The worst GA operators in Australia
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: In a country
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The worst GA operators in Australia
Could be safety, could be treatment of staff and it could be everything.
Just wondered what people thought and why, I have one operator in mind but I will wait to see what other think.
Lets try to keep it sensible and it could be useful to guys/gals looking for jobs.
Just wondered what people thought and why, I have one operator in mind but I will wait to see what other think.
Lets try to keep it sensible and it could be useful to guys/gals looking for jobs.
I think you'd find that you could be sued for defamation if you were to name companies like that.
Suggest you slowly back away and ask moderators to delete this thread,
.
morno
Suggest you slowly back away and ask moderators to delete this thread,
.morno
Guest
Posts: n/a
truth is an absolute defense against defamation and slander, so as long as posters just publish factual information here about specific companies that would in the collective eyes of the pprune community make them stand out as 'bad' GA companies, the posters will have nothing to fear..
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 60
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great intention
But I don't think the execution will live up to it 
Bla(3)
It could be a great idea, but with the standard of "reasoned debate" here on D&G I'm guessing that this thread wont last long.
FWIW:
I've only worked for three GA operators.
1) XXXXX were a typical GA flying school/charter company that took the line: "We'll put in the absolute minimum into our staff, students, and equipment". They are no longer operating.
2) Sharp Airlines were great to work for. You were worked hard, but their standards and safety were very high, and their "cadets" are looked upon favourably when they leave.
3) XXXXX had a YYY base. On the plus side, their safety was good; and you weren't pressured to fly unsafe aircraft. On the down side they were a bunch of amateurs who couldn't organise a pissup in a brewery. When the base manager (who was incompetent) started they were the second largest operator on the field (plus 4 - 5 remote bases). Around 6 months after I left they closed down their operation.
DIVOSH!
Bla(3)
It could be a great idea, but with the standard of "reasoned debate" here on D&G I'm guessing that this thread wont last long.
FWIW:
I've only worked for three GA operators.
1) XXXXX were a typical GA flying school/charter company that took the line: "We'll put in the absolute minimum into our staff, students, and equipment". They are no longer operating.
2) Sharp Airlines were great to work for. You were worked hard, but their standards and safety were very high, and their "cadets" are looked upon favourably when they leave.
3) XXXXX had a YYY base. On the plus side, their safety was good; and you weren't pressured to fly unsafe aircraft. On the down side they were a bunch of amateurs who couldn't organise a pissup in a brewery. When the base manager (who was incompetent) started they were the second largest operator on the field (plus 4 - 5 remote bases). Around 6 months after I left they closed down their operation.
DIVOSH!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately much of it will come down to personal opinion and can never be separated from subjective viewpoints.
And therein lies the problem, there are always two sides to every story.
Without knowing all the facts, the whole thing will turn into a slanging match.
Better to dwell on the positives....
And therein lies the problem, there are always two sides to every story.
Without knowing all the facts, the whole thing will turn into a slanging match.
Better to dwell on the positives....
Bottums Up
I had a great run with Whitaker Air Charter in the late 80's & early 90's. Award pay, no bonding or charge for endorsement (BN2, Nomad & DHC6). The only grumble was rosters were almost non existent.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, I think I know several of those XXXXX companies! They're the ones with the spotless MR's, accounts that don't show cash transactions, where the CP doesn't exactly pressure you to fly an overloaded aircraft, but is always vocal in between flights that your aircraft will handle any load provided the doors will shut, and is always absent when a large load of passengers show up; where as little as possible is written down, where you don't get accommodation or meals on layovers, etc.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
truth is an absolute defense against defamation and slander, so as long as posters just publish factual information here about specific companies
Guest
Posts: n/a
from Wikipedia:
Uniform legislation was passed in Australia in 2005 severely restricting the right of corporations to sue for defamation (see, eg, Defamation Act 2005 (Vic), s 9). The only corporations excluded from the general ban are those not for profit or those with less than 10 employees and not affiliated with another company. Corporations may, however, still sue for the tort of injurious falsehood, where the burden of proof is greater than for mere defamation, because the plaintiff must show that the defamation was made with malice and resulted in economic loss. [30]
The 2005 reforms also established across all Australian states the availability of Truth as a defense; previously a number of states only allowed a defense of Truth with the condition that a public benefit exists [31].
The 2005 reforms also established across all Australian states the availability of Truth as a defense; previously a number of states only allowed a defense of Truth with the condition that a public benefit exists [31].
PlankBlender wrote:
Gawd that's funny Planky, do you often stand-up in front of a judge and tell their honour that they should consider this and that and quote chapter and verse a Wiki reference for a sentence for him/her to hand down upon you? Sorry mate, I don't mean to be amused by your post but unfortunately you may never realise the true irony of it.
Besides, when was Wiki a recognised source of Australian Legislation and/or Regulation?
PL I hope you are well. Where are you these days?
Regards,
OpsN.
from Wikipedia:
Quote:
Uniform legislation was passed in Australia in 2005 severely restricting the right of corporations to sue for defamation (see, eg, Defamation Act 2005 (Vic), s 9). The only corporations excluded from the general ban are those not for profit or those with less than 10 employees and not affiliated with another company. Corporations may, however, still sue for the tort of injurious falsehood, where the burden of proof is greater than for mere defamation, because the plaintiff must show that the defamation was made with malice and resulted in economic loss. [30]
The 2005 reforms also established across all Australian states the availability of Truth as a defense; previously a number of states only allowed a defense of Truth with the condition that a public benefit exists [31].
Quote:
Uniform legislation was passed in Australia in 2005 severely restricting the right of corporations to sue for defamation (see, eg, Defamation Act 2005 (Vic), s 9). The only corporations excluded from the general ban are those not for profit or those with less than 10 employees and not affiliated with another company. Corporations may, however, still sue for the tort of injurious falsehood, where the burden of proof is greater than for mere defamation, because the plaintiff must show that the defamation was made with malice and resulted in economic loss. [30]
The 2005 reforms also established across all Australian states the availability of Truth as a defense; previously a number of states only allowed a defense of Truth with the condition that a public benefit exists [31].
Besides, when was Wiki a recognised source of Australian Legislation and/or Regulation?
PL I hope you are well. Where are you these days?
Regards,
OpsN.
Guest
Posts: n/a
geez you're a funny old man 
http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LE...D/DefamA05.pdf
Schedule 25: truth as defense
..obviously the Wiki summary will be a tad easier to grasp for the layman than the legalese of the Act
http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LE...D/DefamA05.pdf
Schedule 25: truth as defense
..obviously the Wiki summary will be a tad easier to grasp for the layman than the legalese of the Act
Moderator
I don't believe PPRuNe has any desire to become embroiled in the merits of defamation, libel or tort of injurious falsehood.
Been there, done that!
I am prepared to re-open this thread only to those prepared to append their posts with their full name and address for service and agree in writing to PPRuNe releasing their IP address to any party, upon request.
In the interim.............
Been there, done that!
I am prepared to re-open this thread only to those prepared to append their posts with their full name and address for service and agree in writing to PPRuNe releasing their IP address to any party, upon request.
In the interim.............
