FDX Jumpseats
06-13-2013, 10:16 PM
#91
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2013
Posts: 57
A common freight dog phrase would be "I'm going commercial" as opposed to "I'm jump seating." Sorry, for having to explain it to my Aviator brother. BTW, I've been an Airman since 1976.
Last edited by FlyerOnWall; 06-13-2013 at 10:44 PM.
06-13-2013, 10:23 PM
#92
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2013
Posts: 57
Has anyone on here stated that they feel threatened by having a mechanic on board? No one is afraid of the mechanics! What they are afraid of is the company's latest interpretation of the rules and when the FAA decides the company made a mistake - how that may effect their career!
Uhh - Are you saying we have a monopoly on arrogance
Uhh - Are you saying we have a monopoly on arrogance
Nope, didn't even say all of you are arrogant.
06-14-2013, 08:04 AM
#96
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
And your buddy thought that was for his/her benefit. Interesting.
06-14-2013, 08:43 AM
#97
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: Continuing The Dream
Posts: 161
You [guys] are buying into exactly what the Company wants and sold the last time jumpseats were taken away. The Company is building the wedge between the pilots and the rest of the FedEx employees. That's EXACTLY what happened last time. That the PILOTS said NO couldn't be further from the truth.
So now, the Company throws this tidbit out, and all we see on here is the pilots this, the pilots that, the arrogance ... all a bunch of BS. The problem I see here, again, is the Company has NOT done their due diligence and is going to leave the FAR interpretation to the Captain. And, that's after Jumpseat Admin has booked the cockpit jumpseat, and the threat of a letter of explanation is required to bump somebody. Should that threat over-ride the fear of an FAR violation and a $10,000 fine, license suspension, and possible termination of/to the Captain?
Just remember that we're in negotiations. The Company wants the rest of the employee group against us. What easier way than to dangle a nice carrot out there, and then blame the pilots for having to take it away. AND, there's absolutely no money involved to make the pilot group look bad.
Stay focused. We've got a lot going on. If you're a mechanic, dispatcher, flight attendant, wife, girl friend ... and you're certificated, with a current medical, passport, ID, etc., and you've been booked, hopefully the due diligence has been accomplished and nobody gets cited, suspended, or fired when you ride one of our jumpseats.
Nakazawa
So now, the Company throws this tidbit out, and all we see on here is the pilots this, the pilots that, the arrogance ... all a bunch of BS. The problem I see here, again, is the Company has NOT done their due diligence and is going to leave the FAR interpretation to the Captain. And, that's after Jumpseat Admin has booked the cockpit jumpseat, and the threat of a letter of explanation is required to bump somebody. Should that threat over-ride the fear of an FAR violation and a $10,000 fine, license suspension, and possible termination of/to the Captain?
Just remember that we're in negotiations. The Company wants the rest of the employee group against us. What easier way than to dangle a nice carrot out there, and then blame the pilots for having to take it away. AND, there's absolutely no money involved to make the pilot group look bad.
Stay focused. We've got a lot going on. If you're a mechanic, dispatcher, flight attendant, wife, girl friend ... and you're certificated, with a current medical, passport, ID, etc., and you've been booked, hopefully the due diligence has been accomplished and nobody gets cited, suspended, or fired when you ride one of our jumpseats.
Nakazawa
06-14-2013, 08:46 AM
#98
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Well, I tried to emphasize a point about the need for a dispatcher to be on the flight deck and I've set us on a tangent. 
Regarding GOC......
Prior to approx mid 1995 timeline, the main Ops Control Center was comprised of Systems Control and Flight Control. Flight Control existed only in Memphis, while Systems Control worked alongside them in Memphis and had 3 regional ops centers in OAK, IND, and EWR. In 1995, those departments were merged into one, called Global Operations Control. Subsequently, 2 of the 3 regional centers(OAK and EWR) were closed. Only IND remains as a regional GOC Ops Control Center today. During all those years, whether working under the previous Flight Control or present day Global Operations Control, every FedEx flight had an FAA licensed dispatcher working each flight. Though the rules of 121 Supplemental didn't require an actual dispatcher, FedEx always operated to the higher standard. Now, as a 121 Domestic/Flag carrier, licensed dispatchers are required. There were obvious regulatory changes that came with that switch, but the individuals working the flights always held the Dispatcher ticket as a company requirement to qualify for and perform the job.
That's nice.
You have affirmed what I have averred. Prior to operating under Domestic and Flag rules, we operated under Supplemental rules. As you affirmed, "121 Supplemental didn't require an actual dispatcher", so we didn't have ... hey, it's your word ... actual dispatchers. What we had was GOC specialists, most of whom possessed FAA Aircraft Dispatcher Certificates.
Those individuals, the GOC Specialists, may have also been Methodists, Eagle Scouts, Republicans, vegetarians, Masons, and Room Mothers, but when I had reason to interact with them in the conduct of a Part 121 Supplemental flight, it was in their capacity as GOC Specialists.
Back to the subject at hand ... aircraft dispatchers on the flight deck for personal travel.
Aircraft dispatchers have a requirement to observe operations from the flight deck to meet an "Operating familiarization" requirement (§ 121.463). When an aircraft dispatcher is on the flight deck in this capacity, he falls under the provision "an employee of a part 121 certificate holder whose duties are such that admission to the flight deck is necessary or advantageous for safe operations." (§ 121.547(a)(iii)(B))
If he is NOT on the flight deck to fulfill an "Operating familiarization" requirement, his presence on the flight deck is NOT necessary or advantageous for safe operations. The purpose of the "Operating familiarization" is not to make the pilots safer, or improve the odds that the flight will have a safe outcome. The purpose is to TRAIN the aircraft dispatcher so he can be more effective in his job as aircraft dispatcher, thereby being necessary or advantageous for safe operations.
Again, the requirement is for the aircraft dispatcher -- not the pilots, not the flight.
So, if the purpose of the travel is to go visit Aunt Suzie, and no "Operational familiarization" is conducted, this clause of § 121.547(a)(iii)(B) does not permit flight deck access.
Nothing of the above is to say that I do not benefit from every interaction I have the privilege of having with an aircraft dispatcher. I learn something every chance I get, even when they're not "observing operations" for § 121.463. I don't dislike dispatchers, and I'm not afraid of dispatchers. (Right, Dan?) What I am saying is that they are not permitted on the flight deck simply because they have the FAA Certificate. They are not permitted on the flight deck simply because they are employed as aircraft dispatchers. They are permitted on the flight deck only because they are "observing operations" in order to fulfill the "Operating familiarization" requirement of Aircraft Dispatcher Qualifications under § 121.463.
CASS is a different animal.
.
Regarding GOC......
Prior to approx mid 1995 timeline, the main Ops Control Center was comprised of Systems Control and Flight Control. Flight Control existed only in Memphis, while Systems Control worked alongside them in Memphis and had 3 regional ops centers in OAK, IND, and EWR. In 1995, those departments were merged into one, called Global Operations Control. Subsequently, 2 of the 3 regional centers(OAK and EWR) were closed. Only IND remains as a regional GOC Ops Control Center today. During all those years, whether working under the previous Flight Control or present day Global Operations Control, every FedEx flight had an FAA licensed dispatcher working each flight. Though the rules of 121 Supplemental didn't require an actual dispatcher, FedEx always operated to the higher standard. Now, as a 121 Domestic/Flag carrier, licensed dispatchers are required. There were obvious regulatory changes that came with that switch, but the individuals working the flights always held the Dispatcher ticket as a company requirement to qualify for and perform the job.
You have affirmed what I have averred. Prior to operating under Domestic and Flag rules, we operated under Supplemental rules. As you affirmed, "121 Supplemental didn't require an actual dispatcher", so we didn't have ... hey, it's your word ... actual dispatchers. What we had was GOC specialists, most of whom possessed FAA Aircraft Dispatcher Certificates.
Those individuals, the GOC Specialists, may have also been Methodists, Eagle Scouts, Republicans, vegetarians, Masons, and Room Mothers, but when I had reason to interact with them in the conduct of a Part 121 Supplemental flight, it was in their capacity as GOC Specialists.
Back to the subject at hand ... aircraft dispatchers on the flight deck for personal travel.
Aircraft dispatchers have a requirement to observe operations from the flight deck to meet an "Operating familiarization" requirement (§ 121.463). When an aircraft dispatcher is on the flight deck in this capacity, he falls under the provision "an employee of a part 121 certificate holder whose duties are such that admission to the flight deck is necessary or advantageous for safe operations." (§ 121.547(a)(iii)(B))
If he is NOT on the flight deck to fulfill an "Operating familiarization" requirement, his presence on the flight deck is NOT necessary or advantageous for safe operations. The purpose of the "Operating familiarization" is not to make the pilots safer, or improve the odds that the flight will have a safe outcome. The purpose is to TRAIN the aircraft dispatcher so he can be more effective in his job as aircraft dispatcher, thereby being necessary or advantageous for safe operations.
Again, the requirement is for the aircraft dispatcher -- not the pilots, not the flight.
So, if the purpose of the travel is to go visit Aunt Suzie, and no "Operational familiarization" is conducted, this clause of § 121.547(a)(iii)(B) does not permit flight deck access.
Nothing of the above is to say that I do not benefit from every interaction I have the privilege of having with an aircraft dispatcher. I learn something every chance I get, even when they're not "observing operations" for § 121.463. I don't dislike dispatchers, and I'm not afraid of dispatchers. (Right, Dan?) What I am saying is that they are not permitted on the flight deck simply because they have the FAA Certificate. They are not permitted on the flight deck simply because they are employed as aircraft dispatchers. They are permitted on the flight deck only because they are "observing operations" in order to fulfill the "Operating familiarization" requirement of Aircraft Dispatcher Qualifications under § 121.463.
CASS is a different animal.
.
06-14-2013, 09:06 AM
#99
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
I would answer such a query by showing the inspector my name printed on the Flight Plan/ Dispatch Release.
.
06-14-2013, 09:18 AM
#100
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Here's the bottom line. You're talking about absolutes -- the way things have always been. I'm talking about the exceptions that disprove your rule. No, they haven't always been that way.
Either way, it's irrelevant to the topic of this thread, and it's irrelevant to the tangent that has been spawned.
Personal travel in flight deck jumpseats -- that's the topic.
.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
