Skippers lose conquest at mine?
No roster?!?!?!!?
I cannot believe that an operator as large as Skippers runs without a roster?!?!?!?!?! Even the shyster twits I worked for up north managed a roster (introduced after inumerable cockups with pilot duty). Even without any assisting software, it is not rocket science. As you say Stick pusher, a fair amount of mining charter in fact follows a pattern that can be allowed for. I don't know if Skippers have this complication, but we had pilots flying multiple types, however with a bit of thinking (ie model the problem), all the eventualities could be catered for. That is, no servicable aircraft was unable to be crewed on a given day, thus no ad hoc charter had to be turned away. Pilots knew what days they had off and this improved morale quite a bit. The owner/managers however couldn't understand how it worked and believed somehow that the pilots would work less!!! (same number of pilots as pre roster).
That Skippers apparently can't even attain that level of organisational competence seems strange. I mean with DHC8s and EMB120s along with M23s and C441s their maintenance scheduling would have to be fairly organised and efficient one would think or it would all come undone in a short space of time.
That Skippers apparently can't even attain that level of organisational competence seems strange. I mean with DHC8s and EMB120s along with M23s and C441s their maintenance scheduling would have to be fairly organised and efficient one would think or it would all come undone in a short space of time.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One has to wonder how many drivers actually leave the eastern states of this country to go and work for this company. To be honest I don't know how they get people to work for them. Why would anyone work under these conditions. It's almost beyond comprehension...........and in the same sentence a collegue with considerable experience (C&T) worked for them a while back and reckons it was the best job he'd ever had. Totally organised, excellent systems in place and above all, a safety culture that most companies of this size would envy. Go figure, the grass may not be greener but it's certainly well trimmed. As far as the casual effos issue I think thats utter crap. Apollo 4's angle is very difficult to oppose. I hate to see this kind of exploitation of pilots. And as someone has already said, whilst they continue to accept the status quo nothing is going to change. My 5 cents worth........
Onya
Onya
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe its all to do with having to give an F/O a part time/casual position after they have spent the six or so grand on the endo's. After all, it is part of the income of the business.
I've been following this thread, if only to see how sentiments don't really seem to change the further up the ladder one progresses in certain companies....
gaunty wrote:
The Kingair accident? I must admit to not being entirely sure where you are coming from o' learned one. A puzzled 4/J 
gaunty wrote:
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.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Wherever I'm told
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apollo, I understand where you are coming from. Full time for those guys would make it easier. They would have a known income per week, sick leave etc etc.
The problem there is that they will probabily end up in the same situation anyway. Full time on M23 RHS (unless I'm wrong) is in the vicinity of 34K. I dont expect that much above the award would be payed (in comparison to the other skip postings). This known income therefore would equal or be slightly less than 3 casual days work.
With this in mind the effos will now be working 5 days a week and still possibly looking for the second barnicle bills job to cover bills, and even higher levels of fatigue.
On the point of the second job and the pilot left holding the ball after an accident/incident. I think YBRM has hit the nail on the head here. The effo is employed to complete a task, they have the choice to accept that task or not. Picture the following. I go out and party with friends all night long. I am responsible and do not drink. I do not get much sleep though and after four hours rest go flying. I stuff up during some emergency etc etc. In the end the company can wipe their hands of it as its my fault. What I do in my own time is up to me. It would be the same if I worked for barnicle all night.
Bear in mind that these guys are pretty lucky in that they are generally reasonably low time and do not stay in that position for long. My guess would be 18 months tops. Now you can call me old, ugly, jealous etc, but hey at their age and experience level I would have loved that sort of break in aviation. This is not to say I condone the conditions, I just dont think you can change it!
The problem there is that they will probabily end up in the same situation anyway. Full time on M23 RHS (unless I'm wrong) is in the vicinity of 34K. I dont expect that much above the award would be payed (in comparison to the other skip postings). This known income therefore would equal or be slightly less than 3 casual days work.
With this in mind the effos will now be working 5 days a week and still possibly looking for the second barnicle bills job to cover bills, and even higher levels of fatigue.
