Aircraft depart despite ground collision.

[niss]

Accident: Ryanair B738 and American B763 at Barcelona on Apr 14th 2011, both aircraft departed despite ground collision and passenger complaints

http://avherald.com/h?article=45363621&opt=0

Seriously?

[slam525i]

The scariest part is the 763 had no idea anything had happened, that it had been struck on a control surface. A winglet isn't critical aerodynamically, but the elevator it hit was!

[CpnCrunch]

Really, neither aircraft was airworthy. Even if it's allowed to fly with a winglet potentially hanging off, is that a good idea? What if there is structural damage to the wing itself? At the very least they should both have taxied back to the gate so that someone could have taken a look at it. The passengers really should have had more balls to prevent the flight taking off with an unairworthy plane (moreso the AA plane).

[Liquid Charlie]

The guys at Ryan Air were charging their cell phones on ship's power and didn't want to get caught

[niss]

Found this today too. Seems like a good way to keep the pax in the loop.

[CpnCrunch]

Found this today too. Seems like a good way to keep the pax in the loop.

Doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence though

[N2]

Just another reason why I no longer fly on commercial flights.

[longjon]

Me neither, good thing there are no commercial pilots on this site.

[The Tool]

http://www.fomento.gob.es/NR/rdonlyres/ ... 2_2012.pdf

Report starts on pg. 211. CRM/communication appears to be a significant issue.

[YYZSaabGuy]

The passengers really should have had more balls to prevent the flight taking off with an unairworthy plane (moreso the AA plane).

Excellent idea - PAX should definitely be involved in command decisions. Maybe we could use the IFE to poll for PAX input on whether to push, what taxi speed to use, what VR everyone feels is appropriate, whether to ask for a different departure heading.....

[CpnCrunch]

The passengers really should have had more balls to prevent the flight taking off with an unairworthy plane (moreso the AA plane).

Excellent idea - PAX should definitely be involved in command decisions. Maybe we could use the IFE to poll for PAX input on whether to push, what taxi speed to use, what VR everyone feels is appropriate, whether to ask for a different departure heading.....

So you think it was a good idea for them to take off in an unairworthy plane? What company do you fly for?

[YYZSaabGuy]

The passengers really should have had more balls to prevent the flight taking off with an unairworthy plane (moreso the AA plane).

Excellent idea - PAX should definitely be involved in command decisions. Maybe we could use the IFE to poll for PAX input on whether to push, what taxi speed to use, what VR everyone feels is appropriate, whether to ask for a different departure heading.....

So you think it was a good idea for them to take off in an unairworthy plane? What company do you fly for?

Sorry, sometimes sarcasm doesn't convey too well online. I was actually poking some gentle fun at your suggestion that the PAX should have any input into, or any responsibility for, the decision to depart with an aircraft, whether airworthy or unairworthy. (I should've used an eyeroll smilie, , but that seemed unnecessarily confrontational).

[trey kule]

I missed the sarcasm also, and thought you were being a bit extreme in your response.. Glad to know we have Canadian pilots who after an incident like this would not depart. So no need for pax to have to help them make the proper decision.....or maybe force them to.. But lets be honest here...Those planes should never have taken off, and at least four pilots chose to depart...and at least one captain ignore the pax comments...It is a bit scary..Maybe she decided that pax had no business in the deciision making process even if they had more common sense than she did. Your comments came across to me as sharing the same attitude as that Captain...glad you cleared it up.

[YYZSaabGuy]

Those planes should never have taken off, and at least four pilots chose to depart...and at least one captain ignore the pax comments...It is a bit scary..Maybe she decided that pax had no business in the deciision making process even if they had more common sense than she did. Your comments came across to me as sharing the same attitude as that Captain...glad you cleared it up.

Actually.....I completely agree with her on that point - passengers get zero involvement in decision-making - they're passengers, not crew, they have zero responsibility, and so they get zero authority.
Departing with an unairworthy aircraft is obviously wrong. Listening to passenger input ("I hear a funny banging noise in the rear galley" "There's fluid leaking from the left wing" "I smell smoke"), long enough to assess and then either dismiss it or act on it, is proactive and smart. I suspect most line crews adopt this approach in practice. The day that an airline captain starts actually involving passengers in decision-making is the day I quit flying commercially.

[squash junky]

We are probably saying the same thing, but I think pax are quite involved in the decision process.
If somebody mentions something about smell, noise, or visual clues and you decide to depart it could have quite a bit of impact.
A pap could go nuts, pax seated close by hear it, postings on twitter and FB, etc. These days of social media the rippling effect could be very negative.
I usually send the FO or SO back to check and then talk to or explain the pap how what or why.
We want the folks in the back to feel safe and taken seriously.

30 yrs ago or so a pap pointed to outside and down with big question marks while taxiing out on a tw. otter on floats.
Decided to check and sure enough both fuel caps were off. Whoops

[trey kule]

Saab..
This is not about pax involved in decision making..It is them providing observations and information that was critical to flight.
The Captain should accept pertinat info from whatever source they can..This was a Captain who seemed to be so arrogant that she simply ignored pax observations, which anyone with even a small stick of common sense would know were correct...
Be careful, your posts seem to indicate you have the pretty much the same attitude. "no stinkin self loading cargo is going to tell me how to do my job"

[rooster]

Actually.....I completely agree with her on that point - passengers get zero involvement in decision-making - they're passengers, not crew, they have zero responsibility, and so they get zero authority.
Departing with an unairworthy aircraft is obviously wrong. Listening to passenger input ("I hear a funny banging noise in the rear galley" "There's fluid leaking from the left wing" "I smell smoke"), long enough to assess and then either dismiss it or act on it, is proactive and smart. I suspect most line crews adopt this approach in practice. The day that an airline captain starts actually involving passengers in decision-making is the day I quit flying commercially.

First of all, there was no question on whether passengers should have a say in the PDM process. So I don't know what tangent you took that on. You agreeing with the actions of the captain make me feel worse about the dumb dumbs flying commercial aircraft. Passengers who are paying for the service of being flown safely from A to B have every right to voice a concern. Yes it's the captains decision on what action to take next, but shrugging it off should never be one of them. Who fly's SAAB's in YYZ anyways. I'll stay far away...

[GyvAir]

A pap could go nuts, pax seated close by hear it, postings ...
I usually send the FO or SO back to check and then talk to or explain the pap how what or why.
30 yrs ago or so a pap pointed to outside and down...

"pap" ?

[YYZSaabGuy]

Saab..This is not about pax involved in decision making..It is them providing observations and information that was critical to flight. The Captain should accept pertinat info from whatever source they can..This was a Captain who seemed to be so arrogant that she simply ignored pax observations, which anyone with even a small stick of common sense would know were correct... Be careful, your posts seem to indicate you have the pretty much the same attitude. "no stinkin self loading cargo is going to tell me how to do my job"

Please go back and re-read my post. You had implied, in a previous post, that passengers do have a role in the decision-making process - your words, not mine - and my point is that no, they don't. I said, pretty unambiguously, that listening to passenger input was smart and proactive, and something I believe most line crews do as a matter of course. But actual involvement in decision-making? Uh uh. Passengers don't get trained and paid to make decisions - PICs do. That's pretty basic CARS, and I'm surprised you'd even raise it.

You agreeing with the actions of the captain make me feel worse about the dumb dumbs flying commercial aircraft.

Sorry I made you feel bad, but again, please go back and re-read my post, and point out exactly where I said I agreed with the crew's decision to depart. Or do you just get your kicks out of picking on-line arguments on the basis of made-up "facts"?

[trey kule]

I think we may be talking semantics, but again it may be attitude.

The Pax are not making the decision, but as they are providing information, their input is, in fact, part of the decision making progress..
You seem to want to split hairs, to keep reiterating it is the PIC's decision... Scary..
BTW... The FO also is part of the decision making process, as is the SO (if applicable, as was the case here), not just the PIC as you posted...Again, ultimately the PIC ...It is the process you seem to have a problem with.
Perhaps this is just the wrong medium, but your posts create the impression of a very arrogant PIC ...I hope it is just the medium.
The best PICs get any information from any sources.. analyze it , and use it..
The scary ones are the ones that puff up about how they are the PIC, and they will make all the decisions, and no one else (we all understand that), and seem to think that pax cannot provide any valuable input.

If I am still around in 10 years, I expect you will see the wisdon if you are still flying.

[YYZSaabGuy]

I think we may be talking semantics, but again it may be attitude. The Pax are not making the decision, but as they are providing information, their input is, in fact, part of the decision making progress..
You seem to want to split hairs, to keep reiterating it is the PIC's decision... Scary..
BTW... The FO also is part of the decision making process, as is the SO (if applicable, as was the case here), not just the PIC as you posted...Again, ultimately the PIC ...It is the process you seem to have a problem with.
Perhaps this is just the wrong medium, but your posts create the impression of a very arrogant PIC ...I hope it is just the medium.
The best PICs get any information from any sources.. analyze it , and use it..
The scary ones are the ones that puff up about how they are the PIC, and they will make all the decisions, and no one else (we all understand that), and seem to think that pax cannot provide any valuable input.

If I am still around in 10 years, I expect you will see the wisdon if you are still flying.

Gee, TK, that's great: I'll definitely look you up in 10 years and provide an update. If you'd like set aside semantics and define the decision-making process more broadly, to include obtaining input (as opposed to, y'know, actually making a decision), then sure: getting input from passengers can be a valuable part of that process, something I pointed out in my initial post. And yes, the F/O (and S/O, where applicable) are obviously a part of the process and I absolutely should've used the term "crew" rather than "PIC", but to me that's just so obvious after 20+ years of CRM in this industry that I didn't think it even needed to be pointed out. And finally, if you'd take a minute and actually read my posts, rather than reacting to comments I didn't make and throwing around "scary" (sorry you're such a nervous nellie) and "arrogant" (sorry your feathers are so easily ruffled), I pretty clearly did point out the value of taking passenger input into account. While we're on the topic, "arrogant" might also be defined as reacting to tongue in cheek comments (like using the in-flight entertainment system to poll for passenger feedback on VR) and trolling accordingly. Anyway, you're welcome to the last word: I'm done with this one.

[squash junky]

"pap" ?

pap=singular
pax is plural