Part 2, Singapore Airlines vs. Gladiator, case comes to abrupt end

[Gladiator]

Part 1 showed the courts order after:

a)SIA served the defendant with a Summons .
b)The defendant presented answer and affirmative defences to complaint and counterclaim.
c)The plaintiff presented answer and affirmative defences to defendant's counterclaims.

(a,b,and c above in Part 3)

Part 2 is going to be the discovery material SIA was smart enough not to provide. Part 2 is going to be like a movie where the beginning starts with the end. SIA right from the beginning of the case had dodged and denied all the defendant's claims and counterclaims. It was only in the discovery phase of the case when SIA had no choice but to present documentation and answer to interrogatory questions.

Furthermore a meeting was held between the defendant, Ken T. representing CAAS and SIA and the FAA in Singapore in February 2000. The meeting was informal and not connected to the case directly. The topic of discission was FAA regulations and operation of SIA within US airspace while not in accordance with ICAO International minimum safety standards. The FAA representative was surprised by the material presented.

A double edge sword would best describe why the case came to an abrupt end. SIA finally came to the conclusion that if they were to continue with the case, by now in the discovery phase, they would no longer be able to deny every claim.

Discovery meant surrendering every document requested, answering every question in detail followed by deposition from Maurice DeV.

SIA's tactic was to break the defendant by high legal bills hoping to gain the upper hand. One thing SIA was not aware of, and probably SIA lawyers in Singapore have never heard of is the word 'PROBONO' (look it up folks).

SIA instead shafted itself by high legal bills.

Next the discovery material

[Gladiator]

Defendant's first set of discovery requests to plaintiff.

Interrogatory No. 1: Identify each person who participated in preparing SIA's answers to these interrogatories and equests for production, state his or her relationship to SIA, and state which answer(s) each prson participated is preparing.

Interrogatory No. 2: Identify each person known by SIA or its attorneys or representatives to possess information regarding the allegations or subject matter of SIA's complaint; Defendants Answer and Affirmative Defences to Plaintiff's Complaint, and Counterclaims ("Answer and Cou nterclaim"); ans/or SIA's Answer and Affirmative Defences to Counterclaim ("Answer to Counterclaim").

Interrogatory No. 3: Provide organizational charts or narrative statements which show SIA's corporate structure and its organization into divisions or other operating units as of January 1, 1991, together with charts or statements describing each organizational change between that date and the present date. for each division or other operating unit, identify its location and the person or persons with primary responsibility for management and supervision of the unit.

Interrogatory No. 4: Identify all employees of SIA with managerial or supervisory responsibility for the safety of flight operations during the period of 1991 to the present date. For each employee, state his position at SIA and precise role in each activity.

Interrogatory No. 5: Identify each person who was involved in or responsible for, on behalf of SIA, any negotiations, meetings, representations or communications with XXX relatind to his entry into training contracts with SIA. For each person, describe his or her precise role in such activity.

Interrogatory No. 6: Identify all oral and written communications and information furnished by SIA to XXX relating to his entry into training contracts with SIA.

Interrogatory No. 7: Identify all oral and written communications and information furnished by XXX to SIA relating to his entry into training contracts with SIA.

Interrogatory No. 8: State whether SIA granted credit to XXX for his employment as an airline pilot and commercial flying experience prior to 1991. If so, describe the credit provided, and identify all documents which discuss, relate or refer to the credit.

More to follow.

[Kaptin M]

Gee, all impressive stuff, Gladys.

But sooooo expensive, lah.

Why not save all the b.s., and admit that you never intended honoring your word from the outset. Declare mental instability, it would be easy to substantiate, just from the posts on PPRuNe, alone.

[CaptChaos]

Gladiator has someone told you that we are interested in knowing all this?

Give it up man, get a life.

[BusyB]

Gladiator, I and others in the Fragrant harbour do find your story of great interest. Our company having started out as a small but ambitious airline has now grown into a headless turkey with management that continually lie, break contracts and misrepresent the true state of the company to the owners. It is encouraging to see that when finally forced to defend their position in court they quit.

KM, Slasher and Co. When I read your posts on other topics I usually agree with you but your blinkers when someone sticks up for himself does you no credit. You don't have to like someone to admit they have a case. If SIA grabbed the bull by the horns and dealt with their problems now instead of papering them over we would not be awaiting the SILKAIR verdict and discussing their actions.

[Gladiator]

Interrogatory no. 9: State whether XXX at SIA was ever granted credit for "sectors" from commercial flying towards the total number of sectors requires at SIA to qualify for the rank of Captain. If so, describe the credit, and identify all documents which discuss, relate or refer to the credit.

Interrogatory No. 10: Describe in detail what is meant by the term "commuter airline pilot" (as opposed to "airline pilot")as stated in paragraph 4 of SIA's answer to Counterclaim.

Interrogatory No. 11: Describe the total flying hours and experience of an average cadet pilot employed by SIA from Singapore, Malaysia, or India (excluding any former member of armed forces).

Interrogatory No. 12: Describe the total flying hours and experience of all Singaporean, Malaysian, and Indian cadet pilots who trained with XXX on course 747, Type Conversion, No.48, commencing on July 18, 1991, and ending September 5, 1991.

Interrogatory No. 13: Identify all cadet pilots who trained on course 747, Type Conversion, No. 49, and describe their total flying hours and experience, rank and operating capacity as of January 1, 2000.

Interrogatory No. 14: Describe in detail what is meant by "to be rated" in the following excerpt from paragraph 5 of SIA's Answer to Counterclaims: "trained by SIA to a standard that would enable him to be rated on a particular aircraft type".

Interrogatory No. 15: State whether SIA or its SUBSIDIARY has ever recruited pilota at any level other than the levels of Captain and cadet pilot (including, without limitation, direct entry first officers). If so, identify all other levels of pilots rrecruited by SIA.

Interrogatory No. 16: State whether pilots recruited as Captain or any other capacity (including, direct entry first officers, but excluding cadet pilot) have ever been required to provide a surety, bank guarantee, bank bond, cash deposit, or other forms of monetary guarantee to SIA.

Interrogatory No. 17: Describe in detail the differences between SIA's type conversion training on B-747 and B747-400 aircraft (including aircraft systems training in a classroom or computer base training, safety equipment procedure training, cockpit procedure training and full flight simulator training) applicable to each of the following (a) a pilot that has previously flown a B-747 and /or B747-400, and (b) a pilot that has been employed by SIA for the purpose of placement on the B-747 and /or B747-400, but has never flown a B747 and /or B747-400.

Interrogatory No. 18: Decsribe in detail the difference between a "Restricted type rating" and a "Non-restricted type rating" with respect to service on SIA's B-747 and /or B747-400 aircraft.

Interrogatory No. 19: Describe in detail the difference between a type rating issued to a Commander (Captain), and a type rating issued to a CPL holder as a co-pilot of the B747 and /or B747-400 aircraft.

INterrogatory No. 20: Describe any and all differences between the training with respect to type rating provided by SIA to a Captain, and the training provided to a co-pilot holding a CPL, including, without limitation, training in the cockpit left-hand seat position, instrument approaches, maneuvers, and the ability to conduct AUTOLANDS on B-747 and /or B747-400.

Interrogatory No. 21: Describe in detail the requirements to qualify as a Captain on SIA's B-747 and /or B747-400 aircraft, including, without limitation, the required license, medical examination, years of experience, total flight hours, total flight hours with SIA, number of take-offs and landings, number of total sectors, number of total sectors as pilot flying, and whether any of the above criteria are limited to aircraft of above a certain weight.

Interrogatory No. 22: Describe in detail the requirements to qualify as a First Officer on SIA's B-747 and/or B747-400 aircraft, including, without limitaion, the required license, medical examinations, years of experience, total flight hours, total flight hours with SIA, number of take-offs and landings, number of total sectors, number of total sectors as pilot flying, and whether any of the above criteria are limited to aircraft of above a certain weight.

Iterrogatory No. 23: Describe in deatil the following "holder's operating capacity" designations issued and used at SIA: "P.1 Pilot in Charge", "P.1 u/s Pilot in Charge under supervision", "P.2 Second pilot exercising the privileges of this license as a required member of the operating crew", "P.3 Pupil pilot; and pilot under training" as in the "Personal Flying Log Book (Aircraft Operating Crew).

Interrogatory No. 24: State the dates when XXX, while a co-pilot with CPL on SIA's B-747 and B747-400 aircraft, acted in the operating capacity of (a) P.1; (b) P.1 u/s; (c) P.2, and/or P.3. For each date, identify the specific capacity in which XXX operated.

More to follow.

[Gladiator]

Interrogatory No. 25: Under SIA operating procedures with respect to 3-pilot crew operations on the B747-400 aircraft, during the time which the Captain takes in-flight relief as per SIA's Flight Administration Manual ("FAM"), page 3.39.1, 15 March 1998, describe in detail the operating capacity (P.1, P.1u/s, or P.2) of the co-pilot with CPL in the right-hand seat if the flight is initiated with him as "pilot flying".

Interrogatory No. 26: With respect to the same 3-pilot crew operations on B747-400 aircraft referenced in Interrogatory No. 25 above, describe in detail the operating capacity (P.1. P.1u/s, or P.2) of the third pilot (another co-pilot with CPL) in the left-hand seat.

Interrogatory no. 27: Under SIA's operating procedures for 3-pilot crew operations on B747-400 aircraft, during the time which the Captain takes inflight relief as per SIA's FAM page 3.39.1, 15 march 1998, describe in detail the operating capacity (P.1, P.1u/s, P.2) of the co-pilot with CPL in the right hand seat if the flight initiated with him as "pilot not flying".

Interrogatory No. 28: Under SIA's operating procedures for 3-pilot crew operations on the B747-400, while the Captain is taking inflight relief and two co-pilots with CPL are at the pilot duty stations as per SIA's FAM, page 3.39.1, March 1998, identify the pilot seat in which the Captain continues to perform his duty in the event the co-pilot in the right-hand seat becomes incapacitated.

Interrogatory No. 20: During the 3-pilot crew operations on the B747-400, while the Captain is taking in-flight relief and two co-pilots with CPL are at the pilot duty stations (as per SIA's FAM, page 3.39.1, 15 March 1998), state whether the co-pilot in the right-hand seat is permitted to leave his duty station for physiological needs under (a)SIA's policies and operating procedures and/or (b)CAAS regulations.

Interrogatory No. 30: Describe in detail the differences between a "2-pilot crew", "3-pilot crew", "augmented crew" and "double crew" with respect to SIA's B747-400 operations.

Interrogatory No. 31: Describe in detail the purpose of utilizing a crew that consists of two captains and one co-pilot, instead of one Captain and two co-pilots , on the B747-400 aircraft.

Interrogatory no. 32: Describe in detail the meaning of the phrase "taking in-flight relief" (as stated in the FAM, page 3.39.1, 15 march 1998), with respect to a 3-pilot crew operation on a B747-400. In your answer to this interrogatory, describe the limitations, if any, imposed upon the Captain during inflight relief, including, without limitation, absence from the cockpit while taking relief or rest in the crew bunkroom.

Interrogatory No. 33: During 3-pilot crew operations on the B747-400 aircraft (pursuant to the FAM, page 3.39.1, 15 March 1998), while the Captain is taking inflight relief, identify which of the two co-pilots behind the aircraft controls is in charge of the aircraft.

Interrogatory No. 34: Describe in detail the meaning, according to SIA's policies and operating procedures, of the term "designated first officer" with respect to 3-pilot crew operations on the B747-400 (as stated in the FAM, page 3.39.1, 15 march 1998).

Interrogatory No. 35: Describe in detail the meaning, according to SIA's policies and operating practices, of the phrase "in the event of an emergency" with respect to 3-pilot crew operations on the B747-400 (as stated in the FAM, page 3.39.1, 15 March 1998).

Interrogatory No. 36: State whether, according to SIA's policies and operating practices, the co-pilot in the left -hand seat during 3-pilot crew operations on B747-400 (as stated in the FAM, page 3.39.1, 15 March 1998) is trained to conduct emergency procedures from the left-hand seat.

Interrogatory No. 37: Describe in detail the meaning, according to SIA's policies and operating practices for B747-400 aircraft, of the phrase "the required operating crew memebers of the minimum crew complement shall be in their assigned seats" (as stated in SIA's FAM, page 3.39.1, 15 March 1998).

Interrogatory No. 38: Describe in detail the meaning, according to SIA's policies and operating practices for B747-400 aircraft, of the phrase "a crew memeber's absence is necessary for the performance of duties in connection with the operation of the flight" (as stated in the FAM, page 3.39.1, 15 march 1998).

Interrogatory No. 39: Describe in detail the meaning, according to SIA's policies and operating practices, of the phrase "a crew memeber's absence is in connection with physiological needs" (as stated in the SIA's FAM, page 3.39.1, 15 march 1998) with respect to the B747-400.

Interrogatory No. 40: State whether the Captain's absence from hid duty station during inflight relief on B747-400 aircraft is in compliance with the requirement, that acrew member's absence is (a) necessary for the performance of duties in connection with the operation of the flight; or (b) in connection with physiological needs (as stated in the FAM, page 3.39.1, 15 march 1998).

Interrogatory No. 41: State whether it violates SIA's policies or operating procedures and /or CAAS regulations if, during 3-pilot crew operations (one Captain, two co-pilots) on B747-400 aircraft, the Captain takes inflight relief in the passenger cabin or the bunkroom.

More to follow.

[Gladiator]

Interrogatory No. 42: State whether in airline operations involving commercial passenger aircraft such as the B-747 and B747-400, "non-compliance with procedures can have dire consequences and can expose the operation to grave risk, and that the only way an airline operation can be run safely and efficiently is for there to be strict compliance with standard operating procedures" (as stated in "From the DFO's Desk" memorandum dated December 8, 1999).

Interrogatory No. 43: Describe in detail SIA's policies and requirements for "flight crew members at duty stations" or "Pilots to remain at controls" with respect to B-747 and B747-400 operations.

Interrogatory No. 44: Describe in detail the CAAS legislated requirements for "flight crew members at duty stations" or "Pilots to remain at controls" with respect to B-747 ans B747-400 operations.

Interrogatory No. 45: State whether Singapore is an "ICAO member" and/ or"ICAO Contracting State". If the answer to this interrogatory is "no", state the reasons for your denial.

Interrogatory No. 46: Does SIA consider ICAO and the FAA to be "competent authorities". If the answer to this interrogatory is "no", state the reasons for youe denial.

Interrogatory No. 47: Describe in detail the obligation and responsibilities of ICAO Contracting States with regard to the "Standards" contained in Annex 1 (Personnel Licensing) and Annex 6 (Operation of aircraft), Part 1 (International Commercial Air Transport - Aeroplanes) to the Chicago Convention.

Interrogatory No. 48: Describe in detail the obligation and responsibilities of ICAO Contracting States with regard to giving notification to ICAO of differences in their operating practices from international standards under Article 38 of the Chicago Convention.

Interrogatory No. 49 : Describe in detail the obligation and responsibilities of ICAO Contracting States with regard to air regulations imposed by Article 12 of the Chicago Convention (rules in force over the high seas).

Interrogatory No. 50: Describe in detail ICAO's Standards with respect to "Flight crew members at duty stations" (as stated in Annex 6, Part 1 to the Chicago Convention).

Interrogatory No. 51: Describe in detail ICAO's Standards in Annex 1 (Personnel Licensing) to the Chicago Convention, with respect to a flight crew license to act as a flight crew member on an aircraft certificated for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots.

Interrogatory No. 52: Describe in detail the safety requirements imposed by the United States Department of Transportation ("DOT") upon the issuance of an "Air Caarrier Economic Authority" to an air carrier such as SIA for the purpose of conducting foreign air transport operations into the United States.

