Trouble Brewing at CitiExpress
Join Date: May 2001
Location: The Plateau of Leng
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot or Mother??????????????????
That's a funny statement. Have I missed something, or have there been some more anonymous editings with posts being removed without explanation?
Empty Cruise - you are a very restrained gentleman. Your views of TDLF are to the point. TDLF is intelligent, and by that measure alone, he must know deep inside that the hypocrisy he spouts is just that. Like many ambitious but unscrupulous managers/politicians before him, he will never listen to reason, because that is not his remit. Cutting costs, rationalisinfg workforces, improving productivity - earning his KPI bonuses - that's all he and his kind are good for. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES TRUST HIM - OR ANY OF HIS BROWN NOSED LAP DOGS, (particularly the ones who have already managed to secure mainline management contracts!
Empty Cruise - you are a very restrained gentleman. Your views of TDLF are to the point. TDLF is intelligent, and by that measure alone, he must know deep inside that the hypocrisy he spouts is just that. Like many ambitious but unscrupulous managers/politicians before him, he will never listen to reason, because that is not his remit. Cutting costs, rationalisinfg workforces, improving productivity - earning his KPI bonuses - that's all he and his kind are good for. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES TRUST HIM - OR ANY OF HIS BROWN NOSED LAP DOGS, (particularly the ones who have already managed to secure mainline management contracts!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sutton
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MA
READ THE FULL SENTANCE.
People were asking for the full picture and that is what I presented.
In terms of this Captains sleep deprivation status (which IS relevant to the discretion decision) the couple of an intensive 75% roster and a young child mean there is a good chance she was tired on the day.
If you have never seen one of BACXs 75% rosters, working 90 flying hours each month, you may not appreciate what that means.
Every day from Manchester ends up as a double CPH ; OSL/DUS and indeed the Glasgow Bologna that this thread relates to.
Very long four sector days in busy European airspace leave you tired during the time you are working. Like it or not if you have a young child who is not sleeping that cannot be put in a box and left outside the equation (any more than you would try to discount your own lifestyle issues).
Just in case it is not clear I'll say it again. This was written in the context of the Captains sleep deprivation status OK
The latest is that the company have decided that there is a case to answer and the Captain will be disciplined.
This could be anything from a verbal warning to the bullet. BALPA appear to have a watertight defence but it will be another week before the hearing is held.
READ THE FULL SENTANCE.
People were asking for the full picture and that is what I presented.
In terms of this Captains sleep deprivation status (which IS relevant to the discretion decision) the couple of an intensive 75% roster and a young child mean there is a good chance she was tired on the day.
If you have never seen one of BACXs 75% rosters, working 90 flying hours each month, you may not appreciate what that means.
Every day from Manchester ends up as a double CPH ; OSL/DUS and indeed the Glasgow Bologna that this thread relates to.
Very long four sector days in busy European airspace leave you tired during the time you are working. Like it or not if you have a young child who is not sleeping that cannot be put in a box and left outside the equation (any more than you would try to discount your own lifestyle issues).
Just in case it is not clear I'll say it again. This was written in the context of the Captains sleep deprivation status OK
The latest is that the company have decided that there is a case to answer and the Captain will be disciplined.
This could be anything from a verbal warning to the bullet. BALPA appear to have a watertight defence but it will be another week before the hearing is held.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Jellystone Park
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BALPA chair person for BACX is a very experienced operator, whose own 'interfaces' with TDF and his chums are well known. The lady Captain in question should have no worries about the outcome of this one - the REALLY good thing is that it may just prove to be a watershed in the way this pox-rotten Company runs its rosters. If, or rather, when BALPA win their case and the Company has to back down, I think it will encourage a lot more people who have intimidated in the past to stop taking the bulldung. This so-called disciplinary hearing may be the largets mistake TDF etc has made. But then, HE was probably too wily an operator to have done it, you can bet your life it was instigated by AY EN OTTHER manager. I just wish I could be a fly on the wall during the disciplinary, hopefully we'll get a transcript on here not long after.
JA, MB - All the luck in the world, but I don't believe for one minute that you will need it!
JA, MB - All the luck in the world, but I don't believe for one minute that you will need it!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do apologise for not having read the whole thread through from beginning, but I gather it is about exercising discretion; and the disagreement between those rather macho beings who feel you should always do so, and those more thoughful beings who feel it should be used with discretion.
Moons ago I had the misfortune to work for an outfit who had financial difficulties. (the first of many). They were non-union. They had a winter contract to West Africa with a horrendous night duty schedule. It was not possible within normal FTL, but was rostered as if it was. Every flight went into discretion. The crews thought they were 'doing the company a favour'. After 1 year the contract was lost and went to another local airline, who was union. After 6 flights, where everyone went into discretion, it was obvious the roster was rubbish. The union refused it anymore, the local CAA was involved, and the crews had to stop- over rather than up & down in the night.
The use of discretion had been abused. It was not the first time, but when exposed, it was the most obvious. How the CAA had allowed it with the previous company for so long is another question many CAA's have to answer, but that's another story. The simple fact is that the airline had abused the discretion principle for years, and it was only when someone said NO, that the scam was exposed. It should not be thus.
This case may not be such in this case, but anyone who glibbly says that discretion should always be exercised is a nutter. It is they who have allowed the profession to sink into its present depths of disregard by managment. Keep the op' going by all means, but do not allow yourself to be abused and taken for granted.
You would not take an a/c if the MEL said NO. Why apply FTL's any differently?
Moons ago I had the misfortune to work for an outfit who had financial difficulties. (the first of many). They were non-union. They had a winter contract to West Africa with a horrendous night duty schedule. It was not possible within normal FTL, but was rostered as if it was. Every flight went into discretion. The crews thought they were 'doing the company a favour'. After 1 year the contract was lost and went to another local airline, who was union. After 6 flights, where everyone went into discretion, it was obvious the roster was rubbish. The union refused it anymore, the local CAA was involved, and the crews had to stop- over rather than up & down in the night.
The use of discretion had been abused. It was not the first time, but when exposed, it was the most obvious. How the CAA had allowed it with the previous company for so long is another question many CAA's have to answer, but that's another story. The simple fact is that the airline had abused the discretion principle for years, and it was only when someone said NO, that the scam was exposed. It should not be thus.
This case may not be such in this case, but anyone who glibbly says that discretion should always be exercised is a nutter. It is they who have allowed the profession to sink into its present depths of disregard by managment. Keep the op' going by all means, but do not allow yourself to be abused and taken for granted.
You would not take an a/c if the MEL said NO. Why apply FTL's any differently?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAT 5
Don't apologise for not reading the whole of the thread, the overwhelming majority of it is utter drivel, regarding personalities. (Wait for the pathetic, and highly personal attacks coming MY way in the next few posts!)
I would recommend you read the post on page 3 by GWYN however, since this may just give you a hint that, perhaps this is not actually about discretion at all!
But of course, that MAY be precisely why the company are looking more closely at it. There may BE no case to answer, on the other hand, perhaps there is! I guess we will know soon.
Only a thought of course!
Don't apologise for not reading the whole of the thread, the overwhelming majority of it is utter drivel, regarding personalities. (Wait for the pathetic, and highly personal attacks coming MY way in the next few posts!)
I would recommend you read the post on page 3 by GWYN however, since this may just give you a hint that, perhaps this is not actually about discretion at all!
But of course, that MAY be precisely why the company are looking more closely at it. There may BE no case to answer, on the other hand, perhaps there is! I guess we will know soon.
Only a thought of course!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Western Europe
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again the illuminating and intellectual level of TR bubbles to the surface, a bit like watching a flute of champagne. We are so fortunate to have such well balanced and impartial observations on the forum, most particularly when they quote other - specifically hypothetical - posts.
Rat 5, you are clearly a discerning operator with experience of Companies who misuse both CAP371 and the discretion system. Thank you for your contribution, involving more factual data which may be mulled over by all those currently following this particular case. I know - for whatever reason - it is not clear how long TR has worked for the BRAL environment, and in the course of his lucid briefing, he fails to expand on that point (an unusual omission). However, I suggest that to to take my learned colleague's point a little further, whilst agreeing you should not apologise for not having read all of the thread, and whilst agreeing there is certainly a huge amount of drivel on it, (mostly from individuals with very limited exposure to our wonderful Company and its methodology - I shall leave it to your own good judgement to decide whether they may be people with ten or more years with the outfit, or recent secondees from mainline) I must make a point. That is to say that if you DO have the time, there are some very good points made, most particularly when you get outside the personal childish rhetoric employed by some who may be considered to think they are in some way superior.
Please do read the thread, and better yet, if you know any genuine BACX guys and gals, or meet them on the chat forum - well, ask them what they think. As a final consideration, I suppose it is worth pointing out that evidently BALPA consider they have a watertight case - and they are not basing their argument on one admittedly hypothetical posting early in the development of this event.
Have a good day TR, in the very best Chinese sense, I hope you get everything you wish for.
Rat 5, you are clearly a discerning operator with experience of Companies who misuse both CAP371 and the discretion system. Thank you for your contribution, involving more factual data which may be mulled over by all those currently following this particular case. I know - for whatever reason - it is not clear how long TR has worked for the BRAL environment, and in the course of his lucid briefing, he fails to expand on that point (an unusual omission). However, I suggest that to to take my learned colleague's point a little further, whilst agreeing you should not apologise for not having read all of the thread, and whilst agreeing there is certainly a huge amount of drivel on it, (mostly from individuals with very limited exposure to our wonderful Company and its methodology - I shall leave it to your own good judgement to decide whether they may be people with ten or more years with the outfit, or recent secondees from mainline) I must make a point. That is to say that if you DO have the time, there are some very good points made, most particularly when you get outside the personal childish rhetoric employed by some who may be considered to think they are in some way superior.
Please do read the thread, and better yet, if you know any genuine BACX guys and gals, or meet them on the chat forum - well, ask them what they think. As a final consideration, I suppose it is worth pointing out that evidently BALPA consider they have a watertight case - and they are not basing their argument on one admittedly hypothetical posting early in the development of this event.
Have a good day TR, in the very best Chinese sense, I hope you get everything you wish for.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: PommyLand - but I'll be back!
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'Day Little Prince.
Perhaps in the light of your aggressively critical last post, you would be good enough to spell out the inaccuracies of my hypothesis. Please restrict yourself to facts.
Perhaps in the light of your aggressively critical last post, you would be good enough to spell out the inaccuracies of my hypothesis. Please restrict yourself to facts.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On page 10 of this thread Sheik Zabik wrote:
Doubtless management will try to slip out the backdoor with a "no case to answer"
But in his most recent post RMC wrote:
"The latest is that the company have decided that there is a case to answer and the Captain will be disciplined."
Mmmmm!
And for the Tiny Prince, thank you for hoping I get everything I wish for, but actually, I'm not currently wishing for anything I don't already have!
Perhaps the same can't be said for you?
Bon chance.
Doubtless management will try to slip out the backdoor with a "no case to answer"
But in his most recent post RMC wrote:
"The latest is that the company have decided that there is a case to answer and the Captain will be disciplined."
Mmmmm!
And for the Tiny Prince, thank you for hoping I get everything I wish for, but actually, I'm not currently wishing for anything I don't already have!
Perhaps the same can't be said for you?
Bon chance.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Western Europe
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello to all:
Gwyn - I'm not sure quite what you mean by references to my 'aggressive' post. As far as a reference to your own post, the one referred to by Mr Double Wocka Wocka, I merely mentioned what you and he both agreed - ie that it was an admittedly hypothetical situation you addressed! On re-reading my own post, I can find no reference to calling your's inaccurate! To quote myself "basing their argument on one admittedly hypothetical posting " is the only reference to your own verbiage! Your argument was a good one, but, as you yourself said HYPOTHETICAL!!! I speak from the experience of twelve years within BRAL /BACX, and hence may be thought, (by some) to have more appreciation of 'the big picture' than a 'wet behind the BACX ears' mainline secondee!
Mr Tandemrotor - mmmmmmmmmmmmm indeed. Perhaps better qualified literary scholars than I can interpret your meaning there. I hope I am wrong in deducing an inferral of guilt on the part of the Captain, even our jugheaded management haven't gone that far!
I'm glad you have everything you can wish for, I hope things don't change for you; however I am surprised that speaking from such a self-avowedly self satisfied, (perhaps SMUG) position, you are perfectly placed to see the difference between yourself and those of the rest of us with BACX who are not quite so fortunate, and who have seen their careers, pay, conditions, whereabouts, total LIFE completely altered by the 'BA WAY' of doing things.
Your empathy is quite astounding to mere mortals like us, but very representative of mainline BA!
Gwyn - I'm not sure quite what you mean by references to my 'aggressive' post. As far as a reference to your own post, the one referred to by Mr Double Wocka Wocka, I merely mentioned what you and he both agreed - ie that it was an admittedly hypothetical situation you addressed! On re-reading my own post, I can find no reference to calling your's inaccurate! To quote myself "basing their argument on one admittedly hypothetical posting " is the only reference to your own verbiage! Your argument was a good one, but, as you yourself said HYPOTHETICAL!!! I speak from the experience of twelve years within BRAL /BACX, and hence may be thought, (by some) to have more appreciation of 'the big picture' than a 'wet behind the BACX ears' mainline secondee!
Mr Tandemrotor - mmmmmmmmmmmmm indeed. Perhaps better qualified literary scholars than I can interpret your meaning there. I hope I am wrong in deducing an inferral of guilt on the part of the Captain, even our jugheaded management haven't gone that far!
I'm glad you have everything you can wish for, I hope things don't change for you; however I am surprised that speaking from such a self-avowedly self satisfied, (perhaps SMUG) position, you are perfectly placed to see the difference between yourself and those of the rest of us with BACX who are not quite so fortunate, and who have seen their careers, pay, conditions, whereabouts, total LIFE completely altered by the 'BA WAY' of doing things.
Your empathy is quite astounding to mere mortals like us, but very representative of mainline BA!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And speaking from your twelve years of BRAL/BACX experience and zero years of BA mainline experience you are, of course, perfectly qualified to state what is representative of BA mainline. Perhaps you should stick to what you know.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: PommyLand - but I'll be back!
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Little Prince
"Your argument was a good one, but, as you yourself said HYPOTHETICAL!!!"
Precisely.
As I read it it this thread was primarily about the suspension of a captain for allegedly refusing to work into discretion. I put forward a hypothesis, and though I have read most of the 18 pages of this thread, I have yet to read a post that describes all the facts of what happened, and most of it is more or less irrelevant to the initial incident. That was precisely why I asked you to restrict yourself to the facts of this case. Evidently you either do not know them or are not prepared to divulge them here.
You may have innumerable years of experience of that particular company, but it doesn't appear to have informed you of the actual circumstances of this case. It is clear that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction there, and in particular with management and certain individuals - I might flippantly ask, "Show me the airline where that is not the case." No matter what the quality or actions of 'management' however, it cannot excuse a captain who refuses to fly simply because (s)he feels hard done by, or wishes to harbour a grudge, or some other reason. IF discretion was required, then fine, (s)he has every reason to refuse, but I have seen amongst all the commendable 'knee-jerk,' reflex defence of a colleague, no comment about the possible scenario which I described. Nor, I have to say, have I read anyone saying that what I outlined as a possible scenario, was not in fact real.
I trust that the next post might enlighten us all as to the facts.
"Your argument was a good one, but, as you yourself said HYPOTHETICAL!!!"
Precisely.
As I read it it this thread was primarily about the suspension of a captain for allegedly refusing to work into discretion. I put forward a hypothesis, and though I have read most of the 18 pages of this thread, I have yet to read a post that describes all the facts of what happened, and most of it is more or less irrelevant to the initial incident. That was precisely why I asked you to restrict yourself to the facts of this case. Evidently you either do not know them or are not prepared to divulge them here.
You may have innumerable years of experience of that particular company, but it doesn't appear to have informed you of the actual circumstances of this case. It is clear that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction there, and in particular with management and certain individuals - I might flippantly ask, "Show me the airline where that is not the case." No matter what the quality or actions of 'management' however, it cannot excuse a captain who refuses to fly simply because (s)he feels hard done by, or wishes to harbour a grudge, or some other reason. IF discretion was required, then fine, (s)he has every reason to refuse, but I have seen amongst all the commendable 'knee-jerk,' reflex defence of a colleague, no comment about the possible scenario which I described. Nor, I have to say, have I read anyone saying that what I outlined as a possible scenario, was not in fact real.
I trust that the next post might enlighten us all as to the facts.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cattle Class - down the back
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps your position somewhat prejudices your comments - try taking command of a flight, operating and taking charge of a European multi-sector flight and making these decisions for yourself - you might come up with a different answer from the one you get sitting in the comfort of Nav Services? Sorry I forgot you aren't a pilot.
Have you made a witness statement?
Have you made a witness statement?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Western Europe
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a bit like trying to explain colour to a blind man!
Carnage M. I would suggest that there are no mainline pilots flying mainline aircraft with BACX secondees in their LHS earning dramatically more than them. There are a lot of these in BACX. There are no BACX managers making a horses ass of BA mainline - There are some of these in BACX. No-one in BA has been subject to having all their SOPs and routines, bases, rosters and lives turned upside down by BACX management. The converse is completely true of we here in BACX. Thus, yes, I do feel qualified to speak about BACX after (actually) 13 years, and yes, I DO feel qualified to comment on the BA "WAY" of doing things.
I suggest your attitude is entirely typical of BA, your inability to empathise, and you and your colleagues' stunning quasi-political ability to answer a post by missing the point entirely. I surrender!
Gwynn - are you BA or maybe a wannabe? As above, first you attack me for a supposedly aggressive post. I point out all I did was (accurately) suggest you made a hypothesis. You reply by flaming me and quote more hypotheses. Actually, I do happen to know the facts of this case, I think there are quite a number of BACX people who do. In deference to due process, no-one has yet told the exact story, it would be unprofessional, and not the best way forward for the lady involved. However, as you should well know, the facts do not always matter when managerial 'honour' has to be upheld. Equally though, I note that none of you have commented on the BALPA legal support, which is interesting. As you know, BALPA only support cases they think will succeed, so regardless of the rights, wrongs or fact, they must feel there is a good case to present.
The one FACT I would suggest here is that non-BACX postees should quit criticising the 'malingering' potential of refusing to go into discretion. They should speak to any of the ERJ fleet and ask about the rosters and the fatigue levels. They should read the post by Rat 5, and consider whether they should be supporting a brother (sister) pilot on principle!!!!!!! who works for a Company like BACX, or ANY company which treats its employees like ours does.
To pontificate from the comfort of a golden parachute is faintly obscene, and certainly nauseous.
However, count it as a victory for TRotor and CMatey and Hansolo and all the rest of you. I really shall be quiet on this issue other than again, (as has been noticeably absent in some quarters) close by wishing her all the very best of luck, and good fortune, and a swift and successful end to this farce. She, like most of us, deserves better. The one thing I CAN say for a FACT, which seems to be more than most of my detractors, is that I know the lady personally - there is simply no possibility that this discretion refusal was anything other than professional!
Carnage M. I would suggest that there are no mainline pilots flying mainline aircraft with BACX secondees in their LHS earning dramatically more than them. There are a lot of these in BACX. There are no BACX managers making a horses ass of BA mainline - There are some of these in BACX. No-one in BA has been subject to having all their SOPs and routines, bases, rosters and lives turned upside down by BACX management. The converse is completely true of we here in BACX. Thus, yes, I do feel qualified to speak about BACX after (actually) 13 years, and yes, I DO feel qualified to comment on the BA "WAY" of doing things.
I suggest your attitude is entirely typical of BA, your inability to empathise, and you and your colleagues' stunning quasi-political ability to answer a post by missing the point entirely. I surrender!
Gwynn - are you BA or maybe a wannabe? As above, first you attack me for a supposedly aggressive post. I point out all I did was (accurately) suggest you made a hypothesis. You reply by flaming me and quote more hypotheses. Actually, I do happen to know the facts of this case, I think there are quite a number of BACX people who do. In deference to due process, no-one has yet told the exact story, it would be unprofessional, and not the best way forward for the lady involved. However, as you should well know, the facts do not always matter when managerial 'honour' has to be upheld. Equally though, I note that none of you have commented on the BALPA legal support, which is interesting. As you know, BALPA only support cases they think will succeed, so regardless of the rights, wrongs or fact, they must feel there is a good case to present.
The one FACT I would suggest here is that non-BACX postees should quit criticising the 'malingering' potential of refusing to go into discretion. They should speak to any of the ERJ fleet and ask about the rosters and the fatigue levels. They should read the post by Rat 5, and consider whether they should be supporting a brother (sister) pilot on principle!!!!!!! who works for a Company like BACX, or ANY company which treats its employees like ours does.
