121.601. Every dispatcher should know this one. It's day one class material. The problem is that you (the dispatcher) have been instructed that XYZ happens in the automation. Then you learn sometime later... well, no it doesn't. Or, you're never told

Believe it or not, no one told you dispatchers either. They have access to alternate weather sources. Again, the assumption was the crews have the same info. This change was due to an apparent problem LIDO has in ingesting the remarks. LIDO is based on ICAO rules, the rmk sections is non-ICAO standards. LIDO can't handle that without paying more.

Digital or via broadcast the ATIS are (or should be) the same information. Again, most ATIS broadcast drop the remarks. Why?? Ask your friendly FAA person.

UPS does not use LIDO charts. The LIDO flight planning software was certified by the FAA, or it would not be in use. Some one certified it, and Op SPEC approved it. PM me if you want an user opinion.

Again (and I didn't get to watch the entire webcast), form a dispatcher perspective, we assume (I hate that word) the crew can read and interpret a Jepp Chart and that they can also read an interpret the NOTAMS in the flight briefing packet. The NOTAMs provided to the crew indicated that RWY 6/24 would be closed at estimated arrival time. However, reading the CVR transcript, I get the impression that it was a surprise. I'm surprised how often I've gotten calls asking about a NOTAM after the flight has departed. And more than I want to say, the excuse is "Do you know how many pages this packet is?". Yes... I do. Because I've gone through (potentially) 25 flights worth of NOTAMS. And not laid out in the much neater format given to the crews. Ours are scattered, random, and duplicated (organizing them for the dispatchers would incur extra cost). Somewhere between 10 taxiway closure NOTAMS (which have been filtered out of the crew packet) is something really important (for example... AD closed. It has happened).

So, as a crew member, you see something that concerns you, call me. We'll talk through it and work out a plan. Otherwise, I have to work on the premise that you have read and understand the information provided and agree the flight can be operated safe and legally as planned. The dispatching to an airport with ceiling below DA is almost a daily occurrence. Hell, even dispatching to another airport when your "destination" is below mins is "normal" and accepted. For example, you want the plane n KSAN, but forecast is below mins, so you dispatch to KONT via a routing over KSAN.... in case the METAR is above mins. There have been ASAPs filed over this procedure, and the FAA essentially washed their hands of it and said if that's what you wanna do.. then OK.

In the end, from our perspective, the crews are expected to shoot an approach to mins (given they have required vis at the FAF) and break off if unable to see visual cues to continue. The culture of "get there-itus" is highly prevalent, on everyone's part. The company wants the boxes there. The crew wants to get where they want to be, and a diversion almost always means a duty day extension and the questioning. The dispatchers want everything to run smooth... diversion is extra workload and will lead to "why?"! Given the alternative of CFIT... I'll take a "why?" interrogation any day.

In this specific case, the airplane was tankered. The had fuel to hold for hours. Personally, I have delayed flights. If there's sufficient cause (airport closed or you need the ILS to have a chance or the tower opens later and we need CAT 2/3). I want to emphasize this... warranted delays are rarely questioned, and when they are it's an easy explanation and done. None, and I mean NONE, of your dispatchers have an issue taking the stand against business needs (thanks to the TWU).

For destination minima, the visibility is controlling. 10SM and VV001 is a legal CAT 1 approach for example. If you get to 200AGL and and can't see the appropriate visual cues, the expectation is to execute the missed approach. We work under the premiss that a missed approach is a standard maneuver that crews are trained and proficient at performing.

Again, the crew was informed via NOTAMs in the briefing package of the closure time for 6/24. If they were unclear of the closure times they should have called in before departure. As far as the FedEx crew, I do not know if they were 727 or 757 at that point. Also, I'm not aware if the FedEx crews are approved for RNAV(GPS) approached ( our 757's are not). Assuming FedEx used the same Jepps that indicated the LOC RWY 18 was NA for Night, I can see how they would not be able to take the LOC (or GPS) approach and would need to wait for 6/24 to open. I'm actually kind of curious to how they were dispatched to an airport (assuming they were non RNAV(GPS) capable) without an approach... hrrrm.

From my olden days as a Fedx ramp agent, I saw a lot of releases. And eventually, learned to read them. KBHM at one time was a FAA Special airport (for CFIT and terrain issues if I recall correctly) and was removed for the list. Prior to the removal from the FAA list, there was a note to crews to review the Jepp briefing pages. Since the removal, the note has been removed.

I did find the questioning ref the "risk management alert system" interesting. No air carrier I've worked for ha implemented a system like that. It was again, up to the dispatcher and captain. Both had to be in agreement. Personally, I have a "mom" scale.... would I be comfortable putting my mother on the flight as I have it planned. If the answer is no, the something must be changed. As a non-FedEx dispatcher, I have no idea what a note on a FedEx release means. A "moderate CFIT" means what?? Is there an "extreme CFIT"? Does that note require a special procedure as delineated in a manual?? Seems like a pointless question.

I completely concur with eye opening concept of the questioning. Possibly for different reasons than a pilot does. It's more a lesson in caution to your dispatchers, IMHO. Yes, we don't suffer the loss of life. But suddenly we are being questioned to the effect of "why did you kill your crew/passengers/people on the ground". It's very accusational (not a real word), IMHO

If given the same set of information, I can't say I would have done anything different from a dispatcher point of view. Was the flight released legally?? Yes. Was it released safely?? Yes.
i have never considered an approach to mins and the possible missed procedure to be an unsafe situation. That's my opinion.

I would also like to state, as above, I'm not trying to ruffle feathers or place blame. But there's a difference or perspective from where we are to where the crews are. That's why we get the opportunity to go fly and observe. Unfortunately, there is not a reciprocal requirement for pilots. I feel it would be beneficial for both groups. I have always looked on cockpit rides as a learning experience, whether required or just hitching a ride. Unfortunately, the rules we work under are written in blood, and I'm hopeful that positive change will come form this investigation. I know we have room for improvement in processes and equipment.

Amazing coincidence huh? It's actually added to the ACARS METARS. The ATIS comes from the airports (that have digital ATIS). I'll keep my opinions to myself on the issue except for this it was not well received and there's lots of space for us (the dispatch group) to be hanged.