Pilots Not In Command
06-27-2013, 08:25 AM
#21
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2013
Posts: 32
Think of it this way guys...
Your taking off out of someplace and the tower sees a large plume of smoke coming from one of your engines.
The ATC guys could justify not telling the captain by saying "Well no one can go up there with a wrench and fix it..."
I think the captain should be notified of any issue about the status of the crew, craft or people in the cabin. To withhold any information from the captain I think puts everyone at danger.
Just because something is policy or procedure these days, doesn't always make it a great idea. That is why these things get revised each year at your recurrent training.
Your taking off out of someplace and the tower sees a large plume of smoke coming from one of your engines.
The ATC guys could justify not telling the captain by saying "Well no one can go up there with a wrench and fix it..."
I think the captain should be notified of any issue about the status of the crew, craft or people in the cabin. To withhold any information from the captain I think puts everyone at danger.
Just because something is policy or procedure these days, doesn't always make it a great idea. That is why these things get revised each year at your recurrent training.
06-27-2013, 09:38 AM
#22
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2013
Posts: 32
I would also ask each of you to listen to the ATC tapes from the 58November Hijacking (yes the PIC was my father)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mySNO2IKyQs
And then compare the ATC tapes of AA24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frjsw7RjQIU
These are YouTube links to each. The same communications issues have not changed much since 1971, in my opinion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mySNO2IKyQs
And then compare the ATC tapes of AA24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frjsw7RjQIU
These are YouTube links to each. The same communications issues have not changed much since 1971, in my opinion
06-27-2013, 02:43 PM
#23
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,021
Think of it this way guys...
Your taking off out of someplace and the tower sees a large plume of smoke coming from one of your engines.
The ATC guys could justify not telling the captain by saying "Well no one can go up there with a wrench and fix it..."
I think the captain should be notified of any issue about the status of the crew, craft or people in the cabin. To withhold any information from the captain I think puts everyone at danger.
Just because something is policy or procedure these days, doesn't always make it a great idea. That is why these things get revised each year at your recurrent training.
Your taking off out of someplace and the tower sees a large plume of smoke coming from one of your engines.
The ATC guys could justify not telling the captain by saying "Well no one can go up there with a wrench and fix it..."
I think the captain should be notified of any issue about the status of the crew, craft or people in the cabin. To withhold any information from the captain I think puts everyone at danger.
Just because something is policy or procedure these days, doesn't always make it a great idea. That is why these things get revised each year at your recurrent training.
The pilot IS the authority and the ONLY authority with FULL responsibility for handling an onboard fire: that's why he is there. Fly the airplane, handle systems emergencies. He has control over that. He trains for that. He has procedures for that. The fire will not intercept a radio transmission and take preemptive action. The fire doesn't think. The fire isn't armed. The fire isn't an intelligent, emotional dynamic in a tactical situation.
A pilot is directed by his company to land the aircraft. ATC directs the aircraft to park in a given location. Pilot shuts down. Pilot is no longer master of the house when it becomes a negotiation or tactical take down. Notifying the pilot by radio or other means may make the situation worse and may betray tactical advantage.
As for comparing your fathers incident in 1971 with current actions, you've an axe to grind with a long-outdated method of handling emergencies and tactical situations. Making a comparison is inappropriate. Your fathers loss is unfortunate. You have a book and a movie out to tell the story, but you appear to be confusing current events with past events. They are not the same. The required responses aren't the same, nor are the methods of dealing with those events.
Your agenda in your initial post is now much clearer. I don't blame you for your drive and your zeal, though it's somewhat misplaced here.
Last edited by USMCFLYR; 06-28-2013 at 04:38 AM.
06-27-2013, 08:03 PM
#24
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2013
Posts: 32
The all I can say is if you prefer to be kept in the dark on these matters, you have got exactly what you wanted. It may also is clear that metaphors are not within your realm of comprehension.
The comparison is not unfair in any way. Communication between LEOs and Crews have been poor for years. The lack of preparation in truly understanding the aviation environment is not on most LEOs radar.
If you think I am wrong, call Chief Sullivan in PHL. He may have some enlightening words for you. The difference between PHL and the rest of the country is he is actually doing something to make it better. Most can't admit there is an issue, as that seems to be your position.
