Perth Airport - CEO Geatches on radio.

[Icarus2001]

I managed to shut the taxi driver up long enough to hear Mr Geatches on ABC radio in Perth today.

He claims that PAPL (formerly WAC) is fully commited to building a third runway at Perth airport just as soon as TWENTY airlines that use the airport agree that one is required AND agree to pay the higher charges for use of the airport once the runway is operational. So once again it is not his fault.

He put the cost of the runway at $600 million for a 2700 metre runway parallel to 03/21. Estimated build time of FOUR years. He believes that they could begin construction late next year once agreement is reached with the airports customers.

So if they start construction late 2013 then we can look forward to using it some time early 2018 given delays due to something or other, which again will be the fault of someone other than the people that run the airport.

This from a a man who said only three months ago that the traffic at Perth airport willl decline soon as mines go into production phase having completed construction and as such a third runway would not be required until about 2025.

If anyone can get a transcript or audio file please post it as it makes interesting listening.

Looks like some quiet chats from business leaders have had an effect. Even dear old Mr Thomas seems to have seen the light and decided that there is a problem.

http://l.yimg.com/fv/xp/wan/20121006/01/437991954.jpg?x=292&sig=JoOhAZehBTxieNfwfSQwXw--

Airport congestion 'costs businesses dear' - The West Australian (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/15048874/airport-congestion-costs-businesses-dear/)

Qantas boss backs new runway - The West Australian (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/news/15078320/qantas-boss-backs-new-runway/)


:sad:

[moa999]

Meanwhile in China...
Beijing's mega-airport: bigger than Heathrow and JFK combined - Flights | hotels | frequent flyer | business class - Australian Business Traveller (http://www.ausbt.com.au/beijing-s-new-mega-airport-bigger-than-heathrow-and-jfk-combined)

They build an 8-runway, 130m pax capacity airport - starting now, complete by 2017.

[Roger Greendeck]

Must have got the idea from Brisbane Airport Corp. where they are charging airlines now for the cost and it is years before we will see a runway.

[Long Bay Mauler]

Another classic example of why governments should not giveaway(read lease) national infrastructure to private enterprise.

PAPL will now hold the West Australian and Federal governments to ransom until someone gives them the money to build what is their responsibly.

Well done Liberal & Labor for this situation we now find ourselves in. Another fine mess we now find ourselves in because of inept politicians. Why don't we have another Medicare/Flood Levy to fund this.:ugh:

And its a pity the land set aside for the runway now houses storage facilities for Coles & Woolworths.

[SOPS]

Airports and other national infrastracture should never be sold off...too late now i guess. I bet if Perth airport was run by the DCA or DOT, it would have a CAT 3 ILS, an International Terminal with proper docking fingers, and a third runway....and not just a huge shopping mall.:ugh::ugh:

[DirectAnywhere]

The timeframe on the third runway in BNE is 8 years. 8 freakin' years! They must be kidding.

[BuzzBox]

and not just a huge shopping mall.

That's being a bit generous isn't it?? More like an odge podge collection of shops selling cheap junk at inflated prices. The terminals at PER are a disgrace, especially airside.

[VC9]

Welcome to Australia. A very expensive third world country or perhaps now heading way below third world.

[airdualbleedfault]

WTF is the point of a third runway when they can't use the 2 they have ?
Gatwick UK average of 52 movements an hour with one runway, Perth 24 an hour ( as long as no cloud around ) with 2 runways. Hong Kong in the high 40s per hour with many more issues to deal with eg terrain, weather, 3 chinese airports within 15 minutes etc etc.
What happened to LAHSO ?
Why do they bother printing SIDs for RW24 when it is almost never used.
Why do they use RW21 with a 15kt x-wind/5 kt tailwind and no ILS when 03/06 are into the wind and 03 has an ILS.
If, as seems to be the case, there is a lack of staff at Perth ATC why is AA not held accountable for the 100s of 1000s they are costing airlines and mining companies ?

I managed to shut the taxi driver up long enough to hear Mr Geatches on ABC radio in Perth today.
Please don't call him mister, he is a tool, with an agenda, make as much money as possible and screw the ACTUAL purpose of an airport.

Welcome to Australia. A very expensive third world country or perhaps now heading way below third world
I would go as far as to insert " welcome to WA "

[VC9]

Airsevices intoduce Metron Traffic Flow that seems to work in most places where it is used but not in Australia. Why?

Why are there COBT's? Surely a time to make at the feeder fix is logical. That's how they do it elsewhere. No Autralia has to invent it's own methods.
Take note. It DON'T WORK.

Fix it!!!!

[neville_nobody]

Well the story's changed pretty fast from 'Perth Airport doesn't need a new runway for 10 years'! It was only last year the Master Plan came out and the management were sprouting how they would double the traffic in the airport without building a runway or terminal.

[Fred Gassit]

Yeah dunno where this new found contrition comes from....

Their old line used to remind me of "comical Ali"

[Capn Bloggs]

Gatwick UK average of 52 movements an hour with one runway, Perth 24 an hour ( as long as no cloud around ) with 2 runways
24 takeoff and landings per hour?

Why are there COBT's? Surely a time to make at the feeder fix is logical.
No it's not. I dunno what they use overseas but I can tell you COBTs are a damn-sight easier to operate to than pilot-attempted feeder-fix times. Do you have any idea what is involved in getting 100-plus pax to a point in space to the minute? Do you actually understand how the system is supposed to work?

[fallen]

And its a pity the land set aside for the runway now houses storage facilities for Coles & WoolworthsThe runway would be East of these facilities on land with little current development.

[SOPS]

how far east can a new runway go? The hills are bloody close as it is.

[h.o.t.a.s.]

How far east?

Something Like this:


ImageShack® - Online Photo and Video Hosting (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/152/83087552.jpg/)

[dreamjob]

Hotas,

The problem with that is it almost looks like a real airport! :}

[OpsNormal]

Slight thread variation, but talking about the Metron system in general....

Problem is Bloggs is that after adhereing to a COBT, wheels-up at specified time some operators are still getting between 5-25+ mins enroute holding on CAVOK days then watching the two preferred operators get track shortening plus 300KIAS on descent and we watch them fly over the top at 15nm to run the VOR as we have been sitting on our "gifted" 210KIAS for the last 50nm. We then get to sit behind them at half the speed we want to be down their vectored long final. We miss our slots, our passengers miss their connections, we suffer busted slots for the rest of the day due consequential delays due to the first sector delays, pay our fines for missing those slots, go broke and ASA get to bleat about just how much money they are saving the industry etc on their recorded on-hold phone prattle.

See the issue clearer now? It is much easier and fairer to pre-allocate a realistic feeder fix time (say 50nm from the nominated airport) and should be available half an hour before due airborne and have the aircrew have to make that time or go away until they will fit in... Makes kids sharper you might say... especially when they get the "please explain" from the boss...

That way, the only thing that would cause any extra track miles or holding would be a WX at or around the SAM/PRM's etc.

Regards,

OpsN.;)

[piston broke again]

Amazing - and there a high speed taxiways! (or rapids - who can tell). Time to get those onto 03/21??

[Icarus2001]

Do you have any idea what is involved in getting 100-plus pax to a point in space to the minute? Do you actually understand how the system is supposed to work?
Bloggs you are either being mischievous or plain silly. You know that even with COBT one still has to vary the speed to reach the feeder fix at the required time. It is happening so not that hard. As you know once airborn the system becomes tactical rather than strategic and aircraft are processed on receipt.

Either way this is off topic. It is the facilities at Perth airport that we are talking about. Geatches also blamed pilots and AsA for the way we use the airspace. Again, everyone elses's fault. The latest brochure I saw the other day about RUNWAY OCCUPANCY times, once again blame the pilots for taking too long to get off the runway with no high speed exits. There would only be incremental improvements if everyone trimmed their occupancy by 10%, the structural flaws would remain.

[aveng]

Sure - build a third runway. Aircraft will still be waiting for a bay.

Build terminals/bays - then runway!!!!!

PAPL (WAC) is a rental collection agency, not a building firm. :ugh:

[Nautilus Blue]

Is it that time of year again? This has all been covered before, but here goes;

Gatwick UK average of 52 movements an hour with one runway, Perth 24 an hour

I suspect you are comparing movement rates with arrival rates, but assume you are not. 52/hour is on landing every 69 seconds. Can you go from cleared to land to clear of rwy in 69 seconds at Perth? Arrival rates on a single rwy are determined by how much room pilots need, not controllers. As an aside, a team from NATS including Gatwick controllers recently examined both PH and BN, looking for ways to increase capacity. Ask your company to ask ASA for their report.

What happened to LAHSO?

I don't know why it was canned, but it wasn't that useful. 21/24 LASHO would only allow turbos and probably 146's from the east to LAHSO (24 holding short is too short for 737's by about 3 meters). Every bit helps though.

Why do they bother printing SIDs for RW24 when it is almost never used.

Thats down to poor communication. R24 has effectively been out of service for months due to twy and apron works. but this was never explicitly communicated to operators or ML ATC. The rwy was available, but aircraft had to exit left. To get to the domestic apron, you would have to enter and taxi along R21, exit and cross R24 and then cross R21 again. I was more efficient just not to use R24. Hopefully this in now over.

