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.

Aren't autolands pretty well much an every day occurrence in some parts of the world?

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.

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.

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?

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

Yes, I'm asking as a moderator.

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?

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?

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 "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.

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.

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!

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.

Tidbinbilla feel free to change the thread title I can't figure out how to do it quickly. :\

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...

I've never been questioned, even when I landed in JFK with 42 tonnes. :)

I agree 100%!

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!

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...

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.

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.

When you take off with 150T of fuel, there a plenty of alternates. :ugh:

Its usually only the last 30 mins you don't have one :ok: