[Peetwo]

YBBN SODROPS a political con job?? - 

As a means for placating those pesky Brissy residents who dare to complain about aircraft noise, SODROPS is being put forward as part of the solution. However the reality is SODROPS has too many restrictions and limitations to be any real use in the effective mitigation of aircraft noise, rather it would appear that is more part of a political panacea for Dicky King and Albo to stem the flow of Labor votes to the Greens...

Via the UP... : 

missy
From another thread.

Originally Posted by AusATC 
Don’t worry. There are so many conditions on sodprops being able to be used during the day that it will almost never happen.

Originally Posted by BN APP 125.6 
I think you are right.
This will just mean the Greens party can say look what we have done. Which is effectively nothing. Which is what the Greens always do (or dont do).

Nothing x Nothing = Nothing.

Perhaps Minister King is trying to kill 2 birds with the same stone, stemming the flow of seats to independent, Teals and Greens across Queensland and Federal elections.

---

And:

ER_BN

I heard rumours the Greens had a private members bill that included YBBN curfew, YBBN hourly caps and a YBBN LTOP similar to YSSY.

Based on what’s good for YSSY is good for YBBN, I’d say the BN community had a pretty good chance, especially when SODPROPS is seen for what it is, I.e a smoke and mirrors show presented by a sleazy snake oil salesman whose boss was brought up in a council flat…

I mean we may soon see millions of dollars spent on roads facilitating access to a certain clifftop mansion??

Funny, I thought Albo would arrange for a Vertiport?

Umm are there any Teals seats in BN?

---

sunnySA

Originally Posted by ER_BN 

I heard rumours the Greens had a private members bill that included YBBN curfew, YBBN hourly caps and a YBBN LTOP similar to YSSY.

Perhaps this one...

Brisbane Airport Curfew and Demand Management Bill 2023, private members bill sponsored by Elizabeth Watson-Brown MP, Greens, House of Representatives member for Ryan.

The bill imposes a curfew and certain related restrictions on aircraft movements at Brisbane Airport; provides for the development of a long term operating plan for managing aircraft movements and airspace at Brisbane Airport; and provides for consultation procedures in certain circumstances. Also makes consequential amendments to the Airports Act 1996 and National Emergency Declaration Act 2020.

Status = Not Proceeding

Brisbane Airport Curfew and Demand Management Bill 2023

Plus for an excellent historical reference, for how all this YBBN airport 'SHIT SHOW' has come about, you can't go past this Geoff Fairless post...
  

Geoff Fairless

Originally Posted by 26left 

Has Airservices carried out a full Safety Case on the proposed opposite direction runway operations?. As a person with 30 years in Airport Air Traffic Control, in the UK, i believe that ‘ greater use of simultaneous opposite direction parallel operations’ inherently increases the risk factor. It would also reduce the runway capacity because of the increased spacing requirements for the runway use direction changes.

It is fascinating to sit back and read the rubbish being peddled by vested interests over BNE airport operations.

Forty years ago I was the ATC Association (Civil Air) rep in Brisbane (old centre/old tower) and we were invited to the machinations associated with the proposed extension to the airport. (I call it an extension because parts of the old RWY 04/22, taxiway and International Terminal are still in use today)

• First of all, we produced expert ATCs who argued that the extension, with across prevailing wind runways was a mistake. We proposed that a new airport should be built around the Jacob's Well area between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. This would have provided into-wind runways (approx 13/31), and allowed the closure of Gold Coast and Brisbane airports. Eventually there would be a need for a second Brisbane airport but this was envisaged, by us, as being between Brisbane and the Sunny Coast. (Maroochy, at the time, was an uncontrolled GA airport with the occasional East/West F27 operation) Even we could see that area was going to develop. (But then, we lived here, not in Canberra!)
  
• However, the old DCA had already acquired all of the ground north-east of the old airport, and their bureaucrats/engineers were not about to be told by a bunch of radar operators what was good for the people of south-east Queensland. After all they knew that due to prevailing winds we were able to operate RWY 22 for the arrivals and switch to RWY 04 for the subsequent departures. The old airport did not even have an ILS on RWY 04 because it was used for arrivals in bad weather so infrequently. Naturally this would continue on the new runway, hence the myth that they all jumped onto that the majority of operations would be over Moreton Bay!
  
• As it turned out the new runway had a different wind pattern from the old. We immediately encountered a sea breeze effect at night, which resulted in a tailwind of 5-10 knots on the new runway 01, during virtually all of the night hours. This prompted the then DCA QLD Regional Manager (no names no pack drill) to allow RWY 01 to be nominated with up to 10 knots tailwind including gusts. It turned out that this was fine for all of the aircraft then operating at night, very few complained, and the rules allowed ATC to depart any aircraft that could not take the tailwind to depart from RWY 19. (A Kiwi operation refuelling in BNE using old Ilyushin cargo jets, bucked the system, but was quickly shut down by BAC under Stage 2 noise regs). This 10 knot tailwind rule allowed the myth to continue.
  

When the new parallel 19/01 was built, I was then working for CASA. I recall a conversation with the younger ATC folk, now in charge, when they said BAC wanted them to apply for a 10-knot tailwind for the new RWY 01L. Over the intervening forty years ICAO had issued guidance that ATC was not allowed to nominate a runway for operations when, amongst other things, the tailwind exceeded 5 knots. Yet, they argued, CASA had never, raised an objection, during audits, to the runway nomination on what was now RWY 01R. They were correct. This was because the 10-knot tailwind had been properly authorised way-back, had been used safely for 30 odd years, was published for operators to read, and had not been subject to any complaints. We cautioned, however, that any new application would be subject to current regulations and automatically rejected by CASA.

The rest is history, yet Canberra politicians, regardless of the facts, still push the myth of SODPROPS. Conversely to many opinions in this forum, I believe SODPROPS can be operated quite safely on wide spaced parallels such as BNE, it is the ICAO regs that stand in the way. And-oh, a Safety Case for a seven knot tailwind would be very easy to write, given BNE airport's history with a 10-knot limit. But over-riding an ICAO regulation, for a country that already ignores so many others, is a big decision for Canberra bureaucrats, who have no skin in the game, and are financed by the aviation industry. (Both CASA and Airservices). Best of luck with that!

MTF...P2