Flybe pilots fired after flight deck row
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ChrisGriffin
That's probably true regarding the relevance of most of the posters are in the mil forum but and it's a big but ...
Clicky
Way off topic and no relevance to flybe.
That's probably true regarding the relevance of most of the posters are in the mil forum but and it's a big but ...
Clicky
Way off topic and no relevance to flybe.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ADM:
Another interesting segue!
...your posts about ex-military pilots are completely irrational and are broadly similar to someone who was mugged by a black youth 25 years ago hating all blacks for the rest of his life...
Guest
Posts: n/a
It's amazing how the thread got so far off the topic.
We can't even compare RAF pilots with civilian, because the FO wasn't a military pilot.
You can't generalise - the capts I flew with in Squadron2000 who were ex -military were great chaps.
two ex-mil guys I met elsewhere were complete c**ks, funnily enough neither were pilots in the service (one was ex ATC, one ex-eng), with small shoulders on their chips.
The biggest bell-end I ever met was an ex-navy chopper boy who declared when myself and the FO came to the bar in s***** L****, late, "where have you been - having a w**king race ?" - to which I replied "No, that must be an Airbus thing ".
I guess that demonstrates how one guy's idea of humour, may not translate well to the receipient, in this case , me.
We can't even compare RAF pilots with civilian, because the FO wasn't a military pilot.
You can't generalise - the capts I flew with in Squadron2000 who were ex -military were great chaps.
two ex-mil guys I met elsewhere were complete c**ks, funnily enough neither were pilots in the service (one was ex ATC, one ex-eng), with small shoulders on their chips.
The biggest bell-end I ever met was an ex-navy chopper boy who declared when myself and the FO came to the bar in s***** L****, late, "where have you been - having a w**king race ?" - to which I replied "No, that must be an Airbus thing ".
I guess that demonstrates how one guy's idea of humour, may not translate well to the receipient, in this case , me.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I refer to my last post! Oh how I chuckled about the people that blast opinion on here! Let they never set foot on my flight deck and goodbye prune my life is richer without you!!! I'm not sure any real pilots frequent the forum?????
Revisiting: "Can the Captain FORCE/INSTRUCT/TELL/COMMAND another crew member to go into discretion???".
In Hong Kong where the ANO is an annex of the Civil Aviation Ordianance, it states that it's not permissable to force someone to work when they are fatigued. So if a crewmember tells the commander they are tired and he/she tells them that they have to work, the commander is commiting a criminal act.
In Hong Kong where the ANO is an annex of the Civil Aviation Ordianance, it states that it's not permissable to force someone to work when they are fatigued. So if a crewmember tells the commander they are tired and he/she tells them that they have to work, the commander is commiting a criminal act.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan, way off thread now but just to re-iterate. No captain worth his salt will "tell" other crew members to "go into discretion" . People seem very confused about this. The discretionary power is given to the Commander and the Commander only. That is why it is called "Captain's discretion". NOT, "First Officer's discretion", or "cabin crew's discretion" or "Flt Ops discretion". The Captain may exercise "HIS" discretion to extend a Flight Duty Period IN CONSULTATION with other crew members. As a previous Poster intimated, this is the anomoly. We are not Doctors, or Psychologists etc. So, how on earth do we evaluate. Quite simple. If a Crew member tells me that he/she is too tired, pissed off, miserable etc to operate beyond the FDP, I will readily agree & have him/her offloaded reminding that he/she will have to explain to the Flt Ops Dept. why he/she was unable to agree to the Captain's intention to exercise HIS discretionary power to extend a FDP >! Blimey, not THAT difficult is it ?
Burbpot: great post. Don't leave. We do need more balanced posts like yours & I agree with your suspicions. Loadsa trolls & quite a few dysfunctionals empowered by anonomous postings. Good fun though ! Rather embarassing though. Watch them all come out & attack this post ! Geeees, time for the pub !
Burbpot: great post. Don't leave. We do need more balanced posts like yours & I agree with your suspicions. Loadsa trolls & quite a few dysfunctionals empowered by anonomous postings. Good fun though ! Rather embarassing though. Watch them all come out & attack this post ! Geeees, time for the pub !
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly, gone are the days of the 3 man flight deck. I would have been honoured to be the Captain's bitch. 
Failing that, I could have held him while the co-pilot put the nut on him
Makes you proud to be a professional doesn't it?
Failing that, I could have held him while the co-pilot put the nut on him
Makes you proud to be a professional doesn't it?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Doncaster
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents, I take on board all the caveats and I am only SLF ... but having been scared silly by a minor contretempts taking place between the front seat occupants of a car when I most certainly did NOT feel safe I would be terrified by the prospect of something like this happening up front in an aircraft when there is a lot less chance of pulling over for everyone to have a chance to calm down.If it DID happen in any way shape or form, I would feel a lot safer knowing measures had been taken to prevent it in the future.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: honiton
Age: 68
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"the big problem here is Capt Stan Wood" Really! Capt wood was tasked to investigate after a flt safety investigation and obviously found a case to answer. He had no part in the incident or their dismissal.I hope you don't run an airline!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tribunal outcome?
Is there any further information on this and the outcome of the tribunal? I've tried reviewing the law pages and searching for tribunal details but to no success. I'm hoping to use this case as a discussion point for a Command upgrade CRM course.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cardiff
Age: 48
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flybe was right to sack both - rules tribunal
The employment tribunal hearing the case of Flybe pilots Captain Stephen Bird and First Officer Stephen Akers has ruled that Flybe was right to sack both of them - it's been announced today.
Both men , who are are in their 50s,had claimed unfair dismissal and had sat side-by-side during the three-day hearing earlier this year.
The row they allegedly had with each other was not captured on the cockpit voice recorder because it had been wiped on the return flight. Flybe had argued that said any breakdown in crew relationships caused a ‘potential risk to safety’ of passengers, crew and plane.
Captain Stan Wood, who led the inquiry into the bust-up, said it was completely inappropriate for the two pilots to fly back to England after such a heated row. He said: 'In my view, Stephen Bird did not act as a captain should have. As the captain and commander of the aircraft, he had ultimate control of the aircraft. Stephen Bird should have taken control of an aircraft on approach to landing. He chose to engage in the argument with Mr Akers which exacerbated the situation.
Akers claimed that some people in Flybe hated ‘ex RAF people’ and patronised and humiliated him.
Employment Judge Christopher Carstairs is to reveal what he calls "the tribunal’s full reasons for their decision" later but confirmed today that the unanimous judgement of the tribunal is that the respondent (Flybe Ltd) fairly dismissed the claimants.'
Both men , who are are in their 50s,had claimed unfair dismissal and had sat side-by-side during the three-day hearing earlier this year.
The row they allegedly had with each other was not captured on the cockpit voice recorder because it had been wiped on the return flight. Flybe had argued that said any breakdown in crew relationships caused a ‘potential risk to safety’ of passengers, crew and plane.
Captain Stan Wood, who led the inquiry into the bust-up, said it was completely inappropriate for the two pilots to fly back to England after such a heated row. He said: 'In my view, Stephen Bird did not act as a captain should have. As the captain and commander of the aircraft, he had ultimate control of the aircraft. Stephen Bird should have taken control of an aircraft on approach to landing. He chose to engage in the argument with Mr Akers which exacerbated the situation.
Akers claimed that some people in Flybe hated ‘ex RAF people’ and patronised and humiliated him.
Employment Judge Christopher Carstairs is to reveal what he calls "the tribunal’s full reasons for their decision" later but confirmed today that the unanimous judgement of the tribunal is that the respondent (Flybe Ltd) fairly dismissed the claimants.'
Last edited by korrol; 8th Aug 2012 at 15:29.
