Long flights dispatch
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
From: USA
Long flights dispatch
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
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
RIF
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 2
From: USA
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.
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.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
From: Finland
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.
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.
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,281
Likes: 0
From: ? ? ?
I assume that with the new 32hrs TAF life has become easier?
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
Joined: Dec 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 3,985
Likes: 568
From: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
SNS3Guppy
I always find your posts friendly and informative, so I ask:
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
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.
GF
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
From: USA
confused
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?
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?
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
From: In my head
No confusion required
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
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
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
From: US
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.
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.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 2
From: USA
Your operation does not allow dispatch to a "below mins" airport by filing two alternates and fueling for the most distant?
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,835
Likes: 85
From: Boldly going where no split infinitive has gone before..
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!!
