Is it Jatz in SA?

Savoy wankas in VIC. Could probably track who's who by what brand they're buying. I know it's Jatz in NSW, what are they in NT??

Well he's obviously not still in PNG otherwise they'd be Wopas.

Pinky……Mendi 63 is onto something with reference to Wopas….
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....91f3dbe367.png

Tinned corned beef will go better with them, rather than your fancy Mettwurst.

And perhaps some SPs rather than your poofy Barossa Shiraz? :8

With this new vigour I am amazed that the C207NGULR operator has managed to still stay out of the limelight.

It must be the 6 pack of Crownies with ritz and coon cheese keeping him on track.

Sheesh nothing does change!

Yes... interesting.

I could have sworn the replies to me from "different" users on here had the same tone to them. Nearly the same tone that FlyingBear used to have. 🤔

Anyways, you'd think Mr GA would have better things to do like trying to get intimate, I mean intimidate ex-employees on the Qlink active hold file by telling them he'll "light it up light a Christmas tree" and "fail" people who he believes have done him wrong when he doesn't even contract to Qlink. The cryptic posts on Insta and FB yesterday were a nice laugh though.

172 H for those of us who don't do Insta or FB, can you summarise? For our continued entertainment.

I’m sensing you might have actually just flunked a Q-link interview… have you considered a change in attitude?

Only if they're Longnecks! And whatever happened to Morabeen (sp?) Beef crackers?

And don't badmouth Barossa Shiraz!!:=

Back to the original subject; Did anyone on this site actually witness the alleged incident?:confused:

I'd go out on a limb and guess that he has much better things to do than be involved with this petty rubbish.

You on the other hand. Wow you have a lot of spare time! Currently out of work or something?

At least I didn't badmouth you Pinky. :p

Re Duck Pilot's comments that AOC holders aren’t responsible for a lot of things the PIC does in a Part 135 operation, and his suggestion that some of the commentators here comprehend the new Part 135 regulations.

Maybe, but as Compressor Stall has correctly identified, many of the requirements in Part 135 specifically apply to a person as well as the AOC holder. So if that person is the PIC, then he/she commits an offence if he/she contravenes any relevant requirement referred to in a subregulation.

Also, many of the requirements specifically apply to both the operator AND the pilot in command. And many of the sub regulations also include a ‘catch all’ that a person commits an offence if a person contravenes the subregulation.

Don’t forget either DP that many of the standards in the 135 MOS (which is a legislative instrument) apply to both the operator and the PIC. Where they only apply to the PIC is usually related to inflight circumstances.

But good luck to any operator that thinks it can avoid ‘scrutiny’ from any requirement that is directed at the pilot in command if non-compliance with the requirement, intentional or otherwise, results in an accident.

The Civil Aviation Act 28BEDuty to exercise care and diligence would probably make that very unlikely. Especially if some clown decides that MTOW is 'advisory' rather than a CofA limitation.

At least, that's my take on it.

Not sure if I am pointing out the obvious here but the similarities are amazing. Soaring is not much different to flying... likewise cub to bear... 🤷‍♂️

Could we possibly have that in English please?

I’d be interested in examples of things that a PIC can do that are not the responsibility of the AOC holder.

Let’s take an example: Note that it’s the operator (not the PIC) that commits the (strict liability) offence imposed by CASR 135.040(2). That’s why they added the ‘Note’. (The word “person” is used in CASR 135.040(2) because some operators are corporate entities and some are humans and, in Commonwealth legislation, the word “person” covers both.)

Most flight manuals I’ve seen include weight and balance limitations. Therefore, if the PIC of an aeroplane of a Part 135 operator operates it outside e.g. the weight or balance limitations in the flight manual, the operator and not the PIC commits an offence under CASR 135.040(2). As it’s a strict liability offence, it doesn’t matter whether the operator knows the PIC is operating the aeroplane outside the limitations.

Or am I missing something?

In any case, at common law, the employer can be vicariously liable for actions of their employees. Also, criminal liability may vicariously arise under various statutes other than those directly pertaining to aviation related activities.
If it's wrong, it's wrong.

Re the PIC being liable discussion, the PIC is also responsible for complying with other Parts such as 61 and 91.

A simple example could be a pilot not wearing reading glasses while exercising the privileges of his/her licence, if it’s a condition on the PICs licence, or not having a spare pair of glasses in their possession whist flying. Who’s responsible for this, the PIC or operator? Certainly the PIC and maybe also the AOC holder, depending on how one interprets the rules I guess.

The PIC is certainly responsible for complying with other parts, such as 61 and 91, but those parts weren't mentioned...

Good luck to any FO on an Air North Brasilla that is shortly up for a Command...or supposedly any Qlink candidate on the classics (although it's clear now that it was a bit of fabrication, there's a nice insta post about it, where the actual airline's name, Maroomba, is conveniently left out ;) )

I hope he doesn't "light up the aircraft like a Christmas tree so they won't be able to cope" for them, like he promised to a number of current employees to do to anyone of his ex-colleagues/people that don't abide by the regime. Gotta love integrity, particularly an examiner's...how good!!! :ok:

The intimidation game that keeps coming from this company is nothing but amusing I must say, and it speaks to the practices that are involved with their employees. Yet they will post that the "friendly boys are ready to do the hard work" and are "getting the job done". The friendly boys are for sure ready, because they haven't been burnt out by the work practices for 3+ years - they are all brand new!!

