I'd rather land on a taxiway than on a paddock.

Should Qantas Change Their Fool Policy ?
 

A much better title for this thread me thinks

So to summarise:

Qantas does not plan an alternate on a nice weather day.
Qantas does plan a Tempo fuel for any WX below alternate criteria ( or an alternate) so covered for any bad WX.
Qantas also adds extra fuel to plans varying on type, eg A330 plans to min 5 ton overhead regardless.
Qantas also adds extra fuel depending on depressurisation points etc.

Some airlines plan alternates regardless of any of above but may end up with less fuel than average Qantas flight?:confused:

Also pilots simply add fuel to the figure they want without anyone from management bitching.:ok: I personally put alternate fuel on to cover another aircraft fing up if there is only one runway.

It is Qantas that needs to change?:confused::hmm:

Derfer. Tell us your plan then?

So what you are saying is if qf find themselves in the unfortunate situation of an a/c going wheels up they should ditch beside a perfectly ok taxiway ? You sound like the old wives tail crew ditching instead of autoland.

Apparently they do have autoland - QFA2 managed to use it this morning.

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/ys...2013-1830Z.mp3 - about the 14 minute mark.

Chalk up another one, Neville.

Willy Wavers
 

Gentlepeople, instead of all this willy waving as to who has the best fuel policy, I think it all comes down to a more basic analysis.

QANTAS has now on multiple occassions, needed to carryout unlawful autolands to get themselves out of a situation generated by a bad combination of fuel policy and inept weather forecasting.

What other operators have had similar experiences and how often has this occurred?

If other operators are not having a similar strike rate, then why not?

It is my understanding that most other operators simply bug out to a more suitable airport.

Why is it that QANTAS do not follow the same procedure?

Surely these are questions an honest regulator should be asking.

Maui

WTF?

If QF find themselves in the unfortunate situation of an a/c going wheels up they should follow whatever is the safest course of action at the time.

My post wasn't about what you do if you find yourself in a pickle, my post was about avoiding that pickle in the first place. To do that, we appear to have 3 basic protections:

1. The regs (CASA)
2. Company policy (QF)
3. The pilots (note I didn't say Captain - it's a team in our cockpit)

If the CASA and QF reckon it's ok to turn up at CNS on a dark night with 30 mins, I would hope the pilots would load a bit more on. I happen to know at least 1 pilot who wouldn't, and he's the one I'm worried about.

He's the one the regs and the company policy should be there to protect the travelling public from.

Luckily it hasn't happened to him yet, so he hasn't had to land on CNS taxiway. I hope it doesn't happen to him. If it does - he'll be front page news on every newspaper in the world in what could otherwise have been just another hum-drum diversion to TSV along with all the other jets.

The other 99.x% of us don't have to worry because we wouldn't put ourselves in that situation in the first place. But I do worry about him. And I'm not saying you are him, but he is out there and I would prefer it if either the regs or the Company would protect him. And I think his F/O's would agree.

Ahh... so now there's at least 2 out there... Not the bloke I know.

At least your bloke is a team player... Good work.

Apologies. I thought your post was more about my answer to the emergency question. Yes I have never found myself close to that situation and never plan too.

So we have an airline with a legal fuel policy that sees it have to conduct two autolands in two weeks due weather below minumums and no gas for elsewhere. No doubt that there are some crews that carry fuel to prevent this contingency from arising, but clearly there are those who don't.

Where is the regulator :rolleyes:

Wrong question, it IS the regulator.

My beef is that QF are getting an enormous competitive advantage out of this. Whilst everybody else is carrying around alternates and diverting, they're just rolling up and autolanding illegally. In the second instance mentioned above Qantas landed and BA had to divert. So BA get penalised in a commercial sense for following the law yet Qantas are able to just land.

It must be a giant pain in the backside for airlines like Delta/United/Air Canada who would not have much in the way of spare crews lying around. So the delays after rescuing the aircraft and crew from the alternate and the subsequent schedule delays must cost a fortune.

Begs the question what would Qantas have to do for CASA to take action?

Some lightweight commentary here from the ABC on Sydney airport and the fog. No mention of the fact that a major international airport which has a significant number of Long haul flights inbound at dawn should have a CAT III approach regardless of the number of times a year the fog hits.

The World Today - Fog causes air delays for second day in a row 29/05/2013

WTF? Someone want to throw some facts on this?

I can guarantee you that if a there is a requirement for an alternate, Qantas carries one. I can guarantee you that if they are limited in the fuel they can carry so as to be not able to carry the full alternate, they plan to fly to a PNR and then divert to suitable aerodrome if the weather at the destination has not improved above the alternate criteria. I can guarantee that if there is a forecast (TTF) for weather to be below the alternate criteria when they get to said PNR they divert to the alternate aerodrome.

So just how the crap are they not complying with the requirements? At a PNR there may be no requirement to carry an alternate. None. Zilch. Zero. Nada. That the weather subsequently deteriorates below said alternate criteria is a forecasting issue that the crew have to deal with the most appropriate way they can. At the decision point though, the airport has no requirement to carry an alternate. Do they divert because someone feels that you have to arrive in Sydney carrying an alternate every day?

Further, these were the Qantas diversions yesterday:

QF intl flights bound for SYD diverted:
QF82 / 42 / 12 / 6 - diverted to MEL
QF130 / 118 and QF128 (744! rate visitor OEB) - diverted to CBR
QF24 - diverted to ADL
QF 22 / 108 / 50 - diverted to BNE
QF 8 staying in BNE - revised arrival into SYD is 1235

Obviously there was either a requirement for an alternate at DPA and the aircraft diverted because they couldn't carry SYD plus the alternate or they arrived in Sydney with the alternate fuel, flew an approach and then diverted.

So tell me again the issue? How is this 'competitive advantage' not also available to other airlines? Any other airline in the world can fly their operation the same way.

Relying on a TTF as opposed to a TAF? :E

Keg, the issue is you're dealing with armchair experts. :E

Yes, it's madness isn't it. Relying on a document issued 10 minutes ago by a MET bloke who says that the actual weather is OK compared to relying on a forecast issued 6-10 hours earlier based on their best guess at that time. Madness I tell you.

What we really need is some MET people who can do their job well. If crew are getting caught out it's because the MET guys aren't forecasting effectively. I've got no doubt it's a complex job and I don't envy them what they do- damned if they get it wrong through being too conservative and aircraft divert when they didn't really need to, damned if they get it wrong by not being conservative enough and not forecasting something that was subsequently there- but ultimately we can only do the best with the information they give us.

It is competitive advantage vs the risk involve.

QF taxi around 24/7 with lights ablazing because apparently it is 'world's best practice'.

Yet world best practice would appear to be to carry an alternate, since that's what everybody does yet that would be a significant cost disadvantage to QF as they have alot of long haul sectors.

Yes it is complicated, no there is no accusation of pilots deliberately busting the regs etc, however you must scratch your head as a competitor watching QF go ahead and autoland whilst you are off to the nearest alternate.

And yes Sydney needs a CAT III. Given the high number of long haul flights into SYD is it ridiculous that we don't. The AIPA guy on the ABC had a perfect chance to raise the issue yet seem to support SACL line of this doesn't happen very often.

I don't think anyone said QF were not meeting any requirements. What they do is perfectly legal.

The question is, is legal sensible?

6 aircraft may have had alternates yesterday and that's fantastic ('cos they needed it). But why did one not have one?

It's not unreasonable to think that a fuel policy where one airline has two autolands in two weeks due to "no gas to go anywhere else" should be the subject of discussion.

I've worked very closely alongside BOM (and seconded QF met. personnel) in the past and they are a good team. Yes some better than others, but they can only write what the models tell them with an amount of hunch thrown in. Weather forecasting will never be perfect and blaming them is not really helping your cause.

QF2
 

interesting way that QF2 did NOT declare a fuel emergency, just a laconic statement to say we've got no gas to go anywhere else, so we're just gunna autoland. :eek: :eek: :eek:

I wonder what protections were in place to guarantee a suitable ILS signal - no other aircraft taxiing or being towed or safety cars parked near antennas, etc. :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Surely if you do an Autoland at a non-LVO airport you are required to declare a MAYDAY! There is no critical area protection, No LVO procedures in place on the ground and no guarantee of signal reliability. To perform this you would legally have to be an EMG status aircraft. If the crew did not declare a MAYDAY then the PIC has operated illegally and should be subject to the full force of the law. If he did declare, then he used his EMG authority as PIC so only needs to fill in an ASR, and probably attend a Safety Brief with the company safety department. The question is-was an EMG declared for the autolands that were performed? Given that the media is not full of reports of a QF 'MAYDAY' I am leaning towards a straight breach of the Rules and Regs. What actually happened?