Legal authority of a pilot-in-command

[4wd]

Saw that, but you'll note that the actual source is SimpleFlying and they probably got it from social media, so not exactly the NYT or WSJ.

True - better

 

[4wd]

https://aviation.direct/en/Over-an-hour's-delay--a-pilot's-decision-not-to-fly-an-aircraft

 

[The_Jeff]

Good, let this philosophy spread to other fields of work, allowing a trained & certified employee to put their foot down and refuse to work until everything's 4.0 perfect.

Too many bosses want to descend into half-baked good enough answers then they'll disappear when things go south, and with worker rights eroding the bosses get their way more than they should.

This can be stuff like elevator tag-outs, school bus pre-trip inspections, medical equipment, or even things where lives aren't on the line, but there's an established "right way" of doing things.

 

[Astro14]

I think there are two things to take away from the story, first, it is that Captain’s right to refuse an airplane. He may have to justify it to his chief pilot later, but it is his right.

Second, the fact that everybody understood the reason why he refused the airplane and the fact that it hit social media means that that Captain stood up in front of his passengers and told them why. I think that’s an example of excellent communication. Standing up there in front of a crowded gate and telling people bad news is not easy, but it was the right thing to do, and this guy did the right thing both from refusing the airplane, as well as communicating his concerns to the people who are about to fly.

I think the guy should be praised for his communication, for his honesty, and his willingness to stand behind his decision.

 

[Hall]

Why is the word "legal" used in this story ?

All of the linked stories/articles about this, including one from Newsweek, all refer back to a reddit post. It is almost certain that this story is 100% fake and just made up for karma farming. What's sadder is other news organizations took it and ran with it !

How common is it for a pilot to tell passengers all of that detail ?

 

[Greenbeforeblue]

When I'm on a plane, I'm rooting for the pilot. If there's a difference of opinion between the pilot and the maintenance crew, free up some seats and make the mechanics fly on it.

 

[RooflessVW]

I think there are two things to take away from the story, first, it is that Captain’s right to refuse an airplane. He may have to justify it to his chief pilot later, but it is his right.

Second, the fact that everybody understood the reason why he refused the airplane and the fact that it hit social media means that that Captain stood up in front of his passengers and told them why. I think that’s an example of excellent communication. Standing up there in front of a crowded gate and telling people bad news is not easy, but it was the right thing to do, and this guy did the right thing both from refusing the airplane, as well as communicating his concerns to the people who are about to fly.

I think the guy should be praised for his communication, for his honesty, and his willingness to stand behind his decision.

If the decision is based on nothing but a gut feeling and a distrust of maintenance actions is the sentiment the same? How many hundreds of hours did it fly with no issues after the pilot turned the aircraft down due to his dissatisfaction?

As the story is presented, the pilot had an issue in flight, maintenance returned it to service after troubleshooting, and the pilot was dissatisfied with maintenance actions.

Maybe you feel this is justified - but what, in this hypothetical, is maintenance or anyone else supposed to do about it?

 

[Astro14]

If the decision is based on nothing but a gut feeling and a distrust of maintenance actions is the sentiment the same? How many hundreds of hours did it fly with no issues after the pilot turned the aircraft down due to his dissatisfaction?

As the story is presented, the pilot had an issue in flight, maintenance returned it to service after troubleshooting, and the pilot was dissatisfied with maintenance actions.

Maybe you feel this is justified - but what, in this hypothetical, is maintenance or anyone else supposed to do about it?

You and I operate in very different worlds. I fly over oceans where it is often hours to the nearest available airport. I have hundreds of people on board.

Gut feeling? Yep, if somebody with experience has a gut feeling that it’s not OK, no amount of political or social pressure should convince them that it is OK.

What is maintenance supposed to do?

Take that thing back to the hanger, give it to a different crew, and see what you find. If that doesn’t work, then give it to the engineering test pilots and let them put the airplane through its paces in a way that line pilots should not with passengers on board.

I’m asking that the airplane be double checked. I don’t see why asking that work be double checked is such a big deal. Sometimes, maintenance crews miss things.

So, double check the work.

Let’s review the story here. Pilot feels problem during flight. Writes it up. Maintenance cannot find the problem and says the airplane is fine. Pilot disagrees.

I am 100% behind the pilot on this one. Just because maintenance could not duplicate the gripe does not mean there is nothing wrong with the jet. And I’m not willing to find out what’s wrong with the jet when I’ve got hundreds of people on board with me.

In aviation, if you are not willing to re-examine your work, or, if you’re not willing to double check your work, or, if you were the type to dismiss the informed opinion of others, then you are the safety problem.

The opinion of others needs to be respected, and if there is any doubt, then there is no doubt, ground the jet.

 

[CleanSump]

Maintainers can't always duplicate a gripe on the ground. That doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate gripe.
We don't even know what the gripe was, just something with a flap. Could be hardware, could hydraulics, could be software. We don't even have a basis to start.

 

[goblin]

Beautiful story, coming from Newsweek quoting Reddit quoting aviation direct as sole original source - an Austrian site, with a story first published in German, about an event occurring in the USA, which no media or organisation in the US has commented on.

I'm all with the pilots who WILL or HAVE taken such a decision, but doubt that THAT specific decision on this specific flight was ever made.

 

[Hall]

Gut feeling? Yep, if somebody with experience has a gut feeling that it’s not OK, no amount of political or social pressure should convince them that it is OK.

What is maintenance supposed to do?

Take that thing back to the hanger, give it to a different crew, and see what you find. If that doesn’t work, then give it to the engineering test pilots and let them put the airplane through its paces in a way that line pilots should not with passengers on board.

At what point is the reality that your gut was wrong ?

 

[MolaKule]

Here is the FAA rule regarding the authority of the PIC: 14 CFR 91.3

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

(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]

Maybe the word "Gut Feeling" is not reflective of why the captain refused to fly the airplane. I can image what is meant by "gut feeling" is the captain flew the airplane the day before and felt, heard, observed something with the elevator was not usual. He couldn't say exactly what is was, but he knew there was something different about the way the airplane operated. When he explained his position to the passengers, he would have poorly communicated why he believed something wasn't right with the airplane if he would have gone deep into technical details. Every passenger can understand what "gut feeling" means. It doesn't mean the captain showed up and some mysterious voice in his head said, "don't fly this airplane today". We aren't talking about wizardry here, we are talking about 25 years of experience that gave the captain the ability to know something wasn't correct the day before and maintenance said, "No trouble found". I'm in total agreement with the captain and I want him or someone like him to fly my next flight.

 

[RooflessVW]

You and I operate in very different worlds. I fly over oceans where it is often hours to the nearest available airport. I have hundreds of people on board.

Gut feeling? Yep, if somebody with experience has a gut feeling that it’s not OK, no amount of political or social pressure should convince them that it is OK.

What is maintenance supposed to do?

Take that thing back to the hanger, give it to a different crew, and see what you find. If that doesn’t work, then give it to the engineering test pilots and let them put the airplane through its paces in a way that line pilots should not with passengers on board.

I’m asking that the airplane be double checked. I don’t see why asking that work be double checked is such a big deal. Sometimes, maintenance crews miss things.

So, double check the work.

Let’s review the story here. Pilot feels problem during flight. Writes it up. Maintenance cannot find the problem and says the airplane is fine. Pilot disagrees.

I am 100% behind the pilot on this one. Just because maintenance could not duplicate the gripe does not mean there is nothing wrong with the jet. And I’m not willing to find out what’s wrong with the jet when I’ve got hundreds of people on board with me.

In aviation, if you are not willing to re-examine your work, or, if you’re not willing to double check your work, or, if you were the type to dismiss the informed opinion of others, then you are the safety problem.

The opinion of others needs to be respected, and if there is any doubt, then there is no doubt, ground the jet.

I do often forget that I operate in a niche of a niche of aviation and that I have a much more intimate relationship with a much smaller aircraft and pool of pilots.

 

[goblin]

Here is the FAA rule regarding the authority of the PIC: 14 CFR 91.3

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

(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.

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.

 

[wwillson]

I do often forget that I operate in a niche of a niche of aviation and that I have a much more intimate relationship with a much smaller aircraft and pool of pilots.

It's odd that you would often forget what you do for a living.

 

[RooflessVW]

It's odd that you would often forget what you do for a living.

You must be a pilot too

 

[Propflux01]

There are several differences here.

First, while you object to the “pilot is always right” attitude, your whole post is about how “the mechanic is always right.”

Well, sometimes they’re not.

Next, you work in helicopter emergency medical services, a field of aviation that has an extraordinarily high crash rate.

Airlines on the other hand, have an extraordinarily low crash rate, so the perception of risk between the two disciplines, and the acceptable risk between the two disciplines could not be more different.

Next, you can get in the aircraft and go fly. That does not happen at Airlines. Mechanics don’t take the airplane flying to see if they can duplicate a gripe. They troubleshoot on the ground, and sign the aircraft off.

So, the airplane goes flying with a full load of passengers. It is “tested“ with hundreds of people on board.

It is a fundamentally different approach than the environment in which you operate, and it is a very, very different risk analysis.

And this story happened in an environment in which the mechanic takes zero risk.

I would disagree with this assessment to an extent. I've been in aviation for over 40 years. There are two types of maintenance checks in general. Those that can be checked on the ground, such as an engine torque or thrust issue, oil leak, etc., and then there is flight control/behaviour. Those write-ups are like the pilot in the article writes up. They do not use passengers as an ops check for flight control type issues. it is taken up by the maintenance flight crew. If a condition exists that becomes a "Can-Not-Duplicate" issue, the aircraft will usually be signed off by senior maintenance, and most of them do not like a "problem-not-found" condition, and will have maintenance go over it again, or take the aircraft up once more to try and duplicate the issue, or consider it solved.. I don't know about the story in itself, and while the captain does have the final authority, and it does look good on the outside to the passengers, an aircraft that is considered serviceable, and a pilot refusing it, better have a pretty valid reason why. The article does not seem to indicate if an in flight ops check was complied with, or not. or even what the actual problem was. My guess is that it is simply a feel-good article, nothing more. The fact that he has only refused one other aircraft in 22 years is telling of how well maintenance is trusted. That being said, there are plenty of times maintenance also gets it wrong. Usually, those issues turn up later, such as the DC10 AA flight 191 in Chicago, or the MD83 Alaska 261, whose maintenance actions were not discovered until several flights had been accomplished. I would love to see a follow up on this.

 

[goblin]

... I would love to see a follow up on this.

Same here. For some reason, i feel that specific one will remain at what it is.

 

[wwillson]

You must be a pilot too

Yes I am.