Hi All,

As you may have noticed, there was a change in the flight paths recently and now large airplanes are flying directly overhead.

In Nov 2008 there was the Western Australia Route Review Project (WARRP). As far as I gather, these fellas decided to move the flight plan from over the city to go over the Perth Hills.

It hasn't be a big problem for us until recently. They seem to have spread the flight routes further south and now we are effected.

If we say nothing - then nothing will be done.. So its up to us to do something about it. The longer we wait - the harder set in stone it will become.

Airservices Australia collect complaints in a monthly report. If the complaints increase, they will shift the flight routes.

Ideally these flight routes should be over areas of high traffic or industrial noise, or the ocean - where they are less noticable above the ambient noise.

What to do?

1) Lodge a complaint with Webtrak. Use this site to see the flights. Note:This shows flights with a delay of 30min.
To lodge a complaint on an aircraft,
*)Wait 30min
*)Go to the site and uncheck the "Show Current Flights". The timeline should then become active and you can go back and find the planes flying overhead.



*)Click on the aircraft flying overhead and then click on the pencil and paper icon to lodge a complaint.




2) Ring 1800 802 584 and lodge a complaint. These guys send a monthly report of complaints to the Airports.

3) Get onto the phone or email our Federal member of Parliament, Don Randall (08)9390 1211 Don.Randall.MP@aph.gov.au

4) Read this site and take action http://www.fairskies.com.au/TAKE%20ACTION!

For more info - visit www.perthairport.com

I'm just getting to speed with this issue. If anyone has more info - add to this forum (and I'll update this info).

Are the flights bothering other people?

Hey,
I have had the same problem in Bedfordale over the last couple of weeks...I rang the 1800 number and lodged a complaint regarding the noise...the operator told me that as the wind has been Northerly for the past couple of weeks that a flight path over Bedfordale area has been used. Last night there was planes at approx 11.45pm, 11.55pm & 12.05am, apparently they can request a curfew between certain hours. She also said that a number of conplaints from this area had been recieved.
I am not happy with this flight path being used, because like Roleystone, Bedfordale is also a quiet suburb.

Hi I have just moved up to Roleystone and couldnt beleive all the aircraft noise! So took your advise and complained to the 1800 number and Don Randal and hopefully they stop sending so many over here and we can all get some sleep

Good to see its not just me! Please keep reporting in so we know that there are others out there!

Another number to call is Alannah MacTiernan on 1800 605 772. Alannah is moving from state to federal politics and is contending against Don Randalls next Federal election. (I'll add that number on my first post.)

She has done a lot in the past for us, like stopping the 280 appartments on lot 62, and she helped stopped Galliers Maternal Hospital from closing. Maybe she can help us out again

Flights overhead seem to vary during the daylight times, but now they seem to be consistently flying over from about 11pm to 2am. This may be ok when houses are closed up for winter - but in the summer when the windows are open for ventiation and cooling - its going to be terrible.

As a result of the West Australian Route Review Project (WARRP), three new flight paths are now directly over Roleystone – two for large commercial jets and one for turbo prop aircraft. There is also another one 3 to 5 km to the North.
The result of these changes has meant dramatically increased noise over our suburb. The arriving jets fly directly overhead at lower altitudes than should reasonably be expected in a Hills suburb 30km from the airport. They are also decelerating as they descend, thereby increasing the noise level.
The Councils of Bayswater, Belmont, South Perth, Canning, Gosnells, Kalamunda and Mundaring have all been involved in the WARRP since 2006 when the first consultations and discussions began. The City of Armadale however was never invited to be involved.
A recent Senate Committee Hearing into Aircraft noise was held in Perth on April 28, and as a result of that Hearing, the City of Armadale has now been invited to send a representative to the Committee. This is Cnr, Jeff Munn and I suggest you keep in contact with him.
According to Air Services Australia, there were no complaints about the new routes, therefore they assumed acceptance of them. It was a bit hard to complain when neither you nor your Council knew what was happening.
Many Roleystone residents forwarded complaints to our Federal Member, Mr Don Randall and also registered complaints via the Fair Skies Website and subsequently made submissions to the Senate Committee Hearing.
Air Services Australia log every complaint and only take action based upon the number of complaints received. I would urge concerned residents to register a complaint via the Air Services Australia Webtrak site: www331.webtrak-lochard.com/webtrak/per3 each time that they are affected by excessive aircraft noise. I report every one that disturbs me, even though it can be time consuming, I think it worth the effort. Also keep your local Councillor and MPs informed. (WebTrak is a Community Web replay which shows all flights). The arriving jets pass over with a frequency of less than three minutes apart at peak times when they are landing in the S to N direction on the main runway. This situation will worsen with the planned increases in air traffic over Perth. Flights are also allowed to arrive in the early hours of the morning and there will be no curfew in Perth as there is in Sydney and Adelaide. It should be noted that a very slight shift in the flight paths to the East would take the jets over uninhabited areas and avoid Roleystone altogether. Your complaint may help achieve this.
We are privileged to live in one of the most beautiful places on Earth. Don’t let the bureaucrats and general apathy rob us of this wonderful life style. If we want to preserve it, we’re going to have to fight for it. It is interesting to note that recent statistics from ASA showed that in 2010 there were 12 incidents and near misses, whilst in 2008 (prior to paths changes) there were 7. Whatever was causing the problems, it seems evident that it wasn't the flight paths.
Anyone interested in reading the transcripts of the Senate Committee Hearing can do so at: www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/rrat_ctt...e/hearings/index.htm
As a result of the Senate Cttee hearings a new independent Ombudsman for Aircraft Noise has been appointed (Mr. Ron Brent) and I would suggest that if you are not receiving satisfactory answers to your questions from ASA, then send a report to him. I am planning to do this as I cannot get any direct answers as to why the aircraft can't fly over the forest area slightly to the East which is unpopulated.
Keep up the fight or we will lose our beautiful lifestyle.
Pat Horne

Thanks for that info Pat. You deserve a Karma point from me! That webtrak site is fabulous! I've added that to my first post. Its like having the control tower in your own living room. I hope everyone uses it - its so easy!

www331.webtrak-lochard.com/webtrak/per3www331.webtrak-lochard.com/webtrak/per3

Oops - here comes another one! I'll try the complaints form.

Glad I could help. I find Webtrak invaluable with the info it supplies. It took me a few goes before I realised I could go back and look at previous days and that I could speed up the replay 10 times. That helps a lot when I'm reporting the numerous loud planes that I've noted over the course of a day. I've also prepared a submission to the new Ombudsman, but I have to find out where to send it. I'll update when I get the relevant info. Keep up the good work because if we don't log all our complaints ASA will take it that we are happy with the situation and we'll lose our peaceful Hills lifestyle.

Hi Chris
Just been having a look at the Fairskies website.Some interesting stuff on there. The plans to build a parallel runway has the potential to double the amount of traffic over Roleystone. I've subscribed to their newsletter because I think they're far better organised than we are. I'm also trying to get the address of the new Ombudsman, but I haven't found it yet.
I'm getting a as many people as I can to lodge complaints because that's the only way we might get something done.

Hi all,

My name is Ian Davies and I am a member of Fairskies! a Perth Hills aircraft noise action group. www.fairskies.com.au The group was formed in early 2009 by residents in the Hills areas concerned about an increase in aircraft noise resulting from new and changed flight paths introduced by Airservices Australia as part of the West Australian Route Review Project. It appears people on this forum are already aware of the WARRP and are also concerned about the increase in aircraft noise and it's impact on your community.

I can say that since the introduction of the new flight paths in Nov 2008 none have yet been shifted and apart from small changes for airport operational needs they are relatively the same now as then.

The Fairskies! group has been active in working towards change to achieve a sensible balance in the aircraft noise throughout the Perth area around Perth International airport. A number of our members gave evidence at the recent Australia wide Senate Inquiry into The Effectiveness of Airservices Australia's Management of Aircraft Noise. Over 180 submissions to the enquiry were receieved by the Senate committee and 4 public hearings were held in Perth, Melb, Sydney and Canberra. As one of the other posters has noted, all sumbissions and committee report can be viewed at the Senate website here www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctt...raft_noise/index.htm
The Senate Committee report was handed down in Jul 2010 and it made 10 recommendations for change. We are now working to get the new gov't to implement the recommendations especially Rec No 9 - "The committee recommends that despite the completion of the Western Australian Route Review Project, sufficient grounds exist for the Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts to review the changes to flight paths under paragraph 160(2)(b) of the EPBC Act 1999 in response to stakeholder concerns."

After Mundaring shire residents lobbied through their local councillor and member of the Perth Airport Noise management Consulatative Committee, the Shire of Mundaring recently sent a letter to the Federal Environment and Transport ministers asking them to support the adoption of Rec No 9.

Roelystone residents could also lobby their shire to achieve a similar aim through the new PANMCC rep Cr Jeff Munn.

A note about Webtrack that we in the Hills need to aware of. - We have found Webtrack to be a great source of information, but there is a flaw in the way it repesents the height of aircraft over the Hills. It effectively uses a "flat earth" model in that it represents all aircraft altitudes (height) as metres above mean sea level (AMSL). It doesn't take into account that areas such as Roleystone are elevated approx 300m above sea level. So when you see the height of the aircraft on Webtrack subtract 300m from it and you will have an indication of the true hieght above your home. If you want it exact you will have to research the exact height of your area, but 300m is an average that will be a rough guide.

e.g. Webtrack reports the height as 1700m AMSL, so subtract 300 and the real height above the ground would be somewhere around 1400m (4592ft).

Anyway, this is just a short post to say Hi. It is good to see posters on this forum have done a lot of work to understand the new flight paths etc. I would be happy to talk further with people and help them to further understand the issues. My time is limited at the moment, but I will do what I can.

regards, Ian Davies

Hello RoleyNet,

Thanks for the contributions, very helpful and pleasing to see that residents of Roleystone are giving as much noise as we are recieving. Apparently we are the top of the pops with ASA's Noise Enquiry Unit, recording the highest number of complaints over the past few months. Because of our elevation, we also recieve the the highest aircraft noise levels under the new WARRP of any community between 15 and 25 km from the airport.

I have had contact with some of you before (thanks Ian and Pat) and I had hoped that we would have seen some action from the government on the Senate Committee's Report tabled some 7 months ago. Some very sound recomendations have been left in limbo by Minister Albanese and the Gillard government.

Does anyone have any suggestions to move this foward. I have found that our local member for Canning Don Randal most obtuse, if not turning a deaf era, funny, given his election slogan. The member for Pearce Judi Moylan seems to want to help, but her chosen path of a private members bill has been tried before and found wanting. Steve Irons, the member for Swan seems to want to forget the WARRP induced extra noise, preferring insulation in houses and maybe (joking) "ear muffs".

Any suggestions to move this along politically or environmentally ?

Cheers Peter Stewart

Just to let you all know that I have been in contact with the newly appointed Aircraft Noise Ombudsman. This week I received a very detailed response to my complaint. I had asked ASA several times why the flight paths could not have been located further to the East and further South, thus avoiding Roleystone altogether without affecting any other communities. All I received in reply was a load of gobbledygook which didn't answer my question and implied that I was too stupid to understand the complex processes involved in the decision.
The Ombudsman's Office has raised the same question and I received the following reply from them:-
"On 7 December 2010, Mr Brent met with the General Manager, Environment,and discussed further your complaint among others and in particular the question of why the particular flight path affecting your area can't be moved as you suggest. The advice from this meeting was that, on the face of it, there is no technical reason it couldn't be moved, but that there are many operational considerations that would need to be investigated and an environment impact study conducted before this could be enacted. Whether an improved noise outcome could be achieved needs to be determined.
The ANO office has undertaken to work with the relevant staff of ASA to define a high level feasibility study that will examine these matters and provide some insight into whether further detailed work would be warranted. I appreciate this must sound like a drawn out process and it will take time. I am confident, however, that by undertaking this work ASA will be able to either substantiate the case for change or provide a clear evidence-based answer to your question about why it can't be changed."
They also informed me that my complaint has been used as a case study for the ANO's Review of Air Services Australia's handling of Noise complaints.
I have also written again to Don Randall and asked him to find out which (if any) of the recommendation of the Senate Committee Hearings
have been implemented. I sent a copy also to Bill Heffernan only because he was so outspoken at the Hearings. I believe that Steve Irons has also recently raised this question in Parliament.
I'm trying to keep Jeff Munn (our rep on the WARRP committee) informed of what's going on.
I think we just have to keep plugging away at them and flooding them with complaints via WebTrak (and the ANO). The only way to effect change is by people power!!
Good to see that I'm not alone in this. I was beginning to think that only I and my neighbours were complaining.
For those of you who don't know, the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman is Mr. Ron Brent, and he can be contacted at :-
GPO Box 1985
Canberra ACT 2604
Tel 1800 266 040

Thanks Pat,

There are lots of avenues and byways to explore, yet very few have any legal standing. Some, like the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman (ANO), seems to have been created to simply "soak up" the disaffected and have us punch ourselves out boxing at shadows.

Please note that Minister Albanese set up the ANO as a Ministerial discretion, Brent and any other similar appointment has no power. See the ANO's Charter, there is a heading on powers, yet no power accorded. The ANO shouldn't even be able to call itself an Ombudsman's office, according to the criteria established by the ANZOA, the Australian New Zealand Ombudsman's Association. This ANO is NOT the office as recommended by the Senate Report, it's a cynical cheap trick by Minister Albanese.

It's pleasing that Brent has responded to your compliant in more positive terms than AirServices Australia (ASA), however he seems to say whatever his audience wants to hear. In an address to the "industry" in September 2010, he sets the scene and is reported in quotation marks by Australian Flying Magazine as saying: ... "Aircraft noise is a reality - it's part of modern society. We can't get rid of it, so the challenge is to make sure that information is conveyed as clearly and openly and honestly to individuals as can be done. One of the things I find most fascinating and enthuasing about this job is the fact that it is a problem that in the end has no solution. Aircraft noise is here to stay." WOW

Brent's response to you is somewhat disengenuious, the process he talks about when considering changes to WARRP you suggested, are indeed the statutory requirememts prior to WARRP being implemented. The Senate Inquiry found these wanting and insisted on the WARRP changes being properly reassesed. Brent is working against this, he's arguing the double negative, that there now needs to be proof to change the WARRP ! Poppycock. Brent could have followed the Senate Report recommendations - he chose not to. As per the Senate Inquiry Recommendations; the WARRP is yet to be properly assesed by the Minister for Environment and needs to be so assesed, Brent knows this only too well from his meetings with the emmber for Pearce Judi Moylan. This is the proper, legislated for legal process that has been avoided all along by ASA.

Fairskies wrote a detailed submission on Senate recommendation 9 to the Minister for the Environment dated November 21, 2010. Given a time of grace of say 90 days, I will talk to Ian about making this a public document by February 21, 2011.

Like the ANO, the Perth Airport Noise Management Consultative Committee (PANMCC) also lacks standing. Our newly appointed representative, Cr Jeff Munn should be keeping us informed as well as you letting him know what's happening. If the aircraft noise problem is most apparent in Roleystone's Jarrah Ward, shouldn't we have a Councillor from Roleystone nominated by Armadale for the PANMCC ?

Pat, you are not alone, we are all plugging away the best we can, but there are some traps like the ANO and PANMCC that are specifically designed to soak up community anger without any power to do anything, simply confuse, conflate and obsfucate.

It seems that our best shot is to have the Government adopt the recommendations of the Senate Report and the Minister for the Environment properly asses the WARRP that has visited the terrific increase in aircraft noise upon hills residents.

Now, how do we do that ? Could we get the City of Armadale to write to the PM ?

PS did you get that roof rattler at 2.00 pm yesterday?

Is a bad situation about to get even worse ?

Following is a letter to the editor of the West sent today, if history is any guide it will not be published: so thanks Chris, now "self-published" on Roleynet !!!

"Dear Editor,

Strangely enough, we get a temporary noise warning for an airport re-surfacing story (West Monday Feb 21); yet last Thursday, Feb 17, under the headline “Qantas takes on Virgin”, we heard nothing of the permanent high noise impact the re-introduction of 747-400’s will have on Perth and surrounds. The noisy old 747-400’s have long been banned from night time operation at London, Tokyo and many other international airports. The noise level of these fossils is twice that of Qantas’ replacement, the A380 Airbus and almost three times the level of the optional A330’s operating into and out of Perth.

Why is it that Perth and the wider metropolitan area is to be subjected to such significant noise impact from an ageing blast from the past? The question gains added importance when the 2010 Senate report on Aircraft Noise singled out Perth’s new WARRP arrangements (low altitude jet aircraft circling the eastern hills and southern suburbs) as requiring urgent review and examination by the Minister for the Environment. An already noise disturbed environment is about to become even more noisier. Are the airlines and private airports a law unto themselves, beyond the reach of environmental laws and even the federal parliament ?"

Cheers and cover your ears !

Aviation Reporter Geoffrey Thomas dropped a bombshell on Hills and Perth residents when he revealed on the front page of The West on Thurs 3 March that:

"Residents living under the Perth Airport flight paths will have to keep putting up with aircraft noise after the Federal Government rejected solutions including installing sound insulation in their homes."

The reality is that only 3 out of the ten Senate Committee's recommendations were supported by the government. Recommendation 9 to refer the WARRP to the Minister for Environment for greater scrutiny was not supported.

FairSkies presented a solid case for referral showing the failures in the Airservices WARRP environmental Self-Assessment in a letter to the Minister for Environment back in late Nov 2010. We have not yet received a substantive reply from the Minister.

You can review the full Government's response to the Senate Committee's recommendations and FairSkies rebuttal on our website. www.fairskies.com.au
Look under "Senate Inquiry News", "Government Response to Senate Aircraft Noise Inquiry" and ""FairSkies Media Response".

Airservices just did not do it properley and we in the Hills have a right to be angry about the new noise burden we are forced to bear. The federal government has failed to bring Airservices, this 400kg gorilla to account for it's shamefull actions.

Ian Davies.

Thanks Ian,

As a member I can recommend that anyone with an interest in aircraft noise visit our web site at www.fairskies.com.au. It's been a hard slog but we are making great progress of late.

Whilst the Senate Report of Inquiry set out the issues and made sound recommendations in June 2010, the Gillard government and it's Transport Minister are unmoved and did not adopt the recommendations, strange really as the government members on the Senate Inquiry did not substantially disagree with the recommendations made.

The Member for Pearce, Mrs Judi Moylan has been very active over the past few years, when the government failed to adopt the Senate Report recommendations she consulted several community groups, government agencies and the leadership of the coalition to forge a private members Bill in conjunction with the parliamentary draftsman.

The House of Representatives Notice Paper for July 4 (this Monday) has Mrs Moylan presenting her "Airservices (Aircraft Noise) Amendment Bill" which also seeks to amend the Ennvironmental Protection, Biodiversity and Conservation Act.

The Bill would fix the deficits identified in the Senate report and better protect the public from aircraft noise. In a great move Mrs Moylan has effectivly established "retrospectivity" in regard to WARRP, the plan that is sending all those extra aircraft low over Roleystone.