I;ll give you a recent example of an interaction between myself and a special teams unit at a major International airport.
They told me they had all things under control in dealing with aircraft crisis. I said that is great how did you do that? They explained they had bought a new popup stair that can be deployed on the ramp to get to the door of an airliner.
I asked them what would they do if the engines to the plane were still running. They explained that would be great since the noise would give them cover.
I asked them about the 1800c+ coming out the back of the engines and did they consider they may have just cooked their entire unit with a rear door entry?
The commander looked at me and said, "Huh?"
We didn't have a chance to discuss intake issues.
Until LEOs start being willing to take ideas from people who do not have badges these problems will remain.
If you would like to dismiss these points with some half apologetic version of sorry your dad died but now I see the real you....you may need better glasses.
The comparison is not unfair in any way. Communication between LEOs and Crews have been poor for years. The lack of preparation in truly understanding the aviation environment is not on most LEOs radar.
If you think I am wrong, call Chief Sullivan in PHL. He may have some enlightening words for you. The difference between PHL and the rest of the country is he is actually doing something to make it better. Most can't admit there is an issue, as that seems to be your position.
I;ll give you a recent example of an interaction between myself and a special teams unit at a major International airport.
They told me they had all things under control in dealing with aircraft crisis. I said that is great how did you do that? They explained they had bought a new popup stair that can be deployed on the ramp to get to the door of an airliner.
I asked them what would they do if the engines to the plane were still running. They explained that would be great since the noise would give them cover.
I asked them about the 1800c+ coming out the back of the engines and did they consider they may have just cooked their entire unit with a rear door entry?
The commander looked at me and said, "Huh?"
We didn't have a chance to discuss intake issues.
Until LEOs start being willing to take ideas from people who do not have badges these problems will remain.
If you would like to dismiss these points with some half apologetic version of sorry your dad died but now I see the real you....you may need better glasses.
06-27-2013, 08:18 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,001
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
Until the flight reaches the ground and shuts down, the pilot in command still has ultimate authority for the safe operation of the flight, and for the safe outcome of the flight. Once the flight is over and the law enforcement operation is under way, the pilot(s) become part of the overall operation, but to what degree is really a tactical matter based on what's known of their security and ability to contribute to the outcome.
Even if I could find that rule in the FAR's or my company's security manuals, how, as the PIC, would I know a law enforcement operation was in progress if nobody told me one was in progress?
We should be uncomfortable discussing the specifics of these incidents on a public forum. While the way to do it right seems obvious to us, as pilots, the record of law enforcement raids on aircraft show that law enforcement has less than perfect knowledge on these issues, and they train for this stuff. We should be loath to discuss publicly what law enforcement should have done, since, despite their mistakes, we'd like the less than perfect knowledge of law enforcement to still trump the knowledge of those who seek to cause a security issue onboard an aircraft.
PIC authority is a great topic for the forums. The specifics of how to handle security and communication in a 'law enforcement operation' are not fit for forum discussion, IMO. Just b/c its obvious to you and I doesn't mean its obvious to everyone else.
06-27-2013, 08:57 PM
#26
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,021
We should be uncomfortable discussing the specifics of these incidents on a public forum.
58november doesn't seem to understand that, so yes, so sorry dad died, and yes, the real person has become clear. Nuff said.
06-28-2013, 01:31 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2013
Position: CEO
Posts: 193
This pilot was certainly in command. BTW, I did not author. I found this somewhere in the Internet.
"Eugene Vaughn was a Pan Am 747 captain, and he was running a route from San Francisco to Saigon with stops in Honolulu and Manila and Guam, I believe.
On the way to Southeast Asia, one of Vaughn's passengers was a South Vietnamese native who had just graduated from the University of Washington and was on the way home. He decided to hijack the plane and take it to Hanoi to protest the bombing of North Vietnam.
They land in Saigon and the captain went back and basically tackled this hijacker.
Another of the passengers was an ex-cop from San Francisco. Vaughn knew the ex-cop was armed and Vaughn had him shoot the hijacker to death. The captain then literally picked up this hijacker and took his body to the rear exit of the plane and threw the corpse onto the tarmac. He said he did it because he was so offended that this guy, who would challenge his command, would remain on his plane -- even while dead. He just had to get him off the plane.
