Part 3, Singapore Airlines vs. Gladiator, how the case started. [Archive]

Gladiator

25th Jun 2000, 22:00

Complaint for Breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

Palintiff, Singapore Airlines Limited ("SIA"), by band through its undersigned attorneys, alleges as follows:

I. Nature of proceeding

(a) Plaintiff - 1.1 SIA, Singapore's "flag" commercial air carrier, recruits pilots from around the world to operate its fleet of aircraft, In exchange for offering a course of training in how to fly large jet passenger aircraft, SIA requires its pilots to agree to work for SIA for a period of seven years following completion of Trianing. This agreement is secured by a training bond which provides for liquidated damages if the trainee ,eaves SIA before the seven-year period has expired. The liquidated damages are meant to partly reimburse SIA for the enormous cost of training pilots in the event the trainee leaves SIA prior to the expiration of seven years. To secure the Training bond, two sureties agree to be jointly and severally responsible, together with the trainee, for the liquidated damages.

(b) Defendant - For their answer to the Complaint filed by plaintiff Singapore Airlines ("SIA"), defendant admit, deny and allege as follows:

(1) Answering paragraph 1 of plaintiff's Complaint, defendant admit the allegations contained therein, except deny that a pilot's agreement to work for SIA is secured by a Training Bond; deny that the liquidated damages provision in the training agreement is meant to partly reimburse SIA for alleged enormous costs of training pilots who leave before the expiration of seven years; deny that the liquidated damages clause in enforceable against a pilot or the sureties in the event SIA breaches its contractual duties or engages in unsafe aircraft operations.

(a)Plaintiff - 1.2 Defendant XXX is an airline pilot formerly in the employ of SIA. XXX signed a training Bond and underwent SIA's pilot training program.

(b) Defendant - 2. Answering paragraph 1.2 of plaintiff's Complaint, dfendants admit that XXX, an airline pilot formerly employed by SIA, signed a Cadet Pilot Training Agreement and participated in SIA's pilot training program; deny all other allegations contained in paragraph 1.2.

(a) Plaintiff - 1.3 Defendants XXX and XXX (Collectively, "the sureties") are the sureties to XXX's training bond.

(b) Defendant - 3. Answering paragraph 1.3 of plaintiff's Compalint, defendants admit the allegations contained therein.

(a) Plaintiff - 1.4 After working for SIA for a period, XXX entered a second bonding agreement in connection with further training in which he agreed to remain in SIA's emply for three years. Thereafter, XXX volunleft the employ of SIA before his agreed bonding period has expired. Accordingly, he is obligated to reimburse SIA for a portion of his training costs under bith training Bonds, in the amount of 161,925 Singapore dollars, and the sureties are liable on the initial Training Bond in the amount of 135,657 Singapore dollars. XXX is further liable to SIA in the amount of 13,949.93 Singapore dollar for his failure to give SIA three months notice of his resignation in accordance with the terms of his employment. The parties are also liable for SIA's attorney's fees and costs incurred in this action.

(b) Defendant - 4. Answering paragraph 1.4 of plaintiff's Complaint, defendants admit that XXX entered into a second agreement (the Conversion Training Agreement) because the Boeing B-747 aircraft were being phased out of operations; admit that XXX was compelled to receive additional training on the Boeing B747-400 aircraft and agree to serve SIA for an additional three years; and deny all other allegations contained in paragraph 1.4.

More to follow.

Gladiator

27th Jun 2000, 11:06

(a) Plaintiff - 1.5 Despite repeated demands, neither XXX nor the sureties has tendered this amount as of the date of this complaint; accordingly, SIA has been forced to bring this action to recover its damages.

(b) Defendant - 5. Answering paragraph 1.5 of plaintiff's Complaint, defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

II. Parties

(a) Plaintiff - 2.1 Plaintiff SIA is a corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of Singapore, withits headquarters and principal place of business in Singapore.

(b) Defendant - 6. Answering paragraph 2.1 of plaintiff's Complaint, defendants admit the allegations contained therein.

(a) Plaintiff - 2.2 Defendant XXX is an individual and resident of XXX County, XXX. At all times material herein, XXX, if he is married, was acting on behalf of his maritial community.

(b) Defendant - 7. Answering paragraph 2.2 of plaintiff's Complaint, defendants admit that XXX is an individual residing in XXX County, XXX; deny all other allegations contained in paragraph 2.2.

(a) Plaintiff - 2.3 Defendant Sureties are individuals and residents of XXX COunty, XXX. At all times material herein, the Sureties, if they are married, were acting on behalf of their respective marital communities.

(b) Defendant - 8. Answering paragraph 2.3 of plaintiff's Complaint, defendants admit that the sureties are individuals residing in XXX County, XXX; and deny all other allegations contained in paragraph 2.3.

III. Jurisdiction and Venue

(a) Plaintiff - 3.1 This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1332 because, on information and belief, defendants are permanent residents of the United States, there is complete diversity of citizenship between plaintiff and defendants, and the amount in controversy for which defendants are alleged to be jointly and severally liable exceeds $75,000.

Plaintiff - 3.2 Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1391 (a) because, on information and belief, the defendants reside in this district.

(b) Defendant - 9. Answering paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 of plaintiff's Complaint, defendants admit the allegations contained therein.

IV. Allegations common to all claims

(a) Plaintiff - 4.1 On or about June 18, 1991, XXX was offered employment with SIA. In a letter that set forth the principal conditions of his employment, XXX was advised, in part, that the offer of employment was contingent upon XXX's entering, together with two guarantors acceptable to SIA, an agreement which provided that he remain in the service of SIA for the duration of his pilot training and for a minimum period of seven years from the date of appointment a s first officer.

Plaintiff - 4.2 XXX confirmed his acceptance of SIA's offer, and its terms, by signing the employment offer on or about June 28, 1991.

Plaintiff - 4.3 On or about December 27, 1991, SIA and XXX entered the first Training Bond (herein "Cadet Pilot Training Agreement"). The Cadet Pilot Training Agreement provided that, in exchange for receiving a course of training as a Cadet pilot at SIA's expense, XXX agreed to remain an SIA employee for a period of seven years after completion of his training.

(b) Defendant - Answering paragraphs 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 of plaintiff's Complaint, defendants admit the allegations contained therein.

(c) N/A.

(d) Discussion - Stay seven years as first officer on completion of training. The training was 18 months. Therefore total commitment would be 8.5 years.

More to follow.

Gladiator

27th Jun 2000, 19:37

(a) Plaintiff - 4.4 Clause 7 of the Cadet Pilot Training Agreement set forth a schedule of liquidated damages to be paid by XXX or the sureties in the event that XXX were to leave SIA before he had been employed for seven years. This schedule was a reasonable estimate, at the time the agreement was entered, of the damages that would result from a breach of the agreement. The Sureties signed the cadet Pilot Agreement as sureties.

(b) Defenedant - 11. Answering paragraph 4.4 of plaintiff's Complaint, defendants admit the allegations contained therein, except deny that the liquidated damages clause is enforceable in this action; and deny that the schedule of liquidated damages was a reasonable estimate of the damages that would result from a breach of the cadet Pilot Training Agreement.

(a) Plaintiff - 4.5 XXX sucessfully completed his training under the cadet Pilot Training Agreement on or about February 11, 1993 and accordingly, was promoted to the rank of First Officer on Boeing 747-300 aircraft shortly thereafter.

(b) Defendant - 12. Answering paragraph 4.5 of plaintiff's Complaint, defendant XXX admits that he successfully completed his training for service as Co-pilot (P2) operating only in the right-hand pilot seat ("right-pilot seat") of the B-747 aircraft; deny that XXX's Commercial Pilot License ("CPL") qualified him to act as inflight relief for the Pilot-in-Command of the aircraft; deny that CPL qualified XXX to be delegated responsibility for the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time by performing the duties of Pilot-in-Command without supervision; deny that XXX was licensed or qualified to operate in the left-hand pilot seat of the aircraft; allege that the rank of First officer with a CPL qualified XXX to be Co-Pilot and operate in the right pilot seat only; deny all other allegations contained in paragraph 4.5.

(a) Plaintiff - 4.6 On or about December 19, 1994, XXX entered a second agreement for a course of training whereby he would become qualified to fly a Boeing 747-400 aircraft(hereinafter "Conversion Training Agreement"). The Conversion Training Agreement also provided that, in exchange for "conversion" training (learning how to pilot a new type of aircraft), XXX would serve SIA for period of three years after obtaining his license to fly Boeing 747-400 aircraft.

(b) Defendant - 13. Answering paragraph 4.6 of plaintiff's Compalint, defendants admit the allegations contained therein, except deny that XXX voluntarily entered into the Conversion Training Agreement; allege that XXX was compelled to sign that Agreement because the B-747 aircraft were being phased out and SIA required him to train on the newer B747-400 aircraft; deny that the CPL license qualified XXX to (a) act as a flight crewmember on the B747-400 aircraft; (b) act as inflight relief for the Pilot-in-Command in the left pilot seat; and (c) be delegated responsibility for the operation and safety of the aircraft by performing the duties of Pilot-in-Command without supervision; and deny all other allegations contained in paragraph 4.6.

(a) Plaintiff - 4.7 Clause 5 of the Conversion Training Agreement set forth a schedule of liquiadted damages to be paid by XXX in the event that he left SIA before he had served for three years. This schedule was a reasonable estimate, at the time the agreement was entered, of the damages that would result from a breach of the agreement. XXX signed the Conversion Pilot Training Agreement.

(b) Defendant - 14. Answering paragraph 4.7 of plaintiff'd Compalint, defendants admit the allegations contained therein, except deny that the liquidated damages schedule was a reasonable estimate of the damages that would result from a breach of the Agreement; and deny that the liquidated damages clause in enforceable.

More to follow.

[This message has been edited by Gladiator (edited 27 June 2000).]

Gladiator

28th Jun 2000, 20:53

(a) Plaintiff - 4.8 On or about October 27, 1997, prior to the expiration of the bond periods under the cadet Pilot Training Agreement and the Conversion Training Agreement, XXX voluntarily tendered his resignation to SIA. October 27 was his last day of work. According to the terms of the training agreement, liquidated damages for his early resignation total 135,675 Singapore dollars for the cadet pilot training and 26,250 Singapore dollars for the Boeing 747-400 conversion training.

(b) Defendant - 15. Answering paragraph 4.8 of plaintiff's Complaint, defendants admit that XXX tendered his resignation on October 27, 1997, due to significant safety concerns relating to the operation of SIA's aircraft; admit that XXX's last day of work was October 27, 1997; and deny all other allegations contained in paragraph 4.8.

(a) Plaintiff - 4.9 In addition, XXX is liable to SIA in the amount of three months salary for his failure to provide SIA with three months notice of his resignation or salary in lieu thereof. Three months salary equals 17,703.99 Singapore dollars. This amount may be offset by the 3,781.06 Singapore dollars that SIA owed XXX in salary on the date of his resignation, for a total of 13,949.93.

Plaintiff - 4.10 Despite numerous written demands for payment, neither XXX nor the Sureties have made any payments to SIA for its damages, and the entire amount is owing.

Plaintiff - 4.11 SIA has incurred and will incur attorneys fees and costs in attempting to enforce its agreements with defendants.

(b) Defendants - 16. Answering paragraphs 4.9, 4.10 and 4.11 of plaintiff's Complaint, defendants deny the allegations contained therein.

V. Applicable Law

(a) Plaintiff - 5.1 Paragraph 6 of SIA's offer of employment to XXX and clause 13 of the Cadet Pilot Training Agreement, as well as basic choice of law principles, provide that the laws of the Republic of Singapore shall apply in this matter.

(b) Defendant - 17. Answering paragraph 5.1 of plaintiff's Complaint, defendants admit that paragraph 13 of the cadet Pilot Training Agreement refers to the laws of Singapore; deny that Singapore law governs the issues of International Civil Aviation operations and safety presented in this action; and deny all other allegations contained in paragraph 5.1.

More to follow.

Gladiator

29th Jun 2000, 13:05

VI. First claim for relief

Breach of contract

(a) Plaintiff - 6.1 SIA alleges all preceding paragraphs.

Plaintiff - 6.2 XXX has breached his performance bonding agreements with SIA, as set forth in the cadet Pilot Training Agreement and the Conversion Training agreement.

Plaintiff - 6.3 As a result of XXX's breach, he and the sureties are liable to SIA for liquidated damages in the amounts of 161,925 and 135,675 Singapore dollars, respectively, as provided in their agreements with SIA. XXX is further liable to SIA in the amounts of 17,730.99 for his failure to provide three months notice of his resignation, offset by the 3,781.06 Singapore dollars that SIA owed XXX upon his resignation for a total of 13,949.93 Singapore dollars.

VII. Second claim for relief

Unjust Enrichment

(a) Plaintiff - 7.1 SIA realleges all preceding paragraphs.

Plaintiff - 7.2 XXX has received and accepted services from SIA in the form of pilot training for which he has failed to compensate SIA. As a result of this training, XXX has gained valuable and marketable professional qualifications.

Plaintiff - 7.3 To prevent unjust enrichment, XXX should be required to reimburse SIA for the cost of training him, as determined under the liquidated damages provisions in the cadet Pilot Training Agreement and the Conversion Training Agreement.

VIII. Prayer for relief

(a) Plaintiff - WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:
(1) A judgement against XXX and the sureties, jointly and severally, individually and on behalf of their marital communities, in the amount of 135,675 Singapore dollars as liquiadted damages under the cadet Training Program;
(2) An additional judgment against XXX, individually and on behalf of his marital community, in the amount of 40,199.93 Singapore dollars.
(3) A judgment against XXX and the sureties for interest accured on the amounts owed since October 28, 1997;
(4) A judgment against XXX and the sureties for the cost and attorney's fees incurred by SIA in pursuing this matter; and
(5) Such other relief as the Court deems just, equitable and lawful.

Gladiator

29th Jun 2000, 13:36

The following are Defendant's Affirmative Defenses.

II. Affirmative Defenses

In further answer to the Complaint, and as affirmative defenses thereto, defendants allege as follows:

(b)Defendant - 19. Applicable Law.

The international standards applicable to the operations of SIA aircraft are embodied in the Convention on International Civil Aviation ("ICA Convention") and in the Annexes relating thereto, of which Singapore is a member state. Aviation safety issues relating to SIA's international flight are goverend by the United Nation's technical agency, the International Civil Aviation Organization ("ICAO"). Consistent with international law, safety requirements for SIA's operations on flights to and from the United States are prescribed by Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") regulations set forth in the 14 Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR"), Part 129, pursuant to Part 129, foreign carriers such as SIA are required to meet the safety standards in Part 1 of Annex 6 to the ICA Convention.

Defendant - 20. Breach of Contract.

As alleged in the Counterclaims below, SIA materially breached it's contracts with XXX by inter alia, requiring his performance of duties beyond the capacity of a First Officer or Co-Pilot, including without limitation: (a) requiring XXX to act as a flight crewmember of an airplane without a proper license confirming compliance with the requirements of Annex 1 (Personnel Licensing) to the ICA Convention, and appropriate to the duties performed; (b) requiring XXX to assume the responsibilities of Pilot-in-Command operating in the right pilot seat during inflight relief, without supervision or proper licensing and qualifications for such capacity; (c) requiring XXX to act as inflight relief for the Pilot-in-Command and to assume the responsibilities of the Pilot-in-Command's duty station (the left pilot seat) without proper qualifiactions, licensing and training to operate in such capacity for normal, non-normal, and emergency procedures; and (d) implementing and failing to correct unsafe airline operating procedures.

Defendant - 21. SIA's Unsafe Operations.

SIA's claims are barred by its implementation and use of unsafe operating practices and procedures in violation of applicable international civil aviation laws and standards, FAA regulations, and public policy regarding airline safety, as alleged in defendant's Counterclaims.

Defendant - 22. Unsafe Workplace.

SIA's claims are barred by its failure to exercise reasonable care to provide a proper and safe system of work for XXX and other pilots on international flights, as alleged in defendant's Counterclaims.

Defendant - 23. Discharge of XXX's Contractual Duties.

Any alleged contractual duties of XXX were discharged by SIA's willful breaches of contract, unsafe aircraft operations, and it's failure to provide a safe workplace for XXX and other pilots.

Defendant - 24. Exoneration of Sureties.

SIA's claims against the sureties are barred because any alleged contractual duties of XXX to SIA have been fully discharged by SIA's braches of contract and other conduct.

Defendant - 25. No Unjust Enrichment.

XXX has not been unjustly enriched by his employment or departure from SIA because (a) he had obtained sufficient commercial flying experience and training to qualify for his current airline employment before receiving any training from SIA; and (b) XXX's income at his present employment is substantially less than his income at SIA.

Defendant - 26. Liquidated Damages Unenforceable.

SIA's liquidated damages clause is unenforceable because (a) SIA materially breached it's training agreements with XXX; (b) the terms of the clause are unconscionable; and (c) the schedule of liquidated damages is not based upon a reasonable estimate of actual losses.

Defendant - 27. Waiver, Estoppel, and Laches.

SIA's claims are barred under the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, and laches.

Defendant - 28. Failure to State a Claim.

The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against the defendants.

More to follow.

Gladiator

3rd Jul 2000, 04:49

The following are defendant's counterclaims.
In this section SIA is the defendant. Watch how SIA lies about certain facts. Up to now they kept their own lawyer in the dark as much as possible.

III. Counterclaims

For their Counterclaims against SIA, counterclaim plaintiffs allege as follows:

Parties

(c) Counterclaim Plaintiffs - 1. Counterclaim plaintiffs XXX, XXX, and XXX are individuals risiding in XXX County, XXX.

(a) Defendant SIA - 1. Admitted.

(c) Counterclaim Plaintiffs - 2. Counterclaim defendant SIA, a corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of Singapore, operates a commercial air carrier transporting passengers to and from international destinations.

(a) Defendant SIA - 2. Admitted.

Jurisdiction

(c) Counterclaim Plaintiffs - 3. This Court has jurisdiction over the Counterclaims pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1332 based upon the existence of complete diversity of citizenship between the parties, and an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000.

(a) Defendant SIA - 3. Admitted that there is complete diversity between Counterclaim defendant, SIA and Counterclaim plaintiffs, XXX et al. SIA lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations that the amount in controversy relating to the counterclaims is in excess of $75,000, and otherwise denies the allegations.

