Long flights dispatch

[downwindabeam]

Hello Ladies & Gents,

After the BA incident, some people were talking about dispatch requirements and that sometimes with a long haul flight since the TAF is highly restrictive and will required some serious extra fuel, a flight will be dispatched to another destination and then when new TAF in the air comes in, it will be dispatched to where it is commercially supposed to fly.

Does anyone know of anything like this or has heard on it and can chime in and explain that procedure in details? I'm curious as it seems rather odd to me that flights will be dispatched to anywhere else but destination initially.

I assume that with the new 32hrs TAF life has become easier?

thanks!

-downwindabeam

[Intruder]

PRD (Planned ReDispatch) flights are very common. They are usually used to decrease fuel reserve requirements, not because of known weather problems.

[411A]

PRD (Planned ReDispatch) flights are very common.

Yup, sure are.
Personaaly been using 'em for over 25 years for long range flights.
Very useful.

[Feather #3]

aka RIF - Refile In-Flight.

Worked for me when required. :ok:

G'day ;)

[SNS3Guppy]

A re-release flight for fuel purposes is not at all the same thing as launching to a destination that's below weather minimums using another field as destination.

We can't initiate a flight if the destination isn't forecast to be legal. We can launch to a different destination and then change, but it's not at all a common thing.

We do dispatch with a re-release authorization; we don't have the legal fuel to go all the way to the destination. We do have an authorization to file to an intermediate point for which we have the fuel, and if we are able to determine within two hours of reaching a pre-calculated "re-release point" we can do the second leg of the trip with the reguired fuel reserves, we press on. If we don't, we land at the re-release destination.

Bear in mind that this isn't an arbitrary act; it's a special authorization applied to our operating certificate which spells out exactly what the terms and conditions of this authorization represent, and we abide by them exactly.

We don't launch for a destination where we know we can't go.

[finncapt]

Isn't this about operating within the rules and being practical at the same time.

Suppose you are due to operate say hkg-lhr but the weather at lhr is planned to be below limits for your arrival. However, man is forecast cavok for your arrival time.

You cannot flight plan hkg-lhr but you can plan hkg-man with say edi as alternate.

Is it not better to get airborne for man and en-route refile to lhr when the forecast changes and the weather for your arrival is such that it will be above limits?

Done it from time to time and used the en-route alternate rules to maximise payload.

[Henry VIII]

I assume that with the new 32hrs TAF life has become easier?
Considering big airport in modern environment new TAF format helps. Flying to "particular" countries or airport the problem remains because very often there is NO way to find forecast on the sys until you are airborn.

For this reason EU-OPS says that you MUST select 2 destn altn when destn apt forecast are below minimums or no destn apt forecast are available.

Different legal tricks are already explained.
Moreover, as told, you can legally fill in a flight plan to the "alternate" considering the commercial destination as "alternate".
e.g. LHR to JFK, flight plan to BOS with JFK as alternate. Along the route decide where to fly.

Ciao

[galaxy flyer]

SNS3Guppy

I always find your posts friendly and informative, so I ask:

We can't initiate a flight if the destination isn't forecast to be legal.

Your operation does not allow dispatch to a "below mins" airport by filing two alternates and fueling for the most distant? If not, odd, I would think.

GF

[downwindabeam]

Now I am a little confused. What are you trying to avoid by doing this? Adding alternate fuel for a 14 hrs flight so you could maximize pay load?

So a hkg-lhr sector becomes hkg-man (which I assume is severe clear) and then in the air the flight gets good TAF reports substantiated by good METARs and then plane asks to be headed to lhr now? Is that how it works?

What are your international fuel requirements except ofcourse for the TAXI and BURN(TRIP/MISSION/however you call it) fuels? (What kind of reserve, altn, extra, route reserve etc do you need to be taking)

Also for people from my side of the planet (i.e USA) - Do we do it here? Is it allowed with our heavys going abroad?

[Retire2015]

Downwind abeam,

Using FAA International rules, you need to carry a reserve fuel amount equal to 10% of the enroute burn.

If you do the math you will see that is a large reserve. So all trans-atlantic (probably all oceans) operators dispatch to a city short of the destination with its' 10% reserve. Then a couple of hours prior to the short destination, you re-release to the commercial destinaiton with a reserve that is 10% of the new shorter burn.

That is the concept in big strokes. An international dispatcher or thourough review of re-release procedures can be even more precise.

It is perfectly legal and safe. In my opiniion, it is a way to update the rules initially promlugated for prop driven a/c in the old environment to make sense in today's envornment.

R

[misd-agin]

Downwindabeam -

Yes, U.S. carriers do it all the time.

It reduces your fuel requirements and in some cases allows more payload instead of the fuel. But the primary purpose is to reduce fuel requirements.

[SNS3Guppy]

Your operation does not allow dispatch to a "below mins" airport by filing two alternates and fueling for the most distant?


No. We don't file to an alternate. If we file, it's to destination. Now, if you want to name the desired destination as the alternate, that's fine, but then it has to meet alternate minimums. What you're suggesting is filing to an unintended field as the destinaiton, picking an alternate for that, and then diverting to the original unfiled field enroute. If the weather isn't going to be do-able on arrival, then we may very well not want to be going at all. If there are viable alternatives nearby, then we're going to be filing to them as the destination. In that case, we're not launching to a filed that's unavailable...we're launching for an entirely different destination.

[Wizofoz]

We can't initiate a flight if the destination isn't forecast to be legal. We can launch to a different destination and then change, but it's not at all a common thing.



That's under FAA regs?

JAR ops- You can dispatch with two alternates and fuel to the most distant. Amounts to the same thing, you've got fuel to go to two airports with suitable weather, and will land at the destination if it's available when you get there.

Australian regs- Don't get me started!!