Perth Airport flight paths to change, following noise complaints

8 March 2015

From May 2015, Airservices Australia will commence a 12-month trial of new flight paths for aircraft using Perth Airport, to shift aircraft noise to less populated suburbs of Perth.

Three noise improvement schemes are being implemented in 2015. The changes have been developed in consultation with airlines and the community, and are subject to environmental approvals.

Preferred runways

Noise Abatement Procedures are used by pilots and air traffic control to reduce noise impacts on residential areas, specifying which runways and flight paths are preferred for arriving and departing aircraft.

Under the proposed change (which does not apply on weekdays from 5am-9pm), the mix of arrivals and departures may change, and Cannington may have a noticeable noise reduction. Implementation is scheduled for May 2015.

Current 

Proposed
(no change to runway use on weekdays from 5 am to 9 pm)

Arrivals:
Runway 21 (arriving over Guildford) and Runway 24 (over Greenmount) are equally preferred.
Runway 06 (over Redcliffe) least preferred due to residential areas close to southern end of the runway.
Arrivals:
Equal preference to Runway 21 (over Guildford), Runway 24 (over Greenmount) and Runway 03 (over Queens Park).
Runway 06 (over Redcliffe) continue to be least preferred due to residential areas close to southern end of the runway.
Departures:
Runway 21 (departing over Queens Park) is the only runway preferred for departures.
Departures from Runway 24 (over Redcliffe) are least-preferred due to residential areas close to the southern end of the runway
Departures:
Equal preference would be given to Runway 21 (over Queens Park), Runway 03 (over Guildford) and Runway 06 (over Greenmount).
Departures from Runway 24 (over Redcliffe) continue to be least-preferred due to residential areas close to the southern end of the runway

Smart Tracking

Aircraft arriving from the north and east of Perth to land on Runway 03 (southern end of the main runway) usually perform a visual turn near Carmel and Bickley in the hills area, east of Perth. If visibility is poor, a longer 10 nm ILS approach is used.

A visual approach requires to use a stepped descent, with the aircraft repeatedly descends and then levels out. This descent generates more noise than a continuous descent.

Under Smart Tracking, pilots can use GPS-assisted navigation to perform a quieter, continuous descent over the Perth Hills further away to the southeast of the airport. The visual approach will also be moved to the same flight path corridor as shown in the maps below.

This change, which will be implemented from May 2015, will move flight paths further east over less populated areas in the Perth Hills. There will be very few arrivals over Bickley and Carmel, and less low-level night flights for suburbs between Canning Vale and Casuarina.

Current flight path (blue) versus proposed (yellow) Smart Tracking and visual flight path, for aircraft arriving from the north and east of Perth to land on Runway 03 at Perth Airport. Map by Airservices Australia.
Current flight path (blue) versus proposed (yellow) Smart Tracking and visual flight path, for aircraft arriving from the north and east of Perth to land on Runway 03 at Perth Airport.
(Airservices Australia map).
All southeast approach flight paths (including the longer ILS approaches) to Perth Airport's Runway 03, after the introduction of Smart Tracking and new visual flight paths from May 2015. (Airservices Australia map)
All southeast approach flight paths (including the longer ILS approaches) to Perth Airport’s Runway 03, after the introduction of Smart Tracking and new visual flight paths from May 2015.
(Airservices Australia map)

Night-time respite

Aircraft taking off from Runway 21 on northbound flights from Perth currently fly over suburbs bordering the Swan River, southwest of the airport before turning north. Use of this flight path has tripled since 2007.

Under the night time respite, when Runway 21 is used between 10 pm and 5 am for northbound flights (eastbound flights are unchanged), aircraft will continue flying on runway heading southwards for longer after takeoff. When they are adjacent to Jandakot Airport, they will turn towards the southwest until they reach 8000 feet, at which point pilots may turn to the north. This flight path takes aircraft over less-populated, non-residential land.

Perth Airport’s peak period for departures commences at 5 am on weekday mornings, with aircraft taking-off every two to three minutes.

Proposed implementation of a 12-month trial will start in August or November 2015.

Current departure flight paths for Runway 21 shown in blue. Planned 10pm – 5am departure flight path shown in yellow. Note: Eastbound flight paths are unchanged. (Airservices Australia map)
Current departure flight paths for Runway 21 shown in blue. Planned 10pm – 5am departure flight path shown in yellow. Note: Eastbound flight paths are unchanged.
(Airservices Australia map)

Interesting Facts:

  • There are three airports operating in the Perth area (Perth Airport, Jandakot Airport and RAAF Base Pearce).
  • Perth Airport is Australia’s fourth-largest in terms of passenger numbers and operates 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week.
  • Over the past 50 years, and despite six major economic downturns, Perth Airport traffic has increased on average nine percent a year. More recently (since 2007), the airport has had consistent years of 12 to 15 per cent growth
  • Western Australia is now an important resources centre for the world and contributes forty per cent of Australia’s export income.
  • About thirty per cent of flights to and from Perth Airport are transporting fly-in, fly-out workers to mining and gas facilities in the north and southeast of the State.
  • Additionally, the airport was a gateway for 807 000 international visitors in 2014, contributing some $2.3 billion tourism dollars to the State’s economy.
  • Airservices’ first priority is safety, but must also balance the traffic growth with noise impacts.
  • Between 2010 and 2014, Airservices considered 21 possible noise improvement opportunities for the Perth area – some have been implemented and others rejected for safety reasons.

David Eyre

President, Aviation Association of WA Inc

171 thoughts on “Perth Airport flight paths to change, following noise complaints

  • March 21, 2015 at 4:24 pm
    Permalink

    Seriously, not enough consideration has been made to redirect the new flight path. By looking at the proposed flight path, it actually affect more residential area. seriously, think carefully and stop making stupid decisions. I m no expert in aviation route but by logically looking at the map and proposed pathway, no sense…..please think logically.

    Reply
  • March 30, 2015 at 8:20 pm
    Permalink

    I think they should consider the changed flight carefully coz it affects more residents.

    Reply
    • April 1, 2015 at 5:30 pm
      Permalink

      Airservices Australia have calculated the new flights paths to affect less residents.
      Regards,
      David Eyre

      Reply
    • May 24, 2015 at 11:31 am
      Permalink

      Although the revised flightpath envelopes appear to cover a larger swath of land and include more housing within the new limits, the actual number of residents affected will be less. This is largely because the departing aircraft are going to be vectored north only once they pass thought Jandakot air control zone and reach an 8000ft. At this height, aircraft noise is greatly reduced. Remember also that this is a 12 month trial after which a detailed review and determinations will be made as to whether the changes remain permanent.

      Reply
  • April 6, 2015 at 9:30 pm
    Permalink

    During 50 years having lived in Mt Claremont- we have knowingly experienced continual noise from Swanbourne Rifle range at Odd hours and SAS helicopters – accepted as we knew this when land was purchased
    For years flight path of planes from overseas used to come down the WA coast over the ocean and turn toward the coast at Rottnest, cruise down the river and then land at Guildford Airport- NO Noise NO fuel residue were experienced by residents.
    Over 2-3 years ago, the flightpath changed- leaving Perth Airport going down the river and then turning North above Claremont/Nedlands -continuing on the flight path North between the coast and freeway which has the most densely populated population of Perth Metro area . Over Mt Claremont we are woken by more flights than ever before starting at 12.30 1.30 2.30 3.30 . After this the FLY IN and FLYOUT flights start at around 6am- every 20 minutes or so . ALL NIGHT- there is no sleep due to this as we are often woken. The planes are under full power as they ascend above – the windows of our house loudly and VERY LOUD ENGINE NOISE ( especially 777’s ans A 3 20’s interrupts sleep- resulting in SLEEP DEPREVATION which is now common amongst residents. This results in inability to do our work the next day
    The resulting excess debris of soot sulphur and exessive jet fuel residues has blackened rooftops and paths as well entering rain water tanks which are used for drinking water
    Complaints have been noted all up the coast as far as Woodvale Hillarys and Currumbine
    It appears the new trial is going affect more residents with a wider flightpath than previous- please correct me if mistaken?
    QUESTION – Can the flight path go over farming country or water where it will not affect the population ( especially when accelerating for ascent) where it used to go?
    PLEASE EXPLAIN reasons for proposed flight paths

    If this is not the case to allow residents to get their sleep do we is there a resolve in the case of Sydney- NIGHT CURFEW- this is not the option Aviation WA wants

    Reply
    • April 7, 2015 at 5:19 pm
      Permalink

      Hi Jack,

      Any questions are best directed to Airservices Australia, as they set the flightpaths in consultation with airlines and the community. Contact details are here: http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/projects/flight-path-changes/perth-noise-improvements-2015/

      However, the new flightpaths should result in less noise for you at night – aircraft taking off from Perth’s main runway will fly further south (still climbing) over Canning Vale, before turning north to overfly Mt Claremont, so they will overfly at a higher altitude (with less noise).
      Quote from the Airservices website:
      “Once past Canning Vale, it is expected most aircraft will be above 7000 feet when next flying over a residential area and are not likely to be noticeable. Aircraft flying at 8000 feet generate a noise level measured at ground level below 50 dBA (equivalent to a modern refrigerator), meaning once aircraft have turned to the north the noise impact is not expected to be noticeable.”

      The flight paths have been designed to take aircraft over less populated areas (farmland and water) where possible.

      Most aircraft arriving from overseas fly an approach to Perth that is inland, not over Mt Claremont. Singapore Airlines, Thai, Cathay Pacific, Malaysia Airlines, Garuda, AirAsia X, Indonesia AirAsia, Scoot, Air New Zealand, China Southern, and Jetstar Asia all fly inland approaches. Only Emirates, Qatar, Etihad, Air Mauritius and South African Airways approach from the Indian Ocean, which is a maximum of seven international arrivals per day. Due to prevailing winds (aircraft land against the wind), these usually approach from a position north of Rottnest and then track inland over North Beach, before turning northeast towards Ellenbrook, then south to the airport over Guildford. However, you would have most of the international departures heading over Mt Claremont, though after the changes to flightpaths, these will be higher and less noisy.

      Regarding the comment about blackened rooftops and paths, I doubt that this is due to aircraft pollution, especially considering the altitude that aircraft are at when climbing over Mt Claremont. If this were true, the rooftops and paths in Guildford and South Guildford would be the blackest in Perth, as aircraft are much more frequent and much lower over Guildford than Mt Claremont. Pollution from the significantly increased number of vehicles on our roads may be linked to your blackened rooftops. It could also be soot from ships using Fremantle or industrial areas such as Kwinana – without conducting tests, there is no way to know.

      Regards,
      David Eyre

      Reply
  • April 9, 2015 at 3:46 pm
    Permalink

    We moved from Sth.Guildford after 30 yrs because of the landing & take off noise from the domestic airport in 2003..now we are getting constant flights,every 2/3 mins directly over our house which is Caversham/Beechboro area( Benara/Lord St.)..this is getting very stressful for me especially since my wife passed away & i”m on the verge of a nervous breakdown because i work in the afternoon & stay at home during the day..what re-course have i got about this problem!

    Reply
    • April 9, 2015 at 9:30 pm
      Permalink

      Hi Casimir,
      If you live near the junction of Benara Road and Lord Street, you are still living fairly close to the flightpath, particularly aircraft taking off from runway 03 at Perth Airport. The aircraft need to take off into the wind. If it is an easterly or northerly wind, Runway 03 will be used, especially for heavy aircraft or aircraft heading to the north or west. Another reason for the flight path over your home is perhaps the proximity of the Air Force Base at Pearce (Bullsbrook) to the north.
      If you have any concerns, please contact Airservices Australia: http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/projects/flight-path-changes/perth-noise-improvements-2015/

      Regards,
      David Eyre

      Reply
      • June 11, 2015 at 5:55 pm
        Permalink

        I carefully watch the weather forecast on my Iphone to see whether I will sleep in the morning at 5 am or be awoken. Over the last 2 weeks we, south west of the airport have been lucky as the winds are from the NE, apart from in the afternoon/evening when they turn soutwest.
        this is a typical weather pattern in Perth: in the summer the wind is predominantly from the SW in winter there is more NE wind, thus the planes will depart from the airport over RWY 3 and 6. All over the year the vast majority of the planes still leave via RWY 21, then following the common path of the SID’s GURAK and KEELS until after Ardross pensinsula, when they will start to fan out.
        I feel sorry for the people north and northeast of the airport as they have landing as well as departing traffic, so never are in silence, but then again, they have bought their houses immediately adjacent to the airport under a runway. A plane leaves a runway in a straight fashion, so no other option.

        In any case, as David correctly says, Airservices has an excellent website, look at the quarterly noise reports under publications at http://www.airservicesaustralia.com

        Reply
  • April 11, 2015 at 8:31 am
    Permalink

    My family love watching aircraft flying over our place day or night we would like to see more planes flying over hammond park.

    Reply
  • April 14, 2015 at 2:52 pm
    Permalink

    Instead of shifting one problem from one suburb to the next, particularly one that is experiencing residential growth (Canning Vale), ASA should put more effort and diligence when changing flight paths. It is not acceptable or reasonable to simply say ASA had done calculations for the flight path change to affect lesser residents. It just shows the laziness and incompetency of the agency, its representatives or staff. Canning Vale is a large suburb and number of residents is huge and growing. The flight path change plan to affect lesser residents by flying over the suburb is shows not only the complacency and incompetency of the agency.

    Reply
    • May 18, 2015 at 10:50 pm
      Permalink

      You are wrong. The big winner here is Canning Vale. They take 7 flights per day/night that fly at an altitude of over 5000 feet and in return they get 1100 landing planes at 2000 feet less who would not want such a swap. The 7 planes go off the 120 that the mainly pensioners in Wilson, Riverton, Shelley, Manning, Salter Point, Mt a Pleasant, Applecross and Ardross cop at the moment each day, that is over 36’000 per year. In 2009 these 120 planes were only 30 and as there was no real flight path the residents saw them scattered all over the place. The airport grew 50% between 2007 and 2014, the planes over these suburbs 300% because of FIFO.. Canning Vale started an action group. A group of spoiled brats I would say, as they want to put all the noise on the shoulders of the pensioners. Well to do people in Canning Vale with double incomes see the pensioners as a soft target.
      We will not let this happen. Canning Vale profits from the wealth the mines bring, they should also share a tiny bit of the pain. The pensioners still have to cope with 113 planes after Canning Vale take their 7.

      Reply
      • May 20, 2015 at 7:01 pm
        Permalink

        Eric is right when he says that Canning Vale is growing rapidly and this is going to be a big mistake. I did consider the noise levels when I moved to the area last year, and right now this is just a kick in the guts. Sam, the same reasons you have for wanting those planes out of your suburb are the reasons I have for not wanting them on mine. This is not solving anything it is just shifting the problem. I have elderly friends who sold their houses in Riverton and Wilson to live here in a quieter place, and now they get told “sorry we are sending the flights your way because you live in a less populated suburb…” What do we do when Canning Vale’s population increases? Do we send you the planes back to your area?

        Sam I don’t know where you got those figures and I would appreciate if Eric could clarify. The flyer I received at home does not say anything about 7 flights per night it just says “Flights departing from runways 21 from 10Pm to 5am will takeoff over Canning Vale”. How many flights? I guess as many as needed, Would that number increase in the future? I guess YES.

        Reply
        • May 20, 2015 at 8:19 pm
          Permalink

          Hi Frank,
          The flyer says 9 planes, but in reality this is about 7 planes. The southwestern suburbs now cop 120 planes per day/night, so the seven off will make that 113.
          Do you think it is fair that these suburbs, that were not under flightpath till 2007 (planes made their right turn widely scattered between Wilson and Bull Creek), have a growth from less than 30 planes in 2007 to now 120 ? Should some form of noise sharing take place? Is 7 planes a too big ask ? Anyway the pensioners in Wilson, Riverton, Shelley, Salter Point, Manning, Mt Pleasant, Ardross and Applecross are the victims.
          Already today, from may 1, Canning vale has 1100 landing planes less so they are the winners. Once more the double income middle class canning vale residents prevail over the pensioners, just like in the budget of Federation and State.

          The mentioned suburbs have however a 3000 family strong actiongroup, so resistance against fairness from the side of canning vale (not in my backyard phenomenon, but i do like to profit from the mining boom), seems futile.

          Did you know that the people in the mentioned suburbs have 35 planes overhead between 5 and 7 am ? All cheap old FIFO planes of the noisiest type (Fokker F-100) ? They all follow exactly the KEELS/GURAK SID. How much can you torture people before the straw breaks ?

          Reply
        • August 9, 2015 at 10:09 pm
          Permalink

          It was always meant to be only 7 of the 129 planes. Even that you poor souls could not tolerate. Instead, you send all your landing planes over poorer neighbourhoods like Kenwick and Beckenham

          Reply
  • April 20, 2015 at 9:07 pm
    Permalink

    Our property is on Jandakot Road Jandakot, just south of the Jandakot Airport. We are significantly impacted by air traffic noise resulting from the current operations at the Jandakot Airport:
    • General take off and landings operate 24/7 and are not managed by air traffic control after 21:00 until 7:00 the following morning (seasonal variation).
    • Circuit training occurs between 7:00 to 22:30 Monday to Saturday and between 8:00 to 18:00 on Sunday.
    Effectively we only have a small window of opportunity to get a reasonable amount of sleep, around seven hours six days of the week. This is during the period where the least amount of air traffic occurs, between the hours of 22:30 and 5:30. The noise pollution during the circuit training is significant and often peaks at around a plane every minute passing directly over or very near our property. The 7 hours is always eroded by normal operation take offs and landings of small aircraft.

    We bought the property knowing that we had to live with the noise directly associated with the Jandakot Airport but at no time expected that we would also be impacted by additional noise during the night from changes to flight paths for aircraft taking off and landing at Perth Airport.

    We are extremely concerned about the impact of the new proposal to change the flight path for flights leaving Perth Airport and eventually turning North further south between the hours of 22:00 and 5:00 every weekday. It has been our experience that the peak noise with light aircraft is when they are climbing or turning. The proposal appears to allow these planes to climb and turn over our area.

    The noise abatement proposal is the exact opposite for us and our neighbours. In fact it significantly erodes our right to any quiet enjoyment in our own homes and is certainly going to present a challenge to get a good nights sleep.

    To date we have had no consultation about this proposal and, given our current noise pollution levels in this area, should have, at the least, participated in the discussion and been allowed a right to object before the proposal was finalised.

    Reply
      • April 23, 2015 at 5:51 pm
        Permalink

        Hi David,

        Thanks for the tip – I sent a similar email to Airservices Australia at the same time as posting this and had a reply with all the proposed info which at the end of the day still does nothing for us. We will attend one of their information sessions, and I suppose I can use their noise complaint service if and when we have issues. However, I have had occasion to contact the service previously but the experience made me feel a little like I was talking to a brick wall.

        Regards,

        Lynne

        Reply
        • April 28, 2015 at 4:20 pm
          Permalink

          Lynne – you should also contact your local Federal minister. Perth is a total basket case when it comes to the flight paths, and Airservices have frankly been incompetent when it comes to managing them. The handling of the Shelly residents is a classic example – basically giving them and their surrounds a private curfew. Clearly they are populist rather than holistic.

          I think (and hope in some ways) Perth airport is heading towards an eventual crisis, where the people of Perth will say enough is enough. Its a shame the government(s) are pouring money into it and infrastructure rather than the obvious solution – to build a new airport. Money comes first though, people and their health second.

          I never supported a curfew for Perth previously, but I do now. We deserve our sleep, and it’s more important than the “convenience” and “cheaper fares” that Brad Geatches of Perth airport is worried about. It’s nice to know he couldn’t care less about exceeding WHO night-noise guidelines – that cheap fare to Dubai at 2am is far more important.

          Any ministers listening?

          Reply
          • May 18, 2015 at 10:57 pm
            Permalink

            Lance, it is not about Shelley. Wilson, Riverton, Shelley, Manning, Salter Point, Mt Pleasant, Ardross and Applecross saw in a few years the number of planes go from 30 to 130 per day. With the new plan Canning Vale will be freed of 1100 landing planes at 2000 feet. Is it so much of an ask that they relieve the pensioners (only a few people here have mansions at the river, most of us are over 65), from 120 planes a day ? We will still have 113 per day !!!!!! The double income people in Canning Vale like to profit from WA wealth from the mining industry, we are awoken each and every morning at 4.30 with FIFO planes every 3 minutes. That will stay that way. So do not say that Shelley, and all the other suburbs had such a great deal going from 130 to 113 planes per day. Spoilt CV citizen could also take some of the burden instead of putting all on the shoulders of the elderly that made this country great.

    • August 19, 2015 at 9:09 pm
      Permalink

      I can’t believe the whinging of the Canning Vale people. You are a group who bought cheap because you are basically sitting on the airport. So forget about that.
      the landing flightpath has been there for decades. You can sleep from 22.30 to 5.30, that is more than the poeple from the southwestern suburbs who have sleep from 2.30 till 5.00 am. So are you still complaining. For heaven’s sake, you built on jandakot Road ! Does that not say it all ?
      The southwestern suburbs were there before the airport came in the fifties and yet the sleep there is now 2.30 hours per night.
      I was this weekend in Canning vale, right under the path, close to the golfclub. I heard the planes that are apparently so ‘noisy’, well actually they were gliding. More mnoise is mde once the gear is down and the flaps at 30 debgrees. Not so over your area yet.
      You are a spoilt generation that now shifts all your noise to the pensioners of Kenwick and Beckenham/Maddington.

      Reply
  • April 28, 2015 at 10:06 pm
    Permalink

    Hi Lynne,
    We are in Canning vale and I too have written to air services. Where has the consultation taken place? I see on their website that there is a meeting in Gosnells on 13th of May. I too am very frustrated that they haven’t seemed to factor Jandacot air port in when reconsidering flight path changes. I am sure if we had all the concerned residents of Canning vale Banjup and Jandacot to complain we would certainly give Shelly residents a run for their money and have appropriate cause for concern.

    Reply
    • July 25, 2015 at 10:24 pm
      Permalink

      Kim, this is not about Shelley. The SNAG (Share Noise Action Group, falsely referred to as the Shelley Noise Actiongroup) represents over 70’000 residents under the RWY21 departure flightpath GURAK/KEELS that bears 120 planes per day on 286 days of the year. Worst are the 35 FIFO planes with old F-100 from Network and Alliance. This problem is something that canning vale will never have. Praise yourself lucky that you do not live in one of the SNAG neighbourhoods (Wilson, Riverton, Shelley, Salter Point, Manning, Waterford, Salter Point, Applecross and Ardross).

      Reply
  • May 5, 2015 at 7:28 pm
    Permalink

    We just built our Dream home backing onto a lake in canning vale, specifically chosen with noise pollution in mind. Now we are going to get constant night time flight noise. My point is that others bought their homes knowing the flight paths and their use. However this was sprung on us and other residents in this new flight path. Now even more residents are affected. Moreover there was NO CONSULTATION. We did not get a single letter about this until after decision was made. I’d like to know what height these planes will be flying at over canning vale and what is the additional noise resulting from the fact that they are climbing?

    Reply
    • July 25, 2015 at 10:27 pm
      Permalink

      Tina, you have always known that you built your house right under the flightpath, as the affected part of Canning vale regarding the 7 planes per day has always been the landing flightpath for planes in case of a northern or NE wind. So please do not complasin now, as the smart tracking will immediately relive you of 1500 landing planes you have now at any time of the night, and when all jets have adopted the technology, they will all be gone.

      Reply
    • August 21, 2015 at 10:00 pm
      Permalink

      Tina,

      canning vale has always been under a landing flight path. Why did you buy there ? jandakot has always been there.

      Reply
  • May 10, 2015 at 9:05 am
    Permalink

    Still flies directly over queens park so I don’t know what canning vale has to complain about the plane is well up high when it flys over you. Try feeling the house shake and non stop take off and landing planes all day especially night! I would compare it to a cargo train going past my house every 2-3min. There will never be a resolution to this so just accept that there are planes in the sky so wear ear plugs.

    Reply
  • May 13, 2015 at 8:56 pm
    Permalink

    There’s no need to be rude. My point was that we paid a huge amount of money for this block of land and then built our forever home overlooking a lake, specifically because it was peaceful and as close as we could get to the serenity of down south whilst in the suburbs. We chose this land because it was away from the plane noise from Jandakot and not affected by road noise. Now we planes flying over every 2 minutes. In contrast, you CHOSE to move there despite the planes. That’s the difference and the main point I was making. You had a choice and made it. We haven’t had a choice. Thank you

    Reply
    • July 25, 2015 at 10:28 pm
      Permalink

      Tina, these planes have always flown there.
      The trial that you refer to will only start in november/december.

      Reply
  • May 14, 2015 at 7:03 am
    Permalink

    At the top of the page it states “changes have been developed in consultation with airlines and the community, and are subject to environmental approvals.” As a resident of Canning Vale I am unable to recall when consultation with the “Canning Vale” community were consulted. Perhaps someone can inform me.

    Reply
  • May 17, 2015 at 1:02 am
    Permalink

    Another thing i am not able to understand is why the government is approving all these new developments in Piara Waters such as Mason green estate, holland park estate, stock lands etc when they don’t have any plans to change the flight paths over these suburbs/estates. Why is government/council playing with the health of people.

    Reply
  • May 17, 2015 at 1:06 am
    Permalink

    We have made a complaint directly to air services nominated page, however haven’t received any response intimating the details of community engagement where we can air our concerns.

    Reply
  • May 17, 2015 at 5:27 pm
    Permalink

    the density along the new flight path is quite high.

    Reply
  • May 18, 2015 at 11:50 am
    Permalink

    Beckenham was severely affected by constant take offs in the middle of the night every two-three minutes since the flight paths were first changed back in 2008. Believe me, there was no consultation with us when it came to these repulsive changes. People who live Canning Vale etc who are the new affected residents are just getting a taste of what it as like for us when Air Services Australia did the same ba k in 2008. It’s been 8 long stressful years of putting up with this atrocious infringement of our basic rights, the right to have a good night sleep without these noisy machines flying above my house from 9pm till 5am in the morning. Like most of you, I lived with peace in Beckenahm up until 2008 when ASA made these changes like some draconian governmental department (oh that’s right, they are one). I complained and complained and it all fell on deaf ears both from ASA and MP Steve Irons. You’re gonna have to come to the realization that if everyone who has been affected by their insensitive, selfish, authoratative and money orientated attitude don’t all stand up and demand a night time curfew for everyone, this will continue to happen..

    Reply
  • May 18, 2015 at 11:07 pm
    Permalink

    Canning vale should get a life. They relieve the pensioners of Wilson, Riverton, Shelley, Manning, Salter Point, Ardross and Applecross, who have an action group of 3000 families, from 7 planes per day. WOW, so these suburbs go from 120 planes per day to 113 planes per day. In exchange CV gets 1100 landing planes less that fly at only 2000 feet. The only winning suburb here is actually Canning Vale. Real estate prices will go up instead of down. Also, there is an extensive consultation process. When I came here in 1967 there were less than 5 planes that I could see per day. Now there are 120 right over my house, so never say I chose to live under a flight path. CV is new, they always knew they lived under a flight path and next to Jandakot, so they bought cheap. Now don’t shed crocodile tears.

    Reply
  • May 24, 2015 at 6:49 pm
    Permalink

    Sam you are right, it’s about give and take and indeed if I were a Canning Vale resident, I would be happy with the proposed changes. When there is a compensating drop in a huge amount of arrivals at very low altitude, they should see this as the big bonus. The only point I would agree with is the need to consider a curfew. The airlines would adapt and fares would not be so badly affected. This is probably the only way to keep everyone happy (except those with a commercial interest). If Sydney can do it, Perth certainly can. Air Services Australia should take note that consultation is a small thing to ask and the residents will feel much better if they are listened to even if the outcome is not to their liking.

    Reply
    • May 25, 2015 at 6:16 am
      Permalink

      Hi Ian,
      Operating restrictions such as curfews are considered by the UN’s International Civil Aviation Organisation as a last resort, after consideration of other measures.
      It is not only those with a commercial interest who will be affected – almost every person who flies to or from Perth will be affected.
      Night time flights at airports include Police, Rescue, Flying Doctor/Air Ambulance flights, medical evacuations and overnight freight flights. There are also a number of night flights which are timed to depart at night so that the passengers can arrive at their destination in time for morning, or so that their arrival at the destination airport can connect with flights to Europe, the USA, and so on.
      If flights cannot depart during the night due to a curfew, then ALL passengers will face longer travel delays, waiting for connections to these other destinations, or they may only arrive at their destination at in the afternoon or night time. There may also be delays in air freight.
      The issue does not just affect people around Perth Airport, as Jandakot also experiences noise complaints. If a curfew is imposed at Perth, it is also likely to cause a curfew to be imposed at Jandakot.
      There may also be an increase in the cost of airfares, either as a result of a curfew, or the rumoured home insulation program levy for affected residents. An insulation program will not help in all instances, as some homes are simply too close to the runway ends – a result of poor town planning practices and greedy property developers and councils. Perth Airport has been operating since 1942 and Jandakot since 1963, when there were very few homes around them.
      Airservices, airports and airlines cooperate to try their best to minimise noise exposure from aircraft during the day and night. An incredible amount of work goes into working out safe flight paths that will also minimise noise impacts. Aircraft use noise abatement procedures, such as using reduced thrust from the engines, preferred runways and so on. Airports are a vital piece of infrastructure – 13.7 million passengers used Perth Airport during 2012/13.
      Airports directly or indirectly employ thousands of people – the State Aviation Strategy released by the Department of Transport mentions that “aviation activities and land development at Perth Airport contribute substantially to the Western Australian economy. The airport precincts directly employ some 8500 people and the broader contribution to employment is estimated at 18,700 jobs, including downstream employment.”
      Regards,
      David

      Reply
      • May 25, 2015 at 5:40 pm
        Permalink

        If night time curfews are good for Sydney, Adelaide, Essendon and Goald coast airport, then why not for Perth ? Are we second class citizens.
        I for one am sick and tired that Canning vale residents, lying right in the extension of the runway 21 have no departing planes whilst our suburbs cop 27/7 planes non stop, 120 per day/night, most notably the 35 between 5 am and 8 am. Now Canning vale gets 7 of those and has their knickers in a twist about it. Get a life !
        And these suburbs were all there before the airprot was there! These suburbs are behind a 90 degree angle from runway heading.
        Canning vale is mistaken when they say that politicians work for the risch people. The median house price is Wilson, Riverton, Shelley, Manning, Salter Point, Ardross, Applecross and Mt Pleasant is 490’000 $, the median house price in Canning vale is 660’000. So we say: why should we as pensioners, who lived in Shelley when cannin vale was not even planned solely bear all the FIFO flight noise ? Let the rich guys in canning vale have some !!!

        Reply
        • June 11, 2015 at 12:05 am
          Permalink

          Sam I think you need to get your facts right, clearly you need to study up on Realestate prices the median price in Wilson is $700,000 and that is a conservative figure, also the cheapest of the bunch you mention. That aside you obviously have not factored in the planes from Jandakot see posts below for some real facts. Canning vale is one of the largest suburbs in Perth densely populated with a large proportion of young working families. It already has it’s fair share of air traffic noise. To move this additional noise from multiple suburbs to one suburb only narrowing the corridor is unfair and not in the spirit of sharing.

          Reply
      • March 4, 2016 at 8:03 am
        Permalink

        Hi David,

        We have lived in Applecross from 1998 and have always endured aircraft noise but it has become unbearable in the last year – it is now 7.16am and another plane roars overhead. I’ve been up since about 5am as the noise of the aircraft wake me up at ungodly hours every single day! Even in the heat of summer and pleasant climes of spring and autumn we can’t enjoy our environment by opening our windows as the noise is insane!

        Applecross was established in 1896 – long before the airports – and when people spend a lot of money to live in an affluent, riverside, CITY (not airport) suburb (7.20am and another plane roars overhead) they don’t expect to be on a runway path. We spent $9 million on our home and we can’t even get a full night of sleep. (Another plane it’s 7.23am) We should have spent $350,000 and lived near the airport.

        The planes fly up the river and over riverside suburbs and bank over or near Applecross and then must head north over some of the inner city suburbs – what the hell!!!! Who created this flight plan! To the east and north of the airport there are far less populated suburbs than the city (duh) not to mention a rim of national parks. Why can’t they go east and north?

        We are planning a noise monitoring operation to record the level of noise these planes make so that we might be able to fight this plague on a legal basis.

        Regards,

        Sleepless in Applecross

        Reply
    • May 25, 2015 at 5:46 pm
      Permalink

      Agree, what is good for Sydney, Adelaide, Essendon and Gold Coast is also good for Perth.
      The problem is created by avionics (electronic aircraft guidance). Where isn the past residents were Ok with it, because they heard a plane from time to time, now each and every of the 120 planes over my home follow the same path, variation 300 m to the left and to the right. It is always exactly the same people that are hit. This happened progressively from 2007 without any form of consultation. How fair is that ?

      Reply
      • May 25, 2015 at 7:10 pm
        Permalink

        Aircraft have to pass over residential areas on the way into Perth Airport, so when they shift the flight paths, it only shifts the complaints and hopefully reduces the number of people impacted.

        A curfew may not reduce the number of noise complaints by any significant amount, as most aircraft movements at Perth are during the day.

        The curfew at Sydney (and perhaps the other airports) was based on noisy old jets such as the Boeing 707, 727 and Douglas DC-8. Newer jets, such as the Boeing 787 and Airbus A380, make much less noise.

        A curfew would cause inconvenience to thousands of international travellers, medical patients and freight customers and an increase daytime flights (resulting in more complaints). It may also result in higher airfares, due to eliminating the cheaper ‘red eye’ flights.

        Reply
        • August 22, 2015 at 4:03 pm
          Permalink

          Sorry David, the Airbus A380 makes less noise ?
          I have a lot of respect for knowledgeable things you write here, but how could you get this one so wrong ?
          We have in Manning two extremely noisy planes per day, from the 120 that we get each day.
          the FIFO F-100 are terrible every few minutes at 5 am, but in the evening there is always a terrible plane, the old A 340 -300 ( sometimes a 340-600, slightly less noisy) around midnight. However the A380, that you mention the EK421, passing at 22.45 at night is far worse than the SA 281 A340 !!!! the house vibrates, somebodies glass of a glasshouse in the garden shattered and he is filing for compensation.
          The A380 is horror !!!!
          Even the so-called Dreamliner that we get overhead from Thai Airlines is not much better. i had to laugh when Geoffrey Thomas, who thinks he knows it all, wrote in the west australian, that the Boeing 787 had hardly be heard once beyond the perimeter of the airpost fence……

          Ignorance is bliss.

          Reply
          • August 22, 2015 at 6:46 pm
            Permalink

            Hi Sevran,

            Aircraft noise is affected by which version of engine is used, the take-off weight of the aircraft, the take-off path and angle flown, engine thrust settings, and atmospheric conditions.

            In noise certification, aircraft noise levels are measured at three certification points:
            – Fly-over: 6.5 km from the brake release point, under the take-off flight path;
            – Sideline: the highest noise measurement recorded at any point 450 m from the runway axis during take-off;
            – Approach: 2 km from the runway threshold, under the approach flight path.

            Cumulative levels are defined as the arithmetic sum of the certification levels at each of the above three points.

            Using the noisiest possible scenarios from European Aviation Safety Agency certification data as at June 2015 (these are cumulative levels):

            – A340-313 (as flown by South African Airways): 289.3 EPNdB
            – A380-861 (as flown by Emirates): 287.6 EPNdB
            – B787-8 (as flown by Thai): 270.9 EPNdB

            I think that another factor that makes SAA and Emirates flights more noticeable is the time of night that they take-off. If they took off during the daytime, you may not notice it as much.

            I have Emirates, Qatar, Etihad and various other FIFO aircraft fly over my home daily. On approach they are at about 2,800-3,200 feet and after takeoff they are higher, so I don’t have as much aircraft noise.

            Regards,
            David

          • August 23, 2015 at 9:24 pm
            Permalink

            Interesting the feedback on A-380 and the differences in variants on noise levels.
            Also noted comments about Geoffrey Thomas – I agree with you – IMO, he is indeed a ‘know it all’ and many of his comments are inappropriate, mis-guided and just straight out WRONG. Furthermore, I have noted that he has his own consultancy which seems to me to result in benefit from the editorial commentary he spouts in the West Australian. I now take with a pinch of salt anything he writes and do not trust his comments. There appears to me to be a commercial bias in many areas of his so-called ‘expertise’ and perhaps in relation to the Dreamliner, he is sucking up to Boeing and their operator clients. Anything for a quid as the saying goes.

  • May 25, 2015 at 3:33 pm
    Permalink

    David,
    Everywhere there are airports and communities, there are noise issues and complaints. The two don’t sit together well and the increase in public concern is exacerbated with growth in air traffic and population density which is as assured as tomorrow’s rising sun of course. In the case of Perth airport, the plans put forward by Air Services Australia appear to be perfectly reasonable given the objective of everyone sharing the load with some give and take. Many of the complaints on here do not recognise the point made by Sam above that there will be a more than compensatory reduction in landings along the Canning Vale track to offset the approximately 7 overnight departures. The fact is, this is a 12 month trial and if the residents in Canning Vale wish to revert to the previous status quo, thats a matter for a time following the trial. There really needs to be some sensible thoughts put forward before people blindly complain without checking their facts.

    As for a curfew, of course there will be pain but the benefits to the community are real. It is a given that building out of land close to the airport without regard to future air traffic loads has occurred and it is not possible to unscramble that egg. But bringing in a curfew will certainly be easier than relaxing one and I am sure there will be many less complaints and plenty of public support. It may well become a political issue (which I think will inevitably happen long before any UN actions are resorted to – as you say a ‘last resort’). My comment on the curfew is if it good enough for Sydney, it should be good enough for Perth. The number of passengers using Sydney airport – complete with it’s curfew was 38million in 2014 and that included growth of 1.7% on the previous year. That is almost three times the passenger numbers of Perth airport which operates 24/7. In short, we would manage!

    Reply
  • May 26, 2015 at 5:13 pm
    Permalink

    A curfew is the only long term solution and will benefit the community as a whole. The positives with a curfew far outweigh any negative impact there “may” be with introducing one eg; higher ticket prices. The commercial interests will just need to adapt to the community, not the other way around. In terms of any emergency flights etc, I’m sure a majority of the community would be willing to exempt this type of night flying between the hours of 10pm and 5am. This is a common sense solution to which I hope everyone who is affected by these noisy aircraft in the middle of the night gets behind. Again, if larger more frequently used airports around the world can achieve a curfew, no one can argue that Perth can’t do the same.

    Reply
    • May 26, 2015 at 6:28 pm
      Permalink

      A curfew at Perth Airport would not “benefit the community as a whole”.

      It will only benefit those members of the community who object to aircraft noise and live directly under the Perth Airport flightpaths. It would also not stop daytime noise complaints, so it is of limited benefit.

      This is not about commercial interests. Thousands of members of the community choose to fly into and out of Perth Airport every night and they would not benefit from a curfew. People choose to fly from Perth at night for a variety of reasons:
      – they get to their destination in time for the morning, or can spend the day in Perth before departing at night time, so they can make productive use of their day;
      – they get a quicker connecting flight to another destination, such as Europe and the USA;
      – they might get a cheaper flight.

      Freight flights deliver cargo (e.g. mail, newspapers and parcels) overnight so that people in the community can receive deliveries faster.

      Many people either do not notice aircraft flying over at night (because they are asleep), or it doesn’t really bother them.

      If a curfew is imposed at Perth, then Jandakot could be next, as it too receives noise complaints. However, WA Police helicopters, RAC Rescue helicopter and Flying Doctor aircraft all need 24/7 access to Jandakot, to do their vital work for the community.

      Reply
      • May 28, 2015 at 4:21 pm
        Permalink

        David,
        I cannot agree with you as regards to your opening statement which is only one opinion. Firstly perhaps there are far more people who are a silent majority that don’t get on their soapboxes and make a noise about noise. Perhaps also there are many who would realise they just took a quality of life lift after the racket of Trent 900s, RB-211s and JT9-Ds overhead comes to an abrupt halt at unreasonable hours.

        I want to re-state the facts which you have not broadly addressed in your last response despite making a sweeping statement that ‘a curfew would not benefit the community’. Can you answer the point that Perth Airport, with 13.7m pax movements in 2013 cannot compete for curfew enforced restricted take off and landing slots with Sydney with 37m, almost THREE TIMES the pax movements of Perth and which has a very tough curfew regime of 11pm to 6am yet you are claiming there will be ‘thousands of people who will be inconvenienced’ Are they not also inconvenienced in Sydney? Sydney manages well I think and punching higher above the bar than Perth. While it is noted according to estimates, the Sydney curfew ‘costs’ the local economy $1bn/year are we building our societies only on dollars and economics? Using that logic we would ignore damage to the likes of the environment to the expediency of economics. As a society we don’t want to do this.

        Lets take the numbers: if the average wide-bodied jet flying into or out of Perth has 400 pax on board and we are talking (at the present) 7x aircraft, even with equal take-offs and landings during a period between a similar 11pm to 6am curfew thats 5,600 per night assuming full loads – my guess is that figure is likely a lot less, probably 4000 is closer to the mark. In the context of 13.7m pax movements per year – I will re-use the 2013 figure, we are talking about 1.46m/year (<10% of total) who will have to be "inconvenienced". Actually that is a distortion also. Of that figure there would be thousands of pax who would be departing or arriving on flights where either they did not care about the time of the flight, are not inconvenienced about it or in the case of many I know, find the departure and arrival times a burden and they are victims of enforced schedules through seat availability rather than convenient connection times. Regardless of this, the argument falls over when you consider the Sydney airport scenario and if it was such an impost on the broader community would they not consider lifting the curfew? Another point concerning Sydney is that many of the flights take off and land into or from Botany bay, so SYD actually has 50% less impacted land area affected within the airport approach envelope, yet they still have a curfew. It is an important point of history that the Sydney airport curfew was passed as an Act in the Australian Parliament in 1995 as a direct consequence of the building of the third runway at the airport (which was opened in 1994). It should be further noted that curfews are imposed on airports in Australia with higher and lower passenger movements than Perth – Sydney being higher and Adelaide being lower. London airports (including LHR!!) have night flight restrictions and European airport flight restrictions are extensive too.

        I think the argument centres around the fact that the status quo has been established and to mess with it will cause change supposedly unpalatable to the broader population. The fact is however that with the growth in air travel into and out of Perth, the overnight flight movements situation is certain worsen than improve and so the overflight noise factor is only going to deteriorate. This fact is underscored by the fact of the building of the third runway at Perth. So if the same logic applies to Perth as it did to Sydney, a third runway should mean a corresponding restriction of flights by way of a night curfew. Given the residential overflight envelope of Perth airport approaches being larger than Sydney and with the advent of the third runway under planning, the time and need for action to impose necessary restrictions is near and present.

        Reply
        • May 28, 2015 at 10:03 pm
          Permalink

          Hi Ian,
          I did not make a sweeping statement – I said curfews would not benefit the community as a whole. It will benefit a portion of the community – the portion that lives under the flight paths and that are close enough to the runways that the noise is causing sleep disturbance.

          Sydney is now near its maximum capacity (the curfew contributes to this by limiting capacity) and Sydney is surrounded by a much larger and denser population than Perth. There is no data to support the claim that there is 50% less impacted land area, without knowing the volume of flights arriving over land versus those arriving over Botany Bay. They are now building a second airport at Badgerys Creek. The $1 billion a year that the Sydney curfew costs affects employers and employees, who are also taxpayers and members of the community.

          The Trent 900s (which are actually newer and quieter) and old technology noisier RB211s and JT9Ds which you refer to are not used on any of the aircraft which fly scheduled services to Perth. Although movements have increased over time, noise levels produced by aircraft have decreased and will continue to do so. Aircraft and engine technology are constantly improving – if you ever listen to the Boeing 787s or Airbus A380s that operate to Perth, I think you would be surprised at how quiet they really are, and the certified noise levels validate this.

          Perhaps a better solution would be a Quota Count, as used at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted in the UK. From a Civil Aviation Authority document:

          “The restrictions specify a night period (2300-0700 hours) during which the noisiest types of aircraft may not be scheduled to land or take off. In addition, between 2330 and 0600 hours (the night quota period) aircraft movements are restricted by movement limits and noise quotas that are set for each summer and winter season.
          The noise quota is designed to encourage the use of quieter aircraft. Aircraft movements (arrivals or departures) count against the noise quota according to their quota count (QC) classifications – which are intended to indicate their relative contributions to the total impact of aircraft noise on the airport surroundings. Noisier aircraft carry a higher QC classification. The classification of aircraft for this purpose is based on their certificated noise levels and each aircraft type is classified separately for arrival and departure.”

          Reply
          • May 29, 2015 at 12:40 am
            Permalink

            For the 70’000 residents, directly impacted by the GURAK/KEELS flighpath off RWY21, the F-100 FIFO planes are the main worry. there are 35 of them between 5 am and 7 am. Even if the 22-pm to 5 am curfew comes through, all these residents are awakened and stressed by these completely outdated noisy aircraft every few minutes. And Alliance just bought again 2 F-100’s !

            For most residents the total collapse of the mining industry is the only hope to get some relief from the misery. And this because other suburbs are not willing to take their share of the noise that never existed before 2007. All of WA profits from the mining industry, why should those under GURAK/KEELS 21 be the only ones to suffer? In the end they live behind a very arbitrary 90 degree angle from runway heading.

            Also, for them, a night time curfew would mean even more planes between 5 and 7 am.

            I start to believe, the third runway will never come, the old planes to extend runway 3/24 will be revived or the FIFO planes will shift to Pearce will a double use like Curtin airport.

          • May 29, 2015 at 1:40 am
            Permalink

            David, I suppose in the context of your response re quotas, I was being the devil’s advocate to some extent. It is appreciated that technology improvements have and will continue to have substantial noise spin-off benefits. I have experienced the improvements and in fact was at KBFI Seattle during testing of the 787. Those nacelle chevron designs really make a difference by blending fan and ambient/by-pass air further reducing sheer and consequently SPL emissions. It would be interesting to compare a quantitative assessment of both airports (and others, like ADL) to determine whether a curfew or quota is going to be in the best interests of Perth as a whole.

          • May 29, 2015 at 6:02 am
            Permalink

            Hi Ian,

            I agree that assessing the best option is the fair approach, as there are a number of ways to tackle noise issues.

            The airlines buy the older and noisier Fokker 100 and the Boeing 717 due to their low capital cost and suitability to FIFO operations.

            However, there are similar-sized, newer and quieter aircraft available, such as the Bombardier CS100 and CS300, the Embraer E2 family (E175-E2, E190-E2, E195-E2) and at the larger end, the Airbus A320NEO family and Boeing 737 MAX family. All of these use newer, quieter engines, but would have higher acquisition/leasing costs. It then depends whether the resources companies are willing to pay this premium, in order to retain the ability to operate FIFO flights during the early morning hours. Given current commodity prices and their cost cutting, I am doubtful that they will.

          • May 29, 2015 at 6:03 am
            Permalink

            ian, it will take ages till the 787 really makes a difference in Perth. At the moment Ait NZ, Thai, and Scoot are using one. The vast majority of planes over the GURAK/KEELS south path are F-100, exclusively passing over QueensPark, the make s aharp right turn NW, and hit Wilson, Riverton, Shelley, manning, salter Point, mt Pleasant, Ardross and Applecross. After that they fan out over 8000 feet over many paths north.
            Exceptionally a RADAR5 departure is give to SA281 at midnight for example.

            We can talk here about the difference the chevrons make, but the F-100 are there for a decade or more.

          • May 31, 2015 at 5:51 pm
            Permalink

            Sam, Indeed the noisier F-100s, will undoubtedly be around for a long time yet, that is, without regulation. Noise abatement regulatory actions should have been planned way in advance especially given the increasing frequency of FIFO and LCC flights. The improved technology also brings significant fuel savings so it is not all downside for the operators. Regulators will only act when there is instructions from our lawmakers and they only act when there is community/political demands. There needs to be a mix of regulatory enforcement which will have the effect of forcing operators to upgrade, flexibility in flightpaths, curfews where appropriate sharing of noise loads by the community. The Pearce option could be a way of achieving the latter and maybe if the operators are given the right to continue to fly the noisy beasts that they do so only inside community acceptable operating hours. They can’t have it every way.

          • May 31, 2015 at 7:41 pm
            Permalink

            Hi Ian,

            The Dept of Transport has already dismissed the use of Pearce as a joint military/civil airport in its State Aviation Strategy document, noting that Pearce is:
            – the busiest RAAF base in Australia in terms of aircraft movements, with over 100,000 aircraft movements annually (including those at Gingin). It has to use a satellite airstrip at RAAF Gingin for training, to reduce overall traffic congestion;
            – essential to military pilot training programs for Australia and Singapore;
            – unsuited for civil aviation requirements due to a high intensity air traffic environment using visual separation and pilot situational awareness to allow multiple aircraft operations in close proximity.
            – a significant contributor to the WA economy, supporting local civilian and business communities.
            – it acts at the primary defence air base for military operations in WA, including the movement of the WA-based Special Air Service Regiment, maritime patrol and search and rescue operations

            The Department of Defence is increasing security at RAAF Base Pearce and they are extremely reluctant to see any civilian ops there.

          • June 8, 2015 at 6:30 pm
            Permalink

            Following on from the ‘outdated equipment’ string and just for the record. I was in Kuala Lumpur last week and met a couple of Fedex pilots. Told them of the situation and given Fedex’s significant number of ports of call list, they have to comply with lots of noise restrictions. As a consequence the management were faced with constant fleet upgrading due to regulatory pressure. It is the Fedex experience that they may not today be in business today if it were not for the large fuel savings that the newer (quieter) fleet changes brought to them. Interestingly their accountants were resistive since much of their earlier fleet were fully depreciated and ‘all they had to pay for was fuel’. The pilots recommendation is to get the regulator pressuring them to upgrade. The benefits are broad and wide. Fleet upgrading brings benefits all round. This should be top priority for our regulators and no excuses acceptable from operators.

  • May 26, 2015 at 7:27 pm
    Permalink

    Of course it’ll benefit the community under the flight paths. I highly doubt the emergeny service flights are the ones being complained about. I should know, I’m one of the ones who have formally complained. If Sydney and other airports around the world can manage a curfew, so can Perth. End of story. People will get use to leaving on a flight a little earlier in the evening and a little later in the morning. People who live under flight paths will not get use to it, and for the sake of our heallh, I personally will enjoy not having 80 decibels flying over head all night long. Again. any commercial interests will eventually need to adapt the us, not the other way around.

    Reply
  • May 27, 2015 at 1:12 pm
    Permalink

    Seems like the curfew idea could gather steam if agitated more.
    Maybe a good idea to kick off a protest group.
    I think it could achieve significant community support and would pit commercial interests against quality of life.

    I for one am a supporter (and promoter maybe?) and I am a frequent flyer too. Personally, I see the lifestyle quality factor
    as higher ranking in importance than my flying convenience and commercial interest.

    We would need political support of course but maybe a website is a good start (www.perthairportcurfew.com?)

    Anyone interested?

    Reply
  • May 27, 2015 at 7:37 pm
    Permalink

    Good Idea Ian. I support it wholeheartedly.

    Reply
  • June 2, 2015 at 11:03 am
    Permalink

    This morning between the hours of 9am and 10.40 thus far at least ten 12 passenger planes. Virgin and qantas etc thus far have come almost directly over our house at Forrestdale and not far from the town site of Forrestdale. In addition to that of a later propjet which seems notably noisier possibly a FIFO plane, all of which have cut the corner over Jandakot lake (lake Forrestdale) as shown on the flights plan from the south east corridor. One yesterday in the late afternoon was extremely Low and appeared to be a military Boeing four jet unit possibly an older Jumbo and could quite easily have interfered with small plane flights from Jandakot airdrome Yes it was extremely low and much lower than all others I would estimate around 1500 feet.
    Can we ensure that all planes stick to the outer boundaries of the flight plan for this area as the number of planes thus far actually represents an almost continuous noise and no difference in previous flight heights from previous.
    I realise that circuits mean additional fuel but cutting corners is also dangerous considering the amount of local traffic and fire choppers that come in over this area.

    Additional to this
    It is my opinion and that of many others that Perth airport needs to be re-located. Perth and flights have become far more dense over the perth area and one crash will devastate
    a large part of the residential area with a great loss of life.
    It is time to move possibly to the north just past the Moore river area or further so that all flights can take off and come in over the ocean with no risk to the Perth area.
    A fast rail line all the way would solve most problems possibly utilising the Joondalup Rail and extending before it gets built up.

    Dennis

    Reply
    • June 2, 2015 at 7:02 pm
      Permalink

      Hi Dennis,

      I recommend checking the Airservices Australia Webtrack aircraft tracking system to confirm whether aircraft are in fact deviating from their approved flight paths. I checked it and noted the following:

      On 1 June 2015, the four engined jet which flew almost over your address was an Airbus A380 of Emirates at 5:13pm. It was at 2,900 feet, around twice as high as the light aircraft that operate near your home. Normally, the airliners join the approach to Perth Airport over Taylor Road, which is about 2km west of your address, but for some reason this A380 went nearer to your home. The A380 is a very large aircraft, so it would have looked lower than it was, but they are also relatively quiet compared to other jets.

      On 2 June 2015, in the three hour period 9am-12pm, I noted:
      – Only three aircraft overflew your address and all three were light aircraft flying to Jandakot from other towns (they were not flying circuits) – these may include Flying Doctor aircraft. Forrestdale Lake is one of the entry and reporting points for aircraft approaching Jandakot from the south.
      – None of the aircraft which overflew your home were headed to Perth Airport. Almost every other aircraft landing at Perth flew the approved flight path north over Taylor Road, which is 2km to the west of your address.
      – Seven aircraft flying to Perth Airport did not quite follow the approach path, but the closest any of these got to your address was 1 kilometre away. The majority were at least 2 km away.

      Many international airports around the world are located within metropolitan areas, in many cases because the city has grown around them (e.g. New York, Los Angeles, Sydney). Air travel is much safer now than it was in the past, even taking into account the unusual MH370 disappearance. The last air disaster in the Perth area was a DC-3 crash at South Guildford in 1949.

      Relocating a massive piece of key infrastructure such as an airport involves a great number of considerations and is incredibly expensive. As you pointed out, it also requires supporting infrastructure such as major roads and rail links. Placing it at a location nearly 140km north of Perth would virtually make it impractical – it would take at least 1.5 to 2 hours from Perth CBD to drive there – much longer if you happen to live south of the CBD or in one of the southwest towns. There also thousands of workers employed directly and indirectly by the airport, so what would happen to their jobs?

      The airport is here to stay and the Department of Transport does not expect Perth Airport to reach maximum capacity for 30 to 40 years, though they are looking at a site for second major airport (NOTE: Not to replace Perth Airport, but to take some of the traffic load).

      Aircraft noise will decrease as newer aircraft types replace the current ones.

      Reply
      • June 2, 2015 at 7:33 pm
        Permalink

        Look at webtrak for the residents of Wilson, Riverton, Shelley, Manning, Salter Point, Mt Pleasant, Ardross and Applecross. In 2007, when avionics (GPS guided flightpaths) kicked in, the scattered 30 planes they had per day suddenly followed a narrow path. Then the FIFO came, mainly the noisy Fokker 100, old 737, Avro RJ100, 717 etc.
        Now there are 120 departures over us per day, worst: the 35 FIFO planes between 5 am and 7 am (35 to be precise, so every few minutes). These suburbs lie behind an arbitrarily chosen sharp right (90 degrees) corner, so their noise problem is compounded by the planes on full throttle and banking.

        ASA wants to give these residents some rest and lead the planes from 10 pm and 5 am south in runway heading. That are however only 7 planes, 5 of them between 10 pm and midnight and just 2 planes between midnight and 5 am, following a non densely populated area that will hit a tip of Canning Vale, when the full barrage of FIFO planes hits the suburbs in my first line again.

        The Canning vale residents affected are relieved under the plan from 1100 landing aircraft at 2000 feet and love that, yet refuse to take the planes that would bring some quality of life back to the suburbs above.
        The reason why? When asked it is not about noise, but about real estate prices !!!!!!!!

        Modern society: we want a big airport but not in my back garden. I and many others here rejoice at the collapsing mining industry. Let that iron ore come down to 1 dollar !

        Reply
        • June 2, 2015 at 9:42 pm
          Permalink

          Frank G
          The iron ore industry plays a hugely important role in the Western Australian economy, accounting for 56 per cent of the State’s exports and it alone employed more than 61,000 people in WA during 2013–14.
          And you would rejoice if it completely collapsed, just so you can have less planes flying over your house? There are other ways to deal with the problem of aircraft noise. Even if the mining flights were taken out of the equation, there would still be noise complaints.
          Those F100s and 717s are also used on regular scheduled airline flights (non-FIFO) to regional towns within WA.

          Reply
          • June 8, 2015 at 8:05 pm
            Permalink

            True David, but the 4.30 am to 8 am barrage of 35 planes that is there since 2009 and was ever increasing (now slowly decreasing because of the low iron ore price) are for 90% FIFO cheap F-100 from Network and Alliance.

          • June 9, 2015 at 6:04 am
            Permalink

            The morning peak of FIFO departures all return to Perth later in the morning. Some of them later depart again on an afternoon FIFO or scheduled regional flight, before returning again later in the day.
            Many of these are Fokker 100s, because the type is well-suited to the conditions here and has low acquisition costs.
            Some FIFO flights are now operated by Boeing 737-800s (Qantas and Virgin) and Airbus A320s (Virgin Australia Regional and Jetstar), because they can transport more workers in each flight and this helps reduce the number of aircraft movements during the peak times.

      • June 4, 2015 at 10:10 am
        Permalink

        Re: New Airport. Not going to happen due to funding. It would undoubtedly be partly state and fed funded. With the state debt in the condition it is in, the credit rating is going to go skywards, no pun intended.
        The focus needs to be on regulating those noisy jets out of service and implementing initiatives mentioned previously.
        David – how can regulations be promoted to include this matter (F-100 et al decommissioning).

        Reply
        • June 4, 2015 at 3:16 pm
          Permalink

          Hi Ian,
          A curfew would not trigger the decommissioning of F100s – it will simply shift them to operations outside 11pm-5am or 6am.
          A Quota Count might be a better option, as it encourages airlines to use quieter aircraft at night, and for economic reasons, it is easier to maintain a fleet consisting of a single type. So daytime noise may also be reduced.
          Currently, both major parties of WA politics are looking at a curfew, plus a noise amelioration levy.
          Airservices Australia cannot impose either a curfew or Quota Count unless they are instructed to by the Government.

          Reply
          • June 8, 2015 at 8:03 pm
            Permalink

            Hi David, can you explain what you mean with the quota count ? I have studied the topic a lot but did not come upon that expression before. Barnett has sworn that he will never allow a curfew and Sydney is quite advanced in abandoning it as well. The reason that RWY 24 is not used for departures to the south is that the proximity of houses would force them to apply a curfew style Adelaide or Mascot-Sydney.

          • June 9, 2015 at 1:48 pm
            Permalink

            Thanks David, very helpful, and indeed a very good system. It will force companies to use newer aircraft. At the same time that is also why I never see this happen in Perth. Alliance and Network Aviation want cheap and volume.

  • June 2, 2015 at 11:44 pm
    Permalink

    david, sam is my father. He shares the computer with me. He is a pensioner who bought his house here decades ago, no planes at that time. Where is the justification that between 2007 and now the airport grew 50% and the number of flights right over our house 300 %. Yes, that is quite a difference.
    The 5 am to 7 am FIFO planes kill us. They came after we were here. And then people tell us not to buy here? I grew up here, a lovely neighbourhood, and no, we do not live in a mansion at the river. Nobody pities us, we can take all these planes under GURAK/KEELS RWY 21, 120 per day, and the fat guys in Canning Vale, who will now be freed of 1100 landing planes per year at 2000 feet, are not willing to relieve us of 5 planes before midnight and 2 planes between midnight and 5 am, when the minutewise barrage over our house starts again. People tell us to move.Would like to, but who pays the stamp duty for something we are not guilty of.
    In 2007 and later when there was massive growth there was no consultation a luxury that the CV residents now abuse. And guess who leads their actiongroup: A REAL ESTATE AGENT. We have a doctor leading our group without the shouting and the abuse of the CV residents. We believe problems are solved by talking, not by throwing stones if you live in a glass house. So much for their principles. We are in all the mentioned suburbs proud member of SNAG (Share Noise Action Group), that has 3000 families registered as member, so roughly 8000 members in total. We will prevail in this injustice and use all means to do it.
    My father calls it picking at the pensioners again, I call it gross injustice. Everybody profits from the mining industry, but our health suffers. What is against distributing the pain ?

