Pilots claim airliners forced to fly with low fuel
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a LH sector carrying extra does cost a lot of money ...
ie. On my 744 if I take say an extra 5000Kg (30mins of fuel) I will only be left with about 3000Kg at desitination .. ie. I will burn 2000Kg just to carry that fuel.
One has to be pragmatic ...
If I can see clear justification for carrying extra, ie. WX/ATC delays/WIP/LVP's etc I will have NO hesitation in loading up an extra 5000-10000 Tonnes ..
What I often see is people for no reason at all decide to carry extra with no valid reason ...
PS: I am not management!
ie. On my 744 if I take say an extra 5000Kg (30mins of fuel) I will only be left with about 3000Kg at desitination .. ie. I will burn 2000Kg just to carry that fuel.
One has to be pragmatic ...
If I can see clear justification for carrying extra, ie. WX/ATC delays/WIP/LVP's etc I will have NO hesitation in loading up an extra 5000-10000 Tonnes ..
What I often see is people for no reason at all decide to carry extra with no valid reason ...
PS: I am not management!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I can see clear justification for carrying extra, ie. WX/ATC delays/WIP/LVP's etc I will have NO hesitation in loading up an extra 5000-10000 Tonnes ..
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that's an impressive amount of fuel...
Taking 10,000Kg on say a 10hr sector will only give 40 mins worth extra at destination.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
carrying extra fuel with no valid reason
well, that's the rub:
the weather conditions in the continental USA are interesting. Fly from the cool New England area to Florida and on that day face delays for icing, or fog, in the north and thunderstorms in the south.
fly to New York/Newark and delays abound.
IT IS THE RARE day that everything is just beautiful and min fuel makes sense.
while dispatchers might look at forecasts, the pilot who has been there and done that should take extra fuel when he thinks it will help.
There was an article just the other day in USAToday saying that the average flight time in the US for domestic flights is the slowest in 20 years.
At one time it was faster to take the Lockheed Electra (turboprop of the late 50's/early 60's) from New York to Miami than a 757 today. Delays have eaten up the pure jet advantage in speed.
I think about 12 days a year on the eastern seabord "min" fuel works. end of september early october.
the weather conditions in the continental USA are interesting. Fly from the cool New England area to Florida and on that day face delays for icing, or fog, in the north and thunderstorms in the south.
fly to New York/Newark and delays abound.
IT IS THE RARE day that everything is just beautiful and min fuel makes sense.
while dispatchers might look at forecasts, the pilot who has been there and done that should take extra fuel when he thinks it will help.
There was an article just the other day in USAToday saying that the average flight time in the US for domestic flights is the slowest in 20 years.
At one time it was faster to take the Lockheed Electra (turboprop of the late 50's/early 60's) from New York to Miami than a 757 today. Delays have eaten up the pure jet advantage in speed.
I think about 12 days a year on the eastern seabord "min" fuel works. end of september early october.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Emoh
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At planning stage for an 11 hours flight into LHR vs one into FCO my consideration are different.
I don't agree with those that, although having very accurate flight plan fuel performace, will add two tons as a start and than add some more for possible extra holding in LHR.
To FCO the flight plan minimum praticaly always makes us land with all the contingency still on board (B767 about 2.5 tons).
To LHR with the above consideration I usually add an extra 15 minutes holding for arrival at peak hours. As said I want holding time so working backward I come out with an additional fuel figure.
The fuel figure must be considered as Flying time for the actual conditions not just as more fuel to feel safer.
If case comes and additional delays is given I will have to reasses the situation and check the possibility of meeting the new EAT or decide to divert.
Thanks to SeniorDispatcher for his post, its nice to have good team work with one's own OCC.
I don't agree with those that, although having very accurate flight plan fuel performace, will add two tons as a start and than add some more for possible extra holding in LHR.
To FCO the flight plan minimum praticaly always makes us land with all the contingency still on board (B767 about 2.5 tons).
To LHR with the above consideration I usually add an extra 15 minutes holding for arrival at peak hours. As said I want holding time so working backward I come out with an additional fuel figure.
The fuel figure must be considered as Flying time for the actual conditions not just as more fuel to feel safer.
If case comes and additional delays is given I will have to reasses the situation and check the possibility of meeting the new EAT or decide to divert.
Thanks to SeniorDispatcher for his post, its nice to have good team work with one's own OCC.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another old saying that would seem appropriate here........
There are lots of old Pilots, and there are lots of bold Pilots, but there are very few old bold Pilots.
Please be careful, one of the many Lives you may save by being conservative might be MINE.
There are lots of old Pilots, and there are lots of bold Pilots, but there are very few old bold Pilots.
Please be careful, one of the many Lives you may save by being conservative might be MINE.
