The SYD Curfew

[NoseGear]

I see that Jet* are getting another pasting due to what appears to be the curfew at Sydney. I wanted to start an independent thread on the curfew at SYD as it seems to have been the factor that produced the eventual "newsworthy" story. I was operating out that night of the storms that had alot of carriers being delayed, ourselves included. Our inbound flight was late due to the wx, and it was a bit of a rush to get our taxi clearance by 2300, luckily for us it was 16R or we would have all been spending another night in Sydney along with I would estimate, 2 QF flights, 1 Thai, and a few others I heard calling up just on 2300. I have to ask, departures off 16R, who are they infringing on noise wise? After all, the dept track is usually an assigned radar heading out over the water, so why the fuss? And isn't a missed approach a damn sight noisier than a landing on 16? I heard the discussion between the EK flight and the tower, along the lines of 'your not going to land in time, what are your intentions?" the EK flight said they were trying to organise a dispensation, but at 2 miles, that probably wasnt going to arrive in time. My best estimate, if he had been allowed to continue, he would have touched down at around 2300:30secs, at worst. He had just broken visual, had to go around and I understand divert to MEL. Where is the common sense? Why make a crew divert an hour away because wx caused them to be delayed? If there must be a curfew, on a major International airport, then surely there must be some guidance when bad wx in particular starts to play havoc with the inbounds and the inevitable roll on effects this causes? Afterall, in the case of the EK flight, he had already passed over the most "noise sensitve" part of the approach. I would like to think that the powers that be are planning to allow discretion when wx causes disruptions, but I'm not holding my breath.:ugh:

[aulglarse]

My question is do heavies really need to use full reverse on touchdown with 3900m LDA? Surely no one would hear a jet rolling through to TWY 'A' on 34L.


Now make room for the politics of noise:ugh::ugh:

[Capt Wally]

Unfortunetly we live in a politically correct world. We as pilots know that having to go around at such a stupid point on approach just because the line in the curfew sand is well defined is nonsense but the Pollies & their constituents have more pwr than all the Trent 800's strapped together!:bored:

Now this following statement is too awful to contemplate but it's feasable.
Poor wx forces a plane to make a go round as in the case of the EK flight mentioned here. The FP ends up having to fly thru some TS's that are bigger than the whole of Texas! Result from a shocking avoidable storm by way of landing in the first place ??................A/C breaks up in flight plummets to the earth killing all 350 on board & 66 on the ground, that same ground that houses those that push for the curfew.................Hypothetical?, maybe, maybe not. The point I'm getting at here is does this situation as stated above need to happen before we se common sense?. God 'elp us all if it does need to be so !:bored:

Here's an Eg of shear madness even at this low priority.

I was once tasked years ago to fly some urgent parts to SYD in the middle of the night in an AC500. The WX was CAVOK but with a strong sthly at SYD. Upon contacting appr (no director then I think) I was informed that the surface wind at the threshold of 16R was something in the order of 25kts or so, advise intentions!.....sheeeeeeeeeeeezzzzz now they tell me. The SYD`atis mentioned something like 10 kts (manageable) when I gathered the ATIS so I wasn't allowed to land on any other rwy, in a blo ody Aerocommander for Gods sake !:ugh: I diverted to BK, crazy!

Curfews:ugh:..so much for safety, that little fact has a price !

Humans NEVER learn by their mistakes, never!

CW

[BAe32EP-Chief]

Its the people who live around the Sydney area is the thanks for the Sydney curfew

[KRUSTY 34]

A little over 10 years ago A BA Concorde was making one of it's visits to Sydney. RWY 34L & R were the duties. Hot summer day with a gusty 30 knot northerly. Middle of the day when they were about to depart. Our aircraft was parked on DOM 2 and we had about an hour layover. Perfect. pretty quiet part of the day, especially back then, so all and sundry came out to have a look. By our reckoning she would probably get airbourne around Bravo 8 or near 07. This was going to be great!

As she taxied southbound on A she suddenly stopped. Listening on INT ground on one of the ground handler's scanner a very interesting exchange between the Captain and Syd Ground. "What do you mean I have to use RWY16 because of noise abatement! You do realise that will impart a 30kt downwind. Have you any idea of the wheel rotation speed? etc, etc,....

