Difference between dispatcher and "dispatcher"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: slightly left of you
Age: 43
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Difference between dispatcher and "dispatcher"
Ive had a look through quite a few old posts and tried to work out what the difference is between an FAA licensed dispatcher and what most people in the UK associate as a dispatcher.
Unfortunately i'm still a little confused.
Does the UK dispatcher just hand paperwork to the flight deck and the FAA dispatcher actually work everything out, or are there more basic differences
Any help most appreciated.
Unfortunately i'm still a little confused.
Does the UK dispatcher just hand paperwork to the flight deck and the FAA dispatcher actually work everything out, or are there more basic differences
Any help most appreciated.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Cortilla...
xxx
I try to suit my answers on Pprune to the geographical area and background of the people who ask questions, such as you with FAA and UK... so, like you I am confused as well. You "are a little left of me" and I dont know your activity or background to answer you better.
xxx
In the USA there is a dispatcher certificate (licence) and the privileges and duties vary depending the type of air carrier operations, such as domestic, flag, supplemental or commercial operators. Essentially, dispatch release may or may not be required for USA operators (the other form of dispatch ground operations is called "flight following").
xxx
Generally, a USA air carrier will have a few licenced dispātchers, and a few assistants to issue and forward documents to the operating flight by SITA, fax or email. but a dispatch operations office have many assistants who are not "licenced" but work under supervision and responsibility of dispatchers. Some just "forward papers" as you well say.
xxx
Realize also that a FAA dispatcher has passed a written and practical exam, that is equivalent to the test for the FAA/ATPL, so essentially, except for actually flying an airplane, a dispatcher has equal knowledge to a captain as far as meteorology, navigation, regulations, aircraft limitations and flight planning.
xxx
Then, know that there is big regulatory differences between a dispatch organization and flight following, although in practice, the two are very similar in their activities, and handling of documents.
xxx
I dont know the legal differences with the UK air carriers, but in practice, I believe their duties and responsibilities are quite similar. I work in Argentina, where we essentially follow US/FAA airline standards and regulations. When I show-up 90 minutes before a flight to my operations office, all the flight documentation is ready for us, from flight plans, oceanic tracks, payload info, fuel requirements, weather reports and forecasts, NOTAMs and maintenance status of the airplane. Off base, i.e. in Europe, the handling airline provides us with tons of papers and documents forwarded by our Buenos Aires ops office. During flight, we remain in contact by SATphone or HF phone patch with that office for any updates.
xxx
Any questions?
Happy contrails
xxx
I try to suit my answers on Pprune to the geographical area and background of the people who ask questions, such as you with FAA and UK... so, like you I am confused as well. You "are a little left of me" and I dont know your activity or background to answer you better.
xxx
In the USA there is a dispatcher certificate (licence) and the privileges and duties vary depending the type of air carrier operations, such as domestic, flag, supplemental or commercial operators. Essentially, dispatch release may or may not be required for USA operators (the other form of dispatch ground operations is called "flight following").
xxx
Generally, a USA air carrier will have a few licenced dispātchers, and a few assistants to issue and forward documents to the operating flight by SITA, fax or email. but a dispatch operations office have many assistants who are not "licenced" but work under supervision and responsibility of dispatchers. Some just "forward papers" as you well say.
xxx
Realize also that a FAA dispatcher has passed a written and practical exam, that is equivalent to the test for the FAA/ATPL, so essentially, except for actually flying an airplane, a dispatcher has equal knowledge to a captain as far as meteorology, navigation, regulations, aircraft limitations and flight planning.
xxx
Then, know that there is big regulatory differences between a dispatch organization and flight following, although in practice, the two are very similar in their activities, and handling of documents.
xxx
I dont know the legal differences with the UK air carriers, but in practice, I believe their duties and responsibilities are quite similar. I work in Argentina, where we essentially follow US/FAA airline standards and regulations. When I show-up 90 minutes before a flight to my operations office, all the flight documentation is ready for us, from flight plans, oceanic tracks, payload info, fuel requirements, weather reports and forecasts, NOTAMs and maintenance status of the airplane. Off base, i.e. in Europe, the handling airline provides us with tons of papers and documents forwarded by our Buenos Aires ops office. During flight, we remain in contact by SATphone or HF phone patch with that office for any updates.
xxx
Any questions?
Happy contrails
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The Deep South
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have previously known of " Dispatchers " (or so they call themselves) in the UK who couldn't even work out an EZFW and others who wouldn't even know what it is, you may think this is unbelievable but it's true.
So there you have a least one difference, basically in the UK Airline Handling companies in particular recruit wannabees from Check in and give them a basic course, usually there are more seasoned and experienced staff around to guide them through but at the end of the day in the UK handling business everything is cost based !
So there you have a least one difference, basically in the UK Airline Handling companies in particular recruit wannabees from Check in and give them a basic course, usually there are more seasoned and experienced staff around to guide them through but at the end of the day in the UK handling business everything is cost based !
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the UK, dispatchers are often only turnaround co-ordinators rather than dispatchers in the true sense (I think the US equivalent is Redcap). Sometimes, they also have load control training, but in most ground handling agencies this is maintained as a separate function. At the larger airports, or within GA, dispatchers are likely to be more multi-skilled than at regional airports. In the first instance, best in the UK to treat the dispatcher as your first point of contact until you can establish what other duties they can perform.
As the dispatcher does not necessarily prepare the loadsheet, there is no real requirement for them to understand how it is put together any more than the captain of an aircraft needs to understand how check-in systems work, or to be able to drive ground equipment.
As the dispatcher does not necessarily prepare the loadsheet, there is no real requirement for them to understand how it is put together any more than the captain of an aircraft needs to understand how check-in systems work, or to be able to drive ground equipment.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Miami, Florida, USA
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a huge difference between a UK "dispatcher" and a US "dispatcher". There is much confusion because of the same name for very different functions.
In the UK, an aircraft dispatcher is someone who deals with the aircraft at the gate, ensuring and supervising the loading and unloading operations at the gate. They are trained by the air carrier for this but not certified by the UK CAA. In the US this function is generally called a "ramp agent".
In the US an "aircraft dispatcher" is certified by the FAA as noted above to the equivalent knowledge of an ATP,and trained by the air carrier to do two specific functions. Preflight planning and inflight monitoring. In addition, in most US operations, particularly domestic and flag part 121 scheduled flights, the aircraft dispatcher has joint responsibility with the captain. They can and sometimes do, delay, divert and even cancel flights when necessary, sometimes even if the captain disagrees. Of course the captain can also delay, divert and cancel a flight as they feel it is necessary. The captain and the dispatcher are legally required to agree on a safe course of action. US dispatchers are also responsible to ensure that the flight crew receives all necessary safety information while the flight is enroute, such as weather, ATC issues, airport problems, security issues, etc. They can also even declare an emergency when they feel it is necessary. When 9/11 happened many US dispcthers got their flights on the ground even before ATC could. This system also requires a separate inflight communication system to ensure that a flight can be monitored by the aircraft dispatcher from beginning to end. It is a much safer system than is required by JAR-OPS or EASA. The only thing that resembles a US dispatcher in the UK is a flight planner function, but they are not certified nor responsible for any flight monitoring. Flights are often sent out and no one at the air carrier is watching them to alert the crew for weather ahead or ATC problems, airport problems, or whatever. And ATC is simply not going to be able to provide this kind of service. As a result, there have been a number of incidents and accidents in Europe where aircraft ran into severe weather, or continued flight in an unsafe condition, which was simply unnecessary. Some of these resulted in the destruction of the aircraft, while others resulted in fuel emergencies. This type of thing is very rare in the US.
In the UK, an aircraft dispatcher is someone who deals with the aircraft at the gate, ensuring and supervising the loading and unloading operations at the gate. They are trained by the air carrier for this but not certified by the UK CAA. In the US this function is generally called a "ramp agent".
In the US an "aircraft dispatcher" is certified by the FAA as noted above to the equivalent knowledge of an ATP,and trained by the air carrier to do two specific functions. Preflight planning and inflight monitoring. In addition, in most US operations, particularly domestic and flag part 121 scheduled flights, the aircraft dispatcher has joint responsibility with the captain. They can and sometimes do, delay, divert and even cancel flights when necessary, sometimes even if the captain disagrees. Of course the captain can also delay, divert and cancel a flight as they feel it is necessary. The captain and the dispatcher are legally required to agree on a safe course of action. US dispatchers are also responsible to ensure that the flight crew receives all necessary safety information while the flight is enroute, such as weather, ATC issues, airport problems, security issues, etc. They can also even declare an emergency when they feel it is necessary. When 9/11 happened many US dispcthers got their flights on the ground even before ATC could. This system also requires a separate inflight communication system to ensure that a flight can be monitored by the aircraft dispatcher from beginning to end. It is a much safer system than is required by JAR-OPS or EASA. The only thing that resembles a US dispatcher in the UK is a flight planner function, but they are not certified nor responsible for any flight monitoring. Flights are often sent out and no one at the air carrier is watching them to alert the crew for weather ahead or ATC problems, airport problems, or whatever. And ATC is simply not going to be able to provide this kind of service. As a result, there have been a number of incidents and accidents in Europe where aircraft ran into severe weather, or continued flight in an unsafe condition, which was simply unnecessary. Some of these resulted in the destruction of the aircraft, while others resulted in fuel emergencies. This type of thing is very rare in the US.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do ou really think that we, JAR-OPS Operators, are a kind of Ŧ Air Afrique ŧ carriers ?
Our system is different indeed, its not less safe.
Ŧ Some of these resulted in the destruction of the aircraft, while others resulted in fuel emergencies. This type of thing is very rare in the US ŧ.
