Moderators: richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Faro
Topic Author
Posts: 1974
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Thu Apr 01, 2010 9:05 am

On a recent A340 flight to CDG with AF, we had a delay of 4 hours due to engine bleed valves that would not open during pre-flight preparations, allegedly due to a computer glitch. After 2 hours we were told that the computer problem was resolved to the satisfaction of the captain but that the flight crew was still waiting for authorisation to take-off from Paris operations headquarters.

Could this have been true or was it just an excuse to keep pax docile while the problem was still being addressed? If the captain really was satisfied with the resolution of the problem, could he have elected to take off even if Paris operations still had not signalled their Ok? Could Paris operations do anything to stop him? After all he is supposed to be the ultimate authority aboard, or is this not the case if i) the aircraft is still waiting at the gate and/or ii) the pax have still not boarded?

If he had elected to take off before Paris’s Ok (to avoid breaching duty time limit for example), I imagine it would go against AF SOP, but would it nonetheless be legal?

Faro

[Edited 2010-04-01 02:23:16]
The chalice not my son
 
Tristarsteve
Posts: 3653
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:04 pm

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Thu Apr 01, 2010 11:24 am

Well the Captain has no authority to override the MEL/CDL.
If he has decided that the fix proposed by the engineers is satisfactory, even though it is not covered by the MEL, then he can request authority from the airlines Engineering department for a dispensation to operate outside the MEL. Once upon a time this was quite easy to obtain, but nowadays it takes time. Because it is so difficult, we rarely go down this route any more and aircraft are fixed on the line station rather than operating on a hard to get dispensation.
This difficulty arose in Europe when JAR (now EASA) started up. It was always difficult to get a dispensation from the FAA.
 
User avatar
Faro
Topic Author
Posts: 1974
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Thu Apr 01, 2010 11:38 am

Quoting tristarsteve (Reply 1):
If he has decided that the fix proposed by the engineers is satisfactory, even though it is not covered by the MEL, then he can request authority from the airlines Engineering department for a dispensation to operate outside the MEL.

My impression -or rather interpretation- of the incident is that the MEL would have been complied with if the captain was happy with the fix (the gate attendants obviously didn't say anything about MEL's). Is it possible that operations would hold up a take-off even if the captain deemed the fix satisfactory *and* the MEL was complied with?

Faro
The chalice not my son
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2397
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Thu Apr 01, 2010 12:06 pm

First you have no idea if the gate agent really knew himself/herself. I've heard baloney from gate agents many of times and you really don't know what the capt was thinking either. It's possible that the capt was satisfied with the work and maint was slow to sign off the work in the maint log. We can not t/o with any "open" item in the maint log whether the work is complete or not. It is possible too that maybe the capt did have a concern that this really did fix the problem and he wanted more info. I knew of an incident once where one of the fuel dump nozzles was leaking so maint wrote it up as defferred inop and the plane departed. When it landed at the next dest. it was grounded because with a little better look at the problem it was obvious that there was no relief for a leaking dump nozzle and deferring it as inop was incorrect as well. The capt has the final authority BUT you need to cover your butt at all times and not violate any federal or co. policies. It's possible the flt pln had to be refiled too, another delay. There's no way to know unless you were there.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Thu Apr 01, 2010 4:44 pm

Quoting faro (Thread starter):
Could this have been true or was it just an excuse to keep pax docile while the problem was still being addressed?

It could have been true.

Quoting faro (Thread starter):
If the captain really was satisfied with the resolution of the problem, could he have elected to take off even if Paris operations still had not signalled their Ok?

Generally no. A captain's authority only extends to released/dispatched aircraft. If the maintenance organization hasn't released the aircraft to the captain, there's nothing the flight crew can do to override.

Quoting faro (Thread starter):
Could Paris operations do anything to stop him?

Physically? No. Procedurally, yes.

Quoting faro (Thread starter):
After all he is supposed to be the ultimate authority aboard, or is this not the case if i) the aircraft is still waiting at the gate and/or ii) the pax have still not boarded?

He's not the ultimate authority until he's got the airplane. If maintenance hasn't closed the log and handed the aircraft over, he doesn't have any authority beyond advisory.

Quoting faro (Reply 2):
Is it possible that operations would hold up a take-off even if the captain deemed the fix satisfactory *and* the MEL was complied with?

Yes, if there were some other problem (e.g. couldn't meet other dispatch requirements).

Tom.
 
PGNCS
Posts: 2260
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:07 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:28 pm

Quoting faro (Thread starter):
After 2 hours we were told that the computer problem was resolved to the satisfaction of the captain but that the flight crew was still waiting for authorisation to take-off from Paris operations headquarters.

Obviously I can't cite AF procedures or French regulations, but most of this is well within the scope of common operational rules. (If someone has more specific information, I am happy to defer to them in this case.)

This situation can arise, especially after something is written up and not signed off by maintenence (MX) as either fixed or deferred.

Quoting faro (Thread starter):
Could this have been true or was it just an excuse to keep pax docile while the problem was still being addressed?

Possible, but I seriously doubt it.

Quoting faro (Thread starter):
If the captain really was satisfied with the resolution of the problem, could he have elected to take off even if Paris operations still had not signalled their Ok?

No. If the aircraft was not released by MX with all items correctly signed off in the logbook, the Captain would have been jeopardizing his career (as well as the careers of the other pilots) by flying the aircraft without a valid airworthiness sign off from MX.

Quoting faro (Thread starter):
After all he is supposed to be the ultimate authority aboard, or is this not the case if i) the aircraft is still waiting at the gate and/or ii) the pax have still not boarded?

He has all authority after the aircraft is released to him, but there is joint dispatch liability with a dispatcher in most countries prior to flight, and the aircraft must be released to him as airworthy before he goes flying. He does NOT know as much as the MX department about the operation of aircraft components, and can't override their procedures or judgment. Speaking as a Captain, this would never, ever be a thought to cross my mind.

