Originally Posted by
Syzygies
Specifically, you're fueled for the longer route, and in the air the shorter route opens up, but the longer route is still a viable option. If you fly the shorter route, you then must circle to burn fuel.
A pilot doesn't necessarily have to "circle" to burn excess fuel; he/she can fly at a lower cruising altitude, extend landing gear and/or flaps early, and/or extend a downwind leg during the approach phase of flight.
Originally Posted by
Syzygies
If it were your choice, would you rather fly the longer route, or fly the shorter route then circle to burn fuel?
If weather is no longer an issue, I'll always take the shorter route and then figure out the most efficacious way to burn the fuel and arrive as close to on-time as possible. Holding is an option, but as noted, it's not mandatory.
Originally Posted by
Syzygies
I'm thinking that circling isn't as safe. On the other hand, the airport is nearer if something else happens, and landing with too much fuel becomes the lesser of two evils.
This is the first time I've heard that circling isn't safe. And this idea is based on precisely what? The shorter route gets us to the airport faster, and with extra gas for contingencies. What's not to like?
Originally Posted by
Syzygies
Or, will flying the longer route burn more fuel on average? I.e. if you circle then you burn the minimum needed to land. The longer route burns at least that much fuel, while staying within a safe fuel window? I realize that I'm splitting hairs on small odds, but there were people standing on wings on the river by my apartment recently.
You're spinning yourself into virtual incoherence.