Its rare here as well for God sake !
Our Dispatchers have no joint responsibility indeed. Captain has full responsibility and we calculate and provide him with correct information. As hes the only responsible, hes carefully checking and double checking prior to his flight. He doesnt assume his NOTAM have been checked by Dispatchers, he does read and check them before take-off.
Our operations are as safe as yours. I think your comment is insulting for a large community of employees that have as much passion and experience as you do.
A license requirement would be a clear asset but this has nothing to do with safety please.
In Europe a Ŧ Flight Dispatcher ŧ is doing the same job as you are doing in the US.
Its true than in the UK, a Ŧ Flight Dispatcher ŧ works on the ramp but NOT in continental Europe. We are flight planners and we love our job.
Our system is different indeed, its not less safe.
Ŧ Some of these resulted in the destruction of the aircraft, while others resulted in fuel emergencies. This type of thing is very rare in the US ŧ.
Its rare here as well for God sake !
Our Dispatchers have no joint responsibility indeed. Captain has full responsibility and we calculate and provide him with correct information. As hes the only responsible, hes carefully checking and double checking prior to his flight. He doesnt assume his NOTAM have been checked by Dispatchers, he does read and check them before take-off.
Our operations are as safe as yours. I think your comment is insulting for a large community of employees that have as much passion and experience as you do.
A license requirement would be a clear asset but this has nothing to do with safety please.
In Europe a Ŧ Flight Dispatcher ŧ is doing the same job as you are doing in the US.
Its true than in the UK, a Ŧ Flight Dispatcher ŧ works on the ramp but NOT in continental Europe. We are flight planners and we love our job.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Miami, Florida, USA
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Air Afrique"? That might be an insult to Air Afrique. Well, when it comes to the non-system of flight dispatch that is not required by Jar-Ops, yes. There is no requirement for aircraft dispatcher training, no certification, no communication system, no flight monitoring, no joint responsibility. In fact, the Chinese have a significantly better flight dispatch system than is required by Europe's Jar-Ops.(Which is basically nothing).
And here are some incidents/accidents. In all of them flights either ran directly into severe weather situations or continued with a degraded aircraft. These are the types of things that a structured system with aircraft dispatcher training, certification, communications, flight monitoring and joint responsibility can and do prevent.
Maersk Air Boeing B737, from Birmingham, UK, to Copenhagen, Denmark, December 1999, encountered severe weather, had outdated weather information, destination and alternates closed; diverted with a fuel emergency, landing in Billund, Denmark with 70 knot winds. If it had had to make another go around, it likely would have run out of fuel.
Hapag Lloyd Airbus A310, from Crete to Hannover, Germany, July 2000, experienced aircraft system failure (landing gear unable to retract), flight continued, misjudgment by crew bypassing a number of suitable airports, using incorrect fuel consumption data, resulting in fuel exhaustion as it was attempting to land at Vienna. The aircraft crashed and was destroyed. The Captain was prosecuted criminally.
Swiss International SAAB 2000 from Basel, Switzerland to Hamburg, Germany July 2002, encountered severe weather, destination and alternates closed, fuel exhaustion, attempted landing at a closed airport at night at Werneuchen, near Berlin. Aircraft destroyed. The aircraft was vectored directly into the severe weather by ATC.
BMI Airbus A321, Over Germany, May, 2003, encountered severe weather/ hail, serious damage, aircraft continued for hundreds of kilometers to Manchester, England before landing in spite of numerous suitable airports along the route. The crew had turned off the weather radar prior to hitting the hailstorm.
Easyjet Boeing B737 Geneva, Switzerland, August, 2003, encountered severe weather/hail, serious damage. Returned to Geneva with severe damage.
SAS Airbus A330, from Chicago, OHare, USA to Stockholm- Arlanda, Sweden, October, 2003, continued with no holding fuel into low visibility/missed approach at destination; insufficient fuel for a legal alternate; diverted to Helsinki with a fuel emergency. The crew did not monitor the fuel consumption or the destination and alternate weather while enroute.
Please note. This is not a criticism of those working in ops in Europe. It is a criticism of a fundamental weakness in Jar-Ops. The crews are very professional, of course. (But they are not perfect). And the flight planners are also very good.(But they are not perfect either). But, it is a proven fact that certification and training for aircraft dispatchers does increase knowledge and skills, that communications does provide the best and latest safety critical information to the flight crews in flight, and joint responsibility recognizes that flight crews and aircraft dispatchers are not perfect, that both can and do make mistakes, which can be prevented as each checks the other. It has been shown to work, time after time. The flight crews deserve to have the best possible information at all times, not just before the flight, but through the course of the flight until it terminates, and everybody involved should be making the best possible operational decisions, with all available resources. Until something is done it will remain a problem in Jar-Ops.
