EASA and Flt Dispatchers

[kellmark]

Opsbod.

I appreciate your concerns, but I disagree about your conclusions.

I think that Europe would support an FAA style system.

1. Remember that the dispatch system presently in use in the US was created in 1938, after several accidents demonstrated the need for it. There was no ASD back then. That is a recent development within the last ten years. Previously, flight dispatchers used other methods to track their flights. They could use position reports from the flights. Or follow the flight plan route and estimate a flight’s position according to its enroute time. Or directly speak to the crew. These methods still allowed weather and other operational information to be relayed to the flights, such as severe weather messages/Sigmets, ATC delays and airport facility status changes. Also, when flights got into a problem, the ground to air communication system, whether through phone patches or remote stations or whatever, were used to discuss the situation and work on a solution with the crew, as with a diversion or system failure.
The point is though, that flights were monitored and communicated with for more than 50 years before ASD was available.

2. New technologies allow alternatives to ATC based ASD. Satellite communications and GPS positioning provide the ability for a flight to be tracked anywhere. Systems can report the position of a flight literally every few moments.

3. Regarding the weather radar sites, is the delay in information due to the weather service of the country involved or is it because the airline may have to pay for the service in real time? Either way, there is no justifiable reason that this could not be provided in a timely manner to those who have a real need for it for aviation safety.

Even with this problem, flight dispatchers should have access to satellite images and all other weather products, reports and forecasts. This would still allow them to flight plan and monitor almost as safely as with the current radar. But I agree that the radar should be there.

4. Modern technology provides high productivity for flight dispatchers. Although workload can be an issue, with the more automated systems that are used now, it is not unusual for each flight dispatcher to be responsible for 50-70 flights per shift (For intra-European, like domestic US flights. Long haul have a higher workload, so the number is significantly less). It needs to be noted, however, that when difficult situations occur, such as bad weather, then additional staffing would be required. This still allows for effective monitoring and joint responsibility, both of which have been shown to reduce accidents and incidents.

5. Even with the problem of the lack of ASD and the radar sites, the main thing that is the obstacle to an effective operational control/flight dispatch system in Europe is the lack of legal/regulatory requirements for it. Without a requirement, there is no perceived need to track the flights and have qualified personnel with appropriate technology tools to support them. The technology and tools for the flight dispatchers will quickly follow if that requirement becomes reality.

It is simply not acceptable to have thousands of flights operating every day and not have them supported properly, in many cases not even knowing where they are. How do you feel when that flight disappears off of your screen when it goes to France? I really sympathise with that problem. Imagine if Europe experienced a 9/11 type emergency tomorrow. US flight dispatchers were key in getting their flights on the ground safely in that emergency. And we all know that the security threat to the industry continues on a world wide basis. It is not just a safety problem, but a security problem as well. I am afraid that this vulnerability will continue and that there will be additional incidents and accidents until this problem is addressed.

That is why we should do everything possible to bring about these necessary changes.

[opsbod]

Kellmark,
My concern is that without legislation and the requirement for Dispatchers then I don’t think that an FAA style system can be introduced.

1. I have used and continue to use the position reports or the flight plan route to estimate positions. CFMU’s CIA tool also offers a calculated time at certain points. My company employs both VHF and HF and more recently ACARS to allow direct communication with the crew, allowing the more proactive of us to provide crews with some form of support from the ground.

My point was that ASD is a great tool yet so far no one is interested in staring data, to allow us access to the data will require legislation – at present I am not even allowed to see what ATC is doing with most of my aircraft in mainland Europe.

2. It is true that new technologies do allow alternatives to an ATC based ASD system, but considering we are talking about major costs to carriers to introduce a dispatcher system why should we have to fit additional systems to our aircraft. As airlines we already pay expensive Navigation fees to provide ATC with the systems that could supply us data at no extra cost.

3. Regarding the weather radar sites I have not encountered anyone in Europe offering real time radar, again this could be a case of supply and demand. We have access to older radar feeds and satellite images, and charts in addition to TAFS, FC, and METAR data and do use these for planning. My point again was the need for system access and to show that at present we don’t have it.

4. I am reassured by your comments on productivity, however, for an airline such as mine we would require 10 dispatchers per day, I won’t debate the fact that experienced U.S. dispatchers command salaries of $50K plus, but say each dispatcher is paid £25K and to work a 4-on/4-off pattern we need 20 dispatchers, then you are looking at £500K per year additional costs. I don’t want to put a price on safety, but to persuade carriers to employ this method will take a considerable amount of lobbying. I wonder how many of the members of this forum actually responded to the EASA input?

