Another airport being ruined by rich bastards
 

https://aviationidaustralia.net.au/c...-12-threshold/

Profit over safety and the core functions of an airport. ​​​​​

Absolutely disgraceful. I wonder if the new government will have the guts to put an end to this sort of nonsense.

I understood that the Commonwealth entered into leases on these airports, and would have therefore thought they would have retained some power of veto over such proposals.

For our national capital this now means that for a large part of the year aircraft will be required to land with a crosswind.

They do, they have to approve master plans but it seems to be a rubber stamp. Albanese was the one who waved through the concrete jungle at Jandakot when he was transport minister. One of the first buildings to go up was Halliburtons. Money talks.

Old news and a lot of exaggeration/hyperbole
This shortening from 1679m to 1229m was flagged in the 2020 Master Plan. Morgan's graphic is his own invention. It is not in the Master Plan.
The following is taken from that document. If we are going to argue, let's do it on a logical, factual unemotional basis.

Aircraft using Runway 12 arrival and Runway 30 departure are limited to light aircraft, less than 5.7 Tonne (MTOW), a result of the constraints of the nearby Canberra Noise Abatement Area. In the medium term 5-10 years, the use of Runway 12/30 may be restricted to Runway 30 arrival and Runway 12 departure on a shortened runway length. Canberra Airport Page In the short term, 1-3 years, and subject to further studies, the landing point for Runway 12 arrival will be moved by displacing the threshold up to 450m east of the existing threshold. This will mean aircraft on arrival to the displaced threshold will be higher over the new Majura Parkway and the now duplicated Majura Road. The current lower height street lighting under the Runway 12 arrival over the Majura Parkway compared to the balance of street lighting on the Parkway points to a need for a short-term safety improvement supplied by a displaced threshold.

If we’re going to argue on “a logical, factual [and] unemotional” basis…

Shortening the runway length of 12/30 does not logically flow from what is stated. And I’m not surprised at the chutzpah of the assertion that there’s a “need” for a displaced threshold because it will provide “a short-term safety improvement”.

What isn’t stated is the frequency with which aircraft land on 12 and hold short of 17/35, thus providing flexibility in the use of 17/35. Displacing the 12 threshold will trash that flexibility. Presumably that will result in more requirements for light aircraft to orbit or extend downwind or whatever. (Who cares? They’re just self-indulgent individuals getting in the way of a billionaire getting richer on the back of a publicly owned asset.)

Currently aircraft much bigger than 5.7T MTOW use 30 for arrivals. (Assuming my understanding of the MTOW of e.g. Dash 8s is correct.). Will they continue to have the flexibility of using 30 when the standard summer screaming westerly is blowing, to avoid the mechanical turbulence on 35 caused by the hangar that’s close to its threshold? Who cares.

Has anyone read the Master Plan?

I stopped reading the YSCB one a decade or so ago, when it became clear that the long-promised area for GA on the western side of 35 was just a piss-take and the government was going to rubber stamp whatever spin-doctored document was put in front of it.

Perhaps the need for the safety of the many thousands of motorists who use the Parkway at night (thus requiring lighting that matches the rest of the road) outweigh the needs of the few GA aircraft that land on 12, and who can in all likely hood continue to do so albeit with a displaced threshold?
It would appear from the Master Plan that the Runway is to be shortened to allow for higher road lighting, not for developing property in the undershoot as asserted

That's the problem: No-one reads the Master Plans.. nor do they want you to.

Commencing with the new Terminal redevelopment planning 20 years ago where they successfully booted out everyone including the fuel operator (Shell Aviation at the time) with very little fuss, CAG are now renowned Australia-wide as the fore-runners and experts in the fine art of airport master-planning spin and are the ones that companies like ADG (Darwin, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek) and Sydney Metro Airports (Bankstown, Camden) among many others, look to for inspiration and guidance regarding how to maximise profit from land-holdings whilst minimising airport operations and facilities - especially GA which is seen as a mild nuisance they hope will eventually just die quietly if not paid any attention. :sad:

Nah.. TIEW, I wouldn't believe that for one second.
A quick squizz on Google Maps, shows you that Majura Road is between the Parkway and the threshold of Rwy 12 making any spill from any lighting on the Parkway a non-event. But there just happens to be a quite convenient spoon drain across the middle of the undershoot about 400' from the end, dividing off some prime warehouse real-estate on both sides of Majura Road... just ripe for the planning it seems, if only they could displace the threshold a little. :E

Of course. The runway has been there for decades, but that’s neither here nor there. Just come along and plonk something near it and the users of the runway can go hang.

If it was about the safety of the motorists and parkway lighting, TIEW, the displaced threshold would apply only during night ops or low light conditions. A few tall light poles don’t mean squat to the safety of VFR aircraft operating into 12 during daylight. The closest I’ve come to hitting any vehicle while operating into YSCB is on approach to 30. The threshold of 30 is up against the fence, next to which is the main drag into and out of Fairbairn..

We all know what it’s really about.

It's not about spill from the lights, it's about approach gradients.
Displaced thresholds don't work like that. You don't just turn them on and off when it suits.
Have a look on Google street view at the light poles on that section of the Parkway vs the rest.

Let’s have a look at the proximity of the threshold of 30 to the main drag into Fairbairn compared with the proximity of the threshold of 12 to the Parkway. The Parkway is half a nautical mile away from the threshold of 12. (And before you say it, TIEW, I know the elevation of the Parkway. I’ve flown over the area thousands of times.) Maybe the safety of the people on road into Fairbairn isn’t as important as the safety of the people on the Parkway? Maybe the safety of the people using the road into Fairbairn would magically become more important if the land to the west of 30 could be developed by the airport lessor?

Are you saying that it is impossible to have a different length available at night versus day VFR, or are you just focussing on the term ‘displaced threshold’ to distract?


https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....c2b2599d6.jpeg
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....6962eb5ef.jpeg

The Master Plan is published on their website so you can read it. If people do not pay attention then the outcome is deserved! Statements such as Morgan made in his video demolish the credibility of the rest of us. We need to deal with facts not biased opinions that reflect ignorance or arrogance.

Yes, let’s read the Master Plan.

Let’s pluck the 2015 version. At page 144 is the ‘Plan’ for the ‘Glenora District’. It says, among things: I’ve been hearing about the ‘Plan’ for a general aviation area the Glenora District for decades. It’s bull****. It’s a piss take. Over those same decades all that’s happened to GA is that it has been driven to the margins or off the airport due to fees and inconvenience. I have a hangar full of GA refugees from YSCB, and I’m not Robinson Crusoe.

Or is what I’ve quoted not, in fact, in that version of the Master Plan?

The location of the threshold is dictated by the obstacles in the approach path. Those obstacles do not change height depending on the time of day.
From MOS139:
A runway threshold must be located:

(a) for a code 1 runway — not less than 30 m; or

(b) in any other case — not less than 60 m;

after the point at which the approach surface for aircraft using the runway meets the extended runway centreline.

There are no street light poles on Scherger Way in the RWY 30 approach. I'm guessing the top of the perimeter fence would likely be the defining obstacle there to make a non-standard 5% gradient. The ideal is 3% or less.
From the MOS:
Large approach angles (above 3.5 degrees) can only be flown by aircraft that have been certified for steep approaches and where the aircraft operator has received approval.

But TIEW, some of the vehicles that use Sherger Way are taller than the fence. I’ve seen them. I’ve spent decades operating in and out of there. Are we not concerned about the safety of the people in those vehicles and the aircraft on approach? Oh the humanity.

If the rules you’ve quote are immutable and unavoidable - of course, no exemption has ever been granted from compliance with the rules - it follows that the lighting on the Parkway should be modified such that the runway, which has been there for decades prior to the Parkway being constructed, does not have to be shortened.

The lighting has been modified. Perhaps it is now deemed not to standard? Who knows. It would seem the road authority may want to install standard lighting. The airport do not control the obstacles. They are not on airport land. They just deal with the consequences. They can try to protect their obstacle surfaces, but they would be putting their safety case against that of the roadway maintainer. It would be a difficult case to win for the airport.
Moving vehicles are transient obstacles, they're allowed (usually). It's also why there are "No Parking" signs along the fence line in that area. Then the obstacles are not moving. That's not allowed. The non-standard 5% quoted gradient for the 30 approach may well take into account the use of Scherger way by large vehicles.
PS the 30 Threshold is permanently displaced. Oh the humanity!

If you have a look at Majura Road there are no street lamp poles in the approach to RWY 12. Now that the road has been upgraded to dual carriageway, I'd say having no lighting contravenes some Australian Standard. So, the 12 threshold gets moved, lighting gets installed, and that problem goes away - easily. There won't be room to build a shopping centre in there, that would move the threshold even further down. That AOPA guy is full of sh*t.