Whiners - Part 2

[The_Russian]

So you think the fuel comfort levels (personal limitations) of pilots should determine the amount of fuel carried? Is that what you mean by this or am I misinterpreting your statement?

Yes, it was a misinterpretation. What I meant was that a pilot may ADD fuel above the desired fuel if it suits their comfort level within reason. Things can happen that are unable to be planned for in a release, such as a go-around. These burn quite a bit more fuel than the release gives for such an event.

 

[dispatchguy]

Yes, it was a misinterpretation. What I meant was that a pilot may ADD fuel above the desired fuel if it suits their comfort level within reason. Things can happen that are unable to be planned for in a release, such as a go-around. These burn quite a bit more fuel than the release gives for such an event.

True - but that is what reserve fuel is for - those unidentifiable contingencies.

If you were planned to land with ONLY reserve fuel on board (a condition I never plan), and you have to do a go around in VFR conditions, you get back in line and reshoot the approach. How much fuel defines your "comfort fuel"?

My personal minimum, is that in absolute perfect VFR conditions, I like to plan to land with about an hours FOB for the low-volume airports (PIT, SBN, etc); and it goes up from there. About 1+15 for an ORD in perfect with 3 landing runways. That still gives you 30 minutes to screw around with before you even start touching reserve.

My issue is NOT management pressure - I dont mind my ass being chewed; my issue is that adding fuel willy-nilly for no undefinable reason is a waste of fuel. If you can define a specific reason for the fuel that is realistic, and definable, you get the gas - but to add fuel for no specific definable reason is wasteful; the warm and fuzzy fuel levels that crews were used to with $20 barrels need to change. If it doesnt need to be there - it shouldnt be.

UAL used to have a standard 60 mins HOLD fuel for Chicago - doesnt need it.

I dont like to plan to land with reserve only any more than a pilot; and I plan my flights to not do so. If there are some nasty headwinds enroute, I'll pad the extra in case of a winds aloft forecast bust - if I cant just cap him and keep him low (I've had more than my share of those); if the rides are crap enroute I'll plan a lower altitude for buffet margin and add some additional extra in case the crew has to climb/descend a bunch to find a decent altitude if the rides are all over the block; If there is some enrte WX I'll pad the extra so the crew can do the dodge and weave. However, those reasons are all forecastable.

 

[WarnerNo13]

You do not have a right to assume that pilots are adding fuel "just cuz". Nor do you have the right to use that as a basis for denying that fuel.

Again, both ways. You will find that 121 dispatchers are more than happy to approve fuel beyond the minimum safe fuel, with a good solid explanation. The problem isn't the fuel, it's the pilots who feel less of a captain or threatened because somebody else actually has a say in it as a check and balance. At my job, 99.9% of the pilots are good guys who have the best interest of safety first, then guest comfort and economics second. A couple of fellas at my place will call and ask for 1000 lbs more fuel regardless of the conditions. Short haul, vfr, high pressure, no holding or volume issues? 1000 lbs more "cause I said so". Umm no. This one guy his plane could be spilling out fuel from the luggage bins and he'll call for 1000 lbs more, so he can enter his "comfort zone". Unnecessary and I won't approve it. Our guys can add 500 lbs on their own for conditions they deem worthy. Beyond that, they are required to call me and explain why they'd like more. If we concur, off the fuel truck goes. If I give them a full view of what is happening, often times they will say "oh ok I can buy that." It's how it's supposed to work. If I've worked 5 flights into JFK with a nice clear day, no chokepoint routes, no volume issues, no delays I can see the trend and plan the next flight accordingly. The guy flying the leg most likely will be his first of the day and I'll inform him of the situation. If I've given him 60 mins of hold fuel, 30 minutes of contingency fuel for deviations or restrictions, plus the standard 45 mins reserve for unseens, unknowns, there is no reason to add anymore fuel. It's a safe release, all factors have been considered and the fuel is there to cover any adverse situations. It's really pretty simple. Again, egos are the problem here, not fuel.

 

[WarnerNo13]

Sure. Investigated isn't dead, mangled, or living with "pilot error" on your head.

Anytime there is an accident, the dispatchers are scrutinized to see if the chain started with them. That includes answering to the FAA and NTSB. One thing you could never understand if you have never been a dispatcher, is the responsibility we feel not only to the pax on the plane but YOU the crew. If you think that if something goes wrong, we don't carry that for the rest our lives, I recommend you talk to the dispatchers that were responsible for the lives that were lost on 9/11. Look at them in the eye and ask them if they've brushed it off because only the pilots care. Seriously.

