Pilot sues for alleged traumatic QantasLink/Cobham event

[JohnPhelan]

I feel sad for the F/O who clearly is no longer fit to fly. It feels like a pretty big leap though to accuse the operator of failing to maintain it's aircraft/engines properly. I mean, an engine failure is not an unknown event to occur. The F/O presumably would have been trained to deal with such an incident, so it was reasonable to assume such an event may occur during her career.

However in a similar way to train drivers experiencing a fatality, everyone recovers differently despite knowing the reality of the risk quite well.

I would say that an extreme reaction (as this pilot has appeared to have suffered) over losing one engine means this pilot was never temperamentally suited to the profession she chose. She would have gone through this many, many times on the simulator and should know very well that the aircraft can happily fly on one engine for a considerable distance.

 

[jb747]

At face value by the fact she had a job...
I'm not dismissing the important of records etc., However, I'm sure you're not suggesting airlines employ pilots (or FOs) who are considered to be incapable of doing the job.

In some ways, I probably am.

Over the years, the entire pilot training process has slowly become more "touchy, feely", for want of a better term. It was once an extremely harsh, survival exercise. 50% failure rates were normal....and that was after rejecting 99% of the applicants. Whilst it's arguable that it didn't necessarily produce a better pilot, it did produce someone who could handle stress reasonably well (or perhaps more correctly, it culled those who couldn't).

These days, there's pressure to recruit quotas, from various pools. Some of these aren't all that deep. So, yes, it's quite possible that the better recruit may be passed over because of some quota or other. This is exactly the issue that faced the initial female pilots, but in reverse.

So, recruiting the incapable. Not intentionally. But for most people, especially HR, airlines are not about machines and having the worst day of your life. That's an extremely unusual situation, that's unlikely to be faced by most people. They see the world through the rose tinted glasses of on time arrivals and departures.

 

[Quickstatus]

Which do you think was the better outcome?

That’s the problem, when outcomes are viewed purely through the size of the $$$.
Typically, the $$$ go up but the outcomes remain the same or worse. A very good example is the NSW workers compensation schemes and CTP schemes.

 

[Quickstatus]

So, recruiting the incapable. Not intentionally

There are 2 issues: recruitment and treatment of injuries.

The issues/policies of recruitment are dealt with at recruitment and while it can be informed by subsequent performance, it can’t be used to justify that (in hindsight), recruitment should not have occurred. Once the recruitment occurs, any problems that arise are owned by the employer.

It is concerning that a pilot could be so affected by what is considered to be the normal job description of the pilot, especially when the aircraft continued to be easily controllable.

Then, once an injury occurred, the airline policies surrounding treatment /remediation of injuries also need to be examined.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

That’s the problem, when outcomes are viewed purely through the size of the $$$.
Typically, the $$$ go up but the outcomes remain the same or worse. A very good example is the NSW workers compensation schemes and CTP schemes.

I see it as two separate streams. You want the best medical care and the best monetary outcome. It shouldn't have to be 'either' 'or'.

 

[suze2000]

That’s the problem, when outcomes are viewed purely through the size of the $$$.
Typically, the $$$ go up but the outcomes remain the same or worse. A very good example is the NSW workers compensation schemes and CTP schemes.

I don't understand how you can think that. More money = more treatment. Physiotherapy costs money! Massage treatment costs money and so does Panadeine, which I sucked down for years after that. And I got a stomach ulcer from anti-inflammatories. And almost nothing I have done over the years (apart from taking a year off work) has stopped the pain. So really, if I'd been awarded $1M at the start I probably would have been far happier because I would have been able to buy myself a house and invest and live off the rest, and would have been without the dark cloud of the pain all these years.

 

[Quickstatus]

really, if I'd been awarded $1M at the start I probably would have been far happier because I would have been able to buy myself a house and invest and live off the rest

Just have to look at lots of studies of compensable injuries. They generally just don’t do as well.

Why is that?, I wish I had an answer

 

[jb747]

And almost nothing I have done over the years (apart from taking a year off work) has stopped the pain.

Yes, but we aren't really talking about the same thing, are we? I see her more as a doctor, who can't stand the sight of blood, who sues the hospital because it's full of sick people.

 

[suze2000]

Yes, but we aren't really talking about the same thing, are we? I see her more as a doctor, who can't stand the sight of blood, who sues the hospital because it's full of sick people.

Haha yes, I work in a hospital and some of my colleagues are afraid of needles (and one of blood!), which I find weird and would have thought would be an automatic red flag.

 

[Quickstatus]

I see her more as a doctor, who can't stand the sight of blood, who sues the hospital because it's full of sick people.

There are more Drs who are suing because they can’t pass their specialist exams. Yes the process and pathway can be brutal, but at the end the successful ones are at least resilient (irrespective of whether you get good specialists out of that process)

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Yes, but we aren't really talking about the same thing, are we? I see her more as a doctor, who can't stand the sight of blood, who sues the hospital because it's full of sick people.

But your example doesn't account for third party action. Let's say a doctor is in the operating theatre and a piece of equipment fails, leading to further injury to the patient. The cause was because the equipment wasn't properly maintained, or perhaps the parts used were inferior quality causing them to fail. Let's then say that happens a second time.

 

[drron]

But your example doesn't account for third party action. Let's say a doctor is in the operating theatre and a piece of equipment fails, leading to further injury to the patient. The cause was because the equipment wasn't properly maintained, or perhaps the parts used were inferior quality causing them to fail. Let's then say that happens a second time.

If it happens a second time the doctor gets sued as they should have made sure it didn't happen again.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

If it happens a second time the doctor gets sued as they should have made sure it didn't happen again.

If you were the patient, maybe. But we’re talking the effect on the doctor.

 

[drron]

Well getting sued would be traumatic for the doctor but that wouldn't stop the patient.