kronan

But, you're okay with them riding in the back with said access?

TonyC

Let's eat Grandma!


Let's eat, Grandma!



The comma saves a life.

Let me back up a bit and put my posts in the context of The Company's recent announcement that "all [Company] employees who are required to maintain an FAA-license as a requirement of their employment with [The Company] will now be able to make reservations in cockpit jumpseats for domestic personal travel." The problem with this communication is not with on-duty mechanics, or with dispatchers completing operating familiarization rides required by 14 CFR §121.463. The problem is those same individuals being allowed on the flight deck for personal travel. Additionally, the request for Captains to advise them 12 hours in advance of the flight of their intentions to deny flight deck access is problematic.


There's a powerful 3-letter conjunction in 14 CFR § 121.547 (a)(3)(ii)(B):"... and whose duties are such ..."

Personal travel does not meet any of the "duties are such" descriptions in FAA Order 8900.1. That document uses the word "if", which is also powerfully important. When describing aircraft dispatchers, it says "if their presence on the flight deck is necessary to perform their duties ..." If the dispatcher is not performing a duty, i.e., personal travel to visit Aunt Suzie, his presence on the flight deck is not necessary, and he is therefore not permitted on the flight deck, at least by this subparagraph.


A dispatcher's presence on the flight deck is never necessary for me, or for the safe completion of a flight. As testament, I've completed thousands of flights without the presence of a dispatcher on the flight deck. In fact, I've completed thousands of flights under Part 121 without a dispatcher being involved in any capacity whatsoever.


14 CFR §121.463 Aircraft dispatcher requirements states that dispatchers have a requirement for "Operating familiarization consisting of ... observing operations ... from the flight deck ..." That's a requirement for the dispatcher, not the flight crew or the flight itself. An aircraft dispatcher can also sit in the back because his presence on the flight deck is not necessary for the safety of the flight. Sitting back there won't meet the §121.463 observation requirements, but it won't jeopardize the safety of the flight, either. If he's not conducting "operating familiarization", his presence on the flight deck is not necessary, and is therefore not authorized.

While "on-duty" is only used to refer to mechanics in the FAA Order 8900.1 table explaining 14 CFR § 121.547 (a)(3)(ii)(B), all of the persons permitted flight deck access under this category (subparagraph c) of the table) have similar restrictions imposed by the tiny but powerful word if. Their flight deck authorization is conditional on performing some function which is "necessary or advantageous for safe operation."

So, let's talk about dispatchers in CASS. The same table in FAA Order 8900.1 has a fourth subparagraph, d), which permits flight deck access to: In the "Security Information ID, Form, or Other" column, the FAA explains that Volume 3, Chapter 18, Section 3 of 8900.1 is where you'll find the standard template for OpSpec A048, FLIGHT DECK ACCESS AUTHORIZATION PROCEDURES which permits access to the flight deck using the Cockpit Access Security System (CASS) program. Individuals allowed under this category must comply with OpSpec A048 and The Company's § 121.133 manual. In our case, our FOM says, A dispatcher employed by another Certificate Holder does not require access to the flight deck since he cannot be performing a duty "such that admission to the flightdeck is necessary or advantageous for safe operation." Likewise, a dispatcher traveling for personal travel does not require access to the flight deck. Since it's not required, it's not authorized.







.

MacGuy2

So Tony, are you saying, on the 777, where ALL seats are considered cockpit seats, that as the PIC I can NOT legally allow a dispatcher or maintenance person to ride for PERSONAL travel?

MG2

TonyC

That's how I read it.

It would require, in addition to aproval from you and management, approval from the Administrator.






.

Deespatcher

I agree the 12 hour requirement is... well, ridiculous. 12 hours before your trip you should be chilling and resting. If on day off, there's no reason you should be at home checking who's booked jumpseats. As far as the statement ref "all employees... for domestic personal travel", is there an approval letter or language that applies to under 121.547(a)(4). Perhaps better wording to satisfy your needs would have been "The Director of Operations and Administrator has authorized all [Company] employees who are required to maintain an FAA-license as a requirement of their employment with [The Company] will now be able to occupy cockpit jumpseats for domestic personal travel." That seems like it would be a relatively easy statement/document for your company to produce.


Would you agree that a dispatcher must occupy a flight deck observation seat at some point in order to be current and qualified to perform their duties as a dispatcher for a 121 domestic/flag carrier? Thus they meet the "any person who .. is an employee of ... A part 119 certificate holder ... whose duties are such that admission to the flightdeck is necessary..." and also meets the "c) persons whose duty is directly related to the conduct or planning of flight operations or in-flight monitoring of aircraft equipment or operating procedures, if their presence on the flight deck is necessary to perform their duties...". It does not specify "on the specific flight he/she will occupy a flight deck seat".

There have been times when, as a dispatcher, I've also been "an employee of ... a part 119 certificate holder ... whose duties are such that admission to the flightdeck is ... advantageous for safe operation" . It does say advantageous, not required.

Would you also agree that a non-operating pilot (who at some point to maintain his position as a pilot must have flight deck access on another flight) is also not necessary for the for the safe completion of the flight? Thus "his presence on the flight deck is not necessary, and is therefore not authorized."?

I see a difference of interpretations. I'm reading this as you are specifying that for flight XYZ123 that he/she is not required to be on a flight deck. I'm interpreting that "their presence on the flight deck is necessary to perform their duties" as a dispatcher for a 121 flag/domestic carrier. I find no language in either 121.547 or 8900.1 that limits that to a specific flight. As mechanics do not, by FAR, require flight deck access to perform their duties, they do not fall under the same umbrella as the dispatchers. Hence the distinction for "on-duty mechanics."


I'm not familiar with your FOM. That limitation is obviously specific to your company and not (thankfully) common language industry wide.

My opinion/impression is that you feel only pilots should ever be allowed to use cockpit jumpseats for personal use and have interpreted regulations and FAA orders to support that conclusion. On the other hand, I read the language differently and see the regulations as allowing other certificated airmen the use of jumpseats for personal reasons. In all honesty, I'd prefer to never sit in the cockpit on a vacation trip, and instead chill in the back drinking adult beverages commuting to work. However, I don't have that option available on a discount basis. So i make use of the privileges granted to me by my air carrier, other air carriers, the FAA, and (most importantly) the captains operating the flight. I also recognize I can be denied jumpseat access for any reason el capitan wants, maybe he/she doesn't like my deodorant or my shirt or the color of my hair.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, and at least FedEx dispatchers (who i believe are now in CASS) will be welcome into other carriers' cockpits to go see Aunt Suzie.

TonyC

No specific authorization was cited. However, 14 CFR § 121.547 (a)(4) only applies to, as explained in FAA Order 8900.1 Vol 3, Chap 2, Sect 1, Para 3-41.C., Table 3-0, to "Any person who, in the judgment of the Administrator, has an operational need for a particular flight. This provision will be strictly and narrowly interpreted." Going to visit Aunt Suzie does not constitute "an operational need."



I would agree that an aircraft dispatcher must occupy a flight deck observer seat in order to fulfill the requirements of 14 CFR § 121.463. He needs "Operating familiarization" before he can serve as a dispatcher, and he needs 5 more hours every 12 calendar months. He can meet that requirement by occupying a flight deck observer seat, or from a forward passenger seat with headset or speaker. He can reduce the 5 hours to 2½ by substituting an additional takeoff and landing for an hour of flight (5 legs, ½ hour each). Or, he can observe 5 hours of simulator training.

The point is that he observes, and that observation is required for his job, not for the completion of the flight(s), or of the simulator session(s).

By your strained interpretation, you could never ride in the back of an airplane because your presence on the flight deck is always "necessary or advantageous for safe operation" of the flight. We know that is not the case.



According to the FAA interpretation of the paragraph, non-operating pilots are permitted without condition. (same FAA Order citation). Likewise, persons eligible to enter the flight deck using the CASS program are not subject to condition.





Ah, but they are under the same umbrella -- they're listed in the same paragraph in the 8900.1 table.It doesn't say "persons whose duty is directly related to the conduct or planning of flight operations or in-flight monitoring or operating procedures any time they're flying." They must have a purpose on the flight deck.




My feeling is completely irrelevant. I think I've made it clear that the law prevails, not what I'd like to do. I think it's silly that I can carry an animal handler on the flight deck but I can't carry a commuting mechanic. Despite that, the rule is the rule.



This has nothing to do with discount travel, or the lack thereof. I'm also puzzled by how you can read "on-duty mechanic" and "certificated dispatchers" under the same heading "to perform their duties" and believe the mechanic should perform his duty but you don't have to.

I'm subject to a ramp check when I land anywhere. If the FAA Inspector on that end of the leg reads his copy of 8900.1 the same way I read it, and the only way I believe it can be read without severe strain, I will encounter a problem if I am carrying a Company dispatcher who is not conducting an "Operating Familiarization" ride, but who is simply on his way to see Aunt Suzie.






.

CloudSailor

First off, I have to admit I haven't read all the detailed info on this thread. But the last few lines of your post surprised me because I NEVER remember any airline allowing off-line dispatchers or mechanics in their cockpits. The only time I remember having seen dispatchers/mechanics in THEIR own airline cockpit, is for training/proficiency/familiarization reasons.

Deespatcher

I've not aware of any airline allow OAL mechanics in cockpit jumpseats. However, as a dispatcher I have been in the cockpits of Southwest, United, Continental, Delta, and numerous regionals. UPS allows OAL dispatchers in the cockpit. Of course they have to be cleared through CASS and have appropriate reciprocals. Apparently FedEx is the exception. My three previous lives I've occupied cockpit seats for several vacations in addition the required observations. Granted, with passenger carriers it's a seat of last resort. We'd much prefer to sit in the back as a passrider and not in the front as an ACM. It's also not unusual for pilots be unaware OAL dispatchers are allowed in the cockpit jumpseat. I've loitered in jetways many times while captains ran through their FOMs and even called duty officers to confirm.


Again, we're reading the same words differently. I can only go by my interpretation and practices of multiple air carriers. I despise quoting 8900 because it's designed for ASI's to use. It's not regulatory for the carrier. But, and I hate throw logic at the FAA, does it seem seem strange the FAA allows for dispatchers to occupy cockpit jumpseats of other carriers for whatever reason they want to travel but prohibit them in their own company cockpits for the same purpose? (referencing reg's, not a specific company's manual).

Well, I'm off to see aunt Suzie...

TonyC

I believe you are confusing your flight deck access authorized by your job requirements and the flight deck access authorized by CASS.

If you are not a dispatcher for Southwest, United, Continental, Delta, UPS or one of those numerous regionals, how can your presence on their flight deck possibly be necessary or advantageous to safe operation? Do you get credit for 14 CFR § 121.463 "Operating familiarization" when you're in somebody else's cockpit? (It appears to me that you could, if it's in the same airplane group.) That regulation states that the requirement must be met in the same "airplane group", defined in § 121.400 as, roughly, props or jets. Assuming you dispatch jets, do you do observation rides on props and turboprops, too?

Or do you just ride to Aunt Suzie's?

If you're just riding, you're using CASS.








.

Deespatcher

BY reg you can do the observation ride in another carriers aircraft. By practice and approved training curriculum, you cannot.

OK..

FAR 121.547 (a)(3)(ii)(B)as performed by moi.

No person may admit any person to the flight deck of an aircraft unless the person being admitted is— Any person who— Is an employee of— A part 119 certificate holder and whose duties are such that admission to the flightdeck is necessary or advantageous for safe operation;

In other words:

No person may admit any person to the flight deck of an aircraft unless the person being admitted is— Any person who— Is an employee of— A part 119 certificate holder and whose duties are such that admission to the flightdeck is necessary

OR

No person may admit any person to the flight deck of an aircraft unless the person being admitted is— Any person who— Is an employee of— A part 119 certificate holder and whose duties are such that admission to the flightdeck is advantageous for safe operation

From 121.463 (c): No certificate holder conducting domestic or flag operations may use any person, nor may any person serve, as an aircraft dispatcher unless within the preceding 12 calendar months the aircraft dispatcher has satisfactorily completed operating familiarization consisting of at least 5 hours observing operations under this part, in one of the types of airplanes in each group to be dispatched. This observation shall be made from the flight deck or, for airplanes without an observer seat on the flight deck, from a forward passenger seat with headset or speaker.

Therefore, as agreed before, it is NECESSARY for the dispatcher of a 121 domestic or flag certificate holder to be admitted to the flight deck (unless there is no observer seat on said flight deck, in which case it doesn't matter because no one is sitting up there but the operating pilots). This interpretation dates back further than CASS or the initial writing of 8900.1.

There is a provision to use a simulator for operational familiarization. However, the good old 8900.1 vol 3, Chap 22, section 5 paragraph 3-1703(c) states: POIs will ensure, however, that approval is not given for operational familiarization repeatedly conducted in a simulator in lieu of actual line flights. POIs must not approve use of a simulator in lieu of actual flights in the initial new-hire or initial equipment categories of training.

In the previously mention 8900.1 table 3-0, the relevant section being referenced many times in the discussion already, the verbage for letter c:

Persons whose duty is directly related to the conduct or planning of flight operations or in-flight monitoring of aircraft equipment or operating procedures, if their presence on the flight deck is necessary to perform their duties and have been authorized in writing by a responsible supervisor listed in the operator’s manual as having that authority (i.e. certificated dispatchers, flight followers, simulator instructors, on-duty mechanics, and, for all-cargo operations, animal handler(s), hazardous material handler(s), those responsible for cargo security, cargo handler(s) necessary for the loading and unloading, or testing/evaluating, of cargo/cargo containers or loading equipment).

Again, as the stated above, it necessary for a dispatcher to be present on a flight deck to perform his duties as a aircraft dispatcher for a certificate holder. This verbiage, even opens up cockpit seats to 121 supplemental dispatcher/flight followers. He does not have to be present on EVERY flight. Nor does it indicate in the verbiage that to be a condition. Nor does this section direct why an off-duty pilot is eligible to be present on the flight deck (personal trip, company directed deadhead - which per FAR interpretation is neither duty nor rest, or going to aunt Suzie's). The verbiage only states that they are eligible to occupy the flight deck seat.

Mechanics, due to not have the FAR requirement to access to a flight deck at any point to perform their duties for a certificate holder, are not covered under the same umbrella as the dispatcher. Hence, there is the distinction for "on-duty" status.

I do dispatch jets, but have occupied the jumpseat of a turboprop before. I wasn't going to Aunt Suzie's that time, but it definitely wasn't for work.

Now, CASS:

Op Spec A048 authorizes participation the CASS program. A048 Paragraph a states:

A. The certificate holder is authorized to allow persons eligible under 14 CFR Section 121.547(a)(3) access to the flight deck using the Cockpit Access Security System (CASS) program and/or the Flight Standards Flight deck Access Restriction (FDAR) program in accordance with the limitations and provisions of this operations specification.

By granting dispatchers inclusion into the CASS program, the FAA re-affirms that they are covered by the provisions of 121.547 (a)(3). So, if off-duty crewmembers are covered by 121.547(a)(3) and not 121.547 (a)(1) as indicated by table 3-0, is it not reasonable to say the certificated dispatchers are bound by the same rules; On or off duty as no distinction is made anywhere in the verbiage?

That's my, and few others, interpretation. That being said, every cockpit ride I've ever had has been an educational experience in some way. So I suppose, going to see Aunt Suzie has been has been "work" whether it need be or not.

As far as mechanics riding, it is addressed in the FOM. We all seem to get along as a group of proud union brothers and sisters. Some of the crews are even nice enough to let management ride along, as allowed in the FOM... some times anyways. Anyway, this is my last input on this subject. You may interpret the verbiage differently.

Reminds me of a joke I heard in dispatch school:
How a pilot reads an FAR:
FAR 121.189 (a) No person operating a turbine engine powered airplane may take off...
Captain: "well that's all I need to read, we're not going anywhere until i get a clarification from the FAA!"