    If there is no will to distribute the painb, then yes, let the mining industry collapse so that at least we can live again.

    Now you look on Webtrak and tell me the percentage of F-100 used in domestic flights compared to FIFO, i did that some months ago, there is the odd F-100 to Curtin Airport, and there is rarely one to Broome per day, both turning east after take off. 90 % of FIFO planes are F-100 !! That makes for us only between 5 and 7 over 26 F-100 of Network, Alliance. Network just bought 2 ‘new’ F-100. It is still along time to go, before F-100 are replaced by aircraft that have te soundprint of a 787.
    My father does not have that time. But nobody cares.

    Reply
    • June 3, 2015 at 6:26 am
      Permalink

      Hi Frank,
      I understand that the majority of F100s operate FIFO, but it can also be difficult to distinguish between a dedicated FIFO flight and a scheduled flight to a regional town such as Kalgoorlie or Karratha.
      F100s and 717s are also used to Alice Springs, Geraldton, Karratha, Learmonth, and Port Hedland, as well as Kalgoorlie, Paraburdoo and Newman.
      Interested to read about the other group being led by a real estate agent, which does call into question their motives.
      Both sides of politics are looking at a noise amelioration levy and night curfew. I believe a quota count would be better than a curfew, as it would reduce daytime noise too. A quota count system may encourage airlines to move to quieter types sooner.
      A curfew will only stop planes during 11pm to 5am or 6am. The noisy day time planes will still be there.
      The mining industry will not end and it would cause great harm to our economy if it did. Not everyone profits from the mining industry – I certainly don’t.
      There needs to be rational debate on this topic, supported by solid evidence.

      Reply
      • June 11, 2015 at 2:10 pm
        Permalink

        Hi David
        Thanks for your responses, and the time you’ve taken to respond. I’m sure you don’t get many threads like this one.
        Clearly it shows that this is a huge problem in Perth, and the fact that both sides of politics are looking into a curfew is encouraging.
        A noise amelioration levy or quota just isn’t enough in my opinion. With either or both of those a significant number of residents are still going to be constantly woken during the night. For eastern bound aircraft they start at around 11pm, continue till 2am, and then the 5am onslaught begins. It’s simply not good enough that this be imposed with zero consequence.
        A rationale debate on the topic yes – but we are talking about real people here, and not just numbers. I am personally hoping that ASA and Perth Airport are finally held to account, and that the politicians actually do the right thing.
        (BTW I also agree with others that Perth Airport should be relocated, it is a substantial cost but would not only be good for the construction industry but offset by the sale of the land. This idea should also be part of a rationale debate, it seems illogical to not).

        Reply
  • June 3, 2015 at 10:13 am
    Permalink

    I live in Canning Vale and only found out about this proposal yesterday, by way of a flyer placed in my letterbox by a concerned resident. We are directly affected by this proposal, yet we have not been informed nor consulted by the decision making bodies, which is a sure way to put people offside.

    I strongly suggest that the powers that be do some real COMMUNITY CONSULTATION and they might be surprised that, once people are told the facts, that a lot of the opposition disappears. Why are our members of parliament, the people we voted to represent our interests, silent on this?

    Very disappointed in the lack of communication to alert affected residents to what is going on so they have the opportunity to find out the facts.

    Reply
    • June 4, 2015 at 3:30 pm
      Permalink

      Caron, you problem live in an area of canning vale that is not affected by the 7 extra high flying departing planes you may get per day on certain days. For that you get 1100 landing low flying planes less that will be moved to another area. Airservices has dropped leaflets in all Canning vale areas that are affected and Airservices has held 3 evenings where canning vale residents were informed about these changes for the neighbourhood. Only a very small part of canning Vale is affected.
      The action in canning vale is started by a real estate agent for reasons that you understand well. Interestingly, Airservices has received numerous complaints from residents that the new planes cause so much noise. This although the trial will only start in november.
      You should feel for the people in Wilson, Riverton, Shelley, manning, salter Point, Mt pleasant, Ardross and Applecross who get 120 planes per day over their head. this happened overnight in 2009, and at that time there was no trial or a consultation process as you are having now. Worse for them are the planes from 5 am to 7 am, 35, these are the cheapest noisiest jets. Canning vale will never get these.
      So you should not worry and try not to get heated up by some militant real estate agent.

      Reply
      • June 4, 2015 at 3:34 pm
        Permalink

        Sorry caron, meant to say: probably live in an area of CV that is not affected. But in fact, nobody in canning vale will really be affected.

        Reply
      • June 9, 2015 at 11:20 pm
        Permalink

        Sam,

        Whilst I can appreciate your strong desire to ease the noise impacts from your suburb, what you fail to take into account is that in addition to the numerous arrivals into Perth Airport each day, the residents of Canning Vale and nearby suburbs are significantly impacted by almost 1,000 plans A DAY using Jandakot airport. These are arrivals and departures and for the vast majority, training flights that circle over head at low altitude DAY and NIGHT. In isolation you may think CV residents are whinging about getting a few flights through the night but this is on top of the significant impact we already have to endure from Jandokot.

        Extract from Jandakot Airport website

        Number of Aircraft Movements
        Although aircraft today are much quieter than they were 20 years ago, the number of aircraft and the frequency of aircraft operations have increased dramatically. While the average aircraft noise level is reducing, the number of times you will hear aircraft noise is increasing.

        Jandakot Airport is one of Australia’s busiest airports, with an average of 330,000 movements per annum.

        Reply
        • June 11, 2015 at 6:13 pm
          Permalink

          Karen, Perth Airport has far more air traffic movement, especially of heavy, noisy jets, than Jandakot. Yet you do not see me writing about more than 1000 planes per day, as not all 1000 come over your/my house. In the case of the suburbs that have had the unfair burden of the RWY21 departures, it were 120 per day, most annoying the 5 am to 8 am ones that come over every 2-3 minutes and are the cheap and loud FIFO jets at 3500 feet. Extra noise is created as there is a 90 degree curve from the straight flightpath. I can see Airservices logic. They free you of 1100 night planes p[er year by shifting the flightpath away from you and for that you get a similar number of departures per night, that the suffering neighbourhoods are then free of. That are 6 planes between 10 and 12 and only 1 plane between midnight and 5 am. After that moment, hell breaks every day loose again over the suburbs that I mentioned before (Wilson, Riverton, Shelley, Salter Point, Manning, Mt pleasant, Ardross, Applecross). They live in hell and they will for a long time to come, as there is nothing that Aisrservices is willing to do about the FIFO plane rack from 5-7 am. It is weird, but I hear many people saying that they are happy with every dollar the iron ore price drops. If there is no willingness from other neighbourhoods to share the pain I understand the stiitude.

          Summarizing:
          1. You get 1100 planes per year less because the flightpath of landing planes over you at night will be shifted away, and they fly at only 2000 feet
          2. You get 6 planes before midnight and 1 plane after midnight only and they fly very high and straight (make no noisy curve) at over 5000 feet.

          i think, once the trial starts, that you do not want to go back.

          Reply
      • June 11, 2015 at 12:30 am
        Permalink

        Hi Sam this is incorrect I am directly affected by changes and are woken multiple times during the night by the noise of planes as they have increased in number over the years and now they are sending over older louder planes etc.There were no leaflets dropped at mine or my neighbours doors by air services australia. I found out about the trial when it was mentioned in a small column in the Sunday times. The information sessions were not widely advertised and held in unaffected suburbs. I am happy that you have a strong action group made up of thousands of people bully for you and is the likely reason why this trial is occurring. It’s sounds to me that you really have nothing to worry about a small Canning vale petition starting behind the eight ball is unlikely to have any effect on the changes, but alias this is Australia and we will give it a shot, just imagine if you guys sat on your hands and just whinged! Oh and who is the Realestate person people are mentioning I’d like to know.

        Reply
        • June 11, 2015 at 6:20 pm
          Permalink

          Hi KA, please see above. You are affected by landing planes when the wind is from the northerlies. These planes fly at only 2000 feet as they approach the airport.
          Airservices has shifted the flightpath for these planes away from you. It will start later this year. You will find that once the trial starts you are happy as you will miss all these noisy landing planes and get instead just 1 plane after midnight that flies at over 5000 feet. The big problems are the FIFO planes that hit the SNAG-Actiongroup suburbs between 5 and 8 am, every 2-3 minutes a noisy, very old jet, and Network Aviation just bought a couple more of these F-100’s. You do not have that problem, as from 5 am the path leads over the SNAG suburbs.
          Honestly, there is a lot of misrepresentation going on in canning vale. The change of many planes after midnight at 2000 feet for only 1 plane that will not wake you as it is at 5000 feet will be of enormous benefit to you. Airservices has explained this many times, but your actiongroup keeps going on about, led by a real estate agent of all professions. Did you realize that by publicly talking your neighbourhood down all the time, you actually bring the prices down ? Especially since you will find that once the trial starts you will be so much better off as you will be able to sleep at night.

          Reply
  • June 4, 2015 at 5:10 pm
    Permalink

    I once lived in Ferndale and realised very quickly that the authorities don’t give a rats about residents. We moved right away from the airport and live a lovely peaceful life now. Move before all this bickering reduces your property values even further. Good luck!!

    Reply
    • June 11, 2015 at 7:07 pm
      Permalink

      Mind you, Sue, once the third runway opens in 2019-2020, the whole airspace of Perth Airport will be redesigned. I would not know where to move (if I could afford it) as I might then live in a area that then gets the barrage we now have.

      Reply
  • June 10, 2015 at 12:16 am
    Permalink

    This is not the first time I am unable to sleep due to pretty much constant aircraft noise throughout the night. 12am and it is every 5, 10 to 20 mins, loud noises, not something even ear plugs can block out. I am utterly sick of it. When I bought my house in Darlington I checked flight paths, but nothing can protect you from people making new decisions without consultation. This noise is unacceptable, and I cannot for the life of me understand why they need to fly over residential areas all night long. I am fully expecting to have a very unproductive day at work tomorrow, as last time this happened they did not stop all night, coming in waves of constant traffic broken up by the odd half hour of quiet. Night flights are not acceptable over residential areas. Please stop them.

    Reply
    • June 11, 2015 at 6:01 pm
      Permalink

      Nothing has changed for the Darlington area, Davis. You get the same number of planes compared to a year ago, probably a few less, as FIFO activity has reduced. It is the wind that in this time of the year comes from the NE. In a few months, they will all come south over us again.

      Reply
  • June 11, 2015 at 3:26 pm
    Permalink

    I posted a comment earlier this year regarding the NOW excessive barrage of flights over Lord St.in the Beechboro/Bassendean area..You gave me some lame excuse about the reason which was due to the wind direction affecting the number of flights in this area,even when there is no wind…now the [EXPLETIVE] flights are infecting the airspace EVERY DAY!!!..As i mentioned in my previous complaint,we moved here after 30yrs in Sth.Guildford because of the proximity to the Domestic Airport…we have been here 11yrs & now i’m being tortured with this constant agony,including late night & during the early hours of the morning flights affecting my sleep..My wife passed away 6yrs ago; i’m still grieving,on the verge of a nervous breakdown!..What recourse have i got ,including compensation at least!

    Reply
    • June 11, 2015 at 5:09 pm
      Permalink

      Hi Casimir,

      I understand that you are deeply upset, but this is a public website which children also read, so I have deleted the expletive from your comments.

      In running the AviationWA website (unpaid), I spend a lot of my spare time trying to help people like yourself, who have questions or concerns relating to aviation. I believe in presenting both sides of any story.

      With regard to my response to your comments in April 2015, I was not making any excuses, just trying to explain why a number of aircraft were overflying at that time. In April, the prevailing winds were from the north and east almost daily and this resulted in a much higher number of aircraft overflying your home after takeoff from runway 03. My response at that time was honest, factual and is still valid:

      If you live near the junction of Benara Road and Lord Street, you are still living fairly close to the flightpath, particularly aircraft taking off from runway 03 at Perth Airport. The aircraft need to take off into the wind. If it is an easterly or northerly wind, Runway 03 will be used, especially for heavy aircraft or aircraft heading to the north or west. Another reason for the flight path over your home is perhaps the proximity of the Air Force Base at Pearce (Bullsbrook) to the north.
      If you have any concerns, please contact Airservices Australia: http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/projects/flight-path-changes/perth-noise-improvements-2015/

      Airservices Australia sets the aircraft flightpaths, so there is no point in venting at me. You need to take your concerns to them.

      Reply
  • June 11, 2015 at 5:59 pm
    Permalink

    David is right.
    Casimir, look good at the winddirection. If it is N or NE you will have noise, as about 50% of the planes come over you (split between RWY 3 and RWY 6). If it is S or SE or SW, the planes will come over us. Over a year, the vast majority of the planes comes over us, as in Perth the wind is predominantly from the SW.
    Can I advise you to download Flightradar24 on your phone ? It shows you each individual plane live and where it is going, at what altititude etc. If you click on the little blue/white icon it also shows you the winddirection and the windstrength that is at that moment at the airport and will explain why they go out north.
    This is the bad time of the year for you, good for us, but that will soon change.

    Reply
  • June 17, 2015 at 9:56 pm
    Permalink

    50dba is not the noise level of a modern refrigerator, its more like a noisey twin fan reverse cycle air conditioning condenser unit. You have no idea the levels of noise. In Piara Waters the plans have been low flying directly over my house now since 7pm every 10 to 20 minutes for a couple hours and maybe every 30 to 45 mins after 9pm. Its noisey and louder than my fridge which is about 10 meters away from me.
    These planes need to climb and go west out to see asap. Just because the wealthy Nedlands and floreat suburbs probably complain a bit is no reason to make 1000’s more suffer this racket. Everywhere you go around perth theres planes creating noise, the decent is to low and too long. You don’t have this in the UK with smaller more compact areas as they decend faster on approach, granted its not as comfortable for the passengers but the noice is not spread over double the distance.

    People don’t want noise, and making others sit under the flight path is one thing but lying about the noise level and times is another. Its not from 10pm and quieter than a fridge and people in Canning Vale do here it quite a lot. They are holding meetings in August I believe to raise the issue. If you are effected please speak up and complain, the aviation authority are lying to us about the effects and the change makes no sense its only to try and please the well offs and avoid flying over the richer suburbs. Perhaps if the buikdings here would up the standards of insulation to fit better windows and solid bricks etc then noise would be less noticeable. Regardless of any tangent points, the flight paths are not being used as they state and I know many people are effected by this.

    Reply
    • June 17, 2015 at 10:52 pm
      Permalink

      Hi Marty,

      You write here as if something has changed. We should just be very clear that nothing has happened yet, the trial will only start in december and so will the reduction in landing planes coming over your head only reduce in december.
      Currently the situation is as it always has been, as ususal in winter you will now experience some more landing planes as it is winter and there are more winds from the NE, both all in all you have less planes overhead than 12 months ago, as the FIFO industry is slowly collapsing (thank God for that).

      Reply
  • June 18, 2015 at 2:57 pm
    Permalink

    To anyone, I seem to have missed something here. There appear to be 2 issues. The first is the huge increase in incoming flights which now pass right over my house. This starts around 5am and continues until midnight. The noise from decelerating is painful and together with the air pressure waves is making life miserable. Surely we are not meant to have to survive on 5 hours sleep each night ? I thought this trial was after community consultation in August or is that for outbound ? So are we going to cop outbound as well ? They’ve got to be joking ! From my observation, and I’m home all day, the inbound fly in dead centre of the approach fan. One would have thought that if this is such a Smart plan the approaches could be staggered across the entirety of the approach parameters to share the load a bit. I do realise that this doesn’t have much impact for the poor buggers living closer to the pointy end but those areas have been subjected to this pain forever and in most cases would have bought their homes knowing this to be the case. We bought here in the full knowledge that Jandakot would produce some noise and accepted that. However the imposition of 21 incoming International minimum not 7 a day as I have been quoted elsewhere is just not fair.

    I am in the process of putting together an email contact group containing as many MPs,newspapers, and extraneous government agencies as I can find, so that when I complain to Air Services each day they all get the message. It’s one of the only ways I can think of to make myself a complete pain in the arse to as many people as possible. Maybe you lot should think about doing the same thing. It will only be by a concerted effort anybody will get heard. And if you think it’s bad now, just wait till the new additional runway is finished and the powers that be fill that up as well.

    Well that’s my bit for today, I hope you’ve all been entertained and I’ll look forward to the inevitable comments about how rich I am and pensioners. Incidentally at 64 I’m almost a pensioner myself and no, I’m not rich.

    Have a nice day.

    Reply
    • June 18, 2015 at 10:45 pm
      Permalink

      Hi Colinyou have always had these incoming flights. They have always followed this very same path nothing has changed so far. Nothing has hanged no trial has started yet. In december the trial will take away the incoming flights and you will get departing flights. 6 before midnight between 10 and12 in the evening plus one plane at 1:30 in contrast to the low flying landing planes you have now, these are high flying straight flying jets.
      The aim is to relieve the other SW suburbs from the current 120 planes that are departing and at the same time make a sharp right turn causing excessive noise 24 hours per day. This is for these neighbourhoods also a new situation nobody there bought a house under a flight path
      If you want to move to one of the SNAG suburbs, stay where you are as they have low flying old FIFO jets ever 2-3 minutes from 5 am to 8.

      Reply
  • June 18, 2015 at 8:41 pm
    Permalink

    This is a joke, bought in the Canning Vale area late last year on the understanding there may be the occasional flight, but every 20 min from 5pm to 12 midnight this is a joke. These inbound flights have increased exponentially. Definitely the worst financial decision I’ve ever made to buy in Canning Vale. Once home buyers start realizing Canning Vale will be a permanent flight path properties prizes will collapse. Now hears a thought, why can’t these governing bodies come to the logical conclusion and plan flight paths over rural area’s, instead of high density zoning?? I know one thing, I must have been on drugs to buy property in CANNING VALE, worst financial mistake I’ve made.

    Reply
  • June 18, 2015 at 10:37 pm
    Permalink

    Warren. These flights have always been there they are less than in 2013 but there are still a lot. That you notice them so much is because it is winter and the wind is then usually from the NE. In summer it is the other way around and you do not have them but the SNAG neighbourhoods get them. Especially from 5 am to 7am each and every morning. That has increased since 2009 when there were virtually none
    The disadvantage of loudly crying action groups in the newspapers is that they talk their own neighbourhood down as airport slum. The press love it but action groups with their press people make sure everybody knows you are a flight suburb.
    Mind you on 2020 there will be a complete reconfiguration of perth airspace when the 3rd runway is ready.

    Reply
  • June 26, 2015 at 3:23 pm
    Permalink

    Sam, are you living in Canningvale? I have been lived in Canningvale more than 2 years. For the winter in 2013 and 2014, i never seen so many flight passing over Canningvale with big noise. Why this winter we have so many? Is this winter a very special winter? In addition, from later March ,this year, many big flight kept passing over Canningvale frequently, can you call April and May also winter season? By checking the ‘web trak’ in Airservice Australia website, people can locate their homes and follow the flight runways passing over their home. I have checked the flight runways by Web Trak, which showed most flight are towards to Perth Airport, they chose the flight runway directly passing over cannigvale and langford to Perth Airport, but strangely, those big flights flew from Beelu Natinonal Park or Hacketts Gully to Armadale then Southern river to Canningvale with destination to Perth Airport. Obviosly, those flight avoid the Forrestfield, Kenwick, Beckenham areas but chose to flew to Armadale. What’s the reason for detour? If you compare the fight trail shown by Web Trak , you will see the flights avoid those less populated areas but chose to fly over areas with more people. The number of residents in each area can be easily obtained from ABS–Australia Bureau of Statistics or wiki website. Here i just want to put those questions to you and ask people to use the ‘Web Trak’ page to clearly see what’s happening instead of accepting opionions without concrete facts.

    Reply
    • June 26, 2015 at 6:47 pm
      Permalink

      Hi Sam. No I live in Shelley since many years. Until 2008 it was liveable here with many 20 planes that came scattered over the area. Then the GPS guidance came in and made each and every plane go exactly over our house. We had in 2008 30 planes per day, now that is 120, making extra noise as they make a sharp right turn (our neighbourhoods do not lie in the extension of the runway at all). They also come very low. Especially the SAA281 and the Airbus 380 that comes at 10.30 pm annoys us each and every night again, but far worse than that are the FIFO planes from 4:45 am till 9 am. That are 35 in total, mostly every 2-3 minutes and we are awake at 4:45. No other suburb has to endure this.
      You have seen recently many planes as there has this winter been a lot of north winds and planes depart and land against the wind. You have mainly landing planes, they come low over at 2000 feet.
      The new plan from AirServices is very different from what people of the facebook website in Canning vale want to you believe.
      Airservices proposes to take away the landing planes from Canning vale (there are several during the night), and give you instead 6 planes between 10 pm and 12 pm and 1 plane after midnight. If I would have the chance, I would change to canning vale but do not have the money to buy in that expensive area.

      There is a lot of misinformation, be careful. The chance is good for Canning vale as your problem is the low flying landing planes as you can see on Webtrak.

      Some people in canning vale are very angry as they say their life is misery since the trial strated. Well, interestingly the trial has not started yet but will only start in december. So you can see how you are being misled. We still have the SA281, we still have the big Airbus at 10:30 pm and we still have the 35 planes between 5 and 9, you will never have.

      You should be happy to live in canning vale, because for us it does not look good at all, a reduction from 120 to 113 planes.

      Reply
  • July 2, 2015 at 1:19 pm
    Permalink

    I think we should start a petition for a curfew at Perth airport, or even better – relocating it.
    Rather than Shelly and Canning Vale residents fighting, they should combine their efforts so that the whole of Perth gets a good outcome.
    Sam, maybe you don’t realise but there are plenty of other areas of Perth that suffer just as much as you, and in many cases are worse (Perth hills for example).

    A petition can be created online at change.org – anyone have the time/skills to kick it off?

    Reply
    • July 3, 2015 at 6:59 pm
      Permalink

      Hi Lance,

      The people worst off are those who live under the flightpath directly after the planes leave the airport. Regretfully they can not be helped with the airport in the current location as planes do need to land and depart in a straight line. All other neighbourhood get the planes under randomly chosen flightpath and the flightpath over Wilson, Riverton, Shelley, Manning, Salter Point, Applecross and Ardross is the worst, as they get all the departing planes at SW wind (286 days per year), and do not have the advantage of the people north of the airport, where there are 2 runways leaving the airport nort (runways 3 and 6). These peoeple bear the grunt in Perth as they have the FIFO over their head each and every day with SW wind starting every 2-3 minutes atarting at 4:45. To the south only runway 21 is use, runway 24 is not used as Belmont in the past succesfully held the planes off.
      A curfew will never ever happen (quote of Colin Barnett himself), and changing to the airport is what people living in all Perth suburbs should fight for. This should not be a Canning Vale against Shelley action !!

      Change.org ? Just start to fill in there Canning Vale Night and you will see their petition against the 7 extra planes they would get for exchanging losing all their landing planes (puzzling how you can protest against progress and loss of noise, they seem to love planes), or start to fill in change.org: Airservices and you will see the neighbourhoods of the Share Noise Action Group with their action.

      Reply
      • July 23, 2015 at 5:45 pm
        Permalink

        Hi Sam,

        Please correct me if I am wrong in my calculation. Canning Vale will get 1100 less arrivals per year according to ASA but in turn will get 7 departing planes per night for 286 nights of the year therefore if my math is correct Canning Vale will get an additional 902 departing NIGHT flights per year (286 x 7= 2002 – 1100 = 902). If this is correct I can see why the Canning Vale residents are up in arms seeing that they also have to put up with the aircraft noise from Jandakot Airport (Average 900 per day/night) and the jet arrivals which mainly occur at night, into Perth Airport. Would not a better solution to the problem be, to move the FIFO to Bullsbrook? I agree that ALL the suburbs should band together and get the ASA/government to do something about the aircraft noise. Seems like ASA are applying a Band-Aid fix ……shifting the problem from one area to another.

        Reply
        • July 25, 2015 at 6:20 pm
          Permalink

          Hi ian, regretfully this is not an option. Planes land and start against the wind. So a N-S or S-N decision is not the Air traffic Control’s but depends on where the wind is coming from.
          In winter we have more wind from the N-NE, but basically only in June – July, people under the south west flightpath have then a reprieve. During that time Canning vale residents will have landing planes, whereas the rest of the year they are spared. But in summer and basically all ten months apart from June-July they will be hit each and every morining from 5 am to 7 am with 38 low flying, noisy F-100 aircraft. leading them all out to the east would be unfair to the people that live under that flightpath as they also take FIFO planes (the ones east of the line Pert- Port Hedland, e.g. Newman, cloudbreak) and all the eastern states.
          When it is worst is in summer, when people can not sleep with any window open, because you will be sitting upright at 5 am.

          Reply
        • July 25, 2015 at 6:26 pm
          Permalink

          Hi Kevin. In the last community meetings ASA had said they miscalculated. It would be 1500 planes in the first year and then progressively, once all planes will have to take on the electronics for smart tracking, the number of passing planes will drop to zero. Where i do agree with you is that it would make sense to use Bullsbrook for FIFO. The resistance comes from the mining industry who do not want to bus the large numbers of employees grom Perth Airport, where many interstate FIFO workers land to Bulldbrook.
          Meanwhile the SW suburbs enjoy every $ of the drop in iron ore prices, the collapse of the industry is the only thong that can save them from the noise.

          Reply
          • July 25, 2015 at 8:16 pm
            Permalink

            The Dept of Transport has already dismissed the use of RAAF Base Pearce (at Bullsbrook) as a joint military/civil airport in its State Aviation Strategy document, noting that Pearce is:
            – the busiest RAAF base in Australia in terms of aircraft movements, with over 100,000 aircraft movements annually (including those at Gingin). It has to use a satellite airstrip at RAAF Gingin for training, to reduce overall traffic congestion;
            – essential to military pilot training programs for Australia and Singapore;
            – unsuited for civil aviation requirements due to a high intensity air traffic environment using visual separation and pilot situational awareness to allow multiple aircraft operations in close proximity.
            – a significant contributor to the WA economy, supporting local civilian and business communities.
            – it acts at the primary defence air base for military operations in WA, including the movement of the WA-based Special Air Service Regiment, maritime patrol and search and rescue operations

            The Department of Defence is increasing security at RAAF Base Pearce and they are extremely reluctant to see any civilian ops there.

          • July 25, 2015 at 10:15 pm
            Permalink

            Thanks for this update David.

            We started this discussion with Canning Vale complaining about 7 more planes per day to relieve the soutwestern suburbs from 120 to 113 planes per day.
            In the last week a very misleading hoax is rounding in Canning Vale that ASA has decided that ALL incoming and ALL departing planes from and to Perth Airport will now be going over Canning Vale.
            In the hoax this website is used as proof that this is the case.
            I have no idea who sets this nonsense in the world, but just want to refer people who are led here to the correct athority that deals with this: Airservices, or your local MP.
            I think the senders do not even live in Canning vale and are just random names.
            Below I copy the hoax:

            =========================================================================
            Dear Neighbours,
            You may not have heard,
            Canning Vale is being made into the sole Corridor for takeoff and landing
            aircraft at Perth airport.

            Air services Australia have commenced a divisive campaign to re route all
            flights over Canning Vale. Their public consultation process, minimal as it
            was, was centred in suburbs not affected by the changes. Having been forced
            by a public outcry, Air Services will provide more consultation, and have
            decided to minimise the impact of the outcome, by having a series of public
            information sessions, which will
            1 remove the scrutiny they would be subject to, by having to answer
            questions in a public open forum.
            and
            2 prevent the Press from gauging the public reaction to the
            proposals.
            The meetings have had little or no advertising, and as such, most people
            have not heard about them.

            *****Please Read the attachment for time and venue information******

            People in Canning Vale and the surrounding areas need to take action NOW.
            Our quality of life and health are on the line Our long term health is
            important and they won’t tell you a 747 400, the most popular commercial
            jetliner, and the most used, will burn between 2.5 and 3 tons of fuel on
            takeoff alone. The compounds of sulphur, nitrogen and many other
            Carcinogenic substances from 3000Kg of jet fuel for every plane that passes
            over head, will fall into our backyards! This of course does not take into
            account the 4000 other flights that move over canning vale in a month.

            National Geographic Said Jet Exhausts kill more people than Plane crashes
            Read the article here
            http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/101005-planes-pollution-deat
            hs-science-environment/

            Please take the time to attend the public information sessions. Ask
            difficult questions and insist on answers.

            Regards
            Greg and Sue Gaskin

            ==========================================================================

          • July 25, 2015 at 10:56 pm
            Permalink

            The quote does not seem to refer to AviationWA website, but does link to a broken webpage on the National Geographic website. Airservices Australia set the flight paths.
            Also, the 747-400 is not “the most popular commercial jetliner”. The Boeing 737 is the most-produced, with over 8,400 built, followed by the Airbus A320 with over 6,500 built.
            Over 1,500 747s of all versions have been built since the late 1960s, but only 694 of the 747-400 were built and many are retired as they are becoming unecomonic to operate. The 747 rarely visits Perth nowadays, with an occasional visit by freighter versions every few months or so.

  • July 23, 2015 at 4:02 pm
    Permalink

    Implement the following departure flight path: The night time departing flights between 10 pm and 5 am from Perth Airport turn right over Whaleback Golf Course. By doing this, those aircraft would then fly over Canning Vale Light Industrial Estate (Bannister Road); City of Canning Recycle Waste Facility, Jandakot Airport, Glen Iris Public Golf Course and on to the coast before turning Northwest or North. It should be noted that there is a 1km to 6km wide corridor for planes to fly down from the Whaleback Golf Course to the Glen Iris Golf Course. The planes arriving at Perth Airport from the West, Northwest and North could also use the reverse route of this flight path to decrease the arrival aircraft noise over densely populated areas. I firmly believe that if the ASA adopted this flight path far fewer residents would be affected by aircraft noise. I have suggested this flight path to Ron Brent (ANO) and he is looking into why ASA don’t adopt it. Is this a too simplistic solution to the aircraft noise problem???????

    Reply
  • July 23, 2015 at 8:27 pm
    Permalink

    Kevin,

    Just reviewing your comment and referring again to the proposed trial, I notice other deficiencies that could also be addressed in the trial. Given the FIFO/F-100 flights are a big source of noise in the peak 5am-7am timeframe, the trial does not address this. There are a few other strategies that could be adopted to share the noise load emanating from this traffic. If the runway preferences could be changed on a daily basis from N-S to S-N AND incorporate alternate turns to the East and West before heading north (where all the FIFO flights go), this would see a four-fold reduction in noise over the one area that currently cops it all. As an addition to that, the proposed direct CV/Jandakot track prior to turning could be added to the mix. If the same approach was adopted to Northern departures, there is a huge spread of noise load shared equally and fairly. If everyone takes their share, the CV issue should (theoretically) go away.

    Reply
  • August 2, 2015 at 9:47 pm
    Permalink

    I would like to make a comment on statement on 25,July. Do the peple who say there are will only several addtional night flights for Canningvale area really check what they said on the ‘Web Trak’page on ASA web site. if NOT ,please shut off your mouth. Canningvale now has averagely speaking 10 flights within one hour from morning till night which never occurred before. Most of them are flying to Perth Airport with altitude less than 2600 feet.And there are night departure flights passing over Canningvale. By comparing the flight trails on the ‘Web Trak’, you can find those flight trails are the same as the flight runways proposed by ASA. In addition there are no limitation on inbound flight numbers—-the numbers towards Perth Airport. Also the altitude requirement of the inbound flight is no less than 1000 feet,NOT from our home but from the sea level,which is the reason people can see the flights so clearly even the brand or company tag at the bottom of the plane at their backyard. How can a normal person endure so intensive and frequent aircraft noise.

    Jandakot airport has less residents, but Canningvale is a large surburb with the number of residents more than 30,000 in 2011, far more than the total numbers of residents in Shelley, Rossmoyne ,Mosman Park. Why so many people have to owe so less people? Can the wealthy people deprive the rights of normal civilians?
    If you calculate the residents under the proposed flight runways and the previous flight runways you can get the clear answers. The number of residents in each surburb can be obtained from ABS(Australia Bureau of Statistics) or WiKi. Please tell the truth to people, do not mislead people.

    Reply
  • August 9, 2015 at 6:26 pm
    Permalink

    I think the suburbs need to stop having a slanging match about who has the richer suburb or double incomes or the most pensioners and start turning our attention towards Air Services Australia and get them to fix their problem. Everyone deserves a good night sleep. What is Air Services Australia going to do about it? Think Perth has outgrown the airport and it needs to be moved but in the meantime do what other states have done and introduce a night time curfew. Air Services Australia are unwilling to fix the problem they have created but Perth will not stand for this forever. Someone needs to do their job and put their brain in gear and sort this out for the benefit of Perth residents. Travellers will cope with minor adjustments to schedules just as they do in other states.

    Reply
    • August 9, 2015 at 10:05 pm
      Permalink

      The r
      Trial is cancelled. ASA budged for the aggressive and misleading actions of Canning Vale.
      Consequences are twofold:
      1. Southwestern suburbs will keep their 120 planes per day, 7 at night till 2.30 am, and then the every 3 minutes FIFO rack between 5 am and 7 am. Sleep time window will remain from 2.30 to 5 unless the mine industry collapses 100%.
      2. Canning Vale was successful in bullying the 7 planes away, but at the same time keep their Smart tracking that will push 1100 planes this year from CV to the poorer neighbourhoods of Beckenham and Kenwick, next year 2000 planes, 18 at night. These people do not even know this yet as CV carefully blocked consultation there.

      Seems we have raised a generation of egoistic not in my back garden people that bought cheap in Canning Vale under an existing landing flight path and now push their planes on poorer neighbourhoods in Perth that have already so many planes.

      Reply
      • August 10, 2015 at 11:41 am
        Permalink

        Bob,

        January to December 2014 (365 days) Shelley had 20,608 departures from Perth Airport therefore 20,608/365 = An average of 56 planes per day. I don’t know where the figure of 120 planes per day comes from! Canning Vale had 13,647/365 = An average of 37 planes per day. The smart tracking will reduce the number of planes over CV by 3 per day therefore CV will still get an average of 34 planes per day from Perth Airport. CV also has Jandakot Airport plane noise to contend with. 330,0000/365 = An average of 904 per day/night. All the above figures can be verified on Webtrak. What Airservices Australia should have done years ago, if they had any vision or foresight, was to move the airport or impose a night time curfew. All they are doing, in my humble opinion, is applying a band- aid fix to the problem. Just imagine if the 7 planes did take off at night what the residents of Langford, Ferndale and all the other suburbs close to the airport would have had to endure……low level arrivals and departures!

        Reply
        • August 10, 2015 at 9:26 pm
          Permalink

          Without wishing to take sides in this debate and at the risk of copping flak, I would like to make a few observations about various comments made in response to this issue:

          1. Data quoted should be accurate. For example, stating that Canning Vale receives 330,000 aircraft movements from Jandakot is incorrect. During the 2014 calendar year, Jandakot had a total of 253,068 movements and they do not all arrive or depart over Canning Vale.
          2. Arguments over whether the suburbs are rich or poor are irrelevant to your main complaint: aircraft noise over your suburb, especially at night. Bickering between various suburbs does not help your cause.
          3. Suggestions that Perth Airport should close and be relocated are not going to be taken seriously by those in power, due to the huge cost involved. The Department of Transport is investigating potential sites for Perth’s second airport, which will be needed in about 50 years’ time. Your aims need to be reasonable, realistically achievable and based on robust data.
          4. Statistics show that WA’s economy is largely dependent on the resources industry, whether people accept that or not. The resources industry depends on FIFO. FIFO depends upon airlines having access to Perth Airport.
          5. Curfews would limit the capacity of Perth Airport and are likely to be opposed by the resources industry, given that a number of their flights depart early morning in order to get workers to site in time to rest before they begin their shifts. A Quota Count system may be a more realistic goal, and may encourage the airlines to invest in quieter aircraft.

          PS: I do not work for Airservices Australia.

          Reply
          • September 5, 2015 at 8:28 am
            Permalink

            David,

            The data I quoted (330,000 Movements) was taken from the Jandakot Airport website (http://www.jandakotairport.com.au/community/aircraft-noise.html) so I have to assume it is accurate??????

            I didn’t say that ALL the aircraft departed or arrived over Canning Vale. All I stated was that there are on average 904 movements a day/night from Jandakot. Even if 20% of these planes flew over Canning Vale that would equate to 180 per day/night. From my understanding Jandakot is used for training so a lot of the planes fly around in circles over Canning Vale, Leeming, Glen Iris etc. How would this be accounted for in Jandakot’s statistics? One could have the same plane go over ones house ten times but only counted as one movement!!!!!!!

            The bottom line is that ASA and the ANO agreed that the proposed12 month night time respite trial was NOT a good plan.

          • September 5, 2015 at 2:37 pm
            Permalink

            Hi Kevin,
            Your comment was “CV [Canning Vale] also has Jandakot Airport plane noise to contend with. 330,0000/365 = An average of 904 per day/night. All the above figures can be verified on Webtrak.” This implied that the 904/day affected Canning Vale, and that the data was verified by Webtrak, and neither of these statements are correct. The number of Jandakot aircraft flying over Canning Vale depends on which runway is in use and there are more movements on weekdays. Regardless, and as you pointed out, Canning Vale does have a lot of movements from Jandakot flying over.

            Movements are the sum of Arrivals and Circuits multiplied by 2 i.e. (A + C) x 2.

            The data on Jandakot Airport’s website says “Jandakot Airport is one of Australia’s busiest airports, with an average of 330,000 movements per annum.” They have quoted an average, as the number of movements varies each year. Accurate monthly and annual data is available from Airservices Australia: http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/reports-and-statistics/movements-at-australian-airports/

            Not taking sides in this, just trying to ensure the data is accurate.

          • September 5, 2015 at 3:26 pm
            Permalink

            Hi all
            It is very likely that the Canning Vale trial will go ahead anyway as Irons,Nahan and Jensen have appealed the decision within the 28 day timeframe that stands for appeals processes in matters like this. Speaking to a Perth Airport person who knows about these things, it is very likely that the Canning Vale trial will go ahead and that only during the 12 month trial the decision can be taken to make it permanent or not. The issue is that now conclusions have been drawn about the outcome of a trial that never actually took place which is a legal oxymoron. I live in the CBD but just thought I bring this in here.
            Fairness matters though and CV residents built their houses right under the existing Jandakot runways so you got your lots heap. To bring now Jandakot into the equation is not correct. The SNAG neighbourhoods never had a dense flight track overhead before 2009. Then came the300% increase over 4 years from FIFO. these people never had the luxury of consultation or, as Dennis Jensen put it in the newspaper this week : “it is not Australian to give the loudest shouters what they want and thus a trial gets cancelled”. I do not like Jensen but here I agree with him

        • August 10, 2015 at 10:06 pm
          Permalink

          Bob,

          I am talking about the maximum number of planes the SNAG suburbs have to endure, and that is 120 per day during the hottest moments of the year. That means all double glazed windows shut and all night aircon on. the figures you quote are based on a yearly average, as in this time of the year we have far fewer pllanes and indeed get some sleep. From September to May there is no sleep as the last night palne is at 2.30 and the FIFO and heavy plane tourist barrage starts at 5:00, planes every 3 minutes. So we sleep 2.5 hours. The most bothersome are the daily FIFI cheap Fokker 100 planes that you do not know when they are at 3000 feet when ascending, as you only know them gliding down to land. You may have only 1100 planes per year less because of smart tracking, but in 2016 it will be 2000, and in 2017 3800, and in 2019 you will have none.
          Where do these planes go with smart tracking ???? Exactly right, from the wealthy double income kids in canning vale to poor low social economic status residents in Beckenham and H=Kenwick. And you k now what is the worst ? You get rid of all Perth Airport noise completely and we keep our 120 and Beckenham and Kenwick have to suck up yours. Wait until they notice and smart tracking is dead in the water.

          Reply
          • August 11, 2015 at 12:32 pm
            Permalink

            I live in Langford and rest assured we know all about plane noise going into Perth Airport. Not only do we get the arrivals that fly over Canning Vale but we also get some of the arrivals from the east. The residents of Langford/Lynwood certainly don’t want any departures from Perth Airport. On the 19 of June 2015 we had 178 planes fly over our house at an average altitude of 1700 feet! All of these planes flew over Canning Vale. Enough noise to drive one insane. I wish I could afford double glazing and an aircon but at least we don’t cop the noise from Jandakot.

  • August 9, 2015 at 11:36 pm
    Permalink

    Completely agree Carl. To be honest, the campaign by Canning Vale was very mischievous and even today some people think that Shelley and the other 180’000 residents of the SW suburbs wanted all their planes to go over CV. In reality ASA wanted to do just 7 planes !!
    The well off people in Canning Vale have however no qualms about shifting all their landing planes now to Kenwick and Beckenham, the poorer parts of town. And that is what these folks dared to accuse Shelley of for 7 planes !! bob, you are as much a victim of CV real estate greed as Shelley is. This is not about noise for CV. This is all about buying cheap under a flightpath and then getting rid of it.

    Reply
  • August 11, 2015 at 9:01 pm
    Permalink

    @Kevin. Never ever have 178 planes a day gone over Canning Vale. Not even close. Look up the day that you mention on WebTrak. This is because 50% of the arrivals to the south (and that happens only in winter because in summer we have almost exclusively SW winds) track over Kenwick and Beckenham. Canning Vale will now profit from smart tracking that this year will force 1100 planes from Canning Vale to Kenwick/Beckenham and next year 2000, with in a few years when all planes have smart tracking technology zero planes, but all needs to be copped by the socially poor off in Kenwick and Beckenham. A smart m ove by the rich and well off in canning Vale to push the flightpath away from them.
    Rich, spoilt kids.

    Reply
    • August 12, 2015 at 5:00 am
      Permalink

      I suggest you go into the Webtrak historical data and count them on the following days, starting at 5am until 5am the following morning (24 hours):
      16 June – 130 planes, 17 June – 160 planes, 18 June – 155 planes, 19 June – 178 planes, 20 June – 108 planes. You will see that I am correct and seeing that ALL these planes flew over Canning Vale coming into land at Perth Airport they MUST have gone over Langford/Lynwood. Langford/Lynwood will also hopefully benefit from smart tracking but I wouldn’t hold my breath seeing we also get plane noise from the east!

      Reply
  • August 14, 2015 at 3:32 pm
    Permalink

    @Carl: Have you ever been to Canningvale or check the ‘Web Trak’? Do some little bit research before give your opinions to other people. What your words are completely based on no-facts numbers. For the residents who suffer aircraft noise, can you tell me how many people in Shelly, how many people live in Canningvale , Lanford, Southern River, Piara Waters, Parkwood, Harrisdale , Bibra Lake, Cockburn, Success, and part of Atwell ? All the people living in the areas mentioned above are suffering from aircraft noise to different extent which they never see before. Why so tiny amount of wealth people can have the power to put noise they do not like on other people’s head while complain about their issues they already know when they bought their properties. It is completely a joke. Everyone in Perth knows the properties prices are high in Shelley, simply have a look on the realestate.com.au, all the facts are there. You have top schools , beautiful river side scenery, large block. Why don’t you make proposal to share good schools with others?
    In addition, canning vale has Jandakot airport. According to your theory, can we let the airplanes in Jandakot fly over your head?

    Reply
  • August 14, 2015 at 4:57 pm
    Permalink

    @Bob. Just mixing in, I know many people in canning vale and frequent them often. The problem is that they say themselc=ves their neighbours are spoilt brats. Canning Vale has always been under a descending flight path and the figures are lower than last year. I spoke to their MP, Mr Peter Abetz, who said in 6 years he had just 1 complaint, the moment Canning Vale started thgeir subversive action, against not just Shelley, but also us in Manning (I deeply apologise that some people have mansions in Shelley, that is onvious a very good reason to send the planes over them….. how sick is that?).
    And well you ask questions about the numbers: The flighpath over Shelley, Wilson, Riverton, Rossmoyne, DSalter Point, Manning, Waterford, Mr Pleasant, Ardross and Applecross has 182’000 residents, see the ASA environmental assessmebt. the whingers indeed have more, all in all, including Fremantle 183’400. What a difference and what a good reason to let them get all the noise and yes, we look at Web trak. the only month when you have landing planes in July and a piece of June when the wind is from the north. that is also the only month we have some respite in manning. the rest of the 11 months you have no planes as we have 1100 per day.
    Anyway, the decision by ASA is currently being challenged in the courts and let’s wait for that. Hopefully we will soon have an answer.
    Canning Vale, the rich spoilt kids that we helped funding their university careers of, have no qualms to send all their landing planes now over Maddington, Kenwick and Beckenham.
    But that seems all right as long as you have the money, send them over these pensioners.
    Disgusting. I hope that Jandakot beefs up and that the jeet aviation school that is planned makes good progress there. then maybe you will learn what aircraft noise really is.

    Reply
  • August 14, 2015 at 5:25 pm
    Permalink

    @Bob, and by the way, we could not know that we would be under a flightpath since it is only there since 2008, the year when GPS guidance was introduced, and the path narrowed to a 400m left and right of the path. You on the other hand have had these landing planes since 1967, before canning Vale was even built.
    Your trick is obvious: buy under a flighpath, then shift the flightpath over other suburbs and have the guts to moan about jandakot. The only agenda here is real estate, and since your action group started with a Chonese real estate agent, phpoto in the newspaper, that was very much a give away.
    If the residents of Kenwick, maddington and Beckenham start to realise that you shifted the path over them, expect a pushback and you will be worse off.

    Reply
  • August 18, 2015 at 8:59 am
    Permalink

    We should be concentrating our efforts towards making air services force the airline to accelerate coming up with better solutions. Eg how about hybrid technology that makes cars quiet to make planes quiet during takeoffs and landings?
    How about training pilots on gliding techniques which in turns allow less reliance on engine thrust.
    Build planes to glide better and this will have 2 benefits… less noise and engine failure protection.
    Air Services has had how many years or decades to push airlines to do better but does not – like putting in fines for noise breaches and flight deviatios.

    Reply
    • August 18, 2015 at 8:12 pm
      Permalink

      Landing airplanes already make less noise with the newer gliding techniques, and, more specifically for Perth Airport, the stepped approach.
      The real noise issue is departing planes, especially for the southwestern Canning river suburbs. There will be no solution for that in the next generation of people growing up. Airbus gave Perth the worst noise offender, the A-380, bleaching even SA 281, an old A340-300 regarding its noise footprint.
      Authorities know that people suffer and have closed the democratic pathways to resist. They gave Canning Vale, because they are wealthy kids the sweetener of no night departures and kept the other neighbourhoods under the 120 planes flightpath in existence since 2008 without consultation.
      Whereas residents had their say and could speak for 5 minutes in the so-called PACF meeting, this is now no longer allowed and the residents are only able to come and gawk at Airport posters and ask those authorities walking around a question.
      The aim is clear: cranking up the number of cheap planes (Network and Virgin just bought a new series of over 20 year old Fokker F-100, so much for the future……..), and silence those who suffer.
      How long are people in Perth going to accept this ? Will the new runway be the breaking point where there finally will be massive protest against the killers in the sky and the inconvenient truth be exposed ?

      Reply
  • August 19, 2015 at 7:18 pm
    Permalink

    When will people around all of the affected areas realise that the only workable solution to this issue is to demand a night curfew between 10:00pm and 6:00am!?

    I’m sure the main issue here is that we have planes flying over frequently at all hours of the night when people need their rest.

    People who start their lawnmowers or hoons driving around late at night in their V8 motors isn’t legal, so why should an aircraft that emits just the same amount of decibels be

    allowed to disturb the peace in the dead of the night?

    A CURFEW IS THE ONLY SOLUTION!

    IF SYDNEY CAN AFFORD ONE, THEN SO CAN WE!

    Reply
    • August 20, 2015 at 9:11 am
      Permalink

      I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment Julian. For too long now ASA have managed to maintain the anger between suburbs with their very clever strategy of ‘ divide and conquer ‘. Their political strategists know they can win this one by making certain that we dissipate our efforts by fighting each other. If ALL the affected areas got together to thrash out a realistic solution to this issue, we may stand a chance. Combined, I would suggest we would have a voice of 3-400,000. Certainly between Shelley and Canning Vale we’d be in excess of 200,000. The characters we are forced to elect, supposedly to look after our interests, are in the main, forced to toe the party line on issues such as this. The only thing that scares them is the potential for loss of votes. In this respect a large block of citizens acting in concert would be a major issue. The sheer arrogance of our Premier saying there will be no curfew shows that at present the Government has no regard for our right to a decent environment. We need to stop the ridiculous bickering between suburbs about who owns the best house and concentrate on the central issue of an equal right to sleep at night for all those affected either in the past or the future. For those of us living in Canning Vale who have only just found out what it is to live with this persistent noise, I’m sure many would now appreciate and sympathise with those suburbs that have endured this for far longer. Sorry, we had no idea, how could we ?
      Some of the arguments put up to justify the changes and indeed the new runway include grandiose statements about the need for people to come here and invest billions of dollars in our State. I’d love to see some statistics on just how many rich business people fill those planes and how much they spend. As for tourism, does the meagre amount brought in and spent by overseas tourists, in any way compensate for the millions of dollars you and I export to Bali and the like every year. And we are being told this is why ‘ red eye flights ‘ are justified – go figure ! I find it thoroughly objectionable that we all lose sleep just so someone can knock a few dollars off their holiday flight. Maybe if the flights weren’t so cheap we’d look harder at holidaying in our own back yard more often.
      In closing I’d like to mention the meeting in Cloverdale on 3rd September. It would be great to see a wide cross section from ALL suburbs attend and hopefully make some progress toward a sensible resolution to this issue.

      Reply
      • August 20, 2015 at 8:25 pm
        Permalink

        Colin, you are 100% right. Neighbourhoods should not fight each other but work together. See ASA report on the cancelled trial of the 7 planes over canning Vale: 183’000 people there and then the southwestern suburbs who suffer enormously under the GURAK/KEELS path: 182’000. You are right that makes for a lot of power.

        Question: Where will the smart tracking planes go, that now will be taken away from the Canning Vale flightpath ? Next year 2000, in 5 years all ?
        Answer: Over Maddington, Kenwick and Beckenham……

        One important thing: the 3 september meeting is going to be a joke. There will be no more presentations, no more chance to ask questions and no more interaction. instead there will from now on be an EXPO, where posters with the new terminals will be on display and can be discussed.
        The noise issue got apparently too overwhelming and there will be no more quenstions and answers about that. questions can be filed in writing and will be answered in writing.
        Democracy is being killed here.
        See the new template: http://www.pamg.com.au and click on PACF (=Perth Airport Community Forum). It will be a completely useless PR meeting for the airport. No use going there.

        Reply
  • August 19, 2015 at 9:12 pm
    Permalink

    Julian,
    We have been fighting for a curfew for 2 years. The politicians are not interested and since the curfew is required to pass parliament, an MP must pass a bill there.
    Colin Barnett has sworn on TV and in the newspaper that there will not be a curfew as it is a major inconvenience for the airlines, who use us as a stopover and for the FIFO flightsd, as well as the planes leaving for the Gold Coast, Adelaide and Sydney, all 3 cities where they have a curfew, just like in Heathrow, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Hong Kong etc etc etc

    Reply
    • August 20, 2015 at 4:37 pm
      Permalink

      Hi Erica,
      If I may just correct your information:
      – Frankfurt: Has a curfew
      – London Heathrow: Uses a Quota Count instead of a curfew. Between 11:30pm and 6am Heathrow is restricted to 5,800 night-time take-offs and landings a year. There is also a night quota limit, which caps the amount of noise the airport can make at night. Around 80% of the night flights at Heathrow are between 4.30-6am with on average around 16 aircraft arriving each day between these hours. They also do not schedule any departures between 11pm and 6am.
      – Amsterdam: No curfew, but uses differentiation in airport charges, based on noise categories. Very quiet aircraft receive a discount on airport charges, while relatively noisy aircraft have to pay a surcharge, and an extra surcharge for nights. In this way they are encouraging quieter aircraft to come to Amsterdam and discouraging noisier aircraft.
      – Hong Kong: No curfew since 1998.

      Regards,
      David

      Reply
      • August 20, 2015 at 11:42 pm
        Permalink

        Thanks david,

        you are right, Hong Kong has a flash airport, bit far from the city.
        Actually the quota system may be better than a curfew, see your own (i think0 remarks about that above.

        The politicians will not have the guts to give Perth a curfew, but if Frankfurt can, we can.

        There are countless cities globally that have a curfew and 4 of them are in Australia.
        So what are we in Perth, second class citizens ??

        Reply
  • August 21, 2015 at 6:52 am
    Permalink

    Thanks for your comments Colin and I agree they may be inadvertently using that tact to pit suburbs against each other to avoid one large campaign for a curfew. ASA’s steps towards changing the flight paths shows they are reacting to complaints, but the way I see it, since they changed the flight paths originally back I 2008 is that a lot more people are fed up about this issue and we have the best chance now to combine efforts to achieve a curfew at night so WE can all benefit. Most of the population sleeps at night and that’s where the noise should be eliminated. I believe the only way ahead now is one massive petition to demand a curfew like other major cities and airport hubs around the world. A CURFEW IS THE ONLY SOLUTION! Enough of the postcode envy and bickering, let’s come together and get this sorted once and for all for everyone.

    Reply
  • August 24, 2015 at 5:20 pm
    Permalink

    Julian – I agree, but how do we go about it? A while ago I suggested change.org to which I only got the (typical) response from Sam. It seems a petition is the only way as the pollies, ASA, or airport don’t seem to be remotely interested in doing the right thing.
    BTW I also agree with Sevran’s comments – Geoffrey Thomas is an apologist for the airport/ASA and completely out of touch if he thinks a 787 noise footprint is “confined to the boundaries of the airport”.

    Reply
  • September 2, 2015 at 9:46 pm
    Permalink

    Carl, please see the data and linkage. I only list the facts , you can see how many people live in Shelley and how many people live in Canningvale. which surburb has more people? Everybody can find the answer !

    1. http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/SSC50706?opendocument&navpos=220
    2011 Census QuickStats

    All people – usual residents

    Shelley (WA)

    Code SSC50706 (SSC)

    People 4,380
    Male 2,136
    Female 2,244
    Median age 40

    2. Canningvale WA

    Population
    30,666 (2011 census)

    • Density
    1,202.6/km2 (3,115/sq mi)

    Established
    1980s

    Postcode(s)
    6155

    Area
    25.5 km2 (9.8 sq mi)

    Location
    20 km (12 mi) from Perth

    Reply
    • September 2, 2015 at 10:17 pm
      Permalink

      Carl,
      This never was about Shelley against Canning Vale, so your data are not relevant.
      It is all about all the people under the flightpath.
      See the end report of ASA environmental assessment report: flights over Canning Vale and all the other suburbs hits 183’150 people
      Flights over Shelley and all the other suburbs hits 182’350 people. So there is a difference of about 900 people or 0.5% (!!!!!!!) and for that there will be no respite from the 120 plNes these SNAG suburbs get. The worst are the 5 to 7 am planes every 3 minutes. Canning Vale did not and will never learn what that is as now there is community consultation, something that did not exist when the SNAG suburbs got these planes in 2009.
      But mind you, as we read in the newspapers today, Jensen, Nahan and irons are all three awaiting the result of the formal complaint and the 28 day appeal process to see the trial reinstated. This is very likely to happen as ASA has bowed for the pressure of rogue groups and regrets very much having taken the trial off the table.
      Don’t worry, the trial will be on again soon. It is not more than justice.

      Reply
      • September 6, 2015 at 8:20 am
        Permalink

        I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the night time respite trial will never be re-instated simply because Canning Vale and surrounds has more night time (7pm to 6am) planes (Perth Airport) flying over it then Shelley and surrounds does.

        Figures taken from Webtrak from 1 January 2015 to 31 August 2015

        From 7pm to 11pm
        Departures over Shelley: 834
        Arrivals over Canning Vale: 3007

        From 11pm to 6am
        Departures over Shelley: 1293
        Arrivals over Canning Vale: 1439

        TOTAL (7pm to 6am)
        Departures over Shelley: 2127
        Arrivals over Canning Vale: 4446

        The figures above DO NOT include plane noise from Jandakot Airport, that Canning Vale and surrounds have to endure.

        If one looks at the Webtrak historical data it wasn’t that long ago (2005) that Shelley and surrounds had arrivals (Yes, arrivals and departures!!!!). Where were these arrivals diverted to? Canning Vale, Langford, Lynwood, Beckenham, Kenwick, Parkwood etc

        Reply
        • September 6, 2015 at 10:44 am
          Permalink

          Sorry Kevin, but you are factually wrong. You selectively chose the months that show high numbers of arrivals over CV and low numbers of departures over SNAG neighbourhoods (again this is not about Shelley alone). For fairness matter you should take a 12 month frame as in the months you now left out CV has nil landing planes but SNAG neighbourhoods have 120 planes departing per day. The months you left out, and I do not have to wonder why, will show you a completely different picture as the winds are from the SW non stop. This year we have so far had a unusual situation as there has been an extended time with N winds. The worse are the 3 minute interval ones between 5 and 8 am.
          I am often in Canning Vale for work and can tell you give me anytime a landing plane over a departing one. In the past SNAG suburbs never had an issue with landing planes.

          What you forget, and what made people like Nahan, Jensen and Irons furious is that landing planes over CV will disappear because of smart tracking. This year 1100,next year 2500 and so on as the technology improves. The runway 3 approach will then be a short turn over people that now already suffer from arriving and departing planes from the east, e.g Maddington, Thornlie and dense areas north of Gosnells. These people have not had the luxury to have the consultation and the ensuing unjustified loud shouting that CV produced.

          Speaking to Jensen he is very confident that the lodged appeal will be heard, and could be pursued in court, speaking to ASA they are very nervous about this appeal, speaking to the noise ombudsman he say he will do what the law wants him to do.
          Thus I wonder if you say ‘the trial will never happen’ if that weighs in in the discussion that currently takes place in Canberra. You can of course start kicking and shouting again, but that action has attracted press attention, and thus the real estate prices in CV have been dragged down by sheer attention seeking.

          I would say, let’s not jump to any conclusion here, but wait what the legal process brings. You may be surprised if then the real facts need to be presented. Shifting your problem without consultation to Maddington, Thornlie and Gosnells does not help and does not gain you any sympathy in these suburbs.
          And can we please end the Jandakot discussions? You bought lots of land in Canning Vale very cheap as thee was this neighbouring airport. Such was not the case for the SNAG neighbourhoods that wee there well before Perth Airport.

          Reply
          • September 6, 2015 at 6:48 pm
            Permalink

            Carl, Below are the numbers from 1 September 2014 to 31 August 2015 (12 months). From what I have read on the ASA website, I am not convinced that the arrival planes over Canning Vale, Langford and Lynwood will disappear because of smart tracking. According to ASA and the ANO there will always be arrivals over these suburbs, smart tracking or not, as most foreign airlines insist on an ILS approach. David Eyre please correct me if I am wrong.

            I notice that you didn’t comment on the arrivals that Shelley and surrounds got prior to 2005. These were sent our (Canning Vale, Langford, Lynwood etc) way without us being consulted. The reason why is simply because of the ILS installation on Runway 03 way back in 2005!

            Figures taken from Webtrak from 1 September 2014 to 31 August 2015 (12 months)

            From 7pm to 11pm
            Departures over Shelley: 1454
            Arrivals over Canning Vale: 3396

            From 11pm to 6am
            Departures over Shelley: 2420
            Arrivals over Canning Vale: 1694

            TOTAL (7pm to 6am)
            Departures over Shelley: 3874
            Arrivals over Canning Vale: 5090

            Just for the record I don’t live in Canning Vale………closer to the Perth Airport. The suburb I live in gets arrivals that fly over Canning Vale AND over Kenwick. We also get a few night time departure flights just to keep us awake!

          • September 7, 2015 at 7:01 am
            Permalink

            @Kevin
            I do mention the landing flights over Shelley, read my post again. I said they did not bother us as landing flights are not comparable regarding their noise impact to departing flights, especially when these planes create the extra noise that comes with sharp right banking. As you now see from your new figures the number of flights that keep us awake are very different if you take into account the months that you initially left out. Given the massive number of departing planes between 6 and 7 am and the fact that most people try to sleep until 7 am, also a 6 am cut off is unfair.
            You should not get the smart tracking predictions from what the ASA website says, but from what ASA and ANO have presented and distributed in print about smart tracking. This technology is introduced in Qantas and Jetstar planes and instead of over Canning Vale these planes now go over Maddington etc. speaking about shifting the problem somewhere else…… Time for Maddington and North Gosnells to wake up to the fact that Canning Vale is using them.
            Fact remains that 183’000 people under GURAK/KEELS RWY21 South stick with up to 120 departures per day, I wish it were landings, like Vanning Vale, 35 of those at night with a sleeping window from 2:30 to 5 am and that CV was not willing to take 7 off these 120. Canning Vale lies right into the heading of the RWY 21, the SNAG neighbourhoods behind an arbitrarily chosen 90 degree angle.
            Also, the SNAG neighbourhood never had the desire to put the planes over Canning Vale, that was ASA’s idea. We proposed a system where the SID would be broken in 5 right turns, like in Sydney. That is what SNAG (Share Noise Action Group) stands for.
            Let’s juist wait what the 3 politicians appeal leads to, if that does not help, I am confident SNAG Will go into Canning Vale style resistance als that seems to work.

            By the way, look at the complaints statistics, only 5 from Canning Vale in 3 months, against 232 from Shelley alone. Peter Abetz is 5 years in his office, had only 1 person in that time complaining. I think that says enough.

  • September 7, 2015 at 8:26 pm
    Permalink

    @ Carl,

    My apologies, you did say that you preferred a landing plane over a departing one. Noise depends on how low/high both planes are. Some of the arrivals over my house are at 1500 feet and the noise is horrific. If this is about “sharing” the noise quite frankly I can’t see why the 7 night time departure planes can’t utilize Runway 06/24 (Over Redcliffe) when the weather permits as very few planes depart from it!!!!!!!This will help reduce the carbon footprint (shorter route, burn less Kerosene) and give Shelley and surrounds some respite.

    In relation to smart tracking are you saying that what ASA puts on their website is different to what they publish in print?

    Nothing I can do about the 6am cutoff as Webtrak times go from 6am to 7pm (Day), 7pm to 11pm (Evening) and 11pm to 6am (Night).

    Does complaining to ASA or your elected poly help? I used to complain about certain planes like the huge Russian cargo plane but yet it still fly’s into Perth. In my opinion it should have been banned from Australian Airspace years ago.

    I still think that there must be better options out there but I am no expert in aviation. I personally believe that ALL airport (Perth, Jandakot, Pearse) noise should be taken into account when flight path changes are being considered.

    Reply
    • September 21, 2015 at 8:59 pm
      Permalink

      @Kevin, not sure where you live, but if the planes come over at 1500 feet you live between canning vale and the sirport, right in the extension of the runway, so were always expected to have noise.
      The 9 SNAG neighbourhoods lie behind an arbitrarily chosen 90 degree angle where planes turn to the north. So apart from roraing motors of departing jets at full throttle we also have the banking of the plane causing extra noise because of the plane frame and the ailerons trapping the air.

      I am often in Canning vale and would change at any time the noise level with them from landing planes at 2000-2500 feet, as it sounds to me as gliding, compared to what we endure till 3 am, and then every 3 minutes from 4:50 am, which leaves us less than 3 hours sleep.By the way the landing over Canning vale are only in winter when people have the windows closed. we have all the day and night noise in summer, so for us never sleeping with a window open, but with full speed aircon on.

      The noise statistics are easy to find on the ASA website as they are published every 3 months for the Perth basin. You have a strange interpretation of complaints. The moaners and groaners are people who suffer from noise of departing planes, you do not know what that is. guildford, Queens Park etc lie in the extension of the runway and basically directly under the runway. How would you alleviate their noise ? By having planes start 80 degrees from the runway over the grass / Or from the Tonkin highway ??

      they do not complain as they chose and knew they would live under the noise. We could not know that when we bought our house decades ago.
      And by the way SNAG is not Shelley, but 8 other suburbs as well.
      Let us see how next 3 months complaint patterns are: prediction: Canning vale will top the ranks. Why ? Because of the massive hysteria there after a real estate agent of all people started an action against Airservices trial. So then you can call Canning vale the moaners and groaners?

      People do not complain about Jandakot (5 people in 3 months from canning vale) because it is not really a problem and it is scattered over the area.

      There is one thing we agree. Why is RWY 24 not used more for departures ? Well, the mayor of the committee PAMG is the mayor of Belmont. the other issue is that houses are within 450 of the runway and it would force the airport to impose a night time curfew. Now that night time curfew will NEVER happen, according to Colin Barnett, so using RWY 24 is a no-no. Very unfair, as people in RTedcliffe bought their house under a long existing flightpath.

      Enough about this now, let’s wait what the formal appeal from Nahan, Jensen, and Irons brings regarding abandoning the trial (it was only a trial for heavens sake) and that it should be re-instated without delay.

      Reply
  • September 8, 2015 at 5:19 am
    Permalink

    @ Carl

    I eventually found the complaint statistics that you mentioned. What good reading they make. I will just highlight the complaints from a few suburbs for Quarter 1 2015.
    Canning Vale = 24 (Perth Airport), Canning Vale = 5 (Jandakot Airport) Guildford = 27, Lynwood = 2, Queens Park = 6, Shelley = 132. One will note from the above Guildford and Queens Park that have arrivals AND departures at a much lower altitudes (~1600ft) then Shelley (~4000ft) and Shelley only have departures, complain far less! Are all the moaners and groaners located in Shelley? Even Canning Vale only had a combined total of 29 complaints from two airports. Canning Vale, Queens Park, Guildford, Lynwood residents had better start complaining more often as it might achieve noise reduction results over their suburbs!!!!!!!

    Reply
    • September 21, 2015 at 10:46 pm
      Permalink

      @Carl,
      following your logic the real moaners live in CanningVale.
      Look at the new report, just out:

      http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/Q2-2015-Perth-Basin.pdf

      Canning Vale had 3 complainants second quarter last year, then 24 quarter thereafter and when a trial was proposed: 631 !!!!
      This although NOTHING has changed for them, they are complaining about the noise !! Did they all of a sudden rtealise they bought a house under the flightpath ?

      What is wrong here? Do you realise what 631 noise complaints do to your real estate prices ? This should be in the newspaper so that people know where not to live.

      The loudest people are heard, cab=nning Vale is a bad neighbourhood to live, and the pensioners suffer, so the SNAG neighbourhoods can keep having their sleep deprivation.

      What I agree with is that the smart tracking is not going to work for Canning Vale. This because it would shift the noise to areas like Maddington and Kenwick, who already suffer from departing aircraft and a lot of landing aircraft. High time for them to also start a complaining action, preventatively.

      So following your logic there are 3 times as many moaners and groaner in canning vale than in SNAG neighbourhoods.

      Reply
    • September 21, 2015 at 10:47 pm
      Permalink

      @Kevin
      following your logic the real moaners live in CanningVale.
      Look at the new report, just out:

      http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/Q2-2015-Perth-Basin.pdf

      Canning Vale had 3 complainants second quarter last year, then 24 quarter thereafter and when a trial was proposed: 631 !!!!
      This although NOTHING has changed for them, they are complaining about the noise !! Did they all of a sudden rtealise they bought a house under the flightpath ?

      What is wrong here? Do you realise what 631 noise complaints do to your real estate prices ? This should be in the newspaper so that people know where not to live.

      The loudest people are heard, cab=nning Vale is a bad neighbourhood to live, and the pensioners suffer, so the SNAG neighbourhoods can keep having their sleep deprivation.

      What I agree with is that the smart tracking is not going to work for Canning Vale. This because it would shift the noise to areas like Maddington and Kenwick, who already suffer from departing aircraft and a lot of landing aircraft. High time for them to also start a complaining action, preventatively.

      So following your logic there are 3 times as many moaners and groaner in canning vale than in SNAG neighbourhoods.

      Reply
      • September 22, 2015 at 7:02 pm
        Permalink

        @ Carl
        Unfortunately who are wrong. The real moaners and groaners still reside in Shelley. The simple reason is that Shelley has a population of 4403 and 232 people complained which equates to 5.27% of the residents. Canning Vale has a population of 30660 and only 631 people complained which equates to 2.06% of the residents. Therefore statistically there are more than double the amount of moaners and groaners per capita residing in Shelley. Canning Vale residents had better lift their game if they want to compete with Shelley!
        I do realise that by people complaining it could have a negative effect on real estate prices but the same applies to Shelley. Maybe the Canning Vale residents should notify the newspapers so that the people know NOT to buy in Shelley!!!!! Why would anybody in their right frame of mind buy there when all these departure flights fly over them?
        In my opinion the Canning Vale, Lynwood, Langford, Gosnells, Kenwick etc. residents should join SNAG and present a united front to ASA. How does one go about contacting SNAG as I can’t locate them on the internet?

        Reply
        • September 22, 2015 at 9:25 pm
          Permalink

          @Kevin,
          You have mysterious ways of explaining statistical data, Kevin. Planes follow a flightpath. Over Canning Vale it is a landing flightpath, and lower so, the number of affected people is less. In Shelley (and again, can we please stop talking about Shelley, but rather about the over 183’000 residents of the SNAG neighbourhoods).
          We are not talking neighbourhood comparisons here, we are talking people under a flightpath. In Shelley there will not be more people under the flightpath than in Canning Vale.
          So the groaners and moaners live in canning Vale, and they suddenly woke up, 631 of them against 83 in Shelley.

          Yes, i agree, instead of pleasing ASA with bickering between neighbourhoods, it would be better to go together and you can contact SNAG under share.noise@gmail.com.

          The Chairman is currently giving his task to a group of people who will take a more agressive stanhd. He has in good faith spoken to ASA and ANO people who promised him (and so us, the 3000 members under the VURAK/KEELS flightpath with 3 hours sleep per night) improvements. The Canning vale trial would have been a very fair part of that, relieving us from 7 planes of the 120 per day.
          The decision to revert the cancellation of the trial is now under review in Canberra, and it is very well possible that the Canning Vale trial will still go ahead as it is not more than fair. One can not pre-empt the outcome of a trial, and that was all it was: a trial. ASA and ANO got a bit carried away with militants from canning Vale, as is also very evident from the complaints statistics, nothing changes, yet in 3 months from 34 to 631 complainants.
          Also, the smart tracking is unlikely to take place. You know it was planned for May, then for September and has been postponed again as it requires the same community consulatation that canning vale had. It is just not possible to shift the Canning vale problem of landing planes to other neighbourhoods. But you have already agreed on that point.

          Reply
  • September 21, 2015 at 9:01 pm
    Permalink

    See my answer to your strange interpretation of complaints data 1 block higher. What it really means: no complaints, no problem.

    Reply
  • September 23, 2015 at 9:51 pm
    Permalink

    @Carl. The only reason that I statistically compared Canning Vale complaints against Shelley is because on 7 September @ 7:01 YOU said “By the way, look at the complaints statistics, only 5 from Canning Vale in 3 months, against 232 from Shelley alone. Peter Abetz is 5 years in his office, had only 1 person in that time complaining. I think that says enough”. Now suddenly just because my statistics show that there are more whingers in Shelley than in Canning Vale you try to move the goal posts by saying: ” We are not talking neighbourhood comparisons here, we are talking people under a flightpath”. Talk about double standards! You are the first person to compare suburbs but when somebody else does and the figures aren’t to your liking you cry foul!!! Statistically there are more than twice the number of whingers in Shelley than there are in Canning Vale.
    According to the Environmental Assessment – Proposed Night Respite Procedure – Perth report there are LESS people under the existing (SNAG neighbourhood) flight path. I suggest that you read the Environmental Assessment report before making any more frivolous comments.
    http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/projects/flight-path-changes/perth-noise-improvements-2015/
    I would like to know where you get your figure of 120 departing planes per day flying over Shelley and surrounds. If you can please supply dates when this has occurred because I can tell you after having looked at the data published on Webtrak I can’t see one day in the last three months where this has occurred. Is this figure of 120 planes per day (24hours) just been plucked out of thin air to try and justify the removal of the 7 or so departing flights over the SNAG neighbourhoods????? I very much doubt the there would be 5 consecutive days that this has ever occurred.
    After reading the above mentioned report I notice that and I quote: “A change to the preferences that Air Traffic Control uses to select runways, which took effect on 28 May 2015, is estimated to reduce the number of nights Runway 21 is used for departures by an average of 25 per cent. If the reduction in the number of nights is achieved as expected, this will result in 124 nights a year with no departures from Runway 21 with an average of nine flights from that runway to the west and north (over the Swan River area) on a busy night.”
    Not only has the Swan River area (Shelley) had a REDUCTION of flights since the 28 May 2015 but they still ALSO want the 7 or so flights between 10pm and 5am diverted over other suburbs. Trying to get rid of 7/9 more departing flights over other suburbs when you have already had a 25% reduction is disgusting to say the least.
    And lastly read the Findings and Conclusion to the above mentioned report:
    Findings : As a result of the analysis, it is expected there would potentially be a significant environmental impact on a number of suburbs from implementing the proposal. The areas impacted do not currently experience a high level of departure flights at night. Although the number of additional overflights would be relatively low, the events would occur at a sensitive time of the night and may cause sleep disturbance. The analysis shows that if the trial were to proceed, then there would be more people impacted by aircraft noise than under current procedures. There would also be a major increase in noise levels for some areas that currently receive only a small number of overflights at night. This is exclusively related to most aircraft types being unable to achieve altitude in a manner that would create the intended noise benefit.
    Conclusion: The proposal objective was to find an alternative departure flight path at night that would reduce the noise over parts of Perth while not making the situation significantly worse for any other group. Unfortunately, this objective cannot be achieved.

    Finally from what has been said to me by ASA and ANO the 631 whingers in Canning Vale had NO bearing whatsoever on the final outcome of the report.

    Reply
    • September 25, 2015 at 10:30 pm
      Permalink

      @Kevin. Your way of screwing up statistics and twisting them as it fits you is amazing. Nothing has changed in the flightpaths. Now I tried to help you and said it would be fairer to compare the number of people under the flightpath. You have always tried to make this a Shelley issue, it has always been a SNAG neighbourhood issue, not specifically Shelley, and we have been fighting for 2 years against the utter injustice that the SNAG neighbourhoods have to carry especially the 11pm to 4 am planes and immediately afterwards the 5 pm- 9 pm rack of 34 mainly FIFO planes. You have never been in that situation and also with the trial, you would never have been in that situation.
      In an earlier post I have admitted that the path over CV has more residents as the over over the SNAG neigbourhoods but that in both cases the number of affected people is about 183’000, with a difference to your advantage of just 0.5%. So do not come with the argument that so many more people will suffer from a trial.
      You seem to be specialised in knowing what the future will bring What hou inted to achieve with that is that a proposed trial should not go ahead as it would lead to severe suffering with 7 planes per day, but those that suffer should keep doing so. Looking into a crystal ball is what that is called: cancelling a trial before having done it, is making an assumption about its outcome. A trial is just that: a trial and it is good that Jensen, Nahan and Irons have appealed the decision in Canberra.
      On top of that you say that the SNAG neighbourhoods will profit 25% from the runway preference. How do you know that? Crystal ball again ? In the cited report it says very clearly that ASA and ANO assume that this could be the case, but that a long period is required to see the real impact of that change.
      What is obvious is that you are pushing your problems on poorer suburbs like Kenwick and Maddington who will get all the planes that are progressively equipped with smart tracking technology. I was happy to see that an active actiongroup has started in Kenwick, Maddington and Gosnells, to make sure that the smart tracking stays over the current path canning Vale-Parkwood. they have not been consulted about taking the Canning Vale planes, so that process will be stopped. i congratulate them to not simply absorb your problem.

      You have no idea how good you have it. We had more and more departing planes per day, for weeks on end every summer since 2009 in increasing numbers, till it peaked in summer 2014, with 120 per day, 34 of these between 4.30 and 8. thank god, then the mining collapse came and there was some reduction to currently over 90.
      You should prepare yourself a bit better and take into account the wind. Planes land and start against the wind, so in winter predominantly out north, landing from the south and in summer the other way around, which makes it worse for us, as no windows can be left open over night with our time to sleep of only 4 hours.

      Give me a house in Canning Vale any time.I am there often and hear the ‘noise’ of these landing planes. It is a whispering sound compared to 3500 feet 777’s, F-100 and A-380 to name you the most frequent and the most noisy passers by.

      I am a pensioner,past air traffic controller, who bought under a flightpath with 10 planes per day, it scattered from Belmont to Bulls Brook. Now, because of avionics there are 100 planes per day following a hair-sharp line over my house.

      I think we should agree to disagree and stop the discussion here. You do not stick to the facts and I get emotional bbecause of weeks on end lack of sleep. You only look back 3 months in WebTrak and say we naver had 120 planes. Webtrak is not ideal. If I look at the number of planes over Jandakot, I count about 20 per day. It depend on whether they have a transponder or have it switched on or not. Like you, we have many planes coming over that are not visible on webtrak for that reason.

      Until the airport is moved to another places, people will suffer and this discussion will never stop. It is now: if you do not like it, then move, and I consider that to have a queit evening of my life.
      After the SNAG-CV neighbourhood clash that will only finish when canberra has decided whether the Canning vale trial should go ahead we have the new clash Kenwick-Maddington-Gosnells against Canning Vale. good luck everybody with that.

      Facts is, that Canning Vale in the press have talked their real estate prices down themselves, especially by stating that they suffer so much from jandakot. Guess what, they bought their land cheap as it was under a runway.

      So, I leave it here, we will never agree and the neighbourhood wars will never end, making live easy for ASA and the ANO.

      Reply
      • September 28, 2015 at 6:56 pm
        Permalink

        @Carl

        Read my comment dated August 11, 2015 @ 12:32pm. What suburb do I live in? If you can’t read I will tell you again…..LANGFORD. We get arrivals that fly over Canning Vale and arrivals that fly over Kenwick. We also get some departures that fly over Langford/ Kenwick. What you, the SNAG group wants is for LANGFORD to get an additional 7 departing flights from 10pm to 5am. I think SNAG stands for Send Noise Away Group ie send it anywhere else but Shelley!!!!!! Population of Shelley and Langford are about the same (~4500). So basically you want LANGFORD to have plane noise for 365 days a year. That is NOT sharing.

        99% of planes departing/arriving Perth Airport are visible on Webtrak. Check with ASA if you don’t believe me.

        Not a very smart move on your behalf buying under a flight path seeing you were an ex air traffic controller. You don’t know how good you have it living in Shelley. Only departing (~4500ft) planes whereas LANGFORD has arrivals from TWO directions PLUS departures. Live with it and stop whinging.

        Webtrak only goes back thee months so I can’t go back any further and in those 3 months the SNAG neighbourhoods NEVER EVER had 120 planes in a 24 hour period. That is an outright lie. When the SNAG people say that they have 120 planes per day one assumes that it is for 365 days a year. Well we all know that is NOT true. How many noise free days or nights do the SNAG areas have per year? I will ask ASA for this info and then post it on this website for ALL to see!

        At the airport forum earlier this month a Guildford resident asked about the average number of planes over several areas between 10pm and 5am, the answer was published on the ASA website on 18th September see below:

        Question

        What are the average, minimum and maximum number of movements at night, i.e. between 10pm and 5am, over the Shelley, Rossmoyne, Salter Point area, the Canning Vale area and the Guildford / South Guildford area?

        Airservices Australia reply:
        Shelley, Rossmoyne, Salter Point area – 5.8 average, 1 minimum, 11 maximum. Canning Vale area – 8.1 average, 1 minimum, 27 maximum. Guildford, South Guildford area – 16.3 average, 7 minimum, 29 maximum.

        I have asked ASA how many nights per year (10pm to 5am) the above 3 areas are noise free, as I think this is very important to know.

        Reply
        • September 28, 2015 at 11:09 pm
          Permalink

          @Kevin
          I am not sure what you try to achieve with this completely inappropriate disciussionstyle and this is the last time I bother to supply you with an answer as you keep turning arlound in circles.

          Again, as I have said in all my mails, this is not about Shelley, as you try to keep implying, but the SNAG neighbourhoods, being Wilson, Ferndale, Riverton, Shelley (yes, also), Rossmoyne, Manning, Salter Point, Waterford, Mount Pleasant, Applecross and Ardross. as you have seen from the report about the trial, this path, leading to the SID’s GURAK and KEELS, affects 183’000 residents in Perth. This was never about Shelley.

          Secondly, I profoundly apologise that our suburbs has some mansions at the waterfront, which keeps being used as argument ‘the rich send the planes over the poor’.. I sincerely regretfthat we have these, but it is not my fault.

          As I have now stated numerous times before I never bought a house under a flightpath. No ATC person in his right mind would do that, as you imply when you you doubt my soundness of mind. This was never a flightpath until 2007-2009 when the mining boom started and avionics were introduced, leading to a hair sharp, GPS guided flightpath.

          SNAG is active since over 2 years. Primarily we have problems with lack of sleep as planes fly departing over us (we do not have the luxury of the hum of landing planes like Langford), motors full throttle, at the same time making a sharp banking right after waypoint NAVEY. We have roblems with being woken up at 5 am and then have FIFO and tourist planes every 3-5 inutes. Between 5 and 7 there are 34 planes !! You can not imahgine what that means if you just had a 777 over your head at 2:30 am, that leaves us 2.5 hours sleep.

          So, Airservices said that the morning planes could not be changed and that even with abandoning the preferred runway construction we would still have to cop them as leaving south is more comfortable for the airport because of the poor taxiway layout at the airport, and that it would be better to find a solution to get us in bed early by 11 pm and have some sleep to 5 am. Well, you know how that ended.
          So, still no sleep for us, apart for the months we are in now, when we have predominantly NE winds and we get some sleep. The summer is hell, especially since it would be nice to have a window open and not all night full speed airco on. So, if you are so limited that you can only look back 3 months with WebTrak, then you look at the wrong data. But you are not interested in real data. As ex ATC I use very different software and it bugs me enlormously to hear you complaining about the SNAG neighbourhoods, being completely ignorant of the facts !!

          mostly disturbing is that you call me a liar. i have collected handcounted data and wrote down from smart track on 31 august 2013 each and every plane that hits us, and it were 120. Now call me a liar again, but if you have the guts to give me your email I will email that proof to you. I have not done the long exercise of handcounting on webtrak each and every plane again, but assume that since 2013 it has only grown. So never call me a liar again !!!! Your way of discussing has fallen far below the standard of intera tion as desired on this forum, so I will not engage with you again.

          Then you ask how many nights it is quiet in the SNAG neighbourhoods per year between 11 pm and 5 am. You refer several times to the notes of the september meeting, where ASA printed it for all to see: 88 nights per year there are no planes at nights over the SNAG neighbourhoods (Question 10 by Peter Stephenson from Guildford). You comfortably overlooked that. That means 365-88 nights = 237 nights per year where the 183’000 residents that sit under the same path as the SNAG neighbourhoods are awke till 2:30 and then rudely awake and have to leave bed at 5 am.

          Are you now satisfied that I understand that nobody in Langford complains as you are privileged with your humming landing planes ? And that Canning Vale has only wingers and moaners who are now going to send the smart tracking planes over other suburbs, where in the meantime neighbourhood action has started to tell canning vale to keep their planes.
          See the announcement here from someone from Maddington, I think, that canning Vale should keep their planes and not snift them over neighbourhoods that suffer enough.

          Kevin, i do not know how I can make it any clearer to you. We hope that we will profit from the change in runway preference, but until a year has passed and the data is known, we will not be able to tell. If we are successful, then Canning Vale and Langford will suffer, as you will have been exposed to more landing planes. So be it. In the end, you chose to buy a house under the path to the runway, and Canning Vale has always been under the flightpath too. Your suburbs are in the extension of the runway. ours behind an arbitrarily chosen 90 degree corner !!!!!!

          Enough said, not worth discussing this with you any further. the politicians will hopefully force the night time trial into effect again. In the end it is only 7 planes.

          Perth is the city of injustice I became now well aware of, because of people like yourself and activists in canning Vale, who all bought under a flightpath, and then start to moan.

          Reply
  • September 25, 2015 at 4:31 pm
    Permalink

    @Carl:
    Canningvale is not an equally preferred runway for landing before this year. Only after March of this year, suddenly, canningvale is proposed to be one of the three equally preferred runways and unfortunately is still valid at the moment. I have asked ASA , who made this kind of proposal to choose canningvale as the preferred runway and why canningvale was not before this year. Although I do not get the answer, now. I suspect you maybe one of highly possible candidates to make this proposal but never mentioned.

    Reply
    • September 25, 2015 at 9:57 pm
      Permalink

      @Bob,

      the flightpaths have ot changed, bob, they have been since 2008 exactly the way they are now, and the palnes you now hear you have always had. That is the effect of actions like this. a dripping tap you only hear when somebody else makes you aware of the noise. You will get an answer from ASA, but look back in time, the planes over canning vale, only landing planes, so not sure what your noise problem is, have always been there. Because of the winds in this time of the year, the planes land over canning vale much more than in summer, when they land predominantly from the north. Time is turning and already this week you will have noticed that there was hardly any plane over Canning vale as they all landed over Guildford and all departed over the SNAG neighbourhoods.

      Reply
  • September 25, 2015 at 11:39 pm
    Permalink

    RESIDENTS OF KENWICK WILL GET CANNING VALE PLANES !!!!! PLEASE JOIN THE ACTION GROUP AND GIVE YOUR OPINION, CANNING VALE CAN NOT SHIFT THEIR PROBLEMS TO US !!! LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD AS THEY WERE EXTENSIVELY CONSULTED, BUT SNEAKED THEIR PLANES OVER US.

    If you wonder why over the last few weeks we have more airplanes coming over in Kenwick, Maddington, and North Gosnells: then here is the reason.
    From 1 september smart tracking is used, which makes some planes that are coming from the North-East as well as from the south-east taking a shorter turn to the airport, so that residents in Carmel, Bickley and those between Casuarina and Canning Vale have less planes. They only have landing planes, no departing planes as we have already both of them 24 hours per day !!
    Our community group finds this highly objectionable, as we have not been consulted, while canning vale went loudly yelling to the press about having to take 9 planes per day extra, already knowing they would push all these planes over us. Canning Vale managed to stop that initiative.
    In the first year it will be 1100 planes, the year after that 2500 and every year there will be more, when all aircraft have the equipment installed.

    What makes Canning Vale so different from us that they have the right to be consulted about 7 planes and we do not have the same right for many more planes ??

    A community group is now active and flyers have been distributed in these suburbs to STOP canning Vale residents to push their problems over our suburbs that already suffer so much. What gi9ves them the right to do that ? Just because they live in new, expensive houses and have bought their land cheap under an existing flightpath and right next to jandakot ”
    Strategy: buy cheap under flightpath, next to airport and then get the planes away.

    WE WILL NOT ACCEPT THIS !!!! CANNING VALE, CARMEL, BICKLEY: keep your planes.

    Write you complaints on the Airservices website, do not do it anonymously as they will not count you and write the Noise ombusdman:

    https://complaints.bksv.com/asa

    and email:

    ano@ano.gov.au

    Also, email your local MP’s and especially those that have a big issue with how canning vale got away with their real estate price drop argument:

    Dennis jensen
    Mike Nahan
    Steve Irons

    CANNING VALE, BICKLEY, CARMEL: WE HAVE 24 HOURS PER DAY DEPARTING AND LANDING PLANES !!!!! DO NOT IMPOSE YOUR PROBLEM ON US !!!!!

    Georgia

    For community group (I will hand this to the group) :
    pinkwildcat1967@gmail.com

    Reply
    • September 29, 2015 at 11:50 am
      Permalink

      @ Georgia

      Don’t blame the residents of Canning Vale, Bickley, Carmel, Langford for the extra noise over Kenwick as the residents of these suburbs had NOTHING to do with it. Blame Airservices Australia as they are the ones that introduced smart tracking. Apparently smart tracking reduces the amount of noise but I can tell you that I have not noticed any reduction in noise over Langford!

      The reason that the Canning Vale/Langford residents didn’t want the 7 planes between 10pm and 5am is because they would have had plane noise for 365 days of the year. All this so that the SNAG suburbs would get 7 hours of noise free nights (10pm to 5am) for 365 days a year. From what I have read the SNAG suburbs don’t tell the whole truth. It wasn’t that long ago that the SNAG suburbs had arrivals AND departures. They no longer have any arrivals as these were diverted over Langford, Canning Vale and Kenwick. Now they (SNAG) want to get rid of some departure flights as well. The departure flight path has ALWAYS been over the Swan corridor but suddenly this must change just to appease a small group of whingers……..I don’t think so.

      Reply
      • October 2, 2015 at 6:59 pm
        Permalink

        @ Kevin
        Why would I NOT blame you ? You can stop Airservices but did not. I happen to know the chairman of the SNAG group very well and also SNAG never wanted the planes to go over Canning Vale. They proposed to ASA to create 5 exits to the south-west, completely excluding Canning Vale so that the noise could be shared over 5 paths instead of one, just like it is done in Sydney. It was ASA who came, to the surprise of the SNAG people, with the trial proposal to help get them some sleep and create the new path, that you protested against.
        It is not clear to me what you want to say. Of course, 1100 planes this year and 2000 extra next year, and with the further implementation you shift the problem over us. ASA gave you the chance to protest, we were not even CONSULTED !!!

        No matter how you look at it, we now get departing planes that we share with the SNAG people (ours east, theirs west) plus we have so many landing planes PLUS WE GET YOUR LANDING PLANES, NUMBERS INCREASING EVERY YEAR.

        So, yes, just like you blamed the people from SNAG, who had never even mentioned Canning Vale and your Langford, I blame you in Langford and the people in Canning Vale for having to take your planes.

        AGAIN: THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN, and thanks that I have learned from you people how to take action.

        WE WILL NOT TAKE CANNING VALE-LANGFORD PLANES. YOU CAN KEEP THEM, THANK YOU !!!!!!!

        Reply
        • October 3, 2015 at 9:10 am
          Permalink

          @Georgia,

          On July 23, 2015 @ 4:02pm I posted the following:

          “Implement the following departure flight path: The night time departing flights between 10 pm and 5 am from Perth Airport turn right over Whaleback Golf Course. By doing this, those aircraft would then fly over Canning Vale Light Industrial Estate (Bannister Road); City of Canning Recycle Waste Facility, Jandakot Airport, Glen Iris Public Golf Course and on to the coast before turning Northwest or North. It should be noted that there is a 1km to 6km wide corridor for planes to fly down from the Whaleback Golf Course to the Glen Iris Golf Course. The planes arriving at Perth Airport from the West, Northwest and North could also use the reverse route of this flight path to decrease the arrival aircraft noise over densely populated areas. I firmly believe that if the ASA adopted this flight path far fewer residents would be affected by aircraft noise. I have suggested this flight path to Ron Brent (ANO) and he is looking into why ASA don’t adopt it. Is this a too simplistic solution to the aircraft noise problem???????”

          Now bearing in mind I live in LANGFORD and these 7/9 departing planes would have to fly over it, if ASA adopted my suggested flight path above, I frankly don’t know what you are on about in your reply to me????? No good blaming me or any other LANGFORD resident. Will you write me an apology, I somewhat doubt it as it takes a certain type of person to say sorry or admit that they are wrong.

          Just so you are aware LANGFORD gets arrival noise from over Canning Vale, arrival noise from over Kenwick, some departing noise going East (Kenwick) and some departing noise over the SNAG neighbourhoods (West). I personally think that LANGFORD cops more than its fair share of noise to and from Perth Airport.

          You may well ask why the residents of LANGFORD don’t complain? Well, we knew when we purchased here that we were under a flight path just as the SNAG and Kenwick residents knew they also purchased under a flight path. Live with it and stop whinging.

          Reply
          • October 4, 2015 at 10:54 pm
            Permalink

            @Kevin
            I can not believe my eyes. You support sending thousand s of extra planes over our neighbourhood, and I owe YOU and apology ???? That is hilarious to say the least. I have read above in the forum your information exchange with Carl, and from your manipulation of statistics have very well read what type of person YOU are. Yet you have the audacity to assume that I am a kind of person who would probably not apologize.
            Our action group has merged with SNAG and together we are lobbying politicians who have filed a formal complaint against ASA and ANO’s decision that the canning vale should should be cancelled. Where do we find the data what noise canning Vale and your neighbourhood is actually ‘suffering’ from. You should try what a departing plane does regarding its noise footprint and the total nr of decibels some produce.
            You have mo idea, as you hear some planes from distant departure path and only have the landing path over canning vale over your head in winter. What right do you have to speak over flight noise.
            the other night I was catching up with Carl and we had the joy to have the A-380 from Emirates, followed 20 minutes later by the Qatar 901 and then around midnight the Springbok SA 281. You can in your wildest dream not imagine what that means. An then the rack of 34 planes between 5 amd and 9 am. Comfortably ignored by your analysis of Webtrak.
            Kevin, it is peoiple like you that bother us. People like you that should be willing to share the pain we find ourselves in. You and canning vale have no qualms to send the smarttracking planes over us.
            You know what? Smarttracking can be stopped, as ASA and ANO assured me in Cloverdale. It is for them all a balance of things.
            That this would lead to a war between suburbs, that is what ASA and ANA laugh about and what they want to see.

            We move ahead very well and with the 8000 SNAG member will be a phenomenal force.

            You have also the audacity to stop whinging and move on with life. Tells us all about you, shifting planes to us. You have easy talking from a place that just misses all paths, apart from some arrivals in winter from the south.

            Mind you: WE WILL NEVER, repeat NEVER TKE YOUR SMART TRACKING PLANES AND ADD THEM TO OUR 365 DAYS PER YEAR DEPARTING PLANES.

  • September 26, 2015 at 7:54 am
    Permalink

    @Carl

    I have lived in Canningvale 3 years. Before March this year, I never seen so many and so frequent big planes passing over our community to land on Airport. Canningvale is not a Preferred runway, although it is a passway for landing. The word ‘Preferred’ on the ASA report does really have different meaning compared with runway. You can read the report on ASA website. Only after March of this year, the word ‘preferred’ was added on our community and of course landing altitude is much lower than departure altitude for the air plane. I took part in the ASA meeting held in Belmont Civic Center and the ASA officer and ANO both displayed the map of flight paths over canningvale to me and other people, it was obvious that from March of this year, far more planes chose to fly over Canningvale. And afterwards, I read the report on ASA website and found the word ‘preferred’. When we look back the reports from ASA website, we can not find the ‘preferred’ word in the archived reports before this year. Why suddenly give us the word ‘preferred’ ?

    Reply
    • September 27, 2015 at 3:44 pm
      Permalink

      @Bob
      Canning Vale is not under a preferred runway, as there are no preferred runway.
      Please see what David wrote at the beginning of this article.
      Until May, the preferred departing runway was RWY21 over the SNAG neighbourhoods and there was no reason for it, apart from that in the ,orning hours it is comfortable for ATC to have all planes departing south because of the taxiway lay out that is very poor at Perth Airport.
      The pereferred way over the SNAG neighbourhoods was abandoned and all flightpaths are equal now and ATC will direc t planes according to the wind.
      There is only a preferred runway still for the SNAG neighbourhoods between 5 and 9 am, which are their most difficult hours, but they seem to have lost that battle.

      that you notice a bit more planes the last few monbths is
      1. Because the wind in this time of the year predominantly from the north, so they land over you, as has always been the case
      2. Because there are no more preferred runways, more planes will depart north against the wind and this means some more approaches from the south, all very wind dependent.

      So, nothing significant has chaged, and Canning vale is definitely not in any way a preferred runway, as only between 5 an 9 am the runway over the SNAG neighbourhood is a preferred runway.

      the other exception ios that RWY24, over Redcliffe, Belmont has an almost zero use and lowest preference as the people there live 450 m from the runway. But that has always been the case, so also no change there.

      Reply
  • September 26, 2015 at 12:25 pm
    Permalink

    @Bob,
    canning Vale is NOT the preferred runway for landings.

    Up until May, runway 21 was the preferred runway for separating to the south and for landings to the north.
    Airservices went back into their history, why sending the planes south, even with up to 5 knots tailwind would be the perefrred way of doing things.
    They found no reason.
    So, they decided, THERE IS NO MORE PREFERRED RUNWAY ANYMORE, all decision will now be taken on the winddirection.
    Canning Vale is equally preferred as Guildford or whatever other runway.
    There was no fairness in sending p[lanes in the path over a so-called preferred runway, so the preferred runways do no longer exist, with 2 exceptions, that have nothing to do with Canning Vale:
    1. Runway 24 over Redcliffe will always remain the least preferred runway for departures as people live 450 metres from the airport fence.
    2. Between 5 and 9 in the morning you are lucky because RWY21 will remain the preferred runway, thus they keep sending the FIFO planes (34 between 5 and 8) over the SNAG neighbourhoods.

    That in the last few months you notice more planes is because:

    1. There is no more preferred runway so a little more planes will arrive from the south and depart to the north.
    2. We just had winter and now spring, and the wind is then mainly from the north/nort east.

    I summer it will turn around and you will have no departing nor arriving planes as they will all go over the SNAG neighbourhoods and 50 turns east at waypoint NAVEY between airport and Riverton.

    David, correct me if I am wrong.

    Reply
  • October 2, 2015 at 6:49 pm
    Permalink

    I have to say, in Perth, Canning Vale is the worst place to live.
    I have started there, 4 years ago, coming from the UK. I did not realise when I bought it that it was under a very busy flightpath.
    I sold my house a year later and had to cut my losses as I did not get back what I had paid for it.
    The real estate agent told me already that the sell would be difficult because of the curse of the planes that would only get worse through the years and she is proven right.
    Then again, why would one buy a house right next to Jandakot, and under an existing busy flightpath that has always been there.

    Some neighbourhoods have signs for prospective buyers that the neighbourhood suffers from aircraft noise. If Canning Vale would have had that at the time I bought, it would have been a good warning. I think canning vale should have these signs to warn potential buyers there.

    Reply
  • October 5, 2015 at 3:01 pm
    Permalink

    How many additional tonnes of carbon per year will be added to the atmosphere if the 7 planes per night for 237 nights of the year flew the much longer route over Canning Vale before departing North, Northwest?
    Let us do the basic maths:
    1) Assume the 7 planes used on average 15 litres of fuel per second (900 litres per minute). Data obtained from Google.
    2) Additional flying time: Assume 2 minutes (Longer Route).
    3) Fuel Density: 0.8 kg/L
    Calculation:
    7 (Planes) X 900 (Litres) X 2 (Minutes) = 12600 litres X 237 (Nights) = 2986200 X 0.8 (Density) = 2388960 (2389 Tonnes per year).
    Which Environmental Minister in their right mind would agree to add 2389 Tonnes of carbon to the world’s already polluted atmosphere, just to appease a very small number of whinging residents? We as Australians and the rest of the world should be hell bent on REDUCING emissions NOT adding to them unnecessarily.
    I wonder what the rest of the world will think about Australia’s commitment in reducing carbon emissions, if this night time proposal was ever given the green light?
    All the whinging residents should be thinking primarily of the carbon footprint and NOT the noise footprint. The noise footprint can be solved by the whinging residents going out and buying a good set of earplugs or getting noise insulation installed in their houses!

    Reply
    • October 5, 2015 at 4:49 pm
      Permalink

      The best solution which addresses BOTH the noise and emissions issues is that the old low-bypass engined FIFO jets in particular be regulated out of Perth airport. Clearly they are the bigger part of the problem and it is a fact that both noise and emissions are greatly reduced by introduction (through regulation) of newer generation high bypass engined aircraft. The extra leasing costs can be largely offset by the reduced fuel burn.

      Come on, let’s have some sensible debate and stop this pointless territorial bickering that is achieving nothing other than maintaining the status quo which is adverse to thousands of residents and not just those in CV and Shelley.

      Reply
      • October 5, 2015 at 8:31 pm
        Permalink

        Hi All,
        The intention of this article was to inform people about the proposed new flight paths and people have expressed their views freely.
        We have had 165 comments posted on this topic and unfortunately some of them are repetitive (trying to shift the problem somewhere else), or include irrelevant/inaccurate information and people are attacking each other. It also seems to be the same few people commenting.
        For these reasons, AviationWA will not be approving any more comments on this topic.

        Reply
  • May 14, 2016 at 11:15 am
    Permalink

    I have lived in Redcliffe now for 8 years. When i bought my house, i shopped around and made sure that the air noise wasnt going to effect me. I think its unfair that we now have to suffer this noise. The flight path should return to the original path. I didnt sign up for this.

    Reply
  • March 20, 2017 at 11:53 am
    Permalink

    It is now 2017 and the planes are constantly over or so close to me in Belmont. I have been here 20 years and have never had it so bad. So how come it has not gone back to normal as you haver suggested back in September? The noise is terrible during the day.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *