A new, independent watchdog is needed to mitigate the impact of aircraft noise on the community

On By Pranco

A new independent ombudsman should review changes to flight routes and airspace management that will have significant impacts on the community, a parliamentary inquiry has recommended.

A Senate committee has launched an investigation into the impact and limitation of aircraft noise.

The 229-page report made 21 recommendations, including that the federal government establish an independent Aircraft Noise Ombudsman and strip Airservices Australia of its role in handling noise complaints.

“A replacement service should aim to provide a more effective service to community members and allow Airservices to focus on its core functions,” the report said.

The report highlights that aircraft must meet noise standards to fly in Australia, but there is no regulation or legislation that prescribes maximum noise levels permitted in affected communities or allows any agency to limit these levels. monitor or enforce.

Some of the potential health risks associated with aircraft noise were also mentioned, with one participant describing the experience as “nerve-wracking” and another saying she had been forced to sell her home, which had been in the family for three generations.

What does the regulations say?

The committee noted that the Air Navigation (Aircraft Noise) Regulations 2018 “require that most aircraft operating in Australian airspace comply with the noise standards and recommended practices established under the Convention on International Civil Aviation”.

But in its submission, Airservices Australia said once an aircraft has been certified WAS under the aircraft noise regulations, no law or regulation allows a government agency to monitor noise levels.

Some aircraft are exempt from noise regulations, such as hot air balloons and propeller-driven aircraft used solely for aerobatic, firefighting, agricultural or environmental purposes.

Currently, no agency is responsible for aircraft noise in the community.

The committee said governments, planners, airlines, airports and other stakeholders have a role to play.

“This decentralized regulatory architecture means that attempts to minimize or limit the impact of aircraft noise are very complex to achieve,” the report said.

In its submissions, Airservices Australia said it had no power to determine the times aircraft could operate, the noise levels aircraft could produce or ground aircraft based on noise levels.

“In addition, Airservices stated that it has no role in ‘determining the thresholds used for aircraft noise annoyance’ and that it does not regulate permissible levels of aircraft noise – responsibility for these matters lies with the Commonwealth and State and Territory Governments “, the spokesperson said. report said.

Airservices collected noise data, but acknowledged that this was not done to determine whether aircraft were complying with aircraft noise regulations.

“As there is no Australian regulation specifying a maximum allowable level of aircraft noise within the community, Airservices has stated that there is no objective measure to determine whether an aircraft flying in Australia is making too much noise, or whether the combined load of aircraft is experienced by a community is too much noise,” the report said.

The committee recommended that the federal government conduct research into the impact of aircraft noise on health, sleep and its economic impact.

What is the impact of aircraft noise?

In its report, the committee noted that some people can adapt to aircraft noise over time, but others cannot.

“Regular or long-term exposure to aircraft noise can have harmful effects on people’s health. This includes potential stress and annoyance, cardiovascular consequences, sleep disturbances and possibly also an impact on cognitive function,” the report said.

“Individuals can be affected in different ways. Some groups of people may be at greater risk of adverse health effects from exposure to aircraft noise, including children, the elderly, people with disabilities or medical conditions, and those with pre-existing mental health conditions. “

Fareeha Ibrahim, a resident of Albany Creek, a suburb about 14km from Brisbane Airport, told the committee about the increased stress caused by aircraft noise.

“Trying to concentrate and meet deadlines with constant aircraft noise, at all hours of the day and night, is incredibly stressful. The noise generated and the large numbers of low-flying aircraft I have experienced are unnerving,” she said.

“To experience this level of aircraft noise when I don’t even live near an airport is just extraordinary.

“To describe this noise pollution as a ‘nuisance’… vastly underestimates the impact – this situation is far greater than ‘nuisance’. It is more accurately described as an attack on the mental and physical health and well-being of the residents affected.”

Dr. Hobart resident Amelia Hagger said noise from the nearby airport had forced her to sell her home, which had been in the family for three generations.

“On one occasion in May 2022, I was suddenly woken from a deep sleep by a deafening roar and the room was filled with aircraft lights,” she told the committee.

“We are off the grid, so there is no ambient light. This sudden, high-alert disturbance left me with palpitations and a sense of panic, thinking a plane was going to crash into the cliff.”

What are some solutions?

The committee advised the government to learn from the international approach to tackling aircraft noise.

For example, the UK Civil Aviation Authority has studied a “noise range” that would require airports to operate within agreed noise levels, either for the entire operating period or for specific periods.

“The noise envelope approach would allow airports to balance any growth in flights with improvements in aircraft-generated noise,” the report said.

“Such an approach rewards airports and airlines that upgrade their aircraft and use more efficient flight path designs and operations.”

The committee has recommended that the Department of Infrastructure and Transport establish guidelines for “noise envelopes” at Australian airports and require airports to provide transparent reporting.

The Commonwealth should assess the track record of airports to see if they meet a specific noise level once enough comparable data has been collected.

Should residents near airports receive compensation?

The committee has highlighted the lack of a clear compensation scheme for communities affected by aircraft noise.

The Dutch government had imposed a levy on Amsterdam Airport Schiphol.

The airlines with the nosiest and most polluting planes were expected to pay a levy up to five times higher than planes that were quieter and less polluting.

“By imposing the levy only on the aircraft that generate the most noise, these operators are effectively priced out of the market. This encourages airlines to use quieter and therefore cheaper aircraft models,” the report said.

The committee added in the report that international approaches such as those in the Netherlands could be a model for Australia.

“The introduction of charges for large, loud and older aircraft and subsidies for smaller, quieter aircraft models would provide airlines with an incentive to modernize their fleets and invest in quieter aircraft technology,” the report said.

There have been compensation schemes in Australia, such as the now defunct Commonwealth Noise Insulation Scheme, which started in 2000 and ended in 2013.

The scheme was mainly used for properties near Sydney and Adelaide airports and was used to insulate affected buildings.

It was funded by a levy on passengers and provided up to $60,000 in Sydney and $70,000 in Adelaide for affected residents.

The committee has called on the government to address the issue of compensation for residents affected by aircraft noise as part of their review of the Airports Act 1996.

The government has committed to completing the review by 2030, following the publication of its Aviation White Paper.