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

Perth Airport - CEO Geatches on radio.

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

Perth Airport - CEO Geatches on radio.

Old 12th Oct 2012, 02:27
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Past the rabbit proof fence
Posts: 242
Sure - build a third runway. Aircraft will still be waiting for a bay.

Build terminals/bays - then runway!!!!!

PAPL (WAC) is a rental collection agency, not a building firm.
aveng is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2012, 08:54
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
Is it that time of year again? This has all been covered before, but here goes;

Gatwick UK average of 52 movements an hour with one runway, Perth 24 an hour
I suspect you are comparing movement rates with arrival rates, but assume you are not. 52/hour is on landing every 69 seconds. Can you go from cleared to land to clear of rwy in 69 seconds at Perth? Arrival rates on a single rwy are determined by how much room pilots need, not controllers. As an aside, a team from NATS including Gatwick controllers recently examined both PH and BN, looking for ways to increase capacity. Ask your company to ask ASA for their report.

What happened to LAHSO?
I don't know why it was canned, but it wasn't that useful. 21/24 LASHO would only allow turbos and probably 146's from the east to LAHSO (24 holding short is too short for 737's by about 3 meters). Every bit helps though.

Why do they bother printing SIDs for RW24 when it is almost never used.
Thats down to poor communication. R24 has effectively been out of service for months due to twy and apron works. but this was never explicitly communicated to operators or ML ATC. The rwy was available, but aircraft had to exit left. To get to the domestic apron, you would have to enter and taxi along R21, exit and cross R24 and then cross R21 again. I was more efficient just not to use R24. Hopefully this in now over.

Why do they use RW21 with a 15kt x-wind/5 kt tailwind and no ILS when 03/06 are into the wind and 03 has an ILS.
Its spelled out in ERSA. R21 and R24 have equal priority for noise abatement, the R03 then R06. If the rwy is dry and the DW 5 knots or less, R21 and/or R24 must be used. This is an Australia wide procedure not just PH, and ATC have no control over it.

with an agenda, make as much money as possible and screw the ACTUAL purpose of an airport.
The actual purpose of PH airport is to make money, nothing else. Same as you airline only exists to make money. How long do you think a CEO would keep his job of he spent tons of money on something that generated no income? Likewise, he can hardly stand up and say that because the herd get upset when confronted with realities they would rather ignore.

watching the two preferred operators get track shortening plus 300KIAS on descent
The perception of favouritism is caused by perception bias and reinforced by conformation bias. Proof - every operator has people who believe ATC favours others over them, nobody ever thinks we favour them. If everybody thinks you favour someone else, you obviously favour no one. (We'll not mention the days of the fokker conspiracy!)

Finally, surely the quickest and cheapest way to increase capacity would be to build full length taxiways with rapid exits on both runways, and extend R24 to the north east to allow meaningful LAHSO. To improve departure rates, particularly the morning outbound push, I believe we need to 'sort' the departures, eg one north, one east, one north, one east etc and FFS put the jets in front of the turbos, and the B737/A320/B717's in front of the F100/BA146's as much as possible.

Last edited by Nautilus Blue; 12th Oct 2012 at 08:56. Reason: speeeling
Nautilus Blue is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2012, 09:20
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: home
Posts: 339
Yes Icarus, I believe Bloggs has joined Geaches in smoking crack Bloggs, nowhere else in Asia do they use COBTs, when you are approaching airports in Asia and China they slow/vector you as required, Australia is unique in requiring a COBT AND a time at a waypoint with less than 1 minute buffer (depending on your watch/clock), so not sure what you are on about, sorry if I've offended your ATC buddies.

Nautilus, thanks for your informative input, if NAPs dictate that a runway with 15kts x and 5 tail AND no ILS be used over a runway that's into wind with an ILS then there is something seriously wrong with the NAPs, also what is ghe guarantee the wind will not exceed 5 knots or for that matter the max tail for most A/C, 10 kts ? NAP over safety ?
You didn't address why 24 is not used for departures ?
Saying that LAHSO wasn't much good because it was only useable for turbos and 146s (and probably F100) is a little dismissive since you are talking close to 1/2 the aircraft that use Perth.
You're right about the airports purpose. Since it has become privatised at least, the purpose used to be to accommodate the travelling public.
I like your ideas on extending 24 and rapid taxiways but it will never work, too practical and sensible you're wasted at ATC
airdualbleedfault is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2012, 09:39
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,522
Talking

No it's not. I dunno what they use overseas but I can tell you COBTs are a damn-sight easier to operate to than pilot-attempted feeder-fix times. Do you have any idea what is involved in getting 100-plus pax to a point in space to the minute? Do you actually understand how the system is supposed to work?
Toughen up, Bloggs. I thought you ex-military types were expert at +/- 15 secs over a waypoint

Us ex-boat drivers can do it to a minute on the east coast
Hugh Jarse is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2012, 11:18
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
airdualbleedfault - I think that COBT times are like the airlines telling passengers what time to leave home rather than what time to be at the terminal, but we never used them until we bought in METRON from the spams, so I have no idea where they come from. The only reason I can think of to give a COBT and a landing time is so at towered aerodromes controllers can police the COBT and try to nip non compliance in the bud. I don't know if that is done though.

Th other thing is that COBT/landing times/METRON is a rough first pass strategic filter. Once everybody is inbound, the FF issued by PH FLOW are the tactical final pass to spread the arrivals out to what we need. The FLOW can only deal with what arrives. Today for example we had 10 - 12 arrivals which untouched would have all landed within about 90 - 120 seconds. The fact that they probably all met their COBT was rendered irrelevant.

Turbo's and BA146/F100 are a large % of PH traffic, but a small % of traffic from the east, which are the only ones who can use 24 hold short usefully. I would have it back tomorrow though if we could. Remember if all the inbound traffic is roughly on time, and get any delays far enough out to meet them with speed reduction, I get a very easy day at work.

I think, but am willing to be corrected, that 24 departures is again a noise abatement issue. You would only use 24 for GURAK departures (NW and N) which would turn right and go right over the city.

Crosswind and downwind quoted on the ATIS are maximums, as apposed to the wind which is an average (thats how you can have am ATIS with say xxx/10kts, crosswind 12kts). As soon as the TWR sees greater than the specified maximums we change ends, resulting in one of PH's famous last minute rwy changes, which are sometimes more dangerous than DW! It would be logical for example if the DW increased from 3 to 5 knots to change rwy's in anticipation, but we all know what happens when the rules meet logic.

Remember anything is available if the crew advise it is operationally required. I recently has a freighter do just that. Inbound for 21 instrument approach, dark o'clock, ILS not available, crosswind and downwind, 250' AGL wind even more so. Crew advises require R03, they get it

Last edited by Nautilus Blue; 12th Oct 2012 at 11:26.
Nautilus Blue is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2012, 11:44
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: PER
Posts: 1,149
And its a pity the land set aside for the runway now houses storage facilities for Coles & Woolworths.
WRONG.....
topend3 is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2012, 12:06
  #27 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,767
Nautilus thanks for the input without any playing the man. I find it difficult to disagree with most of what you say, however

The actual purpose of PH airport is to make money, nothing else. Same as you airline only exists to make money.
PAPL exists soley to make money. Perth airport exists to provide the population of WA with an effective international airport, this is writ large in the head lease signed by WAC now PAPL.
Using the "airlines are here to make money too" analogy breaks down pretty quickly as there are MANY operators but ONLY ONE airport. A natural monopoly. If airline X increased costs to pax by 20% then made it difficult to book and check in with them they would lose market share to airline Y. If PAPL make/have made Perth airport painful, slow and inefficient as well as expensive to use (EG parking) who do they lose market share to? No one. As no one else can provide what they can provide.

The buildings east of HM drive are clear of the land for the parallel runway, but there are some businesses that will have to move. Google Earth is helpful.

Last edited by Icarus2001; 12th Oct 2012 at 12:06.
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2012, 12:11
  #28 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,767
Airport was warned of chaos - The West Australian

Perth Airport was warned 18 months ago about the unprecedented growth that has gridlocked the airport and which Qantas claims is costing it $10.8 million a year.

The Chamber of Minerals and Energy said yesterday its 2011 WA State Growth Outlook released in April last year, accurately forecast the boom in air travel requirements for the resources sector.

Chamber director Damian Callachor says the industry body "cannot understand the mismatch in their forecasting given the growth figures we are supplying from our members".

"Perth Airport is too conservative and not meeting requirements to facilitate trade," he said.

"We urge the airport to future-proof the State's economic future."

On Tuesday, Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce supported calls from Treasurer Troy Buswell in _The Weekend West _for a third runway - and second parallel - at Perth Airport to solve the congestion issues.

Qantas put a dollar figure of $10.8 million on the delays - inbound and outbound - which often last 45 minutes and sometimes longer.

Airline analysts said the cost to all airlines at Perth Airport would be $24 million in wasted fuel, extra crew and staff hours.

Perth Airport chief executive Brad Geatches said the airport had the "capacity and the preparedness to construct the third runway, if the airlines using Perth Airport want it to be brought forward".Mr Buswell said he was concerned with Perth Airport's planning models and he expected the State Aviation Review, which should report by December, to give firm benchmark growth projections.

Last week, Mr Buswell criticised Perth Airport, saying it was an impediment to the State's growth.

Yesterday, he said he was concerned over the $600 million price tag cited by Perth Airport to build another runway that would future-proof the airport.

And Mr Callachor said fly-in, fly-out demand would increase as construction phases ended because production roster rotations would be more frequent.

"We are finding that more staff want to work on FIFO shifts and that the trend is for more frequency of rotations, thus increasing demand," he said.

"There is also another $200 billion in resource projects committed and yet to start."
My bolding.
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2012, 00:22
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: home
Posts: 339
Nautilus, I think you are right about RW24 for departures but I guess my point is that for some reason (who lives off the end of that runway??) it's never used. You are correct that with the current SIDs it would only be a small amount of traffic using it but there is no reason that I can think of (other than some VIPs that have purchased housing off the end of a runway being protected) that any traffic departing north or north east, could not use 24 to ease the congestion on 21. It seems ridiculous that with all the delays in Perth the preferred option is to use a single runway with a downwind component, I'm pretty sure I've never seen that before and BTW I'm not saying its your fault.
Another point of note is that around 7 years ago RW06 was routinely used for arrivals, then it just stopped unless there is a 35kt nor easter, again, some influential people living in that area ?

I don't fly into Perth that often but I'm pretty sure from what I've been told that if I requested 03 between 0530 and 0930 I would probably incur a small delay, around 3-4 hours


Inside word, spot on although Lo viz procedures are probably not high priority for Perth. It's funny you should mention runway occupancy times, I got a big laugh out of ASAs latest feeble attempt to address the congestion at Perth. Again, I believe a lot of the departure congestion problems in the morning are due to the insessant need to use a single downwind runway, 21, and early in the morning there are not that many arrivals .
airdualbleedfault is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2012, 04:50
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Suitcase
Posts: 109
Perth is easily the worst airport in Australia. In my opinion the congestion problem often has little to do with runways and a lot more to do with apron/taxiway/bay congestion.

Nautilus, the runway election in PER is often quite sub-standard. As you know, the wind figures you quote are aerodrome winds. Very often I've had very strong tailwinds on final, especially on 21 at night, and this has been reported by aircraft. Yet because the wind on the ground was "only 5 kts" tailwind no runway change was made. A 5 kts downwind is no big deal, but in a Heavy a 30 knot shear to a 5 kt DW is! Often the downwind is above the 250 ft anemometer so, unless we happen to hear preceding traffic advising, we have no idea to anticipate this and hence require the opposite runway.

It's difficult to take any ATC system seriously that follows an aircraft for 4 hours as it crosses continental Australia, then advises shortly before top of descent of a requirement to lose 10 minutes before the next waypoint Many times I've been at a high cost index across Australia in an effort to make schedule/curfew for a return, only to be advised of a significant delay to cross BEVLY

I'm definitely not trying to have a go at any ATC people on an individual basis, I appreciate it's all according to the books, and I expect the frustrations are possibly shared. I do hope the comments on the runway selection give some food for thought however. Flying a heavy 747 or Airbus into PER can often be "sporting" to say the least (particularly the Airbus). It definitely doesn't help to discover a howling tailwind on final that was reported by preceding aircraft hence known by ATC. There are times when we wonder if the runway chosen is EVER into wind

With regards Flow into PER, well sorry but from a user perspective it's crap. I've never seen anything like it anywhere else in the world and there's nothing more to be said about that.

