Crew travel priority over paying pax?

[Band a Lot]

What company United or Republic?

A captain now they have a job to do! And "You can't handle the truth" rings a bell!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk

[Band a Lot]

And from memory that did not end well for Jack!

[atr-drivr]

Originally Posted by framer

DD we all agree with the common sense approach you suggest. Bandalot has nailed the gist of the discussion at the moment.
I'll use an example that is very close to what someone else used earlier in the thread;
If your Purser comes to you and says that pax in 4D shouldn't travel and you back them ( as I would) and then the security guy from Dr Dao's flight ( he has recently relocated for personal reasons) comes onboard and smacks 4D's head against the chairs, killing him as he removes him, who is responsible for the operation going wrong? Who goes to jail? ( apart from the security guy who has committed a crime )
You for authorising it and not supervising the operation? The cabin crew member for not adequately supervising? The station manager for not overseeing the removal in a way that prevented the whole thing going wrong?
The United Captain has been named in a law suit yet it is not clear in the regs who is responsible ( legally) for the safety and well being of the people onboard prior to the doors closing.
If it is ground staff who should be named in the law suit as responsible for overseeing the removal of pax then where is that written?
If it is the Captain then where is that written? We haven't been able to find it in the Tokyo Convention or the regs.
Cheers

For clarification, no United Captain has been named in any suit pertaining to this incident....a REPUBLIC Captain may have.

[Band a Lot]

Originally Posted by atr-drivr

For clarification, no United Captain has been named in any suit pertaining to this incident....a REPUBLIC Captain may have.

And that may make for muddier responsibility boundaries, or clearer ones.

[Keg]

Originally Posted by Band a Lot

Keg 224 uses the word flight - that word is defined by the regulator, in this case the aircraft must be moving under own power!!!

Let's be sure we are talking about the same thing. You were responding to Tankengine about the Captain being happy. My point is and remains that unless the Captain is happy the flight will not 'start'. It doesn't matter who you think is responsible for the 'flight' at ther terminal. It doesn't matter if an airline's policies state the airport manager may be responsible for making the decision about passengers under the influence and their fitness to fly. If my crew is not happy about it and i agree with their assessment (meaning I'm not happy) the flight will not start. End of the discussion.

[Tankengine]

Originally Posted by Keg

Let's be sure we are talking about the same thing. You were responding to Tankengine about the Captain being happy. My point is and remains that unless the Captain is happy the flight will not 'start'. It doesn't matter who you think is responsible for the 'flight' at ther terminal. It doesn't matter if an airline's policies state the airport manager may be responsible for making the decision about passengers under the influence and their fitness to fly. If my crew is not happy about it and i agree with their assessment (meaning I'm not happy) the flight will not start. End of the discussion.

Correct! In this legalistic politically correct world that is one of the few certainties.

[Band a Lot]

Originally Posted by Keg

Let's be sure we are talking about the same thing. You were responding to Tankengine about the Captain being happy. My point is and remains that unless the Captain is happy the flight will not 'start'. It doesn't matter who you think is responsible for the 'flight' at ther terminal. It doesn't matter if an airline's policies state the airport manager may be responsible for making the decision about passengers under the influence and their fitness to fly. If my crew is not happy about it and i agree with their assessment (meaning I'm not happy) the flight will not start. End of the discussion.

Keg, with all due respect. You can not provide that you have the authority (a document) to make that call.

You only have the authority after the "flight" has started.

So there is now a stand off between you and a passengers standing their ground - the flight then gets cancelled. They miss connecting flights and decide to sue.


The judge asks you under what authority captain, did you refuse to carry out the "flight" that led to the cancellation?

You can not claim that you were PIC, because that starts when the aircraft starts moving.

[Tankengine]

Originally Posted by Band a Lot

Keg, with all due respect. You can not provide that you have the authority (a document) to make that call.

You only have the authority after the "flight" has started.

So there is now a stand off between you and a passengers standing their ground - the flight then gets cancelled. They miss connecting flights and decide to sue.


The judge asks you under what authority captain, did you refuse to carry out the "flight" that led to the cancellation?

You can not claim that you were PIC, because that starts when the aircraft starts moving.

FFS, if not in command then how did the Captain affect anything by refusing the "flight".?
Band a lot, you say you are a LAME. You can stop the flight by not signing the RTS, the Captain can stop the flight by not starting it. Why is that so hard to understand?

[neville_nobody]

You only have the authority after the "flight" has started.

Negative Ghostrider.............

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.

That's what the CAR says. No idea what the FAR's say but it looks like it will be tested by the disgruntled Dr.

[Troo believer]

4 pages and he is still argueing the point.
Do not confuse "a flight" with " in flight".
From ICAO
Pilot-in-command. The pilot designated by the operator, or in the case of general aviation, the owner, as being in command and charged with the safe conduct of a flight.

2.4 Authority of pilot-in-command of an aircraft
The pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall have final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft while in command.
Band a Lot, Command of the aircraft would be as stated before is at time of pre flight preparations including boarding fuelling loading etc.

[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. 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.