View Full Version : share the noise vs share the carbon emissions

2nd Aug 2007, 01:53
Surely with an election looming, now is the time to point out to the greenies that Sydney Airports policy of "sharing the noise" only adds to extra exhaust emissions due holding.
Twenty minutes holding over BIK or wherever cannot be environmentally friendly WHEN there are two perfectly acceptable runways available for use.
WHEN it is blowing a gale from the west/east, and rwy 07/25 is the best option, then I agree that holding is unavoidable. But when it is a purely "political "decision which delays everybody, then it cannot be the best option.

any thoughts ?

2nd Aug 2007, 04:51
As usual the politicians are caught between a rock and a hard place.They are coming up to an election and do not want to lose any seats IF possible and that means less noise but forget the enviroment.

No Further Requirements
2nd Aug 2007, 06:00
I've always wondered what the green-NIMBYs would do if the choice was given to them. It's pretty simple - do you want less noise or less emissions? I'm sure they would go on about the ideal situation would be not having aircraft at all etc etc.

For those who recall, the jet STAR into YMML from the north-east used to be the NAREL arrival. This was changed to the LIZZI arrival, with the flight path shifting a few miles north as some people up in the hills in a small hamlet didn't like the jets going over them at A100 (at the lowest). This added a couple of track miles to the STAR - noise wins again over emissions. I wonder if anyone presented the township (of about 700 people, of which I think 60 complained) with an estimation in cost to industry of the initial change (STAR plates, FMS changes, ATC chart changes etc) and also an estimation of the additional emissions caused by the changes over say 10 years?

My solution is simple: if you ring up to complain about the noise, you are put on a list of people who are not allowed to use the airport. :ok:



west atc
2nd Aug 2007, 07:01
While we are talking about emissions and extra fuel used, how much extra fuel would RAAF Pearce cause to be burned? The amount of airspace taken up by the RAAF would not be tolerated on the east coast but because Perth used to be reasonably quiet they have always taken up a lot of airspace. Now that we are running out of airspace in Perth surely the companies could put some pressure on the government to reduce the amount of airspace taken up by Pearce, a lot of which is not actually used.

2nd Aug 2007, 07:48
Better still turn Pearce in to a joint user facility...just like Darwin, Townsville, Richmond, Williamtown.....can't be done WHY?

SM4 Pirate
2nd Aug 2007, 07:59

You can find the relevant LTOP documentation here (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/reports/ltop/default.asp) at an Airservices web-page.

Effectively this LTOP (Long Term Operating Plan, which is legislated) document calls for the 'operating mode' which is day/time/wx/traffic demand dependant. It is sad and funny to see pilots complaining to ATC about using the runway pointing into the wind when it's less than 20Ks; like they can actually do anything about it.

My understanding is the trigger points for changing modes during a reduced operating mode (noise sharing, usually single runway for arrivals or departures or both) is excess of 20 minute delays or when 3 or more aircraft operationally require a non nominated arrival runway within an hour. (So operationally 'require' a change and presto change of mode, well if 3 of you do it).

Problems I see with the current triggers, ignoring the noise sharing concept (That's a bigger topic), is that the delays have to be demonstrated before changing modes (you need proof!). This is done using our tracking process usually comparing MAESTRO delays; often we see delays well over 20 minutes before changing modes, i.e. increasing the acceptance rate; then due to the volume (back-log) of traffic after the mode change we see 10+ minute delays still for the next 30+ minutes. If we changed when the delays actually got to 10-15 minutes but were expected to exceed 20 minutes; we could reduce the traffic volume (back log) significantly as we've increased the through-put before the wall of traffic actually hits.

Hopefully this is going to happen sooner rather than later.

From an airliner/pilot point of view; when is LTOP subjected to review? This a legitimate question to ask, CASA, ASA, Ministers (Federal and State); it effectively amounts to a restraint of trade for scheduled arrivals in the low acceptance (single runway) modes.

I find it ironic that we have all these concepts in train to reduce delays gate to gate times one minute for all flights; yet during LTOP modes at Sydney it's quite legitimate to 'cause' 20 minute delays.

A bit of math, bare with me Arrivals rate on single mode around 24 an hour (or less); 35 actually turn up; 11 aircraft get pushed back into the next hour. If the average delay is 15 minutes then we have cause something like 165 minutes delay; or more than 2 hours worth of peak mode 'savings'; in one hour of LTOP.

Read somewhere recently that the annual delay into SY is costed by airlines at around $39M. This isn't all LTOP (noise sharing) or ATC caused delay; mostly it's cluster scheduling, wx etc. but LTOP has got to add up right?

West ATC, Agree:} Good luck!

NFR, STARS change all the time, is this the true reason for the LIZZI change?

Can't see any politician sticking their head up on this one; it's only going to get kicked in the lead up to an election.

Opinions on Airport noise are like arse-holes, everyone's got one; usually it's about how it effects me; not what is logical, safer or right.

SM4 Pirate
2nd Aug 2007, 08:02
Better still turn Pearce in to a joint user facilityDid I read that Tiger plans to use Pearce, or was that my shift working brain playing tricks on me?

SM4 Pirate
4th Aug 2007, 00:59
Was it something I said?

No Further Requirements
5th Aug 2007, 05:02
No mate. Just forgot about the thread. I am dead set serious about the STAR being moved - noise abatement at about 25NM north-east of YMML.



Islander Jock
6th Aug 2007, 09:16
Had a chat with a lady from AsA last week regarding the Pearce restricted zones and their size being akin to a small African country. Apparenly moves are afoot to have a RAAF LO presence withing PH App / Dep which will allow better use of the airspace for both civ and mil users. Perhaps the ATCers here can expand on this one?

Going Boeing
6th Aug 2007, 09:34
Pearce airspace is a lot more complex than other military areas because of the training role. The aircraft are a mixture of jets and turboprops (RAAF & Singaporean) which regularly conduct spins, aerobatics etc which carve up a lot of sky. While doing these manoeuvres they are not tracking on any defined route so the RAAF ATC has to keep commercial traffic well clear. I don't know how feasible it would be for Tiger to operate out of Pearce because the circuit area is extremely busy and I can't see the RAAF being happy with valuable training hours being wasted while the circuit is cleared to allow an A320 arrival/departure.

The ATC expert on Perth airspace structure and utilisation is Knackers - he occasionally posts on PPRuNe. Hopefully, he might contribute his thoughts to this discussion.

No Further Requirements
6th Aug 2007, 09:37
Pearce Approach is based at Perth Airport with Perth Approach now. They all use TAAATS, and I'm sure there are moves afoot, now they have moved in and are comfortable with their new digs, to get the ball rolling about airspace use. The other rumour is that the PC9s may end up in East Sale as there is some very underutilised airspace there.