On the point of the second job and the pilot left holding the ball after an accident/incident. I think YBRM has hit the nail on the head here. The effo is employed to complete a task, they have the choice to accept that task or not. Picture the following. I go out and party with friends all night long. I am responsible and do not drink. I do not get much sleep though and after four hours rest go flying. I stuff up during some emergency etc etc. In the end the company can wipe their hands of it as its my fault. What I do in my own time is up to me. It would be the same if I worked for barnicle all night.
Bear in mind that these guys are pretty lucky in that they are generally reasonably low time and do not stay in that position for long. My guess would be 18 months tops. Now you can call me old, ugly, jealous etc, but hey at their age and experience level I would have loved that sort of break in aviation. This is not to say I condone the conditions, I just dont think you can change it!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: WA
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Small G of P !!
Folks, no one said you have to like
Well said Small G of P !!
Folks, no one said you have to like the system, the fact is that this is the current system in place, and you can either except that or don't bother to apply-this is the cold hard fact.
If you think how SA runs its business is wrong, then you haven't been in the industry for long or haven't seen much in your career. Let me put it to you this way, how often have you heard of pilots flying without pay just to get their hours up ? Is this not exploitation ? It's the way the industry has run for a long time and will continue to do so (unfortunately).
I agree GA is not the greatest industry to work in, but these are the conditions, and god knows I love to fly aircraft, so I'll accept the BS for what it is. If not, better think about a change of profession.
Folks, no one said you have to like
Well said Small G of P !!
Folks, no one said you have to like the system, the fact is that this is the current system in place, and you can either except that or don't bother to apply-this is the cold hard fact.
If you think how SA runs its business is wrong, then you haven't been in the industry for long or haven't seen much in your career. Let me put it to you this way, how often have you heard of pilots flying without pay just to get their hours up ? Is this not exploitation ? It's the way the industry has run for a long time and will continue to do so (unfortunately).
I agree GA is not the greatest industry to work in, but these are the conditions, and god knows I love to fly aircraft, so I'll accept the BS for what it is. If not, better think about a change of profession.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Small Glass
You contradict yourself and are losing sight of the facts.
I will guarantee you that any effo at Skippers would accept immediately a position as full time employee. Why? Because they know that they would be infinitely better off and if they are on the equivalent of 3 days a week then life would be sweet. They are lucky to get 2 days.
At the moment an effo waits by the phone like a love sick puppy waiting for a love interest to ring. How degrading!!! Ring ring “hello”, “would you like to fly tomorrow”? “Oh yes please honey”! Thank you grovel grovel…
An effo can’t get a loan because he is casual; AN EFFO WILL RARELY DECLARE THAT HE IS UNFIT/FATIGUED FOR WORK UNLESS IT IS PATENTLY OBVIOUS, why? Because if he doesn’t fly he doesn’t get paid….If he doesn’t fly he gets no hours in the log book.
Skippers don’t even have the decency to publish a roster so that all the casuals can plan their lives at least a week ahead… SO MUCH FOR THE GREAT ORGANISATIONAL SKILLS… Crap! They are just control freaks.
As for working more days a week, every effo would give their left knacker to be able to fly every day in the words of another, in a place they want to be, to places they want to go and in an aircraft they love to fly….. The more hours in the log book the better, so that argument won’t wash.
SGOP
Quote: I do not get much sleep though and after four hours rest go flying. I stuff up during some emergency etc etc. In the end the company can wipe their hands of it as its my fault. What I do in my own time is up to me.
In deed what you do in your own time is your own business; however the minute you take a seat up the front end, your business is every passengers business. If you think that any passenger would condone a tired, fatigued, sick or infirmed crew member you are truly mistaken. Then again this sounds exactly like a product of the Skippers school of safety and risk assessment…. “Don’t know don’t care”.
You are correct nothing will change until management recognise the flaw in their casual approach to fatigue management and safety. Let’s hope it doesn’t take a fatality or a law suit..
YBRM
Quote: I agree GA is not the greatest industry to work in, but these are the conditions, and god knows I love to fly aircraft, so I'll accept the BS for what it is.
This is a sad indictment on your attitude to the casual crews you work with and the willingness to acknowledge that the system is buls sh1t and yet you have no balls to condemn it.
