Date: 201407
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine Thrust Reverser
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working the South American desk this night; when a flight assigned to the European desk departed [France] headed to [the US]. I heard and witnessed a Maintenance Supervisor rush over to the Dispatcher handling this flight. I believe that Maintenance had worked on a thrust reverser and apparently did not complete the [MEL procedure] as required. He further stated that flight needed to get on the ground immediately and the discussion was to the nearest suitable airport. It was a highly charged conversation and all in the area were listening to the commotion. The Dispatcher contacted the crew and discussed the situation with the Captain and it was decided that they would divert to ZZZZ1. The crew received the Release diverting them to ZZZZ1 and worked with ATC to reroute them. The Dispatcher had maintained control and kept all advised as this happened and was following the flight to the new destination. After a few minutes had passed; the same Maintenance Supervisor came back over and said they wanted the flight in ZZZZ2; instead of ZZZZ1 as they had no maintenance in ZZZZ1. ZZZZ2 is about 35 miles past ZZZZ1 and would mean overflying the nearest suitable airport. The Dispatcher and Captain had agreed on ZZZZ1 and the Release was issued for ZZZZ1 and with the necessity to get the aircraft on the ground ASAP; the Dispatcher would not change the destination to ZZZZ2. This visibly irritated the Maintenance Supervisor and he expressed his opinion that the flight should go to ZZZZ2. He stated they could fix this in ZZZZ2 and if they went to ZZZZ1 we would lose the crew. The Dispatcher reiterated the directive to land at the nearest suitable airport and that the flight will go to ZZZZ1. I did not hear the entire exchange but it sounded like the Maintenance Supervisor had said he did not indicate things that he originally said and the Dispatcher was saying that that is not what you said. I got the impression that the story was altered to allow the flight to continue to ZZZZ2 instead of the nearest suitable airport. The Maintenance Supervisor continued to push the issue with the Dispatcher and after a few minutes went back to his desk. The exchange between the Dispatcher and Maintenance Supervisor had caused a lot of distraction in the office and everyone was trying to get back to work following the disruption. Immediately afterward the Maintenance Manager came down to discuss and try to defuse the situation. I didn't hear the exchange directly while attending to my flights but I did observe the atmosphere change dramatically regarding this flight. The Manager had said something which the Dispatcher replied to and brought the Dispatcher Manager into the discussion. There were more discussions with the Dispatcher and several more with Maintenance personnel. The situation was highly charged and caused a very large distraction in the department. While having all departments in one room works out in most issues; there are times when it can cause problems. We have our Local Management; to assist when we have some issue come up that will redirect the focus of a dispatcher. On this particular event; the Maintenance Supervisor advised Local Management of what was happening then went to tell the Dispatcher. Since it was very urgent; the Dispatcher immediately took corrective action when he learned of it. All the dispatchers were aware of the incident as it unfolded and the subsequent events. The problem was when the Maintenance Department did not like or agree with the action that was being taken. While I understand the concern the Maintenance Department had due to the possibility of the reverser being deployed; once the flight was departed the flight is our responsibility. It seemed that the Maintenance Supervisor was trying to push the Dispatcher and that should never happen. There are many things that potentially can happen by circumventing or undermining the operational control we have and no one should ever be put in that position.His direct questioning of the Dispatcher was not warranted and should have been handled differently. We have a chain of command for Flight Control and this should have been handled through our Lead Dispatcher and/or Supervisor and Manager. I would recommend that under no circumstances is any dispatcher be placed in that position. All departments can go through the flight control management and lead dispatchers. The can act as liaison so the dispatcher can focus on the issue without having to defend him or herself. I would recommend the following: Bring the concern/request to the dispatcher and let them address it. They will advise on how we will handle it and keep all other departments in the loop. No one will interfere with the dispatcher while exercising operational control of his flights. I would certainly hope that these simple guidelines would be an easy process to follow but I have seen this confrontational situation happen before and I feel that is more dangerous than the actual event as it unfolds. While there may be one issue that requires immediate attention; the dispatcher is still responsible for several more flights and has to balance the needs of all without having to fend off a persistent barrage of questions. That practice must stop as it can lead to more potential safety risks. Additionally; when something like this happens it can make the entire group lose the focus on the flights they are responsible for. That is more unnecessary risk being assumed by people not even involved; just in proximity of the exchange. One more thing to consider is the factor of stress that places on the dispatcher and those who witness it. Depending on the individual; it can have an effect that lasts long after the incident. Everyone handles stress differently and I could see a potential safety problems if this had happened to a different dispatcher.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reports overhearing an exchange between another Dispatcher and a Maintenance Supervisor as to where a flight would be diverted; to accomplish a maintenance procedure that had not been completed as part of a MEL deferral. The nearest suitable airport is the initial request from the Supervisor and later changed to an airport with maintenance available. The Dispatcher involved resists the change resulting in a heated exchange between the two.