Westpac Helicopters NSW ordered to reinstate terminated Pilot
So, they spent $150+ K just to make her life miserable?
Toll put 30-40hrs line training into all of their candidates, the difference here is it was 40 hrs of training to pass rather than the Westpac mentality in this case of testing to fail.
Another 40 hours with Toll? That's far from normal
https://fairworklegaladvice.com.au/r...bly-rare-case/
Takes a bit of reading through, but has a happy ending for all!
Takes a bit of reading through, but has a happy ending for all!
The following 3 users liked this post by Heathcliff:
Interesting. Don’t think I’ve ever flown a more stable platform. Even in the bucket with NVG. Admittedly the vision in that config was ****e. And even kept dropping off a load once after we’d lost a donk rather than drop the load all over a sangar.
My mate took several rounds through the tail just below the TRGB from the wrong side of Carlingford Lough and didn’t even notice !
So I have fond memories of the venerable Wessex, both in NI and SAR.
From an empirical perspective, you'll find the majority of male pilots will respect any pilot capable of doing the job. I have persistently seen well qualified male pilots passed over in many rolls due to their unfortunate masculine unattractiveness to HR departments desperate to quota up for government contracts. When you have witnessed inferior candidates being selected due to their minority/sex/gender status rather than flying abilities and the subsequent explosion of difficulty imposed upon the flight crews, you'll understand. It frequently ends in a bad exit.
Last edited by Chock Puller; 14th Feb 2023 at 12:55. Reason: Isn't this closer to what you meant to say.....
The following 2 users liked this post by Sir Korsky:
If it's different line of work, how does that corespond with her being sacked from another operator? If it's the same line of work, those 60 hours received previously have to count for something, which again means that that should not be used as an argument in her favor.
What I do find strange here is why they even bothered? You have allocated hours count. You either pass or you don't. Now every pilot that was sacked before or after her can sue them for not receiving same treatment.
Someone mentioned that it is illegal to keep paper trail of candidates that are not up to par. That's plain stupid, you can bet your behind that I am going to keep every piece of evidence that proves you weren't sacked just because I don't like you.
Which brings me to another point: she said there were comments made about here that were not up to snuff test. Does she have any evidence of those? Or are posters that accepted those claims on open face value signal virtuing all over again?
The following users liked this post:
The employment history of the pilot in question is in the public domain. This lady graduated from the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) and was subsequently trained to fly helicopters in the Australian Army, possibly on the AS350, and was then qualified on the Bell 206 "Kiowa." While I'm not rotary-wing qualified I do know both of these helicopters are skid-equipped which presumably means the take-off and landing are accomplished via a hover and since she obviously progressed through these levels it would seem there was no problem here.
Later this pilot qualified on the CH47 Chinook and flew it while on deployment to PNG and Afghanistan. Both of these locations feature hilly or mountainous terrain necessitating hover landings and take-offs and imagery of operations often depict Chinooks with rear landing gear on a hilltop with front gear "flying" - that is, in a hover. This pilot's second rotation to Afghanistan was as commander of the Australian Army's Rotary Wing Group, a position for which competition was fierce. Presumably they would not promote anyone into a battlefield leadership role who could not fly a fundamental aspect of the operation, even if we presume she was somehow able to get this far while deficient in the first place.
The pilot's other duties during a lengthy and successful Army career demonstrate competence and intelligence. While these qualities do not necessarily equate to proficiency as a pilot, in the military setting they are often an indicator of the sort of diligence and ability required to be awarded the Flying Badge and progress successfully in a flying career.
If the above quote is true it is highly unusual and unprofessional in my experience wherein a trainer might discreetly keep records in the case of a marginal trainee but would never highlight the fact to the trainee during training. If the above is true it is, in my experience, more likely to be part of the real story than a claim that a pilot of Ms Henderson's exemplary and eminently qualified background and experience might have a difficulty with such a fundamental aspect of the job.
The above quote is likely to have been taken out of context. Perhaps it means no warning had been given that her performance was judged, presumably by the afore-mentioned trainer but potentially by another, to be deficient. While it may not be pleasant, it is usual that a marginal trainee is given notice of his or her proximity to the risk of failing to meet a given standard prior to being terminated.
Media reporting of events in the aviation world are not known for their precision and it is absurd to suggest this pilot could not hover a helicopter. Rather, it is likely the reference to an ability to hover is in fact in regard to precision hovering rather than hovering in itself however given the excellent background of the pilot it is likely there is much more to this story than what is suggested.
I've known qualified and experienced pilots with decades of history to have unexpected and, for them, unprecedented setbacks during conversion training due to anything from personal issues at home to personality conflicts with the trainer or checker. It is highly unlikely a pilot with Ms Henderson's proven capability would find herself unable to master a fundamental of rotary wing flight such as is held to be the case here.
Fortunately the opportunity was available for industrial due process to correct the outcome.
Later this pilot qualified on the CH47 Chinook and flew it while on deployment to PNG and Afghanistan. Both of these locations feature hilly or mountainous terrain necessitating hover landings and take-offs and imagery of operations often depict Chinooks with rear landing gear on a hilltop with front gear "flying" - that is, in a hover. This pilot's second rotation to Afghanistan was as commander of the Australian Army's Rotary Wing Group, a position for which competition was fierce. Presumably they would not promote anyone into a battlefield leadership role who could not fly a fundamental aspect of the operation, even if we presume she was somehow able to get this far while deficient in the first place.
The pilot's other duties during a lengthy and successful Army career demonstrate competence and intelligence. While these qualities do not necessarily equate to proficiency as a pilot, in the military setting they are often an indicator of the sort of diligence and ability required to be awarded the Flying Badge and progress successfully in a flying career.
If the above quote is true it is highly unusual and unprofessional in my experience wherein a trainer might discreetly keep records in the case of a marginal trainee but would never highlight the fact to the trainee during training. If the above is true it is, in my experience, more likely to be part of the real story than a claim that a pilot of Ms Henderson's exemplary and eminently qualified background and experience might have a difficulty with such a fundamental aspect of the job.
The above quote is likely to have been taken out of context. Perhaps it means no warning had been given that her performance was judged, presumably by the afore-mentioned trainer but potentially by another, to be deficient. While it may not be pleasant, it is usual that a marginal trainee is given notice of his or her proximity to the risk of failing to meet a given standard prior to being terminated.
Media reporting of events in the aviation world are not known for their precision and it is absurd to suggest this pilot could not hover a helicopter. Rather, it is likely the reference to an ability to hover is in fact in regard to precision hovering rather than hovering in itself however given the excellent background of the pilot it is likely there is much more to this story than what is suggested.
I've known qualified and experienced pilots with decades of history to have unexpected and, for them, unprecedented setbacks during conversion training due to anything from personal issues at home to personality conflicts with the trainer or checker. It is highly unlikely a pilot with Ms Henderson's proven capability would find herself unable to master a fundamental of rotary wing flight such as is held to be the case here.
Fortunately the opportunity was available for industrial due process to correct the outcome.
Yes, but the fact that she passed after doing those adittional 40 hours shouldn't be used as an argument that she was able to pass.
If it's different line of work, how does that corespond with her being sacked from another operator? If it's the same line of work, those 60 hours received previously have to count for something, which again means that that should not be used as an argument in her favor.
What I do find strange here is why they even bothered? You have allocated hours count. You either pass or you don't. Now every pilot that was sacked before or after her can sue them for not receiving same treatment.
Someone mentioned that it is illegal to keep paper trail of candidates that are not up to par. That's plain stupid, you can bet your behind that I am going to keep every piece of evidence that proves you weren't sacked just because I don't like you.
Which brings me to another point: she said there were comments made about here that were not up to snuff test. Does she have any evidence of those? Or are posters that accepted those claims on open face value signal virtuing all over again?
If it's different line of work, how does that corespond with her being sacked from another operator? If it's the same line of work, those 60 hours received previously have to count for something, which again means that that should not be used as an argument in her favor.
What I do find strange here is why they even bothered? You have allocated hours count. You either pass or you don't. Now every pilot that was sacked before or after her can sue them for not receiving same treatment.
Someone mentioned that it is illegal to keep paper trail of candidates that are not up to par. That's plain stupid, you can bet your behind that I am going to keep every piece of evidence that proves you weren't sacked just because I don't like you.
