Stanhope seeks a second opinion on aircraft noise

By 21 November, 2008 31

Chief Minister Stanhope has made the unusual announcement that we’re paying for an outside expert to double check Airservices Australia’s noise monitoring over Hackett.

    “Some residents are concerned that aircraft noise is exceeding agreed standards,” Mr Stanhope said. “While I understand these claims have been rejected by the Canberra International Airport and Airservices Australia, it’s an area that I believe warrants further investigation and verification.

    “Airservices Australia has advised that it will shortly undertake an aircraft noise study in Hackett and has agreed to make their results available for independent analysis.

    “The study will run for a minimum of six months and I expect a report from the expert within about a month of the final data being made available by Airservices.”

Please login to post your comments
31 Responses to Stanhope seeks a second opinion on aircraft noise
#1
GB10:52 am, 21 Nov 08

Well I guess the skies over Hackett will be quiet for six months. They should have done the study, without the announcement.

#2
sepi11:01 am, 21 Nov 08

That’s exactly what I thought!!

#3
Mr Evil11:12 am, 21 Nov 08

I live near a busy road – will the local council come and do a noise survey for me too?

#4
AG Canberra11:41 am, 21 Nov 08

The residents of Hackett….can’t.

Again – the airport has been there longer than any homes so these guys need to get over it. Unless they have somehow altered the orientation of the runways the approaches in both directions remain the same. Maybe the residents are just getting older – and are home more so hear the noise more.?.?

#5
ant11:48 am, 21 Nov 08

Or perhaps the volume of air traffic is increasing (it is) and the hours during which planes arrive and depart are expanding (they are).

#6
sepi11:49 am, 21 Nov 08

It is planes taking off that cause noise in Hackett, not landing.

#7
harvyk12:14 pm, 21 Nov 08

AG Canberra said :

The residents of Hackett….can’t.

Again – the airport has been there longer than any homes so these guys need to get over it. Unless they have somehow altered the orientation of the runways the approaches in both directions remain the same. Maybe the residents are just getting older – and are home more so hear the noise more.?.?

My thoughts exactly. Live near an airport expect airport noise. The only resident I’ll agree with is a Hackett resident that has lived there consistantly since the 1920′s. Everyone else their airport was there first, deal with it.

#8
Gungahlin Al2:17 pm, 21 Nov 08

Ant and sepi are correct. And this is heightened by concerns about the airport’sgoal of operating freight 24/7. Freights jets are generally larger, older, and therefore substantially noiser. Plus they operate at very odd hours. We hear the jets very well at 6am at Harrison thank you – at Hackett it must be a whole lot worse. And AG, I think it might be a toss-up as to whether Hackett or the airport came first…

When I attend the “Airport Community Noise Consultative Forum” every couple of months, AirServices Australia reps and the airport chair regularly make remarks that tend towards poo-poohing of the noise complaints made from certain Hackett residents.

The noise monitoring equipment was removed some time back – and since then air traffic has increased considerably – as the airport pointed out when they emailed me the latest ASA Quarterly aircraft movements report. Several meetings ago, I suggested that if they were so sure of their position that the complaints were spurious, then they should just put their noise monitoring equipment back in there, and we’d soon know whether the complaints were justified or not. The meeting concurred.

It is pleasing then to see that it is finally happening.

Curfew 4 Canberra got a pretty good reception with Jon Stanhope a few months back, and we did raise the issue of noise monitoring with him, and I recall him being supportive of it. But it was already the position of the Forum meeting to go ahead with it. Jonathon Reynolds attended the last Forum meeting and it was advised then that the moniroting would proceed.

#9
sepi2:39 pm, 21 Nov 08

yep – cause if you bought a house in Hackett, a fair distance from the tiny airport, in 1963, you should fully expect to have jets overhead every 3 minutes all night once the airport becomes sydney’s freight hub later on.

#10
harvyk13:06 pm, 21 Nov 08

sepi said :

yep – cause if you bought a house in Hackett, a fair distance from the tiny airport, in 1963, you should fully expect to have jets overhead every 3 minutes all night once the airport becomes sydney’s freight hub later on.

So sepi, did you buy a house in Hackett in 1963? or are you using it as an example?

#11
sepi3:09 pm, 21 Nov 08

I thought your comments above related to the suburb of Hackett, not to me personally.

#12
ant3:19 pm, 21 Nov 08

I’m always fascinated to see the fierce way people respond when other people are affected by noise or some other annoyance, and seek to do something about it.

I live 30kms from the airport, to the east. I’ve noticed the lines of planes coming in, heaps more than there used to be, and have been woken up in the early hours by turbo-props droning overhead as they descend in to the airport. I’m not on a flight path, I’m no where near the airport, and yet it’s pretty evident that more than just people close to the airport are being affected now, and can expected to be increasingly affected as the airport ramps up flight operations.

The people who are doing something about it now are the canaries in the coalmine, as it were. They are reacting first but it is a problem that is going to grow, adn if it’s not dealt-with now, it will be worse for everyone. yes, even those complaining about “nimbys”. I cannot fathom why people become so venemous about those who try to do something about a problem like this.

#13
harvyk13:20 pm, 21 Nov 08

My comments is that there are very few people who live in affected suburbs who could have had no knowledge of the airport or it’s plans. Infact the site was picked for an airfield in 1920. Before any major development of Canberra had started.

I don’t want to see a repear of Sydney where you had the population move in closer and closer and then jumped up and down about the airport noise until the curfew was introduced, and yet that is exactly what developers are trying to do in Canberra.

Also the same arguments could be said about people who brought houses near what where at one stage quite suburban roads and yet they are then upgraded to handle the higher traffic loads.

#14
sepi3:25 pm, 21 Nov 08

Yes – I should have closely examined flight path information before choosing a house in an established suburb.

#15
wishuwell3:34 pm, 21 Nov 08

harvyk1 I think what was planned in 1920 as a local aerodrome/airfield was far different to the reality of a international capable airport/freight hub circa 2008.

#16
deezagood6:35 pm, 21 Nov 08

This (listening to the community and taking the required action) sounds very unlike Mr Stanhope.

#17
Mr Evil6:38 pm, 21 Nov 08

deezagood said :

This (listening to the community and taking the required action) sounds very unlike Mr Stanhope.

Yep, and it’ll never last!

#18
deezagood6:40 pm, 21 Nov 08

Ha!

#19
miz7:22 pm, 21 Nov 08

I don’t want the airport acting as a 24/7 hub when they can’t even get Sydney to agree to lift the curfew.

The Hackett residents are right to be concerned. I hate it when planes fly over on the odd occasion and that’s nothing compared to how it must be for those in the noise zone.

I seriously hope this does not go down the power station road though (you know, agree to consult but quietly allow private industry trample all over residents, for the holy economy).

#20
farnarkler7:11 am, 22 Nov 08

This is a piss-take right? You have no air traffic!!! I have a plane go over my house every minute from 747s (soon to be joined by A380s) coming in from Singapore and Hong Kong at 5am to the last Euro shuttles at midnight. What a joke; a country town with one plane every hour or so comissioning an aircraft noise study!!!

It all pales from the good old days when Concorde used to fly over my house. You’d hear it five minutes before you’d see it.

#21
sepi9:55 am, 22 Nov 08

This is about planning for the future so we don’t end up like that.

In the CT today the airport is aiming for one plane every 2 minutes at night.

#22
ant11:00 am, 22 Nov 08

Sounds lovely, farnarkler, and I can’t imagine why the people of Canberra don’t embrace such a future… aren’t we silly?

#23
GB12:14 pm, 22 Nov 08

Yeah, good thinking. Let’s find the noisiest place in the world, and aim to match that. Also we should ban double glazing, because it stops people getting the full effect.

Actually, this could start a whole new school of urban planning – find the least desirable features of each place, and copy them! Let’s have Delhi’s slums and England’s food and China’s air quality! Woo hoo!

#24
Peachy9:47 pm, 22 Nov 08

Surely the fact that we’re a capital city makes a big noisy, 24/7 airport at some point in the future a given? Yes we can plan flight paths and timetables to minimise noise, but the airport will continue to grow as long as Canberra does so at some point people are going to have to start getting used to it.

#25
sepi9:52 pm, 22 Nov 08

Perhaps we should bring in a curfew like the big cities have.

#26
farnarkler4:06 am, 23 Nov 08

A curfew is the right idea. Bigger cities put up with flights till midnight. Surely those who make the decisions could work it so that international flights (if that ever happens)land or take off at acceptable times. Canberra would really benefit from international flights.

#27
GB1:28 pm, 23 Nov 08

Peachy said :

Surely the fact that we’re a capital city makes a big noisy, 24/7 airport at some point in the future a given?

No enterprise is a given if we decide otherwise. We can choose our future – including the balance between airport convenience and quality of life. For some they are synonymous, but not for most, I suspect.

And there’s no reason at all to think the owners of the airport care about whether it does good.

If they can’t cope with this kind of criticism, they need to set up shop in a level playing field somewhere. And build their own roads.

#28
ChrisinTurner12:36 am, 24 Nov 08

Very few big cities have curfews on their airports. For example, Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth have none. Just think about it. How many airports have encroached on residential areas? It is always the other way around. People buy cheap land under the flight paths then agitate to get the airport taken away or restricted by a curfew. Back in the 1970′s the Department of Civil Aviation even tried to stop Jerrabomberra being built. Anyone for cheap land at Tralee?

#29
ant1:30 am, 24 Nov 08

We are not talkign about “flight paths” here, we’re talking about many parts of Canberra AND NSW being affected by increased flights, especially in the early hours. Flights we don’t currently suffer from. And I don’t think hackett is “encroaching” on the airport, it’s been there since at least teh early 60s, if not earlier.

The road in from the airport used to be busy, but it flowed. That all changed suddenly when Snow discovered he could build a CBD out there, without nasty planning impediments. So now we have a gridlocked mess, thanks entirely to that.

So now the federal gov’t is requiring Snow’s activities be justified, planned and any disruptions to other people be canvassed and managed. it’s a bit late, but at least it’s happening.

Noise is a big issue, and having many more planes coming in at ALL hours of the day and night will affect many people. Not just those under “flights paths”, but everyone. Trying to fix it when it’s happening will be ineffective. Time to fix it is before it happens. Maybe Stanhope is remembering what the gov’ts role is… ie not a conduit to feeding money into one person’s pocket at the expense of the population’s living amenity.

#30
GB9:08 am, 24 Nov 08

ChrisinTurner said :

How many airports have encroached on residential areas?

By expanding flight numbers, using new flight paths and taking on bigger planes, that is precisely what they are doing. We need to decide whether this is, on balance, a good or bad thing.

Advertisement
GET PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP
Advertisement

Halloween in Australia?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

IMAGES OF CANBERRA

Advertisement
Sponsors
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.