CX-The truth will set you free
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: .
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CX-The truth will set you free
One of the AvMed specialists at CX has quit as of last Wednesday. Somewhat unexpected, and at the end of his 3 year contract.
In the Friday broadcast to the coalface from our fearless Zoologist, and non flying Director of Flight Ops., the following was stated...
"Aviation Medicine
Dr. Ra#####mi, one of two Av Med doctors in CX and a CAD Approved Medical Assessor (AMA) has declined to extend his contract with CX. His three-year contract expired on Wednesday. There is no truth in the rumour that the Company was proposing a change in the contract or the authority of the Av Med section."
DFO MFA CFW
Seems the following appeared on the crew notice board a day or two later...
"Notice From Aviation Medicine
Dear Aircrew,
I regretfully have to inform you that the terms offered to me by Cathay Pacific Airways for the renewal of my contract were totally unacceptable and failed to give satisfactory assurance regarding the independence of Aviation Medicine within the company that is essential for the maintenance of professional integrity and aviation safety.
I am therefore leaving Cathay Pacific Airways at the end of my contract, which expires at 1715 today.
My best wishes to all of you.
R### Ra#####mi
Company Medical Officer
13 August 2003"
So who are we to believe, the squeaky clean DFO, or the guy who felt so stongly about his beliefs that he chose not to continue with the company.
Good on you Rav, and best wishes for you new direction.
In the Friday broadcast to the coalface from our fearless Zoologist, and non flying Director of Flight Ops., the following was stated...
"Aviation Medicine
Dr. Ra#####mi, one of two Av Med doctors in CX and a CAD Approved Medical Assessor (AMA) has declined to extend his contract with CX. His three-year contract expired on Wednesday. There is no truth in the rumour that the Company was proposing a change in the contract or the authority of the Av Med section."
DFO MFA CFW
Seems the following appeared on the crew notice board a day or two later...
"Notice From Aviation Medicine
Dear Aircrew,
I regretfully have to inform you that the terms offered to me by Cathay Pacific Airways for the renewal of my contract were totally unacceptable and failed to give satisfactory assurance regarding the independence of Aviation Medicine within the company that is essential for the maintenance of professional integrity and aviation safety.
I am therefore leaving Cathay Pacific Airways at the end of my contract, which expires at 1715 today.
My best wishes to all of you.
R### Ra#####mi
Company Medical Officer
13 August 2003"
So who are we to believe, the squeaky clean DFO, or the guy who felt so stongly about his beliefs that he chose not to continue with the company.
Good on you Rav, and best wishes for you new direction.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I would tend to believe the one that doesn't have a long history of lies and deception with respect (or lack thereof) to the aircrew. Dr. Ravi has always displayed the utmost in integrity and professionalism in his relatively short time at CX. I can't say the same for the DFO.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: In a box
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps someone from CAD would like to enquire from the good Dr. what pressure was allegedly brought to bear on him....(although the lap dog infrequently bites the hand of its master) 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At last a windmill we can all tilt at. Unfortunately until the Rosey picture being painted and displayed to the grown ups is shown to be interminably short sighted and leads to some professional embarassment to the company I fear things are only going to become sicker on the medical front. Needs someone in public office to display some balls - unlikely i guess.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I reject the assertion that I am a 'terminal apologist for the dark side'. But that little expostulation will do on that. Back to the thread. Having had not a little to do with Ravi, I unreservedly agree with the positive epithets heading his way. An experienced, polite, intelligent professional - an asset to the company for sure. In medical at the moment there are a lot of issues loitering just beneath the surface ready to jump up and prick us all. Aviation medicine is the tip of the iceberg. The roots of a certain flower/weed have gone quite deep and have spread like bamboo or lantana into all areas. I am expecting some significant changes - again - to the medical packages for expat staff, obviously not in the staffs best interests, to surface very soon. A little butterfly advised me that it will start with GS, actually it already has, just ask FSIs on contract renewal discussions. When they cave, as they will, as they only have the pathetic local GS union to represent them, I imagine these 'improvements' will be passed to all expat staff in short order. Ever tried to get rid of bamboo or lantana? Expect a long, hard and dirty struggle.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: In a box
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However unpleasant imposed changes of service are, they don't sound like flight safety issues, but an artfully constructed red herring.
What pressure was brought to bear on which particular part of the aviation medical setup affecting flight safety?
What pressure was brought to bear on which particular part of the aviation medical setup affecting flight safety?
Schrodingers Cat,
I agree with your very astute observation. As to your second point, let me hazard a guess:
Dr R said:
"I regretfully have to inform you that the terms offered to me by Cathay Pacific Airways for the renewal of my contract were totally unacceptable and failed to give satisfactory assurance regarding the independence of Aviation Medicine within the company that is essential for the maintenance of professional integrity and aviation safety."
Dr R seems to have chosen his words very carefully. We can only speculate on what they mean. Most seem to think that it involves a severe attack of "Quality".
Say, for example, that if a lot of pilots called in too sick to fly. But, an AME under the control of Rose-tinted glasses decided that they were in fact fit to fly.
Possibly if a pilot knew in advance that his doctor was controlled by Rose-tinted glasses then he might decide that there would be no point in consulting his doctor and just fly sick.
Maybe a Rose-tinted controlled doctor might not be able to prescribe the expensive medical tests or specialist consultations that he believes are warranted if a Rose-tinted person determines that a cheaper alternative could be substituted.
Would any of that pose the flight safety hazard to which Dr R refers?
I agree with your very astute observation. As to your second point, let me hazard a guess:
Dr R said:
"I regretfully have to inform you that the terms offered to me by Cathay Pacific Airways for the renewal of my contract were totally unacceptable and failed to give satisfactory assurance regarding the independence of Aviation Medicine within the company that is essential for the maintenance of professional integrity and aviation safety."
Dr R seems to have chosen his words very carefully. We can only speculate on what they mean. Most seem to think that it involves a severe attack of "Quality".
Say, for example, that if a lot of pilots called in too sick to fly. But, an AME under the control of Rose-tinted glasses decided that they were in fact fit to fly.
Possibly if a pilot knew in advance that his doctor was controlled by Rose-tinted glasses then he might decide that there would be no point in consulting his doctor and just fly sick.
Maybe a Rose-tinted controlled doctor might not be able to prescribe the expensive medical tests or specialist consultations that he believes are warranted if a Rose-tinted person determines that a cheaper alternative could be substituted.
Would any of that pose the flight safety hazard to which Dr R refers?
