Bigsworth Report a Ray of Hope for KSA

The catch is that this could at times mean more noise over some sensitive electorates, so it is most likely that tourism and business travel will continue to be decimated by parochial political priorities. A change in procedures would only be following precedents set at many major overseas airports where noise preferred runways are used instead of operationally preferred runways only if air traffic is not experiencing significant delays. Change to noise abatement procedures at Sydney is the prime recommendation of a study group of senior Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) officials and representatives of the air traffic controllers (refer p. 6 July 89 AA). They inspected four major North American airports with crossing runway layouts similar to Sydney, all of which handled considerably more traffic than Sydney. A major difference was that the mix of traffic at North American airports was less than in Australia.

The US FAA is able to regulate the scheduling of air carriers into major airports. The Canadian authorities do not have similar powers, but discourage non-airline aircraft from operating into major airports. At Toronto only IFR aircraft may operate and non-airline aircraft are required to receive prior permission and a slot allocation to operate to the airport. “Aircraft are permitted on a first in, first served basis, which makes it much easier to ATC than the priority system practiced here,” the report said. Scheduling control, pricing of landing slots, restriction on VFR operations or aircraft types are means which may assist the traffic management problem at Sydney. ” The reports recommendations included – Noise abatement procedures should be changed so that outside curfew hours, the most efficient runway configuration can be nominated rather than the noise preferred runway configuration. “By using one runway for departures and a separate runway for arrivals, the movement rate can be increased,” the report said. “Successive arriving aircraft do not have to be sequenced with extra distance between them to allow for the runway occupancy of a departing aircraft from the same runway. Departing aircraft can be lined up, ready to being their takeoff as soon as the arriving aircraft on the crossing runway clears the intersection. ” The report said the best plan would be to use the north-south runway 16/34 for departures and the east or west runways 07 or 25 for arrivals (depending on wind). Even better would be to use runways 07 to the east and 25 to the west for takeoffs and the long runway 34 from the south over Botany Bay for landings, with aircraft stopping before they cross the east-west runway nearly three kilometres from the runway 34 thresholds. This procedure can be used now but only with smaller aircraft and when the downwind on the noise preferred runways exceeds noise abatement criteria.

If operational restrictions for simultaneous aircraft operations on crossing runways were reduced (which the report also recommends) “This procedure could be nominated for a majority of the time and delays to operations at Sydney would be reduced to a minimum,” the report said. Although the noise from arriving aircraft would be reduced because they would be landing over Botany Bay, there would be more noise over Coogee and Maroubra when takeoffs were to the east and more over Rock-dale and Bexley with takeoffs to the west.

The report also suggested ‘sharing’ the noise disturbance by changing the runway configuration every few hours as is done at London Heathrow and other major airports. This would minimise the changes from overall noise exposure levels experienced by various suburbs at the moment. “Acknowledging the environmental sensitivity of this recommendation, a condition of its acceptance might be that delays to arriving aircraft must exceed, say, 30 minutes, before it would be implemented,” the report said.

Another key recommendation was to allow simultaneous runway operations which allow simultaneous operations of runways with a downwind component, on wet runways and at night by taking into account specific aircraft performance. At present simultaneous runway operations can only be carried out by aircraft of a maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) not exceeding 136,000kg (representing a heavily laden domestic 767-200) on dry runways, with no downwind and by day.

There are numerous opportunities when air traffic delays could be significantly reduced if simultaneous runway operations were introduced as recommended,” the report said. “The principles are already practiced in Canada. In either one or a combination of the above conditions, many aircraft could land safely on a runway and hold short of the intersection. ” The re-port said the CAA already planned to implement this procedure and the team strongly supported its early introduction.

Other recommendations included – Raising to 25 knots the amount of crosswind aircraft are expected to deal with before switching to single runway operation. This is already being cleared by the CAA. Letters of agreement with local aircraft operators to allow them to land in restricted distances if they agree to observe special operational limits. Simplified standard instrument departures (SIDS) – Sydney currently has 87 compared to four at Vancouver. Improved standardisation of ATC procedures and ATC operating techniques at Sydney. Education of controllers and pilots so that each is more aware of the other’s desired operating techniques and problems. The study found that “some pilots had very little idea of what ATC expected and was often trying to achieve and, on occasions, controllers had no apparent conception of what could actually be achieved in aircraft operations. ” Introduce multi-rated teams of controllers so that a fresh controller can be rotated into high stress positions every two or three hours if necessary. The system will require upgrading of surface movement controllers and tower coordinators but will increase flexibility of rostering and reduce overtime payments, it said.

The report also recommended an extra terminal area radar control position at Sydney to process light aircraft, helicopters and airships through the control zone without interfering with aircraft taking off or landing. Investigate reducing the size of the Sydney control zone so that light aircraft not in the vicinity of aircraft landing or taking off would not have to enter controlled airspace. New radar and other electronic equipment which would reduce workload and improve coordination. Wake turbulence separation be based on distance rather than time to reduce delays on the ground. More and better placed rapid exit taxiways so that landing aircraft can clear the runway sooner, allowing approaching aircraft to be sequenced closer together. A dedicated position of control tower manager to coordinate a closer day to day liaison with other airport users.

The report said American procedures for processing air traffic are more rigid than those in use in Australia and controllers and aircrew tend to adhere to those procedures rather than seeking ‘short cuts’ as often occurs in Australia. (Probably because the US system has always been more simple, rational and easier to comply with. ) Standard instrument departures (SIDS) are very basic – in most cases only one SID is used for each runway. “Australian SIDS are numerous and incredibly complex,” the report said. It said there also appeared to be a greater awareness by controllers and pilots in the USA of each other’s needs in the processing of air traffic. “Controllers appear to be more conscious of operating limitations and profilesof aircraft and pilots appear to respond to control instructions more readily than what occurs on many occasions in Australia. ”

All ATC towers visited operated with a shift team concept. The team rotates through the roster together and each controller is rated in all tower positions, although only some might hold a supervisor rating. The multi-rating concept, also known as the journeyman concept, is practiced throughout Canada and the US. “The main advantage of this principle is that staff can be rotated through the business and most demanding positions then ‘rest’ on the least demanding position. Controllers will maintain higher movement rates for the shorter periods of time than what we expect in Australia. At some Australian locations the aerodrome controller might be expected to work without a break or change of duties for up to seven hours (in Sydney for up to five hours because of shift overlaps). During that time his productivity and efficiency can only deteriorate. ”

The report concluded that Vancouver and La Guardia airport in New York were able to process the amount of traffic offering in a more efficient manner than Sydney air traffic is processed. ”This is possible because North American separation and wake turbulence standards are less rigid than Australia’s. ” Well placed rapid exit taxiways are provided. North American controllers adhere to standard procedures and agreements more rigidly than Australian controllers and superior North American radar systems reduce much manual coordination.