Sydney Airport wants movement cap changes and possibly curfew abolition

[jb747]

I have read elsewhere that at Heathrow at times there have been resident complaints because allegedly aircraft like the A380 fly 'lower' and hence noise emissions have (if one believes the contention) not reduced.

They don't fly lower...they just look bigger. The A380 is much quieter than older aircraft. Go and stand at the viewing point north of 16/34 at Melbourne, where they fly right over you at low level. The noise of the new aircraft is very significantly less than the older.

Sydney's curfew will never disappear, though I've always wondered why they just didn't buy the suburb of Kernell, and then raze it to the ground...

The movement cap is too restrictive. Perhaps they simply shouldn't be counting the Rex size/type aircraft. Recovery from major weather events should also be made simpler. The curfew needs to be relaxed in the aftermath of airport closures.

 

[Jeffrey O'Neill]

I've often wondered why the Govt doesn't just work with the owners of SYD AP to offer to buy all properties within the current ANEF20 to ANEF60 100 noise zones.

Possibly with enough land they could reconfigure the airport to provide more flights with approaches and take offs over water.

Any housing left could be upgraded with noise insulation and resold to people who are happy to balance the cost of living close to the Sydney CBD with the noise of the airport.

There would be a cost in terms of the properties demolished, but I'm sure it would be possible to convert a lot of land into industrial / warehouse use.

Fix up the roads around the airport, which will likely be easier if the majority of residential properties have been bought.

If cost comes into the argument against this approach, well we're looking at prob $30+ to build the second Sydney airport, and judging by the delays that pretty much every other major airport that's been built in the last decade and cost blow outs, me thinks a brownfield expansion carries far less risks than a new greenfield one.

 

[Melburnian1]

...Recovery from major weather events should also be made simpler. The curfew needs to be relaxed in the aftermath of airport closures.

If Friday night's events are any guide (17 February 2017), this is already occurring with no public discussion, at least at 2300 hours, because last night half a dozen flights including QF3 and an MH one took off after 2300 hours to the south, which with Kurnell means that the fewest homes are affected by resultant noise.

If the movement cap (a different matter from the curfew) was relaxed, parliamentarians such as Labor's Anthony Albanese may receive many complaints. While he has managed to fight off the Greens thus far, he supposedly holds a marginal seat.

It is illogical to have a quarter hour restriction of no more than 20 movements as well as an hourly one of 80. Perhaps scrapping the '20' might gives airlines and ATC just a bit more flexibility when there are problems.

 

[soorox]

The home owner bought knowing there was an airport *with a statutory curfew and movement limit*.

This is what I don't get, why trouble yourself and live right under the flight path, obviously with planes flying right over you would think they would know better. It's like they expected the airport to not expand it's operations and not grow. Obviously with a growing population and greater demand for air travel, the airport will need to allow for more planes to takeoff and land. I'm sorry but that argument of knowing of a statutory curfew and movement limit is invalid IMHO.

A similar thing is happening at MEL, the 3rd runway is being opposed by those living underneath it, those people should have done their research before buying the property. The idea of a 3rd runway is not new and have been in countless master plans, there's even plans for a 4th runway. There's also always complaints from people living under the existing runways, the airport has been operational for more than 40 years! 40 years! Those people chose to live right next to the airport, not the other way around, it just makes me mad when people think they deserve compensation when they put it upon themselves.

 

[jb747]

If Friday night's events are any guide (17 February 2017), this is already occurring with no public discussion, at least at 2300 hours, because last night half a dozen flights including QF3 and an MH one took off after 2300 hours to the south, which with Kurnell means that the fewest homes are affected by resultant noise.

The requirement is that you have to have requested taxi clearance after start. I haven't departed anywhere near the curfew time in years, so I'm not sure of the exact cutoff time they use.

 

[clazman]

The home owner bought knowing there was an airport *with a statutory curfew and movement limit*.

hmm forgot that part

 

[clazman]

Believe there is a trial in Perth, but can't find anything about it.

Something to do with having the aircraft takeoff quicker, so as they climbed out they had more altitude over populated suburbs

 

[Melburnian1]

The requirement is that you have to have requested taxi clearance after start. I haven't departed anywhere near the curfew time in years, so I'm not sure of the exact cutoff time they use.

