INSTITUTE A CURFEW FOR AUCKLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Contact the author of the petition

This discussion topic has been automatically created of petition INSTITUTE A CURFEW FOR AUCKLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT.

This post has been removed by its writer (Show details)

2014-07-19 11:49



Guest

#2

2014-07-21 00:07

No flying late at night, The planes are so loud and noisy and people are trying to sleep. Its unacceptable.

Guest

#3

2014-07-21 00:41

We're all going to need this - saw the same thing happen in Sydney and it was the best thing that happened to regulating the ever-growing traffic in and around that airport. It was affecting everyone in the Sydney region so it didn't take much before the groundswell took over. Plane Truth is spear-heading the petition on our behalf so show your gratitude by signing (and share this around your contacts if you can)!

Guest

#4

2014-07-21 00:51

Airplane's going thru my bed.. grrrrrrrr
Guest

#5

2014-07-21 21:40

This is going to affect everybody in Auckland soon, as the flight paths change at their whim without notification, so show some support everybody. Unless you like planes screaming over your house at 3000ft waking you at intervals during the night!

Guest

#6

2014-07-21 23:08

We are surrounded by water and we make the planes fly over the most populated city in NZ. Why because of the MONEY being saved - look what happened to MH17 who were also saving MONEY by not flying around Ukraine.

Guest

#7

2014-07-22 00:45

Numerous international airports around the world have curfews - more than 100 in Europe, 25 in the USA, 13 in Asia and 4 in Australia, including Sydney, have curfews. Most curfews are between 11 p.m. - 6 or 7 a.m.

These airports have far more air traffic to manage than Auckland Arirport yet they have implemented night restrictions to reduce noise for residents. Auckland Airport should have a curfew to stop aircraft flying over residential areas during sleeping hours.

Gatvol
Guest

#8

2014-07-22 00:47

It is a reflection on the current government, particularly the responsible Crown ministers Brownlee, English and Ryall; members of Parliament in the affected suburbs (excluding the Hon Phil Goff); a number of city councillors, and, especially the invisible and therefore presumably inept(or suborned) CAA that we have had to go to these lengths. Local health bodies and their boards are also grossly negligent in not doing their duty here. And the Human Rights Commission who even rejected a hearing out of hand. If the right to uninterrupted sleep is not a human right, Ms Devoy, then we are in bigger trouble than we realised.

Disgusted

#9 Re: Curfews.

2014-07-22 00:59

#7: -

One of the Big Three economies in the world, Japan, is curfewed for all aircraft. End of story. So let's not hear the rubbish about how good this is for the economy and tourism: if Japan -- with thousands of years of history -- is prepared to 'sacrifice' this minor blip to any economy, then so should we. We're meant to be 100% pure. Or is that only if you are deaf?This is all about corporate greed and getting more and more bucks for the nameless executives who force managers to front this atrocity, instead of fronting themselves. Greedy Cowards.


Guest

#10

2014-07-22 01:05


Our ask is to revert to previous corridors, which were not an issue to those who purchased land beneath.
New planes are also now more fuel efficient to rebut the fuel argument and are even more likely to improve in future designs.
Any concessions are the thin edge of the wedge as far as we can see.
Thanks you.
Da Vinci

#11 Re: Affecting every residentail suburb instead of the sea and industrial areas

2014-07-22 01:10

#5: Guest -

You are so right. Epsom is highlighted by the bigots enforcing this scandalous disregard for human rights. And it's NIMBY-ism they say. They are wrong. We don't need and don't want to have any of these -- dangerous, crash-prone, polluting (particularly at low altitudes), noisy, robot-controlled -- aircraft over ANY Auckland residential suburb, other than those immediately before and after the runways. That's if they weren't there before the airport was built. Humann rights, guys. Too easily forgotten by greedy plutocrats.

Never mind the much-needed second runway, take the airport out towards the under-populated Bombay Hills (if this gps system is so good, the hills won't be a problem), and build it on the east coast (recognising the predominant SW wind) and the problem will disappear.

That would show you are truly 'listening' and aren't just greedy for bigger executive bonuses.


Guest

#12

2014-07-22 01:26

The 2014 elections are coming up. Why don't we all vote for a party who will put a stop to the new flight path over Royal Oak etc. And to put the planes back up to 7000ft, to where they belong, on the old flight path, not at 1500 to 3000ft as they are now coming in . I will be attending a few political meetings before the election, and try to find out what party will stop all this nonsense. I think there is a meeting at the Zoo Keepers Son in Royal Oak on 27/7/14 at 7pm. It's a start, so see you there.

