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.

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

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

# 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.

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...

oeb are you the pic in question?

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?

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.:suspect:

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.

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.

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.

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....

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

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 :ugh:

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

All good debate, and I guess it is a little off track from OEB's perspective and the root of this thread. But can we assume then that the issue of the PIC at Tiger being robustly pineappled is a load of old cobblers as well?
Just asking the question.

Cactus,

I've worked for both of the A320 LCCs that operate in Australia. I'd have to say that what your 'close relative' has told you should be taken as a load of rubbish.

These are airlines whose CPs are far too busy to bother themselves with contacting line pilots over insignificant operational matters; perhaps they might for an 'incident' that could come close to being a significant and negative one for the company. But for a go-around? And on '...numerous other occasions...' for '...MEL...' matters??? I find that impossible to believe. Especially as I personally know all the men who have/do hold that office with those airlines.

They have far more important things to occupy their day, than to worry about that kind of drivel.

No manager in either company, let alone the CP, has ever contacted me for committing either of the atrocities that you mentioned.

But, hell, let's not let the truth get in the way of a good yarn.

As for the answer to your last question; there are only a few people who honestly know whether he has or hasn't been 'pineappled' (as you so delicately put it) - they are the PIC, the CP and whoever else happened to be present when any discussions were had between the two of them in relation to the matters concerned. Anyone else is peddling hearsay. Pure and simple.

Yep thats rubbish, and if anything remotely like that was to occur, grow a pair and give it right back at them betwen the eyes.

So that is why A380 captains get paid such humungous money because they are dealing with the stress and making good decisions under (commercial) pressure. :mad: Contrast those decisions with the RFDS pilots flying single pilot in the middle of the outback night.

... while learning all those good lessons and experience which will one day make them great and hopefully well paid A380 Captains...

Rad, rubbish you say? I was personally present when one of the 'phone calls' took place. I won't say which airline nor what year it occurred, but the incident did take place and yes the PIC was yelled at and verbally castigated for adding a further 20 odd minutes worth of delay on top of on already off schedule service, and for blowing additional fuel. This is not a bull**** story, sorry.

Holyman Airways, 1933?????:p

Cup of tea, a Bex and a nice little lie down.
 

The job description was probably 'over-cooked' and seen as abrogating CP responsibility. The purpose of a DFO is so the CP can actually concentrate on 'operational management' Think of the DFO as a coordinator, balancing, catching, stacking, aligning, joining all the dots and being able to make a jigsaw puzzle picture even the 'board' will understand.

Now these notions of being 'bollocked' and telling a CP to go boil his head are both a little outlandish. One could (IMO) reasonably expect tea, biccy's and a please explain if say, a 'go around' had not been executed; or, the aircraft had landed short of minimum fuel etc. etc.: a 'chat'; to facilitate discovery of exactly WTF happened and why. From there on it becomes scenario specific, depending on who did what, to whom and who paid.

Icarus is pretty much on the money "define reasonable"; and this is where the saga of Capt. Guy and the Tiger gets ugly and begs controversial questions. IF Tiger 'management' have acted in the manner described here on Pprune, then indeed there are serious underlying issues which must be addressed as eventually, unaddressed they will impact on efficiency, the carry through affecting profitability. When the exercise of command prerogative is perceived as being undermined or being used as a weapon, the PIC will simply put the brakes on – '"Sorry too much – ashtray full, delay the departure". Watch the mad scramble then.

I keep mentioning that without all the facts etc. etc.. BUT if "the incident" has been mismanaged and Guy has been unfairly penalised, then the rot has well and truly set in. Even IF the ugly allegations made are ever proven true, it still highlights a raft of 'internal' issues and attitudes which need to be removed, root and bough. Will all of this affect 'safety'?, probably not. But if the situation is allowed to devolve into a 'sniping' match, pissing competition or even open guerrilla warfare it is counterproductive; made worse because it's completely unnecessary, the bitter aftertaste is truly vile and long lasting.

My money and hope is on good sense prevailing, sooner rather than later.
Hagbard Celine – good catch Fysti, nicely played.....:ok:

maybe, maybe not
 

Kharon,

How very UK CAA/GCAA UAE of you...

Over very many years, I have realised how definitional that juxtaposition of DFO/CP really is. Here you can throw in the "accountable manager" into the mix as well.

In days of old, the accountable manager was the boss of the legal entity to whom the AOC had been issued - he/she could delegate authority left, right and centre to their heart's content, but could never escape responsibility/accountability. There was no bullshet 'pass-the -parcel' arrangements like you see in Qantas or elsewhere and the buck stopped at the top. DCA/DoT/CAA and early CASA did not accept minions in the path between the head of operational compliance and performance (the CP) and the head of commercial compliance and performance (the boss) - full stop.

Your description of the role of the DFO was what real CPs did before CASA and others let the foxes into the chookhouse. Every minion between the boss and the CP emasculated the CP in the path to keeping the commercial fantasies in the realm of safe and practical aviation, particularly since none of the minions suffer any real consequences for their cock-ups. Even if the boss fired them, they would just turn up somewhere else to rerun their interference on some other hapless CP.

The Australian regulator has made modern CPs nothing more than Senior Pilots, pilots with no real corporate clout and no regulatory support. So now comes this thought - oh, we need a DFO, a person who does all the things that a CP used to do except for regulatory compliance and who can be looked to as a new regulatory target of sorts. Pity that there is no legislative support to hold the DFO accountable for anything or to require any particular skills or experience to hold the position - unlike those other places like the UK, UAE or other colonial offshoots. But, as you say, suggestions of corporate interference in operational management are "a little outlandish" - it would never happen here, would it?

Of course, if you want to get a glimpse of how the model works in Australia, have a look at how Tiger fared under the BMI boys - that worked really well!!!

Methinks, in pushing the DFO barrow without the necessary framework in place that you are polishing a little more than the gilding on the lily...

The silence from OEB in the past few days is deafening, and his posts have disappeared. Freedom of speech issue or the lawyers are on deck?

Agree with learned colleague M'lud..
 

Nick – couldn't agree more and have said so on numerous occasions; at least three times in this thread. Desperate to avoid thread drift the DFO was just thrown into the mix as a side bar. We could I expect discuss the CP role at length, ad tedium ad nauseum and end up back at this point; in furious agreement, especially where CASA (and others) have stuck an oar in. I do believe it is an issue and have many times now considered kicking off a CP/PIC thread but it's an esoteric, academic and 'operationally' specific kind of subject: one man's meat etc. I will change one word 'compliance' to 'management' as in the old school meaning of Boss, I could perhaps have expressed it better – Heigh ho...:O

So, with your indulgence I'll skip by that debate and try to focus on what appears, on the surface at least, to be (IMO) one of the visible, unsavoury end results of Tiger being grounded......{edit} - Just picked up the Soteria sally, now why would the OEB opinion posts be 'pulled'?, perhaps the corporate boys asked nicely.

Toot toot...:ok:

It’s been an interesting read this thread but I’ve now put 2 and 2 together.

You’ve been a fool and didn’t listen. Good luck fighting the Virgin group. Your first priority should have been to get your licence back – not slander your employer on here. While you probably are drug free, you will fail in any endeavour to get any recompense. More fool the all the people (brother?) who are responsible for a media strategy rather than an industrial strategy. The moment this sordid story broke in the media, and the first person posting on here, your fate was sealed.


Blueskymine
The problem is, while his comrades joined up in numbers, 80% union membership I hear at the Tiger, he sat back and allowed everyone else to do the heavy lifting. I would bet my left nut that he tried to join up after the incident. Too many pilots want to join a union after they find themselves in a hole.

Try buying home insurance after your house burns down.

If you drink and prune, you're a bloody idiot...

P.S. The above post is in its 3rd edition. Wait, no the comment about opening and swallowing has been removed, so that makes it 4.

Common Law, Work Place Relations and so on and so forth
 

I had heard this travesty mentioned over a dinner table conversation and frankly thought there must have been an error, so opened up prune and lo and behold there were the posts.
I have monitored the steady decline in Australian aviation from afar over many years yet the toxic environment it has become has now plumbed new depths.
If what has been reported on this august blog is in fact even partially true I would expect the recipient of these grave injustices to be elligible for some recompense through the courts for his troubles.
You simply can't go around slandering a person and ruining a good reputation, assuming of course the reputation is good to start with. I would doubt very much whether CASA's reticence to reveal the slanderer would survive the discovery process should litigation be commenced.
Similarly I would expect an unfair dismissal case would be interesting considering the two processes seem to be linked. In fact this person has apparently done no wrong operationally, nor is there a skerrick of evidence to support the drug use accusation yet his reputation is in ruins and his livlihood been destroyed.
Good heavens, rumour and innuendo is just that. To act on it without foundation is negligence and should be treated as such.

Are my feet on fire dear?
 

Speculator: Before any word of this sordid little tale reached the grubby ears of the SMH reporter and on to Pprune, confirmation that certain ducks were neatly in place, firmly bolted down, clean, tidy and ready to rock should have been obtained.

If this is indeed a clean skin, then every pilot who depends on a license as a source of income should get behind it; as should the 'authority'. Human factors aside there is a 'Kosher' safety case here. Sure it's subtle and may not cause a smoking hole, but constant, costly, time consuming incidents and minor events play havoc with public perception of the airline operation. Folks may still use the service, but will they beat down the door to get a seat when a less 'controversial' service is offered at a competitive price?

If this not 'clear cut' and ridgy didge; well it becomes a minor topic for crew discussion over a beer; should the mood descend. For Tiger it is a headache but properly addressed could be turned to advantage – clear the cob webs, pave the way to a 'happy' crew working in fresh air.

I note OEM has, once again pulled a post which mentioned $200, 000 being set aside for pursuing Capt. Guy through the courts and that he had been beaten bloody during the past few days. Troo dat – or, has Tony –TT hit the nail?

More questions than answers methinks. It's tough enough to win a thing like this when everything is on your side; this is not a game to be played half assed, half pissed or with half truths. No one wins that game.

Aye well, back to my knitting..

OEB, your last post is a classic example of 'own goal' behaviour.

Do yourself a favour and stop digging an ever-bigger hole for yourself by continuing to post the kind of nonsense that you seem intent to post lately - the aggressive reaction towards Tony will just turn ever-more readers against your situation, and give confirmation to others in what they might've suspected.

Compare your first post to your last post! Stick to the stuff you wrote at the start of this thread. I'm sure there are all sorts of dark thoughts going through your head at the moment. This is not the place to try and rid yourself of those.

There are far better ways to get over the difficult times you've just gone through. Posting aggressive/threatening words on these pages will not be cathartic - quite the opposite.

If you're a member of one of the unions, contact them for support. If you're not a member, there are many other good support organisations in all capital cities. It's not a defeat if you choose to go down that path; it's the first step to getting on with the rest of your life/career.

I don't know you. I do know though, that based on what I've seen you write on here, you're charging full-speed towards certain professional destruction. And I feel that someone should advise you to cease and desist while you still have the chance.

Good luck.

Wow. And at that point the cheer squad left the field.

OEB, I note you mention FWA as a first step, then continue on.

Certainly do not or have the captain in question, rely on FWA. They are not very helpful at all.

Good luck either way.

Rad Alt Alive comes out with some good advice, and you come back with this invective:

OEB
There are none so deaf as those who will not listen.

It would seem that there are three parts to this problem:

1) A Tiger aeroplane had an incorrect fuel plan for a flight to Perth. The crew used initiative to attempt to fix these issues (with attendant curfew time pressures). This incident highlighted deficiencies in the flight planning / operational control areas of the operation.

2) The PIC of said aeroplane was accused of drug abuse, CASA suspended his medical, and Tiger sacked him. As to the co-operation or conspiring of Tiger and CASA; this is unknown, and could have been explored through discovery during a court process.

3) Details of the above events have leaked to the national newspapers, the sacked PIC is in the frame for the leaks.

Tiger were perversely given a gift when point 3 occurred. It now matters naught what the details of point 1 and 2 are. He can be legitimately sacked for point 3.

And that is the problem with running a media strategy rather than industrial relations strategy. OEB, you’ve kicked an own goal. I have ZERO respect for your antics, but true to form you criticize pilots on here who were offering sage advice.

You didn’t join a union when 80% of your mates did. You didn’t join a union when your mates took protected industrial action to further the contract YOU work under (worked, past tense now). I bet you tried to join a union when your own backside was on fire.

Did I hear "BINGO"... was it from TonyT?


Happy landings :ok: