Hear,hear leadie,
back in the dim distant past you never had enough fuel....unless you were on fire!!....so how much fuel is enough??...you cannot possibly allow for every contingency, just make intelligent assessments based on historical statistics.
I think the question should be why? given Australia's lack of tarmac we dont have CAT 111, I mean it was available back in the seventies...what year is it now?...maybe one day australia will catch up with the third world.

OK, time for me to throw my tuppence worth in. Having flown for two major competing Asian carriers, the current one for 18 years, both operators ALWAYS have an alternate unless Island reserve is approved. No Australian Port is approved by either of these two carriers so hence always an alternate. To assist at times a redispatch plan was used in the early '90s often using Alice or Tindal for the East Coast destinations or sometimes on an odd occasion even NZ. With greater range/payload capabilities these days I haven't seen one of those now for a good 15 years or so.
Prior to my Asian time, operating for an Australian company, even though an Alternate was not always required we never left home without one.
Earlier in this thread someone mentioned whats wrong with an autoland off CAT 1 when A/L approved. Quite simply, if it is below CAT 1 minima the accuracy of the ground equipment cannot guarantee you will always be in the correct spot. Evidence a 74 (non Australian) some years ago doing just such below CAT 1 minima into YSSY. Left some nice groves in the grass during a last minute go-around and gave Melbourne some free SYD turf on it's subsequent arrival down there.

Tempo Fuel?
 

[quote=Capt Fathom;7839355]
If the Wx is Tempo below CAT I mins, we at SWA (largest US Domestic Carrier), have additional alternate fuel.

That's fascinating Mick. :rolleyes:

SWA does not fly any international routes, nor does it seem capable of successfully completing ETOPS certification. No, San Juan is not another country, despite what your flight ops managers think. The airline that flies your international routes for you has nicknamed "SWA (largest US Domestic airline)", 'The Flat Earth Society'.

Carry on.

In 13 years of flying overseas for four different carries on three different continents, I have NEVER even ONCE departed without fuel for a nominated alternate.

Whatever the nuances of the rules, in practice, a TINY percentage of the Worlds flights EVER depart without fuel to an alternate.

Yeah but you've had at least 5 fuel emergencies that I know of off the top of my head, who knows how many more there are. All of which would have saved by an alternate.

And while I agree that it is a tricky thing to negotiate and people have provided good arguments for both sides, given that the rest of the world do it would it not be considered 'world's best practice'?

That's because they carry an alternate. Oz airlines can also carry an alternate in lieu of a Tempo/Inter as well.

Wizofoz,
There is nothing nuanced about the regulations, they are quite plain.

I dare say that most of the operators you have worked for have, at least originally, come form areas where, at least originally in their history, the combinations of often lousy weather, and relatively short distances made always carrying an alternate a matter of little commercial importance.

In short, habit is no excuse for not doing considered analysis. In total contrast to the history of Qantas, where intense attention to such matters, to minimise fuel burn and maximize available payload was core to the business, and we all understand/understood that was core to company success.

We all know pilots are a conservative bunch, long ingrained practices are hard to shift, suggested changes produce the mantra of "safety", applying rational risk based criteria to airspace classification is a prime example in Australia.

A UK airline that I worked for for some years, having acquired a contract for some very long fuel critical sector into southern Africa, when we ( a couple of Australian working for this company) pointed out the fact that there was an legal "alternate" to always carrying an alternate, realised they had never really considered operating without an alternate. After rejigging the system, commercial payloads increased significantly.

The way fuel policies have developed in Australia, under quite different circumstances, for all carriers, not just Qantas, tells you no more than operating around Europe or the north Atlantic (something with which I am intimately familiar) is quite different to operating around Australia or the Pacific.

Using like scales, put a map covering just NSW and Vic. over western Europe, you may very well be surprised.

The common use of Inters and Tempos here to add 30 or 60m holding is a case in point, carrying 30 or 60 on YSSY is a lot less than carrying YMML as alternate, particularly if you are flying an aeroplane where there are no other alternates --- based on wheel loads, if nothing else.

Anybody who doesn't understand that it is all about risk management, and maximizing realisable commercial payload, need to rethink their approach.

Tootle pip!!

Yes, only because in the early days aircraft could not carry alternates all the time because they were gutless/couldn't carry much and/or couldn't go far. Now it's different. The capability is now there to carry an alternate; you just choose to accept that it's still OK to land below the minima on multiple occasions, blaming the forecasting. The forecasting is obviously (still) so bad that perhaps the rules should be changed so that these incidents don't keep occurring ie big modern aircraft should carry an alternate. If nothing else, it will sting the beancounters into action to make BOM do a better job.

An interesting discussion which suggests that the thread title should be changed to "Should CASA change the alternate requirements", because that's what it really boils down to. The CASA policy is that, if a destination is forecast to be below alternate criteria 30 minutes either side of your ETA you need to carry an alternate; but if it's not, then you don't have to. It's really just as simple as that, and the QF fuel policy abides by these regulations.

I can see two possible outcomes if more pressure were to be put on the BOM:

1. Under the present regs, they could become arch-conservative and if there is the SLIGHTEST possibility of requiring an alternate, then they will forecast accordingly; or

2. If the regs changed and every aircraft carried an alternate, their forecasting could become even worse with diversions becoming more common.

Neither outcome is desirable. As Mark Twain said, "Everybody complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it".

On a different, but relevant note. A recent AIPA newsletter said that Sydney hopes to have Cat II capability on both 16R and 34L by the end of this year. Apparently the sticking point has been the construction of suitable lengths of HIALS for each runway.

JPJP, what a pri(k! Pronounced [pr-ik]. Look it up in the DICK-tionary. The circular, spherical shape of both the sun and the moon are also strong indicators that the earth is also round. Speaking of which, this isn't my first rodeo, I've flown around it a few times ya wane-ker. San Juan may be U.S. territory, but flight to it is international genius! Been PIC to every continent, accept Antarctica. Something like 19,000 flight hours. Heavy's? Been there, done that ... ya drongo! :/

the fuel regulations?
 

Leadsled said:

Quote:

---

There is nothing nuanced about the regulations, they are quite plain.

---

That is correct - in an "outcomes" framework as distinct from a "prescriptive" framework. The key phrase in CAR 234 is:

What is "sufficient" and what is "safety" will be determined in hindsight by a Judge, not an aviator. :uhoh:

Experience in other aviation litigation determined by non-aviator judges shows that "nuanced" doesn't even begin to explain some of the outcomes. As far as I know, there is no legal precedents yet established in Australia at any serious level in the court system in regard to CAR 234. :hmm:

From CAR 234

(3) For the purposes of these Regulations, in determining whether fuel and oil carried on an aircraft in respect of a particular flight was sufficient within the meaning of subregulations (1) and (2), a court must, in addition to any other matters, take into account the following matters:

(a) the distance to be travelled by the aircraft on the flight to reach the proposed destination;

(b) the meteorological conditions in which the aircraft is, or may be required, to fly;

(c) the possibility of:

(i) a forced diversion to an alternative aerodrome; and

(ii) a delay pending landing clearance; and

(iii) air traffic control re-routing the flight after commencement of the flight; and

(iv) a loss of pressurisation in the aircraft; and

(v) where the aircraft is a multi-engined aircraft--an engine failure;

(d) any guidelines issued from time to time by CASA for the purposes of this regulation.


Seems abundantly clear to me. We have the regulation that we will be charged under in accordance with strict liability. What part of "possibility of a forced diversion" don't some people get? Whilst we're at it "delay pending a landing clearance" - anyone not been to Per or Bne lately?:eek:

Bloggs,
And how many of them were below the approach minima, not just the alternate minima?? Still, I guess we know where Australian aviation would be if all the rule were made by people who think the way you do ---- always looking for absolutes were no absolutes exist. As in demanding something called "absolute safety".

Do you have any idea of how closely QF works with BoM to minimise the occurrence of dud forecasts.

Shark Patrol,
If you want to change the thread title, make it:

"Should Australia/CASA once again depart from ICAO SARPs,and the practices of major aviation nations and once again introduce unique Australian regulations, with their attendant risk management unjustified costs and complexities",

because that is what you are asking for.

Re. CAR 234, and strict liability, this is one of many regulations where it (in a legal theory sense -- and the ALRC tome on the subject) cannot be strict liability, because a judgment call is required of the pilot and operator.

This, and many other equally appalling examples of how "strict liability" has been incorrectly applied to many aviation regulations, abound, and are generally carried through to the "reformed" regulations.

CAR 234 calls for a subjective judgement, there is no objective standard in the regulation, against which (in theory) a finding of guilt without a mental element being considered, can be made.

Tootle pip!!

Mic

What a great post, laughed my as* (pronounced, are, S) off.

Much Ado About Nothing
 

Is this thread still going?

Time to divert, or carry on regardless?

Doesn't QF have their own MET guys, what were they saying (when compared to BoM)?

Now now Mic, there's no need to get upset. I'm very impressed with your 'international experience' .....

- The U.S Department of State disagrees with you. They say that Puerto Rico is domestic.

- U.S. Customs and Immigration disagree with you. They say that Puerto Rico is domestic. Were you disappointed when you couldn't find a nice customs man to stamp your passport when you returned from your International travels to San Juan ?

The reason you think San Juan is "International", is the fact that only SWA dispatches its flights to Puerto Rico as an International flight. Everybody else dispatches under Domestic rules. Perhaps one day you'll be able to do the same.

Keep working on that ETOPS. It's only a couple of years away. Just like it was four years ago, and two years ago .......

As I said, The Flat Earth Society.

Three in SYD were in dense fog, admittedly one of which was ridiculously unlucky. They got the TTF close to the field and committed to land and the place fogged in that time.

Another autoland in PER in dense fog and another one where they passed the PNR and committed to PER saying it would be a autoland if required, luckily they beat the fog.

On all occasions a alternate would have saved them, whereas the policy of committed to the destination has resulted in autolands in fog on CAT I installations.

Anyway something for the policy makers at CASA to sort out if the Insurers don't beat them to it.

And yes I would have changed the title of the thread but the system won't let you do it.

TAF AMD YSSY 091106Z 0912/1018
29008KT 9999 FEW030
FM100300 36010KT 9999 LIGHT RAIN FEW035 BKN060
FM101200 30006KT 9999 FEW030
PROB30 0918/0923 0300 FOG

Here we go again...

7 hours warning! Launch the tanker to rondaevu with Leddie in his trusty 74 over Norfolk inbound who wouldn't have any alternate fuel on! :}

Should QANTAS change their fuel policy?
 

Defeats the purpose, as too many diversions will quickly negate any fuel savings.

With an Alternate forecast on the TAF a Qantas aircraft would have the alternate fuel or would divert at or before PNR/DPA.

This whole debate hinges on the timing of the alternate declaration and its usually only an issue when an alternate condition arises apparently 'out of thin air'. That the TTF conditions can apparently go from no reasonable chance of alternate conditions (usually fog), to visibility below the alternate minima in a matter of minutes to me indicates a failure of considered weather observation and forecasting, not a failure of the airline's fuel policy.

Sometimes I suspect forecasters rely too heavily on their computer models, rather than taking a walk outside to have a look or listening to the bloke in the tower who's telling him the fog is "just over there" as evidenced in one of the aforementioned ATSB reports.

Sometimes I suspect pilots rely too heavily on forecasters.

Who is ultimately responsible for conducting an emergency auto-land and endangering the lives of hundreds of people?

Interesting concept.

If you rely too much on the forecaster, you will endanger hundreds of lives!

No more forecasts for me then! Just to be safe.

TAF vs TTF
 

C441 said:

Isn't the real problem when the TTF does not reflect the "bad news" TAF and is relied on to continue past LPSD? :uhoh:

Which, of course, is to hide the myth that the TTF is "good for 3 hours", when in reality it is only 'good' until the next one is issued - on the METAR cycle or if a SPECI is needed! :eek:

SYDNEY (YSSY)
TAF AMD YSSY 101136Z 1012/1118
29008KT CAVOK
FM110500 03008KT 9999 FEW045
FM111200 29008KT CAVOK
PROB30 1012/1016 4000 MIST
PROB30 1016/1023 0500 FOG
PROB30 1023/1101 4000 MIST BKN005
RMK
T 14 12 11 11 Q 1019 1018 1017 1018

A touch of déjà vu all over again...

ATIS YSSY S 101325
APCH:
EXP ILS APCH
RWY:
34L FOR ARRS. RWY 16R FOR DEPS
OPR INFO:
CURFEW RWY NOMINATION,
CURFEW IN OPERATION UNTIL TIME 2 0 0 0.
LOW VIS PROCS IN FORCE
ALL VEHICLES MUST CTC AN APPROPRIATE ATC FREQ
FOR TWY ENTRY CLR
WIND:
310/5
RVR:
RWY 34L: 300M, 150M, 300M.
RWY 16R: 300M, 150M, 300M
TMP:
13
QNH:
1019

LVP prior to midnight has to be some sort of record for KSA...

TAF AMD YSSY 111109Z 1112/1218
29008KT CAVOK
FM120200 36008KT 9999 LIGHT RAIN SCT025 BKN050
FM121000 32008KT CAVOK
INTER 1203/1209 5000 MODERATE RAIN BKN010
PROB30 1118/1121 0500 FOG
RMK
T 14 13 12 12 Q 1017 1016 1015 1015

A touch of déjà vu all over again (and again)...

Sunny.

We all have access to forecasts. What is your point in posting them here?

There is fog somewhere in the world every hour of the day. Sydney is not unique!

Should QANTAS change their fuel policy?

Yes, they should uplift more fuel at Townsville. ;):E

Should QANTAS change their fuel policy?
 

Here's the rub... No alternate required at time of takeoff = legal. Airborne, destination Wx declines, originally not forecasted, and no tempo. No brainer. Just select an alternate short of your destination, or use contingency fuel. You do have "Contingency Fuel" uplifted, yes?

The answer to your question is mentioned multiple times within this thread.

Every QF flights departs with multiple arrival airports available to them at a number of places en route. If the weather at that last designated point before their arrival at destination says the weather at destination is suitable then they commit to destination. If the weather deteriorates en route and at that designated point requires an alternate or a fuel requirement that they don't have on board (an INTER or TEMPO for example) then they divert.

And therein lies the "problem" at hand. :ugh:

That seems a bit extreme. They should at least try for destination :}

What's with the JQ fuel policy? A BNE-SYD flight diverted to ADL and a AVV-SYD diverted to LST with both overnighting. Cheaper hotel rooms?

I agree scrubba. Hence my candid TAF vs TTF comment back in post #77. I have seen TTFs go from no fog to TTF SPECI fog here NOW - no FM period or BCMG!

Fog is a wily foe and I don't know if we are always capable of knowing what it will do in three hours...

Bloody iPad auto correct. :ugh: :eek:

Yea, I enjoyed it too :D

This thread isn't short.

Should Qantas change its fuel policy?
 

And how about enroute alts?

[quote=JPJP;7882677]You definitely misunderstood the context of what was said. If you want good info, you're not going to get it here. This is a rumour board. Rumour has it, SWA is FAA certified as a Flag airline. ©