Dispatching without an alternate

CS0290 said:
Still here. And I don't need validation from someone like you anyways. Some people posted some great replies and that was the discussion I was hoping for. Thanks to the ones who posted constructive criticism and your personal views and opinions on the issue!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Nah but you certainly pouted and threw a tantrum and said you were leaving the thread because people didn't agree with you. But go ahead and continue your career being the big bad dispatcher you are, you'll get far. The fact that you wanted to make a big deal out of something that happened when you weren't even at work tells me exactly the kind of person you are.
 
510.JPG

Haha this is what the forum looks like by the passing day.
 
CS0290 said:
This particular flight was 121 Flag and both airports in C070 as regular airports. It's a regularly scheduled flight. If a captain repeats asking for an alternate regardless of the circumstances, you just add it without questioning it, just because they asked for it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
When I was working at a part 121 domestic a number of years back I would always start the discussion as to why they felt that the crew needed something like an alt or extra fuel when it wasn't required. Maybe it was something that I hadn't seen or wasn't aware of. Here is an example of what I find happens a lot of times. Maybe 15 years ago a flight was planned safely and legally but upon arrival the airport closes all of a sudden due to maybe ATC or something like that. Well because it created a stressful situation with the crew or even the dispatcher now the crew that flew that flight will always ask for additional stuff so that they feel comfortable. Dispatchers do the same thing. I know a flight follower that used to work here would put like an hours+ worth of extra fuel on for a flight going into Miami on a 10 and clear day with no forecast of TS in sight. It was really overboard but the only reason they did this was because of a stressful situation that had occurred like 20 years ago.

So I say all that to say this. Start the discussion and don't let the crews just tell you what you are going to do. In the part 121 Domestic and Flag it is a joint effort and both of you must come to an agreement.
 
Fuel in the summer into MIA on a 10 and clr day might not be a terrible idea....then again I don't dispatch into there. I will say in the summer the moment I begin seeing some precip dvlpmt W or DEN I'll add an hour of fuel. 8 out of 10 times they'll need it. "Poss unfct TS Impact to arr at eta"
 
Luigi said:
Fuel in the summer into MIA on a 10 and clr day might not be a terrible idea....then again I don't dispatch into there. I will say in the summer the moment I begin seeing some precip dvlpmt W or DEN I'll add an hour of fuel. 8 out of 10 times they'll need it. "Poss unfct TS Impact to arr at eta"
Click to expand...

Best case, I'll put PBI on for MIA on a supposed clear day. You never know what can happen, especially if you're flying out of the northeast down to Florida.

It can always be dropped for a little extra go-go juice.
 
I don't think the original poster was talking about 121.647 fuel. Yes if you know that MIA is going to be blown up by TS then by all means put some extra on. However that extra that you put on for the potential TS is considered 121.647 fuel. Now that is my opinion and my interpretation of that particular regulation. I think what the intent of the original poster was do you put the extra fuel on for the flight if there really isn't a need for it and do you do it because a specific flight crew won't go without because of an act of God in the previous past.

As far as extra fuel into specific cities I agree luigi that we need to take that into account. If you know that can hold it's traffic for a significantly large amount of time for precip, TS, etc then it should be done.
 
jaydog said:
I don't think the original poster was talking about 121.647 fuel. Yes if you know that MIA is going to be blown up by TS then by all means put some extra on. However that extra that you put on for the potential TS is considered 121.647 fuel. Now that is my opinion and my interpretation of that particular regulation. I think what the intent of the original poster was do you put the extra fuel on for the flight if there really isn't a need for it and do you do it because a specific flight crew won't go without because of an act of God in the previous past.

As far as extra fuel into specific cities I agree luigi that we need to take that into account. If you know that can hold it's traffic for a significantly large amount of time for precip, TS, etc then it should be done.
Click to expand...

This is the point I was making about dispatching to standards as opposed to Captains. It also relates to the concept of "personal minimums" which in my opinion have no place in professional aviation. I have neither the ability nor the inclination to remember that Captain Richard Cranium always wants 2000 extra going to West Pigsknuckle Arkansas because of that one time 10 years ago that he had to hold for 5 minutes.
 
Flying Saluki said:
This is the point I was making about dispatching to standards as opposed to Captains. It also relates to the concept of "personal minimums" which in my opinion have no place in professional aviation. I have neither the ability nor the inclination to remember that Captain Richard Cranium always wants 2000 extra going to West Pigsknuckle Arkansas because of that one time 10 years ago that he had to hold for 5 minutes.
Click to expand...

It isn't our job to cater to personal requests and to accommodate vendettas some captain have. It's our job to keep the flight safe and legal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
TN-DX said:
What are the trends? Origin and surrounding WX?

My favorite question to ask is "Are you seeing something I do not?"

Ultimately it's joint responsibility and if he doesn't want to go without it he doesn't want to. I do like to semi challenge why they are asking and also to make sure nothing is missed.
Click to expand...
This.

I always push back. It's not to be argumentative, but because I don't want to miss an opportunity to learn something.
 
BayouMLU said:
This.

I always push back. It's not to be argumentative
Click to expand...

Which as written, comes across as argumentative.

, but because I don't want to miss an opportunity to learn something.
Click to expand...

Better way to say it, is being inquisitive as to why they're requesting what they are, so you can possibly better do your job, if there indeed is something to learn that wasn't previously known.
 
MikeD said:
Which as written, comes across as argumentative.



Better way to say it, is being inquisitive as to why they're requesting what they are, so you can possibly better do your job, if there indeed is something to learn that wasn't previously known.
Click to expand...
I'm a smoother talker than I am poster. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top