Tiger Australia grounded by CASA
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same Captain
I don't agree with this sort of information being leaked to the media but it is out there now. Same pilot controlled low Tiger flights
To the Captain who is mentioned in the article, I'm sure you are a very competent Pilot.
Let's go with the theory innocent until...
To the Captain who is mentioned in the article, I'm sure you are a very competent Pilot.
Let's go with the theory innocent until...
Last edited by Red-eye; 10th Jul 2011 at 08:10.
Your post makes obvious the fact you have no idea what I said, and you have no idea of what you talk about.
However, I do commend you on successfully proving that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
Nice work.
However, I do commend you on successfully proving that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
Nice work.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was the flawed computer programme "airline specific" or is it something that any commercial operation could buy?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember these are people who just will not cross a road until the green man comes on to say it is 'safe'and will throw rocks at those who do.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: YMML
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ILS 27 at YMML is normally descend to 2500 ft by ATC and then cleared for the approach...ie "Arm Approach" and intercept G/S from 2500 or above'.
No use of managed final approach mode. Therefore coding or altitudes in the FMGC should not come into play and should not affect the conduct of what is essentially a "basic modes" ILS approach.
The database altitude coding should most likely be an irrelevant Furphy in this particular case. The ATC cleared altitude may have been misinterpreted or miss set in the window.
Whilst I hate what LCC has done to this Profession, by exposing and allowing pilots unprotected access to their "Darksides", this treatment of Tiger Airways and its crews is simply wrong !!!!
No use of managed final approach mode. Therefore coding or altitudes in the FMGC should not come into play and should not affect the conduct of what is essentially a "basic modes" ILS approach.
The database altitude coding should most likely be an irrelevant Furphy in this particular case. The ATC cleared altitude may have been misinterpreted or miss set in the window.
Whilst I hate what LCC has done to this Profession, by exposing and allowing pilots unprotected access to their "Darksides", this treatment of Tiger Airways and its crews is simply wrong !!!!
Same pilot controlled low Tiger flights
What a ridiculous statement. Makes Laurie Cox sound like an amateur in denial. 
Actually, having flown in both regions, I have found that Australians are MUCH more conversant with the rules and aviation law than Europeans. This is simply because they spend years in GA referring to the AIP & Civil Aviation Orders directly (due to GA company Ops Manuals being of a generally poor standard).
Only on the Dunnunder forum here can you find 10 page discussions on alternate minima or lighting requirements.
If you ask 10 UK airline pilots the five valid situations in which you may descend below the LSALT in the UK AIP you won't get a single correct answer. All they know is their own Ops Manual SOPS - and those are generally formed on the basis of "ILS to "ILS" flying.
Actually I thought it a damned funny reply - which also showed a surprisingly good understanding of the Aus scene! 
Originally Posted by above article
[Australian Federation of Air Pilots industrial relations manager Lawrie Cox] said at no stage was there a threat to the safety of the aircraft...
Originally Posted by Major Cleve Saville
As pilots (adults) we need the discipline to keep learning without having to be dependent on others to direct us. Do you really need extra special training to maintain a cleared altitude? Know when or not to descend below an MSA? 
Only on the Dunnunder forum here can you find 10 page discussions on alternate minima or lighting requirements.
If you ask 10 UK airline pilots the five valid situations in which you may descend below the LSALT in the UK AIP you won't get a single correct answer. All they know is their own Ops Manual SOPS - and those are generally formed on the basis of "ILS to "ILS" flying.
Originally Posted by Oriana
Your post makes obvious the fact you have no idea what I said, and you have no idea of what you talk about.
However, I do commend you on successfully proving that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
However, I do commend you on successfully proving that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: U K
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi checkboard,
Thanks I got my irony and sarcasm confused again, Doh!
I would agree on the regs. once on the commercial scene in the UK, especially post JAR-OPS / EU-OPS, the ops manuals should reflect regulations, you can of course be more restrictive but not less restrictive than EU-OPS.
The only times I have referred to regs in the last 30 years is when writing manuals, the AOC system , quality system, internal and regulatory audits should pick up any non-compliances. Never had a problem with the UK CAA either, if you stick to EU-OPS never any argument. Always had confidence in the system and never found that by following company SOPS I was breaking the law. Following the ops manuals equals fireproof anyway under this system.
Out in other parts of the world I have found some places to be a bit more like your GA pilots, having to check ICAO annexes etc. Very tiresome and unneccesary.
Not sure I recognise the ILS to ILS stuff. Within the UK maybe but a lot of my flying around europe has been CAT C, CAT B airfields short narrow runways with significant weather problems, and the usual Greek Islands etc. lots of procedural flying in non-radar environments as well. Definately need how to read a chart and when you can descend.
Not sure a 10 page discussion on alternate minima is necessarily healthy, I would have thought post the relevant regulation and end of discussion? In my opinion there should not be that much doubt/uncertainty. Surely GA with its low experience is where most clear unequivocable guidance is required. Shame if companys are putting young in-experienced guys/girls out on a limb, and getting away with it - discuss?
Thanks I got my irony and sarcasm confused again, Doh!
I would agree on the regs. once on the commercial scene in the UK, especially post JAR-OPS / EU-OPS, the ops manuals should reflect regulations, you can of course be more restrictive but not less restrictive than EU-OPS.
The only times I have referred to regs in the last 30 years is when writing manuals, the AOC system , quality system, internal and regulatory audits should pick up any non-compliances. Never had a problem with the UK CAA either, if you stick to EU-OPS never any argument. Always had confidence in the system and never found that by following company SOPS I was breaking the law. Following the ops manuals equals fireproof anyway under this system.
Out in other parts of the world I have found some places to be a bit more like your GA pilots, having to check ICAO annexes etc. Very tiresome and unneccesary.
Not sure I recognise the ILS to ILS stuff. Within the UK maybe but a lot of my flying around europe has been CAT C, CAT B airfields short narrow runways with significant weather problems, and the usual Greek Islands etc. lots of procedural flying in non-radar environments as well. Definately need how to read a chart and when you can descend.
Not sure a 10 page discussion on alternate minima is necessarily healthy, I would have thought post the relevant regulation and end of discussion? In my opinion there should not be that much doubt/uncertainty. Surely GA with its low experience is where most clear unequivocable guidance is required. Shame if companys are putting young in-experienced guys/girls out on a limb, and getting away with it - discuss?
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Europe
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see aviationjobsearch has Maintrol openings advertised for Tiger in Melbourne,was posted on the 6th. Would Tiger HR continue on recruiting while their Australian future is dark??
Plumbum Pendular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 55
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am astounded at the xenophobia going on here.
An airline in a certain country may be unsafe but it doesn't mean that all the airlines in that country are.
Chief Execs may come from a certain country but that does not make them
Does make for fun reading though!
An airline in a certain country may be unsafe but it doesn't mean that all the airlines in that country are.
Chief Execs may come from a certain country but that does not make them
Does make for fun reading though!
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tiger
Rumour has it the Tiger captain in question was responsible for both incidents and that he was having personal issues.
Very experienced pilot .......ex long haul with reputable carrier....
Carefull eveyone it can happen to you.
Very experienced pilot .......ex long haul with reputable carrier....
Carefull eveyone it can happen to you.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of concentrating even more attention on the two low flying incidents rather than underlying issues, here is the link to the ATSB preliminary report into the second incident near Avalon.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: U K
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: LEJ
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ elrehab
thats just brilliant for me... i was supposed to start ground school...and iv been on hold, . im totally disappointed at tiger and the way they operate, seriously forget being a customer, tigers ruined my career and others who are in the same position as me...tiger needs to be more ethical and responsible.
If you career is "ruined" by this, you didn't have much of one waiting in the first place.
Last edited by Postman-LEJ; 15th Jul 2011 at 07:37. Reason: add quote
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: LEJ
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Beg Tibs
Major Cleve, you are one uninformed idiot.....Australian pilots arent the issue, its the training behind the whole thing
Crying about the naughty computer not having the same data as on the charts ain't saving them either. Take the more conservative!
The politics that come afterwards are out of every proportion! As always. So don't upset the politicians by being 500 feet low. It's embarrassing to us all!
Yup they more or less have never lost a hull.
If you bother to go back over all the serious incidents to high capacity jet transports (by Australian definition of HC) involving VH- registered aircraft, there have been some bloody close shaves.
There has been no shortage of fatal accidents to piston and turboprop RPT aircraft.
Tootle pip!!
You have to remember that Australian aviation is like Australian wildlife, it has developed differently and is inhabited by creatures generally pretty venomous.
Sadly, I am forced to agree with you.
About the only statement that Mick Toller made, when he was CEO of CASA, with which I agree, was a statement to the effect:
"Australia is an aviation Galapagos, with all sort of strange mutations developing in splendid isolation".
The Australian aviation laws are as good an example as you can get, by word count or volume, they are incontestably the world's "biggest and best" , and they mean whatever your CASA FOI or AWI wants them to mean.
Anal in the extreme. The reason there are pages of arguments about the meanings of Australia regulations on the Australian forums is not because of deficiencies in Australian Ops. Manuals in general, but because of the conflicts, contradictions and complexity of Australian "regulation".
Tootle pip!!