Why do they use RW21 with a 15kt x-wind/5 kt tailwind and no ILS when 03/06 are into the wind and 03 has an ILS.

Its spelled out in ERSA. R21 and R24 have equal priority for noise abatement, the R03 then R06. If the rwy is dry and the DW 5 knots or less, R21 and/or R24 must be used. This is an Australia wide procedure not just PH, and ATC have no control over it.

with an agenda, make as much money as possible and screw the ACTUAL purpose of an airport.

The actual purpose of PH airport is to make money, nothing else. Same as you airline only exists to make money. How long do you think a CEO would keep his job of he spent tons of money on something that generated no income? Likewise, he can hardly stand up and say that because the herd get upset when confronted with realities they would rather ignore.

watching the two preferred operators get track shortening plus 300KIAS on descent

The perception of favouritism is caused by perception bias and reinforced by conformation bias. Proof - every operator has people who believe ATC favours others over them, nobody ever thinks we favour them. If everybody thinks you favour someone else, you obviously favour no one. (We'll not mention the days of the fokker conspiracy!)

Finally, surely the quickest and cheapest way to increase capacity would be to build full length taxiways with rapid exits on both runways, and extend R24 to the north east to allow meaningful LAHSO. To improve departure rates, particularly the morning outbound push, I believe we need to 'sort' the departures, eg one north, one east, one north, one east etc and FFS put the jets in front of the turbos, and the B737/A320/B717's in front of the F100/BA146's as much as possible.

[airdualbleedfault]

Yes Icarus, I believe Bloggs has joined Geaches in smoking crack ;) Bloggs, nowhere else in Asia do they use COBTs, when you are approaching airports in Asia and China they slow/vector you as required, Australia is unique in requiring a COBT AND a time at a waypoint with less than 1 minute buffer (depending on your watch/clock), so not sure what you are on about, sorry if I've offended your ATC buddies.

Nautilus, thanks for your informative input, if NAPs dictate that a runway with 15kts x and 5 tail AND no ILS be used over a runway that's into wind with an ILS then there is something seriously wrong with the NAPs, also what is ghe guarantee the wind will not exceed 5 knots or for that matter the max tail for most A/C, 10 kts ? NAP over safety ?
You didn't address why 24 is not used for departures ?
Saying that LAHSO wasn't much good because it was only useable for turbos and 146s (and probably F100) is a little dismissive since you are talking close to 1/2 the aircraft that use Perth.
You're right about the airports purpose. Since it has become privatised at least, the purpose used to be to accommodate the travelling public.
I like your ideas on extending 24 and rapid taxiways but it will never work, too practical and sensible ;) you're wasted at ATC ;)

[Hugh Jarse]

No it's not. I dunno what they use overseas but I can tell you COBTs are a damn-sight easier to operate to than pilot-attempted feeder-fix times. Do you have any idea what is involved in getting 100-plus pax to a point in space to the minute? Do you actually understand how the system is supposed to work?
Toughen up, Bloggs. I thought you ex-military types were expert at +/- 15 secs over a waypoint :}:}:}

Us ex-boat drivers can do it to a minute on the east coast :}:ok:

[Nautilus Blue]

airdualbleedfault - I think that COBT times are like the airlines telling passengers what time to leave home rather than what time to be at the terminal, but we never used them until we bought in METRON from the spams, so I have no idea where they come from. The only reason I can think of to give a COBT and a landing time is so at towered aerodromes controllers can police the COBT and try to nip non compliance in the bud. I don't know if that is done though.

Th other thing is that COBT/landing times/METRON is a rough first pass strategic filter. Once everybody is inbound, the FF issued by PH FLOW are the tactical final pass to spread the arrivals out to what we need. The FLOW can only deal with what arrives. Today for example we had 10 - 12 arrivals which untouched would have all landed within about 90 - 120 seconds. The fact that they probably all met their COBT was rendered irrelevant.

Turbo's and BA146/F100 are a large % of PH traffic, but a small % of traffic from the east, which are the only ones who can use 24 hold short usefully. I would have it back tomorrow though if we could. Remember if all the inbound traffic is roughly on time, and get any delays far enough out to meet them with speed reduction, I get a very easy day at work.

I think, but am willing to be corrected, that 24 departures is again a noise abatement issue. You would only use 24 for GURAK departures (NW and N) which would turn right and go right over the city.

Crosswind and downwind quoted on the ATIS are maximums, as apposed to the wind which is an average (thats how you can have am ATIS with say xxx/10kts, crosswind 12kts). As soon as the TWR sees greater than the specified maximums we change ends, resulting in one of PH's famous last minute rwy changes, which are sometimes more dangerous than DW! It would be logical for example if the DW increased from 3 to 5 knots to change rwy's in anticipation, but we all know what happens when the rules meet logic.

Remember anything is available if the crew advise it is operationally required. I recently has a freighter do just that. Inbound for 21 instrument approach, dark o'clock, ILS not available, crosswind and downwind, 250' AGL wind even more so. Crew advises require R03, they get it

[topend3]

And its a pity the land set aside for the runway now houses storage facilities for Coles & Woolworths.

WRONG.....

[Icarus2001]

Nautilus thanks for the input without any playing the man. I find it difficult to disagree with most of what you say, however :rolleyes:

The actual purpose of PH airport is to make money, nothing else. Same as you airline only exists to make money.
PAPL exists soley to make money. Perth airport exists to provide the population of WA with an effective international airport, this is writ large in the head lease signed by WAC now PAPL.
Using the "airlines are here to make money too" analogy breaks down pretty quickly as there are MANY operators but ONLY ONE airport. A natural monopoly. If airline X increased costs to pax by 20% then made it difficult to book and check in with them they would lose market share to airline Y. If PAPL make/have made Perth airport painful, slow and inefficient as well as expensive to use (EG parking) who do they lose market share to? No one. As no one else can provide what they can provide.

The buildings east of HM drive are clear of the land for the parallel runway, but there are some businesses that will have to move. Google Earth is helpful.

[Icarus2001]

Airport was warned of chaos - The West Australian (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/news/15098639/airport-was-warned-of-chaos/)


Perth Airport was warned 18 months ago about the unprecedented growth that has gridlocked the airport and which Qantas claims is costing it $10.8 million a year.

The Chamber of Minerals and Energy said yesterday its 2011 WA State Growth Outlook released in April last year, accurately forecast the boom in air travel requirements for the resources sector.

Chamber director Damian Callachor says the industry body "cannot understand the mismatch in their forecasting given the growth figures we are supplying from our members".

"Perth Airport is too conservative and not meeting requirements to facilitate trade," he said.

"We urge the airport to future-proof the State's economic future."

On Tuesday, Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce supported calls from Treasurer Troy Buswell in _The Weekend West _for a third runway - and second parallel - at Perth Airport to solve the congestion issues.

Qantas put a dollar figure of $10.8 million on the delays - inbound and outbound - which often last 45 minutes and sometimes longer.

Airline analysts said the cost to all airlines at Perth Airport would be $24 million in wasted fuel, extra crew and staff hours.

Perth Airport chief executive Brad Geatches said the airport had the "capacity and the preparedness to construct the third runway, if the airlines using Perth Airport want it to be brought forward".Mr Buswell said he was concerned with Perth Airport's planning models and he expected the State Aviation Review, which should report by December, to give firm benchmark growth projections.

Last week, Mr Buswell criticised Perth Airport, saying it was an impediment to the State's growth.

Yesterday, he said he was concerned over the $600 million price tag cited by Perth Airport to build another runway that would future-proof the airport.

And Mr Callachor said fly-in, fly-out demand would increase as construction phases ended because production roster rotations would be more frequent.

"We are finding that more staff want to work on FIFO shifts and that the trend is for more frequency of rotations, thus increasing demand," he said.

"There is also another $200 billion in resource projects committed and yet to start."
My bolding.

[airdualbleedfault]

Nautilus, I think you are right about RW24 for departures but I guess my point is that for some reason (who lives off the end of that runway??) it's never used. You are correct that with the current SIDs it would only be a small amount of traffic using it but there is no reason that I can think of (other than some VIPs that have purchased housing off the end of a runway being protected) that any traffic departing north or north east, could not use 24 to ease the congestion on 21. It seems ridiculous that with all the delays in Perth the preferred option is to use a single runway with a downwind component, I'm pretty sure I've never seen that before and BTW I'm not saying its your fault.
Another point of note is that around 7 years ago RW06 was routinely used for arrivals, then it just stopped unless there is a 35kt nor easter, again, some influential people living in that area ?

I don't fly into Perth that often but I'm pretty sure from what I've been told that if I requested 03 between 0530 and 0930 I would probably incur a small delay, around 3-4 hours ;)


Inside word, spot on although Lo viz procedures are probably not high priority for Perth. It's funny you should mention runway occupancy times, I got a big laugh out of ASAs latest feeble attempt to address the congestion at Perth. Again, I believe a lot of the departure congestion problems in the morning are due to the insessant need to use a single downwind runway, 21, and early in the morning there are not that many arrivals .

[Squawk-7600]

Perth is easily the worst airport in Australia. In my opinion the congestion problem often has little to do with runways and a lot more to do with apron/taxiway/bay congestion.

Nautilus, the runway election in PER is often quite sub-standard. As you know, the wind figures you quote are aerodrome winds. Very often I've had very strong tailwinds on final, especially on 21 at night, and this has been reported by aircraft. Yet because the wind on the ground was "only 5 kts" tailwind no runway change was made. A 5 kts downwind is no big deal, but in a Heavy a 30 knot shear to a 5 kt DW is! Often the downwind is above the 250 ft anemometer so, unless we happen to hear preceding traffic advising, we have no idea to anticipate this and hence require the opposite runway.

It's difficult to take any ATC system seriously that follows an aircraft for 4 hours as it crosses continental Australia, then advises shortly before top of descent of a requirement to lose 10 minutes before the next waypoint :rolleyes: Many times I've been at a high cost index across Australia in an effort to make schedule/curfew for a return, only to be advised of a significant delay to cross BEVLY

I'm definitely not trying to have a go at any ATC people on an individual basis, I appreciate it's all according to the books, and I expect the frustrations are possibly shared. I do hope the comments on the runway selection give some food for thought however. Flying a heavy 747 or Airbus into PER can often be "sporting" to say the least (particularly the Airbus). It definitely doesn't help to discover a howling tailwind on final that was reported by preceding aircraft hence known by ATC. There are times when we wonder if the runway chosen is EVER into wind ;)

With regards Flow into PER, well sorry but from a user perspective it's crap. I've never seen anything like it anywhere else in the world and there's nothing more to be said about that.

About crossing times. Occasionally we all screw up, for example if the winds on descent turn out to be radically different fro forecast. However if anyone finds making an ATC crossing requirement within 1 minute typically difficult to achieve, they should probably be thinking about a career move!

[airdualbleedfault]

Squawk, very good point about the wind above 250', could make for a very "sporting" engine out departure.
Once again, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, Noise abatement is taking precedence over safety at Perth and that lays fair and square with ASA.

[Nautilus Blue]

Icarus2001 - you are right of course, its just my (hypocritical) anti-corporate bias showing :), particularly if the airport is leased, I always thought it has been sold.

Squawk-7600 re rwy selection, there is no point talking to ATC about it because our hands are tied. You have to talk to CASA/ATSB. File paperwork every time you believe something is unsafe, if nothing else you will generate a paper trail.

It's difficult to take any ATC system seriously that follows an aircraft for 4 hours as it crosses continental Australia, then advises shortly before top of descent of a requirement to lose 10 minutes before the next waypoint

Delays just prior to top of descent (or heaven forbid after) are mostly inexcusable, so I won't try. Unless there are go rounds, emergencies, rapid wx changes etc they are probably a failing of ATC's.

Many times I've been at a high cost index across Australia in an effort to make schedule/curfew for a return, only to be advised of a significant delay to cross BEVLY

METRON should eliminate situations like that but put yourself in others shoes. As an ATC I have no idea that you are running late or have a schedule issue. You approach PH last in a group of 10 -12 other aircraft, some of whom only departed 20 minutes ago. I can't have known 3 hours ago they were going to be in front. As a crew from a rival airline you would not be happy if I make you wait for someone behind to go first because they are in a hurry. (I'm not going to make any friends here but we call it "only plane in the sky" syndrome.)

Under METRON I would hope that your landing slot would be fixed, and that if you departed late and flogged the aircraft all the way across to make up time everything would work out. One disadvantage of METRON is that it is only shown to the NOC and FLOW, so as a line controller I am totally out of the loop, and can only pass on feeder fix times given to me. Probably a good thing though because I don't have time for debates on air!

airdualbleedfault - I'm not sure noise abatement procedures are ASA's jurisdiction. Remember in theory, ASA is only an operator/service provider, with no regulatory powers at all. Under CASA we are equal with airline and airport operators. I know that sounds like typical public service "not my department" buck passing. As I said above, formally report everything, every time. It may not change anything, but at least someone will be able to nail those responsible to the wall if/when it all goes wrong.

[Squawk-7600]

Squawk, very good point about the wind above 250', could make for a very "sporting" engine out departure.

Fortunately I haven't needed to put that to the test, but I'd suspect that yes, the pucker valve would be migrating the sheepskin seat cover to orifices it was never designed to go! Even with a normal approach, a 30 kt shear in the bottom few hundred feet makes life interesting.

Squawk-7600 re rwy selection, there is no point talking to ATC about it because our hands are tied. You have to talk to CASA/ATSB. File paperwork every time you believe something is unsafe, if nothing else you will generate a paper trail.

No I appreciate it's outside the power of individual controllers, but thought I'd use the forum to mention it as feedback with the caveat that it's not directed at individuals, as I mentioned in my initial post. Often it's not a case of being technically "unsafe", more a case of "not ideal" ... sometimes even "not good". If it was an actual safety issue then paperwork would definitely follow. I guess a little like the endless Rwy 24 landings we were getting a while back. Is it unsafe? No. But it was tight for us and not ideal.

Regarding delays into PER, it's difficult for me to put an actual number on it, but I'd say if domestic it would be around 50% of the time. Definitely NOT unusual in any case and we expect it. In my experience the traffic isn't something that originated 20 minutes away, instead mostly from the north and the East Coast. I don't pretend to understand how the traffic is sequenced, only the consequences. I've been told Flow only start sorting the times out 250 nm out, but as I say, the mechanism and truth (if any) behind the statement I have no idea. I also appreciate the physical constraints of PER airspace make the situation tricky, and we could have a whole different discussion about the merits, or otherwise, of the military taking great chunks of airspace for no particular reason, but that's a whole different story. In the meanwhile it is what it is. My point being if the perception is that METRON is working well I think you'll find considerable dissension amongst the final users.

Feedback and humble opinion for what it's worth.

[Nautilus Blue]

Squawk-7600 - I appreciate what you say and agree, but unfortunately there is nothing I an do with most of it. My boss won't listen to me, but he might listen to you. His boss might listen to your boss, and my bosses bosses boss will certainly listen to CASA.

METRON obviously isn't working into PH because we are still getting upwards of 30 minute delays some days, other days no more than 4 or 5. I know that. My boss is vaguely aware of it but too busy/apathetic to do anything. His boss doesn't know there is a problem and his boss thinks METRON is an unqualified success.

[Squawk-7600]

His boss doesn't know there is a problem and his boss thinks METRON is an unqualified success.

I think if there's anything consistent it's the fact that as one gets further from the coalface the picture gets further distorted from reality, and invariably better/worse in the eye of the beholder depending on which barrow they're aiming to push. Meanwhile people like you and I, the ones actually tasked to make it all happen, simply shake our heads and make the most of it. :ugh:

As I was flying along the other night, listening to the re-routes as YBBB controlled airspace was closed due to "lack of resources", I had one of those head shaking moments and wondered just how much more those at the top could screw things up!

[le Pingouin]

The theory of sequencing is fairly straightforward. An untouched landing time is calculated for each aircraft (system estimate for the fix plus a calculated time from fix to threshold based on STAR tracking, aircraft type and winds). This generates the order of arrivals.

No. 1 is assigned his untouched landing time, then everyone follows along with however many seconds spacing between arrivals as specified by the acceptance rate.

Your sequenced landing time is then used to back calculate the fix time needed to achieve it. Manual flowing (no Maestro) works pretty much the same way.

The 250NM is simply the nominal range of radar - the flow only sees the TMA radar feeds & you can't flow what you can't see. The further out you implement a solution the more subject it is to interference.

[Nautilus Blue]

Coming bak to the original topic, I suppose you could say PH airport is a privately operated money gouging entity providing a inadequate service while ASA is a government owned inefficient entity providing a inadequate service. Not so much snakes and ladders as snakes and snakes.

The further out you implement a solution the more subject it is to interference.

Just sometimes though I think that this is a case of 'perfection is the enemy of good enough'. If there is a large amount of holding looming, maybe its better to just pluck an order and sequence early, and leave the occasional gap as a contingency. Maybe its better to get a 30 minute delay 500nm out than only a 27 minute delay at 250nm?

[Jack Ranga]

All pilots, notice: When reading Nautilus Blue's and other ATC's posts bear in mind that ASA is not managed by ATC's.

First of all they will not understand NB's solutions so they will be summarily dismissed. There is a fundamental lack of understanding at the top of the organisation of what ATC is, what it is there for and the consequences of getting it wrong. There is evidence on record of this lack of understanding.

Second of all there is a culture of hate and jealousy toward ATC's in 'hate castle' in Canberra. Virtually all of ASA 's problems could be solved in the short to mid term with consultation with it's employees. But no, they know best.

Thirdly and most concerning, there is a culture of management being told what they want to hear by lower level managers who know their jobs are at risk if they don't comply.

[Normasars]

Jack,

Sounds very familiar to the problems entrenched in the "National" carrier.

[Jack Ranga]

Yep, sounds like...... How any manager can be proud of the decisions taken in both organisations regarding declaring 'war' on the people it relies on for it's survival is beyond me. Management at both organisations are lauded by the business community for their 'tough' stand towards it's employees. What a sick joke :cool:

[Jack Ranga]

Just out of interest, can anybody name me an organisation that has it's headquarters in a separate city to it's two major centres?

[airdualbleedfault]

It's great to hear cool headed, reasonable replies from the ATCs, its certainly changed my opinion of them (in a good way).
I agree this has to go much higher than us grunts, and the incompetence at the top of ASA and CASA never ceases to amaze me.
I don't believe this discussion is at all wasted and its good to see that it is coming to the attention of people like AJ and the mining companies, as you would expect since they are losing big coin each week, so it might take a while but maybe something will actually get done.
In the mean time at least this thread might alleviate some of the ill feeling between ATC and pilots.
Cheers

[le Pingouin]

Just sometimes though I think that this is a case of 'perfection is the enemy of good enough'. If there is a large amount of holding looming, maybe its better to just pluck an order and sequence early, and leave the occasional gap as a contingency. Maybe its better to get a 30 minute delay 500nm out than only a 27 minute delay at 250nm?I don't disagree and that's what Metron is aimed at. The one that really gives me the screaming sh!ts is SY as the curfew is lifting. I can have a wall of aircraft coming at me at the end of the doggo that I could be getting in some semblance of order 500 miles out. Except that SY doesn't do Maestro overnight so there's no easy way of integrating ML and BN traffic into a sequence. Instead I'm left with a fur ball of traffic and working unnecessarily hard.

[Capn Bloggs]

Yes Icarus, I believe Bloggs has joined Geaches in smoking crack
Are you going to acknowledge your faux paw with those Gatwick numbers of yours or can we just assume you are smoking crack??

As for
nowhere else in Asia do they use COBTs, when you are approaching airports in Asia and China they slow/vector you as required, Australia is unique in requiring a COBT AND a time at a waypoint with less than 1 minute buffer (depending on your watch/clock), so not sure what you are on about
You obviously have very little idea how the WA airspace runs because if we just got "slowed/vectored as required" without COBTs it would be a total shambles.

I wonder if they use COBTs/CTOTs/slots in busy places like Europe...:hmm:

Bloggs you are either being mischievous or plain silly. You know that even with COBT one still has to vary the speed to reach the feeder fix at the required time. It is happening so not that hard. As you know once airborn the system becomes tactical rather than strategic and aircraft are processed on receipt.
Well der, that's obvious. I was merely saying that from a pilot's point of view, it is far easier to just taxi at a COBT than work backwards from a Feeder Fix time: how long to get there, how long for the departure, how long for the taxi, oh hang on another aircraft is inbound, drat, that'll be an unplanned extra 5 minutes to get to my Feeder Fix while we wait for him to land, bugger. Why you would prefer that over "just taxi as close as you can to XXXX and we'll sort it out airborne" is beyond me.

It's difficult to take any ATC system seriously that follows an aircraft for 4 hours as it crosses continental Australia, then advises shortly before top of descent of a requirement to lose 10 minutes before the next waypoint
I've done a lot of flights into Perth (departing with less than 2hr flight time, as you're abeam ADL) and I cannot remember when I got a 10 minute delay "shortly before top of descent".

My point being if the perception is that METRON is working well I think you'll find considerable dissension amongst the final users.
It's working a damn-sight better that the previous system, especially now that most operators are complying with their COBTs. If there is still extensive holding with good compliance (and I've never had more than 15 minutes recently) then the Metron rate needs to be slowed-down a tad.

Problem is Bloggs is that after adhereing to a COBT, wheels-up at specified time some operators are still getting between 5-25+ mins enroute holding on CAVOK days then watching the two preferred operators get track shortening plus 300KIAS on descent and we watch them fly over the top at 15nm to run the VOR as we have been sitting on our "gifted" 210KIAS for the last 50nm. We then get to sit behind them at half the speed we want to be down their vectored long final. We miss our slots, our passengers miss their connections, we suffer busted slots for the rest of the day due consequential delays due to the first sector delays, pay our fines for missing those slots, go broke and ASA get to bleat about just how much money they are saving the industry etc on their recorded on-hold phone prattle.

See the issue clearer now? It is much easier and fairer to pre-allocate a realistic feeder fix time (say 50nm from the nominated airport) and should be available half an hour before due airborne and have the aircrew have to make that time or go away until they will fit in...
Right, so we have twenty aircraft holding at the Feeder Fix waiting for their allotted time to come up. Clever.

Toughen up, Bloggs. I thought you ex-military types were expert at +/- 15 secs over a waypoint

Us ex-boat drivers can do it to a minute on the east coast
When you were only doing two miles a minute +/- a minute or two didn't really matter!! :D

And yes, I belt my FO over the head with the paper if he/she misses our Feeder Fix time by more than 12 seconds! If the FMS would indicate less than 1/10 of a minute, I'd be there. :}

[airdualbleedfault]

So Bloggs let me guess, you're from WA and that's pretty much where most of your flying has been ?
You obviously have " no idea " how airspace runs outside your little bubble.
Busy places like Europe ? I assume you've never flown into Beijing or Shanghai ? And as far as I am aware, no, they don't use COBTs and slot times in "busy" Europe. BTW Beijing is far busier than any European airport, if you ever left WA you might have known this.
As far as my faux paw (sic), that is an " average " movements per hour for a SINGLE runway airport versus a " max " number of 24 for a 2 runway airport which I am told gets reduced to 16 when inst app in use. Gatwick handles around 4 times the traffic per month that Perth does.
PS you don't even have to travel the world to find these things out just enter " google " into your browser.....or I guess, ignorance is bliss.

[Roger Standby]

I hate to say it, but Metron does seem to have improved things.

I work enroute into Perth and had little faith that it would make a difference, but it has. Summer hasn't arrived yet, tho :}

I've worked other sectors across the land and to those that shoot their mouth off arguing that other places do it differently and why don't we follow other methods, you probably don't quite understand Perth either. I'm working far harder sorting Perth traffic than I ever did working Melbourne arrivals. A lot of that has to do with the ridiculous aircraft mix and the airspace limitations, but for the most part it's simply that twice a day, a million aircraft go out and an hour later, they come back. There's no even mix over the day, it's simply everyone wanting to go and then everyone wanting to come back. So be it.

And as far as thinking that we have preferential treatment to the two big carriers, think again. You're all just dots to be processed. Do what we ask and we're happy. Bitch and moan and LIE to us about what you can do and that makes us unhappy :=.

Non compliance of COBT has improved dramatically, thank goodness. You don't want to be vectored all over the sky, and we don't want to do it to you, especially when everyone else is coming on in.:ok:

[Transition Layer]

Any F100 drivers (Skywest/Alliance/Network) out there care to explain how you go about losing time enroute into Perth?

From what I can see, the F100 flies a very slow cruise (220KIAS or less) then into 250kts or more on descent, I.e. increasing speed from ToPD and a subsequently steeper descent profile.

On the 737, if possible we try and spread the delay across the cruise and descent (220/230 kts for both if down low enough and copping a really big delay). if following an F100 into Julim, we tend to catch you guys around about our planned descent point, then cop a vector off track in order to get a descent clearance through your level until you start going down. No drama really, just curious.

Also, do you ATC guys notice it too and are there plans for more standardisation across different types - aircraft performance permitting.

[Capn Bloggs]

I don't particularly care what goes on in Beijing or Shanghai. I say again, Fault: "You obviously have very little idea how the WA airspace runs because if we just got "slowed/vectored as required" without COBTs it would be a total shambles."

And as far as I am aware, no, they don't use COBTs and slot times in "busy" Europe.
Nah, doesn't sound like it...

Airport Coordination Limited - Gatwick Airport (http://www.acl-uk.org/default.aspx?id=44)

More for you: read the first para in the box, Airdualbleedfault:

Airport Slots (http://www.iata.org/pressroom/airlines-international/august-2010/pages/06.aspx)

Google indeed. :rolleyes:

As far as my faux paw (sic), that is an " average " movements per hour for a SINGLE runway airport versus a " max " number of 24 for a 2 runway airport which I am told gets reduced to 16 when inst app in use. Gatwick handles around 4 times the traffic per month that Perth does.

So Perth has a movement rate of 24 an hour in good weather, does it?

Sequencer said in 2011: "40 (departures & arrivals) an hour would be moved on a regular basis".

[Capn Bloggs]

Non compliance of COBT has improved dramatically, thank goodness.
In most part due to the agreed-to threat of severe beatings of pilots-in-command and operators if departing early. :D Must be a similar motivational principle to those big fines [that don't exist] in Europe for dicking pax around when delayed.... :cool:

Great to see some practical changes too, extending +10 to +30. Nobody likes running late and very few do it deliberately.

[Cuervo]

Hi guys;

I am an experienced ATCO, former TWR and Radar APP Supervisor. Being 44 years old I am considering to leave Europe and give it a try downunder as ASA recently opened positions for experienced ATCOs in Perth and Sydney (both in TWR and APP)...

