Pilot scrap with dispatcher at LGW

[OntimeexceptACARS]

Haven't seen this on any of the forums yet, thought R&N was the best place.

I know its from the Daily Mail (sorry all) :

Aegean Airlines flight from Gatwick cancelled after pilot 'assaulted ground staff' | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3702891/Flight-Gatwick-Crete-cancelled-pilot-arrested-assaulting-ground-staff.html)

As a one time dispatcher i can understand if things can get occasionally heated. Most flight crew are great, but occasionally some treated us like something on their shoe, when our goal is simply to get the flight away on time, and safely.

Would appreciate any thoughts from FD on dispatchers in general. Personally, i got on with most, but took no bull from anyone, they never paid me nearly enough for that gig.

[The Ancient Geek]

If the story is true the answer is simple - violence against other staff should trigger instant dismissal. No ifs, no buts, GONE.

[Fire and brimstone]

No one defends violence from anyone. Full stop.

However, one raises an eyebrow at ground staff getting pilots sacked.

I wonder who the managers will support ............

As an aside, there was a Captain punched in the face by a passenger in MAN recently, and the passenger did not go to prison.

(Great reporting by media: 'dispatcher responsible for advising on the route'. WTF?)

[Chesty Morgan]

Captain's Right Mate.

Shouldn't have argued.

[Fire and brimstone]

To answer the OP.

Like most things in aviation, 90% of all people are simply great. Nice to deal with, good at their jobs.

It's the 10% that spoil it.

Applies to dispatchers. What seems to happen with the 10% is they allow themselves to be pressured by management. Pressure causes mistakes, rudeness, etc.

An example might be agreeing a delay code. The obvious delay is suggested, but we are told that management won't allow that code. ??? When we ask what other code to use, no suggestion is forthcoming.

Another example is not being truthful when ground staff are late to the aircraft. People are frightened of getting BLAMED for delays. Pressure from management again.

The trick is not to take it out on your fellow workers, or those you work for.

Rightly or wrongly, many Captains don't appreciate getting barked at by people when at work, either. Security, managers, and yes - even dispatchers.

It goes both ways, but you did ask.

[Wageslave]

Great reporting by media: 'dispatcher responsible for advising on the route'. WTF?

Indicates a higher than usual standard of journalism imo.

Only in that the maggot that wrote it hadn't a clue what a dispatcher was and looked it up on Wiki but didn't have the wit to realise that the description given was of a US dispatcher, not a european one, nor that there is a difference.

Proof of the sloppiest of journalism, as if any was ever needed.

[Denti]

Only in that the maggot that wrote it hadn't a clue what a dispatcher was and looked it up on Wiki but didn't have the wit to realise that the description given was of a US dispatcher, not a european one, nor that there is a difference.´

European or UK? Working for a central european carrier our dispatchers work in the network operation center, mainly preparing longhaul and north atlantic flight plans as well as any other flight plans that do need manual interaction (over 80% of all flight plans are purely computer created though). And they do of course have an EASA dispatch license (which includes full ATPL theoretical training).

Looks more like they just read some tweets (which used the term dispatcher) and then made a quick article out of it.

[bbrown1664]

The local snooze is stating that it was a member of cabin crew who did the punching.

Cabin crew member arrested for alleged assault on Gatwick flight to Crete | Crawley News (http://www.crawleynews.co.uk/aegean-airlines-flight-from-gatwick-to-crete-cancelled-after-alleged-assault-by-cabin-crew-member/story-29541038-detail/story.html)

[captplaystation]

"A 52-year-old man, of no fixed address, was arrested on suspicion of assault and was later released without charge due to there being insufficient evidence."


Wow, Aegean really are low-cost . . . . . . ;)

[FlightDetent]

"52-year old man" does not match any of my recollection of Aegean cabin crew. The article reads "aircrew" anyhow.

[Julio747]

Blown out of proportion for sure....

Not that I condone violence... Unacceptable undder any circumstances.

[despegue]

To the ex dispatcher:

Yes, flightcrew need to be able to control their temper at all times.
However: the Captain always has the final dicision NO DISCUSSION. Know your place.

[Mikehotel152]

As with many industries, you get what you pay for. In the low-cost world, this is particularly true.

I'm a cheerful and polite guy and treat colleagues with respect, yet I regularly see a poor attitude and sometimes barely concealed loathing from our dispatchers. Happily, there are some very pleasant professionals out there too.

Don't get me started about the rest of the ground crews though....

[Piltdown Man]

Would appreciate any thoughts from FD on dispatchers in general.

The biggest probiem that dispatchers appear to face is the way services are provided at modern airports. Each and every one is provided by greedy facilities management organisations who cut margins to the bone, pay peanuts and take pride in being under resourced to perform their contractural obligations. Organising this rabble is no easy task.

As for Dispatchers, the majority do a superb job, even when the system tries its hardest to make their job impossible. The best make sure normal turnarounds remain normal by anticipating the things that will slow the process down and will take medial action in a timely fashion. They will also keep you informed as the turnaround progresses.

The crap ones are unable to predict failures, fail to observe them and do nothing when it does. To cap it all, they either don't tell you that the handling it not going as expected or worse, lie about what it happening. These people are in a small minority.

Generally, I find the highest standards of handling in Scandinavia. What sets them apart? Firstly, the stations charge three to four times of what we pay in the UK. Secondly, the staff enjoy their jobs. Possibiy because they generally perform more than one function which may lead to more job satisfaction. Lastly, I think they are well educated and that allows them to perform better.

[Cloud1]

To the ex dispatcher:

Yes, flightcrew need to be able to control their temper at all times.
However: the Captain always has the final dicision NO DISCUSSION. Know your place.

Utter nonsense

A very wise Training Captain once said to me "Ground Crew don't tell the Pilots how to fly, so Pilots shouldn't tell Ground Crew what to do when on the ground"......it led on to then if the ground crew don't know they find out.

In other words there is none of this "The Flight Crew are always right" rubbish.

Don't condone any of this behaviour. CRM principles need to apply between crew and ground as well but sadly it seems to lack for both parties.

[Band a Lot]

Captain always has the final dicision NO DISCUSSION.


Heard of a few "Drunk Captains" the final "dicision" was had by the Judge "NO DISCUSSION"


Any person that makes your statement is dangerous

[Old Fella]

Despeque, there are many recorded incidents where the Captain did not entertain any discussion with his crew and the NO DISCUSSION principle led to disaster. Holding a Command does not make anyone infallible.

[Chesty Morgan]

I think Despegue means the no discussion part refers to the the captan having the final decision, which is actually a fact. Not, as some of you seem to think, that the captain will make his final decision with no discussion.

[Willy Miller]

At least they had a dispatcher, we now have TCOs who have no practical aviation training or experience. I tried telling one that the a/c was out of trim and he didn't know what I was talking about! And he was one of the few that spoke English!!

[IcePack]

Captains decision has to be final as it is him/her who take the responsibility. Unfortunately despatchers in Europe are no longer given adequate training. One incident comes to mind.
Despatcher lack of knowledge of APS weight & DOW. (Wrong one used on load sheet)
I found it prudent to listen to all inputs then make the decision but have on occasion as above ended up making the decision that caused the dispatcher to "get the hump" .

[Band a Lot]

Captains decision is final only once the aircraft has motion, until then they or equal to all other decision makers - ground crew, cabin crew ATC, police etc.


Yes at any stage prior to motion they can refuse to carry out duties OR be FORCED not to carry out motion by lets say Mr Branson if he wants to make that call.

Never heard of a pilot to take a cancelled flights aircraft just to get home because the boss cancelled a flight, but heard many of them complain about not getting home that night.

Responsibility is not just a captain thing, but yes at a point it does and only until the next point. Limits apply to all.

[Chesty Morgan]

In that case Band a Lot who makes the decision to refuse, for instance, disruptive passengers prior to "motion"?

[From a distance]

And who makes the decision of how much motion lotion to upload before motion happens. It certainly isn't the dispatcher.

[Band a Lot]

Any person of authority along the route can reject a passenger prior to motion inc Feds.

Will a captain want more motion lotion than the manufacture states of in case of ferry what FAA or other states? not a captain decision is it? but is his limitation, a captain is not god but many think they are - A Fed agent can stop a flight at any time before push back regardless of what captain wants to do - 911 told captains what to do also that was LAND regardless of motion lotion on captains hand at that time.

Captaincy HAS limitations my friends.

[Chesty Morgan]

Yes but when that "any person" says the drunk idiot will be ok to travel do you just shrug your shoulders and let them on?

[Mikehotel152]

This discussion is moving into silly areas.

Of course there are legal and practical limitations on a Captain's authority, but it is his duty to take steps to preserve the safety of his airplane and passengers. Laws and regulations, sops and company stipulations cannot hope to cover all situations. Obviously there's a distinction between decisions made on the ground and in the air.

You can't trust Captains to make the right decision all the time but in my experience ground staff are generally less trained, experienced and frankly disinterested in the safety of the flight to make the best decision. After all, they're not the ones who'll be airborne in an aluminium can with wings when the worse case scenario comes calling.

I had a dispatcher in Warsaw once tell me that it was unnecessary to anti-ice the airplane. She put up quite a fight because there was no precipation at that moment in time, clearly regarding my authority as Captain to be subservient to her couple of years dispatching flights. She only relented when the snow I calmly predicted started falling: suddenly anti-icing was needed. Arguing was such a waste of everyone's time and energy. Even if I hadn't been right, what authority did she have to deny the request?

[PPRuNeUser0190]

Wow, strange discussions. I tend to agree with despegue that the captain has the final decision (at least in my company), it's pretty logical as well and has nothing to do with the so called "Commanders authority".

There's 2 parties:
- the ground handling company
- the airline

My company gives me manager rights so that I can act in name of the company when I'm operating the aircraft.

The aircraft is property of the airline so it's pretty logical that the owner has the final saying on what is loaded, who is loaded, how it is loaded, what services are required etc...

If the ground handling company does not want to do that, that is their right. But they can not decide anything as it is not their property.

That being said, being disrespectful is never OK and very unprofessional.

[Superpilot]

Dispatchers come in all shapes, sizes and attitudes. The worst are the Spanish, who are polite but simply ****. They have an aversion to arriving at the aircraft before T-5 because they don't like dealing with LMCs.

A good dispatcher usually sweats like a pig with all the running around especially in the heat and will invariably smell of body odour. They should recognise that and refrain from handshakes! :)

[baselb]

So the correct answer to "Are you sure? That seems to be a lot less fuel than we normally load" is "Captain always has the final decision NO DISCUSSION" and you're all happy with that?

[Aluminium shuffler]

Band a lot, are you suggesting the FAA or others have authority over the commander on how much fuel to carry? That they can limit the fuel carried on ferry flights or other ops? If so, you are sorely mistaken. Nobody has more authority on the fuel load than the commander, and that is enshrined in aviation law everywhere. Besides, authorities prescribe what minimum quantities (timewise) have to be carried for flights in terms of contingency, diversion, reserve and so on, but they never get involved in a figure and would never limit a commander to only the figure on a flight plan. And please stop using silly terms to sound nonchalant; it's unconvincing.

[Chesty Morgan]

So the correct answer to "Are you sure? That seems to be a lot less fuel than we normally load" is "Captain always has the final decision NO DISCUSSION" and you're all happy with that?

Wrong end of the stick again. It is a fact that the captain has the final say and it is that which is not open to discussion.

The answer would be - yes, there's a massive tailwind that you're unaware of.

[3Greens]

Captains decision is final only once the aircraft has motion, until then they or equal to all other decision makers - ground crew, cabin crew ATC, police etc.


Yes at any stage prior to motion they can refuse to carry out duties OR be FORCED not to carry out motion by lets say Mr Branson if he wants to make that call.

Never heard of a pilot to take a cancelled flights aircraft just to get home because the boss cancelled a flight, but heard many of them complain about not getting home that night.

Responsibility is not just a captain thing, but yes at a point it does and only until the next point. Limits apply to all.
In the uk the period of command commences when the commander enters the aircraft with the intention of flight. Utter nonsense talking about aircraft in motion in afraid.

[Fire and brimstone]

Just wondering .......

If some people don't think the buck stops with the Captain ....... then who do they think it does stop with?

This is not the same as trying to say any Captain is incapable of making an error.

When I go on a cruise, I don't tell to go up to the bridge and tell the Captain how to drive his ship: BECAUSE HE IS PAID AND HAS BEEN NOMINATED BY THE OWNERS TO BE THERE.

Next subject!!!!

