QF,EK,SQ please help

[Bungfai]

What is your normal plan when you operate to Sydney Brisbane and Melbourne, where is your alternate airport? Or planning without alternate??
Big thanks!

[A Comfy Chair]

Depends what size aircraft you are talking about!

[Bungfai]

triple seven.

[A Comfy Chair]

You are very limited in alternate options... basically you are either going to carry the fuel for the nearest major airport (IE Adelaide or Sydney for Melbourne, Melbourne, Brisbane or Canberra for Sydney etc.), carry fuel to one of the smaller "fair weather" alternates (if you can get permission) like Avalon, Pearce (mil), Williamtown (mil), or just arrive based on a "DPA" where you aren't going to have full alternate fuel.

Whatever complies with the airline/regulators fuel policy!

[Old Smokey]

SQ B777 - Operating to Brisbane, Sydney, or Melbourne would usually mean carrying one of Brisbane, Sydney, or Melbourne as Alternate, and throwing in Adelaide as an optional extra.

Exceptions apply, for Brisbane for example, Rockhampton or Coolangatta could be considered, but considering that these airports offer only non-precision approaches and a fairly high minimum, are not often considered.

Planning with no Alternate at all is simply NOT an option.

Regards,

Old Smokey

[Metro man]

As pax on SQ, SIN - BNE one night, we diverted to Townsville due early morning fog. But we diverted enroute, without getting anywhere near BNE.

Coolangatta (now Gold Coast Airport) doesn't suffer fog nearly as bad as BNE. Being only a few minutes down the road and on the way to SYD anyway, it could be worth a look to save going all the way to the big smoke.

[Bungfai]

Thanks a lot!! Rockhampton , Coolangatta , Canberra or Avalon are not our choices. I just got no idea why not using them. As far as if we can get approval when we file ATC flight plan. Any ideas??

[A Comfy Chair]

You would need permission from the Airport Operators to file them as an Alternate, remembering that AUS also has customs/immigration/quarantine restrictions on alternates.

Avalon is a private airport. Canberra can be an alternate, although it may be limited due to capacity.

Gold Coast is the same, and isn't particulally large.

If you think there is ANY chance of not getting in, you'd want to have fuel for a major city airport (SYD, MEL, BNE). Avalon, for example is in non-controlled airspace and has limited ground facilities.

When it comes down to it... you'd need to ask your airline to get approvals to assess and nominate these airports.

[Bungfai]

Thanks. But Auz rule allows to plan without alternate with conditions. Wonder when file ATC flight plan and state alternate aerodrome with no alternate.

[411A]

But Auz rule allows to plan without alternate with conditions. Wonder when file ATC flight plan and state alternate aerodrome with no alternate.

Not especially wise, and in any case large international airlines don't do this.

[Dani]

Very much to the contrary, dear 411A, large operator use the no-alternate option quite extensively. Maybe not in scaresly populated countries like Aussieland, where well equipped airports are not that frequently around.

Here in Europe with maybe the most sophisticated regulation, we are allowed to go without alternate if you have 2 independend runways, its approach aids and a certain wx minimum.

Not having an alternate offers various advantages in planning, and offers flexibility in using your remaining onboard fuel. In case of fog, having an alternate and lots of fuel is always an advantage. More runways don't help if the weather is bad.

Dani

[A Comfy Chair]

Actually, in a place like Australia, its more important to be able to launch without an alternate to destination, as quite often it would require huge amounts of fuel to be able to do it (more than is practical or often possible to carry).

A "large international airline" most certainly does do this operating into Australia, operating using effectively a PNR between the destination and another airport above certain weather minimas... only if, at that point, the destination is above certain weather minima may you continue to destination.

But... you're only going to do this if it complies with your fuel policy!

[Bungfai]

Thank you, just wonder how other people operate into Australia. We are now changing our policy to go without alternate as a standard fuel policy. Of course with weather requirement but no PNR.

[Henry VIII]

Bungfai, may I know which is your company policy for destn without altn ? Tks.

[411A]

Here in Europe with maybe the most sophisticated regulation, we are allowed to go without alternate if you have 2 independend runways, its approach aids and a certain wx minimum.

RTFQ.
Answer does not address the original question...IE, OZ-land.

A "large international airline" most certainly does do this operating into Australia, operating using effectively a PNR between the destination and another airport above certain weather minimas... only if, at that point, the destination is above certain weather minima may you continue to destination.

This is generally refered to as 're-dispatch' or 're-release'...a different kettle of fish, altogether.

[Checkboard]

Planning with no Alternate at all is simply NOT an option.

Actually every airline is bound by local law for the country into which they fly. Australia's fuel rules are written to not plan an alternate in most operations.

Just as Qantas must plan an alternate when flying to a European destination, in order to comply with JAR/EASA, so an airline need not plan an alternate flying into an Australian port when the weather is above the alternate minima. The Operations Manual of the airline needs to reflect this, of course - just as an international airline's Operations Manual needs to reflect the local laws for each country into which it operates.

[Henry VIII]

Just to know.
In JAR/EASA, in case of "isolated aerodrome" the OPS require a certain margin in destn wx forecast plus 2 hours extra fuel.
No minimum extra fuel required by CASA in similar scenario ?
Tks

[Dani]

Checkboard, this is not true. An operator is not bound to the law of the destination but of the AOC it is based on.

411A, If I talk about major European airlines, then I'm also talking about European airlines that fly to Australia.

Henry VIII, most prefered planning option is not isolated destination but PNR-planning: You fly to a certain point, where you decide to continue or to go back to the last airport. Certain conditions apply.

Dani

[Henry VIII]

Dani
I was just interested in comparing EU to OZ airlaw, of course the isolated destination fuel rule is the last option.
But sometime it's the only one.

[411A]

Here in Europe with maybe the most sophisticated regulation, we are allowed to go without alternate if you have 2 independend runways, its approach aids and a certain wx minimum.

All very interesting, however, in FAA-land, this no-alternate policy has been in use for over twenty years.
Nothing new.
However, FAA does indeed require not only an alternate for international flying, it also requires an enhanced reserve fuel requirement, unless operating on a re-release ops plan.
Exception.
Remote airports.
In this case, an island reserve fuel requirement is stipulated (2 hours, at normal cruising airspeed) is mandated.

This is all OLD STUFF...and been in use for MANY years.

It would then appear that JAA/EASA has just discovered same....apparently.
How very odd...