Running head: AIRPORT NOISE PROBLEM IN AUSTRALIA

Discuss the extent of the aircraft noise problem in Australia:

Name:

Institution:
AIRPORT NOISE PROBLEM IN AUSTRALIA
2

Introduction

Airports are crucial social, as well as, economic assets for Australia. More often than not,

they underpins the air transport network which is responsible yearly for more than 50 million

journeys in domestic nature and 25 million worldwide journeys, in addition to, the movement of

higher value and time sensitive freight (Black, 2007). Moreover, they support and generate more

than 0.5 million jobs for the local communities via their broader tourism industry support. Still

they support the essential emergency and medical services and flight training. However, airports

have environmental impacts on the local communities, particularly through production of aircraft

noise. In essence, aircraft noise is the noise pollutions that emanates from any plane or its

components, in various flight phases: on ground whilst parked like the auxiliary power units,

during taxiling, on the run-up from jet exhauster and propeller, during take-off, lateral and

underneath to arrival and departure paths, over-flying while landing or en route.

One of the most palpable environmental effects of Australian airport operation on

surrounding communities is noise. In fact, urban traffic by far is the most omnipresent outdoor

residential source of noise. More than 96 million individuals are predicted to be exposed around

and in their own homes, to deplorable higher levels of air traffic noise surpassing 55 dB (Clarke,

2003).

Two sources of air-craft noise comprises mainly of engine noise and airframe noise. An

airframe noise emanates from the air moving over the body of an aircraft (fuselage/airframe) and

causes turbulence and air friction. The loudness of noise in this case depends on the intensity of

air friction, where the more it is the louder the resultant noise. The engine noise emanates from

sound of moving part of an engine, coupled with sounds of air having being propelled at quite a
AIRPORT NOISE PROBLEM IN AUSTRALIA
3

higher speed after it has already passed through an engine. As far as the helicopters, as well as,

other propeller driven planes are concerned, noise is equally generated by propeller mechanism

and air friction generated by propeller blades.

Although today aircrafts are much silent in comparison to the way they were twenty years

ago the aircraft operation frequency and the aircraft number have dramatically increased. Whilst

the aircraft noise leverage on average is decreasing, the frequency of aircraft noise being heard is

on the increase.

For instance, Perth area is normally affected by this aircraft noise from 6 airfields

comprising of Jandakot Airport, Perth Airport, Pearce RAAF Base, and Murray field Airport

(Mandurah) Rottnest Island Airport and Serpentine Airport. As a matter of fact, there is no

suburb which is immune to aircraft noise (Rosenlund, 2001).

In the western part of Australia, Jandakot airport is major general aviation, in addition to,

being the largest training bases and business airfields in Australia. A majority of plane

movements at the airports such as this emanates from the pilot training school based at such an

airport. Moreover, most essential services organizations operates out of the airport, comprising

of Royal flying doctors, police air wing, the DFECS/DEC bushfire water bombers and RAC

rescue helicopter.

Jandakot as the busiest airport holds an average of around 330,000 movements in a year.

Aircraft number movement is a conjecture to amplify reaching in surplus of 470,000 movements

in a year in a period of 20 twenty.

AIRPORT NOISE PROBLEM IN AUSTRALIA
4

Needless to say, people are quite complex creatures. As such, they all act in response to

some sounds in dissimilar manners. Some of the sound they hear may be pleasant to them, while

others may become a bother to them also. Those are the sort of sounds that are considered to be

noise. There are various reasons why most people finds aircraft sound to be annoying while some

other do not. Some of them comprises of (1): The attitudes to a noise source, where some

individual have some passion for planes, while the others see them to be mere nuisance. (2).

Activity at a given time. In this case, sound is even less prone to being annoying during the night

when individuals are sleeping in comparison to during the day in a period when people are more

active. (3). the duration and loudness of a sound. People are more expected to become annoyed

by some louder sounds in comparison to the quiet ones, in addition to, the sounds which occur

for longer periods of time.

In the Australian context, noise from the airport particularly in larger airports has a

tendency of coming and going as aircrafts fly over. It might disturb the normal household bustle

s such as watching TV and reading, and might bother people when they are talking to their

friends. The annoyance is much greater during the night in comparison to during the day as

observed above and increases with the level of noise and flight number. ANEF (Australian

Noise Exposure Forecast) always takes these aspects into consideration whilst developing its

system for the Australian airports. Systems of ANEF provide a perfect way through which

community reaction to the aircraft noise is estimated (Nero and Black, 2001). This system

usually displays the contours of noise exposure around every airport based on number and types

of air craft movement, distribution over night and day time period, as well as every crafts

specific noise traits. The higher the contour levels of ANEF the higher the chance of such

individuals becoming annoyed by the noise.

