Virgin Australia mental health/insurance issues
 

No special knowledge of this, just happened to stumble across it.

If true, it seems to raise a number of very significant issues.

https://www.theklaxon.com.au/home/su...or-three-years

I guess the obvious question is, why didn’t he go to an independent DAME?

Without trivialising this poor man's illness, this situation calls to mind the writing of Joseph Heller:

Why did he not ground himself as required by law ?

did you read the article? nah, didn’t think so

No I did read the article, sorry if I don't understand it correctly.

If he did ground himself and notify CASA, then how did they renew his medical ?

Would have thought an email to Avmed would have done it.

This must be the first pilot ever to voluntarily ground himself for medical reasons. Everyone else I know lives in a state of terror worrying that they may be grounded for medical reasons.

If you walked into a DAME’s office and said “Doc, I’m not fit fly, I’ve got a lot going on and I’ve got some mental health issues” it seems unlikely that the doc would stamp the extension and send you on your way.

I’m in no way diminishing anyone’s mental health issues, but there’s a fair bit about this that just doesn’t seem right.

There’s a lot that Virgin have done over the years that makes you shake your head in disbelief but from personal experience and anecdotally from several colleagues the care of people when they call their manager with a personal issue has been second to none.

He seems to have done the right thing by refusing to fly.

There does seem to be a gap insomuch as he did not report his concerns directly to the CASA medical department if he was unhappy with the way his company AME was handling it.

But let's also give him the benefit of the doubt - If someone is suffering form significant Mental Health problems then their admin may not be entirely up to scratch. He didn't fly thus fulfilling his professional responsibility not to - anything else is just paperwork.

As for Loss of Licence Insurance - many / most policies do not cover some / any mental health conditions so i'm not surprised to hear that the insurance is refusing to pay out..

But it wouldn't have solved the loss of licence insurance problem though.

It also raises the question of Virgin's liability if, which praise the Lord didn't happen, Captain Boyd's airplane had ended up in a smoking hole. No legally licensed captain in command = no insurance one would have thought.

I wish Captain Boyd all the best in his endeavours to get the situation resolved and hope that he can just hang in there, getting the best possible help that the State can provide.

I may have missed it, did it say somewhere that he wasn’t legally licensed at some point and still flying?

That's how I read it; especially the bit where the second opinion of the psychiatrist was sought

So, a specialist tells the Virgin docs to revoke the licence, but Virgin docs tell CASA he's OK. Maybe they (Virgin) should think themselves lucky they aren't dealing with a catastrophe.

So 2 Pshychiatrist’s gave independent advice to Virgin to say that a pilot was medically unfit to fly and they ignored the advice and renewed the medical or simply disappeared the reports? And this is after he’s raised concerns with the VA medical group while renewing his medical?

It seems like there’s a little more to the story.

At what age does loss of licence cut out in the VARA award? Not that we would be able to see them but needless to say the Doctor's reports would be interesting on the matter.

I truly hope that the pilot in the story eventually gets a massive payout! There seems to be no doubt at all as to who bears the blame for this situation and it is definitely not the pilot or even the regulator it seems! It seems that Virgin clearly knew what they were doing was wrong by failing to insure pilots in order to save a dollar and then acted accordingly to cover it up.

My question is why is CASA the safety regulator also not actively fighting on behalf of the pilot and what actions have they taken in order to make sure this kind of situation never happens again??

From who? The company is in administration.

If it trades again, any potential insurance payout to him won't currently be on the creditor list. Rotten timing, and the situation stinks.

We all know who CASA works for and verifying this gentleman’s situation will decimate an industry who treats humans like a consumable. The response in the aftermath of Germanwings was to target the incumbent pilots and not the cause of the accident. There will be no improvement in managements attitude towards us.

You could logically make an argument that this situation actually falls under "medical negligence".

My understanding is that each and every doctor must be individually insured for medical negligence which of course is completely separate to loss of licence insurance and would also theoretically allow for much larger payouts. That would solve the problem at least as to whether Virgin is in administration or not.

The issue of continuing to fly is nothing to do with Virgin. It was a medical decision. The fact that Virgin paid the doctor's salary is irrelevant. Whether the doctor was correct in continuing to issue a medical would require an expert opinion based on his notes. So we cant decide, only postulate. Medical negligence would be very difficult yo get past a court because the standard against which the doctor would be compared would be a generalist occupational health doctor or a GP, not a consultant psychiatrist. In any case the pilot made money by continuing to fly, he didnt lose money, so there is no financial loss.

The pilot had a medical so Virgin was not at risk

Virgin may have failed to take out loss of license insurance in which case in the UK it would merely be a breech of contract and a matter for an employment tribunal or the county court for financial loss.

The Klaxon.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search The Klaxon.com https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...The_Klaxon.png Type of business Private Type of site News & blogging, Commentary and analysis Available in English Founded December 2009 Headquarters New York City, New York
,
U.S. Owner Joshua Wilwohl
Chuck Frank Founder(s) Joshua Wilwohl
Chuck Frank Key people Joshua Wilwohl, Editor-in-chief
Chuck Frank, Publisher Employees 20 URL www.theklaxon.com Alexa rank https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...gative.svg.png 25,288,916 (April 2013)[1] Registration Optional Launched December 1, 2009 Current status InactiveThe Klaxon.com was an online news organization that offered commentary and analysis on emergencies and disasters around the world.[2][3][4][5][6] It was unique not only for its content, but also because it was operated completely on handheld devices, such as the iPhoneand BlackBerry, by staff anywhere in the world.[7][8] It was co-founded in 2009 by Joshua Wilwohl and Chuck Frank.[2][5][8]

References[edit]

1. ^ "Theklaxon.com Site Info". Alexa Internet. Retrieved 2013-04-22.
2. ^ Jump up to: a b [1][dead link]
3. ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-27. Retrieved 2010-04-24.
4. ^ "World Have Your Say - Downloads - BBC World Service". BBC.
5. ^ Jump up to: a b "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-06-09. Retrieved 2010-04-13.
6. ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-06-13. Retrieved 2010-04-23.
7. ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-27. Retrieved 2010-04-23.
8. ^ Jump up to: a b "HugeDomains.com - TheKlaxon.com is for sale". The Klaxon. 2017-10-04. Retrieved 2018-05-07.

According to the article it states the following:

"The psychiatrist found that Boyd was “well below the minimum standard of mental health for a pilot” recommending his license be revoked immediately."

The article then goes on to say this immediately after:

"This recommendation was sent to the referring Virgin Australia doctor.But three months on, Boyd was again mailed his medical certificate from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)."

If that is true then how on earth is that not medical negligence, did the virgin australia doctor have appropriate psychiatric qualifications in order to make an assessment that went against what the psychiatrist and the pilot was saying?

If this was a physical issue (for e.g. epilepsy) instead of a mental health issue than what would the outcome have been if the virgin doctor still went against the advice of the specialist and there was a subsequent accident?

The insurance issue aside, surely the doctor is on the hook if he’s continued to issue a medical in the face of a Pshychiatrist’s report? Why would any doctor allow themselves to be put in that position if there was an accident and a paper trail from the psychiatrist?

The random punitive way CASA AVMED operate does it really surprise you that the majority of people think like that?

Seriously, do Not want to offer on this (& apologies Mr "coaldemon", but- the most relevant post.....)!!!!

Was, the 'Loss of License' Policy (attached to the Award) 'Paid'- and, as such the Cover in force, at that 'given' Point In Time....????

'IT' is all Bad/on many levels, and not in any way acceptable- by the 'read'.

Then- 'What' else is not paid/funded and enforceable.......????

Just a question/contention, as "Stuff" is now 'starting' to emerge.....

rgds all/& be Well
S28- BE
(particularly, to those afflicted in this)

That is actually a really really interesting question.

The only thing I can think of is that possibly the doctor was either put under extreme pressure by upper management to ignore the psychiatrists recommendation or alternatively the final decision was taken out of his hands entirely. Therefore, the final decision was presumably not even possibly being made by a doctor at all, let alone a specialist!

The latter would actually make more sense to me as upper management would primarily be more concerned about financial implications. Although, last time I checked the resulting class action from an accident would be infinitely more expensive and damaging to the company from a PR perspective so if that is true then the logic employed by Virgin management is still flawed if relying solely on financial considerations.

I still do not believe that any of this lets the doctor off the hook though for medical negligence. Considering, the significant safety implications of this situation the Virgin doctor could if nothing else have made an anonymous report to CASA. Why did no one at Virgin even consider to do this?

