Some people get on a soapbox but don't have a clue: new flight path

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Some people get on a soapbox but don't have a clue: new flight path

1 | 2

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#904316 28-Sep-2013 21:03

the trial of new flight routes cut short (to save air nz fuel bill among others) and descend lower over more residential areas and I believe that's a genuine concern.

Actually the new routes spend less time over residential areas and are no lower than the old routes. The path is just over different areas. So where do you get the genuine concern from?

If these aircraft are to land at Auckland they have to pass over residential areas no matter what route they take when landing on the S/W facing runway. These new routes minimise the noise footprint over the city as a whole, they are not there just to reduce fuel costs. What is interesting is that they had been in operation for 6 months before anyone noticed and then it was only after a news item highlighted the existence of the new routes.

Do you mean the 3000' restriction on left turns at night when taking off to the North East? Altitude is measured in feet not metres. You can bet your bottom dollar this is rigidly adhered to, as Air Traffic Control will control when that turn takes place. Noise abatement is taken pretty seriously. I very much doubt your allegation of aircraft turning early has any substance.

Operations in the N/E runway only occur at night when absolutely necessary. I have operated out of there early in the morning and before 7 am and taking off to the N/E the departure for most domestic aircraft requires a 160 degree right turn right after take off to keep clear of the residential areas.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

hangon

398 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 41

#904342 28-Sep-2013 22:18

Actually the new routes spend less time over residential areas and are no lower than the old routes. The path is just over different areas. So where do you get the genuine concern from?

If these aircraft are to land at Auckland they have to pass over residential areas no matter what route they take when landing on the S/W facing runway. These new routes minimise the noise footprint over the city as a whole, they are not there just to reduce fuel costs. What is interesting is that they had been in operation for 6 months before anyone noticed and then it was only after a news item highlighted the existence of the new routes.

concern came from friends who happen to live in the area affected by the new routes.

yes flights have to pass over residential area one way or the other. the problem appears to be there was no prior public consultation, nor tests to measure noise increase in the affected area (only installed after residents complained). someone has to sacrifice but it's not easy for anyone to change for worse without notification.

Do you mean the 3000' restriction on left turns at night when taking off to the North East? Altitude is measured in feet not metres. You can bet your bottom dollar this is rigidly adhered to, as Air Traffic Control will control when that turn takes place. Noise abatement is taken pretty seriously. I very much doubt your allegation of aircraft turning early has any substance.

Operations in the N/E runway only occur at night when absolutely necessary. I have operated out of there early in the morning and before 7 am and taking off to the N/E the departure for most domestic aircraft requires a 160 degree right turn right after take off to keep clear of the residential areas.

yes the 3000 ft restriction.

I have no proof that it was not adhered thus allegedly. I've got a screenshot showing csn306 at 3250 ft over east tamaki heights, it's not clear when or where the turn was made but that seems one - I wouldn't say N/E runway only occur at night when absolutely necessary as the sky space was clear, and two, even if the 3000 ft restriction is followed, still seems rushed and instead of flying over rural area it chose to fly over the dense populated area from clover park all the way to botany downs.

hangon

398 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 41

#904348 28-Sep-2013 22:34

Actually the new routes spend less time over residential areas and are no lower than the old routes. The path is just over different areas. So where do you get the genuine concern from?

I'll try some flight on SMART tomorrow, for comparison this is QF133 moments ago on the old route, much of the base leg and final leg were on rural area

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#904446 29-Sep-2013 11:54

I wouldn't say N/E runway only occur at night when absolutely necessary as the sky space was clear

Perhaps I should have been more specific and said between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the sky space was clear". However it seems you might be confused as to the parameters used to decide which runway is used. Basically aircraft take off into wind but in some circumstances can take off with a small tailwind. In the case of Auckland even if the wind is from the east the south west runway is used until the wind reaches a certain limit or the aircraft's performance dictates a departure with a tailwind isn't allowable. The departure direction has nothing to do with "the sky space being clear".

It seems we are discussing to issues here as the departures have nothing what so ever to do with the smart arrivals being complained of.

