GPS technology breaks Perth Airport gridlock...?
Multiple runway departures when RW03 & 06 are in use. Then usually single runway arrivals RW03.
Single runway departures when 21 is in use and multiple runway arrivals RW21 and 24.
Half the problem is the taxiways around the Qantas and common user domestic terminals atm. All it needs is a QH heavy to push back off its bay and if 21 is in use, everything behind them have to stop and wait for them to commence taxi. Hopefully the imminent relocation of the fire station will help and they can maybe build a parallel taxiway.
Single runway departures when 21 is in use and multiple runway arrivals RW21 and 24.
Half the problem is the taxiways around the Qantas and common user domestic terminals atm. All it needs is a QH heavy to push back off its bay and if 21 is in use, everything behind them have to stop and wait for them to commence taxi. Hopefully the imminent relocation of the fire station will help and they can maybe build a parallel taxiway.
You are close to the mark there clark y. Morning departures often only use 21 (nil or little wind) when 24 could be used. The reason given is noise abatement. It would be reasonably easy to create a departure off 24 which required a right turn to clear most noise sensitive areas. Having a second runway for departures would make a huge difference to flow rates.
As for LAHSO, I never see it in use over there when I arrive or depart. Seems to have been a waste of time and effort installing the lights.
As for LAHSO, I never see it in use over there when I arrive or depart. Seems to have been a waste of time and effort installing the lights.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree 24 for departures is the only cost effective and practical idea.
How much fuel is wasted on the ground and in the air around Perth, not to mention the rest of Australia.
Global warming is the greatest moral challenge of our time.
Except for votes from people who buy houses or land in the vicinity of long established airports.
How much fuel is wasted on the ground and in the air around Perth, not to mention the rest of Australia.
Global warming is the greatest moral challenge of our time.
Except for votes from people who buy houses or land in the vicinity of long established airports.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Home
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to me, if they re-commissioned 11/29 they'd have a significant number of the prop-jobs departing after very short taxi and also a smaller impact on aircraft waiting to line up full length of 21.
But what would I know.....
But what would I know.....
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LAHSO - problematic cause some companies could not guarantee that they would use it. One uses 2300m in ML but wont change SoPs to use 2247m in Perth (03 landing). Only useful on 03/06 configuration and the nature of Perth traffic being what it is...most of the arrivals are the subsequent departures.
11/29 - too many taxying aircraft to ever be a runway again.
24 DEPS - taxyway structure would need a big redesign. = $$$ to be spent on non commercial infrastructure by WAC = never happen. Also the NIMBY factor in play. But if you could get 24 used by F50/Bras/DASH types and jets off 21 ...hmm. Then the delays would happen airborne as the jets caught the props but procedures could be designed with separate jet/non jet SIDs so the passing levels were reasonable and the tracks did not come together until about 30 track miles.
Also would need the RAAF to relinquish levels below FL160 for transit closer to the coast for off set tracking of the segregated routes. Been there done that ..failed!
11/29 - too many taxying aircraft to ever be a runway again.
24 DEPS - taxyway structure would need a big redesign. = $$$ to be spent on non commercial infrastructure by WAC = never happen. Also the NIMBY factor in play. But if you could get 24 used by F50/Bras/DASH types and jets off 21 ...hmm. Then the delays would happen airborne as the jets caught the props but procedures could be designed with separate jet/non jet SIDs so the passing levels were reasonable and the tracks did not come together until about 30 track miles.
Also would need the RAAF to relinquish levels below FL160 for transit closer to the coast for off set tracking of the segregated routes. Been there done that ..failed!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
umm... Ph has a slot time system for departures because the tower can fire aircraft off faster then the surrounding airspace/procedures can cope. An extra departing runway would make no difference. If you want to see the problem I would beg you to arrange a famil to ML centre on a Tue, Wed or Thurs morning to see the outbound push.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Nautilus the great white hope that was WARRP has not really changed anything but the names then?
Nobody bothered to look at sectorisation, staffing, locating the stacks away from the routes etc etc.
Why am I not surpirsed that WARRP delivered nothing except changed SIDs/STARs, not surprising really when industry and RAAF were only involved at the 11th hour.
Nobody bothered to look at sectorisation, staffing, locating the stacks away from the routes etc etc.
Why am I not surpirsed that WARRP delivered nothing except changed SIDs/STARs, not surprising really when industry and RAAF were only involved at the 11th hour.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No WARRP changed a lot. It gave us a system that can't cope with traffic levels/type mix, instead of a system that couldn't cope AND was going to kill people sooner rather than later. No route structure can handle ~40 departures in an hour, ranging from F50 to B717 into 135 degrees of arc requiring 5nm separation.
The RAAF were involved in the first 2/3(?) WARRP schemes, which was why they failed. The final WARRP was implemented because it adopted a fundamental design philosophy of "the RAAF are going to give us nothing, deal with it". (As an aside, rumor has it there is only one northbound SID, GURAK# for all types, rather than one for jets and one for turbos because the RAAF thought two SID's was too complicated.)
However, to be fair the RAAF have nothing to do with the morning outbound push, they are still in bed at that time of day
.
As for consulting industry, why bother. They will all say they want unrestricted climb/descent, minimum track miles and no vectoring off track. We don't add height requirements and track miles for fun.
Sorry to whine on and on, but I think if we can't provide a perfect service then we should try to explain why (even if it does sound like a typical Public Service 'Not my fault' ).
The RAAF were involved in the first 2/3(?) WARRP schemes, which was why they failed. The final WARRP was implemented because it adopted a fundamental design philosophy of "the RAAF are going to give us nothing, deal with it". (As an aside, rumor has it there is only one northbound SID, GURAK# for all types, rather than one for jets and one for turbos because the RAAF thought two SID's was too complicated.)
However, to be fair the RAAF have nothing to do with the morning outbound push, they are still in bed at that time of day
.As for consulting industry, why bother. They will all say they want unrestricted climb/descent, minimum track miles and no vectoring off track. We don't add height requirements and track miles for fun.
Sorry to whine on and on, but I think if we can't provide a perfect service then we should try to explain why (even if it does sound like a typical Public Service 'Not my fault' ).
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey NB I was closer to the system than you might have guessed!
I am well aware of the foibles of Perth airspace and the route structure. There are many route structures that accommodate a lot more traffic than Perth experiences in an efficient (debatable) and safe manner. The traffic out of FRA is quite considerable and this is melded with Stuttgart, Munich, Berlin and Hahn departures also. Coupled with the overfliers who are transitting to UK, Russia, Poland and other Euro zone destinations the piece of sky above Germany would have the equivalent of Tues/Wed/Thurs traffic all combined into one 2 hour period.
My main disagreement with WARRP was that there was a lack of focus and no defined outcome. You may be surprised that industry involvement at the high end has several advantages and the, yes the focus is on minimising track miles/VNAV etc, but the dealings that I had with industry were productive and gained several advantages over a 'here it is take it or leave' process. But as a controller my focus was on minimising track miles too, with systemic safety at the forefront.
So dont design 2 STARs that are almost identical except for the last 20 miles and then give them similar names (CONDL v GOSNL), the whole process was designed to fit a time line rahter than undergoing a rigorous safety assessment and delivering the best outcome for ATC and airlines alike.
I am well aware of the foibles of Perth airspace and the route structure. There are many route structures that accommodate a lot more traffic than Perth experiences in an efficient (debatable) and safe manner. The traffic out of FRA is quite considerable and this is melded with Stuttgart, Munich, Berlin and Hahn departures also. Coupled with the overfliers who are transitting to UK, Russia, Poland and other Euro zone destinations the piece of sky above Germany would have the equivalent of Tues/Wed/Thurs traffic all combined into one 2 hour period.
My main disagreement with WARRP was that there was a lack of focus and no defined outcome. You may be surprised that industry involvement at the high end has several advantages and the, yes the focus is on minimising track miles/VNAV etc, but the dealings that I had with industry were productive and gained several advantages over a 'here it is take it or leave' process. But as a controller my focus was on minimising track miles too, with systemic safety at the forefront.
So dont design 2 STARs that are almost identical except for the last 20 miles and then give them similar names (CONDL v GOSNL), the whole process was designed to fit a time line rahter than undergoing a rigorous safety assessment and delivering the best outcome for ATC and airlines alike.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh and as to RAAF involvement -
the squadrons were involved but no one above the base CO at Pearce were consulted. The changes that ROTAP brought about involved the DCAF and the GM ATS being involved in the discussions. I am not aware of any such high level involvement in WARRP.
Perhaps this is why ROTAP gained so much RAAF airspace and WARRP got nothing but a few miles to the south. Remember that the SIDs and STARs were designed on the premise that RAAF were H24 and as such had to be convoluted H24 also.
the squadrons were involved but no one above the base CO at Pearce were consulted. The changes that ROTAP brought about involved the DCAF and the GM ATS being involved in the discussions. I am not aware of any such high level involvement in WARRP.
Perhaps this is why ROTAP gained so much RAAF airspace and WARRP got nothing but a few miles to the south. Remember that the SIDs and STARs were designed on the premise that RAAF were H24 and as such had to be convoluted H24 also.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey NB I was closer to the system than you might have guessed!
?
There are many route structures that accommodate a lot more traffic than Perth experiences in an efficient (debatable) and safe manner.
and no defined outcome
the DCAF and the GM ATS being involved in the discussions.
the whole process was designed to fit a time line
In an ideal world WARRP would have been an quick interim bandaid, followed by a serious project using people with airspace/procedure design expertise and experience (esp from overseas) with testing and feedback from pilots and controllers using a high fidelity sim. In reality, we were luck to get what we did. Now if it has been a NSW-RRP ....
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep. But watch this space for a Lazarus!
My only recommendation is that a PIR should be done now, and a white sheet approach taken. (AGAIN) The traffic levels appear to be still increasing with no real easing evident. The PIR as you suggest must involve current controllers, industry reps, RAAF and people from PDS from the get go.
This time do it because it can be done, not because it must. Dont let the noise lobby get the last say, that is why we cant use 24 for departures or 06 for arrivals. Tie it to hours of the day if that is what it takes. Get people to think laterally and outside what we have always done. Instead of H24 procedures - make it HRAAF, after all they share the room with the TCU so you'd have a pretty good idea that they were open and the mitigator for the one that slips through the cracks is the real time coordination that we can do. Use the bloody TAAATS route function to catch the problem before it goes too far.
Ease the workload of the controllers and aircrew by removing the necessity to cancel the bloody SID on every aircraft that gets airborne between 5.30 and 7.30am by assigning SIDs (non RAAF) or SID(R) outside RAAF hours. Night flying is easily accommodated by just reverting to HRAAF departures.
FUA must still be on the agenda - it must be given a kick. This is where industry are useful, they have far more power than lowly ATCs - even at GM level. Access to Pearce TRA is a must this will only be gained by forceful and high level negotiation. Even if it is a stepped access. For Pete's sake Luftwaffe and RAF have NO exclusive use airspace at all and they fly a lot more often and a lot faster than the RAAF.
I could go on and on, but no one listened to me in 2008 so what would be differnet this year!
Keep them apart and keep smiling!
My only recommendation is that a PIR should be done now, and a white sheet approach taken. (AGAIN) The traffic levels appear to be still increasing with no real easing evident. The PIR as you suggest must involve current controllers, industry reps, RAAF and people from PDS from the get go.
This time do it because it can be done, not because it must. Dont let the noise lobby get the last say, that is why we cant use 24 for departures or 06 for arrivals. Tie it to hours of the day if that is what it takes. Get people to think laterally and outside what we have always done. Instead of H24 procedures - make it HRAAF, after all they share the room with the TCU so you'd have a pretty good idea that they were open and the mitigator for the one that slips through the cracks is the real time coordination that we can do. Use the bloody TAAATS route function to catch the problem before it goes too far.
Ease the workload of the controllers and aircrew by removing the necessity to cancel the bloody SID on every aircraft that gets airborne between 5.30 and 7.30am by assigning SIDs (non RAAF) or SID(R) outside RAAF hours. Night flying is easily accommodated by just reverting to HRAAF departures.
FUA must still be on the agenda - it must be given a kick. This is where industry are useful, they have far more power than lowly ATCs - even at GM level. Access to Pearce TRA is a must this will only be gained by forceful and high level negotiation. Even if it is a stepped access. For Pete's sake Luftwaffe and RAF have NO exclusive use airspace at all and they fly a lot more often and a lot faster than the RAAF.
I could go on and on, but no one listened to me in 2008 so what would be differnet this year!
Keep them apart and keep smiling!
Thread Starter
I don't know much about the ATC politics/aspects of WARRP, but I fly in it every day and I'm happy. Things appear in the cockpit to be much more organised. Sure we get stuffed around occasionally, but that makes life interesting. On only one occasion have I flown the full GURAK off 03 - the RAAF do seem to go out of it's way to track-shorten us.
As for the 15nm GPS standard and one-way routes, that is singly the biggest risk-reducer I have seen in WA for decades. Brilliant. If the boys did nothing else right, that earned them a gold medal.
As for the 15nm GPS standard and one-way routes, that is singly the biggest risk-reducer I have seen in WA for decades. Brilliant. If the boys did nothing else right, that earned them a gold medal.
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 25th Jun 2010 at 05:34. Reason: Grammar again. I really will have to spend less time worrying about Dick Smith and watch my grammar more!
Perth Departures and Arrivals.
Maybe for the not to distant future we could lobby the Feds for a 21 parallel runway to suit turbo props only. Much cheaper than a full blown runway for all types of aircraft. Also using left and right turns for aircraft departing on different routes could clear departing traffic more quickly. What is wrong with joining some SIDS from over the top after a turn. There are alternatives if the tower is given some airspace.