Gladiator afterall!

[Farside]

Gladiator, I take my hat off to you, in the way you refrain from grapping this chance to hammer SIA. Thanks again, you showed after all to be a real proffessional although I might have a different vieuw point on some of your earlier listings.
Bye for now.

[Gladiator]

The intent was never to hurt anyone or any group.

May be in the future we can discuss my case and the safety issues it reflects.

With best regards.

[PILLOW]

Safety is always a convenient whip for anyone who has no solid platform to stand on . Who in his right mind would speak against safety ?
Most people die in bed . Most accident happen at home . Does Gladys live in the bush ?
I remember when working back home
sometimes union issues and safety issues seems to merge .
Its easy to speak from moral high ground on safety issue but whats your true intent .
Its just like freedom of speech . It must carry with it responsibilities and accountability . To a 6 footer yelling at a
80 years old lady , its freedom of speech ; but to the poor lady , its intimidation and she carries a psychological scar for a long long time . Similarly , a group of bullies
laughing and teasing a teenager may call it freedom of speech . to the poor teenager ,
its bullying and it will scar him a long time .
So is your intent truly in the interest of flight safety ?
It is unfortunate that you left SIA with a bitter aftertaste . But please dont spoil it for the rest of us here . You had
your chance . I would like to pay my mortgage and save a few more dollars before I return

[Gladiator]

Fair enough Pillow, please tell me which part of my safety concerns has/had no merit.

You can refer to a particular paragraph or date of post in Singapore Airlines vs. Gladiator posts.

I am more than willing to discuss it point by point. But please no p1ssing match, just discussion point by point.

[Whiskery]

Come off it Habibi - you know damn well it was only because a "high ranking SIA official" rang you and pleaded with you not to comment on Pprune about the incident that you kept quiet.

If you tell porky pies Mate - you have to have a good memory!!!!!! Last post on the following thread in case you have forgotten !
www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/010790-3.html (http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/010790-3.html)


[This message has been edited by Whiskery (edited 11 November 2000).]

[leGrand]

Be fair Whiskery. Gladiator responded to whoever from SIA that asked him to refrain from posting and he did just that.

[Kangar]

C'mon guys, do you honestly think SIA gives a flying f*** about Glads? Do you really think that in the middle of the accident aftermath they're going to call Gladys and ask him to refrain? Yeah right, get real, that's the biggest load of lies I've ever heard. As for the amount of posts on SIA "incidents" recently, they truly liken you guys to the vultures in the press that the aviation industry all detest so much. Can I ask this. Instead of a malicious, unconfirmed whisper campaign on the web, why did Glads not actually try to assist in resolving safety issues at SIA. He obviously is more influential than we thought if they felt they had to beg his mercy in the aftermath of SQ006. No, the more I see, the more I feel that safety is just a convenient platform for Glads. After all, Alaska Airlines is hardly an example to follow, now is it? That's right, Glads, you can say what you like, but their operation was shown to be shambolic. But, since you are not in a contractual wrangle with them, you can overlook the problems ,eh? And don't try to pretend all is fine. No Airline is perfect on safety, you see problems with your current employer, but you choose not to dwell on them. I'm sorry, but I see no real balance here, anyone counter Glad's opinion is an agent, and it's always the same people stirring it up, how much of your lives do you spend trying to think up new incidents?

[addinfurnightem]

Oh KANGAR where have you been?

Tell it like it is but I sadly doubt you will ever shame them, (the absconders).

Anyway, your post should send them all back into their shells for a while, only fools rush in etc.

Keep it up.

[Whiskery]

Kanga - your post is accurate,the truth and delivered with a great economy of words.

[titan]

Driven back into our shells and trembling. Well isn't that a fine example of Singaporean totalatarianism. SIA uses the same technique on us lowly "absconders".
History is full of absconders, people who left to find something better. I am glad that you have all found the true meaning of your lives at SIA. May you bathe in your own humanity.

[titan]

Kangar:
"do you honestly think SIA gives a flying f*** about Glads?"

well it sure seems they do to me. Why else would they have replaced the door locks on the 744, stopped FOs from operating in the right hand seat, and begun insisting that all there FOs obtain ATPL licenses?

