Dispatch IFR & English
Generally speaking, according to Regulation §121.613, no person may dispatch an aircraft for operations under IFR, unless appropriate weather reports or forecasts, or any combination thereof, indicate that the weather conditions will be at or above the authorized minimums at the estimated time of arrival at the airport or airports to which dispatched…
We recommend all airlines attempt to refine the use and application of this rule. What is “appropriate” and at what point of elapsed time does a weather product become “inappropriate.” The word “or” also seems to be synonymous with “and” – wrong. These are only a few of the examples we’ve noticed in our experience.
Can a flight be dispatched based on reported weather? Yes. Can a flight be dispatched based on forecast weather? Yes. Can a flight be dispatched based on a combination of reported and forecast weather? Yes. It depends on factors such as ETE (estimated time en route), is the reported weather a SPECI (special weather change) – should I now expect an amended TAF (forecast), reliability of weather, unpredictability of moving weather systems, planned or probable air traffic delays, can EWINS be used, among many other factors including history and post-briefings.
When I hear or read these universal generic all-encompassing statements such as “you must check and use all available weather and assume the absolute worst case scenario of every possible weather product…regardless of the element of time”, I cringe. Or “it’s impossible to dispatch without a TAF.” Seriously? I know one major airline where I once instructed, that did it for flights destined for the U.S. west coast during early morning hours. They used a specific procedure approved by the FAA, and it was completely logical and safe. I’ve seen some rule clarifications and “misinterpretations” that actually imply that old reported weather may be always binding regardless of it’s age! Which counters the other myth that a METAR is valid for 60 minutes! Really? Valid time is a forecast term. The pertinence of the METAR you read one minute slowly erodes with every breath you take. Why do you think the Europeans typically report every 30 minutes? Because it is smarter.
If this becomes some non-thinking game of find the lowest number on anything and use it, then let’s just program this mindset into a flight planning engine and just sit back and do nothing because we are no longer dispatchers exercising judgement based on knowledge, history, and experience. We are just unthinking beings.
I’ve heard this one: “A legal TAF at any destination doesn’t do a pilot much good when actually conducting the operation because it does not contain the necessary information that a pilot needs to land that aircraft. To land the aircraft a pilot needs a surface observation.”
With this logic, we can’t dispatch flights over 60 minutes in duration, assuming the mythical 60 minute valid time truly exists. The pilot really needs a verbal report from ATC prior to the final approach fix to land, during inclement weather requiring an instrument approach. More importantly, 121.613 is not titled “Landing IFR;” it is dispatch IFR – this is not a landing rule, it is a dispatch rule. Reducing the chances for diversions is obviously wise, but we don’t need to be paranoid about it.
Since the big fad for the past decade is to use terms such as “good resource management” and “safe decision-making” and “proper risk assessment” and using positive “human factors”, then I recommend that we all do so. Communication must be open between the FAA, the airlines, and the certification schools attempting to provide qualified Airline Dispatchers to the airlines.
The word “or” is not “and.” The phrase underlined at the top of this post is the offering of 3 options to use when deciding if a flight can be dispatched. They are all viable options that an intelligent and educated certificated dispatcher should be able to decide on, with adequate airline guidance. It just seems to be universally misunderstood, misapplied, “mis-interpreted” by it’s own authors, or ‘mis-enforced.’
Let’s try to get on the same page. But until the rules of English grammar change or the phraseology within this regulation and all others similar to it also change, then my opinion will not change. And if the FAA now wants 121.613 to ‘intend’ something different that it currently does, and wants to policy us all, which is legally trumped by regulation, my suggestion is to collaborate with the industry, propose rulemaking, listen and address public comments, edit and then change the regulation to match your current intent. The regulation is actually well-written as it is, allowing a knowledgable dispatcher to make the call.
Would I send a flight that is 15 minutes long on a bad report (below landing mins) – likely not, especially if it is a SPECI, that will likely result in an updated TAF soon. But it is LEGAL to do so (with a legal TAF) based on current regulatory wording and English grammar.
FAA responses countering this opinion mean little to me. They are about as valuable as statements coming from various FAA inspectors claiming – and these are true – that ‘ceilings are legally required for dispatch’ – wrong; BECMG is a conditional forecast term in the same vein as TEMPO and PROB – wrong, which now explains why the U.S. are too ignorant to fully understand an important gradual weather change term used worldwide except in the U.S.; and one of my favorites – that ‘when you divert to an alternate, you must file another alternate because you have a new destination’ – incredibly wrong.
I advise dispatcher to know their rules, know their grammar, understand that regulations are written in the permissive sense, and that operational control involves knowledgable decision-making. I advise airlines to welcome their inspectors and collaborate with them if they are supportive, but to vehemently defend their position if bullied. Just don’t buy into everything said or written until confirming it yourself. Still don’t believe me – Visit FAR Part 1 and read the ceiling definition. Is it correct? Think about it.
Good luck.
