Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Wizz Air Crew Forced to Resign

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Wizz Air Crew Forced to Resign

Old 21st Aug 2022, 22:13
  #61 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Manchester
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by flash8
Surely you could have charged your time out?
Make the ****** pay that as well!

By the way read the judgement and have to say one or two characters come across almost as criminals to my mind. I say almost because I have no legal qualifications and leave that judgement to others.

Look forward to reading the book(s).
Funny you mention that. Watch this space.
Youmightsaythat is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2022, 19:25
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2022
Location: England
Posts: 35
Received 15 Likes on 11 Posts
Congratulations on your win, but I'd be reluctant to recommend drawing too many conclusions from one case. Particularly one that was not about aviation regulations but about English employment law (the CAA were correct), and was decided by a court of first instance (an Employment Tribunal) with claimant friendly rules, cost limits and a relatively junior judge.
Abrahn is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2022, 14:36
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: britain
Posts: 672
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
[QUOTE=Youmightsaythat;11282673]Funny you mention that. Watch this space.[/QUOT
When is the next volume due?. I can't wait
bean is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2022, 10:42
  #64 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Manchester
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Abrahn
Congratulations on your win, but I'd be reluctant to recommend drawing too many conclusions from one case. Particularly one that was not about aviation regulations but about English employment law (the CAA were correct), and was decided by a court of first instance (an Employment Tribunal) with claimant friendly rules, cost limits and a relatively junior judge.
Thank you for the congratulations although you seem a little confused about the 'conclusions from one case' The conclusion could not have been any clearer. Senior management, HR and in house legal team, in an attempt to conceal what was going on, withheld and destroyed documents. That is in the judgement. I raised protected disclosures and they took action against me for doing so. Its really basic 'employment law stuff'. As you correctly say this was an "Employment Case". I was always very clear about that. Indeed thats why I won.

"Claimant friendly rules"...you think?...Is that why only 5% of claimants win at tribunal and that includes those represented?

It was indeed decided by an Employment Tribunal, and then found as sound by an appeal judge. "Relatively Junior Judge". I assume you are implying someone who didn't know what they were doing. Now where have I heard that before, Oh I remember now

Finally, although you state that The CAA were correct that it was an employment matter that was decided at tribunal, the entire reason for the situation was the airlines falsification of the FDP and planning a fatiguing run of duties that I refused to operate. So unless you are saying The CAA should ignore such abuse and let airline continue to pay scant regard to legislation that now results in it being common for pilots to fall asleep, Im not sure what point you are trying to make.
Youmightsaythat is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2022, 10:49
  #65 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Manchester
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
[QUOTE=bean;11284326]
Originally Posted by Youmightsaythat
Funny you mention that. Watch this space.[/QUOT
When is the next volume due?. I can't wait
All three of Pulling Wings From Butterflies are written (well apart from the last chapter in book three, the reason for which will become clear in a moment)

A few months ago Part 1 and part 2 were presented to the police and their investigation is ongoing. In order not to impinge on any subsequent legal action, book two is delayed until there is no risk of sub judice.

The final chapter will cover this aspect and the CPS response.
Youmightsaythat is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2022, 17:54
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2022
Location: England
Posts: 35
Received 15 Likes on 11 Posts
Im not sure what point you are trying to make.
The point is that people shouldn't put their life savings and house on the line on the basis of the recommendations in this thread, because it presents a misleading version of the legal position and mixes aviation regs with employment law, and English employment law and procedure with EU law and English criminal law.

I am not trying to defend any airline or criticise any person or company. I'm about to fly Whizz Air and I really would rather the crew aren't fatigued. Same for doctors, Police and Ambulance who suffer the same problems with their employers stretching the regulations past breaking point (and in the case of Police with the legal and press decks stacked against them).

BALPA refused to support the case
Yet BALPA say:

"I am also pleased that BALPA helped fund ... legal battles, and provided substantial expert and staff support."

Legal fees you mean?...cost me zero...
Cost BALPA though.

I represented my self with no lawyer to advise or present my case
The judge says:

"Although the claimant was unrepresented at the final hearing, he had been represented by solicitors at the time he presented his claim, at the Case Management Preliminary Hearing and during some of the preparation for the case."

And a good job too, because they framed your case around s44 and not aviation regulations and that allowed you to win.

Its in the Judgement of my case.
It's not. The judge says:

"the Tribunal does not consider it necessary to determine whether the view argued for by the claimant or that taken by the respondent is a correct interpretation of the relevant regulations and guidance"

The tribunal never addressed whether your understanding of the rules is correct or not, because it wasn't necessary. All that was necessary was to prove that you had a reasonable belief that safety would be impaired.

