When Wellington Airport and Airways implemented the flight path change there was no consultation. One day back in December 2022, a community that has close to 21k residents, woke up with an aircraft highway above their heads with decibel levels rocketing 30-40 decibels louder, with no notice. What's worse, the lane above their heads is the lane reserved for the concentration of 'road trucks'. Imagine Transmission Gully turning up out of the blue on residents' doorsteps one day and the response to questions, by the organisations involved, being, 'In cases like this public consultation isn’t normally undertaken', and 'a change in noise patterns is more disruptive than the noise level itself, so we hope that after a short time this becomes less noticeable'. The residents were then bounced around between Wellington Airport, Airways and the CAA for answers, with no reasonable explanation for why this happened the way it did.

Looking through the OIA documents Plane Sense received, we found references to community consultation as long ago as November 2021, but alongside that was mention that the local community could be a "roadblock", suggestions that "impact frequently comes down to perception, influenced by publicity", and "Airways would like this implemented in December this year. We (Wellington Airport) therefore need this work reasonably quickly!" Even the Airnoise Committee meeting minutes don't reference the DMAPs flight path change until March 2023, after implementation. The first communication went up on the Wellington Airport website on 20 December 2022, a day after the first known complaint was made. 

Plane Sense found documentation about a 2018 flight path change called PBN. The PBN flight path change was for arriving aircraft and included a full community consultation and collection of noise data - before and after a trial. We questioned Wellington Airport and Airways about this comparative process in a meeting, they appeared uncomfortable and said it was unfortunate there was no comparative data pre-DMAPs. In our 27 March 2024 meeting, when discussing Wellington Airport's next steps, it was noted by Plane Sense that the External Relations Manager said that any process would be done 'properly this time'.

Understandably, residents are angry about the lack of courtesy, consistency, professionalism and regard for our community and affected individuals. We believe the organisations have been cavalier with residents' health and well-being.

In addition to Airways' responsibility to the community when planning and implementing the flight path change, Airways has been aware of residents' grievances since complaints began, with Wellington Airport referring residents to Airways since then. After establishing Plane Sense as a community group in March 2023, Plane Sense invited residents to copy us in on communications from both organisations to ensure this feedback was being captured, and we have also seen responses from both organisations. 

As volunteers, we have read heartbreaking accounts of the damage to the health and well-being of our neighbours, including young children, the elderly and the vulnerable. Complaints include a pouring of hearts from parents and carers asking for change. Despite Airways receiving these emails and attending the Plane Sense community meeting in June 2023, Airways continued to respond to residents with an inappropriate standard response about the benefits of DMAPs. Two weeks after the June 2023 community meeting, Plane Sense wrote the following to Airways and Wellington Airport, "Please also take this email as formal notice that on the basis of information that we are receiving, we are genuinely concerned that some people are so badly affected that they may harm themselves. In that regard we also ask that you cease responding to very personal accounts of suffering with messages about the benefits of DMAPS".  

Even if a scenario exists where Airways was unaware of the impact that the DMAPs flight path change would have on people in the community, by June 2023 they were most definitely aware. However, at Plane Sense's meetings with Airways and Wellington Airport, Airways has remained adamant that they will not consider an alternative to the current DMAPs flight path, even stating at previous meetings that they won't divert resources to exploring alternatives. Airways has also repeatedly said that it does not want to revert to the previous path. 

It has been concerning to read emails (obtained through the OIA process) raising safety concerns about DMAPs, including internal Airways communications. When reviewing risk management documentation, it was also concerning that the community's health and well-being did not feature as a risk. At our meetings with Airways, and in emails about the effect of DMAPs on residents' health and well-being, we have tried to explain to them that this is a very real risk of DMAPs. In June 2023 we sent the following, "Please also take this email as formal notice that on the basis of information that we are receiving, we are genuinely concerned that some people are so badly affected that they may harm themselves".

Wellington Airport and Airways make DMAPs sustainability claims. Plane Sense considers these claims as 'green-washing'. At our community meeting in June 2023, we presented the following based on information obtained by OIA:

Sustainability
• Airways publicised that DMAPs saves 847 tonnes of carbon emissions per year and equates this to cars (not aircraft), whereas OIA information stated 420 tonnes per annum in several documents.
• Putting 420-847 tonnes and 33,800kms savings into perspective (Plane Sense calculates to the best of our knowledge):
⚬ 33,800kms is just 1 return/2 long haul flights a year, out of 18k+ flights a quarter (Jan-Mar 2023)
⚬ or, $5k to offset 847 tonnes (Carbon Neutral Trust NZ), compared to $1.3m savings per year (June 2023)

Making claims that DMAPs was designed for sustainability purposes is ironic considering DMAPs is designed to increase aircraft movements, and the increased jet engine flights since 1 December 2022 are so far the less efficient Qantas Boeing 737 jets (April 2024).  

Change is divisive, so it's frustrating that a proper consultation process didn't happen before the implementation of DMAPs. We are arguing a lack of fair process before change. If the residents had been consulted before the change, they could have had a say before the status quo for the last 60 years was altered. Those residents who knew a change in noise would be an issue for them and their health could have had their say and been considered. 

Which community is worse off with the path above them? Unfortunately, inadequate monitoring was done before the flight path change so we can't compare what was with what is. What we do know is that the process for change wasn't fair. We know that jet engine aircraft have to climb up and over Mount Kaukau/Tarikākā in our community, and that the topography and height above sea level is different. The distance (therefore height) of the planes as they turn over the water towards land and ambient noise, may also differ between the communities. We know that a Wellington Airport 2018 PBN flight path change document (page 9) states that (on the old departure path) "departures climb higher and more quickly (than arrivals) reaching 5000ft around the same point as shown in the picture". This picture shows departing aircraft at 5000ft over the water before reaching land. We also know that jet engine aircraft are climbing much lower than 5000ft over land in our community (2700ft above sea level at the point of the Khandallah sound monitor).  

Wellington Airport's proposal to consult both communities now is not a reasonable solution. For communities to be on an even keel they must revert the flight path back to its original path and start a fair and proper process. If a DMAPs-type procedure is required it needs to be developed taking into account the local community's best interests and properly consulted on - before implementation. Neither community is at fault here and neither should get the blame for change, essentially diverting the blame from Wellington Airport and Airways. The organisations are responsible for the process and decisions they made, the proposal has every potential of pitching neighbouring communities against one another unnecessarily.  That is not in the best interests of Wellingtonians. 

It may well be possible to please everyone if Airways would consider an alternative to the current DMAPs procedure. Airports around the world use alternative procedures, however, Airways is adamant that they won't consider an alternative. DMAPs was developed with the knowledge that the community could be affected and approved knowing that more households could be affected than the original flight path. DMAPs wasn't designed with the local community's best interests in mind or to please anyone other than the organisations involved. 

Wellington Harbour has the geographical advantage of northerly and southerly departures over water until aircraft are high enough not to be a bother to anyone. Yet, DMAPs has jet aircraft laden with people, fuel for long distance, luggage and cargo, etc, turning left asap over land and a reserve, climbing out over the slopes of Wellington's peak mountain - Mount Kaukau at 445m above sea level. Which, when you think about it makes zero sense and poses a safety concern above the heads of 21k residents.

One of the issues here is that there was not a fair process for communities to engage in at the start. Wellington Airport's proposal to consult both communities now is not a reasonable solution. For communities to be on an even keel the flight path must revert to its original path and start a fair and proper process. If a DMAPs-type procedure is required it needs to be developed taking into account the local community's best interests and properly consulted on - before implementation. 

Plane Sense has met with Wellington Airport and Airways many times since this began and have sent even more emails back and forth. They have made it clear that they do not want to revert back to the original flight path, and Airways has said it will not devote resources to investigate an alternative to DMAPs. At our last meeting Airways confirmed that these 3 options are the only 3 options they are exploring. Both organisatons have stated that the current status quo is their preferred option, so we question how genuine this consultation will be. We believe that option 1 is on the table for the organisations to settle on and is the easiest 'way out' for them, whilst appearing to consult after all. Only option 2 is viable for our community, we will not be engaged in a clash with our neighbours under the original path, to divert attention from the systematic organisational failures that have put us all in this position. 

Why isn't option 1 on the table for Plane Sense? Whilst the 6am-7am flights are hugely disruptive and cause residents to lose sleep and wake disorientated, one hour's reprieve isn't adequate compensation for having high levels of noise overhead all day, every day.  At our meeting with Wellington Airport and Airways on 27 March 2024, we suggested that this would just move the pain point by an hour. Residents want to be able to relax in their own homes morning, afternoon, evening and night. A 7am alarm on weekdays, weekends and public holidays isn't much better than a 6am alarm that goes off, especially when it then goes off throughout the day, 80 decibels at a time.

We have shift workers and members of the community who run businesses from home, plus those who are disturbed by the last flights of the day as much as the start. And we have young, elderly and vulnerable residents who have health conditions that are worsened by noise, lack of sleep and stress. These include dementia and brain injury sufferers who are disorientated and confused with loud noises, those with sound processing disorders, ADHD and those who are on the autism spectrum. Those with anxiety and PTSD from the Christchurch earthquakes, and those who have depression and need a consistent good quality of life.  Airways and Wellington Airport are aware of the vulnerability of residents in our community as they have been sent emails from these residents searching for understanding and support. These community members settled in our suburbs because it's in the noise abatement area and it was a peaceful sanctuary vital for their health and well-being. Plane Sense will not abandon our most vulnerable neighbours by opting for option 1. It shouldn't be in our hands to represent them but it is, and we will.

Plane Sense says: Plane Sense has met with Wellington Airport and Airways many times since this began and sent even more emails back and forth. They have made it clear that they do not want to revert back to the original flight path, and Airways has said it will not devote resources to investigate an alternative to DMAPs. Both organisatons have stated that the current status quo is their preferred option, so we question how genuine this consultation will be.  

At our last meeting on 27 March, Wellington Airport said that it would put together a proposal for us to share with our members within ‘a day or so’, but that didn’t happen. Two weeks later, we received 30 minutes notice that Wellington Airport was issuing a media release about the proposed consultation. It is telling that a public relations press release came out instead of a statement we could take to our members at a community meeting (as discussed at that meeting). We believe this proposed consultation is a public relations exercise designed to try and reduce Wellington Airport's legal risk. If we engage with this proposal we have no control over the process and we don't have faith in the organisation's objectivity or moral compass at this stage. We have vulnerable members of our community to think about and we would prefer to let a judge, as an independent legal authority, decide based on facts rather than corporations with a vested interest.

Plane Sense says: That Wellington Airport has no proposed timing in place shows it really hasn't listened to residents at all. The DMAPs flight path change happened on 1 December 2022 (it was presented to them in November 2021). Wellington Airport approved DMAPs on 9 August 2022, just 24 hours after it received an email from Marshall Day stating 'initial outcomes' of a noise assessment (later proven to be wrong by a more comprehensive study in December 2023). 10 months after DMAPS was presented to Wellington Airport, 5 months after commissioning an acoustics report, Wellington Airport approved DMAPS with 'initial outcome' information, "with more to come" and an assurance from Marshall Day that "on paper" noise levels are "pretty low" and "the effects would be considered reasonable" despite "affecting more houses".  

We are now  16 months into this process (as of April 2024) with actual vs modelled sound data. Wellington Airport approved DMAPs within 24 hours of receiving inadequate sound data, yet it has taken 16 months for them to propose anything other than the current status quo (even with more comprehensive reporting to hand these last 4 months).

Whilst Wellington Airport was able to approve DMAPs quickly,  it took 7 months for them to agree and install sound monitors in the suburbs post-DMAPS. That only included post-implementation data, not pre-change data and not from 2 separate communities, which is what they propose this time. Also of note is Wellington Airport refused Plane Sense a monitor per affected suburb because they are expensive, we don't know whether there will be further delays due to monitors moving between locations over this process.

Meanwhile, Airways has been adamant that 1 December of any given year is of importance for flight path changes. In 2022,  it communicated to Wellington Airport that 1 September was the publishing cut-off for a 1 December implementation of DMAPS. That is 4.5 months away (from April 2024). Therefore if Plane Sense engages with Wellington Airport's proposed consultation, not only is an outcome uncertain and managed by a corporation with a vested interest, our residents can expect no change before December 2025 at the earliest (enduring at least 3 years of DMAPs), which is unacceptable.  It is worth bearing in mind that during this time the implementation of the DMAPs continues to have substantial legal and regulatory issues. 

In the process of reviewing documents through the OIA process, the focus of DMAPs is the safety of missed approaches. Missed approaches are 1 in 270 flights. Therefore, the big space above our Wellington Harbour, where no resident lives, is mostly empty. Meanwhile, a concentration of aircraft departs out over land soon after take off. One of the legal issues with DMAPs is that it's nonsensical and can not be considered reasonable, especially with alternative systems available and used throughout the world. In OIA documentation, it is clear that not all internal parties agreed that DMAPs was the right solution anyway.

Residents wouldn't complain about the odd flight coming over because of an emergency - which is what we experience and happily accept with the Life Flight aircraft. But to experience the negative effects of a concentration of aircraft departing for an occasional go-around, doesn't make sense. It shows that Airways wasn't thinking of the best interests of the local community when designing these procedures, only what looked good on paper.

Wellington Harbour has the geographical advantage of northerly and southerly departures over water until aircraft are high enough not to be a bother to anyone. Yet, DMAPs has jet aircraft laden with people, fuel for long distance, luggage and cargo, etc, turning left asap over land and a reserve, climbing out over the slopes of Wellington's peak mountain - Mount Kaukau at 445m above sea level. Which, when you think about it makes zero sense and poses a safety concern above the heads of 21k residents. 

Whilst the Wellington Airport's commissioned Marshall Day reports refer to Johnsonville, Broadmeadows and Khandallah as the main 3 suburbs affected, Plane Sense has been made aware that residents in Ngaio, Crofton Downs and Ohāriū Valley are also affected. Whilst we negotiated a sound monitor to measure noise in Ngaio, by the time it was installed this only collected 2 months of data, so some of the assessment was incomplete. The additional 3 suburbs are not mentioned in Wellington Airport's media release and it's uncertain whether they will be included in any consultation.

Whilst not every resident in these suburbs is affected, it is important to note that at the sound levels reported in Marshall Day's latest December 2023 report, the WHO reports that 18% of people would be highly annoyed. That is almost 1/5 of the population of our suburbs. This includes residents who are susceptible to high levels of noise and who settled in a noise abatement area for that reason. Various Marshall Day experts, including the founder Christopher Day, have confirmed in evidence that the WHO curve is the most appropriate as it represents the latest research in the area.

Marshall Day's December 2023 report records a 4-5dB increase in sound (noting that dBs increase exponentially) and aircraft noise of up to 50dB Ldn. The Environment Court has confirmed that a 5dB increase is significant, and noise experts generally consider a 5dB increase to be "significant". Adverse health effects are associated with aircraft noise above 45dB Ldn, this is consistent with what residents are telling us. Marshall Day previously predicted noise levels would increase by 1-2dB and be 45dB Ldn. Wellington Airport declined to answer whether it would approve DMAPs today based on the knowledge it has now. 

Aircraft fly over our suburbs when there is a northerly wind. Wellington Airport states in documentation that this is 2/3s of the time.

Wellington Harbour has the geographical advantage of northerly and southerly departures over water until aircraft are high enough not to be a bother to anyone. Yet, DMAPs has jet aircraft laden with people, fuel for long distance, luggage and cargo, etc, turning left asap over land and a reserve, climbing out over the slopes of Wellington's peak mountain - Mount Kaukau at 445m above sea level. Which, when you think about it makes zero sense and poses a safety concern above the heads of 21k residents.

The DMAPs flight procedure has planes turning left sooner than on the previous flight path. We know that a Wellington Airport 2018 PBN flight path change document (page 9) states that (on the old departure path) "departures climb higher and more quickly (than arrivals) reaching 5000ft around the same point as shown in the picture". This picture shows departing aircraft at 5000ft over the water before reaching land. We also know that jet engine aircraft are climbing much lower than 5000ft over land in our community (2700ft above sea level at the point of the Khandallah sound monitor).  

In the process of reviewing documents through the OIA process, the focus of DMAPs is the safety of missed approaches. Missed approaches are 1 in 270 flights. Therefore, the big space above our Wellington Harbour, where no resident lives, is mostly empty. Meanwhile, a concentration of aircraft departs out over land soon after take off. One of the legal issues with DMAPs is that it's nonsensical and can not be considered reasonable, especially with alternative systems available and used throughout the world. In OIA documentation, it is clear that not all internal parties agreed that DMAPs was the right solution anyway.

Wellington Harbour has the geographical advantage of northerly and southerly departures over water until aircraft are high enough not to be a bother to anyone. Yet, DMAPs has jet aircraft laden with people, fuel for long distance, luggage and cargo, etc, turning left asap over land and a reserve, climbing out over the slopes of Wellington's peak mountain - Mount Kaukau at 445m above sea level. Which, when you think about it makes zero sense and poses a safety concern above the heads of 21k residents.

The DMAPs flight procedure has planes turning left sooner than on the previous flight path. We know that a Wellington Airport 2018 PBN flight path change document (page 9) states that (on the old departure path) "departures climb higher and more quickly (than arrivals) reaching 5000ft around the same point as shown in the picture". This picture shows departing aircraft at 5000ft over the water before reaching land. We also know that jet engine aircraft are climbing much lower than 5000ft over land in our community (2700ft above sea level at the point of the Khandallah sound monitor). 

Therefore, Plane Sense is advocating for the urgent reinstatement of the previous flight path, where aircraft track over the water for a longer period, gaining height before flying over land and suburbs below. 

The series of comments from Wellington Airport to justify not consulting with the community is just further evidence of the misunderstanding of its responsibilities within our Wellington community. As residents of our city, we have a moral obligation not to cause harm to one another. With all common sense, putting an aircraft highway above the heads of 21k residents, with the 'road truck' lane concentrating the heavy traffic in one direction, climbing up over the slopes of Mount Kaukau, from 6am in the morning, has repercussions.

Wellington Airport received an email just 24 hours before approving DMAPs, stating, "on paper" noise levels are "pretty low" and "the effects would be considered reasonable" despite "affecting more houses". Even the suggestion that more houses would be affected should have raised red flags and prompted further investigation. However, Airways' deadline for approval was looming and a delay would have resulted in Airways not meeting the 1 September deadline, for a 1 December implementation. The organisations were (and still are) single-minded in their view of 'DMAPs at all costs'.

Despite 16 months of ongoing feedback and a heartfelt outpouring of individuals' suffering, none of the organisations involved have gone above and beyond to rectify matters. Installing sound monitors in impacted suburbs was the least Wellington Airport should have done and before implementation too. Plane Sense had to negotiate the same number of sound monitors as the 2018 PBN trial, when a more comprehensive process took place. Airways then reneged on its offer of additional monitors to ensure one was installed in each suburb impacted. Wellington Airport would not help provide the raw data for Plane Sense to seek independent analysis for a fair and transparent comparison. When asked by Public Health to apologise for wrongdoing the organisations were defensive.

Wellington Airport in particular posts social media messages of being a socially responsible and community-minded organisation, including in April 2024 an initiative to support mental health. Meanwhile, residents are suffering the outcome of a decision they made and their response has been to pitch community vs community in a consultation battle. We believe this is to divert blame for change from the organisations involved.

Plane Sense would have more respect for Wellington Airport and Airways if they held their hands up and did the right thing for the community in which it operates. Instead, we have witnessed insensitive responses to vulnerable individuals promoting their decisions, which have come at the expense of others' health and well-being.  It's not good enough and our Wellington communities deserve more. 

Whilst not every resident in these suburbs is affected, it is important to note that at the sound levels reported in Marshall Day's latest December 2023 report, the WHO reports that 18% of people would be highly annoyed. That is almost 1/5 of the population of our suburbs. This includes residents who are susceptible to high levels of noise who settled in a quiet noise abatement area for health and well-being reasons. Various Marshall Day experts, including the founder Christopher Day, have confirmed in evidence that the WHO curve is the most appropriate as it represents the latest research in the area. It's unreasonable to assume that every resident would naturally be triggered by noise levels in the same way, or suggest that the percentage of those who are triggered is insignificant.

Marshall Day's December 2023 report records a 4-5dB increase in sound (noting that dBs increase exponentially) and aircraft noise of up to 50dB Ldn. The Environment Court has confirmed that a 5dB increase is significant, and noise experts generally consider a 5dB increase to be "significant". Adverse health effects are associated with aircraft noise above 45dB Ldn, this is consistent with what residents are telling us. Marshall Day previously predicted noise levels would increase by 1-2dB and be 45dB Ldn. Wellington Airport declined to answer whether it would approve DMAPs today based on the knowledge it has now. 

The December 2023 Marshall Day acoustic report has some issues, but it generally supports the concerns of residents and differs from their initial findings pre-DMAPs:  

More aircraft fly over the suburbs than they did previously, with a concentration over the suburbs as a result of DMAPs.

• Aircraft noise is generally louder from Runway 34 than Runway 16 (to the south).

• The suburbs are experiencing excessive noise levels of up to 80dB.

• Residents are not experiencing 1-2dB (single event or Ldn) change in noise, but a 4-5dB increase in sound (note that dBs increase exponentially).

• Instead of expected 'low levels of noise at 45dB Ldn and 65dB LAmax', Marshall Day's report dated December 2023, reports 50dB Ldn and 76dB LAmax. Therefore, the information on which Wellington Airport based its decision was wrong.

• This report is already out of date and noise levels would again increase with the introduction of additional (louder by 5dB) Qantas B738 flights to Brisbane and Melbourne since this data was collected. 

Whilst Wellington Airport did install additional sound monitors in the suburbs to gather additional data on actual noise levels, it must be noted that it took 7 months to install monitors and gather data. They also reneged on the number of monitors offered (Airways offered 6 additional monitors at the June 2023 community meeting) and it's taken 16 months for Wellington Airport to review the situation and propose anything other than the status quo. This is in comparison to the 10 months it took them to approve DMAPs after Airways presented the new flight path procedure in November 2021.

Plane Sense has met with Wellington Airport and Airways many times since this began and sent even more emails back and forth. They have made it clear that they do not want to revert back to the original flight path, and Airways has said it will not devote resources to investigate an alternative to DMAPs. Both organisatons have stated that the current status quo is their preferred option, so we question how genuine this consultation will be.

At our last meeting on 27 March, Wellington Airport said that it would put together a proposal for us to share with our members within ‘a day or so’, but that didn’t happen. Two weeks later, we received 30 minutes notice that Wellington Airport was issuing a media release about the proposed consultation. It is telling that a public relations press release came out instead of a statement we could take to members at a community meeting (as discussed at that meeting). We believe that this proposed consultation is a public relations exercise designed to try and reduce Wellington Airport's legal risk. If we engage with this proposal we have no control over the process and we don't have faith in the organisation's objectivity or moral compass at this stage. We have vulnerable members of our community to think about and we would prefer to let a judge, as an independent legal authority, decide based on facts rather than corporations with a vested interest.

Through OIA requests and our advisors' conversations with the CAA, we believe that DMAPS wasn't officially approved through the correct process, therefore making DMAPS invalid. The CAA asked that Plane Sense refrain from legal action whilst they investigate matters. Discussions with the CAA about the Director's statutory duty to “Monitor adherence, within the civil aviation system, to any regulatory requirements relating to … public health” have resulted in the CAA claiming that the obligation is minimal. The Director has final responsibility for requiring compliance with aviation safety standards.