Skippers lose conquest at mine?

[skywest_xr]

Companies protect themselves by putting employees on casual contracts.

As soon you make an employee full time, you have to guarantee them hours.

If Skippers were to lose work by losing a contract, how are they going to guarantee hours to FT employees?

Should poo hit the fan, Skippers can either show the casuals the door or keep them there, at no loss to the company. They dont have the flexability with FTimers.

Just reading another thread, it looks like XR have been granted sole use on the majority of its current routes bar GET. So unless Skippers thinks outside the square and creates new routes, perhaps being an airline by the end of the year is a tad premature.

Forgive me If Im wrong, but I beleive FT Metros f/os get a base of 30k. Well the few that are FT.

Lastly, excuse my daftness, but who here actually does fly for Skippers? It seems that everyone seems to know everything about them, but yet they arent employed by them.

[slice]

lots of ex employees perhaps?

[Stick Pusher]

Let me invoke some logic to the question of casual pilots with SA.

Firstly the aircraft require 2 crew correct?
So why is the captain full time yet the f/o is not? HELLO!!!

At one time they wanted you to be available as often as a full time driver( that was part of their old bond form). I'm pretty sure that you can only be employed casually with a single employer for either 6 or 12 months legally.

I know all about SA, believe you me! And they prey on pilots and force them into this aviation prostitution...please don't get me started, I'll probably get kicked off!

Anyway digressing from the topic,

So what actually caused the failure in the first place?

[Apollo 4]

Dale

Well thats alright then... We can now have all the heavy drivers working an 8 hour day for a retail out-let before driving over the pond in command of a 400 tonne beast..

When faced with court action we all can now say, we were not fatigued cause Dale said it was ok.

Maybe I can drive a semi trailer for 8 hours, feeling great after a shower then front up to the hub and push back knowing that after 3 hours if I fade out it is ok because that EMPLOYMENT is not duty time. Who are we kidding.

Oh Please.... Everyone has a different rate of fatigue and it effects everyone differently, even the computer models that are around at the moment to calculate fatigue factors are mere indicators.

The fact is that if you are engaged in another job prior to taking comm and and have a problem you are in grave risk of prosecutionand so is the company who permitted you to fly. But then again I guess they can say, "Its ok Dale said so"

[Lowlevel]

What THE !
I thought this subject was about a conquest , not about how some try to make an extra buck. And its not too keep the wolves from the door, its probably just for piss money . ( The price of piss now is outrageous )
Seriously though , what someone does with their own time is their own business , and speculating is just utter bulls**t.
If i could make some extra bucks on the side i'd do it.

[Dale Harris]

Apollo, If you want to be a patronising ********, well I guess you just did. I DIDN'T say it was ok, I QUESTIONED your assertion that Duty Time is Duty Time is Duty Time. You have not shown that Duty Time is anything other than what I stated. And since the CAO's do not require it to be recorded other than during the time spent in the service of the (flying) employer, outside work is not relevant as far as recording it goes.

Some companies employ casual pilots. Some don't. Noone has shown that this argument has any bearing at all on the accident that is the subject of the post. Just because it is legal, doesn't make it right either. Do you honestly think that the current fatigue measurement system being bandied about is better than the CAO's?? Would it stop pilots flying after working elsewhere?? NO IT DOESN'T.

What I did say is it is not smart to fly tired or emotional or any other way if it is going to affect your work. This can be full time or part time, it does not matter. We are not talking about international operations so your reference to it is simply ridiculous. But while you mention it, do you think it is acceptable for international pilots to be rostered for 14 hr legs, into other time zones day after day? Does that not fatigue them? Ask them what they think. What about short haul?? coupla days then coupla nights, then a day or afternoon..... or some other combination. Acceptable? Oh it must be, they are employed full time........

I said it was okay?????? of course I did........

[SmallGlassofPort]

Stick Pusher, good Q!
I think the theory is the same as it always has, ie. Capt M23 full time, FO M23, (normally) first assignment with the company. Then progress to 441 Command or Bras/Dash FO slot etc etc.. Dont ask me to explain why the first post is casual, I dont own the place. There is though, a lot of movement on the right side of the metro. However, in all honesty, I think it would cost less for the company in full time wages.
The cause of the accident is I guess yet to be released. I am told that either a FCU or computor failure to an over fuel situation has something to do with it.
Cheers!

[YBRM]

If I stayed up shagging all night and rocked up to work in a fatigued state, is this considered the same thing ? And what if I was paid for it to boot.........should I consider this duty and tell my employer so they can cancel me off an early flight ???

I think there is a large grey area in this .........could be one for the legal fraternity.

Note..... if I could get paid for doing the deed, I think I'd hang up the wings and eppaulettes next to my footy boots !!!

[Apollo 4]

Dale

Qoute:
"And since the CAO's do not require it to be recorded other than during the time spent in the service of the (flying) employer, outside work is not relevant as far as recording it goes".

Sorry mate my copy of the CAO's doesn't have the word "flying" in it the way yours does..... or did you just amend the CAO's??

Look up the word Employment in the dictionary or maybe ring the tax office for their definition either way Employment = gainfully employed (paid). CAO 48 says Employment and I am mystified where you get "flying out of that.

The issue here is that there is no incentive for a casual pilot to declare sickness, fatigue or impairment as to do so will result in no phone call, no flight and no cash....

The Employer is failing totally by not assessing the Pilot for the existance or possibillity of fatigue or illness.

Just cut the Crap, the Skippers F/o's should be given FULL TIME employment and the casual 2 day (part time pilots) scheme canned.

[Stick Pusher]

Do I start to get started or do I...?

Buggar it, a couple of bottles of plonk should get me cranking!

Grandfarther port. yes you are corresct, it wold be cheaper, but the power or powers that be wish to abuse the system and rather than pay full-time wages and holidays etc, they would rather have a large f/o base and hardly work them and skim some money off them for their endorsements and keeps them dangling for a full time spot and promises of riches beyond their wildest dreams!

Oh and then I guess they still want you to bond you again to the hilt with a C-441 or EMB-120 endt!

I have a lot of good friends still there but the whole system is so....ed!!! and the old school know it

Anyway I digress again. if someone wants to start another post about the conditions, treatment bring it on...

The aircraft are some of the highest time C-441 in the world, sure they are cheap airfame wise because they are so old, but the line between maintaining them to a high standard which the FIFA faternity should be expecting and the regs require (and my good self) starts to tip the scales the other way to a point where safetly, standards and quality put a dint on the wallet and the upgrade to a more modern aircraft should be made. that may mean that quoting at such rock botttom prices prices will have to come up in order to obtain the appropriate new or newer aircraft. it has to happen some day... that is the life cycle of an aircraft ( as gaunty has pointed out).

Glad no one was hurt but I hope it is a wake up call for the company. It's a thin line that that company walks, I'm ammazed that they keep their contracts... I won't go into the other things that have gone past the wayside....

Don't get me wrong I Don't want the company to fall over, but I do want to see the bar raised to the level I know and you know it should be...


Cheers,

[bitter balance]

Apollo 4, I don't believe your definition of duty is correct. I have never seen third party employment defined as duty before. Indeed it is very murky legal waters for an employer to prevent an employee from gaining additional employment. Just ask the NSW Police Service about their attempt to prevent officers from moonlighting as security etc If someone is fatigued from working too hard in a third party job then they should not sign on for duty. I fail to see how the company can be held responsible for the employee being fatigued from a job they can't prevent them from doing!

[Dan Kelly]

Refer CAO48.0, Application & Responsibility (1.4)

1.4 Notwithstanding anything contained in these Orders, a flight crew member shall not fly, and an operator shall not require that person to fly if either the flight crew member is suffering from, or, considering the circumstances of the particular flight to be undertaken, is likely to suffer from fatigue or illness which may affect judgement or performance to the extent that safety may be impaired.

Let me now bold the words of this section of the order which have a very real bearing on the arguments in this thread with respect to work other than flying for a particular employer.

1.4 Notwithstanding anything contained in these Orders, a flight crew member shall not fly, and an operator shall not require that person to fly if either the flight crew member is suffering from, or, considering the circumstances of the particular flight to be undertaken, is likely to suffer from fatigue or illness which may affect judgement or performance to the extent that safety may be impaired.



I venture to suggest that should an accident ensue and then be subsequently investigated or prosecuted, the ATSB will take a detailed account of one's movements and rest in the period leading up to the accident.

When subsequently in the witness box, one will be closely questioned about one's decisioin to work 10hrs at Woolies/KFC/McChuck's/etc. and then go flying for a 10 hour duty period disregarding the requirements of para 1.4 above.

Saying that one had to accept the flight or miss out on flying, won't cut the mustard with the legal eagles! And you can bet that the employer will trot out a statement in the Ops Manual requiring pilots not to fly when fatigued.

The end result?

You are left carrying the can!

[Dale Harris]

Thank you gents....... You make my point for me.

[the wizard of auz]

Nothing like self provided evidence....... makes for a less tiring day and thus easier when one shows up for the tazzie flights. how the hell are ya cobb? aint heard from ya for yonks.

[Dale Harris]

I am well fella, hope you are too mate. Look forward to catching up, whenever that can be!!!!!!!

[kickstart]

FCU sheared off. Most damage forward of the avionics bay bulkhead, 2 small holes behind this bulkhead reressurized section of fuselage probably from the nose gear folding back, engines u/s, props u/s.

Tiz what I've heard, may not be gospel.

[SmallGlassofPort]

Apollo, I understand where you are coming from. It may not be good enough for me to say 'well we all had to go through it' yet that is predominately the case.... unless we started OS. The best case would be for Aus Aviation to clean up and provide us all with a living. Worst case... I guess it could get a little worse.(I mean at least I'm still flying!).
In the end, I strongly believe that people are employed for a job which is expected to be completed. If they cannot afford the time or finance it should not be accepted. Maybe employers will then get the idea. I however will and do not advocate things such as the following.
Employer offers employee a job for % dollers. Employee gets paid % dollers for two years prior to joining a regional. A year or so after joining, employee sues former employer for # dollers underpay of award! Hey man you accepted the job! Where is your argument? Were you intoxicated? When pilots do that, I feel they lower themselves even further than the employer... and that stays with them forever.
That said, I still think I'm worth more money!!

Dale, Your thoughts are interesting. I'm not a boffin so can someone please help me in this. I am of the understanding that if you are operating under more than one flight and duty time ruling the most restrictive will then become the ruling? Therefore, if operating, ie, at Jandakot casually whilst at the same time working casually at Skippers, you would have to combine the both to meet whichever companies most restrictive rule? Of course skippers may not need to know this, as its your own 'private time' as long as you meet flight and duties, and arrive at work I guess. Obvoiusly, if out of aviation, no problem.

Its quite a while since I read the CAO's. Can someone help? Am I drunkedly way off the mark? Its very possible!!

[gaunty]

Dan Kelly

That's about the way I see it.

It's fairly typical of the polyanna and just straight BS that gets passed around at this level of operation, that working a 10 hour shift at Maccas to pay for the rent and food and going flying afterwards to get the hours is either legal or OK.

Why bother writing Para 1.4 otherwise.

If Skippers, Schmikkers or Bill Bloggs Acme We Aint Fancy But We're Cheap Aviation want to play it that way, then they will one day reap the consequences.

Part time FO's or any type of pilot is just not on.

It is not a question of whether they can afford to have full time FO's, it is question of them not charging enough to be able to do so.

To say that they can't afford it because they have to be competitive is a circular argument, simply doesn't play and will have me back in the Coroners court saying why.

Their clients will not thank them for it either.

It is a mystery to me that the miners who use FIFO services have MUCH higher safety standards and "Duty of Care" protocols than are required by most of the organisations that provide aviation services to them, yet think that it is actually the other way around.

I am further surprised that the evidence that I led in the Central Air case, subsequently recommended by the coroner, an as yet unactioned recommendation by the ATSB and really is just plain old fashioned "Duty of Care" is apparently still not understood by the miners who use and those who provide FIFO services.

Now I'll see how long it takes for someone to tell me that the so called "Ghost flight" doesn't have anything to do with the part time FO bit.

[Apollo 4]

Small Glass

Skippers have a large pool of F/O’s so that there is a large redundancy factor along with the control over who flys. Lets face it if you are struggling on 2 days a week then you are NEVER going to say no to that phone call the night before… are you !

So lets look at the FATIGUE issue, a young aspiring but casual F/O is working at Bills Burger Barn to make ends meet. The phone call comes at 1800 hrs local advising him that he has a flight RHS in the metro at 0700 hrs the following morning. “Hey Jack count me in see you at 0600 hrs”.

Putting the phone down the F/O goes to the shower and gets changed ready for the part time job and takes off to Bills to make burgers. He sees nothing wrong with that and works until 2400 hrs, before knocking off and going home to sleep.

The F/O gets up at 0500 hrs arrives at the Skippers crew room at 0600 hrs and finally blasts off at 0705 hrs for a 4 hour return trip. Upon completion of the tour the F/O goes home and arrives at 1300 hrs, decides to get a quick kip before going back to Bills again. At 1700 hours the phone rings again (2 days in a row, unbelievable) advising him that he has another flight rhs in the metro at 0600 hrs, “Hey Jack count me in see you at 0500 hrs”.

Putting the phone down the F/O goes to the shower and gets changed ready for the part time job and takes off to Bills to make burgers. He sees nothing wrong with that and works until 2400 hrs, before knocking off and going home to sleep.

At 0400 hrs the F/O gets up and arrives at the Skippers crew room at 0500 hrs and finally blasts off at 0615 hrs…….

THIS CREW MEMBER IS NOW WELL AND TRULY FATIGUED, his judgement and reflexes are the same as if his blood alcohol level was 0.05%, he is not allowed to legally drive a car but here he is flying an aircraft full of mine workers.

BEFORE anyone jumps up and says, “This wouldn’t happen etc”, this is an actual account of what is happening and has happened and there is absolutely no incentive whatsoever for the F/O to answer the phone by saying, “I can’t fly tomorrow because I will only have had 4 hours sleep”.

So by having so many F/O’s on casual wages begging for flights, Skippers is increasing the risks of an accident or incident occurring. The only Safe, Responsible, and ethical course is to;

1. reduce the number of casual F/O’s
2. give full time employment to these crew and restrict extra employment
3. ensure each F/O receives at least 4 days work each week

At any stage should an emergency occur and persons are hurt or killed the F/O’s actions during the previous 24 hour period are definitely going to be looked at and this is where the law suits begin. You will not be covered by an indemnity unless you can prove that your actions were lawful. A bit hard to do this when the definition of “rest period” stipulates employment full stop.

The Skippers management will say we didn’t know he was doing that and quote the op’s manual, this is where you will see management leave you standing because if they agree with casa that you have broken any condition/section of CAO’s then the indemnity is invalid and can no longer be a claim against the company.

[Stick Pusher]

i Agree with your 3 points Apollo 4. Told them that years ago. They did have Full time F?O's on the metro and a very small number of casuals. But for some reason as the full-time F/O moved on or got promoted, they didn't replace them. It was rumoured to be because they didn't want to pay holidays etc? But as I said before all the captains are full-time on this 2 crew aircraft, why aren't the F/O's? It's just the typical way Skippers is managed... exploit the pilots. There is also no reason that they could not have a roster because 95% of their flying is basically Schedulled charter, i.e Jundee flight in a M-23 goes every M-T-W-T-F at 0630 for arguments sake. They argue that things keep changing, upsize/downsize of a/c extra charters, breakdowns etc. But as I always said if they had the right crew numbers they could have people on reserve a have total coverage. The old pencil system for what 20 a/c and what 60 pilots is stone age stuff. They keep saying that its G/A charter, but if that is there mentality they'll never be able to step up to the plate if they ever tried RPT... It's up to all of you guys there to change their ways. I guess it's a matter of you pay for what you get if you know what I mean. Could easily get a system like Geneva to run the show, keep track of all F & D times etc and roster it so that they all have a life, and that if a second job is required, then you will know when you are flying or not and see when you can work so as not to fatigue ones self for either job. But as Gaunty mentioned, should pay their crews right, look after them. A professional organisation would. Geneva cost bucks, but the saving in the end are worth the outlay. I wouldn't think twice of buying it if I ran the show... I sure CASA would not look favourably at SA if they really knew this was happening and how they treat the crews