Luxair dismisses 6 pilots

[merlot]

Luxair announced yesterday that it dimissed 6 pilots .
All 6 were either involved or connected to the accident of the Fokker in Luxembourg in November 2002

They are:

The captain of the flight
The former Operations Manager,
The former Flight Safety Officer
The former Quality Manager / Flight Standards Manager
The former Operations Manager
The Chiefpilot of ther Fokker Fleet

[Few Cloudy]

Now they just need to dismiss the Authority which issued the Captain's license.

[Polikarpov]

Heard that some, if not all, Luxair pilots are going to report in sick tomorrow to object to these dismissals.

[tom de luxe]

Here's the Luxair press release (names edited out, although they appear in full on the Luxair website :uhoh: , which is a bit rich really):


"(08.01.2004)
Press Release


After further analysis of the flight accident of 6 November 2002 and after having examined the Technical Report on this matter, the Executive Committee of Luxair S.A. decided to dismiss with immediate effect Captain ***, Captain *** (former Chief of Operations), Captain *** (former Flight Safety Officer), Captain *** (former Quality Manager / Flight Standards Manager) and Captain *** (former Chief of Operations). The procedure of dismissal with notice was initiated for Captain *** (Chief Pilot of the Fokker fleet).

These measures were taken in order to guarantee a maximum flight safety at all times, and to optimize security awareness within the company.

For procedural reasons, Luxair will not be communicating any further details on this decision for the time being. "

[Wig Wag]

A key phrase in the final report is:

'The combination of routine and “get home itis” favoured the decision of the crew to accept the approach clearance, although they were not prepared to it. At this precise point the chain of events started to build up which ultimately led to successive uncoordinated decisions and actions by the crew members.'

So where did this culture of “get home itis” come from?

The whole point of a professional airline crews training is to safely land the aircraft. If it isn't safe to land then you go-around and execute your alternative options. This is fundamental to the whole job.

The impossibility in this kind of investigation is knowing what is in the mind of the crew when they make a flawed decision. However, there should be no pressure to 'get in on time' or not divert because of the expense to the company.

The airline crew were not responsible for their training nor the operational culture they worked under. If heads have rolled then that is an appropriate response. Whether, in these particular circumstances, the right heads rolled who can tell.

However, with the commercial pressures on the industry these days, some airline management are definitely not whiter than white.

This situation should make the line management in some EU airlines sit up and think very carefully about the messages they give out to their crews.

[Superpilut]

WigWag:

One thing is for sure: no pressure like that existed from upstairs.
That's one of the few areas, like with fuelpolicy, where the crews have the free hand (as long as you keep it reasonable, of course). It is left up to the crews judgment and professionalism to take or skip a delay. Certainly in Low Vis you don't get slammed after taking a delay.

[tom de luxe]

Superpilut:

OK, so

It is left up to the crews judgment and professionalism to take or skip a delay. Certainly in Low Vis you don't get slammed after taking a delay.

I find that in this particular area, the final report provides for some disillusion, what with the capt's quote "Dad [i.e. the Capt. himself, not the Capt.'s father, formerly Luxair Chief of Operations] still works with all the tricks”. ("De Pap schafft nach mat allen Tricken", much more idiomatic in Letzebuergisch than in English) - from CVR, when challenged by the -older- F/O: "Dat doo geseiht schlecht aus, mei Jong" = "This looks bad, sonny."

Then there's page 60 of the final report:

It became obvious during the investigation that the existing control mechanisms including the recurrent trainings, did not prevent the crew to diverge dramatically from standard procedures.
It was also discovered that, about an hour before the accident, another F27 Mk050 from Luxair landed without having at any moment received a RVR reading at or above their required minima of 300 meters.

That sort of attitude doesn't appear just like this, out of the blue, does it?

[Miserlou]

I find it interesting that management heads have rolled instéad of the perhaps more usual hand-washing sack the actual crew.

I wonder, though, what the roll of the ATC was in the course of those events and if there have been any repurcussions for them. I have not read the report but remember LUX ATC as not being amongst the best in europe. We often had questions as to what they meant.

[Argentomagus]

Luxair management said it took it's decision after studying the accident report.

Here is from page two of this report:

"....it is not the purpose of the aircraft accident investigation to apportion blame or liability.

The sole objective of the investigation and its final report is the prevention of future accidents.

Consequently, the use of this report for purposes other than prevention may lead to wrong interpretations. "

[tom de luxe]

Miserlou:

None of the crew involved in the LX-LGB accident are with Luxair any longer.
The unfortunate F/O died in the crash, as did the FA, and 18 out of 19 pax (R.I.P.). The Capt. survived and was among those sacked on 08 Jan (he's the one on the list w/o a management function in Luxair).

Not sure about ATC, from the report / CVR transcript it appears that ATC were never quite copied in by the crew as to what was going on.

[Payscale]

I worked for the company when he was hired by his dad. Anyone who worked there at the time, knew what he was like, and how he got the job. That nepotism for you. Shame on you Poekets Snr.

Sadly this comes as no surprise to me.

May the departed rest in peace

[Bearcat]

also worked there for a short period many moons ago....the writing was on the wall then

[Chronic Snoozer]

From what I have read on this accident, it would make a sobering and fascinating study for the Reason model. If those that saw the 'writing on the wall' had only spoken up or been listened to maybe this tragedy could have been averted.

Worst thing about the recent actions is I wonder what kind of message this sends out. Is this post-accident action conducive to cultivating an improved culture within the company? Is it punishing genuinely negligent persons? Or is it the action of a company that needs to be seen to be doing something? What has the company learnt from this?

[Argentomagus]

Those are indeed good questions !

A few hours after the accident, the company's CEO made a fool of himself by claiming that it definitely was not a pilot's error that caused the accident.
Not being an aviation safety expert ( the real ones never speculate on accident cause) he probably was repeating what part of the staff had carelessly told him. This could be the real reason for sacking them...
Aviation safety has little to do with it.

[Superpilut]

Just a window of opportunity to settle old scores.

The most interesting part of this saga will be who are shortlisted to replace the dismissed. Internal Luxair or creatures from the breedinggrounds of successful Aviation managers; Belgium....

[tom de luxe]

Superpilut

Very interesting question indeed.
It is some comfort that some things about how LG functions (well sort of), and that all is not too well, have come to public attention. Remember last summer when
(1) Luxair's CEO requested 17 pilots' dossiers from HR, apparently without having that request signed off by the Minister of Transports (this being Lux, the CEO can't just have a look at the dossiers of those who actually work for the Company w/o proper authorisation),
(2) the (then) Flight Safety Offiver took these dossiers physically home with him "to prevent them being accessed illegally" (by the CEO), and
(3) the CEO had them confiscated at the F.S.O's home by the police?

Needless to say that (at least some of) those sacked feel they are merely scapegoats, sacrificed so that Luxair's CEO can save his behind. Who knows?

BTW, the former Chief of Operations is still advisor to the Ministry of Transport (Direction de l'Aviation Civile = Lux CAA). That advisory post is always filled with somebody seconded from / proposed by Luxair, i.e. Luxair more or less safety-audited itself:suspect:.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Blimey, a safety culture problem? Not much!!

Threat, fear, intimidation....no place for it in the safety organisation.

[jetjackel]

Any pilot who ever thought about sacrificing safety for a shortcut, or any other reason, should think about the surviving Captain, who has to live with the results. Can't imagine what that would be like, fortunatley.

[maxalt]

Threat, fear, intimidation....no place for it in the safety organisation.

Sounds like every airline I know of! Name one thats any different.

The irony in this case is that the very people who usually administer the "Threat, fear and intimidation" (i.e. Flight Ops Management) are the ones who got it in the neck.

But then most airlines are a Dog Eat Dog environment, regardless of all the lip service paid to CRM etc etc......

[Chronic Snoozer]

So what has the airline industry learnt?

Dog Eat Dog environment, regardless of all the lip service paid to CRM etc etc......

Scary isn't it. :sad:

[Faire d'income]

It makes interesting reading this. Just an observation, it has been suggested here the CEO has played a very hands on role since the accident, does he always play such a hands on role? If so could he have contributed to the 'get home itis' ?

