The man with the twisted lip.
 

Bear with me; there is a point. Many years ago; Conan Doyle wrote the fictitious 'Sherlock Holmes' stories. One was about 'the man with the twisted lip'. In short, a junior journalist researching a story dressed as a beggar to get the story;and, was successful; so much so that he resigned his job and took up permanent residence on the London streets as a beggar; he simply made more money that way. Anyway – one day his wife 'saw' him being murdered while she was lost in the back streets; through a window of an opium den owned and operated by some very shady characters. Enter Holmes – he nuts it all out and at the end of the tale, everyone realises that, for various reasons the wrong man had been identified as murdered. Turns out, the 'victim' would rather be in jail, as a murder, than let his wife know that the family wealth came from his dressing as a beggar each day. Great story and worth a read; but no where near as bizarre as the current Tiger tale.

The elements appear parallel though; drugs, misidentification, false imprisonment etc. etc. Just no Holmes to 'sort it' all out before the public knows....

Maybe, it's just me; but deputy chief pilots have always seemed 'suss'; never had a flicker of 'bovver' with the boss; but DCP? – mostly at the dizzy limit of Toller-ance. Seems to me changes need to occur at Tiger, tout de suite; the tooter, the sweeter. You can't just barge about, sacking blokes on a whim; laying accusations on a fancy. Those who do not have fact and empirical evidence to support it, need to apologise, re instate and then; on account of cocking it up so completely: RESIGN.

Now; I've never been sure how to express 'bugger off' in more than one sentence; however; if three pages suit, then I shall endeavour to do it. Just so long as the message is completely, utterly and Virginaly understood. That is - the penalty for crucifying the wrong man, on the wrong agenda, for the wrong reasons, sacking and then; leaking the wrong blessed report to a half wit press is unacceptable.

Total cock-up; the man with the twisted lip was a fantasy, a fiction: this is very real and very, very offensive. No operator; I'm done.....

Nicely written Kharon.

Unfortunately these decision makers are untouchable.......... :sad:

I am sure I am not alone in finding this latest development at Tiger Australia immensely disturbing.

We have $12/hr staff supported by $ 500K/yr CASA (ex-colleague) who can decide in a blink to destroy the life of someone without evidence.

Maybe this has become modern Australia. If so, count me out:yuk:

The union needs to fund a civil case that will require disclosure...assuming Australia still subscribes to the common law:ugh:

Tanx....
 

Thank you. Best I could do, considering; just departed the BRB meeting, no AP/FMS/AT and hells fury at the gate (seems it was my turn to cook and B&E just won't do). No matter – what a mess eh? Makes you wonder why they go broke and the old McComic could stitch 'em up so very easily.. Lord, what a life eh??? but; it's all for Lurv, at least so they tell me.

Toot toot.

Welcome to the great western fallacy called 'democracy'.

OEB


I do agree that this entire mess should have been dealt with in-house.


Now that the smoke has turned to fire and progressed to a dismissal, I agree with previous posters comments who think it wise that 'the gent' walk away and not incur the past being dredged and the future destroyed.


Unless he can say with an honest hand on heart that there is no smoke and no fire?


Fiji is lovely this time of year and 'the gent' apparently has a good mate over there to help him out, as he has done in the past.


Probably just coincidental... some interesting faces swanning around the JQ office chasing MRs recently vacated job...


All the best.

Anyone know which CAsA region handles Tiger?
This whole process has a Wodger Wabbit smell to it.

Apologies for the thread drift, but where has MR gone and when did he leave?

Bingo, been waiting for that shoe to drop. Its right up there with the fallacy of the 'rule of law' as eloquently argued by John Hasnas in The Myth Of the Rule of Law.

Anyone wishing to undertake an action against a governemnet department or large politically well connected business & expecting to have any expectation of justice from the courts should read that document very carefully. Welcome to the modern reincarnation of facism.

As my old grandpappy used to say

"The law is for everyone...Justice is for them that can afford it"

MR is stepping down and flying the 787. Whether pushed or jumped is the mystery.

Thanks lookleft

CurtainTwitcher, a very interesting read. Thank you for the link. Cheers

I didn't think MR held a seniority number.

Are JQ allowing direct entries onto the 787?

The folk at QF getting bumped to the RH seat will be pleased.

:8

anyone started a fighting fund like jq pilots did for j eakins?

Things that make you go Hmmmm.
 

Consider: with respect - he has advised himself very badly. There are many reasons not to pursue this to the 'ultimate' level; mostly because the total cost is indefinable. The real costs are not financial but paid for from his own well being, happiness and ultimately the family. From experience I can assure you that once the 'obsession' takes hold, much time will be spent identifying tenets, writing copious briefings for counsel and conversational gambits are limited to 'my case' and the intricate details thereof. I have a dear friend who began a legal battle some 20 years ago now; I'll own it's an extreme case, but weekends and evenings spent pouring through case files, legal tomes and precedent have become a way of life, which is not a life. The best results I have seen come from taking 'sound' advice from trusted, competent counsel who will identify 'what' it is you are fighting rather than what you see as the 'fight'. Good counsel likes to win and will take you to a position from where the fight you choose may (with a push) be won.

Does our man want to be reinstated, with an apology? or is he determined, at his own expense to pave the way for the next poor bugger; note, that's the next; not the first and most certainly, not the last. The unions used to be very good at sorting out these sorts of troubles; mostly quietly through negotiation rather than court room brawls; not sure how (or even if) that works anymore. But pick your fight and pick the ground carefully; win one round comprehensively, the rest will flow on. The risk, if you loose is that the other wins and this type of 'entertainment' becomes an accepted practice, supported by a precedent.

If it were me; (IMVH non qualified O) I think I'd tackle the CASA denial of the FOI request first, seems to be the weakest point, particularly if there is any 'hangover' from the subsequent testing proving – no bad habits. Once identified, the miserable piece of dung who kicked this off can personally be stripped of his house; his dog and his Missus may be kicked and used as best pleases. Unfair dismissal rules tend to lean toward those who prove they were, in fact, treated 'unfairly'; this avenue should be approached with caution. The target outcome – financial; as that hurts those who sought to hurt you; and, personal – it will really upset those who perpetrated this offence when you taxi out past the office and flip 'em the two finger salute through the DV window. That's where real satisfaction lives.

As stated, I've seen many 'battles' and nursed a few of the wounded back to sanity. Advice I can stand behind (IMO) is to develop the patience of a rabbit trap; hoard evidence like a miser; get advice on 'who' is the best brief for task then research, very carefully, before you finally chose counsel; stay close to your friends and closer to your family, stay out of the pub, eat your veggies and do not make 'your matter' the sole topic of conversation. Stay detached when you write stuff; pretend it's someone else, "Bloggs" is an old, trusted companion.

I know; all easily said; bloody hard to do. Just the thoughts of a glorified bus driver (magna cum lumpy), offered for what they are worth, in honest support.

This has been a reverse charge call to the school of hard knocks.

Kharon, I really enjoy every one of your posts. You and me, we speaka da same lingo.

OEB

Not that I have any feelings towards Tiger and I don't have any first hand knowledge about their standards but,
I get the impression that it is something other than a top flight operation.

Perhaps they are looking for a "Standards" Manager for a reason.

On the point of HH's CRM skills.
I recall that he was an FO at said 'Asian Airline' and also being told that he just re-hashed 20 year old scenarios collected from his old airline to people who couldn't understand what he was talking about , didn't care what he was saying and kept right on doing what they had been doing before he started giving classes ( sans CRM).
I have also heard that his people management skills don't particularly fit in with CRM best practices either.

By the way:
He wouldn't be the only FO from an Asian airline who has re-invented himself into a high flying position at a local airline ( via the CRM banner that HR Depts love so much and/or perhaps in some cases by judicious use of English or editing of facts).

I believe that your points about the fuel planning method used by the crew are flawed.
The company Fuel Policy is part of the Ops Manual and over rides the Manufacturer's Manual unless the process that you described is stated in the Ops Manual as an approved method. Sunk then and there.

The fuel planning method that you suggest works providing you input the correct data but, I think that it is not approved.


The crew should have firstly, questioned why they were flying to Perth without passengers and asked questions . You are an airline after all.
The fact that the ZFW was at or near the Basic Weight would be a big hint, if you know your "Aircraft Limitations Chapter" .

The correct action would have been to contact a "duty pilot Manager" ( wouldn't be surprised if Tiger don't have them) and seek advice.

After contacting a manager, used the MCDU it to get a fuel burn and reserves but, using information gained from their enquiries to get a realistic ZFW.

Use less advantageous winds if they were without correct wind data .


I think that the sight of passengers walking to the aircraft would have caused most competent PICs to think about putting on more fuel at that point and if you miss Cufew, tough. Safety first.

I also think that the Captain should, in any case, have used the PIC discretion for safety to uplift more fuel due to the fact that they was no accurate Flight Plan , probably no accurate load or wind data available to them , until he felt happy that the Fuel Policy had been complied with and all eventualities had been covered.

The moment he became aware ( if he did) that things weren't right, he should have stopped, taken a step back and consulted with his F/O as to whether what they were doing was safe. CRM, I did learn something.

If he missed the Curfew, again, tough.

In the old days, the smart people used "top up" to go to Perth in good weather with Burn + 4,000 min and fuel to get to Learmonth ,if there was the chance of fog.

In other words, get it all your way as much as possible.

The curfew pressure is and old trap for new players.

Get pressured to make a decision........ bring more gas or just say no.


Again, it appears to be a case of two supposedly competent pilots missing something obvious and it appears that this is happening with all of these low costs.

People are being employed at the bottom with insufficient experience and then promoted too quickly. It is only later that holes in their abilities/experience and/ or training are exposed.
Once these people get into training, standards and management, the whole system is corrupted.

I hear that there is a self proclaimed 'high flyer' at Tiger who had trouble passing his all checks at all his past airlines and would break into tears because he couldn't handle the pressure. Does he hold a Command,Train or check at Tiger?

On the point of the drug testing:

Strange how the pilot had had what 5 drug tests in how many months?

Personally, I have never been drug tested but then, I wouldn't know what a drug was if I fell over a case of them.

You also pointed out that this pilot doesn't even drink ,is the father of a young family and that he is active in his community but, you did not
say that he does not take drugs nor does he have a history of drug taking.

Acting a little bit like a Barrister, I think.

Did this pilot have a history of drug taking or were the multiple tests just a case of victimization with no basis in fact?

Either way, I wouldn't go throwing much money towards legal action .

It is obvious that he is not wanted and he should just go and look for greener pastures.

From what I hear, departing Tiger for greener pastures isn't too difficult but, you would not want a bad reputation following you.

Best of luck to the individual involved.

Is Tiger being allowed by CAsA to breach the regulations??
 

If everything that has been reported in this thread is in fact true, then apart from the obvious breaches of the Fair Work Act etc, Tiger haven't complied with;

- Their Safety Management System (SMS)
- Their Human Factors training/syllabi
- Their Just Culture policy
- Elements of their CRM

Aren't all the above items part of regulatory requirement? If the answer to any or all of the above is 'yes', then Tiger have acted non-compliantly with the regs and their own manuals. So why aren't CAsA doing something about that?
Now of course we all know that CAsA don't comply with much themselves, they love to 'act how they want when they want' and certainly don't expect the same levels of compliance for themselves as they do for operators, but if CAsA refuse to take action they are then condoning Tigers non-compliance with regulations. And if CAsA are willing to turn a blind eye or be complicit in this matter, then what else are they turning a blind eye to? Tiger staff have already admitted to minimal to nil flight planning training with regards to this matter, and that's just one red flag here. Are we scratching the surface? Does all this give me any assurance in Tiger or CAsA? Hardly.

I can only wish the very best for the Captain if he is indeed a pilot with a clean sheet and stellar reputation for compliance and excellence.

Tick Tock

If only said Captain had a relative who could represent him, free of charge, all the way to the High Court......

This guy is affordable and accessible

https://www.facebook.com/denutoQC

004

May I suggest you write a letter to "Skull" and ask the pertinent questions.

While he was a Star Chamber man at CX, I believe him to be an man of character (ie, he has served in the RAAF).

This case is particularly disturbing and follows a similar story going on in CX where an ISM accused a CN of smelling of alcohol at ICN recently. All proven to be false.

How many probes do we have to have inserted into our private parts before we all say enough is enough and you can all f....g walk to wherever you want to go on your $50 tickets?

"Sorry, the Fuehrer is too busy to take calls or answer letters right now, if you leave a name, number and contact details he will get back to you as soon as possible. Kind regards....." in the meantime Chairman Hawke or Flyingfiend shall write you a ****-o-gram advising you to leave Mr Angry alone.

Naughty naughty boy. Either you are taking the piss or you are Tony Tyler or Nick Rhodes?

A sad reality is that good guys, which translates to good pilots, have been getting royally pineappled for decades around the world, but it is getting worse. And on many occasions the root cause is a CP with a large ego, small winky, or minimal testicular fortitude when it comes to protecting his troops from pathological CEO's who have the mentality and skill of a steaming Donkey stool.

