Just talked to a friend that works in the dispatch center at Allegiant. Says things are a mess over there. Some of their emergencies have been well publicized.

He told me the captain from one of the emergency evacs in PIE has been fired as of yesterday for using his emergency authority!!
http://www.tampabay.com/news/busines...ts-third-emergency-landing/2236154

That is so very ironic, because he told me that VP of flight ops Greg Baden and safety director Eric Gust were working a flight/flying a jet to FAR yesterday, when they learned it was closed...as they were on approach....guess they missed the well publicized NOTAM. Oops. Makes you wonder. Will these geniuses fire theirselves?

The fun starts around 12:36
http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kfar/KFAR-Twr-Jul-23-2015-1730Z.mp3

Between this mess, the engine failures and their training issues, it seems like the wheels are getting loose.

There's a dispatcher at my company who left Allegiant. And that's saying something considering where I work. I've heard some not so reassuring stories out of him, as well as from a friend I have who works ground handling for them at an outstation.

Just curious, is anyone here having flashbacks to Valujet?

i think they are just skirting the minimums to stay flying..imho yes it seems they are going down the same path as vj..

Yikes. I'm taking my first flight on Allegiant next week, and it'll probably be my last. It'll be interesting to check them out though, more than anything to see how they compare to Spirit.

Quoting ih8b6 (Thread starter): That is so very ironic, because he told me that VP of flight ops Greg Baden and safety director Eric Gust were working a flight/flying a jet to FAR yesterday, when they learned it was closed...as they were on approach....guess they missed the well publicized NOTAM. Oops. Makes you wonder. Will these geniuses fire theirselves?

The dispatcher never should of dispatched that flight, but yes the crew AND the dispatcher should be aware of the NOTAMs.

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 5): The dispatcher never should of dispatched that flight, but yes the crew AND the dispatcher should be aware of the NOTAMs.

I was thinking the same thing. PIC and dispatcher both sign the release, they are both responsible. Although in this case the crew normally gets the information from the dispatcher, if it is not on the flight release the crew doesn't always seek out other sources.

FWIW, I think G4 is going through some growing pains. They are no longer a small carrier that can do things on the fly and expect it to all work out. They are going to have to invest in additional support staff as they continue to grow, especially in the OCC. Unfortunately these things cost money, and G4 is known to trip over a dollar to pick up a nickel. They will pay eventually, and delayed or cancelled flights increases costs and can lead to reduced future revenue if passengers book away.

Quoting nws2002 (Reply 6): FWIW, I think G4 is going through some growing pains.

They've been doing this for almost 20 years now...they should know better. I don't think this is growing pains, I think this is scraping the bottom of the barrel to save a buck.

I think a large part of Allegiants issues is that they operate out of these very small airports where everyday events are top of the news coverage. A 4 hour delay at some of the these airports they operate from is front page an top of the evening news Coverage. They get way more coverage of these smaller events that happen everyday at the larger hubs. It does seem like Allegiant needs a better PR department to handle these media reports etc but they just dont seem to care. The world we live in today i think they need to start caring more.

plus allegiant also flies a very large number of very infrequent flyers ie the people who write in to complain about Allegiant because their flight was too bumpy and want a full refund because of the bumps. Everything allegiant does is documented more than the legacies because their infrequent flyers complain about things no one else does, and they fly out of these small airport where they are the premier carrier and they are slow local news towns. I dont think Allegiant has ever had a major accident have they? People standing on the wing makes a great photo but in reality everyone was safe and proper procedures were followed.

I think allegiant is a safe airline i know two pilots who fly for them, both like working for them neither has recommended i dont fly them or anything negative on safety. I just flew them last week LAS-COS and it was a great experience again

So, your saying emergency landings with slides deployed like what happened at PIE are just PR issues. And they happen every day at big airports?

Quoting jetjeanes (Reply 3): imho yes it seems they are going down the same path as vj..

G4's future maybe compromised but VJ didn't last that long, 4 years, including four and a half months grounded. Hopefully the FAA won't wait till another flight 592 happens.

Just today I watched one of their 320s blow the emergency slide on the L1 door with pax on board , pushback ready to go, and beacons flashing. Being at PIE we see alot of their incidents and emergencies. I'm surprised the FAA hasn't been hounding them, like they were with SkyKing when I was working with them in Tampa.

After being put in a hold because they couldn't intercept the localizer TWICE at GFK you will never get me onboard one of their aircraft.
Pat

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 10): G4's future maybe compromised but VJ didn't last that long, 4 years, including four and a half months grounded. Hopefully the FAA won't wait till another flight 592 happens.

I guess you did not read the accident report

Quoting ih8b6 (Thread starter): The fun starts around 12:36

I was going to write something about problems happen everywhere, and mistakes get made by people in good faith, and let's not make a big deal out of nothing. Then I listened to that excerpt..... HOLY SHIKIES!!!

He can't make an airport 70 miles away, OPS doesn't have the right telephone number to the tower, he is on Bingo fuel in 3 minutes, they flight-planned to a closed airport -- what if there were unmoveable equipment on the runway? What if it there were holes dug in it? That was a VERY DANGEROUS situation, and the POI ought to be down there making these idiots sweat tomorrow.

Quoting n471wn (Reply 13): I guess you did not read the accident report

Exactly.

Quoting n471wn (Reply 13): I guess you did not read the accident report

Well no, I did not. Why? Because I had a vague recollection of incidents at G4 over time (even if I was wrong) this was how it sounded to me with my brain not completely back from holidays. Of course the situation seems a lot worse than what I thought.

Quoting nws2002 (Reply 6): They will pay eventually, and delayed or cancelled flights increases costs and can lead to reduced future revenue if passengers book away.

I know I am not Allegiant's normal passenger - meaning I will gladly pay $20 more per flight for reliabity and service - but it is this that gets me with them. I live 5 minutes from PIE and my parents live 10 minutes from FWA. In theory the PIE-FWA direct flight would be a "God-send." The problem is that it is always late, and then now that we have a child and have to check a bag, you wait an hour in FWA because they don't give you your bag until the turn around leaves. I honestly think it is now faster doing the TPA-ATL-FWA flight (and probably safer), and only marginally more expensive.

Quoting ih8b6 (Thread starter): VP of flight ops Greg Baden and safety director Eric Gust

So which of these two geniuses was on the microphone in the excerpt?

I like the way the controller very nicely informs them that their "company dispatch should have been aware of this for months". The communicating pilot tries to have something to say and then decides to make a graceful softshoe off stage. Which was the right move under the circumstances.

I also like how he threatens to declare an emergency and the controller essentially says, "Okay, no problem. Just contact Minneapolis Center and they can coordinate that with us." The response is essentially, "Um, okay, yeah, we'll give it a few more minutes before we do that." Because they don't want the embarrassment of declaring an emergency. Seems to me that if it's that desperate, then just do it and get on the ground. Don't sacrifice safety, if indeed fuel is so low, to avoid having to explain yourself. What if something else goes wrong? And one of these guys is the Director of Safety? He should be the FIRST guy to just bite the bullet in the name of safety, declare the emergency, and land. Now.

Unreal. Also, where is the dispatcher in all this? It seems from the outside that everyone is trying to cover their ass rather than focusing on the safest outcome. (I.e. dispatcher ass covering because of not knowing about published NOTAM, pilots ass-covering and strongarming because don't want to declare emergency.) I mean seriously, why are they calling the tower manager by telephone? Because they want him to accomodate them without drawing the attention that ANOTHER emergency declaration will cause. And why is either the VP of Flight Ops or the Director of Safety using non-standard terminology when communicating with the tower? "Bingo Fuel"? Not only doesn't that TERM exist in civilian aviation, but the CONCEPT doesn't exist, because you're not on a mission away from base and having to turn back towards it by a certain time. Technically, he's saying that he's about to not have enough fuel to get back to wherever they are coming from.

And on and on...

From listening to the whole thing, it sounds like they managed to sweet-talk someone into accomodating them, and getting on the ground before the open window without declaring an emergency, but really, this is very concerning.

THIS is a story the media could/should legitimately have a look at, I hate to say, as I am generally-skeptical of what other people dramatize as a "safety issue".