And here are some incidents/accidents. In all of them flights either ran directly into severe weather situations or continued with a degraded aircraft. These are the types of things that a structured system with aircraft dispatcher training, certification, communications, flight monitoring and joint responsibility can and do prevent.
Maersk Air Boeing B737, from Birmingham, UK, to Copenhagen, Denmark, December 1999, encountered severe weather, had outdated weather information, destination and alternates closed; diverted with a fuel emergency, landing in Billund, Denmark with 70 knot winds. If it had had to make another go around, it likely would have run out of fuel.
Hapag Lloyd Airbus A310, from Crete to Hannover, Germany, July 2000, experienced aircraft system failure (landing gear unable to retract), flight continued, misjudgment by crew bypassing a number of suitable airports, using incorrect fuel consumption data, resulting in fuel exhaustion as it was attempting to land at Vienna. The aircraft crashed and was destroyed. The Captain was prosecuted criminally.
Swiss International SAAB 2000 from Basel, Switzerland to Hamburg, Germany July 2002, encountered severe weather, destination and alternates closed, fuel exhaustion, attempted landing at a closed airport at night at Werneuchen, near Berlin. Aircraft destroyed. The aircraft was vectored directly into the severe weather by ATC.
BMI Airbus A321, Over Germany, May, 2003, encountered severe weather/ hail, serious damage, aircraft continued for hundreds of kilometers to Manchester, England before landing in spite of numerous suitable airports along the route. The crew had turned off the weather radar prior to hitting the hailstorm.
Easyjet Boeing B737 Geneva, Switzerland, August, 2003, encountered severe weather/hail, serious damage. Returned to Geneva with severe damage.
SAS Airbus A330, from Chicago, OHare, USA to Stockholm- Arlanda, Sweden, October, 2003, continued with no holding fuel into low visibility/missed approach at destination; insufficient fuel for a legal alternate; diverted to Helsinki with a fuel emergency. The crew did not monitor the fuel consumption or the destination and alternate weather while enroute.
Please note. This is not a criticism of those working in ops in Europe. It is a criticism of a fundamental weakness in Jar-Ops. The crews are very professional, of course. (But they are not perfect). And the flight planners are also very good.(But they are not perfect either). But, it is a proven fact that certification and training for aircraft dispatchers does increase knowledge and skills, that communications does provide the best and latest safety critical information to the flight crews in flight, and joint responsibility recognizes that flight crews and aircraft dispatchers are not perfect, that both can and do make mistakes, which can be prevented as each checks the other. It has been shown to work, time after time. The flight crews deserve to have the best possible information at all times, not just before the flight, but through the course of the flight until it terminates, and everybody involved should be making the best possible operational decisions, with all available resources. Until something is done it will remain a problem in Jar-Ops.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: It wasn't me, I wasn't there, wrong country ;-)
Age: 78
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AGREE
Kellmark - I agree
Celestar - I agree
Why do I agree with your both. Fundamental history of both Flight Operation Support functions. Simple and short apps:
USA - 1920/30/40s F/D required by both operators/pilots (aka Capt Jepp the great man) & CAA. No ATC! Companies used their staff to monitor enroute WX etc via landline voice & telegraph.
Europe - 1920/30/40s FOO required by operators to act as Flight Assistants with similar duties as USA, but had no authorization to intervene in operational matters. Europe post WWII had a fairly basic, rudimentary ATC system backed by the newly implemented SITA (1947) network. Many flag carriers such as BOAC inherited a preware telegraph system (BOAC's was OFTS - overseas fixed telecommunications system. PanAm had a similar network)
We will one day all have similar requirements for the license requirements
We all do a very similar job, so lets all work together as Kellmark there allot
of European operators who DO operate a flight following/watch system, I myself was back in the 1960s when I started in the scheduled market here in the UK at LGW, though our only contact with our aircraft (even in Europe) was via HF. We operated within Europe, Africa, South America with adhocs into the Far East.
I wish we could set up transfer visits to each others operations, familiarisation does work.
Finish, got my coat & where are the keys need a pint. Cheers folks any comments plse do PM me.
Arthur's little helper.
Celestar - I agree
Why do I agree with your both. Fundamental history of both Flight Operation Support functions. Simple and short apps:
USA - 1920/30/40s F/D required by both operators/pilots (aka Capt Jepp the great man) & CAA. No ATC! Companies used their staff to monitor enroute WX etc via landline voice & telegraph.
Europe - 1920/30/40s FOO required by operators to act as Flight Assistants with similar duties as USA, but had no authorization to intervene in operational matters. Europe post WWII had a fairly basic, rudimentary ATC system backed by the newly implemented SITA (1947) network. Many flag carriers such as BOAC inherited a preware telegraph system (BOAC's was OFTS - overseas fixed telecommunications system. PanAm had a similar network)
We will one day all have similar requirements for the license requirements
We all do a very similar job, so lets all work together as Kellmark there allot
of European operators who DO operate a flight following/watch system, I myself was back in the 1960s when I started in the scheduled market here in the UK at LGW, though our only contact with our aircraft (even in Europe) was via HF. We operated within Europe, Africa, South America with adhocs into the Far East.
I wish we could set up transfer visits to each others operations, familiarisation does work.
Finish, got my coat & where are the keys need a pint. Cheers folks any comments plse do PM me.
Arthur's little helper.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: HKT
Age: 64
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Kellmark.
Some Comments to your "examples"
Maersk Air: if you depart with outdated (illegal!!) wx info, you are f..... from the beginning. I do not need flightwatch if all my initial data are o.k.
Hapag Lloyd: Captains f...up!!! Any beginner who listens to his instructor in performance class could have told him he will not make it to Vienne. Anyway the fltplanning sys at Hapag did not provide infltcalc with gear down.
etc etc etc.
In my opinion there is no need for flt watch if everybody is doing the job correctly. With the modern systems (data linked) the fltcrew should be able to retrieve the latest data by themselves. There is allways a "monitoring" of the flts if somethink happens out of the ordinary.
Anyway why should I as a lowly payed dispatcher do the job of a mostly overpayed pilot?!?!
By the way, we (that is german LBA licensed dipatchers) regard the FAA license as "Micky Mouse License" as you can it get after a 2 month crash course at any "Academy". So that is probably the reason for the fltwatch, to watch out for errors you made on the flt planning ;-)
Cheers Schibulsky
Some Comments to your "examples"
Maersk Air: if you depart with outdated (illegal!!) wx info, you are f..... from the beginning. I do not need flightwatch if all my initial data are o.k.
Hapag Lloyd: Captains f...up!!! Any beginner who listens to his instructor in performance class could have told him he will not make it to Vienne. Anyway the fltplanning sys at Hapag did not provide infltcalc with gear down.
etc etc etc.
In my opinion there is no need for flt watch if everybody is doing the job correctly. With the modern systems (data linked) the fltcrew should be able to retrieve the latest data by themselves. There is allways a "monitoring" of the flts if somethink happens out of the ordinary.
Anyway why should I as a lowly payed dispatcher do the job of a mostly overpayed pilot?!?!
By the way, we (that is german LBA licensed dipatchers) regard the FAA license as "Micky Mouse License" as you can it get after a 2 month crash course at any "Academy". So that is probably the reason for the fltwatch, to watch out for errors you made on the flt planning ;-)
Cheers Schibulsky
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Schibulsky
Schibulsky,
It is not often that I read a post that is just beyond belief due to a total lack of thought - surely you wrote this either to have a laugh or to wind a few people up (and apart from that; down right dis-respectful).
Nothing that you say warrants a serious reply, other than it is exactly your kind of philosophy that will lead to accidents (read: loss of life) one day.
I hope (and I am sure they don't!) that your fellow LBA licensed disptachers in Germany do not hold a similar view on our industry.
Maybe the reason why you are lowly paid (as you state yourself in your post) is due to the quality of your work ethic!
I wonder if there are more 'disptachers' out there with similar thoughts as Shibulsky..........
It is not often that I read a post that is just beyond belief due to a total lack of thought - surely you wrote this either to have a laugh or to wind a few people up (and apart from that; down right dis-respectful).
Nothing that you say warrants a serious reply, other than it is exactly your kind of philosophy that will lead to accidents (read: loss of life) one day.
I hope (and I am sure they don't!) that your fellow LBA licensed disptachers in Germany do not hold a similar view on our industry.
Maybe the reason why you are lowly paid (as you state yourself in your post) is due to the quality of your work ethic!
I wonder if there are more 'disptachers' out there with similar thoughts as Shibulsky..........
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Opinion about dispatchers
I am a pilot, and have high respect for dispatchers and their assistants. These are competent people that take part in flight planning, and keep an eye on us while we fly from A to B. I know all my dispatcher and assistants by their first name...
xxx
Please be aware, that a dispatcher, in the countries that I know, are often with a well paid position, despite being an "office" function. They are certainly of the higher salary levels in airline operation departments.
xxx
Mickey Mouse exam and licence... and 2 month-long course, it certainly is a ridiculous training, equal in ridicule to the ATPL exam courses. The dispatchers or pilots learn by experience in their carreers... a new assistant dispatcher might not know much as he starts his career, no more than a first year first officer...
xxx
I have worked many times on contracts with European and Middle East air carriers, Sterling, Saudia, and Cargolux to mention a few, and as a pilot, I consider their dispatchers as excellent.
xxx
Further, I know a few pilot colleagues who have lost their medical certification because bad health conditions... Some became pilot instructors with the airlines, and some... became dispatchers, due to the fact that they can use their knowledge and experience in an important airline activity. And I speak here for FAA style operations, or UK/CAA, or German LBA...
xxx
Happy contrails
xxx
Please be aware, that a dispatcher, in the countries that I know, are often with a well paid position, despite being an "office" function. They are certainly of the higher salary levels in airline operation departments.
