Don't want to get in trouble for naming any airlines so you can search the database yourself.. But this is interesting.
xxxxxx (operating as flight xxx) was preparing to depart on an IFR flight from Toronto (LBPIA) (CYYZ) to Varadero (Juan Gualberto Gómez) International Airport, Cuba (MUVR). The flight crew were given taxi clearance to the Central De-icing Facility (CDF) and then to runway 23 for departure after de-icing. The flight crew informed the tower controller after leaving the CDF that they had insufficient fuel to taxi to runway 23 and must depart from runway 33L. The tower controller accommodated the request after confirming their status, as extra spacing was required from the runway 23 departures for the non-standard operation. Other aircraft exiting the CDF for runway 23 were delayed until xxxx received the departure approval. The aircraft subsequently departed off of runway 33L and flew approximately 15 miles farther to get southbound and on-course than a departure off of runway 23 would have required. NAV CANADA staff also noted that the fuel savings from the runway 33L departure were not apparent considering the new departure route and the lack of time savings due to the non-standard departure approval required.
Dust Devil wrote:How does requesting a different runway and being granted that request constitute an occurrence?
Because they were concerned about fuel usage during taxi when a lengthy flight was to follow. If they were concerned about that, they most likely where violating fuel reserves. Plus, requesting a 33 departure when 23s/24s were active would probably really impact flow.
Dust Devil wrote:How does requesting a different runway and being granted that request constitute an occurrence?
Because they were concerned about fuel usage during taxi when a lengthy flight was to follow. If they were concerned about that, they most likely where violating fuel reserves. Plus, requesting a 33 departure when 23s/24s were active would probably really impact flow.
More likely not enough taxi fuel in the OFP and they were getting close to their MBRF (minimum brake release fuel) Can't T/O below that amount of fuel. MBRF includes fuel to destination, alternate and reserve.
However I've been CADORS'ed for doing a simple overshoot due to poor weather. What's with that?[/quote]
I have been CADORS'ed for overshooting because of snow removal equipment. (Not even really an overshoot, I just decided to do a visual circuit to allow them to vacate the runway) Every overshoot is treated as CADORS!!!
If I could spare a nickle for every overshoot I see at some of the training airports. Those tower controllers sure need to have a secretary write the number of CADORS.
Whenever any A/C does an unplanned overshoot(ie, not flight training) we are supposed to file an AOR. Honestly, how can someone who cannot see the runway, and decides to go around be an Aviation Occurance? Sounds like good piloting to me. We controllers are supposed to file for way to much stuff nowadays, and somehow, I don't think that all that paperwork is getting pushed like TC wants us to!
It won't be long before you guys file an AOR because you saw an airplane that is not an airline machine take off because the rest of us finally got tired of all the B.S. that the drones in cubicles think up to keep their pay checque coming in.
---------- ADS -----------
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Dust Devil wrote:How does requesting a different runway and being granted that request constitute an occurrence?
Because they were concerned about fuel usage during taxi when a lengthy flight was to follow. If they were concerned about that, they most likely where violating fuel reserves. Plus, requesting a 33 departure when 23s/24s were active would probably really impact flow.
More likely not enough taxi fuel in the OFP and they were getting close to their MBRF (minimum brake release fuel) Can't T/O below that amount of fuel. MBRF includes fuel to destination, alternate and reserve.
CJET
Learn something new everyday. Although I still find is reasonably suspicious that the numbers were that close to the minimums. Guess everyone really is trying to push the max these days huh.
Dust Devil wrote:How does requesting a different runway and being granted that request constitute an occurrence?
Because they were concerned about fuel usage during taxi when a lengthy flight was to follow. If they were concerned about that, they most likely where violating fuel reserves. Plus, requesting a 33 departure when 23s/24s were active would probably really impact flow.
More likely not enough taxi fuel in the OFP and they were getting close to their MBRF (minimum brake release fuel) Can't T/O below that amount of fuel. MBRF includes fuel to destination, alternate and reserve.
CJET
my first thought exactly. they were probably at, or very close to their min BRF and just wanted to get airborne to save having to refuel. once airborne they have several options such as changing routing/altitude, cost index, alternate, etc.
robshelle wrote:Whenever any A/C does an unplanned overshoot(ie, not flight training) we are supposed to file an AOR. Honestly, how can someone who cannot see the runway, and decides to go around be an Aviation Occurance? Sounds like good piloting to me. We controllers are supposed to file for way to much stuff nowadays, and somehow, I don't think that all that paperwork is getting pushed like TC wants us to!
Robbie Benusic
CYEG Tower
Yea. FSS were specifically ordered (over protests of it being idiotic and unnecessary) to report all unplanned missed approaches a couple years ago. It's very much not about ATC or FSS wanting to annoy pilots. The only thing I can see this being useful for would be seeing which airports needed upgrades to navaids, but the actual reasoning behind it was never revealed.
---------- ADS -----------
no sig because apparently quoting people in context is offensive to them.
A10O0001: The Airbus A310-304 airplane (flight TSC 368, registration C-GTSX) was on a flight from Toronto/LBPIA to Varadero, Cuba. The preflight inspection indicated no contaminants on wing surfaces therefore de-icing was not planned; however, while
taxiing out, some possible contamination was observed and the crew elected to have the airplane de-iced. That resulted in higher than planned fuel consumption prior to take-off and the crew asked if they could depart on runway 24R rather than runway 23 which
would have entailed a longer taxi route. Since runway 24R was in use for arrivals, Tower offered runway 33L, which was accepted by TSC 368 enabling compliance with Minimum Brake Release Fuel requirements.
