EWINS and official forecasts: Possible conflict of interest

A

A1TAPE

Well-Known Member
Not looking to start a flame war. Am just looking for a good, civil, discussion on the use of EWINS in airline operations.

With regards to the use of EWINS for weather, has anyone ever considered the possible conflict of interest with regards to airlines amending official weather forecasts to suit their operational needs?

A good example of this would be the runway overrun in Traverse City, MI.

From the NTSB interviews on the accident.

"The National Weather Service (NWS) forecast was for sustained winds of 18 knots with gusts to 30 knots. This forecast, exceeding a 10-knot tailwind sustained component, would mean no dispatch to Traverse City and no use of ILS runway 28, the only precision approach. A VOR approach to runway 10 was not usable because minimums were too high. Visibility was okay. [The SOC Manager] spoke with the Northwest meteorology office and they issued a revised forecast. They have the ability to amend forecasts. The revised forecast by the Northwest office was for no gusts.
"If there are conflicting data, they can talk to Northwest meteorology and see if Northwest thinks the trend will improve. If so, Northwest can update the system to show the improving trends so that they will be allowed to legally dispatch the airplane."

In this case the aircraft went off the runway due to according to the NTSB Probable Cause statement the pilots not performing a landing distance assessment for the contaminated runway at TVC with other contributing factors.

Pretty much the question I pose to you would be
Would an airline ever consider amending a NWS forecast solely in order to get their flight out the door?
(such as changing wind speeds or other weather factors to suddenly make a flight legal to go, while in reality the winds are going to be as originally forecast if not worse.)

I know this idea sounds crazy but there have been cases, especially in the 135 word, of operators doing very shady things to get aircraft airborne. Some notable examples include using unqualified pilots, pilots who didn't get adequate rest, and "operating aircraft that were overweight and improperly loaded ". (source: FAA Revokes Charter Operator's Certificate - Flight Safety Foundation) Yes the airline industry prides itself on safety first but sometimes you wonder....
 
You can still dispatch with a tail wind, just need a good alternate.
A1TAPE said:
In this case the aircraft went off the runway due to according to the NTSB Probable Cause statement the pilots not performing a landing distance assessment for the contaminated runway at TVC with other contributing factors.
Click to expand...

Not sure exactly what happened, but once pilots start getting ready for their approach they are not looking at the TAF (NWS or EWINS) they are looking at the current winds being reported so it really doesn't matter what the TAF said prior to departure. If current winds on their approach were above their max tail wind the pilots should have not attamped to land and the dispatcher should have given them a heads up if possible high tail winds while they were getting close to destinayion. REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE TAF SAID BEFORE DEPARTURE... Yes I was yelliing those words there at the end, it would be dumb in this case to blame the TAF (NWS or EWINS) for this accident.
 
Last edited:
I work on the other side of the ACARS but my one and only experience with EWINS was not my favorite.

We were flying from ICN to LAX with a planned redispatch of HNL. We were burning a little more fuel than expected so we asked dispatch for our estimated MINF at our POR. He said he had to add an alternate in LAX because the forecast had changed. Because of that we were going to be significantly below our POR MINF. A bit later they came back with EWINS that made us legal with no alternate. As soon as we passed the POR they updated the EWINS and required an alternate too. In the end, we landed with a less than comfortable amount of fuel, and that was AFTER dispatch declared min fuel for us to ATC.

Nothing was really done incorrectly, but to me if you’re gonna use EWINS you should always have another option. Flying across the pacific we didn’t.
 
Last edited:
Screaming_Emu said:
I work on the other side of the ACARS but my one and only experience with EWINS was not my favorite.

We were flying from ICN to LAD with a planned redispatch of HNL. We were burning a little more fuel than expected so we asked dispatch for our estimated MINF at our POR. He said he had to add an alternate in LAX because the forecast had changed. Because of that we were going to be significantly below our POR MINF. A bit later they came back with EWINS that made us legal with no alternate. As soon as we passed the POR they updated the EWINS and required an alternate too. In the end, we landed with a less than comfortable amount of fuel, and that was AFTER dispatch declared min fuel for us to ATC.

Nothing was really done incorrectly, but to me if you’re gonna use EWINS you should always have another option. Flying across the pacific we didn’t.
Click to expand...

I understand, TAFs are off often, especially flying over the Pacific your TAF will change overtime, that's NWS and EWINS so the dispatcher needs to use a few different tool when detirmening if altn is needed or not, and not just look at the current TAF at dispatch.... However I don't understand why were you landing with just a small amount of fuel, especially to a point where needed to declear min-fuel with ATC? Don't see how this has anything to do with a TAF being produced by EWINS... Was your landing fuel looking good at POR? Did you overburn that much between POR and Destination? ... Or because of bad WX did you have to hold at your destination? Don't understand what happened there?
 
To answer your original question, yes a dispatcher can always request a closer look at the forecast. Only thing you cant do, under any circumstances, is "weather shop". I.E. I cannot call WSI and say I need XXX to dispatch. You call them and ask them to take a closer look. Either they'll agree with the one posted or make their own forecast.

When it comes to dispatching the flight, if there are two forecasts then we can "dispatch" using the one allows. However, we have to give BOTH to the pilots. We cannot withhold any information from them, especially when it can negatively affect the flight. Unless, if we ask WSI for a forecast and they issue one to us that is worst and doesnt allow dispatch, then we cannot use that option. We have to go with the WSI one (could be shop specific).

However, as others have said, it's only a forecast. When they get to the airport they need to be looking at what is actually happening. Doesn't seem to be a forecast issue in this case.
 
Mindsage25 said:
To answer your original question, yes a dispatcher can always request a closer look at the forecast. Only thing you cant do, under any circumstances, is "weather shop". I.E. I cannot call WSI and say I need XXX to dispatch. You call them and ask them to take a closer look. Either they'll agree with the one posted or make their own forecast.

When it comes to dispatching the flight, if there are two forecasts then we can "dispatch" using the one allows. However, we have to give BOTH to the pilots. We cannot withhold any information from them, especially when it can negatively affect the flight. Unless, if we ask WSI for a forecast and they issue one to us that is worst and doesnt allow dispatch, then we cannot use that option. We have to go with the WSI one (could be shop specific).

However, as others have said, it's only a forecast. When they get to the airport they need to be looking at what is actually happening. Doesn't seem to be a forecast issue in this case.
Click to expand...
At least in my shop... If you call WSI for EWINS it now becomes controlling to the point that when a new gov TAF is issued you need to insure that WSI updates their's to again replace it with a new issued time. But yes... No shopping, even though I've had WSI forecasters ask me what I needed. I have never answered that question when they've asked.
 
Screaming_Emu said:
I work on the other side of the ACARS but my one and only experience with EWINS was not my favorite.

We were flying from ICN to LAX with a planned redispatch of HNL. We were burning a little more fuel than expected so we asked dispatch for our estimated MINF at our POR. He said he had to add an alternate in LAX because the forecast had changed. Because of that we were going to be significantly below our POR MINF. A bit later they came back with EWINS that made us legal with no alternate. As soon as we passed the POR they updated the EWINS and required an alternate too. In the end, we landed with a less than comfortable amount of fuel, and that was AFTER dispatch declared min fuel for us to ATC.

Nothing was really done incorrectly, but to me if you’re gonna use EWINS you should always have another option. Flying across the pacific we didn’t.
Click to expand...
EWINS is considered more accurate than gov TAFs so if I'm willing to dispatch or go no alt at the POR then I would definitely trust WSI. LAX isn't the best example but usually on the long flights that have no alt with a redisp there are multiple options along the way to stop and add fuel if the overburn is getting to be too much.
 
Mindsage25 said:
Only thing you cant do, under any circumstances, is "weather shop". I.E. I cannot call WSI and say I need XXX to dispatch. You call them and ask them to take a closer look. Either they'll agree with the one posted or make their own forecast.
Click to expand...
Has any 121 or 135 operator ever “weather shopped”? I understand it’s a big issue in the HEMS industry. Hospitals will have pilots say no due to bad wx. Then call another crew and not tell them the first crew rejected the flight and what the bad wx was.
 
A1TAPE said:
Has any 121 or 135 operator ever “weather shopped”? I understand it’s a big issue in the HEMS industry. Hospitals will have pilots say no due to bad wx. Then call another crew and not tell them the first crew rejected the flight and what the bad wx was.
Click to expand...
Yes they have
 
The last place I dispatched, we were prohibited from “weather shopping.” We could only request TAFs from locations without official weather reporting or places that didn’t always report when we were launching.

The weather service one would be controlling for us. An example for this would be when we flew to Port-au-Prince, Haiti. Our flight was scheduled to launch when no weather was being reported (airport closed). We would use a requested TAF. If the weather was eventually put out (hit or miss for Haiti), then that would become the controlling weather.
 
flynryan692 said:
Yes they have
Click to expand...
That’s quite disturbing. Its as if the certificate holder is saying. Yea we will do anything and we mean A-NY-THING to maintain a 100% completion factor. Safety be dammed. Well that’s how you loose lives, and planes, and certificates.
 
A1TAPE said:
That’s quite disturbing. Its as if the certificate holder is saying. Yea we will do anything and we mean A-NY-THING to maintain a 100% completion factor. Safety be dammed. Well that’s how you loose lives, and planes, and certificates.
Click to expand...

With a good dispatcher and pilots, safety will not be a concern... You will have a good alternate ( or two) and planty of fuel to hold and if WX remains bad you just divert to your alternate... The only questions is if the company is willing to waist money by going airborne knowing that they will most likely divert.... People get too crazy with what the TAF says... There have been many times where the TAF looks great and not calling for an alternate where I would put an alternate and additional fuel and before we would get to that destination, while the TAF would still look great, the destination would fog in. Some places you just get to know that you can't trust the TAF. And then there are places where the TAF looks good but you know from experience that wind direction would make the airport go into a program so you better throw an alternate on that flight.

Again, if you are a good dispatcher and have good pilots, a blown TAF (which happens more then you would think) should not jeopardize the safety of your flight.
 
DispatchDan said:
With a good dispatcher and pilots, safety will not be a concern... You will have a good alternate ( or two) and planty of fuel to hold and if WX remains bad you just divert to your alternate... The only questions is if the company is willing to waist money by going airborne knowing that they will most likely divert.... People get too crazy with what the TAF says... There have been many times where the TAF looks great and not calling for an alternate where I would put an alternate and additional fuel and before we would get to that destination, while the TAF would still look great, the destination would fog in. Some places you just get to know that you can't trust the TAF. And then there are places where the TAF looks good but you know from experience that wind direction would make the airport go into a program so you better throw an alternate on that flight.

Again, if you are a good dispatcher and have good pilots, a blown TAF (which happens more then you would think) should not jeopardize the safety of your flight.
Click to expand...

Ahh good ol' SFO. But yes, to echo what dispatch dan said, this is the reason for dispatchers. It's your name on the release and ultimately you and the CA are responsible for the safety of that flight. If they don't feel that the flight can be made safely, or you, or any mixture of both the regulation gives you full authority to not conduct that flight.

While the company may pressure you, they have no control over the flight. In the unfortunate event something happens, it's you on the chopping block. Luckily at my shop, we have pretty good support within the management level. Of course, if they're pressuring you to make unsafe decisions then they're probably not the company you'd want to do business with.
 
A1TAPE said:
That’s quite disturbing. Its as if the certificate holder is saying. Yea we will do anything and we mean A-NY-THING to maintain a 100% completion factor. Safety be dammed. Well that’s how you loose lives, and planes, and certificates.
Click to expand...

You just got your ticket, and soon you'll get to an airline I'm sure. And you're going to be surprised the things that happen with the airlines. The vast vast vast majority of the things you see are totally safe and normal. That said occasionally you'll see some "sketchy" things. I have seen duty managers call in for a new TAF and say "so do you think we'll have a half a mile at our time of arrival?" I've also seen them axe a flight because of a bad forecast. I've seen people try to get people to go through ice with a no ice MEL. End of the day it's on the dispatcher of that flight to say "Hey this isn't safe, I'm not comfortable, I'm not sending it" and at that point they will find someone who will or do it themselves or cancel it. That said, just because someone calls for weather, say the NWS TAF says it's a 1/8th for ETA, and someone manages to get a TAF that says 1/2 for ETA doesn't mean that it's necessarily unsafe to go. If you have calm winds, and it looks like just a fog situation, worst case you go there, It's still foggy and you can't get in, you go to your alternate. Usually in the regionals if possible that alternate being the same place you left. That isn't really that unsafe. Now if you have low visibility expected for some reason and a big tailwind on the only runway that has an approach that you can use/are forecasted to have minimums for, THAT might be an actual unsafe situation. You'll see the difference between Illegal, Legal and safe, and Legal and stupid really quick.
 
A1TAPE said:
That’s quite disturbing. Its as if the certificate holder is saying. Yea we will do anything and we mean A-NY-THING to maintain a 100% completion factor. Safety be dammed. Well that’s how you loose lives, and planes, and certificates.
Click to expand...


A1TAPE said:
Well if they have ATPs and a type rating, then shouldn't they all be good pilots?
Click to expand...
Aww that's cute.

So fresh and innocent.
 
A1TAPE said:
A1TAPE said:


Well if they have ATPs and a type rating, then shouldn't they all be good pilots?
Click to expand...

Passing a test doesn't make you good at something.... For example, just because someone passes a DX test doesn't make then a good dispatcher. I worked a at a few shops and every place has mostly good dispatchers, a few excellent disoatchers and then there are a few bad dispatchers as well...
Once you get your first dispatcher job, after a few months, you will be able to recognize some not-so-good dispatchers and a few bad dispatchers... And if you don't recognize who the bad dispatchers are, then you are one of them.
 
DispatchDan said:
Passing a test doesn't make you good at something.... For example, just because someone passes a DX test doesn't make then a good dispatcher. I worked a at a few shops and every place has mostly good dispatchers, a few excellent disoatchers and then there are a few bad dispatchers as well...
Once you get your first dispatcher job, after a few months, you will be able to recognize some not-so-good dispatchers and a few bad dispatchers... And if you don't recognize who the bad dispatchers are, then you are one of them.
Click to expand...
so how does one not be a bad dispatcher? What are some signs to look out for to tell who the bad dispatchers are?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top