Factual background

(c) Counterclaim plaintiffs - 4. XXX is a commercial airline pilot, prior to 1991, XXX was employed as an airline pilot and had substantial commercial flying experience.

(a) Defendant SIA - 4. SIA admits that XXX was a commercial airline pilot during the period that he worked for SIA. SIA further admits that according to the resume XXX submitted to SIA prior to his hiring in 1991, XXX stated that he was a general aviation/commuter airline pilot with approximately 2700 flying hours on piston and turbo prop aircraft. Beyond that, SIA lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that prior to 1991 XXX was employed as an airline pilot and had substantial commercial flying experience, and otherwise denies the allegations.

(d) Discussion - SIA had accepted my previous commercial flying hours and sectors towards command at SIA. But here they are playing dumb. The truth is, they were trying to keep their own lawyer in the dark as much as possible. In the production of documents (See Part 2 Singapore Airlines vs. Gladiator)SIA was requested to produce documents in this regard. The documents are internal SIA documents "flying hours and sectors summary" indicating credit (Confirmed by letter from previous employers)from previous commercial flying experience.

(c) Counterclaim plaintiffs - 5. SIA actively recruits pilots for service in its international airline carrier business, requiring pilots to execute multi-year training contracts with liquidated damages clauses. SIA recruited and offered XXX employment with the airlines and XXX accepted such employment in 1991.

(a) Defendant SIA - 5. SIA admits that it actively recruits pilots for service in its international airline carrier business. SIA recruits pilots at two levels: for employment as a COmmander (Captain) and as a cadet pilot. SIA admits that cadet pilots with or without flying experience are required to sign a training bond because as a new pilot, the cadet would be trained by SIA to a standard that would enable him to be rated on a particular aircraft type operated by SIA and to be appointed a First Officer. SIA therefore denies that all newly recruited pilots are required to sign a training bond, and otherwise denies the allegations in the paragraph. SIA admits that it recruited XXX and offered XXX employment as a cadet pilot and XXX accepted such employment in 1991.

(d) Discussion - SIA lied again by this statement, "SIA therefore denies that all newly recruited pilots are required to sign a training bond". We produced contracts form expats that were hired as First Officer as well as Captains. They had to sign training bonds and put up CASH, large amounts of cash.

(c) Counterclaim plaintiffs - 6. On November 1, 1991, a CPL was issued and endorsed by the Singapore Civil Aviation Authority ("CAAS") for XXX's operation of the Boeing B-747 aircraft type, as Co-pilot (P2) (Restricted Type Rating) only. All of XXX's training and check rides on the B-747 aircraft were in the right pilot seat.

(b) Defendant SIA - 6. SIA admits that on November 1, 1991, a CPL was issued to XXX by the Singapore Civil Aviation Authority ("CAAS") for operation of the Boeing B-747 aircraft. According to records available to SIA at this time, the CPL issued by CAAS does not state that it is a Restricted Type Rating. SIA admits that all of XXX's training and check rides on the B-747 were in the right pilot seat. SIA otherwise denies the allegations.

(d) Discussion - The above paragraph later played an important role in the case. SIA lawyers were not aware that we were in pocession of the discovery documents from Singapore Airlines vs. DeMarco case, also in the United States Federal Court (America is a great place, thanks to the public's rights to information). In the Singapore Airlines vs. DeMarco discovery documents, SIA had to produce training costs for cadet pilots. SIA had screwed up and sent the wrong document, B-747 training costs as opposed to A-310 training costs (DeMarco was A-310). SIA's document stated the B-747 training as 'RESTRICTED', oooppps (there is a god).

You should have seen the look on SIA's lead lawyer's face when we produced this document. He suddenly went from 'cool' to 'almost losing it'. He said, "were did you get this document", as he turned different colors. SIA got caught lying again.

More to follow, it gets good.

Gladiator

10th Jul 2000, 03:59

(c) Counterclaim plaintiffs - 7. On December 27, 1991, SIA and XXX entered into Cadet Pilot Training Agreement, whereby SIA agreed to provide a course of training for the purpose of qualifying XXX to serve as a First Officer onn company aircraft. XXX agreed to employment as a First officer for a period of seven years following completion of his training.

(b) Defendant SIA - 7. SIA admits that on December 27, 1991, SIA and XXX entered into Cadet Pilot Training Agreement, whereby SIA agreed to provider a course of training for the purpose of qualifying XXX to serve as a First Officer on company aircraft. SIA further admits that the Agreement stated that XXX was to serve SIA for a minimum period of seven years from the date of completion of training, that day being the date XXX was appointed as a First Officer. SIA otherwise denies the allegations.

(d) Discussion - The training took 18 months. Therefore the total commitment would be eight and a half years.

(c) Counterclaim plaintiffs - 8. On SIA aircraft, the left pilot seat is occupied by the pilot-in-command (Captain), and the right seat is occupied by the Second-in-Command (Co-Pilot).

(b) Defendant SIA - 8. SIA admits that on SIA aircraft, as on other airlines, the Captain occupies the left pilot seat and the Co-Pilot occupies the right pilot seat. SIA otherwise denies the allegations.

(c) Counterclaim plaintiffs - 9. XXX was trained and licensed to operate solely in the capacity of First Officer, or Co-Pilot, in the right pilot seat of the aircraft. XXX held a CPL and a medical based upon annual exams to serve as First Officer. XXX was not trained to operate in the left pilot seat and did not possess the necessary ATPL to assume the responsibilities of the Pilot-in-Command's duty station.

(b) Defendant SIA - 9. SIA admits that XXX was trained to operate as a First Officer. SIA admits that XXX held a CPL and a medical based on annual exams. SIA denies the remainder of the allegations in paragraph 9.

(d) Discussion - SIA is now denying and avoiding the issue of a First Officer taking the Captain's seat, the left-hand seat, and performing the duties of the Captain (Pilot-in-Command). The responce during face to face discussions with SIA lawyers regarding this issue was, "we believe there are some doubts about this claim being factual".

(c) Counterclaim plaintiffs - 10. During the period of January 1992 to December 1994, XXX operated on B-747 aircraft as an employee of SIA. On several flights when XXX was acting as a second officer in training, he was required to occupy the left pilot seat, without the proper qualifications and licensing.

(b) Defendant SIA - 10. SIA admits that during the period of January 1992 to December 1994 XXX operated on B-747 aircraft as an employee of SIA, and denies the remaining allegations in the paragraph.

(d) Discussion - SIA is again avoiding and denying the fact that unqualified pilots often occupied the Captain's (pilot-in-Command) duty station.

(c) Counterclaim plaintiffs - 11. In late 1994, because the B-747 aircraft were being phased out of operations by SIA, XXX was compelled by SIA to train for the operation of B747-400 aircraft. On December 19, 1994, SIA and XXX entered into a Conversion Training Contract, providing for conversion training on the B747-400 aircraft and requiring XXX to operate in an appropriate capacity. For the purpose of the Conversion Training Contract, the appropriate capacity for XXX's service was that of a First Officer operating as a Co-Pilot in the right pilot seat.

(b) Defendant SIA - 11. SIA admits that on December 19, 1994 SIA and XXX entered into a conversion training contract providing for conversion training on the B747-400 aircraft, that the B747-300 was being gradually phased out, and that XXX operated the B747-400 as a First Officer, but otherwise denies the allegations.

(c) Counterclaim plaintiffs - 12. As a result of the SIA's actions in phasing out operations on the B-747 aircraft, and requiring XXX's service under the Conversion Training Program on B747-400 aircraft, the Cadet Pilot Training Agreement expired or was terminated in late 1994.

(b) Defendant SIA - 12. Denied.

(c) Counterclaim plaintiffs - 13. On January 13, 1995, XXX's CPL was again endorsed by the Singapore CAAS for the operation of B747-400 aircraft in the capacity of Co-Pilot (P2) (Restricted type Rating) only. All of XXX's training and check rides on the B747-400 aircraft were in the right pilot seat.

(b) Defendant SIA - 13. SIA admits that on January 13, 1995, XXX's CPL was endorsed by the Singapore CAAS for the operation of B747-400 aircraft in the capacity of Co-Pilot, and that all of XXX's training and check rides on the B747-400 were in the right pilot seat. SIA otherwise denies the allegations.

More to follow.

Gladiator

17th Jul 2000, 04:42

(c) Counterclaim plaintiffs - 14. XXX continued to hold a CPL with the privileges of Co-Pilot (P2) (Restricted Type Rating) only. XXX did not hold an Airline Transport Pilot License (ATPL) with the privileges of Pilot-in-Command (P1)(Unrestricted Typr Rating) necessary to: (a) act as a flight crewmember on the B747-400 aircraft; (b) operate as the Pilot-in-Command; (c) act as inflight relief for the Pilot-in-Command;
or (d) be delegated responsibility for the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time by performing the duties of the Pilot-in-Command without supervision.

(b) Defendant SIA - 14. SIA admits that XXX continued to hold a CPL with the privileges of Co-Pilot and that upon the completion of hid training on the B747-400 aircraft, XXX did not hold a Singaporean ATPL, SIA otherwise denies the allegations in the paragraph.

(d) Discussion - SIA admits XXX operated two-man crew aircraft without ATPL (violation of ICAO minimum safety standard as well as Singapore ANO). SIA then in defense of itself claimed that there are no legal requirements for SIA to follow ICAO minimum safety standards. The ANO legal requirements were just ignored by SIA and CAAS (a form of corruption for the lack of a better word).

(c) Counterclaim plaintiffs - 15. XXX held the Singaporean CPL without the demonstrated level of knowledge appropriate to the privileges granted to the holder of an ATPL.

(b) Defendant SIA - 15. Admitted that a Singaporean ATPL permits an individual to be Pilot-in-Command of an aircraft and that the Singapore CPL that XXX held permitted him to relieve the Pilot-in-Command. The remaining allegations in the paragraph are denied.

(c) Counterclaim plaintiffs - 16. On several flights occuring during 1992 through 1997, XXX was required to operate in capacities for which he was not trained, licensed or qualified. In some instances, XXX was required to operate in the Pilot-in-Commands's duty station (left pilot seat) without proper training or licensing, while the Pilot-in-Command took inflight relief in a seperate bunkroom for one-third of the flight time. In other cases, XXX was required to operate in the right pilot seat and assume the responsibilities of the Pilot-in-Command, for which he was not licensed or qualified, while another unqualified Co-Pilot moved into the Pilot-in-Command's duty station (the left pilot seat) for one-third of the flight time because the Pilot-in-Command was taking inflight relief in a seperate bunkroom.

(b) Defendant SIA - 16. Denied.

(d) Discussion - SIA is avoiding the issue of Captains in the bunkroom during 3-pilot crew operation. (This changed later when in discussions names of present and former SIA pilots as well as cabin crew where discussed willing to testify).

(c) Counterclaim plaintiffs - 17. SIA's operating procedures for "3-pilot crews" violated ICAO's minimum safety standards and threatened the safety of XXX, other pilots, and airline passengers. The threat to airline safety was magnified by SIA's practice of hiring young pilots with minimal training and placing them in positions beyond their licensing and training. Under SIA's customary operating procedures, two First Officers lacking the necessary ATPL license, training or medical tests to operate in the Captain's position frequently are left at the controls of the aircraft carrying up to 393 passengers in a jumbo jet transport.

(b) Defendant SIA - 17. Denied

(d) Discussion - Same as above 16.

More to follow.

[This message has been edited by Gladiator (edited 17 July 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Gladiator (edited 20 July 2000).]

Gladiator

24th Jul 2000, 22:17

(c) Counterclaim plaintiffs - 18. The SIA procedures for inflight relief in 3-pilot crews and operations violated civil international aviation safety standards embodied in the Annex 1 (Personnal Licensing) and Part 1 (International Commercial Air Transport) of Annex 6 (Operations of Aircraft) to the International Civil Aviation Convention, including without limitation the following standards:

Annex 1, Section 1.2.1, (requring that a flight crewmember of an aircraft hold a valid license showing compliance with the specifications of Annex 1 and appropriate to the duties to be performed.)

Annex 1, Section 2.1.1.1, (declaring that a person shall not act either as a pilot-in-command or co-pilot of an aircraft without a pilot license issued in accordance with Annex 1, Chapter 2.)

Annex 1, Section 2.1.3.2, (type ratings should be established for each type of aircraft for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots.)

Annex 1, Section 2.1.5.2, Annex 1, Section 2.1.5.2(c)(the applicant shall have demonstrated, at the airline transport pilot license level, an extent of knowledge determined by the licensing authority on the basis of the requirements of Annex 1 (ATPL written exams).

Annex 1, Section 2.1.5.2(b),(applicant for a pilot license shall have demonstrated the skill and knowledge required for the safe operation of the applicable type of aircraft, relevant to the duties of a pilot-in-command or co-pilot as applicable.)

Annex 6, Part 1, Section 4.4.4.2, (flight crewmembers required to be on flight deck duty shall remain at their duty stations except when their absence is necessary for the performance of duties in connection with the operation of the aircraft or for physiological needs.)

Annex 6, Part 1, Section 9.4.4 (operator shall ensure that piloting technique and ability to execute emergency procedures is checked in such a way as to demonstrate the pilot's competence.)

(b) Defendant SIA - 18. Denied.

(d) Discussion - SIA denies that ICAO safety standards apply to operation of SIA aircraft despite the fact that Singapore is a ICAO member State. During meetings with SIA lawyers it became clear that since ICAO does not engage in enforcement actions, SIA feels at liberty to abuse the minimum safety standards standards.

However following information was presented to SIA lawyers after the above Counterclaim was filed.

ALPA-Singapore agreement (Part of employment agreement)
Part II - General Terms and Conditions of Employment.

(3) A pilot shall at all times during his service with the Company comply with all requirements of -

(a) written laws, including subsidiary legislation (ANO);
(b) the Government, any statutory board or competent authority; and
(c) regulations of the Company,

which may be necessary to qualify him to act in the capacity in which he is employed. End

The following paragraph is, per above (a), written laws, including subsidiary legislation (ANO):

Page 30, Air Navigation Order

Members of flight crew licenses 19 -

(1) Subject to this paragraph, a person shall not act as a member of the flight crew of a Singapore aircraft unless he is the holder of an appropriate license granted or rendered valid under this Order:

(8) Notwithstanding anything in this paragraph -

(a) the holder of a license granted or rendered valid under this order being a license endorsed to the effect that the holder does not satisfy in full the relevant international standards (ICAO), shall not act as a member of the flight crew of a Singapore aircraft in the territory of a Contracting State other than Singapore, except in accordance with permission granted by the competent authorities of that State. End.

The bottom line is SIA's non-compliance with ICAO minimum safety standards breaches:

(a) SIA's employment contract.
(b) ALPA-S contract.
(c) ANO (Law in Singapore).

Gladiator

24th Jul 2000, 22:36

(c) Counterclaim plaintiffs - 19. CAAS failed to notify the ICAO, pursuant to Article 38 to the Chicago Convention, of the differences between its operating procedures and international safety standards.

(b) Defendant SIA - 19. Denied.

(d) Discussion - SIA once again has denied that International safety standards applies to the operation of SIA aircraft.

Singapore is an ICAO member State and is therefore obligated under Article 38 of the Chicago Convention to:

Article 38 - Departure from International standards and procedures.

Any State which finds it impracticable to comply in all respects with any such international standards or procedures, or to bring its own regulations or practices into full accord with any international standards or procedures after amendment of the latter, or which deems it necessary to adopt regulations or practices differing in any particular respect from those established by an international standard, shall give IMMEDIATE NOTIFICATION TO THE INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION of the DIFFERENCES between its own practice and that established by the international standard. In the case of amendments to international standards, any state which does not make the appropriate amendments to its own regulations or practices SHALL GIVE NOTICE TO THE COUNCIL WITHIN SIXTY DAYS of the adoption of the amendment to the international standards, or indicate the action which it proposes to take. In any such case, the Council shall make immediate notification to all other states of the difference which exists between one or more features of an international standard and corresponding national practice of that State. End

ICAO has never received any information from CAAS, representing Singapore, an ICAO member State. End.

(c) Counterclaim plaintiffs - 20. SIA's operating procedures on flights to and from the United States failed to comply with Code of Federal Regulations, 14 CFR 129, which requires that the current crewmember certificate or license issued or validated by the country in which that aircraft is registered, must show the pilot's ability to perform the duties connected with operating that aircraft. XXX was required to perform the duties of Pilot-in-Command while holding only a CPL (P2) with a Restricted Type Rating. For the purpose of performing the duties required under SIA's 3-pilot crew operation, XXX should have held an ATPL (P1) with an Unrestricted Type Rating.

(b) Defendant SIA - 20. Denied.

(d) Discussion - SIA is denying what has been written in black and white, the Singapore ANO, ICAO safety standards, and FAA regulations.

In regards to XXX and duties of the Pilot-in-Command, note the following paragraph from the ALPA-S agreement.

Page 90

3. Inflight relief and rest facilities on board -

(2) In the case of the "3-pilot" crew, the additional pilot allows in-flight relief from duty for each of the pilots. Rest facilities need not be provided for such a crew complement. End

The key words are:

"allows in-flight relief from DUTY"

It is clearly stated in the APLA-S contract that the third pilot takes on the duty of the Pilot-in-Command.

More to follow
[This message has been edited by Gladiator (edited 27 July 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Gladiator (edited 28 July 2000).]

Gladiator

27th Jul 2000, 09:39

.

[This message has been edited by Gladiator (edited 27 July 2000).]

Gladiator

29th Jul 2000, 03:47

The July 24 post at 18:36 is a new post on July 28th.

Gladiator

29th Jul 2000, 20:55

(c) Counterclaim plaintiffs - 21. Safety on SIA's flights is further compromised by the airline's practices of: (a) not requiring that the cockpit door to remain locked during flight, placing the security of the flight at risk; and (b) allowing the passengers into the cockpit of the aircraft after having consumed alcoholic beverages (psychoactive (ICAO designation) substance) during all phases of the flight, including the critical phase, take-off and landing, creating a further security and safety risk.

(b) Defendant SIA - 21. Denied.

(d) Discussion - SIA has/had modified the door locks on the B747-400s. The cockpit door locks would no longer keep an intruder out. The reason for the modification was, to allow the cabin crew to enter the cockpit without the cockpit door lock making a clicking sound. The clicking sound disturbed the crew in the bunkroom.

SIA denied the allegation. Pictures of the door lock modification were provided as well as an explanation of the modification in one of the Megaflash (Fleet newsletter) issues.

Allowing the passengers into the cockpit after consumption of alcohol was very common on SIA. I think there may have been a change of policy in this regards at SIA. Passengers are possibly no longer allowed in the cockpit during flight. If so smart move.

Gladiator

12th Aug 2000, 13:34

(c) Counterclaim plaintiffs - 22. In early 1997, the Singapore CAAS was assessed by the FAA under the International Aviation Safety Assessment program ("IASA"). The purpose of the IASA program is to ensure that all foreign air carriers operating to and from the United States are properly licensed and with safety oversight provided by a competent Civil Aviation Authority pursuant to ICAO safety standards. In assessing CAAS, FAA determined that the CAAS failed to comply with International safety standards and for airline operations due to deficiencies, including the shortage of adequately trained flight operations inspectors and a lack of type ratings.

(b) Defendant SIA - 22. On information and belief SIA admits that, at some point, the Singapore CAAS was assessed by the FAA under the International Aviation Safety Assessment Program ("IASA"). SIA lacks knowledge or information to form a belief to the truth of the allegation relating to the purpose of the IASA program. SIA admits that FAA questioned whether CAAS had sufficient flight opretaions instructors, but otherwise denies the allegations in the paragraph.

(d) Discussion - It was after the FAA assessment that Ken Toft was elected to work for CAAS as an inspector. FAA was shocked and questioned that how could CAAS regulate SIA when there were no qualified persons at CAAS to fly a B747-400.

The following are two articles from the Strait Times,

By: Rav Dhaliwal
Date: 4 Feb 1997
CH: CAAS, Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, SIA, Singapore Airlines
HD: CAAS needs more pilots for safety checks, US body
PH: News focus
SH: Air Safety

Given 3 months to engage more pilots

The United States Federal Aviation Authority has told the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore that it does not have enough pilots to check on the safety of Singapore Airlines flights leaving Changi airport. SIA has an unblemished record and maintains high standards of safety through rigorous checks of its own, but the FAA feels that the airport authority needs more pilots to check on the airline.
The FAA has given the CAAS three months to engage more pilots to do the job, and talks between the two sides are still going on.
Neither authority would comment on the matter, but it was learnt that the CAAS has been taking steps to bring more pilots on board. The Straits Times learny that in this region, airports in Hong Kong, Malaysia and Brunei met the FAA standards, whereas Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines fell short. Mr Robert Jensen, manager of the FAA's International Field Office (Asia) location here, said Singapore was one of the last few countries to be assessed. About 600 airlines from 100 countries fly to the US, and he said the FAA action was part of a worldwide effort to check safety at airports from which flights to the US originate. After a series of air mishaps in the US in the early 1990s, thre FAA embarked on the effort to ensure that carriers flying to the US are safe, operate safe aircraft, follow safety procedures and have comprehensive training.
Its officials have been assessing aviation authorities to see if they meet International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards. He said that they started in South Central America before moving to Europe, Africa, and Asia and the Pacific, and have rated airport authoroties as those that:
Category I, Meet the standards;
Category II, Fall short and must fix specified problem areas. The affected airlines can continue to fly to the US, but cannot add more flights or ask to operate to new points.
Category III, Do not meet the standards and are barred from flying to the US. A handful of South American carriers have met this fate.
But Mr. Jensen would not comment on the ongoing discussions with the CAAS. It was learnt that an FAA team visited Singapore for a few days last November and told the CAAS that it needs more pilots to check on SIA. In about two to three months time, the FAA is expected to decide its rating of the CAAS safety regulation machinery. A CAAS spokesman also felt it was inappropriate to give details of the consultations. It was lerant that CAAS had approved a budget some time ago to engage more pilots familiar with the various types of aircraft SIA operates.
Captain Ken Toft, a senior SIA pilot due to retire in two months time, was seconded to the CAAS last month to help carry out safety checks. Asked about this, the CAAS spokesman said it had been eyeing him well before the FAA assessment, "He is noe able to join us because he is due for retirement soon," the spokesman said, "We have been looking for good, experienced pilots all along to join our team of inspectors." The CAAS has three pilots, among other airworthiness officers, to check on emergency and safety aspects of SIA's operations, including pilot training and airworthiness of aircraft. they also fly with SIA pilots to check that they follow procedures. The CAAS efforts are augmented by the airline's own comprehensive system of checks, ehich has helped it maintain record of flying for almost a quarter of a century with no fatal accident.
An Aviation industry source was surprised to learn that the FAA had found CAAS wanting, given SIA's reputation for maintaining a high standard of safety and operating one of the youngest fleets in the world. End

Basically FAA had to show CAAS how to run a Civil Aviation Authority in order to meet International Safety Standards. The follow up article as follows,

By: Rav Dhaliwal
Date 27 Mar 1997
CH: CAAS, Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore
HD: CAAS gets top marks for airline safety
PH: News focus
SH: Air Safety, Singapore Airlines

It meets worldwide safety standards fully

The United States Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) has given a top rating to the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore for complying fully with International Safety standards.
This comes soon after the American body gave the CAAS three months to recruit more pilots to check on the safety of SIA flights leaving Changi airport.
Although SIA has an unblemished safety record and a system of checks of its own, the FAA felt that the airport authority needed more pilots to check on the airline.
The CAAS brought in two pilots recently as part of a plan approved last year for recruitment of pilots and airworthiness specialists up to the year 2000. It also expects to recruit more pilots and other safety inspection personnel over the next three years.
Following a series of air mishaps in the US in the early 1990s, the FAA launched a worldwide programme to assess the capability of aviation authorities to oversee the safety of the national carriers.
It checked whether they meet International Civil Organization (ICAO) standards. Singapore was one of the last few countries to be assessed.
The FAA announced two days ago that Singapore was rated in Category 1, which means that it met the standards fully. to qualify for a top rating, an aviation authority must,
a) Meet ICAO minimum standards of safety.
b) Have current rules that meet these requirements.
c)Have procedures to carry out the requirements.
d) Have the capability to conduct routine and surveillance and certify airlines as safe.
e) Have organizational and personnel resources to implement and enforce the various requirements.
Commenting on CAAS rating, Mr. Chan Yat, its director (human resource and public relations), said: "CAAS has always placed importance and priority on civil aviation safety, the results of FAA's assessment are further confirmation that Singapore has an adequate infrastructure, laws; regulations, systems and procedures, and resources to meet the International aviation safety standards set by the ICAO."
He said the body brought in two pilots recently to supervise SIA operations, bringing the total number of such pilots to five. It will recruit another two over the next three years, and another five airworthiness specialists, surveyors and engineers by the year 2000.
There are 12 such officers now and their job is to check Siam's maintenance programmes and its aircraft, and ensure that it makes modifications as directed by manufacturers. End.

To continue the discussion, my law team put CAAS and SIA under a microscope. CAAS and SIA are not in full compliance with ICAO safety standards in the area of pilot licensing and aircraft operation.

As an example, the flight crewmember's license of one of the crew of the ill-fated SilkAir flight did not meet the minimum safety standards of International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

More to follow.

Gladiator

18th Aug 2000, 20:17

(c) Counterclaim plaintiffs – 23. As a result of SIA’s unsafe airline practices as alleged in paragraphs 4-21 above, XXX tendered his resignation to SIA on October 27, 1997. SIA has not paid XXX for his final month of service.

(b) Defendants SIA – 23. SIA admits that XXX tendered his resignation to SIA on October 27, 1997. The remaining allegations in the paragraph are denied.

(c) Counterclaim plaintiffs – 24. SIA was unjustly enriched by its hiring XXX (with prior experience and license) under the same contract terms offered to local Singapore residents, Malaysians and Indiand (with no license or flying experience). SIA paid for their initial training, food amd accommodations at an expense of $102,119 Singapore dollars per employee, and signed contracts containing the same liquidated damages schedule as XXX’s contract.

(b) Denied.

(d) Discussion – SIA was not aware that we were in possession of the Singapore Airlines vs. Mike Demarco discovery documents 000281. This document was presented by SIA in which the cost of initial training was broken down. The figure of $102,119 Singapore dollars was according to SIA’s own document. However SIA denied this fact. This would have looked real bad for SIA during the trial.

Furthermore, again in one of SIA’s own documents called “TECHNICAL CREW HOURS (LCREWHRS)”, SIA had credited XXX 530 P1(u/s) sectors on aircraft above 6000 kg, from previous commercial flying experience (documents provided from previous employer and approved by SIA officer Tseng KC), of which, 130 sectors were accepted towards command at SIA.

On the B747-400 at an average rate of 3 P1(u/s) sectors per month it would take 3.5 years to accumulate 130 P1(u/s) sectors. A clear case of SIA unjustly enriched by hiring a pilot with previous license and commercial flying experience.

If SIA had elected to go to trial, the above mentioned document “TECHNICAL CREW HOURS (LCREWHRS)” as well as document 000281 from Singapore Airlines vs. Mike DeMarco would have been discovery documents.

More to follow

[This message has been edited by Gladiator (edited 18 August 2000).]

Gladiator

21st Aug 2000, 12:10

Applicable law

(c)Counterclaim plaintiffs - 25. SIA's duties with respect to aviation safety are governed by the international aviation laws and standards adopted cy the International Civil Aviation Convention and related Aneexes (including, without limitation, Annex 1 and Part 1 of Annex 6). Pursuant to 14 CFR 129, foreign carriers operating in the United States, such as SIA are required to meet the safety standards in Part 1 (International Commercial Air Transport) of Annex 6 (Operations of Aircraft) to the International Civil Aviation Convention. International aviation laws and standards, including those embodied in the Intenational Cicil Aviation Convention and Annexes, are applicable to the safety issues raised by the Counterclaims.

(b) Defendant SIA - 25. SIA admits that 14 CFR 129.11 (1999) states that foreign air carriers conducting operations within the United States are to conduct operations in accordance with operations specifications issued by the FAA administration in accordance with the "Standards and Recommended Practices" contained in Part 1 (International Commercial Air Transport) of Annex 6 (Operation of Aircraft) to the convention on International Civil Aviation Organization. SIA denies the remainder of the allegations in paragraph 25.

(d) Discussion - Other information surfaced after paragraph 25 was filed in court. In addition to SIA's non-compliance with ICAO minimum safety standards as stated in paragraph 25, SIA was also discovered to be in non-compliance of the Singapore Air Navigation Order as well.

The Singapore Air Navigation Order also states that a flight crew license must comply with International Standards.

Singapore Air Navigation Order (Legislated)

Members of flight crew licences.

19. (1) Subject to this paragraph, a person shall not act as a member of the flight crew of a Singapore aircraft unless he is the holder of an appropriate license granted or rendered valid under this Order.

(8) Notwithstanding anything in this paragraph --

(a) the holder of a license granted or rendered valid under this Order being a license endorsed to the effect that the holder does not satisfy in full the relevant international standards, shall not act as a member of the flight crew of a Singapore aircraft in the territory of a Contracting State other than Singapore, except in accordance with permission granted by the competent authorities of that State.

First Counterclaim Breach of Contract

(c) Counterclaim plaintiffs - 26. Counterclaim plaintiff's reallege and incorporate the allegations contained in paragraph 1-25 above

(b) Defendant SIA - 26. This paragraph contains no new factual allegations that requires a response.

Gladiator

21st Aug 2000, 22:40

(c) Counterclaim plaintiffs - 27. SIA breached its express and implied contractual duties to XXX by engaging in the conduct described in paragraphs 4-21 above, including without limitation: (a) requiring XXX to act and perform the duties of a flight crewmember without an ATPL license appropriate to such duties; (b) requiring XXX to perform duties beyond that of a First Officer, for which he was not licensed or qualified; (c) requiring other First officers, also unqualified to relieve the Pilot-in-Command and lacking adequate training for normal, non-normal, and emergency procedures to operate in the left pilot seat during the Pilot-in-Command's inflight relief; and (d) implementing and failing to correct unsafe airline operating procedures.

(b) Defendant SIA - 27. Denied.

(d) Discussion - Amongst other issues, additional material in support of SIA's breach of contract surfaced after the above were filed in court. Note following:

ALPA-S Agreement

Part II -- General terms and conditions of employment.

11. Scope of employment --

(3) A pilot shall at all times during his service with the Company comply with all requirements of --

(a) written laws, including subsidiary legislation,
(b) the Government, any statutory board or competent authority; and
(c) regulations of the Company,

which may be necessary to qualify him to act in the capacity in which he is employed. End

Under the employment agreement (APLA-S agreement) between XXX and SIA, operation of SIA was in breach of the ALPA-S agreement as well as Singapore ANO (subsidiary legislation).

And again:

ALPA-S Agreement

Inflight relief and rest facilities on board --

(2) In the case of the "3-pilot" crew, the additional pilot allows in-flight relief from duty for each of the pilots. Rest facilities need not be provided for such a crew complement. End

XXX's employment agreement (ALPA-S agreement) with SIA breched the training bond XXX signed with SIA. The training bond is clear that XXX's employment is limited to a First Officer.

However, in the case of "3-pilot" crew (One Captain, two First Officers), according to the above paragraph (2), XXX provided in-flight relief for the Captain (Pilot-in-Command) and his duties (allows in-flight relief from duty for each of the pilots).

Singapore employment law is very clear that:

Singapore employment law, CAP 122

11.-- Termination of contract without notice

(2) Either party to a contract of service may terminate such contract of service without notice in the event of any wilful breach by the other party of a condition of the contract of service.

More to follow.

Gladiator

30th Aug 2000, 00:10

(c) Counterclaim plaintiffs - 28. SIA's breaches of contract have directly and proximately caused damages to XXX, including without limitation diminished income resulting from his departure from SIA employment and loss of airline pilot seniority, in an amount to be proven at trial. In addition, XXX is entitled to payment of his last month of wages by SIA.

(b) Defendant SIA - 28. SIA lacks knowledge or in formation to form a belief as to the extent of XXX's income following his departure from SIA employment. The remaining allegations in the paragraph are denied.

(d) Discussion - Under Singapore employment law an employer is not allowed to withhold an employees's salary regardless of contractual dispute.

Despite contractual dispute with other expat first officers, SIA paid their final month's salary upon resignation when the above mentioned law was brought to the attention of SIA.

Second Counterclaim
Declaratory Judgment

(c) Counterclaim palintiffs - 29. Counterclaim plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraph 1-26 above.

(b) Defendant SIA - 29. This paragraph contains no new factual allegations that require a responce.

(c) Counterclaim plaintiffs - 30. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between SIA and the counterclaim plaintiffs regarding unsafe operating practices and the enforceability of contracts as alleged herein

(b) Defendant SIA - 30. SIA admits that it is currently seeking funds owed to it on the basis of contracts it entered into with Defendant XXX. The remaining allegations in the paragraph are denied.

(c) Counterclaim plaintiffs - 31. Counterclaim plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment: (a) SIA breached its training agreements with XXX; (b) SIA engaged in unsafe airline operations in violation of International laws and safety standards, FAA regulations, and public policy; (c) any alleged contractual duties and liabilities of XXX and the sureties were discharged by SIA's breaches of cintract and other conduct; and (d) XXX has not been unjustly enriched by his rmployment with or departure from SIA.

(b) Defendant SIA - 31. Denied. SIA denied that XXX is entitled to the requested relief. The remainder of the defendant's counterclaims contain no factual allegations that require response.

IV. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, having fully answered the Complaint and counterclaimed against SIA, dfendants/counterclaim plaintiff's XXX, XXX, and XXX request the following relief:

a. Judgment dismissing plaintiff's Complaint against all defendants with prejudice;

b. Judgment against Singapore Airlines for damages caused by breach of contract as alleged in the First Counterclaim, in an amount to be proven at trial;

c. A declaratory judgment against Singapore Airlines as alleged in the Second Counterclaim;

d. Judgment awarding defendant/counterclaim plaintiffs their attorney's fees, costs, and disbursements in defending this action and pursuing the Counterclaim; and

e. For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated this 28th of June 1999.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES (SIA)

By way of affirmative defenses to the Defendant's counterclaims, SIA alleges the following:

1. XXX's counterclaims fail to state claims upon which relief can be granted.

2. XXX's counterclaims are barred by the equitable doctrines of waiver, estoppel, laches and unclean hands.

3. XXX's counterclaims are barred as intentional, reckless, or negligent misrepresentations.

4. XXX has failed to mitigate his damages.

5. XXX's and his co-counterclaim plaintiffs lack standing to seek a declaratory judgment pertaining to the operational and safety practices of SIA.

Dated at XXX, XXX this 2nd day of August, 1999.

Discussion - SIA just denied everything. However, behind closed doors and in face to face discussions, names of other pilots willing to testify were on the table. The problem was some were still working at SIA or did not want their names brought up. SIA lawyers were cornered when a challenge of "for attorney's eyes only" was an option.

More to follow

Gladiator

7th Sep 2000, 14:28

By now, October 1999, Singapore Airlines lawyers in Singapore were also busy with another case. They were busy with the case of Captain Steve Ahlmark vs. Singapore Airlines (more on this case in the future). Captain Steve Ahlmark, an American, was discharged from SIA unjustly.

SIA lost the case in a Singapore court. The appeals were to the favor of Ahlmark. May be it was just coincidence but right after SIA lost the last appeal, the lead SIA lawyer, a Malay lady was fired/removed from the position of making decisions.

It took almost 4 months before SIA replaced their lead lawyer. The new one was not any smarter. The problem with them is that they view everything in what is termed 'Singapore context'.

The SIA lawyer in the US was getting frustrated with having to relay everything to Singapore, and then having to wait two weeks for an answer.

Several meetings were held to resolve the dispute. SIA's main concern was my communication with other SIA and former SIA pilots. SIA's legal bill by now was upwards US $50,000.

One day my lawyer called to relay to me a message from SIA lawyers in Singapore. The message was, "if you want the talks to be fruitful, stop making posts on PPRuNe".

SIA had decided to stick to their original tactic, keep on going with the case hoping that legal bills would break their opponent. The trial, trial by a jury, was 8 months away. That would give SIA 8 months to dick around.

