And then to be left alone with the mental and physical consequences?

How about some post-incident counselling/care?

It's not happening, because of possible liability issues.

It's obvious, isn't it?

Sorry but this is a totally frivolous law suit . She is a captain in charge of the aircraft , stuff happens inflight , deal with it . That’s what we are paid for

Try breathing smoke for once on the flightdeck.

It changes your life forever.

I think you’ll find it’s the coercion of the decision making following the incident that is the contentious issue. We’re talking about a prehistoric management that has a history of applying pressure to a crew member when pressure is the last thing they need. A psychotic control freak management that has a history of applying draconian repercussions onto crew who have acted contrary to the Monday morning quarterbacks has no place in a modern airline.

Hard to see what sort of "personal injury, loss and damage" the captain could be claiming for, when to all intents and purposes, all she appeared to have done was exactly what we are all expected to do and paid to do as a Commander.
Unless...... there were some aspects of the diversion etc that have not been made public.
What about the other crew, were they not involved in whatever nefarious circumstances that have precipitated this high court action?
Also why wait so long if whatever it was that occurred, was so serious to merit High Court action? Unless that is the fastest speed that the HK legal system can cope with.

Best wishes to her or any pilot forced to sue an unreasonable and hypocritical employer.

Google PTSD please.

Some individuals develop it years after an incident like this one.

Nobody is immune to it. And it can, in some instances, be the end of your flying career.

( Hint : It's not an STD )

She obviously wants to milk her 15 minutes.

Pathetic and selfish.

Again, also for the last bully on here to grasp:

A scenario like that, in the middle of the night over the Pacific Ocean, is NOT what you want to see in reality.

Post-incident counselling and care is the absolute minimum you would want to expect. As most airlines do, by the way.

#snowflakesrule.

Fuanna, I have experienced smoke on the flight deck , it’s a scary experience but it didn’t change my life , just made me more aware of what could happen and to think a lot more about how I would deal with it going forward .
you get promoted to Captain to be in control in all circumstances , you can’t pick and choose , you just deal with the situations as they arise

Thank you!

But he is forgiven, because his Domina has her day off on Fridays.

I experienced a similar event before, and I can assure you this:

The impact on your private life is real and profound, while company support is limited at best.

Instead you gonna be busy writing ' Dear XYZ' letters for weeks to come.

So yes, I do sympathise with this Lady.

Best luck to Annabel, not sure what the lawsuit is about, but I always respected her as a person and and as a professional, one of the best in our ranks.

After this pilot wins the case for personal injury maybe there are a few candidates motivated to try a personal injury legal challenge for health/fatigue impacts of the incredulously bad rostering and regard for basic human needs on some of the published roster patterns?
Might be more successful than whinging on the AOA forums, yammer and pprune?

:ugh:Aahhh, so now do you want a safe space with kittens and puppies for all the greedy crumblies Flex?

I seldom agree with V for V, but I think his post is spot on. Sadly, this case will undoubtedly be argued in a HK court which by default sides with employers over employees. Even if the pilots win, it will be appealed by CX for years all the way to the high court. Since the event occurred in US airspace, perhaps it should be litigated there, in full view of the FAA, NTSB, and American press / public. That would almost certainly be a better venue. Best of luck to the pilots!

I can only imagine the repercussions if esteemed counsel for the diverting captain comes to realize US nationals (pax and/or crew) may have been involved, may have incurred damages, the incidents all allegedly occurred on US soil, and the matter as such might potentially be adjudicated in a US court with these individual’s assistance. Not to mention the involvement of regulatory agencies there if this thing escalated.

I think perhaps it might be wise for the company to reach out to the aggrieved captain and find a way to amicably solve their differences before plaintiff’s lawyer might go down this road. The fact she initiated legal action to me indicates she felt there was no other way to justly solve the issue.

[QUOTE=VforVENDETTA;10207765]1. The article mentions "causing the incident". Was there a history of failure of the Recirc Fan and maintenance kept signing it off without adequate repair/replacement and thus it eventually failed in this manner and caused this bad possible scenario? I don't know. But we all know maintenance at cx has been declining rapidly and many many discrepancies keep getting signed off without adequate action being taken and the problem keeps occurring over and over again. This is actually a well known indicator of pending serious incidents/accidents to accident investigations when they look back in the records.

CX Maintenance has been declining rapidly, really? How do you you know? I never had to accept an aircraft that I wasn’t happy with. Ever. I never saw anything dodgy in the ACM book. Ever. I never witnessed negligence or any serious mistake by egineering. Ever. On what base do you rectify your claim? You mix up frictions in the grey area between clear ddg rules and reality with negligence. Any airline run with an engineering department of your dreams would be bankrupt in a week.

2. As the culture of lie is the the most core culture of cx, none of us know the real details of this incident so going past curiosity about what might have actually happened and openly judging is not appropriate. So please take the rest of what I say as hypothetical when it comes to the crew. Admittedly, I don't know ALL the facts since this organization does not inform and educate us after the fact so we can learn and not allow mistakes to be repeated in the future. I'll stick to the things I personally know first hand. I'm sure there's much more to the story.

Have you ever asked the responsible gents in the fleet office directly about what happened? Did you speek to engineering about wha happened? I did actually, and the answer I got were more satisfying. Culture of lies? This has nothing to do with contract negotiations or other industrial matters, this is a technical issue, and it was handled extremely well.

3. Sticking to the facts, One thing is for sure if you take a step back and look at the big picture. An aircraft having successfully landed after such and event (smoke/fire on-board) taking off again without maintenance addressing the discrepancy on-site is a major mistake of several levels . Cx mx did not get to the aircraft before it departed for ANC. No qualified person was there to release the aircraft back into service. The departure of that aircraft from Shemya was illegal on many levels. The aircraft departed with several open discrepancies. The cause of the smoke was not known as it was not troubleshot by a qualified person on-site. It's very ignorant to think mx action or troubleshooting can be performed over the phone, especially regarding such a serious event. Cx mx was half way there on a chartered flight when the 777 took off for ANC. They were shocked to find out it had departed. Who re-stowed the oxy masks? This is a mx action and NONE of the crew are qualified or knowledgeable to perform it. IF smoke in-flight had occurred again and it easily could have since nobody qualified to perform mx troubleshooting touched the aircraft, would those oxy masks have deployed having been stowed by the flight crew or cabin crew who aren't qualified or authorized to perform mx action? Several sever lapse of judgement occurred from various directions. Mx control should have never relinquished it's professional responsibility and should have kept the aircraft grounded until properly released back to service after proper mx action was performed. Dispatch (yes i know, we don't have a dispatch department at cx since we don't have licensed dispatchers and they're a joke) should have never allowed this to happen. The fleet office individual or reportedly the GMO at the time who has on other occasions similar threatened the Capt. of the flight to operate or else should have been outed a long time ago and should now be investigated and put on record for his actions. This is very likely a big part of the lawsuit.

Sticking to the facts? You just said you don’ t know the facts, now you want to stick to them. Interesting. Dispatch are a “joke”? How dare you. These guys are hard working professionals, very helpful and contientious. Never had a problem with them.Ever. There was surely no threat, what a load of BS. Facts you say? Then come forward with your evidence, can’t wait!

By the way, masks in the cabin are useless in a smoke situation. Funny you don’t know this.

4. The decision to go along with this very bad decision willingly albeit via threats and coercion, is something the Capt. owns and the rest of the crew along with her. Any and all of them had could have showed some professional integrity and remove themselves form the flight to ANC. They chose not to have professional integrity by being willing participants. It's very possible they had no idea of seriousness of what they were doing especially if they started their professional careers as cx cadets and have no clue about the real world of aviation outside cx and never will unless they leave cx at some point. Either way, very embarrassing.

Why did she operate the flight then? Who threatened her ? GL?? No way, impossible. By the way, she looked quite proud and content the weeks afterwards and on all those pictures. Traumatized? Give me a break. With what? You claim to have the facts. Bring it on. I say you got nothing, absolutely zero. It was a voluntary decision, the entire crew agreed.

5. Knowing from personal experience, at other airlines, when a serious incident like this happens, there's transparency at an organizational level very early on to inform and educate the rest of the crew body about what occurred and lessons learned so the next incident can be avoided or handled better in the future. At cx, details are never made known and only rumors abound. There's a serious ORGANIZATIONAL problem at this outfit for such things to be possible to happen without any effort to prevent these decisions and events from happening in the future. It is the organization's responsibility to set the tone and demand it be followed. We all know this place has a big problem setting the right tone when it comes to safety. The tone they forcefully set is for COMMERCIAL reasons much more than SAFETY. This will catch up with them rile sooner or later in a bad way. It is the professional responsibility to have the integrity it takes to refuse to be part of such and event until reality of a horrible event due to willful disregard for regulations/SOPs, fatigue, etc. will force the organization to flush itself out.]

A recirc fan got damaged, as it happens a thousand times, bit of a smell , which is also very common. Then the fan got deactivated, all indications were normal and the aircraft continued the flight, hours later. Do you really think Boeing never thought about the possibility of a fan having a short? Really? In your phantasy you see a burning fan wreaking havoc in the deep belly of your aircraft, ready to explode like the challenger or TWA any minute. Ridiculous. Imagine you evacuate your house because of a short circuit in the living room. And then you wait 10 hours outside until the fire department and the buliding company has cleared and checked the building. Thats you. There was no risk, do you understand that? I say iy again: there was no risk. Uncomfortable atmosphere during descent ? Yes, surely. I don't want to belittle the perceived risk. But actual risk? Zero. Just because you have Swissair in mind anytime you read or hear the word smoke doesn’t make it true, you need to understand, you are beeing paranoid. The transfer flight was of course double checked with engineering, again there was no risk ( at the time of the “ incidence”, during the " emergency landing” ( it was in fact a NORMAL landing at an unusual airport with a 10000 ft runway with suitable weather...) and during the flight onwards. Zero. And that is a fact.)

Your real motive is in your name. Vendetta. You are blindly shooting at everything that moves. Pure reflex.

Just because YOU feel treated unfairly you dare to throw sh. at everybody else, maintenance, dispatch, fleet office, you name it. How dare you. This has nothing, absolutely NOTHING to do with our current problems, contractual issues. NOTHING. You are blindly in rage, indiscriminately accusing every soul in Cx. That is not only morally wrong, it is also counter- productive. With your exaggerated claims you devaluate our very reasonable claims in other areas. Your blind Vendetta is childish, rightous and makes us a laughing stock. PTSD ( if that is really the base of the suit which I don't know !) 3 years after a precautionnairy landing involving zero actual danger?

You got to be kidding. Ridiculous.
[/QUOTE

Well said.

Admittedly I don’t know all the facts and I wish Her all the best with her legal claim .
I have refused to accept an aircraft or 3 separate occasions due to technical issues which were rectified prior to a delayed departure,
on one occasion I was uncertain about the DDO until the engineer muttered under his breath “ I wouldn’t fly in this thing “
that was enough for me . Sometimes you have just have to stand your ground despite the pressure .
Personally I would never have operated the aircraft onward from Shemya following a smoke incident . You never know how much each individual has been affected by smoke inhalation and I’m even more surprised that the CAD signed off on that flight . Having said that I wasn’t there and this is only my opinion nevertheless I wish her every success with her law suit