The controller was unmoved. He informed the Captain that the only alternative was to delay the departure untill the expected southerly arrived in 36 hours! After a consultation with his engineering we all watched with disbelief when Concorde did a 180 and taxied to A1 for a departure on 16R! Wind at the time was 320/30-35! and 34 degrees C!
The Captain must have been satisfied that it was doable, but at that those speeds, why put your neck in the noose?

Needless to say she departed sucessfully, but if ever there was a case of political medling with the operation of an aircraft, then surely this was such an example.

[flyhardmo]

Well i hope that some of the pax that were stranded due to the curfew were the ones that complained about noise in the first place :ugh::ugh:

[PyroTek]

this is a personal thought of mine, but i think the curfew is absolute bull:mad:.

I really think that if the residents dont want planes going over their house, they should have thought about that before buying their house?!
and they are the ones to complain after getting annoyed due to noise.

Now, i'm slightly biased on this, because i welcome any aircraft going over my house, and thats why i'm on the forum :D.
any aircraft in an emergency may force land on my roof for all I care.

anyway, if an aircraft isn't allowed to take off into headwinds, because of the poor neighbor's ears, i must say, what is more important? the safety of possibly hundreds of people? Or the comfort of poor old granny may, sitting just off the threshold of a major sydney runway?

I think the answer is pretty obvious, it is *CLEARLY* the comfort of poor old granny may... well that's one view, expressed by people under the flightpath, with little or no technical knowledge about how aircraft work, or there is the view by the more technically sound people which is basically the majority of users on this forum.

now, to do with the late night curfews, i think they should stay in place, but be less strict.
As in, let all scheduled flights out if they are delayed by say: half an hour, it will benefit the passengers, airlines, and most other people.
For instance, this Jet* issue would never have arisen if the sydney curfews weren't so strict.

well thats my piece of the pie...

[goddamit]

I hate to say it but the more passengers are inconvenienced & then correctly informed of the problem the more likely the noise sharing & curfew will be relaxed or abolished(highly unlikely though). Funny how there's no noise restrictions during the day off runway 25. Maybe the new government might change this as well. Could you imagine these sort of restrictions happening at LAX, JFK, or Heathrow? The current PM was quoted looking into curfew at BNE too. Obviously looking after his little area & a handful of residents. Mind you the closest house on approach on 01 is about 5kms(I believe) whilst in SYD its about 800m. These sort of decisions need to be taken away from the government for safety sake; & they have the nerve to complain about aircraft carbon emissions.

[Lasiorhinus]

I suppose the Concorde captain in question had reasons for not saying "require runway 34"?

[Keg]

I'd check the source of your story Krusty. I'd be very surprised if the Concorde limits permitted a 30 knot tailwind on departure! :eek:

[MTOW]

Sorry, Krusty, there isn't an airline pilot in the world who'd accept a 30 k tailwind, especially in something like a Concord(e). At least I sincerely hope so. As someone said above, the 'require' word in in the system for situations like that.

However, acrophal or not, the story is a pretty good example of the utter imbecility of the situation at Sydney. The major city of a country that likes to think of itself as 'First World' that closes its airport for seven hours a day, completely screwing up international schedules as well as schedules to and from every other major (and minor) airport in the country is the sort of thing you might imagine happening only in a tin pot African dictatorship.

In Australia's case, it is the dictatorship of the noisy (pun intended) minorities.

I heard once that the chairman of the major anti-noise group at Sydney was an ATCO who worked at Sydney airport. Why is it that I think you'd find very few pilots who operate into Sydney who'd find that hard to believe?

[Shot Nancy]

Checkin counter SYD: “Ah, Mr Smith of 555 Bloggs St Whingeville?”
PAX “Yes”
Checkin person: “Not THE Mr Smith of the Anti-aircraft noise
lobby?”
PAX “Well yes actually” (feeling quite smug at being recognised)
Checkin person: “I am terribly sorry Sir but you have been quite bothersome complaining
about aircraft noise and curfews so we cannot permit you to fly with us”
PAX: “But, but I have a paid ticked”
Checkin person: “Well I suggest you apply for a refund and catch the F@#$%ing bus!”

[halas]

Northern summer two years ago, Heathrow was closed from 5pm to 7pm due thunderstorms.

Our scheduled time out was 2215L, but due to serious congestion on the ramp our new departure time was 2350L.

Most operators were affected and it was complete cluster &*ck but they got everyone in and out after curfew had started.

