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.
Pilot has final say, END OF STORY. Glad they stood up and said this. I support this move.
Good for the pilots ! Thank you , pilots .
Which door? If we’re talking lavatory door, I’d be pretty livid at the captain over a 3-hour delay over what’s clearly not a safety issue.
If it’s one of the “will suck people out of the plane if opened at altitude” doors, well, different story there obviously.
Smart move of the captain
This pilot is a hero. Kudos to him.
In 2011/2012 Pilots made US Air take over American Airlines after the company filed bankruptcy with 4 billion cash in the bank.
US Air constantly chisels away at inspections and inspectors to save money, with the FAA’s blessing. I know,
According to flightstats, the aircraft was a 737-800. I’d be concerned, also. Good call on the captain’s part.
Bad look putting efficiency over flying. Good for the captain for being an advocate for the passengers. This person really is an everyday hero.
Better SAFE than Sorry! Good job,
Pilot!
Safety issue? Go ahead and cancel my flight. Good call Captain.
From the Orange County mechanics “Let the Dallas crew handle this — we’re busy!”
Each entry door to the aircraft has a sensor that show open or closed. Say like your car. Sensor goes bad but the door is secure and closed. Yet consider this. Just cause the door feels and looks secure, doesn’t mean it is closed. Other panels on the outside like the Lav (is not a door) panel depending on aircraft have no sensors.
To refuse that aircraft is the best thing he did for everyone. People think fixing an aircraft is easy. Just like people driving around in busted up cars feel it’s too expensive to fix that mirror or finder. Airlines do the same thing and the flying public has no clue.
Ask your pilot next time to show you his log of when the cabin air filter was changed. If people only knew.
This happens more than you think. I have had planes refused because the Pilot didn’t want to lay over in a certain city. Not knowing the issue is was most likely a Lav door. Don’t be so quick to call this guy a hero.
I’ve had this a few years ago. Incidentally also on a AA plane. Maintenance came and fixed it.
The problem today are DEI hires in this country. We don’t get the best in many industries. This includes airlines and plane manufacturers. If the liberals want to experiment, try DEI in the NFL and NBA first.
Captains pull this power move all the time. MEL is approved by the manufacturer and FAA. His station girlfriend probably text him anyway you can stay the night?
If the guy or gal up front doesn’t wanna go up in the plane, I don’t wanna go up either. There is a reason pilots (and mechanics) are individually licensed. Even Bob Crandall once said pilots and mechanics put their name on the bottom line and he isn’t going to question their decision if they don’t deem something safe.
“Under federal regulations, the pilot in command is the final safety authority, not the airline.”
Not for long. With the SC ruling overturning the Chevron doctrine, now all it would take is an airline suing the FAA to say that they should be able to make the final say, not the FAA regulations. Because, of course, they know what’s best for their airplanes. And then all it would take is some idiot judge to agree with them.
Exterior door, lav door, or cockpit door?
@Raven78 – not true at all
This happens probably at least once a day and is not a big story. The FAA allows certain maintenance items to be inoperative/deferred. The company has some items above the FAA requirements that they don’t allow, or don’t allow at certain stations due to manpower, parts, etc. Then the Captain has the final authority to decide if the aircraft is to be operated. At that point they can replace the aircraft, replace the Captain, or cancel/delay the flight. In 43 years I only saw two or three people have the company push back on a maintenance refusal. I once refused an aircraft that had an 11 day maintenance deferral. They fixed it in an hour.
The video says it’s fuel pressure on the number two engine, not a door.
Best advertising in the world for American safety over get the cattle car in the air
and hope for the best.Great pilot!
Ok Gary, keep your head in the sand and think corporations give a damn about you and your safety. A plane on the ground is lost revenue, and that is ALL the airlines care about. It’s not going to happen overnight, but there will be more and more lawsuits against gov’t agencies to give more power back to the corporations.
@WhollyFool – you’re mixing up the two different incidents
Cockpit door lock had an issue. The flight crew did not feel safe flying to DFW being unable to securely lock the door.
Interesting issue, I’m agreed with a number of commenters that IF this was a safety issue (any Fuselage Door), then the PIC absolutely did the right thing and was a hero. That said, I’m equally agreed with a few of commenters that IF the door in question was internal to the aircraft (like a Lavatory Door), then it’s disappointing that this occurred. Out of curiosity, I thought that I would check to see if the FAA considers the Lavatory Door to be classified as something other than a Door (like a Panel). In glancing at the FAA Web Site here’s what I found: In one of no doubt many versions of a Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL), they specifically called the Lavatory Door a Door.
Had a similar experience with almost the same explanation out of JFK airport a few months ago. After 2 hours the pilot played it safe and cancelled the flight. We had to take another flight a few hours later. Better safe than sorry. I wasn’t disappointed at all. Good job by the pilot.
Guy can be my pilot any time.
I can’t believe this. .American concerns me. It’s ok to have an honest discussion about it. But then do the right thing without it getting to this point
If the pilot doesn’t want to fly the ac then you shouldn’t want to be on it either. Most pilots know the boundaries of safety by the time they get to major airlines.
Let’s consider reality for a moment. Pilot A rejects Airplane A for a bad door. Bad might mean a sensor, a damaged seal, or whatever. The next flight from Dallas shows up. Another A321 with no warning lights or maintenance write ups. Pilot A takes Airplane B. And pilot B decides after reviewing and discussing with maintenance and the company to accept Plane A for flight B. He flies it back to DFW where maintenance fixes whatever was wrong and everyone moves on.
Remember. Pilots are human and know the old saw: pilot screws up, pilot dies. Maintenance screws up, pilot dies. ATC screws up, pilot dies.
A captain has the authority to refuse an aircraft. The Chief Pilot has the authority to question why he did it. And the company has the authority to fire him if doing it was not reasonable.
If it’s an MEL item, you better have a damn good reason for not accepting the aircraft.
I respect and fully support the pilot. All pilots must be resolute in making the right decisions when the safety of passengers and crew depends on their judgment.
But the question is, why are airlines scheduling airplanes to operate when a maintenance issue may exist with the aircraft?
After this incident, I am wondering whether my trust in airline safety operations is justified. Perhaps every airline needs a third party safety monitor to ensure unsafe aircraft do not leave the airport.
For once, the government got it right. If the plane isn’t safe, it’s the pilot’s life too! He should have the final say. I want him to too!
Years ago I worked for an airline that was in disarray when I was hired.
There was a set of books – DMIs – Deferred Maintenance Items. Certain items can be deferred until that night or whenever a part is available. The book states “an aircraft shall not depart a station where the repair could be made”. So – these smart asses would route the planes around the parts so they wouldn’t have down time. I said that was male bovine excretion and we set off to actually repair and then maintain.
Together with the mechanics we cherried out all of the laintenance items.
Then the airline was sold. The 1st day with the new airline management I had an aircraft with a door seal leak. I said we had the parts, personnel and time to fix it. The Continental management said I had to pencil whip it. I said no, let’s fix it. They threatened my job. I quit.
I have regretted quitting ever since and this was 4 decades ago. I’ve struggled since, it’s been a nighmare , but I wasn’t part of a process that’d kill people either.
The pilot has the last word.
Pretty useless to talk about who was right without knowing what was the issue.
The captain (PIC) isn’t the only person who can refuse an aircraft–so can the flight’s dispatcher. In 35 years of dispatching Part 121 flights. I’ve had to refuse a few, but it happens.
Don’t know how many times I’ve loaded, then unloaded a plane that was called OTS due to the Captain’s Refusal, only to reload it to a different city, same aircraft!! Only after the 3rd Captain’s Refusal did maintenance finally take it OTS!! You know what they say, “the third time is the charm”!!
There are two sides to this story and no one can know the details without being there. On the one hand, the captain does indeed have the final determination of whether to take the airplane, but with few exceptions, pilots don’t turn wrenches and don’t know the maintenance manual. The mechanics also don’t make their airworthiness assessment in a vacuum. These troubleshooting is performed and The issue routed to Maintenance Control where the ultimate decision of the condition of the airplane comes from.
Probably the most important relationship in an airline is between pilots and maintenance. Pilots have to have confidence that the maintenance staff are competent and know what they are doing so they can trust their assessment of an airplane. I have to believe in this case that the trust was lacking for some reason.
Still, in the end, it’s the Captain’s call.
As an airline pilot, the airline is always concerned with the economics of the operation. Each department takes care of their task. I have refused or grounded over a dozen aircraft in the last year. But, this is nothing new. We do an inspection on the aircraft and determine its airworthiness. We are the ones who find problems before maintenance has a chance to fix them. Each and every airline faces this problem everyday. You cannot operation over 1000 planes like American, Delta, or United and not have an issue with a plane everyday. Just today since the internet gives everyone a voice, we get to here about it. To the traveling public, we will keep finding issues because your lives are important. We care about getting you there alive, even if its not always ontime.
I’m going to disagree with “Neal”. As a pilot instructor for a major airline, I have not seen any of my pilots pull a “power trip” as he suggests. They are highly trained and capable of making the tough call and I’m going to include my competitors, too. The FAR’s are quite clear. Regardless of the MEL or the CDL, the captain makes the final call. I also disagree with “Raven78”. Of course the airlines will have lost revenue but that cost is considerably less than the injury or death caused by flying a plane that there are questions about. I will agree with DA Pilit that things like this happen daily. If there is a huge disagreement, then our captains will get in touch with the dispatcher, maintenance coordinator and the duty pilot. Then the captain can make an informed decision. To “Texas TJ”, most likely the lavatory door is considered a “CDL” or cabin discrepancy list issue. Depending on the number of lavatories and/or the length of the flight, again the CDL will dictate a go/no go but, again, the captain reserves the right to say “no”. If I were the two astronauts that are at the ISS on the very flawed Boeing Starliner, I’d risk loosing my job but I’d say, “It’s a Boeing and I ain’t going!” Boeing and NASA are making up the “MEL” as they go along! YIKES!
I don’t think anyone has ever refused an airplane because they don’t like the layover. This is just internet BS.
When you refuse an airplane you have to answer questions.
There are several reasons a pilot may decide to refuse an airplane for a maintenance deferral. The most basic is because the Capt. just doesn’t think it’s appropriate. (i.e. an number of pilots refuse to fly in the summer without an APU because [at brand X] the company does not ensure there will be operative airconditioning at the gate.). I have personally been asked to run an engine during boarding to cool a plane which is not what the FAA envisioned when they approved the APU deferral.
The company will occasionally apply the wrong MEL, several that are mutually exclusive and once and a while they will just flat out lie and attempt to pull a fast one and apply an MEL without following all the required maintenance steps. (Turns out this is more frequent than I though based on just my experiences).
Most of the time the flying public has no idea this has happened. They will just experience an equipment substitution or a cancellation.
Couple of questions to this..
1. Does AA have their own MX at SNA or is it contracted out?
2. I say that because contract MX may not be up to speed on AA’s latest revisions to maintenance procedures specific to that airbus.
3. Either way the PIC has got the final call. If she or he says they are not comfortable with the airworthiness of the a/c then that’s all I need to hear.
4. I just listened to an ATC tape of a JFK situation where the tower cleared a heavy AI a/c to depart on 31L with a heavy DL a/c on a 2 mile final.for the same.concrete. The DL pilots declared a go-around and when the tower eventually asked them the reason for that the DL pilots said “they were not comfortable with how close that was getting”. The tower controller said “I have been doing this for a long time Sir and it would have been close but it was doable”. Who do you think made the right call?
5. Never forget that the best way to fix a big problem is to stop it when it’s a small problem! The PIC has my vote each and every time when it comes to deciding if her/his a/c is fit to fly!
Picard
Hats off to the pilot!
I was a mechanic for years before I was the captain. I became very aware of pressure to fly with certain deferred items. That captain must have had good reason to insist it needed to be fixed – now – rather than delayed. I support his actions, having been burned a few times myself.
On Monday July 15th flight from Charlotte to Florence SC, attendant closed the outer passenger door, door was not showing closed, FO came and opened the door and reclosed the door but the flap at the top was showing light thru it. It finally closed but as we taxied to takeoff, the issue returned. 2 hrs later maintenance cleared the issue but our plane was reassigned to another crew, and we had to wait for another plane that was at a gate 36gates away!!! I have bad knees and there was no one to push my wife and I to the gate. We were stressed out waiting as the takeoff time came and with minutes to spare, we were taken to gate 4 from gate 40 by one pusher who struggled to move us both. AA if another carrier was serving my city, I would change in a hot minute
Couild be a coincidence that there are two serious safety issues that management neglected and that heroic pilots wouldn’t stand for . . . or this is a concerted Union plan to squeeze concessions out of management by flexing muscles like the infamous Cathay Pacific Work to Rule campaign which essentially brought down what was then the world’s greatest airline and is now a shadow of it’s former self, employing far fewer people? I don’t claim to know which, but I can assess the relative probabilities.
Remember Alaska flight 261? Elevator trim issue. “We’ll fix it at the next scheduled maintenance.” All 88 on board were killed when it crashed into the sea.
Yep. Can’t have some 7 year old kid walk up and ask the pilot for some wings. Gotta keep that door secure.
Raven78, way to oversimplify things. Just because airlines might suddenly cry about it doesn’t mean they automatically get their way. While it is being hashed out in court Congress will have to get off their butts and pass laws instead of browbeating and schmoozing for kickbacks