FC5371 - Captain’s decision overridden

Initial Report

Report précis: During a Delayed Report Operation, I instructed the FO and cabin crew to complete as many checks as far as practicable but not to pre-board passengers. Despite being aware of communications between me and the crew, the Terminal Duty Manager (TDM) overruled these explicit instructions and brought passengers to board the aircraft. The crew reported being pressured to do so. This culminated in the overruling of my instructions not to board the aircraft before my arrival.

As a result, although the FO completed an Interactive Brief with the crew, I considered this was inadequate on arrival because cabin crew were unaware of a deferred defect concerning a critical piece of SEP equipment (smoke hood) and required briefing on the deferral procedures within earshot of passengers. Another defect with the PA system was also present but this was not discussed until I arrived at the aircraft and after the normal aircraft and flight plan acceptance process. As passengers were already on board, MOC could not approve a reset and required engineer attendance. The defect was eventually deferred but this required additional safety briefing discussions in the event of a decompression within earshot of passengers.

The TDM was present at the gate on my arrival, with pax boarding, and asserted that there was no safety reason not to board – I brought the TDM to the cockpit for an explanation. The TDM insisted that it was ‘procedure to board with minimum crew’ but could not, to any extent, refer to where these procedures were located. In this particular case, there were demonstrable indications that safety margins were reduced (the aircraft was boarded with its airworthiness state undetermined and the technical log not checked) and with clear contraventions of chain of command as detailed in the Operations Manuals.

One of the most stressful elements of low-cost airline command is achieving a balance between business success, performance indicators and maintaining safety margins. Up to this point, with few exceptions, I have found co-ordinating this balance presents high workload but is manageable; often with support teams going ‘above and beyond’ to help out. During this particular duty I feel that what I did was entirely reasonable to achieve this balance, using my personal experience in similar situations. A plan was formed, the crew were getting on as far as they could with their duties with the expectation that, on my arrival, any snags could be worked out and a prompt departure would follow. However what happened on this occasion is absolutely unacceptable. This event, along with more minor past incidents, indicates a trend where the role of ground staff in relation to the crew (Commander in particular) has become distorted beyond reasonable expectation.

CHIRP Comment

Efficient and safe operations rely on teamwork that recognises the balance between captains not attempting to control every aspect of the process, relying on sound judgement and appropriate actions from those involved, and an understanding that the captain bears the ultimate responsibility and authority for the safety of the aircraft, crew and passengers. However, countermanding a captain’s specific instructions is not acceptable and risks undermining the whole system of command responsibility and accountability – those involved in boarding and other activities must respect the captain’s authority at all times.