Sometimes airmanship is not flying

The US Department of Labor recently released an order with a rare win for an individual pilot against a large corporation. They are requiring that Air Methods (who operate over 400 helicopters) pay the pilot employee about $160,000 in lost pay and damages after he refused to fly a mission because of an airworthiness issue (the emergency locator transmitter that was not functioning properly). They placed him on administrative leave the day after the event, and fired him about a month later. Now they have to reinstate the pilot, and educate all their workers on their whistleblower rights.

“Pilots should never have to choose between the safety of themselves and their passengers, and their job. Whistleblower protections are critical to keeping workplaces safe. Disciplining an employee for following safety procedures is illegal and puts everyone at risk.”

~ Nick Walters, OSHA’s regional administrator in Chicago.

Acknowledging the inherent conflict between production and safety is central to modern safety management. If an aviation company is really serious about zero accidents or perfect safety, they could simply not launch any aircraft. But that does not make any money, does not move critically injured people to hospitals. If we open our eyes, we must acknowledge this perpetual balancing problem, and get serious about SOPs that work in the real world. Parroting Safety is our number one value while always having a go-mindset will not work.

Sometimes, the right thing to do is to refuse a flight. Whatever the pressures. Sometimes airmanship isn’t about how we fly — it’s about not flying.

Mercy Air (a subsidiary of Air Methods) Bell 412.
Mercy Air (a subsidiary of Air Methods) Bell 412.

Leave a Reply