As you can easily understand if you read the above posts I am a bit worried as it looks like ASA is going through tough times.

Why is ASA opening positions for foreign, qualified ATCOS?!?
Is ASA expected to be a private company in the future?

If I manage to be sucessfull and join the company will I be an ATCO just like all my other (possible) future Aussie mates? Same pay, same overall job conditions?!?

If I do apply, will I be "playing along" some "anti- Aussie-ATCO game"?!?
Hope you understand me...
I will go if prospects are good (both for me, my family and "Aussie ATCOs").

I apologize if my post is out of the context here but so far I did not find a better place to place this message. Any feedback would be much appreciated as I do need to think this process carefully...
Thks a lot for your patience and consideration :ok:

[le Pingouin]

Mismanagement mainly - recruitment and training was severely reduced, to be followed several years later by the remarkable realisation they had an aging workforce, and the mad scrabble to rebuild recruitment levels when you no longer have the resources and staff to achieve it.

Many groups can't easily release staff to fill vacancies elsewhere because it would leave them shorter of staff than they already are. Privatisation was the aim at one stage, not any more.

It's simply a matter of trying to get suitably qualified bums in seats - you aren't doing anyone out of a job or a chance at moving to Sydney or Perth. You aren't being used to undermine terms and conditions.

My understanding is you start somewhere in the middle of the pay scales, I guess depending on experience and what you can negotiate, and from there progress as per locally recruited controllers. Aside from not starting at the bottom you're treated exactly the same as a local recruit.

I work with a number of controllers who came from overseas - mainly UK and South Africans, although there have been a couple of Danes, and I don't think anyone sees foreign recruits as a problem - you'll just be another controller. You'll fit in or not depending on you as an individual, not where you're from. My immediate group has people from the UK, US, Canada, Vietnam, Philippines and Peru, as well as a few Aussies ;)

This thread would probably be more suitable: http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/311440-airservices-australia-psychometric-testing.html

[Capn Bloggs]

COBT plus FFT. A thing of beauty! :}

http://i521.photobucket.com/albums/w334/capnbloggs/COBT.jpg

[Nautilus Blue]

Any F100 drivers (Skywest/Alliance/Network) out there care to explain how you go about losing time enroute into Perth?

From what I can see, the F100 flies a very slow cruise (220KIAS or less) then into 250kts or more on descent, I.e. increasing speed from ToPD and a subsequently steeper descent profile.

On the 737, if possible we try and spread the delay across the cruise and descent (220/230 kts for both if down low enough and copping a really big delay). if following an F100 into Julim, we tend to catch you guys around about our planned descent point, then cop a vector off track in order to get a descent clearance through your level until you start going down. No drama really, just curious.

Also, do you ATC guys notice it too and are there plans for more standardisation across different types - aircraft performance permitting.

Last question first, about 12 times a shift, and no.

F100s seem slow down a lot more on cruise than 737's, but not below descent speed. Typically in terms of ground speed (which is what I'm most concerned with as an ATC) they seem to be constant cruise and descent, whereas 737s (particularly Qantas) will lose most of the time in the descent. At TOD a 737 will often look to be anything up to 4-5 minutes early based on groundspeed, which is why we nag about making your time. Sometimes this means you have actually overtaken the aircraft you are supposed to be following. The 737 can't have descent until it's 5 miles behind, it won't get 5 miles behind until it slows down, and it can't slow down until it descends.

It's also not just different types but different companies. A Qantas 737 behind a Virgin 737 will result in exactly the same problem. As we can see this coming 150+ miles out, I used to suggest the whichever aircraft was second to lose as much time as possible during cruise, but gave up.

In summary, two aircraft on the same STAR with FF 2 minutes apart will as often as not require vectoring or step deent even if both are exactly on time.

As an aside, when we used to vector and use speed to in-trail the inbounds, 250 KIAS was considered the minimum we could reduce an aircraft to. If you really stuffed up the vectoring you could ask for 240, 230 if you were desperate. Also, it was always taught that making an aircraft speed up again after slowing down was a cardinal sin. When we went to pilot adjusted fix times, with 250 from the fix, it never occurred to most of us that you would slow down to below 250, and than speed up again at the fix.

Edited to ask : Capn Bloggs is that near MRW, and why distance GEL? I didn't think the airline I thought you flew for went there?

[Capn Bloggs]

is that near MRW, and why distance GEL? I didn't think the airline I thought you flew for went there?
Hal auto tunes any VORs within 130nm, unless the crew overrides him. We do go there on occasion; last time was a @#$% rescue.

At TOD a 737 will often look to be anything up to 4-5 minutes early based on groundspeed, which is why we nag about making your time. Sometimes this means you have actually overtaken the aircraft you are supposed to be following. The 737 can't have descent until it's 5 miles behind, it won't get 5 miles behind until it slows down, and it can't slow down until it descends.
Been in that situation twice. The 737 was so far in front (later FFT) it was never going to work, so we negotiated a sequence change. All went well after that. Maybe we got sucked in! :uhoh:

[Engineer_aus]

Nice reflection there Capt.....

[Nautilus Blue]

Thanks Capn Bloggs, learn something new very day. And yes, you did :p.

airdualbleedfault - with respect I think you are still confusing movements with arrivals or departures. Wed morning TWR were firing 40+/hour departures. Remember all bar two flights out of PH are in an arc of just 135 degrees, and I don't think thats bad going (if the TWR didn't clump same direction departures together we could do better, but thats another story).

[Groaner]

Just out of interest, can anybody name me an organisation that has it's headquarters in a separate city to it's two major centres?

Umm, the federal government? Rio Tinto? BHP? Most/all Perth junior mining companies?

[sunnySA]

if the TWR didn't clump same direction departures together we could do better, but thats another story

Surely this IS the story, HIRO can only be effective if everyone is playing the game.

[aussie027]

airdualbleedfault - with respect I think you are still confusing movements with arrivals or departures. Wed morning TWR were firing 40+/hour departures. Remember all bar two flights out of PH are in an arc of just 135 degrees, and I don't think thats bad going (if the TWR didn't clump same direction departures together we could do better, but thats another story). Especially in Perth's peak departure times-

The above same direction comment just got me thinking about the fact that once all the departing aircraft are lined up nose to tail on the 1 or maybe 2 available taxiways to the THLD holding points then ATC can basically only launch them in the order they are lined up on each, regardless of their departure routing/direction or type (TP or jet) and thus departure climb out speeds.

Just an out of the box thought, what if the last approx 3-500m of the taxiway was wide enough to be like a 2 lane road so that everyone was lined up as now nose to tail in the left hand "holding lane" but could then be called out of that line/lane by ATC so that they can be launched in any order ATC deemed best??? The order of the original taxiway lineup then wouldn't matter. As gaps form in the holding lane everyone just moves forward to fill gaps and allow following aircraft in to the back of the "holding lane" area.

That way they could launch say 2-4 similar speed jets one after the other then 2-4 T/props etc and so on so there would be less issues with a jet that was lined up right behind it overtaking a T/Prop on a similar/same SID or routing or a fast jet doing the same to a slower climbing one etc until they were further away from the airport where there is then more room to manoeuvre/ radar vector both laterally as well as vertically to maintain separation.

That might lead to an overall faster TKOf rate/hr as the time waiting for faster type to be cleared behind a slower aircraft that has departed ahead of it could be reduced as the climb speeds of each would be better matched and there would be little overtaking rate speed difference, eg jet behind a much slower climbing T/prop.
IE, Separation times could be closer to the minimums allowed as the speed/performance of that "departing group type" would all be very similar.

If 2-3 T/props go one after the other with say a left turn on routes heading in a certain direction then maybe the next 2-3 jets launched behind them could be those going right initially or further straight out before turning left etc.

I hope you can understand what I am trying to say. Just an idea.

[Transition Layer]

Nautilus, thanks for the ATC perspective. We get a little frustrated when we are down low, at min speed and still overtaking the aircraft sequenced in front of us. The F100s seem to cause the most grief for whatever reason, obviously they cruise slower and then plan to descend at much higher speeds.

There's only so much you can do when you're reasonably heavy and don't have unlimited fuel tanks!

[ranmar850]

It doesn't appear that any Skywest F100 tech crew have responded on this, so , from a charter SLF perspective--things have changed since the introduction of the new system. Inbound to Perth, PM, it was a case of get into the air on scheduled departure time then wait to see how long it would be before the power comes right off. Or how many holding orbits you did inland from Jurien Bay. Watching other flights orbit with you. Now, on the PM flight, departing West Angeles, you will board at sunset, and wait until last light to depart. Announcement about a slot time, get into the air, and then the power comes right back in the cruise. Normal flight time would be 95 minutes, more commonly now is 120 minutes. Can go out to 135 minutes. Slow all the way, but not often having to orbit. Some on here who haven't had to work into the Pilbara may not have noticed that the busiest minesite strips are visual daylight only. So we have to be airborne by last light. Hence you get all these F100's into the air at the same time, and they have to manage it. Less of an issue as the days get longer, probably, delay departure time to lessen time in the air. But I know we've been sitting on the piano keys, midwinter, watching the landing lights grow very bright on the ground ahead. Until the mining companies we work for decide to stagger knock-off times for those coming off-roster , or a third runway is built, it won't change. My money would be on ther third runway option happening first , as easy as the other option sounds.:*

[David75]

Just an out of the box thought, what if the last approx 3-500m of the taxiway was wide enough to be like a 2 lane road so that everyone was lined up as now nose to tail in the left hand "holding lane" but could then be called out of that line/lane by ATC so that they can be launched in any order ATC deemed best???

