Bill’s Badgerys policy is unsafe for takeoff

SLIM Dusty reckoned that there was nothing “so lonesome, morbid or drear than … a pub with no beer” but then he hadn’t heard of Bill Shorten’s plan for an airport that would effectively ban airplanes from flying.

SLIM Dusty reckoned that there was nothing “so lonesome, morbid or drear than … a pub with no beer” but then he hadn’t heard of Bill Shorten’s plan for an airport that would effectively ban airplanes from flying. Just imagine all the empty runways, the passenger terminals, the freight areas, the transport networks and Labor’s ban on flights. How bad could that be? With their populist assertion that Labor would support “no-fly” zones for the $2.5 billion-plus airport proposed for Badgerys Creek, both Shorten and Labor’s infrastructure spokesman Anthony Albanese effectively undermine the ­entire project. Labor wants to apply the same restrictions on flight to the new project as those which currently hobble the operations of Sydney’s Kingsford Smith Airport. They want a night time no-fly zone between 11:00pm and 6:00am in order to eliminate aircraft noise for residents. Under the plan, the airport would allow qualified 24-hour access with night flights restricted to the southwest over unpopulated areas. This is such a dumb proposal, so stupid in its conception, that it could only have come from the smartest people in the Labor Party. That’s right, exactly the same people who embraced the notion of a NBN after being briefed on a plan drawn up on the back of a drink coaster, and who thrilled to the prospect of an unfunded NDIS, and wet their pants at the prospect of the unfunded Gonski proposal though they had experienced the disastrous pink batts fiasco and the humiliating mining tax retreat which were also delivered by their in-house genii. Shorten and Albanese clearly don’t want to acknowledge that the curfew at Sydney’s current airport is already an aviation industry disaster and is only maintained for fear of upsetting a small group of NIMBYs — all being people who have moved to the neighbourhood since the first flight operated from there in 1919. It’s not as if the residents didn’t know that they buying in an airport neighbourhood when they were offered cheaper properties. Encouraged by weak politicians, they have used their decision to buy into the area to leverage sound proofing and the current curfew, and aircraft get quieter by the generation. That’s one of the reasons why the decision by Labor to opt for no-fly zones is so dumb and here is another. Labor’s not so-dynamic duo were asked at Thursday’s press conference a very straight forward question about aircraft operations. Here it is: “Is it not true flights and aircraft have to fly into the wind if it’s greater than 10 knots?” To which Albanese responded: “No it’s not. These days technology has got a lot better.” Unfortunately, technology hasn’t yet been able to change the physics of flight and as much as Albanese might like to claim expertise as a former aviation minister, the basics are just as they were when ­Orville Wright took off for the first powered flight in 1903. The Wright brothers took off and landed into the wind. Just as modern aircraft are almost always required to do by air traffic controllers today if wind speeds are more than about five knots or just less than 10km/h even though some aircraft such as the Boeing 777 is certified to land with a maximum tailwind of 10 knots. It might help the former aviation minister to review some of the factual material available about the physics of flight rather than try to wing it. All aircraft manufacturers publish a tail wind component limit for both takeoff and landing in their aircraft flight manuals (remember those Albo?) and in most cases it is in the order of 10 knots but with some planes may be as high as 15 knots. And an experienced aviation authority like the former minister would undoubtedly be aware that the closer the tailwind is to the upper limit, the more dangerous is the landing. But Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) nominates a safe landing tailwind upper limit of five knots in dry conditions and zero in wet. That’s not a lot of breeze as any sailor, surfer, footballer, or golfer will tell you and how often does it rain at night at Badgerys — enough to shut down a runway or the whole airport as it would under Labor’s plan. The Shorten-Albanese solution would require aircraft using Badgerys Creek to operate from only one runway directed to the southwest from 11pm to 6am — the same hours as the curfew operates at Kingsford Smith. Maybe it has not penetrated Albo’s old leather flying helmet, but he should be made aware that there are a number of other options airlines could adopt to cut unnecessary aircraft noise because, and you can be sure of this, there will always be some noise when aircraft engines are used to provide the power for safe movement, particular during takeoffs, landings and turns. One of the strategies employed by pilots globally is the concept known as Continuous Descent Approach which improves safety and pilot situational awareness and reduces pilot workload, improves fuel efficiency by minimising the low-altitude level flight time and reduces noise levels by minimising the level flight time at high thrust settings. The union representing Qantas pilots has also condemned Labor’s plan to impose flight limits on their new airport. Australian and International Pilots Association (AIPA) treasurer Adam Susz said the Labor proposal would place a heavy restriction on the airport’s operations, noting departing aircraft would have to be well out of the approach path before arriving aircraft could land, resulting in a fairly low movement rate. It would not be possible to have simultaneous operations in an opposite direction on a single runway unless those operations were separated by 15 to 20 minutes, he said. “From a pilot perspective we don’t want to see a curfew. We’d like to see 24-hour operations that are unrestricted by noise and other political agendas,” Susz told Australian Aviation Friday. Coyly, Albanese refused to name the experts consulted before this woeful plan was released, or perhaps he wished to save them embarrassment. He could have saved time by asking any major airline pilot. By severely limiting aircraft movements at the new airport, Labor effectively destroys the principal rationale for the whole project. What a no-brainer. Incoming aircraft will still have to consider the possibility of diverting to Melbourne or Brisbane. Well, done Biggles Shorten and Algy Albanese.