From: email@example.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Organization: Boeing Date: 16 Jul 93 03:21:40 PDT References: 1 2
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1993.513@ohare.Chicago.COM> Mike@oscar.demon.co.uk writes: >In article <airliners.1993.508@ohare.Chicago.COM> firstname.lastname@example.org writes: > >). That extra weight can make the difference in whether the airplane can be >directly dispatched to a destination, or must use redispatch procedures. > >Can you explain the difference between these procedures for me please? Maybe. :-) In a direct dispatch, the airplane has a flight plan filed for the advertised destination. It is the simple, uncomplicated case, and works as you would expect. In redispatch, the flight plan is for some destination closer than the advertised one. And not neccessarily in the same direction as the advertised destination (there maybe some 30 or 40 degrees difference). The airplane will fly towards its advertised destination, and if the winds are favorable, it will file and updated flight plan and land at the advertised destination. If the winds are bad, it will continue on to its *planned* destination, with Captain Speaking telling the passengers of the unfortunate diversion for fuel. The dispatcher and the pilot have figured out where the decision point for that flight is, and the pilot (and the dispatcher) make the decision based on fuel remaining and projected fuel requirements. Is that sufficiently obscure? :-) -- Terry email@example.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense."