How do they get away with it!

[NAGG]

Progress is fine, I have no issue with it. But for the sake of a few dollars, they should be able to keep the creek, and build around it. Would make it more unique. Also, they could also move the runway back so it does not protrude out into the bay.

As for curtis bay, why they hell could they not extend the pipeline to gladstone harbour? Why destroy another perfectly good habitat?

Could have something to do with flight paths .... dunno - but I would be pretty certain that extending into the bay would be a more expensive option .
As for Curtis Is ..... they need a place to put the LNG plant ( so like a oil refinery ) it needs an exclusion / buffer zone ( I'm guessing)

[sharkymark2]

We could ask them to bridge the creek . We could also write to our local members complaining about the justification of false science to select green zones. The greenies can get a dam stopped through a few frogs and turtles but we cant do the same with Dugong! Now thats discrimination against rec fishers! If the Airport goes ahead we should seek compensation. Maybe a fish farm to grow fingerlings like jewfish; the same that happens in NSW.I will certainly be contacting local members to complain.

[manta man]

Theirs actually a thread on this particular subject, back in 05/06/2006.Their was always a plan in place for this to happen unfortunatley. Obviously the time is right now. When i went down to the airport a couple of weeks ago, i noticed there was a lot work going on in this area.I know the old saying they keep drumming into my ear about (Progress) but you have to ask the question will it ever end in some capacity no i think not. Thats alright we"ll just rip up the mangroves fill in the creek and bobs your uncle. This is Pristine enviroment. I do wonder if one day the only place my grand children will be fishing is where you pay money to catch something. I"m sorry but this BULLSHIT.

[Dignity]

It does seem strange to fill in a whole creek to put in a runway that is only a few metres wide (some one will know the answer to this one) as Sharkymark says why not span the creek, after all the runway is just like a highway and it is done all the time. This will still close the creek to fishing on BAC precincts but as most marine life starts in mangroves and creek systems they will be conserving nature. I could live with that idea, maybe we need some one who can write prosaic letters to set one up that we can all forward to our local MP's, maybe even Mark Robinson will oblige as he appears to be rec fisher friendly when it suits.

[tunaticer]

Ever wonder why Nundah Creek and the foreshores from Cabbage Tree Creek to the northern end of Nudgee Beach were declared???
I believe they were created simply to offset the pending BAC expansion......there is probably 5 times as much mangrove area in that than what is involved in the BAC grounds.

BAC has to duplicate the southern side of the approach road to the northern side......there is no alternative to meet demands in 10 years. There is also no other place in SEQ suitable for an international airport of that size.

[tunaticer]

It does seem strange to fill in a whole creek to put in a runway that is only a few metres wide (some one will know the answer to this one) as Sharkymark says why not span the creek, after all the runway is just like a highway and it is done all the time. This will still close the creek to fishing on BAC precincts but as most marine life starts in mangroves and creek systems they will be conserving nature. I could live with that idea, maybe we need some one who can write prosaic letters to set one up that we can all forward to our local MP's, maybe even Mark Robinson will oblige as he appears to be rec fisher friendly when it suits.

Quite simply, the runways are 40 metres wide then there has to be a safe hardstand area either side of the runway at least 100m wide in case a plane runs off for whatever reason. = total width of runway is 250 metres plus another 150m for taxiway each direction = total of about 550 metres wide needed just for the aircraft operations, then add your terminals, parking, access routes and you will find the northern boundary will be very close to Shultz's Canal.

In future years it is quite possible that the runways will have to extend into the bay further to accommodate larger planes that will be built, the bigger they are, the more length they need. Image a 1000 tonne aircraft and it's required braking length needed?? 1000 tonne aircraft are not far away in reality.

Imagine the problems and legal dramas if you provided a concrete runway without hardstands either side capable of carrying a 750 tonne aircraft and one does leave the concrete??? quite possibly everyone on board would be killed.

[Dave_H]

2: the most obvious ones ( there where a few options) which didnt involve
filling in the creek was rejected as it didnt allow enough space between the 2
runways for another set of terminals to house duty free etc which had to be
there, the other options where more environmentally favourable but didnt allow
all the new Airport buildings between the runways which of course = money, BINGO

Tangles. I hate to burst your conspiracy theory about the reason the runway centrelines have to be so far apart but it has nothing to do with the terminal space. When you have two ILS (instrument Landing System) parallel runways operating together in what is known in our industry as IMC (Instrument Meteorological Conditions - cloud or even bad weather if you like) where the aircraft are being vectored onto and joining final approach at between 5-15nm, there is a tendancy for some of the larger types that are still moving at around 180-250 knots to overshoot the centreline slightly every now and again, especially when there is a strong sou'easterly blowing at altitude (not always the same wind on the ground). So lets call it noise abatement - or should I say the noise of two 80-400 tonne airliners meeting in the middle....

Your statement about terminal space being the primary concern is in no way true or the main driving factor. BAC may well be happy enough that they can get some serious floorspace out of the plan but the whole idea of the design around a parallel runway set up is to avoid many of the issues we see every day in other airports - delays in pushing-back, 30+ minute taxi times to either get into or out of the bays, two aircraft (especially international aircraft with tired crews that have been at work for almost 24 hours by the time they approach the runway to fly an accurate instrument approach) operating in close proximity joining the centreline at 10nm, or even to avoid holding. If your concerns are environmental (as you claim), are you aware of the 1000's of tonnes (no, not a misprint) of fuel (therefore CO2) that gets deposited directly into the upper and mid atmoshere in Australia alone when holding is required at either Brizzie, Sydney or Melbourne?

I hear your concerns about a valuable marine life nursery, however what do you suggest happen? Not s#!t stirring you, just making sure you have a more informed idea of what some of these reasons are behind some decisions. Are you aware as well that at one stage BAC wanted the Storey Bridge(s) sunk into tunnels under the river? The reasoning behind that one was that the bridges are a serious obstacle issue to many departing aircraft and one of the reasons we have to often turn hard left after getting airborne of RWY 19 to ensure compliance with obstacle clearance requirements placed upon the aircraft during their certification. Have a think about trying to work that into an airport development plan without having to push the runways further out into the bay, you'll see it is now almost impossible without encroaching in some way or form into any of the surrounding waterways.

I hope that may give you a better idea of what some of the reasoning is behind some decisions that may not otherwise make any sense to you. No, apart from flying in and out of Brizzie for a living I have no affiliation with the airport.

Regards,

Dave.

[Watto79]

Ever wonder why Nundah Creek and the foreshores from Cabbage Tree Creek to the northern end of Nudgee Beach were declared???
I believe they were created simply to offset the pending BAC expansion......there is probably 5 times as much mangrove area in that than what is involved in the BAC grounds.

BAC has to duplicate the southern side of the approach road to the northern side......there is no alternative to meet demands in 10 years. There is also no other place in SEQ suitable for an international airport of that size.

I beg to differ, there is alot more mangrove/wetland area within the BAC boundaries than the two area mentioned above!

But you could possibly be correct in why those areas were declared as "green zones"

[Watto79]

Tangles. I hate to burst your conspiracy theory about the reason the runway centrelines have to be so far apart but it has nothing to do with the terminal space. When you have two ILS (instrument Landing System) parallel runways operating together in what is known in our industry as IMC (Instrument Meteorological Conditions - cloud or even bad weather if you like) where the aircraft are being vectored onto and joining final approach at between 5-15nm, there is a tendancy for some of the larger types that are still moving at around 180-250 knots to overshoot the centreline slightly every now and again, especially when there is a strong sou'easterly blowing at altitude (not always the same wind on the ground). So lets call it noise abatement - or should I say the noise of two 80-400 tonne airliners meeting in the middle....

Your statement about terminal space being the primary concern is in no way true or the main driving factor. BAC may well be happy enough that they can get some serious floorspace out of the plan but the whole idea of the design around a parallel runway set up is to avoid many of the issues we see every day in other airports - delays in pushing-back, 30+ minute taxi times to either get into or out of the bays, two aircraft (especially international aircraft with tired crews that have been at work for almost 24 hours by the time they approach the runway to fly an accurate instrument approach) operating in close proximity joining the centreline at 10nm, or even to avoid holding. If your concerns are environmental (as you claim), are you aware of the 1000's of tonnes (no, not a misprint) of fuel (therefore CO2) that gets deposited directly into the upper and mid atmoshere in Australia alone when holding is required at either Brizzie, Sydney or Melbourne?

I hear your concerns about a valuable marine life nursery, however what do you suggest happen? Not s#!t stirring you, just making sure you have a more informed idea of what some of these reasons are behind some decisions. Are you aware as well that at one stage BAC wanted the Storey Bridge(s) sunk into tunnels under the river? The reasoning behind that one was that the bridges are a serious obstacle issue to many departing aircraft and one of the reasons we have to often turn hard left after getting airborne of RWY 19 to ensure compliance with obstacle clearance requirements placed upon the aircraft during their certification. Have a think about trying to work that into an airport development plan without having to push the runways further out into the bay, you'll see it is now almost impossible without encroaching in some way or form into any of the surrounding waterways.

I hope that may give you a better idea of what some of the reasoning is behind some decisions that may not otherwise make any sense to you. No, apart from flying in and out of Brizzie for a living I have no affiliation with the airport.

Regards,

Dave.

Doesn't make it right champ, I am certain if a better consultation process with the public and other sectors was pursued better alternatives quite possibly could have been sourced.

We have the "protected" Boondall wetlands reserve just across the road yet BAC have the right to destroy a massive amount of wetlands in their plans for the new runway!

Why??????

Just doesn't sit right with me..

[Dave_H]

I never said it was right. Just offering another point of view about the factors governing the positioning of the runways (especially in relation to A380 etc operations) that many on here might not otherwise be aware of. I hate seeing important areas rolled over in the name of progress myself and take no joy in seeing them destroyed either.

[MudRiverDan]

Brisbane wants to be modeled as a world class city.
A center for Queensland.

Sadly no other cities in the world have come up with anything other than huge pollution billowing cesspools..

Don't expect the Newman Government to do any different, the reason he "Can do" is because the path is a well trodden one set out before him by others.

A template... no real initiative, nothing pro active or new here...

Sydney Barely gets away with it as it is a deep harbour set on hard sandstone with a huge open channel directly to the sea.

Morten Bay on the other hand is a sedimentary bay and alluvial river system and mouth, far less tolerant to changes in the morphology and vegetation.

Dan

[Tangles]

I never said it was right. Just offering another point of view about the factors governing the positioning of the runways (especially in relation to A380 etc operations) that many on here might not otherwise be aware of. I hate seeing important areas rolled over in the name of progress myself and take no joy in seeing them destroyed either.

Thanks for the info but i have one question on that,

From a laymans POV, why did they choose this option over the other runway options put forward at the time ( which i assume would take into account your points) which didnt involve the creek. I understood it to be more a commercial one as noted. There where other runway options put forward.. or are you saying this was the only one safe option for the planes?

[finga]

Why didn't they build another airport out where there is miles of room to build what-ever you want and affect near nothing??
Plenty of room west of Ipswich.
There has to be a point where enough is enough in what you can destroy in order to expand instead of moving.

[Watto79]

Why didn't they build another airport out where there is miles of room to build what-ever you want and affect near nothing??
Plenty of room west of Ipswich.
There has to be a point where enough is enough in what you can destroy in order to expand instead of moving.

It would appear not if you are BAC!

[Watto79]

What about all the wasted space/unused tarmacs that now sit dormant that were what used to be the old international airport?

Off Lomandra drive and Boronia Road at the airport..

As I said earlier I am sure there were "better" alternatives overlooked, I think they went with what suited BAC at the time with little to no regard to the enviroment or surrounds!

As per earlier posts I am just stunned that they can get away with it this day in age with all the emphasis on green zones, sustainable fishing, water quality etc etc of Moreton Bay!

It would have to be one of the most or soon to be regulated areas next to the great barrier reef marine park!

I have since found out also, BAC have closed off some other waterways between the Kedron Brook and Brisbane river mouth..

Please tell me these are not being filled in as well!!!