BANG logo
Birmingham Airport anti-Noise Group

Issues: Night Flights
Contact us

March 2004

The case for a EU-wide ban on commercial night flights

Introduction
Transportation is the main source of noise pollution in Europe. Data from the World Health Organisation (WHO) indicate that 20 per cent of Europe's population are exposed to noise levels equivalent to 'serious nuisance'. Although road traffic is the major cause of human exposure to noise, and only 1.7 per cent of the EU population are affected by noise from air traffic, aircraft noise, particularly at night, remains a major problem for those living near airports and under flight paths. [1] It is estimated that ten million EU citizens are unable to enjoy a good night's sleep because of the noise from night-flying commercial aircraft. [2] In the UK, Friends of the Earth estimates that up to one in eight of the UK population will be affected by noise as a result of the Government's airport expansion plans as outlined in the recent Air Transport White Paper. [3]

The number of permitted night flights per 16-hour period at UK airports ranges from ten at Birmingham International [4] to over thirty at BAA Stansted, over forty at BAA Gatwick and sixty (mostly freight) at Nottingham East Midlands. At BAA Heathrow, although only sixteen night flights are permitted, these night flying aircraft over-fly 500,000 people, more than anywhere else in Europe. Most of the these flights arrive between 4.30am and 6am, when people tend to be sleeping deeply and may find it hard to fall asleep again if woken. [5]

Health effects from night-time aircraft noise
Uninterrupted sleep is a prerequisite for good physiological and mental functioning. [6] British Airways even ran an advertising campaign highlighting how 'sleep deprivation causes memory loss, muddled thinking, visual impairment and memory loss' (the repetition of 'memory loss' is deliberate) and urged its First Class passengers 'Don't stand for sleepless nights'.

Noise related stress has a measurable impact on human health. A study of doctors working at Springfield Mental Hospital reported that among Heathrow residents admissions per 1,000 people were significantly higher than those from a population in a near-by quieter area. [7] California's Orange County Health Department one of the most comprehensive health-related studies reviewed and found that airport noise can specifically cause sleep disturbance, physiological stress reactions, temporary thresh-old shifts in hearing, interference with speech and communications, and psychological distress. [8]

Noise-induced sleep disturbance can cause primary effects during sleep, and secondary effects that can be assessed the day after night-time noise exposure. Primary effects include: difficulty in falling asleep; awakenings and alterations of sleep stages or depth of sleep; increased blood pressure, heart rate and finger pulse amplitude; vasoconstriction; changes in respiration; cardiac arrhythmia; and increased body movements. Secondary or after-effects the following morning or day(s) include: reduced perceived sleep quality; increased fatigue; depressed mood or well-being; and decreased performance. The difference between the sound levels of a noise event and background sound levels, rather than the absolute noise level, may determine the reaction probability. [9]

Significantly, the probability of being awakened increases with the number of noise events per night. In many residents' experience, it is the number of flights, not the noise they individually make, that matters.

The Heathrow night flights case
Heathrow Airport causes more community noise disturbance than any other airport in Europe but is not among the fifty European airports which operate night time curfews. In 1993, the Government introduced a new scheme of restrictions for London's airports in an attempt to balance commercial pressure to raise the number of flights and capitalise on quieter aircraft with its commitment to maintain, and ideally reduce, night time noise levels. Under English law 'night' is defined as 11.30pm-7am but the new scheme took an hour off to allow unrestricted aircraft movements after 6am. So, by cutting the length of the regulated 'night', the scheme effectively increased by more than 50 per cent the number of permitted night flights to and from Heathrow. [10]

In 2001, a group of local residents succeeded in bringing a case concerning night flights at Heathrow to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg. The eight applicants argued that, following the introduction of the 1993 scheme, night-time noise increased, especially in the early morning, interfering with their right under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights to the peaceful enjoyment of their homes. The Court ruled that the new scheme had resulted in substantially increased night flights, and that local residents were being woken up from about 4am and then prevented from getting back to sleep by the flights that followed. The residents suffered from constant tiredness, depression, irritability, headaches and ear infections caused by wearing earplugs. For many of the residents aircraft noise had become the dominant feature of their existence, destroying their sleep and with it much of their enjoyment of life. The Court noted that only limited research had been carried out into the nature of sleep disturbance before the 1993 scheme was introduced.

The UK Government acknowledged that, overall, the level of noise had increased but added that as Heathrow and the aircraft which use it were not owned, controlled or operated by the Government, the UK could not be said to have 'interfered' with the applicants' private or family life. Although an overall maximum number of aircraft movements was set and the Government had not increased quotas nor reduced night flying restrictions, the Court did not accept that these 'modest steps' at improving the night noise climate constituted 'the measures necessary' to protect the applicants well-being. [11]

Breaching WHO guidelines and more besides . . .
The ECHR accepted that the noise caused by Heathrow's night flights was substantially in excess of WHO guidelines for avoiding sleep disturbance at night. According to WHO, for a good night's sleep continuous background noise levels should not exceed 30dBLAeq and individual noise events exceeding 45dB should be avoided [12] (dBLAeq is the official UK noise index for measuring exposure to aircraft noise).

In 'Fifth Environment Action Plan', a European Green Paper on Future Noise Policy (1996), the WHO suggests a standard guideline value for maximum average outdoor noise levels of 55dBLAeq, applied during normal daytime in order to prevent significant interference with the normal activities of local communities. The European Environment Agency suggests that 55dBLAeq is the maximum limit for undisturbed sleep. However, BAA only fines aircraft for violating a 87dBLAeq threshold. [4]

The WHO charter on transport, environment and health (Jan 2001) sets out community noise guidelines, which state that night-time noise levels should not exceed 60dB for an individual noise event such as the flying over of an aircraft (the noise of a plane landing at an airport can be over 60dB, 15 miles away).[12] In a letter to campaigners at Gatwick, Elizabeth Duthie of the Department for Transport (DfT) Aviation Environmental Division confirmed that Britain is a signatory to the charter, which, although not legally binding, represents a political commitment on which the Government must act by 2004. [13]

At present, the DfT's estimate of the noise generated by night flights fails to reflect the true impact on people living under airport flight paths. The official noise index uses the dBLAeq scale, the average noise level throughout a 16-hour period, including periods where there isn't an aircraft noise event. This does not take into account the effects of sudden, sporadic and discontinuous changes in noise level. If your alarm clock was waking you up every half hour you would certainly be adversely affected even though the average noise level in your room would be lower than the volume of an alarm clock going off.

Moreover, the DfT does not even measure the actual noise levels of night flights. It is required by an EU Directive to rely on estimates based on the noise ratings, or certifications, for different aircraft types. Flight tests carried out by the DfT since 1999 have found that the ratings are seriously flawed. A Boeing 747-400 with Rolls-Royce engines was found to have twice the effect assumed in its noise rating, but the results of the monitoring were not published until April 2003, more than three years after the department had realised that the ratings could be wrong. When they were finally published, the new ratings were buried in a 60-page consultation document on reforming the rules governing night flights. [14]

Techno-fixes are not enough
Refinements in aircraft technology, welcome though they are, chiefly benefit the airlines, not people on the ground. Aircraft have become quieter and cleaner but also larger, which means people continue to suffer the same noise and pollution while the industry reaps bigger profits, leading to demand for yet more flights and infrastructure. With no major new technical breakthroughs anticipated the White Paper itself predicts a 'deterioration in the noise climate as growth in air traffic overtakes the rate of technological advance'. [15]

The older 'Chapter 2' noise class of plane, many of which were very noisy, are no longer in use. Present aircraft meet 'Chapter 3' requirements, and are indeed quieter, but as airlines are only required to phase out 10 per cent of their fleet a year, it will take a long time to get rid of all the noisy aircraft. Nor do the technological improvements to date imply that aircraft noise will be significantly reduced from Chapter 3 standards in the future, especially in the face of the huge predicted rise in air travel over the next thirty years.

Night flights are unnecessary
As the European Court noted in 2001, the supposed economic benefits of night flights has never been critically assessed. To date the Government has not published a single robust study in support of the airlines' assertion that night flights make an vital contribution to the UK economy. In particular, it carried out no research into the actual contribution of night flights to Heathrow [16] prior to bringing in the new night flying regime in 1993.

In its defence the Government fell back on a report by Oxford Economic Forecasting (OEF), 'The Contribution of the Aviation Industry to the UK Economy', which was 90 per cent funded by the aviation industry and contained no research or conclusions in relation to night flights and their supposed economic significance. [17] OEF's report was the subject of detailed economic criticism in a report by Berkeley Hanover Consulting, commissioned by the applicants. [18] The claims of economic benefits of night flights must be measured against the undisputed fact that many of the world's leading business centres, including Zurich, Berlin, Munich, Hamburg, Tokyo, enjoy full night-time passenger curfews of 7-8 hours.

The Court decided that he contribution to the economy is insufficient to outweigh the detrimental impact on people's quality of life. Mere reference to the economic well-being of the country is not sufficient to outweigh the rights of others. Airports and airlines simply do not need to fly at night to make a profit.

The Express Industry
Members of the Association of International Courier and Express Services (AICES), in a letter to the Financial Times (12th Dec 2003), argued that the express industry needs continued and long-term access to 24-hour airports throughout the UK in order to meet the requirements of next-day delivery. However, a study by KPMG into express cargo operations carried out in Belgium by KPMG found that only 7.2 per cent of express customers held speed of delivery to be a priority. For the rest, it was the attraction of secure, dependable, guaranteed door-to-door delivery. [19]

The law as it stands is inadequate
Following the European Court's ruling that there was no real justification for night flights at Heathrow, and therefore that residents' right to undisturbed sleep should not be sacrificed for the convenience of airlines, the UK Government pursued an appeal. In November 2003, in an abrupt about-face, the Court's Grand Chamber overturned the previous ruling and declared that here had been no violation of Article 8. However, it did find that, under Article 13, the residents hadn't been given the opportunity to make their case fully in the UK courts.

Clearly, as it stands, the law is failing to protect residents' interests. In the UK, if you are troubled by noisy neighbours, your right to peace and quiet is protected under the Noise Act of 1996, but there is no legislation at the national level to protect communities from aircraft noise. The aviation industry has enjoyed immunity from legal action for most types of aircraft noise since 1920. Local authorities, which may have powers to act, are reluctant to do so. [20] The three major London airports of Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted are designated under Section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, which gives the Secretary of State powers to 'enforce noise standards on aircraft, apply operational controls and restrictions, and give directions to owners of designated airports in relation to noise insulation grant schemes'. In practice however, the Government rarely exercises these powers and BAA plc, which runs the airports, is largely self-regulating. [21]

We need an EU-wide ban on night flights
At present, effective action to tackle aircraft noise is obstructed by governments fearing it would hand a competitive advantage to their perceived European rivals. An EU-wide ban would create a more level playing field for both residents and airlines, and ensure that no airport enjoys a competitive advantage over another. Five MEPs from the Green Group (Hiltrud Breyer, Alexander de Roo, Marie Anne Isler Béguin, Paul Lannoye and Caroline Lucas) have sponsored Written Declaration 4/2002 calling for the European Commission to produce draft legislation banning night flights between 11pm and 7am at all major airports in the EU. If the declaration attracts the backing of more than 313 MEPs by the deadline (26th April 2004), it will become an official request from the Parliament to the Commission and will be debated in the European Parliament before the European Elections in June.

