PIC always responsible, never marshaller

[Sam Rutherford]

Got a question about this, wanted to check my answer.

My belief is that the PIC is ALWAYS responsible for safe taxiing - the marshaller therefore NEVER responsible. Included in that, my belief is that the pilot has zero obligation to follow the marshaller's instructions.

Is it that simple?

Thanks, Sam.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Isn't there a distinction between controlled and non-controlled aerodromes? At a controlled field, I take it the tower (or, if implemented, ground control) is responsible - and the marshaller working under their control. At a non-controlled field I think I quite agree.

[Sam Rutherford]

Not my understanding. I think the PIC is always responsible whilst the aircraft is under own power (so, only the pushback/tow movement is not the PIC's responsibility)...

[chevvron]

Isn't there a distinction between controlled and non-controlled aerodromes? At a controlled field, I take it the tower (or, if implemented, ground control) is responsible - and the marshaller working under their control. At a non-controlled field I think I quite agree.
In my experience, ATC do not have contact with marshallers and have no control over them. At ANY airport.
Marshallers take their instructions from Apron Control where one is established and Apron Control is not an ATC function.
Marshallers are there to assist in guiding a pilot to a safe parking position; if you do not follow marshaller's guidance and (say) your wingtip collides with another aircraft, it is your fault.

[tescoapp]

its my understanding as well.

Not that it stops various airports trying to word local regulations to try and imply that the PIC has to do what they tell you to do.

If you have a prang its the PIC's problem end of story.

And it doesn't matter if its controlled or uncontrolled, if a ATCO has told you to do something or you have made it up on your own. Its always the PIC's fault. Any doubts stop apply the handbrake and refuse the instructions. If they become stroppy shut the engines down.

[Pilot DAR]

PIC is always responsible. If the instructions received from a marshaller conflict with what the PIC thinks is safe, the PIC should stop the aircraft. I have experienced that some marshallers just don't realize that you have chosen to do something other than what they are thinking. As you depart from what they expect to see, they'll get more frantic, and get more in your way. If you simply stop, they'll figure it out, and it will be much more safe for everyone. At the very least, the PIC is much less responsible for something happening, if they have stopped the aircraft because they thought something was unsafe.

[Sam Rutherford]

Thanks all, seems pretty clear!

[tescoapp]

If you knew how little training Marshallers get its not very surprising this is the case.

The situation I have had most disputes with them is trying to park me tail into wind. Over 10 knts with a direct shaft turbine turboprop engine runs the likely risk of over temping the egt on start. Tower can't and won't sort it out.

You can't park like that.... there is no safety assessment for it...… Aye well there is one for parking with 20knts of wind up my chuff and it ends with a 100k hot section due melted rear turbine write your report and go away.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

If you knew how little training Marshallers get its not very surprising this is the case.

The situation I have had most disputes with them is trying to park me tail into wind. Over 10 knts with a direct shaft turbine turboprop engine runs the likely risk of over temping the egt on start. Tower can't and won't sort it out.

You can't park like that.... there is no safety assessment for it...… Aye well there is one for parking with 20knts of wind up my chuff and it ends with a 100k hot section due melted rear turbine write your report and go away.

An argument I have with various ATC/marshals all the time. P/IC is always responsible, never be afraid to stand on the brakes and ask for clarification, or at one well known international airport a competent marshal.

SND

[BackPacker]

If you knew how little training Marshallers get its not very surprising this is the case.

It's not just the training, it's also the experience.

We once had an event with small aircraft at Schiphol airport. Schiphol supplied the (highly professional) marshallers. It simply did not work initially, because they had no clue about our limitations. One marshaller was trying to get an aircraft parked between two others, and was frantically waving the aircraft to make a tighter turn. They did not know that our nosewheels can only turn about 30 degrees left/right off center, but were expecting airline-style 80-degrees or so. In the end the PIC decided to shut down, and we manually pushed and pulled the aircraft into place.

On the other hand, when the marshallers made a mistake, directing two aircraft nose-to-nose on the taxiway and had no clue how to sort it out, the pilots simply turned right off the centerline markings, and passed each other right there on the taxiway with room to spare. The marshallers had never contemplated that simple solution since the smallest planes they were normally working with could not do that.

Both the pilots and the marshallers learned a lot that day.

[TheOddOne]

When I was involved in training and testing marshallers at a large aerodrome in South-East England, we took our responsibilities very seriously. If anyone was involved in an incident whilst marshalling, they were suspended from marshalling pending an investigation. The training was rigorous and was divided up into different segments, starting with a simple 90 deg turn on to stand and stopping on the correct marks up to turning through 180 deg or more. It's quite a thing to be able to marshal a 747 on to stand and get it to stop within 300mm in any dimension. The worst part was when an a/c would come on to stand at night with all lights blazing. I used to give it a 'stop' and cover my eyes up until they got the hint and turned the lights out. If a member of staff hadn't carried out a particular manoeuvre within the past month, then they were accompanied by a supervisor/trainer to be refreshed. The hardest in this regard was marshalling helicopters as they were such infrequent visitors - we usually had one or two experts per shift to rely on. Some of our staff had 'I've marshalled Concorde' badges made up - we occasionally got the paraffin pencil on diversion. Sadly, I never got to be entitled to wear one.

TOO

[ShyTorque]

It's not just the training, it's also the experience.

We once had an event with small aircraft at Schiphol airport. Schiphol supplied the (highly professional) marshallers. It simply did not work initially, because they had no clue about our limitations. One marshaller was trying to get an aircraft parked between two others, and was frantically waving the aircraft to make a tighter turn. They did not know that our nosewheels can only turn about 30 degrees left/right off center, but were expecting airline-style 80-degrees or so. In the end the PIC decided to shut down, and we manually pushed and pulled the aircraft into place.

I've had the same thing a few times. My least favourite marshaller is the one who "outruns" the aircraft when turning left and disappears from view down the left side of the aircraft because helicopter pilots sit in the right seat, not the left seat as he/she is more used to. Then comes in during shutdown before the rotors have stopped without clearance and tries to give you a telling off for not following marshalling signals.

[a.alexeev.p]

Not exactly GA, but very related to the topic as an extreme example: What about cases when a big jet ended up parked not far enough due to marshaller instructions and another jet taxing hit the parked one?

[Pilot DAR]

Decades ago, we landed at night in the winter. The apron was very icy, and taxiing would have been difficult, other than the Cheyenne had beta, so taxi speed and direction could be very precisely controlled without being completely dependent upon brakes and nosewheel steering. The apron in front the terminal had all kinds of room, but an eager marshaller insisted upon marshalling us into a specific place. He was more a danger to himself, than helping me, as he was slipping and sliding while trying to walk backwards on patches of ice. He was not staying far enough away from the plane for my liking, and it was beginning to take too long. So I stopped the plane with a burst of reverse, which forced him away, and to seek better footing. Then he stood by the wall, and let me finish parking on my own!

[abgd]

For small aircraft I can see that the pilot should be wholly responsible. However for larger airliners where pilots can't see their own wingtips, does this still follow? Practically or legally?

If a 'follow me' car makes a navigation error, and you follow them, who is responsible?

[tescoapp]

The case of aircraft parked outside the gate and aircraft taxing hitting its tail it is the taxing aircraft pic that's at fault. There are plenty of incidents in rumours and news of that situation.

If the aircraft is under its own power and hits something it's always pic. It doesn't matter what is meant to be guiding you, if the markings are incorrect etc.

This is the major clash airports and apron want you to do as your told but will be the first to scream we are not responsible if anything happens. Don't worry if threats of mor etc are made for not complying. The one that i heard back about was a 5 Mmi chat with a flight ops inspector and the airport was subjected to a 3 day ground ops inspection. That was refusing to park with a 25knt tail wind. They changed the remote stands to any direction after that.

[Sam Rutherford]

On pushback or towing, the PIC is not responsible...

My thoughts...

[tescoapp]

I wouldn't go that far to be honest. I would say grey area. Your ok if your sitting with your handbrake on. Handbrake off and bum in seat it gets a bit murky. Under power and its the PIC fault.

[kaitakbowler]

A roomie of mine, Big A 1970, a Cpl Rigger on TASF marshalled a Victor tanker wingtip into the lighting stanchion on Alpha (may have been Bravo) dispersal. Not formally charged but quite long and one sided career interview with Bosses, various. Captain 'invited' to discuss with Air Cdre JS.

Not privy further action but said Cpl got his 3rd later that year.

PM

[Ebbie 2003]

My airplane is based at TBPB, off all the light airplanes here mine alone is based on the north ramp with the Airbusses, Boeings, and to be fair the private jets, some ATR's ans a few Twotters, I even have my regular gate (6R) right next to the tower, so used to lots of planes of all sizes looking to park up.

All the airplanes with fare paying passengers get a marshaller, having been given the gate number the airliner is asked to "report the marshaller in sight", once the report is made the final instruction is to "follow the marshaller's instructions" so fsiling to do so would likely get someone in trouble - but I agree the if the marshaller's instructions were going to result in a collision then PIC gets to stop, but not to then doing something further.

As to my airplane, I dont get a marshaller, just get told "taxi to 6R at pilot's discretion"

Overall I think that "I was following the marshaller's directions" may tend to mitigate but would n8t be the basis of a defence.

An interesting question.

[scifi]

Really the answer to this question should be obvious... The Pilot has all the Gizmos under his control; Throttle, Brakes, Steering, Control Column, Lights and other electrical and radio items. The Marshaller has two just Ping-Pong bats that he can wave about, they are not connected to the airplane controls in any way.
.

[Pilot DAR]

That's right! I'd forgotten about the Gizmos! Now, it all makes sense! Pilots, do assure that the left and right Gizmo circuit breakers are in before taxiing!