United GRU-ORD Divert to MIA to Offload Purser
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe:
I believe I supplied a direct quote.
Rainboe, I freely admit that I have no actual expertise and experience in large aeroplane, large crew, long range operations to impart, though I'm not convinced of the relevance of that to my offering comments or an opinion here. I do get the benevolent dictator thing, I really do. Thing is, absent the benevolent part the dictator part can't work in isolation except in the most extreme circumstances.
I along with others have speculated and offered opinions that draw on the factual elements of the story which are not in dispute:
Now if you want to speculate using the same basic facts and offer an opinion that exonerates the captain's behavior, then have at it. But a blanket assertion of command authority as many have offered in the captain's defense simply doesn't cut it, and asserting that we should all just shut up and await the captain's side of the story we are never likely to see or wait for the results of an investigation that will likely never be made public is a cop out.
Oh, and life isn't always fair. Even for folks who have managed to scale the heights of command within a flag carrier but then screw up over something as stupid and insignificant as would appear to be the case here.
Post #28 for all those keeping count.
So where have I been biased other than expecting him to have a fair hearing with his side of the story also being heard?
Rainboe, I freely admit that I have no actual expertise and experience in large aeroplane, large crew, long range operations to impart, though I'm not convinced of the relevance of that to my offering comments or an opinion here. I do get the benevolent dictator thing, I really do. Thing is, absent the benevolent part the dictator part can't work in isolation except in the most extreme circumstances.
I along with others have speculated and offered opinions that draw on the factual elements of the story which are not in dispute:
- In the early morning of 14 July United Flight 842 from Sao Paulo, Brazil to Chicago O'Hare diverted to Miami international some 8 hours into a scheduled eleven hour non-stop flight. The flight was on the ground for about 1 hour during which time the purser was the sole person to disembark before the aircraft took off again and continued on to Chicago where it arrived safely a little over one hour later than originally scheduled. The purser was not arrested or placed in preventative custody.
- A United spokeswoman has been reported as saying: "The pilot chose to divert the flight due to a crew issue".
- An FAA spokesman has been reported as confirming that the captain felt the matter needed to be resolved on the ground, and that the aircraft landed without incident in Miami and was on the ground for less than an hour before departing to Chicago.
Now if you want to speculate using the same basic facts and offer an opinion that exonerates the captain's behavior, then have at it. But a blanket assertion of command authority as many have offered in the captain's defense simply doesn't cut it, and asserting that we should all just shut up and await the captain's side of the story we are never likely to see or wait for the results of an investigation that will likely never be made public is a cop out.
Oh, and life isn't always fair. Even for folks who have managed to scale the heights of command within a flag carrier but then screw up over something as stupid and insignificant as would appear to be the case here.
Post #28 for all those keeping count.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we should all just shut up and await the captain's side of the story we are never likely to see or wait for the results of an investigation that will likely never be made public is a cop out.
Oh, and life isn't always fair. Even for folks who have managed to scale the heights of command within a flag carrier but then screw up over something as stupid and insignificant as would appear to be the case here.
Oh, and life isn't always fair. Even for folks who have managed to scale the heights of command within a flag carrier but then screw up over something as stupid and insignificant as would appear to be the case here.
1- you don't understand what it is all about. Are you even a real pilot?
2- you only have one side of the story.
3- you don't know what went on to lead up to the 'incident' (which didn't happen).
And you attack someone trying to say we don't have enough information to deliver a verdict on anybody almost as vehemently! 20% of all your postings on this board have been trying to deliver a hammer blow to the Captain. A triffle bizarre don't you think? Do we have to have a damning verdict from you 28 times?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Post #29
To be honest I don't find the actual incident (generic English, not aviation specific lingo) as interesting as the number of my postings on this thread might suggest. But the Rorschach test aspect? now that has been interesting.
Depends how you would define real. By your lights, probably not.
To be honest I don't find the actual incident (generic English, not aviation specific lingo) as interesting as the number of my postings on this thread might suggest. But the Rorschach test aspect? now that has been interesting.
Are you even a real pilot?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aspects of this thread that actually pertain to the title, have been long exhausted. I promise on my honor no more than a few people will ultimately know what happened before and after the unfortunate situation. In the interests of the Line, the Forum, and Aviation, could we consider moving along ?
Will
Will
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeez, some have done a lot to destroy the image of the cool, unflappable airline pilot. Not likely you’ll be invited to work in the PR department after you retire. 
Rainboe you say there was no incident. Those in the profession use the word “incident” in a special way but the rest of the ignorant world (according to you) uses “incident” to talk about something that happened, which is the case here.As for the fact that the crew flew the last leg with him, it could just mean they didn’t want to upset the passengers even more with another delay, and with two FOs to wrestle this Captain to the ground if his attitude affected his airmanship, maybe they felt safe enough to get on with the day.
Even though there won’t be an official report, someone will probably leak whether this guy is working a few weeks down the road. (Especially, if rumours are true-this is a rumour network- that he wasn’t the most popular dude and insisted that the FO’s called him “Sir” even on the layover.)Then we’ll know whose been betting on the wrong horse.
Rainboe you say there was no incident. Those in the profession use the word “incident” in a special way but the rest of the ignorant world (according to you) uses “incident” to talk about something that happened, which is the case here.As for the fact that the crew flew the last leg with him, it could just mean they didn’t want to upset the passengers even more with another delay, and with two FOs to wrestle this Captain to the ground if his attitude affected his airmanship, maybe they felt safe enough to get on with the day.
Even though there won’t be an official report, someone will probably leak whether this guy is working a few weeks down the road. (Especially, if rumours are true-this is a rumour network- that he wasn’t the most popular dude and insisted that the FO’s called him “Sir” even on the layover.)Then we’ll know whose been betting on the wrong horse.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You daft individual! Can't you read? Has the meaning of this thread passed you by totally? I have not bet on any 'horse'. I have merely wanted more information before forming any opinion about the professional actions of someone who proved himself in aviation before half the readers of this forum were unfortunately dragged into this world to subsequently wail he should be sacked without knowing the details! And if your understanding of airline operations is as in that post, you should crawl back under the stone you came from! That posting defiles the profession! What are you doing here commenting like that? True idiocy.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 62
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barring a last minute revelation from an insider, it appears that this thread has run its course.
One wishes all the UA personnel involved the best. Whatever happened that night it seems tough that experienced and dedicated staff who have given their all to fly (both cabin and flying crew) might lose their jobs or have damaged their careers in what might have been a petty and ultimately futile dispute.
One wishes all the UA personnel involved the best. Whatever happened that night it seems tough that experienced and dedicated staff who have given their all to fly (both cabin and flying crew) might lose their jobs or have damaged their careers in what might have been a petty and ultimately futile dispute.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Namibfox. I think the idiots have really come out of the woodwork now, and it is time I stopped before I get a ban. In fact, I hereby ban myself from this thread! One hoped for a bit of intelligent communication, but it disappeared into the ether like a wisp of cigarette smoke.
Read it and weep what Pprune has come to!
Read it and weep what Pprune has come to!
As for the fact that the crew flew the last leg with him, it could just mean they didn’t want to upset the passengers even more with another delay, and with two FOs to wrestle this Captain to the ground if his attitude affected his airmanship, maybe they felt safe enough to get on with the day.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Magic Kingdom
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiley
I've stood a cabin crewmember down once after he lead what amounted to a mutiny among a small number of very junior male cabin crew of similar nationalities to his own against a European female purser. (There were race/religion/gender issues involved that someone who has not lived in the Middle East would (a) not believe and (b) would have little chance of understanding.) Diverting was an option I must admit I did not consider even for a fleeting moment. After an indepth investigation, the gentleman involved was sacked upon our arrival back at home port.
...and anyone familiar with the Middle East will not be at all surprised to learn that he was re-instated two weeks later. But funnily enough, he never once appeared among my crew after returning to work with the company.
I've stood a cabin crewmember down once after he lead what amounted to a mutiny among a small number of very junior male cabin crew of similar nationalities to his own against a European female purser. (There were race/religion/gender issues involved that someone who has not lived in the Middle East would (a) not believe and (b) would have little chance of understanding.) Diverting was an option I must admit I did not consider even for a fleeting moment. After an indepth investigation, the gentleman involved was sacked upon our arrival back at home port.
...and anyone familiar with the Middle East will not be at all surprised to learn that he was re-instated two weeks later. But funnily enough, he never once appeared among my crew after returning to work with the company.
- You were flying for a ME Carrier
- Said Male crew member was a national
- You realized that a diversion (no matter how justified for this purpose) was going to help your long term employment options with the airline.
End of the day, it doesn't matter what justification the captain had. His decision to land at MIA cannot be questioned as he had the authority.
All that has happened is that he has lost credibility and trust with his employer. This is the true issue at hand.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Childish abuse deleted.
Post #30.
Well if his decision can't be questioned then he doesn't have a problem does he? Cannot be questioned by whom? He had the authority to divert at any time for any reason he deemed necessary, provided he could subsequently justify the decision to his employer and the regulatory authorities. There is also the little matter of his allegedly passing false information to the authorities at MIA regarding a security problem on board as his reason for the diversion, to consider. Any captain's authority is limited under the concept of operational control and can be withheld by his employer, the regulatory authorities or both, once he is back on terra firma. With significant consequences for his continued employment and career. Which is why I still question UAL's decision to allow him to continue on to ORD.
Post #30.
His decision to land at MIA cannot be questioned as he had the authority. All that has happened is that he has lost credibility and trust with his employer. This is the true issue at hand.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which is why I still question UAL's decision to allow him to continue on to ORD.
All you can do is express an opinion, which can be discarded by others, without reservation.
Now, as to the actual authority of the Captain (generally speaking).
Once airbourne, it is unlimited, IE: the Captain is in charge, period, unless he becomes medically incapacitated. In many cases this is also true on the ground.
Case in point.
Some years ago, whilst waiting for start-up clearance at DEL, we are informed that there will be a VIP movement, and the airfield is now closed for two hours to normal operations.
As the passengers had not yet boarded, they remained in the departure lounge.
So far, so good.
However, as we were to depart for a long haul flight, it became quite apparent that our normally allowed duty period would be exceeded, so I told the cabin crew of my decision to use SCD to complete the flight, and one objected, so she was promptly off-loaded.
As we had one extra anyway, it made no difference.
Apparently slightly miffed at being off-loaded, she complained to the relevant regulatory authority, which just happened to be the UKCAA.
She was told, by a senior CAA inspector (whom I happened to personally know) that....the Captain has the final say as to whether the duty time shall be extended, and there was absolutely nothing she could actually do about it.
She gambled...and lost, as expected.
She was also promptly terminated.
Now, as to the 'suitability' of the Captain in the UAL case to continue to the destination (ORD), I firmly expect that this will come up in any hearing and...the Captain has a very good case, as clearly UAL allowed him to continue, yet UAL reasonably can not now say...he is unsuitable.
This will head for the courts I suspect, and I also expect the Captain will prevail...IE: collect the big bucks...if it comes to that.
However, I expect it will be settled out of court, to the Captains benefit.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MU3001A, you silly boy. You still don't understand.
Unless you have an ATPL, don't dare comment about something that is more about people skills, common sense and ego than anything requiring specialist knowledge. To use the logic of some, if you are on a bus and the bus driver behaves strangely, don't even think about it because you don't understand what's involved in driving a bus. When your eating at a restaurant and the meal isn't right, don't assume there's anything wrong with it because your not a chef. When the drycleaner ruins your shirt, don't suggest that he could have done something wrong. You don't understand his job and it could be all the fumes he has to inhale.
Makes as much sense.
It's true we don't know the whole story and it's possible that the diversion can be justified. Time will tell if the real authority, UAL management agrees, not to mention the judgement of the regulatory authorities. There will be no fat settlement if it is decided false claims were made.What galls me is the mentality that "he couldn't possibly be wrong because he's one of us" and everyone who suggests otherwise (PPLs, ATCO's, SLF, etc.) is a liar, an idiot and so on.
I salute all the Captains who amazingly deal with their staff without diverting and
possibly declaring them terrorists, even though you've got the authority. Also, those smart enough to figure out that my comment about the two FO's "wrestling" with the Captain was made in jest. The point was that the crew, CC in particular, might have continued the flight (as one poster said) because the purser urged them to consider the passengers. To dismiss that possibility is just as bad as passing final judgement on the Captain.
Unless you have an ATPL, don't dare comment about something that is more about people skills, common sense and ego than anything requiring specialist knowledge. To use the logic of some, if you are on a bus and the bus driver behaves strangely, don't even think about it because you don't understand what's involved in driving a bus. When your eating at a restaurant and the meal isn't right, don't assume there's anything wrong with it because your not a chef. When the drycleaner ruins your shirt, don't suggest that he could have done something wrong. You don't understand his job and it could be all the fumes he has to inhale.
Makes as much sense.It's true we don't know the whole story and it's possible that the diversion can be justified. Time will tell if the real authority, UAL management agrees, not to mention the judgement of the regulatory authorities. There will be no fat settlement if it is decided false claims were made.What galls me is the mentality that "he couldn't possibly be wrong because he's one of us" and everyone who suggests otherwise (PPLs, ATCO's, SLF, etc.) is a liar, an idiot and so on.
I salute all the Captains who amazingly deal with their staff without diverting and
possibly declaring them terrorists, even though you've got the authority. Also, those smart enough to figure out that my comment about the two FO's "wrestling" with the Captain was made in jest. The point was that the crew, CC in particular, might have continued the flight (as one poster said) because the purser urged them to consider the passengers. To dismiss that possibility is just as bad as passing final judgement on the Captain.
Guest
Posts: n/a
His decision to land at MIA cannot be questioned as he had the authority. All that has happened is that he has lost credibility and trust with his employer. This is the true issue at hand.
Clearly any employee who loses the confidence of their employer has a major career problem (true in any industry).
We don't know that he has lost UA's confidence though. In fact we don't much at all about the detail of this case and as some posters have been saying, we may be flogging a dead horse here.
Never has so much been made by so many out of so little detail.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: SW tip of Europe
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Christ, again!...
Captain`s authority unlimited??
No sir, it is not! Put it that way and someone will start thinking any airline captain is a true god with power absolute!!!
Some captains tend to think that the law is resumed to the rules and regulations applied to their job inside a flight deck. Well, here are some news: it’s not. There a whole lot of law outside the aircraft doors and whatever you do as well as those rules and regulations must not go against it. Unless you want to have it barging into your life, on the wrong stand, that is…
On another note, an airline captain is also part of a chain of command. The crew may be below him but there may be quite a lot of people above. If at any imaginable moment of decision he does have full authority (99% of the time, that is…) that does not mean that he cannot be held accountable for his decisions. On the contrary, he will explain and justify his actions to his bosses and may even be required to do so to regulatory authorities, courts of law, police, customs, etc…And if eventually he screws up he will pay the price, just like anyone else.
That’s one of the many reasons why aircraft captains should be, by definition, balanced, reasonable and sensible people. And, thank God, most of them are...
On the question at hand I will, however, agree with Rainboe on one respect: there is still insufficient information for a clear analysis of what happened. Not wishing, in any way, to demerit what was posted here by CCs on the flight I would still want to know what went on in the captains head before passing any sort of judgment. But that has to work both ways: if, at this stage, you can’t pin the medal on the purser you certainly cannot pin it on the captain, either. So instead of just advising it, let’s keep our options open shall we?
As to the lack of sense, arrogance and derogation I´ve seen in certain messages on this thread just two simple thoughts:
- We’re not talking about technical issues of flying an airliner, here. We’re talking about issues such as human interactivity, exercise of authority, command and leadership skills and, yes, possible legal issues. And, in that respect, I fail to see where airline captains are more qualified to discuss such matters than a lot of other people. So some hardliners here should step down from their self-built pedestal. Who knows, they actually may end up learning something…
- As for the arrogant, even rude, way in which some hardliners refer to passengers ( or SLFs as you call them) let me remind you of this: if you are actually flying an airliner that’s because you have an airline (i.e. a job). And if the airline exists that’s because there are enough SLFs to fill your airliners cabin. Yes, that’s right, all those carcasses behind your flight deck door are keeping your airline in business and paying your salary. So, next time you refer to them please try a little more respect, unless your ultimate goal in life is to fly paper planes from your back yard. In which case please go away and let others earn their living in peace!
Again, my apologies to the many decent people around here. Including the majority of the airline captains in the house.
Ah…and if someone, eventually, wishes do demerit, or devaluate my opinion, let me tell you honestly – I couldn’t really care less!
Cheers!
No sir, it is not! Put it that way and someone will start thinking any airline captain is a true god with power absolute!!!
Some captains tend to think that the law is resumed to the rules and regulations applied to their job inside a flight deck. Well, here are some news: it’s not. There a whole lot of law outside the aircraft doors and whatever you do as well as those rules and regulations must not go against it. Unless you want to have it barging into your life, on the wrong stand, that is…
On another note, an airline captain is also part of a chain of command. The crew may be below him but there may be quite a lot of people above. If at any imaginable moment of decision he does have full authority (99% of the time, that is…) that does not mean that he cannot be held accountable for his decisions. On the contrary, he will explain and justify his actions to his bosses and may even be required to do so to regulatory authorities, courts of law, police, customs, etc…And if eventually he screws up he will pay the price, just like anyone else.
That’s one of the many reasons why aircraft captains should be, by definition, balanced, reasonable and sensible people. And, thank God, most of them are...
On the question at hand I will, however, agree with Rainboe on one respect: there is still insufficient information for a clear analysis of what happened. Not wishing, in any way, to demerit what was posted here by CCs on the flight I would still want to know what went on in the captains head before passing any sort of judgment. But that has to work both ways: if, at this stage, you can’t pin the medal on the purser you certainly cannot pin it on the captain, either. So instead of just advising it, let’s keep our options open shall we?
As to the lack of sense, arrogance and derogation I´ve seen in certain messages on this thread just two simple thoughts:
- We’re not talking about technical issues of flying an airliner, here. We’re talking about issues such as human interactivity, exercise of authority, command and leadership skills and, yes, possible legal issues. And, in that respect, I fail to see where airline captains are more qualified to discuss such matters than a lot of other people. So some hardliners here should step down from their self-built pedestal. Who knows, they actually may end up learning something…
- As for the arrogant, even rude, way in which some hardliners refer to passengers ( or SLFs as you call them) let me remind you of this: if you are actually flying an airliner that’s because you have an airline (i.e. a job). And if the airline exists that’s because there are enough SLFs to fill your airliners cabin. Yes, that’s right, all those carcasses behind your flight deck door are keeping your airline in business and paying your salary. So, next time you refer to them please try a little more respect, unless your ultimate goal in life is to fly paper planes from your back yard. In which case please go away and let others earn their living in peace!
Again, my apologies to the many decent people around here. Including the majority of the airline captains in the house.
Ah…and if someone, eventually, wishes do demerit, or devaluate my opinion, let me tell you honestly – I couldn’t really care less!
Cheers!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Childish abuse deleted.
Facing a group of shouting and yelling 12 year old desperadoes the Captain walked up to the front of the aircraft, grabbed the nearest boy and lifted him up by the lapels of his blazer and glaring told us all that if he heard another word from any of us throughout the flight, he would come out and beat us.
Silence and respect reigned. The flight was completed in absolute safety and we all shuffled off the plane wanting to be airline Captains.
- We’re not talking about technical issues of flying an airliner, here. We’re talking about issues such as human interactivity, exercise of authority, command and leadership skills and, yes, possible legal issues. And, in that respect, I fail to see where airline captains are more qualified to discuss such matters than a lot of other people. So some hardliners here should step down from their self-built pedestal. Who knows, they actually may end up learning something…
----> so I actually know what I am talking about.
Well, you are quite right. Let's suppose that both the senior FA and the Captain of this flight are both allowed to continue their jobs with United. That would mean that the captain has apparently "won" the argument whether he was entitled to make the Miami stopover for whatever reason.
So in a purely legal sense, he was right. He had the command authority to do as he pleased.
But that is more or less where it ends. The rest of his command authority has been destroyed by his own actions. His position as an effective captain has been undermined by himself.
Crew members will refuse to fly with him, and probably for the wrong reasons, but nontheless...
One of the specific tasks our company has attributed to the captain, is team building. Creating a positive working atmosphere. I am sure UAL has the same sort of system. Apparently this captain has forgotten about this very important, non technical aspect of leaderhip.
So I would probably guess that in a few years, this incident will serve as an example in CRM classrooms.
If I decide to divert and offload a crew member due to safety concerns, (whether justified or not) that would automatically mean that I have to file a so-called Air Safety Report. Which automatically makes it an "Incident".
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of being thoroughly boring I'm going to repeat something I said earlier as quite obviously posters are jumping into the thread without having read the previous posts:
"I believe the stark reality is that being in command of a public transport aircraft, like a B767, is one of the few jobs that one really has to be there and have done to fully understand it, all the theory in the world may not always help. When flying we are, as humans, outside our natural earthbound environment and this effects people in different ways and requires solid training and practice to overcome, again, you have to have been there and done that to fully appreciate this phenomena."
If the cap fits, wear it.
"I believe the stark reality is that being in command of a public transport aircraft, like a B767, is one of the few jobs that one really has to be there and have done to fully understand it, all the theory in the world may not always help. When flying we are, as humans, outside our natural earthbound environment and this effects people in different ways and requires solid training and practice to overcome, again, you have to have been there and done that to fully appreciate this phenomena."
If the cap fits, wear it.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: It wasn't me, I wasn't there, wrong country ;-)
Age: 78
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Auth to div..
Auth to div is between Capt & dispatch, they both share equal auth for the conduct of the flt. This was a UA op. Non FAA/US operators cannot comment on a FAR121 Flag Carrier Op
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Michael B, if there were awards for 'best post' her on proone, I'd put yours up for a Grand Palm with Crossed Thimagigs and Bars. Wonderful stuff. Today, the parents of the kid whose blazer was ruffled would have the captain up on assault charges and half a dozen of the other boys would have been 'scarred for life' after witnessing such 'brutality'.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A:
Exactly so.
I agree that UAL would seem to have placed themselves in an awkward position in allowing the captain to remain in command of the flight to ORD, vis a vis any decision on the captain's continued employment consequent on this incident. I'm sure UAL's POI will also be taking a keen interest in what develops and any rationale put forward justifying decisions made, especially those related to the issue of operational control.
I have assumed the captain coordinated the diversion and subsequent flight to ORD with UAL dispatch, who would have had to re-dispatch the flight to ORD. It might be interesting to hear whether this was in fact the case. My understanding of the limited operational control afforded me as PIC is that should I divert for whatever reason, operational control will revert to the operator/certificate holder once I am back on the ground at the divert field. Requiring me to get re-dispatched before any subsequent flight continuing on to the original destination. If I am wrong and perhaps ignorant of some other provision under the regulations governing international ops by flag carriers I await your correction.
Regards.
It doesn't matter what you might personally question, MU3001A...as you do not have the authority, in a legal sense, to do so. All you can do is express an opinion, which can be discarded by others, without reservation.
I agree that UAL would seem to have placed themselves in an awkward position in allowing the captain to remain in command of the flight to ORD, vis a vis any decision on the captain's continued employment consequent on this incident. I'm sure UAL's POI will also be taking a keen interest in what develops and any rationale put forward justifying decisions made, especially those related to the issue of operational control.
I have assumed the captain coordinated the diversion and subsequent flight to ORD with UAL dispatch, who would have had to re-dispatch the flight to ORD. It might be interesting to hear whether this was in fact the case. My understanding of the limited operational control afforded me as PIC is that should I divert for whatever reason, operational control will revert to the operator/certificate holder once I am back on the ground at the divert field. Requiring me to get re-dispatched before any subsequent flight continuing on to the original destination. If I am wrong and perhaps ignorant of some other provision under the regulations governing international ops by flag carriers I await your correction.
Regards.