The most HATED Aircraft in the Sky A Short ROARS over our Roof Top  landing over North Marcoola

Index

• Community Survey Results
• Airport Noise NOT A PROBLEM?
• NOISE COMPLAINTS
• Consultation Process
• Griffith University Study Group
• SUMMARY

Community Survey

Results of a community survey undertaken during the noise management study showed that, in relative terms, aircraft noise does not appear to be a major issue for residents even those living close to the Airport. 
There are a small concentration of residents to the north of the Airport (and to a lesser extent to the south of the Airport) for whom aircraft noise causes annoyance, however, the survey results clearly indicated that pilot training activities and jet aircraft movements are those that cause most annoyance to people, especially at weekends, and causes disturbance to activities such as sleeping, resting and watching television. 

Although aircraft noise is not a major community issue at present, integrated, proactive measures such as air traffic control measures, land use planning measures, airport layout measures, and continuing two way communications with the local community should be undertaken to ensure a high level of community acceptance of the Airport's on-going operations. 

The new runway would become the main runway for operations of larger aircraft types. This would lead to a change of noise impact on surrounding areas such that a lessening would apply to communities to the north and south of the existing Runway 18/36. 

Aircraft Noise as a Problem
Respondents who gave a below average rating (less than 5 out of 10) for 'quiet neighbourhood' were asked to identify what was the mair, problem that contributed to their low rating of this attribute.
A total of 13 residents or 6% all from north of the Airport, identified aircraft noise as a problem. 
For these few respondents, onlv 2 considered that aircraft noise bothered them a lot while another 7 were somewhat bothered and the remaining 4 were not bothered much by aircraft noise. 
Other respondents who gave a below average rating for 'quiet neighbourhood' but who had not identified aircraft noise as an element contributing to this low rating were asked if aircraft noise bothered them. 

A further 33 respondents (19 :from north of the Airport and 14 from the south) indicated that they were bothered by aircraft noise.
Of these respondents, 9 were bothered a lot, 14 somewhat bothered and 10 not bothered very much by aircraft noise.
Only 1 respondent (3%) from the Coolum control group was bothered a lot by aircraft noise. 

In addition to noise from the Airport, other sources of disturbance to the quiet neighbourhood mentioned were noisy dogs and cats, speedlng cars, main road/David Low highway, parties, noisy neighbours In summary
A total of just over 30% of all respondents around the Airport indicated that aircraft noise contributed to their below average rating of a 'quiet neighbourhood'. 
Of this group, almost 70% (or 21% overall) considered that they were bothered a lot or somewhat by aircraft noise.

Respondents from north of the Airport were noticeably more bothered by aircraft noise than those to the south with 31% from the north indicating that they were bothered a lot or somewhat compared with 12% of respondents from south of the Airport. 
This response pattern is logical given the greater proximity of residential development to the north of the Airport and to the main nmway in particular than is the case to the south of the Airport.

It also indicates the relative severity of aircraft noise annoyance for residents to the north of the Airport who were generally longer term residents than those to the south of the Airport.
In other words, some longer term residents to the north of the Airport had not become used to or tolerant of aircraft noise. 

This response pattem is also generally consistent with the relatively limited complaint data available from the Airport management which indicates that of the 26 noise complaints received over a two year period from April 1995 to April 1997,10 were from the Marcoola area and three from the Pacific Paradise and Mudjimba areas. 

Respondents' Characteristics The key demographic characteristics of the survey respondents were: 

1 About a quarter of respondents respectively either worked full time, were engaged in home duties, or were retired. More retired respondents lived north of the Airport than to the south. 

2 Just over 60% of respondents owned their home and a further 30% rented their residence. Home ownership was slightly higher for respondents living to the north of the Airport. 

3 About 55% of respondents had lived at their current address for five years or less, while a third had lived there for between six and fifteen years, and about 10% had lived there for more than sixteen years. Longer term residents were more common to the north of the Airport than to the south where almost 85% of respondents had lived at their current address for up to five years. 

4 Almost one third of respondents were aged 55 years or more while a quarter of respondents were aged between 25 and 34 years 

5 60% of respondents were female and 40% male. Implications of Survey's Findings and Relationship to Survey Objectives In relation to the objectives of the survey (see Section 3.3),

The following comments can be made:

1 In relative terms, on the basis of this survey' s results, aircraft noise does not appear to be a major issue for residents even those living close to the Airport. 
However, there is a small concentration of residents to the north of the Airport (and to a lesser extent to the south of the Airport) for whom aircraft noise causes annoyance

2 The survey results provide a benchmark of community attitudes about the extent and nature of aircraft noise against which future attitudinal surveys should be undertaken to determine if there are noticeable changes in residents' identification of aircraft noise as a source of annoyance and the nature and extent of this annoyance

3 The survey results clearly indicate that pilot training activities and jet aircraft movements are those that cause most annoyance to people, especially at weekends, and causes disturbance to sleeping/resting and watching television. In terms of assisting the design and implementation of the Community Relations Plan,

The survey results indicate that:

1 Almost half the residents who live in the general proximity of the Airport would like to have more information about the operations of the Airport and the preferred way in which this information should be distributed is through the mail. This suggests regular distribution of information about the Airport's operations via a specific newsletter or as an inclusion to a more general Council newsletter.

2 Although aircraft noise is not a major community issue at present, integrated and proactive measures such as air traffic control measures, land use planning measures, airport layout measures, and continuing two way communications with the local community should be undertaken to ensure a high level of community acceptance of the

Back to Top

Airport's on-going operations. 

Time when Aircraft Noise Annoyance Occurs 
Almost three quarters of people bothered by aircraft noise (most of whom were from north of the Airport) indicated that there was a particular time of day that this annoyance occurred. 
Just over one third of these respondents indicated that this annoyance occurred in the evenings or at night followed by mornings 
Most over one fifth of respondents), all day (just under one fifth of respondents), and afternoons (16% of respondents).
Depending on where people lived, there was a difference in the time of day when people were bothered by aircraft noise. For respondents from north of the Airport, most annoyance was experienced in the evening or night, while for people to the south of the Airport, mornings were the time when most annoyance was experienced. 

NOISE COMPLAINTS 

A record of noise complaints concerning the Sunshine Coast Airport was compiled from a number of sources for the period April 1995 to May 1997. 
This includes complaints made to a number of different bodies, including, councillors, State and Federal MP's, Air Services Australia, and Council. 
Some interesting information can be obtained by examining the aircraft noise complaint data. 
During the period April 1995 to April 1997 for which information on noise complaints is available, 26 individual complaints were made. 

Nature of Complaint 
The complaints made concerned 18 individual events and a lessor number of issues. 
The issues attracting more than one noise complaint are listed below. 
The number of complaints registered against each event appears in brackets.

Analysis of Noise Complaint: Table 3.6
High Speed Low Altitude Military F111 24/4/97 (3), 25/! 0/96 (1) 
Aircraft Noise on Good Friday 28/2/07 (5) 
Circuit Training at Night 27/1/97 (1) 31/12/96 (1) 20/5/96 (1) 3/3/96 (1) 
Low Altitude Flying over Mountain Creek 18/3/96 (1) 10/1/96 (2) 3/1/96 (1) 13/11/95 (1)

Origin of Complaint

The noise complaints do not appear to originate from any single geographic centre, but rather from various locations around the airport. 
The noise complaints received, and the location from which these complaints originate, (where known) are presented below:
Marcoola 4 
Marcooh Beach 6 
Maroochydore 3 
Mudjimba Beach 1 
Buderim 4 
Cotton Tree 1 
Mooloolaba 3 
Pacific Paradise I

Number of Noise Events

For many residents the issue of concern with aircraft noise is the high number of overflights rather than the noise from the individual events. 
The question is therefore asked: why not describe the amount of aircraft noise simply by using the number of overflights?
The number of overflights is an important indicator of noise impact but using this by itself can also be misleading because it does not differentiate for example between a place that gets 100 overtlights where the noise level is 70 dB(A) and one which gets the same number of overflights but where the noise level is 90 dB(A). 
The need to combine the maximum noise level from individual aircraft overflights with the number of these events per day led to the development of noise units such as the ANEF.