To be fair your handle is probably well known to the Skippers management and thus a little bit of a company loyalty may go a long way. Sad.
If you love to fly, why would any of the casual effos not want to fly 5 days a week for 34 k with paid sick leave, (for the times when they have only had 4 hours sleep) or 6 weeks paid holidays so you can take the Mrs away or heaven forbid apply to a bank for a loan to get a unit or a car etc???????
The issue is SAFETY the rules say don’t fly fatigued and don’t let any one fly when fatigued.. but who is going to make the decision??
The Casual Pilot will not, the management don’t want to know and CASA are flat out trying to get out of the office without looking for more work.
So who will make the decision ? Who will stop this lunacy? The client that is who!
If this thread was to be forwarded to all the Skippers clients in the mining game, I doubt any of them would be happy about the way the Fatigue Issue is being handled, I doubt that they would reckon that it fits in with their philosophy of fatigue anagement…
Maybe then management might at least post a roster for the casual effos to see what they are doing two weeks in advance and whether the flying is being shared out properly in advance.
Then again the mining companies might insist on FULL TIME employment…..
You contradict yourself and are losing sight of the facts.
I will guarantee you that any effo at Skippers would accept immediately a position as full time employee. Why? Because they know that they would be infinitely better off and if they are on the equivalent of 3 days a week then life would be sweet. They are lucky to get 2 days.
At the moment an effo waits by the phone like a love sick puppy waiting for a love interest to ring. How degrading!!! Ring ring “hello”, “would you like to fly tomorrow”? “Oh yes please honey”! Thank you grovel grovel…
An effo can’t get a loan because he is casual; AN EFFO WILL RARELY DECLARE THAT HE IS UNFIT/FATIGUED FOR WORK UNLESS IT IS PATENTLY OBVIOUS, why? Because if he doesn’t fly he doesn’t get paid….If he doesn’t fly he gets no hours in the log book.
Skippers don’t even have the decency to publish a roster so that all the casuals can plan their lives at least a week ahead… SO MUCH FOR THE GREAT ORGANISATIONAL SKILLS… Crap! They are just control freaks.
As for working more days a week, every effo would give their left knacker to be able to fly every day in the words of another, in a place they want to be, to places they want to go and in an aircraft they love to fly….. The more hours in the log book the better, so that argument won’t wash.
SGOP
Quote: I do not get much sleep though and after four hours rest go flying. I stuff up during some emergency etc etc. In the end the company can wipe their hands of it as its my fault. What I do in my own time is up to me.
In deed what you do in your own time is your own business; however the minute you take a seat up the front end, your business is every passengers business. If you think that any passenger would condone a tired, fatigued, sick or infirmed crew member you are truly mistaken. Then again this sounds exactly like a product of the Skippers school of safety and risk assessment…. “Don’t know don’t care”.
You are correct nothing will change until management recognise the flaw in their casual approach to fatigue management and safety. Let’s hope it doesn’t take a fatality or a law suit..
YBRM
Quote: I agree GA is not the greatest industry to work in, but these are the conditions, and god knows I love to fly aircraft, so I'll accept the BS for what it is.
This is a sad indictment on your attitude to the casual crews you work with and the willingness to acknowledge that the system is buls sh1t and yet you have no balls to condemn it.
To be fair your handle is probably well known to the Skippers management and thus a little bit of a company loyalty may go a long way. Sad.
If you love to fly, why would any of the casual effos not want to fly 5 days a week for 34 k with paid sick leave, (for the times when they have only had 4 hours sleep) or 6 weeks paid holidays so you can take the Mrs away or heaven forbid apply to a bank for a loan to get a unit or a car etc???????
The issue is SAFETY the rules say don’t fly fatigued and don’t let any one fly when fatigued.. but who is going to make the decision??
The Casual Pilot will not, the management don’t want to know and CASA are flat out trying to get out of the office without looking for more work.
So who will make the decision ? Who will stop this lunacy? The client that is who!
If this thread was to be forwarded to all the Skippers clients in the mining game, I doubt any of them would be happy about the way the Fatigue Issue is being handled, I doubt that they would reckon that it fits in with their philosophy of fatigue anagement…
Maybe then management might at least post a roster for the casual effos to see what they are doing two weeks in advance and whether the flying is being shared out properly in advance.