It seems they have a provision in their regulations that allows for unforseen delays that are not the fault of the BAA.

Saves dollars for everyone concerned, but you should have read the next days papers...

halas

[Carrier]

Are all roads and railways in Sydney closed between 23.00 and 06.00 so that the good citizens of Sydney can sleep well, with suitable fines and licence suspensions for offenders who break the curfew?
Are those who want to close various GA airports also proposing to convert all public parks and playing fields into more profitable housing or office developments? Are they also intending to close all motorways to cut down on noisy and polluting road traffic?
Let's see some consistency!

[genex]

This is a much more productive thread than the discussion by the Jetstar Haters Society about the airport closure.

Of all the great travesties inflicted on us, not just the pilots but also the whole industry, the SYD curfew has got to be one of the worst. The airport at one of the world’s greatest tourism gateways closed for nearly a third of the day! And I’ll bet that unless they happened to stand outside and saw it no-one would even notice say a 777 landing on 34 with idle reverse or taking off on 16. The 787 and A350 will be even quiter and will be locked out all the same.

Last Labor government had a chance to build a second airport but wimped it because it would have cut value out of Qantas. But imagine if there was a Sydney West Airport now. Two 13,000 ft 24/7 Cat 3 runways, open skies for all. A la Hong Kong, Singapore, Incheon, Shanghai. Lots of work was done on the viability of the Sydney West project and all the benefits that would flow. It’s not too late though. If we all stop stupid bitching about who gets paid more and whose management is worst we could build some momentum on this. This criminal neglect is costing jobs and dollars big time.

I have to note that the infrastructure constraints are part of a general package of capacity constraints that doesn’t just lock people out of a terminal; it locks them out of flying at all. A big proportion of Jetstart and Virgin passengers are first time fliers. Imagine how many more there will be across the Pacific in a year or two when the new 777 and 787 fleets start across the Pacific. The capacity constraints on Pacific routes now are a sorry shame.

Deregulation brings lots of things. A vast amount of jobs and competition, despite the doubts of those wanting the whole world to be paid like Qantas pilots. But deregulation can only work if there’s enough capacity.

[windytown]

Living in a city with a 1am curfew on international flights, I personally have got use to the odd noise around midnight (admittedly traffic numbers are low).

I feel the Sydney (and some other) curfew is too strict, to the point of being counter productive even for the residents, having the noise of diverted aircraft flying off somewhere.

My comments are:

Diverting aircraft can be noise for both those under the Sydney flight paths and where ever the plan is diveted to

The externatilities (usin an economics concept) of having a plan land or takeoff a few minutes late on the local residents is minor to the costs to the passengers, crew, airline (petrol etc) and environment (pollution) of the diversion.

Mechanisms, such as penalties, can be imposed on airlines breaking the curfew to compensate the affected residents eg paying for insulating ceilings and discourage airlines from breaking it on a regular basis.

Relaxations of the curfew could distingush between problems largely outside the airlines control (eg weather, ATC) and those due to poor scheduling and also on aircraft type and runway.


With SYD airport traffic growing towards capacity, the Govt will have to face the question of either relaxing the curfew or building a second airport (or curtailng growth which would be detrimental to Sydney's economic growth). Both options involve upsetting some electorates. Relaxing the curfew may be the easier of the two.

Cheers

[Howard Hughes]

And I’ll bet that unless they happened to stand outside and saw it no-one would even notice say a 777 landing on 34 with idle reverse
Happens almost every morning between 0500 & 0600! Some 744's too, it seems strange that there is a provision for early arrivals, but not for late departures...:rolleyes:

Even if they only made a limited number of slots available, say 5 in and 5 out per hour, that would be an extra 70 movements per day, would solve a lot of problems at Sydney!:ok:

[KRUSTY 34]

Gidday MTOW, Keg etal'.

As incredible as it sounds, I was there and that is exactly how it happened. Most people (well older ones anyway) can tell you where they were when JFK was shot, Elvis died, 9/11 etc. And they can recall the details of what they were doing at the time in sharp relief. Whilst this may not have been world headline stuff, (although it bloody well could have been) the shear idiocy of the event has left an indelible impression!

I was so p!ssed off at the time that I submitted a CAIR report and receievd an aknowledgement from BASI. Maybe its still in the ether somewhere?

I'd be surprised if someone else didn't remember it also.

[Blockla]

The facts as I know them:

Emirates were given a landing time of 2309 shortly after take off from Melbourne; they were given track shortening and high speed and still didn't make it. They went around at 2303 still on final.

I agree that the noise curfew is a joke; if in complying with the curfew you make more noise.

I believe that there can be departures after 2300, but no arrivals; similarly at the other end of the curfew there can be arrivals between 0500-0600 but no departures. These movement are 'regulated' in the curfew agreements. I believe as long as a departure is 'pushed' by 2245 then they can depart.

I believe in the ever 'green' world we need to look seriously of the impact of the curfew. I know the noise loby won't like it; but I think there needs to be a common sense appraoch to it.

Say if 10 (or pick a number) landing slots are lost in an any hour between 2000-2300 then 2 slots for each hour can be allocated for arrivals between 2300-0000.

So if 30 slots are lost; then at least 6 slots are available between 2300-0000.

Hard to complain about the noise of 6 after 2300, if 30 have missed out before that.

As for the SY West option; well bring that on; but I suspect that the politics/money of that far outway the need. Personally I'd prefer to see RWY 07R built in the bay.

As far a concorde (story) is concerned; the agreement with BA/AFR was that concorode could only land 34 depart 16 AFAIK; ie over the water.

[Keg]

I believe that there can be departures after 2300, but no arrivals...

Only if you've requested taxi clearance before 2300 and can take off on 16R.

[OhForSure]

Genex:

The problem would only be exasperated by building another (or replacement) airport out west. At the end of the day you are only moving the noise from one place to another. You may well have a better chance relaxing the KSA curfue or adding additional runways than you would building an entirely new airport in the very area of Sydney that is growing the fastest... I would assume there would be considerable opposition to any such plans. Sydney can only grow in so many directions, and westward seems to be the most popular / convienent. At least with KSA you can have aircraft arriving or departing over water most of the time. This cannot be said for Badgery's et al. When the airport is operating, you will be annoying someone! And as if the folks out west wouldn't similarly expect a curfue... "The guys under KSA got one, so why can't we have the same curfue enforced out here???"


Furthermore, major capital city airports (such as SYD) become akin to small cities in their own right. Engineering facilities (less so now :suspect:), car rental lots, air cargo facilities, catering, hotels, admin / HQ, ATC, training facilities, fuel farms the list goes on and on and on... Point being, we're not not just talking about whacking a couple of runways out in the middle of nowhere here... and we're certainly not talking about building a HKG or ICN on reclaimed land where there aren't any noise issues. We're actually talking about building a large city with all the associated NOISE, traffic, congestion and other such issues, out in the western suburbs.

Then as mentioned you've got the issue of finances... the immense cost of building infrastructure not just at the airport itself, but to the airport (read freeways, railways etc).

Perhaps people need to accept that airports are no different than railways, freeways and other means of transportation and infrastructure? Everybody whinges about the roads being crap, and how long it takes to get anywhere by road, but then whinge about living near a major freeway or intersection! Similarly, some whingers living next to the railway lines catch the train to work everyday! These things are a part of city life. Thankfully for those living under flightpaths, modern aircraft are getting considerably quieter.

And this is coming from someone who lives directly under the approach path for 16R!

Just my very humble opinion though.

Blockla:

I'm pretty certain I remember seeing a Concorde land on 16(R? even) as a kid?

[Qantas 787]

Good to see this topic is raised again - the curfew is a joke and it is thanks to residents who moved into housing AFTER the airport was built. If any of them have been there before the airport was, they have a valid reason to complain.

But then again, the JQ passengers probably would have complainined about landing after midnight :rolleyes:

[Fris B. Fairing]

KRUSTY

On 19 Sep 1996, Concorde G-BOAF was to operate Sydney to Guam but because of adverse conditions in Sydney it had to make a tech call at Brisbane (BNE's one and only Concorde visit as it turned out). I have a vague recollection that the "adverse conditions" involved a requirement to use RW 16. In this particular instance, the crew must have had prior notice as it obviously limited the fuel uplift ex SYD. Does this have any relevance to your recollections?

