Government "Bans noisy aircraft" [Archive]

Frank Arouet

1st Apr 2010, 05:29

The Minister for aircraft noise at Sydney is the encumbant Minister for Transport, one Anthony Albanese, who's electorate and private home is adjacent.

If he had his way there would be no aircraft landing at Sydney.

Where does "the mad monk" live that would possibly put him in the frame for airport noise?

Is he in charge of illegal immigrants, spending of the future fund, insulation fraud, medical malfeasance, removing flu shots from the PBS, perpetuating a bloody global warming scam, a suck up to the idiot fringe Greens, and buying stupid Ned Kelly paintings for art galleries in a State that is broke?

You get the Government you deserve Arnold E:mad:

Wunwing

1st Apr 2010, 06:10

The problem with this decision on the Minister's part is that it is in direct conflict with the DOT policy of harmonisation with ICAO regs. All hush kitted
B727s comply with ICAO stage 3 and are therefore stage 3. You can't be a little bit pregnant and you can't be marginally compliant. You either are or aren't in both cases. Australia is either going to be fully ICAO compliant or we aren't. If we aren't then stop all this rubbish like compulsory English testing for Australian born pilot candidates.

As far as Australian B727s, we are talking about one aircraft VH-DHE which is the only current aircraft on the VH register.Theonly other aircraft on the CASA list is VH-TBS which has long passed on to the an apprentice school.I assume any others mentioned specificall out of BNE and CNS are on the RP register and can be dealt with by other means if they are a niose problem.

I notice in one article it mentions that SYD had a total of 396 movements through 2008/09 years. That seems to equate to roughly 4 movements/week. I suspect banning VH-DHE is not going to have much of an effect on the overall night SYD noise patterns.I live under the North rwy pattern and you can tell that its a B727 by the rumble but since its between at least 2 other late departures it certainly won't change my sleeping pattern.

I notice that the Minister's electorate web site makes out he's a real hero for banning the B727. He doesn't point out that its only 4 a week.So the
conclusion that I make is that its all about Ministerial spin.

I'm sure that the 2 or 3 FEs who are about to lose their jobs for no real benefit to the overall Australian community will understand it all and not feel agrieved.

Wunwing

NZFlyingKiwi

1st Apr 2010, 06:19

Presumably JT will no longer be able to bring his 707 to visit? :hmm:

Wunwing

1st Apr 2010, 06:33

Of course he will. Can't miss out on a photo opportunity can we?

From the Minister's web site. "The new regulations also make provision for marginally compliant aircraft to operate in an emergency and, in limited cases, where a flight is in the public interest".

Wunwing

Timber

1st Apr 2010, 07:23

You would wonder how "marginally" is actually defined.

Are they now also going to take away the instrument ratings of pilots who marginally passed their last MECIR as well?

The consequence of the banning of noisy aircraft in this way would be a prelude to total chaos..! There would be no standard to measure (anything) against any more.

Total madness if you ask me....

das Uber Soldat

1st Apr 2010, 07:52

"You are forgetting that Mr Rudd spent tens of thousands of his own money"

Dont you mean of his wifes money? :}

Worrals in the wilds

1st Apr 2010, 07:54

I don't see why daytime flights should be a problem, it reeks of more knee jerk populist crap from Rudd and team. The whole problem with the AAE 727s in YBBN was that they flew in at one in the morning and out at 3am. Surely the occasional daytime 727 or AN124 can be accommodated, it's not like anyone's got a fleet of them.

If he had his way there would be no aircraft landing at Sydney.

Rudd's the same when it comes to Brisbane, although since coming to power RAAF1 has been a very regular sight at all hours of the night.
One rule for some as usual. :rolleyes:

PyroTek

1st Apr 2010, 09:27

The planes mainly transport mail and aid to the Pacific Islands and fly over Brisbane as late as 8.30pm.Since when was 8:30pm late?!

Mr Albanese said the banned aircraft were more than 30 years old.
Obviously he hasn't seen the other 90% of Aircraft in Australia..

Trent 972

1st Apr 2010, 09:54

Brisbane data for November 2009, compliments of Airservices Australia spokesman Matt Wardell (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/travel/travel-news/weather-doubles-airport-noise-complaints-20091216-kwpq.html)
On average in Brisbane, there was about 70 noise complaints a month from about 25 different people, with most complaints from the suburbs of Coorparoo, Camp Hill and Holland Park.
For Nov 09, complaints doubled.
46 people made 164 complaints
...seven Coorparoo residents were responsible for 15 complaints, while five in Camp Hill lodged seven complaints.
In Holland Park, just three people were responsible for 62 complaints last month

Half of the noise complaints were made by 15 people.

Mr Albanese, whose seat of Grayndler abuts Sydney airport…

Mr Rudd, whose seat of Griffith is less than 10km from Brisbane airport…

Wayne Swan, whose electorate is badly affected by aircraft noise from Brisbane airport

There's the real reason.

Starts with P

1st Apr 2010, 10:00

You should see the Sydney complaints. Some people ring up 5 times a day. People in Summer Hill must get pretty bored.

Wunwing

1st Apr 2010, 10:15

I suspect this one is Sydneycentric.

The Minister used the reopening of the E/W runway to announce the ban so its reasonable to assume he's using this ban to deflect critiscism of the E/W runway which was originally going to be closed. The real facts are from the original news report, that B727s into SYD in recent times ie after AAE stopped using B727s, are about 4 /week. To make it worse since a B737 uplifts about 8 pallets and a B727 12 pallets if AAE and /or Toll shift 24 pallets/night ex PER then they now need 3 aircraft rather than 2. Additionally the data shows that a hushkitted B727 has a much reduced noise splay on approach than a B737.But we musn't let facts get in the way of a good political spin can we Mr Albanese?

Wunwing

Worrals in the wilds

1st Apr 2010, 15:31

IRT YBBN, the AAE 727s had been retired by November 2009 and Heavylift keep 9-5 Chaps Hours, so the complaints must have been in relation to other aircraft types. Therefore, this new governmental edict will make no difference to the complaints, unless they want to include 777s and A340s.

Wally Mk2

2nd Apr 2010, 01:48

For many years ages ago I did battle with a neighbor who had 3 noisy dogs barked ALL the time( Red Setters, dumbest dog around!). I did battle with the useless council (they all are!) & the probbaly deaf neaighbour for a loooong time. In the end the council said be prepared to go to court or put up with it or move, the latter was the best choice for me I suggest the same for the 'noise' makers themselves. Airports provide a service just like all other forms of transport. I'd bet not a single complaintee has not stepped inside a plane.Hypocritical they all are pure & simple & the Pollies are the worst in & out of office!
I can't wait 'till they shut down EN so I can sleep at night instead of heading out in the middle of the night to save the sick & dumb & trust me there's plenty of the latter that's for sure!:ugh:

Did they look at making the B727 a twin sometime back with high By-Pass donks fairing out the ctr engine intake??

Wmk2

Led Zep

2nd Apr 2010, 02:04

What about Tay engined 727s?
I also believe the -124 meets stage III limits! :suspect: :ugh::yuk:

Just you wait, those "low slow and noisy" turboprops will be banned next.

RR RB211

2nd Apr 2010, 02:39

And this Albanese muppet wants pilots banned from the jumpseat as well.

Sorry for the slight thread drift.

No I'm not actually - he is a tool.

Wunwing

2nd Apr 2010, 06:14

Led Zep
The Tay engined B727 are fully stage 3 compliant just like all the other conversions however the EEC set their noise limit around the Tay re engined aircraft which had nothing to do with the fact that the Tay is an EEC product so they say.Its my understandng that except for one pax aircraft which Westfield based here for a time all the rest were B727 100s of UPS.

Having said all that I can't understand how an aircraft that meets ICAO stage 3 however marginally, can be banned by a fully ICAO compliant state.There is only one position, you comply or don't. If we aren't fully ICAO compliant then throw out the stupidities like Ausies born pilots trainees having to have an English language test.

