questions on FAR accountability

Matthew

Matthew

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
18,652
Location
kojc, kixd, k34
Display Name
Display name:
Matthew
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.

(Don't let this get turned into a religious rant)

We're all aware of the news story lately about some people being taken off a commercial flight.

My questions - if a PIC is being held to compliance to the FARs, and fails, who is the authority that sits in judgement? FAA? NTSB? either? both? somebody else?

(I already understand that as a PP I should be familiar with this. I'm asking just to get the discussion started. For reasons of simplicity, assume the deviation from the FAR did NOT result in an accident/incident)

Next question - if a PIC is exercising his responsibilities, what, if any, liabilities does he/she face? Specifically, 91.3(a) regarding the current affairs, does this give the PIC the authority to remove pax, or only to make the no-go decision? If PIC exercised 91.3(a) by removing pax (or refusing to fly), how could the company be liable? What jurisdiction would there be? FAA? NTSB? either? both?

Halfway through this post I realized I don't even know what I'm trying to figure out. Seems to me that somebody would sue no matter what happened. I'd like to see some sort of legal standing/protection for pilots who make a decision that they are required by FARs to make.
 
I think you're mixing apples and oranges. The commercial flights, in which there is a "company" involved are pretty much not going to be Part 91 operations, so looking at how part 91 applies is fruitless! (pun intended:))
 
im not so sure Grant. Just because they are Commercial operations running under part 135 or 121 they still are subject to the General Operating Rules found in part 91.

FWIW safety of flight is safety of flight. If I feel a pax is going to jeapordize that, he/she is gone.
 
Hmm, I hadn't thought about any differences between 121/135/91.

Still, I'll bet there are provisions in each part that say essentially the same thing - the PIC is the final authority.

Even so - if the PIC DOESN'T act in the best interests of the safety of the flight, he'll face the consequences and get hammered. If the PIC DOES act in the best insterests of the safety of the flight, does the same system that would jump ON him, come to his defense or provide him with some kind of protection? I guess this is why lawyers make the big bucks.
 
No the FAA isnt going to send you some defense lawyers if you get sued for excercising a privelege given to you in the FARs. But you will be able to stand by the reg and say "the reason i kicked you off my flight is because I felt you were a hazard to the safety of the flight, and that is my FAA given right as Pilot in Command" They can sue you if they want i guess.
 
Tony, I admit I haven't read the part 121 and 135 regs. I presumed that they provide for ultimate responsibility but include the company in the chain of command through their specific operating regulations. IOW, they include a version of 91.3 therein.
 
tonycondon said:
No the FAA isnt going to send you some defense lawyers if you get sued for excercising a privelege given to you in the FARs. But you will be able to stand by the reg and say "the reason i kicked you off my flight is because I felt you were a hazard to the safety of the flight, and that is my FAA given right as Pilot in Command" They can sue you if they want i guess.
Click to expand...


I guess that's what it all comes down to - do the right thing and sort it out later.

edit: this is just the kind of 'what if' things I think about when our current weather foercast is -
KMKC 292136Z 292218 35012G18KT 5SM -FZRA BR FEW009 BKN014 OVC020
TEMPO 2202 2SM FZRAPLSN BR BKN010 OVC017
FM0600 34014KT P6SM OVC025 TEMPO 0610 4SM -FZRA
FM1300 33015KT P6SM OVC035
 
Last edited:
gprellwitz said:
Tony, I admit I haven't read the part 121 and 135 regs. I presumed that they provide for ultimate responsibility but include the company in the chain of command through their specific operating regulations. IOW, they include a version of 91.3 therein.
Click to expand...

i havent read them either. I dont think the company has the ability to override the pilots ultimate decision. If that were true, they wouldve had robots flying airplanes a long time ago!
 
Generally transportation statues protect the decisions of a PIC of an airline flight when he decides to remove passengers from his flight for safety reasons (drunkenness or perceived terrorism risk). The case law requires that he act reasonably in his dismissal of the pax, but generally grant the PIC broad latitude.

See 49 U.S.C.S. § 44941(b) for airline's liability for disclosure of info to authorities, and 49 U.S.C.S. § 44902 for the airline's rights to dismiss passengers.
Key words are "Inimical to safety."

If you are curious I can write more when I'm not in a rush. It's a cool part of the law, and I can add some case names when I have some more time.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Rob!

I'm glad that the PIC has the lattitude to do as (s)he sees fit as far as safety goes. Though this probably doesn't protect theor job if their actions are considered capricious by the company. Skin - Tin - Ticket - JOB. :)

There are definitely opportunities for this lattitude to be used for ill; either out of malice (read outright prejudice) or lack of education. Yeah, to the recipient, there probably isn't too much difference. I should hope that most airlines provide training in recognizing "suspicious behavior" for their pilots and flight crew, and that it isn't racially, ethnically, or gender stereotyped. Just remember, all any group has to do to get past that stereotype-based security is to recruit someone who doesn't fit the stereotype, and they can walk right on through.
 
No problem Grant.
They do provide training, although different airlines provided different guidelines as of this summer. The DOT attempted to provide a standardized training manual, but its contents weren't warmly received. I helped deal with the legal fallout from the airlines' (negative) reaction to the manual.

There are some court cases which found against the airline when the court felt the the airline was acting either capriciously or prejudicially, and others have found for the airline. I tend to agree with the courts' interpretations, the pilots in some of the cases do seem to act prejudicially, and others do seem to be justified in their dismissals of passengers.

From what I understand airlines tend to agree with their pilots, although my understanding is pretty limited. Still it makes sense, airlines are liable for the actions of their pilots, and it would look pretty bad if they fired a pilot for dismissing somebody. Now if they were dismissing people because they were flaming racists, then perhaps that person shouldn't be a pilot in the first place.
 
I can see there are a different set of standards for an ATP than for me. If I get a 'bad feeling' I just walk back into the FBO. That airline captain has a whole lot of other responsibilities riding on his shoulders.

I was thinking last evening about that accident that has been written about several times, also was written up in AOPA Pilot. This is the one where a pilot, with gear trouble, told the tower he was going to circle and troubleshoot. He did this, I think, many miles outside the tower's airspace. While he was trying to solve the problem, there was a mid-air near the airport, don't remember if it was inside the airspace or not. One of the families sued, and a jury found the original pilot, the one with the gear problems, to be at least partially liable because he caused a 'distraction' for the tower controller.

I'm sure I've left out and forgotten some details, but still. It sounds like we have a few counsels around here, what was the basis or jurisdiction for this type of suit? Seems to me that the original pilot was working within the system as it is supposed to work but was still hung.
 
Sometimes courts do weird things, and either ignore the FARs entirely or substitute their own "common sense" and occasionally decisions just don't make sense, no matter how much you think about it. From the way you described the above case, it sounds like that may be one of those decisions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top