Singapore Airlines vs. Gladiator (Active case)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Singapore Airlines vs. Gladiator (Active case)
Following is a joint status report by the Plaintiff and defendant attornies. All in original form. This case is presently active.
All material are public information under the freedom of information act.
United States District court.
Joint status report
Pusuant to the Court's Order dated July 14, 1999, the parties in the above-captioned action, hereby submit this joint Status Report. The numbered paragraphs below correspond to those recited in the order.
1. Nature of the case. On mAy 4, 1999, the plaintiff, Singapore Airlines Limited ("SIA"), filed this action against defendants xxx. xxx is a former pilot for SIA whom SIA alleges has breached bonding agreements that he entered into in exchange for training by SIA. xxx and xxx are sureties to one of the bonding agreements.
The agreements provided for xxx to remain in thr service of SIA for a total of seven years following the completion of his initial training as a 747 pilot. The agreements provided for schedules of liquidated damages to be paid by xxx should he leave the airline before completion of the specified period of service. SIA alleges that xxx left SIA prior to the expiration of the periods of service and thus owes damages to it based on the schedules set forth in the bonding agreements. SIA has also asserted a claim against xxx for unjust enrichment and payment of salary in lieu of notice.
The Defendants have jointly answered the complaint and denied all of SIA's claims. The defendants have asserted various affirmative defences alleging that SIA breached its agreements with xxx by requiring him to perform duties beyond his capacity as a first officer or co-pilot, and without possessing the license and qualifications required for the duties performed. Defendants allege that SIA conducted unsafe operations and provided an unsafe workplace, in violation of international aviation laws and standards, FAA regulations, and public policy. Defendants further allege that SIA's breaches of contract and unsafe operating practices discharged any alleged duties or liabilities of defendants to SIA, and rendered the liquidated damages clauses unenforceable. Defendants deny that xxx was unjustly enriched in any way.
The defendants have also asserted counterclaims that are consistent with these affirmative defenses. The counterclaims again allege that it was SIA who was in breach by requiring xxx to fly in a capacity for which he was not licensed or qualified, and by providing an unsafe work environment. In addition to monetary damages sought by xxx for SIA's alleged breach of contract, the defendants also seek a declaratory judgment that SIA engaged in unsafe airline operations in violation of international laws and standards, FAA regulations and public policy, as well as that any alleged contractual duties and liabilities of xxx and the surities were discharged by SIA's breaches of contract and other conduct.
2. Complexity of Discovery and Trial. The original claim by SIA is not complex. It asserts that there are written agreements between xxx, and sureties and SIA and that xxx and the surities are in breach. The trial may be complicated by issues of foreign law because the agreements contain a choice of law provision regarding Singapore law, and because defendants allege that international laws and standards (aviation)apply. Defendants affirmative defenses and counterclaims present more complex legal and factual issues because they propose a detailed inquiry into the flight operations, training, licensing and safety practices of SIA. The parties expect to serve written discovery in the near future. SIA expects to note the deposition of each defendant following written discovery, which it anticipates serving forthwith. Defendants anticipate taking depositions of currect and/or former employees of SIA. Defendants also may depose employees or representatives of the FAA, the international Civil Aviation Organization, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, and/or other airlines. Experts may be called to testify concerning aviation regulations and safety issues. Before taking depositions, defendants expect to serve written discovery requests upon SIA.
3. Estimated Date as to When Discovery can be Completed. The Plaintiff estimates that discovery can be completed by April 1, 2000. The defendants estimate that discovery can be completed by July 15, 2000.
4. Trial by Court or Jury. Defendants provided notice to SIA in the late afternoon of August 12, 1999 that they were seeking a jury trial. However, as of 11:00 a.m. on August 13, 1999 no jury demand has been filed with the court; SIA therefore reserves the right to contest the Defendant's jury demand on the grounds that such demand was not timely filed.
5. Length of trial. The parties anticipate that the case can be tried in five days.
6. Pretrial Motions. SIA expects to bring pretrial motions challenging the sufficiency of certain of defendants defenses, and potentially dispositive motions concerning its claims and defendants counterclaims. Defendants expect to file pretrial motions regarding choice of law issues and the applications of international laws and standards to SIA operations, and dispositive motion(s) for dismissal of SIA claims amd/or judgment on their counterclaims.
7. Settlement Discussions: The parties are in communication and have had as yet unsuccessful, non-mediated settlement discussions.
8. Date for trial. SIA believes that this case will be ready for trial in the late spring or early summer of 2000. The defendants believe that this case will be ready for trial in the late summer or early fall of 2000.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 13th day of August, 1999.
All material are public information under the freedom of information act.
United States District court.
Joint status report
Pusuant to the Court's Order dated July 14, 1999, the parties in the above-captioned action, hereby submit this joint Status Report. The numbered paragraphs below correspond to those recited in the order.
1. Nature of the case. On mAy 4, 1999, the plaintiff, Singapore Airlines Limited ("SIA"), filed this action against defendants xxx. xxx is a former pilot for SIA whom SIA alleges has breached bonding agreements that he entered into in exchange for training by SIA. xxx and xxx are sureties to one of the bonding agreements.
The agreements provided for xxx to remain in thr service of SIA for a total of seven years following the completion of his initial training as a 747 pilot. The agreements provided for schedules of liquidated damages to be paid by xxx should he leave the airline before completion of the specified period of service. SIA alleges that xxx left SIA prior to the expiration of the periods of service and thus owes damages to it based on the schedules set forth in the bonding agreements. SIA has also asserted a claim against xxx for unjust enrichment and payment of salary in lieu of notice.
The Defendants have jointly answered the complaint and denied all of SIA's claims. The defendants have asserted various affirmative defences alleging that SIA breached its agreements with xxx by requiring him to perform duties beyond his capacity as a first officer or co-pilot, and without possessing the license and qualifications required for the duties performed. Defendants allege that SIA conducted unsafe operations and provided an unsafe workplace, in violation of international aviation laws and standards, FAA regulations, and public policy. Defendants further allege that SIA's breaches of contract and unsafe operating practices discharged any alleged duties or liabilities of defendants to SIA, and rendered the liquidated damages clauses unenforceable. Defendants deny that xxx was unjustly enriched in any way.
The defendants have also asserted counterclaims that are consistent with these affirmative defenses. The counterclaims again allege that it was SIA who was in breach by requiring xxx to fly in a capacity for which he was not licensed or qualified, and by providing an unsafe work environment. In addition to monetary damages sought by xxx for SIA's alleged breach of contract, the defendants also seek a declaratory judgment that SIA engaged in unsafe airline operations in violation of international laws and standards, FAA regulations and public policy, as well as that any alleged contractual duties and liabilities of xxx and the surities were discharged by SIA's breaches of contract and other conduct.
2. Complexity of Discovery and Trial. The original claim by SIA is not complex. It asserts that there are written agreements between xxx, and sureties and SIA and that xxx and the surities are in breach. The trial may be complicated by issues of foreign law because the agreements contain a choice of law provision regarding Singapore law, and because defendants allege that international laws and standards (aviation)apply. Defendants affirmative defenses and counterclaims present more complex legal and factual issues because they propose a detailed inquiry into the flight operations, training, licensing and safety practices of SIA. The parties expect to serve written discovery in the near future. SIA expects to note the deposition of each defendant following written discovery, which it anticipates serving forthwith. Defendants anticipate taking depositions of currect and/or former employees of SIA. Defendants also may depose employees or representatives of the FAA, the international Civil Aviation Organization, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, and/or other airlines. Experts may be called to testify concerning aviation regulations and safety issues. Before taking depositions, defendants expect to serve written discovery requests upon SIA.
3. Estimated Date as to When Discovery can be Completed. The Plaintiff estimates that discovery can be completed by April 1, 2000. The defendants estimate that discovery can be completed by July 15, 2000.
4. Trial by Court or Jury. Defendants provided notice to SIA in the late afternoon of August 12, 1999 that they were seeking a jury trial. However, as of 11:00 a.m. on August 13, 1999 no jury demand has been filed with the court; SIA therefore reserves the right to contest the Defendant's jury demand on the grounds that such demand was not timely filed.
5. Length of trial. The parties anticipate that the case can be tried in five days.
6. Pretrial Motions. SIA expects to bring pretrial motions challenging the sufficiency of certain of defendants defenses, and potentially dispositive motions concerning its claims and defendants counterclaims. Defendants expect to file pretrial motions regarding choice of law issues and the applications of international laws and standards to SIA operations, and dispositive motion(s) for dismissal of SIA claims amd/or judgment on their counterclaims.
7. Settlement Discussions: The parties are in communication and have had as yet unsuccessful, non-mediated settlement discussions.
8. Date for trial. SIA believes that this case will be ready for trial in the late spring or early summer of 2000. The defendants believe that this case will be ready for trial in the late summer or early fall of 2000.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 13th day of August, 1999.
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is beautiful, just beautiful. I bet freeman is finding this somewhat interesting ! Perhaps one day, just maybe, SIA will realise that they cannot bring in pilots from overseas, (which they need due to their lack of local culture), and expect to be able to pay peanuts.
I would gladly contribute $20 to the defendants defence. We are seeing bond chasing go international, so guys we all need to get organised regardless of where we are. ALPA, BALPA, IPA and other such groups, though not perfect are surely the grounds for a future world pilot body.
I find it difficult to believe a US jury finding against US citizens versus SIA. Perhaps SIA ought to go with the home grown culture enjoyed at KAL. I expect their pax would just love sharing such a glorious safety record.
The bottom line SIA is that the Flight Ops department is a none profit division of the airline. It is going to cost you to have people there who know what they are doing, as much as that hurts.
Am I being too rude or controversial ?
[This message has been edited by Arthur Daley (edited 13 September 1999).]
I would gladly contribute $20 to the defendants defence. We are seeing bond chasing go international, so guys we all need to get organised regardless of where we are. ALPA, BALPA, IPA and other such groups, though not perfect are surely the grounds for a future world pilot body.
I find it difficult to believe a US jury finding against US citizens versus SIA. Perhaps SIA ought to go with the home grown culture enjoyed at KAL. I expect their pax would just love sharing such a glorious safety record.
The bottom line SIA is that the Flight Ops department is a none profit division of the airline. It is going to cost you to have people there who know what they are doing, as much as that hurts.
Am I being too rude or controversial ?