Persons complaining more than once

People that have logged more than one noise complaint include, 
a resident of Marcoola Beach (2), 
a resident of Buderim (2),
and a resident of Mooloolaba (3).

Weekly distribution of noise complaints

Of the 26 complaints on record, at least 12 appear to relate to flying activities which took place either on the weekends or on public holidays. 
Only 2 of the 26 complaints on record appear to relate to night flying activities.

Back to Top

3.5 CONSULTATIONS WITH RESIDENT GROUPS

Discussions were held with representatives of the following resident groups, as well as individuals who had sought to provide input into the study:

Pacific Paradise
Items of interest to the Pacific Paradise Progress Association included the availability of insulation programs to reduce noise impacts, and mitigation through barriers such as earth berms.
Through traffic along the David Low Way, currently the only access to the airport, effectively splits the village in two sections.
A direct access to the motorway would be of benefit to this community. 
The representatives questioned whether arrivals and departures could not all be over water ("head to head operations").

Mt. Coolum Residents 
The consensus from this community is that there are no significant impacts from airport operations, as they are not along the flight paths. 
Road noise is more of an issue.

Point Arkwright Progress Association 
The present flight paths are not an issue for this area. The issue of interest would be new flight paths associated with the proposed E-W runway realignment, extension and general upgrade to become the main runway.

Mudjlmba Progress Association
With flight paths to the south passing directly over Mudjimba, it is potentially one of the areas most impacted by the airport. 
A written statement was provided by the Association representative. 
An interest was expressed in an East-West runway with a displaced threshold so that aircraft would be at a higher altitude if departures to the east were required. 
Similarly landings from the east would be at a higher altitude on approach with a displaced threshold. 
It was stated that most complaints about noise from aircraft operations or ground running noise were caused by early morning or late night operations.
Residents would be interested in a noise management plan and what the change in impacts would be with the rimway extensions. 
It was felt that helicopters should be redirected away from residential areas. 
There was concern about the reduction in housing values due to the impacts of aircraft noise. 
It was recognised that the airport has been in its current location for the past 38 years and there was no expectation that it should move.

Marcoola Progress Association 
Some of the representatives live in residences directly under the approach path for runway 18. There were comments on the growth of traffic at the airport "from one Fokker Friendship per week 18 years ago", to the situation where in addition to jet services there is "airline circuit training with Sunstate Shorts 330 and Flight West Dash 8 for 3 hours at a time".
There was also comment on the noise generated by RAAF F 111 and F18 aircraft based at Amberely retuming from Tin Can Bay along the coast, even though they were 1 to 2 kilometres out to sea. 
It was suggested that Council should purchase houses in the most noise affected areas and rent them back in the short term. 
Feedback to the local Progress Association on the outcomes of the study was sought at a public meeting. 
It was suggested that the formation of a noise abatement committee would be of benefit and the idea of bunds for noise barriers was suggested.
Ground running was not seen as a problem by the residents of Marcoola, but night training movements were. 
Communications with the community on airport issues was seen as being vital - for example the activities planned for events such as the Amphibia Show. 
A local after hours complaint number was suggested, not the Airservices Australia complaints number in Canberra.
This was seen as having benefit, even if it was only an answering service, where complaints could be recorded and affected residents could "vent their feelings".
A full parallel taxiway on the east-west runway was suggested as a way of encouraging more use of the cross-runway for training.

