Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Sandy van den Heuvel's avatar

💖💖💖💖💖💖💖

Expand full comment
SM's avatar

This is disturbing. There were a couple poor choices on her part or was it a failure to understand the process? That being said, Indiana is a very anti worker rights state. She will have little recourse.

Also it would have been better had the company selected at least 1 or 2 additional women for the class. Did I interpret her post accurately - has she been flying abroad?

A couple basic understandings - you must have a study partner for a program like this, that study partner will become your Simulator partner. Did she pick a partner? She may have missed this as she was out of flying for a few years according to the above. It could have been a cultural difference. Yes, if she was excluded from the primary study texts that is a genuine handicap. Study tips and references are often shared by this method.

She clearly was amongst the most experienced in the class but her role should be to do her own studies 1st, then participate where she could. Pilots work in TEAMS, Crew Resource Management is the very foundation of safety in Aviation. That would have smoothly integrated her into the all male group - something I have enormous sympathy for. It isn't that easy when dealing with less experienced guys.

There are sooo many exams involved. The first written exam she challenged is actually a great study basis for all that follows. Gouge on a written? Even better. In the pantheon of Aviation Academics be glad to have it, compare your own interpretations and submit accordingly. She picked the wrong fight here.

Oral exams are vastly more difficult, probative, require precise comprehension & cognitive reasoning sequence than the written. Save your fire sister, not having a study partner and complaining about gouge? I wish they had another woman in the class with you - that would have made a difference for sure. Going to the FAA for this was is not the best.

The decision to not upgrade is personal and will have to be defended. Better if you can point to substantiative reasons. Management may not say you’re correct, but they will live with it. Clearly they supported her decision by putting her in an FO class.

(This company has a highly experienced female CP. Since she was not flying on line Van de Heuvel was ineligible to request her input.)

As for going to the Feds, believe me when I tell you there are times when you will appreciate that in house Teamsters or ALPA union that will make the case for your safety concerns.

I would go to the Feds where there are literal unsafe FLIGHT operating practices, continued violation of Flight Manual practices and unsafe CRM or Loss of Situational Awareness. But Republic has a union and that should be the first recourse when you fly the line.

Sadly she was not officially hired, paid but nor hired.

In her case the local EEOC is your venue for other complains. Never post yr stuff online when it is about work.

I feel her pain, being the only woman, or the only gay woman, or the most experienced woman is just not fun. She will recover from this - but hold your FAA fire for when you really really need it.

I think Ms. Van de Heuvel will recover from this. I would shift track here, she had been out of the loop. It is ok to say she felt very excluded from a critical shared learning tool. The group had a responsibility to include her.

Going to the FAA was not appropriate, but she felt unheard from management which lined with feeling excluded by the class. She will find another job.

When did this happen? Did she make the papers?

Expand full comment
22 more comments...

No posts