Noise map Brisbane Airport Corp doesn’t want you to see

A flight path “tool’’ promoted by Brisbane Airport massively understates the true number of planes flying over Brisbane homes.

The number of planes overflying Brisbane homes post-COVID will be far greater than airport officials are admitting, a lobby group claims. Picture: Dave Hunt

A flight path “tool’’ promoted by Brisbane Airport Corporation massively understates the true number of planes flying over many Brisbane homes, a community lobby group says.

It has released an alarming map which calculates that an average of 150 aircraft a day will pass over thousands of people once the impact of COVID on air travel has ended.

Many suburbs already are experiencing 50 to 60 overhead passes a day.

BAC does not count turbo props on its flight path tool – even though they are as loud as a Boeing 737 – only jet engines.

But more than 100 turbo props would soon travel over the suburbs to and from the new runway each day, Brisbane flight Path Community Alliance chair David Diamond said.

He said 55 turboprops would take off over Wavell Heights and Northgate per day, post-COVID.

BFPCA also calculated that, post-COVID, 55 turbo props a day would come in to land over a 10km strip taking in some of the most densely populated parts of the city.

They included Hamilton, Bulimba, Hawthorne and Hendra.

Analysis of the flight path tool revealed a total average daily figure of 95 jets a day along that 10km strip, post-COVID, taking the total number of planes to 150 a day.

“This equates to a plane less than every three minutes during busy periods — very few impacted residents understand what is coming,’’ Mr Diamond said.

Airservices Australia did not consider noise ot be problematic at less than 60dB despite some residents saying they cry themselves to sleep.

A BAC spokeswoman said turboprops were not included in the original flight path tool because those planes took more variable routes than jets and it did not want to mislead residents.

“BAC shares the community’s concern that the actual noise levels being recorded by noise monitors is louder than modelled by the international Integrated Noise Modelling (INM) tool,’’ she said.

“(The flight path tool) was developed based on assumptions that pre-dated COVID-19 traffic levels and aviation movements and how air traffic control were expected to manage the aircraft.

What BAC’s flight path tool says are the number of flights over your home

“It was designed to be an illustrative representation of the standard operations at Brisbane Airport using the final designed flight paths and estimates of traffic movements on opening.

“It is only jet aircraft that are required to use the standard flight paths.

“The aim was to give any resident the ability to put in an address and look at how those standard and predictable operations may impact that address.

“It does not show all the possible flight paths for all aircraft operations, as it is only the defined standard flight paths that provide predictable paths over residents’ addresses.’’

BAC chief executive Gert-Jan de Graaff on the finished second runway in July last year. Flight paths have changed since then, angering many residents. Picture: Lyndon Mechielsen/The Australian

But Mr Diamond said residents could not understand how BAC could “get it so wrong’’.

“They’ve kept the full number of flights out of sight from the public for over 15 years,’’ he said.

“They falsely promised frequent over-the-Bay operations and flight forecasts a long way below 150 flights per day, when the reality is that this will be one of the busiest flight corridors in Australia.

“This is nothing like the community impact BAC promised for years.”

The spokeswoman said the over-the-Bay video on BFPCA’s website was inaccurate.

It had not “changed its narrative’’ and had always said the new runway would help direct more planes over the Bay, but that option could not be used for all planes.

Mr Diamond said BAC only recently started to advise people the statistics were flawed, after a barrage of community complaints.

“This (BFPCA’s) map should have been on the front cover of BAC’s community consultation material about the new runway, so why haven’t they released these figures?”

He said the flight path tool not only excluded turbo props, it gave users a false impression of jet numbers because there was no total daily average.

Instead, when users entered their address, the number of jets was given for only a fraction of the day (morning, later in the day or night), for one season (summer or winter) or for a particular wind direction.

BFPCA added up all those categories to come up with its figure of 95 jets per day, on average, over the worst affected areas.

Air traffic controllers in the control tower for Airservices Australia, above Brisbane Airport. Picture: Lyndon Mechielsen/The Australian

Mr Diamond accused BAC of deliberately giving the impression, since 2006, that the second runway would lower noise so that it could build the project without having to comply with a curfew.

“This is absurd in a community where operating a lawnmower has more noise controls than jet engines operating 24 hours a day.”

BAC’s tactics had minimised public opposition during the consultation period, he said.

He claimed the new flight path design, effectively a long, narrow tunnel that takes both inward and outward bound aircraft, did not comply with Airservices Australia’s best practice design principles.

“The legacy runway flight paths follow these principles and better limit the noise that any one resident experiences,’’ he said.

“People can’t believe that $1.4 billion has been spent (on the second runway) simply to move and concentrate the noise pollution 2km west, over a larger population.

“It hasn’t solved anything and the only thing it has done is increase BAC’s (future) profits.

“There are a lot of serious governance questions that won’t be going away as the noise impacts builds, to post-COVID travel levels. We aren’t even at 50 per cent yet.”

READ BAC’S FULL RESPONSE TO QUEST NEWSPAPERS’ QUESTIONS

Brisbane Airport’s Flight Path Tool was developed based on assumptions that pre-dated COVID-19 traffic levels and aviation movements and how air traffic control were expected to manage the aircraft.

The Flight Path Tool was designed to be an illustrative representation of the standard operations at Brisbane Airport using the final designed flight paths and estimates of traffic movements on opening.

It is only jet aircraft that are required to use the standard flight paths, unless there is a weather or traffic management requirement to do otherwise. The aim was to give any resident the ability to put in an address and look at how those standard and predictable operations may impact that address.

It does not show all the possible flight paths for all aircraft operations, as it is only the defined standard flight paths that provide predictable paths over residents’ addresses.

Turboprop (non-jet) aircraft may not follow these defined flight paths. Turbo-prop aircraft can fly a range of operations due to their performance capability and/or traffic management requirements.

They use a mix of jet and non-jet flight paths including visual approaches and join at different points on any given day depending on pilot and air traffic control decisions.

Turboprop departures, for example, may turn at the end of the runway or a number of kilometres beyond the end of the runway, depending on when the pilot decides to turn or according to air traffic control instructions at the time.

Due to the wide range of potential operations for turbo-prop movements, they were not originally depicted in the Flight Path Tool as BAC did not want to mislead the community by showing turboprops on the defined jet flight paths when we knew they would not necessarily, or predictably, follow those paths.

However, turboprops are included in the N70 (noise mapping) contours on the flight path tool.

Turboprops are generally presented in aircraft noise modelling as being quieter than jets, and this was reflected in the modelling included in the Flight Path Tool.

BAC shares the community’s concern that the actual noise levels being recorded by noise monitors is louder than modelled by the international Integrated Noise Modelling (INM) tool.

While INM, and the newer version known as the Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT), is the accepted tool used across Australian aviation, this is a matter for further investigation and will be amended in future noise modelling at Brisbane Airport, subject to agreement by the regulatory authorities.

The BFPCA video does not show that the BAC narrative on Brisbane Airport’s flight paths have changed over the years.

The two brief comments, made seven years apart in response to completely different questions, are not at all contradictory and indeed show the consistency of BAC’s communications.

The comments made by Leonie Vandeven to the ABC in 2014 say that the new runway will help BAC and Airservices to manage noise better and enable more aircraft movements over the bay at all hours of the day.

These comments have been proven accurate.

In 2019 (prior to the new runway opening), on average 58 per cent of overnight (10pm-6am) aircraft movements operated over the bay and 48 per cent of all aircraft movements (all hours) operated over the bay.

In 2021, an average of around 70 per cent of overnight (10pm – 6am) aircraft movements have operated over the bay and 51 per cent of all aircraft movements (all hours) operated over the bay.

This is a clear increase in over-the-bay operations since the new runway opened.

The comments made by Rachel Bronish to Nine News in 2021 were in response to suggestions by some members of the community, and the BFPCA, that all aircraft movements could be and should be operated over the Bay.

Ms Bronish accurately stated that this is not possible.

All our communications and messaging have stressed, over the bay operations are weather dependent.

The notion that all operations at BNE could be directed over the bay is simply untrue because the weather would not allow it.