Radio news this morning - Richmond to become 2nd Sydney Airport, Hercs to Nowra.

[Fubaar]

An old chestnut, I know, but it's been raised yet again, probably by someone in Canberra who's never taken a look on Google earth and noted two small impediments to progress to this proposal - the not small townships of Windsor and Richmond quite literally on each threshold of the existing R/W 10/28.

I haven't looked on Google earh myself for some time, but with all the development that's taken place out that way over the last few decades, is there space for a pair of north/south parallel runways of the required length, and won't any second airport at Richmond be dealing with noise abatement issues every bit as serious as KSA before it even gets started, to say nothing of the high ground not so far to the north that would possibly make northerly departures a problem?

[Trojan1981]

Hercs to Nowra has been in the pipeline for a while. As for Richmond as Sydney second airport-bollocks. Like you said, civilization has crept far to close to allow it.

[Ivasrus]

Why would the RAAF have to move? It could easily operate as a joint user airfield. Some curtailment of low-level drop training perhaps. Google maps view (http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=raaf+richmond&sll=-25.335448,135.745076&sspn=59.339154,79.101563&ie=UTF8&ll=-33.601377,150.781801&spn=0.110808,0.154495&t=h&z=13) shows plenty of space for a north-south rwy without much property acquisition.

[Bullethead]

Yeah you could have a north /south runway about 3000ft long, to the north is a significant drop off and to the south is a main road and a railway and certainly not enough room for a parallel runway complex.

As Fubaar says no room to extend the existing runway and as Trojan1981 says "-bollocks."

Regards,
BH.

(Ex C130H and B707 driver, so I know the neighborhood.)

[Ivasrus]

BH, it would have to be 3000m not feet, and extend over Richmond Rd all the way to Blacktown Rd.

'look outside the base' !

[Bullethead]

I know what it would have to be but like I said, 3000ft is about all you could fit with out digging up the road and the railway line and resuming a lot of the Ag College land, unlikely. I am very familiar with what is "outside the base", I drive between Richmond and Windsor at least once a week.

Regards,
BH.

[Blip]

Hey Bullethead.

How many days per year do you reckon Richmond is affected by FG, TS, and excessive XW?

I wonder how this compares with SYD.

I ask with some facts in mind. Sydney has runways running north/south AND east/west. Many thunderstorms in summer seem to originate around the Blue Mountains and them move towards the coast. Richmond gets much colder in the morning during winter compared to the coastal regions and there's lots of moisture available from the Hawkesbury River.

Thanks.

[Wiley]

In my days there, Richmond was fog central, and I don't believe anything will have changed in the meantime.

(I think back in the 1920s, some very sharp real estate company sold off the most fog-prone strip of land near every major city to the Commonwealth on which to plonk the local RAAF base.)

On more than one occasion, in my experience, Richmond and the area immediately around it can be the only area affected by fog, with all the surrounding country clear as a bell, so I foresee some major problems with that.

To say nothing of Richmond township and Windsor, moving the railway (an absolute [and very expensive!] necessity if they put in a North/South runway [and hopefully runwayS]).

Then there's the ag. college. I imagine there's many a regional town in NSW that would love to have it, but I'd be guessing many of the students do some part of their coursework at other campuses in and around Sydney - and who'd pay for the move anyway?

If North/South runways do go in, it will involve huge expenditure in reclaiming land (if that's the right word), because if my memory serves me right, the terrain drops off quite a bit to the immediate north of the base (before getting quite high a couple of miles further north, which will make northerly departures interesting for a 747 or a 380 gassed up to the gunnels and bound for LAX).

So unless they're going to build a half-arsed second airport (which is quite on the cards), I'd expect they'd have to build up the land A LOT to get even a 3600m runway, let alone two widely spaced runways, which should be included in any such plan. (I'd expect most long haul operators would be wanting at least the departure runway to be 4000m.)

If the new runways are to be built, the whole existing base would have to go.

Then there's the elephant in the room that no one wants to acknowledge - aircraft noise. I'd be guessing the Richmond area nimby anti-aircraft noise / pro-curfew protestors are spraypainting their placards as we speak.

If Richmond had been declared the second airport forty years ago, it might have been do-able, but now, there are MacMansions houses damn near everywhere (and quite close) under where any flight paths will simply have to be.

Can of worms... and very foggy worms at that.

[Bullethead]

I don't have any statistics but my gut feeling, having operated out of both YSRI and YSSY for many years, is that Richmond has more foggy days per year.

In the eight years that I was based at YSRI I can't recall and out of limits crosswind and yes we do get some ripper thunderstorms out this way which tend to follow the river which sort of surrounds the base on the northern side.

As Wiley says it would be horrendously expensive to make a full sized airport here apart from objections from the anti-noise brigade which would more than likely stymy any such development.

Regards,
BH.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Interesting argument...

Leaving the fog and noise issues aside for one moment, there is space to put in a roughly north-south runway without unduly affecting existing infrastructure.

I've mocked up this very rough Google Earth image of where a single north-south runway could run, while the thinner red line would mark a probable airfield perimeter.

http://i346.photobucket.com/albums/p402/Magoodotcom/Richmondmockup.jpg

To the north of and perpendicular to the current runway, there is approximately 1500 metres to the northern base perimeter and Dight St, and then a drop in elevation of about 40 feet down to the flood plain. There are no significant engineering issues in building up about 1000m x 500m of the flood plain by 30-40 feet. Further north, the highest ground within 10km in line with the new runway is less than 600 feet, and less than 300 feet within 8km.

Directly to the south are of course the Richmond-Windsor Rd, the single rail line, the western edges of the Clarendon racecourse, and the eastern paddocks of the ag college. If a north-south runway were to be run, say 2000 metres south of the current runway, the rail line and Richmond-Windsor Rd would either need to be re-aligned or put underground for several hundred metres, and the racecourse likely closed or at least the stables and other infrastructure relocated to the eastern or southern side of the racecourse. Again, no biggies!

In support of commercial ops, the rail line would require duplication as well as a new (likely underground) spur line to any terminal precinct; Blacktown Rd would require duplication down to the M7 and an access road/s into the terminal, freight, POL and other related infrastructure areas; and of course, space would need to be found for ramp parking, terminals, freight handling, Biz jet/GA and other facilities.

Perhaps a solution is to restrict the airport to regional, freight and charter flights at YSRI, thus freeing slots at YSSY for heavier a/c ops.

Or, they could just remove the ridiculous 80 movements per hour cap at YSSY! :ooh:

[woodja51]

Dude!! impressed with that proposal - you did spend a lot of time thinking about it - I vote for you as town planner of the year ! FOX 5! woodja:ok:

[Ivasrus]

The infrastructure and geotechnical problems with Richmond's expansion are minor especially when compared to anything outside the Sydney basin. FA18's thoughts are pretty much aligned with mine although I'd say the rail line wouldn't "spur" to the terminals but run through them much like the airport rail link does for Sydney. Parallel runways only needed if the airport is a long-term replacement for Sydney.

Noise will be a concern anywhere. Newer technologies can assist in the political sell-job (winding RNP approach and departure paths over less populated land or opposition electorates).

Fog is a major problem. Richmond has something like 100 days per year fog affected. Sydney has less than 5. Richmond will need Category III C equipment to be viable.

Storms are also a major problem but comparable to Sydney and Brisbane.

[Aussie]

CAT 3 will be Req? No airfield in Aus has made CAT 2 yet, i dont think youll see CAT 3 at YSRI! Nice thought though!

[Lodown]

You can do whatever you want with Richmond if you've got enough money. Question is whether it would be a viable investment.

Ivasrus commented: Parallel runways only needed if the airport is a long-term replacement for Sydney.

So, are you just thinking a short-term replacement, a reliever, or what?

I would suggest any new airport in the Sydney basin will have to be considered a long-term replacement. You only get one shot and then the entire basin will be built out. Frankly, I believe the politicians have already squandered that opportunity, but never underestimate the determination of a parochial Sydney pollie and a swath of influential investors goaded by an expanding Brisbane airport just across the northern border and a bustling Melbourne to the south. What's the difference in gauge on the railway lines? 3ft 6 compared to 4ft 8 and 5ft 2? Sydney blew the last opportunity years ago at Badgerys Creek through politics and warring factions. Richmond will be no different.

And I like FoxtrotAlpha's comment:Again, no biggies!


Take the prize for understatement of the year.

[Trojan1981]

Richmond is affected by FG, TS, and excessive XW?


Remember the freak storm that did this...

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh68/trojan1981/JM_2A97_209c.jpg

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh68/trojan1981/JM_2A97_209d.jpg

[plainmaker]

FA-18

Love the proposal and well ennunciated reasons. :ok:

It ticks most of the boxes interms of access - rail, tollways (Huntingwood industrial area) so as a freight facility would on paper be a good proposition. One further 'plus' - it would annoy the hell out of those pestilential inhabitants (and non-labor voters) of the "Hills" district on extended approaches from the east.

One critical flaw that I can see is the approach from the south. Tracking from that direction puts it directly over Penrith - heartland (now) Labor territory. Looking at say a Warragamba 'join' you have Glenmore Park right through to Cranebrook under the flightpath. If you join further 'east' then you start to rope in Mt Druitt - even Blacktown - real Labor territory. :=

Expect an even more vocal response that that created when Badgerys was proposed.

We have seen how 'soft' Albanese is when faced with balancing commercial benefit against local vested interest. :ugh:

PM

[Ivasrus]

plainmaker, curved approaches (RNP, GLS, etc) can be used to lessen or avoid the "noise" problems created with a 10 NM straight-in ILS. Parallel runways will exponentially worsen the noise problems because they will be fixed straight-in approaches.

Aussie, not that it matters (thread drift)... but I believe MEL is getting CAT III and SYD is installing what looks highly suspiciously like CAT II lighting. All I was saying is that without CAT III (C-probably) then Richmond just isn't feasible.

Lodown, If it will be a second airport, then a 28/10+18/36(ish) arrangement would be enough, and allow capacity similar to MEL. If RIC will be a replacement airport for SYD then it will need two long wide-spaced parallels with all the high speeds you can fit and a centrally positioned terminal complex. As far as the money goes, in all cases Richmond will be an order of magnitude cheaper than anything outside the Sydney basin.

But all this aside, has Labor ruled out all sites within the Sydney basin or not?

[Freewheel]

Here's a thought -


The Richmond proposal is worked through to a point where tenders can be called for (accompanied by noise from the, er, anti-noise groups), then suddenly the proposal is switched to Nowra or Newcastle, for which an integrated proposal has been developed in parallel. Everybody rejoices (more than were complaining anyway) and away it goes.

There have been vigorous calls to improve infrastructure to both North and South coasts for many years, installing an airport would justify the infrastructure improvements having Fed input to what is currently the responsibility of a flat broke state.


Jeez we'll all be right when my plans for world domination come through - HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Love the proposal and well ennunciated reasons.
Dude!! impressed with that proposal - you did spend a lot of time thinking about it...
Thanks guys

I just want to go on record as saying I neither favour nor dis-favour (?) the YSRI solution - I just started mucking around on Google Earth and next thing you know, I was playing town planner!

Obviously there would be noise issues in the Penrith/St Marys region, and engineering issues in building appropriate infrastructure PLUS the necessary easements for future infrastructure expansions!

Personally, I would advocate getting more...MUCH MORE out of YSSY first. Smarter scheduling, even smarter use of YSBK for regional turboprop ops, a relaxation of the 80 movements cap etc should all be explored first.

Lets keep it constructive and lateral! :ok:

Cheers

[Jabawocky]

Expand YSSY ditch the curfew and tell the few whinning residents to stop ya whinging. :ugh:

Do they want to go back to the days od DC-9's B727 and 707's?:eek:

Would be cheaper to buy out the half dozen homes at Kurnell and move them elsewhere.

J

[Wiley]

I know the extended taxiing at YSSY is already a pain in the proverbial, and I know the suggestion to follow would never get past the political minefield it would create, but I believe the best option by far for Sydney would be to 'go Japanese' and build a properly spaced parallel runway with a new terminal out in the middle of Botany Bay.

And drop the curfew. Itsn't it about time the rest of Australia had a say over the effect the demands of a few, the vast majority of whom got their homes cheaply because their homes were under flight paths?

As has been pointed out many times here, the noise footprint of modern jets following a noise abatement departure or in a contant descent is a small fraction of the footprint of the 707/DC8/727/DC9s that caused the curfew to be put in place, and when weather permitted, approaches between 2300 and 0600 could always be made onto the 34s and departures from the 16s to minimise the air traffic noise even further.

As a first important step, immediately drop the ridiculous policy of not allowing aircraft delayed by weather to land after 2300. I'm sure there'd be 350 votes in favour of that immediately to hand - from the pax who recently spent 8 hours on the ground in Canberra trapped inside their QF 747 with even the toilet paper being rationed after it diverted due to the bad storms that hit Sydney in November.

The inability of RPT aircraft being able to land in Sydney between 2300 and 0600 causes enormous problems - and costs - for the whole network of Australian aviation, to say nothing of overseas operators. At a time when airlines are taking what only a few years ago whold have been considered unthinkable steps to minimise costs, this one step would represent a huge savings for the airlines and an equally huge fillup for the Australian economy.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

And drop the curfew...

But it's not the curfew that's causing the bottlenecks at YSSY - it's the prolonged taxis, the lack of ATC staff due to 'sickness', and the 80 movements/hour cap during peak hours. The curfew is only an issue before 0600 or after 2300. Whilst a few more international airlines would no doubt like to get in before 0600 during the winter, it's still not that bust between 0600 and 0700, although the Int'l terminal gates do seem to fill up rather quickly between 0600 and 0800! :ooh:

But surely if my local council is allowed to mow the grass in the park opposite my house from 0700 every day, no matter how late a shift I've worked the night before, the airport can exceed 80 movements/hour betwwn 0730 and 0930, and again between 1500 and 1900 each day!?!?!? :ugh:

As a first important step, immediately drop the ridiculous policy of not allowing aircraft delayed by weather to land after 2300...
Agreed, although again, this isn't affecting the overall capacity of the airport, as this only happens at the start and end of the day where overall traffic volume is generally low.

[NOtimTAMs]

If this goes ahead then how the f#ck is one going to be able to get into Bankstown IFR from the north??

[Blip]

And drop the curfew. Itsn't it about time the rest of Australia had a say over the effect the demands of a few, the vast majority of whom got their homes cheaply because their homes were under flight paths?


Hmmmm. It seems you haven't really thought this through. Some points if I may.

First of all you claim "the vast majority" would have got their homes cheap. I just had a look at some of the houses that have sold in Marrickville under the flight path at domain.com.au. They range in price from about 9 times the average weekly earning to 12 times. Doesn't sound very cheap to me! And what about the minority that didn't get their houses cheaply? Why should they have to pay the price now in terms of noise?

As has been pointed out many times here, the noise footprint of modern jets following a noise abatement departure or in a contant descent is a small fraction of the footprint of the 707/DC8/727/DC9s that caused the curfew to be put in place

Are you serious? What is a small fraction anyway? Less than 50%? Are you trying to tell everyone here that a B747-400 with four screaming RB211's/CF6's equates to less than 50% of four screaming JT8D's?? get real!

In any case it's not the percentage comparison with the first generation of jets that matters. It's the actual amount of noise that matters. If it's loud enough to keep people awake at night, it's too loud. Simple.

How far away from an airport does a fully laden B747-400 affect people with it's noise? I reckon those LA bound flights departing off RWY 34L must affect people well to the north of the harbour. How many hundreds of thousands of people would that be?

And my final point. People like yourself argue that the curfew is costing money and causing inconvenience to many many people and airlines' ability to make a buck. Wow the costs must be in the $millions. OK so lets imagine that there is no curfew and that planes are flying in and out 24/7/365. What do you think that will start costing society?

Firstly lets agree that noise at night prevents people from sleeping. Yes? OK.
So now lets ask the questions. What is sleep? What is it's function? What happens to people who are deprived of sleep?

Sleep - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep) (There are plenty of other references out there on the internet).

How many extra sick days are going to be taken because of either work accidents, sickness, or mental illness because of chronic sleep deprivation /disruption? How many people are going to be killed or injured due in car accidents because the driver was suffering fatigue? How many children are going to do poorly at school because they can not concentrate in class?
How many family relationships are going to break down because the husband or wife has finally had a nervous breakdown...

Here's a list you might like to read on the effects of sleep deprivation:

Sleep deprivation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_deprivation#Torture)

Generally, lack of sleep may result in[1][2]
aching muscles[3]
blurred vision[citation needed]
clinical depression[citation needed]
constipation
dark circles under the eyes[citation needed]
daytime drowsiness and naps, excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS)[citation needed]
decreased mental activity and concentration
delirium[citation needed]
depersonalization/derealization[citation needed]
dizziness[citation needed]
fainting[citation needed]
hand tremors[4]
headache[citation needed]
hyperactivity[citation needed]
hypertension[citation needed]
irritability[1]
loss of appetite
memory lapses or loss[5]
nausea[citation needed]
nystagmus (rapid involuntary rhythmic eye movement)[citation needed]
pallor[citation needed]
psychosis-like symptoms[citation needed]
severe yawning[1]
sleep paralysis (while awake)
slowed reaction time[citation needed]
slowed wound healing[citation needed]
slurred and/or nonsensical speech[citation needed]
synaesthesia
temper tantrums in children[1]
weakened immune system[citation needed]
weight loss or weight gain[citation needed]
symptoms similar to:
Attention-deficit Hyperactivity Disorder[1]
alcoholic intoxication[citation needed]

Diabetes
A 1996 study by the University of Chicago Medical Center showed that sleep deprivation severely affects the human body's ability to metabolize glucose, which can lead to early-stage Diabetes Type 2.[6]



And it's even considered torture:
In rats, prolonged, complete sleep deprivation increases both food intake and energy expenditure, leading to weight loss and, ultimately, death.[30] Nicole Bieske, a spokeswoman for Amnesty International Australia, has stated, "At the very least, sleep deprivation is cruel, inhumane and degrading. If used for prolonged periods of time it is torture."[28]

About the only thing I can agree with you is that it is unreasonable to prevent arrivals that have been affected by delays due to the weather. On that I can agree. But I do believe the curfew is important for the well being of many many people and must remain in place.

[airtags]

Having lived near Richmond for many years unless it's Cat 3 it is a very limited operational proposition. It is also a very limited political proposition as it effectively reels in 3 Fed seats and cascades through numerous State and Local tiers.

Cannot for a moment imagine an embattled government actually doing the dirty on the existing PPP infrastructure some of which they (quite stupidly) carry equity, risk indemnity and proxy underwriting.

Also for those entertained by the anomolies of planning and the very related appellant circus of the L&E juristiction, YSRI sits well below the 1:100 flood line - (have some great aerial pix somewhere will post if I can find them)

In short it might be better just to get the pollies out of the Mascot madness game and get a sensible, reasonable rationale to practical capacity - especially when WX is unfavorable.

Also let us not forget it is the pollie silly season - well done though to ABC & GB for a great wind up. Be safe in the knowledge that Joe Hockey will be keeping his pants on :E

[DanArcher]

Firstly lets agree that noise at night prevents people from sleeping. Yes? OK.

Well Blip as you like your research, of the households / people most affected by aircraft noise perhaps you can find out what % of those people have chosen to live there knowing the house is directly under a flight path? I imagine it would be a fairly safe bet that large majority have moved in / built after flight paths were established.

Would you buy a house close to the threshold of rwy 16? or a train line, freeway for that matter if you were concerned about the noise????

Or would you be one of those buy now & complain later types?

[Wiley]

Blip, since you've proven that you're adept at researching on Wiki, take a look at the noise levels of a modern high bypass engine (as fitted to all modern widebody/narrowbody airliners) versus a first generation jet, and you'll find they are indeed a fraction of the former. Note also that these values aren't linear, ie, a 5db drop from 100db to 95db represents a significant drop in noise and not a 5% drop, as many seem to believe.

If you'd read earlier posts from me and others before accusing us (me!) of not giving the matter of dropping the curfew much thought before posting, you'd find that we (I!) mentioned that for such 'back of the clock' ops, takeoffs should be restricted - unless weather conditions made it unsafe - to departures from 16 and arrivals on 34. (Do-able, as I don't believe there'd ever be a contant stream of traffic as we get during the day in Sydney.) This would almost totally avoid overflight of populated areas for aircraft below 3000 or even 5000'.

On the few occasions when winds made arrivals on 16 a necessity, it would be possible to reduce the noise footprint of arriving aircraft on the populated areas immediately to the north of the airport below even more by employing a significantly displaced threshold for night time ops on 16R, (which is a very long runway and well in excess of what most if not all aircraft require for a safe landing in normal operations).

Aircraft allowed to use Sydney after 2300 would be limited to low noise compliant types (as is already the case in many other major airports). Noise abatement procedures (as are aleady employed) would be required to be followed, and flight paths, (as has alrwady been suggested by others), where possible, would avoid populated areas.

Richmond, on the other hand, (as has also been noted by others), would present many problems, problems that would require so many compromises and agreement from so many different agencies that it already has all the hallmarks of the proverbial "horse designed by a committee".

If it goes ahead, I predict an civil aviation version of the recent Seasprite debacle.

- huge expenditures, far in excess of initial estimates,

- very long delays overcoming (or more likely not overcoming) the many objections and appeals from the many different groups who feel they will be affected,

- the inevitable cost-cutting (leading to major reductions in what the new airport can deliver) when the engineering problems many of us have foreseen already become obvious to the people who have proposed this idea,

- major problems with fog and an unwillingness/inability to build the Cat III facilities the airfield will require.

At best, after enormous outlays (outlays the hapless Australian taxpayer can ill-afford in the current economic climate) I see the new civil Richmond turning out to be a restricted use, domestic-only, perhaps turboprop and narrow body jet airfield.

...and five will get you ten that it will have the same curfew as Sydney.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Just a small point.

At the National Press Club lunch, Minister Albanese (in response to several Press Gallery questions) very emphatically rules out a "second Sydney airport" --- "in the Sydney basin".

Given the detailed site criteria presented by the Minister, we are back to the site thrown up by the Labor Government study in 1986 or so, the site that was dropped in favour of Badgery's Creek --- due internal Labor wrangling.

Who will be the first to remember the site??

Tootle pip!!

[tipsy2]

Would that be "Galston" or something like that

tipsy:yuk:furball:yuk:

[Old Fella]

As one who began my aviation career at RAAF Base Richmond in 1958 and finished the RAAF portion of it from there, after having spent the final 13 years (1968-1981) operating on all the real Hercules and the B707, I can tell you this is not just an old chestnut, but a very old chestnut. For more years than I should admit to remembering Richmond has been under some sort of imaginary threat. Back as far as the early sixties, to my knowledge, RAAF Richmond was going to be moved 'lock stock and barrel' to Narromine. The political cost, let alone the financial costs, to expand Richmond to accommodate civil international operations would be horrendous. Just forget the idea and get a good sleep without worrying about this "proposal"

[ampclamp]

Back in the 70's Somersby near Gosford was the go.
Richmond no chance imho.

As for argument of those living under the flt path curfews etc.Who would have bough thtere IF there were no curfews? How many bought on the firm commitment that the curfews would stay in place?

We are fortunate to have an airport so close to the city centre so compromises are necessary for a civilised society imho.

While the curfews do cause some problems movement restrictions , lack of 1st class ATC gear ie cat 3 capable and lack of ATC staff I believe to cause more problems.

If a new airport were to be built it prob needs to be in the north maybe Newcastle way.If they want it.
Last thing western Sydney needs is more development and a major airport.

[Bullethead]

Agree with what you say OF, I spent my last eight years in the RAAF at Richmond. 1980 -1988

Regards,
BH.

Check your PM.

[DutchRoll]

Having spent most of the years between 1988 and 2000 flying out of Richmond, I'm a little flabbergasted that yet again someone is raising this proposal. Though I'd be very tempted to say it'll go the same way as the other 500 "proposals" of developing YSRI as Sydney's 2nd airport.

Has anyone got any good flood photos from 1986, 1988, 1990 or 1992? Oh never mind. I remember being quite happy at having the days off for several of those floods because I couldn't get to the base from any direction! :eek:

Plus, yes I can confirm many a day sitting in the crewroom wondering whether the fog will life by midday and watching all the cancellations on the ops board (in fact scrubbing quite a bit of the flying program myself!).:rolleyes:

Oh well. If they decide to go ahead, good luck to them. Don't say I didn't warn you!

[Matt-YSBK]

Has Everybody forgotten this old chestnut. Add a bit of reclaimed land and a fast rail.
YPEC - AEROPELICAN

Aeropelican Map (http://vmctracker.com/vmc2.php/zoom/airport/-33.0672222/151.6427778)

[LeadSled]

Tipsy and all,

No, not Galston, not Somersby, that was in 1972, not mid-'80's.

As I said before, the No.1 site that was overturned for Badgerys Creek.

Another hint, it is not north of Sydney, and it's still there, untouched. About the only thing that has changed is that the road and rail access has improved, and it is the only area "just outside" the Sydney basin that fits the Albanese (quite logical and sensible) criteria.

Tootle pip!!

[bushy]

Seeing it is all so difficult, maybe a high speed rail system to Melbourne would give us another decade.
The french have had 200+ km/h trains for decades now and they are good. Much more room and comfort than aeroplanes.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Leadsled...Wilton?

[Lodown]

Move all international flights to Brisbane and Melbourne. Dissolve the International terminal and turn Kingsford Smith purely domestic. Not a pleasant thought for the local pollies or Sydney tourism. However, any consideration for an alternative will involve enormous expense. Brisbane and Melbourne are already well established with room to expand. Whether a new airport is considered at Orange, Newcastle, Goulburn or the back of Burke, there is little difference in commute time to Sydney between that considered airport and Brisbane or Melbourne. The market is inexorably taking it that way without any interference.

So any decision really comes down to one of state jobs, pride and political ego and how much someone is prepared to spend to maintain that NSW mix of jobs, pride and ego and whether it is worth it to meddle in the market. The easiest option at present for a NSW pollie is to talk about Sydney airport in earnest when the subject is raised, avoid getting linked to determining a solution, and leave any future decision to a future political party that will eventually have no other option by which time most of us will be sipping fruit juice through a straw and over our false teeth on the front verandah of our retirement home.

[Johhny Utah]

Leadsled - Oran Park?:confused:

[flyinggit]

Looking at F18's proposal for that nth/sth rwy which I might add was well displayed. What about the associated infrastructure to support that rwy? // taxiiways, the spacing needed for the flight strip & the taxiiway would be rather wide I would think built to international std's. The apron area also would have to be very large to handle large 4 engined airliners.
And a good point my father pointed out to me seeing as he knows a few in the oil industry the infrastructure for the storage & handling of the aviation fuel needed to service large jets needs seriuos consideration. That situation alone wouldn't be easy to set up with housing estates etc in & around within very close proximity. I know the major airports mostly have pipelines running to the fuel terminals but to get baulk fuel to Richmond via pipeline could be fun. Obviously there must be fuel storage there now but the usage with large planes would be far greater than what's in use?? I would imagine. Also tankering fuel in via the public hwy's in large quantities is looked upon by local councils as a no no safety wise. All these additional problems wouldn't obviously apply just to Richmond, any new airport has the same things to consider. So rwy placement is but one consideration.

Just my thoughts


Flyinggit

[airtags]

I think the story has well and truly crashed and burned.

I'll join Joe Hockey with my pants down if YSRI or anywhere else in the Syd basin gets up as the 2nd.

[ampclamp]

I guess you mean wilton or perhaps holsworthy.
There's been about 20 different locations mooted since WWII from goulburn in the south west to wyong and newcastle in the north.even towra point and wattamolla were proposed a long time ago.
Holsworthy wont happen imho.wilton highly unlikely.its just too hard these days and the money aint there now.

[Andu]

As I think someone's already suggested - do a Narita and build an island in the middle of Botany Bay.

Of course, that suggestion will never get past the greenies, because any such island would almost certainly threaten the migratory route of the rare as bat**** Botany Bay green-striped, one-eyed sand slug, which breeds only at Kurnell in empty wine casks that have been dumped onto the ocean floor by indigenous conservationists (quite a few of those to be found at Kurnell - the empty wine casks, I mean, not the indigenous conservationists).

[Gordstar]

Andu,,,,you get the prize mate.
Excellent comment. ;)

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

As I think someone's already suggested - do a Narita and build an island in the middle of Botany Bay.

Narita's a few km inland...assuming you mean Osaka Kansai there Andu? :8

[Andu]

I stand corrected, FoxtrotAlpha18, Kansai it is.

The sad fact is, but for the Botany Bay one eyed green striped sand slug, (or pick your favourite endangered fauna or flora), it would work, and a damn sight better than any of the other options.

[Reeltime]

Build a new airport in Botany Bay? What about KSA? Would this be an extension to it, or a completely new runway layout...you've got to be kidding. If you were going to build an island airport like Kansai or Nagoya, it would have to be off the coast somewhere....and that will never happen in Australia.

Whatever happened to Badgerys Creek? The site was selected decades ago, as the best of a bad bunch.

I just laugh when I hear about a new airport being built 'outside the Sydney Basin'...why not announce Sydney's new airport is to be located in Brisbane, and just rename the airport there...that's about as practical as locating a new airport in Goulburn or Newcastle.

[redleader78]

why not somewhere in the royal national park :O like near the corner of mainbar and bundeena rd :8 fairly flat land around there :D sure you could get a couple of 3000 meter plus runways at this location.

[Ideal Line]

Don't underestimate the power of the greenies. As soon as you go near a tree, all hell will break loose.

But I agree, the government should start looking at the national parks IMO.

[max1]

Originally the idea for an extra landing area at Sydney was to install cooling pipes off Malabar and create an ice runway. It was to be called Sydneys Turd Runway.
To be sure.

[Blip]

Andu. Actually I find your comment quite appaulling. It is both ignorant and arrogant.

It's amazing that there is a derogatory label (Greenie) for someone who wants to preserve an important natural environment but none for the perverse who want to destroy it!

[allthecoolnamesarego]

Blip,

Hear Hear!!!:ok:

[redleader78]

I am one for seeing more birds in the air :) So it seems that a national park would be ideal for the migratory birds to have a curfew free residence. Also locating within a national park would alleviate the stupid planning of allowing people to build houses that degrades the habitat of the migratory birds landing grounds that allow for such things as eco tourism. :ugh:

What are we talking about here about one thousand acres? It would be interesting to do a carbon footprint analysis of the diversions that occur because of the curfew and other inefficiencies due to the scheduling problems.

[satmstr]

I have the solution, not too far from Sydney and one runway is already there just need to expand just mind the explosives:ok: ......

Holsworthy NSW, Australia - Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=Holsworthy+NSW,+Australia&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=40.817312,93.164063&ie=UTF8&cd=2&geocode=FT31-f0dVFD_CA&ll=-33.995821,150.955067&spn=0.020921,0.04549&t=h&z=15&iwloc=addr)

[redleader78]

Ok Holsworthy might seem like a good idea and everything as it is close to infrastructure yadda yadda. However, why do we seem to insist on trying to make civilian the pieces of infrastructures that the military do require to do their jobs. (I am not in the military) The amount of shifting around that the military personel get It is important to have facilities close to population centres to give them some sense of normalcy.

Look at what has happened at tullamarine over the years increasing population encroaching on the airport and how long til they start asking for curfew themselves if not one exists already? (I am not sure) This is where if you could appease the environmentalist for some where in the royal national park. For instance. Say the land that has been bought at badgerys creek, be turned into native bushland /forest or a new national park. Cause what are we talking one thousand acres here?

I am one for protecting the environment and that it is an important pursuit it is also important to provide infrastructure to society as it does create effencies of its own. I am happy to argue with any environmentalist about the recycling of paper and how energy intensive that it is. Would be better of sowing the energy and resources into plantation timber to supply new feedstocks. Total different story about recycling metals etc. but i digress.

Aviation has many benefiets these include social, and environmental benefiets. When you think of just in the land use of 2 airports and compare the land used building a major highway or railway right of way to connect two cities 600km apart. Which is more damaging? Just think we have to learn to play the game with the new rules that have been written by people that have made the game un-fair and use there own rules against them.

[RampDog]

What about this one? We could just send the bugsmashers there(Rex & QLink), oh and maybe just the l'il DJ Brazilians.:D
The incumbent Government would only lose tens of thousands of votes instead of hundreds of thousands.:=

Camden Airport NSW - Google Maps (http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Camden+Airport+NSW)

[redleader78]

yeah perhaps but then what do we do with GA?:ugh: oh that is right we should sell GA out.

It needs new infrastructure not trying to redevelop or re-use infrastructure which is at its peak already. Its busy enough already at camden in the circuit and you have them closing the main runway to film top gear already...

This time of economic crisis, is the time to be sowing into infrastructure projects of national importance. Not sure whether second airport in sydney is national important not up with the figures. However I do know that having a curfew at YSSY is just dumb in this day and age in a global economy.

[Andu]

Andu. Actually I find your comment quite appaulling. It is both ignorant and arrogant.I suppose I must plead guilty to both arrogance and ignorance if it my last post that you find "appauling", blip.

In my arrogance and ignorance, I still believe that an offshore runway and new terminal (the existing international terminal at Sydney is barely adequate) in the bay would result in more efficiency and less long term expense - to say nothing of the reduced carbon footprint (today's feelgood catchphrase) in wasted overland travel and delay from any other new airport option.

And it must be said that any other option would, with absolute certainly, be subject to insistent cries for a curfew even before the runways were built.

[satmstr]

redleader78, no need to shift the military out of Holsworthy. They can do what has been done around the world and share the facilities, IE domestic terminal one side and military on the other with priority going to the military for departures and arrivals as it is done at Darwin Airport i believe.

Anyhow what do they use that strip for now any how , i have been told a while ago that they use to do paratroop training there but it has now moved somewhere else i have been told. correct me if i am wrong:ok:.

The other problem is that Sydney Airport Corporation decided to get rid of two international bays to build more shopping areas for passengers:ugh: but forgot to think that they have now lost 300+ pax potential customers and i cant see them building two new bays any time soon :mad:

regards Satmstr

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

The other problem is that Sydney Airport Corporation decided to get rid of two international bays to build more shopping areas for passengers:ugh: but forgot to think that they have now lost 300+ pax potential customers and i cant see them building two new bays any time soon...

Just some clarification on your statement there 'satmstr'...

Sydney Airport did not "get rid of two international bays to build more shopping areas", they closed two bays to redevelop the current two arrivals halls into one large area, specifically more baggage carousels and many more customs/immigration desks. Tell me that wasn't needed...

Yes, they'll be adding more shops as well upstairs, but the reason for the development was to upgrade the arrivals hall. Plus, they've opened three new remote bays across near the old tower, and have three more coming soon.

But don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument will you... :hmm:

[redleader78]

Foxtrot thanks for pointing that out. I am not up on the total happenings at yssy.

Satmstr. Please correct me i am wrong don't have my ersa handy. But off the top of my head holsworthy is what maybe 400 or 500 meters long.

You have the problems of lots of un exploded ordinaces and the costs associated with clean up and extension is not insignificant. The Hangers are located pretty close to the runway if i also remember correctly. So using apart of the existing runway for the 80 meter box would require movement of the hangars or new infrastructure completely. So if you build new infrastructure you might as well build somewhere totally new. So any percieved cost savings from a dual facility is very limited in my very very very WAG. (wild a%&^ guess for the non engineers out there) Plus you degrade the ability of the military to do as they please, which operationally they need to do at times that would hinder civillian operations.

Look at williamtown, and darwin. are not directly located in a live fire ranges. Sorry but i wouldn't feel comfortable in a civillian aircraft while the military are firing their 50 cals. I just feel that it would be far to limiting to the army. You know they drag their knuckles and can't get there head around aviation assests (tongue in check firmly)

Total degrading of abilities. and I don't see it as a win win solution. The military would loose something, the civilians would gain something but still end up loosing. I firmly believe a total new assest needs to be developed. Where that is who knows? got to have the political will to have it built wherever. Hence my suggestion in the top of the plateua in the royal national park. Plenty of that type of scrub around, it isn't in the more sensitive eco-systems, then as a trade off knock all the houses down that have been bought by the government at badgerys creek and allow the environmentalists to go wild and establish a forest or what ever native plants existed in that area. Would offset some of the removal of habitat that is going to happen at oran park when all thoose houses go in as well.

I guess what i am saying is look at win win situations play the game and look at the biggest picture and argue and generally it will be upheld in the land and environment court. look at the marina that is going to be built down at shellharbour. Removal of some wetlands, the developer came up with a solution that provided another location to develop and re establish a larger area of wetlands that was going to be destroyed with the marina. Win win. Yes some environmentalist want to lock up everything, but if you argue rationally it just takes time, persitance, and tenacity eventually you overcome and they end up looking like radical idiots.

[Wiley]

Since this thread more or less turned into another Sydney curfew thread, this ( YouTube - AirTraffic Worldwide (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=1XBwjQsOEeg) ) might be of some interest to a few of you. Watch towards the end to see what happens to traffic in Australia as the YSSY curfew comes into effect, and even moreso, what happens to the traffic density in Eastern Australia in that period immediately before it lifts.

[Trojan1981]

SMH Today...

Look to RAAF bases, Qantas says
MATT O'SULLIVAN
11/03/2009 1:06:56 AM

QANTAS has urged the Federal Government to open air force bases to more civilian traffic, in a move which could eventually open the way for Richmond to handle its first commercial airline services.


The Flying Kangaroo does not state which site it favours as a second airport for Sydney, but in a submission to the Government it tacitly leaves the door open to the RAAF bases at Richmond or Williamtown in Newcastle as a secondary base for commercial passenger aircraft.


"Access to selected secondary airport infrastructure, in particular defence bases, offers a number of benefits to the airline industry and the travelling public," Qantas said in the submission, a response to the Government's aviation green paper.


The federal Transport Minister, Anthony Albanese, has said a second airport would be built outside the Sydney basin and be aided by links to the city by train or road.


Blacktown and Badgerys Creek have been struck off the list, but Mr Albanese has not made a final ruling about Richmond as an option. The Government will detail in a white paper - expected late this year - the process by which it will identify a second airport for Sydney.


Bankstown Airport has also been lobbying to handle smaller passenger aircraft. It has previously held talks with Virgin Blue and the Singapore Airlines-backed Tiger Airways.


The peak tourism industry body also favours a second airport within the Sydney Basin. Richmond "remains top billing" of the preferred sites for the Tourism and Transport Forum.


Regional Express has also called for the Government to ensure smaller commercial airlines not be forced out of capital city airports such as Sydney's Kingsford Smith.