Give it a year, let's see what happens then. If I'm wrong, I'll buy everyone some Jatz and a couple of bottles of shiraz.

Well said 👏

All I'm gonna say is..

This NT operator, who I am sure I have a good idea who it is.. runs under AOC, and so needs (or I am sure tries very hard to) comply with rules and regs.... They also have a business to run... Now talking about stress, imagine if you ran a business like that in the NT, and just had to deal with the last 2 years of COVID **** (it's affected a lot of people - but tourism mostly!)... Financial stress is real stress (as most pilots should know) - now imagine your business you have setup over years and you have a bunch of employees who are relying on you to keep afloat and pay their wages while your income is savaged.

Pilots rarely think of the business side... Too busy busting a nut over flying a 210.

Now imagine a **** company, with **** wages, **** attitudes.. and absolute contempt for rules because it doesn't come back on them ... Due to being classed as a private operation (no AOC that can be pulled) - try skydiving... And now the APF is a self governing body, that company can run its own little protection racket...

Not defending (knowingly) operating above MTOW... But... Let's look at the practicalities here:

- loaded F100 full of WA miners flying up North.. uses standard Pax weights (88kg?)... Haha, those miners would be more like 100-120kg... So I can tell you right now, those planes are overweight.
​​​​
- if you do a ferry flight you can operate 15% above MTOW for extra fuel.. (with permission?)

- The extra weight is rarely a structural concern - except for maybe landing? it's more about meeting minimum climb gradients with S/E piston.. anyway, NT is flat..

- How often do you include that 10kg tool box or whatever in the nose? Or your iPads?.. or you bag?.. your 2 litre water bottle?.. your lunch?.... Guess what, if you have operated to the "MTOW" to the kg and didn't add these items you have flown it over MTOW.

...I mean, if you drink a litre of water before your flight... You have made yourself 1kg heavier!.. your known weight has changed!

...many are forgetting the 'big picture' here that most aircraft come from the USA... Where they ROUND the numbers.... IE: 500 lbs in the baggage compartment (for simplicity - even if the ENGINEERING/DESIGN can hold 502 lbs for example).... Then when we convert 500 lb to kg, 227.27kg.... but guess what, we round it too.... So on the weight and balance here it says 227kg (so we cut ourselves short)... I mean where does it start and stop?... You probably have an extra 100 grams of smashed bugs on your leading edge, do you add that to the W&B?

Anyway, again - not justifying knowingly operating above MTOW (such as skydive company changing weights on paper/computer to make it "go green" so you have to dodge trees at the end of the runway near York without telling you).... That's a different story...

Now for the night time argument...

You can taxi at night, but you just wait till "first light" before you can "depart."... Now what's the definition of depart?.... Is that when you punch the throttle to head down the runway?... Or is that when you are more than 3nm from the airport?.... Or what about when people "depart overhead" the airport..... It's not defined - and this is the issue with subjective legislation.... For instance, if it was written - "before you apply power for the take-off" that is much clearer... I know what we may see as reasonable or what we think is the intent of the rules - but CASA have very deliberately written them in a way so they can do legal aerobatics and twist and contort it anyway they want - to suit whatever agenda they have on the day.... I'll give you an idea at how stupid this is... CASA cannot even give an explanation on taxi time... They cannot agree wether it's engine start to engine stop (even though it's written as when the aircraft moves under its own power for take-off)... Even that could be interpreted as only when you are lined up on the runway ready to punch it !

If my little aviation venture "takes off" (pun intended) I will be looking at a 4 day on, 4 day off work week for my employees .... Fatigue and 'burn out' is a genuine concern these days.. but it's also nice to be able to have a life.. and it would also allow to have flexibility with rostering.... Say someone is sick for a day, I should easily be able to get someone in to do an extra day..

I have worked In the NT, and yes it is a busy ramp, I do not know the particular circumstances of these alleged incidents - and do not wish to speculate... However my observation is that most pilots do not know the nitty grittys of the AIP / Jepps - one thing I am very thankful for was to be drilled in the Jepps... Where I had to "know my ****" - and my colleagues (on the metro) would still know more than me, which was mind blowing....

Also you are all forgetting just culture... It runs both ways, do you honestly think someone would purposely start an engine with someone's head next to it? ..I don't know anyone who would do that deliberately.... And so I find that extremely doubtful - as such, people make honest mistakes, and it's definately a 2 way street, if I approach a machine (wether it's a 793 haul truck, Terex 4400 .. 9600 digger... Or a Cessna 150, a baron, a Metroliner...) LOOK at the cockpit to see if anyone is in there and get their attention before going near the spinny things... And the person in the cockpit may just have a glance to check the area is clear - BUT then their head may be inside the cockpit looking at oil pressure for the first 15 seconds of startup - I know how much an IO-540 is to overhaul.. if I owned that engine that's where I'd be looking too!!)

Some valid points, however, I would argue the financial stress of the owner/owners and knowledge of business should not be a concern to the employee pilot, if they wanted that stress they'd start their own business or be in management.

And, yes I definitely know someone willing to start a 540 in that situation. It doesn't matter when daddy is paying for the engines 👍