FAR 121.615 Interpretation

[LOKE]

I need an interpretation of FAR 121.615:

Sec. 121.615 - Dispatch or flight release over water: Flag and supplemental operations.

(a) No person may dispatch or release an aircraft for a flight that involves extended overwater operation unless appropriate weather reports or forecasts or any combination thereof, indicate that the weather conditions will be at or above the authorized minimums at the estimated time of arrival at any airport to which dispatched or released or to any required alternate airport.

The point I need interpreted is the second “or” in the phrase – “at the estimated time of arrival at any airport to which dispatched or released or to any required alternate airport.”

Does this mean that you may dispatch to a field that is estimated to be below landing minimums so long as your alternate is forecast to be above minimums?

I only need an answer on this from a US Air Carrier Operations point of view – I’m interested in how JAROPS does it – but not right now. Also – please answer this only if you know the answer and can support it with either a legal FAA interpretation or you are operating as an Air Carrier and using this FAR to dispatch to a field below minimums – or your company does not dispatch to below minimum fields because you interpret the FAR to mean that you need both.

Also – don’t mention 3585 – this is FLAG rules we are talking about and we are talking about the body of the WX report – not conditional WX.

Again – please don’t tell me what you think – tell me what you know based on an operational policy of a good Air Carrier or a FAA legal interpretation of this FAR – and include the reference please.

Thanks for any information,

LL

[kellmark]

I will say that I have never seen any circumstances where any US carrier could dispatch a flight to any airport forecast below landing minimums unless they used 3585, but as you say that was for domestic only. For flag, they need the minimums. It doesn't matter if the alternate is good, (it would have to be above alternate minimums, say 400-1 or higher) if the destination is forecast to be below landing minimums, then it is illegal.

Those minimums need to consider the aircraft, the pilot and the facility(airport, runway) minimums, and the highest of the 3 determines the legal minimums.

The only possible way around this is to dispatch the flight to an intermediate point which would have legal minimums and, if, at the time the flight reached the intermediate point, and the weather has improved at the destination to where it does have minumums, then the flight could be dispatched to the destination.

[LOKE]

I'm not disagreeing - but

I always thought the way you do – but:

121.615:
(a) No person may dispatch or release an aircraft for a flight that involves extended overwater operation unless appropriate weather reports or forecasts or any combination thereof, indicate that the weather conditions will be at or above the authorized minimums at the estimated time of arrival at any airport to which dispatched or released or to any required alternate airport.

I’m being told that the “or to any required alternate airport” means that you can go if either the destination OR the alternate are above minimums. When I break this down to logic:

If A= Above minimums
B-= Destination
C= Alternate
Then you cannot Dispatch unless AB or AC exist.

What I need is a legal interpretation of this one clause. There may be a notwithstanding FAR that makes this a moot point – if so – please advise.

LL

[kellmark]

It is an interesting question that I think has to be approached from both a philosphical point of view and a legal one.

From a philosophical point of view, it would be what is the intent of the FAA with this reg and what philosophy is behind it? The answer to that seems clear, in that they specifically state that "the weather conditions will be at or above the authorized minimums at the estimated time of arrival at any airport to which dispatched or released..." If you take that phrase it is clear in its meaning and intent. Then your question comes from the next part of the sentence "or to any required alternate airport". I would interpret that to mean that those weather minimums would also apply to any required alternate airport. I think that you would have to take away the previous part of the sentence in order to interpret the meaning the way they want you to, and that clearly is not the case. They don't say when they are referring to the alternate airport that the miimums for the destination do not apply.

I would still go with my original interpretation.

Then there is the legal viewpoint. If someone does dispatch a flight to a destination that does not have legal minimums, using the justification that they have a good alternate, I think that the FAA would take a dim view of it and there could easily be ramifications, such as a certificate action against the individuals involved.

There are two other ways to deal with this, and that is to get an opinion directly from the FAA either from an authorized inspector, or their general counsel's office, or if you can find it, for every regulation that has been created, there is a record of what the basis and original intent of the rule was when it was created. Only the FAA would have that as far as I know, but it should be in their offices in D.C.

I hope this helps. If you need a contact for an inspector I can give you a good one.

[DXR]

The airline i work for currently (US 121 supplemental) sanctions the use of the "or", ie if the alternate is above mins, and the destination is forecast below, we will go. Our POI has sometime in the past signed off on this, though i know that from other dispatchers that their POI's and PDI's have foudn that the "or" should be interpreted as an "and" and thus they require destination and alternate to be forecast above mins.

I will say that 90% of the time that i have used or seen this used (and flight dispatched with a destination below mins"). the forecast was changed en route (we do mostly long haul flights) and when the aircraft arrived, the airport was well above mins.

hope this helps/

[bcp7]

I worked as an aircraft dispatcher for the last 4 years at Continental Micronesia, a US Part 121 Flag Carrier based on Guam. We operated nine B737-800 aircraft on international routes. Our policy was that as long as you had an alternate airport which met required weather minimums, you could go. This was approved by our POI. Without this interpretation of the "or" clause noted above, there would have been a number of times flights would not have been able to depart Guam for destinations in Japan, or operate flights between some of the small islands we operated to. The intent is to allow an airline to maintain a schedule.

[Jim0727]

Re: FAR 121.615 Interpretation

121.615
What happens when the station you want to dispatch to is reporting for several hours -X and 1/4 mile ( prevailing visibility) and the RVR is well above landing mins say (5000 to 6000+) for the landing runway. The weather bureau
has not changed the forcast, and the alternate airport is solid. Can we now dispatch to the destination

[lessaspirin]

The process of dispatching is based on forecast. I have yet to see a forecasted RVR in any TAF. The limitations of the weather service and aviation forecast for the purposes of flight movements can be overcome by the airline by employing Enhanced Weather Information Services or EWINS. Without it – you are limited to forecast produced by the NWS or other FAA approved sources.

[lessaspirin]

Using the “or” word to justify an either/or argument for destination or alternate weather is nullified when you apply FAA OpSpec C055. This OpSpec makes it a requirement that the designated alternate on the dispatch release must meet the weather requirements contained in that OpSpec. That all said, the “or any required alternate” statement in 121.615 does not bridge the concept that the destination can be below published landing minimums at ETA as long as the alternate is above is respective alternate minimums at ETA. Both the destination and alternates listed on the dispatch release MUST meet there respective landing or alternate weather minimums at the ETA or you don’t dispatch – period! The FAA realizes the limitations that this may bring to airlines and provides methods to overcome these limitations. One is by applying EWINS where dispatch via a approved procedure and meteorology department can issue is own flight movement forecast, second is the use of B043/B044 OpSpecs which allows you to do a planned re-dispatch enroute and last, the airline can use OpSpecs C059/060 incorporating CAT II/III minimums to the dispatch solution.

See para 1231 in FAA Order 8400.10 at the following link:
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/e...3/3_006_04.pdf

Originally Posted by bcp7

I worked as an aircraft dispatcher for the last 4 years at Continental Micronesia, a US Part 121 Flag Carrier based on Guam. We operated nine B737-800 aircraft on international routes. Our policy was that as long as you had an alternate airport which met required weather minimums, you could go. This was approved by our POI. Without this interpretation of the "or" clause noted above, there would have been a number of times flights would not have been able to depart Guam for destinations in Japan, or operate flights between some of the small islands we operated to. The intent is to allow an airline to maintain a schedule.