As the numbers stand she will need the support of the independents to get this Bill through. If anyone has contacts with Katter, Windsor, Oakshott, Bant or Wilkie PLEASE use it, even if you don't and are passionate about the issue ring anyway - the following background is from a letter emailed by Fairskies to them this afternoon. Your support would help. Phone an independent polly today.

quote:
Fair Skies!
Perth Hills Aircraft Noise Action Group
www.fairskies.com.au
July 30, 2011


URGENT : SUPPORT FOR JUDI MOYLAN’S PRIVATE MEMBERS BILL
AIR SERVICES (AIRCRAFT NOISE) AMENDMENT BILL 2011
ITEM 3 ON NOTICE FOR MONDAY 4 JULY 2011 – SCHEDULED FOR 11.10 AM

Fairskies seeks your independent support for an important Bill to be introduced on Monday July 4. The Fairskies group represents people from Hills communities to the East of Perth, some at a distance from the airport, that have been subjected to a significant impact on their quality of life, future health and property values by new, increased and unreasonable aircraft noise emitted from heavy jet and turbo aircraft flying the new routes instigated by Airservices Australia in Nov 2008. Large jets now conduct low altitude circuits below 1,000 Metres AGL on 25 and 50 kilometre legs over Perth’s southern and eastern residential suburbs. The WARRP proposal was the largest change to the entire airspace in Western Australia in 30 years and introduced substantial changes to air routes within the Perth Control Area out to a radius of 36 nautical miles from the airport. All these changes occurred without a proper community consultation or environmental assessment.

Like many community groups concerned with the increase in aircraft noise from major airports across Australia, we are grateful for the efforts of the recent Senate Inquiry into ... “The effectiveness of Airservices Australia’s management of aircraft noise”. This RRAT Committee Report was tabled in July 2010. Even government Senators offered substantive agreement with the recommendations made in the report, save for potential costs arising from recommendation r.2 and r.7. Mrs Moylan’s Bill adopts the major thrust of the Inquiry recommendations and amends any substantial costs associated with the appointment of a Community Aviation Advocate (r.2) which is now only on an “as and when required” basis. Mrs Moylan’s Bill does not attempt revision of the ANEF process (r.7). We seek your support for the proposals so that the pubic interest is best served. We must learn from the mistakes of the past, this Bill will help to ensure that they are not repeated and that the principal Act’s maintain integrity in their application and that proper community consultation and environmental assessments will occur.

In formulating the Bill Mrs Moylan has consulted widely amongst community groups, government agencies and the opposition leadership. The amendments sought are precise, unambiguous and will give full effect to the objects of the respective Acts; fixing the deficits identified by the Senate Inquiry. Passage of the Amendment Bill will allow meaningful community consultation and proper environmental assessment of any flight path or air route changes proposed by Airservices Australia.

Should you have any questions regarding the above or other aspects of our community group please phone the members below or visit our web site at: www.fairskies.com.au.

Yours faithfully




Peter Stewart 08 9496 1103 and Ian Davies 0408 298 886 for FAIRSKIES

end quote.

Get Up and Get Active. Cheers

HI ALL THANKYOU FOR ENLIGHTENING US ,,, WE ARE LOOKING TO BUY IN THAT AREA AND AFTER READING ALL YOUR COMMENTS WE ARE PLEASED TO SAY THAT WE ARE NOW RETHINKING OUR DECISION,,,I PERSONALLY WAKE IF I HEAR A MOZZIE!!! SO PLANES WOULD FREAK ME OUT,,,,VERY SAD TO HEAR ,,,THANKS AGAIN

Hi Changes,
Unfortunately all the towns on the Perth foothills from Mundaring to Bedfordale now all share the problem.

Suburbs closer to Perth have to put up with traffic noise.

Its a pity the authorities have now spread the noise pollution throughout the Perth region.

For now, its the sacrifice for living 40min to the city. But if we continue to take action, maybe we can get it back to the way it was - along the old and known designated routes. Perhaps alternatives may be aircraft descending over the ocean, unpopulated areas or traffic noisy areas.

The aircraft routes do change throughout the day and night - so fortunately we are not subjected to the noise all the time. But it’s such a contrast to the normal tranquillity of Roleystone.

I wonder if our realestate companies here in Roleystone have any comment?