INSTITUTE A CURFEW FOR AUCKLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Airport Curfew Petition

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

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

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

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

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

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


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