If we are going down the road of setting our own noise standards then how about looking at the P&W B 747 200s. They are also marginal. I'm not sure that in their ops that reducing landing flap to F25 puts them much inside the marginal at the best.But they are mainly US based and we wouldn't want to upset them would we? No votesd inupsetting the Yanks!!!

Wunwing

CharlieLimaX-Ray

3rd Apr 2010, 06:34

So the RAAF FA-18's are complient?

What about visting military aircraft for war games in the NT?

What about visting aircraft for Avalon airshow?

3 Holer

3rd Apr 2010, 06:50

Worrals:

All the AAE 727's were decommisioned on the 31st December 2008.:{

CharlieLimaX-Ray

3rd Apr 2010, 06:58

Perhaps we could ban noisy politicans instead?

Love the noise made by a B727, DC-9, F-28, B707 or B747-200.

Rudder

3rd Apr 2010, 09:07

This same rule has applied in Europe for quite some time.

You need be chapter three "and" have a bypass ratio of (i believe) 8 or more. Unfortunately the Fedex kit which DHE has doesn't cut it.

The kit was designed to beat the test and not quiten the aircraft down. It redirects the noise to beat the side sensors and the weights are limited depending on Engine version to cover the takeoff. Flaps are limted for landing as well.

As an old 727 man myself, I must admit that it will be a sad day when the last 727 graces our skies.

Wunwing

3rd Apr 2010, 10:27

Rudder
DOT/CASA has recently inflicted a number of useless rules on us here in Australia in the name of ICAO harmonisation.Despite how it was done, the B727 with Fedex kits meets ICAO stage 3.Either we are fully "harmonised " or we aren't.If we accept this then its time to throw out all the ICAO rubbish that we don't need, among other things English tests for Austalian born pilot candidates.

On top of that, no-one has yet explained what we replace a B727 with. A B737 only uplifts 8 pallets while a B727 uplifts 12.So say ex PER you need 3 B737 s for a replacement of 2 B727s. A B757 is way too expensive a replacement given the poor utilisation expected in a typical Austrlain freight operation.I'm not convinced as someone who lives under the SYD flightpath that I'd rather have 3 movements over 2, even if the B737 is marginally quieter.

Wunwing

Wunwing

Rudder

3rd Apr 2010, 10:53

Wunwing,

The same argument was run when they went from Chapter 2 to Chapter 3.

It didn't win then and it wont win now. I'm just surprised that it has taken them this long to catch up so that was a blessing.

No Argurment with your points on a replacement. Nothing comes close for the dollar.

Cactusjack

4th Apr 2010, 04:39

Its a crying shame I say. There was nothing as fun as watching 727 freighters depart BNE in the wee hours and fly over Hamilton if the right weather conditions prevailed. The sound of those hush kitted engines crackling through the low cloud base and waking all the snobs on millionaires row was always a pleasure.
:(

A37575

4th Apr 2010, 05:31

Back around 1969 the ferals under the flight path of Sydney 07 ILS bitched about the F27's and other types. They got the ear of a local Labor politician who leaned upon DCA to fix the problem. My boss in DCA at the time was Lloyd Milne (former RAAF Hudson pilot who opted for a quiet desk job after the war)

Somone in DCA came up with the bright idea of raising the glide path angle from the then standard 2.5 degrees to 3 .0 degrees which gave a slightly increased height over the outer-marker from which suburb most of the complaints came from. If I recall the noise foot-print difference was almost immeasurable to the three degree ILS slope but DCA could say tongue-in cheek, cross my heart and hope to die to the then Minister for Air (or whatever he was known as in those days) that the noise problem was solved.

Of course it wasn't but that didn't matter because the State government had taken some action (useless) to reduce noise. Of course the question then arose of standardisation of all ILS around the country from 2.5 degrees to the new 3 degrees. That cost big money as the DCA flying unit had to re-calibrate all the ILS and that was done by their DC3 and Friendship plus all the travel time. Then of course what about the T-VASIS? Well they all had to be jacked up to 3 degrees for Australia-wide standardisation, didn't they?

There were lots more T-VASIS around Australia then ILS and that meant months of flying over Australia in the DCA DC3 and Friendships.

