Been chewing this whole thing over for while now; blame Trevor for this ramble, but it was a good question and worthy of some consideration.
OEB #1603 "This was my CP trying to force me to fly to Sydney to see a Virgin Australia doctor. I don't work for Virgin. He passed on my name and all details without even having the decency to contact me. This is a violation of Australian Privacy Law."
Is the opening sentence above is a classic 'last straw'?, clearly by the time it was written, the third mile stone – blind fury - had been reached. The length of time taken to reach the BF marker varies between individuals; but soon or late, under the right circumstances, it is reached. To work out how 'Guy' got there we need to know how Guy intuitively (cognitively) perceived the end result. There are two options (a) he believes that the company will do the right thing and all will be well, eventually, so he patiently plods through the whole dreary routine; or (b) he believes the fix is in and eventually, no matter what, he's gone. From the remaining text above, I think option (b) has crept into the lead. You can see the holes – (
"without even having the decency to contact me") is contestable. The alleged breach of the Privacy act is disputable, stand alone, but without the agreed 'terms and conditions' of employment being examined, it's a reactive rather than considered claim...
OEB #1603 "[I]
know any investigation can be stressful and different people react differently." Whoever wrote this is a master of stating the bleeding obvious, de-humanising the situation while appearing to 'care'. It could be construed as either cynically patronising or, that no thought was given to the 'duty of care' a CP has for his troops; or, the CP needs to learn how to draft a letter. The spirit and intent of the CP missive, to someone in Guy's situation could easily be misconstrued, by a man already angry.
Is this line -
"We have access to a doctor experienced in dealing with the aviation environment, so I have arranged an appointment for you to discuss your situation and see what support you need"; presumptuous or helpful? The addition of one small word would have eliminated the perception problem "I
can arrange for etc.". It would help Guy determine whether he was being offered 'hoops' or hurdles'; choice or a 'drop dead option' Fuel to the insecurity fire...
Then, this whole 'dobbing' thing gets deuced tricky, but it gives an indication as to why Guy reacted so strongly to the CP email and started bellowing about the 'privacy act'.
# 1578 (Rumour 9) "Flight planning officer reported the crew to the ATSB and that is why they were both stood down." This is intriguing; why directly to the ATSB? – seriously. The FPO must have a 'manager' or some form of command chain. So, scenario time; here we have Guy and the FPO both 'cranky'; Guy buggers off to Perth; FPO gets on the blower - "Boss, that bloody Guy has just finished blasting me for a screwed flight plan; he's gone off in breach of SOP without a flight plan". Boss - "OK, write it all down in a report and send it to me". This, apart from 'feed-back' should have ended the FPO 's role in our little drama. His boss kicks it up the ladder and game on through the established system. But the FPO contacting ATSB directly is a 'passing strange' thing; given the timing. Who's idea and by whom and when was the ATSB contact initiated? It leaves a strange, oddly shaped loose end and a peculiar after taste.
Then there's this "
Dr. Drane advised that the report had come via a Tigerair Manager and then forwarded via Virgin Safety. This has been further confirmed by other sources at CASA. Virgin have categorically denied in writing, any knowledge implication or involvement in such an illegal, despicable act. Tigerair have stated that it was Virgin Safety who made the report to CASA and they had nothing to do with it." Here is the real breach of privacy and perhaps the real reason for Guy's anger. Just a quick, rough count of the number of people who now 'know' that Guy has been 'using', is enough to cause real fury and lasting damage.
Lets see; the originator (1) his immediate co-workers (4) the next step on the management ladder (7) flight ops (10) scheduling (12) ATSB (15) CASA admin (16) Avmed (20) Tiger management (30) Virgin management (33) Virgin safety (36). Possibly 40 separate individuals are now aware that Guy has been accused of 'using'. That's before the word leaks out to the ramp, flight crew, the Townsville re-fueller and they have told their 4 best mates and they've told their wives; so it goes on. This thread has had over 10,000 reads since Friday 08/08/14: 2200 Z (old school time)
So, I reckon Guy can be allowed a little cranky time; a little latitude and, if a wee blast or two on Pprune helps soothe the jangled nerves and some cohesive support is garnered, then why not? It's as I told John Quadrio (over several ales); if someone told you your story over a beer in a pub, you'd shake your head, say it was sad and maybe, in a couple of days you'd say – in passing "Oh, I feel sorry for the guy, but...." Unless it's you – in the gun – it's hard to understand what Guy is going through. Don't worry and feel insensitive; it's just human nature hard at work. Say a silent prayer to your pagan gods of choice it never happens to you. Take a little test; next time you see someone on crutches out on the street, with a broken leg; watch carefully. Those who have had similar will carefully avoid any contact and perhaps smile in understanding and empathy; those with NFI will almost bowl the silly bugger in the path over, seeing it as just an annoying, slow moving obstacle in their way.
IF Guy is a drug fiend, he needs our support, if the he is not, he still needs support; every bit we can manage.
Anyway - Ramble over. Curse this curiosity bump.
Selah...