Should QANTAS change their fuel policy?
Singapore put one on the grass in Germany last year doing a autoland,
My question is --- so?
If this is the incident I think you are referring to, it was a low speed departure from the runway due a issue that was not directly related to the fact an auto land was carried out. Again, as I recall, weather/viz. was not a factor.
If you were to use this SQ incident as a criteria, there would be no more auto-lands, to ensure the circumstances could not be replicated.
Whether you like it or not, ALL aircraft operations have a risk management basis underpinning the SOPs.
In the general Australian approach to when alternates will or will not be legally required (not just Qantas), the statistically valid results over the last 60 years or so validates the adequacy of the minimum legal requirements.
As I used to tell my student:
(1) If I always took the minimum the law (the fuel policy) allows, the company would go broke, because of the number of diversions.
(2) If I always took enough to cover every possible contingency, the company would go broke, because of the loss or payload and added fuel burn
(3)That is why we have the bloke or blokess called Captain, the one who finds the happy medium on each and every sector.
Tootle pip!!
There is some relevance in that it demonstrates the risk of autolanding on an unprotected runway. The SIA 777 autolanded when Cat3 was not in operation, e.g. it was unprotected. The departure was also not low speed if you look at the skid marks on the picture in the original thread and the fact they first went off the left side and ended up off the right side of 08R in Munich.
How does Qantas calculate final reserve. Is it 30 minutes at actual weight or is it a fixed figure? Some airlines have moved from a fixed amount e.g. 1200 kg on the 737 to a lower weight dependant figure (for a ferry flight it can be as low as 700 kilos).
How does Qantas calculate final reserve. Is it 30 minutes at actual weight or is it a fixed figure? Some airlines have moved from a fixed amount e.g. 1200 kg on the 737 to a lower weight dependant figure (for a ferry flight it can be as low as 700 kilos).
Last edited by lederhosen; 29th May 2013 at 17:52.
Nunc est bibendum
This obsession with QF's FFR is getting very old. No QF aeroplane planes to arrive anywhere with just FFR of 30 minutes. That's actual aircraft weight and varies each sector.
Many aircraft have an 'arrival allowance' as well to get from 1500' to the ground. It's 1 tonne on the 767. I've never burned more than about 600kg of it and even then it would have been a day where I dirtied up earlier than that and had to drive it in against a pretty stiff headwind.
Many aircraft have an 'arrival allowance' as well to get from 1500' to the ground. It's 1 tonne on the 767. I've never burned more than about 600kg of it and even then it would have been a day where I dirtied up earlier than that and had to drive it in against a pretty stiff headwind.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
Clear to land, you appear to be confused between the ability to do autolands and LVP operations.
There are no LVP operations at YSSY but autolands are approved.
Apparently a few airlines landed this week at YSSY in the FG without declaring any form of emergency where others had to go-around. I think that would be more of a concern to CASA than the couple of QF incidents.
There are no LVP operations at YSSY but autolands are approved.
Apparently a few airlines landed this week at YSSY in the FG without declaring any form of emergency where others had to go-around. I think that would be more of a concern to CASA than the couple of QF incidents.
Capt Kremin: " I think that [the other airlines landing in fog] would be more of a concern to CASA than the couple of QF incidents."
Why is that?
Keg - at least about 5 years ago. Was an A330 skipper.
Why is that?
Keg - at least about 5 years ago. Was an A330 skipper.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
Compressor stall, there was a cryptic Notam issued at PER about 2 years ago reminding Operators that PER does not have LVP operations.
I followed a certain high profile operator down an ILS there a couple of years ago. Both myself and the Jetstar aircraft ahead of this particular aircraft went around while this aircraft landed.
Getting caught out by last minute unforecast weather is one thing.... Routine use of an LVP procedures to get in when none exist is another.
I followed a certain high profile operator down an ILS there a couple of years ago. Both myself and the Jetstar aircraft ahead of this particular aircraft went around while this aircraft landed.
Getting caught out by last minute unforecast weather is one thing.... Routine use of an LVP procedures to get in when none exist is another.
Last edited by Capt Kremin; 29th May 2013 at 22:45.
Sprite
And the sense of such a policy is the subject of discussion, not whether QF had acted illegally.
Capt Kremin - Don't disagree there. The way your previous post read was that on the day in question, CASA should be more bothered about other airlines auto landing due low fuel than QF.
What QF did is not illegal, it is an approved fuel policy.
Capt Kremin - Don't disagree there. The way your previous post read was that on the day in question, CASA should be more bothered about other airlines auto landing due low fuel than QF.