And it all started because of a few vocal bogans in a couple of suburbs at Sydney under the 07 ILS. ..the cost of those minor changes to ILS and VASIS glide slope angles around Australia was considerable. The news of Australia's upping glide paths got to ICAO who decreed it was a Really Good Idea. And that is why today the three degree glide path is the ICAO recommended standard. Here endeth the Lesson.

Worrals in the wilds

4th Apr 2010, 08:48

Its a crying shame I say. There was nothing as fun as watching 727 freighters depart BNE in the wee hours and fly over Hamilton if the right weather conditions prevailed.

I heard that the complaints weren't so much from the snobs at Hamilton (they've all got double glazing anyway), but the cashed up bogans at Balmoral, Murarrie and Hawthorne re departures off RWY 19. The 727s rarely used it at night due noise abatement favouring RWY01 but whenever they did, the switchboards lit up and angry mobs turned up at the airport with pitchforks and burning effigies. Hamilton and Ascot get much less noise from the current airport layout than they did from the pre 1988 Eagle Farm runway orientation (in the good old days when there were lots of 727s :sad:).

By a totally meaningless co-incidence, the Ruddster's electorate contains the suburbs of... Balmoral, Murarrie and Hawthorne. I'm sure if the late night wind is unfavourable for 01 he always volunteers to keep Fed Force 1 on the ground, rather than depart 19 and disturb all his devoted constituents. :}

P.S. Thanks 3 Holer, I couldn't remember the actual date. They were lovely aircraft.

Old 'Un

4th Apr 2010, 21:11

Why doesn't the Minister for (against?) Aviation or whatever title he goes by just go out to the airport and give each of these noisey aircraft a stern talking to and warn them that if they don't quieten down, they will be arrested.

Or maybe he should go out to the complainants and do the same instead.

BTW, which was there first: the complainants or the airport?

Na. Too simple...

Le Vieux

chimbu warrior

4th Apr 2010, 21:55

I'm sure if the late night wind is unfavourable for 01 he always volunteers to keep Fed Force 1 on the ground, rather than depart 19 and disturb all his devoted constituents.

Of course, he's always got the ute to run around the country in. :bored:

Wunwing

4th Apr 2010, 22:08

Old un
Unfortunately for the argument in SYD case,the houses were there before the airport/runways.Many an interesting day spent at an Uncle's at Sydenham watching the F27s and Viscounts just over the roof in the 50s and the house was ancient then.The problem is that SYD was orginally an all direction grass strip.Many years later adding a 3rd rwy which impacted on established housing didn't help either.

Rudder
The problem with your point is that when we moved to stage 3 that is and was the latest standard. By inventing our own standard which now appears to be what the Minister and his electorate thinks is a good thing at the time, is the problem.Many will remember the Sydney Airport Noise Act during RHs Prime Ministership where specific types of aircraft where authorised to operate into and out of SYD after curfew. The problem is with that Act is that it allowed specific types of aircraft operated by a large domestic operator of the time but banned quieter aircraft like the L188.Again it was not related to the facts.

That the Minister is playing politics to impress his electorate is indicated by the fact that there is no spelt out standard for the latest decision, just aircraft types which can be varied when it suits the Minister (according to his electorate web -site).Just what is the DB level and footprint for a marginal type of aircraft?

Wunwing

Cactusjack

5th Apr 2010, 03:06

Wunwing,
A very nice reminder of the good days - F27`s, Viscounts, 727's and not forgetting the other 'ear buster' the DC9.Several great decades of varying new aircraft type that were often ahead of their time.
As for airport noise,well that is always going to be one hot potato for many years to come,but you are right about one thing - pollies have played the game of politics with air traffic and noise for a long long time, and it won't change in a hurry.

Worals,

I heard that the complaints weren't so much from the snobs at Hamilton (they've all got double glazing anyway), but the cashed up bogans at Balmoral, Murarrie and Hawthorne re departures off RWY 19. The 727s rarely used it at night due noise abatement favouring RWY01 but whenever they did, the switchboards lit up and angry mobs turned up at the airport with pitchforks and burning effigies. Hamilton and Ascot get much less noise from the current airport layout than they did from the pre 1988 Eagle Farm runway orientation (in the good old days when there were lots of 727s http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/puppy_dog_eyes.gif).

