Warning fellow AA dispatchers...

N

Nearest Alternate

Well-Known Member
one of your new sector mgrs (from envoy) likes to send everything. Just like little napoleon. If the forecast does not permit departing then call and have the forecast changed. If you question anything they say you are insubordinate...if you tell anyone that management told you to tell the crew something, that you do not agree with, then you are insubordinate as well.

Good luck and be ready to file grievances.
 
We all know Operational Control is exercised flight by flight by the captain and the dispatcher — that's 14 CFR §121.533.
The airline sets the framework: the policies, the standards, the operational boundaries. That's the airline's role and it's a legitimate one.
But the moment that release is signed, the operational decision on that specific flight belongs to two people. Not anyone else.
Two certificated individuals with legal responsibility that cannot be transferred or overridden.
The airline controls the operation. No one else controls the flight.
I cover this in depth in Your Flight Begins at My Desk — link in bio.
 
Mostly true, but I would only add a couple of caveats. Operational control may be transferred to another qualified dispatcher at turnover time. From the moment the briefing is acknowledged until a block-in time is received and recorded, the oncoming dispatcher is liable and responsible. It may be an obvious exception, but I thought it was worth mentioning. Secondly, I'm not aware of any regulation or legal interpretation that would preclude a certificate holder from reassigning a flight if a dispatcher refuses to send the paperwork, but I'm open to being enlightened (might be more of a CBA thing). I've worked for a carrier that didn't consider a release to be legally in effect until it was signed AND published/sent to the crew and/or station. The example scenario I'm thinking of is a qualified dispatcher who believes that releasing a flight is illegal, when it's actually not, unnecessarily holding the operation up for hours. I think there's a balance to be struck there where said dispatcher can't hold the release hostage just because it has his/her name on it, and they can't see or admit that they're just wrong. It goes without saying, though, that there's never a justification for bullying or pressuring a dispatcher to do something that's actually unsafe or illegal. I also wonder if a CFR 119.65 D.O. can legally step in and prevent a flight from departing if the conditions are known to be dangerous or illegal, but the DX/PIC wants to send it. Hypothetically, of course..
 
I can't edit my previous post, but I'd like to strike the last sentence from the record lol. I think it answers itself..
 
I had a shift manager at PSA tell me to transfer a flight to another dispatcher, because the current dispatcher didn't feel comfortable sending it. Even though I would have been comfortable sending it myself, I could see where the current dispatcher was coming from, and was not going to have my initials or name involved in transferring it to another dispatcher and then something goes wrong. It’s one thing if it's severe clear and the dispatcher still isn't comfortable. But if it's close (especially if you have to ask for a new forecast) you're playing with fire and risking your livelihood. And don't think for a.second the company won't throw you under the bus and deny they told you to do something illegal.
If a sector manager came to me and told me to call WSI and ask for a new forecast so we could send a flight, I'd tell them to go back to their desk, and then I'd file an ASAP.
Regionals only get away with that because they know most regional dispatchers are too new and are just trying to keep their heads down and do their time to get to a major. But it will eventually get some people killed, and when it does, they will claim innocence and throw their dispatchers under the bus.
 
Last edited:
If it's a fact-based judgement call, it's well within the purview of our operational control authority. But in some cases it's a flat out misapplication/misunderstanding/ignorance of an OpSpec/reg (on the spatchers part) where it's literally a go/no-go thing. It might be the case that the OpSpec may actually give a certain special authorization that a reg requires, for instance, but the manuals don't convey it clearly enough. While companies should not be forcing our hand in matters of safety or legality, stubbornly hiding behind "my operational control" without any other justification can be problematic too. I've seen it from newbies and crusty lifers alike. What's the compromise?
 
I
MIADX said:
If it's a fact-based judgement call, it's well within the purview of our operational control authority. But in some cases it's a flat out misapplication/misunderstanding/ignorance of an OpSpec/reg (on the spatchers part) where it's literally a go/no-go thing. It might be the case that the OpSpec may actually give a certain special authorization that a reg requires, for instance, but the manuals don't convey it clearly enough. While companies should not be forcing our hand in matters of safety or legality, stubbornly hiding behind "my operational control" without any other justification can be problematic too. I've seen it from newbies and crusty lifers alike. What's the compromise?
Click to expand...
Think that's a great way to put it. I've seen both sides and self reflecting is important to do. Quote the specific reg/spec/mel/issue that makes it a no go and be open to factual challenges to that. The SOD/controller/whatever should do the same.
 
MIADX said:
If it's a fact-based judgement call, it's well within the purview of our operational control authority. But in some cases it's a flat out misapplication/misunderstanding/ignorance of an OpSpec/reg (on the spatchers part) where it's literally a go/no-go thing. It might be the case that the OpSpec may actually give a certain special authorization that a reg requires, for instance, but the manuals don't convey it clearly enough. While companies should not be forcing our hand in matters of safety or legality, stubbornly hiding behind "my operational control" without any other justification can be problematic too. I've seen it from newbies and crusty lifers alike. What's the compromise?
Click to expand...
The "warning" was that the new sector manager would order us to call to get the forecast changed to make it legal to send a flight. We can debate whether someone should defiantly refuse to send a flight that is perfectly legal. Obviously they shouldn't.
But none of us at AA are worried about a sector manager ordering us to send a flight we don't believe is safe to send. We are professionals and are paid to use our professional knowledge to make decisions. And if one were to try to force us to send a flight that we have determined isn't safe, we'll file ASAPS and grievances and it won't happen again.
I'm really not worried, and I don't think it's even fair for someone to have sent this "warning" in the first place because it's based in a completely different world. I suspect the new sector manager will do fine and likely enjoy his new job far more than he enjoyed working at Envoy.
 
I don't understand why calling WSI for a TAF seems to be controversial. This is not airline specific. Most 121 carriers have a provision that allows or even requires WSI weather to be controlling over NWS weather. All a dispatcher or manager is doing is requesting WSI to produce a forecast, they aren't writing the TAF themselves to push a flight. It is up to the WSI meterologist to provide accurate weather to base decisions on. Sometimes they come out better than NWS, sometimes they come out worse.
 
Nothing to do with the original post (well, kind of) but asking us to call for an updated TAF in itself is not an issue. It's part of the job, really. We know, or SHOULD know, never to ask for a "better" TAF of say specifically what you are looking for.

That being said....this can work in their (management's) benefit, it can also work in our (CA/Dispatcher's) benefit. I have had situations where the flight is legal to send based on the TAF, but it shows it won't be legal later. The METAR already shows visibility has dropped and there is no temp/dewpoint spread or wind, indicating the vis dropped before the current TAF thought it would. You and the captain both know you won't be able to land, but the company still wants you to send it because it's legal. Call for an updated TAF, it likely won't be legal to send until the vis improves. It works both ways, you just can't order what weather you want.
 
TAF_Master said:
I don't understand why calling WSI for a TAF seems to be controversial. This is not airline specific. Most 121 carriers have a provision that allows or even requires WSI weather to be controlling over NWS weather. All a dispatcher or manager is doing is requesting WSI to produce a forecast, they aren't writing the TAF themselves to push a flight. It is up to the WSI meterologist to provide accurate weather to base decisions on. Sometimes they come out better than NWS, sometimes they come out worse.
Click to expand...
Calling WSI for an updated TAF isn't the problem. We do it at AA. W e can actually just walk over to their desk and ask for one.
The issue is management telling you to request a legal TAF in order to send a flight that is currently illegal, or calling you insubordinate if you won't.
 
bravofoxtrothotel said:
Nothing to do with the original post (well, kind of) but asking us to call for an updated TAF in itself is not an issue. It's part of the job, really. We know, or SHOULD know, never to ask for a "better" TAF of say specifically what you are looking for.

That being said....this can work in their (management's) benefit, it can also work in our (CA/Dispatcher's) benefit. I have had situations where the flight is legal to send based on the TAF, but it shows it won't be legal later. The METAR already shows visibility has dropped and there is no temp/dewpoint spread or wind, indicating the vis dropped before the current TAF thought it would. You and the captain both know you won't be able to land, but the company still wants you to send it because it's legal. Call for an updated TAF, it likely won't be legal to send until the vis improves. It works both ways, you just can't order what weather you want.
Click to expand...
To this point, more than once I've seen management get upset over someone calling a TAF that reported worse than government and then crucify whoever called it in and demanded WSI be called to cancel it. Which until the first time I witnessed it, I never thought was a thing. When management can call or cancel a TAF based on their desires it turns into a losing battle for safety.
 
InspectorDX said:
To this point, more than once I've seen management get upset over someone calling a TAF that reported worse than government and then crucify whoever called it in and demanded WSI be called to cancel it. Which until the first time I witnessed it, I never thought was a thing. When management can call or cancel a TAF based on their desires it turns into a losing battle for safety.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I haven't seen them cancelled for bad outcome, but sure it could happen. The most common reason was it didn't auto populate and if it wasn't communicated well to all the other dispatchers with flights to or from that station, too many dispatchers missed that a WSI TAF existed and did not manually include it in the release which lead to ASAPs. So management would cancel the WSI TAFs that were no longer neccessary. I believe more modern flight planning systems are better able to automatically detect and include those TAFs in the packet.
 
Unfortunately, envoy (and others)
would rather launch it on time and divert even if it doesn’t make sense to launch vs delay or cancel. Gotta have that completion factor- and that completion doesn’t consider actually landing at the intended destination, just taking off from the origin. And then American wonders why they’re broke.
 
A TAF is a controlling document — but my decision doesn't rest on it alone, and it's not only about legality. Legal is the floor, not the ceiling. When I'm building a release, I'm asking three questions: is it safe, is it legal, and is it the right operational call. All three have to be yes. A flight can be perfectly legal to send and still not be the right decision. METAR trends, temp/dewpoint spread, PIREPs, model data, what I know about that station at that time of year — all of it goes into the picture. The TAF tells me what's forecast. Everything else tells me what's actually happening. When they disagree, I don't default to the TAF just because it controls. I look at why they disagree, and what that means for that specific flight. That's the judgment call. That's what the certification is for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top