Prohibition of Remote Dispatching
Details
The document's own metadata, straight from the source system.
- Title
- Prohibition of Remote Dispatching
- Posted
- May 22, 2026
- Comment period
- May 22, 2026 – Jul 22, 2026
- FR Doc
- 2026-10293
- CFR
- 14 CFR Part 121
- Topics
Overview
What the public is saying — stance, who's commenting, and the issues they raise.
Stance breakdown
Who commented
Breakdown by commenter type.
Comments over time
Weekly arrivals, stacked by stance.
Support × commenter type
How each type splits across stance.
Issues raised
The docket's canonical issues. Select one to browse its comments.
Explorer
Every mirrored comment — filter by stance, campaign, or issue.
- Jul 21, 2026Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIOSupportUnion📎 Attachment
The Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD), a union representing 39 affiliated organizations, supports the FAA's proposed rule to prohibit remote aircraft dispatching. They argue that dispatching is safety-critical work that requires a controlled environment and urge the FAA to fulfill the Congressional mandate while also establishing security requirements for emergency remote operations.
Read comment → - Jul 21, 2026Transport Workers Union of AmericaSupportUnion📎 Attachment
The Transport Workers Union of America (TWU) supports the proposed rule prohibiting remote dispatching to ensure aviation safety and security. They argue that aircraft dispatchers require the secure, distraction-free, and technologically redundant environment of a dedicated operations center to maintain joint operational control and handle time-critical decisions effectively.
Read comment → - Jul 14, 2026Anonymous AnonymousOtherIndividual
The commenter suggests a specific wording change in the proposed rule, requesting that the verb "work" be replaced with "serve" to ensure consistency with existing regulations regarding aircraft dispatcher duties and operating familiarization.
Read comment → - Jul 13, 2026Anonymous AnonymousSupportIndividualRead comment →
- Jun 20, 2026Anonymous AnonymousSupportIndividual📎 Attachment
The commenter provides specific technical revisions to the proposed regulatory text for sections 121.107 and 121.127 to ensure consistency with existing statutes and clarify terminology. They argue that incorporating these requirements directly into Part 121 is necessary because certificate holders rely on that specific part for operational requirements rather than looking at statutes or preambles.
Read comment → - Jun 20, 2026Anonymous AnonymousOtherIndividualRead comment →
