why Cathay Pacific allowed pilot with measles to fly
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In someone pocket
Posts: 1,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why Cathay Pacific allowed pilot with measles to fly
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: All over
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One has a duty to one's license, the regulatory authority, and the traveling public NOT to fly unfit. This is a rule and you bear accountability to the regulatory authority (who can not only pull your license but in some jurisdictions ultimately might be able to find a way to jail you) to follow it. This accountability isn't to CX but toward an entity who can (rightly) suspend or terminate your flying career across the board (at least in HKG).
That's that.
Perhaps the individual gets the benefit of the doubt in that he might have been confused, had his priorities misplaced, or not known how sick he really was. Don't know all the facts. And unless someone else told him what he had he might have been in that gray area where one feels kinda OK but kinda not -- at the end of the day you are the person who decides if you are well enough to fly. Others can tell you (from the outside) you might have a disqualifying condition but absent that only YOU can assess how you feel that particular day. Or perhaps he made a fairly gross error of judgment.
And if there was or is actual bona-fide coercion involved (in this or any other event), that should be documented and presented such that fines/CAD action levied up to and including AOC be suspended or revoked as appropriate.
Unless you are on POS 18, there is ZERO reason or incentive TO fly unfit (regardless of some potential interpretation of words in print by some manager somewhere). One has a large allocation (in an actual contract) of pay protected sick days. Granted, this may be easier to enforce in some jurisdictions (where it's fairly bulletproof) than others. But it is there. AND you are getting paid. So use it if it applies. It is the right thing to do.
I have little tolerance for people who whinge about conditions or intimidation and do nothing about it. Makes me wonder what kind of people they are. This relatively generous contractural guarantee is there in order TO prevent unfit pilots from creating unsafe situations--and is there to use.
That's that.
Perhaps the individual gets the benefit of the doubt in that he might have been confused, had his priorities misplaced, or not known how sick he really was. Don't know all the facts. And unless someone else told him what he had he might have been in that gray area where one feels kinda OK but kinda not -- at the end of the day you are the person who decides if you are well enough to fly. Others can tell you (from the outside) you might have a disqualifying condition but absent that only YOU can assess how you feel that particular day. Or perhaps he made a fairly gross error of judgment.
And if there was or is actual bona-fide coercion involved (in this or any other event), that should be documented and presented such that fines/CAD action levied up to and including AOC be suspended or revoked as appropriate.
Unless you are on POS 18, there is ZERO reason or incentive TO fly unfit (regardless of some potential interpretation of words in print by some manager somewhere). One has a large allocation (in an actual contract) of pay protected sick days. Granted, this may be easier to enforce in some jurisdictions (where it's fairly bulletproof) than others. But it is there. AND you are getting paid. So use it if it applies. It is the right thing to do.
I have little tolerance for people who whinge about conditions or intimidation and do nothing about it. Makes me wonder what kind of people they are. This relatively generous contractural guarantee is there in order TO prevent unfit pilots from creating unsafe situations--and is there to use.
Last edited by Slasher1; 25th Mar 2019 at 20:28.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even with punitive sickness program in play....CAD should get their ass kicked for permitting it.
This is a 41 year old person....who knew they were sick and flew.....with a highly contagious and damn hard bug to quarantine ....should have the book thrown at them. Cathay FOP dept should be hauled over the coals. Even if immunised we could have sat in that seat picked up the bug and brought him home to our children. This person showed a complete lack of thought....and we have him employed flying pax....like you just demonstrated max incompetence.
If he had to be hospitalized he knew he was too sick to fly.....no grace from this pilot.....just shame and sack. The race to the bottom in pilot quality .....
This is a 41 year old person....who knew they were sick and flew.....with a highly contagious and damn hard bug to quarantine ....should have the book thrown at them. Cathay FOP dept should be hauled over the coals. Even if immunised we could have sat in that seat picked up the bug and brought him home to our children. This person showed a complete lack of thought....and we have him employed flying pax....like you just demonstrated max incompetence.
If he had to be hospitalized he knew he was too sick to fly.....no grace from this pilot.....just shame and sack. The race to the bottom in pilot quality .....
One has a duty to one's license, the regulatory authority, and the traveling public NOT to fly unfit. This is a rule and you bear accountability to the regulatory authority (who can not only pull your license but in some jurisdictions ultimately might be able to find a way to jail you) to follow it. This accountability isn't to CX but toward an entity who can (rightly) suspend or terminate your flying career across the board (at least in HKG).
That's that.
Perhaps the individual gets the benefit of the doubt in that he might have been confused, had his priorities misplaced, or not known how sick he really was. Don't know all the facts. And unless someone else told him what he had he might have been in that gray area where one feels kinda OK but kinda not -- at the end of the day you are the person who decides if you are well enough to fly. Others can tell you (from the outside) you might have a disqualifying condition but absent that only YOU can assess how you feel that particular day. Or perhaps he made a fairly gross error of judgment.
And if there was or is actual bona-fide coercion involved (in this or any other event), that should be documented and presented such that fines/CAD action levied up to and including AOC be suspended or revoked as appropriate.
Unless you are on POS 18, there is ZERO reason or incentive TO fly unfit (regardless of some potential interpretation of words in print by some manager somewhere). One has a large allocation (in an actual contract) of pay protected sick days. Granted, this may be easier to enforce in some jurisdictions (where it's fairly bulletproof) than others. But it is there. AND you are getting paid. So use it if it applies. It is the right thing to do.
I have little tolerance for people who whinge about conditions or intimidation and do nothing about it. Makes me wonder what kind of people they are. This relatively generous contractural guarantee is there in order TO prevent unfit pilots from creating unsafe situations--and is there to use.
That's that.
Perhaps the individual gets the benefit of the doubt in that he might have been confused, had his priorities misplaced, or not known how sick he really was. Don't know all the facts. And unless someone else told him what he had he might have been in that gray area where one feels kinda OK but kinda not -- at the end of the day you are the person who decides if you are well enough to fly. Others can tell you (from the outside) you might have a disqualifying condition but absent that only YOU can assess how you feel that particular day. Or perhaps he made a fairly gross error of judgment.
And if there was or is actual bona-fide coercion involved (in this or any other event), that should be documented and presented such that fines/CAD action levied up to and including AOC be suspended or revoked as appropriate.
Unless you are on POS 18, there is ZERO reason or incentive TO fly unfit (regardless of some potential interpretation of words in print by some manager somewhere). One has a large allocation (in an actual contract) of pay protected sick days. Granted, this may be easier to enforce in some jurisdictions (where it's fairly bulletproof) than others. But it is there. AND you are getting paid. So use it if it applies. It is the right thing to do.
I have little tolerance for people who whinge about conditions or intimidation and do nothing about it. Makes me wonder what kind of people they are. This relatively generous contractural guarantee is there in order TO prevent unfit pilots from creating unsafe situations--and is there to use.
Unions are meant to sort this sort of intimidation out. But it's not happening in Hong Kong, is it.
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: All over
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a company isn't clear that such behavior won't be tolerated (or has a climate where it is coerced or encouraged) that company has no business having an AOC.
Oh I agree with you about those companies deserving to have their AOC's withdrawn. Believe me I DO!
But that's in an ideal world - you know, the one where the declarations Corporations make about 'safety first' etc really mean something, and get applied even when they are faced with the 'negative commercial consequences' of such priorities.
I'm tempted to ask you if you are really a pilot? Really flying in this brave new world of Corporate malfeasance, and regulator capture.
The regulator is meant to police the AOC holders, keep them honest, limit their excesses. Make sure the rules are applied.
But they often do not. Because the regulators often rely on the Corporations for their livelihoods! And there are lots of other considerations too (like the public who want the cheapest fares, and their political representatives who want to curry their favour to stay in power). Lets not forget the shareholders. And the Airline Ratings companies. The list goes on.
Yet you expect a LONE Pilot to confront the lot of them?
Oh, I've been there, done that! It caused me a lot of hassle - and I got no support from anywhere. Other colleagues of mine (Captains) lost their jobs for refusing to carry out orders that were exactly against the OM-A, and unsafe. I'm talking about Hong Kong here, not some banana republic.
The Pilot will ALWAYS lose.
So get off your high horse. Get real. What's safe or unsafe is relative now, and your opinion as a pilot is far down the list of stakeholders.
Exhibit A Ethiopian Airlines says Pilots got correct Training
Your job is to take the blame. Get it?
And Cover Your Arse, that's all you can hope to do.
But that's in an ideal world - you know, the one where the declarations Corporations make about 'safety first' etc really mean something, and get applied even when they are faced with the 'negative commercial consequences' of such priorities.
I'm tempted to ask you if you are really a pilot? Really flying in this brave new world of Corporate malfeasance, and regulator capture.
The regulator is meant to police the AOC holders, keep them honest, limit their excesses. Make sure the rules are applied.
But they often do not. Because the regulators often rely on the Corporations for their livelihoods! And there are lots of other considerations too (like the public who want the cheapest fares, and their political representatives who want to curry their favour to stay in power). Lets not forget the shareholders. And the Airline Ratings companies. The list goes on.
Yet you expect a LONE Pilot to confront the lot of them?
Oh, I've been there, done that! It caused me a lot of hassle - and I got no support from anywhere. Other colleagues of mine (Captains) lost their jobs for refusing to carry out orders that were exactly against the OM-A, and unsafe. I'm talking about Hong Kong here, not some banana republic.
The Pilot will ALWAYS lose.
So get off your high horse. Get real. What's safe or unsafe is relative now, and your opinion as a pilot is far down the list of stakeholders.
Exhibit A Ethiopian Airlines says Pilots got correct Training
Your job is to take the blame. Get it?
And Cover Your Arse, that's all you can hope to do.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even with punitive sickness program in play....CAD should get their ass kicked for permitting it.
This is a 41 year old person....who knew they were sick and flew.....with a highly contagious and damn hard bug to quarantine ....should have the book thrown at them. Cathay FOP dept should be hauled over the coals. Even if immunised we could have sat in that seat picked up the bug and brought him home to our children. This person showed a complete lack of thought....and we have him employed flying pax....like you just demonstrated max incompetence.
If he had to be hospitalized he knew he was too sick to fly.....no grace from this pilot.....just shame and sack. The race to the bottom in pilot quality .....
This is a 41 year old person....who knew they were sick and flew.....with a highly contagious and damn hard bug to quarantine ....should have the book thrown at them. Cathay FOP dept should be hauled over the coals. Even if immunised we could have sat in that seat picked up the bug and brought him home to our children. This person showed a complete lack of thought....and we have him employed flying pax....like you just demonstrated max incompetence.
If he had to be hospitalized he knew he was too sick to fly.....no grace from this pilot.....just shame and sack. The race to the bottom in pilot quality .....
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Earth
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying is slowly becoming the bane of my existence. I used to look forward to flying but now I feel like I have a high chance of contracting a disease because of the caliber of people on board. After a long haul flight from Hong Kong I caught pneumonia once, and it was the worse. Every time I fly I think twice about everything, especially touching the tray table.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To date, i've sent home two FO's from dispatch who were obviously too ill to be operating. Both were on high overtime. Needless to say, I wasn't very popular with either of them. The fact that they would even turn up at work in the states they were in was enough for me to question their overall judgement. Don't come to work and put the rest of your crew at high risk of passing on illness. Period.
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: All over
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...
I'm tempted to ask you if you are really a pilot? Really flying in this brave new world of Corporate malfeasance, and regulator capture.
...
What's safe or unsafe is relative now, and your opinion as a pilot is far down the list of stakeholders.
...
Your job is to take the blame. Get it?
And Cover Your Arse, that's all you can hope to do.
I'm tempted to ask you if you are really a pilot? Really flying in this brave new world of Corporate malfeasance, and regulator capture.
...
What's safe or unsafe is relative now, and your opinion as a pilot is far down the list of stakeholders.
...
Your job is to take the blame. Get it?
And Cover Your Arse, that's all you can hope to do.
I can honestly say IN those 31 years I can't remember a situation where a supervisor or employer (after being presented--albeit maybe in a tactful way-- with the facts that what they are asking is breaking a rule and/or unsafe and that in no uncertain terms I am NOT willing to do that) being forced into doing it (or being fired for refusing TO break a rule). Nor do I think I'd like to work for such an entity. Hasn't happened here. Most of the time (when it's happened) they've been grateful I've pointed it out and we've worked toward a solution (which is prudent and safe). Perhaps I've lived a charmed life. Or perhaps a lot of what happens to you depends on your outlook and how YOU behave (and the boundaries you set).
Now, I HAVE found myself in situations where my perception (of what my supervisor or employer might think) didn't match reality and gotten into binds largely of my (or our) own making that I've had to extricate myself from (perhaps breaking some rule in the process). And learned not to do that again.
As well as learned to place bleating emails about this or that (that some might view as intimidation) in the circular file where they belong -- or maybe saving a copy in the dusty file in case something later comes up which it never seems to do.
