Crew travel priority over paying pax?

[Band a Lot]

"flight " means: (a) in the case of a heavier-than-air aircraft, the operation of the aircraft from the moment at which the aircraft first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking-off until the moment at which it comes to rest after being airborne;

___________________________________

For each flight the operator shall designate one pilot to act as pilot in command.

Penalty: 5 penalty units.

(1A) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.

Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .

(2) A pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for:

(a) the start, continuation, diversion and end of a flight by the aircraft; and

(b) the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time; and

(c) the safety of persons and cargo carried on the aircraft; and

(d) the conduct and safety of members of the crew on the aircraft.

(2A) A pilot in command must discharge his or her responsibility under paragraph (2)(a) in accordance with:

(a) any information, instructions or directions, relating to the start, continuation, diversion or end of a flight, that are made available, or issued, under the Act or these Regulations; and

(b) if applicable, the operations manual provided by the operator of the aircraft.

(3) The pilot in command shall have final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft while he or she is in command and for the maintenance of discipline by all persons on board

[Keg]

Now go back and put the emphasis on the word 'start' in para 2a.

Of course, given your logic, I'm not responsible for the safety of the passengers on board prior to us having completed engine start until the completion of push back because hey, the 'flight' hasn't yet commenced because we haven't taxied under our own steam. I think you'll find the lawyers will disagree given that I've needed to give me consent for the 'flight' to 'start' well beyond both engines started at the completion of the pushback.

The end. Good day. I'm done.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

So according to Aussie regs, the Captain is not in command until after the tug disconnects and the aircraft physically starts to taxi?

Also, say in an over run landing - the aircraft comes to rest on its nose in the grass - the command ceases then?

Keg, the start of a flight under those regs is the point at which it begins to move under its own power, not before.

[Band a Lot]

pilot in command, in relation to a flight of an aircraft, means the pilot designated by the operator of the aircraft as being in command and charged with the safe conduct of the flight.



CASA has no definition for start, so it becomes the dictionary definition.



start
stɑːt/
verb


1.
begin or be reckoned from a particular point in time or space; come into being.

[Keg]

Cool. I look forward to never having to make a decision or be responsible a decision until the completion of the push back with both engines started. Just a quick question though, who is responsible for starting the engines?

Good grief. Now I'm really done.

[Tankengine]

Logging of flight time starts at brakes release on pushback, before engine starts.
I fly gliders, they don't move under their own power, do they not fly? ;)

I hope he isnt swinging spanners at my lot!

[Band a Lot]

Or a lawyer could give 100 pilots the CASA definition of PIC and Flight to read out aloud in front of judge and jury.

Then ask the question when does the flight start?

If 95% then answered flight planning stage - it might get a few laughs from the peanut gallery.

[neville_nobody]

Band a Lot according to your logic:

An aircraft has an MEL applied by an engineer. The aircraft is serviceable otherwise but has limitations on its landing performance, something which the engineer doesn't have authority over. By your logic, the PIC has to board the passengers, refuel the aircraft, sign the flightplan, push back, start engines, THEN AND ONLY then he/she can exercise their command authority and taxi back to the gate and get another aircraft as the MEL won't allow them to land at their destination.

Or better still it some MEL's won't allow you to fly in cloud, or icing or night etc who makes that decision and when? I could go on........

[Band a Lot]

It is not my logic Neville, it is CASA regulation.

The point is we don't know (legally) as it is not in the regulations.

But we can say with certainty when (in Australia) a pilot becomes a Pilot In Command to the exact point as that is defined by the regulations and the CASA dictionary is part of those regulations.

If the word "flight" was not defined - things are completely different.

But it is defined to be a certain point and it is not optional to use that definition in reading and "interpretation" the REG's.

If the word flight is used - it means aircraft is moving under its own power.

I don't know about how gliders are legally classed treated I.A.W being in command and when and it is not really relevant when it comes to the who is responsible for starting engines question.

[Tankengine]

OK, the glider question obviously threw you. Of course nobody is in command, there is no engine.;)

Aircraft before flight, before engine start, no engineer there (LCC with remote control tug):

APU fire, who is responsible for putting it out, the LAME 500M away on another aircraft or the Captain who just walked on board?
On pushback who is in command?
On pushback there is a problem in the cabin, who has responsibility?
Non maintenance port, nearest LAME 500km away, who has command between the time the aircraft stops and until it "moves under it's own power" again?
We can go on all bloody day.

[Band a Lot]

As the tow device is physically connected to the glider I assume that is considered its own power? But I have no interest in checking.

Not the fire again!!!

What part do you not understand of when we can ABSOLUTLY say and legally prove when a pilot is "In Command" and has those responsibilities.

But we can not prove that they are responsible before that point in time.

As before common sense, right thing and assumptions are not regulations.

You can not prove you have responsibility - I can prove when you will/would have it not only that I have.

[lurker999]

In the absence of an explicit definition of start the courts will most likely decide that the flight starts from the time the PIC boards the aircraft and the end of the flight will be when the PIC gets off. Actually they might indeed take it back to flight planning on further thought.

The PIC has to make decisions to continue with the flight from the time they clock on. Is the aircraft serviceable, is the weather ok to allow the flight at both the departure and destination, etc etc. Good luck convincing a judge you aren't in charge given the breadth of the responsibilities before the engines start.

Its unlikely a PIC will be able to argue I'm only in charge from engine start. And if they did rule that way would you really want that. Open invite for mgt to take ALL the pre-flight planning and decision making out of your hands. Some airline will go, excellent, we'll do the fuel, flight planning, and hand you an aircraft, you just fly what we give you, no questions allowed.

[Band a Lot]

If your employer states in your contract you must follow all regulations given by CASA.

Are you deviating of frolicking?


A detour is a deviation from explicit instructions, but sorelated to the original instructions that the employer will still be heldliable. A frolic on the other hand, is simply the employee acting in his or herown capacity rather than at the instruction of an employer.

[Band a Lot]

In the absence of an explicit definition of start the courts will most likely decide that the flight starts from the time the PIC boards the aircraft and the end of the flight will be when the PIC gets off. Actually they might indeed take it back to flight planning on further thought.

The PIC has to make decisions to continue with the flight from the time they clock on. Is the aircraft serviceable, is the weather ok to allow the flight at both the departure and destination, etc etc. Good luck convincing a judge you aren't in charge given the breadth of the responsibilities before the engines start.

Its unlikely a PIC will be able to argue I'm only in charge from engine start. And if they did rule that way would you really want that. Open invite for mgt to take ALL the pre-flight planning and decision making out of your hands. Some airline will go, excellent, we'll do the fuel, flight planning, and hand you an aircraft, you just fly what we give you, no questions allowed.


Lucker - the work "flight" is defined and MUST be used, so no it is not boarding, doing the flight plan or the day the first bit of aluminium was ordered to build the aircraft.

If the aircraft after boarding fails to move say due weather - there was never a flight. It the aircraft taxied out then returned due weather it is recorded as a flight.

[Tankengine]

As the tow device is physically connected to the glider I assume that is considered its own power? But I have no interest in checking.

Not the fire again!!!

What part do you not understand of when we can ABSOLUTLY say and legally prove when a pilot is "In Command" and has those responsibilities.

But we can not prove that they are responsible before that point in time.

As before common sense, right thing and assumptions are not regulations.

You can not prove you have responsibility - I can prove when you will/would have it not only that I have.

So go change the regs, the rest of us don't give a s$&>!

[Band a Lot]

I think a certain pilot working for a company contracting to United does in fact give a very large a s$&>!

And if he were here (in Australia) the definition of "flight" and "PIC", would most likely save his bacon if he had no part to play in calling the renta cops.

Also no reason to change regs, company SOP's could achieve the same result.

[DANbudgieman]

It was the Chicago Airport Police which dragged him off using force, not the airline.

United is not at fault for how he was removed, however their handling of the situation prior to requesting police assistance should be examined.

United cannot dodge responsibility (indeed culpability) with that excuse. The airport police were very clearly acting on the instruction of United. United also share in responsibility with the police of having crossed the border into criminality by having commited common assault against the passenger.

I very much hope that both United AL and the airport police get thoroughly shafted in both the civil and criminal courts.