Blog by James Lees: New Flight Paths – Bulldozing over your house tomorrow?

In a blog for the Huffington Post, AEF’s James Lees explains how the way airspace change happens now is unsatisfactory, and many complicated issues need to be resolved before aircraft noise is inflicted on communities. At present, no consultation is needed for new flight path trials which are aimed at increasing capacity at airports. The negative impacts of being exposed to high levels of annoying noise, especially at night, are now well known. It is anachronistic that aviation is exempt from noise nuisance laws going back 90 years. The CAA says airspace is “in need of modernisation” with an “unprecedented” number of airspace change proposals in the coming years. These changes could involve new flight paths and new people being overflown. James says these communities should be involved throughout the process and their interests should not be overridden by those of the industry, which benefits from the changes. There is also a clear need for better government policy on aircraft noise, and there are key questions to be dealt with by the DfT. These include: Does Government think it’s acceptable for new flight paths to expose new communities to aircraft noise? And should aircraft be ‘concentrated’ down increasingly narrow routes? What is the public health impact? Read the full blog.
.

 

 

New Flight Paths: Bulldozing Over Your House Tomorrow?

23.3.2016 (Huffington Post)
By James Lees, Research and Communications Officer, Aviation Environment Federation (AEF)

Imagine this. You live on a relatively quiet road on the way out of town. There’s a bit of traffic as some people use your road on their way home but you expected that when you moved in.

One day, you wake up and overnight bulldozers have turned your road into a motorway with car after car rushing past your house. You later find out that because the council is only ‘trialling’ the change, nobody had to tell you about it.

How would you feel about that? You’d probably be a bit surprised, and most likely very annoyed. You’d probably feel a bit like Arthur Dent in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, waking up to find Earth is in the way of a galaxy bypass and about to be destroyed (in terms of being bewildered and still in your pyjamas).

It’s similar to the recent experiences of people living in communities around Gatwick,Heathrow, Birmingham, and most recently Edinburgh airports, all of whom have been subjected to new flight paths as part of trials aimed at increasing capacity at airports.

Many of the communities affected experienced a ‘step-change’ in the number of flights overhead, suddenly being overflown up to every two minutes. For others, it was the very first time they had experienced life under a flight path and the profound effects that high levels of aircraft noise can have on your health and well-being.

Long-term exposure to aircraft noise leads to increased risks of cardiovascular disease, heart attack, and stroke. Aircraft noise can cause sleep disturbance which can in turn have a debilitating effect on your day-to-day life.

It can also impede memory and learning in school children, with primary school pupils exposed to high levels of noise around Heathrow Airport two months behind their counterparts in schools exposed to aircraft noise levels five decibels lower.

Not everybody responds to aircraft noise in the same way and part of the response to noise of all forms is emotional, and influenced by factors such as an individual’s attitude to the noise source, whether they have any control over it, and whether they expect to hear it.

In the recent cases of new flight paths though, whole communities have been in uproar. This could be because a sudden change in noise exposure is linked to much greater disturbance than ‘steady state conditions’. It could also be because the changes were trials, so required no consultation (hence the Arthur Dent bewilderment).

Or maybe it could be because unlike changes to physical infrastructure, airspace changes don’t legally require any compensation payments. Maybe even it was because aviation is exempt from noise nuisance laws going back 90 years. [ link ]

The experiences of communities around Heathrow, Gatwick, Birmingham and Edinburgh could become increasingly common. According to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), airspace is “in need of modernisation” and that means there’s going to be an “unprecedented” number of airspace change proposals in the coming years. These changes could involve new flight paths and new people being overflown.

If changes are to be made to airspace, then communities should be involved throughout the process and their interests should not be overridden by those of the industry, which stands to benefit from the changes.

By way of response to the vociferous complaints of affected communities, the CAA launched a consultation last week on a new process that aims to allow for much better community engagement.

However, having a transparent and open process is only one part of the problem. We also need clearer policy from Government and that’s why AEF brought together 24 community groups to call on David Cameron to deliver that.

Key questions need answering. Does Government think it’s acceptable for new flight paths to expose new communities to aircraft noise? And should aircraft be ‘concentrated’ down increasingly narrow routes, reducing noise for some people but potentially creating ‘noise ghettos’ for those who are overflown?

Finally, how will changes in airspace affect the health burden from aircraft noise? The industry argues that aircraft are getting quieter but annoyance from aircraft noise is increasing, and a recent report by the EU stated that more people will be affected by aircraft noise in the future, not fewer.

There are no easy answers to some of these questions but it’s vital that the Government and CAA start to give communities more of a say, give clarity about what’s acceptable when it comes to flight path change, and make it clear how the impacts of noise on health and well-being will be reduced in the future.

If we’re successful in moving these issues up the agenda, hopefully the aviation industry won’t be able to bulldoze new flight paths over your house tomorrow.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/james-lees/new-flight-paths-bulldozi_b_9523784.html

.

Aviation Environment Federation   http://www.aef.org.uk/


See also:

CAA consultation launched (ends 15th June) on the process of airspace change

The CAA has launched it long awaited consultation on the process of airspace change. One of the reasons has been the unprecedented level of opposition, anger, frustration (and in some cases despair) caused by the unsatisfactory manner in which flight path changes have been introduced in recent years. The CAA, NATS and the airports have lost what confidence the public had in them before, due to their inabilities to communicate properly with those suffering from aircraft noise problems. The CAA says: “While not everyone will agree with every potential decision on how we develop the infrastructure of our airspace, the methods used to reach those decisions need to be well understood and accepted. One of our aims is to restore confidence in the process where it is currently lacking.” The CAA says one of the ways to make their processes more transparent and publicly accessible is: “an online portal to provide a single access point for anyone to view, comment on and access documents for every UK airspace change proposal.” However, many important and relevant areas are outside the consultation, such as Government policy, which the CAA’s process must follow, and “changes to flight paths which result from decisions made by air traffic control providers and outside the CAA’s control”. The full document is 140 pages in length, and will take time for those who plan to respond to fully understand.

The consultation ends on 15th June.  

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/03/caa-consultation-launched-ends-15th-june-on-the-process-of-airspace-change/