Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

PERTH: It's All Going To Happen...

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

PERTH: It's All Going To Happen...

Old 15th Nov 2014, 11:53
  #161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,809
I don't understand why the Defence Dept is so precious about Pearce? If Darwin can be a combined civilian/military airport, why not Pearce??

As regards the comment about "the amount of traffic going up the Gt Northern Hwy" - doesn't this commenter know that Tonkin Hwy is going to be extended to Muchea? - and then, later on, to Bindoon?
The Tonkin Hwy-Muchea link is the most important section of the Perth-Darwin Hwy (now known as NorthLink WA) that is yet to be installed.

This 37km extension of Tonkin Hwy will cut off the exasperating drive up the Gt Northern Hwy to Bullsbrook/Pearce/Muchea, and provide a major section of 4-lane freeway to the North from Perth.

The construction of this section of the Perth-Darwin Hwy was already supposed to have started - but Federal penny-pinching saw the previously-allocated funding withdrawn, and the project put back a couple of years.
It's still on the cards, and it has a great deal of priority in planning. Construction of the link is now proposed to start in 2016.

Once this freeway link is installed, it's only a small step to connect Pearce airbase to this freeway - and thence the city.

Perth-Darwin Hwy extension to Muchea and Bindoon

NorthLink WA project

NorthLink WA Newsletter - Sept 2014
onetrack is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2014, 03:01
  #162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,884
I don't understand why the Defence Dept is so precious about Pearce? If Darwin can be a combined civilian/military airport, why not Pearce??
Because they are allowed to be by their political masters. Every time a new defence minister tries to wield some authority over defence it ends badly for them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Fitzgibbon

Not only Darwin. Townsville is joint user and so is Richmond to a lesser degree. Air traffic is traffic, all can be managed. As for "special military requirements" that is what training areas and PRDs are for.
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2014, 03:23
  #163 (permalink)  
V24
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oz
Posts: 19
Because Pearce is a training base. Up to 6 pc9s/pc21s and the odd hawk in the circuit. How about sending them to Jandakot and mixing it was with some 152s/172s?!
V24 is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2014, 05:19
  #164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Shire
Posts: 2,897
How about sending them to gin gin for circuit training?
The Green Goblin is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2014, 05:34
  #165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Here & there
Posts: 752
How about sending them to gin gin for circuit training?
Gin Gin is already used for circuit training because there simply isn't enough capacity at Pearce. Pearce is an extremely busy training base, with the RAAF's 2FTS and 79SQN and the RSAF's 130 Squadron all carrying out continuous circuit training, instrument approach training, departures & arrivals to & from the training areas, together with movements by other visiting military aircraft. With all due respect, I would suggest that's a very different traffic situation to Darwin or Townsville, and not compatible with RPT.

The experience at Williamtown has shown that once RPT operations are allowed to start, there is immense pressure for the number of movements to increase, to the detriment of the RAAF's operations and capability. Ultimately, that costs taxpayers big bucks. I can't see RPT operations being allowed at Pearce unless the whole training machine is moved elsewhere, but where to and who pays?

Last edited by BuzzBox; 16th Nov 2014 at 06:27.
BuzzBox is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2014, 05:39
  #166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Shire
Posts: 2,897
Build another runway at gin gin then.
The Green Goblin is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2014, 05:45
  #167 (permalink)  
V24
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oz
Posts: 19
It's still a training base. Mixing solo students returning from the area and RPT aircraft isn't the safest idea...

I don't really see how poor planning by the state government should become the military's problem.
V24 is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2014, 05:57
  #168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arsetrailer
Posts: 267
Is it State govt or the bunch leasing the airport?
Agree about Pearce, it's about the busiest circuit I've seen, squeezing RPT in there would suck more than Perth does already.
Fred Gassit is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2014, 09:44
  #169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,884
Learmonth is an ideal place to move most of the Pearce training operations.

I can hear the screams now. The brass want to live in the northern suburbs and have a leisurely thirty minute drive to work.