xxx
Mickey Mouse exam and licence... and 2 month-long course, it certainly is a ridiculous training, equal in ridicule to the ATPL exam courses. The dispatchers or pilots learn by experience in their carreers... a new assistant dispatcher might not know much as he starts his career, no more than a first year first officer...
xxx
I have worked many times on contracts with European and Middle East air carriers, Sterling, Saudia, and Cargolux to mention a few, and as a pilot, I consider their dispatchers as excellent.
xxx
Further, I know a few pilot colleagues who have lost their medical certification because bad health conditions... Some became pilot instructors with the airlines, and some... became dispatchers, due to the fact that they can use their knowledge and experience in an important airline activity. And I speak here for FAA style operations, or UK/CAA, or German LBA...
xxx
Happy contrails
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: HKT
Age: 64
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Lauterdale (isn't Disneyland just around the corner?)
You got me on the "wind up' part, but honestly
it irritates me a lot if some US Guy is telling me how superior his outdated by technology "Babysitting" is to present Flightplanning in Europe. Anyway there is not a single country that is 100% working acc. JarOps! We all got our Systems to cover for certain contingencies. The Examples are mostly **** ups by the crew.
If i.e. some pilot try to land at a closed A/P he should never take off in the first place!!!
"encountered severe wx" please don't tell me it wasn't in the TAF!!! This idiot just did not fuel enough to cover for it!!!
What should I say to a pilot who is flying for hours in a damaged acft?? I am NOT their Babysitter, got it??
And I do not need any "joined whatever" to tell the capt. what is best for him if he is about the screw up totally!!
Think about it before question somebodys work ethic!!!!
My Philosophy btw is that a Capt with more than double my pay (And I am doing well after 20years, its just a matter of comparison) together with the FO should be able to decide on this own. He will get my best preparation and then its up to him.
whats wrong with that? Please dont give me the "Teamwork" crap!! Dont get me wrong, if there is a problem I am there 100%.
Thats my Job, but we do not need this "joined" part!!!
Happy planning!
You got me on the "wind up' part, but honestly
it irritates me a lot if some US Guy is telling me how superior his outdated by technology "Babysitting" is to present Flightplanning in Europe. Anyway there is not a single country that is 100% working acc. JarOps! We all got our Systems to cover for certain contingencies. The Examples are mostly **** ups by the crew.
If i.e. some pilot try to land at a closed A/P he should never take off in the first place!!!
"encountered severe wx" please don't tell me it wasn't in the TAF!!! This idiot just did not fuel enough to cover for it!!!
What should I say to a pilot who is flying for hours in a damaged acft?? I am NOT their Babysitter, got it??
And I do not need any "joined whatever" to tell the capt. what is best for him if he is about the screw up totally!!
Think about it before question somebodys work ethic!!!!
My Philosophy btw is that a Capt with more than double my pay (And I am doing well after 20years, its just a matter of comparison) together with the FO should be able to decide on this own. He will get my best preparation and then its up to him.
whats wrong with that? Please dont give me the "Teamwork" crap!! Dont get me wrong, if there is a problem I am there 100%.
Thats my Job, but we do not need this "joined" part!!!
Happy planning!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In my own little world
Posts: 776
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the US system is so great, why was an ATR allowed to fly round and round in circles for 45 mins in icing conditions whilst holding, had the dispatcher or Captain made the decision to divert, they would not have ended up as a smoking hole in the ground.
Also what about the AA MD-80 or whatever it was that landed in a T-storm and slid off the end of the runway.
Or the L10-11 that landed in severe bad weather and was hit by a micro burst smashing it into the ground.
We can all pull out accidents from both systems, all that proves is both of them are not 100% fail safe.
Anyway, back to the topic.
In the UK at least, the airline will have a central Flight Operations Department that handles things similar to what a Dispatcher would do in the States. They also usually have seperate flight planning departments who deal just with the flight planning.
The dispatchers in the UK are generally guys and girls who work a/c side to run the turnround, although most have now been re-branded as Turnaround Co-ordinators due to some H&S bolleaux that was enforced upon them a couple of years ago. Depending on the airline/ handling agent will depend on the level of involvment and experience. Some airlines/H.Agents also have the Dispatcher/TCO produce the loadsheet at a/c side whilst others don't.
Some airlines also term them Load Controllers, generally these people will also do the W&B function as well as running the turnaround, although some airlines will have a central W&B department where the Load Controllers work from, often this is an off airport location or even in another country altogether.
So basically in Europe, the term Dispatcher can mean a multitude of things, from the 19 y/o ramp tramp at a small regional airport who thinks he is the mutts nuts who just runs out paperwork, right through to a full on W&B trained bod with years and years of experience.
Also what about the AA MD-80 or whatever it was that landed in a T-storm and slid off the end of the runway.
Or the L10-11 that landed in severe bad weather and was hit by a micro burst smashing it into the ground.
We can all pull out accidents from both systems, all that proves is both of them are not 100% fail safe.
Anyway, back to the topic.
In the UK at least, the airline will have a central Flight Operations Department that handles things similar to what a Dispatcher would do in the States. They also usually have seperate flight planning departments who deal just with the flight planning.
The dispatchers in the UK are generally guys and girls who work a/c side to run the turnround, although most have now been re-branded as Turnaround Co-ordinators due to some H&S bolleaux that was enforced upon them a couple of years ago. Depending on the airline/ handling agent will depend on the level of involvment and experience. Some airlines/H.Agents also have the Dispatcher/TCO produce the loadsheet at a/c side whilst others don't.
Some airlines also term them Load Controllers, generally these people will also do the W&B function as well as running the turnaround, although some airlines will have a central W&B department where the Load Controllers work from, often this is an off airport location or even in another country altogether.
So basically in Europe, the term Dispatcher can mean a multitude of things, from the 19 y/o ramp tramp at a small regional airport who thinks he is the mutts nuts who just runs out paperwork, right through to a full on W&B trained bod with years and years of experience.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The Deep South
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think leezyjet has summed up the situation in the UK perfectly.
Having previously worked in such an enviroment, i can honestly say that the function described as load controller is without doubt the most functional and pro-active, it is invaluable having someone at airside who can make operational based decisions on issues such as W/B or help to advise reps on other things such as slots, which would be passed from the ops office etc.
There is and can be nothing worse than just " delivering papers " and or having to send messages to a faceless person at the end of a phone or sita link in some far away country.
Unfortunately many major players now see this as the way forward, i think it is better to have 2 signatures on a loadsheet, the captain's and the person who prepared it and to have it signed at completion in the cockpit.
If the " Dispatcher / Load controller " also has knowledge of weather and an ability to read the basics from a flight plan (ie) Fuel, flight times, routing, alternates etc then all the better, however as we all know the financial realities within the industry don't always allow for such people to be remunerated accordingly therefore the 19yr old paperboy or girl " mutts nuts " as leezy calls them are likely to become more the norm.
However despite the constant bashing that several Handling agents constantly receive on this forum, Load controllers still exist at several of them, at LHR i believe that SGS, Aviance, Servisair, Alitalia and Menzies to name a few still employ localised load controllers and a operations office, so all is not lost yet !
Having previously worked in such an enviroment, i can honestly say that the function described as load controller is without doubt the most functional and pro-active, it is invaluable having someone at airside who can make operational based decisions on issues such as W/B or help to advise reps on other things such as slots, which would be passed from the ops office etc.
There is and can be nothing worse than just " delivering papers " and or having to send messages to a faceless person at the end of a phone or sita link in some far away country.
Unfortunately many major players now see this as the way forward, i think it is better to have 2 signatures on a loadsheet, the captain's and the person who prepared it and to have it signed at completion in the cockpit.
If the " Dispatcher / Load controller " also has knowledge of weather and an ability to read the basics from a flight plan (ie) Fuel, flight times, routing, alternates etc then all the better, however as we all know the financial realities within the industry don't always allow for such people to be remunerated accordingly therefore the 19yr old paperboy or girl " mutts nuts " as leezy calls them are likely to become more the norm.
However despite the constant bashing that several Handling agents constantly receive on this forum, Load controllers still exist at several of them, at LHR i believe that SGS, Aviance, Servisair, Alitalia and Menzies to name a few still employ localised load controllers and a operations office, so all is not lost yet !
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: It wasn't me, I wasn't there, wrong country ;-)
Age: 78
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets stop the bitching folks
Hey you lot, most of you/us here are Flight Operations Officers, some with FAA tickets, some with LBA, some with PPL, some with ALTP ground school, some with nothing more than bloody hard work and experience and expertise gained on the job. Please let us all stop the bitching and agree we're doing good and important stuff as FOOs/Flight Dispatchers, that loads of other people would love to do. Lets work together to keep our situation high profile and at the centre of the operations we are involved in. PAX SVP
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the carrier I work at, we have the following structure :
- Flight Planner within 'Flight Technical Dispatch' - they 'plan' the actual flight - fuel, weather, weights, routes, ATC clearances etc.
- CLC or 'Centralised Load control' - these are the good folk that perform ALL of the weight and balance functions - trims, provisional loadsheets, final loadsheets and send the final figures to the aircraft via ACARS
- TRM or 'Turnround Manager' - these folk are physically at the aircraft side and work with Passenger Services, Ramp, Baggage, Loading, Crew etc to facilitate a safe environment at the gate and also to send the final figures back to CLC for close-out.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The Deep South
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR_777
What would you say was better ? The current set up or the old days, when the Dispatcher / Redcap did most of the functions from the gate ?
In some ways i guess that you are quite lucky ( i think i'm right in assuming CLC is local to LHR) that you are not too remote, but there are are other carriers who have a CLC on the other side of the world.
From the days when i did W & B as well as dispatch etc i could not think of anything worse than not being able to make on the spot decisions regarding trim etc at A/C side, at a airport the size of Lhr as you know there are always logistical issues, (ie) cargo not arriving etc so what happens if you need a retrim ? does the TRM have to consult CLC before making a decision ? or do they have the authority to make decisions in line with operational requirements ?
It always used to be so convient if you had a slot to " Chop the freight " and retrim, so i guess if the TRM isn't allowed does this cause delays ?
What would you say was better ? The current set up or the old days, when the Dispatcher / Redcap did most of the functions from the gate ?
In some ways i guess that you are quite lucky ( i think i'm right in assuming CLC is local to LHR) that you are not too remote, but there are are other carriers who have a CLC on the other side of the world.
From the days when i did W & B as well as dispatch etc i could not think of anything worse than not being able to make on the spot decisions regarding trim etc at A/C side, at a airport the size of Lhr as you know there are always logistical issues, (ie) cargo not arriving etc so what happens if you need a retrim ? does the TRM have to consult CLC before making a decision ? or do they have the authority to make decisions in line with operational requirements ?
It always used to be so convient if you had a slot to " Chop the freight " and retrim, so i guess if the TRM isn't allowed does this cause delays ?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Posted by older_wiser
LHR_777
What would you say was better ? The current set up or the old days, when the Dispatcher / Redcap did most of the functions from the gate ?
In some ways i guess that you are quite lucky ( i think i'm right in assuming CLC is local to LHR) that you are not too remote, but there are are other carriers who have a CLC on the other side of the world.
From the days when i did W & B as well as dispatch etc i could not think of anything worse than not being able to make on the spot decisions regarding trim etc at A/C side, at a airport the size of Lhr as you know there are always logistical issues, (ie) cargo not arriving etc so what happens if you need a retrim ? does the TRM have to consult CLC before making a decision ? or do they have the authority to make decisions in line with operational requirements ?
It always used to be so convient if you had a slot to " Chop the freight " and retrim, so i guess if the TRM isn't allowed does this cause delays ?
LHR_777
What would you say was better ? The current set up or the old days, when the Dispatcher / Redcap did most of the functions from the gate ?
In some ways i guess that you are quite lucky ( i think i'm right in assuming CLC is local to LHR) that you are not too remote, but there are are other carriers who have a CLC on the other side of the world.
From the days when i did W & B as well as dispatch etc i could not think of anything worse than not being able to make on the spot decisions regarding trim etc at A/C side, at a airport the size of Lhr as you know there are always logistical issues, (ie) cargo not arriving etc so what happens if you need a retrim ? does the TRM have to consult CLC before making a decision ? or do they have the authority to make decisions in line with operational requirements ?
It always used to be so convient if you had a slot to " Chop the freight " and retrim, so i guess if the TRM isn't allowed does this cause delays ?
The TRM is free to actually 'manage' the departure. They don't have to stay tied to a computer, away from the ramp, because CLC do all the load-planning for them. CLC send the load plan to loading and baggage and from then on, the TRM is in charge of the departure.
If the TRM needs to 'chop the cargo', he or she still has the authority to do so. A quick phone call to CLC to check the aircraft is still in trim is advisable, but the TRM has the authority to change the trim, within reason. Obviously if it's a complete re-trim and hold-version change, then CLC will need to issue a new trim.
The safety of all those working on the ramp is a priority of the TRM. As a Dispatcher, this wasn't always the case - the Dispatcher could be far away from the aircraft, in one of the many little 'huts' that are airside with computers and printers. This could create a loss of situational awareness.
It's taken a while, but the TRM and CLC community are working quite well together now IMO, and final figures are getting back to the aircraft much quicker than they were. The vast majority of CLC staff are new to the role and had to build experience very quickly, but these guys are doing load-planning and load-control every single day, whereas Dispatchers might have had one shift of load control every 4-6 weeks, which didn't necessarily make a great Dispatcher also a great Load Controller.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In my own little world
Posts: 776
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I first went from being a Load Controller/Dispatcher doing my own loadsheets at a/c side, to working with a central load planning department, I was very against it too.
However, now I have been working the latter way for a number of years, I have almost been swung to thinking it is much better.
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, but now if CLC make a mistake (and c'mon lets face it, while ever us humans are involved we will always make mistakes), then at least the Dispatcher/TCO/TRM should pick up on it when they check through the load sheet which means the mistake can be rectified before the a/c departs.
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 !!.
However, now I have been working the latter way for a number of years, I have almost been swung to thinking it is much better.
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, but now if CLC make a mistake (and c'mon lets face it, while ever us humans are involved we will always make mistakes), then at least the Dispatcher/TCO/TRM should pick up on it when they check through the load sheet which means the mistake can be rectified before the a/c departs.
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 !!.