About crossing times. Occasionally we all screw up, for example if the winds on descent turn out to be radically different fro forecast. However if anyone finds making an ATC crossing requirement within 1 minute typically difficult to achieve, they should probably be thinking about a career move!
Squawk-7600 is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2012, 06:00
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: home
Posts: 339
Squawk, very good point about the wind above 250', could make for a very "sporting" engine out departure.
Once again, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, Noise abatement is taking precedence over safety at Perth and that lays fair and square with ASA.
airdualbleedfault is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2012, 07:21
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
Icarus2001 - you are right of course, its just my (hypocritical) anti-corporate bias showing , particularly if the airport is leased, I always thought it has been sold.

Squawk-7600 re rwy selection, there is no point talking to ATC about it because our hands are tied. You have to talk to CASA/ATSB. File paperwork every time you believe something is unsafe, if nothing else you will generate a paper trail.

It's difficult to take any ATC system seriously that follows an aircraft for 4 hours as it crosses continental Australia, then advises shortly before top of descent of a requirement to lose 10 minutes before the next waypoint
Delays just prior to top of descent (or heaven forbid after) are mostly inexcusable, so I won't try. Unless there are go rounds, emergencies, rapid wx changes etc they are probably a failing of ATC's.

Many times I've been at a high cost index across Australia in an effort to make schedule/curfew for a return, only to be advised of a significant delay to cross BEVLY
METRON should eliminate situations like that but put yourself in others shoes. As an ATC I have no idea that you are running late or have a schedule issue. You approach PH last in a group of 10 -12 other aircraft, some of whom only departed 20 minutes ago. I can't have known 3 hours ago they were going to be in front. As a crew from a rival airline you would not be happy if I make you wait for someone behind to go first because they are in a hurry. (I'm not going to make any friends here but we call it "only plane in the sky" syndrome.)

Under METRON I would hope that your landing slot would be fixed, and that if you departed late and flogged the aircraft all the way across to make up time everything would work out. One disadvantage of METRON is that it is only shown to the NOC and FLOW, so as a line controller I am totally out of the loop, and can only pass on feeder fix times given to me. Probably a good thing though because I don't have time for debates on air!

airdualbleedfault - I'm not sure noise abatement procedures are ASA's jurisdiction. Remember in theory, ASA is only an operator/service provider, with no regulatory powers at all. Under CASA we are equal with airline and airport operators. I know that sounds like typical public service "not my department" buck passing. As I said above, formally report everything, every time. It may not change anything, but at least someone will be able to nail those responsible to the wall if/when it all goes wrong.
Nautilus Blue is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2012, 11:10
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Suitcase
Posts: 109
Squawk, very good point about the wind above 250', could make for a very "sporting" engine out departure.
Fortunately I haven't needed to put that to the test, but I'd suspect that yes, the pucker valve would be migrating the sheepskin seat cover to orifices it was never designed to go! Even with a normal approach, a 30 kt shear in the bottom few hundred feet makes life interesting.

Squawk-7600 re rwy selection, there is no point talking to ATC about it because our hands are tied. You have to talk to CASA/ATSB. File paperwork every time you believe something is unsafe, if nothing else you will generate a paper trail.
No I appreciate it's outside the power of individual controllers, but thought I'd use the forum to mention it as feedback with the caveat that it's not directed at individuals, as I mentioned in my initial post. Often it's not a case of being technically "unsafe", more a case of "not ideal" ... sometimes even "not good". If it was an actual safety issue then paperwork would definitely follow. I guess a little like the endless Rwy 24 landings we were getting a while back. Is it unsafe? No. But it was tight for us and not ideal.

