Just so you know
#1
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Since this a bad year for aviation, I figured I’d throw this little tidbit out there.
Pilots do not crash planes, management does.
I can’t wait to see the battles over this one, but realize this is ultimately true.
Fire away
Pilots do not crash planes, management does.
I can’t wait to see the battles over this one, but realize this is ultimately true.
Fire away
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,091
Likes: 0
Is that the sign on the folding table you are sitting behind with a cup of coffee?
#4
Prime Minister/Moderator

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,129
Likes: 796
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Management can certainly create conditions conducive to crashing planes.
But Pilots are responsible for not crashing planes if it's at all within their control, and that includes not accepting unsat operating conditions from management. Sometimes that simply means refusing a plane or flight based on MX or conditions. Other times it means the pilot group as a whole must apply pressure to management... that can be organized via union leadership, or grass roots via an asap campaign (which the FAA is cc'ed on).
That's the US 121 model, overseas the pilots are often simply along for the ride, and can be terminated instantly at the slightest hint of non-compliance with higher direction.
In both cases the airplane mfgs and regulatory agencies have to do their part... it's possible for pilots to be given a plane which simply can't be flown safely.
But Pilots are responsible for not crashing planes if it's at all within their control, and that includes not accepting unsat operating conditions from management. Sometimes that simply means refusing a plane or flight based on MX or conditions. Other times it means the pilot group as a whole must apply pressure to management... that can be organized via union leadership, or grass roots via an asap campaign (which the FAA is cc'ed on).
That's the US 121 model, overseas the pilots are often simply along for the ride, and can be terminated instantly at the slightest hint of non-compliance with higher direction.
In both cases the airplane mfgs and regulatory agencies have to do their part... it's possible for pilots to be given a plane which simply can't be flown safely.
#5
You're phrasing things in terms of absolutes, which isn't the case. A pilot's job is to manage risk, so they have a large hand in crash avoidance, but I agree with RickAir that if management neglects maintenance and other vital issues then it doesn't matter what the pilot does, the plane eventually can fail (although that seems pretty rare in today's world).
#6
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Ile play my hand up front, I had a few delicious beers when I made the post.
That said, I still think that my assertion is true. Ile elaborate:
Companies can create some very hazardous work environments. Ile list them-pencil whipping, policies that refuse to address safety concerns, calling pilots to task for making safe choices, over stretching their flying vs resources, etc.
In my career I have witnessed all of these in spades. Rickair is correct that we need to refuse to operate if the situation is unsatisfactory. That’s all well and good on the ground, airborne is another story. True we are the last line of defense, but we are often set up. Think pencil whipped mx items when flying. Or even more applicable, policies that leave no protections. When you refuse to fly, what documents are you going to fall back on?
I’m sure I’m not the only one. I’m making what I think is a solid observation on reality. Right now the airline industry has had an unacceptably bad accident rate recently. Why?
Surely the pilots had a role to play, but we operate in an environment dictated largely by our leadership. If a company doesn’t want an accident then they need to carefully balance the safety aspect vs profit (and yes companies exist to make profits).
Lastly, I’m kinda playing the guy behind the table with the sign
That said, I still think that my assertion is true. Ile elaborate:
Companies can create some very hazardous work environments. Ile list them-pencil whipping, policies that refuse to address safety concerns, calling pilots to task for making safe choices, over stretching their flying vs resources, etc.
In my career I have witnessed all of these in spades. Rickair is correct that we need to refuse to operate if the situation is unsatisfactory. That’s all well and good on the ground, airborne is another story. True we are the last line of defense, but we are often set up. Think pencil whipped mx items when flying. Or even more applicable, policies that leave no protections. When you refuse to fly, what documents are you going to fall back on?
I’m sure I’m not the only one. I’m making what I think is a solid observation on reality. Right now the airline industry has had an unacceptably bad accident rate recently. Why?
Surely the pilots had a role to play, but we operate in an environment dictated largely by our leadership. If a company doesn’t want an accident then they need to carefully balance the safety aspect vs profit (and yes companies exist to make profits).
Lastly, I’m kinda playing the guy behind the table with the sign
#7
Ile play my hand up front, I had a few delicious beers when I made the post.
That said, I still think that my assertion is true. Ile elaborate:
Companies can create some very hazardous work environments. Ile list them-pencil whipping, policies that refuse to address safety concerns, calling pilots to task for making safe choices, over stretching their flying vs resources, etc.
In my career I have witnessed all of these in spades. Rickair is correct that we need to refuse to operate if the situation is unsatisfactory. That’s all well and good on the ground, airborne is another story. True we are the last line of defense, but we are often set up. Think pencil whipped mx items when flying. Or even more applicable, policies that leave no protections. When you refuse to fly, what documents are you going to fall back on?
I’m sure I’m not the only one. I’m making what I think is a solid observation on reality. Right now the airline industry has had an unacceptably bad accident rate recently. Why?
Surely the pilots had a role to play, but we operate in an environment dictated largely by our leadership. If a company doesn’t want an accident then they need to carefully balance the safety aspect vs profit (and yes companies exist to make profits).
Lastly, I’m kinda playing the guy behind the table with the sign
That said, I still think that my assertion is true. Ile elaborate:
Companies can create some very hazardous work environments. Ile list them-pencil whipping, policies that refuse to address safety concerns, calling pilots to task for making safe choices, over stretching their flying vs resources, etc.
In my career I have witnessed all of these in spades. Rickair is correct that we need to refuse to operate if the situation is unsatisfactory. That’s all well and good on the ground, airborne is another story. True we are the last line of defense, but we are often set up. Think pencil whipped mx items when flying. Or even more applicable, policies that leave no protections. When you refuse to fly, what documents are you going to fall back on?
I’m sure I’m not the only one. I’m making what I think is a solid observation on reality. Right now the airline industry has had an unacceptably bad accident rate recently. Why?
Surely the pilots had a role to play, but we operate in an environment dictated largely by our leadership. If a company doesn’t want an accident then they need to carefully balance the safety aspect vs profit (and yes companies exist to make profits).
Lastly, I’m kinda playing the guy behind the table with the sign

#8
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Incidentally, since I made the error 3 times, compared to the number of words, I guess a scored an A!
Lastly, Ile is ment to mean I’ll. But on an iPad it requires 2 additional button presses. But since you were too challenged to decipher the meaning of what was written, you have my apologies. I will do some extra work to accommodate those who cannot see the meaning of a message without 100% grammatical accuracy.
#9
Thank you! I aim to please. Too bad spelling isn’t in the terms of service. Id probably win a medal for a new error!!
Incidentally, since I made the error 3 times, compared to the number of words, I guess a scored an A!
Lastly, Ile is ment to mean I’ll. But on an iPad it requires 2 additional button presses. But since you were too challenged to decipher the meaning of what was written, you have my apologies. I will do some extra work to accommodate those who cannot see the meaning of a message without 100% grammatical accuracy.
Incidentally, since I made the error 3 times, compared to the number of words, I guess a scored an A!
Lastly, Ile is ment to mean I’ll. But on an iPad it requires 2 additional button presses. But since you were too challenged to decipher the meaning of what was written, you have my apologies. I will do some extra work to accommodate those who cannot see the meaning of a message without 100% grammatical accuracy.
#10
Thank you! I aim to please. Too bad spelling isn’t in the terms of service. Id probably win a medal for a new error!!
Incidentally, since I made the error 3 times, compared to the number of words, I guess a scored an A!
Lastly, Ile is ment to mean I’ll. But on an iPad it requires 2 additional button presses. But since you were too challenged to decipher the meaning of what was written, you have my apologies. I will do some extra work to accommodate those who cannot see the meaning of a message without 100% grammatical accuracy.
Incidentally, since I made the error 3 times, compared to the number of words, I guess a scored an A!
Lastly, Ile is ment to mean I’ll. But on an iPad it requires 2 additional button presses. But since you were too challenged to decipher the meaning of what was written, you have my apologies. I will do some extra work to accommodate those who cannot see the meaning of a message without 100% grammatical accuracy.
Either way, sounds like you’re being lazy to me.... might as well stop using all the letters nessecary for corectess, if you’re just trying to get the point across as easily as you can.