I think one has to get away from the 'all about me' mindset. It's not all about you or your toys, ex-wives, boats, or houses (or even a corporation -- altruistic OR corrupt and greedy -- or even a regulator). It might have taken me longer than it should have to realize, but there are 300-ish trusting souls sitting in the back; many of whom have little idea what we do. That's a tremendous responsibility. It might be OK to take chances with your own life, but it's NOT OK to take chances with theirs (and this is one of the reasons we're licensed and have commercial carriage rules to begin with). And like it or not that weight falls on our shoulders. Doing the right thing is more important than any job.
Last edited by Slasher1; 26th Mar 2019 at 14:39.
Yup......for over 31 years now a pilot. Can't say I in any way share your viewpoint though and it must suck to have such an outlook (and frankly makes me question if YOU'RE a pilot and what kind of pilot you might make if so--a life of living to CYA and a schlep playing a fall guy seems like one hell of a way to live. And seems pretty incongruous with good judgment and decision making). Of course I've seen greed and corruption (and even been proactive in fighting it from time to time). And also seen plenty of LCCs who do manage to turn a profit, actually pay their workers at a decent level and even take care of them, and follow the rules. You can go back to the C-46 days to find out what happens to upstarts who like to take chances, coerce, cut corners, and flout the rules. Most of them were pretty short lived. And I believe in today's culture and regulatory environment companies who don't support prudent, safe, and legal decision making processes wind up suffering in the bottom line anyway. Fines and crashes are WAY expensive. Not to mention tarnished reputations. And by definition no HKG based carrier operates solely in planet Hong Kong; they enter the airspace of other nations at their pleasure (and can easily be banished if they operate unsafely or as scofflaws).
I can honestly say IN those 31 years I can't remember a situation where a supervisor or employer (after being presented--albeit maybe in a tactful way-- with the facts that what they are asking is breaking a rule and/or unsafe and that in no uncertain terms I am NOT willing to do that) being forced into doing it (or being fired for refusing TO break a rule). Nor do I think I'd like to work for such an entity. Hasn't happened here. Most of the time (when it's happened) they've been grateful I've pointed it out and we've worked toward a solution (which is prudent and safe). Perhaps I've lived a charmed life. Or perhaps a lot of what happens to you depends on your outlook and how YOU behave (and the boundaries you set).
Now, I HAVE found myself in situations where my perception (of what my supervisor or employer might think) didn't match reality and gotten into binds largely of my (or our) own making that I've had to extricate myself from (perhaps breaking some rule in the process). And learned not to do that again.
As well as learned to place bleating emails about this or that (that some might view as intimidation) in the circular file where they belong -- or maybe saving a copy in the dusty file in case something later comes up which it never seems to do.
I think one has to get away from the 'all about me' mindset. It's not all about you or your toys, ex-wives, boats, or houses (or even a corporation -- altruistic OR corrupt and greedy -- or even a regulator). It might have taken me longer than it should have to realize, but there are 300-ish trusting souls sitting in the back; many of whom have little idea what we do. That's a tremendous responsibility. It might be OK to take chances with your own life, but it's NOT OK to take chances with theirs (and this is one of the reasons we're licensed and have commercial carriage rules to begin with). And like it or not that weight falls on our shoulders. Doing the right thing is more important than any job.
I can honestly say IN those 31 years I can't remember a situation where a supervisor or employer (after being presented--albeit maybe in a tactful way-- with the facts that what they are asking is breaking a rule and/or unsafe and that in no uncertain terms I am NOT willing to do that) being forced into doing it (or being fired for refusing TO break a rule). Nor do I think I'd like to work for such an entity. Hasn't happened here. Most of the time (when it's happened) they've been grateful I've pointed it out and we've worked toward a solution (which is prudent and safe). Perhaps I've lived a charmed life. Or perhaps a lot of what happens to you depends on your outlook and how YOU behave (and the boundaries you set).
Now, I HAVE found myself in situations where my perception (of what my supervisor or employer might think) didn't match reality and gotten into binds largely of my (or our) own making that I've had to extricate myself from (perhaps breaking some rule in the process). And learned not to do that again.
As well as learned to place bleating emails about this or that (that some might view as intimidation) in the circular file where they belong -- or maybe saving a copy in the dusty file in case something later comes up which it never seems to do.
I think one has to get away from the 'all about me' mindset. It's not all about you or your toys, ex-wives, boats, or houses (or even a corporation -- altruistic OR corrupt and greedy -- or even a regulator). It might have taken me longer than it should have to realize, but there are 300-ish trusting souls sitting in the back; many of whom have little idea what we do. That's a tremendous responsibility. It might be OK to take chances with your own life, but it's NOT OK to take chances with theirs (and this is one of the reasons we're licensed and have commercial carriage rules to begin with). And like it or not that weight falls on our shoulders. Doing the right thing is more important than any job.
I fly with sick Pilots once a month because they are "scared" of the intimidatory sickness monitoring program at CX. Just like I fly with guys that are very obviously too tired to be flying but are so worried about what the company will do to them if they don't show up. This is a company run by bullies & managers who could care less about the Health & safety of their crews. I honestly can't believe we haven't had an accident yet.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fly with sick Pilots once a month because they are "scared" of the intimidatory sickness monitoring program at CX. Just like I fly with guys that are very obviously too tired to be flying but are so worried about what the company will do to them if they don't show up. This is a company run by bullies & managers who could care less about the Health & safety of their crews. I honestly can't believe we haven't had an accident yet.
Its been due....we just had lots of close calls.....but alarm bells wont ring while the managers talk about "how safety is number one priority" lip service rings in every memo. Say it enough they believe it till there is a smoking wreck somewhere.....and then they have to explain.
There is nothing they can do they can threaten and cajole and make nice .....u just dont turn up sick.... have a record of it at all times and shove it up their ass when they dare bring you in....had a manager twisting himself in knots as i beat him verbally over the head that maybe we should follow this up with letters to CAD, deny me an upgrade would be a letter from me to CAD. Questioning doctors orders to not fly....they thought they could intimidate..and I am just laughing at him. One stupid manager once walked up and said you dont look sick at sign on when i had the flu a week earlier....."umm you stupid or something? I am at work thus I aint sick now" laughed myself right in his face. If it was meant to be scary it wasnt my fellow pilot was trying not to laugh at the desk either. High IQ manager that one was.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ...
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There appears to be a misalignment of incentives in this industry.
Case A: If pilots are paid variable flight pay, then pilots themselves are driven to maximise their availability. If pilots think that they won't get caught, or perhaps feel that their sickness is subjectively borderline, they are incentivised to take a chance. The employer or regulator has very little chance of controlling this type of behaviour. Other pilots, cabin crew and passengers also fall victim to the self-centred decisions of others if they catch diseases.
Case B: If pilots were paid a flat rate, then it's up to the employer to maximise their pilot utilisation within a given availability or flight time limitation scheme. The pilot on the other hand, has no conflict of interest when faced with a safety decision when sick. It would be squarely in the employer's interest to seek an explanation from the pilot who, in turn, would then be inclined to visit a medical examiner to objectively evaluate their fitness to fly.
Of course, companies would prefer case A, where pilots are paid less when not used efficiently. Regulators should take a good look at what's in the best interests of the flying public - it could be win-win for everyone except scheduling and recruitment departments. What am I missing here, any thoughts?
Case A: If pilots are paid variable flight pay, then pilots themselves are driven to maximise their availability. If pilots think that they won't get caught, or perhaps feel that their sickness is subjectively borderline, they are incentivised to take a chance. The employer or regulator has very little chance of controlling this type of behaviour. Other pilots, cabin crew and passengers also fall victim to the self-centred decisions of others if they catch diseases.
Case B: If pilots were paid a flat rate, then it's up to the employer to maximise their pilot utilisation within a given availability or flight time limitation scheme. The pilot on the other hand, has no conflict of interest when faced with a safety decision when sick. It would be squarely in the employer's interest to seek an explanation from the pilot who, in turn, would then be inclined to visit a medical examiner to objectively evaluate their fitness to fly.
Of course, companies would prefer case A, where pilots are paid less when not used efficiently. Regulators should take a good look at what's in the best interests of the flying public - it could be win-win for everyone except scheduling and recruitment departments. What am I missing here, any thoughts?
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: uk
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am afraid this is inexcuseable and the individual should be dismissed. Poor judgement and total disregard for his fellow colleagues and the travelling publics health and well-being.
Can you self diagnose measles?
If you feel a bit rundown do you refuse to report for work?
Do you think any pilot who suspected that he had measles would report for work as some sort of vindictive behavior?
Pilots are professional characters and rely on evidence based data.
Self diagnosis is the basis of CAD licensing system and therein lies the folly...
If you feel a bit rundown do you refuse to report for work?
Do you think any pilot who suspected that he had measles would report for work as some sort of vindictive behavior?
Pilots are professional characters and rely on evidence based data.
Self diagnosis is the basis of CAD licensing system and therein lies the folly...