Using the “or” word to justify an either/or argument for destination or alternate weather is nullified when you apply FAA OpSpec C055. This OpSpec makes it a requirement that the designated alternate on the dispatch release must meet the weather requirements contained in that OpSpec. That all said, the “or any required alternate” statement in 121.615 does not bridge the concept that the destination can be below published landing minimums at ETA as long as the alternate is above is respective alternate minimums at ETA. Both the destination and alternates listed on the dispatch release MUST meet there respective landing or alternate weather minimums at the ETA or you don’t dispatch – period! The FAA realizes the limitations that this may bring to airlines and provides methods to overcome these limitations. One is by applying EWINS where dispatch via a approved procedure and meteorology department can issue is own flight movement forecast, second is the use of B043/B044 OpSpecs which allows you to do a planned re-dispatch enroute and last, the airline can use OpSpecs C059/060 incorporating CAT II/III minimums to the dispatch solution.
See para 1231 in FAA Order 8400.10 at the following link:
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/e...3/3_006_04.pdf
Originally Posted by bcp7
I worked as an aircraft dispatcher for the last 4 years at Continental Micronesia, a US Part 121 Flag Carrier based on Guam. We operated nine B737-800 aircraft on international routes. Our policy was that as long as you had an alternate airport which met required weather minimums, you could go. This was approved by our POI. Without this interpretation of the "or" clause noted above, there would have been a number of times flights would not have been able to depart Guam for destinations in Japan, or operate flights between some of the small islands we operated to. The intent is to allow an airline to maintain a schedule.