PDA

View Full Version : HAA wx turn down legal decision


havoc
11th Aug 2022, 20:30
News Release US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ORDERS LOUISIANA HELICOPTER AMBULANCE SERVICE TO REINSTATE UTAH PILOT WHO REFUSED TO FLY IN HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS Metro Aviation LLC also ordered to pay pilot $188K in back wages, damages PARK CITY, UT– A federal whistleblower investigation has found a Shreveport, Louisiana-based provider of helicopter ambulance services retaliated against a pilot in Utah who refused to fly twice in 2021 amid concerns about limited visibility. The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration examined the pilot’s complaint against Metro Aviation LLC after the employer forced them to resign, retire or be involuntarily separated from the company two weeks after the Aug. 10, 2021, refusals. OSHA found that Metro Aviation’s actions violated the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century. The department’s Administrative Review Board held that this federal law protects employees who refuse to perform work assignments when they reasonably believe these assignments would cause them to violate aviation safety regulations. The department ordered the company to reinstate the pilot and pay them more than $171,000 in back wages and $17,000 in other damages. “Employees must freely exercise their legal rights regarding workplace safety with no fear of retaliation by their employer,” explained OSHA Regional Administrator Jennifer S. Rous in Denver. “The outcome of this investigation and the action on the pilot’s behalf underscores the department’s commitment to protecting workers’ rights.” The company and the former employee may file objections or request a hearing with the department’s Office of Administrative Law Judges within 30 days of receiving the agency’s order. Incorporated in 1982 as a helicopter charter, flight training and maintenance operation, Metro Aviation currently operates more than 140 aircraft in more than 25 states to serve hospitals and other customers. OSHA enforces the whistleblower provisions of the AIR21 and more than 20 other statutes protecting employees who report violations of various workplace safety and health, airline, commercial motor carrier, consumer product, environmental, financial reform, food safety, health insurance reform, motor vehicle safety, nuclear, pipeline, public transportation agency, railroad, maritime, securities, tax, criminal antitrust and anti-money laundering laws. For more information on whistleblower protections, visit OSHA’s Whistleblower Protection Programs webpage. Editor’s note: The U.S. Department of Labor does not release the names of employees involved in whistleblower complaints. Agency Occupational Safety & Health Administration Date August 9, 2022 Release Number 22-1587-DEN Media Contact: Chauntra Rideaux Phone Number 972-850-4710 Email [email protected] Media Contact: Juan Rodriguez Phone Number 972-850-4709 Email [email protected]

SASless
12th Aug 2022, 16:18
You won't see that News Release being posted on many company bulletin boards!

Sir Korsky
12th Aug 2022, 17:41
Metro are awful.

212man
12th Aug 2022, 23:52
Reinstatement - that’ll make for a fun working relationship!

dragon6172
13th Aug 2022, 14:16
The FAA sided with Metro and said that no FAA regulation or standard was violated. I understand everyone has personal minimums, but if those personal ones are so far off the Ops Manual mins then the company should have the right to terminate employment.

megan
13th Aug 2022, 17:55
if those personal ones are so far off the Ops Manual mins then the company should have the right to terminate employmentThe FAA would have made their opinion based on the published weather report I would guess. Our group often had disputes with management about the weather seen outside the window or from tarmac, they said go fly, pilots said no, this was a VFR op. In another operation was given a SVFR clearance by the tower, got airbourne, and promptly did a very, very low level 360 and landed. Weather reports are just horoscopes with numbers and are to be read with a jaundiced eye. The US EMS has a reputation for accepting flights when it shouldn't, with fatal crashes being the result, often with the patient on board. Kudos to this pilot for making a professional judgement and standing his ground, post #3 doesn't give the company a a positive endorsement.

KiwiNedNZ
14th Aug 2022, 00:35
post #3 doesn't give the company a a positive endorsement.

This is only one persons opinion. We have visited lot of metro bases over the years doing stories on them and all the feedback we have received is they are way way better than the others out there.

SASless
14th Aug 2022, 01:31
Management and the FAA will set you up for failure if you let them.

Things are getting better in the American EMS Industry.....but look at what it cost in Lives and destroyed helicopters for that to finally happen.

I have said to others to never question a Pilot who sometimes says "NO!" but to avoid one that always says "Yes!".

As we are all Human....we have our up days and our not so up days....and that can have an effect on our personal minimums.

If the weather is marginal is when the rub comes.....a Pilot can read the weather and decide not to go and a Manager can read the same weather and decide it is satisfactory.

