We are in public session. I welcome Mr. Robin McKay, principal officer in the aviation regulation and international relations division of the Department of Transport. There are four items before the committee for scrutiny and two, in particular - aircraft noise classification and compensation for denied boarding - have been raised by members. The first item referred to the committee is an amended proposal for a directive of the European Parliament on the establishment of a Community framework for noise classification of civil subsonic aircraft for the purposes of calculating noise charges. The document, COM 2002/0683, has been circulated to members and I invite Mr. McKay to brief us on it.
Aircraft Noise Classification: Presentation.
Mr. Robin McKay
In 1999, the European Commission published a communication on air transport and the environment which proposed, among other things, the introduction of economic incentives to encourage operators to use modern technology to reduce the environmental impact of air transport. The directive is intended to harmonise the way in which aircraft noise is measured at EU airports, so that charges for noisy aircraft, where applied, would be applied in a fair and transparent way in all European airports.
The directive does not oblige member states to impose noise related charges. The intention is that the common framework it proposes will replace the various systems currently in use at the relatively small number of EU airports where those charges already exist. A harmonised approach, in addition to providing a level playing pitch, will contribute towards improving the environmental performance of air transport operations in the Union.
The EU regulations in this area must take account of the wider international regulatory framework for international aviation under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organisation. There are internationally agreed procedures and standards for identifying the noise levels of aircraft set down in annex 16 to the Chicago Convention. The proposed directive draws directly on that work; it does not create new mechanisms for assessing aircraft, but uses a standard already internationally accepted.
Where noise charges are applied at European airports, each airport has its own arrangements. No Irish airport currently imposes noise charges. Aer Rianta, as part of its commitment to minimising noise impact at Dublin Airport, is installing a noise and flight track monitoring system. This will integrate a series of noise monitoring locations with the radar patterns of the flights so that it will be possible to relate the intrusiveness of noise to individual aircraft landing and taking off. The Irish Aviation Authority has also assisted in alleviating the impact of aircraft noise by the introduction of departures procedures at Dublin Airport to track aircraft away from major residential areas, where possible.
The proposed directive is intended to create a common framework. It does not require member states to impose noise charges at any airport. It prescribes the criteria on which the calculations will be based, but says nothing about the level of charges to be imposed. The latter is left to member states. The calculations are based on existing noise measurements which apply to all aircraft. Every aircraft flying will have a noise rating under the ICAO rules. The directive includes a timeframe for introducing charges where they already apply. The proposal before the committee embodies the Commission's response to amendments suggested by the European Parliament. The current document has not been discussed by the aviation working group in Brussels. We expect those discussions to start later this year and end by the end of this year. Ireland does not impose noise charges. Our initial impression is that this directive will provide a fair means of introducing charges on a harmonised basis.
I wish to raise an issue concerning the Aer Rianta facility at Dublin Airport. The problem affects not only residents but also the future expansion of the airport. The directive does not impose an obligation on the State to implement charges, but does the Department envisage that this will happen at the airport following from the noise and the flight-track monitoring system? The directive, as proposed, is based on the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the Chicago Convention. Have we not signed it already and is it not already in force? If we did not sign up to it, why not?
What percentage of states in Europe impose noise charges? What is the view of the Department in respect of the situation in Irish airports? It is all very well for Aer Rianta to carry out monitoring but that is not much help to residents in the surrounding areas, particularly those living close to Dublin Airport? Clearly, where a charge is imposed there is an incentive for airlines to reduce noise. Will McKay promote the introduction of such charges?
I am fully in favour of imposing this kind of charge because it is the principal and most effective way of ensuring that noisy aircraft are kept to a minimum. They certainly affect people's enjoyment of their homes, the price of property and health. Something that concerns many people apart from the noise of aircraft is the impact of exhaust chemicals on the upper atmosphere and ozone layer. This is because of the vast increase in air transport notable in recent years. Has the European Union paid attention to this form of pollution, which is possibly more damaging than noise pollution in the longer term?
My questions have just been asked by Deputy Shortall and I await the answers.
Mr. McKay
I will take the questions in the order they have been asked. There has been no decision on whether noise charges will be imposed at Dublin Airport. Primarily, the regulation of noise at airports is a matter for the planning process. The use of the anti-noise mechanisms envisaged in the directive would be a support to whatever planning constraints may be imposed on airports.
Ireland is a signatory of the Chicago convention. The technical specifications to which I referred are a means of categorising aircraft. For example, older aircraft with noisy engines fit into one category while the newest aircraft with quieter engines fit into another. The convention and its annexes do not state what should happen to those aircraft - that remains a matter for individual countries and airports to deal with.
My understanding of the standards in Europe is that noise charges are applied in very few locations. Unfortunately, I was not able to provide a list of these locations for the committee, but I will try to make one available in the coming days. I think there are about eight airports involved. My guess is that these are the ones in the most heavily populated centres.
Deputy Shortall also asked about future noise planning at Dublin airport. That is essentially a matter for the planning process as the airport develops and as future planning permission is required. The directive is a support to that process to enable the airport to meet its planning commitments.
The issue of exhaust gases from aircraft is covered in the annexes to the Chicago convention, which encourages better standards from manufacturers as time passes and the withdrawal from service of the worst offenders.
Is there any difference between an airbus and one of the older aircraft in terms of noise and pollution? How much pressure isput on manufacturers to reduce noise and pollution?
Mr. McKay
I am not a technical expert so I can give only administrative opinions. There has been an enormous increase in the quietness of aircraft engines. The old Boeing 707s and the early 727s had particularly noisy engines. If some of these appear in the airport from time to time they are very noticeable. The older 737s also have noisier engines, whereas the larger, fatter engines that are commonplace in modern aircraft are considerably quieter given the amount of power they produce. The measurement and classification of noise involve a very complex process because it tries to judge the subjective opinions people have about the offensiveness of sound. It is not simply a question of sticking up a microphone and taking readings. One has to take account of whether it is high-pitched or low-pitched and how long it lasts. It is a particularly complex technical question.
What other EU countries have imposed the charges and at what level have they been imposed? We all accept that airports are noisy, but people are also affected in the surrounding areas. My local airport is at Shannon, not Dublin. At what distance from Shannon Airport would one measure the level of noise?
Mr. McKay
I apologise because I have forgotten the Deputy's first question.
What other EU countries have imposed the charges and at what level have they been imposed? I do not know if that question is in McKay's area of competence and if it is he might like to answer it.
Mr. McKay
As I said, I was not able to acquire the information the Deputy is looking for before coming here and I will try to furnish it to him in the next couple of days. I do not have an answer to the question regarding how far from runways noise is measured. A number of measuring points is set down in the procedures, some of these being beside the runways and others at the end, to measure sound as it spreads out in different patterns. It is noticeable around Dublin Airport that there has been effective planning over the past 20 or 30 years. On the main approach paths to the main runway, there is relatively little development, thus minimising the effect on the people living nearby.
This exercise is pointless unless the relevant ministries in other EU member states adopt a position. If the Department considers the directive to be good it must have a role in persuading Aer Rianta to introduce the new system. We have been told that aircraft noise is a planning matter, but I am sure if asked, the planning authorities would say it is the responsibility of the aviation authorities. Will the directive be circulated to planning authorities to give them some guideline for making decisions with regard to applications?
The joint committee can recommend the circulation of the directive. The idea of this meeting is to notify the committee of European proposals.
Officials from the Department are here to say whether the proposals are positive or negative.
I support Deputy Shortall. If we expect the planning authorities to take responsibility for this, it is logical to facilitate them by providing the information they require to make decisions. It is obvious.
Mr. McKay
It was my intention to say that we will not be objecting to the process in Brussels. The concept of a standardised European measuring system is a very sensible one. Questions as to how and when it should be applied in Ireland and at what level are somewhat different. Addressing them will require political input when the issue comes to be considered.
I request that the directive be circulated to local authorities in areas where there are airports.
It sounds as though the Department is in favour of virtue but does not particularly wish to be virtuous to avoid initial discomfort.
The Department wants everybody in Europe to be virtuous at the same time.
Will the Garda helicopter be covered by noise pollution regulations? In the inner city the Garda helicopter hovers over people's houses at 1 a.m.
Does Mr. McKay want to answer that question?
Mr. McKay
If I am allowed to avoid answering it, I will.
Does the joint committee agree to make a recommendation about this document? Agreed.