A new, independent ombudsman should review changes to flight paths and airspace management that will significantly impact the community, a parliamentary inquiry has recommended.
A Senate committee launched an inquiry into the impact and mitigation of aircraft noise.
Its 229-page report contained 21 recommendations, including that the federal government establish an independent Aircraft Noise Ombudsman and strip Airservices Australia of its role in dealing with noise complaints.
"A replacement service should aim to provide a more effective service for community members and allow Airservices to concentrate on its core functions," the report said.
The report highlighted while aircraft must comply with noise standards to fly in Australia, no regulation or legislation set out maximum noise levels allowed in affected communities or enabled an agency to monitor or enforce these levels.
It also noted some of the potential health risks associated with aircraft noise, with one participant describing the experience as "nerve-shattering" and another saying she was forced to sell her home, which had been in the family for three generations.
What do the regulations say?
The committee noted the Air Navigation (Aircraft Noise) Regulations 2018 "requires most aircraft operating in Australian airspace to comply with noise standards and recommended practices introduced under the Convention on International Civil Aviation".
But in its submission, Airservices Australia said once an aircraft is WAS certified under the aircraft noise regulations, no legislation or regulation allows any government agency to police its noise levels.
Some aircraft are exempt from noise regulations, such as hot air balloons, and propeller-driven aircraft used exclusively for aerobatic, firefighting, agricultural or environmental purposes.
At present, no single body has responsibility for aircraft noise experienced in the community.
The committee said that governments, planners, airlines, airports and other stakeholders play a role.
"This devolved regulatory architecture means that efforts to minimise or limit the impacts of aircraft noise are highly complex to realise," the report said.
In its submission, Airservices Australia stated it did not have the power to determine what times aircraft could operate, what noise levels planes could produce or ground aircraft based on noise levels.
"In addition, Airservices stated that does not have a role in 'determining the thresholds used for aircraft noise annoyance' and does not regulate allowable levels of aircraft noise — responsibility for these matters rests with the Commonwealth, and state and territory governments," the report said.
Airservices collected noise data but acknowledged it was not done to determine if planes were compliant with aircraft noise regulations.
"As there are no Australian regulations which specify a maximum, allowed level of aircraft noise within the community, Airservices has stated that there is no objective measure to determine whether any aircraft flying in Australia is too noisy, or whether the combined load of aircraft experienced by a community is too much noise," the report said.
The committee recommended that the federal government research the impact of aircraft noise on health, sleep and its economic impact.
What's the impact of aircraft noise?
In its report, the committee noted some people might adjust to aircraft noise over time, but others do not.
"Regular or prolonged exposure to aircraft noise may have detrimental impacts on people's health. This includes possible stress and annoyance, cardiovascular impacts, sleep disturbance and, potentially, impacting cognitive function," it said.
"Individuals can be impacted differently. Some groups of people may be at greater risk of detrimental health impacts from aircraft noise exposure, including children, the elderly, people with disabilities or medical conditions, and people with pre-existing mental illness."
Fareeha Ibrahim, who is a resident of Albany Creek, which is a suburb about 14 km from Brisbane Airport, told the committee about the increased stress caused by aircraft noise.
"Trying to concentrate and meet work deadlines with relentless aircraft noise at all hours of the day and night is incredibly stressful … The noise generated and high numbers of low-flying aircraft that I've experienced is nerve shattering," she said.
"To be experiencing this level of aircraft noise impact when I don't even live in close proximity to any airport, is just extraordinary.
"To describe this noise pollution as an 'annoyance' … massively understates the impact — this situation far exceeds 'annoyance'. It is more accurately described as an assault on the mental and physical health and well-being of affected residents."
Hobart resident Dr Amelia Hagger said noise from the nearby airport had forced her to sell her home, which had been in the family for three generations.
"On one particular occasion in May 2022, I was woken suddenly from a deep sleep by a deafening roar and the room filled with lights from an aircraft," she told the committee.
"We are off grid so there's no ambient light. Due to this sudden high-alert disturbance, I experienced palpitations and felt panic, assuming a plane was going to crash into the bluff."
What are some solutions?
The committee recommended that the government learn from international approaches to tackle aircraft noise.
For example, the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority has studied a "noise envelope" where airports would be required to operate within agreed noise levels either throughout total operation or for specific time periods.
"The noise envelope approach would allow airports to balance any growth in flight numbers with improvements in aircraft-generated noise," the report said.
"Such an approach rewards airports and airlines who upgrade their aircraft and use more efficient flight path designs and operations."
The committee recommended the Department of Infrastructure and Transport create guidelines for "noise envelopes" at Australian airports and require airports to provide transparent reporting.
The Commonwealth should review the record of airports to see if they are meeting a specific noise level when enough comparable data has been collected.
Should residents near airports receive compensation?
The committee has highlighted the lack of a clear compensation scheme for communities impacted by aircraft noise.
The Netherlands government had imposed a levy at the Amsterdam Airport Schiphol.
The airlines with the nosiest and most polluting planes were expected to pay a charge up to five times higher than aircraft that were quieter and less polluting.
"By imposing the charge only on those aircraft that generate the most noise these operators are effectively priced out of the market. This encourages airlines to employ quieter, and therefore cheaper, aircraft models," the report said.
The committee added in the report that international approaches like those in place in the Netherlands could be a model for Australia.
"The implementation of levies for large, loud and older aircraft, and subsidies for smaller, quieter aircraft models would provide an incentive for airlines to modernise their fleet and invest in quieter aircraft technology," the report said.
There have been compensation schemes in Australia such as the now-defunct Commonwealth Noise Insulation Scheme which launched in 2000 and wound up in 2013.
The scheme was primarily used for properties near Sydney and Adelaide airports and was used to insulate affected buildings.
It was funded by a levy on passengers and provided up to $60,000 in Sydney and $70,000 in Adelaide for impacted residents.
The committee has called on the government to address the issue of compensation for residents impacted by aircraft noise as part of their review of the Airports Act 1996.
The government committed to completing the review by 2030 after the release of its Aviation White Paper.