Is an airline captain the boss
Discussion
I was watching Easyjet inside the cockpit earlier and I was impressed by how authoritarian the captains seemed to be, one had a problem with the database and she spoke to the "office" like she was in charge of the company and called the shots and it reminded me a while back when we were sat on the tarmac at JFK, the captain wouldn't budge until a suspect bit of damage had been checked out by the ground crew that he admitted was more than likely just a paint chip.
It got me thinking does a captain have the absolute final say on whether a flight leaves or not or if it needs to divert or land immediately without any sort of punishment or sanction? I would like to think it does, obviously if he or she says we can't leave because of a hangover then that needs dealing with but if the captain sites a safety aspect then it should be a decision taken by them alone and not the company bosses or the airport. Is there legal jurisdiction that says the captain is the ultimate boss in these circumstances?
It got me thinking does a captain have the absolute final say on whether a flight leaves or not or if it needs to divert or land immediately without any sort of punishment or sanction? I would like to think it does, obviously if he or she says we can't leave because of a hangover then that needs dealing with but if the captain sites a safety aspect then it should be a decision taken by them alone and not the company bosses or the airport. Is there legal jurisdiction that says the captain is the ultimate boss in these circumstances?
I'm not an airline pilot (I fly privately) but yes, the captain of any ship whether on the seas or one in the air or in space has ultimate discretion on what happens on his or her charge.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_in_command
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_in_command
Yes.
Certainly if it comes to declaring emergencies, you pretty much have carte blanche to do as you choose. As long as it's in the interests of safety.
You also have to bare upon your shoulders the fact that you will have to likely justify your actions. That includes in a court of law if it's been that serious.
Certainly if it comes to declaring emergencies, you pretty much have carte blanche to do as you choose. As long as it's in the interests of safety.
You also have to bare upon your shoulders the fact that you will have to likely justify your actions. That includes in a court of law if it's been that serious.
Its as I thought then and how it should be, so if for eg the captain had an issue or problem with the plane and maintenance said they had fixed it or nothing was wrong, then, if the captain still wasn't happy I take it he still has the authority to cancel the flight without threats from operations of losing his job and not be sued at a later date for the lost revenue from the flight even if it did turn out to be safe in the end.
scottyp123 said:
Its as I thought then and how it should be, so if for eg the captain had an issue or problem with the plane and maintenance said they had fixed it or nothing was wrong, then, if the captain still wasn't happy I take it he still has the authority to cancel the flight without threats from operations of losing his job and not be sued at a later date for the lost revenue from the flight even if it did turn out to be safe in the end.
That’s the 64 million dollar question. Most of the major operators have a ‘Just’ culture where you will not be punished and are actually encouraged to safety report issues. All aircraft have a Minimum Equipment List (MEL) which clearly lists what you can and cannot depart with, breaking that would likely see your licence in trouble with the CAA. So you have an element of protection over potentially unscrupulous operators (not common in the U.K.). The challenge is knowing what is just niggles or a marker of impending doom. I pulled a flight once in the military as I felt an unusual vibration in my helicopter, which turned out to be the gearbox about to self-destruct.My experience at the company I work for is that you are fully supported for cancelling a flight, but be prepared to justify yourself with your manager afterwards, which is fair enough.
Edited by Siko on Saturday 22 May 12:11
scottyp123 said:
Its as I thought then and how it should be, so if for eg the captain had an issue or problem with the plane and maintenance said they had fixed it or nothing was wrong, then, if the captain still wasn't happy I take it he still has the authority to cancel the flight without threats from operations of losing his job and not be sued at a later date for the lost revenue from the flight even if it did turn out to be safe in the end.
If the captain decided the aircraft was unsafe but engineering said it was fine then sure the captain can refuse to take it but he/she would likely have a meeting or phonecall where they had to explain their decision afterwards. Obviously it depends on what the issue was though. What defects (things not working) you can fly with are published in a document for every aircraft called an MEL (minimum equipment list) so it’s unlikely you’d have a decision where a captain considered something unsafe but legally he/she was allowed to operate the aircraft in that condition.
Engineers are also safety driven so it would be unlikely an engineer was saying something was fixed and the captain thought it wasn’t or that the engineer was incorrect or lying.
As mentioned above there’s legal responsibility being the captain or pilot in command of an aircraft but the dynamics and support the commander has will vary from airline to airline.
Flying although rule based actually ends up having lots of grey areas and what most airlines are looking for are people who are good at making sensible decisions and can keep things moving but won’t compromise safety. Often when considering whether to promote pilots from first officer to captain, people responsible for deciding will ask themselves if they feel safe putting their family on a plane with that person as the captain. If there’s any doubt then they’re unlikely to get promoted at that time.
So really whenever there’s a decision to be made it’s a balance of many factors, I usually ask myself if it’s safe and then legal and then commercially sound (good for the airline). Obviously you could say you’re prioritising safety and just refuse to take off every flight as there’s always some risk but then you’re not going to make any money.
My employer will certainly support you as a captain but will 100% ask you about something that happens if they disagree or it’s a bit unusual, which is fair enough as it’s their train set and they pay my salary.
Aviation safety relies on people being able to admit mistakes and highlight things that go wrong or even might have gone wrong so if you had an environment where pilots weren’t supported or sacked whenever the management disagreed then people would be likely to be less forthcoming with safety information which might make them look bad.
As an example to your question though, I did a flight a few years ago where the captain had refused to operate the flight as there was an issue with a seatbelt in the flightdeck, he felt it was unsafe and the engineers weren’t going to be able to fix it to his satisfaction without long delays, it was legal though to operate the flight according to the manuals. I got a phonecall and asked to come in and help, when I arrived I found out what the issue was and decided I was happy to go. The previous captain had gone home and had a phonecall from a manager and explained his thoughts and all was fine. The phonecall was asking him what his thought process was and did he consider certain other aspects. He was supported but the company certainly wanted to understand why he’d made that decision.
If you make what the company consider to be a very poor decision, you might find yourself involved in some kind of inquiry process and doing some extra training as a result. With my lot you’d be unlikely to get sacked as long as you ‘owned up’ and reported the incident. What they don’t want is people who make mistakes and then try and cover it up or don’t report it. That might indeed get you sacked depending on what happened.
Regarding ships, the increased data flows from ship to shore no longer mean being the captain is quite what it was.
Go back 30/40 years and the captain was God. You were given a location to head to, and after that the entire voyage relied on the skill, judgement and ability of the cpt who had few other people to turn to when at sea. Now, shore side have a lot more input into routing, problem solving, engineering support etc and so while the cpt is still responsible for what happens, he takes much more advice and direction from head office or the routing and support teams than he used to.
Go back 30/40 years and the captain was God. You were given a location to head to, and after that the entire voyage relied on the skill, judgement and ability of the cpt who had few other people to turn to when at sea. Now, shore side have a lot more input into routing, problem solving, engineering support etc and so while the cpt is still responsible for what happens, he takes much more advice and direction from head office or the routing and support teams than he used to.
Blib said:
@ El stovey. (Plus any other airline pilots out there).
Slightly off topic....
With some many flight crews around the world grounded for many months, what are the airlines doing to ensure that safety won't be compromised by such a long break?
Thanks.
One of my neighbours used to be a BA 777 Captain and since retiring a few years ago has been working for a simulator based training company. He has been working much more during the last year keeping pilots current in the Sim.Slightly off topic....
With some many flight crews around the world grounded for many months, what are the airlines doing to ensure that safety won't be compromised by such a long break?
Thanks.
Blib said:
@ El stovey. (Plus any other airline pilots out there).
Slightly off topic....
With some many flight crews around the world grounded for many months, what are the airlines doing to ensure that safety won't be compromised by such a long break?
Thanks.
We’ve already got legal recency requirements and in many countries like the U.K. these have been amended during covid.Slightly off topic....
With some many flight crews around the world grounded for many months, what are the airlines doing to ensure that safety won't be compromised by such a long break?
Thanks.
Most U.K. airlines will have pilots coming in and using the simulator to do practice (plus their regular checks) whilst the flying is reduced so many airlines have actually been quite busy doing training during covid (plus whatever other revenue flying they can)
Obviously it’s a big issue though and most airlines and pilots are hyper aware that their skills will be reduced during this time.
Most pilots will be hitting the books and doing some armchair flying (imagining scenarios and their responses) and when actually flying just slowing everything down and recognising that they’re maybe not as sharp as they’d like to be. I’ve been using things like flight sim on my computer to practice certain procedures or check out airports and areas I might be going to. My kids also laugh if they see me sitting in a chair with my eyes closed imagining I’m dealing with an engine failure on take off and my hands and arms etc are moving around like a puppet as I operate imaginary controls. I also sometimes go through some procedures when I’m having a run or a swim and just give myself scenarios to think about each time. In some ways I actually know more about things I’ve had time to read up on more during lockdown but my skills are obviously going to be a bit rusty with reduced real flying.
It’s not just pilots that haven’t been working much though it’s everyone in the aviation environment like baggage loaders, dispatchers, cabin crew, air traffic controllers etc so we all have to be very aware and just take it all slowly and methodically and make sure we don’t miss anything.
I heard for instance from a training conference between different U.K. airlines than most are seeing increases in unstable approaches, that’s where someone continues on an approach where it’s perhaps not going as well as it should (maybe it’s a bit fast or too high etc) so you should go around and have another go but there’s increased instances of pilots becoming too focused on sorting it out and trying to land instead.
Then airlines become aware of these real world issues so they incorporate it more into their training and information going out to pilots returning to work etc.
Maximus_Meridius101 said:
If you have the tiller, then you are the boss, there’s no argument there.
Do you mean the person holding the flight controls? In which case, not necessarily: the First Officer may well be controlling the aircraft, but the Captain is still responsible & accountable for the flight.Condi said:
Go back 30/40 years and the captain was God. You were given a location to head to, and after that the entire voyage relied on the skill, judgement and ability of the cpt who had few other people to turn to when at sea. Now, shore side have a lot more input into routing, problem solving, engineering support etc and so while the cpt is still responsible for what happens, he takes much more advice and direction from head office or the routing and support teams than he used to.
Thankfully the same thing has happened in aircraft over the last 20-30 years ie the 'cockpit gradient' has reduced dramatically and much more emphasis has been placed on working as a team (formally known as 'cockpit resource management' or CRM). Lots of historical aircraft accidents can be attributed to the Captain deciding on a particular (flawed) course of action and the co-pilot not being allowed or having the confidence to object. Hence, the reduction in the cockpit gradient nowadays can be directly attributed to a reduction in aircraft accidents.Aside from the above, a flatter cockpit dynamic also makes the job a lot nicer! When I first started flying, I flew with some proper a
holes with really strong opinions who thought you were simply there to put the gear up and make the radio calls. Thankfully I also flew with some great people too, such that when I did my command course and became a Captain, I've since always tried to emulate their best qualities and be open to different suggestions and new ideas. It also means when you want to go for a beer down route, the crew are much more likely to want to join you 
scottyp123 said:
It got me thinking does a captain have the absolute final say on whether a flight leaves or not or if it needs to divert or land immediately without any sort of punishment or sanction? I would like to think it does, obviously if he or she says we can't leave because of a hangover then that needs dealing with but if the captain sites a safety aspect then it should be a decision taken by them alone and not the company bosses or the airport. Is there legal jurisdiction that says the captain is the ultimate boss in these circumstances?
When I did my command course I had it drummed into me that whenever I made decisions, a basic criteria framework that the chosen decision should meet is;1. Is it safe?
2. Is it legal?
3. Is it sensible?
If you meet that criteria, you are going to be bulletproof if/when management ask questions later. Safety is the absolute priority in aviation, it trumps everything else, an airline does not want a hull loss because of commercial interests taking precedence over safety, therefore any captain acting with safety at the forefront of their decision making process with always have the airline on-side.
So in a nutshell, yes, the captain is “the boss”, he/she is responsible for the safety of the flight, the aircraft, the crew, the passengers and the cargo. At the end of the day, they’re the ones climbing into the flight deck and taking that aircraft flying, if they’re not happy with any aspect prior to departure, the jet simply isn’t going anywhere. Including the removal of drunk passengers I might add!
MarkwG said:
Do you mean the person holding the flight controls? In which case, not necessarily: the First Officer may well be controlling the aircraft, but the Captain is still responsible & accountable for the flight.
Traditionally, the captain gets the tiller ( nose wheel steering on a heavy). So “whoever has the tiller calls the shots”.Maximus_Meridius101 said:
r1flyguy1 said:
Some aircraft have a tiller both sides 
Not many though.Some airlines don’t let the F/O taxi the aircraft though.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff