TAF change after blocking out but before departing

D

derriko

Well-Known Member
Technical question here:

I was taught at my previous airline that if the TAF change occurs after blocking out but before getting in the air, but its like a BKN018 or something to that affect, which would've required an alternate if you had not blocked out yet, you are fine to continue without one since the flight has already started. Obviously if its more extreme than that, you would want to return back to the gate and add an alternate and / or more fuel but nobody is going missed with an 1800" ceiling or we have other problems going on.

At my current airline, our policy is to return to the gate regardless and add the alternate if the TAF change occurred after blocking out regardless of how miniscule the change is. I believe this company restriction goes above and beyond the FAR's requirement. I just can't find a FAR that specifically addresses this.

In the air of course its a different story. If the Captain and I agree its safe to continue without an alternate if we don't have the extra fuel to add one, then that is fine. That is undisputable and not what I'm getting at in this question.

I cannot find a FAR specifically mentioning the blocking out vs at the gate discrepancy. Opinions? Any FAR's that specifically mention this that I cannot find?
 
derriko said:
Technical question here:

I was taught at my previous airline that if the TAF change occurs after blocking out but before getting in the air, but its like a BKN018 or something to that affect, which would've required an alternate if you had not blocked out yet, you are fine to continue without one since the flight has already started. Obviously if its more extreme than that, you would want to return back to the gate and add an alternate and / or more fuel but nobody is going missed with an 1800" ceiling or we have other problems going on.

At my current airline, our policy is to return to the gate regardless and add the alternate if the TAF change occurred after blocking out regardless of how miniscule the change is. I believe this company restriction goes above and beyond the FAR's requirement. I just can't find a FAR that specifically addresses this.

In the air of course its a different story. If the Captain and I agree its safe to continue without an alternate if we don't have the extra fuel to add one, then that is fine. That is undisputable and not what I'm getting at in this question.

I cannot find a FAR specifically mentioning the blocking out vs at the gate discrepancy. Opinions? Any FAR's that specifically mention this that I cannot find?
Click to expand...
This depends on what your company's OpsSpecs define the "Point of Dispatch" to be. Where I work, the point of dispatch is when the throttles go forward for the intent to takeoff (from the end of the runway). That gives us more time/flexbility to add a required destination alternate without returning to the gate.
 
SoftSkills said:
This depends on what your company's OpsSpecs define the "Point of Dispatch" to be. Where I work, the point of dispatch is when the throttles go forward for the intent to takeoff (from the end of the runway). That gives us more time/flexbility to add a required destination alternate without returning to the gate.
Click to expand...
Umm that would give you less time. If point of dispatch was block out then if the taf changed after push the flight would be considered dispatched and there would be no need to add a alternate. With the system you mentioned conceivably they would be required to add an alternate at any point prior to throttles forward with the intent to TO.
 
Last edited:
This is a good question, and one that has always annoyed me.

At my old shop it was acceptable to treat pushback as the point of dispatch. Anything after that is beyond the planning phase and joint discretion becomes the rule. At my current one, it's throttles forward for takeoff.

I like the first interpretation because we have all been in that position where your flight is number two for takeoff, the TAF amends to require, and 99 out of the 100 times you ACARS the crew about it, they end up on the runway and depart anyways. Is that an illegal departure? In my opinion the TAF changing 60 seconds before wheels up is a kind of ridiculous point of demarcation for saying the flight was not dispatched appropriately. There are too many variables. The dispatcher could be working another problem, the crew doesn't respond to messages in time, tower isn't picking up the phone, etc. If you go by push time then you are still holding the dispatcher fully accountable for the planning phase but allowing intuition to sort through the variables once the aircraft is moving for the purpose of operating the flight. Am I the only one?
 
Luigi said:
Umm that would give you less time. If point of dispatch was block out then if the taf changed after push the flight would be considered dispatched and there would be no need to add a alternate. With the system you mentioned conceivably they would be required to add an alternate at any point prior to throttles forward with the intent to TO.
Click to expand...

I was gonna say....
 
kilo said:
This is a good question, and one that has always annoyed me.

At my old shop it was acceptable to treat pushback as the point of dispatch. Anything after that is beyond the planning phase and joint discretion becomes the rule. At my current one, it's throttles forward for takeoff.

I like the first interpretation because we have all been in that position where your flight is number two for takeoff, the TAF amends to require, and 99 out of the 100 times you ACARS the crew about it, they end up on the runway and depart anyways. Is that an illegal departure? In my opinion the TAF changing 60 seconds before wheels up is a kind of ridiculous point of demarcation for saying the flight was not dispatched appropriately. There are too many variables. The dispatcher could be working another problem, the crew doesn't respond to messages in time, tower isn't picking up the phone, etc. If you go by push time then you are still holding the dispatcher fully accountable for the planning phase but allowing intuition to sort through the variables once the aircraft is moving for the purpose of operating the flight. Am I the only one?
Click to expand...

Ive never worked anywhere where the block out was controlling. So I find that concept totally foreign personally. it's always, for me, been if there's a change before advancing the throttles for take off then you should do something. I think it's the same as an after blockout crew mx deferrel or an ATC reroute. you have to adjust the plan for those things, why not weather changes?

I think support for that is the 121.639 that specifies fuel requirements (let's just keep it domestic for sake of argument) that states you can dispatch or take off.. and fuel for alternate is included in that requirement. The dispatch release must contain the minimum fuel supply amount for the flight. Which is determined by 121.639 (and 121.647... again keeping it domesticated). So, in my mind, since the take off is the one specified on the dispatch release, you have to keep the "plan" safe and legal until take off.

BUT, that's all fine and dandy for theory. But in the real world, you have a TAF amendment to a BKN018 after blockout and you need to designate an alternate. The flight has been blocked out for 15-20 minutes. You call the tower at KXYZ and the controller tells you they've just been cleared for take off and just about to take the active. I'd let them go. At that point, in my opinion its more unsafe to have the tower stop them and cancel clearance than to depart to a BKN018 destinaiton without an alternate. If, for whatever reason, the federales start asking why your flight took off without an alternate, you can show you put in the effort to and deemed that stopping take off was less safe than continuing. The ASI/Ds I've met seem to be reasonable people when it comes to these kind of situations. if the TAF dropped to 1/8SM then that's a bigger decision, but chances are i'd let the airplane depart, and after leaving the sterile environment chime the crew, let them know what happened, and make a new plan (which may include stopping short to add fuel). At any rate, there's always the ASAP/NASA report you can file if you feel the need.

I think the first interpretation (pushback is time of dispatch) will let you get in trouble when there's extended taxi situations (i'm looking at you KPHL). I think the take off point is a good point to aim for being the official demarcation of "point of dispatch (which i can't find defined in any manual we have)," but you have to be intelligent about it. That's what they pay you for... otherwise, you're just a button pusher and one step from being automated out of a job.
 
McCrosky said:
Ive never worked anywhere where the block out was controlling. So I find that concept totally foreign personally. it's always, for me, been if there's a change before advancing the throttles for take off then you should do something. I think it's the same as an after blockout crew mx deferrel or an ATC reroute. you have to adjust the plan for those things, why not weather changes?

I think support for that is the 121.639 that specifies fuel requirements (let's just keep it domestic for sake of argument) that states you can dispatch or take off.. and fuel for alternate is included in that requirement. The dispatch release must contain the minimum fuel supply amount for the flight. Which is determined by 121.639 (and 121.647... again keeping it domesticated). So, in my mind, since the take off is the one specified on the dispatch release, you have to keep the "plan" safe and legal until take off.

BUT, that's all fine and dandy for theory. But in the real world, you have a TAF amendment to a BKN018 after blockout and you need to designate an alternate. The flight has been blocked out for 15-20 minutes. You call the tower at KXYZ and the controller tells you they've just been cleared for take off and just about to take the active. I'd let them go. At that point, in my opinion its more unsafe to have the tower stop them and cancel clearance than to depart to a BKN018 destinaiton without an alternate. If, for whatever reason, the federales start asking why your flight took off without an alternate, you can show you put in the effort to and deemed that stopping take off was less safe than continuing. The ASI/Ds I've met seem to be reasonable people when it comes to these kind of situations. if the TAF dropped to 1/8SM then that's a bigger decision, but chances are i'd let the airplane depart, and after leaving the sterile environment chime the crew, let them know what happened, and make a new plan (which may include stopping short to add fuel). At any rate, there's always the ASAP/NASA report you can file if you feel the need.

I think the first interpretation (pushback is time of dispatch) will let you get in trouble when there's extended taxi situations (i'm looking at you KPHL). I think the take off point is a good point to aim for being the official demarcation of "point of dispatch (which i can't find defined in any manual we have)," but you have to be intelligent about it. That's what they pay you for... otherwise, you're just a button pusher and one step from being automated out of a job.
Click to expand...

At my shop the point of dispatch is when the crew "signs" the manifest saying they agree the flight can be completed safely and legally. For electronic manifests it is considered point of dispatch when they first run their takeoff performance numbers (whether they have pushed back from the gate or not). TAF change after that point for us means it occurred after the point of dispatch and an alternate is not legally required, it is up to the dispatcher and PIC to decide what they feel is the best course of action. If they have run their takeoff data and the TAF changes to BKN018 and the dispatcher and PIC don't feel that is a safety of flight issue and the flight departs above the MINTO state upon the release then they are considered to have complied with all requirements regarding alternates and fuel planning. In your example of extended taxi situations, if the crew isn't going to take off above MINTO and returns to the gate for more fuel at that point they are legally required to add the alternate and amend the release. Similarly, if they run performance numbers before pushback at the gate and end up deferring an item requiring an MEL to be added the clock starts over because you have now changed the paperwork and they have to sign off on the whole thing again.
 
I think it just depends on how your OpsSpecs/FOM are written. At both airlines I've worked for, alternate requirements do not apply once you block out, not take off. The FOM may have a disclaimer saying that the flight may continue after block out as long as the conditions wouldn't preclude a safe landing at the destination.

A new TAF after blockout of BKN018 probably isn't a big deal (in my opinion), but a new TAF with 1/4 SM with CAT I approaches only would have me trying to get in touch with that aircraft prior to wheels up.
 
FDXDispatchKid said:
A new TAF after blockout of BKN018 probably isn't a big deal (in my opinion), but a new TAF with 1/4 SM with CAT I approaches only would have me trying to get in touch with that aircraft prior to wheels up.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much what I'm driving at. The ability to think through this kind of decision is only really possible as long as it is not framed rigidly within the 1-2-3 rule. Instead of being forced back to the gate by the letter of the law you are allowed to consider the available information and allow the flight to continue or not. That's why I'm not a huge fan of basing legality on throttles forward. It just sets up a legal trap when you are number three in a line that's twenty-deep, getting worse and your destination TAF amends for a tempo OVC015. No pilot or dispatcher should ever think a gate-return is necessary for that. As McCrosky said, feds are probably going to be cool if you explain the circumstances, and you always have the ASAP to CYA, but does it really need to be that way...?
 
TAFs are going away by 2020 anyway. This is part of an effort to make aviation great again. They will be replaced with emojis. It will really make questions like this irrelevant

[emoji41] VFR - NO ALTERNATE
[emoji35] IFR - ADD ALTERNATE
[emoji90] SEVERE WX - DO NOT DISPATCH



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The FAA determines their own "Point of Dispatch" to be brakes released and pushback started. I stumbled on it a while back on the Interpretations website. I agree with what has been said about it being ridiculous that 60 seconds prior to off time you're supposed to be able to detect an amendment and then notify the crew for a return to blocks. Thankfully I don't have to deal with the more restrictive company procedure, though I would think any FAA scrutiny in this case would be towards management for the silly policy and setting Dispatch up to fail. Of course it depends on your ASI and their relationship with Management.

As a side note, my 2 cents for every Dispatcher is to put one on if the trend is down or marginal for long enough. I would rather explain that I added an alternate, even though destination was above 1-2-3, than I would to explain why I just went with the flow and was too scared to add one and the flight diverted.
 
azmedic said:
TAFs are going away by 2020 anyway. This is part of an effort to make aviation great again. They will be replaced with emojis. It will really make questions like this irrelevant

[emoji41] VFR - NO ALTERNATE
[emoji35] IFR - ADD ALTERNATE
[emoji90] SEVERE WX - DO NOT DISPATCH



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
:bounce:
 
azmedic said:
TAFs are going away by 2020 anyway. This is part of an effort to make aviation great again. They will be replaced with emojis. It will really make questions like this irrelevant
[emoji41] VFR - NO ALTERNATE
[emoji35] IFR - ADD ALTERNATE
[emoji90] SEVERE WX - DO NOT DISPATCH
Click to expand...
Our scheduling lead told us (completely seriously) to please not acknowledge trip, rest, or reserve assignments with a poop emoji. "I don't want some Fed to show up if something happens and say 'did Bob acknowledge his rest?' and I say 'yes sir, here is his poop emoji.'"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top