Regarding delays into PER, it's difficult for me to put an actual number on it, but I'd say if domestic it would be around 50% of the time. Definitely NOT unusual in any case and we expect it. In my experience the traffic isn't something that originated 20 minutes away, instead mostly from the north and the East Coast. I don't pretend to understand how the traffic is sequenced, only the consequences. I've been told Flow only start sorting the times out 250 nm out, but as I say, the mechanism and truth (if any) behind the statement I have no idea. I also appreciate the physical constraints of PER airspace make the situation tricky, and we could have a whole different discussion about the merits, or otherwise, of the military taking great chunks of airspace for no particular reason, but that's a whole different story. In the meanwhile it is what it is. My point being if the perception is that METRON is working well I think you'll find considerable dissension amongst the final users.

Feedback and humble opinion for what it's worth.
Squawk-7600 is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2012, 12:19
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
Squawk-7600 - I appreciate what you say and agree, but unfortunately there is nothing I an do with most of it. My boss won't listen to me, but he might listen to you. His boss might listen to your boss, and my bosses bosses boss will certainly listen to CASA.

METRON obviously isn't working into PH because we are still getting upwards of 30 minute delays some days, other days no more than 4 or 5. I know that. My boss is vaguely aware of it but too busy/apathetic to do anything. His boss doesn't know there is a problem and his boss thinks METRON is an unqualified success.
Nautilus Blue is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2012, 13:03
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Suitcase
Posts: 109
His boss doesn't know there is a problem and his boss thinks METRON is an unqualified success.
I think if there's anything consistent it's the fact that as one gets further from the coalface the picture gets further distorted from reality, and invariably better/worse in the eye of the beholder depending on which barrow they're aiming to push. Meanwhile people like you and I, the ones actually tasked to make it all happen, simply shake our heads and make the most of it.

As I was flying along the other night, listening to the re-routes as YBBB controlled airspace was closed due to "lack of resources", I had one of those head shaking moments and wondered just how much more those at the top could screw things up!
Squawk-7600 is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2012, 14:25
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,695
The theory of sequencing is fairly straightforward. An untouched landing time is calculated for each aircraft (system estimate for the fix plus a calculated time from fix to threshold based on STAR tracking, aircraft type and winds). This generates the order of arrivals.

No. 1 is assigned his untouched landing time, then everyone follows along with however many seconds spacing between arrivals as specified by the acceptance rate.

Your sequenced landing time is then used to back calculate the fix time needed to achieve it. Manual flowing (no Maestro) works pretty much the same way.

The 250NM is simply the nominal range of radar - the flow only sees the TMA radar feeds & you can't flow what you can't see. The further out you implement a solution the more subject it is to interference.
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2012, 23:54
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
Coming bak to the original topic, I suppose you could say PH airport is a privately operated money gouging entity providing a inadequate service while ASA is a government owned inefficient entity providing a inadequate service. Not so much snakes and ladders as snakes and snakes.

The further out you implement a solution the more subject it is to interference.
Just sometimes though I think that this is a case of 'perfection is the enemy of good enough'. If there is a large amount of holding looming, maybe its better to just pluck an order and sequence early, and leave the occasional gap as a contingency. Maybe its better to get a 30 minute delay 500nm out than only a 27 minute delay at 250nm?
Nautilus Blue is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2012, 00:48
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,282
All pilots, notice: When reading Nautilus Blue's and other ATC's posts bear in mind that ASA is not managed by ATC's.

First of all they will not understand NB's solutions so they will be summarily dismissed. There is a fundamental lack of understanding at the top of the organisation of what ATC is, what it is there for and the consequences of getting it wrong. There is evidence on record of this lack of understanding.

Second of all there is a culture of hate and jealousy toward ATC's in 'hate castle' in Canberra. Virtually all of ASA 's problems could be solved in the short to mid term with consultation with it's employees. But no, they know best.

Thirdly and most concerning, there is a culture of management being told what they want to hear by lower level managers who know their jobs are at risk if they don't comply.
Jack Ranga is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2012, 00:55
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The Beech or the Office.
Age: 10
Posts: 331
Jack,

Sounds very familiar to the problems entrenched in the "National" carrier.
Normasars is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2012, 01:31
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,282
Yep, sounds like...... How any manager can be proud of the decisions taken in both organisations regarding declaring 'war' on the people it relies on for it's survival is beyond me. Management at both organisations are lauded by the business community for their 'tough' stand towards it's employees. What a sick joke
Jack Ranga 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.