AIRPORT NOISE PROBLEM IN AUSTRALIA
5

Aircraft problem in Australia brings about some medical conditions to its people. A large

number of factors happen to have a massive impact on the blood pressure. Research indicates

that there is a relationship between blood pressure and noise. Some studies hence shows high risk

owing to the noise, where people living near the airport are worst affected. Moreover, studies

also shows that noise is a risk factor for ailments related to the heart for the persons living in

higher noise regions. This only means that the Australians living closer to the major airports and

for longer time periods have higher probability of developing heart disease.

The Australian standard (AS 2021) includes some recommended standards for the indoor

design sound extent for various types of building, as well as, activities, and spots 2 habitable

areas types linked with the residential development wither the design level as: sleeping area and

dedicated lounges (Miedama and Vos, 1999).

In the determination of mandatory requirement for diverse classes of activity, care is

essential is imperative in avoiding administrative confusion and anomalies emanating from

various nomenclatures. It is particularly crucial in regards to the activities classification utilized

in determining the noise control measures that have prospect of adding to cost of constructing

houses. In such context, the discretionary activity region such as the dedicated lounges may be

considered in the somehow different light from areas that constitutes the more area of archetypal

Australian homes. The new homes in areas such as Perth are now increasingly becoming even

less formal in regards to the living area which has a higher prevalence of some open plan living

regions in the preference to the dedicated lounges. The other activity spaces that are now

becoming quite common comprises of home offices, home theatres, as well as, alfresco dining

areas, in context of the mandatory measures of noise control, where these are at an expense of
AIRPORT NOISE PROBLEM IN AUSTRALIA
6

one builders, it is debatable that this sorts of area must not be subject to similar sleeping area

standards.

Therefore, it is suggested that all the internal living areas, comprising of the dedicated

lounges be taken into consideration as the other inhabitable spaces for purposes of indoor design

noise level application of AS 2021.

The other inhabitable spaces might be considered to include both the informal and formal

living areas, dining and kitchen area. It is also worth noting that in respect to Adelaide and

Sydney programs of noise amelioration rarely distinguishes between the dedicated lounges, as

well as, other areas of living in regards to noise reduction targets.

From all the above analysis noise reduction that would be needed so as to meet indoor

design levels of so8und recommended by the as 2021 for Australian habitable areas for every

locality is determined and summarized in the table below.

AIRPORT NOISE PROBLEM IN AUSTRALIA
7

Table 1

Noise abatement so far is exercised through reduction of level of sound pressure of the

community noise. It is founded on the major relation found between external noise, as well as, its

unfavorable impacts on human population. For adverse impacts to be combined with noise and

not any other environmental agent, people must learn to hear it. Although in some socio physical

surveys exposure to noise may account for around 85 per cent of variance in the expressed

community annoyance, prediction of people’s response is comparatively poor. The surveys

which engages individual responses seldom account for above 45 per cent even in the rigorously

noise polluted regions (Ware, and Sherbourne, 1992).

Such results appears to suggest that the notion of noise contributing just a little

annoyance, not unless the individual differences in acuity are big. Consequently, physical noise
AIRPORT NOISE PROBLEM IN AUSTRALIA
8

traits appear to be of comparatively less significance to the reported annoyance than social or

psychological aspects of more intricate nature. Also, it is obvious that there exists larger gaps in

current knowledge, while there exist no theorem of the manner in which various aspects

contributes to adverse noise effect. Obviously, the noise perception is a necessity for the noise

annoyance, in addition to, being one of the prerequisite for the noise abatement in the physical

terms.

In November 1994, a third runway was opened at the Sydney Airport. Resultant noise

exposure patterns chance that concentrated the noise in suburbs to north of this airport triggered

the public outcry that eventually resulted to establishment of a select committee in the senate for

aircraft noise in this city (Freestone and Baker, 2004). The report of the committee was in

particular critical on the manner in which impacts of noise were manifested in Environmental

impact statement projects. As was the standard practice during this time, EIS had utilized the

information of ANEF as primal tool in describing changes in the noise exposure. For various

reasons, most individuals considered that they were misled in the manner in which information

was presented. The select committee’s recommendation on major changes in response is now

made in the manner in which the aircraft noise is discussed, as well as, described with the

Australian community. The traditional approach that involves noise expert attempting to find

some straightforward means of explaining to the non-expert what metric like ANEF mean has

been superseded largely. The newer approaches are founded on describing aircraft noise as far as

possible in the manner in which an individual utilizes once holding on day to day conversation or

in making some telephone complaint. The traditional aircraft noise metric decreases information

on the noise exposure to the one on annual average day because this has proven to be one of the

most effective manners of condensing information to the digestible quantity. Nonetheless,

AIRPORT NOISE PROBLEM IN AUSTRALIA
9

exposure of aircraft noise for several areas all around the airport tends to vary extensively from

an hour to the other, season to season and day to day, and thus the average day is hardly ever an

archetypal day. More often than not, aircraft noise has famine of flood aspects. It only translates

to the fact that information which is provided to public quite often does not in any way closely

relate to the actual experience of people.

An average figure for the intrusive aircraft noise level is meaningless and it is normally

the peaks that draw most hostile responses. As a consequence, to the averaging of noise that is

received over one year, that will just mask periods where intensity is extremely high (Miedama

and Vos, 1999).

The systems of ANEF (Australian Noise Exposure Forecast) over the last 20 years have

been utilized in 4 main ways. It is utilized in delineating what type and where development may

occur around the airport so as determine the buildings that are suitable for insulation all around

the airport; for mechanical assessment of the airport operating alternatives in EIS (Environmental

impact statement) processes, in addition to, being the tool for provision of information to public

on the patterns of noise exposure around the airports. It continues and has been successfully

utilized in first 3 of such roles. Nevertheless, departments usually consider the existence of

significant limitation in utilization of ANEF as a means of describing aircraft noise exposure to

laypeople.

While a population with highest aircraft noise burden usually lives in 20 ANEF contour,

a majority of such noise complaints which are obtained are currently emanating from individuals

who lives outside such contours. In the past, the residents of such area have been provided with

extremely insignificant information on the aircraft noise via ANEF system instead of that the

region considered or even acceptable for the new housing (Miedama and Vos, 1999). This sort
AIRPORT NOISE PROBLEM IN AUSTRALIA
10

of approach at best has proven to be quite unhelpful and at the worst managed to send totally

wrong messages. A number of people who lives outside 20 E ANEF contour on the other hand

have been provided with the expectation of obtaining little or no aircraft noise indeed and

consequently finds noise level experienced to be totally unacceptable. People in simple terms

wants to be informed of aircraft noise exposure in own language where flight paths are, the

number of movements the time of night or day. However, the response of officials must be

provision of information in a form of single figure value of ANEF. Needless to say, there has

always been a communication breakdown between noise experts and community that is seen to

be at an expense of the two parties.

The senate select committee on the aircraft noise in 1995 based o Sydney spotted many

paucities in the manner in which information on aircraft noise was conveyed tom public via

reliance on system of Australian Noise Exposure Forecast in the EIS for the 3rd runway at the

Sydney Airport. In line with the recommendation of this committee, several new information

conveyance approaches on the aircraft noise are now been developed (Franssenet al., 2004). The

approaches are founded on description of the noise in such a way that it become very

comprehendible for the non-expert instead of the terms through which the noise experts normally

communicates through to one another.

In a nutshell the system of global aviation might be seen as the feed-back control system

that has interactions and outputs between the stakeholders which are complex, in addition to,

being varied. Inputs to an operational component of system are the schedule and airplane which

an airline flies and procedures and rules that are mandated by air traffic control entity which

manages movement of such aircraft (Spreng, 2004). Hence, if the decrease in environmental

effect of the aircraft operation is to be attained, then either the operation number should be
AIRPORT NOISE PROBLEM IN AUSTRALIA
11

decreases, the sort of airplanes ne changed completely or operational procedures and rules are

changes. Provided that demand for aviation in terms of both cargo and passenger is anticipated to

continue growing in the next twenty years, in addition to the reality that the passengers usually

place quite a higher value on flight frequency in a particular market, it is not likely that operation

number will be decreased.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, airports in Australia underpins the air transport network which is

responsible yearly for more than 50 million journeys in domestic nature and 25 million

worldwide journeys, in addition to, the movement of higher value and time sensitive freight.

Moreover, they support and generate more than 0.5 million jobs for the local communities via

their broader tourism industry support. Nevertheless, airports have environmental impacts on the

local communities, particularly through production of aircraft noise.

In determination of the practical noise level reduction for the residential development

consideration must be provided to both the cost and effectiveness of the individual measures, as

well as, whether such measures might have any extra advantage like enhanced comfort or energy

efficiency. Also, consideration must be given to noise control measure affordability, considering

that the cost may be borne by the individual owners of properties (Morrell, 1997). Though

window closure may be effective to an effectual control of the aircraft noise, the operational

management of a private housing comprising do window closure still remains an occupier’s

prerogative. It may comprise of open air ventilation in the time that an aircraft noise is not seen

as a specific problem or part of the entire management of the ambient temperatures in

AIRPORT NOISE PROBLEM IN AUSTRALIA
12

minimizing utilization of energy or/and enhance the other living environment aspects other than

aircraft noise.