 

[RJAA]

This is super boring stuff! Just take the fuel the dispatcher gives you and go fly. If you think you can't get to the destination, just stop short or just divert and call the dispatcher on the ground! What's so unsafe about that? As a PIC you are being trained and paid to make decisions like that. The regulations give the PIC, the ultimate authority of the flight, he is the final onsite evaluator. The dispatcher isn't. The dispatcher is to provide all the information that maybe pertinent the safety to his flight and make it available to him and discuss options if necessary.

Granted, min fuel may not be great planning with little continengecy based on the conditions whatever it may be, but how does minimum fuel directly hinders the safety of flight? Does the comfort fuel directly improve the safety of flight? I think not. It just increases the probability of completing a flight. A legal release would have an alternate, a way out, another option. I cannot think of an accident which another 2000lbs would have prevented it from occuring.

It's the "bad" decisions being made directly hinders safety. My huge concern of all of this is the whole "planes are landing with unsafe level of fuel remaining." Who is allowing that situation to unfold? The PIC is largely responsible for that, and the dispatcher is also to partly to blame, allowing the flight to continue to where they are running out of options. Why weren't they stopping short if they are low on gas? Quit pointing fingers like the dispatcher are fuel Nazis, you signed the release too.

 

[ss9e]

To whom do you answer to? I cannot recall an event where the dispatcher had to answer to the FAA or NTSB in the event of an incident in which the PIC was still alive.

FLG2823 in MKE.

 

[ss9e]

Your only job is to plan the flight because we don't have time to.

I guarantee that you wouldn't know where to begin when it comes to some of the international flights or military charters that we prepare for you. You should sit with a dispatcher for a few shifts in order to get a little better understanding of what exactly it is that we do. After doing this, you might appreciate us a little more.

 

[dispatchguy]

I get it now - warm and fuzzy fuel is so that they can fly at firewall power so as to be able to make their commute home. Screw that most flight ops manuals state that the crews are responsible for managing their fuel.

I get it now, were dealing with pilots - and their mantra "It's all about me!"

 

[XPOO]

Yes, it was a misinterpretation. What I meant was that a pilot may ADD fuel above the desired fuel if it suits their comfort level within reason. Things can happen that are unable to be planned for in a release, such as a go-around. These burn quite a bit more fuel than the release gives for such an event.

So, Russian, can you please give me one RECENT example of a US Domestic 121 flight that resulted in death due to inadequate fuel onboard?

Just from my own terrible memory, nothing in the past 10 years comes to my mind. However, maybe Captains should be more worried about taking off on the correct runway and not having an extra 1,000 pounds of fuel, "just cuz".

 

[ShutupandFly]

You do not have a right to assume that pilots are adding fuel "just cuz". Nor do you have the right to use that as a basis for denying that fuel.

My mind wanders to the captian that requested enough fuel to land at an altn for MEM with all his reserve fuel and contigency fuel. This was on one of those wonderful nights when the MEM TAF was one line and read something like 26003kt 10SM CLR for the next 16 hrs. Now even though these conditions only give you 8 (eight) ILS approches into MEM he still was not compfortable with the fuel load and wanted me to add another 1100 LBs of fuel to a CRJ-200 "Just in case". I guess just in case a meteorite takes out the entire airport.

Yes I admit this is an extreme example, but it actualy did happen.

 

[dispatchguy]

"Just in case". I guess just in case a meteorite takes out the entire airport.

Or, more likely, just in case he flew at firewall power to make a commute home...

 

[405]

FLG2823 in MKE.

FLG4712 in TVC too.

Fun as a heart attack.

 

[405]

Or, more likely, just in case he flew at firewall power to make a commute home...

That may be it but we have some Chuck Yeager's here that don't like clouds.

 

[NoApu]

The Russian asked earlier:
"When is the last time you refused an A/C?"
At least once a day as a matter of fact. Russian, do you have any idea how many knock down drag out fights have occurred between a dispatcher and management before your butt was even out of the bed because some manager wanted to do something stupid?

"When is the last time you made the decision not to go for weather?"
Today as a matter of fact. And often before! Often when there is a line of ts, a hurricane, high winds, severe turb, or an ice and snow event I have made the decision to cancel a flight. It happens all the time behind the scenes. And again I have been the one to stand my ground and argue the old pilot line of "just because its legal doesn't mean its safe" on your behalf to the company.

The Russian stated:

"You have never done either of these because Operation Control and Joint Responsibility have almost nothing to do with PIC decision making."
You truly seem to be mis-informed on what dispatchers really do or what operational control really is. The bottom line is you don't get to make PIC decisions unless someone like me has said the flight can go in the first place. I have made the decision that a flight can go or not before you. You either agree with my decisions or you do not. If we both agree then all is good. If we don't then nothing happens. That's how Joint responsibility is supposed to work.

The Russian asked:

"When is the last time you pressured a crew to take an aircraft because your boss wanted that flight to go?"
I don't know. I don't intend to put pressure on you guys but I can understand how you can feel that way sometimes. Pilots aren't the only ones who feel pressured. And as you have made clear; the final say belongs to you.

I want the flights to go because it is my job to find a way to complete the mission....your job is to review my plan, agree or revise, and then execute that plan. Ultimately it is indeed your call.

I will stipulate that you have a more vested intrest in, and maybe even care more about the safety of a flight because you are actually there but it's naive to think that we don't.

But lets not kid each other about cavalier attitudes towards safety because I've seen too many times a PIC that wanted to operate that last leg back to his domicile on the last day of a three or four day trip when it wasn't a good idea to do so.

When is the last time you pressured your dispatcher to release a flight in that situation?

Has that ever been you?

"Where you thinking about joint responsibility then?"
Yes I was/am. I depend on your feedback and experience to help us both make good decisions. If we happen to come to an impasse then it's no big deal to me. I know that other dispatchers may seem to take it personally but that's not me. You owe it to yourself, the passengers, and all others with a stake in the safety of a given flight to exorcise your PIC authority and speak up. Just don't be surprised when someone asks you why. It's been my experience that some PICs don't have what it takes to make this decision and will fuss and yes, whine until someone else makes it for them. I have never had a problem when a captain exorcises his final authority on operating a flight; it's just that few seem to. Very few stand up and say I refuse this a/c or I will not operate this flight for x, y, or z reasons. I admire those captains that are sure of themselves and just state the facts and do so in a professional way.


The bottom line from me is don't piss down my back and tell me its raining and I will try not to do the same to you.

Cheers!

 

[Ameriagle]

just cuz = only runway shutdown because the aircraft in front of you geared up, airport closed for an emergency. Ever had to divert with flaps out due to mechanical failure? Maybe things you don't think about dispatching a flight that I think about pushing off the gate! I don't think it is unreasonable to put a little extra on for contingencies that we don't normally anticipate. Just because you think it will not or should not happen does not mean it will not happen! But what do I know.....I'm just a pilot!

 

[NoApu]

just cuz = only runway shutdown because the aircraft in front of you geared up, airport closed for an emergency. Ever had to divert with flaps out due to mechanical failure? Maybe things you don't think about dispatching a flight that I think about pushing off the gate! I don't think it is unreasonable to put a little extra on for contingencies that we don't normally anticipate. Just because you think it will not or should not happen does not mean it will not happen! But what do I know.....I'm just a pilot!

I don't think that you will find a single dispatcher on this board that wouldn't give you any amount of fuel you requested but how much fuel is just cuz exactly? Define that for me. Is it a percent over mission fuel or is it enough for a specific amount of time?

How many different contingincies can we possibly plan for on any one flight?

I personally have had flights that I have been responsible for actually be in every single one of the situations that you mentioned and then some. And in every single situation, the fuel on board the aircraft at the time was adequate to land safely somewhere. It might not be where we planned to go but there was always plenty of fuel for where we wound up (that sounded like Yogi Bera).

Our pilots have handled it everytime and with a great deal of skill and profesionalism. Of course at our ailrline most every flight leaves with at least 1 hour of extra fuel between reserve and a standard hold fuel sufficient for at least 15 minutes.

There are very few areas in the lower 48 that that amount of fuel wouldn't be a problem and if your flying in those areas I'd be almost certain that your dispatcher has taken into consideration those extra "what ifs".

I know the old pilot mantra that you can only have too much fuel if your on fire but at what point does what we do change from planning the fuel required to just firguring out the maximum amount of fuel we can take without bumping payload? Our management whats the former while pilots seem to want the latter.

I only ask of pilots to help me help you.

 

[Ameriagle]

The tone of this thread implies pilots are "whiners" or "fuel weenies" because some are inclined to carry additional fuel to cover unexpected circumstances. I can't say how much "just cuz" fuel works for each pilot. I consider many variables when deciding if and how much extra fuel to carry. I doubt if pilots, as a rule, are bumping revenue to carry "just cuz" fuel. One thing I do consider is whether the FAR requirements give me enough margin.....it may be legal but is there adequate margin? Have you ever flown an approach to minimums at your alternate with 50 minutes of fuel in the tanks? Many times what is planned and what actually happens is not the same, and is good reason to add additional fuel. The last time I diverted, after flying the missed, running the icing equipment, being restricted to an altitude about 15,000' lower than planned, not to mention less than ideal routing, I was about 2,500 pounds over planned burn, and glad I had extra fuel! Just because the numbers going on the release say it's going to work,and is legal, does not always mean it comes out that way!

 

[dispatchguy]

The last time I diverted, after flying the missed, running the icing equipment, being restricted to an altitude about 15,000' lower than planned,

Then in that case you shouldve contacted your dispatcher to have him run the numbers at 15K below your planned to see if the lower altitude was even acceptable. Did you even tell your dispatcher that you were flying 15K below planned?

not to mention less than ideal routing,

See response number 1 above. Your dispatcher can run a forward flight plan with your actual routing at the lower altitude. If the fuel is insufficient, you get more gas. In this case, with your 2.5 of captain additional, it worked. If you are airborne already, we do a pit stop for a gas-n-go; which is much more efficient from a system-wide standpoint. Can you imagine the fuel cost for a days ops if every pilot at your carrier carried 2.5 additional for just cuz? I draw a paycheck too, and I want my carrier to survive.

Keep in mind also we are one person. You (and I mean captains at any carrier generally) there is no way in hell that I am going to try and remember if this particular captain that I am planning is one that max fuel in severe VFR is insufficient, or what. When we are planning a flight, when we see the crew names (your flight planning system may vary), all I am looking at is that there are the requisite number of names that need to be there, whether the captain is a high-mins captain, and so on. I dont care at all who the captain is, and try to fit my flight and fuel planning to his own personal whims and interests.

The flight operations manual and FARs have defined the fuel required. Factors for computing fuel required says that I also consider any other condition which may delay landing of the aircraft. There isnt a dispatcher in the airline system that will "what if" a flight to where maximum fuel load is insufficient for a 30 minute flight to a VFR destination. If there is a concrete reason for the additional fuel, as I have said before, you get it (if I didnt add it already - and I remark my releases so you know where my thoughts are on the gas). But, and as I said before, adding "just cuz" for some unforeseen contingency (a UFO landed on the airport and vaporized it - should that be 20 or 30 minutes of additional) fuel is unnecessary and, in the world of $4 fuel, wasteful.

 

[Long Time Gone]

However, maybe Captains should be more worried about taking off on the correct runway and not having an extra 1,000 pounds of fuel, "just cuz".

Way out of line. Does anything ever come out of your mouth (or "key board") that is half useful? At least others in this thread are having a semi-intelligent discussion. You, on the other hand, only seem to inject useless sarcasm just to let people know that you're here.

Like I said before, it's just like the last kid to be chosen in Dodge Ball. You have to say "I'm here" when no one really cares.

 

[Ameriagle]

The point is this.....it does not matter what you plan for me, if ATC will not give it to me! I can call my dispatcher and he/she can run all the numbers they want, if I don't have fuel in the tanks to do it, whats the point! I miss with 7000 pounds in the tanks and I tell ATC what I would like to do. ATC tell's me what they want me to do! I call my dispatcher, he/she runs the numbers.....yup your going to be well over burn. My alternate is 150 miles away....everything is down so we want you to continue to your planned alternate! At this point I can exercise my authority as PIC to do what I deem necessary, but likely I already put a couple thousand extra on! The best laid plans are just that...plans! This doesn't consider plans that are completely unrealistic.....planned altitude to alternate of FL300, to keep required fuel down. Yes, I see this type of planning on occassion! Listen, I'm not trying to tell you how to do your job, I do not really expect you to guess how much extra fuel each pilot needs to be comfortable, and I'm not telling you that you are running an unsafe operation, I am giving you reasons why pilots ask for extra fuel, if I'm a whiner for asking, so be it. If you get your ass chewed and don't like it, well that is the least of my worries. It does give me better insight however, into how decisions are being made! You make it sound as if, I can give my dispatcher a call and all my problems are solved....this is generally not the case.

 

[Hamburger]

Bottom line, If We screw it up, We die. If You screw it up, We die.

Yeah, little too much Drama on that one. I'll amend "die" to "lose our license". I've never read a dispatcher's name in the newspaper.

If you die because some dispatcher screwed up, you didn't do your job, chump.

Truer words were never spoken. It is absolutely our job to catch your mistakes. The best tool we've got to keep us safe when the ball has been dropped...........Some extra fuel.

With all due respect, Ruskie, a personal fuel comfort zone is not a good enough reason to ground or delay a flight.

It most certainly is. I know people like to think differently these days, but I'm the Captain. If it is a problem for the company, my Chief Pilot will bring it to my attention. That's not your job.

Switching runways, flow, storms pop up, some guy gears up his Mooney........ At min fuel, (especially on those great sunny days with no alternate) any one of these things pop up and you'll probably be looking at the "Low Fuel" lights before you reach the ground.
I know your dispatch desk doesn't have "Low Fuel" lights, so you'll just have to trust us. They are no fun to look at.
Your job is to accommodate several flights. Our job is to be responsible for our flight. Just give us what we ask for and move on to the next customer. Don't get distracted trying to be the Chief Pilot.

If you want to call him up and tell him we're wasting fuel, knock yourself out.

 

[onewithwings]

Ruskie, you should sit with your dispatchers for a full shift; we have to jumpseat ride - you should have to do dispatch sector ride and see what happens on the other side of the mike; I think your eyes will be opened wide.

I have been pushing for that. (Especially upgrade pilots) It always comes back to a lame excuse.

"It's not included in our CBA".

The company doesn't want to pay them for the time spent in dispatch but they will pay them to sit reserve a few hundred feet away.

Every year during my FAM flights, I hand each pilot an invitation to reciprocate. The invitation includes my current bid and cell number. I do the same thing for recurrent ground school during CRM/DRM.

While I have had many pilots voluntarily sit with me, the majority do not.

 

[ss9e]

Your job is to accommodate several flights. Our job is to be responsible for our flight. Just give us what we ask for and move on to the next customer. Don't get distracted trying to be the Chief Pilot.

You couldn't be more wrong. We share JOINT RESPONSIBILITY. You should start giving us a little more respect.

At my company, we are being given fuel directives that have been approved my company management, flight management (including the chief pilot) and ALPA. We all stand to benefit by using less fuel. If you call and have a valid reason to add some gas, you will never hear an argument out of me. If it's clear and million and you want to pull out the trusty "comfort card" to add gas, the answer will always be no.

My company has done extensive research into the fuel actually burned. In the last month I've released 234 flights. Those flights have only burned 95% of the planned actual burn. The same 234 flights use an average of 99% of the taxi fuel planned. Why would there be a need to add any extra fuel?

 

[WalterSobchak]

I know your dispatch desk doesn't have "Low Fuel" lights...

I've got the trusty "ACARS fuel ping" flasher that I'm using almost non-stop throughout the day. I know when my boys and girls are low...because, like it or not, I still have a responsibility to take care of that flight 'til the wheels touch the ground...just like you.

The airplane and it's contents are all yours...the overall safety and continuation of flight is my baby...thus making it ours.

I've never once argued with a pilot over fuel. I HAVE, however, shared my point of view and the latest weather and traffic management briefings with a promise of consistent updates enroute and a ready "Plan B" if we need it. Only once has a pilot pulled out of the gate with more than the usual couple hundred extra after a discussion with me.

Like many have said...alot of times, our pilots tell us nothing of the routing and enroute issues that may require a change in thought process during the planning phase. Help us help you and communicate with us.

Every year during my FAM flights, I hand each pilot an invitation to reciprocate. The invitation includes my current bid and cell number.

I love this idea.

I've been pushing for upgrade pilots to be required a few hours with dispatch as well. The few that do visit tend to walk away with a new respect for what we do and what we are dealing with on a daily and hourly basis...

 

[Hamburger]

You couldn't be more wrong. We share JOINT RESPONSIBILITY. You should start giving us a little more respect.

Might want to reread the regs...
I'll highlight the areas you seem to not understand.


(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.
[Doc. No. 6258, 29 FR 19219, Dec. 31, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 121–253, 61 FR 2613, Jan. 26, 1996]

You are responsible for the release and paperwork.

Once the brake drops, dispatcher responsibility is limited to monitoring, providing information (which we have access to anyway), and redispatching if the crew needs an alternate. That's it. You are NOT responsible for the safety of that flight. This is why there is no such thing as a Dispatcher in Command.

I give dispatchers the respect they deserve on a case by case basis, because many do a fantastic job and many are useless. I'll let you guess which side of the line dispatchers who start threads calling us whiners or try to claim that we don't have ultimate authority and responsibility tend to fall on.

 

[ShutupandFly]

Once the brake drops, dispatcher responsibility is limited to monitoring, providing information (which we have access to anyway), and redispatching if the crew needs an alternate. That's it. You are NOT responsible for the safety of that flight. This is why there is no such thing as a Dispatcher in command.

Got to disagree with you there. I know a couple of dispatcher that had to do the carpet dance at the FSDO right next to the PIC due to an issue that affected the safety of flight, and one that did it alone while the pilot sat at home. (hey I'm a poet)

 

[dispatchguy]

(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.

Once the brake drops, dispatcher responsibility is limited to monitoring, providing information (which we have access to anyway), and redispatching if the crew needs an alternate. That's it. You are NOT responsible for the safety of that flight. This is why there is no such thing as a Dispatcher in Command.

Wrong-o.

I dont redispatch just if the crew needs an alternate. I can (and have) redispatched the flight to a different destination because the original destination was no longer a possibility, due to weather which was W0X0F; I can and have told a crew that I strongly recommend a different course of action because the area of severe turbulence they were about to penetrate would break their airplane (if a B747 reports severe, whats my little B737 gonna get?). You bet your ass that I am responsible for your safety, and the safety for every passenger on the other side of the flight deck door. Yeah, you are the on-scene commander, and we are to agree to 100%, but if I feel that safety is being compromised, it is my job and responsibility as a certificated airman to make it known that I feel that safety is being compromised.

I have had crews who have decided that they didnt want to act in accordance with the QRH (a reverser unlocked indication in flight); QRH says land at nearest suitable. Crew didnt want to - but, the QRH says what the QRH says. Captain said we're ok to continue, and I declared an emergency because at that time the crew was no longer flying in accordance with their dispatch release, because I withdrew my agreement to operate the flight; the captain (as PIC) had decided to continue. My agreement is continuous - it doesnt end once the wheels are in the well; and if I feel that the flight is no longer safe once in the air, you're damned right it is my responsibility to say so. The crew in my example couldnt say for 100% surety that the indication was a bad switch, or an impending problem; we had written guidance from the manufacturer saying get that puppy on the ground now, not at a destination an hour away (which just so happened to be where the captain lived); and MOC was at the end of their fault isolation tree which said the same thing; LAND. Crew said we were continuing, and I called ATC and declared an emergency for the flight, for the only time a crew can act not in accordance with their dispatch release is when an emergency is declared, then under 91.3, you can do pretty much anything you want to the extent required to meet the emergency.

Yes, you are the PIC. You are the on-scene commander, I dont have access to the flight controls. However, for better or worse, for 121 domestic and flag operations, you share JOINT OPERATIONAL CONTROL with the dispatcher.

I do your flight planning, you review and sign off, and go fly; however, my responsibility for that flight is continuous until the brakes are set at the arrival airport.

 

[Hamburger]

You might not agree with it. You might not understand it. You might want to read things into it that aren't there. It doesn't matter, The regs say what the regs say. It is black and white.

However, for better or worse, for 121 domestic and flag operations, you share JOINT OPERATIONAL CONTROL with the dispatcher.

Actually, the air carrier certificate holder has operational control. Typically the Duty Chief and Ops Chief wear this hat.
Part A from the above quoted reg:
(a) Each certificate holder conducting domestic operations is responsible for operational control.

 

[RJAA]

Actually, the air carrier certificate holder has operational control. Typically the Duty Chief and Ops Chief wear this hat.
Part A from the above quoted reg:
(a) Each certificate holder conducting domestic operations is responsible for operational control.

They delegate this authority to individual dispatchers on duty.

 

[405]

Nevermind.