Chapter 3Mitigation and limitation of aircraft noise

3.1Limiting and mitigating aircraft noise requires measures to be taken by stakeholders at various levels of airport and flight planning, and aircraft operations. There are approaches to mitigating noise that can be taken by airports and airlines, at the source of the noise, and by governments, through regulation, soundproofing and noise related compensation schemes.

3.2This chapter examines evidence on some of these mitigation strategies, including:

technological advancements in aircraft;

noise plans, noise sharing and flight paths;

continuous descent operations;

curfews and caps;

noise levies and compensation schemes; and

strategies to mitigate impacts from general aviation and training.

3.3The chapter includes the committee's views and recommendations.

The International Civil Aviation Organisation's balanced approach

3.4The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) promotes what is known as the 'balanced approach' to aircraft noise management. This approach aims to provide better outcomes in relation to potential aircraft noise impacts for communities living around airports or near flight paths. The balanced approach consists of four key pillars:

Pillar 1—Reduction at the source. Reduce noise by using quieter aircraft and utilising advanced technologies and airframe design.

Pillar 2—Land use planning and management. Develop controls around land use planning and development to protect local communities from aircraft noise.

Pillar 3—Noise abatement operational procedures. Develop noise abatement operational procedures both in the air and on the ground.

Pillar 4—Operating restrictions. Impose restrictions on certain aircraft types, runway use, and operating hours.[1]

3.5Australia is a member of ICAO and engages with ICAO to set processes for aircraft noise standards. Engagement with ICAO regarding aircraft noise includes the development of global policies, appropriate international standards and practices, and guidance and advisory material.[2]

3.6The Carlton River, Primrose Sands and Forcett Flight Path Opponents Group (Flight Path Opponents Group) suggested the Government formally adopts the balanced approach into law, saying there are currently 'no specific regulations which cap noise exposure for communities'.[3]

3.7Airlines including Qantas and Emirates Airline (Emirates) supported the ICAO's balanced approach to aircraft noise management. Emirates held the view that 'that all possible measures including technology, land use planning, and noise abatement operational procedures should be applied as a priority, while restrictions on flight operations should be avoided as far as possible and flight safety maintained as an overarching requirement'.[4]

Aircraft equipment and technology

3.8Airlines have a role to play in limiting and mitigating noise. One of the key ways this is done is through the use of quieter aircraft and technology.

ICAO Standards

3.9Since the 1970s, ICAO has set standards for ever-decreasing noise from aircraft. Each progressive standard is known as a 'Chapter' and sets noise level compliance criteria for different aircraft during take-off and landing. The majority of aircraft currently in operation fall within Chapters 3 and 4 and all aircraft manufactured from 2006 onwards must meet the Chapter 4 noise standard.[5]

3.10A new Chapter 14 standard was applied to all newly certified larger aircraft after 31 December 2017, and for lower-weight new aircraft from 2020. In Australia, Chapter 2 aircraft have been banned from operating since 2002, and marginally compliant Chapter 3 aircraft (Chapter 2 aircraft retro-fitted with a 'hush-kit' to meet Chapter 3 standards) were also banned in 2010. No further restrictions are pending at this stage.[6]

3.11Aircraft manufacturers must comply with noise standards for aircraft set by ICAO under Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. These standards are covered under Australian law by the Air Navigation (Aircraft Noise) Regulations 2018, under oversight of the Minister for Transport. Under the regulations, aircraft operators must hold a noise certificate, or other relevant approval, for their aircraft to be allowed to operate. Assessment of compliance with the noise standards and issuing of noise certificates is delegated by the Infrastructure Department to Airservices.[7]

3.12Aircraft fleet renewal and upgrade programs work to progressively introduce newer, quieter aircraft to replace aging, noisier planes. As newer planes are introduced, disturbance from associated aircraft noise goes down on a per plane basis.[8] Sydney Airport listed a range of technologies that can be used to reduce an aircraft's noise impact, including:

increased engine bypass ratios;

special acoustic liners in the engines to absorb noise;

composite and lighter materials in the airframes;

aircraft weight reduction; and

new engine cowling designs and wingtips to smooth noise-making turbulent air over the airframe.[9]

Source: Sydney Airport, Submission 47, p. 11

3.13Airlines advised the committee that they are committed to meeting and exceeding the ICAO standards. Emirates submitted that all of its 'aircraft are fully compliant with ICAO Chapter 4 noise standards' excluding a few small freighters that do not operate in Australia. Emirates reported that its Airbus A380s were designed to meet strict requirements at some of the world's most noise-sensitive airports.[10]

3.14Qantas also stated that it had met or exceeded the ICAO's aircraft noise standards. In Qantas' view, the best way to reduce aircraft noise at the source is through continual fleet renewal. Qantas is currently undergoing a major fleet renewal program which will take place over the coming decade. New aircraft include the Airbus A320NEO family, the Airbus A220-300, the Boeing 787-9, 787-10 and the Airbus A350-1000. The introduction of these new models is expected to result in a 50 per cent reduction in generated noise.[11]

3.15Although technological advancements have contributed to reducing aircraft noise on a per flight basis, Dr Andrew Hede, Emeritus Professor, University of the Sunshine Coast, argued that this is unlikely to help on a cumulative basis:

[O]verall, the impact on the ground for people around airports is that there are now much more overflights. So, even though they're getting quieter and into the future there will be models that can predict what that will be, it won't solve the problem, but it's part of it. It will get better, but, as the number of quieter aircraft increases over the major airports, their exposure probably won't decrease.[12]

3.16This sentiment was also expressed by Mr Tony Williams, former Aviation Community Advocate, who added that 'we're getting new quiet technology but in larger aircraft which are in fact noisier than the older technology, smaller aircraft', meaning the increase in aircraft size and in the number of flight movements may cancel out any positive effects of technological advancements.[13]

Noise reduction and sharing

3.17Inquiry participants argued that reducing and mitigating the impacts of aircraft noise requires careful planning and consideration of factors contributing to aircraft noise, including flight paths, airport operations and aircraft types. To date, the most intensive Australian example is the Sydney Airport Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP), with other examples including the recent Noise Action Plan for Brisbane.

3.18This section looks at the features and operation of the LTOP for Sydney Airport, issues with the LTOP, calls for a Brisbane Airport LTOP, and the role of simultaneous opposite direction parallel runway operations (SODPROPS) and flights over water in mitigating noise.

Sydney Airport Long Term Operating Plan

3.19The LTOP is an agreement between the community, airport, and Airservices Australia (Airservices) to mitigate and share the effects of aircraft noise in Sydney. The LTOP was developed in the mid-1990s following community outcry over the lack of measures to minimise aircraft noise. On 17 December 1994, over 5000 people marched on Sydney Airport to draw attention to the impacts of aircraft noise. Following the demonstration, a ministerial direction was issued on 20 March 1996, for a taskforce to be created to look into ways to minimise aircraft noise, and for the noise to be shared fairly. A further ministerial direction was issued on 30 July 1997, directing Airservices to implement procedures to better share aircraft noise, and to establish an implementation and monitoring committee.[14] The extensive community consultation undertaken during this period resulted in the LTOP.

3.20The LTOP utilises a preferential runway system designed to share noise as equitably as possible. Sydney Airport operates ten defined Runway Modes of Operation (RMOs) using different combinations of flight paths depending on the time of day, weather, and other factors.[15] The three noise-sharing RMOs at Sydney Airport are Modes 5, 7, and 14A, while the SODPROPS mode can also produce noise-sharing outcomes. Under the LTOP, Airservices is required to design flight paths to cross over water as much as possible to avoid noise impacts in residential areas.[16] In Sydney, the LTOP has a target of at least 55 per cent of flights travelling south over Botany Bay, with maximum targets also in place for routes over residential areas to the north (17 per cent), east (13 per cent) and west (15 per cent) to share the noise burden.[17]

Source: Sydney Airport Master Plan 2039, p. 237.

3.21When selecting a mode at Sydney Airport, air traffic control must ensure that, subject to safety and weather conditions, flight paths over water (that is, Botany Bay to the south) or non-residential areas are prioritised, while the rest of the air traffic is shared equitably over surrounding communities. Within safety and operational constraints, noise sharing RMOs should be changed throughout the day to maximise respite from aircraft noise in individual areas.[18] Currently, around 50 per cent of all flights to and from Sydney Airport operate to the south over Botany Bay.[19]

3.22Mr John Clarke, Sydney Airport Community Forum member, told the committee that the LTOP represents best practice and has proven to be effective in the management of aircraft noise. Mr Clarke argued that aircraft noise pollution impacts are best managed and minimised through flight path design and implementation.In designing flight paths, consideration should be given to 'noise removal, relocation, reduction, respite, avoiding reciprocal flight paths and fairly sharing unavoidable residual noise over a wide area'.[20] In Mr Clarke's view, these principles have not been followed in the design of flight paths for Brisbane or Western Sydney International Airports.[21]

3.23Economies in Europe and the United States have adopted the ICAO Balanced Approach to managing aircraft noise. This approach acknowledges that any noise-related measures constrain not only airport capacity at a particular airport but also the aviation system as a whole, through knock-on effects. The European Community adopted Regulation (EU) No 598/2014 on the procedures concerning the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions.

Issues with the LTOP

3.24Inquiry participants noted possible issues with the current LTOP in place for Sydney Airport. The LTOP has remained unchanged for over 20 years while the use of runways and airspace has changed considerably during that period. Aviation industry representatives implied that the LTOP may no longer be appropriate for modern aircraft, while community groups suggested that targets are not being met or enforced.

