Radio news this morning - Richmond to become 2nd Sydney Airport, Hercs to Nowra.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know the extended taxiing at YSSY is already a pain in the proverbial, and I know the suggestion to follow would never get past the political minefield it would create, but I believe the best option by far for Sydney would be to 'go Japanese' and build a properly spaced parallel runway with a new terminal out in the middle of Botany Bay.
And drop the curfew. Itsn't it about time the rest of Australia had a say over the effect the demands of a few, the vast majority of whom got their homes cheaply because their homes were under flight paths?
As has been pointed out many times here, the noise footprint of modern jets following a noise abatement departure or in a contant descent is a small fraction of the footprint of the 707/DC8/727/DC9s that caused the curfew to be put in place, and when weather permitted, approaches between 2300 and 0600 could always be made onto the 34s and departures from the 16s to minimise the air traffic noise even further.
As a first important step, immediately drop the ridiculous policy of not allowing aircraft delayed by weather to land after 2300. I'm sure there'd be 350 votes in favour of that immediately to hand - from the pax who recently spent 8 hours on the ground in Canberra trapped inside their QF 747 with even the toilet paper being rationed after it diverted due to the bad storms that hit Sydney in November.
The inability of RPT aircraft being able to land in Sydney between 2300 and 0600 causes enormous problems - and costs - for the whole network of Australian aviation, to say nothing of overseas operators. At a time when airlines are taking what only a few years ago whold have been considered unthinkable steps to minimise costs, this one step would represent a huge savings for the airlines and an equally huge fillup for the Australian economy.
And drop the curfew. Itsn't it about time the rest of Australia had a say over the effect the demands of a few, the vast majority of whom got their homes cheaply because their homes were under flight paths?
As has been pointed out many times here, the noise footprint of modern jets following a noise abatement departure or in a contant descent is a small fraction of the footprint of the 707/DC8/727/DC9s that caused the curfew to be put in place, and when weather permitted, approaches between 2300 and 0600 could always be made onto the 34s and departures from the 16s to minimise the air traffic noise even further.
As a first important step, immediately drop the ridiculous policy of not allowing aircraft delayed by weather to land after 2300. I'm sure there'd be 350 votes in favour of that immediately to hand - from the pax who recently spent 8 hours on the ground in Canberra trapped inside their QF 747 with even the toilet paper being rationed after it diverted due to the bad storms that hit Sydney in November.
The inability of RPT aircraft being able to land in Sydney between 2300 and 0600 causes enormous problems - and costs - for the whole network of Australian aviation, to say nothing of overseas operators. At a time when airlines are taking what only a few years ago whold have been considered unthinkable steps to minimise costs, this one step would represent a huge savings for the airlines and an equally huge fillup for the Australian economy.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And drop the curfew...
But surely if my local council is allowed to mow the grass in the park opposite my house from 0700 every day, no matter how late a shift I've worked the night before, the airport can exceed 80 movements/hour betwwn 0730 and 0930, and again between 1500 and 1900 each day!?!?!?
As a first important step, immediately drop the ridiculous policy of not allowing aircraft delayed by weather to land after 2300...
And drop the curfew. Itsn't it about time the rest of Australia had a say over the effect the demands of a few, the vast majority of whom got their homes cheaply because their homes were under flight paths?
First of all you claim "the vast majority" would have got their homes cheap. I just had a look at some of the houses that have sold in Marrickville under the flight path at domain.com.au. They range in price from about 9 times the average weekly earning to 12 times. Doesn't sound very cheap to me! And what about the minority that didn't get their houses cheaply? Why should they have to pay the price now in terms of noise?
As has been pointed out many times here, the noise footprint of modern jets following a noise abatement departure or in a contant descent is a small fraction of the footprint of the 707/DC8/727/DC9s that caused the curfew to be put in place
In any case it's not the percentage comparison with the first generation of jets that matters. It's the actual amount of noise that matters. If it's loud enough to keep people awake at night, it's too loud. Simple.
How far away from an airport does a fully laden B747-400 affect people with it's noise? I reckon those LA bound flights departing off RWY 34L must affect people well to the north of the harbour. How many hundreds of thousands of people would that be?
And my final point. People like yourself argue that the curfew is costing money and causing inconvenience to many many people and airlines' ability to make a buck. Wow the costs must be in the $millions. OK so lets imagine that there is no curfew and that planes are flying in and out 24/7/365. What do you think that will start costing society?
Firstly lets agree that noise at night prevents people from sleeping. Yes? OK.
So now lets ask the questions. What is sleep? What is it's function? What happens to people who are deprived of sleep?
