Air NZ ordered to pay $18k compo to sacked captain
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air NZ ordered to pay $18k compo to sacked captain
Well this is disturbing.
AIR New Zealand must pay $18,000 for not acting in good faith to a veteran pilot stood down after crashing a simulator.
Peter Cross, a Boeing 777 captain, was stood down after a full failure in the simulator during an assessment in March 2015. His medical certificate was not renewed by the Civil Aviation Authority later that year, the New Zealand Herald reported.
A ruling by New Zealand’s Employment Relations Authority said Mr Cross understood the non-renewal of his medical certificate to be related to the simulator incident.
During the assessment, Mr Cross did not respond correctly to a simulated autopilot failure at an altitude of around 70m.
“At a late stage Mr Cross appeared to have some recognition that things were very wrong and tried to take control, however, this was not successful and the simulator crashed,” the authority determination said.
Mr Cross had been involved in four other incidents at Air New Zealand which gave rise to concern about his performance in circumstances of stress.
The airline was found to have not acted in good faith with regard to Mr Cross.
In one 2014 incident on a flight from Perth to Auckland when in charge Mr Cross didn’t unlock the door to the flight deck to allow the first officer back into the cockpit.
He was referred to a psychologist then.
Following his failed simulator test in 2015, Mr Cross took a period of sick leave and became “un current” as a 777 pilot and would have to go through ground training, simulator training — something that he and his representatives sought — and proficiency testing to regain his qualification. He would also need a valid medical assessment.
Mr Cross did regain a medical certificate but with a restriction the airline could not accept and Mr Cross was not returned to the payroll in 2017 as requested.
Air New Zealand said restrictions fell outside its normal training and checking procedures, and was not confident it could accurately simulate the circumstances and pressure necessary for the assessment.
The airline said that it would not be appropriate to test Mr Cross’s response in circumstances of stress during an operational flight.
But authority member Eleanor Robinson said Mr Cross had been placed in an invidious position.
“Prior to 2015 there had been no issues affecting his performance,” Ms Robinson said. “As such I find Air NZ as a fair and reasonable employer could be expected to do all it could to assist Mr Cross in the situation he found himself.’’
Despite a medical recommendation that he have simulator training with the airline, Air NZ did not facilitate this on the evidence of a manager that this would be time-consuming and costly with no guarantee that he would be able to return to operational duties.
“I find that Air NZ did not act in good faith in trying to assist Mr Cross resolve the situation in which he was placed by not offering simulator time and not engaging more actively with the CAA in order to facilitate Mr Cross’ return to active flying duties, and this had the effect of unjustifiably disadvantaging Mr Cross,” Ms Robinson said.
“Mr Cross has been placed in a most difficult situation which has caused him significant distress and upset, in addition to having to resource his own simulator sessions. Accordingly I find that Mr Cross is entitled to compensation.”
In ordering the NZ$20,000 (A$18,300) payment she said Mr Cross did not contribute to the situation he found himself in.
She determined that Air NZ did not act unjustifiably in not returning Mr Cross to operational status as a pilot.
“Consequently there is no order that he be restored to the payroll,” Ms Robinson said.
https://www.news.com.au/travel/trave...8e9fb304680b15
Peter Cross, a Boeing 777 captain, was stood down after a full failure in the simulator during an assessment in March 2015. His medical certificate was not renewed by the Civil Aviation Authority later that year, the New Zealand Herald reported.
A ruling by New Zealand’s Employment Relations Authority said Mr Cross understood the non-renewal of his medical certificate to be related to the simulator incident.
During the assessment, Mr Cross did not respond correctly to a simulated autopilot failure at an altitude of around 70m.
“At a late stage Mr Cross appeared to have some recognition that things were very wrong and tried to take control, however, this was not successful and the simulator crashed,” the authority determination said.
Mr Cross had been involved in four other incidents at Air New Zealand which gave rise to concern about his performance in circumstances of stress.
The airline was found to have not acted in good faith with regard to Mr Cross.
In one 2014 incident on a flight from Perth to Auckland when in charge Mr Cross didn’t unlock the door to the flight deck to allow the first officer back into the cockpit.
He was referred to a psychologist then.
Following his failed simulator test in 2015, Mr Cross took a period of sick leave and became “un current” as a 777 pilot and would have to go through ground training, simulator training — something that he and his representatives sought — and proficiency testing to regain his qualification. He would also need a valid medical assessment.
Mr Cross did regain a medical certificate but with a restriction the airline could not accept and Mr Cross was not returned to the payroll in 2017 as requested.
Air New Zealand said restrictions fell outside its normal training and checking procedures, and was not confident it could accurately simulate the circumstances and pressure necessary for the assessment.
The airline said that it would not be appropriate to test Mr Cross’s response in circumstances of stress during an operational flight.
But authority member Eleanor Robinson said Mr Cross had been placed in an invidious position.
“Prior to 2015 there had been no issues affecting his performance,” Ms Robinson said. “As such I find Air NZ as a fair and reasonable employer could be expected to do all it could to assist Mr Cross in the situation he found himself.’’
Despite a medical recommendation that he have simulator training with the airline, Air NZ did not facilitate this on the evidence of a manager that this would be time-consuming and costly with no guarantee that he would be able to return to operational duties.
“I find that Air NZ did not act in good faith in trying to assist Mr Cross resolve the situation in which he was placed by not offering simulator time and not engaging more actively with the CAA in order to facilitate Mr Cross’ return to active flying duties, and this had the effect of unjustifiably disadvantaging Mr Cross,” Ms Robinson said.
“Mr Cross has been placed in a most difficult situation which has caused him significant distress and upset, in addition to having to resource his own simulator sessions. Accordingly I find that Mr Cross is entitled to compensation.”
In ordering the NZ$20,000 (A$18,300) payment she said Mr Cross did not contribute to the situation he found himself in.
She determined that Air NZ did not act unjustifiably in not returning Mr Cross to operational status as a pilot.
“Consequently there is no order that he be restored to the payroll,” Ms Robinson said.
https://www.news.com.au/travel/trave...8e9fb304680b15
In one 2014 incident on a flight from Perth to Auckland when in charge Mr Cross didn’t unlock the door to the flight deck to allow the first officer back into the cockpit.
Most disturbing is that if there is any truth about him locking the F/O out, why was he not immediately and permanently grounded?
''Given the altitude of the flight at the time, the captain who remained on the flight deck donned his oxygen mask, as is standard procedure when one pilot exits the flight deck in a two-person flight crew,''
Really?!?! Not on this side of the dutch
Really?!?! Not on this side of the dutch
Guest
Posts: n/a
The final straw to all these events, was, he crashed the simulator flight, apparently didn't recognize a computer abnormality.
That's why the things are, where they are now.
It's interesting to note, the court didn't order the company to restore the employee to his previous position.
It's a similar court order story, as was the case in Tasmania, when an employee, called in sick the night before, for an early shift,
due to a night out.
Although the employee won the case and received a few months of monetary compensation, the court didn't order the company to return
the person back to work.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 50
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably practice autoland? Doesn’t the other autopilot take over? But then you aren’t autoland capable or something..some 777 guy know what the story is?
The 777 is pretty robust when it comes to Autolands, but that's besides the point really. As part of any Airlines LVP approval, we need to demonstrate competency every 6 months which usually involves a rejected Takeoff and Missed Approach to the Aircraft/Approval limit, which would be Cat IIIB in the 777.
End of the day, the instructor (or perhaps the training matrix) chose an A/P failure rather than an ILS failure (for example)...
End of the day, the instructor (or perhaps the training matrix) chose an A/P failure rather than an ILS failure (for example)...
''Given the altitude of the flight at the time, the captain who remained on the flight deck donned his oxygen mask, as is standard procedure when one pilot exits the flight deck in a two-person flight crew,''
Full text of the ERA decision:
https://www.employment.govt.nz/asset...ckland-305.pdf
Operational Incidents involving Mr Cross
[27] During Mr Cross’ employment with Air NZ there had been four incidents which had given rise to concern regarding Mr Cross’ performance in circumstances of stress. These were:
(i) December 2003
[28] During an operational A230 flight in which Mr Cross was the pilot-in-charge, there was an unstable ILS approach which had given rise to a Safety Investigation Report.
(ii) May 2014
[29] During an operational flight from Perth to Auckland during which Mr Cross was the pilot-in-charge, the First Officer was unable to regain access to the flight deck from the cabin as a result of Mr Cross not unlocking the door.
[30] Subsequently Mr Cross was referred to a Clinical Psychologist to assess his emotional/adjustment abilities.
(iii) October 2014
[31] Mr Watson said that he was undertaking a six-monthly TDPD for Mr Cross on 12 October 2014, in which ‘windshear’ was selected as a simulated event on take-off. Windshear is a serious weather-related event which could possibly create a crash situation.
[32] Mr Watson explained that during the windshear event a loud alarm sounds “WINDSHEAR, WINDSHEAR” and flight deck screens flash red.
[33] Mr Watson said that when the windshear alert sounded on take-off Mr Cross did not react and appeared not to have recognised the windshear simulation but instead flew through the windshear incident.
[34] The windshear incident stimulated on landing should have triggered an immediate response from Mr Cross to perform the ‘Windshear Escape Manoeuvre’ however he appeared not to respond to the windshear warnings and instead performed a ‘Go Around Manoeuvre’.
[35] The simulator exercise had been marked as a ‘2’ in terms of the assessment and Mr Cross was required to re-fly and did so to a satisfactory standard.
(ii) March 2015
[36] Mr Cross’ next TDPD was on 23 and 24 March 2015. Mr Watson said that during that simulator exercise an autopilot failure at an altitude of 200 feet had been selected and was simulated. Again, significant alarm sounds and messages were displayed to indicate that the autopilot had disconnected.
[37] However, rather than Mr Cross taking manual control of the aircraft as should have occurred because this was the proficiency being tested, Mr Watson had observed him turning to concentrate on trimming the rudder trim with no hands on the control wheel. As this manoeuvre required Mr Cross to look backwards and downwards, he had no visual contact on the instruments or what was occurring at the flight deck windows.
[38] Mr Watson said that at a late stage Mr Cross appeared to have some recognition that things were very wrong and tried to take control, however this was not successful and the simulator had crashed.
[39] This was a significant event and Mr Cross’ proficiency was marked ‘1’, which was a full failure. There were no re-flies in that situation and following this incident Mr Cross was stood down from flying duties.
https://www.employment.govt.nz/asset...ckland-305.pdf
Operational Incidents involving Mr Cross
[27] During Mr Cross’ employment with Air NZ there had been four incidents which had given rise to concern regarding Mr Cross’ performance in circumstances of stress. These were:
(i) December 2003
[28] During an operational A230 flight in which Mr Cross was the pilot-in-charge, there was an unstable ILS approach which had given rise to a Safety Investigation Report.
(ii) May 2014
[29] During an operational flight from Perth to Auckland during which Mr Cross was the pilot-in-charge, the First Officer was unable to regain access to the flight deck from the cabin as a result of Mr Cross not unlocking the door.
[30] Subsequently Mr Cross was referred to a Clinical Psychologist to assess his emotional/adjustment abilities.
(iii) October 2014
[31] Mr Watson said that he was undertaking a six-monthly TDPD for Mr Cross on 12 October 2014, in which ‘windshear’ was selected as a simulated event on take-off. Windshear is a serious weather-related event which could possibly create a crash situation.
[32] Mr Watson explained that during the windshear event a loud alarm sounds “WINDSHEAR, WINDSHEAR” and flight deck screens flash red.
[33] Mr Watson said that when the windshear alert sounded on take-off Mr Cross did not react and appeared not to have recognised the windshear simulation but instead flew through the windshear incident.
[34] The windshear incident stimulated on landing should have triggered an immediate response from Mr Cross to perform the ‘Windshear Escape Manoeuvre’ however he appeared not to respond to the windshear warnings and instead performed a ‘Go Around Manoeuvre’.
[35] The simulator exercise had been marked as a ‘2’ in terms of the assessment and Mr Cross was required to re-fly and did so to a satisfactory standard.
(ii) March 2015
[36] Mr Cross’ next TDPD was on 23 and 24 March 2015. Mr Watson said that during that simulator exercise an autopilot failure at an altitude of 200 feet had been selected and was simulated. Again, significant alarm sounds and messages were displayed to indicate that the autopilot had disconnected.
[37] However, rather than Mr Cross taking manual control of the aircraft as should have occurred because this was the proficiency being tested, Mr Watson had observed him turning to concentrate on trimming the rudder trim with no hands on the control wheel. As this manoeuvre required Mr Cross to look backwards and downwards, he had no visual contact on the instruments or what was occurring at the flight deck windows.
[38] Mr Watson said that at a late stage Mr Cross appeared to have some recognition that things were very wrong and tried to take control, however this was not successful and the simulator had crashed.
[39] This was a significant event and Mr Cross’ proficiency was marked ‘1’, which was a full failure. There were no re-flies in that situation and following this incident Mr Cross was stood down from flying duties.
Last edited by Just a Grunt; 9th Oct 2018 at 11:18.
For a gentleman of his calibre $18k NZ is really a trivial amount of money, what’s that about 1 months pre tax income?
sounds like NZ will be happy enough to pay up to have the problem go away. As others have said that the tribunal didn’t demand reinstatement is enlightening
sounds like NZ will be happy enough to pay up to have the problem go away. As others have said that the tribunal didn’t demand reinstatement is enlightening
Having just read NZ CAR 91.209 (use of oxygen equipment), I have a couple of questions:
1. Why? The rest of the world saw the light in 1990's, some time after the introduction of EROS quick-donning maks, and...
2. So NZ has a fleet of 787s capable of flight higher than FL410, but your part 91.209 requires one pilot to be continuously on O2 above that level. Does anyone actually believe that happens?
All of that aside, 18K to close the books on this guy sounds like a bargain.
1. Why? The rest of the world saw the light in 1990's, some time after the introduction of EROS quick-donning maks, and...
2. So NZ has a fleet of 787s capable of flight higher than FL410, but your part 91.209 requires one pilot to be continuously on O2 above that level. Does anyone actually believe that happens?
All of that aside, 18K to close the books on this guy sounds like a bargain.