INSTITUTE A CURFEW FOR AUCKLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Contact the author of the petition
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.
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.
Re: Curfews.
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.
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.
Re: Affecting every residentail suburb instead of the sea and industrial areas
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.
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.
Actual ACTION
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 ....
Re: Actual ACTION
#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.
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.
| This discussion has been closed. |
This comment has been removed by the person who wrote it.
Reason for the removal: inappropriate