Narrative:

Our long range overwater flight was dispatched via a commercially provided flight planning program flight plan. We were very rushed during the preflight process at our departure airport due to a dispatch problem in generating a new release due to increased fuel load. I left operations with just 35 minutes prior to departure; still having to go through security; walk to the gate; check in with the agent; brief the flight attendants; and perform my cockpit preflight duties.after about 1 hour in flight; I began a careful review of the paperwork; a review which could not be accomplished at operations; as usual; due to time constraints. This time constraint is continuing problem with the commercially provided flight planning program flight plans; given the amount of time available and the amount of paperwork involved for an ultra-long distance flight. Where a typical flight plan provided by the company computer might encompass about 10-15 pages; the commercial program provided flight plan might require 40 or more pages. The NOTAM package alone for this commercially provided flight plan was 30 pages long. How is a crew supposed to review all that in the limited time available? Upon reviewing the fine details of the commercially provided flight planning program package; I discovered that one of our enroute alternates; ZZZZ had crosswinds of 30 KTS gusting to 39 KTS. ZZZZ was also listed as our critical fuel scenario airport. Here is the sequence report: ZZZZ sa automatic 14030g39kt 10SM OVC016 02/00 A2987 pk wind 130/40/0729 I checked ACARS for NOTAMS and the response was no NOTAMS. However; upon checking the commercially provided flight planning program package for ZZZZ NOTAMS; I found the following current NOTAMS: ZZZZ A0004/11 NDB sya frequency 403 KHZ out of service ZZZZM0114/11 runway xx ALS out of service ZZZZM0106/11 localizer (ILS) unservicable. Why did ACARS show no NOTAMS when there were 3 notams that could significantly impact the safety of our flight? I asked the dispatcher why dispatch was using an airport (ZZZZ) as a critical fuel scenario airport and an enroute alternate with such NOTAMS rendering the airport unusable and also why ACARS was not showing the NOTAMS? He responded; 'we do not check NOTAMS for ea airports.' how are we in compliance with far 121.601's monitoring requirements which state 'aircraft dispatcher information to pilot in command: domestic and flag operations (a) the aircraft dispatcher shall provide the pilot in command all available current reports or information on airport conditions and irregularities of navigation facilities that may affect the safety of the flight. (B) before beginning a flight; the aircraft dispatcher shall provide the pilot in command with all available weather reports and forecasts of weather phenomena that may affect the safety of flight; including adverse weather phenomena; such as clear air turbulence; thunderstorms; and low altitude wind shear; for each route to be flown and each airport to be used. (C) during a flight; the aircraft dispatcher shall provide the pilot in command any additional available information of meteorological conditions (including adverse weather phenomena; such as clear air turbulence; thunderstorms; and low altitude wind shear); and irregularities of facilities and services that may affect the safety of the flight?' by the way; ZZZZ1 was reporting clear and calm but was not considered. The commercially provided flight planning program does not seem to take weather conditions into account when selecting enroute alternates. I understand that the commercially provided flight planning program has the functionality to check weather; NOTAMS; and performance for enroute alternates but this functionality has been deliberately turned off by the company. We discovered while enroute that the dispatcher notes about turbulence on release 1 were missing from release two. Apparently; in the rush to generate release two; the dispatcher left them off. This presented a problem because the notes on release one contained important turbulence information. I suggest that a change be made requiring that dispatcher notes be consistently carried over to new releases.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B747-400 Captain addressed the shortcomings of the recently inaugurated use of a commercially provided flight planning product at his carrier.

Narrative: Our long range overwater flight was dispatched via a commercially provided flight planning program flight plan. We were very rushed during the preflight process at our departure airport due to a dispatch problem in generating a new release due to increased fuel load. I left operations with just 35 minutes prior to departure; still having to go through security; walk to the gate; check in with the agent; brief the flight attendants; and perform my cockpit preflight duties.After about 1 hour in flight; I began a careful review of the paperwork; a review which could not be accomplished at operations; as usual; due to time constraints. This time constraint is continuing problem with the commercially provided flight planning program flight plans; given the amount of time available and the amount of paperwork involved for an ultra-long distance flight. Where a typical flight plan provided by the company computer might encompass about 10-15 pages; the commercial program provided flight plan might require 40 or more pages. The NOTAM package alone for this commercially provided flight plan was 30 pages long. How is a crew supposed to review all that in the limited time available? Upon reviewing the fine details of the commercially provided flight planning program package; I discovered that one of our enroute alternates; ZZZZ had crosswinds of 30 KTS gusting to 39 KTS. ZZZZ was also listed as our critical fuel scenario airport. Here is the sequence report: ZZZZ SA AUTO 14030G39KT 10SM OVC016 02/00 A2987 PK WIND 130/40/0729 I checked ACARS for NOTAMS and the response was NO NOTAMS. However; upon checking the commercially provided flight planning program package for ZZZZ NOTAMS; I found the following current NOTAMS: ZZZZ A0004/11 NDB SYA FREQ 403 KHZ OUT OF SERVICE ZZZZM0114/11 RWY XX ALS OUT OF SERVICE ZZZZM0106/11 LOCALIZER (ILS) UNSERVICABLE. Why did ACARS show no NOTAMS when there were 3 NOTAMs that could significantly impact the safety of our flight? I asked the Dispatcher why Dispatch was using an airport (ZZZZ) as a critical fuel scenario airport and an enroute alternate with such NOTAMS rendering the airport unusable and also why ACARS was not showing the NOTAMS? He responded; 'WE DO NOT CHECK NOTAMS FOR EA AIRPORTS.' How are we in compliance with FAR 121.601's monitoring requirements which state 'Aircraft dispatcher information to pilot in command: Domestic and flag operations (a) The aircraft dispatcher shall provide the pilot in command all available current reports or information on airport conditions and irregularities of navigation facilities that may affect the safety of the flight. (b) Before beginning a flight; the aircraft dispatcher shall provide the pilot in command with all available weather reports and forecasts of weather phenomena that may affect the safety of flight; including adverse weather phenomena; such as clear air turbulence; thunderstorms; and low altitude wind shear; for each route to be flown and each airport to be used. (c) During a flight; the aircraft dispatcher shall provide the pilot in command any additional available information of meteorological conditions (including adverse weather phenomena; such as clear air turbulence; thunderstorms; and low altitude wind shear); and irregularities of facilities and services that may affect the safety of the flight?' By the way; ZZZZ1 was reporting clear and calm but was not considered. The commercially provided flight planning program does not seem to take weather conditions into account when selecting enroute alternates. I understand that the commercially provided flight planning program has the functionality to check weather; NOTAMS; and performance for enroute alternates but this functionality has been deliberately turned off by the company. We discovered while enroute that the dispatcher notes about turbulence on release 1 were missing from release two. Apparently; in the rush to generate release two; the Dispatcher left them off. This presented a problem because the notes on release one contained important turbulence information. I suggest that a change be made requiring that dispatcher notes be consistently carried over to new releases.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.