PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/477678-war-australia-any-oz-politics-original.html)

Andu 20th Feb 2014 01:50

Standing by for howls of protest and "it can't be done", but I'd like to see us follow the Japanese lead and build a new airport by reclaiming a significant slice of Botany Bay. That would allow continued use of the facilities already established at and serving KSA, as well as allowing positioning of the new (hopefully parallel) runway(s) straight out over water through the entrance to Botany Bay.

Inbound traffic from the north would be a couple of thousand feet higher when over populated areas (the existing KSA would remain as terminal and associated commercial facilities); inbound traffic from the south would be always over water; sensible ATC would allow glide descents from 6000' and maybe higher, so the noise footprint could be minimised, so 24 hour ops should be allowed - particularly if the government tells residents already there that that's the way it's going to be, so if you want to move out, there's lots of time to sell to someone who'll accept that - as many will.

Despite the high initial costs (although Botany Bay is very shallow, so it's perhaps not as big a job as some might think it to be), the advantages of this far outweigh building a completely new facility where it's already a given that there'll be a curfew.

Re Richmond: a north/south runway is do-able, but not without a pretty huge civil engineering job building up the falling terrain to the north. Filling in a bit of Botany Bay wouldn't be all that much a bigger job. It is also now almost totally surrounded by (sub)urban buildup, so calls for a curfew would be loud and rather hard to ignore. Botany Bay is a far better option. In my opinion at least.

500N 20th Feb 2014 02:12

I wish people in Aus had the foresight to look far ahead and plan.

Like Tullamarine / Melbourne, although even that could have been done better.

It would have solved heaps if Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane etc had all planned
further ahead and built before hand.

CoodaShooda 20th Feb 2014 02:21

KSA wasn't developed, as such; it evolved. :E

From Wiki - it's one of the oldest, continuously operated airports in the world.

The area that the airport was situated was originally a bullock paddock.[11] Nigel Love, a former wartime pilot, was looking into the possibilities for aviation in Australia. He was interested in establishing the nation's first aircraft manufacturing company, this required him to establish a factory and an aerodrome close to the city. His search for a potential site eventually led him to a real estate office in Sydney which was aware of some land owned by the Kensington Race Club (that was kept as a hedge against losing its government-owned site at Randwick). It had been used by a local abattoir, which was closing down, to graze sheep and cattle. This land appealed to Love, the surface was perfectly flat and was covered with a pasture of buffalo grass. This grass which had been grazed so evenly by the sheep and cattle running on it that it required little to make it serviceable to land aircraft. In addition, the approaches on all four sides had no obstructions, it was bounded by a racecourse, gardens, a river and Botany Bay.

Love established Mascot as a private concern, leasing 200 acres (0.81 km2) from the Kensington Race Club for three years. It initially had a small canvas structure but was later equipped with an imported Richards hangar. The first flight from Mascot was on 19 November 1919 when Love carried freelance movie photographer Billy Marshall up in an Avro. The official opening flight took place on 9 January 1920, also performed by Love.

In 1921 the federal government purchased 161 acres (0.65 km2) in Mascot for the purpose of creating a public airfield. In 1923, when Love's three-year lease expired, the Mascot land was compulsorily acquired by the federal government from the racing club.[11] The first regular flights began in 1924.
Not sure they were envisioning A380's and 35 million passengers a year back then.

Worrals in the wilds 20th Feb 2014 02:29

Not sure they were envisioning A380's and 35 million passengers a year back then.
For sure. Even twenty years ago there was a lot less aviation happening in Australia than there is now, and I think everyone (including the government) got caught by surprise. Back in the 1980s no-one could have predicted the rise of FIFO and LCC operators.

Andu, what about enviro concerns? Like them or hate them they're still a factor, particularly with marine environments.

At one stage Brisbane looked at extending 14/32 into Moreton Bay via reclamation, but IIRC the cost and environmental impacts on the bay's turtle and dugong populations kyboshed the idea, so they went with a land based option instead.

Australian missionary John Short detained in North Korea - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Another tale from the Bad Idea Files...:uhoh:

bosnich71 20th Feb 2014 02:41

Gupta .... also,once upon a time RAAF Richmond got cut off from civilisation ,as we know it when the Hawkesbury River flooded ........ and that was before 'Global Warming'.

Should add that "civilisation" in those days was Windsor.

bosnich71 20th Feb 2014 02:54

Many,many tears ago there was a story in 'Flight' magazine about airports and the associated problems with noise etc.etc.
The Swedes, being extremely aware of the environment even in those far off times took great care to find a site for their new airport which did not have red bellied parrots etc. .... well the Swedish equivalent anyway. They also picked an area miles from any form of human habitation so that there would be no noise problems, no need for any form of curfew.
The airport is duly built. Everyone is happy except for a few whinges about how isolated the new airport is from Stockholm or wherever. Eventually houses begin to be built to house those who prefer not to travel quite so far as everyone else. A shopping centre, small at first, but soon expanded is then supplied. A school and a kindergarten is planned and built. Before long what had been an area devoid of human habitation and red bellied parrots is becoming like any other part of civilisation. All is going along well until those who do not work at the airport begin to arrive attracted, no doubt, by the sites isolation where they can commune with nature and suchlike.
Then the complaints start !

Andu 20th Feb 2014 03:20

Worrals, I was going to include the comment "...of course, within 24 hours of any such development being announced, I'm sure that the shallow water just off the threshold of 34L at YSSY will be found to be the home of the extremely rare three eyed, Botany Bay micro lung fish, which, although too small to be visible to the human eye, was utterly vital to the ecology of Botany Bay."

But I decided not to, as I thought that most here would take that as a given.

BenThere 20th Feb 2014 03:28

Seems to me that any world-class city requires a 24 hour airport to promote commerce, establish and/or maintain its prosperity, and draw growth and investment.

Some people would like that, while others wouldn't.

500N 20th Feb 2014 04:00

Especially if you are the supposed gateway to Australia !!!

Worrals in the wilds 20th Feb 2014 04:54

Should add that "civilisation" in those days was Windsor.
Which doesn't count. :E
Ben I agree, particularly when an airport has been in situ for a long time. However, London also has curfews and so (I think) do the major German airports. They're not impossible to work around and even with 24hr ops, sooner or later Kingsford Smith Airport is going to have to put up the Full sign.

The Sydney West Airport plan has been kicking around since Qantas were flying Avros, but it'll never fly (sorry :}) until the relevant federal pollies take a long term view for a change and do something visionary that will last beyond the next election. :hmm:

That hasn't happened and doesn't look likely to happen, so I guess we all need to get used to holding patterns both political and aeronautical :zzz:.

One of the problems with our political system is that there is an massive disincentive for MPs to make locally unpopular decisions for long term greater public good, because 1. they get chucked out of office and 2. by the time the project's completed it's odds on that the government will have changed and the other side will reap the benefit. The Sydney airport issue is a prime example.

CoodaShooda 20th Feb 2014 04:57

Especially if you are the supposed gateway to Australia !!!
Oi! You leave Darwin out of this.

We got no curfew and we loves jet noise. :E

500N 20th Feb 2014 05:02

Darwin is good except walking to the planes in the rain !

It's not that noisy ?

I was thinking at Xmas when I was up there that they should have left the old runway / airport which is now ? Cavanagh St ? as it was and had the airport on the point :ok:

BenThere 20th Feb 2014 05:11

As I recall, the 24 hour London freight goes into Stanstead. I think Midlands, too, is all hours.

CoodaShooda 20th Feb 2014 05:13

The original landing ground was on the cliff top at Fannie Bay.

The pre-war civil 'drome was at Parap. Ross Smith Avenue lies on top of the runway and the Old Qantas hangar is still in place.

We get lots of luvverly jet noise when the air forces of the world come to play. Should be another Pitch Black this year, with a bit of luck. :ok:

(A former mayor of Palmerston complained about the town being on the approach to 29 and demanded they change the flight path. The authorities re-routed the approach around the outskirts of town and she dropped 15% at the polls. :E)

500N 20th Feb 2014 05:18

They should have told here to go jump in a lake !

And Palmerston of all places :O

CoodaShooda 20th Feb 2014 05:53

Bogans love jet noise too!

Andu 20th Feb 2014 07:15

Seems to me that any world-class city requires a 24 hour airport to promote commerce, establish and/or maintain its prosperity, and draw growth and investment.
Sydney's curfew doesn't stymie flights into only Sydney, but the whole of Australia, for it's impossible to organise a meaningful commercial flight network in Australia that doesn't include Sydney.

The real craziness is in the blanket refusal to make exceptions to Sydney's curfew in extreme weather conditions, particularly for long haul flights into Sydney.

Outside extreme weather conditions, Heathrow allows all major operators a certain number of 'infringements' (early arrivals and late departures) per annum. As far as I'm aware, few (if any) airlines abuse this, and reserve using up those exceptions for situations when they really need them.

Isn't this amazing? We're discussing matters Aviation(!)

I believe Sydney could operate 24 hours a day right now with minimal disturbance to anyone if departures between 2300 and 0600 were limited to RW16, arrivals to RW34, and thrust reversers not to be used except in an emergency. (Given the length of 16R/34L, the non-use of thrust reversers is not a flight safety issue.)

SOPS 20th Feb 2014 07:21

I think this is a good sign. We are talking about airports, not boats or country shoppers. I think Tony may be achieving his aim:ok:

Ken Borough 20th Feb 2014 07:31

At LHR, noise is monitored 24/7, with differing limits applying dependent on time of day. They monitor every departure at various points around the airport and fine delinquents.

Heathrow Noise: Noise limits

There's no reason that can be done at Sydney.

They operate a quota system during the night. I'll try to find details and post the link for anyone interested. Now, when do we revert to politics?

bosnich71 20th Feb 2014 07:47

Now,now ,Ken. Just because we've started to agree with some of your posts doesn't mean you can get carried away.

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:11.

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.