V.F. Dispatch System
Parts 121 and 135 require certificate holders to exercise
operational control over all flights conducted by the certificate
holder. "Operational control" is defined in 14 CFR part 1 as "The
exercise of authority over initiating, conducting and terminating a
flight." Operational control consists of making decisions and
performing activities on an ongoing basis that are necessary to
operate specific flights safely. These activities include among other
things crew and airplane scheduling, reviewing weather and NOTAM's
(Notices to Airmen), and flight planning.
Parts 121 and 135 provide for three general types of operational
control systems based on the kinds of operations and the complexity of
operations: aircraft dispatch, flight following, and flight locating
systems. Part 121 domestic and flag operations require a dispatch
system, part 121 supplemental requires a flight following system, and
part 135 requires a flight locating system for any flight for which a
flight plan is not filed. In Notice 95-5, the FAA proposed that the
affected commuters would be required to have a dispatch system.
Affected commuters would have to meet all part 121 dispatch
requirements, including dispatcher qualification requirements,
recordkeeping, and flight release requirements. As proposed, affected
commuters that would conduct some nonscheduled flights under part 121
supplemental rules could use a flight following method for the
nonscheduled flights.
The FAA also stated in Notice 95-5 that Alaskan operations pose
certain unique problems and requested comments on alternatives that
could be considered for Alaska.
Comments: Two individuals suggest that the use of a dispatcher
and dispatch system be an option for 10- to 19-seat certificate
holders, recommending compliance with existing subpart F of part 121.
Both commenters believe that the FAA should seriously consider
permitting, at least on an interim 36- month basis, compliance with
subpart F flight following requirements in lieu of subpart E dispatch
requirements for transition carriers. This will, in their opinions,
gain the early momentum of the industry by making it possible for many
certificate holders to transition early. A long lead time is
necessary to qualify existing personnel as dispatchers under existing
part 65. The commenters remind the agency that during the early
1980's, by the FAA's own rules, 20- to 30-seat aircraft were subject
to part 121 supplemental rules, including the flight following
requirements of subpart F. One of these individuals also states that
interim compliance with subpart F flight following requirements would
ease the transition to subpart E dispatch requirements for affected
certificate holders.
NATA comments that the FAA lacks understanding on the types of
operations 10- to 19-seat certificate holders typically fly and
recommends a flight following system instead of a dispatch system.
NATA states that many small, independent carriers operating aircraft
with 10 to 19 seats may have only 2 to 4 of these types of airplanes
and may operate them over only a few selected routes. According to
NATA, many of these carriers conduct on-demand operations in addition
to their scheduled activity. NATA believes, along with several other
commenters, that for operations such as these, to implement a full
dispatch system will result in significant cost with little or no
benefit.
RAA and other commenters suggest that the FAA identify specific
safety objectives in requiring a dispatch system for short-haul
certificate holders.
One commenter believes that a formal dispatch system for all
scheduled air carriers should be required, but points out both the
pros and cons of requiring such a system. This commenter, as well as
others, states that pilots may be shouldering many additional
responsibilities other than flying the aircraft in an effort to
minimize the cost of flight operations. Due to the task saturation of
pilots and other crewmembers, functions involving flight planning,
weather analysis, and weight and balance calculations may not be
thoroughly performed. According to the commenter, the majority of
commuter pilots are, as a rule, very young and inexperienced. These
crews must continually perform at peak levels of performance both on
the ground and in the air.
According to this commenter, as well as others, the use of the
flight dispatcher would increase safety, operational efficiency, and
productivity. The duties of filing the flight plans, checking NOTAMs,
planning fuel requirements dictated by weather, and obtaining ATC
routing would be completed by the dispatcher prior to the crew
arriving for the flight. Optimum routes based on known ATC or weather
delays would be filed, resulting in substantial fuel savings and
improved arrival and departure reliability. The pilots would now be
able to concentrate on flying and be able to relax and rest between
flights. Flight could be more effectively managed, thus saving fuel,
maximizing aircraft utilization, and passenger satisfaction.
On the other hand, according to the commenter, mandating the
dispatch system for part 135 air carriers may create some heavy
financial burdens. It will require a facility, communications
hardware for the facility and the aircraft, trained personnel, and
training for dispatchers. The initial capital outlay would not be
recovered for several years. According to the commenter, this mandate
will place severe constraints on many less established carriers and
may actually result in bankruptcy for some.
Many commenters are in favor of the role of the aircraft
dispatcher in operational control issues. One commenter states that
the requirement for a formal dispatch system is long overdue.
One commenter believes that dispatch centers might create a sense
of complacency on the part of the flightcrew and, along with other
commenters, thinks that automated flight planning and flight following
information should be used in lieu of dispatchers and dispatch
centers. Two of the commenters advocating automated flight following
systems state that the three accidents cited by the FAA in Notice 95-5
would not have been prevented by the use of a dispatcher. One
commenter states that in his experience PIC's typically check
dispatcher computations but do not duplicate the computations as the
FAA stated in Notice 95-5.
The NTSB states that in its 1994 study report, it examined the
differences in flight dispatch requirements between parts 121 and 135.
The NTSB found that, in the absence of support from licensed dispatch
personnel, pressures on commuter airline pilots to accomplish several
tasks between flights in shorter periods of time might increase the
risk of critical mistakes that could jeopardize the safety of flight.
As a result, the NTSB recommended that the FAA require each principal
operations inspector (POI) to periodically review air carrier flight
operations policies and practices concerning pilot tasks performed
between flights. This review was to ensure that carriers provide
pilots with adequate resources (such as time and personnel) to
accomplish those tasks. According to NTSB, the proposed rulemaking,
if implemented, would meet the intent of the safety recommendation
(A-94-193).
ASA, RAA, and Gulfstream International Airlines support many of
the elements of the dispatcher rule. They state that flight dispatch
systems that are required under part 121 are extensive since they
address the dispatch and en route communications needs for a span of
air carriers from international airlines with worldwide flight
operations to the largest U.S. regional carriers. ASA supports the
requirement for licensed dispatchers, believing that the most
qualified candidates for licensing as dispatchers are the individuals
currently employed as flight followers. These commenters request that
the criteria in § 65.57 be examined to provide guidance for granting a
dispatcher certificate based on practical experience as a flight
follower under part 135 operations. According to the commenters, many
flight followers have passed the written portion of the dispatch
license but have not attended formal dispatch school and do not hold
licenses. However, they may have extensive practical experience in
scheduled air carrier operations performing what is essentially a
dispatcher function. According to these commenters, the criteria
contained in § 65.57 includes experience in scheduled military
operations. The commenters believe that if military experience is
applicable, the experience of a flight follower with a scheduled
airline should qualify. These commenters also point out that the
practical portion of the dispatcher license is administered using a
Boeing 727 aircraft. The commenters believe that while many of the
functions and decision making circumstances would be the same, the
experience of part 135 flight followers, managing flights of high
performance turbopropeller-powered aircraft is a considerably more
significant and practical measure of their capabilities than military
experience or demonstrating their skills in managing a turbojet
operation. The commenters believe that the cost and time to send
current flight followers to a formal dispatcher school is not
justified.
Samoa Air comments that since its longest flight is only 70 miles
(35 minutes), a dispatch system would not enhance or change any of its
current requirements. Samoa has established VFR and IFR fuel
requirements to all of its destinations and the requirements do not
change. The only alternate airport is the destination airport. Samoa
also states that § 121.101 requires each domestic and flag operator to
show that enough weather reporting facilities are available along each
route to ensure weather reports and forecasts necessary for
operations. Section 135.213 allows the pilot in command to use
various other sources, including his own weather assessment, for VFR
operations. Of the four airports Samoa serves, only one (departure
airport) is in controlled airspace with weather reporting facilities
and instrument approach procedures. Enroute and terminal weather
conditions are received through the ATC tower from their weather
station. VHF communications with the tower cover almost the entire
route, so the aircraft has ready access to any weather information
available and direct information on the status of communications,
navigation, and airport facilities. A dispatcher would not enhance
safety but would add significant cost. If Samoa is required to
provide weather conditions at each airport to the pilot from an
approved source and the pilot can not assess the weather himself, the
rule change could eliminate all of Samoa's present operations.
Similarly, Inter Island and Air Vegas comment that the
requirement for enroute weather reporting is unfeasible because of
minimal weather reporting facilities in the certificate holders'
regions. Air Vegas also comments that radio communication in
mountainous terrain would be difficult if not impossible with VHF
radio systems because mountains block radio transmission.
Air Vegas comments that all "dispatcher duties" are currently
being accomplished by personnel in the operations department, station
managers, and company pilots. All flight following is being done by
telephone. The commenter states that current flight following
procedures meet part 135 requirements and are operationally safe and
efficient.
Mesa Airlines comments that due to its short flight segments and
the lack of significant weather changes in the areas in which it
operates, a dispatch system is not needed. Mesa believes that all
enroute communications can be accomplished by ATC.
AACA states that the requirements of subpart E come at a time
when the availability of weather information in Alaska has been
identified as a significant issue adversely affecting aviation
activities (proceedings of an NTSB "Aviation Safety in Alaska" forum,
May 1995).
The Airline Dispatchers Federation supports the dispatch proposal
and agrees with the upgrading of current commuter facilities to
dispatch centers. It believes this upgrading is necessary because of
the extensive use of code-sharing by the aviation industry. The
commenter is not in favor of amending part 121 dispatch rules for
certificate holders of the 10- to 19- seat category. The commenter
provides its estimate of costs to certificate holders that could be
affected by the implementation of this rule. The commenter notes that
the costs provided by some certificate holders may not be accurate.
For example, cost estimates concerning flight planning and performance
issues are inaccurate since several airlines use bulk stored flight
plans and performance information taken directly from aircraft flight
manuals for fuel planning. The commenter also provides its assessment
of various aircraft accidents for which it believes dispatchers could
have made a difference in changing events that led to the accident
(crew fatigue, lack of management oversight, operational control
issues, late arriving weather information).
ALPA comments that dispatchers should be required to complete
their 5-hour inflight operating experience in 10- to 30- seat
aircraft, not in larger 60-seat aircraft, as currently allowed. ALPA
proposes that § 121.400(b) be amended by adding a group specific to
propeller-driven aircraft with a seating capacity between 10-30 seats.
AACA comments that due to the operating environment of Alaska,
the pilot and not the dispatcher is in a better position to access and
evaluate operational control information. The commenter believes that
scheduled operations in Alaska more closely resemble the operations
conducted under supplemental rules and not domestic or flag
operations. The commenter notes that pilots frequently are not in
radio communication with company offices directly, but could
communicate via Flight Service Station, ATC, or other aircraft.
According to the commenter, enroute and destination weather conditions
are either not accessible or not available at any time from "official"
sources. The commenter notes that three affected certificate holders
in Alaska presently have a part 121 type dispatch system in place.
AACA further states that the assumption that estimated fuel savings by
dispatchers would offset the cost of establishing a dispatch system is
not true. AACA recommends that the FAA adopt the flight following
supplemental rules of part 121 for Alaskan 10-19 seat certificate
holders. AACA also recommends that current part 135 personnel be
"grandfathered" for dispatcher certificates if they have been employed
as flight followers. The commenter notes that the practical
experience dealing with turboprop aircraft and flight planning may be
lost to the industry if flight followers are required to take
extensive dispatcher training courses, pass a written and practical
test, and lose time and money on the job while they obtain an FAA
dispatcher certificate.
FAA Response: The FAA anticipates that requiring operators to
have a certificated dispatcher double check the work of the pilot and
provide the flightcrew with updates on weather and alternate airports
can reduce human factor errors. With a dispatcher system, the chances
of pilot miscalculations or oversights could be reduced. Moreover, a
dispatcher can assist the flightcrew in making plans for an alternate
airport (which might be necessary due to weather problems, air traffic
control problems, airplane equipment problems, fuel problems, etc...)
during the flight while the crew focuses on flying the airplane.
The FAA disagrees with the recommendation to make the use of a
dispatcher and dispatch system optional since that would not address
the safety issues involved. The FAA also disagrees that a flight
following system is an acceptable alternative to a dispatch system or
that dispatch systems are not needed for limited flight distances if
there is adequate weather reporting facilities. The use of a dispatch
system is based on the type of operation (scheduled), and not the
distance of a flight, the number of aircraft, or the type of aircraft
being flown. Flight following systems are used for nonscheduled
operations, and could be used for nonscheduled operations by affected
commuters under the supplemental rules of part 121. Note: The
dispatch system requirements apply only to scheduled passenger-
carrying operations.
The FAA disagrees with the basic idea that the decision making
process of operational control of aircraft can be made by automated
means. While automation has improved the accuracy and timeliness of
flight planning, weather information, and NOTAMs, nothing so far has
replaced the decision making capabilities of a certificated
dispatcher. Dispatchers receive training in subject matter beyond
just flight planning, e.g. crew resource management, hazardous
materials regulations. These subjects are just a small representation
of the subject matter an aircraft dispatcher must know in order to
make operational control decisions.
The FAA agrees with the comment that dispatchers are usually in a
better position to review weather reports and forecasts than pilots
hurrying to accomplish other postflight/preflight aircraft duties.
Operational control issues are enhanced when both the pilot in command
and the aircraft dispatcher are jointly responsible for the safe
conduct of a flight. As several commenters point out the overall
level of safety is enhanced when a dispatcher is available to assist
and back up the pilots who already may have numerous responsibilities
in addition to flying the airplane. Thus, while it may not be
possible to pinpoint accidents that have actually been prevented by a
dispatch system, there can be little doubt that the existence of a
dispatch system contributes to the overall high level of safety of
scheduled operations under part 121.
The FAA does not agree that use of dispatchers would lead to
complacency on the part of the flight crewmembers. Section 121.663
states that for each domestic and flag operation, a dispatch release
must be prepared based on information furnished by an authorized
dispatcher. The pilot in command and an authorized dispatcher shall
sign the release only if they both believe that the flight can be made
safely. Dispatchers provide the necessary resources and expertise
needed to review operational control issues.
In response to comments that in some companies "dispatch"
functions are being adequately performed by individuals from three
separate departments (operations, station managers, and company
pilots), the FAA finds that operational control decisions can not be
effectively made by three separate groups of individuals. The
perception is that "whoever is available" makes the decision. For
effective operational control, the dispatch process should be
standardized and consistent.
In response to NATA's and others' comments on the nature of 10-
to 19-seat certificate holders, the FAA finds that these certificate
holders are not unique. The same situation currently exists for some
part 121 certificate holders who are required to maintain dispatch
systems.
In response to comments on the issue of limited areas of
operation and short flight duration, the requirement for a dispatch
facility is not based on distances, the type of aircraft, or weather
patterns alone. It is the type of operation (scheduled) an air
carrier is currently operating under that determines if dispatch
systems are required. The role of the aircraft dispatcher in the
operational control of aircraft provides an enhancement to safety that
has clearly been established through years of operations by many air
carriers in both domestic and flag operations. Continuous
communications could be accomplished with HF radios or through
satellite communications, both of which can be provided through
vendors.
The FAA agrees with commenters that for some part 135 certificate
holders, personnel will first have to acquire the necessary
certificate and then complete required air carrier training
requirements for dispatchers. The average dispatcher school
curriculum lasts 5 weeks and usually includes instruction on both the
written and practical tests. The FAA believes that some part 135
personnel already possess aircraft dispatcher certificates and that
these personnel would be required to attend only the air carrier's
dispatcher training program. Regardless, once an air carrier employs
a certificated dispatcher, company training would have to be
completed. That training would entail 40 hours of basic
indoctrination, differences training, initial ground/transition of 30-
40 hours (based on the type of aircraft), and a competency check (see
§ 121.422).
While the FAA does not agree with AACA's recommendation to
"grandfather" dispatcher certificates to current flight followers or
flight locating personnel, § 65.57 outlines a means of providing
credit for previous experience in order to take the practical test.
All dispatcher applicants must complete the appropriate written and
practical tests before a certificate can be issued. The FAA agrees
that training costs will be incurred to prepare current flight
following or flight locating personnel to qualify for a dispatcher
certificate, regardless of who pays for the training. Replacement
personnel will be needed if the decision by the certificate holder is
to send current employees to dispatcher training.
There is no requirement for dispatchers to attend a formal
school. Section 65.57, entitled experience requirements, allows
several options in lieu of a formal school.
In response to specific requests to expand the criteria in
§ 65.57 (aircraft dispatcher experience requirements) to include
personnel assigned to flight locating and flight following under part
135, the FAA believes that some part 135 experience is acceptable as
equivalent experience in § 65.57. Through current policy and guidance
provided to FAA inspectors, a review on a case-by-case could be
accomplished to ascertain if an applicant has equivalent experience.
In response to comments on the current format of the dispatcher
practical exam, § 65.59 requires an applicant for an aircraft
dispatcher certificate to pass a practical test with respect to any
one type of large aircraft used in air carrier operations. Further,
current practical test standards require dispatcher applicants to
exhibit adequate knowledge of applicable aircraft flight instruments
and operating systems. The scope of the practical test allows for
turboprop aircraft and representative commuter operations. Practical
tests are developed by the inspector conducting the test and can be
designed for any type of large aircraft, including turboprop
airplanes.
There is only one dispatcher written examination, the Airline
Transport Pilot question book. The selection sheet has questions
applicable only to dispatchers and not based on any particular make
and model of aircraft. The FAA is considering developing written
tests geared to commuter-type operations. However, the current
written exam is valid in that it tests for areas common to all make
and models of aircraft. The test requires knowledge of various
subject areas, i.e. the ability to interpret weather information,
interpret regulations, handle emergencies, compute weight and balance,
etc.
The FAA disagrees with the ALPA recommendation to require
dispatchers to receive 5 hours of operating experience in aircraft
they will actually dispatch. Section 121.463(c) requires the
dispatcher to satisfactorily complete at least 5 hours of operating
familiarization in one of the types of airplanes in each group he is
to dispatch. Section 121.400(b) includes all sizes of propeller-
driven aircraft under group 1. Therefore, the FAA allows dispatchers
to complete the operating familiarization in airplanes that are not
exactly the same size or configuration as the ones they will
dispatch.