Whiners - Part 2

[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.