If it’s quotes from the document you’re after than how about these:
Er, no, it was
you who were quoting (selectively) from the various documents. I merely pointed out by quoting from the same document that my employer's guidance in the form of ops manuals reflected almost exactly the advice given in the SOC you quoted when looked at in its entirety. It may be dissapointing to you, but we conform with the advice in the SOC and the line flying by the CAA FOIs confirm this compliance.
Are these points pretty well representative of my employer's current fuel policy . ., and if so why?
. I don't understand your implied problem. My employer's fuel policy closely follows the recommendations of both JAR OPS and the recent SOC you quote, and avoids the problems represented by the selctive quotes you post. Why do you you ask "why"? We conform, we are not pressured to carry minimum fuel. And we don't when not appropriate. What, exactly, is your problem? CAA FOIs fly our line regularly to ensure complicance, and quite rightly too.
The Authority is trying to create an environment where aircraft using one of the busiest international airports in the World, do not arrive in a position where the routinely experienced levels of traffic result in critically low fuel states over the city of London.
They are, and we don't. Sorry old chap, but you may pop the toys back in your pram.
Given that very simple and sensible message, I cannot understand why anyone would want to refute or subvert the intentions of the SRG. If their aim is simply to avoid the carriage cost of ‘unnecessary fuel’ I would be extremely disappointed in the value judgements of the individuals involved.
I cannot speak for any other operator, but I can say that your concern is misplaced in the case of my own operation. My own ops. manuals and fleet specific manuals and airline policy reflect exactly the advice and express the concerns of the ANO, JAR documents and indeed the SOC you quote. No individual I have ever had contact with in the course of my employment is worthy of the dissapointment you propose. We are advised and exhorted to follow the advice of the SRG
and we do. OK?
Perhaps you'd better stick to reading the "Sun", because your shock and horror will not be vindicated here