Eric Morris – President
Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)
Aircraft Dispatcher – Regulations & English Grammar
Dispatch IFR & English
Generally speaking, according to Regulation §121.613, no person may dispatch an aircraft for operations under IFR, unless appropriate weather reports or forecasts, or any combination thereof, indicate that the weather conditions will be at or above the authorized minimums at the estimated time of arrival at the airport or airports to which dispatched…
We recommend all airlines attempt to refine the use and application of this rule. What is “appropriate” and at what point of elapsed time does a weather product become “inappropriate.” The word “or” also seems to be synonymous with “and” – wrong. These are only a few of the examples we’ve noticed in our experience.
Can a flight be dispatched based on reported weather? Yes. Can a flight be dispatched based on forecast weather? Yes. Can a flight be dispatched based on a combination of reported and forecast weather? Yes. It depends on factors such as ETE (estimated time en route), is the reported weather a SPECI (special weather change) – should I now expect an amended TAF (forecast), reliability of weather, unpredictability of moving weather systems, planned or probable air traffic delays, can EWINS be used, among many other factors including history and post-briefings.
When I hear or read these universal generic all-encompassing statements such as “you must check and use all available weather and assume the absolute worst case scenario of every possible weather product…regardless of the element of time”, I cringe. Or “it’s impossible to dispatch without a TAF.” Seriously? I know one major airline where I once instructed, that did it for flights destined for the U.S. west coast during early morning hours. They used a specific procedure approved by the FAA, and it was completely logical and safe. I’ve seen some rule clarifications and “misinterpretations” that actually imply that old reported weather may be always binding regardless of it’s age! Which counters the other myth that a METAR is valid for 60 minutes! Really? Valid time is a forecast term. The pertinence of the METAR you read one minute slowly erodes with every breath you take. Why do you think the Europeans typically report every 30 minutes? Because it is smarter.
If this becomes some non-thinking game of find the lowest number on anything and use it, then let’s just program this mindset into a flight planning engine and just sit back and do nothing because we are no longer dispatchers exercising judgement based on knowledge, history, and experience. We are just unthinking beings.
I’ve heard this one: “A legal TAF at any destination doesn’t do a pilot much good when actually conducting the operation because it does not contain the necessary information that a pilot needs to land that aircraft. To land the aircraft a pilot needs a surface observation.”
With this logic, we can’t dispatch flights over 60 minutes in duration, assuming the mythical 60 minute valid time truly exists. The pilot really needs a verbal report from ATC prior to the final approach fix to land, during inclement weather requiring an instrument approach. More importantly, 121.613 is not titled “Landing IFR;” it is dispatch IFR – this is not a landing rule, it is a dispatch rule. Reducing the chances for diversions is obviously wise, but we don’t need to be paranoid about it.
Since the big fad for the past decade is to use terms such as “good resource management” and “safe decision-making” and “proper risk assessment” and using positive “human factors”, then I recommend that we all do so. Communication must be open between the FAA, the airlines, and the certification schools attempting to provide qualified Airline Dispatchers to the airlines.
The word “or” is not “and.” The phrase underlined at the top of this post is the offering of 3 options to use when deciding if a flight can be dispatched. They are all viable options that an intelligent and educated certificated dispatcher should be able to decide on, with adequate airline guidance. It just seems to be universally misunderstood, misapplied, “mis-interpreted” by it’s own authors, or ‘mis-enforced.’
Let’s try to get on the same page. But until the rules of English grammar change or the phraseology within this regulation and all others similar to it also change, then my opinion will not change. And if the FAA now wants 121.613 to ‘intend’ something different that it currently does, and wants to policy us all, which is legally trumped by regulation, my suggestion is to collaborate with the industry, propose rulemaking, listen and address public comments, edit and then change the regulation to match your current intent. The regulation is actually well-written as it is, allowing a knowledgable dispatcher to make the call.
Would I send a flight that is 15 minutes long on a bad report (below landing mins) – likely not, especially if it is a SPECI, that will likely result in an updated TAF soon. But it is LEGAL to do so (with a legal TAF) based on current regulatory wording and English grammar.
FAA responses countering this opinion mean little to me. They are about as valuable as statements coming from various FAA inspectors claiming – and these are true – that ‘ceilings are legally required for dispatch’ – wrong; BECMG is a conditional forecast term in the same vein as TEMPO and PROB – wrong, which now explains why the U.S. are too ignorant to fully understand an important gradual weather change term used worldwide except in the U.S.; and one of my favorites – that ‘when you divert to an alternate, you must file another alternate because you have a new destination’ – incredibly wrong.
I advise dispatcher to know their rules, know their grammar, understand that regulations are written in the permissive sense, and that operational control involves knowledgable decision-making. I advise airlines to welcome their inspectors and collaborate with them if they are supportive, but to vehemently defend their position if bullied. Just don’t buy into everything said or written until confirming it yourself. Still don’t believe me – Visit FAR Part 1 and read the ceiling definition. Is it correct? Think about it.
Good luck.
Eric Morris – President
Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)