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.