United GRU-ORD Divert to MIA to Offload Purser
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MU3001A, nobody who knows is saying what conditions, if any, were imposed on the CA and two FOs with respect to continuing the flight to ORD. The issue, after all, was not one of airmanship, but of temperament.
Dispatch was in a bit of a box: if they do not release the flight, they have a 767 on the ground at 0430 hours:
> at an airport where they do not have a station
> with the prospect of perhaps 6-9 hours elapsing before a replacement CA could arrive to fly the plane to ORD, with or without its passengers (depending on whether other carrier(s) had enough seats to fly passengers to Chicago earlier). Quite likely a whole replacement crew would be needed because of duty hour limits.
> a public relations black eye once the story got out for why a plane-full of passengers were stranded on the tarmac at MIA (bad p.r. would be secondary of course, but not an absent factor)
Dispatch was in a bit of a box: if they do not release the flight, they have a 767 on the ground at 0430 hours:
> at an airport where they do not have a station
> with the prospect of perhaps 6-9 hours elapsing before a replacement CA could arrive to fly the plane to ORD, with or without its passengers (depending on whether other carrier(s) had enough seats to fly passengers to Chicago earlier). Quite likely a whole replacement crew would be needed because of duty hour limits.
> a public relations black eye once the story got out for why a plane-full of passengers were stranded on the tarmac at MIA (bad p.r. would be secondary of course, but not an absent factor)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SaturnV
I would argue that temperament is a key part of airmanship, particularly when a good part of the job of command involves leading a team of co-workers who's cooperation is necessary for the safe completion of a flight.
Also. While I fully understand how commercial pressures would have loomed heavy once UAL's carefully planned schedules became disrupted by the diversion. Commercial pressure should never be allowed to supplant safety of flight as the 1st consideration. I'm not saying that UAL necessarily did anything wrong, but I would want to know more about the incident and the process they followed in making the decision, always assuming they did have input to the decision to continue the flight and I'm sure the regulatory authorities will feel the same way.
Will Fraser
Hardly, we have just begun to peel back the 1st layers of this intriguing story.
I would argue that temperament is a key part of airmanship, particularly when a good part of the job of command involves leading a team of co-workers who's cooperation is necessary for the safe completion of a flight.
Also. While I fully understand how commercial pressures would have loomed heavy once UAL's carefully planned schedules became disrupted by the diversion. Commercial pressure should never be allowed to supplant safety of flight as the 1st consideration. I'm not saying that UAL necessarily did anything wrong, but I would want to know more about the incident and the process they followed in making the decision, always assuming they did have input to the decision to continue the flight and I'm sure the regulatory authorities will feel the same way.
Will Fraser
Hardly, we have just begun to peel back the 1st layers of this intriguing story.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sussex,UK
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MU3001A
Hardly, we have just begun to peel back the 1st layers of this intriguing story.
Originally Posted by MU3001A
I'm not saying that UAL necessarily did anything wrong, but I would want to know more about the incident and the process they followed in making the decision, always assuming they did have input to the decision to continue the flight and I'm sure the regulatory authorities will feel the same way.
As has been said many, many times by previous posters, the results of the investigation into this situation will probably never be made public. This is an internal affair. You could go on forever, debating the rights and wrongs, but without any verified facts from an officially recognised source, what is the point?
Jsl
P.S. Sorry for intruding...I really tried to stay quiet, honest I did. I'll head off now, back to where I belong...
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now, for our US pilots. To pick up on MerlinXX - I am interested in the level of involvement of dispatch in this whole affair, since I have never operated under FAR. What would have happened on arrival at MIA? I understand dispatch has significant authority on the conduct of flights, perhaps more than the Captain on the ground.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In order to get out of MIA after a Diversion, the Captain is going to need the Dispatcher to calculate a fuel load, arrange an upload, file a flight plan with ATC, check weather and notams for new arrival time at the destination.
A new W/B will be prepared for the new fuel load and one less F/A. Take off analysis will also be provided for the departure runways.
R
A new W/B will be prepared for the new fuel load and one less F/A. Take off analysis will also be provided for the departure runways.
R
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Retire - I'm reasonably ok with that.
All of your list is the same for JAR/EUOPS stuff. Would the company be using dispatch to 'assess' the situation? On second thoughts, of course, I understand there were no 'boots on the ground' there.
