Perth Airport
.... meanwhile, over at the mining terminals, the vehicle traffic trying to leave the airport can back up for 800 meters (and around 15 minutes) for want of a simple traffic roundabout. Imagine the joy this causes taxi drivers (amongst others) to be imprisoned this way at the peak hours of their business! WAC don't give a stuff!! Meanwhile they continue building their third rate and inconveniently located GA terminal and hope the customers will wait meekly in traffic jams all over the airport. Their idea of infrastructure is 1000 hectares of remote and expensive parking bays and a bus to the terminal for only the most farthest flung of these. Their long term planning isn't about aviation. It's about getting everyone off that beautiful real estate at the present domestic terminal. Whoopee! ...money for nothing and your chicks for free....
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: MD
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly off topic;
I recently went back to Perth after 20+ years of being overseas. I remember when taking trips from Perth as a kid there was a an outdoor area, between the terminal and the aircraft, where black swans use to be. What happened to that? Which terminal was that in? At the time I only remember there being one terminal...
Thanks!
I recently went back to Perth after 20+ years of being overseas. I remember when taking trips from Perth as a kid there was a an outdoor area, between the terminal and the aircraft, where black swans use to be. What happened to that? Which terminal was that in? At the time I only remember there being one terminal...
Thanks!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How's the parallel runway coming along?
Is it going ahead, or have WAC decided they are more interested in the revenue that would flow from the commercial utilisation of the land than the expense that would flow from building the third runway?
Is it going ahead, or have WAC decided they are more interested in the revenue that would flow from the commercial utilisation of the land than the expense that would flow from building the third runway?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Oztrailea
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A good start would be to use runway 24 for departures. I know, noise abatement. Well design a SID that says at 500' you make a max rate, min speed climbing right turn.
Associated with that a federal politician is STILL lobbying to get the GURAK/KEELS etc SIDS of Rwy 03 changed so it does not fly over all the McMansions out the the north west.
As an aside there are still problems with the crossing runway departures. On 03/06 any non standard departure off 03 ie: MEMUP,NSM etc has to be separated by the tower with normal 06 departures. You also have a big issue with the bucket load of RAVONS that all want to go at the same time
You all should know that even among the turboprops you have faster following ie: Bras behind a Dash 8
They all maintain track until about 10nm upwind. Then you throw in a PA31 and if he can't be vectored it does get a bit clogged up. These need to be spaced at departure time, hence you get the "back track line up" even though you requested the H intersection. But thankfully there is plenty of space to park the car. And once WAC is done eradicating those pesky trees we should not have any trouble with birds either
However on a serious note, I think all the unhappy delayed pilots should put pressure on your employers to bring pressure to bear on WAC. They are only getting away with this because industry is letting them.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL350
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recently went back to Perth after 20+ years of being overseas. I remember when taking trips from Perth as a kid there was a an outdoor area, between the terminal and the aircraft, where black swans use to be. What happened to that? Which terminal was that in? At the time I only remember there being one terminal...
Thanks!
Thanks!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Aust
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It took two years to build the link road. I wont be holding my breath for a new runway.
As for Terninal WA
Fancy building a new apron area, only to have to rip it all back up again because someone forgot to lay the underground fuel lines first.
As for Terninal WA
Fancy building a new apron area, only to have to rip it all back up again because someone forgot to lay the underground fuel lines first.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 63
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and where are all the recently announced Qantas 747/A330 domestic flights going to park? Only bays 12, 13, 14 are suitable. And you thought there were delays getting on to the bays now! Hope all the taxiway works are finished before they start.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Oztrailea
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
6 per week 747 only...
Don't forget that Virgin "whatever we are going to be called" are introducing A330 services between YMML & YSSY as well.
Plus they have already announced they are getting additional aircraft over and above the first 2.halfforwardflank is correct, delays aplenty coming up - for both taxiing and bays. Bring a good book and pretend your at a big international airport.
Qantas Perth Flights With Skybed
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dubai
Age: 44
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perth is hamstrung by two organisations - the RAAF and WAC, with a bit of noise abatement NIMBY-ism thrown in. Fix one of them and life will be better but if you can fix them all, Perth will be able to work like a real airport.
While PEA takes up the useful 50-odd degree arc to the north of the airport, departure and arrival routes will be congested through the arc from about 030 to 130 (from memory - it's been over six months now!) except for the GURAK dep. Obviously, the more congested you make airspace, the harder it is to get the same amount of traffic through.
From my experience, believe it or not, it is not the procedural sectors that limit the departure rate - all that happens is aircraft get shafted for levels but not for departure timing. It is that departures have to hand off an acceptable situation to West Radar (the first ML Centre dudes).Departures can use 3nm between paints, West Radar needs 5nm, so departures is happy to hand off 4-5nm with no closing but there is NO way any West Radar controller will accept that. I was personally happy with 7-8nm and opening but that still means that departures needs to get an extra few miles (normally through speed control) before handing off. Having to get this extra space means that departures can't achieve the same through-put as in the perfect situation but the only remedy for that is for the inner enroute sector to get approval to use 3nm radar separation. This will not happen in any of our lifetimes. If I am wrong, I will fly to Paris and eat a croissant!
WAC could come to the party by building a parallel runway, which would help but it's not the silver bullet. Yes, it would help hugely with arrival rates (provided it is done properly) but there would be only a small improvement with departure rates. Jet on a GURAK followed by prop on RAVON - jet's airborne and 6000ft away, launch the prop. Parallel runways will be of only minor help here - the extra time spent taxiing in the prop will outweigh the time 'saved.' It will help when the situation is reversed but then I have also seen some nice work by departures controllers to alleviate this problem in the morning for the tower controller. When the fleet of B71's and F100's generally get away before a prop is fired up, this may have saved 5-8 minutes on the 28 minute delay. WAC is not going to care about this - they won't be able to charge enough extra to make the investment worthwhile on this end of the flight.
The noise complainers are a pain because they stop R24 departures. But whether this would save a huge amount, I am not sure. R24 would only be useful (for saving time) for GURAK and BURGU departures - anything else would probably require cross-overs with the other departing traffic - and I am not sure how many aircraft for those SIDs would use R24 on a daily basis.
While the airspace I work now is far more complex than what I worked in Oz, I am glad that I don't have to put up with the mess that Perth is and it is only going to get worse!
While PEA takes up the useful 50-odd degree arc to the north of the airport, departure and arrival routes will be congested through the arc from about 030 to 130 (from memory - it's been over six months now!) except for the GURAK dep. Obviously, the more congested you make airspace, the harder it is to get the same amount of traffic through.
From my experience, believe it or not, it is not the procedural sectors that limit the departure rate - all that happens is aircraft get shafted for levels but not for departure timing. It is that departures have to hand off an acceptable situation to West Radar (the first ML Centre dudes).Departures can use 3nm between paints, West Radar needs 5nm, so departures is happy to hand off 4-5nm with no closing but there is NO way any West Radar controller will accept that. I was personally happy with 7-8nm and opening but that still means that departures needs to get an extra few miles (normally through speed control) before handing off. Having to get this extra space means that departures can't achieve the same through-put as in the perfect situation but the only remedy for that is for the inner enroute sector to get approval to use 3nm radar separation. This will not happen in any of our lifetimes. If I am wrong, I will fly to Paris and eat a croissant!
WAC could come to the party by building a parallel runway, which would help but it's not the silver bullet. Yes, it would help hugely with arrival rates (provided it is done properly) but there would be only a small improvement with departure rates. Jet on a GURAK followed by prop on RAVON - jet's airborne and 6000ft away, launch the prop. Parallel runways will be of only minor help here - the extra time spent taxiing in the prop will outweigh the time 'saved.' It will help when the situation is reversed but then I have also seen some nice work by departures controllers to alleviate this problem in the morning for the tower controller. When the fleet of B71's and F100's generally get away before a prop is fired up, this may have saved 5-8 minutes on the 28 minute delay. WAC is not going to care about this - they won't be able to charge enough extra to make the investment worthwhile on this end of the flight.
The noise complainers are a pain because they stop R24 departures. But whether this would save a huge amount, I am not sure. R24 would only be useful (for saving time) for GURAK and BURGU departures - anything else would probably require cross-overs with the other departing traffic - and I am not sure how many aircraft for those SIDs would use R24 on a daily basis.
While the airspace I work now is far more complex than what I worked in Oz, I am glad that I don't have to put up with the mess that Perth is and it is only going to get worse!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 63
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Additional QF flights
SYD - PER 6 x 747's plus 5 x A330's. I am not sure if these are all additional flights or just added capacity.
MEL - PER 3 additional A330's
BNE - PER 7 additional A330's plus upgrading 6 round trips to wide body (767?)
MEL - PER 3 additional A330's
BNE - PER 7 additional A330's plus upgrading 6 round trips to wide body (767?)
Qantas announces fleet expansion, boosts Network | Australian Aviation Magazine
more F100s and 717s to come
more F100s and 717s to come
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the inner enroute sector to get approval to use 3nm radar separation
A parallell rwy not being a solution to departure congestion has been pointed out on here before, but people won't believe it. Even if it was, why would WAC spend money on something that won't earn them an extra cent? An article someone on here linked to recently about their ten year expansion plan stated explicitly that no runway/taxiway upgrades were going to happen. The RAAF aren't going to pack up and move either. Basically, between the taxiway and cruise level, things are as good now as they are ever going to be, and probably going to get worse. The airlines have two choices, put up with it or stop flying to/from Perth. As long as they make money, they will put up with it.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The land down-under
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last advice I had on the parallel runway reserve was that industrial property developers have been granted 20 year leases. If you want the extra runway give 20 years notice to regain access to the land and then you can commence works!
