The SYD Curfew
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Next to Bay 8
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genex:
The problem would only be exasperated by building another (or replacement) airport out west. At the end of the day you are only moving the noise from one place to another. You may well have a better chance relaxing the KSA curfue or adding additional runways than you would building an entirely new airport in the very area of Sydney that is growing the fastest... I would assume there would be considerable opposition to any such plans. Sydney can only grow in so many directions, and westward seems to be the most popular / convienent. At least with KSA you can have aircraft arriving or departing over water most of the time. This cannot be said for Badgery's et al. When the airport is operating, you will be annoying someone! And as if the folks out west wouldn't similarly expect a curfue... "The guys under KSA got one, so why can't we have the same curfue enforced out here???"
Furthermore, major capital city airports (such as SYD) become akin to small cities in their own right. Engineering facilities (less so now
), car rental lots, air cargo facilities, catering, hotels, admin / HQ, ATC, training facilities, fuel farms the list goes on and on and on... Point being, we're not not just talking about whacking a couple of runways out in the middle of nowhere here... and we're certainly not talking about building a HKG or ICN on reclaimed land where there aren't any noise issues. We're actually talking about building a large city with all the associated NOISE, traffic, congestion and other such issues, out in the western suburbs.
Then as mentioned you've got the issue of finances... the immense cost of building infrastructure not just at the airport itself, but to the airport (read freeways, railways etc).
Perhaps people need to accept that airports are no different than railways, freeways and other means of transportation and infrastructure? Everybody whinges about the roads being crap, and how long it takes to get anywhere by road, but then whinge about living near a major freeway or intersection! Similarly, some whingers living next to the railway lines catch the train to work everyday! These things are a part of city life. Thankfully for those living under flightpaths, modern aircraft are getting considerably quieter.
And this is coming from someone who lives directly under the approach path for 16R!
Just my very humble opinion though.
Blockla:
I'm pretty certain I remember seeing a Concorde land on 16(R? even) as a kid?
The problem would only be exasperated by building another (or replacement) airport out west. At the end of the day you are only moving the noise from one place to another. You may well have a better chance relaxing the KSA curfue or adding additional runways than you would building an entirely new airport in the very area of Sydney that is growing the fastest... I would assume there would be considerable opposition to any such plans. Sydney can only grow in so many directions, and westward seems to be the most popular / convienent. At least with KSA you can have aircraft arriving or departing over water most of the time. This cannot be said for Badgery's et al. When the airport is operating, you will be annoying someone! And as if the folks out west wouldn't similarly expect a curfue... "The guys under KSA got one, so why can't we have the same curfue enforced out here???"
Furthermore, major capital city airports (such as SYD) become akin to small cities in their own right. Engineering facilities (less so now
), car rental lots, air cargo facilities, catering, hotels, admin / HQ, ATC, training facilities, fuel farms the list goes on and on and on... Point being, we're not not just talking about whacking a couple of runways out in the middle of nowhere here... and we're certainly not talking about building a HKG or ICN on reclaimed land where there aren't any noise issues. We're actually talking about building a large city with all the associated NOISE, traffic, congestion and other such issues, out in the western suburbs.Then as mentioned you've got the issue of finances... the immense cost of building infrastructure not just at the airport itself, but to the airport (read freeways, railways etc).
Perhaps people need to accept that airports are no different than railways, freeways and other means of transportation and infrastructure? Everybody whinges about the roads being crap, and how long it takes to get anywhere by road, but then whinge about living near a major freeway or intersection! Similarly, some whingers living next to the railway lines catch the train to work everyday! These things are a part of city life. Thankfully for those living under flightpaths, modern aircraft are getting considerably quieter.
And this is coming from someone who lives directly under the approach path for 16R!
Just my very humble opinion though.
Blockla:
I'm pretty certain I remember seeing a Concorde land on 16(R? even) as a kid?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good to see this topic is raised again - the curfew is a joke and it is thanks to residents who moved into housing AFTER the airport was built. If any of them have been there before the airport was, they have a valid reason to complain.
But then again, the JQ passengers probably would have complainined about landing after midnight
But then again, the JQ passengers probably would have complainined about landing after midnight
KRUSTY
On 19 Sep 1996, Concorde G-BOAF was to operate Sydney to Guam but because of adverse conditions in Sydney it had to make a tech call at Brisbane (BNE's one and only Concorde visit as it turned out). I have a vague recollection that the "adverse conditions" involved a requirement to use RW 16. In this particular instance, the crew must have had prior notice as it obviously limited the fuel uplift ex SYD. Does this have any relevance to your recollections?
Rgds
On 19 Sep 1996, Concorde G-BOAF was to operate Sydney to Guam but because of adverse conditions in Sydney it had to make a tech call at Brisbane (BNE's one and only Concorde visit as it turned out). I have a vague recollection that the "adverse conditions" involved a requirement to use RW 16. In this particular instance, the crew must have had prior notice as it obviously limited the fuel uplift ex SYD. Does this have any relevance to your recollections?
Rgds
Some quotes from my local paper in an old post I made. Just so you're aware of the average level of understanding of noise lobbyists.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...80#post3642780
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...80#post3642780
Join Date: May 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blockla, I must agree with ohforsure. I remember seeing the concorde arr in Syd (as a kid). It overflew 07, did a left hand turn and landed on 16.
All should remember that sydney is annotated as an H24 airport in all publications. It simply has a curfew, in the same way that adelaide has a curfew.
I recall a middle eastern carrier departing long-haul after 11pm recently and copping the fine (around $40000, I believe). Probably a better option than overnighting crew and pax and not getting the a/c back into its network on time. Much more than the fine, I reckon.
All should remember that sydney is annotated as an H24 airport in all publications. It simply has a curfew, in the same way that adelaide has a curfew.
I recall a middle eastern carrier departing long-haul after 11pm recently and copping the fine (around $40000, I believe). Probably a better option than overnighting crew and pax and not getting the a/c back into its network on time. Much more than the fine, I reckon.
May have been a year or so after that Fris. The aircraft in question actually started to taxi for a 34L takeoff when the conversation between the Captain and ground occured. At the behest of an ATC supervisor perhaps? I don't know, but he was initially cleared to A6. Obviously the only sane course of action.
But as we were soon to find out, sanity was a little thin on the ground on that day!
Anyone at Syd ATC on that day care to comment?
But as we were soon to find out, sanity was a little thin on the ground on that day!
Anyone at Syd ATC on that day care to comment?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Krusty,
I was there that day; hiding trying not to laugh... Was a young pup then.
We did at that time have a 16/34 only policy in place for Concorde. It came in with the pre-LTOP plan I believe (maybe 1992), or maybe it was LTOP mark 1 (but vague on that); it was during the construction/planning phase of the 3rd runway, anyway.
The event was late 1994 (25 year celebration or something like that) from my recollection. The senior tower and the STAC, had agreed that it was only logical to use 34L for departure given the wind/conditions prevailing forecast. I'm not sure it was 30 knots though, think it was more like 10-15 G20Kts.
I believe on hearing the taxi instructions the boss who was watching with some big wigs came storming into the room; no farken way is he going off 34. Frantic phone calls followed and advice to the skipper given.
We all cringed and winced at the stupidity of the decision and thought they wouldn't go. We were shocked to see him taxi back up crossing at Foxtrot. I guess it had a belly full of millionaires/big wigs on a charter that couldn't be delayed. I recall it going to Singapore (maybe Bangkok), although I'm a bit vague about that.
The captain took the advice, but didn't like it and a letter of complaint did follow. It was proudly leaked and pinned to the notice board right next to the ACC door. It was there for months.
The decision was "defended" by management with the 'pre-existing agreement' with the companies in compliance with the noise abatement procedure. I guess from their point of view the grief and please explains would have been worse than a wreck at the end of 16; I'm actually thinking not, but also the skipper didn't need to say yes.
I was there that day; hiding trying not to laugh... Was a young pup then.
We did at that time have a 16/34 only policy in place for Concorde. It came in with the pre-LTOP plan I believe (maybe 1992), or maybe it was LTOP mark 1 (but vague on that); it was during the construction/planning phase of the 3rd runway, anyway.
The event was late 1994 (25 year celebration or something like that) from my recollection. The senior tower and the STAC, had agreed that it was only logical to use 34L for departure given the wind/conditions prevailing forecast. I'm not sure it was 30 knots though, think it was more like 10-15 G20Kts.
I believe on hearing the taxi instructions the boss who was watching with some big wigs came storming into the room; no farken way is he going off 34. Frantic phone calls followed and advice to the skipper given.
We all cringed and winced at the stupidity of the decision and thought they wouldn't go. We were shocked to see him taxi back up crossing at Foxtrot. I guess it had a belly full of millionaires/big wigs on a charter that couldn't be delayed. I recall it going to Singapore (maybe Bangkok), although I'm a bit vague about that.
The captain took the advice, but didn't like it and a letter of complaint did follow. It was proudly leaked and pinned to the notice board right next to the ACC door. It was there for months.
The decision was "defended" by management with the 'pre-existing agreement' with the companies in compliance with the noise abatement procedure. I guess from their point of view the grief and please explains would have been worse than a wreck at the end of 16; I'm actually thinking not, but also the skipper didn't need to say yes.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What might get a result would be if some journo with a brain in his head, (reading this Geoffrey Thomas?), could be convinced to do an in depth analysis of what the curfew costs, both to the avaition industry and to Joe Public.
I know most international airlines that serve Sydney have to factor very user unfriendly restrictions into their schedules, while, as had been mentioned already, the Sydney curfew virtually strangles any meaningful use of multi million dollar domestic jet, turbo jet and even light twin aircraft in much of the rest of Australia.
If this equipment could be utilised overnight, everything would be (I suspect far) more efficient, and those efficiencies would spill down to Joe Public in cheaper fares and more frequent flights.
It's been said before - a modern jet, from a Jungle Jet to an A380, is expodentially quieter than the eardrum busters of the 1960s that caused many of these noise restrictions to be implemented. Particularly if 16 was used for departures when weather conditions allowed it and 34 was used for landings (with the same proviso), the number of people affected would be minimal to none.
And on the nights when weather conditions don't allow it? Safety should override political correctness. Such nights would be infrequent, and if departures were always from full length 34 and given that there'd be a headwind (or why else would you have to use 34?), with normal noise abatement techniques of a 3000' acceleration height, (or make it 5000' as far as I'm concerned), most jets would still be within the airfield boundary when they reached their acceleration height.
This is something Kev could show real leadership in by saying the economy of the country overrides the desires of a noisy
minority, 99.9% of whom bought their houses cheaply because they were on the approach to KSA's runways.
Simply put: it should go.
I know most international airlines that serve Sydney have to factor very user unfriendly restrictions into their schedules, while, as had been mentioned already, the Sydney curfew virtually strangles any meaningful use of multi million dollar domestic jet, turbo jet and even light twin aircraft in much of the rest of Australia.
If this equipment could be utilised overnight, everything would be (I suspect far) more efficient, and those efficiencies would spill down to Joe Public in cheaper fares and more frequent flights.
It's been said before - a modern jet, from a Jungle Jet to an A380, is expodentially quieter than the eardrum busters of the 1960s that caused many of these noise restrictions to be implemented. Particularly if 16 was used for departures when weather conditions allowed it and 34 was used for landings (with the same proviso), the number of people affected would be minimal to none.
And on the nights when weather conditions don't allow it? Safety should override political correctness. Such nights would be infrequent, and if departures were always from full length 34 and given that there'd be a headwind (or why else would you have to use 34?), with normal noise abatement techniques of a 3000' acceleration height, (or make it 5000' as far as I'm concerned), most jets would still be within the airfield boundary when they reached their acceleration height.
This is something Kev could show real leadership in by saying the economy of the country overrides the desires of a noisy
minority, 99.9% of whom bought their houses cheaply because they were on the approach to KSA's runways.Simply put: it should go.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ebye
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A 30kt tailwind departure
I have seen the (then) Director Flight Ops depart ex MAJ with 30kts of tail-wind. No reason, just a bit quicker. Understand the boss had a visit from the FAA who were in town at the time & had a 'please explain' with their head of ops. But then the DFO had other issues as well.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recently say about 2 weeks ago I had the pleasure of handling another craft that delt with knots for it's fwd speed, a sailing boat! Haven't sailed in years, loved it. Anyway the owner took us (group of 5) out onto Botony bay where we ended up just drifting right off the retaining wall of the 16L rwy @ SYD. We where there in actual fact due to poor Wx closer to the heads but was also waiting for the A380 to depart. I wasn't aware that is was even in SYD. We watched & listened to several planes from Saab's to A340's & B777's T/Off directly overhead us or very close to it & I was amazed at how little noise they made & that was with no noise protection at all (obviously) such as house walls/roofs. It seemed like the wind noise was the most noticeable but we where close. Seeing as todays planes are so quiet compared to days gone by am surprised what all the fuss is over for the residents that seem to have such a major influence on the gateway to OZ.
Also I know they have to draw a line in the sand as to the cuttoff point for departures somewhere but you can land & even go-round at 1 minute before 11pm yet one minute after your cooked, still sleeping people at 1 minute before are the same people 1 minute after ! Like an inst appr sector entry there ought to be a 'zone' of flexability time wise for such occasions as Wx related delays.
How about this hypothetical situation. Co. employes a female to travel on every flight that looks like coming close to ldg after the curfew timepurely for the purpose of legally declaring a flight as Med one, How come?.........well she could have a pillow placed in a strategic location (up her dress) to appear to be heavily preggo, she complains that the baby is on the way, the Capt is advised & the curfew no longer applies !!!!.......almost to stupid to fathom right???............yeah well so is the curfew in the first place !!!
CW
Haven't sailed in years, loved it. Anyway the owner took us (group of 5) out onto Botony bay where we ended up just drifting right off the retaining wall of the 16L rwy @ SYD. We where there in actual fact due to poor Wx closer to the heads but was also waiting for the A380 to depart. I wasn't aware that is was even in SYD. We watched & listened to several planes from Saab's to A340's & B777's T/Off directly overhead us or very close to it & I was amazed at how little noise they made & that was with no noise protection at all (obviously) such as house walls/roofs. It seemed like the wind noise was the most noticeable but we where close. Seeing as todays planes are so quiet compared to days gone by am surprised what all the fuss is over for the residents that seem to have such a major influence on the gateway to OZ. Also I know they have to draw a line in the sand as to the cuttoff point for departures somewhere but you can land & even go-round at 1 minute before 11pm yet one minute after your cooked, still sleeping people at 1 minute before are the same people 1 minute after ! Like an inst appr sector entry there ought to be a 'zone' of flexability time wise for such occasions as Wx related delays.
How about this hypothetical situation. Co. employes a female to travel on every flight that looks like coming close to ldg after the curfew timepurely for the purpose of legally declaring a flight as Med one, How come?.........well she could have a pillow placed in a strategic location (up her dress) to appear to be heavily preggo, she complains that the baby is on the way, the Capt is advised & the curfew no longer applies !!!!.......almost to stupid to fathom right???............yeah well so is the curfew in the first place !!!
CW
In this case, with severe storms affecting operations, why didnt SACL/Airlies apply to Canberra for a curfew dispensation. Its happened a few times, I have personally loaded heavies that have departed as late as 1:30am.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wide Brown Land
Age: 39
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The current curfew arrangements are unlikely to be changed under the current government simply because the Transport Minister 'owns' the electorate immediately under the 16 approaches.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: over the rainbow
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#34 Kookabat.Not only does Little Albo "own" the Federal Seat,Mrs.Albo (aka Carmel Tebbutt) "owns" the State Seat which covers the same area.Even extending the curfew would be political suicide for the two of them,removing it altogether would also cause problems for Labor Members who hold nearly all the Seats which surround KSA.With the temporary closure of 07/25 imminent the Local Government Elections to be held in September will focus heavily on aircraft noise.Look forward to all kinds of pie in the sky promises from Little Albo as he tries to help his Labor mates defend their territory from the Greens.Yet another investigation into suitable sites for a second (or even replacement) airport is a certainty.
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In extraneous circumstances, like closure due weather delays, it would be sensible to delay the implementation of curfew procedures by that amount.
Eg...Airport effectively 'knobbled' by thunderstorms for 1hr45, curfew that evening commences at 0045. Not that complex.
I live very close to short finals of 16R, 400m from the extended centreline. A few years ago, the "Airport Noise Project' soundproffed my house with double glazed windows, soundproof doors, installed airconditioning....all courtesy of the 'noise levy' on tickets.
In all honesty, 90% of the time, I have no idea whether the planes are arriving or departing, or what runways are operating - and I generally have to listen out for that.
Shiiiit, you don't want aeroplane noise? Don't buy a house under the flight path.
Simple, really.
Eg...Airport effectively 'knobbled' by thunderstorms for 1hr45, curfew that evening commences at 0045. Not that complex.
I live very close to short finals of 16R, 400m from the extended centreline. A few years ago, the "Airport Noise Project' soundproffed my house with double glazed windows, soundproof doors, installed airconditioning....all courtesy of the 'noise levy' on tickets.
In all honesty, 90% of the time, I have no idea whether the planes are arriving or departing, or what runways are operating - and I generally have to listen out for that.
Shiiiit, you don't want aeroplane noise? Don't buy a house under the flight path.
Simple, really.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Age: 44
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SYD Curfew
Don't want to rain on your parade, but you will never win the argument about noise by saying that the airport was there first. There is a lot of legal history on this sort of subject and just because you always made noise before I came along does not wash. Never will, as it has been ruled on by the highest court in England, which we in Australia follow.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.........'grouter' all the more reason to become independant from the mother country. I don't believe they send thieves over our way anymore for stealing loves of bread................so lets scrap the curfew & bake our own bread !!
CW
CW
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Springfield
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grouter is correct - but also because millions of Sydney residents never before exposed to frequent aircraft noise became so following the opening of 34R/16L... in the 90s.
Don't ever use the "airport here first" argument in Sydney.
And regarding the 11pm cutoff - yes, you need a time. But the time should apply to approach descent below 3000, say, established 9NM final by 10:58 otherwise no approach available. That way you don't end up with the ridiculous situation of heavies going around from short final max thrust.
Interesting discussion about displaced threshold 16R and revised aircraft noise classifications.
Don't ever use the "airport here first" argument in Sydney.
And regarding the 11pm cutoff - yes, you need a time. But the time should apply to approach descent below 3000, say, established 9NM final by 10:58 otherwise no approach available. That way you don't end up with the ridiculous situation of heavies going around from short final max thrust.
Interesting discussion about displaced threshold 16R and revised aircraft noise classifications.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Springfield
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
also...
weather dispensations could be formalised, eg:
* Any TS delays (measured by ramp closure time due lightning) after 5pm get added to effective curfew commencement
* Any single-rwy ops (non-LTOP, measured by SY ATC) after 5pm get added to effective curfew commencement.
I know the noise lobby is "difficult" but these practical suggestions would be fair and measurable.
weather dispensations could be formalised, eg:
* Any TS delays (measured by ramp closure time due lightning) after 5pm get added to effective curfew commencement
* Any single-rwy ops (non-LTOP, measured by SY ATC) after 5pm get added to effective curfew commencement.
I know the noise lobby is "difficult" but these practical suggestions would be fair and measurable.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Me... I'm p****off because the previous administration decided to 'share the noise', and one consequence of that is that around 22:30 AEST I'm under a stream of aircraft from 34L trying to beat the curfew and heading westwards (mostly)
although the Mark-I eyball has seen A/C go west then turn northerly)
I have zero sympathy for people who in the past 15 years of so have bought residences in and around YSSR and in particular under the main flightpaths, but I'm annoyed that flight paths can be changed on a political whim and no compensation/noise-proofing is given to those just outside an arbitrary zone.
(Is the sydney noise-levy still being collected ?)
although the Mark-I eyball has seen A/C go west then turn northerly)
I have zero sympathy for people who in the past 15 years of so have bought residences in and around YSSR and in particular under the main flightpaths, but I'm annoyed that flight paths can be changed on a political whim and no compensation/noise-proofing is given to those just outside an arbitrary zone.
(Is the sydney noise-levy still being collected ?)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Wally,
Good point about how quieter A/c engines are nowerdays. had a pleasure of watching a few departures from down near the old tower and not too surprised to hear a departing 747 drowned out by an old delivery truck.
I wonder if our anti-noise residents also own a trail bike or 2. Or is that somehow different?
Good point about how quieter A/c engines are nowerdays. had a pleasure of watching a few departures from down near the old tower and not too surprised to hear a departing 747 drowned out by an old delivery truck.
I wonder if our anti-noise residents also own a trail bike or 2. Or is that somehow different?