Wizz Air Crew Forced to Resign

[Youmightsaythat]

According to the union FPU Romania a Wizz Air cabin crew member was reprimanded and forced to resign by the base manager for refusing to extend a flight duty period (FDP) under Commanders’ discretion on August 1st, 2022, at Beauvais (BVA) airport. Is this not a criminal act and breach of EU Ops?

[Gordomac]

Many cabin crew appear to be under the impression that it is their discretion. I was once told by a male CC that there was "no way" he was going to use his discretion. I left him in Muscat and he was later sacked too.

[Youmightsaythat]

Many cabin crew appear to be under the impression that it is their discretion. I was once told by a male CC that there was "no way" he was going to use his discretion. I left him in Muscat and he was later sacked too.
Absolutely true, and I have done the same. However there is a requirement for the commander to take into account the state of the of and cabin crew before he agrees to operate. However the use of discretion to cover illegally planned FDPs is another issue entirely and that is now common.

[BANANASBANANAS]

Many cabin crew appear to be under the impression that it is their discretion. I was once told by a male CC that there was "no way" he was going to use his discretion. I left him in Muscat and he was later sacked too.

What you say is quite correct. Most OMA's include words to the effect 'No crew member shall operate a flight when he believes himself to be unfit or when he believes he may become unfit during the flight.' If any crew member reports as such to the commander (in this case, citing fatigue) then it is a very brave commander who overrules the OMA.

The crew member should, imho, be stood down (positioned back or offloaded as is most appropriate) and if this grounds the flight then the operator needs to look at its rostering practices. Looking at who the operator is in this case, I would assume minimum crew and no standby cover but that is an operator issue not a crew issue.

[what next]

Is this not a criminal act and breach of EU Ops?

If "criminal" or not a court will have to decide. But "sacking" a crew member because she or he does not accept a commanders discretion to extend the flight duty times is a clear violation of EASA rulemaking. First because it is her or his right and duty (!) not to continue a flight beyond duty time limits if fatigued. And secondly because doing so does not constitute a valid reason for an employer to terminate a work contract.

These are the relevant sentences from AMC1 ORO.FTL.205(f) Flight Duty Period (FDP) (my highlights):
(3) The commander shall consult all crew members on their alertness levels before deciding the modifications under subparagraphs 1 and 2.
Which means that if a crewmember does not feel fit to continue working an exteded duty she or he either needs to be replaced (if required to operate the flight) or the flight can not take place.
(6) The operator shall implement a non-punitive process for the use of the discretion described under this provision and shall describe it in the operations manual.
Which means that nobody shall be punished in any way for deciding the way she or he does.

I am not a lawperson and EASA regulations can be difficult to understand at times, but in this case the union should have easy play to get the crewmember reinstated.

[Dave Gittins]

Is Wizz air unionised ? I wouldn't have thought so.

[Airbanda]

In what state was the allegedly sacked CCs contract founded?

[SWBKCB]

(3) The commander shall consult all crew members on their alertness levels before deciding the modifications under subparagraphs 1 and 2.
Which means that if a crewmember does not feel fit to continue working an extended duty she or he either needs to be replaced (if required to operate the flight) or the flight can not take place.

Depends on how the word 'consult' is used here - you can consult somebody without acting on what they say.

[EatMyShorts!]

EASA should ground Wizzair immediately. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

[what next]

Is Wizz air unionised ? I wouldn't have thought so.

The original post refers to "union FPU Romania". But one does not need a union in order to fight such a move. Even the most inexperienced laywer should be able to win that case. If someone declares himself "unfit for duty" he can neither be forced to continue working nor made redundant because of that. Not in any EU country at least.

[Youmightsaythat]

The original post refers to "union FPU Romania". But one does not need a union in order to fight such a move. Even the most inexperienced laywer should be able to win that case. If someone declares himself "unfit for duty" he can neither be forced to continue working nor made redundant because of that. Not in any EU country at least.

But in my case, when suspended, The CAA were informed. I was told they would not get involved as it was an 'employment matter'. BALPA refused to support the case, informing me I was unlikely to win against a multinational airline at trial. I had to represent myself. Do not be surprised if over the next few months the union and CAA become 'quite vocal' about fatigue and FDP falsification. Now I wonder why that will be?

[blind pew]

I broke the rules three times..the first ex home base when there wasn’t enough staff to load the containers. The captain was a waste of space and we all went over the max legal duty time without being asked.
The second was a planned illegal operation back from Tokyo which the captain who was a big management guy knew about before we left base but didn’t inform us.
The third was four simulator sessions in two days with 6 hours off between the pairs which I agreed under duress and got branded a trouble maker.
In my first lot they planned a night Malta or Nicosia from standby which could only be operated under the standby irregularities rule..it soon stopped as my captain went sick and a danair comet or 727 was brought in.
A friend went crew fatigue on the 1-11 during winter operations in CPH IIRC..he was brought into the office in an attempt to concoct a story to dismiss the captain. Unfortunately for the loud mouth manager who slagged said captain off in front of a BALPA rep he was reported and taken to court for slander which he lost..kept his management job though.
As to the authorities doing anything..pull the other one.

[JanetFlight]

Were the Skiathos guys?

[VariablePitchP]

Many cabin crew appear to be under the impression that it is their discretion. I was once told by a male CC that there was "no way" he was going to use his discretion. I left him in Muscat and he was later sacked too.

What’s your point, you wouldn’t have forced the crew member to operate when they felt fatigued if they were female?

[blind pew]

My future wife (21) was bullied on a Trident going to Belfast when the IRA were bombing our aircraft and bars had to be specially security checked, sealed and the seal numbers HAD to match which they didn’t. Having had her assaulted by a well known drunk I had told her don’t take any more crap.
She walked off the aircraft whilst the rest of the crew, too frightened to stand up to the captain, remained..
Below minimum crew compliment the bars had to be off loaded and she went.
The security files from that era are still sealed.
‘I remember being told not to say please or thank you because cabin staff are here to serve us…happy days

[Youmightsaythat]

My future wife (21) was bullied on a Trident going to Belfast when the IRA were bombing our aircraft and bars had to be specially security checked, sealed and the seal numbers HAD to match which they didn’t. Having had her assaulted by a well known drunk I had told her don’t take any more crap.
She walked off the aircraft whilst the rest of the crew, too frightened to stand up to the captain, remained..
Below minimum crew compliment the bars had to be off loaded and she went.
The security files from that era are still sealed.
‘I remember being told not to say please or thank you because cabin staff are here to serve us…happy days
I saw it all the time. Crew not getting paid but boll£ed for the wrong colour hair bobble, scared stiff they would not be asked back the following summer if they stood up for themselves. They all went that 'extra mile' yet were treated appallingly. But at the end of the day you have to stand your ground or you will be trampled. My experience is, when you forcefully do stand your ground they have no idea how to handle it. Shame more don't. The pilots and cabin crew now has the management, union and regulator they deserve,

[meleagertoo]

Sounds all too familiar. I too was summarily sacked for doing precicely what our (immediately Ex RAF Gp. Capt. with no civvy experience.) had instructed us to do in the event of a shortfall in legal paperwork - Sacked if you did. Sacked if you didn't. Sacking occurred one on one in a pub garden - so it was totally unattributable to the company. That man was an utter disgrace to his uniform(s).
BALPA, of course, were as useful as a chocolate teapot.

There are some utter sh!ts in this industry, far too many of them but in the event might is right.
If the little guy comes up against the might of the Company then he's toast, even in "law abiding" UK. Best get that idea straight, justice is rare in such cases.

At the end of the day it proved an excellent move as I left one incompetently run cowboy outfit and joined another far worse...but got a useful type-rating out of it that proved its worth on the next move.

It's a jungle out there!

[Youmightsaythat]

If the little guy comes up against the might of the Company then he's toast, even in "law abiding" UK.


Well thats what BALPA,CAA, Directors and Chief pilot thought. The Judge at trial thought otherwise, but according to the airline the Judge 'didn't understand'. The whole point is, the law WILL protect you. You just have to have the balls to use it.

[Auxtank]

Were the Skiathos guys?

Wish there was a Like Button for that one.
BALPA's been pissing in the wind for years on this stuff. Now it's Open Season post Covid.
How the hell do we get back from this?
Answers on a bloody Postcard.

[Cak]

Many cabin crew appear to be under the impression that it is their discretion. I was once told by a male CC that there was "no way" he was going to use his discretion. I left him in Muscat and he was later sacked too.

It is their decision, as the commander needs to consult every crew member (at least under EASA). Not to mention that it should be a proper 'airmanship'.

[BANANASBANANAS]

It is their decision, as the commander needs to consult every crew member (at least under EASA). Not to mention that it should be a proper 'airmanship'.

I respectfully beg to differ. It is called 'Commander's Discretion' for a very good reason.

To protect individual crew members most OMA's have a phrase such as this inserted. 'No crew member shall fly if they feel that they are not fit to fly or are likely to become unfit to fly during the rostered duty period - including any possible use of discretion.'

If you feel unfit on the ground during a (delayed?) turnaround flight then inform the captain (who will arrange appropriate medical assistance) and be properly stood down with all supporting documentation available. This is nothing whatsoever to do with discretion. It is to do with fitness to fly. If you feel fatigued/unfit halfway around a duty then you should inform the captain who will arrange appropriate medical assistance and may then be able to manage the situation depending on crew numbers.

But it is 'Commander's Discretion.' That said, it is a very brave (or cavalier) Commander who ignores a crew member saying they are unfit to fly. In flight, stand crew member down immediately, PA for a doctor etc. On the ground, immediate medical assistance. Whether to utilise full or part crew discretion or not is the sole decision of the Commander after he has performed HIS assessment of the crew's fitness for discretionary duty. I have seen it applied both ways. On one occasion the entire crew were totally fatigued but the cabin crew wanted to get back to main base (for personal reasons) and it was the Commander (who also wanted to get back for the same personal reasons) who quite rightly said 'No, it's not safe.' Gave his reasons in a report and the company supported him.

One other tragic occasion occurred when cabin crew operated when probably they shouldn't have on a night turn from UK to a holiday destination in the Azores. Flight operated without incident but cabin crew member fell asleep at the wheel while driving home and was killed. If you feel you are not fit to fly, then don't. Please, don't! But back it up with a medical report and don't confuse it with discretion. Any reputable employer will support you. Sadly, there are less and less reputable employers around nowadays.

[vascodegama]

Bananas-no doubt you think CRM means Captain's right mate! The last thing we need is tired people who are there for safety reasons, of course, only a court could actually rule on this matter (if sacked) and equally the crew
member might find the industry hostile when looking for another job. As for the last episode you mention, all very sad , that is why at least one airline I know has a policy of giving people the option of a hotel on landing in such circumstances.

[Youmightsaythat]

The last thing we need is tired people who are there for safety reasons, of course, only a court could actually rule on this matter (if sacked) .

Not true.
As my case revealed, you do not have to be 'sacked' before you can haul your employer over the coals in front of a Judge. If, due raising any safety issue (known as 'raising protected disclosures'), the airline takes ANY action against you, including suspension; this is known as a "detriment to your employment". You can go for them i.e. you do not need to be sacked to commence legal action.

Since my case hit the headlines and after the release of my book, I have been inundated with pilots (and crew) wanting advice on dealing with similar issues that I had to face. It shows my case is not an isolated incident.

But is that not the point of BALPA, to support and advise? Surely it is the role of the CAA to stamp down on rogue operators? If you believe that, you are in for a rude awakening!

I was threatened with dismissal for refusing to offer Captain's discretion to cover an illegally planned (falsified) FDP. It breached the max FDP, before report, by nearly one hour. The airline claimed my refusal was gross misconduct for 'refusing a reasonable management instruction' to use MY discretion!

The Chief Pilot and DFO then proclaimed I was dishonest in claiming my refusal to fly a subsequent duty was due to fatigue.
Again they claimed this was 'gross misconduct'.

So, how fatiguing was the run of duties?
The duty required I land a Boeing 767 at night into one of the UK's busiest airports after being awake for nineteen hours. Is that not ridiculous enough for you?

This was the day after a duty that required me to wake at 04:30 and walk back through my front door at 22:30, i.e. an 18-hour day. Still not barmy enough?

This was following on from two sim days requiring I wake at 02:30.

At the subsequent trial, using the airline's own fatigue prediction software (FAST) it showed I would've at least been operating at the equivalent effectiveness of someone at the drink-drive limit or four times over the flying limit.

I was suspended and threatened with dismissal and eventually given a two-year final written warning.

If you think that BALPA would be all over this like a rash? Think again.

I was informed that they would NOT provide legal support at trial if I did not accept a £2,500 settlement, with no apology and the final written warning. They claimed I did not have a chance against a major airline and, if I lost, it would mean no other crew would ever report fatigued again.

With ZERO legal training, I was reduced to representing myself against one of the UK's leading barristers, appointed by the airlines and its entire legal and HR team.

After giving the airline enough rope to swing by I approached the CAA. According to the CAA, I should have 'got over it'. They would not answer questions of 'only academic interest' and would not get involved anyway because it was an 'employment matter'

Is this not the real issue? The CAA and BALPA are not fit for purpose. This is exposed in the second book and, as with the first, names will be named.
Currently, the CID are investigating the claims made in the books and will be approaching the CPS for charging authority very shortly.

As for me, well, if you are a 'Stranglers' fan and going to see them on their European tour this Sept-Oct, come and say hi. I'll be the bald bloke sweating like an ex-airline manager, drumming for the support band.

[Uplinker]

You don't need a doctor or medical assistance if you are fatigued, you need sleep, and then possibly a few days off.

Discretion should take into account all crew members' fitness to fly. A sector that a tired flight deck might be able to safely do - sitting down pressing buttons and drinking coffee, might be very difficult for a cabin crew member who has to be on their feet for the whole sector continually speaking and serving hundreds of passengers. Given an edict that discretion will be used, it takes a very brave cabin crew member to break ranks and refuse to work - especially since by not working they know they will cause their colleagues even harder work. So they work fatigued. Given a flight emergency, such as a decompression, emergency evacuation, or flight crew incapacitation; are those cabin crew going to be able to perform to the highest level of safety?

"Safety is our highest priority" the airlines say...............:mad:

Discretion is used by the airlines to save money, we need to remember that.
.

[BANANASBANANAS]

Bananas-no doubt you think CRM means Captain's right mate! The last thing we need is tired people who are there for safety reasons, of course, only a court could actually rule on this matter (if sacked) and equally the crew
member might find the industry hostile when looking for another job. As for the last episode you mention, all very sad , that is why at least one airline I know has a policy of giving people the option of a hotel on landing in such circumstances.

Not at all. The Captain has overall responsibility for the safe and efficient operation of the flight.

I don't think you have properly read my very even handed post. If you are not fit to fly, don't. I entirely agree. But don't confuse fitness to fly with discretion. It is the Commander's discretion. It is also the Commander's legal responsibility to ensure that, in a situation that may require the use of discretion, he has satisfied himself that the crew are fit for discretion (a decision he may subsequently have to justify) before utilising it. It is also one of several reasons why most FTL schemes specify a shorter allowable FDP for the tech crew than the cabin crew.

[BANANASBANANAS]

You don't need a doctor or medical assistance if you are fatigued, you need sleep, and then possibly a few days off.


.
Agreed, but the crew member would be well advised to first have a brief medical examination to confirm fatigue/not fit to fly. To do otherwise leaves the crew member open to various arguments from the airline to justify disciplinary action:

'No other crew members declared themselves unfit"
'Your roster is legal and in accordance with all regulations'
'How did you manage pre flight rest?

etc, etc, etc.

Get a quick report from a medic which says 'unfit to fly' and you should be covered.

[Youmightsaythat]

Agreed, but the crew member would be well advised to first have a brief medical examination to confirm fatigue/not fit to fly. To do otherwise leaves the crew member open to various arguments from the airline to justify disciplinary action:

'No other crew members declared themselves unfit"
'Your roster is legal and in accordance with all regulations'
'How did you manage pre flight rest?

etc, etc, etc.

Get a quick report from a medic which says 'unfit to fly' and you should be covered.

Only ONE person knows if they are fatigued or not. Thats the individual. If you are ever in that position and being pressured, tell the airline you require the FAST printout. Watch how quick they back off.

[BANANASBANANAS]

Only ONE person knows if they are fatigued or not. Thats the individual. If you are ever in that position and being pressured, tell the airline you require the FAST printout. Watch how quick they back off.

However you might feel or know your fitness to fly, it is only one small part of the equation. By far the most important part (sadly) is having to get documentary proof to support your decision to declare yourself unfit. I am not here trying to justify any airline's OMA but they are the rules we operate to and its best to know them as well as the company and to take appropriate precautions - ie, medical exam or similar.

If you get called in to the office to justify your decision not to fly, what 'defence' are you happier with to support your position?

a) Only one person (me) knows if I am fatigued or not,

or,

b) I felt incredibly tired and unfit to fly so I immediately saw a doctor and here is his professional report confirming me as unfit to fly.

[Uplinker]

@ Bananasbananas, We essentially agree with each other. But of your three hypothetical questions, the first and second are irrelevant - if a person is fatigued, they are fatigued - no matter what the reason. Of the third; if your sleeping preparations were diligently applied - black-out blinds in the bedroom etc, there should be no come-back - from a decent airline. If your neighbours were having a barbecue or a barking dog or neighbour's music kept you awake, that is perfectly legitimate reason for reporting unfit in the first place.

I put in a number of fatigue reports at a previous airline over the years, all of which were properly investigated, but medical intervention was never needed or requested. I reported fatigue and my level of fatigue, according to a comprehensive list of fatigue indications and descriptions, and the fatigue management team took it from there and looked at my rosters etc.

During a turn-around, a check from a doctor or medic would not be possible quickly, it would incur an even greater delay that would most probably stretch beyond the allowable discretion period for the rest of the aircrew. It is illegal to get airborne if you know beforehand that your flight will go beyond the allowable period of discretion.

Airlines know all this so they put pressure on the crew members to self declare, as per your three questions; (knowing that most won't bother), and also onto the Captain's shoulders, who is in a very difficult place, being responsible for the welfare of their crew but also the requirements of the airline and the potential financial consequences of a delayed flight.

[Youmightsaythat]

However you might feel or know your fitness to fly, it is only one small part of the equation. By far the most important part (sadly) is having to get documentary proof to support your decision to declare yourself unfit. I am not here trying to justify any airline's OMA but they are the rules we operate to and its best to know them as well as the company and to take appropriate precautions - ie, medical exam or similar.

If you get called in to the office to justify your decision not to fly, what 'defence' are you happier with to support your position?

a) Only one person (me) knows if I am fatigued or not,

or,

b) I felt incredibly tired and unfit to fly so I immediately saw a doctor and here is his professional report confirming me as unfit to fly.

Legally you only need (a)

If you are called into the office you state these words EXACTLY

:“I brought to (the airline and mangers concerned) attention, by reasonable means, the circumstances that I considered to be harmful or potentially harmful to the health and safety of myself, the crew and the passengers.”

To be clear YOU DO NOT need a medical opinion. The law is very clear.
Demand to see the FAST (Fatigue Avoidance Scheduling Tool) and the company MUST produce one.

If the airline are still stupid enough to press ahead. Sit back and await for the court case.

[BANANASBANANAS]

Legally you only need (a)

If you are called into the office you state these words EXACTLY

:“I brought to (the airline and mangers concerned) attention, by reasonable means, the circumstances that I considered to be harmful or potentially harmful to the health and safety of myself, the crew and the passengers.”

To be clear YOU DO NOT need a medical opinion. The law is very clear.
Demand to see the FAST (Fatigue Avoidance Scheduling Tool) and the company MUST produce one.

If the airline are still stupid enough to press ahead. Sit back and await for the court case.

I'm not saying you legally require a medical report. Indeed, the company would probably be very happy that you hadn't got one. What I am saying is that it is not very clever not to get some form of independent official/professional corroborating evidence beforehand to take into any meeting with you. If you are happy to go with only you knowing if you have fatigue and with FAST then fine. I would prefer a written report by a qualified doctor who examined me at the time. FAST could then be used as well if necessary.

[Youmightsaythat]

I'm not saying you legally require a medical report. Indeed, the company would probably be very happy that you hadn't got one. What I am saying is that it is not very clever not to get some form of official/professional corroborating evidence beforehand to take into any meeting with you. If you are happy to go with FAST then fine. I would prefer a written report by a qualified doctor who examined me at the time.

There are no 'tests' the doctor can do. He asks...How do you feel, you answer 'fatigued' thats it. Seriously you ONLY need the FAST printout. + it puts the cowboy operators on warning. And stick to your guns, they back on you bottling it. If you are a professional do not be pressured. If you allow yourself to be then ergo you are not a 'professional'.

[BANANASBANANAS]

@ Bananasbananas, We essentially agree with each other. But of your three hypothetical questions, the first and second are irrelevant - if a person is fatigued, they are fatigued - no matter what the reason. Of the third; if your sleeping preparations were diligently applied - black-out blinds in the bedroom etc, there should be no come-back - from a decent airline. If your neighbours were having a barbecue or a barking dog or neighbour's music kept you awake, that is perfectly legitimate reason for reporting unfit in the first place.

I put in a number of fatigue reports at a previous airline over the years, all of which were properly investigated, but medical intervention was never needed or requested. I reported fatigue and my level of fatigue, according to a comprehensive list of fatigue indications and descriptions, and the fatigue management team took it from there and looked at my rosters etc.

During a turn-around, a check from a doctor or medic would not be possible quickly, it would incur an even greater delay that would most probably stretch beyond the allowable discretion period for the rest of the aircrew. It is illegal to get airborne if you know beforehand that your flight will go beyond the allowable period of discretion.

Airlines know all this so they put pressure on the crew members to self declare, as per your three questions; (knowing that most won't bother), and also onto the Captain's shoulders, who is in a very difficult place, being responsible for the welfare of their crew but also the requirements of the airline and the potential financial consequences of a delayed flight.

The only thing you write that I might disagree relates to getting a medical check on the ground during a turnaround. A cabin crew member should be afforded the same priority as a passenger if they are not feeling well and a doctor can be summoned quite quickly at most airports I have operated into. If getting a doctor might incur further delay, that is another thing for the Commander to consider. Do crew numbers allow for the crew member to be stood down and positioned back (without medical exam) or would it be better to offload and leave him in the care of the Station Manager/Medics or wait. That is what we get paid the extra $50k per day for isn't it - to make decisions like that? Most airlines also provide a company 'phone so it would only take 5 minutes to get on the 'phone to Ops, explain the situation and spread the responsibility around a bit. 'Hello Ops, Bloggs has reported fatigued. We have called for a doc to examine him but not sure how long the doc will take to arrive/make a decision. We are ok on numbers to offload him but tight on FDP if we wait more than x minutes. Can you state your preference before I make my decision please?'

[BANANASBANANAS]

There are no 'tests' the doctor can do. He asks...How do you feel, you answer 'fatigued' thats it. Seriously you ONLY need the FAST printout. + it puts the cowboy operators on warning. And stick to your guns, they back on you bottling it. If you are a professional do not be pressured. If you allow yourself to be then ergo you are not a 'professional'.

We are largely on the same side here but why would you risk having to go into bat against the company without an important weapon - namely a medical report? It doesn't matter what the doctor asks you. That's confidential. What matters is that you have a letterhead piece of paper from a qualified doctor stating that you are unfit to fly. Why would you choose not to get that? Talk about FAST in the meeting as well if it helps but why not also have the medical report?

It's got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with bottling any decision as any meeting would only happen long after the decision not to fly had been made and actioned. Ergo, 'bottle' already demonstrated.

[Youmightsaythat]

We are largely on the same side here but why would you risk having to go into bat against the company without an important weapon - namely a medical report? It doesn't matter what the doctor asks you. That's confidential. What matters is that you have a letterhead piece of paper from a qualified doctor stating that you are unfit to fly. Why would you choose not to get that? Talk about FAST in the meeting as well if it helps but why not also have the medical report?

Absolutely we are on the only side any reasonably intelligent person would be on. The trouble is, if you get a 'doctor' I can guarantee they will get a doctor to say the opposite. As soon as you even suspect you will not be fit for a duty demand the FAST. Cuts their portion off at the knee.

[BANANASBANANAS]

Absolutely we are on the only side any reasonably intelligent person would be on. The trouble is, if you get a 'doctor' I can guarantee they will get a doctor to say the opposite. As soon as you even suspect you will not be fit for a duty demand the FAST. Cuts their portion off at the knee.


You would have a report from a doctor who examined you at the time. The company could not match that. And even if you didn't get a medical report, there is nothing to stop the company from getting a company doctor to write something on the company side anyway.

[RickNRoll]

Well thats what BALPA,CAA, Directors and Chief pilot thought. The Judge at trial thought otherwise, but according to the airline the Judge 'didn't understand'. The whole point is, the law WILL protect you. You just have to have the balls to use it.
Don't forget the money.

[Youmightsaythat]

Don't forget the money.
Legal fees you mean?...cost me zero...I represented my self with no lawyer to advise or present my case.

