Should QANTAS change their fuel policy?
Thread Starter
Guys the argument that holding an alternate and getting caught is the same as arriving with nothing and getting caught is not the same argument.
A380 could have a quadrouple engine failure too. It is possible.
A380 could have a quadrouple engine failure too. It is possible.
Compressor Stall:
I have been in Qantas for nearly two decades, have been on the line for the entire time and have regularly operated Trans-Pacific and very long range flights. You know how many times I have been in the situation that we are all debating here on this thread?
None! Nada! Zilch! Zippo!
I can, however, relate a tale from real-life experience to balance this discussion about always having an alternate.
NZ regulations required us to always have an alternate from top of descent. So to digress here briefly, if CASA were aghast at the QF policy, they could easily introduce a similar regulation if they wished. They haven't.
Anyway, I once flew from Sydney to Auckland (yep back when QF trans-Tasman flights were actually flown by Qantas pilots) that departed Sydney about 9pm and arrived in Auckland about 2am local time. The alternate airports in NZ for the aircraft type were Wellington and Christchurch.
The TAFs for the flight were Auckland - CAVOK for the entire period with no deteriorations at all; Wellington - fog for our ETA; and Christchurch - fog for our ETA. For the return scenario, Sydney would close due curfew half-way across, which left Brisbane and Melbourne (with a very strong jet stream to negotiate before landing).
The flight plan had us arriving in Auckland with sufficient fuel to divert from TOD to Nadi (which must have required less fuel than diverting to Brisbane or Melbourne from TOD). When we were approaching the west coast of NZ, we could see the lights of Auckland from 200 miles out, yet because of the NZ regs we landed with over 20 tonnes of fuel (which was astronomical for a 767). Could you imagine the cost of fuel carriage if this was multiplied for every single sector that we operate?
A second story:
When the cost of fuel was very high, our flight planning section was looking to minimize fuel carriage and Batam, about 15 miles away from Singapore Changi was approved for use as an alternate.
When we arrived at flight planning at Heathrow, Singapore had TEMPO TS for about an hour either side of our arrival time. Batam, however, was a single-line forecast and so we were given diversion fuel to Batam (5/8s of f*** all) rather than TEMPO holding fuel. That day we had the luxury of being able to carry TEMPO fuel for Singapore, so that's what we did. If we open up the possibility of using close-in alternates as SOP, that scenario would become much more the norm than the current system. I prefer the current system.
Somebody during the discussion has already mentioned risk mitigation. 99.9% of the time, the current fuel policy works.
I have been in Qantas for nearly two decades, have been on the line for the entire time and have regularly operated Trans-Pacific and very long range flights. You know how many times I have been in the situation that we are all debating here on this thread?
None! Nada! Zilch! Zippo!
I can, however, relate a tale from real-life experience to balance this discussion about always having an alternate.
NZ regulations required us to always have an alternate from top of descent. So to digress here briefly, if CASA were aghast at the QF policy, they could easily introduce a similar regulation if they wished. They haven't.
Anyway, I once flew from Sydney to Auckland (yep back when QF trans-Tasman flights were actually flown by Qantas pilots) that departed Sydney about 9pm and arrived in Auckland about 2am local time. The alternate airports in NZ for the aircraft type were Wellington and Christchurch.
The TAFs for the flight were Auckland - CAVOK for the entire period with no deteriorations at all; Wellington - fog for our ETA; and Christchurch - fog for our ETA. For the return scenario, Sydney would close due curfew half-way across, which left Brisbane and Melbourne (with a very strong jet stream to negotiate before landing).
The flight plan had us arriving in Auckland with sufficient fuel to divert from TOD to Nadi (which must have required less fuel than diverting to Brisbane or Melbourne from TOD). When we were approaching the west coast of NZ, we could see the lights of Auckland from 200 miles out, yet because of the NZ regs we landed with over 20 tonnes of fuel (which was astronomical for a 767). Could you imagine the cost of fuel carriage if this was multiplied for every single sector that we operate?
A second story:
When the cost of fuel was very high, our flight planning section was looking to minimize fuel carriage and Batam, about 15 miles away from Singapore Changi was approved for use as an alternate.
When we arrived at flight planning at Heathrow, Singapore had TEMPO TS for about an hour either side of our arrival time. Batam, however, was a single-line forecast and so we were given diversion fuel to Batam (5/8s of f*** all) rather than TEMPO holding fuel. That day we had the luxury of being able to carry TEMPO fuel for Singapore, so that's what we did. If we open up the possibility of using close-in alternates as SOP, that scenario would become much more the norm than the current system. I prefer the current system.
Somebody during the discussion has already mentioned risk mitigation. 99.9% of the time, the current fuel policy works.
Last edited by Shark Patrol; 30th May 2013 at 02:24.
Good to hear, Shark Patrol, but two of your colleagues have had issues in two weeks. I've been flying for a couple of years less than you and I have never had an engine failure. Should I stop briefing and considering the EO SID?
Seriously though - the issue is not with QF. The issue is with CASA. IMHO, CASA should be considering its policy in line with the rest of the developed world. But - as I have seen first hand some years ago in the CASA office - their attitude of "Qantas do it this way, so it's the only way" will I suspect prevail.
Seriously though - the issue is not with QF. The issue is with CASA. IMHO, CASA should be considering its policy in line with the rest of the developed world. But - as I have seen first hand some years ago in the CASA office - their attitude of "Qantas do it this way, so it's the only way" will I suspect prevail.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seriously though - the issue is not with QF. The issue is with CASA. IMHO, CASA should be considering its policy in line with the rest of the developed world. But - as I have seen first hand some years ago in the CASA office - their attitude of "Qantas do it this way, so it's the only way" will I suspect prevail.
well said.
Last edited by waren9; 30th May 2013 at 23:50.
Without wishing to get into a tit-for-tat with you CS, the point of this discussion is the risk factor that is involved. Like you, I've never had an engine failure either, but obviously engine failures have to be considered because the regulations require them to be considered.
But where do we draw the line on what else should be considered? If I fly into a flock of birds on takeoff, I could easily lose two engines after takeoff. Should four-engined aircraft always be required to consider two-engines out performance whenever they fly? How would this requirement affect current operations?
As you rightly said, it is CASA that sets the legislative agenda within this country. I'm absolutely certain that they are fully aware of the fuel policies of every AOC-holder that is operating within their jurisdiction. If they had a problem, they would either act to warn the operator of a deficiency or legislate to ensure compliance.
Your last statement seems to reflect some sort of anti-QF bias, and I would hope that that is not the case. CASA is charged with regulating the industry and ensuring the safety of the flying public. At the same time, they would also be under immense pressure to ensure that aviation is a sustainable industry in this country. If they do not feel that they have adequate experience or qualifications to regulate the airlines that they oversee, then that's another problem entirely.
But where do we draw the line on what else should be considered? If I fly into a flock of birds on takeoff, I could easily lose two engines after takeoff. Should four-engined aircraft always be required to consider two-engines out performance whenever they fly? How would this requirement affect current operations?
As you rightly said, it is CASA that sets the legislative agenda within this country. I'm absolutely certain that they are fully aware of the fuel policies of every AOC-holder that is operating within their jurisdiction. If they had a problem, they would either act to warn the operator of a deficiency or legislate to ensure compliance.
Your last statement seems to reflect some sort of anti-QF bias, and I would hope that that is not the case. CASA is charged with regulating the industry and ensuring the safety of the flying public. At the same time, they would also be under immense pressure to ensure that aviation is a sustainable industry in this country. If they do not feel that they have adequate experience or qualifications to regulate the airlines that they oversee, then that's another problem entirely.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 287
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?
I'm not saying that the policy we operate under is perfect, but it attempts to protect against singular failures outside of our control, like grossly incorrect weather forecasts, or runway blockages.
FWIW, our airborne fuel policy in a nutshell:
In flight, we can continue towards the destination provided we can meet the following requirements:
If a flight will arrive at destination with less than minimum diversion fuel, you can continue to destination provided:
1. Normal fuel required (includes fuel for a diversion to an alternate); or
2. Suitable ERA available (divert prior to passing overhead/abeam the last suitable ERA); or
3. In flight reduction of normal fuel required.
In flight reduction of Normal Fuel Required2. Suitable ERA available (divert prior to passing overhead/abeam the last suitable ERA); or
3. In flight reduction of normal fuel required.
If a flight will arrive at destination with less than minimum diversion fuel, you can continue to destination provided:
Enroute and prior to descent to the destination
a. the airport has two independent suitable runways (not crossing or reciprocal); and
b. the actual and forecast weather for the ETA has conditions better that the Non-Precision Minima for Filing as an Alternate, and crosswind within aircraft limits; and
c. there are no known ATC delays; and
d. fuel remaining is sufficient to continue to destination, +5% contingency from overhead/abeam the last ERA, +30 minutes holding at 1500' AAL, and complete an approach and landing. A further note says to use discretion and gives guidance to not use less a fixed reserve of less than 45 minutes.
b. the actual and forecast weather for the ETA has conditions better that the Non-Precision Minima for Filing as an Alternate, and crosswind within aircraft limits; and
c. there are no known ATC delays; and
d. fuel remaining is sufficient to continue to destination, +5% contingency from overhead/abeam the last ERA, +30 minutes holding at 1500' AAL, and complete an approach and landing. A further note says to use discretion and gives guidance to not use less a fixed reserve of less than 45 minutes.
