Merged: Tiger Tales

[TIMA9X]

Storage... or Parting ???? Not sure, looks like a A319 ex SIN to me, but didn't catch the reg on the way through, hopefully someone else can assist with your question...

[rmcdonal]

(4) The Captain has passed 5 drug tests in the 14 months prior to this incident.
That seems like an unusually high number of drug tests for that period of time. Is that a Tiger thing, or is there some other reason that he would be subject to so many tests?

[PoppaJo]

The above aircraft is 9V-TRA, ex Tiger Phil which was sold to to Cebu Pacific who are using their own aircraft.

I believe they have not had a lot of luck leasing them off, Jetstar Hong Kong in a similar boat. From what I have heard expect a few Jetstar birds here if the Tiger trial goes well.

Tiger Mandala was closed and Tiger's aircraft were returned from Tiger Phil plus new deliveries which went nowhere leaves around 15-20 aircraft idle.

Expensive to park in Asia, being the first major client for the said storage company in the Alice, I am sure they got a pretty good deal.

[wheels_down]

So this is the final result of the Brits attempting to run an Asia Pacific LCC.

Worked wonders didn't it Mr Ryan. :D

[thorn bird]

OEB,

I find your whole post absolutely unbelievable, not because I have any doubt what you have posted is untrue, rather the despicable events after the fact.

What has this industry become???

I cannot help but surmise that given the rumours surrounding the departing CAsA DAS in his previous life in Hong Kong, and the rumours emanating from Fort Fumble of the toxic environment that has developed under his tenure with CAsA, that this cancer is now eating the heart out of the industry in Australia.

I know, and have talked to CP's who have been forced to accept what they know to be unsafe practice, forced upon them by incompetent clowns masquerading as experts, completely bastardizing their own professional integrity for fear of regulatory sanction.

Is this why Tigers CP did not do what he should have done and finished this whole sorry story before it started?

There is now no doubt in my mind that we are heading for a major hull loss, CAsA have prepared the ground, its now inevitable, unfortunately sooner rather than later.

What I fear, given our safety investigator is now CAsA's handmaiden, that truth will not prevail, and a WUSS of a minister and his minders will absolve themselves of any responsibility..Wobetide the next CAsA person who tries to lecture me on Human Factors.


PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH YOU UNSCUPULOUS BAST^..DS

[CurtainTwitcher]

So this is the final result of the Brits attempting to run an Asia Pacific LCC.

Worked wonders didn't it Mr RyanThe thinking behind this was articulated by Bruce Buchanan in July 2011.
"The total (fleet size of) the low-cost carrier market (in Asia-Pacific) is about 450 aircraft today and we envisage it to grow to in excess of 2000 aircraft by the end of the decade," he said on the sideline of a media briefing in Singapore.


"To maintain 20 per cent market share by 2020, we need about 400 aircraft," Buchanan added without elaborating when the carrier will start making orders of those aircraft.
Jetstar to invest $470m in Singapore hub (http://www.smh.com.au/business/jetstar-to-invest-470m-in-singapore-hub-20110718-1hkun.html)

Of course, he was "talking his book" as Qantas was in the process of finalising it massive A320 order at the time, which was announced in October 2011: Qantas A320NEO order makes history. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/qantas-a320neo-order-makes-history/story-e6frg95x-1226160647254)

[Crew rest.]

I find it shocking that a pilot can be falsely accused in such a manner and have no recourse to pursuit of a defamation claim. In fact, I am pretty sure that if the pilot has evidence that the accusation was made with malice, then a defamation action would succeed. Note that the law protects whistle-blowers who act in good faith, strictly follow protocols, act with discretion and the requisite level of confidentially when making claims of mis-behaviour against another. However, you aren't protected when these claims are false and with malicious intent.

Sadly, this sort of story is all too familiar. I am aware of a story from some years ago where a pilot was the subject of rumours within a previous company. This married man was subject to allegations that he was having an affair with the company base manager, but also the manager of cabin crew. However, there was also a rumour that he was involved in illicit criminal activity. A cabin crew staff member forwarded these rumours to the police who launched a criminal investigation. As would be expected, the pilot concerned was stood down. The pilot was subsequently cleared by the police investigation who said that he had no case to answer. The company even put out a memo to this effect to inform all staff and to warn of the dangers of malicious galley gossip.

What had happened in the background of this was that the cabin crew member concerned had been caught out by the pilot in a toilet having sex with a man who she had just met on an overnight and the pilot made the mistake of telling a person who was a friend of her fiancé. The cabin crew member here undoubtably thought these rumours about this pilot were all true, but was being vindictive. After being cleared by a company and police investigation, the pilot concerned wanted to sue the person who had been the source of these rumours, who was identified by circumstantial evidence as being another cabin crew member.

In response, the cabin crew member and some of her friends then embarked on a dirt-digging expedition and came up with some "safety breaches" in order to get the pilot sacked. Although the company management saw these new allegations for what they were, they were investigated and the pilot was returned to line flying. Regarding the source of the initial rumours, nobody 'could remember' who said what to who, so a defamation case was a non-starter.

At this stage the pilot had an offer of a better job and resigned. However, with union backing, he negotiated a deal where he received his salary until he started with the new company.

If these allegations of cocaine use have been made in good faith, that's one thing. If they have been made in accordance with an agenda or with malice, I hope that some natural justice will prevail...but I doubt this will happen.

[Kharon]

Crew rest # 1513 –"If these allegations of cocaine use have been made in good faith, that's one thing. If they have been made in accordance with an agenda or with malice, I hope that some natural justice will prevail...but I doubt this will happen."

It always makes me smile – this guy has presumably flown multiple sectors with several other flight crew members; sim instructors; T&C guys: Check Captains, various cabin crew; dealt with engineers, operations, ground staff, passengers etc. been medically examined and passed in house routine DAMP tests; seriously - has no one noticed the pilot (we'll call him Guy) 'has a habit' by now? At face value it's a ludicrous call, but just for the exercise:

Even if 'you' suspected and were reluctant to cause a fuss; there would be a company system to make a report through, a published policy for drug and booze issues to assist Guy; there is also the discreet, but risky, method of a 'chat' with a grown up first. If Guy needs help it's up to you to make sure that help is given, people with a habit rarely make it to 'the other side' without it. There are three conceivable scenarios available here:

1) Someone is frustrated with the lack of response from the company to a documented report through the company SMS (by whatever name) and decided to bring the matter to an outside agency. The motivation is irrelevant to an external inquiry; it is very pertinent to the company and the individual – but not to an investigator. Lets assume it's CASA; the pilot medical – suspended, Guy essentially now on his own hook; but, the damage has only just started. The second victim here will be the credibility of the company SMS, that can lead to other audit areas; which at best are costly, time consuming and expensive – at worst; well Tiger has been there and done that.

2) A personality clash or an upset individual or group has decided to put Guy's weights up, good and proper; there are several well known methods for doing this, the old "Chop ride" is a perennial favourite and has many side benefits; sexual harassment is another tried and tested stalwart of the game; the new ones are the PC card (barked at some one and call them names), etc. But the anonymous 'drink or drugs' wheeze is a doozy. There is a certain satisfactory viciousness to it, it's personal, vindictive, grossly unfair and the screen of anonymity just puts the hat on 'a job well done'. There are individuals who will stoop that low and when questioned, take to the moral high ground like a herd of startled gazelles. Despicable – but a reality.

3) The company system has worked smoothly and correctly; Guy's little problem identified and the company policy has swung into discrete action. This can only be a good thing for all concerned. Which only leaves the 'leak' to be corrected. Though why an individual would take such an action, which can not only damage Guy, but takes a fair bit of shine of the company good name is beyond me...

Either way, it's a lot of unnecessary trouble but it highlights, for me at least, many of the inherent problems the industry has; beginning with CASA generated paranoia ending with natural justice swinging on a very thin thread.

I just hope Guy sorts it all out and can get over it in fairly short order; for everyone's sake. Remember, it may be great fun to watch Christians v Lions from the stand – but it's a very different argument when 'you' are the one in the ring. Think of the rubber necks at a fire, or car crash.

Time expired caller – to extend insert another two bob – Click, burrrrrrr.

[Snakecharma]

The problem with these sorts of incidents is that, even if investigated and found to be baseless, the subject of that investigation effectively already has one strike against them.

If someone else decides to try and help the first complainant along by submitting a seemingly unrelated allegation, then the old "where there is smoke there is fire" system kicks in and the poor bastard is investigated again (rightly) but with a more jaundiced eye.

Everyone, regardless of their piety, professionalism and caution is guilty of some form of infraction of company guidelines, CASA rules or such - ever caught yourself at 61 in a 60 zone?

A creative investigator can build a damning case from very little if they want to.

The big problem that I see is that the perpetrators of these malicious and vexatious allegations are for the most part left unpunished. They should be dealt with the fullest extent of both the law and company policy, however as managers typically don't want to discourage the honest and legitimate report these scumbags are left with a slap on the wrist and a stern "don't do it again".

I can think of one bloke in a large carrier in Australia who made a number of false accusations about someone. That someone was investigated and found innocent of all the allegations yet his/her reputation was irreparably damaged and the accuser was unpunished. Given the outrageous nature of the allegations and the pre and post report behaviour of this individual, they should have been sacked, yet they continue on to this day.

The accused suffered significant embarrassment, stress, sleepless nights and humiliation, all at the hands of this tool and yet didn't even get a formal (or informal) apology from either the company or the accuser.

[Servo]

Snakecharma,

Very interesting. Also know of a very similar incident at a large Australian Airline.

Pretty disgusting behavior both from the accuser and the company. Very much a dob in culture, most of which is based on lies and untruths.

Fear and Intimidation, great way to operate an airline.

[Tony the Tiler]

Shortly after reporting the flight plan error, the captain's medical certificate was suspended after an anonymous allegation was made to Tiger, Virgin Australia and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority accusing him of cocaine use.

The captain, who is understood to strenuously deny the allegation, had three months earlier passed drug and alcohol tests.

A CASA spokesman said it was standard procedure to suspend the medical certificate of any pilot accused of drug use until another drug test was conducted.

Seriously? Guilty until proven innocent.

Attempts by the captain to find out the source of the drug allegation have been unsuccessful, with CASA refusing to disclose whether it was someone in Tigerair management or elsewhere responsible.

CASA has refused a freedom of information request lodged by the captain for all documents regarding the drug use allegations because it would involve an “unreasonable disclosure” of personal information about the source of the complaint.

CASA also said release of information could harm Tiger’s business affairs and affect its ability to enforce aviation safety laws.

Don’t worry about procedural fairness or natural justice. The kangaroo court is in full session.

[waren9]

CASA has refused a freedom of information request lodged by the captain for all documents regarding the drug use allegations because it would involve an “unreasonable disclosure” of personal information about the source of the complaint.

CASA also said release of information could harm Tiger’s business affairs and affect its ability to enforce aviation safety laws

if it were me i would get that tested in court.

by my union.

[strim]

Very interested to know on what grounds his employment was terminated.

Not so long ago I was subject to an allegation of recreational drug use by an anonymous person ('colleague'). I was hauled in off a reserve period for a DAMP test.

As the tester confirmed my negative result, I informed her of the reason I was there. "You'd be surprised how often that happens..." was her response (the clinic wasn't aviation specific).

My company was understanding, discreet and as shocked as I was that an accusation came my way considering my solid work history and reputation amongst colleagues. I still to this day have no idea who made the accusation and wonder whether it may have come from outside the company, masquerading as a colleague. I found it more than interesting that there was no follow up concern from the anonymous person. One would suspect if the allegation was made out of genuine concern, that this person would like to see action taken against me, and when that was not forthcoming, send another letter. Nothing since.....

It's a despicable act and aviation can well do without toxic, anonymous scumbags who reach their tentacles throughout a base/organisation pushing their own agenda for personal gain, or whatever bizzare motivation that exists for this kind of behavior.:mad::yuk::yuk:

[Icarus2001]

It would be a very interesting legal case if the Pilot concerned here refused to cooperate with CASA and took them to the AAT for his medical. Then the person making the reports would have to front up. If they then reneged CASA would be in hot seat as they have cancelled someone's license without any firm evidence medical or otherwise.

What makes you believe that the reporter would need to show up?

The administrative action is by CASA, any appeal through the AAT is between the pilot and CASA only.

There seems to be a few people here who have watched too many courtroom tv shows and movies. In the real world, the rules of evidence are different for a criminal trial, a civil trial and an administrative action.

Creampuff may like to weigh in here.

Put yourself in the shoes of a CASA medical officer for a moment. You receive a letter or phone call telling you that a pilot to whom you have issued a medical certifiacte is a habitual drug user. What do you do? Ignore it?
Of course a process will be followed and it is pretty awful for the person concerned. In my company the stand down would be on full pay, not sure with Tiger, seems to me it may even be personal/sick leave if you do not have a medical certificate.

Is it fair? Of course not but fair is not a word to be used in the modern world really, there is only...is it legal and was the correct process followed.

Best wishes if the guy is innocent.

[Ollie Onion]

Surely there is more to this story. If not, why would he be sacked? It would seem you can't sack him on the basis of the drug 'accusation' until it is proven true by a drug test. This would mean being sacked because he amended the flight plan so that he had the required amount of fuel onboard? Am I missing something here??

[Servo]

Ollie, not sure about this case, but the one I mentioned, there was NOT more to the story.

An individual with a personal grudge went to "management" and the rest is history. As mentioned very expensive, with the individual on the receiving end close to losing their house.

It is the current management style in this particular "business". Keeping the in-house lawyers busy with these decisions, knowing that most will have not have the resources to go up against them.

OEB, wont be the only court case.

What ever happened to honesty, integrity and professional conduct (not talking about flight crew either).

They will do anything to keep it out of the media. Hopefully this will all come out.

I feel very sorry for the Captain. Keep your head up high.

[bankrunner]

Is the skipper in question a union member? If so, what are they doing?

[Lookleft]

You can't go to the AAT because CASA require a DAMP test. There are only certain things that can be appealed. If they suspend or cancel the pilot's license then he can appeal to the AAT even then you may not get to see the name of the accuser.Only the reasons for the suspension or cancellation.

[Anthill]

The name of the whistle-blower can be obtained by court order. If the imputation made by the allegation has caused unjust harm or damage to a person, they can argue that the Law of Torts needs to be applied. The court will then decide on the merit of the case and possibly order CASA to release the name and all paperwork associated with the complaint and any internal correspondence. CASA could/would, of course appeal. This can get expensive and time consuming and that's probably what CaSA would like to see happen- they have no interest in justice, they are too busy covering their ass.

If you are ever caught in this situation and found "not guilty" of what you have been accused of, this is my advice:

Initially return to the line and resist ANY attempt for instant justice or gratification. Don't ask any one about who said what. Don't engage on any 'fishing expeditions'....yet. Be a good guy, don't engage in discussion of the case other than to say stuff like "well, I'm glad that's over and my name's been cleared".

Get legal advice. Speak to a union rep and gradually uncover the facts. Take notes, keep a daily diary and record any conversations that you have with management or colleagues. Don't go to HR as they are only there to protect the company's interest, not yours. A company Harrassment Contact Officer, could possibly be approached, but they have a strict code which limits their involvement. However, they can be called as a witness at a later date. This may or may not work in your interest so be careful what you say and DON'T name ANYBODY as a 'suspect'. A contact officer is legally bound to confidentiality, but can be called to give evidence.

Insist that the company issue a memo that recognises that your reputation haste been besmirched by a false allegation and they you have been totally absolved in an investigation. The memo should also have words to the effect that any gossip or discussion regarding this will be treated as workplace harassment and dealt with accordingly (the company would face massive legal repercussions should they fail to take strenuous action in this regard). If they fail to do this, get legal advice. You could sue them for allowing a hostile work environment.

In the event that you are in any way harassed/ostracised/passed over by either management or other staff, take notes, recordings, diarise, get witnesses etc. only when you have iron-clad evidence should you take action and lodge a claim for damages. If there are any repercussions, go for unfair dismissal or workplace Harrassment. By this stage, with patience, you should have them by the balls.

[thorn bird]

It would seem that those who wish, for whatever nefarious reason, to engage in this despicable behaviour, can do so with impunity.
Having been on the receiving end of this absolutely unconscionable behavior there is little chance of getting CAsA to give up their snitches.
They are a protected species, especially in Wodger Wabbits warren.
The head bunny is a complete sociopathic psychopath, no conscience, no morals, absolutely no conscience for the havoc his minions create.

[Kharon]

Bear with me; there is a point. Many years ago; Conan Doyle wrote the fictitious 'Sherlock Holmes' stories. One was about 'the man with the twisted lip'. In short, a junior journalist researching a story dressed as a beggar to get the story;and, was successful; so much so that he resigned his job and took up permanent residence on the London streets as a beggar; he simply made more money that way. Anyway – one day his wife 'saw' him being murdered while she was lost in the back streets; through a window of an opium den owned and operated by some very shady characters. Enter Holmes – he nuts it all out and at the end of the tale, everyone realises that, for various reasons the wrong man had been identified as murdered. Turns out, the 'victim' would rather be in jail, as a murder, than let his wife know that the family wealth came from his dressing as a beggar each day. Great story and worth a read; but no where near as bizarre as the current Tiger tale.

The elements appear parallel though; drugs, misidentification, false imprisonment etc. etc. Just no Holmes to 'sort it' all out before the public knows....

Maybe, it's just me; but deputy chief pilots have always seemed 'suss'; never had a flicker of 'bovver' with the boss; but DCP? – mostly at the dizzy limit of Toller-ance. Seems to me changes need to occur at Tiger, tout de suite; the tooter, the sweeter. You can't just barge about, sacking blokes on a whim; laying accusations on a fancy. Those who do not have fact and empirical evidence to support it, need to apologise, re instate and then; on account of cocking it up so completely: RESIGN.

Now; I've never been sure how to express 'bugger off' in more than one sentence; however; if three pages suit, then I shall endeavour to do it. Just so long as the message is completely, utterly and Virginaly understood. That is - the penalty for crucifying the wrong man, on the wrong agenda, for the wrong reasons, sacking and then; leaking the wrong blessed report to a half wit press is unacceptable.

Total cock-up; the man with the twisted lip was a fantasy, a fiction: this is very real and very, very offensive. No operator; I'm done.....

[Servo]

Nicely written Kharon.

Unfortunately these decision makers are untouchable.......... :sad:

[VR-HFX]

I am sure I am not alone in finding this latest development at Tiger Australia immensely disturbing.

We have $12/hr staff supported by $ 500K/yr CASA (ex-colleague) who can decide in a blink to destroy the life of someone without evidence.

Maybe this has become modern Australia. If so, count me out:yuk:

The union needs to fund a civil case that will require disclosure...assuming Australia still subscribes to the common law:ugh:

[Kharon]

Servo - Nicely written Kharon.

Thank you. Best I could do, considering; just departed the BRB meeting, no AP/FMS/AT and hells fury at the gate (seems it was my turn to cook and B&E just won't do). No matter – what a mess eh? Makes you wonder why they go broke and the old McComic could stitch 'em up so very easily.. Lord, what a life eh??? but; it's all for Lurv, at least so they tell me.

Toot toot.

[004wercras]

Welcome to the great western fallacy called 'democracy'.

[MASTEMA]

OEB


I do agree that this entire mess should have been dealt with in-house.


Now that the smoke has turned to fire and progressed to a dismissal, I agree with previous posters comments who think it wise that 'the gent' walk away and not incur the past being dredged and the future destroyed.


Unless he can say with an honest hand on heart that there is no smoke and no fire?


Fiji is lovely this time of year and 'the gent' apparently has a good mate over there to help him out, as he has done in the past.


Probably just coincidental... some interesting faces swanning around the JQ office chasing MRs recently vacated job...


All the best.

[thorn bird]

Anyone know which CAsA region handles Tiger?
This whole process has a Wodger Wabbit smell to it.

[Snakecharma]

Apologies for the thread drift, but where has MR gone and when did he leave?

[CurtainTwitcher]

Welcome to the great western fallacy called 'democracy'
Bingo, been waiting for that shoe to drop. Its right up there with the fallacy of the 'rule of law' as eloquently argued by John Hasnas in The Myth Of the Rule of Law (http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythFinalDraft.pdf).

Anyone wishing to undertake an action against a governemnet department or large politically well connected business & expecting to have any expectation of justice from the courts should read that document very carefully. Welcome to the modern reincarnation of facism.

[thorn bird]

As my old grandpappy used to say

"The law is for everyone...Justice is for them that can afford it"

[Lookleft]

MR is stepping down and flying the 787. Whether pushed or jumped is the mystery.

[Snakecharma]

Thanks lookleft

[Servo]

CurtainTwitcher, a very interesting read. Thank you for the link. Cheers

[Mstr Caution]

MR is stepping down and flying the 787. Whether pushed or jumped is the mystery.

I didn't think MR held a seniority number.

Are JQ allowing direct entries onto the 787?

The folk at QF getting bumped to the RH seat will be pleased.

:8

[waren9]

anyone started a fighting fund like jq pilots did for j eakins?

[Kharon]

OEM "(18 a) Unfortunately for Tiger and Virgin he has the means to fight it all the way to the High Court in Canberra and that is exactly what he has advised he will do."

Consider: with respect - he has advised himself very badly. There are many reasons not to pursue this to the 'ultimate' level; mostly because the total cost is indefinable. The real costs are not financial but paid for from his own well being, happiness and ultimately the family. From experience I can assure you that once the 'obsession' takes hold, much time will be spent identifying tenets, writing copious briefings for counsel and conversational gambits are limited to 'my case' and the intricate details thereof. I have a dear friend who began a legal battle some 20 years ago now; I'll own it's an extreme case, but weekends and evenings spent pouring through case files, legal tomes and precedent have become a way of life, which is not a life. The best results I have seen come from taking 'sound' advice from trusted, competent counsel who will identify 'what' it is you are fighting rather than what you see as the 'fight'. Good counsel likes to win and will take you to a position from where the fight you choose may (with a push) be won.

Does our man want to be reinstated, with an apology? or is he determined, at his own expense to pave the way for the next poor bugger; note, that's the next; not the first and most certainly, not the last. The unions used to be very good at sorting out these sorts of troubles; mostly quietly through negotiation rather than court room brawls; not sure how (or even if) that works anymore. But pick your fight and pick the ground carefully; win one round comprehensively, the rest will flow on. The risk, if you loose is that the other wins and this type of 'entertainment' becomes an accepted practice, supported by a precedent.

If it were me; (IMVH non qualified O) I think I'd tackle the CASA denial of the FOI request first, seems to be the weakest point, particularly if there is any 'hangover' from the subsequent testing proving – no bad habits. Once identified, the miserable piece of dung who kicked this off can personally be stripped of his house; his dog and his Missus may be kicked and used as best pleases. Unfair dismissal rules tend to lean toward those who prove they were, in fact, treated 'unfairly'; this avenue should be approached with caution. The target outcome – financial; as that hurts those who sought to hurt you; and, personal – it will really upset those who perpetrated this offence when you taxi out past the office and flip 'em the two finger salute through the DV window. That's where real satisfaction lives.

As stated, I've seen many 'battles' and nursed a few of the wounded back to sanity. Advice I can stand behind (IMO) is to develop the patience of a rabbit trap; hoard evidence like a miser; get advice on 'who' is the best brief for task then research, very carefully, before you finally chose counsel; stay close to your friends and closer to your family, stay out of the pub, eat your veggies and do not make 'your matter' the sole topic of conversation. Stay detached when you write stuff; pretend it's someone else, "Bloggs" is an old, trusted companion.

I know; all easily said; bloody hard to do. Just the thoughts of a glorified bus driver (magna cum lumpy), offered for what they are worth, in honest support.

This has been a reverse charge call to the school of hard knocks.

[Australopithecus]

Kharon, I really enjoy every one of your posts. You and me, we speaka da same lingo.

[International Trader]

OEB

Not that I have any feelings towards Tiger and I don't have any first hand knowledge about their standards but,
I get the impression that it is something other than a top flight operation.

Perhaps they are looking for a "Standards" Manager for a reason.

On the point of HH's CRM skills.
I recall that he was an FO at said 'Asian Airline' and also being told that he just re-hashed 20 year old scenarios collected from his old airline to people who couldn't understand what he was talking about , didn't care what he was saying and kept right on doing what they had been doing before he started giving classes ( sans CRM).
I have also heard that his people management skills don't particularly fit in with CRM best practices either.

By the way:
He wouldn't be the only FO from an Asian airline who has re-invented himself into a high flying position at a local airline ( via the CRM banner that HR Depts love so much and/or perhaps in some cases by judicious use of English or editing of facts).

I believe that your points about the fuel planning method used by the crew are flawed.
The company Fuel Policy is part of the Ops Manual and over rides the Manufacturer's Manual unless the process that you described is stated in the Ops Manual as an approved method. Sunk then and there.

The fuel planning method that you suggest works providing you input the correct data but, I think that it is not approved.


The crew should have firstly, questioned why they were flying to Perth without passengers and asked questions . You are an airline after all.
The fact that the ZFW was at or near the Basic Weight would be a big hint, if you know your "Aircraft Limitations Chapter" .

The correct action would have been to contact a "duty pilot Manager" ( wouldn't be surprised if Tiger don't have them) and seek advice.

After contacting a manager, used the MCDU it to get a fuel burn and reserves but, using information gained from their enquiries to get a realistic ZFW.

Use less advantageous winds if they were without correct wind data .


I think that the sight of passengers walking to the aircraft would have caused most competent PICs to think about putting on more fuel at that point and if you miss Cufew, tough. Safety first.

I also think that the Captain should, in any case, have used the PIC discretion for safety to uplift more fuel due to the fact that they was no accurate Flight Plan , probably no accurate load or wind data available to them , until he felt happy that the Fuel Policy had been complied with and all eventualities had been covered.

The moment he became aware ( if he did) that things weren't right, he should have stopped, taken a step back and consulted with his F/O as to whether what they were doing was safe. CRM, I did learn something.

If he missed the Curfew, again, tough.

In the old days, the smart people used "top up" to go to Perth in good weather with Burn + 4,000 min and fuel to get to Learmonth ,if there was the chance of fog.

In other words, get it all your way as much as possible.

The curfew pressure is and old trap for new players.

Get pressured to make a decision........ bring more gas or just say no.


Again, it appears to be a case of two supposedly competent pilots missing something obvious and it appears that this is happening with all of these low costs.

People are being employed at the bottom with insufficient experience and then promoted too quickly. It is only later that holes in their abilities/experience and/ or training are exposed.
Once these people get into training, standards and management, the whole system is corrupted.

I hear that there is a self proclaimed 'high flyer' at Tiger who had trouble passing his all checks at all his past airlines and would break into tears because he couldn't handle the pressure. Does he hold a Command,Train or check at Tiger?

On the point of the drug testing:

Strange how the pilot had had what 5 drug tests in how many months?

Personally, I have never been drug tested but then, I wouldn't know what a drug was if I fell over a case of them.

You also pointed out that this pilot doesn't even drink ,is the father of a young family and that he is active in his community but, you did not
say that he does not take drugs nor does he have a history of drug taking.

Acting a little bit like a Barrister, I think.

Did this pilot have a history of drug taking or were the multiple tests just a case of victimization with no basis in fact?

Either way, I wouldn't go throwing much money towards legal action .

It is obvious that he is not wanted and he should just go and look for greener pastures.