Then again the mining companies might insist on FULL TIME employment…..
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apollo 4
Now at last we are getting there.
From a "Duty of Care" perspective they, the miners that is, do not have any other alternative.
Most miners have a higher and more rigorous safety standard and protocols than the aviation business.
The Mines Act, has more draconian penalties for failure than the aviation business.
The responsibilities in the Act extend equally from the janitor to the Chairman and make the CASA penalties look like a walk in the park.
OpsNormal
The PIC on this flight was "casual" i.e. not full time.
Recently endorsed and not experienced on the type or for that matter any high performance turboprop.
Yes he was a truly nice guy but IMHO that didn't help him or the pax when it really counted.
The aircraft was the either "oldest" of its type on the register, or if not, the other B200 belonging to the operator was.
A deliberate policy on the part of the operator to find the cheapest or lowest capital cost aircraft in a fallacious bid to expand the the profit potential or an even dumber attempt to reduce the "revenue rate" to an even more competitive low than before.
A "consultant", perhaps, advising the miner, that the organisation was "kosher", which in the context of the CASA regs, it, without reservation, was, with out him, the operator or the miner understanding what it really meant.
The miner believes that it has satisfied its "Duty of Care", and is entitled to believe so, in the context of the advice received and its perceived weight.
The CASA Regs and the background of the adviser support the advice, which, however, is fundamentally flawed.
Everything is actually "legal" according to black letter law.
However the decision is made in the absence of, and the lack of Regulatory requirement for the revelation of the "higher standard" mandated for "public transport".
Whilst the "legal nicety" of whether FIFO is or isn't "public transport on fixed schedules between fixed points" is covered the fact and the reality is, that it is.
Further the protection of the "transport category rules " required for the "carriage of the public.........etc" and necessarily more expensive is neatly avoided.
The miner gets it cheap, the local community as a result, misses out on an economic RPT in "transport category aircraft, and the miners staff get to be exposed to the lowest common denominator in aviation transport.
That's not what I understand as meeting the highest level of "Duty of Care " available to your staff.
This genie is now out of the bottle subsequent to the most recent Coroners findings.
It will be a brave miner and their supplier of aviation services who does not take notice of the probable consequences and do something positive about it.
Lest they have to try and explain to the next set of families, why the few extra dollars profit were more important than their loved ones lives.
A positive start would be for FOs to exercise the professional obligation to the privilege of their license and refuse to operate "part time", surviving by topping up your income at Maccas.
I gaurantee, you will be hung out to dry in the subsequent legal fracas. If you are lucky you will not survive the accident and not have to suffer the professional ignominy and severe financial pain.
The miners have the money if they are forced to cough it up, if they haven't then they haven't got a viable mine, unless you subscribe to theory that the workers should subsidise the operation by accepting a higher level of risk than is required by law for the rest of the population
The operators generally lack the skills to deliver the essential argument to the miner, it's sad that they still think that their business is simply about flying aircraft between point A and B.
Now at last we are getting there.
If this thread was to be forwarded to all the Skippers clients in the mining game, I doubt any of them would be happy about the way the Fatigue Issue is being handled, I doubt that they would reckon that it fits in with their philosophy of fatigue anagement…
Then again the mining companies might insist on FULL TIME employment
Then again the mining companies might insist on FULL TIME employment
Most miners have a higher and more rigorous safety standard and protocols than the aviation business.
The Mines Act, has more draconian penalties for failure than the aviation business.
The responsibilities in the Act extend equally from the janitor to the Chairman and make the CASA penalties look like a walk in the park.
OpsNormal
The PIC on this flight was "casual" i.e. not full time.
Recently endorsed and not experienced on the type or for that matter any high performance turboprop.
Yes he was a truly nice guy but IMHO that didn't help him or the pax when it really counted.
The aircraft was the either "oldest" of its type on the register, or if not, the other B200 belonging to the operator was.
A deliberate policy on the part of the operator to find the cheapest or lowest capital cost aircraft in a fallacious bid to expand the the profit potential or an even dumber attempt to reduce the "revenue rate" to an even more competitive low than before.
