Good for you C.A.S.A

[ratso]

Good work C.A.S.A The grounding of an entire airline is unprecidented but had to be done.
The incident at AVALON is only the tip of the ICEBERG...and dont we know it.

Take heed others dont come in this country and expect to get away with it.

..I expect this post to be merged with TIGER TALES but I like every body is entitled to their say in this matter.

[1a sound asleep]

If its a major wake up call to others not to cut corners on training and safety then I guess its a good thing for everybody...

[otto the grot]

Yes, good on you CASA. Now what are you going to do with the other trouble children.

The infamous go around in melbourne

Investigation: AO-2007-044 - Go-around event Melbourne Airport, Victoria, 21 July 2007, VH-VQT, Airbus Industrie A320-232 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2007/aair/ao-2007-044.aspx)

darwin departure

Investigation: AO-2011-073 - Performance related event - Airbus, A321-231, VH-VWX, Darwin Airport, 12 June 2011 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2011/aair/ao-2011-073.aspx)

and any others you care to add.

In fact, lets shut 'em all down now. they're all equally guilty of similar or worse incidents. :ok:

[neville_nobody]

Not to mention Air Asia's little incident at the Gold Coast

[Howard Hughes]

Are they not working under an AOC and safety system approved by CASA?

If such action is required, is it a failure of the company, or of the regulator?

[Eastmoore]

Very flawed and cynically decision by CASA.

Jet Star should have been shut down a years ago if using the same decision process.

My guess a Senate Inquiry has a lot to do with this.

[1a sound asleep]

Tiger is far far worse than Jetstar. Tiger was warned and warned. End of story

[QFBUSBOY]

I fail to see how Tiger Intl is any different to Tiger Domestic, except where the aircraft are registered.They would both be run with the same 'ethos' in mind.

Surely the management culture is the same, and that the Singaporean Tiger is run a heck of a lot leaner than the Australian Tiger.

If CASA is too weak to confront Garuda over repeated breaches of their B737 operations into Perth in the last few years, then I doubt whether they would take the Singaporean Tiger to task. It's probably more of a diplomatic/foreign affairs issue there. Aussie Tiger is a lot easier to punch in the nose for breaching Australian standards. Its good to see CASA act, even if other Australian based airlines needed similar action to be taken.

I have also wondered if there will be a retaliatory attack on Jetstar in Singapore in a few months time as a way of saving 'face'.

[industry insider]

Tiger will not recover from this and will exit the Australian market. Their 9000 (according to the paper) passengers per day will probably choose Jetstar instead.

A sudden increase of 9000 pax per daywill make Jetstar look very good and profitable.

Pressure on CASA from the de facto Australian regulator (QF) anyone?

I smell a conspiracy.

[Longbow25]

Finally a CASA acting as a REGULATOR for a change.

Time to bring all the operators into the cold hard light of day and expose them for what they really are.

Penny pinching, mealy mouthed, pen pushers whose only understanding of aviation is that the first class cabin is where they go when they go on holidays or company funded strike breaking jaunts.

It's up to Tiger to fix the problem and CASA to ensure its fixed.

[Waghi Warrior]

Thumbs up to CASA for their decision. One has to remember CASA doesn't care about financial hardships made by their decisions, nor should they. All they are concerned about is SAFETY ! What does a smoking whole at the end of a runway cost an airline, the industry and the comunity ?

It's also not CASA's job to train people to run airlines, it's the AOC holders job to do that. Another thing what one has to consider is that CASA regulate the industry, they don't make the rules !

Safety before the dollar !

[BGQ]

Remember this is the same CASA that grounded Ansett 767s years ago. That was political. Is this?

On the surface apparently there is some justification but would they have done that to QF or Jetstar.... I think not.

[Sunstar320]

All Tiger flight crew are currently on full pay and will remain so until they re commence flying next week.

[Capt Claret]

All Tiger flight crew are currently on full pay and will remain so until they re commence flying next week.

Is it true that Tiger pilots are paid a relatively low base rate which is then topped up by an hourly stick rate? If so, do you know if they're being paid the base or what they would ordinarily earn?

[tryhard1]

I would suggest CASA should perhaps have a closer look at Jetstar operation in NZ (again under an Australian AOC), but I understand that there is a lot of low time drivers willing to work for low pay and conditions and have made a few mistakes that could be considered reportable offences. Does CASA really know what is going on over there?

[walaper]

By Howard Hughes

"Are they not working under an AOC and safety system approved by CASA?

If such action is required, is it a failure of the company, or of the regulator?"


I would think it is obvious that they have an approved system they just don't use it and have been found wanting , the regulator has acted in an appropriate
way

[FOCX]

StarSkate,

So you think it's the regulators job to hold the hand of an AIRLINE in how to go about its business? You have to be kidding! Retrain the people who are meant to be running the show, NO WAY. The tax payer shouldn't have to fund the CASA for it to hold the hand of a company whose turn over is in the hundreds of millions. It may be acceptable for a GA start-up to get this sort of help, but a HC RPT JET AIRLINE! Where is the industry going if that's the case?

If you ask me (yes, you did!), it simply comes down to money, fund the Flt and Maint. departments and there wouldn't be this problem.

[3 Holer]

BGQ you state

Remember this is the same CASA that grounded Ansett 767s years ago. That was political.

Do you have any facts to back that statement up or are you just prattling on?

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

As far as I recall, CASA did NOT ground the Ansett 767 fleet. Ansett were warned, and under significant scrutiny regarding maintenance anomalies, but it was ANSETT that ultimately elected to ground the fleet.





It looks to me from the quote below that it was CASA that grounded the Ansett fleet.





Mick Toller Good afternoon everybody. Being in charge as I am of Aviation safety and safety matters on behalf of the Government and the travelling public is a difficult job and sometimes brings you some difficult decisions.
It's a risk management job. What's happened today is that effectively we've got the last straw in a series of issues that have bedevilled Ansett.
I received a report this morning of an Ansett aircraft that had been flying for eight flights with the passenger escape slides not working, not armed, as a result of a maintenance error last weekend in the hangar.
That was on Saturday night. It flew through Sunday, and the error was picked up on Monday morning and resolved.
As I say, this - in fact it's one more issue in Ansett's 767 maintenance tale of woes and for me I'm afraid it's the last straw.
As such, we have informed Ansett that their 767 fleet is grounded as of 10 o'clock tonight.
The reason for this is to allow CASA as the authority itself to satisfy our selves that the correct maintenance has been done on that aircraft, and that those aircraft are in fact genuinely airworthy and fit to fly.
Now that's a process that will start tonight. It's a process that will take I don't know how long because it depends on what we find. It's going to be a matter of looking at all the paperwork. It's a matter of looking at what maintenance should have been done, what maintenance has been done. It's also a matter of physically looking at the aircraft to ensure that the maintenance that should have been has been done.
It's a big task. I have to say that. And we're talking about the whole of the Ansett 767 fleet.
Now additional to that on Friday of next week, that's Friday the 20th of April, we will be serving on Ansett 14 days notice to give us reasons why their certificates should not be cancelled.
Now that's a process that exists. It's a normal process, but what we're saying to them is on Monday I said to you, look, in three months time we want to be hearing from Ansett that all the problems that have been resolved, of all the problems that we discovered as a result of the Christmas grounding of the 767s and the Easter grounding of the 767s have been resolved.
What I've effectively done is to raise the ante on that. I've said we want those answers in three weeks and not in three months, and they've got to be very solid answers or Ansett is out of business.
Now the pressure is now on Ansett to answer those criticisms that have been made. We believe they have significant weaknesses in their management processes and their organisational structure. A lot of work has been done since Christmas to start to resolve those issues, however we believe there is still a lot more that needs to be done, particularly in their management of maintenance, and we'll be looking for some pretty strong and pretty solid answers from Gary Toomey by three weeks from now.
I think that's all that we have to say as a statement.

[Howard Hughes]

I would think it is obvious that they have an approved system they just don't use it and have been found wanting
They wouldn't be the first, so why the action now? Were they asked to show 'just cause' first?

I don't think this will play out how most are expecting.

[ACT Crusader]

Is it true that Tiger pilots are paid a relatively low base rate which is then topped up by an hourly stick rate? If so, do you know if they're being paid the base or what they would ordinarily earn?


CAP's - $122,120 plus $79.60 Per hour flight pay
FO's - $81,800 plus $39.25 Per hour flight pay

[FlexibleResponse]

Dear CASA,

A very big thank you for saving the lives of 130 odd pax and the anguish of the the associated 1500 families and friends on the inevitable Tiger tragedy that was in the offing.

Heads-up to Buchanan who thinks that in-experienced pilots are better than experienced pilots.

Perhaps an audit and review of "authorized persons" involved with airline AOCs might be next?

[gruntyfen]

It certainly looks like Tiger have been struggling to meet their regulatory obligations for a long time. Were concerns raised when CASA was assessing their initial application for the AOC in 2007. To get to this stage is very serious and as FlexibleResponse suggests was perhaps the last cheese before the accident. Clearly systems and processes have failed that should have ensured the problems were picked up and corrected far earlier. I would like to see Tiger meet the standards and return to flying.

[Major Cleve Saville]

Is this the same CASA that in 2009 was found not to meet western world standards by ICAO.

ICAO audit reveals Australia’s third world skies | Crikey (http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/12/icao-audit-reveals-australias-third-world-skies/)

Sounds like you have a good old fashioned quality checked and not a quality assured system down in Oz.

The pot calling the kettle black?

Not sure what sort of quality system stops a particular crew on any day descending below MSA when inappropriate though. Both pilots agreed it/allowed it. seems fairly basic PPL/IR stuff to me, don't really see what these incidents have to do with an individual airline or its nation of ownership. Maybe the airline could blame the Safety Regulator who issued the crew their instrument ratings?

CASA gave Tiger it's Australian AOC so it must have been up to Australian standards ar some point surely? Is the report out? Do we know the facts. I descend below MSA everyday I fly, shock horror!!! Done it at night too - lots, and even a visual contact approach at night!!!! Night circuits below MSA even!!! I always avoid the school and the hospital though.

I hope CASA have got it right, could be expensive for the tax-payers down under if not.

Cleve

[skybed]

Let us know next time you are in the air with a couple of hundred punters so we can move out of the danger zone:ugh:

[SIUYA]

Is this the same CASA that in 2009 was found not to meet western world standards by ICAO.

Really?

Under what process does ICAO do this Major? And what are the western-world standrards that you're referring to?

That aside, like you, I hope CASA have got this one right. Maybe when CASA finishes its look at Tiger it can then move on and take a bl00dy good look through Jet*?

[BGQ]

That is BS regarding Ansett. The significant anomalies were a few placards missing. There were some cracks that CASA decided were a compulsory immediate fix when Boeing still hasn't agreed with that. Boeing allows the fix at the next major inspection.

[Worrals in the wilds]

He/she's right in that CASA got their butts kicked in their last ICAO audit for not having a decent systems culture. That's one of the reasons we've all heard so much about safety management systems recently.

'Not meeting Western standards' is drawing a long bow, because other Western civil aviation authorities have been criticised in their audits as well. Nor does he/she take into account the fact that this happened two years ago and CASA have been working on improvements ever since. ICAO audits are available on line and some of the African/South American ones make for scary reading. CASA isn't like that and not even ICAO were silly enough to suggest that they were.

This is probably the key difference between organizations like Tiger and others. CASA were told to shape up and they did. Tiger was told to shape up and didn't, so guess what happened. The ICAO result back in 09 also may have something to do with CASA's freakout about Tiger's lack of sms and may be why they've taken it so seriously.

As for losing tax payer money, as a number of posters on here have found to their detriment, it's extremely difficult to sue an Australian Government department for loss of income / spoiling your day; they all have numerous escape clauses written into their legislation.

[Frank Arouet]

Tiger will probably be remembered with Ansett and Compass as examples of what happens when we have a regulator who if given the choice of addressing a problem in a helpful or an unhelpful manner will always take the latter course.

And tell me the Compass demise was not political.

[diligaf]

If CASA are proved to be wrong or heavy handed in the way they have dealt with Tiger or with any other operator they can be and should be brought into line. The system should be fair and just and not fair c-n=ts and just pr*c+s. govt organisations over the years have been found not to be of a standard expected and have been brought in line, CASA is no exception. Two examples of this Tax office (ask Hoges), & police....that’s why we have a judicial system. Again we the tax payer pay for it. I would think easier targets like QF with their engineering problems and other pilot issues would be a good start. They seem to carry the majority of the travelling public. How about J* with their issues from go around to mobile phone texts on final approach and the issues brought up in the senate enquire, not to push the issue but VB has there bag of problems as well. Let’s not get into the tall poppy syndrome as it could be you next and people won’t be as sympathetic to your needs. The law can be a
wonderful thing...people make a stack of $ from it.

[FOCX]

****, Worral, should we aim to meet the "high" standards of the two SA's, or go a little higher perhaps?

To claim it's of no real consequence when you say it's for the same reason that Tiger is grounded, lack of or inability to manage its SMS.

[Major Cleve Saville]

Worral,

ICAO standards are the standards decided on by the Chicago Convention not the Shanghai Convention, the Jakarta Convention or the Wagga Wagga Convention, i.e the Western World got together after WW2 to start to define standards.

Yes some are not compliant but that does not excuse the others.

So CASA got time to comply sort themselves out and were not 'grounded' i.e. Australian carriers banned from international airspace in the mean time. The rest of the world reading the ICAO audit might have been justified in calling for such an immediate ban - eg Indonesia.

SIUYA

There is a big wide world out there. If you want international air travel you comply with ICAO standards, or file your differences for approval. You get audited, if you don't meet the standards then other countries can refuse to accept your aircraft in their airspace. Indonesia by EU etc.

Cleve

[SIUYA]

Major...

The preamble to the Chicago Convention made no reference to 'western' (or indeed, eastern, northern or southern) standards. Have you read the Convention?

Your inference that the Chicago Convention is a set of western standards seems about as far fetched as trying to imply that any trade agreement reached as a result of the Doha Round is an Arabic agreement.

If you want international air travel you comply with ICAO standards, or file your differences for approval.

Wrong!

A State doesn't file its differences for approval. It files its differences with ICAO to notify ICAO that it (the State):

...finds it impracticable to comply in all respects with any such international standard or procedure, or to bring its own regulations or practices into full accord with any international standard or procedure after amendment of the latter, or which deems it necessary to adopt regulations or practices differing in any particular respect from those established by an international standard [Article 38].

[Major Cleve Saville]

SIUYA

Read my post at no time does it say ICAO will or will not approve. My post says file your differences for approval okay to make it clearer to you -approval or acceptance or honoring by other member states.

Definition of Approval: formal agreement; sanction

You file your differences (or notify) with ICAO who then promulgate that information to other member states. 'After considering a nation’s difference, ICAO member states decide whether to honor a difference on the part of an international operator who enters and operates within their airspace.'

This is particularly true of Safety Management Systems at the moment.


Article 12
Rules of the air
Each contracting State undertakes to adopt measures to insure that every aircraft flying over or maneuvering within its territory and that every aircraft carrying its nationality mark, wherever such aircraft may be, shall comply with the rules andregulations relating to the flight and maneuver of aircraft therein force. Each contracting State undertakes to keep its own
regulations in these respects uniform, to the greatest possible extent, with those established from time to time under this Convention. Over the high seas, the rules in force shall be those established under this Convention. Each contracting State undertakes to insure the prosecution of all persons violating the regulations applicable.

Furthermore the ICAO convention and SARPS reflect the cultures and outlook of what were previously considered the developed nations, principally Europe and North America who were and are the biggest players in aircraft manufacture and operation.

These are now generally refered to as Western in outlook. I would suggest to you that a set of ICAO rules reflecting a more Eastern outlook or a Latin American one (especially in 1944) might be considerably different. The point I am making is that the operating philosophies especially of the large aircraft maufactures (I only know of 2) reflect the Western culture of individualism and individual responsibilty rather than other cultures respect for rank age or birthright, or authoritarianism.

The operation of aircraft requires amongst other things individual responsibility, the ability to deal with chaos when it arises, and the requirement to accept 'loss of face', by concentrating on what is right and not who is right.

What really concerns me here is the obvious joy of some Australian pilots seeing an Australian based and licenced airline grounded. This is the sort of thing that happens in e.g. Indonesia.

Surely taking an airline out of the market must be detrimental to terms and conditions in Australi?a Haven't the low cost carriers actually offered huge opportunities and improved remuneration for a lot of pilots in Australia?

Think how this looks to the rest of the world, put the words unsafe, airline, Australia into a sentence and make it reflect well on Australia to the rest of the world.

The Tiger operation in Singapore seems to operate safely and it would be unfair to see the crews in Singapore pay the price .... for an Australian c@ckup.

[Worrals in the wilds]

So CASA got time to comply sort themselves out and were not 'grounded' i.e. Australian carriers banned from international airspace in the mean time. The rest of the world reading the ICAO audit might have been justified in calling for such an immediate ban - eg Indonesia.Maybe...but they didn't. Guess they figured that the Aussies were an acceptable risk and the Indonesian carriers weren't.

It appears that Tiger were given time to address CASA's concerns and failed to do so. How many second (third, fourth etc) chances should they have had? How much warm 'n' fuzzy? Until they have a prang, which IIRC is when the Indonesians got booted out of Europe? Virgin were read the Riot Act by CASA some years ago over maintenance issues and threatened with a loss of ETOPS, so they addressed the issues and haven't had any notable regulatory dramas since then.

Haven't the low cost carriers actually offered huge opportunities and improved remuneration for a lot of pilots in Australia?
No, they haven't. They have driven down pay and conditions across the industry, not just for pilots but particularly for ground workers and engineers. This is why so many posters are bitter and twisted about Jetstar and to a lesser degree, Tiger. In fact Jetstar has attracted far more vitriol than Tiger because they're part of Qantas.

FWIW I agree with you that the 'nah-nah, Tiger suck' posts are distasteful, because many decent people work for Tiger and have been badly affected. In particular, their casual, sub-contracted badly paid flight attendants have not been told what is going on or paid since the grounding.
Tiger Airways cabin crew on their own | Courier Mail (http://www.couriermail.com.au/travel/news/tiger-grounded-for-a-week/story-e6freqwo-1226087625385)

Maybe CASA have cocked up, maybe Tiger cocked up. I doubt anyone will know the true story for a while, if ever. However, you seem to be assuming that CASA have overreacted due to politics, racism or other non safety related reasons. Given the information available at the moment, I don't think that's a fair assumption. It may turn out to be 100% correct, but I don't see that it's a foregone conclusion.

CASA would have made this decision knowing full well that there would be an avalanche of scrutiny and bad PR karma for them. Sure they grounded Ansett, but that was nearly a decade ago and government departments have gotten a lot more conscious of public opinion (and arguably a lot more wussy) since then. Like all regulatory departments they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. When they go softly everyone says they're in the airlines' pockets or have ulterior motives. When they do something everyone says they're too harsh or have ulterior motives.

[SIUYA]

Major...

SIUYA

Read my post at no time does it say ICAO will or will not approve. My post says
Quote:
file your differences for approval

okay to make it clearer to you -approval or acceptance or honoring by other member states.

Definition of Approval: formal agreement; sanction

That's fine, but now you're trying to compare apples with oranges, Major. :ugh:

And I also think your nose just grew a bit Major. You DID say...

If you want international air travel you comply with ICAO standards, or file your differences for approval.

My emphasis. :8

READ MY RESPONSE IN POST#36.

Approval does NOT come into the scheme of things. And Articles 37 and 38 set-out the obligations of standards (and recommended practices) more appropriately than article 12.

While you're at it Major, perhaps you ought to read the supplements to the Annexes regarding whether States do/don't comply with SARPs - I'll give you a clue. They list States that notify differences, States that notify NO differences, and Stats that haven't notified if they DO or DON'T have differences.

So, if the State in question is in the latter category, how the fcuk as you suggest are other States going to know what the 'truant' State (for want of a better term) is, or isn't doing?

Quit while you're behind Major. :ugh:

[Air Ace]

I don't think this will play out how most are expecting.

Great minds think alike. :ok:

[ratso]

I started this thread to thank an authority that we all thought was maybe toothless.
As some people have stated a lot of people are out of work as a result of this action by C.A.S.A but until this matter is ratified by the appropriate sources these poor people will continue to suffer. To the sufferers the smoking wreck on the ground would be your worst nightmare. It will certainly take you all a long time to recover financially. We all know you worked hard but your superiors just let you down without you knowing it.

Pilots who fly for TIGER ( or did fly } can be assured that their frustrations which were ignored are now out in the open.

Nothing but a major Government Enquiry that would be released to the general public will inform the rest of us just what C.A.S.A has on paper in the form of incident reports.
The next few days will tell just how far this situation will last. The TIGER people from the top management are in the country on their knees if front of C.A.S.A begging for an end to this situation. In the meantime QANTAS and VIRGIN and others are reaping the benefit.
Hopefully those who have been stood down will be able to return to a
SAFER operation in the near future.

[Major Cleve Saville]

SIUYA

I am afraid approval by other countries does come into it that is why some countries are banned from USA airspace and some airlines often all airlines from a particular country are banned from European airspace.

You seem to be suggesting that any country can do what it likes can choose to notify or not, doesn't matter either way as you have the right to do what the fcuk you like where you like. That is simply not the case. You go there with their approval of your standards.

Have you read this this just about somes it up:

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/433705-icao-differences.html

As you will note from the AIP Sup. available from Airservices,(86?? pages of differences) Australia is in a class of it's own, when it comes to re-inventing the wheel, and winding up with one with corners.

This goes to further prove that Australia is a world leader in aviation legislation (all criminal law) by weight, volume or word count, take your pick.

These differences to ICAO are a real problem, across a number of fields, but especially aviation, Australia is being rendered uncompetitive by bureaucratic regulatory overload, and this is even before the Greens get the balance of power in the Senate.

Don't kid yourselves this is all justified by better air safety outcomes in Australia, Australia rates badly compared to the US, which leads by a country mile ---- go look at all the statistics, not "carefully" selected and selective statistics.I am guessing:

That you work for CASA.
By your aggressive tone that developement of your emotional intelligence may have terminated at about 14 years old.
That you see all of life including debate and conversation as a competitive sport with winners and losers.
That you are a classic 'In Ansett, in TAA!' 'Your SOPs are all wrong mate, you wanna do it this way' Aussie that the world of aviation loves so much.

G'day,

Cleve

P.S. Now you quit while you are behind SIUYA: Cleve aged 14 3/4s

[SIUYA]

I am guessing:

That you work for CASA.


WRONG GUESS AGAIN MAJOR.

Never have, and never will.

[blackhand]

And tell me the Compass demise was not political.

Compass demise was not political.
May have been preposterous though.
Happy now Grasshopper:E

[Arrowhead]

Tiger Oz now looks dead. Which members of the public will still want to fly an airline branded as dangerous? You cant fix training and maintenance in a week. Maybe in 3-6 months. By which time the airline is dead.

The real questions are whether it will take Singapore down with it, and whether the Sing govt will launch an enquiry into Jetstar. I suspect Tiger Oz is ring-fenced, so Singapore will probably survive, but again which members of the Singaporean public will want to fly on an airline branded as dangerous? If Singaporeans stop flying the Sing operation the whole airline is doomed.

As for the Sing authorities, just like CASA, they have to operate within their own legal framework. Tiger and its shareholders will surely try to sue CASA if there is a legal case. I am sure CASA has its legal ducks in a row and is expecting this. If I were the Sing authorities I would conduct an urgent review into both airlines.

We'll see. People will probably lose their jobs, before getting them back at Jetstar. The public will be safer, but probably poorer as fares rise while competition declines. And the industry will be back to normal.

[blackhand]

There has to be a bottom line for revenue below which an RPT operation can't be sustained.
If the seat prices are below this line surely some part of the operation must suffer.

I am sure CASA has its legal ducks in a row and is expecting this
@arrowhead: Can CASA be sued?

[ratso]

Gentlemen and others ..I do not work for c.a.s.a

[rodchucker]

Blackhand,
Recent precedent with APRA where they mucked up an inspection of Trio and their superannuation funds and when it all imploded Federal govt made tens of millions of dollars in handouts.....not through some generous act I suspect.