Committee Secretary Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee Department of the Senate PO Box 6100 Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 25 October 2020 Dear Sir / Madam

Submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry into Australia’s General Aviation industry My submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry on General Aviation Airports seeks improvements for the management of aircraft noise around . I also support the submission sent by the CAAA. That submission contains much more information than my submission. My submission should be read in conjunction with the CAAA one. This submission has a focus on Jandakot Airport. I have been an active objector since 1995 when the Commonwealth took over control of the management of noise caused by aircraft at the training airports around Australia.

KEY POINTS OF MY SUBMISSION FOR JANDAKOT AIRPORT • WA State laws to again manage aircraft noise caused by propeller driven aircraft operating out of Jandakot Airport. • Commonwealth aircraft noise management is applied only to jet aircraft, so the State laws can operate within the Commonwealth legislation – Airports Act 1996 as provided for in the Airports Act 1996. Section 136 Operation of State Laws. • Commonwealth neglects aircraft noise caused by propeller driven aircraft. • Install permanent noise monitors under the circuit training flight paths at each of those General Aviation airports. • The public no longer has access to data on the ASA website for flight movements history. Serious hindrance to analysis. Please have this data

1

returned to the ASA website in the old formats – monthly, financial and calendar years. • The number of flights per day to be reduced if existing aircraft are retained. Comply with N60, N65 and N70 • Weekends should alternate between flights and no flights • Public Holidays - no training flights • The hours of training shortened. Finish 1 hour after sunset. 10.30pm all year round must stop. • Aircraft to be quieter. Compare with European standards for circuit training. ASA to propose a noise limit. Retire non-complying aircraft within 12 months. This will allow more flights – comply with N60, N65 and N70. • Helicopters banned from training operations at Jandakot and Airports • Insulation needs to be provided without discrimination of whether aircraft noise is caused by jet aircraft or propeller driven aircraft. • Relocate circuit training to remote airports. In WA, this includes Merredin and Learmonth as at least two options. • Public submission period for Airport Master Plans should be sixty (60) business days not 60 calendar days. 2009 White Paper recommended this.

OVERVIEW HISTORY FOR JANDAKOT AIRPORT OPERATIONS Noise management policies for GAs changed in about 1995. COAG 1997 then saw State Premiers officially hand over aircraft noise management to the Commonwealth. This left Jandakot Airport in the hands of the Commonwealth. The houses in the affected areas around Jandakot were constructed and occupied before the Commonwealth changed the allowable noise limit. The nose limit went from 65dBA to no limit at all. Houses in the emerging localities of Canning Vale, Leeming, Bibra Lake and Bull Creek were built with the approval of the WA Planning Commission starting in the 1970s. The WA Planning Commission approved housing subdivisions based on WA EPA Regulations at the time of construction. 65dBA.

2

Jandakot Airport was a sleepy hollow then. Very few flights. Flight frequency wasn’t an issue. Quiet aircraft. A major marketing push then began to bring pilot training for overseas airlines to Jandakot. and China Southern have been the major players here. Objections from residents began in 1995 when the impact became apparent. Refer attachment. Media release from the WA Minister for Transport, Mr Ric Charlton. An often heard excuse to justify the lack of action about aircraft noise is that the airport was there before the houses. Physically correct as the airport was constructed around 1966. However the noise management rules and regulations affecting people living there were changed in about 1995. So the issue of who was here first is a fallacy. We see now for example the same situation. The Commonwealth Sydney Western Airport will provide at least $75 million for noise insulation because the Commonwealth is introducing heightened aircraft noise, caused by jet aircraft, into established housing areas. Other factors will be flight paths. The same rules should apply to houses near Jandakot Airport. And extend the consideration to be for propeller driven aircraft.

DATA FOR NOISE CAUSED BY AIRCRAFT ENGAGED IN CIRCUIT TRAINING There are four (4) attachments that provide data for aircraft activity at Jandakot Airport. 1. Saturation of flights – case study went without response from ASA or ANO 2. Aircraft involved in the case study 3. Short term monitoring program Jandakot Airport February 2017 4. AA Report to Senator Sterle. This document has extracts of data from short term noise monitors (STNM) near Jandakot. The worst locations in my view, were not tested.

However, the data for noise readings (dBA) was still bad enough to show there are serious problems to address. This situation has been going on since 1995. I am not aware of any corrective actions since then. My view is that the STNM data was ignored with the respect to improving the situation for residents. Something needs to be done.

3

CONCLUSION I hope something will be done. One opportunity is the 2020 Jandakot Airport Master Plan which is due to open for public submissions on 1st December. My recollection is that this is the first time public submissions will be widely advertised and information sessions provided for Jandakot Airport. My concern is that the public consultation period starts in 36 days, and no details of the consultation program plan has been published that I am aware of. The choice of December and January could have been better with all that goes on in December.