After Commencing Descent
If a delay or unforeseen situation occurs that would result in the aircraft landing with less than minimum diversion fuel, the flight may continue to destination provided the landing fuel will at least be equal to fixed reserve. The commander must consider all relevant factors (Wx, delays, runway closure etc) before continuing to destination rather than diverting to an alternate.
Hi Shark Patrol - I don't have anything against QF. They are merely implementing a method of complying with a CASA rule regarding carriage of alternates (or lack of) and it works, mostly. As I made it clear on page 1, it is the CASA rule - not QF - that is under discussion.
My experience tells me that there is a very strong opinion in some elements of CASA that the Qantas way is the only way - even when presented with the fact that every other NAA and even the aircraft manufacturer sees it differently (a different issue than fuel for destination). That frustrates others in the industry - but I hold nothing against Qantas for creating an environment to capitalise on this luck.
Fly safe.
My experience tells me that there is a very strong opinion in some elements of CASA that the Qantas way is the only way - even when presented with the fact that every other NAA and even the aircraft manufacturer sees it differently (a different issue than fuel for destination). That frustrates others in the industry - but I hold nothing against Qantas for creating an environment to capitalise on this luck.
Fly safe.
Last edited by compressor stall; 30th May 2013 at 03:10.
How does the Qantas operations manual define final reserve?
1. A variable figure depending on estimated landing weight and listed on the flight plan
2. A fixed amount covering all eventualities e.g. 737 1200kg (40x30 mins)
3. Something else
Does Casa expect you to have at least this amount crossing the outer marker, or on landing?
As more and more attention is focussed on fuel saving (sensible given the oil price) the pressure to reduce extra fuel increases. We are going to see more and more diversions and low fuel situations. An occasional event is fine, but if everyone shows up with little margin then things get complicated as they did in Madrid last year, even though everyone appears to have been in full compliance with the rules.
It may be different elsewhere, but our flight plans have considerable variance in how much fuel you really use, mainly but not only because we use the convention shortest departure longest arrival. There is no substitute for experience.
1. A variable figure depending on estimated landing weight and listed on the flight plan
2. A fixed amount covering all eventualities e.g. 737 1200kg (40x30 mins)
3. Something else
Does Casa expect you to have at least this amount crossing the outer marker, or on landing?
As more and more attention is focussed on fuel saving (sensible given the oil price) the pressure to reduce extra fuel increases. We are going to see more and more diversions and low fuel situations. An occasional event is fine, but if everyone shows up with little margin then things get complicated as they did in Madrid last year, even though everyone appears to have been in full compliance with the rules.
It may be different elsewhere, but our flight plans have considerable variance in how much fuel you really use, mainly but not only because we use the convention shortest departure longest arrival. There is no substitute for experience.
Answer 1.
FIXED FUEL RESERVE (FFR)
The reserve fuel calculated as 30 minutes of holding fuel at 1,500ft. It is the
minimum fuel required to be in tanks at the completion of the landing roll.
FIXED FUEL RESERVE (FFR)
The reserve fuel calculated as 30 minutes of holding fuel at 1,500ft. It is the
minimum fuel required to be in tanks at the completion of the landing roll.
Thanks for giving a swift answer. If you use option 1 in my experience 737 final reserve can be anything from 700kg to 1200 kg. It would be interesting to know how much it varies on the A380 from ferry to MZFW.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: WA
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a fare paying passenger it certainly is concerning that in this day and age some pilots end up with only one option left, I thought the old saying was "if you are up to your last option you should not be up there".
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt it was their last option. They probably could also have gone to Williamtown or Richmond.
They also could possibly have gone to Canberra with and landed with less than FFR.
However all of the above would also have been classified as "emergency" options. Obviously the Captain decided autoland in Sydney was the safest of these options. (Commercial considerations don't count once it's an emergency - safety only).
