Pilots will not adopt noise controls that reduce safety

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34133, 21 April 1976, Page 3

Pilots will not adopt noise controls that reduce safety

(N.Z. Press Association) i WELLINGTON, April 20. The Airline Pilots' Association will not adopt noise-abatement ] procedures which reduce the margins of safety when local bodies plan encroachment into airport areas. : The association will not ] accept that its members must sacrifice a degree of safety to patch up “other people’s deliberate botches,” Captain F. A. Maguire, the editor, says in this month’s edition of the association’s magazine. “Since no cure for noise has been found, the answer is to build the “walls” higher by the imposition of landing and take-off procedures for aircraft which require pilots to descend steeply, climb steeply, and carry out turns to avoid the institutions of modern urban society,” he says.

I “In many areas of high-i density development about (airports these noisejabatement procedures require i'the operation of large transport aircraft in manoeuvres 'against all the dictates of (prudent and long-established ‘ 'principles of good airmanship ■ and professional responsibilI ity. Compromise I “Modern aircraft are designed to give the best econ- ' ornical compromise between weight power requirements '[and payload. ’ “Emergency procedures are I 'designed to allow the aver’]age pilot to handle emergen--1 cies and mechanical failures ■ with a reasonable margin for 5 human frailty. r J , “Aeroplanes can be operC ated safely to much finer limits by removing the marj, gins but requiring precise jihandling of the emergency. ]! “But the average pilot is a not a test pilot — he is, we '(must admit, human and subject to such frailties as argujments with his wife, restless ■!nights, upsets by the hundred and one things connected with day-to-day living. “Being responsible and practical he objects to being asked to fly a noise-

jabatement procedure which : requires his maximum skill without allowance for human ; factors. Submissions “The issue of airport noise • has exercised us as a safety , infringing issue for some considerable time and a number of submissions have been made by us to the departments of Government con- . cerned to secure recognition • of the problems of urban i encroachment and preventa- ; tive legislation. “Noise is not the only > (problem posed and there are many instances of aircraft . crashing into airport popula- ; tion areas. “We will not accept that our members must sacrifice a degree of safety to patch • !up other people’s deliberate .] botches. Raised eyebrows “If people insist on build- : ing in high noise areas then • ithe cure must be within • their own resources and in >|the case of public projects, lias taxpayers, we are conI'strained to raise our eyebrows at the expenditure of I (millions of dollars of public ; I money on sound-proofing ■ 'structures.

t| “All round the world, air--11 port noise is a problem costt'ing local authorities millions 'in protection and claims. (Pilots resent part of the 'cure. .! “Where the encroachment .Jis planned, then our respon- " sibility to the travelling publie is to serve notice that we (will not later adopt noisejabatement procedures which 'reduce the margins of ‘safetv.” 1 I Noise survey /! Captain Maguire said that > the' Christchurch Airport [Authority had produced a .'comprehensive noise survey •of that area which was be[|ing used as the basis of some ,(Local body planning. t| “Such surveys can be Jdone, and those who will not do them voluntarily should be made to. “When the local bodies al- . low development within , noise areas they are not only t responsible for the misery , they inflict on the users of homes, hospitals, schools and - so on, but they unthinkingly - expose thousands of air f travellers to a risk they did : not contemplate or have a 7 vote on,” Captain Maguire (said.