Aviation Law 101

[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).

 

[semperfido]

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.

avbug- this is what i am interested in. what is the basis of this knowledge? just curious.

-fido

 

[avbug]

I'm not sure what your question is. There is no regulationto the contrary. It's more a matter of what's not the basis of this knowledge. There is no regulation prohibiting a pilot from being pilot in command from either seat, nor is there any regulation requiring the pilot in command to occupy a particular seat, while acting as pilot in command.

My reference is no reference, as there's no regulation preventing it...ergo, you can do whatever you like. In other words, unlike Parts 121 and 135, which are beholden to Part 91 and add to it, a Part 91-only pilot isn't bound by the requirement that the company designate a PIC, nor by the restriction that the PIC designated by the certificate holder remain the PIC. Why? Because under Part 91, there is no such regulation.

For operators under 14 CFR Part 91, subpart K, which parallels for the most part 14 CFR Part 135, it's a different matter. Subpart K covers fractional operations, and an operator under Subpart K is issued an operating certificate just like an operator under 121 or 135, and is also issued M Specs, or Management Specifications. These are similiar in nature to Operations Specifications (OpSpecs) issued under 121 or 135.

The answer to your question is that the pilots can decide among themselves who will be PIC and situate themselves as they see fit, because there is no regulation to the contrary. This assumes, of course, that they are not operating under 91K, 121, or 135.

 

[ultrarunner]

This is a hypothetical question regarding legal resposibility. A Gulfstream biz jet has three assigned pilots on board due to length of the leg and all are Captains. There are two pilots are in the cockpit during landing and the Company assigned Captain who is the FP assigned PIC, is in the Crew Rest. The aircraft slides off the runway. Who is legally responsible?

Is this 91 or 135? Only the latter provides for the "assingment" of a PIC. If 91, I would think it will come down to the 'flying pilot'.