The Written Declaration in full

The European Parliament,

- having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

A. considering that noise is one of the most serious threats to health, especially for children;
B. considering that almost one third of the population of the European Union is already affected by noise;
C. considering that more than ten million people suffer in Europe from aircraft noise and that even if a decrease in noise is possible through technical improvements, the enormous increase in the number of flights will counteract the effects of these;
D. considering that noise from landings and take-offs is particularly harmful during the night;
E. considering that a good night's sleep is a human right, as declared by the European Court of Human Rights;
F. considering that there is a risk of competition between airports to the prejudice of residents in the affected areas if decisions to ban night flights are taken at national or regional level;

The European Parliament asks:

1. that the utmost priority be given to the health of European citizens;
2. the European Commission to propose legislation banning night flights between 11.00 p.m. and 7.00 a.m. at all airports in the European Union.

References

[1] World Heath Organisation, Review of Implementation and Effectiveness of existing policy instruments on Transport Environment and Health, and of their potential for health gain, January 2001. www.euro.who.int/transport/policy/20030129_1
[2] Green Party press release, MEPs Demand Night Flight Ban to Protect Child Health, 26th January 2004 www.jeanlambertmep.org.uk/london/londownloads/lpress_articles/0401nightflights.htm
[3] Friends of the Earth, Noisy Nuisance, 2004. www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/transport/press_for_change/night_flights/index.html
[4] Birmingham International Airport, Aircraft Noise Management - Policy and Progress, 2003, p11. www.bhx.co.uk/Noise_document.pdf
[5] Friends of the Earth press release, Airport Campaigners Stage Sleep-in, 27th February 2004. www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/airport_campaigners_stage_25022004.html
[6] J A Hobson, Sleep, 1989, Scientific American Library, W.H. Freeman and Co, New York, NY, USA.
[7] Randall Bell, The Impact of Aircraft Noise on Residential Real Estate, The Appraisal Journal, July 2001, p317. www.realestatedamages.com/Articles/Randy/AirportNoise.pdf
[8] Robert S Stone, Kenneth R Regier, and Ellwyn Brickson, The Human Effects of Exposures to Aircraft Noise in a Residential Environment. Division of Environmental Health, Orange County Health Department, 19th May, 1972.
[9] World Health Organisation, Guidelines for Community Noise, Ed. Birgitta Berglund, Thomas Lindvall, Dietrich H Schwela, 1999. www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/guidelines2.html
[10] Richard Buxton, High Relief. The Ecologist, 22nd Nov 2001.www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=213&category=87
[11] Edie - the online community for water, waste and environment professionals, UK faces possible retreat on night flights, Edie weekly summaries, 5th October 2001. www.edie.net/news/Archive/4759.cfm
[12] World Health Organisation, Concern for Europe's Tomorrow. Stuttgart: Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft, 2001, p355.
[13] George Osborne MP, Westminster Hall Adjournment Debate: ECHR Judgement on Night Flights, 23rd October 2001. www.georgeosborne.co.uk/record.jsp?type=speech&ID=10
[14] The Times, 27th May 2003 www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-693573,00.html
[15] HM Department for Transport, The Future of Air Transport Dec 2003, para 3.10.
[16] Nick Warburton, Breaking the Tolerance Barrier, Environmental Health Journal March 2001. www.ehj-online.com/archive/2000/march2001/march1.html
[17] Oxford Economic Forecasting, The Contribution of the Aviation Industry to the UK Economy, 2000.
[18] Berkeley Hanover Consulting, The Impacts of Future Aviation Growth in the UK, 2000.
[19] KPMG Business Advisory Service, Economic Impact Study of the Belgian Express and Courier Sector, April 2003. www.b-c-a.be/KPMGstudieNL.pdf
[20] Richard Buxton, Aircraft Noise, 1st November 2003. www.richardbuxton.co.uk/ourwork/aircraft.htm
[21] Nick Warburton, Breaking the Tolerance Barrier, Environmental Health Journal March 2001.

Back to top

BANG! Home