A "consultant", perhaps, advising the miner, that the organisation was "kosher", which in the context of the CASA regs, it, without reservation, was, with out him, the operator or the miner understanding what it really meant.
The miner believes that it has satisfied its "Duty of Care", and is entitled to believe so, in the context of the advice received and its perceived weight.
The CASA Regs and the background of the adviser support the advice, which, however, is fundamentally flawed.
Everything is actually "legal" according to black letter law.
However the decision is made in the absence of, and the lack of Regulatory requirement for the revelation of the "higher standard" mandated for "public transport".
Whilst the "legal nicety" of whether FIFO is or isn't "public transport on fixed schedules between fixed points" is covered the fact and the reality is, that it is.
Further the protection of the "transport category rules " required for the "carriage of the public.........etc" and necessarily more expensive is neatly avoided.
The miner gets it cheap, the local community as a result, misses out on an economic RPT in "transport category aircraft, and the miners staff get to be exposed to the lowest common denominator in aviation transport.
That's not what I understand as meeting the highest level of "Duty of Care " available to your staff.
This genie is now out of the bottle subsequent to the most recent Coroners findings.
It will be a brave miner and their supplier of aviation services who does not take notice of the probable consequences and do something positive about it.
Lest they have to try and explain to the next set of families, why the few extra dollars profit were more important than their loved ones lives.
A positive start would be for FOs to exercise the professional obligation to the privilege of their license and refuse to operate "part time", surviving by topping up your income at Maccas.
I gaurantee, you will be hung out to dry in the subsequent legal fracas. If you are lucky you will not survive the accident and not have to suffer the professional ignominy and severe financial pain.
The miners have the money if they are forced to cough it up, if they haven't then they haven't got a viable mine, unless you subscribe to theory that the workers should subsidise the operation by accepting a higher level of risk than is required by law for the rest of the population
The operators generally lack the skills to deliver the essential argument to the miner, it's sad that they still think that their business is simply about flying aircraft between point A and B.
This has been blown right out of proportion, grow up people.
An incident happened, it was correctly handled, pax and crew safe, aircraft bent who cares.
The conquest is a good ship.
The conquest on one engine below 120 kts after takeoff is a handful FOR ANYONE INCLUDING A CESSNA TEST PILOT.
Skippers uses its staff the way the staff use the company, most of the staff are just using it as a stepping stone, everyone knows it.
Skippers check and training is far better in my view than many other operators operating similar equipment conducting charters, that is if the other operators have check and training at all.
By all accounts both crew had over 1000 hrs multi, 1000 hrs turbine, endorsed on type, current etc. The 441 should not be a problem then.
Dale Harris
I am not having a go at you, sorry if I am posting something you already know.
I understand that skippers operates under a standard industry exemption to CAO 48/48.1, not a fatigue management system (FMS).
A condition in the current 22 FMS CAO 48 exemptions that have been approved by CASA and currently being used by operators around the country is that no secondary employment is to be undertaken without the permission of the employer.
Its in their ops manuals, the pilot sign it off saying they will operate to that exemption.
SmallGlassofPort
You have to work under the rules for the AOC holder when you work for the AOC holder. The CAOs are not designed for a pilot working under multiple AOCs. CAO 48 "Section 48.1 shall take into account any flight and duty time performed in the course of private operations." also "Notwithstanding anything contained in these Orders, a flight crew member shall not fly...... is suffering from, or, considering the circumstances of the particular flight to
be undertaken, is likely to suffer from, fatigue or illness"
The conquest is a good ship.
The conquest on one engine below 120 kts after takeoff is a handful FOR ANYONE INCLUDING A CESSNA TEST PILOT.
Skippers uses its staff the way the staff use the company, most of the staff are just using it as a stepping stone, everyone knows it.
Skippers check and training is far better in my view than many other operators operating similar equipment conducting charters, that is if the other operators have check and training at all.
By all accounts both crew had over 1000 hrs multi, 1000 hrs turbine, endorsed on type, current etc. The 441 should not be a problem then.
Dale Harris
I am not having a go at you, sorry if I am posting something you already know.
