SACKED on purpose

[Yeager]

Have to say it ones again. I find it really funny and to some extend interesting that the boys club who speaks out about naivity and dreaming on are really the ones who are doing just that.. I guess its like the pessimists who so very often defends them selves and claims to be the realists..
Guess this discussion is not really going anywhere.. Seems to me that most of us are just flawing out "what we think are happening" - havnt seen any real facts, beside from the fact that of the 3 other guys (know thats **** all!!) none of them nor I have had phone calls from CX to our previous employers. Based on thin statistical grounds thats still 100% - "not happening".
Yeah right Emirates calling Cathay and vica versa.. Me, dont THINK so!
But I have been told that Cathay management did send SIA a list of the 49ers that they sacked in 01' - being the management by fear company, that everybody knows cathay is - I would not be surprised - at all - that they did.. Thats just the sad reality about cathay.

[inciter]

parabellum,

Funny enough you put SIA and CX in the same sentence. Brings back memories of an Ansett 747 on the runway in Sydney covered in foam a few years back when it landed with the nose gear up. It did suffer an engine failure first and the problems were traced back to poor maintenance techniques and procedures.

One of Cathay Pacific's E-lites at the helm in a Singapore airlines aircraft.

Nuff said!

[BuzzBox]

Judging by the amount of pure drivel being posted here, I guess the schoolies must have been let loose early this year. You children ought to find a few other hobbies. Oh, and perhaps Yeager could either learn to spell or stay off the turps...

[C-152Captain]

C152 Capt. If all that happened was an unrecorded 'phone call between two colleagues then it would be hard to establish grounds for a law suite.

Two colleagues? In an unrecorded phone conversation? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

How about this?....How about the airline having to send an official FAA document that has THE NEW-HIRE'S SIGNATURE on it authorizing the previous employer to disclose certain discreet information. A copy of which has to be sent to the individual, not just to his new employer. That's the law!

They can not do it behind someone's back, it can't be done without people knowing. Everything is in black and white and it should be!! It is someone's career and livelihood, do you think it's a game that can be played by "two colleagues"? No mate, not in America. But it seems to be the case at CATHAY PACIFIC.

So there you have it, they are free to say and disclose whatever information that they want, but that lawsuit is lurking! These U.S. carriers would rather save their money!

[parabellum]

"Maybe if a guy seriously screws his airline and then goes to another which the other knows about THEN maybe a courteous call would be made, which is fair"

That is exactly what I am talking about and should have made clear from the start. This thread is about a guy who got sacked.

C-152 - maybe in America and are you 100% certain it wouldn't happen even then?

Inciter - I worked for SIA for ten years and have a fair picture of them. From the commercial point of view both CX and SIA do well and other carriers would welcome their balance sheet. Low Costs have been around a while and I think you will find that SIA at least will take them in their stride.

Anyone got a reference to the results of the inquiry for the Ansett 747 Nose wheel incident please?

[C-152Captain]

C-152 - maybe in America and are you 100% certain it wouldn't happen even then?

No, I wouldn't say 100%..But with people being law-suit happy in this country the airlines will think twice...thrice...before they say anything that would hurt someone's chances of getting a job.

Didn't some idiot just sued the dry-cleaners 54 Million USD over a lost pair of pants? Of course he didn't win but just think how big the lawsuit will be if someone loses out on a job that pays him 10+million dollars over a career?

Like I said, most airlines wouldn't take on that kind of liabilities, they LET IT GO, even if one was a bad apple.

Letting go: Something Cathay Pacific has not being able to do.

[Yeager]

BuzzBox,

Sorry if u dont understand my English. I would be happy to write in any other of the four other languages I command if that would make it easier - but I guess that would only make it worse for you mate ha

[inciter]

parabellum,

Since you asked,

Maintenance problems traced back to SIA, but that is not all.

Absolutely nothing found wrong with the nose gear.

Sby hydraulic pump NOT turned ON after engine failure.

25-30 kts fast on approach -a missed approach for most of us- remaining pumps struggling to get the flaps to landing position as a result not enough pressure to release nose doors. Flaps only got to landing setting just prior to touch down.

No GREEN LIGHTS on Flight engineer's panel - another missed approach for most of us-

But wait there is more, what the hell is that config warning going off all the way down the approach? Lets just ignore it and carry on -another missed approach opportunity-.

Just after touch down the tower informs the crew that the nose gear is up, with the reversers deployed the captain tries to initiate a missed approach on three engines-a no no-.

If it wasn't for the engineer stepping in and aborting the whole thing would 've ended up in a heap.

Commander- CX TRI/E training AN crews.

Cathay pacific check and training at its best!

[HotDog]

Cathay pacific check and training at its best!

Inciter, your recount of the AN accident is rather simplistic and biased to suit your own ends. Yes, the captain could have handled it better but too many holes of the cheese lined up and became overwhelming.

You can read the full BASI report here:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...403038_001.pdf

In the meantime, the synopsys hereby:
SYNOPSIS
The flight was an international regular public transport operation between Sydney, Australia and
Osaka, Japan on 19 October 1994. The technical crew consisted of a very experienced (B747)
pilot in command who was also acting as a training pilot, an experienced co-pilot who had not yet
completed his line training on the B747, and an experienced but newly B747-rated flight engineer
who was on his first revenue flight as a qualified B747 flight engineer.
Approximately one hour after departure the crew shut down the number one engine because of
an oil leak. They returned the aircraft to Sydney where the approach proceeded normally until
the landing gear was selected. With selection of the landing gear and selection of the flap beyond
a setting of flaps 20, the landing gear warning horn began to sound because the nose landing
gear had not extended. The flight crew unsuccessfully attempted to establish the reason for the
warning. Believing the gear to be down, the crew elected to complete the landing, with the result
that the aircraft was landed with the nose gear retracted. There was no fire and the pilot in
command decided not to initiate an emergency evacuation.
The investigation found that the oil loss was caused by the failure of a threaded insert used to
retain the engine angle gearbox housing cover. The cover came loose, allowing oil to escape. An
opportunity to action service bulletin SB JT9D-7R4-72-410, which would have prevented the oil
leak had not been taken. Although the same engine is used on a number of aircraft approved for
extended range operations over water, the manufacturer had not made the incorporation of this
service bulletin mandatory. The owners of an aircraft can elect not to action a manufacturer’s
recommendation to incorporate a service bulletin.
An unexplained reduction in air-driven hydraulic pump output caused slower than expected
operation of the number one hydraulic system. The system may still have been capable of
extending all the landing gear, given adequate time. However, the aircraft landed before the
system could complete the landing gear extension.
The flight crew had the opportunity to recognise and correct the landing gear problem prior to
landing. The pilot in command attempted to determine the actual landing gear situation from the
flight engineer. Although the flight engineer’s panel indicated the nose gear was not down and
locked, the flight engineer did not recognise this and subsequent communication and coordination
between the flight crew failed to detect this error.
During the latter part of the flight, the crew did not adequately manage the operation of the
aircraft. The crew’s performance reflected a lack of effective crew resource management, the
crew’s lack of knowledge about some of the company’s procedures for B747 operations, the
flight engineer’s and the co-pilot’s lack of experience in the B747 and perceived pressure.
A review of events associated with the introduction of the B747 indicated that organisational
factors involving both Ansett and the Civil Aviation Authority led to a situation where there was
increased potential for an accident of this nature to occur. These factors included deficiencies in
the planning and implementation of the introduction program for the new aircraft, particularly with
respect to manuals, procedures and line training. In addition, all regulatory requirements were
not observed, nor were they enforced.
The flight crew’s performance combined with the organisational factors to breach defences that
had been put in place to ensure the safety of regular public transport operations in high capacity
aircraft.
A number of recommendations were made as a result of the investigation.
Ansett Australia has advised the Bureau that it has taken a number of significant actions in
response to this occurrence. Details of the actions taken can be found in Section 4 of this report.

[inciter]

HotDog,

The training captain was PM so he should have picked up on the speed excursions, the fact the hydraulic gauge showed zero and its respective switch was OFF, or even the lack of green lights.

I thought that is what CX's supremely trained training captains are supposed to do. After all they set the standards.

It's not like they were out of options or time. All they had was an engine failure on a 4 engine jet.

They landed without having a clue that the nose gear was retracted.

I am sorry, but mine is an accurate account of what happened without the sugar coating.

parabellum,

If you worked for SIA for 10 years then you know exactly what I am talking about. Interesting how you side stepped the maintenance issue. For me sitting at the pointed end that is more important than the balance sheet.

So why did you leave after 10 years? Was it the fact expats are treated like sh1t or that a 777 skipper makes less than a turboprop driver in the UK.

Paying most of your staff peanuts and spending practically nothing on maintenance sure helps the bottom line.

Their success has absolutely nothing to do with efficiency.

This thread is gone off on a tangent (not unusual on pprune), but this time I feel responsible and I apologize.

I am just sick and tired of people like FloppyResponse and the likes where their aviation knowledge extends between flight international and the CX "safety mag" preaching CX's high standards.

They are no different to anyone else, accept it and move on.

[HotDog]

The training captain was PM so he should have picked up on the speed excursions, the fact the hydraulic gauge showed zero and its respective switch was OFF, or even the lack of green lights

Inciter, are you familiar with the 747-300 flight engineers panel, specifically the location and presentation of the landing gear annunciator module? If you get a chance, sit in the left hand seat of a classic and with the flight engineer positioned in his seat, see if you can spot the landing gear annunciator module which only displays individually , gear, door or tilt status if the flight engineer depresses either the PRIM or ALT GEAR, TILT or DOOR momentary contact push buttons. You have obviously not bothered to read the BASI report. The No. 1 ADP was not switched off.

It's easy to criticise with hindsight. How would you have performed under the circumstances? You don't know, do you? The accident was not connected to or caused by Cathay training standards in any way what so ever.

[parabellum]

Inciter - I did not side step the maintenance issue, I asked for a reference to the actual report which Hot Dog provided, a report you don't seem to want to accept.
I left SIA because I reached sixty years of age, I was not treated like sh1t, the operations, commercial and marketing departments are as efficient as you will find anywhere and are major contributors to the airline's success. I've no idea what they pay a B777 skipper but I know as a -400 skipper I was reasonably well paid when thirteenth month, annual bonus, provident fund, allowances, productivity payments and housing were taken into account and I have no beef with SIA maintenance so no, I don't know what you are talking about and I suspect you don't have much idea what you are talking about either.

[inciter]

[FlexibleResponse]

FR, WTF are you on about?

inciter, my apologies, comment is now deleted.

[inciter]

FR, WTF are you on about?

HotDog I stand by my original statements, despite the AN problems with training etc bla bla bla the facts remain:

Nothing found wrong with the pump (so it couldn't have been on),

Flap was selected to 30 at 170AAL (WTF)

the aircraft crossed the fence at 21kts too fast and was at 197kts at 1200ft. What happened to stabilisation criteria?

What about the decision to go around after touch down?

How would I have reacted?

Unless my arse was on fire I would have gone around for any of the above.

Don't give me the swiss cheese theory because this was an absolute cock up. And the reason we get paid the big bucks is to prevent them not sit there afterwards making excuses.

parabellum,

A 777 SIA skipper these days makes less than a CX FO.

I personally know three expat captains called into the office in the last four years that were told:
"Either go onto local terms or leave"

I guess things have changed a bit since you left.

[BlunderBus]

sacking

why not just nut out the 3 months notice and go out standing up...instead of on your belly?
what a stupid,gutless manouver that brings discredit to us all...i don't care for cx but it's so typical of guys today to let down their workmates,put us all in a bad light and have a knock on delay for hundreds of pax....what a selfish prick...

[cpdude]

Took a while to think about it did you?

[sia sniffer]

I worked in SIA, I can personally say that they are the biggest racist bunch of to$$ers you are ever going to meet. Cannot Lah, you expat, you go Lahore or Jedda or Ryhad, we go Europe and Australia and buy houses lah. But you dirty expat, you fly in typhoon, cos we chinese go sick lah.

No doubt CX will be turning asian in the next decade or so? Wasnt it the chinese guy who scraped the ass of the 340 ib Oz that time? Hope they screwed him, like they did to use guys in SQ.

[parabellum]

SIA Sniffer - you omitted to say if you were an expat F/O and I agree, they were treated badly and it wasn't all because several ran away without paying their bonds, SIA, for some reason has a 'thing' about Caucasian expat F/Os.
DEC got a better deal.

[elgringo]

love cx..

ok, since we are all in love with CX and its management, does anyone know or have any comments about the Four Bar checkee that, during his four bar had the checker bad mouth his wife? who by the way is also a CX pilot??