60 hours. That’s six zero and she still didn’t make standards? The mind boggles.
Ex Military. What was her record there?

At one time if someone called looking for a reference to someone you told them. Then the legal dept came and told me all I could say was the date of employment and the date of departure from the company. You were not allowed to say anything either good or bad about them even if they left a trail of wreckage, enforcement actions by the regulating authorities for violation of numerous Air regulations, fraudulent expense claims, angry customers and traumatized fellow employees behind them before they were tarred, feathered and ridden out of town on a rail.
We developed a very good bush telegraph between companies about this sort of thing. “ Oh yes xxx was employed here from y to y. I remember xxx very well. Best of luck!” That would get either an invite for a few friendly beers of a phone call at home to inquire as to how the family was getting on from the CP making the request for info.
Then we started getting requests from some new thing called HR …things went rapidly downhill from that point.

If she kills someone/damages property, employer should sue the soul out of everyone that proposed her reinstatement.
Regarding references, even though law in my country states I have to give positive reference, I have declined to provide anything except start/end date and job position. I was investigated over this, but when I pointed that I will not draft a legal document that states something that is not true and which could lead new employer to sue me for damages due to false reporting and that I am happy to go to court over it, it was dropped and never mentioned again.

Well, she got on with Toll and did okay - after another 40 hours of sim (3 times an initial course here), and then another 3 weeks of training on the aircraft, what, couple hours a day, another 40 hours? Good thing she isn't representative of the average pilot, otherwise the government will have to rebudget those contracts to account for the new largess in training costs.

Unclear if she hung Toll for all the extra training (thank you very much!) and went back to Westpac Rescue to get the balance of additional training she was entitled to.

Army pilot, an easy SAR machine like the 139, Australia must be awash in money.

An old adage, "If you can't hover, you're queer."

In these LGBTQRSTUVW days , even if she was queer, she should have been able to hover.

The problem with this approach is people are then subject to petty grievances and personal issues. Plenty of good pilots have had their careers ruined by such idle gossip and people seeking to act out small "fallings-out" which happened years ago.

It all seems fair dunkum.

I see it as an on going problem the world over, not hiring the best qualified for a job over being seen to being all inclusive, however one would have assumed with her background she would have been capable of attaining the standards required in the time required.

I do wonder what would happen now she has been more or less told she is unsackable if she never manages to masters the skill of hovering them. Do they have to keep chucking money at her training or simply put her on the bench as a pilot and continue to pay her.
One would have thought the hearing would have given a limit to further hours on instruction she could receive to reach the standard.

The transcript says the Pilot successfully completed her training with Toll. I believe Toll does 40 hours with all their Pilots however I’m unsure if these are extra as surly they did the initial type rating as well.
I have seen Check and Trainers that are over zealous and want to fail people that would otherwise do well. Is this a possible factor.
Hovering on googles (well) single pilot is difficult uncomfortable and requires excellent management. Many people just can’t do it and it’s not for everyone. Some of my most challenging flying has been NVIS winching.

Unfortunately with HEMS there is little scope for development. You have to be able to perform in adverse conditions or people die either in the aircraft or on the ground. Experience allows you to do more but there is definitely a minimum expectation.

Reading the transcript though about successful performance with Toll does make me consider was there something in this claim. However that said no company can afford to spend untold thousands on someone who ultimately might not make it. There’s got to be a line somewhere.
My organisation has scrubbed a few, sometimes at the demand of Crew or Paramedics. It’s harsh but when you sit in the back you need complete faith in the front.

How can somebody write that many words that could be basically said in a couple of sentences?

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.

It doesn’t look too hard to summarise. They wanted their mate in the position not her, so they made her life as difficult as possible. She goes on to fulfil the same role with another operator successfully.

Disgraceful behaviour.

As a former military search and rescue pilot and instructor I can tell you that some people just cannot master the dark art of hovering, especially over water, no matter how many extra hours you give them. It may seem harsh to "terminate" them but it probably saves their lives, and those of any crew who may have to fly with them.

True, but for her to go to the same role with another operator and successfully fulfil the role? There is more to this than a clickbait headline of “couldn’t hover.”

Gee, I wonder if journalists write headlines to grab the attention of the simple minded or state the actual facts of a story.

Yeah, good comment! Do some reading before gobbing off champion

So the Fair Work Commissioner has ruled the dismissal was unfair and ordered reinstatement. A ruling that gets handed down in the single figures as a percentage of cases heard. A ruling which no doubt benefits the pilot community in keeping employers honest and at a minimum, following their own prescribed procedures. Yet the majority of you top guns jump straight in without any background knowledge of this case and slag off a fellow pilot. Gender aside, which I know only the educated and mature among you are capable of, thats pretty poor behaviour and really only speaks to your worth in this industry. A career helicopter pilot that cant hover, you'd have to be a moron to believe that headline.

How about a mention of the disgraceful behaviour Westpac HRS and poor treatment of one of our own and the benefits this ruling will bring in telling our female pilots that we will give them a fair go. Its been a long time coming. Just give it two seconds thought and tell me Im wrong...

⬆️so true. Always have to be twice as good to be considered half as good. There are some fragile egos out there.

Yes, It was real war and peace and took some ploughing through!

"There MUST be standards" - establishing the facts before commenting is a good one :ok:

It was like trying to hover a semi detached house, looking through the top bathroom window..esp on NVG, behind the armour plate

So, they spent $150+ K just to make her life miserable?
Of course, stupid headline inferred that she can't hover at all, while it seems that she had problems with maintaining hover under goggles. Unfortunately, if that is the part of our job, you are still found lacking.
And she did complete another 40 hours of training with another operator. So, she took almost whole CPL(H) time to learn how to do it? Not what anyone would call profficient, would they?