[This message has been edited by Arthur Daley (edited 13 September 1999).]
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: The best in the world... of course!!!
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Gentleman
I must agree with the statement about unsafe operation, because I learnt about cases of captains been cautioned by management to STOP AVOIDING WEATHER FOR THE SAKE OF FUEL CONSUMPTION!
How they knew? Simple…
They just teach the local pilots to “convey information” about their captains operation, if in their “ experienced point of view” they are not happy.
And all of this, without a written report, they just need to walk to the Boss office and make a verbal report!!
The bonding issue is very important, and we must get unified against this unfair and cruel procedure.
If a company needs professional pilots, should give them a good quality of training, and threat them fairly.
I bet, if somebody is happy, and earning a decent salary, he would not want to leave his job.
Good Luck !!
I must agree with the statement about unsafe operation, because I learnt about cases of captains been cautioned by management to STOP AVOIDING WEATHER FOR THE SAKE OF FUEL CONSUMPTION!
How they knew? Simple…
They just teach the local pilots to “convey information” about their captains operation, if in their “ experienced point of view” they are not happy.
And all of this, without a written report, they just need to walk to the Boss office and make a verbal report!!
The bonding issue is very important, and we must get unified against this unfair and cruel procedure.
If a company needs professional pilots, should give them a good quality of training, and threat them fairly.
I bet, if somebody is happy, and earning a decent salary, he would not want to leave his job.
Good Luck !!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Oh Gladiator,
What can I say you have been a busy boy. Well you can count me in too, I would gladly donate to your worthy cause.
Would it be possible to open this case up and have a joint civil suit, whereby suits are filed in England as well as Australia, as I am sure the number has grown in excess of 15 compatriot supporters, maybe more as we speak. Also a case like this has ramifications in most country's, Aviation Law and standards. Having said that, I am sure there are competitive supporters out there who would consider financing a public case.
I understand your case angle and have always felt concerned on those flights, however there is much to add. I consider damages as the only option.
If you would like an affidavit, no problem
Venom
What can I say you have been a busy boy. Well you can count me in too, I would gladly donate to your worthy cause.
Would it be possible to open this case up and have a joint civil suit, whereby suits are filed in England as well as Australia, as I am sure the number has grown in excess of 15 compatriot supporters, maybe more as we speak. Also a case like this has ramifications in most country's, Aviation Law and standards. Having said that, I am sure there are competitive supporters out there who would consider financing a public case.
I understand your case angle and have always felt concerned on those flights, however there is much to add. I consider damages as the only option.
If you would like an affidavit, no problem
Venom
Guest
Posts: n/a
Gladiator/Arthur Daley/Capt. Mercurius/Venom,
What sheltered lives you must have led?
I have been around in the civilan aviation business for at least 35 years, yes there are areas where SQ could change and improve, care to tell us about an airline that is perfect?
You, (the above named!), all sound so subjective, as though you have a personal axe to grind?
I naturally object to claims that SQ is 'unsafe' - every airline would spurn such an acolade I think? I do not fly for an 'unsafe' airline, I value myself too much.
Possibly the bones, the 'Warts and All' are too close to the surface at times, Oh that all operators were so transparent, the bigger one gets the more obvious one becomes.
Australian and British GA well know, to their cost, how easy it is to stay 'stealth' only to have all the dirty washing eventually reviewed in inhospitable surroundings.
Time to open your eyes and become more objective, you are not, I suppose, jealouse?
What sheltered lives you must have led?
I have been around in the civilan aviation business for at least 35 years, yes there are areas where SQ could change and improve, care to tell us about an airline that is perfect?
You, (the above named!), all sound so subjective, as though you have a personal axe to grind?
I naturally object to claims that SQ is 'unsafe' - every airline would spurn such an acolade I think? I do not fly for an 'unsafe' airline, I value myself too much.
Possibly the bones, the 'Warts and All' are too close to the surface at times, Oh that all operators were so transparent, the bigger one gets the more obvious one becomes.
Australian and British GA well know, to their cost, how easy it is to stay 'stealth' only to have all the dirty washing eventually reviewed in inhospitable surroundings.
Time to open your eyes and become more objective, you are not, I suppose, jealouse?
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is a free forum. One can post anything one wishes to. If the two cents' worth of the uninformed made it to this page, well, their facts remain uninformed. Nothing they say can change the truth.
Grinding axes and jealousy are not what we pilots value greatly. Or am I wrong? Only the individual knows himself best.
[This message has been edited by Kenny Naboo (edited 14 September 1999).]
Grinding axes and jealousy are not what we pilots value greatly. Or am I wrong? Only the individual knows himself best.
[This message has been edited by Kenny Naboo (edited 14 September 1999).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
As most of you have alluded to, if an airline gives SAFETY a high priority and backs it up with quality TRAINING, adheres to the REGULATIONS, gives good evenhanded STAFF TREATMENT without any DISCRIMINATION, then we would have the ideal working enviroment. All staff would be happy and things like BONDING would not be necessary and resignations would be few and far between. Of course there will always be the odd few that have personal non work related problems and these are unavoidable.
Unfortuately, this ideal Company does not exist. Certainly, the one I work for and any others I have any insight about are far from ideal and give the above FIVE items the minimum necessary due to COMMERCIAL interests and PROFIT. Whether they are "unsafe" is another question. I believe there a very few Companies that could be categorised as "unsafe", but there are a great number that could very easily become categorised as "unsafe" except for a great deal of good fortune.
"SIA" is very rapidly getting such a bad reputation in several aspects that that it will not be long before the downward spiral will get very steep. The first indication of the decline is the high rate of resignations. Next you will see difficulty in recruitment of high quality applicants. They (SIA) will not admit that but it will happen.
Even the Singaporian Police state will not be able to hide anything for long especially when you have forums like this to inform the world of the incidents/discrimination/etc.
Gladiator - good luck. This case and others to follow as "venom" has stated will have ramifications throughout the aviation industry.
Have a nice day.
Unfortuately, this ideal Company does not exist. Certainly, the one I work for and any others I have any insight about are far from ideal and give the above FIVE items the minimum necessary due to COMMERCIAL interests and PROFIT. Whether they are "unsafe" is another question. I believe there a very few Companies that could be categorised as "unsafe", but there are a great number that could very easily become categorised as "unsafe" except for a great deal of good fortune.
"SIA" is very rapidly getting such a bad reputation in several aspects that that it will not be long before the downward spiral will get very steep. The first indication of the decline is the high rate of resignations. Next you will see difficulty in recruitment of high quality applicants. They (SIA) will not admit that but it will happen.
Even the Singaporian Police state will not be able to hide anything for long especially when you have forums like this to inform the world of the incidents/discrimination/etc.
Gladiator - good luck. This case and others to follow as "venom" has stated will have ramifications throughout the aviation industry.
Have a nice day.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: The best in the world... of course!!!
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Methusalah,,
Good for yourself that you managed to be in aviation for 35 years…
You are quite “guessing “I must say , when you state that we all have personal problems… for that we unfairly criticised “SIAs immaculate style of operations “ .
One never saw SIAs management involved in safe rules of flying, but, always involved in keep pilots under pressure to SAVE FUEL, AND THAT’S ALL !!!
Let me ask you what happened to the pilot who did aerobatics over Bay of Bengal, and did not reported such serious event ??
Nothing, absolutely nothing, the case was carefully kept away from press, and even one of SIAs commander which himself started a legal suit against that pilot was convinced by the management to withdraw his case for the sake of the company’s name !!!
He also , of course in your view, has “personal grinding axes “ against SIA, isn’t?
SIA never promoted safe flying, non-discriminating policy, or even fairness.
The number of resignations, hearth attacks, and suicides, are foods for thought…
Keep your two cents for you, probably you will need them…
There are no grinding axes or jealousy in our statements, only truth!
By the way, what colour is your nose?
MERCURIUS !!!!!!!!!!!
Good for yourself that you managed to be in aviation for 35 years…
You are quite “guessing “I must say , when you state that we all have personal problems… for that we unfairly criticised “SIAs immaculate style of operations “ .
One never saw SIAs management involved in safe rules of flying, but, always involved in keep pilots under pressure to SAVE FUEL, AND THAT’S ALL !!!
Let me ask you what happened to the pilot who did aerobatics over Bay of Bengal, and did not reported such serious event ??
Nothing, absolutely nothing, the case was carefully kept away from press, and even one of SIAs commander which himself started a legal suit against that pilot was convinced by the management to withdraw his case for the sake of the company’s name !!!
He also , of course in your view, has “personal grinding axes “ against SIA, isn’t?
SIA never promoted safe flying, non-discriminating policy, or even fairness.
The number of resignations, hearth attacks, and suicides, are foods for thought…
Keep your two cents for you, probably you will need them…
There are no grinding axes or jealousy in our statements, only truth!
By the way, what colour is your nose?
MERCURIUS !!!!!!!!!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
yes, Arthur Daley, pax would love us (with the help of the likes of you who are God's gift to all aviation & consequently deserve the high pay) to have just as good a record as :
1) A fully laden B747-400 from a well known US carrier taking off from San Francisco for Sydney coming within 100' radio height of the San Bruno hill because the PF's (First Officer) engine out technique is to use all aileron & no rudder on takeoff/climbout while the Captain is busy doing engine non-normal checklists below 400' & with aircraft not under control;
2) A very experienced management pilot from another extremely well known US carrier (the kind you think we need in SIA) who lands his MD-87 in almost 70 kt gusting crosswinds;
3) An experienced expat from Europe landing his MD-11 in HKG in typhoon conditions;
..... just to name a few. I have flown with over 40 nationalities of people, & none have a monopoly on flying standards (not your group, nor mine). But obviously, you do not think so... happy flying
1) A fully laden B747-400 from a well known US carrier taking off from San Francisco for Sydney coming within 100' radio height of the San Bruno hill because the PF's (First Officer) engine out technique is to use all aileron & no rudder on takeoff/climbout while the Captain is busy doing engine non-normal checklists below 400' & with aircraft not under control;
2) A very experienced management pilot from another extremely well known US carrier (the kind you think we need in SIA) who lands his MD-87 in almost 70 kt gusting crosswinds;
3) An experienced expat from Europe landing his MD-11 in HKG in typhoon conditions;
..... just to name a few. I have flown with over 40 nationalities of people, & none have a monopoly on flying standards (not your group, nor mine). But obviously, you do not think so... happy flying
Guest
Posts: n/a
Good on you Gladiator, where can I send my $100 contribution?
Methusalah
Here is your post of 19 May 1999 06:48
On a normally two-crew aircraft, if the duty period requires that only a 'third pilot' be carried then, according our company's philosophy, he shall take his "break" on the jump seat. Even on a B747-400, fitted with bunks, the third man is not supposed to use them, he will remain on the Flight deck if the crew is One captain and two first Officers. Only when we fly as two captains and one F/O can the bunks be used with a three man crew.
The rationale for not using the bunk when in the "One Capt/two F/O" situation, is, so I am told, that, the other pilot simply relieves the load, "as a flight Engineer would have done", over a same/similar length sector.
On a trip to Auckland, a few years ago, I had two F/O's, one with a whole month on type after the A310 and the other with a whole month on type after his initial training - out and inbound I did not leave my seat, not a matter of trust but more a case of them having significantly insufficient experience to be left alone in the two 'driving seats' in the event of a whole number of system failures that could have had serious effect before I could have re-gained my seat (not all failures are totally covered by the Check-list), out-board engine seizure, subsequent auto-pilot drop-out just to name one.
Some airlines will train their F/O's in the L/H seat, (included in their bi-annual check-ride) and then why not use the bunks?, keep everybody a little bit more fresh.
When all aircraft were 2 crew or 3 crew it was so simple, why don't the appropriate regulators now step in and put together an internationally acceptable policy for 'multi-pilot-operations?
End of post.
I have several questions and comments for you Methusalah.
1. We former SIA first officers know that in real life SIA does not operate the way you described it.
2. If you are of the 5% minority captains that do not leave his seat, good on you, you are safe. But the 95% majority does leave and go into the bunk. Does this then qualify SIA as an unsafe operation?
3. You have already explained how it is possible to have two inexperienced F/Os in the driving seats. Some may not be from A310; they may be brand new F/Os. Does this then qualify SIA as an unsafe operation?
4. Even if the captain did not go into the bunk, do you think it is possible to switch seats in the middle of an upset? Let's use the aerobat A310 as an example of an upset.
5. Be careful what you reveal about the operation of your employer you ol sly fox, you may find yourself appearing in a court somewhere.
Any other SIA first officers want to challenge me on this?
Gladiator my affidavit about the truth and SIA operation is yours anytime anyplace.
Methusalah
Here is your post of 19 May 1999 06:48
On a normally two-crew aircraft, if the duty period requires that only a 'third pilot' be carried then, according our company's philosophy, he shall take his "break" on the jump seat. Even on a B747-400, fitted with bunks, the third man is not supposed to use them, he will remain on the Flight deck if the crew is One captain and two first Officers. Only when we fly as two captains and one F/O can the bunks be used with a three man crew.
The rationale for not using the bunk when in the "One Capt/two F/O" situation, is, so I am told, that, the other pilot simply relieves the load, "as a flight Engineer would have done", over a same/similar length sector.
On a trip to Auckland, a few years ago, I had two F/O's, one with a whole month on type after the A310 and the other with a whole month on type after his initial training - out and inbound I did not leave my seat, not a matter of trust but more a case of them having significantly insufficient experience to be left alone in the two 'driving seats' in the event of a whole number of system failures that could have had serious effect before I could have re-gained my seat (not all failures are totally covered by the Check-list), out-board engine seizure, subsequent auto-pilot drop-out just to name one.
Some airlines will train their F/O's in the L/H seat, (included in their bi-annual check-ride) and then why not use the bunks?, keep everybody a little bit more fresh.
When all aircraft were 2 crew or 3 crew it was so simple, why don't the appropriate regulators now step in and put together an internationally acceptable policy for 'multi-pilot-operations?
End of post.
I have several questions and comments for you Methusalah.
1. We former SIA first officers know that in real life SIA does not operate the way you described it.
2. If you are of the 5% minority captains that do not leave his seat, good on you, you are safe. But the 95% majority does leave and go into the bunk. Does this then qualify SIA as an unsafe operation?
3. You have already explained how it is possible to have two inexperienced F/Os in the driving seats. Some may not be from A310; they may be brand new F/Os. Does this then qualify SIA as an unsafe operation?
4. Even if the captain did not go into the bunk, do you think it is possible to switch seats in the middle of an upset? Let's use the aerobat A310 as an example of an upset.
5. Be careful what you reveal about the operation of your employer you ol sly fox, you may find yourself appearing in a court somewhere.
Any other SIA first officers want to challenge me on this?
Gladiator my affidavit about the truth and SIA operation is yours anytime anyplace.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Obviously we have been trained to a very different standard. The one thing that sticks in my mind from my training as a co-pilot for SIA is "whatever decisions you have to make, make it in the interest of safety. Efficiency can come second. Management WILL STICK BY YOUR DECISIONS in such cases." This had been constantly drummed into me by not 1 or 2 or 3 instructors, but by most of the instructors that I have came in contact with. How can you justify this if you accuse SIA of neglecting safety?? All the pilots that I know in SIA value their lives. To accuse SIA of dangerous practices is simply unjustified. The example of pilots being asked to fly through weather to save fuel is not quite correct. Nobody avoids an isolated CB or AS by 50 Nm!! Such excessive deviations can result in infringement of neighbouring airways and in this situation safety is compromised!