Which brings me to another point: she said there were comments made about here that were not up to snuff test. Does she have any evidence of those? Or are posters that accepted those claims on open face value signal virtuing all over again?
Spent many years as an examiner for a big airline and also in GA - for you and the company's own legal protection you need to be extremely careful about the details that you write in a training or test report. If you write up that someone is having great difficulties with a certain skill and that they received perhaps a great deal more training than usual and then they go on to have an accident where that particular skill is the issue (or, indeed, not), then there is a large degree of legal jeopardy out there.
Many will say that when the "student" passed then they were at the correct skill level during that snapshot and so you are in the clear - the lawyers will say that the "student" clearly had a problem during training with a track record of poor performance, etc etc. Not a good place to be and when families are chasing the manufacturer, the airline, the regulator and possibly the airport for money then everyone in the chain, with big, deep pockets, needs it to be your fault. Passing on problem pilots to other trainers and examiners is a good policy - obtaining second, third and, yes, maybe more opinions is a good idea. Personally, when doing a check, I never read the student's training report - just called what I saw during the check - this also offers a degree of legal protection. Final command checks very problematic when the problem is not flying skills but CRM issues.
It's a tricky world out there.
The following users liked this post:
Hargreaves99
We had to develop the bush telegraph as we could no longer find information about people who we were potentially going to send 100s sometimes 1000s of miles away with a million dollar ++ airframe unsupervised for 6 weeks at a time.
We needed good folks who could be trusted not. to roll it up in a ball, do the job , not PO the customer and sometimes live in a tent in the winter.
80%> of your problems came from <20%. of your pilots. That there was a potential for abuse due to biase is true but I never encountered it at the time. Some of the CVs I was presented with should have gotten Pulitzer Prizes for fiction.
As to ability some folks could never develop the skill set necessary for some tasks no matter how much training you gave them, sad but true all pilots are not created equal.
Some could develop the skills but were obviously uncomfortable actually using them.
Some were quite happy and safe doing easy jobs and had long, safe and rewarding careers doing them. They were in their comfort zone and wanted to stay there. They knew the aircraft, the environment and could carry out all Emergency Procedures well. A happy crowd.
Some, very few, were disasters waiting to happen..struggling to meet minimum standards and requiring constant help and supervision. “Is your helicopter ready? Do you have everything you need? Are you sure? Off you go then, good luck.” Two hours later he comes back. “”Why are you back?” Reply: “Got to my first refueling stop and realized I forgot my maps so I came back.” That will lead to you slowly pounding your head on the office wall saying quietly to yourself : “He’s so dense and I’m his leader!”
Some were true joys, skilled, very smart, very competent and could do any job. “Geeze this looks different, difficult and a challenge! Better call XXX who will luv this one”.
As. to the paper trail statement…In my world at that time every training fright ended with a written form being filled out and sighed by both instructor and student noting targets attained and things that need further work. When the student had attained the required skill set a check flight was carried out and a similar form filled out. There was no “Making a paper trail to fire them” but if you elected for whatever reason to cease training or terminate you needed them to justify your decision but it was not a “Setup to fail” scenario. They provide a way for another training pilots to look back and see if a student has consistent difficulty in any particular area. This allows training to focus on that area.
We had to develop the bush telegraph as we could no longer find information about people who we were potentially going to send 100s sometimes 1000s of miles away with a million dollar ++ airframe unsupervised for 6 weeks at a time.
We needed good folks who could be trusted not. to roll it up in a ball, do the job , not PO the customer and sometimes live in a tent in the winter.
80%> of your problems came from <20%. of your pilots. That there was a potential for abuse due to biase is true but I never encountered it at the time. Some of the CVs I was presented with should have gotten Pulitzer Prizes for fiction.
As to ability some folks could never develop the skill set necessary for some tasks no matter how much training you gave them, sad but true all pilots are not created equal.
Some could develop the skills but were obviously uncomfortable actually using them.
Some were quite happy and safe doing easy jobs and had long, safe and rewarding careers doing them. They were in their comfort zone and wanted to stay there. They knew the aircraft, the environment and could carry out all Emergency Procedures well. A happy crowd.
Some, very few, were disasters waiting to happen..struggling to meet minimum standards and requiring constant help and supervision. “Is your helicopter ready? Do you have everything you need? Are you sure? Off you go then, good luck.” Two hours later he comes back. “”Why are you back?” Reply: “Got to my first refueling stop and realized I forgot my maps so I came back.” That will lead to you slowly pounding your head on the office wall saying quietly to yourself : “He’s so dense and I’m his leader!”
Some were true joys, skilled, very smart, very competent and could do any job. “Geeze this looks different, difficult and a challenge! Better call XXX who will luv this one”.
As. to the paper trail statement…In my world at that time every training fright ended with a written form being filled out and sighed by both instructor and student noting targets attained and things that need further work. When the student had attained the required skill set a check flight was carried out and a similar form filled out. There was no “Making a paper trail to fire them” but if you elected for whatever reason to cease training or terminate you needed them to justify your decision but it was not a “Setup to fail” scenario. They provide a way for another training pilots to look back and see if a student has consistent difficulty in any particular area. This allows training to focus on that area.
Last edited by albatross; 14th Feb 2023 at 15:58.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,072
Received 2,940 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 431 Likes
on
227 Posts
Far too many names being thrown about and darn tooting some folks out showing their hind sides by some of the contents of the posts.
Unless you have first hand knowledge of the full set of circumstances of the issue at hand.....I would strongly encourage you to belt up and just look a Fool.
I am glad to see some folks standing up for the Pilot in question....as did the Court.....and perhaps the naysayers might take a hint that perhaps they do not know of what they speak.
Unless you have first hand knowledge of the full set of circumstances of the issue at hand.....I would strongly encourage you to belt up and just look a Fool.
I am glad to see some folks standing up for the Pilot in question....as did the Court.....and perhaps the naysayers might take a hint that perhaps they do not know of what they speak.
The following 3 users liked this post by SASless:
Thread Starter
Wow this thread has been polarising. I do wish I had labelled the Thread differently, in my defense I could only read the first paragraph of the article and just grabbed the headline. Certainly there was no disrespect intended and in hind sight I would have worded it differently.
Thread title edited: Senior Pilot
The reason I posted the thread was to find more information about the hearing which has come out in some of the posts. I have sympathy for the Pilot as no one would like this attention however when you go to court it is in the public eye for good reason. I'm sure this was considered by the Pilot and I respect someone that can stand up for what they believe to be wrong.
In regards to the actual transcript I had missed that she worked at Babcock for two years, that definitely swings my opinion somewhat. I do think it is telling that the Pilot gained employment with Toll who I assume completed her 139 endorsement. If they had concerns I'm not sure they would have employed her. I don't however buy the evil company view. I find it hard to believe that a company would spend 100k then another 50k on a pilot but let a Check and Trainer scrub that pilot for personal reasons. Sure its not impossible but it would be a very bad way to manage your organisation. Clearly the court ruled in the Pilots favor, Where an individual has been persecuted it is good to see a ruling in favor of a Pilot.
Stepping back from the actual case I am concerned about the precedent of the ruling. This is significant. HEMS is not an easy job and some people just don't make the cut and training wont change that or is not economical. It requires a person to be able to fly safely when others should be on the ground. Safety always comes first but lives are also at stake. I think companies should be able to decide who is proficient for a role. They are after all responsible.
Ignoring this case I am worried that future Pilots may get through that are not the best for the task. I also think it will affect the opportunities for Pilots new to the role, as there will be more risk for a company if they are obliged to continue training even if there is no proficiency.
Thread title edited: Senior Pilot
The reason I posted the thread was to find more information about the hearing which has come out in some of the posts. I have sympathy for the Pilot as no one would like this attention however when you go to court it is in the public eye for good reason. I'm sure this was considered by the Pilot and I respect someone that can stand up for what they believe to be wrong.
In regards to the actual transcript I had missed that she worked at Babcock for two years, that definitely swings my opinion somewhat. I do think it is telling that the Pilot gained employment with Toll who I assume completed her 139 endorsement. If they had concerns I'm not sure they would have employed her. I don't however buy the evil company view. I find it hard to believe that a company would spend 100k then another 50k on a pilot but let a Check and Trainer scrub that pilot for personal reasons. Sure its not impossible but it would be a very bad way to manage your organisation. Clearly the court ruled in the Pilots favor, Where an individual has been persecuted it is good to see a ruling in favor of a Pilot.
Stepping back from the actual case I am concerned about the precedent of the ruling. This is significant. HEMS is not an easy job and some people just don't make the cut and training wont change that or is not economical. It requires a person to be able to fly safely when others should be on the ground. Safety always comes first but lives are also at stake. I think companies should be able to decide who is proficient for a role. They are after all responsible.
Ignoring this case I am worried that future Pilots may get through that are not the best for the task. I also think it will affect the opportunities for Pilots new to the role, as there will be more risk for a company if they are obliged to continue training even if there is no proficiency.
The following users liked this post:
Surely anyone dim enough to imagine that an inability to hover is not perfectly good reason to sack a helicopter is intellectually unsuited to the job in the first place?
Same thread but different angle. Who would win in a battle between fair work and CASA. Just say for example said pilot was given the job back and then had an accident. I'm guessing it won't be the company.
Wow this thread has been polarising. I do wish I had labelled the Thread differently, in my defense I could only read the first paragraph of the article and just grabbed the headline. Certainly there was no disrespect intended and in hind sight I would have worded it differently.
The reason I posted the thread was to find more information about the hearing which has come out in some of the posts. I have sympathy for the Pilot as no one would like this attention however when you go to court it is in the public eye for good reason. I'm sure this was considered by the Pilot and I respect someone that can stand up for what they believe to be wrong.
In regards to the actual transcript I had missed that she worked at Babcock for two years, that definitely swings my opinion somewhat. I do think it is telling that the Pilot gained employment with Toll who I assume completed her 139 endorsement. If they had concerns I'm not sure they would have employed her. I don't however buy the evil company view. I find it hard to believe that a company would spend 100k then another 50k on a pilot but let a Check and Trainer scrub that pilot for personal reasons. Sure its not impossible but it would be a very bad way to manage your organisation. Clearly the court ruled in the Pilots favor, Where an individual has been persecuted it is good to see a ruling in favor of a Pilot.
Stepping back from the actual case I am concerned about the precedent of the ruling. This is significant. HEMS is not an easy job and some people just don't make the cut and training wont change that or is not economical. It requires a person to be able to fly safely when others should be on the ground. Safety always comes first but lives are also at stake. I think companies should be able to decide who is proficient for a role. They are after all responsible.
Ignoring this case I am worried that future Pilots may get through that are not the best for the task. I also think it will affect the opportunities for Pilots new to the role, as there will be more risk for a company if they are obliged to continue training even if there is no proficiency.
The reason I posted the thread was to find more information about the hearing which has come out in some of the posts. I have sympathy for the Pilot as no one would like this attention however when you go to court it is in the public eye for good reason. I'm sure this was considered by the Pilot and I respect someone that can stand up for what they believe to be wrong.
In regards to the actual transcript I had missed that she worked at Babcock for two years, that definitely swings my opinion somewhat. I do think it is telling that the Pilot gained employment with Toll who I assume completed her 139 endorsement. If they had concerns I'm not sure they would have employed her. I don't however buy the evil company view. I find it hard to believe that a company would spend 100k then another 50k on a pilot but let a Check and Trainer scrub that pilot for personal reasons. Sure its not impossible but it would be a very bad way to manage your organisation. Clearly the court ruled in the Pilots favor, Where an individual has been persecuted it is good to see a ruling in favor of a Pilot.
Stepping back from the actual case I am concerned about the precedent of the ruling. This is significant. HEMS is not an easy job and some people just don't make the cut and training wont change that or is not economical. It requires a person to be able to fly safely when others should be on the ground. Safety always comes first but lives are also at stake. I think companies should be able to decide who is proficient for a role. They are after all responsible.
Ignoring this case I am worried that future Pilots may get through that are not the best for the task. I also think it will affect the opportunities for Pilots new to the role, as there will be more risk for a company if they are obliged to continue training even if there is no proficiency.
An innocent question from a fixed-wing pilot: Any helicopter pilot would be required to learn how to - and demonstrate skill and ability to - hover, in their initial training on their first ever helicopter type, surely?
Therefore any former army helicopter pilot would already know to, and be experienced in hovering?
If the above is true, is it conceivably possible that a pilot who was able to hover perfectly well in one helicopter type was not able to hover in another?
That sounds similar to a fixed wing pilot being able to land, say, an A320 but not a B737, or vice versa. The first few attempts might be a bit crunchy but one soon gets the knack. (I realise that hovering a helicopter accurately might be harder than landing a fixed-wing
).
Therefore any former army helicopter pilot would already know to, and be experienced in hovering?
If the above is true, is it conceivably possible that a pilot who was able to hover perfectly well in one helicopter type was not able to hover in another?
That sounds similar to a fixed wing pilot being able to land, say, an A320 but not a B737, or vice versa. The first few attempts might be a bit crunchy but one soon gets the knack. (I realise that hovering a helicopter accurately might be harder than landing a fixed-wing
).
An innocent question from a fixed-wing pilot: Any helicopter pilot would be required to learn how to - and demonstrate skill and ability to - hover, in their initial training on their first ever helicopter type, surely?
Therefore any former army helicopter pilot would already know to, and be experienced in hovering?
If the above is true, is it conceivably possible that a pilot who was able to hover perfectly well in one helicopter type was not able to hover in another?
That sounds similar to a fixed wing pilot being able to land, say, an A320 but not a B737, or vice versa. The first few attempts might be a bit crunchy but one soon gets the knack. (I realise that hovering a helicopter accurately might be harder than landing a fixed-wing).
Therefore any former army helicopter pilot would already know to, and be experienced in hovering?
If the above is true, is it conceivably possible that a pilot who was able to hover perfectly well in one helicopter type was not able to hover in another?
That sounds similar to a fixed wing pilot being able to land, say, an A320 but not a B737, or vice versa. The first few attempts might be a bit crunchy but one soon gets the knack. (I realise that hovering a helicopter accurately might be harder than landing a fixed-wing
).The full court judgement is worthy of a read by anyone who is interested in the actual facts of this case
The following users liked this post:
Is the "issue" the alleged inability to hover using NVG's or something else much more nefarious?
I shall begin to ask a relevant question that far too many seem incapable of processing....."In the Australian Military Chinook Community....what standards, training, and checked performance is conducted re flight (to include "hovering")?".
The Subject Pilot had two tours of combat in Afghanistan flying Chinooks and had a demonstrated ability to progress within the Australian Military.
Are we to believe the Subject Pilot never had to demonstrate the ability and proficiency to fly the Chinook using NVG's to include hovering that type of Helicopter?
Some of you seem to be thinking with your male sexual appendage rather that the Big Head you were provided by your Maker.
The Original Poster deserves a lot of credit for coming forth as he did and apologize for the wording and initial basis for his starting this Thread.....I congratulate him for his doing so as it was the exact right thing to do considering how this thread has gone.
I concur with his most recent comments....and this thread proves what starts off poorly only gets worse with effort.
Time to clean up the Cockpit....Gentlemen.
Stick to legal issues and the information that is in the public domain and end this bashing of a fellow Helicopter Pilot.
She has shown a strength of character that seems missing in many of you posting here.
Question the system...question the Court Decision....question the training regime....but remember she made her case in Court in a Legal Proceeding.
I shall begin to ask a relevant question that far too many seem incapable of processing....."In the Australian Military Chinook Community....what standards, training, and checked performance is conducted re flight (to include "hovering")?".
The Subject Pilot had two tours of combat in Afghanistan flying Chinooks and had a demonstrated ability to progress within the Australian Military.
Are we to believe the Subject Pilot never had to demonstrate the ability and proficiency to fly the Chinook using NVG's to include hovering that type of Helicopter?
Some of you seem to be thinking with your male sexual appendage rather that the Big Head you were provided by your Maker.
The Original Poster deserves a lot of credit for coming forth as he did and apologize for the wording and initial basis for his starting this Thread.....I congratulate him for his doing so as it was the exact right thing to do considering how this thread has gone.
I concur with his most recent comments....and this thread proves what starts off poorly only gets worse with effort.
Time to clean up the Cockpit....Gentlemen.
Stick to legal issues and the information that is in the public domain and end this bashing of a fellow Helicopter Pilot.
She has shown a strength of character that seems missing in many of you posting here.
Question the system...question the Court Decision....question the training regime....but remember she made her case in Court in a Legal Proceeding.
The following 5 users liked this post by SASless: