Whiners - Part 2

[The_Russian]

If I may step in, whether you as a pilot like it or not, whether we are flying the plane or not, dispatchers have the same responsibility as you, that goes with joint authority.

No, they do not have the same responsibility, they have joint authority on the dispacth and release, including cancellations. This is very different than the final responsibility for the flight. You have the authority to plan the flight instead of the flight crew. We have the responsibility to make sure the information you provide us is correct. You must take the personal responsibility to do a good job as per the regs, but not of the flight.

If you didn't know, when I release your flight and accept responsibility for it I have on my side operational control of that flight. I am the one who answers to that flight, not the guy next to me, or in front of me.

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. Or, when the crew was dead, did the dispatcher lose his or her license for an error in the flight plan? No. Why? Because it is the PIC's responsibility to make sure the info is correct. The FAA will then turn to the PIC and blame the incident or accident on Pilot Error. The only person you answer to is management and thats where this whole "fuel" issue comes from. Its based on the $.

Any decision I make in conjunction with the PIC is on me and can be questioned at any time why I did what I did. If I as a dispatcher deem it unsafe for you to push that plane, you don't push that plane. If you decide to exercise your PIC powers at that point you are busting federal regs and better have some good answers for the feds.

What would motivate a flight crew to do such a thing? Do you think we really do these things for our convenience and to mess up your day?

We are not just planners and accomodators. We have a ticket we need to protect, in case you didn't know, just like you do. We do not just stand by and say yes to every pilot request. All decisions short of an emergency need to be made jointly. Our job is to challenge you as a crew, just like your SIC should challenge the PIC if warranted. If you see something on my release that isn't jiving what do you do? You call me and challenge me; what's my reasoning? It works both ways. It's for safety, not about your ego. When you are flying transcon we have to watch your every move and be ready to explain every detail of your flight if a fed walks in.

I can agree with that.

Perhaps you decided to just pretend this does not exist:

(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.

No, I haven't. But most of you on here has slightly misinterpreted this to be in your favor. Your friends have also insinuated that we are "whiners" because we want to bump up the fuel.

We are here for your safety and have saved your arses many times when you didn't think of something we did. It's called checks and balances. It is not a competition to decide who has more power or is more important. Bottom line, you fly the plane, I plan you a safe flight and watch you and assist you if you need it, but the lives that are sitting behind you are just as much ours as they are yours. So get that very large chip off your shoulder and go see a head shrinker.

I completely agree with you on that! Please remember that before you accuse me of having a chip on my shoulder that I was not the one who called anyone a "whiner". While we may work together sometimes, our jobs are VERY different and have different responsibilities.

As far as the fuel goes.....

If I want fuel, there is a reason for it. The release will be adjusted or the flight isn't going to go. A pilot requesting fuel for "no reason" is one that is few and far between. Even if it is for comfort, that is a good enough reason because personal limitations should and must be respected.

 

[The_Russian]

I did some major editing in that post! You may want to check any quotes before you finalize. Maybe its because of the hangover, but entire parts of sentences were missing!

Fixed now.

 

[NSW]

If I want fuel, there is a reason for it. The release will be adjusted or the flight isn't going to go. A pilot requesting fuel for "no reason" is one that is few and far between. Even if it is for comfort, that is a good enough reason because personal limitations should and must be respected.

With all due respect, Ruskie, a personal fuel comfort zone is not a good enough reason to ground or delay a flight. Unless you would like to make the argument that with all other factors being equal for two flights except the captain's name, the amount of fuel that is "safe" for dispatch changes.

In 2008 and beyond, the profit margin on your flight (if it has one) is very likely less than the cost to carry the amount of additional fuel we're talking about here (certainly on say a transcon flight). If your "comfort zone" above and beyond what is demonstrably safe and legal routinely changes a moneymaking flight to a money loser, you are probably not cut out for the airline business.

 

[The_Russian]

With all due respect, Ruskie, a personal fuel comfort zone is not a good enough reason to ground or delay a flight. Unless you would like to make the argument that with all other factors being equal for two flights except the captain's name, the amount of fuel that is "safe" for dispatch changes.

As far as pilots are concerned, personal limitations are personal limitations which should be respected and not exceeded. This provides a safe environment in which to conduct flight operations. This is absolutely a good enough reason.

In 2008 and beyond, the profit margin on your flight (if it has one) is very likely less than the cost to carry the amount of additional fuel we're talking about here (certainly on say a transcon flight). If your "comfort zone" above and beyond what is demonstrably safe and legal routinely changes a moneymaking flight to a money loser, you are probably not cut out for the airline business.

You made my point perfectly. Its all about money. I thought you were in the business of "safety"? Your motive has been revealed.

Also, bumping the fuel up for any reason is no grounds for being dismissed from the airline industry due to incompetence. Once again, any reason in the interest of safety is a good reason.

 

[propsarebest]

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. Or, when the crew was dead, did the dispatcher lose his or her license for an error in the flight plan? No. Why? Because it is the PIC's responsibility to make sure the info is correct. The FAA will then turn to the PIC and blame the incident or accident on Pilot Error. The only person you answer to is management and thats where this whole "fuel" issue comes from. Its based on the $.

AA1420...

 

[dispatchguy]

Once again, any reason in the interest of safety is a good reason.

So, by that reasoning, I can and should order maximum volumetric topoff fuel for a flight of 30 minutes duration? If we leave anyone behind; screw 'em. I want maximum fuel for this little 30 minute VFR conditions hop to a non-alternate requiring destination with no chance of holding.

That seems a little overkill.

Sure, you probably could make any diversion airport; but is that a reasonable decision?

 

[dispatchguy]

AA1420...

While the dispatcher of 1420 did do an NTSB carpet dance, he did retain his certificate, and did remain @ AA. However, there have been dispatchers who have been sanctioned by the FAA.

And no, if we screwup a dispatch release, and a fed catches it - we can and will do a FAA carpet dance; dispatchers can and do get Letters of Investigation from the friendly local FSDOs, and I am sure that the federales have suspended and/or revoked a dispatcher certificate.

If a flight crew burns into reserve, and the flight was improperly planned, Ruskie, you bet we can be sanctioned if the feds catch wind of it - thats why all dispatchers have a stack of NASA ASRS forms just ready to go; just like aircrew.

For example Ruskie, while it is legal to burn into reserve; if the dispatcher plans the flight improperly (30min known holding, but we give only 10 mins hold to accommodate pax), and you land with less than reserve on board - we can be held by the FAA to be responsible; the aircrew isnt blameless (for you shouldve been pitching a bitch to get in earlier, by declaring emergency fuel), but we will be right there with you doing a carpet dance. You dont see the FAA system advisories; we do, we ignore them at our peril.

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.

 

[The_Russian]

So, by that reasoning, I can and should order maximum volumetric topoff fuel for a flight of 30 minutes duration? If we leave anyone behind; screw 'em. I want maximum fuel for this little 30 minute VFR conditions hop to a non-alternate requiring destination with no chance of holding.

That seems a little overkill.

Sure, you probably could make any diversion airport; but is that a reasonable decision?

Absolutely not. That would be unreasonable. I am not, in any way, insisting that things like that should go on. This post proves exactly how you think of the flight crews you work with.

 

[The_Russian]

While the dispatcher of 1420 did do an NTSB carpet dance, he did retain his certificate, and did remain @ AA. However, there have been dispatchers who have been sanctioned by the FAA.

And no, if we screwup a dispatch release, and a fed catches it - we can and will do a FAA carpet dance; dispatchers can and do get Letters of Investigation from the friendly local FSDOs, and I am sure that the federales have suspended and/or revoked a dispatcher certificate.

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

If a flight crew burns into reserve, and the flight was improperly planned, Ruskie, you bet we can be sanctioned if the feds catch wind of it - thats why all dispatchers have a stack of NASA ASRS forms just ready to go; just like aircrew.

You should have let us have the fuel then!

For example Ruskie, while it is legal to burn into reserve; if the dispatcher plans the flight improperly (30min known holding, but we give only 10 mins hold to accommodate pax), and you land with less than reserve on board - we can be held by the FAA to be responsible; the aircrew isnt blameless (for you shouldve been pitching a bitch to get in earlier, by declaring emergency fuel), but we will be right there with you doing a carpet dance. You dont see the FAA system advisories; we do, we ignore them at our peril.

Why would you consider such a thing?

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 spend hours in dispatch on a regular basis. I have seen my own friends pull their hair out over problems and issues. 99% of the time it was because a pilot refused to fly for a safety or mx issue. The pressure from management was unbearable on them. Your issue seems to be management's pressure to limit fuel uplift into aircraft to save "money out of pocket".

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.

 

[405]

As far as pilots are concerned, personal limitations are personal limitations which should be respected and not exceeded. This provides a safe environment in which to conduct flight operations. This is absolutely a good enough reason.

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?

 

[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.