Didn't you or someone else on AFF mention a time of '2245' by which an aircraft must have commenced to taxi in SYD? This however was not quite the case last night.

 

[jb747]

Didn't you or someone else on AFF mention a time of '2245' by which an aircraft must have commenced to taxi in SYD? This however was not quite the case last night.

Rings a bell...but I simply don't go to Sydney any more (unless I divert the 94), so I've dumped all that I knew about the place.

 

[Melburnian1]

We are probably having this discussion on AFF in advance of 'the (general) community' but now that Sydney Airport and the TTF have made these comments, they are asking for some sort of a backlash.

What I don't know as I don't live there is whether the No Aircraft Noise individuals are organised today, whether they've all joined the leftie Greens and so are involved in that way or whether they have (at least at membership level) inflitrated the Liberal and Labor parties, or whether apathy mostly reigns among the community with a few activists ready to stir things up.

 

[oz_mark]

Believe there is a trial in Perth, but can't find anything about it.

Something to do with having the aircraft takeoff quicker, so as they climbed out they had more altitude over populated suburbs

They were trialling some changes to the Noise Abatement Procedures. Something to do with preferred runways, and moved a few flight paths around. May have been tied up with that?

 

[jb747]

Believe there is a trial in Perth, but can't find anything about it.

Something to do with having the aircraft takeoff quicker, so as they climbed out they had more altitude over populated suburbs

They vary the acceleration altitude. Normally it's about 1,500', but by making it 3,000' it moves the impact back towards the field. The OVERALL amount of noise is increased. They could also mandate the use to TO/GA power, and whilst that also reduces the footprint, it ultimately increases the likelihood of engine issues. Preferred runways invariably try to ignore the wind.

Overall, all of the noise procedures reduce safety.

 

[Franky]

Probably someome with authority exercised the rule of 'common sense'...

QUOTE=Melburnian1;1590877]In discussions with investors on Thursday 16 February, Sydney Airport CEO Kerrie Mather said it was time to have a discussion about easing the movement caps (80 per hour, and additionally 20 per quarter hour maximum - the second one can at times be especially difficult for airlines or ATC) at SYD.

From the media report I saw she may not have explicitly mentioned the nightly 2300 hours to 0600 hours next morning curfew (which exempts some freight flights, air ambulances and each morning about three or four European long distance arrivals, the latter only being exempted during the northern (hemisphere) winter timetable for half the year) although the CEO of the Transport and Tourism Forum, Margy Osmond, took up those cudgels.

Ms Mather said that it was an 'era of quieter passenger aircraft' and referred to how the restrictions were '20 years old.'

I have read elsewhere that at Heathrow at times there have been resident complaints because allegedly aircraft like the A380 fly 'lower' and hence noise emissions have (if one believes the contention) not reduced.

For the last few years in Sydney my perception is that the former No Aircraft Noise group has been pretty quiet (apologies for the unintended, poor pun.)

However I don't live there.

There are already some noise attenuation measures in place such as how during curfew hours planes are normally to depart towards Kurnell (south) to minimise flights over residential areas.

Strangely, the NSW Government is calling on the Federal Transport Minister Darren Chester to reduce restrictions on 'regional' (by which he means 'country') aircraft - such as ZL, QF and VA flights to and from locations like ABX/ ARM/ CFS/ TWM and so on. I don't know whether this means a lifting of the movement per hour and quarter hour caps to allow more of these smaller aircraft to have a slot, or lifting as well of the night curfew. The latter (for just aircraft to and from NSW country centres) would be illogical as there's little demand for a midnight departure from TMW.

The TTF group went further than SYD airport management with the former claiming that the cap on aircraft movements had 'sabotaged decades of global campaigns to attract tourists.'

My guess is there could eventually be some 'tweaking' of the 20/80 movements rule - perhaps lifting it to '25/100', or abolishing the 'quarter hour movement cap' entirely. However I reckon the overnight curfew will stay: there are just too many Sydney residents potentially affected for it not to become a (rerun of) a political hot potato. Interestingly, TTF conceded the latter (bearing in mind some or all domestic airlines are members of it.)

Am I on the money or do others disagree?

