TJ RESIGNS FROM AN
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FSU, the story goes that when TJ was 747 manager QF, he was contacted by AN and offered the job. He kept refusing, they kept coming back until the offer became too good to refuse. We all have our price and I guess he didn't have a crystal ball.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Borg
Sounds like TJ`s story.
we heard he was banging down on An`s doors and Didn`t stop banging.
He was pushed too.
In reflection,An needed competant managerial expertise for its` new found international expansion.The old dead wood from before a significant latent cause of INH.
Instead of managerial expertise we got TJ,who brought a bumbling,meglomaniac hubris more suited or limited to the cockpit of a QF jumbo.
Sounds like TJ`s story.
we heard he was banging down on An`s doors and Didn`t stop banging.
He was pushed too.
In reflection,An needed competant managerial expertise for its` new found international expansion.The old dead wood from before a significant latent cause of INH.
Instead of managerial expertise we got TJ,who brought a bumbling,meglomaniac hubris more suited or limited to the cockpit of a QF jumbo.
Sorry about the delay, Kap M. I was on holidays last week, and I don’t like prooning on my own time.
A person is entitled to an AOC authorising specified operations of specified aircraft, as soon as and while ever CASA is satisfied that that person satisfies all of the criteria in section 28 of the CAAct in relation to that operation of that aircraft. In principle, a person need not operate an aircraft type in fact, in order to be entitled to an AOC authorising the operation of that aircraft type. A typical example is the old ‘any single piston-engined fixed wing aircraft below 5700kgs’ authorisation. CASA might form the view that if you satisfy the section 28 criteria in relation to a C210, you satisfy the same criteria in relation to the C206.
However, one wonders how any AOC holder could afford to maintain the infrastructure, processes and experience necessary to satisfy CASA continuously of all of the section 28 criteria in relation to a high capacity aircraft type that the company does not operate. And the carriers’ liability insurance premium could also be an issue: I think CASA takes the view that if your AOC authorises you to do something, you must have corresponding carrier’s liability insurance, whether you say you operate the aircraft or not. (Though I think that up at the heavy metal end of the market the insurance is on a “whatever we fly, whenever” basis. Maybe post 9/11 and the HIH collapse that has changed. Also, Tesna’s insurers might be a little more circumspect than Ansett’s.)
There is no requirement for an AOC holder to maintain the aircraft it operates under a certificate of approval held by the AOC holder. An AOC holder is entitled to have the aircraft maintained by a separate person (corporate or natural). However, the AOC holder does not thereby avoid all maintenance-related responsibilities. The AOC holder’s duties in section 28BE of the CAAct and the maintenance controller provisions, among other provisions and the common law, place responsibilities on the AOC holder in relation aircraft maintenance, notwithstanding that the maintenance is being done by another entity. Those responsibilities may not be as onerous as if the maintenance were being done by the AOC holder’s organisation, but they are still substantial.
The impression I keep getting is that Tesna could announce its intention to conduct Concorde operations, and we’d still see CASA throwing whatever resources were necessary at ensuring Tesna got its Concorde AOC, whenever the sale of Ansett was due to be settled.
Do an experiment: Form a company called “Slattern Black”, and walk into CASA and apply to conduct high capacity RPT operations. Ask them how long it will take them to assess the application.
My point continues to be that all the regulatory decisions related to the Ansett collapse are being made primarily on political rather than safety grounds. I continue to say that this is typical third world stuff.
A person is entitled to an AOC authorising specified operations of specified aircraft, as soon as and while ever CASA is satisfied that that person satisfies all of the criteria in section 28 of the CAAct in relation to that operation of that aircraft. In principle, a person need not operate an aircraft type in fact, in order to be entitled to an AOC authorising the operation of that aircraft type. A typical example is the old ‘any single piston-engined fixed wing aircraft below 5700kgs’ authorisation. CASA might form the view that if you satisfy the section 28 criteria in relation to a C210, you satisfy the same criteria in relation to the C206.
However, one wonders how any AOC holder could afford to maintain the infrastructure, processes and experience necessary to satisfy CASA continuously of all of the section 28 criteria in relation to a high capacity aircraft type that the company does not operate. And the carriers’ liability insurance premium could also be an issue: I think CASA takes the view that if your AOC authorises you to do something, you must have corresponding carrier’s liability insurance, whether you say you operate the aircraft or not. (Though I think that up at the heavy metal end of the market the insurance is on a “whatever we fly, whenever” basis. Maybe post 9/11 and the HIH collapse that has changed. Also, Tesna’s insurers might be a little more circumspect than Ansett’s.)
There is no requirement for an AOC holder to maintain the aircraft it operates under a certificate of approval held by the AOC holder. An AOC holder is entitled to have the aircraft maintained by a separate person (corporate or natural). However, the AOC holder does not thereby avoid all maintenance-related responsibilities. The AOC holder’s duties in section 28BE of the CAAct and the maintenance controller provisions, among other provisions and the common law, place responsibilities on the AOC holder in relation aircraft maintenance, notwithstanding that the maintenance is being done by another entity. Those responsibilities may not be as onerous as if the maintenance were being done by the AOC holder’s organisation, but they are still substantial.
The impression I keep getting is that Tesna could announce its intention to conduct Concorde operations, and we’d still see CASA throwing whatever resources were necessary at ensuring Tesna got its Concorde AOC, whenever the sale of Ansett was due to be settled.
Do an experiment: Form a company called “Slattern Black”, and walk into CASA and apply to conduct high capacity RPT operations. Ask them how long it will take them to assess the application.
My point continues to be that all the regulatory decisions related to the Ansett collapse are being made primarily on political rather than safety grounds. I continue to say that this is typical third world stuff.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Oz
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot disagree with creampuff when he says "My point continues to be that all the regulatory decisions related to the Ansett collapse are being made primarily on political rather than safety grounds."
My imagination runs riot at the thought of pollies quietly ringing up whoever at the regulatory authority and suggesting they exercise some imaginative interpretations of the Act, CAR's & Orders.
If this didn't / doesn't happen then I have completely misinterpreted how things get done.
After the Easter 'event', an undertaking was appended to the AOC. After 14/9 it didn't exsist, or it wasn't insisted on by the regulator anyway. So, if it was a 'safety' requirement before 14/9 and now it does not exsist, either it wasn't necessary before 14/9 or passengers travelling today are travelling at a lesser degree of safety!
ding
[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: dingo084 ]</p>
My imagination runs riot at the thought of pollies quietly ringing up whoever at the regulatory authority and suggesting they exercise some imaginative interpretations of the Act, CAR's & Orders.
If this didn't / doesn't happen then I have completely misinterpreted how things get done.
After the Easter 'event', an undertaking was appended to the AOC. After 14/9 it didn't exsist, or it wasn't insisted on by the regulator anyway. So, if it was a 'safety' requirement before 14/9 and now it does not exsist, either it wasn't necessary before 14/9 or passengers travelling today are travelling at a lesser degree of safety!
ding
[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: dingo084 ]</p>
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Sounds as though he wasn't the first, nor only paranoid "manager" that Ansett has appointed - and probably for good reason. It would appear that after using all their under-handed, boot-licking methods to wrest a position away from someone more eminently qualified, they then realise that they are out of their depth and thus resort to "attack" tactics to deflect attention away from their (many) INabilities, in the process losing any respect that might have been there in the beginning and becoming the subject of derision.
Whom amongst the Ansett pilots does not remember (with amusement) a previous RFM of BNE known as "The Rat with the gold tooth", who - during one of his (frequent) moments of insecurity and paranoia, announced to those present his use of "hidden cameras microphones and handwriting experts", to discover who was adding "TRWTGT" after his name, on notices he issued.. .The real irony for this "man" who remained at his desk EVERY DAY throughout the 9 month dispute, was that the perpetrator returned to work with him
"It's hard to soar with eagles, when you're led by turkeys!"
Whom amongst the Ansett pilots does not remember (with amusement) a previous RFM of BNE known as "The Rat with the gold tooth", who - during one of his (frequent) moments of insecurity and paranoia, announced to those present his use of "hidden cameras microphones and handwriting experts", to discover who was adding "TRWTGT" after his name, on notices he issued.. .The real irony for this "man" who remained at his desk EVERY DAY throughout the 9 month dispute, was that the perpetrator returned to work with him
"It's hard to soar with eagles, when you're led by turkeys!"
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Auztraya
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct Fly.You missed mentioning the two fiascos' that did more damage to AN than those incompetent ANZ fools,the Christmas and Easter 767 Maintenence incidents,both of which TJ with the humble title of"Senior Vice President Operations" was directly answerable to.
I thought it was only cats that had 9 lives!!!.
I thought it was only cats that had 9 lives!!!.