DNC
DNC
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
westausatc - I recently suggested just that to a manager who in the distant past held a rating on the airspace in question. I received a confused look and "why would you want that?"
The reference in MATS was quickly removed in a subsequent amendment... and quickly forgotten.
At that time we asked the Melbourne techs whether it was true that the Eurocat processing was accurate enough to allow us to apply a 3NM separation standard on a TAAATS display within 100NM and they said "yes".
I then asked JH why the reference in MATS had been removed and he said:
"Because we don't trust En-route controllers to apply a 3NM separation standard".
Unless something has changed, it would seem that there is no technical reason why a 3NM separation standard could not be applied within 100NM on the appropriate range-scale. Which leaves only one problem... someone has to sign-off on it... which means... take responsibility for it.
Which is why we won't be taking a seat in Le Grenier à Pain, Montmarte for some time.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dubai
Age: 44
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quokka, actually there was this lovely little cafe just off Rue de Louvre that served up a very nice croissant that I would head back to. Sadly, I do agree!
As to the MATS reference, I remember it as it was only available to TCU within 100nm of MSSR sensor (KMD fulfilled this requirement I think). Since we obviously were not in a TCU, we couldn't use it.
To make the inner sector part of the TCU would cost an absolute fortune. Firstly, they would have to pay for 5-ish controllers to go over to Perth and train as approach plus train the other approach controllers on the new part of the TCU - or just move about 10-12 controllers to PH and set it up as a stand alone part of the TCU. With West Radar staffing in the state it is (precarious is a nice description), there is nowhere for those people to come from for that period. So the removals allowances and lost time to training would be thousands upon thousands of dollars - and this is an organisation that will fight over a few bucks!
Then, AsA would have to spend a bit of money extending the TCU so they could fit a fifth console in the TCU room, or move it to another part of the old approach complex - we know you guys have enough room there! Either of these options is going to cost a fair swag of money, a big no-no to AsA management.
So, although there have been empire building plans from some (the old-old-old-old-old manager comes to mind), it will never happen. As a result, West Radar will still need to have departures extend each departure out a little bit to go from around 4nm separation to over 7nm for handoff. Delays will continue as before.
NB, that wouldn't happen to be the same manager who makes a thuka-thuka-thuka-thuka noise while he is supervising? Sorry, was I too noisy then?
And totally agree that things are as good as they are going to be. Only having a short arc to get all the departures out of (while leaving space for arrivals to go in!) means that everything gets squeezed and that stone has just bled its last drop.
As to the MATS reference, I remember it as it was only available to TCU within 100nm of MSSR sensor (KMD fulfilled this requirement I think). Since we obviously were not in a TCU, we couldn't use it.
To make the inner sector part of the TCU would cost an absolute fortune. Firstly, they would have to pay for 5-ish controllers to go over to Perth and train as approach plus train the other approach controllers on the new part of the TCU - or just move about 10-12 controllers to PH and set it up as a stand alone part of the TCU. With West Radar staffing in the state it is (precarious is a nice description), there is nowhere for those people to come from for that period. So the removals allowances and lost time to training would be thousands upon thousands of dollars - and this is an organisation that will fight over a few bucks!
Then, AsA would have to spend a bit of money extending the TCU so they could fit a fifth console in the TCU room, or move it to another part of the old approach complex - we know you guys have enough room there! Either of these options is going to cost a fair swag of money, a big no-no to AsA management.
So, although there have been empire building plans from some (the old-old-old-old-old manager comes to mind), it will never happen. As a result, West Radar will still need to have departures extend each departure out a little bit to go from around 4nm separation to over 7nm for handoff. Delays will continue as before.
NB, that wouldn't happen to be the same manager who makes a thuka-thuka-thuka-thuka noise while he is supervising? Sorry, was I too noisy then?
And totally agree that things are as good as they are going to be. Only having a short arc to get all the departures out of (while leaving space for arrivals to go in!) means that everything gets squeezed and that stone has just bled its last drop.
So what's the solution then?
Any chance of building a new airport somewhere? They cannot seriously consider doing nothing given that they predict growth in the sector and now QF are going to base an extra 10 aircraft in Perth.....
The rest of the world seems to build decent aviation infrastructure why doesn't Australia?
Any chance of building a new airport somewhere? They cannot seriously consider doing nothing given that they predict growth in the sector and now QF are going to base an extra 10 aircraft in Perth.....
The rest of the world seems to build decent aviation infrastructure why doesn't Australia?