Skippers lose conquest at mine?

[detached observer]

Have heard that Skippers lost a conquest off the runway 2 days ago at one of the mine airstrips - 4 pax, no one hurt.
Does anyone know if this true? .

[Right Seat]

At Lake Johnston on Friday apparently. From what they tell me, 2 pilots on board and I think 4 pax. All happened on takeoff, a late abort I think.
Nose wheel collapsed and I believe the engines and wings arent in the best shape. Skippers did well to keep this one quiet.
Good to hear there are no injuries.

[takeoff1]

uh oh, hope it wasn't whats his name who bent Waks Waks lovely Conquest a few years ago.

[bugga-u]

So, who has all the goss, some one must know more. where the hell is lake johnson? is that the cosmos project..... maybe the thunderbox project??? come on some one.

[LabRat]

Hmmm, I guess that the Perth aviation community have decided that this isn't worth the gossip. Will have to wait the results of the investigation.

I do know that the individual responsible for redesigning KUZ whilst aloft DIDN'T do this one!

[scud_runner]

Or the embarrassment!!:O

[Apollo 4]

Rang a mate of mine in Skippers and nobody is saying anything, so when in this situation get the wives together on the phone and two hours later.....

Seems that a female check captain was doing the checking thing when a prop went into over-speed, take-off was aborted however with insufficient runway remaining, no names are being mentioned at all, apparently the least said the better as a couple of contracts are getting touch and go.

Crews are keeping it really quiet as the more contracts they lose the less flying for the boys/girls at Skippers. Even the guys waiting to get into Skippers in June-July are keeping mum, worried that they might miss out on a position.

One of the passengers is rumoured to have a crook neck and shoulder and has already lodged workers comp claim and the rest were ok. (thats the wives gossip anyway)

Guess we will all have to wait till the crash report is published.

:O :O :O

[slice]

Apollo I infer from your post that Skippers already have people lined up for future positions. Can I ask if they had contacts so to speak? The recruiting people there insist all is done by Staffcv, but as time goes on I get the feeling this Staffcv is just a sham.

[Apollo 4]

Slice there is an old saying, "its not what you know, it is WHO you know"......

Like most companies it always helps to have a mate or two already in the front door. While the CV plays an important part, the candidates are always discussed with the current crews. All it takes is one to say you are a Duckhead and your goose is generally cooked.

The last batch of recruits all came from the same area in the North West. Maybe co-incidence but the word is that 2 of the next batch ear marked for positions in June/July are also from the same place..... and coincidentally good mates with the last batch, who were good mates with the batch before that....... On the other side of the coin the North West crew are usually well sought after because of the quality of the training and the fact that they are already known to all the big mining company personnel....good for customer relations.

All that said though if you don't know Ryno and all the boys forget it...oh it also helps to be a pi$s wreck and sexual deviate on weekends!!!


;)

[Bagot_Community_Locator]

So finally someone admits that you have to be a (or it helps) pisshead to get a job with a company.

How about for the pilots that do not drink ?

How about employing pilots on "actual merit" !!!

Is this a fair system ?

[puff]

Probably not Bagot but thats the way aviation is and probably always will be like, guess it shows the importance of networking.

I also guess why so many jobs are givin out on word of mouth are there are a lot of wan*ers out there(not just in aviation), and people aren't gunna recommend people if they don't think they'll do a good job, because they are putting their name on the line pretty much.....

Fair or not it seems to be the way it is!

[slice]

Apollo 4, well that certainly puts things in perspective. Everyone I have come across in Perth says this or that operator is a closed shop. I don't want to believe it but it sure looks that way.
:yuk:

[Apollo 4]

Well Slice you have to walk outside the box and take two steps back.....then look at the whole picture..

At the moment I guess you are feeling a bit dejected, because you are inside the box.

Looking at the whole picture it seems very logical that if 2 pilots are coming from a north west company to Skippers, then it follows that there will be two vacancies in the North West.

So get one of the vacancies up north, become mates with the guys up there and in turn their mates in Skippers and next thing you know you will get a possie with Skippers and join the club..

Thats the train of thought that leads to employment ..

Good Luck...

BTW make sure you get the right north west company, no I am not going to tell you, do a little home work ask around......
;) :D

[dghob]

APOLLO 4

Great stuff! How to take a problem by the balls and deal with it. Edward de Bono ("Mr Lateral Thinking") would be impressed. Hopefully one or two business leaders would benefit from a similar approach, not least of all in the airline industry. Well done Apollo 4, and good luck Slice.

[slice]

Apollo 4 I am well familiar with all off what you speak of. It is just with this Staffcv setup it really makes it hard to judge if the a particular company is actually going to look outside their 'box'. Other companies will be straight up and tell you ' we get our guys from...the next guy on is... etc. etc.'. This one does not and you have to wonder why they bother with Staffcv. Maybe just fishing for guys with time on Metro/Braz/DHC8 etc.? :}

[dodgybrothers]

Meanwhile back at the batcave, what was the upshot of the crash, what happened and who was the checker on board?

[Apollo 4]

Well the Conquest is pretty much stuffed I am told and includes props, engines, nose and main spar. (only 3 rd hand info here)

The check captain was a female known only as "mumble shorts" and the checkeee a pretty shaken but not stirred sort of character.

Stan is apparently spewing and the ensuing safety review is being dreaded. Lots of discussion and finger pointing, even to the point of, "should have done a circuit" type comments..

To the crew you did the best you could at the time, with the situation before you. Everyone walked away = RIGHT DECISION.
Sure with hind sight many things could have been done differently I am sure, but this applies to everything in life.

Metal can be replaced flesh can't.... Your experience now makes you both members of a survivors club, although nobody is busting to join this club, the knowledge gained is invaluable to your employer.

Make sure you receive proper counselling regardless of how you feel... You have both undergone a critical stress incident and are at risk of post traumatic stress disorder. No matter how tough or chilled you feel get a professional stress debrief.

Good luck


:) :cool:

[gaunty]

Apollo 4

I cannot help but add my agreement with your thoughts.

FMQ CESSNA 441 4410109 1979
LBA CESSNA 441 4410042 1978
LBC CESSNA 441 4410236 1982
LBX CESSNA 441 4410091 1979
LBY CESSNA 441 4410023 1978
LBZ CESSNA 441 4410038 1978

A clunker by any other name is still a clunker.

These aircraft were beyond their economic life by the early nineties.

That they are still around is as much a testament to their robust manufacture, the failure of the their users to understand the "duty of care" in regard to their use as is the ability of the operator to communicate it.

It's all about the lowest common denominator.

The recent recommendations by the Coroner after the inquest into the so called King Air "Ghost flight" in regard to the use of these types, seems to have gone serenely unnoticed, at least until the next one.

Whether the aircraft are maintained within an inch of their life, or not, is beside the point.

They were already operating on the "profit edge" in the early eighties and the revenue then was not all that much different than it is now? And I'm not talking relative dollars here.
Most were in the early nineties already approaching 15 -20,000 hours.

If it were "economic" in these terms QF would still be operating B747-100s.

The City Of Bunbury a B747-200 was retired to Longreach with not all that many hours more than some of these types and certainly was the same vintage. The B747 is an "industrial" grade machine, designed for heavy commercial use, Conquests and King Airs are not

I would also be surprised if the "checkers" "checker" and so on up the line, had any thing but the merest acquaintance with a "factory" or "Flight Safety" rating.

"Myth" and "tales" and "this is how it really works", gets piled on top of each other. The regulator does not have anyone who knows better and the whole thing becomes a self fulfilling fantasy.

Nothing to do with lack of individual professionalism, just the way the system has evolved.

Dancing with the man who danced with the girl who danced with the Prince of Wales is hardly the same as dancing with him personally.

Stan can spew all he likes, fingers can be pointed until the cows come home and the 'should have' scenarios can be scenarioed ad nauseum, but until they get their fleet into the 21st Century and deal with the Damoclean "duty of care" hanging over their and any others using these types, heads there will be, if we are lucky, only "incidents" such as these.

How much more "luck" are we going to get?

Or is there to be yet another inquest, the legal buzzards are already sharpening their claws.

[dodgybrothers]

geez, if they're clunkers you would hate to see some 404s I know with 25,000 plus and still operating rpt!

[Icarus2001]

Gaunty, I generally agree with the thrust of your comments (on most things in appears). However, let's draw the line between airframe life/hours/cycles and engine hours life/cycles. Otherwise you end up with people looking at a crashed Tiger Moth saying that the aircraft is seventy years old and shouldn't be flying when the engine which failed is only 400hours out of overhaul.

If anyone should be taking seriously your point that these aircraft are not doing what they were designed to do it must be CASA? Why aren't they? How do operations in the C441 differ in the country of manufacture?

[NTS check]

So let me get this right - they're flying a FAR23 aircraft which suffers some sort of engine/prop related problem whilst in the TKOF roll. They abort the TKOF and subsequently over-run into the dirt.

Isn't that what they're taught to do?

I would have thought this demonstrated a capable training system. Why would the company be worried about a safety review following a well handled incident?

