Are these 2 statements in conflict? ATP Written Prep Question

[SixPapaCharlie]

The sentence in the question / Answer seems to be stating that a dispatcher must authorize the flight except when it is there less than an hour.

The explanation (and CFR) seem to state that if the aircraft is there less than an hour only a dispatcher can authorize the flight.

 

[EdFred]

I read that as less than an hour no dispatcher needed.

 

[Doc Holliday]

A dispatcher must dispatch a flight under Domestic rules. If at an intermediate stop, as long as the flight is there less than an hour, it does not need to be redispatched.

 

[dmspilot]

The sentence in the question / Answer seems to be stating that a dispatcher must authorize the flight except when it is there less than an hour.

The explanation (and CFR) seem to state that if the aircraft is there less than an hour only a dispatcher can authorize the flight.

Not seeing the conflict. Every flight must be authorized by a dispatcher. A flight with an intermediate stop of less than one hour can be considered "pre-authorized".

By the way, I'm almost sure no 121 does 2-for-1 "intermediate stop" dispatch releases. I don't see any advantage for either the flight crew or the dispatcher. Maybe in the days of paper releases and your intermediate stop didn't have a printer it might have made sense? But then what if you were delayed and were on the ground more than an hour? So it doesn't really make sense period.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

I am reading this ^^^ as "A dispatcher must authorize a flight except if it is going to be there less than an hour"
Less than a 1 hour stop, the plane can get goin without a dispatcher.


I am reading this ^^^ as "...

NM. Dammit.
Why can't these people write in normal English?

If I wrote the Far it would state "No dispatcher authorization is required if the stop is less than 1 hour"
Whos says "Kid you are grounded for not less than 1 week"?

 

[dmspilot]

If I wrote the Far it would state "No dispatcher authorization is required if the stop is less than 1 hour"

But that wouldn't be accurate. The dispatch authorization is required, but it can be given for both legs at once.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Not seeing the conflict. Every flight must be authorized by a dispatcher. A flight with an intermediate stop of less than one hour can be considered "pre-authorized".

By the way, I'm almost sure no 121 does 2-for-1 "intermediate stop" dispatch releases. I don't see any advantage for either the flight crew or the dispatcher. Maybe in the days of paper releases and your intermediate stop didn't have a printer it might have made sense? But then what if you were delayed and were on the ground more than an hour? So it doesn't really make sense period.

When we were doing paper releases, if delayed at an intermediate the dispatcher would re-release us, and we would write it in the remarks with the dispatcher initials and time.

 

[Tools]

Alaska and you got no phone or data service. I’ve done this three months ago.

 

[Tools]

Alaska and you got no phone or data service. I’ve done this three months ago

 

[YakDrvr]

View attachment 130859
I am reading this ^^^ as "A dispatcher must authorize a flight except if it is going to be there less than an hour"
Less than a 1 hour stop, the plane can get goin without a dispatcher.

View attachment 130860
I am reading this ^^^ as "...

NM. Dammit.
Why can't these people write in normal English?

If I wrote the Far it would state "No dispatcher authorization is required if the stop is less than 1 hour"
Whos says "Kid you are grounded for not less than 1 week"?

The ATP written is little more than a hazing exercise to me. Yes, it covers lots of important knowledge, but as you are noticing, it’s not terribly well written. Focus on giving them the answers they want. Use the study methodology from Shepard Air, and pass the test with as high a score as you can. There are excellent ATP knowledge training courses that I would use to actually learn the material vital to doing the job of an ATP well. Remember, much of this won’t really make sense until you’re doing it.

 

[Half Fast]

You’re a computer geek, so aren’t you familiar with conditional statements like the classic “Don’t do while not untrue else do while false?”

 

[StraightnLevel]

You’re a computer geek, so aren’t you familiar with conditional statements like the classic “Don’t do while not untrue else do while false?”

Boolean illogic?

 

[Clip4]

I read as the flight may be authorized to depart A, land B, takeoff for C. Except if the flight does not takeoff for C n less than 1 hour after arriving at B, it must be authorized for takeoff.

 

[X3 Skier]

Whos says "Kid you are grounded for not less than 1 week"?

Judge: "Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than one week and no more than one month."

 

[MauleSkinner]

Reg: No person may A unless B.
Test question: Unless B, no person may A.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

You’re a computer geek, so aren’t you familiar with conditional statements like the classic “Don’t do while not untrue else do while false?”

I usually traded if statements for case statements because it was much clearer to read. Other programmers we get annoyed at me for doing that. I would create a statement that just says Case true and then list all the conditions below. It was probably a little less efficient but it was beautiful to read.

 

[MIA]

Looks like a possible can of worms authorizing a two (or more) leg flight. If the second destination is illegal for wx or runay notam'd closed for ETA while the aircraft is on the ground at the intermediate stop. Dx can say "past the point of dispatch" but they would still be responsible for notifying the crew that they can't go to the second destination (release was legal but departing on the second leg wouldn't be legal). Anyway, haven't see it done while working for a 2000+ flight/day regional for the past two years.

 

[Larry in TN]

There was a time when airlines would have very short through-stops. Great Lakes used to do them in with one engine running and the cabin door open for only a few minutes. Southwest used to do 20 minute turns. A few passengers off, a few on, and off you go.

 

[StraightnLevel]

There was a time when airlines would have very short through-stops. Great Lakes used to do them in with one engine running and the cabin door open for only a few minutes. Southwest used to do 20 minute turns. A few passengers off, a few on, and off you go.

Delta used to let us stay in our seats. You could get off, but they would warn us to hurry back.

 

[ja_user]

Don't overthink the ATP questions/answers, especially the MATH problems. Many of them are poorly worded or just flat wrong.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

Don't overthink the ATP questions/answers, especially the MATH problems. Many of them are poorly worded or just flat wrong.

That's my favorite thing about Shepherd in the training guide it repeats over and over this is not wrote memorization and then it says please don't bother stressing out over the calculations if you see the number 177.2 just choose it. trying to learn the calculations can lead to human error.

 

[X3 Skier]

There was a time when airlines would have very short through-stops. Great Lakes used to do them in with one engine running and the cabin door open for only a few minutes. Southwest used to do 20 minute turns. A few passengers off, a few on, and off you go.

I remember a trip on Southern (aka Kamikaze Airlines) in a Martin 404 on my way to Moody AFB. We stopped at Moultrie Thomasville Airport, Number 2 was shut down, the FO jumped out, opened the cargo door and took out what looked like a crate of eggs, took it to the “terminal” and climbed back into his seat. Number 2 fired up and off we went.

All during this “stop”, I watched a C-130 doing a LAPES Drop on the other side of the field.

Good Times.

 

[ja_user]

That's my favorite thing about Shepherd in the training guide it repeats over and over this is not wrote memorization and then it says please don't bother stressing out over the calculations if you see the number 177.2 just choose it. trying to learn the calculations can lead to human error.

Well and some of those problems you can’t even do the calculations and get the answer they want .

 

[mcdewey]

I usually traded if statements for case statements because it was much clearer to read. Other programmers we get annoyed at me for doing that. I would create a statement that just says Case true and then list all the conditions below. It was probably a little less efficient but it was beautiful to read.

Interesting way to go about it. Back in the day, if-then-else compiled to machine language goto’s, especially when using elseif. Switch statements, on the other hand, used jump tables to just increment the program counter, so were more efficient. These days, who knows? But your way of doing this certainly makes it clear to a reading human what the true and false parts are.