From what I hear, departing Tiger for greener pastures isn't too difficult but, you would not want a bad reputation following you.

Best of luck to the individual involved.

[004wercras]

If everything that has been reported in this thread is in fact true, then apart from the obvious breaches of the Fair Work Act etc, Tiger haven't complied with;

- Their Safety Management System (SMS)
- Their Human Factors training/syllabi
- Their Just Culture policy
- Elements of their CRM

Aren't all the above items part of regulatory requirement? If the answer to any or all of the above is 'yes', then Tiger have acted non-compliantly with the regs and their own manuals. So why aren't CAsA doing something about that?
Now of course we all know that CAsA don't comply with much themselves, they love to 'act how they want when they want' and certainly don't expect the same levels of compliance for themselves as they do for operators, but if CAsA refuse to take action they are then condoning Tigers non-compliance with regulations. And if CAsA are willing to turn a blind eye or be complicit in this matter, then what else are they turning a blind eye to? Tiger staff have already admitted to minimal to nil flight planning training with regards to this matter, and that's just one red flag here. Are we scratching the surface? Does all this give me any assurance in Tiger or CAsA? Hardly.

I can only wish the very best for the Captain if he is indeed a pilot with a clean sheet and stellar reputation for compliance and excellence.

Tick Tock

[Bankstown]

If only said Captain had a relative who could represent him, free of charge, all the way to the High Court......

[dashate]

This guy is affordable and accessible

https://www.facebook.com/denutoQC

[VR-HFX]

004

May I suggest you write a letter to "Skull" and ask the pertinent questions.

While he was a Star Chamber man at CX, I believe him to be an man of character (ie, he has served in the RAAF).

This case is particularly disturbing and follows a similar story going on in CX where an ISM accused a CN of smelling of alcohol at ICN recently. All proven to be false.

How many probes do we have to have inserted into our private parts before we all say enough is enough and you can all f....g walk to wherever you want to go on your $50 tickets?

[004wercras]

May I suggest you write a letter to "Skull" and ask the pertinent questions."Sorry, the Fuehrer is too busy to take calls or answer letters right now, if you leave a name, number and contact details he will get back to you as soon as possible. Kind regards....." in the meantime Chairman Hawke or Flyingfiend shall write you a ****-o-gram advising you to leave Mr Angry alone.

While he was a Star Chamber man at CX, I believe him to be an man of character (ie, he has served in the RAAF). Naughty naughty boy. Either you are taking the piss or you are Tony Tyler or Nick Rhodes?

A sad reality is that good guys, which translates to good pilots, have been getting royally pineappled for decades around the world, but it is getting worse. And on many occasions the root cause is a CP with a large ego, small winky, or minimal testicular fortitude when it comes to protecting his troops from pathological CEO's who have the mentality and skill of a steaming Donkey stool.

[004wercras]

This thread is getting interesting. What else have you got for us in your bag of goodies OEB? :ok:

[Kharon]

Once again I must ask forbearance; in my own small way I've been trying to get to the radical (root) cause of the Tiger scuffle, not the detritus floating on the surface, which you must, for a moment set aside; but the 'causal' elements.

I helped a bunch of 'clever lads' with a submission to the Truss WLR, (heavy lifting only) part of that involved looking at how various regulatory 'enforcement' practices impacted on safety outcomes. There is a shed load of argument to plough through and the majority of that combined wisdom differed, in varying degrees with our Australian methodology. ICAO, FAA and EASA have published 'advice' which; in short, says that enforcing absolute compliance with minimum standards is actually detrimental, in that so much effort goes into 'pedantic' interpretation and micro management that development of (for want of better) 'innovative' advanced safety thinking is stifled in some cases, actively discouraged in others.

Enforcing the regulatory 'minimum' standards through micro management attracts a certain type of mind, which is not necessarily helpfully 'creative'. The argument goes that if the 'regulator' prefers this type of mindset, the regulator will 'encourage' those who fit their cardboard cut-out (protected species) and discourage those who don't (moving targets).

Only a personal observation; but 'we' seem to have a growing population of this 'type' of mindset, which in it's desperate need for the power to enforce the minutiae of a 'regulation' will go to extreme lengths to curry favour and perpetuate, through any means possible the legend that they, and only they can keep the operation compliant, viable and properly operational. To ensure this, skill in plagiarism, smoke generation, mirror polishing and management backside cuddling are required. Once the 'power' is gained, the ego beast demands constant feeding. The ego beast prefers to eat anything that may be seen as competition or remotely combative. With the power to satisfy the increasing demand of the addiction, the need for fresh meat increases in proportion; this in combination with unlimited power creates an atmosphere fear, but also promotes rebellion. Rebellion usually begins 'underground' and initially starts with small acts of subversion. When these minor transgressions are ruthlessly stamped out, the seeds for real trouble are sown. This self perpetuating game amplifies, more subversive action, more ruthless action taken against.

The surface reasons for the crew in question taking 'independent' action are clear enough and the conscious reasons for them doing so are also clear; but I wonder. What subconscious reasons prompted a sane, competent crew to an overt breach of SOP. I also wonder how much animosity was involved in a ruthless determination to eradicate, so completely the PIC. A bonus is the sending of a clear message to those who dare look askance at some of 'management' edicts. Not healthy, not at all.

Being mauled by McComic did Tiger no favours, it could arguably be seen as detrimental to the safety culture. Management made paranoid, determined to maintain the AOC at any cost; management pilots using that fear to elicit power and the crews all having kittens, because the post flight paper-work was not quite correct.

There are grounds for a reasonable man to believe something is fundamentally very wrong within the Tiger operation. If that element can be identified, isolated and removed, the lid may just go back onto the box which contains all the usual crew grumbling and the operation returned to an open, comfortable place to work. Happy people make for great airlines; frightened unhappy people will either leave or stay on, nursing a festering anger. Not healthy, not all.

Anyway – only my thoughts, we can always go back to pretending this is all about a SOP being busted by a drug fiend and once he is dismissed all things in the garden will return to a state of rosy, black letter compliance.

I know, I know: shut up and back to my knitting, right.

[International Trader]

OEB.

I still stand by my comments about the planning.

I don't have a copy of FCOM and, unless it forms part of your CASA Operations Manual, it doesn't matter.
The only approved document is the Company Fuel Policy as approved by CASA.
The aircraft manufacturer probably has much good information as part of the systems study material but, is that the planning method approved by CASA?
Not that I particularly care about CASA but, if the crew didn't comply with the Casa approved Company Fuel Policy, they have left themselves exposed.

Does the Company Fuel Policy state something like: Use the Manufacturer's methods of Flight Planning and fuel uplift calculations?
Probably not.

My point regarding the drug issue was only prompted by your comments.
I don't know the pilot involved but, you appeared to be a the cheer squad from his defence team and you didn't mention that he claimed innocence of the charge . I just wondered, considering the several test that had been done on him.
Thank you for pointing that out.

[Australopithecus]

Regarding the narrow issue of adequate fuel and the means for ascertaining same:

Is it policy at TigerAir that the minimum required fuel may only be determined by the admittedly poorly trained company flight planning clerks?

As the pilot in command and the only person so designated surely the captain would be able to employ any means available (readin', writin', 'rethmetic) to decide if he had at least minimum fuel pre-flight? To suggest that the planning clerk is a better judge of that is depressing.

When faced with similar situations in the past I have opted for lots of extra fuel rather than wait for a new plan. So I tankered an extra couple of tonnes? The cost of that might run to $175, cheap to avoid a delay or other costly event.

That's what the initial episode amounts to: fail to (wrongly, as it turns out) seen to be prudent, and a couple of hundred bucks.

[somewhereat1l]

Australopithecus, this is the company that communicated to the flight deck crew not to put a new paper roll in the ACARS printer in order to save money.

What do they cost $1?

$175 extra in fuel when you are selling seats for $10 might send the company broke...oh! :hmm:

[southernskies]

Are you referring to AO-2014-003 OEB? If so...calm your horses mate that was a Jet* aircraft

[VR-HFX]

004

Twas the former actually but perhaps poorly phrased.

Apart from all that, I agree with your other colourful and evocative imagery:ok::ok:

[Lookleft]

I agree SS all I could see were Jet* incidents.:ugh:

[RAD_ALT_ALIVE]

You're starting to lose your credibility OEB, when you write silly posts like your last one.

You said earlier what you felt needed to be said. Now let due process run its course.

[ANCPER]

OMFG, unless I missed something on their fuel situation on arrival in Perth, I'd say the following.

For starters what computerised FP system doesn't give winds >,< the FP lvl? So he had winds, it only requires him to put a reasonable ZFW in to arrive at reasonable BO after reviewing the OPT/Max FL to determine what FL is available at the "new" weight.

As to what FP method is approved what a lawyer has told me is it is the CAR requirement for determining the required fuel for the flt that will determine if legal action is possible against the PIC, and that is winds, wx, contingency etc. Not where you extracted the data.

If you ask me he just showed basic common sense. Since you're in Asia ask any of your mates in HK what their employer would say if they missed a curfew on those grounds.

As to HH's CRM style, while no mate of his I'd not hesitate to describe his demeanour/CRM as middle of the road. If you'd have a problem flying with him I'm guessing you'd have a problem with most captains. His position is also CP (HFO), not CRM related so I don't see where that comes into it, he's looking after the Co's AOC, not holding hands. Your comments are nothing but a gutless character assassination.

As to the PIC's drug testing over the past 5 mths, had you considered this may be as a result of the same person or someone affiliated with them who "informed" CASA of his alleged "habit". This is just smoke/fire crap without a shred of evidence, as likely shown by the fact he DIDN'T fail one of them.

[Capt Under Pants]

Somewhereat1, ref the paper roll, it's not to save money, word is it's been tasked to the engineers to do that.

[morno]

Sheesh, an axe to grind much OEB?

[Australopithecus]

Regarding the ACARS paper...yeah, its worth a buck, but probably costs $20. But I take the point that they want the engineers to perform that daunting feat of dexterity.

The entire LCC business model seems to be softening in most countries. There are exceptions of course, but Tiger is not one of them, anywhere. The supply of gullible punters is finite, and its limits have been reached. Marginal revenue is drying up: anecdotal evidence suggests that people are packing there own jumpers and muffins.

Since LCCs compete directly on cost only, the market is by definition price sensitive. There are too many cheap seats in the market place right now, as amply vouched in many articles and recent speeches by the other players. I witnessed this first hand in the UK back in the day when the charter carriers eventually got down to a 50p per seat profit. One bird strike offset the profits from 2 million seats...an absurd situation that could only ever end in tears. Which it did.

Getting back to this obsession with micro-managing costs. At its least logical many enterprises end while a $1000/day man is busy chasing $5 savings initiatives. Who am I kidding? Usually its three or four of them on twice that money.

Flight safety cannot be delivered by a carrier who is kiting cheques to keep the doors open. It cannot be delivered, ultimately, by people unable to recognise their own shortcomings. A big ego might be good sometimes, but not near an airport.

The foregoing ignores the much greater problem at the regulator, which deserves as much scrutiny and collective indignation as we can muster. This country and this industry both deserve much much better than being the playthings of apparent phsycopaths and their eager sycophants.

[MASTEMA]

16 March in the year of Lord 2007 Tiger Airways Australia Pty. Ltd. was incorporated in the Northern Territory and committed A$10 million to start the subsidiary.
Grossly under-capitalised

The airline's business model is still based on that of sister airline Tiger Airways, which attempts to increase the total market size (number of passengers), control operating costs, and maximise the number of sectors served.
Sounds feasible

One way it planned to keep costs low was by avoiding expensive airports.
And the winner is (wait for it) Sydney

Tiger undertook the final stage of Australian regulatory procedures on 20 November 2007, successfully performing two proving flights from Melbourne to the Sunshine Coast and Launceston
Both in the same day, by the same crew, to save costs and meet the launch dead line. Welcome to low cost

Each carried officials from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority as well as Tiger crew. Tiger received its Air Operator's Certificate on 22 November.
With nil operational observations or Required Corrective Actions (RCAs). (Ground services received two observations)

Tiger Airways Australia's first scheduled flight was TT 7402, which departed from Melbourne for the Gold Coast on 23 November 2007.
With nil observations or RCAs

Tiger hummed along very happily under the watchful and gentile eye of ‘The Broomy’ until his departure.
They even had a TV show

Since then Tiger has not removed itself from CASAs RCA desk or the headlines and the serious deterioration and lack of error traps continues.
Why?


Australopithecus
People who use 'back in the day' and 'sycophants' are absolute rock stars in my opinion.

[Kharon]

The only approved document is the Company Fuel Policy as approved by CASA.

Is it policy at TigerAir that the minimum required fuel may only be determined by the admittedly poorly trained company flight planning clerks?

Both comments fatally flawed: It's all getting a bit silly, ain't it. Had either of the Mildura aircraft ran out of fuel as did the hapless Pel Air Westwind; all the half arsed 'policy' in the world won't save the Captain. In fact (provided the 'policy' is sound) it will be used against, in a heart beat, to clearly demonstrate that it was no fault of the company or the regulator . Why?, well because if policy and guidelines are sound; it isn't. The responsibilities of the PIC are defined 'in law', not by policy.

The 'minimum' fuel plan provided is a 'suggestion'; not a requirement. I'd bet a Choccy frog that 97% of the pro pilots here could, using a simple 'rule of thumb' method, nut out a 'minimum' fuel load for a proposed flight, while in the shower. That rough number maybe further modified while driving in, listening to the news and weather forecast.

To finesse that 'rough' number into a final uplift requires lots of additional data, some obvious, some not so. Ops, despatch, flight planning, by whatever name do the donkey work, and provide a suggested 'Min fuel'; but, no matter how much 'policy' fluff is built into the system, that is pretty much where their obligations end and those of the PIC begin. Policy will only get you to the starting gate; and, provided the case you argue errs on the safe side; a breech of policy (IMO) is an internal matter for the CP – "Why did you land with five ton on board?" - Bloggs" – "Well boss, I just couldn't get anymore on". This is much better than "Why did you run out of noise?" – Bloggs - "Well boss, I followed the policy and went with minimum fuel".

IF the CASA accepted, company generated fuel policy is 'sound', the operational support competent and the system flexible enough, then neither of the above should occur. If they do, then the fleet PIC should be generating memo's to SMS to get it sorted out; before a Pel Air or Mildura repeat lands in someone's back yard. The time consuming desperation to satisfy the CASA needs and to gain 'acceptance' (not ever approval) should not be the underlying premise on which a fuel 'policy' is based. Gods alone know what tortured machinations were 'required' to obtain the 'acceptance' (not approval) while under the duress of being grounded with the attendant public condemnation.

It's part of the job, this art of juggling maximum payload, weather, fuel cost, operational considerations (mandatory and possible). Seems to me the PIC may have 'breached' a SOP which is a disciplinary matter (maybe) but complied with the 'law of command'. If, indeed in this instance that command prerogative is 'administratively' taken away; then command of the aircraft has been stolen and gifted, by the aircrew, to the clerical department.

What I am driving at is the uncertainty generated when 'policy' takes precedence over law; some pilots will start to take max fuel to cover their arses one way; some will depart with recommended minimum to cover their arses another. When in fact the entire final fuel figure is entirely, utterly, completely and ultimately the sole responsibility of the PIC. The rest just buys heated swimming pools, trophy wives and expensive wines for lawyers..

None of this is clearly defined here; but, IF the 'company' is using a ramped up 'one off' policy breach tacked onto a false, unsupported accusation as a trigger to fire a pilot, then it's a sad indication of a sickness deep within.

Just saying, and I am working with very sketchy details here.

[Australopithecus]

That was my point, Kharon: details too sketchy and trying to nut out exactly how Tiger's policies got tangled up in the sole question of enough fuel or not. Reliance on (suspect) process instead of practical results and then vilifying the employee by foul means? Tiger will never get any more than a derisive snort from me.

[Lookleft]

I have to agree with you on that point Kharon. Fuel policy is only the starting point. A prudent Captain will take a myriad of details and make a decision on how much fuel to load even if that requires full tanks. My personal min fuel for Perth if the weather is good is to take enough to get me to KG. Thats 3.8 as a minimum.

[bdcer]

Kharon, I'm too lazy to search, but I'm sure you've made that same point with almost those same words before!

I'm not disagreeing, in fact I couldn't agree more, I find it interesting that the same lessons need to come out again.

This is aviation, we need to keep passing on the gen to the next cab off the rank.
Maybe this website is useful ;)

[Kharon]

bdcer –I know; but if at first you don't succeed; try, try again. This industry is so used to being bullied by the regulator, dominated by the 'administrative' elements and browbeaten by 'management' that fear, confusion levels and an entrenched need, borne of desperation, to 'comply' and please everyone is actually reaching danger levels. There is a dire need to separate 'policy' preference from legal obligations, lest we get confused, duck it up and get fired.

I was aiming at the 'culture' drum, rather than the regulatory one, but they are almost indistinguishable from each other these dark days. The two quotes (and second coffee) set me off. Hopefully we'll get a change of both.

But, don't mind me; just an old work dog trying to yard a stroppy mob; bark, bark, bloody bark, all day long, and no one there to shut the flamin' gate. {thumbs up}.

[Lookleft]

Its called cultural SOPs. Not spelt out as a requirement but strongly recommended and then debriefed in route checks as being a better way of doing things. The prime example of this is QF1 where idle reverse and flap 25 led to a runway excursion as it is now described. As has been noted the cultural SOPs and the regulatory requirements are hard to distinguish.

[Icarus2001]

Kharon, a good post. Difficult to disagree. These are the same pressures all captains face every day, of course.

If, indeed in this instance that command prerogative is 'administratively' taken away; then command of the aircraft has been stolen and gifted, by the aircrew, to the clerical department.

That is the point surely. The LAW that gives the PIC authority and responsibility cannot be ignored or overridden by "policy" or culture SOPs. If an individual or company tries to do this then we end up with the situation Tiger had with their grounding.

My feeling is that there is more to this that we do not know (yet). A sacking is never undertaken lightly nowadays.

[Servo]

My IP address is not fixed. In saying that if the company wants to send PPRUNE owners a nice letter from their solicitors and get my or anyone's details, my understanding is that they will hand them over post haste.

Surely as long as what you have posted is true, then ok :hmm:

Why do OEB's posts keep disappearing???

[moa999]

Noting the post I just read has been deleted, I would say the first 17 points appear factual (or at least one persons version of it) and are pretty damming
I would be very careful about the last point

[Cactusjack]

Why do OEB's posts keep disappearing???

Probably because of a) nepotism, b) the truth hurts, c) we don't live in a democratic society, d) either one or all of the above.

[pilotchute]

Maybe OEB himself is taking them down. That would be a good idea if lawyers are getting involved.

[Servo]

Interesting that anonymous posters don't get the same "protection" as those that make accusations against fellow staff behind the veil of anonymity and protection from management and company solicitors.

Truth hurts??

Sad indictment of the current climate of operations and business in Australia.

[Cactusjack]

Servo, agreed. Those being wronged are treated with contempt and they are also victimised. Yet those doing the wrong thing are protected and supported and it is a disgrace. If OEB's posts are factual, and it would appear they are, then he should have reasonable rights to post as he has been doing, without having his posts removed.

[Tidbinbilla]

All of the missing posts (and there are a few) have been deleted by the various contributors who wrote them.

This may have been done for any number of reasons :) Best ask them by PM.

[IsDon]

What a sad indictment on our industry, that people feel so exposed that they have to think twice about posting their knowledge of these despicable acts. So much so that they feel the need to delete them.

Systematic of a very dangerous culture.

[Kharon]

Just copy and paste the OEM post; then it can be disappeared for ever and no harm done. I thought it was just OEM playing at silly buggers, thx Tailwheel.

(Rumour 17) - Tigerair Gave Captain 2 hours to deliver 3 sick notes which is not required until retuning to work then sacked him.

Is it possible to obtain further 'broad' information related to rumour 17; just an outline? It's just that three 'sick notes' seems to be a lot, unless it was an extended illness or 'stress relief' (which is understandable). Honourable folk, who want shut of a pilot, build a supported case first, then explain that services are no longer required, why that is so and offer the option of resignation. Should there be a dispute then mediation first, the courts a poor second are available.

DJ-Apooh? "your IP address can easily be traced by any half stupid IT department. I should know - an ex employer once gave me a 'cease and desist' 'chat' ".

But why, in an almost free country should your 'employer' feel a need to trace your IP address? you are not committing a criminal offence by having one, even if it's used to express your opinion, on your own equipment, in your own time on Pprune. Conversely, why would you need to give a toss if 'they' have it. 'They' have your home address, passport number, bank details, name of dependents, name of partner, email address, land and mobile telephone number, ASIC details and hat size: all freely given, without a shred of fear. Even if 'they' think they know who you are on Pprune, so what; who's to say it was 'you' tapping away at 'that' keyboard and even if it is; so what??.

Perhaps the really scary part is when you are able to be and 'they' believe they can, bluff you into a subservient position with the innuendo that the 'system' can and will be used against you; by fair means of foul, should the boat be rocked. Can an employer do that, with complete immunity? I think not..

Should any of you be unfortunate enough to work for a company that does not, by nature, act honourably, then it's time for you pay your money and take your chances with the rest and pray your union (association) has got the right boots on; before the match starts. VIPA seem run a good shop as does AIPA, not sure if the TWU accepts 'aircrew'.

I would like to draw your attention to the CVD issue based thread (Petition to Truss) which, like Topsy is expanding to encompass general medical matters and the way Avmed is currently being run. One of the many, many AAT cases examined there is very pertinent (IMO) to the current Tiger puzzle.

[VH-Cheer Up]

Is that a job ad, OEB?

In the aircraft I fly, I determine minimum fuel by topping up to the top of the filler neck. When no more will go in, that's enough. The only time you can have too much fuel is when - oh well, everybody knows that one.

[VH-Cheer Up]

They certainly don't seem to be required at Tigerair by the way they treat their staff.Sorry, lost me. What don't seem to be required?

[Servo]

It would seem that the number one and only priority for any CEO of a listed company is shareholder value. Is it because their remuneration is typically tied to such :sad:

Certainly in Australia, it would appear to be the case. I know I was fooled. :uhoh:

Where is Herb Kelleher when you need him :{

Then you have the oversight of the industry by the regulator....................

[VH-Cheer Up]

It would seem that the number one and only priority for any CEO of a listed company is shareholder value. Is it because their remuneration is typically tied to such That's not such a problem really. The only way to maximise long-term shareholder value (by long term I mean sustainably), i.e. to keep giving them good returns) is to provide a strong value proposition to customers. That means quality service, reliability, good value for money, clean comfortable aircraft, good schedule - the list goes on.

And the only way to deliver that value proposition SUSTAINABLY is to have a happy, motivated, dare I say "engaged" workforce.

All this hairy chested union bashing, personal agenda stuff is just so much BS. Herb Keleher (and Jan Carlzon at SAS a decade before him) had the philosophy that if you aren't serving a customer, you had better be serving someone who is. And doing it well, I might add. Both gentlemen created huge value for shareholders, thrilled a flying public, and I don't think they had too many staff upset at them.

Where are managers of this calibre when we need them here?

[Servo]

I dont think there is ANY CEO in Aviation here in Australia that could even come close to Herb Kelleher.

Supposedly the Captain in question put on more fuel than required, yet in other airlines you have Captain(s) that actually take less than planned fuel and are still operating................

What a mess of an industry.

[500N]

In case anyone hasn't seen it, Tiger is getting a bit of stick on the front page of The Age, SMH as Australia's least reliable airline.

Australia's least-reliable airline (http://www.theage.com.au/travel/blogs/travellers-check/australias-leastreliable-airline-20140811-3dhr1.html)

[Servo]

OTP is a manifestation of ego's. No need for it here in Australia other than a pi$$ing competition. Especially when both majors are within a few percent of each other and the "leader" changes daily.

What a joke.

Just another level of unnecessary pressure faced by those at the coal face.

Safety first, yeah right :hmm:

[Cactusjack]

Re; OEB, post #1584.
Is that a general CEO policy you have sourced or is it specifically the Tiger Air CEO policy? Reason being is that there is a lot of use of the word 'responsible' where the word 'accountable' should be. If this is Tiger Airs executive statement then they are fools for producing it this way and so are CASA for accepting this. A CEO is the accountable person, so if anything does well and truly go pear shaped it will be his bott bott that is carted off to the big house.

Either way keep up the good work. Julian Assange would be proud of you my friend. Let's hope old mate Captain gets his wings returned and the orchestrators of this folly receive the karma they deserve.

[VH-Cheer Up]

Tiger is looking for a Manager, Flight Standards (A320). Good to see they are looking to lift their standards.

Tigerair Australia - Based in Melbourne Tullamarine

Manager, Flight Standards A320
Job ID: FO0606124619

With a proven business model, an expanding network and a team driven to outperform at every opportunity, Tigerair is the place to be. As a real airline for real people, like you, finding the right team members to ensure consistently happy customers is key for us to meet our exciting growth targets. If you’re interested in joining our fast paced but fun airline you could soon be on your way to shaping one of Australia’s most exciting success stories.

Due to continual growth and current business demands we have a rare leadership opportunity for a highly experienced Manager, Flight Standards to join our airline. You will report to the Director of Flight Operations and will be responsible for maintaining the overall standardisation of the Tigerair pilot group at the highest practical level and the implementation of the standards and performance of pilots, including the development and management of performance standards and processes.

Key responsibilities include:


Review all reports from Simulator checks and Line Checks of pilots, including spot checks;
Coordinate with the Chief Pilot and the Head of Training and Checking to ensure
appropriate feedback is provided to all Pilots, Instructors and Check Pilots;
Conduct competency checks of operating crews as contained in the operational manuals;
Assessment and review of flight crew proficiency to assist in the recommendation for upgrades of First Officers, Training Captains and Check Captains;
Recommend changes to manuals, Part A, B, C, D and E and review of other Flight Operations manuals;
Assist in the review of the manuals of other departments which affect pilots, to ensure the appropriate level of safety, compliance and efficiency is achieved;
Assist in investigations of any safety related issues relating to pilots.
Advise management of the outcome and any corrective actions or procedures;
Assist with investigations of all events relating to Flight Operations or pilots;
Deal with investigations and non-compliant behaviour;
Provide responses to AQD for the department;
Recommends change to manuals, processes and SOP’s;
Ensure compliance with regard to all regulations relating to flight crew;
Monitor the pilot activities and line operations to ensure pilots operate to the required company standards of safety, technical competence and commercial awareness.

Applicants should fulfill the following requirements:


Possess appropriate pilot training and checking experience and qualifications;
Extensive experience on Airbus fly by wire technology;
Solid knowledge and exemplary level of personal flying skill;
Solid Operational Management experience;
Knowledge of developments and changes within regulations
The ability to implement company policy and procedural changes;
Ability to influence and negotiate with others building positive relationships;
Demonstrated expertise in time management and organizational skills;
Self- disciplined, able to work independently and in a team environment;
Ability to work under pressure;
Excellent communication skills, both written and verbal;
Proficient with Microsoft Office suite of products.

If you think you are the right person to join our airline then we'd love to hear more about you. Please email your CV, cover letter and any supporting information you think we'd find interesting to read to (deleted)@tigerairways.com. Thanks for your interest in Tigerair.

Applicants must have the right to work in Australia.

