Human rights
Guest
Posts: n/a
A couple of points -
What is the definition of "full pay", was her take home pay made up of base pay, and payment per hour of flying? In this case "full pay" may be significantly lower than average take home pay.
And playing devils advocate, is it possible the lawsuit is being conducted with the support of the company in an effort to change their current contract with pilots. ie "We would love to ground you on full pay Mrs X, but ever since Mrs Y sued us we can't"
Bottom line is we don't have enough information
Legalapproach - Lets hope it does count as a solo, otherwise its down to the CAA to try and explain why a student pilot was carrying passengers
[This message has been edited by Pdub (edited 24 May 2001).]
What is the definition of "full pay", was her take home pay made up of base pay, and payment per hour of flying? In this case "full pay" may be significantly lower than average take home pay.
And playing devils advocate, is it possible the lawsuit is being conducted with the support of the company in an effort to change their current contract with pilots. ie "We would love to ground you on full pay Mrs X, but ever since Mrs Y sued us we can't"
Bottom line is we don't have enough information
Legalapproach - Lets hope it does count as a solo, otherwise its down to the CAA to try and explain why a student pilot was carrying passengers
[This message has been edited by Pdub (edited 24 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
We are all failing to mention that the CAA are prepared to recognise significant levels of radiation that may harm the unborn foetus but on the other hand are not prepared to recognise the long term effects this has on pilots and cabin crew.
1) Anecdotal evidence has always suggested that levels of cancer in flight crew is always distinctly more than average, yet the only scientific studies that are given support by the media/management are the studies done by the medical professionals who are employed by the airlines.
2) Bearing in mind that pregnant women are urged not to undergo X-rays during pregnancy, isn't it strange that the operators (Radiologists) always stand behind a lead lined screen? What about the operators of Aircraft?
3) Why does the senior pilot I flew with who works on the consultative group for BALPA as the 'expert' on these matters, never fly above FL330?
4) Why is it that the media can report on the above average solar radiation in April that "May knock out Satellites", due to Solar Flare activity, yet our companies can't warn it's pilots to stay out of the higher Flight Levels?
Sorry to ignore your plight ladies, it's just that I'm a man and judging by some of the female posts here, I get the impression that you would consider my thoughts on human rights invalid due to my posession of a pair of testicles.
------------------
Magnus
1) Anecdotal evidence has always suggested that levels of cancer in flight crew is always distinctly more than average, yet the only scientific studies that are given support by the media/management are the studies done by the medical professionals who are employed by the airlines.
2) Bearing in mind that pregnant women are urged not to undergo X-rays during pregnancy, isn't it strange that the operators (Radiologists) always stand behind a lead lined screen? What about the operators of Aircraft?
3) Why does the senior pilot I flew with who works on the consultative group for BALPA as the 'expert' on these matters, never fly above FL330?
4) Why is it that the media can report on the above average solar radiation in April that "May knock out Satellites", due to Solar Flare activity, yet our companies can't warn it's pilots to stay out of the higher Flight Levels?
Sorry to ignore your plight ladies, it's just that I'm a man and judging by some of the female posts here, I get the impression that you would consider my thoughts on human rights invalid due to my posession of a pair of testicles.
------------------
Magnus
Guest
Posts: n/a
To those who have queried, the facts are as I state them. The lady is grounded on full pay + allowances. It is against the sex discrimination act to discriminate against anyone on grounds of pregnancy so for the airline to do any less would be an open and shut case and would cost them a fortune.
The case rests around who should take the decision to ground. Should it be the company under duty of care under health and safety legislation or the individual under
the new Human Rights Act. The potential loss to the lady concerned is loss of flying experience and hence I guess potentially loss of future career opportunities due to less flying hours than otherwise would be the case.
Have to say some of the comments have been sadly sexist and the guy who senses a company conspiricy probably believes that Elvis is still alive and that the moon landings were faked.
Have to say that I rather admire what would appear to be a principled stand by the lady concerned although I disagree with her on the issue itself. Shades of disagreeing with what you say but defending to the death your right to say it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
minogue
By your reply, I [as a person of the male gender] can claim,
a. I cannot get pregnant, therefore I have a claim for "distress" [Lack of fulfilment]
b, I cannot get pregnant, so I claim under the sex descrimination act...of course
"Some" peeps are really Real
By your reply, I [as a person of the male gender] can claim,
a. I cannot get pregnant, therefore I have a claim for "distress" [Lack of fulfilment]
b, I cannot get pregnant, so I claim under the sex descrimination act...of course
"Some" peeps are really Real
Guest
Posts: n/a
Elvis isn't dead , he just went home
Sorry for causing offense, don't actually believe that is the case.
The flight time limitation is a legimate concern of course, say a month before she is sure she is pregnant, that would mean 8 months before the child was born, plus say 4-5 months after the birth before she gets back to work. You're looking at over a year without any time logged.
Sorry for causing offense, don't actually believe that is the case.
The flight time limitation is a legimate concern of course, say a month before she is sure she is pregnant, that would mean 8 months before the child was born, plus say 4-5 months after the birth before she gets back to work. You're looking at over a year without any time logged.
Cunning Artificer
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,125
Likes: 7
From: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
The lady whose desk is outside my office door isn't a pilot. But when she miscarried 10 weeks into her pregnancy she would have been just as incapable of flying as she was incapable of typing, telephoning and filing. It was a medical emergency.
Its just common sense to avoid risks like that. Women get pregnant, and pregnant women suffer miscarriges. Usually without warning. So what is all the fuss about?
**********************************
THrough difficulties to the cinema
Its just common sense to avoid risks like that. Women get pregnant, and pregnant women suffer miscarriges. Usually without warning. So what is all the fuss about?
**********************************
THrough difficulties to the cinema
Guest
Posts: n/a
What is wrong with you lot ?
The lady in question does not have a valid medical so she cannot fly.
If I (temporarily) invalidated my medical by getting p*ssed out of my skull would I get suspended on full pay ?
Gender discrimination doesn't come into it. The restriction on flying when pregnant applies equally to all pilots, male AND female.
Or - to make a more serious point: a lot of people fail to get a Class 1 medical because of colour vision defects. This is genetically linked and affects males far more than females - so can we now sue for human rights and discrimination ??? And this is permanent - the lady is only grounded for a few weeks, for heaven's sake !
The lady in question does not have a valid medical so she cannot fly.
If I (temporarily) invalidated my medical by getting p*ssed out of my skull would I get suspended on full pay ?
Gender discrimination doesn't come into it. The restriction on flying when pregnant applies equally to all pilots, male AND female.
Or - to make a more serious point: a lot of people fail to get a Class 1 medical because of colour vision defects. This is genetically linked and affects males far more than females - so can we now sue for human rights and discrimination ??? And this is permanent - the lady is only grounded for a few weeks, for heaven's sake !
Guest
Posts: n/a
It is very difficult in life to not be, -ist, be it racist, sexist or whatever. If we were all exactly equal in everyway, height, colour sex etc, thinks would be fairer, but we are not and things aren't. I am a white bloke with a 20 year old Son and a 4 week old Son and this is my opinion; The lady is pregnant and that is a medical condition. In the early stages of pregnancy physical and physiological changes occur which could affect her flying/decision making skills temporarily and worse still without warning. If she is off with full pay then she should enjoy it while she can. She may of course feel that it is her decision but others lives could be at risk so the medical aspect has to come first. i think the first and last 3 months rule (if it is correct) is probably quite a good one, but again, pregnancies are funny things. Maybe the pregnancy wasn't really planned and she is sub-consciously rebelling against her unintended lack of choice. We all sign contracts of work and I presume that this was covered in hers. i wish her all the best as a Mum, and can only say that I don't have an answer only an opinion.
Remember opinions are like arseholes, everyone's got one.
Remember opinions are like arseholes, everyone's got one.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Grainger says:
"... a lot of people fail to get a Class 1 medical because of colour vision defects. This is genetically linked and affects males far more than females ...".
And PFD says:
"The lady is pregnant and that is a medical condition".
Then PFD speculates as to: "[m]aybe the pregnancy wasn't really planned and she is sub-consciously rebelling against her unintended lack of choice".
Life itself is genetically linked. The fact that we (most of us anyway) happen to have two eyes, a nose, two ears, and so on, is genetically linked. So what is your point here, Grainger? Perhaps you, like PFD, believe that pregnancy is a MEDICAL CONDITION!!!
For goodness sake, chaps. Wake up and smell the coffee, please. Pregnancy is most certainly not a medical condition. It is merely the carrying of a fetus in the womb (something we chaps find it GENETICALLY impossible to achieve). Oh yes, the medicos would wish to TREAT it as a medical condition, perhaps for reasons of self-preservation. But is it really? Think about it.
And, friend PFD, don't you think your supposition as to the lady's pregnancy being both unplanned and, apparently, a RAPE is more than a little over the top?
TUT, tut, tut ... and tut again!
"... a lot of people fail to get a Class 1 medical because of colour vision defects. This is genetically linked and affects males far more than females ...".
And PFD says:
"The lady is pregnant and that is a medical condition".
Then PFD speculates as to: "[m]aybe the pregnancy wasn't really planned and she is sub-consciously rebelling against her unintended lack of choice".
Life itself is genetically linked. The fact that we (most of us anyway) happen to have two eyes, a nose, two ears, and so on, is genetically linked. So what is your point here, Grainger? Perhaps you, like PFD, believe that pregnancy is a MEDICAL CONDITION!!!
For goodness sake, chaps. Wake up and smell the coffee, please. Pregnancy is most certainly not a medical condition. It is merely the carrying of a fetus in the womb (something we chaps find it GENETICALLY impossible to achieve). Oh yes, the medicos would wish to TREAT it as a medical condition, perhaps for reasons of self-preservation. But is it really? Think about it.
And, friend PFD, don't you think your supposition as to the lady's pregnancy being both unplanned and, apparently, a RAPE is more than a little over the top?
TUT, tut, tut ... and tut again!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tilii. there is no suggestion of rape. The point is that she did not choose to be grounded.
Its a good theory though. It would mean she was psychologically unfit. Either way, its not her choice, other than getting pregnant(which isn't in itself a right).
From what my wife and some of our friends have been through, I would personally not like a pregnant women in the cockpit!
And that's not sexist!
Its a good theory though. It would mean she was psychologically unfit. Either way, its not her choice, other than getting pregnant(which isn't in itself a right).
From what my wife and some of our friends have been through, I would personally not like a pregnant women in the cockpit!
And that's not sexist!
Guest
Posts: n/a
tilii:
My point is that the lady does not have a valid medical certificate at the moment so the airline is _not allowed_ to let her fly.
Which part of that do you find difficult to understand ?
If you disagree with the conditions for the Class 1 Medical then complain to the CAA Medical division, but don't blame the airline or me !
You used the term "medical condition". I didn't.
The point about colour vision is rather obvious. This lady is complaining of inequality because she is in a condition that invalidates her medical cetificate and that this condition only affects females. So my point is that there are other conditions that affect only (or mainly males).
As PFD so eloquently puts it: it would be great if we were all the same, but we are not.
My point is that the lady does not have a valid medical certificate at the moment so the airline is _not allowed_ to let her fly.
Which part of that do you find difficult to understand ?
If you disagree with the conditions for the Class 1 Medical then complain to the CAA Medical division, but don't blame the airline or me !
You used the term "medical condition". I didn't.
The point about colour vision is rather obvious. This lady is complaining of inequality because she is in a condition that invalidates her medical cetificate and that this condition only affects females. So my point is that there are other conditions that affect only (or mainly males).
As PFD so eloquently puts it: it would be great if we were all the same, but we are not.
Guest
Posts: n/a
tilii:
If you want to spend your time arguing about the meanings of words, as in your definition of "medical condition", then knock yourself out.
Here's the facts:
JAR-FCL 3.040 Decrease In Medical Fitness
[(c) Holders of medical certificates shall, without undue delay, seek the advice of the AMS, an AMC or an AME when becoming aware of: ]
[(3)] being pregnant,
shall inform the Authority in writing of such injury or pregnancy, and as soon as the period of 21 days has elapsed in the case of illness. The medical certificate shall be deemed to be suspended upon the occurrence of such injury or the elapse of such period of illness or the confirmation of the pregnancy, and:
[(5)] in the case of pregnancy, the suspension may be lifted by the Authority for such period and subject to such conditions as it thinks fit (see JAR-FCL 3.195(c) and 3.315(c)) and shall cease upon the holder being medically examined under arrangements made by the Authority after the pregnancy has ended and being pronounced fit to resume her functions as a member of the flight crew.
So whatever you may think, the case is clear-cut. Complain to JAR if you want.
If the lady can get the suspension lifted under 3.195(c) and 3.315(c) then good luck to her.
Or are you arguing that it is OK to fly without a valid medical ??
If you want to spend your time arguing about the meanings of words, as in your definition of "medical condition", then knock yourself out.
Here's the facts:
JAR-FCL 3.040 Decrease In Medical Fitness
[(c) Holders of medical certificates shall, without undue delay, seek the advice of the AMS, an AMC or an AME when becoming aware of: ]
[(3)] being pregnant,
shall inform the Authority in writing of such injury or pregnancy, and as soon as the period of 21 days has elapsed in the case of illness. The medical certificate shall be deemed to be suspended upon the occurrence of such injury or the elapse of such period of illness or the confirmation of the pregnancy, and:
[(5)] in the case of pregnancy, the suspension may be lifted by the Authority for such period and subject to such conditions as it thinks fit (see JAR-FCL 3.195(c) and 3.315(c)) and shall cease upon the holder being medically examined under arrangements made by the Authority after the pregnancy has ended and being pronounced fit to resume her functions as a member of the flight crew.
So whatever you may think, the case is clear-cut. Complain to JAR if you want.
If the lady can get the suspension lifted under 3.195(c) and 3.315(c) then good luck to her.
Or are you arguing that it is OK to fly without a valid medical ??
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tilii
In with anger out with love, OOUUCCHH!!
I'm guessing that you read my post and replied immediately, big mistake when something gets you pissed off.
I said "unplanned pregnancy" this is not a rape. Many couples have unplanned pregnancies, or don't you know any real people?
I used medical condition because that is the way the FAA, CAA, JAA will look at it. Who would you rather have at the controls when you're in an Autoland situation and at 300' the FLARE decides to disarm itself, someone who is 100% medically fit or someone whose blood sugar could suddenly drop, for no apparent reason, leaving them faint and disorientated.
I say again, I wish the lady all the best, but it really is best for all that she doesn't fly until she is proven to be 100% capable again in all respects.
I apologise to you if you felt offended by my opinion, but I could have got on my band wagon about the subject of the post which was "Human Rights". When thousands of Rwandans were murdered for being from a different tribe, I think that may have been a breach of Human Rights. Being suspended on full pay??? Think about it.
Regards PFD
In with anger out with love, OOUUCCHH!!
I'm guessing that you read my post and replied immediately, big mistake when something gets you pissed off.
I said "unplanned pregnancy" this is not a rape. Many couples have unplanned pregnancies, or don't you know any real people?
I used medical condition because that is the way the FAA, CAA, JAA will look at it. Who would you rather have at the controls when you're in an Autoland situation and at 300' the FLARE decides to disarm itself, someone who is 100% medically fit or someone whose blood sugar could suddenly drop, for no apparent reason, leaving them faint and disorientated.
I say again, I wish the lady all the best, but it really is best for all that she doesn't fly until she is proven to be 100% capable again in all respects.
I apologise to you if you felt offended by my opinion, but I could have got on my band wagon about the subject of the post which was "Human Rights". When thousands of Rwandans were murdered for being from a different tribe, I think that may have been a breach of Human Rights. Being suspended on full pay??? Think about it.
Regards PFD
Guest
Posts: n/a
Oh, dear.
What a sanctimonious pair of twats are Grainger and PFD.
Look, gentlemen. I am not offended by anything you posted, merely saddened. In my opinion you are both sexist in the views expressed and I do not approve. Simple as that. Do not allow yourselves the luxury of believing even for a moment that I care about what you have to say to the extent that I would complain to the CAA, or JAA, or whoever.
I have no difficulty understanding either of your posts and, Grainger, it was PFD who used the term "medical condition", not I.
And, PFD,if you read again your post, it does seem to me on literal interpretation of the words you chose to employ that "rape" is implied. Perhaps you might choose your words more carefully in the future, or is that asking too much?
All in all, I think this matter ought to be put in the garbage bin from whence it originated. I wish the lady in question all the best in whatever she CHOOSES to do, including, if that is her will, taking the airline in question to court to defend her rights. If she is right, she will win her case. If not, at least she had the integrity to fight for what she believed was a worthy principle - irrespective of the 'chaffer' she hopefully has not read in this rather base, and demeaning, thread.
