Pilots claim airliners forced to fly with low fuel

[nano404]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24034468

True? Anyone ever been denied more fuel after it was requested?

[Aerofoil]

I think you will find that what you're talking about is flying with 'Min fuel'. Which means basically flying with the fuel calculated for the paperwork based on the wind conditions, flight level etc and built into that are the normal contingencies which have always been there for go arounds and diverts etc.
What is happening now is that the fuel prices and the governments crusade against aviation are making all airlines struggle with the cost of fuel and it's now the biggest cost, at least it is in my operation. The problem is not a matter of safety in terms of normal operations but more a matter of inconvenience because if for whatever reason such as weather that you have to hold...then you have to divert in order to land with the minimum legal amount of fuel on board.
In days gone by we used to have the option of carrying extra fuel for 'comfort value' but now the prices are so ridiculous that airlines are having to adjust to it and reduce the comfort value fuel, or even be rid of it. So if the proverbial hits the fan and there are going to be any delays to the approach then all the passengers are going to end up in another city or in some cases another country which will incur costs to the passenger and major costs to the airlines involved. This isnt the fault of the airlines but the fault of the fuel prices and the british government.

[Wangja]

This isnt the fault of the airlines but the fault of the fuel prices and the british government.

Care to elaborate?

[doubleu-anker]

The legal minimum fuel is not always enough.

Fortunately I fly for a company that allows the Captain to take more than the minimum required, should he or she so wish.

The day I am dictated to as far as fuel requirements go, is the day I give up flying.

[Firbolgs]

Airmanship. Experience and Common sense should always prevail!

[SeniorDispatcher]

The story has a high bovine fecal matter index...:rolleyes:

Actually, it's a "recycled" story. A local Texas station that one of the reporters is based at first ran the story in mid-February, right in the middle of a "sweeps" ratings period here in the USA. For those not aware, that's when US media puts on their most sensationalized stuff in the hopes of increasing their viewership numbers, so they can also raise ther advert rates.

Anyway, a major fallacy in the story is that PICs are "forced" to do stuff. Here in the USA, FAA-licensed dispatchers plan the fuel loads, put that info on a dispatch release, sign the release electronically, and then ship it to the station. Once the PIC gets the release, s/he reviews the dispatcher's work, and if satisfied with the fuel load (among other things) the PIC signs the release and in so doing are legally attesting (by US FARs) that they are in agreement that the flight can be operated safely as planned by the parameters set forth in the release. Conversely, if they don't agree with the fuel load or something else (alternate, etc.) they *shouldn't* sign and should communicate with the dispatcher and find something that they can agree on.

If one of my PICs wants more gas, they usually get it, but I want to know why so if they've caught something that will affect other flights, I can make the needed changes to those other flights. If someone wants to arrive their 737 at the destination with full wing tanks for some personal "comfort level" kind of concern, then we have a problem. The bottom line here is that NOBODY is holding a gun to their heads, making them sign the release, left alone flythe thing.

Also keep in mind AA pilots were a major (though not total) source for the report, and everyone but the reporter seems to know about the jihad that AA management has with its workforce, and vice versa. With contract talks long ongoing, claims that running out of coffee is a flight safety concern don't seem to be fr down the road.

Do flights sometimes get into low-fuel situations? Sure they do, and when they do, the necessary steps are taken to get the flight on the ground somewhere. even if it's at an alternate.

[dontdoit]

SeniorDispatcher <<If one of my PICs wants more gas>>:

What a load of crap! First of all, they're not "your" PICs; secondly, the Captain is in charge, not you; thirdly, envy of any kind will get you nowhere - don't get carried away trying to make a profession out of being a glorified loadmaster.

[Dogma]

Seniordispatcher - you are delusional, you are laughable and you should have worked harder at school if you wanted to be a "PIC"!

We are Captains - we say jump - you say how high :ok:

[PositiveRate876]

^
^
^
|____________:rolleyes:


In the US, a dispatcher is more involved in the decision making then some other parts of the world. When I used to work there, in the end if I needed fual that a dispatcher couldn't/didn't want to justify, they marked it down as "Captain Request" and end of story. He's happy that he's not going to lose the 'min fuel' competition that some dispatch departments run from time to time, and I get the fuel I need.

[Basil]

Dogma & dontdoit,
Being a bit harsh there even if heading in the right direction ;)

If someone wants to arrive their 737 at the destination with full wing tanks for some personal "comfort level" kind of concern, then we have a problem.
I wouldn't have thought it a problem. Just load what the commander requires and any objectors from above are told "That's what was wanted - take it up with the skipper!"

[Admiral346]

I didn't even get page one on the article, it seems to have the usual well done research behind it, and starts out with technical errors. No point in reading on...

I agree with dontdoit and Dogma...

nic

[PAXboy]

Dogma We are Captains - we say jump - you say how highSeniorDispatcher did not suggest that they were in charge of anything other than the preparatory stages and then the Captain accepted or rejected the advice.

dontdotitFirst of all, they're not "your" PICs; secondly, the Captain is in charge, not you;The use of the term 'my PICS' was clearly a collective that might be the same as 'my PAX' or 'my clients'. It simply conveyed the group of people with whom SD deals in their working day. And, secondly, they never suggested that they were in charge!

In fact, the entire post was stating that the Captain is in charge and making it clear that those in planning and Ops are supporting the Captain to take as much or as little fuel as they like!!! Doubtless, there will be some who are running a lottery about who can ship the least fuel but I have no doubt that Captains have run a fair few lotteries themselves on different aspects of flights over the years ...

Wow. Lucky we don't have any egos in here. :hmm:

[Landing Drinks]

Must be a rye ball comment from some newbie to the business or some clown that knew it would make mischief....

Required fuel would never be in question, what would be is the 25% extra for "mother"..

It really is so simple,
fuel is payload,
increased payload increases fuel burn &, low & behold, INCREASES COSTS!

Increased costs means less to spend on the T&C's of the bleating masses beyond the forward bulkhead...

As the dispatcher has mentioned; it is never a question if the consensus of opinion is once you have left the gate it is too hard and costly to fuel again... SO THEY WILL ALWAYS AGREE WHAT IS REQUIRED...

If a little "pencil sharpening" can save maybe 100kgs per sector, per tail number, per day... LOW & BEHOLD, each quarter the airline may be able to afford some coffee & biscuits for the Flt Deck instead of looking at how that can reduce seven cabin crew to six... to pay for you.


Rest assured PIC's; your sectors (and their performance) are studied and planned way before you come on duty or even get rostered for it... .. data from all previous activities of the tail number and sector, day in, day out are available to help the Dispatcher make his decision before issuing a release...

Additionally, if the clown who started this thread is indentified as problematical, then his roster can and will be MANIPULATED to reduce his exposure to routes he/she causes worries on.... Stats are great at highlighting performance issues..

Bit like a call centre, sat in one place and there to do one task... like for like the varinaces betwen individuals performance (human factors no less) can all be compared...
Its good fun, just like interview stage of PIC.. keen and eager ~ stay that way.

Yes PIC, the bucks stops... but please never underestimate the expereince of those who release 20-30 flights per day.. at best you do four sectors.. on one type....:sad: call that exposure?


Reminds me of the trash that went around when two engines first hit the Atlantic and Pacific... 60mins Etops, 90-120-180... (The more engines the better)

The engines/airframes and fuel burns are now ledgendary... Careful flight management at the time, with very helthy choices pre flight by the dispatcher allowed each trip to "make fuel"... a real class act and team work... :ok:

Such activities gave PIC's an industry that boomed.. and created jobs beyond anyone's wildest dreams.... :ok::ok:




Have a little respect, now more than EVER!

It is not just about what goes on beyond that forward bulk head... if the business is economical in all areas of operations.. there should be enough to fund everyones T&C's.. not just those of the few who bleat and have too much time on their hands ;)

Personally; I feel every sector should be given a "Cost index" and the front enders should be given a target of acheiving the "cost index" to assist the company in hitting its financial targets... Help to keep everyone in a job that would !!!! :D:D:D



Still want a bit extra for "mother"... :mad:

[sunnybunny]

Hi

My first time post as newbie to the group and SLF to boot, so be gentle please.

Isn't it like putting fuel in a car ? ,apart from the car doesn't fall from the sky when empty obviously.

My point is that when i prepare for a car journey I decide how much fuel to put in and then a comfort factor. If I end up with some left over at the end of the journey then all well and good.

It doesn't matter because it goes toward the next journey.

So the next journey you have the comfort factor already there and if you need it (searching for a parking space?) then it's not a problem, just put it back in next time you fuel. And if I find a garage cheaper than anywhere else I fill up.

And so on until I decide to change the car and on it's final journey it's running on fumes.

Do accountants cost justify each trip? Is there no allowance for fuel already on board?

I appreciate to fill up has a cost impact in terms of fuel economy, and a full tank on an airliner is considerably more than a car so return on capital employed becomes a factor. But if the comfort factor is always in the tanks then the extra cost per flight is mimimal?

[VAFFPAX]

From what I see in the report, the thing that annoys the pilots most is the "do you really need that extra amount of fuel?" question from the dispatcher. The article is clear in pointing out that the PIC has ultimate authority, but that that does not mean the dispatcher can't query the request for extra fuel. Dispatch cannot overrule the PIC, but they can question the need for extra fuel.

Separately, but related, MSNBC also refers to the fuel hedges by airlines, which in some cases come to an end. South West apparently faces an increase in fuel costs equal to its profit in 2007, so they've resorted to flying more direct routes (including over water) to save fuel.

It's not a case of questioning your authority, but a case of giving you as much as you need, not a gallon more. Ultimately if you as PIC are not happy with the fuel amount you've been given, ask for more. Just be prepared to say why.

S.

[haughtney1]

Sunny, the trouble is..you have to burn fuel to carry extra fuel. On a long flight in my steed mr Boeings' 767-300, it can cost 450kg of extra fuel burn per 1000kg of extra fuel carried.

[VortexGen300]

Well

Maybe it should be seen for what it really is

Cheap journalistic sensationalism?

I don't doubt that such events might have occurred but if it were properly researched it would probably have shown the pilot to be on the "over cautious" and the dispatcher being "less cautious".

It would have been in contradiction with Regulations and could cause an operator to loose its license if they did what was portrayed by the said reporter?

I can't imagine that an operator would be as stupid or a pilot as brave as this person made them out to be? I am afraid it sounds a bit far fetched?

He heard a bell but had no idea where the sound was coming from. Probably a pilot expressing the idea to another pilot that he thought the fuel to be at the limit - and the story was streched - to "forced to carry less than required?"

The reg's on fuel in US are far more stringent that the rest of the world so they will not get away with it?

Stirring
VG300

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

First of all. I understand my companies fuel policy-although I take issue with the old line about the extra burn due to the extra fuel that you've loaded. I don't believe an extra 500kg really increases the sector fuel burnt by any more than a tiny amount.

Secondly-and I write as someone who rarely takes 'min fuel'- there are so many 'unforseeable' events which can occur on a flight, and having some extra gas on board makes dealing with them a bit easier. Weather, congestion, ice, holding, tech problems, pax problems, you name 'em.

Thirdly. I sign for the a/c. You want to take less than me? YOU sign for it.

:ok:

[Out Of Trim]

Sunnybunny


Isn't it like putting fuel in a car ?


Eh, no it's not. I'm sure many pax believe that to be so; but there are structural limits to the weight a particular aircraft can be to taxi, fly, land and even to be loaded with, without the fuel on-board.

If you were to always fill the tanks, you would have to restrict the payload - Passengers and cargo on some flights, because you would possibly go over the max take off weight. similarly, on short haul flights you may be able to take off OK and still take all the pax and cargo, but on arrival at your destination you may then be too heavy to land! So then you would have to dump or burn off that expensive fuel before you get down to max landing weight.

Also, the more fuel you carry, the more fuel you will use to carry the extra unneeded weight.

So no, you only load the fuel you need, plus contingency amounts to cover weather and,or congestion delays and enough to divert to the planned alternate airports should there be a problem at the planned destination.

Therefore an experienced Captain, will decide how much he might want to adjust a computed figure to allow a safe and fuel efficient flight.

[The Sandman]

Dogma and dontdoit - re: your highly imperious and dismissive comments to the dispatcher who was simply casting some very reasonable light on what seems to be a possibly overblown journo's story - unless you are trying a wind up, you are both wayyy out of line and in any event simply provide traction to the likes of MOL in getting a toe in the door with public opinion regards pilot "prima donnas". You've just reinforced his (or any other like-minded management's) position in the eyes of any non-aviation types reading your ridiculously irresponsible and possibly intentionally inflammatory posts.

[Landing Drinks]

I had not read the US news article; just guessed at the prmary driver of this trivia...

I have read it now....... get this message loud and clear...

"Continental Airlines, for example, issued two bulletins last year expressing concern over the number of refueling stops that some flights were making en route to Newark, N.J., one of which observed that “adding fuel indiscriminately (for Mummy) without critical thinking ultimately reduces profit sharing and possibly pension funding.” "

I like the pension funding bit... Has BA and BALPA read this one..? :uhoh:
It will be BA on their own once letigation reduces BALPA to its knees..

The Pikey is employing the same tactics as before, so no great surpises in store for ANYONE here how it is panning out.

Poacher turned game keeper, he is ex PIC and after PIC T&C's everywhere.. "thinking of number one says his ex FR LHS PIC squeeze" :ok:

Get over it ~ it will happen!, as it has throughout all industries in the EU... you're next.

This piece says it all!!, if critical thinking needs to be highlighted (nee taught), then this aspect needs introducing at the selection stage and process for PIC's...
This should replace a healthy part of the "what's in it for me" part of the recruitment process ~ it is the main thread on this forum "WHO GIVES ME WHAT OR MORE"" recruiters should spin this around and ask "what's in it for us if we employ you PIC" Are you going to make my airline,

Safe
Viable
Profitable
SuccessfulBusiness awareness and acumen is certainly driven through Maintrol and SOCC centres... These places can and DO MAKE MONEY for the business.

If its all about remuneration..??
GET INTO HEDGE FUND MANAGEMENT...
I hear in two years you can over come the need to bid for your next roster or even worrying about buying and operating your own P51D.
Yahda Yahda :p



In terms of risk!!, Oh please... Lets not over glorify "who is in charge!" or has the final say... If that is the case; no wonder team spirit no longer prevails...

Without Engineers, accounts staff, cleaners, fuellers, security staff, loaders you could not do your job... !

I do not want to cover the departure of a long in the tooth PIC who got board chasing destn wx (expereince told him "vis' improving and it was going up") he departed with min fuel when his destn, alt AND departure were all clamped in low vis... Temperature inversion as the sun rose and GUESS WHAT.. Low vis became FOG........ :uhoh::uhoh:

ATC was holding all traffic 75mls north of Destn... PIC hit the ground 100mls North of destn and incurred diversion fees, coaching fees, delays and and and... Yeah yeah he finally got to Destn later in the day, WHITE as sheet as he signed off...:mad:

He only does a "few sectors" per day...let those who do MANY MANY more on many many types help make your expereince a pleasent one.......

Best let to it go in this instance... "I'm in charge" was desperate for friends after this one.... :ouch:

TOGETHER then WE ALL MIGHT MAKE MONEY... I only say MIGHT as we all know it is the financial institutions/climate that dictates if a carrier will be successful. :D

Greedy T&C's and expectations on the other had, will kill any company it prevails in...:=

Aviation is capital intensive, high risk and subject operating cost vagaries it has no control over...
Best of all it has "end users" who do not like paying top dollar to use it...

Put that way, its lose lose..!!:sad::sad:

So its best if we keep the harmony and team working there... as it is the only way this fantastic industry will ever deliver the memories our retiring PIC now regale us with...

Landing Drinks... those (after all) were the days.......... ;););)

Oppps GMT -6hrs and its waffles n eggs here today... :)

[Avionero]

I agree. Such statements are the reason for the arrogant-smartass-impression some have within the industry.

I am not familiar with US-procedures. I just know, the dispatcher has to release the flight somehow. But why does he care how much fuel they eventually depart with as long as it´s euqal or more than MinBlock?

[groundbum]

in fact I was more worried by the first sentence of the first pilot report they quoted verbatim in the coloured box "with the fuel they gave me I had to declare min fuel"

it's the "they gave" bit. Surely a proper proud Captain, Lord and Master for all he/she is strapped to and flies would say "with the fuel I accepted" dah dah dah.

Small semantics maybe, but it would tell me that the captain that filed that report see's himself as a mere yoke twiddler who if he questions the big bad system gets a foot on his neck quick and bye bye next promotion, pension etc etc! That's scary, this submissive poor little me attitude!

Another mere semantic, but very important, was Captains dislike dispatchers asking "why do you want more fuel" but the dispatcher poster stated he asked this so he could understand the Captain's thought process better and learn from it so he could guide other crews later that day etc. So if the dispatcher said "to help me see things I might have missed could you help me understand why you want more fuel" then everybody is happy. Same words, more verbiage.

G

[VAFFPAX]

groundbum, exactly. :)

S.

[johnmhunt]

The suggestion that 1000kg of extra weight can result in 450 kg extra fuel burn is surely a typo. At airline cruise altitudes and speeds the induced drag (the drag resulting from and directly proportional to the pounds of lift required) is somewhat less than the parasitic drag. A 5% increase in total aircraft weight should therefore result in about 2% increase in fuel consumption to pay for the added load. There is also a very small cost increment to pay for the capital cost of the short term cost of the allegedly excessive investment for fuel.

[cwatters]

It sounds like this is verging on a strength of personality/CRM like issue in some cases?

[2Planks]

The Sandman - you beat me to it - thanks. If dontdoit and dogma are actually Professional Aviators I never want to fly with them on the days I don't have a share in my own destiny. Egos like that should have been flushed out by the CRM process years ago. I suspect, if real, that they spend a significant time of their airborne lives only 'one more hole in the cheese' away from being a smoking pile.

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

The posts here by well-meaning passengers are broadly similar to me appearing on a website for heart surgeons. I would then make clear and certain medical judgements on the basis that I have been anaesthetised previously and thereafter operated on by a number of excellent surgeons several times before in my life! In a nutshell, delighted as we are to have non-professionals observe our discussions, this is a subject that they are totally unqualified to participate in.

Regarding the words of SeniorDispatcher, they are most unfortunate and reveal a great deal about his/her misunderstanding as to their relative position to the Captain of the aircraft. There is no doubt that dispatchers are great people who know considerably more than most pilots on a whole host of ground-related matters in aviation. However, when it comes to fuel policy there is only one person who should be able to make that decision - that is the Captain of the aircraft.

I am aware that Dispatchers in the States have a career structure that simply does not exist to the same extent here in Europe. They do Universty-type courses that include all sorts of things like fuel planning which our dispatchers do not do. However, a new First Officer does the equivalent of that, but then has to do years as an apprentice before becoming a Captain himself and gaining the final authority to decide how much fuel is required on a particular day. Why is that? It is because the Captain will have many years' experience and is able to make the correct decision based on seeing numerous situations previously which have shaped his judgement of particular airports and weather conditions. No Dispatcher could ever have that experience and they are therefore not qualified in any way to decide how much fuel to load on an aircraft.

SeniorDispatcher's post should be a warning to everyone as to what would happen here in Europe if that same level of authority was given to a Dispatcher. To all those pax out there who think the Dispatchers are 'qualified' to decide fuel loads, just ask yourself this - when you next get taken into hospital to have your appendix taken out, would you feel happy if as you lay there, the doctors had to agree with the porter who has just wheeled you into the operating theatre how much anaesthetic you should have? I don't think so.

[BusyB]

I seem to remember from days of the BA "Sword" CFP it was understood to mean

Swiftest way of reaching Diversion

Shortest way of running dry

Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword
:}

[PAXboy]

Norman Stanley FletcherTo all those pax out there who think the Dispatchers are 'qualified' to decide fuel loadsSpeaking as the humble PAX wot I am ... I did not suggest for a second that a dispatcher is qualified to decide fuel loads! I thought that I had questioned why two people (appearing to be pilots) were so horribly dismissive of someone (appearing to be) a US based dispatcher?

Certainly there has been some k@k journalism and that was discussed in PPRuNe when this subject first aired in February. The post by SeniorDespatcher was read by this PAX as an explanation of the process and the way in which they aim to place default numbers in the boxes so that the pilots have a starting number, based on historical data. Nothing more than that. Yet, pilots in the thread have taken this as a grave insult and challenge to their authority.

I realise that I am treading on toes but only because I wonder why pilots want to stamp on the toes of a dispatcher?

[Bealzebub]

Fuel Cost

The suggestion that 1000kg of extra weight can result in 450 kg extra fuel burn is surely a typo. At airline cruise altitudes and speeds the induced drag (the drag resulting from and directly proportional to the pounds of lift required) is somewhat less than the parasitic drag. A 5% increase in total aircraft weight should therefore result in about 2% increase in fuel consumption to pay for the added load. There is also a very small cost increment to pay for the capital cost of the short term cost of the allegedly excessive investment for fuel.

It costs approximetaly 4% per hour to tanker fuel. Therefore if you are carrying an extra tonne of fuel for 11 hours, it will indeed consume about 44% of its own mass (440kg) simply to carry the extra.

[Pugilistic Animus]

PaxBoy: the dispatcher is responsible for creating a legal flight plan and the captain is responsible for assuring it is really legal---if for some reason the captain decides to take more fuel--[not always 'just for comfort'-but due other operational considerations] then NO one should question it---

Captains're mad at dispatcher---- for not realizing that the frequent delays at xxx airport due to xxx factor[s]---being legally responsible --- he doesn't want to or have to justify every pound of fuel he want to take over minimum--but in the interest of CRM he should share why with dispatch so that THEY LEARN---


Dispatchers're mad at the captain ----because he's gone through intensive training actually a little more involved in certain areas of theory than the atpl knowledge and practical test standards [a few more advisory circulars and topics] and the training is intense and very involved- so they do want their specialized bodies of knowledge respected by the captains---



and the two sides can't seem to see the others troubles---:ugh:

[Bealzebub]

To put this into perspective :

The Captain is the legal authority for the ultimate safe conduct of the flight. Any deficiencies would ultimately fall onto their shoulders. When they sign the various legal documents, such as the tech log, and the loadsheet, they do so acknowledging that they are satisfied the aircraft is fit to fly in respect of its technical state and loading at that point in time. That technical state and loading may well have devolved to other individuals and agencies, but the certification requires that the Captain (and they alone) must satisfy themselves that whoever has been involved, they are satisfied the aircraft can safely and properly dispatch in that condition.

In the execution of this process, the Captain (Commander) will have been provided with a whole raft of input : Flight planning computations; Weather forecasts; Notam information; Crew hour limitations; Aircraft servicibility reports; Load projections and content; ATC delays. On top of this they will have discussed most of these aspects with the First Officer, engineers, Senior Cabin crew, dispatchers, etc, as and where it is relevant and applicable.

