Cockpit Authority and CRM in Commercial Aviation Safety

Captain Authority: Legal and Regulatory Foundations

The captain's acknowledged authority relates directly to aircraft regulations, industry history, and accepted norms. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) states that ultimately, the captain holds final authority over the crew and the aircraft. The CFR also requires captains to have considerably more flight time than first officers. Captains must log at least 1,500 hours, while first officers require only 200 hours (Tarnow 112). In addition to CFR rules, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has its own cockpit regulations, including the stipulation that "the pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft (1996 CFR, Paragraph 91.3)" (Tarnow 113). The rules also state that during an emergency, the pilot may deviate from these regulations. Thus, the captain is far more experienced in flight matters, and his or her authority is often treated as absolute in the airline cockpit.

While the CFR establishes certain baseline requirements, each airline also sets its own personnel policies governing relationships and requirements in the cockpit. Much of this information is proprietary, but one commonality is the time it takes most pilots to reach the rank of captain. In most airlines, advancement to captain can take at least ten years. Most airlines also require seniority on the airline's union crew list to advance to that rank (Tarnow 112). There is therefore considerable precedent for granting the captain such significant authority. He or she has more experience, has worked hard to earn the rank, and is supported by rules and regulations. Studies show that captains commonly have three to four times the flight time of their first officers, making experience one of the most important human factors in the cockpit. However, extensive flight time and experience do not automatically confer viable leadership or management qualities — qualities that are the backbone of successful and productive cockpit relationships. More airlines are examining the dynamics of managerial relationships in cockpits and developing Cockpit Resource Management resources to give captains and crew better tools for managing one another more effectively.

Historical Roots of Cockpit Command Hierarchy

Perhaps an even more enduring reason behind the captain's complete authority is the historical development of aviation. Early aircraft were single-pilot affairs, and pilots exercised complete authority over their aircraft. This one-man mentality carried over into the first commercial carriers and has continued to this day, producing a chain of command that is difficult to overcome in many airline environments. In addition, many military pilots — who often transition to commercial airlines after their service — are accustomed to the extreme authority and control of the military environment and carry those habits into the cockpit, demanding complete command. In fact, many early airline procedure manuals explicitly urged the first officer not to correct the captain if he made a mistake (Tarnow 113).

Historically, many captains also believed that because first officers were less experienced, they were still "growing" into their roles and lacked the experience necessary to make the complex decisions required during flight. Finally, corporate culture has traditionally been hierarchical, which further reinforces the rigid chain of command in the cockpit. All of these historical and organizational norms add credence to the pilot's authority over the crew and help explain why it is so difficult for many captains to accept input from the first officer, even when doing so is necessary.

Operational Rationale for Captain Authority

Another compelling reason for the captain's authority over the flight crew is the reality of day-to-day operations. In most airlines, crews are highly flexible, and a captain may fly with a different crew on nearly every flight. The crew therefore needs a leader who can guide them through procedures each time, regardless of who is on board. As author Clint A. Bowers notes, "In commercial aviation in particular, crewmembers might change daily or even several times per day. Thus, there is a need to establish competencies that allow this rapid transition to take place" (Bowers 70). The captain's consistent authority makes practical sense given how fluid crews are in the industry. The captain's role and expectations remain constant, even when the crew, the flight, and the aircraft do not.

References

Bowers, Clint A. "Chapter 4 Establishing Aircrew Competencies: A Comprehensive Approach for Identifying CRM Training Needs." Aircrew Training and Assessment. Eds. O'Neil, Harold F., and Dee H. Andrews. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000. 67–80.

Haynes, Al. "The Crash of United Flight 232." Yarchive.net. 1991. 24 March 2004.

Mondout, Patrick. "Pair of 747s Collide in Worst Air Disaster of 20th Century." Super70s.com. 2004. 24 March 2005.

Tarnow, Eugen. "Self-Destructive Obedience in the Airplane Cockpit and the Concept of Obedience Optimization." Obedience to Authority: Current Perspectives on the Milgram Paradigm. Ed. Blass, Thomas. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000. 111–121.