I can think of a couple of CEO's ( media favourites naturally ) who often attempt to get involved in or 'influence' a Captain's decision making to suit the company. Would their heads role in an investigation?

[CR2]

Link (http://www.station.lu/newsDetails.cfm?id=3166)


14-JAN-04 Angry Luxair staff demonstrate against pilot dismissals

Around 100 pilots and sympathisers demonstrated outside the Luxair buildings yesterday afternoon to protest against the dismissal of 6 pilots that Luxair said was necessary to guarantee safety after the fatal Fokker 50 crash in November 2002. The protest was organised by the LCGB union, which represents most of the flight personnel, as well as the ALPL pilots’ union. Four of the dismissed pilots were also present. LCGB union secretary Tania Picco claimed that the pilots had been dismissed without a prior hearing, which contravened employment law. She gave Alain Georges a symbolic red card for the Luxair management and left it with a catalogue of questions concerning Luxair safety measures to be answered by Friday evening. For its part, the Luxair management maintains that it has acted within the law in its dismissal of the six pilots. At a meeting yesterday, the Board of Directors approved an Action Plan of further organisational and operational measures aimed at meeting the recommendations of the Technical Investigation Report into the Fokker crash.

[Foreign Worker]

This fatal acccident in Luxair is symptomatic of the disease that has spread through many airlines worldwide, and will continue to manifest itself, in my opinion, in airlines worldwide.

One can only hope that future "events" will involve families of those who have devolved what was an established system, and force home the full ramifications of their short term, finacially focused follies.

[ATC Watcher]

And of course all these " legal" measures are going to make the airline safer :* and confidence in Luxair is going to be restored.....

[CR2]

Link (http://www.station.lu/newsDetails.cfm?id=3261)

News Details
20-JAN-04 Luxair pilots’ union seeks strike authorisation

Pilots’ union, the ALPL, announced yesterday that it is seeking legal permission to go on strike. ALPL Vice President, Daniel Hubert, said the union, in association with the LCGB, had sent a letter to the National Office of Conciliation requesting authorisation to strike, and wished to scrupulously respect employment law. The union has been spurred into action by the dismissals of six Luxair pilots in connection with the fatal Fokker 50 crash in November 2002, which it said were the last straw. Luxair management was completely taken by surprise, but said the move was “regrettable”. No strike date has yet been set.

Update

News Details
21-JAN-04 Support grows for Luxair pilots

International pilots’ union IFALPA has expressed its support for the six Luxair pilots dismissed in connection with the Fokker 50 crash in 2002. IFALPA said the management’s actions were ‘counterproductive’ and would not improve safety standards at Luxair. The ALPL warned yesterday that it was planning to take strike action, citing the pilots’ dismissal as the last straw.

[CR2]

Another update

23-JAN-04 Mudslinging continues at Luxair

Luxair CEO Christian Heinzmann has made strong allegations against the six pilots dismissed in connection with the Fokker 50 crash in November 2002, accusing them of systematically neglecting their duties and misusing their positions. This, rather than a lack of technical safety controls on the aircraft, was responsible for the crash, Mr Heinzmann told Luxair pilots in an internal letter, and necessitated the immediate dismissal of the six pilots. The sacked pilots have complained that they are being made completely responsible for the crash, and have sought a hearing in front of the Transport Commission. The Commission announced yesterday that it would grant an audience not only with the former pilots, but also the pilots’ union, the ALPL, and Luxair management.

[tom de luxe]

PM "concerned"

Over the weekend, Luxembourg prime minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, has publicly expressed his concerns about the ongoing dispute at Luxair, the national airline.
According to Luxemburger Wort daily newspaper, he said he was unable to follow all the developments in the current "communiqué wars" at the airline.
He was also quoted as saying that both sides' [IMO there are at least three sides, namely the Luxair board, the pilot union, and the government/DAC, but whatever] concerns were legitimate, but that these should be discussed internally, so as not to damage the airline. "If it [Luxair] were to go, we wouldn't have a national airline anymore", he was quoted.

Carpet & brush, anyone?