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:

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.