You are correct indeed. Kangaroo Point and Nudgee are also high on the whinging scale when it comes to noise, but don't forget the retiree's living around OOL who used to moan about the one 146 freighter that used to lob in around 0100 on a Saturday morning dropping off newspapers.Some Saturday's there would almost be an insurrection down at OOl !!

Rudder

5th Apr 2010, 05:00

Wunwing,

No, we didn't create our own standard, this new criteria has been in Europe for quite some time. This likely development was signalled here in Australia at least 5 years ago. AAe got on with it and retired their aircraft. That in of itself spelt the deathnell of the DHL aircraft. This decision just doesn't affect enough companies and/or have a large financial consequence. It politically looks tough but in of itself is actually a soft decision. Just what polies like.

The reality is that DHL ceased operating these same aircraft and replaced then for the same reason in Europe so they are going to have hard case argueing against the decision.

BTW, chapter 4 standards have also already been set for some time.

Wunwing

5th Apr 2010, 06:37

Rudder
If Ch4 is in place in Australia how come we also haven't banned P&W B747 200s.They are also "marginal".The ones I operated became Stage 3 miraculously be moving a sliding placard over the FEs panel to Stage 3 and only landing using Flaps 25. I suspect that also makes them "marginally" compliant but no mention of them in the Minister's release.Again I ask what is marginally compliant in DBs and splay and all the normal standards that we use to determine any niose levels?

Wunwing

Rudder

5th Apr 2010, 07:16

Simple Wunwing,

I didn't say aircraft had to be chapter 4.

These are all just standards.

Chapter 2 is still a standard but not permitted except in some parts of Africa I would suggest.

Chapter 3 is a standard and is still permitted. Europe and now Australia has just added an additional proviso that it will now require chapter 3 and I would think a bypass of 8 or above on the engines. This just doesn't apply to aircraft that have high bypass engines. Where has any reference to the PW engines come from and who says they will or wont be banned. Certianly not me. My only reference has been to the Fedex Hushkits that are as noisy as all hell. Personally having about 4000 hrs on them, I love the sound but can understand why they are being moved against in this day and age.

Chapter 4 is just another standard that some aircraft already meet.

Wunwing

5th Apr 2010, 09:59

From what I can see the CURRENT ICAO standard is as of today Ch3, which long ago superseded Ch 2.If we have gone as far in the ICAO harmonisation process as enforcing language tests on native born Australians in the name of ICAO harmonisation on what grounds does the Minister come up with his own noise standards? What now defines noisy, the waiter's opinion in the Norton Street Forum? How could any business consider bringing in an older aircraft and not have in front of them what the standard is? If this is such a great idea why is the Minister still allowed to let in non Ministerial compliant aircraft "in the public interst"?

I suppose that after all this we can call the new "standard" the Stage Albanese, since he's the only one that actually knows what it is.I say again you can't be a marginally pregnant and you can't be marginally compliant.

Wunwing

Rudder

5th Apr 2010, 10:53

Wunwing,

We can make circular arguments all day. There are 4 ICAO standards and Europe and now Australia are in effect saying you need to be Chapter 3 compliant and whatever the bypass ratio is they want to apply. No country has to adopt ICAO standards and only ICAO standards for anything. Australia for instance publishes its differences from ICAO.

The rights or wrongs of this is what you are arguing.

This is the end of it for me. No use going round in circles. This would seem to affect only one aircraft at the moment and it is doomed for the reasons I put in a previous post. Logic along your lines has nothing to do with it.

Cactusjack

7th Apr 2010, 06:38

I know this is slightly deviating from the noise issue of this thread, but what about the ol Antanov An-12 that used to carry seafood out of Bris to Honiara ?? She wasn't noisy, but sure did leave a beautiful smoke contrail in the sky after departure. I remember a few times travelling to the airport for work and not even seeing the plane, but its 4 lines of brown vapour streaking across the sky gave it away that she was airborne !!!
Perhaps Ruddy got sick of the particles of grime landing on his place at Gordon Park ??

Worrals in the wilds

7th Apr 2010, 13:06

Cactusjack,
All the tuna got fished out and they went broke. Every time it departed there used to be a series of calls to Airservices, BAC, QPol and the like from concerned citizens about 'the plane on fire over my house!' The standard response used to be, is it grey with four engines? Don't worry about it:eek:. The last AN-12 (there was a series of them) sat derelict at YBBN for a year or so gathering dust until BAC got the S:mad:ts and evicted it, complete with flat tyres and resident mouse population.

The PAE stories are many, varied and defamatory :}

Cactusjack

8th Apr 2010, 02:19

Worrals

The PAE stories are many, varied and defamatory http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif

Agreed. I won't go down that path either.
I do recall however seeing the underfloor of one of their 727's during a c-check. Amazing the damage that a product like seafood can cause.I will leave it at that.
I also had an interesting 'personal experience' one evening in relation to that particular aircraft and all I will say is that it involved an angry Yugoslav tech crew,Smirnov and some unusual stains on the black and white spotted sheepskin seat covers !! Good ol days indeed.

The last AN-12 (there was a series of them) sat derelict at YBBN for a year or so gathering dust until BAC got the Shttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gifts and evicted it, complete with flat tyres and resident mouse population.

I remeber BAC were sick of the fee's not being paid,you know how airports get when they are owed money !
I took a look at the old bucket as it sat on the tarmac one summer's day, the Antonov was sitting on it's lonesome,around 37 degrees,and there were two green frogs sitting on top of one of those flat tyres, in the middle of nowhere, very strange.
Another reliable source informed me that on occasion you could see rats scurrying back and forth to the aircraft as she sat,day and night ! Maybe the mice you mentioned grew ?

I have heard that around 10 of the An-12's are still in existence around the world today as freighters,owned by the same company and still flown by the Yugoslav's. Maybe someone can update me ? Some great memories !

Worrals in the wilds

8th Apr 2010, 12:30

I remeber BAC were sick of the fee's not being paid,you know how airports get when they are owed money !

Someone (not me of course :E) suggested that dragging it onto Airport Drive and sticking a 4 SALE $5000 ONO sign in the cockpit window was probably the best way to get any money...

There was a story kicking around that one day it had parked at the ITB next to a kiwi pax flight and all the boarding kiwi pax were treated to a stunning view when the Antonov's (rather tubby and very hairy) PIC climbed out of his aircraft wearing nothing but jocks and soap on a rope, strolled over to the bay's emergency shower and started lathering up. Apparently the aerobridge glass was a sea of shocked faces:ooh:.

I don't know where it went in the end, someone came and flew it away after a lot of maintenance work. Nobody thought it would make it over the fence, but they must have chased the rats out and found some new wheels. It had feral pigeons, too, and was pretty filthy when it was still flying, so I'd hate to think what it smelled like when the engineers got to it :eek:. I thought there were still quite a few AN12s in Eastern Europe.

max1

9th Apr 2010, 08:58

Tanya Plibersek in Sydney seems to be getting off easy.

In regards to Brisbane, I live close to the Brisbane River, the aircraft turn for base , when on 01, is supposed to be around Brekky Creek. The prevailing breeze is usually a N/NE which means they will be pushed to the southern side of the River, Bulimba, Hawthorne,etc (over my place). Folklore has it that the designer of the Approach lived in Hamilton (Northern side) and made the turn a bit closer to push them away from his area.

Of course Albanese has made some grandstanding announcement to make his electorate feel better, it is an election year. Most people in his electorate wouldn't know that it won't make a skerrig of difference, no offence to them.

RWD5

10th Apr 2010, 10:27

"...A very nice reminder of the good days - F27`s, Viscounts, 727's and not forgetting the other 'ear buster' the DC9..."

those aint got nothing on the russians in terms of 'ear busting'. (or smoke!)

Belavia Tu154:
YouTube - Tupolev 154 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFT0YO2CdM0)

did someone say smoke?:
YouTube - Start MIG-29 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTNXTkb1Hx0&feature=related)