I understand that skippers operates under a standard industry exemption to CAO 48/48.1, not a fatigue management system (FMS).
A condition in the current 22 FMS CAO 48 exemptions that have been approved by CASA and currently being used by operators around the country is that no secondary employment is to be undertaken without the permission of the employer.
Its in their ops manuals, the pilot sign it off saying they will operate to that exemption.
SmallGlassofPort
You have to work under the rules for the AOC holder when you work for the AOC holder. The CAOs are not designed for a pilot working under multiple AOCs. CAO 48 "Section 48.1 shall take into account any flight and duty time performed in the course of private operations." also "Notwithstanding anything contained in these Orders, a flight crew member shall not fly...... is suffering from, or, considering the circumstances of the particular flight to
be undertaken, is likely to suffer from, fatigue or illness"
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SWH,
Understand, and certainly no offence taken. We operate under a standard Part 5 exemption to CAO 48, and have no such undertaking regarding outside employment, or work under any other AOC. We have a slightly different situation in terms of the requirements then. Interesting to note what you say about the signing/ops manual inclusion regarding outside work. Gives a completely different perspective regarding legality of the operation, doesn't it? If you have signed it, and the company must give permission, therefore the company has knowledge of the circumstances. In my own full time occupation, to undertake outside employment without informing/getting the approval of my employer is a potentially dismissable offence. My argument was not with the employment of casuals, which I do not necessarily support, rather the accountability for flying fatigued.
Understand, and certainly no offence taken. We operate under a standard Part 5 exemption to CAO 48, and have no such undertaking regarding outside employment, or work under any other AOC. We have a slightly different situation in terms of the requirements then. Interesting to note what you say about the signing/ops manual inclusion regarding outside work. Gives a completely different perspective regarding legality of the operation, doesn't it? If you have signed it, and the company must give permission, therefore the company has knowledge of the circumstances. In my own full time occupation, to undertake outside employment without informing/getting the approval of my employer is a potentially dismissable offence. My argument was not with the employment of casuals, which I do not necessarily support, rather the accountability for flying fatigued.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
swh
You're damn tooting right it is a good ship and yes on one engine below 120KTS is a handful for amnyone including a Cessna Test Pilot.
I know coz I used to sell em, new and used and have shared beers with said test pilots. It's a legend in its lifetime.
But they have passed their use by date in the FIFO industry along with the B200 and any other FAR23 type.
This part of the industry should have moved on to exclusively FAR25 types years ago.
There are some "transport" types already in use but it must become universal by regulation if the miners wont mandate it.
This will require some education of both the operators and FIFO users.
The big kids FIFO users, have been insisting on it for yonks.
You're damn tooting right it is a good ship and yes on one engine below 120KTS is a handful for amnyone including a Cessna Test Pilot.
I know coz I used to sell em, new and used and have shared beers with said test pilots. It's a legend in its lifetime.
But they have passed their use by date in the FIFO industry along with the B200 and any other FAR23 type.
This part of the industry should have moved on to exclusively FAR25 types years ago.
There are some "transport" types already in use but it must become universal by regulation if the miners wont mandate it.
This will require some education of both the operators and FIFO users.
The big kids FIFO users, have been insisting on it for yonks.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SWH
"Hi I'm a kitchen hand at big macs, I work 8 hours a day 5 days a week, I earn $380.00 gross and I keep the lot cause I am a selfish bug@r, thats my mate Horney over there he does the same at an up market establishment. The work is long and boring but the tips are good. On some weekdays we are Skippers effo's, ready and willing to service WA 24 hours a day 2 days a week (when the phone rings) and we never get tired or sick or fatigued or have holidays"...
What a great advert for Skippers Aviation..................the only company in WA involved in the transport of mine workers where it is accepted as perfectly ok to work as much as you like when you like and always be ready to fly..
STOP being tossers give the poor blokes a FULL TIME job, a future, some security and improve your risk management 10 fold by doing so.
Exemptions have got absolutely nothing to do with the issue, because like so many say, I can work at what ever I want and it doesn't count as duty......CRAP.
Pretty soon we will be seeing clapped out aircraft & crew to match.