As far as fuel dispatch is concerned. The information will have either been calculated by a computer programme, based on a set of variable inputs. From a dispatcher based on similar information and further real time information. Or manually from tables, and human computation. Whatever the method employed, the Captain has the authority, and indeed it is part of his legal mandate, to ensure that whatever adjustments that he considers necessary are applied. This may be a result of his experience, knowledge or simple gut feeling. If the company wish to question his decision, it is their right to do so, and normally they should be satisfied with the explanation given. If anybody else wishes to question the decision, they would be right do so in preventing an error or pointing out a possible error or deficiency. Provided such an error was not the issue, then the Captains decision would be final.

[buswind]

no, but you must give an explanation as to why you are requesting more fuel than required per flight plan.

[doubleu-anker]

Oh, you want an explanation.

OK, how about this one? Captains decision.

[Rick777]

I thought Senior Dispatcher gave a very good explaination of how things are done in the US. The dispatcher and the captain are jointly legally responsible for the safe operation of the flight. There is a little extra information to go with it though. The dispatcher often has detailed in for on winds that the captain doesn't have as well as a lot of computer processing power. At my airline at least either the dispatcher or the captain can add fuel unilaterally, but must get permission from the other to DECREASE fuel. The number the dispatcher enters is not just a default number, but is arrived at by some pretty complicated programs. I very seldom add fuel and the only time I have ever ran really low I thought I was starting out with a lot extra-a lot of things just went wrong on the same flight. Of course the captain always has the ultimate authority to do what he thinks best but he doesn't need to be a ass about it unless he has some serious self esteem issues like a few posters here seem to have.

[42psi]

Strikes me that the industry has sadly moved nearer the "jobsworth" it seems.


When I started out load planning/dispatching we didn't have them new fangled computer thingys yet and used a combination of checking the weather, tables and manual calcs to arrive at a fuel figure (and don't get me started on some of the new breed who can only punch in numbers with no actual understanding!!)

But .... we were very clear that the person who had the final say was the one that had to leave the ground.


It was also a matter of professional pride that we felt the job was done well when the Capt. agreed our fuel figure unchanged.

It was re-assuring that if we'd proposed max fuel or min fuel or whatever in between when that was agreed as suitable. Of course we knew we were right :rolleyes:... but corrobaration that we were both right (or wrong!) was always welcome.


But ..... the place for "challenging" the Capt's decision on fuel is not on the day, pre-flight etc.

I find that tone a tad disturbing really .... we worked as a team and decisions such as this were made in that spirit ... it's a sad day if the beancounters have created a possible tension were one did not exist...

[sevenstrokeroll]

Yes, we do things differently here in the USA. Dispatchers play an important part. As the captain, we check the fuel for our flight...we don't make up the flight plans anymore, we are too busy with a load of other crap. But we do check it and if we want more fuel we ask for additional fuel. IF SOMEONE WERE TO SAY NO, we could :

1. be a wimp and do what THEY tell us to do.

2. Say, get me the fuel or we will be delayed, while you try to find one of the above.

NOw there is pressure to use "min fuel". There has always been a payload tradeoff for fuel and a wise captain knows what to do.

Why has it come to the attention of the media now? Who cares why?

It is true. But it has also been done in the past. I recall the following conversation going into KSFO: Bay approach, American XXX, were min fuel for SFO.

Roger, say diversion airport?

You don't understand, were min fuel to SFO...we just don't want or can't tolerate any unneccessary delays.

Roger, You will be over the outer marker in SFO in 30 minutes, or you can be over the outer marker to OAKLAND airport in 5 minutes...its your choice. ARE YOU DECLARING A LOW FUEL EMERGENCY (this is different than min fuel)?

Negative, request vectors to Oakland.


Now, after they diverted to Oakland, refueled, got re released it took another 30 minutes to fly to SFO (straight line distance is less than 11 nautical miles).

Who was smart for taking "min fuel " that day?


Quite simply, every major airport in the USA has delays, even with the nicest weather and a pilot who doesn't take fuel to cover those delays is a chump.

Diverting, because you are trying to please your company dispatcher or bean counter is nuts.

rotsa ruck...even in perfect wx, hit the marker with all legal requirements, but if you aren't prepared to hold for an hour, you will end up using more fuel with a divert and you will piss off the passengers (what you europeans call SLF and what we call SIR)

[acmi48]

if its written clearly in the ops manual what the fuel policy is then the issue
would be between the respective individuals if a policy is not followed.

[40&80]

So you want to be a training Captain with GF?
Yes.
What do you know about the company fuel policy?
Well it is very very good and probably with a big insurance company like Norwich Union.
Welcome to the management team.

[Caudillo]

It costs approximetaly 4% per hour to tanker fuel. Therefore if you are carrying an extra tonne of fuel for 11 hours, it will indeed consume about 44% of its own mass (440kg) simply to carry the extra.

Going on that assumption of a 4% penalty per hour, at each hour, the extra ton would consume approx 36%/360kg rather than 44%/440kg.

You need to think of it like an interest rate, albeit, an inverse one. You assume your penalty percentage doesn't alter at any point. So given that your extra fuel is self consuming, this 4% is applicable to a decreasing load, giving a smaller absolute figure.

This idea may help explain the surprise you experience when opening your bank statements.

[Dogma]

A good Dispatcher is worth his weight in gold - but lets not pretend that Senior Red Cap will be in jail/grave for having neglected the conduct the flight in accordance with the telephone directory of Rules and Regs! Some of the more pompous dispatchers I have meet go on about my Flight... my PIC's.... my crew etc, these individuals actually have zero concept of the weight of the responsibility!

The Skipper / FO carry the can :{

[Landing Drinks]

DOGMA

"these individuals actually have zero concept of the weight of the responsibility!"

The Skipper / FO carry the can :{

Oh please... Where do you get this outdated, shallow tripe from.... it all sounds too much for you....
this is not the industry for you dear boy....

Headset, three screens each, a desk and paperwork of interest??, consessions, subsidised meals, free car parking and uniforms, share options..... Sound GOOD ?????











British Gas are recruiting... (Got to make it sound appealling)



Flying school by any chance ?, pay back time ??

Something happens as they cross the throttles from RHS to LHS...:mad:

[PositiveRate876]

Quote:
It costs approximetaly 4% per hour to tanker fuel. Therefore if you are carrying an extra tonne of fuel for 11 hours, it will indeed consume about 44% of its own mass (440kg) simply to carry the extra.
Going on that assumption of a 4% penalty per hour, at each hour, the extra ton would consume approx 36%/360kg rather than 44%/440kg.

You need to think of it like an interest rate, albeit, an inverse one. You assume your penalty percentage doesn't alter at any point. So given that your extra fuel is self consuming, this 4% is applicable to a decreasing load, giving a smaller absolute figure.

This idea may help explain the surprise you experience when opening your bank statements.


I don't know what percentage this comes out to, but this is straight from a flight plan of my flight last month...

FLIGHT TIME.......................................13:10
Fuel to Carry an additional 1000kgs.........563kgs

[joehunt]

Actually you got me thinking, with that one.

I am looking to do a brown nose job with my company, as it is time for another.

If I carried 1000kgs less than flight plan, would I make a half a ton of fuel for the company and keep the accountants happy?:}

[VortexGen300]

Hi

The accountant's happiness might be short lived - as the excess on the insurance payment might be more than what he saved?

The pax and your family might also not be too happy as you might either be on permanent leave without any pay - or doing time in "pearly gates" - as for the pax either sueing the air line or with you in the "pearly gates".

Mind you there (in pearly gates) we would no longer be argueing this issue?


VG300

[BOAC]

Re the penalty for 'extra' fuel - everyone seems to be getting hung up on the percentage figure. For example, I am used to 3.5% for 737 Ng and 4.5% for the Classic, per hour per Tonne. Although pretty reliable, these are GUIDELINE figures to help me to assess the effect of loading extra, and do not relate DIRECTLY to the increased fuel burn for the higher weight, but also 'allow' (approximately) for the fact that I may not achieve the flight planned levels at the higher weights and will therefore burn even 'more'. "4% p/h p/T" helps me to plan to arrive with 1000kg 'extra' after a 4 hour flight, by uplifting 1200kg extra. It also allows me to assess the efficacy of tankering fuel and to try to ensure I am not over MLM on arrival:ouch:

For 'Bealzebub' - It costs approximetaly 4% per hour to tanker fuel. - we'll all be a bit stuck when aviation gets to do 25+ hour legs....:). Will that mean we should take less than FP fuel? How did Dick and Jeana get round the world in the Rutan (216 hours)? Answers on the back of a fag packet.

[OntimeexceptACARS]

I can only post as former dispatcher. I have an honours degree, a management diploma, and a reasonably level head. I worked for a couple of years as a dispatcher in the UK, initially as a stepping stone to another career, but liked it a lot, so stayed a couple of years.

I met plenty of really good, professional but friendly folks up front, and a fair number of £$%$holes along the way. The good ones valued my input, however small, my aim being to send them away on time or early, safely, and hopefully with a smile.

Sadly, Dogma's (and the other poster around the same time) initial comments reminded me of the "I'm better than you" brigade. Even a turnround co-ordinator (rather than a US-style dispatcher) contributes to a team effort on the ground. Being able to magic up a GPU, or the unaccompanied bag of the missing passenger was something I regularly aimed for, but treating fellow team members as something on your shoe was something I rarely tolerated. Despite my lowly payscale, a quick "listen sunshine, pretend for a moment I am a human being trying to help you" often worked wonders......

[sevenstrokeroll]

the 4 percent figure per hour got me thinking. for you ultra long haul boys, this becomes a huge figure.

Coming from a background of things like Boston to New York and how much a passenger, who could take a train or drive this distance, would be annoyed at diverting to a different airport, it is all a matter of perspective.

Ultra long haul flights should probably be given a priority to save the fuel cost, while short range flights must carry more fuel to save pax problems.

[Dogma]

OntimeexceptACARS - I think we would have got along fine... its all about team work... the Skipper is the leader of the team. I can't imagine Pilots off loading Cargo for fuel unless it was necessary, on the flip side tankering up to the gunnels when LDA limited!

Hats off to all the talents of the Red Cap :ok:

[imaryan]

I am an ERJ 145 CA for a US regional. My company normally files us with min fuel plus 500lbs ( thats about 15 minutes worth). I am allowed to take 1000lbs extra, IF it does not affect payload. On ERJ if you are full (48-50) pax you will have to bump passengers and bags to get that extra fuel. You have to get PERMISSION from dispatcher to do that. You will get called in to explain why did you bump passengers when flight plan showed legally acceptable fuel load. Predicted delay or weather expected at destination, is dismissed as a good reason because thats the acceptable legal fuel no mater what.. They would rather you divert then bump a passenger. Their research shows it is much cheaper to do thing that way. Make no mistake flying with a minimum legal fuel is the policy at a lot of regional carriers.:ugh:

[sevenstrokeroll]

so erj's burn about two thousand pounds an hour?

I understand the plight of the modern transport pilot.

delays mean you need 3 hours of fuel for a 45 mn flt.

but you will really only get 2 hours if you are lucky.

round and round she goes, where she stops nobody knows.

[Old Fella]

From my point of view, having flown with far too many different Captains to recall, it seems that the initial responses made by "Dogma" and "dontdoit" to the post of "Senior Dispatcher" were what I would expect from the minority of Captains with "overblown opinions of themselves" with whom I flew.

From a dispassionate standpoint, everything "Senior Dispatcher" had to offer was reasonable and to be dismissed as "nothing more than an overrated loadmaster" was unfair. The comment that "I'm the Captain and when I say jump, you ask how high?" says it all. Prick your balloons fella's, before someone else pricks them for you. :=

[airsupport]

I have been reading this thread with interest, and although not a Pilot or a Dispatcher, from my 40 something years in the Industry Worldwide I just cannot believe any Pilot would be forced to fly with low fuel.

Some years ago now while working a contract we had a Base Manager who did all the functions of a Dispatcher (as well as other things), a new Base Manager arrived during the contract and almost as soon as he arrived on base he tried to cut back on the Pilots taking more fuel than necessary by his flight plans, as Base Engineering Manager he showed me the letter he was putting out to all the Pilots telling them they were to only carry fuel as per his flight plans.

After I could bring myself to stop laughing, he asked me what was wrong, and I just told him you will see.

As I knew would happen, after they read the letter ALL of the Captains took a lot more fuel than needed every flight, until finally the letter was withdrawn.

Over my career I have even had "input" into how much fuel we have needed on a certain flight, but the final figure is ALWAYS up to the Captain.

[doubleu-anker]

Just pricked myself.

There I go on my toes. Do you think I am one of those?:suspect:

[Old Fella]

"doubleu-anker". If you wish to put yourself in the same category as "Dogma" and "dontdoit" in terms of self esteem, go for it. My point was that some Captains are so full of their own importance they should be flying alone. "SeniorDispatcher" made the mistake of calling his company PIC's "his PIC's" and immediately got those with overgrown ego's so puffed up they need to be pricked.

Get a grip mate, no one questions that the PIC has the last say, it is just nice that most understand that they are just another part of the overall team.

[FullWings]

I think the problem is that the title of the thread is somewhat alarmist. In this context "low fuel" means "less than I would take if I owned the company".

If you're operating under JAR (and other schemes), then there will be a legal minimum fuel that will allow you to taxi out, take off, cruise, descend, hold for a short while at your destination (if you haven't used that fuel for something else), shoot an approach, go-around, divert to your alternate and arrive with 30mins fuel left. This is regarded as "safe" in most aviation circles. It is not necessarily the most prudent thing to do in all circumstances, especially if there are likely to be delays or the weather is poor; taking minimum fuel, however, is not "unsafe", it just means that the decision to divert, etc. has to be taken earlier.

If you regularly fly to an airport that often has inbound delays that exceed your capacity to absorb, then you'll be diverting a lot and your passengers won't like you. It's not unsafe it's uncommercial. The same could be said of loading large quantities of extra fuel for no good reason.

[ssg]

Are there airliners out there flying on fumes - Yes

I talked to a Continental captain that was told to take on the minimum amount of fuel, the idea being that carrying a little extra fuel for safety to altitude, cost's money. He cited and example of an airliner flying from Florida to Texas that had to land in New Orleans because he made a couple of turns around some thunderstorms, ran low on fuel and couldn't continue the trip.

Unnacceptable.

First of all, I would be really concerned about what the airliners consider proper reserves. Under IFR conditions, enough fuel to get to the destination, shoot an approach, a couple of turns in a hold, at the lower altitude, then climb enroute, fly to alternate, shoot an approach, is considered pretty safe, but a minimum. + 45 minutes..

Some would interpret the rule, to make weight and balance, and carry less fuel that it might mean, fly to the distination at the highest alt, long range fuel setting, not ever go down, fly right to alternate, stay at alt and long range fuel setting for 45 minutes, drop down at the last second...much less fuel required in second scenario.

It get's worse....taking off over gross, burning more fuel to move a heavier aircraft, fudging these numbers a little on the short side, not ever flying at the high alt, or with the reduced power setting...now the captain is on fumes.

Worse case scenario are captains that fly around on such low fuel, that any little itty bitty glitch, like flying 35 miles around a thunderstorm diverts the aricraft to an alternate.

Strong or weak captains aside, this situation is unnacceptable, because I guarantee if there is no built in fudge factor tward safety, everyone on the ragged edge, it will only take on plane a little heavier then calculated, a little weather, a weak crew that didn't do propper exact planning, an incompetent dispatcher, ect ect.

And for what? No one is talking about taking extra fuel, but enough that is legaly required, which is enough...so IF airliners are flying around on fumes, they didn't take the legaly required amount of fuel.

The arguments can be made...'well gee, they made us stay low' 'Gosh, we had to fly around thunderstorms' ...yeah?....for two hours?

Personaly, I think this is a way for management to force the union into believing they are doing everything they can to cut costs...like taking the pillows off the Delta planes...silly.

[Ashling]

I regularly fly to the legal minima and certainly am not on "fumes". In 4 years of commercial flying and some 1800 sectors I have landed below CNR (final reserve plus alternate fuel) once, thats about 0.055%, and not yet come close to needing to divert for fuel reasons.

If I judge circumstances require it I will carry extra fuel.

If I judge it is safe to do so I will reduce my trip fuel to take into account a shorter taxi/departure/arrival (company plans assume longest taxi/deparure/arrival)

I am a professional commercial pilot. Safety underscores everything but I do have a professional responsibility to think commercialy as well. If you need to do not be afraid to carry extra but do it thoughtfully for good reason. If you have a legitimate reason for carrying extra and someone puts you under pressure not to then tell them were to go but if you are in the habit of carrying extra for no real reason do not be surprised if your brought to book about it.

While my company encourages me to carry plan fuel they also make it clear I should carry more when it is needed and I have never once felt any pressure from management not to and have never had a fuel decision questioned. They also accept that sometimes the unexpected does happen and very occasionaly a crew will divert due to fuel. They have committed to supporting the crew and applying a no fault policy in this case.

If you find yourself in a company that does apply undue pressure then I would suggest your best course of action as a professional pilot is to leave that company having reported them to the regulator.

[airsupport]

There is a very old saying (something like), the ONLY time you can have too much fuel on board is if the Aircraft is on fire.

[Old Fella]

Just like "Fuel in the ground is as useful as runway behind you" :ok:

[Babybus Driver]

My favourite is "T/O's are optional .... landings are mandatory".

[Iwasoneonce]

airsupport

air, air, air to that!

3 most useless thing to an aviator.

-Altitude above

-Runway behind

-Fuel in the truck.

:}

[mfds]

On a LH sector carrying extra does cost a lot of money ...

ie. On my 744 if I take say an extra 5000Kg (30mins of fuel) I will only be left with about 3000Kg at desitination .. ie. I will burn 2000Kg just to carry that fuel.

One has to be pragmatic ...

If I can see clear justification for carrying extra, ie. WX/ATC delays/WIP/LVP's etc I will have NO hesitation in loading up an extra 5000-10000 Tonnes ..

What I often see is people for no reason at all decide to carry extra with no valid reason ...

PS: I am not management!

[llondel]

If I can see clear justification for carrying extra, ie. WX/ATC delays/WIP/LVP's etc I will have NO hesitation in loading up an extra 5000-10000 Tonnes ..

Now that's an impressive amount of fuel... :}

[mfds]

Now that's an impressive amount of fuel...

Not really on a 744 that burns 10,000Kg an hour!

Taking 10,000Kg on say a 10hr sector will only give 40 mins worth extra at destination.

[FLCH]

I think theres an itsy bit of difference between kgs and tonnes...:ok:

[sevenstrokeroll]

well, that's the rub:

the weather conditions in the continental USA are interesting. Fly from the cool New England area to Florida and on that day face delays for icing, or fog, in the north and thunderstorms in the south.

fly to New York/Newark and delays abound.

IT IS THE RARE day that everything is just beautiful and min fuel makes sense.

while dispatchers might look at forecasts, the pilot who has been there and done that should take extra fuel when he thinks it will help.

There was an article just the other day in USAToday saying that the average flight time in the US for domestic flights is the slowest in 20 years.

At one time it was faster to take the Lockheed Electra (turboprop of the late 50's/early 60's) from New York to Miami than a 757 today. Delays have eaten up the pure jet advantage in speed.

I think about 12 days a year on the eastern seabord "min" fuel works. end of september early october.

[Kelly Smunt]

Never a problem at BA carrying extra gas.On the 744 I take as much as I want when I want.Never had so much as a phone call.

[planoramix]

At planning stage for an 11 hours flight into LHR vs one into FCO my consideration are different.
I don't agree with those that, although having very accurate flight plan fuel performace, will add two tons as a start and than add some more for possible extra holding in LHR.
To FCO the flight plan minimum praticaly always makes us land with all the contingency still on board (B767 about 2.5 tons).
To LHR with the above consideration I usually add an extra 15 minutes holding for arrival at peak hours. As said I want holding time so working backward I come out with an additional fuel figure.
The fuel figure must be considered as Flying time for the actual conditions not just as more fuel to feel safer.
If case comes and additional delays is given I will have to reasses the situation and check the possibility of meeting the new EAT or decide to divert.

Thanks to SeniorDispatcher for his post, its nice to have good team work with one's own OCC.

[40&80]

Does your min fuel computer flight plan include 20mins fuel for (no delays) at LHR? or does this 20mins come out of your contingency fuel?

[airsupport]

Another old saying that would seem appropriate here........

There are lots of old Pilots, and there are lots of bold Pilots, but there are very few old bold Pilots.

Please be careful, one of the many Lives you may save by being conservative might be MINE. :ok:

[Pugilistic Animus]

Many excellent points made here on this topic---let's not forget

the US has some of the most horrible wx in the world ---super cells/ tornadoes every thing conceivable

[FullWings]

I would put forward that the real issue is not how much fuel you take to start with, it's what you plan for and do when it's running out.

Anyone can take another 'x' tonnes for mum/dog/whatever - no skill involved there - but the professionals make a reasoned judgement using their experience and technical knowledge. Sometimes that may involve filling all the tanks; sometimes just a bit more: for the rest of the time they may take min. fuel. At least *some* thinking has gone on.

There comes a time in every pilot's career when, despite their best efforts, the fuel state progresses inexorably towards the "low" area. It doesn't matter how much you started with: events have conspired to make you use it and you are approaching the point where decisive management will be required. To be effective in this scenario you need to have options and to have worked out how you are going to fall back from one to the next; this requires (again) good technical ability, planning, CRM, distraction management, etc.

It's not always (easily) possible to add more fuel. You may be operating out of a performance restricted airfield, or on an ULH sector where you are up against aircraft limits. You might have to offload passengers and/or freight to get more gas on; the commercial disadvantages of carrying extra fuel are very plain to see at that point.

As professional aviators we are expected to use good judgement in safety related areas but also in commercial ones. Carrying large excesses of fuel around the sky does not do much for safety but has a big impact on economics, so I don't see a great conflict between the two requirements. As far as the old adage about never having too much fuel unless you're on fire, I would add RTOs, engine failures and contaminated runways to the list for starters...

[hannibal lector]

When on the ground we are in charge of your plane

[mfds]

Fullwings - Well said ...

What hasnt been talked about here is the legal (certainly under JAR rules) to commit to land at destination using your diversion fuel for holding purposes.

Thats a very grey area .. some companies are expecting crews to comitt to absorb delays and not carry fuel to cover known/expected holding ...

[SeniorDispatcher]

To be brutally honest, I’m quite disappointed at some of the responses I’ve seen here to my post #6, both from the standpoint of accuracy and personal viciousness. Irrespective of whatever side of the Pond we’re on, I had expected a certain level of professionalism and decorum from those working within airline aviation, and in some cases, it’s quite obvious that I’ve expected too much. To those of you that have actually taken the time to read and understand the nature of my posts and respond (versus react), you have my thanks.

Before I go any further, and for the benefit of those still comprehension-impaired, let me again state (even more clearly) that “DISPATCHERS” IN US FAR PART 121 DOMESTIC/FLAG AIRLINE OPERATIONS ARE NOT THE SAME AS “DISPATCHERS” IN UK CAA AIRLINE OPERATIONS, AS FAR AS TRAINING, CERTIFICATION, DUTIES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES ARE CONCERNED. If you’re in the UK passing judgment(s) on what a US dispatcher is responsible for based solely upon your own knowledge of what a UK dispatcher is/does, your opinion (while still your opinion) is not exactly an informed one, absent your personally having flown in a US FAR Part 121 Domestic/Flag operation yourself. Note that I said Part 121 Domestic/Flag—121 Supplemental is another animal entire.

