Originally Posted by
surplus1
3. Shortly before departure the LaMia Dispatcher took the Flight Plan to the airport office that accepts flight plans. The worker charged with recieving the FPL told the dispatcher that the flight plan was unacceptable because the aircrafts endurance and the estimated time enroute were identical. The dispatcher told her not to worry they would make it in less time. She told him he would have to recalculate and change the flight plan. Thirty minutes later the dispatcher came back for the weather. The worker again asked for the revised FPL. The dispatcher said that was the information he was given and approved by the Captain. There would be no changes to the FPL. She refused to approve it [but does not have the authority to ground the aircraft]. She told him he would have to get approval from the TWR [which he obviously did. The dispatcher also refused to list his name on the FPL but did sign it and wrote his license # in the space provided. BOG was listed on the FPL as the Alternate but based on the FPL there was no fuel to get there and no reserve fuel. That information is in writing and I have seen pictures of the actual FPL.
When she told him he would have to get approval from the TWR she was referring to the fact that no Standard Instrument Departure (SID) had been filed and his request to 'Please, Mrs., add NOMAJ DCT VIR' (which makes no sense in itself - NOMAJ is not a reporting point that I know of, VIR is the radio becon on the airfield. Maybe 'Nomaj' needs translating from Spanish?) would have to be made to the TWR.
It's important to note that TWR would have had no indication of the fuel state of the aircraft or the discrepancy between EET & endurance. Whatever approval the flight got from the tower would only have concerned the initial departure proceedure.