Can anyone tell me why Skippers don't publish a roster for the casual effos? Can anyone tell me why Skippers don't employ the effos FULL TIME? Lets hear from Stan the man and the boys running the show!
"Hi I'm a kitchen hand at big macs, I work 8 hours a day 5 days a week, I earn $380.00 gross and I keep the lot cause I am a selfish bug@r, thats my mate Horney over there he does the same at an up market establishment. The work is long and boring but the tips are good. On some weekdays we are Skippers effo's, ready and willing to service WA 24 hours a day 2 days a week (when the phone rings) and we never get tired or sick or fatigued or have holidays"...
What a great advert for Skippers Aviation..................the only company in WA involved in the transport of mine workers where it is accepted as perfectly ok to work as much as you like when you like and always be ready to fly..
STOP being tossers give the poor blokes a FULL TIME job, a future, some security and improve your risk management 10 fold by doing so.
Exemptions have got absolutely nothing to do with the issue, because like so many say, I can work at what ever I want and it doesn't count as duty......CRAP.
Pretty soon we will be seeing clapped out aircraft & crew to match.
Can anyone tell me why Skippers don't publish a roster for the casual effos? Can anyone tell me why Skippers don't employ the effos FULL TIME? Lets hear from Stan the man and the boys running the show!
Cheers gaunty, thank you for that. I am aquainted with the fact the B200 accident happened, but none of the background info in relation to it. Thanks once again.
Icarus2K+1 ( ), The two pilot requirement is something some of the mining companies place on the a/c service providers to cover possible pilot incapacitation. Those companies involved in these types of ops are subject to many and regular audits by the client companies also.
As far as I know, this info is correct as was explained to me.
Regards,
OpsN.
Icarus2K+1 (
), The two pilot requirement is something some of the mining companies place on the a/c service providers to cover possible pilot incapacitation. Those companies involved in these types of ops are subject to many and regular audits by the client companies also. As far as I know, this info is correct as was explained to me.
Regards,
OpsN.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone tell me why Skippers don't publish a roster for the casual effos? Can anyone tell me why Skippers don't employ the effos FULL TIME?
If you are employed full time and either the company loses contracts or the company just decides they don't want you flying their aircraft any more then it's too hard to get rid of you. (in their eyes anyway.)
However, because you are casual you just never get a phone call again or, get a phone call telling you that you won't be getting any more work.
If you don't believe this then ask around and I'm sure you'll hear of a few stories where this has been the case.
Stan doesn't want to spend any money defending unfair dismissal cases so employs the new guys casually - if they don't work out then no worries - just don't call them! - gets around having to specify any probation period.
If they do work out then OK, when they move onto the next aircraft type the company knows the pilot is OK and have other casual metro pilots they can 'lose' if they lose any contracts so they put whoever is upgrading on full time.
Why not install an auto-pilot and get rid of those expensive pilots? Let's face it. We are talking single pilot aircraft.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeh now we are talking!
Get rid of the fatigued F/O and throw in an auto pilot, naa much cheaper to use the disposable effos, they never get tired or sick and only cost a couple of bucks a day.
Better to have a fully rested FULL TIME captain and a half knackered burger boy!!
Don't think you are entirely safe even if you get a FULL TIME job as Stan has ditched crew under the probation clause when converting from casual, don't believe me check out Skippers Aviation industrial disputes on the google. Yep Stan wins every time. Sadly when this sort of arrangement exists there are no winners only losers.
If only the mining companies knew what a farce the two crew arrangement at Skippers really is, .... The after working at Bill's all night the effo is almost incapacitated before he starts his shift.
Skippers Moto; she will be right mate, trust me.. I call you tonight.
Get rid of the fatigued F/O and throw in an auto pilot, naa much cheaper to use the disposable effos, they never get tired or sick and only cost a couple of bucks a day.
Better to have a fully rested FULL TIME captain and a half knackered burger boy!!
Don't think you are entirely safe even if you get a FULL TIME job as Stan has ditched crew under the probation clause when converting from casual, don't believe me check out Skippers Aviation industrial disputes on the google. Yep Stan wins every time. Sadly when this sort of arrangement exists there are no winners only losers.
If only the mining companies knew what a farce the two crew arrangement at Skippers really is, .... The after working at Bill's all night the effo is almost incapacitated before he starts his shift.
Skippers Moto; she will be right mate, trust me.. I call you tonight.
Apollo 4
I am in no way associated with skippers, never worked for them, never will.
Your comments are not relevent to the incident. They are important in terms of air safety, I would suggest a CAIR report if you in any way believe you or the pax are put at risk in any way
Venting your thoughts here does nothing to improve your situation.
Slippers clients will become aware of what is on pprune, it may cost your job, it will not improve air safety. A CAIR report will get a CASA and operator response.
I am in no way associated with skippers, never worked for them, never will.
Your comments are not relevent to the incident. They are important in terms of air safety, I would suggest a CAIR report if you in any way believe you or the pax are put at risk in any way
Venting your thoughts here does nothing to improve your situation.
Slippers clients will become aware of what is on pprune, it may cost your job, it will not improve air safety. A CAIR report will get a CASA and operator response.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: yssy
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apollo 4
Yep, you have almost hit the nail on the head with regard to pilots providing details of their work hours. We have fatigue management in place, and there is a paragraph in the operations manual that says "may require a statutory declaration from the pilot confirming that --"we"-- are in possession of all the work hours. I believe that we have the right to ask whether or not a pilot has been working, but also, I don't believe that it is our business what they have been doing, or who they were doing it for.
Your comment "duty of care" sums it up.
Your comment "duty of care" sums it up.
Props are for boats!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: An Asian Hub
Age: 56
Posts: 994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty,
Totally agree the FAR23 issue has to be resolved. The Twin Otter is an example. Here I fly it as a Multi Crew Aircraft only and we cant fly it Single Pilot because our SOPS reflect so.Here all operations involve a segmented Climb departure with decision speeds etc.But then all our Crews evetually go onto a Dash-8 (UNLESS YOUR AN EXPAT).
With regards to this Occurence, and we still wont know.
What ever went wrong, they did their best. Well done to the crew. In a Runaway situation you dont have much time to abort let alone control the thing. For starters you get false sense ie. your feet will be different to what you think, more power from the runaway, gives the sense of a failure on the good side.
I flew King Airs for a U.S. Company, we were trained during our Ground School to deal with a runaway once you passed a certain speed and deal with it in the air. I told them for myself that it Stilldepended on how much runway and clearway was available. Infact we had 2 speeds one was close to VMCA 72kts the other was around rotation 95kts. The second speed was used for the Rollback (failure) and the first for the Runaway(Overspeed). Remembering our machines had PT6-20S which had sepearte fuel Toppping governors which were prone to failure hence they removed them after this model PT6. To kill a Runaway and Overspeed was to cut the fuel conditionlever and feather ASAP . Ofcousre I got no idea about Garrets though. Just my 2 cents worth.
Totally agree the FAR23 issue has to be resolved. The Twin Otter is an example. Here I fly it as a Multi Crew Aircraft only and we cant fly it Single Pilot because our SOPS reflect so.Here all operations involve a segmented Climb departure with decision speeds etc.But then all our Crews evetually go onto a Dash-8 (UNLESS YOUR AN EXPAT).
With regards to this Occurence, and we still wont know.
What ever went wrong, they did their best. Well done to the crew. In a Runaway situation you dont have much time to abort let alone control the thing. For starters you get false sense ie. your feet will be different to what you think, more power from the runaway, gives the sense of a failure on the good side.
I flew King Airs for a U.S. Company, we were trained during our Ground School to deal with a runaway once you passed a certain speed and deal with it in the air. I told them for myself that it Stilldepended on how much runway and clearway was available. Infact we had 2 speeds one was close to VMCA 72kts the other was around rotation 95kts. The second speed was used for the Rollback (failure) and the first for the Runaway(Overspeed). Remembering our machines had PT6-20S which had sepearte fuel Toppping governors which were prone to failure hence they removed them after this model PT6. To kill a Runaway and Overspeed was to cut the fuel conditionlever and feather ASAP . Ofcousre I got no idea about Garrets though. Just my 2 cents worth.