For information, if there were no hourly or quarter hour movement caps, in good weather what would be the theoretical maximum capacity in number of movements at SYD? I am assuming that a similar mix of larger planes on international and some domestic flights, A320s/B738s on many domestic flights and some smaller country flights with SAAB340Bs, Q300s/Q400s, ATR 72s and the like continued to be the case.[/QUOTE]

 

[Mrmaxwell]

For information, if there were no hourly or quarter hour movement caps, in good weather what would be the theoretical maximum capacity in number of movements at SYD?

I was wondering this too.

I like jb747's idea of not counting the small turbo prop flights - as someone who lives next to the SYD flight path the noise from these REX flights is just not noticeable compared to the bigger aircraft. In saying that what can be really strange is some landings/take offs can be much louder than others - I am sure JB can add the various reasons why. You can witness several 737 landings in which noise is normal and not bad at all and then (e.g. last night) a QF A330 lands and the noise is absolute deafening for the entire last few mins of the landing - why is that?

Another interesting observation relates to where my mother lives - under the flight path but much further out (upper north shore). This area can be very noisy as even though the aircraft are much higher she lives right under the point where aircraft power down thrust to get to landing speed - this it is a very distracting noise especially if it is peak time and both runways are operating - a constant droning of engines thrusting down.

 

[Melburnian1]

I....where my mother lives - under the flight path but much further out (upper north shore). This area can be very noisy as even though the aircraft are much higher she lives right under the point where aircraft power down thrust to get to landing speed - this it is a very distracting noise especially if it is peak time and both runways are operating - a constant droning of engines thrusting down.

Mrmaxwell, you have hit upon another major reason why reform - as in ceasing the curfew, or even just increasing the number of permitted movements per hour or quarter hour - may be so difficult.

It isn't just the 'obvious suspects' in Summer Hill or Sydenham who are affected by airport noise - it includes individuals like your mother who live in 'leafier' suburbs if I may use that term. Therefore it is of concern to a higher number of Federal MPs than one might at first glance expect.

jb747's suggestion about not counting turboprops is innovative and worth consideration, but not experiencing these much where I live except by occasionally travelling in one, how noisy are they a few kilometres from an airport when flying at an altitude of say 3,000 feet or lower?

 

[ButFli]

>how noisy are they a few kilometres from an airport when flying at an altitude of say 3,000 feet or lower?

In my experience the noise travels further but isn't as loud. i.e. You can hear the turboprop coming from further away than a jet, but when directly overhead the jet is louder.
For a while I lived about 2km perpendicular to the runway of an airport and would *never* hear jets, but could clearly hear every turboprop even when it was taxiing.


What that means, I think, is that not counting turboprops towards the movement cap might work, but exempting them from the curfew will not.

 

[Melburnian1]

...What that means, I think, is that not counting turboprops towards the movement cap might work, but exempting them from the curfew will not.

And that is exactly what jb747 proposed if I correctly read his comments.

 

[JohnK]

Curfew has been in place for long time. Leave it alone. It's not fun living under flight paths that were not there when you bought the house >40 years ago. And it's not "tough luck" to be under a flight path and "learn to live with it".

Move smaller airlines away from SYD airport. The 6 seaters and 8 seaters don't need to be taking up valuable slots.

Force domestic airlines to improve their schedules and not run low load flights. Easy to predict with data available from previous years. If it looks like a particular day will have better loads then schedule extra flights.

Don't understand why airlines such as Qantas and Virgin went with more 737's. Have more 767's and A330's and now 787's on the golden triangle and run less services.

I'm sure there are other answers that may be more feasible. Lifting curfew is not one of those answers.

 

[Melburnian1]

There is a spat between Deputy PM Barnaby Joyce and NSW Minister for Transport Andrew Constance (who are both members of The Nationals, not the Liberal Party although both are in Coalition Governments):

Ministers butt heads over greater access to Sydney Airport for regional planes

This appears to be an attempt by Constance to increase the number of permitted movements per hour (not that he can - that's up to the Federal Minister for Transport, Darren Chester, another Nationals MP) rather than just 'pinching' slots to reallocate to the likes of Virgin Australia Regional Airlines, Rex and QantasLink.

I doubt that VA could make a profit on routes like TMW or WGA if it increased or introduced flights so perhaps the existing movement cap is a blessing in disguise.

 

[smeacs]

At What point do we toughen up and tell people who buy a house near an airport or train line that it will be noisy and the airport was there first?