Good for you C.A.S.A
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it true that Tiger pilots are paid a relatively low base rate which is then topped up by an hourly stick rate? If so, do you know if they're being paid the base or what they would ordinarily earn?
CAP's - $122,120 plus $79.60 Per hour flight pay
FO's - $81,800 plus $39.25 Per hour flight pay
FO's - $81,800 plus $39.25 Per hour flight pay
Dear CASA,
A very big thank you for saving the lives of 130 odd pax and the anguish of the the associated 1500 families and friends on the inevitable Tiger tragedy that was in the offing.
Heads-up to Buchanan who thinks that in-experienced pilots are better than experienced pilots.
Perhaps an audit and review of "authorized persons" involved with airline AOCs might be next?
A very big thank you for saving the lives of 130 odd pax and the anguish of the the associated 1500 families and friends on the inevitable Tiger tragedy that was in the offing.
Heads-up to Buchanan who thinks that in-experienced pilots are better than experienced pilots.
Perhaps an audit and review of "authorized persons" involved with airline AOCs might be next?
Guest
Posts: n/a
It certainly looks like Tiger have been struggling to meet their regulatory obligations for a long time. Were concerns raised when CASA was assessing their initial application for the AOC in 2007. To get to this stage is very serious and as FlexibleResponse suggests was perhaps the last cheese before the accident. Clearly systems and processes have failed that should have ensured the problems were picked up and corrected far earlier. I would like to see Tiger meet the standards and return to flying.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: U K
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this the same CASA that in 2009 was found not to meet western world standards by ICAO.
ICAO audit reveals Australia’s third world skies | Crikey
Sounds like you have a good old fashioned quality checked and not a quality assured system down in Oz.
The pot calling the kettle black?
Not sure what sort of quality system stops a particular crew on any day descending below MSA when inappropriate though. Both pilots agreed it/allowed it. seems fairly basic PPL/IR stuff to me, don't really see what these incidents have to do with an individual airline or its nation of ownership. Maybe the airline could blame the Safety Regulator who issued the crew their instrument ratings?
CASA gave Tiger it's Australian AOC so it must have been up to Australian standards ar some point surely? Is the report out? Do we know the facts. I descend below MSA everyday I fly, shock horror!!! Done it at night too - lots, and even a visual contact approach at night!!!! Night circuits below MSA even!!! I always avoid the school and the hospital though.
I hope CASA have got it right, could be expensive for the tax-payers down under if not.
Cleve
ICAO audit reveals Australia’s third world skies | Crikey
Sounds like you have a good old fashioned quality checked and not a quality assured system down in Oz.
The pot calling the kettle black?
Not sure what sort of quality system stops a particular crew on any day descending below MSA when inappropriate though. Both pilots agreed it/allowed it. seems fairly basic PPL/IR stuff to me, don't really see what these incidents have to do with an individual airline or its nation of ownership. Maybe the airline could blame the Safety Regulator who issued the crew their instrument ratings?
CASA gave Tiger it's Australian AOC so it must have been up to Australian standards ar some point surely? Is the report out? Do we know the facts. I descend below MSA everyday I fly, shock horror!!! Done it at night too - lots, and even a visual contact approach at night!!!! Night circuits below MSA even!!! I always avoid the school and the hospital though.
I hope CASA have got it right, could be expensive for the tax-payers down under if not.
Cleve
Is this the same CASA that in 2009 was found not to meet western world standards by ICAO.
Under what process does ICAO do this Major? And what are the western-world standrards that you're referring to?
That aside, like you, I hope CASA have got this one right. Maybe when CASA finishes its look at Tiger it can then move on and take a bl00dy good look through Jet*?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wanaka
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is BS regarding Ansett. The significant anomalies were a few placards missing. There were some cracks that CASA decided were a compulsory immediate fix when Boeing still hasn't agreed with that. Boeing allows the fix at the next major inspection.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He/she's right in that CASA got their butts kicked in their last ICAO audit for not having a decent systems culture. That's one of the reasons we've all heard so much about safety management systems recently.
'Not meeting Western standards' is drawing a long bow, because other Western civil aviation authorities have been criticised in their audits as well. Nor does he/she take into account the fact that this happened two years ago and CASA have been working on improvements ever since. ICAO audits are available on line and some of the African/South American ones make for scary reading. CASA isn't like that and not even ICAO were silly enough to suggest that they were.
This is probably the key difference between organizations like Tiger and others. CASA were told to shape up and they did. Tiger was told to shape up and didn't, so guess what happened. The ICAO result back in 09 also may have something to do with CASA's freakout about Tiger's lack of sms and may be why they've taken it so seriously.
As for losing tax payer money, as a number of posters on here have found to their detriment, it's extremely difficult to sue an Australian Government department for loss of income / spoiling your day; they all have numerous escape clauses written into their legislation.
'Not meeting Western standards' is drawing a long bow, because other Western civil aviation authorities have been criticised in their audits as well. Nor does he/she take into account the fact that this happened two years ago and CASA have been working on improvements ever since. ICAO audits are available on line and some of the African/South American ones make for scary reading. CASA isn't like that and not even ICAO were silly enough to suggest that they were.
This is probably the key difference between organizations like Tiger and others. CASA were told to shape up and they did. Tiger was told to shape up and didn't, so guess what happened. The ICAO result back in 09 also may have something to do with CASA's freakout about Tiger's lack of sms and may be why they've taken it so seriously.
As for losing tax payer money, as a number of posters on here have found to their detriment, it's extremely difficult to sue an Australian Government department for loss of income / spoiling your day; they all have numerous escape clauses written into their legislation.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tiger will probably be remembered with Ansett and Compass as examples of what happens when we have a regulator who if given the choice of addressing a problem in a helpful or an unhelpful manner will always take the latter course.
And tell me the Compass demise was not political.
And tell me the Compass demise was not political.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: oz
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If CASA are proved to be wrong or heavy handed in the way they have dealt with Tiger or with any other operator they can be and should be brought into line. The system should be fair and just and not fair c-n=ts and just pr*c+s. govt organisations over the years have been found not to be of a standard expected and have been brought in line, CASA is no exception. Two examples of this Tax office (ask Hoges), & police....that’s why we have a judicial system. Again we the tax payer pay for it. I would think easier targets like QF with their engineering problems and other pilot issues would be a good start. They seem to carry the majority of the travelling public. How about J* with their issues from go around to mobile phone texts on final approach and the issues brought up in the senate enquire, not to push the issue but VB has there bag of problems as well. Let’s not get into the tall poppy syndrome as it could be you next and people won’t be as sympathetic to your needs. The law can be a
wonderful thing...people make a stack of $ from it.
wonderful thing...people make a stack of $ from it.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 53
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
****, Worral, should we aim to meet the "high" standards of the two SA's, or go a little higher perhaps?
To claim it's of no real consequence when you say it's for the same reason that Tiger is grounded, lack of or inability to manage its SMS.
To claim it's of no real consequence when you say it's for the same reason that Tiger is grounded, lack of or inability to manage its SMS.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: U K
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Worral,
ICAO standards are the standards decided on by the Chicago Convention not the Shanghai Convention, the Jakarta Convention or the Wagga Wagga Convention, i.e the Western World got together after WW2 to start to define standards.
Yes some are not compliant but that does not excuse the others.
So CASA got time to comply sort themselves out and were not 'grounded' i.e. Australian carriers banned from international airspace in the mean time. The rest of the world reading the ICAO audit might have been justified in calling for such an immediate ban - eg Indonesia.
SIUYA
There is a big wide world out there. If you want international air travel you comply with ICAO standards, or file your differences for approval. You get audited, if you don't meet the standards then other countries can refuse to accept your aircraft in their airspace. Indonesia by EU etc.
Cleve
ICAO standards are the standards decided on by the Chicago Convention not the Shanghai Convention, the Jakarta Convention or the Wagga Wagga Convention, i.e the Western World got together after WW2 to start to define standards.
Yes some are not compliant but that does not excuse the others.
So CASA got time to comply sort themselves out and were not 'grounded' i.e. Australian carriers banned from international airspace in the mean time. The rest of the world reading the ICAO audit might have been justified in calling for such an immediate ban - eg Indonesia.
SIUYA
There is a big wide world out there. If you want international air travel you comply with ICAO standards, or file your differences for approval. You get audited, if you don't meet the standards then other countries can refuse to accept your aircraft in their airspace. Indonesia by EU etc.
Cleve
Major...
The preamble to the Chicago Convention made no reference to 'western' (or indeed, eastern, northern or southern) standards. Have you read the Convention?
Your inference that the Chicago Convention is a set of western standards seems about as far fetched as trying to imply that any trade agreement reached as a result of the Doha Round is an Arabic agreement.
Wrong!
A State doesn't file its differences for approval. It files its differences with ICAO to notify ICAO that it (the State):
The preamble to the Chicago Convention made no reference to 'western' (or indeed, eastern, northern or southern) standards. Have you read the Convention?
Your inference that the Chicago Convention is a set of western standards seems about as far fetched as trying to imply that any trade agreement reached as a result of the Doha Round is an Arabic agreement.
If you want international air travel you comply with ICAO standards, or file your differences for approval.
A State doesn't file its differences for approval. It files its differences with ICAO to notify ICAO that it (the State):
...finds it impracticable to comply in all respects with any such international standard or procedure, or to bring its own regulations or practices into full accord with any international standard or procedure after amendment of the latter, or which deems it necessary to adopt regulations or practices differing in any particular respect from those established by an international standard [Article 38].
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: U K
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SIUYA
Read my post at no time does it say ICAO will or will not approve. My post says
okay to make it clearer to you -approval or acceptance or honoring by other member states.
Definition of Approval: formal agreement; sanction
You file your differences (or notify) with ICAO who then promulgate that information to other member states. 'After considering a nation’s difference, ICAO member states decide whether to honor a difference on the part of an international operator who enters and operates within their airspace.'
This is particularly true of Safety Management Systems at the moment.
Article 12
Rules of the air
Each contracting State undertakes to adopt measures to insure that every aircraft flying over or maneuvering within its territory and that every aircraft carrying its nationality mark, wherever such aircraft may be, shall comply with the rules andregulations relating to the flight and maneuver of aircraft therein force. Each contracting State undertakes to keep its own
regulations in these respects uniform, to the greatest possible extent, with those established from time to time under this Convention. Over the high seas, the rules in force shall be those established under this Convention. Each contracting State undertakes to insure the prosecution of all persons violating the regulations applicable.
Furthermore the ICAO convention and SARPS reflect the cultures and outlook of what were previously considered the developed nations, principally Europe and North America who were and are the biggest players in aircraft manufacture and operation.
These are now generally refered to as Western in outlook. I would suggest to you that a set of ICAO rules reflecting a more Eastern outlook or a Latin American one (especially in 1944) might be considerably different. The point I am making is that the operating philosophies especially of the large aircraft maufactures (I only know of 2) reflect the Western culture of individualism and individual responsibilty rather than other cultures respect for rank age or birthright, or authoritarianism.
The operation of aircraft requires amongst other things individual responsibility, the ability to deal with chaos when it arises, and the requirement to accept 'loss of face', by concentrating on what is right and not who is right.
What really concerns me here is the obvious joy of some Australian pilots seeing an Australian based and licenced airline grounded. This is the sort of thing that happens in e.g. Indonesia.
Surely taking an airline out of the market must be detrimental to terms and conditions in Australi?a Haven't the low cost carriers actually offered huge opportunities and improved remuneration for a lot of pilots in Australia?
Think how this looks to the rest of the world, put the words unsafe, airline, Australia into a sentence and make it reflect well on Australia to the rest of the world.
The Tiger operation in Singapore seems to operate safely and it would be unfair to see the crews in Singapore pay the price .... for an Australian c@ckup.
Read my post at no time does it say ICAO will or will not approve. My post says
file your differences for approval
Definition of Approval: formal agreement; sanction
You file your differences (or notify) with ICAO who then promulgate that information to other member states. 'After considering a nation’s difference, ICAO member states decide whether to honor a difference on the part of an international operator who enters and operates within their airspace.'
This is particularly true of Safety Management Systems at the moment.
Article 12
Rules of the air
Each contracting State undertakes to adopt measures to insure that every aircraft flying over or maneuvering within its territory and that every aircraft carrying its nationality mark, wherever such aircraft may be, shall comply with the rules andregulations relating to the flight and maneuver of aircraft therein force. Each contracting State undertakes to keep its own
regulations in these respects uniform, to the greatest possible extent, with those established from time to time under this Convention. Over the high seas, the rules in force shall be those established under this Convention. Each contracting State undertakes to insure the prosecution of all persons violating the regulations applicable.
Furthermore the ICAO convention and SARPS reflect the cultures and outlook of what were previously considered the developed nations, principally Europe and North America who were and are the biggest players in aircraft manufacture and operation.
These are now generally refered to as Western in outlook. I would suggest to you that a set of ICAO rules reflecting a more Eastern outlook or a Latin American one (especially in 1944) might be considerably different. The point I am making is that the operating philosophies especially of the large aircraft maufactures (I only know of 2) reflect the Western culture of individualism and individual responsibilty rather than other cultures respect for rank age or birthright, or authoritarianism.
The operation of aircraft requires amongst other things individual responsibility, the ability to deal with chaos when it arises, and the requirement to accept 'loss of face', by concentrating on what is right and not who is right.
What really concerns me here is the obvious joy of some Australian pilots seeing an Australian based and licenced airline grounded. This is the sort of thing that happens in e.g. Indonesia.
Surely taking an airline out of the market must be detrimental to terms and conditions in Australi?a Haven't the low cost carriers actually offered huge opportunities and improved remuneration for a lot of pilots in Australia?
Think how this looks to the rest of the world, put the words unsafe, airline, Australia into a sentence and make it reflect well on Australia to the rest of the world.
The Tiger operation in Singapore seems to operate safely and it would be unfair to see the crews in Singapore pay the price .... for an Australian c@ckup.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So CASA got time to comply sort themselves out and were not 'grounded' i.e. Australian carriers banned from international airspace in the mean time. The rest of the world reading the ICAO audit might have been justified in calling for such an immediate ban - eg Indonesia.
It appears that Tiger were given time to address CASA's concerns and failed to do so. How many second (third, fourth etc) chances should they have had? How much warm 'n' fuzzy? Until they have a prang, which IIRC is when the Indonesians got booted out of Europe? Virgin were read the Riot Act by CASA some years ago over maintenance issues and threatened with a loss of ETOPS, so they addressed the issues and haven't had any notable regulatory dramas since then.
Haven't the low cost carriers actually offered huge opportunities and improved remuneration for a lot of pilots in Australia?
No, they haven't. They have driven down pay and conditions across the industry, not just for pilots but particularly for ground workers and engineers. This is why so many posters are bitter and twisted about Jetstar and to a lesser degree, Tiger. In fact Jetstar has attracted far more vitriol than Tiger because they're part of Qantas.
FWIW I agree with you that the 'nah-nah, Tiger suck' posts are distasteful, because many decent people work for Tiger and have been badly affected. In particular, their casual, sub-contracted badly paid flight attendants have not been told what is going on or paid since the grounding.
Tiger Airways cabin crew on their own | Courier Mail
Maybe CASA have cocked up, maybe Tiger cocked up. I doubt anyone will know the true story for a while, if ever. However, you seem to be assuming that CASA have overreacted due to politics, racism or other non safety related reasons. Given the information available at the moment, I don't think that's a fair assumption. It may turn out to be 100% correct, but I don't see that it's a foregone conclusion.
CASA would have made this decision knowing full well that there would be an avalanche of scrutiny and bad PR karma for them. Sure they grounded Ansett, but that was nearly a decade ago and government departments have gotten a lot more conscious of public opinion (and arguably a lot more wussy) since then. Like all regulatory departments they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. When they go softly everyone says they're in the airlines' pockets or have ulterior motives. When they do something everyone says they're too harsh or have ulterior motives.
Last edited by Worrals in the wilds; 5th Jul 2011 at 09:01.
Major...
That's fine, but now you're trying to compare apples with oranges, Major. 
And I also think your nose just grew a bit Major. You DID say...
My emphasis. 
READ MY RESPONSE IN POST#36.
Approval does NOT come into the scheme of things. And Articles 37 and 38 set-out the obligations of standards (and recommended practices) more appropriately than article 12.
While you're at it Major, perhaps you ought to read the supplements to the Annexes regarding whether States do/don't comply with SARPs - I'll give you a clue. They list States that notify differences, States that notify NO differences, and Stats that haven't notified if they DO or DON'T have differences.
So, if the State in question is in the latter category, how the fcuk as you suggest are other States going to know what the 'truant' State (for want of a better term) is, or isn't doing?
Quit while you're behind Major.
SIUYA
Read my post at no time does it say ICAO will or will not approve. My post says
Quote:
file your differences for approval
okay to make it clearer to you -approval or acceptance or honoring by other member states.
Definition of Approval: formal agreement; sanction
Read my post at no time does it say ICAO will or will not approve. My post says
Quote:
file your differences for approval
okay to make it clearer to you -approval or acceptance or honoring by other member states.
Definition of Approval: formal agreement; sanction
And I also think your nose just grew a bit Major. You DID say...
If you want international air travel you comply with ICAO standards, or file your differences for approval.
READ MY RESPONSE IN POST#36.
Approval does NOT come into the scheme of things. And Articles 37 and 38 set-out the obligations of standards (and recommended practices) more appropriately than article 12.
While you're at it Major, perhaps you ought to read the supplements to the Annexes regarding whether States do/don't comply with SARPs - I'll give you a clue. They list States that notify differences, States that notify NO differences, and Stats that haven't notified if they DO or DON'T have differences.
So, if the State in question is in the latter category, how the fcuk as you suggest are other States going to know what the 'truant' State (for want of a better term) is, or isn't doing?
Quit while you're behind Major.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: brisbane australia
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I started this thread to thank an authority that we all thought was maybe toothless.
As some people have stated a lot of people are out of work as a result of this action by C.A.S.A but until this matter is ratified by the appropriate sources these poor people will continue to suffer. To the sufferers the smoking wreck on the ground would be your worst nightmare. It will certainly take you all a long time to recover financially. We all know you worked hard but your superiors just let you down without you knowing it.
Pilots who fly for TIGER ( or did fly } can be assured that their frustrations which were ignored are now out in the open.
Nothing but a major Government Enquiry that would be released to the general public will inform the rest of us just what C.A.S.A has on paper in the form of incident reports.
The next few days will tell just how far this situation will last. The TIGER people from the top management are in the country on their knees if front of C.A.S.A begging for an end to this situation. In the meantime QANTAS and VIRGIN and others are reaping the benefit.
Hopefully those who have been stood down will be able to return to a
SAFER operation in the near future.
As some people have stated a lot of people are out of work as a result of this action by C.A.S.A but until this matter is ratified by the appropriate sources these poor people will continue to suffer. To the sufferers the smoking wreck on the ground would be your worst nightmare. It will certainly take you all a long time to recover financially. We all know you worked hard but your superiors just let you down without you knowing it.
Pilots who fly for TIGER ( or did fly } can be assured that their frustrations which were ignored are now out in the open.
Nothing but a major Government Enquiry that would be released to the general public will inform the rest of us just what C.A.S.A has on paper in the form of incident reports.
The next few days will tell just how far this situation will last. The TIGER people from the top management are in the country on their knees if front of C.A.S.A begging for an end to this situation. In the meantime QANTAS and VIRGIN and others are reaping the benefit.
Hopefully those who have been stood down will be able to return to a
SAFER operation in the near future.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: U K
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SIUYA
I am afraid approval by other countries does come into it that is why some countries are banned from USA airspace and some airlines often all airlines from a particular country are banned from European airspace.
You seem to be suggesting that any country can do what it likes can choose to notify or not, doesn't matter either way as you have the right to do what the fcuk you like where you like. That is simply not the case. You go there with their approval of your standards.
Have you read this this just about somes it up:
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...fferences.html
I am guessing:
That you work for CASA.
By your aggressive tone that developement of your emotional intelligence may have terminated at about 14 years old.
That you see all of life including debate and conversation as a competitive sport with winners and losers.
That you are a classic 'In Ansett, in TAA!' 'Your SOPs are all wrong mate, you wanna do it this way' Aussie that the world of aviation loves so much.
G'day,
Cleve
P.S. Now you quit while you are behind SIUYA: Cleve aged 14 3/4s
I am afraid approval by other countries does come into it that is why some countries are banned from USA airspace and some airlines often all airlines from a particular country are banned from European airspace.
You seem to be suggesting that any country can do what it likes can choose to notify or not, doesn't matter either way as you have the right to do what the fcuk you like where you like. That is simply not the case. You go there with their approval of your standards.
Have you read this this just about somes it up:
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...fferences.html
As you will note from the AIP Sup. available from Airservices,(86?? pages of differences) Australia is in a class of it's own, when it comes to re-inventing the wheel, and winding up with one with corners.
This goes to further prove that Australia is a world leader in aviation legislation (all criminal law) by weight, volume or word count, take your pick.
These differences to ICAO are a real problem, across a number of fields, but especially aviation, Australia is being rendered uncompetitive by bureaucratic regulatory overload, and this is even before the Greens get the balance of power in the Senate.
Don't kid yourselves this is all justified by better air safety outcomes in Australia, Australia rates badly compared to the US, which leads by a country mile ---- go look at all the statistics, not "carefully" selected and selective statistics.
This goes to further prove that Australia is a world leader in aviation legislation (all criminal law) by weight, volume or word count, take your pick.
These differences to ICAO are a real problem, across a number of fields, but especially aviation, Australia is being rendered uncompetitive by bureaucratic regulatory overload, and this is even before the Greens get the balance of power in the Senate.
Don't kid yourselves this is all justified by better air safety outcomes in Australia, Australia rates badly compared to the US, which leads by a country mile ---- go look at all the statistics, not "carefully" selected and selective statistics.
That you work for CASA.
By your aggressive tone that developement of your emotional intelligence may have terminated at about 14 years old.
That you see all of life including debate and conversation as a competitive sport with winners and losers.
That you are a classic 'In Ansett, in TAA!' 'Your SOPs are all wrong mate, you wanna do it this way' Aussie that the world of aviation loves so much.
G'day,
Cleve
P.S. Now you quit while you are behind SIUYA: Cleve aged 14 3/4s