3.25Sydney Airport submitted that noise sharing modes of operation that relied on the east-west runway have steadily declined, meaning that successful noise sharing outcomes that were achieved at a rate of 20 to 25 per cent of the time in the early-2000s have fallen to a rate of just 0.5 per cent in 2023. According to Sydney Airport, this is because 'the LTOP itself results in the airport's main and parallel north-south runways being used more often, and the east-west runway less often, as air traffic levels increase'.[22]

3.26Residents of surrounding suburbs noted the increase in aircraft noise. Randwick City Council advised the committee that the last review of the LTOP, conducted in 2005, found that targets for the north and east were being exceeded. This was particularly the case during the winter and early-spring when weather patterns push more traffic towards the eastern routes. No subsequent reviews have been conducted. Randwick City Council recommended that a review of the LTOP be undertaken 'to ensure that it remains relevant, equitable, and responsive to the changing urban dynamics and circumstances around Sydney Airport'.[23]

3.27Sydney Airport acknowledged in its 2039 Master Plan that opportunities for noise sharing will reduce in future as overall traffic levels increase.[24] This concern was also raised by Sutherland Shire Council. Already, existing noise sharing modes are under pressure during high traffic times, particularly in the middle of the day. Sutherland Shire Council was concerned that, as aircraft demand increases, many noise sharing modes will not be sustainable and could result in the parallel runways operating all day. This would significantly affect residents to the south of the airport.[25]

3.28Sydney Airport recommended that ‘ways to better share noise when only the parallel north-south runways are being used should be explored in consultation with [the Sydney Airport Community Forum]’. It noted that some noise sharing is already taking place when jet aircraft depart to the north from the parallel north-south runway, then turn to the east soon after take-off. This means they are classified as easterly movements for the purposes of the LTOP. Sydney Airport believed that examining whether there are additional opportunities to share noise in this manner, or to avoid flying over residential areas altogether, would be beneficial.[26]

3.29Qantas argued there is a need for a review of the LTOP. Qantas advised the committee that there has been at least one complete upgrade of its aircraft fleet since the introduction of the LTOP, with another 'refresh' now underway. However, the LTOP does not include recognition of the actual noise footprint of different aircraft.[27]

3.30A disconnect between the LTOP and modern aircraft fleets is evident in the current restrictions on aircraft permitted to conduct overnight freight operations into Sydney Airport. Presently, the only aircraft allowed to operate these services is the British Aerospace 146 (BAe-146), which ceased production in 1993. Aircraft technology has advanced significantly since that time and quieter models are now available, including the Airbus A321P2F and A330P2F aircraft, operated by Qantas. These aircraft are both ICAO Chapter 4 noise compliant as opposed to the Chapter 3 compliance of the BAe-146. Chapter 3 was superseded by Chapter 4 in 2006.[28] This is one area where Qantas believes the LTOP should be reviewed and modernised.[29]

3.31To encourage uptake of next generation aircraft, the United Kingdom (UK) Civil Aviation Authority has previously studied a 'noise envelope' where airports would be required to operate within an agreed level of noise, either for their total operation or for specific time periods. The noise envelope approach would allow airports to balance any growth in flight numbers with improvements in aircraft-generated noise. Such an approach rewards airports and airlines who upgrade their aircraft and use more efficient flight path designs and operations. Sydney Airport suggested government considers the option of a noise envelope saying it would 'welcome discussions with government and local communities about how a "noise envelope" could benefit airport stakeholders as Sydney Airport continues to grow'.[30]

Potential LTOP for Brisbane Airport

3.32Despite the calls for review from Sydney Airport and Qantas, the LTOP model was generally believed to represent 'best practice' among submitters and witnesses.[31] Removal and reduction of aircraft noise through the consideration and design of flight paths has proven to be effective in reducing noise around Sydney Airport. As such, calls have been made for a similar approach to be taken at Brisbane Airport.

3.33The Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance (BFPCA) argued that a Brisbane Airport LTOP is required to ensure long-term relief from the impacts of aircraft noise. An LTOP for the Brisbane Airport would ensure that flights over water and non-residential land are prioritised and maximised. The BFPCA maintained that curfews and caps may provide relief in the short-term, but they can potentially be one-off changes if they are not locked in as part of a long-term plan. For this reason, BFPCA recommended that the Infrastructure Minister issues 'an immediate Ministerial Direction to Airservices Australia as provided for under the Air Services Act 1995, Section 16(1), which requires Airservices to engage in a major consultative process over 12 months to develop the Brisbane Airport Long-Term Operating Plan'.[32] Where overflight of residential areas cannot be avoided, BFPCA argued the LTOP would provide for safely sharing the noise between communities as evenly as possible.[33]

Simultaneous opposite direction parallel runway operations

3.34BFPCA explained that SODPROPS is the community's preferred mode of operation for Brisbane Airport. SODPROPS would allow for one runway to be used for departures over water and the other runway for arrivals over water. When Brisbane Airport's parallel runway was being planned and approved, SODPROPS was stipulated to be the preferred mode of operation as it provided the greatest noise abatement. According to the BFPCA, this is how the project was 'sold' to the local community.[34]

3.35SODPROPS can only be used at Brisbane Airport under certain conditions. Mr Peter Curran, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Airservices Australia, told the committee that, for safety reasons, SODPROPS use requires 'a cloud ceiling of no fewer than 2½ thousand feet, a tailwind of not more than five knots, a visibility of not fewer than eight kilometres and a dry runway'. Additionally, the mode requires fewer than 20 arrivals per hour.[35]

3.36Despite being recognised as the preferred mode during planning and approval, BFPCA contends that Airservices 'quietly removed SODPROPS as the priority mode during the day from the Brisbane Noise Abatement Procedures'.[36] As a result, the promise to direct most flights over water and away from residential areas has not come to fruition.[37]

3.37Along with greater use of SODPROPS, submitters provided other suggestions for noise sharing or noise mitigation in Brisbane. Mr Matthew Loveday suggested that alternative over-land options be explored for flights departing to the South:

… I have suggested pushing the south bound flight path slightly west over the gateway motorway so the planes are over the highway, not residential areas, until they are high enough to cross over residential areas without significant noise pollution.[38]

3.38Mr Loveday also argued that the Noise Action Plan for Brisbane should include introducing multiple routes for departures, saying the existing departures routes are 'overloaded'.[39]

3.39BFPCA recommended that the Infrastructure Minister issues a Ministerial Direction to Airservices Australia requiring the immediate reinstatement of SODPROPS as the top priority mode at Brisbane Airport (see 'Ministerial Direction', below). BFPCA acknowledges that SODPROPS cannot be used at all times, due to weather and traffic conditions. However, there should be a requirement for the mode to be the first-choice option where possible. This would be in-line with the procedures used at Sydney Airport to maximise over-water operations.[40]

3.40In responding to calls for the re-instatement of SODPROPS as the preferred mode, Mr Ron Brent, Chair, Brisbane Airport Community Airspace Advisory Board (AAB), acknowledged that there was a small improvement to be made in the reduction of aircraft noise by using the mode. However, he believed that, based on the airport's projected growth, the capacity to use SODPROPS would decline:

It is certainly something that should be used to the maximum, and there are measures in train to try and increase its use at the margins; that is a good thing. We don't want to do anything that inhibits even marginal improvements, but to suggest that this is the solution or that this is going to have a major impact is unrealistic.[41]

3.41Mr Tim Boyle, Program Manager, Future Airspace Strategy and Planning, Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC), disagreed that SODPROPS was no longer the preferred mode of operation at Brisbane Airport, but did acknowledge that it was not usable at all hours due to weather and traffic demands. Mr Boyle asserted that SODPROPS was never downgraded or assigned a lower preference and is still considered a valid operating mode. As it stands, SODPROPS is used for a maximum of 15-20 movements per hour, down from the anticipated amount of 40 movement per hour. However, the mode could be used more, and BAC is working with Airservices to 'expand the use of SODPROPS'.[42]

3.42Mr Curran advised that Airservices worked with Brisbane Airport in 2023 to put forward a safety assessment to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to raise the tailwind threshold during SODPROPS operations to a maximum of seven knots, up from the current level of five. Mr Curran said that 'CASA reviewed that and formed the view that they couldn't support that and suggested there was additional information that we should seek to gather for a range of considerations'. Airservices continues to support Brisbane Airport in gathering more data to strengthen a future safety case to be put to CASA.[43]

3.43Mr Andreas Marcelja, Acting Chief Executive Officer and Director of Aviation Safety, CASA, outlined some of CASA's reasons for rejecting the application:

The issue with setting a new parameter is that it applies to all flights. If we were to move from a five-knot limit to a seven-knot limit, that would apply to everyone that's arriving at the airport. There are a lot of aircraft that have different, varying limits. Our concern is that, when you set it to a standard that is higher than the internationally accepted standard, you have airlines that aren't potentially ready to operate to that higher standard.[44]

3.44Mr Marcelja reiterated that higher tailwind limits can have higher safety risks including higher touchdown speeds, higher descent rates, and unstable approaches. Some airlines and aircraft are equipped to handle these conditions, but not all can operate safely at the higher threshold. In CASA's view, there is no certainty that all arrivals are capable of operating under the seven-knot threshold, therefore, the lower threshold must continue to be used.[45]

Ministerial direction

3.45On 16 September 2024, a Ministerial Direction was issued aimed at increasing the use of SODPROPS at Brisbane Airport. The Hon Catherine King MP, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, issued the Air Services (Use of Simultaneous Opposite Direction Parallel Runway Operations at Brisbane Airport) Direction 2024 (the Direction) to Airservices for implementation by 30 November 2024. It states:

AA [Airservices] must, for Brisbane Airport:

(a)develop and implement an Air Traffic Control Operating Plan to extend the use of SODPROPS, with a focus on extending the use of SODPROPS on weekday evenings, Saturday afternoons and Sunday mornings to the extent that operating conditions permit; and