I think you must not confuse inexperience with poor training or emphasise on safety. Every pilot needs to go through a learning phase. I am sure there is at most 1% natural born pilot (just like there is only 1 Michael Schumacher). Every body else needs to learn and gain their share of experience.
Different people has different threshold. I have flown with Captains who are willing to let you do anything you want (within limits of safety) as they feel that is the best way to learn. I have also flown with Captains who have their hands on the controls all the time even if you are the PF.
To condemn a company or a country just because of conflicts with certain individuals is not correct. I have come into contact with my fair share of nice and not so nice Captains (local or expat). Ultimately, it is how you handle the situation and "fit in" that is important. To cite a few specific examples and conclude that everybody else is the same is simply too simplistic. In every company that you work in, you will come in contact with politics. Sadly, politics can make your life miserable. Before I joined SIA, I was working in a multi-national company and I have come in contact with a*seh*les as well, but I do not conclude that all citizens of that nationality or employees of that company are a*seh*les. The impression I have is that you are just trying to find excuses (not reasons) to justify your mistake in this particular employment.
I am not justifying SIA's policies or practices. I am just telling you that contrary to what you claim, SIA is and will always remain an EXTREMELY SAFE AIRLINE. I value my life too much.
I think you must not confuse inexperience with poor training or emphasise on safety. Every pilot needs to go through a learning phase. I am sure there is at most 1% natural born pilot (just like there is only 1 Michael Schumacher). Every body else needs to learn and gain their share of experience.
Different people has different threshold. I have flown with Captains who are willing to let you do anything you want (within limits of safety) as they feel that is the best way to learn. I have also flown with Captains who have their hands on the controls all the time even if you are the PF.
To condemn a company or a country just because of conflicts with certain individuals is not correct. I have come into contact with my fair share of nice and not so nice Captains (local or expat). Ultimately, it is how you handle the situation and "fit in" that is important. To cite a few specific examples and conclude that everybody else is the same is simply too simplistic. In every company that you work in, you will come in contact with politics. Sadly, politics can make your life miserable. Before I joined SIA, I was working in a multi-national company and I have come in contact with a*seh*les as well, but I do not conclude that all citizens of that nationality or employees of that company are a*seh*les. The impression I have is that you are just trying to find excuses (not reasons) to justify your mistake in this particular employment.
I am not justifying SIA's policies or practices. I am just telling you that contrary to what you claim, SIA is and will always remain an EXTREMELY SAFE AIRLINE. I value my life too much.
Guest
Posts: n/a
False Capture
The fact that you accept different standards from the Captains you fly with is very worrying to me. I would expect the same response from each and everyone I flew with. OK they may be different individuals, but if we are skidding off the end of the runway, then race, creed or color doesn't matter a damn!
The fact that you accept different standards from the Captains you fly with is very worrying to me. I would expect the same response from each and everyone I flew with. OK they may be different individuals, but if we are skidding off the end of the runway, then race, creed or color doesn't matter a damn!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Straits Times, News Focus by Rav Dhaliwal
February 4, 1997
The United States Federal Aviation Authority has told the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore that it does not have enough pilots to check on the safety of Singapore Airlines flights leaving Changi airport. SIA has an unblemished record and maintains high standards of safety through rigorous checks of its own, but the FAA has given the CAAS three months to engage more pilots to do the job, and talks between the two sides are still going on.
Neither authority would comment on the matter, but it was learnt that in this region, airports in Hong Kong, Malaysia and Brunei met the FAA standards, whereas Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines fell short. Mr. Robert Jensen, manager of the FAA's International Field office (Asia) location here, said Singapore was one of the last few countries to be assessed. About 600 airlines from 100 countries fly to the US, and he said the FAA action was part of a worldwide effort to check safety at airports from which flights to the US originate. After a few mishaps in the US in the early 1990s, the FAA embarked on the effort to ensure that carriers flying to the US are safe, operate safe aircraft, follow safety procedures and have comprehensive training.
Its officials have been assessing aviation authorities to see if they meet International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards. He said that they started in South and Central America before moving to Europe, Africa, and Asia and the Pacific, and have rated airport authorities as those that:
Category I, meet the standards;
Category II, fall short and must fix specified problem areas. The affected airlines can continue to fly to the US, but cannot add more flights or ask to operate to new points.
Category III, Do not meet the standards and are barred from flying to the US. A handful of South American carriers have met this fate.
But Mr. Jensen would not comment on the ongoing discussions with the CAAS. It was learnt that an FAA team visited Singapore for a few days last November and told the CAAS that it needed more pilots to check on SIA. In about two to three months time, the FAA is expected to decide its rating of the CAAS safety regulation machinery. A CAAS spokesman also felt it was inappropriate to give details of the consultations. It was learnt that CAAS had approved a budget some time ago to engage more pilots familiar with the various types of aircraft SIA operates.
Captain Ken Toft, a senior SIA pilot due to retire in two months time, was seconded to the CAAS last month to help carry out safety checks. Asked about this, the CAAS spokesman said it had been eyeing him well before the assessment. "He is now able to join us because he is due for retirement soon," the spokesman said. "We have been looking for good, experienced pilots all along to join out team of inspectors." The CAAS has three pilots, among other airworthiness officers, to check on emergency safety aspects of SIA operations, including pilot training and airworthiness of aircraft.
They also fly with SIA pilots to check that they follow procedures. The CAAS efforts are augmented but the airline's own comprehensive system of checks, which has helped it maintain a record of flying for almost a quarter of century with no fatal accident.
An aviation industry source was surprised to learn that the FAA had found CAAS wanting, given SIA's reputation for maintaining a high standard of safety and operating one of the youngest fleets in the world.
Comments on above:
The article was written in March 1997, obviously the unblemished record is now very blemished.
CAAS always claimed they don’t recognize the FAA. What happened? Seems like the FAA is telling them how to run an aviation authority. Ouch.
February 4, 1997
The United States Federal Aviation Authority has told the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore that it does not have enough pilots to check on the safety of Singapore Airlines flights leaving Changi airport. SIA has an unblemished record and maintains high standards of safety through rigorous checks of its own, but the FAA has given the CAAS three months to engage more pilots to do the job, and talks between the two sides are still going on.
Neither authority would comment on the matter, but it was learnt that in this region, airports in Hong Kong, Malaysia and Brunei met the FAA standards, whereas Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines fell short. Mr. Robert Jensen, manager of the FAA's International Field office (Asia) location here, said Singapore was one of the last few countries to be assessed. About 600 airlines from 100 countries fly to the US, and he said the FAA action was part of a worldwide effort to check safety at airports from which flights to the US originate. After a few mishaps in the US in the early 1990s, the FAA embarked on the effort to ensure that carriers flying to the US are safe, operate safe aircraft, follow safety procedures and have comprehensive training.
Its officials have been assessing aviation authorities to see if they meet International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards. He said that they started in South and Central America before moving to Europe, Africa, and Asia and the Pacific, and have rated airport authorities as those that:
Category I, meet the standards;
Category II, fall short and must fix specified problem areas. The affected airlines can continue to fly to the US, but cannot add more flights or ask to operate to new points.
Category III, Do not meet the standards and are barred from flying to the US. A handful of South American carriers have met this fate.
But Mr. Jensen would not comment on the ongoing discussions with the CAAS. It was learnt that an FAA team visited Singapore for a few days last November and told the CAAS that it needed more pilots to check on SIA. In about two to three months time, the FAA is expected to decide its rating of the CAAS safety regulation machinery. A CAAS spokesman also felt it was inappropriate to give details of the consultations. It was learnt that CAAS had approved a budget some time ago to engage more pilots familiar with the various types of aircraft SIA operates.
Captain Ken Toft, a senior SIA pilot due to retire in two months time, was seconded to the CAAS last month to help carry out safety checks. Asked about this, the CAAS spokesman said it had been eyeing him well before the assessment. "He is now able to join us because he is due for retirement soon," the spokesman said. "We have been looking for good, experienced pilots all along to join out team of inspectors." The CAAS has three pilots, among other airworthiness officers, to check on emergency safety aspects of SIA operations, including pilot training and airworthiness of aircraft.
They also fly with SIA pilots to check that they follow procedures. The CAAS efforts are augmented but the airline's own comprehensive system of checks, which has helped it maintain a record of flying for almost a quarter of century with no fatal accident.
An aviation industry source was surprised to learn that the FAA had found CAAS wanting, given SIA's reputation for maintaining a high standard of safety and operating one of the youngest fleets in the world.
Comments on above:
The article was written in March 1997, obviously the unblemished record is now very blemished.
CAAS always claimed they don’t recognize the FAA. What happened? Seems like the FAA is telling them how to run an aviation authority. Ouch.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Gladiator
Have seen this article before somewhere ?
Suffice to say or question. Had the necessary steps been taken prior to December 1997 (Silkair MI 185) by relevent parties to bring the systems up to scratch and in compliance with FAA guidelines.
Anyone care to offer an opinion..??
Have seen this article before somewhere ?
Suffice to say or question. Had the necessary steps been taken prior to December 1997 (Silkair MI 185) by relevent parties to bring the systems up to scratch and in compliance with FAA guidelines.
Anyone care to offer an opinion..??
Guest
Posts: n/a
Me again..
Any ideas who I can contact at the FAA to find out details of the eventual or final report after the consultations between FAA and CAAS and SIA were concluded and were there any follow up inspections by the FAA...
Any advice or information would be appreciated as I assume the report would be a matter of public record in the FAA..
Thank you...
Any ideas who I can contact at the FAA to find out details of the eventual or final report after the consultations between FAA and CAAS and SIA were concluded and were there any follow up inspections by the FAA...
Any advice or information would be appreciated as I assume the report would be a matter of public record in the FAA..
Thank you...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jack, I do not accept different standards from different Captains. All pilots in SIA are expected to follow the SOPs. The moment a person deviates from SOP is the moment the alarm bells goes off. The SOPs covers almost all grounds, but it is also clearly stated that the Captain is ultimately responsible for the safety of the aircraft and is expected to act accordingly to ensure that.
I have come across expat pilots who do not follow exactly SIA's SOPs because they have been used to their previous company's procedures. However, in most cases, they make a conscious effort to adopt the new procs. There will always be some hardcores who will insist on doing things their own way, but like I say, the alarm bells will go off. Note: I am not saying that they are doing things dangerously, but that I will be more cautious in respect to the operations.
Ultimately, SIA has pilots of 45+ nationalities, and a proportion of them do not speak English as a first language. The purpose of the SOPs is to ensure that everybody knows or can expect what the other party is doing or going to do. I know of some cases of pilots who like to think that management likes to "throw the book" at them for the slightest deviations from procedures. But I can say my understanding is that they will stand by your decision if it is made in the interest of safety. I know it is always an uncomfortable feeling to be called in to the office to "explain" to the bosses your actions, but I can assure you it is because SIA's top management (beyond flight ops) is always concerned with safe operations beyond anything else (including profits!). After all, they are all too wise to let any accidents screw up the company's record.
I will pre-empt the expected "cover up, face saving" arguments that will come flying from my statement by saying that all reported incidents are dissipated to the pilots by the quarterly publication "Flight Safety". It may be a little slow in reaching us, but the important incidents are immediately relayed to us. Accident (LR31 & and MI185) reports are issued by the investigating authorities. If you say that SIA/Silkair is trying to cover up the accident investigation, then I think there may be more to it than meets the eye. After all, isn't it in the interest of Boeing & Indonesia to issue the results asap if it absolve them of any blame?
In conclusion, I must say that SIA pilots loves life too much to jeopardise their own safety.
I have come across expat pilots who do not follow exactly SIA's SOPs because they have been used to their previous company's procedures. However, in most cases, they make a conscious effort to adopt the new procs. There will always be some hardcores who will insist on doing things their own way, but like I say, the alarm bells will go off. Note: I am not saying that they are doing things dangerously, but that I will be more cautious in respect to the operations.
Ultimately, SIA has pilots of 45+ nationalities, and a proportion of them do not speak English as a first language. The purpose of the SOPs is to ensure that everybody knows or can expect what the other party is doing or going to do. I know of some cases of pilots who like to think that management likes to "throw the book" at them for the slightest deviations from procedures. But I can say my understanding is that they will stand by your decision if it is made in the interest of safety. I know it is always an uncomfortable feeling to be called in to the office to "explain" to the bosses your actions, but I can assure you it is because SIA's top management (beyond flight ops) is always concerned with safe operations beyond anything else (including profits!). After all, they are all too wise to let any accidents screw up the company's record.
I will pre-empt the expected "cover up, face saving" arguments that will come flying from my statement by saying that all reported incidents are dissipated to the pilots by the quarterly publication "Flight Safety". It may be a little slow in reaching us, but the important incidents are immediately relayed to us. Accident (LR31 & and MI185) reports are issued by the investigating authorities. If you say that SIA/Silkair is trying to cover up the accident investigation, then I think there may be more to it than meets the eye. After all, isn't it in the interest of Boeing & Indonesia to issue the results asap if it absolve them of any blame?
In conclusion, I must say that SIA pilots loves life too much to jeopardise their own safety.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Capt. Mercurius - you choose to be offensive, please yourself. I also note that you remain anonymous, (as do many of the vitriolic contributers to this forum). Your version of events concerning weather and fuel is dramatic but inaccurate, as you well know.
Skeltor - I accept your challenge, see you in court! (did I fail to give you a 'leg' once!?)
The FAA launched their world-wide campaign against all other operators as a defensive ploy when they themselves were under severe fire for irregularities in their own system of regulation, it having been shown to be full of problems. It would serve aviation well if, say, Europe, were to launch a campaign in the USA to determine the propriety or otherwise of USA carriers.
(Should anyone want to check this out just look at the recent history of USA civil avaiation and the date of launch of the FAA campaign).
Skeltor - I accept your challenge, see you in court! (did I fail to give you a 'leg' once!?)
The FAA launched their world-wide campaign against all other operators as a defensive ploy when they themselves were under severe fire for irregularities in their own system of regulation, it having been shown to be full of problems. It would serve aviation well if, say, Europe, were to launch a campaign in the USA to determine the propriety or otherwise of USA carriers.
(Should anyone want to check this out just look at the recent history of USA civil avaiation and the date of launch of the FAA campaign).
Guest
Posts: n/a
Methusalah, those in glass houses....! I notice YOU are also hiding behind an anonymous identity. I would also suggest that it is YOUR postings that seem tainted with invective. You sound somewhat insecure and defensive in your comments......just an objective observation.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wake Up The Resistance, it is, I would have thought, quite obvious that I am talking about Email address and a total lack of any other information in the profile, OK?
Don't think you will find any invective in my post quite so low as suggesting that the colour of my nose is anything other than pink! Finally, why should I be insecure?
This thread has become a slanging match and would be more at home in Jet Blast.
I'll leave you guys to enjoy yourselves.
[This message has been edited by Methusalah (edited 18 September 1999).]
Don't think you will find any invective in my post quite so low as suggesting that the colour of my nose is anything other than pink! Finally, why should I be insecure?
This thread has become a slanging match and would be more at home in Jet Blast.
I'll leave you guys to enjoy yourselves.
[This message has been edited by Methusalah (edited 18 September 1999).]