After 2300 hours post-curfew operations in SYD on Sunday 5 June 2016

[Melburnian1]

In Sydney bring them in over the water and most of the issues would go away

Fine sentiments, but unfortunately not always possible as we saw last weekend in SYD with extensive use of the east-west runway.

 

[CJEMNMAC]

In Sydney bring them in over the water and most of the issues would go away

Fine sentiments, but unfortunately not always possible as we saw last weekend in SYD with extensive use of the east-west runway.

Agree Simo..most of the issues.... In from the south and east if needed.

There are always exceptions and some weather events that do not make it possible but over the water should or could be option 1

 

[Melburnian1]

CJEMNMAC, so-called 'mode four' (see top of page 5 in the attached below) has always been the preference:

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/LTOP_Forward.pdf

 

[CJEMNMAC]

CJEMNMAC, so-called 'mode four' (see top of page 5 in the attached below) has always been the preference:

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/LTOP_Forward.pdf

Is this a recommendation from 20 years ago ? i could not see where it says it has always been the preference

 

[Melburnian1]

Apologies, I was using 'always' in the sense of 'the last 20 years' which is a very long time.

 

[jb747]

Mode 4 is simply one of the modes.

Narrow spaced runways, with traffic head on. TCAS loves it! It is a mode that works in a very small set of circumstances, and which is very performance, and throughput, limiting. In many cases, it's outright dangerous.

 

[Melburnian1]

jb747, interesting though that Airservices had this to say about Mode 4 in 1996 (with other comments that it was performance limiting, as you suggest):

ConclusionsThis is a suitable operating mode where weather conditions permit independentarrival and departure operations and traffic levels do not impact on complexityand thus compromise safety. All operations in the initial departure phase andthe final approach phase of flight are over water with the minimum impact onKurnell achievable.

----------------

Thank you for changing your post above where you initially suggested it was not a 'preferred' mode, as the way Airservices expressed it at the time gives an indication that 20 years ago it was 'preferred' (albeit with some qualifications).

With the growth in air traffic what at the time (1996) was found to permit a maximum of 43 movements an hour (prior to some mentioned possible modifications to associated infrastructure) would be likely to be considered unsatisfactory in 2016.

If it is 'dangerous', why hasn't it been abandoned? Increasing demands from us all to be punctual? Greed?

 

[jb747]

jb747, interesting though that Airservices had this to say about Mode 4 in 1996 (with other comments that it was performance limiting, as you suggest):

ConclusionsThis is a suitable operating mode where weather conditions permit independentarrival and departure operations and traffic levels do not impact on complexityand thus compromise safety. All operations in the initial departure phase andthe final approach phase of flight are over water with the minimum impact onKurnell achievable.

Which is why it's only ever seen in low traffic scenarios. It also requires the wind to be effectively zero, or close enough to it. It also sets off TCAS (which wasn't around in '96), so you can end up with rather noisy responses to that. The report is a classic case of ignoring the needs of aircraft operation to come up with a result that you want.

 

[Melburnian1]

At the time, from memory, it was a highly politically charged atmosphere re the airport.

Perhaps, 20 years on, it is time for a comprehensive review and report to (after the election) the Federal Government with recommendations for change.

 

[Melburnian1]

While there has been discussion in 2016 about arrangements at the yet to be built Badgerys Creek airport, a quick search of the Internet about 'Sydney airport curfew 2016' did not reveal any articles in the past 12 months about the SYD airport curfew.

Nothing from businesses or parliamentarians advocating or promising 'greater access' for passenger flights late at night and during the small hours - and conversely, nothing from residents or politicians opposed to more curfew hour flights.

I may be missing any local debate in say the inner Sydney seat of Grayndler where Labor and the Greens are fighting it out, though.

Odd that a major issue affecting many Australians one way or the other is hardly debated during a Federal election (and neither much is building high speed rail along the lower east coast, although one side has made some statements about the latter).

 

[russ]

I think changes to the curfew are not on the agenda because:
(a) in the public's mind, there is already a solution in progress: Badgerys Creek
(b) any party proposing this is going to lose more local votes than win national votes

 

[Melburnian1]

Probably a good summation, russ. I can't think of a better one, even though there have been 'creeping' changes to the curfew in the sense of at times more international flights being 'temporarily' approved to operate during the 0500 - 0559 hours period. These approvals however have still been below the maximum of 35 international flights a week allowed to arrive during this 'extra hour.'

 

[JohnK]

While there has been discussion in 2016 about arrangements at the yet to be built Badgerys Creek airport, a quick search of the Internet about 'Sydney airport curfew 2016' did not reveal any articles in the past 12 months about the SYD airport curfew.

Fantastic news and means the 3-4 people that want to depart at 3:00am have kept quiet.

P.S. How many people love the late night/middle of the night arrivals in PER? Anyone apart from me?

 

[Franky]

Fantastic news and means the 3-4 people that want to depart at 3:00am have kept quiet.

P.S. How many people love the late night/middle of the night arrivals in PER? Anyone apart from me?

See my previous posts on that subject!

 

[Happy Dude]

The reason I have trouble with these arguments is that 'mostly' the reasons given are emotive and unsubstantiated rather than logic based.

Many new generation aircraft are quieter than a lot of semi-trailers. For example at Koh Samui the airlines want to increase flights to bring in more tourists. The government have agreed subject to ALL the aircraft being used being the new generation of quiet aircraft. (specific aircraft types etc) From my personal experience is that the A319 a/c departing were quieter than the traffic on the nearby roads.

As an acoustic consultant, I have just finished my first aircraft noise assessment using the new 2015 AS2021. The fleet have definitely become quieter. The long range 747s are still the noisy birds but these are becoming rarer. It could be argued that quieter fleets is a compelling reason to reduce/remove the curfew. It's hard to get good fleet info on freight companies that fly 727-200Bs though and with what frequency.