Sydney airport upgrade will close runway

[mr.tos]

Sydney airport's only east-west runway will be closed for more than a year for an upgrade, from April 2008 to mid 2009, the Sydney Airport Corporation Limited (SACL) says.
SACL spokesman Michael Samaras told AAP that flights into Australia's busiest airport will be diverted to Melbourne, Brisbane or Canberra if crosswinds prevent landings on Sydney airport's two remaining north-south strips.
"The temporary closure of the east-west runway means there will be operational impacts in the event of strong cross-winds," a SACL statement said.
"If there are high crosswinds while the east-west runway is unavailable it is likely that flights to and from the airport will be delayed or diverted to other airports."
Sydney residents living in the path of the north-south approaches will have to bear the burden of increased air traffic over their homes.
"People living under the existing flight paths to the north-south runways will, to varying extents, experience an increase in the frequency of aircraft movements," SACL said.
There will also be disruptions and some inconvenience to passengers while the project is underway, SACL CEO Russell Balding said.
Apologising to the public, Mr Balding said SACL aimed to maintain noise-sharing arrangements as far as practicable.
"However, the need to temporarily close the east-west runway and prevailing weather will have an unavoidable impact on noise sharing," Mr Balding said.
SACL expects the total increase in flight movements on the north-south approach will be between one and three additional flight movements per hour on each of the eight separate approach and departure flight paths.
"The actual flight movements will, however, vary on a day-to-day basis due to prevailing weather conditions," Mr Russell said.
Sydney airport will start construction of the $65 million larger runway safety area at the western end of the east-west runway in April 2008, SACL said.
Similar mandatory safety work is complete at the eastern end of the east-west runway and at all the other ends of the north-south strips.
The runway safety area will be an 8,100 square metre land bridge that will provide a cleared area measuring 90 metres by 90 metres from the end of the runway strip that will assist in the deceleration of an aircraft.
Construction will involve the installation of more than 100, 27 metre-long pre-cast concrete structural beams, each weighing more than 25 tonnes.
Pre-construction site works will get underway next month and the runway will either be closed, or have only restricted availability, from April 2008 to completion of the project in mid-2009, SACL said.



source: The Age

[SM4 Pirate]

So 15-20 Days in that period on averages there's a 25K plus westerly; wow good luck on those days...

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

'Windy August' springs readily to mind....Westerlys straight off the mountains.

Not to mention the ocnl Ts that sweeps in from the 'Southern Highlands', as one elder ATCer used to complain on SY APP - They are so much on track for the 07, one could almost give the B's a cnce to land'.

[MUNT]

Anytime from the end of winter right through spring this could be a potential nightmare. :eek:

[concernaviat]

This proposed runway closure has been in the planning for about a year or more, however Macquarie Bank (private airport owner of Kingsford Smith APT) did not have the balls to announce this until after the election, for fear of upsetting former Minister for Aviation Mark Vaile (the failed jackaroo from Taree).

[Duff Man]

conceraviat - it is true Sydney Airport Corp and Airservices had been told not to mention this until after the state and federal elections. Both major parties would have wanted it kept quiet as its controversy would have only brought benefit to The Greens (who narrowly lost their NSW Senate seat to the Nationals). Frankly, I can't see why they even bothered mentioning it in a press release at all, even this far in advance. Aircraft noise complaints have been all but a non-issue since 11 Sep 2001 & the Ansett collapse - see "complaints history graph" in one the latest reports (http://www.sacf.dotars.gov.au/statistics/2007/) from DOTARS/SACF. The irony in all of this is the championing of a heritage-listed sewer causing the bulk of delay in construction of the safety overrun. Airline accountants and passengers should love the closure (except perhaps for those 30kt xwinds) - imagine no more 20min LTOP holding! Third winner is the environment: think of all the CO2 emissions saved as a result.

Curiously the SMH story Work on runway brings back the jet noise (http://www.smh.com.au/news/travel/work-on-runway-brings-back-the-jet-noise/2007/11/27/1196036899119.html) showed me two context-sensitive advertisements today, one for Etihad and the next time for Virgin Atlantic. Delicious!

[Blip]

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/Corporate+Information/Runway+Safety/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.

[SM4 Pirate]

I believe the 90x90 'area' is the low density crusher concrete, designed to catch an aircraft that 'overruns'; it's not normal concrete... Or do I have the wrong end of the stick.

[LewC]

On Monday next Anthony Albanese will be sworn in as the new Minister for Transport.Anthony,for those who don't know,is the Member for Grayndler,the Electorate immediately to the North of KSA and which will be the area most effected by the closure of 07/25.Look forward to the early announcement of yet another investigation into a suitable site for a second Sydney Airport.

[OverRun]

SM4Pirate - it is normal high strength concrete and not the crushable type.

As a comment, a standard "crushable concrete" EMAS bed would need to have been 183m long for the design case of a Boeing 747 exiting the runway at 70 knots.

[whatdouknow]

^Oh no, don't bring a Politician into it... it will only get worse.

[Bort Simpson]

For the info of all
This initiative actually came from ICAO (CASA as a memeber has to be the party that takes care of the issue here)

As for the concrete, it's not normal rwy grade (keeping it simple) but a crusher type. It's like a big crumple zone if you like. On top of the ground, turf and grass is laid so you can't tell the difference with what would be the normal graded strip (other than the hard stand area). Under the grass is a sloping hard area (where the crusher conrete is) that slopes away from the runway longitudinally. That's why you can't just shorten the existing rwy and call part of it the RESA (RWY emergency safety area). Which is what this is.

I note that one poster above correctly noted about the heritage listed poo pipe as an issue. Also with the 25 RESA is the issue and relocation of high voltage cables, a tunnel relocation for ground service vehicles, the start of the M5 tunnel and of course the cooks river.

Having said all that, I'm not sure why they can't alter the declared distance of 07/25 for the duration of the works. Reposition the threshold makrkers etc, alter the limitaion surface etc to cater for the works vehilces that will be under the dept/app splay.

May be some can answer that one for us...

B.

[OverRun]

The 07/25 RESA works include driving some 240 large piles to support the concrete slab. And since the pile driving machine can't be erected and dismantled easily or quickly, it stays as a very high obstacle and makes the runway unusable.

I am still sure that the concrete on the RESA is going to be that of a concrete slab, which is the hard type of high strength concrete.

The other RESAs at Sydney are either soil/grass or they used a thin layer of RAP (recycled asphalt pavement – the old milled out stuff from asphalt repairs – local councils sometimes use this RAP for cheap carparks or footpaths because it is clean, durable and hardens a bit over time); the RAP was topped with 100mm of soil/grass. In appearance, the RAP would look a bit like crushed concrete, hence the possible confusion.

[Bort Simpson]

"I am still sure that the concrete on the RESA is going to be that of a concrete slab, which is the hard type of high strength concrete."

What you have writen here is true. As there wil need to be structural support over aspects such as the airside road tunnel, it is parramount that it is a hard slap type.

I'm not 100% sure but I still think that all the RESAs have to be consistent with the internatinoal requirements. Therefore they would all need to have the same upper finish. So for the 25 RESA, it would be hard slab for support in areas that need it then the same 'crusher' type mix with soil and grass atop.

I could be wrong, as I'm no longer privy to the inside info, but if the 25 RESA was all hard slab it would make for one interesting launch ramp for aircraft over running into the cooks river!

:ok: B.

[OverRun]

Bort, at the risk of being pedantic, I am trying to get away from the use of the word “crusher” with respect to the Sydney Airport RESAs.

The word “crusher” has the implication that these RESAs are an engineered arresting system, or EMAS, which is made from a special lightweight concrete which indeed crushes under the weight of an aircraft. Those at Sydney are not the “crusher” type, and are nothing like it. There are actually none of the “crusher” RESAs anywhere in Australia.

The ICAO requirements are simply that the RESA be ‘cleared and graded’ and that requirement can be achieved by a range of “upper finishes”.

[LewC]

The Daily Telegraph today reports on Chairman Rudd's "fury at Airport works".So furious in fact that he unleashed his newly promoted attack-puppy,Little Albo,with instructions to savage Airport Supremo Russell Balding who will now be required to come up with a plan "to minimise the impact on the public,such as more night work and reducing the time frame"."The Government has also ordered an independent engineers' report on the project and suggested that a full report on environmental impacts also could be sought". That should put the whole thing back at least until after the next Election.Albo is also quoted as saying that the Government will revive the proposal for a second Sydney Airport in the future but that it wont be at Badgerys Creek.

[Yusef Danet]

OverRun

Nice to have such informed commentary on this forum.

I'm still unsure, however, of the answer to the obvious question about carving off the 90m western extremity of rwy 25 and calling it RESA, instead of the seemingly Herculean task of diverting a river (or a river of sewage). The jumbo drivers may not like it, but most of us only use 25 when there's a very decent headwind and wouldn't really miss 90m of TORA.

