GACC welcomes the proposal in the DfT airspace consultation to give more consideration to problems of narrow routes

GACC has welcomed the Government decision to allow flight paths to be dispersed instead of concentrated on a single track.  GACC said the policy of concentrated flight paths, which was introduced in 2012 based on the use of aircraft “Satnavs”, has caused great distress and misery to those people unfortunate to be underneath.  For the past four years GACC, along with many local protest groups, has urged the Government to permit fair dispersal. The new policy is included in a new consultation on UK Airspace Policy, which states: “We propose that decisions on how aircraft noise is best distributed should be informed by local circumstances and consideration of different options. Consideration should include the pros and cons of concentrating traffic on single routes, which normally reduce the number of people overflown, versus the use of multiple routes which can provide greater relief or respite from noise.” Dispersal – spreading aircraft across the sky – would be best according to GACC, and respite – one route on Mondays and a different route on Tuesdays, for example – would be second best. Overall, however, GACC finds the consultation paper disappointing.  There is a forecast for a 50% increase in the number of aircraft in the sky but no target for a reduction in noise and no action to reduce noise.
.

 

Flight path policy changes welcomed

6.2.2017

Comment by GACC (Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign)

GACC has welcomed the Government decision to allow flight paths to be dispersed instead of concentrated on a single track.

Brendon Sewill, GACC chairman, said: ‘The policy of concentrated flight paths, which was introduced in 2012 based on the use of aircraft “Satnavs”, has caused great distress and misery to those people unfortunate to be underneath.  For the past four years GACC, along with many local protest groups, has urged the Government to permit fair dispersal.’[1]

The new policy is included in a new consultation on UK Airspace Policy.[2]  It states:

“We propose that decisions on how aircraft noise is best distributed should be informed by local circumstances and consideration of different options. Consideration should include the pros and cons of concentrating traffic on single routes, which normally reduce the number of people overflown, versus the use of multiple routes which can provide greater relief or respite from noise.”

Dispersal – spreading aircraft across the sky – would be best according to GACC, and respite – one route on Mondays and a different route on Tuesdays, for example – would be second best.

Overall, however, GACC finds the consultation paper disappointing.  There is a forecast for a 50% increase in the number of aircraft in the sky but no target for a reduction in noise and no action to reduce noise.

GACC suggested that people under new flight paths should be eligible for compensation, like people near new motorways.  The Government has agreed but only to provide insulation for houses suffering extremely severe noise – at Gatwick only 150 houses!  GACC will be pressing for much better financial compensation based, as with new roads or new runways, on the loss of house values – which could be up to £100,000 or more when a new concentrated flight path goes straight overhead.

Another welcome change in the consultation is new ways of measuring aircraft noise.  ‘These won’t actually reduce noise,’ says Sewill, ‘any more than measuring your temperature in centigrade rather than fahrenheit makes you less ill, but it will stop Governments pretending that only a few people are affected.’  It is disappointing, however, that the consultation paper makes no mention of ambient noise – no recognition that an aircraft over a quiet area such as Ashdown Forest or Leith Hill causes much more disturbance and annoyance than one over Oxford Street.

The consultation proposes the setting up of an Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise.  According to GACC, this will be a worthy body, costing millions of pounds, with a chairperson drawn from the list of the great and the good, which will advise everyone but have no power to force anyone to cut the noise.  ‘A friendly watchdog – with no bite!’

http://www.gacc.org.uk/resources/Airspace%20press%20release.pdf

[1]  www.gacc.org.uk/flight-paths

[2]  Published 2 February 2017 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/589099/uk-airspace-policy-consultation-executive-summary.pdf

.


See also:

AEF comments on DfT airspace “modernisation” consultation: it provides little future noise reduction

The DfT has a consultation on managment and modernisation of UK airspace. It ends on 25th May. The Aviation Environment Federation (AEF) has now had the chance to read it in detail. AEF comments that though proposed new powers – in a very limited way – for the Secretary of State to “call in” plans for some planned flight are welcome, there is little ele to give real benefits to people overflown. On proposals for more consultation and engagement etc, the AEF says: “Improvements to the process in terms of transparency and communication won’t tackle the underlying need to reduce noise.” They comment: “…the introduction of quieter aircraft and a reduction in stacking … will only have a marginal impact given the likely increase in the number of aircraft.” And the SoNA study (2014) now published shows people are more annoyed by aircraft noise than they were in the past, despite technological improvements. That means noise must be taken seriously. On the plans to set up an Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise (ICCAN) AEF says while this will provide advice, verify noise data etc, with “no requirement to deliver a noise reduction strategy, and without enforcement powers, or the teeth to make binding recommendations, the Commission’s effectiveness may be limited.” Anyone affected by aircraft noise should read the whole AEF comment.

Click here to view full story…

CAA publishes SoNA study, showing high levels of annoyance from aircraft noise well below 57dB

On 2nd February the CAA published a report on a survey about attitudes to aircraft noise, done in 2014. It is called SoNA (Survey of Noise Attitudes). This follows the ANASE study done several years earlier, that was shelved by government, as its methodology was questioned, and it showed high levels of annoyance in response to plane noise. The SoNA study findings are that some adverse effects of plane noise annoyance can be seen to occur down to 51dB LAeq 16hr. The conventional level of averaged noise considered a problem is 57 dB LAeq, and noise is measured on a logarithmic scale. The SoNA report also found sensitivity to aircraft noise has increased, with the same percentage of people being highly annoyed at 54dB LAeq 16hr in SoNA as there was at 57dB LAeq 16hr in the ANIS study that was done in 1985. This gives further evidence to the demand that the government no longer uses the 57dB LAeq metric as its main noise measure. The debate continues about the merits of averaged noise over 16 hours in summer, with metrics measuring the number of plane noise events in a given time. The study says “there is insufficient evidence to link chronic health outcomes with event-based noise metrics, and SoNA 2014 found these performed less well than LAeq 16hr as a predictor of annoyance.” But the findings may show “it may be appropriate to use N65 as supplementary measure for daytime noise…”

Click here to view full story…

Government starts consultation on UK Airspace Policy, to manage increasing use of airspace

Alongside the draft NPS, the Government is publishing separate proposals to “modernise” the way UK airspace is managed. This consultation; “UK Airspace Policy: A framework for balanced decisions on the design and use of airspace” is (quote): …”seeking views on how aircraft noise is managed effectively while updating airspace policies. Proposals will look at how the number of aircraft entering and leaving our airspace can be managed effectively – using the latest technology to make airspace more efficient, reducing the need for stacking and making journeys faster and more environmentally friendly. They will also include draft guidance on how noise impacts should be assessed and used to inform decisions on airspace. The consultation also includes proposals on the role of an Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise, which we will establish. The Commission would build relationships between industry and communities and ensure an even fairer process for making changes to the use of airspace and flight paths.” Cynics might enjoy the craft in the wording: “… more environmentally friendly” and “even fairer”. If only. The government is aware that the current policy of trying to “minimise the number significantly affected by aircraft noise” does not work, with P-RAV technology, and highly concentrated narrow routes. That has not proved to be”fair” at all.

Click here to view full story…