Command authority

[Young Paul]

To what extent is the captain free to invent his or her own procedures, do his or her own thing?
The scope of a captain's authority for the operation of an aircraft is quite clear. In normal operations it requires compliance with company Standard Operating Procedures. It is only when the safety of the aircraft and passengers would otherwise be at risk that a captain may elect to ignore SOPs; however, in such a case, the captain must be prepared subsequently to justify his/her actions.

From CHIRP (http://www.chirp.co.uk/downloads/ATFB/ATFB102.pdf) CHIRP says - and without citing an authority, implies that this is understood and accepted - that the aeroplane isn't "the captain's" - it's "the company's" - and the captain has authority delegated to him or her via the ops manual. Where the captain deviates from the ops manual, the company has the right to hold him or her to account: "It's my aeroplane" is not a reasonable defence.

Comments?

[Lord Spandex Masher]

It's my life though!










:E

[Young Paul]

And yet oddly,

{Captains} ∩ {Anarchists} ≈ Ø

[de facto]

CHIRP says - and without citing an authority, implies that this is understood and accepted - that the aeroplane isn't "the captain's" - it's "the company's" - and the captain has authority delegated to him or her via the ops manual

FULLY agree.

[3 Point]

That's the way I understand it!

The company pays the pay check, they get the right to say how their aeroplane is to be operated. In unexpected and emergency situations outside the scope of the manual the Commander uses his experience and training to fix the problem but would certainly be expected to be able to justify what he decided to do.

[Spartacan]

CHIRP are correct. You can operate outside SOP's to achieve a safe outcome.

However, you cannot operate outside SOP's to achieve a commercial outcome.

The subtlety of that distinction is lost on some operators.

[NigelOnDraft]

No comment needed - read it in CHIRP, should not be necessary for them to publish it ;) But clearly, for some individuals, it needs to be "re-iterated".

[piratepete]

No its not.Unless you paid for it yourself.
EXAMPLE
A new PIC (DEC) joined our company.He has 26000 hours including 5000 PIC on type.Worked for only one coy for 43 years (he was 64 at the time).Im the IP in the right seat just going through the motions of signing him off mainly getting him used to our SOPs.Upon leaving the runway, im awaiting his command to conduct the after landing items, but im not allowed to do this until he stows the speedbrake to indicate that we are now in taxi mode and have moved on from the landing mode (Boeing FCTM).This action never happens, and after a long taxy with lights blazing, flaps down, etc etc I give him a friendly "prompt" that the after landing procedure should be actioned now?.A very terse reply of "dont touch anything, its not safe", screams out from the left seat.OK.Upon giving him a debrief and asking nicely for his reason for the non-standard actions, he tells me."Its my airplane, im PIC.If I deem it unsafe for you to go heads down while taxying, not watching for traffic etc etc, YOU WILL FOLLOW MY COMMAND".
He is now advised that he cant invent his own SOPs and on his line check the next day, he will be expected to follow the comany SOPs, by lowering the speedbrake at the end of the landing roll, unless there is sufficient reason not to.(contamination or very dense traffic would be acceptable reasons, but these were not present on either sectors).
The following day he did the same thing.The very next day he was terminated due to willful non-compliance with SOPs, and of that particular story.......Pete the pirate.

[Young Paul]

Thanks for that, Pirate - and for being part of stopping first officers subsequently being pushed into awkward situations.

But there are many skippers who will behave themselves when being trained - we're a cunning bunch, us pilots ....

[sevenstrokeroll]

its really quite simple.

Follow the rules (regulations, sop et. al) and be safe...

BUT

if the rules don't work and you aren't safe, do what you think is best to the extent neccessary to keep everyone safe.

we call it: the emergency authority of the pilot in command

[RMC]

This emergency authority comes from a level higher than the company....higher than the authority that gives the company its AOC.
This is enshrined in international as well as national law.If a Captain uses this authority and gets it badly wrong...or (other side of the coin) an F/O were to contravine this authority and hull loss or similar occured you can expect to be looking down the barrel of a jail term.

It is normally a good thing for an F/O to know the routine SOPs inside out and advocate correct adherence.

On the other hand if you have an extreme emergency and the skipper uses his experience/ local knowledge etc (which is what he is really paid for) there is not likely to be time to debate it. The stats show that whilst these kind of immediate decisions may be less than perfect... the outcomes are more often than not ultimately satisfactory.

There is a whole load of science behind this (search schemers) etc which proves the experience debate.

The mistake that is often made (at the risk of insulting intelligence) is that because he cant use the FMC as well as you / knows the exact words your company likes to use he will get it wrong when the book has to go out of the window. As an F/O with a Captain who has become incompetent through age / attitude or should never have been promoted in the first place this becomes difficult. It can normally be managed but its a tough one.

[Shell Management]

"ITS MY AIRPLANE"
No its not.Unless you paid for it yourself.

Correct. But remember, the owner of the aircraft is not as important as the people chartering it!

[sevenstrokeroll]

actually it is my airplane...(using slang).

IF the company didn't want me to take it, they would not release it from the gate.

IF the company told me to fly the plane 20,000 lbs over gross weight I will say no.

so...who's plane is it?

and I've seen instructor pilots screw up really badly, so there are cases where a captain can delay the after landing checklist by his command.

I remember one Instructor pilot...who wasn't acting as instructor, just acting as captain to get his flight pay and landings in. We got our clearance at the gate, at least 20 minutes before pushback.

So, he taxis out and takes (i;m not kidding you) 5 minutes in the runup area (jet) checking his charts. both engines running...tower calling: are you ready?

instructors at airlines are frequently good old boys, golf buddies and the like.

another instructor used speed brakes on a plane with limitations against it with flaps down.

so...it goes like this...ITs my plane if you let me leave the gate with it.

I'll bring it back in good condition...but don't ask me to cheat or cover for marginal instructor/check pilots. remember that jet blue nut case...he was a check pilot!

[Young Paul]

Nobody has ever doubted the authority of the captain to act in the event of an "extreme emergency" to save the aircraft, or save lives. The point being that this doesn't extend to the freedom to disregard the ops manual in normal operation.

[RMC]

YP - The problem is there is an increasing number of F/Os who have a "challenge everything" mentallity and don't buy into the Captain's authority full stop. There are also many situational examples which are not as clear cut as the "extreme emergency" where you have to follow the skippers lead. Our book ,for example, says before V1 we should reject for a predictive windshear alert. If this happens on a FLL runway just before V1 on a day where it is clear that it is spurious thedecision will be to continue. Not what the book says.... but the right thing to do. He/she is paid for judgement in the shade of grey areas.

[Shell Management]

Three little words: Crew Resource Management.

If the FOs behave like that then it reflkects badly on the Captain and he should be demoted.

[John Citizen]

To what extent is the captain free to invent his or her own procedures, do his or her own thing?


Unfortunately, many captains that I fly with, think it is their perogative to do whatever they want, and they don't want to hear any comment from the FO.

In their eyes, a good FO is supposed to sit their, be quiet, and go along with them with whatever they do.

Any comments, remarks, advice, criticism, suggestions are firmly rebuffed.

[Centaurus]

Three little words: Crew Resource Management.

If the FOs behave like that then it reflkects badly on the Captain and he should be demoted.

Two little words to that statement. Absolute bull****....:mad:

[sevenstrokeroll]

what is a "FLL" runway? in you mind sir? we have an airport known as FLL here in the states

anyhow, predicitive windshear abort...interesting question to be sure...

it is my view that many of these non SOP procedures and decisions would be better addressed by the COMPANy revisiting its procedures.

[parabellum]

The problem is there is an increasing number of F/Os who have a "challenge everything" mentality and don't buy into the Captain's authority full stop.


As is evidenced by the ever increasing number of threads on PPRuNe that want to challenge the authority of the captain!:rolleyes:

Shell Management - You are talking tosh.

John Citizen - Suggest you change your employer and leave the cowboy outfit you are currently with.

[John Citizen]

The problem is there is an increasing number of F/Os who have a "challenge everything" mentality and don't buy into the Captain's authority full stop

The problem is there is an increasing number of Captains who have a "I do whatever I want" mentality and don't buy into an FO's duty and responsibilty to challenge the captain.

[RMC]

Sevenstrokeroll - Apologies ... FLL = Field length limiting.

The point of raising examples such as the predictive windshear / judgement calls is that there are many instantaneous decisions which are situational and cannot all be listed in a company SOP manual. Aviation is not that black and white.

JC - You have tried to paraphrase and I suspect diminished your argument. Aviation wide there is not an increasing number of Captains who feel they can do whatever they want... if there is in your company (as someone suggested) you need to get out. These guys are a real menace and do not reflect current command trends / thinking / training.

There is however an increasing amount of F/Os who do challenge everything some will try to reverse the authourity gradient.... this trend IS increasing and has to be dealt with.

If a Captain opts for the easy life and lets one these F/Os run the show... but then expects same F/O to relinquish his new found "authority" when it hits the fan .... then he is in for a surprise.

He is also in an indefensible position in the subsequent enquiry.

[Shell Management]

Cockpit video recording and routine CVR monitoring would help pervent this.:ok:

[sevenstrokeroll]

RMC

thanks!

our nations our divided by a common language.

for example:

TR, what does it mean?

type rating?

thrust reverser?

transformer rectifier?

I hope all people on this forum will learn that taking the time to clarify things will make it easier on us YANKS. We call a circuit a traffic pattern, choosing to use the word CIRCUIT for electrical things.


reheat, afterburner

etc

[Rananim]

It is the Captains ac.The company hires.trains and ultimately trusts him/her.
I've seen some awful SOPs in my time.Counter-intuitive .unnecessarily fussy and even dangerous.Keep it simple and use common sense airmanship and good judgement.Less is more as a general rule.Be highly suspicious of lengthy SOPs which dictate everything down to the way you take a piss.eg,You as Captain check everything.not just this politically correct area of responsbility.First officer too,he should check everything.Too fussy?eg.pilot 1 and only pilot 1 must enter takeoff cg in fmc.Why?One pilot enters.one crosschecks.Thats the guiding principle.nothing else matters.Or only pilot X can operate switch Y at the appropiate time.Rote flying!!
The Company owns the ac but they will be in the office when something happens.Do you really believe USAir thanked Sully for his SOP skills?No,they thanked him for his flying and his judgement!

[Shell Management]

No the company will be in the dock. Thats why they have to hold unproffesional crews accountable with active compliance monitoring.

[Rananim]

I dont recognize any pilots in this thread except Centaurus and Sevenstrokeroll.If other contributors are in fact pilots.it would disappoint me but not surprise me given the nauseating level of pc intodays world.
Good Lord.ATC compliance may mean deviating from SOPs on an almost daily basis.Maintain speed on final or expedite vacation when backtracking for example.Now, complying isnt "making it up" or "doing ones own thing" as our very young Paul implied.Aviation is most certainly not black and white.
Using cameras or the CVR to ensure.,lets see what was that wonderful turn of phrase that Shell M used.."active compliance monitoring".WOW!Now theres one for the union boys to look into.
Until they change 91.1, the Captain is in charge end of story.Of course if they take out the cockpit windows and get themselves a dog.then yes the SOP manual is in command.But I will.thank Christ.be long dead and buried before that day ever comes.

[A-3TWENTY]

In normal conditions : The Capt.must strictly follow the SOPs

In Emergency:I mean unforesseenable ones.The Capt. can deviate from the SOPs BUT will have to justify afterwords.

Conclusion 1 : If everything goes well a stupid desk pilot or manager will prove that he would have done better.

Conclusion 2 : If things go wrong but the unhappy pilot survives , he will be prosecuted , etc.


FINAL CONCLUSION : The PIC is the stupid idiot the company pays in order to blame and this way hide company`s or authoritie`s incompetence when something goes wrong.

[Big Pistons Forever]

There are not very many "new incidents". The very mature and complete SOP's and emergency procedures in todays transport catagory aircraft aircraft will cover pretty much everything likely to occur.

The fallacy in the argument that Captains should be expected to do what they think is best is the real world examples show most of the time when Captains disregarded the SOP the outcome was poor. Rejects after V1 that almost always end badly is a good example.

I teach the starting point for every emergency is the SOP. If actioning that doesn't work then you do what you have to do.

For normal Ops the operator specifies how to operate the aircraft. It is your duty as a professional airman to follow the SOP's . If you don't like how something is done you don't just ignore it and do what ever you want; you talk about it with the training department and then write a letter to the Chief Pilot. I have changed several SOP's at my current operation this way.

Unfortunately there is a small but significant number of Captains who have drunk the "hero pilot" cool aid and figure their superior skills allow them to ignore any SOPs that they don't feel like following. Most get away with it but a few leave a totally avoidable smoking hole

Sully had the 00.01 % emergency and he followed the USAIR SOP all the way to the time he stepped off the floating aircraft.

The same applies to the Qantas A 380 engine explosion. 5 guys in the cockpit worked together methodically followed the emergency SOPs to work through the ECAM faults. When the SOPs were not sufficient for the problem then and only then was a deviation from them made. There was no hero Captain throwing the book out the window, just a group of professionals working together and starting from a well understood and rigorously applied set of SOP's.......

[Pugilistic Animus]

I wonder what good ol' 411A would have said in this thread and he was right:)