On a more serious note,
Even though a pilot is deemed to be responsible as pilot in command or second in command, there are still defenses that are recognized by regulation and NTSB case law. Most of these defenses can be characterized as “reasonable reliance” defenses. The question that often needs to be answered in this context is whether the pilot reasonably relied on other crewmembers, air traffic controllers, maintenance personnel, or his or her own observations regarding aircraft performance and airworthiness either preflight or during flight. In other cases, the pilot might be able to establish an emergency authority defense. In these cases it is important to determine if the emergency was created by the pilot’s own actions. If not, was the pilot’s action in response to the emergency prudent and reasonable? In the end, the general rule usually prevails. The buck stops with the pilot in command—almost always.
The above is from a US law review document so may be relevant to the United case. Note the use of the word "preflight".