Government "Bans noisy aircraft"
Thread Starter
What about Tay engined 727s?
I also believe the -124 meets stage III limits!
Just you wait, those "low slow and noisy" turboprops will be banned next.
I also believe the -124 meets stage III limits!
Just you wait, those "low slow and noisy" turboprops will be banned next.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Led Zep
The Tay engined B727 are fully stage 3 compliant just like all the other conversions however the EEC set their noise limit around the Tay re engined aircraft which had nothing to do with the fact that the Tay is an EEC product so they say.Its my understandng that except for one pax aircraft which Westfield based here for a time all the rest were B727 100s of UPS.
Having said all that I can't understand how an aircraft that meets ICAO stage 3 however marginally, can be banned by a fully ICAO compliant state.There is only one position, you comply or don't. If we aren't fully ICAO compliant then throw out the stupidities like Ausies born pilots trainees having to have an English language test.
If we are going down the road of setting our own noise standards then how about looking at the P&W B 747 200s. They are also marginal. I'm not sure that in their ops that reducing landing flap to F25 puts them much inside the marginal at the best.But they are mainly US based and we wouldn't want to upset them would we? No votesd inupsetting the Yanks!!!
Wunwing
The Tay engined B727 are fully stage 3 compliant just like all the other conversions however the EEC set their noise limit around the Tay re engined aircraft which had nothing to do with the fact that the Tay is an EEC product so they say.Its my understandng that except for one pax aircraft which Westfield based here for a time all the rest were B727 100s of UPS.
Having said all that I can't understand how an aircraft that meets ICAO stage 3 however marginally, can be banned by a fully ICAO compliant state.There is only one position, you comply or don't. If we aren't fully ICAO compliant then throw out the stupidities like Ausies born pilots trainees having to have an English language test.
If we are going down the road of setting our own noise standards then how about looking at the P&W B 747 200s. They are also marginal. I'm not sure that in their ops that reducing landing flap to F25 puts them much inside the marginal at the best.But they are mainly US based and we wouldn't want to upset them would we? No votesd inupsetting the Yanks!!!
Wunwing
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This same rule has applied in Europe for quite some time.
You need be chapter three "and" have a bypass ratio of (i believe) 8 or more. Unfortunately the Fedex kit which DHE has doesn't cut it.
The kit was designed to beat the test and not quiten the aircraft down. It redirects the noise to beat the side sensors and the weights are limited depending on Engine version to cover the takeoff. Flaps are limted for landing as well.
As an old 727 man myself, I must admit that it will be a sad day when the last 727 graces our skies.
You need be chapter three "and" have a bypass ratio of (i believe) 8 or more. Unfortunately the Fedex kit which DHE has doesn't cut it.
The kit was designed to beat the test and not quiten the aircraft down. It redirects the noise to beat the side sensors and the weights are limited depending on Engine version to cover the takeoff. Flaps are limted for landing as well.
As an old 727 man myself, I must admit that it will be a sad day when the last 727 graces our skies.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rudder
DOT/CASA has recently inflicted a number of useless rules on us here in Australia in the name of ICAO harmonisation.Despite how it was done, the B727 with Fedex kits meets ICAO stage 3.Either we are fully "harmonised " or we aren't.If we accept this then its time to throw out all the ICAO rubbish that we don't need, among other things English tests for Austalian born pilot candidates.
On top of that, no-one has yet explained what we replace a B727 with. A B737 only uplifts 8 pallets while a B727 uplifts 12.So say ex PER you need 3 B737 s for a replacement of 2 B727s. A B757 is way too expensive a replacement given the poor utilisation expected in a typical Austrlain freight operation.I'm not convinced as someone who lives under the SYD flightpath that I'd rather have 3 movements over 2, even if the B737 is marginally quieter.
Wunwing
Wunwing
DOT/CASA has recently inflicted a number of useless rules on us here in Australia in the name of ICAO harmonisation.Despite how it was done, the B727 with Fedex kits meets ICAO stage 3.Either we are fully "harmonised " or we aren't.If we accept this then its time to throw out all the ICAO rubbish that we don't need, among other things English tests for Austalian born pilot candidates.
On top of that, no-one has yet explained what we replace a B727 with. A B737 only uplifts 8 pallets while a B727 uplifts 12.So say ex PER you need 3 B737 s for a replacement of 2 B727s. A B757 is way too expensive a replacement given the poor utilisation expected in a typical Austrlain freight operation.I'm not convinced as someone who lives under the SYD flightpath that I'd rather have 3 movements over 2, even if the B737 is marginally quieter.
Wunwing
Wunwing
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wunwing,
The same argument was run when they went from Chapter 2 to Chapter 3.
It didn't win then and it wont win now. I'm just surprised that it has taken them this long to catch up so that was a blessing.
No Argurment with your points on a replacement. Nothing comes close for the dollar.
The same argument was run when they went from Chapter 2 to Chapter 3.
It didn't win then and it wont win now. I'm just surprised that it has taken them this long to catch up so that was a blessing.
No Argurment with your points on a replacement. Nothing comes close for the dollar.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sad day
Its a crying shame I say. There was nothing as fun as watching 727 freighters depart BNE in the wee hours and fly over Hamilton if the right weather conditions prevailed. The sound of those hush kitted engines crackling through the low cloud base and waking all the snobs on millionaires row was always a pleasure.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back around 1969 the ferals under the flight path of Sydney 07 ILS bitched about the F27's and other types. They got the ear of a local Labor politician who leaned upon DCA to fix the problem. My boss in DCA at the time was Lloyd Milne (former RAAF Hudson pilot who opted for a quiet desk job after the war)
Somone in DCA came up with the bright idea of raising the glide path angle from the then standard 2.5 degrees to 3 .0 degrees which gave a slightly increased height over the outer-marker from which suburb most of the complaints came from. If I recall the noise foot-print difference was almost immeasurable to the three degree ILS slope but DCA could say tongue-in cheek, cross my heart and hope to die to the then Minister for Air (or whatever he was known as in those days) that the noise problem was solved.
Of course it wasn't but that didn't matter because the State government had taken some action (useless) to reduce noise. Of course the question then arose of standardisation of all ILS around the country from 2.5 degrees to the new 3 degrees. That cost big money as the DCA flying unit had to re-calibrate all the ILS and that was done by their DC3 and Friendship plus all the travel time. Then of course what about the T-VASIS? Well they all had to be jacked up to 3 degrees for Australia-wide standardisation, didn't they?
There were lots more T-VASIS around Australia then ILS and that meant months of flying over Australia in the DCA DC3 and Friendships.
And it all started because of a few vocal bogans in a couple of suburbs at Sydney under the 07 ILS. ..the cost of those minor changes to ILS and VASIS glide slope angles around Australia was considerable. The news of Australia's upping glide paths got to ICAO who decreed it was a Really Good Idea. And that is why today the three degree glide path is the ICAO recommended standard. Here endeth the Lesson.
Somone in DCA came up with the bright idea of raising the glide path angle from the then standard 2.5 degrees to 3 .0 degrees which gave a slightly increased height over the outer-marker from which suburb most of the complaints came from. If I recall the noise foot-print difference was almost immeasurable to the three degree ILS slope but DCA could say tongue-in cheek, cross my heart and hope to die to the then Minister for Air (or whatever he was known as in those days) that the noise problem was solved.
Of course it wasn't but that didn't matter because the State government had taken some action (useless) to reduce noise. Of course the question then arose of standardisation of all ILS around the country from 2.5 degrees to the new 3 degrees. That cost big money as the DCA flying unit had to re-calibrate all the ILS and that was done by their DC3 and Friendship plus all the travel time. Then of course what about the T-VASIS? Well they all had to be jacked up to 3 degrees for Australia-wide standardisation, didn't they?
There were lots more T-VASIS around Australia then ILS and that meant months of flying over Australia in the DCA DC3 and Friendships.
And it all started because of a few vocal bogans in a couple of suburbs at Sydney under the 07 ILS. ..the cost of those minor changes to ILS and VASIS glide slope angles around Australia was considerable. The news of Australia's upping glide paths got to ICAO who decreed it was a Really Good Idea. And that is why today the three degree glide path is the ICAO recommended standard. Here endeth the Lesson.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a crying shame I say. There was nothing as fun as watching 727 freighters depart BNE in the wee hours and fly over Hamilton if the right weather conditions prevailed.
). By a totally meaningless co-incidence, the Ruddster's electorate contains the suburbs of... Balmoral, Murarrie and Hawthorne. I'm sure if the late night wind is unfavourable for 01 he always volunteers to keep Fed Force 1 on the ground, rather than depart 19 and disturb all his devoted constituents.
P.S. Thanks 3 Holer, I couldn't remember the actual date. They were lovely aircraft.
Last edited by Worrals in the wilds; 4th Apr 2010 at 10:56. Reason: no manners at all
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Otautahi (awright, NZCH)
Age: 74
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fix it, Leroy
Why doesn't the Minister for (against?) Aviation or whatever title he goes by just go out to the airport and give each of these noisey aircraft a stern talking to and warn them that if they don't quieten down, they will be arrested.
Or maybe he should go out to the complainants and do the same instead.
BTW, which was there first: the complainants or the airport?
Na. Too simple...
Le Vieux
Or maybe he should go out to the complainants and do the same instead.
BTW, which was there first: the complainants or the airport?
Na. Too simple...
Le Vieux
I'm sure if the late night wind is unfavourable for 01 he always volunteers to keep Fed Force 1 on the ground, rather than depart 19 and disturb all his devoted constituents.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old un
Unfortunately for the argument in SYD case,the houses were there before the airport/runways.Many an interesting day spent at an Uncle's at Sydenham watching the F27s and Viscounts just over the roof in the 50s and the house was ancient then.The problem is that SYD was orginally an all direction grass strip.Many years later adding a 3rd rwy which impacted on established housing didn't help either.
Rudder
The problem with your point is that when we moved to stage 3 that is and was the latest standard. By inventing our own standard which now appears to be what the Minister and his electorate thinks is a good thing at the time, is the problem.Many will remember the Sydney Airport Noise Act during RHs Prime Ministership where specific types of aircraft where authorised to operate into and out of SYD after curfew. The problem is with that Act is that it allowed specific types of aircraft operated by a large domestic operator of the time but banned quieter aircraft like the L188.Again it was not related to the facts.
That the Minister is playing politics to impress his electorate is indicated by the fact that there is no spelt out standard for the latest decision, just aircraft types which can be varied when it suits the Minister (according to his electorate web -site).Just what is the DB level and footprint for a marginal type of aircraft?
Wunwing
Unfortunately for the argument in SYD case,the houses were there before the airport/runways.Many an interesting day spent at an Uncle's at Sydenham watching the F27s and Viscounts just over the roof in the 50s and the house was ancient then.The problem is that SYD was orginally an all direction grass strip.Many years later adding a 3rd rwy which impacted on established housing didn't help either.
Rudder
The problem with your point is that when we moved to stage 3 that is and was the latest standard. By inventing our own standard which now appears to be what the Minister and his electorate thinks is a good thing at the time, is the problem.Many will remember the Sydney Airport Noise Act during RHs Prime Ministership where specific types of aircraft where authorised to operate into and out of SYD after curfew. The problem is with that Act is that it allowed specific types of aircraft operated by a large domestic operator of the time but banned quieter aircraft like the L188.Again it was not related to the facts.
That the Minister is playing politics to impress his electorate is indicated by the fact that there is no spelt out standard for the latest decision, just aircraft types which can be varied when it suits the Minister (according to his electorate web -site).Just what is the DB level and footprint for a marginal type of aircraft?
Wunwing
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wunwing,
A very nice reminder of the good days - F27`s, Viscounts, 727's and not forgetting the other 'ear buster' the DC9.Several great decades of varying new aircraft type that were often ahead of their time.
As for airport noise,well that is always going to be one hot potato for many years to come,but you are right about one thing - pollies have played the game of politics with air traffic and noise for a long long time, and it won't change in a hurry.
Worals,
You are correct indeed. Kangaroo Point and Nudgee are also high on the whinging scale when it comes to noise, but don't forget the retiree's living around OOL who used to moan about the one 146 freighter that used to lob in around 0100 on a Saturday morning dropping off newspapers.Some Saturday's there would almost be an insurrection down at OOl !!
A very nice reminder of the good days - F27`s, Viscounts, 727's and not forgetting the other 'ear buster' the DC9.Several great decades of varying new aircraft type that were often ahead of their time.
As for airport noise,well that is always going to be one hot potato for many years to come,but you are right about one thing - pollies have played the game of politics with air traffic and noise for a long long time, and it won't change in a hurry.
Worals,
I heard that the complaints weren't so much from the snobs at Hamilton (they've all got double glazing anyway), but the cashed up bogans at Balmoral, Murarrie and Hawthorne re departures off RWY 19. The 727s rarely used it at night due noise abatement favouring RWY01 but whenever they did, the switchboards lit up and angry mobs turned up at the airport with pitchforks and burning effigies. Hamilton and Ascot get much less noise from the current airport layout than they did from the pre 1988 Eagle Farm runway orientation (in the good old days when there were lots of 727s 
).
