Reconsidering 121.619
- Thread starter QXDX
- Start date
who'swho
Don't hesitate. Penetrate!
That's why we carry reserves. Contrary to popular belief... reserve fuel is ignitable.
McCrosky
Well-Known Member
Changing the minimums for a no alternate operation wouldn’t fix the last minute TAF change. It justs moves the limit higher. You can change the 1-2-3 rule to the 5-10-15 rule and it will some time bite you.
There’s more than just a a TAF to look at. If the forecast is close use other products/resources,
Ah good ole Captain WhatIf
I feel like commercial aviation has got to the point where it’s so safe that people are just looking for things to pick out. Keep in mind most the regs were enacted over 50 years ago. And some are legacy rules from the CAB/CAA prior to the FAA. Your min fuel/ no alternate planning is based on rules designed prior to hi res satellite imaging, Doppler wx radar coverage of the entire country, super computer modeling, and high speed data transmission to dispatch offices and airplanes.
And besides, do any carriers plan to land at destination at FAR minimum fuels by company policy?
Are yiu sure? I though it was locked in a special tank and only ignitable with special match that’s stored in the administrator’s office.
Mainline_or_bust
Airplanes fly on PFM, Change my mind
My vote if we were to change it would be to multiply MDA/DH and visibility by a value depending on the time of day while considering mountainous terrain, number of engines and number of approaches.
Then again I have to remember in the interest of airlines being profitable they will never limit us to the 3-5 legs that our crews fly. Therefore I retract my statement in the interest of common sense and declare the 1-2-3 rule easy to remember and hard to screw up. My vote is no change, because even though on a per flight basis there are better systems to drop alternates I don’t pay for fuel anyway and my pay is the same no matter my workload.
Then again I have to remember in the interest of airlines being profitable they will never limit us to the 3-5 legs that our crews fly. Therefore I retract my statement in the interest of common sense and declare the 1-2-3 rule easy to remember and hard to screw up. My vote is no change, because even though on a per flight basis there are better systems to drop alternates I don’t pay for fuel anyway and my pay is the same no matter my workload.
Green12324
Well-Known Member
Personally I think 1-2-3 is a little outdated, from a time when instrument approaches may have been less reliable than today's world of not only precision/ground based approaches, but also GPS approaches.
For me whether I use 8653 or carry an alternate, say coming into ORD with bkn019, comes down to volume/demand and airport configuration (among other considerations at different airports). The ceiling isn't going to slow ORD down, but if I think there could be a reduction in the arrival rate for winds or delays for volume I'd be more likely to carry an alternate since the pilot's first question will be "what's pref altn" when they're issued a delay. If there are thunderstorms anywhere near the field (even if not in TAF) there's no question I'm carrying an alternate, not using exemption. I'm also looking at trend of the weather, is the next line of the TAF IFR cigs/vis and going to require an alternate no matter what? Murphy's Law says the TAF will amend to bring the IFR sooner once you're next in line for take-off and didn't plan enough gas to name alternate.
8653 can help airlines save a little money in fuel cost when flying to major airports that don't have to worry about a lack of approaches, but as always it's the dispatcher's job to decide how much fuel to carry and plan accordingly. Regs are regs and policies are policies, but there's a reason dispatchers are federally required and it's not to be a release monkey. Any computer can read a TAF and issue a legal release.
For me whether I use 8653 or carry an alternate, say coming into ORD with bkn019, comes down to volume/demand and airport configuration (among other considerations at different airports). The ceiling isn't going to slow ORD down, but if I think there could be a reduction in the arrival rate for winds or delays for volume I'd be more likely to carry an alternate since the pilot's first question will be "what's pref altn" when they're issued a delay. If there are thunderstorms anywhere near the field (even if not in TAF) there's no question I'm carrying an alternate, not using exemption. I'm also looking at trend of the weather, is the next line of the TAF IFR cigs/vis and going to require an alternate no matter what? Murphy's Law says the TAF will amend to bring the IFR sooner once you're next in line for take-off and didn't plan enough gas to name alternate.
8653 can help airlines save a little money in fuel cost when flying to major airports that don't have to worry about a lack of approaches, but as always it's the dispatcher's job to decide how much fuel to carry and plan accordingly. Regs are regs and policies are policies, but there's a reason dispatchers are federally required and it's not to be a release monkey. Any computer can read a TAF and issue a legal release.
Last edited:
crjdxr
Whale watching over SCUPP
Well, yes, until you point to 121.647d. That usually gets them to back off a bit. Until Captain WhatIf calls and says that they need to land with 2.5hrs of fuel because....stuff and thangs.
Karee
Marginal Member
At least your PIC WhatIf thinks in terms of endurance. My PIC WhatIf can’t articulate what the extra 4,000lbs he is requesting can do.