Are these 2 statements in conflict? ATP Written Prep Question

SixPapaCharlie

SixPapaCharlie

May the force be with you
Joined
Aug 8, 2013
Messages
16,414
Display Name
Display name:
Sixer
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.

SheppardSucksBalls.png
 
I read that as less than an hour no dispatcher needed.
 
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.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Screenshot_3.png
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.

Screenshot_4.png
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"?
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
If I wrote the Far it would state "No dispatcher authorization is required if the stop is less than 1 hour"
Click to expand...
But that wouldn't be accurate. The dispatch authorization is required, but it can be given for both legs at once.
 
dmspilot said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Alaska and you got no phone or data service. I’ve done this three months ago.
 
Alaska and you got no phone or data service. I’ve done this three months ago
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
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"?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Half Fast said:
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?”
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Don't overthink the ATP questions/answers, especially the MATH problems. Many of them are poorly worded or just flat wrong.
 
ja_user said:
Don't overthink the ATP questions/answers, especially the MATH problems. Many of them are poorly worded or just flat wrong.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Larry in TN said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well and some of those problems you can’t even do the calculations and get the answer they want .
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Why can't these people write in normal English?
Click to expand...
I'm surprised you don't know this rule:

14 CFR 0.1 Aviation Regulations.
(a) No pilot or pilots, or person or persons acting on the direction or suggestion or supervision of a pilot or pilot may try, or attempt to try or make, or make attempt to try to comprehend or understand any or all, in whole or in part of the herein mentioned, Aviation Regulations, except as authorized by the administrator or an agent appointed by, or inspected by, the Administrator.
(b) If a pilot, or group of associate pilots becomes aware of, or realized, or detects, or discovers, or finds that he or she, or they, are or have been beginning to understand the Aviation Regulations, they must immediately, within three (3) days notify, in writing, the Administrator.
(c) Upon receipt of the above-mentioned notice of impending comprehension, the Administrator shall immediately rewrite the Aviation Regulations in such a manner as to eliminate any further comprehension hazards.
(d) The Administrator may, at his or her discretion, require the offending pilot or pilots to attend remedial instruction in Aviation Regulations until such time that the pilot is too confused to be capable of understanding anything.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I'm surprised you don't know this rule:

14 CFR 0.1 Aviation Regulations.
(a) No pilot or pilots, or person or persons acting on the direction or suggestion or supervision of a pilot or pilot may try, or attempt to try or make, or make attempt to try to comprehend or understand any or all, in whole or in part of the herein mentioned, Aviation Regulations, except as authorized by the administrator or an agent appointed by, or inspected by, the Administrator.
(b) If a pilot, or group of associate pilots becomes aware of, or realized, or detects, or discovers, or finds that he or she, or they, are or have been beginning to understand the Aviation Regulations, they must immediately, within three (3) days notify, in writing, the Administrator.
(c) Upon receipt of the above-mentioned notice of impending comprehension, the Administrator shall immediately rewrite the Aviation Regulations in such a manner as to eliminate any further comprehension hazards.
(d) The Administrator may, at his or her discretion, require the offending pilot or pilots to attend remedial instruction in Aviation Regulations until such time that the pilot is too confused to be capable of understanding anything.
Click to expand...

I almost “liked” with the laughter emoticon but this is too near the truth to be funny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top