Debrief

First on the list are the paying public: catchment passengers living anywhere from the Harbour Bridge to Gosford would need to be desperate to drive up to 150 km to Wilton. And why go to all that trouble to fly only about 98nm to Canberra or 70nm to Bathurst?

But the cost in deaths and injuries due to same-day return interstate road trips through Wilton could see as many fatigue-caused accidents as attributed to fatigued DIDO miners west of Mackay in Queensland. A site west of Sydney would be more central.

The airport study claims traffic and airspace conflicts rule out other sites. But the suitability of Wilton, only 30nm from Sydney, bears closer examination as it would eventually host domestic and international operations from all directions at all times — generating a complex route structure right under Sydney’s.

Initial users who would leap at Wilton probably would be the east coast overnight cargo jets, whose backbone fleets are ex-passenger 737-300s — and perhaps by then second-life 787s — are now forced, uneconomically, to use quiet orphan jets and turboprops to serve Sydney during curfew.

Other Sydney Airport curfew jumpers, low-density scheduled local or international jets, including those delayed, and ad hoc charters would follow. As Sydney is purely low density non-jet during curfew, there is not a conflict problem at those times.

Now let’s consider the implications for long- and ultra long-haul. Wilton is cited as being on rolling land at 200-300m elevation with local advice saying it’s at about 210m.

But meaningful assessments demand the elevations and coordinates of runway ends, net slopes and takeoff gradients that this and the surrounding terrain generate.

Long-haul heavies and those using graduated power takeoffs to save engines and fuel demand as flat a gradient as possible — normally the supplementary 1.6 per cent gradient, which Sydney and Brisbane in effect offer off their main runways.

Off Wilton’s higher elevation and average 5C higher summer temperatures, longer takeoff runs than from Sydney would be needed. The study warns Wilton’s gradient is infringed to the southwest, which draws an inference that the northeast gradient is not.
But it seems 1.6 per cent to the northeast would penetrate Holdsworthy firing area R555, also too low to permit any access to Camden under it.

And takeoff segments specific to individual aircraft types and their engines also apply. In the critical second and en route climb segments, when twins may be climbing at just 2.4 per cent and 1.1 per cent — 24 or 11ft per 1,000ft of distance flown — it can take a long distance to clear far-off obstacles.

Prevailing winds — runway alignment determinants — and weather are not documented but nearby Camden’s history might be close. Wilton, nearer the coast, may have a little more easterly in its winds but “updrafts, low cloud and fog” listed by local anti-Wiltoners are not backed elsewhere.

An auto weather station should be installed at Wilton now: it won’t give meaningful history but may quickly provide a “variation” factor to apply to Camden observations.

Another important consideration is landing at Camden’s runway 24. The wind nearby favours this year round, mornings and half afternoons. But the standard 3 ILS glideslope approach penetrates Army’s Holdsworthy R555 firing and tactical flying area at its nearest point.

“Sliding” 06/24 southwest eases this but would steepen takeoff gradients to the southwest already noted, although without hard numbers, as “infringed”.

It also would further penetrate the Camden training Area D552. RPT traffic can’t be put through such areas and clearances through Holdsworthy may not be available — or only above 2000ft-plus, military activity allowing.

An answer may be to lop the bottoms off R555 and D552. Holdsworthy recently lost one battalion to Townsville with the “push north” but whether such a reduction is viable is unknown. Camden can’t expand D552 to the west to compensate due to rough terrain, or north because of Richmond airspace.

Richmond has onerous overflight planning restrictions going back to the late 50s. At that time, it hosted two transport, one maritime and one fighter squadron.

Many other Williamtown and RAN Nowra-based fighter types transited the area and much upper air work in similar types took place nearby, generated by Bankstown’s extensive manufacturing and repair facilities.

At its 1960s peak, getting a clearance to take a spin over Schofield required a slot from Sydney radar to get above 4,500ft to the required 6,000ft.

Yet the main conflicts then seemed to be myriad civil Herons, Hudsons, DC3/4s and higher- level pressurised types operating SYD to and from places west, such as Bathurst-Perth, more so when Sydney’s duty runway was 07/25.
Today, pressurised turbine civil types predominate and when able, use Sydney 16/34 — lifting the altitude of civil overflyers near Richmond.

Nowra is now rotary wing and Richmond set to host just 22 C130Js and C-27Js, some of which may well be detached north. This force might generate a high 18,000-plus hours a year — about the number done by five Qantas Dash 8300/400s do.

But even allowing that all C130/C-27 conversion and continuation training need to be done at Richmond, just what ground facilities and airspace will it need?

Reduced RAAF requirements and changed civil patterns might rekindle Richmond — if a fog-beating auto-land ILS is developed with a north/south runway added and the RAAF is a co-tenant.

As a comparison, it’s worth noting that a far greater traffic mix and density co-exist either side of Hickam AFB/Honolulu International Airport, which share airspace, runways, navaids and ATC.

But as startup airlines and overflows caused by Sydney Airport’a cap increase, major problems loom over Wilton.

Sydney’s route structure is a fairly standard one: jets departing Sydney for the south route via Wollongong, passing 15nm east of Wilton. The main turboprop route overflies Wilton and inbounds from the south on a track via Bindook, passing 8nm nm NW of Wilton.

It should not be too hard to fit Wilton traffic to and from the south into the Sydney structure although in winter severe ice can force turboprops down to around 10,000ft and many use only 14,000-15,000ft anyway. Traffic to from Oceanic or western routes would have to be squeezed under these main Sydney routes.

However, getting high-density traffic to and from Wilton from anywhere north of Sydney, regionals to ultra long-hauls, could be a nightmare for ATC and pilots, involving endless diversions, levelling out and step climbs and descents. This could equally be a nightmare for the accountants.

None of this is mentioned in the study but hidden near the back of the Appendix ‘Airspace Interaction’ is listed as ‘Major’. An understatement?

As for Camden access: Wilton, serving all directions IFR traffic, might be encased in a northeast/southwest-aligned, approximately 20nm x 10nm control zone up to 3,000ft, surrounded by control area steps from 2,000ft up. These would mesh with Sydney’s at 2,500ft and Canberra’s at 8,500ft, pinned between Nowra and Richmond airspace.

Such a mess would invite massive rationalisation but probably still see Camden access — the present VFR routes via Menangle and Picton —blocked off from ground level up.

On the recreational side of things, the only “hole” for Wilton’s skydivers might lie just southeast of Wilton, inside routes feeding into Sydney overflyers at Wollongong. But this is over inhospitable terrain and a later north/south runway at Wilton — the Sydney Basin gets strong southerlies, a problem mainly for lighties — would fill that hole.

In comparison, the route cat’s cradle around Gold Coast, Brisbane, Archerfield, Oakey Amberley and Sunshine Coast still allows seven skydiving organisations to operate in close proximity up to 14,000ft, albeit with increasing delays and inconvenience as BNE traffic explodes. But this is seriously constrained by recent severe limits in simultaneous use of cross runway 14/32.

On the money front, Bankstown and Camden airports are for sale, as is Macquarie’s 22 per cent share in Sydney.

There may be no rush of takers due to Camden questions and investing in Sydney Airport could mean a big investment in the second airport on which Sydney has right of refusal —partly funded by today’s airport users? — before any return was received.

Understandably, Sydney would maximise its own capacity and income and run Wilton on a very short lead, delaying that return.

But even if the cap is lifted and a short, turbprop only 0600-2000hrs third 16/34 runway is possible, there’s no escaping that fact that Sydney will reach its limit.

Economics and non-aviation driven matters aside, it’s critical that there’s a totally honest, penetrating and transparent review of all present and future civil and military airport, airspace and route structure needs.

Given the myriad disparate government bodies, councils, commercial airports and powerful investors involved — and competing — many wish that a single, purely civil aviation, non-commercial body ran it all.

This was the way it was done before Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan days, when most towns had an air service, general aviation was allowed a fair go and military and civil problems usually were solved swiftly by one-on-one technical experts, who sorted things out on pure aviation and/or Defence reasoning — with only two federal ministers involved.

Food for thought, perhaps. Except that the time is fast approaching when thinking must be overtaken by action.