Narrative:

I'm writing this letter because of a problem I'm having with mr X at dispatch. I'm writing you because you are a supervisor to both of us. If after reviewing this letter you feel someone else would better handle this, please feel free to forward it. Over the last several weeks I have twice been pulled off of my normally scheduled trip to sbp and had a different destination substituted. In both cases the dispatcher making the decision was mr X. While I have no problem with such changes in my schedule, I do have a problem with the reason -- as explicitly expressed to me by mr X himself. The reason was that I had made too many missed approachs to sbp resulting in diversions to smx. I feel that I have been slandered. Mr X implying that I cannot fly well enough to complete the approach. Or alternatively, he is implying that other of our pilots will break the regulations to complete the flight. Now for the specifics: last month I was assigned the flight from sfo-sbp several nights in a row. On wednesday the forecast WX for sbp did not require an alternate. On departure the WX report for sbp was clear. In spite of this, because of past experience, I fueled for and listed an alternate. On our arrival in the sbp area, shortly after the tower had closed, it was apparent that the WX was no longer clear. We parked ourselves in holding at crepe (3 turns) while I tried (repeatedly) to get current sbp WX from 129.9 or a relay through our operations on 130.25. While we were doing this an oth air carrier B1900 executed the localizer 11 approach to sbp and canceled with ZLA stating 'we have the airport at 600 ft.' the WX report we finally obtained was a ceiling of 800 ft overcast, with winds from 300 degrees at 25 KTS. We briefed and executed a localizer 11 circle to runway 29 approach. Upon arrival at MDA (1140 ft MSL) we had intermittent ground contact with flight visibility of near zero. These conditions persisted all the way to the missed approach. As required under the regulations we executed a missed approach. Due to fuel considerations we did not attempt a second approach and diverted visually to smx without incident. The next night, thursday, the forecast again did not require an alternate and the WX report at departure time showed clear skies. Again I fueled for and listed an alternate. On our arrival in the sbp area the tower reported the conditions as ceiling of 1000 ft overcast, and winds from 290 degrees to 270 degrees at 10- 12 KTS. Since our landing weight allowed us to land with 8 KTS of tailwind, we briefed for the localizer 11 circle to runway 29, or if the wind decreased to 8 KTS, a straight-in to runway 11. We flew the approach as briefed with frequent checks on the wind. Since the wind never decreased, we complied with the circle (1140 ft MSL) minimums. Ground contact was never made and again a missed approach was executed. Immediately afterwards an oth air carrier flight asked us about the conditions. I told them that depending on their circling category and tailwind limitations they might get in. Due to fuel considerations and IFR conditions at our desired alternate we again did not attempt a second approach at sbp. We diverted to smx, completing an ILS approach without incident. On friday, when we arrived in sfo at XA00, operations informed us we were doing an smf round trip instead of the usual sbp one. No explanation for the change was given. I found out later another E120 was sent in our place. Mr X had made this change earlier in the day. Rumor had it the change was because of the missed approachs the previous 2 days. The WX at sbp friday night was listed as a ceiling of 1200 ft overcast at my time of arrival. The other crew completed the approach, but they 'barely got in.' this month I was/am also assigned flight to sbp multiple (15) nights. On oct/wed/96 we departed for sbp with my usual alternate fuel. Because of previous flow delays we arrived near sbp after the tower had closed. I called sbp and had them read me the WX, which was sky clear, winds from 300 degrees at 13 KTS. However, we could not see the lights at sbp because of clouds below us. I asked sbp station to look out the window and tell me if it was still clear. They reported that it was. Because of what we saw (or didn't see) we asked for and executed the localizer 11, circle to runway 29 approach. While at MDA (1140 ft MSL) we had intermittent ground contact (right over the airport) with flight visibility of near zero. Again as per the regulations we executed a missed approach. Once at a safe altitude, with ZLA's concurrence, we attempted to locate the airport visually from the southeast. This was impossible due to cloud coverage. Again due to fuel considerations, we did not attempt a second approach to sbp and diverted visually to smx without incident. On the way back to sfo, with dispatch's approval, we checked the sbp WX (now reporting ceiling of 700 ft overcast with winds from 300 degrees at 5 KTS) and changed our destination to sbp. On our arrival at sbp the stratus had retreated and the field was again VFR. We landed without incident and transported our outbound passenger to sfo. I found out later that about 10 mins prior (the same time the stations said sbp was clear) to our first arrival attempt at sbp an oth air carrier flight landed. The next night, oct/thu/96 mr X again changed our routing so that another E120 crew would fly flight. I called and asked him why he changed our schedule. After much hemming and hawing, he said it was because I was missing the approachs to sbp, especially when other aircraft were landing at sbp. I asked him how often this would recur, since I was scheduled to fly this trip for another 14 times this month. I was told it depended on the dispatcher. I told mr X I felt he was either insulting me, or the pilots he replaced me with, by his implications. I also wanted to resolve whatever problem he had. Mr X told me he felt he had no problem (or that there was no problem) to resolve. And he would continue to replace me whenever he saw fit to get the airplanes into sbp. I feel that mr X's actions in this matter are slanderous. Not to mention it is a bad precedence to have certain crews you won't (or don't want to) send to certain destinations. After careful review I feel the entire 'problem' is one of perception and of not understanding the rapidly changing and capricious nature of the WX in sbp. During the summer coastal fog season I have flown a large number of the flts to sbp at this time of day. The WX at sbp is notoriously capricious and the terrain and prevailing wind make a missed approach much more common than other airports. Even then, the misses described above are the only misses I've made at sbp all summer. So, unless I'm somehow causing the WX (that must be it -- my license plate does read wxwoxof) replacing me on the flight accomplishes nothing, while slandering my reputation. I feel I am due an apology. Then if mr X wants to rerte me (at no loss in pay) for reasons other than the ones given above, I have no problem. I personally dislike having to divert, and do it only when absolutely necessary. P.south. This morning (oct/yy/96) I received a call from the chief pilot. He wanted to know about the miss on oct/wed/96. I told him the same thing I said in this letter (about the oct/wed/96 miss only) and told him I had sent this letter. At the end of the conversation the chief pilot said he had no problem with what I was doing. However, I was left with the distinct impression that the company is trying to subtly pressure me.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PIC OF EMB120 COMPLAINS OF FLT SCHEDULE CHANGES BY DISPATCHER. DISPATCHER CLAIMS IT WAS TO INSURE THAT OTHER FLCS FLYING 'HER' FLT WOULD GET INTO SBP AND NOT DIVERT TO ALTERNATE ARPT AS SHE HAD DONE ON 2 PREVIOUS FLTS.

Narrative: I'M WRITING THIS LETTER BECAUSE OF A PROB I'M HAVING WITH MR X AT DISPATCH. I'M WRITING YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE A SUPVR TO BOTH OF US. IF AFTER REVIEWING THIS LETTER YOU FEEL SOMEONE ELSE WOULD BETTER HANDLE THIS, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO FORWARD IT. OVER THE LAST SEVERAL WKS I HAVE TWICE BEEN PULLED OFF OF MY NORMALLY SCHEDULED TRIP TO SBP AND HAD A DIFFERENT DEST SUBSTITUTED. IN BOTH CASES THE DISPATCHER MAKING THE DECISION WAS MR X. WHILE I HAVE NO PROB WITH SUCH CHANGES IN MY SCHEDULE, I DO HAVE A PROB WITH THE REASON -- AS EXPLICITLY EXPRESSED TO ME BY MR X HIMSELF. THE REASON WAS THAT I HAD MADE TOO MANY MISSED APCHS TO SBP RESULTING IN DIVERSIONS TO SMX. I FEEL THAT I HAVE BEEN SLANDERED. MR X IMPLYING THAT I CANNOT FLY WELL ENOUGH TO COMPLETE THE APCH. OR ALTERNATIVELY, HE IS IMPLYING THAT OTHER OF OUR PLTS WILL BREAK THE REGS TO COMPLETE THE FLT. NOW FOR THE SPECIFICS: LAST MONTH I WAS ASSIGNED THE FLT FROM SFO-SBP SEVERAL NIGHTS IN A ROW. ON WEDNESDAY THE FORECAST WX FOR SBP DID NOT REQUIRE AN ALTERNATE. ON DEP THE WX RPT FOR SBP WAS CLR. IN SPITE OF THIS, BECAUSE OF PAST EXPERIENCE, I FUELED FOR AND LISTED AN ALTERNATE. ON OUR ARR IN THE SBP AREA, SHORTLY AFTER THE TWR HAD CLOSED, IT WAS APPARENT THAT THE WX WAS NO LONGER CLR. WE PARKED OURSELVES IN HOLDING AT CREPE (3 TURNS) WHILE I TRIED (REPEATEDLY) TO GET CURRENT SBP WX FROM 129.9 OR A RELAY THROUGH OUR OPS ON 130.25. WHILE WE WERE DOING THIS AN OTH ACR B1900 EXECUTED THE LOC 11 APCH TO SBP AND CANCELED WITH ZLA STATING 'WE HAVE THE ARPT AT 600 FT.' THE WX RPT WE FINALLY OBTAINED WAS A CEILING OF 800 FT OVCST, WITH WINDS FROM 300 DEGS AT 25 KTS. WE BRIEFED AND EXECUTED A LOC 11 CIRCLE TO RWY 29 APCH. UPON ARR AT MDA (1140 FT MSL) WE HAD INTERMITTENT GND CONTACT WITH FLT VISIBILITY OF NEAR ZERO. THESE CONDITIONS PERSISTED ALL THE WAY TO THE MISSED APCH. AS REQUIRED UNDER THE REGS WE EXECUTED A MISSED APCH. DUE TO FUEL CONSIDERATIONS WE DID NOT ATTEMPT A SECOND APCH AND DIVERTED VISUALLY TO SMX WITHOUT INCIDENT. THE NEXT NIGHT, THURSDAY, THE FORECAST AGAIN DID NOT REQUIRE AN ALTERNATE AND THE WX RPT AT DEP TIME SHOWED CLR SKIES. AGAIN I FUELED FOR AND LISTED AN ALTERNATE. ON OUR ARR IN THE SBP AREA THE TWR RPTED THE CONDITIONS AS CEILING OF 1000 FT OVCST, AND WINDS FROM 290 DEGS TO 270 DEGS AT 10- 12 KTS. SINCE OUR LNDG WT ALLOWED US TO LAND WITH 8 KTS OF TAILWIND, WE BRIEFED FOR THE LOC 11 CIRCLE TO RWY 29, OR IF THE WIND DECREASED TO 8 KTS, A STRAIGHT-IN TO RWY 11. WE FLEW THE APCH AS BRIEFED WITH FREQUENT CHKS ON THE WIND. SINCE THE WIND NEVER DECREASED, WE COMPLIED WITH THE CIRCLE (1140 FT MSL) MINIMUMS. GND CONTACT WAS NEVER MADE AND AGAIN A MISSED APCH WAS EXECUTED. IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARDS AN OTH ACR FLT ASKED US ABOUT THE CONDITIONS. I TOLD THEM THAT DEPENDING ON THEIR CIRCLING CATEGORY AND TAILWIND LIMITATIONS THEY MIGHT GET IN. DUE TO FUEL CONSIDERATIONS AND IFR CONDITIONS AT OUR DESIRED ALTERNATE WE AGAIN DID NOT ATTEMPT A SECOND APCH AT SBP. WE DIVERTED TO SMX, COMPLETING AN ILS APCH WITHOUT INCIDENT. ON FRIDAY, WHEN WE ARRIVED IN SFO AT XA00, OPS INFORMED US WE WERE DOING AN SMF ROUND TRIP INSTEAD OF THE USUAL SBP ONE. NO EXPLANATION FOR THE CHANGE WAS GIVEN. I FOUND OUT LATER ANOTHER E120 WAS SENT IN OUR PLACE. MR X HAD MADE THIS CHANGE EARLIER IN THE DAY. RUMOR HAD IT THE CHANGE WAS BECAUSE OF THE MISSED APCHS THE PREVIOUS 2 DAYS. THE WX AT SBP FRIDAY NIGHT WAS LISTED AS A CEILING OF 1200 FT OVCST AT MY TIME OF ARR. THE OTHER CREW COMPLETED THE APCH, BUT THEY 'BARELY GOT IN.' THIS MONTH I WAS/AM ALSO ASSIGNED FLT TO SBP MULTIPLE (15) NIGHTS. ON OCT/WED/96 WE DEPARTED FOR SBP WITH MY USUAL ALTERNATE FUEL. BECAUSE OF PREVIOUS FLOW DELAYS WE ARRIVED NEAR SBP AFTER THE TWR HAD CLOSED. I CALLED SBP AND HAD THEM READ ME THE WX, WHICH WAS SKY CLR, WINDS FROM 300 DEGS AT 13 KTS. HOWEVER, WE COULD NOT SEE THE LIGHTS AT SBP BECAUSE OF CLOUDS BELOW US. I ASKED SBP STATION TO LOOK OUT THE WINDOW AND TELL ME IF IT WAS STILL CLR. THEY RPTED THAT IT WAS. BECAUSE OF WHAT WE SAW (OR DIDN'T SEE) WE ASKED FOR AND EXECUTED THE LOC 11, CIRCLE TO RWY 29 APCH. WHILE AT MDA (1140 FT MSL) WE HAD INTERMITTENT GND CONTACT (RIGHT OVER THE ARPT) WITH FLT VISIBILITY OF NEAR ZERO. AGAIN AS PER THE REGS WE EXECUTED A MISSED APCH. ONCE AT A SAFE ALT, WITH ZLA'S CONCURRENCE, WE ATTEMPTED TO LOCATE THE ARPT VISUALLY FROM THE SE. THIS WAS IMPOSSIBLE DUE TO CLOUD COVERAGE. AGAIN DUE TO FUEL CONSIDERATIONS, WE DID NOT ATTEMPT A SECOND APCH TO SBP AND DIVERTED VISUALLY TO SMX WITHOUT INCIDENT. ON THE WAY BACK TO SFO, WITH DISPATCH'S APPROVAL, WE CHKED THE SBP WX (NOW RPTING CEILING OF 700 FT OVCST WITH WINDS FROM 300 DEGS AT 5 KTS) AND CHANGED OUR DEST TO SBP. ON OUR ARR AT SBP THE STRATUS HAD RETREATED AND THE FIELD WAS AGAIN VFR. WE LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT AND TRANSPORTED OUR OUTBOUND PAX TO SFO. I FOUND OUT LATER THAT ABOUT 10 MINS PRIOR (THE SAME TIME THE STATIONS SAID SBP WAS CLR) TO OUR FIRST ARR ATTEMPT AT SBP AN OTH ACR FLT LANDED. THE NEXT NIGHT, OCT/THU/96 MR X AGAIN CHANGED OUR ROUTING SO THAT ANOTHER E120 CREW WOULD FLY FLT. I CALLED AND ASKED HIM WHY HE CHANGED OUR SCHEDULE. AFTER MUCH HEMMING AND HAWING, HE SAID IT WAS BECAUSE I WAS MISSING THE APCHS TO SBP, ESPECIALLY WHEN OTHER ACFT WERE LNDG AT SBP. I ASKED HIM HOW OFTEN THIS WOULD RECUR, SINCE I WAS SCHEDULED TO FLY THIS TRIP FOR ANOTHER 14 TIMES THIS MONTH. I WAS TOLD IT DEPENDED ON THE DISPATCHER. I TOLD MR X I FELT HE WAS EITHER INSULTING ME, OR THE PLTS HE REPLACED ME WITH, BY HIS IMPLICATIONS. I ALSO WANTED TO RESOLVE WHATEVER PROB HE HAD. MR X TOLD ME HE FELT HE HAD NO PROB (OR THAT THERE WAS NO PROB) TO RESOLVE. AND HE WOULD CONTINUE TO REPLACE ME WHENEVER HE SAW FIT TO GET THE AIRPLANES INTO SBP. I FEEL THAT MR X'S ACTIONS IN THIS MATTER ARE SLANDEROUS. NOT TO MENTION IT IS A BAD PRECEDENCE TO HAVE CERTAIN CREWS YOU WON'T (OR DON'T WANT TO) SEND TO CERTAIN DESTS. AFTER CAREFUL REVIEW I FEEL THE ENTIRE 'PROB' IS ONE OF PERCEPTION AND OF NOT UNDERSTANDING THE RAPIDLY CHANGING AND CAPRICIOUS NATURE OF THE WX IN SBP. DURING THE SUMMER COASTAL FOG SEASON I HAVE FLOWN A LARGE NUMBER OF THE FLTS TO SBP AT THIS TIME OF DAY. THE WX AT SBP IS NOTORIOUSLY CAPRICIOUS AND THE TERRAIN AND PREVAILING WIND MAKE A MISSED APCH MUCH MORE COMMON THAN OTHER ARPTS. EVEN THEN, THE MISSES DESCRIBED ABOVE ARE THE ONLY MISSES I'VE MADE AT SBP ALL SUMMER. SO, UNLESS I'M SOMEHOW CAUSING THE WX (THAT MUST BE IT -- MY LICENSE PLATE DOES READ WXWOXOF) REPLACING ME ON THE FLT ACCOMPLISHES NOTHING, WHILE SLANDERING MY REPUTATION. I FEEL I AM DUE AN APOLOGY. THEN IF MR X WANTS TO RERTE ME (AT NO LOSS IN PAY) FOR REASONS OTHER THAN THE ONES GIVEN ABOVE, I HAVE NO PROB. I PERSONALLY DISLIKE HAVING TO DIVERT, AND DO IT ONLY WHEN ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. P.S. THIS MORNING (OCT/YY/96) I RECEIVED A CALL FROM THE CHIEF PLT. HE WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT THE MISS ON OCT/WED/96. I TOLD HIM THE SAME THING I SAID IN THIS LETTER (ABOUT THE OCT/WED/96 MISS ONLY) AND TOLD HIM I HAD SENT THIS LETTER. AT THE END OF THE CONVERSATION THE CHIEF PLT SAID HE HAD NO PROB WITH WHAT I WAS DOING. HOWEVER, I WAS LEFT WITH THE DISTINCT IMPRESSION THAT THE COMPANY IS TRYING TO SUBTLY PRESSURE ME.

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.