Quoting faro (Thread starter):
If he had elected to take off before Paris’s Ok (to avoid breaching duty time limit for example), I imagine it would go against AF SOP, but would it nonetheless be legal?

Not in any operation of this sort that I have ever heard of.

Quoting tristarsteve (Reply 1):
Well the Captain has no authority to override the MEL/CDL.

   The Captain cannot override the MEL/CDL or any other mandatory directive unless it's an emergency, and then only to meet the requirements of the emergency. I know of no emergency requiring him to take off with an open maintenence item.

Quoting faro (Reply 2):
My impression -or rather interpretation- of the incident is that the MEL would have been complied with if the captain was happy with the fix (the gate attendants obviously didn't say anything about MEL's).

I don't know the basis of your impression, and the Captain may indeed have been happy with it, but if MX isn't happy with the situation, the airplane stays on the ground.

Quoting faro (Reply 2):
Is it possible that operations would hold up a take-off even if the captain deemed the fix satisfactory *and* the MEL was complied with?

They don't have to; the Captain himself would be (and was, apparently) disciplined enough not to go until all regulatory requirements were met. If he was determined to do so, he would have assuredly been procedurally stopped by the company. The liability is far too huge to knowingly go fly without a valid MX sign off.

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 3):
It's possible that the capt was satisfied with the work and maint was slow to sign off the work in the maint log. We can not t/o with any "open" item in the maint log whether the work is complete or not

  

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 3):
The capt has the final authority BUT you need to cover your butt at all times and not violate any federal or co. policies.

  

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 4):
Quoting faro (Thread starter):
If the captain really was satisfied with the resolution of the problem, could he have elected to take off even if Paris operations still had not signalled their Ok?

Generally no. A captain's authority only extends to released/dispatched aircraft. If the maintenance organization hasn't released the aircraft to the captain, there's nothing the flight crew can do to override.

   Again, it would be a career-ending decision for a Captain to make.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 4):
Quoting faro (Thread starter):
Could Paris operations do anything to stop him?

Physically? No. Procedurally, yes

  
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Thu Apr 01, 2010 8:07 pm

By the look of things, I do not think this has to do with an engineering / MEL /Dispatch problem.
My hunch is about an operational choice by the airline Ops control center.
To me, it seems obvious that , at that perticular station, there were engineers who managed the repair and therefore were allowed to sign the tech log off....therefore no need for a base authorisation of any sort, just an agreement between the captain and the ground engineers.

It's a bit of a shame that the I.P. didn't report whether they left , the delay at arrival at CDG and the weather there.
Contrail designer
 
User avatar
Faro
Topic Author
Posts: 1974
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Thu Apr 01, 2010 11:09 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 6):
It's a bit of a shame that the I.P. didn't report whether they left , the delay at arrival at CDG and the weather there.

The flight left YYZ with +4 hours delay and landed in CDG with roughly 3.5 hours delay. Weather at CDG was fine, perhaps 4 octas cumuliform cover and moderate wind.

All through the delay in YYZ, maintenance engineers were seen working inside a recess in the wing-fuselage fairing, just below the forward wing root. In such a major airport, I would think all the MX paper work was completed in a proper and timely manner.

My (layman's) impression was that some sort of fix was implemented but that the persons manning operations in Paris were perhaps not familiar with this sort of malfunction and elected to consult more expert advice before releasing the aircraft. It was 01:00 am - 05:00 am in Paris during the delay.

Faro

[Edited 2010-04-01 16:25:13]

[Edited 2010-04-01 16:27:22]
The chalice not my son
 
YYZRWY23
Posts: 309
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:33 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Fri Apr 02, 2010 4:20 am

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 5):
He has all authority after the aircraft is released to him, but there is joint dispatch liability with a dispatcher in most countries prior to flight, and the aircraft must be released to him as airworthy before he goes flying.

In Canada, authority remains joint Captain-Dispatcher for the entire flight. Both individuals are equally responsible (legally) for the safe and economic operation of the flight. This is why both signatures are required before the flight leaves. If the dispatcher doesn't sign off, the plane is not released and thus can't leave.

Quoting faro (Reply 7):
My (layman's) impression was that some sort of fix was implemented but that the persons manning operations in Paris were perhaps not familiar with this sort of malfunction

Very doubtful. Dispatchers are supposed to be well-versed (not experts) on the aircraft they dispatch in all respects. They are effectively a pilot that doesn't fly, so they know the basic stuff but nothing intricate. This was not due to not being familiar with the malfunction.

Quoting faro (Reply 7):
and elected to consult more expert advice before releasing the aircraft.

Excellent decision if the dispatcher wasn't knowledgeable in this area of MX. Good for him making sure everything was good, as he is jointly responsible for the safe operation of the flight.

Quoting faro (Reply 7):
It was 01:00 am - 05:00 am in Paris during the delay.

This seems irrelevant, what are you referring to the time it was in CDG for?

YYZRWY23
If you don't stand behind our troops, feel free to stand in front of them.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14848
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:00 am

Quoting faro (Thread starter):
After 2 hours we were told that the computer problem was resolved to the satisfaction of the captain but that the flight crew was still waiting for authorisation to take-off from Paris operations headquarters.

Depending on the valve, they may need to leave it locked open as it could be suppling anti-ice to the engine nacelle.

Bleed valves can cause additional fuel burn under the MEL which may need a new flight plan, also if it is locked open under the MEL, it causes a reduction in takeoff performance, which may mean some payload needs to be offloaded.

Operations would also need to consider the effect at the outport, do the staff at the airport have the appropiate licences to do any required maintenace action once the aircraft gets there (some MEL procedures require a maintenace action between each sector), will the aircraft be able to return, should they swap airframes etc.

Quoting tristarsteve (Reply 1):
Well the Captain has no authority to override the MEL/CDL.

Do it from time to time, MEL/CDL says I can go, I say no, fix it.

