Question for the DX brain trust...

[onewithwings]

We have an exception signed off by our POI and published in our FOM and DSM that allows us to essentially "go take a look". (It's officially called a "pre-planned amendment".)

We as dispatchers plan and route the flight to a destination with acceptable weather via a destination that has marginal with in intent of "reasonable expectations" that the destination with marginal weather will have minimums. If the station has landing mins, we amend the destination to that station and cancel the previous. (Hope I didn't loose you on this.)

This method has it's good and bad sides. The good side is it allows us the opportunity to serve stations that are marginal. The bad (in my opinion) is it skirts the regs.

Does you company have a similar provision? If so, how does your DX dept. address it? If not why?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Happy Dispatching

 

[homerjdispatch]

So are you "redispatching" in flight? Are you required to have the FAR fuel requirements (45 min reserve, fuel to alternate, etc) for BOTH airports?

 

[propsarebest]

We do it sometimes here. We usually use the filed dest. as the new alternate.

 

[bcp7]

What is the definition of "marginal"?

Is this for a domestic flight? In order to release a domestic flight the destination airport must have landing minimums at the time of arrival (FAR 121..613), an alternate airport if required and possibly a second alternate (121.619) and the weather at the alternate(s) must meet the criteria of Ops Spec C055 (121.625).

I wouldn't consider weather reported below landing minimums at an airport to be "marginal".

 

[clr4theapch]

We have an exception signed off by our POI and published in our FOM and DSM that allows us to essentially "go take a look". (It's officially called a "pre-planned amendment".)

We as dispatchers plan and route the flight to a destination with acceptable weather via a destination that has marginal with in intent of "reasonable expectations" that the destination with marginal weather will have minimums. If the station has landing mins, we amend the destination to that station and cancel the previous. (Hope I didn't loose you on this.)

This method has it's good and bad sides. The good side is it allows us the opportunity to serve stations that are marginal. The bad (in my opinion) is it skirts the regs.

Does you company have a similar provision? If so, how does your DX dept. address it? If not why?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Happy Dispatching

Just saying here:: please read OWW first sentence... : they have an FAA "Exception" to the normal FARS...

This is a great discussion topic.. as it does go beyond the limits many airlines must adhere too.. I for one want to know more as well..

 

[Squirrel29]

We had approval to do that at my old airline. We was 121 supplemental so we had to have another alternate but the Faa signed off on it.

 

[DXR-Beavis]

We have an exception signed off by our POI and published in our FOM and DSM that allows us to essentially "go take a look". (It's officially called a "pre-planned amendment".)

We as dispatchers plan and route the flight to a destination with acceptable weather via a destination that has marginal with in intent of "reasonable expectations" that the destination with marginal weather will have minimums. If the station has landing mins, we amend the destination to that station and cancel the previous. (Hope I didn't loose you on this.)

This method has it's good and bad sides. The good side is it allows us the opportunity to serve stations that are marginal. The bad (in my opinion) is it skirts the regs.

Does you company have a similar provision? If so, how does your DX dept. address it? If not why?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Happy Dispatching

The practice you describe is fairly common in the 135/121 Supplemental world. I'm assuming you are filing the ATC flight plan to the destination you do not intend to operate to and diverting to the intended destination when it turns out to be OK.
I work at a major now and did time at a large regional that flew mainly east of the Rockies, and neither company uses the "pre-planned amendment" method. My regional would do that when we were still operating E120's under Part 135 many years ago until Chicago Center raised a stink about it.
Where I work now we re-dispatch international flights under Ops Specs B044. ATC never sees the intermediate (unintended) destination on those flight plans unless we go there. We really don't need it for domestic flights. Many of our cities have Cat II/III, and we use Exemption 3585 where we need it. We also have a metro department in house who can help when a forecast needs a little 'tweaking.'
As far as skirting regs, if it is in your FAA approved manual system, those are your regs. While the "pre-planned amendment" practice does not comply with the spirit of 121.613, if you have an exemption in your A005 or if you can use B044 you're fine either way. If it is just something in your FOM, it had to have come from somewhere (a waiver). Nothing gets in an FOM without blessing from the FAA, so if it's written in there it's all good. It gives you another means of completing the mission when you, the dispatcher, decide it is safe to do so in spite of a reg that desperately needs to be brought into the 21st century.

 

[bcp7]

Just saying here:: please read OWW first sentence... : they have an FAA "Exception" to the normal FARS...

This is a great discussion topic.. as it does go beyond the limits many airlines must adhere too.. I for one want to know more as well..

That is why I asked for their definition of "marginal". She said they could
"plan and route the flight to a destination with acceptable weather via a destination that has marginal with in intent of "reasonable expectations" that the destination with marginal weather will have minimums.

My carrier's definition of marginal weather at a destination airport is landing mins plus 200 and 1/2 mile, so weather below landing mins is clearly not marginal.

Our Principal Dispatch Inspector will be in town next week. I'll run the question by him, and see what he thinks.

 

[bcp7]

The other problem with this scenario would be getting a new POI who disallows this exemption, and now you can't operate flights that you were previously able to operate.

 

[dispatchguy]

UAL had in their FOM a "No-Stop Inbound"

If it is doubtful that there are operations into a particular station, it may be designated No Stop Inbound (NSI). Passengers are not boarded for deplaning at the NSI station, but the Captain and Dispatcher may consider landing to pick up boarding passengers. Assuming safety is not a factor, the flight lands at the NSI station or holds over the station until scheduled departure time unless the controlling Dispatcher, on approval from the System Operations Controller, releases it to overfly the station.