Hence my question Chocks, do QF actually carry an alternate for the 380? LAX for example has KONT on the other side of town, but that's pretty much it, unless you want to go to Palmdale etc, and if you have to go to KONT, there a good chance a load of others will be needing to do it as well.

Which is why every time I operate into Perth, my employer gives us YPLM or YPAD gas....but then it is in an old tech 777:ok:

Interesting Haughtney. You know if you go to YPLM in your 777 that you're not getting off the jet? No stairs apparently.

Yep Keg, apparently arrangements will generally revolve around motion lotion, personally, I would rather lobb into Pearce...:E
Of course..we could always try Kalgoorlie :}
A quick check of the briefing suggests QF have some stairs....somewhere:ok:

I was under the impression that Learmonth is an Emergency diversion field for one (that I know of) A380 operator. Surely there are steps there, even if they would need to be borrowed from the other side of the airport? Recall something about stairs for large aircraft being positioned there after QF72.... or was that just gossip?

Not normally unless there is forecast weather or another requirement that would necessitate it. Sometimes that may be a call made by the dispatcher at the planning stage based on assessments made from info other than official forecasts.

In the case of London or Los Angeles, normal fuel policy arrival fuel is such that Gatwick, Stansted or Ontario (as appropriate) can be used to meet forecast alternate requirements, such that in most circumstances an approach can be made at LHR or LAX with the appropriate fuel to cover those nearby alternates - legally but not with any planned excess of comfort!:hmm:

LAX arrivals can often have significant additional fuel to cover the depressurisation case en-route. On my last LAX trip (I'm Junior - it was Christmas time:ouch:) LAX deteriorated but the "unused" depressurisation fuel gave us enough to cover Phoenix reasonably comfortably from about 20,000ft if LAX didn't improve. (ONT was fogged).....we landed in LAX as the weather improved as quickly as Sydney's deteriorates!

It does amaze me that I used to fly to single runway airports, in a medium Jet, with no planned alternate.

The question about what would happen is another operator did a gear-up in front of us was usually met with a lot of "Ahem"ing at looking at of shoes!

At a meeting once, the infamous TJ answered that we would get the offending aircraft bulldozed off the runway.

I always wish I'd had the balls to ask for the names and numbers of the people we had the bulldozer contracts with.....

NOW let's discuss Australia and Approach bans!!

A new idea for a command LOE wizz:E especially after they commit 2 hrs out:8

haughtney1

I'm sorry that you don't understand from my post "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." I'll spell it out for you ...... yes they do have an alternate when it is required, that is when the weather is forecast below alternate criteria.
Besides KONT there are two other alternates the A380 can use.
By the way having an alternate does not always guarantee things will go smoothly, I have had both destination and alternate drop below landing minima having originally been forecast CAVOK.
Prior to QF I spent 14 years in Europe carrying an alternate all the time, I can't say one system is better than the other. What can make a difference is the experience of the crew and having a company that will not come back at you for putting on extra gas.

It's ok Chocks, I've never understood CASA anyway....and I assume the other two alternates are KSFO, and possibly KSAN?
It was just a polite enquiry to help me get a handle on how on gods earth a transpacific/longhaul flight could legally be dispatched without an alternate.

No probs, the other two are KSFO and KPHX which are less distance than YSSY-YMML,

Kalgoorlie in 777? Bugger that.

For clarification: landing ain't the problem.
Dealing with everything after that would be the headache.

Lol. We've had an INTAM out for quite some time stating that stairs will be positioned there soon. Given how long its been I gather they're pushing them utilising an 8 year old cocker spaniel with arthritis.

Good luck finding a willing contractor in a timely manner at YPPH. True story, on a recent public holiday a simple fuel spill on one of the stand off bays closed a bunch of them all day and late into the night. No contractor willing to be called out at any price. Chaos ensued.... Caveat emptor

Yes I agree. It is very efficient and the chances of getting caught out are reasonably low, however what is the safety risk? From a regulatory point of view is it really acceptable for RPT? I am not aware of any other country doing it, and as I mentioned before QF have done a few emergency autolands now which would have to bring into question how safe is this whole no alternate system we allow in Australia.

A contributing factor to all of this too is Australia appalling lack of aviation infrastructure. I would suggest that the non alternate multi runway policy would be arguable if we had CAT III capability at SYD/MEL/BNE/PER/ADL.

The numbe of times Qantas has been 'caught' by its fuel policy is hardly worth worrying about. How often do we read/hear reports of flights, when supposed to be carrying an alternate, declare a 'fuel emergency'? It's time this issue was put into perspective - if the self-described critics knew and understood QF fuel policy and how it was implemented, they wouldn't be offering the comments that they are. Ignorance is bliss!

Of course the red and green team roll up in the harbor of fragrance carting an alternate on all occasions. Yeah right. MFM, same wx as HKG!!!! Pointless.

And the plan is cut back to bare bones fixed plus altn only giving you about 50 minutes of gas in total. QF probably dont roll up with an altn BUT I bet they roll up with as much fuel as the green and red team do!!!!

It doesnt matter what you call the fuel its how much you have and what you can do with it that counts.

And another thing, having an altn may be nice but what about carrying extra fuel for TS. Nupppp, not needed. No requirement "viz is ok lah". Again, I bet QF dont roll up bare bones when the sky is dark and spitting lightning bolts!!!!!

Who's fuel policy is it anyway?
 

Ladies and gentlemen,

When I fly, the fuel we carry is decided by we, the crew. The fuel policy for that flight, or series of flights is decided by we, and the highest justifiable vote wins. After lengthy consultation with the forecasts, notams etc, we the crew nominate a figure such that any other exigency is covered. We do not consult with anyone whose arse is not going to be aboard.

Should some pea-nut from outside question our decision, I offer them the prerogative of taking this hunk of tin themselves into the blue abyss. No takers as yet.

The AF 340 crash in Canada is remarkable for 3 frightening things:

They took no holding fuel when TS was forecast;

They arrived with 18 minutes of holding fuel;

The TS rain put out the fire - for 18 minutes. After which the WX was good.

Policy is like command - OWN IT!!

The question about what would happen is another operator did a gear-up in front of us was usually met with a lot of "Ahem"ing at looking at of shoes!

Taxiways are all capable of taking a landing in such an unlikely emergency that you cannot hold while the clearing the RW.

By unlikely I mean the coincidence of
1. An aircraft immediately in front of you landing gear up.
2. You having absolute min fuel, ie you have used your contingency
3. The airport has no other runways

Declare a pan and use the taxiway, better than the ocean.

If I fly to a port without a full parallel taxiway and only single runway I make sure there is extra.

Qantas doesn't...

Neither does CASA.