They also could possibly have gone to Canberra with and landed with less than FFR.
However all of the above would also have been classified as "emergency" options. Obviously the Captain decided autoland in Sydney was the safest of these options. (Commercial considerations don't count once it's an emergency - safety only).
The actual TAF/TTFs
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Inside their OODA loop
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Historic TAF/TTF database. Set up a query with the location UTC date and time, two formats HTML( pretty) or text.
A great resource
Nunc est bibendum
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.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting discussion. CASA rules and therefore Qantas fuel policy is more conservative than other regulatory agencies I have operated with..
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.
If anytime after the flight planning stage the weather conditions deteriorate below the alternate requirements or special alternate requirements, where available, the minimum inflight fuel must include fuel to an alternate.
If the inflight fuel remaining is not sufficient to enable the aircraft to conduct the approach at the destination and proceed to an alternate, then the flight must proceed to a new destination airfield that does itself not require an alternate or if it does require an alternate, the minimum inflight fuel must cover this.
In the event that the above option is not available the crew must make a decision based on the safest course of action, and file the appropriate paperwork as this is a reportable incident.
All international flights, I have operated into Sydney or any other Australian airports, that depart with flight plan fuel and no destination alternate fuel, will always have the inflight fuel on-board to divert to another suitable airport before descent has commenced.
So if forecast or actual weather conditions deteriorate below special alternate minima, inflight, and I do not have fuel to fly, approach, missed approach and full divert, then I divert to new destination.
This is Qantas fuel policy and CASA rules.
Neither the Qantas fuel policy or the CASA rules permit an aircraft to continue to a destination airport that has weather conditions below the inflight special alternate minima, let alone an airport that is below the landing minima without having full divert full to a suitable alternate.
So in answer to the opening of this thread, no I do not think there should be a change in the Qantas "Fuel Policy"
P.S
I have also operated into New Zealand ports and their rules only require the "TOD alternate" for International flights operating to a airport with a single runway, this is not a weather requirement, their alternate requirements are very similar to CASA, however the New Zealand NZCAR's "inflight fuel" only requires alternate fuel if the destination weather deteriorates below the approach minima, unlike the CASA requirement of the special alternate minima, therefore CASA rules are more conservative in this regard.
Safe Flying
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.
If anytime after the flight planning stage the weather conditions deteriorate below the alternate requirements or special alternate requirements, where available, the minimum inflight fuel must include fuel to an alternate.
If the inflight fuel remaining is not sufficient to enable the aircraft to conduct the approach at the destination and proceed to an alternate, then the flight must proceed to a new destination airfield that does itself not require an alternate or if it does require an alternate, the minimum inflight fuel must cover this.
In the event that the above option is not available the crew must make a decision based on the safest course of action, and file the appropriate paperwork as this is a reportable incident.
All international flights, I have operated into Sydney or any other Australian airports, that depart with flight plan fuel and no destination alternate fuel, will always have the inflight fuel on-board to divert to another suitable airport before descent has commenced.
So if forecast or actual weather conditions deteriorate below special alternate minima, inflight, and I do not have fuel to fly, approach, missed approach and full divert, then I divert to new destination.
This is Qantas fuel policy and CASA rules.
Neither the Qantas fuel policy or the CASA rules permit an aircraft to continue to a destination airport that has weather conditions below the inflight special alternate minima, let alone an airport that is below the landing minima without having full divert full to a suitable alternate.
So in answer to the opening of this thread, no I do not think there should be a change in the Qantas "Fuel Policy"
P.S
I have also operated into New Zealand ports and their rules only require the "TOD alternate" for International flights operating to a airport with a single runway, this is not a weather requirement, their alternate requirements are very similar to CASA, however the New Zealand NZCAR's "inflight fuel" only requires alternate fuel if the destination weather deteriorates below the approach minima, unlike the CASA requirement of the special alternate minima, therefore CASA rules are more conservative in this regard.
Safe Flying
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ..
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may be wrong here but didn't the QF flights go past a PNR and therefore were committed when FOG came in. IE it wasn't at TOD that the FOG occured?
Not knocking Qf policy just interested.
Not knocking Qf policy just interested.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good chance the aircraft had gone past a point where retuning back to an adequate airport was no longer available, however still more than one option ahead (prior to TOD) when flying towards Sydney from any direction.
Nunc est bibendum
I may be wrong here but didn't the QF flights go past a PNR and therefore were committed when FOG came in. IE it wasn't at TOD that the FOG occured?