I'll try some flight on SMART tomorrow, for comparison this is QF133 moments ago on the old route, much of the base leg and final leg were on rural area

How will you know the aircraft is on a smart arrival as opposed to carrying out a visual arrival where the track isn't the same as a smart arrival? One of the issues is just this, people on the street are confusing aircraft on smart arrivals with aircraft doing another type of arrival.

the problem appears to be there was no prior public consultation, nor tests to measure noise increase in the affected area

It is my understanding that there was public consultation and notification.

There would have been no need to carry out noise tests. The district plan will have a noise foot print envelope for the airport which will specify noise limits. There is plenty of data on the noise levels created by each type of aircraft in relation to height speed, configuration and phase of flight. It is a simple process to analyse this data and apply it to the district plan to see if the noise levels comply. Any testing done since, will be only to mollify the complainants, as this data will just prove what was already known.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

hangon

398 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 41

#904468 29-Sep-2013 13:16

Perhaps I should have been more specific and said between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am.

the cz306 flight was in the middle of the night. in fact last time i checked, for several days in a row, there are several flights taking off N/E around midnight within a short period of time. I always thought that was wind direction changing. but I don't see why the flight has to make turns (assuming) right at 3000 ft and fly over dense populated area in the middle of the night, rather than make turns over rural area maybe just 1 min later (as the air space was clear...)

yes it's not relevant to the SMART. what I was saying, airport noise is a real (first world) issue and some residents closer to airport had it much worse for much longer but there aren't as many reports. all that offered by the airport were to install some ventilation system so residents can close their windows, or some noise insulation for the worst affected. a friend from adelaide was amazed that auckland doesn't have curfew when we were talking a panel fell off anz 747 and lands in a manuaku car park after take off in 2003 (and the flap through a warehouse roof in 2002, both again, irrelevant to SMART or late night take offs), provided the adelaide airport is closer to cbd n surrounded by residential area and golf courses.

How will you know the aircraft is on a smart arrival as opposed to carrying out a visual arrival where the track isn't the same as a smart arrival? One of the issues is just this, people on the street are confusing aircraft on smart arrivals with aircraft doing another type of arrival.

it'd not be quality detective work, it'd be some guess work as I don't have first hand experience. it'd have to be an airnz/qantas or jetstar flight, it would make a sharp turn approaching airport from the usual landing route, and when it flies over parts of one tree hill, it'd be closer to say 3000 ft than say 6000 ft (which would have some impact on sound level at ground), with air speed of ~170 kt rather than ~290 kt (pending on models).

It is my understanding that there was public consultation and notification.

There would have been no need to carry out noise tests. The district plan will have a noise foot print envelope for the airport which will specify noise limits. There is plenty of data on the noise levels created by each type of aircraft in relation to height speed, configuration and phase of flight. It is a simple process to analyse this data and apply it to the district plan to see if the noise levels comply. Any testing done since, will be only to mollify the complainants, as this data will just prove what was already known.

guess that some one either got left over or dumped notification with ads. in the begining they were not sure what was going on, thought it's temporary or eventually go away, didn't even know who to call (even tried council noise control).
the noise limit measurement does not necessarily do due justice imho, it measures the average sound level over 24 hours from back of my head, so instead of having more people barely hear it, they'd believe having fewer people hear it louder 10 times a day is better (on paper).

hangon

398 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 41

#904484 29-Sep-2013 13:48

ok here it's mentioned

I don't think it's fair to say "only" 2 to 4 decibels and "only just perceptible to the ear".

if I take 6000 ft as normal approach, then the new SMART approach over one tree hill at 4000 ft, sound intensity would increase to (6000^2)/(4000^2)=2.25 times.

the plane would also with flaps down, landing gears n air breaks (not necessarily over one tree hill), and that's more drag and sound pressure compare to one cruising at 7000 ft.

http://www.aucklandairport.co.nz/Corporate/Social-Responsibility/Sustainability-policy/Noise.aspx

Do aircraft using the lower SMART approaches create more noise than the higher normal approaches? The normal approaches are usually at an altitude of between 5,000ft to 7,000ft above Epsom and surrounding areas. The SMART approach flies over Mt Roskill at 5,000 ft and the suburb of One Tree Hill at 4,000ft. The noise created by an aircraft at 4,000ft is only between two to four decibels different from the noise created by an aircraft at 7,000ft. This difference is only just perceptible to the ear. The noise from an individual aircraft using a SMART approach is similar to a car driving past the front of your house.