Or something like Rome with 2 holding points each side of the departure runway AA1 and AA2 from memory. 50 seconds between departures for 737 sized aircraft. Granted they seemed to have a dedicated departures runway that doesn't cross the arrival runway. The limiting factor in perth appears to be airspace and separation on the climb though from previous postings here.

[sunnySA]

CDM
http://http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/cdm_fact_sheet.pdf

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6sV5BwNcAQ&feature=share&list=UU7PuoYiezAXHtVR_s0XWRzA

[Checkerboard]

To hopefully provide a little more info for Nautilus and Transition Layer from an F100 pilots point of view-

We have a very wide speed range in the cruise and can slow down considerably more than the Boeings. We can do anywhere from M0.60 to M0.76 in the cruise so if ATC give us a Julim time the first thing we do is slow down the cruise and leave the descent as profile (normally 0.72/270). Only if at min cruise speed we still cannot meet the Julim time will we then slow the descent profile.
I think Nautilus hit the nail on the head, we loose the time in cruise and you (Transition Layer) are loosing it on descent so we end up with problems!

Ranmar850- Its good to see you have grasp of what is going on with the West Angelas departures, we often think that you guys must think we are just trying to upset you but its far from the case! Often our COBT at West Angelas is after last light and we cannot depart out of there after dark (as you pointed out) so we hold off as long as we can before taking off but as we are early on our COBT we still cop slow downs as soon as we get airborne.

[ranmar850]

Checkerboard-I can assure they they don't all "get it" :rolleyes:, but there is a generalised, vague understanding that Perth Airport is the problem, and it really is beyond your control. And they all reckon you do a great job into that strip, with all its limitations.
I'm only a PPL (with a lapsed medical :O) but maintain a very strong interest in all things with wings. And you can certainly do some quick turnarounds when your departure from Perth is delayed to the point where you are landing at WA a few minutes before sunset!

One for the Skywest boys and girls flying into West Ang.

http://ranmar.smugmug.com/Motorcycles/landscapes/i-ncmLBXH/0/XL/LREdit-westangeles-1-2-XL.jpg

[Chadzat]

Great pic! :ok:

[Nautilus Blue]

Checkerboard - thanks for that.
anywhere from M0.60 to M0.76 in the cruise
Very nearly learnt that the hard way. Two F100's outbound from PH, same airline, same track, same level, leaving radar, M.07 closing!
I've always thought one thing the F100 is best at is slowing down ;).

Transition Layer - perspective makes all the difference. We would be sitting there cursing the 737 for not slowing down until the last minute. It didn't occur to me that you might be doing a constant IAS. As a radar controller I only tend to think in terms of groundspeed.

It has been suggested that if the fixes were further out it would be less of a problem, because most of the descent would be after the fix, and so therefore everybody would be doing 250kts. The downside would be less time/miles to lose speed to make the fix.

My money would be on ther third runway option happening first , as easy as the other option sounds

My money would be on the development of matter teleportation before either!

[Capn Bloggs]

What needs to happen here is talk between ATC and operators. Slow as possible in cruise and high-speed descent is only one way of doing things, IMO not the most efficient, fuel-wise, and it appears not the easiest for ATC. A reasonable-speed cruise and reasonable-speed descent would probably be better.

If ATC tells us officially what annoys them, I'm sure the pilots/operators could adjust their modus operandi to fit in a bit better.

if the fixes were further out it would be less of a problem, because most of the descent would be after the fix
As mentioned, in some types, the descent is where a lot of the time is lost. If there is less descent, less capability to go slow (as well as less time in cruise). We see this on the Julim for 03: the higher crossing altitude leaves us less time to get slow before the FF.

[Nautilus Blue]

Ironically JULIM for 03 is easier for us because of later descent. If you are still not 5 miles behind at REVOP on 21 its a problem, less so on 03 because you don't need as much descent.

Easiest for us is everybody doing the same, whichever that is. Thats what approach get (in theory) at 40nm, aircraft 2 minutes apart and doing the same speed.

Re talks between ATC and operators, who you get from ATC is the issue. If ASA was an airline, and I was say a 737NG pilot, my immediate superior would not have flown for 15 years, and then it would have been an F100. PH controllers would be A320 pilots, and the FLOW would fly helicopters. The overall manager would have spent the first 18 months of his airline career flying Electra's, and then spent 20+ years in an office.

[2bigmellons]

Hi Bloggs and TL,

Good discussion..quick question. Both 737 I assume, what is a normal descent speed schedule for you guys assuming you have no holding/slow down restrictions and what would be a minimum fuel descent speed schedule at say your average weights arriving to Perth?


Im another F100 driver...I think its quick to assume we should be doing the same thing, but they are different aircraft and they are operated in different ways. It would seem you guys are suffering the consequence of the way we operate the aircraft. I'm happy to help out as much as I can, and having a wider understanding of how things work can't hurt. Bloggs I agree, discussion between operators is good, hence reason for my post!

[myshoutcaptain]

Nautilus & ATC :ok:

A320 - throw in my three dollars twenty , we tend to drop the descent speed first M.70/220 then go for the reduction in the cruise to fine tune it ... everyone has a way to skin the cat but that's what I have seen the most.

Side thought - weekends we taxi past all the work areas - no one around. Are the penalty rates that high that the boys only work mon-fri ... when all this fuss is happening..... :ugh:

[Boomerang]

A320: Our company descent profile is cost index cruise in to 280kt. Usually about .78/280.

In order to try to maintain a reasonable profile (not super shallow with ATC steps) I prefer to reduce cruise speed first to a comfortably low speed, then if necessary use that as mach for descent into 280, then start reducing the 280 KIAS. Often you are 10 kt above min clean all the way and still cant make it and thats when a vector helps. Curious though why an orbit (about 2-4 min delay) is rarely available? Is it due to conflicting airways laterally?

ATC has a record of standard speeds for most companies, as yet no requests have been made to vary these 'profile' descent speeds as far as I know (as a pilot pleb). Terminal arrival speeds should be standardised fairly soon though, all going well.

[Nautilus Blue]

Curious though why an orbit (about 2-4 min delay) is rarely available?

If you need extra mlles, we need to get them done prior to 90nm on the outer sectors (except turbos below F190), partly due workload and partly due congestion. At the sort of levels you are out there, even a four minute orbit is optimistic. The other issue with orbits vs vectors is that we 'lose control' once you start an orbit i.e if you are 1/3 of the way around and we can see you will be late, its too late to fix it, whereas a vector allows more fine tuning. Remember late is much much worse than early.

About 6 minutes is the cutoff for vectoring vs holding. Less than that and you won't be able to get round a pattern, more than that and vectoring takes too much time and attention. There are exceptions obviously. Sometimes if the pattern if full I've vectored for 10+ minute delays well north of REVOP, particularly for non RVSM traffic if we can't get them below F290.

ATC has a record of standard speeds for most companies

Well, some companies. It also only applies if we haven't given you a delay, which is why this thread has been so enlightening

[Capn Bloggs]

what is a normal descent speed schedule for you guys assuming you have no holding/slow down restrictions and what would be a minimum fuel descent speed schedule at say your average weights arriving to Perth?
737-20 ;). Normal .77->295, Min Fuel is Cost Index Zero, .74ish->220.

[Chief galah]

Bring back the 727 - descent .85/350KIAS to 20nm from touchdown,
or the DC 9 - .82/320KIAS to 15nm from touchdown.
Pilots of the day seemed to like it.

[Roger Standby]

How would the airlines like it if we instructed "cross Julim at XX, descend at 250 knots"? We'd probably have to throw in a few short vectors every now and then, but you'd all be coming in at the same speed without the problem of running parallel tracks and also the issue where number one is descending at 220 and increasing at Julim with number two coming in at 280 and reducing. As Nautilus has advised, a short vector on 125.2 is far easier than trying to tweak times without encroaching Pearce airspace on 133.9.

[2bigmellons]

Bloggs,

Normal descent for us would usually be about .73/280kt.

I tend to reduce the cost index to meet the julim time and if that works I don't worry about changing the descent. However if its a big delay, then we'll start reducing the descent speed. It hasn't occurred to me to try changing the descent speed first...might have to give it a go and see what happens :ok:

73-200?...ah, you must be on the top of Kevin McNamaara's noise complaint hit list? :E

[Monopole]

From what I can see, the F100 flies a very slow cruise (220KIAS or less) then into 250kts or more on descent I don't think the issue the speed the F100 flys at, but rather the shorter sectors they fly. It's hard to loose 20 mins on an hour sector, but the F100 is probably the aircraft best to give it a crack.

For me personally, I find it easier and more accurate to cruise at the slower speeds and have the extra power in reserve for increasing to meet the times. There is only so slow you can go (even in the 100 :}) if you've come in fast and need to slow down. And as already mentioned, that is probably the crux of the problem. Too many people skinning the same cat in differant ways.

[myshoutcaptain]

It was only a matter of time....

Perth Airport Upgrade - YouTube

:D

[Capn Bloggs]

Had to get the tissues for that one!

The question is: who is AH? HD? :}

[Roger Standby]

I named my dog Metron... Gold!:ok:

[aviator's_anonymous]

i reckon this sums up Perth Airport Upgrade :P

Perth Airport Upgrade - YouTube

[Woodwork]

Either way this is off topic. It is the facilities at Perth airport that we are talking about. Geatches also blamed pilots and AsA for the way we use the airspace. Again, everyone elses's fault. The latest brochure I saw the other day about RUNWAY OCCUPANCY times, once again blame the pilots for taking too long to get off the runway with no high speed exits. There would only be incremental improvements if everyone trimmed their occupancy by 10%, the structural flaws would remain.

This and similar sentiment that it's the airport corporation's responsibility to fund and build a new runway of its own initiative is ridiculous and ignorant of corporate law. As a registered corporation, any airport company in private hands is bound by law to maximise return to shareholders. Constructing something worth hundreds of millions that will take decades to pay off, if ever, is a stupid business decision, especially when all the current assets are working at capacity and there is no serious suggestion that doing so will increase revenue.

Imagine Perth Airport is a McDonalds store, the passengers are hamburgers, and the aircraft are cars queued at the drive through. You - the manager - have bought and paid for the store and its drive-through lanes as-is. Every day, around the clock, you have queues of cars waiting to buy your burgers and give you money. It costs you very little to take their money except to occasionally re-pave the car park and give the fibreglass statue of Ronald a clean. At peak times, you sell so many hamburgers cars are circling off your property and into the nearby streets, waiting to give you money. They begin to complain about the wait but none are willing to give up and try some chicken, so wait they will, no matter what.

At this point, looking at ways to serve your hamburgers faster and collect more money is good business sense. Re-mortgaging the business to open another drive-through lane isn't, especially since the number of cars waiting to buy your burgers won't change much - if the price of iron collapses further, it may even decline - and the government are so involved in regulating the price of your burgers you may not even be able to recoup construction costs in a reasonable time frame.

It's a crappy business decision and evidence why airports, whose infrastructure adds so much more value to the economy than can be measured in a corporate sense, should never have been privatised. Now they have been, blaming the operator for the crap decisions of past governments isn't really fair. Or productive.

[neville_nobody]

Except that in the land of McDonalds they have competition. Subway opens across the road, KFC around the corner, or in reality build another store! So all those cars in the queue decide that even though KFC or Subway cost more theyll go there and save half an hour of their time. Perth airport have no competition so can get away with outstandingly poor service. Announce a brand new airport on the northern outskirts of Perth with a train link and watch how quick YPPH builds a new runway and terminal.

[Woodwork]

Yes exactly neville. As I mentioned it's why privatising airports was a ridiculous thing to do. It is, however, done.

You'll have more luck petitioning Xenophon to re-nationalise airports (or partially so - best suggestion I've seen so far is re-acquire the hardware and lease terminal operations only) than you will asking Mr Geatches or his ilk to break their obligation to shareholders to maximise profit over efficiency. He's bound by various parts of corporations law to do so.

[le Pingouin]

Woodwork, no more naive than the airlines wanting to maximise the return to their shareholders by reducing delays and not paying for the infrastructure.

If your company is causing my company to operate inefficiently and standing in the way of my obligations to my shareholders under the corporations act by providing inadequate facilities then why shouldn't I complain long and hard?

[topend3]

we talk as though if airports were government owned then all the problems would be solved, the 3rd runway would go in and there would be no congestion issues....would it actually be any different...? I doubt it...

[neville_nobody]

Except that pressure can be put on the government to improve services. If aviation companies and the miners lobbied a goverment you would have a awesome setup.

Just look how quickly Rio and BHP made the mining tax disappear.

[topend3]

and a government could build infrastructure quick enough to keep pace with 20% traffic growth....

[Nautilus Blue]

we talk as though if airports were government owned then all the problems would be solved, the 3rd runway would go in and there would be no congestion issues....would it actually be any different...? I doubt it...


I would guess better infrastructure but less efficient/more expensive. DCA as was used to employ full time motor mechanics to service the radio techs cars. A modern business probably outsources the outsourcing of stuff like that.

[Woodwork]

If your company is causing my company to operate inefficiently and standing in the way of my obligations to my shareholders under the corporations act by providing inadequate facilities then why shouldn't I complain long and hard?

Presumably, the boards at Qantas and Virgin, when actually concentrating on the economics of running their airlines properly, have considered whether there'd be a benefit to trying to take over the airport and build the runway themselves, and have decided against it. No one wants to be left holding the stinky can of debt if the mining boom dries up and the runway isn't needed anymore. It's why only a competent government (hah!) can really be expected to fund this kind of development.

[Propstop]

competent government (hah!) can really be expected to fund this kind of development.

Do we have such a thing in Australia???????:ugh:

[ga_trojan]

What always makes me laugh is how in Adam Smith's model of capitalism it was the government that provided the infrastructure and that is why you pay tax.

Yet in our so-called 'free market' system we have all these privatised infrastructure monopolies which were mainly created by Liberal governments!

[Going Boeing]

Yet in our so-called 'free market' system we have all these privatised infrastructure monopolies which were mainly created by Liberal governments!

To pay off the massive debt inherited from the previous Labor government!

I'm totally against airports, railways etc being privatised as they are essential infrastructure that should be provided as part of our tax structure - unfortunately, Labor's free-spending ways created so much debt that the Howard government was forced to sell the farm which has been causing grief for the all tax-payers ever since. The current Labor government didn't learn from their predecessors and are driving us into massive debt yet again.

The current owners of Australian airports are good at building car parks as they begin to return revenue immediately but runways (who would have thought that an airport needed runways) tie up capital for many years during the construction phase before any revenue is created. Brisbane Airports Corporation recently tried to circumvent this problem by asking airlines to pay a surcharge for the new runway while it is being built - I don't know the legality of that but it sounds shonky.

[gaunty]

The You Tube vid is pure Gold.

I heard the Geatches interview whilst driving and had to pull over I was laughing so much. At first I thought for a moment he was talking about another airport altogether

[Capn Bloggs]

Where ya bin, Gaunty?! :D

[Capn Bloggs]

Buswell pushes on third runway
By Geoffrey Thomas Aviation Editor
Exclusive, The West Australian
Updated November 5, 2012, 3:47 am

The State Government is demanding answers from Perth Airport on a range of issues including plans and the timeline for a third runway and its commitment to an integrated international and domestic terminal.

In a frank letter, Treasurer and Transport Minister Troy Buswell also questions the way commercial leases for warehouses are structured and if they will limit the airport's ability to fund critical airfield infrastructure, such as another runway.

The letter, obtained by _The West Australian _, asks for a meeting with Perth Airport Pty Ltd's chief executive Brad Geatches and its chairman David Crawford.

The company has held a 49-year lease on the Commonwealth airport land since 1997, when the airport was privatised.

Mr Buswell warned last month that if the airport did not build a third runway to handle demand "it would be an impediment to the State's development".

Mining giants also question the quoted cost of the runway of $580 million given they build suitable runways for $50 million in the Pilbara where costs are higher.

Perth Airport is experiencing extraordinary growth, with a 40 per cent lift over the past five years and the growth is accelerating.

The letter opens with Mr Buswell reminding the airport "that both the State and Federal governments are committed to investing approximately $1 billion to upgrade the road network that services the airport".

"Given this commitment and the importance of the airport to the State's continued economic growth, I am seeking assurances that the planning and investment commitment of the State Government is adequately supported by Perth Airport," he said.

Mr Buswell says he wants details of the timeline for building the third runway and its anticipated capital cost supported by detailed financial and other information used to arrive at the estimate.

He also wants answers about the "practice of structuring commercial leases for airport land with large upfront payments and relatively low ongoing annual payments and its impact on the airport's ability to fund ongoing works".

Mr Geatches responded, saying "leases with upfront payments represented 2.6 per cent of Perth Airport's total revenue over the past five years" and claims "there are no sub-leases entered into by Perth Airport that would compromise timely construction of a third runway, or its design or operation".

Mr Geatches said Perth Airport's credit rating was upgraded this year by both Moody's and Standard & Poor's.

"The company has excellent support from shareholders and lenders to continue our major investments and Perth Airport has both the capacity and preparedness to bring forward the third runway, if airlines require it," he said.

Last month Qantas said it wanted a third runway.

Mr Buswell also wants a firm timeline on the development of the new consolidated international and domestic terminal.

'Perth Airport has both the capacity and preparedness to bring forward the third runway.'"Perth Airport's *Brad Geatches *

Runway key to capacity
The West Australian
Updated November 5, 2012, 3:51 am

Air traffic control provider Air- Services Australia says only an extra runway will solve Perth Airport's growth problems.

AirServices manager corporate communications Rob Walker said though an operational efficiency program under way would help increase capacity, it was "not the silver bullet".

"Only a new third runway will give us the 50 per cent increase in capacity the airport needs," Mr Walker said.

AirServices, in conjunction with Perth Airport and airlines, has been conducting an airport capacity enhancement with the help of British air traffic control provider NATS.

The report has identified about 25 ways to improve runway capacity, with a potential improvement of up to 20 per cent over two years, though that translates into only six to seven extra movements an hour at key times.

Perth Airport believes that in the afternoon traffic pattern it will achieve a 30 per cent gain, but that will meet only current demand with no provision for growth.

The improvements include pilots exiting runways faster or taking off without delay, installing more high-speed taxiway exits and the way planes are controlled.

Under the new system, pilots must be ready to roll the moment they are given line-up clearance. They will be asked for maximum braking and thrust reverse to leave the runway as fast as possible.

Perth Airport will build high-speed taxiways that are angled off - rather than at right angles - to the runway.

Geoffrey Thomas

Skippers fears for rural routes
Geoffrey Thomas, The West Australian
Updated November 5, 2012, 3:52 am

Perth Airport has moved to assure smaller airlines they will not be penalised under a new slot system to manage congestion.

Skippers Aviation, which has nine of the 11 regulated air routes to small regional centres, fears it will be excluded from the morning peak departure period despite having some of the routes for 22 years.

Skippers chairman Stan Quinlivan says it appears to regional communities and some mid to large mining companies that any plane with fewer than 46 seats has no right to use take-off slots they have used, in some cases, for 20 years.

Mr Quinlivan said documentation showed smaller planes would be excluded from the slot system.

He suggested that if this was the case, WA should consider similar legislation to that in NSW, where protection was given at Sydney Airport to flights from rural areas.

Mr Quinlivan said congestion at the airport was setting the airline back an average of 30 minutes on departures, with delays on most days for each service.

This put additional workloads and stress on pilots and made it necessary on most days to carry an extra 15 minutes of fuel, a payload equal to one passenger.

Delays at the airport cost an estimated $24 million a year.

[topend3]

I wonder where Skippers were flying on a regional route 22 years ago?

[gaunty]

And never let the Perth Airport leaseholders forget, they are NOT the "owners" of the airport they only hold a lease to operate the airport as an airport on behalf of the Commonwealth Government for and in the interests of the "Public" aka the actual owners.

That means runway infrastructure not warehouses.

[VR-HFX]

As an aide memoir, can anyone advise how long the Canadians have control of the lease?

I simply ask this because if there are many years to run...this thread on pprune will need it's own cloud computing centre, to be located next to the finger pointing centre.

The airport is a disgrace and the general consensus indicates this is not in dispute. The problem is that there is no one organisation responsible to fix it. Until that is achieved, it will not be fixed.

Meantime a couple of high speed exits on 03/21 would help....but as was said, without sufficient apron space and bays, what's the point?

As to METRON...perhaps it should be re-named MOGADON.

[VC9]

I suspect that METRON is not the problem but the way it is used is. Unfotunately this is quite common in Australian aviation. We think we know how to use these systems better than the rest of the world.

[Roger Standby]

Bit of a splatter statement, VC9. Care to add any constructive assessment?

[gaunty]

Have you ever tried explaining to the CEO of big mining company after he and his execs have finished the business for the day but being delayed missed their slot that his arrival at Perth airport is now not possible until 2100.
Watching their full FIFO aircraft depart just adds to the pain whilst they cool their heels.

Fortunately they are used to getting screwed by Perth airport.

But the fact they have probably just signed off on an expansion or more expenditure for more employment and more revenue for the airport seems to be misunderstood by the Geatches gang.

The writing was on the wall over 5 years ago and they just now start to wring their hands. :{

[VC9]

Give me a feeder fix time before departure, not a COBT. At least I then know what to aim for.

[VH-ABC]

So a COBT that has plus/minus buffers is harder for you to handle than getting a feeder fix time 800 nm's away spot on? I'll take the COBT.

[VC9]

I have no trouble with the COBT. It's just whatever they use to calculate it doesn't work. All the major operators have very accurate flight planning systems in place but the times used in the COBT are nothing like the generated flight plan.

Taxi exactly on the COBT which has given 30 minute delay and then get a further 10 minute delay for the feeder fix. It's not working.

[Capn Bloggs]

VC9, you're deluding yourself if you think industry can hit FF times without major clankups occurring. You obviously have little experience in the real world of WA. We tried pilot-controlled FF times (actually, touchdown times) and it was a total pain in the @rse to organise/manage properly, as well as not being very effective at all in sequencing aeroplanes.

As for your Metron quip, given it's been in operation for a whole 6 months, you're a bit strong on the critiscism, aren't you?

[geoffrey thomas]

Dear Icarus2001:
In actual fact we raised the issue of the third runway in December 2009 when it is clear to anyone that cared to look at the window at Perth Airport that the glum traffic forecasts were a joke and the GFC was passing us by.
We continued to raise the issue in the paper, on radio etc ever since.
Buswell has taken up the issue big time and its now finally front and centre.
Here is the article from 2009.
Best GT

Edition: METRO
Publication Date: 31/12/2009
Page Number: 21
Section: FEATURES
Column:
Keywords:
Biography:
Photo Captions: At max: Three days a week from 5.30am to 7am the airport is at capacity, with virtually no take-off or landing slots available.
Rejects criticism: Brad Geatches
Fastracking wanted: Don Randall
Byline: GEOFFREY THOMAS
Source Tagline:
Headline: Second runway pressure grows
Classification:
Subhead: The burgeoning army of fly in, fly out resource industry workers is overtaxing Perth Airport
Text: In the late 1950s the former aviation director for the US State of Ohio, the late Norm Crabtree, uttered the famous and oft-quoted words that an “airport runway is the most important main street in any town”.
For WA’s resource industry, which is the economic engine of Australia, that main street is indeed the runway at Perth Airport, which mid-week is becoming over-taxed.
But a second parallel runway is not planned till at least 2029.
While it is true that the average aircraft movements at Perth are not forecast to reach the tipping point for a second parallel runway for at least another 20 years, nothing about Perth Airport’s operations is average.
From Tuesday to Thursday between 5.30am and 7am the airport is at peak capacity, with virtually no take-off or landing slots available, as fly in, fly out flights uplift an army of resource industry workers.
On those days the movements at Perth Airport are close to 450 a day or - 164,000 movements a year - with air-traffic controllers striving to get aircraft off the ground as quickly as technically possible.
While the simple solution would be to spread the fly in, fly out flights more evenly through the week, or the day, it isn’t that easy.
Mining executives explain that the Tuesday to Thursday rostering of workers is sacred. Resource workers do not want to be flying on Mondays or Fridays because these are often public holidays or a rostered day off and they want that time - if on their week off - with their loved ones, who are typically in the Perth workforce. “Time with their families is precious and the last thing they want is to be flying on a Monday holiday, ” one mining executive said.
And from a rostering perspective, the resource companies want workers on site early in the morning. For Perth Airport and the airlines, that demand peak creates headaches.
The airport leaseholder, Westralia Airports Corporation, may be forced to build an additional runway, which would be idle for much of the week, while airlines need to acquire additional aircraft that would likewise be parked for half a week.
There are some solutions but they may only delay the need for an additional runway by a few years.
Resource companies are now building longer runways - or extending runways- at mine sites to handle higher-capacity aircraft such as the 180-seat A320 and operators such as Skywest Airlines are planning to introduce that aircraft type from July next year to eventually replace its fleet of 100-seat Fokker 100 jets.
Perth Airport is also committed to building high-speed taxiways off the airport’s main and secondary cross runways.
While the airport’s current two crossing runway configuration allows for some additional slots, when the wind is from the north-east for take-offs and south-west for landings that ability depends on the winds and cannot be scheduled.
High-speed taxiways will certainly help increase the number of aircraft the airport can handle, although that depends on a variety of factors.
According to airport critics such as Federal Canning MP Don Randall, the airport needs an additional runway by 2019, not 2029.

Perth Airport CEO Brad Geatches rejects the criticism, saying that he is concerned that Mr Randall may not have the forecasting resources or the airline projections to which the airport is privy. However, Mr Randall has spent many years studying the airport, first with the City of Belmont, before entering politics.
Adding fuel to Mr Randall’s claims, it would appear that Perth Airport’s latest forecasts that were used in its 2009 master plan, recently approved by the Federal Government, are too conservative.
In the master plan the airport suggests a growth of just 0.1 per cent for 2010 because of the economic downturn, with recovery not occurring till 2011.
However, in the past three months, Perth Airport’s passenger figures are up almost 3 per cent on last year’s, while aircraft movements for aircraft over 20,000kg in weight are up 7.8 per cent.
Clearly all interested stakeholders, including the Federal Government which needs to fund significant road works around the airport, need to work more closely to find solutions to the logistic problems while not wasting precious resources.
There is nothing quite as expensive and wasteful as a disused runway, while it would be an economic travesty if WA’s future was hobbled for the want of just 3000m of asphalt.