So Flyboy (or ITS), as you are probably aware I used to live near a small airport and catch Trans States/Corporate J-31 flights to STL....The issue is not whether or not JP can certify airworthiness, that's irrelevant. The issue is that he can, in fact, he has to (reference 14 CFR 121.533(e) and elsewhere) certify that in his opinion the flight can be made with safety. That's what his signature on that release means. If he's not comfortable, he won't sign the release and he won't operate the flight. I wish more pilots remembered that it's called "pilot in command", not "dumb and dutiful employee in the left seat". For dumb and dutiful God invented the autopilot.
I trust the system exactly as much as it trusts me, which isn't much.
One day- a flight was canceled because a prop reverse warning light or in-flight-reverse lockout system had failed (don't remember exactly). The pilots flew the plane back to STL for maintenance- while I caught the next fight.
This may not be comparable to the Quantas plane- but it is a situation where the plane is deemed "not worthy to carry passengers" but "worthy to carry pilots"- and it makes for an interesting discussion.
It says there's a measurable risk of killing passengers that we are not willing to take with them, but that we are to take with the dumb, dutiful driver. You can even twist the argument that they can afford to pay off the pilots families, but that the negative publicity and lawsuits from killing passengers would reduce profits.
So where does that leave all this argument?
Do things usually work well? That the situations are such that most pilots are comfortable and would make the flight?
OR
Do we frequently have situations where it's really kind of risky, the airline keeps looking, and can usually find, some idiots to ferry the plane?