Sleep - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (There are plenty of other references out there on the internet).
How many extra sick days are going to be taken because of either work accidents, sickness, or mental illness because of chronic sleep deprivation /disruption? How many people are going to be killed or injured due in car accidents because the driver was suffering fatigue? How many children are going to do poorly at school because they can not concentrate in class?
How many family relationships are going to break down because the husband or wife has finally had a nervous breakdown...
Here's a list you might like to read on the effects of sleep deprivation:
Sleep deprivation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Generally, lack of sleep may result in[1][2]
aching muscles[3]
blurred vision[citation needed]
clinical depression[citation needed]
constipation
dark circles under the eyes[citation needed]
daytime drowsiness and naps, excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS)[citation needed]
decreased mental activity and concentration
delirium[citation needed]
depersonalization/derealization[citation needed]
dizziness[citation needed]
fainting[citation needed]
hand tremors[4]
headache[citation needed]
hyperactivity[citation needed]
hypertension[citation needed]
irritability[1]
loss of appetite
memory lapses or loss[5]
nausea[citation needed]
nystagmus (rapid involuntary rhythmic eye movement)[citation needed]
pallor[citation needed]
psychosis-like symptoms[citation needed]
severe yawning[1]
sleep paralysis (while awake)
slowed reaction time[citation needed]
slowed wound healing[citation needed]
slurred and/or nonsensical speech[citation needed]
synaesthesia
temper tantrums in children[1]
weakened immune system[citation needed]
weight loss or weight gain[citation needed]
symptoms similar to:
Attention-deficit Hyperactivity Disorder[1]
alcoholic intoxication[citation needed]
Diabetes
A 1996 study by the University of Chicago Medical Center showed that sleep deprivation severely affects the human body's ability to metabolize glucose, which can lead to early-stage Diabetes Type 2.[6]
aching muscles[3]
blurred vision[citation needed]
clinical depression[citation needed]
constipation
dark circles under the eyes[citation needed]
daytime drowsiness and naps, excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS)[citation needed]
decreased mental activity and concentration
delirium[citation needed]
depersonalization/derealization[citation needed]
dizziness[citation needed]
fainting[citation needed]
hand tremors[4]
headache[citation needed]
hyperactivity[citation needed]
hypertension[citation needed]
irritability[1]
loss of appetite
memory lapses or loss[5]
nausea[citation needed]
nystagmus (rapid involuntary rhythmic eye movement)[citation needed]
pallor[citation needed]
psychosis-like symptoms[citation needed]
severe yawning[1]
sleep paralysis (while awake)
slowed reaction time[citation needed]
slowed wound healing[citation needed]
slurred and/or nonsensical speech[citation needed]
synaesthesia
temper tantrums in children[1]
weakened immune system[citation needed]
weight loss or weight gain[citation needed]
symptoms similar to:
Attention-deficit Hyperactivity Disorder[1]
alcoholic intoxication[citation needed]
Diabetes
A 1996 study by the University of Chicago Medical Center showed that sleep deprivation severely affects the human body's ability to metabolize glucose, which can lead to early-stage Diabetes Type 2.[6]
In rats, prolonged, complete sleep deprivation increases both food intake and energy expenditure, leading to weight loss and, ultimately, death.[30] Nicole Bieske, a spokeswoman for Amnesty International Australia, has stated, "At the very least, sleep deprivation is cruel, inhumane and degrading. If used for prolonged periods of time it is torture."[28]
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having lived near Richmond for many years unless it's Cat 3 it is a very limited operational proposition. It is also a very limited political proposition as it effectively reels in 3 Fed seats and cascades through numerous State and Local tiers.
Cannot for a moment imagine an embattled government actually doing the dirty on the existing PPP infrastructure some of which they (quite stupidly) carry equity, risk indemnity and proxy underwriting.
Also for those entertained by the anomolies of planning and the very related appellant circus of the L&E juristiction, YSRI sits well below the 1:100 flood line - (have some great aerial pix somewhere will post if I can find them)
In short it might be better just to get the pollies out of the Mascot madness game and get a sensible, reasonable rationale to practical capacity - especially when WX is unfavorable.
Also let us not forget it is the pollie silly season - well done though to ABC & GB for a great wind up. Be safe in the knowledge that Joe Hockey will be keeping his pants on
Cannot for a moment imagine an embattled government actually doing the dirty on the existing PPP infrastructure some of which they (quite stupidly) carry equity, risk indemnity and proxy underwriting.
Also for those entertained by the anomolies of planning and the very related appellant circus of the L&E juristiction, YSRI sits well below the 1:100 flood line - (have some great aerial pix somewhere will post if I can find them)
In short it might be better just to get the pollies out of the Mascot madness game and get a sensible, reasonable rationale to practical capacity - especially when WX is unfavorable.
Also let us not forget it is the pollie silly season - well done though to ABC & GB for a great wind up. Be safe in the knowledge that Joe Hockey will be keeping his pants on
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: the back of my falcoon
Age: 41
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly lets agree that noise at night prevents people from sleeping. Yes? OK.
Well Blip as you like your research, of the households / people most affected by aircraft noise perhaps you can find out what % of those people have chosen to live there knowing the house is directly under a flight path? I imagine it would be a fairly safe bet that large majority have moved in / built after flight paths were established.
Would you buy a house close to the threshold of rwy 16? or a train line, freeway for that matter if you were concerned about the noise????
Or would you be one of those buy now & complain later types?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blip, since you've proven that you're adept at researching on Wiki, take a look at the noise levels of a modern high bypass engine (as fitted to all modern widebody/narrowbody airliners) versus a first generation jet, and you'll find they are indeed a fraction of the former. Note also that these values aren't linear, ie, a 5db drop from 100db to 95db represents a significant drop in noise and not a 5% drop, as many seem to believe.
If you'd read earlier posts from me and others before accusing us (me!) of not giving the matter of dropping the curfew much thought before posting, you'd find that we (I!) mentioned that for such 'back of the clock' ops, takeoffs should be restricted - unless weather conditions made it unsafe - to departures from 16 and arrivals on 34. (Do-able, as I don't believe there'd ever be a contant stream of traffic as we get during the day in Sydney.) This would almost totally avoid overflight of populated areas for aircraft below 3000 or even 5000'.
On the few occasions when winds made arrivals on 16 a necessity, it would be possible to reduce the noise footprint of arriving aircraft on the populated areas immediately to the north of the airport below even more by employing a significantly displaced threshold for night time ops on 16R, (which is a very long runway and well in excess of what most if not all aircraft require for a safe landing in normal operations).
Aircraft allowed to use Sydney after 2300 would be limited to low noise compliant types (as is already the case in many other major airports). Noise abatement procedures (as are aleady employed) would be required to be followed, and flight paths, (as has alrwady been suggested by others), where possible, would avoid populated areas.
Richmond, on the other hand, (as has also been noted by others), would present many problems, problems that would require so many compromises and agreement from so many different agencies that it already has all the hallmarks of the proverbial "horse designed by a committee".
If it goes ahead, I predict an civil aviation version of the recent Seasprite debacle.
- huge expenditures, far in excess of initial estimates,
- very long delays overcoming (or more likely not overcoming) the many objections and appeals from the many different groups who feel they will be affected,
- the inevitable cost-cutting (leading to major reductions in what the new airport can deliver) when the engineering problems many of us have foreseen already become obvious to the people who have proposed this idea,
- major problems with fog and an unwillingness/inability to build the Cat III facilities the airfield will require.
At best, after enormous outlays (outlays the hapless Australian taxpayer can ill-afford in the current economic climate) I see the new civil Richmond turning out to be a restricted use, domestic-only, perhaps turboprop and narrow body jet airfield.
...and five will get you ten that it will have the same curfew as Sydney.
If you'd read earlier posts from me and others before accusing us (me!) of not giving the matter of dropping the curfew much thought before posting, you'd find that we (I!) mentioned that for such 'back of the clock' ops, takeoffs should be restricted - unless weather conditions made it unsafe - to departures from 16 and arrivals on 34. (Do-able, as I don't believe there'd ever be a contant stream of traffic as we get during the day in Sydney.) This would almost totally avoid overflight of populated areas for aircraft below 3000 or even 5000'.
On the few occasions when winds made arrivals on 16 a necessity, it would be possible to reduce the noise footprint of arriving aircraft on the populated areas immediately to the north of the airport below even more by employing a significantly displaced threshold for night time ops on 16R, (which is a very long runway and well in excess of what most if not all aircraft require for a safe landing in normal operations).
Aircraft allowed to use Sydney after 2300 would be limited to low noise compliant types (as is already the case in many other major airports). Noise abatement procedures (as are aleady employed) would be required to be followed, and flight paths, (as has alrwady been suggested by others), where possible, would avoid populated areas.
Richmond, on the other hand, (as has also been noted by others), would present many problems, problems that would require so many compromises and agreement from so many different agencies that it already has all the hallmarks of the proverbial "horse designed by a committee".
If it goes ahead, I predict an civil aviation version of the recent Seasprite debacle.
- huge expenditures, far in excess of initial estimates,
- very long delays overcoming (or more likely not overcoming) the many objections and appeals from the many different groups who feel they will be affected,
- the inevitable cost-cutting (leading to major reductions in what the new airport can deliver) when the engineering problems many of us have foreseen already become obvious to the people who have proposed this idea,
- major problems with fog and an unwillingness/inability to build the Cat III facilities the airfield will require.
At best, after enormous outlays (outlays the hapless Australian taxpayer can ill-afford in the current economic climate) I see the new civil Richmond turning out to be a restricted use, domestic-only, perhaps turboprop and narrow body jet airfield.
...and five will get you ten that it will have the same curfew as Sydney.
Folks,
Just a small point.
At the National Press Club lunch, Minister Albanese (in response to several Press Gallery questions) very emphatically rules out a "second Sydney airport" --- "in the Sydney basin".
Given the detailed site criteria presented by the Minister, we are back to the site thrown up by the Labor Government study in 1986 or so, the site that was dropped in favour of Badgery's Creek --- due internal Labor wrangling.
Who will be the first to remember the site??
Tootle pip!!
Just a small point.
At the National Press Club lunch, Minister Albanese (in response to several Press Gallery questions) very emphatically rules out a "second Sydney airport" --- "in the Sydney basin".
Given the detailed site criteria presented by the Minister, we are back to the site thrown up by the Labor Government study in 1986 or so, the site that was dropped in favour of Badgery's Creek --- due internal Labor wrangling.
Who will be the first to remember the site??
Tootle pip!!
furballJoin Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richmond debate
As one who began my aviation career at RAAF Base Richmond in 1958 and finished the RAAF portion of it from there, after having spent the final 13 years (1968-1981) operating on all the real Hercules and the B707, I can tell you this is not just an old chestnut, but a very old chestnut. For more years than I should admit to remembering Richmond has been under some sort of imaginary threat. Back as far as the early sixties, to my knowledge, RAAF Richmond was going to be moved 'lock stock and barrel' to Narromine. The political cost, let alone the financial costs, to expand Richmond to accommodate civil international operations would be horrendous. Just forget the idea and get a good sleep without worrying about this "proposal"
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
1st to get it
Back in the 70's Somersby near Gosford was the go.
Richmond no chance imho.
As for argument of those living under the flt path curfews etc.Who would have bough thtere IF there were no curfews? How many bought on the firm commitment that the curfews would stay in place?
We are fortunate to have an airport so close to the city centre so compromises are necessary for a civilised society imho.
While the curfews do cause some problems movement restrictions , lack of 1st class ATC gear ie cat 3 capable and lack of ATC staff I believe to cause more problems.
If a new airport were to be built it prob needs to be in the north maybe Newcastle way.If they want it.
Last thing western Sydney needs is more development and a major airport.
Richmond no chance imho.
As for argument of those living under the flt path curfews etc.Who would have bough thtere IF there were no curfews? How many bought on the firm commitment that the curfews would stay in place?
We are fortunate to have an airport so close to the city centre so compromises are necessary for a civilised society imho.
While the curfews do cause some problems movement restrictions , lack of 1st class ATC gear ie cat 3 capable and lack of ATC staff I believe to cause more problems.
If a new airport were to be built it prob needs to be in the north maybe Newcastle way.If they want it.
Last thing western Sydney needs is more development and a major airport.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having spent most of the years between 1988 and 2000 flying out of Richmond, I'm a little flabbergasted that yet again someone is raising this proposal. Though I'd be very tempted to say it'll go the same way as the other 500 "proposals" of developing YSRI as Sydney's 2nd airport.
Has anyone got any good flood photos from 1986, 1988, 1990 or 1992? Oh never mind. I remember being quite happy at having the days off for several of those floods because I couldn't get to the base from any direction!
Plus, yes I can confirm many a day sitting in the crewroom wondering whether the fog will life by midday and watching all the cancellations on the ops board (in fact scrubbing quite a bit of the flying program myself!).
Oh well. If they decide to go ahead, good luck to them. Don't say I didn't warn you!
Has anyone got any good flood photos from 1986, 1988, 1990 or 1992? Oh never mind. I remember being quite happy at having the days off for several of those floods because I couldn't get to the base from any direction!
Plus, yes I can confirm many a day sitting in the crewroom wondering whether the fog will life by midday and watching all the cancellations on the ops board (in fact scrubbing quite a bit of the flying program myself!).
Oh well. If they decide to go ahead, good luck to them. Don't say I didn't warn you!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has Everybody forgotten this old chestnut. Add a bit of reclaimed land and a fast rail.
YPEC - AEROPELICAN
Aeropelican Map
YPEC - AEROPELICAN
Aeropelican Map
Tipsy and all,
No, not Galston, not Somersby, that was in 1972, not mid-'80's.
As I said before, the No.1 site that was overturned for Badgerys Creek.
Another hint, it is not north of Sydney, and it's still there, untouched. About the only thing that has changed is that the road and rail access has improved, and it is the only area "just outside" the Sydney basin that fits the Albanese (quite logical and sensible) criteria.
Tootle pip!!
No, not Galston, not Somersby, that was in 1972, not mid-'80's.
As I said before, the No.1 site that was overturned for Badgerys Creek.
Another hint, it is not north of Sydney, and it's still there, untouched. About the only thing that has changed is that the road and rail access has improved, and it is the only area "just outside" the Sydney basin that fits the Albanese (quite logical and sensible) criteria.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High speed rail??
Seeing it is all so difficult, maybe a high speed rail system to Melbourne would give us another decade.
The french have had 200+ km/h trains for decades now and they are good. Much more room and comfort than aeroplanes.
The french have had 200+ km/h trains for decades now and they are good. Much more room and comfort than aeroplanes.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Move all international flights to Brisbane and Melbourne. Dissolve the International terminal and turn Kingsford Smith purely domestic. Not a pleasant thought for the local pollies or Sydney tourism. However, any consideration for an alternative will involve enormous expense. Brisbane and Melbourne are already well established with room to expand. Whether a new airport is considered at Orange, Newcastle, Goulburn or the back of Burke, there is little difference in commute time to Sydney between that considered airport and Brisbane or Melbourne. The market is inexorably taking it that way without any interference.
So any decision really comes down to one of state jobs, pride and political ego and how much someone is prepared to spend to maintain that NSW mix of jobs, pride and ego and whether it is worth it to meddle in the market. The easiest option at present for a NSW pollie is to talk about Sydney airport in earnest when the subject is raised, avoid getting linked to determining a solution, and leave any future decision to a future political party that will eventually have no other option by which time most of us will be sipping fruit juice through a straw and over our false teeth on the front verandah of our retirement home.
So any decision really comes down to one of state jobs, pride and political ego and how much someone is prepared to spend to maintain that NSW mix of jobs, pride and ego and whether it is worth it to meddle in the market. The easiest option at present for a NSW pollie is to talk about Sydney airport in earnest when the subject is raised, avoid getting linked to determining a solution, and leave any future decision to a future political party that will eventually have no other option by which time most of us will be sipping fruit juice through a straw and over our false teeth on the front verandah of our retirement home.
Leadsled - Oran Park?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at F18's proposal for that nth/sth rwy which I might add was well displayed. What about the associated infrastructure to support that rwy? // taxiiways, the spacing needed for the flight strip & the taxiiway would be rather wide I would think built to international std's. The apron area also would have to be very large to handle large 4 engined airliners.
And a good point my father pointed out to me seeing as he knows a few in the oil industry the infrastructure for the storage & handling of the aviation fuel needed to service large jets needs seriuos consideration. That situation alone wouldn't be easy to set up with housing estates etc in & around within very close proximity. I know the major airports mostly have pipelines running to the fuel terminals but to get baulk fuel to Richmond via pipeline could be fun. Obviously there must be fuel storage there now but the usage with large planes would be far greater than what's in use?? I would imagine. Also tankering fuel in via the public hwy's in large quantities is looked upon by local councils as a no no safety wise. All these additional problems wouldn't obviously apply just to Richmond, any new airport has the same things to consider. So rwy placement is but one consideration.
Just my thoughts
Flyinggit
And a good point my father pointed out to me seeing as he knows a few in the oil industry the infrastructure for the storage & handling of the aviation fuel needed to service large jets needs seriuos consideration. That situation alone wouldn't be easy to set up with housing estates etc in & around within very close proximity. I know the major airports mostly have pipelines running to the fuel terminals but to get baulk fuel to Richmond via pipeline could be fun. Obviously there must be fuel storage there now but the usage with large planes would be far greater than what's in use?? I would imagine. Also tankering fuel in via the public hwy's in large quantities is looked upon by local councils as a no no safety wise. All these additional problems wouldn't obviously apply just to Richmond, any new airport has the same things to consider. So rwy placement is but one consideration.
Just my thoughts
Flyinggit