Some ports are "famous" for deferring things under the MEL rather than fixing, and the fix maybe a simple reset. The mechanics use their pen to defer it to "maintain OTP", which can cause additional workload on the pilots, depending on what it is, and the enroute/destination conditions, I tell them to fix it, and forget about OTP.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Faro
Topic Author
Posts: 1974
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Fri Apr 02, 2010 3:57 pm

Quoting YYZRWY23 (Reply 8):
Quoting faro (Reply 7):
It was 01:00 am - 05:00 am in Paris during the delay.

This seems irrelevant, what are you referring to the time it was in CDG for?

This was the local time in Paris at during the four hours of the pre-take-off delay at YYZ. I thought maybe operations have reducing staff levels at these times, dunno really.

Faro
The chalice not my son
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Fri Apr 02, 2010 5:01 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 9):
Quoting tristarsteve (Reply 1):
Well the Captain has no authority to override the MEL/CDL.

Do it from time to time, MEL/CDL says I can go, I say no, fix it.

I think tristarsteve meant it the other way...if the MEL/CDL says you can't go, the captain doesn't have the authority to say "I'm going to go anyway."

tom.
 
411A
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:34 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Sat Apr 03, 2010 9:13 pm

**Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?**

In our company, absolutely.
No arguments from management, nor the reulatory authority, either.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Sat Apr 03, 2010 11:16 pm

Quoting 411A (Reply 12):
**Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?**

In our company, absolutely.

So, if maintenance says the plane isn't released, your captains can take it out anyway?!

Tom.
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Sat Apr 03, 2010 11:48 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 11):
I think tristarsteve meant it the other way...if the MEL/CDL says you can't go, the captain doesn't have the authority to say "I'm going to go anyway."

   As I understand it, the general rule is that once the aircraft is in the air, the captain has final authority. But the captain alone can't make the decision to take the aircraft into the air - maintenance and dispatch can keep the airplane on the ground (as can the captain if the company wants the airplane to get going).

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6485
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Sun Apr 04, 2010 12:56 am

Quoting YYZRWY23 (Reply 8):
In Canada, authority remains joint Captain-Dispatcher for the entire flight.

Not at Air Canada.

The Dispatcher only has co-authority to the point of take-off, then it is 100% Captain.

Quoting zeke (Reply 9):
Do it from time to time, MEL/CDL says I can go, I say no, fix it.

This is a very good point, some people may have missed. In other words, the Captain can not say 'yes' when everyone else is saying 'no' ... however, he CAN say 'no' when everyone else is saying 'yes'. We are the final slice of swiss cheese with often a bigger picture than the other departments.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
411A
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:34 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Sun Apr 04, 2010 9:50 am

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 13):
So, if maintenance says the plane isn't released....

Never happens...always fixed/released.
 
Goldenshield
Posts: 5019
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 3:45 pm

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Sun Apr 04, 2010 11:31 am

Quoting longhauler (Reply 15):
In Canada, authority remains joint Captain-Dispatcher for the entire flight.

Not at Air Canada.

The Dispatcher only has co-authority to the point of take-off, then it is 100% Captain.

I can't say for Canada, but in the U.S., it's fairly clear.

Before flight, the dispatcher and captain must jointly agree that the flight is legal to launch.

In the air, the captain retains ultimate authority over safety of the aircaft and its occupants, and the dispatcher takes on a secondary support role for the captain; however, the dispatcher still has authority over the safety of the flight, in that, if something were to occur that would preclude the continuation of a safe flight, the dispatcher has the authority to deviate that flight*, and can even declare an emergency should it be required.


* As defined in 14 CFR 121.533(c)
Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
 
YYZRWY23
Posts: 309
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:33 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Sun Apr 04, 2010 2:34 pm

Quoting longhauler (Reply 15):
The Dispatcher only has co-authority to the point of take-off, then it is 100% Captain.

my words were unclear, I was referring to this:

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 17):
however, the dispatcher still has authority over the safety of the flight, in that, if something were to occur that would preclude the continuation of a safe flight, the dispatcher has the authority to deviate that flight*

I apologize for the confusion and this is what I meant. I wrote that post when I was rather tired. :-P I have visited AC dispatch before and I am interested in a career there. It is a fantastic place.

YYZRWY23
If you don't stand behind our troops, feel free to stand in front of them.
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6485
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Sun Apr 04, 2010 3:07 pm

Quoting YYZRWY23 (Reply 18):
I have visited AC dispatch before and I am interested in a career there. It is a fantastic place.

Yes it is, and a vital part of the operation.

But so you understand, the co-dispatch process in Canada is a little different than the one quoted in the United States. In Canada, the Dispatcher can not "deviate" a flight. Once take-off power has been applied, all decisions are the Captain's, and final say is the Captain's.

The Dispatcher may suggest a deviation or diversion, and give reasons, and likely the Captain will agree, but still ... the final decision will be made by the Captain. But in that process, the Dispatcher is an essential piece of the puzzle. Say for example a decision is made to divert a flight for whatever reason. While the Flight and Cabin Crew are preparing for the diversion ... the Dispatcher is also run off his/her feet. Every department affected by the diversion ... Flight Operations, In-Flight Service, Sales, Ground Handling, Maintenance, Catering, Fueling, Load .. all must be notified, and all will be ... by the Dispatcher!
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
YYZRWY23
Posts: 309
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:33 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Sun Apr 04, 2010 6:10 pm

Quoting longhauler (Reply 19):
But so you understand, the co-dispatch process in Canada is a little different than the one quoted in the United States. In Canada, the Dispatcher can not "deviate" a flight. Once take-off power has been applied, all decisions are the Captain's, and final say is the Captain's.

Thank you for the clarification, I now understand.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 19):
the Dispatcher is also run off his/her feet.

I was there during some interesting winter conditions, I saw them in action. Very cool to observe. Also saw him dealing with MX stuff and having to route an aircraft properly in accordance with ETOPS due to an INOP item after he called and there was no spare aircraft.

Thank you for all the information longhauler. I appreciate your insight and clarification.

Hope i will be dispatching one of your flights one day,

YYZRWY23
If you don't stand behind our troops, feel free to stand in front of them.
 
User avatar
Faro
Topic Author
Posts: 1974
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:38 am

Quoting longhauler (Reply 19):
But so you understand, the co-dispatch process in Canada is a little different than the one quoted in the United States. In Canada, the Dispatcher can not "deviate" a flight. Once take-off power has been applied, all decisions are the Captain's, and final say is the Captain's.

The Dispatcher may suggest a deviation or diversion, and give reasons, and likely the Captain will agree, but still ... the final decision will be made by the Captain. But in that process, the Dispatcher is an essential piece of the puzzle. Say for example a decision is made to divert a flight for whatever reason. While the Flight and Cabin Crew are preparing for the diversion ... the Dispatcher is also run off his/her feet. Every department affected by the diversion ... Flight Operations, In-Flight Service, Sales, Ground Handling, Maintenance, Catering, Fueling, Load .. all must be notified, and all will be ... by the Dispatcher!

Some practical questions then:

- In the US case, if the dispatcher needs to deviate a flight which is already airborne and the captain disagrees, what happens? Can the dispatcher go to a higher authority (FAA, NTSB, etc) to make his case heard? Is this practical given time and operational constraints? If he can't, then the captain has de facto full authority to execute the flight regardless of the letter of the regulations.

- In both the US and the Canada cases, can the dispatcher directly call the tower to cancel T/O should there likewise be a disagreement re a problem that creeps up during taxi-out for example?

Faro

PS: Re the A340 flight I mentioned in the opening thread, co-ordination by dispatch for the delay was less than optimal: on arrival in CDG, we spent an hour couped up in the plane when it arrived at the assigned gate because no gate agents were available to open the doors with some purported "door code"...

[Edited 2010-04-05 00:46:57]
The chalice not my son
 
Goldenshield
Posts: 5019
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 3:45 pm

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Mon Apr 05, 2010 10:48 am

Quoting faro (Reply 21):
In the US case, if the dispatcher needs to deviate a flight which is already airborne and the captain disagrees, what happens? Can the dispatcher go to a higher authority (FAA, NTSB, etc) to make his case heard?

I never said that he didn't have final say while in flight, but if, while inflight, he doesn't take my advice and uses his "better judgement" instead, he better have a damn good reason as to why he did so. While he can look at weather and NOTAMS, etc., to see if a place is legal to go to thanks to ACARS on the flight deck, he can't just nonchalantly land somewhere that wasn't cleared by me first. The feds won't violate him depending on how serious it is, but you can be damn sure that the company will take notice regardless.

Pilots are mission oriented, while dispatchers are operation oriented. It's the PIC's job to protect the aircraft; it's the dispatcher's job to protect the operation, which, to a degree, means protecting the PIC from doing something operationally stupid with his aircraft, like diverted to a place that's already full with diversions.

Also to note, 'deviation' is a catch-all word used by the feds for a non-standard operation. Please don't take it to mean only in flight.

Quoting faro (Reply 21):

If he can't, then the captain has de facto full authority to execute the flight regardless of the letter of the regulations.
?


Execution of the flight is not the same as planning, and modification of a flight.

The dispatcher and captain both retain the authority to modify the flight, as they are both responsible to ensure that a flight remains safe, and legal. Alternates are big example here. If an alternate goes down, both PIC and dispatcher must mutually agree to it before it can be used, but the PIC is the only one who can execute it, as he's actually in the plane. And no, the PIC can't just ignore the regulations, except in an emergency.


Quoting faro (Reply 21):

- In both the US and the Canada cases, can the dispatcher directly call the tower to cancel T/O should there likewise be a disagreement re a problem that creeps up during taxi-out for example?
?


I can't tell them to cancel takeoff, as it's not in my authority to do so; however, I can stop them from issuing a takeoff clearance by cancelling the flight plan. This definately perks the pilots' ears that something is up.

[Edited 2010-04-05 04:19:15]
Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6485
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Mon Apr 05, 2010 11:37 am

Normally, the only situation that would make a diversion a good course of action, that the Dispatcher might catch before the pilots is weather. In that case, as noted above, the weather, or forecast weather for either the distination, or the alternate (if carried) have gone below limits and a new course of action is devised. When that happens, the Dispatcher also likely already has a suggested solution. I can't imagine why a pilot would not follow the suggestion of the Dispatcher as he/she has much more information at hand ... but, that final decision does rest with the Captain. As does the responsibility.

Everything else, likely the information would go the other way. The pilots would advise Flight Dispatch with the new condition, and together they would devise a solution, the Captain again, having the final say.

A good example would be a flight I worked last summer. We were flying YVR-YYZ with contact fuel. (No alternate IFR). The weather for YYZ was forecast clear all day. Then about an hour after departure from YVR, the new forecast now had CBs, and contact/no alternate IFR was no longer legal. Dispatch advised us, asked our actual fuel on board, then came back with two solutions. Either land in YWG for fuel, or continue with a YHM alternate, with very little extra fuel for delays should they occur. The decision was mine ... with a lot of help from him.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
YYZatcboy
Posts: 1183
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 2:15 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Mon Apr 05, 2010 1:24 pm

Just curious, What did you decide and why? (I'm also studying for Dispatch and would like to know how the decision making process went if you can tell me)

Cheers
YYZ
DH1/3/4 MD11/88 L1011 A319/20/21/30/50/80 717 727 735/6/7/8/9 744 762/3 77E/W 788/789 E40/75/90 CRJ/700/705 CC150
J/S DH8D 736/7/8 763
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 30067
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:30 pm

Probably the Captain wanted to clarify on other details which only Flt ops at HQ could have provided.

