Perth Airport

[Capn Bloggs]

Geoff Thomas (aka Biggles), in The West today:

Passengers to take buses to planes
Congestion at Perth Airport will force Qantas to start bussing domestic passengers to and from flights at peak times in an effort to eliminate inbound planes being held on taxiways for up to 30 minutes for a standard parking bay.

From next month, Qantas will use buses for at least four flights in the morning and the same number late in the evening because holding aircraft on taxiways is severely disrupting operations and irritating passengers.

Separately, Airservices Australia is introducing a new gate-to-gate air traffic control program that will monitor flights between Sydney and Perth over the entire route and slow them when congestion at Perth is expected.

The congestion at the domestic airport has forced Skywest Airlines and Alliance Airlines to bus passengers for some time but it is a first for Qantas. It is expected the bussing will be mainly for Boeing 717 to regional destinations such as Paraburdoo, Exmouth and Newrnan. The airline will bus passengers in increasing numbers until the new regional Terminal WA and domestic pier off the international terminal for Virgin Blue are completed in 2013.

Those terminals were delayed firstly by the global financial crisis and then by a radical change of requirements for Virgin Blue, which necessitated a redesign by Perth Airport to provide a dedicated pier off the international terminal with aerobridges.

Once the new terminals on the international side of the airport are completed Qantas will expand into Terminal 3, currently occupied by Virgin Blue, Skywest and Alliance.

Perth Airport yesterday issued tender documents to five building companies for TWA construction.

An airport spokesman said that tenders would close in late May with construction to commence within three months. TWA will have fully enclosed walkways which will eliminate the need for bussing by airlines. Perth Airport is also strengthening the tarmac around Qantas' domestic terminal so it can handle widebody aircraft such as A330s and 767s.

Next month, Qantas starts a double daily 747-400 service between Sydney and Perth, which marks a return of the Boeing 747 to domestic routes.

Passenger traffic at Perth was up 9.4 per cent for the eight months to February 28, and for the full year total passengers are expected to top 11.4 million.

[Chadzat]

Oh my.....what is this world coming to when QANTAS....QANTAS have to be 'inconvenienced'! Now I HAVE seen everything at Perth Airport!!

I think they could start with stopping those MD-95 thingy's using Bays 18-21 and they can go on remote bays!

[flyingfox]

Who wants to walk?? Moving footpaths or aerobridges I say!!

[Nautilus Blue]

Separately, Airservices Australia is introducing a new gate-to-gate air traffic control program that will monitor flights between Sydney and Perth over the entire route and slow them when congestion at Perth is expected.

I'm guessing this is journalistic mangling of the slot time system thats been in place for months? Gate-to-gate is ASA's favourite buzz phrase at the moment, sounds dynamic, proactive, paradigm altering and synergystic, just doesn't mean anything.

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by Nautilus

I'm guessing this is journalistic mangling of the slot time system thats been in place for months?

Not really. The current CTMS PTL system only applies to aircraft departing within 800nm of Perth.

My understanding is that the new PTL system (Metron) will apply to all aircraft inbound to Perth. All aircraft departures will be "controlled" ie if you're trying to taxi early, you'll be told by ATC and suffer the consequences (eg enforced holding if you dick another aircraft around) if you decide to depart early.

That should reduce the airborne holding (and also reduce the cheating that is currently occurring).

Originally Posted by Chadzat

I think they could start with stopping those MD-95 thingy's using Bays 18-21 and they can go on remote bays!

Now now, be nice! A few white rats in amoungst the riff raff raises the standard of the place!

[Continental-520]

About bloody time!

That should reduce the airborne holding (and also reduce the cheating that is currently occurring).

That will be an interesting change, given that all those who try to comply with their PTLs get slowed down and all those that charge on in whenever they feel the urge (well outside their PTL, typically) experience far less delays.

Therefore, there becomes an incentive to 'cheat'!

Then, to rub a bit of salt in the wound, the same controller tells you to slow down by 40kts, then vectors you somewhere off the beaten track and once near an IAF says "Request MAX speed down final".

As if an extra 40kts over 5nm is going to make any measurable difference!!


520

[Nautilus Blue]

My understanding is that the new PTL system (Metron) will apply to all aircraft inbound to Perth. All aircraft departures will be "controlled" ie if you're trying to taxi early, you'll be told by ATC and suffer the consequences (eg enforced holding if you dick another aircraft around) if you decide to depart early.

Be interesting to see how that works. There is currently no mechanism for a controller to know what an aircraft's slot time is. I also doubt for example that the Singapore Ground controller will be telling aircraft they are taxiing early. Plus how do you know these things and we (ATC) don't!

The problem with shafting the cheats is that its much more work for us. (I know, boo-hoo, public servant whinging about having to work!) With extensive holding the arrivals sectors can be right on the edge. If we than have to hold some plonker for 45 minutes while others go through the pattern it could be enough to push it over. Many feel though that we should though, because we would only have to do it once or twice before the message got through.

As if an extra 40kts over 5nm is going to make any measurable difference!!

A 'speed up' is usually about who is behind you, if another aircraft is 4 miles behind and 40kts faster it makes all the difference in the world.

The thing to bear in mind with last minute changes is that the procedure relies on aircraft crossing the fixes on time pretty much to the second, which is beyond the capability of most of our traffic. If number one is 30 seconds late and number two is 30 seconds early, we have to intervene to maintain separation. I would never claim that we don't sometimes make a pigs ear of it though.

[sled_driver71]

Does anyone know: - when the PTL's are issued, have they taken into account single runway use (closing 21) or ILS operations?

From my experience the answer is NO!

PTL's are a waste of time. Since they have been introduced I have never, ever been able to meet one. Thats 100%. And my collegues are the same. It doesn't matter if we leave early or late, they always go out the window? So why bother?



PS to Perth ATC. Turboprops can maintain max speed to about 5nms! Jets can't! You work it out....

[Nautilus Blue]

Does anyone know: - when the PTL's are issued, have they taken into account single runway use (closing 21) or ILS operations?

Credit us with some sense! The Perth Traffic Manager sets the arrival rate the night before based on the forecast. Visual and both RWYs is 24/hour down to about 15 for bad wx and/or staffing issues.

[Servo]

Sled Driver, thats because jets tend to have a higher max speed.........

10 miles is my boundary, it can be done, is uncomfortable and noisy for pax and higher workload, so not really worth it.

What gets my goat is being placed behind the F50 that is grounding 90 knots in strong winds, when we could have had max speed in punch right into it.

Also appears to be favouritism with the local operators and especially QF.

Is it true ATC gets ID travel with QF? It would appear so.............

[sled_driver71]

"thats because jets tend to have a higher max speed........."

Really? I never knew. I thought all planes flew at the same speed...
I should probably read up on that!

NB

Can you explain then why last week we had a PTL of 1400 when the original eta was 1315. Wx CAVOK and minimal traffic and both runways in use? Was it just a typo? We 'cheated' and departed accordingly to meet 'our' schedule and got direct tracking. To me the issuing of the PTL makes no sense because no-one adheres to them. Not ATC and not the pilots.

[Roger Sir]

Is it true ATC gets ID travel with QF? It would appear so.............

If only!

Whilst i don`t work Perth traffic i can honestly say there is no favouritism where i practice my trade. Whatever is the easiest and most efficient for ALL is what happens day in , day out. Maestro is not a perfect tool by a long shot and asks for interesting sequences but a quick chat with the flow and a workable solution is generally available.

Separately, Airservices Australia is introducing a new gate-to-gate air traffic control program that will monitor flights between Sydney and Perth over the entire route and slow them when congestion at Perth is expected.

Ah yes. This one`s been sighted in glossy publications for a few years now but what does it mean to the average controller? Believe me, we have that many amendments to the various documents we are expected to be familiar with. It may have slipped through the net but i`m pretty sure to those of us at the coal face it`s quietly beavering away in the background adding to the other "efficiencies" emanating from YSCB. Did somebody say "ALOFT"?

[Servo]

Roger Sir,

Sydney and Melbourne ground seem to be the worst culprits. "Hold short of XXX and pass behind or follow as number two" to the Qantas that is 100's of meters away.

Also had a few during flight, vectors, slow downs only to see QF blasting off in front. Smacks of favouritism to me.

Get it ALL the time. Maybe they dont like the sound of my voice

[le Pingouin]

Well maybe you should fly something a bit faster!

Only half joking. The sequence is based on untouched landing times. Untouched the other aircraft might be beating you by a minute or two because they're cruising M.02 faster. Throw in a couple of aircraft coming from other directions (that you know nothing about) that happen to have untouched landing times in between you & the QF & voila! You need to lose time to fit them in ahead of you.

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by Sled Driver

Can you explain then why last week we had a PTL of 1400 when the original eta was 1315. Wx CAVOK and minimal traffic and both runways in use? Was it just a typo? We 'cheated' and departed accordingly to meet 'our' schedule and got direct tracking.

Assuming you're talking about Perth, cheating (in this case) isn't required. PTL compliance is not required outside the Traffic Holding times.

To me the issuing of the PTL makes no sense because no-one adheres to them. Not ATC and not the pilots.

How is ATC supposed to "adhere to them"? As mentioned above, with the advent of Metron, early aircraft will be held if they get in the way of a compliant aircraft, and so they should.

[Nautilus Blue]

Servo - see Confirmation bias You will also follow Qantas aircraft more often because there are more Qantas aircraft.


sled_driver71 - I assume you are talking PH local time? Going from memory, 21/03 was closed last week and 1315 is a relatively busy part of most weekdays. For arguments sake take an arrival rate of 20/hour, or 3 minutes between arrivals. So your delay, 45 minutes, equals 15 slots, Which means in the hour prior to your arrival there were 15 more arrivals scheduled than slots available, or a demand of 35 arrivals an hour. A demand of 35/hour is nothing special, peak is over 40 I think.

As for what happened, put yourself in our shoes. 15 - 20 aircraft converging on PH, roughly in the right order. Except number 15 is at the front, 45 minutes early. Now we have two options. One, hold you for 45 minutes, and have you restrict descent and climb for everyone else. Two, make you number one and give you track shortening, and simply add 3 minutes to everyone else's time. Workload management I'm afraid. However you are correct, we should have held you.

Lastly, and no crew ever believes this, you cannot judge traffic levels on one sector by the amount of talking on frequency, and there are more than one feeding any airport. I once held the only aircraft on frequency for 14 minutes, because the poor soul next to me was holding 12.

[sled_driver71]

Nope I was talking UTC, hence the query?

[Nautilus Blue]

At least one day last week slot times were extended past the usual time. PH was on 24 only and ILS approaches. CTMS was run at an arrival rate of 18(?), which meant the slot times went past the usual cutoff. Late in the evening the wx improved and we went to visual approaches which meant the sequence could be closed up. The rest still applies though.

edited to add : There should be a NOTAM issued extending the holding/slot time period when that happens.

[Continental-520]

Good info

Some good info here from both sides of the fence, but it does beg the question, why the hell are we using this system when:

a) there is no way for the controllers to easily know/incorporate each aircraft PTL into the job

b) The system is designed outside most aircraft capability in that it requires 'to the second' accuracy, and creates a '30 second early/late' type error

c) it all boils down to workload management on the day/time anyway!

Nautilus Blue, if 40 kt faster will keep spacing between me and the one behind, why would the same controller slow me down 10nm earlier when the preceding traffic is faster?

I realise it is entirely circumstancial, but just trying to get my head around the system.

520

[willadvise]

The PTL system is a long way from perfect. I relies on voluntary compliance with the PTL to reduce holding during the peak times. Most operators have figured that the PTL is not enforced so they just depart anyway. Some have done the right thing and delayed their departure for 40 mins only to cop another 30min delay airborne are are not happy about it so next time they just depart and take a chance. It has had some good results in reducing overall holding and workload times. No one wants to go back to the bad old days of 30mins+ holding every Tues,Wed,Thur but as said above it relies on voluntary compliance with PTLs.

ATC is not an exact science. Every aircraft is flown slightly differently and are impossible to predict accurately down to the second on every day. Everyone has a different idea on how they will meet there feeder fix time. Some will continue at planned cruise speed, reduce to 210 on descent then increase to 250 crossing the FF. Some will reduce speed in the cruise and descend at profile speed some will do a mixture of both. Hence the problems that are encountered with the slow down/ speed up instructions. We are acutely aware that you hate this and try to avoid it at all cost but somedays shi!ts are trumps and that the only way to get you down. The only other solution is to vector you for long finals like they do in the US and apply speed control to achieve the sequence. This is probably the most effecient way of maximising runway usage but it increases fuel burn as it is not the most effecient way for aircraft to lose time.

This thread has amused me a little as we have the turbo driver telling us they can maintain maximum to 5nm so they should be no1 followed by the jet driver complaining about a turbo being put infront of them and they could have burnt them off in descent so they should be no1. The reality is that some days you are the statue and somedays you are the pigeon.

Servo You suggest they may be favourtism for the local operators. I can assure you there is no favouritism but occasionally the locals might get something. Because they are locals, they are familar with the procedures/airspace/configurations etc and we feel that we can rely on them not to stuff it up because of this.

The upshot of all this is.. you must complain/submit ASIR (not to the controller on air, they can't do anything) if you have complied with your PTL and cop a significant airborne delay. The only way things change is if industry complain then something might get done.