[SMT Member]

Say it’s very dark o’clock at an airport with no medical services available except for emergency purposes. Will you, literally, call 911 (or the equivalent thereof) to be taken to an ER, where you can get a doctor to sign a piece of paper confirming you said you feel too tired to work? Is that even a thing? I mean, can you even get a doctor to produce such a piece of paper?

I would imagine most cases of fatigue to happen outside the opening hours of a GP doctor.

[BANANASBANANAS]

Say it’s very dark o’clock at an airport with no medical services available except for emergency purposes. Will you, literally, call 911 (or the equivalent thereof) to be taken to an ER, where you can get a doctor to sign a piece of paper confirming you said you feel too tired to work? Is that even a thing? I mean, can you even get a doctor to produce such a piece of paper?

I would imagine most cases of fatigue to happen outside the opening hours of a GP doctor.

Any airport which has arriving and departing passengers will (or most certainly, should) have the required medical capability.

[Uplinker]

I don't doubt that a doctor's letter would help, but I think the practicalities would be too difficult:

a) At my base airport, I don't remember there being duty medical staff, only first-aiders and the cabin crews. To see a doctor you would have to call 999 and wait however long for an ambulance to arrive from the nearest hospital - that's what we do if a passenger feels unwell. Fatigue is debilitating of course, but not like a heart attack or a broken leg, and there is nothing they can apply or inject you with, so I don't think they would be very impressed.

b) It would set a dangerous precedent; in that if a crew member declared they felt too unwell to work, but were not believed unless a doctor had examined them, where would that leave us - especially with fatigue?

[Twiglet1]

Absolutely true, and I have done the same. However there is a requirement for the commander to take into account the state of the of and cabin crew before he agrees to operate. However the use of discretion to cover illegally planned FDPs is another issue entirely and that is now common.
Come on then give us some examples of 'common' illegally planned FDP......

[BANANASBANANAS]

I don't doubt that a doctor's letter would help, but I think the practicalities would be too difficult:

a) At my base airport, I don't remember there being duty medical staff, only first-aiders and the cabin crews. To see a doctor you would have to call 999 and wait however long for an ambulance to arrive from the nearest hospital - that's what we do if a passenger feels unwell. Fatigue is debilitating of course, but not like a heart attack or a broken leg, and there is nothing they can apply or inject you with, so I don't think they would be very impressed.

b) It would set a dangerous precedent; in that if a crew member declared they felt too unwell to work, but were not believed unless a doctor had examined them, where would that leave us - especially with fatigue?

a) Should passenger aircraft be operating into a commercial airport without medical staff on immediate call? What happens if a passenger has a heart attack during taxi in? Surely there is a requirement for para medics or doctors to meet the aircraft at the gate?

b) An appropriate OMA entry would cover it. 'In the event that a crew member feels unfit to operate at outstation (including during a turnaround at outstation) every effort is to be made to be examined by a doctor prior to operating. This specifically includes unfitness due to suspected fatigue at outstation on a turnaround flight. In the case of reported unfitness to operate during a turnaround, if no doctor is available in a reasonable time then the Commander shall consult the affected crew member himself and liaise with the affected crew member, station manager, company and airport authorities to determine if the crew member shall be offloaded to wait for medical care or to position back to base. If the affected crew member insists on seeing a doctor he shall be offloaded into the care of the station manager if necessary to minimise delay. Note: Crew member's health is always to be of paramount concern and this should be considered and reflected in any decision made by the Commander'

It will never happen of course as para b would be wide open to abuse.

[SMT Member]

Any airport which has arriving and departing passengers will (or most certainly, should) have the required medical capability.

Not at any airport I’m familiar with. They obviously have first responders, but that’s essentially paramedics who are there to deal with medical issues - not someone who’s too tired to work.

[wiggy]

a) Should passenger aircraft be operating into a commercial airport without medical staff on immediate call? What happens if a passenger has a heart attack during taxi in? Surely there is a requirement for para medics or doctors to meet the aircraft at the gate?

Paramedics maybe, doctors no... I agree with a few previous observations:

At my old main base, a major major UK international airport, the only health care professionals on call were (the very capable) paramedics. Anything more needed and it would require an ambulance to be summoned from off airport....there was no on call airport doctor AFAIK.

[GrahamO]

What happens if a passenger has a heart attack during taxi in?

No more and no less than would be the case if they had a heart attack just outside the terminal building. the local health authorities would handle it as they would any other local issue.

[Youmightsaythat]

Come on then give us some examples of 'common' illegally planned FDP......

If you need to ask you have not read the book. or talked to the ex head of Flight safety department at a rather large Union. It's just most pilots just 'get on with it'.....until.

[lancs]

From a different occupation, but when you are seriously tired / fatigued, all these very sensible but convoluted legal arguments are not being considered. Having the courage to say to authority that you are too tired to be continuing with your duties is a hugely stressful event in itself. Having the wherewithal to consider how a judge/jury may consider your approach to the problem is the least of your concerns! It's very simple. If a professional feels this way, then they need to go to the hotel / home, and talk about it 12 hours later. The only logic for getting a medical professional would be if there were a consideration of intoxication.

[Emma Royds]

In this case, the airport at the centre of the episode is Beauvais. If medical assistance is requested, paramedics will arrive; however, is this an appropriate response for a cabin crew member who is unable to fly due to fatigue? How appropriate is it if paramedics are dispatched from outside the airport and are prevented from responding to a medical call for a critically ill patient in the local area who desperately needs their assistance? There should be no need for any medical personnel to intervene in such a situation.

Commanders have the discretion to make the final decision, but the sign of a skilled leader is to balance what he/she or the company wants against the welfare of the entire crew. Offload, stand down and position back, or operate but give the crew member a choice but script the narrative as needed to persuade the crew member to do what you want.

The issue here, however, is not one of FTL legalities, but rather that Wizz Air is more afraid of its own employees than of its competitors. If you disagree, why do they refuse to recognise unions and appear to rule over their own workforce with an iron fist? A crew member who refuses to operate due to fatigue should not be dismissed. It would not be the first time Wizz Air has been summoned to court in a case of unfair dismissal, which was alluded to in a letter to the airline circulated online by a former investor.

[Check Airman]

Interesting that under EU regulations, the captain has to make a decision to extend on behalf of the entire crew. Under FAA regulations, each crewmember must decide if he/she is sufficiently rested for the flight.

We're not allowed to start a duty, knowing that we'll need to use "discretion" either.

