Jessica Starmer - BALPA's view (Update - Appeal decision)

[thegypsy]

I wonder how long it will be before BA get young Jess to confirm that she never ever drives from the wilds of Dorset prior to a Flight Duty? I would want her to confirm where she stays before a duty and I would get Investigators to monitor her address in Dorset to make sure she does not cheat and put the travelling public at risk by a lengthy drive from her home in Dorset. Afterall the distance and time that she must allow for such a journey is way beyond what the CAA and BA deem safe prior to a Flight Duty.

[CaptainFillosan]

That point is of course entirely valid. 371 defines travelling time as 1 1/2 hours as the maximum and further states that should this time be exceeded, accomodation should be found nearer to base. Dorset is surely far enough to exceed that and her supporters cannot condone it - or can they? Safety is then an issue.

However, I strongly suspect that BA will correct some of their apparent ineptitude in dealing with the safety issues in due course.

As someone said much earlier, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

[maxy101]

You can tell the non BA employees on this thread by some of the comments. Comments referring to BA victimising JS or monitoring her as she drives to/from home are wide of the mark. Thousands of pilots/crew live more than 1.5 hrs away from work. (This topic has been done to death on pprune before) Unless BA monitors everyone,
JS will have a very good case for victimisation/discrimination again. As I understand it, there isn't a ceiling for damages/compensation, so BA could in theory be liable for millions. It will be easier just to let the matter drop. No loss of face...who cares? JS and her husband would probably find that they wont progress further than line captain in the company until the various players have gone or retired. But then that happens in all companies. Human nature I suppose....

[SR71]

I went into the RHS of a medium jet in the UK after 1 year of no flying whatsoever (post 9/11), 10 4hr sim sessions prior to an LST and 166.55hrs in my log-book total.

Frankly, I'm with the Americans on this one. I'm staggered the CAA mandate this kind of thing.

I heard an anecdotal story from one of our CSM's a few days ago about one of our new FO's, who is presumably in a similar position to that which I found myself in a few years ago, who expressed the sentiment to her, whilst the skipper was out of the flightdeck for a physiological break, that she'd rather have her (the CSM) on the flightdeck during that period in case anything went wrong.

The CSM was, of course a little startled, bearing in mind the last time she'd checked her logbook, the CAA hadn't certified her to fly a jet.

SIA added a SIN-JKT into the route network for the A345 because, as I understand it, pilots on this fleet would otherwise only get 1 TO or 1 LDG a month!

Valentino Rossi has spent 10000hrs on a bike in his life. Me? Maybe 2000hrs. Who is going to do a better job at work then? Arguably, even if he'd only spent 1hr on a bike, he'd do a better job than me, but the dependent variables that operating safely is commensurate upon include more than just annual hours. Which is presumably exactly what BA are trying to suggest, albeit poorly to date.

When did you last have a FD failure on your LPC/OPC? Did that make the detail significantly harder?

For me, there is no question whatsoever in my own mind, that the systems sophistication and redundancy on a modern commercial flightdeck hides a multitude of sins. However, it still won't catch them all - that nirvana remains to be attained. Altimeter settings and fuel checks spring to mind.

For me, therefore, the argument that one has flown a modern commercial jet for 450hrs/year for 20 years doesn't really justify the conclusion that this is best practise. And thats what I understand BA always endeavour to claim? Perhaps the aircraft capabilities are masking the pilots' deficiencies?

What would surely be far more revealing is to correlate pilot performance in major incidents with experience and currency levels. Even then, the study may not justify what I believe we all know is merely common-sense, namely, that the less time you spend in the seat, the worse your performance will generally be. (I'll ignore the argument that 900hrs a year is fatigue inducing etc etc.)

Whereupon, part-time pilots in the seat are always de facto, going to give you a less safe operation. They may still be better than another crew, but they'll never be as good as that crew could be.

People draw the line in the sand at different places depending on the size of their ego and I personally don't think the argument BA is advancing is particularly unreasonable. Arbitrary maybe? Unreasonable, no?

Of course, the fact that it then appears inconsistent may only serve to illuminate other areas of BA's operation that are also less than best practise inspite of what they claim.

My $0.02.

[Capt Sly]

I also wonder how Mrs Starmer is going to feel going back to flying, knowing that her employer believes (or believed) that she will be operating in an unsafe situation. Wonder how long it will be before 'safety' issues start arising?

It is only one man (PoD) who thinks it is a saftey issue - unfortunately he is one of the higher people in flight ops and it is him that has been pushing the BA case. If you read the rulings then you will see the BA training department saying it is not unsafe for somebody of those hours to fly part time. So BA's own training department completely blew away the BA management arguement.

For me, therefore, the argument that one has flown a modern commercial jet for 450hrs/year for 20 years doesn't really justify the conclusion that this is best practise. And thats what I understand BA always endeavour to claim?

So what is the best number of hours to fly a year? Yes 10 is a bit low (recency etc), and I'm sure you'll agree 900 is too high (fatigue etc), is there really an optimum number of hours to fly in one year?

My 2p

[Genghis the Engineer]

So what is the best number of hours to fly a year? Yes 10 is a bit low (recency etc), and I'm sure you'll agree 900 is too high (fatigue etc), is there really an optimum number of hours to fly in one year?

I'll bet that if you look somebody's done research on it somewhere.

NATO define a minimum of 180 hours per year for full combat effectiveness in military pilots, so that's probably a good minimum to work with.


Of-course, the other issue here, not really mentioned, is financial. Medicals, sim checks, insurance etc. all cost money and have to be done per calendar year, not per flying hours. So, the less hours per year a pilot flies (even if paid pro-rata) the more expensive they become to their employer. I assume that BA doesn't want to set a precedent that could make employing aircrew massively more expensive than it is already.

G

[Flying Lawyer]

Capt Sly

"If you read the rulings then you will see the BA training department saying it is not unsafe for somebody of those hours to fly part time. So BA's own training department completely blew away the BA management arguement."

If you read the rulings?

I've just been reading the Appeal Tribunal judgment and it doesn't say anything of the sort.
Nor to the best of my recollection (but I haven't got it to hand to check) did the ruling of the original tribunal.

Perhaps you are referring to the views of the BA Training Captain whom Mrs Starmer side called at the original hearing to give evidence in support of her claim? He expressed his personal opinion that she would be safe flying 50%, but he wasn't there to speak on behalf of BA's training department and didn't claim to be.
She called two other captains on her behalf to express their opinion that there was no risk to safety if Mrs Starmer was allowed to work only 50%. The report doesn't make clear if they too were training captains but, even if they were, they were not speaking on behalf of BA's Training Department and didn't claim to be.
One of the latter two has the same surname as the BALPA rep who'd given press briefings outside the hearing about BA's failure (in his view) to give young women pilots with families the "special consideration" which they should be given. I don't know if the witness who gave evidence was the same person or someone independent of the parties.

NB

The Appeal Tribunal did not express any view, one way or the other, about the validity or legality of the policy, introduced by BA in September 2004, and still in force, whereby no-one (man or woman) who has not flown a minimum of 2000 flying hours will be transferred to 75% part-time work.

Contrary to what has been asserted here by some of those on the 'pro-Starmer' side of this discussion -
BA [u]did not at any stage, from internal decision/review through to the appeal stage, claim to be entitled to rely upon the "2000 hour threshold" policy which was introduced in 2004.

[Phoebe Buffet]

Sparkle: 'Jessica-rabbit' is a character in a movie, where is your mind................... in the gutter UGH!. You must be a bloke.

Airrage: I totally agree; the legal argument little Jess brought to the table was correct and she won not once but twice and will probably win again. It may have been a different case if BA got their act together but it they didn't it isn't and they lost.

However, personally I couldn't what JS has done as QDM says I would be happy to fly my butt off to gain as much experience and knowledge as possible in the early stages of my career.

Overstress: Of course I want a job on an Airbus or 747 doesn't every pilot?. Thanks for top tip abut BA recruitment at mo but didn't BA management just say:

'Clearly any airline might think twice about taking on a female pilot when a male candidate had equal qualifications if it was thought she might want to work parttime very quickly after she was recruited. That would definitely come into play and it wouldn't just be us'..........................doesn't sound too promising for me.

So all in all good for Jess but not so good for me - c'est la vie no one said life was fair or easy.

I have 4 options; return to my previous career, return to my previous employer flying 100hrs a month for $500 a month, hang around Uk doing odd jobs until the mood changes (not my fav as I've already spent £48 000 and several years studying training working) or start my own airline employing all those surplus female pilots - any/all suggestions welcome humorous ones preferable as I need a laugh.

[airrage]

Bronx

I just can't see how they can honorably let a pilot fly half time who they believe Right or Wrong ain't safe to fly half time.

BA don't believe JS is not safe. Nor do I imagine any of her training/SIM checks support this conclusion, or BA would have produced them. BA set an arbitrary min 2000hr figure as a precondition for 50% PTWK, after it looked like they were going to lose the case.

