ICAO’s environment committee comes up with some standards for new aircraft, years ahead

The meeting of the ICAO “Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) in Montreal has ended. The committee’s purpose is to try to reduce and limit the environmental damage done by the aviation industry (noise, air pollution, carbon emissions).  It has not been very successful to date. This meeting has agreed on an

Aircraft Engine Standard: “A new stringency level that would limit the emissions of non-volatile Particulate Matter (nvPM) from aircraft engines was agreed. The ICAO standard is expected to drive technologies to address non-volatile particulate matter, which in the long run will minimise their potential environmental and health impacts.” ie. for planes yet to be built, with any impacts decades ahead. At least admitting the problem of PM particles produced by planes.  On noise ICAO said: “The meeting also delivered …improvements of aircraft noise up to 15.5 dB below Chapter 14 limits for single-aisle aircraft by 2027, NOx emission by 54 per cent relative to the latest ICAO NOx SARPs and fuel efficiency up to 1.3% per annum can be expected for the new aircraft entering into production.” Again, for new planes, with no real impact for decades. On CORSIA they said CAEP had agreement (not spelled out) on how to assess life-cycle CO2 emissions reductions for biofuels or other lower carbon fuels.  ie. not a lot.
.

 

Sustainable aviation takes significant step forward at ICAO 

​Global measures to address aviation’s environmental impact were agreed at a meeting of the two hundred and fifty experts of ICAO’s Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP), which concluded today ICAO’s Montréal headquarters today.

​Montréal, 15 February 2019

ICAO website

Global measures to address aviation’s environmental impact were agreed at a meeting of the two hundred and fifty experts of ICAO’s Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP), which concluded today.

The meeting was opened by Dr. Olumuyiwa Benard Aliu, President of the Council of ICAO, recognizing that “In the 35 years since the CAEP was established, the scope of work and the technical areas which it covers have widened. Yet, despite the monumental challenges set before it, the CAEP remains a tremendous example of international cooperation.”

The main outcomes of the meeting are as follows:

Aircraft Engine Standard

A new stringency level that would limit the emissions of non-volatile Particulate Matter (nvPM) from aircraft engines was agreed. The ICAO standard is expected to drive technologies to address non-volatile particulate matter, which in the long run will minimize their potential environmental and health impacts.

With this new standard, ICAO has completed all main environmental standards for the certification of aircraft and engines, namely for noise, local air quality (NOx, HC, CO, nvPM) and climate change (CO2), making the aviation industry the only sector with environmental mandatory certification requirements at the global level for the operation of its equipment. Once applicable, all new aircraft will need to be certified to those ICAO standards before operating.

The meeting also delivered new technology goals for the sector, including improvements of aircraft noise up to 15.5 dB below Chapter 14 limits for single-aisle aircraft by 2027, NOx emission by 54 per cent relative to the latest ICAO NOx SARPs and fuel efficiency up to 1.3 per cent per annum can be expected for the new aircraft entering into production.

Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) 

Agreement has been achieved on the means to calculate and claim the benefits accrued from the use of sustainable aviation fuels within the context of CORSIA. This is significant in terms of reducing airlines’ offsetting requirements.

The agreement included the default values and the methodologies for calculating actual values needed to calculate the life-cycle CO2 emissions reduction benefits of different feedstocks. CAEP has also agreed on the requirements for Sustainability Certification Schemes (SCS) and a process to evaluate and recommend a list of eligible SCS, which will certify fuels against the CORSIA sustainability criteria. This package of agreements provides the clarity needed for the energy sector to embark in the production of sustainable fuels for aviation, and is an important step towards CORSIA implementation.

In addition, CAEP has delivered a recommendation for the rules and procedure for the ICAO Council’s Technical Advisory Body (TAB), which will evaluate the eligibility of emissions units for use in CORSIA. Another agreement was the technical updates of Environmental Technical Manual on CORSIA, which clarifies the recommended actions by States and airlines for monitoring, reporting and verification of CO2 emissions under CORSIA.

Environmental Trends and Outlook 

The meeting agreed on the updated ICAO environmental trends for noise, local air quality (NOx and nvPM) and global climate (CO2), which will be the basis for the considerations of ICAO environmental policies at the next ICAO Assembly, in September 2019.

Important publications were also developed as part of ICAO’s eco-airport toolkit collection in the areas of renewable energy, waste management, environmental management, and eco-design of airport building.

Regarding climate change adaptation, a Synthesis Report was approved for publication, providing important information on the climate risk impacts and resilient options for the sector.

Two other important reports were agreed: one on the state of aircraft end-of-life and recycling; and the other on performance-based navigation and community engagement.

The meeting further agreed with the results of the assessment of the positive effects of operational improvements. The assessment showed that the implementation of these measures, as per ICAO global plans, savings of fuel between of 167 to 307 kg per flight can be achieved by 2025. This corresponds respectively to a reduction of 26.2 to 48.2 Mt of CO2. The meeting agreed on the publication of the white paper “State of the Science 2019: Aviation Noise Impacts Workshop”.

CAEP also considered the progress that has been achieved towards supersonic transport operations, and agreed that an exploratory study should be undertaken.

CAEP will also assess how to certify other new technologies such as hybrid and electric aircraft as part of its future work.

CAEP is a technical body of the ICAO Council, and all the technical recommendations agreed by CAEP above will be considered by the Council for final approval.

https://www.icao.int/Newsroom/Pages/Sustainable-aviation-takes-significant-step-forward-at-ICAO.aspx

.

.


See earlier:

Critics attack secrecy at UN’s ICAO CAEP committee, tasked with cutting global airline CO2 emissions

A UN ICAO committee, Committee on Aviation and Environmental Protection (CAEP), with the job of cutting global aircraft carbon emissions (an issue of global concern) is meeting secretly, for discussions dominated by airline industry observers. The committee always meets behind closed doors; the press and other observers are not allowed in (unlike other UN committees).  The committee’s agenda and discussion documents are not released to the public or the international press. Anyone who leaks documents being discussed faces “unlimited liability for confidentiality breaches”, according to ICAO rules.  The only non-governmental body not linked to the airline industry allowed into the meeting is the International Coalition for Sustainable Aviation (ICSA), made up of a small group of international environmental NGOs. Transparency International says “Agencies which set common global standards for large, international industries have to be transparent in order to prevent capture by corporate interests … ”  A key concern is that the committee wants to certify biofuels, that are definitely NOT environmentally sustainable, as low carbon. And also fossil oil, produced using solar energy – also NOT a low carbon fuel. The committee needs to be open to public scrutiny.

Click here to view full story…

ICAO’s CORSIA low standards on biofuels risk undercutting EU’s new renewables rules

The UN’s ICAO is a secretive organisation, that has been woefully ineffective in limiting the CO2 emissions of global aviation. There are considerable concerns that it will try to get bad biofuels certified as low carbon, in order to whitewash the sector’s emissions in future. The global deal, CORSIA, making the first tentative steps towards restricting aviation CO2 at all is just starting. There is, elsewhere, growing understanding that biofuels are generally not the way forward, and their real lifecycle carbon emissions are far higher than their proponents make out. ICAO has now agree 2 criteria (out of 12 possible) for aviation biofuels. These are that there should have been no deforestation after 2009; and there should be at least a saving of 10% of green house gas emissions, (including emissions from indirect land-use change or ILUC) compared to fossil jet kerosene. ICAO’s environment committee will develop rules for what biofuels can be credited – ie. how much of an emissions reduction each biofuel delivers.  The effect can only be accurately accounted for using models. There is a serious danger they will try and include palm oil. And countries like Saudi Arabia are trying to get “lower carbon” fossil fuels included, if their production can be 10% more carbon efficient.  So aviation will continue to emit vast amounts of carbon for decades….

Click here to view full story…

Experts say legal obstacles no barrier to introducing aviation fuel tax for flights in Europe

EU countries can end the decades-long exemption on taxing aviation fuel. Legal experts say it is possible to tax kerosene on flights between EU countries. This could either be done at EU level through a series of bilateral agreements or by agreement between individual countries. Transport & Environment (T&E) has found that the old argument that foreign carriers’ operating within the EU – de facto a small number of flights – can’t be taxed can be overcome by introducing a de minimis threshold below which fuel burn would not be taxed.  At present (and for decades past) airlines, unlike almost all other forms of transport, pay no fuel tax on flights within or from the EU – even though aviation causes 5% of global warming. They also pay no VAT.  Despite the aviation industry’s attempts to hide behind the 1944 Chicago Convention, when the agreement was made on not taxing aviation fuel, that is not what is preventing fuel taxation. In fact it is old bilateral ‘air service agreements’ that European governments signed up to years ago that include mutual fuel tax exemptions for non-EU airlines. It remains too hard to tax fuel for international, non-EU, flights.

Click here to view full story…

CORSIA and its failings explained – great piece from Carbon Brief

In a long, detailed and very informative article from Carbon Brief, Jocelyn Timperley explains the CORSIA scheme for aircraft carbon emissions, and its failings. While airlines are starting this year to measure and record their carbon emissions for the first time, it is not expected that the scheme will do anything much to limit aviation carbon.  “It can be expected to “modestly reduce” the net climate impact of international aviation up to 2035, according to the (ICCT). This is only if high-quality offsets are used and those offsets are not “double counted”, the think-tank adds….  Unless it is extended beyond 2035, Corsia will cover only 6% of projected CO2 emissions from all international aviation between 2015 and 2050, ICCT data indicates.”  That assumes China will partake from the pilot phase. “Base emissions continue to grow under Corsia due to uncovered traffic….. The ICCT argues this means Corsia “does not obviate the need for an ICAO long-term climate goal”. Because of a range of issues, like biofuels, offsets, forestry etc : “It’s not just that Corsia is a weak measure – it’s that it’s an actively bad measure, that risks doing more harm than good.”

Click here to view full story…

.

 

Read more »

Chiswick, Hammersmith, Shepherds Bush, etc residents horrified & stunned by likely impact of Heathrow proposed airspace changes

Residents from Chiswick, Shepherds Bush and Hammersmith were stunned to hear that their area would experience 25,000 extra flights by 2022  – and a further 260,000 by 2026 if a 3rd Heathrow runway were ever to open. Over 300 residents turned out to a heavily over-subscribed meeting, organised by the No 3rd Runway Coalition, to learn how the plans for airspace change at Heathrow will drastically impact their area.  The meeting also heard from local MPs Ruth Cadbury and Andy Slaughter, Leader of Hammersmith & Fulham Council Stephen Cowan, as well as local campaign groups  Chiswick Against the Third Runway, Bedford Park Society and Hammersmith & Fulham No 3rd Runway.  The airport is currently consulting across west London (and wider) on how future operations at the airport would work with a 3rd runway, with a range of options put forward for consultation. By the end of the meeting there was outrage as people understood the impacts, and the extent of the noise nuisance, that is proposed for the communities of Chiswick, Stamford Brook and Ravenscourt Park. Those changes could start within a few years. It is vital that people who will be newly, and very negatively affected, respond to the consultation, stressing their strong opposition.
.

 

 

COMMUNITIES ‘STUNNED’ AT IMPACT OF HEATHROW PLANS

13.2.2019

Residents from Chiswick, Shepherds Bush and Hammersmith were stunned to hear that their area would experience 25,000 extra flights by 2022 and a further 260,000 by 2026 if a third runway were ever to open.

Over 300 residents turned out on Tuesday evening (12th February) to learn how the plans for airspace change at Heathrow will drastically impact their area (1).

Gathering at Christ Church on Turnham Green in a heavily over-subscribed event, residents heard from the No 3rd Runway Coalition who were joined by local MPs Ruth Cadbury and Andy Slaughter, Leader of Hammersmith & Fulham Council Stephen Cowan, as well as local campaign groups Chiswick Against the Third Runway, Bedford Park Society and Hammersmith & Fulham No 3rd Runway.

The airport is currently consulting across west London on how future operations at the airport would work with a third runway, with plans for a range of options put forward for consultation. By the end of the meeting there was outrage with the impacts of what is proposed for the communities of Chiswick, Stamford Brook and Ravenscourt Park.

 Paul Beckford, of the No 3rd Runway Coalition, who organised the meeting, said:

“It was vital that we organised this meeting to help the communities understand the very complex and technical proposals in this airspace consultation.

Given the significant and negative impact that expansion would have on this area, it is clear that the best way to stop these additional flights is to oppose a third runway.”

Andy Slaughter, MP for Hammersmith, said:

“My constituents are rightly outraged at the impact Heathrow will have on our community with these plans for more flights over the next few years. I urge everyone to oppose these plans in the strongest possible form.”

Deborah Cadbury from Chiswick Against the Third Runway, added: “We are shocked & stunned by Heathrow’s plans to fly 25,000 more aircraft a year right over Chiswick by 2022, in addition to plans for a vast increase in flights from a third runway”

Whilst Hammersmith & Fulham Council leader Stephen Cowan noted that: “for our children’s and grandchildren’s sake, we deserve better than a vanity project that will cost billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money and contribute nothing to the UK economy.”

ENDS.

 

For more information:

https://www.no3rdrunwaycoalition.co.uk/

.

.


See also:

 

Richmond Council reaffirms opposition to more Heathrow flights, as plans show there will be no escape from aircraft noise

Richmond Council voted to reaffirm its stance against Heathrow expansion last night, in a motion criticising the airport’s proposal to add an additional 25,000 flights a year, prior to expansion.  Last week the Council condemned Heathrow’s latest consultation which considers several issues, including; 25,000 flights added prior to expansion, noise, runway alternation and night-flying relating to its 2 existing runways, as well as the proposed controversial new 3rd runway. At the full Council meeting, members from all political parties were united in agreeing that the proposals were unacceptable and would prove disastrous for Richmond upon Thames. The impact from the additional flights would be felt across the whole borough, as curving flight paths may impact on areas that haven’t been impacted by aircraft noise before. By contrast, currently most aircraft noise from approaching aircraft is concentrated over the north of the borough including Barnes, Kew and Richmond. A key councillor said this 25,000 is just the tip of the iceberg. An extra runway would mean an additional 260,000 flights a year. That is unacceptable for our health, our sleep and our environment. It will ruin the lives of thousands of people.

Click here to view full story…

Heathrow slammed for ‘by-passing Chiswick’ for one of its consultation events

Local MP Ruth Cadbury has joined Chiswick campaigners against Heathrow expansion who say they are angry at the airport’s failure to hold a local consultation on changes which will significantly affect W4, particularly north Chiswick. The airport’s current round of consultation events (Airspace And Future Operations ) features events in Hammersmith, Ealing and Hounslow Civic Centre, but none in Chiswick.  This is despite the fact that the area faces significant potential disruption by proposed changes to flight paths or changes to respite periods even without a third runway. With a 3rd runway, the area will be intensely overflown by planes arriving to the new north runway, from the east.Campaigners say the level of low flights directly over the North Chiswick area area could reach 47 per hour (almost 1 per minute). It is likely that, with a 3rd runway, an estimated 35,000 residents could be affected. They consider that Heathrow is avoiding holding events in areas where opposition is likely to be strong and forceful, to try and ensure a more positive overall response to the consultation. The Bedford Park Society (BPS) and local group CHATR are planning a public meeting in Chiswick instead.

Click here to view full story…

Wandsworth Council Leader criticises Heathrow Public Consultation event – just one for the borough, in a difficult location

Wandsworth Council Leader, Ravi Govindia, has urged residents concerned about the impact of a 3rd runway at Heathrow, to attend a Heathrow consultation event that the airport is hosting in the borough this week. They need to make their voice heard. He has criticised Heathrow for having just one such event in Wandsworth, at a location that will be difficult for many residents to access. That is even though the increased aircraft noise would affect hundreds of thousands of Wandsworth residents. The event is being held on 30 January and is open to residents from 2pm to 8pm at the University of Roehampton, SW15 5PH.  Councillor Govindia said residents know that a 3rd runway would have a serious impact on the borough. It would produce an unacceptable rise in noise and air pollution, damaging the environment and posing a risk to people’s health and well-being. The Council believes that the impact from additional flights would be felt most keenly in West Hill, Southfields, Earlsfield and Tooting. Currently most aircraft noise from is concentrated over the north of the borough including Putney, Wandsworth and Battersea. Many people will get intense plane noise for the first time.