Now this one probably has a vested interest, but
http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/central-leader/8703727/Pilot-at-odds-with-airports-stance
The Epsom-based pilot, who asked not to be named, claims the airport is being "partial with the truth" when it says the new approach is not going over residential areas. "As an airline pilot who has flown this approach several times I am well aware of the flight path that the approach takes and it is not over the water and industrial areas as stated," he says. Using Google Maps he says he roughly tracked the co-ordinates of the new approach to see where they fly over. He found it is not surprising people are complaining about new noise.

"Due to the way the approach is designed the aircraft require to be at a low speed and therefore making a lot of noise, because of high drag configuration, especially as they fly over Epsom and One Tree Hill Domain."

"It's been introduced by stealth.
"It was just two flights a day at first, it's now opened up to quite a few. It will soon be like living in Beachlands."

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

hangon

398 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 41

#904518 29-Sep-2013 14:39

This is presumably the SMART one. I missed it to check the altitude over one tree hill.

Yes it flies over some industrial zones in mt wellington and east tamaki, but there are also residential areas. Onehunga, Mt Wellington, Pukuranga, East Tamaki n Otara probably had worse than One Tree Hill. There ARE much more ppl living under this path, compare to the base leg and final leg of the normal route. Even if distance over residential area is reduced, instead of more ppl barely hear it, now there are ppl hear it arguably much louder up to 10 times a day, allegedly without proper consultation, notification or measurement prior to the trials.

For many this may well be a first world problem. Some ppl probably don't really appreciate how busy Auckland airport can be. But that doesn't necessarily mean the SMART were introduced flawlessly.

hangon

398 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 41

#904546 29-Sep-2013 15:19

4150 ft over one tree hill (sound pressure 2.09 times of normal route at 6000 ft), in comparison VA164 on normal route was 7800 ft over Greenlane around 15:25, sound pressure at One Tree Hill would have been at least 3.5 times with SMART

3000 ft over burswood

2450 ft over east tamaki

all have dense populated residential areas affected by SMART trials.

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#905422 30-Sep-2013 22:15

I don't think it's fair to say "only" 2 to 4 decibels and "only just perceptible to the ear".

Do you understand the decibel system? The ear reacts logarithmically to sound volume, and the decibel system is logarithmic.

There needs to be a halving or doubling of the sound volume before the ear detects any noticeable difference. A 3 db change represents a halving or doubling of volume or sound energy. A 6 db change represents a 4 times increase or reduction in sound energy.

So the 2 to 4 db change as quoted will be just perceptible.

now there are ppl hear it arguably much louder up to 10 times a day, allegedly without proper consultation, notification or measurement prior to the trials.

Based on the above explanation I don't agree it will be much louder than the non SMART approaches.

Sure the noise pattern has shifted making it more noticeable to some residents and will be very slightly louder to the ear than before BUT at the same time will affect less people as it is generated at a lower altitude and therefore will spread over a smaller area. Some people win some lose. You can be sure the noise levels are within the limits allowed under the district plan, something the people who are complaining should have made themselves aware of.

What do you consider proper consultation or notification? Because this was notified and consulted. I suspect a bit of apathy might have existed to start with and most people didn't bother to take notice.

As I already explained there would have been no need to conduct measurements prior to the trials and in fact it would have been impossible to do anyway. How can you measure something that's not happening?

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

hangon

398 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 41

#905426 30-Sep-2013 22:43

Technofreak:
I don't think it's fair to say "only" 2 to 4 decibels and "only just perceptible to the ear".

Do you understand the decibel system? The ear reacts logarithmically to sound volume, and the decibel system is logarithmic.

