Flight Dispatcher - Would you like to be like this?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And as I've all ready said I worked on the ground for 2 years before I got a job.
By the way I am only here because of my hard work, self sacrifice and dedication. And 40K of my own money. I knew nobody in the industry.
This thread was started about a dispatchers responsibility, not a pilots.... Though you may think you are constructive in your criticism of a job you know very little about.... Your attitude doesn't help, and certainly if met in person, I'd walk away from you as would many others, leading to further delays. You add resentment by being this way, not respect.
A dispatcher is there for a reason... this industry doesn't waste money any more!
Please go on a ' fam ground day ' , take a packed lunch, as meals are not provided... You may not get time to eat it though.... In the mean time, get to know people and what they do.... Things may have changed since your two years on the ground and non socializing behaviour......
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We've all ready established the 2 different meanings this has either side of the Atlantic.
YOU are sole responsibilty... I get where you're coming from... but before you go and whilst you are on the ground, others are involved, who also have responsibilty... Be it major or minor... You couldn't cope without us....Surely after two years on the ground you could get a jist of what goes on??
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well many things have changed since then....
It's been a great debate chesty... Lets leave it to others to contribute... time to close our posts and see others views....
Take care...
Keep safe...
aLoon
It's been a great debate chesty... Lets leave it to others to contribute... time to close our posts and see others views....
Take care...
Keep safe...
aLoon
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fascinating full and frank exchange of views and one that probably not occurred if terms used in Civil Aviation to describe the various functions were clearly defined internationally, or even nationally. Whilst it has got heated I am glad the Moderators haven’t stepped it.
As this thread covers two distinct functions, the rest of the post is divided into two main sections
Operations Control
I have been fortunate to have spend a days at a time monitoring the procedures and processes in Control Centres of three American Airlines with very different company cultures. As is the law these companies were using the Dispatcher System, but above this the level the organisation of the Control Centre and indeed the non-safety related management of the flying programme was very different. What was common to all was the joint responsibility system worked, primarily because that is how all those involved whether Flight Crew or Dispatchers have been not just trained, but 'brought up' and neither Pilots nor Centre staff could conceive of an alternative.. Whilst it works in the US environment and there are some useful lessons that could conceivably be translated to the European Centres, the US Dispatch System is not one I believe should, or indeed could be exported to the UK en-block!
I have also spent a lot of time in various Airline Control Centres across the world using variations on the Operations Control System so familiar to us in the UK. In these centres, the division of responsibility between Controllers and Crews is often vague, in many countries is not enshrined in law and is often overridden by the norms of the national culture, albeit with some in-company modifications (i.e. The Senior Person is always right, even when wrong and don't even think about discussing it).
But in almost every case the training of the operations centre staff is to a high standard (a lot higher than various threads in this forum indicate UK training has in general been).
The recent initiatives from ICAO and the European Authorities will enhance the Training of Operations Control staff (and therefore finally give recognised status) and will clarify their responsibilities, across carriers within the EU. This in turn will slowly ripple out to other countries and their local companies that use an Operations Control System.
I don’t believe the US Dispatch mode of operation will replace the Operations Control type of operation in the UK. Although I firmly believe the ‘new’ Training and Qualifications requirements will enhance the Professional Status of those running the Operation and the Flight Planning Function and at the end of the day improve the relationship between them and the Flight Crew.
Airside Dispatch
The responsibilities and duties of the Airside Dispatcher (Ramp Agent/Redcap/etc) should be (and indeed in my relatively limited experience are) detailed in an Airline Companies Flight Operations Manual - General (probably the same chapter as dealing with Loading and Load Control).
It is often the section of the Flight Operations Manual least referred to by Flight Deck Crew (although the Load Control and Loading Sections do usually show the signs of often ‘hurried’ use).
The problem for the Handling Agents Airside Dispatcher is that he/she never sees that section of any companies manual, although the Handling Brief prepared for the start of the contract may summarize the content of that section, it will not state it is an extract and it will never provide the section numbers etc and these briefs are rarely if ever updated, so no significant change will be notified..
For instance in some airlines the dispatcher has control of the Flight Departure until doors close, this also means they are both responsible and accountable (and it is important to understand that these are NOT just words).
Obviously this still requires that the Dispatcher maintains close liaison with Flight Crew, Engineering and the other elements of the process pre-departure period with as the last job before Doors close being giving the Captain the final update,. In effect handing the Flight over!
The other extreme is ‘Observe and Report’, where the Airside Dispatcher has at least in theory NO control over the departure and is only obliged to advise Control Centre and Crew deviations from the Departure/turnaround timelines. In the rare instances where this is the case, Dispatchers normally manage to influence events by ‘force of personality’.
Load Planning. Load Control, Loading Procedures and Safety
There is a trend towards centralised load planning and loadsheet production. Indeed there is some evidence that a certain UK Airline is going to remove Airside Dispatchers from any direct involvement id the process. Regardless of involvement at Planning/Loadsheet Production stage, an Airside Dispatcher has to be totally conversant in all aspects of the process including Dangerous Goods, Load Spreading, Heavy and Oversized items, AVI, HUM, Tilted Load reporting (hopefully only inbound from some careless station ) Change Control of the Load Plan and Last Minute Changes in Passenger/Baggage Load.
Whilst the Captain does sign it off and should be made aware of dangerous, or other special cargo, he/she is dependent or the Airside Dispatcher, or more rarely these days a Load Control Agent knowing their job.
The training of Airside Dispatchers is another area that I believe has been too long neglected. A knowledge base which covers local knowledge of the capability of sections and time to achieve results and the industry wide knowledge of the main functions such as Passenger Services, Load Planning and Control, Physical Loading constraints,, Dangerous Goods, Airside Safety, etc can be acquired by functional training in each area and long experience, but how often is this the case? A base standard for an Airside Dispatch Qualification is perhaps something that needs to be looked at?
DIH
As this thread covers two distinct functions, the rest of the post is divided into two main sections
Operations Control
I have been fortunate to have spend a days at a time monitoring the procedures and processes in Control Centres of three American Airlines with very different company cultures. As is the law these companies were using the Dispatcher System, but above this the level the organisation of the Control Centre and indeed the non-safety related management of the flying programme was very different. What was common to all was the joint responsibility system worked, primarily because that is how all those involved whether Flight Crew or Dispatchers have been not just trained, but 'brought up' and neither Pilots nor Centre staff could conceive of an alternative.. Whilst it works in the US environment and there are some useful lessons that could conceivably be translated to the European Centres, the US Dispatch System is not one I believe should, or indeed could be exported to the UK en-block!
I have also spent a lot of time in various Airline Control Centres across the world using variations on the Operations Control System so familiar to us in the UK. In these centres, the division of responsibility between Controllers and Crews is often vague, in many countries is not enshrined in law and is often overridden by the norms of the national culture, albeit with some in-company modifications (i.e. The Senior Person is always right, even when wrong and don't even think about discussing it).
But in almost every case the training of the operations centre staff is to a high standard (a lot higher than various threads in this forum indicate UK training has in general been).
The recent initiatives from ICAO and the European Authorities will enhance the Training of Operations Control staff (and therefore finally give recognised status) and will clarify their responsibilities, across carriers within the EU. This in turn will slowly ripple out to other countries and their local companies that use an Operations Control System.
I don’t believe the US Dispatch mode of operation will replace the Operations Control type of operation in the UK. Although I firmly believe the ‘new’ Training and Qualifications requirements will enhance the Professional Status of those running the Operation and the Flight Planning Function and at the end of the day improve the relationship between them and the Flight Crew.
Airside Dispatch
The responsibilities and duties of the Airside Dispatcher (Ramp Agent/Redcap/etc) should be (and indeed in my relatively limited experience are) detailed in an Airline Companies Flight Operations Manual - General (probably the same chapter as dealing with Loading and Load Control).
It is often the section of the Flight Operations Manual least referred to by Flight Deck Crew (although the Load Control and Loading Sections do usually show the signs of often ‘hurried’ use).
The problem for the Handling Agents Airside Dispatcher is that he/she never sees that section of any companies manual, although the Handling Brief prepared for the start of the contract may summarize the content of that section, it will not state it is an extract and it will never provide the section numbers etc and these briefs are rarely if ever updated, so no significant change will be notified..
For instance in some airlines the dispatcher has control of the Flight Departure until doors close, this also means they are both responsible and accountable (and it is important to understand that these are NOT just words).
Obviously this still requires that the Dispatcher maintains close liaison with Flight Crew, Engineering and the other elements of the process pre-departure period with as the last job before Doors close being giving the Captain the final update,. In effect handing the Flight over!
The other extreme is ‘Observe and Report’, where the Airside Dispatcher has at least in theory NO control over the departure and is only obliged to advise Control Centre and Crew deviations from the Departure/turnaround timelines. In the rare instances where this is the case, Dispatchers normally manage to influence events by ‘force of personality’.
Load Planning. Load Control, Loading Procedures and Safety
There is a trend towards centralised load planning and loadsheet production. Indeed there is some evidence that a certain UK Airline is going to remove Airside Dispatchers from any direct involvement id the process. Regardless of involvement at Planning/Loadsheet Production stage, an Airside Dispatcher has to be totally conversant in all aspects of the process including Dangerous Goods, Load Spreading, Heavy and Oversized items, AVI, HUM, Tilted Load reporting (hopefully only inbound from some careless station ) Change Control of the Load Plan and Last Minute Changes in Passenger/Baggage Load.
Whilst the Captain does sign it off and should be made aware of dangerous, or other special cargo, he/she is dependent or the Airside Dispatcher, or more rarely these days a Load Control Agent knowing their job.
The training of Airside Dispatchers is another area that I believe has been too long neglected. A knowledge base which covers local knowledge of the capability of sections and time to achieve results and the industry wide knowledge of the main functions such as Passenger Services, Load Planning and Control, Physical Loading constraints,, Dangerous Goods, Airside Safety, etc can be acquired by functional training in each area and long experience, but how often is this the case? A base standard for an Airside Dispatch Qualification is perhaps something that needs to be looked at?
DIH
Last edited by Opssys; 30th May 2006 at 14:15.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Derby
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jep Charts or Aerad
Can you please offer some advice...I am now retired from ground ops and would like to obtain or view old Jep Charts or Aerad Charts in order to follow my hobby of listening to HF broadcasts etc ie when long haul aircraft give position report etc
Really looking for Europe/Middle East and Atlantic Charts.....is it possible to view old charts on the internet or can you advise where I can get old charts
as I cannot afford to purchase current sets
Your advice would be appreciated
Regards
Peter
email [email protected]
Really looking for Europe/Middle East and Atlantic Charts.....is it possible to view old charts on the internet or can you advise where I can get old charts
as I cannot afford to purchase current sets
Your advice would be appreciated
Regards
Peter
email [email protected]
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Derby
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exchange of words
I am now retired (ex Senior Movement Controller and SAR Coordinator etc)
and was shocked to read this in house fighting between a Captain and Operational Ground Staff.
Everyone shares responsibility for the safety of a flight and no one can say if it is 50/50 or any other margin. In my time in aviation I have observed and listened to both sides and found that no one is perfect. I started in aviation at the age of 15 and although retired I still do aviation consultancy that makes my experience 50 years covering Long Haul/ShortHaul/Ad Hoc Charter/VIP&Executive/GM of FBO/SAR Coordination etc etc
Now thats out the way I just want to say that this type of discussion as gone way too far and I feel the peace pipe needs to be smoked between you two guys.
I have met the very best in Front End and Ground Staff and also come accross cowboys on both sides. I have flown many many times and observed the stress when the weather is 8/8 on the deck but also observed the same stress in the operations room. Aviation is team work and no one must have the right to say that they have a greater workload than the other because everyone cops stress at different levels.
I have seen ground ops make absolute balls up of flight plans, flight planning, load sheets that have gone un noticed by the crews.....at the same time I have audited flight deck paperwork and observed well below standards on entries.....so you see life is ballanced on both sides. Once I found a series of standard plogs that were grossly incorrect, especially in relation to time lapse etc that resulted in the flights always running late because SID etc had not been worked out correctly.....this was the error of flight planning and of course the front end who flew these routes time and time again without picking up the errors.
So let me strongly suggest you both be at peace, maybe say sorry to each other. After all we are all equal in life and one cannot operate without the other
Kind Regards
Peter
and was shocked to read this in house fighting between a Captain and Operational Ground Staff.
Everyone shares responsibility for the safety of a flight and no one can say if it is 50/50 or any other margin. In my time in aviation I have observed and listened to both sides and found that no one is perfect. I started in aviation at the age of 15 and although retired I still do aviation consultancy that makes my experience 50 years covering Long Haul/ShortHaul/Ad Hoc Charter/VIP&Executive/GM of FBO/SAR Coordination etc etc
Now thats out the way I just want to say that this type of discussion as gone way too far and I feel the peace pipe needs to be smoked between you two guys.
I have met the very best in Front End and Ground Staff and also come accross cowboys on both sides. I have flown many many times and observed the stress when the weather is 8/8 on the deck but also observed the same stress in the operations room. Aviation is team work and no one must have the right to say that they have a greater workload than the other because everyone cops stress at different levels.
I have seen ground ops make absolute balls up of flight plans, flight planning, load sheets that have gone un noticed by the crews.....at the same time I have audited flight deck paperwork and observed well below standards on entries.....so you see life is ballanced on both sides. Once I found a series of standard plogs that were grossly incorrect, especially in relation to time lapse etc that resulted in the flights always running late because SID etc had not been worked out correctly.....this was the error of flight planning and of course the front end who flew these routes time and time again without picking up the errors.
So let me strongly suggest you both be at peace, maybe say sorry to each other. After all we are all equal in life and one cannot operate without the other
Kind Regards
Peter
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen
You all need to get out more. Your comments display a parochial viewpoint with regards to dispatch.
It has been clearly spelled out to you by my first post and the post from Opssys that there is as much of a difference between ramp dispatch and flight dispatch as there is between flying and cabin crew.
You are all hung up on the ramp dispatch business and one person. no names, (CM) cannot see beyond the defoliated trees of the ramp dispatch wood.
Look this is not about what goes on on the ramp.
As for shared responsibility - this is FAA law - no debate here it's the bloody law and it works fine and has been working fine since Douglas invented the DC2.
Now would you advocate such a system here in JAR land (CM please do a bit of research before you pitch in). Remember that Holland Germany and Portugal already administer such systems and practices and Dispatchers (flight not ground; CM) are state qualified and audited. Why don't we?
Rgds EM
You all need to get out more. Your comments display a parochial viewpoint with regards to dispatch.
It has been clearly spelled out to you by my first post and the post from Opssys that there is as much of a difference between ramp dispatch and flight dispatch as there is between flying and cabin crew.
You are all hung up on the ramp dispatch business and one person. no names, (CM) cannot see beyond the defoliated trees of the ramp dispatch wood.
Look this is not about what goes on on the ramp.
As for shared responsibility - this is FAA law - no debate here it's the bloody law and it works fine and has been working fine since Douglas invented the DC2.
Now would you advocate such a system here in JAR land (CM please do a bit of research before you pitch in). Remember that Holland Germany and Portugal already administer such systems and practices and Dispatchers (flight not ground; CM) are state qualified and audited. Why don't we?
Rgds EM
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Derby
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Response to EM
I fully understand your comments and responsibilities but I sincerely hope that you are not indicating that I should get out more or that I dont know the difference between Flight Despatch,Ground Ops, Ramp Despatch etc etc.
A movement controller is the highest position in the operations department who operates under the Operations Manager. His responsibility covers all departments during his minumum of 12 hour shifts (that in my case extended sometimes between 18-24 in exceptional circumstances. His responsibility covers Flight Despatch/Flight Watch, Ground Ops, Ramp Coordination and sometimes Traffic & Cargo. It depends on the airline concerned and what positions are covered and really there is no set standard. Like the difference between low cost airlines and main line airlines such as BA
His responsibility covers everything imaginable including out of hours duty executive for the entire airline and out stations.
I really dont want to get involved in this agenda but just wanted to express my thoughts just in case someone was hinting that it was I that should get out more or keep in touch with the differences between the various departments.
A movement controller is the highest position in the operations department who operates under the Operations Manager. His responsibility covers all departments during his minumum of 12 hour shifts (that in my case extended sometimes between 18-24 in exceptional circumstances. His responsibility covers Flight Despatch/Flight Watch, Ground Ops, Ramp Coordination and sometimes Traffic & Cargo. It depends on the airline concerned and what positions are covered and really there is no set standard. Like the difference between low cost airlines and main line airlines such as BA
His responsibility covers everything imaginable including out of hours duty executive for the entire airline and out stations.
I really dont want to get involved in this agenda but just wanted to express my thoughts just in case someone was hinting that it was I that should get out more or keep in touch with the differences between the various departments.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Derby
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
System Here
Well said CM the system here works very well indeed and I consider the expertise of most of the operational side of any airline in this country as being second to none.
We are all professionals even thought sometimes our red tape goes a little bit overboard....our CAA certainly keeps us on our toes
Regards
Peter
We are all professionals even thought sometimes our red tape goes a little bit overboard....our CAA certainly keeps us on our toes
Regards
Peter
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM you have capitulated by asking me to look elsewhere. You say we will have to agree to disagree but you haven't addressed the subject and are argueing about something completely un-related to this thread. You have no experience of FAA regulated dispatch so you are not in a qualified position to argue against it - bit like Morticians advocating a better health service.
You also state that there is nothing wrong with the "system" here so why change it.
Let me give you an example:
FAR 121 Subpart U
121.639 Fuel supply: All domestic operations.
No person may dispatch or take off an airplane unless it has enough fuel—
(a) To fly to the airport to which it is dispatched;
(b) Thereafter, to fly to and land at the most distant alternate airport (where required) for the airport to which dispatched; and
(c) Thereafter, to fly for 45 minutes at normal cruising fuel consumption or, for certificate holders who are authorized to conduct day VFR operations in their operations specifications and who are operating nontransport category airplanes type certificated after December 31, 1964, to fly for 30 minutes at normal cruising fuel consumption for day VFR operations.
Note the brackets "where required"
Now have a look at subpart U 121.619
121.619 Alternate airport for destination: IFR or over-the-top: Domestic operations.
(a) No person may dispatch an airplane under IFR or over-the-top unless he lists at least one alternate airport for each destination airport in the dispatch release. When the weather conditions forecast for the destination and first alternate airport are marginal at least one additional alternate must be designated. However, no alternate airport is required if for at least 1 hour before and 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival at the destination airport the appropriate weather reports or forecasts, or any combination of them, indicate—
(1) The ceiling will be at least 2,000 feet above the airport elevation; and
(2) Visibility will be at least 3 miles.
(b) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the weather conditions at the alternate airport must meet the requirements of §121.625.
(c) No person may dispatch a flight unless he lists each required alternate airport in the dispatch release.
This will frighten you. I dont know what type of aircraft you fly but lets imagine it's a B757 and your off to HER from LTN and the type of release is as per the above. You will be flying with burn + 45 mins
This assume that the rest of the regulated system is enforce ie flight following and that the 50/50 responsibility share means that when I say you land short of the destination at XYZ (because of a non compliance with 121.619) that's where you stop.
Now do you see the difference.
Have a think about the fuel saving as well and the environmental advantages. Not so bad is it? Now have a butchers at 121 subpart P and all will be revealed as to what we are banging on about.
So It's not a fight - it's an eye opener for you as to what goes on on the other side of the pond and how it could benefit us all and in particular benefit the careers of those who are not
able to pole a bit of metal around the sky as you do, yet can enhance and augment the way it is done from a safety, effiency and financial benefit.
So to answer your questions - There is only one way of looking at this not the two views that you say. Have a look at www.FAA.gov/regulations it's the way of the future for you.
You also state that there is nothing wrong with the "system" here so why change it.
Let me give you an example:
FAR 121 Subpart U
121.639 Fuel supply: All domestic operations.
No person may dispatch or take off an airplane unless it has enough fuel—
(a) To fly to the airport to which it is dispatched;
(b) Thereafter, to fly to and land at the most distant alternate airport (where required) for the airport to which dispatched; and
(c) Thereafter, to fly for 45 minutes at normal cruising fuel consumption or, for certificate holders who are authorized to conduct day VFR operations in their operations specifications and who are operating nontransport category airplanes type certificated after December 31, 1964, to fly for 30 minutes at normal cruising fuel consumption for day VFR operations.
Note the brackets "where required"
Now have a look at subpart U 121.619
121.619 Alternate airport for destination: IFR or over-the-top: Domestic operations.
(a) No person may dispatch an airplane under IFR or over-the-top unless he lists at least one alternate airport for each destination airport in the dispatch release. When the weather conditions forecast for the destination and first alternate airport are marginal at least one additional alternate must be designated. However, no alternate airport is required if for at least 1 hour before and 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival at the destination airport the appropriate weather reports or forecasts, or any combination of them, indicate—
(1) The ceiling will be at least 2,000 feet above the airport elevation; and
(2) Visibility will be at least 3 miles.
(b) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the weather conditions at the alternate airport must meet the requirements of §121.625.
(c) No person may dispatch a flight unless he lists each required alternate airport in the dispatch release.
This will frighten you. I dont know what type of aircraft you fly but lets imagine it's a B757 and your off to HER from LTN and the type of release is as per the above. You will be flying with burn + 45 mins
This assume that the rest of the regulated system is enforce ie flight following and that the 50/50 responsibility share means that when I say you land short of the destination at XYZ (because of a non compliance with 121.619) that's where you stop.Now do you see the difference.
Have a think about the fuel saving as well and the environmental advantages. Not so bad is it? Now have a butchers at 121 subpart P and all will be revealed as to what we are banging on about.
So It's not a fight - it's an eye opener for you as to what goes on on the other side of the pond and how it could benefit us all and in particular benefit the careers of those who are not
able to pole a bit of metal around the sky as you do, yet can enhance and augment the way it is done from a safety, effiency and financial benefit.So to answer your questions - There is only one way of looking at this not the two views that you say. Have a look at www.FAA.gov/regulations it's the way of the future for you.
Last edited by Epsilon minus; 31st May 2006 at 20:35.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Derby
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our System
CM. I would just like to say that your closure on this thread is fine. In our system the Captain is ultimately responsible for his flight and accordingly he his given a flight plan to guide him on his way with relevant weather and notam briefs etc. The person in charge of operations during his shift is aware of his flight,progress and anticipated problems.
As and when problems arise operations make direct communications with the Captain or vice versus and enter into discussions as to what the company would like him to do and the Captain will then follow those requests if at all possible or will overide based on his own initiative.
All companies have their own minima for a given strip except when state minima applies. The normal policy is to make an approach when marginal weather applies and it is perfectly normal to have two attempts before diverting. I have known many times when the whole of the UK is marginal with only Prestwick in Scotland being totally clear. If one creates an environment of not being allowed to make an approach, would, in many cases ground all UK's airlines.
Captains have to be given the discretion to make an approach and if this is taken away from them by regulations or other persons (who cannot see conditions at a particular field) then our little island industry could well collapse.
Take the Channel Islands for instance that can have a cloud base that undulates giving a wave like flow. You get the actual which to all intents and purposes tells you that the weather is out......a good operations man will in the meantime communicate directly with local ATC/Ground Staff and by discussion will recommend to the Captain that they operate the schedule.
The Captain again evaluates the weather and monitors the progress of other aircraft ahead of him as to if they got in or not. There is no risk in such operations because you overshoot when you reach minima.
In regard to comments regarding costly fuel burns and the environment etc
When an aircraft diverts and ends up off location with no slip crew and no replacement aircraft the snow ball delays can continue for many days resulting in stranded pax, crew running out of hours, difficult ground transportation due to fog on the roads etc etc and in some cases causing a night stop. The financial situation becomes critical owing to not being able to clear the backlog and renders some aircraft AOG because company engineers cannot attend to the aircraft that would normally transit via base etc etc
One could argue this issue until the cows come home.......our system is fine
and in general I think our professionalism in using common sense is the better option.....it is not unsafe to operate in such a way as we all work together as a team with a 50/50 contribution.
Hope we can lay this matter to rest now
Peter
As and when problems arise operations make direct communications with the Captain or vice versus and enter into discussions as to what the company would like him to do and the Captain will then follow those requests if at all possible or will overide based on his own initiative.
All companies have their own minima for a given strip except when state minima applies. The normal policy is to make an approach when marginal weather applies and it is perfectly normal to have two attempts before diverting. I have known many times when the whole of the UK is marginal with only Prestwick in Scotland being totally clear. If one creates an environment of not being allowed to make an approach, would, in many cases ground all UK's airlines.
Captains have to be given the discretion to make an approach and if this is taken away from them by regulations or other persons (who cannot see conditions at a particular field) then our little island industry could well collapse.
Take the Channel Islands for instance that can have a cloud base that undulates giving a wave like flow. You get the actual which to all intents and purposes tells you that the weather is out......a good operations man will in the meantime communicate directly with local ATC/Ground Staff and by discussion will recommend to the Captain that they operate the schedule.
The Captain again evaluates the weather and monitors the progress of other aircraft ahead of him as to if they got in or not. There is no risk in such operations because you overshoot when you reach minima.
In regard to comments regarding costly fuel burns and the environment etc
When an aircraft diverts and ends up off location with no slip crew and no replacement aircraft the snow ball delays can continue for many days resulting in stranded pax, crew running out of hours, difficult ground transportation due to fog on the roads etc etc and in some cases causing a night stop. The financial situation becomes critical owing to not being able to clear the backlog and renders some aircraft AOG because company engineers cannot attend to the aircraft that would normally transit via base etc etc
One could argue this issue until the cows come home.......our system is fine
and in general I think our professionalism in using common sense is the better option.....it is not unsafe to operate in such a way as we all work together as a team with a 50/50 contribution.
Hope we can lay this matter to rest now
Peter
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P1
Sorry but it's not your (you and CM) thread to close. There are others who would like air their views. Feel free to leave and thank you for your comments. Send me a PM if you are still looking for navigation material.
CM
Yes you do seem to have liberated others of the opportunity to express their point of view. However before I let you swan off to the plotting table with P1 I would like to point out what I would like the debate to concentrate on. As Opssys has pointed out it is unlikely that a carbon copy of the FAR modus operandi vis a vis flight dispatch will be seen here (unless the bean counters read part 121.639). What we would like to see though is a state authority recognised training system that would be enshrined in JAR ops1 subpart N or a subpart dedicated to Ops Control Flight Dispatch (call it what you will) training requirements.
There is nothing to stop an AOC holder from pulling any old Tom Dick and Harry off the street and putting them in control of a multi million $ fleet of aircraft and relying on the aircraft commander to sort out the mess.
In FAR land the dispatcher and pilot have both sat the same exam (ATP) in JAR land it is only a recommendation that ops staff are trained in accordance with ICAO 7192D3 which is (more or less) the UK ATPL syllabus - no exam at the end mind you. Can you see how shared responsibility is easily facilitated when both parties hold the same qualifications. Can you see how much safer not to mention cost and efficient, this will make operations.
Time and time again you read in this forum "how do I get an FAA dispatchers ticket" "What sort of training should I do to work in XYZ Ops". It should not be like this , training should be in compliance with regulations, not left to the individual or Operator, I am sure you will agree.
A2000, Easyjet and others have sent their ops staff to the States to obtain FAA regulated training and FAA licences. Time this was done in the UK.
Regards EM
CM. I would just like to say that your closure on this thread is fine
CM
I was arguing my own point of view (which IS most of this thread)
There is nothing to stop an AOC holder from pulling any old Tom Dick and Harry off the street and putting them in control of a multi million $ fleet of aircraft and relying on the aircraft commander to sort out the mess.
In FAR land the dispatcher and pilot have both sat the same exam (ATP) in JAR land it is only a recommendation that ops staff are trained in accordance with ICAO 7192D3 which is (more or less) the UK ATPL syllabus - no exam at the end mind you. Can you see how shared responsibility is easily facilitated when both parties hold the same qualifications. Can you see how much safer not to mention cost and efficient, this will make operations.
Time and time again you read in this forum "how do I get an FAA dispatchers ticket" "What sort of training should I do to work in XYZ Ops". It should not be like this , training should be in compliance with regulations, not left to the individual or Operator, I am sure you will agree.
A2000, Easyjet and others have sent their ops staff to the States to obtain FAA regulated training and FAA licences. Time this was done in the UK.
Regards EM
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Derby
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Closure
It appears we have all expired our comments or at least CM and Myself on this matter...I realise the thread stays open but CM and I have aired our views and no longer wish to dwell on this as we are both happy with the current system.......one final word is that no matter what qualifications exist at the current time all our staff went on professional operational courses that ended with exams.....no paperwork...just years upon years of experience both theory and practical.....we also had to travel on a regular basis on the jump seat to check flight plans and procedures....
As a senior movement controller I also had to go to out stations and do operational station audits including those of third party handling agents...including BA. Last year I did station audits in the UAE for a major client....so you see we do know what we are talking about Finally I witnessed two incidents since the turn of the century where aircraft under US registration and under flight watch by such qualified persons you refer too, landed in wx conditions below minima with minimum rnwy length....so you see the system can fail, because like in most situations, the Captains use their own skills and knowledge.
I am not saying that I always agree with such marginal flying but only the man up front can see the true picture and not the man sittings behind a console/computer....the question of right or wrong is not for me to judge.
If we are still talking I would appreciate any old high/low enroute charts covering whatever is available but with emphasis on NAT, EU down to Middle East as my hobby is scanning HF/VHF and UHF etc.obviously I want to cover the world but I would not expect to receive the lot....I can pay for postage ..crazy yeh!!!
Thanks for everyones comments
Peter
As a senior movement controller I also had to go to out stations and do operational station audits including those of third party handling agents...including BA. Last year I did station audits in the UAE for a major client....so you see we do know what we are talking about Finally I witnessed two incidents since the turn of the century where aircraft under US registration and under flight watch by such qualified persons you refer too, landed in wx conditions below minima with minimum rnwy length....so you see the system can fail, because like in most situations, the Captains use their own skills and knowledge.
I am not saying that I always agree with such marginal flying but only the man up front can see the true picture and not the man sittings behind a console/computer....the question of right or wrong is not for me to judge.
If we are still talking I would appreciate any old high/low enroute charts covering whatever is available but with emphasis on NAT, EU down to Middle East as my hobby is scanning HF/VHF and UHF etc.obviously I want to cover the world but I would not expect to receive the lot....I can pay for postage ..crazy yeh!!!
Thanks for everyones comments
Peter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Vancouver, BC.
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, our system in the UK does indeed have many failings, the most significant is the lack of a formal ops accreditation such as the ICAO 7192 D3 licence. There is a sound reason behind the ICAO recommendation that flight dispatchers/flight operations officer should be trained/licensed and it is the UK who have fallen way behind in this regard.
Our system may not be broken but it is most certainly weak, particularly when held up against the US FAR system and other European countries where training of ops staff is to a high standard and equivalent to aircrew. Although, I actually do believe the FAA system to be superior to our approach, I tend to agree with Opssys that it is not necessary to move towards such a system in Europe.
The debate about joint dispatcher/commander responsibility is actually a separate one from the core issue of having a system of training and accreditation that ensures those who have an influence on flight safety are adequately trained for their role. Ops Officers most certainly have, at times, influence over decisions a commander may make. That of course is not to say that the commander is not the one in sole command of the aircraft, he is of course. But, and it is a significant but; where an individual is providing a flight crew member with information that may be the basis for a decision which may affect the safety of flight then that person must be trained adequately, and in my view that training should be to a standard equivalent to the aircrew. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever, that UK ops officers do influence flight safety in their day to day job.
Although, I don't wish to drag up the earlier discussion CM and Aloon had; but historically, in the UK the greatest impediment to ops officers obtaining adequate training has ironically been from pilot managers and the CAA who have had doubts over the issue of joint responsibility and concern that their command authority would somehow be diluted by moving towards the US FAR style flight release system- that was actually never the case nor the core issue. ICAO (not the FAA) spelled the requirement out 40 years or so ago in doc. 7192 D3.
Chesty M (hope you're still with us here) as our pilot representative, I hope you'd agree that we would have a better (and safer) system in Europe (UK) were every ops officer you deal with on a day to day basis properly trained, as you were when you did your ATPL studies. Wouldn't you feel more comfortable with the knowledge that your ops colleagues have a formal ops accreditation and a section in Part D of the ops manual detailing their initial and recurrent training and competence requirements? Just as you probably do knowing that cabin crew and engineers have had to demonstrate their knowledge and competence in their respective roles.
Pierre 1, where it sounds like your outfit had high standards sadly it is not universally the case. Experience should be build upon a sound foundation of knowledge and theory. Many believe that a few years on the ops desk is all that is required- that is simply not case.
And, again I am in complete accord with Opssys regarding ramp dispatch training, another area for another debate.
Our system may not be broken but it is most certainly weak, particularly when held up against the US FAR system and other European countries where training of ops staff is to a high standard and equivalent to aircrew. Although, I actually do believe the FAA system to be superior to our approach, I tend to agree with Opssys that it is not necessary to move towards such a system in Europe.
The debate about joint dispatcher/commander responsibility is actually a separate one from the core issue of having a system of training and accreditation that ensures those who have an influence on flight safety are adequately trained for their role. Ops Officers most certainly have, at times, influence over decisions a commander may make. That of course is not to say that the commander is not the one in sole command of the aircraft, he is of course. But, and it is a significant but; where an individual is providing a flight crew member with information that may be the basis for a decision which may affect the safety of flight then that person must be trained adequately, and in my view that training should be to a standard equivalent to the aircrew. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever, that UK ops officers do influence flight safety in their day to day job.
Although, I don't wish to drag up the earlier discussion CM and Aloon had; but historically, in the UK the greatest impediment to ops officers obtaining adequate training has ironically been from pilot managers and the CAA who have had doubts over the issue of joint responsibility and concern that their command authority would somehow be diluted by moving towards the US FAR style flight release system- that was actually never the case nor the core issue. ICAO (not the FAA) spelled the requirement out 40 years or so ago in doc. 7192 D3.
Chesty M (hope you're still with us here) as our pilot representative, I hope you'd agree that we would have a better (and safer) system in Europe (UK) were every ops officer you deal with on a day to day basis properly trained, as you were when you did your ATPL studies. Wouldn't you feel more comfortable with the knowledge that your ops colleagues have a formal ops accreditation and a section in Part D of the ops manual detailing their initial and recurrent training and competence requirements? Just as you probably do knowing that cabin crew and engineers have had to demonstrate their knowledge and competence in their respective roles.
Pierre 1, where it sounds like your outfit had high standards sadly it is not universally the case. Experience should be build upon a sound foundation of knowledge and theory. Many believe that a few years on the ops desk is all that is required- that is simply not case.
And, again I am in complete accord with Opssys regarding ramp dispatch training, another area for another debate.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Derby
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My last message
I agree some formal and routine training should take place and any GOOD airline will carry out this training......however back to my comments regarding two flights arriving on seperate days in zero conditions and short runway.
Both aircraft were American reg and both aircraft were under the control of FAA approved despatch....I observed both aircraft landing and I am sure you could imagine that terrible gutt feeling you get when such attempts were made.
I guess we are back to the previous comments made by others that the dispatchers are ultimately responsible if an aircraft goes in or overshoots the runway?
If the dispatcher is in total control of a flight, how could such an attempt be made when the field is zero vis on two seperate occasions and what measures do FAA take in monitoring a flight on the other side of the pond.
And why is such a person still in a job if "they are ultimately responsible".
It is my belief that we can only assume the norm that it is the Captain who decides upon arrival if to make an approach or divert.
I could also raise the question of CB's over the field or on the flight path...would the dispatcher make a decision when he his on the other side of the pond to divert, hold or make an approach? again I think we come back to the Captain although I always asked my crews to hold clear of CB's having studied at great lengths the influence of a Micro Burst. This was long before these were ever talked about (until after many aircraft had crashed).
I really dont know if I can say anymore on this thread...I just want to put a ballance into things to prove that even with training no one is perfect and I would still argue that the Captain is in charge at the end of the day and his final word. Obviously we can make all the recommendations to him but he will decide.....should you make a correct decision and he the wrong one then it is left to the Chief Pilot to carry out a de brief with him after you have given your input. One final point we never stop learning and there will always be the odd cowboy somewhere in the background on all sides.
Hope you all respect my comments it is purely my own thoughts
Peter
Both aircraft were American reg and both aircraft were under the control of FAA approved despatch....I observed both aircraft landing and I am sure you could imagine that terrible gutt feeling you get when such attempts were made.
I guess we are back to the previous comments made by others that the dispatchers are ultimately responsible if an aircraft goes in or overshoots the runway?
If the dispatcher is in total control of a flight, how could such an attempt be made when the field is zero vis on two seperate occasions and what measures do FAA take in monitoring a flight on the other side of the pond.
And why is such a person still in a job if "they are ultimately responsible".
It is my belief that we can only assume the norm that it is the Captain who decides upon arrival if to make an approach or divert.
I could also raise the question of CB's over the field or on the flight path...would the dispatcher make a decision when he his on the other side of the pond to divert, hold or make an approach? again I think we come back to the Captain although I always asked my crews to hold clear of CB's having studied at great lengths the influence of a Micro Burst. This was long before these were ever talked about (until after many aircraft had crashed).
I really dont know if I can say anymore on this thread...I just want to put a ballance into things to prove that even with training no one is perfect and I would still argue that the Captain is in charge at the end of the day and his final word. Obviously we can make all the recommendations to him but he will decide.....should you make a correct decision and he the wrong one then it is left to the Chief Pilot to carry out a de brief with him after you have given your input. One final point we never stop learning and there will always be the odd cowboy somewhere in the background on all sides.
Hope you all respect my comments it is purely my own thoughts
Peter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Vancouver, BC.
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pierre 1
Of course we repect your views.
We can always find an anecdote to fit the discussion, I could cite examples where the US the Dispatch system has saved the day, having worked there as a licensed dispatcher.
Flight dispatcher/commander joint responsibility is an emotive issue for many UK aircrew and it is, by in large, mis-understood over here by many of those who have not worked under the system. But it is a red-herring, the real issue for the UK airlines is not the adoption of the FAR flight dispatch system, but the training and 'qualification' of operations staff to a common (generic) standard.
Some might ask why this has just become an issue. İt hasn't, it has long been an issue in the 36 years I have worked in the industry, just that it was ignored, for the most part, by the CAA and many airlines until ICAO pulled them UK up on the matter some 4 -5 years ago after an audit. İt led to changes in JAROPS1 two years ago or so, which required ops officer (operational personnel) training to be to the 'relevant' parts of ICAO doc, 7192 D3. But I ask the question here- how many ops officers out there can say that their airline has adopted 7192 D3 as their syllabus, and how many have included the requirement in their ops manuals? The fact is, it needs to be a regulated requirement before the airlines will really make it happen. Unless, every ops officer exercising operational control over a flight is required to hold an accredidation it isn't going to happen the way it should.
My hope is that we will see it move forward under EASA and that in the not too distant future a common training standard will be defined for flight operations officers, it will be long overdue here in the UK.
Of course we repect your views.
We can always find an anecdote to fit the discussion, I could cite examples where the US the Dispatch system has saved the day, having worked there as a licensed dispatcher.
Flight dispatcher/commander joint responsibility is an emotive issue for many UK aircrew and it is, by in large, mis-understood over here by many of those who have not worked under the system. But it is a red-herring, the real issue for the UK airlines is not the adoption of the FAR flight dispatch system, but the training and 'qualification' of operations staff to a common (generic) standard.
Some might ask why this has just become an issue. İt hasn't, it has long been an issue in the 36 years I have worked in the industry, just that it was ignored, for the most part, by the CAA and many airlines until ICAO pulled them UK up on the matter some 4 -5 years ago after an audit. İt led to changes in JAROPS1 two years ago or so, which required ops officer (operational personnel) training to be to the 'relevant' parts of ICAO doc, 7192 D3. But I ask the question here- how many ops officers out there can say that their airline has adopted 7192 D3 as their syllabus, and how many have included the requirement in their ops manuals? The fact is, it needs to be a regulated requirement before the airlines will really make it happen. Unless, every ops officer exercising operational control over a flight is required to hold an accredidation it isn't going to happen the way it should.
My hope is that we will see it move forward under EASA and that in the not too distant future a common training standard will be defined for flight operations officers, it will be long overdue here in the UK.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nosig
This is not true; AMC 1.205 only recommends 7192D3 it does not enforce it. Your old outfit has just added 4 FAA licenced dispatchers to its NCC. Clearly they value the ground school more than the licence which is what is lacking here in the UK. Were there to be proper ground school facilities here in the UK, teaching the 7192D3 syllabus, Sheffield would be scratching for business.
Cheers
EM
İt led to changes in JAROPS1 two years ago or so, which required ops officer (operational personnel) training to be to the 'relevant' parts of ICAO doc, 7192 D3.
Cheers
EM