Re: 747-400 mods (was: 737-plus?)

From:         drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.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> drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com 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
drinkard@bcstec.boeing.com
"Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has
more lawyers than sense."