Next will be 'request for discovery' which SIA intended to use in preparation for trial.

More to follow.

[This message has been edited by Gladiator (edited 07 September 2000).]

Established !

7th Sep 2000, 20:14

Heavens forbid!
An expat winning SIA in a Singapore court?
Titan, I'm sure you'll have a theory for that.

Gladiator

8th Sep 2000, 05:05

Actually I have a theory. Theory may not be a good word in this case, a better word would be speculation. The Judge in the Ahlmark case was Justice Warren Khoo.

This case was Justice Khoo's last case, his last judgment before retirement. You make your own conclusion.

Gladiator

21st Sep 2000, 19:50

SIA next moved to prepare for trial. The next step was to begin discovery. The following are SIA's discovery along with the answers provided by the defendant.

After that will be the defendant's discovery and the answers that SIA did not want to provide. Providing answers would have further incriminated SIA, this time by their own documents. It was at this time when the case came to an abrupt end.

Plaintiff's first set of interrogatories and first requests for production of documents to defendant XXX.

Pursuant to Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures and Local Rules 33 and 34, Plaintiff, Singapore Airlines, Ltd. ("SIA"), requests that the Defendants respond to the following interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days of the date of request. Each interrogatory in these requests is to be answered fully and separately, in writing and under oath and each answer is to be supplemented as required by Fed.R.Civ.P.26(e). The original responses to these interrogatories and requests for production shall be produced at the offices of XXX or at a mutually agreeable location. In addition, please produce any documents acquired after the initial production is made that are responsive to these requests.

Instructions and definitions

A. When asked to identify a person, or when the answer to an interrogatory refers to a person, state the person's: (1) full name; (2) business and residence addresses; and (3) telephone numbers.
B. When asked to identify a writing or document or when the answer to an interrogatory refers to a writing or document, state with respect to each such writing or document: (1) the date, author, nature and substance of the document with sufficient particularity to enable the same to be identified; and (2) the identity of the person who has custody of the document. As a substitute for making such identification, you may provide a copy of the document or the writing in question.
C. The interrogatories contained in these requests cover all information presently known or available to you. Should you be unable to answer any interrogatory or portion thereof either by actual knowledge or upon information and belief, identify each person whom you know to have information regarding the subject of the interrogatory.

More to follow

Gladiator

22nd Sep 2000, 19:20

D. If you contend that the answer to any interrogatory contained in these requests is privileged or otherwise immune from discovery in whole or in part, or if you otherwise object to any part of any interrogatory, or contend that any identified document would be excludable from production to the plaintiff/defendant in discovery regardless of its relevance, state the reasons and factual basis for each objection or ground for exclusion and identify each person having knowledge of the factual basis on which the privilege or other ground is asserted. In addition, with respect to any dicument that you contend is excludable from production, identify the document by author, date, addresses, recipient and type of document.
E. The request for documents contained herein covers all documents in your possession, custody or control, including, without limitation, documents in storage and documents held by agents, attorneys or other persons on your behalf and subject to your control.
F. In case of any ambiguity as to whether a document is called for by these requests, such document is to be produced.
G. If a document called for by these request is known to have existed but cannot be located now, identify the document and state: (1) whether the missing document has been in your possession, custody or control; (2) where the missing document was last known to be and the date when the document was last known to be in such location; (3) in whose possession, custody or control such a copy of the document may be found; or (4) where applicable, whether the document has been destroyed.
H. In any responce to requests for production in which you allege that the requested documents are not in your possession, custody, or control, identify the location of such requested documents and identify the persons with knowledge relating to such documents.
I. As used herein, the singular number includes the plural and the plural number includes the singular; the conjunctive (terms connected by "and") includes the disjunctive (terms connected by "or") and the disjunctive includes the conjunctive; the present tense includes the past tense and the past tense includes the present tense, unless the clear meaning indicates otherwise.
J. As used herein, the following terms shall have the meaning defined below:
1. "Document" is intended to have the broadest possible interpretation and includes the complete original (or complete copy if the original should not be available) and each nonidentical copy regardless of origin or location. "Document" means each writing of every kind and description including, without limitation: correspondence, books, pamphlets, periodicals, reports, minutes, working papers, memoranda, messages, telephone notes, telegrams, diaries, notes, interoffice correspondence, envelopes, business records, financial statements, contracts, agreements, leases, invoices, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, films, tapes, radio or television scripts, inventories, computer printouts and any other data including without limitation, data stored electronically or by other technical means for use with computer or otherwise.
2. "Person" refers to both natural persons and to corporate or other business entities, and the acts and knowledge of a person are defined to include the acts and knowledge of that person's directors, officers, members, employees, representatives, agents, partners, and attorneys.
3. "Relating to" means constituting, defining, containing, embodying, reflecting, identifying, stating, concerning, referring to, dealing with, or in any way pertaining to.
4. "You" and "your" means defendant XXX and his representatives, attorneys, investigators, agents, employees, consultants, or other persons acting on his behalf.
5. "SIA" means plaintiff Singapore Airlines, Ltd. and its representatives, attorneys, investigators, agents, employees, consultants, or other persons acting on its behalf if applicable.

More to follow, interrogatories are next.

Gladiator

23rd Sep 2000, 20:23

INTERROGATORIES

Interrogatory No. 1: Identify each person who prepared, participated in the preparation of, or provided information for the answers to these interrogatories and requests for production.

Answer to No. 1: XXX objects to the request for an identification of persons "who provided information" for his answers as vague, ambiguous, and overly broad. Subject to and without waiving these objections, XXX answers as follows:

XXX, defendant
XXX, defense counsel

Interrogatory No. 2: Identify all persons with knowledge relating to your claims that the plaintiff violated air safety regulations of either the United States, Singapore or any other international regulatory authority or convention.

Answer to No. 2: See objections to paragraph C and H of SIA's instructions. Subject to and without waiving these objections, XXX answers as follows:

David Hegy, FAA International Field Office; Singapore
Ron Watermann, FAA International Field Office; Singapore
Michael Stockhill, Senior Air Safety Investigator, NTSB
Kenneth M. Simon, Principal Operations Inspector, FAA
Chuck Cox, Aviation Safety Inspector, FAA
John Carl, Aviation Safety Inspector, FAA
Lewis Zeigler, Aviation Safety Inspector, FAA
Harvey Tharps, Aviation Safety Inspector, FAA
Dr. Michael Jones, Regional Flight Surgeon, FAA
Karl Lewis, Supervisory Attorney, FAA
Coral McGue, Aviation Security Specialist, FAA
Dick Witeck, Flight Standards International Staff, FAA
Glenn Herpst, Chief Air Operations, ICAO
Marcel Cadieux, Chief Air Operations, ICAO
Adriana Bonilla, Personnel and Training, ICAO
Haile Belai, Chief Safety Oversight, ICAO
Paul Lamy, Personnel Licensing, ICAO
Alex Pavlos, FAA designee examiner B747-400
Michael Tan, Executive Vice President, Singapore Airlines
Dr. Cheong Choong Kong, Chief Executive Officer, Singapore Airlines
Tan Wee Lee, Head of Flight Operations, CAAS
Ken Toft, Flight Operations Inspector/ Consultant, CAAS
Philip Bass, Attorney

Interrogatory No. 3: Describe in detail and not in summary the specific basis for your position in paragraph 11 of your answer and paragraph 26 of your affirmative defenses, that the liquidated damages clause in the Cadet Pilot Training Agreement is not a reasonable estimate of damages that would result from a breach of the cadet pilot Training Agreement.

Answer to No. 3: See General Objection C. Subject t0 and without waiving this objection, XXX answers as follows:

a) SIA did not pay for the costs of XXX's initial training as set forth below:

i) Initial Training 13 months (All figures are Singapore dollars)

Flying school (up to CPL/IR) $86,425
Monthly Allowance $7,869
13th month payment $609
Winter clothing $300
Airfare (SIN-LON-SIN) $5,574
Airfare (LON-PER-LON) $730
Airport tax $12
Cargo space for excessive bags $600

Total $102,119

b) SIA spent $102,119 Singapore dollars for the initial training of each Singaporean, Malaysian, and Indian pilot. The Cadet Pilot Agreements for pilots who had their initial training paid for by SIA contained the same liquidated damages amount as the Cadet Pilot Agreement signed by XXX, even though SIA did not pay for his initial training.

c) SIA's training costs, which allegedly form the basis of its liquidated damages clause, are excessive as compared to the training costs at XXX Airlines, XXX Airlines, XXX Air, and possibly other airlines which operate B747-400 aircraft.

d) SIA requires three-months notice prior to resignation. Pilots giving three-months notice did not receive salary for the following three months, a practice that violated Singapore employment laws.

Interrogatory No. 4: Describe in detail and not in summary the specific basis for your denial in paragraph 1 of your answer of SIA's allegation that the liquidated damages provision in the training agreement is meant to partly reimburse SIA for alleged enormous costs of training pilots who leave before the expiration of seven years.

Answer to No. 4: See General Objection C. Subject to and without waiving this objection, XXX answers as follows:

The liquidated damages provision is a penalty designed to deter pilots from leaving employment at SIA, and it is not based upon a reasonable estimate of the costs of training SIA pilots. See answer to Interrogatory No. 3.

More to follow.

[This message has been edited by Gladiator (edited 23 September 2000).]

Gladiator

24th Sep 2000, 21:01

Interrogatory No. 5: Describe in detail and not in summary the specific basis for your statement in paragraph 26 of your affirmative defenses that "SIA's liquidated damages clause is unenforceable."

Answer to No. 5: See general Objection C. XXX further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks a legal conclusion. Subject to and without waiving these objections, XXX answers as follows:

(a) See answer to Interrogatory No. 3.
(b) Paragraph 26 of the defendants Answer clearly explains the basis of XXX's affirmative defense that liquidated damages are unenforceable:
"SIA's liquidated damages clause is unenforceable because (a) SIA materially breached it's training agreements with XXX; (b) the terms of the clause are unconscionable, imposing an unreasonable restriction upon the pilot's employment rights; and (c) the schedule of the liquidated damages is not based upon a reasonable estimate of actual losses."
(c) Under Singapore employment law, CAP 122 Part II (2) states "either party to a contract of service may terminate such contract of service without notice in the event of any wilful breach by the other party of a condition of the contract of service:. SIA wilfully and materially breached express and implied duties under its contract with XXX, as alleged in defendant's Answer and Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims; the Supplemental Statements produced to XXX (SIA attorney) on July 29, 1999; and XXX's answer to Interrogatories Nos. 10, 13 and 14. XXX exercised his rights under Singapore law to terminate his contract of service without notice because SIA wilfully and materially breached express and implied conditions of the contracts of service.
(d) The liquidated clause is unconscionable, meaning: unreasonable, excessive, and unscrupulous. The clause purports to impose an unduly harsh penalty on a pilot for pursuing other employment after leaving SIA for valid reasons.

More to follow.

[This message has been edited by Gladiator (edited 24 September 2000).]

Gladiator

25th Sep 2000, 05:37

Interrogatory No. 6: Describe in detail and not in summary the specific basis for your denial in paragraph 12 of your answer that your Commercial pilot's License ("CPL") qualified you to act as inflight relief for the pilot in command of the aircraft.

Answer to No. 6: See general Objection C. XXX further objects on the grounds that this interrogatory uses a paraphrased version of paragraph 12 in defendant's Answer, ehich states as follows:

"deny that XXX's Commercial Pilot License ("CPL") qualified him to act as inflight relief for the Pilot-in-Command of the aircraft; deny that CPL qualified XXX to be delegated responsibility for the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time by performing the duties of the Pilot-in-Command ("PIC") without supervision;"

Subject to and without waiving these objections, XXX answers as follows:

(a) Singapore is an ICAO member, and therefore an ICAO Contracting State.

(b) SIA's B747-400 aircraft are Singapore registered aircraft, and therefore under the administration of Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore ("CAAS").

(c) XXX's CPL was issued by CAAS. The CPL states: "Issued in accordance with the Air Navigation Act, (CAP 87) and of Annex 1 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation signed on 7 December, 1944."

(d) Standards and Recommended Practices for Personnel Licensing were adopted by the ICAO Council on April 14, 1948, pursuant to the provision of Article 37 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago 1944; the ICA Convention"), and designated as Annex 1 to the ICA Convention. The applicable edition of Annex 1 (8th Ed. July 1988) contains Standards and Recommended Practices adopted by ICAO as the minimum standards for personnel licensing. In the English text, the following writing practice has been utilized:
Standards employ the operative verb "shall", while Recommended Practices employ the operative verb "should". The terms are defined as follows:

More to follow.

Gladiator

26th Sep 2000, 05:47

STANDARDS: Any specification for physical characteristics, configuration, materiel, performance, personnel or procedure, the uniform application of which is recognized as NECESSARY for the SAFETY and regularity of international air navigation and to which contracting States WILL CONFORM in accordance with the Convention. In the event of impossibility of compliance, notification to the Council is COMPULSORY under Article 38.

RECOMMENDED PRACTICE: Any specification for physical characteristics, configuration, materiel, performance, personnel or procedure, the uniform application of which is recognized as DESIRABLE in the interest of SAFETY, regularity or efficiency of international air navigation, and to which Contracting States will endeavor to conform in accordance with the Convention.

Annex 1, (Personnel Licensing) contains the following International Standards:

1.2.1 Authority to act as a flight crewmember

A person shall not act as a flight crewmember of an aircraft unless a valid license is held showing compliance with the specifications of this Annex and appropriate to the duties to be performed by that person. the license shall have been issued by the State of registry of that aircraft or by any other Contracting State and rendered valid by the State of the registry of that aircraft.

(Discussion: Acting as a flight crewmember of a Singapore registered B747-400 with a CPL (co-pilot/first officer or inflight relief for the pilot-in-command) does not conform with Singapore ANO as well as ICAO international minimum safety standards).

1.2.3 Privileges of the holder of a license

A Contracting State shall not permit the holder of a license to exercise privileges other than those granted by that license.

2.1.1 General licensing specifications

2.1.1.1 A person shall not act either as pilot-in-command or as co-pilot of an aircraft in any of the following categories unless that person is the holder of a pilot license issued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter:

---aeroplane

2.1.3 Class and type ratings

2.1.3.2 Type ratings shall be established for:

(a) each type of aircraft certified for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots (B747-400);

2.1.4 circumstances in which class and type ratings are required

2.1.4.1 A Contracting State having issued a pilot license shall not permit the holder of such license to act either as pilot-in-command or as co-pilot of an aeroplane or helicopter unless the holder has received authorization.

2.1.4.1.1 When a type rating is issued limiting the privileges to act as co-pilot, such limitation shall be endorsed on the rating.

2.1.5 requirements for the issue of class and type ratings

2.1.5.2 type ratings as required by 2.1.3.2

The applicant shall have:

(b) demonstrated the skill and knowledge required for the safe operation of the applicable type aircraft, relevant to the duties of a pilot-in-command or a co-pilot as applicable; and

(c) demonstrated, at the airline transport pilot license level, an extent of knowledge determined by the Licensing authority on the basis of the requirements of ATPL.

XXX held a Singapore CPL without the demonstrated level of knowledge appropriate to the privileges granted to the holder of an airline transport pilot license ("ATPL") as determined by CAAS. CAAS did not accept XXX's ATP from the United States as an acceptable level of ATPL, and SIA (per ALPA-S agreement) did not pay him at a salary level commensurate with ATPL status.

According to International Standards and Recommended Practices in Annex 1 (Personnel Licensing), XXX was only qualified to perform the duties of a co-pilot on the B-747 aircraft. He was not qualified to act as pilot-in-command inflight relief assuming the duties of the pilot-in-command on the B-747 aircraft; XXX was not qualified to act as a flight crewmember on the B747-400 in any capacity, including co-pilot or inflight relief for the pilot-in-command.

(e) Under ICAO rules, the pilot-in-command is the licensed pilot responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time. A co-pilot is a licensed pilot serving in the capacity other than pilot-in-command. XXX was licensed as a co-pilot holding a restricted rating; he was not qualified to act as the pilot-in-command responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time.

(f) The conditions of service stated in the "Agreement between Singapore Airlines Limited and Airline Pilot's Association Singapore (ALPA-S), 1995," include the following:

PART II GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

11. Scope of employment

(3) A pilot shall at all times during his service wiyth the company comply with all requirements of ---

(a) written laws, including subsidiary legislation (ANO);

(b) the Government, any statutory board or competent authority; and

(c) regulations of the Company,

which may be necessary to qualify him to act in the capacity in which he is employed.

ICAO and the FAA are competent aviation authorities. SIA did not comply with the licensing requirements established in Annex 1 (Personnel Licensing), as FFF was not qualified to operate in any capacity on the B747-400 without an ATPL or the demonstrated level of competence (ATPL exams) as determined by CAAS.

More to follow.

sia sniffer

26th Sep 2000, 13:17

I love this, I'm in a mood to post some flight safety blunders by Singapore Airlines that I recently managed to "sniff" out.

And they thought we would all melt away into the woodwork..WRONG!

titan

27th Sep 2000, 06:00

Dear Sniff, it would mean alot to me if you could do those SIA incident postings over on RUMOURS. It always makes so much better reading when thousands instead of dozens read about the real SIA.
Go gettem boy..........

Gladiator

27th Sep 2000, 07:48

Titan most people use the function,

"click here to view today's active topics (all public forums)",

it includes the Far East forum.

Go sniffer go. Give me an S, give me an N....

Gladiator

1st Oct 2000, 19:15

Interrogatory No. 7: Describe in detail and not in summary the specific basis for your denial in paragraph 12 of your answer that your CPL qualified you to be delegated responsibility for the operation and safety of the aircraft without supervision.

Answer to No. 7: See General objections C. XXX further objects to plaintiff's use of a paraphrased version of paragraph 12 in defendant's Answer, which states:

"deny that CPL qualified XXX to be delegated responsibility for the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time by performing the duties of the Pilot-in-Command without supervision;"

Subject to and without waiving these objections, XXX answers as follows:

(a) The operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time is the responsibility of the pilot-in-command or another flight crewmember qualified, licensed and trained as pilot-in-command.

