Ever stuck your neck out too far? And got away with it?

"pacplyer" wrote in message
om...
"HiM" wrote ,snip

ONLY an idiot lifts a plane off the ground with a flight plan that will
run
him short of fuel
"HiM" wrote ,snip

HiM, I don't dispute how you state the obvious here. Common sense
says this guy Selwaykid is not a commercial pilot with his kind of
attitude.

But you are actually wrong about this. Polar flights out of Anchorage
with some operators use an FAA exemption to take off with inadequate
fuel for the real intended destination. It's called re-release. It
is perfectly legal, and standard practice to dept for instance: out of
Anchorage, Alaska to London Heathrow (LHR) with fuel that will
knowingly not get you there with FAR121 required int'l reserves.
Though somewhat controversial, this procedure makes the airline money
because they can haul more freight instead of gas. How it works is
that we file a fake flight plan with the FAA that lists Preswick,
Scotland as our destination and then at the computed "re-release"
waypoint the seven tanks on the 747 are totaled up by the flight
engineer and then the F/O compares this number say 107,500 lbs of fuel
to the min 105,300 lbs on the flight plan for re-release. Looking at
weather, the Captain makes his decision. We then are legal to call up
ATC and refile a new flight plan to what was really our intended
destination all along: LHR. If we have say only 104,000, it's now
"assholes and elbows" for us to pull out the new flight plans,
reprogram the three INS's, get more weather for Preswick, break out
and brief the new arrival charts and plates, and mentally prepare for
a long duty day (extra leg to get there.) Last time I did this was
summer 1989. In cruise the sun stayed up all day and all night (just
kind of wobbled around toward the horizon.)

pacplyer


i say again any captian who panders to company profit in such a way is far
less than professional

"HiM" wrote in message ...
"pacplyer" wrote in message
om...
"HiM" wrote ,snip

ONLY an idiot lifts a plane off the ground with a flight plan that will
run
him short of fuel
"HiM" wrote ,snip

HiM, I don't dispute how you state the obvious here. Common sense
says this guy Selwaykid is not a commercial pilot with his kind of
attitude.

But you are actually wrong about this. Polar flights out of Anchorage
with some operators use an FAA exemption to take off with inadequate
fuel for the real intended destination. It's called re-release. It
is perfectly legal, and standard practice to dept for instance: out of
Anchorage, Alaska to London Heathrow (LHR) with fuel that will
knowingly not get you there with FAR121 required int'l reserves.
Though somewhat controversial, this procedure makes the airline money
because they can haul more freight instead of gas. How it works is
that we file a fake flight plan with the FAA that lists Preswick,
Scotland as our destination and then at the computed "re-release"
waypoint the seven tanks on the 747 are totaled up by the flight
engineer and then the F/O compares this number say 107,500 lbs of fuel
to the min 105,300 lbs on the flight plan for re-release. Looking at
weather, the Captain makes his decision. We then are legal to call up
ATC and refile a new flight plan to what was really our intended
destination all along: LHR. If we have say only 104,000, it's now
"assholes and elbows" for us to pull out the new flight plans,
reprogram the three INS's, get more weather for Preswick, break out
and brief the new arrival charts and plates, and mentally prepare for
a long duty day (extra leg to get there.) Last time I did this was
summer 1989. In cruise the sun stayed up all day and all night (just
kind of wobbled around toward the horizon.)

pacplyer


i say again any captian who panders to company profit in such a way is far
less than professional



Well HiM,

I agree with you. I am somewhat uncomfortable with many of those FAA
exemptions, but since I don't run the FAA, or own the airline, all I
can do is talk about it here. The Captain that refuses a legal flight
at my company, is immediately removed from the trip and placed into
disciplinary status.
Two crewmembers were terminated two years ago for refusing the flight
due to a typhoon being in the area in TPE. The flight left anyway
without them. Our union ALPA is trying to get their jobs back. But
don't worry. If it's important, I get the CP and the Union on the
phone to discuss it. I don't pander to anybody except my wife. :-)

I rather envy, your armchair aviator one-liners, as they do not
require you to have any experience or knowledge in the matters you are
discussing.

Are you on the South or North Island?



pacplyer

"pacplyer" wrote
snip: A good explanation of re-dispatch


"HiM" replied ...
i say again any captian who panders to company profit in such a way is far
less than professional

Re-dispatch is both legal and safe. What, specifically, do you find unsafe
about this procedure?

Rich

"HiM" wrote in message news:bt29h8

i say again any captian who panders to company profit in such a way is far
less than professional

HiM, it's really not a question of pandering to anyone. A re-release is a
safe and useful technique if rationally applied. Suppose you want to fly
from Auckland to CC, but there may or may not be a strong south wind, and
the CC weather may or may not be iffy at your arrival time, and your best
alternate is Wellington. A re-release setup is simply arranging the plane
and your plan to fly as far as Wellington, and then taking a look at CC. If
the weather has improved, or the south wind wasn't as strong as forecast,
then you're good to go on, and initiate the re-release. If things still
look crappy in CC, you drop into Wellington for more fuel. Very simple, no
risk taken. What you've saved is the requirement to carry [all the way from
Auckland] approach fuel and alternate fuel back to Wellington. This saves
money. In business, this is good, and it was not done unsafely.

Regards,

John Gaquin
B727, B747

"pacplyer" wrote in message
om...
"HiM" wrote in message
...
"pacplyer" wrote in message
om...
"HiM" wrote ,snip

ONLY an idiot lifts a plane off the ground with a flight plan that
will
run
him short of fuel
"HiM" wrote ,snip

HiM, I don't dispute how you state the obvious here. Common sense
says this guy Selwaykid is not a commercial pilot with his kind of
attitude.

But you are actually wrong about this. Polar flights out of Anchorage
with some operators use an FAA exemption to take off with inadequate
fuel for the real intended destination. It's called re-release. It
is perfectly legal, and standard practice to dept for instance: out of
Anchorage, Alaska to London Heathrow (LHR) with fuel that will
knowingly not get you there with FAR121 required int'l reserves.
Though somewhat controversial, this procedure makes the airline money
because they can haul more freight instead of gas. How it works is
that we file a fake flight plan with the FAA that lists Preswick,
Scotland as our destination and then at the computed "re-release"
waypoint the seven tanks on the 747 are totaled up by the flight
engineer and then the F/O compares this number say 107,500 lbs of fuel
to the min 105,300 lbs on the flight plan for re-release. Looking at
weather, the Captain makes his decision. We then are legal to call up
ATC and refile a new flight plan to what was really our intended
destination all along: LHR. If we have say only 104,000, it's now
"assholes and elbows" for us to pull out the new flight plans,
reprogram the three INS's, get more weather for Preswick, break out
and brief the new arrival charts and plates, and mentally prepare for
a long duty day (extra leg to get there.) Last time I did this was
summer 1989. In cruise the sun stayed up all day and all night (just
kind of wobbled around toward the horizon.)

pacplyer


i say again any captian who panders to company profit in such a way is
far
less than professional



Well HiM,

I agree with you. I am somewhat uncomfortable with many of those FAA
exemptions, but since I don't run the FAA, or own the airline, all I
can do is talk about it here. The Captain that refuses a legal flight
at my company, is immediately removed from the trip and placed into
disciplinary status.
Two crewmembers were terminated two years ago for refusing the flight
due to a typhoon being in the area in TPE. The flight left anyway
without them. Our union ALPA is trying to get their jobs back. But
don't worry. If it's important, I get the CP and the Union on the
phone to discuss it. I don't pander to anybody except my wife. :-)

I rather envy, your armchair aviator one-liners, as they do not
require you to have any experience or knowledge in the matters you are
discussing.

Are you on the South or North Island?



pacplyer

nth

i gain my knowledge of safety form having been a locomotive engineer .. and
when i felt it was not safe it did NOT happen with me at the controls

buckled foot plate on a shunt engine? i refuse to use it .. company
bitched and moaned but i didnt endanger lives for profit

ground lights not working .. same thing

your friends did right .. let them sue for wrongful dismissal .....

"Richard Isakson" wrote in message
...
"pacplyer" wrote
snip: A good explanation of re-dispatch


"HiM" replied ...
i say again any captian who panders to company profit in such a way is
far
less than professional

Re-dispatch is both legal and safe. What, specifically, do you find
unsafe
about this procedure?

Rich



i never talked about re dispatch .. pleas read my posts again

i state again ANY pilot who flies with insuffient fuel is a fool .. whether
it be for profit or legal

its legal to drink alcohol and drive a vehicle in my country .. that does
not make it right

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"HiM" wrote in message news:bt29h8

i say again any captian who panders to company profit in such a way is
far
less than professional

HiM, it's really not a question of pandering to anyone. A re-release is a
safe and useful technique if rationally applied. Suppose you want to fly
from Auckland to CC, but there may or may not be a strong south wind, and
the CC weather may or may not be iffy at your arrival time, and your best
alternate is Wellington. A re-release setup is simply arranging the plane
and your plan to fly as far as Wellington, and then taking a look at CC.
If
the weather has improved, or the south wind wasn't as strong as forecast,
then you're good to go on, and initiate the re-release. If things still
look crappy in CC, you drop into Wellington for more fuel. Very simple,
no
risk taken. What you've saved is the requirement to carry [all the way
from
Auckland] approach fuel and alternate fuel back to Wellington. This saves
money. In business, this is good, and it was not done unsafely.

Regards,

John Gaquin
B727, B747

thanks matey
i refered originally to any pilot not taking a fuel loading to reach his
destination being a fool

your re dispatch clearly, now i understand it , allows enough fuel so is not
what the original poster was waffling about nor what i said.

have a quick look at the original post