The precedent is set.
Again, the judge says:

"Babula v Waltham Forest College [2007] JCR 1026, the Court of Appeal
held that an employee .. could rely on the
protection of the whistleblowing provisions to argue that his dismissal was automatically unfair, even though his belief was mistaken. The Court held that a belief may be reasonably held and yet be wrong."

The precedent was set in the Court of Appeal. Not in your case. A superior Court with superior judges, hence my comment about the Employment Judge being a junior judge. The precedent is about employment legislation. There is absolutely no precedent set about aviation regulations in this case.

"Claimant friendly rules"...you think?
Yes. Absolutely. Allowed you to take the case to court without risk of having to pay the other side's costs. Something which is not available in other juristications. And only available to you because you'd been an employee longer than 2 years. Would not be an option for crew recently rehired after COVID However much paperwork and stress you thought there was in the ET, it's much less than the Civil Procedure Rules.

and then found as sound by an appeal judge
After the initial ruling the employer indicated their acceptance of the findings, so I'm surprised that they appealed. I haven't been able to find an appeal ruling so apologies if I'm missing something important.
Abrahn is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2022, 00:53
  #67 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Manchester
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Abrahn
The point is that people shouldn't put their life savings and house on the line on the basis of the recommendations in this thread, because it presents a misleading version of the legal position and mixes aviation regs with employment law, and English employment law and procedure with EU law and English criminal law.

I am not trying to defend any airline or criticise any person or company. I'm about to fly Whizz Air and I really would rather the crew aren't fatigued. Same for doctors, Police and Ambulance who suffer the same problems with their employers stretching the regulations past breaking point (and in the case of Police with the legal and press decks stacked against them).



Yet BALPA say:

"I am also pleased that BALPA helped fund ... legal battles, and provided substantial expert and staff support."



Cost BALPA though.



The judge says:

"Although the claimant was unrepresented at the final hearing, he had been represented by solicitors at the time he presented his claim, at the Case Management Preliminary Hearing and during some of the preparation for the case."

And a good job too, because they framed your case around s44 and not aviation regulations and that allowed you to win.



It's not. The judge says:

"the Tribunal does not consider it necessary to determine whether the view argued for by the claimant or that taken by the respondent is a correct interpretation of the relevant regulations and guidance"

The tribunal never addressed whether your understanding of the rules is correct or not, because it wasn't necessary. All that was necessary was to prove that you had a reasonable belief that safety would be impaired.



Again, the judge says:

"Babula v Waltham Forest College [2007] JCR 1026, the Court of Appeal
held that an employee .. could rely on the
protection of the whistleblowing provisions to argue that his dismissal was automatically unfair, even though his belief was mistaken. The Court held that a belief may be reasonably held and yet be wrong."

The precedent was set in the Court of Appeal. Not in your case. A superior Court with superior judges, hence my comment about the Employment Judge being a junior judge. The precedent is about employment legislation. There is absolutely no precedent set about aviation regulations in this case.



Yes. Absolutely. Allowed you to take the case to court without risk of having to pay the other side's costs. Something which is not available in other juristications. And only available to you because you'd been an employee longer than 2 years. Would not be an option for crew recently rehired after COVID However much paperwork and stress you thought there was in the ET, it's much less than the Civil Procedure Rules.



After the initial ruling the employer indicated their acceptance of the findings, so I'm surprised that they appealed. I haven't been able to find an appeal ruling so apologies if I'm missing something important.
Thanks for your reply.

You are correct BALPA did indeed stay on their website "I am also pleased that BALPA helped fund ... legal battles, and provided substantial expert and staff support." Can you see anywhere where they state but not at the crucial point of the actual tribunal. There is more to come out about BALPA, a lot more. It will not only make for very uncomfortable reading for the union but will seriously raise questions with its members as to what is the point of being a member'.

I had personally done ALL the 'homework' that basically the BALPA appointed solicitors then used to complete an ET1 Form.

As for the rest of your reply can I suggest you wait for book two? It answers ALL of your comments. If you don[t want to read it, might I suggest you watch the news over the next few months. This will answer your questions. The point is...there are suppositions, thoughts, rumours and there are hard cold facts. I only dealt with facts and evidence. So do the police.
Youmightsaythat is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2022, 19:30
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Abrahn
Yes. Absolutely. Allowed you to take the case to court without risk of having to pay the other side's costs.
That is not 100% true
Litebulbs is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2022, 19:46
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2022
Location: England
Posts: 35
Received 15 Likes on 11 Posts
Originally Posted by Litebulbs
That is not 100% true
Ok. 99.9% chance. The assumption is that the claim is not vexatious and you don't abuse the judge.
Abrahn is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2022, 20:01
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Abrahn
Ok. 99.9% chance. The assumption is that the claim is not vexatious and you don't abuse the judge.
Is there such a thing as subjective vexatiousness?! There should be as I have seen it, sadly (not me).