Guest

#13

2014-07-22 01:49

If the Airport is allowed to alter flight paths and altitude as they wish then this will disturb all Aucklanders, not just those currently affected . No flying between 22:00 and 06:00 must be our response to this arrogance.
Cicero

#14

2014-07-22 04:57

Don’t think “I’m all right Jack” because the ‘Air Hoons’ aren't overhead, at your place, yet -- in the middle of the night (the new rush-hour at the Auckland Airport is 11.30 PM to 12.30 AM) – but rest assured, as the Herald enthuses almost daily, more and more airlines ….and who knows about the mental stability of their pilots or their ‘training’….will be arriving soon. More tourists. More profits for the bosses to share among themselves. And unbelievably, given the noise they make and the pollution they cause, our own Air NZ has bought (more likely given!?) more ‘Screaming Banshee’ airbus 320s. Shudder. Profit is everything. They know how bad that particular plane is….as well as its chequered safety record.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, the pilots can now choose WHERE they fly and HOW LOW and LONG they make their trajectories…..24/7.
Like the Malaysian Flight MH17, they’ll choose the shortest route to their destination……saving fuel and getting a raise from the bosses. And of course, ‘greenwash alert’ they’ll save 1% of the carbon they generate on the rest of the journey!
Think Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) who famously said of the German intellectuals, who stood back passively: “First they came for the Socialists, but I didn't complain, because I wasn't a Socialist”…..and we all know how that ended up.

This is not an unreasonable request on these flights.
And your details don’t have to be public. (A number of pilots have indicated they will be participating…..out of sheer embarrassment at what they are being forced to do.
There are slightly longer routes…..up to 10 minutes that would keep the planes away at night, or much higher and quicker on take-off.

You won’t get another chance. This malarkey is being legislated right now. Big vested interests – as you’d expect – are at play.

Guest

#15

2014-07-22 10:26

Ban the flights

Guest

#16

2014-07-23 06:07

The noise is unbearable!

Guest

#17

2014-07-25 08:48

Performance Based Navigation as championed by AirNZ (majority owned by we tax payers) blindly jumped to by AirwaysNZ (a state owned enterprise) and Auckland Airport ( significant share holding by Auckland Council) means that we have been not consulted about changed and compressed flight paths that fly over the same residential areas over and over again. A curfew is very necessary.
Voice of reason

#18 Actual ACTION

2014-07-28 03:08

The internet is powerful, but people are disinterested and lazy and are likely to keep scrolling past your facebook (or other social-media) posts - which only a few of your friends are likely to actually notice, even fewer likely to care about, and fewer still who will actually sign.

Somebody really ought to produce a flyer and distribute it throughout the flightpath ; get people thinking, get people signing.
Anything else, i.e. sitting at your computer whinging and 'sharing' the petition is tantamount to doing NOTHING.. If you're not bringing it to the attention of those ACTUALLY AFFECTED then Im sorry to say you're doomed to lose this battle. Just sayin'.

Think about it ....

Guest

#19

2014-07-28 07:44

this is a very important issue. please sign and share.
Fact

#20 Re: Actual ACTION

2014-07-28 22:12

#18: Voice of reason - Actual ACTION

We have instigated plenty of action. Thousands of flyers have been delivered over the past year. Two public meetings attended by around 500, submissions on the UP plan, petition to the CAA for a rule change (accompanied by 2000 signatures), three full page ads in the Herald this year (at a cost of $13,000), regular mailouts to 1000 homes, regular lobbying of politicians, several protests at areas where most complaints arise.

Flyers are in the process of being produced to hopefully gain more signatures for this third petition. There is plenty more that does not make the (public) fbpage. You are very welcome to pass on any helpful suggestions you might have. Think about it.

 


Guest

#21

2014-07-30 09:30

It's very necessary and good on you for organizing it.

Guest

#22

2014-07-31 10:32

I agree that there should be a stop to all fly overs of Central Auckland suburbs between 10pm & 7am. Thanks Elysia

Guest

#23 Airport Curfew Petition

2014-08-03 12:18

Airport Curfew Petition

A strict curfew on jet flight operations between 10 pm and 7 am over residential areas outside the runway centerline approach corridors west to South Manukau Head and east to Whitford Forest is necessary so that there are no jet operations below 7,000 feet over residential areas during those times.

This curfew is regrettably necessary because the airport organisations showed during 2013 that they would systematically conduct jet approach and take-off operations below 5,000 feet over residential areas outside the runway approach corridors –
• without notifying the affected residents; *1, *5
• without installing noise-monitoring equipment until obliged to do so by public meetings attended by hundreds of affected residents;
• without candidly identifying the multiple changes made to jet flight approach management; and
• while denying publicly that anything had changed from flight paths used in previous years. *2

The jet flight changes initiated in 2013 show that the airport organisations and operators attach a “lowest and last” priority to informing and consulting with affected residents, and did so only when initial tactics of disregard, deny and misinform failed. They responded to public concerns by taking a “blame-the-victim” approach, discounting those public concerns to “heightened awareness” following a newspaper article. This response particularly disrespected residents with sleep difficulties, medical conditions, and those prone to heightened stress responses to intrusive stimuli. Hundreds turned out to public meetings, obliging the airport organisations to change their preferred tactic of disregarding the public.

Evaluation of the SMART flights trial in 2014 confirmed what the over-flown residents spent months in 2013 complaining about, and airport officials spent months denying: *3, *4
• extra engine thrust was applied in level flight over residential areas between Mt Albert and One Tree Hill;
• speed-braking was applied over residential areas between Mt Albert and East Tamaki (A320 30%, B777 40%, B738 100%); and
• aircraft were using high engine revolutions to maintain flight while extending flaps and landing gear over these residential areas miles further out from the runway centerline.
All of those operations – decelerating, speed-braking, extension of flaps and landing-gear increase drag and reduce speed meaning that the jet engines have to be operated at higher revolutions to increase thrust to maintain control of the aircraft.

The Aircraft Noise Community Consultative Group (ANCCG) is ineffective in regulating aircraft noise away from the airport:
• it doesn’t have a statutory mandate;
• it has a narrow geographical focus on the areas around the airfield that are subject to noise generated on or close to the ground at the airfield;
• the noise monitor outputs reported to the ANCCG are closely located around the airport;
• members representing local Community Boards are drawn from the former Manukau City Council area;
• the Community Board members have difficulty attending meetings;
• ANCCG was briefed on 9 March 2011, via a presentation from Air New Zealand,*6 that the forthcoming satellite-based navigation system trial (SMART approaches) would involve concentrated flight paths, 25% less lateral dispersion across flight paths, and increased noise over residents not previously overflown in this way;
• it demonstrated it’s failure to represent the interests and concerns of likely-affected residents by acquiescing to airport organization plans to conduct the northern SMART approaches trial without advising residents;
• it failed to act on a suggestion to extend membership to representatives from northern wards likely to be affected by the new flight paths; and
• it’s Chairman declined a week prior to ANCCG’s meeting on 22 May 2013 to have members of the public attend that meeting, directing them to make their complaints to an airport company noise complaint process.
Overall, it proved to be impotent in 2013 in receiving and addressing airport jet operation noise complaints from any residents north of the Manukau Harbour. It is as obsolete as the old Manukau City Council.

Steady growth is projected for the airport, including more carriers operating larger jets (B773, A380, B789). Jet noise will increase in frequency and volume, and residential areas will be increasingly seriously affected unless the noise impact is carefully managed. Events have shown that the airport organisations and operators cannot be relied upon to protect the right of residents to peaceable possession of their properties. The ONLY way to protect that right is to impose a curfew on jet flight operations below 7,000 feet outside the east-west runway centerline corridors between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am daily.


References:
*1 Auckland International Airport Ltd (2014); “SMART Flight Path Trial Draft Report 2014”, http://aucklandflightpathtrial.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/AIA_0219_Smart-Approach-Document_screen.pdf, p31.
*2 Nicholl, J. (2013); “Complaints unfounded says airport” cited in Central Leader, Auckland: Suburban Newspapers Ltd, 21 August 2013, p4.
*3 BARNZ (2014) “Auckland SMART Approach Trial Review: An Airline Perspective,” Auckland: Board of Airline Representatives New Zealand Inc, p. 7-9.
*4 Auckland International Airport Ltd (2014); “SMART Flight Path Trial Draft Report 2014”, http://aucklandflightpathtrial.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/AIA_0219_Smart-Approach-Document_screen.pdf, pp. 44-45.
*5 ANCCG (2012) “Minutes of Meeting of the Group held at Auckland Airport Management Offices, Auckland Airport Wednesday 13 June 2012”, Auckland: ANCCG, p.1
*6 Fletcher, B. (2011) “Performance Based Navigation: New procedures for AKL”, Auckland: Air New Zealand, pp 11-18.

Guest

#24

2014-08-05 05:02

I strongly support a night curfew as I am fed up of being woken up at night by planes flying over my house.

Guest

#25

2014-08-05 05:49

Waking up at 4am and 5am is not much fun and not good for my health.