Many excellent points made here on this topic---let's not forget
the US has some of the most horrible wx in the world ---super cells/ tornadoes every thing conceivable
the US has some of the most horrible wx in the world ---super cells/ tornadoes every thing conceivable
I would put forward that the real issue is not how much fuel you take to start with, it's what you plan for and do when it's running out.
Anyone can take another 'x' tonnes for mum/dog/whatever - no skill involved there - but the professionals make a reasoned judgement using their experience and technical knowledge. Sometimes that may involve filling all the tanks; sometimes just a bit more: for the rest of the time they may take min. fuel. At least *some* thinking has gone on.
There comes a time in every pilot's career when, despite their best efforts, the fuel state progresses inexorably towards the "low" area. It doesn't matter how much you started with: events have conspired to make you use it and you are approaching the point where decisive management will be required. To be effective in this scenario you need to have options and to have worked out how you are going to fall back from one to the next; this requires (again) good technical ability, planning, CRM, distraction management, etc.
It's not always (easily) possible to add more fuel. You may be operating out of a performance restricted airfield, or on an ULH sector where you are up against aircraft limits. You might have to offload passengers and/or freight to get more gas on; the commercial disadvantages of carrying extra fuel are very plain to see at that point.
As professional aviators we are expected to use good judgement in safety related areas but also in commercial ones. Carrying large excesses of fuel around the sky does not do much for safety but has a big impact on economics, so I don't see a great conflict between the two requirements. As far as the old adage about never having too much fuel unless you're on fire, I would add RTOs, engine failures and contaminated runways to the list for starters...
Anyone can take another 'x' tonnes for mum/dog/whatever - no skill involved there - but the professionals make a reasoned judgement using their experience and technical knowledge. Sometimes that may involve filling all the tanks; sometimes just a bit more: for the rest of the time they may take min. fuel. At least *some* thinking has gone on.
There comes a time in every pilot's career when, despite their best efforts, the fuel state progresses inexorably towards the "low" area. It doesn't matter how much you started with: events have conspired to make you use it and you are approaching the point where decisive management will be required. To be effective in this scenario you need to have options and to have worked out how you are going to fall back from one to the next; this requires (again) good technical ability, planning, CRM, distraction management, etc.
It's not always (easily) possible to add more fuel. You may be operating out of a performance restricted airfield, or on an ULH sector where you are up against aircraft limits. You might have to offload passengers and/or freight to get more gas on; the commercial disadvantages of carrying extra fuel are very plain to see at that point.
As professional aviators we are expected to use good judgement in safety related areas but also in commercial ones. Carrying large excesses of fuel around the sky does not do much for safety but has a big impact on economics, so I don't see a great conflict between the two requirements. As far as the old adage about never having too much fuel unless you're on fire, I would add RTOs, engine failures and contaminated runways to the list for starters...
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fullwings - Well said ...
What hasnt been talked about here is the legal (certainly under JAR rules) to commit to land at destination using your diversion fuel for holding purposes.
Thats a very grey area .. some companies are expecting crews to comitt to absorb delays and not carry fuel to cover known/expected holding ...
What hasnt been talked about here is the legal (certainly under JAR rules) to commit to land at destination using your diversion fuel for holding purposes.
Thats a very grey area .. some companies are expecting crews to comitt to absorb delays and not carry fuel to cover known/expected holding ...
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Slaving away in front of multiple LCDs, somewhere in the USA
Age: 69
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be brutally honest, I’m quite disappointed at some of the responses I’ve seen here to my post #6, both from the standpoint of accuracy and personal viciousness. Irrespective of whatever side of the Pond we’re on, I had expected a certain level of professionalism and decorum from those working within airline aviation, and in some cases, it’s quite obvious that I’ve expected too much. To those of you that have actually taken the time to read and understand the nature of my posts and respond (versus react), you have my thanks.
Before I go any further, and for the benefit of those still comprehension-impaired, let me again state (even more clearly) that “DISPATCHERS” IN US FAR PART 121 DOMESTIC/FLAG AIRLINE OPERATIONS ARE NOT THE SAME AS “DISPATCHERS” IN UK CAA AIRLINE OPERATIONS, AS FAR AS TRAINING, CERTIFICATION, DUTIES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES ARE CONCERNED. If you’re in the UK passing judgment(s) on what a US dispatcher is responsible for based solely upon your own knowledge of what a UK dispatcher is/does, your opinion (while still your opinion) is not exactly an informed one, absent your personally having flown in a US FAR Part 121 Domestic/Flag operation yourself. Note that I said Part 121 Domestic/Flag—121 Supplemental is another animal entire.
A few other comments:
They are my passengers (and crew too).
