Perth Airport - CEO Geatches on radio.
 

I managed to shut the taxi driver up long enough to hear Mr Geatches on ABC radio in Perth today.

He claims that PAPL (formerly WAC) is fully commited to building a third runway at Perth airport just as soon as TWENTY airlines that use the airport agree that one is required AND agree to pay the higher charges for use of the airport once the runway is operational. So once again it is not his fault.

He put the cost of the runway at $600 million for a 2700 metre runway parallel to 03/21. Estimated build time of FOUR years. He believes that they could begin construction late next year once agreement is reached with the airports customers.

So if they start construction late 2013 then we can look forward to using it some time early 2018 given delays due to something or other, which again will be the fault of someone other than the people that run the airport.

This from a a man who said only three months ago that the traffic at Perth airport willl decline soon as mines go into production phase having completed construction and as such a third runway would not be required until about 2025.

If anyone can get a transcript or audio file please post it as it makes interesting listening.

Looks like some quiet chats from business leaders have had an effect. Even dear old Mr Thomas seems to have seen the light and decided that there is a problem.

http://l.yimg.com/fv/xp/wan/20121006...xieNfwfSQwXw--

Airport congestion 'costs businesses dear' - The West Australian

Qantas boss backs new runway - The West Australian


:sad:

Meanwhile in China...
Beijing's mega-airport: bigger than Heathrow and JFK combined - Flights | hotels | frequent flyer | business class - Australian Business Traveller

They build an 8-runway, 130m pax capacity airport - starting now, complete by 2017.

Must have got the idea from Brisbane Airport Corp. where they are charging airlines now for the cost and it is years before we will see a runway.

Another classic example of why governments should not giveaway(read lease) national infrastructure to private enterprise.

PAPL will now hold the West Australian and Federal governments to ransom until someone gives them the money to build what is their responsibly.

Well done Liberal & Labor for this situation we now find ourselves in. Another fine mess we now find ourselves in because of inept politicians. Why don't we have another Medicare/Flood Levy to fund this.:ugh:

And its a pity the land set aside for the runway now houses storage facilities for Coles & Woolworths.

Airports and other national infrastracture should never be sold off...too late now i guess. I bet if Perth airport was run by the DCA or DOT, it would have a CAT 3 ILS, an International Terminal with proper docking fingers, and a third runway....and not just a huge shopping mall.:ugh::ugh:

The timeframe on the third runway in BNE is 8 years. 8 freakin' years! They must be kidding.

That's being a bit generous isn't it?? More like an odge podge collection of shops selling cheap junk at inflated prices. The terminals at PER are a disgrace, especially airside.

Welcome to Australia. A very expensive third world country or perhaps now heading way below third world.

WTF is the point of a third runway when they can't use the 2 they have ?
Gatwick UK average of 52 movements an hour with one runway, Perth 24 an hour ( as long as no cloud around ) with 2 runways. Hong Kong in the high 40s per hour with many more issues to deal with eg terrain, weather, 3 chinese airports within 15 minutes etc etc.
What happened to LAHSO ?
Why do they bother printing SIDs for RW24 when it is almost never used.
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.
If, as seems to be the case, there is a lack of staff at Perth ATC why is AA not held accountable for the 100s of 1000s they are costing airlines and mining companies ?

Please don't call him mister, he is a tool, with an agenda, make as much money as possible and screw the ACTUAL purpose of an airport.

I would go as far as to insert " welcome to WA "

Airsevices intoduce Metron Traffic Flow that seems to work in most places where it is used but not in Australia. Why?

Why are there COBT's? Surely a time to make at the feeder fix is logical. That's how they do it elsewhere. No Autralia has to invent it's own methods.
Take note. It DON'T WORK.

Fix it!!!!

Well the story's changed pretty fast from 'Perth Airport doesn't need a new runway for 10 years'! It was only last year the Master Plan came out and the management were sprouting how they would double the traffic in the airport without building a runway or terminal.

Yeah dunno where this new found contrition comes from....

Their old line used to remind me of "comical Ali"

24 takeoff and landings per hour?

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?

The runway would be East of these facilities on land with little current development.

how far east can a new runway go? The hills are bloody close as it is.

How far east?

Something Like this:


ImageShack® - Online Photo and Video Hosting

Hotas,

The problem with that is it almost looks like a real airport! :}

Slight thread variation, but talking about the Metron system in general....

Problem is Bloggs is that after adhereing to a COBT, wheels-up at specified time some operators are still getting between 5-25+ mins enroute holding on CAVOK days then watching the two preferred operators get track shortening plus 300KIAS on descent and we watch them fly over the top at 15nm to run the VOR as we have been sitting on our "gifted" 210KIAS for the last 50nm. We then get to sit behind them at half the speed we want to be down their vectored long final. We miss our slots, our passengers miss their connections, we suffer busted slots for the rest of the day due consequential delays due to the first sector delays, pay our fines for missing those slots, go broke and ASA get to bleat about just how much money they are saving the industry etc on their recorded on-hold phone prattle.

See the issue clearer now? It is much easier and fairer to pre-allocate a realistic feeder fix time (say 50nm from the nominated airport) and should be available half an hour before due airborne and have the aircrew have to make that time or go away until they will fit in... Makes kids sharper you might say... especially when they get the "please explain" from the boss...

That way, the only thing that would cause any extra track miles or holding would be a WX at or around the SAM/PRM's etc.

Regards,

OpsN.;)

Amazing - and there a high speed taxiways! (or rapids - who can tell). Time to get those onto 03/21??

Bloggs you are either being mischievous or plain silly. You know that even with COBT one still has to vary the speed to reach the feeder fix at the required time. It is happening so not that hard. As you know once airborn the system becomes tactical rather than strategic and aircraft are processed on receipt.

Either way this is off topic. It is the facilities at Perth airport that we are talking about. Geatches also blamed pilots and AsA for the way we use the airspace. Again, everyone elses's fault. The latest brochure I saw the other day about RUNWAY OCCUPANCY times, once again blame the pilots for taking too long to get off the runway with no high speed exits. There would only be incremental improvements if everyone trimmed their occupancy by 10%, the structural flaws would remain.

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. :ugh:

Is it that time of year again? This has all been covered before, but here goes;

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ;)

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 :}:ok:

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

WRONG.....

Nautilus thanks for the input without any playing the man. I find it difficult to disagree with most of what you say, however :rolleyes:

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.

Airport was warned of chaos - The West Australian

My bolding.

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 .

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 :rolleyes: 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, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 - 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.

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. :ugh:

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!

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.

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.

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?

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,

Sounds very familiar to the problems entrenched in the "National" carrier.

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 :cool: