Aviation Law 101

[Spooky 1]

Simply put, duties remain with the seat. Command authority cannot be transfered to another pilot without a very structured procedure. I believe that NWA does this, or did it in the past. It would take a phone patch and another 10 minute process to complete the transfere.

 

[fokkerjet]

......and if that pilot is in crew rest or not in the cockpit at the time?

The Captain gets up to "take a leak", and while away from his station, the F/O is issued a descent clearance. For some reason the new altitude is "busted", is the Captain responsible?

I'm not sure of the answer to this, but American Airlines used to fly with an International F/O on legs requiring a 3rd pilot. When the Captain was in "crew rest", who's PIC now? One of the F/O's, or the Captain sitting in the cabin? I'd venture to guess the Captain in the cabin is still PIC.

 

[G4G5]

Whoevers name is listed on the flight plan as PIC will be the PIC in an incident / accident; just because you have a type rated pilot in the left seat doesn't make that person PIC, just the PF. In our ops manual, its stated that the "Captain" may be seated in the right seat but is still PIC even though not acting as the PF.

This is the way I understand the law to be.

In your hypothetical case, it would be up the the PIC to prove to the FAA (if you are lucky enough to have this happen in the US) that he was not in control of the aircraft. At AA we had two relief pilots (both FO's) get lost on a crossing. By the time the captain came back from his rest break the FO's had discovered their errors and corrected the situtation. They never told the CA about the GNE. The next thing the CA gets is a letter asking to explain what happened. No one cared that two FO's were flying the aircraft.

Bottom line the union was able to get him off the hook but they were only able to do so because he was not in the cockpit at the time of the GNE.

In your case the "Captain" in on the jump seat. So, he is in the cockpit, he is responsible. Getting back to what Foker said, if your name is on the flight plan your name will be on the letter from the feds. Either that or sit in the rest/bunk room for landing.

 

[fokkerjet]

Bottom line the union was able to get him off the hook but they were only able to do so because he was not in the cockpit at the time of the GNE.

Could it have been because the Captain was "off duty" at the time and not just out of the cockpit? Required crew rest by regulations?

 

[Spooky 1]

I can assure from some first hand experience and knowledge that if the PIC sat in the back, or was in the crew rest for landing he/she would probably be terminated, much less violated at a US carrier. In addition, up until just recently on the B777 OHCR, these areas are not approved for T.O., and landing occupancy.

I would agree completely that if the PIC/Capt. was in the crew rest/head/pax seat and the operating crew members did something to cause an incident, there would obviously be mitigating circumsatnces surounding the PIC/Capt. responsibilities as associated with that event. His name would still be on the letter from the FAA though. As for being "off duty". I don't think so. You are on duty, but resting so word smithing your excuse probably will not work.

 

[semperfido]

In your case the "Captain" in on the jump seat. So, he is in the cockpit, he is responsible. Getting back to what Foker said, if your name is on the flight plan your name will be on the letter from the feds. Either that or sit in the rest/bunk room for landing.

no, i never said he was on the jumpseat. he is in the crew rest.

just recently on the B777 OHCR, these areas are not approved for T.O., and landing occupancy.

the crew rest in the airplane is approved for occupancy on t/o and landing.

....let's say the ops man says the PF is considered as the PIC. Do you think this is sufficient to transfer that authority?

 

[fokkerjet]

....let's say the ops man says the PF is considered as the PIC. Do you think this is sufficient to transfer that authority?

Could ask your POI that question (I'm sure each FSDO will have a different answer ) and see what they think about who has authority. My answer (guess) would be whoevers name is on that flight plan.

 

[G4G5]

Could it have been because the Captain was "off duty" at the time and not just out of the cockpit? Required crew rest by regulations?

Weather it is a required rest break or an unschedule phisological relief session (taking a leak). If the "Captain" is not on the flight deck he can't be held resopnsible. Sure he wll be the first one to receive the violation from the feds but he can pleed his case and if past history is any indication the violation will then shift to the type rated PF. At least that's the way I understand it.

Now if the Captain is on the flight deck or on the jump seat then he will be the one who takes the hit.

 

[G4G5]

no, i never said he was on the jumpseat. he is in the crew rest.


the crew rest in the airplane is approved for occupancy on t/o and landing.

....let's say the ops man says the PF is considered as the PIC. Do you think this is sufficient to transfer that authority?

My mistake, if you are in the rest seat then I am under the impression you are not responsible. Now of course, it will be up to you to prove your case.

 

[semperfido]

Weather it is a required rest break or an unschedule phisological relief session (taking a leak). If the "Captain" is not on the flight deck he can't be held resopnsible. Sure he wll be the first one to receive the violation from the feds but he can pleed his case and if past history is any indication the violation will then shift to the type rated PF. At least that's the way I understand it.

Now if the Captain is on the flight deck or on the jump seat then he will be the one who takes the hit.

this makes the most sense to me.

 

[AA717driver]

I agree with G4G5, too. We are implementing a crew rest schedule form to be used on flights with augmented crews but PIC on the flight plan will be the first target. Once everyone agrees that he wasn't on duty at the time, the PF and the PNF will be the target.

I think NWA had a very formal transfer proceedure because they carried two Captains on board. Most other airlines have a Captain and one or two rated FO's.TC

 

[G4G5]

That's because I slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night. LOL

Well maybe it was the downtown ORD Marriott and yes, that was me in the right field bleechers at Wrigley last night watching the Cubs lose to the Cards.

At least Larry Walker threw me a ball. This way I feel I got something for my $38 dollar bleecher seat, $5 dollar beers and $4 dollar hot dogs.

 

[Spooky 1]

I agree with G4G5, too. We are implementing a crew rest schedule form to be used on flights with augmented crews but PIC on the flight plan will be the first target. Once everyone agrees that he wasn't on duty at the time, the PF and the PNF will be the target.

I think NWA had a very formal transfer proceedure because they carried two Captains on board. Most other airlines have a Captain and one or two rated FO's.TC

Your exactly right about the NWA situation. Delta also does the two Capt. formula which I am sure will fall by the way side in BK, assuming that they continue flying ATL/NRT without selling it off to satisfy the creditors. Delta sidesteps this "hand-off" by simply designating one of the Capt.s as the Aircraft Commander and that helps define the chain of command in the four man crew.

 

[some_dude]

FYI, our 135 manual states "The Chief Pilot shall designate a Pilot-in-Command on each flight assignment and he/she shall remain as the PIC during the flight. For assignment purposes, the flight shall include all legs of a trip, including a multi-day trip. "

I think this is pretty typical of 135 operators. So, the PIC is the PIC, regardless of where in the aircraft they are.

 

[avbug]

Whoevers name is listed on the flight plan as PIC will be the PIC in an incident / accident;

This is not true. Under Parts 121 and 135 the pilot designated PIC by the certificate holder will remain the PIC for the entire flight. However, there is nothing about being listed as PIC on a filed flight plan that makes one the PIC, nor assigns any particular responsibility.

Under Part 91 operations only, pilots may interchange the responsibility of being PIC by mutual agreement. This is not particular to any seat, nor a "seat locked" responsibility.

Further, under parts 121 or 135 (which I take the flight in question not to be), the assigned PIC need not be in the left seat. In other words, the responsibility of PIC doesn't stay with the seat, but with the assigned pilot. If the company designated PIC for a flight under 121 or 135 moves to the right seat or climbs out of the seat, he or she is still PIC. The company may designate a different pilot to be PIC during that time, such as captain A will be PIC when flying leg AA, and captain B will be PIC when flying leg BB.

If a pilot under 121 or 135 is PIC and steps off the flight deck (rest, psyiological needs, etc), he or she is still PIC when not present, and still holds the responsibities of being PIC.

Someone asked about the PIC being off the flight deck while the PF misses an altitude or clearance during a descent...who is responsible? Both the PIC, as PIC, and the PF who missed the altitude or clearance. Both may be held accountable.

Conversely, consider the scenario where the captain, acting as PIC is also pilot flying. He is being barraged by a F/O who won't shut up, and doesn't hear an altitude ammendment while he is descending on a descent clearance. Consequently he busts the altitude. Upon investigation, it's entirely possible that the F/O will be violated and the captain will not. Circumstances dictate, despite PIC responsibilities. As required crewmembers, each crewmember is culpable for his or her duties, interference in others duties, and each person's actions.

Of course, that's why we're crew, and not just "a-bunch-of-guys-or-gals-in-the-cockpit (ABOG/GIC).