5 ms·
PIC is ultimately responsible for safety of flight, not controllers or authorities. Given the unusual message which is essentially asking the pilot to declare e
by jcrawfordor 5y ago
PIC is ultimately responsible for safety of flight, not controllers or authorities. Given the unusual message which is essentially asking the pilot to declare emergency and oddly specific instructions to divert I don't think this is unusual. Normally in an emergency the pilot would divert to either the filed alternate airport or to another at the pilot's discretion, they would not be told specifically where to go (they might be offered a suggestion, they would often even ask the controller for suggestions since the controller has all the weather at hand, but it would be odd in the US at least for a controller to just directly tell a pilot where to divert as this is understood to be the pilot's call). The transcript gives the feeling the pilot was confused about why they were being given instructions to divert to Minsk which I would assume was not their filed alternate. Pilots in general and airliners especially do not like last-minute changes of plan because they are a good way for an accident to happen, that's why there are planned and filed alternates.
Or put more simply: normally in an emergency the controller asks the pilot what they want to do ("say intentions"). The controller telling the pilot what to do is very weird and inconsistent with the general concept of the PIC as ultimately in command.
- okamiueru 5y agoFor people casually interested in this. What is PIC?
- HiroProtagonist 5y agoPilot in command
- Judgmentality 5y agoPilot In Command. On a commercial flight there are at least two pilots, and possibly three.
- bombcar 5y agoTo be more precise, it's the designation of the pilot who is responsible for the plane, who may or may not be the pilot who is currently physically flying the plane.
- herbstein 5y agoIt's "Pilot In Command"
- iso1631 5y agoIn situations where a controller believes that an aircraft has hostile intent (say believe it's been hijacked), then they (and/or air force) will give specific instructions. Obviously if you think you might have a 9/11 situation with a plane coming into say London, you tell them to divert to Stansted (well away from the city). If they continue flying to central London, then at some point you have to take the decision to shoot it down, or hope that the pilot isn't going to fly into a building. That decision would probably come from the PM in the UK. An engine failure situation then sure, it's upto the pilot. (Of course in this specific case it was a hostile government hijacking a commercial plane and there was no legitimate reason at all to divert to Minsk)
- jcrawfordor 5y agoThis is kind of a weird area. I only have the US FAR/AIM in front of me, a lot of this is harmonized internationally by ICAO but I'm not sure how complete that is in these more edge cases. But in general there is no procedure that allows a controller to "take command" of an airplane, however, there is a procedure (this is ICAO harmonized) for the military to instruct aircraft via emergency security control (ESCAT) or intercept. In the case of ESCAT the book doesn't say compliance is mandatory but rather expected, so presumably a PIC could refuse to comply under the normal safety of flight rules (a pilot is not obligated to obey any instruction that, in their judgment, puts the aircraft in danger). In the case of intercept compliance is mandatory, but intercept is also a very specific procedure which is not reported to have occurred here. At least from the reporting it sounds more like the fighter that was sent appeared as an escort, which is a distinct situation from intercept (and fairly normal in a bomb threat situation, in order to immediately report the what and where if a bomb does go off to speed SAR response). For the US rules see AIM 5-6-12 and up. It does not appear that any of these rules were invoked in this situation.
- iso1631 5y agoI certainly have no idea on the formality, I do remember on 9/11 discussion about whether the airforce had shot down flight 93. There was a British "reality tv" show a few years later where some idiots got to run the country (heh). One scenario had a plane approaching London and refusing to divert to Stansted. The people 'in charge' just ran the clock down, not making the decision to fire, and the plane crashed into westminster, so not a total loss I guess.
- lsh123 5y agoIt is not uncommon in US for ATC to offer pilot options for diversion or emergency landing when pilot declares an emergency. Good controllers understand that pilot might be dealing with flying airplane and dealing with emergency (e.g. engine failure) and offering help with navigation. Of course, it is PIC responsibility to select the best option and communicate to ATC about it.
- xsmasher 5y agoThe radio exchange with Captain Sully is burned in my brain. Departure control (15:29:21): Cactus fifteen twenty nine turn right two eight zero, you can land runway one at Teterboro. [...] Sullenberger (15:29:25): We can’t do it. [...] Departure control (15:29:27): Kay which runway would you like at Teterboro? [...] Sullenberger (15:29:28): We’re gonna be in the Hudson. Departure control (15:29:33): I’m sorry say again Cactus? Stone cold and matter-of-fact!
- dingaling 5y ago> Stone cold and matter-of-fact! Not particularly. "I intend to ditch into the Hudson River as we cannot reach an alternative airport" would have been clearer and avoided wasting time clarifying intentions.
- nomoreplease 5y agoAlso, when you look at the flight path, the Minsk airport was MUCH further from the Vilnius airport they intended to land at. They were almost to their destination and ALMOST out of Belarus airspace.
- underyx 5y agoA read of the article will clear up this mystery for you.
- SahAssar 5y agoNo it doesn't. Please tell me what part of the article clears this up besides perhaps the previously reported fighter jet.
- underyx 5y agoThe first sentence the controller said explains why the pilot wasn't supposed to land at the Vilnius airport. I want to avoid quoting the line for fear of my account being flagged in government systems.
- qwertox 5y agoThat it was suggested that the (non-existent) bomb on board was intended to explode near or at Vilnius.