Yours sincerely

P M Ryan High Wycombe. WA. 6057 (address available upon request)

Other Attachments Aircraft Noise Levy Act - Media Release WA Minister for Transport 1995 Aircraft Noise Levy Act 1995 Bill 2001 Cost Recovery Impact Statement (CRIS) - Noise Amelioration Extracts from Airports Act 1996 2004 Master Plan Airports Act 1996 Section 136 State law can act concurrently

4

SUBMISSION TO SENATE INQUIRY INTO GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORTS

EXTRACTS FROM THE AIRPORTS ACT 1996

132 Regulations about environmental standards at airports (1) The regulations may make standards and impose requirements that are to be complied with in relation to, or in relation to the prevention or minimisation of: (a) environmental pollution (including air, water or soil pollution) generated at airport sites; or (b) impacts on biota or habitat; or (c) interference with sites of heritage value; or (d) interference with sites of significance to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people; or (e) the emission of noise generated at airport sites (other than noise generated by aircraft in flight); or (f) the disposal or storage of waste at airport sites. (2) If a person contravenes a particular provision of regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1), the person commits an offence punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding the number of penalty units (not exceeding 250 penalty units) that is declared by those regulations to be the maximum number of penalty units for a contravention of that provision. (2A) Strict liability applies to the element of an offence against subsection (2) that regulations were made for the purposes of subsection (1). Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code. (3) Regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) may make provision for or in relation to a matter by conferring a power on the Minister. (3A) Regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) may make provision for or in relation to a matter by applying, adopting or incorporating (with or without modification) any matter contained in a standard proposed or approved by Standards Australia, being a standard as in force or existing from time to time. (3B) Regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) may make provision for or in relation to fees in respect of applications made in relation to any matter under the regulations. (4) Section 133 does not, by implication, limit subsection (1) of this section.

133 Regulations about monitoring, and remedying breaches of, environmental standards at airports (1) The regulations may make provision for and in relation to: (a) monitoring, cleaning up, remedying or rectifying environmental pollution (including air, water or soil pollution) generated at airport sites; or (aa) monitoring, mitigating, remedying or rectifying contraventions of section 131B, 131C or 131D; or (b) monitoring, mitigating, remedying or rectifying contraventions of section 132 regulations relating to impacts on biota or habitat; or (c) monitoring, mitigating, remedying or rectifying contraventions of section 132 regulations relating to interference with sites of heritage value; or (d) monitoring, mitigating, remedying or rectifying contraventions of section 132 regulations relating to interference with sites of significance to indigenous people; or (e) monitoring, mitigating, remedying or rectifying the emission of noise generated at airport sites (other than noise generated by aircraft in flight); or (f) monitoring, mitigating, remedying or rectifying contraventions of section 132 regulations relating to the disposal or storage of waste at airport sites.

135 Remedying breaches of environmental standards—recovery of expenses by the Commonwealth (1) If: (a) a person has contravened: (i) section 131B, 131C or 131D; or (ii) regulations made for the purposes of section 132 or 133; and (b) the Commonwealth has incurred expenses or other liabilities in relation to cleaning up, remedying or rectifying the act or omission constituting the contravention; the person is liable to pay to the Commonwealth an amount equal to so much of those expenses or liabilities as is reasonable. (2) An amount payable under subsection (1) may be recovered, as a debt due to the Commonwealth by the person, by action in a court of competent jurisdiction. (3) An action under subsection (1) must be instituted within 3 years after the act or omission occurred or within such longer period as the court allows. (4) Subsection (1) does not limit, restrict or otherwise affect any right or remedy the Commonwealth would have if this section had not been enacted.

136 Operation of State laws (1) Subject to this section, it is the intention of the Parliament that this Division is not to apply to the exclusion of a law of a State to the extent that that law is capable of operating concurrently with this Division. (2) The regulations may declare that a specified law of a State has no effect in relation to a specified airport to the extent to which the law makes provision for and in relation to a matter referred to in section 131B, 131C or 131D or paragraph 132(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f) or 133(1)(a), (aa), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f). Note: A law may be specified by name, by inclusion in a specified class or in any other way.

137 Severability (1) This section applies to the following provisions: (a) section 131B, 131C or 131D; (b) regulations made for the purposes of section 132 or 133. (2) In addition to their effect apart from this section, those provisions also have the effect they would have if their application was, by express provision, confined to acts or omissions of constitutional corporations.

airport site means a place that is: (a) declared by the regulations to be an airport site; and (b) a Commonwealth place; and (c) used, or intended to be developed for use, as an airport (whether or not the place is used, or intended to be developed for use, for other purposes).

6 Sydney West Airport For the purposes of this Act, Sydney West Airport is taken to be an airport at a particular time even if, at that time, it is: (a) merely intended to be developed for use as an airport; or (b) being developed for use as an airport.

7 Meaning of core regulated airport (1) For the purposes of this Act, each of the following airports is a core regulated airport: (a) Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport; (b) Sydney West Airport; (c) Melbourne (Tullamarine) Airport; (d) ; (e) ; (f) Adelaide Airport; (g) ; (h) Hobart ; (i) ; (j) ; (k) ; (l) Darwin International Airport; (m) ; (n) an airport specified in the regulations, where the site of the airport is a Commonwealth place. (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(n), the boundaries of the site of an airport are to be ascertained in accordance with the regulations.

THIS ENDS THE EXTRACTS FROM THE AIRPORTS ACT 1996

SUBMISSION TO SENATE INQUIRY INTO GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORTS

MASTER PLAN ADELAIDE AIRPORT 2014.

Page 74 5.14.2 Commonwealth Noise Insulation Scheme . The Commonwealth Government introduced and operated a noise insulation program for buildings affected by aircraft noise in 2000. The program was established in areas of high aircraft noise exposure around Adelaide Airport. Residential properties in the 30 ANEI (Australian Noise Exposure Index) contour and public buildings (schools, churches, day care centres and hospitals) in the 25 ANEI contour were eligible for assistance under the program. The noise insulation scheme was funded by a Commonwealth levy on passengers and collection of the levy was terminated in 2010. Insulation works on some public buildings continued until 2012. During the course of the operation of the scheme, the Commonwealth Government reported on progress to the Adelaide Airport Consultative Committee on a regular basis. This mechanism provided feedback to the airport and all stakeholders on the implementation of the scheme. The Commonwealth Government announced the final project under the noise insulation scheme in May 2013.

SUBMISSION TO SENATE INQUIRY INTO GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORTS OCTOBER 2020 Airports Act Section 136 State law can operate concurrently for the management of aircraft noise caused by propeller aircraft.

JET AIRCRAFT

The Commonwealth will insulate houses against noise caused by aircraft if

1. it is caused by jet aircraft, and 2. the noise exceeds specific limits (e.g N60, N65 and N70).

The noise levels are determined by permanent noise monitors under the flight paths.

Commonwealth recovers the funds from the operators of jet aircraft using that airport. The recovery is under the Aircraft Noise Levy Act 1995.

PROPELLER DRIVEN

Commonwealth will NOT insulate houses against noise caused by aircraft if

1. it is caused by propeller driven aircraft, and 2. IT REFUSES TO ACT if the noise exceeds the same limits that it sets for jet aircraft(e.g N60, N65 and N70).

The noise levels are NOT determined by permanent noise monitors under the CIRCUIT TRAINING flight paths.

The Commonwealth refuses to install permanent noise monitors around GAs.

Yet short term monitoring at Jandakot Airport - done twice since 1995 - provides enough proof that the noise exceeds the Commonwealth and also the State EPA regulations.

Commonwealth could recover the funds from the operators of the propeller driven aircraft using that airport.

ACTIONS

Commonwealth amend the Aircraft Noise Levy Act to include propeller driven aircraft – including helicopters and apply the same noise rules as for jet aircraft. or

1

The States be notified that their law is capable of operating concurrently within the Airports Act 1996 Section 136 Operations of State laws to manage aircraft noise caused by propeller driven aircraft.

136 Operation of State laws (1) Subject to this section, it is the intention of the Parliament that this Division is not to apply to the exclusion of a law of a State to the extent that that law is capable of operating concurrently with this Division.

AIRCRAFT NOISE LEVY ACT 1995 BILL 2001 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0001/01bd10 1

Item 3. BACKGROUND

Aircraft Noise and the Aircraft Noise Levy(2)

Quote

As commuter use of jet aircraft has increased, so has the noise experienced by people in buildings and houses near airports. Political pressure has intensified on governments to take steps to alleviate the effects of aircraft noise, for readily understandable reasons:

• Noise (and vibration) caused by transport can have various deleterious effects on health and buildings. • Effects may include • stress, • loss of sleep, • loss of concentration due to tiredness following sleeplessness, • cardiovascular disease and • impairments to learning ability in children and adults.

However, the precise health effects of noise are not well understood (Job 1996, p. 101).

Unquote

Item 4. Commonwealth uses Aircraft Noise Levy Act 1995 to recover expenditure The Commonwealth makes choices about noise caused by aircraft in the air, when it is clear that insulation is needed for buildings. For example at Adelaide Airport, residential properties in the 30 ANEI (Australian Noise Exposure Index) contour and public buildings (schools, churches, day care

2 centres and hospitals) in the 25 ANEI contour were eligible for assistance under the program. Other examples include : • where perhaps $413 million was spent on insulation for buildings in the noise catchment basement for Kingsford Smith Airport.

• The new Western Sydney Airport where funds have already been allocated for houses and other buildings in areas that exceed specific noise levels. It seems that N60, N65 and N70 Guidelines will apply.

• The new Perth . This is a parallel runway 2km east. Insulation will provide for housing and other buildings in the 2km extension of the noise basin.

Item 5. The Aircraft Noise Levy Act 1995 applies only to Jet Aircraft. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00460 A key element of the noise insulation program is that the noise has been caused by jet aircraft. The level of noise caused by jet aircraft is classed as cause for concern. The Airports Act 1996 was premised on the need to allow commercial and passenger carrying jet aircraft engaged in international and domestic operations to operate out of core regulated airports. For example did AeroPelican flights from Kingsford Smith (propeller driven aircraft) have to pay into the Aircraft Noise Levy? It seems they would have been exempt. However General Aviation airports seem to be defined as core regulated airports under the Airports Act 1996. Propeller driven aircraft dominate flight activity operate at the GA airports. Propeller driven aircraft includes helicopters. Noise caused by aircraft in flight near at least three (3), and maybe the five (5), GA airports likely exceeds the effect caused on the public at all other airports in Australia, including Sydney Airport. Sample testing verifies this. The question then is What justification does the Commonwealth claim it has, to be entitled to ignore excessive aircraft noise (N60, N65 and N70) caused by propeller driven aircraft in flight, yet prepared to take action only when jet aircraft are the cause

3

The grounds for exemption, if any, seem unreasonable. Perhaps the Commonwealth is focused on commercial or passenger carrying jet aircraft in flight (refer Background – Aircraft Noise Levy Bill 2001 above)

Either way, this suggests State law can be applied to noise caused by non-jet aircraft at the GA airports within the Airports Act 1996.

This is because the State laws will be acting concurrently with the Commonwealth and not in conflict with the Commonwealth laws (jet only for the Commonwealth).

1997 COAG Heads of Agreement. The law of a State can be applied if the State law for noise caused by aircraft is capable of operating with the law of the Commonwealth.

136 Operation of State laws (1) Subject to this section, it is the intention of the Parliament that this Division is not to apply to the exclusion of a law of a State to the extent that that law is capable of operating concurrently with this Division. (2) The regulations may declare that a specified law of a State has no effect in relation to a specified airport to the extent to which the law makes provision for and in relation to a matter referred to in section 131B, 131C or 131D or paragraph 132(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f) or 133(1)(a), (aa), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f).

4

Aircraft Noise Levy Act

Wednesday, 13 September 1995

13/9/95

Transport Minister Eric Charlton said today the commitment by the Commonwealth Government to compensate residents living in high noise areas around Perth Airport ignored far greater issues concerning the ownership of the facility and noise problems in the vicinity of Jandakot Airport.

Mr Charlton said although the Aircraft Noise Levy Act imposed a landing surcharge on users of noisy jet aircraft, it ignored the noise factor from non-jet planes of the type which used Jandakot Airport.

"The Act will provide compensation for sound insulation, or home acquisition by the Federal Government, for property owners near Perth Airport and not Jandakot," he said.

"Here is another instance of the Commonwealth failing to address the whole Jandakot Airport issue; noisy planes, the problem of light aircraft congestion and the need for a second general airport to serve the Perth metropolitan area.

"As a Federal Government-operated airport, Jandakot must be included in any noise compensation package. The likely costs imposed on airport users and the ability of operators to pay are other major considerations."

The Western has endorsed the sale of FAC airports around the country, although it has expressed grave reservations about the bona fides of the eventual owner of Perth Airport.

Mr Charlton said it was possible Perth Airport could be leased by the same entity managing Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane airports and it could use the very profitable Perth Airport to cross-subsidise the less viable Eastern States facilities.

"WA aviation interests must be protected,” he said.

“That is the reason I have asked for WA to be represented on the airport leasing teams and that the core business of the airports is guaranteed."

The application of Commonwealth law to the Perth Airport site could seriously compromise State regulations when the facility is leased by private companies.

Mr Charlton said once again the Federal Government had lumped WA in its grand plan for airports and conveniently ignored the specific concerns being expressed by the public and the aviation industry in this State.

Media contact: Ian Hasleby 321 7333

DATA FROM THE AIRSERVICES REPORT PROVIDED FOR SENATOR STERLE MAY 2020

6 months of Noise Collection Data February to August 2016 12 mths 2016 Jandakot Airport Canning Vale (347) Jandakot (349) Movements Movements recorded on the Noise Monitors 23,500 25,512 238,098 for 12 months Total of Movements in the report added up to 34,923 16,342 6 mths or 50% equals Breakdown of these recorded movements 119,049 Training 24L 11,032 3,882 movements Training 06R 6,389 1,761 Training 24R 5,210 2,527 Source of data Training HJ 3,267 1,275 Airservices website Arrivals 24R 2,552 0 Training 06L 1,652 1,169 Diamond Twin Star DA-42 06L 1,487 0 COMPARISON Training 12 1,292 0 FOR 2016 Diamond Twin Star DA-400 6L 1,218 0 Departures 06R 824 0 Jandakot 12 mths Departures 24R 0 1,854 238,098 Arrivals 06L 0 1,254 Pilatus PC12 24R 0 1,149 Perth Airport 12 mths Pilatus PC12 06L 0 761 132,582 Training 30 0 710

Need to reconcile 6 months of recorded events with the actual movements for the same period.

AIRPORTS WITH MAJOR MOVEMENTS Calendar Year 2016

Over 136 Between 7 Under 7 Helicopter All other TOTAL tonnes tonnes and tonnes Weight 136 tonnes

Jandakot 0 1,210 203,948 32,874 66 238,098 Perth 28,466 101,516 2,300 150 150 132,582

CANNING VALE JANDAKOT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

30 MARCH 2017

CIRCUIT TRAINING AT JANDAKOT AIRPORT – SATURATION OF ONE FLIGHT PATH

Dear Minister

A reply within twenty-one (21) days would be appreciated.

I am continue to be concerned with the concentration of flights over this address, 33 Crufts Way, Canning Vale. WA. 6155.

I am disappointed and surprised Airservices accepts this saturation and concentration over a single flight path for an extended period.

My view is these events could not reasonably be considered random.

I lodge a strong objection to what transpired last night.

It is a repeat of my previous example for the period March 8-11, 2017.

HAND NOISE MANAGEMENT BACK TO WA EPA

It strengthens the case for noise management to be handed back to the WA EPA.

Private training companies should not have a free licence to make unlimited noise and saturate one small section of a suburb, and especially in the night hours.

The open cheque for noise granted to private pilot training is probably unique in .

It is a non-essential, discretionary, profit-making private venture, that in my view seems to be doing what it likes. There is no justification for this financial subsidy and environmental exemption.

Question 1. Who decides the flight path and saturation of flight paths for aircraft engaged in pilot training at Jandakot Airport?

Question 2. Was it one (1) company that was predominantly flying this route last night? For example, was it pilots from a foreign airline being trained?

Question 3. Does the Federal Government endorse the effect of the changes to the flight paths at Jandakot Airport that sees this location now being bombarded with noise?

Question 4. What remedies does the Federal Government suggest for residents? Noise insulation seems to be one option for Jandakot Airport Management or the Federal Government to install. The suburb of Ranford would qualify. There are perhaps 1,000 houses.

Noise insulation was first recommended by the WA Transport Minister in 1995.

DATA RE FLIGHT PATH - 29 MARCH 2017

In brief, last night, there were about 87 either “direct hits” or flights within 150m within 2 1/2 hours. (7 to 9pm then 9.30 to 10pm). An average of 100 second intervals.

I estimate at least 70 went directly over this rooftop. Close to 80% were direct hits.

After a break at 9pm, activities resumed at about 9.30pm with another 17 direct, or near, direct hits until 10pm.

This flight path is being saturated all too frequently in my view. Airservices have the data.

A replay of WebTrak after adding “Address Lookup” for 33 Crufts Way, Canning Vale sets out graphically what is now happening.

It will take about ten (10) minutes to review on the 30x speed setting.

Virtually no other flight path was taken.

Every flight was a direct hit, or close enough to the house to cause noise nuisance.

We are talking about aircraft that were generating as much as 80 dBA doing the banked turns and add the night factor of + 3dBA.

People in this small area including Ranford were forced to endure these events.

COMPARISON WITH SYDNEY AIRPORT – SYDENHAM AND EASTLAKE

Last night, the Sydenham and Eastlake noise monitors each recorded fewer flights between 7 and 9pm than there were direct hits over this rooftop.

And the noise readings were lower at Sydenham and Eastlake because the training flights here are much lower.

SOME EXAMPLES OF FLIGHTS LAST NIGHT - CANNING VALE

Datum flight # 1

40 seconds elapsed

95 seconds elapsed

101 seconds later

92 seconds later

2 mins 25 seconds later

45 seconds later

2 minutes 11 seconds later

CONCLUSION

I can confirm that the early flights this morning, and coming from the reverse direction, are also finding their way over this location.

I repeat this location is not in the landing or take-off flight path. There are alternatives.

The prophetic words of Mr Charlton is 1995 are attached.

Last night is but one example of the thousands of events over the years.

I fail to see how any Federal Government can endorse what has gone on.

If companies choose not to use the quiet aircraft that are now available, then the number of flights and night training should be slashed until they upgrade.

 no weekend flights  night flights to stop one (1) hour after sunset  daily limits on the number of passes that can be made over a specific location and  fly circuits at 2,000 feet instead of 1,000 feet

The houses were here long before the Federal Government gave the training operators an open cheque to make noise.

The WA EPA is the way to go.

I look forward to a reply.

Yours sincerely

P M Ryan (Michael) WED 29 MARCH 2017

Short Term Monitoring Program WA, Canning Vale Report

May 2013

Short Term Monitoring Program

Version Control

Version Number Date Detail 1.0 May 2013 Initial Release. 2.0 January 2014

© . All rights reserved.

This report contains a summary of data collected over the specified period and is intended to convey the best information available from the NFPMS at the time. The system databases are to some extent dependent upon external sources and errors may occur. All care is taken in preparation of the report but its complete accuracy can not be guaranteed. Airservices Australia does not accept any legal liability for any losses arising from reliance upon data in this report which may be found to be inaccurate.

WA, Canning Vale, May 2013 Short Term Monitoring Program

Deployment Purpose – Canning Vale, WA Following recommendations for noise monitoring around Jandakot Airport made in the ‘Review of the Perth Environmental Monitoring Units’ undertaken by Airservices in 2011, Canning Vale was selected as a Short Term Monitoring location. The purpose of this report is to provide a technical summary of the recorded aircraft noise and operational data collected at Canning Vale over a four week period. An explanation of terms used within this report can be found in the Glossary at the end of the report.

Monitoring Period 10/11/2012 12:00am – 08/12/2012 12:00am

Environmental Monitoring Unit (EMU) Details Location Brookside Square, Canning Vale 6155 Latitude 32°5'23.88"S Longitude 115°55'14.08"E EMU Altitude 102ft above mean sea level Capture Zone 2.5km radius with 8,102ft (above ground level) height for noise data capture Threshold Settings 54.0 dB(A) to 56.0 dB(A) depending on time of day

Location Images

Figures 1 to 3 details the location of monitors surrounding Perth Airport and the flight paths used for those operations captured by the Canning Vale EMU.

WA, Canning Vale, May 2013 1 Short Term Monitoring Program

Figure 1 Perth Fixed Environmental Monitoring Unit Locations and the Canning Vale Short Term Monitoring Program Deployment Location

Canning Vale STMP

Figure 2 Total Movements Captured

WA, Canning Vale, May 2013 2 Short Term Monitoring Program

Figure 3 Jandakot Airport Movements Captured

Figure 4 Canning Vale Movements Through Capture Zone Penetration

Note: Perth Airport altitude is 67ft above mean sea level. EMU altitude is 102ft above mean sea level. The EMU altitude should be adjusted from the data shown above in order to draw conclusions about height above ground of aircraft operations.

The black line though the capture zone in Figure 3 depicts the penetration gate location for the plot shown in Figure 4. Some movements through the capture zone failed to penetrate the gate used for analysis due to their entry and exit point through the capture zone. In addition, a single operation may fly through the penetration gate on multiple occasions. Further, operations that are on climb may pass out of the correlation zone and later penetrate the gate at a higher altitude. The opposite is true for arrivals that will penetrate the gate at a higher altitude and later pass through the correlation zone.

WA, Canning Vale, May 2013 3 Short Term Monitoring Program

Findings

The following tables present a summary of the operations data.

Table 1 Movement Summary (10/11/2012 12:00am – 08/12/2012 12:00am)

Jandakot Airport Type of Operation All Movements Movements

Number of Movements Through Capture Zone* 4,074 4,632 Number of Correlated Noise Events (CNE) 1,325 2,367 Number of Individual Movements with 812 1,714 Correlated Noise Events (CNE) Correlation Summary 19.93% 37.00% * Includes all aircraft with transponder flying through area, regardless of destination/origin airport. ** May include operations that produced multiple noise events.

Correlation Summary An evaluation of the number of aircraft operations that were matched with noise events recorded by the EMU is an important aspect of assessing performance of the noise monitoring installation. Ideally, all operations passing the EMU within a reasonable proximity will be matched to the appropriate noise event. Whilst complete matching is not expected, a lack of matches will reveal the need to investigate the reason for anomalies. A correlation summary for all movements of 37% is a reasonably low result. This result is lower than other NFPMS monitors due to the quieter nature of General Aviation aircraft operations. Whilst the noise created from the aircraft may be noticeable, they are not loud enough to create a noise event above the determined threshold settings shown below in Figure 5.

Table 2 Height (in feet, above ground level) Above The Monitor Summary

Type of Operation Min* Max* Average*

Departures Through Capture Zone** 0 9,963 1,893 Arrivals Through Capture Zone** 26 18,671 1,106 All Operations Through Capture Zone** 0 19,867 1,155 * Flight tracks are susceptible to an altitude error of up to 200ft which is consistent with normal radar tolerances. ** Includes all airports within Perth Basin.

Table 3 Captured Movements Breakdown By Airport and Aircraft Category

Light Grand Airport Jet Turboprop Helicopter Unknown* Propeller Total

Jandakot 59 465 657 52 1,527 2,760 Perth 617 317 17 4 4 959 Other 1 5 19 6 276 307 Grand Total 677 787 693 62 1,807 4,026 *These non-flight planned operations are generally recreational aircraft conducting private flights and will account for the very low altitudes by some aircraft.

WA, Canning Vale, May 2013 4 Short Term Monitoring Program

Background Noise Levels and Threshold Settings At the monitoring site, background noise levels are first assessed to determine the appropriate threshold settings for the EMU. The threshold setting must be above the background noise level in order to clearly distinguish aircraft noise events from other noise sources. The result of background noise assessment and threshold settings are provided below in Figure 5.

Figure 5 Background and Threshold Assessment

WA, Canning Vale, May 2013 5 Short Term Monitoring Program

Noise Summary The following tables present a summary of the noise data for aircraft that flew through the capture zone and caused a Correlated Noise Event (CNE). Information is provided for Jandakot Airport movements that flew over the EMU, as well as all aircraft that flew over the EMU, noting that this area is affected by arrivals, departures and training flights, as shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

Table 4 Noise Summary NOISE PARAMETERS LAeq 24 hr, dBA 54.7 LAeq (night), dBA 48.7 Background Day 43.2 (L90 dBA) Background Night 36.7 (L90 dBA)

Table 5 Correlated Noise Events Summary Jandakot Airport All Aircraft Movements Total number of Correlated Noise Events (CNE 24hr) 1,325 2,367 Number of Correlated Noise Events at night (CNE night) 97 198 Operational Days 28.0 28.0

Number of Correlated Noise Events (CNExx) day/night CNExx CNExx

CNE60 – day 918 1,737

CNE60 - night 74 175

CNE65 – day 523 1,071

CNE65 – night 41 128

CNE70 – day 241 427

CNE70 - night 27 60

CNE75 – day 66 125

CNE75 - night 8 9

CNE80 – day 19 28

CNE80- night 0 0

Number of Correlated Noise Events (CNExx) per 24hr period

min – max

CNE60 2 to 67 10 to 249

CNE65 1 to 46 8 to 155

CNE70 0 to 25 7 to 66

CNE75 0 to 8 0 to 24

CNE80 0 to 5 0 to 5

Average Number of Correlated Noise Events (CNExx Ave.) CNExx Ave. CNExx Ave. day/night

CNE60 Ave. – day 32.79 62.04

CNE60 Ave. – night 2.64 6.25

CNE65 Ave. – day 18.68 38.25

CNE65 Ave. – night 1.46 4.57

CNE70 Ave. – day 8.61 15.25

CNE70 Ave. – night 0.96 2.14

CNE75 Ave. – day 2.36 4.46

CNE75 Ave. – night 0.29 0.32

CNE80 Ave. – day 0.68 1.00

CNE80 Ave. – night 0.00 0.00 Note: Day period is from 6:00am to 11:00pm. Night period is 11:00pm to 6:00am.

WA, Canning Vale, May 2013 6 Short Term Monitoring Program

Table 6 LAmax Summary Min dB(A) Max dB(A) Average dB(A) 54.4 87.7 65.3 Note: Summary for operations that passed through the correlation zone (2.5km radius with 8,102ft height AGL) *Correlated Noise Events of 121.6 dB(A), 115.4 dB(A) and 91.8 dB(A) existed during the reporting period. Further investigation determined these were not aircraft noise events.

CNE60 Count by Hour A large number of noise events were between 60dB(A) and 70dB(A). Therefore further investigation was undertaken on the number of correlated noise events that exceed 60dB(A) to reveal patterns and determine what time of the day the majority of these events occurred.

Figure 6 presents daily average number of noise events 60dB(A) or above (CNE60) broken down on an hourly basis.

Figure 6 Average CNE60 per Hour for All Operations

The highest number of CNE60 in any one hour throughout the reporting period was 23 on 27th November 2012 between 7pm and 8pm.

Aircraft Noise Levels Table 7 presents the top 10 noisiest aircraft types captured by the noise monitor during the reporting period. Table 8 shows the 10 most correlated aircraft types that flew over the noise monitor.

Table 7 Top 10 Average Aircraft Noise Levels (LAmax) at the Canning Vale EMU No. Highest No. Operation LAmax dB(A) Aircraft Type Airport Runway Correlated CNE in One Type Noise Events Average Maximum Day Bell 412 (H) Unknown O Unknown 1 78.4 78.4 1 Fairchild Metroliner (T) Jandakot D 12 1 78.4 78.4 1 Beechcraft BE55 (P) Jandakot D 06L 2 77.0 81.0 1 Cessna C404 (P) Jandakot D Unknown 1 75.2 75.2 1 Antonov An-124 (J) Perth A 03 1 75.2 75.2 1 Beechcraft BE55 (P) Jandakot D 12 1 75.0 75.0 1 Partenavia P68 (P) Jandakot D 06R 1 73.1 73.1 1 Grob G115 (P) Jandakot A 24R 3 72.9 74.9 2 -400 (J) Perth A 03 3 72.8 75.1 1 Embraer E190 (J) Perth D 21 1 72.7 72.7 1

WA, Canning Vale, May 2013 7 Short Term Monitoring Program

Table 8 Top 10 Most Correlated Aircraft Types Over the Canning Vale EMU No. Highest No. Operation LAmax dB(A) Aircraft Type Airport Runway Correlated CNE in One Type Noise Events Average Maximum Day Unknown (U) Jandakot A 24L 228 64.9 87.7 34 Pilatus PC12 (T) Jandakot A 24R 120 66.4 78.6 8 Boeing 737-800 (J) Perth A 03 119 68.3 81.8 39 Unknown (U) Unknown O Unknown 114 65.6 84.3 12 Unknown (U) Jandakot T 24R 109 64.2 87.2 22 Unknown (U) Jandakot A 24R 101 65.1 78.3 23 Fokker 100 (J) Perth A 03 82 65.3 82.7 28 Unknown (U) Jandakot T 24L 72 66.2 78.9 10 Airbus A320 (J) Perth A 03 69 68.5 81.6 17 Unknown (U) Jandakot A Unknown 63 64.7 83.7 16 Aircraft Category: Jet (J), Turboprop (T), Propeller (P), Helicopter (H), Unknown (U)

Conclusions Following recommendations made in ‘Review of the Perth Environmental Monitoring Units’, Short Term Monitoring was conducted at Canning Vale during the period of 10th November to 8th December 2012. Canning Vale is located to the north east of Jandakot Airport. Throughout the reporting period the highest number of correlated aircraft noise events exceeding 60dB(A) in one day was 249. On November 27th during the period of 7pm and 8pm, 23 events exceeding 60dB(A) occurred, this was the greatest number in one hour during the period. Residents in the area of Canning Vale were exposed to a correlated noise events exceeding 75dB(A) during the hours of day and night. There were 175 correlated noise events above 60dB(A) that occurred during the hours of night. The average LAmax during the reporting period was 65.3dB(A), with a max level of 87.7dB(A) and minimum level of 54.4dB(A) recorded. Noise events above 60dB(A) were most common in the weekday hours of 11:00am to 10:00pm and on weekends in the period of 9:00am to 5:00pm. A review of Tables 7 and 8 indicates the most frequent and loudest aircraft types to pass over Canning Vale are General Aviation aircraft operating to and from Jandakot Airport. There are a high number of non-flight planned operations that depart or arrive at Jandakot, for this reason the most frequent correlated aircraft types were dominated by Unknown movements. The correlation summary is reasonably low for this monitor. This result is lower than other NFPMS monitors due to the quieter nature of General Aviation aircraft operations. Whilst the noise created by these operations may be noticeable to the human ear, they do not meet the correlation parameters for the monitor. Due to the distinctive flight paths and distance from Jandakot Airport, it is not expected the ratio of arrival and departure flights over Canning Vale will change due to seasonal variation over a twelve month period.

WA, Canning Vale, May 2013 8 Short Term Monitoring Program

Further Information Further information about Airservices noise monitoring program is available on the Airservices website, including reports of the noise and operational data collected by the Noise and Flight Path Monitoring System, as well as fact sheets about topics related to aircraft noise. The website is available at: http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aircraftnoise/ Contact us To lodge a complaint or make an enquiry about aircraft operations, you can go to WebTrak (www.airservicesaustralia.com/aircraftnoise/webtrak/) use our online form (www.airservicesaustralia.com/aircraftnoise/about-making-a-complaint/) telephone 1800 802 584 (freecall) or 1300 302 240 (local call –Sydney) fax (02) 9556 6641 or write to, Noise Complaints and Information Service, PO Box 211, Mascot NSW 1460. Glossary of Terms A Arrivals AGL Above Ground Level Background noise level The sound level in dB(A) that is exceeded 90% of the time (L90) CNE Correlated noise events - noise events which are matched with aircraft movements CNExx Correlated noise events that are equal or greater than the noise level XX dB(A) D Departures Day 6:00am to 11:00pm EMU Environmental Monitoring Unit H Helicopters Jet Jet aircraft LAeq Continuous equivalent noise level over a time period LAeq 24hr Continuous equivalent noise level over a 24 hour period LAeq night Continuous equivalent noise level over the night time period (hours of 11:00pm to 6:00am) LAmax Maximum sound level in dB(A) Local Operation that departs and arrives at the same airport. Local movements include circuits and training flights. Movement An aircraft operation, such as a take-off or landing Nxx Average daily number of correlated noise events equal to or greater than XX dB(A) Night 11:00pm to 6:00am NFPMS Noise and Flight Path Monitoring System Noise Event A noise that exceeds the threshold sound level for longer than the threshold time that is set Non-Jet Non-jet aircraft O Overflight i.e. an aircraft movement that flew over the area but did not arrive or depart from the airport of concern T Local Operation (Departure & Arrival)

Note: For further information on the metrics used in this report refer to Australian Standard 1055.1– 1997 “Acoustics – Description and measurement of environmental noise”. Airservices welcomes comments about this report. Please contact us via e-mail at [email protected] if you would like to provide feedback.

WA, Canning Vale, May 2013 9