This is the second article on airspace modernisation. Before going on to the consultation itself we will deal with the dangers of airspace modernisation.
PBN can place aircraft much more accurately than previous guidance systems. That is its point. More planes can be guided more accurately through the skies. It will be possible to more accurately assess the receiving time and ability of the receiving airport so that once a plane departs, it will be able to land at its destination airport more quickly and reducing the need for stacking in a waiting area.
The Government’s and CAA’s combined organization for implementing Airspace Modernisation is called ACOG (Airspace Change Organising Group). Its stated function “is to coordinate this national programme and create a strategic coordinated Airspace Change Masterplan for UK airspace to deliver key aspects of the Government’s Airspace Modernisation Strategy”. ACOG states that:
“It is recognised that while airspace modernisation may bring noise benefits for many people, including opportunities to better avoid noise sensitive areas, new routes can also create increased noise for others. Similarly, where the overall level of noise may be reduced by changes to the existing system, the effects may become more concentrated, increasing the impacts in specific areas. It is therefore essential that airspace modernisation at lower altitudes incorporates as many routes as possible within a coherent process to examine the cumulative impacts of the proposed changes to balance the impacts appropriately.”
There is your warning! There may well be more routes going over more people with more flights and less respite. Alternatively two or more routes may be combined or put closer together increasing traffic and consequently the noise levels. Extreme accuracy brings with it extreme concentration. Overnight, people could be subject to enormous increases in noise – both people who have not been overflown before, and people who are already overflown but not yet to the extent brought about by airspace modernisation. Noise at the side of a flight path can be very considerable as well, so even if aircraft are not flying directly over people those people can still be deeply troubled by the noise. In addition, experience has shown that lower flights bring a lot more noise as well as a lot more concentration.
“NextGen Relief” represent people in the USA who have suffered this fate, and their website is at https://nextgenrelief.org/ . You will remember that “NextGen” is the American version of airspace modernisation being introduced by its FAA. NextGen Relief talks about the adverse health impacts saying:
“For the citizens living under the NextGen flightpaths, there is an incredible amount of concern about the cumulative impacts of hundreds of low-flying airplanes releasing toxic particulate matter emissions daily over communities.
The FAA itself has stated that one of the goals of NextGen is to reduce harmful toxic emissions by flying more “efficient” flightpaths – but if by the FAA’s own admission that airplane emissions are harmful, shouldn’t the hundreds of thousands of Americans living under these new flightpaths be very concerned about their health? The FAA is now targeting all these harmful emissions over the same people, hundreds of times a day. At lower elevations.
How many citizens living under these NextGen flightpaths can expect to start seeing elevated cancer clusters? Will it be five years? Ten years? Fifteen years? Remember that in order to spring NextGen on communities as quickly as possible, the FAA got the review process exempted from any environmental review oversight.
There is also growing concern about the health impacts of repeated and constant exposure to noise pollution – there have been several studies in recent years showing that repeated exposure to high-frequency noise results in an array of negative health conditions, many that first begin to manifest in children.”
Congress has become involved and members have written to the FAA about the appalling state caused by the NextGen program. 
Numerous protest or community noise groups have been formed. 
Some can be found at https://nextgenrelief.org/congress-and-nextgen/ The “National Quiet Skies Coalition” in the USA has a website at https://nqsc.org/Organizations.html . On its front page it has a Brooklyn resident commenting:
“Like frogs in boiling water, we’re supposed to be used to it. It’s also obvious that any human consequences were left out of this completely logistical and engineering-driven initiative. People are collateral damage. It’s the economy and the airline industry that matter. We didn’t get a seat at the table. Not during the process and not now.” 
Already, Heathrow do not operate the approved ICAO departure procedure for an area such as that surrounding Heathrow, called NAPD1. We could follow the USA with ever more and ever lower flights over our homes blighting our lives. PBN will be able to calculate the optimum and cheapest (for the airlines) way of departing, saving on maintenance costs to the detriment of residents.
There is a real danger of airspace modernisation being a torture chamber for many people. There has to be consultation under UK law, and we will start taking you through that in the next article.
In the meantime, people should get interested and involved. Groups that consider or represent people’s welfare in connection with Heathrow and are not represented should apply to CISHA (https://www.cisha.org/) to be part of the Noise and Airspace Community Forum to get their voices heard. There is a statutory entitlement under section 35 Civil Aviation Act 1982, which provides that “any organisation representing the interests of persons concerned with the locality in which the aerodrome is situated shall be provided with adequate facilities for consultation with respect to any matter concerning the management or administration of the aerodrome which affects their interests”.
Be First to Comment