All of your list is the same for JAR/EUOPS stuff. Would the company be using dispatch to 'assess' the situation? On second thoughts, of course, I understand there were no 'boots on the ground' there.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Magic Kingdom
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would the company be using dispatch to 'assess' the situation? On second thoughts, of course, I understand there were no 'boots on the ground' there.
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
>>>Now, for our US pilots. To pick up on MerlinXX - I am interested in the level of involvement of dispatch in this whole affair, since I have never operated under FAR. What would have happened on arrival at MIA? I understand dispatch has significant authority on the conduct of flights, perhaps more than the Captain on the ground.
As far as the process, the dispatcher would have come up with another dispatch release, which is the legal document (Under 121 Domestic/Flag regs) that is authorizing the PIC to operate the flight from AAA-BBB based on the conditions (Fuel, route, MEL status, etc.) as set forth in the release. Neither the PIC or dispatcher are to sign the dispatch release unless they both believe the flight can be operated safely as planned. The two signatures indicate concurrence that it can be, and there's your joint responsibility.
OK, that's the process in a "normal" diversion (WX, MX, etc.). As far as the situation that UAL842 was in, I (thankfully) haven't had any of those, per se, but I've had a couple that came close.
A PIC called me on an early AM flight originating from Ice Station Zebra in the dead of winter, with a destination of a sunny Florida airport. He was calling to complain about the midnight dispatcher's selection (that I agreed with) of the takeoff alternate, which happened to be an off-line airport yet one that was solid VMC. This particular PIC didn't like off-line alternates, and proceeded to ask about other nearby on-line airports that he preferred. One by one, I pointed out why each of them was unacceptable (LIFR, a wide assortment of frozen precip, too far, etc.), and right in the middle of the conversation, the PIC hangs up. The takeoff alternate stays the offline airport, and off he goes.
He calls me from Florida (at my request), insists that he didn't hang-up, then apologies for hanging up, and then goes back to ranting about the previous use of the offline takeoff alternate. Most of his reasons were not operationally sound, and he finally loses it and loudly admits that he's been on the trip from hell for the last X-days, and our use of the offline takeoff alternate (despite its operational soundness) had just "put him over the edge." I thanked him for his time, and (at a domicle) off-duty he went.
Had this Florida conversation taken place while he was still on the ground at Ice Station Zebra, I simply would have conferenced in an on-duty Chief Pilot, and let the CP make the determination as to whether this chap was OK to fly, or whether he needed a bit of a time-out before being allowed to continue. If that's all it takes to push him over the edge, well, you know...
It's fortunately a rare event that such a situation presents itself, but it's really no different in theory to a dispatcher observing slurred speech when conversing with a PIC during a weather briefing, and taking the same steps in having a Chief Pilot get involved with the process of determining the PIC's fitness for flight. I seem to recall a JAL DC-8 at ANC with an intoxicated U.S. PIC some years back, and IIRC, although various folks (Hotel, Crew van, Ops) all noticed his behavior, the Gent still managed strap-on the jet and crash it on takeoff, killing the entire flight deck crew, some cargo handlers aboard, and about 40 gazillion hamburger's worth of beef cattle that were being transported and were inadvertently barbequed. That wasn't quite the same dispatch set-up (Part 129 ops, versus 121), but it seems reasonable to conclude that the accident could have been prevented by somebody speaking up.
Exactly what opportunity presented itself in MIA for someone to pose the inevitable question of whether or not the diversion there indicated sound judgement is something I can't say, and something that nobody may ever hear about. The only thing I can say is that had it been my flight, the question would have been asked. In my mind, and based on the facts that I'm aware of, citing F/A disrespect for his PIC authority for not getting Customs forms exactly when/how he wanted them as justifying a diversion was about as silly as having cited F/A disrespect for his PIC authority for his theoretically ordering the F/As to have conducted the meal service in the buff. PIC authority (in-flight) allows one to make such a request (or to order an investigation into the missing strawberries) but that doesn't preclude the questions that need to be asked, and should be asked later.
Just my 2 cents...
