Redispatching flights

Jumping in a little late here, but I think the intent was that "unplanned" redispatch = change destination enroute (distinct from diverting to an alternate). The way I interpret it, diverting is proceeding to the listed alternate or another legal airport (destination mins + other various airport suitability regulatory requirements) when the intent was to land at the original destination and conditions outside the company's control prevented it. This could be a weather diversion, closed runways, etc. Usually a decision to divert would occur in relatively close proximity to the intended destination. A new alternate would not be required.

On the other hand, I would refer to a destination change as a redispatch because 121.631f requires several FARs to be met "at the time of redispatch" when changing an original destination enroute. I fully understand planned B044 redispatch/planned rerelease. However, I think the word planned is purposely included in the OpSpec. A flight can only be dispatched to one destination on a flight plan. Therefore, the flight must be redispatched if the destination is changed IAW 121.631f. I find this to be distinct from a diversion, since diversions occur when conditions outside the company's control prevent landing at the flight plan destination. If, for example, the company decided (enroute) to go to MSP instead of the originally planned destination on an ORD-SEA reposition flight, then a change of destination has occurred and 121.631f applies, including the requirement to designate an alternate (maybe the dispatcher lists RST along with the destination change to MSP). All that said, I would consider that scenario to be redispatching the flight, since the destination has changed in a non-diversion scenario and the flight must have a new dispatch release to MSP.
Wouldn't that simply be a diversion? You can divert anywhere you want. I've had it explained to me that a change of destination constitutes a redispatch. Former regional I was at made everyone stop using "change of destination" when we were diverting because we didn't have ops specs for redispatching.
 
Wouldn't that simply be a diversion? You can divert anywhere you want. I've had it explained to me that a change of destination constitutes a redispatch. Former regional I was at made everyone stop using "change of destination" when we were diverting because we didn't have ops specs for redispatching.

It's probably all just semantics at this point. I would say that a flight needs to be dispatched or released to any new destination (including designating an alternate for the new destination) unless it's going to the alternate listed on the flight plan, since that listed alternate is part of the plan and has been determined to meet all applicable regs. I would even go so far as to say a weather diversion to an airport that isn't your listed alternate would legally constitute amending your listed alternate and then diverting there, since the dispatcher has presumably checked that there is enough fuel available and that the airport meets the relevant regs. I wish the FAA would clearly define some of these terms, because there's a gray area as to when you legally need to designate a new alternate when proceeding somewhere other than the filed destination. I think the difference between changing your destination in the middle of the flight because the company wants to and diverting to an alternate because of weather is pretty obvious to most of us. The difference being that the first scenario requires a new alternate and the latter doesn't. It's just a legal gray area. In practice, the terms diversion vs change of destination vs redispatch are pretty interchangable.
 
I feel like it is pretty straight forward. Your origin is listed as airport A, your destination is listed as airport B, and your alternate is airport C. The FAR's are clear on what you need at the destination and what you need at the alternate.

Destination in this context is defined as "the place to which someone or something is going or being sent", alternate in this context is defined as "taking the place of; alternative", and to be extra thorough alternative in this context is defined as "(of one or more things) available as another possibility". If you divert to your alternate is it still your alternate? No, by definition it was another possible destination and now that you're diverting it is in fact the destination. Why on earth would you still need alternate mins at your destination? You wouldn't.

Arguing there is no reg or formal explanation that spells this out is ridiculous, why do we need something spelling out what is common sense?
Regarding non-ETOPS or other OPSPECs provisions, Alternate minimums evaporate once the decision is made to divert to the alternate; however, calling an alternate the 'new destination' is misleading and confusing. You are now diverting to the alternate - end of story. Why note this? I had an FAA inspector sit in my office telling me he wrote up an airline for "not filing an alternate for the new destination." Total BS. Be careful of the wording - misleading one dispatcher in the OCC can lead to the lemming mentality.
 
Regarding non-ETOPS or other OPSPECs provisions, Alternate minimums evaporate once the decision is made to divert to the alternate; however, calling an alternate the 'new destination' is misleading and confusing. You are now diverting to the alternate - end of story. Why note this? I had an FAA inspector sit in my office telling me he wrote up an airline for "not filing an alternate for the new destination." Total BS. Be careful of the wording - misleading one dispatcher in the OCC can lead to the lemming mentality.

Interesting that an FAA inspector wrote up an airline for this. I heard about one shop who had dispatchers that would change the destination when they diverted to a non-listed alternate, but would not list an alternate for the new destination if the new destination required it. The FAA inspector's solution was whenever a dispatcher diverted a flight they were to amend the release to show "diverting to XYZ" instead of "changing the destination to XYZ" which in their logic removed the need to list an alternate as then you only needed landing minimums at the diverting station. Seemed like a shady way to handle a diversion, but the FAA recommended the solution and signed off on it.
 
Regarding non-ETOPS or other OPSPECs provisions, Alternate minimums evaporate once the decision is made to divert to the alternate; however, calling an alternate the 'new destination' is misleading and confusing. You are now diverting to the alternate - end of story. Why note this? I had an FAA inspector sit in my office telling me he wrote up an airline for "not filing an alternate for the new destination." Total BS. Be careful of the wording - misleading one dispatcher in the OCC can lead to the lemming mentality.

Yes. I never understood why my regional required this blatantly false verbiage. If you divert to a LISTED alternate, you have already authorized the PIC to go there, and thus it is not a change of destination. If you divert to an airport not listed on the release, it's not an alternate, it is a change of destination and said airport must comply with 1-2-3 or you'd have to add an alternate. If you see trouble coming at your destination and you're not carrying an alternate, you can prevent this from happening by simply amending the release in flight to add said airport as an alternate, and then you only need derived alternate minimums. Of course, you would need to have the fuel on board to do this. What happens if you can't add an alternate to your new destination and it's your only viable option? You go anyway in the interest of safety and file the paperwork later.
 
Back
Top