[OverRun]

Yusef Danet,

The 07/25 runway length is what I would call at a critical length. There are many operations which are JUST comfortable with takeoffs at that length. Losing 90m would have a significant impact on operations. Off-load a few passengers here and there, fuel load issues, arthritic 737-400s grinding away on very hot days, etc.

The airport has to accommodate the full range of aircraft types, loads, destinations and runway demands for the next 30 years or more. It is impossible to forecast exactly what is going to happen over that period. But they are faced with the demand now to provide the facilities that will accommodate that unpredictability. Since a 90m RESA has to be provided, the airport has to provide it. The best available knowledge is that losing 90m off a 2530m runway is not an acceptable option. So they have done the only other thing which is to build the concrete RESA.

It’s not my airport, nor my project, but it makes good sense. Speaking as someone who has in some places carved off 90m and called it RESA, and who has in other places extended things and built new RESAs.

[OverRun]

The RESA has been delayed. Sydney Airport bowed to pressure around the proposed construction of the RESA. CEO Russell Balding announced that SACL has launched a Major Development Plan focused on the project. This means soliciting government approval and 60 working days of public consultation, so the construction which was scheduled to start in April has now been put back to October.

From the SACL website:
The new CASA runway safety standards come into effect in May [2008]. Sydney Airport has made a submission to CASA to enable continued operations of the runway from this time with some limitations. This will involve creating a temporary runway safety area by temporarily shortening the runway. As soon as this issue is resolved by CASA further information will be made available.

And a great picture of it:
http://www.sydneyairport.com.au/NR/rdonlyres/3E55CD73-D23A-41CB-90B8-B5B861E0C311/0/SACLmap2.jpg

[GaryGnu]

It's not often I say this but I really do feel for SACL on this one.

They committed to undertake a large, in both cost and scope, engineering project in order to comply with regulations set by ICAO and an Australian Government agency, CASA, only to have the rug pulled from under them by a Minister and Local Member who is too scared to tell his constituents to tough out some temporary but necessary aircraft noise.

No wonder we seem to be suffering infrastructure bottlenecks in aviation and other sectors. This sort of political meddling and red tape should be enough to scare anyone off trying to do anything major in this country.

Please do not mistake my comments as implying the RWY 07/25 RESA is a major infrastructure project. It is not. However, it is one that was mandated by the Australian Government, through CASA, and now another Government has imposed further conditions thus delaying and possibly scrapping it. Would such a thing happen becasue the temporary effects of highway roadworks?

I am led to believe that SACL committed to the RESA solution in order to reduce their exposure in the event of aircraft over run into the SWOOS or M5. RESAs are there to provide extra protection to aircraft and occupants that over run/undershoot runways.

I can only say to those inner west residents that complained of increased noise that I hope it is not one of your family or friends that will be injured or killed in case of an aircraft overrun accident off the Western End of RWY 25 into the M5. An accident that could be at least partially prevented by the solution that SACL proposed.

[LewC]

The delayed start is interesting.Local Government Elections will take place in NSW in September and the Greens are poised to win outright control of Marrickville Council,the area which encompasses most of the Grayndler Federal electorate held by Minister Albanese as well as virtually all of the Marrickville State electorate held by Mrs.Albanese (Carmel Tebbutt).As the Greens are the only Party that can knock Albo and his missus off their very comfortable perches its very much in their own interest that the Greens don't get control of the Council and thus gain a power base from which to attack the Federal and State Seats.The closure of 07/25 in April would have been enough to guarantee a wipeout of the Labor Councillors,delaying it until after the Election is no happy coincidence and may help,but will it be enough? I just hope that no one is sufficiently naive to think that any of this toing and froing has anything at all to do with aircraft safety.Much more important issues are at stake.

[Autobrakes4]

How the *&%$ can it take 12 months to build a concrete slab! You can build the whole airport, 5 skyscrapers and a shopping centre in less time!! :ugh:

[computer says no]

You feel for SACL? They would make enough to pay for this RESA project after 15 minutes in the motorcycle lane in the T1 carpark. If there were any other way on Allah's green earth that they could avoid donating money and time to this do you think they would? Do you think they'd go ahead with works if they didn't have to out of concern for passenger safety? Hardly.


A bit of concrete and dirt will do NOTHING more to save anyone if a jumbo careers off the end of 25. What it will do is keep the regulators at bay, which is all SACL are interested in.

[GaryGnu]

Computer says No,

Too right the 90m will not do much to save a large aircraft overrun. There is plenty of data and research to say that something approximating 240-300m (as per the ICAO recommended practice) is the minimum length of RESA required.

SACL may well have enough money to do it and be only doing it to satisfy regulators but they committed to build something that provided an improved safety outcome and are now being stuffed around in the name of political expediency.

[OverRun]

Of genuine interest, can you direct me to some of the data/research on the need for 240-300m length, as opposed to 90m.

Cheers

[entra2departure]

wheres sydney second airport where u need one?

[J0N0]

So how many diversions will this create? I know the Dash 8 has a 36kt limit for the 1-2-300 series and 32kt for the -400. Anyone know the limit for the other smaller craft like the Saab and EMB170/190 etc? And for interest how about the A380?

[kookabat]

Saab = 35kt xwind limit.

[Wod]

So how much 07/25 is available with 270/20 gusting 37?

Media reporting diversions/cancellations, but that presumably is related just to single runway ops.

[kookabat]

Except they were using it all day today - up to an hour and a half CTMS holding on the ground, THEN some were copping an additional hour or so of laps out at Bindook.

Central Traffic Management System? Central Traffic Muck-up System more lke it.

[SM4 Pirate]

I heard CTMS was run for 34 arrivals an hour (cause they thought they could sneak in parallels (tried 16 and 34 I believe); actual arrivals were somewhere near 22 (on 25 only); so 12 too many each hour. Then when they tried to run it after 8am with the real rate accounted for it crashed and had to be done again; then they forgot to factor in those already in the air with 45+ mins holding; so everyone who was 'on time' got 45 airborne because that was what the queue already had.

When are we going to get real and use slot times?

[Starts with P]

Got to love the new NOC...

[Jenna Talia]

Got to love the new NOC...

WTF is NOC?

JT

[forgetabowdit]

Wow, what an absolute sh^tfight today was... in and out of syd three times, and it was just crazy when its all 07... We could have taken the Xwind on 34 in the jet (and therefore so could at least 40% or so of the others) but for some reason they kept ploeing forward with 07... called for a puchback at one stage and got called to call for a start clearance in 38 mins! No warning other than local knowledge, and we were fully boarded... And the taxi out was another story.
Was just absolute carniage! There has to be a better way at the busiest airport in the country in conditions that are hardly freak occurances... I cant remember off hand, but think the wind was only ever a strong easterly at around 25kts... Happened before and it is going to happen many more times again.

Forgetabowdit

[Peter Fanelli]

The irony in all of this is the championing of a heritage-listed sewer causing the bulk of delay in construction of the safety overrun.


Heritage Listed Sewer????

WTF?

Big tourist drawcard is it?

Where does this insanity come from?

[jetblues]

What a joke yesterday I agree. We were held for nearly an hour at 2 locations as the enroute holding pattern was full. We sheepishly requested 16L/R as the westerlies were well within our crosswind limits at our ETA. Our request was declined and then as soon as we landed they changed from RW25 to Rw16LR. Some days you just have to carry the fuel and scratch you head is disbelief.

[SM4 Pirate]

Jetblue,

I understand your frustrations...

I'd rather you weren't in my sector in a holding pattern too (no offense).

It's far too political, but thank goodness we still had 07/25 in use yesterday.

LTOP still applies, even on crappy days like that. When delays exceed 20 minutes it can trigger a change to non "noise sharing" LTOP modes; but we swap them for a more efficient (but still LTOP) mode. The issue is how that 20 mins is calculated. Total MAESTRO delay seems to be the easiest justification; but where this is on top of 30+ on-ground CTMS delays or start up clearances etc. it seems a little ludicrous.

Forgetabowdit ; Sydney doesn't use LAHSO anymore (effectively).

So using a combination set of runways is in effect no more efficient than single runway ops; well only a little more efficient; but not if we are mixing and unmixing on the run. See the LTOP modes here (http://www.sacf.dotars.gov.au/airport/LTOP/):

The problem with ballpark 40% being able to accept is that ballpark 60% can't. This has multiple effects; ie changing configurations is particularly problematic. STARs, SIDs etc. are often runway configuration dependent; changing things at short notice is best avoided; yes it does happen but only if you're forced into it (which we have been a few times in recent days). It's also problematic to 'which controller' is doing what (ie how we divide the airspace in terms of procedures and coordination used). We have standard airspace configurations and we don't get into a habit of making a new configuration on the fly. There is safety and efficiency in SOPS.

Giving sector bods like me 'requests' so you can reduce delay; is akin to giving me 50 cents to make a phone call; sure I'll call, trust me. An old salty flow once told me, "we don't do requests; if he says the magic words ("require") we'll talk about it again."

[Frink]

More of the same today?

From ABC Radio:

"Sydney Airport silent on flight delays

Flight delays at Sydney Airport are expected through the afternoon.

Virgin Airlines estimates 20 of its flights will be affected with delays of up to an hour.

Qantas is also reporting delays into Sydney of up to half an hour.

Virgin says their delays are due to planes having to stay in holding patterns but they say they do not know why.

Sydney Airport says it cannot comment on the delays and Air Traffic Control is yet to give an explanation."

[Frink]

Thanks, 125.6. Just got the low-down from an insider:

SY has twelve controllers rostered on a Friday afternoon. Today, two - not three - called in sick. One extra came in off annual leave to help out on overtime.

Seems someone at Air (No) Services is telling fibs and trying to hide the knife edge that they're walking on with staff.

[jetblues]

SM4 fair response thanks. I guess we all share the joy....

[shortandsmelly]

So those CTMS delays this afternoon.... due lack of staff.... what are the chances of airlines suing for damages?

Was NOT fun, after the late signons resulting from the monumental f@ck-up of yesterday's CTMS, to see the new delay report roll in on the email this afternoon.

[SM4 Pirate]

Seriously?

what are the chances of airlines suing for damages?It's going to take that sort of thing to change the culture of cost cutting as the highest priority.

You see they'd argue it worth a few days of pain for a cheaper overall system.

[forgetabowdit]

SM4, thanks for the good reply... None of it is news to me I guess, I know ya can only work with what ya got and that we are all in it together. Not suggesting that any one thing in particular should or should not be done, but merely commenting on how much extra work it was (for all involved atc, pilot, cabin crew, ground staff etc etc ) to get in and out of syd on days like those. Thats the gig tho isnt it. You are spot on tho that safety and efficiency are found in SOPs and as such there was nothing out of the box our end I suppose, just trying to understand the broader picture and the reasoning.

I should probably clarify the 40% thing... We were just one (three times) of hundreds of 180+ seat jets going in and out that day, I only say about 40% coz thats (in my poor judgement!) the numbers of my type operating and I know we could have taken the X wind. I didnt want to assume that others could but surely the rest of the airbus and boeing fleets would have similar x wind limits to our type and therefore i just assumed that it would be the vast majority of deps and arr's could have accepted a star/sid/rwy change. I do however understand the reasons for wanting to avoid lots of changes to the flow.

Cheers all,

Forgetabowdit

[jetblues]

When our Company is screaming for cost savings and efficiency we see dozens and dozens of flights holding for 30-60 min at a HUGE cost to our Airline when we could have all happily landed on 16LR.

Then we could discuss greenhouse emissions, duty time, overtime, airframe hours, engine hours, navigation charges, re-scheduling, re-crewing, etc etc etc etc.......another day.

[missy]

Can anyone remind me when the crosswind limitation for nominating a runway was changed from 25 knots to 20 knots?

Thanks


When operating RWY 25 only SY TWR will have a preferred long haul runway (for those departures unable to accept RWY 25). The preferred long haul runway is generally RWY 16R (because of the shorter distance on the take-off roll to the runway intersection and the aircraft get airborne into clear airspace). Of course, wind directions north of 240 mean RWY 34L is used for the long haul departures (with obvious delays).

[GaryGnu]

Missy,

I assume you mean the x-wind limit for noise abatement purposes.

If my memory serves me correctly it was circa 2000. I have a hazy recall of IFALPA threatening a "Black Star" on Sydney due to the 25knot limit at the time. Perhaps someone else can help with a more exact date.

[missy]

It seems that the reduction in the xwind limitation for nominating a runway for arrival/departure was reduced to 20knots whether it is for traffic management or noise abatement. If someone gives me the exact date I'll compare the number of days of RWY 07/25 only pre- and post- the decision. 5knots seems to make the big difference.

I think you can sustain an argument for 25 knots for traffic management (16 or 34 parallels), 15 knots for noise abatement (LTOP).

Whilst the crosswind limitation of individual types may well be in excess of 30 knots, Sydney ATC routinely see aircraft require RWY 07/25 when we are quoting 20 knots of crosswind on the parallels.