Aircraft Noise What Next?

AIRCRAFT NOISE WHAT NEXT?

Firstly a huge thank you to all those who responded to the question “Have you noticed any difference?” There were a lot of responses and not one had noticed any significant sustained improvement to the noise from arriving aircraft over Ifold and Plaistow. Most had also noticed lower and more concentrated departures.

The prime reason for lack of arrivals relief seems to be a confusion over widening of the “swathe”. Arriving aircraft are joining the ILS over a wider spread but the approach path is still compressed and biased towards the west at 10 to 14nm from the runway ie over us. Community members of the NMB (apart from CAGNE), have therefore refused to accept that recommendation Imm 10 has been fulfilled and are drawing up a map of “gateways” where aircraft movements will be measured. One of these gateways will include Ifold and Plaistow.

There is also an issue with Continuous Descent Operation. Because of Heathrow air traffic Gatwick bound planes arriving from the west are lower than in the east – there is also a variation in pilot ability/ willingness to maintain maximum height and, unbelievably failure of NATS to give pilots their distance from the runway at busy times, which means they cannot calculate a continuous descent. A recent pilot workshop has been held.

So what can we do? BIPLANE is of course liaising closely with CAGNE, APCAG and PAGNE, all of whom represent us on the NMB. We will have a chance to speak at the January meeting of the NMB which is a public one. But still the most useful (even though it feels soul destroying!) thing to do is COMPLAIN! Complain about a single low, noisy aircraft. Complain about continuous overflying. Complain about excessive night noise. Gatwick have launched a new complaints procedure atnoiselab.casper.aero/lgw.This new complaints procedure means every complaint will be be acknowledged and logged.

Noise Management Board & Community Group Updates

Key notes from November NMB meeting

•Gatwick and all its stakeholders believe that implementation of widening the joining point for landing aircraft on what is called the ILS from 10 to 14 nautical miles to 8 to 14 nautical miles has been completed effectively.
The communities disagreed strongly stating that there is still concentration of arrivals before getting to the joining point. More work is needed on management of fair and equitable dispersal across the swathe of arrivals before this recommendation can be ticked as approved. Communities to west and east of the airport will therefore be working on a series of arrival gates for implementation and measurement prior to the next Noise Management Board meeting, which is an open meeting.
•Statistics were presented on the Airbus A320 modification. Those airlines accounting for 95% of Gatwick traffic are making solid progress on the retrofit with EasyJet having achieved 50% and BA 49% fleet conversions. It was agreed that ongoing reporting back to the NMB would be required.
•There was a report on the CDA (continuous descent approach) workshop. The increase for the start of descent at 7000 feet has happened and the target is now to increase this to 8000 feet.
•There was much discussion on the Still Air Proposal where NATS could switch runway use from east to west in periods of still air. It was agreed much more research was required with the aim of taking it for discussion to the January NMB
•A new complaints system has been introduced with transparent management through the new website. Gatwick agreed that improvement was needed for ease of access to the website. Please start to put your complaints in at noiselab.casper.aero/lgw
Community Group Updates

Notes from Aviation Community Forum (1st November 2016)

Aircraft Noise is of course a national issue. The Aviation Community Forum (ACF) is a group of people from all areas of the UK who are affected by aircraft noise. A BIPLANE committee member attended a recent meeting where the following points were discussed.

Status of policy consultations

The consultation onnight flight restrictions for designated airports (Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted) is due imminently. There will be a single consultation document covering bothpolicy/economic assessmentand the movement and quota proposals for each airport (previously these have been consulted on sequentially). The movement / quota proposals will not be a simple roll-over of the current numbers, but there was no indication of the direction or scaleofchange. We made clear againthat communities were looking forreductions in night flights and other changes in the regime such as an extension of the night period.

Noise / flight path policy consultation. This will not now be published until the new year. No particular reason was given, other than the need for extensive clearance within government. The impression was that the consultation will stillcover all the matters addressed in the Department's Marchfocus groups but wedidn't get into detail on content, other than future engagement arrangements (see below)

CAA / DfT engagement with community groups

Both DfT and the CAA have been reviewing their approaches to community engagement.

The Department's focus has beenthe proposed Airspace andNoise Engagement Group(ANEG). This isintended to be aforum for discussion of airspace and noise issues at a strategic / policy level, i.e. not addressingindividual airport or flight path issues. As expected itwill not have any formal decision making authority: it will be able toadvise on areas of policy focus and beable to makereports and requeststo the Aviation Minister who will respond. Itis likely to meet for the first time in December. They are still considering community involvement init but the current thinking is thatthere willbe four communityrepresentatives: the AEF; the ACF and two from individual community groups. Other observers may also be invited. The Department would like there to be diversity in thecommunity representatives as regards, for example, their location and experience (e.g. ofarrivals or departures).

TheCAA is proposing to set up a Community Discussion Forum to provide it with access toand insight on community issues. They anticipatethis will have a wider membership - perhaps 10 community groups plus the AEF. They will communicate more on this once their ideas have firmed up.

The CAA are also aware that they committed to community involvement in theFutureAirspaceStrategy programme and will revert on that in due course.

CAA airspace change process

We had a short discussion on the CAA's recently published conclusions on its consultation regarding the airspace change process. The mainareas we touched on were:

1- the absence of an appeals process against CAA decisionsother than judicial review. Themessagefromgroups was that this was unacceptable. The CAA recognisesthe strength of feeling on this but argued that it would not bepossible for them to review their own decisions on appeal. Their view was that thegated nature of the processand the introduction of a "minded to" stepprior to theformal decision provided sufficient protection forcommunities. The message seemed to be that any further push for anappealsprocess would need to bedirected at the department or ministers.

2- linked to1, the lack of clarity on the way the CAA wouldinterpretits duties, particularly the interaction between its environmental duties and itsduty to secure the efficientuse of airspace. We said that this felt like a black box, with no safety net forcommunities in the form,for example, of maximum noise limits orrequirements for noise to reduce in all circumstances.

ACF then had a meeting with Lord Ahmad Transport Minister for Aviation

A resume of the meeting was sent to the minister in a letter endorsed by all relevant action Groups, including BIPLANE

Dear Lord Ahmad

Thank you for meeting us recently.

We were grateful for the opportunity to exchange views on some of the

important matters to be addressed in your consultation on the airspace and

noise aspects of the Aviation Policy Framework in the New Year. We hope our

meeting will be the beginning of a fruitful dialogue between the government and

communities, leading to significant and sustained reductions in aircraft noise

together with improvements in the arrangements for measuring and assessing

impacts and regulating that noise. We would welcome an opportunity to discuss

your proposals in detail once they’ve been published. Perhaps we could take you

up on your interest in visiting some of the areas impacted by aircraft noise to do

so in the New Year? Communities would certainly appreciate that.

We are writing to reiterate a number of points touched on at our meeting.

Although this letter is from the five of us, the community groups listed below

have all endorsed it.

Noise is the primary concern of communities, both near airports and under flight

paths often many miles from airports. We were therefore encouraged to hear

that your consultation will propose new arrangements for measuring and

assessing the impacts of aircraft noise, including the threshold at which

significant community annoyance is considered to commence. The current

metrics have not been fit for purpose for many years. The under-reporting of

noise that they have caused has distorted decision-making and become an

obstacle to sensible discussion on policy change. It is widely acknowledged that

they must now be replaced with a suite of metrics, including noise events, which

accurately reflect the way aircraft noise is experienced and perceived by people

around airports and under flight paths. Community groups are keen to work

with you and your officials both to agree a new set of metrics and to determine

how they should be used in policy formulation, noise reporting and to guide

decisions on flight paths.

We were also encouraged by your confirmation that government policy will no

longer promote concentration of aircraft and aircraft noise. The recent

concentration of flight paths and associated redistribution of noise around

several major UK airports, justified by reference to current government policy

has caused great distress and anger in communities. We look forward to a clear

statement that the government supports the dispersion of aircraft, or respite

arrangements, adapted to local circumstances, provided such arrangements do

not expose new communities to aircraft noise.

We are, however, very concerned that your proposals for the future regulation

and governance of the aviation industry will not go far enough.

It is absolutely clear that the present regulatory arrangements for reducing

aircraft noise, overseen by the government, are inadequate. The absence of a

person or body with clear accountability for reducing noise is a fundamental

failing of the current structure. Relying instead on airports, whose commercial

objectives are served by maximizing aircraft numbers, to self-regulate noise is no

longer credible. Many years of policy slogans, talking shops and toothless

initiatives have failed, with the result that there are now more complaints and

many more active aviation community groups than at any time in living

memory. More of the same will not be acceptable to communities.

What is now required is an independent noise regulator with the remit and

powers to drive and if necessary enforce sustained reductions in noise, to levels

recommended by the WHO, at all major airports. Regulation of this sort is well

established in other sectors and could readily be applied to aviation. Those

arrangements include appropriate checks and balances to ensure safety is not

compromised and to have regard to the commercial interests of the sector;

neither can be a reason for the government to fail to act. We noted with interest

the idea of "legally binding noise targets" in the Secretary of State’s speech to

Parliament announcing the government’s decision on runway capacity in the

South East. We believe this could be one strand of more effective future

regulatory arrangements. More broadly we seek a collaborative effort between

the Government, the aviation industry and communities affected by aircraft

noise, backed by firm regulation, to set requirements and timetables for noise

reduction including an equitable share of the benefits from less noisy aircraft.

In relation to the governance of airspace changes, current law and CAA processes

have allowed the industry to make major changes impacting the lives of

hundreds of thousands of people without notification, consultation or consent.

That simply cannot be allowed to continue. We are aware that you are

considering proposals to widen the definition of an airspace change to include

permanent and planned redistribution of the use of airspace, and we believe that

would be a helpful first step. But more fundamental changes will also be

required. If there is to be airspace modernization it will need to be accompanied

by changes in the law to set aviation in a modern legal context properly

accountable for the noise and health impacts it causes. There will also need to be

clarification of - and if necessary change in - the CAA’s duties so that all parties

fully understand the basis on which it will take future decisions on the use of

airspace, together with appropriate protections for communities and

arrangements for them to appeal decisions.

In order to illustrate the matters raised in this letter we propose to send you a

number of case studies prepared by different communities around the country.

These could form a useful basis for testing the emerging new policy framework.

SO AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE IS A LOT GOING ON. A VERY POSITIVE OUTCOME WILL BE THAT THE AVIATION INDUSTRY WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO ACT IN SUCH AN AUTONOMOUS MANNER.

YOU MAY LIKE TO CONSIDER ATTENDING THE PUBLIC NMB MEETING ON JANUARY 31ST 2017

WE JUST HAVE TO KEEP GOING AT THEM!!