Click here to view full story…

London Assembly report says Heathrow 3rd runway should be scrapped, due to ‘severe effects’ of aircraft noise

A report, by the London Assembly environment committee, calls for Heathrow expansion to be stopped, due to the effects of aircraft noise. The report has renewed calls for the 3rd runway to be stopped. The noise from aircraft negatively affects work, relaxation and sleep, with “severe effects” on health and wellbeing. Caroline Russell, chairman of the committee, said: “The experiences of residents living with the daily nightmare of overhead noise are deeply worrying. This drive towards filling airspace capacity must be checked. For too many people, including children, aircraft noise is a major dominant intrusion into their everyday lives.”  If Heathrow builds the new runway, the number of flights will increase from around 475,000 to 740,000 a year.  It is likely that around 200,000 more people will be badly affected by aircraft noise. Heathrow also plans to increase its flights by 25,000, to around 500,000 per year and change flight paths, including overflying new areas, even before any 3rd runway. Ms Russell added: “…aviation authorities and operators must prioritise the health and well-being of Londoners and give us a break.”

Click here to view full story…

Richmond Council condemns latest Heathrow consultation – for unacceptable increases in noise and air pollution

Heathrow has a consultation, closing on 4th March, on its future airspace, both for the existing 2 runways and with a possible 3rd runway. Heathrow claim they will take the responses and view of residents etc into account. However, Cllr Gareth Roberts, Leader of Richmond Council, has condemned the latest consultation – claiming 25,000 extra flights would be disastrous for the borough. He, said: “We have always said that Heathrow needs to be better and not bigger. But clearly size is everything to the airport. Heathrow are proposing the biggest changes to its flight path since it opened. People living in Richmond and other areas of West London will find their respite from overhead noise cut under these proposals. Not to mention the additional 25,000 more flights a year – which will no doubt be crammed into the early morning schedules, delivering more misery for our residents. Let’s not forget, these extra flights will still require Planning consent.” He said it was a bad case of the government “putting the cart before the horse” in having got a parliamentary vote in favour of the runway (many votes by MPs who very little indeed about it) before details of flight paths and other impacts were known.

Click here to view full story…

Heathrow opens new consultation on airspace – including 25,000 more annual flights, by using IPA

Heathrow has opened another consultation – this on is on “Airspace & Future Operations”. It ends on 4th March. Not only is Heathrow planning for a 3rd runway, and up to 50% more flights eventually, it is also now trying to get another 25,000 flights (about 5% more). fairly soon. And it wants these extra 25,000 flights whether it gets its 3rd runway, or not. The current flight numbers cap is 480,000 per year, set after the Terminal 5 Inquiry. It is currently using about 475,000 – with the few spaces at unpopular times of the day or week. Heathrow plans to get the extra flights, added at times already very busy, by what it calls IPA – Independent Parallel Approaches, which mean planes can come in on two runways at once, at the same time. Currently if they do this, they have to be staggered, at slightly further distances apart than with IPA. Heathrow admits this will mean different flight paths, and people not currently being overflown, by narrow concentrated flight paths.  Planes on IPA would join the final approach path about 8 nautical miles from the runway. It will be important that the areas to be newly negatively affected are made aware of what is going to hit them. The extra flights would also give Heathrow more income in the short term, to help it pay the immense cost of its 3rd runway plans.

Click here to view full story…

Advice from Teddington TAG on Heathrow consultations on future flight paths

During January to March 2019, Heathrow Airport will be conducting a consultation in 2 parts, which people need to be aware of:  1. Airspace changes for the existing two runways to allow an increase in the number of flights. Heathrow want to increase the annual throughput by 25,000 ATMs.  2. Airspace changes for a 3 runway airport.   Later in the year, there will be a second consultation on Heathrow’s “preferred masterplan for Heathrow expansion.  It is VERY IMPORTANT that people respond to the consultation. One thing that we can be pretty sure of is that there will be more, not less, noise; for some people, this may be very significant.  For both 2 runways and 3 runways, Heathrow will be introducing PBN “Performance Based Navigation”, a form of “Satnav” which enables planes to be positioned in the sky much more precisely. This will bring about the further concentration of flight paths – to the detriment of people underneath them.  TAG is very much against the concentration of flight paths as it represents an unfair and extremely unhealthy burden upon those affected.

Click here to view full story…

.

..

 

Read more »

European aviation report “in numbers” highlights growing noise and carbon problems which will continue

.

European aviation ‘in numbers’ highlights significant environmental challenges ahead

The New Year saw the publication of the second European Aviation Environmental Report (EAER).

The headline message is a familiar one: “the contribution of aviation activities to climate change, noise and air quality impacts is increasing, thereby affecting the health and quality of life of European citizens”.

While there have been technological and operational improvements in recent years, and measures such as the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), their combined effect hasn’t kept pace with strong growth in the demand for air travel.

The report, a joint initiative by EuroControl, the European Environment Agency and the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, assesses the performance of the aviation sector across a number of environmental indicators, comparing data for 2017 with the figures for 2014 (the date of the first EAER) and for 2005 (as a historic comparison).

Many European airports have seen significant growth during this period. In 2017, commercial flights flew a staggering 1,643 billion passenger kilometres, up 20% in just three years (around 7% per year), and 60% since 2005 (around 5% per year).

Despite the introduction of less noisy aircraft, in 2017 more people were exposed to noise than in 2005. Measured across some of Europe’s busiest 47 airports, the number of people inside the 55dB Lden noise contours (a metric that gives an extra weighting to noise during the evening and the night) rose to 2.58 million in 2017.

This is particularly disappointing, since between 2005 and 2014 the number had reduced – from 2.27 million to 2.21 million. One factor in the reversal of this trend is the slowing down of fleet technology improvements. The average noise energy per flight decreased by only 1% between 2014 and 2017 compared to a decrease of 14% between 2005 and 2017 (equivalent to over 1% per year).

Aircraft fuel efficiency improved 8% for commercial flights between 2014 and 2017, maintaining the gains seen in earlier years, and overall, measured between 2005 and 2017, average fuel consumption decreased by 24% (2% per year).

Nevertheless, the increase in flights during this period led to an increase in total emissions. Compared to 2014, gross CO2 emissions in 2017 rose by 10% to 163Mt CO2 and NOx, which has a net climate warming impact when emitted at altitude, increased by 12% to 839,000 tonnes.

This increase contributed to a 3% rise in net European aviation CO2 emissions over the three-year period. (While the EU emissions trading system imposes a cap on emissions from intra-EU flights, air travel to and from Europe from other international destinations is not included in the cap).

Aviation now accounts for 3.6% of the total EU28 greenhouse gas emissions (making the percentage of EU emissions from aviation higher than the global average).

Will things improve in the future?

It may be possible to stabilise noise exposure, the report concludes, but only under an improbable assumption that there will be no increase in population and no airport expansion, with growth permitted only within the constraints of current infrastructure.

Meanwhile the expected 42% growth in the number of flights between 2017 and 2040 is predicted to result in a 21% increase in CO2 emissions.

Alternative aviation fuels are considered likely to remain limited in the short term, and while the report identifies potential for Europe to increase its bio-based aviation fuel production capacity, airline uptake is expected to be small due to various factors, including “the cost relative to conventional aviation fuel and low priority in most national bioenergy policies.”

Meanwhile, while some in the industry had hoped that more direct routing of aircraft would deliver significant CO2 reductions, the introduction of Free Route Airspace has saved only approximately 0.5% of total aviation CO2 emissions between 2014 and 2017.

https://www.aef.org.uk/2019/02/05/european-aviation-in-numbers-highlights-significant-environmental-challenges-ahead/

The full report can be downloaded here.

 


The full report (112 pages) is at 

https://www.easa.europa.eu/eaer/system/files/usr_uploaded/219473_EASA_EAER_2019_WEB_LOW-RES.pdf

.

This includes:

Overview of Aviation Sector

• The number of flights increased by 8% between 2014 and 2017, and grows by 42% from 2017 to 2040 in the most-likely forecast.

• Technological improvements, fleet renewal and increased operational efficiency have been able to partially counterbalance the impact of recent growth, but there has still been an increase in overall noise and emissions since 2014.

• In 2016, aviation was accountable for 3.6% of the total EU28 greenhouse gas emissions and for 13.4% of the emissions from transport.