Yet trivializing it is just what you did

I would always be careful about accepting something reported in a news article at face value, but it is probable the psychiatrist was just that - a psychiatrist and not a AME or DAME. It is very common for surgeons, cardiologists, neurologists etc of the highest calibre to give a report saying a pilot is fit to fly but for the pilot not to be given a medical simply because a consultant not involved in aviation is not trained as to the requirements. The DAME or AME is not in many cases a consultant or specialist in that field but is trained to interpret the Authority's requirements, so the psychiatrist may simply be wrong. Indeed it is possible the DAME sent the report to CASA whose own psychiatrist reviewed it and the Authority then issued the medical.

Does Virgin's loss of licence insurance cover against mental health issues, I have seen other Airline policies that specifically exclude such issues. For those still flying, it might be worth your while to check just what is covered.

I think this is highly possible.
Hypothetical:
Is it possible that many of us bemoan the fact that those b@stards at AvMed "stop us flying", then, in a situation where they (perhaps) do the opposite and give someone the tick in the box, we go "Oh, look how reckless AvMed are!"?
Obviously there would be questions to be asked about company influence, etc, etc...
Just putting it out there...

The Australian Air Pilots Mutual Benefit Fund (MBF) provides some limited cover for some mental illnesses - depending on the type (schizophrenia, bipolar, etc) you may be eligible for your Capital Payment or the Disability Payment. Note that depression is only covered by the Disability Benefit portion. But at least there is some coverage.
EDIT - not sure if this is what applies to Virgin pilots.

Ironically, the job itself is quite often the root cause of depression and while recovery is certainly possible with depression, it’s unlikely while the individual remains within the industry.

This is an extremely good point.

When I was shopping for life insurance and income protection insurance a while back, I found various companies would not cover you if you committed any kind of aviation beyond travelling as a passenger on an RPT carrier. Want to take a hot air balloon flight over the Hunter Valley? Nope, not covered if you die or are injured to the point you can no longer work. Want to learn to fly? Not a chance, but you 'might be covered by the flying schools insurance'...One idiot mob's PDS (BT Insurance through St George I think it was) had you sign a declaration to the effect of "I do not perform any activities described in the 'list of prohibited activities'. When I called to ask about this 'list' I was told it was 'commercial in confidence' and you could only tell them what you do and they will tell you if it is on 'the list'. Apparently flying in a plane you built in your back shed is most definitely on the list....

For those of you who hold such policies, it might pay to double check the PDS and the fine print, just in case...

I rank insurers and insurance companies up there with airline directors and exec management :mad:

Isn’t this a major safety issue? Especially right now?

QF SH EA was modified about 5 years ago, at company’s request, to narrow the definitions related to Psych and loss of license. The definitions at the time were from the 60’s and comparatively broad.

Not trying to engage in a game of Top Trumps re. medical roles and the hierarchies within, but I'd say the advice of a psychiatrist on mental health issues for pilots beats the AME. Whilst the AME is an expert on all matters of aviation, for example the factors pertaining to vision, spatial awareness, cardiovascular function, respiratory function in a potentially hazardous environment (rapid cabin depressurization), etc. their knowledge and understanding in relation to psychiatry is less.

If the AME referred the pilot for cardiovascular investigations and they showed an underlying arrhythmia, the AME could choose to suspend the Class 1 medical, because their would be an increased risk. If the same AME referred to a psychiatrist because there were psychological concerns and these showed a risk, the AME would seriously have to explain why they did not accept the opinion of their colleague.

A loss of licence insurance covers a loss of licence or should unless its due to a deliberate self inflicted injury.
Having said that who knows or indeed finds out about the limits of their cover until its needed and then are in for a shock since parasites like Scurrah and his ilk became involved in our industry.

Exactly, a hell of a lot less! How can any aviation doctor (regardless of who they work for) without any qualifications at all in relation to psychiatry go against the opinion of a psychiatrist or any specialist at all for that matter, unless they themselves are also specialists in that field! They shouldn't even be allowed to over ride the opinion of a psychologist let alone a psychiatrist!

But for all we know, as per the suggestion above and completely hypothetical, the AME potentially consulted with a CASA AVMED pysch (shifting the responsibility), to enable the overrule - yeah?
This is all speculation, of course.