Originally Posted by
Dick Smith
The authorities must have completed an airspace design proposal for the airport.
I wonder when it will be released?
Dick in the proper course of a complex aviation integration project (like fitting a major new airport into a coastal plain with other airports and a sprawling city) the right place to start is with a safey study - a consideration of all the options and how each would work, a risk register for each option and an analysis of those risks, an evaluation of those to see which could be eliminated or at least migitgated and the resultant, fully managed risk. And risk in this context can be expanded to include environmental and social (pollitical) risks as well as broken metal risk.
I do not know all the steps that went into WSI but it is clear that an EIS was carried out in 1996/1997 that recommended the WSI runway be more N/S alighned to enable a coherent mix of traffic with SYD and BK. Expert aviation opinion had been sought by the Department for that EIS. Sought, yes, but ignored.
Tony Abbott eventually ordered another EIS which by design or omission, I do not know, did not seek the kind of expert ATC advice that helped inform the first EIS. The outcome and the recently revealed flight paths shall we say, offer a more politically acceptable outcome but at a higher risk of poor aviation operational and safety outcomes.
So in this political planning methodology, the airport is almost physically complete. Now is the time to tell the populace what it means to them in terms of flight paths... now that it is too late to change the runways and thus the resulting flight paths.
Oh, yes Minister, we will indeed consult widely with the community, but with the physical infrastructure almost complete that is just for show, box ticking, expensive time wasting to say we did it.
Now that we have decided the flight paths, yes Dick, now we (who, tell me their name and expertise) can do an airspace study and invent some new, never before heard of (certainly not USA best practice) method of managing this mess of Departmental creation. Somebody has already remarked on the resultant camel of a horse designed by committee.
What an unholy mess. Why can people not learn? The USA tried to get Dulles to replace Washington National, the Canadians tried to get Miirabel to replace Dorval for Montreal. Neither worked as desired.
So as
EX-FSO Griffo wisely put it:
I think you're confusing 'our authorities' with 'other authorities' who actually know what they are doing..........
(And he learned to fly at YSBK about the same time you and I did!)