Under MEL.....The Pilot need not accept the Flight or AME need not release the flight if in their opinion its considered unsafe to do so.....MEL permitting also.

regds
MEL.
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
User avatar
n901wa
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 5:38 pm

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Mon Apr 05, 2010 5:18 pm

Hi all. I don't know the A340 so I might be off here but, to me both could be correct. I can see the Pilot could be happy and still take a 2 hour delay. I just wonder if MTC told the Capt. that they could MEL the item and at that point told the passengers it was ok, but the affected bleed valve or valves still needed to be locked out before they left and MTC had to open the cowl and lock out the affected valve. So they would have to get a lift truck and a cowl pump. Also depends on the A340 MEL , they might have to run the engine to verify the valve is closed. I not sure at AF but if MTC runs a engine at where I work, we are not allowed to run with Passengers on board. Also I wonder if the MEL required a lower alt. due to a bleed problem, and that would require a new flight plan with more fuel and they might have to remove some freight and add fuel.
The only reason I bring this up is, I have seen this kinda delay before on a 767 where we had to lock out a bleed valve on nbr 1 eng. and the mechanic told the Pilot they could MEL the item. The Pilot started to tell the Passengers it was ok and only needed to do some paperwork, and I stopped him and told him it was more than that. It ended up being a big deal when the core cowl pump was inop, and we had to find a portable hand pump to open the cowl. Also the Fuelers had to come back and add fuel, but they were tied up fueling other aircraft.
Just my 2 cents, and I hope it might help  
 
PGNCS
Posts: 2260
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:07 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:02 pm

Quoting YYZRWY23 (Reply 8):
Quoting PGNCS (Reply 5):
He has all authority after the aircraft is released to him, but there is joint dispatch liability with a dispatcher in most countries prior to flight, and the aircraft must be released to him as airworthy before he goes flying.

In Canada, authority remains joint Captain-Dispatcher for the entire flight. Both individuals are equally responsible (legally) for the safe and economic operation of the flight. This is why both signatures are required before the flight leaves. If the dispatcher doesn't sign off, the plane is not released and thus can't leave.

I have no problem with what you have said, but once in flight if disagreement arises, the Captain makes the final decision.

Quoting 411A (Reply 12):
**Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?**

In our company, absolutely.
No arguments from management, nor the reulatory authority, either.

So a Captain can at your company can depart with a mechanical defect that he knows is not legally fixed and signed off by MX (the supposed case in this discussion) without raising any eyebrows from the company or regulators? I find that exceptionally difficult to believe.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 13):
So, if maintenance says the plane isn't released, your captains can take it out anyway?!

That's what I also find unbelievable.

Quoting 411A (Reply 16):
oting tdscanuck (Reply 13):
So, if maintenance says the plane isn't released....

Never happens...always fixed/released.

That's not the question: if the A-340 in this case had been mechanically perfect and all other issues were in order, there would be no question about departing. The precise issue is that the airplane broke, and the Captain wasn't legal to depart because of a mechanical issue. You are arguing that Captain's authority would have allowed you to take off anyway even if the MX and paperwork were not complete, had this been your operation. It's a moot point to say it's not an issue because it's "always fixed/released." Of course it is, or the plane would have to get a special permit to ferry it somewhere to be scrapped. In this case it was ultimately fixed and released as well but not for several hours. The AF Captain didn't depart bcause he clearly understood it would not have been legal to do so.

Quoting faro (Reply 21):
In the US case, if the dispatcher needs to deviate a flight which is already airborne and the captain disagrees, what happens?

The Captain decides. He had better have a good reason to override the dispatcher's advice.

Quoting faro (Reply 21):
If he can't, then the captain has de facto full authority to execute the flight regardless of the letter of the regulations

In an emergency he has the authority to do whatever is needed to address the emergency.

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 22):
Quoting faro (Reply 21):
In the US case, if the dispatcher needs to deviate a flight which is already airborne and the captain disagrees, what happens? Can the dispatcher go to a higher authority (FAA, NTSB, etc) to make his case heard?

I never said that he didn't have final say while in flight, but if, while inflight, he doesn't take my advice and uses his "better judgement" instead, he better have a damn good reason as to why he did so. While he can look at weather and NOTAMS, etc., to see if a place is legal to go to thanks to ACARS on the flight deck, he can't just nonchalantly land somewhere that wasn't cleared by me first.

Normally diversions are coordinated smoothly between crews and dispatch, but like I have said before, the Captain is the ultimate authority in charge of an airborne flight, and retains the final decisions. Sometimes there is not sufficient time to coordinate our actions with dispatch; that's why we get paid. We once had to decide where to divert after an engine failure after being unable to reach dispatch in the middle of the night. The decision was made to divert to COS (DEN, CVS, and PUB were also in consideration) for a variety of reasons. We had another less-busy flight call the company and tell the dispatcher where we were going. It turned out to be a complex emergency with more issues than a simple engine failure, and we didn't have time to wait after standing by for several minutes waiting for dispatch to come on the line. This is one of only two times in my career that I have landed at an airport not previously agreed upon by the dispatcher and Captain. (The other was also an aircraft emergency.)

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 22):
The dispatcher and captain both retain the authority to modify the flight, as they are both responsible to ensure that a flight remains safe, and legal. Alternates are big example here. If an alternate goes down, both PIC and dispatcher must mutually agree to it before it can be used, but the PIC is the only one who can execute it, as he's actually in the plane. And no, the PIC can't just ignore the regulations, except in an emergency.

Well said. A very good explanation.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 23):
Normally, the only situation that would make a diversion a good course of action, that the Dispatcher might catch before the pilots is weather. In that case, as noted above, the weather, or forecast weather for either the distination, or the alternate (if carried) have gone below limits and a new course of action is devised. When that happens, the Dispatcher also likely already has a suggested solution. I can't imagine why a pilot would not follow the suggestion of the Dispatcher as he/she has much more information at hand ... but, that final decision does rest with the Captain. As does the responsibility.

  
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:20 pm

Quoting 411A (Reply 16):
Never happens...always fixed/released.

Unless it's the RB211 axial motion AD, eh?
Your bone's got a little machine
 
Goldenshield
Posts: 5019
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 3:45 pm

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Mon Apr 05, 2010 11:29 pm

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 27):
Normally diversions are coordinated smoothly between crews and dispatch, but like I have said before, the Captain is the ultimate authority in charge of an airborne flight, and retains the final decisions. Sometimes there is not sufficient time to coordinate our actions with dispatch; that's why we get paid.

That would be an example of an emergency, and it over-rides that statement quoted, and in your case, certainly is a damn good reason to do so.  
Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
 
PGNCS
Posts: 2260
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:07 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Mon Apr 05, 2010 11:50 pm

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 29):
Quoting PGNCS (Reply 27):
Normally diversions are coordinated smoothly between crews and dispatch, but like I have said before, the Captain is the ultimate authority in charge of an airborne flight, and retains the final decisions. Sometimes there is not sufficient time to coordinate our actions with dispatch; that's why we get paid.

That would be an example of an emergency, and it over-rides that statement quoted, and in your case, certainly is a damn good reason to do so.

Agreed!  
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6485
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:20 am

Quoting YYZatcboy (Reply 24):
Just curious, What did you decide and why? (I'm also studying for Dispatch and would like to know how the decision making process went if you can tell me)

I chose to continue to YYZ with a YHM alternate.

The CBs were only PROB30 forecast, and that made contact/no alternate IFR illegal. As long as we had a legal alternate, and fuel for it we were fine. Granted, had there been any delays into YYZ we would have to go directly to YHM. So we were monitoring both the weather in YYZ, as well as delays.

As it turns out, there were neither, so we arrived in YYZ on time, and the passengers never knew the decision making that went on ... which of course, is how it should be!
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
CWAFlyer
Posts: 536
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:33 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:04 am

Quoting faro (Reply 21):
PS: Re the A340 flight I mentioned in the opening thread, co-ordination by dispatch for the delay was less than optimal: on arrival in CDG, we spent an hour couped up in the plane when it arrived at the assigned gate because no gate agents were available to open the doors with some purported "door code"...

I'm curious how you think that was dispatch's fault if people at the arrival city can't open the jetway door.
 
User avatar
Faro
Topic Author
Posts: 1974
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:03 am

Quoting CWAFlyer (Reply 32):
Quoting faro (Reply 21):
PS: Re the A340 flight I mentioned in the opening thread, co-ordination by dispatch for the delay was less than optimal: on arrival in CDG, we spent an hour couped up in the plane when it arrived at the assigned gate because no gate agents were available to open the doors with some purported "door code"...

I'm curious how you think that was dispatch's fault if people at the arrival city can't open the jetway door.

I was referring to the following bit of longhauler's Reply N° 19:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 19):
While the Flight and Cabin Crew are preparing for the diversion ... the Dispatcher is also run off his/her feet. Every department affected by the diversion ... Flight Operations, In-Flight Service, Sales, Ground Handling, Maintenance, Catering, Fueling, Load .. all must be notified, and all will be ... by the Dispatcher!

Correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that Dispatch would have been responsible for securing alternative gate assignments and related technical and pax services. Where you may be right is if Dispatch discharged their duties in a proper and timely manner and then the gate agents themselves were unprepared/late...

Faro
The chalice not my son
 
Goldenshield
Posts: 5019
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 3:45 pm

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Mon Apr 12, 2010 6:41 pm

Quoting faro (Reply 33):
Dispatch would have been responsible for securing alternative gate assignments and related technical and pax services. Where you may be right is if Dispatch discharged their duties in a proper and timely manner and then the gate agents themselves were unprepared/late...

Dispatch doesn't assign gates. Once dispatch has notified the airline's ops at a given airport, it is then ops' job to make sure that there is a place to park the plane, and notifying customer service. Dispatch's job is to focus on the integrity ofoperation, and only the operation.
Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14848
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:36 pm

Quoting faro (Reply 33):
Correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that Dispatch would have been responsible for securing alternative gate assignments and related technical and pax services. Where you may be right is if Dispatch discharged their duties in a proper and timely manner and then the gate agents themselves were unprepared/late...

That would really depend on the airline, I doubt AF mentioned in the OP has dispatchers, they are not required under EU OPS and the majority of airlines around the world seem to function without them.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Faro
Topic Author
Posts: 1974
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:28 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 35):
That would really depend on the airline, I doubt AF mentioned in the OP has dispatchers, they are not required under EU OPS and the majority of airlines around the world seem to function without them.

Totally lost here: can a revenue-generating flight be made without Dispatchers? Maybe a question of semantics here, but don't you need some manner of pre-preparation/route planning/logistics management/etc? If they are not "Dispatchers" technically, then what is the proper designation? Also, what is EU OPS?

Faro

[Edited 2010-04-13 01:54:24]
The chalice not my son
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14848
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:14 am

Quoting faro (Reply 36):
Totally lost here: can a revenue-generating flight be made without Dispatchers?

Sure, happens all over the world.

Quoting faro (Reply 36):
Maybe a question of semantics here, but don't you need some manner of pre-preparation/route planning/logistics management/etc?

Not really, a dispatcher is a defined under the FARs and applies to US operators, and the countries that also adopt the FAA standards. Most countries do not follow US or FAA regulations and do not require dispatchers. A dispatcher under FAA rules has a licence to perform that role, and has some influence on the progress of a flight, that is not a requirement in most countries around the world.

Quoting faro (Reply 36):
If they are not "Dispatchers" technically, then what is the proper designation?

Whatever the airline wants to call them.

Quoting faro (Reply 36):
Also, what is EU OPS?

EU OPS replaced JAR OPS, it is the rules the govern airlines in the EU http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_OPS . It is like FAR Part 121.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Faro
Topic Author
Posts: 1974
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:30 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 37):
Quoting faro (Reply 36):
Totally lost here: can a revenue-generating flight be made without Dispatchers?

Sure, happens all over the world.

Quoting faro (Reply 36):
Maybe a question of semantics here, but don't you need some manner of pre-preparation/route planning/logistics management/etc?

Not really, a dispatcher is a defined under the FARs and applies to US operators, and the countries that also adopt the FAA standards. Most countries do not follow US or FAA regulations and do not require dispatchers. A dispatcher under FAA rules has a licence to perform that role, and has some influence on the progress of a flight, that is not a requirement in most countries around the world.

Quoting faro (Reply 36):
If they are not "Dispatchers" technically, then what is the proper designation?

Whatever the airline wants to call them.

Quoting faro (Reply 36):
Also, what is EU OPS?

EU OPS replaced JAR OPS, it is the rules the govern airlines in the EU http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_OPS . It is like FAR Part 121.

Many thanx Zeke, learned quite a bit there.

Faro
The chalice not my son
 
411A
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:34 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:37 pm

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 27):
You are arguing that Captain's authority would have allowed you to take off anyway even if the MX and paperwork were not complete, had this been your operation.

In our operation, I never argue, I decide.
My previous thus clearly indicates.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 28):
Unless it's the RB211 axial motion AD, eh?

Completed two weeks ago.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13899
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Tue Apr 13, 2010 5:25 pm

Quoting 411A (Reply 39):
Quoting PGNCS (Reply 27):
You are arguing that Captain's authority would have allowed you to take off anyway even if the MX and paperwork were not complete, had this been your operation.

In our operation, I never argue, I decide.
My previous thus clearly indicates.

Well, if would be the A&P or licenced engineer assigned to your aircraft and I would find something wrong with your aircraft, which in my opinion makes the aircraft unairworthy, I´ll ground the aircraft. I just make a logbook entry of the snag an this is it. Then, until the aircraft has been fixed (or there exists valid paperwork for a deferral, e.g. an EO or a statement in the MEL or CDL or other approved documentation), the aircraft stays on ground. From this moment on the aircraft belongs to maintenance until I or an equally certificated and approved colleague signs the maintenance release. Obviously I´d better be able to back up my decision with approved documentation. Afterwards it is up to you if you accept the aircraft or not.
I had confrontations with airline management about this before (who tried to bully me into releasing aircraft which were in my informed and substantiated opinion not airworthy).

To act in any other way would surely get the FAA or EASA pull my licence and maybe get me into jail.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
411A
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:34 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:56 am

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 40):
I´ll ground the aircraft. I just make a logbook entry of the snag an this is it.

I'm afraid you are misinformed.
You don't ground anything.
I can get the quality control manager to issue a dispensation (normally, with the specific regulatory authority approval), and you are totallly out of the picture....and quite likely, out of a job as well.
As in...bypassed.
Nothing you can do about it.
Fact.

The title of the thread is who has the ultimate authority.
I can positively assure you that .... it ain't you.

NB.
Strange.
Some guys have very odd ideas.
Usually...the younger ones whom have not learned, by example, from the past
In the executive suite, we call these folks...nonconforming.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13899
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:04 am

Quoting 411A (Reply 41):
I can get the quality control manager to issue a dispensation (normally, with the specific regulatory authority approval), and you are totallly out of the picture....and quite likely, out of a job as well.

Ok, once I got a writ by the quality manager, or e.g. an EO by engineering, I can sign off the aircraft based on this and I stay legal. Then the responsibility lays with him. But I can´t just sign off an aircraft with a known, non-deferrable defect.

Quote:
Then, until the aircraft has been fixed (or there exists valid paperwork for a deferral, e.g. an EO or a statement in the MEL or CDL or other approved documentation)

Trust me, I´ve been down this route before (management trying to force me to sign off dodgy and illegal things) and I still have my job. And I know that, if push comes to shove, I would win in labour court (and the managers knew it too, this is why they didn´t force the matter after a firm refusal from my side. Often enough they wouldn´t give a direct order to me to do an illegal act, but they would strongly hint that the aircraft just HAD to fly).

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
avt007
Posts: 1989
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2000 4:51 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:58 am

411A, you appear to have a grossly inflated sense of importance. I am hoping you are stirring the pot for fun, but I'm starting to wonder. I have never in over 20 years of maintenance, come across a pilot who argued when mtce grounds an aircraft. Usually, they intelligent enough to understand that their lives are in the hands of people who are far more qualified to assess the airworthiness of the aircraft than they are. And by the way, I can ground an aircraft, and there's nothing anyone can do about it, provided it is an airworthiness defect.
Your example assumed a deferrable defect ( a poor example, BTW). A proper snag that would ground the aircraft is beyond whatever "authority" a Captain or quality rep has. It's your a/c once I give it to you, not before.
 
avt007
Posts: 1989
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2000 4:51 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Wed Apr 14, 2010 5:55 am

You may want to read the below document. I have, and don't see where the Captain has any say in the matter. During "flight time" the Captain has ultimate authority, and rightly so. But please don't insult maintenance by insisting that you have ultimate authority prior to dispatch. We're here to ensure a safe aircraft is supplied to Flight Ops, and it is our legal and moral obligation to do so.

§ 121.709 Airworthiness release or aircraft log entry.
top
(a) No certificate holder may operate an aircraft after maintenance, preventive maintenance or alterations are performed on the aircraft unless the certificate holder, or the person with whom the certificate holder arranges for the performance of the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations, prepares or causes to be prepared—

(1) An airworthiness release; or

(2) An appropriate entry in the aircraft log.

(b) The airworthiness release or log entry required by paragraph (a) of this section must—

(1) Be prepared in accordance with the procedures set forth in the certificate holder's manual;

(2) Include a certification that—

(i) The work was performed in accordance with the requirements of the certificate holder's manual;

(ii) All items required to be inspected were inspected by an authorized person who determined that the work was satisfactorily completed;

(iii) No known condition exists that would make the airplane unairworthy; and

(iv) So far as the work performed is concerned, the aircraft is in condition for safe operation; and

(3) Be signed by an authorized certificated mechanic or repairman except that a certificated repairman may sign the release or entry only for the work for which he is employed and certificated.

(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(3) of this section, after maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations performed by a repair station that is located outside the United States, the airworthiness release or log entry required by paragraph (a) of this section may be signed by a person authorized by that repair station.

(d) When an airworthiness release form is prepared the certificate holder must give a copy to the pilot in command and must keep a record thereof for at least 2 months.

