If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|