Albanese does nothing on Sydney Airports
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least -Ben Sandilands - keeps trying to find solutions for Sydney. I like the latest on Plane Talking – I reckon Rex and Q-Link could get behind the scheme, it seems to make sense. But you have to admit, it's a hell of problem that has beaten much better brains than my poor old wooden, steam driven unit......
Last edited by Kharon; 1st Sep 2013 at 21:18.
From the mists of time I'm sure there was a discussion about forcing the regionals to Bankstown which met with considerable opposition from the rural vote. One of the arguments was that country people are often coming to Sydney to catch flights to other places so forcing them to an airport that requires them to incur further travel inconvenience quite rightly gets them upset. A possible solution is to use the capabilities of a turboprop and bring them in from the west to land on 07 with a requirement to hold short of the main runway. ATC is forced to treat them like a jet so they just get stuck in the queue. Until the politics of noise got involved most arrivals landed on 07 because that was often the most into wind runway.
A possible solution is to use the capabilities of a turboprop and bring them in from the west to land on 07 with a requirement to hold short of the main runway. ATC is forced to treat them like a jet so they just get stuck in the queue. Until the politics of noise got involved most arrivals landed on 07 because that was often the most into wind runway.
Sorry.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here we go again!
by Sarcs, Maybe this thread should be titled Albo does nothing on aviation..fullstop!
Abbott government would not delay the question of another Sydney airport by more studies
Read more: Badgerys Creek firms as prime contender
Read more: Badgerys Creek firms as prime contender
So as romantic as it might be, your suggestion of land and hold short is not an option.
Apart from your opinion, who says it is not an option, and by what criteria?
Tootle pip!!
SunnySA,
Apart from your opinion, who says it is not an option, and by what criteria?
Tootle pip!!
Apart from your opinion, who says it is not an option, and by what criteria?
Tootle pip!!
- And even if there were, active/passive limitations would mean very limited application. [Passive LAHSO not permitted with any foreign carrier or any Cat D aircraft.]
- And a missed approach on RWY 07 would very quickly enter airspace owned by the other Tower controller on a different frequency. Would the LAHSO aircraft need to be sequenced with the RWY 16L arrival?
- And which arrival stream would these aircraft use? ODALE/RIVET and BOREE/CALGA arrival streams are full during peak periods.
Assuming 16 operations, then aircraft from the north to land on RWY 07 would need to use a circuit that is opposite direction to traffic from the south-west to land RWY 16R.
Assuming 34 operations, to land on RWY 07 then the departure path for non-jet aircraft (who fly L230) would be blocked. Also, the jet departure path would also be blocked if the arrival was from the north.
Would be a very complex airspace arrangement to facilitate a net gain of not much, if anything at all. In some cases there could be a net loss.
And this is without considering the fact that whilst LAHSO is occurring on RWY 07 then the runway would be unavailable to the Ground controllers (who routinely use RWY 07/25 as either a taxiway or a parking lot!).
Last edited by sunnySA; 12th Sep 2013 at 03:02.
Thread Starter
Here's the interview:
Alan Jones - Max Moore-Wilton | 2GB
Alan might want to get his facts right. He states that he believes International Aircraft could land at Badgery's but not take off............like seriously
Max says we should exempt new generation aircraft from the curfew at YSSY which isn't the dumbest idea in Australia aviation.
Alan Jones - Max Moore-Wilton | 2GB
Alan might want to get his facts right. He states that he believes International Aircraft could land at Badgery's but not take off............like seriously
Max says we should exempt new generation aircraft from the curfew at YSSY which isn't the dumbest idea in Australia aviation.
Would be a very complex airspace arrangement to facilitate a net gain of not much, if anything at all. In some cases there could be a net loss.
Currently the airport is restrained to a maximum of no more than 80 movements. Without increasing the number of slots allocated, allowing the airport to operate above this 80 "cap" would reduce delays for arriving aircraft (during good weather). Allowing more shoulder curfew arrivals (pre-6am) would permit more movements overall and better gate utilisations (especially for A380's which are currently restricted to only a few gates).