Tigerair is an equal opportunity employer.

Due to the high volume of applications we receive, only shortlisted applicants will be contacted.

[IsDon]

To the captain concerned.

Don't get mad, get even!

This stuff is on the public record now. Time to reveal all to the travelling public as the despicable act of a company trying desperately to cover up their own failings by blaming you.

You are the scapegoat. Take em to the cleaners.

[Blueskymine]

I might be your competition but this is a load of bull****e.

It's about time we organised something through our unions to start a fighting/support fund similar to what we did for JE, If not to fight, at least to help the skipper concerned pay the mortgage and put food on the table until he is reinstated or finds his way.

Laurie, I know you are probably reading this. Is this something the AFAP can get involved with? VIPA? TWU?

[Kharon]

Please note, the topic discussed is the implications of the SMH article; not Harry....

A total of eight bells are struck to end a watch; to "knock seven bells out of someone" implies pretty severe handling — without actually finishing him off (7/8ths). Despite it's nautical implications, the use of a seven bells alarm system is a necessary defence when dealing with matters aeronautical. On an ascending scale, from the minor 'tinkle' (something nothing) to the bloody great big CLANG of the real deal (Incoming). A small tinkle of concern has always been the background music to the tale of Tiger; but just lately a couple of the larger, more strident alarms have been ringing. Not for the immediate safety of passengers; but for the internal health of the company and those who are ultimately responsible for that safety, long term. As the quote below is from the 'media' and Tiger have not, as yet contradicted it, it's fair game for comment; as, IMO it is a signpost to a dark place.

Tensions between Tiger flight crews and staff on the ground prompting Tiger chief pilot Harry Holling to last month email all pilots to warn them about “several reports lately of crew having heated discussions with other staff whilst on line’’. “There is no place for yelling, aggressive or threatening behaviour…this applies to radio transmissions as well as face to face communication.”

If you deconstruct the paragraph, there are several issues which are being 'glibly' covered without definition or substance.

Why are there 'tensions'? Unhappy 'ground' staff is not a high score on a safety count; but angry, distracted aircrew are a whole new level for concern. A 'one off' scuffle between ground staff and air crew is an insignificant event and even a fairly high 'count' over a year is probably acceptable; not desirable, but it happens. Now the CP response is to email the 'pilots', warning them not to argue with ground staff, not mentioning what steps have been taken to alleviate the core issues. Not addressing the issues openly and honestly serves no purpose other than to drive the 'problem' underground and foster resentment. Beating on the aircrew and supporting what they see as a problem is counterproductive. A statement more along the lines of "To all staff; management have identified certain areas within the 'system' which have led to disagreement between ground and flight staff; management have taken the steps necessary to resolve those issues. All staff have been advised of those changes and asked to report directly any further potential areas for misunderstanding". To simply ignore the 'issues' and gag the aircrew speaks of the Ostrich and the sand pit. From the article, we find not only that the 'problem' remains firmly in place, but the remedy is to dump it on the flight crew.

Shortly after the March 3 flight plan incident, Mr Holling sent an email to all pilots warning them to check flight plans for mistakes. "As pilots, we are the last line of defence and we should all exercise extra care when our flights are disrupted or not routine. Generally everyone does a great job in dealing with the pressures of low cost carrier operations and dealing with weather and curfews," Mr Holling wrote.

SOP – Crew will cross check the flight plan for gross errors. The need to state the bleeding obvious to professional aircrew, in an email is, to my mind, a loud CLANG of the big bell. There can only be two conclusions to this patronising, un-required missive – the flight crew are really slack and/or grossly under trained; or, the flight planning is such a mess that crew will be well advised to DIY, save the time, trouble and aggravation. I would prefer an email saying – be patient, we have identified some weak areas in the flight planning system. Additional training, oversight and system modification is on going; please ensure SOP is complied with during the short, interim period. From the article, we find not only that the 'problem' remains firmly in place, but the remedy is to dump it on the flight crew.

The party piece is the vaguely insulting 'generally everyone'. etc. To top it off we intimate that LCC is some kind of pressure operation. It is germane to remind all that the 'business' of LCC operations is of constant 'financial' pressure; this cannot be transferred to the operational end. The antics of those who must score financial points, has sod all to do with aircraft operations, the notion of 'pressuring' or even mentioning 'pressure' to aircrew because of their LCC status is repugnant, dangerous, demeaning and, ultimately defeats the purpose of 'lean, mean' operations.

Now, I am not saying that the report in the SMH is accurate or even written with any understanding of the internal game being played; perhaps the issues have been competently and comprehensively dealt with. If these matters have been resolved, it only leaves the PR looking foolish and overpaid; the SMH article should be firmly rebutted.

It's just as well the Australian media is terminally dense, imagine a head line and story "Deep problems within Tiger threaten air safety". "CASA fail to ensure a robust safety culture". "Pilots are being exposed to substandard flight planning. Despite several attempts to have the problems rectified, passengers are being placed in a situation where the aircraft could run out fuel. Management have informed the pilots that as a LCC, they are not allowed to question or dispute substandard or incorrect minimum flight fuel figures, happily operate under extreme pressure, must not argue with ground staff and they must check every line on the flight plan as management cannot and will not accept the responsibility". (pure fiction - of course).

Scandalous ain't it ? Boy Oh boy, how the Virgin masters would love that sort of press for breakfast...

[VH-Cheer Up]

The Seven Bells: Another superbly analytical post by Kharon. :ok:

I know the CP ("Harry") is not necessarily a seasoned business strategist, but something about the implication of the cost pressures being higher in an LCC than in other types of operation chills me to the marrow.

If the LCC achieves lower cost only by pressurising staff to cut costs eventually that will lead to tears. Cost cutting inevitably leads to corner cutting.

The whole LCC model is supposedly based on a different, less-expensive-to-deliver value proposition. Deconstructed fares, everything extra for the customer involves a surcharge, lower cost = lower service expectation. Bring your own lunch, no interline, carry-on only, pay for entertainment. And don't forget, where the whole LCC thing started, costs were avoided massively by flying between secondary airports, which really doesn't work in Australia because most of the secondary airports cannot accept high density jet aircraft.

Other LCC features were single type - now eschewed by some, e.g. Ezy, Virgin (Virgin is clearly no longer an LCC). Longstanding LCCs that have maintained the single-minded business focus, and have never missed a beat on profitability nor, to the best of my knowledge, never had a systemic safety issue, are probably limited to two carriers, SWA and RYR. (Happy to hear more nominations).

Safety is not a luxury to be added on to the price of a ticket by those who wish to pay a safety surcharge. It's the expectation of every passenger on every airline the price of the ticket provides adequate margins to ensure safe delivery to their destination.

If the Tiger LCC business model works in practice only by exerting a higher level of pressure on staff, all staff, then the model is doomed to fail. You cannot be the cheapest while still providing the same level of service without making sacrifices elsewhere. It's all the more worrying if those sacrifices are invisible to the customer, because that may mean they are deeply rooted in the culture and management practice.

When the pressure becomes high enough, the weakest part of the pressure vessel will provide relief. That will usually be unexpected, virtually instantaneous, and possibly catastrophic.

There's a story about the Apollo astronauts sitting on the launchpad, awaiting blast-off. Once they had completed all their checks they had little they could do except to contemplate they are sitting on top of a massive fuel tank, in the knowledge every supplier of the million-plus components keeping them alive was selected on the basis of providing the cheapest quote.

Gagging the flight crew from occasional animated rebuke of the ground crew is merely window dressing. Some kaizen-style analysis of the organisational pressure-buildup might be highly enlightening. And the outcomes could be so much better for all concerned if done outside the auspices of a formal accident investigation.

I'll leave you with a song:

Pressure pushing down on me
Pressing down on you no man ask for
Under pressure - that burns a building down
Splits a family in two
Puts people on streets
It's the terror of knowing
What this world is about
Watching some good friends
Screaming let me out
Pray tomorrow - gets me higher
Pressure on people - people on streets
Chippin' around - kick my brains around the floor
There are the days it never rains but it pours
People on streets - people on streets
It's the terror of knowing
What this world is about
Watching some good friends
Screaming let me out
Pray tomorrow - gets me higher
Pressure on people - people on streets
Turned away from it all like a blind man
Sat on a fence but it don't work
Keep coming up with love but it's so slashed and torn
Why - why - why
Love
Insanity laughs under pressure we're cracking
Can't we give ourselves one more chance
Why can't we give love one more chance
Why can't we give love
Cause love's such an old fashioned word
and love dares you to care for
The people on the edge of the night
And love dares you to change our way of
Caring about ourselves
This is our last dance
This is our last dance
This is ourselves
Under pressure
Under pressure
Pressure

[B772]

How old is Harry now ?. Is he still up to the job of looking after his pilot's or is he a yes man.

He is an AFAP man so he should be doing better and standing up to the Tiger management.

[grrowler]

I reckon it would have been many years since a CP went in to bat for a pilot in any meaningful way - too much risk to their kpi's and contract renewal I reckon.

[Cactusjack]

grrowler that is very true. These days most CP's are like the HR Manager - there to protect the CEO from any staffer who 'rocks the boat', whether they be guilty or innocent. The CP acts as the company policeman so to speak, running back to the CEO tattle taling.
I know of one CP who had the honour of being bestowed with the nickname 'Toenails', because the only thing you could see hanging out of the CEO's ass was the CP's toenails! Indeed a company man through and through. As for his troops... What troops??

[Kharon]

As it's an indecently early start and you have all been so kind, with apologies for the mangled metaphors:-
"Some -Kaizen-style analysis of the organisational pressure-build-up might be highly enlightening.
Kaizen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaizen)will only work when and where 'it's wanted'. Like all curses if the 'malady' is not identified a cure cannot be found. Once identified, both malady and cure: the patient must be willing to undergo the treatment; if the cure is to be effective. Our sick tiger presents with two main symptoms, which manifest through several other symbiotic ailments.

Endemic these days is the 'arse covering' comfort blanket of all care and no responsibility. They're all at it, learnt from government agencies at the tit and later spoon fed by Nanny. You can notice it with small children; no matter what young Johnny has done – it's never his fault, there's always an excuse and backdoor to slip out of provided. Then, during adulthood, the 'reflex' is so deeply ingrained, so Pavlov dog like, the subconscious response is inescapable. Every one loves the kudos, the money the power – until it's time to pay the fiddler; suddenly everyone is pointing at someone else. I wonder, do these parents realise the damage they are inflicting on their offspring? Confidence, the real McCoy variety – does not stem from knowing that no matter what comes, there is always an out; but from knowing the consequences of a bad decision or action; learned early so that responsibility for ones decisions and actions is clearly understood, later in life, when it matters.

Rice bowl protection: the cause of wars and misery, since the cave days People will go to extraordinary lengths to protect 'their' bowl and that what's in it. Drawback is the infamous, ultimately destructive "Yes" syndrome which cunningly only fills the bowl enough to ensure continued compliance, the sacrifice is insidious and painless until self respect is needed; then the magnitude of it all becomes apparent.

The reflex of self delusion and rice bowl protection in moderation is acceptable; but when ego, a denial of personal responsibility, an ability to find a donkey to pin a tale on, and work place deception are combined with an underlying basic insecurity; promoting braggadocio, team up with a slightly narcissistic temperament, all combined in the aircraft world, spell trouble. Real trouble, with a capital T.

Once upon a time, (back in the day), a King was having serious trouble as his money hoard was diminishing at a great rate. Perplexed, he called in the expert Sleuth to discover where all the wealth was disappearing to. Well of course, it was no ones fault; one alibi supported the next and so on until the sleuth was dizzy with excuses and rational and innuendo. There were of course small groups which were quite happy to 'deflect' the blame, with a well timed hint or two, onto other groups. But Sleuth had played this game before and before long had identified the ring leaders from clues gathered in stables, barns, kitchens, workshops and Pubs, where the almost honest folk (only because they were kept out of the treasury) worked and played. Anyway, later he met the King in his very private garden and told him what was what, collected his fee and melted away. Many years later on the road he met the King again, who looked much the worse for wear; "what happened?" he asked; "well" began the impoverished King, "some of those you named were relatives, others I counted as friends, some knew my secrets others my guilt and when I asked them to stop; they laughed, joined together and threw me out, I am now as you see me; a poorer but wiser man". "But I told how to cure the problem systematically" said Sleuth; "I know" mourned the King; "but I was persuaded that it was much easier to just remove a symptom, not cure the disease". Sleuth later wrote a book entitled "Setting your feet to flame, to keep your hands warm".

Tigers little problems are sort-able, with a little expense, a little pain and an understanding of how not to worry about saving five bob on a dunny roll (and pay a ten bob bonus); but how to efficiently streamline the operation into the little money making machine it should be.

Aye - the arcane, mystical art of trouble shooting is not forgotten, just temporarily 'out of fashion', while the cat's away... Call 1300 – FIXIT – for a quote (shoulders and clean handkerchiefs at discount rates)..

Too toot~

[Trevor the lover]

OEB - just curious as to what you are aiming to achieve by thrashing this out on PPRUNE. Would be the last place I think that one should be spilling guts about a serious legal dogfight. Reckon you're just setting yourself up to have damaging quotes thrown back at you in a legal forum.

[morno]

What's your personal gripe with Tiger OEB?

[Cactusjack]

I don't think OEB has an 'issue' per se, it seems more like a 'mission', a mission to defend a pilot who has been wronged in a most heinous way. A mission to bring about justice while exposing the injustice of this farcical incident. So I say good work OEB. If as a side issue this makes Tiger look like crap well so what? Tiger only has itself to blame if the details of this issue are true, they've brought this attention on themselves. It takes balls to do what OEB is doing, great big balls, full credit to him.

[waren9]

one of oeb's posts which now seems to be missing was written in 1st person seemingly by the capt involved.

i may have been cognitively impaired at the time tho

[Trevor the lover]

Belly full of love juice or not Waren9, you are correct. There was more than one post in the first person.


So Cactus- if on is on a mission to defend a pilot, ie yourself, I personally feel that posting the whole affair on Pprune is not the place to do it.

[Servo]

The post is still there. If OEB wants to post on PPRUNE in regards to their (or another persons) treatment at the hands of an employer, so be it.

Freedom of expression. Or do the companies own that now :{

Maybe if we all stood up to such people and practices, the industry would not be in a position that it is now.

You will always get your selfish, sniveling greasy pole climbers or others that do not give a $hit about anyone else. When it happens to them though, they are the first to cry out for help/assistance :hmm:

You must look at the underlying actions of both companies recently to understand their way of treating professional flight crew.

Fear and intimidation is not a good way to run a business. Lead by example..............

[Square Bear]

.....I personally feel that posting the whole affair on Pprune is not the place to do it.

Thing is though, none of it effects you personally....does it?

[Cactusjack]

So Cactus- if on is on a mission to defend a pilot, ie yourself, I personally feel that posting the whole affair on Pprune is not the place to do it.
WTF, so now I am OEB and the pilot who got shafted?? Oh yeah, I am actually Elvis as well, and Jimmy Hoffa :ugh:
Sorry to disappoint you Trev but I am not who you think I am, and you certainly aren't the smartest tool in the shed if you can't see that. Be that as it may what I am is someone who likes to see justice served, and I am someone who particularly despises the way airlines et al screw over innocent people at times, nothing more and nothing less. I like OEB's posts and support his methodology, even though I don't work for the airline in question and I am not the pilot who is getting done over like a roast turkey......however, if by my support of said pilot, and OEB's posts, some wish to accuse me of being both or either individual then that is fine by me, bring it on, for me that is flattering and a nice honor :ok:

By all accounts the pilot in question has been unequivocally screwed, and should be supported by our industry 100%. Again as I have said before - if Tiger had no dirty laundry then OEB would have no dirty laundry to air. Don't shoot the messenger. The 'fix' is within Tigers reach - just do the right thing in the first frigging place!!!!

[VH-Cheer Up]

Quote Kharon:
"Some -Kaizen-style analysis of the organisational pressure-build-up might be highly enlightening.
Kaizen will only work when and where 'it's wanted'. Like all curses if the 'malady' is not identified a cure cannot be found. Once identified, both malady and cure: the patient must be willing to undergo the treatment; if the cure is to be effective. Our sick tiger presents with two main symptoms, which manifest through several other symbiotic ailments. I think it's true to say ANY process to identify root cause and propose a workable solution will be welcome only when it is wanted. As far as Kaizen goes (which is quite a long way) there needs to be that all-important root cause identification. Accomplishable through the "5 Whys" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Whys) process. The process isn't just to inform the diagnostician, it's carried out to get the patient to accept the reality of the problem, too.

Two ways to do this: Tiger calls in someone independent (like the Sleuth in Kharon's post, above?) who tells them what's wrong and how to fix it, or they ignore the problem until it manifests itself through an event that require an ATSB investigation and THEN they face the music - in a public forum.

One of these paths is the strategy of least regret. I wonder which they will choose?

[socksfirst thenshoes]

Hey Cactus that CP you refer to is he the same one that now works in PNG and is lovingly referred to as TCAS. Now no longer able to be MFO in Australia as deemed a not fit and proper person? Just wondering, BTW I like your thinking. Socks first then shoes school for the gifted class of 58.

[Trevor the lover]

hey Cactus - chill out ya zipper.


Let me rephrase. How about my sentence reads like this -


So Cactus- if on is on a mission to defend a pilot, ie ONE'S SELF, I personally feel that posting the whole affair on Pprune is not the place to do it.


Does that make it clearer to you. I understand how on reading my post you could have taken it as though I was indeed referring to YOU. But I was not referring to you. So your vigorous rant was all for nought. So please don't refer to me as a blunt tool when in fact it was YOU who made the misinterpretation. Please seek clarification before chucking spears. ie "hey Trev, do you mean to say you think that I'm OEB?"


And also - yes pilot was royally screwed. I agree. And yes, everyone IS entitled to free speech on here. I agree. But that also includes me. If I feel that someone wanting to progress an issue through legal grounds thinks that splashing the case all over PPRUNE is not wise - well, in the name of free speech that I seem to be accused of trying to stifle, may I also be afforded the right to say so. Note I did not sledge the pilot in any way. Just wishing to express my thoughts on the methods.

[Cactusjack]

Socksfirst
Hey Cactus that CP you refer to is he the same one that now works in PNG and is lovingly referred to as TCAS. Now no longer able to be MFO in Australia as deemed a not fit and proper person? Just wondering, BTW I like your thinking. :E
Also goes by the nickname 'Bud Holland' (a little googling and you wil understand :ok: )

Big Trev, chill bro, I get your point. Peace.

[Kharon]

Been chewing this whole thing over for while now; blame Trevor for this ramble, but it was a good question and worthy of some consideration.

OEB #1603 "This was my CP trying to force me to fly to Sydney to see a Virgin Australia doctor. I don't work for Virgin. He passed on my name and all details without even having the decency to contact me. This is a violation of Australian Privacy Law."

Is the opening sentence above is a classic 'last straw'?, clearly by the time it was written, the third mile stone – blind fury - had been reached. The length of time taken to reach the BF marker varies between individuals; but soon or late, under the right circumstances, it is reached. To work out how 'Guy' got there we need to know how Guy intuitively (cognitively) perceived the end result. There are two options (a) he believes that the company will do the right thing and all will be well, eventually, so he patiently plods through the whole dreary routine; or (b) he believes the fix is in and eventually, no matter what, he's gone. From the remaining text above, I think option (b) has crept into the lead. You can see the holes – ("without even having the decency to contact me") is contestable. The alleged breach of the Privacy act is disputable, stand alone, but without the agreed 'terms and conditions' of employment being examined, it's a reactive rather than considered claim...

OEB #1603 " [I] know any investigation can be stressful and different people react differently." Whoever wrote this is a master of stating the bleeding obvious, de-humanising the situation while appearing to 'care'. It could be construed as either cynically patronising or, that no thought was given to the 'duty of care' a CP has for his troops; or, the CP needs to learn how to draft a letter. The spirit and intent of the CP missive, to someone in Guy's situation could easily be misconstrued, by a man already angry.

Is this line - "We have access to a doctor experienced in dealing with the aviation environment, so I have arranged an appointment for you to discuss your situation and see what support you need"; presumptuous or helpful? The addition of one small word would have eliminated the perception problem "I can arrange for etc.". It would help Guy determine whether he was being offered 'hoops' or hurdles'; choice or a 'drop dead option' Fuel to the insecurity fire...

Then, this whole 'dobbing' thing gets deuced tricky, but it gives an indication as to why Guy reacted so strongly to the CP email and started bellowing about the 'privacy act'.

# 1578 (Rumour 9) "Flight planning officer reported the crew to the ATSB and that is why they were both stood down." This is intriguing; why directly to the ATSB? – seriously. The FPO must have a 'manager' or some form of command chain. So, scenario time; here we have Guy and the FPO both 'cranky'; Guy buggers off to Perth; FPO gets on the blower - "Boss, that bloody Guy has just finished blasting me for a screwed flight plan; he's gone off in breach of SOP without a flight plan". Boss - "OK, write it all down in a report and send it to me". This, apart from 'feed-back' should have ended the FPO 's role in our little drama. His boss kicks it up the ladder and game on through the established system. But the FPO contacting ATSB directly is a 'passing strange' thing; given the timing. Who's idea and by whom and when was the ATSB contact initiated? It leaves a strange, oddly shaped loose end and a peculiar after taste.

Then there's this "Dr. Drane advised that the report had come via a Tigerair Manager and then forwarded via Virgin Safety. This has been further confirmed by other sources at CASA. Virgin have categorically denied in writing, any knowledge implication or involvement in such an illegal, despicable act. Tigerair have stated that it was Virgin Safety who made the report to CASA and they had nothing to do with it." Here is the real breach of privacy and perhaps the real reason for Guy's anger. Just a quick, rough count of the number of people who now 'know' that Guy has been 'using', is enough to cause real fury and lasting damage.

Lets see; the originator (1) his immediate co-workers (4) the next step on the management ladder (7) flight ops (10) scheduling (12) ATSB (15) CASA admin (16) Avmed (20) Tiger management (30) Virgin management (33) Virgin safety (36). Possibly 40 separate individuals are now aware that Guy has been accused of 'using'. That's before the word leaks out to the ramp, flight crew, the Townsville re-fueller and they have told their 4 best mates and they've told their wives; so it goes on. This thread has had over 10,000 reads since Friday 08/08/14: 2200 Z (old school time)

So, I reckon Guy can be allowed a little cranky time; a little latitude and, if a wee blast or two on Pprune helps soothe the jangled nerves and some cohesive support is garnered, then why not? It's as I told John Quadrio (over several ales); if someone told you your story over a beer in a pub, you'd shake your head, say it was sad and maybe, in a couple of days you'd say – in passing "Oh, I feel sorry for the guy, but...." Unless it's you – in the gun – it's hard to understand what Guy is going through. Don't worry and feel insensitive; it's just human nature hard at work. Say a silent prayer to your pagan gods of choice it never happens to you. Take a little test; next time you see someone on crutches out on the street, with a broken leg; watch carefully. Those who have had similar will carefully avoid any contact and perhaps smile in understanding and empathy; those with NFI will almost bowl the silly bugger in the path over, seeing it as just an annoying, slow moving obstacle in their way.

IF Guy is a drug fiend, he needs our support, if the he is not, he still needs support; every bit we can manage.

Anyway - Ramble over. Curse this curiosity bump.

Selah...

[waren9]

oeb are you the pic in question?

[Cactusjack]

My question is why didn't Tigerair drug test the guy either straight after this alleged incident (in line with Tigerair and CASA policy) or when they first became aware he was a raving drug crazed Captain? That means that they knowingly and deliberately let members of the public be flown around the country by a Captain they knew was consuming illegal drugs. There's no getting around that point. The timing of the whole thing is so obvious it just doesn't pass the smell test. Why do you think Virgin are heading for the hills on this one? I sure would be.
There are witnesses to a Tigerair manager (who this Captain had run ins with) spreading rumours about him being a drug addict back to December 2012.
Why didn't Tigerair or CASA bring him in immediately and drug test him in line with CASA, Tigerair, DAMP legislation at tat time?
That means Tigerair knowingly allowed a drug addled Captain to fly their aircraft for 4-6 months then 3 weeks after he reported Tigerair's illegal and dangerous flight plans Tigerair decided the time was now right to tell the world they had a Captain flying their planes around who is in fact a drug addict. I can't see how Tigerair can get out of this one to be honest.

Good questions. Wonder if we can get Senator Xenophon interested in this sordid story? I am sure he too would like to know what Tiger and CASA's actions in all this amount to?

[Servo]

Safety, 'nuff said.

Sounds in line to a very similar incident I heard about. Captain with a personal grudge going after an FO........:=

Safety mixed in there "somehow" as well......... Very interesting.:suspect:

[Cactusjack]

OEB, gotta love those fluffy, feel good, back slapping, reach around HR statements that they produce as the cornerstone of the companies values and ethics........blah blah blah sick puke......
It's all a load of tripe and is never complied with by those who are entrusted to uphold those very principles. If I were one of the fare paying public I would be very concerned that skilled pilots are being put under this level of pressure, and dare I say fear? Not a good thing to have a pilot dealing with the threat of losing a job and losing a home or not being able to feed his family. Talk about 'distractions' in the flight deck....not good at all, not good by way of human factors and certainly not good for safety.

[tipsy2]

Cactus, I read what you are saying about this. I have found in a number of organisations that, Compliance is mandatory for staff, optional for management!

It is an especially prevalent trait in those management wannabees with an MBA.

[Kharon]

If you can find one, have a read of a USA based part 121 carrier COM. Notice the CP role is refined to typically dovetail with a Vice President Airline Operations/ a Director Flight Operations and a Chief Executive Officer. The controls and responsibilities are divided so that the CP can perform 'essential design function', tight focus on maintaining flight operations in the green band. Very few, if any CP selected from the 'ranks' really and truly understand pure 'management functions'. They can and do run flight departments very well (mostly) indeed, but the corporate 'fluff' is as alien to a 'pilot mind' as 'operating' is to a corporate wizard. That's where a good DFO is invaluable – the bridge over troubled waters – flight line to board room essential translation.

For example "[to] ensure that the Company has appropriate systems to enable it to conduct its activities both lawfully and ethically; etc...

To a driver – that means the Navigation Act, CAR, CAO, AFM, SOP etc. and possibly the 'union' rules of engagement. A 'management' type would, by natural reflex, translate the statement into a whole different paradigm. By loading the CP description list with many other, open ended, subjective responsibilities distraction is a highly probable result. It's a fair bet that 'by knowing' how flight crew usually operate, it would be an easy matter to take an eye off the 'flying side' ball and focus on the mysteries of the 'corporate' side. Especially where the 'crews' are trusted, experienced, competent folk. But it's the flying operation, generating the revenue, which demands protection. Loose that, game over. Someone has to be minding the shop.

The way I read the 'signs' is that CP's are being lured ever deeper into the mire of 'corporate' responsibility and enmeshed within the regulator paranoia around 'liability' and abrogation of responsibility. In short, the 'modern' CP is becoming a Piñata and the requirements of CAO 82, which are legally binding, are bundled onto the back burner in line behind the corporate 'add ons'.

Without knowing 'all' the story it's tough to make a call on the Tiger ethos; but as a general observation I have noted that these days 'management' involvement in flight crew matters is greater than in the past. Back in the day, a healthy respect for the 'power' of a CP was drummed in, conversely 'management' had to get by the CP before they could lay a glove on 'aircrew'. It seems these days everyone is looking over their shoulder, uncertain where the bullet may come from and uncertain of where their protection my be found. The CASA induced fear of loosing the AOC is another unneeded element, cunningly it is unquantifiable, but it creates a 'backdrop' setting the mood and prompting knee jerk reaction, rather than considered, balanced action.

I'll go with CJ here, subliminal distractions, the elements of uncertainty, fear and clandestine 'dislike' and distrust of 'the company' don't make for a healthy work environment. The undermining of moral on a flight line translates into one hole in the cheese which a CP should plug up.

There is a world of difference between the normal healthy, everyday 'bitching and grumbling' of flight crew (be worried if they weren't) to something slightly more 'sinister' in the form of layered passive resistance. This is not good, not in a business which occasionally requires the crew to go the extra mile, for the good of the company and the brakes are firmly applied, in self defence.

There - Sunday ramble – complete....

[FYSTI]

regulator paranoia around 'liability' and abrogation of responsibility
Kharon, this whole situation reminds me of the second of Celine's Laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celine%27s_laws), first articulated by Robert Anton Wilson.
Celine's Second Law:
Accurate communication is possible only in a non-punishing situation.

Wilson uses the eye in the pyramid as a symbol of the dysfunction of hierarchies. Every level except the top is blind, but the eye can see only one way.

Wilson rephrases this himself many times as "communication occurs only between equals." Celine calls this law "a simple statement of the obvious" and refers to the fact that everyone who labors under an authority figure tends to lie to and flatter that authority figure in order to protect themselves either from violence or from deprivation of security (such as losing one's job). In essence, it is usually more in the interests of any worker to tell his boss what he wants to hear, not what is true.

[Cactusjack]

I'll go with CJ here, subliminal distractions, the elements of uncertainty, fear and clandestine 'dislike' and distrust of 'the company' don't make for a healthy work environment. The undermining of moral on a flight line translates into one hole in the cheese which a CP should plug up.
Touché. The flight deck is the epicentre of safety. In my opinion the term 'sterile environment' is spot on. One does not need additional or unnecessary pressures or burdens such as "fear of job security", fear of reporting incidents, fear of writing up a problem in the tech log, fear of management screwing you over doing for your job properly which includes the refusal to depart with an aircraft that has an unsavoury technical issue, and the list continues. My point is that we need a return to the pre LCC days where pilots weren't bollocked for doing a go-around, or bollocked for taking an additional tonne of fuel, or bollocked for taking an extra 3 minutes on a turnaround to address a small issue that they felt could lead to a larger problem, where pilots were not seen as a burden on the companies bottom line but were respected for the fact that their skills prevent smoking holes which in turn prevents an airline going bankrupt :ugh:

[TWOTBAGS]

If you can find one, have a read of a USA based part 121 carrier COM. Notice the CP role is refined to typically dovetail with a Vice President Airline Operations/ a Director Flight Operations and a Chief Executive Officer. The controls and responsibilities are divided so that the CP can perform 'essential design function', tight focus on maintaining flight operations in the green band. Very few, if any CP selected from the 'ranks' really and truly understand pure 'management functions'. They can and do run flight departments very well (mostly) indeed, but the corporate 'fluff' is as alien to a 'pilot mind' as 'operating' is to a corporate wizard. That's where a good DFO is invaluable – the bridge over troubled waters – flight line to board room essential translation.

Nail on the head Kharon.

There is one jet operator in Australia that had done exactly this on the premiss that Part 121 was coming..... (yeah dont get started). The set up works, and very well, what was the view of the illustrious regulator we have.

Even though the role and responsibility was clearly defined in the OM & corporate tree, a particular CMT would not correspond to the DFO position because in their view it was not a recognized position by CASA (you cant make this up). Only the CP who had been approved & the CEO who also had the rug dance as the ultimately accountable manager were responsible to the regulator......

To further confirm this the company had the instrument of approval for the CP but if the CEO role is also of such relevance where is the instrument for the CEO? You think John or Alan have an instrument (dont be rude you lot:})

So much for safety.

I feel sorry for the Tiger crews at the moment, having had dinner with a mate who is a skipper there just last night, the serious disconnect between reality and utopia is getting ever bigger. IF it truly is a witch hunt against an individual then if heads dont roll the disconnect between crew and ops will get to a point of no return.

How safe is that?

Where a realism of a flight plan is somewhere between the tooth fairy and easter bunny, when the music stops some one carries the can and you know who it will be.

[Watchdog]

Cactus,

I work for a LCC now and have NEVER been 'bollocked'/reprimanded or the like for any of the items you mentioned.
All carriers that I've worked for discourage unjustified extra fuel carriage ("for mum and the kids") but never criticise legitimate reasons.

What LCC engages in such practices?

[Cactusjack]

What LCC engages in such practices?
A 'very close' relative is an A320 pilot with an Australian LCC, I won't go into further detail than that. On two seperate occasions he has been made to call the CP once at the gate, after missed approaches. He was on both occasions completely chewed out and lectured on the topic of additional delay times and additional fuel burn because of the go-arounds. On each occasion his call was based on safety, once for wind shear and once to avoid an aircraft which had incorrectly entered the rwy he was lined up for. On numerous other occasions he was pressured not to make entries into the tech log until after departing the turnaround destination so as to avoid having the aircraft MEL'd and grounded at a port where no Engineers were based. The aircraft was subsequently grounded upon return to the mainline port.
The 737 operator I fly for has not placed those pressures upon myself, so I have no complaint with them. I am very happy for those who haven't been put in this position, but it has and does happen. I won't even start to tell you what some Dash 8 operators are prepared to do for the sole purpose of circumventing rules and regulations just to make a quick buck, but it happens.

[Ollie Onion]

Well, I would tell the CP to f$&k off and tell him to put it in writing so I could have CASA and my union review the incident. Simple answer to the tech log issue is 'sorry it is already entered, which hotel shall we go to then?'. Honestly, some people need to grow a pair, if you get sacked for it then so be it.

[Cactusjack]

No offence Ollie, but 'CASA', 'Unions'? Yeah right. And not everyone wants to tell the CP to get fu#ked as they have a mortgage to pay and mouths to feed. The point is more about airlines showing disregard to pilots and the need for a safe and stress less work environment. And I am talking about unnecessary stress. The points I made is that those sort of pressures are dangerous.
My relative has plenty of cajoles so don't worry about that, but should he have to whip em out and put them on the table every time he wants to act safely?

[waren9]

be interesting the stats on write ups not occurring en route to non engineering ports. for each carrier and compare.

of course it'll never happen. and casa will never ask the question

[Icarus2001]

need for a safe and stress less work environment.I can see both sides here but really, dealing with the stress and making good decisions under (commercial) pressure is WHY the PIC gets paid what they do. We all know it is not because the job is difficult to do.
This is seen from the perspective of feeling pretty secure that my MFO and I are on the same page. I know he will back any (reasonable) decision I make. The million dollar question is define "reasonable". Which takes me back to where we started, you get paid to make the call.

Is it possible that the CP chatted about the missed approaches to get the info first hand. Perhaps the tone from the pilot concerned was "embellished" so that he or she felt they were chatted? Always funny when I know both sides of a story and I hear both sides tell me their version, they rarely agree.

Follow SOPs, make SAFE decisions and sleep soundly. No need to tell the CP to f@#k off.

[Ollie Onion]

The thing is though, Cactus clearly stated that the CP 'chewed him out and lectured him' for doing a go-around due to windshear and a runway incursion. So I stand by my statement that if I got 'chewed out' for carrying out a missed approach in these situations I would tell him to 'put it in writing' and if he wouldn't then f'off'. If the CP rang me to simply clarify the events of a go-around then of course I wouldn't worry about that. I also stand by my assertion that NO ONE can pressure you into leaving with a fault on the aircraft that would otherwise ground it, this shows a 'weakness' on the part of the crew and is easily overcome by just simply 'writing' the tech log entry up. To suggest that 'wanting to keep your job because you have a mortgage' is a reason to fly an aircraft in an unfit state or to indeed be bullied into NOT carrying out missed approaches because the nasty CP might bollock you is ludicrous in the extreme. Why do pilots get treated like crap in this day and age, because we allow managers to treat us like crap.

[Snakecharma]

I really struggle to believe that any chief pilot, except maybe in a dodgy GA operation (and that is a struggle too), would give someone a tune up for going around in windshear or in the case of a runway incursion.

In this day of QAR's and data recorded on the aeroplane and recorded ATC transmissions it would be pretty easy to determine the truth.

There are always three sides to a story. Your side, their side and the truth (which usually lies somewhere in between).

I know of a number of pilots that will tell everybody that will listen that the "company" was going to sack them for standards issues but the "Union" saved them. I know for a fact that termination was never considered let alone discussed. The pilots concerned will never admit to the lengths the company and training department went to to try and get them through, and to this day actively bag out the managers, trainers and check pilots involved, so I don't get too wound up when people howl with indignation about being "reamed" or "threatened". They won't, to this day, admit that the same trainers and checkers that were incompetent and biased and yadda yadda yadda managed to get hundreds of other pilots through with no problems, and perhaps their (the failed candidate) performance contributed in some small way to the outcome.

That all said, I am sure they believe that they were reamed by the chief pilot for those issues, but suggest that the message transmitted is sometimes not the message that is received. If an email is used then it is even harder as intent and tone are notoriously hard to impart on emails.

[Cactusjack]

All good debate, and I guess it is a little off track from OEB's perspective and the root of this thread. But can we assume then that the issue of the PIC at Tiger being robustly pineappled is a load of old cobblers as well?
Just asking the question.

[RAD_ALT_ALIVE]

Cactus,

I've worked for both of the A320 LCCs that operate in Australia. I'd have to say that what your 'close relative' has told you should be taken as a load of rubbish.

These are airlines whose CPs are far too busy to bother themselves with contacting line pilots over insignificant operational matters; perhaps they might for an 'incident' that could come close to being a significant and negative one for the company. But for a go-around? And on '...numerous other occasions...' for '...MEL...' matters??? I find that impossible to believe. Especially as I personally know all the men who have/do hold that office with those airlines.

They have far more important things to occupy their day, than to worry about that kind of drivel.

No manager in either company, let alone the CP, has ever contacted me for committing either of the atrocities that you mentioned.

But, hell, let's not let the truth get in the way of a good yarn.

As for the answer to your last question; there are only a few people who honestly know whether he has or hasn't been 'pineappled' (as you so delicately put it) - they are the PIC, the CP and whoever else happened to be present when any discussions were had between the two of them in relation to the matters concerned. Anyone else is peddling hearsay. Pure and simple.

[Iron Bar]

Yep thats rubbish, and if anything remotely like that was to occur, grow a pair and give it right back at them betwen the eyes.

[Centaurus]

dealing with the stress and making good decisions under (commercial) pressure is WHY the PIC gets paid what they do.

So that is why A380 captains get paid such humungous money because they are dealing with the stress and making good decisions under (commercial) pressure. :mad: Contrast those decisions with the RFDS pilots flying single pilot in the middle of the outback night.

[Derfred]

... while learning all those good lessons and experience which will one day make them great and hopefully well paid A380 Captains...

[Cactusjack]

Rad, rubbish you say? I was personally present when one of the 'phone calls' took place. I won't say which airline nor what year it occurred, but the incident did take place and yes the PIC was yelled at and verbally castigated for adding a further 20 odd minutes worth of delay on top of on already off schedule service, and for blowing additional fuel. This is not a bull**** story, sorry.

[The Banjo]

Holyman Airways, 1933?????:p

[Kharon]

2-TBags Even though the role and responsibility was clearly defined in the OM & corporate tree, a particular CMT would not correspond to the DFO position because in their view it was not a recognized position by CASA (you cant make this up).
The job description was probably 'over-cooked' and seen as abrogating CP responsibility. The purpose of a DFO is so the CP can actually concentrate on 'operational management' Think of the DFO as a coordinator, balancing, catching, stacking, aligning, joining all the dots and being able to make a jigsaw puzzle picture even the 'board' will understand.

Icarus - "Always funny when I know both sides of a story and I hear both sides tell me their version, they rarely agree. (Amen to that)....

Now these notions of being 'bollocked' and telling a CP to go boil his head are both a little outlandish. One could (IMO) reasonably expect tea, biccy's and a please explain if say, a 'go around' had not been executed; or, the aircraft had landed short of minimum fuel etc. etc.: a 'chat'; to facilitate discovery of exactly WTF happened and why. From there on it becomes scenario specific, depending on who did what, to whom and who paid.

Icarus is pretty much on the money "define reasonable"; and this is where the saga of Capt. Guy and the Tiger gets ugly and begs controversial questions. IF Tiger 'management' have acted in the manner described here on Pprune, then indeed there are serious underlying issues which must be addressed as eventually, unaddressed they will impact on efficiency, the carry through affecting profitability. When the exercise of command prerogative is perceived as being undermined or being used as a weapon, the PIC will simply put the brakes on – '"Sorry too much – ashtray full, delay the departure". Watch the mad scramble then.

I keep mentioning that without all the facts etc. etc.. BUT if "the incident" has been mismanaged and Guy has been unfairly penalised, then the rot has well and truly set in. Even IF the ugly allegations made are ever proven true, it still highlights a raft of 'internal' issues and attitudes which need to be removed, root and bough. Will all of this affect 'safety'?, probably not. But if the situation is allowed to devolve into a 'sniping' match, pissing competition or even open guerrilla warfare it is counterproductive; made worse because it's completely unnecessary, the bitter aftertaste is truly vile and long lasting.

My money and hope is on good sense prevailing, sooner rather than later.
“To lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.” ....Wilde.

Hagbard Celine – good catch Fysti, nicely played.....:ok:

[Prince Niccolo M]

Kharon,

The purpose of a DFO is so the CP can actually concentrate on 'operational compliance' Think of the DFO as a coordinator, balancing, catching, stacking, aligning, joining all the dots and being able to make a jigsaw puzzle picture even the 'board' will understand.


How very UK CAA/GCAA UAE of you...

Over very many years, I have realised how definitional that juxtaposition of DFO/CP really is. Here you can throw in the "accountable manager" into the mix as well.

In days of old, the accountable manager was the boss of the legal entity to whom the AOC had been issued - he/she could delegate authority left, right and centre to their heart's content, but could never escape responsibility/accountability. There was no bullshet 'pass-the -parcel' arrangements like you see in Qantas or elsewhere and the buck stopped at the top. DCA/DoT/CAA and early CASA did not accept minions in the path between the head of operational compliance and performance (the CP) and the head of commercial compliance and performance (the boss) - full stop.

Your description of the role of the DFO was what real CPs did before CASA and others let the foxes into the chookhouse. Every minion between the boss and the CP emasculated the CP in the path to keeping the commercial fantasies in the realm of safe and practical aviation, particularly since none of the minions suffer any real consequences for their cock-ups. Even if the boss fired them, they would just turn up somewhere else to rerun their interference on some other hapless CP.

The Australian regulator has made modern CPs nothing more than Senior Pilots, pilots with no real corporate clout and no regulatory support. So now comes this thought - oh, we need a DFO, a person who does all the things that a CP used to do except for regulatory compliance and who can be looked to as a new regulatory target of sorts. Pity that there is no legislative support to hold the DFO accountable for anything or to require any particular skills or experience to hold the position - unlike those other places like the UK, UAE or other colonial offshoots. But, as you say, suggestions of corporate interference in operational management are "a little outlandish" - it would never happen here, would it?

Of course, if you want to get a glimpse of how the model works in Australia, have a look at how Tiger fared under the BMI boys - that worked really well!!!

Methinks, in pushing the DFO barrow without the necessary framework in place that you are polishing a little more than the gilding on the lily...

[Soteria]

The silence from OEB in the past few days is deafening, and his posts have disappeared. Freedom of speech issue or the lawyers are on deck?

[Kharon]

Nick – couldn't agree more and have said so on numerous occasions; at least three times in this thread. Desperate to avoid thread drift the DFO was just thrown into the mix as a side bar. We could I expect discuss the CP role at length, ad tedium ad nauseum and end up back at this point; in furious agreement, especially where CASA (and others) have stuck an oar in. I do believe it is an issue and have many times now considered kicking off a CP/PIC thread but it's an esoteric, academic and 'operationally' specific kind of subject: one man's meat etc. I will change one word 'compliance' to 'management' as in the old school meaning of Boss, I could perhaps have expressed it better – Heigh ho...:O

So, with your indulgence I'll skip by that debate and try to focus on what appears, on the surface at least, to be (IMO) one of the visible, unsavoury end results of Tiger being grounded......{edit} - Just picked up the Soteria sally, now why would the OEB opinion posts be 'pulled'?, perhaps the corporate boys asked nicely.

Toot toot...:ok:

[Tony the Tiler]

It’s been an interesting read this thread but I’ve now put 2 and 2 together.

You’ve been a fool and didn’t listen. Good luck fighting the Virgin group. Your first priority should have been to get your licence back – not slander your employer on here. While you probably are drug free, you will fail in any endeavour to get any recompense. More fool the all the people (brother?) who are responsible for a media strategy rather than an industrial strategy. The moment this sordid story broke in the media, and the first person posting on here, your fate was sealed.


Blueskymine
It's about time we organised something through our unions to start a fighting/support fund similar to what we did for JE, If not to fight, at least to help the skipper concerned pay the mortgage and put food on the table until he is reinstated or finds his way.

Laurie, I know you are probably reading this. Is this something the AFAP can get involved with? VIPA? TWU?

The problem is, while his comrades joined up in numbers, 80% union membership I hear at the Tiger, he sat back and allowed everyone else to do the heavy lifting. I would bet my left nut that he tried to join up after the incident. Too many pilots want to join a union after they find themselves in a hole.

Try buying home insurance after your house burns down.

[j3pipercub]

If you drink and prune, you're a bloody idiot...

P.S. The above post is in its 3rd edition. Wait, no the comment about opening and swallowing has been removed, so that makes it 4.

[Prong Wallop]

I had heard this travesty mentioned over a dinner table conversation and frankly thought there must have been an error, so opened up prune and lo and behold there were the posts.
I have monitored the steady decline in Australian aviation from afar over many years yet the toxic environment it has become has now plumbed new depths.
If what has been reported on this august blog is in fact even partially true I would expect the recipient of these grave injustices to be elligible for some recompense through the courts for his troubles.
You simply can't go around slandering a person and ruining a good reputation, assuming of course the reputation is good to start with. I would doubt very much whether CASA's reticence to reveal the slanderer would survive the discovery process should litigation be commenced.
Similarly I would expect an unfair dismissal case would be interesting considering the two processes seem to be linked. In fact this person has apparently done no wrong operationally, nor is there a skerrick of evidence to support the drug use accusation yet his reputation is in ruins and his livlihood been destroyed.
Good heavens, rumour and innuendo is just that. To act on it without foundation is negligence and should be treated as such.

[Kharon]

Speculator: Before any word of this sordid little tale reached the grubby ears of the SMH reporter and on to Pprune, confirmation that certain ducks were neatly in place, firmly bolted down, clean, tidy and ready to rock should have been obtained.

If this is indeed a clean skin, then every pilot who depends on a license as a source of income should get behind it; as should the 'authority'. Human factors aside there is a 'Kosher' safety case here. Sure it's subtle and may not cause a smoking hole, but constant, costly, time consuming incidents and minor events play havoc with public perception of the airline operation. Folks may still use the service, but will they beat down the door to get a seat when a less 'controversial' service is offered at a competitive price?

If this not 'clear cut' and ridgy didge; well it becomes a minor topic for crew discussion over a beer; should the mood descend. For Tiger it is a headache but properly addressed could be turned to advantage – clear the cob webs, pave the way to a 'happy' crew working in fresh air.

I note OEM has, once again pulled a post which mentioned $200, 000 being set aside for pursuing Capt. Guy through the courts and that he had been beaten bloody during the past few days. Troo dat – or, has Tony –TT hit the nail?

More questions than answers methinks. It's tough enough to win a thing like this when everything is on your side; this is not a game to be played half assed, half pissed or with half truths. No one wins that game.

Aye well, back to my knitting..

[RAD_ALT_ALIVE]

OEB, your last post is a classic example of 'own goal' behaviour.

Do yourself a favour and stop digging an ever-bigger hole for yourself by continuing to post the kind of nonsense that you seem intent to post lately - the aggressive reaction towards Tony will just turn ever-more readers against your situation, and give confirmation to others in what they might've suspected.

Compare your first post to your last post! Stick to the stuff you wrote at the start of this thread. I'm sure there are all sorts of dark thoughts going through your head at the moment. This is not the place to try and rid yourself of those.

There are far better ways to get over the difficult times you've just gone through. Posting aggressive/threatening words on these pages will not be cathartic - quite the opposite.

If you're a member of one of the unions, contact them for support. If you're not a member, there are many other good support organisations in all capital cities. It's not a defeat if you choose to go down that path; it's the first step to getting on with the rest of your life/career.

I don't know you. I do know though, that based on what I've seen you write on here, you're charging full-speed towards certain professional destruction. And I feel that someone should advise you to cease and desist while you still have the chance.

Good luck.

[VH-Cheer Up]

Wow. And at that point the cheer squad left the field.

[Servo]

OEB, I note you mention FWA as a first step, then continue on.

Certainly do not or have the captain in question, rely on FWA. They are not very helpful at all.

Good luck either way.

[Tony the Tiler]

Rad Alt Alive comes out with some good advice, and you come back with this invective:

OEB
Rad Alt Alive
Mate you seem to think i value your opinion? I have absolutely no interest in anything you have to say. Your advice about unions is infantile. 90% of experienced pilots know this.You go to Fair Work Australia then The HRC then The Federal Court. I'm sure you're across all this though. I'v done nothing but post 100% truth and now all you experts come out with your, unrealistic, unworkable, unfeasible, non-viable, impracticable ill-considered, ill-thought-out, illogical, unreasonable, far-fetched, half-baked bull**** ideas.
You are simply, unenlightened, uninformed and uncultivated.
You're probably on both knees with your mouth open ready to swallow whatever the company tells you to.

There are none so deaf as those who will not listen.

It would seem that there are three parts to this problem:

1) A Tiger aeroplane had an incorrect fuel plan for a flight to Perth. The crew used initiative to attempt to fix these issues (with attendant curfew time pressures). This incident highlighted deficiencies in the flight planning / operational control areas of the operation.

2) The PIC of said aeroplane was accused of drug abuse, CASA suspended his medical, and Tiger sacked him. As to the co-operation or conspiring of Tiger and CASA; this is unknown, and could have been explored through discovery during a court process.

3) Details of the above events have leaked to the national newspapers, the sacked PIC is in the frame for the leaks.

Tiger were perversely given a gift when point 3 occurred. It now matters naught what the details of point 1 and 2 are. He can be legitimately sacked for point 3.

And that is the problem with running a media strategy rather than industrial relations strategy. OEB, you’ve kicked an own goal. I have ZERO respect for your antics, but true to form you criticize pilots on here who were offering sage advice.

You didn’t join a union when 80% of your mates did. You didn’t join a union when your mates took protected industrial action to further the contract YOU work under (worked, past tense now). I bet you tried to join a union when your own backside was on fire.

[Chocks Away]

Did I hear "BINGO"... was it from TonyT?


Happy landings :ok:

[Cactusjack]

Gotta love our industry if you are a pilot. No loyalty from management and next to none from the rest of the pilot group.
OEB, best of luck with whatever path you choose my friend.
Safe travels.

[Ollie Onion]

OEB, I have no idea why pilots at the first sign of conflict turn on each other. I don't know all the specifics but wish you all the best in redressing this situation and hope you find a company where you are happier. :ok:

[Icarus2001]

Assuming said pilot has been sacked. What reason was given for the sacking?

What I would be interested to know is if it related to operational matters or alleged drug taking.

[Username here]

http://www.spaceg.com/multimedia/collection/meme%20responses/Michael%20Jackson%20just%20came%20here%20to%20read%20the%20c omments.jpg

[rmcdonal]

I'm still not sure why anyone would be drug tested 5X in a year. I have yet to be done once! :confused:

[rmcdonal]

Was accused of being a drug addict without a single test by Tigerair or CASA or after numerous requests for proof was completely denied
Ok that's different to the original story (about 80 pages ago) but thats ok, you didn't get to tell that story.

Accused of drugs with no positive drug test. Refuse drug test. Fired.

I was of the impression that refusing to comply with a drug test was the same as a positive outcome as far as 'most companies' are concerned, as well as CASA. That would be adequate reason for dismissal right there.

[morno]

I'm just not sure plastering all of this all over pprune is the best course of action.....? :ouch:

[Chocks Away]

OEB, time to delete a few of these last ones of yours & go underground with all this, I'd suggest.
You're better served that way and it gives no heads-up or lead time, to those you have in your line of fire.
Trust me, It's from experience.

Happy landings :ok:

[Square Bear]

It is one thing to be screwed over by the company, and then to be so disrespected by posters such as Tony the Tiler is just unimaginable and disgusting.

And then this..

You didn’t join a union when 80% of your mates did. You didn’t join a union when your mates took protected industrial action to further the contract YOU work under (worked, past tense now). I bet you tried to join a union when your own backside was on fire.

Tony, do you enjoy being such a horrible heartless pr*ck who uses someone else misfortune to push the union barrow? If your comments are representative of the Union's thoughts on this terrible incident, I'll give up my union membership as soon as I can!!!

[IsDon]

It would seem that there are three parts to this problem:

1) A Tiger aeroplane had an incorrect fuel plan for a flight to Perth. The crew used initiative to attempt to fix these issues (with attendant curfew time pressures). This incident highlighted deficiencies in the flight planning / operational control areas of the operation.

2) The PIC of said aeroplane was accused of drug abuse, CASA suspended his medical, and Tiger sacked him. As to the co-operation or conspiring of Tiger and CASA; this is unknown, and could have been explored through discovery during a court process.

3) Details of the above events have leaked to the national newspapers, the sacked PIC is in the frame for the leaks.

Tiger were perversely given a gift when point 3 occurred. It now matters naught what the details of point 1 and 2 are. He can be legitimately sacked for point 3.

I submit that if the chronology of these three points is correct then, as a sacked employee, he is not bound by any company media policy and as a private citizen can say whatever he likes to the media. If he was sacked at point 2, point 3 is irrelevant.

Actually I submit there are actually four points to this problem. The three you listed, and then a fourth which are Monday Morning Quarterbacks such as yourself TT.

All of you, put yourself in Capt. Guy's position and truly question what your response would be. If what he says is indeed correct, or even partially correct, then he has been treated very unfairly indeed. I find it very unsettling that my fellow pilots are more incensed by some possibly ill considered posts by OEB than the travesty that Capt. Guy is faced with.

I know I would be extremely angry if this had happened to me. I suggest I would probably also write and say things that I wouldn't if I hadn't been so angry.

Is it helping his case, probably not, but I think he has every right to vent some frustration. People all react to extreme stress differently. As his fellow pilots it reflects very poorly on some of us that we're not ready to support him during this very stressful time. And by support, I don't mean lining up to tell him what he's doing wrong. That just adds more stress to the situation.

And to turn this into a union issue is just reprehensible.

Good luck Capt Guy, OEB et al. I wish you all the best. If what you say is true I sincerely hope that the truth is revealed and those that created the situation you face are held accountable for their actions.