vicleecy
20th December 2005, 05:34
Dear all,
may I also raise one more question regarding the re-clearance flight planning procedures/requirements?
The question is:
1) May I nominate one airport which is further than
the original destination as an ERA of the re-clearance
flight plan? Is it legal?
For example, for a flight from London(EGLL) to
Kaoshiung(RCKH), may I nominate Taipei(RCTP) as an
alternate for the re-clearance plan? The purpose of
it is in case when there is no other geographical
suitable aerodrome in a reasonable distance before
reaching RCKH(assumes Hong Kong VHHH is very far
away); or, the calculated landing weight at an earlier
airport(for instance Hong Kong VHHH) chosen may
exceeds the aircraft limit.
2) Follow-up to the above situation, is it still legal
if the original destination is also the ERA(eg.
EGLL->VHHH-->ERA VHHH)? Therefore on paperwork
calculation the total fuel carried can still be
reduced compared to normal flight plan.
Because the CAD 360 AOC says the re-clearance
procedures requires adequate fuel from the nominated
aerodrome enroute (overhead; or abeam) to the original
destination. However, it did not say the ERA must be
an aerodrome other than the original destination, or
earlier, or further(as in Question 1). If it is legal
to nominate the same original destination and ERA,
then my required contingency fuel would be reduced to
from "original destination" to "original destination",
(ie. VHHH-->VHHH).
With Zillions of thanks!
Cheers!
Vic
may I also raise one more question regarding the re-clearance flight planning procedures/requirements?
The question is:
1) May I nominate one airport which is further than
the original destination as an ERA of the re-clearance
flight plan? Is it legal?
For example, for a flight from London(EGLL) to
Kaoshiung(RCKH), may I nominate Taipei(RCTP) as an
alternate for the re-clearance plan? The purpose of
it is in case when there is no other geographical
suitable aerodrome in a reasonable distance before
reaching RCKH(assumes Hong Kong VHHH is very far
away); or, the calculated landing weight at an earlier
airport(for instance Hong Kong VHHH) chosen may
exceeds the aircraft limit.
2) Follow-up to the above situation, is it still legal
if the original destination is also the ERA(eg.
EGLL->VHHH-->ERA VHHH)? Therefore on paperwork
calculation the total fuel carried can still be
reduced compared to normal flight plan.
Because the CAD 360 AOC says the re-clearance
procedures requires adequate fuel from the nominated
aerodrome enroute (overhead; or abeam) to the original
destination. However, it did not say the ERA must be
an aerodrome other than the original destination, or
earlier, or further(as in Question 1). If it is legal
to nominate the same original destination and ERA,
then my required contingency fuel would be reduced to
from "original destination" to "original destination",
(ie. VHHH-->VHHH).
With Zillions of thanks!
Cheers!
Vic