Bloggs:
I think we are differing in our interpretation of what constitutes "minimum" and "emergency" fuel. If I read your response correctly, I assume you mean that in the case of an autoland at Sydney in the circumstances described, you should declare "minimum" fuel, because you don't have enough fuel to divert to an airfield where you can land in accordance with normal procedures.
The reason I included the definitions from the AIP is because I imagine that ATC apply those definitions very literally. The definitions imply to ATC that unless you do not conduct your flight in accordance with the clearance you already have, you will land with less than FFR (minimum fuel) or you are already expecting to land with less than FFR (emergency fuel). Therefore, in both situations, you have a REAL fuel shortage. The situation I described - landing via autoland due insufficient fuel for diversion, but with more than FFR - by the definitions, and in their intent, is not resulting in an aircraft about to suffer from fuel starvation.
Other posters seem to be implying that Qantas just ignores TTFs and continues to the destination regardless of the final TTF. If you read my post I have said that the situations that have occurred in the last few days have been due to previously UNFORECAST conditions that have occurred AFTER PNR. There is a difference.
maybe we should all get one of those exemptions
The Qantas fuel policy is not an exemption: it is a fuel policy approved by CASA. As I have already said, there would be nothing stopping anybody else using a similar policy if they wanted to. Some airlines that have an alternate everywhere, get around it by using airports that are very close to their destination - Paya Lebar for Singapore (for example). So if Qantas followed that path, maybe we would be flying across the Pacific just using Richmond or Williamtown as our destination alternate.
Why bother having alt minima at SYD when bugger it, we can all just go autoland there.
I won't even bother replying to that.