(b)examine and report to the Minister on the costs, benefits and operational impacts of extending the use of SODPROPS, including where provision is made for moderate flight delays to maintain the use of that mode when traffic demand approaches the maximum capacity for SODPROPS; and

(c)informed by the report prepared for paragraph (b):

(i)review the day time operational plan for the use of SODPROPS; and

(ii)to the extent that operating conditions permit, implement any feasible and appropriate design enhancements identified by AA [Airservices] into the Air Traffic Control Operating Plan that increases the use of this mode during daytime hours.[46]

3.46The Direction notes that Airservices must continue to regard the safety of air navigation as its most important consideration. After the above directions have been implemented, Airservices must also 'publish monthly reports on its website detailing SODPROPS utilisation rates at Brisbane Airport over the previous month, including information about operating conditions and any other matters that prevented the use of SODPROPS'.[47] Monthly reports will continue to be made for three years following implementation.[48]

3.47In the explanatory notes, it states that the Direction aims to implement actions recommended by the Noise Action Plan for Brisbane. The Direction will be in effect for three years after implementation.[49]

3.48During questioning in Supplementary Estimates 2024-25, Mr Curran advised that Airservices expects the use of SODPROPS at Brisbane Airport to increase from 2.3 per cent of flights in 2023 to 5.3 per cent in 2025 following the execution of the Direction. In terms of hours of operation, Airservices expects SODPROPS to be in use for 12.3 per cent of hours annually, up from 8.7 per cent. Mr Curran confirmed that efforts to meet this forecast will be tracked, reported, and published on Airservices' website.[50]

3.49The committee heard concerns from parties within the aviation sector that the Direction has been made in an ad-hoc manner and that any such change should be part of a broader redesign of flight paths in the Brisbane basin. Unlike Sydney, SODPROPS was not designed to be used in anything other than light traffic in Brisbane. These parties argued that to begin using it in moderate traffic without other planning and modelling could compromise the safety of passengers and aircraft.

Continuous descent operations

3.50Selection of flight paths is not the only means of noise mitigation available close to airports. Sydney Airport reported that noise abatement procedures are available to pilots during take-off, approach and landing, and are used to minimise the effect of aircraft noise on nearby residents.[51] One such technique is Continuous Descent Operations (CDO). CDOs allow an aircraft to descend from cruising altitude to the runway in one smooth and uninterrupted descent during the final 20 minutes before landing. This is in contrast to the practice of descending in successive steps with additional power required each time the aircraft 'levels out' at the next step down in altitude. According to Sydney Airport, research has shown that CDO arrivals can cut noise during landing by four to six decibels—a reduction of approximately 60 to 75 per cent.[52] An example of CDOs can be found in Figure 3.2.

Source: Sydney Airport, Submission 47, p. 20.

3.51Similarly, Continuous Climb Operations (CCO) can be used to reach cruising altitude quicker after take-off. Such operations minimise the time the aircraft is at a lower altitude during departure, thereby reducing noise effects on the ground.[53]

3.52Sydney Airport also observed that advancements in Performance Based Navigation (PBN) technology could allow departing aircraft to climb to higher altitudes faster, and aid in CCO procedures. Currently, to achieve safe separation between arriving and departing aircraft, incoming flights must begin their descent 20 nautical miles from the airport. This means that aircraft are flying at lower altitudes for longer than necessary, thereby increasing the amount of noise generated at ground level. PBN technology would allow the 'push down' altitude for arriving aircraft to be increased and allow departing aircraft to climb faster.[54]

3.53CDO and CCO operations are currently in use at other Australian airports and are proposed to be used at Western Sydney Airport (WSI) when flights commence.[55] Mr Richard Wood, from the International Aviation, Technology and Services Division of the department, advised the committee:

… that's one of the design philosophies that we've been able to introduce from the start. Those continuous descents are something that we think will be able to be implemented effectively from day one. It is very much an approach of trying to share noise.[56]

3.54Dr Eric Ancich, chartered professional engineer, told the committee that there are currently procedures in place at Brisbane Airport for aircraft to climb quickly. However, exemptions are frequently given to airlines, negating the benefits:

There is a procedure in place in Brisbane that requires departing aircraft to use a higher level of thrust and a higher flap setting to gain altitude much earlier. The higher they are, obviously, the lower the noise level is on the ground. The information that is available from Airservices indicates that airline operators are able to request exemptions from that requirement, and this is routinely given, particularly for heavily laden aircraft. This is aircraft fully laden with passengers and freight and a full fuel load when they're going overseas. I know that that policy exists in Brisbane and I suspect it exists at a number of other airports. The fact that dispensation is regularly given means that, effectively, it's worthless in ameliorating the noise on the ground.[57]

3.55Qantas provided information on other methods used to reduce noise when taking off and landing, including:

Reducing thrust during take-off to use the minimum amount of engine power required, as opposed to using the maximum available power, thereby reducing the noise produced by the engines.

Minimising the use of reverse thrust on engines after landing by utilising the entire length of the runway to allow the aircraft to decelerate at a slower rate after landing, removing the requirement for the engines to provide increased reverse power.

Shutting one of the aircraft's two engines down after landing and taxiing to the airport terminal using one engine only, effectively halving the amount of noise the aircraft is making whilst taxiing on the ground.[58]

3.56Airservices was asked why it plans to trial CDOs at Melbourne, then Sydney, then Perth, and then Brisbane, considering the quantum of noise complaints in relation to Brisbane Airport. On notice, Airservices explained that:

CDO cannot be introduced until the arrival flight paths for Brisbane are modified which will allow aircraft to descend in a continuous manner.

Brisbane CDO will be implemented after Melbourne, Sydney and Perth as Brisbane requires airspace changes as per the Noise Action Plan for Brisbane, which is not a requirement for the other airports.[59]

Committee view

3.57The committee acknowledges that the LTOP has delivered greater certainty for the Sydney community over the past 30 years and has been successful in involving communities in the planning and management of aircraft noise. However, the committee believes there is scope to review and improve the LTOP to remove inefficiencies and reduce noise.

3.58There is scope to review the specifications around which aircraft are allowed to fly at night. This may be achieved through a later review of Sydney's broader airspace, to be conducted once WSI is operational.

3.59The committee also believes that other methods of noise management should be explored. The 'noise envelope' concept used in the UK is one measure that could be considered which encourages airlines to utilise quieter technology, while not limiting their operations. Under this model, UK airports also use differential landing charges to incentivise quieter aircraft.[60] Suggestions such as that made by Mr Loveday—to diversify departures and explore diverting departing flights over traffic instead of houses—should also be considered.

3.60The committee recognises that SODPROPS is the preferred operating mode of Brisbane residents affected by aircraft noise. The mode is designed specifically to direct flights over water and away from residential areas, thereby avoiding noise pollution over surrounding suburbs. The committee acknowledges the recent Ministerial Direction as an important step to expand the use of SODPROPS at Brisbane Airport.

3.61The committee heard that one of the barriers to greater use of SODPROPS at Brisbane Airport is the five-knot tailwind limit imposed as a condition of its use. The committee acknowledges that not all aircraft are capable of operating at a higher tailwind threshold and that safety must be the primary concern when considering mode usage. However, the committee has heard there is scope for further investigation to implement higher tailwind take-off thresholds for aircraft that are capable of doing so safely. This would enable greater use of the preferred SODPROPS mode of operation and result in reduced aircraft noise.

3.62SODPROPS should also be the preferred mode of operation at night.

3.63The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority urgently investigates the implementation of higher tailwind take-off thresholds for aircraft that are capable of doing so safely.

3.64The committee recommends that Airservices Australia supports maximum possible use, within weather and operational constraints, of simultaneous opposite direction parallel runway operations (SODPROPs) at Brisbane Airport.

3.65The committee is of the view that CDOs and CCOs are a simple and effective way to mitigate aircraft noise generated during take-off and landing. These operations are already in use at some airports, to great effect. Introducing these operations as a first-choice preference at other airports should be a priority to reduce aircraft noise.

3.66The committee recommends that Airservices Australia prioritises work to standardise the use of continuous descent operations and continuous climb operations as the preferential mode for landing and take-off at major airports, including Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne, where it is safe to do so.

Curfews and caps

3.67Another method for limiting aircraft noise is imposing flight caps or curfews on airports. The Infrastructure Department is responsible for the administration of curfews and flight cap regulations at Sydney, Adelaide, Gold Coast and Essendon Fields airports. The curfew period at these airports runs from 11pm to 6am each day, during which most aircraft operations are prohibited except for those given special dispensation. Other airports have no such arrangements. The Government's September 2023 Aviation Green Paper stated that the Government was not considering any additional constraints on airports, including curfews.[61] This position was reiterated in the Aviation White Paper.[62]

3.68The Infrastructure Department is responsible for administering the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997 (SADM Act). Under the SADM Act, aircraft movements at Sydney Airport, including both arrivals and departures, are capped at a maximum of 80 movements per hour outside of the curfew period.[63] Sydney Airport believes that the measures in place currently make it one of the most restricted in the world. Restrictions listed by the airport include curfews restricting operations to specific aircraft or runways, the movement cap of 80 flights per hour, protection of regional access to the airport, and the LTOP.[64]

3.69The Infrastructure Department is also responsible for administering the Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995 (Sydney Curfew Act). The curfew limits operations between the hours of 11pm and 6am to emergency flights and a small number of other aircraft that have been given exemptions.[65] Among these aircraft are the BAe‑146 and the DC9 which are both allowed to operate as long as 'the aircraft is being used solely for the purpose of carrying freight'.[66] No other types of aircraft are mentioned as being exempt from the curfew for the purposes of overnight freight.

3.70Adelaide Airport has a curfew managed under the Adelaide Airport Curfew Act 2000 and the Adelaide Airport Curfew Regulations 2000, which are administered by the department. Like Sydney, the curfew limits nighttime operations to emergency flights, some small jets, propeller-driven aircraft, and freight flights.[67] According to the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman (ANO), the curfews and caps that are currently in place have been effective and 'significantly ameliorate the impacts of aircraft noise'.[68]

3.71The ANO outlined possible variations of flight caps that could be applied. One of these variations would be the introduction of a noise level cap that assesses and limits the average noise level over a 24-hour period. This would encourage noise sharing and the adoption of more modern and quieter aircraft. An averaged noise level cap acknowledges not only how loud noise events are but also their frequency. Communities that are exposed to louder aircraft would experience larger respite periods to remain compliant with the cap, compared to those who experience lower noise levels but may have more overflights as a result.[69]

3.72A further variation could be the use of maximum noise levels, particularly during night periods, or for communities exposed to less frequent aircraft noise. This model focuses on limiting less frequent, but still disturbing, aircraft noise over communities and could encourage airlines to upgrade to quieter aircraft models, and facilitate changes to how aircraft are flown, or changes to the flight paths utilised in evening hours, to achieve compliance. Many airports, including the UK's Heathrow Airport, levy penalties for those aircraft which exceed set noise maximums.[70]

Potential for curfews and caps in Brisbane

3.73An evening curfew and a cap on number of movements has been proposed as a potential solution for the impacts of aircraft noise in suburbs surrounding Brisbane Airport. Dr Sean Foley, BFPCA committee member, told the committee that a cap on flight movements, a curfew, and a long-term operating plan are simple and straightforward solutions that would make a big impact on the amenity of nearby residents.[71]

3.74Dr Foley argued that Sydney airport has been 'successfully operating with a curfew and a flight cap since the mid-nineties' without curtailing economic growth, and there is no reason to believe that Brisbane Airport would suffer any problems either.[72] However, evidence from the department and WSI indicated that the curfew and flight cap at KSA are a significant factor in the need for a second Sydney airport to meet demand and support future growth.[73]

3.75Professor John Quiggin agreed, stating that 'the ratio of costs to benefits for late-night flights from Brisbane Airport is exceptionally high' and that, in the evening, 'each such departure provides a marginal convenience benefit to international airline operators and their passengers' relative to daytime flights.[74]

3.76Professor Quiggin made the point that no other comparable noise is tolerated in the same way that aircraft noise is. Other noisy forms of transport, including rail and heavy vehicles, are prohibited between 10pm and 7am. In Professor Quiggin's view, only a curfew would be effective in easing the evening impacts on residents surrounding Brisbane Airport.[75]

3.77To address noise issues during daytime hours, Professor Quiggin argued that caps on the number of flight movements are necessary and that forecast projections of flight numbers are overinflated:

Projections of massive growth in passenger numbers, making the second runway an unavoidable necessity were clearly over-optimistic even before the Covid 19 pandemic. There has been essentially zero growth in passenger numbers since 2012-13, rendering the economic case for the second runway largely invalid. The BAC projection of 50 million passengers by 2035 is unrealistic and undesirable.[76]

3.78As such, Professor Quiggin recommended that flights should be capped at 2018–19 levels until a substantial reduction in aircraft noise is achieved.[77]

3.79BAC submitted that the introduction of overnight noise quotas, similar to those internationally, should be explored in Australia. Such a measure 'would contribute to better noise outcomes for all stakeholders in the aviation system as well as people in the community'. BAC said that it is 'critical for the airport to work with governmental, local communities, aircraft operators, regulators and air navigation providers to develop these concepts into practical solutions that minimise noise impacts on communities'.[78]

Potential for curfews and caps in Western Sydney

3.80Residents projected to be affected by aircraft noise at WSI also expressed a desire for the introduction of caps and curfews at the new airport. The proposed unrestricted 24 hour, seven days a week operation of WSI posed a significant concern, with inquiry participants worried about the potential adverse effects on their sleep, health and quality of life due to increased noise levels. Mr Ken Welsh,Coordinator, Strategic Transport Planning, Inner West Council, told the committee that 'the curfew is essential for respite for our people' and that even 'a simple dispensation to the curfew can wake a lot of people'.[79]

3.81A primary concern for residents of Western Sydney who gave evidence during the inquiry was the feeling of being dismissed and ignored when comparing their experience to that of residents in Sydney's eastern suburbs. Blue Mountains City Council underscored its belief that the reluctance to introduce a cap or curfew in Western Sydney or remove them from Sydney Airport 'speaks to a lived experience in Eastern Sydney and of material impacts from aircraft overflight'. Blue Mountains City Council highlighted a range of curfew policies and noise abatement procedures for nearby airports, including Sydney Airport, Bankstown, Camden, and Richmond RAAF, and argued that a consistent and community-sensitive approach is required.[80]

3.82This sentiment was reiterated by Mr Matt Gould, Mayor, Wollondilly Shire Council, who said that the Government's opposition to a curfew at WSI 'is nothing short of a double standard and it equates to little more than … discrimination against Western Sydney and surrounds'.[81] Mr Gould said local residents believe that the WSI flight paths have been designed to protect Sydney Airport, and that the need to avoid impacting existing aircraft operations within the Sydney Basin has been prioritised over the needs of residents of Sydney's west and the Blue Mountains.[82] Mr Gould argued for a consistent approach across all Sydney airports:

Fundamentally, whatever the mechanism is that is applying at Kingsford Smith should apply at Western Sydney. If they have a curfew then Western Sydney deserves a curfew. If it's caps then Western Sydney deserves a cap. We need to treat this as a regional issue. The benefits are for all of Sydney. The way that this is implemented should be equitably distributed across all of Sydney.[83]

Possible impacts of curfews and caps

3.83In response to calls for curfews and flight caps at Brisbane and WSI, airports, business and tourism groups argued that such arrangements would have detrimental flow-on effects for economic activity, employment, and regional areas. Industry told the committee that restrictions at Brisbane Airport and WSI could potentially lead to higher airfares, fewer options for regional travellers, a loss of economic activity and jobs, and affect freight transport capabilities.

Economic impacts

3.84Western Sydney Airport provided information, prepared by Deloitte Access Economics in October 2022 (Deloitte Report), detailing the ways a curfew could economically limit WSI. The report describes curfews as 'a blunt policy tool' that would have wider implications for travellers and the economy. These negative implications for airports include loss of competitive advantage and limiting of future capacity growth. For travellers, there would be fewer options due to a smaller travel window and higher costs as flight are in shorter supply.[84]

3.85The imposition of curfews would particularly affect the ability of WSI to act as a freight hub. Curfews limit the ability of an airport to deliver next-day freight, make it less likely that freight companies would switch from existing airports, and create operational challenges as all freight must be transported during limited slots in daytime hours.[85]

3.86The Deloitte Report estimates the negative economic impact of a curfew for WSI on the Western Sydney region to reach $3.3 to $3.6 billion per year and the loss of 12900 to 14100 full-time equivalent jobs. This estimate includes loss of tourism expenditure, loss in freight exports, and reduced operations in the business precinct. Given the primary impact of a curfew at the airport is a reduction in visitor expenditure, the sectors expected to see the highest loss of employment are those most connected to the tourism industry. Trade, recreational services, and transport services are expected to experience the highest loss in employment.[86]

3.87The committee also heard evidence from Melbourne Airport about the potential costs of a curfew. Melbourne Airport currently operates without any caps or curfews. However, Mr Justin Portelli, Executive General Manager, Planning and Community, Melbourne Airport, advised the committee that Melbourne Airport's modelling indicates that a daily wide-body international service generates $154 million annually. This includes not only the value generated by passengers but also freight. According to Mr Portelli, 80 per cent of the freight that moves through the airport is carried in passenger aircraft and Melbourne Airport carries 40 per cent of the nation's airfreight.[87]

3.88Queensland Economic Advocacy Solutions (QEAS) also estimated the effect a curfew may have on operations at Brisbane Airport. QEAS analysed the effect a curfew would have if it were retrospectively applied to the 2018-19 year and how airlines, the airport, and Airservices would respond to the restrictions to minimise flights. The analysis showed that, if curfews and caps were in place, 10010 flights and 189000 passenger movements would have been lost. These numbers would be forecast to reach 88062 flights and 11 million passenger movements lost by 2041–42.[88]

3.89BFPCA disputed the findings made by QEAS. According to the BFPCA, many of the flights shown to be 'lost' by QEAS could be accommodated at other times of the day. By moving these flights to lower demand hours flight numbers could remain steady while still not exceeding existing caps. The BFPCA also noted that most of the overnight movements carry freight. Other freight carriers like trains and trucks make substantial efforts to minimise noise during nighttime operations. If Brisbane Airport cannot do the same then, in the view of the BFPCA, these freight operations could be moved to other airports in South-East Queensland.[89]

3.90BFPCA also disputed the growth projections made by QEAS. The QEAS analysis does not take into account the weak growth in air transport observed in recent years and implies no role for democratic decision making about transport policy. The BFPCA said that the implicit view taken by the QEAS is that demand for the services of Brisbane Airport should be met at all costs, regardless of disamenity and health impacts on Brisbane residents. Such a view is a mistake and 'is no different from the position taken by other polluting industries prior to the passage of Clean Air and Clean Water acts'. BFPCA submitted that welfare effects need to be considered as part of any economic impact analysis.[90]

3.91The Australian Airports Association (AAA) raised the issue of potential disruption to the network in the event of delays, saying that 'proposals to place caps or curfews on airports that currently operate without restriction would be a retrograde move'. AAA suggested that the introduction of movement caps and curfews at major airports would make the national flight network less resilient and create challenges in recovering from delays due to weather or other events. This effect is already seen when weather affects flight movements at Sydney Airport. AAA said that once delays occur in Sydney, the movement caps in place at that airport make it hard to recover, which results in flow-on effects to other airports and creates delays across the network.[91]

Impacts on regional areas

3.92Dr Esther Anderson, Senior Research and Policy Officer, Queensland Tourism Industry Council, suggested that any caps and curfews would lead to airlines prioritising flights with the highest yield and occupancy. This would lead to airlines choosing to use their limited slots on lucrative international flights over connecting flights to regional areas. According to Dr Anderson this would 'decrease our tourism offering, decrease the ability to provide overnight freight, decrease regional and remote connectivity, and cause major issues within peak hours of travel through increasing volumes during those times' in addition to raising airfare prices and causing traveller inconvenience.[92]

3.93This view was echoed by Mr Gert-Jan de Graaff, Chief Executive Officer, Brisbane Airport Corporation, who explained to the committee how few flights currently operate to regional areas and how that could potentially be reduced further:

Why a curfew would impact regional flights is because during the night we're operating just under 50 flights in total. That's about 25 aircraft that are turning around. Fourteen of those flights, or about one-third, are freighters—freight flights. They go predominantly to regional destinations with product services—pharmaceuticals, mail packages and those kinds of things. Those would be the first issue, if you would, for night closure.[93]

3.94Dr Anderson argued that disruption due to a reduction in flights would contribute to missed and displaced connections. If a passenger is unable to easily get off one aircraft and onto another, or if they have to wait overnight to get the next flight during non-curfew hours, they will then be flying at peak times when costs are higher. Flights to some regional destinations may only operate once per day with a mix of travellers including those on business, families, freight, and mail. Due to this diverse mix, any disruptions can have wide-ranging effects for the regional centre.[94]

3.95However, airports noted that the industry has options to prioritise regional connectivity. Mr de Graaff said the airlines conduct most of the flight scheduling, andan independent slot coordinator provides the airlines with times to arrive and depart from Brisbane Airport. Theoretically, that slot coordinator could ask airlines to prioritise regional flights over international flights, thereby mitigating some of the regional flow-on effects of a flight curfew.[95]

Further caps and curfews ruled out

3.96In its consideration of noise management in the Aviation White Paper, the Australian Government reaffirmed its commitment 'not to impose any additional operating constraints on airports, such as curfews or movement caps, where they currently do not exist'.[96] The Government's view is that aviation is a key enabler of economic growth, and constraints on aviation activity may harm national prosperity. Maintaining a national network of curfew-free airports enables the more efficient movement of passengers and freight, not only at individual airports but across the entire network.[97] The Government stated that the 24/7 operation of WSI is part of an effort to address constraints in the overnight freight network caused by curfew restrictions at Sydney Airport.[98]

3.97Airports, airlines, tourism and business groups, and others, supported the Government's view that additional restrictions are unnecessary and there should be no change to the curfew-free status of WSI and other airports. Qantas submitted that introducing curfews would reduce airline efficiency and growth in capacity, including inhibiting operational and commercial flexibility to expand the flight network. This would disproportionately impact regional airports as they look for opportunities for growth and development of air services, tourism and other economic benefits.[99]

3.98When questioned on the basis for ruling out curfews, representatives of the Infrastructure Department told the committee that no independent modelling has been completed to measure the costs and benefits of restrictions. Airports have commissioned research into the potential impacts of curfews, but modelling has not been done on the economic costs associated with the impacts of nighttime flights. Ms Stephanie Werner, First Assistant Secretary, Domestic Aviation and Reform, confirmed that 'the Government's policy position is that it doesn't intend to impose curfews, so, no, we [the department] haven't conducted such studies'.[100]

3.99Ms Marisa Purvis-Smith, Deputy Secretary, Transport said the commitment to not impose further curfews or restrictions was a matter of government policy and was not based on any research conducted by the department:

[W]e haven't put an economic-benefit number on that. It is a judgement. There will be trade-offs with any curfew, or lack of curfew, allowing 24 hours—health, residents, economy, and the connectivity that any particular airport provides. It is a world of trade-offs. The government has made a statement and has decided its policy, as stated in the Aviation White Paper.

…

[W]e haven't put a monetary or economic value, or a cost-benefit value, on economic versus noise issues, and the government has made a decision in relation to its policy on curfews.[101]

Committee view

3.100The committee understands why many noise-affected residents are in favour of curfews and caps. Eliminating or dramatically reducing flights during nighttime hours provides significant respite to communities impacted by aircraft noise. However, caps and curfews tend to be blunt tools that restrict all types of aircraft, even ones that may not cause a significant noise impact. Caps and curfews also restrict travellers and tourism, limit access to medical care, family reunion, regional community connections, and other essential travel.

3.101A better approach would be to target the times of day and types of aircraft that cause the most distress for residents.

3.102The committee acknowledges that adequate sleep is an important right, and believes it is reasonable to seek to reduce noise at night wherever possible. Many other industries, such as construction and transport, face restrictions at night. In contrast, many Australian airports face no explicit restriction of noise at night. It would make sense to explore greater opportunities for reasonable restrictions that can balance the need for economic and social importance of an operating airport against the right of residents to enjoy a good night's sleep.

3.103In this regard, the committee believes that the Government should trial an explicit requirement in Brisbane that aircraft operating at night be required to meet the requirements of the new Chapter 14 Noise Standard of the ICAO Balanced Approach to Aircraft Noise Management (Stage 5). Making these rules an explicit requirement is likely to require change to the normally scheduled 1:55am Emirates flight to Dubai, which the committee was told accounts for a large proportion of the complaints at night around the Brisbane airport. Evidence suggested that aircraft currently used for this flight would be Stage 4 compliant, but not Stage 5 compliant.[102]

3.104This new requirement should be trialled at Brisbane airport. The committee notes that the Brisbane Airport Corporation recommended this change and is well placed to respond to it, and that this change is likely to provide a substantial benefit to Brisbane residents. After an appropriate time of this rule's use, the Government should review whether the same standard could apply to other airports.

3.105The committee notes that many supported the creation of a 'noise envelope' standard that could also tackle noise issues during the day. Tackling noise problems during the day is a more complex issue so the committee recommends that the Government establishes noise envelope guidelines, which should be transparently reported against. The Government should review the record of airports in meeting certain noise thresholds once an appropriate amount of comparable data has been collected.

3.106The committee recommends that the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts changes the rules for Brisbane airport such that aircraft operating at night must meet the requirements of the ICAO Chapter 14—Balanced Approach to Aircraft Noise Management rules. After an appropriate time of this rule's use, the Government should review whether the same standard could apply to other airports.

3.107The committee recommends that the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts develops guidelines for 'noise envelopes' at Australian airports, against which airports should provide transparent reporting. The Government should review the record of airports in meeting certain noise thresholds once an appropriate amount of comparable data has been collected.

Compensation schemes and noise levies

3.108Although the solutions covered in this chapter would help to mitigate aircraft noise, it is impossible to eliminate all noise associated with aviation. Inquiry participants discussed the availability and design of compensation schemes which aid in soundproofing homes and businesses where aircraft noise is unavoidable.

3.109Compensation schemes have previously been instituted for other airports, most notably in Sydney and Adelaide. The Sydney Airport Noise Amelioration Program was introduced in November 1994 as a program to voluntarily acquire properties and provide financial assistance for insulation of buildings most affected by aircraft noise. The compensation included the purchase of 161 residences, and the installation of sound insulation for around 4200 residences.[103] The cost of the program totalled $300 million over six years, with some of that cost being recouped through a levy on airlines and air ticket sales.[104]

3.110This program was followed in 2000 by the Commonwealth Noise Insulation Scheme (CNIS). The CNIS was used mainly for properties around Sydney and Adelaide Airports and was used as a means to insulate affected buildings. All residential properties with the Australian Noise Exposure Index (ANEI) 30 contour qualified for the scheme, as well as all public buildings, including schools, churches, and hospitals, within the ANEI 25 contour.[105] The CNIS was funded by a levy on passengers and provided funding up to $60 000 in Sydney and $70 000 in Adelaide for each affected residence. The levy was designated to recover:

costs of insulating homes and buildings;

legal expenses and property acquisition;

compensation;

annual production of ANEI;

levy collection fees to Airservices; and

contract costs for the outsourced project manager.[106]

3.111The levy was removed in 2010 and the program concluded in 2013.[107]

3.112Compensation schemes have also been used internationally. The ANO advised the committee that the United States Federal Aviation Administration allows certain airports to charge a levy on each passenger transiting through the airport. All charges are then used to fund sound insulation for nearby buildings and the acquisition of land around the airport. In Europe, some airports charge levies based on the levels of noise an aircraft generates. This incentivises airlines to operate newer, quieter aircraft. In the UK, a noise-based charge is in place at Heathrow, Gatwick, Manchester, Stansted, and East Midlands airports. Swedavia, which operates ten airports in Sweden, uses a noise charge to pay for both noise monitoring and noise mitigation activities, including soundproofing and sound barriers.[108]

3.113The Netherlands Government has also imposed a levy on noisy and polluting aircraft at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. Airlines flying the noisiest and most polluting planes to the airport will need to pay up to five times more in charges compared to quieter, less-polluting models. By imposing the charge only on those aircraft that generate the most noise these operators are effectively priced out of the market. This encourages airlines to employ quieter, and therefore cheaper, aircraft models.[109]

3.114In Australia, airports can be declared as leviable under the Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Act 1995 (Levies Act). Under the Levies Act, an airport qualifies as leviable under the following conditions:

An airport is a qualifying airport at a particular time if:

(a)at that time there is:

(i)a public building within a 25-unit contour shown on an Australian Noise Exposure Forecast previously prepared for the area around the airport for a date after that time; or

(ii)a residence within a 30-unit contour shown on an Australian Noise Exposure Forecast previously prepared for the area around the airport for a date after that time; and

(b)the Commonwealth is funding at that time, or has funded before that time, a noise amelioration program for the airport.[110]

3.115After an airport has been identified as qualifying the Minister may declare the airport as leviable for a period specified in the declaration under Section 7 of the Levies Act. In exercising the powers under this section, the Minister must ensure that:

(a)each qualifying airport is declared a leviable airport as soon as practicable after it is identified as a qualifying airport; and

(b)as far as practicable, the adjusted levy liability for an airport at any given time does not exceed the Commonwealth expenditure on the noise amelioration program for the airport up to that time; and

(c)as far as practicable, the ratio of the adjusted levy liability for an airport to the Commonwealth expenditure on the noise amelioration program for the airport is ultimately the same for each leviable airport.[111]

3.116Calls have been made for levy schemes to be used in Australia. The Flight Path Opponents Group recommended that the Commonwealth work with state and territory governments to update building codes to 'include stringent noise insulation standards for houses beneath flight corridors'. In addition, that any changes to zoning laws 'must incorporate equitable provisions for compensating residents materially affected by noise-related disruptions'.[112]

3.117Mr Brent voiced his personal support for a levy system, arguing that the previous programs were 'poorly conceived' and were 'very arbitrary in who had access to the funds and how they were expended and so on'.[113] As such, Mr Brent suggested there is scope for a rethinking of the model:

[T]here is room to look at ways that a small levy on the passengers and the services using the airport might provide funds to have a totally differently conceived subsidy scheme that would be less arbitrary in its application and smaller in terms of how much individual people might access but that might provide a more accessible way to implement measures that could make a difference at homes.[114]

3.118Brimbank Council, located in Melbourne, recommended that a noise amelioration program be adopted in Melbourne which would provide funding to owners of houses and buildings accommodating public services including schools, childcare centres and hospitals. Such a scheme would be consistent with those used previously in Sydney and Adelaide.[115]

3.119The BFPCA argued for similar conditions in Brisbane by recommending that Brisbane Airport be declared a leviable airport under the Levies Act. If declared a leviable airport, levies can be imposed and collected for the purpose of distributing 'as compensation to all Brisbane residents in the vicinity of any of Brisbane Airport's flight paths and within the noise contours associated with compromised health and educational outcomes'.[116]

3.120Community Aviation Alliance Australia (CAAA) noted that while residents impacted by noise generated from Sydney, Western Sydney, and Adelaide airports all benefit from these initiatives, residents of similarly affected areas elsewhere in Australia are excluded. CAAA argued that noise levels have been found to be as loud or even louder than Sydney around airports in Brisbane, Melbourne, Hobart, Sunshine Coast and high-density GA airports such as Moorabbin. Despite suffering from similar issues, there is no scheme or benefit applied to these locales. CAAA questioned why noise mitigation schemes should only be applied to certain airports, and recommended the rollout of a compensation scheme nationwide.[117]

3.121Mr John Cincotta, Member of CAAA and Dingley Village Community Association (DVCA), noted that Melbourne Airport's third runway Master Development Plan (MDP) approval included noise amelioration conditions and, in his view, this should be extended to other airports nationwide:

[The MDP approval included] a condition for noise amelioration for surrounding dwellings, and we think that that should be the standard for all of Australia. Western Sydney has a provision for noise amelioration that's very clear and its target indoor noise level is 50 decibels. Again, that helps existing residents in the expanding noise prints of growing airports. But, currently, there are no policies or regulations that would require that. We think it's reasonable for an airport to do that as a normal cost of expanding its business and in return for increasing aircraft flights. Obviously, this is what's happened with Melbourne and its third runway.[118]

3.122The ANO made a similar argument and recommended that an airport's Master Plan should address compensation for affected residents where an airports operation places public buildings and residences over the 'significant' ANEF contour. The ANO noted that the 2020 Perth Airport Master Plan acknowledged that 38 houses lay within the 30 ANEF contour. Despite this, there is no mention of a noise amelioration scheme that involves compensation to residents. Similarly, Melbourne Airport's Master Plan predicted there will be 34 buildings within the 30 ANEF by 2052 and does not include compensation in its plans for managing the impacts of this noise.[119]

3.123The department was asked to comment on differential ANEF thresholds for compensation for those affected by Melbourne Airport's third runway, compared with those who will be affected by WSI. The department responded:

As a new greenfield, curfew-free airport development, WSI will introduce aircraft noise into areas that currently receive little to no existing aircraft noise impacts. ... In recognition of these unique circumstances, the noise insulation program for WSI will provide a modest broadening in eligibility over the previous Australian noise insulation programs at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) and Adelaide airports—by using ANEC 20 as the eligibility contour at WSI, instead of the comparable ANEF 30 (for residential) and ANEF 25 (for non-residential) contours as used at Sydney and Adelaide.[120]

3.124Professor Quiggin noted that, in economic terms, aircraft noise is an example of a 'negative externality' that would typically be resolved through a tax or levy. Professor Quiggin acknowledged that a levy would raise the cost of air travel for passengers. However, this is true of all kinds of charges levied on polluters and, he believed, this would be economically appropriate. Specifically, Professor Quiggin recommended that travel to and from Brisbane Airport be subject to a charge representing the costs of aircraft noise. The proceeds of the charge should be used to fund private and public noise mitigation projects in affected areas.[121]

3.125In its Aviation White Paper, the Government acknowledged that the costs associated with noise are currently borne by residents near airports and not by airlines:

The costs of noise and other environmental impacts from aviation are not borne by the aviation industry – they are what is sometimes referred to as 'externalities' and are borne by other members of society. Because the aviation industry does not bear the full cost of its activities, there is a risk that it will generate excessive levels of noise and other impacts – a form of market failure. The Australian Government has a longstanding role in addressing such market failures in the interests of Australian society as a whole.[122]

3.126Dr Ancich suggested the Government's acknowledgement that the aviation industry does not currently bear the cost of its activities offers the potential for a levy or other instrument to be instituted in a 'polluter-pays model'.[123]

3.127The Aviation White Paper states that the Australian Government 'will use its policy and regulatory levers to help mitigate aircraft noise as much as practicable, without imposing economically harmful restrictions on aviation activity, and will hold the sector accountable for minimising noise impacts where it is safe to do so'.[124]

Compensation scheme for WSI

3.128As part of the Government's approval for Stage 1 of WSI, the Infrastructure Department has developed a draft Noise Insulation and Property Acquisition Policy (NIPA). The draft policy is not intended to compensate for economic impacts, including impacts on building and property values. Rather, the NIPA is intended to aid noise impacted communities to best preserve existing building uses against the noise generated by an airport operating all day, every day. The policy was released in 2023 for public consultation alongside the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).[125] The policy will be finalised alongside the final EIS, with the program expected to commence in 2025. Costs for the program will be met by the Commonwealth as part of its $5.3 billion equity investment in WSI.[126]

3.129The draft NIPA would offer noise treatment assistance to pre-existing properties that meet the criteria in Figure 3.4.

Source: Western Sydney International – Airspace and flight path design – Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3.130To qualify for insulation treatment assistance, a building would have to be located within the ANEC 20 contour. Under the program, potential treatments, including double glazed windows, wall and ceiling insulation, external door seals and cooling, would be utilised to reduce any internal noise to a maximum of 50 decibels.[127]

3.131Acquisition of a property would become an option for all properties located within the ANEC 40 contour. Currently, no eligible building is located within this area, however, consideration may be made on a case-by-case basis for requests for acquisition of a property within the ANEC 20-40 range. The following additional criteria will also be taken into account when acquiring a property:

The proposed acquisition is voluntary and at the request of the owner.

The property is very significantly impacted by aircraft overflight noise.

Effective remediation treatments are not possible.

Agreement on fair value with the owner can be reached.[128]

3.132All final decisions on whether a property should be acquired are a matter for the Australian Government. Representatives of the department advised that more than 90 properties would likely qualify for the scheme. The department also noted that WSI differs from Sydney and Adelaide Airports in that it does not have houses within a few hundred metres of the airport or the runway. Land use protections have prevented large urban development from occurring within five to six kilometres of the airport.[129]

3.133Significant concerns were raised by inquiry participants over the proposed noise insulation scheme at WSI. Mr Gould warned that the policy is not broad enough to capture all affected properties and needs to be significantly expanded. Parts of Wollondilly Shire are outside of the ANEC 20 contours yet, when cumulative noise metrics are considered, would endure more than ten flights per day that exceed 60 decibels. Mr Gould illustrated the contradictions created by local restrictions:

We've got the completely ridiculous situation now where, in large areas in the north of my shire, residents are not allowed to build a granny flat to look after their ageing parents because land use restrictions have been put in on the basis that the aircraft noise impacts will be so significant; yet those same residents are not eligible for the noise insulation scheme. You've got to pick a lane, one way or the other.[130]

3.134Residents of affected suburbs are also concerned about the exclusion of compensation for the reduction in property values. Inner West Council submitted that the value of properties subjected to aircraft noise are lower than similar properties without noise. Beyond monetary value, Inner West Council submits that lower property values result in reduced rate revenue for councils. This in turn means that councils have reduced ability to provide services to their community. Inner West Council recommends that 'the impact of aircraft noise on property values should be considered in any analysis relating to the impacts of aircraft noise' and that consideration should be given to the 'long term impact of rate revenue for councils that results from reduced property values associated with aircraft noise'.[131]

Committee view

3.135Aircraft noise is an issue that affects a range of communities across Australia and compensation schemes should be consistent across Australia, rather than being localised on certain airports.

3.136The negative effects of aircraft noise are primarily borne by residents in areas close to airports and under flight paths, who have no direct role in producing this noise. This fact was acknowledged in the Aviation White Paper. It is a matter of fairness that those who produce the noise should take responsibility for its impacts, and play a role in compensating those who are negatively affected, where mitigation is not possible.

3.137The committee believes that major projects, including new runways, significant runway alterations, and major flight path or flight operation changes that significantly increase noise, should trigger consideration of the need for compensation to fund noise amelioration programs. This consideration should be included as part of the preparation of MDPs, noting that the Commonwealth's interests in airport leases should remain protected under any arrangements.

3.138The committee believes international approaches to levies, including the approach taken at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport, could provide a useful model for Australia in cases where noise is a significant factor. The implementation of levies for large, loud and older aircraft, and subsidies for smaller, quieter aircraft models would provide an incentive for airlines to modernise their fleet and invest in quieter aircraft technology.

3.139In addition, the committee encourages the government to consider declaring Brisbane Airport a leviable airport, given the amount of noise imposed on the surrounding community. The committee acknowledges that this will likely result in airlines passing on costs to passengers. However, in the absence of a curfew or flight caps, levies would be an appropriate way to fund noise amelioration for the most affected areas. Levies collected should be directed towards noise mitigation projects and an amelioration program for surrounding residents.

3.140The committee recommends that the Australian Government amends the Airports Act 1996, and associated Regulations, to require airport Master Plans and Major Development Plans (where applicable) to address the issue of compensation for residents affected by the additional noise generated by the airport.

3.141As part of the approval process for airport Master Plans, and Major Development Plans which significantly alter or add new runways, the committee recommends that the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government considers whether an airport should be declared a leviable airport under the Aircraft Noise Levy Act 1995.

3.142Any decision to designate an airport as leviable should be based on a threshold set by the Australian Government in consultation with industry and other stakeholders to ensure that the Commonwealth's interests are protected under the arrangements.

Noise impacts from general aviation and light aircraft

3.143Issues with aircraft noise are not limited to major airports and large aircraft. The committee also heard evidence from residents of areas near general aviation (GA) airports stating their issues with small aircraft and GA operators. These GA airports are often located in high density areas, including Moorabbin (Melbourne), Jandakot (Perth), Bankstown (Sydney), Archerfield (Brisbane) and Parafield (Adelaide), and, CAAA argued, they are effectively unregulated despite the levels of noise they produce.[132]

3.144The primary source of aircraft noise from GA airports is training flights. Training flights typically take the form of 'circuit training' where trainees follow a particular path to practice their skills. Due to circuit training, the noise produced is concentrated on particular areas with little respite. This is especially disturbing for affected residents as the noise is highly repetitive and continues over extended periods of time.[133]

3.145DVCA reported that residents near large GA airports, such as Moorabbin, can experience between 500 and 1000 direct flyovers per day. Each circuit takes approximately four minutes for a plane to complete. When the circuit has a full complement of seven planes it can equate to flyovers every 10-20 seconds, including the noise heard of another aircraft approaching just after one has overflown.[134] According to CAAA this occurs from 8am to 9pm every day. At Jandakot, pilot training circuits run during the evening to accommodate trainees who hold other jobs during the day. These training sessions start at 6pm and go through until 10pm daily.[135]

3.146East Melbourne Group (EMG), representing residents near Moorabin Airport, argued that these flights are joy and training flights and they should not be allowed over such a densely populated area. EMG say the problems have occurred since 2013 due to the relaxation of regulations which allowed light aircraft and helicopters to no longer follow transit routes. As a result of this change, helicopters and small fixed wing aircraft are now able to freely fly over sensitive residential and public areas with minimal air traffic control. Residents have recorded hundreds of flights over inner Melbourne suburbs with some operators undertaking as many as 30 circuits over a single suburb.[136]

3.147While accepting the right of flight training providers to undertake their business, and their necessary role in preparing pilots for future flights, there was intense community frustration at the lack of response and accountability regarding the issue. CAAA submitted that Airservices offers an aircraft noise complaint-handling service which includes referral of GA noise complaints to the relevant airport.[137] However, DVCA argued these complaints are not addressed. Issues with consultation and complaint handling are covered further in Chapter 5.[138]

3.148To help address some of these concerns, the Aviation White Paper raised the prospect of increasing usage of 'Fly Neighbourly' agreements. Such agreements are non-binding undertakings by pilots to operate their aircraft in certain ways to mitigate noise impact, including operating above a certain altitude over residential areas or only undertaking particular operations at certain times. These agreements are typically a joint initiative between the airports and surrounding local councils and are already in place for some airports. In the White Paper, the Government committed to developing national guidance on 'Flying Considerately' for aircraft operating under visual flight rules or outside of controlled airspace. The guidance will be non-binding, and pilots will continue to prioritise safety aboveall other considerations, including minimising noise. However, the guidance will provide a basis for outlining expectations to pilots and may be considered by the ANO when investigating aircraft noisecomplaints.[139]

3.149Some GA airports already operate voluntary agreements with flight training providers which specify hours of operation, preferred minimum flight altitudes, and use of engines, among other restrictions. However, compliance with such agreements is not monitored, nor are there sanctions for non-compliance.[140] At Moorabbin, DVCA reported that planes consistently fly below their minimum threshold of 1000 ft (300 metres). The repeated flights one after the other at such low altitudes has been compared by residents as having 'a highway in the sky directly above your home', with no monitoring or recourse for those breaking the altitude rules.[141]

3.150Mr Cincotta highlighted that these measures are purely voluntary, and these agreements do not address the main issue, which is the volume of the circuit training itself. If there is no regulation to reduce movements, and no willingness of the operator to do so voluntarily, the noise cannot be addressed.[142]

3.151To address these issues, DVCA recommended the use of alternative paths and noise sharing arrangements to spread the noise more fairly. This could take the form of an alternating day on/day off approach, or other arrangement to alternate the circuits and spread the flight training activity so that no single area is impacted constantly. Further, the use of a broader range of runways, and reducing flight operation times in the evenings and on weekends, would aid in providing residents with some respite.[143]

3.152Mr Cincotta advised that the preferred outcome would be for the GA airports to be moved entirely so that they are located in areas away from urban development. As this is not feasible, he instead suggested that airports can operate on reduced time, 'where they can condense the training to during the day, when people are at work, and maybe have it more open and have less activity on weekends and evenings'.[144]

3.153Issues with noise generated by light aircraft were not limited to GA airports in high density areas. Regional airport operators have reported similar issues with non-commercial flights. AAA cited pressures unique to regional airports, particularly those that support critical infrastructure of national significance or are collocated with Defence facilities. Fast growing towns that act as regional centres face new pressures as development encroaches closer to the airports, leading to noise issues not only in new residential buildings but also in public infrastructure developments such as schools and health care facilities.[145]

Committee view

3.154The committee appreciates the concerns raised by residents impacted by General Aviation. The constant and repeated noise generated by some types of GA flights offers residents little respite and can be extended over long periods of time. This is cause for concern as quality of life for residents around these airports is lowered.

3.155The majority of GA airports are owned and operated by state governments and are not under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth. However, the committee maintains that the Government should work with states and territories to minimise impacts of GA flights over residential areas.

3.156The committee supports the increased usage of 'Fly Neighbourly' agreements. These agreements are a useful way of listening to and acknowledging community concerns with aircraft noise, while continuing airport operations in a more conscientious manner. The committee encourages GA airports to consider the use of noise sharing and 'Fly Neighbourly' programs.

Footnotes

[1]International Civil Aviation Organisation, Balanced Approach to Aircraft Noise Management (accessed 4 October 2024).

[2]Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts (DITRDCA), Submission 55, pp. 1, 19.

[3]Carlton River, Primrose Sands and Forcett Flight Path Opponents Group, Submission 252, pp. 14–15. See: International Civil Aviation Organization, Balanced Approach to Aircraft Noise Management (accessed 12 September 2024).

[4]Emirates Airline, Submission 73, p. 1. See also: Qantas, Submission 8, p. 1.

[5]Sydney Airport, Sydney Airport Master Plan 2039, p. 231.

[6]Sydney Airport, Sydney Airport Master Plan 2039, p. 231.

[7]DITRDCA, Submission 55, p. 5.

[8]Sydney Airport, Sydney Airport Master Plan 2039, p. 231.

[9]Sydney Airport, Submission 47, p. 10.

[10]Emirates Airline, Submission 73, p. 2.

[11]Qantas, Submission 8, p. 2.

[12]Dr Andrew Hede, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 14.

[13]Mr Williams, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 14.

[14]Mr Tony Williams, Committee Hansard, 9 August 2024, p. 20.

[15]Sydney Airport, Sydney Airport Master Plan 2039, p. 230.

[16]Sydney Airport, Sydney Airport Master Plan 2039, p. 234.

[17]Randwick City Council, Submission 67, p. 1; Sutherland Shire Council, Submission 70, p. 8.

[18]Sydney Airport, Sydney Airport Master Plan 2039, p. 234.

[19]Sydney Airport, Submission 47, p. 19.

[20]Mr John Clarke, Committee Hansard, 9 August 2024, p. 21.

[21]Mr Clarke, Committee Hansard, 9 August 2024, pp. 20–21.

[22]Sydney Airport, Submission 47, p. 19.

[23]Randwick City Council, Submission 67, p. 2.

[24]Sydney Airport, Sydney Airport Master Plan 2039, p. 234.

[25]Sutherland Shire Council, Submission 70, p. 8.

[26]Sydney Airport, Submission 47, p. 20.

[27]Qantas, Submission 8, p. 4.

[28]Qantas, Submission 8, p. 5.

[29]Qantas, Submission 8, p. 4.

[30]Sydney Airport, Submission 47, p. 21.

[31]Mr Clarke, Committee Hansard, 9 August 2024, p. 21.

[32]Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance (BFPCA), Submission 4, p. 52.

[33]BFPCA, Submission 4, p. 52.

[34]BFPCA, Submission 4, pp. 25–26.

[35]Mr Peter Curran, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Airservices Australia, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 48.

[36]BFPCA, Submission 4, p. 25.

[37]BFPCA, Submission 4, p. 28.

[38]Mr Matthew Loveday, Submission 300, [p. 4].

[39]Mr Matthew Loveday, Submission 300.1, [pp. 1–2].

[40]BFPCA, Submission 4, p. 53.

[41]Mr Ron Brent, Chair, Brisbane Airport Community Airspace Advisory Board, Committee Hansard, 15 April 2024, p. 26.

[42]Mr Tim Boyle, Program Manager, Future Airspace Strategy and Planning, Brisbane Airport Corporation, Committee Hansard, 15 April 2024, pp. 52–54.

[43]Mr Curran, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 43.

[44]Mr Andreas Marcelja, Acting Chief Executive Officer and Director of Aviation Safety, Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 43.

[45]Mr Marcelja, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 43.

[46]Air Services (Use of Simultaneous Opposite Direction Parallel Runway Operations at Brisbane Airport) Direction 2024, ss. 5(1).

[47]Air Services (Use of Simultaneous Opposite Direction Parallel Runway Operations at Brisbane Airport) Direction 2024, ss. 5(4).

[48]DITRDCA, Air Services (Use of Simultaneous Opposite Direction Parallel Runway Operations at Brisbane Airport) Direction 2024 Explanatory notes, September 2024 (accessed 15 October 2024), p. 2.

[49]DITRDCA, Air Services (Use of Simultaneous Opposite Direction Parallel Runway Operations at Brisbane Airport) Direction 2024 Explanatory notes, September 2024 (accessed 15 October 2024), pp. 1–2.

[50]Mr Curran, Committee Hansard, 4 November 2024, p. 111.

[51]Sydney Airport, Sydney Airport Master Plan 2039, p. 234.

[52]Sydney Airport, Submission 47, p. 20.

[53]Qantas, Submission 8, p. 3.

[54]Sydney Airport, Submission 47, p. 21.

[55]Sydney Airport, Submission 47, p. 21.

[56]Mr Richard Wood, First Assistant Secretary, International Aviation, Technology and Services Division, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts (DITRDCA), Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 59.

[57]Dr Eric Ancich, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 14.

[58]Qantas, Submission 8, p. 3.

[59]Airservices Australia, responses to question taken on notice, public hearing 20 September 2024 (received 12 November 2024), [p. 5].

[60]UK Civil Aviation Authority, Environmental charging—review of impact of noise and NOx landing charges, 2013, pp. 9–11 (accessed 26 November 2024).

[61]DITRDCA, Submission 55, p. 17.

[62]Australian Government, Aviation White Paper: towards 2050, August 2024, p. 154 (accessed 25 September 2024).

[63]DITRDCA, Submission 55, p. 17.

[64]Sydney Airport, Submission 47, p. 17.

[65]DITRDCA, Curfew at Sydney Airport, (accessed 15 October 2024).

[66]Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995, s. 13.

[67]Adelaide and Parafield Airports, Submission 50, p. 3.

[68]Aircraft Noise Ombudsman (ANO), Submission 30, p. 3.

[69]ANO, Submission 30, p. 3.

[70]ANO, Submission 30, p. 4.

[71]Dr Sean Foley, Committee member, BFPCA, Committee Hansard, 15 April 2024, p. 6.

[72]Dr Foley, Committee Hansard, 15 April 2024, p. 2.

[73]DITRDCA, Why another airport?: Meeting Sydney's future aviation needs (accessed 27 November 2024).

[74]Professor John Quiggin, Submission 3, p. 7.

[75]Professor John Quiggin, Submission 3, p. 8.

[76]Professor John Quiggin, Submission 3, p. 11.

[77]Professor John Quiggin, Submission 3, p. 11.

[78]Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC), Submission 1.1, p. 37.

[79]Mr Ken Welsh,Coordinator, Strategic Transport Planning, Inner West Council, Committee Hansard, 9 August 2024, p. 36.

[80]Blue Mountains City Council, Submission 26, p. 5.

[81]Mr Matt Gould, Mayor, Wollondilly Shire Council, Committee Hansard, 9 August 2024, pp. 34–35.

[82]Mr Gould, Committee Hansard, 9 August 2024, p. 34.

[83]Mr Gould, Committee Hansard, 9 August 2024, p. 39.

[84]Sydney Airport, answers to questions on notice, 9 August 2024 (received 2 September 2024), pp. 14–15.

[85]Sydney Airport, answers to questions on notice, 9 August 2024 (received 2 September 2024), pp. 15–16.

[86]Sydney Airport, answers to questions on notice, 9 August 2024 (received 2 September 2024), pp. 18–20.

[87]Mr Justin Portelli, Executive General Manager, Planning and Community, Melbourne Airport, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 34.

[88]Queensland Economic Advocacy Solutions (QEAS), Submission 49, p. 8.

[89]BFPCA, Submission 4.1, p. 9.

[90]BFPCA, Submission 4.1, p. 9.

[91]Australian Airports Association (AAA), Submission 13, p. 6.

[92]Dr Esther Anderson, Senior Research and Policy Officer, Queensland Tourism Industry Council, Committee Hansard, 15 April 2024, p. 35.

[93]Mr Gert-Jan de Graaff, Chief Executive Officer, Brisbane Airport Corporation, Committee Hansard, 15 April 2024, p. 49.

[94]Dr Anderson, Committee Hansard, 15 April 2024, p. 42.

[95]Mr de Graaff, Committee Hansard, 15 April 2024, p. 50.

[96]Australian Government, Aviation White Paper: towards 2050, August 2024, p. 154.

[97]Australian Government, Aviation White Paper: towards 2050, August 2024, p. 156.

[98]Australian Government, Aviation White Paper: towards 2050, August 2024, p. 39.

[99]Qantas, Submission 8, p. 4.

[100]Ms Stephanie Werner, First Assistant Secretary, Domestic Aviation and Reform, DITRDCA, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 65.

[101]Ms Marisa Purvis-Smith, Deputy Secretary, Transport, DITRDCA, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 66.

[102]Brisbane Airport Corporation, Submission 1.1, pp. 9–10.

[103]ANO, Submission 30, p. 4.

[104]Tonkin and Taylor, Melbourne Airport Expansion Noise Health Risk Assessment, April 2022, p. 27; found in Brimbank Council, Submission 54, Attachment 1.

[105]Tonkin and Taylor, Melbourne Airport Expansion Noise Health Risk Assessment, April 2022, pp. 27–28; found in Brimbank Council, Submission 54, Attachment 1.

[106]CAAA, Submission 173, p. 42.

[107]Tonkin and Taylor, Melbourne Airport Expansion Noise Health Risk Assessment, April 2022, pp. 27–28; found in Brimbank Council, Submission 54, Attachment 1.

[108]ANO, Submission 30, p. 4.

[109]Dr Eric Ancich, Submission 213, p. 4.

[110]Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Act 1995, s. 6.

[111]Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Act 1995, ss. 7(4).

[112]Carlton River, Primrose Sands and Forcett Flight Path Opponents Group, Submission 252, p. 17.

[113]Mr Brent, Committee Hansard, 15 April 2024, p. 25.

[114]Mr Brent, Committee Hansard, 15 April 2024, p. 25.

[115]Brimbank Council, Submission 54, p. 3.

[116]BFPCA, Submission 4, p. 53.

[117]Community Aviation Alliance Australia (CAAA), Submission 173, p. 43.

[118]Mr John Cincotta, Member, CAAA and Dingley Village Community Association (DVCA), Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 8.

[119]ANO, Submission 30, p. 5.

[120]DITRDCA, response to question taken on notice, public hearing 20 September 2024 (received 29 October 2024), [p. 1].

[121]Professor John Quiggin, Submission 3, p. 8.

[122]Australian Government, Aviation White Paper: towards 2050, August 2024, p. 156.

[123]Dr Ancich, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 10.

[124]Australian Government, Aviation White Paper: towards 2050, August 2024, p. 156.

[125]Commonwealth of Australia, Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport – Airspace and flight path design, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Part C: Environmental impact assessment, 2023, Appendix F (accessed 25 September 2024).

[126]DITRDCA, Submission 55, p. 19.

[127]Commonwealth of Australia, Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport – Airspace and flight path design, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Part C: Environmental impact assessment, 2023, Chapter 11, p. 92.

[128]Commonwealth of Australia, Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport – Airspace and flight path design, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Part C: Environmental impact assessment, 2023, Chapter 11, p. 92.

[129]Mr David Jansen, Assistant Secretary, Western Sydney Airport Regulatory Policy Branch, International Aviation, Technology and Services Division, DITRDCA; and Mr Wood, DITRDCA, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 59.

[130]Mr Gould, Committee Hansard, 9 August 2024, p. 35.

[131]Inner West Council, Submission 43, pp. 23–24.

[132]CAAA, Submission 173, p. 25.

[133]CAAA, Submission 173, p. 25.

[134]DVCA, Submission 28, p. 4.

[135]CAAA, Submission 173, p. 25.

[136]East Melbourne Group, Submission 48, p. 2.

[137]CAAA, Submission 173, p. 26.

[138]DVCA, Submission 28, p. 6.

[139]Australian Government, Aviation White Paper: towards 2050, August 2024, pp. 163–164.

[140]CAAA, Submission 173, p. 27.

[141]DVCA, Submission 28, p. 6.

[142]CAAA, Submission 173, p. 26.

[143]DVCA, Submission 28, pp. 6–7.

[144]Mr Cincotta, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 4.

[145]AAA, Submission 13, p. 6.