Narrative:

I am writing this report because I do not feel that I (or other dispatchers at my airline) have been adequately trained to dispatch the F28-4000. I have been dispatching the F28-1000 series for several yrs without any problems or concerns over any safety issues. However, the airline recently acquired some F28-4000 series to replace the 1000 series. The aircraft are quite similar, however, where they differ is significant. The engines on the 4000 are almost the same as those on the 1000, with a very slight increase in power being the difference. The maximum takeoff weight is 8000 pounds higher. With these differences comes performance difference. We have aircraft takeoff gross weight and landing performance for the 4000, but we have not been trained on the en route portion. My differences training for the 4000 series consisted of a 15 page package which supposedly was approved by the FAA. I simply was given the package and told to sign a statement saying I understood everything in it. This package consisted of 1 page which gave a history of the production of the F28, 4 pages consisting of weight limitations and examples of general flight planning considerations, and 10 pages with differences in physical features of the aircraft, such as emergency door exits, length and width, and cockpit system indications. On the top of all 15 pages the disclaimer 'for information only -- not for use in flight planning/release' is typed. This is the only training I have received. We do not have access to an aircraft performance manual (afm) in our office. We have photocopies of the 'quick reference flight planning information' section from the afm. There are also a few photo-copies which refer to 'single engine ceiling.' from these charts we were told via e-mail by our chief dispatcher how to use the charts to arrive with a zero net takeoff limit (zntol) figure. My understanding is that single engine ceiling is not the same as zntol, and that these single engine ceiling charts are less restrictive than that of true zntol. We were also instructed by our chief dispatcher and manager of flight standards for the FA28 to extrapolate for temperatures outside of the chart. I addressed my concerns with my chief dispatcher. I told him that we did not have adequate reference material or understanding of what we did have. His response to me was that the aircraft performance manuals were too expensive for us to get a set for the office and that we as dispatchers can only work with what the company gives us. I told him I felt I could not properly do my job and that I was concerned for my license, whether it was all the company provided or not. I did not feel that his answer justified my concerns. He came back by saying he had the same concerns himself and that he checked into this with our local FSDO and that in fact we as dispatchers could not be held liable because the company did not provide us with adequate materials or training. It is my understanding that one of our dispatchers and one of our more senior capts worked together using charts from the afm to make a database which will make actual zntol calculations automated for us in the near future. We as dispatchers will be using these for our releases, assuming they are accurate, but we are unable to verify the data. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the winter operating conditions (temperatures) are not as yet in the database, so this reporter still feels that he is not able to perform his job to the standards of his certification. The anti-ice and airfoil considerations add to the confusion and create a greater workload. Reporter states that the most frustrating situation is a quick aircraft change between a 1000 and a 4000 series FA28. He cannot simply swap the aircraft numbers -- he has to work through a new release using information that he feels is not even legally reliable. This reporter's solution is to use conservative figures, but this still concerns him since other dispatchers may not be as conservative in their procedures.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: THE DISPATCHER FOR A REGIONAL CARRIER RPTS A LACK OF TRAINING ON A JET ACFT SERIES THAT WAS RECENTLY ADDED TO THE FLEET. THE RPTR DOES NOT HAVE ACCESS TO AN ACFT FLT MANUAL AND HAS BEEN UNABLE TO ACCURATELY DETERMINE THE ACFT'S PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY WITH THE RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO HIM.

Narrative: I AM WRITING THIS RPT BECAUSE I DO NOT FEEL THAT I (OR OTHER DISPATCHERS AT MY AIRLINE) HAVE BEEN ADEQUATELY TRAINED TO DISPATCH THE F28-4000. I HAVE BEEN DISPATCHING THE F28-1000 SERIES FOR SEVERAL YRS WITHOUT ANY PROBS OR CONCERNS OVER ANY SAFETY ISSUES. HOWEVER, THE AIRLINE RECENTLY ACQUIRED SOME F28-4000 SERIES TO REPLACE THE 1000 SERIES. THE ACFT ARE QUITE SIMILAR, HOWEVER, WHERE THEY DIFFER IS SIGNIFICANT. THE ENGS ON THE 4000 ARE ALMOST THE SAME AS THOSE ON THE 1000, WITH A VERY SLIGHT INCREASE IN PWR BEING THE DIFFERENCE. THE MAX TKOF WT IS 8000 LBS HIGHER. WITH THESE DIFFERENCES COMES PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCE. WE HAVE ACFT TKOF GROSS WT AND LNDG PERFORMANCE FOR THE 4000, BUT WE HAVE NOT BEEN TRAINED ON THE ENRTE PORTION. MY DIFFERENCES TRAINING FOR THE 4000 SERIES CONSISTED OF A 15 PAGE PACKAGE WHICH SUPPOSEDLY WAS APPROVED BY THE FAA. I SIMPLY WAS GIVEN THE PACKAGE AND TOLD TO SIGN A STATEMENT SAYING I UNDERSTOOD EVERYTHING IN IT. THIS PACKAGE CONSISTED OF 1 PAGE WHICH GAVE A HISTORY OF THE PRODUCTION OF THE F28, 4 PAGES CONSISTING OF WT LIMITATIONS AND EXAMPLES OF GENERAL FLT PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS, AND 10 PAGES WITH DIFFERENCES IN PHYSICAL FEATURES OF THE ACFT, SUCH AS EMER DOOR EXITS, LENGTH AND WIDTH, AND COCKPIT SYS INDICATIONS. ON THE TOP OF ALL 15 PAGES THE DISCLAIMER 'FOR INFO ONLY -- NOT FOR USE IN FLT PLANNING/RELEASE' IS TYPED. THIS IS THE ONLY TRAINING I HAVE RECEIVED. WE DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO AN ACFT PERFORMANCE MANUAL (AFM) IN OUR OFFICE. WE HAVE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE 'QUICK REF FLT PLANNING INFO' SECTION FROM THE AFM. THERE ARE ALSO A FEW PHOTO-COPIES WHICH REFER TO 'SINGLE ENG CEILING.' FROM THESE CHARTS WE WERE TOLD VIA E-MAIL BY OUR CHIEF DISPATCHER HOW TO USE THE CHARTS TO ARRIVE WITH A ZERO NET TKOF LIMIT (ZNTOL) FIGURE. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT SINGLE ENG CEILING IS NOT THE SAME AS ZNTOL, AND THAT THESE SINGLE ENG CEILING CHARTS ARE LESS RESTRICTIVE THAN THAT OF TRUE ZNTOL. WE WERE ALSO INSTRUCTED BY OUR CHIEF DISPATCHER AND MGR OF FLT STANDARDS FOR THE FA28 TO EXTRAPOLATE FOR TEMPS OUTSIDE OF THE CHART. I ADDRESSED MY CONCERNS WITH MY CHIEF DISPATCHER. I TOLD HIM THAT WE DID NOT HAVE ADEQUATE REF MATERIAL OR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE DID HAVE. HIS RESPONSE TO ME WAS THAT THE ACFT PERFORMANCE MANUALS WERE TOO EXPENSIVE FOR US TO GET A SET FOR THE OFFICE AND THAT WE AS DISPATCHERS CAN ONLY WORK WITH WHAT THE COMPANY GIVES US. I TOLD HIM I FELT I COULD NOT PROPERLY DO MY JOB AND THAT I WAS CONCERNED FOR MY LICENSE, WHETHER IT WAS ALL THE COMPANY PROVIDED OR NOT. I DID NOT FEEL THAT HIS ANSWER JUSTIFIED MY CONCERNS. HE CAME BACK BY SAYING HE HAD THE SAME CONCERNS HIMSELF AND THAT HE CHKED INTO THIS WITH OUR LCL FSDO AND THAT IN FACT WE AS DISPATCHERS COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE BECAUSE THE COMPANY DID NOT PROVIDE US WITH ADEQUATE MATERIALS OR TRAINING. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ONE OF OUR DISPATCHERS AND ONE OF OUR MORE SENIOR CAPTS WORKED TOGETHER USING CHARTS FROM THE AFM TO MAKE A DATABASE WHICH WILL MAKE ACTUAL ZNTOL CALCULATIONS AUTOMATED FOR US IN THE NEAR FUTURE. WE AS DISPATCHERS WILL BE USING THESE FOR OUR RELEASES, ASSUMING THEY ARE ACCURATE, BUT WE ARE UNABLE TO VERIFY THE DATA. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE WINTER OPERATING CONDITIONS (TEMPS) ARE NOT AS YET IN THE DATABASE, SO THIS RPTR STILL FEELS THAT HE IS NOT ABLE TO PERFORM HIS JOB TO THE STANDARDS OF HIS CERTIFICATION. THE ANTI-ICE AND AIRFOIL CONSIDERATIONS ADD TO THE CONFUSION AND CREATE A GREATER WORKLOAD. RPTR STATES THAT THE MOST FRUSTRATING SIT IS A QUICK ACFT CHANGE BTWN A 1000 AND A 4000 SERIES FA28. HE CANNOT SIMPLY SWAP THE ACFT NUMBERS -- HE HAS TO WORK THROUGH A NEW RELEASE USING INFO THAT HE FEELS IS NOT EVEN LEGALLY RELIABLE. THIS RPTR'S SOLUTION IS TO USE CONSERVATIVE FIGURES, BUT THIS STILL CONCERNS HIM SINCE OTHER DISPATCHERS MAY NOT BE AS CONSERVATIVE IN THEIR PROCS.

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.