Pilots claim airliners forced to fly with low fuel
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Raincoast
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
journalistic muckracking at it's lowest... what a pile of crap. Dispatch does tha flight plan at the carrier I'm with, there's no way there's any interference with the FINAL fuel decision which is always the Captains. Heck, there's even a little place on our flight plans to tick off the reason you carried a bit 'a extra fuel: Weather, MEL, tankering an' so forth.
I reckon' this journalist person's runnin' on cerebral fumes hisself... that's were the shortage is!
I reckon' this journalist person's runnin' on cerebral fumes hisself... that's were the shortage is!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KSA
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SeniorDispatcher
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PIC or Dispatcher?
I have read many an accident report especially on accidents where fuel starvation was an issue and I have yet to find a conclusion where the dispatcher was pointed as the one that failed?
It usually reads: (my own words)
"The failure of the pilot in command to verify that enough fuel for the trip was loaded"
"The mismanagement or failure to manage the fuel on board by the pilot in command"
Further more I have yet to find a accident report where it says:
"The dispatcher failed to ......" except where ground crews failed to follow requests / instructions?
The training of pilots always teaches: "The pilot in command is responsible for the safe conduct of the flight" Further more it will also say that: "The pilot in command can delegate duties to qualified persons" -
My interpretation of "delegate" is they get others to do it (flight planning etc . . .) but he is ultimate responsible -
Hey if senior dispatcher is correct with the inerpretation of the FAR's then the Yanks found a way for the PIC to side step this responsibility and have the dispatcher take it - maybe it is not so bad on the other side of the ocean - but on second thoughts - NO I ll stay where I am.
Stirred?
VG300
It usually reads: (my own words)
"The failure of the pilot in command to verify that enough fuel for the trip was loaded"
"The mismanagement or failure to manage the fuel on board by the pilot in command"
Further more I have yet to find a accident report where it says:
"The dispatcher failed to ......" except where ground crews failed to follow requests / instructions?
The training of pilots always teaches: "The pilot in command is responsible for the safe conduct of the flight" Further more it will also say that: "The pilot in command can delegate duties to qualified persons" -
My interpretation of "delegate" is they get others to do it (flight planning etc . . .) but he is ultimate responsible -
Hey if senior dispatcher is correct with the inerpretation of the FAR's then the Yanks found a way for the PIC to side step this responsibility and have the dispatcher take it - maybe it is not so bad on the other side of the ocean - but on second thoughts - NO I ll stay where I am.
Stirred?
VG300
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KSA
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VortexGen300 PIC or Dispatcher?
Hey if senior dispatcher is correct with the inerpretation of the FAR's then the Yanks found a way for the PIC to side step this responsibility and have the dispatcher take it - maybe it is not so bad on the other side of the ocean - but on second thoughts - NO I ll stay where I am.
Stirred?
VG300
Hey if senior dispatcher is correct with the inerpretation of the FAR's then the Yanks found a way for the PIC to side step this responsibility and have the dispatcher take it - maybe it is not so bad on the other side of the ocean - but on second thoughts - NO I ll stay where I am.
Stirred?
VG300
For instance, a pilot shows up for a flight and get a flight plan re-routing him away from a developing line of weather and reported turbulence or air traffic saturation that the Dispatcher has been watching all day long. The Dispatcher has been tied in with ATCC via telephone with ATC regarding expected delays or possible ground stops. The pilot sees the fuel and routing and wonders WTF. Maybe the pilot is the kind of pilot that glances at the paperwork with no benefit of watching the situation all day or his weak point is weather forecasting and thinks "oh that's over-reacting we can pick our way through that line of weather no problem I don't want to go that long-a$$ way around until I know I have to.". The regulations, by virtue of saddling BOTH pilot and Dispatcher with the responsibilty to sign off on the plan, in this case force the pilot to query the Dispatcher and thus become more enlightened on the larger-picture, dynamic factors affecting his flight.
On your side of the pond then, I guess the pilot alone should decide to do whatever the he11 he wants. You'd think that paying passengers would deserve better oversight.
Wow ... some testosterone being thrown around here.. 
Having "been there,done that" I'd just like to point out that Europe does indeed have it's share of capable Dispatchers ... I'd like to think I was once one ..... but I am of the view that this has been eroded with attempts at cost cutting
From the description of the US role there is no difference.... although given that most flight plans are "stored plans" it's often more about ammending/re-filing.
But all the rest was the same when I did it. Although this was station based and not central planing so we handled our own a/c through from pre-planning to actual "dispatch" of the aircraft.
However, we didn't see it as us/them pilot/dispatcher .. we were a team the politely co-existed and each carried out their duties.
The planner/dispatcher calculated fuel/flight plan requirements in advance and these were agreed with Captain. Sometime's fuelling might be underway before the oppurtunity to discuss and agree the final fugure with the captain.
As for the responsibility ... it's "joint" in the sense that either can halt the flight but both must concurr for it to go ahead.
But I'm puzzled that it needs to be such a "I'm the mighty dispatcher/captain" .... I can't ever recall anything like that situation ever arising .... adults work together and listen to each other to achieve a common goal .... with mutual respect.
Having "been there,done that" I'd just like to point out that Europe does indeed have it's share of capable Dispatchers ... I'd like to think I was once one ..... but I am of the view that this has been eroded with attempts at cost cutting
From the description of the US role there is no difference.... although given that most flight plans are "stored plans" it's often more about ammending/re-filing.
But all the rest was the same when I did it. Although this was station based and not central planing so we handled our own a/c through from pre-planning to actual "dispatch" of the aircraft.
However, we didn't see it as us/them pilot/dispatcher .. we were a team the politely co-existed and each carried out their duties.
The planner/dispatcher calculated fuel/flight plan requirements in advance and these were agreed with Captain. Sometime's fuelling might be underway before the oppurtunity to discuss and agree the final fugure with the captain.
As for the responsibility ... it's "joint" in the sense that either can halt the flight but both must concurr for it to go ahead.
But I'm puzzled that it needs to be such a "I'm the mighty dispatcher/captain" .... I can't ever recall anything like that situation ever arising .... adults work together and listen to each other to achieve a common goal .... with mutual respect.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: 'An Airfield Somewhere in England'
Posts: 1,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMF
"On your side of the pond then, I guess the pilot alone should decide to do whatever the he11 he wants. You'd think that paying passengers would deserve better oversight."
That is the exact point you are failing to understand. The issue is who has the oversight. No dispatcher should ever have oversight of who takes extra fuel and who does not - he/she is simply not qualified to do so. Senior Dispatcher, being the jolly fine graduate of some university somewhere that he undoubtedly is, can quote chapter and verse of the rules and regs until he is blue in the face. He can never have the necessary experience to make the final call on what is the appropriate fuel for that day. That is not to say he cannot make a reasonable guess as to what the likely decision will be. What he should never be in a position to do is argue with the Captain over his decision.
A number of very eloquent and informed Dispatchers have come on here to point out what dorks they have had to deal with over the years among the Captain fraternity. That maybe so, but it is frankly utterly irrelevant to this discussion. Nobody is asking whether some Captains are easy to work with or not - that simply does not matter in this case. Some nurses will verify that some very senior surgeons are a nightmare to work with, but that does not make the nurse more qualified to perform the operation than the difficult surgeon. What matters is qualifications and experience.
As an aside, I have had the odd case of cabin crew coming into discuss my fuel choice before. I have never been rude but have taken the time to explain to them my decision. The particular people involved were usually newly qualified, low-hours pilots, awaiting their first job and working as cabin crew meantime. They were trying to be helpful, and I took their comments as just that. It would, however, clearly be inappropriate to be unduly influenced by their view simply because they lacked the necessary experience to form a valid judgement. It takes years of experience to become a Captain of a jet airliner - that does not make you better or more important. It does, however, mean that you have experience in fuel matters that Cabin Crew or a Dispatcher can never have. They in turn have knowledge and experience I can never have - I am not in the slightest embarrassed to bow to their opinion in such cases. But when it comes to fuel, it is the pilots alone who are qualified to make the final decision. That is not arrogance - just plain common sense.
"On your side of the pond then, I guess the pilot alone should decide to do whatever the he11 he wants. You'd think that paying passengers would deserve better oversight."
That is the exact point you are failing to understand. The issue is who has the oversight. No dispatcher should ever have oversight of who takes extra fuel and who does not - he/she is simply not qualified to do so. Senior Dispatcher, being the jolly fine graduate of some university somewhere that he undoubtedly is, can quote chapter and verse of the rules and regs until he is blue in the face. He can never have the necessary experience to make the final call on what is the appropriate fuel for that day. That is not to say he cannot make a reasonable guess as to what the likely decision will be. What he should never be in a position to do is argue with the Captain over his decision.
A number of very eloquent and informed Dispatchers have come on here to point out what dorks they have had to deal with over the years among the Captain fraternity. That maybe so, but it is frankly utterly irrelevant to this discussion. Nobody is asking whether some Captains are easy to work with or not - that simply does not matter in this case. Some nurses will verify that some very senior surgeons are a nightmare to work with, but that does not make the nurse more qualified to perform the operation than the difficult surgeon. What matters is qualifications and experience.
As an aside, I have had the odd case of cabin crew coming into discuss my fuel choice before. I have never been rude but have taken the time to explain to them my decision. The particular people involved were usually newly qualified, low-hours pilots, awaiting their first job and working as cabin crew meantime. They were trying to be helpful, and I took their comments as just that. It would, however, clearly be inappropriate to be unduly influenced by their view simply because they lacked the necessary experience to form a valid judgement. It takes years of experience to become a Captain of a jet airliner - that does not make you better or more important. It does, however, mean that you have experience in fuel matters that Cabin Crew or a Dispatcher can never have. They in turn have knowledge and experience I can never have - I am not in the slightest embarrassed to bow to their opinion in such cases. But when it comes to fuel, it is the pilots alone who are qualified to make the final decision. That is not arrogance - just plain common sense.
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
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.
If one has a basic understanding of the laws of statutory construction, I submit that it's pretty clearly a case of common sense. FAR 91.3 is intentionally broad/general, while 121.533 is intentionally more specific, it being a Part 121 operation, where rhe standard of care is higher. The dispatcher is responsible for "X" and the PIC is responsible for "Y" during flight time, and the dispatcher and PIC are jointly responsible for "Z".
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 ?
OK, you say that you've read 121.557 (a)(b)(c). How does the other FAR I mentioned, 121.627(a), then come into play?
Nice post SD, explaining the regulatory differences. I surely hope the self-serving Egomaniacs masquerading as professional pilots who think they've been beknighted with a position that places them above all reproach or questioning stay on their side of the pond while they're aviating, preferably flying Point A to B between 2 little remote burgs where the weather is 99%benign. Say, Manchsester to Frankfurt.
As I said previously, it's human nature that the unknown be feared (and/or trashed), since that's easier and less threatening than taking a step back and considering another point of view that's not indigenous to their part of the world.
I have read many an accident report especially on accidents where fuel starvation was an issue and I have yet to find a conclusion where the dispatcher was pointed as the one that failed?
Further more I have yet to find a accident report where it says: "The dispatcher failed to ......" except where ground crews failed to follow requests / instructions?
Might that be because, in both cases, there was no dispatcher (as in the US type, and not the type in the UK or elsewhere) present to even been involved?
Wow ... some testosterone being thrown around here..
Not by yours truly. Those reactions are coming from others on the thread...
Having "been there,done that" I'd just like to point out that Europe does indeed have it's share of capable Dispatchers ... I'd like to think I was once one ..... but I am of the view that this has been eroded with attempts at cost cutting
From the description of the US role there is no difference.... although given that most flight plans are "stored plans" it's often more about ammending/re-filing.
But all the rest was the same when I did it. Although this was station based and not central planing so we handled our own a/c through from pre-planning to actual "dispatch" of the aircraft.
However, we didn't see it as us/them pilot/dispatcher .. we were a team the politely co-existed and each carried out their duties.
The planner/dispatcher calculated fuel/flight plan requirements in advance and these were agreed with Captain. Sometime's fuelling might be underway before the oppurtunity to discuss and agree the final fugure with the captain.
As for the responsibility ... it's "joint" in the sense that either can halt the flight but both must concurr for it to go ahead.
The point is moot, because, again, we're talking about US dispatcher versus UK dispatchers, and about the only similarity (with all due respect) they have to one another is the name. The respective functions, duties, and responsibilites are completely dissimilar.
But I'm puzzled that it needs to be such a "I'm the mighty dispatcher/captain"
You'll have to ask those demonstrating the "mighty captain" attitude. All I've tried to do in this thread was give the history and background of the original heavily tainted and flawed media story, which still manages to keep showing up in other publications like the WSJ, and to provide (again, for the umpteenth time) the perspective from the FAA/Part 121 side of the Pond. If my merely uttering the different regs and viewpoints gleaned from my 28 year career as a dispatcher over on this side are causing uncomfort to those on the other side of the Pond, well, sorry about that, but your reactions are your own.
And, for anyone interested, NTSB's conclusions re: Avianca 52 with [My emphasis]:
PROBABLE CAUSE: "The failure of the flight crew to adequately manage the airplane's fuel load, and their failure to communicate an emergency fuel situation to air traffic control before fuel exhaustion occurred. Contributing to the accident was the flight crew's failure to use an airline operational control dispatch system to assist them during the international flight into a high-density airport in poor weather. Also contributing to the accident was inadequate traffic flow management by the FAA and the lack of standardized understandable terminology for pilots and controllers for minimum and emergency fuel states. The Safety Board also determines that windshear, crew fatigue and stress were factors that led to the unsuccessful completion of the first approach and thus contributed to the accident."
Most simply stated, there was nobody doing the "conducting" and "terminating" phases of operational control, and divert the flight someplace before the flight could get north of the DC area. Good choices would have been IAD, PIT, or SYR--the filed alternate (BOS) was below alternate minimuns before they even left Colombia.
If one has a basic understanding of the laws of statutory construction, I submit that it's pretty clearly a case of common sense. FAR 91.3 is intentionally broad/general, while 121.533 is intentionally more specific, it being a Part 121 operation, where rhe standard of care is higher. The dispatcher is responsible for "X" and the PIC is responsible for "Y" during flight time, and the dispatcher and PIC are jointly responsible for "Z".
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 ?
OK, you say that you've read 121.557 (a)(b)(c). How does the other FAR I mentioned, 121.627(a), then come into play?
Nice post SD, explaining the regulatory differences. I surely hope the self-serving Egomaniacs masquerading as professional pilots who think they've been beknighted with a position that places them above all reproach or questioning stay on their side of the pond while they're aviating, preferably flying Point A to B between 2 little remote burgs where the weather is 99%benign. Say, Manchsester to Frankfurt.
As I said previously, it's human nature that the unknown be feared (and/or trashed), since that's easier and less threatening than taking a step back and considering another point of view that's not indigenous to their part of the world.
I have read many an accident report especially on accidents where fuel starvation was an issue and I have yet to find a conclusion where the dispatcher was pointed as the one that failed?
Further more I have yet to find a accident report where it says: "The dispatcher failed to ......" except where ground crews failed to follow requests / instructions?
Might that be because, in both cases, there was no dispatcher (as in the US type, and not the type in the UK or elsewhere) present to even been involved?
Wow ... some testosterone being thrown around here..
Not by yours truly. Those reactions are coming from others on the thread...
Having "been there,done that" I'd just like to point out that Europe does indeed have it's share of capable Dispatchers ... I'd like to think I was once one ..... but I am of the view that this has been eroded with attempts at cost cutting
From the description of the US role there is no difference.... although given that most flight plans are "stored plans" it's often more about ammending/re-filing.
But all the rest was the same when I did it. Although this was station based and not central planing so we handled our own a/c through from pre-planning to actual "dispatch" of the aircraft.
However, we didn't see it as us/them pilot/dispatcher .. we were a team the politely co-existed and each carried out their duties.
The planner/dispatcher calculated fuel/flight plan requirements in advance and these were agreed with Captain. Sometime's fuelling might be underway before the oppurtunity to discuss and agree the final fugure with the captain.
As for the responsibility ... it's "joint" in the sense that either can halt the flight but both must concurr for it to go ahead.
The point is moot, because, again, we're talking about US dispatcher versus UK dispatchers, and about the only similarity (with all due respect) they have to one another is the name. The respective functions, duties, and responsibilites are completely dissimilar.
But I'm puzzled that it needs to be such a "I'm the mighty dispatcher/captain"
You'll have to ask those demonstrating the "mighty captain" attitude. All I've tried to do in this thread was give the history and background of the original heavily tainted and flawed media story, which still manages to keep showing up in other publications like the WSJ, and to provide (again, for the umpteenth time) the perspective from the FAA/Part 121 side of the Pond. If my merely uttering the different regs and viewpoints gleaned from my 28 year career as a dispatcher over on this side are causing uncomfort to those on the other side of the Pond, well, sorry about that, but your reactions are your own.
And, for anyone interested, NTSB's conclusions re: Avianca 52 with [My emphasis]:
PROBABLE CAUSE: "The failure of the flight crew to adequately manage the airplane's fuel load, and their failure to communicate an emergency fuel situation to air traffic control before fuel exhaustion occurred. Contributing to the accident was the flight crew's failure to use an airline operational control dispatch system to assist them during the international flight into a high-density airport in poor weather. Also contributing to the accident was inadequate traffic flow management by the FAA and the lack of standardized understandable terminology for pilots and controllers for minimum and emergency fuel states. The Safety Board also determines that windshear, crew fatigue and stress were factors that led to the unsuccessful completion of the first approach and thus contributed to the accident."
Most simply stated, there was nobody doing the "conducting" and "terminating" phases of operational control, and divert the flight someplace before the flight could get north of the DC area. Good choices would have been IAD, PIT, or SYR--the filed alternate (BOS) was below alternate minimuns before they even left Colombia.
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
Senior Dispatcher, being the jolly fine graduate of some university somewhere that he undoubtedly is, can quote chapter and verse of the rules and regs until he is blue in the face. He can never have the necessary experience to make the final call on what is the appropriate fuel for that day.
You know what they said about using the words "never" and always..."
As far as the "appropriate fuel for the day", can you pick that appropriate amount with 100% certainty and accuracy, and do so hours in advance of your actual ETA into the destination terminal area? (Could you pick a set of Lotto numbers for me?)
Your statement seems all the more ironic in that just one of the many things we base our fuel loads on are PIREPS (company and non-company) from those flights ahead of you. You manage to contact all those other crews yourself too? You receive the FAA's ATCSCC advisory messages too? If you can answer an honest "yes" to these and other similar types of questions concerning the varied info sources that a US Part 121 dispatcher has available at their computer work station, then I'm damned impressed with your capabilities. If not, well, you know...
You know what they said about using the words "never" and always..."
As far as the "appropriate fuel for the day", can you pick that appropriate amount with 100% certainty and accuracy, and do so hours in advance of your actual ETA into the destination terminal area? (Could you pick a set of Lotto numbers for me?)
Your statement seems all the more ironic in that just one of the many things we base our fuel loads on are PIREPS (company and non-company) from those flights ahead of you. You manage to contact all those other crews yourself too? You receive the FAA's ATCSCC advisory messages too? If you can answer an honest "yes" to these and other similar types of questions concerning the varied info sources that a US Part 121 dispatcher has available at their computer work station, then I'm damned impressed with your capabilities. If not, well, you know...
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captains, Dispatchers and others
This thread has descended into a situation where two immovable objects are pushing against each other with neither prepared to see the other's side of the argument. Why don't you take a cold shower and realise that no company worth it's salt employs personnel who do not make a contribution to the overall operation. Senior Dispatcher may well have all the knowledge and information to allow him to determine an appropriate fuel load for any given flight however the final determination is, or always should be, made by the Captain of each flight. That said, neither the Captain or the Senior Dispatcher can properly fulfill their function without the assistance of their fellow company employees, whether they be flight deck crew, cabin crew, ground crew, dispatchers or administrative staff. This fact was well recognised by CX when they introduced a profit share scheme which paid out to everyone from the GM to the toilet cleaners. Just try and accept that most endeavours involving more than one individual require input from all involved to work effectively. 
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
Senior Dispatcher may well have all the knowledge and information to allow him to determine an appropriate fuel load for any given flight however the final determination is, or always should be, made by the Captain of each flight.
At the risk of repeating myself, and with all due respect, the way you blokes do it in the UK and elsewhere outside the US is between you, your airline, and your regulatory body.
That said, I made mention (way back in post #6) of why the media's original story at our local BFE TV station was tripe, and did so purely with respect to, and in the context of US FARs. Then the floodgates opened, with multiple pilots from UK and elsewhere dogpiling on essentially how the UK way was the only way. I'm not lobbying CAA here to change your regs--I've been trying to explain how ours work with repect to the bogus "news" piece, and why they seem to work, yet the concensus from the east side of the Pond appears to be nothing but their rule set can possibly work. The height of hypocracy then occurs when I'm taken to task for not considering your way when I cannot even be afforded the same professional courtesy in return.
So much for PPRUNE being a place for professional discussions.
At the risk of repeating myself, and with all due respect, the way you blokes do it in the UK and elsewhere outside the US is between you, your airline, and your regulatory body.
That said, I made mention (way back in post #6) of why the media's original story at our local BFE TV station was tripe, and did so purely with respect to, and in the context of US FARs. Then the floodgates opened, with multiple pilots from UK and elsewhere dogpiling on essentially how the UK way was the only way. I'm not lobbying CAA here to change your regs--I've been trying to explain how ours work with repect to the bogus "news" piece, and why they seem to work, yet the concensus from the east side of the Pond appears to be nothing but their rule set can possibly work. The height of hypocracy then occurs when I'm taken to task for not considering your way when I cannot even be afforded the same professional courtesy in return.
So much for PPRUNE being a place for professional discussions.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If one has a basic understanding of the laws of statutory construction, I submit that it's pretty clearly a case of common sense. FAR 91.3 is intentionally broad/general, while 121.533 is intentionally more specific, it being a Part 121 operation, where rhe standard of care is higher. The dispatcher is responsible for "X" and the PIC is responsible for "Y" during flight time, and the dispatcher and PIC are jointly responsible for "Z".
You say:
OK, you say that you've read 121.557 (a)(b)(c). How does the other FAR I mentioned, 121.627(a), then come into play?
Sec. 121.627 - Continuing flight in unsafe conditions.
(a) No pilot in command may allow a flight to continue toward any airport to which it has been dispatched or released if, in the opinion of the pilot in command or dispatcher (domestic and flag operations only), the flight cannot be completed safely; unless, in the opinion of the pilot in command, there is no safer procedure. In that event, continuation toward that airport is an emergency situation as set forth in §121.557.
(a) No pilot in command may allow a flight to continue toward any airport to which it has been dispatched or released if, in the opinion of the pilot in command or dispatcher (domestic and flag operations only), the flight cannot be completed safely; unless, in the opinion of the pilot in command, there is no safer procedure. In that event, continuation toward that airport is an emergency situation as set forth in §121.557.
The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
Again and notwithstanding your opinion, what citation of the relevant Federal Aviation Regulations do you rely on in your argument that:
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
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel loads
Senior Dispatcher, I note you selectively plucked a quote from my last post whilst ignoring the point that we are all part of a team. Also, I don't come from the UK. I have flown with Captains from the USA, Canada, UK, Middle East and Australia. I have always accepted that the "buck stops" with the Captain in terms of responsibility for the safety of his aircraft and the occupants therein. This responsibility, in my view, includes the appropriate fuel load to safely complete the flight. There were very few Captains with whom I flew that I did not have confidence in and if I ever thought my point of view needed to be put forward I would do so without fear. Some of the people responding to your original post obviously have a much over-inflated ego and are probably a pain in the butt to work with. Thankfully, the vast majority of Captains would appreciate those such as yourself and the efforts you make to assist in the planning of a flight. You should remember that your butt is firmly planted on the ground whilst the Captain and his crew are taking care of the safety and comfort of their aircraft and passengers. If a Captain determines he wants more, or less, fuel loaded that has to be his call. As others have expressed, the occasions on which anyone other than the Captain has been found responsible for an aircraft suffering fuel exhaustion are very difficult to find. By the way, I totally agree with your sentiments regarding the reporting of so called news by the media in general. Mostly ill-informed garbage.
Last edited by Old Fella; 22nd Apr 2008 at 08:24.
This seems to have degenerated now .......
If everyone is doing their job correctly no "disagreement" occurs .... it's joint working with a common safety objective as the prime objective.
Joint working involves joint decison making where appropriate but it's also very, very clear that US or UK/Europe the ultimate decision always rests with the person leaving the ground in charge of the a/c.
When I was trained the way it was expressed was that there is a joint responsibilty (and that's legal in the UK/Europe also) "while the doors are open" ........ otherwise it's the Captain's call every time. You can still provide input/info to the flight deck after doors closed but that's all.
Anyway ..... the original question was about "is it true" ....... the rest of this is just wandering
My take on the original question is no ... there's always been a fuel economic conciousness as long as I can remember ... such as achieving fuel economic trim conditions (anyone remember Flying Tigers insistance on that back in the 70/80's?) or using fuel indices for differing stations to use when deciding if it made sense to "tanker" fuel.
It's not new, in my view it didn't put pressure on anyone then and it doesn't now ... you simply discharge your responsibilities.
I've yet to hear any flight deck say they took less fuel than they wanted because of fuel economic pressures.
Yes, there is fuel monitering and maybe there will be the odd question afterwards .... but never on the day ....
If everyone is doing their job correctly no "disagreement" occurs .... it's joint working with a common safety objective as the prime objective.
Joint working involves joint decison making where appropriate but it's also very, very clear that US or UK/Europe the ultimate decision always rests with the person leaving the ground in charge of the a/c.
When I was trained the way it was expressed was that there is a joint responsibilty (and that's legal in the UK/Europe also) "while the doors are open" ........ otherwise it's the Captain's call every time. You can still provide input/info to the flight deck after doors closed but that's all.
Anyway ..... the original question was about "is it true" ....... the rest of this is just wandering
My take on the original question is no ... there's always been a fuel economic conciousness as long as I can remember ... such as achieving fuel economic trim conditions (anyone remember Flying Tigers insistance on that back in the 70/80's?) or using fuel indices for differing stations to use when deciding if it made sense to "tanker" fuel.
It's not new, in my view it didn't put pressure on anyone then and it doesn't now ... you simply discharge your responsibilities.
I've yet to hear any flight deck say they took less fuel than they wanted because of fuel economic pressures.
Yes, there is fuel monitering and maybe there will be the odd question afterwards .... but never on the day ....
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.
That's 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: Feb 2005
Location: KSA
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Norman Stanley Fletcher.... AMF
That is the exact point you are failing to understand. The issue is who has the oversight. No dispatcher should ever have oversight of who takes extra fuel and who does not - he/she is simply not qualified to do so. Senior Dispatcher, being the jolly fine graduate of some university somewhere that he undoubtedly is, can quote chapter and verse of the rules and regs until he is blue in the face. He can never have the necessary experience to make the final call on what is the appropriate fuel for that day. That is not to say he cannot make a reasonable guess as to what the likely decision will be. What he should never be in a position to do is argue with the Captain over his decision.
That is the exact point you are failing to understand. The issue is who has the oversight. No dispatcher should ever have oversight of who takes extra fuel and who does not - he/she is simply not qualified to do so. Senior Dispatcher, being the jolly fine graduate of some university somewhere that he undoubtedly is, can quote chapter and verse of the rules and regs until he is blue in the face. He can never have the necessary experience to make the final call on what is the appropriate fuel for that day. That is not to say he cannot make a reasonable guess as to what the likely decision will be. What he should never be in a position to do is argue with the Captain over his decision.
I say this because if you think Dispatching in the US is only about citing chapter and verse of regs or "guessing" then it's ignorance on your part. You talk about "fuel for the day", when in fact the Dispatcher is tied into more information about what your day will be like based on large-picture considerations such as communications with other Company pilots and flights along the route you may be taking, the guys who forecast weather for a living using various sources, direct links with ATCC which help serve air carrier planning especially in dynamic weather conditions, etc.
So like it or not the FAA, by requiring them to gain a certificate to fill the role of a Dispatcher at a 121 carrier, and to use all these sources of information... does indeed place them in a legal role in planning and functioning as an oversight (potentially "arguing with the captain" as you put it), despite what you think what the interpretation of these regs should be based on your foreign experience and opinion of how high-and-mighty your position is.
A number of very eloquent and informed Dispatchers have come on here to point out what dorks they have had to deal with over the years among the Captain fraternity. That maybe so, but it is frankly utterly irrelevant to this discussion. Nobody is asking whether some Captains are easy to work with or not - that simply does not matter in this case.
As an aside, I have had the odd case of cabin crew coming into discuss my fuel choice before. I have never been rude but have taken the time to explain to them my decision. The particular people involved were usually newly qualified, low-hours pilots, awaiting their first job and working as cabin crew meantime. They were trying to be helpful, and I took their comments as just that. It would, however, clearly be inappropriate to be unduly influenced by their view simply because they lacked the necessary experience to form a valid judgement.
It takes years of experience to become a Captain of a jet airliner - that does not make you better or more important. It does, however, mean that you have experience in fuel matters that Cabin Crew or a Dispatcher can never have.
Fuel loads aren't rocket science, and I don't care how many years of experience I (or you) have, a switched-on Dispatcher in the US will be provided and directly tied-into to more sources of WX, ATC, and PIREP information pertaining to and forecasted to affect my upcoming flight long before I even get to the airport or gate.
...alas, I see you DO equate a US Dispatcher's opinion with a Cabin Crewmember who's also some ab initio "cadet". Sadly, it only highlights your ignorance of what Dispatchers actually do, see, and are responsible for under FAR Part 121, despite others on here who've been outlining it for you.
A note on experience you say is the be-all, end-all....Now that I'm foreign-based I've had the pleasure to fly with mostly Euro and Down Under pilots many of which, despite gobs, heaps, and loads of "experience" above 10,000 hours (including experience at their native air carriers) have never seen a snowflake let alone a de-ice truck in operation, wouldn't know an occlusion even if they flew into one let alone figure out what Lifting Indexes are and what it implies since they think "knowing weather" consists wholly of being able to read a METAR and TAF, think "ATC saturation" is 3 airplanes on final approach and 3 ready to depart, have NEVER flown an actual approach to minimums or given/read/or been able to find PIREPS, and couldn't figure out a holding pattern entry to save their life.
Lacking other things to worry about and plan for plowing around for umpteen thousand hours in their benign environments, these are usually the types that have to raise something as mundane as fuel planning to a level of pseudo-rocket science so it enters the arena of "questioning my command authority".
They in turn have knowledge and experience I can never have - I am not in the slightest embarrassed to bow to their opinion in such cases. But when it comes to fuel, it is the pilots alone who are qualified to make the final decision. That is not arrogance - just plain common sense.
It's not a matter for debate by you...do it until you are blue in the face...if you're a Dispatcher under Part 121, the responsibility, and therefore a Certificate, goes with the job. You can't shirk it, even in the face of an ignorant or blowhard Captain who worries about who's bowing to who. The essence of any Certificate is partly the ability of the Licensing Authority to suspend or revoke it for failing to live up to responsiblities defined by the regulations you're operating under.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KSA
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old Fella Fuel loads
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Dispatcher, .... Thankfully, the vast majority of Captains would appreciate those such as yourself and the efforts you make to assist in the planning of a flight. You should remember that your butt is firmly planted on the ground whilst the Captain and his crew are taking care of the safety and comfort of their aircraft and passengers. If a Captain determines he wants more, or less, fuel loaded that has to be his call. As others have expressed, the occasions on which anyone other than the Captain has been found responsible for an aircraft suffering fuel exhaustion are very difficult to find.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Dispatcher, .... Thankfully, the vast majority of Captains would appreciate those such as yourself and the efforts you make to assist in the planning of a flight. You should remember that your butt is firmly planted on the ground whilst the Captain and his crew are taking care of the safety and comfort of their aircraft and passengers. If a Captain determines he wants more, or less, fuel loaded that has to be his call. As others have expressed, the occasions on which anyone other than the Captain has been found responsible for an aircraft suffering fuel exhaustion are very difficult to find.
Usually the reason nobody else besides the PIC has been found responsible for fuel exhaustion incidents is either the operation isn't conducted under a Regulating Authority or set of regulations that legally assigns joint responsibility for planning and release to Certificated Dispatcher in the first place, or the pilot mismanages the fuel in a dynamic situation, thinking they always know best. The system works, in almost all cases, due to this joint responsibility, and agreement is usually reached between Pilot and Dispatcher based on the more conservative estimate. This forced-by-regs agreement (due to the fact the Dispatcher must also sign off on the flight) is why fuel exhaustion incidents are rare despite the dynamics of weather, the highest traffic saturation in the world, and routine inflight re-releasing.
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
I am not entirely sure what this has to do with with the point, but in any event nobody responsible for a flights planning would allow a flight to continue towards an airport if in their opinion the flight could not be completed safely ? Nevertheless even this regulatory subsection clearly provides for the overriding authority as laid out in 91.3, in the stated provision unless, in the opinion of the pilot in command, there is no safer procedure.. In other words as 91.3 clearly states:
FAR 91.3 is a non-issue, as 121.533 (d)(e) are the FARs applicable to scheduled air carrier ops.
The reason I mentioned 121.557 and 121.627(a) is that even something as seemingly "simple" as emergency authority can have have other considerations associated with it. Keeping in mind, AGAIN, that these are US FAA regs and not UK CAA regs that I'm discussing here, how about the situation where a dispatcher thinks an emergency exists, but thte PIC (for whatever reason) does not? How is that kind of "disagreement" settled, or could it ever even exist?
FAR 91.3 is a non-issue, as 121.533 (d)(e) are the FARs applicable to scheduled air carrier ops.
The reason I mentioned 121.557 and 121.627(a) is that even something as seemingly "simple" as emergency authority can have have other considerations associated with it. Keeping in mind, AGAIN, that these are US FAA regs and not UK CAA regs that I'm discussing here, how about the situation where a dispatcher thinks an emergency exists, but thte PIC (for whatever reason) does not? How is that kind of "disagreement" settled, or could it ever even exist?
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
Of course it matters Norman, and isn't irrelavent, since to release a flight under Part 121 the Dispatcher has to sign off on the plan too.
Of course, there is that rogue crew out there that defaults to the presumption that he always knows better than anyone else, and does whatever the h*** he wants anyways. Classic case in point: (The locations involved have been changed to protect the guilty)
Flight was scheduled to operate PHX-OKC-TUL, during the last couple of hours of the operating day. Springtime cold front marching down towards the area. Dispatcher leaves message for PIC to call him from OKC.
Ring.
Dispatch...
This is flight nnnn; I got a message to call...
There's a line of thunderstorms...
(Interrupting) Yeah I see it, I've been watching the damn thing for the last 200 miles into OKC.
Well, the line starts about 20nm NE of OKC and goes all the way into Wisconsin. Since it's still NW of TUL, what I want you to do is delay your departure by about 15 minutes, and when you do launch, head NE of OKC about 30nm, and then head east, on the north side of the line. You may have to hold for a few minutes until the line clears TUL, but as fast as the line is moving, it won't be long. There's no way you'll beat the line to TUL leaving ontime, via the normal route.
Click.
I called the station back about 5 minutes later, and the ops guy said the flight had already departed, instead of waiting. He aso took a 090 heading, on the south side of the line. The weather did indeed beat him to TUL, and the line was solid. As this was back in the non-ASD days, we didn't have the computer ability to visually observe actual flight activity. ZKC and ZAU told us that he had deviated all the way to Wisconsin looking for a hole to get through but found none. Flight does a 180 turn and heads back to the SW, still on the south side of the line. In the time since he'd departed OKC, the front had continued its march to the SE, and the line had built much further to the SW. By the time he reached the end of the line, it was almost at LBB, whereupon he turned the corner, went direct and overflew OKC (from whence he'd started) and finally landed at TUL. Normal flight time was about 20-25 minutes. Because of this PIC's pig-headed arrogance, his actual flight time was well over 2 hours. The only thing that allowed him to land at TUL, and not somehere short thereof) was the fact that they were lightly loaded and had a boatload of tanker fuel aboard, which ended up being all wasted.
Had they not had the tanker fuel, the dispatcher was on top of the situation, and had his finger on the "emergency declaration" trigger, ready to pull it if necessary.
Of course, there is that rogue crew out there that defaults to the presumption that he always knows better than anyone else, and does whatever the h*** he wants anyways. Classic case in point: (The locations involved have been changed to protect the guilty)
Flight was scheduled to operate PHX-OKC-TUL, during the last couple of hours of the operating day. Springtime cold front marching down towards the area. Dispatcher leaves message for PIC to call him from OKC.
Ring.
Dispatch...
This is flight nnnn; I got a message to call...
There's a line of thunderstorms...
(Interrupting) Yeah I see it, I've been watching the damn thing for the last 200 miles into OKC.
Well, the line starts about 20nm NE of OKC and goes all the way into Wisconsin. Since it's still NW of TUL, what I want you to do is delay your departure by about 15 minutes, and when you do launch, head NE of OKC about 30nm, and then head east, on the north side of the line. You may have to hold for a few minutes until the line clears TUL, but as fast as the line is moving, it won't be long. There's no way you'll beat the line to TUL leaving ontime, via the normal route.
Click.
I called the station back about 5 minutes later, and the ops guy said the flight had already departed, instead of waiting. He aso took a 090 heading, on the south side of the line. The weather did indeed beat him to TUL, and the line was solid. As this was back in the non-ASD days, we didn't have the computer ability to visually observe actual flight activity. ZKC and ZAU told us that he had deviated all the way to Wisconsin looking for a hole to get through but found none. Flight does a 180 turn and heads back to the SW, still on the south side of the line. In the time since he'd departed OKC, the front had continued its march to the SE, and the line had built much further to the SW. By the time he reached the end of the line, it was almost at LBB, whereupon he turned the corner, went direct and overflew OKC (from whence he'd started) and finally landed at TUL. Normal flight time was about 20-25 minutes. Because of this PIC's pig-headed arrogance, his actual flight time was well over 2 hours. The only thing that allowed him to land at TUL, and not somehere short thereof) was the fact that they were lightly loaded and had a boatload of tanker fuel aboard, which ended up being all wasted.
Had they not had the tanker fuel, the dispatcher was on top of the situation, and had his finger on the "emergency declaration" trigger, ready to pull it if necessary.
Last edited by SeniorDispatcher; 22nd Apr 2008 at 17:31.
No wonder why flights are always late---if flight planning is anything like the redundant arguments in this thread---so much agreement for disagreement
SD makes very clear points---perhaps a few pilots would like to try their hand at the Dispatcher Practical Test
both parties are legally responsible for making safe legal and perhaps [if there are no squalls/ sigmets/ Nasty pireps/ ground delays holding---------] economical flight plan
cost indexing for tankering etc... are extra tasks---assuring fuel for diversions alternates/ Wx holding traffic delay IS a legal requirement---is squarely placed on both parties shoulders...i.e they both get the sack...and perhaps a nice trial for licnese revocations---especially these days when the FAA has such a bug up its *ss over airline ops
---however reducing diversions is an economic requirement---
and by excercising mutual respect and due dilligence--both parties benifit from greater safety and greater economy--with both parties placing safety at the top---but isn't that's how it's done?
SD makes very clear points---perhaps a few pilots would like to try their hand at the Dispatcher Practical Test
both parties are legally responsible for making safe legal and perhaps [if there are no squalls/ sigmets/ Nasty pireps/ ground delays holding---------] economical flight plan
cost indexing for tankering etc... are extra tasks---assuring fuel for diversions alternates/ Wx holding traffic delay IS a legal requirement---is squarely placed on both parties shoulders...i.e they both get the sack...and perhaps a nice trial for licnese revocations---especially these days when the FAA has such a bug up its *ss over airline ops
---however reducing diversions is an economic requirement---
and by excercising mutual respect and due dilligence--both parties benifit from greater safety and greater economy--with both parties placing safety at the top---but isn't that's how it's done?
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
and by excercising mutual respect and due dilligence--both parties benifit from greater safety and greater economy--with both parties placing safety at the top---but isn't that's how it's done?
If the drubbing I've been taking here is any kind of indication, I'd say not...
I'd guess that many here have heard of James T. Reason--maybe some would also be interested in the work of Dr. Phil Smith, of Ohio State...
If the drubbing I've been taking here is any kind of indication, I'd say not...
I'd guess that many here have heard of James T. Reason--maybe some would also be interested in the work of Dr. Phil Smith, of Ohio State...
