captain's authority question
 

Hello!

I have a presentation on captains' authority in one of my classes. I was wondering if you f/o's and captains can help me. What do you guys think of captain's authority? Did you guys have any situations where you didn't agree with the captain's final authority? If so.. What did you do about it?
any replies would be much help!!

Thank you and safe flight!!

Search for this if you aren't already familiar, may be useful:
British European Airways Flight 548 Sunday, 18 June 1972

flyremnant
 

The following are from ICAO Anex 2 which may help, however you probably need to look at how your own governing authority views it.

2.3.1 Responsibility of pilot-in-command

The pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall, whether manipulating the controls or not, be responsible for the operation of the aircraft in accordance with the rules of the air, except that the pilot-in-command may depart from these rules in circum-stances that render such departure absolutely necessary in the interests of safety.

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.



Indeed it is important to recognize that the flight deck is not a democracy, by law.

There are a number of different approaches that airlines have taken to their CRM training, all of which require the second in command to speak up and perhaps even take action to prevent an accident. An example is UAL's CUS words. There is also a model called PACE by an American Airlines Captain. We have used the latter in CRM training to a good response.....Google PACE and you will find it.

Hope this helps.

All very vague in practice. Sure there are a few phrases the F/O can utilize and which may be published in company operations manuals. But "to take action to prevent an accident" is too generalised to be of any practical use. How exactly does the F/O take control of the aircraft if he thinks the captain is stuffing up? Most captains would use physical force against a copilot who said he was taking control of the aircraft. Very few manuals are specific on what measures a copilot should use to take control (and we are not talking about a captain incapacitation but a captain breaking safety rules and pressing on with a potentially dangerous landing).

The last thing that anyone wants is a fight in the cockpit between the two pilots over a perception the approach is dangerous. The F/O must be given concise advise on how to assume control. Words mean nothing to a reckless captain. Action must be taken to prevent a certain accident. Several operators advise the F/O to call a go-around and simultaneously raise the landing gear lever. No captain will then deliberately continue to try and land gear up. Of course there will be questions asked later but the main thing is the F/O has used his brains to force a go-around and thus save the aircraft from a probable accident. Of course there is a risk of a real gear up landing but providing the action is taken by the F/O to lift the gear well before the flare the risk is minimal and certainly safer than the alternative - a crash.

Prompt is a great word to think of here as is advise, positive, concise, confident and authoritive.

The skill of being a good team player is getting someone to do what you want them to do and make them believe it was their decison.

Somebody quoted the Staines disaster above but Tenerife is much more relevant. The FO should have stopped the captain from taking off-the irony is that the worlds worst air disaster could have been prevented by a quality that many indivduals have and needs no special training.

Don't be coy. You mean BALLS....

l think the clue is in the name.

The person with the best solution is best equipped to make the best decison-at Kegworth some of those people were called passengers.

The most important skill developed during my time as FO so far has been to become a Cameleon. That is to say, ensure that I find something in common with the other driver and do my best to create a positive flight deck atmosphere. Of course there are people that can make this can be bloody hard work, but thus far I've found no skipper has failed to listen to a suggestion or hint if I see a balls up developing. Like wise, if I've cocked up I don't become all defensive. Just reply "s**t, thanks mate", and swiftly sort it out.

I understand that the captains authority is final, however creating the right atmos from the outset makes life alot easier if/when you need to do something.

I know this all sounds a bit soft and "group hug-ish", but if I see a guy about to plough me into the ground I need to be able to do something about it, and a good rapport with your colleague goes along way!

Tough question. The Captain's authority is final, right up to the point where he tries to kill me. At that point, I will bash his skull in with the fire extinguisher and save myself. If it's just a matter of breaking SOP or regs, I will generally stick with vocal interference. If I'm in command, I will frequently say something along the lines of "Don't let me do anything stupid", and if an FO does call me out on an altitude bust or some such, I will be sure to thank him.

I am sure you didnt mean that! If the captain says he is going to duck under by 100 feet at DA you agree with him do you or as Cab says you find the fire extinguisher and hit him over the head! You two must have some amazing CRM course at your airline

The Capts responsibilty and authority are intended to ensure a safe and legal flight. Within those bounds the Capt is the boss and has the final word. Beyond that it is effetively and by default the responsibility of the FO to bring the flight back to within safe limits.

Sciolistes,

You presume that the captain has made an unsafe and/or illegal decision. If it is intentional then I might agree with you.

What if the FO makes such a decision and without consulting the captain actions it? Still the FOs responsibility to sort it out is it?!

Yes, that is the context of the thread; the Captain precipitating events, not the FO.

The Capts intentions are irrelevant. The FO has the responsibility to act regardless.

Well a good captain and a sub-standard FO is not inherently
dangerous. The scary stuff is where you have an under-par
captain with a good FO (believe me I've seen it).

A FO is the Second In Command, and by that very definition
requires him to ensure that safety is not compromised. So it
means he has to know what the captain is thinking and query
anything he does that can be taken as a major deviation from
commonsense, airmanship, or SOP. If a satisfactory reply isn't
forthcoming it is a dangerous setup indeed.

I never mutinied during my FO days, but I came damn close
in more than one instance.