Whiners - Part 2

[dispatchguy]

Now this USA Today is getting into the mix with an airline-safety related non-story...

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/item.aspx?type=blog&ak=49961500.blog

 

[The_Russian]

Are you insinuating that we are "whiners" because we want more fuel than the minimum on the release?

 

[dispatchguy]

Nope, I am insinuating that the "correspondents" are whiners because they are crying that the sky is falling.

However, if you prefer to add fuel "JUST CUZ" (just because I'm the captain, Just because I want it, just because there is a scattered deck at 5000ft with unrestricted visibility), that I consider to be wasteful.

If any of my crews wants additional fuel beyond their dispatch fuel (if the carrier permits them to), I do want to know why - not to tell them to pound sand, but so I can see THEIR point of view and we can judge COLLABORATIVELY (that whole Joint operational control thing) whats a good fuel amount. While I have a lot of tools at my desk, I cant see inside their mind.

If there is a justifiable reason (ATC stupidity, seemingly minor cloud decks prohibiting visual approaches at an ORD or someplace like that), sure, lets come up with a value and lets add some gas.

It is the 1000 # for mom and the kids with no definable justification other than JUST CUZ fuel that most dispatchers define as unnecessary, and wasteful. However, if you can define a specific reason which could "delay landing of the aircraft" (Factors for computing fuel required-121.647), hey, I'm all for it. Plus, if you can define a specific reason for the fuel, for the next release in that city pair, I can create a release that is more real-world realistic.

No Management shmoe will ever tell me how much fuel I have to have on a flight unless they are comp checked, and hold a DX certificate. They can provide perfect world targets - but we all know the world is hardly perfect.

 

[Dizel8]

"Under FAR 91.3, "Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command", the FAA declares:

The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the FINAL authority as to, the operation of that aircraft."

Questions?

 

[NSW]

Dizel, you fly for a Part 121 airline, no?

 

[NSW]

Just to expand on that point...

§ 121.533 Responsibility for operational control: Domestic operations.
(a) Each certificate holder conducting flag operations is responsible for operational control.
(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.

 

[The_Russian]

However, if you prefer to add fuel "JUST CUZ" (just because I'm the captain, Just because I want it, just because there is a scattered deck at 5000ft with unrestricted visibility), that I consider to be wasteful.

If we want more fuel "just cuz", there is most likely a reason for it. A pilot's personal safety margin must be respected at all times. I doubt that pilot will let you "tell him" he can't add fuel "just cuz".

If any of my crews wants additional fuel beyond their dispatch fuel (if the carrier permits them to), I do want to know why - not to tell them to pound sand, but so I can see THEIR point of view and we can judge COLLABORATIVELY (that whole Joint operational control thing) whats a good fuel amount. While I have a lot of tools at my desk, I cant see inside their mind.

If there is a justifiable reason (ATC stupidity, seemingly minor cloud decks prohibiting visual approaches at an ORD or someplace like that), sure, lets come up with a value and lets add some gas.

No crew has to ask your permission to add fuel to the flight. Just because the company doesn't want any fuel tankering, doesn't mean you can become the "Fuel Nazi".

It is the 1000 # for mom and the kids with no definable justification other than JUST CUZ fuel that most dispatchers define as unnecessary, and wasteful.

How is that fuel wasted? Very little of the fuel is burned due to extra weight, especially in new equipment.

However, if you can define a specific reason which could "delay landing of the aircraft" (Factors for computing fuel required-121.647), hey, I'm all for it. Plus, if you can define a specific reason for the fuel, for the next release in that city pair, I can create a release that is more real-world realistic.

Sure, that would be the fuel "just cuz". I have never met a pilot out there that adds fuel for no reason.

No Management shmoe will ever tell me how much fuel I have to have on a flight unless they are comp checked, and hold a DX certificate. They can provide perfect world targets - but we all know the world is hardly perfect.

Agreed. However, I think your mind is a little warped on this subject. Remember that you aren't the one in the aircraft.

 

[The_Russian]

Dizel, you fly for a Part 121 airline, no?

It does not matter because he is correct. You, as a dispatcher, are to comply with Part 91 regulations also.

 

[The_Russian]

Just to expand on that point...

§ 121.533 Responsibility for operational control: Domestic operations.
(a) Each certificate holder conducting flag operations is responsible for operational control.
(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.

Operational control and joint responsibility have little to do with the Captain's authority to make a PIC decision. A PIC is also responsible for any issues that will affect the safety of flight. He or she is not just the PIC during "flight".

Your only job is to plan the flight because we don't have time to. You are an efficiency expert. You are a flight planner. Your responsibility is to provide US with current and correct information. Don't come on here trying to tell any of us who command an aircraft that you will make the final safety decision for the flight from your desk 1000nm from our position.

When is the last time you refused an A/C? When is the last time you made the decision not to go for weather? You have never done either of these because Operation Control and Joint Responsibility have almost nothing to do with PIC decision making.

When is the last time you pressured a crew to take an aircraft because your boss wanted that flight to go? Where you thinking about joint responsibility then?

I don't have a problem with any dispatchers. I have drank more beer with them than some pilots I know. That being said, lose the big head and understand your position. Having an attitude like this could lead to a fatal mistake because you feel your place is even close to being level with the flight crew. It is not.

 

[Hamburger]

However, if you prefer to add fuel "JUST CUZ" (just because I'm the captain, Just because I want it, just because there is a scattered deck at 5000ft with unrestricted visibility), that I consider to be wasteful.

Sorry to hear you didn't complete whatever it was that kept you from being a pilot.


We are the ones in that metal tube with hundreds of lives in our hands while you are sitting at your desk working dozens of flights. If we feel we need more fuel to make it happen, then make it happen.


Your mother/sister/wife might be sitting in row 22. You want to tell her that you don't want to give the Capitan some extra gas to make sure she can get on the ground somewhere Alive if things hit the fan at the destination?
You may be the rare dispatcher that actually understands how to do your job, but please remember that many are completely clueless. Especially when it comes to things like duty day and 3585.

Our job is to be responsible for Our Flight. Your job is to accommodate multiple flights.

Bottom line, If We screw it up, We die. If You screw it up, We die. We aren't interested in your opinion regarding the fuel we think we need. Pretend that your family is on our plane and realize that we are doing what is the safest for them first, and what saves the company money second.

 

[NSW]

I certainly can see a pilot's argument that it's their butt on the line in the air. But what is a bigger compromise to safety:

1. Asking that pilots and dispatchers be more accountable for fuel planning (i.e. don't bring additional fuel unless you have a good, documented reason to) or

2. Using extra fuel as a substitute for precise planning?

It is a big leap to claim that saying "I'm the pilot and I'm taking this extra 1000 lbs of fuel because I say I need it" is a safety argument, or that less fuel is a less safe condition.

Has a 121 flight ever run out of gas because it wasn't planned with enough fuel? It hasn't, and I dare say it will NEVER HAPPEN. If some airline goes completely overboard with its fuel planning policy the worst outcome is that diversions will increase. The overwhelming majority of those diversions will still touch down with 45 minute reserves intact and then some, just like they do today.

This idea that everyone (management, dispatch, whoever) is against the pilots, or somehow LESS concerned about safety because we're not in the airplane is as ignorant as it is counterproductive. Get over the pilot persecution complex so we can run safer, more efficient airlines together. Please.

 

[dispatchguy]

No crew has to ask your permission to add fuel to the flight. ... Sure, that would be the fuel "just cuz". I have never met a pilot out there that adds fuel for no reason... However, I think your mind is a little warped on this subject. Remember that you aren't the one in the aircraft.

Depending on the rules of the airline, the captain might have to request dispatch clearance for any fuel added above release minimum. Some carriers give the captain a certain amount of minimum as a captains fuel, above which he has to get dispatch clearance.

I have seen captains add fuel for no reason. A friend of mine, dispatcher at one of the big-3 carriers, had this captain that out of habit added a thousand #, so the DX added the captains thousand, and then when the captain signed the release, he added an additional thousand - the captains Just Cuz fuel. The flight now had 2000 lbs of unneeded fuel (SMF on a VFR day) ontop of reserve and the standard contingency - a B737 was landing at SMF with 7.0 on board for no reason.

Hey, I am all for adding gas if it is required. I wont dispatch a jet on a transcon into ORD with only 1000 lbs of contingency (except maybe in the middle of the night); I know how ORD ATC can get screwy from those seemingly inconsequential ceilings and flights can end up with a 50 mile downwind. But landing with 90 minutes fuel on board for an Indianapolis, a Dayton, a Sacramento, in severe VFR; that IS wasteful.

My mind is a little warped only from DX management chewing my ass for adding too much fuel when it isnt required. You havta keep in mind - we're always within their sights. If it is operationally required, sure, lets figure out how much and add it.

As a dispatcher, I dont like to divert anymore than you do - it screws up crew times, crew rotations, aircraft routings, everything. HOWEVER, I do consider the occasional diversion to be an acceptable cost instead of carrying 45 minutes of fuel ON TOP of reserve (and alternate if required) for no justifiable reason; especially when Jet fuel is 4 bucks a friggin gallon.

Oh - and Hamburger, I never wanted to be a 121 (or 135) pilot, I prefer to sleep in my own bed (or crashpad bunk) nightly. And Ruskie, I have refused aircraft on occasion when I just dont like what the combination of weather, and maintenance is handing me.

 

[RJAA]

About two weeks ago I had a captain add 2000lbs for fuel. I asked why it's a nice day in EWR, you have a minus 36 mins flight plan, I told him to fly min cost, he said "It's because its EWR, we need to go fast just in case if there are any delays." He goes screaming at FL310, about an hour later he sends me a message and say if a flight to DEN is leaving on time, turns out he lives there trying to make his commute home. So the Russian needs to get off his high horse, flexing his muscle this and that, really old stuff.

 

[Squirrel29]

One time Im glad I work at a Supplemental carrier. "Captain you want more fuel no problem here you go, you explain to the company why you have all that extra fuel". Actually thats one thing my company doesn't have to worry about just pass the fuel along to the customer.

 

[WarnerNo13]

Operational control and joint responsibility have little to do with the Captain's authority to make a PIC decision. A PIC is also responsible for any issues that will affect the safety of flight. He or she is not just the PIC during "flight".

Your only job is to plan the flight because we don't have time to. You are an efficiency expert. You are a flight planner. Your responsibility is to provide US with current and correct information. Don't come on here trying to tell any of us who command an aircraft that you will make the final safety decision for the flight from your desk 1000nm from our position.

When is the last time you refused an A/C? When is the last time you made the decision not to go for weather? You have never done either of these because Operation Control and Joint Responsibility have almost nothing to do with PIC decision making.

When is the last time you pressured a crew to take an aircraft because your boss wanted that flight to go? Where you thinking about joint responsibility then?

I don't have a problem with any dispatchers. I have drank more beer with them than some pilots I know. That being said, lose the big head and understand your position. Having an attitude like this could lead to a fatal mistake because you feel your place is even close to being level with the flight crew. It is not.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

 

[WarnerNo13]

Bottom line, If We screw it up, We die. If You screw it up, We die. We aren't interested in your opinion regarding the fuel we think we need. Pretend that your family is on our plane and realize that we are doing what is the safest for them first, and what saves the company money second.

I'm sorry, but fuel loads are not an "opinion". If your opinion was the only one that mattered, dispatchers would not be an FAR requirement for 121 carriers. They are based on fact and latest information. We are checked every year to see if we are making decisions that are 1) Safe 2) economical. I find it very unprofessional of you to imply that ANY 121 dispatcher is concerned more about money before safety of their crew and passengers.

 

[propsarebest]

YEA!!

You tell them JIME!!!!

Where I work, we have "the fuel list" that is maintained by management. Those pilots that take extra gas just for the hell of it are well known... They are few and far between however.

 

[405]

Bottom line, If We screw it up, We die. If You screw it up, We die. We aren't interested in your opinion regarding the fuel we think we need. Pretend that your family is on our plane and realize that we are doing what is the safest for them first, and what saves the company money second.

If you die because some dispatcher screwed up you didn't do your job, chump. That's a BS argument. I like what The Russian said about a pilot's "personal safety margin" regarding fuel. Apparently extra fuel is confidence fuel. That pretty much sums it up. This is all about some dude's comfort level. I've heard it all: "Your seat isn't going 500 MPH", "Would you send us if your Mom was on board?" and I've had the pleasure of answering that stupid question with "My Mom and Dad ARE on board your plane."

 

[bcp7]

Beyond that, if you as Captain are adding fuel for a specific route and a specific reason, don't you think you should tell the dispatcher so he can use that information for the next person that flies that route?

Did ATC change the preferred SID or STAR for that route? Is it a traffic issue for that particular departure or destination airport? that particular time of day? Is ATC restricting your climb or having you descend early?

Having this info will help me (or other dispatchers) plan flights so that the next pilot who flies that route will have a good fuel load and not start to eat into his holding or reserve fuel because the new procedure at that airport is to descend to 10000 ft 100 miles out and get vectors to the approach. Then he curses out the dispatcher (who should know these things, but doesn't, because you did not tell the dispatcher that you want to add 3000 lbs to your fuel load because the last 3 times you flew this route you landed with 3000 lbs less than the planned landing fuel due to new ATC procedures at the destination, you just want 3000 lbs because you're the captain).

Dispatch is an information business. The more information I have, the better I am able to do my job.

 

[propsarebest]

Beyond that, if you as Captain are adding fuel for a specific route and a specific reason, don't you think you should tell the dispatcher so he can use that information for the next person that flies that route?

Did ATC change the preferred SID or STAR for that route? Is it a traffic issue for that particular departure or destination airport? that particular time of day? Is ATC restricting your climb or having you descend early?

Having this info will help me (or other dispatchers) plan flights so that the next pilot who flies that route will have a good fuel load and not start to eat into his holding or reserve fuel because the new procedure at that airport is to descend to 10000 ft 100 miles out and get vectors to the approach. Then he curses out the dispatcher (who should know these things, but doesn't, because you did not tell the dispatcher that you want to add 3000 lbs to your fuel load because the last 3 times you flew this route you landed with 3000 lbs less than the planned landing fuel due to new ATC procedures at the destination, you just want 3000 lbs because you're the captain).

Dispatch is an information business. The more information I have, the better I am able to do my job.

sooo true... you put crap in, you get crap out.

 

[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?