You assume it's a result of QF fuel policy. Are you familiar with same, Neville?
My point is the ability to not carry alternates rather than the fuel policy per se. However this is part of their fuel policy.
This gives QF a competitive advantage over other airlines but at what risk?
Compressor Stalls sums up my point.
Do you want a change of thread title to move away from alleged QF bias?
just curious, are you implying that one of these autolands on cat1 gear is going to cause a bingle? or more that it may be an airport without such facilities that may catch one out?
Implying neither. Landing on a CAT I approach is unlikely to cause a prang the one time you do it, however it would have to be considered a risk and not really a great situation for a RPT aircraft to be in.
To argue otherwise you would be saying that we don't need all the CATII/III paraphernalia just go ahead and land in any visibility 24/7.
The point of the thread is that given QF have done this a few times now maybe they and/or Australian carriers should have mandatory alternates for RPT aircraft. How many more of these are acceptable?