Parallel runway operations should be designed such that the two runway operate independently 100% of the time. At the moment this isn't always the case and introducing a third runway (RWY 07 arrivals) into the equation during parallel runway operations would be counter-productive from an airspace point of view, counter-productive from a complexity point of view, counter-productive from an efficiency point of view and counter-productive from a noise respite point of view, refer to Long Term Operating Plan for Sydney Airport & Associated Airspace Report (page 10).
I think that any safety assessment would fail taking into consideration the following missed approach scenarios:
- RWY 07 missed approach vs a RWY 16L arrival
- RWY 07 missed approach vs a RWY 34R departure.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting post missy, thanks,
be interested to see how this all pans out... a second airport v rearranging the deck chairs at KSA or possibly both?
as it appears this story (below) is all of a sudden gaining traction again, as is the second airport thing, probably because of the change of government last weekend..
lobby lobby lobby, away we go now... again
ps love the wrong photo used in the link, Changi
Currently the airport is restrained to a maximum of no more than 80 movements. Without increasing the number of slots allocated, allowing the airport to operate above this 80 "cap" would reduce delays for arriving aircraft (during good weather). Allowing more shoulder curfew arrivals (pre-6am) would permit more movements overall and better gate utilisations (especially for A380's which are currently restricted to only a few gates).
as it appears this story (below) is all of a sudden gaining traction again, as is the second airport thing, probably because of the change of government last weekend..
Jetstar may move to make most of Sydney airport capacity
Qantas Airways chief executive Alan Joyce has indicated the airline would consider moving its Jetstar arm to the current international Terminal 1 at Sydney Airport as part of a compromise solution to assist the airport’s long-term planning.
Sydney Airport is looking to combine domestic and international operations across all three terminals at a time when it is also locked in negotiations with Qantas to buy back the airline’s lease over Terminal 3 which is due to expire in 2019.
The final master plan covering the period to 2033 is due to be submitted to the federal government for approval December 2. A Sydney Airport spokeswoman on Wednesday said details on where individual airlines were located had not been part of the preliminary draft master plan and remained subject to “commercial discussions”.
Analysts expect the purchase price of the Terminal 3 lease may depend on talks about the other issues surrounding the future of the airport, including where Qantas and Jetstar operations will be located. That could delay a deal until after the master plan is finalised.
Sydney Airport wants to have two mixed use precincts to maximise capacity at the airport because international and domestic flights have different peak departure and arrival times. (my bold)
Seamless transfers
The move would also allow for more seamless transfers from domestic to international flights for passengers using one airline or alliance.
Sydney Airport had initially proposed that Qantas and Jetstar and their alliance partners occupy the current two domestic terminals and that Virgin Australia Holdings and its partners use the current international Terminal 1.
However, Virgin resisted that option because of the longer distance it takes to travel to the CBD from Terminal 1 and Sydney Airport has since backed away from that proposal.
In Perth, Virgin has taken a different view and will next year move into a new domestic pier at the current Perth Airport international terminal, which is also farther from the CBD than the existing domestic terminals.
During a post-results analyst briefing in Sydney on Tuesday, Mr Joyce indicated one possible outcome of discussions with the airport was that Qantas’s mainline domestic and international operations and flights from partner Emirates would occupy the Terminal 2 and 3 area while Jetstar’s domestic and international operations would move to Terminal 1.
Separation a compromise
Sources who attended the meeting said Mr Joyce indicated the separation of Jetstar was not Qantas’s first choice, but it would be considered.
That would leave enough room for Virgin to also operate from the current domestic precinct, but it would not allow for all the airline’s key alliance partners, including Air New Zealand, Singapore Airlines, Etihad Airways and Delta Air Lines, to do so as well.
It is understood Virgin may be willing to move its low-cost subsidiary operation, Tigerair Australia, to Terminal 1 if Jetstar makes the same transition.
But Virgin does not want to be separated from its international alliance partners.
There are suggestions Virgin will appeal to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission if it believes Qantas has gained an unfair advantage from Sydney Airport.
A Qantas spokesman said his airline was in talks with the airport about a range of options.
“The proposal to combine airlines domestic and international flights in the same terminal will provide a vastly improved experience for customers and significantly improve the efficiency of the airport,” the spokesman said
Jetstar may move to make most of Sydney airport capacity
Qantas Airways chief executive Alan Joyce has indicated the airline would consider moving its Jetstar arm to the current international Terminal 1 at Sydney Airport as part of a compromise solution to assist the airport’s long-term planning.
Sydney Airport is looking to combine domestic and international operations across all three terminals at a time when it is also locked in negotiations with Qantas to buy back the airline’s lease over Terminal 3 which is due to expire in 2019.
The final master plan covering the period to 2033 is due to be submitted to the federal government for approval December 2. A Sydney Airport spokeswoman on Wednesday said details on where individual airlines were located had not been part of the preliminary draft master plan and remained subject to “commercial discussions”.
Analysts expect the purchase price of the Terminal 3 lease may depend on talks about the other issues surrounding the future of the airport, including where Qantas and Jetstar operations will be located. That could delay a deal until after the master plan is finalised.
Sydney Airport wants to have two mixed use precincts to maximise capacity at the airport because international and domestic flights have different peak departure and arrival times. (my bold)
Seamless transfers
The move would also allow for more seamless transfers from domestic to international flights for passengers using one airline or alliance.
Sydney Airport had initially proposed that Qantas and Jetstar and their alliance partners occupy the current two domestic terminals and that Virgin Australia Holdings and its partners use the current international Terminal 1.
However, Virgin resisted that option because of the longer distance it takes to travel to the CBD from Terminal 1 and Sydney Airport has since backed away from that proposal.
In Perth, Virgin has taken a different view and will next year move into a new domestic pier at the current Perth Airport international terminal, which is also farther from the CBD than the existing domestic terminals.
During a post-results analyst briefing in Sydney on Tuesday, Mr Joyce indicated one possible outcome of discussions with the airport was that Qantas’s mainline domestic and international operations and flights from partner Emirates would occupy the Terminal 2 and 3 area while Jetstar’s domestic and international operations would move to Terminal 1.
Separation a compromise
Sources who attended the meeting said Mr Joyce indicated the separation of Jetstar was not Qantas’s first choice, but it would be considered.
That would leave enough room for Virgin to also operate from the current domestic precinct, but it would not allow for all the airline’s key alliance partners, including Air New Zealand, Singapore Airlines, Etihad Airways and Delta Air Lines, to do so as well.
It is understood Virgin may be willing to move its low-cost subsidiary operation, Tigerair Australia, to Terminal 1 if Jetstar makes the same transition.
But Virgin does not want to be separated from its international alliance partners.
There are suggestions Virgin will appeal to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission if it believes Qantas has gained an unfair advantage from Sydney Airport.
A Qantas spokesman said his airline was in talks with the airport about a range of options.
“The proposal to combine airlines domestic and international flights in the same terminal will provide a vastly improved experience for customers and significantly improve the efficiency of the airport,” the spokesman said
Jetstar may move to make most of Sydney airport capacity
ps love the wrong photo used in the link, Changi
9V aircraft flying domestic sectors...
Jet* using Terminal 1 and NZ using Terminal 2 might work providing our kiwi cousins only fly A320s across the pond. Plenty of airports across the globe that operate both domestic and international ops from the same terminal/gate. Temporary immigration set-up for each arrival/departure, or use T2 bays 55,56,57,58&59 as International only.
A380 ops from Terminal 2 - No; A380 ops from Terminal 3 - well perhaps, maybe, currently no suitable taxiways/gates. A380 from T3 to RWY 34L - wow, what a nightmare!
Jet* using Terminal 1 and NZ using Terminal 2 might work providing our kiwi cousins only fly A320s across the pond. Plenty of airports across the globe that operate both domestic and international ops from the same terminal/gate. Temporary immigration set-up for each arrival/departure, or use T2 bays 55,56,57,58&59 as International only.
Mr Joyce indicated one possible outcome of discussions with the airport was that Qantas’s mainline domestic and international operations and flights from partner Emirates would occupy the Terminal 2 and 3 area
sunnySA,
Just about everything you mention involved Australia almost unique restrictions, not fundamental limitations in traffic management, based on ICAO SARPs, and well established examples elsewhere but Australia.
Of course, if you impose artificial restrictions, it will restrict the movement rate, get rid of the artificial restrictions and the possible movement rates, with the present traffic mix, become as previously quoted.
I spent enough time, years ago, sitting in a conference room at Brighton-Le-Sands, or in the old center, working through the details of how to do it - based on examples of other airports with runway configurations and traffic handling situations analogous with YSSY.
A couple of incidents, in the early days of LAHSO, were enough for the opponents of LAHSO to have the restrictions imposed.
Re. at post on possible movement rates on just the parallel runways, with taxiway modifications, up to 52 per hour per runway is possible --- look at EGLL or EDDF.
Just about everything you mention involved Australia almost unique restrictions, not fundamental limitations in traffic management, based on ICAO SARPs, and well established examples elsewhere but Australia.
Of course, if you impose artificial restrictions, it will restrict the movement rate, get rid of the artificial restrictions and the possible movement rates, with the present traffic mix, become as previously quoted.
I spent enough time, years ago, sitting in a conference room at Brighton-Le-Sands, or in the old center, working through the details of how to do it - based on examples of other airports with runway configurations and traffic handling situations analogous with YSSY.
A couple of incidents, in the early days of LAHSO, were enough for the opponents of LAHSO to have the restrictions imposed.
Re. at post on possible movement rates on just the parallel runways, with taxiway modifications, up to 52 per hour per runway is possible --- look at EGLL or EDDF.
LeadSled
Trying to rewrite history?
A near collision between an Ansett A320 and a Thai DC-10 that would have also involved a Qantas 747 on 12 August 1991 raised the profile of then SIMOPS (it would have been the worst aviation accident of all time as there were a total of 667 people on board).
I'm all for increasing the movement rate at Sydney, working to capacity but the romantic notion that we can "land a few on RWY 07" is not worth the effort and as I have shown, could be counterproductive. Increasing complexity (read increased coordination between controllers) makes the job more difficult and on a cost/benefit analysis, would it be worth it? And the missed approach scenarios highlighted by Missy would fail any objective safety assessment.
I love the comparisons to EGLL and EDDF, I really do. There are so many restrictions imposed on Sydney's runways, examples:
A couple of incidents, in the early days of LAHSO, were enough for the opponents of LAHSO to have the restrictions imposed.
A near collision between an Ansett A320 and a Thai DC-10 that would have also involved a Qantas 747 on 12 August 1991 raised the profile of then SIMOPS (it would have been the worst aviation accident of all time as there were a total of 667 people on board).
I'm all for increasing the movement rate at Sydney, working to capacity but the romantic notion that we can "land a few on RWY 07" is not worth the effort and as I have shown, could be counterproductive. Increasing complexity (read increased coordination between controllers) makes the job more difficult and on a cost/benefit analysis, would it be worth it? And the missed approach scenarios highlighted by Missy would fail any objective safety assessment.
I love the comparisons to EGLL and EDDF, I really do. There are so many restrictions imposed on Sydney's runways, examples:
- T1 outside (rather than between the runways)
- who can use which runway (TODA 3962m vs 2438m)
- in some cases, when they can use the runway
- very high number of runway crossings
- spacings between jet departures.
Last edited by sunnySA; 13th Sep 2013 at 06:29.
Pilots want Tony Abbott to bring the second Sydney airport in to land
Pilots want Tony Abbott to bring the second Sydney airport in to land
HENRY BUDD COMMUTER REPOORTER (sic) THE DAILY TELEGRAPH
SEPTEMBER 13, 2013
THE nation's most influential pilots union has urged the new Coalition government to build a second airport at Badgerys Creek to boost competition and lower costs.
Australia and International Pilots Association president Nathan Safe called on Prime Minister-elect Tony Abbott to back up his vow to be known as the "infrastructure Prime Minister" and commit to a second airport at Badgerys Creek.
"If the government was fair dinkum about infrastructure then this would be the single key piece of infrastructure that could be decided upon in the next year or two," Mr Safe said.
"We just want to a decision made so there's some certainty for the industry and everyone involved in it.''
Mr Safe said airlines were struggling with the high costs of flying in Australia - in particular turnaround costs - and a second airport in Sydney would increase competition.
"The margins in the airline industry are wafer thin and those type of things can add up and be the difference between flying to a city and not another city,'' Mr Safe said.
"While you only have the one airport option here with relatively high landing fees, there's just a general lack of competition in the airport market.''
A 2012 report by aviation consultants Landrum and Brown shows "turnaround costs" at Australian airports are up to three times more than at major airports in South East Asia.
The cost of turning around a Boeing 747-400 in Australia is $14,000, compared to just $5500 in Kuala Lumpur and $9500 in Hong Kong.
Turnaround costs are a key industry measure and include charges for air traffic control, landing, parking, handling, noise and emission, and passenger charges.
Australia's two biggest airlines have been doing it tough recently. Last financial year Qantas made just $6 million profit, while arch rival Virgin lost $98.1 million.
AIPA, whose member's predominantly work for Qantas, is the latest in a long line of business groups, local councils and state and federal MPs to back a second airport for Sydney.
A joint federal-state government study into Sydney's aviation capacity found Kingsford Smith will start to hit capacity constraints in peak periods by the end of the decade, forcing up the price of tickets.
Yet according to the Sydney Airport's latest preliminary draft master plan, it will be able to cope with the forecast growth in flights and passengers for at least the next 20 years.
Mr Safe said Kingsford Smith Airport was already operating near capacity, with pilots flying into Sydney required to carry at least 20 minutes worth of extra fuel in case of delays - up to double the amount required on flights to Melbourne.
"When you get strong westerly winds, which can happen a fair bit in winter, and Sydney Airport is reduced to operating on one east-west runway can slow down things even more you can end up with an hours hold in a worst case,'' he said.
Pilots faced more delays after they touch down because of a lack of gate capacity, he said. "I've flown to Europe Africa, The States, South America and domestically to most airports and Sydney is one of the worst for gate delays,'' Mr Safe said. "I'm not saying it happens all the time in Sydney but it certainly happens more than other places.''
A spokesman for incoming deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss said he would wait to see Sydney Airport's draft master plan, due to be handed over in December, before making a decision on a second airport.
"According to Sydney Airport's current Master Plan, Kingsford Smith Airport (KSA) will not reach its maximum capacity for some 20 years,'' he said.
"The Master Plan is now being updated and will provide important information on Sydney's future aviation needs.''
AIRPORT HEAT ON ABBOTT
BUSINESS leaders urged Prime Minister-elect Tony Abbott not to delay on a second airport, as Sydney Airport chairman Max Moore-Wilton yesterday ramped up his attacks on Badgerys Creek.
Mr Moore-Wilton said building a second airport at Badgerys Creek would be a "complete and utter waste of money", with Sydney Airport able to cope with the forecast increase in passenger numbers for the next 20 years.
The former secretary of the department of prime minister and cabinet under John Howard told radio station 2GB that the push for Badgerys was being led by ex-ALP activists "looking for new ways of wasting the people's money''.
"This outgoing government was the most wasteful spender of public infrastructure money than we have seen," Mr Moore-Wilton said.
"I'm very hopeful that the new government will be much more scientific, forensic and careful in spending our money.''
Mr Moore-Wilton said he supported governments securing a site to "warehouse'' for a second airport.
The ex-ALP activists reference appeared to be a dig at former state Labor MP and current Sydney Business Chamber Western Sydney director David Borger, whose organisation has led the campaign for a second airport.
Mr Borger refused to be drawn into a slanging match with Mr Moore-Wilton, instead urging the new government not to miss a once-in-a-generation opportunity to capitalise on community and business support for a new airport.
"Support has waxed and waned for it over the years but now the community is engaged with the issues and the business community wants to see some action,'' he said.
A second airport is also supported by federal Liberal MPs Joe Hockey and Scott Morrison and several western Sydney Liberal mayors including Holroyd's Ross Gross and Liverpool's Ned Mannoun.
Parramatta Economic Development Forum chairman Chris Brown said building a second airport wouldn't come at the expense of Kingsford Smith.
"There's a Mascot versus the rest argument but we're going to need both to meet the increase in aircraft movements,'' Mr Brown said.
"What we need to see from the new government is bulldozers on the site giving the community some certainty.''
HENRY BUDD COMMUTER REPOORTER (sic) THE DAILY TELEGRAPH
SEPTEMBER 13, 2013
THE nation's most influential pilots union has urged the new Coalition government to build a second airport at Badgerys Creek to boost competition and lower costs.
Australia and International Pilots Association president Nathan Safe called on Prime Minister-elect Tony Abbott to back up his vow to be known as the "infrastructure Prime Minister" and commit to a second airport at Badgerys Creek.
"If the government was fair dinkum about infrastructure then this would be the single key piece of infrastructure that could be decided upon in the next year or two," Mr Safe said.
"We just want to a decision made so there's some certainty for the industry and everyone involved in it.''
Mr Safe said airlines were struggling with the high costs of flying in Australia - in particular turnaround costs - and a second airport in Sydney would increase competition.
"The margins in the airline industry are wafer thin and those type of things can add up and be the difference between flying to a city and not another city,'' Mr Safe said.
"While you only have the one airport option here with relatively high landing fees, there's just a general lack of competition in the airport market.''
A 2012 report by aviation consultants Landrum and Brown shows "turnaround costs" at Australian airports are up to three times more than at major airports in South East Asia.
The cost of turning around a Boeing 747-400 in Australia is $14,000, compared to just $5500 in Kuala Lumpur and $9500 in Hong Kong.
Turnaround costs are a key industry measure and include charges for air traffic control, landing, parking, handling, noise and emission, and passenger charges.
Australia's two biggest airlines have been doing it tough recently. Last financial year Qantas made just $6 million profit, while arch rival Virgin lost $98.1 million.
AIPA, whose member's predominantly work for Qantas, is the latest in a long line of business groups, local councils and state and federal MPs to back a second airport for Sydney.
A joint federal-state government study into Sydney's aviation capacity found Kingsford Smith will start to hit capacity constraints in peak periods by the end of the decade, forcing up the price of tickets.
Yet according to the Sydney Airport's latest preliminary draft master plan, it will be able to cope with the forecast growth in flights and passengers for at least the next 20 years.
Mr Safe said Kingsford Smith Airport was already operating near capacity, with pilots flying into Sydney required to carry at least 20 minutes worth of extra fuel in case of delays - up to double the amount required on flights to Melbourne.
"When you get strong westerly winds, which can happen a fair bit in winter, and Sydney Airport is reduced to operating on one east-west runway can slow down things even more you can end up with an hours hold in a worst case,'' he said.
Pilots faced more delays after they touch down because of a lack of gate capacity, he said. "I've flown to Europe Africa, The States, South America and domestically to most airports and Sydney is one of the worst for gate delays,'' Mr Safe said. "I'm not saying it happens all the time in Sydney but it certainly happens more than other places.''
A spokesman for incoming deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss said he would wait to see Sydney Airport's draft master plan, due to be handed over in December, before making a decision on a second airport.
"According to Sydney Airport's current Master Plan, Kingsford Smith Airport (KSA) will not reach its maximum capacity for some 20 years,'' he said.
"The Master Plan is now being updated and will provide important information on Sydney's future aviation needs.''
AIRPORT HEAT ON ABBOTT
BUSINESS leaders urged Prime Minister-elect Tony Abbott not to delay on a second airport, as Sydney Airport chairman Max Moore-Wilton yesterday ramped up his attacks on Badgerys Creek.
Mr Moore-Wilton said building a second airport at Badgerys Creek would be a "complete and utter waste of money", with Sydney Airport able to cope with the forecast increase in passenger numbers for the next 20 years.
The former secretary of the department of prime minister and cabinet under John Howard told radio station 2GB that the push for Badgerys was being led by ex-ALP activists "looking for new ways of wasting the people's money''.
"This outgoing government was the most wasteful spender of public infrastructure money than we have seen," Mr Moore-Wilton said.
"I'm very hopeful that the new government will be much more scientific, forensic and careful in spending our money.''
Mr Moore-Wilton said he supported governments securing a site to "warehouse'' for a second airport.
The ex-ALP activists reference appeared to be a dig at former state Labor MP and current Sydney Business Chamber Western Sydney director David Borger, whose organisation has led the campaign for a second airport.
Mr Borger refused to be drawn into a slanging match with Mr Moore-Wilton, instead urging the new government not to miss a once-in-a-generation opportunity to capitalise on community and business support for a new airport.
"Support has waxed and waned for it over the years but now the community is engaged with the issues and the business community wants to see some action,'' he said.
A second airport is also supported by federal Liberal MPs Joe Hockey and Scott Morrison and several western Sydney Liberal mayors including Holroyd's Ross Gross and Liverpool's Ned Mannoun.
Parramatta Economic Development Forum chairman Chris Brown said building a second airport wouldn't come at the expense of Kingsford Smith.
"There's a Mascot versus the rest argument but we're going to need both to meet the increase in aircraft movements,'' Mr Brown said.
"What we need to see from the new government is bulldozers on the site giving the community some certainty.''
Thread Starter
Mr Moore-Wilton said building a second airport at Badgerys Creek would be a "complete and utter waste of money", with Sydney Airport able to cope with the forecast increase in passenger numbers for the next 20 years.
However if he said 'Sydney Airport able to cope with the forecast increase in passenger numbers for the next 20 years if we abolish all movement caps, the curfew and build some more terminals' then he would be correct.
Last edited by neville_nobody; 13th Sep 2013 at 03:59.
(it would have been the worst aviation accident of all time ----
But it wasn't, was it !! It could have even been worse, the Ansett A320 might have crashed into the International Terminal and started a fire that burnt down Rockdale --- but it didn't.
Recall the time (thanks to ATC) that the B727 hit the DC-8 ---- it could have been the worst aviation disaster of all time ---- but it wasn't.
And the time the (large SEA airline) ran off the right side of 16R, across 07, went around over the VOR, and almost hit the old tower, and hundreds almost died, including on General Holmes Drive, but it didn't and they didn't.
Or the B747 go around off 07 that almost hit the railway embankment, almost killing all on board and hundreds more in Botany, but it didn't and they didn't die.
Back to the Thai DC-10/Ansett A320, itdid bring to light one of the shortcomings of the Airbus flight control system, and lack of CRM on the Ansett flighdeck, we all learned a few lessons from that. If a proper missed approach had been carried out, the whole thing would have been a non-event.
But the usual Australian arrogance came to the fore, the automatic assumption that crews of foreign airlines are incompetent, hence the restrictions.
As I said re. movement rates on parallel runways, "with taxiway modifications" ----- what is possible. We are in the risk management business, and Australian aviation, particularly the bureaucratic end of it, does not do risk management at all well.
One major difference between you and I, is that I believe in "can do", not the good old Australian bureaucratic public service "can't do".
If we had the US approach to traffic handling here, it would transform CNS/ATM ---- it will be interesting to see the new Airspace Policy Statement from the new Government, for the Airspace Act 2007, I can't see the present one lasting long. Truss is well aware that his original Air Space Statement has been neutered.
Getting a bit off thread, but the inquiry into the expenditure some $40-50M over 4 years so far, on reinventing the ATC wheel,with a claimed 100 people on the project, just to get to preliminary tenders, will be interesting.
It only took 5 years or so to fight WWII.
Tootle pip!!
PS: I was on YSSY the day of the Thai/A320 incident, it was noticeable for the fact that most people, unless they were on frequency, knew nothing about it.
Last edited by LeadSled; 13th Sep 2013 at 05:25.
Near collision at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport, HS-TMC and VH-HYC, 12 August 1991Note the title: Near collision.
Makes sobering reading, fatigue related error, lack of CRM, normalised deviation. Lucky these never happen anymore...
http://http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24753/197101202.pdf
Refreshing to read the minimalist A/G communications (where virtually nothing gets read-back) however I digress, report indicates 3 causal factors.
The evidence in respect of this accident indicates that it resulted from a combination of errors made by persons.
Wow, that really was gilding the lily, and yes folks, the aircraft left skid marks across RWY 07 whilst attempting to land on 16 before it became RWY 16R. Scary but true.
You forgot about a couple:
EAO B767 vs TBR B727 where TBR crossed the runway 07 threshold before the EAO had cleared the intersection, thereby infringing runway separation standards.
http://http://www.atsb.gov.au/public...199202688.aspx
Qantas Airways Boeing 747-300 (B747) VH-EBT aircraft was towed across the path of Cathay Pacific Airways Boeing 747-300 (B747) VR-HIJ which had commenced take-off on runway 34 on a scheduled flight to Hong Kong.
http://http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/...1/b9023307.pdf
But the Cathay one was during SIMOPS/LAHSO so perhaps didn't aid your argument.
Sydney routinely does 50+ movements on a single runway, specifically RWY 25 only and this is without any RETs. Why?
Part of the answer lies with the spacings on final, part of the answer lies in the number of departure headings available, the mix and match of headings that are only available when operating a single runway (and is not available during mixed mode operations on parallel runways) L210, H240, R300 and R020.
