Pilot sues for alleged traumatic QantasLink/Cobham event

[jb747]

Whether it is relevant to this or not, I don’t know, but…given her age she would have been joining the airlines around the point of HR ascendency. Prior to HR capturing recruitment, the only real considerations were a) could you fly to the required standard b) did they see you having command potential and c) would they drink with you. I don’t think any of those are now considered at all, and I suspect there are many people who should not really be in the job.

Recruitment used to be done by quite senior training Captains. Now it’s some HR chick, and maybe a pilot if they can find one.

 

[N860CR]

For what it's worth, there are plenty of examples of Police/Ambos etc suing for damages after PTSD from car accidents, particularly bad murders etc and they're generally met with support. Arguably, the former dealing with such events (which is practically the description of their job, though some police carry on like they expected their jobs to be helping nanna cross the road) should be considered more common place than an airline pilot dealing with a "once or twice in a career engine failure".

That said, these would generally be work cover issues and I'm not sure why this particular incident couldn't be pursued through the save avenue.

I'm also aware of a pilot (admittedly not at airline level) who had a few thousands hours and then developed a fear of flying. These sorts of things are rare, but mental health is not something to be simply fobbed off because it sounds a bit odd.

 

[jb747]

I'm also aware of a pilot (admittedly not at airline level) who had a few thousands hours and then developed a fear of flying. These sorts of things are rare, but mental health is not something to be simply fobbed off because it sounds a bit odd.

I don’t think anyone has a problem with the idea of supporting people with mental health issues. The only problem I have is the attempt to blame the airline for them.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I don’t think anyone has a problem with the idea of supporting people with mental health issues. The only problem I have is the attempt to blame the airline for them.

So no pilot can claim for injury if it is caused by the airline?

 

[Melburnian1]

So no pilot can claim for injury if it is caused by the airline?

Aren't you misunderstanding what was said?

Many people (including me) would be unsuitable for that occupation, just as many if not all in aviation couldn't perform suitably in my occupation.

A key question is whether the lady concerned was psychologically the right fit for the job.

If the vast majority of airline crew can cope with problems like an engine shutting down for which I assume they are continually trained and tested at regular intervals, perhaps the lady's alleged problems have been caused by something external to her occupation - problems with her personal relationship, worries about parents or children, financial worries or phsyical health concerns. Or maybe, without trivialising it, she's just a fairly 'highly strung' individual who somehow has nonetheless managed to get into an occupation that requires a very calm demeanour.

Correlation does not always suggest causation. It's for a judge to determine whether 'the airline has caused it' to use your words.

 

[dk4]

What an intriguing conversation this has become.

I would say though, that I hope the people operating the flight deck of my next flight, have the collegial, mental and psychological capacity to deal with a catastrophic event, should one happen.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Aren't you misunderstanding what was said?

Many people (including me) would be unsuitable for that occupation, just as many if not all in aviation couldn't perform suitably in my occupation.

A key question is whether the lady concerned was psychologically the right fit for the job.

If the vast majority of airline crew can cope with problems like an engine shutting down for which I assume they are continually trained and tested at regular intervals, perhaps the lady's alleged problems have been caused by something external to her occupation - problems with her personal relationship, worries about parents or children, financial worries or phsyical health concerns. Or maybe, without trivialising it, she's just a fairly 'highly strung' individual who somehow has nonetheless managed to get into an occupation that requires a very calm demeanour.

Correlation does not always suggest causation. It's for a judge to determine whether 'the airline has caused it' to use your words.

I'm not sure the issue of suitability is relevant here: the FO was licensed, and was presumably complying with all legal requirements in the course of their duty.

Subsequent to that an event occurred - which is alleged could have been avoided - and triggered an injury. If that event hadn't occurred, she would potentially still be flying.

No one really knows why some people experience PTSD and others don't. But PSDT shouldn't be seen as a sign of weakness.

From the reports the airline doesn't seem to be saying the PTSD wasn't caused by the engine shut-down. They are saying they aren't the ones responsible for the maintenance.... that is, that they should be suing someone else.

What an intriguing conversation this has become.

I would say though, that I hope the people operating the flight deck of my next flight, have the collegial, mental and psychological capacity to deal with a catastrophic event, should one happen.

There doesn't seem to be any suggestion that the event wasn't handled professionally or that the plane wasn't landed in accordance will all relevant procedures.

 

[Melburnian1]

I'm not sure the issue of suitability is relevant here: the FO was licensed, and was presumably complying with all legal requirements in the course of their duty.

Subsequent to that an event occurred - which is alleged could have been avoided - and triggered an injury. If that event hadn't occurred, she would potentially still be flying.

No one really knows why some people experience PTSD and others don't. But PSDT shouldn't be seen as a sign of weakness.

From the reports the airline doesn't seem to be saying the PTSD wasn't caused by the engine shut-down. They are saying they aren't the ones responsible for the maintenance.... that is, that they should be suing someone else.



There doesn't seem to be any suggestion that the event wasn't handled professionally or that the plane wasn't landed in accordance will all relevant procedures.

Given none of us have read the depositions, and nor have we engaged in the solicitors' process of discovery of documents, perhaps you, I and all ought wait to see what transpires in any court hearings - assuming there are media reports.

 

[Happy Dude]

Won't Qantas, or whoever is responsible for maintaining the aircraft, simply produce a maintenance report that indicates maintenance to the required standard was performed and the plane was fit to fly? Isn't that required as minimum for a licence?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Won't Qantas, or whoever is responsible for maintaining the aircraft, simply produce a maintenance report that indicates maintenance to the required standard was performed and the plane was fit to fly? Isn't that required as minimum for a licence?

I think that will be part of it. Could be a couple of potential issues... the work signed off as meeting the required standard may not have in fact have met the standard, or perhaps there might be a question as to whether the 'required standard' was in itself sufficient. The former would be a front-line issue, the latter potentially a more strategic issue.

 

[jb747]

I'm not sure the issue of suitability is relevant here: the FO was licensed, and was presumably complying with all legal requirements in the course of their duty.

Subsequent to that an event occurred - which is alleged could have been avoided - and triggered an injury. If that event hadn't occurred, she would potentially still be flying.

And if she were still flying, I'd consider her to be a time bomb. Sorry, but I'm not interested in having people with this sort of issue flying, at all.

No one really knows why some people experience PTSD and others don't. But PSDT shouldn't be seen as a sign of weakness.

Weakness, no. Unsuitability, definitely.

I got a response re the QF32 settlement. I asked one of the pilots, and he said that yes there was legal action from the cabin crew, which he refused to be part of. Pretty much what I expected.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Weakness, no. Unsuitability, definitely.

At the time of the incident she was suitable to fly the aircraft. This incident has - allegedly - caused her to be unsuitable, at least for a period of time.

Which is presumably why she is taking the action.

This shouldn't be treated differently to any other injury sustained on board.

 

[Melburnian1]

I got a response re the QF32 settlement. I asked one of the pilots, and he said that yes there was legal action from the cabin crew, which he refused to be part of. Pretty much what I expected.

It's not unusual for individuals to opt out of, or not sign up for, 'class actions'. The major beneficiaries seem to be barristers and solicitors., not plaintiffs. One Victorian settlement (unrelated to aviation) drew heavy criticism from a Victorian Supreme Court judge IIRC for that reason. Good on the pilot for opting out. Unachievable nirvana.

 

[Melburnian1]

At the time of the incident she was suitable to fly the aircraft. This incident has - allegedly - caused her to be unsuitable, at least for a period of time.

Which is presumably why she is taking the action.

This shouldn't be treated differently to any other injury sustained on board.

Again, you miss an important point that an AFF aviator made, as he's said temperament - psychological suitability - is of major importance for this occupation To paraphrase (perhaps not 100 per cent correctly) having an engine failure is to be expected: a routine part of that role where the reasonable employer's premise is that staff will go through the procedures for which they've been so frequently trained and tested on, and deal calmly with the occurrence.

Innately, I wouldn't want to be in that role (quite rightly, no HR individual would accept me even if I tried to sneak in) but she wanted to undertake those duties (for which there are more applicants than places, generally) and signed up for them, so isn't it fair to expect that she's able to cope with this sort of event?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Again, you miss an important point that an AFF aviator made, as he's said temperament - psychological suitability - is of major importance for this occupation To paraphrase (perhaps not 100 per cent correctly) having an engine failure is to be expected: a routine part of that role where the reasonable employer's premise is that staff will go through the procedures for which they've been so frequently trained and tested on, and deal calmly with the occurrence.

Innately, I wouldn't want to be in that role (quite rightly, no HR individual would accept me even if I tried to sneak in) but she wanted to undertake those duties (for which there are more applicants than places, generally) and signed up for them, so isn't it fair to expect that she's able to cope with this sort of event?

I think we need to separate out the PTSD from the notion of suitability. Even the most suitable person could potentially suffer PTSD. Some of our best soldiers and first-responders suffer PTSD. Does that make them unsuitable? Even the ones awarded the top medals for bravery?

Whether or not the PTSD is actionable in terms of compensation is likely a valid question. But there might be a difference between something caused during routine operations (engine shutdown due to bird-strike for example) vs an incident that could have been avoided but for the alleged failings of another person or entity.

 

[jb747]

.....Good on the pilot for opting out. Unachievable nirvana.

His comment was that he simply considered it to be part of the job, for both pilots and cabin crew. Passengers, no.

That's the way I feel about QF30 as well.

 

[Melburnian1]

I think we need to separate out the PTSD from the notion of suitability. Even the most suitable person could potentially suffer PTSD. Some of our best soldiers and first-responders suffer PTSD. Does that make them unsuitable? Even the ones awarded the top medals for bravery?

Whether or not the PTSD is actionable in terms of compensation is likely a valid question. But there might be a difference between something caused during routine operations (engine shutdown due to bird-strike for example) vs an incident that could have been avoided but for the alleged failings of another person or entity.

Conflating a theatre of war with peacetime occupations is not the best comparison.

If there were 'alleged failings' of 'another...entity' then it's possible she's suing the wrong company.

 

[jb747]

I think we need to separate out the PTSD from the notion of suitability. Even the most suitable person could potentially suffer PTSD. Some of our best soldiers and first-responders suffer PTSD. Does that make them unsuitable? Even the ones awarded the top medals for bravery?

If we are going to separate out things, we need to differentiate between what is normal and what is abnormal. Whilst going to war is perhaps a soldier's job, it isn't a normal state of being. A military is considered a success if it does not have to fight...it works by just existing.

A simple engine failure should not be a stressful event. It falls well within the confines of what you can expect to see. A low fuel diversion in poor weather is a much more mundane event, but is far more stressful.

So, perhaps the engine failure caused the PTSD, but if not for that, it would have been something else. It's a convenient hook on which to hang the blame.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

If we are going to separate out things, we need to differentiate between what is normal and what is abnormal. Whilst going to war is perhaps a soldier's job, it isn't a normal state of being. A military is considered a success if it does not have to fight...it works by just existing.

A simple engine failure should not be a stressful event. It falls well within the confines of what you can expect to see. A low fuel diversion in poor weather is a much more mundane event, but is far more stressful.

So, perhaps the engine failure caused the PTSD, but if not for that, it would have been something else. It's a convenient hook on which to hang the blame.

That's where the medical evidence will come in to play. This was the second engine failure on the same type of aircraft for the FO. I'm sure she'd rather be working than not?

If you want to distinguish the military, consider first responders. They are trained to go fight fires, cut people out of cars, and sew them back together. Training and experience won't prevent some getting PTSD. That doesn't mean that for the time of their employment beforehand they were unsuitable for the job.

 

[drron]

That's where the medical evidence will come in to play. This was the second engine failure on the same type of aircraft for the FO. I'm sure she'd rather be working than not?

If you want to distinguish the military, consider first responders. They are trained to go fight fires, cut people out of cars, and sew them back together. Training and experience won't prevent some getting PTSD. That doesn't mean that for the time of their employment beforehand they were unsuitable for the job.

Put it to bed.We all know what you think is the problem.
But seriously you think that shutting 2 engines down as a commercial pilot is the same as those attending a traffic accident,cutting people out of the wreckage and then resuscitating them. Ridiculous.
More like a doctor reacting that way because an 80+ year old patient died because it had happened before.In those circumstances usually diagnosed as depression rather than PTSD.
And none of us know what the FO was like before this incident and everything is purely speculation.