You would be surprised at the number of people who are under the same misapprehension as Cap'n S.
TheMagus wins this one, but I would point out the importance of the linking word - and - as both conditions (i and ii) must be met.
Since this topic was raised in the context of Company Fuel Policy I would add a coupla paras and hope they don't sound too sanctimonious, they're certainly not meant to be.
Some months ago, the thread on use of contingency fuel prior to getting airborne was a classic example of how so many would appear not to fully understand their own company fuel policy. There were umpty ump "definitive" statements which were totally opposite to one another.
Perhaps it's not a bad idea to re-read one's Company fuel policy at a quiet moment to ensure full understanding of what you can or cannot legally do. If in doubt, then why not ask Flt ops or Trng Dept? Airmanship then dictates when you elect to use the options afforded by Company Policy.
Poorly worded or badly punctuated text in company manuals can so easily lead to misunderstanding.