[Flappo]

Interesting that under EU regulations, the captain has to make a decision to extend on behalf of the entire crew. Under FAA regulations, each crewmember must decide if he/she is sufficiently rested for the flight.

We're not allowed to start a duty, knowing that we'll need to use "discretion" either.


Actually under the EU regulations -unless any change I´m not aware of- , the Captain may, at his discretion, and after taking note of the well-being of other members of the crew, take decision about extension of duty, or reduction of rest provided, that he is satisfied that the flight can be made safely....
Copy and paste from one of my old OM-A´s;
".....The commander shall consult all crew members on their alertness levels before deciding any of the modifications...."
Also "...A crewmember shall not perform duties on an airplane if he knows or suspects that he is suffering from fatigue or feels unfit to the extent that the flight may be endangered... ¨

[Dan Winterland]

Many cabin crew appear to be under the impression that it is their discretion. I was once told by a male CC that there was "no way" he was going to use his discretion. I left him in Muscat and he was later sacked too.

It is your discretion as the commander. However, in the UK, you are not allowed to force someone to operate if you believe them to be fatigued. If they have just told you they are, you are in a bad place to say "You're working".

[Youmightsaythat]

A breach of these is a criminal act. So either comply with the bullies and empower them or grow a backbone and inform them of the following

EU. Ops 2.2 'An operator will ensure that for all its flights, flights are planned to be completed within the allowable flight duty period taking into account the time necessary for pre-flight duties, the flight and turn-around times.'

ANO 146 (1) 'A person must not act as a member of the crew of an aircraft to which this article applies if they know or suspect that they are suffering from or having regard to the circumstances of the flight to be undertaken are likely to suffer from such fatigue as may endanger the safety of the aircraft or of its occupants’.

ANO 145 (2) ‘The operator of an aircraft to which this article applies must not cause or permit any person to fly as a member of its crew who the operator knows or has reason to believe is suffering from or, having regard to the circumstances of the flight to be undertaken, is likely to suffer from, such fatigue as may endanger the safety of the aircraft or of its occupants.’

E.U. Ops 3.6. ‘Operators shall ensure flight duty periods are planned to enable crew members to remain sufficiently free from fatigue so they can operate to a satisfactory level of safety under all circumstances. ‘
Therefore, if you are going to bed and waking when you can and you are still fatigued you must therefore be fatigued due the airlines failure to comply with EU Ops 3.6.

[beardy]

The Captain (Commander if you prefer) is usually the line manager of the crew and has the responsibility of managing them. This requires a knowledge of the relevant regulations and HR procedures (although these may be administered through a different department from that concerned with pilots.) Depending on the size of the company the Captain may not know of any HR records for her/his crew, so he/she may not be aware of any disciplinary record that may be relevant to his/her decision making. This makes the HR side of managing impersonal - as it should be. It also means that the Captain has to exercise her/his skill in managing potentially difficult situations such as the exercising of discretion. In these circumstances the declaration of fatigue by any crew member is a no brainer, the CC member can not continue with duties. The Captain also has to manage the consequences of losing a crew member and that may mean offloading passengers and blanking off seats or in extremis not operating that sector. Those are his/her responsibilities, it is not in her/his remit to manage the knock on effects, that is for the Operations department to sort out. Nor is it the Captain's responsibility to take HR procedures any further than the immediate incident, no matter how he/she may feel toward any individual. It's not easy to manage impartially, with a clear conscience, in a straightforward way and not all Captains are aware of their duties in this respect especially when faced with difficult individuals who have character flaws.
Nobody said it would be easy

[BANANASBANANAS]

The Captain (Commander if you prefer) is usually the line manager of the crew and has the responsibility of managing them. This requires a knowledge of the relevant regulations and HR procedures (although these may be administered through a different department from that concerned with pilots.) Depending on the size of the company the Captain may not know of any HR records for her/his crew, so he/she may not be aware of any disciplinary record that may be relevant to his/her decision making. This makes the HR side of managing impersonal - as it should be. It also means that the Captain has to exercise her/his skill in managing potentially difficult situations such as the exercising of discretion. In these circumstances the declaration of fatigue by any crew member is a no brainer, the CC member can not continue with duties. The Captain also has to manage the consequences of losing a crew member and that may mean offloading passengers and blanking off seats or in extremis not operating that sector. Those are his/her responsibilities, it is not in her/his remit to manage the knock on effects, that is for the Operations department to sort out. Nor is it the Captain's responsibility to take HR procedures any further than the immediate incident, no matter how he/she may feel toward any individual. It's not easy to manage impartially, with a clear conscience, in a straightforward way and not all Captains are aware of their duties in this respect especially when faced with difficult individuals who have character flaws.
Nobody said it would be easy

Well put beardy. That is what we get paid the extra $50k per day for isn't it! 😂

[Denti]

There are no 'tests' the doctor can do. He asks...How do you feel, you answer 'fatigued' thats it. Seriously you ONLY need the FAST printout. + it puts the cowboy operators on warning. And stick to your guns, they back on you bottling it. If you are a professional do not be pressured. If you allow yourself to be then ergo you are not a 'professional'.

A FAST is only required if the company uses a FRMS, it is absolutely legal and valid to operate without that, at least according to EASA rules. Then all the company has to prove is that the roster was legal in accordance with chapter 7 of the OMA, it is the crew members responsibility to assure adequate rest and living circumstances that allows that at home, and of course the companies while on layovers. I worked both in airlines with and without FRMS, and the latter can actually reduce costs in certain circumstances.

[Youmightsaythat]

. Then all the company has to prove is that the roster was legal in accordance with chapter 7 of the OMA,.

Respectfully, you are incorrect. The oft used phrase by Ops 'But it's legal' is the red herring. It might well conform to the max FDP in the table but the duties must also comply with EU.Ops 3.6. It is the pilot (and crews) responsibility to refuse if they know (or even suspect) they will be fatigued for a duty. If a company take action against that individual that is illegal

Don't take my word for it. Its in the Judgement of my case. The precedent is set.

[beardy]

Its in the Judgement of my case. The president is set.


I think that is precedent. But only in English courts.

[Youmightsaythat]

I think that is precedent. But only in English courts.
Don't you just love auto correct!

[flash8]

Legal fees you mean?...cost me zero...I represented my self with no lawyer to advise or present my case.
Surely you could have charged your time out?
Make the ****** pay that as well!

By the way read the judgement and have to say one or two characters come across almost as criminals to my mind. I say almost because I have no legal qualifications and leave that judgement to others.

Look forward to reading the book(s).

[Youmightsaythat]

Surely you could have charged your time out?
Make the ****** pay that as well!

By the way read the judgement and have to say one or two characters come across almost as criminals to my mind. I say almost because I have no legal qualifications and leave that judgement to others.

Look forward to reading the book(s).
Funny you mention that. Watch this space.

[Abrahn]

Congratulations on your win, but I'd be reluctant to recommend drawing too many conclusions from one case. Particularly one that was not about aviation regulations but about English employment law (the CAA were correct), and was decided by a court of first instance (an Employment Tribunal) with claimant friendly rules, cost limits and a relatively junior judge.

[bean]

[QUOTE=Youmightsaythat;11282673]Funny you mention that. Watch this space.[/QUOT
When is the next volume due?. I can't wait

[Youmightsaythat]

Congratulations on your win, but I'd be reluctant to recommend drawing too many conclusions from one case. Particularly one that was not about aviation regulations but about English employment law (the CAA were correct), and was decided by a court of first instance (an Employment Tribunal) with claimant friendly rules, cost limits and a relatively junior judge.

Thank you for the congratulations although you seem a little confused about the 'conclusions from one case' The conclusion could not have been any clearer. Senior management, HR and in house legal team, in an attempt to conceal what was going on, withheld and destroyed documents. That is in the judgement. I raised protected disclosures and they took action against me for doing so. Its really basic 'employment law stuff'. As you correctly say this was an "Employment Case". I was always very clear about that. Indeed thats why I won.

"Claimant friendly rules"...you think?...Is that why only 5% of claimants win at tribunal and that includes those represented?

It was indeed decided by an Employment Tribunal, and then found as sound by an appeal judge. "Relatively Junior Judge". I assume you are implying someone who didn't know what they were doing. Now where have I heard that before, Oh I remember now ;)

Finally, although you state that The CAA were correct that it was an employment matter that was decided at tribunal, the entire reason for the situation was the airlines falsification of the FDP and planning a fatiguing run of duties that I refused to operate. So unless you are saying The CAA should ignore such abuse and let airline continue to pay scant regard to legislation that now results in it being common for pilots to fall asleep, Im not sure what point you are trying to make.

[Youmightsaythat]

[QUOTE=Youmightsaythat;11282673]Funny you mention that. Watch this space.[/QUOT
When is the next volume due?. I can't wait

All three of Pulling Wings From Butterflies are written (well apart from the last chapter in book three, the reason for which will become clear in a moment)

A few months ago Part 1 and part 2 were presented to the police and their investigation is ongoing. In order not to impinge on any subsequent legal action, book two is delayed until there is no risk of sub judice.

The final chapter will cover this aspect and the CPS response.

[Abrahn]

Im not sure what point you are trying to make.

The point is that people shouldn't put their life savings and house on the line on the basis of the recommendations in this thread, because it presents a misleading version of the legal position and mixes aviation regs with employment law, and English employment law and procedure with EU law and English criminal law.

I am not trying to defend any airline or criticise any person or company. I'm about to fly Whizz Air and I really would rather the crew aren't fatigued. Same for doctors, Police and Ambulance who suffer the same problems with their employers stretching the regulations past breaking point (and in the case of Police with the legal and press decks stacked against them).

BALPA refused to support the case

Yet BALPA say:

"I am also pleased that BALPA helped fund ... legal battles, and provided substantial expert and staff support."

Legal fees you mean?...cost me zero...

Cost BALPA though.

I represented my self with no lawyer to advise or present my case

The judge says:

"Although the claimant was unrepresented at the final hearing, he had been represented by solicitors at the time he presented his claim, at the Case Management Preliminary Hearing and during some of the preparation for the case."

And a good job too, because they framed your case around s44 and not aviation regulations and that allowed you to win.

Its in the Judgement of my case.

It's not. The judge says:

"the Tribunal does not consider it necessary to determine whether the view argued for by the claimant or that taken by the respondent is a correct interpretation of the relevant regulations and guidance"

The tribunal never addressed whether your understanding of the rules is correct or not, because it wasn't necessary. All that was necessary was to prove that you had a reasonable belief that safety would be impaired.

The precedent is set.

Again, the judge says:

"Babula v Waltham Forest College [2007] JCR 1026, the Court of Appeal
held that an employee .. could rely on the
protection of the whistleblowing provisions to argue that his dismissal was automatically unfair, even though his belief was mistaken. The Court held that a belief may be reasonably held and yet be wrong."

The precedent was set in the Court of Appeal. Not in your case. A superior Court with superior judges, hence my comment about the Employment Judge being a junior judge. The precedent is about employment legislation. There is absolutely no precedent set about aviation regulations in this case.

"Claimant friendly rules"...you think?

Yes. Absolutely. Allowed you to take the case to court without risk of having to pay the other side's costs. Something which is not available in other juristications. And only available to you because you'd been an employee longer than 2 years. Would not be an option for crew recently rehired after COVID However much paperwork and stress you thought there was in the ET, it's much less than the Civil Procedure Rules.

and then found as sound by an appeal judge

After the initial ruling the employer indicated their acceptance of the findings, so I'm surprised that they appealed. I haven't been able to find an appeal ruling so apologies if I'm missing something important.

[Youmightsaythat]

The point is that people shouldn't put their life savings and house on the line on the basis of the recommendations in this thread, because it presents a misleading version of the legal position and mixes aviation regs with employment law, and English employment law and procedure with EU law and English criminal law.

I am not trying to defend any airline or criticise any person or company. I'm about to fly Whizz Air and I really would rather the crew aren't fatigued. Same for doctors, Police and Ambulance who suffer the same problems with their employers stretching the regulations past breaking point (and in the case of Police with the legal and press decks stacked against them).



Yet BALPA say:

"I am also pleased that BALPA helped fund ... legal battles, and provided substantial expert and staff support."



Cost BALPA though.



The judge says:

"Although the claimant was unrepresented at the final hearing, he had been represented by solicitors at the time he presented his claim, at the Case Management Preliminary Hearing and during some of the preparation for the case."

And a good job too, because they framed your case around s44 and not aviation regulations and that allowed you to win.



It's not. The judge says:

"the Tribunal does not consider it necessary to determine whether the view argued for by the claimant or that taken by the respondent is a correct interpretation of the relevant regulations and guidance"

The tribunal never addressed whether your understanding of the rules is correct or not, because it wasn't necessary. All that was necessary was to prove that you had a reasonable belief that safety would be impaired.



