I bet dogbolter scared the living crap out of people on the highway.

The little ones can appear very low there, a 737 :eek:

Reckon it was 2000, was sitting on a baggage trolley watching it all unfold from the Victor run up bay. A C-5 Galaxy returning from Dili was number "two in the emergency sequence" (also with gear problems) and diverted to Tindal. Prior to the disabled aircraft being cleared, I do believe the runway was back in use with a displaced threshold! :ok:

I once flew for an outfit where the bean counters were OBSESSED with average fuel burns. Have a figure below the fleet average and you were a top bloke but, have a figure above the average and you could eventually expect to be called in for a cup of tea. Mistake number 1, their not understanding how averages are arrived at!!!

Now, we used to fly from A to B and where B would close at a moment's notice (no NOTAMS to that effect) for VIP movements. Aircraft had been sent around from 500 ft on finals in these circumstances and ended up diverting 'cos they couldn't hold until B re-opened.

I soon learned and regularly began carrying an extra tonne or two "just in case". On a considerable number of occasions B closed because of "VIP movements" however I was able to hold for the 30 minutes or so it needed before landing. It was without exception that parallel company flights couldn't hold and diverted.

It wasn't long before I was called in for the "cup of tea" to explain why my average burn was above the fleet average. I told them my average was exactly that, my average, and then asked them the following:-

a) what were the comparative burns in my getting from A to B compared to those that couldn't hold and diverted to C before eventually returning to B? It was generally around 4 - 5 tonnes less for me compared to the aircraft that diverted.

b) how big a disadvantage to the schedule was my being 30 - 40 minutes late on the blocks at B compared to the disadvantage of the aircraft that diverted being at least 2, sometimes 3, hours late in landing at B? Stunned silence was the usual response - bean counters seem incapable in considering that.

The bean counter wallahs could not comprehend that, despite my personal average hourly burn being more than that of the aircraft that diverted, they were better off because I'd simply burnt several tonnes less in getting the aircraft to B than those other aircraft. I was left with the impression that I could have burnt tonnes and tonnes more fuel without question as long as it was at a rate below the fleet average. WTF!!!!!

In the end I argued my position over and over in the vain hope they'd see the logic but, to no avail - you see, average burn was paramount!!! Ultimately it all got too hard for them (not being able to ride roughshod over an individual) and I was never called in again despite my not altering my practice and probably still having an over the average fuel burn rate.

As was said by someone else,

And, sadly, they never will.

The herc was 2000:

Investigation: 200000618 - Lockheed Aircraft Corp L382G, ZS-JIY

Alternate fuel.
 

Back in the mid 70s, in the days of the "great Australian air race" Ansett 727 blew some tyres landing at Alice. TAA, as was usual were second. No requirement for alternate so no extra fuel. These were the days when DCA provided operational control and they advised the TAA 727 to divert to ISA. Captain refused saying while he could get there with absolute min reserve there was a PROB 30 of TS at ISA. Captain declared that runway available at Alice was adequate and he would land there. DCA relented but instructed him to land over the disabled Ansett 727. The TAA captain declined and said he would prefer to hit the obstacle at 10 knots rather than than 130 if the approach was misjudged. He landed towards the disabled aircraft.
Sometime later as an FO on 727 I submitted a fuel request for a flight from BNE to ISA carrying enough fuel for Alice. The captain berated me about the extra fuel all the way to ISA and on the ground made a point of asking a grounds man how long it would take to push a disabled aircraft off the runway. The Captain's complexion paled when he was told it would take at least 24 hrs to get equipment to the aerodrome to do the pushing.
Any Captain of of a jet in Australia who does not have the capability to divert from any of our single runway airports has not given much thought to his responsibility for his passengers.

AN 737 landed over L-100, another landed downwind towards the L-100 and QF 737 landed RWY 36.

Two cowboys, then.

Yep, didn't bend throttles in a juvenile attempt to prove masterful.

Cowboys, indeed.

What utter BS! Why not fill the tanks just in case!

You can only plan for 99 percent of contingencies 99 percent of the time! Anything that arises after that, you just deal with.

I wouldn't consider a runway unavailable at a single runway aerodrome part of the 1%

so, a 737 landing in fog below minima on a npa with cabin crew yelling brace brace, and 500kg after the guys "dealt with it" is an acceptable standard for australian aviation is it?

not in my book :=

Even if it means leaving some of those passengers behind so the fuel can be added?

Would you rather take some of the passengers all of the way or all of the passengers some of the way?

I'm not the only cog in the machine. The company sells all the seats on my aircraft. I am flight planned to depart at MTOW and arrive at 'singlerunwayville' with 60 minutes fuel but no alternate. Perfectly legal according to today's regulations.

I offload passengers to give me an alternate. What exactly do I tell my boss?

I appreciate the answer ventus, I just cannot see that application occurring amongst many jet captains operating in the region. My question stands.

The risk assessment conducted whenever flight planning and operating an aircraft should take into account the factors mentioned in this thread, however risk assessments are exactly that. They rarely completely mitigate risk.

I'd love to always have an alternate, never carry a deferred defect, never operate into a CTAF on a Saturday and so forth. Is this possible?

Try the 'tombstone imperative' as interesting reading.

Interesting thoughts being expressed here.
I do not believe I ever mentioned off loading pax/payload but just to consider trying to have an out by having some extra fuel.
All these problems would be reduced if only Australia followed the rest of the world with fuel requirements. ICAO standards are for the planning to an alternate for all flights. Fortunately my company adopts this policy.
We have to work within the regulatory frame work. In a country like Australia we have limits and one of them for pilots of RPT jets is the limited number of available runways suitable to take our aircraft.
Adopt the ICAO standard and decisions may be a little easier.

I always have fuel to another strip in the 737 and I'm not sure it costs the company more over the years as many times I have been able to hold for 30 minutes ( normally due to TS or single runway ops due wind ) before making a divert decision and then got in to destination while others around me have left for their alternates. Each time that happens the schedule of the ones that divert is thrown out the window and they have an extra burn of five or six tonnes by the time they have diverted, returned to destination, and then picked up their return pax. It's a rare occasion when we can't take extra without offloading pax so that makes it easier.
It normally costs about 50 cents per passenger to take the extra gas minus whatever savings from those occasions when I don't divert when I would have had to. I'm more conscious of efficiency than most I fly with and take whatever steps I can to save fuel enroute and on the ground. Hopefully that reduces my burn a bit as well. At the end of the day different pilots come to different conclusions when making risk assessments. You see it all the time with other elements like how high to fly , whether or not to go around or through weather etc etc. human beings are different, that's just life.

framer - what D3G's said.

But you're deluding yourself if you think management understands!!!

I don't think management understands. In fact, I'm sure they don't, and how could they? They have never been solely responsible for the immediate safety of hundreds of people. It's a rare bird that understands the responsibilities of command having never had one.

When I did my upgrade and went for my 'command chat' the MFS told me to carry enough fuel I was comfortable with and which would avoid me ever coming back into his office. Pretty good advice from a very experienced pilot. I'm with you framer, escape route plus fixed reserve for high ga single runway airports. There is only a couple of these anyway, and I too have held for that extra 30 mins probably half a dozen times, while others were diverting around me left, right and center. All comes out in the wash and after all the pax'so safety is our number one priority........isn't it.