>>>If they didn't then what is the point of having dispatch? Is it not to have a second set of eyes looking over the flight crews shoulder? Well if that second set of eyes was pushing them, then it would be better not to have them at all!
I've been intentionally staying out of this thread (up until now) as I wanted to wait until the final accident report was released, but the gent's questions above from a couple of pages back in the thread require a couple of comments and observations.
All airline dispatch schemes are NOT alike. Certainly, every airline operation has individuals that work their computers to produce computer flight plans, and also file with ATC and handle W+B issues, but the names for these individuals can be varied. Assuming they may be called "dispatchers" at some places, their functionality is often viewed as "clerical" in the context of initiating the flight. In many places, that's where the dispatcher's involvement ends, and the aircraft essentially becomes a "fire-and-forget" instrument.
In the USA, FAR Part 1 defines "operational control" as the exercise of authority over initiating, conducting, and terminating a flight. Under Part 121 Domestic/Flag rules here, the aircraft dispatcher plans the flight in the customary ways, generating a flight release signed by both the dispatcher and PIC, with the signatures indicating their joint concurrence that the flight can be accomplished safely as planned. Deviation from the plan requires that concurrence be re-established.
All the above covers the "initiating" aspect of operational control here, but the policies, procedures, and authorities dealing with the "conducting" and "terminating" aspects of operational control are not widely used outside the USA. Here, a dispatcher keeps the PIC updated, and should a problem arise, is also there as a crew resource in dealing with the problem itself. If, in the rare event, that a PIC's plan of action handling a problem is deemed unsafe by the dispatcher, the dispatcher also has an ability to independently declare an emergency and terminate the flight short of the original destination, if need be. Anyone is interested can check out FAR 121.557(b) -AND- 121.627(a).
As far as "pushing" a PIC/crew to do something, the scheme here in the USA under FAR 65 dictates that aircraft dispatchers be trained and licensed by the FAA, and the dispatcher certificate here is about 98% common to the PIC's ATP, the difference being purely flying-related items. The license is a requirement to work, just as the pilot needs their ATP to fly.
Whether someone is a dispatcher "over there" under whatever non-US Part 121 rules, or over here, operating under Part 121, "pushing" a PIC/crew is unacceptable, and has the added risk of license sanctions here, which the dispatcher here needs to work. Not saying that it -never- happens, even here, but there is less incentive to do so than in non-licensure situations because of the potential sanctions.
IMHO, the US Part 121 Domestic/Flag type of dispatch system provides the highest level of decisionmaking cross-checks possible. The fact that other individuals around the globe are called "dispatchers" but are possibly not operating with any legal authorities or responsibilities in the "conducting" or "terminating" realms of operational control is a more systemic problem, and as such don't accurately lend themselves to such statements as "what is the point of having dispatch? Is it not to have a second set of eyes looking over the flight crews shoulder?"
Currently, it's an apples and oranges comparison. If the standards were the same, one could indeed make a direct comparison. Until then, no...
Personally, I think the issue of improved operational control standards will be an issue discussed in the final Hapag-Lloyd report, but I guess we'll know soon enough..