When he returned back to the U.S., a lot of people hailed Vaughn as a hero, because this was a moment in America during the skyjacking epidemic when the public was really through with it. They were really finished. It was no longer quaint or funny when people were hijacked. There were actually deaths involved and there was a lot of terror going on.
That was kind of a turning point in the epidemic when it became clear the public wouldn't put up with this anymore."
"Eugene Vaughn was a Pan Am 747 captain, and he was running a route from San Francisco to Saigon with stops in Honolulu and Manila and Guam, I believe.
On the way to Southeast Asia, one of Vaughn's passengers was a South Vietnamese native who had just graduated from the University of Washington and was on the way home. He decided to hijack the plane and take it to Hanoi to protest the bombing of North Vietnam.
They land in Saigon and the captain went back and basically tackled this hijacker.
Another of the passengers was an ex-cop from San Francisco. Vaughn knew the ex-cop was armed and Vaughn had him shoot the hijacker to death. The captain then literally picked up this hijacker and took his body to the rear exit of the plane and threw the corpse onto the tarmac. He said he did it because he was so offended that this guy, who would challenge his command, would remain on his plane -- even while dead. He just had to get him off the plane.
When he returned back to the U.S., a lot of people hailed Vaughn as a hero, because this was a moment in America during the skyjacking epidemic when the public was really through with it. They were really finished. It was no longer quaint or funny when people were hijacked. There were actually deaths involved and there was a lot of terror going on.
That was kind of a turning point in the epidemic when it became clear the public wouldn't put up with this anymore."
06-28-2013, 04:58 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by Lucky8888
This pilot was certainly in command. BTW, I did not author. I found this somewhere in the Internet.
"Eugene Vaughn was a Pan Am 747 captain, and he was running a route from San Francisco to Saigon with stops in Honolulu and Manila and Guam, I believe.
On the way to Southeast Asia, one of Vaughn's passengers was a South Vietnamese native who had just graduated from the University of Washington and was on the way home. He decided to hijack the plane and take it to Hanoi to protest the bombing of North Vietnam.
They land in Saigon and the captain went back and basically tackled this hijacker.
Another of the passengers was an ex-cop from San Francisco. Vaughn knew the ex-cop was armed and Vaughn had him shoot the hijacker to death. The captain then literally picked up this hijacker and took his body to the rear exit of the plane and threw the corpse onto the tarmac. He said he did it because he was so offended that this guy, who would challenge his command, would remain on his plane -- even while dead. He just had to get him off the plane.
When he returned back to the U.S., a lot of people hailed Vaughn as a hero, because this was a moment in America during the skyjacking epidemic when the public was really through with it. They were really finished. It was no longer quaint or funny when people were hijacked. There were actually deaths involved and there was a lot of terror going on.
That was kind of a turning point in the epidemic when it became clear the public wouldn't put up with this anymore."
"Eugene Vaughn was a Pan Am 747 captain, and he was running a route from San Francisco to Saigon with stops in Honolulu and Manila and Guam, I believe.
On the way to Southeast Asia, one of Vaughn's passengers was a South Vietnamese native who had just graduated from the University of Washington and was on the way home. He decided to hijack the plane and take it to Hanoi to protest the bombing of North Vietnam.
They land in Saigon and the captain went back and basically tackled this hijacker.
Another of the passengers was an ex-cop from San Francisco. Vaughn knew the ex-cop was armed and Vaughn had him shoot the hijacker to death. The captain then literally picked up this hijacker and took his body to the rear exit of the plane and threw the corpse onto the tarmac. He said he did it because he was so offended that this guy, who would challenge his command, would remain on his plane -- even while dead. He just had to get him off the plane.
When he returned back to the U.S., a lot of people hailed Vaughn as a hero, because this was a moment in America during the skyjacking epidemic when the public was really through with it. They were really finished. It was no longer quaint or funny when people were hijacked. There were actually deaths involved and there was a lot of terror going on.
That was kind of a turning point in the epidemic when it became clear the public wouldn't put up with this anymore."
Pan Am Hijaking in 1972
Janet Elliot
My father was Eugene Vaughn, a Pan Am captain that retired in 1979 after 38 years. He was hijacked in 1972 on a flight from Hong Kong to Saigon by a North Vietnamese sympathizer. The hijacker wanted my father to take the plane to Hanoi and my father flew it on to Saigon while having the cockpit secured by two U.S. Marine passengers. He also gave the on-board sky marshall his 357 Magnum gun.
After landing in Saigon, my father taxied the aircraft to a secured military area. After shutting down the aircraft systems, he then walked to the back of the plane and confronted the hijacker. The hijacker had taken a flight attendant hostage with a knife and a paper bag that he said had plastic explosives in it. My father approached the hijacker and then lunged on him pulling him to the ground. The Sky Marshall then came up and my father ordered the skymarshall to shoot the hijacker. The hijacker was shot 5 times in the chest. My father then got up, opened the rear door of the 747, picked up the dead hijacker's body and threw him on to the ramp.
My dad was a true hero for Pan Am, his passengers and crew. He was awarded the President's Award by Pan Am and also received many other civil and military commendations. He passed away from cancer in 1984. My mother, a former Pan Am stewardess, is still living in Fort Worth, Texas.
I grew up with Pan Am and now both my brother follow in his footsteps as airline pilots. I look so fondly at my charmed life as a daughter of a Pan Am captain.
Janet Elliott (Vaughn)
Janet Elliot
My father was Eugene Vaughn, a Pan Am captain that retired in 1979 after 38 years. He was hijacked in 1972 on a flight from Hong Kong to Saigon by a North Vietnamese sympathizer. The hijacker wanted my father to take the plane to Hanoi and my father flew it on to Saigon while having the cockpit secured by two U.S. Marine passengers. He also gave the on-board sky marshall his 357 Magnum gun.
After landing in Saigon, my father taxied the aircraft to a secured military area. After shutting down the aircraft systems, he then walked to the back of the plane and confronted the hijacker. The hijacker had taken a flight attendant hostage with a knife and a paper bag that he said had plastic explosives in it. My father approached the hijacker and then lunged on him pulling him to the ground. The Sky Marshall then came up and my father ordered the skymarshall to shoot the hijacker. The hijacker was shot 5 times in the chest. My father then got up, opened the rear door of the 747, picked up the dead hijacker's body and threw him on to the ramp.
My dad was a true hero for Pan Am, his passengers and crew. He was awarded the President's Award by Pan Am and also received many other civil and military commendations. He passed away from cancer in 1984. My mother, a former Pan Am stewardess, is still living in Fort Worth, Texas.
I grew up with Pan Am and now both my brother follow in his footsteps as airline pilots. I look so fondly at my charmed life as a daughter of a Pan Am captain.
Janet Elliott (Vaughn)
Great story overall and I'm glad of the outcome of this particular incident. Thank goodness it wasn't a more *organized or deliberate* group that day (think of some of the other groups in the 70s who were involved in hijackings)
06-28-2013, 06:38 AM
#29
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2013
Posts: 32
I think what the unions especially need to consider is the following:
If you want to operate with no knowledge of threats to the planes you captain, then these discussing are needless.
Then you need to consider how far does that go. If a suspected threat to a flight exists, do you want the decision of whether the flight goes as scheduled by a third party with no PIC input?
If the crews think these issues are not their business, believe me there are a great many agencies that would love to never have to consult with anyone on the crew. Much less having to spend their resources to train for specific events.
If you are confident that LEOs and Corporate Security will always make the right call for you without your consult, the current system will head that way as fast as it can.
One small note on the article, outside of hearing about it on the news, I was not going to write about the subject. The people involved in the incident contacted me because they had seen my other work.
If you want to operate with no knowledge of threats to the planes you captain, then these discussing are needless.
Then you need to consider how far does that go. If a suspected threat to a flight exists, do you want the decision of whether the flight goes as scheduled by a third party with no PIC input?
If the crews think these issues are not their business, believe me there are a great many agencies that would love to never have to consult with anyone on the crew. Much less having to spend their resources to train for specific events.
If you are confident that LEOs and Corporate Security will always make the right call for you without your consult, the current system will head that way as fast as it can.
One small note on the article, outside of hearing about it on the news, I was not going to write about the subject. The people involved in the incident contacted me because they had seen my other work.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