Oh, and PFD, since you seem to have a view with regard to what is, and what is not, a breach of human rights, what about Article 8 of the Convention, now in UK law via the Human Rights Act 1998? Has not this lady an enforceable legal right to respect for her private and family life? In other words, should she not be able to go about her business in the matter discussed here without interference or attack from Minogue, or any other poster on this website? And let's not forget that such attack is, to all intents and purposes, done from behind a cloak of pseudo-anonymity.
I recommend that this thread be canned on the ground that it is entirely unworthy of our fine website and is in breach of the professional esprit de corps valued by most right-thinking PPRuNers.
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 27 May 2001).]
What a sanctimonious pair of twats are Grainger and PFD.
Look, gentlemen. I am not offended by anything you posted, merely saddened. In my opinion you are both sexist in the views expressed and I do not approve. Simple as that. Do not allow yourselves the luxury of believing even for a moment that I care about what you have to say to the extent that I would complain to the CAA, or JAA, or whoever.
I have no difficulty understanding either of your posts and, Grainger, it was PFD who used the term "medical condition", not I.
And, PFD,if you read again your post, it does seem to me on literal interpretation of the words you chose to employ that "rape" is implied. Perhaps you might choose your words more carefully in the future, or is that asking too much?
All in all, I think this matter ought to be put in the garbage bin from whence it originated. I wish the lady in question all the best in whatever she CHOOSES to do, including, if that is her will, taking the airline in question to court to defend her rights. If she is right, she will win her case. If not, at least she had the integrity to fight for what she believed was a worthy principle - irrespective of the 'chaffer' she hopefully has not read in this rather base, and demeaning, thread.
Oh, and PFD, since you seem to have a view with regard to what is, and what is not, a breach of human rights, what about Article 8 of the Convention, now in UK law via the Human Rights Act 1998? Has not this lady an enforceable legal right to respect for her private and family life? In other words, should she not be able to go about her business in the matter discussed here without interference or attack from Minogue, or any other poster on this website? And let's not forget that such attack is, to all intents and purposes, done from behind a cloak of pseudo-anonymity.
I recommend that this thread be canned on the ground that it is entirely unworthy of our fine website and is in breach of the professional esprit de corps valued by most right-thinking PPRuNers.
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 27 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tilli, you start your last commentary with the sentence "What a sanctimonious pair of twats are Grainger and PFD" and then go on to claim "I am not offended by anything you posted, merely saddened." and finally quote "I recommend that this thread be canned on the ground that it is entirely unworthy of our fine website and is in breach of the professional esprit de corps valued by most right-thinking PPRuNers.".
Being what I consider to be a 'right thinking PPRuNer' I find your methodology rather crude and machiavellian. If you don't agree with the others do us all a 'professional courtesy' and delete the offensive, opening line in your last post because your otherwise well written piece will be regarded as extremism and make 'sanctimonious' appear to be more acceptable.
As has been pointed out there are 'Human Rights' and human rights'.
Being what I consider to be a 'right thinking PPRuNer' I find your methodology rather crude and machiavellian. If you don't agree with the others do us all a 'professional courtesy' and delete the offensive, opening line in your last post because your otherwise well written piece will be regarded as extremism and make 'sanctimonious' appear to be more acceptable.
As has been pointed out there are 'Human Rights' and human rights'.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sir Algernon
We are to assume, since you assign it to yourself, that you are a "cad" and a "boundah". Why, then, should I heed your unwarranted criticism of my post?
And thank you for the compliment, though I will withdraw nothing. I stand by every word.
Good luck with your pursuit of what you describe as "yobs". May we know how you personally define that term? Presumably your definition includes anyone who defends himself in kind against abusive and insulting remarks.
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 27 May 2001).]
We are to assume, since you assign it to yourself, that you are a "cad" and a "boundah". Why, then, should I heed your unwarranted criticism of my post?
And thank you for the compliment, though I will withdraw nothing. I stand by every word.
Good luck with your pursuit of what you describe as "yobs". May we know how you personally define that term? Presumably your definition includes anyone who defends himself in kind against abusive and insulting remarks.
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 27 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
As this thread has now ceased to be a debate on an aviation rumour and has turned into a handbags-at-dawn "He said, She said!" session, it can no longer hold a place on the PPRuNe pole position...
Off to Aircrew Notices with y'all...
Sick Squid
Rumours and News Moderator
Off to Aircrew Notices with y'all...
Sick Squid
Rumours and News Moderator