Merged: Tiger Tales

[Trevor the lover]

hey Cactus - chill out ya zipper.


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


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


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


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

[Cactusjack]

Socksfirst

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

Also goes by the nickname 'Bud Holland' (a little googling and you wil understand )

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

[Kharon]

# 1603 the devils phone number?.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway - Ramble over. Curse this curiosity bump.

Selah...

[waren9]

oeb are you the pic in question?

[Cactusjack]

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

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

[Servo]

Safety, 'nuff said.

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

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

[Cactusjack]

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

[tipsy2]

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

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

[Kharon]

Oil and water.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There - Sunday ramble – complete....

[FYSTI]

Originally Posted by Kharon

regulator paranoia around 'liability' and abrogation of responsibility

Kharon, this whole situation reminds me of the second of Celine's Laws, first articulated by Robert Anton Wilson.

Celine's Second Law:
Accurate communication is possible only in a non-punishing situation.

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

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

[Cactusjack]

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

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

[TWOTBAGS]

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

Nail on the head Kharon.

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

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

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

So much for safety.

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

How safe is that?

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

[Watchdog]

Cactus,

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

What LCC engages in such practices?

[Cactusjack]

What LCC engages in such practices?

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

[Ollie Onion]

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

[Cactusjack]

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

[waren9]

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

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

[Icarus2001]

need for a safe and stress less work environment.

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

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

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

[Ollie Onion]

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

[Snakecharma]

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

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

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

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

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