I suppose you could say that safety is no accident.

[PILLOW]

Titan
Talking about safety ......
Most people die in bed ....
Give it a thought when you go to bed

[Kangar]

Titan,
By that reasoning, I can link any proactive safety fix in SIA in the last year to Glad's postings, which we both know not to be the case. Sometimes, shock, horrors, yes! SIA do get it right......in any case, if they were responding to Glad's promptings, why did he leave?

[Gladiator]

Kangar have you been reading the legal documents, Singapore Airlines vs. Gladiator?

There are a lot of material to think about. If you have read them and continue to read them it will answer your question.

Specially Part 1, think about every discovery document requested from SIA. If you are a pilot with SIA then it will be clear.

My leaving SIA involved two issues, safety was only one. The other was breach of contract. The mere having to sit in the Pilot-in-command's seat (3-pilot configuration) was a breach of contract (if hired as co-pilot, what was I doing in the pilot-in-commands's seat?)

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

[titan]

Kanga:
You only have 9 postings. I therefore assume that you are unfamiliar with Gladiators's writings. So, rather than waffle on in ignorance, go back and search Gladiator's postings over the last year. It is all there.

"the foe of all knowledge is not ignorance, but ignorance of ignorance"

[Whiskery]

titan, you would be surprised how much knowledge is obtained just from reading.

Think about that.

Keep the faith:]

[PILLOW]

Gladiator
In Singapore Airlines vs Gladiator , did you not lose the case .

[Gladiator]

No Pillow I did not lose the case. The plaintiff and the defendant came to an agreement before the trial. The trial was set to be trial by a jury.

Agreement was in June 2000. The trial was set for Aug 2000.

The Singapore Airlines vs. Gladiator legal documents are public information and therefore available to any individual through the freedom of information act.

If interested they can be obtained directly from the United States Federal Court in Seattle, Washington.

[Kangar]

Titan, The number of postings is irrelevant. I have been observing the to and fro of this topic for up on a year now, and I have considered my posting carefully, it's always good to stand back and think about what you say, you might benefit from it. Finally, I am tired of saying this, but will nonetheless say it once more. Gladiator, why do you persist with your posts on the web, where they remain, relatively speaking anonymous, when you could bring it to a much wider media coverage. Now is the time to do it, when SIA safety is in the spotlight. And don't give me that junk about a high ranking SIA official asking you not to. You owe a duty of care to the public, knowing what you claim to know about SIA, and it rightfully belongs in the broader public domain, not a rumour network.

[Kangar]

One other thing, Glads,
Why did it take you so long to develop a conscience about illegally flying relief for the captain. It's such a coincidence that you jumped ship on safety grounds just after you completed training. The other problem I have with the account you give of the case is that you present your side clearly, but in quite a number of sections, you simply say, "SIA lied". Just print the facts (i.e. what actually happened in the court room) and let the rest of us make up our own minds.

[titan]

Kanga:
Your style is starting to look a little familiar. Also nice to see that you are on such friendly terms with "Glads" - hmmm

Whiskery:
Again I ask ...... please tell me about the 747's stick pusher!! We all need to learn from the Master , or is there something you are not telling us????

[Gladiator]

Kangar as is the case; it is easier for me to answer a question when it is specific.

Your question: Why do I persist with my posts on the web as apposed to wider media coverage.

Answer: From the beginning of the Singapore Airlines vs. Gladiator case SIA's only worry was the information falling into the hands of other SIA pilots. Other SIA pilots but especially former SIA pilots with outstanding bonds.

The purpose of the posts on the web is for everyone SIA, former or otherwise to have details of the case as it happened word for word. This does not and will not include the final 13-page agreement, which is confidential.

As for media coverage, that is a good one. A lot of people would not fathom SIA as anything less than perfect. It was only a matter of time before SIA's real character was going to be exposed. The investigators will do their job and expose what needs to be exposed.

Your question: Why did I take so long to develop a conscience about illegally flying relief for the Captain, and why did I jump ship after finishing training.

Answer: My employment began on the B-747 (July 1991). Although I sat in the LHS, it happened mostly during training as a S/O and a few times while I was an F/O with another S/O training.

The problem area was the B-747-400 and 3-pilot operations. Double-crew and augmented operations were fine. I finished training on the B-747-400 in Jan 1995. It took six months to digest/ evaluate the situation, decide course of action, etc. I submitted a resume to my present employer in Aug 1995, and at the same time listed my condo for sale. I resigned in Oct 1997. It took two years and two months to find employment. That is 3 months short of three years after I finished training on the B-747-400. Three more months and the bond on the B-747-400 would have expired. Therefore it would not be accurate to say I left after completion of training.

Furthermore the system in the US is different. To gain employment at entry level, first officer, it makes no difference whether I was trained on B-747 or B747-400 or not. The co-pilot rating carries no weight as the carrier has to retrain you, and there is no such thing as co-pilot rating.

Furthermore here in the US (major carriers) there is no such thing as direct entry Captain. Everyone starts as first officer on available junior equipment (In the case of a B747-400 operator with mixed fleet of different type aircraft, never on the B-747 and or 747-400, impossible as fleet movement is based on bidding by seniority). I could have been a Captain at SIA on the B747-400 and it would not have made a difference in my present employment. In fact in a case like mine more weight would have been given to 500 hrs turboprop PIC than 4500 hrs heavy jet SIC. Therefore it would not be accurate to assume my present employment is a result of SIA training.

In fact I met the minimum requirements at my present employment previous to employment with SIA. (I worked for the subsidiary of this company previous to employment at SIA anyway, so in a way I went back to my old job).

If you indeed work for SIA, as I suspect you do, then you are aware that in regards to safety concerns, I could not have just walked into the CP or DFO's office and say, "hey, this is not right and unsafe, it needs to be changed".

Your question: I mentioned in the documents, "SIA lied".

Answer: I mentioned that more than a few times. Therefore which specific area would you like me to expand on? You can refer to the date of post.

In the future I hope to be able to discuss issues in this manner, simple question and answer.


[This message has been edited by Gladiator (edited 22 November 2000).]

[Classic Dick]

I believe your question is answered in the thread relevant to that topic Titan.

www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/010991-2.html (http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/010991-2.html)


Why have you requested a reply in a totally unrelated thread my friend?

[titan]

Classic Dick:
Whiskery avoids me. I only want a simple answer.
I have no beef with you Classic Dick. I respected you as a captain when we use to fly the 747-200/300 together, and would like to keep it that way.
Regards

[Kangar]

Tita,
I'm flattered that you've become so familiar with my style after only 10 posts, you evidently spend more time reading them than I thought. As for calling Gladiator by an abbreviated term, well sorry if it seems like a term of endearment, but it's handy to use. Fail to see what it has to do with anything, but there you go. The other point to Glads, is that these issues you describe do not just concern SIA, they concern every member of the travelling public that have or will travel SIA, hence the point about going to the wider media. Finally, on the SIA lied remarks, what I am saying is that no matter what, we only get your version, in which case it comes down to who we believe, you or SIA, and why should we believe either? It is said that a liar never believes anyone else, can you see my point?

[titan]

Kanga:
Your are correct. You have two choices. You can believe what the SIA PR department feed the public to entice them to buy a ticket, or you can believe the pilots here that fly/havwe flown their aircraft.

Now thats one tough choice.

[Gladiator]

Kangar then may I suggest to you that we look into details of some points in my posts with emphasis on "SIA lied".

Furthermore, there is the matter of Singapore Airlines vs. Mike DeMarco. You do remember when SIA publicly (it was on the evening news on Singapore TV) stated that the American pilot lost in a US court to the tune of just over US$200,000. FI also ran an article.

Now may I fax to you documents showing that there was never a court decision in the DeMarco case. The plaintiff and the defendant reached an agreement.

After the two year gag order expired, DeMarco himself posted on PPRuNe that he paid US$75,000 to SIA.

Please e-mail me a fax number where I can send proof to you that SIA lied, lies, etc. I will review the Singapore Airlines vs. Gladiator posts and get back to you on the "SIA lied" details.

[email protected]

[PILLOW]

'.........or you can believe the pilot here that have fly/have flown their aircraft '

you should include that these are disgruntled pilots who were out of pocket for breaking their bond

Cheers
Hope you bet on Brews

[Gladiator]

Or SIA out of pocket trying to collect the bond(s).

May be a case of disgruntled employer? The world outside Singapore is a two way street.

P.S. Nobody likes Whistleblowers.

[PILLOW]

I think SIA's pocket is a lot deeper than
yours .

[Gladiator]

The depth of SIA's pocket is not an issue here PILLOW. The issue is,

A man goes to collect money, he comes back in the RED.

[titan]

SIA has deep pockets. Hmmm, well that just about sums up the whole intent of the Law system!

PILLOW, the law doesn't like bullies. SIA got its arse kicked all the way from the USA to pathetic Singapore by Gladiator. It would seem they are about to get it kicked again from Perth.
Were you the one who isn't old enopugh for the cadet scheme?

[PILLOW]

Gladiator
We wont know how much SIA pays their lawyer . So there is a lot of guesswork here which may lead to unneccessary words . I will leave the subject here

Titan
I wish it was me . Anyway , law is one area I would like to avoid discussing .
This is obviously familiar territory to you .
Good luck to you mate

[titan]

PILLOW:
Well talk about the obvious! There aren't too many Singaporeans that like talking about the law as it scares them senseless. The pathetic LKY passed a law limiting the number of lawyers in Singapore; can't have too many people knowing their rights can we? Or challenging the the PAP through the Courts.

[PILLOW]

Titan

Reasons I dont want to discuss law is because I have never been involve in a litigation . Like I said you are obviously familiar in this area .
I hope its not an expensive learning curve for you

[titan]

PILLOW:
Civil Law is based on case history. It is because that people like me are out there putting our arse on the line that people like you can sit safely in your cocoon and be protected by the law should your sweet little world ever turn to sh*t.
As I said; you are Singaporean through and through.
How old are you PILLOW?

[noodles]

Mental or chronological?

There was an enlightenting current affairs programme, "Talking Point", aired recently in Singapore. The debate focused on the question...Are Singaporeans mature enough to talk about taboo subjects?

70% of Singaporeans surveyed by TCS 5 answered that they were not mature enough and that 'taboo' subjects should be best left to 'experts' to talk about.

This explains a lot about pillow et al doesn't it?

[PILLOW]

Titan
you should really get a grip on your emotion . Its bad your your health and staying healthy is essential for your job . You will find Centrelink a lot different from CES . The last Titan I know did not do very well . Last heard she went down very fast in the North Atlantic.

You should think positive and think of all the good things in life .

You can start by thinking about all the things you can do or buy if/when you get your command !!!

Cheers



[This message has been edited by PILLOW (edited 01 December 2000).]

[Sir Jerker]

All of this arguement is just silly. The only reason that the Singaporeans even reply to the likes of Gladiator and Titan, is that they really know the truth. They believe they are the best because LKY says so. They are too scared to debate the issue. Let us examine the elections and the results of those elections on the Singapore community for proof of that theory.

But they really know the truth. That being a underlying knowledge that as flight crew, Singaporeans really are deficient in all the aspects and abilities needed to make good pilots in today's modern world. This is the reason they must defend the accusations and lie. I lived there for some years. The only good feeling I had was that I lived amongst 3 million Singaporeans and knew for sure that I was totally superior to each and every one of them. They know that. That's why they are so offended by this rumour network. And that is why they are the most racist people I have ever met.

[PILLOW]

Obvious case of a Tall Poppy Syndrome .

[titan]

PLLOW, in his own words, has said that he is not old enough for the Cadet Training Scheme. So we have a Singaporean who is under 25 and doesn't work for SIA but knows everything about aviation - just doesn't stack up does it?
More like a MS Flight Sim whiz.

[PILLOW]

S J ' All these argument ............................................. the most racist people I have ever seen ' . end part 1


Part 2

So when SIA told us that we are not suitable for command training , we could not accept that . It was a tremendous Lost of Face . we literally walked out and left SIA and singapore . Of course we did not realise that we broke the bond .

[PILLOW]

Poor Titan
Still cant to get his facts right . But I like it !!!
thanks and season greetings