Pilot who failed test must pay for training: Court
I apologise if this has been done already, I tried a search but nothing came up.
A pilot sacked by Jetstar after failing assessments at the end of his training period has been ordered by the Federal Magistrates Court to repay the airline $30,000 it spent on training costs, after it rejected his claim that flaws in the training system led to his failure.
Federal Magistrate Ken Raphael found the pilot hadn't failed to reach the required standard because of training problems, including a personality clash with one of the captains. Rather, he said, the reason he didn't succeed was "his own inability to fly the aircraft to the required standard". On that basis, he continued, the pilot's claim that Jetstar breached its employment agreement with him failed, as did his claim that he should not have to pay the $30,574 Jetstar sought for training costs.
The pilot had not flown an A320 before when in early 2008 Jetstar offered him a position as first officer on the aircraft provided he pass assessments at the end of both endorsement training, which is carried out on the ground and in simulators, and check-to-line training, carried out in the aircraft. Pilots traditionally pay for the cost of endorsement training, which Jetstar contracts out, and the airline in its letter of offer required him to sign an endorsement agreement under which he would pay for the training in monthly instalments over three years, but with the full cost repayable if he were sacked or failed.
The pilot failed the first check-to-line test in September 2008, and a second check-to-line test the following month. He was sacked in November on the basis that he hadn't satisfactorily completed his required assessments, after which Jetstar requested payment of the balance he owed. He then commenced court proceedings including for breach of his employment agreement and breach of the endorsement agreement. Federal Magistrate Raphael said that if he could not be satisfied that poor training had caused the pilot to fail to reach the required standard because then all claims arising out of that allegation would fail.
The pilot's allegations against Jetstar included that it requested he take leave during his training period, but Federal Magistrate Raphael said this did not constitute a failure by the airline to provide him with reasonable access to training. On the pilot's argument that he had too many days between training sessions, Federal Magistrate Raphael said "I am prepared to accept that these gaps were not conducive to the optimum training of [the pilot] . . . . However, I think the evidence that the gaps themselves were a significant contributor to his failure is lacking."
Federal Magistrate Raphael said the pilot's most contentious allegation was that his training suffered because he had a personality clash with one of the captains who trained him - and that the airline knew about it and should have addressed it.
But, after examining the evidence, he said he was not satisfied that "it bears out the description of the relationship between [the pilot] and Captain McConnell as one of a "personality clash", and that their relationship never reached a breakdown stage. "I accept that Jetstar management and, in particular, the pilots tasked with training take their responsibilities very seriously and that in the case of a genuine personality clash the trainee and the trainer would immediately be separated.
I am of the view that when [the pilot] expressed this concern about his training with Captain McConnell, Captain McLaurie did agree to see what he could do to ensure that Captain McConnell was not rostered on to the second stage of training. He did do that. Captain McConnell provided the applicant with a significant proportion of his training period but I do not think the evidence goes so far as to allow me to conclude that none of his training was of any benefit to [the pilot]."
Federal Magistrate Raphael continued that the tone of the notes Captain McConnell made during training seemed to be encouraging, and did not reveal the views of a trainer who had given up on his trainee. "I accept that [the pilot] may not have been as comfortable flying with Captain McConnell as he was with other training captains but I have not been persuaded that this so affected his training that it ceased to have value," he said.
Federal Magistrate Raphael continued airlines invested "considerable sums of money in training their own pilots and had a vested interest in those pilots being checked to line and ensuring that training was not being wasted. Pilot training is not special needs training. Those who undergo it would be expected to cope with some stress, after all, a pilot’s work is by its very nature stressful, his having the responsibility of so many lives in his hands. [The pilot] has not charged Captain McConnell with teaching him bad flying procedures which no Check Captain would have passed had they been learned.
He charges him with impatience or frustration at [the pilot's] perceived failings. For the reasons which I give, I have come to the conclusion that these failings were inherent and were unlikely to have been overcome even without training from Captain McConnell." And while the pilot also alleged he had too many captains training him - six in his first training period – Federal Magistrate Raphael said it was possible he would have done better with fewer trainers "but the evidence does not permit me to say that his alone constituted the failure pleaded".
Federal Magistrate Raphael concluded that the reason the pilot didn't succeed in his check-to-line assessments was his own inability to fly the aircraft to the required standard. "The A320 is a significantly larger aircraft than he had ever previously flown. It was a jet aircraft and not a piston engine one. It required particular techniques, especially in the last 30 miles before landing. The evidence revealed that [the pilot] never mastered those techniques."
Jetstar's standards committee had recommended after his second check-to-line failure that he not be recommended for further training, and Federal Magistrate Raphael said he was satisfied the decision was made bone fide and in light of all the evidence. "The Standards Committee is made up of a number of very senior captains. All the evidence that I heard points to a general wish not to fail trainee first officers.
[The pilot] is well-liked and his enthusiasm and desire to learn was respected." He continued that: "In my view the applicant has not made out a case that he was "at all times capable of being checked to line with reasonable access to training." He said it followed that he did not consider that Jetstar dealt inappropriately with when, after receiving the report from the standards committee and discussing the matter with senior trainers, it decided to dismiss him.
Federal Magistrate Raphael said the effect of his finding was that the pilot's claim that he was not bound to repay the training fee that was the subject of the endorsement agreement failed. The pilot also claimed that Jetstar breached its enterprise agreement when it dismissed him on the basis that he was a probationary employee, and Federal Magistrate Raphael agreed that he was not.
While the airline argued that the requirement to check to line created a qualifying period, Federal Magistrate Raphael held that the assessment requirement was "merely a term of the employment contract". He declined to impose a penalty, however, saying the airline's breach was "entirely inadvertent". He ordered the pilot to pay Jetstar $30,574, minus $15,471 or whatever the airline owed him for his correct notice payment. He reserved his decision on costs.