Originally Posted by
Radgirl
The issue of continuing to fly is nothing to do with Virgin. It was a medical decision. The fact that Virgin paid the doctor's salary is irrelevant. Whether the doctor was correct in continuing to issue a medical would require an expert opinion based on his notes. So we cant decide, only postulate. Medical negligence would be very difficult yo get past a court because the standard against which the doctor would be compared would be a generalist occupational health doctor or a GP, not a consultant psychiatrist. In any case the pilot made money by continuing to fly, he didnt lose money, so there is no financial loss.
The pilot had a medical so Virgin was not at risk
Virgin may have failed to take out loss of license insurance in which case in the UK it would merely be a breech of contract and a matter for an employment tribunal or the county court for financial loss.
According to the article it states the following:
"The psychiatrist found that Boyd was “well below the minimum standard of mental health for a pilot” recommending his license be revoked immediately."
The article then goes on to say this immediately after:
"This recommendation was sent to the referring Virgin Australia doctor.But three months on, Boyd was again mailed his medical certificate from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)."
If that is true then how on earth is that not medical negligence, did the virgin australia doctor have appropriate psychiatric qualifications in order to make an assessment that went against what the psychiatrist and the pilot was saying?
If this was a physical issue (for e.g. epilepsy) instead of a mental health issue than what would the outcome have been if the virgin doctor still went against the advice of the specialist and there was a subsequent accident?