References:

Clarke, J. (2003).The role of advanced air traffic management in reducing the impact of

aircraft noise and enabling aviation growth. Journal of Air Transport Management 9:161–165

Berglund, B., Lindval. T & Nordin. S. (1990). Adverse Effects of Aircraft Noise.

Environment International, Vol. 16, pp. 315-338,

Black, D. (2007). Aircraft noise exposure and resident’s stress and hypertension: A

public health perspective for airport environmental management. Journal of Air Transport

Management 13 264–276

Nero,G & Black. J. (2004). A critical examination of an airport noise mitigation scheme

and an aircraft noise charge: the case of capacity expansion

AIRPORT NOISE PROBLEM IN AUSTRALIA
13

and externalities at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) airport. Transportation Research Part D 5:

433-461

Freestone, R and Baker, Douglas C. (2010) Challenges in land use planning around

Australian airports. Journal of Air Transport Management, 16(5). pp. 264-271.

Australian government. (2003). Going beyond Noise contours: Local Approaches to Land

Use Planning Around Smaller Australian Airports.

Bullent, R, Hede, A & Kyriacos, E. (1985). Reaction to aircraft noise in Residential areas

around Australian airports Journal of Sound and Vibration (1986) 108(2), 199-225

Clarke, J.-P., 2000. A systems analysis of noise abatement procedures enabled by

advance flight guidance technology. AIAA Journal of Aircraft 37 (2), 266–273.

Griffiths, I.D. Review of community response to noise. In: Rossi, G., ed., Noise as a

public health problem, Vol. 2. Milano: Centro Ricerche e Studi Amplifon; 1983:1031-1047.

Gunn, W.J.; Patterson, H.P.; Cornog, J.; Klaus, E; Connor, W.K. A model and plan for a

longitudinal study of community response to aircraft noise. NASA TMX-72690, 1975.

Fidell, S., Barber, D.S., Schultz, T.J., 1991. Updating a dosage-effect relationship for the

prevalence of annoyance due to general

transportation noise. Journal of the Acoustics Society of America 111, 1743–1750.

Franssen, E.A., van Wiechen, C.M., Nagelkerke, N.J., Lebret, E., 2004. Aircraft noise

around a large international airport and its impact on general health and medication use. Journal

of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 61, 405–413.

Haines, M.M., Stansfeld, S.A., Job, R.E.S., Bergland, B., Head, J., 2001a Chronic

Aircraft noise exposure, stress response, mental health and cognitive performance in school

children. Psychological Medicine 31, 265–277.

AIRPORT NOISE PROBLEM IN AUSTRALIA
14

Hede, A.J., Bullen, R.B., 1982. Aircraft noise in Australia: a survey of community

reaction. National Acoustics Laboratory Report, No. 88. Australian Government Publishing

Service, Canberra.

Melbourne Academic Mindfulness Interest Group, 2006. Mindfulness based

psychotherapies: a review of conceptual foundations, empirical evidence and practical

considerations. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 40 (4), 285–294.

Kahn, D., Cook, T., Carlisle, C., Nelson, D., Kramer, N., Millman, R., 1998.

Identification and Modification of Environmental Noise in an ICU Setting. Chest 114, 535–540.

Ware, J.E., Sherbourne, S.D., 1992. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36):

I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care 30, 473–483.

Miedama, H.M.E. and Vos, H., 1999. Dose-response relationships for transportation

noise. Journal of Acoustical Society of America 104 (6), 3432–3445.

Nero, G.,and Black, J.A., 2000. A critical examination of an airport noise mitigation

scheme and an aircraft noise charge: the case of capacity expansion and externalities at Sydney

(Kingsford Smith) airport. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 5 (6),

433–461.

Weinstein, N.D., 1978. Individual differences in reactions to noise: a longitudinal study

in a college dormitory. Journal of Applied Psychology 63 (4), 458–466.

Morrell, S., Taylor, R., Lyle, D., 1997. A review of health effects of aircraft noise.

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 21 (2), 221–236.

Spreng, M., 2004. Noise induced nocturnal cortisol secretion and tolerable overhead

flights. Noise and Health 6 (22), 35–47.

AIRPORT NOISE PROBLEM IN AUSTRALIA
15

Morley, S., 2004. Process and change in cognitive behavior therapy for chronic pain.

Pain 9 (3), 205–206.

Rosenlund, M., Berglind, N., Pershagen, G., Jarup, L., Bluhm, G., 2001. Increased

Prevalence of hypertension in a population exposed to aircraft noise. Journal of Occupational

and Environmental Medicine 58, 769–773.