DXR-Beavis
Ummmmmmm, uuhhhhhhhh
- Joined
- May 20, 2006
- Posts
- 21
I was talking to a captain a while back at DL wondering why we did that way too. His opinion was that the ICAO strip should show the short release destination, with the reclearance routing in the remarks with the RIF/ identifier. His argument was that if he has a radio failure prior to the redispatch fix, and therefore cant get the redispatch release, he needs to head to his short release destination - which ATC has no clue of because the short-release routing isnt in any strip filed with ATC.
I couldnt disagree, other than the thats how its always been done...
I can accept that pilot's opinion but only to a point. A B044 re-dispatch doesn't take into account lost comm nor do I think it should. Part of the reason they allow you to issue a reclearance 2 hours early is to account for difficult comms.
Here's where I come from on that. Let's take the "what if's" another step further than a NORDO B044 who does not have the fuel to reclear so they should technically land at the intermediate. What if I am on a domestic, a straight flag, or a B043 flag release, I go NORDO then I determine I don't have sufficient fuel to reach my destination? Then what? There was never a need for an intermediate. I am going to land short for fuel, but ATC is going to have no clue what I'm doing. Quite a remote scenario in today's world.
If you were going to list the intermediate on the ICAO for a B044, then why not list one for all other types of flight plan "just in case" they go NORDO and over burn?
It's too easy to "what if" yourself into never leaving the gate.
Sorry for being a little off topic.