Originally Posted by
alphacentauri
Leadsled, there is no airspace proposal for Western Sydney yet. There is an airspace concept in a document that dates back to the 80's. I suspect this is what you saw.
You need to read more on modern nav technologies. SBAS and GBAS are not GNSS approaches. Fleet equipage at the major RPT level is much lower than you think. Designing an airspace model on these capabilities would not be a smart idea.
Been designing for a long time, never heard of these "low noise" procedures you speak of. Are you perhaps referring to RNP-AR?
Still waiting for you to provide the ICAO airspace design concept you recommended we adopt in your previous post.
AlphaC,
No, you are quite wrong, everything presented was directly related to Sydney West, and, as I said, I have plenty of witnesses. It was the usual PowerPoint presentation.
And I didn't have a long post meeting discussion with a quite senior Department of Infrastructure, Transport etc. officer about something from the 1980s, most of the discussion was about the stupidity of the size of the proposed zone, why it was unnecessary, how it unnecessarily effected Bankstown and Camden. and what should be done. Said departmental officer and I were in heated agreement, but it was out of his hands. I even had follow-up discussions in Canberra, in following weeks, but since then it has gone very quiet. Indeed, much of the discussion was about how profligate Airservices are in closing off airspace with quite unnecessary and unjustified airspace classifications, in this case the lateral boundaries of the proposed zone. The department officer was very well informed on practical applications of such matters in other countries, including the US and the UK and EEC generally..
It is clear to me that "some" in Canberra don't want any discussion or serious public consultation on what is proposed and what alternatives exist, prior to the "unveiling" of said "final" proposals close to the opening of the first runway. You might have already "noticed" the eruption, from the "usual suspects" about flight over the heritage areas of the Blue Mountains --- to say that flightpaths are politically a loaded gun would be an understatement. Again, some time ago, I even flew one of the vitally interested local MPs along some of the potential flightpaths, more meaningful than him or her just looking at lines on a map. Aircraft noise is hardly a new political issue around Sydney.
You can quibble about terminology, but the fact remains that GBAS is available in the Sydney basin, has been for quite some time, and the capability to have non-ILS approaches to ILS Cat 1 minima exists.
The fact that you don't know anything about common low noise procedures (by whatever name) only means you don't know. Seems quite appropriate to mention, given the election at the weekend, that, in times gone by I have written aircraft noise minimization procedure drafts for both Labor (when Martin Ferguson was Shadow Minister) and Lib/NP (John Anderson) policy documents --- I do know what I am talking about, and am apolitical in such matters These are not "ICAO" but based on well proven techniques, including flightpaths, in use for many years in other parts of the world.
As to "ICAO" docs., are you suggesting that ICAO has nothing to set lateral limits of airspace boundaries for A,B,C,D,E,F,G. classifications??
I have detailed the source of the so called "draft standard" that was used to size the proposed zone, that was not "ICAO", as I said, and was dug up by a firm that may be a competitor, if you work in the private sector as a procedure designer. I have the greatest confidence in my colleague's knowledge and capabilities, they have a most impressive and long list of satisfied international customers.
I can only assume you are quoting from the current
PR handouts, do you really think a mass of work (much misdirected, in my opinion, but that's only my opinion) has not already been done.
Tootle pip!!