Originally Posted by
JamieMaree
Fair enough.
I don't know, but my guess is that Learmonth is used by a number of A380 airlines as a full Alternate for Perth and ergo, if that particular airline considers it safe and appropriate for an A380 that just needs to fuel up, it would be considered safe and appropriate for an A330-300 with an engine shutdown and vibrating, lack of RFF notwithstanding.
It is down as a suitable alternate for the A380. You worry about the logistical problems once you have safely got your passengers and crew on the ground. If you remember QF72 (A330) when the computers went haywire the captain couldn't get the aircraft down to Learmonth fast enough and didn't give a damm about support or maintenance at the airport. He was concerned with saving lives. Learmonth had a runway he could use, and that was that.
The problem with so many of the assumptions in this thread is that the remaining engine WILL get the plane back to Perth. This is a huge assumption on a trip of several hundred kms after an engine failure of unknown cause, when the crew could have landed safely nearby.
That remaining engine is subject to extra stress and higher loads because it's operating for two, at a reduced height, higher drag and higher fuel burn. Life is more important than maintenance facilities and emotional support people at destination. If you lose one engine, the chances of losing the other are a lot higher in this scenario, and then it's the desert and bye bye.
Correction: It's not an official alternate for the A380 as I previously implied, but its a runway an A380 captain would have no hesitation in using if needs must.