It's tough to pass judgement without having all the information, but the question I most want answered is why they were circling Fargo while someone tried to call the tower if they were truly that low on fuel. Seems like fuel that could have been used to head over to GFK instead of trying to sweet talk tower into moving whatever equipment was on the runway. I don't know how much fuel they burned flying in circles over Fargo, but I wonder if it was enough to land at GFK without declaring an emergency.

I don't understand why FAR would be closed. It's not a small airport, the tower is manned 24 hours, and they have multiple runways.

Quoting azstar (Reply 20): I don't understand why FAR would be closed. It's not a small airport, the tower is manned 24 hours, and they have multiple runways.

Of which only two are long enough for large jets, and those two are intersecting, so heavy construction on one is likely to impact the other.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 18): So which of these two geniuses was on the microphone in the excerpt?

Eric Gust

Quoting azstar (Reply 20): I don't understand why FAR would be closed. It's not a small airport, the tower is manned 24 hours, and they have multiple runways.

Quoting flyDTW1992 (Reply 21): Of which only two are long enough for large jets, and those two are intersecting, so heavy construction on one is likely to impact the other.

There's an airshow going on down there this weekend.
Pat

I see there's a new NOTAM that indicates something about closed except scheduled air carriers with 1 hour's notice to a telephone number. Sounds like some procedures were revised after this incident and the tower phone number prominently displayed. Sounds like the FAA worked quickly to make sure no issues on its end safety-wise. Now the airline??

Ah. Mr. Gust. Former Dir. of Flight Ops at Mesa before going to Allegiant. Mesa. Hmmmm... Mesa.

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 19): It's tough to pass judgement without having all the information,

You are absolutely correct.

We don't know what his actual situation was, especially with the weasel-concept "bingo fuel", but what he ' described was dire. If true, a real screw-up. If exaggerated to get in under the radar and without scrutiny, still not good. They will say they were being proactive to try to stay safe, and maybe that's true. However, the whole episode warrants scrutiny regardless. If they were on the side of right, then they will welcome that scrutiny.

Everybody should take the time to listen to that exchange on the posted audio.

[Edited 2015-07-26 01:59:22]

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 16): Quoting n471wn (Reply 13): I guess you did not read the accident report Well no, I did not. Why? Because I had a vague recollection of incidents at G4 over time (even if I was wrong) this was how it sounded to me with my brain not completely back from holidays. Of course the situation seems a lot worse than what I thought.

the incident was a result of the cargo company shipping improper and mislabeled items, not because of maintenance of ValuJets aircraft

http://edition.cnn.com/US/9611/15/valujet/

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 19): I don't know how much fuel they burned flying in circles over Fargo

I pulled it up on flightaware expecting to see a lot of circles near FAR. Instead it looks like an east turn and a long downwind before turning base. If I'm looking at the right flight that has me concerned why was fuel too much of a problem to divert.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/A...6/history/20150723/1405Z/KLAS/KFAR

I will add though I have personally witnessed NOTAM's vanish from the system only to reappear hours later essentially identical. I heard a claim from an airport official here in Arizona he submitted one online once worded "until further notice". He said he later learned the system auto removed it after 7 days when it was submitted online. It is remotely possible this is what happened and that it was hastily put back in after this incident. I'm not saying that must be what occurred because it seems odd only G4 would have had this happen to them if it did. I tend to err more on the side that dispatch and/or the flight crew overlooked it. I'm not sure if there is a way the general public can view expired NOTAM's online or what time they were removed to confirm this. One would hope the FAA can though.

Quoting skywaymanaz (Reply 28):

I noticed the same thing when I looked up this flight. IF this is the correct flight, does this not indicate they arrived in the area near fuel minimums?

If he didn't have 20 minutes, and didn't have fuel to divert to an airport 70 miles away (especially from a position "circling" at some altitude) and his approach had been essentially-normal, that's certainly concerning.

The issue was not whether the fuel on-boarded was legal, it is whether it was safe.

[Edited 2015-07-26 11:21:13]

I guess I'm lucky because I do the 9pm IWA - OAK flight every other month on G4 and have never had a major issue. Up until recently it was the latest flight you could get between Phoenix and the Bay Area, so the schedule is really convenient. The clientele are unique...but it's a two hour flight.

Hopefully the rumors of cutting corners are just that, rumors.

Well..first off, I'm pretty disappointed in the OP for posting names of the crew, especially given the fact this is still fresh and an ongoing investigation. That's pretty disrespectful and the point of this post of the post could have been achieved without the use of names.

Is this a big mess up? Absolutely and there were failures on many levels. Yes, the airspace was notamed closed and the flight should not have even been dispatched prior to coordination with FAR tower. As for the fuel situation, this has been a big, ongoing struggle at G4. The company (including said management pilots) want crews to fly around with MIN fuel to save money and for performance. G4 crams 166 seats in the 80s and due to the very high load factors and often limited runway lengths, they run into performance issues constantly. In order to make numbers work, the flights often get dispatched with legal fuel loads. However, when situations like this come up, the crews have to make split second decisions to decide where to land as the 80 has a pretty high fuel consumption rate down low. This being said, what happened was unacceptable and I would imagine some things will change in HQ.

As for the many other incidents, it's a lot of factors that are adding up including rapid expansion, lack of resources, training and the consistent attention to cost savings that are causing these issues. The company makes record profits, yet it seems on a day to day bases the operation (note not the airplanes or lack of safety) is crumbling. Just know, your pilots for the most part are experienced and are professionals. They sure as hell won't risk their lives or any of the passengers for the operation!

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 32): In order to make numbers work, the flights often get dispatched with legal fuel loads. However, when situations like this come up, the crews have to make split second decisions to decide where to land as the 80 has a pretty high fuel consumption rate down low.

You should never have to make a split second decision on your fuel load. If you do, you should be sitting in back, not in the pilot's seat.
Pat

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 32): Well..first off, I'm pretty disappointed in the OP for posting names of the crew, especially given the fact this is still fresh and an ongoing investigation.

I think it is significant, and newsworthy, that the Director of Safety and the VP of Flight Ops, two MANAGEMENT pilots, were the pilots. Anybody else, and I agree with you it's irrelevant. But it's not irrelevant here.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 33): You should never have to make a split second decision on your fuel load. If you do, you should be sitting in back, not in the pilot's seat. Pat

Tell that to the VP of Flight Ops and Director of Safety!! And keep in mind, we are talking about dipping into the reserves, not the tank going dry. It's pretty common to land with about a thousand pounds from dipping into the reserve.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 34): I think it is significant, and newsworthy, that the Director of Safety and the VP of Flight Ops, two MANAGEMENT pilots, were the pilots. Anybody else, and I agree with you it's irrelevant. But it's not irrelevant here.

I agree 100% and Director of Safety and VP of Flight Ops, two Management pilots would have gotten the point across just fine. Not the use of their personal names!

[Edited 2015-07-26 13:55:51]

I thought that going into the reserve fuel was itself a significant event. If it's happening all the time, that, too, seems significant.

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 35): I agree 100% and Director of Safety and VP of Flight Ops, two Management pilots would have gotten the point across just fine. Not the use of their personal names!

I hear ya, and the overt use of their names might (or might not) suggest an agenda, but in the end it's a distinction without a difference because it takes two seconds to figure out who holds those job titles, and the specific titles themselves are significant and relevant.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 18): it sounds like they managed to sweet-talk someone into accomodating them, and getting on the ground before the open window without declaring an emergency

Nope - they declared a fuel emergency to get in. Listen beginning at 20:06:
http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kfar/KFAR-App-Jul-23-2015-1730Z.mp3

These same guys told FAR Twr (see OP's audio link) they didn't have enough fuel to divert 70 miles up to GFK, even though they flew a slightly *shorter* than filed flight path (1,254 mi flown vs. 1,260 mi filed; http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAY426)

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 30): The issue was not whether the fuel on-boarded was legal, it is whether it was safe.

Funny you should say that. Quoting FAR 121.639 (domestic ops section):

No person may dispatch or take off an airplane unless it has enough fuel—
(a) To fly to the airport to which it is dispatched;
(b) Thereafter, to fly to and land at the most distant alternate airport (where required) for the airport to which dispatched; and
(c) Thereafter, to fly for 45 minutes at normal cruising fuel consumption or, for certificate holders who are authorized to conduct day VFR operations in their operations specifications and who are operating nontransport category airplanes type certificated after December 31, 1964, to fly for 30 minutes at normal cruising fuel consumption for day VFR operations.

Quoting Scooter (Reply 4): Yikes. I'm taking my first flight on Allegiant next week, and it'll probably be my last. It'll be interesting to check them out though, more than anything to see how they compare to Spirit.

I'd be interested hearing your comparison having flown NK, but not G4.

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 10): G4's future maybe compromised but VJ didn't last that long, 4 years, including four and a half months grounded. Hopefully the FAA won't wait till another flight 592 happens.

Although the incident on Valujet was due to improper oxygen tank storage & labeling, the public impact would be far worse, especially if the proposed incident is determined to be G4's fault.

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 35): Tell that to the VP of Flight Ops and Director of Safety!! And keep in mind, we are talking about dipping into the reserves, not the tank going dry. It's pretty common to land with about a thousand pounds from dipping into the reserve.

Why not use their names and share their positions? Those 2 didn't have a problem firing their pilot for declaring an emergency.

As for G4. The CEO Maurice Gallagher founded Valujet. I am noticing similar problems coming up, and similar behaviors. Should red flags be raised? Absolutely! The rise in incidents is nothing to just turn your head away from. The pattern is very concerning.

On the face of it, this is a severely embarrassing situation that Allegiant had in FAR. The tower seemed to suggest that a NOTAM and advisory were sent to carriers well in advance. What we don't know is what information the dispatcher and pilot in command had. There may have been a NOTAM and advisory sent out but was the information available to the dispatcher and pilot? I know that sometimes communication isn't always what it should be.

However, if the NOTAM was there then this is a seriously embarrassing situation. Both the pilot in command and dispatcher must read the NOTAMs as part of the flight planning process. For both to miss it is a huge embarrassment.

With that being said, this should shed light on an industry wide problem not Allegiant problem. They had this happen but sadly I doubt they will be the first. I say this as a 121 dispatcher for a legacy airline. Every airline dispatch department is overworked. 50-60 flights for one dispatcher to work is way too much and too much stuff at every airline gets missed. Thankfully, it is usually only minor stuff but occasionally stuff like this happens at every airline. Dispatchers should not be overworked to the point they are at most carriers. With management wanting dispatchers and pilots to carry less fuel you will see more of these situations at all airlines since a dispatcher with a ton of workload also makes split second decisions and skims through the NOTAMs.

For pilots this sheds light on another industry problem at every airline. An over-reliance on the dispatcher to do all the flight planning. Dispatchers do get it right a lot more than they get it wrong but like everyone both pilots and dispatchers miss things. Too often some pilots just don't read their flight paperwork and just assume that dispatch has it all covered. Pilots are also trying to get a lot accomplished in a short period of time and they as well can get too busy to properly go over the paperwork.

The amount of NOTAMs, weather information, performance data, route planning, fuel planning, altitude planning for one flight makes it important for someone to have time to review it all to make sure everything checks out. But too often at an airline this is not the case for both the pilot and dispatcher.

Quoting MSJYOP28Apilot (Reply 41): With that being said, this should shed light on an industry wide problem not Allegiant problem.

Very interesting.

FWIW, when this happened, I looked at the public NOTAM list, and there did appear to be several NOTAMS for FAR which discussed certain closures in the relevant period which appeared to predate this incident, plus a very clear one, listing the tower phone number and directed straight at commercial air carriers, which appeared to be dated afterwards.

I thought someone would bring this up a lot sooner. NOTAMs are only available 72 hours before the event. TFRs are available long before. Pull up the TFRs and see all the information that was published concerning this closure.

Quoting CIDFlyer (Reply 27): Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 16): Quoting n471wn (Reply 13):I guess you did not read the accident reportWell no, I did not. Why? Because I had a vague recollection of incidents at G4 over time (even if I was wrong) this was how it sounded to me with my brain not completely back from holidays. Of course the situation seems a lot worse than what I thought. the incident was a result of the cargo company shipping improper and mislabeled items, not because of maintenance of ValuJets aircrafthttp://edition.cnn.com/US/9611/15/valujet/

Not exactly. ValuJet used Sabretech, a division of Sabreliner, the spinoff of North American, as a maintenance contractor. Sabre tech removed expired oxygen generators from an MD-80 that ValuJet had purchased and was getting ready to put into service. SabreTech took the generators and packaged them and then marked them for shipment to Atlanta, and they were loaded on board Critter 592. It was not a cargo company. It was cargo that belonged to ValuJet, shipped on ValuJet but mishandled and packaged by Sabretech.

And Sabretech had no business marking that as COMAT and putting it on the plane. And they marked them as empty oxygen generators, rather than disabled oxygen generators, which are two entirely different things. They did it because they were trying to clean up their warehouse in advance of an inspection, and just decided to ship them back to the owner, rather than disposing of them properly, as they should have done. Delta had exactly the same thing happen on its ramp within months of the valujet incident. The Delta generators were about to be loaded on to one of their planes when they went up in flames. It would have been a Delta accident rather than a ValueJet accident but for luck. As much as people want to say that this reflects some sort of safety culture issue at Valujet, that's just ridiculous when you look at it dispassionately. Of course, nobody in the business ever looks at ValuJet dispassionately. Either people thought well of them, or they thought ill of them, and where one comes out on the accident almost always tracks the person's predisposition.

Now let's set this thread drift to off.

[Edited 2015-07-27 15:59:43]

The incident at Fargo hit our local paper here near PIE. While I don't have a horse in this race, I will say that neither I or a family member will ever step foot on one of their planes. Where there is smoke there usually is a fire.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/busines...ed-airport-makes-emergency/2238936

OP here....

Lots of good comments. I am on an iPad and it's a pain to quote...
1) I have no agenda. Just sharing information.
2). I wasn't told their names, just their position. Google told me the rest...saved you time.
3) I think a writer for a Tampa area paper reads airliners. He has a write up. Not much else than is here.
4) The two pilots are poor excuses for airmen. I am unsure how they can sleep well firing a PIE captain but then nearly running outta fuel and having to declare an emergency.
5) FAR closure was no secret. FAA had a ton of coms thru many avenues. It was no secret.
6) fuel. Pilot is captain. You don't like the fuel don't take the plane. Simple as that. It's your license. Not the CEOs. Maybe Mr. VP was trying to set an example.
7) I've worked with one of the two in a past life. I'd drink a beer with them anytime. They are ok outside of work.

To the person talking about dispatchers and an "over reliance on dispatchers to do flight planning...." Seriously? That is your job. The last thing you want to do is complain about over reliance and delegate work out. Protect your job. The last thing you want is for management to lobby to delegate work out without your permission. Soon they won't need so many dispatchers. Less pay. Plus dispatchers gotta read notams. Pilots don't always!  

This is nothing against line pilots at Allegiant. I handled many of their flights in a past life. Great folks, fine airmen,and smart people.

Quoting n92r03 (Reply 46): The incident at Fargo hit our local paper here near PIE.

Quoting ih8b6 (Reply 47): I think a writer for a Tampa area paper reads airliners. He has a write up. Not much else than is here.

That's a good reporter, because he dropped the most sensational aspect of the story, that the flight deck on that flight was manned by the Director of Safety and the VP of Flight Ops. Allegiant probably wouldn't confirm that to the reporter, so he didn't run with it. Most other schlock reporters would have found a way to get it in: "Airliners.net, an airline enthusiast web site, repported that..." or "Some apparent Allegiant insiders identified the captain and co-pilot of the airplane as..." But he couldn't confirm it, so he did the honorable thing. Obviously no axe to grind against the airline.

Quoting MSJYOP28Apilot (Reply 41):

Well-said and a developing scary situation. Apparently some of the regionals (EV) are doing 70-90 releases in a shift. If not more. That's insanity. Delta certainly doesn't do that many.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 42): FWIW, when this happened, I looked at the public NOTAM list, and there did appear to be several NOTAMS for FAR which discussed certain closures in the relevant period which appeared to predate this incident, plus a very clear one, listing the tower phone number and directed straight at commercial air carriers, which appeared to be dated afterwards.

In the Delta Dispatch system, the flight planning software automatically populates all relevant NOTAMs for the Dispatcher and they're also included on the release. Whether you spend the time to read them all, that's a different story. I don't know what system G4 uses but that should be a pretty standard feature in most OCCs.