pcx, I think you missed ALLAH's point - fog is never a problem if you have enough fuel to simply curse at it before going somewhere else. :rolleyes:

Sorry I don't see any mention of fog in ALLAH's post.
All I see is mention of a single runway destination which is clearly incorrect.
ALLAH posted without verifying the basis of his statement and thus, to my mind, displays his complete lack of credibility.
By all means post your thoughts on this or any other thread.
However, we are supposed to be professionals.
We should at least get our basic facts correct.

That is a big call! Why is this part of the world different?

Never a weather problem, only a fuel problem. Anyone operating to [an] airport WITHOUT an alternate, regardless of weather, day or night is mad. Forget the rules and whats legal...airmanship is the answer.

That's my $0.02

pcx
It may be a revelation to you but it isn’t uncommon in countries outside Australia, regulators require airlines and crew to consider airports with crossing runways as single runway airports when calculating fuel requirements pre-flight and when calculating in-flight reduction of fuel. I’ll leave it to you why this may be the case.

Capt Fathom
The question that should be asked is why is Australia different to the rest of the world in regards to alternate fuel requirements?

We could discuss this all day and seemingly go round and round.
My point was very basic and simple.
Clearly ALLAH did not do his or her research. That is not the mark of a professional pilot.
The comment made by ALLAH was that an alternate should have been carried because YSNF has a single runway. This is obviously incorrect and adds nothing to the debate. If he or she had commented on the potential risks of an aerodrome with intersecting runways then great. That would prompt us all to consider these factors.
Was I tough in my reply to ALLAH? I would say "yes".
Maybe, just maybe, ALLAH will be really p...ed of with me and will be just that little bit more determined not to make the same type of mistake ever again. It just might help in what I sincerely hope will be a long and enjoyable incident free career.

Don't know if poor old Dom' works for any airline these days. Stand to be corrected though?

I'd hardly call him an airline pilot.

You have to be working or have worked for an airline to gain that title.

Are both runways at NF rated for the aircraft in question?

As I hear it, the report is coming along but the FOI is kinda busy ATM.

Some folks consider a cross runway configuration a single runway airport for obvious reasons.

A forecast cross wind exceeding the the limitations on one of the runways would also make it a single runway aerodrome for planning purposes.

One runway not meeting either the width, strength or length for the aircraft type and operation would make it a single runway aerodrome for planning purposes.

With all due respect pcx, I think you have missed the intent of Allah's post. It was simply an opinion about airmanship, not something you would have to research,and certainly not enough to warrent it's just an opinion, quite forcefully put, but quite well put.
Is English your second language? (I'm not being facetious, just wondering if thats causing the disconnect).

A professional pilot would ALWAYS consider an intersecting rwy layout a SINGLE rwy AD especially out in the Pacific Ocean, that's what being a Capt is all about. Every time I went into any Pacific Is AD especially at night (due rwy lighting considerations) I had a plan B.

One day sometime ago now I was sitting at the gate of a Nth Qld AD on a nice sunny day after having landed a few mins earlier & watched a lighty from outside my cockpit window slide on in on the smaller crossing rwy only to do a bit of 4x4 work before coming to rest with the prop dug into the grass just a few mtrs from the gable markers of the main rwy, that's exactly the situation that could happen anywhere at any time so one should never rely on an AD with intersecting rwy's as being suitable.


Wmk2

" an intersecting rwy layout a SINGLE rwy AD " ???

Abbreviation for "The aerodrome has a single point of failure for it's runways" which is a summary of several pages of risk analysis.

Have a read of CAO 82 Appendix 5, 7 Table 1 to see how the multiple (separate) runways for a diversion is considered to be of lower risk than a single runway.

Even if YSNF had parallel runways and ILS, it should have an alternate though. Out of interest, what other countries in the world permit operations to aerodromes with no alternates (without even getting into the issue of Island aerodromes).

PNG allows no alternates; basically copies Aussie rules with INTER & TEMPO fuel provisions. Not a good idea in that part of the world....only a mug would NOT carry an alternate. Whether one would stack the INTER or TEMPO fuel on top of the alternate (should the alternate itself require it) is a matter for individual judgement on the day. Personally I think that is a crock as I don't subscribe to double-jeopardy - alternate plus 30 has got me by all these years. The lowest fuel I ever landed with was 20 minutes which I admit was a bit tight.

The Oz situation is rather unique because of the excessive distances involved, so should not be copied in places where the distances are not so much as to be limiting. NLK - NOU is from memory a piddling 55 minutes at jet speeds.

PS: Am in agreement with Jabawocky's assessment - harsh as it may seem.

Jaba. I agree with you taking into account the following exceptions
So......NIL planning, NIL in flight monitoring, NIL decission making in the cruise and NIL decission making once it all turned to sh!t .

This is the worst example of a "captain" (notice small c) that I have ever heard about. John Cleese must be making a training video.

dogcharlietree

I think Jaba said “Poor” not “Nil”. Big difference.

404. Please re-read what I said and what I quoted. helluva big difference. That's why I said it! :ugh:

He must have done some planning......or blindly followed company plans perhaps.

The more you look atit though, nil is possibly a better word to use.