Back to Top

Summary

Aircraft Operations and Noise Complaints-
Jet approaches
Not a problemwith most residents accepting that the airport was there first. 
Not very frequent and usually in daylight hours. 
Any major change in pattern could cause problems in areas directly under flight paths - early morning or evening arrivals or departures. 

Sunstate Shorts 330operations Generally not a significant problem 
Sunstate Training Shorts 330circuits, especially repetitions over a period of time I - 2 hours, and on weekends are likely to cause impacts.
This training is likely to increase as the availability of Brisbane or Coolangatta for training is further restricted.
Maroochy is an attractive alternative - control tower and landing aids and proximity to 
Brisbane. 

FlightWest and Impulse 
Training by these airlines is also likely to increase as alternative major aerodromes become busier. 
There is less sympathy among residents for these operators who do not serve the port and only use the airport for training. 

Flying Training Schools
If circuit work is done in a training area away from residential areas then not likely to be a problem. 
Simulated engine failure on approach to 18 over house is not acceptable and we understand that this has been discussed between the training organisations and residents and agreement has been reached. 
This should be formalised as part of airport noise abatement procedures. 

Helicopter Operations 
Rescue Helicopter operations will not draw complaints due to the recognition of the vital community service they provide. 

Military Operations 
FIll transiting from Tin Can Bay training area can be a problem. 
Consultation with RAAF Amberley Base Commander is required about procedures. 

Helicopter Training 
The development ofa heli-pad and training area to the west of the Airport has mitigated previous negative impacts. 

Ground Maintenance 
The originally designated runup bay close to 18/36 runway is not appropriate - noise will carry to residents in the Mudjimba/ Marcoola area. 
The area outside the Aeromech hangar is much better, however, the continued use of the recently constructed run-up bay (at the western end of taxiway Echo) should be identified for all run-up operators wherever possible.
Upgrading of the parallel taxiway for better access for larger aircraft being serviced by Aeromech may be required in the medium term.

Current noise abatement hours appropriate. 
There may be need for emergency operation, this will be a rare occurrence and will attract complaints at the time - not seen as a major problem. 

The progressive implementation of the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) will, in the future, enable aircraft to conduct instrument approaches to a higher degree of accuracy and with fewer operational constraints than currently exists with the conventional ground based aids referred to above. 
The advent of this system also provides more flexibility in devising approach and departure procedures to further minimise aircraft noise. ATS Procedures Discussions with operational personnel of Airservices Australia at Maroochydore and Brisbane indicated a positive attitude in ensuring that the aircraft traffic management plan for the airport is cognisant of and responsive to the amelioration of aircraft noise on the surrounding community. 
From local discussions it would appear that maximum implementation of the current noise abatement and special procedures occur. Indicative of this proactive approach is the recent initiative whereby Boeing 737 and BAe 146 aircraft, departing nmway 18, turn left onto a heading of 090 degrees magnetic after reaching 500 feet. This procedure positions the aircraft over the water as soon as is operationally practicable.

A similar procedure is utilised by the Shorts aircraft when departing from the same rimway. In this case, the aircraft continues manoeuvring east of the coastline prior to setting course over the top of the airport for Brisbane. 
This is necessary to fulfil the current noise abatement procedures and operational performance requirements of the particular aircraft.

Noise Abatement Procedures

The current noise abatement and special procedures for the Sunshine Coast airport are published in the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP), specifically the Enroute Supplement (ERSA) and Departure and Approach Procedures {DAP) East, by Airservices Australia. It is to be noted that the section detailing preferred flight paths for aircraft above 5700 kgs is expressed in non-obligatory terms. 
Whilst the preferred flight paths are invoked, it is suggested that the opportunity should now be taken to express this section in more specific terms as requirements. 
In anticipation of an increase in the number of scheduled jet services, it is also suggested that consideration be given to requiring these aircraft to adopt Jet Noise Abatement Procedures

Back to Top