A few other comments:

They are my passengers (and crew too).

If my name is on the paperwork, you can be damn sure that I have a vested interest in playing my part in getting them from A to B in one piece. I still have a hard time believing that anyone could so petty to even raise this as an issue, or is so self-absorbed so as to not realize (their super-pilot capabilities aside) that airline operations are a team-effort.

I should have worked harder in school, (presumably to have a “real” career like being a real he-man airline pilot).

Not that it’s anyone’s business, but an early but chronic health issue made it impossible to have eventually qualified for/retained a FAA Class-I medical certificate, so it’s not for a lack of intelligence, drive, or motivation that I’ve ended up where I am, as you seem to assume. It’s kind of ironic, but one PIC I knew who suddenly was sans Class-I due to being dealt a hand health-wise afterwards got his FAA dispatcher’s license. Prior to the change in his health, he was about as anti-dispatch as they came, and it’s “funny” how his perspective changed once on the other side of things. As a PIC, he was the master of his own bubble, and once a dispatcher, he quickly learned that there were multiple bubbles, and that he had to take a more systemic view of things.

The captain is in charge..

In fact, the entire post was stating that the Captain is in charge and making it clear that those in planning and Ops are supporting the Captain to take as much or as little fuel as they like!!!

The article is clear in pointing out that the PIC has ultimate authority, but that that does not mean the dispatcher can't query the request for extra fuel. Dispatch cannot overrule the PIC, but they can question the need for extra fuel.

Again keeping in mind that we’re talking US FAA regs and not UK CAA regs, the original TV station story from February “sweeps” was incorrect in its assessment of what the US FAA regs say. I’m sure that they may well have just been parroting what the AAL pilots where pushing in support of their own actual agenda, but I’m of the opinion that these pilots are (Gasp!) also wrong in their assessments.

Every pilot starting the basic FAA training process here quickly learns what FAR 91.3 is:

§ 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.

If you’re flying your own personal airplane, this is the applicable FAR. Now, does that same 91.3 apply if you’re PIC of XYZ Airlines’ Boeing 737? There are plenty of airline pilots that default to that position, but since Part 121 ops entail a higher standard of care than do Part 91 ops, they might want to look at 121.533: [My emphasis]

§ 121.533 Responsibility for operational control: Domestic operations.
(a) Each certificate holder conducting domestic operations is responsible for operational control.
(b) The pilot in command and the aircraft dispatcher are jointly responsible for the preflight planning, delay, and dispatch release of a flight in compliance with this chapter and operations specifications.
(c) The aircraft dispatcher is responsible for—
(1) Monitoring the progress of each flight;
(2) Issuing necessary information for the safety of the flight; and
(3) Cancelling or redispatching a flight if, in his opinion or the opinion of the pilot in command, the flight cannot operate or continue to operate safely as planned or released.
(d) Each pilot in command of an aircraft is, during flight time, in command of the aircraft and crew and is responsible for the safety of the passengers, crewmembers, cargo, and airplane.
(e) Each pilot in command has full control and authority in the operation of the aircraft, without limitation, over other crewmembers and their duties during flight time, whether or not he holds valid certificates authorizing him to perform the duties of those crewmembers.

(In case anyone is wondering about the term “operational control”, FAR 1.1 defines it as, with respect to a flight, means the exercise of authority over initiating, conducting or terminating a flight.)

Thus, legally, the PIC doesn’t have sole ultimate authority as far as how much fuel gets loaded—that’s a joint preflight decision between PIC and dispatcher. Everyone seems to be fixating on the situation where the dispatcher wants X fuel and the PIC wants X plus more, but there are plenty of times where the opposite is true, i.e. the dispatcher wants X fuel and the PIC wants X minus some. Irrespective of whomever it is that wants more, these kinds of disagreements are handled via discussion and compromise. Rarely do I object to a PICs wanting more than the minimum I have on the dispatch release paperwork. That said, I do want to know the PIC’s rationale, since if it’s indeed valid (something that I maybe overlooked) I need to know about it so I can apply the info to the other flights I have operating over that same area. There are some cases where the PIC wants a huge amount (4,000+ lbs. more), and often the reason is more PIC personal comfort level, or “I diverted last week/month/year”. Back in the 1960s when Jet-A was pennies per gallon, hauling “comfort” fuel wasn’t a big deal economy-wise. It costs fuel to carry the weight of that 4,000 lbs. and using 5% to also consider the variable of stage length, 5% of 4,000 lbs. is 250 lbs, divided by 6.7 (lbs. to gallon conversion) equals 37.3 gallons, which at $3.50 a gallon is $130.55. While $130.55 might not seem like much, it can quickly add-up when one considers multiple flights doing the same thing. I’d bet that if the Company started billing the PICs for financial costs of hauling this kind of comfort gas around, PICs would quickly start getting “comfortable” about our fuel loads. (Not advocating that management do so, mind you, just observing that what’s “reasonable” is often colored by “who’s paying for it.”

Dogma and dontdoit - re: your highly imperious and dismissive comments to the dispatcher who was simply casting some very reasonable light on what seems to be a possibly overblown journo's story - unless you are trying a wind up, you are both wayyy out of line and in any event simply provide traction to the likes of MOL in getting a toe in the door with public opinion regards pilot "prima donnas". You've just reinforced his (or any other like-minded management's) position in the eyes of any non-aviation types reading your ridiculously irresponsible and possibly intentionally inflammatory posts.

The Sandman - you beat me to it - thanks. If dontdoit and dogma are actually Professional Aviators I never want to fly with them on the days I don't have a share in my own destiny. Egos like that should have been flushed out by the CRM process years ago. I suspect, if real, that they spend a significant time of their airborne lives only 'one more hole in the cheese' away from being a smoking pile.

Thanks, Gentlemen… ;)

Regarding the words of SeniorDispatcher, they are most unfortunate and reveal a great deal about his/her misunderstanding as to their relative position to the Captain of the aircraft. There is no doubt that dispatchers are great people who know considerably more than most pilots on a whole host of ground-related matters in aviation. However, when it comes to fuel policy there is only one person who should be able to make that decision - that is the Captain of the aircraft.

If you’re referring to the situation on this side of the Pond with US FARs, I’m afraid the misunderstandings are clearly yours. If you’re basing any of your opinion on what I’ve stated based upon UK CAA regs, your misunderstanding is even greater. Please refer to the paragraph I wrote (in ALL CAPS) earlier.

Why is that? It is because the Captain will have many years' experience and is able to make the correct decision based on seeing numerous situations previously which have shaped his judgment of particular airports and weather conditions. No Dispatcher could ever have that experience and they are therefore not qualified in any way to decide how much fuel to load on an aircraft.

What your self-serving conclusion fails to consider is that a dispatcher may commonly dispatch and monitor anywhere from 40-80 trip segments per shift, while you may only be flying 4-8 during your day. Because of the centralized nature of a dispatch office, the dispatchers are accumulating experience in a different way, and at a different rate that you’re even aware of. Are dispatchers perfect? Certainly not, just like there are imperfect pilots out there. We learn by experience just as you do, and senior dispatchers mentor newbies just like PICs mentor F/Os. I trust that you’re familiar with that concept.

SeniorDispatcher's post should be a warning to everyone as to what would happen here in Europe if that same level of authority was given to a Dispatcher.

Over on your side of the Pond, I think that would be the Flight Operations Officer (FOO), and not the “dispatcher” (as known in the UK). What kind of thing might result? Less rogue behavior on the part of some PICs, and prevention of Hapag-Lloyd 3378 type fuel starvations. Think that’s a stretch? I know of a couple of similar incidents that involved abnormal airframe configurations during which the PICs advised that they could continue due to their FMC indicating ample fuel on arrival. Their dispatchers had to be the ones to break it to the PICs that FMC fuel calculations were to be disregarded as clearly stated in the QRH. Had the two dispatchers not been “there” to let them know? It’s not just mechanical issues either. Happen to recall the 1990 Avianca fuel starvation inbound into JFK? Before you cite ATC or language difficulties, check out NTSB’s list of contributing factors, and the order of their listing. For those paying attention, Avianca was a flight under Part 129, and not a Part 121 flight.

Yet, pilots in the thread have taken this as a grave insult and challenge to their authority.

I realise that I am treading on toes but only because I wonder why pilots want to stamp on the toes of a dispatcher?

It’s quite the case in human nature that people fear that they don’t understand, or mistakenly assume to be a threat. Another common misconception, already cited, is that dispatchers are all some kind of frustrated pilot wannabes. Operational control (as defined earlier) isn’t about PICs asking “Mother, may I?” every time they need to deviate 10 degrees left for weather, but it does involve coordinating decisionmaking on certain other items as a reality check. Conceptually, it’s no different that having two missile launch keys on a nuclear missile sub.

I thought Senior Dispatcher gave a very good explanation of how things are done in the US. The dispatcher and the captain are jointly legally responsible for the safe operation of the flight. There is a little extra information to go with it though. The dispatcher often has detailed in for on winds that the captain doesn't have as well as a lot of computer processing power. At my airline at least either the dispatcher or the captain can add fuel unilaterally, but must get permission from the other to DECREASE fuel. The number the dispatcher enters is not just a default number, but is arrived at by some pretty complicated programs. I very seldom add fuel and the only time I have ever ran really low I thought I was starting out with a lot extra-a lot of things just went wrong on the same flight. Of course the captain always has the ultimate authority to do what he thinks best but he doesn't need to be an ass about it unless he has some serious self esteem issues like a few posters here seem to have.

Thanks, Rick777, and I’ll agree with everything you’ve said with the exception of “ultimate authority” citation whilst on the ground. Even the air, 151.557 and 121.627(a) complement each other.

A good Dispatcher is worth his weight in gold - but lets not pretend that Senior Red Cap will be in jail/grave for having neglected the conduct the flight in accordance with the telephone directory of Rules and Regs! Some of the more pompous dispatchers I have meet go on about my Flight... my PIC's.... my crew etc, these individuals actually have zero concept of the weight of the responsibility!

With all due respect, I’m sorry my Karma ran over your Dogma. The “weight of the responsibility” is already known, and will manifest itself in full measure during an ensuing crash investigation and civil litigation—something a crew will miss since they’ll have been at the vey bottom of the impact crater.

Oh please... Where do you get this outdated, shallow tripe from.... it all sounds too much for you.... this is not the industry for you dear boy....

Headset, three screens each, a desk and paperwork of interest??, consessions, subsidised meals, free car parking and uniforms, share options..... Sound GOOD ?????

Plus, the ability to spend each night at home, in my own bed, with my spouse (and going a long way to avoid the dreaded airline induced divorce syndrome), not to mention avoiding the adverse effects of jet lag and other nastiness to the body’s natural rhythms.

I met plenty of really good, professional but friendly folks up front, and a fair number of £$%$holes along the way. The good ones valued my input, however small, my aim being to send them away on time or early, safely, and hopefully with a smile.

Sadly, Dogma's (and the other poster around the same time) initial comments reminded me of the "I'm better than you" brigade. Even a turnround co-ordinator (rather than a US-style dispatcher) contributes to a team effort on the ground. Being able to magic up a GPU, or the unaccompanied bag of the missing passenger was something I regularly aimed for, but treating fellow team members as something on your shoe was something I rarely tolerated. Despite my lowly payscale, a quick "listen sunshine, pretend for a moment I am a human being trying to help you" often worked wonders......

My complements on your surviving, and again highlighting the wisdom of that time-tested “Golden Rule.” In fairness, there are “alpha hotel” types within any employee population, my profession included. They’re as obvious as an isolated CB, and just as easily circumnavigated.

[Bealzebub]

your opinion was that :

Thus, legally, the PIC doesn’t have sole ultimate authority as far as how much fuel gets loaded—that’s a joint preflight decision between PIC and dispatcher.

However, § 121.533
The pilot in command and the aircraft dispatcher are jointly responsible for the preflight planning, delay, and dispatch release of a flight in compliance with this chapter and operations specifications
And, § 91.3
The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

Your own evidence clearly shows that whilst the Captain and the dispatcher are jointly reponsible for the planning etc. The Captain (PIC) Does indeed have ultimate sole authority.

[SeniorDispatcher]

Your own evidence clearly shows that whilst the Captain and the dispatcher are jointly reponsible for the planning etc. The Captain (PIC) Does indeed have ultimate sole authority.

It does when you selectively quote stuff like you have.

Let's try it again from the top.

FAR 91.3 applies (initially) to all PICs, since Part 91 is the first Part of the FARs that they operate in.

Once the PIC is no longer operating his personal aircraft under Part 91, and is acting as PIC on XYZ Airlines' 737, he's then operating under Part 121.533, which clearly deliniates the preflight stuff from the post-takeof stuff.

In other words, 91.3 has no bearing on a Part 121 airline operation, since FAR Part 121 has a more detailed and more refined version of the 91.3 version that reflects the higher standard of care nature with Part 121 ops, and the other individuals involved, in this case, the dispatcher. Some Part 91 regs do indeed apply to Part 121 ops (91.13 "Careless and Reckless" comes to mind), but 91.3 is not one of them.

Nor is the PIC necessarily the sole honcho when it comes to an emergency. Many PICs can cite 121.557, but they tend to stop at 121.557(a), without reading 121.557(b). Of those that make it to 121.557(b), some interpret that as stating the dispatcher can't independently declare an emergency unless it's a "NORDO" situation, which is, or course, incorrect.

[Bealzebub]

My apologies, I was simply using the selectively quoted paragraphs that you were using to advocate your argument.

Having read part 121 sections 557 a,b,and c, I cannot see the relevance in regard to the PIC's ultimate authority, which is not diminished or abrogated by any of the three sub sections ?


In other words, 91.3 has no bearing on a Part 121 airline operation, since FAR Part 121 has a more detailed and more refined version of the 91.3 version that reflects the higher standard of care nature with Part 121 ops, and the other individuals involved, in this case, the dispatcher. Some Part 91 regs do indeed apply to Part 121 ops (91.13 "Careless and Reckless" comes to mind), but 91.3 is not one of them.

What reference do you rely on for this statement ? In other words where is this stated ? The additional part 121 sections provide for the additional considerations of public transport operations, however they do not appear to redefine part 91.3.

[kingoftheslipstream]

journalistic muckracking at it's lowest... what a pile of crap. Dispatch does tha flight plan at the carrier I'm with, there's no way there's any interference with the FINAL fuel decision which is always the Captains. Heck, there's even a little place on our flight plans to tick off the reason you carried a bit 'a extra fuel: Weather, MEL, tankering an' so forth.

I reckon' this journalist person's runnin' on cerebral fumes hisself... that's were the shortage is!

[AMF]

SeniorDispatcher
Before I go any further, and for the benefit of those still comprehension-impaired, let me again state (even more clearly) that “DISPATCHERS” IN US FAR PART 121 DOMESTIC/FLAG AIRLINE OPERATIONS ARE NOT THE SAME AS “DISPATCHERS” IN UK CAA AIRLINE OPERATIONS, AS FAR AS TRAINING, CERTIFICATION, DUTIES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES ARE CONCERNED. If you’re in the UK passing judgment(s) on what a US dispatcher is responsible for based solely upon your own knowledge of what a UK dispatcher is/does, your opinion (while still your opinion) is not exactly an informed one, absent your personally having flown in a US FAR Part 121 Domestic/Flag operation yourself.

Nice post SD, explaining the regulatory differences. I surely hope the self-serving Egomaniacs masquerading as professional pilots who think they've been beknighted with a position that places them above all reproach or questioning stay on their side of the pond while they're aviating, preferably flying Point A to B between 2 little remote burgs where the weather is 99%benign. Say, Manchsester to Frankfurt.

[VortexGen300]

I have read many an accident report especially on accidents where fuel starvation was an issue and I have yet to find a conclusion where the dispatcher was pointed as the one that failed?

It usually reads: (my own words)

"The failure of the pilot in command to verify that enough fuel for the trip was loaded"

"The mismanagement or failure to manage the fuel on board by the pilot in command"

Further more I have yet to find a accident report where it says:

"The dispatcher failed to ......" except where ground crews failed to follow requests / instructions?

The training of pilots always teaches: "The pilot in command is responsible for the safe conduct of the flight" Further more it will also say that: "The pilot in command can delegate duties to qualified persons" -

My interpretation of "delegate" is they get others to do it (flight planning etc . . .) but he is ultimate responsible -

Hey if senior dispatcher is correct with the inerpretation of the FAR's then the Yanks found a way for the PIC to side step this responsibility and have the dispatcher take it - maybe it is not so bad on the other side of the ocean - but on second thoughts - NO I ll stay where I am.

Stirred?
VG300

[AMF]

VortexGen300 PIC or Dispatcher?

Hey if senior dispatcher is correct with the inerpretation of the FAR's then the Yanks found a way for the PIC to side step this responsibility and have the dispatcher take it - maybe it is not so bad on the other side of the ocean - but on second thoughts - NO I ll stay where I am.

Stirred?
VG300

SD is correct, and you're just another one who's missed the exceedingly obvious point and purpose. The PIC's responsibility under Part 121 air carrier ops is NOT diminished just because a certificated Dispatcher shares the same one as part of operational control. If you don't understand what operational control means....and it has a specific meaning under the FARs...then go back and learn it if you don't want to sound like you're just "supposing" things. It's not a divided responsibility..Responsibility isnt a Pie the regs are cutting in half... it's a JOINT responsibility...The regs bake 2 equally large Responsibility Pies. Nobody is "side-stepping responsibility". On the contrary, the Part 121 FAR's put 2 people in the crosshairs, thus forcing each to check the others' decision and if need be, discuss differences and for that flight to go, both sign off on an agreed plan.

For instance, a pilot shows up for a flight and get a flight plan re-routing him away from a developing line of weather and reported turbulence or air traffic saturation that the Dispatcher has been watching all day long. The Dispatcher has been tied in with ATCC via telephone with ATC regarding expected delays or possible ground stops. The pilot sees the fuel and routing and wonders WTF. Maybe the pilot is the kind of pilot that glances at the paperwork with no benefit of watching the situation all day or his weak point is weather forecasting and thinks "oh that's over-reacting we can pick our way through that line of weather no problem I don't want to go that long-a$$ way around until I know I have to.". The regulations, by virtue of saddling BOTH pilot and Dispatcher with the responsibilty to sign off on the plan, in this case force the pilot to query the Dispatcher and thus become more enlightened on the larger-picture, dynamic factors affecting his flight.

On your side of the pond then, I guess the pilot alone should decide to do whatever the he11 he wants. You'd think that paying passengers would deserve better oversight.

[42psi]

Wow ... some testosterone being thrown around here.. :eek:


Having "been there,done that" I'd just like to point out that Europe does indeed have it's share of capable Dispatchers ... I'd like to think I was once one ..... but I am of the view that this has been eroded with attempts at cost cutting :(

From the description of the US role there is no difference.... although given that most flight plans are "stored plans" it's often more about ammending/re-filing.

But all the rest was the same when I did it. Although this was station based and not central planing so we handled our own a/c through from pre-planning to actual "dispatch" of the aircraft.

However, we didn't see it as us/them pilot/dispatcher .. we were a team the politely co-existed and each carried out their duties.

The planner/dispatcher calculated fuel/flight plan requirements in advance and these were agreed with Captain. Sometime's fuelling might be underway before the oppurtunity to discuss and agree the final fugure with the captain.

As for the responsibility ... it's "joint" in the sense that either can halt the flight but both must concurr for it to go ahead.;)

But I'm puzzled that it needs to be such a "I'm the mighty dispatcher/captain" .... I can't ever recall anything like that situation ever arising .... adults work together and listen to each other to achieve a common goal .... with mutual respect.

:)

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

AMF

"On your side of the pond then, I guess the pilot alone should decide to do whatever the he11 he wants. You'd think that paying passengers would deserve better oversight."

That is the exact point you are failing to understand. The issue is who has the oversight. No dispatcher should ever have oversight of who takes extra fuel and who does not - he/she is simply not qualified to do so. Senior Dispatcher, being the jolly fine graduate of some university somewhere that he undoubtedly is, can quote chapter and verse of the rules and regs until he is blue in the face. He can never have the necessary experience to make the final call on what is the appropriate fuel for that day. That is not to say he cannot make a reasonable guess as to what the likely decision will be. What he should never be in a position to do is argue with the Captain over his decision.

A number of very eloquent and informed Dispatchers have come on here to point out what dorks they have had to deal with over the years among the Captain fraternity. That maybe so, but it is frankly utterly irrelevant to this discussion. Nobody is asking whether some Captains are easy to work with or not - that simply does not matter in this case. Some nurses will verify that some very senior surgeons are a nightmare to work with, but that does not make the nurse more qualified to perform the operation than the difficult surgeon. What matters is qualifications and experience.

As an aside, I have had the odd case of cabin crew coming into discuss my fuel choice before. I have never been rude but have taken the time to explain to them my decision. The particular people involved were usually newly qualified, low-hours pilots, awaiting their first job and working as cabin crew meantime. They were trying to be helpful, and I took their comments as just that. It would, however, clearly be inappropriate to be unduly influenced by their view simply because they lacked the necessary experience to form a valid judgement. It takes years of experience to become a Captain of a jet airliner - that does not make you better or more important. It does, however, mean that you have experience in fuel matters that Cabin Crew or a Dispatcher can never have. They in turn have knowledge and experience I can never have - I am not in the slightest embarrassed to bow to their opinion in such cases. But when it comes to fuel, it is the pilots alone who are qualified to make the final decision. That is not arrogance - just plain common sense.

[SeniorDispatcher]

What reference do you rely on for this statement ? In other words where is this stated ? The additional part 121 sections provide for the additional considerations of public transport operations, however they do not appear to redefine part 91.3.

If one has a basic understanding of the laws of statutory construction, I submit that it's pretty clearly a case of common sense. FAR 91.3 is intentionally broad/general, while 121.533 is intentionally more specific, it being a Part 121 operation, where rhe standard of care is higher. The dispatcher is responsible for "X" and the PIC is responsible for "Y" during flight time, and the dispatcher and PIC are jointly responsible for "Z".

Having read part 121 sections 557 a,b,and c, I cannot see the relevance in regard to the PIC's ultimate authority, which is not diminished or abrogated by any of the three sub sections ?

OK, you say that you've read 121.557 (a)(b)(c). How does the other FAR I mentioned, 121.627(a), then come into play?

Nice post SD, explaining the regulatory differences. I surely hope the self-serving Egomaniacs masquerading as professional pilots who think they've been beknighted with a position that places them above all reproach or questioning stay on their side of the pond while they're aviating, preferably flying Point A to B between 2 little remote burgs where the weather is 99%benign. Say, Manchsester to Frankfurt.

As I said previously, it's human nature that the unknown be feared (and/or trashed), since that's easier and less threatening than taking a step back and considering another point of view that's not indigenous to their part of the world.

I have read many an accident report especially on accidents where fuel starvation was an issue and I have yet to find a conclusion where the dispatcher was pointed as the one that failed?

Further more I have yet to find a accident report where it says: "The dispatcher failed to ......" except where ground crews failed to follow requests / instructions?

Might that be because, in both cases, there was no dispatcher (as in the US type, and not the type in the UK or elsewhere) present to even been involved?

Wow ... some testosterone being thrown around here..

Not by yours truly. Those reactions are coming from others on the thread...

Having "been there,done that" I'd just like to point out that Europe does indeed have it's share of capable Dispatchers ... I'd like to think I was once one ..... but I am of the view that this has been eroded with attempts at cost cutting

From the description of the US role there is no difference.... although given that most flight plans are "stored plans" it's often more about ammending/re-filing.

But all the rest was the same when I did it. Although this was station based and not central planing so we handled our own a/c through from pre-planning to actual "dispatch" of the aircraft.

However, we didn't see it as us/them pilot/dispatcher .. we were a team the politely co-existed and each carried out their duties.

The planner/dispatcher calculated fuel/flight plan requirements in advance and these were agreed with Captain. Sometime's fuelling might be underway before the oppurtunity to discuss and agree the final fugure with the captain.

As for the responsibility ... it's "joint" in the sense that either can halt the flight but both must concurr for it to go ahead.

The point is moot, because, again, we're talking about US dispatcher versus UK dispatchers, and about the only similarity (with all due respect) they have to one another is the name. The respective functions, duties, and responsibilites are completely dissimilar.

But I'm puzzled that it needs to be such a "I'm the mighty dispatcher/captain"

You'll have to ask those demonstrating the "mighty captain" attitude. All I've tried to do in this thread was give the history and background of the original heavily tainted and flawed media story, which still manages to keep showing up in other publications like the WSJ, and to provide (again, for the umpteenth time) the perspective from the FAA/Part 121 side of the Pond. If my merely uttering the different regs and viewpoints gleaned from my 28 year career as a dispatcher over on this side are causing uncomfort to those on the other side of the Pond, well, sorry about that, but your reactions are your own.

And, for anyone interested, NTSB's conclusions re: Avianca 52 with [My emphasis]:

PROBABLE CAUSE: "The failure of the flight crew to adequately manage the airplane's fuel load, and their failure to communicate an emergency fuel situation to air traffic control before fuel exhaustion occurred. Contributing to the accident was the flight crew's failure to use an airline operational control dispatch system to assist them during the international flight into a high-density airport in poor weather. Also contributing to the accident was inadequate traffic flow management by the FAA and the lack of standardized understandable terminology for pilots and controllers for minimum and emergency fuel states. The Safety Board also determines that windshear, crew fatigue and stress were factors that led to the unsuccessful completion of the first approach and thus contributed to the accident."

Most simply stated, there was nobody doing the "conducting" and "terminating" phases of operational control, and divert the flight someplace before the flight could get north of the DC area. Good choices would have been IAD, PIT, or SYR--the filed alternate (BOS) was below alternate minimuns before they even left Colombia.

[SeniorDispatcher]

Senior Dispatcher, being the jolly fine graduate of some university somewhere that he undoubtedly is, can quote chapter and verse of the rules and regs until he is blue in the face. He can never have the necessary experience to make the final call on what is the appropriate fuel for that day.

You know what they said about using the words "never" and always..." :rolleyes:

As far as the "appropriate fuel for the day", can you pick that appropriate amount with 100% certainty and accuracy, and do so hours in advance of your actual ETA into the destination terminal area? (Could you pick a set of Lotto numbers for me?)

Your statement seems all the more ironic in that just one of the many things we base our fuel loads on are PIREPS (company and non-company) from those flights ahead of you. You manage to contact all those other crews yourself too? You receive the FAA's ATCSCC advisory messages too? If you can answer an honest "yes" to these and other similar types of questions concerning the varied info sources that a US Part 121 dispatcher has available at their computer work station, then I'm damned impressed with your capabilities. If not, well, you know... ;)

[Old Fella]

This thread has descended into a situation where two immovable objects are pushing against each other with neither prepared to see the other's side of the argument. Why don't you take a cold shower and realise that no company worth it's salt employs personnel who do not make a contribution to the overall operation. Senior Dispatcher may well have all the knowledge and information to allow him to determine an appropriate fuel load for any given flight however the final determination is, or always should be, made by the Captain of each flight. That said, neither the Captain or the Senior Dispatcher can properly fulfill their function without the assistance of their fellow company employees, whether they be flight deck crew, cabin crew, ground crew, dispatchers or administrative staff. This fact was well recognised by CX when they introduced a profit share scheme which paid out to everyone from the GM to the toilet cleaners. Just try and accept that most endeavours involving more than one individual require input from all involved to work effectively. :ok::ok::ok:

[SeniorDispatcher]

Senior Dispatcher may well have all the knowledge and information to allow him to determine an appropriate fuel load for any given flight however the final determination is, or always should be, made by the Captain of each flight.

At the risk of repeating myself, and with all due respect, the way you blokes do it in the UK and elsewhere outside the US is between you, your airline, and your regulatory body.

That said, I made mention (way back in post #6) of why the media's original story at our local BFE TV station was tripe, and did so purely with respect to, and in the context of US FARs. Then the floodgates opened, with multiple pilots from UK and elsewhere dogpiling on essentially how the UK way was the only way. I'm not lobbying CAA here to change your regs--I've been trying to explain how ours work with repect to the bogus "news" piece, and why they seem to work, yet the concensus from the east side of the Pond appears to be nothing but their rule set can possibly work. The height of hypocracy then occurs when I'm taken to task for not considering your way when I cannot even be afforded the same professional courtesy in return.

So much for PPRUNE being a place for professional discussions.

[Bealzebub]

If one has a basic understanding of the laws of statutory construction, I submit that it's pretty clearly a case of common sense. FAR 91.3 is intentionally broad/general, while 121.533 is intentionally more specific, it being a Part 121 operation, where rhe standard of care is higher. The dispatcher is responsible for "X" and the PIC is responsible for "Y" during flight time, and the dispatcher and PIC are jointly responsible for "Z".

One does, which is why one asked for the reference you were relying on in your assertion, since the references you offered ( and later claimed to be selective when highlighted) appeared to contradict that assertion. As you are now submitting that is your perception of "common sense" in the absence of any other reference, and that joint "responsibility" clearly does not supercede part 91.3, I am still curious how the regulations actually underpin your assertion ?

You say:

OK, you say that you've read 121.557 (a)(b)(c). How does the other FAR I mentioned, 121.627(a), then come into play?

That being:

Sec. 121.627 - Continuing flight in unsafe conditions.

(a) No pilot in command may allow a flight to continue toward any airport to which it has been dispatched or released if, in the opinion of the pilot in command or dispatcher (domestic and flag operations only), the flight cannot be completed safely; unless, in the opinion of the pilot in command, there is no safer procedure. In that event, continuation toward that airport is an emergency situation as set forth in §121.557.

I am not entirely sure what this has to do with with the point, but in any event nobody responsible for a flights planning would allow a flight to continue towards an airport if in their opinion the flight could not be completed safely ? Nevertheless even this regulatory subsection clearly provides for the overriding authority as laid out in 91.3, in the stated provision unless, in the opinion of the pilot in command, there is no safer procedure.. In other words as 91.3 clearly states: The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft. .

Again and notwithstanding your opinion, what citation of the relevant Federal Aviation Regulations do you rely on in your argument that:Thus, legally, the PIC doesn’t have sole ultimate authority as far as how much fuel gets loaded—that’s a joint preflight decision between PIC and dispatcher As far as I can ascertain your argument relies on a perception (yours) of common sense in that certain FAR's are relevant and certain regulations are not in that other regulatory subsections are "intentionally more specific" ?

[Old Fella]

Senior Dispatcher, I note you selectively plucked a quote from my last post whilst ignoring the point that we are all part of a team. Also, I don't come from the UK. I have flown with Captains from the USA, Canada, UK, Middle East and Australia. I have always accepted that the "buck stops" with the Captain in terms of responsibility for the safety of his aircraft and the occupants therein. This responsibility, in my view, includes the appropriate fuel load to safely complete the flight. There were very few Captains with whom I flew that I did not have confidence in and if I ever thought my point of view needed to be put forward I would do so without fear. Some of the people responding to your original post obviously have a much over-inflated ego and are probably a pain in the butt to work with. Thankfully, the vast majority of Captains would appreciate those such as yourself and the efforts you make to assist in the planning of a flight. You should remember that your butt is firmly planted on the ground whilst the Captain and his crew are taking care of the safety and comfort of their aircraft and passengers. If a Captain determines he wants more, or less, fuel loaded that has to be his call. As others have expressed, the occasions on which anyone other than the Captain has been found responsible for an aircraft suffering fuel exhaustion are very difficult to find. By the way, I totally agree with your sentiments regarding the reporting of so called news by the media in general. Mostly ill-informed garbage.

[42psi]

This seems to have degenerated now .......:bored:

If everyone is doing their job correctly no "disagreement" occurs .... it's joint working with a common safety objective as the prime objective.

Joint working involves joint decison making where appropriate but it's also very, very clear that US or UK/Europe the ultimate decision always rests with the person leaving the ground in charge of the a/c.

When I was trained the way it was expressed was that there is a joint responsibilty (and that's legal in the UK/Europe also) "while the doors are open" ........ otherwise it's the Captain's call every time. You can still provide input/info to the flight deck after doors closed but that's all.


Anyway ..... the original question was about "is it true" ....... the rest of this is just wandering :rolleyes:



My take on the original question is no ... there's always been a fuel economic conciousness as long as I can remember ... such as achieving fuel economic trim conditions (anyone remember Flying Tigers insistance on that back in the 70/80's?) or using fuel indices for differing stations to use when deciding if it made sense to "tanker" fuel.

It's not new, in my view it didn't put pressure on anyone then and it doesn't now ... you simply discharge your responsibilities.

I've yet to hear any flight deck say they took less fuel than they wanted because of fuel economic pressures.

Yes, there is fuel monitering and maybe there will be the odd question afterwards .... but never on the day ....

[FullWings]

What hasnt been talked about here is the legal (certainly under JAR rules) to commit to land at destination using your diversion fuel for holding purposes.
I think that was a sensible and logical extension of the rules. If you divert when you approach RES+ALT, then you are going to arrive at your div. with only RES fuel; if you commit to destination, then chances are you will be on finals with more in the tanks. It also helps the rather ridiculous situation where two aircraft could leave (say) LHR, one going to GLA and one EDI: when they get there, both airfields have holding delays, so the plane going to GLA diverts to EDI and vice versa...

That's a very grey area .. some companies are expecting crews to comitt to absorb delays and not carry fuel to cover known/expected holding ...
I'm fairly certain there was some advice/guidance on this from the CAA in the last few years; I can't find the reference at the moment. I have heard this sort of thing from 'management types' in the past but I've never seen it written down as policy, strangely! IMHO, the whole business with committing to destination (or anywhere, for that matter) with known delays has interesting side effects: you have in the back of your mind that if the delays increase where you have committed yourself, then you have the recourse of a PAN or MAYDAY to achieve a priority approach. This is fine unless everyone else is following the same strategy... The problem then ends up in 'game theory' territory.

[AMF]

Norman Stanley Fletcher.... AMF

That is the exact point you are failing to understand. The issue is who has the oversight. No dispatcher should ever have oversight of who takes extra fuel and who does not - he/she is simply not qualified to do so. Senior Dispatcher, being the jolly fine graduate of some university somewhere that he undoubtedly is, can quote chapter and verse of the rules and regs until he is blue in the face. He can never have the necessary experience to make the final call on what is the appropriate fuel for that day. That is not to say he cannot make a reasonable guess as to what the likely decision will be. What he should never be in a position to do is argue with the Captain over his decision.

Actually Norman, I understand the point very well, in a former life having done my time flying FAR 121 ops in the US. It sounds like you're clueless not only to the regs, but also how they function and manifest themselves in reality on a day-to-day and sector-to-sector basis at a US air carrier. In other words...to paraphrase you....you don't have the necessary experience to have an informed opinion. You're simply not qualified to do so.

I say this because if you think Dispatching in the US is only about citing chapter and verse of regs or "guessing" then it's ignorance on your part. You talk about "fuel for the day", when in fact the Dispatcher is tied into more information about what your day will be like based on large-picture considerations such as communications with other Company pilots and flights along the route you may be taking, the guys who forecast weather for a living using various sources, direct links with ATCC which help serve air carrier planning especially in dynamic weather conditions, etc.

So like it or not the FAA, by requiring them to gain a certificate to fill the role of a Dispatcher at a 121 carrier, and to use all these sources of information... does indeed place them in a legal role in planning and functioning as an oversight (potentially "arguing with the captain" as you put it), despite what you think what the interpretation of these regs should be based on your foreign experience and opinion of how high-and-mighty your position is.

A number of very eloquent and informed Dispatchers have come on here to point out what dorks they have had to deal with over the years among the Captain fraternity. That maybe so, but it is frankly utterly irrelevant to this discussion. Nobody is asking whether some Captains are easy to work with or not - that simply does not matter in this case.

Of course it matters Norman, and isn't irrelavent, since to release a flight under Part 121 the Dispatcher has to sign off on the plan too. To find an example of "utterly irrelavent" to what a Part 121 Dispatchers responsibilities and role is, see your following anecdote....

As an aside, I have had the odd case of cabin crew coming into discuss my fuel choice before. I have never been rude but have taken the time to explain to them my decision. The particular people involved were usually newly qualified, low-hours pilots, awaiting their first job and working as cabin crew meantime. They were trying to be helpful, and I took their comments as just that. It would, however, clearly be inappropriate to be unduly influenced by their view simply because they lacked the necessary experience to form a valid judgement.

..and what this anecdote has to do with the responsibilities of a certificated Dispatcher working for a Part 121 air carrier....well, I don't know. Indeed, utterly irrelavent. Please tell me you don't equate the two positions or opinions.....

It takes years of experience to become a Captain of a jet airliner - that does not make you better or more important. It does, however, mean that you have experience in fuel matters that Cabin Crew or a Dispatcher can never have.

Hopefully this doesn't sound harsh, but what a load of tosh....and I'm speaking as a pilot who's captained..as you put it..."jet airliners" in the US under FAR part 121 (which IS, after all, the subject at hand), along with jets based and operating under Part 91 and 135 in pretty much every other part of the world except Antarctica, with "dispatch" support to varying degrees.

Fuel loads aren't rocket science, and I don't care how many years of experience I (or you) have, a switched-on Dispatcher in the US will be provided and directly tied-into to more sources of WX, ATC, and PIREP information pertaining to and forecasted to affect my upcoming flight long before I even get to the airport or gate.

...alas, I see you DO equate a US Dispatcher's opinion with a Cabin Crewmember who's also some ab initio "cadet". Sadly, it only highlights your ignorance of what Dispatchers actually do, see, and are responsible for under FAR Part 121, despite others on here who've been outlining it for you.

A note on experience you say is the be-all, end-all....Now that I'm foreign-based I've had the pleasure to fly with mostly Euro and Down Under pilots many of which, despite gobs, heaps, and loads of "experience" above 10,000 hours (including experience at their native air carriers) have never seen a snowflake let alone a de-ice truck in operation, wouldn't know an occlusion even if they flew into one let alone figure out what Lifting Indexes are and what it implies since they think "knowing weather" consists wholly of being able to read a METAR and TAF, think "ATC saturation" is 3 airplanes on final approach and 3 ready to depart, have NEVER flown an actual approach to minimums or given/read/or been able to find PIREPS, and couldn't figure out a holding pattern entry to save their life.

Lacking other things to worry about and plan for plowing around for umpteen thousand hours in their benign environments, these are usually the types that have to raise something as mundane as fuel planning to a level of pseudo-rocket science so it enters the arena of "questioning my command authority".

They in turn have knowledge and experience I can never have - I am not in the slightest embarrassed to bow to their opinion in such cases. But when it comes to fuel, it is the pilots alone who are qualified to make the final decision. That is not arrogance - just plain common sense.

You're yet another one who doesn't understand what "Operational Control" means under Part 121. For instance, if an air carrier pilot in the US wants to take less fuel than what the Dispatcher deems necessary to comply with the regs and expected delays (derived through Wx forcasts and expected ATC saturation issues) for a particular flight, the pilot isn't going to have the final say. And even though that pilot's arrogance is telling him it's "common sense that I'm the ONLY ONE qualified to make any final decision regarding fuel because...I'm a jet airliner pilot!" his ignorance of the current situation proves otherwise. The flight isnt' going to be released...can't legally be released... until both pilot and dispatcher come to an agreement.

It's not a matter for debate by you...do it until you are blue in the face...if you're a Dispatcher under Part 121, the responsibility, and therefore a Certificate, goes with the job. You can't shirk it, even in the face of an ignorant or blowhard Captain who worries about who's bowing to who. The essence of any Certificate is partly the ability of the Licensing Authority to suspend or revoke it for failing to live up to responsiblities defined by the regulations you're operating under.

[AMF]

Old Fella Fuel loads

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Dispatcher, .... Thankfully, the vast majority of Captains would appreciate those such as yourself and the efforts you make to assist in the planning of a flight. You should remember that your butt is firmly planted on the ground whilst the Captain and his crew are taking care of the safety and comfort of their aircraft and passengers. If a Captain determines he wants more, or less, fuel loaded that has to be his call. As others have expressed, the occasions on which anyone other than the Captain has been found responsible for an aircraft suffering fuel exhaustion are very difficult to find.

In this mildly patronizing post ("you should remember that your butt is firmly planted..") there again seems to be a refusal to believe on the part of those who are unfamiliar with it that FAR Part 121 regulations stipulate that a Part 121 Dispatcher WILL share and bear responsibility with the PIC for planning and releasing the flight. A Captain who wants less fuel for a flight than a dispatcher deems minimum necessary based on his wx information, company PIREPS, and ATCC sources and reflected in the flight plan, isn't going to be released.

Usually the reason nobody else besides the PIC has been found responsible for fuel exhaustion incidents is either the operation isn't conducted under a Regulating Authority or set of regulations that legally assigns joint responsibility for planning and release to Certificated Dispatcher in the first place, or the pilot mismanages the fuel in a dynamic situation, thinking they always know best. The system works, in almost all cases, due to this joint responsibility, and agreement is usually reached between Pilot and Dispatcher based on the more conservative estimate. This forced-by-regs agreement (due to the fact the Dispatcher must also sign off on the flight) is why fuel exhaustion incidents are rare despite the dynamics of weather, the highest traffic saturation in the world, and routine inflight re-releasing.

[SeniorDispatcher]

I am not entirely sure what this has to do with with the point, but in any event nobody responsible for a flights planning would allow a flight to continue towards an airport if in their opinion the flight could not be completed safely ? Nevertheless even this regulatory subsection clearly provides for the overriding authority as laid out in 91.3, in the stated provision unless, in the opinion of the pilot in command, there is no safer procedure.. In other words as 91.3 clearly states:

FAR 91.3 is a non-issue, as 121.533 (d)(e) are the FARs applicable to scheduled air carrier ops.

The reason I mentioned 121.557 and 121.627(a) is that even something as seemingly "simple" as emergency authority can have have other considerations associated with it. Keeping in mind, AGAIN, that these are US FAA regs and not UK CAA regs that I'm discussing here, how about the situation where a dispatcher thinks an emergency exists, but thte PIC (for whatever reason) does not? How is that kind of "disagreement" settled, or could it ever even exist?

[SeniorDispatcher]

Of course it matters Norman, and isn't irrelavent, since to release a flight under Part 121 the Dispatcher has to sign off on the plan too.

Of course, there is that rogue crew out there that defaults to the presumption that he always knows better than anyone else, and does whatever the h*** he wants anyways. Classic case in point: (The locations involved have been changed to protect the guilty)

Flight was scheduled to operate PHX-OKC-TUL, during the last couple of hours of the operating day. Springtime cold front marching down towards the area. Dispatcher leaves message for PIC to call him from OKC.

Ring.
Dispatch...
This is flight nnnn; I got a message to call...
There's a line of thunderstorms...
(Interrupting) Yeah I see it, I've been watching the damn thing for the last 200 miles into OKC.
Well, the line starts about 20nm NE of OKC and goes all the way into Wisconsin. Since it's still NW of TUL, what I want you to do is delay your departure by about 15 minutes, and when you do launch, head NE of OKC about 30nm, and then head east, on the north side of the line. You may have to hold for a few minutes until the line clears TUL, but as fast as the line is moving, it won't be long. There's no way you'll beat the line to TUL leaving ontime, via the normal route.
Click.

I called the station back about 5 minutes later, and the ops guy said the flight had already departed, instead of waiting. He aso took a 090 heading, on the south side of the line. The weather did indeed beat him to TUL, and the line was solid. As this was back in the non-ASD days, we didn't have the computer ability to visually observe actual flight activity. ZKC and ZAU told us that he had deviated all the way to Wisconsin looking for a hole to get through but found none. Flight does a 180 turn and heads back to the SW, still on the south side of the line. In the time since he'd departed OKC, the front had continued its march to the SE, and the line had built much further to the SW. By the time he reached the end of the line, it was almost at LBB, whereupon he turned the corner, went direct and overflew OKC (from whence he'd started) and finally landed at TUL. Normal flight time was about 20-25 minutes. Because of this PIC's pig-headed arrogance, his actual flight time was well over 2 hours. The only thing that allowed him to land at TUL, and not somehere short thereof) was the fact that they were lightly loaded and had a boatload of tanker fuel aboard, which ended up being all wasted.

Had they not had the tanker fuel, the dispatcher was on top of the situation, and had his finger on the "emergency declaration" trigger, ready to pull it if necessary.

[Pugilistic Animus]

No wonder why flights are always late---if flight planning is anything like the redundant arguments in this thread---so much agreement for disagreement:ugh:

SD makes very clear points---perhaps a few pilots would like to try their hand at the Dispatcher Practical Test:\

both parties are legally responsible for making safe legal and perhaps [if there are no squalls/ sigmets/ Nasty pireps/ ground delays holding---------] economical flight plan

cost indexing for tankering etc... are extra tasks---assuring fuel for diversions alternates/ Wx holding traffic delay IS a legal requirement---is squarely placed on both parties shoulders...i.e they both get the sack...and perhaps a nice trial for licnese revocations---especially these days when the FAA has such a bug up its *ss over airline ops

---however reducing diversions is an economic requirement---

and by excercising mutual respect and due dilligence--both parties benifit from greater safety and greater economy--with both parties placing safety at the top---but isn't that's how it's done?:ugh:

[SeniorDispatcher]

and by excercising mutual respect and due dilligence--both parties benifit from greater safety and greater economy--with both parties placing safety at the top---but isn't that's how it's done?

If the drubbing I've been taking here is any kind of indication, I'd say not... ;)

I'd guess that many here have heard of James T. Reason--maybe some would also be interested in the work of Dr. Phil Smith, of Ohio State...