Airport Noise Complainers

[Ozgrade3]

After reading the other noise complaint thread I have been looking on the internet for data about noise complaints from airports. It seems that every single airport in the world, big and small alike has problems with people complaining about aircraft noise. So I started searching for research about why people have such an aversion to "aircraft". Yet there is nothing I can find.

However I have a theory and would be interested to hear peoples opinion.

Some people simply don't like aircraft, or the idea that aircraft, regardless of size or noise level, or altitude. That leads them to thinking they are hearing noise. Some seem to think their property extends to the heavens.

Do people perceive noise of different frequencies differently. Where I currently live, my house backs on to the busiest railway corridor in Australia. The back fence is laterally 5m from the track. 20 regional trains a day and about 25 heavy freight trains, 3 loco 4000 ton jobs, 24/7, many right through the night.. They are loud and make the ground and air vibrate. Yet, we don't really take much notice of them. They become white noise. They most certainly don't wake anyone up. Just part of the environment. Same as when I lived on the departure path off 25 near YSSY. Kinda miss that familiar noise, had it all through my childhood.

I guess some people just don't like the idea of aircraft, so they don't like the noise, the funniest noise complaint I have heard was of a....glider. I kid you not.

Thoughts anyone?

[Ixixly]

Ozgrade3, a lot of train tracks and highways I've seen have been surrounded by partitions of some kind to block the noise that comes from them.

I would suggest that in circumstances where peoples houses back onto some kind of noisy piece of infrastructure like a Highway or Railway the noise is much more easily blocked than that of noise from Aircraft. They complain in those situations and something is relatively easily done by the people responsible and the complaints stop.

It could also be something to do with the pitch of the noises, Trucks, Trains and the likes having much lower pitches whilst Aircraft are most often of a higher pitch which may increase their irritability.

[pppdrive]

I believe that the noise complaints are because people can moan about it knowing nothing too much can be done to reduce it (regardless of exactly what noise is actually made), so they gain the 'importance' of being a complainer.

I used to work in a one man operated, very small country airport in Australia (1990-1996). We had a total of 3 flights a day on Shorts 330 and 360 aircraft and I regularly received telephone complaints from the local residents. My response was always the same question...."When did you purchase the your home?" The answer was always within 5 to 8 years ago. My reply was a simple..."the airport has been here since the early 60s, goodbye" and I'd hang up on them.

In my opinion, the crux of the matter is people building/buying properties near to any airport and then complain that the area is too noisy. Sorry, but I have no time for people like that.

[Capetonian]

I particularly dislike unnecessary man-made noise, such as slamming doors, blaring thumping over-bassed crap music blasted from oversized speakers in undersized cars driven by yobs with negative IQ levels, and people bellowing at each other when they come out of night clubs deafened and drunk.

I have chosen to live as far away as possible from the noises of cities, and when I stay in hotels, my priorities are clean quiet, safe, comfortable, in that order. That choice costs me money, time, and in some cases, a social life, but I'm happy with it.

People who live near airports generally had a choice about that, and knew that there was an airport nearby, and they therefore lose the right to complain about aircraft noise, although where I would feel sorry for them would be if, for example, a 2300-0600 curfew was lifted or reduced.

I once lived in a very noisy household (Spanish) near D F Malan (CPT/FACT) and they were so noisy that their decibels drowned out even the noisiest of SAA's old 747-200s on departure when they went over us at about 600 feet. Why would I complain? It's a bit like a vegetarian going to a steak house and complaining that they sell 'dead animals'.

[CHAIRMAN]

Does a local council have the right to enforce, and threaten to fine people that contravene an ERSA entry inserted by said council (aerodrome owner and operator) that reads 'residential areas are to be avoided at all times'?
Can they interpret their entry in ERSA to include all built up areas in the city, or just the circuit area?
I thought as long as 1000ft over built up areas was maintained, council has no jurisdiction other than banning said aircraft from using their runway.
Comments from those that know the rules better than me much appreciated.

[redsnail]

Just make sure those who complain about the noise register that complaint. So when they go to sell their house.... :E

[triton140]

As a kid, I lived under the approach to 26 at Essendon - lots of noise back then!

But it never bothered us - when we had visitors they would always ask how we put up with the noise - our answer "What noise?". As Ozgrade said, it became white noise, something in the background we never really noticed.

