the Association for the                                                         
     Containment of
     Elstree aerodrome

There is a lack of clarity as to who is it that is making the running on amelioration of noise. It seems to be assumed that the aerodrome owners want these schemes and only need to be fully empowered before rushing out and implementing them. That is not a realistic scenario at many smaller but noise significant aerodromes. The distinction between owner and aircraft operator is unclear or non-existent at some of these aerodromes. Here the local authority (District or Unitary, perhaps sometimes County) is a much more appropriate body to require the initiation of schemes. Of course in close co-operation with the aerodrome and the consultative committee where there is one.

Q1.

We support the proposal for greater powers to aerodromes to regulate flying behaviour. At our local aerodrome, a 'private' one, the owner does have some powers but they are limited by the lease he has sold to the aviation companies.

Q2.

If steps can be taken they should be taken. at all levels.
i) The power should apply to all aerodromes, we can see no logical point at which to cut off.

ii) Even very small annual movements, if by inappropriate aircraft or at inappropriate times, need regulation. For example an unlicensed glider strip with several tugs could need more control than a licensed aerodrome without flying school.

Q3.

If the agreement is to be between aerodromes and their users, and users refers to aviation firms and flying activity rather than consumers of the noise nuisance (or their representatives) we do not see how that can work at all. At small aerodromes the owners and the firms may be nearly one and the same. Surely the agreement should be between the owners and the community. The local Authority and the consultative committee (where there is one) should be the 'other party'.

Yes, locally. Yes amicably if possible, but where not possible clear penalties are needed. Both civil and criminal sanctions have their problems. If the sanctions are of the money based type, civil recovery in default might be adequate, if they are based on restricting or banning pilots or aircraft, that might be best enforced by the criminal law.

Q4.

i)Yes. And we would prefer the secretary of state set minima and suggest maxima. 'Suggest' because then when appropriate if special circumstances allow it, greater maxima could be applied locally.
A power is needed to ban individual aircraft and/or to specify the level of noise emission and/or to specify the fitting of silencers or quiet propellers even when the aircraft are already internationally compliant.

ii) We do not see written warnings as sanctions. They are pre-sanctions. We have a history of warnings called 'wiggings' at our local aerodrome and they have had no noticeable affect in removing a pilot from future complaints. Certainly surcharging and banning of pilot and/or aircraft should be available. And please note who should receive these surcharges when they are paid, we think they should be ploughed back into noise abatement and monitoring, probably under the control of the local authority, guided by the consultative committee.

Q5.

The ATZ at 2nm aerodromes is not enough. We would like to see the ATZ for such aerodromes extended, at the very least to 2.5nm and preferably substantially more. Recent circuit changes locally have shown the 2nm limit to be a constraint on circuit noise amelioration trials involving flying over 2nm out. So increase all ATZs to at least 2.5nm and probably make the zone for the purpose of noise amelioration schemes wider still. 2000ft height seems adequate though we see some advantages eg overflights prior to landing) and only minor problems of conflict, in increasing the zone for schemes to 3000ft.

Q6.

i) Yes the secretary of state could usefully have powers to extend the area but that should not be instead of the general increase over the zones mentioned in Q5 above.

ii) Opportunities for others to make representations should be by timely publicity including the usual official notices in local papers plus local authorities and consultative committees.

Additional response: Paragraph 14. Publicising: a) c) d) and e) should all be mandatory.

Q7.

i) Yes, generally, but where commercial flying training takes place, with its repetitive overflying, or where the numbers of arrivals or departures exceed some agreed number then designation should be automatic except in very special cases or, perhaps, where a voluntary scheme exists and works.

ii) The secretary of state has been seen to be most reluctant to designate any but the large airports either for consultative facilities or for noise amelioration (see Headcorn in Q8 below). We see no evidence of a change of direction here and feel that if the policy of solutions at local level is to have credibility, then the local authority (above the level of Parish) should have discretion to require a scheme to be prepared.

Q8.

Additional response: we dispute that the lack of voluntary mitigation arrangements would be likely to lead to compulsion by the secretary of state. Headcorn Aerodrome comes to mind where despite long term and serious public nuisance it was very many years before the secretary of state designated it for consultative committee purposes. And Section 5 has been used very very rarely despite the feeling of need for it at local level.

i) Yes, local authorities should have the power to enforce schemes that the secretary of state has specified. In addition if, as at Luton, the main noise impact is felt in a different local authority to that which is authority for the aerodrome land, then that other local authority should also have the power.

ii) Yes, and local authorities should have powers to require compulsory schemes if voluntary ones are not forthcoming.

iii) Access to the aerodrome and the aerodrome log etc.; fixed penalties recoverable as civil debts; criminal sanctions for further breaches following issue of 'breach notices'. Power to suspend planning consent for air use without penalty to the authority (be the consent explicit or by usage) if a certain number or period of time of breaches is exceeded. Some extra power to the airport owner, either by request to the local authority or by some other means.

Q9.

We have difficulty here as it is not at all clear who will say what should be done in any scheme. At para 11 we are told that the secretary of state will provide lists of suggested sanctions, but we have little idea of the details of the schemes themselves that may be seen to be reasonable. We support the secretary of state's view that these matters are best decided locally but fear that where the operational changes required have a short term commercial impact neither arbitration nor a mediator would be able to operate effectively without some guidelines.
(we say 'short term commercial impact' because we believe that good noise amelioration will very likely enhance, rather than penalise, the efficiency and commercial profitability of aviation in the longer term, but there will very likely be some short term costs involved)

One of us was minded of an event some years ago concerning aviation when the police were called in. They sent a policy officer who had been a regular flyer at the aerodrome concerned on the basis, it seemed, that he 'knew about light aircraft'. To get arbitration both unbiased and knowledgeable will be very difficult. 'Suitable expertise in aviation procedures' needs treating very cautiously.

Q10

Costs: no view.

Other details: account needs to be taken of the comment in Q9 (above).

Q11.

i) They should run for a reasonable time in any event.

ii) Compulsory schemes for say 5 years, others for say 2 years (to give incentive and more flexibility when voluntary). A review should be allowed earlier or later if all parties agree.

Q12.

i) and ii) We do not really understand this question. At our local aerodrome we do not see the ATS providers as being in any way autonomous regarding noise amelioration. Rather they advise pilots in the light of management policies (and of course safety) and would implement any relevant part of any scheme at the aerodrome. Having said that we would welcome a statutory duty to take account of the need to minimise noise disturbance applied to ATS providers and indeed to others involved in aviation activity, see Question 16.

Q13

Since Section 5 was little used, and presumably would continue little used, it is better repealed.

An additional reason is that the CAA mandate in general is to 'encourage aviation having regard to safety'. Environmental controls do not sit well with this role.

We would of course prefer the CAA's overall mandate to be radically changed but think that unlikely to happen.

Q14.

i) We could write a book on this but will spare you.

We pioneered this to some extent at our local aerodrome, Elstree. Our consultative committee secretary helped the then government draft the first consultative committee guidelines. Until very recent years we considered the committee one of the best. We have a fairly 'open house' approach, we had a co-operative owner (though less co-operative flying organisations), we rotated chairmen and we introduced some novel and successful noise amelioration measures.

But in the last two or three years we have rather fallen apart. We have had a second flying school imposed on us despite firm promises to the contrary. We have had a fleet of training aircraft introduced without notification or consultation (and they are much noisier than the aircraft they replace). We have suffered arbitrary circuit changes also without any notification or consultation. And the introduction of jet aircraft, again without notice.

This demonstrates that there needs to be either incentive or sanction to make the committee work and we look to some change here.

ii) From the above answer, we say the legislative framework is not in fact adequate. The only current sanction is by going to court and proving the consultation facilities are inadequate. It is not clear how that sanction would address the problem of failing to bring matters to the committee such as are referred to in i) above. Indeed it is not clear how that sanction would help at all.

iii) & iv) Sanctions for non-consultation should be available quickly and simply. Matters agreed (by consensus) should be enforceable. Yes, probably by some dispute resolution procedure.

Q15

Yes

Q16

S76 is tilted in favour of aviators and needs re-addressing.

1. For aircraft flying from A to B at a reasonable height (above 2000ft say) the law could remain unchanged. But for low level circuiting aircraft and for tug towing aircraft and suchlike there should be tougher measures. These should not as a class be exempt from being sued unless they can demonstrate that they are either of the quietest type of aircraft reasonably practicably available for the purpose or, if of any other type, that all reasonable measures have been taken to reduce noise impact (eg silencers, propellers, routing). Additionally the duty to take account of the need to reduce disturbance (Question 12) could be applied to pilots and if they could be shown to be in breach of that duty the exemption should not apply.
2. Aircraft shown to be in breach of any agreed scheme (as per this consultation) should lose their exemption.
3. But now with the new incorporation of Human Rights into UK legislation we think the time may have come to delete S76 altogether. S76 will very probably have been greatly undermined by the new law, the certainty that was an important feature thought to have been needed in the early days of aviation is both no longer needed and has gone (because of the Human Rights Act). People wishing to take action will have to go through the extra hurdle of considering both bits of legislation with all the extra costs involved on all sides. So please scrap S76, it is no longer needed if indeed it ever was.

Q17

i) Agree.

ii) Generally the wider powers the better, so long as they are aimed at limiting the impact of noise and vibration on innocent third parties.

iii) No, but we are likely to support other people's ideas so long as they are consistent with ii) above.

Q18

i)Agree

ii) -

iii) Yes. The option for daily fines is a good one that should be there for when it is needed. £5000 scale fine for some would be something to avoid, for others it would be a trivial operating cost. Daily fines can make it bite more appropriately.£200 as a maximum seems very small.

Q19

No view