Without question 90+ is achievable using 34 parallels and slightly lower with 16 parallels, but only once runway occupancy times are trimmed further and providing the traffic mix remains predominantly mediums, and ATC are able not hand-braked by an artificial movement cap.
Makes sobering reading, fatigue related error, lack of CRM, normalised deviation. Lucky these never happen anymore...
Recall the time (thanks to ATC) that the B727 hit the DC-8
Refreshing to read the minimalist A/G communications (where virtually nothing gets read-back) however I digress, report indicates 3 causal factors.
The evidence in respect of this accident indicates that it resulted from a combination of errors made by persons.
- The first of these errors was the misreading, by the flight crew of (the) DC-8, of the taxying clearance issued by the aerodrome controller. It is considered that there was nothing in the aerodrome controller's actions at this stage which contributed to this misreading and it arose fundamentally because inadequate attention to its words and its import was given by the flight crew.
- The second significant error was the belief of the aerodrome controller that (the) DC-8 had vacated the runway via Taxiway T and that it was safe to clear (the) B727 for take-off without obtaining a "clear of the runway" report from (the) DC-8. Having regard to the limitations of visual perception, it is not difficult to understand how the aerodrome controller could be deceived in attempting to discriminate some three quarters of a mile away on a dark night and with a very shal- low line-of-sight closure with the ground. Undoubtedly, the problem was com- pounded by the very slow movements of (the) DC-8 on the ground and the fact that its turn on the runway was carried out opposite the entrance to Taxiway "I".
- The third factor of importance in the sequence of events which led to this accident, was the failure of the flight crew of (the) B727 to ensure that the runway was clear and safe for take-off. It is true that their aircraft had been cleared by the aerodrome controller for take-off and that such a clearance reflected the viewof the aerodrome controller that the runwaywas, in fact, unobstructed. The expres- sion of such a view, however, does not absolve the pilot-in-command of any aircraft from taking all of the actions necessary to satisfy himself that there is no impediment to a safe take-off.
And the time the (large SEA island airline) ran off the right side of 16R, across 07, went around over the VOR, and almost hit the old tower, and hundreds almost died, including on General Holmes Drive, but it didn't and they didn't.
You forgot about a couple:
EAO B767 vs TBR B727 where TBR crossed the runway 07 threshold before the EAO had cleared the intersection, thereby infringing runway separation standards.
http://http://www.atsb.gov.au/public...199202688.aspx
Qantas Airways Boeing 747-300 (B747) VH-EBT aircraft was towed across the path of Cathay Pacific Airways Boeing 747-300 (B747) VR-HIJ which had commenced take-off on runway 34 on a scheduled flight to Hong Kong.
http://http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/...1/b9023307.pdf
But the Cathay one was during SIMOPS/LAHSO so perhaps didn't aid your argument.
Sydney routinely does 50+ movements on a single runway, specifically RWY 25 only and this is without any RETs. Why?
Part of the answer lies with the spacings on final, part of the answer lies in the number of departure headings available, the mix and match of headings that are only available when operating a single runway (and is not available during mixed mode operations on parallel runways) L210, H240, R300 and R020.
Without question 90+ is achievable using 34 parallels and slightly lower with 16 parallels, but only once runway occupancy times are trimmed further and providing the traffic mix remains predominantly mediums, and ATC are able not hand-braked by an artificial movement cap.
No, no, no. That won’t do at all SunnySA. 
Leaddie is clearly correct in his view that near misses don’t count and there’s nothing to be learnt from them. Go Leaddie!
Pilots should run air traffic control and airports.
(Actually, now that I switch off 'hyper sarcasm' mode, pilots running ATC and airports might produce a slightly less worse outcome than air traffic control and airports being run by politicians and millionaires on the basis of their political and financial interests…)
Leaddie is clearly correct in his view that near misses don’t count and there’s nothing to be learnt from them. Go Leaddie!
Pilots should run air traffic control and airports.
(Actually, now that I switch off 'hyper sarcasm' mode, pilots running ATC and airports might produce a slightly less worse outcome than air traffic control and airports being run by politicians and millionaires on the basis of their political and financial interests…)
Last edited by Creampuff; 13th Sep 2013 at 22:54.