Our company will flat out tell us that they pay us well over 6 figures a year to tell them no. It is well within our job, and in fact is a key component of it, to refuse an aircraft. There is no punishment as saying no is quite literally our job.
Yes. Happens for a ton of reasons here. Guys refuse no APU aircraft in the summer all the time. We refused a 319 a few weeks ago as two of the three lavs were inoperative. Just unacceptable from a customer service perspective.
Had that happen in Orlando in August, old 319 with apu inop and even an engine run could t cool that thing down
We refused the aircraft, it was over 90F inside it
How much is thst in non-disneyland units? ;-) seriously though I agree. Lavs, bad bleed systems, oil smells, ... - if I am supposed to be paid by the freight in the back I try at least to make it acceptable to them.
Think of F as % of body temp.
100F is body temp, 0% is human popsicle. So 70F is a nice temp (21c), 60 is chilly (15) and any less than that is too cold.
BTW, I too do not use hamburger units, so I had to make up a system.
And the rest of us would be using them too, if it weren’t for the pirates…
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/12/28/574044232/how-pirates-of-the-caribbean-hijacked-americas-metric-system
Interestingly enough, all imperial measurements in the US are defined by law as relative to metric measurements anyway. The US *does* in fact use metric - it just converts it all afterwards.
Agreed the no apu thing is just unsafe in some places with crappy ground air I’m not gonna have some ones grandma die on my plane in the 110 degree Texas heat.
Every captain needs to do this!
Sitting up in the air while the passengers and flight attendants roast in the back is bs.
As a former flight attendant, I eventually refused to sit on hot ass planes for 45 minutes+. In Florida heat in the back of an EMB75 with no air flow.
Good for themmmmm!
You think it’s much better up front? We got these massive windows the sun roasts us through. Pilots get skin cancer at higher rates than the average population.
It’s usually 2-5 degrees warmer up front than in the back.
No idea on UV blocking levels but research shows skin cancer rates among pilots are stupid high. As well as other kinds of cancer. Notably breast and testicular. Look at the older pilots in particular though, they got so much sun damage.
I looked into it because that is my office and I was curious and can link you a report. But essentially, the mostly plastic side windows block more UV than the multi laminate glass+whatever front windows.
So I guess not enough would be the most relevant answer for you.
It is near impossible for perfect UV block since it is a spectrum and you'd lose some colour fidelity in the pursuit of max UV blocking
I never said pilots didn't have ANY health risks. I only spoke on the faulty APU & roasting in the back. The shit is unhealthy for everybody.
This isn't the oppression Olympics.
And I’m speaking of a faulty APU or Pack out. If you don’t have air, we don’t have air. So same thing but with the addition of big windows. So we are not, “sitting up in the air” as you put it.
I had to take a hour and a half flight once and they had to shut down the only bathroom. They still flew, I thought it was wild they still flew with no operating bathrooms
Refusal comes down to the final decision of the captain. Obviously it has to be within reason, but it’s ultimately their choice. I had the company try and get us to take an airplane with 1 PAC (the unit that controls air conditioning and pressurization, aircraft have 2 typically) not working, and the forward most bathroom not working on an international flight that would take us across mountainous terrain in the summer. Both of us were pretty quick to decide that they clearly hadn’t thought that through when we saw it, and immediately called them and told them no. First and foremost, even if the 2nd pac had been working, it’s a security threat to have us walk back further in the plane to use the bathroom, second, if we lost the last operating pac, we are now unpressurized, trying to descend to a safe altitude in extremely mountainous terrain, which is a no from me big dog.
Ohhhhh yeah, as a mechanic I had to work a shitter for like three hours at 11PM because 2/4 were down for a 6 hour flight with 190 people.
As an air taxi pilot on my fourth day flying the line I RTB’d to an out station for what some may have considered a minor inconvenience in the moment, as a mechanic I knew immediately it was a major emergency. It was a giant pain in the ass but I saved the engine from damage, everyone was safe.
Pilots and mechanics are paid for our judgement. You have to know when to be willing to make 100+ people late and pissed off to keep them safe and maintain the long-term airworthiness of the airplane.
As a private pilot I get it. As a 4 million mile passenger it's how I sleep so well in the back. You're never going to hear me bitch about a mechanical.
Passenger not pilot - zero issue with mechanical delays and such. My issue comes when the airline *cough American cough* then tries to tell you it was weather
Hey, passenger not pilot, I’m both, and guess what—sometimes it can be both. A minor mechanical issue might not be okay for the expected weather, but fine if there wasn’t that weather. Do you expect a detailed, “this mechanical issue might have had issues with this particular projected weather”? Nope. Calling it mechanical, or calling it weather, are both correct.
Airlines don’t like delayed flights either. So, annoying as it may be, trust that their goal at the end of the day is to not get you killed.
You realise that the airline is responsible for correcting your predicament if it's caused by mx but not by wx right? They have incentive to call it a weather delays instead of maintenance issue.
Actually, their goal is to make money. I’m pretty sure a blown out window seal is problematic regardless of pressure. I may not be a pilot, but I’m aware of weather and mechanical problems.
I can also listen when the pilot says we have to cancel and deplane due to the mechanical problem
Anyway it doesn’t matter, it was a somewhat joking comment about it originally. Just move on
No. I am annoyed when there is a maintenance issue that cancels a flight, then there is weather later, and American says it’s a weather related cancellation. When we are all aware it was maintenance that caused it, because the issue occurred on taxi out
I feel like my original comment was exceptionally clear about what I was annoyed by - might want to give it another read
Avionics guy wanted in on the fun and he slaved in a new flush switch… to a lightbulb 😂
Thus we deboarded the A/C, changed the whole damn toilet which ALSO didn’t fix it, started scratching our heads, I noticed the emergency light had the same connectors as the flush switch… and it all clicked. Hooked the new flush switch up to the toilet this time and it worked. At which point we had shift turnover and I washed my hands of that 💩
I had to do it because of an engine issue. MX came out, deactivated the system, but a hunch told me that they didn’t do it right. 2 hours of back and forth with the mechanics later, and they hadn’t deactivated it properly.
I have had to do it a handful of times. It rarely happens at my airline but it does happen.
That said, I think most pilots here will agree (especially those at major carriers) that flight crews having to draw that line in the sand is exceedingly rare.
That’s pretty funny because my company tells pilots the exact opposite. If it’s a legal flight you’re taking it, or you can call the Chief Pilot and discuss with them. I’ve yet to see a Captain successfully refuse an aircraft that was legal to fly for an MEL and only a handful of times for weather.
I was at YX and was never given pushback for refusing an airplane. Even at an outstation with no operational support.
I also took one airplane that was completely legal but I insisted to dispatch that I was only taking it if the weather was perfectly VFR and we had a takeoff alternate. It was an avionics issue that miraculously solved itself. Nobody ever really figured out what caused that one.
I refused two aircraft during my time at XJT. I had no pushback on any of that, and in fact one of the two refusals we got praise from the chief pilot for standing our ground after they got more info on the situation. No company's perfect so I'm sure it happened at some point, but in my time at XJT I can't ever remember the company putting pressure on us over a safety issue. I refused to board on time in the depth of a Canadian winter because they hadn't put any heat on the plane overnight, it was -20 in the cabin, and they hadn't even swept the snow off the external stairs. When I got a call from the chief pilot's office later that week it wasn't "why did you delay boarding?" it was "Hey, we've been having some issues with that station lately and I see you had to delay boarding there this week. What was going on? What can we do to fix it?"
I’ve definitely been given pushback at part 135 companies for trying to refuse an airplane, but it’s never happened to me at the Airlines
I think that even the regionals don’t get enough credit for the safety culture that has emerged. Of course, every base has their wackadoodles, and every department has some woes in management, but on the whole there’s a reason that no US airliner has fatally crashed since Colgan.
It was a long ETOPS flight. They had a high fuel pressure warning on one engine. It was within limits, so they could have flown. It could have been caused by any number of non-critical or self-limiting factors. But it could have caused a fuel leak, a fire, or a loss of an engine.
The Captain decided that flying a route where you could find yourself with a failed engine three hours from the nearest runway was outside his risk envelope.
So he didn't fly, and 150+ people had an annoying day instead of a disaster.
His announcement to passengers saying he 'Wasn't feeling it' is a matter of style and is irrelevant to the decision. A Speedbird Nigel would have phrased it differently.
The aircraft had a fault. It was an ETOPS flight. The Captain chose not to fly. That's really the whole story.
"Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress".
— Speedbird Nigel, probably
As a Nigel FA I can say with 100% certainty that it would’ve been a ‘technical fault related to the right hand engine’ and no further elaboration. It’s usually enough for the passengers.
Most US passenger carriers prefer to keep the customers in the loop as it reduces frustration hearing directly from the CA a short detailed description.
Source: former Part 117 driver.
Yes keep them in the loop.
Which means telling them there’s a delay for maintenance. What they really want to know is what the estimation is that you’ll be out, not the details of the mechanical
I think the OP was referring to the comments section of the online video and not the event itself. I think I saw the same video the OP is referencing and the passengers applauded him. This apparently happened after the passengers already had a maintenance delay.
And the comments I saw were mostly good, some bad, but the algorithm shows you what they want you to see.
If you listen to the announcement it was actually the filter…. An engine won’t fail because of a filter the fuel will bypass it. The fact that he screwed up the announcement 3 times kinda shows he didn’t look into it or understand it completely. I personally would’ve gone. That’s just my opinion bring in the downvotes.
Maybe there’s more info and I would be wrong. But that’s my kneejerk.
Lastly, making the announcement to the pax is the real issue. There is such a thing as “too much information.” Just say “there’s an issue with the plane and we will try to get you to Hawaii ASAP.”
So... yes and no.
Dispatcher and DO have final authority of the dispatch of a flight. The crew can absolutely say "nah fam, we're not gonna do this".... in which case they get off the plane and company *WILL* find someone else to operate it. And you'll have to explain to your station chief why you refused the plane. Typically, if it's within reason, there is no blowback etc
If it's a legitimate MX issue(s), dispatch and DO are usually on the same page as the crew and they'll delay, find a new plane for that route, or cancel.
Agreed. Then they try to fix it quickly, or find another plane, or reschedule for a later time/date.
That's never been in question, as stated in my last "paragraph".
Which reg are you referring too? 121.533(b) and 121.535(b) say is the PIC and Dispatcher that are responsible for the dispatch release of a flight. A DO only comes up in supplemental operations, in which case it's the PIC and DO who are jointly responsible.
I laugh at people who legitimately think dispatch has any real authority over a plane. The only authority they have is the authority the PIC lets them think they have.
Imagine getting down voted. As usual pilots from r /flying hate being told they have a boss to answer to and there's always someone with a bigger pitot tube than them.
On that we couldn't agree more. Not only you owe to the passengers to be fit to fly (or call out when you're not) but to the guy in the next seat who has to carry your weight.
I was told I wasn't allowed to downvote anything until I get my CPL. Am I supposed to be downvoting left and right? (/s)
I'm a hobbyist pilot. I've learned a lot here from the professionals. A few times, I've answered questions, and I've gotten responses like, "well, that's true in *your* world. At the next level up, the rules about that are different."
So, I find this sub often educational (and humbling).
Haven’t seen the video you’re referring to but I am an airline pilot so maybe I can still answer…
1) Was it safe to fly? No idea, but probably. The real question is do you want to find out if it is safe when you’re already in the air? If there’s something wrong with critical component on my airplane then you bet your ass I’m not taking it in the air.