5. I agree that the main obstacle to an effective operational control/flight dispatch system in Europe is the lack of legal/regulatory requirements for it. Without such a requirement there is not pressure to have qualified personnel or the appropriate technology tools to support them. Before we can go to a Flight Dispatcher system we have to supply the staff within the industry with a much higher level of training. You cannot simply introduce the system and grant grandfather rights to those already working in operations; the results given the varied experience, knowledge and skills could be a recipe for disaster.

I am curious with your 9/11 analogy, my impression was the FAA simply ordered all aircraft to land at the nearest suitable airfield, what level of dispatcher input was there?

I do fully endorse a requirement to bring legal recognition for the operational control of airliners, be that a training requirement or all the way to joint responsibility dispatching.

[kellmark]

Opsbod.

Sorry about the delay in responding. Things have been kind of busy.

Regarding 9/11 and security issues and dispatch in general.

On 9/11 in some cases individual flight dispatchers and airlines took action before the FAA regarding grounding flights. Also, when flights were ordered grounded, flight dispatchers worked with the crews to put the flights in the best possible place under the circumstances. They were a valuable resource.

In my own experience as a flight dispatcher, I had several occasions where a flight had a bomb threat during flight or had hijacking situations. In all cases the decision as to where the flight should go or what should be done was made working with flight dispatcher and the crew with the best information possible and with management input as well. We also had effective communications with the crew during those situations.

[no sig]

Interestýng exchange between you all on this topic.

I,ve worked under both for many years and there is no doubt in my mind that the FAA dispatch system enhances safety, however, in Europe we have also be operating aircraft safely for many years under our own system. So the question is can we do without it in Europe? The answer is almost certainly yes, however, that is not to say that we don't need to improve our systems and train our personnel better, we do!

Although Ý support a move to a more FAA style dispatch system, OpsBod hit it on the head, it ýs very unlikely to gain approval in Europe. Our focus at this stage must be to get EASA to adopt a requirement for some form of accreditdation for Ops/Dispatchers.
Ýt is a simple fact of life that airlines are unlikely to train their people to the required standards, it needs to be a regulated requirement. Every person exercising operational control should have to be trained to the same standard and have passed exams to gain an accreditdation.

Celestar, although it sounds like you have a well trained ops department, You and I know that the standards in many other airlines fall way below the requirement. Not every airline will take the approach yours seems to. Sadly.

The other issue not mentioned here is the motivation to learn your trade. Ýts a sad fact that many people will only study if they have to. Ýts a job that requires a depth of knowledge that cannot easily learned on the job. It really should be a closed shop, no qualification - no working in Ops.

[Frosty Hoar]

I work in one of the larger ops rooms in Europe,where we are reponsible for around 100 medium to large jet aircraft.
I work alongside a mixture of guys,some with a licence and some without, and those with a licence are normally well versed in flight planning, but are often studious types who lack the ability to think and react quickly in a given situation, in fact the very idea of some of these guys iintervening in a live operation brings me out in a cold sweat!

Whether or not our American cousins like it, I would argue that that the faa licence in Europe is irrelevant, and that FAA dispatchers are not sufficiently qualified to intervene in alive operation- if the pilot needs direct intervention then get the on call pilot involved to help out-an FAA dispatcher is not qualified to operate the aircraft, and in my opinion not best qualified to make marginal decisions.

I feel that a tailor made Euro ops officer qualification is required, as right now we have to be jacks of all trades and masters of none so to speak-if an accurate sylabus could be devised then great, as it would no doubt improve the efficiency and quality of the operations room.

rgds fh TUI OPS haj (formally Hapag Lloyd ops!!)

[opsbod]

"those with a licence are normally well versed in flight planning, but are often studious types who lack the ability to think and react quickly in a given situation; in fact the very idea of some of these guys intervening in a live operation brings me out in a cold sweat!"

I would suggest that the staff members you mention have been selected by your organisation because they have the qualifications to prove they are excellent flight planners, not necessarily good Ops Controllers. As someone who has employed staff with and without FAA licences or ATPLs I can say that generally the licensed staff have a much stronger technical understanding than their unlicensed colleagues.

Even in the States not all senior dispatchers will become operations controllers. I believe of the 80 or so dispatchers’ SouthWest employs only approx 10 are qualified to sit in the operations controllers’ seat. There are only 2 live desks and a pre-ops post per shift. At JetBlue the ratio is 4 to 1, dispatchers to ops controllers. At both airlines it is not necessary to have been a dispatcher to sit in the Ops chair, but it is a preference.

Also have you thought that the current European bias towards self-funding would lead those of a more studious nature taking the exams? These are the people who would seek the qualification because they want it as a challenge, perhaps about 50% of current European dispatchers, the other 50% are likely to be those who obtained the licence with the intention of working abroad or for carriers who required the licence as proof of technical ability.

I am not saying we should adopt the FAA licence as the European standard, just that we adopt a standard period instead of the current fudged position or total lack of.

I do disagree that the FAA licence in Europe is irrelevant; FAA dispatchers are qualified to intervene in a live operation, which is the point of joint responsibility and all in stands for, please read Kellmarks comments and those of another FAA dispatcher who spoke at length regarding the TUI Airbus crash in Rumours and News some time ago. Both can explain the advantages of shared responsibility. In Europe yes we have to rely on the Duty Pilot, but even he cannot over rule the commander of a European aircraft, sole responsibility in Europe rests with the pilot commanding. In the US an FAA dispatcher is not qualified to operate the aircraft, but is type rated, and is qualified to make marginal decisions and to assist with the decision making process.

All that said I am glad to see that you agree regarding a tailor made European ops officer qualification being required. With regards to the syllabus have you read ICAO 7192 D-3 and do you feel this is a good place to start? What do you feel we should add? What should be taken out?

[Frosty Hoar]

Sorry, I am unable to access ICAO 7192-d3 so cannot to comment. I agree that a common standard is required for operations personnel who should be qualified to carry out a job that does have a flight safety and economic implication.

I will accept the idea of joint responsibility when a device is invented that will teleport me to the flight deck in question at the right moment for our three way debate, until then I will rely upon the experience of management pilots with the thousands of flying hours to support the decision making process.

Thanks for letting me know that an FAA dispatcher has spoken at length about the Vienna incident, I suppose he was here,wasnt he on that particular day taking notes....

[kellmark]

Frosty Hoar. Interesting name, by the way.

No, I don’t have thousands of flight hours as a pilot in command. But, I do have thousands of flights dispatched safely. And I have had a number of incidents in which I know that I have made a difference in the safety of a flight. And the flight crews almost without exception thanked me for it.

No I wasn’t in the cockpit of the Hapag Lloyd flight, taking notes. But its sounds like somebody should have been helping that crew. I have spoken to the Investigator in Charge and discussed with him about an exact parallel that happened under the US joint responsibility system that DID NOT have an accident. It was an A300 with a gear down problem, fuel supply issue and the crew operating the aircraft at improper speeds, just like the Hapag-Lloyd flight. But in the US incident, the dispatcher advised the crew of the mistake and also gave the crew correct numbers for fuel burn with the gear down, plus what they should arrive with at the destination plus enroute alternates to stop at if it became necessary. That flight arrived safely at its destination with reserve fuel on board. That crew was making errors in judgment and had poor information, just as with the Hapag Lloyd flight, but the errors were corrected with the intervention of a licensed, trained, qualified flight dispatcher, unlike the Hapag-Lloyd flight.

Also, I find your comment about the licensed dispatchers being too slow to make a decision compared to the non-licensed ones simply absurd on its face. Who should the flight crew be dealing with? Someone who is knowledgeable and can really help them or someone who simply pushes buttons but has no clue what they are doing?

Multi-tasking is a natural part of the job, as is the need to make decisions in a timely manner. That is the nature of the business. But making a quick but ignorant decision is far worse. I know hundreds of flight dispatchers who are both very knowledgeable and timely in their decision making. In fact, because they are knowledgeable, they are able to make more timely decisions, as they either already know the answer or know where to look for it.

The point of joint responsibility is not to be in the cockpit. That should be obvious. But it is a clear safety check on human factors, both in errors of poor information and errors of poor judgment. You seem to think that pilots are without fault, so let’s keep dispatchers ignorant, as they are not to be trusted.

Your implication that because pilots fly the aircraft this means that dispatcher should have no decisive role in operational decision-making ignores the fact that the two functions, while having similar and to some extent overlapping knowledge bases, have distinct task and functional differences and their respective contributions to make. Dispatchers use different technologies, function in a different environment and work with many other actors in the operational environment. They often work many flights at once, but also know much more about the airline’s and the operational situation than the particular crew does, on a particular flight. But they must be certified and trained to be effective.

By having a management pilot be the source to go to instead of a flight dispatcher, you take out a fundamental safety check in the system. When a line pilot is dealing with a management pilot he/she is dealing with a superior in the chain of command. It is not an equal relationship. Management can take the pilot off flying status if they disagree with what the pilot is doing. Pressure can easily exist. We are in a deregulated environment where there is tremendous pressure to operate flights. The opposite is true in a joint responsibility system. The PIC and the flight dispatcher are jointly responsible for the safety of the flight. They must agree on the operation and that it is safe. In fact, the flight dispatcher provides a safety buffer from management pressure. This has been the case time after time.

Also, when a management pilot is brought in instead of a flight dispatcher, that pilot does not know the particular flight plan, the MEL situation, the fuel state, crew qualifications, aircraft weight, the weather, the ATC situation, airport issues, etc. of the flight involved. The flight dispatcher that planned the flight does know these things and can be of much more help in a situation such as a diversion or an emergency. Management is always available if needed, no matter which system is used, but with a joint system there is much more of a knowledge infrastructure to draw upon.

So here we have a situation in Europe as follows:
1. Many new pilots being hired with less experience than in previous years.
2. Many new air carriers, especially in the low cost model, with tremendous economic pressures due to economic deregulation on all carriers to operate every flight and get that revenue.
3. The weather patterns have changed, with generally more severe patterns than before.
4. The ATC is in flux and under pressure as it changes radically from what existed before.

Yet you are saying, in effect, that a proven, much more effective, safer system of operational control that provides much better support not just to the flight crews, but especially the passengers, should not be adopted. I think not.

PS. Opsbod. Excellent comments. But it needs the whole works.

[no sig]

Frosty Hoar, you need to look at the FAA style of operation as a whole. Kellmark has explained it well. Ýt is a system of operational control; dispatchers and pilots sit the same exam, they go through annual recurrent trainning, they generally have a mutal respect for one another and on the whole contribute to flight safety in a way we in Europe (generally) do not. No need to be on the flight deck, the US system provides for that. FAA dispatch and joint responsibility is a good system and offers benefits that ours does not.

The benefit of having a FAA Dispatchers licence in Europe has nothing to do wýth joint responsibility, but it does at least prove the holder has studied and passed examinations in operational subjects. Being a good ops controller or flight planner, its all the same, both need the knowledge. The crux of the matter, in my opinion, is that an operations officer/dispatcher who has studied to a level approaching aircrew licence requirements has a far greater appreciation of aircraft operations and can therefore offer greater support to aircrew, can anticipate operational problems earlier and in general can enhance flight safety, and thats also just good business! as we seem to agree.

Management pilots can be a subsitute for having experienced/qualified dispatchers in the ops room; Ý'm not saying that they are a bad idea- its just in my experience there is often a recognition by flight ops managment in many airlines that their ops staff simply dont have the knowledge and we need a pilot there just in case.

Ý could give you numerous examples of failings by ops officers who have worked for me over the years that boil down to a simple lack of of operational knowledge, some of them on the wrong side of safety. No, as we are agreed, our job is one that needs formal acceditdation. ÝCAO has the syllabus set out for us, perhaps a bit of updating is required, but the basic requirement is already there.

Kellmark, your case is a strong one and you make many valid comments, but Opsbod and the likes are starting at the first hurdle- a knowledge base. We have to get this in place, and if everyone who can pushes the cause Ý believe it just might happen this time. IFALDA/EUFALDA Ý hope can further this cause.

[opsbod]

JAR Ops View

The following is from the JAR OPS revision 7 effective 01 September:



Operator JAR-OPS 1.205 Competence of Operations personnel [(See ACJ OPS 1.205)]
An operator shall ensure that all personnel assigned to, or directly involved in, ground and flight operations are properly instructed, have demonstrated their abilities in their particular duties and are aware of their responsibilities and the relationship of such duties to the operation as a whole.


[ACJ OPS 1.205
Competence of Operations personnel
See JAR-OPS 1.205
If an operator employs Flight Operations Officers in conjunction with a method of Operational Control as defined in JAR-OPS 1.195, training for these personnel should be based on relevant parts of ICAO Doc 7192 D3. This training should be described in Subpart D of the Operations Manual. It is not to be inferred from this that there is a requirement for Licensed Flight Dispatchers or for a flight following system.
[Amdt. 7, 01.09.04]

What's in your Part D?

[urdy gurdy]

if it means a pay rise i am up for anything

[bobdcatt]

Flt Disp

May a thought about looking back to what we tried to do with the BGFOO !.

[no sig]

I'm curious to know if anyone out there has actually taken any steps to incorporate this new requirement into their Ops Manuals?

[G fiend]

Bit late to join the debate maybe, But...

I think that the path for Europe lies somewhere in between the two opinions- The joint responsibility approach has served well, I don't think that's in any doubt.

I'm not sure that it would work in Europe yet, simply from cultural reasons and where we're starting from- it strikes me as an awfully big chunk to swallow straight away. Especially as we haven't even got a set of standards to aim at.

I would like to see the joint responsibility approach with trained, certified and checked Ops staff, but I think it has to be introduced in stages.

First we have to introduce a common set of standards covering what should be expected of an operator's ops room and the staff within, then maybe we should introduce training, certification and recurrency standards. An 'Active Ops centre' ( by which I mean constant flight progress checking, live WX feeds and constant communication) should be next.

In my previous incarnation, whilst not all qualified dispatchers/ Ops blokes, we had a bl**dy good go at providing proper support to the crews, and making sure that they operated as safely as can be, but that company set and demanded high standards of itself and its staff, and made sure there was appropriate support and training, at least until the money men got in anyway.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that it can be done without recourse to legislation, but it needs the operator to buy in to this- In todays financial climate where everything has a cost (apart from the CEO's bonus, of course) that may be difficult to do without legislative pressure.

On another point, in Europe we are still fighting some entrenched 'us and them' attitudes from some pilots. I know that's not the case in the states where pilots have every respect for good ops/ dispatchers, but it is going to be a big hurdle in Europe.

As an aside, If frosty hoar is talking about the people I think he's talking about, I agree totally with him!! I saw one in action- extremely frenzied, arm-waving, picnic-wrapper flapping action...Still makes me shudder to think on it today...It was only over a weather diversion as well, still...ho hum...bl**dy good at getting wally birds across the pond, though...

Anyway Frosty, hope the fiendling is behaving herself. rgds to all in particular SP

[FougaMagister]

VERY interesting thread! Having only been a Flight Dispatcher for a little under a year, I can say that a common set of standards, such as an EASA licence, might not be a bad idea at all to harmonise training standards. After all, we have JAA Flight Crew licences and are going towards some sort of European ATC licences (with some hiccups and national posturing along the way, as can be expected). In France and Spain, even Cabin Crew need a CAA licence, so how come Dispatch is a big free-for-all, with widely varying levels of training?

That said, whether Europe needs a US-style system of Flight Following is debatable; the current system seems reasonably well suited to the European airspace environment and the (mainly) relatively short-haul flights that go through it. Those that advocate a completely new system seem to grossly underestimate the task at hand with so many countries involved.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" - or as the French say: "le mieux est l'ennemi du bien" (the "best" is the ennemy of the "good").

Cheers

[no sig]

The ICAO Flight Dispatcher/Flight Operations Officer training syllabus (Doc7192 D3) defines the training standard for JAROPS1, its now up to airlines to introduce this into part D of the Ops Manual and then actually to start training to it! It will take a while to get there, but it is now a defined standard.

[Frosty Hoar]

So are we to assume that a euro ops licence is planned or that the airlines must take it upon themselves to train their staff in house with no official qualification?


PS GF hope you are well, thanks for your message.

[no sig]

Frosty Hoar

What the JAA have done is to define the ops officer training standard and in the UK's case, this brings them/us into line with the ICAO recommendation for the training of ops and flight dispatch personnel (as I understand it). EASA are reviewing the requirement for a FOO/FD licence for the future.

The clincher here, is just how far will the UK CAA and British airlines go with this new requirement. As a syllabus for the training of ops staff must now be defined in Part D, airlines must consider what they need out of ICAO Doc 7192 D3 as their training requirement. The CAA will, I presume, need to have an outline themselves as to what is required for various types of operation.

My approach, as you know, has been to try an establish the ICAO 7192 D3 course as a de facto licence in the UK, hence my efforts to get the GCNS course recognised as such and to provide a course which meets the new requirement. That is, if you have completed the course you will have met the necessary training for any operation and hopefully make yourself a much more marketable individual. No licence, but by doing the training you save the airline the trouble.

[This Charming Man]

Quote
I'm curious to know if anyone out there has actually taken any steps to incorporate this new requirement into their Ops Manuals?
Unquote

Thomas Cook , My Travel and First Choice Airways have now made it a requirement for thier Ops staff to trained in accordance
with ICAO DOC7192 part D3. Britannia (by default HLF staff already trained) also set this standard. Thomas Cook send their
staff to Sheffield in Florida and MYT and FCA are sending their staff to Jeppesen Frankfurt. Thanks to the JAA mandate, Ops Officers will now see a proper training ragime and the airlines will reap the benifits interms of more knowledgeable flightplanning and decsion making, that inturn will lead to efficiency and cost savings IMHO

[no sig]

That's good news.