Narrative:

On 4/91, I was working flight desk. This desk handles northern florida between hubs dfw/rdu/bna/ord. Flight operates mco nonstop to dfw. The flight was released on the following routing. Mco direct orl direct tlh direct mei J4 jan scurry 1 arrival dfw. The captain and I discussed the routing, as there were many thunderstorms en route and causing numerous potential hazards. The captain had just flown from dfw to mco on a similar routing and was aware of the WX en route. At departure time the captain called me to advise that ATC wanted him to fly the following route. Mco direct orl direct irq J99 tys J46 bna J42 mem J66 lit direct buj direct dfw. This routing is 277 NM, farther than the flight planned route. The captain called and asked me what was up with ATC. I then called ATC system command center and asked what they were thinking about. I was told that this was the way they wanted us to fly because of the en route WX. I explained to him that the captain and I had decided, after talking to our metropolitan department, that the filed routing would be fine. Far's 121.601 and 121.663 state that the captain and the dispatcher must agree on the flight release. In no instance does it refer to ATC or them having any authority to revise rtings. To further compound the problem, had the crew accepted the revised routing west/O contacting dispatch, they would not have had enough fuel to make a non-stop operation. The captain refused the reroute, and after telling ATC that we would not accept the revised route, the flight departed on the flight planned route west/O further incident. Dispatchers and flight crews have certain responsibilities they must adhere to and consider prior to any flight operation. Let's keep that responsibility and let the ATC be the traffic coordinators of the arwys.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ATC CLEARED FLT ON ROUTE OTHER THAN REQUESTED BY DISPATCHER AND FLT CREW. DISPATCHER REPORTING PROTESTS.

Narrative: ON 4/91, I WAS WORKING FLT DESK. THIS DESK HANDLES NORTHERN FLORIDA BTWN HUBS DFW/RDU/BNA/ORD. FLT OPERATES MCO NONSTOP TO DFW. THE FLT WAS RELEASED ON THE FOLLOWING RTING. MCO DIRECT ORL DIRECT TLH DIRECT MEI J4 JAN SCURRY 1 ARR DFW. THE CAPT AND I DISCUSSED THE RTING, AS THERE WERE MANY TSTMS ENRTE AND CAUSING NUMEROUS POTENTIAL HAZARDS. THE CAPT HAD JUST FLOWN FROM DFW TO MCO ON A SIMILAR RTING AND WAS AWARE OF THE WX ENRTE. AT DEP TIME THE CAPT CALLED ME TO ADVISE THAT ATC WANTED HIM TO FLY THE FOLLOWING RTE. MCO DIRECT ORL DIRECT IRQ J99 TYS J46 BNA J42 MEM J66 LIT DIRECT BUJ DIRECT DFW. THIS RTING IS 277 NM, FARTHER THAN THE FLT PLANNED RTE. THE CAPT CALLED AND ASKED ME WHAT WAS UP WITH ATC. I THEN CALLED ATC SYS COMMAND CENTER AND ASKED WHAT THEY WERE THINKING ABOUT. I WAS TOLD THAT THIS WAS THE WAY THEY WANTED US TO FLY BECAUSE OF THE ENRTE WX. I EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT THE CAPT AND I HAD DECIDED, AFTER TALKING TO OUR METRO DEPT, THAT THE FILED RTING WOULD BE FINE. FAR'S 121.601 AND 121.663 STATE THAT THE CAPT AND THE DISPATCHER MUST AGREE ON THE FLT RELEASE. IN NO INSTANCE DOES IT REFER TO ATC OR THEM HAVING ANY AUTHORITY TO REVISE RTINGS. TO FURTHER COMPOUND THE PROB, HAD THE CREW ACCEPTED THE REVISED RTING W/O CONTACTING DISPATCH, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE HAD ENOUGH FUEL TO MAKE A NON-STOP OPERATION. THE CAPT REFUSED THE REROUTE, AND AFTER TELLING ATC THAT WE WOULD NOT ACCEPT THE REVISED RTE, THE FLT DEPARTED ON THE FLT PLANNED RTE W/O FURTHER INCIDENT. DISPATCHERS AND FLT CREWS HAVE CERTAIN RESPONSIBILITIES THEY MUST ADHERE TO AND CONSIDER PRIOR TO ANY FLT OPERATION. LET'S KEEP THAT RESPONSIBILITY AND LET THE ATC BE THE TFC COORDINATORS OF THE ARWYS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.