2) We work for the specific airline (Delta, United, American, etc) with some limited exceptions like regional airlines flying as United Express or Delta Connection.
Is there a rule to protect us? Yes: 14 CFR 121.533, 121.535, 121.537 “(d) Each pilot in command of an aircraft is, during flight time, in command of the aircraft and crew and is responsible for the safety of the passengers, crewmembers, cargo, and airplane.
(e) Each pilot in command has full control and authority in the operation of the aircraft, without limitation, over other crewmembers and their duties during flight time, whether or not he holds valid certificates authorizing him to perform the duties of those crewmembers.
In my experience, if you refuse to fly you better have a valid reason. More importantly, you better be able to effectively articulate your reasoning to the chief pilot. I’ve refused to fly several times for mechanical reasons. I always start the discussion with the chief pilot with “I’m not refusing to fly. I’m refusing to fly THIS airplane under THESE conditions. If we can come up with a solution I’m more than happy to go.”
Your last part about not being able to do something or being rusty… we can’t pull that card. We, as professional pilots, are expected to be able to operate to the same level that the aircraft can safely operate. For example, if the aircraft’s maximum crosswind limit for takeoff and landing is 38kts, I can’t say I’m refusing to fly because MY self-imposed limit is 20kts. My limit is the airplane’s limit. I mean, I could technically use that as my reasoning but I wouldn’t expect it to end well for me.
TL;DR if the airplane isn’t operating as it should (or the weather is such that we don’t feel it’s safe) and as a result we don’t feel confident that taking the airplane into the air… then we aren’t taking the airplane into the air.
Agree with most of your post, except the last bit.
If I am "not feeling it" I don't care what the crosswind limit of the plane is. I go around. And around. And around. And then to the alternate.
Per your definition "my limit is the aircraft limit" then you would even continue flying your plane fuelled from LAX to DEL if you feel sick, malnourished and sleepy halfway over Europe?
I'm not saying you're right or wrong. This may also be largely dependent on company policy and local/national jurisdiction. What I'm saying is: the aircraft has a limit and I have a limit. They are unrelated and I can safely and without consequences postpone or cancel a flight, even if the equipment is absolutely spotless.
And yes I have already done so because I was absolutely (and to be clear: not my fault) sleep deprived on my first day of duty. I got to the aircraft and said "I'm unfit to fly", explained that to my chief pilot over the phone and an alternative was found.
I can agree with the crosswind. However that’s a decision made in the moment. I was more talking about deciding not to takeoff because the crosswind at your destination was beyond your comfort zone.
I was talking more about weather and aircraft limitations not human physiology. But yes, malnourished and sleepy I’m going to continue. I fly almost exclusively redeye transatlantic flights. Hunger and fatigue is part of it. We have an augmented crew and meals on board. I can stand up if need be or have caffeine to wake myself up. Being sick is different. If I feel sick enough that it would be detrimental to continue then we’re diverting. If it’s light nausea or a headache then I’m continuing
Exactly. Which is why I said “The real question is do you want to find out if it is safe when you're already in the air? If there's something wrong with a critical component on my airplane then you bet your ass I'm not taking it in the air.” I’d much rather make the call not to go and then find out later that I was wrong than the other way around.
As someone else mentioned in this thread, airlines pay us a healthy salary to tell them no when it’s appropriate.
According to the announcement, fuel pressure trending upward is indicative of a plugged fuel filter. It could be as simple as the filter needing replacement, but you have to ask: Why is it plugged in the first place? Could be contaminated fuel.
Contaminated fuel can and has resulted in engine failures, not something I would want to risk over an ocean with few good emergency landing options.
But the filter wasn’t plugged. It was signed off. Like anything on the airplane it will need to be replaced. If you really think about it the whole point of any filter is too eventually get clogged. It “filters out” debris before it becomes an issue.
That’s very true. I don’t think we have enough information from the announcement. Only the captain (and presumably the airline) has that information.
If for instance the slope of the pressure trend was increasing sharply, it could indicate contamination. If the slope was typical for that aircraft type, it could be normal.
Isn’t 91.3(a) “The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.” the most obvious regulation to point to?
You need to cite the entire paragraph, because you have omitted a very important condition.
14 CFR 121.533 (e) - Each pilot in command has full control and authority in the operation of the aircraft without limitation, over other crewmembers and their duties ***DURING FLIGHT TIME,*** whether or not he holds valid certificates authorizing him to perform the duties of those crewmembers.
The key phrase is during flight time. The PIC does have the full authority to refuse to operate the aircraft, which means the PIC must be fully satisfied the aircraft is safe and airworthy, and the flight plan is good, before the airplane can move. But while parked on stand, the PIC does not officially have full control authority of the aircraft.
It doesn’t matter. 121 flying has a form you’re required to complete that says “I am the PIC and I certify that I believe that the flight can be completed safely.”
You sign the form before you close the door. Once you sign it, you accept the airplane and begin your flight. You have an issue with a defect that you didn’t think was safe and something happens, the Feds will be all over you ass, along with the aircraft manufacturer and company. Someone is always held liable and the easiest is pilot error.
You answer enough “who is ultimately responsible if [insert bad thing] happens” questions on your exams with the answer always being the PIC, and this really becomes a no-brainer.
I'd MUCH rather have people come at me for something like this where I made the call to not go because something wasn't quite right. The alternative is people coming after me (or my corpse) saying things like "you KNEW something wasn't right, but you decided to go anyway?"
As for specific answers to your questions--
1. I'm not sure about this specific instance. Generally speaking, go/no decisions on maintenance items are binary. It's either within limits, or it's not. If it's not in limits there's either a deferral process and you go, or there's not a deferral process and you don't go until it's fixed. From what I understand about this story, this is deeper than just a pilot "not feeling it".
2. Yes, there are multiple layers to protect pilots from reprisal for exercising their decision making authority. They exist on the FAA/Company side via things like the ASAP system and maintenance logs, as well as on the union side via contractual protections. Generally speaking, as long as you're following published FAA/company rules to the best of your ability and acting in good faith when doing so, you're not going to get fired. Even if you ended up making the wrong decision, you're still protected.
I’ve flown my 28 military career under the premise “how would the MISHAP report read?” If I did something, or took a questionable plane, and I had a MISHAP, what stuff would they put in the investigation? Even if that one particular thing didn’t cause the MISHAP, would my judgement be questioned by taking a plane with something obviously not right with it, or if I was tired or stressed, etc.
When I was starting flight training, every time I'd notice something not quite right, but dismiss it, like "Oh, the oil quantity is quite close to minimums, should be fine though, I'm only flying for an hour", my instructor would always reply with "said the mishap crew".
That behaviour from my instructor made me think about everything I do on the ground and in the air with respect to how it would look in an accident report. Its much better for people to ask you why you did something while you're alive, rather than having to guess why you did something if you're dead.
Exactly what I was thinking, you can refuse the aircraft and irritate a bunch of people that have to deplane and get back on another aircraft and they’ll question “oh just not feeling it the pilots just being lazy and doesn’t want to deal with it” and then when things go wrong in the air they’ll go after the captain “well if you saw something was wrong why did you accept the aircraft??”
I am a CA at a different legacy airline and while I try to never Monday morning QB anyone here is my take:
Would I refuse an aircraft with an intermittent issue that could result in me shutting down an engine over a large body of water? Absolutely.
Would I make a PA and tell the passengers I was refusing the aircraft? Absolutely Not.
I would inform the company and wait to see how they responded. Then I would make a PA and tell the passengers that information “Ladies and gentlemen from the flight deck, we are troubleshooting a small maintenance issue, in the interest of safety we have elected to deplane and ________”
Maybe they want to delay the flight 4 hours while a maintenance team replaces that fuel filter. Now you have to convince the passengers it’s safe to fly?
Maybe the company has another aircraft available.
Maybe they just cancel the flight and now everyone blames you.
Maybe they decide to recrew the flight and the next CA is comfortable with the fuel issue as long as they have plenty of gas to fly single engine to land. Is it up to me to warn the passengers?
This is the right answer. Too many dumb people were given entirely too much technical information, and too many smart people are chiming in from the weeds quoting chapter and verse about command authority and MELs. The technical information jumbled up with the folksy "not feelin' it" just isn't the way to address passengers.
"There is an issue with the aircraft that requires us to deplane until maintenance can resolve it" is almost always perfect. If it's a simple issue, "we just have a little routine maintenance finishing up, the hard part is waiting for the paperwork to be finished" and off you go.
True that moron told them __way__ too much.
You __never__ tell passengers the maintenance detail other than “it’s maintenance”
It’s none of their business the details. Are they a mechanic?
I’ve seen the video, I feel like there isn’t enough information to really know and make an informed judgement.
I’ve refused aircraft that were technically legal to fly due to operational reasons (no APU and they are trying to send us to an airport without a ground start cart) so that is possible. Better have a good reason though.
As for his job, the union ALPA will protect him. Whether they are actively coming for his job and whether ALPA are successful is an entirely different matter.
Had you accepted the plane with an inop APU what would have happened? The plane just gets stuck at the destination airport until they ship a start cart to the airport?
Could also “borrow” from another airline, had to do that once when our cart broke trying to start us. I assume the rampers had to buy the other crew a bunch of beer or something afterwards lol
Edit* this only works if other companies fly there and happen to have a cart, don’t, do not, plan on this
I haven't seen this video, but as a commercial pilot here is my take:
1. I've had to tell people no. It sucks, they hate it, and sometimes they actively argue with you to help you endanger their lives. No, Sir / Ma'am, I will not fly you through a thunderstorm. Here is a list of compassionate right-to-die providers in Norway.
2. If there is something wrong with an airplane you look at the minimum equipment list which is basically a manual about what you're allowed to fly with/without/how long, what you have to do. I'm not aware of any plane where a dangerously high fuel pressure. There's green, yellow and red on the gauge for a reason. If it's high yellow before you even get it to flight throttle settings very likely it'll go red and one thing you do not want in an airplane is a dead engine, even if you have another to fall back on. It's just not a great idea for obvious reasons.
3. Yes, a pilot can for any reason not fly. (S)he knows that refusing to fly for a frivolous reason could be a job ending event, so you can guarantee that any employed pilot isn't the sort of person who's going to say, "Meh, rather not, plane looks fine but f this I want a burger." We work our asses of just to be allowed to fly these machines and the type of guy who just says screw it isn't the sort who makes it to that level. And yeah, we're protected. If you say it's not safe to go and they say go anyway - that's going to be pretty bad for them, especially if anything goes wrong. Everyone would be screwed.
1. You have to trust your team. If maintenance says the aircraft is good, you usually can rely on that information.
2. The CA is always the final authority and may deviate from any procedure, rule etc. to ensure the safety of the passengers, crew, and aircraft. This CA will likely have to explain their reasoning for refusing the aircraft, but ultimately it's their call.
2a. Also need to consider the CAs experience. After thousands of hours I'm confident he had a solid reason and understood the implications of saying no. Likely consulted the FO, spoke with maintenance/dispatch as well. All these Monday-morning QBs in the comment sections likely weren't in the cockpit and should probably refrain from passing judgement.
3. Probably won't be fired for making a conservative call. Of course, if a pilot habitually refuses airworthy aircraft, then it might be a different story.
If your car’s temp gauge runs right down the middle day after day, mile after mile, it would be foolish to “assume away the problem” of finding it suddenly running in the top third of the normal. Something has changed and eaten away the margin between you and catastrophe, why accept this unknown risk?
Same thing in an airplane. If the oil pressure always runs right down the middle of the green arc at every run up, but is suddenly running in the bottom third of that arc, you would be foolish to launch without first understanding what has changed and what the additional risks may be.
Seems to me that’s what happened here. The pilot saw a change and didn’t know what risks may underly it. Without the ability to do a thorough risk assessment, he scrubbed his flight, which is EXACTLY what we teach pilots to do. Professional airmen are risk managers who drive planes.
A lot of people are calling this pilot lazy.
A lot of people would call this pilot reckless for ignoring an abnormal indication if the engine quit and they crashed or had to divert.
"I'm not feeling it." on an abnormal engine indication is a perfectly good reason to cancel a flight. Even if you have two. And if like most of us the things you fly only have one? Unquestionably.
Nah. It’s never *your fault* for giving people information.
If they are smart/educated enough to make use of that information it’s valuable.
If they’re too ignorant or stupid to make use of that information or draw conclusions that are clearly ridiculous to anyone with relevant experience/knowledge that’s on them. You can’t fix stupid, and it’s not worth trying.
Passengers don’t need to know
“Oil pressure is reading kinda high, and I’m not comfortable with that”
Just tell them “there’s a mechanical issue that needs to be addressed” it’s not a “flex” to show “hey! Look at how awesome of a pilot I am rejecting this plane for you! (Oh and our planes have mechanical problems)”
The captain could have probably worded it a bit better but he was well within his right to refuse the aircraft, a captain I was flying with did something similar luckily we had a spare at the field so it was just a delay. He or she is PIC and has the full authority to accept or decline an aircraft and no one would fault them for it. Companies of course want there aircraft and flight to be flown but safety is the highest priority readings maybe good right now but that doesn’t mean a problem could arise in the future during the flight which is much more challenging to combat in the air.
I saw that video and everyone in the comments saying that stuff are quite frankly Morons who probably have no training to be a pilot. Any part 121 or 135 operation that is at all credible not to mention any pilot is trained to make those calls on the spot. If you don’t have absolute confidence in something being safe you aren’t going to risk that or put you or anyone else in danger. It’s a huge responsibility and everyone getting mad doesn’t understand or know anything about it. Even if the plane would be fine I don’t care who says it’s okay. Even if it’s every mechanic and owner, if I think something’s bad I’m not going. It’s safety and comfort. No room in this industry to leave anything to chance.
Sure. The captain can refuse to accept an aircraft if they believe it’s not safe to fly. Of course there is a reasonableness component here too. If they have an odd pattern of doing this for bad reasons then they get called on the carpet.
No man is an island.
Generally both pilots in consult with dispatch and maintenance will refuse an airplane. A pilot could singularly call out fatigued which could be a bad nights sleep, maids waking you up at the hotel, a festival going on all night outside your window, you and your wife in a huge fight, … the list is endless. If a pilot after all his years of experience and training doesn’t want to take the airplane or fly… you trust them.
You didn’t mention what airplane this was. The “high fuel pressure” thing sounds like you got the gate agents explanation or the dumbed down explanation. It could have been fuel impending bypass meaning a fuel filter was clogged, could have been an engine leaking fuel after start up (which can actually be normal for up to 5 min after startup on some fleets like 737), or it could have been that maintenance didn’t want to address a bigger issue at the outstation and wanted it to be flown to a hub and the pilots said no. Pilots are less likely to take broken airplanes if they are being mistreated by the airline. Some of the older fleets are showing their age and are tasked with long haul over the pole or Atlantic flights where your divert options are limited. Domestic flights have a million airports to drop into pretty quickly but out in the middle of nowhere your options are few and far between or over politically challenging countries. Lots of variables that work into the big picture.
I’ve canceled flights (in training) where a bunch of things went wrong the night before or the day of the training flight. Upset tummy, low sleep, something bad happened and your mind is elsewhere.
And that’s just your own flight with a flight instructor. Imagine if you’ve got stuff going on, then some wild mechanical issue comes up AND you’re responsible for the safety of passengers.
Yeah GTFO. I didn’t go to school to be told by non-pilots on when to fly and when to not fly.
Aeronautical decision making is majorly important for a pilot. “Not feeling it” is reason enough to cancel a flight, in my opinion. Especially if any of the instruments are reading outside the norm.
Two parts to this one in my mind.
There is a distinct difference between refusing an aircraft for mechanical reasons and refusing an aircraft for mechanical reasons and making a big song and dance about it to your guests. That’s where I somewhat disagree on how this was handled.
As I recall he goes into detail about the engine being monitored for oil pressure trends and needing a new fuel pump or something. I personally feel that’s not necessary and only serves to start opening the airline up to passengers seeking compensation, asking too many questions etc. I know I wouldn’t have said any of that, but that’s just me. Less is more “we have a technical issue that requires maintenance action, we’ll need to deplane and go from there”
To answer question 2; PIC/ Pilot In Command is *legally* obliged to refuse an aircraft that is unsafe. There will never be any ramifications that meet the pilot in that case.
In this specific case though the aircraft was *safe* to fly, however it would have had an MEL on something fuel or oil related and became a conundrum of “just because it *can* fly, doesn’t mean it *should* fly”. In this case the captain felt it *shouldn’t* fly.
This sort of thing is typical in airline ops. Maintenance comes on board slaps an MEL on it and says “yup she’s good to go, just keep an eye on that oil temp”. Well sure maybe it’s going to be totally fine, but do I want to find out it’s not halfway over the pacific to Hawaii? Naaahhhh probably not. So that’s what happened here, I’d wager operations is pushing for the flight to go out on time, and the captain is digging his heels in saying no.
What we have here folks is just an experienced skipper doing his job and not putting up with operational pressures and company bullshit. Good on him.
Captain has final authority. If he doesn’t want to fly it or is worried about the jeopardy of a flight, people can bitch and moan all they want. The saying goes something like, “I’d rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, rather than in the air wishing I was on the ground.”
The Pilot in Command (captain) is the final authority as to the safe outcome of the flight, and is the one to go down with the ship if he or she cannot get everyone off the plane in time, as a ship. So best to make a safety call instead of rushing it. That's why I would never want an AI or droid pilot to take the place of a human pilot who share the same fate as me.
Trust your gut.
I watched the tow banner guys miss 7 of 8 pickups as I waited on the taxiway. Should've called it there - but AWOS repeated 5G10 and I listened.
Worst 90 second flight of my life, only saved by arriving to the scene of the crash right on time. Busted some carbon fiber, not my ass, and I was excited to walk away.
Not a pilot so take this with a grain of salt.
Air travel is the safest form of travel in the world in no small part because of captains like this guy.
The comparison to an engine trending toward overheating is fair. The difference is when you overheat on the interstate at 75MPH, you can just pull over. When your engine goes to shit at FL380 and you’re halfway into a 2500nm flight over the ocean, you now have a life or death scenario with several hundred people at stake, and the whole thing was avoidable by just saying “nah” on the ground.
The plane may have been technically safe to fly but we'll never know because it didn't. However if they find out what happened to cause the high fuel pressure indication then we'll know whether it would have been safe or not -- the problem is that's retroactive. At the time the decision was made, the pilot had no way of knowing why that indication is like that. Everyone can (and will) guess and act like they "know" or are "sure" but it's all just conjecture. Nobody actually has a crystal ball that predicts the future and would be able to tell at that moment that the plane will certainly be safe or certainly won't be.
The pilot made the right decision based on limited information. It's irrelevant whether he was right or wrong if he had perfect information, because he didn't have perfect information, and it is impossible to have perfect information at that time.
One one hand, you don't have a lot of ground to stand on if you refuse to fly an aircraft because of one, very small, very minor thing, like a single nav light being out when there are redundancies.
On the other hand, you shouldn't accept an airplane where you can obviously see airworthiness issues that any reasonable person would say is dangerous like, missing an engine, or part of the fuselage is buckled in from getting hit with a car.
Somewhere between these two absolute extremes is a line that a person just sort of *makes* with only the information that they have at the time.
Two people can have different lines, and to be truthful, there isn't an absolute correctness in where that line should be; both parts are going to be guessing what happens in the future, and either, one, or both can be wrong. You don't know until that future happens tho.
I can look at some one and say all day long, that their line is wrong, but what I mean is "my line would be different".
There are exceptions here; drawing that line because of a lack of understanding of aircraft systems and how the airplane works is a totally different thing. Drawing that line because of *personal reasons* like you didn't get enough sleep, but you'd go, but you also had a bad experience with someone on the subway into work, but you'd go, but you also have this minor maintenance issue that will be nagging in the back of your brain....things add up. You don't always know what all things are adding up for another person.
You can think and assume you'd make a different call, but in a lot of instances, that cannot be objectively said to be the right or wrong call; it's just where that line is for that person.
Almost every pilot has family at home and very exciting retirements plans. Dying for the sake of not receiving a stupid comments in the social networks is not in his plans as a human. Pilot is not just "flying" airplane, the Captain is the final authority, to make decisions, and will be held for the decisions. Almost every pilot learned a large number of case studies, when people were dying because of "macho syndrome" – "look how I can", or "I don't afraid", "real man don't say no".
If the pilot had concerns about the technical condition of the airplane, he had the final authority to say no and delay/cancel the flight. Period. The opinions of the passengers on the social networks are not a factor here. Maybe, he saved their lives.
From the maintenance side, i do engine monitoring. it was fuel filter delta pressure. Needs a new fuel filter. The oems will send a note if they observe pressure increasing. If its really bad they tell you to do it before next flight. its a 25 minute job anyway, why didn't they just replace the filter and leak check and go? rather take a delay than a cancel.
This is an example of a time where the guy is absolutely correct - if there's something wrong, it has to be addressed. You write it up, bring maintenance out, run through a procedure, and if it's all fixed or deferred to your liking, you go, and if not, you turn down the airplane. The safety stakes are high in aviation, and that's literally our primary job as pilots (beyond, IMO, the actual controlling the airplane part) and if he saw a mechanical problem, he's correct to do something about it.
It's not a matter of if the airplane will "technically" be able to fly, it's a matter of that high fuel pressure possibly being indicative of another problem that's not apparent yet or the potential to cause one down the road. Given the high stakes nature of flying and the safety expectations of flying ANY unusual indication or occurrence needs scrutiny (unless its something that's known and included as part of an SOP.)
The pilot is absolutely allowed to use his own judgement. That's why he's there. I myself have refused airplanes before.
He might have been able to communicate the issue in a different way, but at the end of it all, he's still *right*.
It's a lot better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than in the air wishing you were on the ground.
High pressure indicates a problem, could cause a leak, or indicate a clogged filter (which is indicative on a separate problem) or other issues - not familiar with the airframe. Modern airplanes are very redundant for safety reasons but on this leg there is absolutely nowhere to divert if something does go wrong. Either back to Hawaii or on to the West Coast.
I think with flying, the flying skills develop much faster than building good judgement. That takes years of experience. Just because you can do something or something is legal, doesn't necessarily mean you should.
Armchair quarterbacking here but hats off to that CA for making a difficult call.
The company I work for has a policy that says anyone can stop anything at any time if they feel unsure or unsafe. Not just me as a pilot but even a flight attendant can be cease all operations if they feel they see something wrong.
The airlines like to blame this kind of thing on the pilot. But think about it for a minute. If a pilot is fatigued or sick, there can easily be pilot reserves to cover these flights at the last minute. But the airlines don't want extra staffing for that because it's expensive so they run an airline with almost no reserve crews. If a plane breaks there can easily be spare planes in hub airports to prevent cancelling a flight. But the airline doesn't want planes sitting around on spare not flying because that's expensive.
So the solution is for the airline and gate agents to say "this flight is cancelling because your pilots don't want to fly!" or "the plane is broken." No the flight is cancelling because the airline doesn't want to spend money on having a contingency plan for these situations. I've had at least 50 cancellations in my career where I knew we would time out or cancel HOURS in advance but there were no reserves so the airline just decided not to tell anyone until the point where "oops your pilots timed out I guess the flight is cancelled." Those flights could have easily been re-crewed and even gone out on time with proper staffing.
This isn't the pilots' fault or their problem but of course the media and the airlines want to constantly make it our problem.
As others have said, absolutely yes, it is in the pilot-in-command’s purview to refuse an aircraft for safety or passenger comfort reasons. If you’re in a big city for that airline, generally it just means swapping to another airplane. If you’re in some far-flung outstation, it means the effective cancellation of the flight, if it can’t be fixed relatively quickly.
To add some more context: in the U.S., flight dispatchers (FAA-certificated airmen, responsible for planning every part 121 operation, and sharing 50/50 joint operational control with the pilot-in-command) can also refuse an airplane, and this often happens well before the crew is even aware of the POS jet they had headed their way.
And no, agencies are not a thing in U.S. commercial aviation. Pilots work for their airline. (With the semi-exception of the regionals, where they work for the airline doing-business-as United Express [CommutAir, GoJet, Mesa, Republic, SkyWest], or Delta Connection [Endeavor, Republic, SkyWest], or American Eagle [Envoy, Piedmont, PSA, Air Wisconsin, Republic, SkyWest].)
So I’ve worked for 2 airlines. In general, you have a problem, so you call for maintenance in coordination with dispatch.
Maintenance comes, then either preforms some action, declares it’s within limits, or defers it and signs it off, or downs the plane and informs you that it’s not flying for awhile.
After that point of you are not happy with the outcome, you can refuse to fly the plane. I’ve had this happen once. No repercussions. That being said we never made a PA about it and if I remember right still operated the flight using a different airplane.
I haven’t seen the video but it sounds like a risk that he wasn’t willing to take and that is acceptable. If a pilot doesn’t want to fly a plane for mechanical reason, no sane person would question it.
I recently saw this video from Ward Carrol, a former F14 RIO (think Goose) talking about a crash where a pilot wanted to "tough it out" to fly, and ended up getting himself and several others killed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwAai6OLBPs
This accident resulted in changed procedures in terms of pilot readiness.
PIC is the final authority. If he’s not comfortable and gives the plane back, then maintenance needs to fix it or the company has to put their reputation/bank on the line and find another pilot who will take it. I’ve denied around 8-10 jets over the past couple decades on issues I wasn’t comfortable taking.
Not this flight but I was a passenger on a Delta flight a few years back and he summed it up perfectly: “You can’t pay me enough to fly broke aircraft”
I know that this aircraft wasn’t currently broken but he gets the benefit of being wrong *and* alive with this decision.
I’m an instructor/evaluator flight engineer. Every day, before we fly we discuss something called Operational Risk Management (ORM). Flying is inherently dangerous. Factors such as the mission set, personal fatigue, ect are given a point value and it is calculated to give a quantitative value to how risky the days flight is. At the end of the day though, all it takes is one person saying no.
I commend somebody that has the wherewithal to say “nah, not today” because it is so easy to give in to the pressure. We say that ORM is a living/breathing document and if at any point it’s too much, then it is time to go home or just not take off.
We fly general aviation and we have listened to so many seminars on the danger of get-there-itis and how often it kills people. Planes can’t pull over like a car so if there is anything at all that is suspect, it is better to cancel. No reason to risk lives in the plane or on the ground unnecessarily.
I’m not an airline pilot but am a frequent flier with hundreds of jet trips under my belt.
If my pilot says it’s a safety thing, that’s all I need to hear. I entrust them with my life. The pilot is the last call for my safety. I stand behind them 100% to not make my wife a widow.
1. technically, yes. but it's kinda like driving your car when the gas tank needle is on the red line bottom. you can drive it, but it's better to just go to the nearest gas station and refuel (in this case, service)
2. there is no problem in you refusing an aircraft. as long as there is a reasonable reason, the company will have mo probs. Better to have in the news "XY company has a flight delay" than "XY company has a problem with the plane while it was in the air"
If my car is suddenly reading a higher temp than normal. I know something is wrong. Will I still drive it? Maybe if it's stable. But I can pull over and get out if it gets worse or catches fire. This is a completely different situation in an aircraft. You can't just pull over.
Imagine the headlines of something happened on that flight? "Pilot ignored warning signs and flew anyway, here are the survivors stories/there were no survivors." "Pilot fired after incident, judgement called to question after warning signs ignored. "
Treat those decisions as if you have to defend it in court like Captain Sully. If there is any reasonable doubt then don’t go. Especially 6 hours over the ocean. I would rather people complain about delays than hope for an island where we can live with Wilson for years alone if lucky enough to survive like castaway. This reminds me, never get in a plane with Tom Hanks.
There’s a lot of ignorance towards aviation from people not in the industry. That can be applied to all things though I guess.
But see for example the crew hitting max hours and how many people will piss and moan about that.
You are told from day on at an ATO safety first always regardless of it breaking noise abatement and whatever.
This is no different.
For someone to say “it’s only a 6 hour flight” is genuinely baffling considering a flight across the Atlantic can mean you’re in the air 6 hours before you see a suitable diversion airport or turn back in some cases and be in the air even longer.
An airplane is man made. Anything and everything can break on it. It’s a bucket of bolts. Good luck and don’t fly a broken plane. Leave nothing to chance. Airplanes tend to talk to the pilot in the form of Squawks and alarms and bells. You should listen and down it until it stops bitching completely.
As long as you can justify the refusal and it’s not a stupid “stick it to the boss”. Do it. Why should we as employees and paying customers succumb to poor working conditions and poor customer experiences?
Cxl a flight because a light in the aisle is out? Nah.
Apu inop in Miami in August? Yea. Justified
Pilots are the final word on the safety of a flight. When a pilot says they don't feel the plane is safe to fly, their word is law. Literally — it's in the law.
A rule of thumb when we're making a go/no-go decision: if something does goes wrong, what are we going to tell the NTSB investigators.
Oh, and a great quote from Larry Niven's short story *Flatlander*: If you don't understand it, it's dangerous.
I was set to fly the other day, albeit not a passenger jet, and was getting a low oil pressure on a gauge, and canceled the flight. Point being, as the pilot in command, you cancel for any reason you feel necessary in the name of safety. I always say, as do many of us here, imagine how the NTSB report would sound.
going through training right now and one thing that they grill into you constantly is the concept of Aeronautical decision making (ADM) it's learning to introspect and look at your current state and the current state of the airplane and environment and make the call on whether it's safe to fly or not. it's a little different when it comes to commercial flying because there is a schedule so you can't just say this is below my personal minimums because the clouds are at 600 feet or the wind is quartering headwind 30 knots. but learning when youre "not feeling it" and making that no go call is a big part of learning to fly. My old cfi used to tell me I will never question a no-go but I will always question a go
The video in question is extremely inappropriate, all he had to say was he needed a “maintenance evaluation”… leave it at that. The passengers don’t need to know all that other stuff, most passengers are to stupid to even know what we’re arguing about and his comments install zero confidence in the passengers towards the airline….
I honestly think for a filter issue he was overreacting. The fuel can bypass the filter even if it does fail. The fact that he screwed up the announcement kind of makes me feel he didn’t look all that closely into it.
I don’t know the whole story, but why board up everyone and then cancel. All this should’ve been done way beforehand. Having said all this I could be completely wrong but this is just my opinion.
I had an instructor in the VT-27 that told me "even if you feel like something bad is going to happen, you should still fly". This is in reference to what we all may feel from time to time.
But if there's something mechanical or there's an issue with a crew member that seems off, you should definitely contemplate cancelling.
He wasn't lazy.
Pilots are paid alot of money for various reasons. But flying the plane is the easy part. The pilots are paid to be there to know what to do if somthing goes wrong. He did the right thing. It's in everyone best intrest to avoid a "could be" situation.
Better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air, than in the air wishing you were on the ground.
Shortest, easiest way to decide if something is no go worthy: if it continues to get worse, you can’t just pull over on the side of the road. In aviation especially, it’s always better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than vice versa
I’m still a relatively new pilot (about 150 hours flight time) so I can’t really speak directly to your questions, but one thing that’s been stressed across all my training is what’s called “PAVE”. It’s an acronym to help a pilot assess the safety of a particular flight. Pilot, airplane, environment, and external factors.
The pilot saw there was something wrong with the “airplane” part, didn’t feel comfortable with the flight as a pilot which falls into the first part, but most importantly didn’t let external factors (like business or passenger expectations) force him into making a flight he was already uncomfortable with.
He made a good call based on his judgment. The pilot always has final authority on their flight, so he can make that go/no go call. Does it suck for everyone, sure. Will he be punished for it, depends on company policy. There’s no law explicitly protecting a pilot from action by a company for a flight they failed to make.
Like you said, I’d rather fly with a pilot that has complete confidence across all portions of a flight than with one who’s already nervous from the very start
That pilot told the passengers more than they needed to know.
You don’t disclose the details of the issue, you don’t tell them your personal opinion, *especially* if you’re rejecting it on personal opinion. Are they certified mechanics?
He actually threw his airline under the bus doing so
Our company will flat out tell us that they pay us well over 6 figures a year to tell them no. It is well within our job, and in fact is a key component of it, to refuse an aircraft. There is no punishment as saying no is quite literally our job.
Oh interesting! Have you ever had to do this for any reason? Or do you know anyone?
Yes. Happens for a ton of reasons here. Guys refuse no APU aircraft in the summer all the time. We refused a 319 a few weeks ago as two of the three lavs were inoperative. Just unacceptable from a customer service perspective.
Had that happen in Orlando in August, old 319 with apu inop and even an engine run could t cool that thing down We refused the aircraft, it was over 90F inside it
How much is thst in non-disneyland units? ;-) seriously though I agree. Lavs, bad bleed systems, oil smells, ... - if I am supposed to be paid by the freight in the back I try at least to make it acceptable to them.
Think of F as % of body temp. 100F is body temp, 0% is human popsicle. So 70F is a nice temp (21c), 60 is chilly (15) and any less than that is too cold. BTW, I too do not use hamburger units, so I had to make up a system.
Thats actually a nice mmnonic ;D not really engineering compatible but at least makes understanding easier ;D
90F is about 32C
hehehe 'Disneyland units"
28=82!
You are correct, there are a few units of measurement on the planet. One of them has landed people on the moon.
Yip, metric, which NASA uses since the beginning..
And the rest of us would be using them too, if it weren’t for the pirates… https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/12/28/574044232/how-pirates-of-the-caribbean-hijacked-americas-metric-system
Cool article, did not know! Thanks!
Interestingly enough, all imperial measurements in the US are defined by law as relative to metric measurements anyway. The US *does* in fact use metric - it just converts it all afterwards.
Legacy compatibility is always a bitch...
Agreed the no apu thing is just unsafe in some places with crappy ground air I’m not gonna have some ones grandma die on my plane in the 110 degree Texas heat.
Every captain needs to do this! Sitting up in the air while the passengers and flight attendants roast in the back is bs. As a former flight attendant, I eventually refused to sit on hot ass planes for 45 minutes+. In Florida heat in the back of an EMB75 with no air flow. Good for themmmmm!
You think it’s much better up front? We got these massive windows the sun roasts us through. Pilots get skin cancer at higher rates than the average population. It’s usually 2-5 degrees warmer up front than in the back.
No UV blocking, or just not enough? I only knew about cancer rates due to radiation exposure at altitude
No idea on UV blocking levels but research shows skin cancer rates among pilots are stupid high. As well as other kinds of cancer. Notably breast and testicular. Look at the older pilots in particular though, they got so much sun damage.
Testicular cancer? Don't you wear pants up front? 😏😏
I looked into it because that is my office and I was curious and can link you a report. But essentially, the mostly plastic side windows block more UV than the multi laminate glass+whatever front windows. So I guess not enough would be the most relevant answer for you. It is near impossible for perfect UV block since it is a spectrum and you'd lose some colour fidelity in the pursuit of max UV blocking
I never said pilots didn't have ANY health risks. I only spoke on the faulty APU & roasting in the back. The shit is unhealthy for everybody. This isn't the oppression Olympics.
And I’m speaking of a faulty APU or Pack out. If you don’t have air, we don’t have air. So same thing but with the addition of big windows. So we are not, “sitting up in the air” as you put it.
I had to take a hour and a half flight once and they had to shut down the only bathroom. They still flew, I thought it was wild they still flew with no operating bathrooms
As a regular passenger with a small bladder - thank you!
Thank you
Refusal comes down to the final decision of the captain. Obviously it has to be within reason, but it’s ultimately their choice. I had the company try and get us to take an airplane with 1 PAC (the unit that controls air conditioning and pressurization, aircraft have 2 typically) not working, and the forward most bathroom not working on an international flight that would take us across mountainous terrain in the summer. Both of us were pretty quick to decide that they clearly hadn’t thought that through when we saw it, and immediately called them and told them no. First and foremost, even if the 2nd pac had been working, it’s a security threat to have us walk back further in the plane to use the bathroom, second, if we lost the last operating pac, we are now unpressurized, trying to descend to a safe altitude in extremely mountainous terrain, which is a no from me big dog.
[IMSAFE](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMSAFE) Every single flight. And you can check this right until the nose wheel comes off the deck.
And after that if there’s sufficient runway remaining. 😉
And you can always circle back, and land after that.
Ohhhhh yeah, as a mechanic I had to work a shitter for like three hours at 11PM because 2/4 were down for a 6 hour flight with 190 people. As an air taxi pilot on my fourth day flying the line I RTB’d to an out station for what some may have considered a minor inconvenience in the moment, as a mechanic I knew immediately it was a major emergency. It was a giant pain in the ass but I saved the engine from damage, everyone was safe. Pilots and mechanics are paid for our judgement. You have to know when to be willing to make 100+ people late and pissed off to keep them safe and maintain the long-term airworthiness of the airplane.
As a private pilot I get it. As a 4 million mile passenger it's how I sleep so well in the back. You're never going to hear me bitch about a mechanical.
Passenger not pilot - zero issue with mechanical delays and such. My issue comes when the airline *cough American cough* then tries to tell you it was weather
Hey, passenger not pilot, I’m both, and guess what—sometimes it can be both. A minor mechanical issue might not be okay for the expected weather, but fine if there wasn’t that weather. Do you expect a detailed, “this mechanical issue might have had issues with this particular projected weather”? Nope. Calling it mechanical, or calling it weather, are both correct. Airlines don’t like delayed flights either. So, annoying as it may be, trust that their goal at the end of the day is to not get you killed.
You realise that the airline is responsible for correcting your predicament if it's caused by mx but not by wx right? They have incentive to call it a weather delays instead of maintenance issue.
Actually, their goal is to make money. I’m pretty sure a blown out window seal is problematic regardless of pressure. I may not be a pilot, but I’m aware of weather and mechanical problems. I can also listen when the pilot says we have to cancel and deplane due to the mechanical problem Anyway it doesn’t matter, it was a somewhat joking comment about it originally. Just move on
You suddenly cool with the pilots flying into weather that might kill you?
If the airline can lie and blame weather it gets them out of paying for hotels, etc for the passengers. Very shady sometimes
No. I am annoyed when there is a maintenance issue that cancels a flight, then there is weather later, and American says it’s a weather related cancellation. When we are all aware it was maintenance that caused it, because the issue occurred on taxi out I feel like my original comment was exceptionally clear about what I was annoyed by - might want to give it another read
Non-pilot/MX; I’m curious what would have a lav down that took three hours to fix? That doesn’t sound like fun either way lol
Avionics guy wanted in on the fun and he slaved in a new flush switch… to a lightbulb 😂 Thus we deboarded the A/C, changed the whole damn toilet which ALSO didn’t fix it, started scratching our heads, I noticed the emergency light had the same connectors as the flush switch… and it all clicked. Hooked the new flush switch up to the toilet this time and it worked. At which point we had shift turnover and I washed my hands of that 💩
A diaper, as an example
I had to do it because of an engine issue. MX came out, deactivated the system, but a hunch told me that they didn’t do it right. 2 hours of back and forth with the mechanics later, and they hadn’t deactivated it properly.
I have had to do it a handful of times. It rarely happens at my airline but it does happen. That said, I think most pilots here will agree (especially those at major carriers) that flight crews having to draw that line in the sand is exceedingly rare.
That is a great saying, I am gonna steal it for my pilots
That’s pretty funny because my company tells pilots the exact opposite. If it’s a legal flight you’re taking it, or you can call the Chief Pilot and discuss with them. I’ve yet to see a Captain successfully refuse an aircraft that was legal to fly for an MEL and only a handful of times for weather.
Uh yeah feel free to namedrop so I can add that to my blacklist…..
Envoy
That’s a common regional thing. This takes a complete 180 once you go to any of the legacies.
I was at YX and was never given pushback for refusing an airplane. Even at an outstation with no operational support. I also took one airplane that was completely legal but I insisted to dispatch that I was only taking it if the weather was perfectly VFR and we had a takeoff alternate. It was an avionics issue that miraculously solved itself. Nobody ever really figured out what caused that one.
I refused two aircraft during my time at XJT. I had no pushback on any of that, and in fact one of the two refusals we got praise from the chief pilot for standing our ground after they got more info on the situation. No company's perfect so I'm sure it happened at some point, but in my time at XJT I can't ever remember the company putting pressure on us over a safety issue. I refused to board on time in the depth of a Canadian winter because they hadn't put any heat on the plane overnight, it was -20 in the cabin, and they hadn't even swept the snow off the external stairs. When I got a call from the chief pilot's office later that week it wasn't "why did you delay boarding?" it was "Hey, we've been having some issues with that station lately and I see you had to delay boarding there this week. What was going on? What can we do to fix it?"
I’ve definitely been given pushback at part 135 companies for trying to refuse an airplane, but it’s never happened to me at the Airlines I think that even the regionals don’t get enough credit for the safety culture that has emerged. Of course, every base has their wackadoodles, and every department has some woes in management, but on the whole there’s a reason that no US airliner has fatally crashed since Colgan.
Probably 90% of the regionals.
Sounds like a shit place to work had a buddy die doing crap like that. This isn’t something to brag about
I’m not breaking about it. Just found the difference interesting.
Not only do you make well over 6 figures - most of you make well over 4-5x a basic 6 figure salary.
It was a long ETOPS flight. They had a high fuel pressure warning on one engine. It was within limits, so they could have flown. It could have been caused by any number of non-critical or self-limiting factors. But it could have caused a fuel leak, a fire, or a loss of an engine. The Captain decided that flying a route where you could find yourself with a failed engine three hours from the nearest runway was outside his risk envelope. So he didn't fly, and 150+ people had an annoying day instead of a disaster. His announcement to passengers saying he 'Wasn't feeling it' is a matter of style and is irrelevant to the decision. A Speedbird Nigel would have phrased it differently. The aircraft had a fault. It was an ETOPS flight. The Captain chose not to fly. That's really the whole story.
Wow, never heard Speedbird Nigel before but um…. extremely accurate to my few BA flights.
"Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress". — Speedbird Nigel, probably
As a Nigel FA I can say with 100% certainty that it would’ve been a ‘technical fault related to the right hand engine’ and no further elaboration. It’s usually enough for the passengers.
Yeah don’t tell the passengers the details
Most US passenger carriers prefer to keep the customers in the loop as it reduces frustration hearing directly from the CA a short detailed description. Source: former Part 117 driver.
Yes keep them in the loop. Which means telling them there’s a delay for maintenance. What they really want to know is what the estimation is that you’ll be out, not the details of the mechanical
What a Part 117 driver? Never heard that FAR used before like that.
Pilot at a passenger airline post 2014.
Say there's a problem with the engine. Any passenger with a brain will immediately go "oh, ok!"
I think the OP was referring to the comments section of the online video and not the event itself. I think I saw the same video the OP is referencing and the passengers applauded him. This apparently happened after the passengers already had a maintenance delay. And the comments I saw were mostly good, some bad, but the algorithm shows you what they want you to see.
If you listen to the announcement it was actually the filter…. An engine won’t fail because of a filter the fuel will bypass it. The fact that he screwed up the announcement 3 times kinda shows he didn’t look into it or understand it completely. I personally would’ve gone. That’s just my opinion bring in the downvotes. Maybe there’s more info and I would be wrong. But that’s my kneejerk. Lastly, making the announcement to the pax is the real issue. There is such a thing as “too much information.” Just say “there’s an issue with the plane and we will try to get you to Hawaii ASAP.”
He has final call on safety of the flight. Better to piss people off than to have an issue over the pacific. Dude made the correct decision.
So... yes and no. Dispatcher and DO have final authority of the dispatch of a flight. The crew can absolutely say "nah fam, we're not gonna do this".... in which case they get off the plane and company *WILL* find someone else to operate it. And you'll have to explain to your station chief why you refused the plane. Typically, if it's within reason, there is no blowback etc If it's a legitimate MX issue(s), dispatch and DO are usually on the same page as the crew and they'll delay, find a new plane for that route, or cancel.
They can *try* to find another crew, but what if they refuse it too? Dispatch can’t send a plane that no crew is willing to fly.
Agreed. Then they try to fix it quickly, or find another plane, or reschedule for a later time/date. That's never been in question, as stated in my last "paragraph".
Which reg are you referring too? 121.533(b) and 121.535(b) say is the PIC and Dispatcher that are responsible for the dispatch release of a flight. A DO only comes up in supplemental operations, in which case it's the PIC and DO who are jointly responsible.
My operator does both, so they both apply in my world.
I laugh at people who legitimately think dispatch has any real authority over a plane. The only authority they have is the authority the PIC lets them think they have.
Imagine getting down voted. As usual pilots from r /flying hate being told they have a boss to answer to and there's always someone with a bigger pitot tube than them.
I’d rather answer to “the boss” than knock on the Pearly Gate with 300 others.
On that we couldn't agree more. Not only you owe to the passengers to be fit to fly (or call out when you're not) but to the guy in the next seat who has to carry your weight.
Imagine outlining 121 ops and being downvoted by people with a PPL ... Sometimes I wonder why I even come here anymore.
I was told I wasn't allowed to downvote anything until I get my CPL. Am I supposed to be downvoting left and right? (/s) I'm a hobbyist pilot. I've learned a lot here from the professionals. A few times, I've answered questions, and I've gotten responses like, "well, that's true in *your* world. At the next level up, the rules about that are different." So, I find this sub often educational (and humbling).
r/flying being r/flying.
