Sydney weather and curfew

[Captain Garmin]

Watched Rex 472 'land' 16R 44 mins after curfew at Sydney tonight.

Both he and a virgin B737 conducted missed approaches just before 11pm curfew.

Given Virgin (ex Perth) diverted to Melbourne and Rex diverted to Orange but got halfway there and came back, do turboprops have a better chance of a curfew dispensation than jets?

Note ATC did not seem to be aware of any dispensation warning Rex 5 times that curfew was in operation and Penalties apply.

CG

PS: Some great piloting out there tonight during the Sydney cold core 'hurricane' that had airfield winds to 57 kts and A380s going missed :ok:

[RUMBEAR]

Dash 8's are exempt from the curfew, so would assume Saab340 would be also.

[BPA]

Curfew doesn't apply to turboprops such as the Saab 340, Dash 8s, ATRs, B1900s, Kingair's etc.

[Stanwell]

I seem to recall that the Quadrapuffs were exempt when they were operating from YSSY - or is it my faulty memory?

[Capt Fathom]

Whilst the curfew doesn't apply to turboprops (and a certain number of quiet jets), you can only depart off 16R and arrive on 34L.
Looking at the TAFs and Metars, I doubt an arrival on 34L would have been possible!

[AerocatS2A]

Yes, landing on anything other than 34L is a violation of curfew regardless of dispensations, but if you planned to get there on time and you end up still airborne during curfew, you do what you have to.

[Duck Pilot]

"You do what you to" ???? I like that attitude, we must have went to the same school!!!

Given the significance of the weather event, I believe it would be reasonably fair to say that anyone busting the curfew last night, would have made that decision on reasonable grounds, especially considering SAFETY.

[Australopithecus]

As if you could hear an aeroplane over the noise of the howling wind.

[chimbu warrior]

I seem to recall that the Quadrapuffs were exempt when they were operating from YSSY - or is it my faulty memory?

Yes they got special consideration, because even if they departed at dawn they were pushing to make YSSY by 11 pm!

[halas]

A few years back was operating ex Heathrow in the evening.
That afternoon a storm came through and shut the airport for the best part of two hours.
The curfew was lifted until all aircraft were where they had to be either in or out.
We left at 1am.
Makes sense when slots are tight.

And the 146 was allowed into SYD during curfew, but in on 34L and out on 16R.
I used to drive the AN freighters.

halas

[AerocatS2A]

146 is still allowed in during curfew. Landing allowed on 34L with up to 20 knots tailwind, but that wasn't much use these past few days.

[Stalins ugly Brother]

Heathrow applies common sense to their curfew policy. No such thing exists in Sydney, all politically driven unfortunately. :ugh:

[KRUSTY 34]

Gotta' agree S.U.B.

As if the crews didn't have enough on their plate last night without at every frequency change being reminded of the curfew requirements. I mean FFS! Notwithstanding the annoying aspect of it all, the much more serious potential of pressuring a crew into an alternate, and possibly incorrect course of action.

Whoever presides over this lunatic policy should take a long hard look at themselves!

Hopefully the airlines will show some balls and tell them as much.

[hiwaytohell]

On nights like this there needs to be some safety override!

[Old 'Un]

I just hope that this or other curfews don't, one day, end in tears with some poor souls at the pointy end making decisions to avoid breaking curfew and paying the ultimate price.

Even the thought of it sends a shiver...

The question that needs to be asked is "Was the airport there before you bought the property you are trying to protect from noise?" If the answer is "yes" then the response is "sorry, grandfathered right belongs to the airport, unless you want to pay to have it shifted?"

Overly simplistic, but watch these same folk that have caused this curfew get up in arms if their transit time to a relocated airport goes up to 2 hours plus.

Le Vieux

[Creampuff]

As if the crews didn't have enough on their plate last night without at every frequency change being reminded of the curfew requirements. I mean FFS! Notwithstanding the annoying aspect of it all, the much more serious potential of pressuring a crew into an alternate, and possibly incorrect course of action.Is it really true that air traffic controllers were including information about curfew requirements in transmissions to aircraft inbound to Sydney during last evening's weather events?