The difference is whose Wallet is resting on the Aircraft Seat Cushion. Office Wallahs are renown for their positive get the job done attitudes.

havoc
15th Aug 2022, 20:38
There is an article circulating the web based on a press release from the US Department of Labor. Based on a complaint from a former pilot, OSHA claims we forced the pilot to resign. The FAA conducted a separate investigation and found no substantiated violation by Metro Aviation of any FAA regulation or standard. The FAA investigation included reviewing Metro’s policies and procedures along with pilot interviews and found that we are operating safely in compliance with all applicable FAA regulations and standards.

We are seeking judicial review of this administrative decision by the OSHA investigator.

We take all matters involving the safety of our employees and our customers very seriously. Please see our statement below:

Though we cannot speak at this time about this particular former employee's pending complaint, we respectfully disagree with OSHA's administrative determination and intend to seek a hearing before an administrative law judge who will consider all relevant evidence, including the FAA's determination that a violation of an FAA regulation or standard by Metro Aviation had not been substantiated.

We can also speak to our commitment to safety since our inception 40 years ago. Metro Aviation prides itself on being an industry leader, staying focused on operating as safely as we possibly can, as anyone who is familiar with us knows very well. We will stay focused on what we do best: operating and maintaining aircraft safely with the best employees in the industry, for the best customers in the industry.

SASless
16th Aug 2022, 02:30
14 CFR § 91.3 - Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

CFR (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.3#tab_default_1)

prev (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/151.43) | next (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/151.47)
§ 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=d6746fcc8c91658e56adcdfd8fbd4068&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:F:Part:91:Subpart:A:9 1.3).(a) The pilot in command (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=d6746fcc8c91658e56adcdfd8fbd4068&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:F:Part:91:Subpart:A:9 1.3) of an aircraft (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8e9caab04f792d93d0738c9d3290164e&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:F:Part:91:Subpart:A:9 1.3) is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8e9caab04f792d93d0738c9d3290164e&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:F:Part:91:Subpart:A:9 1.3).

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=d6746fcc8c91658e56adcdfd8fbd4068&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:F:Part:91:Subpart:A:9 1.3) may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

(c) Each pilot in command (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=d6746fcc8c91658e56adcdfd8fbd4068&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:F:Part:91:Subpart:A:9 1.3) who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.3#b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=0c265d2e5b0cc0d1944056607ecc5df4&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:F:Part:91:Subpart:A:9 1.3), send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=0c265d2e5b0cc0d1944056607ecc5df4&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:F:Part:91:Subpart:A:9 1.3).
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2120-0005)

Did the FAA determine if the Pilot had violated any FAR, OpSpec, or Ops Manual Requirement?

But most importantly....did their action against the Pilot enhance the safety culture or cause a bigger problem due to not handling the situation in a manner that would not have been as ugly as this turned out to be?

Could it have been addressed by additional training or counseling.....or did they try that route first?

megan
16th Aug 2022, 05:06
pilot in Utah who refused to fly twice in 2021 amid concerns about limited visibilityhavoc, on what basis did the pilot make his visibility judgement, weather report, personal observation, and on what basis did the company decide the pilots judgement was in error?

havoc
16th Aug 2022, 05:28
I don’t have that info ref the weather in question, I have been trying to find out specifics.

Sir Korsky
16th Aug 2022, 11:07
The vast majority of patients would be better going by ground transport anyway. Usually, it's due to a lack of willing or available ground transport that helicopters are used in the USA. I learned that maybe 1 out of 7 or 8 patients were unstable enough to warrant urgent transportation. The rest could have driven or taken an Uber. Getting up at 3am to schlepp mildly ill folk around doesn't provide much enthusiasm for anybody. Hopefully the pilot doesn't return to Metro anyway and seeks a better employer.

SASless
16th Aug 2022, 11:47
FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONSHome (https://www.risingup.com/) > Aviation Regulations (https://www.risingup.com/fars/) > Parts Index (https://www.risingup.com/fars/info/) > Part 135 (https://www.risingup.com/fars/info/135-index.shtml) > Sec. 135.207 - VFR: Helicopter surface reference requirements.Sec. 135.207 — VFR: Helicopter surface reference requirements.No person may operate a helicopter under VFR unless that person has visual surface reference or, at night, visual surface light reference, sufficient to safely control the helicopter.

How many of us have violated the night vis requirement?

Lots of dark in Utah and other areas out west and and other places too.