Rumour: Sunstate Engineers suspended over aircraft sabotage?
SB:
How did they comply you ask?
Cynically, you could argue that they do, as the gap may stop bullets (big ones anyway... grenade shrapnel is more problematic... ) and it doesn't require a forceable entry to use a popsicle stick to slide a bolt out of the way... therefore is complies with the legal definition but not the intent. (now where have I heard that before?). CASA, shame on you. Engineers, there are still places in the world that value your abilities and integrity.
In relation to the overall pathology of management, it appears that Sunstate has taken some pointers from Qantas Management of old, the one that raises the following discussion between "the departed" and their lawyers...
"Hi, I am interested in information on ____'s, can you help me?"
"Worked for Qantas did you?".
Used to be a similar relationship with one particular company and Stop Orders...
4.68
Other security measures Part 4 On-board security Division 4.4
Regulation 4.68
Additional requirements for security of flight crew compartment — aircraft with seating capacity 30 or more
This regulation applies in relation to an aircraft operated for the purposes of a regular public transport operation or an open charter operation (in each case, whether a domestic or an international air service).
The operator of an aircraft that has a certificated maximum passenger seating capacity of 30 to 59 must not operate the aircraft unless the aircraft is equipped with a cockpit door that is:
(a) designed to resist forcible intrusion by unauthorised persons; and
(b) capable of withstanding impacts of at least 300 joules at critical locations; and
(c) capable of withstanding at least 1113 newtons constant tensile load on the knob or handle; and
(d) designed to resist penetration by small arms fire and fragementation devices to a level equivalent to level IIIa of the United States National Institute of Justice Standard (NIJ) 0101.04 Revision A, as in force on 15 January 2002.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
The operator of an aircraft that has a certificated maximum passenger seating capacity of 60 or more must not operate the aircraft unless the aircraft is equipped with a cockpit door that complies with section 13.2.2 of Annex 6, Operation of Aircraft, to the Chicago Convention, as in force on 28 November 2002.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
Note The section is as follows:
‘13.2.2 From 1 November 2003, all passenger-carrying aeroplanes of a maximum certificated take-off mass in excess of 45 500 kg or with a passenger seating capacity greater than 60 shall be equipped with an approved flight crew compartment door that is designed to resist penetration by small-arms fire and grenade shrapnel, and to resist forcible intrusions by unauthorized persons. This door shall be capable of being locked and unlocked from either pilot’s station.’.
Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 179
Other security measures Part 4 On-board security Division 4.4
Regulation 4.68
Additional requirements for security of flight crew compartment — aircraft with seating capacity 30 or more
This regulation applies in relation to an aircraft operated for the purposes of a regular public transport operation or an open charter operation (in each case, whether a domestic or an international air service).
The operator of an aircraft that has a certificated maximum passenger seating capacity of 30 to 59 must not operate the aircraft unless the aircraft is equipped with a cockpit door that is:
(a) designed to resist forcible intrusion by unauthorised persons; and
(b) capable of withstanding impacts of at least 300 joules at critical locations; and
(c) capable of withstanding at least 1113 newtons constant tensile load on the knob or handle; and
(d) designed to resist penetration by small arms fire and fragementation devices to a level equivalent to level IIIa of the United States National Institute of Justice Standard (NIJ) 0101.04 Revision A, as in force on 15 January 2002.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
The operator of an aircraft that has a certificated maximum passenger seating capacity of 60 or more must not operate the aircraft unless the aircraft is equipped with a cockpit door that complies with section 13.2.2 of Annex 6, Operation of Aircraft, to the Chicago Convention, as in force on 28 November 2002.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
Note The section is as follows:
‘13.2.2 From 1 November 2003, all passenger-carrying aeroplanes of a maximum certificated take-off mass in excess of 45 500 kg or with a passenger seating capacity greater than 60 shall be equipped with an approved flight crew compartment door that is designed to resist penetration by small-arms fire and grenade shrapnel, and to resist forcible intrusions by unauthorized persons. This door shall be capable of being locked and unlocked from either pilot’s station.’.
Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 179
How did they comply you ask?
Cynically, you could argue that they do, as the gap may stop bullets (big ones anyway... grenade shrapnel is more problematic... ) and it doesn't require a forceable entry to use a popsicle stick to slide a bolt out of the way... therefore is complies with the legal definition but not the intent. (now where have I heard that before?). CASA, shame on you. Engineers, there are still places in the world that value your abilities and integrity.
In relation to the overall pathology of management, it appears that Sunstate has taken some pointers from Qantas Management of old, the one that raises the following discussion between "the departed" and their lawyers...
"Hi, I am interested in information on ____'s, can you help me?"
"Worked for Qantas did you?".
Used to be a similar relationship with one particular company and Stop Orders...
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for your info all,
I was at a meeting with Qantaslink management yesterday and a copy of this thread was put on the table by them. They essentially asked if I was threatening them with my previous post. I let them know that I was and that the fallout should they take any action against our 6 would be too much for them to cope with.
cheers
I was at a meeting with Qantaslink management yesterday and a copy of this thread was put on the table by them. They essentially asked if I was threatening them with my previous post. I let them know that I was and that the fallout should they take any action against our 6 would be too much for them to cope with.
cheers
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's in the hands of the Federal Court as we speak.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will be interesting to see if the Captains quoted in the letter from QantasLink management will be able to sign a Statutory Declaration backing up these claims,and if push comes to shove, will the Captains be able to front up in a court with hand on heart?
And that is assuming that the Captain who shows up, is the 'said' Captain whose name appears in the Techlog or any other document from that service. I am sure a roster or some other officially signed document from that service will clarify that all is correct and above board.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that is assuming that the Captain who shows up, is the 'said' Captain whose name appears in the Techlog or any other document from that service. I am sure a roster or some other officially signed document from that service will clarify that all is correct and above board.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely disgraceful, the Qantas Group's tactics.
But are we surprised? No way, Clifford and his henchmen want to bring the unions to their knees. Staff engagement, what a ploy.
Long live the legacy. Arise the Army.
But are we surprised? No way, Clifford and his henchmen want to bring the unions to their knees. Staff engagement, what a ploy.
Long live the legacy. Arise the Army.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the info of non ALAEA members reading this thread. Qantaslink have commenced docking LAME wages under the banner of unlawful action (at 4 hours pay each time) for ridiculous things such as -
http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/700/yepqg.jpg
A total of around 100 dockings were fabricated by the Qantas law firm with the LAMEs now being docked up to 28 hours pay each.
- starting work at 0515 but didn't attend aircraft until 0525 (docked 4 hours)
- aircraft check plus any rectification was estimated to take x hours but it took twice as long (docked 4 hours even if you weren't working the aircraft).
- an aircraft was not fixed by midnight and you didn't call the manager (docked 4 hours).
http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/700/yepqg.jpg
A total of around 100 dockings were fabricated by the Qantas law firm with the LAMEs now being docked up to 28 hours pay each.
- starting work at 0515 but didn't attend aircraft until 0525 (docked 4 hours)
- aircraft check plus any rectification was estimated to take x hours but it took twice as long (docked 4 hours even if you weren't working the aircraft).
- an aircraft was not fixed by midnight and you didn't call the manager (docked 4 hours).
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not legal or moral. Qantas are well aware though that it would take 6 months at least to put it through the court rooms before the blokes could recover their money. I wrote to Alan about a month ago and sought his intervention to prevent a minor dispute getting nasty. He wrote back and basically said it was in the hands of IR. In other words, Alan is aware of this crap, has been given other options and endorses it continuing. You can read more on our website if interested -
All Members-Notice 046 ? Sunstate Fighting Fund
cheers
Steve P
All Members-Notice 046 ? Sunstate Fighting Fund
cheers
Steve P
There is a tribe of lawyers who specialise in this sort of bastardry in a few of the big law firms. They make it into an art form. They will harass an individual or group of employees way past any limits of humanity, law and reason as long as they are paid.
You should also be aware that just because Qantas is doing something with the advice of a law firm does not necessarily make it "legal". It may require a court to decide legality.
The major problem with using such firms, from a management perspective, is that they need to be kept on a very short leash or they can do permanent damage to employee / employer relationships.
Qantas should think long and hard about what they are doing before they cause permanent damage, if they haven't already.
By way of example, I was once asked by the Board of a certain company to inflict a new employment contract, written by a well known legal wolf pack, on some Seventy employees working the division I was running.
This little gem contained draconian provisions one of which was to the effect that if the company had to go to court to enforce the agreement with the employee, the employee would pay all the companys legal costs! The real kicker was that the employee agreed that they would never go to court to enforce the agreement against the company!
I took one look and sent a copy to a good legal friend who practiced in such areas. He checked with a few more legal eagles. The advice I received was that the agreement was so biased against the employee that it was unenforceable and that any judge shown it would have gone apoplectic especially regarding the latter clause I quoted.
I went back to the Directors and told them "If you want to strengthen this agreement, water it down."
You should also be aware that just because Qantas is doing something with the advice of a law firm does not necessarily make it "legal". It may require a court to decide legality.
The major problem with using such firms, from a management perspective, is that they need to be kept on a very short leash or they can do permanent damage to employee / employer relationships.
Qantas should think long and hard about what they are doing before they cause permanent damage, if they haven't already.
By way of example, I was once asked by the Board of a certain company to inflict a new employment contract, written by a well known legal wolf pack, on some Seventy employees working the division I was running.
This little gem contained draconian provisions one of which was to the effect that if the company had to go to court to enforce the agreement with the employee, the employee would pay all the companys legal costs! The real kicker was that the employee agreed that they would never go to court to enforce the agreement against the company!
I took one look and sent a copy to a good legal friend who practiced in such areas. He checked with a few more legal eagles. The advice I received was that the agreement was so biased against the employee that it was unenforceable and that any judge shown it would have gone apoplectic especially regarding the latter clause I quoted.
I went back to the Directors and told them "If you want to strengthen this agreement, water it down."
Last edited by Sunfish; 23rd Nov 2010 at 17:10.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the info of non ALAEA members reading this thread. Qantaslink have commenced docking LAME wages under the banner of unlawful action (at 4 hours pay each time) for ridiculous things such as -
starting work at 0515 but didn't attend aircraft until 0525 (docked 4 hours)
aircraft check plus any rectification was estimated to take x hours but it took twice as long (docked 4 hours even if you weren't working the aircraft).
an aircraft was not fixed by midnight and you didn't call the manager (docked 4 hours).
And then there was this one. I don't think any tech crew would be stupid enough to report it to management even if it was said. It wasn't but lets not let the truth get in the way of an opportunity to take money off a valued employee - (Fyi tyre was down to canvas)
http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/700/yepqg.jpg
A total of around 100 dockings were fabricated by the Qantas law firm with the LAMEs now being docked up to 28 hours pay each.
starting work at 0515 but didn't attend aircraft until 0525 (docked 4 hours)
aircraft check plus any rectification was estimated to take x hours but it took twice as long (docked 4 hours even if you weren't working the aircraft).
an aircraft was not fixed by midnight and you didn't call the manager (docked 4 hours).
And then there was this one. I don't think any tech crew would be stupid enough to report it to management even if it was said. It wasn't but lets not let the truth get in the way of an opportunity to take money off a valued employee - (Fyi tyre was down to canvas)
http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/700/yepqg.jpg
A total of around 100 dockings were fabricated by the Qantas law firm with the LAMEs now being docked up to 28 hours pay each.
ridiculous.How on Earth can any Company, let alone our National Carrier, get away with such actions.
Although I have now retired our Family often still fly and always with Qantas, something we will have to reconsider in view of this COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE AND UN AUSTRALIAN behaviour.
This has ramifications for EVERY person working under an award in Australia. I certainly hope this IS being taken to court to get the money back and the people responsible dealt with accordingly.
I just cant believe this is happening in Australia and the company is getting away with it.
I just cant believe this is happening in Australia and the company is getting away with it.
And you are all still working for this mob?
I know, easier said than done ... but there eventually comes a time when enough is enough ... I know I have been faced with that decision in the past ... and have made it ...
I know, easier said than done ... but there eventually comes a time when enough is enough ... I know I have been faced with that decision in the past ... and have made it ...
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the Qantaslink Engineering doesn't come under Chris N's portfolio. From memory he is EGM Engineering for Qantas Airways.
The ones above him are behind this crap and groups IR team.
Guys I have had numerous private messages from those wishing to contribute to assist these good LAMEs. I will post banking details once the account is ready. ALAEA members should only donate through the appointed Reps and Co-ordinators.
cheers
Steve
The ones above him are behind this crap and groups IR team.
Guys I have had numerous private messages from those wishing to contribute to assist these good LAMEs. I will post banking details once the account is ready. ALAEA members should only donate through the appointed Reps and Co-ordinators.
cheers
Steve