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

[Melburnian1]

Regarding caretaker provisions etc. the world still moves on. Our last Minister remained Minister for several weeks even after he was no longer a member of parliament, due to not contesting the election, but remained the Minister until he handed his warrant in, right before the swearing in of the new Cabinet...

there is no new binding precedent established, but we probably will never know the full story, besides whether an exemption was actually requested and approved.

But we will know some of the story, because the report presented (tabled) on a quarterly basis to Federal Parliament has a summary of the reasons - it isn't just a 'yes/no' box being ticked.

It's actually quite a good report. A few posts back I attached the more interesting of the two tabled in 2016 thus far. Have a 'gander' as we say in Oz.

 

[docjames]

The Guidelines state that reasonably expected weather, disruptions to network and airline management requirements are not generally considered to be exceptional circumstances. See https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016L00450

So i guess then the debate is was the weather "reasonably expected" or not?

I'd have said a 1:100 year storm is probably not "reasonably expected".

But it's AFF - there will be 25 different view on this....

 

[docjames]

These are guidelines and not absolute criteria for the granting of exemptions even your statement "not generally considered" is not an absolute and a Minister in consideration of the request using the guidelines still has discretion to give an exemption outside the guidelines. It will need to be documented however s14 Making decisions about dispensations does not require the reasons for dispensation to be documented, just any special operating conditions.
In my line of work in the NZ side we have successfully used this and made sure there was a public announcement that the Minister had considered the guidelines etc....
Regarding caretaker provisions etc. the world still moves on. Our last Minister remained Minister for several weeks even after he was no longer a member of parliament, due to not contesting the election, but remained the Minister until he handed his warrant in, right before the swearing in of the new Cabinet.
IMO this event is definitely not something to be worried about, the reality of the curfew has not changed and there is no new binding precedent established, but we probably will never know the full story, besides whether an exemption was actually requested and approved.
Oh I live near WLG and moved there, but I also knew the airport has a curfew and would expect it to stay unless there was significant consultation/need regarding change.

Wont we find out in 2-3 months when the report is tabled what the grounds were?

 

[Franky]

Wont we find out in 2-3 months when the report is tabled what the grounds were?

I wait with baited breath..

 

[russ]

So i guess then the debate is was the weather "reasonably expected" or not? I'd have said a 1:100 year storm is probably not "reasonably expected".

I don't think that 1:100 frequency necessarily implies that something is unexpected. I thought that there were storm warnings some days prior to the storm. The guidelines talk about knowledge prior to takeoff, so perhaps there was a forecast of bad weather but the forecast got much worse while airborne. Who knows. We might find out when the report is tabled as you say.

 

[Altair]

We will know what they want us to know.

 

[mannej]

Very funny jb747, but your attitude would not be shared by whoever put together this:

Our Problems

Having a quick look at this looks like alarmist propaganda does it not? You can mould stats into any argument you want no matter how vague it may be.

 

[Milefest]

If noise is the reason for the curfew, then a storm is a valid enough reason for planes to keep landing. That storm was much louder than planes flying overhead..

 

[JohnK]

I guess I am being a little cynical about those who live in the centre of the universe, whilst most of the rest of us live in cities with 24/7 airports..

It's not fun to live under a flight path for 12 hours/day. It would be torture to live under that flight path fot 24 hours/day. Especially when some new government decided to move existing flight paths away from their electorates when they got into power.

It's great that SYD has a 7 hour curfew. I haven't seen a convincing reason yet why that needs to change.

And it's great to see common sense used in special circumstances such as these.

 

[Melburnian1]

It's great that SYD has a 7 hour curfew.

Strictly, JohnK, for six months of the year during the 'northern summer', it is arguably (at least partly) only a 'six hour curfew', because three or four flights such as QF2 and its BA equivalent have a permanent dispensation to land after 0500 because the schedules ex the UK would presumably otherwise see planes sitting on the ground in DXB or SIN for an extra hour, as they could not depart an hour later out of LHR and arrive in Sydney from 0600.

On occasion on FR24 it is possible to observe flights such as QF2 being estimated to touch down at say 0445 hours in SYD, but closer to this destination the landing time becomes (say) 0505 as the plane is slowed. One of our esteemed contributors might be kind enough to remark on that.

This 'limited truncation of the curfew' seems to have been little debated over the years. It is on top of the noise from approved freighter planes that operate all night.

We need technical advice but it would be fairly difficult to 'move flight paths' I would have thought because of the volume of aircraft movements, unpredictable externalities such as wind direction and crosswinds, and how airlines view maximising efficiency and safety and minimising fuel consumption as important. I was going to add in '...and governments..' there but some observers such as aviation journalists and a certain Mr Smith have trenchantly criticised regulators such as CASA over the years.

Sydney Airport has its long term operating plan.

 

[Melburnian1]

Having a quick look at this looks like alarmist propaganda does it not? You can mould stats into any argument you want no matter how vague it may be.

Interesting to observe that the website looks very 'old', although some information has been updated.

 

[Melburnian1]

I don't think that 1:100 frequency necessarily implies that something is unexpected. I thought that there were storm warnings some days prior to the storm. The guidelines talk about knowledge prior to takeoff, so perhaps there was a forecast of bad weather but the forecast got much worse while airborne. Who knows. We might find out when the report is tabled as you say.

A very large amount of rain was predicted for Sydney for both Saturday 4 and Sunday 5 June by the Bureau.

 

[straitman]

It's not fun to live under a flight path for 12 hours/day. It would be torture to live under that flight path fot 24 hours/day. Especially when some new government decided to move existing flight paths away from their electorates when they got into power.

It's great that SYD has a 7 hour curfew. I haven't seen a convincing reason yet why that needs to change.

And it's great to see common sense used in special circumstances such as these.

JohnK,

You and I will have to agree to disagree on this.

(... and for others who don't know, I have lived on and near quite a few airfields both civilian and military)

 

[CJEMNMAC]

Very funny jb747, but your attitude would not be shared by whoever put together this:

Our Problems

What is with this article..?

I work under a flight path in SYD and this article has me worried


AFF has a lot to answer for.. I actually just read 8 pages of this thread

 

[straitman]

AFF has a lot to answer for.. I actually just read 8 pages of this thread

You need to change some setting then as it is not even 2 full pages yet :!:

 

[CJEMNMAC]

You need to change some setting then as it is not even 2 full pages yet :!:

I would if I had a clue what I was doing

EDIT..OK straitman changed from forum default to 40 per page.... 2 pages it is

 

[Franky]

Way back when Perth was encouraged/cajoled/coerced or perhaps even volunteered to become a 24/7 airport, I believe it was primarily to allow international flights to route thru Perth, drop off any WA bound passengers at the ungodly hour of midnight or later, and then continue on to Sydney to land after the curfew. Many years later, things have evolved and most of these flights now terminate in Perth, and some even land in the day time!

Of all those posters who enjoy their Sydney curfew, I wonder if and when they fly say from Australia to Europe, whether they have any thoughts for the millions of people they overfly at night, connecting thru places like Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok or the 3 Middle East airports, and then landing later on at their destinations sometimes in the early morning hours?

 

[Melburnian1]

...whether they have any thoughts for the millions of people they overfly at night, connecting thru places like Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok or the 3 Middle East airports, and then landing later on at their destinations sometimes in the early morning hours?

'Planning' is an alien concept, or a very recently introduced one, in parts of Asian cities such as Bangkok, Jakarta and Manila.

 

[straitman]

'Planning' is an alien concept, or a very recently introduced one, in parts of Asian cities such as Bangkok, Jakarta and Manila.

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.

 

[Simo]

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