Jump to content

Class action lawsuit over noise pollution at Trudeau airport gets green light


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

I wonder which was first, the airport or the houses? Those who purchased homes based on Dorval closing down and all flights moving to Mirabel do seem to have a legit beef.   Link to story and video: https://globalnews.ca/news/4138432/class-action-lawsuit-over-noise-pollution-at-trudeau-airport-gets-green-light/

April 11, 2018 3:14 pm
Updated: April 11, 2018 3:17 pm

Class action lawsuit over noise pollution at Trudeau airport gets green light

anne_leclair-headshot.jpg?quality=60&str By Anne Leclair Reporter  Global News 

A group of homeowners living along Trudeau airport’s flight paths may soon be able to sleep soundly at night. Quebec Superior Court judge Chantal Tremblay has authorized the class action lawsuit by a group of residents targeting the Aéroports de Montréal (ADM), NAV Canada and Transport Canada.

“We feel happy, we have been working for years to obtain a result,” Les Pollués de Montréal-Trudeau’s (LPDMT) president Pierre Lachapelle said.

The decision is considered a huge victory and a first in Canada, according to the group’s lawyer.

“It’s a revolution on the legal-front,” Gérard Samet said. “It’s the first time a federally-run airport will be subjected to the principles of responsibility under Quebec civil law.”

An estimated 200,000 residents living under the airport’s flight paths from Dorval to Ahuntsic could qualify for compensation. While some are hoping for a financial settlement due to damages caused by aircraft noise pollution, most just want it to stop.

“We are looking for a complete curfew from 11 in the evening to 7 in the morning,” Lachapelle told Global News. “We want to be able to sleep at night.”

Many residents claim they’re regularly woken up by the sounds of planes flying overhead, with noise levels reaching up to 90 decibels. The World Health Organization considers anything above 55 to be a health hazard.

“It’s 65, 70, 80 decibels so it’s like firing a gun shot towards you,” Lachapelle said.

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
<img class="story-img" src="https://shawglobalnews.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/map2.jpg?quality=70&#038;strip=all&#038;w=512&#038;h=288&#038;crop=1" alt="Territories targeted in class action"> Territories targeted in class action

Territories targeted in class action

“The aircrafts are passing by my house at a distance of about 300 metres at an altitude of 200 metres,” LPDMT board member Roger Trottier said. “It was not supposed to be like that when we moved there, everything was supposed to go back to Mirabel.”

The request for a class action was first filed more than one year ago. It could take years before the court case lands in front of a judge. The group is looking forward to the day the airport authority will have to answer questions and try to prove that it has been following Quebec’s rules and regulations.

“They hide everything all the time, so now the court will ask the questions and we know we will have the truth,” Trottier said.

The ADM declined Global News’ request for an interview and provided the following written statement:

“ADM is currently evaluating what actions will be taken next and therefore we will reserve our comments. It should however be noted that, at this stage, no decision has been rendered regarding the liability of ADM, NAV Canada and Transport Canada. This only allows Pollués de Montreal-Trudeau to have their case heard by the court, in the form of a class action suit. ADM intends to continue to prioritize and rigorously manage the soundscape in collaboration with its partners to promote a balance between air operations and coexistence with the community.”

The defendants have 30 days to appeal the decision. Meanwhile, residents are counting the days until they can sleep soundly again.

“We just want to live normally like any other Montrealer,” Trottier

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

“It’s 65, 70, 80 decibels so it’s like firing a gun shot towards you,” Lachapelle said.

Actually, no it's not. A gun shot ranges from 140 to 190 decibels. Besides, if the gun's fired towards you, the sound level is the least of your problems.


BTW, the WHO number of 55 dB is based on constant exposure without a break, not intermittent exposure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, J.O. said:

Actually, no it's not. A gun shot ranges from 140 to 190 decibels. Besides, if the gun's fired towards you, the sound level is the least of your problems.


BTW, the WHO number of 55 dB is based on constant exposure without a break, not intermittent exposure.

Let's hope the judge knows that. (grin)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Fido said:

Why would we believe anything that the WHO tells us?

It's fine when taken in the proper context. The plaintiffs are cherry picking for standards that support their complaint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lemme think: The airport has been there since the 1920's; turbojet aircraft have operated out of there since the 1950's; the move to Mirabel was effectively quashed by the provincial government in the 1970's; the move back to CYUL by the international carriers was forced in the early 1990's by their promise to forget CYUL as a destination from Europe if they were forced to continue to use Mirabel; the DRAMATIC reduction in noise by modern generation turbofans has reduced noise signatures by half...

...and (probably) the bulk of the participants of the class action having moved into the area in the last 10-20 years...

Now, on the other hand, we have NavCan's unbelievably inefficient STARS and departure procedures (seen also at CYYZ).

If NavCan can fix their end, where do the participants of this class action get their raison d'etre to seek compensation for a known source of noise, albeit quieter now than in the last 100 years?

I don't get it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Moon The Loon said:

Lemme think: The airport has been there since the 1920's; turbojet aircraft have operated out of there since the 1950's; the move to Mirabel was effectively quashed by the provincial government in the 1970's; the move back to CYUL by the international carriers was forced in the early 1990's by their promise to forget CYUL as a destination from Europe if they were forced to continue to use Mirabel; the DRAMATIC reduction in noise by modern generation turbofans has reduced noise signatures by half...

...and (probably) the bulk of the participants of the class action having moved into the area in the last 10-20 years...

Now, on the other hand, we have NavCan's unbelievably inefficient STARS and departure procedures (seen also at CYYZ).

If NavCan can fix their end, where do the participants of this class action get their raison d'etre to seek compensation for a known source of noise, albeit quieter now than in the last 100 years?

I don't get it...

One analogy comes to mind. You build a house in 1940 and do so in compliance with the building standards then governing. In 1960 and with growing family, you construct an addition. You must now comply with the current standards. In 1990, you sell the house and the new owner needs to make some significant structural alterations to the original ( and legal) building. When applying for the permit, that new owner will be required to comply with current standards.

There is also the law of nuisance and an ever-evolving consideration as to the nature and extent of the duty to your "neighbour". There is a class action trial now begining in North Carolina in which the plaintiffs are seeking damages for diminuation in property values secondary to noxious fumes emitted from a nearby swine operation with open pit manure storage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i live pretty much directly under the flight path at Pearson where the downwind - Base turn is made for 05. I don't know the altitude that is generally at that point but suffice it to say I can get a pretty good view of the aircraft.  I have absolutely no issue with the noise.  Sure it can be loud but you get used to it.  I have leved in the immediate area for most of my life and it has never bothered me.

I can see where living closer in to the airport may get louder with takeoffs and the engine adjustments during approach but those areas were likely CLEARLY marked as aircraft noise areas when those People bought their properties.  The signs are still up around pearson 20 years later.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a number of people **bleep** off at the noise of the arrivals into YYZ particularly the downwind for the 06’s. After a 2012 change there are now numerous aircraft flying west as far out as Burlington. The track follows Dundas Street. These people are unhappy that the arrivals have been moved to over their houses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y'know, those that complain about airplane noise, and I've posted this story before:

In the 1970's, TC tried a city-centre to city-centre Rapid Air service using DHC-6-300's, specially modified Twin Otters with spoilers and anti-skid - two systems one would think redundant on an already successfully designed STOL airplane. The airports of service were to be the then CFB Rockcliffe, the Victoria STOL port in Montreal and the island airport (City Centre) in Trawna.

Two years or so into the trial, the feds wanted to make the service permanent. When news was published in Ottawa about the new service, the wife of the then Miniister of Finance (one John Turner) squawked loudly about the noise of aircraft landing and departing Rockcliffe. When advised that the service had already been operating for 2+ years, she replied (words to the effect of) "what do you mean, the last two years, I haven't heard anything?"

Yes, it's now 2018. All the more important that NavCan realize IT'S 2018!!!!!

Redesign STAR's to the constant descent angle with no level off segments and give your controllers the ability to advise arrivals of "miles to run".

IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!!!     :head:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless as to how long the airport has been there and how quiet aircraft are, Nav Canada should be designing STARs and SIDs that have the least impact on local residents. Forcing aircraft down to 2500 AGL 25 NM from the airport at 0530 (or anytime) is neither good for the airlines or the residents. There are areas where noise is inevitable, but there are areas where the effect of noise can be reduced or minimized by good design. As Moon suggests, CDO and CCO are strategies that would provide some relief, especially during silent hours.

