Narrative:

This report deals with the acceptance of a dispatch release for a '121' flight between den and jfk on the above date. The conflict deals with whether we were dispatched illegally due to the forecast WX in nyc (jfk). The main body of the 'taf' (terminal area forecast) for jfk was forecast to be '1/4 SM fog' which is below our category I minimums. The 'tempo' part of the qualifying section of the report stated a visibility of '1/2 SM fog' which is above our minimums. (It is the first time I have ever seen the qualifier higher than the main body.) the release did not have a reference to exemption which specifically says the main body of the report must be at or above landing minimums and the qualifier can be below them. (The exact opposite of our forecast.) the captain called the dispatcher who agreed with us that it would not be legal to release us under 'xxyx' (which is why it was never on the release), but the dispatcher said that due to the tempo section of the taf being above minimums that we could be released with just an alternate. Feeling and agreeing that it was not a safety issue, the WX at jfk was 'VFR' and our alternate was clear -- the captain accepted the release. During our return trip and referencing the far's as well as the official FAA interps of the far's I believe that we may have accepted an illegal release.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN A320 FLC QUESTIONS THE VALIDITY OF THEIR DISPATCH RELEASE AFTER RETURNING FROM A FLT TO JFK, NY.

Narrative: THIS RPT DEALS WITH THE ACCEPTANCE OF A DISPATCH RELEASE FOR A '121' FLT BTWN DEN AND JFK ON THE ABOVE DATE. THE CONFLICT DEALS WITH WHETHER WE WERE DISPATCHED ILLEGALLY DUE TO THE FORECAST WX IN NYC (JFK). THE MAIN BODY OF THE 'TAF' (TERMINAL AREA FORECAST) FOR JFK WAS FORECAST TO BE '1/4 SM FOG' WHICH IS BELOW OUR CATEGORY I MINIMUMS. THE 'TEMPO' PART OF THE QUALIFYING SECTION OF THE RPT STATED A VISIBILITY OF '1/2 SM FOG' WHICH IS ABOVE OUR MINIMUMS. (IT IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE EVER SEEN THE QUALIFIER HIGHER THAN THE MAIN BODY.) THE RELEASE DID NOT HAVE A REF TO EXEMPTION WHICH SPECIFICALLY SAYS THE MAIN BODY OF THE RPT MUST BE AT OR ABOVE LNDG MINIMUMS AND THE QUALIFIER CAN BE BELOW THEM. (THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF OUR FORECAST.) THE CAPT CALLED THE DISPATCHER WHO AGREED WITH US THAT IT WOULD NOT BE LEGAL TO RELEASE US UNDER 'XXYX' (WHICH IS WHY IT WAS NEVER ON THE RELEASE), BUT THE DISPATCHER SAID THAT DUE TO THE TEMPO SECTION OF THE TAF BEING ABOVE MINIMUMS THAT WE COULD BE RELEASED WITH JUST AN ALTERNATE. FEELING AND AGREEING THAT IT WAS NOT A SAFETY ISSUE, THE WX AT JFK WAS 'VFR' AND OUR ALTERNATE WAS CLR -- THE CAPT ACCEPTED THE RELEASE. DURING OUR RETURN TRIP AND REFING THE FAR'S AS WELL AS THE OFFICIAL FAA INTERPS OF THE FAR'S I BELIEVE THAT WE MAY HAVE ACCEPTED AN ILLEGAL RELEASE.

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.