Not so. It has existed since at least the early 1970s, if not before. The curfew in those days was not as rigidly enforced as it is today as a fair degree of common sense was applied in respect of its breach.

The ALP is not the only political party to have tinkered with it. The so-called 'Bennelong Funnel' was the result of activity by our former but unlamented Member for Bennelong and Prime Minister, one John Winston Howard.

For another insight into the curfew at Sydney Airport, I quote LeadSled's post from the Cyclone Tracy thread:

http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-...ml#post8929028

Now there was a Transport Minister.

G.Green
 

Would that be the Balloon Meister Gree:Dn?

"The question that needs to be asked is "Was the airport there before you bought the property you are trying to protect from noise?" If the answer is "yes" then the response is "sorry, grandfathered right belongs to the airport, unless you want to pay to have it shifted?" ".

There is another precedent to this with muppets who move into inner city areas with live music and bars that are open late, cos they "like the vibe", and then proceed to shut them all down cos "it's too noisy".

The new law is called the "agent of change". If you build in an area near well established venues etc, it's your responsibility to sound proof the new building.

If you move under the flight path of an international airport... Stiff!

What about the noise scenario where properties are near an airport but relatively quiet until a politician (whose electorate is under one of the approaches) decides to 'share the noise' and spreads the departure tracks, but doesn't compensate people to soundproof their properties to cope with the noise of aircraft departing just before the curfew starts.

The idiocy of the Sydney curfew is a topic in itself, let alone the imposition in extreme circumstances like last week.

There must be practical dispensations for such weather events in our major capital city airports.

Curfew imposition was one of the contributing factors to the crash of a BA146 crash in Switzerland (Crossair 3597) in 2001.

The "idiocy" I was referring to is the interpretation of the Sydney curfew by its governing authority.

Some of the quiet aircraft that can and do operate inside the curfew period are restricted to a MTOW of 74800lb. Fair enough for Sydney departures I say.

But I have heard from friends that are affected in their aircraft that this "MTOW" is applied to their arrival flights into Sydney as well!

In effect if they were arriving into Sydney with minimum fuel inside the curfew they are still considered in breach if they took off on the other side of the Pacific above 74800lb! They are forced to land somewhere closer (eg; Fiji, Auckland, Noumea) and then takeoff below 74800lb to then arrive in Sydney at whatever fuel load they like - but below 74800lb.

What lunacy and reflective of the nation that we have become.

The curfew rules should properly state Sydney MTOW 74800lb and Sydney landing weight as low as possible to meet operational requirements but less than 74800lb.