Difference between dispatcher and "dispatcher"
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: sURREY
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leezyjet..........
You said this.....It certainly adds an extra level of safety into the system. Before if when doing your own loadsheets, if you made a mistake on the l/s, nobody would be aware of it,
I would rarely disagree with you however what you say above I feel I must.
When doing your own loadsheet be it manual or EDP, one should always cross check it to ensure no mistakes have been made. If unsure, get someone else ( a second pair of eyes) to check it for you.
I feel it is always infinately safer to prepare your own flight, load plan it and produce a loadsheet yourself.........
Anyroad, will climb down off my soapbox and discuss with you over a beer..
You said this.....It certainly adds an extra level of safety into the system. Before if when doing your own loadsheets, if you made a mistake on the l/s, nobody would be aware of it,
I would rarely disagree with you however what you say above I feel I must.
When doing your own loadsheet be it manual or EDP, one should always cross check it to ensure no mistakes have been made. If unsure, get someone else ( a second pair of eyes) to check it for you.
I feel it is always infinately safer to prepare your own flight, load plan it and produce a loadsheet yourself.........
Anyroad, will climb down off my soapbox and discuss with you over a beer..
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captb747 wrote:
I feel it is always infinately safer to prepare your own flight, load plan it and produce a loadsheet yourself.........
I feel it is always infinately safer to prepare your own flight, load plan it and produce a loadsheet yourself.........
So are flight deck crew actually trained and aware and up-to-date with dangerous goods requirements?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In my own little world
Posts: 776
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CaptB747,
I used to think that too, but after hearing some of the stories about mistakes that have been made when one person plans the flight, and does the loadsheet, I have to stand by what I said.
If you are given a cargo deadload with say, 5465kgs of cargo on it, but as is usual for a dispatcher/load controller, they are rushing from flight to flight, they then enter the cargo figure in to the system as 4565kgs, the loadsheet will come out just fine, all the figures will cross check just fine, and nobody is any the wiser. The Capt only knows how much cargo is onboard by what the l/s says, so he won't pick up the error either. The a/c then trundles off on it's way and is almost 1,000kgs overweight. Even on a manual, the cross check would still work if the wrong figure has been entered and the rest of the l/s has been worked out using that wrong figure.
I've even heard of load controllers performing a manual l/s, all the figures were fine, and cross checked but it wasn't until the a/c was half way to destination that it was noticed that the l/s had been done on the wrong a/c types loadsheet - even the Capt didn't pick up on that one - again due to everyone rushing to get the flight out ontime !!
In the real world of the ramp, there is no way that you would be able to get someone to check your loadsheet for you as usually most ramp departments are so short staffed that everyone is usually chasing their tails trying to keep the operation running (take BA's recent mishap for example - lack of Dispatcher to turn on the lights).
With the central load planning department, at least the Dispatcher/Load Controller is able to double check the figures on the loadsheet because they have the time to do it when they are not actually producing it.
I used to think that too, but after hearing some of the stories about mistakes that have been made when one person plans the flight, and does the loadsheet, I have to stand by what I said.
If you are given a cargo deadload with say, 5465kgs of cargo on it, but as is usual for a dispatcher/load controller, they are rushing from flight to flight, they then enter the cargo figure in to the system as 4565kgs, the loadsheet will come out just fine, all the figures will cross check just fine, and nobody is any the wiser. The Capt only knows how much cargo is onboard by what the l/s says, so he won't pick up the error either. The a/c then trundles off on it's way and is almost 1,000kgs overweight. Even on a manual, the cross check would still work if the wrong figure has been entered and the rest of the l/s has been worked out using that wrong figure.
I've even heard of load controllers performing a manual l/s, all the figures were fine, and cross checked but it wasn't until the a/c was half way to destination that it was noticed that the l/s had been done on the wrong a/c types loadsheet - even the Capt didn't pick up on that one - again due to everyone rushing to get the flight out ontime !!
In the real world of the ramp, there is no way that you would be able to get someone to check your loadsheet for you as usually most ramp departments are so short staffed that everyone is usually chasing their tails trying to keep the operation running (take BA's recent mishap for example - lack of Dispatcher to turn on the lights).
With the central load planning department, at least the Dispatcher/Load Controller is able to double check the figures on the loadsheet because they have the time to do it when they are not actually producing it.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: sURREY
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR777......
We were not really discussing dangerous goods here, however I would expect ALL flightdeck crew to be aware (Not have indepth knowledge) of dangerous goods and to be able to go to the carriage of dangerous goods manual to satisfy themselves that the way Dangerous goods have been loaded is compatible. Thats exactly what I would do.....
Incidently, I planned my own flights, and did my own loadsheets. Did nothing but manual loadsheets for almost a year....was checked by supervisors and double checked. Have held licences with the LBA (German CAA) to dispatch german registered aircraft (you had to be licenced by them).......I think I am pretty safe to loadplan and dispatch a flight!!!!!
Leezyjet.......
I know you and you know me..You should also know that mistakes because people are in a rush should not be tolerated. I didnt come down in the last shower and know mistakes happen. Part of the way I was trained was to check you had the correct loadsheet (manual) and then check again. Once the loadsheet is completed check again. Always cover your backside....You really should know that......
We were not really discussing dangerous goods here, however I would expect ALL flightdeck crew to be aware (Not have indepth knowledge) of dangerous goods and to be able to go to the carriage of dangerous goods manual to satisfy themselves that the way Dangerous goods have been loaded is compatible. Thats exactly what I would do.....
Incidently, I planned my own flights, and did my own loadsheets. Did nothing but manual loadsheets for almost a year....was checked by supervisors and double checked. Have held licences with the LBA (German CAA) to dispatch german registered aircraft (you had to be licenced by them).......I think I am pretty safe to loadplan and dispatch a flight!!!!!
Leezyjet.......
I know you and you know me..You should also know that mistakes because people are in a rush should not be tolerated. I didnt come down in the last shower and know mistakes happen. Part of the way I was trained was to check you had the correct loadsheet (manual) and then check again. Once the loadsheet is completed check again. Always cover your backside....You really should know that......
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In my own little world
Posts: 776
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know mistakes should not be tolerated, but they do happen on a regular basis when time is tight and staff are rushing as is usually the case, and when only one person is responsible for producing all the figures, thats when the mistakes can go unnoticed.
With another person producing the figures, and then the dispatcher checking them, there is much more of a chance of the errors being spotted before the a/c departs.
With another person producing the figures, and then the dispatcher checking them, there is much more of a chance of the errors being spotted before the a/c departs.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The Deep South
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As i sorted of instigated this issue of CLC v working locally and at airside i guess i should throw in my tuppence worth.
Firstly i must point out that i have worked in both case scenarios, sending messages to a CLC dept far away and also doing my own planning and loadsheets at the aircraft ( both manual and DCS computerised versions).
I afraid i could never the CLC system on a permanant basis i find it all too frustrating.
I understand that the companies both LHR777 & Leezyjet work for are massive players globally and that you will both be handsomely rewarded for your labours in comparison to others and therefore you have a sense of loyalty in defended the procedures that are currently in place, as LHR777 says " I'm not saying it's perfect, but that's our set-up "
Let me explain why i feel strongly the way i do and i must admit it's good to hear the comments of CaptB747, quite often Cockpit crew are normally only interested in the final product and not how it is achieved.
I personally believe that the margin for error is greater with a CLC whilst i would never question their skill, knowledge and ability, it is still the call centre syndrome, being remote from the activity and issues, then there is the messaging, if a local load controller / dispatcher is at the aircraft they can not only visualise the aircraft but have the system readily available to make changes, visualise the trim, the payloads etc and react accordingly, obviously with CLC it requires constant messaging which has to be accurate thus doubling thus using 2 people to do what one can do aduquatley, also you are constantly waiting for replies etc.
(ie) You are in charge of a A340 the freight is late and the loaders ask if they can load it in any order, being load control trained as i am i would look in the system and see if the aircraft trims and advise accordingly i would also consider DGR etc, this would take a couple of minutes, with CLC i would have to send a message and await a reply, if ok the CLC would then have to do a new LIR and send to the gate, which in anyone's world is a slower process.
(ie) 2, you are in cahrge of a 737-800 or 757 multi sector flight, which due to passenger volumes and baggage weight is likely to exceed payload, you keep Freight and mail on standby, it is far easier to monitor this locally and make decisions than to rely on someone else.
As i have said i have worked both systems and sad to say but i found working alongside CLC totally and utterly frustrating.
As Leezyjet said
The only thing I don't like is that it is much more time consuming to get a load plan changed when you need to explain to the CLC bod what you need doing, then wait for them to do it and send you the new L/P. Oh and at my lot, the load planners have hardly even seen an a/c, let alone dispatched one !!. They do some very strange things with the trims, especially when the holds are not going to be full !!.
"
Unfortunately i understand that many big companies work this way and many will and some already are following, sadly they use the health and safety argument but that to me is " bull " it is all about money, like i said the 2 companies LHR777 & Leezyjet work for " look after " their staff but generally companies think more along the lines of have a CLC bashing out loadsheet afte loadsheet and pay a runner peanuts to deliver papers to the cockpit.
And finally when i prepared and signed a loadsheet either manually or computerised i was far happier with it's content than i was if it was prepared somewhere else and if the captain asked questions about something then i would readily explain which is not so easy if you haven't prepared it.
Also LHR777 although the system you are using now seems to work from contacts i have many of the old dispatchers at your company would still rather work the old way and many were very reluctant to change but naturally had no choice.
Still at the end of the day it's all only a job after all !
Firstly i must point out that i have worked in both case scenarios, sending messages to a CLC dept far away and also doing my own planning and loadsheets at the aircraft ( both manual and DCS computerised versions).
I afraid i could never the CLC system on a permanant basis i find it all too frustrating.
I understand that the companies both LHR777 & Leezyjet work for are massive players globally and that you will both be handsomely rewarded for your labours in comparison to others and therefore you have a sense of loyalty in defended the procedures that are currently in place, as LHR777 says " I'm not saying it's perfect, but that's our set-up "
Let me explain why i feel strongly the way i do and i must admit it's good to hear the comments of CaptB747, quite often Cockpit crew are normally only interested in the final product and not how it is achieved.
I personally believe that the margin for error is greater with a CLC whilst i would never question their skill, knowledge and ability, it is still the call centre syndrome, being remote from the activity and issues, then there is the messaging, if a local load controller / dispatcher is at the aircraft they can not only visualise the aircraft but have the system readily available to make changes, visualise the trim, the payloads etc and react accordingly, obviously with CLC it requires constant messaging which has to be accurate thus doubling thus using 2 people to do what one can do aduquatley, also you are constantly waiting for replies etc.
(ie) You are in charge of a A340 the freight is late and the loaders ask if they can load it in any order, being load control trained as i am i would look in the system and see if the aircraft trims and advise accordingly i would also consider DGR etc, this would take a couple of minutes, with CLC i would have to send a message and await a reply, if ok the CLC would then have to do a new LIR and send to the gate, which in anyone's world is a slower process.
(ie) 2, you are in cahrge of a 737-800 or 757 multi sector flight, which due to passenger volumes and baggage weight is likely to exceed payload, you keep Freight and mail on standby, it is far easier to monitor this locally and make decisions than to rely on someone else.
As i have said i have worked both systems and sad to say but i found working alongside CLC totally and utterly frustrating.
As Leezyjet said
The only thing I don't like is that it is much more time consuming to get a load plan changed when you need to explain to the CLC bod what you need doing, then wait for them to do it and send you the new L/P. Oh and at my lot, the load planners have hardly even seen an a/c, let alone dispatched one !!. They do some very strange things with the trims, especially when the holds are not going to be full !!.