Anyhow and regardless, I see it as a success story

Last edited by Litebulbs; 27th Aug 2022 at 20:24.
Litebulbs is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2022, 07:29
  #71 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Manchester
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Litebulbs
Is there such a thing as subjective vexatiousness?! There should be as I have seen it, sadly (not me).

Anyhow and regardless, I see it as a success story
It was, and thats what upsets some people. 'How dare he take on the establishment'!!
Youmightsaythat is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2022, 06:54
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Joined 2005 was Alycidon
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Twiglet1
Come on then give us some examples of 'common' illegally planned FDP......
Not illegal, but daft.....5 minutes taxi-in, taxi-out at CDG to fit the sector block times into the available FDP which unsurprisingly required Commander’s discretion to complete the “planned” duty.
D9009 is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2022, 07:48
  #73 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Manchester
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by D9009
Not illegal, but daft.....5 minutes taxi-in, taxi-out at CDG to fit the sector block times into the available FDP which unsurprisingly required Commander’s discretion to complete the “planned” duty.
EU. Ops 2.2 An operator shall ensure that for all its flights;Flights are planned to be completed within the allowable flying duty period taking into account the time necessary for pre-flight duties, the flight and turn-around times.

Therefore only allowing 5 min taxi in-out at CDG did not ENSURE...hence illegal.
Youmightsaythat is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2022, 07:54
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Joined 2005 was Alycidon
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Therefore only allowing 5 min taxi in-out at CDG did not ENSURE...hence illegal.
Would it surprise you to know that this was a well regarded UK operator and they were adamant that 5 minutes taxi-in, taxi-out was standard and that the 25 minute buffer between planned on blocks and maximum FDP was legal and achievable.
D9009 is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2022, 08:00
  #75 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Manchester
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by D9009
Would it surprise you to know that this was a well regarded UK operator and they were adamant that 5 minutes taxi-in, taxi-out was standard and that the 25 minute buffer between planned on blocks and maximum FDP was legal and achievable.
I will answer Thant with a question.

Time for a bit of fun.

How many airlines do you think the CAA have prosecuted in their entire history for falsifying flight plans to 'make it fit' and 'be efficient'?
a - More than 100
b - Less than 100
c - Zero

Last edited by Youmightsaythat; 8th Sep 2022 at 08:35.
Youmightsaythat is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2022, 10:05
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Location: E Midlands
Posts: 1
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by BANANASBANANAS
a) Should passenger aircraft be operating into a commercial airport without medical staff on immediate call? What happens if a passenger has a heart attack during taxi in? Surely there is a requirement for para medics or doctors to meet the aircraft at the gate?

b) An appropriate OMA entry would cover it. 'In the event that a crew member feels unfit to operate at outstation (including during a turnaround at outstation) every effort is to be made to be examined by a doctor prior to operating. This specifically includes unfitness due to suspected fatigue at outstation on a turnaround flight. In the case of reported unfitness to operate during a turnaround, if no doctor is available in a reasonable time then the Commander shall consult the affected crew member himself and liaise with the affected crew member, station manager, company and airport authorities to determine if the crew member shall be offloaded to wait for medical care or to position back to base. If the affected crew member insists on seeing a doctor he shall be offloaded into the care of the station manager if necessary to minimise delay. Note: Crew member's health is always to be of paramount concern and this should be considered and reflected in any decision made by the Commander'

It will never happen of course as para b would be wide open to abuse.
A which is met by the statutory Emergency medical responses of the Territory in question

LHR has/ had vehicles and crews and cycle responders with Airside passes ec at lHR for ease of movement around the site , iirc at one time i.e. Jeremey Spake Airport era BA Occ y Health also supported witha 'ambulance' on the airside as part of it;s first aid provision

the call ref fatigue would get reduced to a hear and treat call back with the ultimate answer beign speak to your GP or yout employers OH provision
NicolaJayne is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2022, 11:50
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vance, Belgium
Age: 61
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
a - Is that a real question?
b - Is this CAA bashing?
c - Is a fraction between 0 and 1 fitting with answer b- ?
Luc Lion is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2022, 14:25
  #78 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Manchester
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Luc Lion
a - Is that a real question?
b - Is this CAA bashing?
c - Is a fraction between 0 and 1 fitting with answer b- ?
a) Yes
b) Stating what I was told by the head of BALPA's Flight Safety Department. Do you see stating a fact as 'Bashing' ?
c) I will clarify (b) between 1 and 100

That ok?
Youmightsaythat is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2022, 14:38
  #79 (permalink)  
DIRECTOR
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: U.K.
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In Gordomac's case it was Gulf Air where you have no rights.
thegypsy is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2022, 15:16
  #80 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Manchester
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by thegypsy
In Gordomac's case it was Gulf Air where you have no rights.
I will let you know in in a month or so if you have any in the UK as an airline captain...Now taken out of the CAA's hands.
Youmightsaythat is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.