Put them in Learmonth. Inject some federal funds into Exmouth as support infrastructure and create regional jobs.

Also puts the military on our Northern border where they should be.

Pearce can then be joint user. Gingin also has expansion possibilities.

PS The Singapore air farce are using capacity no?
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2014, 10:04
  #170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever I can log on.
Posts: 1,729
Icarus, out of whose budget is the $3 billion cost of moving all the infrastructure to Learmonth coming from?

The Singaporean air Force pay a lot of money to use the facilities so they would have to be consulted extensively.

Williamtown is a very good example of the major issues that occur when civilian traffic is allowed to operate from busy RAAF bases.
Going Boeing is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2014, 11:16
  #171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 567
One of the most beneficial aspects of a military base and military ATC is the lack of 'positive' control. This allows flexibility in training which cannot be replicated in civil controlled zones. I've worked in both and it is quite a difference.

The notion of Gin Gin having a second runway is all well and good, but what time frame are we looking at here? Would probably end up being another Badgery's Creek. Pearce does have one parallel runway however I doubt RPT would enjoy the procedures in place for its use!

It may surprise some but within the military it is very rarely the case that facilities are installed on the basis of where the 'brass' want to live. (Why is that difficult to imagine?) As far as the Perth northern suburbs go are we talking Mt Hawthorn or Alkimos? When Pearce was built no doubt it was waaaaaay out in the sticks at the time.

The cost of working out of Learmonth is not just the move there. The ongoing fixed costs would be quite high, remote localities usually are, logistics far more difficult however great fishing and diving.

I don't understand why the Defence Dept is so precious about Pearce? If Darwin can be a combined civilian/military airport, why not Pearce??
A little research on how these bases work and you will have answered your own questions. Its not a question of being precious, its a question of protecting what you have. More traffic, more constraints, less flexibility (which is the key to airpower). I don't think anyone was particularly enamoured by the decision to allow the RSAF to train there back in the 90s. I can see the advantages for them but for the RAAF?
Chronic Snoozer is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2014, 12:07
  #172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,884
Icarus, out of whose budget is the $3 billion cost of moving all the infrastructure to Learmonth coming from?
Well if you can show me some rough figures to illustrate how you came up with that figure I will engage with you.

The ongoing fixed costs would be quite high, remote localities usually are, logistics far more difficult however great fishing and diving.
Some would say Perth is isolated as well

What would you say the base contingent would be? 250 people? 400 people? How many lived permanently at the Harold Holt Base at Exmouth?

Naval Communication Station Harold E. Holt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Given that the RAAF owns a few transport aircraft then supplies should not pose a problem. Exmouth has supermarkets and is supplied ex Perth so all the systems are in place.

Agreed that Pearce WAS remote. Now the "planners" need to think fifty years ahead. The problem is that they think about as far as the next election.

I don't think anyone was particularly enamoured by the decision to allow the RSAF to train there back in the 90s. I can see the advantages for them but for the RAAF?
$
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2014, 15:19
  #173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 567
$ mate go to consolidated revenue, NOT the RAAF.
Chronic Snoozer is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2014, 22:20
  #174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Here & there
Posts: 752
Exmouth has supermarkets and is supplied ex Perth so all the systems are in place.
Right, so that's it then. The only thing that's required to support a RAAF base is a supermarket. Exmouth has one, so therefore 'all systems are in place'. Dream on...

What about the huge investment in infrastructure that would be required to bring Learmonth up to a suitable standard to support high intensity training operations? At a minimum, that would include new apron areas, hangars & maintenance buildings, taxiways, fuel facilities, ATC facilities (including radar), an ILS for IF training, classroom & briefing facilities, accommodation and mess facilities, operations & admin buildings, air movements facilities to support visiting aircraft, etc, etc...

Not saying it can't be done, but the initial investment and ongoing support costs would make it a VERY expensive exercise. Further, is it a wise move to put a major training facility 'up north' where it would be far more vulnerable in the event of a conflict?

Last edited by BuzzBox; 17th Nov 2014 at 01:09.
BuzzBox is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2014, 01:57
  #175 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,983
Originally Posted by Buzzbox
What about the huge investment in infrastructure that would be required to bring Learmonth up to a suitable standard to support high intensity training operations? At a minimum, that would include new apron areas, hangars & maintenance buildings, taxiways, fuel facilities, ATC facilities (including radar), an ILS for IF training, classroom & briefing facilities, accommodation and mess facilities, operations & admin buildings, air movements facilities to support visiting aircraft, etc, etc...
Wot you on about, Buzz? All that stuff is already there in spades, and has been since I was zooming around there in 1983... OK, no ILS but...

Mind you, the RAAF refuses to fix/pay for the AFRU, which has now been U/S for 18 months, so you're probably right...
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2014, 03:51
  #176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Here & there
Posts: 752
All that stuff is already there in spades, and has been since I was zooming around there in 1983...
Ever had a close look Cap'n? It's a 'bare base' - the stuff that's there is very basic and only intended to support short term deployments. It would not support a full time operation of 50-plus aircraft. Most of it has been there since the 1970s, if not earlier, and is probably riddled with asbestos. I'm guessing they'd have to pull the whole lot down and start again...

Last edited by BuzzBox; 17th Nov 2014 at 04:24.
BuzzBox is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2014, 03:54
  #177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
Pearce is an extremely busy training base, with the RAAF's 2FTS and 79SQN and the RSAF's 130 Squadron all carrying out continuous circuit training, instrument approach training, departures & arrivals to & from the training areas, together with movements by other visiting military aircraft.
Plus the squadrons of stealth aircraft (and the very occasional PC9 or Hawk) that use the areas of the coast

If PEA was moved a replacement for the LNX areas would have to be found as well. If only PEA and JT were reversed, and PH R24 was long enough for LAHSO.

Actually better yet, if only WA's capital was about halfway up the coast. Hindsight is a powerful planning tool!
Nautilus Blue is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2014, 05:28
  #178 (permalink)  
Prof. Airport Engineer
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Sounds like a timeous and good move by the WA government to go looking for new Perth airport sites. Multi-airport systems are an inevitable feature of major metropolitan regions, and Perth is heading towards becoming one of those. Securing the possibilities of future development by landbanking sites for new airports is good airport planning. Landbanking or securing land for the possible future development of a facility is a major way of implementing long-term development plans for a new airport at a reasonable cost. Buy the land well in advance when it is cheap. It is also a form of insurance which protects against the risk of needing a new airport site and not being to find one - particularly when the new site needs to be a couple of thousand hectares of vacant and reasonably flat land (as a guide, MEL is 2369 ha, and PER is 2105 ha).

The traffic threshold which seems to justify an effective multi-airport system is around 14 million originating pax per year for the metropolitan region. PER currently is 14 million pax per year, which is approximately 7 million originating pax. The current forecast is for 24 million by 2019 (which is 12 million originating pax and thus getting close to the threshold. Yes of course, forecasts go up and down and Perth in particular is proving very hard to forecast. But given that it will take at least 5 years to organize the landbanking (feasibility studies, engineering, environmental, public consultation etc), then now is about the right time to get it all started.
OverRun is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2014, 06:26
  #179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: The bush
Posts: 173
Close PEA, hand it over to Macquarie Bank for a song, and build a greenfields base in a regional centre. Dubbo-mentioned before as a Richmond replacement. Now there is a thought!!! Hand over RIC to Macquarie as well, have a combined PEA/RIC at Rocky or Temora or Ballarat or Dubbo* (put Margaret River/Busselton into the final contenders to give the half wit, hairy armpit green /curfew twits angina....) After all, WA wants to leave the Federation anyway...now there's a thought! Charge WA user pays for defence to protect the oil/gas fields AND the woggall (otherwise known as the Rainbow Serpent) from the yellow peril and the CFMEU. Teach them a lesson for arguing about their GST cut.

The consultants and political lobbyists will be salivating like a kiwi in a sheep paddock.....

* Select a location that has: a sensitive eco-system, rare frog, flower or spider, underground water that is at risk of contamination, ancient rock art, sacred sites that won't be known until the location is selected, trees that greenies live in or has planning approval for residential real estate in the flight splays.

Last edited by The Banjo; 17th Nov 2014 at 07:01.
The Banjo is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2018, 23:02
  #180 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,983
It IS all happening...

Fog lights seal Perth landing
The West Australian, 14Feb18

Upgrades at the airport help avoid Adelaide diversion, saving fuel and time, reports Geoffrey Thomas


Perth Airport is delighted to announce the arrival of a 500-passenger super jumbo in zero visibility.

That will be the announcement from June when the airport’s virtually fog-proof $36 million airfield lighting system upgrade gets the final tick from the aviation regulator.

There will be no costly — not to mention inconvenient — weather diversions to Adelaide for international flights or planes unable to take-off .

Over the past two years the airport has been upgraded to what is called CAT III-B airfield lighting and control capability, with infrastructure and navigational aid upgrades by Airservices Australia.

According to Perth Airport chief executive Kevin Brown the project has been “a complex logistical and planning exercise to deliver in a ‘live’ airfield environment where we are managing up to 400 flight movements per day” .

“We needed to divide the airfield into 90 different segments and then co-ordinate these extensive works around our daily operating needs,” Mr Brown said.

“Our team has installed almost 4000 new lights and laid down almost 700km of cabling — rooughly enough cabling to stretch from Perth to Esperance.

“When we first switched on the lights for a trial late last year it was like watching Perth’s biggest Christmas tree light up.”

There have been three phases to the upgrade.

The first was the installation and commissioning on August 26, 2016, of transmissometers reducing the “runway visual range” for pilots from 800m to 550m.

That is how far ahead a pilot can see in fog.

The installation of CAT III-B airfield ground lighting has been completed and dramatically reduces the runway visual range for departures to just 125m from last month and then to 75m from June, when the Airservices navigational aids are approved by Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

For arrivals, the pilot’s decision height above the ground — to continue the landing — was reduced from 60m to just 30m from last month and will be further reduced to 15m from June.

For planes so equipped, such as the Airbus A380, A350 and A330, and Boeing 777, 787 and 737, the system allows for fully automatic landings without a decision height being applicable.

Pilots must also be endorsed for CAT III-B operations.

The third phase in support of the Perth Airport upgrade is the work by Airservices to its instrument landing system on runway 21 — the main north--to-south runway — which will give the airport industry best practice of full CAT III-B capability.

The CAT III-B instrument landing system only needs to be on one runway because fog in this part of the world is associated with still conditions.

The upgrade is also a major advance in airfield safety, with a new stop system on all taxiways entering the runway.

The major benefit for the passengers is they will arrive in Perth not Adelaide.

For the airlines, diversions have cost up to $500,000, with the dislocation of planes, accommodation for passengers and their onward travel costs, and subsequent ferry flight of the original plane back to its home port while empty all adding up.

The other benefit will be a reduction in the fuel needed depending on the airline’s operational policy.

If Perth has fog forecast, most international flights will carry enough fuel to divert to Adelaide.

With the auto-land capability in fog the risk of needing to divert is almost zero so an airline can, and will, in most cases, carry just enough fuel to divert to Learmonth, near Exmouth.

Mr Brown said investment had been “heavily focused on delivering efficiencies for the airlines and improving the passenger experience” .

“The airlines gain from having a more efficient runway giving them significant benefits in terms of running to schedule ,” he said.

“For the passengers, it means a better experience from the reduced risk of delays due to fog.

“Given the relative isolation of Perth, this standard of lighting is an absolute ‘must have’ .”

The real winner is the WA economy because this project delivers benefits to tourism, business travel, exporters, freight carriers and even the education sector.

“This project underpins the reliability of the movement of passengers and freight in and out of Perth Airport,” Mr Brown said.
Capn Bloggs is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.