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

Brisbane Airport RW 01L/19R Opening

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

Brisbane Airport RW 01L/19R Opening

Old 9th Feb 2020, 04:51
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Sunny Oz
Posts: 28
"Require runway 01R/19L" problem solved
BlackPanther is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2020, 05:04
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Posts: 1,667
Originally Posted by BlackPanther View Post
"Require runway 01R/19L" problem solved
Perfect. Inconvenience everyone else for your own unnecessary purposes.

Introduce measures like they do at Narita, unless you require the longer runway (which they will check), then you take the assigned runway.
morno is online now  
Old 9th Feb 2020, 07:34
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Sunny Oz
Posts: 28
Originally Posted by morno View Post
Perfect. Inconvenience everyone else for your own unnecessary purposes.
Sorry morno, I am with you. The post was written sarcastically in my head but definitely didn't translate to the post. I wish it was more stringently policed here in Australia.
BlackPanther is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2020, 08:43
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 1,013
Originally Posted by BlackPanther View Post
Sorry morno, I am with you. The post was written sarcastically in my head but definitely didn't translate to the post. I wish it was more stringently policed here in Australia.
Ah
That had you pegged as a Cathay crew
maggot is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2020, 09:02
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Posts: 1,667
Originally Posted by BlackPanther View Post
Sorry morno, I am with you. The post was written sarcastically in my head but definitely didn't translate to the post. I wish it was more stringently policed here in Australia.
.........
morno is online now  
Old 9th Feb 2020, 11:35
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SA
Age: 59
Posts: 321
Originally Posted by BlackPanther View Post
"Require runway 01R/19L" problem solved
Perhaps, I understand that simultaneous parallel departures joining to the same outbound track will not be permissible.
I understand that a requirement for the closer runway will mean that a delay is likely as you'll need to be sequenced with (and behind) a 01L/19R departure via the same outbound track.

Hope that helps.
sunnySA is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2020, 13:38
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Sunny Oz
Posts: 28
Any runway 'requirement' will always push you to the back of the queue, unless of course you have a fair reason for it (heavy jet, emergency, weather, degraded systems etc).
BlackPanther is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2020, 04:24
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: AU
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by sunnySA View Post
Perhaps, I understand that simultaneous parallel departures joining to the same outbound track will not be permissible.
I understand that a requirement for the closer runway will mean that a delay is likely as you'll need to be sequenced with (and behind) a 01L/19R departure via the same outbound track.

Hope that helps.
My understanding too - e.g. R19L departing for IBUNA/CORAL (these names are going to change as well) will have to wait for a gap in the 19R departures, and vv for 01R vs 01L. Makes sense I guess.

There is bugger all difference in the RWY length anyway - unless you are doing a ULR leg or particularly heavy.

The congestion point is going to be the taxiways. The taxi distance from the southern end of the INTL Apron to the 01L Threshold is 7km, for comparison QF DOM Apron to 34R Threshold in YSSY is 6km.
etrust is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2020, 07:31
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 1,013
Originally Posted by etrust View Post
My understanding too - e.g. R19L departing for IBUNA/CORAL (these names are going to change as well) will have to wait for a gap in the 19R departures, and vv for 01R vs 01L. Makes sense I guess.

There is bugger all difference in the RWY length anyway - unless you are doing a ULR leg or particularly heavy.

The congestion point is going to be the taxiways. The taxi distance from the southern end of the INTL Apron to the 01L Threshold is 7km, for comparison QF DOM Apron to 34R Threshold in YSSY is 6km.
Max wt heavies will have brake temp issues too
Comedic expectation
maggot is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2020, 10:02
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: BNE, Australia
Posts: 274
Those max weight heavies to the NW, who would normally be punted off to 01L, all depart later at night when 01R can be the duty runway as there is not much congestion anyway. So I don't imagine it will be an issue in practice.

Long way to taxi if you're on the Bali bus though.
chuboy is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2020, 10:59
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 1,013
Originally Posted by chuboy View Post
Those max weight heavies to the NW, who would normally be punted off to 01L, all depart later at night when 01R can be the duty runway as there is not much congestion anyway. So I don't imagine it will be an issue in practice.

Long way to taxi if you're on the Bali bus though.
Max wt heavies aren't just 380s to the desert
a full 330 to Asia would be just as limited, plenty of that stuff all morning
maggot is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2020, 11:18
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: BNE, Australia
Posts: 274
Point taken
chuboy is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2020, 23:05
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: sydney
Posts: 67
https://www.bne.com.au/sites/default...chitecture.pdf
Terrey is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2020, 00:55
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,406
a full 330 to Asia would be just as limited, plenty of that stuff all morning
Great I look forward to the ground frequency being blocked by the whole Request/Require argument just like on Melbourne Centre most mornings when 27 is in action.

From Page D3-39 of the EIS:
For parallel runway operations, when there is conflicting traffic on the adjacent localiser, aircraft must be radar vectored to join ‘Final’ both in instrument and visual conditions until certain conditions are met. As a result, it might be necessary to cancel the STAR for radar vectoring purposes.
This is obviously some CASA requirement and the same issue they have with Sydney STARs. So does anyone in the know care to explain how it is safer to Radar Vector people around vs just building an RNP STAR to the runway and joining the ILS. Personally I would suggest that the RNP STAR is actually safer as it will align you with the runway vs RADAR vectors where you run the risk of going through the Localiser or better still having Localiser interference as you start the turn resulting in the aircraft spearing off into the parallel traffic At least with the RNP STAR the default position is runway and G/S aligned.

The most efficient option would be to build a US style ILS where the RNP STAR delivers you to a 5 mile final (saving at least 10 NM for all Northerly Arrivals) then you join the ILS from there, but you will be burnt at the stake as a heretic if you dare suggest something like that in this country.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2020, 02:43
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: AU
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by neville_nobody View Post
The most efficient option would be to build a US style ILS where the RNP STAR delivers you to a 5 mile final (saving at least 10 NM for all Northerly Arrivals) then you join the ILS from there, but you will be burnt at the stake as a heretic if you dare suggest something like that in this country.
No need for stake burning, I believe this is the model. (Unless you aren't equipped to fly RNP.)

There is no Director position.

(And the 10NM thing is pretty moot when there are more than 2 aircraft with the same ETA.)
etrust is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2020, 03:51
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,406
No need for stake burning, I believe this is the model. (Unless you aren't equipped to fly RNP.)

There is no Director position)
This is what the EIS says:

The ILS arrival requires aircraft to join final approach 12 Nm (~22 km) from the relevant runway, whereas a visual arrival can join final approach at 4Nm (~7.5 km) from the runway.
For parallel runway operations, when there is conflicting traffic on the adjacent localiser, aircraft must be radar vectored to join ‘Final’ both in instrument and visual conditions until certain conditions are met. As a result, it might be necessary to cancel the STAR for radar vectoring purposes.
So in IMC and VMC if there are aircraft on the adjacent runway within the parameters for separation you have to get a radar vectored intercept. My point is that just letting everyone fly the STAR is probably safer. Curious as to why the vector is how it is done vs the STAR.

Nowhere in Australia will do a 5 mile ILS off a STAR its all at 10+ miles. There has been some moves afoot to change things in Sydney but it has come back to an issue with CASA.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2020, 04:21
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: AU
Posts: 11
Think you will find RNP capable aircraft will be flying the RNP if the aircraft on opposite side is also flying either RNP or ILS.
etrust is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2020, 11:53
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 97
pictures. This is the theory. Middle pic is after 10pm calm





Last edited by lurker999; 11th Feb 2020 at 11:58. Reason: Clarification
lurker999 is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2020, 12:17
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Sunny Oz
Posts: 28
My big question is what kind of reduced arrival rates are Airservices going to run when the new airspace starts? The ATC's are going to need some time to adjust.

There are some major 'pinch points' in the SID/STAR segregation as I see it, will be interesting.
BlackPanther is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2020, 23:56
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: AU
Posts: 11
My understanding is it wont be super reduced. Considering there are two runways it should still be more than they do now, although BN have got pretty good at smashing in and out with a single runway, meaning the occasional go around because of rwy occupancy, but expectations on occupancy times are a little tighter than elsewhere. Local operators are switched on to it.

The test will be how it is handled when all the arrivals are coming from one side. With some foresight it sounds like a perfect opportunity to test out ARR RWY AND DEP RWY ONLY mode? Or maybe everything from BL/CG to 19L, and everything from SAVER to 19R?



etrust 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.