Pilot in Command

[Beech Boy]

What does it mean to be a Pilot in Command these days -

You read on this Bulletin Board how professional (?) pilots “ …..were forced into a position to fly an aircraft overweight”, or “…..there where known defects on the aircraft I had to fly”. The Operator this or the Owner that, or even better, “…….CASA should be more proactive in this area”.

Allocating blame toward third parties and resultantly abrogating core responsibilities in order to fast track to a better job…………..or biding time before the next bigger or better opportunity should arise. Seemingly and rather mystically it will unfold at some future point to allow you to fly the aircraft you want, have the salary you deserve and the respect you believe appropriate.

This mystical place or career progression does not exist without Pilots accepting their responsibility as part of the safety chain. Knowing your responsibilities as the Pilot in Command………..and acting in an appropriate manner is essential. Whether this is a light aircraft or the latest heavy jet is inconsequential. Some of you guys should seriously consider what it means to be the pilot in command, look it up if you need to - its very specific in its definition.

The Pilot in Command is the only one that has the responsibility to decide if an aircraft is going to be flown – If you are not consciously carrying out this responsibility - then you are just a less than technically perfect autopilot.

Have a nice day.

[Brian Abraham]

You're spot on, only some chief pilots and companys don't agree. One chief pilot was of the opinion you will do what you are told, and to reinforce the message you received a less than flattering appraisal at years end. As the pilots were staff their salary was dependant on that yearly report. Interesting CRM course where the question was asked "who sets the operational standards?". The answer given was "management" but seemed to be the wrong answer. Chief pilot, who was present, hit the roof and ranted how "management has spoken to you two people before". (an incident report had been submitted showing how the current practice of failing to comply with regs could lead to embarassment). Unfortunately a high profile company too and neither the ATSB or CASA interested.

[El Oso]

I must conclude the original poster may have had had the fortunate circumstance of either coming from money, being well connected in aviation or was an airline / RAAF cadet. And as such perhaps has never had to take whatever flying job they can get to get some hours and / or feed their family. Those who worked their way up through GA will know that it can be very difficult to get any flying job and that few GA operators play by CASA's rules. Equally they would know how careers can be destroyed by being sacked in the very competitive pilot employment market. The typically young, financially poor and career concious pilot is alone in that decision, and so may revert to questions of; is it practically safe, dangerous or illegal or a combination thereof, and this is where it gets needlessly complicated and dependent of the level of experience and common sense. Yes you need to have some "balls", and on a number of occassions I stood my ground in GA, but I was lucky to be in a strong enough position to do so, others are less fortunate. CASA does not ramp check every GA operator on a regular basis, nor do airline HR people usually take kindly to sackings on your CV.

I remember what its like to be put in such situations by a GA CP, and saw careers buggered for saying NO. IMHO some GA CP's are nothing more than burn outs who have the job because they do whatever the boss wants and demand the same out of the line pilots. I know one pilot who was sacked for challenging such a CP and then was immediately blacklisted by phone to every GA airline the CP knew - he left the country to find employment. It is especially bad in developing countries were many Antipodeans find themselves in GA, where CAA's are politically hamstrung from doing their job and where standards can be, in my view, low.

These guys do not operate in a TV episode of "Neighbours", the newly sacked GA newbie will unlikely be immediately approached by an airline saying "what a good upstanding chap/chapette you are, heres your job as a reward". Throwing all the blame on the kid at the front is simplistic and puerile. Most pilots can make legal, safety based decisions; when they have management and regulator support for doing so. The real safety problem is others adding the stress of employment / career jeopardy to the simple GO / NO GO one. So pointing the finger at CASA has some merit as keeping the operators compliant and maintaining safety oversight IS THEIR JOB. IMHO CAA's should go beyond paper audits and waiting for dobbers. They should get pro-active and send out "sleeper" investigators as paying passengers, etc and catch these dodgy operators out & also canvas (in confidence) the new hires in airlines about the truth of their former employers operations so they can target effectively. I never knew a GA pilot who wanted to fudge things, its only their bosses who push them into it - so go after the bosses, not the powerless they push around. And thats CASA's job...

When CASA does their job well, it can really make the difference. One WA charter company I know got sprung years ago by CASA for maintenance issues and was then completely turned around by its owner. Now being pro-safety and emphasizing legal ops to their crews. This became a part of successfully marketing to the safety concious mining charter business. So it can be done!

Sermon over.

[jack red]

Bullying & intimidation in the workplace is outlawed these days and there are courts which uphold this law.

The chief pilot bully is no different to the schoolyard bully. Stand up to him and he will back down. If push comes to shove you WILL have the law on your side!

[El Oso]

It is true that if you stand up to employers they will sometimes back down. In past positions I have successfully done so - they had little choice, due to my indispensability at the time, and the market in those particular undesireable locales. Others are not in such a position...

Jack you are right about the laws of the courts. But unfortunately there is also the law of the market. A pilot who takes his employer to court may well find his career spiralling downward. The word soon goes out about "trouble maker" pilots and unless they are very well connected they may soon be looking for an alternative means of income. It is the unpleasant reality of a small employment community and very competitive market place. Add this to the costs of litigation and the financial position of most GA pilots...

Placing the responsibility on "David" to fight multiple "Goliaths" is naive in my view. We pay taxes to fund our own "Goliath" - its called CASA. Maybe its time they put their ears to the ground and swung a few rocks themselves?
:bored:

[currawong]

El Oso is pretty right.

