|
Originally Posted by flash8
(Post 11282662)
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). |
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.
|
[QUOTE=Youmightsaythat;11282673]Funny you mention that. Watch this space.[/QUOT
When is the next volume due?. I can't wait |
Originally Posted by Abrahn
(Post 11283841)
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.
"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. |
[QUOTE=bean;11284326]
Originally Posted by Youmightsaythat
(Post 11282673)
Funny you mention that. Watch this space.[/QUOT
When is the next volume due?. I can't wait 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. |
Im not sure what point you are trying to make. 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 "I am also pleased that BALPA helped fund ... legal battles, and provided substantial expert and staff support." Legal fees you mean?...cost me zero... I represented my self with no lawyer to advise or present my case "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. "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. "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? and then found as sound by an appeal judge |
Originally Posted by Abrahn
(Post 11285698)
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. 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. |
Originally Posted by Abrahn
(Post 11285698)
Yes. Absolutely. Allowed you to take the case to court without risk of having to pay the other side's costs.
|
Originally Posted by Litebulbs
(Post 11286214)
That is not 100% true
|
Originally Posted by Abrahn
(Post 11286219)
Ok. 99.9% chance. The assumption is that the claim is not vexatious and you don't abuse the judge.
Anyhow and regardless, I see it as a success story |
Originally Posted by Litebulbs
(Post 11286224)
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 |
Originally Posted by Twiglet1
(Post 11279510)
Come on then give us some examples of 'common' illegally planned FDP......
|
Originally Posted by D9009
(Post 11292785)
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.
Therefore only allowing 5 min taxi in-out at CDG did not ENSURE...hence illegal. |
Therefore only allowing 5 min taxi in-out at CDG did not ENSURE...hence illegal. |
Originally Posted by D9009
(Post 11292807)
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.
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 |
Originally Posted by BANANASBANANAS
(Post 11279529)
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. 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 |
a - Is that a real question?
b - Is this CAA bashing? c - Is a fraction between 0 and 1 fitting with answer b- ? |
Originally Posted by Luc Lion
(Post 11292952)
a - Is that a real question?
b - Is this CAA bashing? c - Is a fraction between 0 and 1 fitting with answer b- ? 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? |
In Gordomac's case it was Gulf Air where you have no rights.
|
Originally Posted by thegypsy
(Post 11293065)
In Gordomac's case it was Gulf Air where you have no rights.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 18:14. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.