Interrogatory No. 53: Describe in detail the safety requirements imposed by the FAA regulations upon the issuance of "Part 129 Operations Specifications" to an air carrier such as SIA to conduct foreign air transport operations into the United States.

Interrogatory No. 54: Describe in detail the meaning of the aviation terms "unusual attitude" or "aircraft upset" with respect to commercial passenger aircraft such as B-747, B747-400, B-777, A310, A340.

Interrogatory No. 55: State whether SIA or the SUBSIDIARY (including, without limitation, any SIA Group aircraft type or entity for the purpose of flight training and or commercial passenger operations) has ever been involved in an "unusual attitude" and /or "aircraft upset" incident. If so, describe in detail the circumstances of each incident, including the date, location, and cause of the incident.

Interrogatory No. 56: If an unusual attitude or aircraft upset occurs on a B-747, B747-400, B-777, A310, or A340, state whether it would be possible for a pilot seated at the controls of the aircraft to exchange seats with another pilot during the incident.

Interrogatory No. 57: Describe in detail the difference between the flight crew oxygen system in the cockpit (not including the flight crew bunkroom), and the oxygen system in the passenger cabin in B-747 and B747-400 aircraft (including the flight crew bunkroom).

Interrogatory No. 58: Describe in detail the purpose of the smoke goggles at the pilot duty stations in the cockpit of B-747 and B747-400 aircraft, and state whether the same goggles are provided in the flight crew bunkroom of the B747-400.

Interrogatory No. 59: State whether during an emergency such as a "rapid or explosive decompression", the passenger oxygen system on the B-747 and B747-400 aircraft (including the oxygen available in the flight crew bunkroom of the B747-400) would be capable, in terms of volume and pressure, to deliver sufficient oxygen to enable a crew memeber to remain alert and carry out his pilot duties.

Interrogatory No. 60: State whether the B747-400 passenger aircraft is fitted with any intercom system or any other communication device in the flight crew bunkroom, to enable the two pilots seated at the pilot duty stations to establish communication with the crew member inside the flight crew bunkroom.

Interrogatory No. 61: State whether any SIA or the SUBSIDIARY (including without limitation any SIA Group aircraft type or entity for the purpose of flight training and or commercial passenger operations) has ever been involved in an accident resulting in an aircraft "hull loss". If so, describe in detail the circumstances of each incident, including the date, location, and cause.

Interrogatory No. 62: State whether any aircraft of SIA or the SUBSIDIARY (including without limitation any SIA Group aircraft type or entity for the purpose of flight training and or commercial passenger operations) has ever been involved in an incident or accident which resulted in fatalities. If so, describe in detail the circumstances of each incident or accident, including the date, location, and cause.

More to follow.

[This message has been edited by Gladiator (edited 19 June 2000).]

[A Few Good Men]

Many of us here in Singapore are also very interested. Woh no joke you really show them. Keep it coming Gladator.

[Gladiator]

Interrogatory No. 63: State whether any flight of SIA or the SUBSIDIARY (including without limitation any SIA Group aircraft type or entity for the purpose of flight training and/or commercial passenger operations) has ever been involved in an incident of a cockpit crew member being incapacitated. If so, decribe in detail the circumstances of each incident including the date, location and cause of the incident.

Interrogatory No. 64: State whether, under SIA's policies and practices regarding salary and other monetary items, there is any difference on B747-400 aircraft between a co-pilot with CPL, and a co-pilot with CPL who passes or is granted exemption from the complete ATPL examination by CAAS. If so, describe in detail the difference in salary or other monetary items.

Interrogatory No. 65: State whether, according to SIA's policies and practices regarding salary and other monetary items, there is any difference between a Captain and a co-pilot with CPL but (without the demonstrated knowledge, at the airline transport pilot license level, as determined by CAAS) on the B747-400 aircraft.

Interrogatory No. 66: State whether any Captain on B747-400 aircraft has ever complained to SIA management (by formal or informal letter, comment during B747-400 fleet meetings, or other means) regarding the lack of clean bed sheets, and pillow covers, or blankets while operating as the Captain of a 3-pilot crew operation. If so, describe in detail the circumstances of the complaint, including the date, person complaining, and nature of the complaint.

Interrogatory No. 67: Describe in detail all statements or comments relating to the subjects of 3-pilot crew operations and inflight relief or rest during B747-400 fleet meetings, including the dates thereof, the persons making the statements or comments, the substance of the statements, and an identification of all documents relating to the statements or comments.

Interrogatory No. 68: State whether XXX was adequately trained to perform assigned duties in non-normal and or emergency procedures from the left-hand seat of the B-747 and B747-400, and describe the nature and extent of the training provided.

Interrogatory No. 69: State whether XXX was trained in all types of emergency or abnormal situation or procedure caused by powerplants, airframe or systems malfunctions, fire or other abnormalities from the left-hand seat of the B-747 and B747-400 aircraft, and describe the nature and extent of the training provided.

Interrogatory No. 70: Describe in detail the procedure utilized by SIA to ensure that XXX piloting technique and ability to execute emergency procedures was checked so as to demonstrate his competence from the left-hand seat of the B-747 and B747-400 aircraft.

Interrogatory No. 71: State whether SIA has ever provided or considered providing any training for First Officers/ and or Senior First Officers in the left-hand seat of the B747-400 aircraft. If so, describe in detail the nature and extent of training SIA provided, or considered providing, to First Officers.

Interrogatory No. 72: State whether the subject of providing training for First Officers and/or Senior First Officers in the left-hand seat of the B747-400 aircraft has been discussed at any B747-400 fleet meetings. If so, state the date of the meeting, identify the persons participating in the discussion, state the substance of the discussion, and identify all documents relating to the discussion.

Interrogatory No. 73: State whether SIA has ever been involved in an incident involving a "hijacking". If so, describe in detail the circumstances of each incident, including the date, location, and events relating to the incident.

Interrogatory No. 74: State whether SIA has ever had an incident where an unruly passenger required intervention of law enforcement upon arrival at the destination. If so, describe in detail the circumstances of each incident including, the date, location, and events relating to the incident.

Interrogatory No. 75: State whether on SIA's commercial passenger flight, the cockpit door is normally locked or unlocked during flight time, including during the critical phase, take-off and landing.

Interrogatory No. 76: Describe in detail the regulations, policies, and practices of SIA and CAAS with regard to the cockpit door being unlocked during flight time.

Interrogatory No. 77: State whether the locks on the cockpit door of B747-400 aircraft have been modified in any way from their original configuration at the time of the aircaft's certification, and state whether the cockpit door has the capability of being locked from the inside.

Interrogatory No. 78: State whether curtains or any other kinds of separating barriers exist between the upper passenger compartment and the cockpit door of B747-300 and B747-400 aircraft.

Interrogatory No. 79: Describe in detail the regulations, policies, and practices of SIA and CAAS relating to allowing passengers to enter the cockpit during flight time, including the critical phase, takeoff and landing.

Interrogatory No. 80: State the reasons why the Singapore CAAS was assessed by the FAA under the International Aviation Safety Program.

Interrogatory No. 81: State the basis for SIA's affirmative defence of waiver.

Interrogatory No. 82: State the basis for SIA's affirmative defense of laches.

Interrogatory No. 83: State the basis for SIA's affirmative defence of unclean hands.

Interrogatory No. 84: State the basis for SIA's affirmative defence that XXX counterclaims are reckless and negligent.

Interrogatory No. 85: Identify each expert retained by SIA or its attorneys or representatives for purpose of this litigation. With repect to each such expert expected to testify at trial as an expert witness, provide the following information:
a) Name and address;
b) Occupation and qualifications of the expert;
c) The subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify;
d) The substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify; and
e) A summary of the grounds for each opinion.

Interrogatory No. 86: Identify all statements obtained from any other person regarding the allegations or subject matter of SIA's Complaint, Defendant's Answer and Counterclaims, and/or SIA's Answer to Counterclaim.

End of Interrogatories. Next will be 'Request for Production of Documents' followed by 'SIA to Admit'.

[Gladiator]

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.

Request No. 1: All documents which discuss, relate or refer to XXX.

Request No. 2: All contracts or agreements between XXX and SIA.

Request No. 3: All correspondence, notes, memoranda and other documents relating to meetings, communication, and conversation between XXX and SIA personnel.

Request No. 4: All documents evidencing XXX's total flight hours and sectors at SIA, and his opereations in the left-hand seat and right-hand seats on SIA aircraft.

Request No. 5: All documents provided by SIA to XXX relating to his crew license.

Request No. 6: All of XXX's pay slips from November, 1996 to October, 1997.

Request No. 7: All documents showing XXX's "Technical Crew Hours (LCREWHRS)" through October 27, 1997.

Request No. 8: All records of XXX's check rides (base checks) at SIA.

Request No. 9: All documents which discuss, relate or refer to XXX's requests to take annual vacation for the purpose of taking the ATPL examinations.

Request No. 10: All documents which discuss relate or refer to international safety atandards adopted or implemented by ICAO, including, without limitation, the standards contained in Annex 1 (Personnel licensing) and Annex 6, Part 1 to the chicago Convention.

Request No. 11: All documents which discuss, relate or refer to the status of SIA as a Contracting State of ICAO.

Request No. 12: All documents which discuss, relate or refer to any notification of SIA's departure from ICAO safety standards pursuant to Article 38 of the Chicago Convention.

Request No. 13: All policy manuals, circulars, bulletins, memoranda and other documents which discuss, relate or refer to licensing requirements for SIA pilots operating B-747 and B747-400 aircraft.

Request No. 14: All policy manuals, circulars, bulletins, memoranda and other documents which discuss, relate or refer to restricted type ratings with respect to operations on B-747 and B747-400 aircraft.

Request No. 15: All policy manuals, circulars, bulletins, memeoranda and other documents which discuss, relate or refer to any of the following "holder's operating capacity": (a) P.1 Pilot in charge; (b) P.1u/s Pilot in Charge under supervision (each entry must be countersigned by the Captain); (c) P.2 Second pilot exercising the privileges of license as a required member of ther operating crew; (d) P.3 Pupil pilot; (e) pilot under training, as set forth in the Personal Flying Log Book (Aircraft Operating Crew) issued by SIA to XXX and other pilots.

Request No. 16: All policy manuals, circulars, bulletins, memoranda and other documents which discuss, relate or refer to the policies and procedures of SIA and/or CAAS relating to the training of SIA cadet pilots on B-747 and B747-400 aircraft, including, without limitation, training in the left-hand seats and training in non-normal and emergency procedures.

Request No. 17: All documents which discuss, relate or refer to the costs of training cadet pilots at SIA.

Request No. 18: All policy manuals, circulars, bulletins, memoranda and other documents which discuss, relate or refer to the policies and procedures of SIA and/or CAAS relating to the training of Captains, First Officers, and Second Officers for operations on B-747 and B747-400 aircraft, including, without limitation, training in the left-hand and right-hand seats, and training in non-normal and emergency procedures.

Request No. 19: All policy manuals, circulars, bulletins, memoranda and other documents which discuss, relate or refer to the policies and procedures of SIA and/or CAAS relating to pilots holding ATPL or passing ATPL exams for service on B-747 and B747-400 aircraft.

Request No. 20: All policy manuals manuals, circulars, bulletins, memoranda and other documents which discuss, relate or refer to policies and procedures of SIA and/or CAAS designated to protect against two new First Officers with minimal experience being paired together in 3-pilot crew operations.

Request No. 21: All policy manuals, circulars, bulletins, memoranda and other documents which discuss, relate or refer to the policies and procedures of SIA and/or CAAS with respect to 3-pilot crews.

Request No. 22: All documents which discuss, relate or refer to authorization from CAAS to perform 3-pilot crew operations.

Request No. 23: All policy manuals, circulars, bulletins, memoranda and other documents which discuss, relate or refer to the policies and procedures of SIA and/or CAAS relating to inflight relief or rest taken by the Captain.

Request No. 24: All policy manuals, circulars, bulletins, memoranda and other documents which discuss, relate or refer to the policies and procedures of SIA and/or CAAS relating to the absence of the Captain from his duty station for any reason.

More to follow.

[Kaptin M]

So your lawyer will then receive this information, and spend the next 6 months wading through it, making notations, and filing it, while he charges YOU a couple of hundred bucks an hour.

Looks like a good tactic, Glad................for building up the lawyer's bank account!!!

[Gladiator]

You did not look up the word 'PROBONO'.

[Gladiator]

Request No. 25: All policy manuals, circulars, bulletins, memoranda or other documents concerning whether inflight relief must occur in any particular order or phase of cruise. (See FAM, page 3.39.1, march 15, 1998).

Request No. 26: All policy manuals, circulars, bulletins, memoranda and other documents which discuss, relate or refer to the policies and procedures of SIA and/or CAAS relating to co-pilots operating in the laft-hand seat of B-747 and B747-400 aircraft.

Request No. 27: All policy manuals, circulars, bulletins, memoranda and other documents which discuss, relate or refer to pilot incapacitation training provided by SIA.

Request No. 28: All policy manuals, circulars, bulletins, memoranda and other documents which discuss, relate or refer to the policies and procedures of SIA and/or CAAS relating to checks for pilot training, including non-normal and emergency operations.

Request No. 29: All documents provided to SIA and/or CAAS by a competent authority of any Contracting State other than Singapore Iincluding without limitation, competent authorities of the United States), relating to the granting of permission to the holder of a Singapore license to o[perate aircraft and the conditions thereto.

Request No. 30: All minutes, notes, memoranda and other documents which discuss, relate or refer to fleet meetings attended by SIA pilots during the period of January 1, 1995 to the present date.

Request No. 31: All SIA Operation Manuals pursuant to Part V, Chapters 25 and 26, Air Navigation Act (Chapter 6), Air Navigation Order.

Request No. 32: All FAA Part 129 Operations Specifications issued to SIA.

Request No. 33: All FAMs, including all revisions and amendments thereto.

Request No. 34: The 1995 ALPA-S Agreement, and any subsequent agreements or amendments between SIA and ALPA-S.

Request No. 35: All documents which discuss, relate or refer to requirements for cleaning crews to dress the flight crew bunkroom for 2-pilot and 3-pilot crew flights.

Request No. 36: All specifications applicable to the flight crew oxygen systems located in the cockpit, passenger cabin, and flight crew bunkroom on the B-747 and B747-400 aircraft.

Request No. 37: All policy manuals, circulars, bulletins, memoranda, and other documents which discuss, relate or refer to the policies and procedures of SIA and/or CAAS regarding passengers entering the cockpit during takeoff and landing.

Request No. 38: Lists of all 3-pilot crew operation sector on A-340 and B747-400 aircraft in the SIA system.

Request No. 39: The passenger manifest of the flight carrying Captain XXX and his son.

Request No. 40: The voyage record of the flight when XXX was injured.

Request No. 41: All service bulletins and other documents relating to cockpit door lock modifications on SIA B747-400 aircraft.

Request No. 42: Advisory Circular AC-FO 3/96, dated September 1996, referred to in Advisory Circular AC-FO 1/99.

Request No. 43: All documents which discuss, relate or refer to the grandfather clause and ICAO Annex 1 license issue as discussed by Captain Maurice DVz in his memorandum entitled "From Desk of DFO".

Request No. 44: Lists of all pilots on A-340 and B747-400 aircraft who hold CPL only, without demonstrated knowledge of ATPL.

Request No. 45: The voyage record of XXX's flight with XXX and XXX.

Request No. 46: All documents which discuss, relate or refer to XXX request for leave in a handwritten note to Tony T.

Request No, 47: A copy of FAM, Page 3.39.1 existing before the March 15, 1998 revision.

Request No. 48: All records of route checks performed on SIA aircraft by CAAS.

Request No. 49: SIA records showing the date the last B-747 aircraft left SIA line operations.

Request No. 50: All documents which discuss, relate or refer to the "unusual attitude" incident involving an SIA A-310 aircraft in 1994, including technical log entries upon arrival at the destination, records of maintenance inspection of the A-310, and the date when the incident was reported.

Request No. 51: All documents which discuss, relate or refer to any incident involving a cockpit crewmember being incapacitated on SIA aircraft.

Request No. 52: All documents which discuss, relate or refer to any incidents resulting in a "Hull loss" of SIA or the SUBSIDIARY aircraft.

Request No. 53: All documents which discuss, relate or refer to the experience level and flight hours of the co-pilot on the SIA Lear Jet that crashed in August 1997.

Request No. 54: All documents which reflect the name and address of flight engineer(s) on the following SIA flights: 9V-SQQ on April 12, 1993, SIN to MEL, 9V-SQT on April 14, 1993, MEL to SIN.

Request No. 55: Pages 5.36 and 5.37 of the SIA Boeing B747-400 Flight Crew Training manual, Full Flight Simulator.

Request No. 56: All documents provided by ICAO or any Contracting State (including, without limitation, the United States), indicating or granting permission to the holder of a Singapore license to operate aircraft without staisfying relevany international standards.

Request No. 57: All statements regarding the allegations or subject matter of SIA's Complaint; Defendant's Answer and Counterclaims; and/or SIA's Answer to Counterclaims in this action.

Request No. 58: All other documents which discuss, relate oe refer to the claims or defences to counterclaims asserted by SIA in this action.

Request No. 59: All documents identified by SIA in its answer to Defendant's interrogatories.

End of request for production of documents. next will be "SIA to Admit".

[Kaptin M]

I don't have the time, or inclination.

This is your sideshow, so you'll have to spoonfeed us, or we'll head off to another!!

[Gladiator]

It is understandable that this info would have no meaning to a 250 hour pilot.
If you do not understand these info you should not worry about it.
I guess Whiskery001 is correct. Are you old enough to have a credit card agent M?

[titan]

"I don't have the time, or inclination"

or

"I don't have the time because I dont have the intelligence"

[Kaptin M]

Everyone else noticed how these non-achievers - Glad, Titan, and the host of other names they use - continually make peurile postings, to keep their sad, whinging stories at the top.

Singapore Airlines got to their "Number One" position, BECAUSE they weeded out non-performers, such as you moaners.

[Gladiator]

SIA to Admit

Request No. 1: Admit that the SIA documents attached as exhibit 1 are true and correct copies of XXX’s pay slips during his employment with SIA, showing XXX’s take home pay of $91,822.24 Singapore dollars for the 12-month period of November, 1996 through October, 1997.

Request No. 2: Admit that $1200 per month was deducted for deposit in XXX’s provident fund, and that SIA made a matching contribution of $1200 Singapore dollars per month to XXX’s provident fund.

Request No. 3: Admit that SIA pays a 13th month salary to XXX and other pilots each year.

Request No. 4: Admit that the total of XXX’s take home pay, XXX’s provident fund contribution, and SIA’s provident fund matching contributed averaged $10,051.85 Singapore dollars income per month ($6,282.40 US Dollars per month at 96/97 exchange rate of 1 US Dollar to 1.6 Singapore dollar).

Request No. 5: Admit that the documents attached as exhibit 2 are true and correct copies of the 1990 edition of Singapore’s Subsidiary Legislation, the Air Navigation Act (1990) (also known as “Air Navigation Order"), Chapter 6, Section 19.

Request No 6: Admit that SIA operates flights into the United States and to he following destinations: Los Angeles, San Francisco, Achorage, Chicago, New York.

Request No. 7: Admit that the international cicvil aviation marking “9V’ designates “Singapore aircraft”, an aircraft which is registered in the Republic of Singapore.

Request No. 8: Admit that CAAS is a civil aviation authority which regulates SIA’s flight operations.

Request No. 9: Admit that Singapore is a “Contracting State” which is a party to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (the “Chicago Convention").

Request No. 10: Admit that according to Singapore’s Air Navigation Order, the term “competent authority” means, in relation to Singapore, the minister, and, in relation to any other country, the authority responsible under the law of that country for promoting the safety of civil avaition.

Request No. 11: Admit that ICAO is the only internationally recognized aviation standards-setting body and is a “competent authority” within the meaning of the Air Navigation Order.

Request No. 12: Admit that the FAA is a “competent authority” responsible for promoting the safety of civil aviation under the laws of the United States.

Request No. 13: Admit that the document attached as exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the Chicago Convention.

Request No. 14: Admit that the document attached as exhibit 4, is a true and correct copy of International Standards and Recommended Practices, Personnel Licensing, Annex 1, to the Chicago Convention (Eighth edition; July 1988), applicable November 16, 1989.

Request No. 15: Admit that pursuant to Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention, a flight crew member of an aircraft is required to hold a valid license showing compliance with the specifications of Annex 1 and appropriate to the duties performed by that person.

Request No. 16: Admit that the attached as exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of International Standards and Recommended Pracices, Operation od Aircraft, Annex 6, Part 1 (International Commercial Air Transport – Aeroplanes) to the Chicago Convention.

Request No. 17: Admit that a Contracting State such as Singapore is prohibited from permitting the holder of a license to exercise privileges other than those granted by that license.

Request No. 18: Admit that under Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention, a Contracting State shall not permit the holder of a license to act as pilot-in-command or co-pilot of an aeroplane certified for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots, unless he is authorized by a type rating in which the applicant demonstrated a level of knowledge appropriate to the privileges granted to the holder of an ATPL (Airline Transport Pilot License).

Request No. 19: Admit that the Boeing B747-400 aircraft is certified for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots.

Request No. 20: Admit that the document attached as exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of the Commercial Pilot License (“CPL")issued to XXX by the CAAS on November 1, 1991, in accordance with the Air navigation Act (CAP 87) and Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention.

Request No. 21: Admit that SIA and/or CAAS did not accept XXX’s Airline Transport Pilot license (“ATP” ;)issued by FAA.

Request No. 22: Admit that during XXX’s employment at SIA, XXX did not demonstrate a level of knowledge granted to a holder of an ATPL by passing the ATPL examination as administered or accepted by CAAS.

Request No. 23: Admit that XXX and other co-pilots on the B747-400 never received training in recovery from unusual attitudes from the left-hand seat in the B-747 or B747-400 aircraft.

Request No.24: Admit that under XXX’s CPL (exhibit6), Aircraft Ratings (Aeroplanes), Part II Co-pilot, XXX was entitled to exercise the privileges of a co-pilot (P2) on the following aircraft: B-747 (date and stamp on CPL: November 1, 1991) and B747-400 aircraft (date and stamp on CPL: January 13, 1995).

Request No. 25: Admit that all of XXX’s flying check (Base checks) were administered for co-pilot (P2) capacity.

Request No. 26: Admit that XXX’s CPL does not contain any endorsements for Captain (pilot-in-command).

Request No. 27: Admit that in XXX’s CPL (exhibit 6), Aircraft Ratings (Aeroplanes), Part 1, Pilot-in-command, no aeroplanes are specified for his exercise of the privilege of a pilot-in-command (P1).

Request No. 28: Admit that pursuant to Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention, a co-pilot operating Singapore registered B-747 or B747-400 aircraft and holding a CPL, but not holding an ATPL, cannot act as a crewmember under the capacity of P1 for the purpose of public transport.

Request No. 29: Admit that the document attached as exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of Instructions for use, Personal Flying Log Book (Aircraft Operating Crew) issued to XXX by SIA.

More to follow.


[This message has been edited by Gladiator (edited 22 June 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Gladiator (edited 22 June 2000).]

[Gladiator]

Request No. 30: Admit that according to the SIA document attached as exhibit 8, "P1" means "pilot in charge", "P2" means "second pilot exercising the privileges of his license as a required member of the operating crew, "P1u/s" means "pilot in charge under supervision."

Request No. 31: Admit that a co-pilot operating in the capacity of "P2" or "P1u/s" is under the supervision of the Captain, and "P3" is a pupil pilot (also known a spilot under training).

Request No. 32: Admit that the document attached as exhibit 8 is a true copy of the FAM, page 2.19.4, Logging of Hours/Sectors, 1 march 1990.

Request No. 33: Admit that according to CFR 129.15, Flight crewmember certificates, a flight crewmember is required to hold a current certificate or license issued or validated by the country in which that aircraft is registered, showing his ability to perform his duties connected with operating that aircraft.

Request No. 34: Admit that the document attached as exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of the FAM, Line Operations, Cockpit seats/A340 crew rest Facility, page 3.39.1, 15 march 1998.

Request No. 35: Admit that under the provisions of FAM, page 3.40.1, First Officer Route Flying, 15 December 1995 (attached as exhibit 10), during 3-pilot crew operations, the Commander is not allowed to take inflight relief in the passenger cabin or the flight crew rest facility bunkroom.

Request No. 36: Admit that during XXX's employment at SIA, there was no provision in the FAM requiring XXX or other First Officers to occupy the left-hand seat of the B-747.

Request No. 37: Admit that according to the SIA reports regarding Technical Crew Hours attached as exhibit 11, XXX had "P1: 530, P2: 544, HRS: 806" from commercial flying experience previous to employment at SIA.

Request No. 38: Admit that the document attached as exhibit 12 are true and correct copies of the FAM, Minimum Qualifications for Promotions, pages 2.19.1 and 2.19.2, 15 January 1999.

Request No. 39: Admit that according to exhibit 12, a number of sectors and/or hours in exhibit 11 was credited to XXX for commercial flying experience previous to his employment at SIA.

Request No 40: Admit that the document attached as exhibit 13 is a true and correct copy of an SIA form entitled "Non-SIA flying hours and sectors", in which XXX was requested by SIA to verify P1u/s sectors by providing a letter from his previous employer confirming that XXX had flown the number of handling sectors under supervision.

Request No. 41: Admit that the document attached as exhibit 14 is a true and correct copy of the FAM, Line Operations, Cockpit visits, page 3.30.1, march 15, 1998.

Request No. 42: Admit that the document attached as exhibit 15 is a true and correct copy of the FAM, Security, page 4B.1.7, 15 January 1999.

Request No. 43: Admit that the photograph attached as exhibit 16 accurately depicts a typical cockpit door lock on any of SIA's B747-400.

Request No. 44: Admit that the SIA document attached as exhibit 17 is true and correct copy of a B744 Megaflash 21, page 8 of 10, April 1999, relating to Improved Flight Deck Door Lock (B).

Request No. 45: Admit that the photograph attached as exhibit 18 accurately depicts the compartment holding oxygen masks in the flight crew bunkroom of SIA's B747-400, and admit that the oxygen compartment illustrated in the photograph is not a "quick doning" type oxygen mask.

Request No. 46: Admit that the document attached as exhibit 19 through 21, respectively, are true and correct copies of SIA Boeing 747-400 Operations manual, Oxygen systems, Page 11.20.04, September 2, 1993; SIA Boeing 747-400 operations manual, Oxygen systems diagram, page 11.20.05, October 3, 1994; and SIA Boeing 747-400 Operations Manual, Emergency Equipment Location (Flight/Upper Deck and Overhead crew Rest), page 11.20.09, October 1, 1996.

Request No. 47: Admit that the document attached as exhibits 22and 23, respectively, are true copies of SIA's Boeing 747-400 Operations manual, Standby bus, page 10.20.06, April 3, 1995; and SIA's Boeing 747-400 Operations manual, Standby bus, page 10.30.02, may 6, 1994.

Request no. 48: Admit that the document attached as exhibit 24 is a true and correct copy of SIA's June 18, 1992 letter to XXX, offereing XXX employment with the airline.

Request No. 49: Admit that upon successful completion of XXX's probation, and confirmation of his appoinment, his general conditions of service were as set out in the 1988 ALPA-S Agreement, and any succeeding agreement thereto.

Request No. 50: Admit that the document attached as exhibit 25 is a true and correct copy of the 1995 ALPA-S Agreement.

Request No. 51: Admit that under the 1995 ALPA-S Agreement, a First Officer who passed or was granted exemption from complete ATPL examination was to be granted a salary increase of $150 by SIA.

Request No. 52: Admit that SIA did not pay and additional $150 to XXX in salary and other monetary items (including, without limitation, 13th month salary or annual bonuses) payable to a First Officer who passes or is granted exemption from the complete ATPL examination.

Request No. 53: Admit that the SIA document attached as exhibit 26 is a true and correct copy of document no. 000381 produced by SIA in the case of Singapore Airlines Limited v. Michael John DeMarco, (No. C96-5858FDB), in which B-747 Conversion Training is listed as "(restricted)".

More to follow.

[Gladiator]

Request No. 54: Admit that according to XXX's flight logs at SIA, certified by the chief pilot and covering flight from February 11, 1993 to September 30, 1996, SIA certified XXX's flights as 879:18 hrs P.1 and 1747:07 hrs of P.2.

Request No. 55: Admit that in Annex I (Clause 15, Part II) of the 1995 APLA-S Agreement, the document entitled "An Agreement For a Course of Conversion Training" is used by SIA as a standard form of agreement for Captains as well as First Officers.

Request No. 56: Admit that under Annex II (b) (Clause 16, Part III) to the 1995 APLA-S Agreement, entitled B747-400/A340 Flight Time Limitations, paragraph 3 states, "in the case of '3-pilot' crew, the additional pilot allows in-flight relief from duty for each of the pilots".

Request No. 57: Admit that the document attached as exhibit 27 is a true and correct copy of the FAM, Line Operations, pages 3.2.1 through 3.2.5, Crew duties and responsibilities, 1 September 1993, setting forth duties and responsibilities of co-pilots.

Request No. 58: Admit that the document attached as exhibit 28 is a true and correct copy of the FAM, TRaining and Route qualifications, page 5.2.3, 1 September 1991, regarding line flying by co-pilots.

Request No. 59: Admit that the document attached as exhibit 29 is a true and correct copy of SIA Boeing 747-400 Operations manual, Normal Procedures, General, 01 Jan 1996, B747-412, SQ 02-01-03 and 30 June 1995, B747-412, SQ 02-01-04.

Request No. 60: Admit that the document attached as exhibit 30 is a true and correct copy of SIA Boeing 747-400 Operations manual, Normal Procedures, Operations, 08 Sep 1993, B747-412, SQ 02-02-33, showing flight crew duties during climb and cruise, depicted for "Captain" and "First Officer".

Request No 61: Admit that the document attached as exhibit 31 is a true and correct copy of SIA Boeing 747-400 Operations manual, Normal procedures, Operation, 03 June 1993, B747-412, SQ 02-02-35, showing Flight crew duties for enroute navigation procedures, depicted for "Captain" and "First Officer".

Request No. 62: Admit that at times during the B-747 operations, XXX occupied the pilot-in-command's duty station in the left-hand seat, and was delegated responsibility for the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time (P1 responsibility).

Request No. 63:Admit that at times during B-747 operations, before XXX was qualified to be a First Officer (co-pilot), and while the Captain took inflight relief and/or rest in the bunkroom, XXX occupied the co-pilot's duty station in the right-hand seat, and was delegated responsibility for the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time (P1 responsibility).

Request No. 64: Admit that during 3-pilot crew operations (One Captain, two co-pilots) on the B747-400 aircraft, and while the Captain took inflight relief and/or rest in the bunkroom, XXX occupied the left-hand seat, and was delegated responsibility for the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time (P1 responsibility).

Request No. 65: Admit that XXX was required to perform the duties of pilot-in-command on the B-747 and B747-400 aircraft while holding only a CPL (P2) with a restricted type rating.

Request No. 66: Admit that XXX did not receive the proper training and currency requirements to achieve an appropriate level of safety and flight crewmember competency in the left-hand seat on either the B-747 or B747-400 aircraft.

End of SIA to admit.

[Singapore Girl]

Yes, some of us in SIN and at SIA are not only very interested but also very shocked. Never knew what level of incompetence was going on up front! Keep up your good work, Gladiator

[Slasher]

Gladiator I predict problems for you in the SIA 10%-10% PF dept (Request No 2). Did you opt for it? I hope not. No one I know used SIAs PF because we all knew we'd never see it upon resignation/end of contract. If you did then unfortunately you can kiss the cash goobye.

I believe I still have full documentation somewhere regarding the Inducement Allowance (S$500 per month payable as lump sum at end of service) which was unilateraly changed at the stroke of a pen to a MAA (Market Adjustment Allowance) in complete violation of my Contract. This is typical SQ. I dont see this anywhere in your posts and suggest you do use it if you were one of the expat FOs affected. I certainly was. They shafted me out of S$12,000 this way. This was just AFTER they decided (at management level) they had too many white trash FOs. The official anouncement of being top-heavy with expat FOs was made in (April?) 1993 so Im told.

Keep up the good work.

PS I didnt pursue the $S12,000 as I had no faith whatsoever in the Singapore court system or its so-called "defence lawyers". A certain race of people had no rights in the 3rd Reich and white trash has none under the 4th. Asking a Singaporean defence lawyer to represent me was like asking an SS komandant to represent a gas chamber nominee.

[This message has been edited by Slasher (edited 27 June 2000).]

[Gladiator]

Slasher I pulled my PF out by some tactics introduced to me by previous prisoners that had escaped. I did not get shafted in that area.

Slasher you owe me a favor, please keep certain words for Jet blast only. I am refereing to 'N', 'J', etc words.

Thanks.

Singapore Girl, you may want to consider informing your union to initiate an investigation of what flight operations are doing in the area of compliance with international safety standards.

The next time you go on a flight mostly flights to LAX on 744, SFO and YVR on A340, and some Europe flights, watch for the following:

1) See if the tech crew (pilots) are 3 persons. Next watch for the number of stripes. One will be a four stripe (Captain), the other two will be First officers, 2 or 3 stripes. This is called a "3-pilot crew".
2) At about half way through the flight find an excuse to go to the cockpit. You are trying to determine if the Captain is taking inflight relief. You can determine this by the fact that both first Officers are behind the controls.
3) Next determine where the Captain is. He is only allowed to be (a) In the toilet, (b) In the cockpit jumpseat. If he is in the bunkroom or the passenger cabin for reasons other than the operation of the aircraft, the safety of that flight is questionable.

You may want to pass this around to the rest of the cabin crew. The life you save may be your own.

[Singapore Girl]

Gladiator: thank you for your advice re checking cockpit crew during flight. Shall do when next opportunity arises. If I can establish violation as you describe, union will be next step. But maybe SIA is already sensitive to issue and will now enforce by-the-book work by cockpit crew?

[Slasher]

Point taken. Ive amended the post accordingly.

[Gladiator]

Thanks Slasher. True example of CRM, or PRM (PPRuNe Resource Management).

[Whiskery]

Slasher,

A group of us, led by an ex TAA guy,now with Cathay Air Cargo sought legal advice about that Inducement pay debacle and blatant theft by SQ. A class action lawsuit would have cost us each $6000 minimum (only an estimate) as the case would have to be heard in the supreme court. Given the way SQ play in court,it may have dragged on incurring more cost and feeding the solicitor's coffers. Our claims varied between $10,000 to $16,000 that the SQ management and ALPA-S stole from us and we may have ended up paying all that and more in costs. Why cut off nose to spite face. - not Confucius.

We now sleep well at night with our CPF well invested and let the scoundrels that stole our inducement pay take that sin with them to their grave. They know who they are and what they did.

Keep the Faith:]

[titan]

Whiskery, your story of courage is touching.

But, your story has weakness. How come it would have been heard in the Supreme Court? That requires a claim in excess of $100,000. With the courts awarding interest penalty back then of 15% it would have been a pretty good investment. Surely a group of Captains could have worked out the law system and performed alot of the work themselves.
Why did you give up so easily?
Why did you give in to the Bully?

I'm sure the people at SIA who "know who they are" don't tremble each day at the thought of "taking that sin with them to their grave". Are you for real?? That is what they get paid to do!

Who wrote "a mystery wrapped within an enigma"? Its fitting. Such blind loyalty to SIA by one who admits to being f*cked over has got me perplexed.

Starting to think that maybe you actually have an envious admiration for both Gladiator and myself. Once again, I am touched.

[Whiskery]

Well,see...there you go titan or do you prefer whiskery001 ? My friends and I discussed at great lengths whether to pursue this avenue of litigation. We did not consider at the time we were "giving in to the bully" or "giving up so easily",that would have been puerile. No,our concern was how much money we could afford to give to the solicitor's and what return would we get on our money. The answer to that was very little return,if any and lots and lots of stress and FOR WHAT! - so we could teach SQ a lesson? We look back now and all admit we made the correct decision,but being pilots I guess that goes without saying.

You and Gladys should have sat down one night in Singapore and "talked" about things before doing a bolter! Think of the money you could have saved. Still,I think you guys have got plenty anyway from the way you talk and a damn expensive way just to get a couple of legal topics up in Pprune.

Oh,and Fred, it doesn't worry me or my Mates if the persons who stole our funds tremble or not and I am pleased that you are touched by my story to Slasher BUT - our CPF is locked away earning money and we didn't spend one red cent on solicitors chasing an ego trip! All that "courage" titan - think about it!

Keep the Faith:]

[Gladiator]

I would do it again in a heart beat.

[titan]

Whiskery:
How many of you were there that sought legal advice re the inducement pay shortfall? Please answer.

Re talking it over before leaving Singapore; thats about all I did and it became consuming. I was miserable there. I hated it, for all the reasons I have posted. So, one day you wake up and say "what am I becoming?". I had become a complainer, a whinger, negative, depressed; in a nutshell....pathetic. One life is all we get. So I left.
Would I do it again? 100% YES!
Do I regret going to Singapore? Strangely no. I am a much stronger person because of it. I have learnt that you don't have to resolve yourself to a life of misery or fear. That the constants threats of SIA and the Singapore goverment are hollow.
Has the training been of any benefit - no. SIA had taught me to despise flying. I loathed going to work. They destroyed an inate love of flying. It has slowly returned.

I can't wait to give that pathetic bully a blood nose. It is simply a case of fair and just revenge using their own weapon of choice - the court system.

[Whiskery]

So ....titan, you can't wait to give the pathetic bully a blood nose. See, there you go fighting again!

You remind me of a spoilt little rich boy who has had it all too easy in life. You have never had to get up, shake yourself down,look in the mirror and say " that didn't hurt really so let's get on with life." You should have flown for Saudia, Gulf Air or Qatar Airlines if you wanted to meet some real a** holes. Did you ever do an Indian Hajj titan? You know the one's that promise to pay your airfares and USD180 per day if you find your way to Bombay. When you get there they tell you it's now $150 per day and airfares re-imbursed at the end of contract (which never happened) and after the first month when you haven't been paid you have to threaten strike action so your family can eat !! Or what about some of the agencies around looking after "pilot's interests" - what a joke! There are some bigger villians out there besides SQ.

Quote: "I was miserable there. I hated it..."
Do you think we were having a great time? Getting ripped off by the real estate agents, (that's universal,so what?)being instructed by the "Hitler youth" upstarts,(I ignored them with OIC - it was a game titan)I admit, not a pleasant one, but you're in the real world now Man, no union to turn to,no Chief Pilot sympathetic to your cause - just get on with it!)and trying to deal with the likes of FK and MdeV - clowns, both of them. Unfortunately,this was the only job going at the time,I had big committments,a young family and I signed an agreement stating I would serve 5 years with this Company or repay them for my training.

Unlike your goodself - I couldn't afford to "jump ship".

So you see titan, it really didn't matter how depressed I got,how much I complained or whinged (that just made the family and my Mates upset)I was going to be in Singapore for the next 5 years. The difference between you and me titan - I woke up one morning and said "I am going to make the most of this and stop feeling sorry for myself and GET ON WITH LIFE !

The saddest thing about this latest post of yours titan is, you haven't learned through experience. 100% YES! You would do it all again.......now that is pathetic.

I will answer your question but am letting you know in advance - the issue is dead.We would never entertain going to court over the inducement pay issue,that was decided six years ago and it is closed. Thank you for your interest and good luck in your next brawl!

5 Captains and 4 F/O s.

[Gladiator]

Titan please get off this guy's back. He obviously has some issues from the past.

I think we are pouring salt on an old wound by doing what Whiskery wishes he had done in the past.

Leave him alone because what we are doing creates unpleasant flashbacks. I am not being smart a**, I feel for you man.

There are many Whiskeries and many Titans out there. The difference between them is the Whiskeries had no choice (family, opportunity, etc.), and the Titans had a choice (still young enough to start elsewhere, etc).

By the way who is FK?

[titan]

Ex Australian Airlines
ex dispute
11 years and it is still haunting you
Exercising the pain and frustration by being here trying to head-kick guys that did what you wished you had the balls to do - fight back.
Families did it tough back then, many never made it out the other side.
The allegiance to SIA and Singapore is more than infatuation by an ex-employee. The answer is there if you look hard enough.
I was able to wake up one day and say "Im getting on with life - I'm leaving this sh*thole" because, and here's the rub, I made enough out of the dispute to not be economically beholden to SIA.
Now you know something about me, and I know a little about you.
Sadly, the worst Captain I have ever flow with was an ex Australian Airlines guy at SIA. I hope your initials aren't IC!

I would have liked to discuss the
inducement pay subject as you still have a year to be able to claim it. We could have all been of service to each other, the way our pilot community is meant to be. Sadly, you have put a line in the sand.


Okay Gladiator, Ill let him be now...and FK? that's our little mate Freddy. Storyman did an interesting expose on the low life some time back - some story about asking for a beer, if I recall correctly.

[Kaptin M]

titan, how is it that every time you add 2+2, you come up with 5? Your profile of me is 100% wrong, and you're way off course with Whiskery [whom I've had the pleasure of meeting, once or twice].

I had to laugh when I read your "Sadly, the worst Captain I have ever flow [sic] with.."...that coming from a low time, inexperienced, malcontent. To whom were you comparing him, Darth Vader, or Flash Gordon, or one of your other comic book heroes!

Anyway, these posts are now becoming boring in the extreme...knit one, pearl one...knit one, pearl one...

I leave the sewing circle in self destruct mode. Bye girls.

[Whiskery]

Yeah, have to say Kaptin M, you are right again, it's time to move on.

Have fun with your mud wrestling,sewing and playing with each other Gladys and tits - it was fun initially, but you lost the plot as time went on. Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Jack Schitt - got your email Mate - what a pair of pusseys ! Will reply in a day or two and thanks for the info!

and (just for you titan).....


Keep that faith;]:]:]:]:]

[This message has been edited by Whiskery (edited 29 June 2000).]

[jet-pilot]

QF operates from Paris to Singapore with 1 Captain, 1 FO and 2 SOs. Legal?

[hounddog high]

jet-pilot,

does the captain rest in the bunk?

if so, who sits on the left when the capt is away and is he qualified to do so?

would be I hope. :)

[Gladiator]

The important item is the license of the FO and the SOs.

[Farside]

farside

Gladiator, have you ever heard of the expression "disgruntled employee" (I hope I spell it correct but I am sure you will understand what I mean!) Once again GET A LIFE !!!

[Goofyfoot]

Farside,if you have nothing constructive to say on the topic except personal attacks,then please p*** off somewhere else!

[Gladiator]

Two way street. "Disgruntled employer".

[Established !]

Gladiator, I can see the smile on your lawyers face, whats the $$tab to date? How does it work or is financing coming from ??? By the way, great movie! Perhaps Maximus vs Singapore Girl will make a great sequel.

[Gladiator]

The majority of the tab was probono.

[Farside]

Gladiator
I've just been to STC, where all the chiefs and bosses were sitting in their offices trembling with fear from the horrible consequenses of these "lawsuits" Some of them were hiding under the desks, while MdV hasn't been seen for weeks. Rumour has it that the DG considered suicide!
Keep on dreaming boys, GET A LIFE!! ( sorry for spelling mistakes,but I am sure you get the drift!)

[titan]

Farside:
another character invented just for this forum!!!!!!

Established !:
I suppose anything less than S$300,000 is a winner. The great news is that it is costing SIA about 10 times what it costs us to save their face. No doubt the peanut gallery will chirp up about how big SIA is and how they don't care, but then they don't understand corporate law, responsibility to shareholders, Directors accountability and the power of the Audit Committee; but then, thats why they don't have children sitting on the Board of Directors.

Gladiator, for the benefit of the forum, could you please define the term "probono".
Thanks.

[Gladiator]

I will not define the term. Let them look it up.

Only those who truly know them know how hard it is for a c*i*aman to part with one cent.

[Singapore Girl]

Established!

Excuse me...no need to get personal, lah!

[Established !]

Gladiator, sure I know. He was married to some chic named Cher wasn't he? Anyway probono is the only way to go.Tch! Tch! getting racist already, I'm sure they did you in because of the colour of your skin, just like O.J. Then just like O.J. you're innocent.

[Kaptin M]

To the uninitiated, ignorant, and blissfully unaware [into which category we should place "The Sewing Circle", I'm still undecided]...SIA has, for many years, had a Legal Department, fully staffed, funded, and supported by the Airline.

This department employs professionals [whose salaries are fully tax deductible] to deal with ALL contractual matters, albeit accomodation, schooling, CPF, or bonds.

The Legal Department welcomes - indeed encourages - all enquiries, in assisting employees in obtaining an equitable outcome in all dealings with SIA, whether in Singapore, or abroad.

As in all Company matters, the Legal Department is a recognised, allowable, taxation deduction, offset by Company profits.

[Gladiator]

The lead SIA lawyer (a Malay Lady) was fired/replaced/removed/whatever, after SIA lost (even after several appleals) in the Steve Ahlmark vs. Singapore Airlines in a Singapore Court.

As for the rest of SIA legal department, incompetence. Everything is seen in Singapore context. Ouch, it hurts to deal with the real world where Harry does not call the shots.

[titan]

KaptinM:
for a Singaporean your lack of financial understanding is hard to fathom. So, lets go back to the very beginning.
Lets say the Big company earns $1,000,000. Profit would normally be $700,000 as the Singapore company tax rate is about 30%. The legal department suddenly puts it hand up and says "wait, we forgot to give you our expenses against Gladiator. They are $200,000"
So, net income is now 1,000,000 - 200,000 = $800k. Less tax at 30% and Profit now = $560,000.
Please note the difference in profit. Gladiator has cost SIA $140,000 instead of $200,000: a saving of $60,000.
But wait! If it wasn't for Gladiator that $60,000 would have gone to the Government to build a new school or hawker centre. So who misses out? Singapore AND SIA. Why? because SIA hasnt learnt that life is more productive when peace reigns.

And by the way, when I walked in to the legal dept to get my release leter, the only words of "encouragement" I received were "ah - you pay $320,000 now - ah!". From beginning to end the SIA legal department has been belligerent, and belligerence breeds belligerence - and this is how we ended up in the mess we are in today.

[Kaptin M]

Two points Titanic:
a) I'm not Singaporean;
b) It's YOU and Gladys who have "ended up in the mess we are in today." The rest of us are doing just fine, thank you. :)

[ironbutt57]

to the gladiator..thanks for taking the time to post this info...considered this option about the time you did, chickened out for other reasons...glad I did..because i'd been in the same boat (or worse) for sure...

to "kaptin" m....well aw hell never mind guess it takes all kinds... you sure you're not the former "asianpilot"?

[titan]

a simple thankyou for the lesson in primary school accounting will suffice just fine M.

Now don't waste out time with your silly rhetoric on finance matters; in fact, please include all matters legal in that as well.