To pontificate from the comfort of a golden parachute is faintly obscene, and certainly nauseous.
However, count it as a victory for TRotor and CMatey and Hansolo and all the rest of you. I really shall be quiet on this issue other than again, (as has been noticeably absent in some quarters) close by wishing her all the very best of luck, and good fortune, and a swift and successful end to this farce. She, like most of us, deserves better. The one thing I CAN say for a FACT, which seems to be more than most of my detractors, is that I know the lady personally - there is simply no possibility that this discretion refusal was anything other than professional!
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No-one in BA has been subject to having all their SOPs and routines, bases, rosters and lives turned upside down by BACX management.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sutton
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gwyn,
You asked for some facts ( I hear what you say LP but there are too many false statements being made on this and it is not fair to the pilot in question)
I have today seen a three page document which is an independently produced factual summary of all the witness statements taken.
This annihilates the company position that there is a case to answer but (as the company is currently pulling furiously on all the rope they are being given to hang themselves) its distribution is being delayed so they can take some more.
In summary though the report provides evidence that
1- This Captain ,in seven different situations, took action to expedite proceedings on the day
2-The central pillar of the company case rests on a rule referred to by two managers. Unfortunately for them they have not checked their facts and are out of date. The current company procedure was correctly followed by the Captain , is documented in the company procedure manual and has been verified previously in writing by another company manager. The position advocated by these two managers is not documented anywhere
3- Due ,in part,to a totally missleading report from an Operations Controller the investigating officer has (i)assumed incorrect slot times and (ii) actually been duped into believing there was a critically timed slot (when in fact it never existed).
4-Regarding your hypothetical slot situation, the pax were all off loaded in BLQ (after she had made up time on the MAN - BLQ sector) with only 10 mins left before she went into discretion.
In terms of an "accident chain of events" most of the normal links were present
The skipper was tired ,hungry (as both flight deck had only been given one vegy sandwich to share between them) and understandably wound up by the unprofessional venom of the Operations Controller ; the F/O was also tired , hungry and inexperienced on type. The wx at departure and destination was bad / deteriorating and they were on the final sector of a maximum duty four sector day.
BACX's other major gripe (the decision not to load fuel in BLQ) was taken at destination when it was clear that the aircraft could not return before going into discretion. As such it had no impact on the ability of the aircraft to complete a 10 min turn around and avoid discretion.
You asked for some facts ( I hear what you say LP but there are too many false statements being made on this and it is not fair to the pilot in question)
I have today seen a three page document which is an independently produced factual summary of all the witness statements taken.
This annihilates the company position that there is a case to answer but (as the company is currently pulling furiously on all the rope they are being given to hang themselves) its distribution is being delayed so they can take some more.
In summary though the report provides evidence that
1- This Captain ,in seven different situations, took action to expedite proceedings on the day
2-The central pillar of the company case rests on a rule referred to by two managers. Unfortunately for them they have not checked their facts and are out of date. The current company procedure was correctly followed by the Captain , is documented in the company procedure manual and has been verified previously in writing by another company manager. The position advocated by these two managers is not documented anywhere
3- Due ,in part,to a totally missleading report from an Operations Controller the investigating officer has (i)assumed incorrect slot times and (ii) actually been duped into believing there was a critically timed slot (when in fact it never existed).
4-Regarding your hypothetical slot situation, the pax were all off loaded in BLQ (after she had made up time on the MAN - BLQ sector) with only 10 mins left before she went into discretion.
In terms of an "accident chain of events" most of the normal links were present
The skipper was tired ,hungry (as both flight deck had only been given one vegy sandwich to share between them) and understandably wound up by the unprofessional venom of the Operations Controller ; the F/O was also tired , hungry and inexperienced on type. The wx at departure and destination was bad / deteriorating and they were on the final sector of a maximum duty four sector day.
BACX's other major gripe (the decision not to load fuel in BLQ) was taken at destination when it was clear that the aircraft could not return before going into discretion. As such it had no impact on the ability of the aircraft to complete a 10 min turn around and avoid discretion.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cattle Class - down the back
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....and just why was the original cabin crew moved to another aircraft after the first two sectors, thus creating the knock-on delay awaiting replacement crew in a taxi from BHX? GWYN was this part of your doing or were you just flat out (yawn) working on slot improvals?