Last edited by compressor stall; 29th May 2013 at 23:19.
Thread Starter
The FAM Fuel Policy (approved by CASA) says that it is accepted that there will be rare occasions when the weather deteriorates after deciding to commit to an airport. What QF did is not illegal, it is an approved fuel policy.
My question is --- so?
End of the day if CASA says you can do it, you can. It is only really an issue in Australia as the rest of the world has CAT II/III.
I still think it's pretty gutsy to have it as 'policy' though and does give QF a significant edge over the 'rest of the world'.
Here whys when you ask for a autoland the towers says 'Critical areas not protected':
Originally Posted by Ledsled
Originally Posted by Neville
Singapore put one on the grass in Germany last year doing a autoland,
My question is --- so?
If this is the incident I think you are referring to, it was a low speed departure from the runway due a issue that was not directly related to the fact an auto land was carried out. Again, as I recall, weather/viz. was not a factor.
If you were to use this SQ incident as a criteria, there would be no more auto-lands, to ensure the circumstances could not be replicated.
As for "replication" the only replication not needed was the crew to not do a autoland without LVPs...
Please do some research before engaging keyboard.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently a few airlines landed this week at YSSY in the FG without declaring any form of emergency where others had to go-around. I think that would be more of a concern to CASA than the couple of QF incidents
What QF did is not illegal, it is an approved fuel policy.
Why bother having alt minima at SYD when bugger it, we can all just go autoland there. Why bother investing in Cat II/III when you can get an exemption to do it on Cat I installations when you have a fuel policy that allows you to get into that situation not irregularly.
How many autolands this morning?
Last edited by waren9; 30th May 2013 at 00:07.
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.
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.
I won't even bother replying to that.
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
Why bother having alt minima at SYD when bugger it, we can all just go autoland there.
The Qantas fuel policy is not an exemption: it is a fuel policy approved by CASA.
Just because someone in CASA says something is "legal" does not make it so.
Thread Starter
The Qantas fuel policy is not an exemption: it is a fuel policy approved by CASA.
Some airlines that have an alternate everywhere, get around it by using airports that are very close to their destination
Alternates have nothing to do with distance and everything to do with weather.
No problem having an alternate 40NM away. In some instances where they are separated by mountains the weather patterns are completely different.
Last edited by neville_nobody; 30th May 2013 at 00:55.
Shark Patrol - how does QF mitigate the risk of unforecast deterioration at the destination after the PSD / PDA or whatever TLA QF calls it?
How do other airlines mitigate it?
Will the fact that the "rare occasion" has happened twice in two weeks be cause for review?
Well a 5 second check shows no fog at YWLM at the time that QF did its auto land in YSSY. (And to save thread digression, I don't even know the a/c type - assume it's heavy - so I understand that YWLM may not be suitable from runway, customs etc, but the point remains that a suitable airport could be close by).
How do other airlines mitigate it?
Will the fact that the "rare occasion" has happened twice in two weeks be cause for review?
So if Qantas followed that path, maybe we would be flying across the Pacific just using Richmond or Williamtown as our destination alternate.
Last edited by compressor stall; 30th May 2013 at 01:15.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When one of the airlines that always has an alternate diverts there, how much fuel do they have at the alternate?
What do they do when at that alternate the WX (unforecast) deteriorates below minima?
What do they do when they go down on fuel during the flight so they now do not have an alternate but the destination is Cavok? Do they divert away from their Cavok destination?
We could do this for days.
What do they do when at that alternate the WX (unforecast) deteriorates below minima?
What do they do when they go down on fuel during the flight so they now do not have an alternate but the destination is Cavok?
Do they divert away from their Cavok destination?We could do this for days.
Nunc est bibendum
No problem having an alternate 40NM away. In some instances where they are separated by mountains the weather patterns are completely different.
What happens when after deciding they are going to Sydney the weather at Sydney goes U/S due unforecast FG?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if you have a PRE FLIGHT requirement for a alternate that you no longer have IN FLIGHT then you continue to destination?
So when you get to said destination and you no longer have fuel to an alternate AND there is unforcast fog then you are on exactly the same f%^}{]* situation so you do an auto land or ditch!
So when you get to said destination and you no longer have fuel to an alternate AND there is unforcast fog then you are on exactly the same f%^}{]* situation so you do an auto land or ditch!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if you have a PRE FLIGHT requirement for a alternate that you no longer have IN FLIGHT then you continue to destination?
do what you can with what youve got