Rgds

[Cap'n Arrr]

Some quotes from my local paper in an old post I made. Just so you're aware of the average level of understanding of noise lobbyists.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=3642780#post3642780

[stiffwing]

Blockla, I must agree with ohforsure. I remember seeing the concorde arr in Syd (as a kid). It overflew 07, did a left hand turn and landed on 16.
All should remember that sydney is annotated as an H24 airport in all publications. It simply has a curfew, in the same way that adelaide has a curfew.
I recall a middle eastern carrier departing long-haul after 11pm recently and copping the fine (around $40000, I believe). Probably a better option than overnighting crew and pax and not getting the a/c back into its network on time. Much more than the fine, I reckon.

[KRUSTY 34]

May have been a year or so after that Fris. The aircraft in question actually started to taxi for a 34L takeoff when the conversation between the Captain and ground occured. At the behest of an ATC supervisor perhaps? I don't know, but he was initially cleared to A6. Obviously the only sane course of action.

But as we were soon to find out, sanity was a little thin on the ground on that day!

Anyone at Syd ATC on that day care to comment?

[SM4 Pirate]

Krusty,

I was there that day; hiding trying not to laugh... Was a young pup then.

We did at that time have a 16/34 only policy in place for Concorde. It came in with the pre-LTOP plan I believe (maybe 1992), or maybe it was LTOP mark 1 (but vague on that); it was during the construction/planning phase of the 3rd runway, anyway.

The event was late 1994 (25 year celebration or something like that) from my recollection. The senior tower and the STAC, had agreed that it was only logical to use 34L for departure given the wind/conditions prevailing forecast. I'm not sure it was 30 knots though, think it was more like 10-15 G20Kts.

I believe on hearing the taxi instructions the boss who was watching with some big wigs came storming into the room; no farken way is he going off 34. Frantic phone calls followed and advice to the skipper given.

We all cringed and winced at the stupidity of the decision and thought they wouldn't go. We were shocked to see him taxi back up crossing at Foxtrot. I guess it had a belly full of millionaires/big wigs on a charter that couldn't be delayed. I recall it going to Singapore (maybe Bangkok), although I'm a bit vague about that.

The captain took the advice, but didn't like it and a letter of complaint did follow. It was proudly leaked and pinned to the notice board right next to the ACC door. It was there for months.

The decision was "defended" by management with the 'pre-existing agreement' with the companies in compliance with the noise abatement procedure. I guess from their point of view the grief and please explains would have been worse than a wreck at the end of 16; I'm actually thinking not, but also the skipper didn't need to say yes.

[Wiley]

What might get a result would be if some journo with a brain in his head, (reading this Geoffrey Thomas?), could be convinced to do an in depth analysis of what the curfew costs, both to the avaition industry and to Joe Public.

I know most international airlines that serve Sydney have to factor very user unfriendly restrictions into their schedules, while, as had been mentioned already, the Sydney curfew virtually strangles any meaningful use of multi million dollar domestic jet, turbo jet and even light twin aircraft in much of the rest of Australia.

If this equipment could be utilised overnight, everything would be (I suspect far) more efficient, and those efficiencies would spill down to Joe Public in cheaper fares and more frequent flights.

It's been said before - a modern jet, from a Jungle Jet to an A380, is expodentially quieter than the eardrum busters of the 1960s that caused many of these noise restrictions to be implemented. Particularly if 16 was used for departures when weather conditions allowed it and 34 was used for landings (with the same proviso), the number of people affected would be minimal to none.

And on the nights when weather conditions don't allow it? Safety should override political correctness. Such nights would be infrequent, and if departures were always from full length 34 and given that there'd be a headwind (or why else would you have to use 34?), with normal noise abatement techniques of a 3000' acceleration height, (or make it 5000' as far as I'm concerned), most jets would still be within the airfield boundary when they reached their acceleration height.

This is something Kev could show real leadership in by saying the economy of the country overrides the desires of a noisy :) minority, 99.9% of whom bought their houses cheaply because they were on the approach to KSA's runways.

Simply put: it should go.

[Kwaj mate]

I have seen the (then) Director Flight Ops depart ex MAJ with 30kts of tail-wind. No reason, just a bit quicker. Understand the boss had a visit from the FAA who were in town at the time & had a 'please explain' with their head of ops. But then the DFO had other issues as well.

[Capt Wally]

Recently say about 2 weeks ago I had the pleasure of handling another craft that delt with knots for it's fwd speed, a sailing boat!:) Haven't sailed in years, loved it. Anyway the owner took us (group of 5) out onto Botony bay where we ended up just drifting right off the retaining wall of the 16L rwy @ SYD. We where there in actual fact due to poor Wx closer to the heads but was also waiting for the A380 to depart. I wasn't aware that is was even in SYD. We watched & listened to several planes from Saab's to A340's & B777's T/Off directly overhead us or very close to it & I was amazed at how little noise they made & that was with no noise protection at all (obviously) such as house walls/roofs. It seemed like the wind noise was the most noticeable but we where close. Seeing as todays planes are so quiet compared to days gone by am surprised what all the fuss is over for the residents that seem to have such a major influence on the gateway to OZ.
Also I know they have to draw a line in the sand as to the cuttoff point for departures somewhere but you can land & even go-round at 1 minute before 11pm yet one minute after your cooked, still sleeping people at 1 minute before are the same people 1 minute after ! Like an inst appr sector entry there ought to be a 'zone' of flexability time wise for such occasions as Wx related delays.
How about this hypothetical situation. Co. employes a female to travel on every flight that looks like coming close to ldg after the curfew timepurely for the purpose of legally declaring a flight as Med one, How come?.........well she could have a pillow placed in a strategic location (up her dress) to appear to be heavily preggo, she complains that the baby is on the way, the Capt is advised & the curfew no longer applies !!!!.......almost to stupid to fathom right???............yeah well so is the curfew in the first place !!!:ugh:


CW:)

[nomorecatering]

In this case, with severe storms affecting operations, why didnt SACL/Airlies apply to Canberra for a curfew dispensation. Its happened a few times, I have personally loaded heavies that have departed as late as 1:30am.

[kookabat]

The current curfew arrangements are unlikely to be changed under the current government simply because the Transport Minister 'owns' the electorate immediately under the 16 approaches.

[LewC]

#34 Kookabat.Not only does Little Albo "own" the Federal Seat,Mrs.Albo (aka Carmel Tebbutt) "owns" the State Seat which covers the same area.Even extending the curfew would be political suicide for the two of them,removing it altogether would also cause problems for Labor Members who hold nearly all the Seats which surround KSA.With the temporary closure of 07/25 imminent the Local Government Elections to be held in September will focus heavily on aircraft noise.Look forward to all kinds of pie in the sky promises from Little Albo as he tries to help his Labor mates defend their territory from the Greens.Yet another investigation into suitable sites for a second (or even replacement) airport is a certainty.

[Jet_A_Knight]

In extraneous circumstances, like closure due weather delays, it would be sensible to delay the implementation of curfew procedures by that amount.

Eg...Airport effectively 'knobbled' by thunderstorms for 1hr45, curfew that evening commences at 0045. Not that complex.

I live very close to short finals of 16R, 400m from the extended centreline. A few years ago, the "Airport Noise Project' soundproffed my house with double glazed windows, soundproof doors, installed airconditioning....all courtesy of the 'noise levy' on tickets.

In all honesty, 90% of the time, I have no idea whether the planes are arriving or departing, or what runways are operating - and I generally have to listen out for that.

Shiiiit, you don't want aeroplane noise? Don't buy a house under the flight path.

Simple, really.

[grouter]

Don't want to rain on your parade, but you will never win the argument about noise by saying that the airport was there first. There is a lot of legal history on this sort of subject and just because you always made noise before I came along does not wash. Never will, as it has been ruled on by the highest court in England, which we in Australia follow.

[Capt Wally]

.........'grouter' all the more reason to become independant from the mother country. I don't believe they send thieves over our way anymore for stealing loves of bread................so lets scrap the curfew & bake our own bread !!:ugh:

CW

[Duff Man]

Grouter is correct - but also because millions of Sydney residents never before exposed to frequent aircraft noise became so following the opening of 34R/16L... in the 90s.

Don't ever use the "airport here first" argument in Sydney.

And regarding the 11pm cutoff - yes, you need a time. But the time should apply to approach descent below 3000, say, established 9NM final by 10:58 otherwise no approach available. That way you don't end up with the ridiculous situation of heavies going around from short final max thrust.

Interesting discussion about displaced threshold 16R and revised aircraft noise classifications.

[Duff Man]

also...

weather dispensations could be formalised, eg:

* Any TS delays (measured by ramp closure time due lightning) after 5pm get added to effective curfew commencement

* Any single-rwy ops (non-LTOP, measured by SY ATC) after 5pm get added to effective curfew commencement.

I know the noise lobby is "difficult" but these practical suggestions would be fair and measurable.

[Biggles_in_Oz]

Me... I'm p****off because the previous administration decided to 'share the noise', and one consequence of that is that around 22:30 AEST I'm under a stream of aircraft from 34L trying to beat the curfew and heading westwards (mostly)
although the Mark-I eyball has seen A/C go west then turn northerly)

I have zero sympathy for people who in the past 15 years of so have bought residences in and around YSSR and in particular under the main flightpaths, but I'm annoyed that flight paths can be changed on a political whim and no compensation/noise-proofing is given to those just outside an arbitrary zone.

(Is the sydney noise-levy still being collected ?)

[Bobster]

Capt Wally,

Good point about how quieter A/c engines are nowerdays. had a pleasure of watching a few departures from down near the old tower and not too surprised to hear a departing 747 drowned out by an old delivery truck.

I wonder if our anti-noise residents also own a trail bike or 2. Or is that somehow different?:rolleyes:

[mirage3]

It is about time that the Sydney LTOP was revised, hopefully to the point of disbandment. It must be costing the industry a fortune and must be placing considerable unnecessary stresses on airline pilots, engineers, cabin crew, passengers, refuellers, ATCs and the other myriad of professionals involved with the movement of an aircraft. Perhaps the new government might show some common sense and sensible courage and tell the absolute minority of citizens who complain about aircraft noise to shove it. In a city of over 3 million, who really cares what 100,000 whingers think?:ugh:

[Capt Wally]

..........couldn't agree with you more there 'mirage3' but remember 'the squeeky door gets all the attention' !!!.............just getting that 'squeek' to stop without having to resort to shear madness that we have now is the issue
Also good point as to how many whinging residents own noisy trail bikes & disturb many others ??? I know I live on 15 acres & would love to let down all the tyres of the arrogant trail bike riders screaming past my front gate almost everyday, no matter what time!...common denominator here....... he who has the biggest voice/influence over the weakest pollies!(which is all of 'em anyway!)

CW

[SM4 Pirate]

So what does Greenpeace and the like say about all the wasted fuel and resulting CO2 into the atmosphere; surely they have a little experience of lobbying and getting issues into the mainstream. I'm sure they have an interest in such things. Whilst they are probably anti aircraft full stop; making sure those that do fly do so efficiently should be a priority.

[cardomumT]

In the EK case of the 31st dispensation was asked for (of the DOTARS boys in CBR) and it was refused. They would not consider a dispensation request until the aircraft had left MEL, so you have to depart not knowing if you can get one, they also would not then consider dispensation as the ETA was 2259. A couple of QF tails made it in before EK and it was vectored and lost 2 minutes, request to CBR then made and then rejected. They have had their hands severly tied by a few bonehead pollies and have no flex in their decision making at all - this is no way to run THE major Australian gateway. Neither would these guys consider a dispensation for the departure to DXB until the aircraft was on the way even though they knew at about 2030 what the situation was likely to be but were happy to sting the airline along with a few "maybe's". Apparently weather is not considered to be outside the airlines control as it can make suitible arrangements?!?!?!. All this did was inconvenience 500 pax and cost the airline a motsa. Crazy behaviour!

[Jenna Talia]

Perhaps the new government might show some common sense and sensible courage and tell the absolute minority of citizens who complain about aircraft noise to shove it. In a city of over 3 million, who really cares what 100,000 whingers think?

Fat chance of that happening with the current Transport Minister (Albanese) having his electorate under the flight path.

[airtags]

oh so right Jenna

the only time a revision might get a run is if there is a late night sitting and some pollie doesn't make his CBR connex flt and therefore numbers don't stack when the division bells stop ringing in the house.

Given however the State/Fed ALP alliance and the good Minister's parochial (and other) ties to the electorate around SYD, I would imagine CNS would freeze over first before the pollies would even think about making a move on the curfew.

An alternative remedy may of course arise if a QF with the Minister for Struggle Street (SYD audiences will know who) aboard is denied a dispensation and said jock misses the landing that night and consequently the 'other' air slot the next morning..........and Laws returns to do a casual shift filling in for him ............in which case SYD would be declared a 24/7 operation and Mac AP shares would treble overnight (pardon the pun)

...and I thought flying was above politics......!!!!!!