(b) XXX held a Singapore CPL without the demonstrated level of knowledge appropriate to the privileges granted to the holder of an ATPL as determined by CAAS. Therefore, according to ICAO Annex 1 (Personnel Licensing), XXX was not qualified to act as a (1) co-pilot, be delegated responsibility for the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time by performing the duties of the pilot-in-command without supervision, or (2) flight crewmember on the B747-400 aircraft in any capacity. See answer to Interrogatory No. 6.

(c) Under CAAS Rules, XXX could not act as a member of a flight crew on a Singapore registered aircraft unless he held the appropriate license. "Appropriate license" is defined as a license which entitled XXX to perform the duties that he undertook in elation to the aircraft. See also: CAAS Advisory Circular AC-FO 1/99 dated march 9, 1999, indicating that CAAS is requiring all applicants for a 2-pilot operation to have passed the Singapore ATPL.

Interrogatory No. 8: Decsribe in detail and not in summary the sprcific basis for your allegation in paragraph 13 of your answer that you were compelled to enter into the Conversion Training Agreement.

Answer to No. 8: See General Objection C. XXX further objects to plaintiff's pararhrased version of paragraph 13 of the defendant's Answer, which states:

"except deny that XXX voluntarily entered into Conversion Training Agreement; allege that XXX was compelled to sign the Agreement because the B-747 aircraft were being phased out and SIA required him to train on the newer B747-400 aircraft;"

Subject to and without waiving these objections, XXX answers as follows:

(a) Sometime between October 24 to October 27, 1994 XXX was called to the office of Captain Victor Oh. At this meeting, Captain Oh informed XXX that he has been selected and is to begin training on the b747-400 on November 22, 1994. captain Oh also informed XXX that,

"if you decide not to accept, you will never know when you will be offered a promotion again, so I advise to to take it."

(b) SIA's operational plans called for phasing out the B-747 aircraft. it is standard industry practice for an air carrier to upgrade its fleet of aircraft. As aircraft are phased out and replaced by newer aircraft, pilots have to be trained on the newer equipment accordingly. SIA's 1995/1996 aircraft fleet size operating plans called for the declining number of B-747 aircraft*:

* Source: December 1994 Singapore Airlines B743 Comlink Issue No. 3/94 aka: B743 TCC 284

Jan 95, 14 B-747
Apr 95, 13 B-747
Dec 95, 12 B-747
Jan 96, 11 B-747
Mar 96, 10 B-747

The B-747 aircraft were being replaced by newer B747-400, B-777 and A-340 aircraft. Eventually, B-747 were completely phased out of SIA's line operations.

(c) It would have jeopardized XXX's employment at SIA and /or eliminated the possibility of further promotion if he refused to accept training any newer aircraft. Continuation of XXX's employment was dependant upon his signing the Conversion Training agreement.

More to follow.

Gladiator

4th Oct 2000, 19:36

Interrogatory No. 9: Identify all persons or entities to whom you have ever expressed your "significant safety concerns relating to the operations of SIA's aircraft" as discussed in paragraph 15 of your answer. As to any persons or entities cited in response to this interrogatory identify the sprcific date and place in which you expressed to that person or entity any of your safety concerns relating to the operation of SIA's aircraft, and describe what you said.

Answer to No. 9: Defendant objects to this interrogatory that the request is to the extent that it seeks disclosure of expression of safety concerns after the termination of XXX's employment on the grounds that it is overly broad, seeks irrelevant information, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving these objections, XXX answers as follows:

Nov 13, 1991, XXX (Supervisor), cockpit from SIN to NRT.

(a) XXX expressed safety and security concern in regards to cockpit door being left unlocked duing flight time.
(b) XXX expressed safety concern when asked to occupy the pilot-in-command's duty station, the left hand seat ("LHS"), with inadequate training and license for that duty station.

Nov 13, 1991, XXX (Captain), cockpit from SIN to NRT.

XXX expressed safety concern when asked to occupy the pilot-in-command's duty station, (the LHS), with inadequate training and license for that duty station.

Nov 15, 1991, XXX (Supervisor), cockpit from NRT to SIN.

XXX expressed safety and security concern in regards to two passengers that were granted permission to visit the cockpit during flight time, emphasizing that he detected alcohol on the breath of the visiting passengers.

Nov 22, 1991, XXX (Supervisor), cockpit from SIN to SEL

XXX expressed safety and security concern in regards to cockpit door being left unlocked during flight time.

Nov 29, 1991, XXX (Supervisor), cockpit from SIN to NRT.

XXX expressed safety and security concern in regards to cockpit door being left unlocked during flight time.

Dec 16, 1991, XXX (Supervisor), cockpit SIN to NRT.

XXX expressed safety and security concern in regards to cockpit door being left unlocked during flight time.

Dec 31, 1991, XXX (Supervisor), cockpit OSA to SIN.

XXX expressed safety concern when asked to occupy the pilot-in-command's duty station, (the LHS), with in adequate training and license for that duty station during descent.

Jan 24, 1992, XXX (Supervisor), cockpit SIN to SEL.

XXX expressed safety and security concern in regards to cockpit door being left unlocked during flight time.

Jan 27, 1992, XXX(Supervisor), cockpit SIN to CGK.

XXX expressed safety and security concern in regards to cockpit door being left unlocked during flight time.

Feb 2, 1992, XXX (Supervisor), cockpit SIN to NRT.

(a) XXX expressed safety and security concern in regards to cockpit door being left unlocked during flight time.
(b) XXX discussed safety concerns regarding request to occupy the pilot-in-command's duty station, (the LHS), by some supervisors with inadequate and license for that duty station.

Mar 27, 1992, XXX (Mnagement pilot/Supervisor), hotel lobby, Tawana Ramada, Bangkok, Thailand.

(a) XXX expressed safety and sceurity concerns in regards to cockpit door being left unlocked during flight time.
(b) XXX expressed safety concerns regarding being asked to occupy the pilot-in-command's duty station, (the LHS), by some supervisors with inadequate training and license for that duty station.
(c) XXX expressed safety and security concern regarding passenger visits to the cockpit by passengers after having consumed alcohol.

Mar 29, 1992, XXX (Supervisor), cockpit BKK to FCO.

(a) XXX expressed safety and sceurity concern in regards to cockpit door being left unlocked during flight time.
(b) XXX expressed safety concern when asked to occupy the pilot-in-command's duty station (the LHS), with inadequate training and license for that duty station.

More to follow.

Gladiator

10th Oct 2000, 03:24

May 30, 1992, XXX (Supervisor), cockpit SEL-SIN.

(a) XXX expressed safety and security concern in regards to two passengers that were granted permission to visit the cockpit during flight time, emphasizing that he detected alcohol on the breath of the visiting passengers.

Sep 7, 1992, XXX (Supervisor), Mexican resturant in Daharan, Saudi Arabia.

(a) XXX expressed safety and security concern in regards to cockpit door being left unlocked during flight time.

(b) XXX discussed safety concern regarding being asked by some supervisors to occupy the pilot-in-command's duty station, the left hand seat, with inadequate training for that duty station.

(c) XXX discussed safety and security concern regarding passenger visits to the cockpit by passengers after having consumed alcohol.

Nov 13, 1992, XXX (Supervisor), Cowboy bar resturant, Seoul, Korea.

(a) XXX expressed safety and security concern in regards to cockpit door being left unlocked during flight time.

(b) XXX discussed safety concern regarding being asked by some supervisors to occupy the pilot-in-command's duty station, (the LHS), with inadequate training or license for that duty station.

(c) XXX expressed safety and security concern regarding passenger visits to the cockpit by passengers after having consumed alcohol.

Nov 15, 1992, XXX (Supervisor), cockpit SIN to KUL.

(a) XXX discussed safety and security concern in regards to cockpit door being left unlocked during flight time.

(b) XXX discussed safety concern regarding being asked by some supervisors to occupy the pilot-in-command's duty station, (the LHS), with inadequate training and license for that duty station.

(c) XXX expressed safet and security concern regarding passenger visits to the cockpit by passengers after having consumed alcohol.

Feb 6, 1995, XXX (Captain), cockpit SIN to AKL.

(a) XXX discussed safety concerns regarding being asked to occupy the pilot-in-command's duty station, (the LHS), with inadequate training and license for that duty station.

Mar 8, 1995, XXX (Cap[atain), cockpit TPE to ANC.

XXX discussed safety concerns regarding co-pilots occupying the pilot-in-command's duty station, the left hand seat, with inadequate training and license for that duty station.

1997, XXX (Captain), crew room, Narita Fugita Hotel, Narita, Japan.

(a) XXX engaged in conversation with captain XXX and another Captain regarding safety and legality of 3-pilot operations, I expressed my opinion and safety concerns.

More to follow (less boring).

Gladiator

10th Oct 2000, 20:14

Fleet meetings B747-400, 1995, 1996, 1997.

(a) Many pilots repeatedly expressed safety concerns relating to 3-pilot operations using one Captain and two co-pilots. During the fleet meeting held in October 1997, an expatriate Captain directed the following questions to the Director of Flight Operations, Captain Maurice De Vaz.

Question: "Captain De Vaz, are you going to provide at least some training for the first officers in the left hand seat (pilot-in-command duty station)? We would feel more comfortable during Captain's relief while a co-pilot occupies the pilot-in-command's duty station."

Answer: "No, we are not going to do that."

Question: "Wouldn't it be much safer to give some training in the left hand seat to the first officers, we could all (Captains) also be able to get some rest."

Answer: "There is no rest during the 3-pilot operations."

Aug 1995 to July 1997

XXX expressed safety and security concerns to the Director of Flight Operation through anonymous letters sent directly to his office. Between approximately august 1995 to July 1997, XXX sent two letters per month addressed to Maurice De Vaz, Director of Flight operations.

Interrogatory No. 10: Describe in detail and not in summary the specific basis for your claim in paragraph 20 of your answer that SIA breached its contracts with you by requiring you to act and perform the duties of a flight crewmember without a proper license under Annex 1 of the ICA Convention.

Answer to No. 10: General Objection C. XXX further objects to plaintiff's use of a paraphrased version of paragraph 20 of defendant's Answer, which states:

"Breach of Contract. As alleged in the Counterclaim below, SIA materially breached its contracts with XXX by inter alia, requring his performance of duties beyond the capacity of a First Officer or Co-pilot, including without limitation: (a) requiring XXX to act as a flight crewmember of an airplane without a proper license conforming compliance with the requirements of Annex 1 (Personnel Licensing) to the ICA Convention, and appropriate to the duties performed;"

Subject to and without waiving these objections, XXX answers as follows:

See answer to interrogatory No. 6. SIA wilfully and materially breached its contracts with XXX by the following actions and omissions:

(a) While XXX operated SIA aircraft, SIA repeatedly engaged in commercial air transport operations which failed to meet ICAO minimum safety standards. SIA failed to provide an acceptable level of safety oversight resulting in an unsafe system of work for XXX and other pilots.

(b) During 3-pilot crew operations (One Captain, two co-pilots) on the B747-400 aircraft as well as other operations on the B-747 aircraft, XXX was required to perform duties of the pilot-in-command which were beyond the scope of his duties as a First Officer (co-pilot). SIA required XXX to perform duties for which he was not trained, licensed, or qualified.

XXX was hired and trained for service as a First Officer (co-pilot) on B-747 aircraft at SIA or its Subsidiary. Paragraph 5 of the Cadet Pilot Training Agreement states:

"The Trainee agrees to remain in the service of SIA during the period of training and thereafter to continue to serve SIA or to enter into service of the Subsidiary for the minimum period of 7 years from the date of completion of his training if so required by SIA. The date of completion of training shall be the day preceding the day the trainee operates without supervision as a functional pilot on Company aircraft and is appointed a First Officer."

Paragraph 4 of the Conversion Training Agreement (B747-400) states:

" The pilot shall agree to remain in the service of the Company for a period of three years from the date his license is endorsed to allow him to operate in the appropriate capacity, if so required by the Company."

See also: CAAS Rules (Singapore ANO), Part IV, Members of flight crew licenses, paragraph 19, which states in part:

(1) Subject to this paragraph, a person shall not act as a member of the flight crew of a Singapore aircraft unless he is the holder of an appropriate license granted or rendered valid under this order.

(6) An appropriate license for the purpose of this paragraph means a license which entitles the holder to perform the functions which he undertakes in relation to the aircraft concerned and the flight on which it is engaged.

(8)Notwithstanding anything in this paragraph--

(a) The holder of a license granted or rendered valid under this Order being a license endorsed to the effect that the holder DOES NOT SATISFY IN FULL THE RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS, shall NOT ACT AS A MEMEBER OF THE FLIGHT CREW OF A SINGAPORE AIRCRAFT in the territory of a Contracting State other than Singapore, except in accordance with permission granted by the competent authorities of that State;

There is no provision in either XXX's training contracts stating that he would be required to perform the duties of pilot-in-command or inflight relief for the pilot-in-command. SIA materially brecahed its contracts with XXX by requiring him to perform such duties.

(c) At times during B-747 operations, XXX was required to occupy the pilot-in-command's duty station (the LHS), and was delegated the responsibility for the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time (P.1 responsibility). (His CPL only authorized P.2 or P.1u/s responsibility), XXX was required to perform the duties of the pilot-in-command without supervision, while an unqualified pilot (Second officer not yet qualified as a First Officer) occupied the co-pilot's duty station, the right hand seat ("RHS"). During such operations neither pilot was qualified at their respective duty stations.

(d) At times during B-747 operations, before XXX was qualified to be a First officer, during 3-pilot operations (One Captain, two co-pilots) on the B747-400 aircraft; while the pilot-in-command took inflight rest or relief in the bunkroom, XXX (a) occupied the co-pilot's duty station (the RHS), (b) was delegated the responsibility for the operation and safety of the aircraft during
flight time (P.1 responsibility), and (c) performed the duties of the pilot-in-command without supervision. XXX's CPL did not qualify him to act as a flight crewmember in any capacity on the B747-400 (see answer to interrogatory No. 7 above).

(e) During 3-pilot operations (One Captain, two co-pilots) on the B747-400 aircraft, and while the pilot-in-command took inflight rest and /or relief in the bunkroom, XXX occupied the LHS, and was delegated the reponsibility for the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time (P.1 responsibility), he performed the duties of the pilot-in-command without supervision. XXX's CPL did not qualify him to act as a flight crewmember in any capacity on the B747-400.

(f) XXX was not properly licensed, qualified, nor had received the proper training and currency requirements to achieve an appropriate level of safety and flight crewmember competency in the LHS on either B-747 or the B747-400 aircraft, and to be left in charge of the aircraft with hundreds of passengers without the supervision of the pilot-in-command in the LHS. SIA breached its contracts by compelling XXX to perform in an inappropriate capacity, beyond the scope of his duties as a co-pilot holding a CPL license (P2) with a Restricted Type Rating.

(g) XXX was required to perform the duties of the pilot-in-command on the B-747 and the B747-400 aircraft while holding a CPL (P2) with a restricted type rating. for the purpose of performing the duties which SIA or its Subsidiary required XXX to perform, XXX should have held an ATPL (P1) with an unrestricted type rating. In the interests of safety, it is essential that the person occupying the Pilot-in-Command's duty station be qualified to serve as a pilot-in-command, trained from the proper duty station, and licensed to appropriate pilot-in-command standards.

(i) Although both SIA and CAAS have departed from international standards and procedures, CAAS has not given notification of departures to the ICAO Council as required by Article 38 of the ICA Convention.

more to follow.

Gladiator

14th Oct 2000, 23:40

Interrogatory No. 11: Describe in detail and not in summary the specific basis for your claim in paragraph 27 of your conterclaims that SIA breached its contracts with you by requiring you to act and perform the duties of a flight crewmember without an ATPL license appropriate to such duties.

Answer to No. 11: See General objection C and answer to Interrogatory No. 10.

Interrogatory no. 12: Decsribe in detail and not in summary the specific basis for your claim in paragraph 27 of your counterclaim that SIA breached its contracts with you by requiring you to perform duties beyond that of a First Officer, for which you were not licensed or qualified.

Answer to No. 12: See General Objection C and answer to Interrogatory No. 10.

Interrogatory No. 13: Decsribe in detail and not in summary the specific basis for your claim in paragraph 20 of your answer and paragraph 27 of your counterclaims that SIA breached its contracts with you by implementing and failing to correct unsafe airline operating procedures.

Answer to No. 13: See General Objection C. Subject to and without waiving this objection, XXX answers as follows:

SIA breached its contracts with XXX by implementing and failing to correct unsafe airline operations in at least the following respects:

(a) See answer to Interrogatory No. 6

(b) SIA compelled XXX to engage in commercial air transport below minimum ICAO safety standards (see answer to Interrogatory No. 10).

(c) SIA utilized procedures that allowed the pilot-in-command to leave his duty station for reasons other than absence necessary for (1) the performance of duties in connection with the operation of the aeroplane, or (2) physiological needs.

(d) SIA ignored the application of ICAO safety Standards, Identified in Annex 1 and Annex 6, Part 1, which are recognized as necessary for the safety of internatiuonal air navigfation, including without limitation the following:

Annex 6, OPERATION OF AIRCRAFT
Part 1, INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL AIR TRANSPORT - AEROPLANES

Seventh edition of Part 1

4.2 Operational certification and supervision
4.2.1 The air operator certificate
4.2.1.3 The issue of an air operator certificate or equivalent document by the State of the Operator shall be dependent upon the operator demonstrating an adequate organization, method of control and supervision of flight operations, training program and maintenance arrangements consistent with the nature and extent of the operations sprcified.

4.4.4 Flight crewmembers at duty stations
4.4.4.2 En Route. All flight crewmembers required to be on flight deck duty shall remain at their stations except when their absence is necessary for the performance of duties in connection with the operation of the aeroplane or for physiological needs.

9.3 Flight crewmember training programs
9.3.1 An operator shall establish and maintain a ground and flight training programme, approved by the State of the Operator, which ensures that all flight crewmembers are adequately trained to perform their assigned duties.
The training programme shall consist of ground and flight training in the type(s) of aeroplane on which the flight crewmember serves, and shall include proper flight crew coordination and training in all types of emergency or abnormal situations or procedures caused by powerplant, airframe or system malfunctions, fire or other abnormalities.

9.4.4 Pilot proficiency checks

An operator shall ensure that piloting technique and the ability to execute emergency procedures is checked in such a way as to demontrate the pilot's competence.

