> I've heard that to be a pilot you really have to be comfortable with doing what you're told, all day long.
Quite the opposite. The Pilot in Command is ultimately the person who is legally responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft. While you are following ATC instructions the majority of the time you are in contact with them, you are also culpable if you blindly allow them to put you in danger. If ATC tells you to do something unsafe, the proper response is to say "unable" and then say why. As described in the article, there are safeguards to protect pilots acting in good faith, and this is also one reason why airline pilots are unionized.
Ah, I worded that badly. Ultimately the pilot is the decider as you say. I was getting at the idea that (so I am told) the day to day experience of piloting is very much about working within a regimented system.
Strongly reglemented: yes; however, the rules are cut out in a way that requires _a lot_ of due diligence and experience to make sound decisions. For instance, EASA rules so no problem whatsoever dispatching an aircraft with minimum fuel (fuel planning regs) and no alternate planned (alternate planning regs) towards a destination that has thunderstorms in their weather forecast (weather regs)... it is up to the flight crew to mentally "fusion" different regulations together and make sound and safe decisions.
Quite the opposite. The Pilot in Command is ultimately the person who is legally responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft. While you are following ATC instructions the majority of the time you are in contact with them, you are also culpable if you blindly allow them to put you in danger. If ATC tells you to do something unsafe, the proper response is to say "unable" and then say why. As described in the article, there are safeguards to protect pilots acting in good faith, and this is also one reason why airline pilots are unionized.