Legal authority of a pilot-in-command

[slo town]

Here’s a situation where no trouble was found, yet the aircraft went down during a later flight. Fortunately it was “only” a helicopter. A friend of mine happened to be sitting in traffic nearby and saw it firsthand.

Scott

 

[MolaKule]

At this point, could we reasonably expect that:

- Any decision such as the one depicted in the stories the thread is based on would have warranted a written report of deviation?
- That such report or simply the event occurrence would be documented officially somewhere?

- Or, should this had happened, it did not fall under these requirements because it was not an in-flight emergency (the plane being still on the ground)? I am genuinely unaware whether this case would have qualified as "in-flight" because the passengers and crews were already boarded and the doors were locked, or whether in-flight status kicks in once the aircraft is in the air.

I would say (c) applies here:

(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.

 

[wwillson]

A flight instructor friend of mine who was also my flight instructor for my private and instrument experienced a possibly deadly problem with an airplane that was signed off for flight. It had been in the shop for a squawk, was worked on and sent back to the line. My friend did the normal preflight, started up and taxied to the run-up area. When he got to the part of the check list that calls for confirmation of flight control surface checks, he observed that the elevator was moving in the opposite direction that it should have been. He is also an experienced aircraft mechanic and believe me, he had some terse words with the guy that did the work.

My point is trust but verify and if you aren't happy with "no problem found" it is your obligation as pilot in command to question.

 

[K2K2]

The captain has authority to refuse an aircraft that is considered unsafe.

I once had a...spirited...discussion with a maintenance manager that expected me to reposition a questionable aircraft.

I asked him if he'd want me to take his wife and kids on the flight. He said no. I said "that's why I'm not taking it."

He backed down. Point made.

 

[slo town]

A flight instructor friend of mine who was also my flight instructor for my private and instrument experienced a possibly deadly problem with an airplane that was signed off for flight. It had been in the shop for a squawk, was worked on and sent back to the line. My friend did the normal preflight, started up and taxied to the run-up area. When he got to the part of the check list that calls for confirmation of flight control surface checks, he observed that the elevator was moving in the opposite direction that it should have been. He is also an experienced aircraft mechanic and believe me, he had some terse words with the guy that did the work.

My point is trust but verify and if you aren't happy with "no problem found" it is your obligation as pilot in command to question.

OMG!

Scott

 

[wwillson]

I had a friend who was a UPS 727 captain with 18,000 hours in type. He did the preflight and found the flap rails were worn way out of spec. He said it was normal for the flap rails to be worn, but these rails were beyond the safety limit. He called dispatch and told them he wasn't going to fly the airplane and the dispatcher started arguing with him that the airplane had all of the required maintenance checks and he needed to get in it and do his job. A heated argument ensued and the dispatcher asked him if he was a mechanic. He replied, "Yes I have been a licensed aircraft mechanic for 30 years, but that's not the point, I am the captain and I refuse to fly this airplane." If you don't like it, then have the chief pilot call me". He didn't fly the airplane and didn't get a call from the chief pilot. The airplane was grounded by a company mechanic that looked at it and the rails were fixed before it flew again.

 

[Astro14]

Please allow me to add, for perspective, that when I was part of a small group, and I trusted the maintenance guys, they would give me the “problem children“ airplanes. Because they know I could handle the problem, and they knew they would get a thorough examination, troubleshooting, and debrief of the problem.

For example, when I was getting night carrier qualified again, as a RAG instructor returning to fleet, we had an airplane aboard ship that did not have any functioning instrument approach system.

Both the ACLS, and the ILS, systems in this airplane were not working and our maintenance guys were unable to troubleshoot the problem.

If it were a student operating that airplane, they would not be allowed to attempt the carrier landing and would be sent back to home base.
A simultaneous failure of both systems would constitute an emergency. But I took that jet around the pattern for four arrested landings, on two successive nights.

We flew the equivalent of a non-precision approach, and I had a fair amount of time in the airplane. So, maintenance was able to give me the “problem child“, thereby saving the good aircraft for the students who had never landed on a carrier before, and I willingly took the airplane.

In 28+ years as an airline pilot, I have never flat out refused to take an airplane. I have had some discussions, and negotiation, with dispatch and maintenance.

I have a great deal of confidence in my airline mechanics. I mean that sincerely. I’ve never had to refuse an airplane.

But I reserve the right to do so.

 

[Astro14]

I would say (c) applies here:

(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.

An aircraft refusal isn’t a deviation. The airline might have some internal reporting requirements, but there certainly isn’t an FAA requirement for a refusal.

If the deviation occurred in flight, through the exercise of emergency authority, then a report is required. Most airlines participate in Flight Safety Awareness Programs - and it is through the FSAP filing that this FAA reporting requirement is fulfilled.

FSAP is a much broader program than simply reporting the exercise of emergency Authority. It allows pilots to identify hazards, particularly unsafe conditions, unintentional deviations, as well as intentional deviations, with all of the reports going to a database, that allows the FAA, as well as air carriers, to identify those hazards before something bad happens as a result of that hazard. For example, an approach into Monterrey, CA had an unusual number of FSAP reports about descent rates. The airport and FAA re-designed the Approach, and made it a smoother, safer procedure, even though nothing bad had ever happened, because the hazard was identified through FSAP.

 

[MolaKule]

An aircraft refusal isn’t a deviation. The airline might have some internal reporting requirements, but there certainly isn’t an FAA

Totally agree.

My point to Goblin was that Part 91.3 (c) only requires a report to be filed IF requested by the Administrator as per the text.

The FAA has a division called "Air Carrier Safety Assurance" that oversees Part 121 safety Issues under Flight Safety Standards.

It's good they have the FSAP data base to draw from.

 

[BusyLittleShop]

Some of the Witty maintenance corrective actions I've seen while serving 20 years in the Air Force...

Gripe "Pilot reports right engine missing during start up"
Action "Engine found on right wing after brief search"

Gripe "Left inside main tire almost needs replacement,"
Action "Almost replaced left inside main tire"

Gripe "Target radar hums"
Action "Reprogrammed target radar's lyrics"

Gripe "Aircraft handles off"
Action "Reinstalled Aircraft handles"

Gripe "DME volume unbelievably loud."
Action "Volume set to more believable level"

Gripe "Missile will not slave to Radar in O F F mode."
Action "Verified OFF mode function, fixed short between pilots headset."

Gripe "Dead bugs on Prop"
Action "Prop wash on back order, CFHS" (Carried Forward Home Station)

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Captain has the final say and authority , but they have to exercise good judgement and may be required to justify their decision or face consequences.


Most flight ops SOP specifically state that the Captain “shall” follow standard operating procedures UNLESS safety dictates otherwise and it can be justified as being the safest coarse of action.

Many flight ops ( worked for a few other companies ) manuals will specify : shall, should, may when talking about certain policies but the captain always has the authority to do what they feel is the safest course of action even if it means they deviate from normal procedures as long as it can be justified.

The Captain would advise flight dispatch and file a report when time permits and might get a phone call from flights ops or the safety department.

Flight ops will contact Captains ( after the flight ) if they don’t agree with their judgement.

Wish I could say more on the subject but I am not allowed to talk about certain things.

Cabin crew ( obviously pilots as well ) can refuse to operate if they feel it’s dangerous, but once again, you better be able to rationally justify why or it will go on your file after a joint company and transport Canada investigation. “ right to refuse dangerous work “ is in the pilots and cabin crew manuals.