(SIA co-pilots occupying the left hand seat, pilot-in-command duty station, with no training for emergency procedures or recovery from unusual attitudes. The B747-400 systems requires the left hand seat to be Pilot flying in certain situations without the availability of the autopilot).

(e) SIA's failure to provide an acceptable level of safety oversight regarding licensing, training and qualifications during 3-pilot operations (One Captain, two co-pilots) resulted in unsafe airline operations. SIA's failures include without limitation:

More to follow.

Gladiator

15th Oct 2000, 21:23

(i) Licensing - XXX should not have been required to operate on the B747-400 with only a CPL; an ATPL or a CPL with ATPL written exams was required for any capacity.

(ii) Training - XXX was not adequately trained to operate the B-747 or B747-400 aircraft as either pilot flying or pilot not flying from the pilot-in-command duty station, (the LHS); nor was he adequately trained to operate the aircraft as pilot flying in co-pilot's duty station (the RHS) while another unqualified co-pilot occupied the pilot-in-command's duty station, (the LHS).

(iii) Qualifications - The person acting as pilot-in-command relief must meet the same qualifications as the pilot-in-command. XXX did not possess the qualifications of pilot-in-command.

(f) SIA ignored safety concerns relating to 3-pilot (One Captain, two co-pilots) expressed by other SIA crewmembers during fleet meetings, including significant concerns regarding the inadequate qualifications of co-pilots occupying the pilot-in-command's duty station during the time the pilot-in-command takes inflight relief and/or rest. Concerns ranged from total flight time experience to training in the actual pilot-in-command duty station, the LHS.

(g) SIA ignored XXX's safety concerns, which were communicated to the Director of Flight Operations, Captain Maurice De Vaz, through dozens of anonymous letters sent directly to him.

(h) SIA continued to operate with the knowledge that Captains take inflight relief and/or rest in the bunkroom during 3-pilot operations (One Captain, two co-pilots).

(i) SIA allowed the cockpit door to remain unlocked during flight time, thereby jeopardizing the safety and security of XXX, the flight, and the passengers.

(j) SIA allowed passengers to enter the cockpit, thereby breaching the safety and security of XXX, the flight, and the passengers.

(k) SIA allowed passengers to enter the cockpit after having consumed alcohol, thereby breaching the safety and security of XXX, the flight, and the passengers.

(l) SIA failed to implement safety procedures in the use of oxygen above 25,000 feet by a flight crewmember left at the controls, while the other crewmember leaves the cockpit. SIA also allowed flight crewmembers to operate with beards (oxygen masks will no longer seal on the face). These practices threatened the safety of XXX, the flight, and the passengers.

(m) SIA failed to respond to XXX's report of a hazardous condition involving a ladder in a cargo area.

(n) In contravention of Article 14 of the ICA Convention, SIA failed to take effective measures to prevent the spread by means of air navigation of communicable disease, such as the plague in India in 1994.

(o) In contravention of Singapore employment law, CAP 122 (15), SIA failed to take effective measures to prevent the spread by means of work environment as well as air navigation of communicable diseases such as the plague and tuberculosis.

(p) SIA and CAAS failed to provide required notification, pursuant to Article 38 of the ICA Convention, of departures from ICAO international safety standards and procedures.

Interrogatory No. 14: Describe in detail and not in summary the specific basis for your counterclaim that you did not receive adequate or competent training from SIA.

Answer to No. 14: See General Objection C. Subject to and without waiving this objection, XXX answers as follows:

(a) See answer to Interrogatory Nos. 10, 13.

(b) SIA did not ensure that piloting technique and the ability to execute emergency procedures were checked in such a way as to demonstrate pilot's competence as required by ICAO Annex 6, Part 1, and CAAS Rules (Ninth Schedule) Part B, Crew Training and Tests, (2) Pilots.

(c) XXX was trained as a co-pilot in the B-747 and B747-400 from the co-pilot's duty station, the RHS. XXX's training included:

(i) Normal procedures. Training, checkrides, recurrent training conducted from the RHS.

(ii) Non-normal procedures. Training, checkrides, recurrent training conducted from the RHS.

(iii) Emergency procedures. TRaining, checkrides, recurrent training conducted from the RHS.

If XXX was expected to perform pilot duties from the pilot-in-command's duty station, the LHS, XXX should have (i) received training for normal, non-normal, and emergency procedures from the LHS as well as the RHS; (ii) received checkrides from the LHS as well as the RHS; and (iii) received recurrent training from the LHS as well as the RHS. Adequate training and currency requirements in both the LHS and RHS is necessary to achieve an acceptable level of flight crewmember competency and safety.

(d) Due to motoe skill manipulation differences, aircraft control wheel manipulation with the left hand and the thrust levers with the right hand when seated at the left cockpit duty station, as compared to the manupulation of the same controls with opposite hands when seated at the right cockpit duty station, are different tasks requiring training in the particular seat, if an operator intends to achieve an acceptable level of safety.

(e) Certain emergencies would require the pilot occupying the pilot-in-command's duty station, (the LHS) to manually manipulate the controls. For example, certain *electrical failures which would render the RHS instruments unusable. Therefore, if an operator substitutes flight crewmembers in cockpit duty positions for which the crewmember normally does not occupy, an operator's failure to consider motor skill manipulation differences as different tasks, requiring training in the particular seat would create unnecessary risks and an unacceptable level of safety.

*B747-400 operating on the Stdby Bus.

(f) Training and ability to conduct emergency procedures from the RHS does not assure the same level of performance and competency from the LHS.
Studies in ergonomics has shown that training from the respective seat to be critical, otherwise during an emergency, specially multiple failures, this could result in potential improper, untimely, or non-execution of safety measures or emergency procedures.

More to follow.

Gladiator

18th Oct 2000, 19:21

Interrogatory No. 15: Describe in detail and not in summary the specific damages you have suffered as a result of your counterclaim that SIA breached its contracts with you.

Answer to No. 15: See General Objection C. Subject to and without waiving this objection, XXX answers as follows:

(a) XXX’s departure from SIA caused his loss of 6.5 years of seniority. Seniority is a number assigned AT THE TIME A PILOT OFFICIALLY BECOMES AN EMPLOYEE OF AN AIRLINE. Career advancement in the airline pilot ranks is dependant on one’s seniority. The most important career advancement of an airline pilot is promotion from the rank of First Officer (co-pilot) to rank of Captain (pilot-in-command), which once again is predicated on pilot’s seniority.

(b) XXX’s breach of contracts forced XXX’s resignation. XXX has returned to the bottom of the seniority ladder at his present employment.

(c) XXX has also had to take a substantial pay cut. According to SIA’s payroll stubs from Nov 96 to Oct 97, XXX’s take home pay was average of 8,337.67 Singapore dollars per month. In addition to this amount he contributed 1,200 Singapore dollars per month to his provident fund. SIA also contributed 1,200 Singapore dollars per month contribution to XXX’s provident fund making a total of 2,400 Singapore dollars a month contribution to XXX’s provident fund. That places XXX’s income per month at SIA at an average of 10,737.67 Singapore dollars per month, which is approximately 7,405.28 US dollars witht the exchange rate in 96/97. XXX’s starting salary at his present employment was take home pay of 2,550 US dollrs per month. XXX’s combined income for 1998 was 41,728 US dollars (family of four). This demonstrates that XXX obtained no financial or career gain from leaving SIA. Indeed, he has sustained substantial losses.

(d) XXX has suffered further losses by paying legal expenses in this litigation.

Discussion (not part of legal documents) – It is important to note that promotions at SIA in fact do not depend on seniority. In fact seniority nothing depends on seniority and it is a worthless number in the SIA system. However since the trial would require experts to testify, the seniority system was explained.

Interrogatory No. 16: Describe in detail and not in summary the specific basis for your affirmative defense as asserted in Paragraph 22 of your answer that SIA's claims are barred by its failure to exercise reasonable care to provide a proper and safe system of work for you and other pilots on international flights.

Answer to No. 16: See General Objection C. Subject to and without waiving this objection, XXX answers as follows:

(a) See answers to Interrogatories No. 6,7,9,10,11,12,13, and 14.

(b) SIA's implementation and use of unsafe operating practices and procedures were in violation of public policy.

(c) SIA was negligent in failing to take adequate safety precautions for XXX's safety and the safety of other pilots on international flights.

(d) SIA required XXX and other pilots to perform acts that were unsafe and rendered their workplace dangerous. it is SIA's responsibility as an employer to provide and maintain a safe system of work for XXX and it's pilots. (A contract which tends to be potentially injurious to the employee or to the public or against the public good is
invalidated on the grounds of public policy.)

(e) XXX terminated his contract of service with SIA without notice because XXX reasonably believed his life and the life of passengers were in danger, and because SIA had breached his contracts.

More to follow.

Gladiator

21st Oct 2000, 06:39

Interrogatory No. 17: Describe in detail and not in summary the full and complete extent of your commercial flying experience, flight training, and pilot certifications that you possessed prior to your first day of employment with SIA.

Answer to No. 17:

(a)Pilot certificates

(i)FAA

Airline Transport Pilot
Multi-engine Land
Commercial privileges Single Engine Land & Sea
Type ratings, CE500 (Citation)

ii)FAA

Flight Instructor
Airplane Single and Multi-engine Land
Instrument Airplane

(b)Commercial Flying experience

(i)FAA Part 141 Flight training school flight instructor
(ii)FAA Part 61 Flight training school flight instructor
(iii)FAA Part 135 Air Carrier Captain, C-207
(iv)FAA Part 135 Air Carrier Captaib, PA23-250
(v)FAA Part 135 Air Carrier first officer, SA-227, C212

(c)Flight training

(i)See answer to Interrogatory No. 17.
(ii)FAA requirements for:

(1)Private Pilot Certificate, Single Engine Land
(2)Commercial Pilot Certificate, Single Engine land
(3)Instrument Pilot Certificate
(4)Commercial Pilot Certificate Single Engine Sea-plane
(5)Commercial Pilot Certificate Multi-engine land
(6)Certified Flight Instructor Single Engine land
(7)Certified Flight Instructor Instrument
(8)Certified Flight Instructor Multi-Engine land
(9)Airline Transport Pilot Certificate Multi-engine Land
(10)CE500 Type Rating (PIC)

(iii)FAA requirements for employment with:

(1)Part 135 Air carrier training C-207
(2)Part 135 Air carrier training on SA-227
(3)Part 135 Air carrier training on PA23-250
(4)Part 135 Air carrier training on C212

(d)Total Flight Time experience

Total Time: 2855
Total SEL: 1537
Total SES: 19
Total MEL: 1299

Interrogatory No. 18: Describe in detail and not in summary the full and complete extent of all your commercial flying experience, flight training, and pilot certifications that you possessed on the date you tendered your resignation to SIA, october 27, 1997.

(a)Pilot certificates

(i)Same as Interrogatory 17 (a) (i) and (ii)
(ii)Singapore

Commercial Pilot License
Single & Multi-engine Land
Co-pilot priviledges B747-300/400
Instrument Aeroplane

(b)Commercial flying experience

(i)See Interrogatory No. 17 (b)
(ii)Singapore Airlines B747-300/400 Co-pilot/ Captain’s relief*

*Was required to act as Captain’s relief without the proper qualifications, license and training.

(c)Flight training

(i)See Interrogatory No. 17 (c).
(ii)Civil Aviation Authority Singapore (“CAAS” ;) requirements for:

1)B-747 Restricted to co-pilot, and co-pilot duties only.
2)B747-400 Restricted to co-pilot, and co-pilot duties only.

(e)Total Flight Time experience

Total Time: 7223
Total SEL: 1537
Total SES: 19
Total MEL: 5667

Interrogatory No. 19: Describe in detail and not in summary your commercial flying experience since you tendered your resignation to SIA, together with any additional flight training and pilot certifications you have received since that date.

Answer to No. 19:

(a)Pilot certification

None

(b) Commercial flying experience

(i)FAA Part 121 Air carrier First Officer MD-80
(ii)FAA Part 121 Air carrier First Officer B-737

(c)Flight Training

(i)FAA requirements for employment with:

1)Part 121 Air carrier training on MD-80
2)Part 121 Air carrier training on B-737

More to follow.

[This message has been edited by Gladiator (edited 21 October 2000).]

Gladiator

24th Oct 2000, 20:31

Interrogatory No. 29: Provide the sprcific dates and flights in which the incidents alleged in Paragraph 21 of your counterclaims occurred (relating to the cockpit door being unlocked and passengers having consumed alcohol being allowed into the cockpit).

Answer to No. 20: XXX objects to SIA's use of a paraphrased, version of paragraph 21 of defendant's Answer, whivh states:

"Safety on SIA's flights is further compromised by the airline's practices of: (a) not requiring that the cockpit door remain locked during flight, placing the security of the flight at risk; and (b) allowing passengers into the cockpit of the aircraft after having consumed alcoholic beverages (psychoactive substance) during all phases of the flight, including the critical phase, take-off and landing, creating a further security and safety risk."

Subject to and without waiver of this objection, XXX answers as follows:

(a) Cockpit door being unlocked during flight

(i) All B-747 and B747-400 flights

(ii) On the B747-400, SIA had the practise of placing an eye shade (a device normally provided to passengers for the purpose of creating darkness while sleep) over the locking mechanism of the cockpit door. The purpose of this practice was to ensure that the cockpit door lock mechanism does not engage, which would create a clicking sound as the cockpit door was opened and closed. (Flight attendents open and close the cockpit door when they enter and exit the cockpit.) This clicking sound disturbed the crew sleeping in the bunkroom. The cockpit door lock mechanism is connected to the bunkroom wall.

(iii) SIA received various complaints from passengers regarding the strange looking device covering the cockpit door lock mechanism. After XXX left SIA's employment, SIA has now modified the cockpit door locks on many of the B747-400 aircraft. The door mechanism now looks normal, but the locking mechanism will no longer engage.

(iv) Not keeping the cockpit door locked creates a very serious and safety risk. In the past there has been many incidents and accidents resulting in fatalities from unauthorized entry into the cockpit of commercial air transport.

(v) One incident occured in 1997, when a Cathay Pacific B-747 flight which originated in Singapore was on final approach into Bangkok airport. A passenger gained unauthorized access into the cockpit while the cockpit door was left unlocked. This passenger attempted to strangle the Captain while the B-747 was on the critical phase of the flight, on short final (close to the ground and almost near landing). Other passengers intervened, creating a Western bar style brawl in the cockpit in which one of the intervening passengers broke his hand. This incident could have ended in disaster.

(vi) In another incident occuring in 1999, a passenger gained unauthorized access into the cockpit of a All Nippon Airways B-747 and stabbed the Captain to death.

(vii) An Ethiopean B-757 crashed with dozens of fatalities when unauthorized entry into the cockpit created a hijacking. The co-pilot was beaten unconsious.

Discussion item - After the All Nippon Airways incident, the Japanese Civil Aviation Authority implemented the same regulation as the FAA, no passenger is allowed in the cockpit, and the cockpit door remains locked.

More to follow.

Gladiator

1st Nov 2000, 17:38

(b) Passengers being allowed into the cockpit, as well as passengers being allowed into the cockpit after consumption of alcohol (psychoactive substance).

(i) For the purpose of public relations, SIA allows regular passengers to visit the cockpit during the flight's critical phase, take-off and landing, and while in cruise flight.

(ii) The cockpit visits are at the dsicretion of the captain. The passengers requests a visit through a flight attendant. The flight attendant informs the Captain, which then gives approval for the visit.

(iii) There are no provisions or policies in the SIA's training manual or Flight Administration Manual instructing flight attendants or crewmembers not to allow cockpit visits by passengers who have consumed alcohol.

(iv) SIA flight attendants have no formal security training in passenger profiling.

(v) Any passenger can gain unauthorized access to the cockpit while the aircraft is in flight. This practice threatened the safety and security of XXX and the passengers.

(vi) Visitation to the cockpit by passengers occurs frequently. Alcohol is served free of charge to all passengers.

(vii) SIA has had many alcohol related incidents in the passenger cabin that required intervention of law enforcement upon arrival at the destination. These passengers have access to the cockpit at any time.

(c) Listed below are some of the specific dates and flights on which passengers were allowed into the cockpit, some after consumption of alcohol:

Nov 15, 1991, NRT to SIN
Jan 11, 1992, YVR to SEL
May 30, 1992, SEL to SIN
Jun 28, 1992, HNL to LAX
Jan 02, 1993, TPE to SEL
Apr 25, 1993, JNB to SIN (Video available)
Feb 09, 1994, BNE to SIN (Passenger, the Captain's son, occupied the First Officer seat while the First Officer (XXX) was absent from his duty station due to physiological needs.
Jun 08, 1994, SEL to YVR
Jan 26, 1995, SIN to SYD
Feb 15, 1995, LHR to SIN (Picture available)
Dec 05, 1995, PER to SIN
Mar 22, 1996, LHR to SIN
Date missing. SIN to Australia. Capt. XXX was dismissed from SIA. On the way home to Australia, he was in the cockpit after consumption of large amounts of alcohol.

Interrogatory No. 21: Identify all persons to whome you reported any incident referred to in Interrogatory no. 20.

Answer to No. 21: XXX did not report the incidents identified in Interrogatory 21 because (a) he was reasonably concerned that he would never receive a promotion; (b) there are no whistleblower laws in Singapore to protect the employee; and (c) Singapore culture does not encourage such reports.

Interrogatory No. 22: Identify all expert witnesses you intend to call at trial, and as to each person state the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify and the substance of the facts and opinions to which the exprt is expected to testify, and provide a summary of the grounds for each of the expert's opinions.

Answer to No. 22: See General Objection B. Not yet determined.

Interrogatory No. 23: Describe in detail and not in summary your current citizenship status in the United States and describe your efforts to obtain or maintain any visa and permanent resident status in the United States.

Answer to No. 23: XXX is a United States citizen. Therefore, there was no effort to obtain or maintain any visa and permanent resident status in the United States.

End of Interrogatories. Next will be Request for Production (documents) followed by Request for Admission.

More to follow.

mgdimarco

1st Nov 2000, 23:27

Gladiator,

You, no doubt, have some opinions regarding the SQ006 incident. I'm interested. How goes flying for Wolfman Jack? Saw a picture of the new paint scheme. Dark. Is that a one time thing or fleet repaint?

