Captain doesn't like his alternate!?

Luigi

Luigi

Well-Known Member
"You're dispatching an aircraft from LAX to EUG and it requires an alternate, but low ceilings have moved in and the only alternate available is LAX. Captain absolutely refuses to go all the way back to LAX, says it's ridiculous. He would rather use PDX which is below alternate mins. How would you handle this?"

This is a question I got in an interview not long ago, and I'm sure I answered it incorrectly. I just wanted to know how you all would have answered it, or how you handle this in your day to day life.

Disclaimer: I may have changed city pairs but I figure this works just as well..

(Actually, interview answers might be better)
 
Soooooo - as a pilot (and I'm not sure how it works under 121) , I'd say, "put whatever you want on paper to make it legal, but if PDX is above landing mins when I get there, that's probably where I'm going."
 
ppragman said:
Soooooo - as a pilot (and I'm not sure how it works under 121) , I'd say, "put whatever you want on paper to make it legal, but if PDX is above landing mins when I get there, that's probably where I'm going."
Click to expand...


This.

Nothing requires you to go to the listed alternate. Well maybe lost comms.
 
Yes...but I can't go into an interview and say "oh well who cares I guess the pilot will just do whatever he wants anyway"

This isn't a pilot interview; its a dispatch interview.
 
Dispatch_Ken said:
Yes...but I can't go into an interview and say "oh well who cares I guess the pilot will just do whatever he wants anyway"

This isn't a pilot interview; its a dispatch interview.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. I'm sure you folks have a note section or something of that nature, put the legal alternate down in the alternate box, then "Pilot intends on trying PDX if unable EUG" in the notes or something. The legal alternate is LAX, talk to the pilot and say, "Roger bud, well, on paper I've got you down for LAX, but if you get up to EUG and the WX is 200RVR and you can't make it in, but you can get to PDX, let us know on company frequency. I'll let PDX ops up there know that you may divert up there. Now if the SHTF, do you have enough fuel to go PDX then come back all the way to LAX if you need to? If you need to we can figure out a way to make that happen." At least that's the way I'd go about it - that's also the way I've seen skilled "flight followers" under 135 handle this situation.
 
Dispatch_Ken said:
"You're dispatching an aircraft from LAX to EUG and it requires an alternate, but low ceilings have moved in and the only alternate available is LAX. Captain absolutely refuses to go all the way back to LAX, says it's ridiculous. He would rather use PDX which is below alternate mins. How would you handle this?"

This is a question I got in an interview not long ago, and I'm sure I answered it incorrectly. I just wanted to know how you all would have answered it, or how you handle this in your day to day life.

Disclaimer: I may have changed city pairs but I figure this works just as well..

(Actually, interview answers might be better)
Click to expand...
As a dispatcher you can get used to relying on the masks generated and the same handful of airports, dispatchers face complacency too. I'd tell the company I'm interviewing firstly,
A: "I understand let me look at some other airports." As I look through them I say it out loud on phone and after about the 3rd or 4th he keeps on bringing up the airport below mins I'd keep saying something like, "I'm sorry I'm lost, to me it sounds like you're saying use an illegal alternate. Here's what I can do, I can try to 3585 and keep PDX as the first as long as it's half the derived mins, but I need to put you on hold and make sure of this because I don't do it every day, can I put you on hold?" Put him on hold, check the derived against the temp weather, explain a little about 3585 if the goobers care, and if the pilot is still asking for PDX tell the interviewer that "clearly I'm not explaining the problem to him very well so I'd put on the SOC or the lead dispatcher to help the pilot understand.

Answer B: If you're interviewing for a craphole, just tell them "whatever keeps the plane moving." and after you get the job with a pat on your back still don't do it when the time comes up.
 
Last edited:
The correct answer to the question is as eluded to above that you need to tell the captain you are unable to amend the release to show an illegal alternate. It does not matter what the PIC says because you as the dispatcher need to protect your license. Maybe if the landing minimums are there the PIC may divert elsewhere but the Feds and the company faced with fines will take a dim view of a dispatcher claiming he listed an illegal alternate because the captain demanded it.

From a purely legal standpoint, if a captain does decide to go to an illegal PDX alternate versus LAX if unable to land in EUG, he legally must have his release amended enroute to show PDX as his new destination and be able to go to PDX without an alternate being required, have the fuel to get back to LAX or some other legal alternate or exercise his emergency authority. Some FAA safety inspectors are lenient on this part and some are not. Part 121 rules are pretty clear that a flight must land at some point in the dispatch release under normal operations. Everything else is done under captain emergency authority. As a dispatcher, you dont want a letter in your file and the company doesnt want to pay the FAA fines associated with your errors.

I would not mention 3585 in an airline interview unless asked about it. Every airline has different versions of the same exemption. Some are not allowed to 3585 an alternate that is below minimums in the TEMPO and others can.
 
Dispatch_Ken said:
That's a fair point, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't (or maybe you just shouldn't) list an alternate if it's not legal to divert there...
Click to expand...

PDX is not an alternate in this scenario, it's just a note that the pilot may do that, it's not even recorded in the alternate section of the flight plan. The alternate is a sham anyway, the only time I'm going to my alternate (under 135 at least, I don't know if 121 has some sort of adendum negating "Ave F and MEA") is when I lose comms and can't continue under VFR and can't get into my destination airport. Really the only purpose for an alternate on paper is so ATC knows where you're going to go if they can't talk to you. Get this - they don't even transmit them to the center! They live at flight service unless center calls up and asks for it.

So, if you guys have a notes section, I'd put in it, "pilot plans on trying PDX if EUG is below landing minimums on arrival" or something of that nature. LAX is still your legal alternate on paper, and as long as the pilot has enough fuel to meet the fuel requirements of part 121 (whatever they are, I haven't the foggiest) then you guys should be good. This also shows CRM and good customer service on your part. You're finding a compromise with the pilot that keeps him, you, and the company out of trouble if things go awry, you're also engaging operations up in PDX. Customer service wise it's a no-brainer, the pax don't want to be in LAX, they want to be in EUG, and PDX is a hell of a lot closer than LAX (of course, provided there's space for them at the gate there, if there's no space then that's another story). The business traveler who's going to a meeting in EUG might even be able to make his meeting by renting a car and driving from PDX if the airplane is delayed in PDX for long. It must be cheaper to the company to fly to PDX and hang out rather than fly to EUG, then fly back to LAX. It'd have to be, even if they'd have to park their airplane at Flight Craft.
 
it was a 121 interview.

And thanks @Flagship_dxer I thought 3585 was clever but it occurs to me how right you are. It requires special permission and not all airlines are cleared for it. Best to assume that 3585 is not in play.

Edited to fix spelling error.
 
ppragman said:
. LAX is still your legal alternate on paper, and as long as the pilot has enough fuel to meet the fuel requirements of part 121 (whatever they are, I haven't the foggiest) then you guys should be good.
Click to expand...

This is the difference between 135 and 121. Under Part 121, you need to have fuel to get to your destination, alternate if required and 45 minute reserve domestically. This applies in the air and on the ground. The Part 121 release isnt merely a pre-planning document. It must be amended enroute if conditions on the original release do not allow for the legal continuation of the flight. Thus a pilot under 121 cannot easily just go to PDX because it has landing minimums. Depending on the Feds at the airline, the pilot might have an LOI awaiting him if he cant adequately say why he didnt get his release amended or why he needed to exercise his emergency authority.

Remember under part 121, the dispatcher has joint operational control and must agree to the amended release changes. If the dispatcher still does not want to use whatever alternate, the PIC can go on his emergency authority. Every airline has situations like this and for both the PIC and the dispatcher the outcome all depends on how the company and Feds handle it.
 
We used to have this problem in my RJ days...

ORD-GRR, alternate would be back to ORD. Probelm was, with the extra gas and etc. we were just payload limited enough that we couldn't take a full boat of people, bags, and the J/S'er - of course the 'solution' was kick off the jumpseater, followed by some of the paying pax, and then blast off. The better option was evaluate the weather trends and find another legal alternate that would allow us to fly the "modern jet aircraft" to its orig. intended destination with all the paying PAX and the person that would like to get home to their family.

It was an annoying characteristic of the RJ that begs the question why the PIC is questioning the alternate that has you returning back to the field of departure... My guess is that the interview question came from 'real world conflict' related to scenario I described above. From the right seat I observed that most pilots would accept the alternate until they were payload limited with the jumpseater... then it would become a problem to be solved.

In the 'fee for departure' world, without the jumpseater, when we were payload limited it just went back to the gate to bump "X" number of people or lbs of bags.

But, that was just my view from the trenches.
 
There are also a lot of 'logistical' reasons why a crew would not want to return to a 'base' and the company would like them to return to said 'base' if a problem occurs.

But, it does make common sense that from a flight crew point of view that there has to be a better option along the 1:45 route of flight for a legal alternate.
 
Dispatch_Ken said:
"You're dispatching an aircraft from LAX to EUG and it requires an alternate, but low ceilings have moved in and the only alternate available is LAX. Captain absolutely refuses to go all the way back to LAX, says it's ridiculous. He would rather use PDX which is below alternate mins. How would you handle this?"

This is a question I got in an interview not long ago, and I'm sure I answered it incorrectly. I just wanted to know how you all would have answered it, or how you handle this in your day to day life.

Disclaimer: I may have changed city pairs but I figure this works just as well..

(Actually, interview answers might be better)
Click to expand...

This is not a dispatching question; it's a dispatch resource management question. It's a "how would you handle this conflict?" question. They're not looking for you to solve the problem. The problem is already solved. They've already told you that LAX is the only available alternate. What they want to see is how you will handle this disagreement with the Captain, because these situations will come up in real life.

So, how would you handle this conflict?
 
Interview question right? You do realize the intent of this question is not to see how brilliant you are by quoting off scripture like all the posts above -

The intent is to see how you are able to deal with a Dick Captain. Plain and simple. You act like the robot I saw in some of the responses above - guess where you end up in the selection stack? Not that will always happen - as there are many recent one year wonders AA has hired lately that know everything, except common sense.
 
Flagship_dxer said:
This is the difference between 135 and 121. Under Part 121, you need to have fuel to get to your destination, alternate if required and 45 minute reserve domestically. This applies in the air and on the ground. The Part 121 release isnt merely a pre-planning document. It must be amended enroute if conditions on the original release do not allow for the legal continuation of the flight. Thus a pilot under 121 cannot easily just go to PDX because it has landing minimums. Depending on the Feds at the airline, the pilot might have an LOI awaiting him if he cant adequately say why he didnt get his release amended or why he needed to exercise his emergency authority.

Remember under part 121, the dispatcher has joint operational control and must agree to the amended release changes. If the dispatcher still does not want to use whatever alternate, the PIC can go on his emergency authority. Every airline has situations like this and for both the PIC and the dispatcher the outcome all depends on how the company and Feds handle it.
Click to expand...

All I know is that at the 121 airline I work for, if I want to go to a different alternate than whats on the release, I tell the dispatcher and they usually just say, "We'll let them know you're coming," or "Hey, how about XYZ instead?"
 
Cptnchia said:
All I know is that at the 121 airline I work for, if I want to go to a different alternate than whats on the release, I tell the dispatcher and they usually just say, "We'll let them know you're coming," or "Hey, how about XYZ instead?"
Click to expand...

See this is what I'm saying. "Ops this is airliner 1234, I'm going to try PDX before I shoot back to LAX." "Roger, approved, PDX knows that you were thinking about that."

What's wrong with that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top