Todos
← Back to Squawk list
OSHA Orders Air Methods to Reinstate Whistleblower Pilot
In a decision that is sure to evoke emotional responses from observers on all sides of the political and aviation spectrum, OSHA announced in a press release that it has reinstated a pilot who refused to fly a medevac flight for his employer, Air Methods, because the helicopter's ELT was faulty. (www.flyingmag.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Regardless of the ELT requirement, this pilot had better find him another workplace. If he is put back to work, his life will be miserable, plus, carrying the whistleblower label with him, he better hope for a huge chunk of money, as it will be rough finding a job. Not how it ought to be but that is how it is.
Sure, you're "protected" against reprisal for being a whistleblower, but try proving that anything apart from an official personnel action is reprisal...
Since all this pilot got was back pay and less than $10k in damages, he's not likely to be able to afford retirement any time soon.
Since all this pilot got was back pay and less than $10k in damages, he's not likely to be able to afford retirement any time soon.
Well, at $158,000 his back pay is not slouchy but being off all this time and the future, it won't last forever, plus, he hasn't gotten it yet. The company appealed I think.
More detail in OSHA press release:
http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/osha/OSHA20142294.htm
http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/osha/OSHA20142294.htm
Old news was posted before.
I am neither a pilot nor a lawyer, so my expertise in this area is almost nil. That said, after a little research it appears to me that this pilot shouldn't have had a leg to stand on. 14 CFR 91.207 requires ELTs for certain classes of airplanes, and an airplane is defined in 14 CFR 1.1 as "an engine-driven fixed-wing aircraft heavier than air, that is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its wings." I haven't yet found any requirement to have an ELT in any rotary-wing aircraft, though they are certainly not prohibited. Since an ELT is not a required piece of equipment in a helicopter, I fail to see how the company could be culpable for an inoperative piece of optional equipment.
Of course, this will probably play out in court over the next few years where real lawyers will end up making boatloads of money.
Of course, this will probably play out in court over the next few years where real lawyers will end up making boatloads of money.
When the Congress decides the public policy will be better served by meaningful punishment, including jail for miscreants who pressure workers into unsafe conditions, you won't read about whistleblower cases because companies will not take a chance on being caught.