There needs to be a halving or doubling of the sound volume before the ear detects any noticeable difference. A 3 db change represents a halving or doubling of volume or sound energy. A 6 db change represents a 4 times increase or reduction in sound energy.

So the 2 to 4 db change as quoted will be just perceptible.

I understand the decibels just fine. I understand logarithm just fine.

I didn't think it's fair to say "only" 2 to 4 decibels, as the altitude difference suggests the difference could be more than 4 decibels. They also made it sound like 4 decibels is such a small difference that human could barely tell. Two cars with cabin noise difference of just 4 decibels is very easy to tell for many people. For example the difference between a Toyota Prius and a Ford Focus is less than 4 decibels. I bet my bottom dollars everyone can tell there is a huge difference.

At that, you reckon doubling the sound energy, or even quadruple is "only just".

Based on the above explanation I don't agree it will be much louder than the non SMART approaches.

Sure the noise pattern has shifted making it more noticeable to some residents and will be very slightly louder to the ear than before BUT at the same time will affect less people as it is generated at a lower altitude and therefore will spread over a smaller area. Some people win some lose. You can be sure the noise levels are within the limits allowed under the district plan, something the people who are complaining should have made themselves aware of.

What do you consider proper consultation or notification? Because this was notified and consulted. I suspect a bit of apathy might have existed to start with and most people didn't bother to take notice.

As I already explained there would have been no need to conduct measurements prior to the trials and in fact it would have been impossible to do anyway. How can you measure something that's not happening?

Within the limits doesn't mean it's great. Like alcohol limit is there to prevent bad things happen, not that everyone should drink up to it before head home and think they are safe.

And I don't think the change will affect less people. I've shown you that the normal routes have the base leg and final leg affecting maybe a bunch of lifestyle blocks, while SMART affects a lot more dense populated area. And if it's to be the new normal for say 50 flights a day imagine that.

I don't have answers for "proper consultation or notification". I'm not paid for that and I'd probably do worse. But that's not my point.

Your point is taken that the airport operates 24/7 and such, and Herald didn't fact check before publishing it.

My point is the airport has always had an impact on people, and the SMART introduced new impact to quite a few people and arguably could have been handled better. enough said.

sdav

846 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 193

#905450 30-Sep-2013 23:36

I couldn't even get through the opening paragraphs before giving up. It was obvious it wasn't going to be a considered opinion piece so binned it. There is a reason I haven't accepted a NZ Herald 8 week free trial! They can't even give away the paper to me!

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#1264990 22-Mar-2015 13:54

Just found something interesting in the interim Annual Report from Auckland Airport (I'm a shareholder). Apparently they have received and accepted a recommendation to rollout the three approaches trialled permanently from mid-2015, and will be trialling a fourth approach as well sometime in the year. I'm guessing we're going to be seeing a bit more complaints in the paper in the months to come!

Sideface

9651 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15602

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1264991 22-Mar-2015 14:03

sdav: I couldn't even get through the opening paragraphs before giving up. It was obvious it wasn't going to be a considered opinion piece so binned it. There is a reason I haven't accepted a NZ Herald 8 week free trial! They can't even give away the paper to me!

+1

I have subscribed to The NZ Herald twice in the past - and have cancelled twice - most recently 3 years age.
There is almost no "real news" printed anymore, even in the Herald, which in my opinion is (was) the best newspaper in New Zealand.

I would refuse an 8-week free trial if it was offered now.

Sideface

richms

29104 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10222

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1265020 22-Mar-2015 14:22

When I cancelled my free sub that turned into a paying one that i forgot about for a month, I gave the reason that I had enough packaging material for now, but if I run out I would resubscribe.

I cant be bothered dealing with the non indexed nature of a paper. Wheres that section, Oh here i go have to count pages to get to it, where is it on the page. Guess that helps with whatever the paper version of ad impressions is, but clearly is a PITA to deal with reading wise.

As for these whiners about planes. Have spent time at a friends place in manukau right off the end of where they take off over. That has to be about the nosiest place for plane noise and it was no big deal. Yes you could hear it if the windows were open. But thats what aircon is for.

Richard rich.ms

1 | 2