Of crystal balls and glass jaws.
Just a whim; a quiet reflective look at the 'noise' quandary; it is a head scratch for all concerned, although with bureaucrat fed politicians all looking for quick, cheap 'acceptable' answers for the voters, the matter assumes nightmarish proportions. How did it all get into this tangle? History provides a clear enough picture; it also shows a lack of 'forward thinking' and (a forgivable) narrow focus from those charged with the management of the industry. Lets step back a few decades:-
“The Sydney Airport, located in Mascot, was a bull paddock until the early 20th century. In 1919, aviator Nigel Love was looking for a location upon which an aviation company for Sydney could be established.”
“The Brisbane Airport site was first used as a landing field in 1922, with Captain Jack Treacy the first to land his aircraft ‘The Queen of Sheba’ at Eagle Farm Aerodrome”
Now, in the year of grace 2024 – out of the cow paddocks has grown a massive, important industry and infrastructure. Back in the early days very few – if any – considered the aerodromes to be a 'bad' thing; the 'noise' and 'pollution' side bars were not considered. There was no reason to do so. The 'aircraft' was a modern wonder; it had a real 'Wow' factor; people would come for miles to sit at the fence; Oh and Ahh at the 'aviators' and their amazing machines. As time went by,– folk became used to seeing the aircraft and business recognised the huge potential. Time went by, it became 'classy' to travel by air; best suits and frocks, real silver etc and no one seemed to mind the noise made by the impeccable DC3 or 4 – post war and the world was booming. Bit by bit, the aircraft grew bigger and more powerful to the point where an aircraft overhead attracted as much attention as the local bus rattling down the street (again). Cities got bigger, populations grew, some effort was made to make industrial works close to the airports – but the aerodromes, like Topsy, just grew and grew; from a humble cow paddock to the huge things we see today. Progress, revenue and reduced cost per seat mile promoted air travel to the mega industry we see today. Bravo and well done. However;
Aye, there's always a however; I hasten to add that blame for this, today's problem cannot be laid at anyone's feet. The 'problem' like industry grew up side by side; oblivious to each other until we hit the 'noise' barrier. I daresay, way back when, some bright sparks attempted to point out that aerodromes and aircraft and mass transport will lead to an infrastructure problem; a noise problem and face the Gordian knot of 'what to do'. The lack of forward thinking is clearly reflected in the vexed question of actually getting to the airport; the morning traffic a nightmare. But the cost of relocating an airport or even building a new one is staggering; before a dollar is spent on the 'essentials'. Attitudes have changed over the decades; from awe and wonder at aircraft flying overhead to anger levels because of it – and, it is noisy. Cities are incredibly noisy enough without having to live with aircraft constantly operating overhead. It stands as (IMO) a fair argument; the aircraft operators have an equally compelling argument to make that noise and to keep doing it – 24/7 if they can.
So – what's to be done; band aids and slippery promises or stopgap measures may stem the tide for a while; but not for too long. If the airport can't be moved away form 'residential' and residential cannot be moved away from flight paths - then a clever solution must be found. Even if a compromise – some way to reduce the noise without crucifying aircraft operators and the major problems that would create. Anyway, the fool is nearly done; but perhaps ASA could sharpen up a pencil or two and get creative with arrival and departure tracking – don't know, just saying – Brisbane and Sydney both have water to the East perhaps a way to utilize that asset would/could reduce some of the noise – at least in good weather – not a permanent solution, but it would at least show a 'willingness' to try, in a meaningful way to reduce the total number of 'noisious interuptus' to the television –(perhaps take off and landings only available during the interminable advert breaks) perhaps not. No idea – just a twiddle – but someone, somewhere, needs to spell it out – you can have quiet or you need to live with aircraft. That is an immutable fact and no amount of 'spin' will fix the radical. Find a way to balance the equation, smart use of airspace, reasonable solutions and telling it 'like it is' may lose a few votes but .............ASA need to get weaving and grow a set – get the politicians off the case; tell it like it is and leave to them to explain why living under a flight path does not grant leave, let alone a gods given right to restrict an established industry. It is a big sky – use it wisely - .
Right then, back in my box I go.
Just a whim; a quiet reflective look at the 'noise' quandary; it is a head scratch for all concerned, although with bureaucrat fed politicians all looking for quick, cheap 'acceptable' answers for the voters, the matter assumes nightmarish proportions. How did it all get into this tangle? History provides a clear enough picture; it also shows a lack of 'forward thinking' and (a forgivable) narrow focus from those charged with the management of the industry. Lets step back a few decades:-
“The Sydney Airport, located in Mascot, was a bull paddock until the early 20th century. In 1919, aviator Nigel Love was looking for a location upon which an aviation company for Sydney could be established.”
“The Brisbane Airport site was first used as a landing field in 1922, with Captain Jack Treacy the first to land his aircraft ‘The Queen of Sheba’ at Eagle Farm Aerodrome”
Now, in the year of grace 2024 – out of the cow paddocks has grown a massive, important industry and infrastructure. Back in the early days very few – if any – considered the aerodromes to be a 'bad' thing; the 'noise' and 'pollution' side bars were not considered. There was no reason to do so. The 'aircraft' was a modern wonder; it had a real 'Wow' factor; people would come for miles to sit at the fence; Oh and Ahh at the 'aviators' and their amazing machines. As time went by,– folk became used to seeing the aircraft and business recognised the huge potential. Time went by, it became 'classy' to travel by air; best suits and frocks, real silver etc and no one seemed to mind the noise made by the impeccable DC3 or 4 – post war and the world was booming. Bit by bit, the aircraft grew bigger and more powerful to the point where an aircraft overhead attracted as much attention as the local bus rattling down the street (again). Cities got bigger, populations grew, some effort was made to make industrial works close to the airports – but the aerodromes, like Topsy, just grew and grew; from a humble cow paddock to the huge things we see today. Progress, revenue and reduced cost per seat mile promoted air travel to the mega industry we see today. Bravo and well done. However;
Aye, there's always a however; I hasten to add that blame for this, today's problem cannot be laid at anyone's feet. The 'problem' like industry grew up side by side; oblivious to each other until we hit the 'noise' barrier. I daresay, way back when, some bright sparks attempted to point out that aerodromes and aircraft and mass transport will lead to an infrastructure problem; a noise problem and face the Gordian knot of 'what to do'. The lack of forward thinking is clearly reflected in the vexed question of actually getting to the airport; the morning traffic a nightmare. But the cost of relocating an airport or even building a new one is staggering; before a dollar is spent on the 'essentials'. Attitudes have changed over the decades; from awe and wonder at aircraft flying overhead to anger levels because of it – and, it is noisy. Cities are incredibly noisy enough without having to live with aircraft constantly operating overhead. It stands as (IMO) a fair argument; the aircraft operators have an equally compelling argument to make that noise and to keep doing it – 24/7 if they can.
So – what's to be done; band aids and slippery promises or stopgap measures may stem the tide for a while; but not for too long. If the airport can't be moved away form 'residential' and residential cannot be moved away from flight paths - then a clever solution must be found. Even if a compromise – some way to reduce the noise without crucifying aircraft operators and the major problems that would create. Anyway, the fool is nearly done; but perhaps ASA could sharpen up a pencil or two and get creative with arrival and departure tracking – don't know, just saying – Brisbane and Sydney both have water to the East perhaps a way to utilize that asset would/could reduce some of the noise – at least in good weather – not a permanent solution, but it would at least show a 'willingness' to try, in a meaningful way to reduce the total number of 'noisious interuptus' to the television –(perhaps take off and landings only available during the interminable advert breaks) perhaps not. No idea – just a twiddle – but someone, somewhere, needs to spell it out – you can have quiet or you need to live with aircraft. That is an immutable fact and no amount of 'spin' will fix the radical. Find a way to balance the equation, smart use of airspace, reasonable solutions and telling it 'like it is' may lose a few votes but .............ASA need to get weaving and grow a set – get the politicians off the case; tell it like it is and leave to them to explain why living under a flight path does not grant leave, let alone a gods given right to restrict an established industry. It is a big sky – use it wisely - .
Right then, back in my box I go.