Is a 4th Runway at YSS Practical ?
Thread Starter
Is a 4th Runway at YSS Practical ?
Tossing some ideas around in the office today and the topic of a 4th runway at YSSY came up. Would a 4th runway parallel to 07/25 be of much use, granted that it would be only 2700m or so. Basically in alignment with the port botany container wharf, obviously the container crans would have to go.
What is the biggest impediment to increasing the capacity of YSSY. Runways, taxiways, terminal bays. Obviously the government imposed movement cap needs to go.
Some other ideas that came up
Extend 16L to 3500m
For more international terminal space you could use the land occupied by the container terminal across from Qantas drive. You would only need a bridge over the canal and put Qantas drive underground for a short distance under the taxiway. Domestic terminal takes over whats left of the Qantas Jet Base.
Corporate/GA area between B10 and General Holmes Dr.
Obviously none of this will ever happen as we are a 3rd world country with 3rd world attitudes, just starting a discussion. Would it eliminate the need for Badgeries creek.
What is the biggest impediment to increasing the capacity of YSSY. Runways, taxiways, terminal bays. Obviously the government imposed movement cap needs to go.
Some other ideas that came up
Extend 16L to 3500m
For more international terminal space you could use the land occupied by the container terminal across from Qantas drive. You would only need a bridge over the canal and put Qantas drive underground for a short distance under the taxiway. Domestic terminal takes over whats left of the Qantas Jet Base.
Corporate/GA area between B10 and General Holmes Dr.
Obviously none of this will ever happen as we are a 3rd world country with 3rd world attitudes, just starting a discussion. Would it eliminate the need for Badgeries creek.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It's the political impediments that stifle Sydney.
- Hourly cap
- Curfew
- Noise sharing
- STAR's that don't terminate at the threshold
All political, all unlikely to change in the near future...
ATC in Sydney would be much more efficient if they didn't have to work within the political framework that they have.
Fix all that, then they'd be short of terminal space!
PS: I have always thought a fourth runway would be a step forward, but with the expansion at the ports, they have missed that boat!
- Hourly cap
- Curfew
- Noise sharing
- STAR's that don't terminate at the threshold
All political, all unlikely to change in the near future...
ATC in Sydney would be much more efficient if they didn't have to work within the political framework that they have.
Fix all that, then they'd be short of terminal space!
PS: I have always thought a fourth runway would be a step forward, but with the expansion at the ports, they have missed that boat!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Otamatata
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE]Basically in alignment with the port botany container wharf, obviously the container crans would have to go.[QUOTE]
The mob that just paid $5 billion for the port may not like that idea.
The mob that just paid $5 billion for the port may not like that idea.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Just get some USA controllers in. Give them some free range drop the curfew problem fixed.
Importing US controllers would make no difference to YSSY runway operations. With similar RPT aircraft, it comes down to runway occupancy. A 737 for example takes the same time to line up and depart or land and vacate anywhere.
A controller in YSSY, YBBN or YMML will become just as busy as one in the US, it's just how long the peaks last. One day week, the YSSY YMML pair was the second busiest one in the world. You can only get so many aircraft in a piece of sky or on a runway in an hour.
One thing the US controllers are expert at is jargon. I was reading a transcript of a typical US shift last week. It was appalling in its lack of standard phraseology. ICAO sets the standard and yet it seemed to be completely ignored. E.g. Calling a 727 a three holer.
As for giving them free range, to increase current movement rates, that would mean breaking separation standards.
Just get some USA controllers in. Give them some free range drop the curfew problem fixed.
Importing US controllers would make no difference to YSSY runway operations. With similar RPT aircraft, it comes down to runway occupancy. A 737 for example takes the same time to line up and depart or land and vacate anywhere.
A controller in YSSY, YBBN or YMML will become just as busy as one in the US, it's just how long the peaks last. One day week, the YSSY YMML pair was the second busiest one in the world. You can only get so many aircraft in a piece of sky or on a runway in an hour.
One thing the US controllers are expert at is jargon. I was reading a transcript of a typical US shift last week. It was appalling in its lack of standard phraseology. ICAO sets the standard and yet it seemed to be completely ignored. E.g. Calling a 727 a three holer.
As for giving them free range, to increase current movement rates, that would mean breaking separation standards.
Folks
At London Heathrow, in visual conditions, they manage about 54 movements per hour, per runway.
With Sydney's runway configuration, the ATC operating problem is very similar to Honolulu International. Given Sydney's actual traffic mix, Sydney's theoretical movement rate is about 130/140 per hour, (except for severe westerlies) .
The problem is not physical, it is political, with the 80 per hour movement cap, and the refusal to recognise that current generation aircraft are quiet. Indeed, the ATR-72/-8/SAAB largely do not register on the off airport noise points, the background hubub of Sydney drowns them out. Exempt these "noiseless" aircraft from the 80, and the traffic problem goes away for years.
Tootle pip!!
At London Heathrow, in visual conditions, they manage about 54 movements per hour, per runway.
With Sydney's runway configuration, the ATC operating problem is very similar to Honolulu International. Given Sydney's actual traffic mix, Sydney's theoretical movement rate is about 130/140 per hour, (except for severe westerlies) .
The problem is not physical, it is political, with the 80 per hour movement cap, and the refusal to recognise that current generation aircraft are quiet. Indeed, the ATR-72/-8/SAAB largely do not register on the off airport noise points, the background hubub of Sydney drowns them out. Exempt these "noiseless" aircraft from the 80, and the traffic problem goes away for years.
Tootle pip!!