[gaunty]

Icarus2001

The point is not whether the engine was new, middle aged or nearly dead.
As NTS Check points out it is a FAR23 type, they weren't going anywhere but into the trees at the end of the strip on one in any event. Hopefully not too fast and if it was a little, its still safer than upside down at 120+KTS.

Only question that remains from that, is, whether an accelerate stop distance was/is calculated routinely and "balanced" against the strip length. It's in the book and takes about 30 secs to do.

The last time I saw one of them it was way over 18,000 hrs and that was in 1990. I suspect that the rest are not all that far behind.

Some would be going close to if not over 25,000hrs.

These types including the King Air have a design life of around 30 years based on around 300 hrs per year, need I say more.

You can go around in circles all you like about age and v airframe v engine hours the older it gets the more it costs to maintain, yet the older ones are sought after for their low capital costs so they can reduce the rates yet further.
They would have to be getting the airframes and engines for nought to be able to make money at the prevailing rates, and allow for their replacement etc etc.

So we continue the inexorable race to the bottom, with no prospect of any body being able to "afford" to operate new safer FAR25 equipment.

The only argument I have seen mounted against this as a concept is that nobody could "afford" to pay for it. Sort of a circular argument and a self fulfilling prophecy.
Especially when the "service" is sold as a "cheaper" alternative to airlines who are required to operate FAR25 equipment.

Though the Coroners finding was inconclusive in so far as the cause of the crash was concerned, the issues revealed in this particular instance, to an experienced and knowledgeable observer point clearly to the age of the airframe and its components, notwithstanding that the aircraft was being properly maintained, as being the main culprit.
Vital components not being scheduled for and not inspected since manufacture some 27 years ago.

CASA and more importantly the ATSB, are very aware of the FAR23 v FAR25 issue and the underlying duty of care which was ventilated pretty thoroughly at the Central Air Inquest as a result of my submission and evidence.

The ATSB have through their advisory process put it to CASA for action.


ATSB recommendation to CASA (http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/rec/rec_detail.cfm?ID=329)

This issue will remain on the list until it is actioned by CASA and the ATSB are satisfied with the result.

It was clear from the cross examination at the inquest that the issues revealed were not even remotely understood by any of those directly concerned including the miner, operator and passengers except of course the Regulator and the ATSB.

Because it had two "jet" engines and was a "big" aircraft, licensed by CASA and operated according to that CASA license and a Beechcraft yet, it was perceived to be operating in the same "safety" envelope as the airlines.

You are I'm sure aware of the quite fundamental and distinct differences in certification concept and philosophy between FAR23/25.

It was the Coroners recommendation said in effect, that mining or any form of FIFO activity should be taking place in FAR25 aircraft.
The miners and other users quite valid defence is that they are relying on the "expert" advice they are given by the operators. :rolleyes:.
The operators promote the use of FAR23 types because they are cheaper to buy and operate, without understanding the REAL reason why this is so, or if they do slide around the subject.
The user is delighted because he can get his staff from here to their cheaper than with the "airlines" without a complete understading WHY this is so.

Now that this cat is "officially" out of the bag, it will be difficult if not impossible for the "users" or "operators" to defend a duty of care action by the family and survivors, in the event that there are injuries or fatalities in a FAR23 type being used in FIFO.

The "they were licensed by CASA" defence would be interesting but a half way competent silk would IMHO be able to take it way beyond that.

NTS check

Absolutely everything worked as it should.
So what if the damage to the aircraft is "severe" or a "constructive loss" Stan should be happy at least that they all walked away and they and he and the user would not have to defend a duty of care liability case in their use of the type in the light of the above.
Given the alternative scenario he/they got lucky.

On the evidence here, the "checker" should be commended.

[Apollo 4]

NTS CHECK

I guess the answer to your question is somewhere between human nature and oops.

It is a natural reaction to dread an investigation of any sorts. Now if you look walk outside the little box and take a step back and look at the big picture yet again.....

Somewhere around 1998 the Skippers fleet were predominantly grounded due to shonky repairs and maintainance, the CASA boys lodged an investigation and the Chief Engineer was hung out to dry.

The Conquest in question had just returned to service after extensive maintanance and refurb..... Stan would be thinking "hope nothing we did caused it"

Then the Crew, like GAUNTY I am full of praise for the crew and only hope management understand what they have experienced and provide the professional and appropriate counselling and support.

However there is a point here that old Stan & Dave will be thinking about quite a lot.

The female checker was a very capable captain before she went to Skippers and no doubt has maintained her skills, however has she any instructing qualification/experience ???? nope. How are her dexterity skills from the rhs ??? in this situation ???

The male pilot being checked joined the Skippers with about 200 hrs, gained about 1000 hours as a co-pilot on metros and is sitting in the left hand seat trying to get command time. (so much for the 500 hours multi requirement that everyone else needs) you're getting my drift.

What training system let this happen ? It is highly likely that the "cadet" pilot is a product of who he knows not what he knows and be him a great bloke or not that is not a good reference for the Skippers selection and line training system.

It also is a smack in the face to guys like SLICE and the other crews that had to go bush live like a hobo to get the 500 hrs multi in orde to get a job with Skippers.

All in all I'd say Lindsay would be laughing, Stan would be sweating on the finding as to whether the engineers got something wrong and what the ramifications from the customers will be. Remember mining companies are pretty touchy on safety.

[mistapproach]

Which C441 was it by the way?
Typical aviation management(?) response. Crucify the crew/ATC/engineer, forget the endemic system faults and management enforced cost savings.

[bitter balance]

Hang on mistapproach, any decent safety system/culture requires a safety review (or investigation) following such an incident. Especially if someone was hurt and a US$1m + piece of machinery was bent (badly?).

[gaunty]

bitter balance

a US$1m + piece of machinery :rolleyes: maybe AUD.:sad:

[bitter balance]

Gaunty, just going off some prices I saw on some websites and mags etc They wouldn't bump the price up would they? ;)

[8 8th's Blue]

It would appear at the end of the day the crew lost an engine before reaching there pre determined decision speed and acted accordingly. Well done to the them. Vmca will usually result in bigger dints the over running a runway!

[Johhny Utah]

Apollo 4, let me get this right. From all reports the situation was handled professionally, by the crew involved, with everyone able to walk away from the aircraft after a failure at what is a crucial (if not critical) moment, which then prompts you to state:

What training system let this happen ?

I'm not quite sure what you suggest should have occurred? Perhaps you could enlighten us as to your proposed ideal course of action...

As for calling into question the experience of the person who was undertaking training in the LHS -
It is highly likely that the "cadet" pilot is a product of who he knows not what he knows

Are you suggesting that the operator in question is going to go blindly placing somebody in the LHS of a conquest just because they are (apparently) a 'good bloke", without ever giving thought to their flying ability? That's certainly an interesting suggestion. :rolleyes: Have you considered for a moment that in the eyes of the operator/chief pilot, the person in question may have been quite a capable pilot who, after experiencing 1000hrs on the Metro, was deemed suitable to progress onto the LHS of the Conquest? After all, he probably picked up a thing or two in his time as a Metro co-pilot, and was quite possibly flying the aircraft on every other sector. In fact, if that was the case, then I see no reason for the progression to an aircraft type such as a Conquest to be a huge drama. I also fail to see how spending time in a single engined piston aircraft (be it high performance or not) would have prepared him any better to cope with the situation that eventuated in the Conquest.:confused:

I understand that everyone in aviation has their own opinion on how best to do things, especially when it comes to progressing upwards through the 'pecking order' of commercial aircraft. However, just because somebody may have done it differently to you, doesn't necessarily mean that their way of doing things is wrong - it's just different...

[Apollo 4]

Johnny Utah

Before we all get our temperatures above the norm, I would like to point out that the Crew did the best they could under the circumstances = Right Decisions. I happen to know that the check captain is less than happy with a few issues relating to the accident as are most of the Skippers.

My main thrust is that Management now analyse the whole situation and clearly they have, otherwise they wouldn’t be concerned re a safety review or attempted to keep the accident so quiet.

As a view completely separate to the accident itself.

The reference to the training system was legitimate in the light that the company minimums that most candidates have to achieve (people like SLICE) before employment by Skippers, include 500 hours multi engine command experience…. This “cadet” pilot I am told has less than 50 hrs multi-engine command time and I suggest anyone who has flown the piston range first and gained 500 hours PIC in charter conditions will be infinitely more comfortable with tackling a conquest command than someone who has ****** all time.

While I agree a person who has flown co-pilot in a metro has gained valuable experience, it still is in the opposite seat on a totally different aircraft and to suggest that this is somehow equivalent to PIC time is pure folly, try showing a log book to a regional and attempting to convince them that it is.

The proposition I intimated in the earlier post is this, when a company sets a benchmark level for its employees and then ignores its own requirements is that the start of a chain ? and further would it not be far more prudent to have a more experienced (500 hour multi) pilot in the left and place an instructor rated check Captain in the RHS during this period of operation. Irrespective of the cause of the accident or the final outcome, what about from a management duty of care perspective, to the crews and passengers.

As we all know when split second decisions, actions and responses need to be taken an unfamiliar cockpit and or side of the cockpit doesn’t help!!!!!
:D

[gaunty]

Apollo 4

This “cadet” pilot I am told has less than 50 hrs multi-engine command time and I suggest anyone who has flown the piston range first and gained 500 hours PIC in charter conditions will be infinitely more comfortable with tackling a conquest command than someone who has ****** all time.

I have been known to be a bit one eyed towards Mr Cessnas product and a champion of the concept that they are built and designed to be "owner flown", i.e. by the businessman owner pilot, whether he may or may not have qualifications beyond a PPL, is unimportant .

Professional pilot qualifications and certification issues aside, the typical Conquest owner driver will have come to a Conquest/Citation normally through ownership of a succession of Cessna piston singles and 300/400 series twins.

The transition for piston to turbine is then relatively simple, just a change in motive power and a "different" set of gauges.

Whilst I am on that subject Cessna went to a great deal of trouble to make the Conquest "gauges" position and display and power quadrant levers as simple and similar as possible to the piston twin 400 series, to make the transition as simple as possible.

The power "computerised automatics" with auto "Start" and auto Torque and Temp limiters for the same reason.
Press the button to start and get on with whatever else around the cockpit while they spin up, stand the power levers up for TO, no drama just monitor.

Torque = MAP
RPM = RPM OK %age isn't all that hard with which to come to grips.
Temp = CHT, in this case, the "real" turbine temp is "compensated" electronically to "look" like what you would expect to see on the CHT on a 400 series twin, i.e. around 400C.

At the end of the day they could just as easily have used lemon drops, pink elephants, smilies or red, green or amber lights as symbols.

It doesn't matter because it will either start or it wont, It will deliver whatever power is available for the ambient or it wont.
The symbols displaying that info are irrelevant and there is little if anything the driver can do "to make it better" if it doesn't want to play any more.

I digress.

I am therefore surprised to hear Appolos comments on the alleged low Multi Command time.

Mr Cessna I believe, would have had no problem with the low hours, per se, if someone had stepped up to their first twin as a Conquest and the free Flight Safety training and "hand holding" would have kicked in, but they would have expected more experience than that.
At the sales level their would have been more than a fair bit of counselling, preparation and routine provision of someone to ride "shotgun" for as long as it took.

But I would have serious reservations for a Commercial operation and considering the age and hours of the aircraft would suggest that it was folly from a safety viewpoint and potentially harmful to the pilots future prospects.

[Hugh Jarse]

That a turboprop (even if it is a Garrett, or Allied Signals or whatever), is easier to fly than a piston ;)

[bitter balance]

Apollo 4 - you do not know that the experience level of the pilot under training was a contributing factor to the incident. So why bring it up? I can point to any number of runway excursions in various turbine equipment where the captain had well in excess of 500 ME command. Remember, there is a very prominent taxiway excursion in ML at the moment. There was also a runway excursion in Bangkok recently.

[beany6]

I have flown with many people in my time. The guy you lot are hammering was better than 95% of them, including me. I would be very surprised to hear experience was a contributing factor

[D.Lamination]

Suffice to say that any bent C441 Conquest II is a thing that pains me greatly :*

Unfortunatley Cessna 400 nose gears seem to be a weak point (notwithstanding any "beyond the call of duty" events this particular nose gear went through);)

We can all be grateful that everyone walked away:}

Shall we lobby Cessna to restart production of the Conquest? :O Or will the product liability lawyers:yuk: kill any chance of that ?:confused:

[gaunty]

Cessna starting Conquest production is just not gunna happen, over 3-400 nm, the usual corporate trip length in this class, it's performance is just too close to the baby Citations and they just can't build those fast enough.

Apart from that, the FAR23 issues are too hard, which is why they went straight to FAR25 for their first turbines.

[skywest_xr]

Having worked for Skippers, I still have no idea what there agenda is.

However, I do know they employ rampies as metro f/o's, even though they have sfa hours and job experience. This really urks alot of local drivers who have the experience, but yet cant get a look in.

I guess throwing bags and cleaning toilets has its benefits afterall.

[Crash & Burn]

skywest_xr,

Skippers have only ever employed two pilots who were 'rampies'.

If you worked for Skippers as a pilot then you would know that the ops manual had a clause in it permitting pilots to be employed on a 'cadet' scheme with less than the usual hour requirements.

Due to various reasons the cadet scheme never 'took off'.

Yes, they had less hours than usual but they were well known to the company. Aviation is a small industry and it's not only what you know but who you know. That's the way it is!

If you did a poll here on pprune as to how many pilots had got jobs after recommendations from friends as opposed to turning up at the interview completely unknown to the company then you may be in for a surprise.

I'll admit that I have known someone in just about every company I have ever been employed by. In most cases I used them as a referree at my interview. In the companies eyes there is nothing like a personal recomendation from someone already in the company who they trust.

It's a matter of being in the right place at the right time and knowing the right people as these two guys did.

Having said that though - as a well known ATPL theory providor says, "An ATPL pass will get you an interview but it's your skills and knowledge that will get you the job"

As Beany6 said,

I have flown with many people in my time. The guy you lot are hammering was better than 95% of them, including me.
That is why these guys ultimately got the job - their skills and knowledge were good.

[SniperPilot]

Crash - you are contradicting yourself! On the one hand you say most pilots are hired due in part to recommendations from pilots within a company ''who you know, knowing the right people " and then stating that these guys ultimately got the job because of their skills and knowlege!!

If pilots hired by a given company have such superior skills and knowlege, why would they need recommendations from people within that company?

Let's face it, aircrew recruitment is one of the most venal and corrupt employment activities around! The vast excess of pilots trained and the lassez-faire approach of the Government has ensures that this is the way it will continue. As for the assesment of skills and knowlege, there is precious little objectivity to be found in General Aviation - ''This guy is better than 95% of you"!! Oh really, according to who? The person making this statement has NO idea how the vast majority of the other 95% fly!

In years gone by (maybe not true anymore - I have been gone awhile) Skippers built a reputation for crash through management (no pun intended) and pilot discontent, which is not the environment for for fostering the best skills and knowlege.

[beany6]

For the record, when I was offered employment there I knew no one at all. I was employed for my credentials, not by inhouse recommendations.
Sniper, I am not sure why you attacked my comment. It was based upon who I have flown with in my career. I dont think I have NO idea..... I could say that about you as well, but I do not know you and would have no proof to justify my comments.

Back to the top. Yes apparently a Conquest did have a bingle

[Lloyd Braun]

Slightly off topic but what is the current pay for a metro f/o and captain at Skippers ?

[YBRM]

Still slightly off the topic, if you work 5 days for the week and have a double on one day to boot, you can earn more than the prime minister !!

Back on the topic, what happened to the crew of this 441 could have happened to anyone, and I'll bet there are many who would have come off a lot worse. The way the "abnormal" was dealt with by this low time pilot was as good as someone whom would have many more thousands of hours.

Don't be fooled by all those numbers in a persons log book - its only an indicator of hours flown, not necessarily a level of someones skill ! This young bloke has more skill than many Captains I've flown with over the years, and experiencing this mishap will just add to his skill level (too bad it wasn't in a simulator!)

Beany6, meet you out the front for a smoke bloke !!!
;)

[Apollo 4]

Lloyd

The Skippers F/O's are on casual award rates for aircraft type. Most only get two days a week and find it necessary to have a second job just to survive.

Last count we had waiters, jigalow, cleaner, chef and a A.M.E. at Jandakot.

YBRM rightly points out if you get a full week you make a packet, but alas the chances of that are sweet F/A.

For the first six weeks with the company you will shell out about 5,000.00 for your training and won't get a cracker back for at least 6 weeks and then it'll be 2 days a week. The line training is great except for when the check & training Captains pi$$ off on leave and leave you waiting to complete check to line.

All in all great place to start but it ain't all it is cracked up to be. Especially waiting by the phone for a call to tell you that tomorrow is the lucky day you can go to work.

Good Luck


;)

[Knackers]

Why does the "jigalow" want to fly?

[Lloyd Braun]

Thanks for the info Apollo.

Is the 6 week training made up of a full time ground course (2 weeks ???) then part time flying as and when available ?

[beany6]

YBRM, sorry cant make it. To busy training that effo on 2 days a week!

Seriously though, July 19 at my place would be a good time!;)

[YBRM]

Apollo

I know how keen the effo's are to go out flying, but don't forget that they will earn similar money in that 2 days work than they would have working out bush for 6 days straight, living somewhere they probably didn't want to be, flying an airplane that they didn't want to fly, to a place they really couldn't give a hoot about.

Skippers is not the be all and end all for most, but don't forget to appreciate what your doing now. I'll bet there is plenty of ex AN pilots out there who would swap their taxi cab job to get back into an aircraft 2 days a week !!

It could be a lot of a lot worse !!:)

[Apollo 4]

YBRM

Cold comfort when you are trying to make ends meet..... seems pretty pi$$ poor to have to live in the bush fly planes you don't want, in a place you don't want to be and then when you finally make it into a job where you want to be, in a town where you want to live, and a plane you want to be in you're lucky to get 2 days work casual, no sick days, no annual leave, can't even get a loan.

But to make enough money to live you have to work part time in a job like waiting tables, bars etc which are jobs you don't want to do, in places you don't want to be in.

Whatever happened to full time employment ??

:rolleyes:

[Grivation]

Now this might seem like a silly question BUT - why do Skippys have so many FO's?

Surely all it equates to for the company would be higher training costs. Or are you required to pay for your own route/base checks as well?

[SmallGlassofPort]

Cold comfort you say to get a job where you want to be etc etc........
You reakon the FO's have another job? Please tell us! You say they cannot get a loan? Just ask the egyptian about his new house!
You are right direct entry Metro FO is a casual position as it has always been. The rest of the company is not, and if I am correct, you sir are acting on old information. Skippers Metro FO's are currently on type for 12 to 18 months before progressing to full time slots on Bras or 441. In fact for the first six months after AN fell over they earned the same as or more than most Captains.

Apollo, Where is your info from?

PS Skippers are based at PH not Jandakot!

[Apollo 4]

Smallglassofport

You sir are out of touch or you are trying to pull a snow job.

The Horney couldn't get a loan with a casual job at Skippers, he had to use a letter from a company who gave him FULL TIME employment, in a place he didn't want to be, in planes he didn't want to fly. And to keep the house he has to find extra work, as well as renting the f##king thing out to strangers.

The reference to Jandakot was in relation to another Skippers F/O working for Swift Aviation as an A.M.E just to make ends meet and keep the wolves from the door.

My question to you is this, if Skippers is so good why do their F/O's need second jobs and by the way are any of these crew recording their duty times to include this extra work ??? Work is work and has to be logged as duty time... or do you advocate a F/O's working all night at a restaurant and then fronting up to fly a metro first thing in the morning????

SGP I believe you sir are the one acting on old information and are really out of touch with what is actually happening at the coal face.

Skippers should front up and give FULL TIME jobs and stop all the exploitation..

:yuk: :yuk:

[SmallGlassofPort]

Apollo, after much thought I believe that you in your wisdom can save our sad sad deviate souls. After all you are the only one who seems to know better.
Which company do you in your knowledge recommend!
Please remember it must be in Perth, otherwise I would have(and many others) gone to CX.
I know the job is there mission leader, I just await orders!!!!

[Apollo 4]

SGP

Don't shoot the messenger ! Sometimes by being outside the company you get to know and understand more than if you are actually within.

The issue here is that there exists a group of dedicated aspiring young professionals who are doing it tough and for fear of not getting the phone call the night before, feel that they can't speak up. After all they are only casual and have no voice. How do we find out ? through the grape vine as it is the only place where they can have a voice.

Then they have to sit back and watch rampies scoring crew slots with 200 hours in the book. Believe me morale is very low at the casual Skippers camp, despite what appears on the surface.

Sir it also helps when putting a point, to actually know the facts! So please do some home work before trying to shoot someone down.

To rectify the problem, simple give them FULL TIME employment.

Now back to the duty time issue, does Skippers keep a register of second jobs by crew ? nope! are Skippers aware of how many hours their crew are working prior to fronting up for duty? nope! are these crew members complying with best practice fatigue management? nope!

Has CASA asked the question during the audit? nope!

Skippers is in fact a great place to work... but only if you are a full time employee.


:rolleyes:

[SmallGlassofPort]

Ok Ok, I concede! In a perfect world we would not be considered as we are now. WE WOULD EARN LOTS

Where did we go wrong? Where is horny different to the guy with 15 years experience with AN and they both are struggling for a loan?
Please, we know of QF etc, please help the bulk of us. We want a job in WA and we dont want to compete with guys with 20 to 30 years experience......
It kinda doesnt help the ego yknow!!!
Apollo, whilst they are charter.... they will always be charter... time or perspecitve may change this. But it will be time.....
If you want a RPT slot, try somewhere else....

[Apollo 4]

SGP

Take heart the Skippers I believe will be an airline before the years end. Much work I am told is currently under way to form an alliance with DJ for a code share. Stan is lobbying the Gov to de-regulate the skywest runs now that they are in bed with QF.

When this happens I am sure it will be more economical to have all F/O's on FULL TIME and the unwanted casuals will be looking at dead phones..... (only an opinion you understand)


;)

[the wizard of auz]

Must have been a bugga giving up a full time job with a C90 so close and going on to become a FO, then having to go back to where he started to supliment the meagre sum payed for the odd day here and there. I dunno why people do it. Oh wel thats GA I spose..... glad I aint in it.

[Apollo 4]

WIZ

Are you the wiz of oz west ?

No matter, word is that the C90 gets flogged by the barons and spends more time training than on charter .... 12 hours a month some say!!! would have to be pretty quick barons or f##king slow C90.

[Dale Harris]

Apolla 4, I'd be interested to know why you think Skippers, or any other casual employer in the aviation industry, should control the outside employment of any of their part time employees? Perhaps you could point out where in the CAO's duty time NOT worked on behalf of your aviation employer should be recorded? While I agree that it is stupid and irresponsible to turn up to work when you are tired beyond all reasonable limits, the pilot and the company are not REQUIRED to take outside employment into account by per CAO's. THe whole casual thing needs looking into, but some companies operate that way, quite successfully. In any case, these jobs are usually treated as nothing more than a stepping stone by the vast majority of pilots. Doesn't make it right, but doesn't change it either.

[Apollo 4]

Dale

Wrong! We are required by law to provide a duty of care.

From a purely layman’s point of view there appears to be nothing in the regs / orders etc, however as the Mrs points out (spends most days in court doing this stuff) the legal aspect and implications are far diferrent.

The legal interpretation of CAO 48.0-1.4 implies a responsibility on both the flight crew and the operator not to fly or permit flight if FATIGUE or illness is likely, which may effect the judgement or performance of the Pilot.

How can the operator reasonably assess and demonstrate that assessment whether or not a Pilot is likely to be suffering from fatigue or illness if the operator has no knowledge of the 8 hour shift or the 40 hour week that the Pilot has just performed at Kmart, Hotel, Engineering Shop, Big Mac’s, or Baggage Handling prior to turning up at the airport to fly.

The section reads as below note the word shall = Must.

1.4 Notwithstanding anything contained in these Orders, a flight crew member shall not fly, and an operator shall not require that person to fly if either the flight crew member is suffering from, or, considering the circumstances of the particular flight to be undertaken, is likely to suffer from, fatigue or illness which may affect judgement or performance to the extent that safety may be impaired.


The Mrs also pointed out that in her expert opinion the word employment throughout the document and in particular under the heading ‘Rest Period’ is not specific to aviation duties and includes all employment.

CA0 48.0 DEFINITIONS

Rest Period means the period of time during which a flight crew member is relieved of all duties associated with his or her EMPLOYMENT.

When you look at the dictionary for the meaning of the word employment, when you look at the legal dictionary for the meaning of the word employment, when you look at the case law applications for the meaning of the word employment, when you look at the Australian Tax Office legal definition of employment and employ those definitions to CAO 48.1 then you will understand the risks you are taking. Employment means all jobs that you do……

In the event of an accident or injury or personal loss the Mrs reckons 90% chance the Operator would be found negligent, in breach of 1.4 and various other sections of the O.H.S.W. act for not providing a safe working environment and failing in its duty of care.

I am also told that the standard INDEMNITY CLAUSE contained in the award may not cover you from civil prosecution as it is most likely to be contested that YOU broke the Regs/Orders and could be possibly seen as a Criminally Negligent Act. Better put the house in the wifes name!!!


(by the way this only an opinion feel free to be the first to be sued or charged and then we might get a little specific case law to follow in future)

[Dale Harris]

Please correct me if I am mistaken, but did I not suggest it to be irresponsible to try to work under those circumstances? The responsibility for that lies with the PILOT first and the company second. Are you trying to tell me that the company, any company, does not know that their casual employees don't work elsewhere? And there you have the answer. I think you will find there is case law to define CAO 48 with regard to what is defined as duty time and non duty time. Enough people have been charged and several convicted on that matter alone....... What an employee does when away from the company, (and while the company IS NOT paying him) is irrelevant, whether he is fit to fly or otherwise is a case by case decision. We have always had a duty of care responsibility, that has not changed in the recent past, except for a recent circumstance that actually held that the victim in this case did NOT exercise a duty of care to himself and was denied compensation as a result. This was not an aviation related matter, however, the fact it was not is irrelevant. Most of the associated precedents for industrial relations, duty of care. OHS and related subjects do NOT come from the aviation sector.
As for being a test case, no test required...........

[skywest_xr]

Companies protect themselves by putting employees on casual contracts.

As soon you make an employee full time, you have to guarantee them hours.

If Skippers were to lose work by losing a contract, how are they going to guarantee hours to FT employees?

Should poo hit the fan, Skippers can either show the casuals the door or keep them there, at no loss to the company. They dont have the flexability with FTimers.

Just reading another thread, it looks like XR have been granted sole use on the majority of its current routes bar GET. So unless Skippers thinks outside the square and creates new routes, perhaps being an airline by the end of the year is a tad premature.

Forgive me If Im wrong, but I beleive FT Metros f/os get a base of 30k. Well the few that are FT.

Lastly, excuse my daftness, but who here actually does fly for Skippers? It seems that everyone seems to know everything about them, but yet they arent employed by them.

[slice]

lots of ex employees perhaps?

[Stick Pusher]

Let me invoke some logic to the question of casual pilots with SA.

Firstly the aircraft require 2 crew correct?
So why is the captain full time yet the f/o is not? HELLO!!!

At one time they wanted you to be available as often as a full time driver( that was part of their old bond form). I'm pretty sure that you can only be employed casually with a single employer for either 6 or 12 months legally.

I know all about SA, believe you me! And they prey on pilots and force them into this aviation prostitution...please don't get me started, I'll probably get kicked off!

Anyway digressing from the topic,

So what actually caused the failure in the first place?

[Apollo 4]

Dale

Well thats alright then... We can now have all the heavy drivers working an 8 hour day for a retail out-let before driving over the pond in command of a 400 tonne beast..

When faced with court action we all can now say, we were not fatigued cause Dale said it was ok.

Maybe I can drive a semi trailer for 8 hours, feeling great after a shower then front up to the hub and push back knowing that after 3 hours if I fade out it is ok because that EMPLOYMENT is not duty time. Who are we kidding.

Oh Please.... Everyone has a different rate of fatigue and it effects everyone differently, even the computer models that are around at the moment to calculate fatigue factors are mere indicators.

The fact is that if you are engaged in another job prior to taking comm and and have a problem you are in grave risk of prosecutionand so is the company who permitted you to fly. But then again I guess they can say, "Its ok Dale said so"

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Lowlevel]

What THE !
I thought this subject was about a conquest , not about how some try to make an extra buck. And its not too keep the wolves from the door, its probably just for piss money . ( The price of piss now is outrageous )
Seriously though , what someone does with their own time is their own business , and speculating is just utter bulls**t.
If i could make some extra bucks on the side i'd do it.

[Dale Harris]

Apollo, If you want to be a patronising ********, well I guess you just did. I DIDN'T say it was ok, I QUESTIONED your assertion that Duty Time is Duty Time is Duty Time. You have not shown that Duty Time is anything other than what I stated. And since the CAO's do not require it to be recorded other than during the time spent in the service of the (flying) employer, outside work is not relevant as far as recording it goes.

Some companies employ casual pilots. Some don't. Noone has shown that this argument has any bearing at all on the accident that is the subject of the post. Just because it is legal, doesn't make it right either. Do you honestly think that the current fatigue measurement system being bandied about is better than the CAO's?? Would it stop pilots flying after working elsewhere?? NO IT DOESN'T.

What I did say is it is not smart to fly tired or emotional or any other way if it is going to affect your work. This can be full time or part time, it does not matter. We are not talking about international operations so your reference to it is simply ridiculous. But while you mention it, do you think it is acceptable for international pilots to be rostered for 14 hr legs, into other time zones day after day? Does that not fatigue them? Ask them what they think. What about short haul?? coupla days then coupla nights, then a day or afternoon..... or some other combination. Acceptable? Oh it must be, they are employed full time........

I said it was okay?????? of course I did........:rolleyes:

[SmallGlassofPort]

Stick Pusher, good Q!
I think the theory is the same as it always has, ie. Capt M23 full time, FO M23, (normally) first assignment with the company. Then progress to 441 Command or Bras/Dash FO slot etc etc.. Dont ask me to explain why the first post is casual, I dont own the place. There is though, a lot of movement on the right side of the metro. However, in all honesty, I think it would cost less for the company in full time wages.
The cause of the accident is I guess yet to be released. I am told that either a FCU or computor failure to an over fuel situation has something to do with it.
Cheers!

[YBRM]

If I stayed up shagging all night and rocked up to work in a fatigued state, is this considered the same thing ? And what if I was paid for it to boot.........should I consider this duty and tell my employer so they can cancel me off an early flight ???

I think there is a large grey area in this .........could be one for the legal fraternity.

Note..... if I could get paid for doing the deed, I think I'd hang up the wings and eppaulettes next to my footy boots !!! :)

[Apollo 4]

Dale

Qoute:
"And since the CAO's do not require it to be recorded other than during the time spent in the service of the (flying) employer, outside work is not relevant as far as recording it goes".

Sorry mate my copy of the CAO's doesn't have the word "flying" in it the way yours does..... or did you just amend the CAO's??

Look up the word Employment in the dictionary or maybe ring the tax office for their definition either way Employment = gainfully employed (paid). CAO 48 says Employment and I am mystified where you get "flying out of that.

The issue here is that there is no incentive for a casual pilot to declare sickness, fatigue or impairment as to do so will result in no phone call, no flight and no cash....

The Employer is failing totally by not assessing the Pilot for the existance or possibillity of fatigue or illness.

Just cut the Crap, the Skippers F/o's should be given FULL TIME employment and the casual 2 day (part time pilots) scheme canned.



:yuk:

[Stick Pusher]

Do I start to get started or do I...?

Buggar it, a couple of bottles of plonk should get me cranking!

Grandfarther port. yes you are corresct, it wold be cheaper, but the power or powers that be wish to abuse the system and rather than pay full-time wages and holidays etc, they would rather have a large f/o base and hardly work them and skim some money off them for their endorsements and keeps them dangling for a full time spot and promises of riches beyond their wildest dreams!

Oh and then I guess they still want you to bond you again to the hilt with a C-441 or EMB-120 endt!

I have a lot of good friends still there but the whole system is so....ed!!! and the old school know it

Anyway I digress again. if someone wants to start another post about the conditions, treatment bring it on...

The aircraft are some of the highest time C-441 in the world, sure they are cheap airfame wise because they are so old, but the line between maintaining them to a high standard which the FIFA faternity should be expecting and the regs require (and my good self) starts to tip the scales the other way to a point where safetly, standards and quality put a dint on the wallet and the upgrade to a more modern aircraft should be made. that may mean that quoting at such rock botttom prices prices will have to come up in order to obtain the appropriate new or newer aircraft. it has to happen some day... that is the life cycle of an aircraft ( as gaunty has pointed out).

Glad no one was hurt but I hope it is a wake up call for the company. It's a thin line that that company walks, I'm ammazed that they keep their contracts... I won't go into the other things that have gone past the wayside....

Don't get me wrong I Don't want the company to fall over, but I do want to see the bar raised to the level I know and you know it should be...


Cheers,

:D

[bitter balance]

Apollo 4, I don't believe your definition of duty is correct. I have never seen third party employment defined as duty before. Indeed it is very murky legal waters for an employer to prevent an employee from gaining additional employment. Just ask the NSW Police Service about their attempt to prevent officers from moonlighting as security etc If someone is fatigued from working too hard in a third party job then they should not sign on for duty. I fail to see how the company can be held responsible for the employee being fatigued from a job they can't prevent them from doing!

[Dan Kelly]

1.4 Notwithstanding anything contained in these Orders, a flight crew member shall not fly, and an operator shall not require that person to fly if either the flight crew member is suffering from, or, considering the circumstances of the particular flight to be undertaken, is likely to suffer from fatigue or illness which may affect judgement or performance to the extent that safety may be impaired.


Let me now bold the words of this section of the order which have a very real bearing on the arguments in this thread with respect to work other than flying for a particular employer.

1.4 Notwithstanding anything contained in these Orders, a flight crew member shall not fly, and an operator shall not require that person to fly if either the flight crew member is suffering from, or, considering the circumstances of the particular flight to be undertaken, is likely to suffer from fatigue or illness which may affect judgement or performance to the extent that safety may be impaired.



I venture to suggest that should an accident ensue and then be subsequently investigated or prosecuted, the ATSB will take a detailed account of one's movements and rest in the period leading up to the accident.

When subsequently in the witness box, one will be closely questioned about one's decisioin to work 10hrs at Woolies/KFC/McChuck's/etc. and then go flying for a 10 hour duty period disregarding the requirements of para 1.4 above.

Saying that one had to accept the flight or miss out on flying, won't cut the mustard with the legal eagles! And you can bet that the employer will trot out a statement in the Ops Manual requiring pilots not to fly when fatigued.

The end result?

You are left carrying the can! :yuk:

[Dale Harris]

Thank you gents....... You make my point for me.

[the wizard of auz]

Nothing like self provided evidence....... makes for a less tiring day and thus easier when one shows up for the tazzie flights. :D :p how the hell are ya cobb? aint heard from ya for yonks.

[Dale Harris]

I am well fella, hope you are too mate. Look forward to catching up, whenever that can be!!!!!!!

[kickstart]

FCU sheared off. Most damage forward of the avionics bay bulkhead, 2 small holes behind this bulkhead re:pressurized section of fuselage probably from the nose gear folding back, engines u/s, props u/s.

Tiz what I've heard, may not be gospel.

[SmallGlassofPort]

Apollo, I understand where you are coming from. It may not be good enough for me to say 'well we all had to go through it' yet that is predominately the case.... unless we started OS. The best case would be for Aus Aviation to clean up and provide us all with a living. Worst case... I guess it could get a little worse.(I mean at least I'm still flying!).
In the end, I strongly believe that people are employed for a job which is expected to be completed. If they cannot afford the time or finance it should not be accepted. Maybe employers will then get the idea. I however will and do not advocate things such as the following.
Employer offers employee a job for % dollers. Employee gets paid % dollers for two years prior to joining a regional. A year or so after joining, employee sues former employer for # dollers underpay of award! Hey man you accepted the job! Where is your argument? Were you intoxicated? When pilots do that, I feel they lower themselves even further than the employer... and that stays with them forever.
That said, I still think I'm worth more money!!

Dale, Your thoughts are interesting. I'm not a boffin so can someone please help me in this. I am of the understanding that if you are operating under more than one flight and duty time ruling the most restrictive will then become the ruling? Therefore, if operating, ie, at Jandakot casually whilst at the same time working casually at Skippers, you would have to combine the both to meet whichever companies most restrictive rule? Of course skippers may not need to know this, as its your own 'private time' as long as you meet flight and duties, and arrive at work I guess. Obvoiusly, if out of aviation, no problem.

Its quite a while since I read the CAO's. Can someone help? Am I drunkedly way off the mark? Its very possible!!

[gaunty]

Dan Kelly

That's about the way I see it.

It's fairly typical of the polyanna and just straight BS that gets passed around at this level of operation, that working a 10 hour shift at Maccas to pay for the rent and food and going flying afterwards to get the hours is either legal or OK.

Why bother writing Para 1.4 otherwise.

If Skippers, Schmikkers or Bill Bloggs Acme We Aint Fancy But We're Cheap Aviation want to play it that way, then they will one day reap the consequences.

Part time FO's or any type of pilot is just not on.

It is not a question of whether they can afford to have full time FO's, it is question of them not charging enough to be able to do so.

To say that they can't afford it because they have to be competitive is a circular argument, simply doesn't play and will have me back in the Coroners court saying why.

Their clients will not thank them for it either.

It is a mystery to me that the miners who use FIFO services have MUCH higher safety standards and "Duty of Care" protocols than are required by most of the organisations that provide aviation services to them, yet think that it is actually the other way around.:rolleyes:

I am further surprised that the evidence that I led in the Central Air case, subsequently recommended by the coroner, an as yet unactioned recommendation by the ATSB and really is just plain old fashioned "Duty of Care" is apparently still not understood by the miners who use and those who provide FIFO services.

Now I'll see how long it takes for someone to tell me that the so called "Ghost flight" doesn't have anything to do with the part time FO bit.

[Apollo 4]

Small Glass

Skippers have a large pool of F/O’s so that there is a large redundancy factor along with the control over who flys. Lets face it if you are struggling on 2 days a week then you are NEVER going to say no to that phone call the night before… are you !

So lets look at the FATIGUE issue, a young aspiring but casual F/O is working at Bills Burger Barn to make ends meet. The phone call comes at 1800 hrs local advising him that he has a flight RHS in the metro at 0700 hrs the following morning. “Hey Jack count me in see you at 0600 hrs”.

Putting the phone down the F/O goes to the shower and gets changed ready for the part time job and takes off to Bills to make burgers. He sees nothing wrong with that and works until 2400 hrs, before knocking off and going home to sleep.

The F/O gets up at 0500 hrs arrives at the Skippers crew room at 0600 hrs and finally blasts off at 0705 hrs for a 4 hour return trip. Upon completion of the tour the F/O goes home and arrives at 1300 hrs, decides to get a quick kip before going back to Bills again. At 1700 hours the phone rings again (2 days in a row, unbelievable) advising him that he has another flight rhs in the metro at 0600 hrs, “Hey Jack count me in see you at 0500 hrs”.

Putting the phone down the F/O goes to the shower and gets changed ready for the part time job and takes off to Bills to make burgers. He sees nothing wrong with that and works until 2400 hrs, before knocking off and going home to sleep.

At 0400 hrs the F/O gets up and arrives at the Skippers crew room at 0500 hrs and finally blasts off at 0615 hrs…….

THIS CREW MEMBER IS NOW WELL AND TRULY FATIGUED, his judgement and reflexes are the same as if his blood alcohol level was 0.05%, he is not allowed to legally drive a car but here he is flying an aircraft full of mine workers.

BEFORE anyone jumps up and says, “This wouldn’t happen etc”, this is an actual account of what is happening and has happened and there is absolutely no incentive whatsoever for the F/O to answer the phone by saying, “I can’t fly tomorrow because I will only have had 4 hours sleep”.

So by having so many F/O’s on casual wages begging for flights, Skippers is increasing the risks of an accident or incident occurring. The only Safe, Responsible, and ethical course is to;

1. reduce the number of casual F/O’s
2. give full time employment to these crew and restrict extra employment
3. ensure each F/O receives at least 4 days work each week

At any stage should an emergency occur and persons are hurt or killed the F/O’s actions during the previous 24 hour period are definitely going to be looked at and this is where the law suits begin. You will not be covered by an indemnity unless you can prove that your actions were lawful. A bit hard to do this when the definition of “rest period” stipulates employment full stop.

The Skippers management will say we didn’t know he was doing that and quote the op’s manual, this is where you will see management leave you standing because if they agree with casa that you have broken any condition/section of CAO’s then the indemnity is invalid and can no longer be a claim against the company.

[Stick Pusher]

i Agree with your 3 points Apollo 4. Told them that years ago. They did have Full time F?O's on the metro and a very small number of casuals. But for some reason as the full-time F/O moved on or got promoted, they didn't replace them. It was rumoured to be because they didn't want to pay holidays etc? But as I said before all the captains are full-time on this 2 crew aircraft, why aren't the F/O's? It's just the typical way Skippers is managed... exploit the pilots. There is also no reason that they could not have a roster because 95% of their flying is basically Schedulled charter, i.e Jundee flight in a M-23 goes every M-T-W-T-F at 0630 for arguments sake. They argue that things keep changing, upsize/downsize of a/c extra charters, breakdowns etc. But as I always said if they had the right crew numbers they could have people on reserve a have total coverage. The old pencil system for what 20 a/c and what 60 pilots is stone age stuff. They keep saying that its G/A charter, but if that is there mentality they'll never be able to step up to the plate if they ever tried RPT... It's up to all of you guys there to change their ways. I guess it's a matter of you pay for what you get if you know what I mean. Could easily get a system like Geneva to run the show, keep track of all F & D times etc and roster it so that they all have a life, and that if a second job is required, then you will know when you are flying or not and see when you can work so as not to fatigue ones self for either job. But as Gaunty mentioned, should pay their crews right, look after them. A professional organisation would. Geneva cost bucks, but the saving in the end are worth the outlay. I wouldn't think twice of buying it if I ran the show... I sure CASA would not look favourably at SA if they really knew this was happening and how they treat the crews

[slice]

I cannot believe that an operator as large as Skippers runs without a roster?!?!?!?!?! Even the shyster twits I worked for up north managed a roster (introduced after inumerable cockups with pilot duty). Even without any assisting software, it is not rocket science. As you say Stick pusher, a fair amount of mining charter in fact follows a pattern that can be allowed for. I don't know if Skippers have this complication, but we had pilots flying multiple types, however with a bit of thinking (ie model the problem), all the eventualities could be catered for. That is, no servicable aircraft was unable to be crewed on a given day, thus no ad hoc charter had to be turned away. Pilots knew what days they had off and this improved morale quite a bit. The owner/managers however couldn't understand how it worked and believed somehow that the pilots would work less!!! (same number of pilots as pre roster).

That Skippers apparently can't even attain that level of organisational competence seems strange. I mean with DHC8s and EMB120s along with M23s and C441s their maintenance scheduling would have to be fairly organised and efficient one would think or it would all come undone in a short space of time. :eek:

[onya]

One has to wonder how many drivers actually leave the eastern states of this country to go and work for this company. To be honest I don't know how they get people to work for them. Why would anyone work under these conditions. It's almost beyond comprehension...........and in the same sentence a collegue with considerable experience (C&T) worked for them a while back and reckons it was the best job he'd ever had. Totally organised, excellent systems in place and above all, a safety culture that most companies of this size would envy. Go figure, the grass may not be greener but it's certainly well trimmed. As far as the casual effos issue I think thats utter crap. Apollo 4's angle is very difficult to oppose. I hate to see this kind of exploitation of pilots. And as someone has already said, whilst they continue to accept the status quo nothing is going to change. My 5 cents worth........

Onya:cool:

[the wizard of auz]

Maybe its all to do with having to give an F/O a part time/casual position after they have spent the six or so grand on the endo's. After all, it is part of the income of the business.

[OpsNormal]

I've been following this thread, if only to see how sentiments don't really seem to change the further up the ladder one progresses in certain companies....

gaunty wrote:Now I'll see how long it takes for someone to tell me that the so called "Ghost flight" doesn't have anything to do with the part time FO bit.

