Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Crew travel priority over paying pax?

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Crew travel priority over paying pax?

Old 15th Apr 2017, 12:19
  #121 (permalink)  
Gender Faculty Specialist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Stop being so stupid, it's Sean's turn
Posts: 1,870
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Strawman.....
Chesty Morgan is online now  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 12:29
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes on 11 Posts
Read the regulation and pay particular attention to the last sentence.



CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 224

Pilot in command
(1) 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.
Troo believer is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 13:03
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 340
Received 53 Likes on 26 Posts
Originally Posted by Troo believer
Read the regulation and pay particular attention to the last sentence.



CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 224

Pilot in command
(1) 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.
Very familiar with CAR224 but it doesn't apply when the PIC is in the briefing room doing pre-flight. That much is evident by the part of the sentence that states "... for the maintenance of discipline by all persons on board."

Obviously there is some cross-over if something happens at the gate such as the fuel problem and a PIC would liaise with ground authorities.

Someone further up said the 'airport manager' in relation to responsibilities. We do know the airport manager sits in an office away from the action do we not and their primary responsibility is adminstrative. The Airport Duty Manager or similar is the ground operational person.
AerialPerspective is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 13:34
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes on 11 Posts
The post was for Band a Lot and others. Probably enjoys Paleo banana and pear bread!
Troo believer is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 21:24
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 608
Received 67 Likes on 27 Posts
Originally Posted by AerialPerspective
After 30+ years in the industry I find it astounding that there are people who think their responsibility for passengers starts at sign on. So, if there's a fire in the gate lounge an hour before departure, the gate staff should call the Captain is that right???
AP, not too many posts back, you seemed convinced that ground staff retain control and responsibility up to the point where the aircraft moves under its own power. ("So, if there's an engine fire during pushback and the cabin fills with smoke, the Captain should call the gate staff is that right???"). I found that a bit astounding as well. Otherwise I broadly agree with you. I can't say I've ever met a pilot who wants to assume responsibility for the pax at sign-on, and why one would want to is beyond me. Maybe we should all just quit with the willy-waving and just use a bit of common sense.
itsnotthatbloodyhard is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 21:30
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 340
Received 53 Likes on 26 Posts
Originally Posted by itsnotthatbloodyhard
AP, not too many posts back, you seemed convinced that ground staff retain control and responsibility up to the point where the aircraft moves under its own power. ("So, if there's an engine fire during pushback and the cabin fills with smoke, the Captain should call the gate staff is that right???"). I found that a bit astounding as well. Otherwise I broadly agree with you. I can't say I've ever met a pilot who wants to assume responsibility for the pax at sign-on, and why one would want to is beyond me. Maybe we should all just quit with the willy-waving and just use a bit of common sense.
Point taken i-n-t-b-h... I didn't mention it earlier but it was in my mind that one would hope in any of the scenarios common sense would prevail... the PIC would check with emergency services before ordering an evacuation. I don't doubt an earlier post might have seemed to suggest something different because it seems on this forum to go on and on and every time one answers one post something is nit-picked about the next one and it does get to the point where the will to live starts to be lost...
AerialPerspective is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 22:16
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 56
Posts: 3,079
Received 440 Likes on 121 Posts
I'll nit-pick this one
the PIC would check with emergency services before ordering an evacuation
most circumstances a prudent Captain will liaise with emergency services, but there are many circumstances where, still at the gate, with the aerobridge still attached, a prudent captain will call the evacuation and inform the emergency services that the Evac is underway.
This slightly weird conversation about who has the legal responsibility for the pax safety while on the gate is quite interesting / important though. In the United case my guess would be that the captain had the legal responsibility and the security guard then acted illegally in using excessive force. Like I said on another thread I think that in the future I will be having a 2minute chat with the 'police/ security ' prior to them removing someone in case they happen to be the 1/1000000 nut job like in the United case.
My long held assumption is that prior to the captain arriving at the aircraft and boarding the ground engineer would be responsible for the safety of anyone onboard should a fire or other emergency occur, in a perfect world the engineer would 'hand over' to the captain and the responsibility would transfer. Now days with the engineer off on another gate it is less clear what the situation is. Hopefully through this conversation we might nail down something
framer is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 22:25
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 340
Received 53 Likes on 26 Posts
Originally Posted by framer
I'll nit-pick this one most circumstances a prudent Captain will liaise with emergency services, but there are many circumstances where, still at the gate, with the aerobridge still attached, a prudent captain will call the evacuation and inform the emergency services that the Evac is underway.
This slightly weird conversation about who has the legal responsibility for the pax safety while on the gate is quite interesting / important though. In the United case my guess would be that the captain had the legal responsibility and the security guard then acted illegally in using excessive force. Like I said on another thread I think that in the future I will be having a 2minute chat with the 'police/ security ' prior to them removing someone in case they happen to be the 1/1000000 nut job like in the United case.
My long held assumption is that prior to the captain arriving at the aircraft and boarding the ground engineer would be responsible for the safety of anyone onboard should a fire or other emergency occur, in a perfect world the engineer would 'hand over' to the captain and the responsibility would transfer. Now days with the engineer off on another gate it is less clear what the situation is. Hopefully through this conversation we might nail down something
Sounds good and reasonable to me framer.
AerialPerspective is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2017, 01:35
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I coud be completely wrong, but I'd suggest the PIC on UA3411 would bear responsibility for this debacle because of Vicarious liability which states:

Vicarious liability is a form of a strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency, respondeat superior, the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator.
The PIC is responsible for the actions of his Crew and Dispatchers irrespective of whether he knew what was going on or not. I would suspect that the assault on Dr Dao (should he chose to make a formal complaint to the police) could result in criminal charges against the thugs that manhandled him off the flight. This could then extend to the crew who instigated the removal of Dr Dao on the basis there wasn't a valid and lawful reason for his disembarkation. In US law a getaway car driver (an accomplice) is just as guilty of murder as a bank robber who kills someone during a robbery, so using this analogy, the crew could be deemed as accomplices to the assault.
Ovation is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2017, 02:30
  #130 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The PIC is responsible for the actions of his Crew and Dispatchers
Don't think so. The Captain is responsible for his crew and the senior traffic person present is responsible for the traffic(ground) staff. Two entirely separate branches of the same tree.
parabellum is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2017, 03:00
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hunter Valley NSW
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by AerialPerspective
Because it takes two hours to walk from the standby lounge to a gate??? There is such a thing as 'Airport Standby'.
And? So where is the cordination between crew scheduling, and booking/ check in.?
Ida down is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2017, 04:27
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
(2) A pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for:

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


(not that we should be using Australian regulations BUT CASA defines "flight" as



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; and



No to me this is quite clear and not in anyway grey or hard to interpret.


The operator (company) shall designate a Pilot in command for each "flight".

(1) For each flight the operator shall designate one pilot to act as pilot in command.
Band a Lot is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2017, 04:46
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 56
Posts: 3,079
Received 440 Likes on 121 Posts
Let's assume you are correct Bandalot, if, prior to " the moment at which the aircraft first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking off", but after both engines are running and the ground staff have disconnected and walked back to the terminal, the right engine throws a turbine blade through the fuse.........who is responsible at that point? Everyone knows it is the PinC but by your definition........who is it?
framer is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2017, 04:48
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From a real life example.

I was the FE on a flight ex Bali. The Captain and other pilots had not boarded but the pax and cabin crew were on board and fuelling was in progress.

As I did my preflight a local Fokker stopped right behind us and virtually under our tail with a brake fire.

I stopped the fuelling and initiated a pax evacuation via stairs.

Since my authority was a delegation via the Captain are you saying that I had no authority until the doors closed?

If I didn't, who had authority?

Wunwing
Wunwing is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2017, 05:07
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
framer, I keep saying it depends on the country.

Here in Australia as per the CASA definition and the regs posted it may not be a pilot - but it could be if ops manual states it is.

** In Australia as per the regulations and laws this United Flight the Pilot (to be in command) would not be responsible for the mess that happened - in some countries he is (if he knew or not).

That is why there needs to be a known point a pilot is responsible/ in command.
Band a Lot is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2017, 05:11
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
* not real life*


Sadly a captain got news his wife had terminal cancer, thiswas devastating news for the family their 5 adult kids with partners and 12grand children.

The wife had always wanted to do a big cruise on the Queen Mary in fact it wason her bucket list, as a loving husband he decided to secretly take a mortgageof $250,000 on the family house and have all the family (24) go on a 90 day cruiseon the Queen Mary the last cruise before it was going for a 12 month refurbish.

The Captain was rostered for a flight to London that landed 7 hours before thecruise ship departed and managed to get the rest of his family on the sameflight as he was going to be in command of that day.

On the day the captain (2 hours before departure) checked the weather and itwas pretty good with just a few storms around but getting bigger, the aircraftwas almost fully booked and had 2,400 kg of freight and was going to be veryclose to max takeoff.

As this flight was important to the captain he told the dispatcher that hewanted 2,000 kg more fuel. The dispatcher explained that the fuel load was wellwithin legal limits, but the captain said "I want 2,000 more fuel". Thedispatcher said ok I will arrange that for you, there may be a 5-10 minutedelay but I will keep you informed.

The captain now happy having plenty of fuel for holding ifrequired got ready with pre flight checks.

The dispatcher firstly calls the refulers to put 2,000 kg of extra fuel on theplane, checks the manifests and sees the 2,400 kg freight is in fact mail freightand part of a new $3 billion contract the company just won.

Thinking quickly the dispatcher calls for the flight to be delayed as noboarding has taken place and an almost empty aircraft can take all 200 paxs andbaggage on the next flight in 8 hours time. It will inconvenient for some paxbut they will get to their location, all be it a little late - but the mailcontract will be on time.

The dispatcher calls the captain and says there will not be any delay and hewill bring up the new load sheet shortly.

The dispatcher gives the captain his new load sheet that has zero pax and only2,400 of freight and fully compliant with regulations and captains request forfuel load.

I don't think a captain has the power/responsibility or command to demand (legal)freight be off loaded and pax be loaded - but I do wonder if he boarded thecruise ship alone or blew the entire $250,000.

Band a Lot is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2017, 05:20
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The claim of the PIC being responsible from sign on was in regard to crew only and I think was in relation to a dispute on check out at an overnight hotel.
Band a Lot is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2017, 05:29
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Here is a real life example!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VHXRYXzEVU
Band a Lot is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2017, 05:44
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 340
Received 53 Likes on 26 Posts
Originally Posted by Ida down
And? So where is the cordination between crew scheduling, and booking/ check in.?
Oh for goodness sake, would you like it translated to Swahili or something for you to get it... FLIGHT CLOSED, PAX BOARDED, THEN OPS CALL AND SAY WE'VE JUST GOT WORD WE NEED FOUR CREW IN XYZ AND YOUR FLIGHT IS THE NEXT ONE TO DEPART... that's HOW, there's not much chance of coordination if the need becomes evident right at the last minute. How can you not understand that... it's no different to a Pilot taxiing to a runway and then being advised of a runway change because of facts that have just come to light... you can't accuse the tower of 'lack of coordination' if the wind just changed right then. Jeeeez, my daughters kitten would have grasped it by now.
AerialPerspective is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2017, 07:32
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes on 11 Posts
So here I am at a stand off bay at YGAFA where there is no engineer, period, and only a few contract ground handlers when during start we have a tail pipe fire. Hmmmm? We haven't moved yet Band a Lot, so what pray tell do I do next to manage the situation and mitigate against the threat becoming uncontrollable which would obviously endanger all on board? Who is in command in this scenario? I'm now dying to know. Who has legal responsibility at this point?
Troo believer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.