Pilot fired for questioning airline safety

[UP4014]

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.

I agree, I was responding to a post saying the regulator can't do anything without a documented breach of safety.

Matt

 

[markis10]

I agree, I was responding to a post saying the regulator can't do anything without a documented breach of safety.

Matt

In the case of our regulator, that will be more than likely post event, like the safety audit on Rex.

 

[VHOEJ]

He has some genuie concerns but not going about it through the correct channels and doing it in the media..........if I did that, I would expect to be sacked. Anyone who criticises thier employer in the public domain in the way they did is always going to get the sack.

 

[medhead]

I didn't really want to say anything on this but just a couple of minor observations.

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.

IMO you're this is coming the situation from the wrong direction. I think the requirement is to not act against the interests of the employer. A subtle difference but that doesn't mean you have to act in the best interests of the employer.

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!

I think you're making a major assumption. Why do you say 1,2,3 or speaking publicly? Do you know that it wasn't 1,2,3 then speak publicly. I then see that you say "If he hasn't lodged complaints" - meaning basically you don't know whether or not the correct process was followed. My observation being that it seems a bit strange to criticise without knowing what did actually happen before this point.

My other observation is that a union is there to look after the interests of it's members. Obviously, saying nothing while all the union members are replaced by offshore workers is clearly not looking after the interests of the union members. Like it or not, the unions role is to protect its' members and to raise reasons for keeping its' members employed.

 

[JohnPhelan]

My other observation is that a union is there to look after the interests of it's members. Obviously, saying nothing while all the union members are replaced by offshore workers is clearly not looking after the interests of the union members. Like it or not, the unions role is to protect its' members and to raise reasons for keeping its' members employed.

Yes, a union is indeed there to look after the interests of its members and to raise reasons for keeping its members employed. But the reasons they raise should be accurate and they should do so honestly. What irritates me is when unions claim "safety" as being behind everything they are claiming, when it's actually job rentention for their members which is the motivator. Again, just look at the way the engineers union immediately claimed the A380 engine incident was the result of QF's "offshore maintenance". That was wrong, uninformed and dishonest.

The problem with that sort of tactic is that it makes people cynical when subsequent claims of "safety issues" are made. If the JQ pilots union wants to push the case for keeping jobs in Australia for its members, that's fine. Argue the case on its substantive merits. But it seems many unions run the line that only Australians can fly planes safely, or maintain them safely, and that's why the jobs should be here. That's rubbish. Non-Australians can fly safely, and they can maintain planes safely.

The sadness is that the "boy who cried wolf" syndrome comes into play - the unions scream "safety issue" at every opportunity, so people just see that as an industrial tactic and disregard it. But at a later stage, when a genuine safety issue does get raised, the public will assume it's just the same tactic again and ignore it, even when in that case it is genuine.

Moral is: be very cautious about using safety as an industrial bargaining chip, and cut out the xenophobic "only Australians can do it safely" line.

 

[jb747]

There is an enormous difference between AIPA and the engineers union.

Anyway, at the end of the day it's up to you. If you're happy to fly with the cheapest available at all times then that is what you'll get.

Comparisons with the RAAF are not valid. Yes, they put young guys into F18s, but they also get to select exactly the person they want (and in my day only took about 2% of applicants), and then they fail 50% of them. An aviation training company that proudly claims that 97% pass their course is not of the same standing as 2FTS. By the same token, those who actually have the 'stuff' that the RAAF wants are very unlikely to be interested in the airlines until their 30s. With the wages that some paper pushers seem to think are warranted, these people will most likely never become available to the Jetstars, etc of the world.

 

[mosanator]

Well it turns out he did all of the "Chain of Command" or Hierarchy discussions BEFORE going public.

This is certainly going to make a great case in Fair Work Australia. It will be interesting to see if JQ allow it to go all the way or settle.

 

[gleff]

The pilot sounds to me like he just had an axe to grind about management. He clearly went about it the wrong way in my opinion. If he was truly worried about public safety and all other avenues were exhausted then he could have *perhaps* gone to the media anonymously.

Most companies would think very negatively about damaging the company image and would have clear policy about such things. Going to the media and saying your company is unsafe is clearly in breach of policy.

I believe he was fired simply for breach of policy and nothing else. The amount of damage this entire episode would be causing to the Jetstar image would be pretty huge. This is demonstrated by the simple fact it has people like us and the media talking about it.

 

[rtyuiop]

Entertainingly though, I'm pretty damn sure that the action that has caused Jetstar the most PR damage is the firing of this guy!

Of course that's an 'authorised' action, not the same as talking to the media when you're not supposed to, but if the airline's reputation is the thing which they're most worried about, I point the finger at whoever decided to fire the guy... Leaving aside the question of whether the pilot was justified in his actions or not, who on earth couldn't see the headlines coming?

Danny

 

[rtyuiop]

Well it turns out he did all of the "Chain of Command" or Hierarchy discussions BEFORE going public.

This is certainly going to make a great case in Fair Work Australia. It will be interesting to see if JQ allow it to go all the way or settle.

mosanator, has this information gone public? Can you share if so? I'm intrigued!

Danny

 

[jb747]

I always find it amusing when the term 'loyalty' is mentioned. Basically, loyalty is something that senior management seem to expect, but which they never give. It is only a one way street.

What school of management does that come from?

 

[Princess Fiona]

I always find it amusing when the term 'loyalty' is mentioned. Basically, loyalty is something that senior management seem to expect, but which they never give. It is only a one way street.

What school of management does that come from?

Agree 100%, whatever school it is they all seem to be black belts in it ;p

 

[mosanator]

mosanator, has this information gone public? Can you share if so? I'm intrigued!

Danny

The pilot in question was on the Today show this morning.

He mentioned TWO CEO's or MD's by name (I can't recall them DOH!) and the Chief (Senior) Pilot (also can't remember name- sorry).
This wasn't refuted by the JQ Manager who also appeared via video.

The interesting thing would be to see what their policies contain with regard to this sort of thing. To be summarily dismissed in this way, it would have to be regarded as Gross Misconduct. There were no details about whether or not the pilot has been previously warned either formally or informally. I would imagine that JQ will run the line that the employment relationship is irreparably damaged due to his actions. And the applicant (pilot) will either be pursuing Unfair Dismissal or/and Adverse Action.

The transcript of this case (if it gets to court) should be very interesting.

 

[el_rooto]

I always find it amusing when the term 'loyalty' is mentioned. Basically, loyalty is something that senior management seem to expect, but which they never give. It is only a one way street.

What school of management does that come from?

Sounds oddly singoporean.

 

[medhead]

Yes, a union is indeed there to look after the interests of its members and to raise reasons for keeping its members employed. But the reasons they raise should be accurate and they should do so honestly. What irritates me is when unions claim "safety" as being behind everything they are claiming, when it's actually job rentention for their members which is the motivator. Again, just look at the way the engineers union immediately claimed the A380 engine incident was the result of QF's "offshore maintenance". That was wrong, uninformed and dishonest.

The problem with that sort of tactic is that it makes people cynical when subsequent claims of "safety issues" are made. If the JQ pilots union wants to push the case for keeping jobs in Australia for its members, that's fine. Argue the case on its substantive merits. But it seems many unions run the line that only Australians can fly planes safely, or maintain them safely, and that's why the jobs should be here. That's rubbish. Non-Australians can fly safely, and they can maintain planes safely.

I certainly don't disagree with you. However, safety is such an nebulous concept it is easy to extent it to mean many things. It could be said that offshoring involves employing staff that aren't going to be so quick to raise safety concerns. That then gives management the opportunity to cut costs at the expense of safety. So in some ways it could be said that Australian staff who will stand up to management are more safe. Of course, this is hypothetical on my part, just that it isn't as simple as it seems, IMO.

 

[rtyuiop]

I do wonder how many DJ folks are considering making a very public job offer to the guy. Would be an extremely amusing PR exercise!

Danny

 

[munitalP]

The pilot in question was on the Today show this morning.

He mentioned TWO CEO's or MD's by name (I can't recall them DOH!) and the Chief (Senior) Pilot (also can't remember name- sorry).
This wasn't refuted by the JQ Manager who also appeared via video.

The interesting thing would be to see what their policies contain with regard to this sort of thing. To be summarily dismissed in this way, it would have to be regarded as Gross Misconduct. There were no details about whether or not the pilot has been previously warned either formally or informally. I would imagine that JQ will run the line that the employment relationship is irreparably damaged due to his actions. And the applicant (pilot) will either be pursuing Unfair Dismissal or/and Adverse Action.

The transcript of this case (if it gets to court) should be very interesting.

I watched this interview as well.

I started very impartial and finished by thinking if I was jetstar, I would have sacked this twit as well.

The crux of the matter is, and the pilot admitted as much, was he didn't get the answers he liked or wanted, so after raising the matter with jetstar the second time (a different person) and getting the same answers again and still not liking the result, he went to the media.

Who the hell would want anyone with that childish thought process in charge of the aircraft they were on...? I can see so many scenarios..

Jetstar CEO was very clear in the reasoning for sacking Captain Twit, he damaged jetstar asias reputation during expansion, he breached company policy he was contracted to uphold, and he done that it would seem after being warned not to.

Capitan Twit ended the interview by stating he would get his old job back... the camera never panned back to the CEO of jetstar, I would think he would have been wetting himself laughing at that statement!

As a side note, anyone who watched this interview, where was it filmed (CEO portion) - it looked like a view from the Melbourne Hilton..

 

[pauly7]

I do wonder how many DJ folks are considering making a very public job offer to the guy. Would be an extremely amusing PR exercise!

Danny

Even DJ wouldn't risk it on this guy...

They've had their fair share of safety incidents and procedure issues that I'm sure Mr Amateur Sleuth, sorry, this pilot, would love to write about in a nationally syndicated paper...

 

[rtyuiop]

Oh, I'm not saying actually give him a job, just very publicly invite him to an interview, with something like "*we* think safety should be an airline's first priority, and value employees who want to make make improvements in that area" tacked onto the press release.

Danny

 

[NM]

Comparisons with the RAAF are not valid. Yes, they put young guys into F18s, but they also get to select exactly the person they want (and in my day only took about 2% of applicants), and then they fail 50% of them. An aviation training company that proudly claims that 97% pass their course is not of the same standing as 2FTS. By the same token, those who actually have the 'stuff' that the RAAF wants are very unlikely to be interested in the airlines until their 30s. With the wages that some paper pushers seem to think are warranted, these people will most likely never become available to the Jetstars, etc of the world.

And at the same time as training them to be pilots, the RAAF is also training them to be military officers and all the discipline and process that goes along with that. And they are examined on both aspects and have to prove exemplary results on both. To me, its the combination of training provided that makes the RAAF such a good training ground for future airline pilots.