Wikipedia describes “pilot in command” of an aircraft as “captain” in a multi-person flight crew. But Captain is also a military rank, at least for the US Navy and Air Force. So how is this handled in those branches of the US military? For describing the person with final authority/responsibility for the flight, is PIC always used, and captain never used?
If a pilot has served as PIC of a multi-person flight crew at some point in their military aviation career, are they typically assigned the position of PIC on most/all of their future flights, or is it pretty much a coin toss between that pilot and the one flying with them?
I suppose the situation is analogous to the navy, where the commanding officer of a vessel is, while on board that vessel, addressed as captain even if he or she holds a lower rank. The distinction here is between rank on the one hand and the function (and, derived from that function, the form of address) on the other.
In commercial aviation, there are apparently “Captain” and “First Officer” job titles for rated pilots.
There can be two “Captains” sitting in the pilot and copilot seats, so there’s a need for a designation for the person in charge that doesn’t overlap with the job titles. And as the Wikipedia article mentions, it’s interesting on training flights, in that the Pilot is the trainee, and the Pilot in charge, is sitting in the copilot’s seat, which is the reverse of the usual setup.
I don’t know how it works in the world’s air forces, but I suspect that the pilots in command are simply not called the “Captain” like a ship’s captain is. All of the air forces are new enough to have dispensed with that bit of historical silliness, while commercial carriers likely deliberately adopted the nautical terms to make people feel comfortable/impressed.
I’m a charter pilot, formerly airline, never flew in the military, but I have worked with many military aviators. Here’s the non-military perspective, but keep in mind historically airline procedures largely derived from the military.
There is often confusion about captain vs. copilot / first officer and which seats they occupy. There are several distinctions that are relevant:
Captains and first officers are trained identically. They both can and do fly the airplane.
Either of those people can act as “flying pilot” and “non-flying pilot”, aka “pilot monitoring”.
Which seat they physically occupy is sometimes relevant, but not always.
Irrespective of which role the captain is performing (flying pilot or non), he/she is the “pilot in command” and has ultimate responsibility for the flight.
So I go out to fly my jet and I’m the captain. My partner and I may decide, for whatever reason, that she is going to be the flying pilot that day. At some companies, she would be required to occupy the right seat (traditionally the first officer’s seat). But at some companies she might be permitted to fly from the left seat, and me as the captain AND non-flying pilot, would fly in the right seat. Aircraft design can also dictate who sits where depending on who is the flying pilot.
But even if she’s flying and I’m in the right seat, I’m still the captain. If she screws up, it’s ultimately on me.
I believe it works similarly in the military in multi-crew cockpits. Where it gets interesting is the issue of rank. I’ve flown with military guys who have told me that in debriefs after a flight, the ranks are largely dropped and anyone can say anything. One guy told me about a junior officer reaming the crap out of a superior for doing something stupid in flight. But I suspect that’s behind closed doors.
I flew helicopters in the Army 1980-85 so it was a while ago. The pilot in command was in command of the aircraft and it wasn’t a function of rank. One had to pass a check ride with an instructor to be a PIC. Even though I was a commissioned officer, before becoming a PIC I flew with warrant officers who were the PIC. I outranked them on the ground but they were in charge in the aircraft. If two PICs flew together various things determined who was PIC for the mission.
In the charter world, if there are two pilots flying together who are both PIC qualified, we will often fight over who gets to NOT be the PIC. Mostly because the PIC has more planning and paperwork.
How absolute is this authority, with respect to the flight? Hypothetically, if an Air Force Colonel were to come up into the cockpit and say “dump your fuel, this is a direct order,” or something else that impacts flight operations, what happens? Is the captain obligated to comply, or does his (or her) responsibility for the flight supersede the colonel’s authority by rank?
Again, I’m not a military pilot. So the short answer is, I don’t know. In civilian aviation we don’t have ranks beyond captain and first officer (and I suppose engineer in some older planes).
But in my world of charter and airlines, the pilots generally have to agree on a course of action. This is due to a a somewhat recent (1980s) development called Crew Resource Management. Back in the day, captains were unquestioned gods with absolute authority. And it turned out they often caused problems by disregarding the opinions of their colleagues, sometimes leading to fatal crashes.
So these days all crew members are expected to cooperate and be heard. So it would be very unusual for a captain to issue an order based purely on their PIC authority. Sometimes when we get in a hurry one crew member will give quick advice that sounds like an order. Think, “We’re about to go below 10,000’, start decelerating now.” But that’s different from giving a command to do something drastic with no input from others.
Under some circumstances, the first officer would be REQUIRED to take over the airplane. I’ve been asked this on more than one interview. “Suppose the captain insists on penetrating a large thunderstorm when there are other options. What would you do?”
My answer: “Captain I don’t agree with this. We’re going to need to divert around it.” If they don’t agree I say, “My airplane and begin flying the plane.” We would do paperwork later.
I believe the military has its own style of Crew Resource Management now. There have definitely been fatal occurrences based on superior officers taking foolish actions.
Example From my Naval Sciences days. Commander Jones is captain of a Navy ship. On the ship he is called either Captain or Commander Jones, but never Captain Jones. When ashore he should only be referred to as Captain when he is being recognized as a Captain of a Navy ship. And again it should not be Captain Jones. It can be the Captain, Commander Jones.
As far as I can tell, in military multipilot aircrews what you will have is a commanding officer, possibly even called aircraft or mission commander, who would have a higher or same nominal rank as his copilot but is in charge because he was put in charge by someone with the authority.
In the military, the mission is #1. An order to abort or endanger the mission can’t come from just any rando who happens to have more bling on his shirt than you.
In commercial airlines “captain” is a seniority/experience designator relative to the personnel structure of the airline itself, and is expected to be the job title of at least one of the pilots. Airlines got their captain/first officer terminology from merchant shipping (thus for instance also the chief flight attendant being at times addressed as “purser”).