[TwoFiftyBelowTen]

Last night, all night, wind 170/25-40 and WET runway. Nothing landed (....after the Saab got in on 16R)

[G.Green]

Whenever I have to land at SYD past the curfew I just divert; usually to MEL where there is no curfew and stand down due to FTL. Saves a lot of hassle and paperwork and I simply leave it to the company to sort out the subsequent mess. Mind you I avoid SYD trips like the plague whenever I can and only go there when forced to: such as when on standby duty if I can't negotiate a trip to somewhere else instead.

[Qantas 787]

The irony is the noise made by the wind and the rain would have been far louder than any aircraft landing...........common sense doesn't apply when it comes to the curfew in Sydney.

[hiwaytohell]

The question that needs to be asked is "Was the airport there before you bought the property you are trying to protect from noise?"

The airport was, but the third runway was not.

The curfew was designed in 1994 and was a product of Labour dominated local, state and federal governments around the airport and inner city at the time.

Transport Minister at the time was Laurie Brereton with as a big a conflict of interest as you could imagine.

[Ken Borough]

The curfew was designed in 1994

Not so. It has existed since at least the early 1970s, if not before. The curfew in those days was not as rigidly enforced as it is today as a fair degree of common sense was applied in respect of its breach.

The ALP is not the only political party to have tinkered with it. The so-called 'Bennelong Funnel' was the result of activity by our former but unlamented Member for Bennelong and Prime Minister, one John Winston Howard.

[Fris B. Fairing]

For another insight into the curfew at Sydney Airport, I quote LeadSled's post from the Cyclone Tracy thread:

http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/473329-cyclone-tracy-1974-a-8.html#post8929028

Not sure if it is mentioned in any of the posts, but the first QF B707 out of Sydney broke the curfew in Sydney. Qantas Ops made application to the Minister (the only person who could authorise the exemption, Mrs. Jones' wonderful son, Charlie) but the exemption was refused, but the Minister's determination was ignored, and the aircraft left anyway.
Sadly, the executive who took this humanitarian decision "took early retirement" soon after, as a result of pressure from Canberra.
To Charlie, Labor votes in Sydney were more important than an emergency in Darwin.

Now there was a Transport Minister.

[kimwestt]

Would that be the Balloon Meister Gree:Dn?

[Homesick-Angel]

"The question that needs to be asked is "Was the airport there before you bought the property you are trying to protect from noise?" If the answer is "yes" then the response is "sorry, grandfathered right belongs to the airport, unless you want to pay to have it shifted?" ".

There is another precedent to this with muppets who move into inner city areas with live music and bars that are open late, cos they "like the vibe", and then proceed to shut them all down cos "it's too noisy".

The new law is called the "agent of change". If you build in an area near well established venues etc, it's your responsibility to sound proof the new building.

If you move under the flight path of an international airport... Stiff!

[Biggles_in_Oz]

What about the noise scenario where properties are near an airport but relatively quiet until a politician (whose electorate is under one of the approaches) decides to 'share the noise' and spreads the departure tracks, but doesn't compensate people to soundproof their properties to cope with the noise of aircraft departing just before the curfew starts.

[ramble on]

The idiocy of the Sydney curfew is a topic in itself, let alone the imposition in extreme circumstances like last week.

There must be practical dispensations for such weather events in our major capital city airports.

Curfew imposition was one of the contributing factors to the crash of a BA146 crash in Switzerland (Crossair 3597) in 2001.

The "idiocy" I was referring to is the interpretation of the Sydney curfew by its governing authority.

Some of the quiet aircraft that can and do operate inside the curfew period are restricted to a MTOW of 74800lb. Fair enough for Sydney departures I say.

But I have heard from friends that are affected in their aircraft that this "MTOW" is applied to their arrival flights into Sydney as well!

In effect if they were arriving into Sydney with minimum fuel inside the curfew they are still considered in breach if they took off on the other side of the Pacific above 74800lb! They are forced to land somewhere closer (eg; Fiji, Auckland, Noumea) and then takeoff below 74800lb to then arrive in Sydney at whatever fuel load they like - but below 74800lb.

What lunacy and reflective of the nation that we have become.

The curfew rules should properly state Sydney MTOW 74800lb and Sydney landing weight as low as possible to meet operational requirements but less than 74800lb.