I don't know why I am bothering as
safety concerns logic is so tortured he could probably solicit Amnesty Internationals help in resolution.
Having gone from the suggestion that the vague submission of 366 pages of an Italian accident report (and similar documents,) would make his argument clear, to the selected extracts of an anonymous companies "operations manual" It may well be that the referred document related to the airline in question? Without the content surrounding the limited extract, it is impossible to agree or disagree with the assertion or place it into any valid context.
This is to deal with Bealzebub who claimed that after 25+ years as a commander he wasn't aware of these codes.
What I actually said was:
I have never used these in 30+ years of airline flying. Possibly because they are codes normally used by ground handling agents as part of their SITA dispatch messages.
Spot the difference? That in itself was only after Safety concerns had edited his original post in order to specify what he was alluding to. These are administrative codes used by ground handling agents. In the case of the operations manual (he is now quoting) they are also used as codes on one airlines operations returns. I haven't used them in the two airlines I have flown for. Delay codes are simply administrative, and can be anything the airline chooses. They are not authoritative, and they do not define the meaning of a word but simply give a reason or opinion for that delay having occurred.
As an ex-flight engineer he will be aware, because I remember from my own 707 days, and indeed every day since, that the
commander must certify that the
"quantities and distribution of fuel and oil (as shown) are acceptable for the intended flight."
"Flight crew" may well be responsible for supervising the refuelling of the airplane. However other personnel can and often are designated as refuelling supervisors.
Looking at my current "operations return" I have a selection of 16 administrative delay codes. There is not one for "fuelling" but there is one for "technical." The 16th is "other" for anything that in my opinion (I am not required to agree a reason with ground staff or anybody else unless I deem fit,) constitutes the reason or opinion for that delay. The point being that it is administrative, varies from company to company, and defines nothing in itself.
I presently have in front of me a copy of the aircrafts Technical log. On the page that I am required to certify prior to dispatch, there are a number of additional certificates that either may or must be completed prior to my certification. These certificates can be completed by other persons charged with the completion of that task. Part 3 of the
Technical log is the fuelling certificate. This can be signed by the flight crew or a ground engineer. It states:
I hereby certify that the quantities and distribution of fuel and oil at completion of fuelling are as shown above.
It doesn't certify that the fuel is either too much or too little. It simply certifies that the shown amount and distribution between tanks is as described . Of course it in itself doesn't need to because of the wording of the Captains certificate as shown above.
Now in trying to persuade you with the "facts" that you seek, and in accepting that as an ex-flight engineer you will be
au fait with the legality of the
Technical log, that document contains nothing to do with administrative matters (delays, crew hours, etc.) It only contains
technical requirements and the certificates needed to ensure compliance with those technical requirements. (certificate of release to service, de-icing certificate, fuelling certificate, captains certificate etc.)
Could you perhaps explain to me (as if I were simple) why the
Technical log contains two certificates that relate to fuelling, if as you assert
fuelling is not a
technical issue?
As fascinating and relevant as you clearly find it, could you do so without suggesting that the trade body IATA is in some way supreme to the point in question?