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?