If my name is on the paperwork, you can be damn sure that I have a vested interest in playing my part in getting them from A to B in one piece. I still have a hard time believing that anyone could so petty to even raise this as an issue, or is so self-absorbed so as to not realize (their super-pilot capabilities aside) that airline operations are a team-effort.
I should have worked harder in school, (presumably to have a “real” career like being a real he-man airline pilot).
Not that it’s anyone’s business, but an early but chronic health issue made it impossible to have eventually qualified for/retained a FAA Class-I medical certificate, so it’s not for a lack of intelligence, drive, or motivation that I’ve ended up where I am, as you seem to assume. It’s kind of ironic, but one PIC I knew who suddenly was sans Class-I due to being dealt a hand health-wise afterwards got his FAA dispatcher’s license. Prior to the change in his health, he was about as anti-dispatch as they came, and it’s “funny” how his perspective changed once on the other side of things. As a PIC, he was the master of his own bubble, and once a dispatcher, he quickly learned that there were multiple bubbles, and that he had to take a more systemic view of things.
The captain is in charge..
In fact, the entire post was stating that the Captain is in charge and making it clear that those in planning and Ops are supporting the Captain to take as much or as little fuel as they like!!!
The article is clear in pointing out that the PIC has ultimate authority, but that that does not mean the dispatcher can't query the request for extra fuel. Dispatch cannot overrule the PIC, but they can question the need for extra fuel.
Again keeping in mind that we’re talking US FAA regs and not UK CAA regs, the original TV station story from February “sweeps” was incorrect in its assessment of what the US FAA regs say. I’m sure that they may well have just been parroting what the AAL pilots where pushing in support of their own actual agenda, but I’m of the opinion that these pilots are (Gasp!) also wrong in their assessments.
Every pilot starting the basic FAA training process here quickly learns what FAR 91.3 is:
§ 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.
If you’re flying your own personal airplane, this is the applicable FAR. Now, does that same 91.3 apply if you’re PIC of XYZ Airlines’ Boeing 737? There are plenty of airline pilots that default to that position, but since Part 121 ops entail a higher standard of care than do Part 91 ops, they might want to look at 121.533: [My emphasis]
§ 121.533 Responsibility for operational control: Domestic operations.
(a) Each certificate holder conducting domestic operations is responsible for operational control.
(b) The pilot in command and the aircraft dispatcher are jointly responsible for the preflight planning, delay, and dispatch release of a flight in compliance with this chapter and operations specifications.
(c) The aircraft dispatcher is responsible for—
(1) Monitoring the progress of each flight;
(2) Issuing necessary information for the safety of the flight; and
(3) Cancelling or redispatching a flight if, in his opinion or the opinion of the pilot in command, the flight cannot operate or continue to operate safely as planned or released.
(d) Each pilot in command of an aircraft is, during flight time, in command of the aircraft and crew and is responsible for the safety of the passengers, crewmembers, cargo, and airplane.
(e) Each pilot in command has full control and authority in the operation of the aircraft, without limitation, over other crewmembers and their duties during flight time, whether or not he holds valid certificates authorizing him to perform the duties of those crewmembers.
(In case anyone is wondering about the term “operational control”, FAR 1.1 defines it as, with respect to a flight, means the exercise of authority over initiating, conducting or terminating a flight.)
Thus, legally, the PIC doesn’t have sole ultimate authority as far as how much fuel gets loaded—that’s a joint preflight decision between PIC and dispatcher. Everyone seems to be fixating on the situation where the dispatcher wants X fuel and the PIC wants X plus more, but there are plenty of times where the opposite is true, i.e. the dispatcher wants X fuel and the PIC wants X minus some. Irrespective of whomever it is that wants more, these kinds of disagreements are handled via discussion and compromise. Rarely do I object to a PICs wanting more than the minimum I have on the dispatch release paperwork. That said, I do want to know the PIC’s rationale, since if it’s indeed valid (something that I maybe overlooked) I need to know about it so I can apply the info to the other flights I have operating over that same area. There are some cases where the PIC wants a huge amount (4,000+ lbs. more), and often the reason is more PIC personal comfort level, or “I diverted last week/month/year”. Back in the 1960s when Jet-A was pennies per gallon, hauling “comfort” fuel wasn’t a big deal economy-wise. It costs fuel to carry the weight of that 4,000 lbs. and using 5% to also consider the variable of stage length, 5% of 4,000 lbs. is 250 lbs, divided by 6.7 (lbs. to gallon conversion) equals 37.3 gallons, which at $3.50 a gallon is $130.55. While $130.55 might not seem like much, it can quickly add-up when one considers multiple flights doing the same thing. I’d bet that if the Company started billing the PICs for financial costs of hauling this kind of comfort gas around, PICs would quickly start getting “comfortable” about our fuel loads. (Not advocating that management do so, mind you, just observing that what’s “reasonable” is often colored by “who’s paying for it.”
Dogma and dontdoit - re: your highly imperious and dismissive comments to the dispatcher who was simply casting some very reasonable light on what seems to be a possibly overblown journo's story - unless you are trying a wind up, you are both wayyy out of line and in any event simply provide traction to the likes of MOL in getting a toe in the door with public opinion regards pilot "prima donnas". You've just reinforced his (or any other like-minded management's) position in the eyes of any non-aviation types reading your ridiculously irresponsible and possibly intentionally inflammatory posts.
The Sandman - you beat me to it - thanks. If dontdoit and dogma are actually Professional Aviators I never want to fly with them on the days I don't have a share in my own destiny. Egos like that should have been flushed out by the CRM process years ago. I suspect, if real, that they spend a significant time of their airborne lives only 'one more hole in the cheese' away from being a smoking pile.
Thanks, Gentlemen…
Regarding the words of SeniorDispatcher, they are most unfortunate and reveal a great deal about his/her misunderstanding as to their relative position to the Captain of the aircraft. There is no doubt that dispatchers are great people who know considerably more than most pilots on a whole host of ground-related matters in aviation. However, when it comes to fuel policy there is only one person who should be able to make that decision - that is the Captain of the aircraft.
If you’re referring to the situation on this side of the Pond with US FARs, I’m afraid the misunderstandings are clearly yours. If you’re basing any of your opinion on what I’ve stated based upon UK CAA regs, your misunderstanding is even greater. Please refer to the paragraph I wrote (in ALL CAPS) earlier.
Why is that? It is because the Captain will have many years' experience and is able to make the correct decision based on seeing numerous situations previously which have shaped his judgment of particular airports and weather conditions. No Dispatcher could ever have that experience and they are therefore not qualified in any way to decide how much fuel to load on an aircraft.
What your self-serving conclusion fails to consider is that a dispatcher may commonly dispatch and monitor anywhere from 40-80 trip segments per shift, while you may only be flying 4-8 during your day. Because of the centralized nature of a dispatch office, the dispatchers are accumulating experience in a different way, and at a different rate that you’re even aware of. Are dispatchers perfect? Certainly not, just like there are imperfect pilots out there. We learn by experience just as you do, and senior dispatchers mentor newbies just like PICs mentor F/Os. I trust that you’re familiar with that concept.
SeniorDispatcher's post should be a warning to everyone as to what would happen here in Europe if that same level of authority was given to a Dispatcher.
Over on your side of the Pond, I think that would be the Flight Operations Officer (FOO), and not the “dispatcher” (as known in the UK). What kind of thing might result? Less rogue behavior on the part of some PICs, and prevention of Hapag-Lloyd 3378 type fuel starvations. Think that’s a stretch? I know of a couple of similar incidents that involved abnormal airframe configurations during which the PICs advised that they could continue due to their FMC indicating ample fuel on arrival. Their dispatchers had to be the ones to break it to the PICs that FMC fuel calculations were to be disregarded as clearly stated in the QRH. Had the two dispatchers not been “there” to let them know? It’s not just mechanical issues either. Happen to recall the 1990 Avianca fuel starvation inbound into JFK? Before you cite ATC or language difficulties, check out NTSB’s list of contributing factors, and the order of their listing. For those paying attention, Avianca was a flight under Part 129, and not a Part 121 flight.
Yet, pilots in the thread have taken this as a grave insult and challenge to their authority.
I realise that I am treading on toes but only because I wonder why pilots want to stamp on the toes of a dispatcher?
It’s quite the case in human nature that people fear that they don’t understand, or mistakenly assume to be a threat. Another common misconception, already cited, is that dispatchers are all some kind of frustrated pilot wannabes. Operational control (as defined earlier) isn’t about PICs asking “Mother, may I?” every time they need to deviate 10 degrees left for weather, but it does involve coordinating decisionmaking on certain other items as a reality check. Conceptually, it’s no different that having two missile launch keys on a nuclear missile sub.
I thought Senior Dispatcher gave a very good explanation of how things are done in the US. The dispatcher and the captain are jointly legally responsible for the safe operation of the flight. There is a little extra information to go with it though. The dispatcher often has detailed in for on winds that the captain doesn't have as well as a lot of computer processing power. At my airline at least either the dispatcher or the captain can add fuel unilaterally, but must get permission from the other to DECREASE fuel. The number the dispatcher enters is not just a default number, but is arrived at by some pretty complicated programs. I very seldom add fuel and the only time I have ever ran really low I thought I was starting out with a lot extra-a lot of things just went wrong on the same flight. Of course the captain always has the ultimate authority to do what he thinks best but he doesn't need to be an ass about it unless he has some serious self esteem issues like a few posters here seem to have.
Thanks, Rick777, and I’ll agree with everything you’ve said with the exception of “ultimate authority” citation whilst on the ground. Even the air, 151.557 and 121.627(a) complement each other.
A good Dispatcher is worth his weight in gold - but lets not pretend that Senior Red Cap will be in jail/grave for having neglected the conduct the flight in accordance with the telephone directory of Rules and Regs! Some of the more pompous dispatchers I have meet go on about my Flight... my PIC's.... my crew etc, these individuals actually have zero concept of the weight of the responsibility!
With all due respect, I’m sorry my Karma ran over your Dogma. The “weight of the responsibility” is already known, and will manifest itself in full measure during an ensuing crash investigation and civil litigation—something a crew will miss since they’ll have been at the vey bottom of the impact crater.
Oh please... Where do you get this outdated, shallow tripe from.... it all sounds too much for you.... this is not the industry for you dear boy....
Headset, three screens each, a desk and paperwork of interest??, consessions, subsidised meals, free car parking and uniforms, share options..... Sound GOOD ?????
Plus, the ability to spend each night at home, in my own bed, with my spouse (and going a long way to avoid the dreaded airline induced divorce syndrome), not to mention avoiding the adverse effects of jet lag and other nastiness to the body’s natural rhythms.
I met plenty of really good, professional but friendly folks up front, and a fair number of £$%$holes along the way. The good ones valued my input, however small, my aim being to send them away on time or early, safely, and hopefully with a smile.
Sadly, Dogma's (and the other poster around the same time) initial comments reminded me of the "I'm better than you" brigade. Even a turnround co-ordinator (rather than a US-style dispatcher) contributes to a team effort on the ground. Being able to magic up a GPU, or the unaccompanied bag of the missing passenger was something I regularly aimed for, but treating fellow team members as something on your shoe was something I rarely tolerated. Despite my lowly payscale, a quick "listen sunshine, pretend for a moment I am a human being trying to help you" often worked wonders......
My complements on your surviving, and again highlighting the wisdom of that time-tested “Golden Rule.” In fairness, there are “alpha hotel” types within any employee population, my profession included. They’re as obvious as an isolated CB, and just as easily circumnavigated.
Before I go any further, and for the benefit of those still comprehension-impaired, let me again state (even more clearly) that “DISPATCHERS” IN US FAR PART 121 DOMESTIC/FLAG AIRLINE OPERATIONS ARE NOT THE SAME AS “DISPATCHERS” IN UK CAA AIRLINE OPERATIONS, AS FAR AS TRAINING, CERTIFICATION, DUTIES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES ARE CONCERNED. If you’re in the UK passing judgment(s) on what a US dispatcher is responsible for based solely upon your own knowledge of what a UK dispatcher is/does, your opinion (while still your opinion) is not exactly an informed one, absent your personally having flown in a US FAR Part 121 Domestic/Flag operation yourself. Note that I said Part 121 Domestic/Flag—121 Supplemental is another animal entire.
A few other comments:
They are my passengers (and crew too).
If my name is on the paperwork, you can be damn sure that I have a vested interest in playing my part in getting them from A to B in one piece. I still have a hard time believing that anyone could so petty to even raise this as an issue, or is so self-absorbed so as to not realize (their super-pilot capabilities aside) that airline operations are a team-effort.
I should have worked harder in school, (presumably to have a “real” career like being a real he-man airline pilot).
Not that it’s anyone’s business, but an early but chronic health issue made it impossible to have eventually qualified for/retained a FAA Class-I medical certificate, so it’s not for a lack of intelligence, drive, or motivation that I’ve ended up where I am, as you seem to assume. It’s kind of ironic, but one PIC I knew who suddenly was sans Class-I due to being dealt a hand health-wise afterwards got his FAA dispatcher’s license. Prior to the change in his health, he was about as anti-dispatch as they came, and it’s “funny” how his perspective changed once on the other side of things. As a PIC, he was the master of his own bubble, and once a dispatcher, he quickly learned that there were multiple bubbles, and that he had to take a more systemic view of things.
The captain is in charge..
In fact, the entire post was stating that the Captain is in charge and making it clear that those in planning and Ops are supporting the Captain to take as much or as little fuel as they like!!!
The article is clear in pointing out that the PIC has ultimate authority, but that that does not mean the dispatcher can't query the request for extra fuel. Dispatch cannot overrule the PIC, but they can question the need for extra fuel.
Again keeping in mind that we’re talking US FAA regs and not UK CAA regs, the original TV station story from February “sweeps” was incorrect in its assessment of what the US FAA regs say. I’m sure that they may well have just been parroting what the AAL pilots where pushing in support of their own actual agenda, but I’m of the opinion that these pilots are (Gasp!) also wrong in their assessments.
Every pilot starting the basic FAA training process here quickly learns what FAR 91.3 is:
§ 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.
If you’re flying your own personal airplane, this is the applicable FAR. Now, does that same 91.3 apply if you’re PIC of XYZ Airlines’ Boeing 737? There are plenty of airline pilots that default to that position, but since Part 121 ops entail a higher standard of care than do Part 91 ops, they might want to look at 121.533: [My emphasis]
§ 121.533 Responsibility for operational control: Domestic operations.
(a) Each certificate holder conducting domestic operations is responsible for operational control.
(b) The pilot in command and the aircraft dispatcher are jointly responsible for the preflight planning, delay, and dispatch release of a flight in compliance with this chapter and operations specifications.
(c) The aircraft dispatcher is responsible for—
(1) Monitoring the progress of each flight;
(2) Issuing necessary information for the safety of the flight; and
(3) Cancelling or redispatching a flight if, in his opinion or the opinion of the pilot in command, the flight cannot operate or continue to operate safely as planned or released.
(d) Each pilot in command of an aircraft is, during flight time, in command of the aircraft and crew and is responsible for the safety of the passengers, crewmembers, cargo, and airplane.
(e) Each pilot in command has full control and authority in the operation of the aircraft, without limitation, over other crewmembers and their duties during flight time, whether or not he holds valid certificates authorizing him to perform the duties of those crewmembers.
(In case anyone is wondering about the term “operational control”, FAR 1.1 defines it as, with respect to a flight, means the exercise of authority over initiating, conducting or terminating a flight.)
Thus, legally, the PIC doesn’t have sole ultimate authority as far as how much fuel gets loaded—that’s a joint preflight decision between PIC and dispatcher. Everyone seems to be fixating on the situation where the dispatcher wants X fuel and the PIC wants X plus more, but there are plenty of times where the opposite is true, i.e. the dispatcher wants X fuel and the PIC wants X minus some. Irrespective of whomever it is that wants more, these kinds of disagreements are handled via discussion and compromise. Rarely do I object to a PICs wanting more than the minimum I have on the dispatch release paperwork. That said, I do want to know the PIC’s rationale, since if it’s indeed valid (something that I maybe overlooked) I need to know about it so I can apply the info to the other flights I have operating over that same area. There are some cases where the PIC wants a huge amount (4,000+ lbs. more), and often the reason is more PIC personal comfort level, or “I diverted last week/month/year”. Back in the 1960s when Jet-A was pennies per gallon, hauling “comfort” fuel wasn’t a big deal economy-wise. It costs fuel to carry the weight of that 4,000 lbs. and using 5% to also consider the variable of stage length, 5% of 4,000 lbs. is 250 lbs, divided by 6.7 (lbs. to gallon conversion) equals 37.3 gallons, which at $3.50 a gallon is $130.55. While $130.55 might not seem like much, it can quickly add-up when one considers multiple flights doing the same thing. I’d bet that if the Company started billing the PICs for financial costs of hauling this kind of comfort gas around, PICs would quickly start getting “comfortable” about our fuel loads. (Not advocating that management do so, mind you, just observing that what’s “reasonable” is often colored by “who’s paying for it.”
Dogma and dontdoit - re: your highly imperious and dismissive comments to the dispatcher who was simply casting some very reasonable light on what seems to be a possibly overblown journo's story - unless you are trying a wind up, you are both wayyy out of line and in any event simply provide traction to the likes of MOL in getting a toe in the door with public opinion regards pilot "prima donnas". You've just reinforced his (or any other like-minded management's) position in the eyes of any non-aviation types reading your ridiculously irresponsible and possibly intentionally inflammatory posts.
The Sandman - you beat me to it - thanks. If dontdoit and dogma are actually Professional Aviators I never want to fly with them on the days I don't have a share in my own destiny. Egos like that should have been flushed out by the CRM process years ago. I suspect, if real, that they spend a significant time of their airborne lives only 'one more hole in the cheese' away from being a smoking pile.
Thanks, Gentlemen…
Regarding the words of SeniorDispatcher, they are most unfortunate and reveal a great deal about his/her misunderstanding as to their relative position to the Captain of the aircraft. There is no doubt that dispatchers are great people who know considerably more than most pilots on a whole host of ground-related matters in aviation. However, when it comes to fuel policy there is only one person who should be able to make that decision - that is the Captain of the aircraft.
If you’re referring to the situation on this side of the Pond with US FARs, I’m afraid the misunderstandings are clearly yours. If you’re basing any of your opinion on what I’ve stated based upon UK CAA regs, your misunderstanding is even greater. Please refer to the paragraph I wrote (in ALL CAPS) earlier.
Why is that? It is because the Captain will have many years' experience and is able to make the correct decision based on seeing numerous situations previously which have shaped his judgment of particular airports and weather conditions. No Dispatcher could ever have that experience and they are therefore not qualified in any way to decide how much fuel to load on an aircraft.
What your self-serving conclusion fails to consider is that a dispatcher may commonly dispatch and monitor anywhere from 40-80 trip segments per shift, while you may only be flying 4-8 during your day. Because of the centralized nature of a dispatch office, the dispatchers are accumulating experience in a different way, and at a different rate that you’re even aware of. Are dispatchers perfect? Certainly not, just like there are imperfect pilots out there. We learn by experience just as you do, and senior dispatchers mentor newbies just like PICs mentor F/Os. I trust that you’re familiar with that concept.
SeniorDispatcher's post should be a warning to everyone as to what would happen here in Europe if that same level of authority was given to a Dispatcher.
Over on your side of the Pond, I think that would be the Flight Operations Officer (FOO), and not the “dispatcher” (as known in the UK). What kind of thing might result? Less rogue behavior on the part of some PICs, and prevention of Hapag-Lloyd 3378 type fuel starvations. Think that’s a stretch? I know of a couple of similar incidents that involved abnormal airframe configurations during which the PICs advised that they could continue due to their FMC indicating ample fuel on arrival. Their dispatchers had to be the ones to break it to the PICs that FMC fuel calculations were to be disregarded as clearly stated in the QRH. Had the two dispatchers not been “there” to let them know? It’s not just mechanical issues either. Happen to recall the 1990 Avianca fuel starvation inbound into JFK? Before you cite ATC or language difficulties, check out NTSB’s list of contributing factors, and the order of their listing. For those paying attention, Avianca was a flight under Part 129, and not a Part 121 flight.
Yet, pilots in the thread have taken this as a grave insult and challenge to their authority.
I realise that I am treading on toes but only because I wonder why pilots want to stamp on the toes of a dispatcher?
It’s quite the case in human nature that people fear that they don’t understand, or mistakenly assume to be a threat. Another common misconception, already cited, is that dispatchers are all some kind of frustrated pilot wannabes. Operational control (as defined earlier) isn’t about PICs asking “Mother, may I?” every time they need to deviate 10 degrees left for weather, but it does involve coordinating decisionmaking on certain other items as a reality check. Conceptually, it’s no different that having two missile launch keys on a nuclear missile sub.
I thought Senior Dispatcher gave a very good explanation of how things are done in the US. The dispatcher and the captain are jointly legally responsible for the safe operation of the flight. There is a little extra information to go with it though. The dispatcher often has detailed in for on winds that the captain doesn't have as well as a lot of computer processing power. At my airline at least either the dispatcher or the captain can add fuel unilaterally, but must get permission from the other to DECREASE fuel. The number the dispatcher enters is not just a default number, but is arrived at by some pretty complicated programs. I very seldom add fuel and the only time I have ever ran really low I thought I was starting out with a lot extra-a lot of things just went wrong on the same flight. Of course the captain always has the ultimate authority to do what he thinks best but he doesn't need to be an ass about it unless he has some serious self esteem issues like a few posters here seem to have.
Thanks, Rick777, and I’ll agree with everything you’ve said with the exception of “ultimate authority” citation whilst on the ground. Even the air, 151.557 and 121.627(a) complement each other.
A good Dispatcher is worth his weight in gold - but lets not pretend that Senior Red Cap will be in jail/grave for having neglected the conduct the flight in accordance with the telephone directory of Rules and Regs! Some of the more pompous dispatchers I have meet go on about my Flight... my PIC's.... my crew etc, these individuals actually have zero concept of the weight of the responsibility!
With all due respect, I’m sorry my Karma ran over your Dogma. The “weight of the responsibility” is already known, and will manifest itself in full measure during an ensuing crash investigation and civil litigation—something a crew will miss since they’ll have been at the vey bottom of the impact crater.
Oh please... Where do you get this outdated, shallow tripe from.... it all sounds too much for you.... this is not the industry for you dear boy....
Headset, three screens each, a desk and paperwork of interest??, consessions, subsidised meals, free car parking and uniforms, share options..... Sound GOOD ?????
Plus, the ability to spend each night at home, in my own bed, with my spouse (and going a long way to avoid the dreaded airline induced divorce syndrome), not to mention avoiding the adverse effects of jet lag and other nastiness to the body’s natural rhythms.
I met plenty of really good, professional but friendly folks up front, and a fair number of £$%$holes along the way. The good ones valued my input, however small, my aim being to send them away on time or early, safely, and hopefully with a smile.
Sadly, Dogma's (and the other poster around the same time) initial comments reminded me of the "I'm better than you" brigade. Even a turnround co-ordinator (rather than a US-style dispatcher) contributes to a team effort on the ground. Being able to magic up a GPU, or the unaccompanied bag of the missing passenger was something I regularly aimed for, but treating fellow team members as something on your shoe was something I rarely tolerated. Despite my lowly payscale, a quick "listen sunshine, pretend for a moment I am a human being trying to help you" often worked wonders......
My complements on your surviving, and again highlighting the wisdom of that time-tested “Golden Rule.” In fairness, there are “alpha hotel” types within any employee population, my profession included. They’re as obvious as an isolated CB, and just as easily circumnavigated.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
your opinion was that :
However, § 121.533
And, § 91.3
Your own evidence clearly shows that whilst the Captain and the dispatcher are jointly reponsible for the planning etc. The Captain (PIC) Does indeed have ultimate sole authority.
Thus, legally, the PIC doesn’t have sole ultimate authority as far as how much fuel gets loaded—that’s a joint preflight decision between PIC and dispatcher.
The pilot in command and the aircraft dispatcher are jointly responsible for the preflight planning, delay, and dispatch release of a flight in compliance with this chapter and operations specifications
The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Slaving away in front of multiple LCDs, somewhere in the USA
Age: 69
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your own evidence clearly shows that whilst the Captain and the dispatcher are jointly reponsible for the planning etc. The Captain (PIC) Does indeed have ultimate sole authority.
It does when you selectively quote stuff like you have.
Let's try it again from the top.
FAR 91.3 applies (initially) to all PICs, since Part 91 is the first Part of the FARs that they operate in.
Once the PIC is no longer operating his personal aircraft under Part 91, and is acting as PIC on XYZ Airlines' 737, he's then operating under Part 121.533, which clearly deliniates the preflight stuff from the post-takeof stuff.
In other words, 91.3 has no bearing on a Part 121 airline operation, since FAR Part 121 has a more detailed and more refined version of the 91.3 version that reflects the higher standard of care nature with Part 121 ops, and the other individuals involved, in this case, the dispatcher. Some Part 91 regs do indeed apply to Part 121 ops (91.13 "Careless and Reckless" comes to mind), but 91.3 is not one of them.
Nor is the PIC necessarily the sole honcho when it comes to an emergency. Many PICs can cite 121.557, but they tend to stop at 121.557(a), without reading 121.557(b). Of those that make it to 121.557(b), some interpret that as stating the dispatcher can't independently declare an emergency unless it's a "NORDO" situation, which is, or course, incorrect.
It does when you selectively quote stuff like you have.
Let's try it again from the top.
FAR 91.3 applies (initially) to all PICs, since Part 91 is the first Part of the FARs that they operate in.
Once the PIC is no longer operating his personal aircraft under Part 91, and is acting as PIC on XYZ Airlines' 737, he's then operating under Part 121.533, which clearly deliniates the preflight stuff from the post-takeof stuff.
In other words, 91.3 has no bearing on a Part 121 airline operation, since FAR Part 121 has a more detailed and more refined version of the 91.3 version that reflects the higher standard of care nature with Part 121 ops, and the other individuals involved, in this case, the dispatcher. Some Part 91 regs do indeed apply to Part 121 ops (91.13 "Careless and Reckless" comes to mind), but 91.3 is not one of them.
Nor is the PIC necessarily the sole honcho when it comes to an emergency. Many PICs can cite 121.557, but they tend to stop at 121.557(a), without reading 121.557(b). Of those that make it to 121.557(b), some interpret that as stating the dispatcher can't independently declare an emergency unless it's a "NORDO" situation, which is, or course, incorrect.
Last edited by SeniorDispatcher; 21st Apr 2008 at 16:36.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My apologies, I was simply using the selectively quoted paragraphs that you were using to advocate your argument.
Having read part 121 sections 557 a,b,and c, I cannot see the relevance in regard to the PIC's ultimate authority, which is not diminished or abrogated by any of the three sub sections ?
What reference do you rely on for this statement ? In other words where is this stated ? The additional part 121 sections provide for the additional considerations of public transport operations, however they do not appear to redefine part 91.3.
Having read part 121 sections 557 a,b,and c, I cannot see the relevance in regard to the PIC's ultimate authority, which is not diminished or abrogated by any of the three sub sections ?
In other words, 91.3 has no bearing on a Part 121 airline operation, since FAR Part 121 has a more detailed and more refined version of the 91.3 version that reflects the higher standard of care nature with Part 121 ops, and the other individuals involved, in this case, the dispatcher. Some Part 91 regs do indeed apply to Part 121 ops (91.13 "Careless and Reckless" comes to mind), but 91.3 is not one of them.