The re-clearance procedure

[C.M]

There are still references to aviation legislation to the re-clearance procedure even though I have not encountered a person having used it since ... doing it as exercise in ATPL theory in 2004 ! I never really bothered to read about it since flightschool till now . When re-reading it now it seems to me that the re-clearance procedure is practically the Decision point procedure with the roles reversed ( the filed destination in the re-clearance is now simply your enroute alternate ) . Is it a matter of it being disused and simply being replaced by the decision point procedure?

[Intruder]

Are you asking about a Planned Redispatch or some other reason for an enroute reclearance (e.g., weather diversion)?

In a Planned Redispatch, ATC is [usually] blissfully unaware that you have changed anything, since the original flight plan is filed as if the planned redispatch will be executed. The redispatch procedure is strictly between the company Dispatcher and the Captain on the airplane.

If you get an enroute reclearance for other reasons, the destination and alternate may be anywhere, depending on the circumstances...

[C.M]

Not that I ever came across the term “planned redispatch” but essentially this is what it is .

[Intruder]

From our Flight Ops Manual:Planned Redispatch
A procedure by which a flight is released to an initial destination short of the final destination for the purpose of redispatch enroute to the final destination. To aid in readability the term redispatch will apply to both rereleases (Supplemental) and redispatches (Flag) within this section.

[MarkerInbound]

Not sure it's the same thing. Under FAA Flag operations (international flights) flights are required to have the fuel to destination plus 10 percent plus 30 minutes plus fuel to an alternate if required. And an alternate is always required if the leg is more than 6 hours no matter the weather under flag rules (we won't get into the island rule.) Imagine a flight ANC to HKG and say it's 9 hours. You would need 9 hours fuel plus 30 minutes plus 54 minutes plus an alternate. And say it's 6 hours to Tokyo. Your initial release to Tokyo says you need 6 hours fuel plus 30 minutes plus 36 minutes and throw in an alternate. But you are planning to go to HKG so you'd have ~10 hours fuel onboard. About an hour out of Tokyo dispatch sends new paperwork to continue to HKG. Now you only need 4 hours plus 30 minutes plus 24 minutes. And if fuel was tight and the weather good dispatch could drop the requirement for an alternate. In the end you save carrying about an hour's fuel. It's done all the time by US airlines in international ops.

[C.M]

I really don’t think we are talking about the same thing . In the reclearance procedure basically you file an enroute airport as if its your intended destination ( with some reduced contingency with respect to your actual intended destination) . When approaching that airport you make an assessment on whether you can reach your actual intended airport with the remaining fuel left + normal contingency + diversion and FRF. If you can you ask from ATC reclearance to proceed to your intended . As I understand the controller is not really informed of what your actual intended destination is .

[MarkerInbound]

Yes, under the redispatch procedure we file to where we want to end up, in my example HKG. ATC knows nothing about the redispatch point or redispatch airport unless the flight doesn't have the required fuel at the redispatch point.