Again, the judge says:

"Babula v Waltham Forest College [2007] JCR 1026, the Court of Appeal
held that an employee .. could rely on the
protection of the whistleblowing provisions to argue that his dismissal was automatically unfair, even though his belief was mistaken. The Court held that a belief may be reasonably held and yet be wrong."

The precedent was set in the Court of Appeal. Not in your case. A superior Court with superior judges, hence my comment about the Employment Judge being a junior judge. The precedent is about employment legislation. There is absolutely no precedent set about aviation regulations in this case.



Yes. Absolutely. Allowed you to take the case to court without risk of having to pay the other side's costs. Something which is not available in other juristications. And only available to you because you'd been an employee longer than 2 years. Would not be an option for crew recently rehired after COVID However much paperwork and stress you thought there was in the ET, it's much less than the Civil Procedure Rules.



After the initial ruling the employer indicated their acceptance of the findings, so I'm surprised that they appealed. I haven't been able to find an appeal ruling so apologies if I'm missing something important.

Thanks for your reply.

You are correct BALPA did indeed stay on their website "I am also pleased that BALPA helped fund ... legal battles, and provided substantial expert and staff support." Can you see anywhere where they state but not at the crucial point of the actual tribunal. There is more to come out about BALPA, a lot more. It will not only make for very uncomfortable reading for the union but will seriously raise questions with its members as to what is the point of being a member'.

I had personally done ALL the 'homework' that basically the BALPA appointed solicitors then used to complete an ET1 Form.

As for the rest of your reply can I suggest you wait for book two? It answers ALL of your comments. If you don[t want to read it, might I suggest you watch the news over the next few months. This will answer your questions. The point is...there are suppositions, thoughts, rumours and there are hard cold facts. I only dealt with facts and evidence. So do the police.

[Litebulbs]

Yes. Absolutely. Allowed you to take the case to court without risk of having to pay the other side's costs.


That is not 100% true

[Abrahn]

That is not 100% true

Ok. 99.9% chance. The assumption is that the claim is not vexatious and you don't abuse the judge.

[Litebulbs]

Ok. 99.9% chance. The assumption is that the claim is not vexatious and you don't abuse the judge.

Is there such a thing as subjective vexatiousness?! There should be as I have seen it, sadly (not me).

Anyhow and regardless, I see it as a success story

[Youmightsaythat]

Is there such a thing as subjective vexatiousness?! There should be as I have seen it, sadly (not me).

Anyhow and regardless, I see it as a success story

It was, and thats what upsets some people. 'How dare he take on the establishment'!!

[D9009]

Come on then give us some examples of 'common' illegally planned FDP......

Not illegal, but daft.....5 minutes taxi-in, taxi-out at CDG to fit the sector block times into the available FDP which unsurprisingly required Commander’s discretion to complete the “planned” duty.

[Youmightsaythat]

Not illegal, but daft.....5 minutes taxi-in, taxi-out at CDG to fit the sector block times into the available FDP which unsurprisingly required Commander’s discretion to complete the “planned” duty.

EU. Ops 2.2 An operator shall ensure that for all its flights;Flights are planned to be completed within the allowable flying duty period taking into account the time necessary for pre-flight duties, the flight and turn-around times.

Therefore only allowing 5 min taxi in-out at CDG did not ENSURE...hence illegal.

[D9009]

Therefore only allowing 5 min taxi in-out at CDG did not ENSURE...hence illegal.

Would it surprise you to know that this was a well regarded UK operator and they were adamant that 5 minutes taxi-in, taxi-out was standard and that the 25 minute buffer between planned on blocks and maximum FDP was legal and achievable.

[Youmightsaythat]

Would it surprise you to know that this was a well regarded UK operator and they were adamant that 5 minutes taxi-in, taxi-out was standard and that the 25 minute buffer between planned on blocks and maximum FDP was legal and achievable.

I will answer Thant with a question.

Time for a bit of fun.

How many airlines do you think the CAA have prosecuted in their entire history for falsifying flight plans to 'make it fit' and 'be efficient'?
a - More than 100
b - Less than 100
c - Zero

[NicolaJayne]

a) Should passenger aircraft be operating into a commercial airport without medical staff on immediate call? What happens if a passenger has a heart attack during taxi in? Surely there is a requirement for para medics or doctors to meet the aircraft at the gate?

b) An appropriate OMA entry would cover it. 'In the event that a crew member feels unfit to operate at outstation (including during a turnaround at outstation) every effort is to be made to be examined by a doctor prior to operating. This specifically includes unfitness due to suspected fatigue at outstation on a turnaround flight. In the case of reported unfitness to operate during a turnaround, if no doctor is available in a reasonable time then the Commander shall consult the affected crew member himself and liaise with the affected crew member, station manager, company and airport authorities to determine if the crew member shall be offloaded to wait for medical care or to position back to base. If the affected crew member insists on seeing a doctor he shall be offloaded into the care of the station manager if necessary to minimise delay. Note: Crew member's health is always to be of paramount concern and this should be considered and reflected in any decision made by the Commander'

It will never happen of course as para b would be wide open to abuse.

A which is met by the statutory Emergency medical responses of the Territory in question

LHR has/ had vehicles and crews and cycle responders with Airside passes ec at lHR for ease of movement around the site , iirc at one time i.e. Jeremey Spake Airport era BA Occ y Health also supported witha 'ambulance' on the airside as part of it;s first aid provision

the call ref fatigue would get reduced to a hear and treat call back with the ultimate answer beign speak to your GP or yout employers OH provision

[Luc Lion]

a - Is that a real question?
b - Is this CAA bashing?
c - Is a fraction between 0 and 1 fitting with answer b- ?

[Youmightsaythat]

a - Is that a real question?
b - Is this CAA bashing?
c - Is a fraction between 0 and 1 fitting with answer b- ?

a) Yes
b) Stating what I was told by the head of BALPA's Flight Safety Department. Do you see stating a fact as 'Bashing' ?
c) I will clarify (b) between 1 and 100

That ok?

[thegypsy]

In Gordomac's case it was Gulf Air where you have no rights.

[Youmightsaythat]

In Gordomac's case it was Gulf Air where you have no rights.

I will let you know in in a month or so if you have any in the UK as an airline captain...Now taken out of the CAA's hands.