My recollection is that local authorities were frustrated by the engagement for the OF trials.
Concerns expressed by local authorities regarding the trial
Communication about the trial design and reporting
10.25 Some local authorities expressed concern to Government and the CAA
about the little notice they had been given to inform or respond to local
residents before the trial – timescales which the CAA accepts were
largely outside HAL’s control. They also expressed a wish to be more
involved in the trial design. HAL made a commitment to local authorities
that if the Minister considered any components of the trial were
creating unacceptable disturbance to residents, then those components
would be discontinued.
10.26 Following Phase 1, it took time for HAL to assess what had been learnt
and to build that into the design of Phase 2 and gain approval from the
CAA and Government. As Phase 2 approached, local authorities were
again raising the same issue about being given insufficient time to engage
properly about the trial, despite the recommendations in the CAA report
regarding more engagement with stakeholders and through the NTKWG.
In some cases local authorities felt that they needed more information
to understand properly how some of the new measures would be
implemented, for example where they interacted with the existing night
flights regime.
10.27 When HAL produced its report on the summer season of Phase 2 in
December 2012, local authorities again complained that they were given
insufficient time to digest and comment on the draft. Local authorities then
expressed frustration that the early-morning arrivals measure proposed for
Phase 2 – which brought the prospect of reducing the number of flights
arriving before 05.00 – was not proceeded with, after it had been trailed
to residents. Local authorities questioned why it had not been established
earlier that airlines were unable to meet the operational requirements.
10.31 Local authorities stressed to the CAA that they understood the
objectives behind the trial and sought wherever possible to explain
these to residents. However, they felt that if changes to established
operating patterns were to be accepted by local residents, they needed
open explanation, preferably in advance. The form of the data made it
more difficult for them to explain to a complainant why there had been
a particularly noisy aircraft a few days previously, and whether the flight
was part of the trial. They suggested that data could have been made
more accessible (such as a weekly narrative or a daily log listing flights
that landed out of alternation and the reason why), and that this would
have improved the understanding and trust of the local community.
10.32 A lack of explanation and transparency was felt to be a source of
frustration for residents and contributing to a climate of distrust. It was
suggested that it was of little comfort for local residents to be told that
the flight that had disrupted their sleep had been nothing to do with
the trial. These views reflect continuing issues around the wider
HAL-community relationship, rather than being specific to the trial itself.
https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33...ms%20Trial.pdf