Same with friends of ours under approach to 16 at YMML - they don't notice the noise (such as it is).

I reckon pppdrive has got it right - complaining makes them feel important, look at the pic of the guy in the other noise thread. That, and obsessiveness - while most people can just ignore it so effectively it goes away, for some it becomes an obsession and it eats away at them. They deal with it by becoming a crusader and writing letters, organising committees, talking to the press, running blogs, etc - suddenly they become in their own minds someone really important.

Dunno what you do - but lots of golf courses around your local airfield is a good start!

[Dexta]

My theory is that most of it is irrational fear. It is similar to sharks, more people die from drowning but the time and expense spent on shark patrols, killing sharks etc because of the fear of "terror from the deep". I suspect people fear, and therefor complain, about airports and aircraft because they may "fall from the sky and kill them". The day after the Navajo down at Aldinga, SA, people are on the TV saying the airport/aircraft need more regulation because "they can just fall out the sky'.

[Jabawocky]

Hey CHAIRfella, what is needed is a lovely old B707, earlier engines even better, doing circuits, at night!

They will stop complaining then, either through comparitive noise reduction, or deafness. :}

It certainly is not them tigers that fly from there. One of which flies right over my house at about 1000AGL, some many miles from the airport. :ok:

[alphacentauri]

There is some anecdotal evidence coming out of the US, and supported by complaint data that I have seen in Aus, that suggests it is more about visibility than noise.

The rates of noise complaints seem to drop on days when aircraft cannot be seen (ie low cloud cover, fog, smog etc). For example, in the Sutherland area the aircraft are usually about 6000ft. On bright sunny days, there are the normal noise complaints. On cloudy days (ie aircraft in or above cloud) the noise complaints drop.

Yes I know there is one argument that suggests the cloud cover may be acting as an insulator to noise. I cannot argue with this, it sounds logical. But there are currently organisations looking into what the actual source of the complaint is.

Just some food for thought, I offer the following scenario. A few years back John Travolta took his B707 to Melbourne. The outcome of his first approach onto RW16 is well known and was covered on this forum. When he did the go around, most of the noise measuring equipment in west melbourne registered readings of over 100db. The aircraft was in cloud, anyone want to guess at how many noise complaints were made?

My 2 cents worth

Alpha

[BNEA320]

it gives them a sense of importance, eg.

I wouldn't put up with this cos I'm important.

[underfire]

There are also many more ways to watch and complain these days. Look at sites such as WebTrak, where complainers can watch tracks, watch decibels, and with a click of a mouse, complain.

People in the US have learned they can be very effective in stopping any sort of development or increase at an airport. At Paine field in WA, they complained about an additional 2 flights per WEEK and were successful.

[RatsoreA]

people are on the TV saying the airport/aircraft need more regulation because "they can just fall out the sky'.

So regulations keep aircraft in the air?! Here I was thinking it had something to do with airflow over the wings! :}

Seriously though, the ignorance of the general populace is staggering...

[truthinbeer]

I don't live by an airport. I live in Freshwater, Sydney and now under the sightseeing circuit for a number of R44 helicopters. Residents up this way starting to comment about the thumpthumpthump noise these a/c making as they perform the turn back toward the city over this suburb. Never flown a chopper so don't know why these 44s should be louder than your typical turbine machine.

Edit; Yes Rats, thank God for those regulations. Mrs tib would have something to say if one dropped into the pool.

[4Greens]

Tullamarine built some moons ago for 24 hour ops. Housing estates near flight paths - complaints re noise.

[rutan around]

A possible quick solution to deter the little charmers that register multiple complaints--Make it a requirement that all complaints must be a signed hard copy accompanied by a stamped self addressed envelope. At the soon to be $1.40 for two stamps we'd soon see if old mate mentioned on another thread would be so keen on posting 4,000 plus complaints. It'd be cheaper for him to move and everyone would be happy. Cheers RA

[zanthrus]

F*ck em I say.

They got cheap housing because of the airport nearby.

Get what you pay for..suck it up buttercup!

Next time you want to go somwhere on holidays take a bus, train or a slow boat.

[SgtBundy]

No, I think once you have complained 5 times and no issues found there needs to be a legal notice attached to any property sales indicating the property is subject to aircraft noise (like an easement, but for noise). It would also act as a notice for future owners that the noise is known and that future complaints can only be raised with data from the EPA to confirm the problem.

Good luck with your property values in future after that.

[neville_nobody]

Unfortunately these days noise complaints are basically driven by greed. People want to buy a cheap house, then if they can get the airport shut down they will double their property value. This is especially true in places like Kurnell and Sydenham in Sydney. The airport has been there since 1920's but people think they have some right to move the airport. Same now in Canberra after the geniuses in Macquarie St approved a large land development at the end of the runway.

The noise argument is getting outdated by the advance in engines. The fact that politicians aren't doing anything is because they are all too scared to lose votes.

What I want to know is why a G-IV is exempt from the Sydney Curfew yet a 717 isn't when they both have the same engine?

[Anthill]

Some years ago I lived in Bundeena to the South of Sydney. When they changed the flight paths around Sydney, some rabble-rousers letter boxed the neighbourhood asking people to call the airport noise hotline (number supplied)and complain. This was in spite of the fact that the new DEP/ARR routes took aircraft away from the suburb! Their notice also contained a statement that when something like: "Even if the aircraft is not flying overhead, call and complain anyway. It's the only way that we will get the airport closed for good". This led me to think that it wasn't locals, but probably some activist group from the inner-city.The same people probably complain about 'chemtrails' and immunisation.

[Wally Mk2]

Always an amusing topic this noise issue, ever notice that every post is from aviation enthusiasts (be interesting to know how many 'noisy' people have PPrune Acc's) saying the std reply mostly, the drome was there first, I mean it's almost pointless, we pat each other on the back almost, I'm no different.
I grew up under the Flt path of EN the major drome many years ago (bloody noisy no quiet generation noise abatement back then) & I am not aware of any complaints from my neighbors around me & that's 'cause life back then was far more simple, we all got along well we respected the law & behaved accordingly, now Christ it's all 'about me' & we have lost control of our now pressure cooker society, it's a war zone out there!
Noise complaints are everyone's right, aviation is only a small area as I believe barking dogs are the most complained about as far as councils are concerned. We are all entitled to a level of peace & to keep the amenity of our properties, trouble is we now live in a pressure cooker society where tolerance is almost zero in all walks of life.
A bitching society keeps a LOT of people in employment!


Wmk2

[SgtBundy]

Yes, there are genuine complaints because there has been a change in noise levels and it may be genuinely disturbing to your life. On the other side are the muppets like that Kellyville idiot who complain for some sort of mental masturbation or people who move next to a 100 year old brewery and are surprised that trucks perform deliveries to it.

I live two suburbs over from Kellyville and while you can hear aircraft flying over, you would generally only notice them if everything else was dead silent or you specifically listened out for it. There is no way it is disturbing and certainly not when inside a house. The only time I have had real noise was C-17s doing some circuits over the house and that has only ever been at mid afternoon (and I was running outside to snap photos anyway).

The zero tolerance thing is right though - how many current problems in society would are caused because people just won't let things that don't matter slide.

[sprocket check]

Council has no jurisdiction of anything 1 metre or more above ground not supported by anything other than air.

That is ASA and CASA territory.

Without a Commonwealth legislation protecting airfields they can all be shut down if complainants get smart, rather than just emotional. It just depends on how much they want to throw at it and how the courts determine which law is more to the societies benefit than the other...

just my 2c

[Old Akro]

they can all be shut down if complainants get smart

Not so much.

Firstly, nearly all airports are protected by "pre-existing use" rights. Secondly, councils (despite what they pretend to have) actually have little power. Its with the State Governments.

And private individuals have the same right to "garage" an aircraft on their land as a car. This is untested here (because it hasn't needed to be tested) but the same legal precedent that allows you to park a car on your home protects your right to park an aircraft on your land.

The greatest threat is weak airport owners and property values.

[YPJT]

How about this for a noise restricted operating environment. Airport management and the shire are being held to ransom by a very small but noisy band of serial complainers.
The airport was built by funding from the WA govt, that is, our taxes and you have to operate in whisper quiet mode.:ugh:

Busselton

LOCAL TRAFFIC REGULATIONS
1. Large ACFT ABV F50 use turning nodes at RWY ends, MNM speed, MAX radius.
2. Flight training not AVBL (including LDG, TKOF, TGL). Contact AD Manager for further
information.
3. STD OPR HR ACFT:
3.1 EMERG Services unrestricted.
3.2 Single ENG ACFT BLW 2000KG not exceeding 65dB(A) unrestricted.
3.3 General Aviation 0700-1900 local subject to not exceeding 85dB(A).
3.4 Open and closed CHTR ACFT 0600-2100 local subject to not exceeding 85dB(A) - APV
RQ.
3.5 RPT 0600-2300 local subject to not exceeding 85dB(A) - APV RQ.
3.6 Flight training RQ APV all ACFT.
4. TKOF and landing on grass strip not permitted.

[Centaurus]

Re noise complaints. I was in Head Office DCA Melbourne in the late Sixties when noise complaints were continually annoying a local Member of Parliament whose electorate was under the Sydney 07 ILS flight path.

In those days the ICAO standard ILS was set at about 2.5 to 2.75 degrees. My boss Lloyd Milne (former wartime Hudson pilot) was told by his boss Sir Donald Anderson (via the chain of command of course) to suggest a solution. After all it was a political issue. Lloyd scratched his head and came up with the idea to increase the glide slope angle up to three degrees which approached the upper limit for a jet transport approach without increasing the rate of descent too much. The theory being three degrees would mean a steeper angle of approach, therefore less power and less noise foot print. I think it added about an extra 150 feet to the outer marker crossing height four miles out.

The local Member for the Outer Marker (I think it was Padstow) constituency was pleased about that idea, even though we didn't tell him it made no practical difference to noise levels. But he could tell the great unwashed in that area that he had acted to fix the problem. It was a real vote getter which is what it was all about in the first instance.

So for weeks to come we flogged the DCA Flying Unit DC3 VH-CAN and F27 navaid calibration aircraft down the 07 ILS having got the techs to jack up the glide path to three degrees. We did Sydney 16 ILS as well.

The idea took on and next we knew the order came down the line to jack up all the Australian ILS from 2.5 degrees to three degrees. That took a lot of traveling between the major airports of Australia including Darwin. ICAO heard about all this and thought it was a splendid way of reducing noise footprints.

Eventually three degrees slope became the standard we have today. You can thank the Labor Member for Padstow for that. It was all a bit of a wank but it fooled most people I think. Whether the number of complaints reduced I have no idea. But something was seen to be done and that was the main thing. The unintended consequences however proved time consuming and expensive in terms of time and money.

You see, it was considered a bit untidy to leave the T-VASIS all over Australia at 2.5 degrees and the ILS at 3 degrees. So we loaded the DC3 and F27 with our theodolites, insect spray, wide floppy hats with corks and sunscreen and even snake bite outfits, and flew all over Australia to recalibrate the numerous T-VASIS to three degrees.

[CHAIRMAN]

Council has no jurisdiction of anything 1 metre or more above ground not supported by anything other than air.

That is ASA and CASA territory.

Thanks sprocket - if that is gospel then the local council would be hard pressed to fine people for flying over their built up areas at 1000' - correct?

Many ERSA noise abatement procedures contain paras such as 'avoid noise sensitive area to NW(or somesuch) of AD.' It is most unusual IMHO to find any that say 'residential areas are to be avoided at all times', and then propose a system of fines if said ERSA rule is breached because of a noise complaint.
I hope this entry is a case of one council person introducing the para without realising the implications, and another person for trying to enforce it.

Pretty difficult to plan a flight to any metro AD and avoid all residential areas in the process.

[yssy.ymel]

Everyone complains about something at sometime, whether it be about noise, the government, the weather or the meal you had at a restaurant that was good, but could have been better.

Airports seem to have a special place in the hearts of complainers because they can marshal a cause and have a really good whinge and feel that they have made a difference. The argument "well, the airport was there way before you were" does not wash with these people. If anything, it increases their fully self believed sense of entitlement even further.

You can pick these people - they latch onto a cause with as much gusto as they can muster. They speak about it incessently and any social interaction with them will turn to their issue as sure as a Jabiru engine will self detonate for no reason.

They are consumed by it, and every aircraft heading for 16L/R or leaving on 34L/R hardens their resolve to "Stop the Noise!" even more. At this point the complainer has become irrational in their belief in their cause.

Mainstream media hear the noise and start to feature the complainer in news articles. The complainer, feeling vindicated ("Look! I'm in the paper. I must be right.") steps up by complaining even more. Like that *coughtwatcough* at Kellyville. Every twenty minutes. Every twenty minutes to complain that his amenity is affected even though it is obvious to most sane people that it is not.

And this is where the statistics about noise complaints become skewed. Looking at the ASA noise complaints reports, the single statistic that is missing is how many individual complaints are there? If there are 96 complaints in a month, were there 96 complainants? There will not be. I do recall a noise statistic for YSSY that there were 360 complaints made in a month, by 2 individuals living in Summer Hill (about 6km or so from the threshold of 16R). Husband and wife. Whipped up into a froth of rage over something that whilst it can be annoying becomes, as another poster pointed out, white noise over time.

We see these types of individual at every strata of society, but with even the Gen X'ers becoming a bunch of self-entitled prats, it's going to get worse. As someone on twitter put it the other day: "Because, because....MANUFACTURED OUTRAGE". Well played.

For transparency: I love aviation. If I could live under a flight path, i'd do it in a heartbeat.

[Centaurus]

If I could live under a flight path, i'd do it in a heartbeat.

Pity you couldn't tell that to the professional hypnotist that lived in Belgian Gardens in Townsville in the early Sixties. He lived close to the end of the then Runway 07. We didn't use 07 much because it was a bit short for the Long nose Lincoln and the flight path was right over the suburb.

We had a new CO (Wing Commander Cy Greenwood) - a no nonsense former Beaufighter pilot who became a POW in Japan after he was shot down by a couple of Zero's off Timor. For reasons lost in time (maybe works in progress on 020 (as it was called in those days) we had to use 07 for a couple of days. The noise of four Merlins several times a day at full chat over his house caused the hypnotist to lose his cool and ring the base and blast our CO. We could have told him that only a brave and foolish man would cross Cy "Big Julie" Greenwood.:E

In no uncertain terms, the CO told him where to go (no political correctness or media fright there in those days). Not only that, the CO told us to deliberately hold down after lift off. Seems the hypnotist would have some patient in a trance when a Lincoln would pass over his house at conservatively 200 feet at +12 boost and 3000 RPM. Now that is a lot of noise I can tell you. The hypnotist quickly got the message.

[Ascend Charlie]

Coincidence?

At RAAF Pearce in the late 70s our CO was Wg Cdr Bob "Bobo" Greenwood.

A local real estate developer had bought a tract of land under downwind for R/W 18, and one Friday he came onto the base and told the CO to avoid his land over the weekend, as there was a big land sale going on.

Normally, 2FTS didn't operate on weekends, so the developer must have been feeling confident. But Bobo called us all onto duty, and the end of every sortie had to include a low level circuit in the Maccherschmidt to make as much noise as possible on downwind. So, we did.

Didn't make a difference, the land was sold, and the new owners started bleating about the noise straight away.

[sprocket check]

The greatest threat is weak airport owners ... and property values.

Perhaps one should reconsider that statement... the greatest threat imho is the weakness of the industry as a whole, its unwillingness to support its own and ongoing refusal to relinquish its egoistical stance of arrogant self righteousness.

This is untested here

If it were to be tested, I don't think I am far from the highly likely prediction that the airport owner would have insufficient resources to deal with a well organised gang of complainers/developers/pollies...etc in cohorts. An airport owners primary revenue is certainly nowhere near what a commercial/residential development might command. The industry might well find itself with a precedent set for them without them even knowing it. They may well successfully argue that the vast majority of airfields in Australia are now redundant. There is certainly only a small number that have any RPT services. The rest are a pure convenience or playgrounds for those with a hobby...

Further, there is nothing to say you can't park your aircraft here... but whether you can land or take off is a different story.

Like I said... unless protection is afforded at the Cwlth level.

[yssy.ymel]

ICAO heard about all this and thought it was a splendid way of reducing noise footprints.

Centaurus - this is a brilliant anecdote. It should live in the national archives!

[Centaurus]

At RAAF Pearce in the late 70s our CO was Wg Cdr Bob "Bobo" Greenwood.


I had coffee with Bob (Bobo) Greenwood a few months ago at his house at Newport (Melbourne). He retired from CASA many years ago. He is enjoying retirement.