Should QANTAS change their fuel policy?
Like most other countries, CASA rules do not require fuel for an alternate unless the destination forecast weather conditions are below the alternate minima at the flight planning stage.
Neither EASA (formally JAR) compliant States, nor North America allow planning without an Alternate except for very restrictive rules in the case of a remote destination.
I will go further than that wiz-Mangatete please advise which countries other than Australia do NOT require ALTN's for an IFR flight?
I suppose the question at the back of mind is this.
If Sydney is forecast CAVOK, should you carry an alternate? I'm looking out the window at the moment at a Botany Bay and airport skyline that only has single Chemtrail ( ) to mark the sky. I'd plan to arrive in Sydney on a day like today with about 75 minutes worth of fuel. You want me to turn up with more than double that in case of.........
If I'm flying from MEL-SYD I have CBR from about 10'000' on descent. If CBR's gone u/s due FG in the morning but Sydney's wide open you think I should have a return to Melbourne? My 'normal' fuel means I have Richmond anyway but that's considered an 'emergency' field for my operation
If Sydney is forecast CAVOK, should you carry an alternate? I'm looking out the window at the moment at a Botany Bay and airport skyline that only has single Chemtrail ( ) to mark the sky. I'd plan to arrive in Sydney on a day like today with about 75 minutes worth of fuel. You want me to turn up with more than double that in case of.........
If I'm flying from MEL-SYD I have CBR from about 10'000' on descent. If CBR's gone u/s due FG in the morning but Sydney's wide open you think I should have a return to Melbourne? My 'normal' fuel means I have Richmond anyway but that's considered an 'emergency' field for my operation
No, there'd be no reason to return to Melbourne- you'd land there with the same fuel as Sydney, so where is the safety advantage in that?
The thing would be, you departed with fuel to reach two different places should one become unusable- in your scenario, one did.
The fact that Sydney has two independent runways is relevant- but lets take a scenario like Perth. it's CAVOK so you ONLY have fuel for Perth when, as number two, another aircraft becomes disabled on the intersection- NOW things get interesting.
Now, before the peanut gallery gets excited, you WOULD be allowed to commit to Perth with no alternate using en route commit rules- but you would have to DEPART with planned fuel to an alternate.
The chances of having an airport go unusable on the rare occasion you have to commit are obviously much lower than if you depart with nothing but fuel for destination on a routine basis.
If casa made flight planning altns mandatory i think we'd find a few very quickly added alts for the 380, Ric, ntl and avv lol, theyd all be sub 15 ton at a guess
nor North America allow planning without an Alternate except for very restrictive rules in the case of a remote destination.
I suggest you have a close look at the FARs (both 91 and 121) on the subject, carefully and fully, and then revise your understandings.
In particular, the higher alternate criteria for no alternate on flights up to 6 hours are not particularly restrictive, given US weather patterns, although it is considerably higher than 400'/1600m equivalent.
One of the things that has always exercised my mind, is the number of countries that do not require planning for an en-route engine failure or depressurization, on the basis of them being a very rare event --- I fully understand the risk management logic, but having come from a background of always planning for depressurization and an engine failure en-route -- ???
As to "remote" destinations and "island holding", remote is determined on the basis of practically available alternates. This means that, if alternates are so far away that planning for an alternate makes the operation commercially nonviable, the destination can be approved as a "remote" airport.
This is why, for many years, Perth was a remote airport for "large" aircraft.
even when presented with the fact that every other NAA and
No, they don't, see above, and have a look at the actual fuel policies of some longhaul carriers who are smart enough to know the "Qantas" system works, and has worked, with minor variations, for a bleeding long time now.
Two alleged events happening to one Australian carrier over a short period of time do not invalidate the statistics that under pin the Australian legislation and CASA approved fuel policies ( and please don't raise the accepted/approved thing).
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 5th Jun 2013 at 01:18.
and please don't raise the accepted/approved thing
[T]he statistics that under pin the Australian legislation and CASA approved fuel policies …
Maggot,
There are lots of 380s flying into oz with planned ALTNs at the moment. That would be all of the ones not operated by QF.
The Don
There are lots of 380s flying into oz with planned ALTNs at the moment. That would be all of the ones not operated by QF.
