Aviation Safety

Ziyi Huang

AT 481 Aviation Safety Problems

Exercise 1

08.25.2017

Question: Was the pilot made a correct decision? Why or Why not?

Case review:

        United Airlines Flight 1242 experienced a flight control system failure in the form of a failure in aileron control on January 6th, 2009. This plane was planned to depart from Kansas City, MO, for Boston. However, when it reached the designated altitude (31,000 feet), the aircraft faced control problems and caused the plane to roll to the left when the autopilot system was switched off.

        The pilot-in-command made the decision after talking to the maintenance team on the radio to alter the route to land in Milwaukee instead of Boston, the final destination of the flight. It landed at MKE uneventfully and filed an ASRS report upon landing.

Answer:

        The decision that Mr. A made to land in Milwaukee was correct and did not violate any Federal Aviation Regulations. Below are reasons of my opinion:

1. Even though flying to Milwaukee would take 25 more minutes than to Boston, the decision of the PIC was correct because the maintenance hub is in MKE. The pilot had already regained the aileron control by applying additional force. Hence, safety can be ensured while heading to Milwaukee for inspected.
2. According to FAR 91.29 (a) “no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition”. If the aircraft continued its route to Boston, and did not have the entire fleet inspected by the maintenance group, it would be considered as un-airworthiness. For an aircraft to be considered as ‘airworthiness’, it must meet the following two requirements: the aircraft is in a safe condition and conforms to its Type Certificate Date Sheet. Therefore, if the flight continued to Boston when the plane is not in a safe condition, it would then violate the FAR. The FAA places responsibility on the PIC as well as the operator of the aircraft. In this case, the PIC’s decision was wise enough and avoided being in trouble and causing further damages or accidents. The aircraft would be inspected and fixed by the maintenance team in MKE and then be safe to fly to Boston.
3. FAR 91.13 mentioned that “no person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another”. If any accidents were caused due to carelessness or recklessness of the pilot, it would be considered as violation of the FAR. In this case, the pilot could not guarantee that the aircraft would perform in the expected way during the remaining flight hours to Boston even when the initial problem was being fixed. He could not let all the passengers on board to die if he still chose to fly to Boston. Therefore, the pilot in command had exercised appropriate judgments and skills in the operation of his aircraft apart from any specific regulatory requirements.  Thus, his decision was correct.