).
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wunwing,
No, we didn't create our own standard, this new criteria has been in Europe for quite some time. This likely development was signalled here in Australia at least 5 years ago. AAe got on with it and retired their aircraft. That in of itself spelt the deathnell of the DHL aircraft. This decision just doesn't affect enough companies and/or have a large financial consequence. It politically looks tough but in of itself is actually a soft decision. Just what polies like.
The reality is that DHL ceased operating these same aircraft and replaced then for the same reason in Europe so they are going to have hard case argueing against the decision.
BTW, chapter 4 standards have also already been set for some time.
No, we didn't create our own standard, this new criteria has been in Europe for quite some time. This likely development was signalled here in Australia at least 5 years ago. AAe got on with it and retired their aircraft. That in of itself spelt the deathnell of the DHL aircraft. This decision just doesn't affect enough companies and/or have a large financial consequence. It politically looks tough but in of itself is actually a soft decision. Just what polies like.
The reality is that DHL ceased operating these same aircraft and replaced then for the same reason in Europe so they are going to have hard case argueing against the decision.
BTW, chapter 4 standards have also already been set for some time.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rudder
If Ch4 is in place in Australia how come we also haven't banned P&W B747 200s.They are also "marginal".The ones I operated became Stage 3 miraculously be moving a sliding placard over the FEs panel to Stage 3 and only landing using Flaps 25. I suspect that also makes them "marginally" compliant but no mention of them in the Minister's release.Again I ask what is marginally compliant in DBs and splay and all the normal standards that we use to determine any niose levels?
Wunwing
If Ch4 is in place in Australia how come we also haven't banned P&W B747 200s.They are also "marginal".The ones I operated became Stage 3 miraculously be moving a sliding placard over the FEs panel to Stage 3 and only landing using Flaps 25. I suspect that also makes them "marginally" compliant but no mention of them in the Minister's release.Again I ask what is marginally compliant in DBs and splay and all the normal standards that we use to determine any niose levels?
Wunwing
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simple Wunwing,
I didn't say aircraft had to be chapter 4.
These are all just standards.
Chapter 2 is still a standard but not permitted except in some parts of Africa I would suggest.
Chapter 3 is a standard and is still permitted. Europe and now Australia has just added an additional proviso that it will now require chapter 3 and I would think a bypass of 8 or above on the engines. This just doesn't apply to aircraft that have high bypass engines. Where has any reference to the PW engines come from and who says they will or wont be banned. Certianly not me. My only reference has been to the Fedex Hushkits that are as noisy as all hell. Personally having about 4000 hrs on them, I love the sound but can understand why they are being moved against in this day and age.
Chapter 4 is just another standard that some aircraft already meet.
I didn't say aircraft had to be chapter 4.
These are all just standards.
Chapter 2 is still a standard but not permitted except in some parts of Africa I would suggest.
Chapter 3 is a standard and is still permitted. Europe and now Australia has just added an additional proviso that it will now require chapter 3 and I would think a bypass of 8 or above on the engines. This just doesn't apply to aircraft that have high bypass engines. Where has any reference to the PW engines come from and who says they will or wont be banned. Certianly not me. My only reference has been to the Fedex Hushkits that are as noisy as all hell. Personally having about 4000 hrs on them, I love the sound but can understand why they are being moved against in this day and age.
Chapter 4 is just another standard that some aircraft already meet.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I can see the CURRENT ICAO standard is as of today Ch3, which long ago superseded Ch 2.If we have gone as far in the ICAO harmonisation process as enforcing language tests on native born Australians in the name of ICAO harmonisation on what grounds does the Minister come up with his own noise standards? What now defines noisy, the waiter's opinion in the Norton Street Forum? How could any business consider bringing in an older aircraft and not have in front of them what the standard is? If this is such a great idea why is the Minister still allowed to let in non Ministerial compliant aircraft "in the public interst"?
I suppose that after all this we can call the new "standard" the Stage Albanese, since he's the only one that actually knows what it is.I say again you can't be a marginally pregnant and you can't be marginally compliant.
Wunwing
I suppose that after all this we can call the new "standard" the Stage Albanese, since he's the only one that actually knows what it is.I say again you can't be a marginally pregnant and you can't be marginally compliant.
Wunwing