• In 2011, aviation accounted for 3.2% of the total population exposed to Lden levels above 55 dB from all sources covered by the EU Environmental Noise Directive.

• The number of people exposed to significant noise around 47 major European airports shows potential stabilisation, but under an assumption of no change in population and no airport expansion.

• The number of major airports that handle more than 50,000 annual aircraft movements is expected to increase from 82 in 2017 to 110 in 2040, and therefore aviation noise may well affect new populations.

• The environmental efficiency of aviation continues to improve and, by 2040, further improvements are expected in average fuel burn per passenger kilometre flown (-12%) and noise energy per flight (-24%).

• By 2040, CO2 and NOX emissions are predicted to increase by at least 21% and 16% respectively

.

Aviation Environmental Impacts

• Long-term exposure to aircraft noise is linked with a variety of health impacts, including ischaemic heart disease, sleep disturbance, annoyance and cognitive impairment.

• The annoyance reported by residents from a given level of aircraft noise has been shown to be greater than that caused by other transport sources.

• There are good estimates for most pollutants emitted by aviation related activities that influence air quality and subsequent health effects, although knowledge gaps remain (e.g. on the impact of ultrafine particles).

• A high level of scientific understanding of the long-term climate effect from aviation CO2 emissions make it a clear and important target for mitigation efforts.

• Climate impacts from non-CO2 emissions (e.g. NOX, particles) cannot be ignored as they represent warming effects that are important in the shorter term, but the level of scientific understanding of the magnitude of the effects is medium to very low.

• More States and organisations are taking action to adapt and build resilience to the impacts that climate change will have on the aviation sector (e.g. higher temperatures, rising sea-levels).

 

Market-Based Measures

• Market-based measures are instruments designed to address the climate impact of aviation, beyond what operational and technological measures or sustainable aviation fuels can achieve.

• Between 2013 and 2020, an estimated net saving of 193.4 Mt CO2 (twice Belgium’s annual emissions) will be achieved by aviation via the EU ETS through funding of emissions reduction in other sectors.

• In 2016, an agreement was reached at ICAO to set up the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). As of November 2018, 76 States intend to volunteer to offset their emissions from 2021, representing 76% of the international aviation activity.

• Emissions trading systems (e.g. ETS) and offsetting schemes (e.g. CORSIA) both address aviation emissions but differ in how they function. ETSs generally work towards economy-wide emission reduction targets, while offsetting schemes also compensate for emissions by reductions in other sectors but without the associated cap.

• The environmental effectiveness of offsets depends on robust implementation to ensure that the emission reductions delivered would not have occurred in the absence of the scheme.

.

Air Traffic Management and Operations

• En route horizontal flight efficiency is on track to meet the SES Performance Scheme 2019 target of no more than 2.60% additional distance flown.

• Airport arrival flow and taxi-out operational efficiencies have remained fairly stable over the past years.

• The introduction of Free Route Airspace has saved more than 2.6 million tonnes of CO2 since 2014 (approximately 0.5% of total aviation CO2 emissions).

• Continuous descent operations have potential for reducing both noise and CO2 , especially in the European core area.

• The full potential from operational initiatives is not always achieved due to conflicting air navigation requirements (e.g. safety, environment, economic, capacity)

.

.

CO2 and NOX emissions are continuing to grow

According to the data reported by Members States to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the CO2 emissions of all flights departing from EU28 and EFTA increased from 88 to 171 million tonnes (+95%) between 1990 and 2016 (Figure 1.9). In comparison, CO2 emissions estimated with the IMPACT model reached 163 million tonnes (Mt) in 2017, which is 16% more than 2005 and 10% more than 2014. Over the same period, the average fuel burn per passenger kilometre flown for passenger aircraft, excluding business aviation, went down by 24%. This has reduced at an average rate of 2.8% per annum between 2014 and 2017.

However, this efficiency gain was not sufficient to counterbalance the increase in CO2 emitted due to the growth in the number of flights, aircraft size and flown distance.

Future CO2 emissions under the base traffic forecast and advanced technology scenario are expected to increase by a further 21% to reach 198 Mt in 2040. The annual purchase of allowances by aircraft operators under the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) since 2013 resulted in a reduction of 27 Mt of net CO2 emissions in 2017, which should rise to about 32 Mt by 2020.

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Richmond Council reaffirms opposition to more Heathrow flights, as plans show there will be no escape from aircraft noise

Richmond Council voted to reaffirm its stance against Heathrow expansion last night, in a motion criticising the airport’s proposal to add an additional 25,000 flights a year, prior to expansion.  Last week the Council condemned Heathrow’s latest consultation which considers several issues, including; 25,000 flights added prior to expansion, noise, runway alternation and night-flying relating to its 2 existing runways, as well as the proposed controversial new 3rd runway. At the full Council meeting, members from all political parties were united in agreeing that the proposals were unacceptable and would prove disastrous for Richmond upon Thames. The impact from the additional flights would be felt across the whole borough, as curving flight paths may impact on areas that haven’t been impacted by aircraft noise before. By contrast, currently most aircraft noise from approaching aircraft is concentrated over the north of the borough including Barnes, Kew and Richmond. A key councillor said this 25,000 is just the tip of the iceberg. An extra runway would mean an additional 260,000 flights a year. That is unacceptable for our health, our sleep and our environment. It will ruin the lives of thousands of people.
.

 

Richmond Council reaffirms Heathrow position as new plans show there will be no escape from aircraft noise

23 January 2019  (Richmond Council press release)

Richmond Council voted to reaffirm its stance against Heathrow expansion last night, in a motion criticising the airports proposal to add an additional 25,000 flights a year, prior to expansion.

Last week the Council condemned Heathrow’s latest consultation which considers several issues, including; 25,000 flights added prior to expansion, noise, runway alternation and night-flying relating to its two existing runways, as well as the proposed controversial new third runway.

At the full Council meeting, members from all political parties were united in agreeing that the proposals were unacceptable and would prove disastrous for Richmond upon Thames.

The consultation also includes information about future ‘design envelopes’. This is information regarding where new flight paths needed to accommodate airport expansion could go over London and beyond.

The impact from the additional flights, should the airport be expanded, would be felt across the whole borough, as curving flight paths may impact on areas that haven’t been impacted by aircraft noise before.

Currently most aircraft noise from approaching aircraft is concentrated over the north of the borough including Barnes, Kew and Richmond.

The consultation document is available online at the Heathrow consultation website. The material includes a postcode checker which enables residents to see whether their home is likely to experience noise from arrivals or departures from an expanded airport.

Cllr Martin Elengorn, Richmond Council Cabinet Member for Environment, proposed the motion at the Council meeting on Tuesday 22 January 2019. He said:

“We have been repeatedly calling for information on noise impacts for years. Indeed, MPs should have received the information well in advance of making their decision on expansion.

“But, what is clear is that this 25,000 is just the tip of the iceberg. An extra runway would mean an additional 260,000 flights a year. That is unacceptable for our health, our sleep and our environment. It will ruin the lives of thousands of people.

“I urge residents, go online and do the postcode search of your home. Then have your say.”

https://www.richmond.gov.uk/council/news/press_office/older_news/january_2019/council_reaffirms_heathrow_position_against_aircraft_noise

.


See also

 

London Assembly report says Heathrow 3rd runway should be scrapped, due to ‘severe effects’ of aircraft noise

A report, by the London Assembly environment committee, calls for Heathrow expansion to be stopped, due to the effects of aircraft noise. The report has renewed calls for the 3rd runway to be stopped. The noise from aircraft negatively affects work, relaxation and sleep, with “severe effects” on health and wellbeing. Caroline Russell, chairman of the committee, said: “The experiences of residents living with the daily nightmare of overhead noise are deeply worrying. This drive towards filling airspace capacity must be checked. For too many people, including children, aircraft noise is a major dominant intrusion into their everyday lives.”  If Heathrow builds the new runway, the number of flights will increase from around 475,000 to 740,000 a year.  It is likely that around 200,000 more people will be badly affected by aircraft noise. Heathrow also plans to increase its flights by 25,000, to around 500,000 per year and change flight paths, including overflying new areas, even before any 3rd runway. Ms Russell added: “…aviation authorities and operators must prioritise the health and well-being of Londoners and give us a break.”

Click here to view full story…

Report from London Assembly says due to noise, air traffic should NOT increase at Heathrow or London City airport

The London Assembly’s Environment Committee has produced a report on aircraft noise,particularly now that Heathrow not only wants a 3rd runway, but has also recently announced plans for 25,000 extra flights a year, bringing new areas of London under its flight paths. The noise is increasing the negative impact for those who have no choice but to live with a debilitating noise invasion. The report found that noise nuisance levels are unacceptable; it calls for a halt on all air traffic growth at Heathrow and London City airports. The report details the impact of altitude, flight paths and out-of-hours flights on the noise suffered by many Londoners. Among its recommendations are that the noise thresholds for disturbance should be lowered, to take account of people needing to open their windows. They say: “Air traffic at Heathrow and London City should not increase and Heathrow’s third runway should not go ahead.” It also says that planes should be kept higher, and the impacts of noise from both Heathrow and London City should be considered together, not separately. Night flights should be stoped, and there should be better restrictions on flights in the early morning.

Click here to view full story…

 

.

.

 

Read more »

Driving tired, with under 6 hours of sleep per night, increases vehicle accident risk

In the USA the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that “drowsy driving” is responsible for a lot of vehicle crashes, deaths and injuries.  Evidence from the CDC (Centre for Disease Control) in the USA shows that getting 6 hours of sleep a night or less more than doubles your chances of falling asleep at the wheel.  It seems likely that most accidents to sleepy drivers happen between midnight and 6 am, although late afternoon also has a spike in incidents. Many UK airports are allowed night flights, eg. Gatwick, Stansted, East Midlands etc. This is going to increasingly be a problem for people affected by the noise from Heathrow planes. Already planes taking off, heading away, may be heard routinely till 11pm (often later) on some routes. Each morning planes can be hear arriving from about 4.20am. That does not leave anyone who is sensitive to the noise enough time for healthy sleep. There are many known health risks, of noise disturbance during the times people are sleeping, or trying to. The risk of more vehicle accidents, to those who are woken up an hour or two before they want to wake, is another cost of aircraft noise. The loss of quality of life, and the health costs, need to be part of the calculation of the economics of a 3rd Heathrow runway.
.

 

 

DANGERS OF DROWSY/FATIGUED/ TIRED DRIVING

http://www.buyautoinsurance.com/driving-at-night-dangers/

The feeling may be familiar: you’re driving along late a night on a near-empty road. It’s warm, and you’re feeling comfortable. You’re feeling relaxed when suddenly your eyes start to get heavy and you find yourself losing concentration.

If so, you’re not alone. According to a report by the Center for Disease Control, 1 in 25 adult drivers (18 years or older) report having fallen asleep in the last month.

In fact, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that “drowsy driving was responsible for 72,000crashes, 44,000 injuries, and 800 deaths in 2013.”

THE NUMBERS MAY ACTUALLY BE EVEN HIGHER; SOME REPORTS SUGGEST UP TO 6,000 FATAL CRASHES EACH YEAR MAY BE THE RESULT OF TIRED DRIVERS.

One of the biggest factors causing a rise in drowsy driving is that fact that we sleep less as a society, and the sleep we do get is not of a high enough quality. As the CDC show in the graph above, getting 6 hours of sleep a night or less more than doubles your chances of falling asleep at the wheel.

Snoring is a major correlatory factor, indicating potential sleep apnea, and a general loss of sleep quality. One of the most common recommendations from the CDC and the NHTSA is for drivers who regularly experience drowsiness to get a medical checkup, as there are often underlying medical issues when sleep quality is diminished.

The rise of smartphones and other technology, combined with social media has diminished the quality of sleep throughout the United States. The average circadian rhythm length is around 24 hours, and those who view smartphone light before bed upset their circadian rhythm by exposing themselves to blue light.

Studies are still relatively new in the field, but one hypothesis is that blue light tricks the brain into perceiving daylight and therefore upsetting the release of the chemical melatonin in the brain. This plays a major role in sleep quality.

So being on your smartphone before bed not only keeps you up later but diminishes the quality of your sleep. As a rule of thumb, don’t look at a screen an hour before bed to avoid any major impact on your circadian rhythm.

Although today’s modern world is ever-more demanding of our attention, and the lure of smartphones keeps us up late, drowsy driving isn’t inevitable.

KNOWING HOW TO PREVENT IT, AND HOW TO RESPOND IF YOU DO FEEL DROWSY CAN HELP KEEP YOU AWAKE AND ALERT ON THE ROADS.

WHAT ARE
THE STATISTICS ON
DROWSY DRIVING?

Although drowsy driving can occur at any time and any place, there are certain profiles of a drowsy driving incident. Statistics show that the following three factors usually play a role in drowsy driving crashes, which usually happen:

  • Between midnight and 6 a.m., although late afternoon also has a spike in incidents. The body’s circadian rhythm, which is important in regulating sleep, experiences a series of peaks and troughs throughout the day. In the afternoon and late at night people feel drowsiest. Those on the road at this time are most likely to be drowsy drivers.
  • When there are no passengers. The usual profile of a drowsy driving crash is a single driver (no passenger) driving off the road with no evidence of braking, particularly where the road curves. A lack of passengers means that a driver is less alert, and the drowsiness means that they do not react to curves in the road in the same way as they would otherwise.
  • On rural roads and highways. Rural driving usually involves covering further distances and often doesn’t have the same level of street lighting. Both of these compound the impact of drowsy driving, without offering the opportunity to stop for a break. This makes drowsy driving more likely, and more dangerous.

WHO IS MOST LIKELY TO DRIVE DROWSY?

Studies have consistently shown that driving drowsy regularly affects the same segments of the population. If you fit one of these profiles, then you should examine your driving habits to see if you’re guilty of driving while drowsy.


  • COMMERCIAL DRIVERS

    Those who drive vehicles like tow trucks, tractors trailers and buses have to drive for a living, so a poor night’s sleep, or illness, does not give them the option to work from home. In addition, those who work long hours are more likely to be pushing themselves beyond their limits. In particular, long-distance truck drivers are likely to strive to reach their destination rather than resting.


  • SHIFT WORKERS

    People who work the night or evening shifts often have disrupted sleep patterns, and have upset their circadian rhythm. This makes them far more likely to be driving while drowsy, particularly during the late night/early morning hours.


  • DRIVERS WITH SLEEP APNEA

    An estimated 22 million Americans have sleep apnea, with 80% being undiagnosed. This means that there are around 18 million drivers who are susceptible to sleep apnea without them even realizing it.


  • COMMUTERS

    According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the average American commute time is 26 minutes each way, or nearly 1 hour a day. For those who have longer commutes, often requiring them to get up early and get home late, there is a real danger of drowsy driving.

Read more »

London Assembly report says Heathrow 3rd runway should be scrapped, due to ‘severe effects’ of aircraft noise

A report, by the London Assembly environment committee, calls for Heathrow expansion to be stopped, due to the effects of aircraft noise. The report has renewed calls for the 3rd runway to be stopped. The noise from aircraft negatively affects work, relaxation and sleep, with “severe effects” on health and wellbeing. Caroline Russell, chairman of the committee, said: “The experiences of residents living with the daily nightmare of overhead noise are deeply worrying. This drive towards filling airspace capacity must be checked. For too many people, including children, aircraft noise is a major dominant intrusion into their everyday lives.”  If Heathrow builds the new runway, the number of flights will increase from around 475,000 to 740,000 a year.  It is likely that around 200,000 more people will be badly affected by aircraft noise. Heathrow also plans to increase its flights by 25,000, to around 500,000 per year and change flight paths, including overflying new areas, even before any 3rd runway. Ms Russell added: “…aviation authorities and operators must prioritise the health and well-being of Londoners and give us a break.”

.

Calls to scrap Heathrow third runway due ‘severe effects’ of aircraft noise

By Kate Oglesby Local Democracy Reporter, Greater London Authority
Enfield Independent
25.1.2019
A report calling for the Heathrow expansion to be stopped has said aircraft noise can have “severe effects” on people’s health and wellbeing.

Parliament voted in favour of a third runway at Heathrow in June 2018.

But now a new report by the London Assembly environment committee, which warns of the effects of noise pollution on residents in the capital, has renewed calls for the expansion not to go ahead.

The report warns airport noise can disturb work, relaxation and sleep, with “severe effects” on health and wellbeing.

Caroline Russell, chairman of the environment committee, said: “The experiences of residents living with the daily nightmare of overhead noise are deeply worrying.

“This drive towards filling airspace capacity must be checked. For too many people, including children, aircraft noise is a major dominant intrusion into their everyday lives.”

If Heathrow builds the new runway, the number of flights will increase from around 475,000 to 740,000 a year.

Campaigners say this means around 200,000 more people will be affected by aircraft noise.

Heathrow has also recently published plans to increase its flights to around 500,000 per year and change flight paths, including overflying new areas, even before any third runway.

Ms Russell added: “We have already made clear our objection to the expansion of Heathrow, but aviation authorities and operators must prioritise the health and well-being of Londoners and give us a break.”

The report made other demands, including:

Asking the Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise to regulate noise disturbances from airports more strictly and mapping the combined effect of noise pollution for all of London’s airports.

Calling for flight paths to be rotated to give people respite living under concentrated flight paths a break from airplane noise.

Calling on airports to stop late night and early morning flights.

Groups campaigning against the Heathrow expansion welcomed the report.

Rob Barnstone, the co-ordinator of the No 3rd Runway Coalition, said: “London is set to be severely impacted by plans to expand Heathrow, in an already overcrowded airspace. This means the lives of Londoners, living in some cases many, many miles from Heathrow, are to be blighted by noise from planes.

“The sensible recommendations in this report should be implemented by the aviation authorities at the very earliest opportunity.”

Jackie Clark, the chairman of the Stop Heathrow Expansion group, said the health and wellbeing of people being impacted by Heathrow is “paramount” and called on Heathrow to make sure a ban on night flights is extended to eight hours each night.

.
.

.


See also:

Report from London Assembly says due to noise, air traffic should NOT increase at Heathrow or London City airport

The London Assembly’s Environment Committee has produced a report on aircraft noise, particularly now that Heathrow not only wants a 3rd runway, but has also recently announced plans for 25,000 extra flights a year, bringing new areas of London under its flight paths. The noise is increasing the negative impact for those who have no choice but to live with a debilitating noise invasion. The report found that noise nuisance levels are unacceptable; it calls for a halt on all air traffic growth at Heathrow and London City airports. The report details the impact of altitude, flight paths and out-of-hours flights on the noise suffered by many Londoners. Among its recommendations are that the noise thresholds for disturbance should be lowered, to take account of people needing to open their windows. They say: “Air traffic at Heathrow and London City should not increase and Heathrow’s third runway should not go ahead.” It also says that planes should be kept higher, and the impacts of noise from both Heathrow and London City should be considered together, not separately. Night flights should be stoped, and there should be better restrictions on flights in the early morning.

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Report from London Assembly says due to noise, air traffic should NOT increase at Heathrow or London City airport

The London Assembly’s Environment Committee has produced a report on aircraft noise, particularly now that Heathrow not only wants a 3rd runway, but has also recently announced plans for 25,000 extra flights a year, bringing new areas of London under its flight paths. The noise is increasing the negative impact for those who have no choice but to live with a debilitating noise invasion. The report found that noise nuisance levels are unacceptable; it calls for a halt on all air traffic growth at Heathrow and London City airports. The report details the impact of altitude, flight paths and out-of-hours flights on the noise suffered by many Londoners. Among its recommendations are that the noise thresholds for disturbance should be lowered, to take account of people needing to open their windows. They say: “Air traffic at Heathrow and London City should not increase and Heathrow’s third runway should not go ahead.” It also says that planes should be kept higher, and the impacts of noise from both Heathrow and London City should be considered together, not separately. Night flights should be stoped, and there should be better restrictions on flights in the early morning.

.

Give Londoners a break from aircraft noise

23 January 2019 
(London Assembly – press release

Heathrow has recently announced plans for 25,000 extra flights a year, bringing new areas of London under its flight paths. Meanwhile, London City Airport, in the middle of its own significant expansion, saw record passenger numbers in 2018.

But as the appetite for air travel grows, so does the misery for those who have no choice but to live with a debilitating noise invasion.

A new report, ‘Aircraft Noise’, published today by the London Assembly Environment Committee, says noise nuisance levels are unacceptable and calls for a halt on all air traffic growth at Heathrow and London City airports.

The report builds on evidence given by residents who told the Committee of a dawn chorus of disruption that continued well after their children’s bedtime. The report details the impact of altitude, flight paths and out-of-hours flights on the noise landscape.

Among the recommendations in ‘Aircraft Noise’:

  • The Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise should use lower thresholds for disturbance, allowing residents to leave their windows open when they need to.
  • Air traffic at Heathrow and London City should not increase and Heathrow’s third runway should not go ahead.
  • Air traffic controllers should minimise continuous stacking and maximise descent and ascent to keep aircraft further from the ground for longer. They should also minimise overlap between City and Heathrow flight paths.
  • There should be no night flights, and restrictions on early morning flights should be strengthened. All London airports should provide predictable periods of respite.
Caroline Russell AM, Chair of the Environment Committee, said:

“The experiences of residents living with the daily nightmare of overhead noise are deeply worrying. There are significant health impacts that follow from an inability to sleep, relax and concentrate.

“This drive towards filling airspace capacity must be checked. For too many people, including children, aircraft noise is a major dominant intrusion into their everyday lives. It is not an acceptable price to pay for air travel. It isn’t right and must be challenged.

“We have already made clear our objection to the expansion of Heathrow but aviation authorities and operators must prioritise the health and well-being of Londoners and give us a break.”

Follow us @LondonAssembly and tweet about the report using #AssemblyEnvironment and #AircraftNoise

 

Notes to editors

  1. Read the report (attached).
  2. Caroline Russell AM, Chair of the Environment Committee,
  3. Find out more about the work of the London Assembly Environment Committee.
  4. As well as investigating issues that matter to Londoners, the London Assembly acts as a check and a balance on the Mayor.

https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/assembly/give-londoners-a-break-from-aircraft-noise

The report is at

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/aircraft_noise_final.pdf

.

These are the calls for action in the report:

Calls for action:

• The Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise should regulate noise disturbance more stringently, using lower thresholds for disturbance (taking into account WHO guidelines and the need for residents to keep windows open) and mapping the combined effect of all London’s airports, especially Heathrow and City. The Mayor should support this work.

• Air traffic using Heathrow and City airports should not increase, and the proposed third runway at Heathrow should not go ahead.

• Flight paths should be rotated to give respite for those living under concentrated flight paths. Flight paths should be designed to minimise noise impacts: stacking, low-level overflying, and overlapping flight paths should be minimised.

• There should be no night flights, and limits on early morning flights should be retained, and preferably strengthened.

• The severe levels of noise disruption now being experienced by some of London’s residents are not acceptable, and urgent, decisive action is needed across the board to alleviate it.

.

 

Read more »

Local residents not at all happy about noise plan for Dublin airport

Some residents living under flight paths of Dublin Airport are unhappy that a new plan is not adopting World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines on permitted noise levels for aircraft.  Fingal county council will become the noise regulator for the airport under proposals drawn up by transport minister Shane Ross. Fingal county council submitted a draft 5-year noise action plan for the airport to the Environmental Protection Agency last week. The public made more than 50 submissions in the consultation period, and most queried why new (October 2018) WHO noise guidelines were not adopted. WHO  guidelines say that average noise exposure from aircraft should be limited to 45 decibels during daylight hours and 40 decibels at night. The council’s plan sets no limits for noise and instead focuses on mitigation measures. In the UK the WHO noise guidelines are not followed either – nowhere even approaching them. The number of people exposed to plane noise of 55-60 decibels was over 18,000 in 2016, and that is likely to rise due to more activity at the airport and more housing built near it.  Fingal council said it is awaiting national or EU-led policy guidance on noise levels. Construction of the new 2nd runway, for yet more flights, is due to be completed in early 2021 and commissioning will then take place.
.

 

 

Noise plan for Dublin airport causes turbulence for locals

By Colin Coyle
December 23 2018, (The Sunday Times)

Fingal county council’s plan for aircraft noise ignores the World Health Organisation’s advice

Some Dublin residents living under flight paths are unhappy that a new plan for Dublin airport is not adopting World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines on permitted noise levels for aircraft.

Fingal county council, which will become the noise regulator for the airport under proposals drawn up by transport minister Shane Ross, submitted a draft five-year noise action plan for the airport to the Environmental Protection Agency last week.

The public made more than 50 submissions in the consultation period, and most queried why new WHO guidelines were not adopted.

Last October the WHO recommended that average noise exposure from aircraft should be limited to 45 decibels during daylight hours and 40 at night — the equivalent of a bird call. The council’s plan sets no limits for noise and instead focuses on mitigation measures.

The report says 18,500 people were exposed to noise of 55-60 decibels in 2016, up from 11,500 in 2011, partly because of an increase in the populations of Tyrrelstown, Balgriffin, Portmarnock and Santry. Noise at this level is comparable to a conversation in a restaurant.

“The results indicate that noise from Dublin airport has increased over the last 10 years,” the report says. “While it is the case that there has been an increase in activity between 2011 and 2016, and a corresponding increase in the number of people within the [affected areas], it is important to note a number of developments were constructed and occupied around the airport over this timeframe.”

The report notes an increase in noise complaints in recent years. Dublin Airport Authority said this was “partly due to works taking place on the main runway, which resulted in
the increased use of the crosswind runway at night”.

The authority suggested the number of complaints increased in 2016 after it announced plans for a second runway.

The council said it is awaiting national or EU-led policy guidance on noise levels. “The application of the recommendations has significant implications for the existing and future built environment in Ireland and the EU, not just in Fingal,” it said.

The authority said more than 90% of the aircraft using Dublin airport last year were “of the quietest type” and that it already has “a voluntary house-purchase scheme, which offers a 30% premium on the value of the dwelling as if the new runway was not being built”.

There is also a sound insulation programme for homes and schools “within certain noise contours”.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/noise-plan-for-dublin-airport-causes-turbulence-for-locals-d0m06zgqq

.

.


See earlier:

 

daa Awards North Runway Construction Contract

30 October 2018   (Dublin airport – daa – website)

daa has awarded the main construction contract for Dublin Airport’s new North Runway to a joint venture comprising Irish firm Roadbridge and Spanish infrastructure company FCC Construcción (FCC).

The contract is for the design and construction of the new 3.1km North Runway at Dublin Airport. Mobilisation and preparatory site works will begin immediately, and groundworks will start in January. Construction of the new runway is due to be completed in early 2021 and commissioning will then take place.

The contract includes building 306,000sq m of new runway and taxiways, and 6km of new internal airport roads, as well as installing new drainage and pollution controls, 7.5km of electrical cable, and more than 2,000 new runway and taxiway lights.

North Runway will be built at no cost to the State – as daa is not funded by the taxpayer – and will support the creation of 31,200 new Irish jobs and €2.2 billion in additional economic activity by 2043.

“We are delighted to award this key contract to Roadbridge FCC and to move to the next phase of our plans to deliver the new North Runway,” said daa Chief Executive Dalton Philips.

“North Runway is an essential project for Ireland, as it will position the country for future economic growth for many decades to come,” Mr Philips added. “North Runway isn’t Dublin’s new runway; it is Ireland’s new runway and it will boost the performance of Irish tourism, trade and foreign direct investment in a post-Brexit world.”

Roadbridge Managing Director Conor Gilligan said the Limerick-based company was honoured to be part of the consortium that will build North Runway. “We are thrilled to be involved with such a prestigious and vital national project,” Mr Gilligan added.

FCC Construcción’s UK & Ireland Director Miguel Ángel Mayor said FCC had a strong track record in Ireland and looked forward to working closely with daa to build the new runway. “We have been operating successfully in Ireland for many years and also have significant experience of runway construction both in Europe and South America, having built more than 4.5 million sq m of airport runways,” he added.

About 300 construction jobs will be created onsite during the project, with hundreds more in sub-supply firms offsite. The commissioning phase of the runway project will also create additional employment both onsite and offsite.

To maximise local employment opportunities in the project, Roadbridge FCC will be working closely with Fingal-based development company Empower and daa to fill as many positions as possible from within the local community.

daa is mindful of its local communities and mitigation measures such as a voluntary house purchase scheme, and a sound insulation programme for homes that will be affected are already in place. Dublin Airport is also investing €10 million in a Community Fund that will support a wide range of local initiatives over the next 25 years and has also bought land in the area, where it will create a new public park.

While construction of North Runway is proceeding, daa will separately seek to have the two onerous conditions attached to the project amended. These conditions would limit flights at the airport’s busiest time of the day, which is between 6am and 7am, and also at night. Legislation is currently being drafted for an independent noise regulator at Dublin Airport, and daa will make its case in relation to the conditions via this new process.

The new runway will be located about 1.6km north of Dublin Airport’s current main runway and will be entirely built on land owned by the airport. Developing a new runway at Dublin Airport is a key part of the Government’s National Aviation Policy, as it will allow the airport to develop its hub business and enable airlines to offer connectivity to more destinations.

Dublin Airport’s existing runway system is effectively full at peak times and North Runway is also needed to reduce delays and congestion and to allow for future growth at Ireland’s key international gateway.

Construction started on the North Runway in late December 2016 and the initial package of works supported about 100 construction jobs. Roadbridge also won the contract for this initial phase of North Runway works, which included site clearance, road and services diversions and a series of archaeological and other surveys.

The North Runway enabling works construction package was the first ever Irish project to win a Gold Award at the Considerate Constructors Scheme Awards, which promote best practice within the construction industry.

https://www.dublinairport.com/north-runway/latest-news-downloads/project-updates/detail/daa-awards-north-runway-construction-contract

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Richmond Council condemns latest Heathrow consultation – for unacceptable increases in noise and air pollution

Heathrow has a consultation, closing on 4th March, on its future airspace, both for the existing 2 runways and with a possible 3rd runway. Heathrow claim they will take the responses and view of residents etc into account. However, Cllr Gareth Roberts, Leader of Richmond Council, has condemned the latest consultation – claiming 25,000 extra flights would be disastrous for the borough. He, said: “We have always said that Heathrow needs to be better and not bigger. But clearly size is everything to the airport. Heathrow are proposing the biggest changes to its flight path since it opened. People living in Richmond and other areas of West London will find their respite from overhead noise cut under these proposals. Not to mention the additional 25,000 more flights a year – which will no doubt be crammed into the early morning schedules, delivering more misery for our residents. Let’s not forget, these extra flights will still require Planning consent.” He said it was a bad case of the government “putting the cart before the horse” in having got a parliamentary vote in favour of the runway (many votes by MPs who very little indeed about it) before details of flight paths and other impacts were known.
.

 

 

Richmond Council condemns latest Heathrow consultation

9th January 2019

By Amar Mehta @amarmehta94
Reporter – Richmond & Wandsworth Guardian

The airport is asking for local communities to help shape the airport’s plans for its future airspace, both for the existing runways and as part of the proposed expansion.

The consultation will run until March 4 and focus on three key areas: Airspace change for an expanded Heathrow, airspace change to make better use of the current runways and future operations for an expanded Heathrow.

There will be over 30 consultation events across local boroughs throughout the consultation period, where members of the public will be able to ask questions and provide their feedback.

A full list of dates, times and locations can be found at : http://afo.heathrowconsultation.com The nearest local event is in Twickenham on the 13 February 2019 from 2-8pm in York House.

Emma Gilthorpe, Heathrow’s Executive Director for Expansion, invites local people to participate in the consultation, she said: “Expansion at Heathrow is a unique opportunity to build a long term, sustainable legacy for those closest to the airport as well as for Britain.

“We want to work in partnership with our local communities to ensure we make the most of the opportunity that expansion brings, including the creation of thousands of new jobs and apprenticeships.

“We are committed to delivering expansion responsibly and putting the needs of local communities at the heart of our growth plans. This stage of open and transparent consultation is critical to developing the best outcomes from Heathrow’s future airspace and operations, and we encourage you to take part and help shape our plan for a fairer, future Heathrow.”

However, Cllr Gareth Roberts, Leader of Richmond Council, has condemned the latest consultation – claiming 25,000 extra flights would be disastrous for the borough.

Cllr Roberts, said: “We have always said that Heathrow needs to be better and not bigger. But clearly size is everything to the airport.

“Heathrow are proposing the biggest changes to its flight path since it opened. People living in Richmond and other areas of West London will find their respite from overhead noise cut under these proposals.

“Not to mention the additional 25,000 more flights a year – which will no doubt be crammed into the early morning schedules, delivering more misery for our residents. Let’s not forget, these extra flights will still require Planning consent.

“This kind of expansion would see an unacceptable rise in noise and air pollution, damaging the environment and posing a risk to people’s health – and all at a potential cost to tax payers of billions of pounds.

“It is extremely disappointing that only now we are seeing the proposed areas affected by additional planes, seven months after the Government made its decision to expand the airport.

“Making a decision before understanding the full impact of expansion is putting cart before horse… . again!”

Richmond Council is part of a coalition of councils and others – including the London Boroughs of Hillingdon, Wandsworth, Windsor and Maidenhead, and Hammersmith and Fulham, as well as the Mayor of London and Greenpeace – that are seeking a judicial review of the Government’s decision to give policy support in the Airports National Policy Statement (“NPS”) for a third Heathrow runway.

https://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/17346056.richmond-council-condemns-latest-heathrow-consultation/

.

.

.

 

Read more »

New flight routes (NextGen or PBN) may save airlines time, but they damage health of those suffering the extra noise on the ground

More planes are flying directly over densely populated areas, due to airport computer systems that automatically chart the most “efficient” routes – so airlines can save fuel (= money).  A new study by researchers at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health concludes that the benefits of the reduced flight times are outweighed by the health effects on residents below, who suffer from the noise burden. Looking at the increase in noise pollution around New York City’s LaGuardia Airport since routes were changed when NextGen (concentrated, accurate routes, all planes along approximately the same line) was implemented in 2012, the researchers determined that people living in certain Queens neighbourhoods will lose an average of one year of good health over the course of their lifetimes, due to their heightened risk of cardiovascular disease and other ailments linked to stress. They looked at costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).  “Ideally, airports should be built farther away from urban centres,” says lead author Peter Muennig, a professor of health policy and management. “The next-best option is to use flight patterns that send planes over green space, waterways, and industrial areas.”
.

 

New Flight Routes Save Time but Damage Health

 

More airplanes are flying directly over densely populated areas, thanks to airport computer systems that automatically chart the most efficient routes.

But a new study by researchers at Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health concludes that the benefits of the reduced flight times are outweighed by the health effects on residents below.

Looking at the increase in noise pollution around New York City’s LaGuardia Airport since routes were changed in 2012, the researchers determined that people living in certain Queens neighborhoods will lose an average of one year of good health over the course of their lifetimes, due to their heightened risk of cardiovascular disease and other ailments linked to stress.

“Ideally, airports should be built farther away from urban centers,” says lead author Peter Muennig ’98PH, a professor of health policy and management. “The next-best option is to use flight patterns that send planes over green space, waterways, and industrial areas.”

https://magazine.columbia.edu/article/new-flight-routes-save-time-damage-health

.


Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 201815(8), 1753;

The Trade-Off between Optimizing Flight Patterns and Human Health: A Case Study of Aircraft Noise in Queens, New York, USA

1  Global Research Analytics for Population Health, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, USA
2  Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA
3  Queens Quiet Skies, P.O. Box 604888, Bayside, New York, NY 11360-4888, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 24 May 2018 / Revised: 2 July 2018 / Accepted: 27 July 2018 / Published: 15 August 2018

Abstract

Objectives:Airports in the U.S. have gradually been transitioning to automated flight systems. These systems generate new flight paths over populated areas. While they can improve flight efficiency, the increased noise associated with these novel flight patterns potentially pose serious health threats to the overflown communities.

In this case study, we estimated the monetary benefits relative to health losses associated with one significant change in flight patterns at LaGuardia Airport, year-round use of “TNNIS Climb”, which happened in 2012 as a result of flight automation in New York City.
Prior to that, the use of the TNNIS Climb was limited to the U.S. Open tennis matches.
Methods: We developed a decision-analytic model using Markov health states to compare the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained associated with the limited use of TNNIS (old status quo) and the year-round use of TNNIS (current status quo).
The TNNIS Climb increases airplane noise to above 60 decibels (dB) over some of the most densely populated areas of the city.
We used this increased exposure to noise as the basis for estimating ground-level health using data from sound monitors.
The total costs (including both direct and indirect costs), QALYs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were estimated for the limited versus the year-round use of the TNNIS Climb.
Results: The incremental lifetime costs and QALYs per person exposed to noise associated with the limited versus the year-round use of TNNIS was $11,288, and 1.13, respectively. Therefore, the limited use of TNNIS had an ICER of $10,006/QALY gained relative to the year-round of TNNIS. Our analyses were robust to changes in assumptions and data inputs.
Conclusions: Despite increases in efficiency, flight automation systems without a careful assessment of noise might generate flight paths over densely populated areas and cause serious health conditions for the overflown communities.
.

.


See earlier:

Citizens in major cities across the USA will unite on Saturday 24th for #NoFlyDay – against NextGen

On Saturday 24th October, thousands of citizens in major cities across the USA will be protesting – to mark #NoFlyDay – a national movement to restore peace and quiet to communities where it has been destroyed by the FAA’s NextGen (like PBN in the UK) program. The organisers say the protests will draw attention to the FAA’s brazen disregard of citizens’ health and welfare, being put at risk by NextGen’s program to redesign airspace and modernize air traffic control.  They want Congress to put the program on hold until major modifications are made.  “The FAA is in the process of building an interstate highway in the sky largely under the radar of the American public,” said a #NoFlyDay organiseer. “Their formula is simple: tell as few people as possible, use vague language, and in some cases disregard community outreach and input all together. This is a gross violation of our right to due process under the law.”  In 2012 the FAA led Congress to believe that NextGen would have “no significant noise impacts” and convinced it to pass a bill exempting NextGen from the environmental review process and from public hearings. People are angry at how the FAA has behaved, and want all Americans protected from unacceptable levels of jet noise, and their health impacts.    

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2015/10/citizens-in-major-cities-across-the-usa-will-unite-on-saturday-24th-for-noflyday-against-nextgen/

.

.

Judge in Phoenix, Arizona, orders mediation between FAA and City in flight path dispute

In June, the City of Phoenix, Arizona, sued the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) over flight path changes – part of NextGen – that have led to aircraft noise that has been plaguing parts of the city and historic neighbourhoods. The noise problem started in September 2014 when the FAA implemented the new flight paths. There were suddenly thousands of noise complaints, with anger at the noise and its impacts on health and quality of life, and impact on house prices. The City authorities said the FAA didn’t properly study how the change would impact residents. The City has tried  to resolve the issues with the FAA, but without success. Now a judge has ordered that the FAA and City of Phoenix try and work out an agreement in mediation, which might avoid a lengthy legal battle. Many residents would like to see flight paths reverting to how they were before August 2014, but that may be unlikely. However the mediation is not binding, which means without an agreement, the issue could head back to court.   

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/01/judge-in-phoenix-arizona-orders-mediation-between-faa-and-city-in-flight-path-dispute/

.

.


See earlier:

In USA the FAA’s new air traffic control system NextGen is causing major noise pollution

The American Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)’s new air traffic control system NextGen is causing considerable upset in parts of the USA, in the same way that precision navigation that is being promoted by the CAA is in the UK. The overhaul of airspace and flight paths in the USA is intended to save airlines fuel and time. But the new routes are causing misery to the people who now find themselves, unexpectedly and with no warning, under them. One resident, in Phoenix, said:  “If you can imagine yourself at an air show, that’s what it would sound like.” Planes sometimes every 30 seconds for hours at a time.  “Am I angry? Absolutely. I’m furious.” In Phoenix planes now fly low over heavily populated neighbourhoods.  The Mayor said the FAA did not hold a single public hearing notifying neighbours of the change, nor did the agency ever meet with him. The Mayor commented: “I think that the choice that was made to have such a disproportionate impact over such a small number of people is really fundamentally unfair and unacceptable.”  A 2012 Congressional FAA authorization bill fast-tracked the roll out of NextGen by exempting it from normal environmental impact reviews and public hearings. NextGen is also causing problems for people at JFK and LaGuardia airports.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2015/03/25390/

.

.

.

.

 

Read more »