le Pingouin
sunny, surely the Sydney movement cap renders such discussion moot?
Yes and no, on the one level yes there is a movement cap that is IMHO being mismanaged. Perhaps another thread is warranted, the original application of the cap was based on scheduled movements, the current application is actual movements. I guess I was trying to point out the obvious. If all the aircraft operating to/from the International terminal operated from RWY 16R then the traffic balance would be roughly 70/30, the departure delays would be rather excessive hour by hour. And, with aircraft queueing for departure RWY 16R the SMCs soon start running out of real estate, especially at peak towing times when Qantas need to tow the A380 east/west or west/east. My take on efficiency is balancing the delays, keeping everyone moving.
Keg
Thanks SunnySA. Perhaps meeting with the various operators to discuss their runway occupancy and/or allocation could something that ASA needs to consider?
Couldn't agree more, as far as I know the NATS Report on Sydney
hasn't been released, probably more to do with political issues, SACL sensitivities. As le Pingouin pointed out the movement cap makes it a moot discussion point but it doesn't mean that it shouldn't happen. I think it was put in the "too hard basket" prior to the previous federal election and the basket still hasn't been opened.
Jets via Wollongong from RWY 16L
I was on the receiving end of this a number of times in the last few months of 767 ops- probably 8 or 9 times? On 3 of those times when we taxied for 16L there was quite literally no one waiting for departure on 16R... and on two of those occasions only one arrival as we taxied out. On another 3 occasions there was only 1 aircraft awaiting a departure. Another time we were changed to 16R due to the lack of departures and on the other couple of times the change to 16L was probably justified.
I get the logic of it (less delays for everyone due to being able to spread the load across both runways) however the execution of it appeared to be very hit and miss....... mostly 'miss' from where I was sitting!
(Please don't anyone shoot the messenger. I understand the noise sharing, political interference, lack of resources points. That shouldn't stop us from pointing out the flaws in the system).
Yes, its in imprecise science, based on trying to balance the departure demand, the procedure involves all WOL jets off RWY 16L (up to an including A333/B789)
and all EAST bound jets off RWY 16L (once again, up to an including A333/B789). It does involve additional runway crossings however this is balanced against a reduction in overall delay. Some of the initial data suggested that some International aircraft (East bound B777s, jets via KAT/RIC) had an average reduction in delay of about 20 minutes (balanced departures versus everything from RWY 16R).
If simultaneous WOL jets present off both runways then the RWY 16R WOL needs to be either immediately ahead of the parallel departure
or 4 minutes after. This spacing puts the aircraft in-trail for MEL ENR.
What we try to do is avoid "flip-flopping" into/out of the procedure, that is chopping and changing, re-issuing clearances at pushback or taxi due to the briefing requirements, A320's in particular seem to take an inordinate amount of time to re-brief.
It might work better if Qantas and Jetstar WOL jets departed RWY 16R and Virgin, Tiger and corporate WOL jets departed RWY 16L.
I have no issue with aircraft requiring this or that runway, but
please be beware there are consequences, imbalances between the runways, at times lengthy delays to other aircraft, increased (ATC) coordination, increased (ATC) workload and at times an increase in risk/lowered safety margins/potential for error.