Pilot sues for alleged traumatic QantasLink/Cobham event

[Melburnian1]

It would be interesting to see her complete training records. They will be likely to tell an interesting story.

In the legal process of 'discovery', QF's solicitors would routinely ask for these, plus her complete medical records (including in private areas unrelated to work, performance reviews, training results in the air and through simulators plus much more that those of us outside aviation can't think of. Perhaps even her secondary school and university records, as well as dredging through that minefield of social media.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I and one daresays many others would be useless as pilots. It's great that we all have different skillsets.

However, in the instant case, one question for the court - a legal expression that in judge-only matters means 'the judge/justice/magistrate' - is if the lady concerned had more than a decade's experience, had she 'proved' herself suitable for the occupation that jb747 also held?

That will be a task for experts - perhaps including 'check' pilots. Out of my league!

I don't know if any of that is going to be relevant... along with training, aptitude or 'fortitude'.

This is a mental health issue/injury.

It could happen to anyone.

I think the questions will be - in no particular order - (a) is there evidence of PTSD, (b) what was the cause, (c) is compensation claimable in these circumstances, and (d) from where (insurance company? employer? a.n. other?)

 

[Must...Fly!]

True, and I could understand some trauma for a person involved in an accident that caused loss of life, or even substantial injury. But, for a pilot of a multi engined aircraft, this is something that should be little more traumatic than putting fuel in the car's tank at a service station. You will see engine failures. Most likely more than one. It should be water off the duck's back. If it isn't, you really are not suitable.

I both agree and disagree. Not suggesting you are JB, but it should not be frowned upon to have had an adverse mental reaction to an event in the workplace, even if you are trained for it. I agree that with a loss of life it would be very understandable. Without it, it can still be very difficult. But that said, I would expect that after some time away if required (be that days or weeks) and appropriate care (psychologist or otherwise), one would be ready to get back to doing their job, understanding the risks that it entails.

If that is not possible, then yes, perhaps the job just is not for you - and there is no shame in that. But unless there was some kind of other unfair dismissal going on in the background here, lawyering up and going to court doesn't seem to add up.

 

[flydoc]

I’m sure I read the report on this incident on the ATSB website a year or two ago, but can no longer see it there - can anyone else?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

But unless there was some kind of other unfair dismissal going on in the background here, lawyering up and going to court doesn't seem to add up.

It might be that the airline or insurer doesn't want to pay and no issue of unfair dismissal. But this pilot is now presumably out of a job, for an injury which she didn't plan on. I can see the merit in bringing a case for compensation.

 

[Melburnian1]

I’m sure I read the report on this incident on the ATSB website a year or two ago, but can no longer see it there - can anyone else?

I did an 'advanced search' on the ATSB website. Couldn't locate it.

Presumably it's been removed/redacted due to the legal action. (I question why ATSB did this).

There are paywalled media reports about the flight, but they won't disclose anything you don't already know, flydoc.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I did an 'advanced search' on the ATSB website. Couldn't locate it.

Presumably it's been removed/redacted due to the legal action. (I question why ATSB did this).

There are paywalled media reports about the flight, but they won't disclose anything you don't already know, flydoc.

I don't see any legal reason why the report would be taken away.

The incident is listed in the ATSB's data base (exportable to excel) via this page: www.atsb.gov.au/avdata/naod/

The line for the incident reads:

10/03/2018

201800982

Incident

Brisbane Aerodrome, 280° T 463Km

QLD

The Boeing Company

717

Air Transport High Capacity

Passenger

CTA

A

During approach, the crew detected vibrations from the no. 2 engine and the engine was shut down. The engineering inspection revealed damage to the compressor blades and the engine was removed for further inspection.

Maybe they didn't do an investigation?

There's an ATSB report into an earlier 2011 B717 engine failure.

 

[jb747]

I both agree and disagree. Not suggesting you are JB, but it should not be frowned upon to have had an adverse mental reaction to an event in the workplace, even if you are trained for it. I agree that with a loss of life it would be very understandable. Without it, it can still be very difficult. But that said, I would expect that after some time away if required (be that days or weeks) and appropriate care (psychologist or otherwise), one would be ready to get back to doing their job, understanding the risks that it entails.

If that is not possible, then yes, perhaps the job just is not for you - and there is no shame in that. But unless there was some kind of other unfair dismissal going on in the background here, lawyering up and going to court doesn't seem to add up.

I wondered at the start of the thread, whether I should comment or not. PTSD is certainly an issue of mental health. The problem, as I see it, is that the supposed trauma, and the item for which the company is being sued, relates to the engine failure. That is, without any shadow of doubt, simply part of the job.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to blame (and sue if necessary) the Cobham selection system for hiring her.

10/03/2018

201800982

Incident

Brisbane Aerodrome, 280° T 463Km

QLD

The Boeing Company

717

Air Transport High Capacity

Passenger

CTA

A

During approach, the crew detected vibrations from the no. 2 engine and the engine was shut down. The engineering inspection revealed damage to the !compressor blades and the engine was removed for further inspection.

Maybe they didn't do an investigation?

There's an ATSB report into an earlier 2011 B717 engine failure.

I shut down two engines in flight during my time on the 767, and neither were the subject of reports. They (ATSB) pick and choose, and if they chose not to do a report on this, then it would imply that it was an “uninteresting” failure.

 

[Guvner]

I shut down two engines in flight during my time on the 767, and neither were the subject of reports.

I assume not at the same time though !

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I wondered at the start of the thread, whether I should comment or not. PTSD is certainly an issue of mental health. The problem, as I see it, is that the supposed trauma, and the item for which the company is being sued, relates to the engine failure. That is, without any shadow of doubt, simply part of the job.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to blame (and sue if necessary) the Cobham selection system for hiring her.

Engine failure might be part of the job, but one of the factors might be the reason why. If this had been bad weather, or a bird ingestion, it might be different to alleged poor maintenance. In this case someone has potentially 'caused' the injury, or might be responsible for it.

One news outlet reported this is was the second incident experienced by this pilot on the same aircraft type. The other being an engine shutdown on a Hobart flight.

I'm not sure why mental injury is being treated differently to physical injury? If the pilot had been physically injured, would anyone be looking to blame Cobham's selection system?

 

[drron]

Was this really an engine failure?Certainly not a dramatic one such as the recent UA episode.
The plane was on approach and vibrations in one engine so it was shut down by the crew and the plane landed safely.Sounds like she is totally unsuited to be a commercial airline pilot IMHO.

 

[Melburnian1]

Engine failure might be part of the job, but one of the factors might be the reason why. If this had been bad weather, or a bird ingestion, it might be different to alleged poor maintenance. In this case someone has potentially 'caused' the injury, or might be responsible for it.

One news outlet reported this is was the second incident experienced by this pilot on the same aircraft type. The other being an engine shutdown on a Hobart flight.

I'm not sure why mental injury is being treated differently to physical injury? If the pilot had been physically injured, would anyone be looking to blame Cobham's selection system?

'Physical injury' related to the position still has to be proven through the courts if it's a workers compensation claim. Haven't you heard of so-called 'Turkish back'?

That she claims mental injury doesn't mean the court has to accept what she says. I concur with what jb747 has said. It cements in my mind why I'd be a terrible pilot, so bad I'd be a danger to passengers if I managed to scrape through any training. I'm sure MEL_Traveller your occupation may not be for everyone. Nor is being an airline crew member.

 

[milehighclub]

I’ll follow that up with some of the crew.

The case:

Qantas crew sue for trauma of explosion

Qantas cabin crew members who were on QF32 when its engine exploded mid-air two years ago, have initiated a class action lawsuit against the aircraft's engine manufacturer over psychological trauma they say they have suffered as a result of the incident.

www.smh.com.au

From the lawyers:
"After initially denying liability, the defendant admitted breach of duty and there followed over a year of individual negotiations to settle group members claims."

Lam v Rolls Royce | A Qantas Rolls Royce Lawsuit | LHD

After take-off from Singapore, a Qantas A380 had one of its Rolls Royce Trent 900 engines disintegrate. Read the Lam v Rolls Royce a class action settlement.

www.lhd.com.au

Also talks of PTSD "Sandy returned to work but suffered panic attacks when flying and had numerous periods when she was medically unfit because of her condition but she remained determined."

 

[Vic]

Interesting discussion.

I'd expect pilot training to be able to efficiently deal with an engine failure would be part of making a safe workplace. There seems to be a misconception about what a safe workplace means, here is one definition. from a safety business newsletter - Safetrac

A safe workplace is one that is free from hazards and compliant with all OHS regulations. It is an environment where employers and employees work together to prevent workplace injuries from occurring and the key to maintaining such an environment is communication.

A safe workplace doesn't mean zero risk, that would be impossible since every activity has risk. A safe workplace is about managing risk to a low or acceptable level. In this incident The aircraft landed without injury, the flight crew dealt with the engine vibration in a way that let them land without injury (presumably because of training), the engine was inspected and taken out of service thereby removing the hazard for future flights.

At face value the incident doesn't seem that big. While mental health will manifest differently in all people, I'm struggling to see the much scope for Trauma or stress in this incident. PTSD - After (Post) pressure or tension in a deeply disturbing experience/physical injury (Traumatic Stress). The incident certainly has an element of pressure or tension (Stress), presumably more pressure for the pilot. However, where is the deeply disturbing part or the physical injury.

I'm not criticising the FO, clearly it was big for her.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Interesting discussion.

I'd expect pilot training to be able to efficiently deal with an engine failure would be part of making a safe workplace. There seems to be a misconception about what a safe workplace means, here is one definition. from a safety business newsletter - Safetrac



A safe workplace doesn't mean zero risk, that would be impossible since every activity has risk. A safe workplace is about managing risk to a low or acceptable level. In this incident The aircraft landed without injury, the flight crew dealt with the engine vibration in a way that let them land without injury (presumably because of training), the engine was inspected and taken out of service thereby removing the hazard for future flights.

At face value the incident doesn't seem that big. While mental health will manifest differently in all people, I'm struggling to see the much scope for Trauma or stress in this incident. PTSD - After (Post) pressure or tension in a deeply disturbing experience/physical injury (Traumatic Stress). The incident certainly has an element of pressure or tension (Stress), presumably more pressure for the pilot. However, where is the deeply disturbing part or the physical injury.

I'm not criticising the FO, clearly it was big for her.

Two things come to mind... firstly the claim is that maintenance was a factor. Has risk been managed if maintenance wasn't carried out to the relevant standard? The other is that this was the second incident of a very similar nature - an engine shut down on the 717 - that was experienced by the FO in a period of three years. Maybe the second incident compounded to trigger the PTSD.

 

[Vic]

Two things come to mind... firstly the claim is that maintenance was a factor. Has risk been managed if maintenance wasn't carried out to the relevant standard? The other is that this was the second incident of a very similar nature - an engine shut down on the 717 - that was experienced by the FO in a period of three years. Maybe the second incident compounded to trigger the PTSD.

Certainly systems for maintenance of machinery is part of providing a safe workplace. In those circumstances, perhaps there is an issue. And Qantas are responsible for maintenance?

I really don't want to say much about the mental health aspects, other than all people have their own journey.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Certainly systems for maintenance of machinery is part of providing a safe workplace. In those circumstances, perhaps there is an issue. And Qantas are responsible for maintenance?

I really don't want to say much about the mental health aspects, other than all people have their own journey.

I think that’s part of the issue... working out who was responsible for maintenance, and if not maintenance related, then perhaps the manufacturer?

 

[milehighclub]

working out who was responsible for maintenance, and if not maintenance related, then perhaps the manufacturer?

Qantas said it "was a manufacturing fault and not related to maintenance."

 

[jb747]

I assume not at the same time though !

No, I'd have been much more famous....

I guess there are a number of issues here.

Firstly, it would seem that the lady is medically unfit for the job. That should bring whatever medical retirement avenues are available into play. People have 'played' this in the past, so sadly that makes it a bit more difficult.

I think they will have difficulty proving lack of maintenance on QF/Cobham's part. If they can successfully do so, then they will have proven that the airline should not be operating at all. Whilst I don't like much of what Joyce and Dixon did, I never saw any evidence of failure to do maintenance on any airworthiness item. The biggest complaint we hear about this is that they exported the job (which they did), but remember that foreign maintenance built the aircraft and engines in the first place.

Rolls Royce, when making the original A380 engines failed to make the parts in accordance with it's own designs. That leaves it especially open.

 

[Vic]

I don't want to speculate too much. But there shouldn't be an assumption that maintenance systems are incapable of detecting manufacturing faults. We certainly don't have the information required to categorically state maintenance wasn't able to detect the manufacturing problem; that there wasn't some deficiency in the maintenance system that meant a detectable fault went undetected. Or that having detected an error maintenance pushed it back to the manufacturer, but left the engine in service pending solution form RR. The 717s are really old as well, there could be another situation where maintenance failed to identify a need to act based on some kind of notice from RR.

Sure these seem unlikely scenarios, but they are possible.

Just on the safe workplace thing. WHS legislation doesn't give Qantas a get out of gaol free card for contractors, Qantas are responsible for all persons in their workplace including contractors.
no more speculation from me.

No, I'd have been much more famous....

Especially if you landed on the Hudson River.

As I read the stuff in thread, it's looks like her pathway to commercial aviation was entirely non-military - so PPL, commercial PL, Airnorth etc.
I was wondering if that might be a factor in the reaction to the event. A career pathway where the possibility of failure was a secondary consideration.