The Don
Creamie,
If you take,as a starting point, just post WW11, and every sector operated since then, by ANA, Ansett, EWA,TAA, Qantas, MMA et al, and up to the present residual carriers, you may not be surprised that I would argue that what started out as a pragmatic approach to Australia's problem of long distances and very limited facilities, has been proved with the passage of time. And statistically valid. It certainly was not statistically based originally.
The first time I personally got involved "at the coalface", in the actual numbers, was in the early days or ETOPS/EROPS//EDTO/acronym of choice.
Remember that Qantas and Air NewZealand were into these operations in a big way, long before US or anyone in the then EU/JAA area. For the first five years or so of EROPS, something like half of all EROPS operations were conducted by QF and ANZ. In US, ALPA was bitterly opposed, largely because of the "Speed/Weight" formula used to set pilot salaries, and UK CAA and JAA, and European unions ( who had also opposed glass cockpits) were bitterly opposed. I think it was something like five or six years after the B767s went into service, before the first Airbus (A-310?) was EROPS certified, because of commercial pressure, and the 60m strangle hold was well and truly broken.
In arriving at the first QF EROPS fuel and operational policies for the B767, Boeing certainly thought the statistics were valid (but could be accused of commercial bias) CAA (or whatever is was then) agreed, as did the AIPA, -- who hired somebody whose name escapes me now, to do figures independent of Boeing etc.
Contrary to what some think, this was not all about the probability of engine failure, everything revolved around the weather, and how you handled it pre-flight and in-flight, for any number of reasons, when the forecasts turned out to be rubbish.
Along the way, a pretty deep analysis of the company historical records supported the long time policies.
I do think a 60+ years set of records, over heck knows how many sectors,millions?, is statistically valid, even if the number of aircraft in the Australia airline fleet was (and still is) miniscule, compared to US or other parts of the world.
Don------
So, what's your point??
Tootle pip!!
If you take,as a starting point, just post WW11, and every sector operated since then, by ANA, Ansett, EWA,TAA, Qantas, MMA et al, and up to the present residual carriers, you may not be surprised that I would argue that what started out as a pragmatic approach to Australia's problem of long distances and very limited facilities, has been proved with the passage of time. And statistically valid. It certainly was not statistically based originally.
The first time I personally got involved "at the coalface", in the actual numbers, was in the early days or ETOPS/EROPS//EDTO/acronym of choice.
Remember that Qantas and Air NewZealand were into these operations in a big way, long before US or anyone in the then EU/JAA area. For the first five years or so of EROPS, something like half of all EROPS operations were conducted by QF and ANZ. In US, ALPA was bitterly opposed, largely because of the "Speed/Weight" formula used to set pilot salaries, and UK CAA and JAA, and European unions ( who had also opposed glass cockpits) were bitterly opposed. I think it was something like five or six years after the B767s went into service, before the first Airbus (A-310?) was EROPS certified, because of commercial pressure, and the 60m strangle hold was well and truly broken.
In arriving at the first QF EROPS fuel and operational policies for the B767, Boeing certainly thought the statistics were valid (but could be accused of commercial bias) CAA (or whatever is was then) agreed, as did the AIPA, -- who hired somebody whose name escapes me now, to do figures independent of Boeing etc.
Contrary to what some think, this was not all about the probability of engine failure, everything revolved around the weather, and how you handled it pre-flight and in-flight, for any number of reasons, when the forecasts turned out to be rubbish.
Along the way, a pretty deep analysis of the company historical records supported the long time policies.
I do think a 60+ years set of records, over heck knows how many sectors,millions?, is statistically valid, even if the number of aircraft in the Australia airline fleet was (and still is) miniscule, compared to US or other parts of the world.
There are lots of 380s flying into oz with planned ALTNs at the moment. That would be all of the ones not operated by QF.
So, what's your point??
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 5th Jun 2013 at 04:20.
Try and keep up leady old boy, mine was directed at Maggot.
The distances needed for ALTNs in Oz, and the lack of bad wx means a lot of fuel would be wasted every year carrying fuel that is not needed if ALTNs were planned all the time. Two autolands on CAT 1 ILSes in how many years doesn't mean the system is broken, it just means its a bit different.
the Don
The distances needed for ALTNs in Oz, and the lack of bad wx means a lot of fuel would be wasted every year carrying fuel that is not needed if ALTNs were planned all the time. Two autolands on CAT 1 ILSes in how many years doesn't mean the system is broken, it just means its a bit different.
the Don
I do think a 60+ years set of records, over heck knows how many sectors,millions?, is statistically valid, even if the number of aircraft in the Australia airline fleet was (and still is) miniscule, compared to US or other parts of the world.
Another 60+ plus years and the Australian fleet might get close to the bottom end of where first world aviation operators are today in terms of kilometres/pax/kgs flown.
Yeah, you might ‘think’ that, but that does not make it so.
Quite so, but at a minimum, it is a good start.
As you and I both know, for risk (safety) analysis, rates per sector flown are preferred by many as a truer measure of risk exposure than rates per ATK or similar. Hence US publishing rate per hours flown and sectors flown.
The distances needed for ALTNs in Oz, and the lack of bad wx means a lot of fuel would be wasted every year carrying fuel that is not needed if ALTNs were planned all the time. Two autolands on CAT 1 ILSes in how many years doesn't mean the system is broken, it just means its a bit different.
You are confusing posts ---- as a practitioner with something well over 20,000 on QF flighdecks alone, do you think I might actually understand the ins and outs of the QF fuel policy. Quite how you could come to the conclusion that I have any issue with the QF practices beats me.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 5th Jun 2013 at 07:09.
Originally Posted by the don
Maggot,
There are lots of 380s flying into oz with planned ALTNs at the moment. That would be all of the ones not operated by QF.
The Don
There are lots of 380s flying into oz with planned ALTNs at the moment. That would be all of the ones not operated by QF.
The Don
What this rambling is getting at; very few "suitable" airports available because they dont want to spend on it but if qf needed to carry altns for every flight, i'd bet few extras would pop up as available very quickly...
Two alleged events happening to one Australian carrier over a short period of time
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24331/a...605473_001.pdf
Plus
Media releases: 02 August 2005 - Final ATSB report: Aircraft landing at Sydney in fog conditions
Plus
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3460925...77.pdf#page=11
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Honah Lee
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neither EASA (formally JAR) compliant States, nor North America allow planning without an Alternate except for very restrictive rules in the case of a remote destination.
Last edited by AileronsNeutral; 5th Jun 2013 at 22:42.
Originally Posted by Ledsled
Two alleged events happening to one Australian carrier over a short period of time
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/32921/b20040246.pdf
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
Actually, there seems to be a whole bunch of them
I think you need to re-read that. Most of them state that the aircraft landed at the destination minima. What is your point anyway?
Tactical edit 
Capt K,
3 in that report landed either with less than required fuel or in conditions below the minima.
My point? I was presenting some facts which Ledsled should have considered before he implied that this thread was a lot of hullabaloo over (quote again): "Two alleged events happening to one Australian carrier over a short period of time".
3 in that report landed either with less than required fuel or in conditions below the minima.
My point? I was presenting some facts which Ledsled should have considered before he implied that this thread was a lot of hullabaloo over (quote again): "Two alleged events happening to one Australian carrier over a short period of time".
NevilleN et al,
If you take the trouble to look at the comparison tables in the ATSB report on the subject, it makes it quite clear that the rule in the nominated countries are not greatly different to Australia's rules on the subject.
Put another way, the belief that "the rest of the world always requires an alternate" is just a tad inaccurate.
Bloggs,
My original remarks were directed at the genesis of this thread, not the recorded history of aviation.
In summary, the Qantas approach to flight planning and fuel reserves, and in-flight operational control, as well as always meeting statutory requirements nationally and internationally, is an operationally and commercially intelligent system, that has been proven by time.
A major part of reason the system works so well is that Operational Control travels with aircraft, and responds to the address: "Captain".
Tootle pip!!
If you take the trouble to look at the comparison tables in the ATSB report on the subject, it makes it quite clear that the rule in the nominated countries are not greatly different to Australia's rules on the subject.
Put another way, the belief that "the rest of the world always requires an alternate" is just a tad inaccurate.
Bloggs,
My original remarks were directed at the genesis of this thread, not the recorded history of aviation.
In summary, the Qantas approach to flight planning and fuel reserves, and in-flight operational control, as well as always meeting statutory requirements nationally and internationally, is an operationally and commercially intelligent system, that has been proven by time.
A major part of reason the system works so well is that Operational Control travels with aircraft, and responds to the address: "Captain".
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 7th Jun 2013 at 08:58.