Airport Business

APR 2017

The airport professional's source for airport industry news, articles, events, and careers.

Issue link: http://airportbusiness.epubxp.com/i/813534

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 25 of 43

NOISE ABATEMENT 26 airportbusiness April 2017 public should have access to a clear picture of the issues that have been raised and responses to those issues. The responses fall into three broad categories: 1. Issues for which a solution has been identified and is being or has been actioned. It is important that the public should be able to monitor progress on solutions being actioned. The community should also be able to identify where partial solutions have been put in place, vital to ensuring that small gains are celebrat- ed and the effort behind them acknowledged. 2. Issues that are under active consid- eration. The public should have access to a simple process to 'sign on' to such issues, to show the extent of community concern. The public should also be able to monitor progress on possible action. 3. Issues that have been raised but for which there is no viable solution. It is import- ant that these issues should be acknowledged. Information on why there is no viable solution should be readily accessible in easily under- stood terms. The message should be clear: that there is no value in pursuing these issues and that individuals need to accept responsibility for dealing with the consequences of the noise in such cases. Best practice noise complaint reporting now addresses people and issues, rather than the number of contacts received, removing the incentive to make large numbers of repeat con- tacts about one issue. In Australia, a change in reporting removed any information about repeat contacts, but instead reported the numbers of individuals who had reported an issue. The result was a drop of 80 percent in the number of contacts received. ULTIMATELY A SOCIAL NEGOTIATION Ultimately, each society must negotiate its own balance – the point where it decides that the benefits of aviation are in balance with its impacts. To succeed, it is essential that the facts are clear, the debate is informed and that all voices are heard. Society is well used to the con- cept of social compacts that accept a level of harm or 'dis-benefit' in return for an overall social benefit. Society accepts the costs of the continuing proliferation of private motor vehicles. In return for the pol- lution, road safety concerns, traffic noise and traffic crowding that it produces, society takes the conve- nience and freedom of movement that it delivers. In contrast, the air- craft noise debate is often framed in more absolute and less productive terms. Curfews, movement caps, and restrictions on airport expan- sion take the place of a debate about the appropriate balance between the costs and benefits of expanding aviation. Improved engagement with complainants is already shifting the mainstream debate in some com- munities to ensuring an appropriate balance between the efforts that are being made to reduce aircraft noise and the importance of allow- ing aviation to grow in response to consumer demand and social necessity. THE FUTURE OF COMPLAINT ENGAGEMENT The industry must strive for a future where legislators and regulators can make better decisions armed with a complete picture of the spectrum of stakeholder opinions, not just those of vocal minorities. Once the complex trade-offs have been weighed up and decisions made, it is key that individuals are then in a position to make well-informed lifestyle decisions. A constructive debate requires a clear pic- ture of community and individual concerns, a complaints system that can deliver this data, and engagement strategies that encourage productive communication and good informa- tion rather than repeat lodgement of contacts and highly technical explanation of aviation practice and aircraft noise. The debate must address all the drivers of annoyance rather than be limited to technically based data on noise levels and numerically based noise contours. A new approach to complaints is emerging to help turn these goals into reality. LEKTRO 1-800-535-8767 1-503-861-2288 sales@lektro.com Models Ranging 15,000 to 280,000 lbs. The Original Aircraft Tug www. .com LEKTRO Easy to Use Simple to Maintain Electric Towbarless Rugged Universal Certified Since 1945 www.aviationpros.com/10017532 Ron Brent is Australia's first AircraŌ Noise Ombuds- man (ANO), appointed Sept. 1, 2010 and conƟnues in this role today. The role of ANO is to enhance the management of complaints, improve aircraŌ noise informaƟon and develop more effecƟve consultaƟon. Brent also chairs the Australian Research Integrity CommiƩee. Prior to taking up his role as ANO, he was acƟng commonwealth ombudsman and before that, deputy commonwealth ombudsman for seven years. He also has experience in management and leadership having been director of the NaƟonal Film and Sound Archive for 10 years. Before that he worked in policy and legal roles in various government departments. Mike Rikard-Bell was one of four founders of Lochard, the Australian technology company and developer of systems to help airports plan and manage their environmental impact. Lochard joined Brüel & Kjær in 2009 to form the environment management soluƟons division with systems in over 200 airports globally. B&K;'s client base reads like a who's who of the indus- try including Heathrow, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Chica- go, Los Angeles, Sydney, Inchon, Hong Kong & Beijing. Based in B&K;'s Melbourne office, he is responsible for industry thought leadership and partnering with strategic clients to architect and implement world's best pracƟce in aviaƟon noise management. ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Airport Business - APR 2017