Should QANTAS change their fuel policy?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hear,hear leadie,
back in the dim distant past you never had enough fuel....unless you were on fire!!....so how much fuel is enough??...you cannot possibly allow for every contingency, just make intelligent assessments based on historical statistics.
I think the question should be why? given Australia's lack of tarmac we dont have CAT 111, I mean it was available back in the seventies...what year is it now?...maybe one day australia will catch up with the third world.
back in the dim distant past you never had enough fuel....unless you were on fire!!....so how much fuel is enough??...you cannot possibly allow for every contingency, just make intelligent assessments based on historical statistics.
I think the question should be why? given Australia's lack of tarmac we dont have CAT 111, I mean it was available back in the seventies...what year is it now?...maybe one day australia will catch up with the third world.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, time for me to throw my tuppence worth in. Having flown for two major competing Asian carriers, the current one for 18 years, both operators ALWAYS have an alternate unless Island reserve is approved. No Australian Port is approved by either of these two carriers so hence always an alternate. To assist at times a redispatch plan was used in the early '90s often using Alice or Tindal for the East Coast destinations or sometimes on an odd occasion even NZ. With greater range/payload capabilities these days I haven't seen one of those now for a good 15 years or so.
Prior to my Asian time, operating for an Australian company, even though an Alternate was not always required we never left home without one.
Earlier in this thread someone mentioned whats wrong with an autoland off CAT 1 when A/L approved. Quite simply, if it is below CAT 1 minima the accuracy of the ground equipment cannot guarantee you will always be in the correct spot. Evidence a 74 (non Australian) some years ago doing just such below CAT 1 minima into YSSY. Left some nice groves in the grass during a last minute go-around and gave Melbourne some free SYD turf on it's subsequent arrival down there.
Prior to my Asian time, operating for an Australian company, even though an Alternate was not always required we never left home without one.
Earlier in this thread someone mentioned whats wrong with an autoland off CAT 1 when A/L approved. Quite simply, if it is below CAT 1 minima the accuracy of the ground equipment cannot guarantee you will always be in the correct spot. Evidence a 74 (non Australian) some years ago doing just such below CAT 1 minima into YSSY. Left some nice groves in the grass during a last minute go-around and gave Melbourne some free SYD turf on it's subsequent arrival down there.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Reality
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tempo Fuel?
[quote=Capt Fathom;7839355]
If the Wx is Tempo below CAT I mins, we at SWA (largest US Domestic Carrier), have additional alternate fuel.
This gives QF a competitive advantage over other airlines but at what risk?
The regs also require Australian Operators to carry INTER or TEMPO fuel when the forecast so requires!
This does not apply to Overseas Operators!
The regs also require Australian Operators to carry INTER or TEMPO fuel when the forecast so requires!
This does not apply to Overseas Operators!
If the Wx is Tempo below CAT I mins, we at SWA (largest US Domestic Carrier), have additional alternate fuel.
Last edited by Mic Dundee; 7th Jun 2013 at 14:52.
If the Wx is Tempo below CAT I mins, we at SWA (largest US Domestic Carrier), have additional alternate fuel.
SWA does not fly any international routes, nor does it seem capable of successfully completing ETOPS certification. No, San Juan is not another country, despite what your flight ops managers think. The airline that flies your international routes for you has nicknamed "SWA (largest US Domestic airline)", 'The Flat Earth Society'.
Carry on.
Put another way, the belief that "the rest of the world always requires an alternate" is just a tad inaccurate.
Whatever the nuances of the rules, in practice, a TINY percentage of the Worlds flights EVER depart without fuel to an alternate.
Thread Starter
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
And while I agree that it is a tricky thing to negotiate and people have provided good arguments for both sides, given that the rest of the world do it would it not be considered 'world's best practice'?
The regs also require Australian Operators to carry INTER or TEMPO fuel when the forecast so requires!
This does not apply to Overseas Operators!
This does not apply to Overseas Operators!
In 13 years of flying overseas for four different carries on three different continents, I have NEVER even ONCE departed without fuel for a nominated alternate.
Whatever the nuances of the rules, in practice, a TINY percentage of the Worlds flights EVER depart without fuel to an alternate.
Whatever the nuances of the rules, in practice, a TINY percentage of the Worlds flights EVER depart without fuel to an alternate.
There is nothing nuanced about the regulations, they are quite plain.
I dare say that most of the operators you have worked for have, at least originally, come form areas where, at least originally in their history, the combinations of often lousy weather, and relatively short distances made always carrying an alternate a matter of little commercial importance.
In short, habit is no excuse for not doing considered analysis. In total contrast to the history of Qantas, where intense attention to such matters, to minimise fuel burn and maximize available payload was core to the business, and we all understand/understood that was core to company success.
We all know pilots are a conservative bunch, long ingrained practices are hard to shift, suggested changes produce the mantra of "safety", applying rational risk based criteria to airspace classification is a prime example in Australia.
A UK airline that I worked for for some years, having acquired a contract for some very long fuel critical sector into southern Africa, when we ( a couple of Australian working for this company) pointed out the fact that there was an legal "alternate" to always carrying an alternate, realised they had never really considered operating without an alternate. After rejigging the system, commercial payloads increased significantly.
The way fuel policies have developed in Australia, under quite different circumstances, for all carriers, not just Qantas, tells you no more than operating around Europe or the north Atlantic (something with which I am intimately familiar) is quite different to operating around Australia or the Pacific.
Using like scales, put a map covering just NSW and Vic. over western Europe, you may very well be surprised.
The common use of Inters and Tempos here to add 30 or 60m holding is a case in point, carrying 30 or 60 on YSSY is a lot less than carrying YMML as alternate, particularly if you are flying an aeroplane where there are no other alternates --- based on wheel loads, if nothing else.
Anybody who doesn't understand that it is all about risk management, and maximizing realisable commercial payload, need to rethink their approach.
Tootle pip!!
Originally Posted by Ledsled
The way fuel policies have developed in Australia, under quite different circumstances, for all carriers, not just Qantas, tells you no more than operating around Europe or the north Atlantic (something with which I am intimately familiar) is quite different to operating around Australia or the Pacific.
An interesting discussion which suggests that the thread title should be changed to "Should CASA change the alternate requirements", because that's what it really boils down to. The CASA policy is that, if a destination is forecast to be below alternate criteria 30 minutes either side of your ETA you need to carry an alternate; but if it's not, then you don't have to. It's really just as simple as that, and the QF fuel policy abides by these regulations.
I can see two possible outcomes if more pressure were to be put on the BOM:
1. Under the present regs, they could become arch-conservative and if there is the SLIGHTEST possibility of requiring an alternate, then they will forecast accordingly; or
2. If the regs changed and every aircraft carried an alternate, their forecasting could become even worse with diversions becoming more common.
Neither outcome is desirable. As Mark Twain said, "Everybody complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it".
On a different, but relevant note. A recent AIPA newsletter said that Sydney hopes to have Cat II capability on both 16R and 34L by the end of this year. Apparently the sticking point has been the construction of suitable lengths of HIALS for each runway.
If nothing else, it will sting the beancounters into action to make BOM do a better job.
1. Under the present regs, they could become arch-conservative and if there is the SLIGHTEST possibility of requiring an alternate, then they will forecast accordingly; or
2. If the regs changed and every aircraft carried an alternate, their forecasting could become even worse with diversions becoming more common.
Neither outcome is desirable. As Mark Twain said, "Everybody complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it".
On a different, but relevant note. A recent AIPA newsletter said that Sydney hopes to have Cat II capability on both 16R and 34L by the end of this year. Apparently the sticking point has been the construction of suitable lengths of HIALS for each runway.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Reality
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the Wx is Tempo below CAT I mins, we at SWA (largest US Domestic Carrier), have additional alternate fuel.
SWA does not fly any international routes, nor does it seem capable of successfully completing ETOPS certification. No, San Juan is not another country, despite what your flight ops managers think. The airline that flies your international routes for you has nicknamed "SWA (largest US Domestic airline)", 'The Flat Earth Society'.
Carry on.
Last edited by Mic Dundee; 8th Jun 2013 at 05:04.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florence
Age: 74
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the fuel regulations?
Leadsled said:
That is correct - in an "outcomes" framework as distinct from a "prescriptive" framework. The key phrase in CAR 234 is:
What is "sufficient" and what is "safety" will be determined in hindsight by a Judge, not an aviator. 
Experience in other aviation litigation determined by non-aviator judges shows that "nuanced" doesn't even begin to explain some of the outcomes. As far as I know, there is no legal precedents yet established in Australia at any serious level in the court system in regard to CAR 234.
There is nothing nuanced about the regulations, they are quite plain.
That is correct - in an "outcomes" framework as distinct from a "prescriptive" framework. The key phrase in CAR 234 is:
...reasonable steps to ensure that the aircraft carries sufficient fuel and oil to enable the proposed flight to be undertaken in safety.
Experience in other aviation litigation determined by non-aviator judges shows that "nuanced" doesn't even begin to explain some of the outcomes. As far as I know, there is no legal precedents yet established in Australia at any serious level in the court system in regard to CAR 234.
Last edited by Prince Niccolo M; 8th Jun 2013 at 05:09.
From CAR 234
(3) For the purposes of these Regulations, in determining whether fuel and oil carried on an aircraft in respect of a particular flight was sufficient within the meaning of subregulations (1) and (2), a court must, in addition to any other matters, take into account the following matters:
(a) the distance to be travelled by the aircraft on the flight to reach the proposed destination;
(b) the meteorological conditions in which the aircraft is, or may be required, to fly;
(c) the possibility of:
(i) a forced diversion to an alternative aerodrome; and
(ii) a delay pending landing clearance; and
(iii) air traffic control re-routing the flight after commencement of the flight; and
(iv) a loss of pressurisation in the aircraft; and
(v) where the aircraft is a multi-engined aircraft--an engine failure;
(d) any guidelines issued from time to time by CASA for the purposes of this regulation.
Seems abundantly clear to me. We have the regulation that we will be charged under in accordance with strict liability. What part of "possibility of a forced diversion" don't some people get? Whilst we're at it "delay pending a landing clearance" - anyone not been to Per or Bne lately?
(3) For the purposes of these Regulations, in determining whether fuel and oil carried on an aircraft in respect of a particular flight was sufficient within the meaning of subregulations (1) and (2), a court must, in addition to any other matters, take into account the following matters:
(a) the distance to be travelled by the aircraft on the flight to reach the proposed destination;
(b) the meteorological conditions in which the aircraft is, or may be required, to fly;
(c) the possibility of:
(i) a forced diversion to an alternative aerodrome; and
(ii) a delay pending landing clearance; and
(iii) air traffic control re-routing the flight after commencement of the flight; and
(iv) a loss of pressurisation in the aircraft; and
(v) where the aircraft is a multi-engined aircraft--an engine failure;
(d) any guidelines issued from time to time by CASA for the purposes of this regulation.
Seems abundantly clear to me. We have the regulation that we will be charged under in accordance with strict liability. What part of "possibility of a forced diversion" don't some people get? Whilst we're at it "delay pending a landing clearance" - anyone not been to Per or Bne lately?
------the capability is now there to carry an alternate; you just choose to accept that it's still OK to land below the minima on multiple occasions ----
And how many of them were below the approach minima, not just the alternate minima?? Still, I guess we know where Australian aviation would be if all the rule were made by people who think the way you do ---- always looking for absolutes were no absolutes exist. As in demanding something called "absolute safety".
Do you have any idea of how closely QF works with BoM to minimise the occurrence of dud forecasts.
---- that the thread title should be changed to "Should CASA change the alternate requirements",
If you want to change the thread title, make it:
"Should Australia/CASA once again depart from ICAO SARPs,and the practices of major aviation nations and once again introduce unique Australian regulations, with their attendant risk management unjustified costs and complexities",
because that is what you are asking for.
Re. CAR 234, and strict liability, this is one of many regulations where it (in a legal theory sense -- and the ALRC tome on the subject) cannot be strict liability, because a judgment call is required of the pilot and operator.
This, and many other equally appalling examples of how "strict liability" has been incorrectly applied to many aviation regulations, abound, and are generally carried through to the "reformed" regulations.
CAR 234 calls for a subjective judgement, there is no objective standard in the regulation, against which (in theory) a finding of guilt without a mental element being considered, can be made.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 8th Jun 2013 at 07:50.
The forecasting is obviously (still) so bad that perhaps the rules should be changed so that these incidents don't keep occurring ie big modern aircraft should carry an alternate. If nothing else, it will sting the beancounters into action to make BOM do a better job.
San Juan may be U.S. territory, but flight to it is international genius! Been PIC to every continent, accept Antarctica. Something like 19,000 flight hours. Heavy's? Been there, done that ... ya drongo! :/ - Mic Dundee
- The U.S Department of State disagrees with you. They say that Puerto Rico is domestic.
- U.S. Customs and Immigration disagree with you. They say that Puerto Rico is domestic. Were you disappointed when you couldn't find a nice customs man to stamp your passport when you returned from your International travels to San Juan ?
The reason you think San Juan is "International", is the fact that only SWA dispatches its flights to Puerto Rico as an International flight. Everybody else dispatches under Domestic rules. Perhaps one day you'll be able to do the same.
Keep working on that ETOPS. It's only a couple of years away. Just like it was four years ago, and two years ago .......
As I said, The Flat Earth Society.
Thread Starter
And how many of them were below the approach minima, not just the alternate minima??
Another autoland in PER in dense fog and another one where they passed the PNR and committed to PER saying it would be a autoland if required, luckily they beat the fog.
On all occasions a alternate would have saved them, whereas the policy of committed to the destination has resulted in autolands in fog on CAT I installations.
Anyway something for the policy makers at CASA to sort out if the Insurers don't beat them to it.
And yes I would have changed the title of the thread but the system won't let you do it.
Last edited by neville_nobody; 9th Jun 2013 at 01:40.
TAF AMD YSSY 091106Z 0912/1018
29008KT 9999 FEW030
FM100300 36010KT 9999 LIGHT RAIN FEW035 BKN060
FM101200 30006KT 9999 FEW030
PROB30 0918/0923 0300 FOG
Here we go again...
29008KT 9999 FEW030
FM100300 36010KT 9999 LIGHT RAIN FEW035 BKN060
FM101200 30006KT 9999 FEW030
PROB30 0918/0923 0300 FOG
Here we go again...
