What an utter waste of money and resources!
So no matter how long a runway is (in the case of Runway 16R/34L, 4000 metres), the authorities (CASA) declare it requires a 90 metre "safety area" at each end.
http://www.sydneyairport.com.au/SACL...ty/default.htm
The provision of larger runway safety areas at Australia's airports is a mandatory safety requirement set by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and is in line with international aviation safety standards.* They are intended to minimise the harm to passengers in the unlikely event that an aircraft over runs or lands short of a runway.
Sydney Airport has three runways, so six of these larger runway safety areas are needed.* The Airport have already completed five, at a cost of $3 million, and will commence constructing the sixth, at a cost of more than $65 million, in April 2008.
*
So if Runway 16R (which is 4000 metres long) was only 3820 metres long (which would still be considered a very long runway) and they added 90 metres at each end for a total of 4000 metres, that would be OK then would it?? The runway would now have it's safety area. What sort of logic is that??
They would have achieved the same thing without any significant construction work at all if they had simply displaced the threshold 90 metres, and reduced the TORA/ASDA by 90 metres at the other end.
Same principle with runway 07/25. The runway is 2530 metres long. Rather than spend $65,000,000 to extend the runway surface 90 metres to the west, over an area that is sloping down towards the Cook's River, hence the need for such extensive and expensive works, why not simply displace the 07 threshold 90 metres and reduce the LDA by the same amount. Runway 25 threshold is already displaced, so again, simply reduce the LDA by 90 metres. TORA/ASDA can be reduced by 90 metres at the western end, and the same thing is achieved.
There will be a small reduction in the maximum take-off weight an aeroplane can achieve when taking off on 07/25, but in those relatively uncommon cases, they would simply use runway 16R/34L. If the crosswind is too great on that runway (>25-35 kt), well then you would have plenty of headwind to take advantage of on 07/25.
Regarding cost. Not only are there the direct costs of the construction ie $$ and the energy (hence carbon emissions) expelled due to the construction of this western extension, you have the added cost and fuel burn of diversions when the crosswind on 16R/34L exceeds the aircraft limits. Not sure of other aircraft but the B737 can handle up to 35 kt on a dry runway and only 25 kt on a wet runway. I'm pretty sure 35 kt is more than most.
I suppose there is no way they are not going to go ahead with this. What a waste!
Duff Man. I think you are right in that the traffic flow will be much more efficient during constant parallel runway operations, however I wonder how much this will be offset by the periods during which no one can land due to excessive crosswinds.