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: