but that experience is what allows them to fix it. Mistakes are made all of the time, but most are corrected almost instantly. This is all about removing that correcting mechanism, whilst simultaneously making the original error more likely as well.

The OP and news story is more about the operation of Australian registered aircraft using SIN based crew, not the use of cadets as FOs.

Not really. The pilots will most likely be cadets (or ex cadets) with very limited hours, who will have basically bought themselves the seat. We are not talking about experienced Asian pilots, or even experienced Aussies who feel like living overseas.

 

[el_rooto]

There is no avenue available to him, or to any other pilot for that matter. Management have decided that 200 hour pilots are 'safe', and are not even slightly interested in his comments.

And, as someone who has been in this business a long time...200 hour pilots are anything but safe. The whole concept of gaining one's experience in a large jet is so stupid as to defy belief. When s**t happens you really need a decent, experienced, FO. It doesn't even have to be really nasty s**t. A min fuel diversion is sporting enough. Or, as so recently seen, even something as simple as a go around.

Apologies. Maybe my new avatar is too soon/premature/inappropriate.