American Airlines flight 2861 from Orange County to Dallas was delayed over three hours on Monday for an unusual reason: the captain refused to fly the plane.
Initially the flight delay was due to maintenance. A passenger reports that it was a “door issue.” Mechanics responded, and it appears that maintenance determined they could defer fixing the issue. The captain, though, told passengers he wouldn’t fly the plane in that condition. Instead of fixing the problem, they wound up swapping aircraft.
After a 3 hour delay, boarded flight 2861 and the captain came on to speak to everyone while we were sitting on the plane at the gate. He apologized for the delay and announced that he wasn’t sure what the gate agents told everyone, but that the original plane we were scheduled to fly on came in with a maintenance issue, after conferring with the crew they determined the plane was not airworthy, and let maintenance ops know.
It sounded like maintenance did come on board but the captain said that rather than fixing the issue, American determined the plane was safe to fly. Capt. said that it led to some heated conversation and ultimately he had to refuse the aircraft, hence the swapping of planes and crews. He stated he has flown for American 31 years and never experienced this issue and would never put his family, friends, or customers on an aircraft that he did not feel comfortable flying.
The pilot described to passengers that there were “heated discussions” with American before refusing the plane.
I asked American about the specific mechanical issue that the pilot was concerned with. They didn’t respond to that, instead offering,
We’re intently focused on the safety of every flight and a critical part of that is ensuring aircraft readiness. If an aircraft requires pre-flight maintenance that disrupts customers’ travel plans, our team works to get them on their way as quickly as possible.
In April an American Airlines pilot refused their aircraft from Los Angeles to Hawaii, saying that the company said the plane was “good to go” but he “wasn’t really feeling it” – there was an issue with the number two engine and he wasn’t comfortable flying the plane though the airline determined it was safe to do so.
Under federal regulations, the pilot in command is the final safety authority, not the airline.
- 14 CFR § 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.”
- 14 CFR § 121.533(d) “Each pilot in command of an aircraft is, during flight time, in command of the aircraft and crew and is responsible for the safety of the passengers, crewmembers, cargo, and airplane.”
And while it’s clearly implied in the code of federal regulations, airline operating manuals will usually be more specific about a pilot’s authority in this situation.
Ask the Allegiant pilot who returned his flight back to Tampa due to a burning smell in the cockpit.
Allegiant filed a grievance against the pilot for falsifying a safety issue. They accused him of trying to make Allegiant look bad during some very public issues with a lot of their MD-88’s.
Maintenance could not find any issues in the cockpit nor any smell.
The pilot fought the grievance under the very rules quoted above. He lost and was fired immediately.
So there are consequences for pilots who might have abused their authority as the sole arbiter of safety.
Good call of the captain on what is essentially a flying coffin!!!
Was the item an MEL or CDL listed item? If it was the pilot should have flown the airplane. Some very smart people put those list together. He needs to get over his hissy fit and do his job.
I read most of the replies and they seem to all be from people who don’t know beans about the intricacies of aviation and especially aviation maintenance.
15,000 FAA Part 121 certified aircraft in the US took off and landed safely yesterday and every day for 2 1/2 before that.
The major airlines are having a hull loss every 6.5 million hours. If you live to 100 years old, you live for 876,600 hours. You are 7.4 times safer on an airplane than you are in life.
When you’re seated, fasten your seat belt, don’t kick the seat in front of you and be nice to the flight attendants, they have a tough job.
Ok. What’s the captains name and how can I pick him for every flight??
It’s the same in the air as the sea apparently. I wonder how many flights I’ve been on where some jack a**at a desk said it was on to go, and the captain said but…but.. ok we will fly..
to the previous comment ALEBET SWArt
the lav door has a sensor that if open will not pressurize the water tank, Meaning no coffee maker water or Lav flush. The cabin doors and cargo doors are plug type which means you can MEL em and they are not gonna “fly” open.
Captain has the final say over the flight; Airline has the final say over his employment.
A fine example of why we need DEREGULATION: Why should businesses be shackled by such regulations? Why does the pilot, and not the company, have the final say? Yet another example of regulations strangling American businesses, killing jobs, etc. etc.
Please vote the correct guys in November so that they can remove this REGULATION.
(Or maybe the other guys if you think the opposite way)
Regulations are there to protect the consumer and there are always procedures to deal with abuses. For those who say regulations are the culprit or in what kind of maintenance problem was it,”Just do your job and fly then plane.” Please let them stand in front of survivor’s when one goes down with that mess!
@Jake, you are trying to be ironic, but this is in fact a perfect example of why regulation is superfluous. It took no government action or regulators to keep this plane on the ground, but only employees within a company who have more incentive to keep their flight safe than all the employees of the FAA put together. Imagine if the FAA were involved here rather than private people acting in their own best interests rather than people sitting in Washington with political interests who have far less personal knowledge of the problem and nothing at all at stake?
Having flown with American for 42 years, I have only turned down 3 airplanes and on all 3 the mechanics and supervisors assured me it was airworthy when in fact upon a few questions, they didn’t even understand how the system which they wanted to placard worked. The Captain has FINAL authority and it takes a personality that will take it all the way to the FAA as a whistleblower to get the point across. on All 3 i just packed my bags , left the cockpit and wished the mechanics good luck.
Me and my two grandchildren are flying American Airlines on the 24 th of July 2024 from orlando fl to Tennessee i hope and pray we have a good and safe flight plus air worthy plane that day
I was a 20+ year Navy Aircrewman who flew on the P3 Orion and myself and the crew of 12 had all the faith in our PPC (pilot in command) if he said we aren’t taking this plane that was it…so trust your PPC he can be the difference between life and death… what’s more important a delay or your life?
Captains regularly turn down aircraft. It’s very normal. Often an aircraft that is suitable for one flight might not be suitable for another. The Captain makes that determination.
This is news ? Happens often. No biggie.
I am an airline Captain. This situation is not simple. Everyone in the system SHOULD have Customer Service as the #1 priority: Getting the passengers and/or cargo to the planned destination as soon as practical. If the plane crashes and everyone dies\the cargo is destroyed, then the airline did NOT accomplish their #1 priority.
There are too many “Business” people in the airline industry (BOEING is one recent example), who’s #1 priority is making money. When this priority is followed in the short term, you have dangerous incidents and crashes. IF the owners and top management think of profiting Long Term, they realize that safety problems, and crashes, are not beneficial to making money in the Long Term.
Pilots and engineers (mechanics), cabin crew, gate agents, +++, are all out there every day, doing the best they can. It is sometimes complicated, and difficult to figure out what is wrong with the aircraft, and how best to fix it. Lately, we have had one airplane grounded for a number of days, because the Rudder is not responding normally to flight control checks. If the Rudder has a major issue, then it is very easy for everyone to die on the flight.
Do you want to leave on time, or do you want to get to your destination safely? Give the airline employees a break, and think about your safety, and the safety of everyone aboard the aircraft.
Use your Free Will to LOVE!…it will help more than you know
It’s true captains refuse aircraft regularly for all kinds of reasons. For instance in summer a lot of refusals are for hot cabins due to one ac pack inop. While this may not be safety related it’s usually for passenger comfort. Some airline’s MEL have a note stating the Captain has the right to refuse the aircraft for this MEL. I have seen captains refuse an aircraft because they thought it was not deferrable this was because of differences in the flight manual and the aircraft maintenance manual.
We’re concerned with passengers safety, no you’re not, your goal is making money. Your words and your actions don’t line up. If you’re so concerned with passenger safety why were there heated conversations before the pilot finally said I’m not going to fly this. Airlines are in the business of making money and they certainly don’t want any one person overriding what they say. If a plane crashes it affects the airline’s bottom line, but what about those people that were inside that airplane who lost their lives? To say he or she should have just flown it anyway and just done their job is stupidity. The safety of their passengers and the crew is their job!!!
As warrant trout said, an aircraft can be good for one flight but not another. Captains aren’t the only employees who reject airplanes. I am also a captain and recently had a dispatcher preemptively reject an airplane for an ice system MEL. That aircraft would have been suitable for a 500 mile flight on a clear day but not on the 2000 mile planned flight in varied weather.
Also, some MELs are trickier to comply with than they seem, antiskid inop being one that comes to mind. MELs are supposed to take into account the next malfunction such as an engine failure, however in my current aircraft the antiskid inop MEL says nothing about a high speed rejected takeoff or an engine-out landing. A high speed rejected takeoff with antiskid inop would almost certainly lead to blown tires, challenging directional control, and wheel fires. An engine out landing requires flaps 15° yet the antiskid inop MEL calls for flaps 40°, and there is no allowance for antiskid inop in the engine-out landing performance tables. Compounding this is that the required landing distance for flaps 40° with antiskid inop is comparable to a flaps up (all the way up 0°) landing. So this is a case where the MEL supposedly accounts for the next malfunction to achieve necessary redundancy but leaves the pilots and dispatcher in uncharted territory should that next malfunction (engine failure) actually occur. Captains must ensure that the aircraft can be operated safely in all likely scenarios, and certainly scenarios for which we train, e.g. engine failure, are likely enough to warrant consideration. As employees we can offer solutions, such as ferrying at low weight and with minimal fuss in case of evacuation, or getting together with engineers to write the missing portions in the manual before takeoff.
Ultimately it is our job to protect the safety of the flying public. What usually happens is that the rejecting pilots are removed from the flight and another crew is asked to take it. I always look in the logbook for previous rejections as a flag that I should think extra critically before taking an aircraft with deferred maintenance. If someone else wants to take an aircraft that I reject: fine. Let them explain why they were able to assure safety. I’ll have no problem explaining why I wasn’t. I’ll admit I recoiled a bit upon reading that the captain exposed internal disagreements, but I wasn’t there so I’m not going to pass judgement.
The Captain is the pilot with the most flight experience. The first officer generally I’d qualified but has less flight hours logged. If the captain feels the aircraft is unsafe I would always take his/her opinion over all others. The one thing I would like to see is more timely and truthful notification to the passengers in cases of delays and/or plane swaps.
I am retired Captain, I only had one time in 30 years that i was told to take plane or be fired, other pilots were there, the station mgr. was lucky he lived. I did not take plane.
Peter Dixon, instead of trying to throw out numbers and trying to degrade the Captain and insulting other commenters try instead realize that all of us want to fly safely. I have been on two flights that the Captains refused to fly because of safety issues with the plane. Because of that I am here able to make my comment instead of having my body in pieces. Ease up and let the Captains do their job and let the flying public make their own decisions.
It seems that an aircraft earlier this year was deemed safe to fly by everyone in charge even though the documented problems were unsolved. Then the door plug blew out in flight. Good for this pilot making a judgement call to err on the side of safety.
The pilot felt comfortable standing up to management for one reason: he had his Union behind him.