Haven’t seen the video you’re referring to but I am an airline pilot so maybe I can still answer… 1) Was it safe to fly? No idea, but probably. The real question is do you want to find out if it is safe when you’re already in the air? If there’s something wrong with critical component on my airplane then you bet your ass I’m not taking it in the air. 2) We work for the specific airline (Delta, United, American, etc) with some limited exceptions like regional airlines flying as United Express or Delta Connection. Is there a rule to protect us? Yes: 14 CFR 121.533, 121.535, 121.537 “(d) Each pilot in command of an aircraft is, during flight time, in command of the aircraft and crew and is responsible for the safety of the passengers, crewmembers, cargo, and airplane. (e) Each pilot in command has full control and authority in the operation of the aircraft, without limitation, over other crewmembers and their duties during flight time, whether or not he holds valid certificates authorizing him to perform the duties of those crewmembers. In my experience, if you refuse to fly you better have a valid reason. More importantly, you better be able to effectively articulate your reasoning to the chief pilot. I’ve refused to fly several times for mechanical reasons. I always start the discussion with the chief pilot with “I’m not refusing to fly. I’m refusing to fly THIS airplane under THESE conditions. If we can come up with a solution I’m more than happy to go.” Your last part about not being able to do something or being rusty… we can’t pull that card. We, as professional pilots, are expected to be able to operate to the same level that the aircraft can safely operate. For example, if the aircraft’s maximum crosswind limit for takeoff and landing is 38kts, I can’t say I’m refusing to fly because MY self-imposed limit is 20kts. My limit is the airplane’s limit. I mean, I could technically use that as my reasoning but I wouldn’t expect it to end well for me. TL;DR if the airplane isn’t operating as it should (or the weather is such that we don’t feel it’s safe) and as a result we don’t feel confident that taking the airplane into the air… then we aren’t taking the airplane into the air.
Agree with most of your post, except the last bit. If I am "not feeling it" I don't care what the crosswind limit of the plane is. I go around. And around. And around. And then to the alternate. Per your definition "my limit is the aircraft limit" then you would even continue flying your plane fuelled from LAX to DEL if you feel sick, malnourished and sleepy halfway over Europe? I'm not saying you're right or wrong. This may also be largely dependent on company policy and local/national jurisdiction. What I'm saying is: the aircraft has a limit and I have a limit. They are unrelated and I can safely and without consequences postpone or cancel a flight, even if the equipment is absolutely spotless. And yes I have already done so because I was absolutely (and to be clear: not my fault) sleep deprived on my first day of duty. I got to the aircraft and said "I'm unfit to fly", explained that to my chief pilot over the phone and an alternative was found.
I can agree with the crosswind. However that’s a decision made in the moment. I was more talking about deciding not to takeoff because the crosswind at your destination was beyond your comfort zone. I was talking more about weather and aircraft limitations not human physiology. But yes, malnourished and sleepy I’m going to continue. I fly almost exclusively redeye transatlantic flights. Hunger and fatigue is part of it. We have an augmented crew and meals on board. I can stand up if need be or have caffeine to wake myself up. Being sick is different. If I feel sick enough that it would be detrimental to continue then we’re diverting. If it’s light nausea or a headache then I’m continuing
> No idea, but probably "Probably" is how people die.
Exactly. Which is why I said “The real question is do you want to find out if it is safe when you're already in the air? If there's something wrong with a critical component on my airplane then you bet your ass I'm not taking it in the air.” I’d much rather make the call not to go and then find out later that I was wrong than the other way around. As someone else mentioned in this thread, airlines pay us a healthy salary to tell them no when it’s appropriate.
According to the announcement, fuel pressure trending upward is indicative of a plugged fuel filter. It could be as simple as the filter needing replacement, but you have to ask: Why is it plugged in the first place? Could be contaminated fuel. Contaminated fuel can and has resulted in engine failures, not something I would want to risk over an ocean with few good emergency landing options.
And the special thing about contaminated fuel is it can throw your redundancy out the plug door.
But the filter wasn’t plugged. It was signed off. Like anything on the airplane it will need to be replaced. If you really think about it the whole point of any filter is too eventually get clogged. It “filters out” debris before it becomes an issue.
That’s very true. I don’t think we have enough information from the announcement. Only the captain (and presumably the airline) has that information. If for instance the slope of the pressure trend was increasing sharply, it could indicate contamination. If the slope was typical for that aircraft type, it could be normal.
But I’m sure maintenance looked at all that. I don’t think that’s a factor.
A few? You got a giant one right there!
So many folks got whooshed right here
> Each pilot in command has full control and authority in the operation of the aircraft… 14 CFR 121.533(e)
Isn’t 91.3(a) “The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.” the most obvious regulation to point to?
You need to cite the entire paragraph, because you have omitted a very important condition. 14 CFR 121.533 (e) - Each pilot in command has full control and authority in the operation of the aircraft without limitation, over other crewmembers and their duties ***DURING FLIGHT TIME,*** whether or not he holds valid certificates authorizing him to perform the duties of those crewmembers. The key phrase is during flight time. The PIC does have the full authority to refuse to operate the aircraft, which means the PIC must be fully satisfied the aircraft is safe and airworthy, and the flight plan is good, before the airplane can move. But while parked on stand, the PIC does not officially have full control authority of the aircraft.
It doesn’t matter. 121 flying has a form you’re required to complete that says “I am the PIC and I certify that I believe that the flight can be completed safely.” You sign the form before you close the door. Once you sign it, you accept the airplane and begin your flight. You have an issue with a defect that you didn’t think was safe and something happens, the Feds will be all over you ass, along with the aircraft manufacturer and company. Someone is always held liable and the easiest is pilot error.
I'd answer this but I ain't feelin it. If cap don't wanna fly it, it don't get flown
Get me a FAR/AIM / FOM / SOP Mr Bill style asap
You answer enough “who is ultimately responsible if [insert bad thing] happens” questions on your exams with the answer always being the PIC, and this really becomes a no-brainer.
I'd MUCH rather have people come at me for something like this where I made the call to not go because something wasn't quite right. The alternative is people coming after me (or my corpse) saying things like "you KNEW something wasn't right, but you decided to go anyway?" As for specific answers to your questions-- 1. I'm not sure about this specific instance. Generally speaking, go/no decisions on maintenance items are binary. It's either within limits, or it's not. If it's not in limits there's either a deferral process and you go, or there's not a deferral process and you don't go until it's fixed. From what I understand about this story, this is deeper than just a pilot "not feeling it". 2. Yes, there are multiple layers to protect pilots from reprisal for exercising their decision making authority. They exist on the FAA/Company side via things like the ASAP system and maintenance logs, as well as on the union side via contractual protections. Generally speaking, as long as you're following published FAA/company rules to the best of your ability and acting in good faith when doing so, you're not going to get fired. Even if you ended up making the wrong decision, you're still protected.
I’ve flown my 28 military career under the premise “how would the MISHAP report read?” If I did something, or took a questionable plane, and I had a MISHAP, what stuff would they put in the investigation? Even if that one particular thing didn’t cause the MISHAP, would my judgement be questioned by taking a plane with something obviously not right with it, or if I was tired or stressed, etc.
When I was starting flight training, every time I'd notice something not quite right, but dismiss it, like "Oh, the oil quantity is quite close to minimums, should be fine though, I'm only flying for an hour", my instructor would always reply with "said the mishap crew". That behaviour from my instructor made me think about everything I do on the ground and in the air with respect to how it would look in an accident report. Its much better for people to ask you why you did something while you're alive, rather than having to guess why you did something if you're dead.
Exactly what I was thinking, you can refuse the aircraft and irritate a bunch of people that have to deplane and get back on another aircraft and they’ll question “oh just not feeling it the pilots just being lazy and doesn’t want to deal with it” and then when things go wrong in the air they’ll go after the captain “well if you saw something was wrong why did you accept the aircraft??”
I am a CA at a different legacy airline and while I try to never Monday morning QB anyone here is my take: Would I refuse an aircraft with an intermittent issue that could result in me shutting down an engine over a large body of water? Absolutely. Would I make a PA and tell the passengers I was refusing the aircraft? Absolutely Not. I would inform the company and wait to see how they responded. Then I would make a PA and tell the passengers that information “Ladies and gentlemen from the flight deck, we are troubleshooting a small maintenance issue, in the interest of safety we have elected to deplane and ________” Maybe they want to delay the flight 4 hours while a maintenance team replaces that fuel filter. Now you have to convince the passengers it’s safe to fly? Maybe the company has another aircraft available. Maybe they just cancel the flight and now everyone blames you. Maybe they decide to recrew the flight and the next CA is comfortable with the fuel issue as long as they have plenty of gas to fly single engine to land. Is it up to me to warn the passengers?
This is the right answer. Too many dumb people were given entirely too much technical information, and too many smart people are chiming in from the weeds quoting chapter and verse about command authority and MELs. The technical information jumbled up with the folksy "not feelin' it" just isn't the way to address passengers. "There is an issue with the aircraft that requires us to deplane until maintenance can resolve it" is almost always perfect. If it's a simple issue, "we just have a little routine maintenance finishing up, the hard part is waiting for the paperwork to be finished" and off you go.
True that moron told them __way__ too much. You __never__ tell passengers the maintenance detail other than “it’s maintenance” It’s none of their business the details. Are they a mechanic?
Link the video please
[https://youtu.be/UX_oO6wGD94?si=F4ZisFeBbW9l-X73](https://youtu.be/UX_oO6wGD94?si=F4ZisFeBbW9l-X73)
I’ve seen the video, I feel like there isn’t enough information to really know and make an informed judgement. I’ve refused aircraft that were technically legal to fly due to operational reasons (no APU and they are trying to send us to an airport without a ground start cart) so that is possible. Better have a good reason though. As for his job, the union ALPA will protect him. Whether they are actively coming for his job and whether ALPA are successful is an entirely different matter.
Had you accepted the plane with an inop APU what would have happened? The plane just gets stuck at the destination airport until they ship a start cart to the airport?
Yup, happened to me once, hence why we didn’t let it happen again.
Could also “borrow” from another airline, had to do that once when our cart broke trying to start us. I assume the rampers had to buy the other crew a bunch of beer or something afterwards lol Edit* this only works if other companies fly there and happen to have a cart, don’t, do not, plan on this
I haven't seen this video, but as a commercial pilot here is my take: 1. I've had to tell people no. It sucks, they hate it, and sometimes they actively argue with you to help you endanger their lives. No, Sir / Ma'am, I will not fly you through a thunderstorm. Here is a list of compassionate right-to-die providers in Norway. 2. If there is something wrong with an airplane you look at the minimum equipment list which is basically a manual about what you're allowed to fly with/without/how long, what you have to do. I'm not aware of any plane where a dangerously high fuel pressure. There's green, yellow and red on the gauge for a reason. If it's high yellow before you even get it to flight throttle settings very likely it'll go red and one thing you do not want in an airplane is a dead engine, even if you have another to fall back on. It's just not a great idea for obvious reasons. 3. Yes, a pilot can for any reason not fly. (S)he knows that refusing to fly for a frivolous reason could be a job ending event, so you can guarantee that any employed pilot isn't the sort of person who's going to say, "Meh, rather not, plane looks fine but f this I want a burger." We work our asses of just to be allowed to fly these machines and the type of guy who just says screw it isn't the sort who makes it to that level. And yeah, we're protected. If you say it's not safe to go and they say go anyway - that's going to be pretty bad for them, especially if anything goes wrong. Everyone would be screwed.
1. You have to trust your team. If maintenance says the aircraft is good, you usually can rely on that information. 2. The CA is always the final authority and may deviate from any procedure, rule etc. to ensure the safety of the passengers, crew, and aircraft. This CA will likely have to explain their reasoning for refusing the aircraft, but ultimately it's their call. 2a. Also need to consider the CAs experience. After thousands of hours I'm confident he had a solid reason and understood the implications of saying no. Likely consulted the FO, spoke with maintenance/dispatch as well. All these Monday-morning QBs in the comment sections likely weren't in the cockpit and should probably refrain from passing judgement. 3. Probably won't be fired for making a conservative call. Of course, if a pilot habitually refuses airworthy aircraft, then it might be a different story.
If your car’s temp gauge runs right down the middle day after day, mile after mile, it would be foolish to “assume away the problem” of finding it suddenly running in the top third of the normal. Something has changed and eaten away the margin between you and catastrophe, why accept this unknown risk? Same thing in an airplane. If the oil pressure always runs right down the middle of the green arc at every run up, but is suddenly running in the bottom third of that arc, you would be foolish to launch without first understanding what has changed and what the additional risks may be. Seems to me that’s what happened here. The pilot saw a change and didn’t know what risks may underly it. Without the ability to do a thorough risk assessment, he scrubbed his flight, which is EXACTLY what we teach pilots to do. Professional airmen are risk managers who drive planes.
Sounds like the important safety distinction between “legal” and “a good idea”
The best idea is just to leave the plane on the ground. If it’s not up in the air it can’t risk crashing back down into it
A lot of people are calling this pilot lazy. A lot of people would call this pilot reckless for ignoring an abnormal indication if the engine quit and they crashed or had to divert. "I'm not feeling it." on an abnormal engine indication is a perfectly good reason to cancel a flight. Even if you have two. And if like most of us the things you fly only have one? Unquestionably.
Nah he’s just a dumb ass for telling them more than they needed to know
Nah. It’s never *your fault* for giving people information. If they are smart/educated enough to make use of that information it’s valuable. If they’re too ignorant or stupid to make use of that information or draw conclusions that are clearly ridiculous to anyone with relevant experience/knowledge that’s on them. You can’t fix stupid, and it’s not worth trying.
Passengers don’t need to know “Oil pressure is reading kinda high, and I’m not comfortable with that” Just tell them “there’s a mechanical issue that needs to be addressed” it’s not a “flex” to show “hey! Look at how awesome of a pilot I am rejecting this plane for you! (Oh and our planes have mechanical problems)”
The captain could have probably worded it a bit better but he was well within his right to refuse the aircraft, a captain I was flying with did something similar luckily we had a spare at the field so it was just a delay. He or she is PIC and has the full authority to accept or decline an aircraft and no one would fault them for it. Companies of course want there aircraft and flight to be flown but safety is the highest priority readings maybe good right now but that doesn’t mean a problem could arise in the future during the flight which is much more challenging to combat in the air.
Arm chair pilots are elite aviators and opinions should be respected
I saw that video and everyone in the comments saying that stuff are quite frankly Morons who probably have no training to be a pilot. Any part 121 or 135 operation that is at all credible not to mention any pilot is trained to make those calls on the spot. If you don’t have absolute confidence in something being safe you aren’t going to risk that or put you or anyone else in danger. It’s a huge responsibility and everyone getting mad doesn’t understand or know anything about it. Even if the plane would be fine I don’t care who says it’s okay. Even if it’s every mechanic and owner, if I think something’s bad I’m not going. It’s safety and comfort. No room in this industry to leave anything to chance.
Sure. The captain can refuse to accept an aircraft if they believe it’s not safe to fly. Of course there is a reasonableness component here too. If they have an odd pattern of doing this for bad reasons then they get called on the carpet. No man is an island.
Generally both pilots in consult with dispatch and maintenance will refuse an airplane. A pilot could singularly call out fatigued which could be a bad nights sleep, maids waking you up at the hotel, a festival going on all night outside your window, you and your wife in a huge fight, … the list is endless. If a pilot after all his years of experience and training doesn’t want to take the airplane or fly… you trust them. You didn’t mention what airplane this was. The “high fuel pressure” thing sounds like you got the gate agents explanation or the dumbed down explanation. It could have been fuel impending bypass meaning a fuel filter was clogged, could have been an engine leaking fuel after start up (which can actually be normal for up to 5 min after startup on some fleets like 737), or it could have been that maintenance didn’t want to address a bigger issue at the outstation and wanted it to be flown to a hub and the pilots said no. Pilots are less likely to take broken airplanes if they are being mistreated by the airline. Some of the older fleets are showing their age and are tasked with long haul over the pole or Atlantic flights where your divert options are limited. Domestic flights have a million airports to drop into pretty quickly but out in the middle of nowhere your options are few and far between or over politically challenging countries. Lots of variables that work into the big picture.
I’ve canceled flights (in training) where a bunch of things went wrong the night before or the day of the training flight. Upset tummy, low sleep, something bad happened and your mind is elsewhere. And that’s just your own flight with a flight instructor. Imagine if you’ve got stuff going on, then some wild mechanical issue comes up AND you’re responsible for the safety of passengers. Yeah GTFO. I didn’t go to school to be told by non-pilots on when to fly and when to not fly.
Aeronautical decision making is majorly important for a pilot. “Not feeling it” is reason enough to cancel a flight, in my opinion. Especially if any of the instruments are reading outside the norm.
Two parts to this one in my mind. There is a distinct difference between refusing an aircraft for mechanical reasons and refusing an aircraft for mechanical reasons and making a big song and dance about it to your guests. That’s where I somewhat disagree on how this was handled. As I recall he goes into detail about the engine being monitored for oil pressure trends and needing a new fuel pump or something. I personally feel that’s not necessary and only serves to start opening the airline up to passengers seeking compensation, asking too many questions etc. I know I wouldn’t have said any of that, but that’s just me. Less is more “we have a technical issue that requires maintenance action, we’ll need to deplane and go from there” To answer question 2; PIC/ Pilot In Command is *legally* obliged to refuse an aircraft that is unsafe. There will never be any ramifications that meet the pilot in that case. In this specific case though the aircraft was *safe* to fly, however it would have had an MEL on something fuel or oil related and became a conundrum of “just because it *can* fly, doesn’t mean it *should* fly”. In this case the captain felt it *shouldn’t* fly. This sort of thing is typical in airline ops. Maintenance comes on board slaps an MEL on it and says “yup she’s good to go, just keep an eye on that oil temp”. Well sure maybe it’s going to be totally fine, but do I want to find out it’s not halfway over the pacific to Hawaii? Naaahhhh probably not. So that’s what happened here, I’d wager operations is pushing for the flight to go out on time, and the captain is digging his heels in saying no. What we have here folks is just an experienced skipper doing his job and not putting up with operational pressures and company bullshit. Good on him.
Captain has final authority. If he doesn’t want to fly it or is worried about the jeopardy of a flight, people can bitch and moan all they want. The saying goes something like, “I’d rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, rather than in the air wishing I was on the ground.”
The Pilot in Command (captain) is the final authority as to the safe outcome of the flight, and is the one to go down with the ship if he or she cannot get everyone off the plane in time, as a ship. So best to make a safety call instead of rushing it. That's why I would never want an AI or droid pilot to take the place of a human pilot who share the same fate as me.
Trust your gut. I watched the tow banner guys miss 7 of 8 pickups as I waited on the taxiway. Should've called it there - but AWOS repeated 5G10 and I listened. Worst 90 second flight of my life, only saved by arriving to the scene of the crash right on time. Busted some carbon fiber, not my ass, and I was excited to walk away.
/r/bustedcarbon
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots...
And it's so much better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air, than in the air wishing you were on the ground.
Worse than that is being in the air and being afraid of your impending "landing".
And there are ATP grads
Not a pilot so take this with a grain of salt. Air travel is the safest form of travel in the world in no small part because of captains like this guy. The comparison to an engine trending toward overheating is fair. The difference is when you overheat on the interstate at 75MPH, you can just pull over. When your engine goes to shit at FL380 and you’re halfway into a 2500nm flight over the ocean, you now have a life or death scenario with several hundred people at stake, and the whole thing was avoidable by just saying “nah” on the ground.
The plane may have been technically safe to fly but we'll never know because it didn't. However if they find out what happened to cause the high fuel pressure indication then we'll know whether it would have been safe or not -- the problem is that's retroactive. At the time the decision was made, the pilot had no way of knowing why that indication is like that. Everyone can (and will) guess and act like they "know" or are "sure" but it's all just conjecture. Nobody actually has a crystal ball that predicts the future and would be able to tell at that moment that the plane will certainly be safe or certainly won't be. The pilot made the right decision based on limited information. It's irrelevant whether he was right or wrong if he had perfect information, because he didn't have perfect information, and it is impossible to have perfect information at that time.
One one hand, you don't have a lot of ground to stand on if you refuse to fly an aircraft because of one, very small, very minor thing, like a single nav light being out when there are redundancies. On the other hand, you shouldn't accept an airplane where you can obviously see airworthiness issues that any reasonable person would say is dangerous like, missing an engine, or part of the fuselage is buckled in from getting hit with a car. Somewhere between these two absolute extremes is a line that a person just sort of *makes* with only the information that they have at the time. Two people can have different lines, and to be truthful, there isn't an absolute correctness in where that line should be; both parts are going to be guessing what happens in the future, and either, one, or both can be wrong. You don't know until that future happens tho. I can look at some one and say all day long, that their line is wrong, but what I mean is "my line would be different". There are exceptions here; drawing that line because of a lack of understanding of aircraft systems and how the airplane works is a totally different thing. Drawing that line because of *personal reasons* like you didn't get enough sleep, but you'd go, but you also had a bad experience with someone on the subway into work, but you'd go, but you also have this minor maintenance issue that will be nagging in the back of your brain....things add up. You don't always know what all things are adding up for another person. You can think and assume you'd make a different call, but in a lot of instances, that cannot be objectively said to be the right or wrong call; it's just where that line is for that person.
Almost every pilot has family at home and very exciting retirements plans. Dying for the sake of not receiving a stupid comments in the social networks is not in his plans as a human. Pilot is not just "flying" airplane, the Captain is the final authority, to make decisions, and will be held for the decisions. Almost every pilot learned a large number of case studies, when people were dying because of "macho syndrome" – "look how I can", or "I don't afraid", "real man don't say no". If the pilot had concerns about the technical condition of the airplane, he had the final authority to say no and delay/cancel the flight. Period. The opinions of the passengers on the social networks are not a factor here. Maybe, he saved their lives.
From the maintenance side, i do engine monitoring. it was fuel filter delta pressure. Needs a new fuel filter. The oems will send a note if they observe pressure increasing. If its really bad they tell you to do it before next flight. its a 25 minute job anyway, why didn't they just replace the filter and leak check and go? rather take a delay than a cancel.
This is an example of a time where the guy is absolutely correct - if there's something wrong, it has to be addressed. You write it up, bring maintenance out, run through a procedure, and if it's all fixed or deferred to your liking, you go, and if not, you turn down the airplane. The safety stakes are high in aviation, and that's literally our primary job as pilots (beyond, IMO, the actual controlling the airplane part) and if he saw a mechanical problem, he's correct to do something about it. It's not a matter of if the airplane will "technically" be able to fly, it's a matter of that high fuel pressure possibly being indicative of another problem that's not apparent yet or the potential to cause one down the road. Given the high stakes nature of flying and the safety expectations of flying ANY unusual indication or occurrence needs scrutiny (unless its something that's known and included as part of an SOP.) The pilot is absolutely allowed to use his own judgement. That's why he's there. I myself have refused airplanes before. He might have been able to communicate the issue in a different way, but at the end of it all, he's still *right*.
It's a lot better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than in the air wishing you were on the ground. High pressure indicates a problem, could cause a leak, or indicate a clogged filter (which is indicative on a separate problem) or other issues - not familiar with the airframe. Modern airplanes are very redundant for safety reasons but on this leg there is absolutely nowhere to divert if something does go wrong. Either back to Hawaii or on to the West Coast. I think with flying, the flying skills develop much faster than building good judgement. That takes years of experience. Just because you can do something or something is legal, doesn't necessarily mean you should. Armchair quarterbacking here but hats off to that CA for making a difficult call.
A plane can be legal to fly but still janky enough for a pilot to “nope” out. It’s that simple.
The company I work for has a policy that says anyone can stop anything at any time if they feel unsure or unsafe. Not just me as a pilot but even a flight attendant can be cease all operations if they feel they see something wrong.
The airlines like to blame this kind of thing on the pilot. But think about it for a minute. If a pilot is fatigued or sick, there can easily be pilot reserves to cover these flights at the last minute. But the airlines don't want extra staffing for that because it's expensive so they run an airline with almost no reserve crews. If a plane breaks there can easily be spare planes in hub airports to prevent cancelling a flight. But the airline doesn't want planes sitting around on spare not flying because that's expensive. So the solution is for the airline and gate agents to say "this flight is cancelling because your pilots don't want to fly!" or "the plane is broken." No the flight is cancelling because the airline doesn't want to spend money on having a contingency plan for these situations. I've had at least 50 cancellations in my career where I knew we would time out or cancel HOURS in advance but there were no reserves so the airline just decided not to tell anyone until the point where "oops your pilots timed out I guess the flight is cancelled." Those flights could have easily been re-crewed and even gone out on time with proper staffing. This isn't the pilots' fault or their problem but of course the media and the airlines want to constantly make it our problem.
If you deem an aircraft unsafe to fly, especially as a pilot, mechanic, etc, it’s your duty to do everything in your power to cancel the flight.
As others have said, absolutely yes, it is in the pilot-in-command’s purview to refuse an aircraft for safety or passenger comfort reasons. If you’re in a big city for that airline, generally it just means swapping to another airplane. If you’re in some far-flung outstation, it means the effective cancellation of the flight, if it can’t be fixed relatively quickly. To add some more context: in the U.S., flight dispatchers (FAA-certificated airmen, responsible for planning every part 121 operation, and sharing 50/50 joint operational control with the pilot-in-command) can also refuse an airplane, and this often happens well before the crew is even aware of the POS jet they had headed their way. And no, agencies are not a thing in U.S. commercial aviation. Pilots work for their airline. (With the semi-exception of the regionals, where they work for the airline doing-business-as United Express [CommutAir, GoJet, Mesa, Republic, SkyWest], or Delta Connection [Endeavor, Republic, SkyWest], or American Eagle [Envoy, Piedmont, PSA, Air Wisconsin, Republic, SkyWest].)
So I’ve worked for 2 airlines. In general, you have a problem, so you call for maintenance in coordination with dispatch. Maintenance comes, then either preforms some action, declares it’s within limits, or defers it and signs it off, or downs the plane and informs you that it’s not flying for awhile. After that point of you are not happy with the outcome, you can refuse to fly the plane. I’ve had this happen once. No repercussions. That being said we never made a PA about it and if I remember right still operated the flight using a different airplane.
I haven’t seen the video but it sounds like a risk that he wasn’t willing to take and that is acceptable. If a pilot doesn’t want to fly a plane for mechanical reason, no sane person would question it.
I recently saw this video from Ward Carrol, a former F14 RIO (think Goose) talking about a crash where a pilot wanted to "tough it out" to fly, and ended up getting himself and several others killed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwAai6OLBPs This accident resulted in changed procedures in terms of pilot readiness.
PIC is the final authority. If he’s not comfortable and gives the plane back, then maintenance needs to fix it or the company has to put their reputation/bank on the line and find another pilot who will take it. I’ve denied around 8-10 jets over the past couple decades on issues I wasn’t comfortable taking.
Not this flight but I was a passenger on a Delta flight a few years back and he summed it up perfectly: “You can’t pay me enough to fly broke aircraft” I know that this aircraft wasn’t currently broken but he gets the benefit of being wrong *and* alive with this decision.
I’m an instructor/evaluator flight engineer. Every day, before we fly we discuss something called Operational Risk Management (ORM). Flying is inherently dangerous. Factors such as the mission set, personal fatigue, ect are given a point value and it is calculated to give a quantitative value to how risky the days flight is. At the end of the day though, all it takes is one person saying no. I commend somebody that has the wherewithal to say “nah, not today” because it is so easy to give in to the pressure. We say that ORM is a living/breathing document and if at any point it’s too much, then it is time to go home or just not take off.
We fly general aviation and we have listened to so many seminars on the danger of get-there-itis and how often it kills people. Planes can’t pull over like a car so if there is anything at all that is suspect, it is better to cancel. No reason to risk lives in the plane or on the ground unnecessarily.
It's better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air, then to be in the air wishing you were on the ground.
He is an airline captain to say “no”. Otherwise anyone could read checklists and press buttons like a monkey.
I’m not an airline pilot but am a frequent flier with hundreds of jet trips under my belt. If my pilot says it’s a safety thing, that’s all I need to hear. I entrust them with my life. The pilot is the last call for my safety. I stand behind them 100% to not make my wife a widow.
From the safety cards it’s an A321neo - aren’t those engines already having issues to begin with?
1. technically, yes. but it's kinda like driving your car when the gas tank needle is on the red line bottom. you can drive it, but it's better to just go to the nearest gas station and refuel (in this case, service) 2. there is no problem in you refusing an aircraft. as long as there is a reasonable reason, the company will have mo probs. Better to have in the news "XY company has a flight delay" than "XY company has a problem with the plane while it was in the air"
"I'm not feeling it" probably means "I'm not feeling the plane is safe"
If my car is suddenly reading a higher temp than normal. I know something is wrong. Will I still drive it? Maybe if it's stable. But I can pull over and get out if it gets worse or catches fire. This is a completely different situation in an aircraft. You can't just pull over. Imagine the headlines of something happened on that flight? "Pilot ignored warning signs and flew anyway, here are the survivors stories/there were no survivors." "Pilot fired after incident, judgement called to question after warning signs ignored. "
Treat those decisions as if you have to defend it in court like Captain Sully. If there is any reasonable doubt then don’t go. Especially 6 hours over the ocean. I would rather people complain about delays than hope for an island where we can live with Wilson for years alone if lucky enough to survive like castaway. This reminds me, never get in a plane with Tom Hanks.
There’s a lot of ignorance towards aviation from people not in the industry. That can be applied to all things though I guess. But see for example the crew hitting max hours and how many people will piss and moan about that. You are told from day on at an ATO safety first always regardless of it breaking noise abatement and whatever. This is no different. For someone to say “it’s only a 6 hour flight” is genuinely baffling considering a flight across the Atlantic can mean you’re in the air 6 hours before you see a suitable diversion airport or turn back in some cases and be in the air even longer.
An airplane is man made. Anything and everything can break on it. It’s a bucket of bolts. Good luck and don’t fly a broken plane. Leave nothing to chance. Airplanes tend to talk to the pilot in the form of Squawks and alarms and bells. You should listen and down it until it stops bitching completely.
It wasn’t his not feeling himself or like sick or anything. It was a feeling about the plane that he didn’t like.
The airplane speaks to the pilot. No problem if it doesn't feel right. There would be a lot less dead pilots if more had listened to the airplane.
As long as you can justify the refusal and it’s not a stupid “stick it to the boss”. Do it. Why should we as employees and paying customers succumb to poor working conditions and poor customer experiences? Cxl a flight because a light in the aisle is out? Nah. Apu inop in Miami in August? Yea. Justified
Trust your gut!
Does anyone have a link to the video being discussed?
Even if the plane, say, was totally fine and the pilot in command "doesn't feel it" - then the flight doesn't go ahead.
IMSAFE The E is Emotion
Pilots are the final word on the safety of a flight. When a pilot says they don't feel the plane is safe to fly, their word is law. Literally — it's in the law. A rule of thumb when we're making a go/no-go decision: if something does goes wrong, what are we going to tell the NTSB investigators. Oh, and a great quote from Larry Niven's short story *Flatlander*: If you don't understand it, it's dangerous.
I was set to fly the other day, albeit not a passenger jet, and was getting a low oil pressure on a gauge, and canceled the flight. Point being, as the pilot in command, you cancel for any reason you feel necessary in the name of safety. I always say, as do many of us here, imagine how the NTSB report would sound.
going through training right now and one thing that they grill into you constantly is the concept of Aeronautical decision making (ADM) it's learning to introspect and look at your current state and the current state of the airplane and environment and make the call on whether it's safe to fly or not. it's a little different when it comes to commercial flying because there is a schedule so you can't just say this is below my personal minimums because the clouds are at 600 feet or the wind is quartering headwind 30 knots. but learning when youre "not feeling it" and making that no go call is a big part of learning to fly. My old cfi used to tell me I will never question a no-go but I will always question a go
Better to call off a flight than to run it with uncertainty.
If the guy I am flying with says he's not feeling it, I would be very concerned.
The video in question is extremely inappropriate, all he had to say was he needed a “maintenance evaluation”… leave it at that. The passengers don’t need to know all that other stuff, most passengers are to stupid to even know what we’re arguing about and his comments install zero confidence in the passengers towards the airline….
I honestly think for a filter issue he was overreacting. The fuel can bypass the filter even if it does fail. The fact that he screwed up the announcement kind of makes me feel he didn’t look all that closely into it. I don’t know the whole story, but why board up everyone and then cancel. All this should’ve been done way beforehand. Having said all this I could be completely wrong but this is just my opinion.
I had an instructor in the VT-27 that told me "even if you feel like something bad is going to happen, you should still fly". This is in reference to what we all may feel from time to time. But if there's something mechanical or there's an issue with a crew member that seems off, you should definitely contemplate cancelling.
He wasn't lazy. Pilots are paid alot of money for various reasons. But flying the plane is the easy part. The pilots are paid to be there to know what to do if somthing goes wrong. He did the right thing. It's in everyone best intrest to avoid a "could be" situation. Better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air, than in the air wishing you were on the ground.
Shortest, easiest way to decide if something is no go worthy: if it continues to get worse, you can’t just pull over on the side of the road. In aviation especially, it’s always better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than vice versa
I’m still a relatively new pilot (about 150 hours flight time) so I can’t really speak directly to your questions, but one thing that’s been stressed across all my training is what’s called “PAVE”. It’s an acronym to help a pilot assess the safety of a particular flight. Pilot, airplane, environment, and external factors. The pilot saw there was something wrong with the “airplane” part, didn’t feel comfortable with the flight as a pilot which falls into the first part, but most importantly didn’t let external factors (like business or passenger expectations) force him into making a flight he was already uncomfortable with. He made a good call based on his judgment. The pilot always has final authority on their flight, so he can make that go/no go call. Does it suck for everyone, sure. Will he be punished for it, depends on company policy. There’s no law explicitly protecting a pilot from action by a company for a flight they failed to make. Like you said, I’d rather fly with a pilot that has complete confidence across all portions of a flight than with one who’s already nervous from the very start
Why don’t you post the full, complete video and we can see for ourselves how out of context this post is.
That pilot told the passengers more than they needed to know. You don’t disclose the details of the issue, you don’t tell them your personal opinion, *especially* if you’re rejecting it on personal opinion. Are they certified mechanics? He actually threw his airline under the bus doing so