Narrative:

In the early morning of nov sat 1996, I was being dispatched to san antonio. I noticed that I was being dispatched under an exemption in our operations specifications ('X') that allows dispatch using the main body of a forecast and not the remarks section. Having been fresh out of upgrade training, I felt reasonably familiar with this exemption, however I wasn't totally clear as to how it related to my 'high minimums' qualifications. I proceeded to call my dispatcher for advice concerning my 'high minimums' qualification and the remarks section of the forecast for san antonio predicting WX as low as one fourth mi in fog. I was told that I should be more familiar with 'X' and he then told me that he was disregarding the remarks section totally. I tried to explain that I was 'high minimums' and felt that I was unable to accept the one fourth mi forecast. He continued to quote from 'X' so I told him that I would reread the exemption and if I still had a question, I would call him back. After reviewing the exemption, I again felt that due to a section describing the lowest allowable minimums as 'half of that required to shoot the approach' (which for me in my 'high minimums' status would be a half mi not the one fourth mi as in the remarks section of the forecast), I would be unable to dispatch under this exemption. Once again in a discussion with my dispatcher and his manager I was told that the entire reason for 'X' was so that they could disregard the remarks section of a forecast. Having tried for 5-10 mins (on the radio) to get them to understand my point, they were still convinced that I didn't know what I was talking about. Having some doubt myself, I agreed to take the flight with the understanding that they realized that I was a 'high minimums' captain and that the section I was concerned about was not a dispatch requirement. Upon further review and discussion with my superiors, I believe that I was correct in my original interpretation of the exemption and the flight was dispatched illegally. Upon arrival at san antonio, the WX was indeed one fourth mi and a diversion was required. After landing at houston, once again the dispatchers were quick to get us airborne again and wait out the fog. In their haste they were willing to 'rewrite the forecast' (as allowed for in the operations manual) in order to dispatch. This time I did say 'no.' call back conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter flies for an air carrier that does not have its own WX section, it uses national WX service reports and forecasts. As the FARS do not allow acrs to dispatch aircraft to airports when the destination WX is below minimums, exemption 'X' is made by the FAA so that aircraft can be dispatched under certain conditions. The reporter believes that he was dispatched illegally by a dispatcher who either didn't understand the exemption or chose to ignore it. The solution to this problem is for the air carrier to establish its own WX department. Then destination WX would never be forecast to be below minimums.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737 PLT RPTS THAT HE ACCEPTED A DISPATCH RELEASE TO AN ARPT THAT WAS FORECAST TO BE BELOW HIS 'HIGH' MINIMUMS UPON ARR. ERROR ADMITTED.

Narrative: IN THE EARLY MORNING OF NOV SAT 1996, I WAS BEING DISPATCHED TO SAN ANTONIO. I NOTICED THAT I WAS BEING DISPATCHED UNDER AN EXEMPTION IN OUR OPS SPECS ('X') THAT ALLOWS DISPATCH USING THE MAIN BODY OF A FORECAST AND NOT THE REMARKS SECTION. HAVING BEEN FRESH OUT OF UPGRADE TRAINING, I FELT REASONABLY FAMILIAR WITH THIS EXEMPTION, HOWEVER I WASN'T TOTALLY CLR AS TO HOW IT RELATED TO MY 'HIGH MINIMUMS' QUALIFICATIONS. I PROCEEDED TO CALL MY DISPATCHER FOR ADVICE CONCERNING MY 'HIGH MINIMUMS' QUALIFICATION AND THE REMARKS SECTION OF THE FORECAST FOR SAN ANTONIO PREDICTING WX AS LOW AS ONE FOURTH MI IN FOG. I WAS TOLD THAT I SHOULD BE MORE FAMILIAR WITH 'X' AND HE THEN TOLD ME THAT HE WAS DISREGARDING THE REMARKS SECTION TOTALLY. I TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT I WAS 'HIGH MINIMUMS' AND FELT THAT I WAS UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE ONE FOURTH MI FORECAST. HE CONTINUED TO QUOTE FROM 'X' SO I TOLD HIM THAT I WOULD REREAD THE EXEMPTION AND IF I STILL HAD A QUESTION, I WOULD CALL HIM BACK. AFTER REVIEWING THE EXEMPTION, I AGAIN FELT THAT DUE TO A SECTION DESCRIBING THE LOWEST ALLOWABLE MINIMUMS AS 'HALF OF THAT REQUIRED TO SHOOT THE APCH' (WHICH FOR ME IN MY 'HIGH MINIMUMS' STATUS WOULD BE A HALF MI NOT THE ONE FOURTH MI AS IN THE REMARKS SECTION OF THE FORECAST), I WOULD BE UNABLE TO DISPATCH UNDER THIS EXEMPTION. ONCE AGAIN IN A DISCUSSION WITH MY DISPATCHER AND HIS MGR I WAS TOLD THAT THE ENTIRE REASON FOR 'X' WAS SO THAT THEY COULD DISREGARD THE REMARKS SECTION OF A FORECAST. HAVING TRIED FOR 5-10 MINS (ON THE RADIO) TO GET THEM TO UNDERSTAND MY POINT, THEY WERE STILL CONVINCED THAT I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. HAVING SOME DOUBT MYSELF, I AGREED TO TAKE THE FLT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY REALIZED THAT I WAS A 'HIGH MINIMUMS' CAPT AND THAT THE SECTION I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WAS NOT A DISPATCH REQUIREMENT. UPON FURTHER REVIEW AND DISCUSSION WITH MY SUPERIORS, I BELIEVE THAT I WAS CORRECT IN MY ORIGINAL INTERP OF THE EXEMPTION AND THE FLT WAS DISPATCHED ILLEGALLY. UPON ARR AT SAN ANTONIO, THE WX WAS INDEED ONE FOURTH MI AND A DIVERSION WAS REQUIRED. AFTER LNDG AT HOUSTON, ONCE AGAIN THE DISPATCHERS WERE QUICK TO GET US AIRBORNE AGAIN AND WAIT OUT THE FOG. IN THEIR HASTE THEY WERE WILLING TO 'REWRITE THE FORECAST' (AS ALLOWED FOR IN THE OPS MANUAL) IN ORDER TO DISPATCH. THIS TIME I DID SAY 'NO.' CALL BACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR FLIES FOR AN ACR THAT DOES NOT HAVE ITS OWN WX SECTION, IT USES NATIONAL WX SVC RPTS AND FORECASTS. AS THE FARS DO NOT ALLOW ACRS TO DISPATCH ACFT TO ARPTS WHEN THE DEST WX IS BELOW MINIMUMS, EXEMPTION 'X' IS MADE BY THE FAA SO THAT ACFT CAN BE DISPATCHED UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS. THE RPTR BELIEVES THAT HE WAS DISPATCHED ILLEGALLY BY A DISPATCHER WHO EITHER DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE EXEMPTION OR CHOSE TO IGNORE IT. THE SOLUTION TO THIS PROB IS FOR THE ACR TO ESTABLISH ITS OWN WX DEPT. THEN DEST WX WOULD NEVER BE FORECAST TO BE BELOW MINIMUMS.

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.