Redispatching flights

[johnotd]

Once you start diverting (not change of destination) is it still your alternate? No. We have alt mins to give us a better chance of the alternate maintaining landing mins at the time we divert there.

It is still your alternate if it is designated as your alternate on your flight plan. If your fuel planning is predicated on destination, MA, alternate, then the airport is still your alternate.
If you recalculate to show burn from PPOS to the airport you had listed as your alternate, you have now performed a change of destination.

I understand this is contrary to what a lot of us have learned and I struggled greatly with it, but I can find support for it in the regs. What I cannot find support for in the regs (or any supporting documentation) is that your alternate is no longer an alternate once you are proceeding there. If you have a reg, legal interp, or anything that supports that claim, please share it.

 

[who'swho]

It is still your alternate if it is designated as your alternate on your flight plan. If your fuel planning is predicated on destination, MA, alternate, then the airport is still your alternate.
If you recalculate to show burn from PPOS to the airport you had listed as your alternate, you have now performed a change of destination.

I understand this is contrary to what a lot of us have learned and I struggled greatly with it, but I can find support for it in the regs. What I cannot find support for in the regs (or any supporting documentation) is that your alternate is no longer an alternate once you are proceeding there. If you have a reg, legal interp, or anything that supports that claim, please share it.

121 Subpart U is titled Dispatch and Flight Release. You need landing mins at the time of dispatch, which would be the diversion point in this case. Kinda like how we dispatch off of visibility but if you don't have the ceilings you need when you reach the approach you can't initiate.

 

[johnotd]

121 Subpart U is titled Dispatch and Flight Release. You need landing mins at the time of dispatch, which would be the diversion point in this case. Kinda like how we dispatch off of visibility but if you don't have the ceilings you need when you reach the approach you can't initiate.

First, you haven't provided a reference. Saying "121 Subpart U" is like answering a DCT with "GOM, whole content".

Second, diversion to a designated destination alternate does not require re-dispatch or amendment. That alternate is already part of the plan. You only need to amend if you are changing the destination or the alternate, as spelled out in 121.631. If you are diverting to an airport not listed on the release (i.e. no alternate), that is a change of destination.

As I mentioned before, the crew will initiate the approach at the alternate airport based on plate mins, but for the airport to remain designated as the alternate on the paperwork, it legally must remain above derived mins.

 

[who'swho]

First, you haven't provided a reference. Saying "121 Subpart U" is like answering a DCT with "GOM, whole content".

Second, diversion to a designated destination alternate does not require re-dispatch or amendment. That alternate is already part of the plan. You only need to amend if you are changing the destination or the alternate, as spelled out in 121.631. If you are diverting to an airport not listed on the release (i.e. no alternate), that is a change of destination.

As I mentioned before, the crew will initiate the approach at the alternate airport based on plate mins, but for the airport to remain designated as the alternate on the paperwork, it legally must remain above derived mins.

121 subpart U. Read the title of that section. That section ONLY applies to dispatch and the release. So once you reach the point of dispatch i.e. diversion point and agree to divert the wx can go below alt mins because you are past the point of dispatch. My point is... none of subpart U applies after you start diverting.

eCFR :: 14 CFR Part 121 Subpart U -- Dispatching and Flight Release Rules

www.ecfr.gov

 

[DispatchDan]

Johnotd... You're reaching a little too far here.
Your dispatch release is the plan. Your plan says that if WX at destination becomes bad on your arrival you will hold (wait) until "bingo fuel". At "bingo fuel" you will either divert right away or have a last minute attempt to give it a try at your destination... That "bingo fuel" will give you the exact fuel you need to go in, execute a MA, and then divert to alternate and lend there just before burning into your 45min reserve fuel.... So that is the plan on your dispatch release, once you hit that bingo fuel and you go in and don't land, you have to go to your alternate, at this point you don't need altn minimums, you just need to be able to land safely which is landing mins.
If , as you say, you still needed to maintain altn mins then you would be in trouble if WX drops below it since, at this point, all you have is the fuel to your alternate and the reserve. If that was the case then "bingo fuel" would require much more fuel then just MA, burn to alternate and 45min reserve fuel. You only need alternate mins until you start your diversion.

 

[johnotd]

Johnotd... You're reaching a little too far here.
Your dispatch release is the plan. Your plan says that if WX at destination becomes bad on your arrival you will hold (wait) until "bingo fuel". At "bingo fuel" you will either divert right away or have a last minute attempt to give it a try at your destination... That "bingo fuel" will give you the exact fuel you need to go in, execute a MA, and then divert to alternate and lend there just before burning into your 45min reserve fuel.... So that is the plan on your dispatch release, once you hit that bingo fuel and you go in and don't land, you have to go to your alternate, at this point you don't need altn minimums, you just need to be able to land safely which is landing mins.
If , as you say, you still needed to maintain altn mins then you would be in trouble if WX drops below it since, at this point, all you have is the fuel to your alternate and the reserve. If that was the case then "bingo fuel" would require much more fuel then just MA, burn to alternate and 45min reserve fuel. You only need alternate mins until you start your diversion.

I absolutely understand the theory behind this interpretation.

The problem is there is no language anywhere that says alternate mins go out the window the second you decide to divert.

Let’s take a step back from the diversion for a second; up until the second before diversion, do you need to maintain derived mins at the alternate?

 

[who'swho]

I absolutely understand the theory behind this interpretation.

The problem is there is no language anywhere that says alternate mins go out the window the second you decide to divert.

Let’s take a step back from the diversion for a second; up until the second before diversion, do you need to maintain derived mins at the alternate?

Prior to the point of diversion... yes. Because that falls under dispatch. After the point of diversion... no. I heard this was something the FAA inspector for Spirit started pushing. I know these FAA guys all have completely different opinions but this is the goofiest one yet.

 

[flynryan692]

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?

 

[McCrosky]

So, let’s tske the weather out of it. And say your alternate airport is listed in C070 as ‘A’. and Now, for whatever reason your airplane is diverting. Are you suddenly I violation because your alternate is not a R, F, or P?

My read (and by no means am I a legal interpretation) that if your intent was to go to the released destination and for whatever reason beyond the control of the airline you cannot land and divert. Then go to the listed alternate. The concept (IMHO) of destination mins now apply for the listed alternate is for the flight crew to know when they get to the alternate they don’t need C055 mins to shoot the approach. They just need the destination approach mins for landing.

If for some reason your alternate forecast/metar drops below alternate mins after the divert, then oh well. There cannot be an expectation for the FAlAlAlA for yiu to start designating a new alternate for alternates for alternates.

Me personally, if I think there’s a real chance of a divert I make sure the alternate is solid. It keeps me from playing the chase an alternate game enroute or worry about this kinda legalese nonsense.

My $.02 worth.

 

[Mainline_or_bust]

The

So, let’s tske the weather out of it. And say your alternate airport is listed in C070 as ‘A’. and Now, for whatever reason your airplane is diverting. Are you suddenly I violation because your alternate is not a R, F, or P?

My read (and by no means am I a legal interpretation) that if your intent was to go to the released destination and for whatever reason beyond the control of the airline you cannot land and divert. Then go to the listed alternate. The concept (IMHO) of destination mins now apply for the listed alternate is for the flight crew to know when they get to the alternate they don’t need C055 mins to shoot the approach. They just need the destination approach mins for landing.

If for some reason your alternate forecast/metar drops below alternate mins after the divert, then oh well. There cannot be an expectation for the FAlAlAlA for yiu to start designating a new alternate for alternates for alternates.

Me personally, if I think there’s a real chance of a divert I make sure the alternate is solid. It keeps me from playing the chase an alternate game enroute or worry about this kinda legalese nonsense.

My $.02 worth.

Well said. It’s funny how we can all argue over interpretations. I’ve had to learn that, to quote Reagan, it wasn’t that I didn’t know very much, but rather I knew so much that wasn’t so. Meaning it’s relevant to your current airline and it’s POI/PDI and 8900.1 interpretations. Arguing here proves nothing other than 1) you don’t know or 2) you have different rules.

Still having said that, the four airlines I’ve worked for all had the same point to make as Who’s Who, disclaimer one was the same. Still it’s abnormal the other way but not necessarily wrong. :stir:

 

[F9DXER]

Lets take a look at it from another aspect -

Technically the crew doesn't have to talk to us or tell us they are going to their alternate. They can just go, as we gave them that authorization when the release was issued. Thus as long as we, as dispatchers, have kept the alternate legal by monitoring the weather, even if the fcst goes to 400 and 1 (legal alternate mins for most airports) and the metars are validating the fcst. The flight is legal to land at the alternate and no emergency authority is required.

I was always taught, it is all about semantics. If I tell a flight here is your new destination, I might have to list an alternate. If I tell the flight to divert to your alternate, I don't need an alternate for the flts alternate.

 

[johnotd]

F9 is right that at the end of the day it’s all about semantics.

In all cases, flight crews will use plate minimums to land at any airport. Full stop.

What we’re discussing here are the requirements for an airport to be designated as an alternate on a flight release. Namely, the weather minimums and the extent to which they apply. From my perspective, stating that dispatch occurs before a flight diverts, and once they divert, the rules no longer apply because that airport has changed from your alternate to something else, relies on a lot of inference and playing around with definitions.

 

[LowlyDispatcher]

B044 says "planned" redispatch which leads me to believe and falls in line with what I learned which is that changing the destination enroute is redispatching. Unplanned redispatch is pretty common in AK.

 

[who'swho]

B044 says "planned" redispatch which leads me to believe and falls in line with what I learned which is that changing the destination enroute is redispatching. Unplanned redispatch is pretty common in AK.

If it's "unplanned" how can you consider it a redispatch if a redispatch is planned per B044? You can't add a redispatch enroute but you can divert.

 

[Mainline_or_bust]

B044 says "planned" redispatch which leads me to believe and falls in line with what I learned which is that changing the destination enroute is redispatching. Unplanned redispatch is pretty common in AK.

Also disproving your thoughts is the fact that an OpSpec exists yet if you work for one of the Alaska carriers you are almost certain not to have it. So how are you “redispatching” legally without it? Oh yeah it’s just a diversion... two totally different things.

If you think you’re right, you have a legal obligation to start filing ASAPs because you don’t have an OpSpec for the actions you’ve been taking. Ergo you don’t have permission to break the regulations, as you believe you have, thus file away.

 

[flynryan692]

Also disproving your thoughts is the fact that an OpSpec exists yet if you work for one of the Alaska carriers you are almost certain not to have it. So how are you “redispatching” legally without it? Oh yeah it’s just a diversion... two totally different things.

If you think you’re right, you have a legal obligation to start filing ASAPs because you don’t have an OpSpec for the actions you’ve been taking. Ergo you don’t have permission to break the regulations, as you believe you have, thus file away.

Not to go off topic here but nobody ever has any legal obligation to file an ASAP. The program is voluntary and offers license protection as an incentive to file a report. The basic idea of the program is to offer license protection for FAR violations in return for the specifics of whatever happened/ did not happen in order to learn from past mistakes and detect possible safety hazards. Of course, it is never wise to NOT file an ASAP, but it also isn't mandatory. Just thought I'd put that out there since it seems there are many misconceptions about the ASAP program.

 

[Mainline_or_bust]

Not to go off topic here but nobody ever has any legal obligation to file an ASAP. The program is voluntary and offers license protection as an incentive to file a report. The basic idea of the program is to offer license protection for FAR violations in return for the specifics of whatever happened/ did not happen in order to learn from past mistakes and detect possible safety hazards. Of course, it is never wise to NOT file an ASAP, but it also isn't mandatory. Just thought I'd put that out there since it seems there are many misconceptions about the ASAP program.

Relevant. My point was if you are blatantly ignoring regulations you are obligated to report it. It might be a moral obligation but willfully ignoring the regulations is grounds for license revocation.

 

[PlaneFan82]

Relevant. My point was if you are blatantly ignoring regulations you are obligated to report it. It might be a moral obligation but willfully ignoring the regulations is grounds for license revocation.

FWIW....blatant disregard of the regulations (or opspecs) isn’t covered by ASAP. It’s one of the big 5 that leads to exclusion. Even if you submit an ASAP....it’s not a get out of jail free card.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mainline_or_bust]

I give up, my new advice for aspiring dispatchers everywhere:

89 more days to freedom baby.

 

[4EngineETOPS]

If it's "unplanned" how can you consider it a redispatch if a redispatch is planned per B044? You can't add a redispatch enroute but you can divert.

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.