Proposed flight paths from Nancy Bird Walton Airport (WSI)

[old man emu]

Today that released the noise patterns expected from operations at Nancy Bird Walton Airport. The diagram gives a fair indication of airspace restrictions associated with it.

 

It would seem likely that the airspace available for training will be restricted to that area bounded by a line Camden to Theresa Park, then southwest from Theresa Park, parallel to the 05 runway of the international airport. So long, Bankstown as a training airport.

[facthunter]

This will NOT improve the quality of life  but THAT should come as NO surprise. You can't have Australia latest International Airport operating under a curfew.  People want to go everywhere in Planes and this sort of thing is Part of that scene. You can't have it both ways. N ev

[Roundsounds]

I’m keen to see the airspace model. I reckon Camden will see a 2000’ Class C step overhead. I base this on the steps around KSA. Bankstown will be severely affected and kill any practical abinitio flight training. 

[Ben]

Hey OME, let's assume you are correct in your airspace predictions, any guesses how much it would add to the transit time from Bankstown for upper air work? Also how feasible is it to train directly east of WSI? 

[old man emu]

Nancy Bird Walton Airport  is located near Luddenham, near the A9 sign. Due to the massive amount of residential development to the east of the A9 from Luddenham to Narellan, training is not possible east of the A9. In the past the airspace over the current site of the airport was the main training area used by schools from both Bankstown and Hoxton Park. The area was agricultural land and provided many locations for simulating precautionary search and forced landing practice.

 

Currently, the most residentially unoccupied space in the southwest is within this area:

This is too far to be economically viable for training operations out of Bankstown. It is 20 Nm from Bankstown to the area between Orangeville and Camden.

[Ben]

Just did a comparison. Looks like it is roughly an extra 7-8km 

 

 

If cruising at 200km/hr it will take an additional 2.5min to get to Camden airspace. 5min return trip. That's still doable right? 

[skippydiesel]

Is it my poor understanding/imagination that  the aircraft departing to the NE will be taking noise abatement tracks whereas those departing to the SW will not.

 

Assuming similar to The Oaks, predominant wind direction is W & SW so I would expect Rwy 23 to be used most often . 

 

This nearest projected "flight path" has the departing aircraft at 13300ft,  so well above any aircraft using The Oaks, Camden airfields.

 

I think my greatest concern is the potential for higher "traffic" densities in what is already fairly congested air space.

[old man emu]

That's true, but what does the student learn during that transit flight? 

 

Let's say that it's 20 Nm from Bankstown to the training area. At 100 kts, that's 12 minutes out and 12 minutes back. 24 minutes in transit, plus let's say 6 minutes for take off and landing at Bankstown. That's half of the usual one hour lesson time. I'll admit that the student would be practising straying & level and course holding, as well as discussing the proposed training exercise and debriefing during that time. You also have to take into account the fact that most early flight training is done in the circuit as during one's early learning, landing in the various wind conditions is something to be focussed on. 

[old man emu]

7 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Is it my poor understanding/imagination that  the aircraft departing to the NE will be taking noise abatement tracks whereas those departing to the SW will not.

It is an annoyance that those diagrams don't come with a scale. It seems to me that the Media has once again made a mountain out of a molehill regarding these noisy aeroplanes. I haven't seen anything about the climb/descent gradients of the aircraft associated with the airport, and how far from the airport a 2000 ft lower limit would intersect with the gradients.

 

While it is true that the predominant wind is the WSW, and is why the runway alignment is 05/23, you have to consider the summer afternoon nor'easter from about 3:00 pm, which would suggest the use of the 05 runway.  But would the velocity of that wind, which is not really a roaring gale, prevent heavy aircraft from conducting downwind landings and takeoffs on Rwy 23?

 

As a pilot flying at night, would you rather approach a runway flying towards the dark with the bright lights of the city behind you, of from the dark towards the lights?

[turboplanner]

53 minutes ago, old man emu said:

It is an annoyance that those diagrams don't come with a scale. It seems to me that the Media has once again made a mountain out of a molehill regarding these noisy aeroplanes. I haven't seen anything about the climb/descent gradients of the aircraft associated with the airport, and how far from the airport a 2000 ft lower limit would intersect with the gradients.

 

While it is true that the predominant wind is the WSW, and is why the runway alignment is 05/23, you have to consider the summer afternoon nor'easter from about 3:00 pm, which would suggest the use of the 05 runway.  But would the velocity of that wind, which is not really a roaring gale, prevent heavy aircraft from conducting downwind landings and takeoffs on Rwy 23?

 

As a pilot flying at night, would you rather approach a runway flying towards the dark with the bright lights of the city behind you, of from the dark towards the lights?

What you posted was an acoustics report. If it was for a freeway it would inform where to place noise walls. In this case I would expect it to inform  terminal and other site placements to optimise the working environments. I din’t know whether all runways have been chosen, but you can size Google Earth to duplicate that map, click “everything” and use the measuring tool.

[spenaroo]

I feel like the "those noisy airplanes" argument is somewhat redundant these days.
when was the last time you were in a building and heard an aircraft overhead that wasn't a low level police helicopter?
jets are getting quieter all the time, not louder

[old man emu]

37 minutes ago, spenaroo said:

I feel like the "those noisy airplanes" argument is somewhat redundant these days. when was the last time you were in a building and heard an aircraft overhead that wasn't a low level police helicopter? jets are getting quieter all the time, not louder

Well said, that man!

 

I said that I thought the report in the Media would be another sensationalist beat-up. Just wait until the penny drops with these scaremongers. The next series of headlines will drag out that hoary old chestnut of a verb, "plummet", as they start to describe house prices to the north of the airport. And we all know that property prices to a Sydneysider are as footy is to a Melbournian. 

[facthunter]

When do you read good soothing news in Newscorpse stuff.  Nev

[old man emu]

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

When do you read good soothing news in Newscorpse stuff.  Nev

They can usually get the date right.

[facthunter]

Dunno that either. Haven't bought a paper since 1973.  I see enough popping up on line.  Nev

[spacesailor]

I will miss watching the aircraft ' coming & going " from Mascot airport. 

The airport on " Mr Badgery Creek land . Will impact most of Western Sydney 

I learnt to fly Autogyro's there .

spacesailor

 

[facthunter]

Mascot will still be there. . You better get your scenic flight in before Badgery is open. Bankstown will be in the middle. There will be plenty of planes to look at. Might even be More FOGs at Badgery's than Mascot.  Nev