4 ms·

The final authority in flying an airplane safely is always in the hands of the pilot. The pilot is always responsible. ATC may not have all the information, not

The final authority in flying an airplane safely is always in the hands of the pilot. The pilot is always responsible. ATC may not have all the information, not know specifics of the aircraft or this specific flight. It is just not practical to have procedures where the ATC is the final authority for every single flight, with all the various different airplanes, so the pilot always is.

krisoft 6y ago
Exactly as Erlich_Bachman wrote. Also want to add one more reason: The pilot's neck is always on the line, while the ATC usually won't get physically hurt. The incentives are better aligned if it's the pilot who has final authority.
- goodcanadian 6y ago
  Sure, the pilot is the final authority. If it is unsafe, the pilot should declare an emergency, and ATC must get out of the way. Otherwise, if ATC says, "go around," the pilot should go around. And in this case, ATC should have said, "Go around."
  - shawabawa3 6y ago
    > reporting they had lost both engines (CFM56) and repeatedly declaring Mayday about 5 minutes after the go around, the RAT (RAM Air Turbine) deployed. Tower cleared the aircraft to land on either runway 25 (25L or 25R) ATC should have said "go around" to a plane with no functioning engines?
    - lultimouomo 6y ago
      I think you misread the dynamic of the incident. The pilots were in an unstabilized approach, didn't go around, landed with landing gear up and applied reverse trust, at which point they figured all those sparks were not supposed to be flying around, brilliantly decided to go around and pressed the TOGA switches. Surprisingly the plane was not able to complete the go around, lost both engines, and crashed. This is the stuff of nightmares.
    - goodcanadian 6y ago
      That occurred long after the point I am referring to.
  - kayfox 6y ago
    Pilots have trained for years on flying in general and the specific performance characteristics of their aircraft. Controllers on the other hand has years of training about traffic patterns, communications, managing airspace, etc. Most controllers are not pilots, although a significant number are, even those are not likely to be flying around A320s recreationally. Needless to say they deal with thousands of types of aircraft every day and may have only general ideas of how those aircraft may perform. So, who is in a really good position to quickly know what the critical speeds in a landing are?
    - goodcanadian 6y ago
      The accident report confirms that neither the pilots nor controllers followed established procedures. This is not simply my idle speculation. The plane was not on the proper published approach for the airport. The controller attempted to give vectors to the aircraft to give it room to descend. The pilot declined to follow the instructions (possible violation). At this point, in my opinion, the controller should have said, "go around." Instead, the controller said, "cleared to land." Yes, the pilot is in control of the aircraft, but unless and until an emergency is declared, ATC is in control of the airspace, and the pilots should obey any safe command. Don't get me wrong, the pilots bear the majority of the responsibility, but ATC did not do their job properly, either.
      - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
        So, having twice ignored the ATC instruction to turn left to 180 away from the approach, you think there is a good reason to believe they would've heeded a direction to go around? If ATC is to blame in this, it is primarily in excessive deference to the PIC.
        goodcanadian 6y ago
        No I don't think there is a good reason to believe they would have heeded a direction to go around. That doesn't mean that the direction should not have been given. If ATC is to blame in this, it is primarily in excessive deference to the PIC. My point, exactly, though it sounds like there may have been other irregularities in the procedures followed.
  - Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
    "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate". https://pea.com/blog/posts/6-pilot-rules-that-everyone-should-live-by/ https://pea.com/blog/posts/6-pilot-rules-that-everyone-shoul... This is an aviation rule that everyone lives by. There are many reasons for why that is the most sane and sensible approach to this problem, in addition to what is mentioned, the pilot's attention span is always under attack from various events that they have to correctly and swiftly respond to. This does not happen sometimes, this happens all the time during flight. Everyone has to be prepared for it. It is part of the job. You have to train for it, you have to prepare for your attention to be overflown, and you still have to make the most important decisions even under those conditions. And this has an important consequence: ATC is at the end of that list ("communicate"). They are at the bottom of the attention span chain of the pilot, and it is better for everyone if ATC knows this and acts like it. In other words, leaves the final decision to the pilot.
    - goodcanadian 6y ago
      I understand your point, and it is entirely possible that the accident would have played out exactly as it did even if the ATC performance was impeccable. However, ATC performance was not impeccable. The preliminary report indicates they did not follow established procedures. In my opinion, because the aircraft did not follow the published approach, landing clearance should not have been given. They weren't even talking to the tower controller, but to approach. Why weren't they switched over? Not enough time? They should have been told to go around. If the pilots still attempted to land then it is on them. Please don't get me wrong. The pilots bear the majority of the responsibility. But it does not sound to me like ATC did their job properly, either.
      - mannykannot 6y ago
        > If the pilots still attempted to land then it is on them. It is on them regardless. ATC performed badly, and it blew one or two chances to say something that might have saved the day, but it was the pilots who actually caused the accident, through their own free choices of action - nothing that ATC did influenced their decision-making (quite the opposite, in fact.) ATC deserves criticism and blame, but it is different in kind to that which belongs to the pilots.

krisoft 6y ago

Exactly as Erlich_Bachman wrote. Also want to add one more reason: The pilot's neck is always on the line, while the ATC usually won't get physically hurt. The incentives are better aligned if it's the pilot who has final authority.

goodcanadian 6y ago
Sure, the pilot is the final authority. If it is unsafe, the pilot should declare an emergency, and ATC must get out of the way. Otherwise, if ATC says, "go around," the pilot should go around. And in this case, ATC should have said, "Go around."
- shawabawa3 6y ago
  > reporting they had lost both engines (CFM56) and repeatedly declaring Mayday about 5 minutes after the go around, the RAT (RAM Air Turbine) deployed. Tower cleared the aircraft to land on either runway 25 (25L or 25R) ATC should have said "go around" to a plane with no functioning engines?
  - lultimouomo 6y ago
    I think you misread the dynamic of the incident. The pilots were in an unstabilized approach, didn't go around, landed with landing gear up and applied reverse trust, at which point they figured all those sparks were not supposed to be flying around, brilliantly decided to go around and pressed the TOGA switches. Surprisingly the plane was not able to complete the go around, lost both engines, and crashed. This is the stuff of nightmares.
  - goodcanadian 6y ago
    That occurred long after the point I am referring to.
- kayfox 6y ago
  Pilots have trained for years on flying in general and the specific performance characteristics of their aircraft. Controllers on the other hand has years of training about traffic patterns, communications, managing airspace, etc. Most controllers are not pilots, although a significant number are, even those are not likely to be flying around A320s recreationally. Needless to say they deal with thousands of types of aircraft every day and may have only general ideas of how those aircraft may perform. So, who is in a really good position to quickly know what the critical speeds in a landing are?
  - goodcanadian 6y ago
    The accident report confirms that neither the pilots nor controllers followed established procedures. This is not simply my idle speculation. The plane was not on the proper published approach for the airport. The controller attempted to give vectors to the aircraft to give it room to descend. The pilot declined to follow the instructions (possible violation). At this point, in my opinion, the controller should have said, "go around." Instead, the controller said, "cleared to land." Yes, the pilot is in control of the aircraft, but unless and until an emergency is declared, ATC is in control of the airspace, and the pilots should obey any safe command. Don't get me wrong, the pilots bear the majority of the responsibility, but ATC did not do their job properly, either.
    - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
      So, having twice ignored the ATC instruction to turn left to 180 away from the approach, you think there is a good reason to believe they would've heeded a direction to go around? If ATC is to blame in this, it is primarily in excessive deference to the PIC.
      - goodcanadian 6y ago
        No I don't think there is a good reason to believe they would have heeded a direction to go around. That doesn't mean that the direction should not have been given. If ATC is to blame in this, it is primarily in excessive deference to the PIC. My point, exactly, though it sounds like there may have been other irregularities in the procedures followed.
- Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
  "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate". https://pea.com/blog/posts/6-pilot-rules-that-everyone-should-live-by/ https://pea.com/blog/posts/6-pilot-rules-that-everyone-shoul... This is an aviation rule that everyone lives by. There are many reasons for why that is the most sane and sensible approach to this problem, in addition to what is mentioned, the pilot's attention span is always under attack from various events that they have to correctly and swiftly respond to. This does not happen sometimes, this happens all the time during flight. Everyone has to be prepared for it. It is part of the job. You have to train for it, you have to prepare for your attention to be overflown, and you still have to make the most important decisions even under those conditions. And this has an important consequence: ATC is at the end of that list ("communicate"). They are at the bottom of the attention span chain of the pilot, and it is better for everyone if ATC knows this and acts like it. In other words, leaves the final decision to the pilot.
  - goodcanadian 6y ago
    I understand your point, and it is entirely possible that the accident would have played out exactly as it did even if the ATC performance was impeccable. However, ATC performance was not impeccable. The preliminary report indicates they did not follow established procedures. In my opinion, because the aircraft did not follow the published approach, landing clearance should not have been given. They weren't even talking to the tower controller, but to approach. Why weren't they switched over? Not enough time? They should have been told to go around. If the pilots still attempted to land then it is on them. Please don't get me wrong. The pilots bear the majority of the responsibility. But it does not sound to me like ATC did their job properly, either.
    - mannykannot 6y ago
      > If the pilots still attempted to land then it is on them. It is on them regardless. ATC performed badly, and it blew one or two chances to say something that might have saved the day, but it was the pilots who actually caused the accident, through their own free choices of action - nothing that ATC did influenced their decision-making (quite the opposite, in fact.) ATC deserves criticism and blame, but it is different in kind to that which belongs to the pilots.