Spectators Balcony (Spotters Corner) If you're not a professional pilot but want to discuss issues about the job, this is the best place to loiter. You won't be moved on by 'security' and there'll be plenty of experts to answer any questions.

Who's in charge?

Old 29th Sep 2010, 18:14
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Oxfordshire
Age: 70
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Who's in charge?

Just finished reading a pretty good aviation novel, and it made me wonder (as part of the plot involved refusing a damaged aircraft permission to land) - who has the final say? Does the aircraft captain have a right to land at any airport, or can the ATC or other authorities totally deny them a landing? I thought I read years ago that an airport can never really be declared "closed", and ATC can only really advise on landing or not.

And what about taking off, can a captain go without permission - assuming it is clear and safe to do so?
goldox is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2010, 19:04
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The pilot in command has final authority over the conduct of the flight, but that authority extends as far as the wingtips, and no farther.

As a pilot in command, I can break any rule or regulation to meet the demands of safety, if necessary...without violating a single rule. That is, the regulation recognizes that an exception to every rule and regulation is granted the PIC as authority to deviate. One may do what's necessary to ensure the safety of the flight.

With this in mind, however, that doesn't give me the right or authority to make decisions for others outside of the cockpit. It also means that while I can make decisions in flight that utilize PIC authority, I'm also subject to review and sanction later, if others determine I acted incorrectly. As a pilot in command, I have supreme authority over the flight...but authority that can and most likely will be picked apart in detail by others later on. Others, who haven't the same pressing need and compressed time in which to get the job done. In my case, those authorities will most likely be from the USA's Federal Aviation Administration, though they could also be from any number of other authorities around the world to whom I am beholden at any given time, during any given flight.

I have strayed into the infamous "Area 51" airspace during a medical flight, when patient condition and rapidly building weather permitted me to go no other direction. Against direct orders from military controllers denying me clearance to penetrate that sacred space, I went anyway, utilizing my authority as PIC. I didn't ask permission; I told the controller what I would do. The controller, unable to grant permission and unwilling to attempt to do so, could see just as well as I that severe weather formed and blocked the path, over and over. The controller, unable to do more than protest, knew as well as I that there was no choice. The controller repeatedly told me to deviate left, into the worst of the weather, and I refused ,as PIC.

In the end, I received no reprimand, and I offered no further explanation. On the return trip, the weather was gone, and I dutifully deviated around the restricted airspace.

Several years ago one of our flights was unable to land in a particular hostile place, and thus diverted. Unfortunately, the diversion point that was filed by a well-meaning individual was entirely insufficient. The flight carried sensitive materials, and the alternate airport was in an unfriendly nation. The next available point stretched the flight to it's maximum on fuel, and upon arrival, they were denied a landing clearance.

When low on fuel, one may formally state that one has an emergency, or one may also use a phrase warning that an emergency could develop if any undue delays take place. That phrase is "minimum fuel," and serves to alert the controller that one isn't in a state of emergency yet, but soon may be. Declaring an emergency, on the other hand, is just that; one is already experiencing an emergency, and one has opened the door to take whatever action is necessary to meet the demands of that emergency. This particular flight was now in a state of emergency, and didn't bother with a minimum fuel call; they simply disregarded the refusal to grand landing clearance, and landed anyway.

The crew and company were in trouble. The company was banned from that airport for a time, and continued to be punished for some time thereafter. I needn't say which nation did this, as it's not relevant to the question at hand. Never the less, while one may deviate as necessary from the rules, regulations, clearances, and policies that define one's conduct in the air, in an emergency, one is always subject to fines, sanctions, punishment, and enforcement thereafter if one has chosen unwisely. Sometimes even if one's actions have been just.

It's far easier to establish that an emergency landing must be made, as one has to come down somewhere, eventually. It's far more difficult to establish a takeoff that must be made, as there are no flights which must be made. Over the course of my career, I've flown law enforcement, emergency medical, military, combat, firefighting, and other flights of an urgent nature, and have yet to see one that must be made. It's the nature of flying. At some point we all must get back on the ground, but the same cannot be said of taking off.

Certainly one can envision urgent situations that cause emotional drive to get a flight underway. A sick child in an isolette chamber onboard; a squad of firefighters trapped in a raging wildfire, about to be burned over; an emergency medevac under fire for wounded troops; a woman and her son, clinging to the edge of their nearly-submerged car in a raging flash flood. All compelling reasons to takeoff, and at the same time all reasons to sit on one's hands, count to ten, and remind one's self that the only consideration for the Pilot in Command is safety of flight.

If one cannot engage a flight professionally, in a detached manner, taking away all consideration for the mission, for the passengers, for the patients, for the troops, and view the flight as either safe and acceptable or not, then one has no business undertaking the mission. Forget the compelling reason; it should compel the emotional, but not the crew. The PIC must ask if he or she would make the flight without that compelling reason; would I do it anyway, without the pressure to take off? No? Then the flight cannot go.

If the compelling reason is there, and one knows that one would conduct the flight with or without this pressure, then the PIC becomes justified in taking the action necessary to accomplish the mission at hand. We have delivered relief supplies to an airfield in a dangerous area, for example, and have received numerous refugees needing to flee that area. We begin taking rocket fire. All hell is breaking loose. If we remain here, neither we, nor the people on board will be safe. We cannot get clearance to take off, yet we do. In this fictional example, dramatic as it may be, to whom are we going to hold accountable if we die waiting for a clearance? Nobody, except perhaps in epitaph. To whom are we accountable if we takeoff without the clearance, and live? Who cares? Certainly not us; life is more valuable than the torment of sanction.

There's a popular saying among those in the USA who choose to carry a firearm (and these number in the millions); "It's better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." this saying means it's far better to be judged in a court of law by a jury of 12 of one's peers for having broken the law, than to be carried to one's grave by six pall bearers. The same may be said for inflight emergency authority. One does what one must, when one must, to the extent one must. It's important to understand that one's emergency authority only extends so far as the measures necessary to meet the emergency, and no farther...but that will be sorted out back safely on the ground, after the immediacy of the moment is long past.

Certainly an airport can be closed. Certainly the airport authority governing that location can close the airport. A pilot doesn't have the authority to open it. A pilot does have the option to disregard the closure and land, albeit at his own peril and that of his flight, as well as those on the ground. To illustrate, I worked once for a company that flew emergency transportation of human organs (hearts, kidneys, etc) on a time-critical basis. One of our pilots had a tendency to be rash, and one night he undertook a flight to an airport that unbeknownst to him, was closed. It featured a single runway, and he didn't check the Notices to Airmen (NoTAms) which would have told him the field was closed. He felt he was in a hurry, and that it justified his actions.

On arrival, air traffic control asked him which field he intended to use, as his destination was closed. He stated that he was landing as filed, and did so, with men running for cover, attempting to pull equipment off the runway. Construction work was being done on and along the runway, and barricades were in place. Ironically, the flight got down safely and no one was hurt, though the police secured the airplane and crew. The receiving party had already gone to the obvious other choice, a field nearby, and was waiting for the organ. The pilot's rash decision to land at the closed airfield cost valuable time, and nearly resulted in loss of life and property, not the least of which was almost the loss of the organ for which the flight was made (a kidney, as I recall).

Conversely, I had an inflight emergency some years ago involving a loss of hydraulics. In that particular aircraft, loss of the hydraulics meant, among other things, a higher landing speed (no flaps), and no control on the ground (no brakes, which were the only means of steering). Strong crosswinds throughout the area meant that I would be unable to control the airplane on landing; and would weathervane into the wind at some point during the roll-out, and depart the runway. Nearly all runways were oriented north and south, with the wind from the west.

One airport, about a half-hour away, had a runway that I recalled from my youth, which was oriented directly into the wind. I contacted my dispatch center and asked them to notify the newly-initiated tower at that field that I would be coming, the nature of my problem, and that I needed the crosswind runway. As I came within radio range, I was informed that the runway I needed was closed. I asked for it anyway, but was told that it was no longer usable; it was decayed and long out of service. I asked for the next- best choice, and discovered that it was under construction, with men and equipment on the runway, as well as barricades, and some of the surface of the runway removed.

I asked the tower for that runway anyway, after getting a preliminary determination that enough runway remained to use. The tower ordered the men and equipment clear, and cleared me to use that runway at my own risk. I did. That wasn't a case of disregarding a clearance, of course, but it was a matter of using the best choice available. One is not supposed to land on a closed runway, of course, but I've also landed on roads and gravel strips and sand and taxiways over the years (mostly in light airplanes, mostly doing utility type work; not in airliners), and even in fields. One does what one must.

In the case of the last event, I actually received a safety award from the agency for whom I was operating at the time. I received it not because of exceptional prowness or ability, or for skill. It had been a particularly bad month, with several aircraft losses and some fatalities, and in that case I think it was the agencies way of emphasizing a safe decision. Rather than a "best of the best" type of award, it was more of a "good part of what's left." Still, it was the thought that counted, and the idea behind the agencies thinking was valid; at the end of the day it's safety that counts, mission being a distant second. We do what we must to make the flight safe, and then later we count the cost.

Last edited by SNS3Guppy; 29th Sep 2010 at 19:17.
SNS3Guppy is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2010, 22:06
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bournemouth
Age: 39
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SNS3Guppy - Thank you. I enjoyed reading that.
rich_g85 is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2010, 22:23
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Should the airfield/airport go and park some fire trucks on the runway then there ain't a lot an aircraft commander can do about it!
Phileas Fogg is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2010, 01:22
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Should the airfield/airport go and park some fire trucks on the runway then there ain't a lot an aircraft commander can do about it!
Sure there is. Land on a taxiway. I've done it.
SNS3Guppy is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2010, 13:28
  #6 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Oxfordshire
Age: 70
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Many thanx for replies, very interesting and informative!
goldox is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.