US Airways Captain Escorted from Aircraft

[autoflight]

Accepting company requests with less consideration for your own due consideration and experience is a one-way street. Any diversion resulting from the company request also puts extra pressure on captain to use discretionary duty time extensions to complete the mission. Such a captain will be seen as cooperative and will be first on the list for future dodgy missions. The time to make a stand it at the beginning. Start as you will finish.

[aviatorhi]

-If the Captain and the company aren't certain that the flight can get to its destination, but the company is willing to bet that it'll be able to land somewhere, that's good enough?

That's absolutely correct, the Captain is not running the business, he is running the flight.

Crews are not hired to make economic decisions on behalf of the company, they are hired and paid to execute them once they have been made.

[fireflybob]

Crews are not hired to make economic decisions on behalf of the company, they are hired and paid to execute them once they have been made.

You are joking, I hope!

So the Captain of an aeroplane isn't paid, amongst other things, to make "economic decisions"?

Gee, I have had it wrong for all these years!

[aviatorhi]

So the Captain of an aeroplane isn't paid, amongst other things, to make "economic decisions"?

When do you have the CA of an aircraft deciding whom to purchase fuel from, which airport to serve when multiple airport are available, whom to contract for loading the aircraft, obtaining overflight permits, doing the actual flight planning (at your average airline anyway), arranging accommodation, setting prices etc. etc. etc.

Which airline expects this of their CAs?

If you're talking about speeds, obtaining better routing once en route and general management of the flight then this falls under the responsibility he has to operate the flight. The company still decides whether or not they want to operate a particular flight.

I'd love to see you get in an aircraft and decide to start serving Oslo from Nairobi without consulting the people who own/manage the place because you, as Captain, are making your own "economic decision".

[Savoia]

.

When this sort of problems ensue it is usually not the "captain" vs the "company" but the "captain" vs an "individual within the company" that is in an ego/power trip that makes him/her unable to accept the superior knowledge and decision making capability of somebody he/she considers a subordinate.

Sad, and made worse by the fact that it is all too often true.

[matkat]

As an Engineer it is not my job to make economic decisions if it is unsafe I will not and never will sign off an aircraft if the repair will constitue major cost then so be it, I am not an accountant.

[fireflybob]

aviatorhi, I think it's a question of semantics.

Of course in any company we are all part of team which hopefully is working together to operate economically and safely.

The simple point I was making is that it is part of the Captain's remit to operate economically. In a well run organisation this will be done in consultation with Ops etc.

An example? Did a flight last year and the destination was forecasting CAT 2/3 but our a/c had been downgraded to CAT 1. A call to Ops (they were not aware) suggesting an a/c swap which they agreed to. Result? We didn't have to divert and incur extra expense/delay etc.

[aviatorhi]

An example? Did a flight last year and the destination was forecasting CAT 2/3 but our a/c had been downgraded to CAT 1. A call to Ops (they were not aware) suggesting an a/c swap which they agreed to. Result? We didn't have to divert and incur extra expense/delay etc.

Which is pretty much exactly my viewpoint and the point I've been trying to make. You became aware of an impractical situation, from being on the scene and professional knowledge you were able to provide a suggestion as to a resolution, company made the decision, you executed, rather than simply walking away because the assigned A/C was CAT 1 only. On the other hand, if the company decided they wanted to operate the CAT 1 aircraft and delay the flight or hold over the airport until weather improved (with sufficient fuel) or flag stop at an intermediate airport etc. etc. etc. I (personally) would have no problem doing that as well.

Reality is that at some point, in aviation, you will end up "rolling the dice" (if you didn't then no aircraft would ever move). Far too many pilots sit back and do nothing, then blame the company for infringing on their authority.

[DutchRoll]

Originally Posted by aviatorhi

The Captain of any flight is not the "be all, end all" authority

Mate, I don't know who you work for or what your knowledge of regulations is, but here's a snippet of ours for you to digest (and they are based closely on US FARs). These regulations are l-a-w. There are significant penalties for breaching them.

Civil Aviation Regulation 224 (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.

People here have been trying to give you the hint. I don't know how we can make it any clearer.

[SeniorDispatcher]

The Captain still has the absolute right to not accept the aircraft even if it is in the MEL - in fact all the MELs I have seen iterate this fact in the preamble. The Captain might deem that a certain combination of defects on that particular flight is not acceptable.

In my airline's (FAR Part 121) MEL Preamble secion, under "Responsibility For Decision", it states that the Captain and the Dispatcher have the ability and responsibility to decline an aircraft, irrespective of MEL permissiveness, if either don't feel the aircraft is safe for the intended operation.

There are probably some out there that will interpret this as a dilution of a PIC's authority, but it's actually a backstop to it. It's not as if a dispatcher's "yes" can overrule a PIC's "no", but rather a potential situation of a dispatcher's "no" overruling a PIC's "yes". I've had more than one situation over the years where an overzealous PIC (or MX controller) really wanted to move a sick aircraft to a point where the crew domicile or maintenance facility was located, and have had to be the one to put the kabosh on the operation, both for the benefit to the passengers and the corporate enitity itself. PIC authority is not unfettered, that's why FAR 91.3 doesn't actually apply to operations conducted under Part 121, and FAR 121.533/121.557 (Domestic) and 121.535/121.557 (Flag) do.

The reason I bring this up is because since USAirways is a Part 121 Flag carrier, what was their dispatcher's role in all this? Were they also saying "no" to the proposed operation? If they were agreeable to it, that doesn't change the PIC's ability to decline the aircraft--I'm just curious what role they had in the process.

[Dawdler]

As you guys are mostly pilots on here, how many of you can say hand on heart that you have never taken off in a aircraft that had a defect you were concerned about?

I was once on a aircraft taking off from Schiphol. Some way down the runway the captain changed his mind about completing the take off. He had the good grace to come on to the PA and tell us that there had been a computer fault which he thought he could override. Apparently the faster the aircraft went, the more insistent the warnings became that he should not do so. Eventually he conceded that aborting the take off was the wise thing to do. In order to rectify the fault we had to sit on an unused taxiway, whilst he re-booted the computer. This took about twenty minutes (perhaps ATC delays contributed to this) So we landed a bit late.

I have never really made up my mind whether I commend him for admitting his mistake or blame him for making it in the first place. It makes me wonder how many times I have been on an aircraft in which the safe arrival has been a bit marginal.

I did once fly with a small airline across the North Sea, in which the flight deck door was a curtain. Sometime into the flight the curtain moved and we could see that several of the instruments were not working , indeed at least two of them were smashed! Needless to say we arrived safely, but it was all a bit worrying.

[ironbutt57]

Im sure after all things considered, they apparently accepted the aircraft for dispatch, if the information we all have about the incident is complete and accurate, I would have as well, but methinks there is more to this than meets the eye, and yes dispatcher, I agree with you whole heartedly!!

[BobT]

This thread went more or less entirely as expected.

I have no idea about the condition of the a/c. I start from the assumption that she was entitled to refuse it and so she did. Whether this refusal was wise, or consistent with other similar situations, few seem to have gotten around to discussing much.

Such refusals have occurred in the past, and they didn't end with the pilot being escorted out of the airport. So what's the difference here? Could it be the nature of the PAs provided to customers (which also have gone unremarked upon here)? Just a coincidence that US pilots have had a long-standing labor dispute with US (or more precisely, US pilots have had a long-standing dispute with former HP pilots)? Just a coincidence that the union took out a full-page ad to criticize the airline? Just a coincidence that the pilot involved was a higher-visibility, easier to defend (from a politically-correct POV) person?

I believe one is naive to believe this episode was unrelated to that dispute.

[ironbutt57]

I believe you are entirely correct Bob T

[aviatorhi]

People here have been trying to give you the hint. I don't know how we can make it any clearer.

We've thoroughly beaten this into the ground and I've said before that the CA is fully in charge of the aircraft in terms of operating it, but not in determining which assignments are given to them. My point is that instead of categorically rejecting an aircraft for a particular flight and going into a tirade on the PA this CA (and others in similar circumstances) should simply provide the company with what is possible given the current condition of the aircraft and expected performance enroute. Much as fireflybob said regarding an aircraft switch to accommodate a flight rather than reject it.

[J.O.]

So now in addition to carrying the responsibilities of command, we're going to expect a captain to act as a dispatcher, SOCC manager and Maintrol supervisor? What a load of rubbish. The captain's job is to do their best to complete the mission as assigned, i.e. take an A330 from PHL to FCO. If that is not possible in the captain's eyes, their job is to articulate why, to stay on the scene to manage the effects and ensure the passengers are cared for and then let the other above-mentioned blokes deal with it.

[UGAWINGS]

That's the way to go, "without safety, no revenue".

[SeniorDispatcher]

Mate, I don't know who you work for or what your knowledge of regulations is, but here's a snippet of ours for you to digest (and they are based closely on US FARs). These regulations are l-a-w. There are significant penalties for breaching them.

Civil Aviation Regulation 224 (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.

People here have been trying to give you the hint. I don't know how we can make it any clearer.

What also seems clear is that "close" only counts with horse shoes and hand grenades. While your cited 224 (3) I'm sure is applicable in your neck of the woods, the reg applicable to the USAirways flight is FAR 121.535, as follows, with my emphasis in bold:

§ 121.535 Responsibility for operational control: Flag operations.
(a) Each certificate holder conducting flag operations is responsible for operational control.

(b) The pilot in command and the aircraft dispatcher are jointly responsible for the preflight planning, delay, and dispatch release of a flight in compliance with this chapter and operations specifications.

(c) The aircraft dispatcher is responsible for—

(1) Monitoring the progress of each flight;

(2) Issuing necessary instructions and information for the safety of the flight; and

(3) Cancelling or redispatching a flight if, in his opinion or the opinion of the pilot in command, the flight cannot operate or continue to operate safely as planned or released.

(d) Each pilot in command of an aircraft is, during flight time, in command of the aircraft and crew and is responsible for the safety of the passengers, crewmembers, cargo, and airplane.

(e) Each pilot in command has full control and authority in the operation of the aircraft, without limitation, over other crewmembers and their duties during flight time, whether or not he holds valid certificates authorizing him to perform the duties of those crewmembers.

(f) No pilot may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger life or property.

Here, the distinction is made whether the flight is on the deck, or in the air. On the ground, there are other entities involved.

Cheers...

[aterpster]

SeniorDispatcher:

Each pilot in command of an aircraft is, during flight time, in command of the aircraft and crew and is responsible for the safety of the passengers, crewmembers, cargo, and airplane.

And the implication that necessarily follows is the the pilot in command must assure that all aspects of the aircraft, its loading, and its passengers, must be to his/her's satisfaction, otherwise he or she may not be able to satisfy the cited regulation once engaged in flight time.

[woodyspooney]

The lady captain's decision was a technically and professionally correct one.

Having said that, in the real world, any captain's decision that goes against the company's commercial interest will be badly frown upon and the powers that be will try their very best to get their pound of flesh. Any decision that goes against the other trolls' who think they know best with the best of the company's interest at heart will be taken as a deliberate attack on their superiority.

A few years ago, a colleague of mine had a small fuel leak ( which went undetected by even the sophiscated, high tech real time maintenance monitoring ) decided to go against the company's decision to continue to destination as their maintenance control reckoned the skipper was wrong in assessing a small anomaly as a fuel leak. When he insisted on diverting, they demanded he returned to base. However with the prevailing tailwinds, a 180 degrees return to base entails a 7 hour diversion whereas an enroute diversion would have been only a 2.5 hours; seeing the stupidity of the operations control/maintenance control, he countermanded the company's decision, wrested a grudging approval to divert to a suitable enroute airport where he was proven right that there was indeed an engine fuel leak. Technically, operationally and safety wise, he was vindicated. But the company put him through hell, grounded him for several weeks, trying every trick in the book to trip him during the various enquiries. He maintained technical and professional integrity throughout; he was finally released back on line with " no comment " on the incident. When he enquired further, he was quietly pulled aside and told that in the interest of his future contract ( it was a commuting contract ), he should " let go ". Of course he took the advice under protest. This was taken unkindly and true enough some time later he found himself " failed " a sim check under dubious circumstances. THE MESSAGE WAS CLEAR.

I hope our lady captain come away totally unscathed but be warned; the knives will be out and pain can come at the most unexpected time when you think everything has blown away......just my 2 cents!