The Kingair accident? I must admit to not being entirely sure where you are coming from o' learned one. A puzzled 4/J ;)

[SmallGlassofPort]

Apollo, I understand where you are coming from. Full time for those guys would make it easier. They would have a known income per week, sick leave etc etc.
The problem there is that they will probabily end up in the same situation anyway. Full time on M23 RHS (unless I'm wrong) is in the vicinity of 34K. I dont expect that much above the award would be payed (in comparison to the other skip postings). This known income therefore would equal or be slightly less than 3 casual days work.
With this in mind the effos will now be working 5 days a week and still possibly looking for the second barnicle bills job to cover bills, and even higher levels of fatigue.
On the point of the second job and the pilot left holding the ball after an accident/incident. I think YBRM has hit the nail on the head here. The effo is employed to complete a task, they have the choice to accept that task or not. Picture the following. I go out and party with friends all night long. I am responsible and do not drink. I do not get much sleep though and after four hours rest go flying. I stuff up during some emergency etc etc. In the end the company can wipe their hands of it as its my fault. What I do in my own time is up to me. It would be the same if I worked for barnicle all night.
Bear in mind that these guys are pretty lucky in that they are generally reasonably low time and do not stay in that position for long. My guess would be 18 months tops. Now you can call me old, ugly, jealous etc, but hey at their age and experience level I would have loved that sort of break in aviation. This is not to say I condone the conditions, I just dont think you can change it!

[YBRM]

Well said Small G of P !!
Folks, no one said you have to like

Well said Small G of P !!
Folks, no one said you have to like the system, the fact is that this is the current system in place, and you can either except that or don't bother to apply-this is the cold hard fact.

If you think how SA runs its business is wrong, then you haven't been in the industry for long or haven't seen much in your career. Let me put it to you this way, how often have you heard of pilots flying without pay just to get their hours up ? Is this not exploitation ? It's the way the industry has run for a long time and will continue to do so (unfortunately).

I agree GA is not the greatest industry to work in, but these are the conditions, and god knows I love to fly aircraft, so I'll accept the BS for what it is. If not, better think about a change of profession.;)

[Apollo 4]

Small Glass

You contradict yourself and are losing sight of the facts.

I will guarantee you that any effo at Skippers would accept immediately a position as full time employee. Why? Because they know that they would be infinitely better off and if they are on the equivalent of 3 days a week then life would be sweet. They are lucky to get 2 days.

At the moment an effo waits by the phone like a love sick puppy waiting for a love interest to ring. How degrading!!! Ring ring “hello”, “would you like to fly tomorrow”? “Oh yes please honey”! Thank you grovel grovel…

An effo can’t get a loan because he is casual; AN EFFO WILL RARELY DECLARE THAT HE IS UNFIT/FATIGUED FOR WORK UNLESS IT IS PATENTLY OBVIOUS, why? Because if he doesn’t fly he doesn’t get paid….If he doesn’t fly he gets no hours in the log book.

Skippers don’t even have the decency to publish a roster so that all the casuals can plan their lives at least a week ahead… SO MUCH FOR THE GREAT ORGANISATIONAL SKILLS… Crap! They are just control freaks.

As for working more days a week, every effo would give their left knacker to be able to fly every day in the words of another, in a place they want to be, to places they want to go and in an aircraft they love to fly….. The more hours in the log book the better, so that argument won’t wash.

SGOP
Quote: I do not get much sleep though and after four hours rest go flying. I stuff up during some emergency etc etc. In the end the company can wipe their hands of it as its my fault. What I do in my own time is up to me.

In deed what you do in your own time is your own business; however the minute you take a seat up the front end, your business is every passengers business. If you think that any passenger would condone a tired, fatigued, sick or infirmed crew member you are truly mistaken. Then again this sounds exactly like a product of the Skippers school of safety and risk assessment…. “Don’t know don’t care”.

You are correct nothing will change until management recognise the flaw in their casual approach to fatigue management and safety. Let’s hope it doesn’t take a fatality or a law suit..

YBRM

Quote: I agree GA is not the greatest industry to work in, but these are the conditions, and god knows I love to fly aircraft, so I'll accept the BS for what it is.

This is a sad indictment on your attitude to the casual crews you work with and the willingness to acknowledge that the system is buls sh1t and yet you have no balls to condemn it.

To be fair your handle is probably well known to the Skippers management and thus a little bit of a company loyalty may go a long way. Sad.
If you love to fly, why would any of the casual effos not want to fly 5 days a week for 34 k with paid sick leave, (for the times when they have only had 4 hours sleep) or 6 weeks paid holidays so you can take the Mrs away or heaven forbid apply to a bank for a loan to get a unit or a car etc???????

The issue is SAFETY the rules say don’t fly fatigued and don’t let any one fly when fatigued.. but who is going to make the decision??

The Casual Pilot will not, the management don’t want to know and CASA are flat out trying to get out of the office without looking for more work.

So who will make the decision ? Who will stop this lunacy? The client that is who!
If this thread was to be forwarded to all the Skippers clients in the mining game, I doubt any of them would be happy about the way the Fatigue Issue is being handled, I doubt that they would reckon that it fits in with their philosophy of fatigue anagement…

Maybe then management might at least post a roster for the casual effos to see what they are doing two weeks in advance and whether the flying is being shared out properly in advance.

Then again the mining companies might insist on FULL TIME employment…..
:eek: :D

[gaunty]

Apollo 4
Now at last we are getting there.

If this thread was to be forwarded to all the Skippers clients in the mining game, I doubt any of them would be happy about the way the Fatigue Issue is being handled, I doubt that they would reckon that it fits in with their philosophy of fatigue anagement…

Then again the mining companies might insist on FULL TIME employment


From a "Duty of Care" perspective they, the miners that is, do not have any other alternative.

Most miners have a higher and more rigorous safety standard and protocols than the aviation business.
The Mines Act, has more draconian penalties for failure than the aviation business.
The responsibilities in the Act extend equally from the janitor to the Chairman and make the CASA penalties look like a walk in the park.

OpsNormal

The PIC on this flight was "casual" i.e. not full time.
Recently endorsed and not experienced on the type or for that matter any high performance turboprop.
Yes he was a truly nice guy but IMHO that didn't help him or the pax when it really counted.
The aircraft was the either "oldest" of its type on the register, or if not, the other B200 belonging to the operator was.

A deliberate policy on the part of the operator to find the cheapest or lowest capital cost aircraft in a fallacious bid to expand the the profit potential or an even dumber attempt to reduce the "revenue rate" to an even more competitive low than before.

A "consultant", perhaps, advising the miner, that the organisation was "kosher", which in the context of the CASA regs, it, without reservation, was, with out him, the operator or the miner understanding what it really meant.

The miner believes that it has satisfied its "Duty of Care", and is entitled to believe so, in the context of the advice received and its perceived weight.

The CASA Regs and the background of the adviser support the advice, which, however, is fundamentally flawed.

Everything is actually "legal" according to black letter law.

However the decision is made in the absence of, and the lack of Regulatory requirement for the revelation of the "higher standard" mandated for "public transport".

Whilst the "legal nicety" of whether FIFO is or isn't "public transport on fixed schedules between fixed points" is covered the fact and the reality is, that it is.

Further the protection of the "transport category rules " required for the "carriage of the public.........etc" and necessarily more expensive is neatly avoided.

The miner gets it cheap, the local community as a result, misses out on an economic RPT in "transport category aircraft, and the miners staff get to be exposed to the lowest common denominator in aviation transport.

That's not what I understand as meeting the highest level of "Duty of Care " available to your staff.

This genie is now out of the bottle subsequent to the most recent Coroners findings.

It will be a brave miner and their supplier of aviation services who does not take notice of the probable consequences and do something positive about it.

Lest they have to try and explain to the next set of families, why the few extra dollars profit were more important than their loved ones lives.

A positive start would be for FOs to exercise the professional obligation to the privilege of their license and refuse to operate "part time", surviving by topping up your income at Maccas.

I gaurantee, you will be hung out to dry in the subsequent legal fracas. If you are lucky you will not survive the accident and not have to suffer the professional ignominy and severe financial pain.

The miners have the money if they are forced to cough it up, if they haven't then they haven't got a viable mine, unless you subscribe to theory that the workers should subsidise the operation by accepting a higher level of risk than is required by law for the rest of the population

The operators generally lack the skills to deliver the essential argument to the miner, it's sad that they still think that their business is simply about flying aircraft between point A and B.

[swh]

An incident happened, it was correctly handled, pax and crew safe, aircraft bent who cares.

The conquest is a good ship.

The conquest on one engine below 120 kts after takeoff is a handful FOR ANYONE INCLUDING A CESSNA TEST PILOT.

Skippers uses its staff the way the staff use the company, most of the staff are just using it as a stepping stone, everyone knows it.

Skippers check and training is far better in my view than many other operators operating similar equipment conducting charters, that is if the other operators have check and training at all.

By all accounts both crew had over 1000 hrs multi, 1000 hrs turbine, endorsed on type, current etc. The 441 should not be a problem then.

Dale Harris

I am not having a go at you, sorry if I am posting something you already know.

I understand that skippers operates under a standard industry exemption to CAO 48/48.1, not a fatigue management system (FMS).

A condition in the current 22 FMS CAO 48 exemptions that have been approved by CASA and currently being used by operators around the country is that no secondary employment is to be undertaken without the permission of the employer.

Its in their ops manuals, the pilot sign it off saying they will operate to that exemption.

SmallGlassofPort

You have to work under the rules for the AOC holder when you work for the AOC holder. The CAOs are not designed for a pilot working under multiple AOCs. CAO 48 "Section 48.1 shall take into account any flight and duty time performed in the course of private operations." also "Notwithstanding anything contained in these Orders, a flight crew member shall not fly...... is suffering from, or, considering the circumstances of the particular flight to
be undertaken, is likely to suffer from, fatigue or illness"

[Dale Harris]

SWH,
Understand, and certainly no offence taken. We operate under a standard Part 5 exemption to CAO 48, and have no such undertaking regarding outside employment, or work under any other AOC. We have a slightly different situation in terms of the requirements then. Interesting to note what you say about the signing/ops manual inclusion regarding outside work. Gives a completely different perspective regarding legality of the operation, doesn't it? If you have signed it, and the company must give permission, therefore the company has knowledge of the circumstances. In my own full time occupation, to undertake outside employment without informing/getting the approval of my employer is a potentially dismissable offence. My argument was not with the employment of casuals, which I do not necessarily support, rather the accountability for flying fatigued.

[gaunty]

swh

You're damn tooting right it is a good ship and yes on one engine below 120KTS is a handful for amnyone including a Cessna Test Pilot.

I know coz I used to sell em, new and used and have shared beers with said test pilots. It's a legend in its lifetime.

But they have passed their use by date in the FIFO industry along with the B200 and any other FAR23 type.

This part of the industry should have moved on to exclusively FAR25 types years ago.

There are some "transport" types already in use but it must become universal by regulation if the miners wont mandate it.

This will require some education of both the operators and FIFO users.

The big kids FIFO users, have been insisting on it for yonks.

[Apollo 4]

SWH

"Hi I'm a kitchen hand at big macs, I work 8 hours a day 5 days a week, I earn $380.00 gross and I keep the lot cause I am a selfish bug@r, thats my mate Horney over there he does the same at an up market establishment. The work is long and boring but the tips are good. On some weekdays we are Skippers effo's, ready and willing to service WA 24 hours a day 2 days a week (when the phone rings) and we never get tired or sick or fatigued or have holidays"...

What a great advert for Skippers Aviation..................the only company in WA involved in the transport of mine workers where it is accepted as perfectly ok to work as much as you like when you like and always be ready to fly..

STOP being tossers give the poor blokes a FULL TIME job, a future, some security and improve your risk management 10 fold by doing so.

Exemptions have got absolutely nothing to do with the issue, because like so many say, I can work at what ever I want and it doesn't count as duty......CRAP.

Pretty soon we will be seeing clapped out aircraft & crew to match.

Can anyone tell me why Skippers don't publish a roster for the casual effos? Can anyone tell me why Skippers don't employ the effos FULL TIME? Lets hear from Stan the man and the boys running the show!
:yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

[Icarus2001]

Why not install an auto-pilot and get rid of those expensive pilots? Let's face it. We are talking single pilot aircraft.

[OpsNormal]

Cheers gaunty, thank you for that. I am aquainted with the fact the B200 accident happened, but none of the background info in relation to it. Thanks once again.

Icarus2K+1 ( ;) ), The two pilot requirement is something some of the mining companies place on the a/c service providers to cover possible pilot incapacitation. Those companies involved in these types of ops are subject to many and regular audits by the client companies also.

As far as I know, this info is correct as was explained to me. :D

Regards,
OpsN.

[Justgetonwithit]

Can anyone tell me why Skippers don't publish a roster for the casual effos? Can anyone tell me why Skippers don't employ the effos FULL TIME?
Have a think about it guys - The only time you are casual at Skippers is when you first join, at the entry level position of a Metro FO.

If you are employed full time and either the company loses contracts or the company just decides they don't want you flying their aircraft any more then it's too hard to get rid of you. (in their eyes anyway.)

However, because you are casual you just never get a phone call again or, get a phone call telling you that you won't be getting any more work.

If you don't believe this then ask around and I'm sure you'll hear of a few stories where this has been the case.

Stan doesn't want to spend any money defending unfair dismissal cases so employs the new guys casually - if they don't work out then no worries - just don't call them! - gets around having to specify any probation period.

If they do work out then OK, when they move onto the next aircraft type the company knows the pilot is OK and have other casual metro pilots they can 'lose' if they lose any contracts so they put whoever is upgrading on full time.
Why not install an auto-pilot and get rid of those expensive pilots? Let's face it. We are talking single pilot aircraft.

I think you'll find that a lot of the FIFO contracts require two pilots. Consequently installing auto-pilots would make little difference to the company except increase the maintenance bill!

[Apollo 4]

Yeh now we are talking!

Get rid of the fatigued F/O and throw in an auto pilot, naa much cheaper to use the disposable effos, they never get tired or sick and only cost a couple of bucks a day.

Better to have a fully rested FULL TIME captain and a half knackered burger boy!!

Don't think you are entirely safe even if you get a FULL TIME job as Stan has ditched crew under the probation clause when converting from casual, don't believe me check out Skippers Aviation industrial disputes on the google. Yep Stan wins every time. Sadly when this sort of arrangement exists there are no winners only losers.

If only the mining companies knew what a farce the two crew arrangement at Skippers really is, .... The after working at Bill's all night the effo is almost incapacitated before he starts his shift.

Skippers Moto; she will be right mate, trust me.. I call you tonight.

:yuk: :rolleyes:

[dodgybrothers]

Any truth to a recent show cause issued by the same dudes that did the job on the AN 767s an easter or two ago?

The clock maybe ticking.......

[swh]

Apollo 4

I am in no way associated with skippers, never worked for them, never will.

Your comments are not relevent to the incident. They are important in terms of air safety, I would suggest a CAIR report if you in any way believe you or the pax are put at risk in any way

Venting your thoughts here does nothing to improve your situation.

Slippers clients will become aware of what is on pprune, it may cost your job, it will not improve air safety. A CAIR report will get a CASA and operator response.

[kimwest]

Yep, you have almost hit the nail on the head with regard to pilots providing details of their work hours. We have fatigue management in place, and there is a paragraph in the operations manual that says "may require a statutory declaration from the pilot confirming that --"we"-- are in possession of all the work hours. I believe that we have the right to ask whether or not a pilot has been working, but also, I don't believe that it is our business what they have been doing, or who they were doing it for.
Your comment "duty of care" sums it up.

[Sheep Guts]

Gaunty,
Totally agree the FAR23 issue has to be resolved. The Twin Otter is an example. Here I fly it as a Multi Crew Aircraft only and we cant fly it Single Pilot because our SOPS reflect so.Here all operations involve a segmented Climb departure with decision speeds etc.But then all our Crews evetually go onto a Dash-8 (UNLESS YOUR AN EXPAT).

With regards to this Occurence, and we still wont know.
What ever went wrong, they did their best. Well done to the crew. In a Runaway situation you dont have much time to abort let alone control the thing. For starters you get false sense ie. your feet will be different to what you think, more power from the runaway, gives the sense of a failure on the good side.

I flew King Airs for a U.S. Company, we were trained during our Ground School to deal with a runaway once you passed a certain speed and deal with it in the air. I told them for myself that it Stilldepended on how much runway and clearway was available. Infact we had 2 speeds one was close to VMCA 72kts the other was around rotation 95kts. The second speed was used for the Rollback (failure) and the first for the Runaway(Overspeed). Remembering our machines had PT6-20S which had sepearte fuel Toppping governors which were prone to failure hence they removed them after this model PT6. To kill a Runaway and Overspeed was to cut the fuel conditionlever and feather ASAP . Ofcousre I got no idea about Garrets though. Just my 2 cents worth.

[Apollo 4]

QUOTE:"Slippers clients will become aware of what is on pprune, it may cost your job, it will not improve air safety". (sic)

Well swh if you are not Skippers management then you think exactly like them.

This is exactly the type of threat and pressure the effos work under and it is abhorrent.

Rename the company Saddam Aviation.

How can the mining company becoming aware of the circumstance, insisting on FULL TIME employees who are well rested not fatigued and happy in their employment.. not improve safety? When the alternative is all night burger boys, gigalows, AME's from Jandakot and bell boys sitting half shagged up the front. GET REAL...

Stop the threats and get on with the real issues.

I have never worked for Skippers and am way past that stage in my career so I guess I never will. I am merely expressing what the casual effos are too scared to say for fear of not getting the phone call tonight. Going to work feeling torn between the thought of licking ar$e to stay in and maintaining dignity by not kissing ar$e is a source of great stress. STRESS = FATIGUE.

Skippers is a great place to work but only if you are FULL TIME, so why not make Skippers a great place for all the employees?

I sinserely hope that I bump into some of the old mining bosses I used to fly around, because I won't be backward in coming forward, trust me. And being where I am my job is safe as houses.

[topend3]

so, Apollo 4 what is it exactly that you do, if you are way past the "Skippers" stage of your career, then who are you working for? I wouldn't surprised if it really is Macca's, you make about as much sense as a 14 yearold kitchenhand flipping burgers...:p :p

[Apollo 4]

topend

With an informed post like that I guess you will be including it in your application for an effo possy with Skippers, god knows management would love crew of your intelligence to continue the casual debarcle..

I'm way too far past waiting by a phone to find out if I am flying tomorrow, ya clown... crawl back in your tomohawk!



:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Woomera]

Well this thread is past the magic ton, so it's closed.

Feel free to start again.