As far as the process, the dispatcher would have come up with another dispatch release, which is the legal document (Under 121 Domestic/Flag regs) that is authorizing the PIC to operate the flight from AAA-BBB based on the conditions (Fuel, route, MEL status, etc.) as set forth in the release. Neither the PIC or dispatcher are to sign the dispatch release unless they both believe the flight can be operated safely as planned. The two signatures indicate concurrence that it can be, and there's your joint responsibility.
OK, that's the process in a "normal" diversion (WX, MX, etc.). As far as the situation that UAL842 was in, I (thankfully) haven't had any of those, per se, but I've had a couple that came close.
A PIC called me on an early AM flight originating from Ice Station Zebra in the dead of winter, with a destination of a sunny Florida airport. He was calling to complain about the midnight dispatcher's selection (that I agreed with) of the takeoff alternate, which happened to be an off-line airport yet one that was solid VMC. This particular PIC didn't like off-line alternates, and proceeded to ask about other nearby on-line airports that he preferred. One by one, I pointed out why each of them was unacceptable (LIFR, a wide assortment of frozen precip, too far, etc.), and right in the middle of the conversation, the PIC hangs up. The takeoff alternate stays the offline airport, and off he goes.
He calls me from Florida (at my request), insists that he didn't hang-up, then apologies for hanging up, and then goes back to ranting about the previous use of the offline takeoff alternate. Most of his reasons were not operationally sound, and he finally loses it and loudly admits that he's been on the trip from hell for the last X-days, and our use of the offline takeoff alternate (despite its operational soundness) had just "put him over the edge." I thanked him for his time, and (at a domicle) off-duty he went.
Had this Florida conversation taken place while he was still on the ground at Ice Station Zebra, I simply would have conferenced in an on-duty Chief Pilot, and let the CP make the determination as to whether this chap was OK to fly, or whether he needed a bit of a time-out before being allowed to continue. If that's all it takes to push him over the edge, well, you know...
It's fortunately a rare event that such a situation presents itself, but it's really no different in theory to a dispatcher observing slurred speech when conversing with a PIC during a weather briefing, and taking the same steps in having a Chief Pilot get involved with the process of determining the PIC's fitness for flight. I seem to recall a JAL DC-8 at ANC with an intoxicated U.S. PIC some years back, and IIRC, although various folks (Hotel, Crew van, Ops) all noticed his behavior, the Gent still managed strap-on the jet and crash it on takeoff, killing the entire flight deck crew, some cargo handlers aboard, and about 40 gazillion hamburger's worth of beef cattle that were being transported and were inadvertently barbequed. That wasn't quite the same dispatch set-up (Part 129 ops, versus 121), but it seems reasonable to conclude that the accident could have been prevented by somebody speaking up.
Exactly what opportunity presented itself in MIA for someone to pose the inevitable question of whether or not the diversion there indicated sound judgement is something I can't say, and something that nobody may ever hear about. The only thing I can say is that had it been my flight, the question would have been asked. In my mind, and based on the facts that I'm aware of, citing F/A disrespect for his PIC authority for not getting Customs forms exactly when/how he wanted them as justifying a diversion was about as silly as having cited F/A disrespect for his PIC authority for his theoretically ordering the F/As to have conducted the meal service in the buff. PIC authority (in-flight) allows one to make such a request (or to order an investigation into the missing strawberries) but that doesn't preclude the questions that need to be asked, and should be asked later.
Just my 2 cents...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that dispatch was doing a judicial selling job on the crew to continue to ORD. Otherwise, you got an airplane on the ground until crew rest will allow the crew to continue, or face flying a cockpit crew in to pick up the airplane, hotac for all the crew, then OAL all back to ORD, an issue with what to do with the PAX, and a domino effect with no telling how many tail numbers - scheduling and downline delays. Yep, this captain sure did the right thing getting on the ground - some inflight danger to all. 
For my money, he had better have a better reason than a tardy GD.
For my money, he had better have a better reason than a tardy GD.
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 suspect that dispatch was doing a judicial selling job on the crew to continue to ORD.
I can't say what happened in UAL842 case, but in others, you'd be surprised at the number of times it's a PIC or MX controller who's doing the sales job so they can make it back to their domicile and avoid an unscheduled RON, or get the aircraft back to the barn for overnight work and avoidance of a "road trip", and the dispatcher is the one saying "Nyet!"
Not saying that some dispatchers have never tried a potential sales job, just that it's not something that is exclusive to them, and never the others. It's inappropriate no matter who does it.
In discussing one of these kinds of MX items late one evening many moons ago, I flat-out told the MX controller that I too wanted to see the sick bird back at the MX base, but that it didn't matter to me whether the bird MX-ferried, or taxiied all the way via the Interstate. The response was "Well, we can't MX-ferry this aircraft" and letting out just a little more line, I asked why. "Well, it's in no condition to MX-ferry" was the reply, and I smacked this low-hanging curveball into the next county by asking the inescapeable next question of "Then why are you trying to con us into flying it with pax aboard?" I said I was refusing the aircraft, and the PIC (hooked into this 3-way call) concurred that he wasn't taking it either.
I can't say what happened in UAL842 case, but in others, you'd be surprised at the number of times it's a PIC or MX controller who's doing the sales job so they can make it back to their domicile and avoid an unscheduled RON, or get the aircraft back to the barn for overnight work and avoidance of a "road trip", and the dispatcher is the one saying "Nyet!"
Not saying that some dispatchers have never tried a potential sales job, just that it's not something that is exclusive to them, and never the others. It's inappropriate no matter who does it.
In discussing one of these kinds of MX items late one evening many moons ago, I flat-out told the MX controller that I too wanted to see the sick bird back at the MX base, but that it didn't matter to me whether the bird MX-ferried, or taxiied all the way via the Interstate. The response was "Well, we can't MX-ferry this aircraft" and letting out just a little more line, I asked why. "Well, it's in no condition to MX-ferry" was the reply, and I smacked this low-hanging curveball into the next county by asking the inescapeable next question of "Then why are you trying to con us into flying it with pax aboard?" I said I was refusing the aircraft, and the PIC (hooked into this 3-way call) concurred that he wasn't taking it either.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: chicago
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ease back in???
There is no "easeing back into flying." Either you can fly or you can not. This was the schedule the captain "bid" for and he was awarded according to senority. In other words, this was his choice...not what United thrust on him. However, this is a moot point , as he is suspended from United and FAA has suspended his license pending further investigation. The purser on the other hand, is flying and is being lauded by United, her flying partners and the two F/O's for her professionalism in dealing with the situation.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The swinging moderator's axe does make some posts (i.e. mine) harder to read than my limited intelligence and grammar would otherwise fault!
I was referring to a post (since deleted) by "BasedOnFacts" which claimed that the 'diversion pilot was a 'picket line Scab' from an industrial action (strike) in 1985!
A second post (also deleted) suggested that gleefully reporting the pilot's alleged 'scab history/status' limits the reporter's credibility, a point which was "..my thoughts exactly" and led to the post you see below, now hopefully in context.
I was referring to a post (since deleted) by "BasedOnFacts" which claimed that the 'diversion pilot was a 'picket line Scab' from an industrial action (strike) in 1985!
A second post (also deleted) suggested that gleefully reporting the pilot's alleged 'scab history/status' limits the reporter's credibility, a point which was "..my thoughts exactly" and led to the post you see below, now hopefully in context.
Falling on his sword he may have, but I'd fly with him in a heartbeat vs a handful of geriatric backstabbers nursing the bitter milk of 30 year old grudge!
I guess you can make a "silk sow out of a purser's ear" after all!
[Edited only to remove the 'title' to your post.
It was likely to be misunderstood because the post with which you were agreeing was deleted - together with BoF's "scab" post.]
I'm interested in the mechanics of disciplinaries having authorised the flight to continue. This would raise a very difficult situation under UK law I think. Bit difficult to 'do one more flight, then you will be nailed' sort of thing. Leaving out the rights or wrongs of the case, it seems to me the Captain has a significant defence case. I suspect it will keep US lawyers busy for years!
Management would also want to make the point to other pilots that diversion for capricious reasons is career limiting.
It's harder to understand why the FAA would initiate a certificate action. Perhaps some part of DHS got upset with the pilot with what they perceived as a false alert and leaned on the FAA.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: south england
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess it depends on what UA ops were told with regards to the reason for the divert. If they are being fed information from the captain, were they given the full story?
But once again this would come down to....we don't have all the facts......so a disciplinary may well go in favor or against the captain in question, that would depend on what the truth revealed.
There is a big disclaimer at the bottom of the page about postings on these threads ie sciolists eliciting reactions. I think you have to take these anonymous forums with a pinch of salt.
If the scenario has played out exactly as Based on Facts has written, then it seems like a pretty bad call, but I refer you to the statement above, and the fact that not everyone on here is who they say they are.
If on the other hand there is a lot more to the story...........then there are information/facts we are not privy to, so who can say.
I will admit that I find it difficult to get my head around the scenario and how it has been allowed to escalate to the point of diversion (but again I don't have all the facts). I have flown with only two senior cc who I have needed to speak to, one I took to one side, out of site of the crew to have a quiet word. The other thought she was obviously running the show, as she had over stepped the mark a couple of times. On the last occasion she was boarding without permission, so I sat there with the tech log open looking perplexed when she walked into the flight deck, I then said that we would have to delay boarding until the engineers had fixed a snag that required an engine run on stand, the look on her face was priceless. When I pointed out I was kidding she saw the funny side and got the message.
p.s. Rainboe
You write some great stuff, but I do keep cringing at the 600mph quotes.
All in all, is I am layed up with flu, I have found the thread rather entertaining.
But once again this would come down to....we don't have all the facts......so a disciplinary may well go in favor or against the captain in question, that would depend on what the truth revealed.
There is a big disclaimer at the bottom of the page about postings on these threads ie sciolists eliciting reactions. I think you have to take these anonymous forums with a pinch of salt.
If the scenario has played out exactly as Based on Facts has written, then it seems like a pretty bad call, but I refer you to the statement above, and the fact that not everyone on here is who they say they are.
If on the other hand there is a lot more to the story...........then there are information/facts we are not privy to, so who can say.
I will admit that I find it difficult to get my head around the scenario and how it has been allowed to escalate to the point of diversion (but again I don't have all the facts). I have flown with only two senior cc who I have needed to speak to, one I took to one side, out of site of the crew to have a quiet word. The other thought she was obviously running the show, as she had over stepped the mark a couple of times. On the last occasion she was boarding without permission, so I sat there with the tech log open looking perplexed when she walked into the flight deck, I then said that we would have to delay boarding until the engineers had fixed a snag that required an engine run on stand, the look on her face was priceless. When I pointed out I was kidding she saw the funny side and got the message.
p.s. Rainboe
You write some great stuff, but I do keep cringing at the 600mph quotes.
All in all, is I am layed up with flu, I have found the thread rather entertaining.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look, that was one of my best lines, Buster! Just don't spoil it OK?
This guy has been getting so much adverse criticism (deleted) that something tells me it is not so cut and dried. There have been hints (deleted) that IR are not ideal over the last 24 years at UA. Some of the hysterical posts (deleted) suggests to me that something nasty has been going on and this may be the outwardly visible tip of a severe internal problem.
But then I might be imagining things. 411A knows. Speak!
This guy has been getting so much adverse criticism (deleted) that something tells me it is not so cut and dried. There have been hints (deleted) that IR are not ideal over the last 24 years at UA. Some of the hysterical posts (deleted) suggests to me that something nasty has been going on and this may be the outwardly visible tip of a severe internal problem.
But then I might be imagining things. 411A knows. Speak!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Auth to div is between Capt & dispatch, they both share equal auth for the conduct of the flt. This was a UA op. Non FAA/US operators cannot comment on a FAR121 Flag Carrier Op
Are you sure? Is the fact not "Co-authority" until Airborne.
Then "Sole-authority" rests with PIC after that Aircraft is airborne.
Dispach then assumes a "flight watch" function.
Are you sure? Is the fact not "Co-authority" until Airborne.
Then "Sole-authority" rests with PIC after that Aircraft is airborne.
Dispach then assumes a "flight watch" function.
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
Are you sure? Is the fact not "Co-authority" until Airborne.
Then "Sole-authority" rests with PIC after that Aircraft is airborne.
Dispatch then assumes a "flight watch" function.
Reference: 121.533 (Domestic; 121.535 Flag is nearly identical)
§ 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.
Back to your questions:
Are you sure? Is the fact not "Co-authority" until Airborne.
Although 121.533(b) only mentions PIC and dispatcher being "jointly responsible" in non-airborne periods, that is not to say that the dispatcher has no further authority, responsbility, or involvement regarding the flight.
Then "Sole-authority" rests with PIC after that Aircraft is airborne.
FAR 121.533(d) addresses this, but in pursuit of the KISS philosophy by some folks, other contextual situations and applications can get glossed over.
Dispatch then assumes a "flight watch" function.
Again, and with all due respect, that's a KISS-induced over-simplification. Again, "dispatch" (as well as "operational control", as per the FAR 1.1 definition thereof) are not singular events but a continuing duty and responsibility. In particular, as per FAR 121.533(c)(3), the dispatcher is also responsible for cancelling or redispatching a flight (as in heading it for an alternate) 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. If that language sounds a tad familiar, it's because neither PIC or dispatcher was supposed to sign the dispatch release unless each believed the flight could be made with safety. Additionally, this wording synchs with that of 121.627(a), and in the event of a PIC/dispatcher disagreement as to what consitutes a continued safe operation, it's that disconnect that can also drive the declaration of an emergency, not just the reporting PIC/dispatcher parties mentioned in 121.557(a) and 121.557(b), respectively.
In closing, just because 121.533(b) is worded as it is, it's erroneous to conclude that the dispatcher has zero responsbility or authority over a flight after wheels-up. Clearly, "joint responsibility" still exists in the airborne phase of flight. I'll reiterate that all the above relates to ops conducted under US FAR 121 Domestic/Flag rules---should the rules of any other country contradict the above, it doesn't mean either posture is right or wrong---only what is applicable in one country and inapplicable in another. Likewise as to what "dispatchers" are here (and a select few other places) versus the airport-types elsewhere that meet/greet/turn flights.
Then "Sole-authority" rests with PIC after that Aircraft is airborne.
Dispatch then assumes a "flight watch" function.
Reference: 121.533 (Domestic; 121.535 Flag is nearly identical)
§ 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.
Back to your questions:
Are you sure? Is the fact not "Co-authority" until Airborne.
Although 121.533(b) only mentions PIC and dispatcher being "jointly responsible" in non-airborne periods, that is not to say that the dispatcher has no further authority, responsbility, or involvement regarding the flight.
Then "Sole-authority" rests with PIC after that Aircraft is airborne.
FAR 121.533(d) addresses this, but in pursuit of the KISS philosophy by some folks, other contextual situations and applications can get glossed over.
Dispatch then assumes a "flight watch" function.
Again, and with all due respect, that's a KISS-induced over-simplification. Again, "dispatch" (as well as "operational control", as per the FAR 1.1 definition thereof) are not singular events but a continuing duty and responsibility. In particular, as per FAR 121.533(c)(3), the dispatcher is also responsible for cancelling or redispatching a flight (as in heading it for an alternate) 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. If that language sounds a tad familiar, it's because neither PIC or dispatcher was supposed to sign the dispatch release unless each believed the flight could be made with safety. Additionally, this wording synchs with that of 121.627(a), and in the event of a PIC/dispatcher disagreement as to what consitutes a continued safe operation, it's that disconnect that can also drive the declaration of an emergency, not just the reporting PIC/dispatcher parties mentioned in 121.557(a) and 121.557(b), respectively.
In closing, just because 121.533(b) is worded as it is, it's erroneous to conclude that the dispatcher has zero responsbility or authority over a flight after wheels-up. Clearly, "joint responsibility" still exists in the airborne phase of flight. I'll reiterate that all the above relates to ops conducted under US FAR 121 Domestic/Flag rules---should the rules of any other country contradict the above, it doesn't mean either posture is right or wrong---only what is applicable in one country and inapplicable in another. Likewise as to what "dispatchers" are here (and a select few other places) versus the airport-types elsewhere that meet/greet/turn flights.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: phoenix, AZ, USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are several scenarios where a dispatcher can divert a flight once airborne. As PIC I am responsible for the safe conduct of the flght but I do so with the dispatcher acting as the extra crewmember of the flightdeck. He has a better picture of downline weather or other destination conditions that may not make it a prudent choice to continue on to the destination.
The PIC has the final say in most respects but it is a fool that doesn't make the dispatcher part of the team.
The PIC has the final say in most respects but it is a fool that doesn't make the dispatcher part of the team.