"
Unfortunately i understand that many big companies work this way and many will and some already are following, sadly they use the health and safety argument but that to me is " bull " it is all about money, like i said the 2 companies LHR777 & Leezyjet work for " look after " their staff but generally companies think more along the lines of have a CLC bashing out loadsheet afte loadsheet and pay a runner peanuts to deliver papers to the cockpit.
And finally when i prepared and signed a loadsheet either manually or computerised i was far happier with it's content than i was if it was prepared somewhere else and if the captain asked questions about something then i would readily explain which is not so easy if you haven't prepared it.
Also LHR777 although the system you are using now seems to work from contacts i have many of the old dispatchers at your company would still rather work the old way and many were very reluctant to change but naturally had no choice.
Still at the end of the day it's all only a job after all !
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The Deep South
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess when you say checking figures you are talking about cargo figures, obviously baggage and passenger figures are not readily available until check in closes or the last pax on board, My comments are generally geared towards reactionary issues as opposed to an ideal world where everything runs smoothly, and as i think the whole country is aware at the moment that LHR & LGW are anything but an ideal world 
Also do the load planners at " your lot " understand the size of Lhr let alone the problems you face on a daily basis
Also do the load planners at " your lot " understand the size of Lhr let alone the problems you face on a daily basis
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Posted by older_wiser:
Also LHR777 although the system you are using now seems to work from contacts i have many of the old dispatchers at your company would still rather work the old way and many were very reluctant to change but naturally had no choice.
Still at the end of the day it's all only a job after all !
Also LHR777 although the system you are using now seems to work from contacts i have many of the old dispatchers at your company would still rather work the old way and many were very reluctant to change but naturally had no choice.
Still at the end of the day it's all only a job after all !
You're right though - it's only a job after all....
Posted by Captb747:
We were not really discussing dangerous goods here, however I would expect ALL flightdeck crew to be aware (Not have indepth knowledge) of dangerous goods and to be able to go to the carriage of dangerous goods manual to satisfy themselves that the way Dangerous goods have been loaded is compatible. Thats exactly what I would do.....
We were not really discussing dangerous goods here, however I would expect ALL flightdeck crew to be aware (Not have indepth knowledge) of dangerous goods and to be able to go to the carriage of dangerous goods manual to satisfy themselves that the way Dangerous goods have been loaded is compatible. Thats exactly what I would do.....
Still, I wasn't knocking you, if I came across that way. I merely wondered if flight deck crew are trained in the carriage of dangerous goods, as a safety-related item. So, are they?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i hate CLC
i`m a load controller, one group of airlines we deal with uses CLC in BKK. when the turnaround goes smoothly its great, but when things get hairy, its a nasty little setup.having to send a message to the other side of the world to make a small change that i could do instantly at the aircraft side with any other airline/system just does not make much sense to me.
rant over.
rant over.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Posted by j_davey:
i`m a load controller, one group of airlines we deal with uses CLC in BKK. when the turnaround goes smoothly its great, but when things get hairy, its a nasty little setup.having to send a message to the other side of the world to make a small change that i could do instantly at the aircraft side with any other airline/system just does not make much sense to me.
i`m a load controller, one group of airlines we deal with uses CLC in BKK. when the turnaround goes smoothly its great, but when things get hairy, its a nasty little setup.having to send a message to the other side of the world to make a small change that i could do instantly at the aircraft side with any other airline/system just does not make much sense to me.
I'll say it again - at the carrier I work at, TRM's are free to change things on the trim as necessary. They do NOT have to call CLC for every little change. We use a system of data-transfer from the TRM to CLC and any changes are highlighted upon this. The TRM remains in control of the turnround at all times.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The Deep South
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR_777
Sure i meant the old dispatchers when i said about preferring the old way and regarding the " vote " to change working pratices, you know how it is with these so called ballots, companies use tactics that mean that 99% of the time get what they want.
Agreed, the set up you have seems to be as good as CLC can be, but i agree with j_davey, CLC is fine on a smooth flight but when things go wrong, then they go wrong and it is a pointless messy system.
Also j_davey's job description makes sense to me as i think i'm aware of the company he works for and if i'm not wrong, They do the full on load control for several contracts yet do CLC for others, when you work in such an enviroment it means you can compare CLC v Local load sheets on a daily basis and when you do that you realise that there is no comparison.
Problem is as i keep saying many carriers don't give the option anymore and a job is a job after all
Sure i meant the old dispatchers when i said about preferring the old way and regarding the " vote " to change working pratices, you know how it is with these so called ballots, companies use tactics that mean that 99% of the time get what they want.
Agreed, the set up you have seems to be as good as CLC can be, but i agree with j_davey, CLC is fine on a smooth flight but when things go wrong, then they go wrong and it is a pointless messy system.
Also j_davey's job description makes sense to me as i think i'm aware of the company he works for and if i'm not wrong, They do the full on load control for several contracts yet do CLC for others, when you work in such an enviroment it means you can compare CLC v Local load sheets on a daily basis and when you do that you realise that there is no comparison.
Problem is as i keep saying many carriers don't give the option anymore and a job is a job after all
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: sURREY
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to clarify something, I am not flight deck........however I have been heavily influenced by flightdeck for various reasons and I do know that they dont have the indepth knowledge of dangerous goods which is why they have manuals to refer to. Its like an engineer would refer to a maintenance manual when carrying out various activities he/she is not 100% sure about. No one can know everything.
Just like Older_wiser said.....CLC is a bit like a call centre and we all know what they are like. I am certainly not trying to sway someones opinion here BUT I do STRONGLY believe old school is best and ny that I mean preparing the flight and doing the load sheet. Just a small point, when loadplanning my own flights, if a pallett etc had to moved to a different hold/ compartment I would always know if it could be done and roughly what effect on the trim it would have......BY doing things myself.
Just like Older_wiser said.....CLC is a bit like a call centre and we all know what they are like. I am certainly not trying to sway someones opinion here BUT I do STRONGLY believe old school is best and ny that I mean preparing the flight and doing the load sheet. Just a small point, when loadplanning my own flights, if a pallett etc had to moved to a different hold/ compartment I would always know if it could be done and roughly what effect on the trim it would have......BY doing things myself.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Points well taken gentlemen. My point is, there will always arguments for and against the use of a CLC hub. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. It's been most enlightening though.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Posted by j_davey:
i`m a load controller, one group of airlines we deal with uses CLC in BKK. when the turnaround goes smoothly its great, but when things get hairy, its a nasty little setup.having to send a message to the other side of the world to make a small change that i could do instantly at the aircraft side with any other airline/system just does not make much sense to me.
So you hate your own job? You say you're a load controller and you hate CLC? That makes no sense! Unless you mean you're a Dispatcher? I guess the benefit of CLC at the carrier i'm employed at is that we're NOT on the other side of the world, but only on the other side of the northern runway...
I'll say it again - at the carrier I work at, TRM's are free to change things on the trim as necessary. They do NOT have to call CLC for every little change. We use a system of data-transfer from the TRM to CLC and any changes are highlighted upon this. The TRM remains in control of the turnround at all times.
Posted by j_davey:
i`m a load controller, one group of airlines we deal with uses CLC in BKK. when the turnaround goes smoothly its great, but when things get hairy, its a nasty little setup.having to send a message to the other side of the world to make a small change that i could do instantly at the aircraft side with any other airline/system just does not make much sense to me.
So you hate your own job? You say you're a load controller and you hate CLC? That makes no sense! Unless you mean you're a Dispatcher? I guess the benefit of CLC at the carrier i'm employed at is that we're NOT on the other side of the world, but only on the other side of the northern runway...
I'll say it again - at the carrier I work at, TRM's are free to change things on the trim as necessary. They do NOT have to call CLC for every little change. We use a system of data-transfer from the TRM to CLC and any changes are highlighted upon this. The TRM remains in control of the turnround at all times.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have only belatedly seen this thread. The question of what is the difference between one dispatcher in this world and another is one I once asked myself after being confused by who I saw signing bits of paper and how they were getting their data.
In UK LCO's you might most likely thesedays see "Team Leader" on the vest of the person signing the load sheet and presenting it to the captain. They are the ramp team leaders of course and in no way could any courses they have taken be compared with ATPL Theory save for a little bit of W+B perhaps. Any comparison between a US licensed dispatcher and a UK LCO Team Leader might be like comparing a 16 y old who could get pass GCSE level maths with a successfully completed first year university degree course student in a numerate discipline.
It is up to the Team Leader to be on the spot to supervise the loading and collect the data. I am not sure they always are on the spot, so I believe that "hearsay evidence" from other ramp team members sometimes ends up on the loadsheet with any consequent errors. I don't know for sure, but Team Leaders can't be everywhere at once and sadly their appearance and demeanour sometimes doesn't totally inspire confidence.
In other regional ops the "dispatcher" is effectively the team leader on the passenger services side and he or she liases briefly with the ramp team for the loading data and relies perhaps on bespoke computer program to crunch some of the bag and pax numbers and highlight discrepancies. However, again, the loading evidence is sometimes "hearsay" and relies on the word of people a long way down the tree.
I've seen a few ramp agents in the UK who can't be bothered to count while loading, and then peer over the numbers and simply sign for the number of bags that were supposed to be loaded. I've seen loaders leave the apron without confirming what they've loaded. Not often, but I've seen it.
I've seen loaders in the UK encounter specially labelled goods and despite rudimentary training aware of dangerous goods labels and the like, just pitch in more or less as normal and just treat it as "another box" perhaps with just a little bit more care not to drop it, and some rudimentary securing with whatever ropes and nets are close to hand. That is unless someone steps in and starts controlling.
I've also seen where assorted badly secured baggage has dented the inside of the hold/pressure hull in flight.
That's the shoddy end of "load-control".
The interesting thing about the other end of the spectrum in passenger services anyway in the UK is that it is usually contracted by the same ground handling contractors as the not so attractive end! So I can only assume that airlines auditors must be complicit in the standards or lack of them according to the particular contract that year/that season and that any non-compliance is kept to some degree of reasonableness that doesn't attract the attention of the authorities.
As for cargo operations where scope for inappropriate load distribution and handling is much more prevalent, then I can only assume that some much better and appropriate level of control is applied or we'd hear about it. Those will be the true "load controllers" I guess.
But I know of no roles in dispatch in UK at least where you could say they were qualified to ATPL Theory standards. Correct me anyone?
In UK LCO's you might most likely thesedays see "Team Leader" on the vest of the person signing the load sheet and presenting it to the captain. They are the ramp team leaders of course and in no way could any courses they have taken be compared with ATPL Theory save for a little bit of W+B perhaps. Any comparison between a US licensed dispatcher and a UK LCO Team Leader might be like comparing a 16 y old who could get pass GCSE level maths with a successfully completed first year university degree course student in a numerate discipline.
It is up to the Team Leader to be on the spot to supervise the loading and collect the data. I am not sure they always are on the spot, so I believe that "hearsay evidence" from other ramp team members sometimes ends up on the loadsheet with any consequent errors. I don't know for sure, but Team Leaders can't be everywhere at once and sadly their appearance and demeanour sometimes doesn't totally inspire confidence.
In other regional ops the "dispatcher" is effectively the team leader on the passenger services side and he or she liases briefly with the ramp team for the loading data and relies perhaps on bespoke computer program to crunch some of the bag and pax numbers and highlight discrepancies. However, again, the loading evidence is sometimes "hearsay" and relies on the word of people a long way down the tree.
I've seen a few ramp agents in the UK who can't be bothered to count while loading, and then peer over the numbers and simply sign for the number of bags that were supposed to be loaded. I've seen loaders leave the apron without confirming what they've loaded. Not often, but I've seen it.
I've seen loaders in the UK encounter specially labelled goods and despite rudimentary training aware of dangerous goods labels and the like, just pitch in more or less as normal and just treat it as "another box" perhaps with just a little bit more care not to drop it, and some rudimentary securing with whatever ropes and nets are close to hand. That is unless someone steps in and starts controlling.
I've also seen where assorted badly secured baggage has dented the inside of the hold/pressure hull in flight.
That's the shoddy end of "load-control".
The interesting thing about the other end of the spectrum in passenger services anyway in the UK is that it is usually contracted by the same ground handling contractors as the not so attractive end! So I can only assume that airlines auditors must be complicit in the standards or lack of them according to the particular contract that year/that season and that any non-compliance is kept to some degree of reasonableness that doesn't attract the attention of the authorities.
As for cargo operations where scope for inappropriate load distribution and handling is much more prevalent, then I can only assume that some much better and appropriate level of control is applied or we'd hear about it. Those will be the true "load controllers" I guess.
But I know of no roles in dispatch in UK at least where you could say they were qualified to ATPL Theory standards. Correct me anyone?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with your comment on ATPL, it seems most unlikely. I to have come late onto this thread and there are clear diferences between many countrys and the onus lies with the airline to set a prescribed standard that they require to operate to. As for the cargo and in particular DG it is not unusual to find senior dispatchers with very little knowledge on the subject and on containerised aircraft all Dg tends to be within a bin so no-one checks the security / location of the goods.
I think also the role has evolved considerably with many of current aircraft types far less effected by incorrect loading that in the days of 707 / VC10 etc was critical. CLC makes good sence and in many cases works very well as many flights operate the same routes, near enough the same loads, 364 days per year, same fuel uplift ad infinitum. Concern is that because of the lack of experience of the CLC and dispatchers many without a ramp / apron background will cock up when they deal with the one off flight that has the potential for problems.
Knowledge decreases, within the new T 5 operation all aircraft will be containerised and this is becoming and will become the norm at the major hubs. Imput will vefry little from those involved around the holds which is very much the case now.
I think also the role has evolved considerably with many of current aircraft types far less effected by incorrect loading that in the days of 707 / VC10 etc was critical. CLC makes good sence and in many cases works very well as many flights operate the same routes, near enough the same loads, 364 days per year, same fuel uplift ad infinitum. Concern is that because of the lack of experience of the CLC and dispatchers many without a ramp / apron background will cock up when they deal with the one off flight that has the potential for problems.
Knowledge decreases, within the new T 5 operation all aircraft will be containerised and this is becoming and will become the norm at the major hubs. Imput will vefry little from those involved around the holds which is very much the case now.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: coeland
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YOu think this is bad? I had encountered captains who couldnt figure out the same or what equals to :MRWT( Max Ramp Wt) minus ZFW! ( =Blk Fuel )plus they couldnt fill out 50% of an ICAO FPL form!
There u go!
We live and learn.
Chill!
There u go!
We live and learn.
Chill!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: coeland
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dispatcher and FAA dispatcher
Hi all
If I may add, there shouldn't be any difference in the qualification and competency of a,,say UK dispatcher vs a FAA licensed dispatcher.I hold both licenses,plus a loadmaster & IR . Perhaps one of the difference is the FAA examination location, which has to be on US soil, and performed by a FAA examiner during a O&P ( Oral & Practical ) exams which test on general dispatch knowledge and then perform a flight planning exercise .takes around 4 to 5 hours for whole thing. the FAR ( Federal Aviation Regulations ) 65 SUbpart C has standards or requirements on what a qualified dispatcher should know& tested upon.Almost the same as ATP. The purpose of any test realy is to see how " safe" a dispatcher or crew is to perform his/her functions.
For UK or European dispatcher,whom I understand conforms to JAR/EASA regulations, then ICAO annex 1 and Annex 6 complied. The CAA website also has certain information on this.
There is no requirement in ICAO regs that a dispatcher MUST holds a license whilst US states that they would need a license.
I hope that clears up any doubts. As to the " quality" of a dispatcher in an airline , well, that is up to their QA and regulatories' requirements.
If I may add, there shouldn't be any difference in the qualification and competency of a,,say UK dispatcher vs a FAA licensed dispatcher.I hold both licenses,plus a loadmaster & IR . Perhaps one of the difference is the FAA examination location, which has to be on US soil, and performed by a FAA examiner during a O&P ( Oral & Practical ) exams which test on general dispatch knowledge and then perform a flight planning exercise .takes around 4 to 5 hours for whole thing. the FAR ( Federal Aviation Regulations ) 65 SUbpart C has standards or requirements on what a qualified dispatcher should know& tested upon.Almost the same as ATP. The purpose of any test realy is to see how " safe" a dispatcher or crew is to perform his/her functions.
For UK or European dispatcher,whom I understand conforms to JAR/EASA regulations, then ICAO annex 1 and Annex 6 complied. The CAA website also has certain information on this.
There is no requirement in ICAO regs that a dispatcher MUST holds a license whilst US states that they would need a license.
I hope that clears up any doubts. As to the " quality" of a dispatcher in an airline , well, that is up to their QA and regulatories' requirements.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lefthandseat,
Hoiw right you are - the quality for Dispatch is down to the carrier.
Having been in the game for more years than I care to remember, worked in UK, Europe and US & Canada I can advise that the differences are driven by the carrier and what they are prepared to invest in safety; and not whether an individual has been through this or that training/qualification/certification process.
In the 'old days' the Dispatchers of the legacy carriers were some of the highest paid on the ground; their activity levels were highly restricted and they were well trained and well supervised. Aviation will NEVER go back to those days.
There is a huge difference in the skillset required to plan, execute and diapatch a longhaul, wide-body flight with multiple stop-overs and heavy cargo loads to a Loco going point to point with no cargo. Similarly, it is pointless training an individual on all the variances if they are only going to use 5%.
All that has happened is that the industry has adapted to meet the needs of the varying levels of requirement. We no longer have a 'one size fits all' service. Loco's don't want to pay for services they do not require; other carriers do need these skills and will pay for them.
To come to the defence of some of the independent handling companies (Menzies, Swissport, Servisair, Jet Aviation etc.); they ALL have the capability equal to the best of the airline systems; the difference is that they deliver to the standards their customers contract. I suspect many flight crews would be mortified by what their employers ask handling companies to do to reduce costs - and this includes not training in what would, years ago, have been madatory for anyone dispatching/red capping a flight.
There should be a single, global standard. probably written under the control of IATA, and regulated by the likes of the FAA, EASA etc. The standard could be multi-layered to take into account the variancies of today's aviation requirements with the capability of starting at e.g Level 1 going through to higher Levels for the more complex requirements.
GH
Hoiw right you are - the quality for Dispatch is down to the carrier.
Having been in the game for more years than I care to remember, worked in UK, Europe and US & Canada I can advise that the differences are driven by the carrier and what they are prepared to invest in safety; and not whether an individual has been through this or that training/qualification/certification process.
In the 'old days' the Dispatchers of the legacy carriers were some of the highest paid on the ground; their activity levels were highly restricted and they were well trained and well supervised. Aviation will NEVER go back to those days.
There is a huge difference in the skillset required to plan, execute and diapatch a longhaul, wide-body flight with multiple stop-overs and heavy cargo loads to a Loco going point to point with no cargo. Similarly, it is pointless training an individual on all the variances if they are only going to use 5%.
All that has happened is that the industry has adapted to meet the needs of the varying levels of requirement. We no longer have a 'one size fits all' service. Loco's don't want to pay for services they do not require; other carriers do need these skills and will pay for them.
To come to the defence of some of the independent handling companies (Menzies, Swissport, Servisair, Jet Aviation etc.); they ALL have the capability equal to the best of the airline systems; the difference is that they deliver to the standards their customers contract. I suspect many flight crews would be mortified by what their employers ask handling companies to do to reduce costs - and this includes not training in what would, years ago, have been madatory for anyone dispatching/red capping a flight.
There should be a single, global standard. probably written under the control of IATA, and regulated by the likes of the FAA, EASA etc. The standard could be multi-layered to take into account the variancies of today's aviation requirements with the capability of starting at e.g Level 1 going through to higher Levels for the more complex requirements.
GH