I quite rightly support any safety issue if it is was valid. If say BA received a request from a pilot for 50% who had a history of problems, then I would support their decision to reject such a request. Likewise if it was shown that a pilots performance had subsequently deteriorated to an unacceptable level once granted PTWK. Likewise if BA had statistical evidence to back up their arbitrary 2000hr limit.

PTWK pilots still have to pass the same 6-monthly checks that full-time pilots do. I would be surprised if there proved to be any correlation between one's performance and Time-in an airline, or FT vs PTWK. I have flown with both good and bad pilots, and this seems spread across the pilot spectrum, whether they have 35yrs experience or are on their first year. Is a 200-hr RAF pilot any less-proficient than an ex-RAF pilot who has been in an airline for the last 10yrs ? It's "complacency" that kills more airline pilots than "lack of experience", and complacency can happen at any time of one's Career.

Capt Filloscan, currency is not dependent on experience, or whether one is FT or PTWK.

Lets face it, not long ago a FT pilot flew 450hrs per year, not the current 900hrs. A 50% pilot would fly the same annual hrs a FT pilot would just 5yrs ago. If PTWK for a pilot is unsafe, then I suppose we should also prevent;
- Pilots taking holidays longer than just a couple days.
- Mgmt pilots who spend time in the office.(union Reps likewise)
- Make LH pilots return to SH every few months so they can increase their number of landings.

With the exponential rise in annual flying hours of the last few years, and the gov'ts increased push on "right to lifestyle", it is encumbent on the airlines to decide if Safety is an issue. If safety is proven to be an issue, then it is up to the airlines to instigate procedures to eliminate those risks, not just ignore the human rights of it's pilots. There is one other alternative, VOTE BNP next election and ask them to reverse human right policies back to the dark ages.

[Genghis the Engineer]

or start my own airline employing all those surplus female pilots - any/all suggestions welcome humorous ones preferable as I need a laugh.

The first thing that'll happen is an equal opportunities class action from lots of unemployed male pilots !

Assuming that you, say, set it up in the IOM where they don't care about equal opportunities, you'll still be stuck with male groundcrew. I doubt that there are enough women engineers in the UK to run a whole airliner!

G

[Carnage Matey!]

Three (or so) BA managers have said they don't think JS is safe to fly. None of them prevented any evidence as to why they think JS is no safe to fly. Their training department, and the trainers who conducted the sim checks, have presented no evidence as to why JS is unsafe to fly. In fact the training records indicate exactly the opposite. If BA could ground any pilot simply because a manager thought they were unsafe to fly, despite all evidence pointing to the contrary, then we'd be in a lot of trouble. The simple outcome would be that the manager who's ego has driven this case would resign, having been judged to have no evidence to support his case not once but twice. We live in hope.

[MarkD]

all this fighting... don't you know that Willie W will just put her in a tacky uniform and she'll resign of her own volition? (See the Aer Lingus quit or be pushed thread)

[SR71]

Scenario:

In-experienced FO climbs out of sim with skipper and TRE/TRI and TRE/TRI says:

"How do you think that went?"

FO says:

Like a dogs dinner. Wish I could spend a bit more time in the sim to ensure a better performance. Once every six months isn't enough.

How many times have we all heard it? How many times have you heard the skipper say the aforementioned! How many times does the TRE/TRI disagree?

Its easy to leave the speedbrake out during a GPWS manoeuvre. Not serious? Thats a killer.

So why don't we? Nothing to do with safety and everything to do with economics.

However, lets run with the notion that if you meet the CAA LPC/OPC requirements, you're good enough. (We'll forget about the fact that these details are predictable - I mean an EFATO on T/O, to a OEI ILS to DH, followed by a OEI GA for a OEI NDB/VOR/LLZ to minima to land...)

Why don't we let two guys/gals up the front then with 200hrs on their ticket?

Normally the occupant of the LHS has enough hours on his license (albeit there probably isn't any evidence to justify the generally accepted belief that 3-3500hrs is good enough to see you knocking on the door of a command assessment - in fact that figure is probably the result of a clause on an insurance policy somewhere and it is this that dictates the policy more than anything else...I stand to be corrected. It does spring to mind, though, that the skipper of the DHL A300 that got hit by a missile out of Baghdad had only slightly more than 3000hrs TT...) to guarantee that, if on the day you have a EFATO and you're both a little complacent, his/her wider breath of knowledge and experience is going to get you through the experience.

Now maybe BA pilots, being the diligent bunch they are, take advantage of their freely available sim facilities prior to their sim checks (I certainly know a few mates who exericse this luxury I don't have but would certainly like!), but, generally, a 2000hr FO has only done ~3 LPC/OPC's!

The bottom line is that safety isn't about time in the seat when everything is going right, but how you react when everything is going wrong.

The reason we don't have a monkey in the flightdeck with us, is because although a monkey could be trained to execute our various SOP's, the most important and significant part of claiming a safe operation is what happens when something non-normal occurs. An in-experienced monkey at this point, isn't much use.

Airrage believes that having met the CAA requirements and in the absence of evidence to suggest the contrary, JS is a safe pilot.

I suggest not half as safe as she/we could be.

Bloody bean-counters.

[Brakes...beer]

"freely available sim facilities prior to their sim checks"? News to me - what fleet are they on?

[airrage]

Elegant post SR71

But I draw you to your own conclusion....

The bottom line is that safety isn't about time in the seat when everything is going right, but how you react when everything is going wrong.

Experience alone, or whether one is FT or PTWK also doesn't dictate how one reacts in the seat when everything is going wrong either. I would rather have a ****-hot junior PTWK pilot with low hours, than a more Senior, high-hour pilot who has been known to have trouble at various times throughout their Career. Anyone in training will tell you, they know who the marginal pilots are, and they can be found in both seats, with various experience levels, and irrespective of being FT or PTWK.

The reason we don't have a monkey in the flightdeck with us, is because although a monkey could be trained to execute our various SOP's, the most important and significant part of claiming a safe operation is what happens when something non-normal occurs. An in-experienced monkey at this point, isn't much use.

A monkey is a monkey, experienced or otherwise, PTWK monkey or a FTWK monkey. The reason we don't have a monkey in the flight deck with us is because a monkey doesn't have the intellectual ability of critical thinking required to do the job, no matter how much experience you give them. There are some pilots who are more like monkeys, fulltime or not, and there are others who could never be called a monkey, even if they flew only once a year.

In every profession there are those who just barely make the grade, and seem to trundle through their entire Career just getting by. Experience can help them disguise this fact, but the underlying fact remains. There are others who seem to have no difficulty in overcoming whatever comes their way. Anyone who has spent time in aviation knows that there are good/bad pilots in any airline, and it is not just a case of reversing the Seniority list to list the bad ones.

All this debate boils down to is one's personal opinions on Safety. Things like PTWK, fatigue, experience on type, etc are all factors sure, but I think one needs to review each individual on their own merit before passing a blanket judgement on what someone can/can't cope with. Saying all PTWK's are more likely to be unsafe ignores the mutlitude of other factors that constitute a good pilot. In my opinion, if you want to improve Safety, all marginal pilots should be given more training/access to Sims, wherever, and in whichever seat they occupy, and regardless of how much time-in/experience they have.

[Harry Wragg]

Its a real shame then that she is never at work to demonstrate this brilliance. What is the point of an employee who can't work?

Harry

[thegypsy]

I think BA made a big mistake going down the "not safe route" as being short haul she will still be pretty current as and when she eventually returns to work.!!

Far better to tell young Jess. Look here dear you have only been in BA five minutes. We have invested a lot in you and we would like to see some return on our money. You knew full well you would be short haul yet you chose to live in the wilds of Dorset thus exacerbating your child care problem. She is all take and no give. I feel BA's offer of 75% more than reasonable at this stage in her illustrious career as I believe she has jumped the queue??

[Wiley]

'thegypsy', thank you for saying - (at last!) - after 24 pages on this thread and almost as many on the earlier thread, in one succinct paragraph, what I suspect the vast majority of pilots feel about the lady's stance.

I can't help but feel that there are many aspiring young women aviators out there who'll be sticking pins into JS dolls as they review what this lady had done to their employment prospects - and I can't say I'd blame them one bit for doing so.

I see this case as a sort of 'Enoch Powell moment' for women pilots. (I think most people old enough to remember the reactionary stance taken by many old and bold male pilots when women pilots first started appearing in our ranks will understand what I'm getting at with that comment.)

Thanks to her exercising her rights far earlier than many would feel is reasonable, there will now be some recruiters who'll convienently forget the 99.99% of female pilots who've put in the not so pleasant years with a a low seniority number and worked as hard as their male contemporaries, and remember only one, the redoubtable Ms Starmer.

[Flying Lawyer]

airrage

If we agree that she was legally in the right, then people here should aim their negative comments at the government who pass such laws, not question the integrity of the person who had to actually battle with her company, simply to get them to comply with the law. By all means question the legitimacy/economics of such laws, but that is not what is generally being commented on here.

Thank you for answering my question, and apologies for my delay in responding – work intervened.
With respect, I think it’s unrealistic to think there could possibly be a discussion of such a high profile case without comments being made (critical and supportive) of the actions of the person who brought the claim. Mrs Starmer’s claim was based entirely on her personal circumstances so IMHO it’s not unreasonable that people should express views on all those circumstances and the person’s conduct.
eg You see her as someone who “had to actually battle with her company, simply to get them to comply with the law” and think her integrity shouldn’t be questioned. Others disagree. Even in these days of ‘all rights and no responsibility’, there are those who don’t respect people who won’t (in their view) 'give and take' – even when the law doesn’t require them to give anything. Others criticise her behaviour given how little she's actually flown in the years she's been employed by BA since they sponsored her training - regardless of what the law says. Surely they are respectable points of view - whether or not you agree with them?

Furthermore, let’s not forget it was Mrs Starmer who chose to play the ‘poor little me’ card in the public arena by involving the media. When people do that, they open up their character and motives to discussion, and run the risk of people pointing out that’s not the full picture. Those sickly photographs of her holding her ‘darling Beth’ which were published in the press were nothing to do with legal argument. She could simply have taken her claim to the Employment Tribunal and allowed it to decide if her claim was valid under the relevant law. It wasn’t by chance that representatives of the world’s press turned up at Watford on a Monday morning. The well-organised media campaign may have been on BALPA’s advice, but it was her choice to agree to it. She's clearly a determined and tough person who knows what she wants, and can’t be made or persuaded to do something she doesn’t want to do – as BA found out to its cost.
Frankly, I think those on her fleet who strongly disapprove of her behaviour (and there are, despite the impression her supporters here try to create) have been very restrained in not drawing attention to matters they consider cast doubt upon her claim to set such store by the importance of family life.

IMHO, just because someone is legally entitled to get what they want doesn’t mean doing so necessarily demonstrates integrity – and may even be regarded as lacking integrity when all the circumstances (including the consequences to others in general or to another person in particular) are taken into account.
In a professional context, I’ve used the law to win cases for people who, in my personal opinion, had little or no merit on their side and whose behaviour showed no integrity. I don’t choose my clients (any more than professional pilots choose their passengers) and it doesn’t necessarily mean I respect or admire them or the way they’ve behaved.

thegypsy
While many people (certainly the overwhelming majority on the two Starmer threads) would agree with you and regard it as entirely reasonable, BA would have handed her a cast iron claim if they’d said that. BA lost anyway, but they wouldn’t even have had an arguable defence.

great expectations
No-one so inexperienced had applied to work 50% before. As you say, there wasn’t a formal policy in place at the time of her application.

"So really on one single little cadet, they arent going to lose very much money in the grand scheme of things are they. All they need do is implement whatever policy suits them from here on in and be done with it all. Learn from this one case and move on."

I doubt if the first proposition is correct, but the second certainly isn’t. It’s not as simple as that. BA can’t just “implement whatever policy suits them from here on in.” If challenged, the policy will be subject to the same scrutiny before a tribunal as the refusal in the Starmer case. ie BA would have to be able to justify the policy.
Of course, BA will be forewarned and so may be better armed to deal with the experience/recency issue than they appear to have been on this occasion. BA’s Personnel department (or ‘People’ as it was called when I last heard) will undoubtedly have learned a few harsh lessons, but I have some sympathy for those who have to avoid the pitfalls of a legal framework which few employment lawyers would claim is intuitive.

[Flying Lawyer]

GE
Err, no.
When I said "It’s not as simple as that" I was referring to your assertion that BA could implement any policy that suits them in the future. They can't.


BTW, you said something on another thread which seems rather similar to one of the points many of those who don't admire Mrs Starmer's behaviour have been making on this thread.

"Making a commitment to aviation is i guess like making a commitment to a person. Your personal options become very limited. But every great dream has its price."

Was that by any chance at a time when you were thrilled BA had selected you to be a cadet? Apologies in advance if I'm on the wrong track, but I noticed you'd been training with BA at Jerez and assume that means you were a cadet. If I'm right, it's interesting how quickly after being sponsored to become a pilot by one of the world's top airlines such a positive attitude becomes:

"Often wonder myself what BA look for in a pilot considering some of the skippers I have had to fly with. "

Funny old world.