Narrative:

Flight was in a critical phase of flight having made the decision to divert to mht. Many components were at play that impacted safety of flight. Both PIC and dispatcher were complying with far and company requirements to ensure a safe and legal decision. Windshear and thunderstorm impact at the field and a long line of aircraft on the approach with a thunderstorm approximately 10 NM from the southwest of the field at approximately 25 KTS; all resulted in the decision to divert to mht. I amended the flight release to reflect the new destination of mht after checking all the requirements of original dispatch were met and notified the PIC of such. On the descent 'are you going to mht or going to try for bos? WX has cleared up quite a bit -- customer service.' far 121.601(C) aircraft dispatcher information to PIC: domestic and flag operations 'during a flight; the aircraft dispatcher shall provide the PIC any additional available information of meteorological conditions (including; adverse WX phenomena; such as CAT; thunderstorms and low altitude windshear); and irregularities of facilities and services; that may affect the safety of flight.' customer service is not covered under this far. This compromises safety of flight and may lead to a probable cause in an accident scenario with a different set of circumstances. This is not the first report filed on this matter. My question is; why does the company and the FAA allow this to continue? There are event analyses and documentation to support that this is a recurrent phenomenon. The very integrity of the FARS are continually being compromised. We need to operate with ethics to support problem solving this challenge and not make excuses due to politics.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR DISPATCHER REPORTS COSTUMER SERVICE AGENT CONTACTING FLT CREW VIA ACARS REQUESTING THEIR INTENTIONS DURING WX DIVERSION.

Narrative: FLT WAS IN A CRITICAL PHASE OF FLT HAVING MADE THE DECISION TO DIVERT TO MHT. MANY COMPONENTS WERE AT PLAY THAT IMPACTED SAFETY OF FLT. BOTH PIC AND DISPATCHER WERE COMPLYING WITH FAR AND COMPANY REQUIREMENTS TO ENSURE A SAFE AND LEGAL DECISION. WINDSHEAR AND TSTM IMPACT AT THE FIELD AND A LONG LINE OF ACFT ON THE APCH WITH A TSTM APPROX 10 NM FROM THE SW OF THE FIELD AT APPROX 25 KTS; ALL RESULTED IN THE DECISION TO DIVERT TO MHT. I AMENDED THE FLT RELEASE TO REFLECT THE NEW DEST OF MHT AFTER CHKING ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF ORIGINAL DISPATCH WERE MET AND NOTIFIED THE PIC OF SUCH. ON THE DSCNT 'ARE YOU GOING TO MHT OR GOING TO TRY FOR BOS? WX HAS CLRED UP QUITE A BIT -- CUSTOMER SVC.' FAR 121.601(C) ACFT DISPATCHER INFO TO PIC: DOMESTIC AND FLAG OPS 'DURING A FLT; THE ACFT DISPATCHER SHALL PROVIDE THE PIC ANY ADDITIONAL AVAILABLE INFO OF METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS (INCLUDING; ADVERSE WX PHENOMENA; SUCH AS CAT; TSTMS AND LOW ALT WINDSHEAR); AND IRREGULARITIES OF FACILITIES AND SVCS; THAT MAY AFFECT THE SAFETY OF FLT.' CUSTOMER SVC IS NOT COVERED UNDER THIS FAR. THIS COMPROMISES SAFETY OF FLT AND MAY LEAD TO A PROBABLE CAUSE IN AN ACCIDENT SCENARIO WITH A DIFFERENT SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST RPT FILED ON THIS MATTER. MY QUESTION IS; WHY DOES THE COMPANY AND THE FAA ALLOW THIS TO CONTINUE? THERE ARE EVENT ANALYSES AND DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT THAT THIS IS A RECURRENT PHENOMENON. THE VERY INTEGRITY OF THE FARS ARE CONTINUALLY BEING COMPROMISED. WE NEED TO OPERATE WITH ETHICS TO SUPPORT PROB SOLVING THIS CHALLENGE AND NOT MAKE EXCUSES DUE TO POLITICS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 2009 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.