Pilot scrap with dispatcher at LGW
 

Haven't seen this on any of the forums yet, thought R&N was the best place.

I know its from the Daily Mail (sorry all) :

Aegean Airlines flight from Gatwick cancelled after pilot 'assaulted ground staff' | Daily Mail Online

As a one time dispatcher i can understand if things can get occasionally heated. Most flight crew are great, but occasionally some treated us like something on their shoe, when our goal is simply to get the flight away on time, and safely.

Would appreciate any thoughts from FD on dispatchers in general. Personally, i got on with most, but took no bull from anyone, they never paid me nearly enough for that gig.

If the story is true the answer is simple - violence against other staff should trigger instant dismissal. No ifs, no buts, GONE.

No one defends violence from anyone. Full stop.

However, one raises an eyebrow at ground staff getting pilots sacked.

I wonder who the managers will support ............

As an aside, there was a Captain punched in the face by a passenger in MAN recently, and the passenger did not go to prison.

(Great reporting by media: 'dispatcher responsible for advising on the route'. WTF?)

Captain's Right Mate.

Shouldn't have argued.

To answer the OP.

Like most things in aviation, 90% of all people are simply great. Nice to deal with, good at their jobs.

It's the 10% that spoil it.

Applies to dispatchers. What seems to happen with the 10% is they allow themselves to be pressured by management. Pressure causes mistakes, rudeness, etc.

An example might be agreeing a delay code. The obvious delay is suggested, but we are told that management won't allow that code. ??? When we ask what other code to use, no suggestion is forthcoming.

Another example is not being truthful when ground staff are late to the aircraft. People are frightened of getting BLAMED for delays. Pressure from management again.

The trick is not to take it out on your fellow workers, or those you work for.

Rightly or wrongly, many Captains don't appreciate getting barked at by people when at work, either. Security, managers, and yes - even dispatchers.

It goes both ways, but you did ask.

Indicates a higher than usual standard of journalism imo.

Only in that the maggot that wrote it hadn't a clue what a dispatcher was and looked it up on Wiki but didn't have the wit to realise that the description given was of a US dispatcher, not a european one, nor that there is a difference.

Proof of the sloppiest of journalism, as if any was ever needed.

´

European or UK? Working for a central european carrier our dispatchers work in the network operation center, mainly preparing longhaul and north atlantic flight plans as well as any other flight plans that do need manual interaction (over 80% of all flight plans are purely computer created though). And they do of course have an EASA dispatch license (which includes full ATPL theoretical training).

Looks more like they just read some tweets (which used the term dispatcher) and then made a quick article out of it.

The local snooze is stating that it was a member of cabin crew who did the punching.

Cabin crew member arrested for alleged assault on Gatwick flight to Crete | Crawley News

"A 52-year-old man, of no fixed address, was arrested on suspicion of assault and was later released without charge due to there being insufficient evidence."


Wow, Aegean really are low-cost . . . . . . ;)

"52-year old man" does not match any of my recollection of Aegean cabin crew. The article reads "aircrew" anyhow.

If you will read the daily mail....
 

Blown out of proportion for sure....

Not that I condone violence... Unacceptable undder any circumstances.

To the ex dispatcher:

Yes, flightcrew need to be able to control their temper at all times.
However: the Captain always has the final dicision NO DISCUSSION. Know your place.

As with many industries, you get what you pay for. In the low-cost world, this is particularly true.

I'm a cheerful and polite guy and treat colleagues with respect, yet I regularly see a poor attitude and sometimes barely concealed loathing from our dispatchers. Happily, there are some very pleasant professionals out there too.

Don't get me started about the rest of the ground crews though....

The biggest probiem that dispatchers appear to face is the way services are provided at modern airports. Each and every one is provided by greedy facilities management organisations who cut margins to the bone, pay peanuts and take pride in being under resourced to perform their contractural obligations. Organising this rabble is no easy task.

As for Dispatchers, the majority do a superb job, even when the system tries its hardest to make their job impossible. The best make sure normal turnarounds remain normal by anticipating the things that will slow the process down and will take medial action in a timely fashion. They will also keep you informed as the turnaround progresses.

The crap ones are unable to predict failures, fail to observe them and do nothing when it does. To cap it all, they either don't tell you that the handling it not going as expected or worse, lie about what it happening. These people are in a small minority.

Generally, I find the highest standards of handling in Scandinavia. What sets them apart? Firstly, the stations charge three to four times of what we pay in the UK. Secondly, the staff enjoy their jobs. Possibiy because they generally perform more than one function which may lead to more job satisfaction. Lastly, I think they are well educated and that allows them to perform better.

Utter nonsense

A very wise Training Captain once said to me "Ground Crew don't tell the Pilots how to fly, so Pilots shouldn't tell Ground Crew what to do when on the ground"......it led on to then if the ground crew don't know they find out.

In other words there is none of this "The Flight Crew are always right" rubbish.

Don't condone any of this behaviour. CRM principles need to apply between crew and ground as well but sadly it seems to lack for both parties.

Captain always has the final dicision NO DISCUSSION.


Heard of a few "Drunk Captains" the final "dicision" was had by the Judge "NO DISCUSSION"


Any person that makes your statement is dangerous

Despeque, there are many recorded incidents where the Captain did not entertain any discussion with his crew and the NO DISCUSSION principle led to disaster. Holding a Command does not make anyone infallible.

I think Despegue means the no discussion part refers to the the captan having the final decision, which is actually a fact. Not, as some of you seem to think, that the captain will make his final decision with no discussion.

At least they had a dispatcher, we now have TCOs who have no practical aviation training or experience. I tried telling one that the a/c was out of trim and he didn't know what I was talking about! And he was one of the few that spoke English!!

Captains decision has to be final as it is him/her who take the responsibility. Unfortunately despatchers in Europe are no longer given adequate training. One incident comes to mind.
Despatcher lack of knowledge of APS weight & DOW. (Wrong one used on load sheet)
I found it prudent to listen to all inputs then make the decision but have on occasion as above ended up making the decision that caused the dispatcher to "get the hump" .

Captains decision is final only once the aircraft has motion, until then they or equal to all other decision makers - ground crew, cabin crew ATC, police etc.


Yes at any stage prior to motion they can refuse to carry out duties OR be FORCED not to carry out motion by lets say Mr Branson if he wants to make that call.

Never heard of a pilot to take a cancelled flights aircraft just to get home because the boss cancelled a flight, but heard many of them complain about not getting home that night.

Responsibility is not just a captain thing, but yes at a point it does and only until the next point. Limits apply to all.

In that case Band a Lot who makes the decision to refuse, for instance, disruptive passengers prior to "motion"?

And who makes the decision of how much motion lotion to upload before motion happens. It certainly isn't the dispatcher.

Any person of authority along the route can reject a passenger prior to motion inc Feds.

Will a captain want more motion lotion than the manufacture states of in case of ferry what FAA or other states? not a captain decision is it? but is his limitation, a captain is not god but many think they are - A Fed agent can stop a flight at any time before push back regardless of what captain wants to do - 911 told captains what to do also that was LAND regardless of motion lotion on captains hand at that time.

Captaincy HAS limitations my friends.

Yes but when that "any person" says the drunk idiot will be ok to travel do you just shrug your shoulders and let them on?

This discussion is moving into silly areas.

Of course there are legal and practical limitations on a Captain's authority, but it is his duty to take steps to preserve the safety of his airplane and passengers. Laws and regulations, sops and company stipulations cannot hope to cover all situations. Obviously there's a distinction between decisions made on the ground and in the air.

You can't trust Captains to make the right decision all the time but in my experience ground staff are generally less trained, experienced and frankly disinterested in the safety of the flight to make the best decision. After all, they're not the ones who'll be airborne in an aluminium can with wings when the worse case scenario comes calling.

I had a dispatcher in Warsaw once tell me that it was unnecessary to anti-ice the airplane. She put up quite a fight because there was no precipation at that moment in time, clearly regarding my authority as Captain to be subservient to her couple of years dispatching flights. She only relented when the snow I calmly predicted started falling: suddenly anti-icing was needed. Arguing was such a waste of everyone's time and energy. Even if I hadn't been right, what authority did she have to deny the request?

Wow, strange discussions. I tend to agree with despegue that the captain has the final decision (at least in my company), it's pretty logical as well and has nothing to do with the so called "Commanders authority".

There's 2 parties:
- the ground handling company
- the airline

My company gives me manager rights so that I can act in name of the company when I'm operating the aircraft.

The aircraft is property of the airline so it's pretty logical that the owner has the final saying on what is loaded, who is loaded, how it is loaded, what services are required etc...

If the ground handling company does not want to do that, that is their right. But they can not decide anything as it is not their property.

That being said, being disrespectful is never OK and very unprofessional.

Dispatchers come in all shapes, sizes and attitudes. The worst are the Spanish, who are polite but simply ****. They have an aversion to arriving at the aircraft before T-5 because they don't like dealing with LMCs.

A good dispatcher usually sweats like a pig with all the running around especially in the heat and will invariably smell of body odour. They should recognise that and refrain from handshakes! :)

So the correct answer to "Are you sure? That seems to be a lot less fuel than we normally load" is "Captain always has the final decision NO DISCUSSION" and you're all happy with that?

Band a lot, are you suggesting the FAA or others have authority over the commander on how much fuel to carry? That they can limit the fuel carried on ferry flights or other ops? If so, you are sorely mistaken. Nobody has more authority on the fuel load than the commander, and that is enshrined in aviation law everywhere. Besides, authorities prescribe what minimum quantities (timewise) have to be carried for flights in terms of contingency, diversion, reserve and so on, but they never get involved in a figure and would never limit a commander to only the figure on a flight plan. And please stop using silly terms to sound nonchalant; it's unconvincing.

Wrong end of the stick again. It is a fact that the captain has the final say and it is that which is not open to discussion.

The answer would be - yes, there's a massive tailwind that you're unaware of.

In the uk the period of command commences when the commander enters the aircraft with the intention of flight. Utter nonsense talking about aircraft in motion in afraid.

Just wondering .......

If some people don't think the buck stops with the Captain ....... then who do they think it does stop with?

This is not the same as trying to say any Captain is incapable of making an error.

When I go on a cruise, I don't tell to go up to the bridge and tell the Captain how to drive his ship: BECAUSE HE IS PAID AND HAS BEEN NOMINATED BY THE OWNERS TO BE THERE.

Next subject!!!!

F&B

So why does the captain argue with the ground handlers who his company has nominated and paid to ground-handle the aeroplane?

There is a small nugget of reality and rational sense in this thread, but it is completely obscured by the near incessant willy-waving of that section of the aircrew fraternity who seem to have serious self-esteem issues. I'm surprised the rest of you don't take these poor chaps behind the bike sheds and give them some percussive education to reduce stem the flood of contempt that's heading for pilots as a "profession".

PDR

PDR, it's not will waving it's an indisputable fact. If you can't tell the difference perhaps you shouldn't comment.

By the way, who's arguing with the ground handlers?!

Aegean is far from low cost. In fact it insists on charging more than Lufthansa on the same code-shared flights...

QUOTE:

I had a dispatcher in Warsaw once tell me that it was unnecessary to anti-ice the airplane. She put up quite a fight because there was no precipation at that moment in time, clearly regarding my authority as Captain to be subservient to her couple of years dispatching flights. She only relented when the snow I calmly predicted started falling: suddenly anti-icing was needed.

We will have weather forecasters out of work, then.

Just as well I am retired!

- Because the captain is usually the first to arrive at the scene of the crash;

- Because the captain bears ultimate responsibility for the safe conduct of the flight, and the jet shouldn't be going anywhere unless the captain's satisfied that it's safe and legal for it to do so; and

- Because ground handlers are coming under increasing pressure (KPIs etc) to achieve on-time departures. Pilots, not so much. So every so often we see ground staff applying pressure (including to the engineers and pilots) to depart on time, when there are still questions that need answering. Right off the top of my head I can think of two cases where ground staff didn't just apply pressure to colleagues of mine, they flat-out lied their arses off to try and force an on-time departure. The first case would've been a flagrant breach of procedures, common sense, and the relevant security legislation. The second would've caused a huge weight and balance error, and would almost certainly have resulted in the loss of the aircraft and 300 lives. (The ground handler concerned had to seek alternative employment as a result. )

That is why the captain is arguing with the ground handlers. Perhaps instead we should be asking, "Why are the ground handlers arguing with the captain?"

Yes, there are the willy-wavers with self-esteem issues that you mention. They're out there, they like using the word "commander" a lot, and they can be a pain in the arse. Not much we can do about that, and ultimately the jet's still not going anywhere until they're happy that it's safe and legal for it to do so. The sooner you can make them happy, the sooner they're off-blocks.

langleybaston,

I'm not sure I understand your comment.

One does not need a carefully constructed TAF or experienced meteorologist in the cockpit to make a decision to protect an airplane from precipitation that is clearly wafting its merry way towards the airfield while you're in the middle of a turnaround.

Or perhaps you do.

As it happens, my judgment was wholly correct on this occasion.

Kind regards, MH152

From all the years that I have been flying, only a couple of months ago I had to send a handling agent off the aircraft. It happened in MAN and after my report, I realized it wasn't the first time that there were problems with that company (probably with the same guy). Usually I find good professionals despite the cutting to the bone strategy that all companies are using nowadays.