Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Should QANTAS change their fuel policy?

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Should QANTAS change their fuel policy?

Old 12th May 2013, 22:33
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,337
Given Qantas how now done another Autoland in fog at a CAT I aerodrome, should they (or CASA) be changing the fuel policy? On my rough count Qantas have done at least 3 maybe 4 of these.

How many more can you get away with?

I don't believe any other airline in the world flies for 14+ hours without an alternate.

Last edited by neville_nobody; 13th May 2013 at 00:35.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 12th May 2013, 22:57
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Enzed
Posts: 2,208
Aren't autolands pretty well much an every day occurrence in some parts of the world?
27/09 is offline  
Old 12th May 2013, 23:03
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,337
Yes but on approved CAT II/III approaches.

And yes I am aware you can do them on a CAT I but not at a few hundred metres RVR.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 12th May 2013, 23:15
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: 500 miles from Chaikhosi, Yogistan
Posts: 3,522
It's only a matter of time until there is a smoking hole with a couple of hundred dead due to this Australian practice of flying around with no alternates.

This is more than QF bashing. It's the regs that need changing. Remember, it's not just the weather that can shut a runway.

Last edited by compressor stall; 12th May 2013 at 23:16.
compressor stall is online now  
Old 12th May 2013, 23:25
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 958
Originally Posted by neville_nobody
How many more can you get away with?
just curious, are you implying that one of these autolands on cat1 gear is going to cause a bingle? or more that it may be an airport without such facilities that may catch one out?
maggot is offline  
Old 12th May 2013, 23:40
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: DSS-46 (Canberra Region)
Posts: 734
Smile

You assume it's a result of QF fuel policy. Are you familiar with same, Neville?

Yes, I'm asking as a moderator.
Tidbinbilla is offline  
Old 12th May 2013, 23:59
  #7 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,337
You assume it's a result of QF fuel policy. Are you familiar with same, Neville?
My point is the ability to not carry alternates rather than the fuel policy per se. However this is part of their fuel policy.

This gives QF a competitive advantage over other airlines but at what risk?

Compressor Stalls sums up my point.

Do you want a change of thread title to move away from alleged QF bias?

just curious, are you implying that one of these autolands on cat1 gear is going to cause a bingle? or more that it may be an airport without such facilities that may catch one out?
Implying neither. Landing on a CAT I approach is unlikely to cause a prang the one time you do it, however it would have to be considered a risk and not really a great situation for a RPT aircraft to be in.

To argue otherwise you would be saying that we don't need all the CATII/III paraphernalia just go ahead and land in any visibility 24/7.

The point of the thread is that given QF have done this a few times now maybe they and/or Australian carriers should have mandatory alternates for RPT aircraft. How many more of these are acceptable?

Last edited by neville_nobody; 13th May 2013 at 00:16.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 13th May 2013, 00:10
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... Still!
Posts: 3,342
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!

Swings and roundabouts!
Capt Fathom is online now  
Old 13th May 2013, 00:16
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: 500 miles from Chaikhosi, Yogistan
Posts: 3,522
Capt Fathom "When the forecast so requires". I think that's an own goal in the context of this discussion!

Also, fat lot of good that will do you on a cavok day with single runway and a disabled ac on the middle of it.

Last edited by compressor stall; 13th May 2013 at 00:16.
compressor stall is online now  
Old 13th May 2013, 00:22
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: 500 miles from Chaikhosi, Yogistan
Posts: 3,522
And yes, I'd support the removing of QF from thread title to prevent people taking it personally and not objectively.

IMHO there should be a CASA study looking at this "regulation" (CAAP) instead of the airy fairy fluff of DAMP etc. It's a much bigger safety issue.
compressor stall is online now  
Old 13th May 2013, 00:25
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... Still!
Posts: 3,342
The ole single runway chestnut again!

It doesn't really matter how much fuel you put on, something unexpected will come up that you haven't (or couldn't possibly) have planned for.

You just deal with it as it comes!
Capt Fathom is online now  
Old 13th May 2013, 00:38
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 558
Perhaps a non-Qantas/other Australian airline crewmember could advise which alternate would have been carried for Sydney given the forecast used by the QF108 on the 12th - before any mention of fog.
In particular it would be interesting to know if other A380 operators carry something other than Melbourne or Brisbane when Sydney is the destination.

A conversation some years ago with a friend at another major (Asian) airline suggested to me that they carry Williamtown or Richmond for Sydney and Avalon for Melbourne.

Personally I've never found the Qantas fuel policy has been deficient primarily because any discretionary fuel that I choose to add is rarely, if ever, questioned; something that was not the case for my friend mentioned above.

Last edited by C441; 13th May 2013 at 00:39.
C441 is offline  
Old 13th May 2013, 00:38
  #13 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,337
Tidbinbilla feel free to change the thread title I can't figure out how to do it quickly.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 13th May 2013, 01:24
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 774
Shouldn't the question be 'when are the Aussies going to pull their finger out and get some good airport infrastructure like say a CATIII approach at major international airports?

I believe Qantas fuel policy is in line with CASA regs so perhaps also ask, when will CASA bring itself into line with the rest of the developed world...
Ollie Onion is offline  
Old 13th May 2013, 03:33
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 68
Posts: 501
any discretionary fuel that I choose to add is rarely, if ever, questioned
I've never been questioned, even when I landed in JFK with 42 tonnes.

Shouldn't the question be 'when are the Aussies going to pull their finger out and get some good airport infrastructure like say a CATIII approach at major international airports?
I agree 100%!

Last edited by Offchocks; 13th May 2013 at 03:38.
Offchocks is online now  
Old 13th May 2013, 04:35
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: A long way from home with lots more sand.
Age: 51
Posts: 417
For an inbound flight for SYD we carry either CB, BN or ML as ALTN, depending on actual forecast when the FPL is prepared (15-18 hrs before ETA), and Captains decision. Our FPL's always tell us the fuel required for at least 3-4 ALTN's, to facilitate fuel decisions by the crew. Also due to coming in from the NW monitoring would enable numerous Tech Stops on the way , even once in the Australian FIR (think DN, AS, AD or BN/CS depending on inbound routing) We have a 'commitment to destination' enabler in our OM-A, however you couldn't use it for a Cat 1 airport with FG!
clear to land is offline  
Old 13th May 2013, 06:57
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Just to back up C to L's comment, I just had a look at the actual plan for an inbound into to SYD that was scheduled to arrive during the forecast period (no idea if it was affected or not)
Trip fuel + 20 mins contingency + BNE as an alternate + additional KG + FRSV.
The policy of arriving at semi-isolated airports with no alternate is at best questionable IMHO, how does QF operate going into the US or LHR? surely they must be required to have an alternate?
Just wondering...

Last edited by haughtney1; 13th May 2013 at 06:59.
haughtney1 is offline  
Old 13th May 2013, 07:34
  #18 (permalink)  
Whispering "T" Jet
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Melbourne.
Age: 63
Posts: 586
Ollie Onion - that IS exactly the point.

QF comply with CASA regs regarding carriage of fuel, if they get caught out occaisionly because of poor forecasting or unexpected weather, they revert to common sense and use what's available to carry out a safe arrival.
3 Holer is offline  
Old 13th May 2013, 08:23
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 68
Posts: 501
haughtney1: how does QF operate going into the US or LHR? surely they must be required to have an alternate?
As far as I can gather, before an airline is allowed to operate into a country on a regular basis, most country's aviation authorities scrutinize the airline's operation including the fuel policy in use. So having operated to the US and UK for 50+ years, does QF need an alternate operating into LAX, JFK or LHR ....... not if it complies with its own fuel policy which is also approved by CASA.

Note that the airports mentioned all have close airfields which can be used as alternates, we don't have that luxury in Australia with PER being the most obvious example.

Last edited by Offchocks; 13th May 2013 at 08:27.
Offchocks is online now  
Old 13th May 2013, 09:26
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dubai
Posts: 124
I don't believe any other airline in the world flies for 14+ hours without an alternate.
When you take off with 150T of fuel, there a plenty of alternates.

Its usually only the last 30 mins you don't have one
Visual Procedures is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.