(e) Instead of restating each of the conditions of the certification required by paragraph (b) of this section, the air carrier may state in its manual that the signature of an authorized certificated mechanic or repairman constitutes that certification.

[Doc. No. 6258, 29 FR 19226, Dec. 31, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 121–6, 30 FR 6432, May 8, 1965; Amdt. 121–21, 31 FR 10613, Aug. 9, 1966; Amdt. 121–286, 66 FR 41116, Aug. 6, 2001]
 
411A
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:34 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:52 am

Quoting avt007 (Reply 43):
A proper snag that would ground the aircraft is beyond whatever "authority" a Captain or quality rep has. It's your a/c once I give it to you, not before.

Sorry, simply not true in our organisation.....yours perhaps, not ours.

Quoting avt007 (Reply 44):
You may want to read the below document.

I see you are from Canada, and therefore perhaps operate to Canadian regulations.

Our company is not Canadian, and we don't fly to Canada. Therefore, Canadian rules don't apply.
Simple as that.

It would appear that many here use their own company and/or specific country regulations and apply these to all others.
Nope, doesn't work that way, in many cases.

These are the facts, like it or not.
 
411A
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:34 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Wed Apr 14, 2010 9:26 am

And, now a word about dispatch personnel.
We don't have any of those, either.
All Captains are fully authorized to self dispatch on all revenue and non-revenue flights.
We use a flight planning service for computer flight plans, and Stockholm Radio for flight following, IF it is thought necessary by the Captain and/or requested by the fleet manager....and I'm the fleet manager.

Yes, we have mechanics....they are called ground engineers
They are carried on board on ALL flights, and service the aiplane at enroute stops, as necessary.
One is a supervisor, one is an engine specialist, the third is an avionics specialist...the latter holds a Ph.D in aircraft electrical engineering.
Prior to each flight, the ground engineer supervisor signs the technical log, and that signature is countersigned by the Captain.
We have a quality control manager, and normally he is the on-board senior ground engineer, on many flights.
If there is an aircraft defect, it is either repaired, or deferred, depending on the circumstances.

All of our airline technical personnel are long serving professionals, that have worked for many years previously in other large airlines.
Our airline operations specifications clearly state the the Captain has the absolute final authority regarding the dispatch, conduct, and responsibility for...the aircraft, and ALL other crew members assigned to the flight.

Therefore, our company is not like larger airlines, with their many departments and complicated structure.
And, we are profitable.
Type flown, L1011
 
avt007
Posts: 1989
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2000 4:51 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:39 pm

Can you clearly state to me, that you have the authority to fly an aircraft regardless of it's airworthiness state, OR that you personally have the authority to return an aircraft to an airworthy state?
Because if you personally cannot, you are subject to the approval of the maintenance department (signing the logbook as you've stated) before you can depart.
That is the crux of this discussion. Earlier posts would indicate that you have the ability to overrride maintenance, when in fact you are merely asking another maintenance person to give you the aircraft. I maintain my assertion that the Captains authority only extends to whether or not an airworthy aircraft departs, not the decision as to the airworthiness.
BTW, I quoted FARs since your profile says USA, but I too have worked overseas in very sandy places, and anywhere I've gone, it works the same.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13899
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:40 pm

Quoting 411A (Reply 46):
Our airline operations specifications clearly state the the Captain has the absolute final authority regarding the dispatch, conduct, and responsibility for...the aircraft, and ALL other crew members assigned to the flight.

Then I would not work for your airline, fullstop (after a little research I´m quite sure that I know which airline you are working for and the location of it´s owners and registration doesn´t give me much confidence).
A pilot generally has not the training or experience to decide on maintenance issues. This is the reason why there exist a specialised training for maintenance staff. I don´t tell a pilot how to fly a plane and he should not tell me how to do my job.
BTW, whenever I grounded and aircraft (and I´ve been working in aircraft maintenance for 15 years now), I never had a maintenance call questioned. Whenever I made a decision, I provided sufficient evidence that the quality department (and the authority) agreed with me (this means that I don´t ground an aircraft for Mickey Mouse defects).

EASA part 145 prescribes the following statement as the maintenance release:
"Certifies that the work specified except as otherwisespecified was carried out in accordance with Part-145 and in respect to that work the aircraft/aircraft component is considered ready for release to service"
This includes checks. Only a licenced engineer with an appropiate type rating can release an aircraft to service under EASA rules, no captain and no quality manager. The same (except for the type rating) applies to an A&P or IR for the FAA system. I´m not going to sign this statement unless I´m 100% sure that I have complied with it. It doesn´t matter if I lose my job over refusing to sign for dodgy maintenance, I will always find a new one, but if I lose my licence I´m truly f#cked.
BTW I have noticed how many pilots are reluctant to accept an aircraft on the outbound leg (when they can go back home again), but are willing to fly (illegally) with opern defects to get home again.

Quoting 411A (Reply 45):
Quoting avt007 (Reply 44):
You may want to read the below document.

I see you are from Canada, and therefore perhaps operate to Canadian regulations.

Our company is not Canadian, and we don't fly to Canada. Therefore, Canadian rules don't apply.
Simple as that.

The colleague quoted the relevant US FAR´s (BTW, besides my EASA Part-66 B1 licence I also hold a FAA A&P licence, so I´m familiar with both sets of rules.).


Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
411A
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:34 am

RE: Ultimate Authority Always With Captain?

Wed Apr 14, 2010 7:55 pm

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 48):
Then I would not work for your airline, fullstop (after a little research I´m quite sure that I know which airline you are working for and the location of it´s owners and registration doesn´t give me much confidence).

Fullstop or not, it is unlikely with your attitude that you would ever be invited, no matter what your EASA/FAA qualifications.
In addition, we have a perfect safety record, and it is very unlikely you would know whom we are...just as well, as clearly you (personally) would not 'fit in'.
We hire guys with impecable qualifications, and many years (much more than a mere fifteen years) maintenance and flight operations experience.

'Attitude' we don't need, professionals only.
Just the way it is.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos