Difference between dispatcher and "dispatcher"

[cortilla]

Ive had a look through quite a few old posts and tried to work out what the difference is between an FAA licensed dispatcher and what most people in the UK associate as a dispatcher.

Unfortunately i'm still a little confused.

Does the UK dispatcher just hand paperwork to the flight deck and the FAA dispatcher actually work everything out, or are there more basic differences

Any help most appreciated.

[BelArgUSA]

Dear Cortilla...
xxx
I try to suit my answers on Pprune to the geographical area and background of the people who ask questions, such as you with FAA and UK... so, like you I am confused as well. You "are a little left of me" and I dont know your activity or background to answer you better.
xxx
In the USA there is a dispatcher certificate (licence) and the privileges and duties vary depending the type of air carrier operations, such as domestic, flag, supplemental or commercial operators. Essentially, dispatch release may or may not be required for USA operators (the other form of dispatch ground operations is called "flight following").
xxx
Generally, a USA air carrier will have a few licenced dispàtchers, and a few assistants to issue and forward documents to the operating flight by SITA, fax or email. but a dispatch operations office have many assistants who are not "licenced" but work under supervision and responsibility of dispatchers. Some just "forward papers" as you well say.
xxx
Realize also that a FAA dispatcher has passed a written and practical exam, that is equivalent to the test for the FAA/ATPL, so essentially, except for actually flying an airplane, a dispatcher has equal knowledge to a captain as far as meteorology, navigation, regulations, aircraft limitations and flight planning.
xxx
Then, know that there is big regulatory differences between a dispatch organization and flight following, although in practice, the two are very similar in their activities, and handling of documents.
xxx
I dont know the legal differences with the UK air carriers, but in practice, I believe their duties and responsibilities are quite similar. I work in Argentina, where we essentially follow US/FAA airline standards and regulations. When I show-up 90 minutes before a flight to my operations office, all the flight documentation is ready for us, from flight plans, oceanic tracks, payload info, fuel requirements, weather reports and forecasts, NOTAMs and maintenance status of the airplane. Off base, i.e. in Europe, the handling airline provides us with tons of papers and documents forwarded by our Buenos Aires ops office. During flight, we remain in contact by SATphone or HF phone patch with that office for any updates.
xxx
Any questions?
:)
Happy contrails

[older_wiser]

I have previously known of " Dispatchers " (or so they call themselves) in the UK who couldn't even work out an EZFW and others who wouldn't even know what it is, you may think this is unbelievable but it's true.
So there you have a least one difference, basically in the UK Airline Handling companies in particular recruit wannabees from Check in and give them a basic course, usually there are more seasoned and experienced staff around to guide them through but at the end of the day in the UK handling business everything is cost based !

[Maude Charlee]

In the UK, dispatchers are often only turnaround co-ordinators rather than dispatchers in the true sense (I think the US equivalent is Redcap). Sometimes, they also have load control training, but in most ground handling agencies this is maintained as a separate function. At the larger airports, or within GA, dispatchers are likely to be more multi-skilled than at regional airports. In the first instance, best in the UK to treat the dispatcher as your first point of contact until you can establish what other duties they can perform.

As the dispatcher does not necessarily prepare the loadsheet, there is no real requirement for them to understand how it is put together any more than the captain of an aircraft needs to understand how check-in systems work, or to be able to drive ground equipment.

[kellmark]

There is a huge difference between a UK "dispatcher" and a US "dispatcher". There is much confusion because of the same name for very different functions.
In the UK, an aircraft dispatcher is someone who deals with the aircraft at the gate, ensuring and supervising the loading and unloading operations at the gate. They are trained by the air carrier for this but not certified by the UK CAA. In the US this function is generally called a "ramp agent".
In the US an "aircraft dispatcher" is certified by the FAA as noted above to the equivalent knowledge of an ATP,and trained by the air carrier to do two specific functions. Preflight planning and inflight monitoring. In addition, in most US operations, particularly domestic and flag part 121 scheduled flights, the aircraft dispatcher has joint responsibility with the captain. They can and sometimes do, delay, divert and even cancel flights when necessary, sometimes even if the captain disagrees. Of course the captain can also delay, divert and cancel a flight as they feel it is necessary. The captain and the dispatcher are legally required to agree on a safe course of action. US dispatchers are also responsible to ensure that the flight crew receives all necessary safety information while the flight is enroute, such as weather, ATC issues, airport problems, security issues, etc. They can also even declare an emergency when they feel it is necessary. When 9/11 happened many US dispcthers got their flights on the ground even before ATC could. This system also requires a separate inflight communication system to ensure that a flight can be monitored by the aircraft dispatcher from beginning to end. It is a much safer system than is required by JAR-OPS or EASA. The only thing that resembles a US dispatcher in the UK is a flight planner function, but they are not certified nor responsible for any flight monitoring. Flights are often sent out and no one at the air carrier is watching them to alert the crew for weather ahead or ATC problems, airport problems, or whatever. And ATC is simply not going to be able to provide this kind of service. As a result, there have been a number of incidents and accidents in Europe where aircraft ran into severe weather, or continued flight in an unsafe condition, which was simply unnecessary. Some of these resulted in the destruction of the aircraft, while others resulted in fuel emergencies. This type of thing is very rare in the US.

[Celestar]

Do ou really think that we, JAR-OPS Operators, are a kind of « Air Afrique » carriers ?
Our system is different indeed, it’s not less safe.

« Some of these resulted in the destruction of the aircraft, while others resulted in fuel emergencies. This type of thing is very rare in the US ».

It’s rare here as well for God sake !

Our Dispatchers have no joint responsibility indeed. Captain has full responsibility and we calculate and provide him with correct information. As he’s the only responsible, he’s carefully checking and double checking prior to his flight. He doesn’t assume his NOTAM have been checked by Dispatchers, he does read and check them before take-off.
Our operations are as safe as yours. I think your comment is insulting for a large community of employees that have as much passion and experience as you do.

A license requirement would be a clear asset but this has nothing to do with safety please.

In Europe a « Flight Dispatcher » is doing the same job as you are doing in the US.
It’s true than in the UK, a « Flight Dispatcher » works on the ramp but NOT in continental Europe. We are flight planners and we love our job.

[kellmark]

"Air Afrique"? That might be an insult to Air Afrique. Well, when it comes to the non-system of flight dispatch that is not required by Jar-Ops, yes. There is no requirement for aircraft dispatcher training, no certification, no communication system, no flight monitoring, no joint responsibility. In fact, the Chinese have a significantly better flight dispatch system than is required by Europe's Jar-Ops.(Which is basically nothing).
And here are some incidents/accidents. In all of them flights either ran directly into severe weather situations or continued with a degraded aircraft. These are the types of things that a structured system with aircraft dispatcher training, certification, communications, flight monitoring and joint responsibility can and do prevent.
• Maersk Air Boeing B737, from Birmingham, UK, to Copenhagen, Denmark, December 1999, encountered severe weather, had outdated weather information, destination and alternates closed; diverted with a fuel emergency, landing in Billund, Denmark with 70 knot winds. If it had had to make another go around, it likely would have run out of fuel.
• Hapag Lloyd Airbus A310, from Crete to Hannover, Germany, July 2000, experienced aircraft system failure (landing gear unable to retract), flight continued, misjudgment by crew bypassing a number of suitable airports, using incorrect fuel consumption data, resulting in fuel exhaustion as it was attempting to land at Vienna. The aircraft crashed and was destroyed. The Captain was prosecuted criminally.
• Swiss International SAAB 2000 from Basel, Switzerland to Hamburg, Germany July 2002, encountered severe weather, destination and alternates closed, fuel exhaustion, attempted landing at a closed airport at night at Werneuchen, near Berlin. Aircraft destroyed. The aircraft was vectored directly into the severe weather by ATC.
• BMI Airbus A321, Over Germany, May, 2003, encountered severe weather/ hail, serious damage, aircraft continued for hundreds of kilometers to Manchester, England before landing in spite of numerous suitable airports along the route. The crew had turned off the weather radar prior to hitting the hailstorm.
• Easyjet Boeing B737 Geneva, Switzerland, August, 2003, encountered severe weather/hail, serious damage. Returned to Geneva with severe damage.
• SAS Airbus A330, from Chicago, O’Hare, USA to Stockholm- Arlanda, Sweden, October, 2003, continued with no holding fuel into low visibility/missed approach at destination; insufficient fuel for a legal alternate; diverted to Helsinki with a fuel emergency. The crew did not monitor the fuel consumption or the destination and alternate weather while enroute.
Please note. This is not a criticism of those working in ops in Europe. It is a criticism of a fundamental weakness in Jar-Ops. The crews are very professional, of course. (But they are not perfect). And the flight planners are also very good.(But they are not perfect either). But, it is a proven fact that certification and training for aircraft dispatchers does increase knowledge and skills, that communications does provide the best and latest safety critical information to the flight crews in flight, and joint responsibility recognizes that flight crews and aircraft dispatchers are not perfect, that both can and do make mistakes, which can be prevented as each checks the other. It has been shown to work, time after time. The flight crews deserve to have the best possible information at all times, not just before the flight, but through the course of the flight until it terminates, and everybody involved should be making the best possible operational decisions, with all available resources. Until something is done it will remain a problem in Jar-Ops.

[merlinxx]

Kellmark - I agree
Celestar - I agree

Why do I agree with your both. Fundamental history of both Flight Operation Support functions. Simple and short apps:

USA - 1920/30/40s F/D required by both operators/pilots (aka Capt Jepp the great man) & CAA. No ATC! Companies used their staff to monitor enroute WX etc via landline voice & telegraph.

Europe - 1920/30/40s FOO required by operators to act as Flight Assistants with similar duties as USA, but had no authorization to intervene in operational matters. Europe post WWII had a fairly basic, rudimentary ATC system backed by the newly implemented SITA (1947) network. Many flag carriers such as BOAC inherited a preware telegraph system (BOAC's was OFTS - overseas fixed telecommunications system. PanAm had a similar network)

We will one day all have similar requirements for the license requirements
We all do a very similar job, so lets all work together as Kellmark there allot
of European operators who DO operate a flight following/watch system, I myself was back in the 1960s when I started in the scheduled market here in the UK at LGW, though our only contact with our aircraft (even in Europe) was via HF. We operated within Europe, Africa, South America with adhocs into the Far East.

I wish we could set up transfer visits to each others operations, familiarisation does work.

Finish, got my coat & where are the keys need a pint. Cheers folks any comments plse do PM me.

Arthur's little helper.

[Schibulsky]

Hi Kellmark.
Some Comments to your "examples"
Maersk Air: if you depart with outdated (illegal!!) wx info, you are f..... from the beginning. I do not need flightwatch if all my initial data are o.k.
Hapag Lloyd: Captains f...up!!! Any beginner who listens to his instructor in performance class could have told him he will not make it to Vienne. Anyway the fltplanning sys at Hapag did not provide infltcalc with gear down.
etc etc etc.

In my opinion there is no need for flt watch if everybody is doing the job correctly. With the modern systems (data linked) the fltcrew should be able to retrieve the latest data by themselves. There is allways a "monitoring" of the flts if somethink happens out of the ordinary.
Anyway why should I as a lowly payed dispatcher do the job of a mostly overpayed pilot?!?!

By the way, we (that is german LBA licensed dipatchers) regard the FAA license as "Micky Mouse License" as you can it get after a 2 month crash course at any "Academy". So that is probably the reason for the fltwatch, to watch out for errors you made on the flt planning ;-)

Cheers Schibulsky

[Lauderdale]

Schibulsky,

It is not often that I read a post that is just beyond belief due to a total lack of thought - surely you wrote this either to have a laugh or to wind a few people up (and apart from that; down right dis-respectful).

Nothing that you say warrants a serious reply, other than it is exactly your kind of philosophy that will lead to accidents (read: loss of life) one day.

I hope (and I am sure they don't!) that your fellow LBA licensed disptachers in Germany do not hold a similar view on our industry.

Maybe the reason why you are lowly paid (as you state yourself in your post) is due to the quality of your work ethic!

I wonder if there are more 'disptachers' out there with similar thoughts as Shibulsky..........:mad:

[BelArgUSA]

I am a pilot, and have high respect for dispatchers and their assistants. These are competent people that take part in flight planning, and keep an eye on us while we fly from A to B. I know all my dispatcher and assistants by their first name...
xxx
Please be aware, that a dispatcher, in the countries that I know, are often with a well paid position, despite being an "office" function. They are certainly of the higher salary levels in airline operation departments.
xxx
Mickey Mouse exam and licence... and 2 month-long course, it certainly is a ridiculous training, equal in ridicule to the ATPL exam courses. The dispatchers or pilots learn by experience in their carreers... a new assistant dispatcher might not know much as he starts his career, no more than a first year first officer...
xxx
I have worked many times on contracts with European and Middle East air carriers, Sterling, Saudia, and Cargolux to mention a few, and as a pilot, I consider their dispatchers as excellent.
xxx
Further, I know a few pilot colleagues who have lost their medical certification because bad health conditions... Some became pilot instructors with the airlines, and some... became dispatchers, due to the fact that they can use their knowledge and experience in an important airline activity. And I speak here for FAA style operations, or UK/CAA, or German LBA...
xxx
:)
Happy contrails

[Schibulsky]

Hi Lauterdale (isn't Disneyland just around the corner?)
You got me on the "wind up' part, but honestly
it irritates me a lot if some US Guy is telling me how superior his outdated by technology "Babysitting" is to present Flightplanning in Europe. Anyway there is not a single country that is 100% working acc. JarOps! We all got our Systems to cover for certain contingencies. The Examples are mostly **** ups by the crew.
If i.e. some pilot try to land at a closed A/P he should never take off in the first place!!!
"encountered severe wx" please don't tell me it wasn't in the TAF!!! This idiot just did not fuel enough to cover for it!!!
What should I say to a pilot who is flying for hours in a damaged acft?? I am NOT their Babysitter, got it??
And I do not need any "joined whatever" to tell the capt. what is best for him if he is about the screw up totally!!
Think about it before question somebodys work ethic!!!!
My Philosophy btw is that a Capt with more than double my pay (And I am doing well after 20years, its just a matter of comparison) together with the FO should be able to decide on this own. He will get my best preparation and then its up to him.
whats wrong with that? Please dont give me the "Teamwork" crap!! Dont get me wrong, if there is a problem I am there 100%.
Thats my Job, but we do not need this "joined" part!!!
Happy planning!

[Leezyjet]

If the US system is so great, why was an ATR allowed to fly round and round in circles for 45 mins in icing conditions whilst holding, had the dispatcher or Captain made the decision to divert, they would not have ended up as a smoking hole in the ground.

Also what about the AA MD-80 or whatever it was that landed in a T-storm and slid off the end of the runway.

Or the L10-11 that landed in severe bad weather and was hit by a micro burst smashing it into the ground.

We can all pull out accidents from both systems, all that proves is both of them are not 100% fail safe.

Anyway, back to the topic.

In the UK at least, the airline will have a central Flight Operations Department that handles things similar to what a Dispatcher would do in the States. They also usually have seperate flight planning departments who deal just with the flight planning.

The dispatchers in the UK are generally guys and girls who work a/c side to run the turnround, although most have now been re-branded as Turnaround Co-ordinators due to some H&S bolleaux that was enforced upon them a couple of years ago. Depending on the airline/ handling agent will depend on the level of involvment and experience. Some airlines/H.Agents also have the Dispatcher/TCO produce the loadsheet at a/c side whilst others don't.

Some airlines also term them Load Controllers, generally these people will also do the W&B function as well as running the turnaround, although some airlines will have a central W&B department where the Load Controllers work from, often this is an off airport location or even in another country altogether.

So basically in Europe, the term Dispatcher can mean a multitude of things, from the 19 y/o ramp tramp at a small regional airport who thinks he is the mutts nuts who just runs out paperwork, right through to a full on W&B trained bod with years and years of experience.

:)

[older_wiser]

I think leezyjet has summed up the situation in the UK perfectly.

Having previously worked in such an enviroment, i can honestly say that the function described as load controller is without doubt the most functional and pro-active, it is invaluable having someone at airside who can make operational based decisions on issues such as W/B or help to advise reps on other things such as slots, which would be passed from the ops office etc.
There is and can be nothing worse than just " delivering papers " and or having to send messages to a faceless person at the end of a phone or sita link in some far away country.

Unfortunately many major players now see this as the way forward, i think it is better to have 2 signatures on a loadsheet, the captain's and the person who prepared it and to have it signed at completion in the cockpit.
If the " Dispatcher / Load controller " also has knowledge of weather and an ability to read the basics from a flight plan (ie) Fuel, flight times, routing, alternates etc then all the better, however as we all know the financial realities within the industry don't always allow for such people to be remunerated accordingly therefore the 19yr old paperboy or girl " mutts nuts " as leezy calls them are likely to become more the norm.

However despite the constant bashing that several Handling agents constantly receive on this forum, Load controllers still exist at several of them, at LHR i believe that SGS, Aviance, Servisair, Alitalia and Menzies to name a few still employ localised load controllers and a operations office, so all is not lost yet !

[Phileas Fogg]

Apparently US operators don't have fuel emergencies, hard to believe somehow :)

[merlinxx]

Hey you lot, most of you/us here are Flight Operations Officers, some with FAA tickets, some with LBA, some with PPL, some with ALTP ground school, some with nothing more than bloody hard work and experience and expertise gained on the job. Please let us all stop the bitching and agree we're doing good and important stuff as FOOs/Flight Dispatchers, that loads of other people would love to do. Lets work together to keep our situation high profile and at the centre of the operations we are involved in. PAX SVP

[LHR_777]

At the carrier I work at, we have the following structure :

Flight Planner within 'Flight Technical Dispatch' - they 'plan' the actual flight - fuel, weather, weights, routes, ATC clearances etc.
CLC or 'Centralised Load control' - these are the good folk that perform ALL of the weight and balance functions - trims, provisional loadsheets, final loadsheets and send the final figures to the aircraft via ACARS
TRM or 'Turnround Manager' - these folk are physically at the aircraft side and work with Passenger Services, Ramp, Baggage, Loading, Crew etc to facilitate a safe environment at the gate and also to send the final figures back to CLC for close-out.

I'm not saying it's perfect, but that's our set-up.

[older_wiser]

LHR_777
What would you say was better ? The current set up or the old days, when the Dispatcher / Redcap did most of the functions from the gate ?
In some ways i guess that you are quite lucky ( i think i'm right in assuming CLC is local to LHR) that you are not too remote, but there are are other carriers who have a CLC on the other side of the world.
From the days when i did W & B as well as dispatch etc i could not think of anything worse than not being able to make on the spot decisions regarding trim etc at A/C side, at a airport the size of Lhr as you know there are always logistical issues, (ie) cargo not arriving etc so what happens if you need a retrim ? does the TRM have to consult CLC before making a decision ? or do they have the authority to make decisions in line with operational requirements ?
It always used to be so convient if you had a slot to " Chop the freight " and retrim, so i guess if the TRM isn't allowed does this cause delays ?

[LHR_777]

Posted by older_wiser
LHR_777
What would you say was better ? The current set up or the old days, when the Dispatcher / Redcap did most of the functions from the gate ?
In some ways i guess that you are quite lucky ( i think i'm right in assuming CLC is local to LHR) that you are not too remote, but there are are other carriers who have a CLC on the other side of the world.
From the days when i did W & B as well as dispatch etc i could not think of anything worse than not being able to make on the spot decisions regarding trim etc at A/C side, at a airport the size of Lhr as you know there are always logistical issues, (ie) cargo not arriving etc so what happens if you need a retrim ? does the TRM have to consult CLC before making a decision ? or do they have the authority to make decisions in line with operational requirements ?
It always used to be so convient if you had a slot to " Chop the freight " and retrim, so i guess if the TRM isn't allowed does this cause delays ?

Well, I believe that due to the never-ending health and safety constraints placed upon us, the current set-up, whilst quite new, is definitely the way forwards. It's not necessarily 'better' per-se, but it suits the evolving operational requirements (IMHO) and allows greater efficiencies across the departments. There has been a 'teething' period, but I'd say things are settling down quite nicely now. Of course, people always fear and resist change, but we're getting there.

The TRM is free to actually 'manage' the departure. They don't have to stay tied to a computer, away from the ramp, because CLC do all the load-planning for them. CLC send the load plan to loading and baggage and from then on, the TRM is in charge of the departure.

If the TRM needs to 'chop the cargo', he or she still has the authority to do so. A quick phone call to CLC to check the aircraft is still in trim is advisable, but the TRM has the authority to change the trim, within reason. Obviously if it's a complete re-trim and hold-version change, then CLC will need to issue a new trim.

The safety of all those working on the ramp is a priority of the TRM. As a Dispatcher, this wasn't always the case - the Dispatcher could be far away from the aircraft, in one of the many little 'huts' that are airside with computers and printers. This could create a loss of situational awareness.

It's taken a while, but the TRM and CLC community are working quite well together now IMO, and final figures are getting back to the aircraft much quicker than they were. The vast majority of CLC staff are new to the role and had to build experience very quickly, but these guys are doing load-planning and load-control every single day, whereas Dispatchers might have had one shift of load control every 4-6 weeks, which didn't necessarily make a great Dispatcher also a great Load Controller.

[Leezyjet]

When I first went from being a Load Controller/Dispatcher doing my own loadsheets at a/c side, to working with a central load planning department, I was very against it too.

However, now I have been working the latter way for a number of years, I have almost been swung to thinking it is much better.

It certainly adds an extra level of safety into the system. Before if when doing your own loadsheets, if you made a mistake on the l/s, nobody would be aware of it, but now if CLC make a mistake (and c'mon lets face it, while ever us humans are involved we will always make mistakes), then at least the Dispatcher/TCO/TRM should pick up on it when they check through the load sheet which means the mistake can be rectified before the a/c departs.

The only thing I don't like is that it is much more time consuming to get a load plan changed when you need to explain to the CLC bod what you need doing, then wait for them to do it and send you the new L/P. Oh and at my lot, the load planners have hardly even seen an a/c, let alone dispatched one !!. They do some very strange things with the trims, especially when the holds are not going to be full !!.

:\

[Captb747]

Leezyjet..........

You said this.....It certainly adds an extra level of safety into the system. Before if when doing your own loadsheets, if you made a mistake on the l/s, nobody would be aware of it,

I would rarely disagree with you however what you say above I feel I must.

When doing your own loadsheet be it manual or EDP, one should always cross check it to ensure no mistakes have been made. If unsure, get someone else ( a second pair of eyes) to check it for you.

I feel it is always infinately safer to prepare your own flight, load plan it and produce a loadsheet yourself.........

Anyroad, will climb down off my soapbox and discuss with you over a beer..:ok:

[LHR_777]

Captb747 wrote:
I feel it is always infinately safer to prepare your own flight, load plan it and produce a loadsheet yourself.........

Really? just a thought - how many flight crew are actually aware of dangerous goods restrictions, and the associated loading requirements for such items? I'd imagine it's 'safer' to have a trained person load-plan a flight.......

So are flight deck crew actually trained and aware and up-to-date with dangerous goods requirements?

[Leezyjet]

CaptB747,

I used to think that too, but after hearing some of the stories about mistakes that have been made when one person plans the flight, and does the loadsheet, I have to stand by what I said.

If you are given a cargo deadload with say, 5465kgs of cargo on it, but as is usual for a dispatcher/load controller, they are rushing from flight to flight, they then enter the cargo figure in to the system as 4565kgs, the loadsheet will come out just fine, all the figures will cross check just fine, and nobody is any the wiser. The Capt only knows how much cargo is onboard by what the l/s says, so he won't pick up the error either. The a/c then trundles off on it's way and is almost 1,000kgs overweight. Even on a manual, the cross check would still work if the wrong figure has been entered and the rest of the l/s has been worked out using that wrong figure.

I've even heard of load controllers performing a manual l/s, all the figures were fine, and cross checked but it wasn't until the a/c was half way to destination that it was noticed that the l/s had been done on the wrong a/c types loadsheet - even the Capt didn't pick up on that one - again due to everyone rushing to get the flight out ontime !!:eek:

In the real world of the ramp, there is no way that you would be able to get someone to check your loadsheet for you as usually most ramp departments are so short staffed that everyone is usually chasing their tails trying to keep the operation running (take BA's recent mishap for example - lack of Dispatcher to turn on the lights).

With the central load planning department, at least the Dispatcher/Load Controller is able to double check the figures on the loadsheet because they have the time to do it when they are not actually producing it.

:)

[Captb747]

LHR777......

We were not really discussing dangerous goods here, however I would expect ALL flightdeck crew to be aware (Not have indepth knowledge) of dangerous goods and to be able to go to the carriage of dangerous goods manual to satisfy themselves that the way Dangerous goods have been loaded is compatible. Thats exactly what I would do.....

Incidently, I planned my own flights, and did my own loadsheets. Did nothing but manual loadsheets for almost a year....was checked by supervisors and double checked. Have held licences with the LBA (German CAA) to dispatch german registered aircraft (you had to be licenced by them).......I think I am pretty safe to loadplan and dispatch a flight!!!!!

Leezyjet.......

I know you and you know me..You should also know that mistakes because people are in a rush should not be tolerated. I didnt come down in the last shower and know mistakes happen. Part of the way I was trained was to check you had the correct loadsheet (manual) and then check again. Once the loadsheet is completed check again. Always cover your backside....You really should know that......:ok:

[Leezyjet]

I know mistakes should not be tolerated, but they do happen on a regular basis when time is tight and staff are rushing as is usually the case, and when only one person is responsible for producing all the figures, thats when the mistakes can go unnoticed.

With another person producing the figures, and then the dispatcher checking them, there is much more of a chance of the errors being spotted before the a/c departs.

:}

[older_wiser]

As i sorted of instigated this issue of CLC v working locally and at airside i guess i should throw in my tuppence worth.
Firstly i must point out that i have worked in both case scenarios, sending messages to a CLC dept far away and also doing my own planning and loadsheets at the aircraft ( both manual and DCS computerised versions).
I afraid i could never the CLC system on a permanant basis i find it all too frustrating.
I understand that the companies both LHR777 & Leezyjet work for are massive players globally and that you will both be handsomely rewarded for your labours in comparison to others and therefore you have a sense of loyalty in defended the procedures that are currently in place, as LHR777 says " I'm not saying it's perfect, but that's our set-up "
Let me explain why i feel strongly the way i do and i must admit it's good to hear the comments of CaptB747, quite often Cockpit crew are normally only interested in the final product and not how it is achieved.
I personally believe that the margin for error is greater with a CLC whilst i would never question their skill, knowledge and ability, it is still the call centre syndrome, being remote from the activity and issues, then there is the messaging, if a local load controller / dispatcher is at the aircraft they can not only visualise the aircraft but have the system readily available to make changes, visualise the trim, the payloads etc and react accordingly, obviously with CLC it requires constant messaging which has to be accurate thus doubling thus using 2 people to do what one can do aduquatley, also you are constantly waiting for replies etc.
(ie) You are in charge of a A340 the freight is late and the loaders ask if they can load it in any order, being load control trained as i am i would look in the system and see if the aircraft trims and advise accordingly i would also consider DGR etc, this would take a couple of minutes, with CLC i would have to send a message and await a reply, if ok the CLC would then have to do a new LIR and send to the gate, which in anyone's world is a slower process.
(ie) 2, you are in cahrge of a 737-800 or 757 multi sector flight, which due to passenger volumes and baggage weight is likely to exceed payload, you keep Freight and mail on standby, it is far easier to monitor this locally and make decisions than to rely on someone else.
As i have said i have worked both systems and sad to say but i found working alongside CLC totally and utterly frustrating.
As Leezyjet said
The only thing I don't like is that it is much more time consuming to get a load plan changed when you need to explain to the CLC bod what you need doing, then wait for them to do it and send you the new L/P. Oh and at my lot, the load planners have hardly even seen an a/c, let alone dispatched one !!. They do some very strange things with the trims, especially when the holds are not going to be full !!.
"
Unfortunately i understand that many big companies work this way and many will and some already are following, sadly they use the health and safety argument but that to me is " bull " it is all about money, like i said the 2 companies LHR777 & Leezyjet work for " look after " their staff but generally companies think more along the lines of have a CLC bashing out loadsheet afte loadsheet and pay a runner peanuts to deliver papers to the cockpit.
And finally when i prepared and signed a loadsheet either manually or computerised i was far happier with it's content than i was if it was prepared somewhere else and if the captain asked questions about something then i would readily explain which is not so easy if you haven't prepared it.
Also LHR777 although the system you are using now seems to work from contacts i have many of the old dispatchers at your company would still rather work the old way and many were very reluctant to change but naturally had no choice.
Still at the end of the day it's all only a job after all !

[older_wiser]

I guess when you say checking figures you are talking about cargo figures, obviously baggage and passenger figures are not readily available until check in closes or the last pax on board, My comments are generally geared towards reactionary issues as opposed to an ideal world where everything runs smoothly, and as i think the whole country is aware at the moment that LHR & LGW are anything but an ideal world :ugh:

Also do the load planners at " your lot " understand the size of Lhr let alone the problems you face on a daily basis :rolleyes:

[LHR_777]

Posted by older_wiser:
Also LHR777 although the system you are using now seems to work from contacts i have many of the old dispatchers at your company would still rather work the old way and many were very reluctant to change but naturally had no choice.
Still at the end of the day it's all only a job after all !
A small correction - the 'old dispatchers' at my company probably would rather work 'the old way'. Reluctant they may be to change, however, they VOTED in favour of that change and thus most definitely had the choice.
You're right though - it's only a job after all.... ;)
Posted by Captb747:
We were not really discussing dangerous goods here, however I would expect ALL flightdeck crew to be aware (Not have indepth knowledge) of dangerous goods and to be able to go to the carriage of dangerous goods manual to satisfy themselves that the way Dangerous goods have been loaded is compatible. Thats exactly what I would do.....
You're right, but you did say that it's 'infinitely safer' to load-plan your own flights, and thus I was asking if flight deck crew have in-depth knowledge of Dangerous Goods regulations and conflicts etc. As the carriage of dangerous goods can affect the safety of a flight, it's most definitely related to the topic in hand.
Still, I wasn't knocking you, if I came across that way. I merely wondered if flight deck crew are trained in the carriage of dangerous goods, as a safety-related item. So, are they?

[j_davey]

i`m a load controller, one group of airlines we deal with uses CLC in BKK. when the turnaround goes smoothly its great, but when things get hairy, its a nasty little setup.having to send a message to the other side of the world to make a small change that i could do instantly at the aircraft side with any other airline/system just does not make much sense to me.

rant over.

[LHR_777]

Posted by j_davey:
i`m a load controller, one group of airlines we deal with uses CLC in BKK. when the turnaround goes smoothly its great, but when things get hairy, its a nasty little setup.having to send a message to the other side of the world to make a small change that i could do instantly at the aircraft side with any other airline/system just does not make much sense to me.
So you hate your own job? You say you're a load controller and you hate CLC? That makes no sense! Unless you mean you're a Dispatcher? I guess the benefit of CLC at the carrier i'm employed at is that we're NOT on the other side of the world, but only on the other side of the northern runway...

I'll say it again - at the carrier I work at, TRM's are free to change things on the trim as necessary. They do NOT have to call CLC for every little change. We use a system of data-transfer from the TRM to CLC and any changes are highlighted upon this. The TRM remains in control of the turnround at all times.

[older_wiser]

LHR_777
Sure i meant the old dispatchers when i said about preferring the old way and regarding the " vote " to change working pratices, you know how it is with these so called ballots, companies use tactics that mean that 99% of the time get what they want.
Agreed, the set up you have seems to be as good as CLC can be, but i agree with j_davey, CLC is fine on a smooth flight but when things go wrong, then they go wrong and it is a pointless messy system.
Also j_davey's job description makes sense to me as i think i'm aware of the company he works for and if i'm not wrong, They do the full on load control for several contracts yet do CLC for others, when you work in such an enviroment it means you can compare CLC v Local load sheets on a daily basis and when you do that you realise that there is no comparison.
Problem is as i keep saying many carriers don't give the option anymore and a job is a job after all

[Captb747]

Just to clarify something, I am not flight deck........however I have been heavily influenced by flightdeck for various reasons and I do know that they dont have the indepth knowledge of dangerous goods which is why they have manuals to refer to. Its like an engineer would refer to a maintenance manual when carrying out various activities he/she is not 100% sure about. No one can know everything.

Just like Older_wiser said.....CLC is a bit like a call centre and we all know what they are like. I am certainly not trying to sway someones opinion here BUT I do STRONGLY believe old school is best and ny that I mean preparing the flight and doing the load sheet. Just a small point, when loadplanning my own flights, if a pallett etc had to moved to a different hold/ compartment I would always know if it could be done and roughly what effect on the trim it would have......BY doing things myself. :ok:

[LHR_777]

Points well taken gentlemen. My point is, there will always arguments for and against the use of a CLC hub. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. It's been most enlightening though. :)

[Captb747]

LHR777....................

Yes I think you are right on this one....Heck we are agreeing.It has been most enlightening :ok:

[j_davey]

Quote:
Posted by j_davey:
i`m a load controller, one group of airlines we deal with uses CLC in BKK. when the turnaround goes smoothly its great, but when things get hairy, its a nasty little setup.having to send a message to the other side of the world to make a small change that i could do instantly at the aircraft side with any other airline/system just does not make much sense to me.

So you hate your own job? You say you're a load controller and you hate CLC? That makes no sense! Unless you mean you're a Dispatcher? I guess the benefit of CLC at the carrier i'm employed at is that we're NOT on the other side of the world, but only on the other side of the northern runway...

I'll say it again - at the carrier I work at, TRM's are free to change things on the trim as necessary. They do NOT have to call CLC for every little change. We use a system of data-transfer from the TRM to CLC and any changes are highlighted upon this. The TRM remains in control of the turnround at all times.what i meant to say, i`m a load controller/co-ordinator/dispatcher , so i prefer to do my own load control from start to finish. sorry for confusion.

[slip and turn]

I have only belatedly seen this thread. The question of what is the difference between one dispatcher in this world and another is one I once asked myself after being confused by who I saw signing bits of paper and how they were getting their data.

In UK LCO's you might most likely thesedays see "Team Leader" on the vest of the person signing the load sheet and presenting it to the captain. They are the ramp team leaders of course and in no way could any courses they have taken be compared with ATPL Theory save for a little bit of W+B perhaps. Any comparison between a US licensed dispatcher and a UK LCO Team Leader might be like comparing a 16 y old who could get pass GCSE level maths with a successfully completed first year university degree course student in a numerate discipline.

It is up to the Team Leader to be on the spot to supervise the loading and collect the data. I am not sure they always are on the spot, so I believe that "hearsay evidence" from other ramp team members sometimes ends up on the loadsheet with any consequent errors. I don't know for sure, but Team Leaders can't be everywhere at once and sadly their appearance and demeanour sometimes doesn't totally inspire confidence.

In other regional ops the "dispatcher" is effectively the team leader on the passenger services side and he or she liases briefly with the ramp team for the loading data and relies perhaps on bespoke computer program to crunch some of the bag and pax numbers and highlight discrepancies. However, again, the loading evidence is sometimes "hearsay" and relies on the word of people a long way down the tree.

I've seen a few ramp agents in the UK who can't be bothered to count while loading, and then peer over the numbers and simply sign for the number of bags that were supposed to be loaded. I've seen loaders leave the apron without confirming what they've loaded. Not often, but I've seen it.

I've seen loaders in the UK encounter specially labelled goods and despite rudimentary training aware of dangerous goods labels and the like, just pitch in more or less as normal and just treat it as "another box" perhaps with just a little bit more care not to drop it, and some rudimentary securing with whatever ropes and nets are close to hand. That is unless someone steps in and starts controlling.

I've also seen where assorted badly secured baggage has dented the inside of the hold/pressure hull in flight.

That's the shoddy end of "load-control".

The interesting thing about the other end of the spectrum in passenger services anyway in the UK is that it is usually contracted by the same ground handling contractors as the not so attractive end! So I can only assume that airlines auditors must be complicit in the standards or lack of them according to the particular contract that year/that season and that any non-compliance is kept to some degree of reasonableness that doesn't attract the attention of the authorities.

As for cargo operations where scope for inappropriate load distribution and handling is much more prevalent, then I can only assume that some much better and appropriate level of control is applied or we'd hear about it. Those will be the true "load controllers" I guess.

But I know of no roles in dispatch in UK at least where you could say they were qualified to ATPL Theory standards. Correct me anyone?

[HZ123]

Agree with your comment on ATPL, it seems most unlikely. I to have come late onto this thread and there are clear diferences between many countrys and the onus lies with the airline to set a prescribed standard that they require to operate to. As for the cargo and in particular DG it is not unusual to find senior dispatchers with very little knowledge on the subject and on containerised aircraft all Dg tends to be within a bin so no-one checks the security / location of the goods.
I think also the role has evolved considerably with many of current aircraft types far less effected by incorrect loading that in the days of 707 / VC10 etc was critical. CLC makes good sence and in many cases works very well as many flights operate the same routes, near enough the same loads, 364 days per year, same fuel uplift ad infinitum. Concern is that because of the lack of experience of the CLC and dispatchers many without a ramp / apron background will cock up when they deal with the one off flight that has the potential for problems.
Knowledge decreases, within the new T 5 operation all aircraft will be containerised and this is becoming and will become the norm at the major hubs. Imput will vefry little from those involved around the holds which is very much the case now.

[Lefthandseat]

YOu think this is bad? I had encountered captains who couldnt figure out the same or what equals to :MRWT( Max Ramp Wt) minus ZFW! ( =Blk Fuel )plus they couldnt fill out 50% of an ICAO FPL form!
There u go!
We live and learn.
Chill!

[Lefthandseat]

Hi all
If I may add, there shouldn't be any difference in the qualification and competency of a,,say UK dispatcher vs a FAA licensed dispatcher.I hold both licenses,plus a loadmaster & IR . Perhaps one of the difference is the FAA examination location, which has to be on US soil, and performed by a FAA examiner during a O&P ( Oral & Practical ) exams which test on general dispatch knowledge and then perform a flight planning exercise .takes around 4 to 5 hours for whole thing. the FAR ( Federal Aviation Regulations ) 65 SUbpart C has standards or requirements on what a qualified dispatcher should know& tested upon.Almost the same as ATP. The purpose of any test realy is to see how " safe" a dispatcher or crew is to perform his/her functions.
For UK or European dispatcher,whom I understand conforms to JAR/EASA regulations, then ICAO annex 1 and Annex 6 complied. The CAA website also has certain information on this.
There is no requirement in ICAO regs that a dispatcher MUST holds a license whilst US states that they would need a license.
I hope that clears up any doubts. As to the " quality" of a dispatcher in an airline , well, that is up to their QA and regulatories' requirements.

[groundhand]

Lefthandseat,

Hoiw right you are - the quality for Dispatch is down to the carrier.

Having been in the game for more years than I care to remember, worked in UK, Europe and US & Canada I can advise that the differences are driven by the carrier and what they are prepared to invest in safety; and not whether an individual has been through this or that training/qualification/certification process.

In the 'old days' the Dispatchers of the legacy carriers were some of the highest paid on the ground; their activity levels were highly restricted and they were well trained and well supervised. Aviation will NEVER go back to those days.

There is a huge difference in the skillset required to plan, execute and diapatch a longhaul, wide-body flight with multiple stop-overs and heavy cargo loads to a Loco going point to point with no cargo. Similarly, it is pointless training an individual on all the variances if they are only going to use 5%.

All that has happened is that the industry has adapted to meet the needs of the varying levels of requirement. We no longer have a 'one size fits all' service. Loco's don't want to pay for services they do not require; other carriers do need these skills and will pay for them.

To come to the defence of some of the independent handling companies (Menzies, Swissport, Servisair, Jet Aviation etc.); they ALL have the capability equal to the best of the airline systems; the difference is that they deliver to the standards their customers contract. I suspect many flight crews would be mortified by what their employers ask handling companies to do to reduce costs - and this includes not training in what would, years ago, have been madatory for anyone dispatching/red capping a flight.

There should be a single, global standard. probably written under the control of IATA, and regulated by the likes of the FAA, EASA etc. The standard could be multi-layered to take into account the variancies of today's aviation requirements with the capability of starting at e.g Level 1 going through to higher Levels for the more complex requirements.

GH

[opsbloke]

Ok, since this topic is continually arising......
UK Dispatcher = Load Control / Turnaround Coordinator ( prepares loadsheet, ensures aircraft is loaded IAW the loadsheet, and numerous other GROUND functions prior to departure. meaning that once the aircraft has left the airport, no longer plays an active role in the flight.)
US Dispatcher = Flight Planner ( prepares flight plan, eg: route, min reqd fuel, selects alternate airfields based on company operating specs etc, files flight plans with ATC, holds a government issued Airman certification. responsible for the ENTIRE Dispatched flight, legally.)
Obviously therse are just the 'bones' there are plenty of other differenes, the fact is the only thing the US/UK Dispatcher has in common is the title....
Now, I have probably opened a can of worms here with this post, and as usual, people are going to comment on which is better that the other etc etc...well, if you know anything about the UK/US Dispatcher roles, you will know that each do a vital job for their carrier regardless of what the title is.
Brgds

[opsbloke]

In my opinion there is no need for flt watch if everybody is doing the job correctly. With the modern systems (data linked) the fltcrew should be able to retrieve the latest data by themselves. There is allways a "monitoring" of the flts if somethink happens out of the ordinary.
Anyway why should I as a lowly payed dispatcher do the job of a mostly overpayed pilot?!?!
Really??? I would think a bit of proffesionalism would come into it somewhere....And I'm sure the Capt of the 777 you have released on 120 min ETOPS has an engine failure at 40w in November would agree with you!!!

[opsbloke]

Hi Lauterdale (isn't Disneyland just around the corner?)
You got me on the "wind up' part, but honestly
it irritates me a lot if some US Guy is telling me how superior his outdated by technology "Babysitting" is to present Flightplanning in Europe. Anyway there is not a single country that is 100% working acc. JarOps! We all got our Systems to cover for certain contingencies. The Examples are mostly **** ups by the crew.
If i.e. some pilot try to land at a closed A/P he should never take off in the first place!!!
"encountered severe wx" please don't tell me it wasn't in the TAF!!! This idiot just did not fuel enough to cover for it!!!
What should I say to a pilot who is flying for hours in a damaged acft?? I am NOT their Babysitter, got it??
And I do not need any "joined whatever" to tell the capt. what is best for him if he is about the screw up totally!!
Think about it before question somebodys work ethic!!!!
My Philosophy btw is that a Capt with more than double my pay (And I am doing well after 20years, its just a matter of comparison) together with the FO should be able to decide on this own. He will get my best preparation and then its up to him.
whats wrong with that? Please dont give me the "Teamwork" crap!! Dont get me wrong, if there is a problem I am there 100%.
Thats my Job, but we do not need this "joined" part!!!
Happy planning!
Broken airvraft,???? what, dont you have an MEL in your office? THATS your job.... as for being a 'babysitter' well, really that exactly what the job entails, I suggest if you really feel that bitter about pilots pay, then leave your job with your 20 odd years seniority, i bet your colleagues will be glad to reduce their workload.....

[Schibulsky]

o.k. opsbloke lets play the cut and paste game. anyway looks like you only copy stuff instead of reading it.

Really??? I would think a bit of proffesionalism would come into it somewhere....And I'm sure the Capt of the 777 you have released on 120 min ETOPS has an engine failure at 40w in November would agree with you!!!

What should I do then??? Hold his hand verbally so he doesnt **** his pants???
He got a valid etops alternate that he will use because I choose it well as a professional dispatcher. Do you question your planning because the reason for all this planning just happened?? You gave him the plan already, just follow that plan without ******* it up, simple as that!!!

Broken airvraft,???? what, dont you have an MEL in your office? THATS your job....

Hello, this was an example of a guy experience an inflight problem.
As to my knowledge the MEL is not of very much interest once you are flying!!! And keeping his acft flying and handle an inflt problem is his problem. I will give him assistance as I already mentioned!

as for being a 'babysitter' well, really that exactly what the job entails,

It is not even close to babysitting, dude! according to my manuals and my understanding this is kind of a "working together" thing, NOT a "you can cry on my shoulder, I will hold yor hand" thing especially when the crying guys otherwise think they are the center of the flying universe and the sun is shining out of their asses!!!

And finally:
I suggest if you really feel that bitter about pilots pay, then leave your job with your 20 odd years seniority, i bet your colleagues will be glad to reduce their workload.....

I am not bitter about their pay, trust me! Just stating a fact.
Are you really working at ops?? Your reasoning reminds me a lot of pilots who usually play the "you are envious" card once they run out of arguments!!!
And trust me, my colleagues are thinking the sun IS really shining out of MY ass!!!:O

[Lauderdale]

I sincerely hope the PPRUNE admins take a close look at all the posts Shilbulsky has 'contributed'. Especially the one in the Sky Blue thread.

This is supposed to be a serious forum/platform for industry proff/enthusiasts. Posts like these really are a turn off for when it comes to continue actively participating here.

I have no intention to reply to his/her postings - I just sincerely hope that the majority of people out there agree that we do require to show a level of respect when we post on this site as I would hate to see this level of standard continue.

[Schibulsky]

Hi Lauderdale, nice to know that YOU are setting the standards here!
If you do not like my "direct" style just ignore it or go to a Disneyforum with the Kids.
You will not believe it, but after the first post I got some mails applauding me for telling the bigmouth American what the "old World" is thinking of his superior babysitting!!
And I really cut back on my language when it comes to Mr. Pichler!!!
He is responsible for some of my friends losing their Jobs and for possibly the near End of a great Airline.
Whats wrong with telling everybody about it?
I have seen some more explicit posts on the Forum about Gulfair managers!!
If you cannot stand a different opinion stay away from professional forums!!
Dont whine about it, try some arguments. I did not see any argument that is even close to proving any of my points wrong!!!
The baseline of all the pathetic remarks so far is "if you do not blow sugar up the pilots ass, you are not a professional dispatcher"
Do not get me wrong, I do NOT have a problem with pilots at all, lots of close friends between them!!!
So stop crying and try reasoning for a change!!!

P.S. talking about respect (from your side!)
you were telling:
that my philosophy leads to accidents
that my fellow LBA Dispatchers were on your side :ugh:
some other dude was questioning my work ethics
and ask me to quit my job so my colleagues will be glad!

GREAT argumentativ skills :D

[Lauderdale]

I rest my case.......

[Schibulsky]

no dude, you are giving up cause you are running out of arguments!!!
If you would just TRY to prove me wrong on just one topic, that would
be showing some respect by having a discussion with me !!!
But you choose to "rest your case" HOW dramatic:D:D:D:D:D
sad sad sad...........

[ralle72]

come on mates, donßt let it end like this.
just got me some crisps and beer and i have plenty of time, too
:}

[Captb747]

Absolutely.

This thread was started a while ago and I thought it was a very good debate and I for one enjoyed contributing to it. I disagreed with some people but agreed with others and it was left at that.

Lets not see a good thread/debate ruined by some petty slagging match. :ok:

[Schibulsky]

Hi Capt747.
I also enjoy having a heated discussion, but some guys/girls idea of a debate is reacting to opposite opinions by questioning the ethics and character of the other.
My style might be a bit rough, but so is the Aviation Business, its not Sunday School!!
When its crunch time and its about exchanging arguments this guys/girls are whining :{ about not being respected instead of taking on the challenge.
Its getting even more pathetic when they are calling for the pprune admin to kick me out!:8
Sorry, but this is Kindergarten style!!

[Lauderdale]

Shibulsky - you going to be in Brussels this week? You can buy me a beer or two......:ok:

[Schibulsky]

Hi Lauderdale,
no, I am in Frankfurt end of the month.
But in Brussels I would rather buy you wine (in the far left corner of the CFMU Canteen, if I remember correctly) because they put funny syrup and other stuff in their beers!:yuk:
But did you really f... up the c..t Pichler to earn it???

[Lauderdale]

Haha! No I did not! lol

BTW Shibulsky contrary to what you assume (Ricky Gervais springs to mind) I am not from the States.

Very much from the UK here (LHR).......now who won the war again?

I am sure you will take this in very good humor and you seem like a decent gzr after all!

[Schibulsky]

Oh my gawd, and I thought UK in your profil means Upper Kentucky!
How stupid of me!!
But honestly it is hard to take with humor if your proffessionality and your work ethic is questioned and then nobody is willing to discuss it further!
And when it comes to Mr. Pichler thats definetely the end of all humour!
You see Colleagues who were busting their ass for the Airline for more than 14years being laid off because of one dumbf...k CEO.
Then this pr..k is leaving with a golden handshake to f... up the next Airline. This REALLY pisses you off, believe me!!!
Anyway lets leave it for now....
C U somewhere for a beer, maybe....:)

[boredcounter]

• Maersk Air Boeing B737, from Birmingham, UK, to Copenhagen, Denmark, December 1999, encountered severe weather, had outdated weather information, destination and alternates closed; diverted with a fuel emergency, landing in Billund, Denmark with 70 knot winds. If it had had to make another go around, it likely would have run out of fuel.


I was there, were you? I was nearly de-briefed were you!

Bored

[mutt]

So are flight deck crew actually trained and aware and up-to-date with dangerous goods requirements?

We operate under FAR121, crews are given DG training initially and in recurrent, including FA's!

He got a valid etops alternate that he will use because I choose it well as a professional dispatcher. Do you question your planning because the reason for all this planning just happened?? You gave him the plan already, just follow that plan without ******* it up, simple as that!!! This sounds like you give him the CFP and forget about him, this certainly isnt the way it happens in 121, in fact we have specially training ETOPS dispatchers.

The one thing that i have noticed recently is that our dispatchers want technology to DO EVERYTHING and totally remove their requirement to think or make decisions!

Mutt

[Schibulsky]

mutt and boredcounter, are you not able to read a complete post and try to understand the whole message or do you just pick up a piece of it and then just fire away your bull****?!?!
Now lets take apart your crap:
The dimwits who were flying that Maerskflt were happily taking off with outdated WX???? its a fuc...g 2hr flt. Do you really want to tell me that the WX changed that much from briefing to landing?? They screwed it up, the cockpit crew and the dispatcher!!! This is pisspoor fuelplanning, nothing else. This has nothing to do with what we are talking about!!!
:ouch:
Did I tell you in any way that I forget about the flt after briefing???
I told you there is a kind of monitoring, that includes i.e. checking the ETOPS Altn if they were prone for deterioration. That is what the crew is doing via Datalink anyway, so its just a backup! If some info reaches the OCC that is affecting a flight then we take all action neccessary.
But for the ETOPS flight that encounters an engine failure it follows the etops scenario like it is planned. ITS THE ONLY REASON FOR THE ETOPS PLANNING, REMEMBER!!!!! So AGAIN what shall I do for them besides inform the diversion airport and arrange everything for them????:ugh::ugh:

BORED BORED BORED.............:*

P.S. and PLEASE dont gimme any crap about wording, style or respect....I need FACTS, thats what Aviation is all about :8

[kellmark]

Schibulsy;
Interesting post. You have a real "colorful" attitude with anyone who disagrees with you. But "colorful" or not, you can still be flat wrong.
On the Maersk flight, you seem to say that the weather can't change in two hours. That is ignorant on its face. The weather can change in ten minutes. And there was no flight dispatcher monitoring the situation for the Maersk crew. And you also say that a crew has a datalink and can always get what they need. That is not always true either. Some aircraft don't even have ACARs much less anyone even trying to give them critical information. They depend purely on ATC sources, which are not really equipped for it. The Swiss SAAB 2000 accident at Werneuchen near Berlin is a classic example of exactly that, where they were vectored right into the bad weather by ATC and all airports were closed to them. They wiped the aircraft off landing at a closed airport with no fuel left. And the airline had absolutely no flight watch/monitoring system to give them critical information.
You only talk about ETOPS flights and enroute alternate planning. Don't you look at the enroute weather for fronts, lines of bad weather or turbulence and the weather at the destination as well? How about ATC delays,reroutes or other issues that change dynamically during a flight? Seems you only want to look at one thing, the ETOPS alternate. But a flight can easily get into a diversion or worse anywhere from origin to destination. You seem to assume that the plan that has been done is bulletproof and needs no other thought. It will always work. My experience in aviation is exactly the contrary, that you have to assume that things will change when they are least expected, no matter how good the "plan".
I know of a number of situations where a crew without flight watch/monitoring got themselves into a difficult issue when they were confronted with it without warning, when they could have been warned by a flight monitoring system early enough to prevent the problem. They wound up diverting or declaring an emergency without need in many cases because they did not have the proper support from a qualified flight dispatcher.
To have a proper flight watch/flight monitoring system with a qualified flight dispatcher is a known benefit to flight safety. It prevents the flight crews from being surprised by changing events and gives them critical support when things do happen. It is just as important as TCAS or GPS or CRM or any other proven flight safety initiative. It is all about reducing risks. And I think that you are on the wrong side of the argument, in spite of your "colorful" assertions. To simply say that the crew screwed up, and should have known better or taken more fuel, ignores the genuine benefits of a proper flight dispatch watch/monitoring system, which provides up to date information and also minimizes human errors in operational decision making. It is exactly because it recognizes that flight crews are not always perfect and don't always have the proper information which makes it an important safety system. It is called positive operational control. And it works.
Best Regards and Not Bored at All.
Kellmark

[Schibulsky]

O.K. at least someone trying to start a discussion....
If the Maersk pilots depart with outdated FCST and do NOT fuel for the 2nd altn with valid fcst, they (incl. Dispatcher) plainly screwed up royally!! :ugh:
Yes the WX can change within 10min, but not from forecasted above minima to closed Airport. I am from that area and the fcst are pretty accurate.
Anyway a look at the WXmap should give him some hints about the WX, thats why LBA dispatcher got 200+ hours of Met lessons!!
You dont have to be a rocket scientist to expect winter conditions in December!!:8
BTW I called your Babysitting outdated because most modern Airlines DO have Datalink nowadays!!
The Werneuchen flt was not vectored into bad wx, it was planned (they had the critical info before T/O!!!) with marginal wx conditions and minimum fuel
caused by pressure of the management to save fuel. You do NOT f..k around with bad WX and min fuel, thats a basic rule in flt planning!!!
The only thing the dispatcher could have done to prevent the crash was to call the acft back after T/O for refueling.
I do not "only" talk about ETOPS Alternate, it was an example brought up by the other dude!!!!
And for the twentieth time: I DO flight monitoring!!!! I also check for frontal systems etc. etc., we check altn wx once they are airborne, but only as back up.
Anyway once in flight the applicable minima are way lower than in the planning, remember?
And you wont believe it, we do inflt recalculations , and even reroutes for bad slots, when did I tell you I "fire and forget":confused:
The most important moment is when you agree on routing, altn and final fuel, thereafter its just damage control if the **** hits the fan. There is no inflt fueling yet in civil aviation!:uhoh:
In my Experience 99% of the flights operate as planned with just minor hickups, I dont know where YOU are working to state the contrary.
It happens only every odd years that an aircraft gets into a unforeseen situation that threatens the safety, its mostly of technical nature.
And with the help of modern technology it was always handled easily by experienced dispatchers.
But we do foreward all new info thats important to the flts, you keep mixing up modern redundant flight monitoring with your old fashioned
Flight watch/shared responsibility.
Anyway we are not that far apart in our opinions, you were probably just fired up by my "MickeyMouseLicense" remark.:E
Just as I was pissed off by the remarks, the FAA system is soooo far better than JAR OPS.:yuk:
It was a long day at work that turns AGAIN out to be full of BABYSITTING and BREASTFEEDING, thanks to the guys in uniform.:D
But that keeps my job secure...:ok:

Happy Planning, and Happy Monitoring!!!

[merlinxx]

Here, here. Even back in the distant '60s we (UK #2 flag carrier) operated a flight watch system, though only enroute ctc was HF, it worked and saved a whole bunch of expensive probs with ops raging from domestic, intra eruo, East/West Africa & South America. Most staff in those days wanted to fly, so got basic ground school, met/nav/perf etc, so had more than a bisic understanding. Some long and lonely nights followed, even playing football/cricket on the ramp!

There is NO, REPEAT NO substitute for applying an integrated Flt Watch/Flt Following system to compliment a good pre flt planning system, in fact they are all part and parcel of the same CRM, SOP function. Some staff may be required to hold licenses, some may not, that does not detract from good SOPs with good resource management.

Rant over, gone to the pub!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[boredcounter]

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing!

The Ops Contoller who fu**ed up royaly, but even without his log, remembers so much about the MSK CPH divert day that you will never know!

It was me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Bored

[Schibulsky]

Please enlighten us, boredcounted!
YOU can probably tell us now WHY they depart with outdated FCST?
And WHY didnt you plan fuel to cover for that?

[boredcounter]

Where does the info regarding outdated forecast come from? I am sure you have not grabbed that bit from thin air, can you advise the source? You are not the first to mention it on PPrune, yet others are not prepared to answer that question. A link would be much appeciated.
Many factors came into play that day, Multiple AOGs, huge slots, tecnical diverts, Ops/Crewing staff shortages, undue commercial pressure from all angles on Ops/Crewing.....................A whole lot was going on behind the scenes, one of the worst days I can tell you in a 20 + year career in Ops.
I would love to read, what I guess is the AAIB report on this one. The reason I get very defensive, I appear to have played a big part, by F##king up, yet my debrief from the Co. FSO was a five min chat outside the gents. The internal report on this incident, was discounted as pure fiction at my request at board level. All Crew involved, rostered meetings with FSO.
If you do have an interest in this flight, PM me by all means.
Further background for you, B* 767 LHR-CPH recalled to LHR, VB next BHX-CPH cancelled despite oposition from above airline ground team due to the Cl*b load! Said airline provided all systems, including Wx as part of the franchise agreement.
At the time, no teflon shoulders intended, UK AOC, Commander has full authority for flight.
FAA, now, as told by Sheffield and CO training Capt on same course, CO carry no alternate fuel trans-Atlantic, having proved it is not required?
Fuel for second alternate?
Bored

[Schibulsky]

Hi Boredcounter,
the Maersk info was brought on by Kellmark, the selfproclaimed "Professor of Aviation":8 as an example why the chinese have a better dipatch system than the EU!!! I merely quoted it and assumed when it comes from such an highly source directly from the land of the "knows it all" it is fact checked.
But anyway, accrding to your info, it looks actually like a combined f...up of BA Ops and the Cockpit.:uhoh:
Nice to hear they did not try to load this **** on you!:ok:
An old rule says: Extra fuel is no substitute for brain, but if you are in doubt about conditions at your destination it is a good idea to cover for that!!!
FAA probably think, due to their superior flightwatch, they can make bad wx just go away :E

[kellmark]

Schibulsky
It is so nice to deal with someone who is so sure about everything. Even so, I happen to think that we can all learn something. (Of course, there are always exceptions).
I say this in all collegiality to you. We Professors have this funny thing called collegiality. It means that you can discuss and argue, but always show respect for the other colleague. And I do have a great deal of respect for you. After all, you have “been there and have the T-shirt”.
I know, being a “self-proclaimed” professor is a great burden. It must mean that I work in an ivory tower and I never actually worked out there with the smell of the jet fuel and had to deal with those “fellows in the front end”. I don’t have much time compared to many others. I worked for 23 years in the industry, less than some, but more than others, of which I enjoyed every day I went to work. I definitely would have worked more if I could have and I admire those like yourself who have stayed with it. But I feel that there is a great contribution in teaching as well, and I also enjoy it very much, having done it for 12 years.
I,of course, realize that I am at a disadvantage, as I am from the vaunted land of “knows it all”. That same land that has taken on hundreds of Airbii. I personally am fine with them. But I admit it, we are just those crude “colonials”. How could we have anything to contribute to safety? I guess some believe that where someone comes from is more important than what a concept can do for safety. Also, just because a region builds great aircraft, doesn’t mean that their operating rules don’t have a big hole in them.
As to the Maesk incident: Boredcounter, you were ok, you didn’t do anything to contribute to the problem. You apparently gave the crew the briefing package, which was current at the time, before departure. I have the report, and let me know if you want it e-mailed.
The problem occurred after departure when the weather changed drastically, and became far worse, as we all know. And there was no flight watch from the air carrier to support the crew. And ATC was not much help either, as the crew found out very late into the flight about how bad Copenhagen was and then their alternate of Malmo being bad as well, and then they wound up at Billund in 70 knot winds.
In the Maersk case, the whole weather system turned far more severe than had been anticipated, and the crew and ATC controllers never seemed to get a picture of the whole system but only had fragmentary information from airport to airport. The flight’s diversion possibilities were actually much greater when the problems first became apparent, but the crew was continuing on outdated and fragmentary information.
The point to be made here is that if the air carrier had had a flight watch system with a qualified flight dispatcher who would have had the whole picture, and a communication system to the airplane then the crew could have been warned much earlier than was the case and gotten much better support and their choices would have been much greater. But it didn’t happen because no such system was or is required in Europe.
The philosophy behind a flight watch system is to keep a crew informed of any and all safety issues, including weather and airport conditions and the general weather picture and how it can affect operations. But if there is no such system, then the crew is on their own in a very difficult environment. And that is when incidents and accidents happen.
And this is not the only incident. There are quite a few others in Europe with similar circumstances where flight crews either ran into severe conditions without warning or continued on with a degraded aircraft when it simply wasn’t necessary.
And I have to tell you a little secret. The Chinese do have a better flight dispatch system than the EU. They require flight dispatcher licensing and a flight watch. They have a communication system requirement between the air carrier and the aircraft. The JARS do not. Nor do the new EU-OPS. The Chinese system is not just better, it is far better.
So, you can have great aircraft, highly qualified and experienced crews, and excellent maintenance on your aircraft, but if the crew can’t get what they need when they need it or make mistakes which simply could be easily prevented, then there is a problem. And that is what we have in Europe today.
That doesn’t mean that the “know-it-all” system we have here in the “Colonies” is perfect. People do make mistakes. But, there is a human factors double check between the Captain and the Dispatcher. Critical safety information is given to the crews much more effectively, and far fewer operational mistakes are made.
But you guys still have the best wine and food.
Best Regards
Kellmark

[Lauderdale]

For what its worth:

Kellmark - as far as good posts go that was one of the best I have read in this particular forum.

And before anyone jumps on the bandwagon - i am referring to the style of the post rather than the substance (I will leave that for another day).

It invites postive contribution (isnt that what CRM is all about?) - and that I applaud!


BTW Kellmark, I will be down your neck of the woods in a few weeks time to meet up with E.M. in FLL for some EWINS training! Hope the <29.92 systems behave while I am down there!

[kellmark]

Lauderdale;
Thanks for your comments.
If you are going to be in the area, drop me an e-mail/PM and maybe we can have a visit.
Best Regards
Kellmark

[Schibulsky]

Hi Professor,
If I am not sure of what I am talking about I would just shut up. But nice you noticed it!
Anyway, I baited you with some keywords and you took it "Hook Line and Sinker"!!!:ugh:
When I changed my experience yesterday to "been there, done it, got the T-shirt" I told my friends "it should be obvious that its a joke, but
some dude will definetely go for it!!"
And VOILA looks like you took it for my CV.:ugh:
You REALLY have to relax a bit, hope your students are not putting you off balanced so easily!!:8
So I will just ignore the rest of the yadda yadda and get back to the original problem.
I am really interested in the Maersk report because now the "outdated" wx info suddenly changed to "current" info!!:confused:
Just to give you an insight how a LBA trained Dispatcher would have handled the problem I tell you the options I would have tried.
If the wx was indeed current but not the last available, I always try to get that latest info, especially in December!!!
Your system doesnt have it, try your local met guys. No Have, try the CPH station. No have, try the CPH WX guys. Call SAS Dispatch,
call any other dispatch office BUT call around for f... sake. There are also a lot of WX data services to try.
In Europe there is always a way to get the latest info! But instead they went with the "current" wx, BIG mistake!
And I would bet some money that the "current" wx already showed some **** wx anyway!.
What about having a looky looky at the wx map or the surrounding Airports! What did the actual wx at CPH say?
The whole story stinks of sloppy dispatch!!:mad:
And you still keep mixing up JAR Ops and the REALITY in Europe.
Now I am telling YOU a little secret: not even 10% of the european airlines are working acc to JAR-OPS.
In our office the JAR-OPS Folders were accumulating dust in some corner. The LBA (german aviation authority) still ask for the license,
you know the one with half a year full time course at the Lufthansa Pilot School AND half a year training at an airline dispatch!!!
And on top of that most airlines have internal regulations that demands a licensed dispatcher, you can be sure that in the future
the pilots associations and Flight safety of the airlines are having an eye on that!!!
AND the established airlines have all a monitoring system implemented.
Its like the US has changed to the metric system in the late 70s. Ask a guy on the street in Oklahoma City how long his dick is in centimetres,
he will have no clue and will most probably lie to you anyway.:E
And to be honest, I also regard the JAR-OPS as complete BS in a lot of areas including Dispatch!!
BUT if you really trust the chinese control mechanism that much, go to ToysrUs and buy your Kids some nice chinese toys!!!:uhoh:

[Lauderdale]

Off course, LBA dispatchers have a 100% safety record and are generally regarded as the best in the world.....

And yes we have fairies in our back garden as well......


:zzz:

[Schibulsky]

Who said that?? :confused:Talking about one group of dispatcher doesn't automatically disqualify the others.:= Like Kellmark is doing with his famous China/JAR comparison. BTW most of the chinese toys even glow in the dark!!:ooh:
Lauderdale, the only contribution you made so far was whining about my style, slobbering all over Kellmark about his brilliant post:yuk::yuk::yuk: and asking the admin to censor me!!!
Just TRY to add something that has some value or even some facts!

[merlinxx]

If all else fails, as it has in times past, I have one of my folks always have wunderground idle, some times their Metar updates beat some other databases, even ours! Also great for historical metars.

[boredcounter]

Cheers,
Can I take you up on the offer of the email copy of the report?
I will PM you my personal e-mail address.
Bored

[kellmark]

Schibulsky
You are, I must admit, amazing. You are the gift that keeps on giving. You keep giving me opportunity after opportunity.
To you it is about “baiting”. You seem to think that I don’t give you credit for your background and experience. I just figured that this is your usual way of expressing yourself, not that you had no background or experience. When I say that I admire and respect your background, I actually mean it. But you don’t seem capable of figuring that out. And the “baiting” thing, it strikes me as a bit of schadenfreude. But it shows two things. One, that you are more than willing to falsify something as a “tactic” to try to “win” an argument, and that two, if that is the case, then the argument itself you are making must be weak. When you falsify something intentionally, it affects your credibility on everything else that you say. And I can get a joke. In fact some would say that I have a decent sense of humor. I do get a chuckle every time I see one of your responses. You also seem to think that this whole discussion is about who “wins” and that it must be you, so you look good to your friends. To me it is not about that. It is about whether or not the European system of operational control/dispatch is a safe system, or more accurately, could it be made safer? To me the answer is clearly yes. To you, it seems not.
You make some pretty wild claims. In effect, that in the future in Europe the pilot’s associations and the airlines will require additional licensing. Show me where the European Cockpit Association has ever supported licensing for dispatchers. I am not aware of any such support. Show me where the Association of European Airlines has ever advocated Flight Dispatcher licensing? I can assure you that they have not.
The direction in some places is going in the opposite direction .For example, the Swedish CAA are actually looking at eliminating the flight dispatcher license. Countries are moving away from their own CAA requirements and more towards JAA/EASA, which have no licensing, training or flight watch.
You are correct about the LBA license in Germany. It is well respected and some would say superior to the FAA license. But you don’t talk about the rest of the package. Europe is a patchwork regarding flight dispatch licensing. Some countries, such as Germany, Austria, Denmark, and Iceland, etc do require licensing. But few or none of them actually require a positive flight watch on all transport flights, whether short or long haul. And you leave out two of the big ones. France and the UK have absolutely no licensing requirement whatsoever. And they are very significant.
You talk about what an LBA dispatcher would have done with Maersk. But Maersk wasn’t a German operation in any way. And you talk about getting the weather. But you fail to state how it would be delivered to the aircraft enroute. Many carriers in Europe don’t even have ACARS, or a VHF system of communication for enroute information by the air carrier to the crew. They depend on ATC. That is what happened with Maersk. That is also what happened with Swiss in Berlin, when they crashed there in bad weather, running out of fuel. No ACARS and no flight watch/monitoring system.
You say that “all the established airlines have a monitoring system implemented”. That is simply not true. I have been to a number of European Ops/Dispatch Offices, and the vast majority of them that I have seen are basically flight planning functions. Those that do have a “monitoring” system usually have no one actually assigned to tell the crew anything or warn them and it is not a focus for them. There are a few that have good systems, (KLM comes to mind as an excellent one), but most do not. I don’t believe that any of the large LCC carriers such as Ryanair and Easyjet have flight watch either, and they have become a high percentage of operations. They are certainly “established “ now.
Even with the German system, all of the finest training and licensing in the world won’t plug the hole. You must know about Hapag Lloyd and the A310 that ran out of fuel and crashed at Vienna, destroying the aircraft? That was a German carrier. And before you go and blame it all on the crew, which is easy to do, let me explain another part of the story. The crew on that flight not only made a poor judgment to continue with the gear locked down past a number of good airports (Zagreb, for example) and ran out of fuel in the air, they also used the wrong gear down airspeed, of 270K IAS instead of 240K which used more fuel. In the US there was an exact parallel, where an A300 also had the gear locked down after takeoff, and after consulting with the dispatcher, continued on toward the destination with the gear down. But they had agreed to check with the dispatcher half way to the destination to see how they were doing. They did and they were using more fuel, but the dispatcher found that they also were using the wrong speed, and advised them to slow down. They did, the fuel consumption reduced, and the flight made it to its destination with reserve fuel. Also, the US dispatcher could have told the crew that they must land earlier, and could not continue. Everything that the US crew did was agreed to and checked by the dispatcher the whole way, but he could have stopped the flight in the event that it would be unsafe to continue. Hapag Lloyd never had that kind of support. They made a number of errors. And they crashed. And the German Captain was criminally prosecuted. The US crew flew the next day as normal. The US system requires licensing and training of dispatchers, ground to air communications systems with the flight for the entire route, a positive flight watch/monitoring system and joint responsibility between the Captain and the Dispatcher. No European system has this. But a number of others have adopted it, including the Chinese.
You make fun of the Chinese toy problems and recalls. Brilliant move. I got a kick out of it. But you failed to note something. We are comparing airline operational control systems, not toys. And, since the Chinese have adopted the US system, I can’t think of any of their aircraft that have run out fuel and crashed. But European flights have. And that is not a joke.
But I do have a joke for you.
Yadda yadda is not an argument.
Best Regards
Kellmark
Boredcounter;
Happy to. Just check my profile and e-mail me.

[Schibulsky]

Hi Kelly, old chap!
Please try to limit the post to 20 lines max. You are really testing the attention span of my old brain!:uhoh:
And I did not know that you also got a degree in Psychology!?!? Hope your diagnosis is free of charge.:8
Anyway I dont give a rats ass about winning something on an open forum. And the baiting thing is only to keep it from getting boring.
Who will bother reading our posts when there isnt some spice in it. But please dont mix it up with falsifying, thats hurting me!!:{
You also seems to read my posts selectively, did you see that one where I admitted that actually JAR Ops is lots of BS??
And I do know that the Vereinigung Cockpit (german pilots association) is definetely supporting proper licensing just to get the best possible
dispatch performance. After all, they are a lazy bunch, so they want US to do all the work.
And its not a secret that the Airlines itself are not promoting licensing, these beancounters are only interested in keeping the costs low.
Talking about costs, please do not call LCC like RyanAir or Easyjet "established" Airlines. Best possible Dispatch is not on their agenda anyway.
You did not get the point that I am also criticising the trend towards the JAR-OPS for just profit optimization!
Back to Maersk; I did talk about getting the WX and I indeed said how to deliver it: AT THE BRIEFING!!!!
BEFORE the **** hits the fan, BEFORE they f... up with the final fuel order!!!
To Hapag at Vienna: They were in contact with the dispatch in Hannover all the time. The System used by Hapag did not support inflt calculation with gear down.
And the Capt was resistant to any reason, even from the FO, kind of old age stubborness.:ugh:
Thats why he got convicted and the FO, to my knowledge, was aquitted later on.
But PLEASE I do not need a computer to figure out that the fuel consumption easily doubles with gear down. Thats covered in Performance 101.
Anyway I probably was projecting the good conditions at the Lufthansa Group onto Europe in general.
And please, especially after the "Toy Story", do not put too much trust in ANY chinese control mechanism, thats a bit naive!!
Lets just agree for now that both systems could be improved and that the trend to maximize profit is going to f... up flight safety in the future!
I am going on vacation tomorrow so I cannot entertain this forum for a while, you have to get your chuckles from somewhere else.
But I really enjoyed having this little "fight":E
Cheers Schibulsky

[Lauderdale]

Was that Shibulsky admitting that he actually was wrong??

Shibulsky that makes you a better man! Well done!

:ok:

[Schibulsky]

Lauderdale, didn't I ask you to contribute something with value?
.......?....? Nothing????

please....:oh:

[kellmark]

Schibulsky. Or should I say "Schiby"? Or "Schuby"?. Or "Ski"? Naah. I think I'll stick to Schibulsky.

I just have one line for you.

FLIGHT WATCH.

I hope you have a great vacation. I also will be traveling from tomorrow for a little while.

Thanks for the "chuckles".

Best Regards.
Kellmark