Sydney airport upgrade will close runway
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: VMC
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sydney airport upgrade will close runway
Sydney airport's only east-west runway will be closed for more than a year for an upgrade, from April 2008 to mid 2009, the Sydney Airport Corporation Limited (SACL) says.
SACL spokesman Michael Samaras told AAP that flights into Australia's busiest airport will be diverted to Melbourne, Brisbane or Canberra if crosswinds prevent landings on Sydney airport's two remaining north-south strips.
"The temporary closure of the east-west runway means there will be operational impacts in the event of strong cross-winds," a SACL statement said.
"If there are high crosswinds while the east-west runway is unavailable it is likely that flights to and from the airport will be delayed or diverted to other airports."
Sydney residents living in the path of the north-south approaches will have to bear the burden of increased air traffic over their homes.
"People living under the existing flight paths to the north-south runways will, to varying extents, experience an increase in the frequency of aircraft movements," SACL said.
There will also be disruptions and some inconvenience to passengers while the project is underway, SACL CEO Russell Balding said.
Apologising to the public, Mr Balding said SACL aimed to maintain noise-sharing arrangements as far as practicable.
"However, the need to temporarily close the east-west runway and prevailing weather will have an unavoidable impact on noise sharing," Mr Balding said.
SACL expects the total increase in flight movements on the north-south approach will be between one and three additional flight movements per hour on each of the eight separate approach and departure flight paths.
"The actual flight movements will, however, vary on a day-to-day basis due to prevailing weather conditions," Mr Russell said.
Sydney airport will start construction of the $65 million larger runway safety area at the western end of the east-west runway in April 2008, SACL said.
Similar mandatory safety work is complete at the eastern end of the east-west runway and at all the other ends of the north-south strips.
The runway safety area will be an 8,100 square metre land bridge that will provide a cleared area measuring 90 metres by 90 metres from the end of the runway strip that will assist in the deceleration of an aircraft.
Construction will involve the installation of more than 100, 27 metre-long pre-cast concrete structural beams, each weighing more than 25 tonnes.
Pre-construction site works will get underway next month and the runway will either be closed, or have only restricted availability, from April 2008 to completion of the project in mid-2009, SACL said.
source: The Age
SACL spokesman Michael Samaras told AAP that flights into Australia's busiest airport will be diverted to Melbourne, Brisbane or Canberra if crosswinds prevent landings on Sydney airport's two remaining north-south strips.
"The temporary closure of the east-west runway means there will be operational impacts in the event of strong cross-winds," a SACL statement said.
"If there are high crosswinds while the east-west runway is unavailable it is likely that flights to and from the airport will be delayed or diverted to other airports."
Sydney residents living in the path of the north-south approaches will have to bear the burden of increased air traffic over their homes.
"People living under the existing flight paths to the north-south runways will, to varying extents, experience an increase in the frequency of aircraft movements," SACL said.
There will also be disruptions and some inconvenience to passengers while the project is underway, SACL CEO Russell Balding said.
Apologising to the public, Mr Balding said SACL aimed to maintain noise-sharing arrangements as far as practicable.
"However, the need to temporarily close the east-west runway and prevailing weather will have an unavoidable impact on noise sharing," Mr Balding said.
SACL expects the total increase in flight movements on the north-south approach will be between one and three additional flight movements per hour on each of the eight separate approach and departure flight paths.
"The actual flight movements will, however, vary on a day-to-day basis due to prevailing weather conditions," Mr Russell said.
Sydney airport will start construction of the $65 million larger runway safety area at the western end of the east-west runway in April 2008, SACL said.
Similar mandatory safety work is complete at the eastern end of the east-west runway and at all the other ends of the north-south strips.
The runway safety area will be an 8,100 square metre land bridge that will provide a cleared area measuring 90 metres by 90 metres from the end of the runway strip that will assist in the deceleration of an aircraft.
Construction will involve the installation of more than 100, 27 metre-long pre-cast concrete structural beams, each weighing more than 25 tonnes.
Pre-construction site works will get underway next month and the runway will either be closed, or have only restricted availability, from April 2008 to completion of the project in mid-2009, SACL said.
source: The Age
'Windy August' springs readily to mind....Westerlys straight off the mountains.
Not to mention the ocnl Ts that sweeps in from the 'Southern Highlands', as one elder ATCer used to complain on SY APP - They are so much on track for the 07, one could almost give the B's a cnce to land'.
Not to mention the ocnl Ts that sweeps in from the 'Southern Highlands', as one elder ATCer used to complain on SY APP - They are so much on track for the 07, one could almost give the B's a cnce to land'.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Macquarie Bank didn;t want to upset Mark Vaile
This proposed runway closure has been in the planning for about a year or more, however Macquarie Bank (private airport owner of Kingsford Smith APT) did not have the balls to announce this until after the election, for fear of upsetting former Minister for Aviation Mark Vaile (the failed jackaroo from Taree).
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Springfield
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
conceraviat - it is true Sydney Airport Corp and Airservices had been told not to mention this until after the state and federal elections. Both major parties would have wanted it kept quiet as its controversy would have only brought benefit to The Greens (who narrowly lost their NSW Senate seat to the Nationals). Frankly, I can't see why they even bothered mentioning it in a press release at all, even this far in advance. Aircraft noise complaints have been all but a non-issue since 11 Sep 2001 & the Ansett collapse - see "complaints history graph" in one the latest reports from DOTARS/SACF. The irony in all of this is the championing of a heritage-listed sewer causing the bulk of delay in construction of the safety overrun. Airline accountants and passengers should love the closure (except perhaps for those 30kt xwinds) - imagine no more 20min LTOP holding! Third winner is the environment: think of all the CO2 emissions saved as a result.
Curiously the SMH story Work on runway brings back the jet noise showed me two context-sensitive advertisements today, one for Etihad and the next time for Virgin Atlantic. Delicious!
Curiously the SMH story Work on runway brings back the jet noise showed me two context-sensitive advertisements today, one for Etihad and the next time for Virgin Atlantic. Delicious!
What an utter waste of money and resources!
So no matter how long a runway is (in the case of Runway 16R/34L, 4000 metres), the authorities (CASA) declare it requires a 90 metre "safety area" at each end.
http://www.sydneyairport.com.au/SACL...ty/default.htm
So if Runway 16R (which is 4000 metres long) was only 3820 metres long (which would still be considered a very long runway) and they added 90 metres at each end for a total of 4000 metres, that would be OK then would it?? The runway would now have it's safety area. What sort of logic is that??
They would have achieved the same thing without any significant construction work at all if they had simply displaced the threshold 90 metres, and reduced the TORA/ASDA by 90 metres at the other end.
Same principle with runway 07/25. The runway is 2530 metres long. Rather than spend $65,000,000 to extend the runway surface 90 metres to the west, over an area that is sloping down towards the Cook's River, hence the need for such extensive and expensive works, why not simply displace the 07 threshold 90 metres and reduce the LDA by the same amount. Runway 25 threshold is already displaced, so again, simply reduce the LDA by 90 metres. TORA/ASDA can be reduced by 90 metres at the western end, and the same thing is achieved.
There will be a small reduction in the maximum take-off weight an aeroplane can achieve when taking off on 07/25, but in those relatively uncommon cases, they would simply use runway 16R/34L. If the crosswind is too great on that runway (>25-35 kt), well then you would have plenty of headwind to take advantage of on 07/25.
Regarding cost. Not only are there the direct costs of the construction ie $$ and the energy (hence carbon emissions) expelled due to the construction of this western extension, you have the added cost and fuel burn of diversions when the crosswind on 16R/34L exceeds the aircraft limits. Not sure of other aircraft but the B737 can handle up to 35 kt on a dry runway and only 25 kt on a wet runway. I'm pretty sure 35 kt is more than most.
I suppose there is no way they are not going to go ahead with this. What a waste!
Duff Man. I think you are right in that the traffic flow will be much more efficient during constant parallel runway operations, however I wonder how much this will be offset by the periods during which no one can land due to excessive crosswinds.
So no matter how long a runway is (in the case of Runway 16R/34L, 4000 metres), the authorities (CASA) declare it requires a 90 metre "safety area" at each end.
http://www.sydneyairport.com.au/SACL...ty/default.htm
The provision of larger runway safety areas at Australia's airports is a mandatory safety requirement set by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and is in line with international aviation safety standards.* They are intended to minimise the harm to passengers in the unlikely event that an aircraft over runs or lands short of a runway.
Sydney Airport has three runways, so six of these larger runway safety areas are needed.* The Airport have already completed five, at a cost of $3 million, and will commence constructing the sixth, at a cost of more than $65 million, in April 2008.
*
Sydney Airport has three runways, so six of these larger runway safety areas are needed.* The Airport have already completed five, at a cost of $3 million, and will commence constructing the sixth, at a cost of more than $65 million, in April 2008.
*
They would have achieved the same thing without any significant construction work at all if they had simply displaced the threshold 90 metres, and reduced the TORA/ASDA by 90 metres at the other end.
Same principle with runway 07/25. The runway is 2530 metres long. Rather than spend $65,000,000 to extend the runway surface 90 metres to the west, over an area that is sloping down towards the Cook's River, hence the need for such extensive and expensive works, why not simply displace the 07 threshold 90 metres and reduce the LDA by the same amount. Runway 25 threshold is already displaced, so again, simply reduce the LDA by 90 metres. TORA/ASDA can be reduced by 90 metres at the western end, and the same thing is achieved.
There will be a small reduction in the maximum take-off weight an aeroplane can achieve when taking off on 07/25, but in those relatively uncommon cases, they would simply use runway 16R/34L. If the crosswind is too great on that runway (>25-35 kt), well then you would have plenty of headwind to take advantage of on 07/25.
Regarding cost. Not only are there the direct costs of the construction ie $$ and the energy (hence carbon emissions) expelled due to the construction of this western extension, you have the added cost and fuel burn of diversions when the crosswind on 16R/34L exceeds the aircraft limits. Not sure of other aircraft but the B737 can handle up to 35 kt on a dry runway and only 25 kt on a wet runway. I'm pretty sure 35 kt is more than most.
I suppose there is no way they are not going to go ahead with this. What a waste!
Duff Man. I think you are right in that the traffic flow will be much more efficient during constant parallel runway operations, however I wonder how much this will be offset by the periods during which no one can land due to excessive crosswinds.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blip
I believe the 90x90 'area' is the low density crusher concrete, designed to catch an aircraft that 'overruns'; it's not normal concrete... Or do I have the wrong end of the stick.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: over the rainbow
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On Monday next Anthony Albanese will be sworn in as the new Minister for Transport.Anthony,for those who don't know,is the Member for Grayndler,the Electorate immediately to the North of KSA and which will be the area most effected by the closure of 07/25.Look forward to the early announcement of yet another investigation into a suitable site for a second Sydney Airport.
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SM4Pirate - it is normal high strength concrete and not the crushable type.
As a comment, a standard "crushable concrete" EMAS bed would need to have been 183m long for the design case of a Boeing 747 exiting the runway at 70 knots.
As a comment, a standard "crushable concrete" EMAS bed would need to have been 183m long for the design case of a Boeing 747 exiting the runway at 70 knots.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not normal concrete
For the info of all
This initiative actually came from ICAO (CASA as a memeber has to be the party that takes care of the issue here)
As for the concrete, it's not normal rwy grade (keeping it simple) but a crusher type. It's like a big crumple zone if you like. On top of the ground, turf and grass is laid so you can't tell the difference with what would be the normal graded strip (other than the hard stand area). Under the grass is a sloping hard area (where the crusher conrete is) that slopes away from the runway longitudinally. That's why you can't just shorten the existing rwy and call part of it the RESA (RWY emergency safety area). Which is what this is.
I note that one poster above correctly noted about the heritage listed poo pipe as an issue. Also with the 25 RESA is the issue and relocation of high voltage cables, a tunnel relocation for ground service vehicles, the start of the M5 tunnel and of course the cooks river.
Having said all that, I'm not sure why they can't alter the declared distance of 07/25 for the duration of the works. Reposition the threshold makrkers etc, alter the limitaion surface etc to cater for the works vehilces that will be under the dept/app splay.
May be some can answer that one for us...
B.
This initiative actually came from ICAO (CASA as a memeber has to be the party that takes care of the issue here)
As for the concrete, it's not normal rwy grade (keeping it simple) but a crusher type. It's like a big crumple zone if you like. On top of the ground, turf and grass is laid so you can't tell the difference with what would be the normal graded strip (other than the hard stand area). Under the grass is a sloping hard area (where the crusher conrete is) that slopes away from the runway longitudinally. That's why you can't just shorten the existing rwy and call part of it the RESA (RWY emergency safety area). Which is what this is.
I note that one poster above correctly noted about the heritage listed poo pipe as an issue. Also with the 25 RESA is the issue and relocation of high voltage cables, a tunnel relocation for ground service vehicles, the start of the M5 tunnel and of course the cooks river.
Having said all that, I'm not sure why they can't alter the declared distance of 07/25 for the duration of the works. Reposition the threshold makrkers etc, alter the limitaion surface etc to cater for the works vehilces that will be under the dept/app splay.
May be some can answer that one for us...
B.
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 07/25 RESA works include driving some 240 large piles to support the concrete slab. And since the pile driving machine can't be erected and dismantled easily or quickly, it stays as a very high obstacle and makes the runway unusable.
I am still sure that the concrete on the RESA is going to be that of a concrete slab, which is the hard type of high strength concrete.
The other RESAs at Sydney are either soil/grass or they used a thin layer of RAP (recycled asphalt pavement – the old milled out stuff from asphalt repairs – local councils sometimes use this RAP for cheap carparks or footpaths because it is clean, durable and hardens a bit over time); the RAP was topped with 100mm of soil/grass. In appearance, the RAP would look a bit like crushed concrete, hence the possible confusion.
I am still sure that the concrete on the RESA is going to be that of a concrete slab, which is the hard type of high strength concrete.
The other RESAs at Sydney are either soil/grass or they used a thin layer of RAP (recycled asphalt pavement – the old milled out stuff from asphalt repairs – local councils sometimes use this RAP for cheap carparks or footpaths because it is clean, durable and hardens a bit over time); the RAP was topped with 100mm of soil/grass. In appearance, the RAP would look a bit like crushed concrete, hence the possible confusion.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reply to Overrun (appropriate user name!)
"I am still sure that the concrete on the RESA is going to be that of a concrete slab, which is the hard type of high strength concrete."
What you have writen here is true. As there wil need to be structural support over aspects such as the airside road tunnel, it is parramount that it is a hard slap type.
I'm not 100% sure but I still think that all the RESAs have to be consistent with the internatinoal requirements. Therefore they would all need to have the same upper finish. So for the 25 RESA, it would be hard slab for support in areas that need it then the same 'crusher' type mix with soil and grass atop.
I could be wrong, as I'm no longer privy to the inside info, but if the 25 RESA was all hard slab it would make for one interesting launch ramp for aircraft over running into the cooks river!
B.
What you have writen here is true. As there wil need to be structural support over aspects such as the airside road tunnel, it is parramount that it is a hard slap type.
I'm not 100% sure but I still think that all the RESAs have to be consistent with the internatinoal requirements. Therefore they would all need to have the same upper finish. So for the 25 RESA, it would be hard slab for support in areas that need it then the same 'crusher' type mix with soil and grass atop.
I could be wrong, as I'm no longer privy to the inside info, but if the 25 RESA was all hard slab it would make for one interesting launch ramp for aircraft over running into the cooks river!
B.
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bort, at the risk of being pedantic, I am trying to get away from the use of the word “crusher” with respect to the Sydney Airport RESAs.
The word “crusher” has the implication that these RESAs are an engineered arresting system, or EMAS, which is made from a special lightweight concrete which indeed crushes under the weight of an aircraft. Those at Sydney are not the “crusher” type, and are nothing like it. There are actually none of the “crusher” RESAs anywhere in Australia.
The ICAO requirements are simply that the RESA be ‘cleared and graded’ and that requirement can be achieved by a range of “upper finishes”.
The word “crusher” has the implication that these RESAs are an engineered arresting system, or EMAS, which is made from a special lightweight concrete which indeed crushes under the weight of an aircraft. Those at Sydney are not the “crusher” type, and are nothing like it. There are actually none of the “crusher” RESAs anywhere in Australia.
The ICAO requirements are simply that the RESA be ‘cleared and graded’ and that requirement can be achieved by a range of “upper finishes”.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: over the rainbow
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Daily Telegraph today reports on Chairman Rudd's "fury at Airport works".So furious in fact that he unleashed his newly promoted attack-puppy,Little Albo,with instructions to savage Airport Supremo Russell Balding who will now be required to come up with a plan "to minimise the impact on the public,such as more night work and reducing the time frame"."The Government has also ordered an independent engineers' report on the project and suggested that a full report on environmental impacts also could be sought". That should put the whole thing back at least until after the next Election.Albo is also quoted as saying that the Government will revive the proposal for a second Sydney Airport in the future but that it wont be at Badgerys Creek.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Straya
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OverRun
Nice to have such informed commentary on this forum.
I'm still unsure, however, of the answer to the obvious question about carving off the 90m western extremity of rwy 25 and calling it RESA, instead of the seemingly Herculean task of diverting a river (or a river of sewage). The jumbo drivers may not like it, but most of us only use 25 when there's a very decent headwind and wouldn't really miss 90m of TORA.
Nice to have such informed commentary on this forum.
I'm still unsure, however, of the answer to the obvious question about carving off the 90m western extremity of rwy 25 and calling it RESA, instead of the seemingly Herculean task of diverting a river (or a river of sewage). The jumbo drivers may not like it, but most of us only use 25 when there's a very decent headwind and wouldn't really miss 90m of TORA.
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yusef Danet,
The 07/25 runway length is what I would call at a critical length. There are many operations which are JUST comfortable with takeoffs at that length. Losing 90m would have a significant impact on operations. Off-load a few passengers here and there, fuel load issues, arthritic 737-400s grinding away on very hot days, etc.
The airport has to accommodate the full range of aircraft types, loads, destinations and runway demands for the next 30 years or more. It is impossible to forecast exactly what is going to happen over that period. But they are faced with the demand now to provide the facilities that will accommodate that unpredictability. Since a 90m RESA has to be provided, the airport has to provide it. The best available knowledge is that losing 90m off a 2530m runway is not an acceptable option. So they have done the only other thing which is to build the concrete RESA.
It’s not my airport, nor my project, but it makes good sense. Speaking as someone who has in some places carved off 90m and called it RESA, and who has in other places extended things and built new RESAs.
The 07/25 runway length is what I would call at a critical length. There are many operations which are JUST comfortable with takeoffs at that length. Losing 90m would have a significant impact on operations. Off-load a few passengers here and there, fuel load issues, arthritic 737-400s grinding away on very hot days, etc.
The airport has to accommodate the full range of aircraft types, loads, destinations and runway demands for the next 30 years or more. It is impossible to forecast exactly what is going to happen over that period. But they are faced with the demand now to provide the facilities that will accommodate that unpredictability. Since a 90m RESA has to be provided, the airport has to provide it. The best available knowledge is that losing 90m off a 2530m runway is not an acceptable option. So they have done the only other thing which is to build the concrete RESA.
It’s not my airport, nor my project, but it makes good sense. Speaking as someone who has in some places carved off 90m and called it RESA, and who has in other places extended things and built new RESAs.
Last edited by OverRun; 17th Dec 2007 at 10:28.
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RESA has been delayed. Sydney Airport bowed to pressure around the proposed construction of the RESA. CEO Russell Balding announced that SACL has launched a Major Development Plan focused on the project. This means soliciting government approval and 60 working days of public consultation, so the construction which was scheduled to start in April has now been put back to October.
From the SACL website:
The new CASA runway safety standards come into effect in May [2008]. Sydney Airport has made a submission to CASA to enable continued operations of the runway from this time with some limitations. This will involve creating a temporary runway safety area by temporarily shortening the runway. As soon as this issue is resolved by CASA further information will be made available.
And a great picture of it:
From the SACL website:
The new CASA runway safety standards come into effect in May [2008]. Sydney Airport has made a submission to CASA to enable continued operations of the runway from this time with some limitations. This will involve creating a temporary runway safety area by temporarily shortening the runway. As soon as this issue is resolved by CASA further information will be made available.
And a great picture of it:
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why Does anyone bother doing anything?
It's not often I say this but I really do feel for SACL on this one.
They committed to undertake a large, in both cost and scope, engineering project in order to comply with regulations set by ICAO and an Australian Government agency, CASA, only to have the rug pulled from under them by a Minister and Local Member who is too scared to tell his constituents to tough out some temporary but necessary aircraft noise.
No wonder we seem to be suffering infrastructure bottlenecks in aviation and other sectors. This sort of political meddling and red tape should be enough to scare anyone off trying to do anything major in this country.
Please do not mistake my comments as implying the RWY 07/25 RESA is a major infrastructure project. It is not. However, it is one that was mandated by the Australian Government, through CASA, and now another Government has imposed further conditions thus delaying and possibly scrapping it. Would such a thing happen becasue the temporary effects of highway roadworks?
I am led to believe that SACL committed to the RESA solution in order to reduce their exposure in the event of aircraft over run into the SWOOS or M5. RESAs are there to provide extra protection to aircraft and occupants that over run/undershoot runways.
I can only say to those inner west residents that complained of increased noise that I hope it is not one of your family or friends that will be injured or killed in case of an aircraft overrun accident off the Western End of RWY 25 into the M5. An accident that could be at least partially prevented by the solution that SACL proposed.
They committed to undertake a large, in both cost and scope, engineering project in order to comply with regulations set by ICAO and an Australian Government agency, CASA, only to have the rug pulled from under them by a Minister and Local Member who is too scared to tell his constituents to tough out some temporary but necessary aircraft noise.
No wonder we seem to be suffering infrastructure bottlenecks in aviation and other sectors. This sort of political meddling and red tape should be enough to scare anyone off trying to do anything major in this country.
Please do not mistake my comments as implying the RWY 07/25 RESA is a major infrastructure project. It is not. However, it is one that was mandated by the Australian Government, through CASA, and now another Government has imposed further conditions thus delaying and possibly scrapping it. Would such a thing happen becasue the temporary effects of highway roadworks?
I am led to believe that SACL committed to the RESA solution in order to reduce their exposure in the event of aircraft over run into the SWOOS or M5. RESAs are there to provide extra protection to aircraft and occupants that over run/undershoot runways.
I can only say to those inner west residents that complained of increased noise that I hope it is not one of your family or friends that will be injured or killed in case of an aircraft overrun accident off the Western End of RWY 25 into the M5. An accident that could be at least partially prevented by the solution that SACL proposed.