You may know I left my instructor position at Alaska for an A320 job. New airline is a good one with people oriented management. It is as if I've died and gone to pilot heaven. Captain's stripe is next summer. I'll be looking for passage to Singapore about then to do some well earned gloating.

Reading through this stuff, I wonder how much could have applied to my situation. Obviously, the A310 did not use "cruise captains". So my safety issues were not as consistently apparent. My issues were well buried for that matter. CMC data on the barrel roll, etc. are long gone.

One thing you said resonated very well, they try to out last the financial ability of the opponent.

I have a question for you though. Does your outrage for training contracts carry over to you current employer? The Air Group bonds pilots of Horizon Air for three or six thousand be it the Dash 8 or Fokker. They are terribly uneven in their handling of training contract enforcement. Alaska ALPA MEC does a "see no evil" with this matter. And the Teamster efforts for a contract are virtually fruitless. Does your integrity motivate you to end this practise in your own backyard? If so, contact Steve Bass (AS F/O) at [email protected] and ask how you can help.

Mike

Gladiator

11th Nov 2000, 08:33

Thank you everyone for your e-mails and support. I have not ignored you, I am taking a few days off from posting details of the case. I will continue the posts in a few days.

Dear Mike, sorry to see you leave Wolfman Jack/Bob Marley airline. I hope you will be fed plenty of grapes and wine in the new pilot heaven.

To answer your question about my back yard, I have never been against training contracts, I am however against unfair/unsafe practices. Since I am not familiar with details of QX I can not give you any comments. As for AS there is no training contract.

Gladiator

18th Nov 2000, 18:10

Next are documents requested by SIA to be presented as evidence.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION No. 1: Produce all documents relating to your claims that the plaintiff violated air safety regulations of either the United States, Singapore or any other international regulatory authority or international convention.

RESPONSE to No. 1: XXX objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad and burdensome.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION No. 2: Produce each and every Commercial Pilots License ("CPL") issued by any aviation authority in the world that you have held in the last 20 years.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIUON No. 3: Produce all documents relating to your past and current authority to operate any aircraft, specifically including, but not limited to, licenses, permits, records of training, flying logs, for every type of aircraft you are licensed or otherwise qualified to operate.

RESPONSE to No. 3: XXX objects on the grounds that it is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery and admissible evidence.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION No. 4: Produce all documents relating to your claim that your CPL did not qualify you to relieve the Pilot in Command of any version of the B-747 aircraft.

RESPONSE to No. 4: XXX objects to this request to the extent it calls for production of documents that are available to or in the possession of SIA.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION No. 5: Produce all documents in your possession relating to the authority of a co-pilot or First Officer to operate aircraft under the laws of any jurisdiction, entity or treaty.

RESPONSE to No. 5: Same objection as Request for Production No. 4.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION No. 6: Produce all documents relating to your allegation in paragraph 13 of your answer that the B-747 aircraft were being "phased out."

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION No. 7: Produce all documents relating to SIA's alleged breaches of its contract with you as discussed in Interrogatories No. 10-15.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION No. 8: Produce all documents relating to any of your alleged safety concerns about the operation of SIA aircraft that you provided to any person or entity during the past ten years, including but not limited to SIA, the Singapore Civil Aviation Authority (CAAS), the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the Singapore Chapter of International Airline Pilots Association or any other union that you were a member of during your employment with SIA.

RESPONSE to No. 8: XXX objects to this request to the extent that it seeks documents generated after the termination of XXX's employment at SIA on the grounds that the request is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION No. 9: Produce all documents relating to any "fleet" meetings that you attended while an employee of SIA, including but not limited to any notes taken by you or distributed to you during or after any fleet meetings, any and all newsletters entitled "Megaflash", and copies or originals of any questions that you ever submitted to any SIA officials prior to any "fleet" meetings.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION No 10: Produce all documents reflecting any communication between you and any other person regarding alleged safety concerns about the operation of SIA aircraft.

RESPONSE to No. 10: XXX objects to this request to the extent it seeks discovery of documents generated after the termination of XXX's emplyment, on the grounds that the request is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION No. 11: Produce any documents related to any effort by you to obtain emplyment with any entity since your resignation from SIA on October 27, 1997, including but not limited to letters, application forms and resumes.

DISCUSSION: In regards to the above request for production, in meetings with SIA lawyers, it became evident that SIA could not understand why I was not seeking a B-747 job. They were (not anymore after many of their pilots left for KAL, CAL in 2000) actually convinced that they pay well. The lawyer said, "you are flying a B-737 until the SIA case is over, and then are going to look for a B-747 job".

The facts are actually that after 3.5 years at my present employment I would be making more as a B-737 F/O than a SIA B-777 Captain.
Quality of life concept (most important for me) is not understood by a Singaporean.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION No. 12: Produce all documents relating to any agreement you have entered with any entity regarding employment during the past two years.

RESPONSE to No. 12: No such document exist.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION No. 13: Produce all documents relating to your employment with SIA, including, but not limited to all documents relating to the employment application process, documents you received while an employee, documents you received in connection with safety and flight training, and documents relating to or which you received after termination of your employment with SIA.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION No. 14: Produce all documents relating to damages you have suffered as a result of any alleged act or omission by the plaintiff.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION No. 15: Produce all documents provided to or received from each and every expert witness you intend to call, including, but not limited to, a current resume and list of publications, if any.

RESPONSE to No. 15: XXX objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks discovery of work product and exeeds the scope of discovery under Fed R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4).

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION No. 16: Produce all documents identified in or relating to your responses to plaintiff's First Interrogatories that have not been otherwise produced.

End of Request for Production of documents. Next will be REQUEST FOR ADMISSION.

More to follow.

P.S. Nobody likes Whistleblowers.

Gladiator

27th Nov 2000, 21:05

The following are SIA request for admission by XXX. It is going to get good.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 1: Admit that the document attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of a letter dated June 18, 1991, from Singapore Airlines, Ltd. to you, offering you employment with Singapore Airlines, Ltd.

Response to No 1: Admit

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 2: Admit that on June 28, 1991 you signed Singapore Airline's, Ltd's offer letter (Exhibit 1) thereby accepting employment with Singapore Airlines, Ltd.

Response to No. 2: See General Objections 2 and 3. This request for admission calls for legal conclusions concerning "accepting employment", as well as the documents constituting the contractual agreement between the parties. Subject to and without waiving these objections, XXX answers as follows:

XXX admits that he signed the June 18, 1991 offer letter (Exhibit 1) on June 28, 1991, confirming his acceptance of employment. See answer to Request for Admission No. 3.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 3: Admit that by signing the offer letter (Exhibit 1) you agreed to accept employment with Singapore Airlines, Ltd. under the terms and conditions set forth in the offer letter.

Response to No. 3: See general Objections 2 and 3. Subject to and without waiving these objections, XXX answers as follows:

Deny. XXX accepted employment as a Cadet Pilot for training and qualification as a First Officer (Co-pilot) only, under the terms and conditions of the offer letter (Exhibit 1) and Agreement for a Course of Training (Exhibit 2), the 1995 Agreement between Singapore Airlines and ALPA-Singapore, and the CPL issued to XXX by Civil Aviation Authority Singapore ("CAAS").
XXX's employment was also governed by applicable avaiation safety laws and standards, (including, without limitation, international safety standards embodied in Annex 1 and Annex 6, Part 1 to the ICA Convention, and FAA regulations).

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 4: Admit that one of the terms and conditions in the offer letter (Exhibit 1), provided for you to enter into an agreement with Singapore Airlines, Ltd. providing, among other things, for you to remain in the service of Singapore Airlines, Ltd. for a minimum period of seven years from the date of your employment as a First Officer by Singapore Airlines, Ltd.

Response to No 4: See General Objections 2 and 3> This request for admission calls for legal conclusion concerning contractual terms and conditions. Subject to and without waiving these objections, XX answers as follows:

Admit that XXX agreed to remain in service at
SIA for seven years after his appointment as a First officer, provided that SIA complied with its contractual duties, Singapore employment laws and applicable avaiation safety laws and standards (including, without limitation, international safety standards embodied in Annex 1 and Annex 6, Part 1 to the ICA Convention, and FAA regulations.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 5: Admit that the offer letter (Exhibit 1) provided that disputes between you and Singapore Airlines, Ltd. over your employment were to be governed by the laws of Singapore.

Response to No. 5: See General Objections 2 and 3. This request for admission calls for legal conclusion relating to the interpretation of the offer letter, (Exhibit 1). Subject to and without waiving these objections, XXX answers as follows:

Deny. Paragraph 6 of Exhibit 1 does not mention disputes. It states that "The applicable law for the purpose of your contract of employment will be the laws of Singapore".

Issues and disputes regarding SIA's unsafe operating unsafe operating practices are governed by applicable aviation laws and standards, (including without limitation, international safety standards embodied in Annex 1 and Annex 6, Part 1 to the ICA Convention, and FAA regulations.)

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 6: Admit that the document attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of a contract entitled "AN AGREEMENT FOR A COURSE OF TRAINING AT THE EXPENSE OF SINGAPORE AIRLINES LIMITED" (hereinafter "Cadet Pilot Training Agreement") in which you are referred to as "The Trainee".

Response to No. 6: Admit

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 7: Admit that on or about december 27, 1991 you signed the Cadet Pilot Training Agreement (Exhibit 2).

Response to No. 7: Admit

More to follow.

[This message has been edited by Gladiator (edited 27 November 2000).]

Gladiator

28th Nov 2000, 21:43

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 8: Admit that the cadet Pilot Training Agreement (Exhibit 2) provides that in exchange for receiving a course of training as cadet pilot at Singapore airlines, Ltd's expense, you agreed to remain in the service of singapore Airlines, Ltd. for a minimum period of seven years from the date you were appointed a first Officer by Singapore Airlines, Ltd.

Response to No. 8: See answer to Request for Admission No. 3.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 9: Admit that the Cadet Pilot Training Agreement (Exhibit 2) provides for sureties to consign the agreement and be held jointly and severally liable on the agreement.

Response to No. 9: See General Objections 2 and 3. XXX further objects on the grounds that the phrase "liable on the agreement" is vague and ambiguous, and the request for admission calls for a legal conclusion regarding alleged surety liability. Subject to and without waiving these objections XXX answers as follows:

Deny. The surety provision is set forth in paragraph 7 of Exhibit 2. Any alleged liability of the sureties was discharged by SIA's breaches of contracts and negligence.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 10: Admit that XXX and XXX signed the cadet )Pilot Agreement (Exhibit 2) as your sureties.

Response to No. 10: Admit.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 11: Admit that the clause Seven of the Cadet Pilot Training Agreement (Exhibit 2) provides for a schedule of liquidated damages to be paid to Singapore Airlines, Ltd. by you or the sureties in the event that you were to leave the service of Singapore Airlines, Ltd. without permission prior to seven years after you completed your cadet pilot training and became a First Officer.

Response to No. 10: XXX objects to this Request for Admission because it calls for a legal conclusion regarding the interpretation and legal effect of the liquidated damages clause.

Subject to and without waiving these objections, XXX answers as follows:

Deny. The liquidated damages clause does not apply to XXX's termination of employment due to (a) his being compelled to perform duties beyond those of a First Officer (co-pilot); (b) SIA's unsafe airline operations in violation of aviation safety laws and standards; and/or (c) SIA's wilful and material breaches of contract.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 12: Admit that the Cadet Pilot Training Agreement (Exhibit 2) provides that any disputes between you and Singapore Airlines, Ltd. concerning the agreement are to be governed by the laws of Singapore.

Reponse to No. 12: See Objections 2 and 3, and answer to Request for Admission No. 5. Subject to and without waiving these objections, XXX answers as follows:

Deny. The Cadet Pilot Training agreement states that the "Agreement shall be governed by and construed in an accordance with "Singapore laws". Safety issues and disputes relating to SIA's aircraft are governed by applicable aviation safety laws and standards (including, without limitation, international safety standards embodied in Annex 1 and Annex 6, Part 1 to the ICA Convention, and FAA regulations).

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 13: Admit that on or about February 11, 1993 you successfully completed your cadet pilot Training and were promoted to the rank of First Officer on boeing 747 ("B-747") aircraft.

Response to No. 13: Admit that XXX was promoted to the rank of First Officer (Co-pilot), trained and qualified to perform co-pilot duties only from the right hand seat ("the RHS") of the B-747 aircraft.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 14: Admit that the document attached hereto as exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of a contract entitled "AN AGREEMENT FOR A COURSE OF CONVERSION TRAINING" (hereafter "Conversion Training Agreement") in which you are referred to as "the pilot".

DISCUSSION No. 14: The issue is that the contract stated First Officer (co-pilot). SIA utilized XXX as Captain (pilot-in-command) relief. In admission No. 14 above, SIA is trying hard to play with words, hence, admit that the contract referred to XXX as "the pilot" as apposed to "co-pilot". Therefore it is OK for him to have been other than "co-pilot", he could have been, "Captain relief", etc.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 15: Admit that on or about December 19, 1994 you signed the Conversion Training Agreement (Exhibit 3).

Response to No. 15: Admit.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 16: Admit that the Conversion Training Agreement (Exhibit 3) provided that you would undertake a course of training that would, upon completion, qualify you to fly a Boeing 747-400 aircraft.

Response to No. 16: See General Objection 2 and 3. XXX admits that he undertook a course of conversion training on the B747-400 aircraft, to operate only in the capacity of First officer (co-pilot) in the RHS. XXX denies that he undertook a course of training to operate in the capacity of pilot-in-command, or inflight relief assuming the duties of the pilot-in-command on the b747-400 aircraft.

XXX denies that he was qualified to act as a flight crewmember on the B747-400 in any capacity engaged in commercial air transport operations, because he held a Singapore CPL without the demonstrated level of knowledge appropriate to the privileges granted to the holder of an airline transport pilot license ("ATPL") as determined by CAAS. See XXX's answer to Interrogatory No. 6.

DISCUSSION No. 16: In Feb 2000 the FAA summoned CAAS to explain CAAS and SIA's alleged non-compliance of ICAO's minimum international safety standards in regards to pilot licenses as well as other unsafe operations.

Gladiator was present in that meeting held at FAA's international field office in Singapore. Ken Toft represented SIA and CAAS.

CAAS and SIA's responses were:

1- Pilot license issue (80 co-pilots without ATPL or CPL without ATPL exams passed):

"they cannot pass the test, what are we suppose to do with them, fire them?"

2- Co-pilots with CPL only assuming pilot-in-command duties in the LHS during cruise while Captain in the bunkroom:

"what's wrong with that?".

More to follow.

[This message has been edited by Gladiator (edited 28 November 2000).]

Gladiator

30th Nov 2000, 09:34

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 17: Admit that pursuant to Clause 4 of the Conversion Training Agreement (Exhibit 3), you agreed to remain in the service of Singapore Airlines, Ltd. for a period of 3 years after you became qualified to fly the Boeing 747-400 aircraft.

Response to No. 17: See General Objections 2 and 3. The request for admission calls for legal conclusion regarding the Conversion Training Agreement. Subject to and without waiving these objections, XXX answers as follows:

Deny. The Conversion Training Agreement states that XXX shall remain in the service of SIA for a period of seven years from the date that his license was endorsed to allow him to operate in the appropriate capacity. XXX was never qualified to act as a flight crewmember on the B747-400 aircraft, and was not trained or qualified to operate in a capacity beyond that of a First Officer (co-pilot) trained in the RHS.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 18: Admit that Clause 5 of the Conversion Training Agreement (Exhibit 3) sets forth a schedule of liquidated damages to be paid by you to Singapore Airlines Ltd. in the event that you were to leave the service of Singapore Airlines, Ltd. before the end of the 3 year period identified in Clause 4 of the Conversion Training Agreement.

Response to No. 18: See General Objections 2 and 3. The request for admission calls for legal conclusion regarding the liquidated damages provision. Subject to and without waiving these objections, XXX answers as follows:

Deny. The liquidated damages clause only applied to XXX’s leaving his service as First officer (co-pilot) prior to seven years after his appointment. XXX denies that the liquidated damages applies to a voluntary resignation due to (a) his being compelled to perform duties beyond those of a First Officer (co-pilot); (b) SIA’s unsafe airline operations in violation of applicable aviation laws and standards (including, without limitation, international safety standards embodied in Annex 1, and Annex 6, Part 1 to the ICA Convension and FAA regulations); and/or (c) SIA’s wilful and material breaches of contract.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 19: Admit that you completed your training under the Conversion Training Agreement (Exhibit 3).

Response to No. 19: XXX admits that he undertook the course of conversion training on the Boeing B747-400 aircraft, but only in the capacity of First Officer (co-pilot) operating from the RHS, and only to undertake co-pilot responsibilities. XXX denies that he was qualified to act as a flight crewmember in any capacity on the B747-400 commercial air transport operations, and further denies that he was trained or qualified to assume the duties of pilot-in-command without supervision. See XXX’s answer to Interrogatory No. 6.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 20: Admit that on January 12, 1995 your pilot’s license was endorsed to allow you to fly the Boeing 747-400 aircraft.

Response to No. 20: Deny. The endorsement of XXX’s Singaporean CPL license to fly the B747-400 was invalid because the endorsement was not in accordance with Annex 1 (Personnel Licensing) of ICAO. In order to operate as a flight crewmember, on the B747-400 aircraft, XXX was required to possess (1) a Singaporean CPL with ATPL exams as accepted by CAAS, or (2) a Singaporean ATPL.

Moreover, XXX was trained and qualified only to operate as a First Officer (co-pilot), performing co-pilot duties only in the RHS. See XXX’s answer to Interrogatory No. 6.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 21: Admit that the document attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a waiver (hereinafter “Waiver” ;) pertaining to the Conversion Training Agreement (Exhibit 3).

Response to No. 21: Admit.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 22: Admit that you signed the “Waiver” (Exhibit 4) on or about November 22, 1994.

Response to No. 22: Admit.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 23: Admit that by the signature on the Waiver (Exhibit 4), you requested that Singapore Airlines, Ltd. waive any requirements providing for sureties to cosign your Conversion Training Agreement (Exhibit 3).

Response to No. 23: Admit.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 24: Admit that the date of your resignation was less than seven years from the date that you were initially appointed as a First Officer by Singapore Airlines, Ltd.

Response to No. 24: Deny. Due to SIA’s wilful and material breaches of contract, and violation of applicable aviation safety laws and standards, XXX exercised his rights under Singapore employment law to terminate his contracts of service without notice less than seven years from the date he was initially appointed as First Officer by SIA.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 25: Admit that the date of your resignation was less than three years from the date January 12, 1995.

Response to No. 25: Deny. Due to SIA’s wilful and material breaches of contract, and violation of applicable aviation laws and standards, XXX exercised his rights under Singapore employment law to terminate his contracts of service without notice less than three years from January 12, 1995.

More to follow.

Gladiator

30th Nov 2000, 21:02

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION No. 26: Admit that due to the training given to you by Singapore Airlines, Ltd., at the expense of Singapore Airlines, Ltd., you became qualified to fly the B747-300 aircraft and the Boeing 747-400 aircraft.

Response to No. 26: XXX objects to the use of the term “fly”, without reference to the capacity or duty station, as vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving this objection, XXX answers as follows:

XXX admits that he became qualified to fly B-747 )200/300) aircraft only in the capacity of First Officer (co-pilot) from the co-pilot’s duty station, the RHS only, with a Singaporean CPL and a restricted type rating. XXX undertook a course of training to operate on the B747-400 aircraft as a co-pilot from the RHS only, but was never qualified to act as a crewmember on the B747-400 for commercial air transport operations because he only held a Singaporean CPL and a restricted type rating. Annex 1 of ICAO (Personnel Licensing) to the ICA Convention requires the co-pilot on B747-400 to hold CPL with ATPL exams as accepted by CAAS, or a Singaporean ATPL. See XXX’s answer to Interrogatory No. 6.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 27: Admit that without the training given to you by Singapore Airlines, Ltd., and at Singapore Airlines, Ltd.’s expense, you would not have been able to flt B747-300 or B747-400 aircraft for Singapore Airlines, Ltd.

Response to No. 27: XXX objects to the use of the term “fly”, without reference to the capacity or duty station, as vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving this objection, XXX answers as follows:

Admit that SIA required XXX to train on the aircraft with which SIA conducts commercial air transport operations. SIA trained XXX to operate the B-747 (200/300) as First officer (co-pilot) from the co-pilot’s duty station, the RHS only. SIA required XXX to undertake a course of training on the b747-400 as first officer (co-pilot), from the RHS only, but XXX was never qualified to act as a crewmember on the B747-400 because he only held a singaporean CPL with a restricted type rating. Annex 1 of ICAO (personnel Licensing) required XXX to have held a Singaporean CPL with ATPL exams as accepted by CAAS, or a Singaporean ATPL. See XXX’s answer to Interrogatory No. 6.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 28: Admit that the document attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of the resignation letter you submitted to Singapore Airlines, Ltd. on or about October 27, 1997.

Response to No. 28: Admit.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 29: Admit that in submitting the document attached hereto as Exhibit 5 to Singapore Airlines, Ltd., you told Singapore Airlines, Ltd that you were resigning from Singapore Airlines, Ltd. due to personal circumstances.

Response to No. 29: See general Objections 2 and 3. Subject to and without waiving these objection, XXX answers as follows:

Admit that Exhibit 5 advised SIA that XXX was resigning due to personal circumstances, which were as follows:

XXX was not willing to continue operating SIA aircraft engaging in unsafe aircraft and commercial air transport operations, or to perform duties beyond his capacity as First Officer (co-pilot) operating in the RHS.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 30: Admit that the document attached hereto as Exhibit 5, says nothing about any of your alleged safety concerns related to the operation of Singapore Airlines, Ltd. aircraft.

Response to No. 30: See General Objection 3. XXX further objects to the phrase “says nothing about” as vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving these objections, XXX answers as follows:

Deny. See XXX’s answer to Interrogatory No. 6.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 31: Admit that the document attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of a letter dated October 29, 1997 that you received from Singapore Airlines, Ltd.

Response to No. 31: Admit.

DISCUSSION No. 31: Exhibit 6 is a letter from SIA. The letter says, “Pay money to us, pay us US$ 105,000”. Basically PAP (Pay And Pay).

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 32: Admit that the document attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of a letter dated December 2, 1997 that you received from Singapore Airlines, Ltd.

Response to No. 32: Admit (more PAP letters).

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 33: Admit that the document attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of a letter dated February 18, 1998 that you received from Singapore airlines, Ltd.

Response to No. 33: Admit (more PAP letters).

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 34: Admit that in each of Exhibits 6, 7 and 8 attached hereto, Singapore Airlines, Ltd. requested that you pay to it sums owed by you to Singapore Airlines, Ltd. under the cadet Pilot Training Agreement and the Conversion Training Agreement.

Response to No. 34: Admit.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 35; Admit that you have never requested that the sureties to the Cadet Pilot Training Agreement (Exhibit 2) make payments to Singapore Airlines, Ltd. under that agreement.

Response to No. 35: Admit.

More to follow.

Gladiator

1st Dec 2000, 21:06

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 36: Admit that you never expressed any safety concerns or issues related to the operation of Singapore airlines, Ltd. aircraft to any person or entity prior to your resignation from Singapore Airlines, Ltd. on October 27, 1997.

Response to No. 36: Deny. As described in XXX’s answer to Interrogatory No. 9, XXX expressed safety concerns and issues to SIA on numerous occasions.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 37: Admit that you never expressed safety concerns or issues related to the operation of singapore airlines, Ltd. aircraft to any official affiliated with the Singapore Chapter of the International Airline Pilots Association or any other union of which you were a member while employed by Singapore Airlines, Ltd.

Response to No. 37: Admit that XXX did not complain to officials of any union due to lack of whistleblower protection laws for pilots in Singapore.

DISCUSSION No. 37: ALPA-Singapore is a joke. ALPA-Singapore gives the impression of a union and democracy, however it is only for show.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 38: Admit that Singapore Airlines, Ltd. pilots regularly had an opportunity to raise any issues, including safety concerns, with Singapore Airlines, Ltd. through written questions or written comments submitted to Singapore Airlines, Ltd. officials prior to “fleet meetings” and through verbal questions or comments at fleet meetings.

Response to No. 38: XXX objects to the term “opportunity” as vague and ambiguous. Subject to the objection, XXX answers as follows:

Deny. Under Singapore culture and system, criticism, even though constructive is not welcome. Confidentiality is not respected within the system. Raising safety issues would have eliminated the possibility of any future promotions at SIA, particularly since XXX was a foreigner. As a foreigner, XXX did not even have voting privileges in the union. Criticizing the SIA system would have undermined XXX’s merit. If he had refused to fly due to safety concerns, he would have been diciplined, or terminated. See “Agreement between Singapore Airlines and ALPA-Singapore 1995” (Page 7).

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 39: Admit that if you had submitted written comments or questions to Singapore Airlines, Ltd. prior to “fleet meetings” you could have done so anonymously.

Response to No. 39: Admit. XXX did, in fact, submit comments regarding safety concerns to the Director of Flight Operations. See answer to Interrogatory No. 9.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 40: Admit that the document attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of a letter dated December 10, 1998 that you wrote to Mr. XXX (SIA lawyer).

Response to No. 40: Admit.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 41: Admit that on Singapore Airlines, Ltd. flights in which you were member of a “two pilot crew,” the flight crew consisted of a Captain and First officer.

Response to No. 41: Admit.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 42: Admit that on Singapore Airlines, Ltd. flights in which you were a member of a “three pilot” crew, the flight crew consisted of a Captain and two First Officers or two Captain and a First officer.

Response to No. 42: Deny. A “three pilot crew” consists of one Captain and two First Officers (co-pilots). An “augmented crew” consists of two Captains and one First Officer (co-pilot).

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 43: Admit that the flights listed in your letter to XXX (SIA lawyer) (Exhibit 9) were all flights that operated with “3-pilot crews”.

Response to No. 43: Admit.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 44: Admit that on all the flights listed in Exhibit 9, the Captain normally sat in the left-hand seat in the cockpit and the co-pilot sat in the right-hand seat in the cockpit.

Response to No. 44: Deny. The Captain (pilot-in-command) went to the bunkroom for 1/3 of the flight time, while another co-pilot occupied the Captain’s (pilot-in-command) duty station, the LHS.

More to follow.

Gladiator

2nd Dec 2000, 05:35

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 45: Admit that on the flights listed in Exhibit 9, if the Captain vacated the left hand seat or the cockpit, the co-pilot situated in the right hand seat became the pilot flying the aircraft during the captain’s absence.

Response to No. 45: Deny. On the flights listed in Exhibit 9, when the Captain (pilot-in-command) vacated the LHS, he did so for the purpose of taking inflight rest and/or relief in the bunkroom. During the Captain’s absence, another co-pilot occupied the pilot-in-command’s duty station, the LHS.

SIA’s Flight Administration Manual page 3.39.1 states:

“In the event of an emergency, the third pilot, if he is in the left hand seat, shall be the pilot not flying”.

Therefore, according to SIA’s Flight Administration Manual, the co-pilot in the LHS can be the pilot flying unless there is an emergency, in which case the co-pilot in the pilot-in-command’s duty station, the LHS, would be the pilot not flying, and would therefore carry out the emergency procedures from a seat in which he has not received emergency procedure training.

DISCUSSION No. 45: In all the legal paper work having gone back and forth, SIA has denied and or avoided the issue of co-pilots in the Captain (pilot-in-command) seat/duty station. Watch how they avoid it again in request for admission No. 46.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 46: Admit that on the flights listed in Exhibit 9, if the Captain vacated the left-hand seat or the cockpit, the third pilot could assist the co-pilot in monitoring the flight and operations of the aircraft from the Observer’s seat.

Response to No. 46: XXX objects to the term “could” as calling for speculation. Subject to and without waiving these objections, XXX answers as follows:

On the flights listed in Exhibit 9, during 3-pilot crew operations, when the Captain (pilot-in-command) vacated his duty station, the LHS, for a period equal to 1/3 of the flight time, the third pilot (another co-pilot), then occupied the Captain’s (pilot-in-command) duty station, the LHS, and performed duties of the pilot-in-command while the Captain took rest and/or relief in the bunkroom.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 47: Admit that on the Singapore Airlines, Ltd. flights listed in Exhibit 9, if the Captain vacated the left-hand seat or the cockpit, the third could, at the Captain’s discretion, sit in the left hand seat, while assisting the co-pilot in monitoring the flight and operations of the aircraft.

Response to No. 47: Deny. On the flights listed in Exhibit 9, the Captain (pilot-in-command) vacated his duty station, the LHS, and left the cockpit or went into the bunkroom for the purpose of rest and/or relief, for a period equal to 1/3 of the flight time. The third pilot, another co-pilot, then occupied the Captain’s (pilot-in-command) duty station, the LHS, and performed duties of the pilot-in-command while the Captain took rest and/ or relief in the bunkroom.

DISCUSSION No. 47: SIA now does not allow co-pilots to occupy the Captain’s (pilot-in-command) duty station, the LHS. More on this later.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 48: Admit that under Singapore airlines, Ltd. operating procedures, if the Captain vacates the left-hand seat or the cockpit, the co-pilot seated in the right-hand seat becaomes the pilot flying the aircraft in the Captain’s absence regardless of whether there is another pilot in the left hand seat in the cockpit or in the First Observer’s seat.

Response to No. 48: Deny. The co-pilot seated in the RHS becomes the pilot flying the aircraft, only if the Captain’s (pilot-in-command) absence from duty station, the LHS, is due to: (a) physiological needs (not including rest and/ or relief outside the cockpit or in the bunkroom); or (b) the performance of duties in connection with the operation of the aeroplane.

See answer to Interrogatory No. 13 and Annex 6, Part 1 to the ICA Convention.

According to SIA’s Flight Administration Manual, if the Captain (pilot-in-command) vacates his duty station, the LHS, for any purpose other than items (a) and (b) above, the co-pilot seated in the RHS is only the pilot flying the aircraft during an emergency. In any event, whether the co-pilot in the RHS becomes the pilot flying during an emergency or not, he has been delegated the responsibility for the operation and safety of the aircraft without the supervision of the pilot-in-command.

RESQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 49: Admit that on the flights listed in Exhibit 9, when the Captain took in-flight relief and vacated the left-hand seat or the cockpit, there was always a co-pilot seated in the right-hand seat of the cockpit.

Response to No. 49: Deny. In the flight listed in Exhibit 9, while the Captain (pilot-in-command) was taking rest and or relief in the bunkroom during the period equal to 1/3 of the flight time, the co-pilot in the RHS were also absent from their duty station, the RHS, sometimes due to physiological needs.

On the flight from SIN to MEL on Dec 21, 1992 (not listed in Exhibit 9), XXX, while only a Second Officer (for North American readers, a S/O at SIA is a F/O under line training as apposed to a Flight Engineer) occupied the First Officer’s (co-pilot) duty station, the RHS, and the flight’s First Officer occupied the pilot-in-command’s duty station, the LHS. (See picture produced by XXX).

On the flight from MEL to SIN on Apr 14, 1993, (also not listed in Exhibit 9), XXX was required to occupy the pilot-in-command’s duty station, the LHS, while another Second Officer occupied the First Officer (co-pilot) duty station, the RHS.

DISCUSSION No. 49: In the above examples of flights on Dec 21, 1992, and Apr 14, 1993, neither pilot behind the controls of the B747-300 were qualified in the duty station occupied.

More to follow.

Gladiator

2nd Dec 2000, 21:25

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No.50: Admit that under Singapore Airlines, Ltd. training procedures, a First Officer flying as a co-pilot is trained to handle any non-normal or emergency procedures without a Captain's assistance, and while seated in the LHS, in the event the Captain is incapacitated or unavailable.

Response to No. 50: Deny. Under SIA's training procedures, a First Officer's capacity cannot be anything other than a co-pilot. Assuming the co-pilot's license complies with Annex 1 of ICAO (Personnel Licensing), under SIA's training procedures, co-pilots such as XXX are not trained to handle any non-normal and/or emergency procedures without the Captain's assistance in the event the Captain is incapacitated or unavailable.

The Captain incapacitation training did not include non-normal and/or emergency procedures and training. XXX was not trained to execute non-normal and or emergency procedures during Captain (pilot-in-command) incapacitation training/exercises.

Under SIA's training procedures, XXX was trained to handle the aircraft without the assistance of the Captain (pilot-in-command) only while the aircraft operated without any non-normal or emergency condition, and within the airport traffic area only (approximately a 5 nautical mile radius of the airport).

Captain incapacitation training included a normal takeoff, during which time the Captain becomes incapacitated during the latter part of the take-off roll or shortly after liftoff. The co-pilot then takes over the controls, declares an emergency with air traffic control, follows radar vectors (compass headings given by air traffic control), and makes a circuit in order to return and land.

During this time, the co-pilot calls the lead flight attendant to the cockpit, asks the flight attendant to lock the Captain's seat belt strap (so the Captain will not be able to lean forward by the force of gravity and interfere with the controls). No part of the pilot incapacitation training included non-normal or emergency procedures.

SIA did not ensure that XXX's piloting technique and his ability to execute non-normal and/or emergency procedures during Captain incapacitation were checked from the co-pilot's duty statiom, the RHS, in such a way as to demostrate XXX's competence. Nor did SIA ensure that XXX's piloting technique and his ability to execute normal, non-normal and/or emergeny procedures was checked from the pilot-in-command's duty station, the LHS, in such a way as to demonstrate XXX's competence.

More to follow.

Gladiator

3rd Dec 2000, 06:09

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 51: Admit that any First Officer or Captain flying as a co-pilot and seated in the right-hand seat of the cockpit is trained to handle all non-normal or emergency procedures from the right-hand seat of the aircraft.

Response to No. 51: Deny. XXX was not trained as a Captain, and therefore lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny that a Captain flying as co-pilot and seated in the RHS of the cockpit is trained to handle all non-normal and emergency procedures, however during XXX's training on the B747-400, the Captain that trained with XXX from the Captain's (pilot-in-command) duty station, the LHS, did not receive training for no-normal and emergency procedures from the First Officer's (co-pilot) duty station, the RHS. Neither did SIA ensure that (the Captain's) piloting technique and the ability to execute non-normal and emergency procedures in the RHS is checked in such a way as to demonstrate his competence.

XXX also denies this request for admission with respect to his employment as First officer. XXX was trained as First officer (co-pilot) in the RHS on both the B-747 and the B747-400 aircraft to handle all normal, non-normal, and emergency procedures, but only with assistance from the Captain (pilot-in-command) and while the Captain (pilot-in-command) is seated in the pilot-in-command's duty station, the LHS. XXX was not trained to handle any non-normal or emergency procedures while seated in the First Officer (co-pilot) duty station, the RHS, by himself. XXX's training on the B-747 and B747-400 was sufficient to handle normal procedures only from the First Officer (co-pilot) duty station, the RHS, without the assistance of the Captain (pilot-in-command), for a maximum period necessary for the following conditions: (a) physiological needs (excludes rest and or relief outside the cockpit or in the bunkroom); or (b) due to connection with duties necessary for the performance of the aircraft.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 52: Admit that Captains and First Officers are trained to the same standards when training to handle non-normal or emergency situations on Singapore Airlines, Ltd. aircraft.

Response to No. 52: Deny. Captains (pilot-in-command) and First Officers (co-pilots) are not trained to the same standards. Captains receive training in circling maneuvers, co-pilots do not. Captains receive some training in the RHS, the co-pilots do not receive any training whatsoever in the LHS.

Captains (pilots-in-command) and First Officers (co-pilot) are trained in normal, non-normal and emergency procedures, but only from their respective duty stations: (Captain from the LHS, and First Officer (co-pilot) from the RHS), and only with the assistance of the other pilot. That is, First Officer (co-pilot) with the assistance of the Captain (pilot-in-command) seated in the LHS, and the Captain (pilot-in-command) with the assistance of the First Officer (co-pilot) seated in ther RHS.

DISCUSSION No. 51 and 52: As mentioned before, at the time of this post on PPRuNe, SIA no longer allows First Officers (co-pilots) to occupy the Captain's (pilot-in-command) duty station, the LHS. Why is that I wonder?

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 53: Admit that you are a citizen or permanent resident of the United States.

Response to No. 53: Admit.

This concludes all the discovery material requested by SIA.

Next will be discovery material requested from SIA.