This thread is getting interesting. What else have you got for us in your bag of goodies OEB? :ok:

Thinking out aloud. (Allowed?).
 

Once again I must ask forbearance; in my own small way I've been trying to get to the radical (root) cause of the Tiger scuffle, not the detritus floating on the surface, which you must, for a moment set aside; but the 'causal' elements.

I helped a bunch of 'clever lads' with a submission to the Truss WLR, (heavy lifting only) part of that involved looking at how various regulatory 'enforcement' practices impacted on safety outcomes. There is a shed load of argument to plough through and the majority of that combined wisdom differed, in varying degrees with our Australian methodology. ICAO, FAA and EASA have published 'advice' which; in short, says that enforcing absolute compliance with minimum standards is actually detrimental, in that so much effort goes into 'pedantic' interpretation and micro management that development of (for want of better) 'innovative' advanced safety thinking is stifled in some cases, actively discouraged in others.

Enforcing the regulatory 'minimum' standards through micro management attracts a certain type of mind, which is not necessarily helpfully 'creative'. The argument goes that if the 'regulator' prefers this type of mindset, the regulator will 'encourage' those who fit their cardboard cut-out (protected species) and discourage those who don't (moving targets).

Only a personal observation; but 'we' seem to have a growing population of this 'type' of mindset, which in it's desperate need for the power to enforce the minutiae of a 'regulation' will go to extreme lengths to curry favour and perpetuate, through any means possible the legend that they, and only they can keep the operation compliant, viable and properly operational. To ensure this, skill in plagiarism, smoke generation, mirror polishing and management backside cuddling are required. Once the 'power' is gained, the ego beast demands constant feeding. The ego beast prefers to eat anything that may be seen as competition or remotely combative. With the power to satisfy the increasing demand of the addiction, the need for fresh meat increases in proportion; this in combination with unlimited power creates an atmosphere fear, but also promotes rebellion. Rebellion usually begins 'underground' and initially starts with small acts of subversion. When these minor transgressions are ruthlessly stamped out, the seeds for real trouble are sown. This self perpetuating game amplifies, more subversive action, more ruthless action taken against.

The surface reasons for the crew in question taking 'independent' action are clear enough and the conscious reasons for them doing so are also clear; but I wonder. What subconscious reasons prompted a sane, competent crew to an overt breach of SOP. I also wonder how much animosity was involved in a ruthless determination to eradicate, so completely the PIC. A bonus is the sending of a clear message to those who dare look askance at some of 'management' edicts. Not healthy, not at all.

Being mauled by McComic did Tiger no favours, it could arguably be seen as detrimental to the safety culture. Management made paranoid, determined to maintain the AOC at any cost; management pilots using that fear to elicit power and the crews all having kittens, because the post flight paper-work was not quite correct.

There are grounds for a reasonable man to believe something is fundamentally very wrong within the Tiger operation. If that element can be identified, isolated and removed, the lid may just go back onto the box which contains all the usual crew grumbling and the operation returned to an open, comfortable place to work. Happy people make for great airlines; frightened unhappy people will either leave or stay on, nursing a festering anger. Not healthy, not all.

Anyway – only my thoughts, we can always go back to pretending this is all about a SOP being busted by a drug fiend and once he is dismissed all things in the garden will return to a state of rosy, black letter compliance.

I know, I know: shut up and back to my knitting, right.

OEB.

I still stand by my comments about the planning.

I don't have a copy of FCOM and, unless it forms part of your CASA Operations Manual, it doesn't matter.
The only approved document is the Company Fuel Policy as approved by CASA.
The aircraft manufacturer probably has much good information as part of the systems study material but, is that the planning method approved by CASA?
Not that I particularly care about CASA but, if the crew didn't comply with the Casa approved Company Fuel Policy, they have left themselves exposed.

Does the Company Fuel Policy state something like: Use the Manufacturer's methods of Flight Planning and fuel uplift calculations?
Probably not.

My point regarding the drug issue was only prompted by your comments.
I don't know the pilot involved but, you appeared to be a the cheer squad from his defence team and you didn't mention that he claimed innocence of the charge . I just wondered, considering the several test that had been done on him.
Thank you for pointing that out.

Regarding the narrow issue of adequate fuel and the means for ascertaining same:

Is it policy at TigerAir that the minimum required fuel may only be determined by the admittedly poorly trained company flight planning clerks?

As the pilot in command and the only person so designated surely the captain would be able to employ any means available (readin', writin', 'rethmetic) to decide if he had at least minimum fuel pre-flight? To suggest that the planning clerk is a better judge of that is depressing.

When faced with similar situations in the past I have opted for lots of extra fuel rather than wait for a new plan. So I tankered an extra couple of tonnes? The cost of that might run to $175, cheap to avoid a delay or other costly event.

That's what the initial episode amounts to: fail to (wrongly, as it turns out) seen to be prudent, and a couple of hundred bucks.

You don't know Tiger!
 

Australopithecus, this is the company that communicated to the flight deck crew not to put a new paper roll in the ACARS printer in order to save money.

What do they cost $1?

$175 extra in fuel when you are selling seats for $10 might send the company broke...oh! :hmm:

Are you referring to AO-2014-003 OEB? If so...calm your horses mate that was a Jet* aircraft

004

Twas the former actually but perhaps poorly phrased.

Apart from all that, I agree with your other colourful and evocative imagery:ok::ok:

I agree SS all I could see were Jet* incidents.:ugh:

You're starting to lose your credibility OEB, when you write silly posts like your last one.

You said earlier what you felt needed to be said. Now let due process run its course.

international Trader
 

OMFG, unless I missed something on their fuel situation on arrival in Perth, I'd say the following.

For starters what computerised FP system doesn't give winds >,< the FP lvl? So he had winds, it only requires him to put a reasonable ZFW in to arrive at reasonable BO after reviewing the OPT/Max FL to determine what FL is available at the "new" weight.

As to what FP method is approved what a lawyer has told me is it is the CAR requirement for determining the required fuel for the flt that will determine if legal action is possible against the PIC, and that is winds, wx, contingency etc. Not where you extracted the data.

If you ask me he just showed basic common sense. Since you're in Asia ask any of your mates in HK what their employer would say if they missed a curfew on those grounds.

As to HH's CRM style, while no mate of his I'd not hesitate to describe his demeanour/CRM as middle of the road. If you'd have a problem flying with him I'm guessing you'd have a problem with most captains. His position is also CP (HFO), not CRM related so I don't see where that comes into it, he's looking after the Co's AOC, not holding hands. Your comments are nothing but a gutless character assassination.

As to the PIC's drug testing over the past 5 mths, had you considered this may be as a result of the same person or someone affiliated with them who "informed" CASA of his alleged "habit". This is just smoke/fire crap without a shred of evidence, as likely shown by the fact he DIDN'T fail one of them.

Somewhereat1, ref the paper roll, it's not to save money, word is it's been tasked to the engineers to do that.

Sheesh, an axe to grind much OEB?

Carriers in trouble and flight safety...
 

Regarding the ACARS paper...yeah, its worth a buck, but probably costs $20. But I take the point that they want the engineers to perform that daunting feat of dexterity.

The entire LCC business model seems to be softening in most countries. There are exceptions of course, but Tiger is not one of them, anywhere. The supply of gullible punters is finite, and its limits have been reached. Marginal revenue is drying up: anecdotal evidence suggests that people are packing there own jumpers and muffins.

Since LCCs compete directly on cost only, the market is by definition price sensitive. There are too many cheap seats in the market place right now, as amply vouched in many articles and recent speeches by the other players. I witnessed this first hand in the UK back in the day when the charter carriers eventually got down to a 50p per seat profit. One bird strike offset the profits from 2 million seats...an absurd situation that could only ever end in tears. Which it did.

Getting back to this obsession with micro-managing costs. At its least logical many enterprises end while a $1000/day man is busy chasing $5 savings initiatives. Who am I kidding? Usually its three or four of them on twice that money.

Flight safety cannot be delivered by a carrier who is kiting cheques to keep the doors open. It cannot be delivered, ultimately, by people unable to recognise their own shortcomings. A big ego might be good sometimes, but not near an airport.

The foregoing ignores the much greater problem at the regulator, which deserves as much scrutiny and collective indignation as we can muster. This country and this industry both deserve much much better than being the playthings of apparent phsycopaths and their eager sycophants.

Drifting
 

16 March in the year of Lord 2007 Tiger Airways Australia Pty. Ltd. was incorporated in the Northern Territory and committed A$10 million to start the subsidiary.
Grossly under-capitalised

The airline's business model is still based on that of sister airline Tiger Airways, which attempts to increase the total market size (number of passengers), control operating costs, and maximise the number of sectors served.
Sounds feasible

One way it planned to keep costs low was by avoiding expensive airports.
And the winner is (wait for it) Sydney

Tiger undertook the final stage of Australian regulatory procedures on 20 November 2007, successfully performing two proving flights from Melbourne to the Sunshine Coast and Launceston
Both in the same day, by the same crew, to save costs and meet the launch dead line. Welcome to low cost

Each carried officials from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority as well as Tiger crew. Tiger received its Air Operator's Certificate on 22 November.
With nil operational observations or Required Corrective Actions (RCAs). (Ground services received two observations)

Tiger Airways Australia's first scheduled flight was TT 7402, which departed from Melbourne for the Gold Coast on 23 November 2007.
With nil observations or RCAs

Tiger hummed along very happily under the watchful and gentile eye of ‘The Broomy’ until his departure.
They even had a TV show

Since then Tiger has not removed itself from CASAs RCA desk or the headlines and the serious deterioration and lack of error traps continues.
Why?


Australopithecus
People who use 'back in the day' and 'sycophants' are absolute rock stars in my opinion.

The is policy law question – Again.
 

Both comments fatally flawed: It's all getting a bit silly, ain't it. Had either of the Mildura aircraft ran out of fuel as did the hapless Pel Air Westwind; all the half arsed 'policy' in the world won't save the Captain. In fact (provided the 'policy' is sound) it will be used against, in a heart beat, to clearly demonstrate that it was no fault of the company or the regulator . Why?, well because if policy and guidelines are sound; it isn't. The responsibilities of the PIC are defined 'in law', not by policy.

The 'minimum' fuel plan provided is a 'suggestion'; not a requirement. I'd bet a Choccy frog that 97% of the pro pilots here could, using a simple 'rule of thumb' method, nut out a 'minimum' fuel load for a proposed flight, while in the shower. That rough number maybe further modified while driving in, listening to the news and weather forecast.

To finesse that 'rough' number into a final uplift requires lots of additional data, some obvious, some not so. Ops, despatch, flight planning, by whatever name do the donkey work, and provide a suggested 'Min fuel'; but, no matter how much 'policy' fluff is built into the system, that is pretty much where their obligations end and those of the PIC begin. Policy will only get you to the starting gate; and, provided the case you argue errs on the safe side; a breech of policy (IMO) is an internal matter for the CP – "Why did you land with five ton on board?" - Bloggs" – "Well boss, I just couldn't get anymore on". This is much better than "Why did you run out of noise?" – Bloggs - "Well boss, I followed the policy and went with minimum fuel".

IF the CASA accepted, company generated fuel policy is 'sound', the operational support competent and the system flexible enough, then neither of the above should occur. If they do, then the fleet PIC should be generating memo's to SMS to get it sorted out; before a Pel Air or Mildura repeat lands in someone's back yard. The time consuming desperation to satisfy the CASA needs and to gain 'acceptance' (not ever approval) should not be the underlying premise on which a fuel 'policy' is based. Gods alone know what tortured machinations were 'required' to obtain the 'acceptance' (not approval) while under the duress of being grounded with the attendant public condemnation.

It's part of the job, this art of juggling maximum payload, weather, fuel cost, operational considerations (mandatory and possible). Seems to me the PIC may have 'breached' a SOP which is a disciplinary matter (maybe) but complied with the 'law of command'. If, indeed in this instance that command prerogative is 'administratively' taken away; then command of the aircraft has been stolen and gifted, by the aircrew, to the clerical department.

What I am driving at is the uncertainty generated when 'policy' takes precedence over law; some pilots will start to take max fuel to cover their arses one way; some will depart with recommended minimum to cover their arses another. When in fact the entire final fuel figure is entirely, utterly, completely and ultimately the sole responsibility of the PIC. The rest just buys heated swimming pools, trophy wives and expensive wines for lawyers..

None of this is clearly defined here; but, IF the 'company' is using a ramped up 'one off' policy breach tacked onto a false, unsupported accusation as a trigger to fire a pilot, then it's a sad indication of a sickness deep within.

Just saying, and I am working with very sketchy details here.

That was my point, Kharon: details too sketchy and trying to nut out exactly how Tiger's policies got tangled up in the sole question of enough fuel or not. Reliance on (suspect) process instead of practical results and then vilifying the employee by foul means? Tiger will never get any more than a derisive snort from me.

I have to agree with you on that point Kharon. Fuel policy is only the starting point. A prudent Captain will take a myriad of details and make a decision on how much fuel to load even if that requires full tanks. My personal min fuel for Perth if the weather is good is to take enough to get me to KG. Thats 3.8 as a minimum.