Today looking at the basic info on the TAF, forecast wind, QNH, temp/dew point it was pretty obvious to me that Sydney would probably (>90%) have fog.
The met man put on Prob30 Tempo.:hmm:
Qantas flight planned us with diversion to MEL plus traffic hold MEL plus Tempo plus 2.6 tonne "planned additional":)
After a little slowdown we had a go (better than RVR 550 reported), missed approach, held for a while, conditions up to 700RVR so had another go and missed out, went to MEL, got there with over an hours worth of fuel.:ok:
By the time we refuelled and got back to Sydney ( and 20 mins hold) it was clear.
Any armchair experts out there to tell me how to suck eggs?:rolleyes:

I can quite clearly hear her say "declaring a fuel emergency".

According to the regs, a Fuel Emergency only requires a Mayday if the predicted fuel upon landing at the nearest aerodrome is less than fixed reserve (I'm looking it up, I don't pretend to know everything that is in there).

Maybe a Pan would have been appropriate?

Maybe 'Minimum fuel' as per the AIP

AIP ENR 1.1-98

60.5 Minimum fuel

How about we clarify a few things here, shall we?

From the AIP: "Emergency Fuel" - when the calculated useable fuel predicted to be available upon landing at the nearest aerodrome where a safe landing can be made is less than the planned fixed fuel reserve".

From the AIP: "Minimum Fuel" - when having committed to land at a specific aerodrome, the pilot calculates that any change to the existing clearance will result in landing with less than planned fixed fuel reserve.

So let's look at the case of QF108, for example, that flies from LAX to SYD. They probably leave LAX with an 06-12 TAF for SYD. If that TAF has any probability of fog below alternate criteria, the aircraft will have alternate fuel or, if unable to carry that amount, will be expected to divert at DPA (the waypoint before PNR).

Inflight, approaching DPA, if the TTF (which supersedes a TAF during its validity) has any probability of fog, then the aircraft will divert if it has insufficient fuel to fly an approach at SYD and then divert. If the TTF has no requirement for an alternate, the aircraft will continue to SYD.

Now if after passing DPA (with no alternate requirements forecast on the TTF), SYD unexpectedly fogs in, the aircraft is committed to a landing at SYD. Would the crew plan to fly that approach on their last drop of fuel?? NO!! They would probably hold for as long as they could, and then fly an approach so that they would land with more than FFR! Therefore, no requirement for a MINIMUM FUEL call, or an EMERGENCY FUEL MAYDAY call! Right?

Is a MAYDAY justified (grave and imminent danger to the aircraft and passengers and crew)? I would argue not. Is this a PAN (abnormal operations) situation? Probably. Would Sydney protect the localizer in this situation? I would imagine so, if the pilot declares that his intent is to carry out an autoland.

The Qantas fuel policy is approved by CASA. Any other operator could use a similar policy within Australia if they choose to. Okay?

Sharky's post is correct

LVO's are more than just 'protecting the localiser'-it is a 'whole of airport ops' concept' therefore to do an autoland during actual LVO's would equate to a MAYDAY, as the PIC does not have the required protections, or the visual back up a practise autoland allows. Nothing to do with Fuel, purely LVO's.!

CTL, 'mayday' is for 'grave and imminent danger' = it means you're at serious risk of imminent death, which isn't really the case here . PAN suffices to operate in emergency conditions.

So ATCers, CAN you protect the critical areas at Sydney?

So, having decided that the crew aren't operating illegally or obtaining an advantage over any other airline, we're now focussing on whether the crew should have declared a MAYDAY or PAN? Is that correct? We've put to bed the first issues and now focussing on the next one?

I've heard SYD ATC protect the critical areas before in inclement weather. Not sure why they couldn't in this case.

Lots of people give Qantas hell for flying around with more pilots than other airlines would on certain routes - 'too expensive', waste of money', etc etc.

I would argue that having to do an autoland in these very seldom seen circumstances (ie unforecast fog with very late warning after the PNR) in accordance with a perfectly legal fuel policy, is safer than flying around on long sectors with the legal minimum number of pilots - ie less than Qantas does on many longer sectors.

Fatigue causes many more accidents than does very rare autolands below minima in unforecast fog.

Just adding to the discussion - take it or leave it.

For what it's worth I was towing an aircraft several years ago when the QF 330 from Singapore was making its auto land at Perth airport, ATC were understandably cautious by not giving clearance to land until I was positioned on bay, vis was around 50 meters and for all they knew I could of been lost and merrily hooning down the runway.
As a fair paying passenger I would expect the airline I choose to carry fuel for an alternate.
there is always an element of hope that the necessary safeguards have been applied with a cat III landing currently in Perth.

I don't think it needed a Pan or a Mayday or a Fuel Emergency statement.
All that is required is an Incident Report to explain landing with vis less than the required landing visibility.

CAR 257
 

The answer is in CAR 257, an aircraft can land at an aerodrome when the weather is below the published minima in an emergency. :ok:

I disagree with that there is a HUGE commercial advantage on long haul flights with no compulsory alternates. Do the numbers on the LAX flights alone the savings in fuel burn + the extra payload carried is massive. EK and QF operate the same aircraft on the same route, it would be interesting how much more payload you guys get on.

Then this sort of event happens and your competitors have aircraft and crews strewn all over the east coast, pax up in hotels meanwhile you guys are like 'oh shucks well these things happen', carry on.....

So how many illegal autolands would have to happen before the no alternate is a problem?

If say everybody used the QF procedures and we had a whole heap of autolands in the last few weeks do you think then ICAO or whoever might do something?

Singapore put one on the grass in Germany last year doing a autoland, which in Sydney would be catastrophic given the close proximity of everything, so they can go wrong.

As per the above quoted CAR: 'in an EMERGENCY'-thus requiring a state of emergency to be declared. As someone who has done more autolands than the average QF pilot would do in their entire career, in many different parts of the world, there is no way I would do one at an airport not certified unless I declared a MAYDAY state. Note: I am not saying it couldn't happen to me, but that this is the ATC handling priority I would want.

The airport IS certified for autolands, and it is not 'illegal', if it the fuel policy is followed.

Really Sprite-care to provide the reference. There are definately no Cat II or III minima for YSSY published in LIDO. I am sure every other International operator that goes to SYD would be very interested to learn it is ok to do autolands there-I know my company would love it!

It is readily apparent from the many QF pilots here that QF (and CASA) accept that the mitigator for the risk of unplanned weather deterioration below certified approach minima is to auto land, instead of carrying an alternate like the rest of the world.

As the regulator is complicit in this, QF are doing nothing illegal. As I said at the start of this thread, the heat should be on CASA. Out of interest, do QF still have a pilot in the CASA office to 'help' them on policy issues?

Finally, if QF's no question fuel policy works so well, then why two auto lands in two weeks?

Wrong. If you can't make a "safe" landing with more than FR, then it's a fuel mayday because if the aircraft had diverted to an airport where it could make a "safe" ie legal landing it would have done so with less than FR.

A "safe" ie legal landing would not be an autoland in vis less than the published minimum, just as me deciding that I should go to MDA-200ft out in the bush to get in because I was short of fuel would not be "safe".

Fair enough they got caught out by a dud TTF, but it was still a fuel mayday situation.

Obviously there has been two occasions where the weather has deteriorated below minima without being forecast that way. Your point?

PS: I can't recall that we've ever had a Qantas pilot 'in the CASA office' let alone 'still'. Got a time frame on that one Compressor stall?

Keg the point would be that if any other operator did two 'required due to no alternative' autolands within a few days at an airport not certified for autolands and not having LVP's in place, then that PIC AND Operator would have some serious explaining to do. The Regulator should be asking why it happened also, as NO other operator had to do one-why is QF different to EVERY other operator?