Airline Pilot Central Forums

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deespatcher (Post 1429207)

It looks to me after a skimming that some (not all by any means) seem discount the GOC Specialists' (with their required dispatch licenses) efforts to keep their flight operating safe and legal.

...

That statement irks me for its arrogance and for discounting the efforts of those who's sole job is to keep you from doing something stupid.

I'm sorry if stating facts irks you. I have done nothing to disparage or discount the efforts of the GOC specialists. I have only tried to nail down specific terminology that you seem to want to ignore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deespatcher (Post 1429207)

Even under supplemental rules, where the DO delegated the authority of operational control, the FDX GOC Specialists ive known over the years readily took on the responsibility aspect, though not legally required. I also know from personal experiences with a supplemental carrier that even though the DO is "responsible" the friendly folks at the FAA will also come after the dispatchers and take certificate action if they find it warranted. So TonyC's earlier statement that "I've completed thousands of flights under Part 121 without a dispatcher being involved in any capacity whatsoever" while is technically true since FDX employs "GOC Specialists" and not "dispatchers", I find it hard to believe that he showed up, worked up a flight plan with accurate fuel burns, taking into account winds and ISA deviations, checked for ATC holding and reroutes, ensured all applicable overfly permits are obtained and valid, checked all notams for destination, alternate, origin, and enroute areas or operations, and signets for various atmospheric phenomena, and then hand filed it with the ATS as applicable.

Again, I have never discounted what they did, nor have I claimed to have done any of that. But for all they did, there's still one thing they DID NOT DO: They did not DISPATCH.

Certainly a dispatcher would understand that word.

And why does this matter? It matters because, contrary to your claim, the possession of a FAA Aircraft Dispatcher Certificate does not grant one carte blanc access to the flight deck. That access is granted pursuant to an AIRCRAFT DISPATCHER conducting mandatory "operating familiarization."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deespatcher (Post 1429207)

FYI, did you know Delta doesn't employ a single dispatcher... But a boatload of Flight Superintendents. The name isn't important, but the function is.

So, I guess they don't have FAA Aircraft Dispatcher certificates, huh? :rolleyes:

I'm so irked by the arrogance of that statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deespatcher (Post 1429207)

So, hypothetically speaking, if a GOC Specialist is covered by the CASS program, can they use their CASS status to book a jumpseat on the flight deck of a FDX aircraft for personal use?

I don't know what or how they book. I don't even know if they are part of CASS.

Regardless, CASS is for off-duty travel -- not "personal use."

Off-line dispatchers in CASS are not permitted by my operator on the flight deck. They are welcome aft of the Intrusion Resistant Cockpit Door, if there is one and it operates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deespatcher (Post 1429207)

I didn't assume, I extrapolated. But just so I'm clear, you're saying that an off-duty dispatcher is covered by 121.547 (a)(3) in one regulatory document but not in another?

When you assume the result of extrapolation is just as valid as that which is explicitly delineated, you still assume. We're talking about the Code of Federal Regulations, not linear equations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deespatcher (Post 1429207)

Out of curiosity, have you spoken to an ASI or are you assuming that's their interpretation? ;)

I'm not assuming -- I'm reading directly from FSIMS, and I've included hyperlinks to the documents so you can read them yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deespatcher (Post 1429207)

As far as your mechanics are concerned, by issuing in writing that mechanics are allowed in company cockpits, FDX management has given blessing. I can't imagine that it wasn't run by the POI and the legal types, so the administrator has blessed it.

You can't imagine, huh? Well, I can. There you go assuming, again, that since FedEx management has said it, it must be so.

Well, that was the whole problem that led to the request to the FAA 13 years ago to clarify the regulations as they pertain to the administration of the FedEx Employee Jumpseat Program at FedEx. The Fedex Pilots Association asserted that the administration of the program chilled the PIC's authority. The FAA reviewed the regulations and the program, and they agreed.

Let me dig out another excerpt from that FAA Legal Counsel Interpretation.

FedEx asserts that an interpretation issued in 1975 by FAA attorney Dewey R. Roark, Jr. provides the FAA’s “blessing” on FedEx’s jumpseat program. This program, as described by FedEx, essentially consists of three different phases in terms of jumpseat assignment. First, the certificate holder, through Jumpseat Administration, assigns individuals riding on a cargo aircraft to one of the available seats, thereby making the first decision as to who should ride in a flight deck jumpseat. FedEx asserts that this is an exercise of the certificate holder’s right under section 121.583(a). Second, according to FedEx, the PIC, via section 121.583(e), then has the authority to deny admittance to someone previously assigned to the flight deck. That authority, according to FedEx’s response, must be exercised for “legitimate, reasonable, non-arbitrary and safety-related reasons.” Finally, FedEx becomes the final determiner as to whether the PIC appropriately exercised his authority under 121.583(e) because FedEx states that if the “PIC abuses his authority and discretion, he may be subject to disciplinary actions, but his authority is not contested.”

Under the system outlined by FedEx, the PIC becomes the middleman who must second-guess his employer’s decision in the first instance and then potentially face disciplinary action by that same employer if it disagrees with his decision. This goes beyond the program described in Mr. Roark’s letter.

Mr. Roark, in his letter, specifically stated the following in regard to FedEx’s request for opinion:

(1) FEC [Federal Express Corporation] in its operations manual, may authorize any or all of the persons specified in section 121.583(a)(1)-(8) to be carried on board its all-cargo airplanes, including a person necessary from the safe handling of radioactive materials, if that person has been designated by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission or the U.S. Department of Defense for the purpose of national security;

(2) FEC, in its operations manual, may specify which, if any of the persons designated in section 121.583(a)(1)-(8) may be admitted to the crew compartment;

(3) The pilot-in-command, at his discretion, may grant or deny access to the crew compartment during flight to any person authorized to enter that area under paragraph (2) above; and

(4) FEC may not authorize admission to the crew compartment to persons other than those specified in section 121.583(a)(1)-(8) unless it complies with 121.547 and the other passenger-carrying rules of part 121, including those set forth in section 121.583(a).

The above summary of FedEx’s line of authority envisions the line of authority ending with the PIC. There is no paragraph in Mr. Roark’s letter that gives the FAA’s blessing to FedEx challenging the decisions of the PIC to deny admittance to the flight deck in a situation involving Sections 121.547(a)(3) or section 121.547(a)(4). In fact, paragraph (3) above recognizes the pilot’s “discretion” in granting or denying access to the crew compartment during flight to anyone listed in Section 121.583(a)(1)-(8). There is no regulatory limitation on this PIC discretion, although Mr. Roark states that there could arise a conflict between the certificate holder and the PIC.

In the 25 years since that letter was issued, there has been no regulatory amendment regarding the PIC’s authority and responsibility to grant or deny permission to someone seeking to be admitted to the flight deck under Sections 121.547(a)(3) or 121.547(a)(4). Thus, the regulatory scope of the PIC’s authority -- in situations governed by Sections 121.547(a)(3) and 121.547(a)(4) -- is unlimited since he is the person on the scene who is responsible for the safety of the passengers, crew, cargo and aircraft during flight. In a situation involving Sections 121.547(a)(3) or 121.547(a)(4), the Federal Aviation Regulations contain no language for someone -- not even an FAA official - to second guess the PIC’s decision to deny permission to someone seeking admission to the flight deck under Section 121.547(a)(3) or Section 121.547(a)(4). PICs can be held accountable if something in their control on the flight deck causes a violation of the safety rules. A PIC might make the judgement that something in particular about a person seeking to enter the flight deck under paragraphs (a)(3) or (a)(4) of Section 121.547 might distract the flight crew. That assessment by the PIC to deny permission to admit someone to the flight deck in a situation under Section 121.547(a)(3) or Section 121.547(a)(4) cannot be second-guessed. Even if the potential jumpseat rider is assessed as probably being a quiet-noninterferring jumpseat rider, the PIC might, for example, decide not to admit that person to the flight deck because the next flight segment will involve traveling through or around rough weather. On such a flight segment the PIC may decide to eliminate the possibility of the jumpseat rider being startled by a weather event and thereby distracting the flight crew. Perhaps the PIC decides that because the expected operational complexities of the flight will require the flight crewmembers to redouble their efforts to remain attentive to their duties, he does not want to risk the crew being distracted by a jumpseat rider on that flight. Some operational complexities that a PIC might consider, include expected ATC holds due to radar outages, expected weather delays, expected rerouting for the dispatch conditions, and known demands with management of conditions associated with dispatching a flight under the MEL. Even the condition of the flight crew itself might be a factor the PIC considers in deciding whether to grant permission to someone to enter the flight deck. In any event, whatever stated or unstated reason the PIC uses in deciding not to give his or her permission, the regulations condition the admission of a person to the flight deck -- in a Section 121.547(a)(3) situation or a Section 121.547(a)(4) situation -- upon the PIC’s permission. Conduct by anyone that chills a PIC’s ability to deny permission for flight deck admission in Section 121.547(a)(3) or (a)(4) situations, including post flight disciplinary proceedings concerning a decision to deny permission, interferes with the PIC’s duties and responsibilities under the safety regulations. Such conduct can result in the issuance of an FAA Cease and Desist Order or other FAA Order. See, 14 C.F.R. Section 13.20.

Recently the FAA reemphasized the critical nature of the flight deck environment, in part, in response to FedEx’s litigation with some of its dispatchers who have certain physical handicaps or impairments. FedEx had excluded some of its dispatchers, who had certain physical handicaps, from riding on the jumpseat on the flight decks of FedEx aircraft because of safety-of-flight concerns the carrier had about such people. In fact, FedEx asked the FAA to declare flight deck jumpseats to be “exit row seats” which would have had the effect of barring the hearing-impaired dispatchers and others from the flight deck due to exit-row-seat requirements related to the physical, mental and language abilities of occupants of those seats. The FAA declined to find that those flight deck jumpseats were exit row seats. That finding was made, in part, because the exit-row-seat standards, though demanding, were not as demanding as the Section 121.547(a) rules that apply to admission to the flight deck. Thus, even if a person would be eligible to sit in an exit-row-seat, that did not necessarily mean that he had a right to ride on the jumpseat on the flight deck. That decision recognized the importance of the flight deck as the nerve center for safe flight operations. Even if an air carrier authorizes its nonflight crewmember employees to ride on flight deck jumpseats in order for the carrier to save business travel expenses or in order to give the carrier’s employees a travel benefit, the flight deck is the nerve center of the flight and the PIC has the unfettered authority to deny permission for someone seeking to enter the flight deck under Section 121.547(a)(3) situations or Section 121.547(a)(4) situations. In such a situation, if there is a seat aft of the flight deck, the person who is denied admission to the flight deck can occupy a seat aft of the flight deck (separated by a bulkhead door or a flight crew compartment door). If the seat aft of the flight deck is an “exit row seat,” then the person must meet the exit row seat standards. See Section 121.585.

Nothing in this interpretation prevents an air carrier from classifying certain groups of employees as potential flight deck jumpseat riders. But in situations in which one of those employees is seeking to be admitted to the flight deck under either Section 121.547(a)(3) or Section 121.547(a)(4), that person can only be admitted if the PIC grants permission. The FAA disagrees with FedEx’s assertion that a PIC’s authority is not contested when, subsequent to the flight, the air carrier disciplines the PIC for deciding not to give permission for someone to enter the flight deck. The discipline hearing itself contests the authority of the PIC in situations governed by Section 121.547(a)(3) and Section 121.547(a)(4).

When you assume that it must be OK since FedEx says it is, you take a dangerous leap of faith.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deespatcher (Post 1429207)

The one person left to allow a mechanic to ride a flight deck seat is the PIC. So the PIC is the third leg in the tripod of those required to give blessing per 121.547(a)(4). I can imagine that FDX might go it of its way to **** off the pilot group, but not to adjutate the FAA. Seems like it's working. As mentioned earlier, however out of context it may have been, FDX doesnt have the best record in the industry. I'd hate to think your management would dumb enough invite more scrutiny by issuing bulletins that are blatantly illegal.

And there's the safety record again. :rolleyes:

Maybe we should discuss the mechanical failures which preceded some of the hull losses. No, that wouldn't be productive. It really doesn't matter if a CADC failed or the reversers were deferred, it's still the pilot's responsibility.

Management dumb enough?

Sorry, that's too easy. Even smart people do dumb things.

I'm curious ... do you get paid when you're performing your § 121.463 Operating familiarization rides, or do you have to do them on your personal time?

.