"pilot in command" only seems to happen just before something goes wrong.

Just as the accident starts to happen management says "you have control"

It should be "fall guy in command".

For example - a colleague was fired for a minor mishap due to condx. But was also informed had he refused the job due to condx, he would also have been fired.

Common sense/compliance prevails in this game, but only when it is convenient.

Good luck.

[Beech Boy]

This thread was not started to make value judgments or conclusions founded without fact. It would be appreciated if conclusions drawn do not contort the sentiment or purpose of intent.

The developing aviation environment today leads professional pilot groups into situations where Enterprise Bargaining Agreements; Quality Assurance (ISO) bound Performance Appraisals etc. can develop a mind set that the Pilot in Command is forced into accepting a diminished level of responsibility due to what ever reprisals may be forthcoming.

There is and always will be workplace pressure (call it bullying) from one area or another, this is evidenced in GA and the Airline environment alike; it is not limited to any one area. Yes, on the occasions that I have encountered this, bullies do back down but if they don’t I am more than happy to raise the flag, submit the forms and allow the escalated path to unfold.

Not convinced of the “sleeper” approach, if this is required then the organization will add suspicion to an already widening armory of dysfunctional workplace practices.

What I am attempting to say is that – at the coal face – the Pilot in Command is required to accept the responsibility for the task, blaming others that have “forced” your decision is a likely marker of you not accepting your valued responsibility.

At times in your career you will need to be the one that makes a stand - there may not be anyone else to assist you. However, as a possible passenger I would be very grateful for your intestinal fortitude in doing so.

I would gladly watch any number of re-runs of Neighbors whilst waiting at the terminal/hotel/sidewalk for the problem to be sorted out, no complaints – just praise.

Still having a nice day.

[Charliethewonderdog]

If you are a casual pilot, working for an organization that employs excess pilots '' to keep them competitive'', then it is very difficult to uphold a high level of professionalism and still get enough flying time to put food on your table. There is no excuse for flying an aeroplane outside the Rules, regs and your own abilities but if ‘other’ pilots agree to fly when you said no than it brings your stance to little avail.

I knew of one company up north that doesn’t exist anymore ( thank god ) that it if you refused to fly for reason that you thought were unsafe than you would be replaced on the pecking order by someone that would, unless of course everyone stuck together which was common in the end.

What really annoys is when it’s time to go for interviews and references are checked the dodgy boss has a bearing on whether or not you get employed. A bad reference from a GA operator in my view should be regarded a positive in most cases unless you work for a reputable GA operator’s like Sky-tranes.

All to often you hear of a pilot doing very well in an interview only to find out he/she has missed out on a job from bad reference’s. Pleeaaasssseeee if you are pilot in a manger position please inform the people in charge of recruiting that it would be more appropriate to question a shinning reference’s than a bad one in most cases from GA operators. And the fact that companies presently hold references in high regard makes working in GA more compromising.

[Ibex]

"It would be appreciated if conclusions drawn do not contort the sentiment or purpose of intent."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


With this particular topic, any conclusions statements or basic facts that twist the basic sentiment should be applauded as they most probably shine a reflection that more closely resembles the correct structure of what one would be most likely to experience in practical applications found throughout a wide cross section of entry level commercial operations and any thought or feeling thinking otherwise smacks of total head up the arse ignorance of one that has never been exposed to the realities of "How it really is".

In other words, what you may learn in the sterile watered down fluffy circus of pseudo aviation courses makes great debate in the classroom on how not to do things but this soon dissipates into terrifying ignorance and blind monkey manipulation when faced with real world practicalities.

Once you have a few hundred scares in the logbook and a glowing realisation that you perhaps may get another GA gig without dropping the strides at the interview the outlook may be more beneficial to those who develop high levels of self preservation.

Good luck.

[CaptainToBe]

any thought or feeling thinking otherwise smacks of total head up the arse ignorance of one that has never been exposed to the realities of "How it really is".


Amen. I don't condone it either, but I think people need to realise they're in the real world.

[Feather #3]

At a party just before I left for [then] TPNG, an "old hand" said "Son, you'll fly aircraft overloaded, in IMC conditions and unserviceable! Be careful at all times."

I thought "horror, never, not me" and like St. Peter, only realised after the cock had crowed thrice!!

As they said at the end of those TV police briefings [Hill St Blues?]; "Be careful out there!!:eek: "

G'day ;)

[Prop's ????]

When something goes wrong, some-how the FO gets the blame?????

ie: no support????

[pakeha-boy]

Beech boy......Your points and sentiments are well taken.I myself have quite a few hours and "types",so I feel I can offer an opinion on this subject.

The airline I fly for,makes the PIC and the Dispatcher responsible for the flight,before,during and after the flight.The "dispatcher",can and will declare an emergency if required without the Capts say-so.

You talk about the PIC,s responsibility,s,all good and well on paper,but I would like to remind you that,what is on paper and what goes on in the "real world" can be two very different things.

Learning to be "PIC",does not come overnight,these are traits learned on the job,many take to those responsibilites quickly,others are not the full can of baked beans.If there is a Pilot out there,who is PIC,and hasnt made a good choice,or made a bad decision,...I want your autograph!!!!

The superior PIC,is the one who stays out of trouble,by using his superior judgement to avoid situations which might require the use of his superior PIC skills

Ukuikui ai ki te hoaka...(persistence pays off)