Unless planned properly, RNP approaches will increase concentration of noise at low altitude, often in areas that have previously rarely seen aircraft overhead. Phoenix city council recently won a court decision to force the FAA to roll back RNP there.

Fortunately, after much pressure, Nav Canada hired a European company (Helios) to do an analysis of current STARs and SIDs and they identified many areas where improvements could be made. In addition, Nav Canada seems to be much more proactive with regard to community noise, at least in the YYZ area. 

Managing noise is one of the cornerstones of ensuring the continued use of our airports during evening hours. Both the GTAA and Nav Canada have finally come to that realization.

There will always be residents and residents' groups that will ask for unreasonable outcomes, but to suggest that all affected residents should just accept the fact that they should be awakened late at night and early in the morning for no good reason other than a STAR designed by an idiot is a recipe for even more restrictions in the long run.

New silent hour STARs will be introduced later this year at YYZ and will go a long way to improving the impact of arrivals on residents below the intermediate approach area by reducing residential overflight and employing CDO. At the same time, they will reduce flight time, fuel burn and cost when compared to the current procedures.

http://www.torontoairspacereview.ca/

https://www.torontopearson.com/en/publications/#bestpractices

https://torontopearson.com/6_Ideas_-_Landing_Page/##

https://torontopearson.com/6_Ideas_-_NAV/#

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2018 at 12:42 PM, AAS said:

There are a number of people **bleep** off at the noise of the arrivals into YYZ particularly the downwind for the 06’s. After a 2012 change there are now numerous aircraft flying west as far out as Burlington. The track follows Dundas Street. These people are unhappy that the arrivals have been moved to over their houses. 

as I said above I am directly below the downwind of 05.  Right where the turn to Base begins.  This path has not changed in over 40 years.  I have lived here that long and recall all manner of DC-9, DC-8, 707,747, DC-10  All pretty noisy birds over head but never required a complaint.  Frequencies have increased at certain times of day from back then but thats about it.

Now when they turn final south of the 401 over Milton or Oakville and begin to descend it likely gets louder.  in Fact I teach at a Motorcycle school right under the path to 05 in Brampton.  I have to stop talking as the planes pass over as I am drowned out by the aircraft (some would dispute that this is even possible).  

However when the airport was built this was a field as was the rest of the area around the airport for MILES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, boestar said:

when they turn final south of the 401 over Milton or Oakville and begin to descend it likely gets louder.

That's what's so crazy... even when the plan is to send aircraft 20 miles downwind, arrivals are cleared down to 3000 ft when they could stay at 7000 or higher. Anyone buying a home within 10 miles of the airport should expect some noise, but people under the downwind at 20 miles get more noise than those on the downwind only 10 miles from the airport just because some idiot at Nav Canada decided that a slow speed and a hard altitude at the end of the downwind were good ideas.

Of the top 25 airports in the world, only 4 have a hard altitude at the end of the downwind ... YYZ, Beijing, Guangzhou and a couple of STARs in Philly (surrounded by 11 IFR airports). And we all know how great ATC is in China.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it would be unrealistic to adopt a noise policy like LHR which employs a CDA (continuous descent angle) .....checking in with Director, you are given xx track miles to touch down, vertical speed mode is used accordingly to intercept final/gs. This avoids the long, noisy, dragged out final at 3000’ we have in Yz. I have been told to expedite down before, due traffic on the parallel,  but there has to be a better, more efficient way of organizing flows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arriving from the south to YYZ, we fly over the lake to Humber Bay until precisely overhead some of the most expensive real estate in southern ontario, and then turn downwind and fly over it for 10 miles. Has to be a better way. Also...are the constraints mandatory like it says on the chart or not? Most times we are not given clearance early enough to descend to meet the constraints and it has become completely normalized to ignore them. Which I find very strange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not an expert in airspace design but we must remember that they must also mix departing traffic in with the arrivals. I've been told it's a generally accepted practice that departing flights getting to altitude where they burn less fuel is a higher priority than keeping arrivals at higher altitudes until close in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...