F&B

[PDR1]

So why does the captain argue with the ground handlers who his company has nominated and paid to ground-handle the aeroplane?

There is a small nugget of reality and rational sense in this thread, but it is completely obscured by the near incessant willy-waving of that section of the aircrew fraternity who seem to have serious self-esteem issues. I'm surprised the rest of you don't take these poor chaps behind the bike sheds and give them some percussive education to reduce stem the flood of contempt that's heading for pilots as a "profession".

PDR

[Chesty Morgan]

PDR, it's not will waving it's an indisputable fact. If you can't tell the difference perhaps you shouldn't comment.

By the way, who's arguing with the ground handlers?!

[ads1001]

Aegean is far from low cost. In fact it insists on charging more than Lufthansa on the same code-shared flights...

[langleybaston]

QUOTE:

I had a dispatcher in Warsaw once tell me that it was unnecessary to anti-ice the airplane. She put up quite a fight because there was no precipation at that moment in time, clearly regarding my authority as Captain to be subservient to her couple of years dispatching flights. She only relented when the snow I calmly predicted started falling: suddenly anti-icing was needed.

We will have weather forecasters out of work, then.

Just as well I am retired!

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

So why does the captain argue with the ground handlers who his company has nominated and paid to ground-handle the aeroplane?


- Because the captain is usually the first to arrive at the scene of the crash;

- Because the captain bears ultimate responsibility for the safe conduct of the flight, and the jet shouldn't be going anywhere unless the captain's satisfied that it's safe and legal for it to do so; and

- Because ground handlers are coming under increasing pressure (KPIs etc) to achieve on-time departures. Pilots, not so much. So every so often we see ground staff applying pressure (including to the engineers and pilots) to depart on time, when there are still questions that need answering. Right off the top of my head I can think of two cases where ground staff didn't just apply pressure to colleagues of mine, they flat-out lied their arses off to try and force an on-time departure. The first case would've been a flagrant breach of procedures, common sense, and the relevant security legislation. The second would've caused a huge weight and balance error, and would almost certainly have resulted in the loss of the aircraft and 300 lives. (The ground handler concerned had to seek alternative employment as a result. )

That is why the captain is arguing with the ground handlers. Perhaps instead we should be asking, "Why are the ground handlers arguing with the captain?"

Yes, there are the willy-wavers with self-esteem issues that you mention. They're out there, they like using the word "commander" a lot, and they can be a pain in the arse. Not much we can do about that, and ultimately the jet's still not going anywhere until they're happy that it's safe and legal for it to do so. The sooner you can make them happy, the sooner they're off-blocks.

[Mikehotel152]

langleybaston,

I'm not sure I understand your comment.

One does not need a carefully constructed TAF or experienced meteorologist in the cockpit to make a decision to protect an airplane from precipitation that is clearly wafting its merry way towards the airfield while you're in the middle of a turnaround.

Or perhaps you do.

As it happens, my judgment was wholly correct on this occasion.

Kind regards, MH152

[Krueger]

From all the years that I have been flying, only a couple of months ago I had to send a handling agent off the aircraft. It happened in MAN and after my report, I realized it wasn't the first time that there were problems with that company (probably with the same guy). Usually I find good professionals despite the cutting to the bone strategy that all companies are using nowadays.

[Willy Miller]

OK my dispatcher says we have 1 less bag in the hold and will need to do a reconciliation, I question this ( we have 1 less not 1 too many) but was told - sorry company policy, I asked to speak to supervisor and told no. I did ask - so when you take all the bags out and find one missing do we all go home?

Bags removed - one missing - departed one hour late.

So beat your chest and point at your four stripes as much as you like but if your cargo doors are open you aren't going anywhere.

[Out Of Trim]

That's just daft.

I would have been demanding a manager, and the answer better be yes!

1 too many, then yes recount. 1 less then just LMC off and go..

Not many experienced Dispatchers /TCOs around now of course. This should be a licensed position with much more rigorous training. But, there is no money for that these days. Sigh! :{

[PukinDog]

Band a lot, are you suggesting the FAA or others have authority over the commander on how much fuel to carry? That they can limit the fuel carried on ferry flights or other ops? If so, you are sorely mistaken. Nobody has more authority on the fuel load than the commander, and that is enshrined in aviation law everywhere. Besides, authorities prescribe what minimum quantities (timewise) have to be carried for flights in terms of contingency, diversion, reserve and so on, but they never get involved in a figure and would never limit a commander to only the figure on a flight plan. And please stop using silly terms to sound nonchalant; it's unconvincing.
In FAA-land Dispatchers and certificated and share a legal, joint responsibility with the PIC when it comes to planning, delaying, and releasing a flight. The Captain has full authority when it come to meeting any emergency/threat to safety, and in command over other crew members in flight, but they don't automatically wield full authority when it comes to operational control of the aircraft except as allowed by the operator (and up to the point shared responsibility is dictated by the FAA). Even in flight, outside of mitigating threats/dealing with emergencies, the Company in the form of Dispatchers still hold operational control authority.

In other words, without agreement with both the PIC and Dispatcher also signing the release, the flight can't legally go anywhere, and in flight the PIC can't just do whatever they want to in the absence of a threat to safety or outside what's specified in the FAA-approved Ops Specs/Manuals.

Yes, I know it's different outside FAA-land.

[Tu.114]

So for the benefit of those of us who never flew in FAA land: How is this rule kept in practice?

Can a dispatcher order a flight to not take less than a certain amount of fuel or define a maximum amount? And the captain, will he then have to live with this and can not order an amount of fuel outside of the scope the dispatcher defined (of course, keeping within all other limitations like weight, performance restrictions, tank volume or minimum block)? Or will Captain and Dispatcher have a brief chat before every flight and agree on a sensible amount that satisfies both of them?

And what happens when fuelling requirements change on short notice during a flying day, e. g. due to deteriorating weather before the 4th leg? Is the Captain allowed to let this influence the amount of extra fuel he wants on board without talking to his Dispatch first and convincing them of this change of plan? This of course applies in the opposite direction as well; say an airfield that showed nasty weather in the forecast opens up unexpectedly - is a reduction of the extra fuel within the Captains authority?

Also: Who is taking the blame if something untoward happens? Will both the Captain and the Dispatcher have to defend their actions in a court or are there differences between those two and the buck stops at the Captain only, seeing that the hypothetical incident was presumably preceded by a threat that was up to the flight crew to resolve?

[PukinDog]

So for the benefit of those of us who never flew in FAA land: How is this rule kept in practice?

Can a dispatcher order a flight to not take less than a certain amount of fuel or define a maximum amount? And the captain, will he then have to live with this and can not order an amount of fuel outside of the scope the dispatcher defined (of course, keeping within all other limitations like weight, performance restrictions, tank volume or minimum block)? Or will Captain and Dispatcher have a brief chat before every flight and agree on a sensible amount that satisfies both of them?

And what happens when fuelling requirements change on short notice during a flying day, e. g. due to deteriorating weather before the 4th leg? Is the Captain allowed to let this influence the amount of extra fuel he wants on board without talking to his Dispatch first and convincing them of this change of plan? This of course applies in the opposite direction as well; say an airfield that showed nasty weather in the forecast opens up unexpectedly - is a reduction of the extra fuel within the Captains authority?

Also: Who is taking the blame if something untoward happens? Will both the Captain and the Dispatcher have to defend their actions in a court or are there differences between those two and the buck stops at the Captain only, seeing that the hypothetical incident was presumably preceded by a threat that was up to the flight crew to resolve?

Since the FAA mandates joint, legal responsibility it necessitates mutual agreement before the flight is released, yes, many times it involves discussion with the Dispatcher if there's a question of routing, fuel, changes etc.

For instance, the ATC system may be expecting delays and re-routing later in a day when weather forecasts are indicating a frontal system developing a line of cells that will shut down normal routes in a certain region, and advise the various air carriers who get this information, look at their own predictions, and adjust accordingly beforehand. Ops and therefore the Dispatchers are tied into the bigger picture. The individual pilot may not be aware of this forecast for that particular region and might questions the different routing and/or fuel load then what he/she is used to, but advising him as to why is part of what a Dispatcher does. If it happens that the weather-forecasts were wrong while enroute the PIC can certainly ask-for/receive more amenable routing and nobody is fussed.

As for where the buck stops; On matters of legal, joint responsibility of the PIC and Dispatcher (as specified by the FAA), they are both in the hot seat if something goes wrong or was missed. It's a purposeful-by-regulation check and balance system of each others' work (in a way) because issuance of their respective Certificates indicates a level of training and proficiency, as well as something that can be taken away if there's a foul-up. In my air carrier experience willy-waving between Pilots and Dispatchers about "who calls the shots" was rare, because the FAA is pretty specific about the respective roles and responsibilities. Even if there is a difference of opinion on a particular matter that demands a discussion and resolution before it flies, not respecting the other person's mandated role means you're in the wrong business. A Dispatcher at an air carrier has an FAA Certificate too that carries with it's own set of responsibilities that must be met.

[A Squared]

A question for the non-North Americans. Does the term "Dispatcher" have a different meaning outside of the US? In the US airline world, a "dispatcher" is a licensed individual who is (jointly) responsible for preparing flight plans, calculating fuel loads and will be monitoring the progress of the flight and is in communication with the flight crew to provide weather updates, diversion planning etc. In my world, at least, a dispatcher, as I know the term wouldn't be likely to be present plane-side.

This discussion seems to be discussing a position I would describe more as a "gate agent".

[DaveReidUK]

This discussion seems to be discussing a position I would describe more as a "gate agent".

Over this side of the pond, the job is commonly referred to nowadays as Turnround Coordinator/Manager (a good description of their role), but the terms Dispatcher and Redcap are still widely used as well.

Easily identifiable on the ramp as they typically wear red caps. :O


https://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1521244/british-airways-ipad-apple.jpg?w=400

[Rwy in Sight]

I thought another term used was ramp agent although I maybe wrong.

[Basil]

Easily identifiable on the ramp as they typically wear red caps.
Indeed; as worn by the father of our future Queen consort.

[Aluminium shuffler]

Dave Reid, they are not common at all in the UK. BA is the only company I know of using them, though I suspect Virgin do too, but that's about it. The charter and locos certainly don't, and that's the bulk of the traffic.

But while a proper dispatcher has legal obligations, the final responsibility and authority always rests with the commander. My point is that if a commander wants to take more fuel than is on the plan, nobody has the legal authority to challenge that. Taking less is also an option where the plan includes tanking, or a further than necessary alternate, or if 5% contingency has been used and the commander is permitted within the company policy to use an enroute alternate (lower fuel may be needed for performance reasons, or because the aircraft has enough fuel to meet reduced planning amounts and refuelling is unavailable - it's not a common practice).

However, it is unwise to treat ground crew unpleasantly or to ignore their concerns. Most of them work hard and even if inexperienced, may have useful information. Yes, gobby and gash "turn round coordinators" exist, and I have seen one or two and given them a mild kick up the backside where needed, but only when they displayed negligence or started ordering cabin crew about, which is way out of their authority.

[Tu.114]

Puking Dog, thank You for the explanation.

A Squared,
here, things are handled similarly but with differences in detail when it comes to dispatchers.

Generally, our dispatchers tasks range from assigning aircraft to flights (crewing them is done by a different dedicated team in the same room), taking care of ATC matters like filing flight plans, keeping them alive in case of delays to even e-mailing missing charts or other documents to aircraft requiring them on remote airfields. The dispatchers can be considered the cockpit crews agony aunt who is called in case of all operational discrepancies. And they are usually excellent at solving them, let there be no doubt about this.

Calculating operational flight plans, logs, or whatever they may be called in different companies is within his scope as well. But in my company, he will only plan long range and some nominated other flights with higher planning needs: e. g. flights to Tripolis (due to the security situation), Erbil (dito), weight critical flights or wetlease flights will often be planned by him as well. 90% of the flights are planned by flight crews on their own though; there is a flight planning programme provided for that. Only in case of problems like a high risk of diversion, inability to use the preferred alternate, MEL items that make the use of the individual aircraft undesirable for a route, a need for an exact ZFW for performance and fuel planning etc. will the dispatcher be consulted.

The main difference seems to be that the dispatcher here will only offer well founded and worth listening to, albeit non-binding, advice. He might offer a preferred alternate, suggest different routes or whatever might be needed, but the captain has the final call and is allowed to accept or reject this. A flight plan provided by a dispatcher will have to be checked, accepted and signed by the captain; this involves a cross check of weather, notams etc. The captain is also free to decide on fuel requirements (keeping within legal limits of course!) and may order any amount of extra fuel he deems sensible, be it 0 or an amount that requires the offloading of luggage to meet performance requirements. In flight, when outside of the stations radio coverage (in absence of ACARS or HF), no assistance from dispatch is possible, so the crews are completely on their own and are required and allowed to call the shots themselves.

Of course, such freedom comes with more responsibility as well. Here, the buck stops squarely with the captain. If something undesired happens, he will have to explain this, and he will certainly be asked why he did not follow the dispatchers advice if applicable. The dispatcher in turn will be required to answer only for those points that were in his scope, but this does in no way release the captain from his ultimate responsibility for the flights safety.

An attempt to put some blame on the dispatcher is by no means a "get out of jail" card, as the captain has checked and found all the items provided by him to his satisfaction before beginning the flight.

[PukinDog]

Puking Dog, thank You for the explanation.

A Squared,
here, things are handled similarly but with differences in detail when it comes to dispatchers.

Generally, our dispatchers tasks range from assigning aircraft to flights (crewing them is done by a different dedicated team in the same room), taking care of ATC matters like filing flight plans, keeping them alive in case of delays to even e-mailing missing charts or other documents to aircraft requiring them on remote airfields. The dispatchers can be considered the cockpit crews agony aunt who is called in case of all operational discrepancies. And they are usually excellent at solving them, let there be no doubt about this.

Calculating operational flight plans, logs, or whatever they may be called in different companies is within his scope as well. But in my company, he will only plan long range and some nominated other flights with higher planning needs: e. g. flights to Tripolis (due to the security situation), Erbil (dito), weight critical flights or wetlease flights will often be planned by him as well. 90% of the flights are planned by flight crews on their own though; there is a flight planning programme provided for that. Only in case of problems like a high risk of diversion, inability to use the preferred alternate, MEL items that make the use of the individual aircraft undesirable for a route, a need for an exact ZFW for performance and fuel planning etc. will the dispatcher be consulted.

The main difference seems to be that the dispatcher here will only offer well founded and worth listening to, albeit non-binding, advice. He might offer a preferred alternate, suggest different routes or whatever might be needed, but the captain has the final call and is allowed to accept or reject this. A flight plan provided by a dispatcher will have to be checked, accepted and signed by the captain; this involves a cross check of weather, notams etc. The captain is also free to decide on fuel requirements (keeping within legal limits of course!) and may order any amount of extra fuel he deems sensible, be it 0 or an amount that requires the offloading of luggage to meet performance requirements. In flight, when outside of the stations radio coverage (in absence of ACARS or HF), no assistance from dispatch is possible, so the crews are completely on their own and are required and allowed to call the shots themselves.

Of course, such freedom comes with more responsibility as well. Here, the buck stops squarely with the captain. If something undesired happens, he will have to explain this, and he will certainly be asked why he did not follow the dispatchers advice if applicable. The dispatcher in turn will be required to answer only for those points that were in his scope, but this does in no way release the captain from his ultimate responsibility for the flights safety.

An attempt to put some blame on the dispatcher is by no means a "get out of jail" card, as the captain has checked and found all the items provided by him to his satisfaction before beginning the flight.

You're welcome TU-114, but I should emphasise that this aspect i highlighted is not different than the FAA-land system. The Captain avoids no responsibility nor is his responsibility diminished in any way by the fact a licensed Dispatcher in Ops Control of a 121 air carrier is also being held responsible. He/she can accept or reject plans/alternates, fuel loads, the aircraft, whatever. The buck stop with him/her.

..but what he/she can't do is go operate an air carrier aircraft under 121 without a Certified Dispatcher also signing-off on the plan and release because the FAA says the buck stops with him/her as well. The pilot is in command of the aircraft but is expected and paid to operate within the authorised the Ops Specs (unless dealing with an emergency necessitates deviating from them) and Manuals. The Company is held responsible for "operational control" of the aircraft. These 2 things (the PIC being in command of the aircraft and the Company responsible for operational control) are not in conflict with each other. In FAA-land, operational control is a specific, defined thing that deals with who's responsible for what when it comes to operating aircraft engaged in air carrier ops at what must be in place to do so.

The main difference of the 2 systems is how much onus is placed on the Company by the regulating authority to establish and maintain a system or operation designed to legally release and support a pilot when it comes to operating safely where things that could affect it are not missed.

An FAA Certificated Dispatcher is expected to demonstrate ATPL-level knowledge and proficiency when it comes to flight planning, weather/forecasts/ and it's effects of on route and airports (dep/arr/enroute and dest alternates) aircraft performance and capabilities, instrument approaches, contaminated runways, ETOPS, operational effects of MEL items, etc etc. They're also required by the FAA to ride in the cockpit jumpseat on Company aircraft a certain amount of hours per year within their system.

The joint authority/responsibility requirement that a Certified Dispatcher with the aforementioned knowledge be legally involved in the planning and release of a flight under 121 comes from the structure of Operational Control mandated by the FAA for air carrier ops, and as such is a safety position to help ensure that the PIC isn't handed whimsical flight plans or expected to sign releases produced by purely commercial concerns. The mandate creates/forces the Company to provide a safety support system and resource for each flight, the point of contact for the PIC on matters of planning and legality being the Dispatcher.

In FAA-land Dispatchers are not the pilot's enemy, crew schedulers and bean-counters are. Operational control centers at air carriers are huge expenses, and Dispatchers also put in long, fatiguing hours in when the weather goes down and things are hectic while they're working many flights. Collaboration to produce a safe, comfortable, efficient flight are shared goals and good, experienced Dispatchers help make the Captain's job easier by closing holes in the cheese beforehand. A trained and Certificated person in the loop being held responsible by the license-issuing authorities for what they produce is much more likely to hand over quality work that is acceptable than someone who is not trained to any standard for licensing and is not.

[ShotOne]

All that represents an ideal rather than reality! Sadly, in much of the aviation world, dispatcher has become a min-wage zero-hour contract profession

[PukinDog]

All that represents an ideal rather than reality! Sadly, in much of the aviation world, dispatcher has become a min-wage zero-hour contract profession

In much of the aviation world, a "dispatcher" is not a position licensed or mandated by the Civil Aviation authorities nor is a certain level of demonstrated knowledge and expertise pertaining to the planning, performance, and legality of releasing flights demanded. There is also no legal joint authority/responsibility with a PIC in order to release a flight or a broad, mandated-by-the-Authorities structure or resources in place to support them in this job. Result; in much of the aviation world an aircraft dispatcher isn't even seen as a profession, let alone a career. As such, it's valued accordingly (low) and not just by the Company that pays them.

Judging by many responses even here by their aviation peers, there is also a large segment of FIGJAM Skygod-types who are quite happy with that low-value/low-proficiency "dispatcher" arrangement and would probably rather not have trained, knowledgeable and proficient Dispatchers certified to a certain standard involved at all since blowharding "The Captain is always right!" doesn't require any collaboration or resolution. I can't even imagine the level of grumbling if the same Authorities who issued them their Pilot Certificates also required a Certificated Dispatcher to ride along on Company cockpit jumpseats a certain number of hours per year, let alone the cacophony of protest if they had to co-sign a release in order to be legal. It would challenge their whole image about themselves.

[Aluminium shuffler]

All irrelevant, though, if we're talking about someone who is not a licensed dispatcher and is in fact a turn around coordinator.

[Chesty Morgan]

PD, there is nothing on this thread suggesting that the captain is always right.

[PukinDog]

PD, there is nothing on this thread suggesting that the captain is always right.

No?

Chesty Morgan

Captain's Right Mate.

Shouldn't have argued.

So what was a seemingly clear statement was actually a different message sent using code words? Are you a Windtalker?

[PukinDog]

All irrelevant, though, if we're talking about someone who is not a licensed dispatcher and is in fact a turn around coordinator.
I was answering your incorrect notion that "aviation everywhere has enshrined" that the PIC in air carrier ops can do whatever he wants with fuel, answering to nobody else, as long as minimums are met.

Also, it's pointless to talk about relevance when his status as a licensed Dispatcher vs a turn around coordinator is just as irrelevant to the topic; being assaulted by a pilot, if true. I makes no difference. The entire "who has authority" angle is irrelevant and this incident seems more a chance for some to crow about how much authority they have (or think they have) rather than discuss the possibility that someone, who never should, lost their temper to the point of physically assaulting someone on the job.

[DaveReidUK]

Shock news: PPRuNe thread drifts off topic.