iscover
The use of helicopters in populated areas seems to attract far more vocal resident opposition than the real noise of helicopter operation seems to warrant. Hopetully, in the future, quieter helicopters such as the Notar equipped MD 520N (pictured) will overcome the hurdle of local resident opposition to helicopter operation.
Trials of a Helipad
0 comment
By any measure, Rodger and Wai Davidson are successful. After nearly 20 years their wholesale nursery operation at Galston, in Sydney’s north west, has become the country’s largest supplier of camellias and azaleas.
In the process, they have become Galston’s largest employer, taking on up to 70 staff as the seasons dictate. Long before Bob Hawke’s call, the Davidsons were an outstanding example of “the clever country”. Galston is a semi rural area. Semi rural because although there is still much primary production, an increasing number of residents have moved into the area because it is about an hour’s drive from the CBD. This allows them to commute to work, while still enjoying the benefits of rural life, whether as hobby farmers keeping horses and other livestock, or simply having the run of a two hectare block. As far as aviation is concerned, aircraft are no strangers to the district. Galston is located directly under the western light aircraft lane for Bankstown; six kilometres west of the centreline for 16/34 approaches/departures at Sydney Kingsford Smith; and approximately four kilometres south of the centreline for approaches/departures to RAAF Richmond 10/28. Galston is at the fringes of the Richmond Control Zone, and the RAAF occasionally conducts low flying Hercules and Caribou exercises in the area. A number of media personalities also live in the area, and from time to time they are picked up and returned by helicopter. For the Davidsons, building their business has meant that much of their stock is now sourced from over a hundred offsite suppliers in locations along virtually the entire east coast of Australia. It is crucial that no diseased stock enter the Galston nursery, which means that plants have to be inspected before they leave growers’ premises — the sheer volume precludes inspection at the nursery gate. So, because of the spread, and number, of their suppliers, the Davidsons need an efficient means of getting around – it is no longer practical to use a car and, as Rodger Davidson says, “my business suffers when I’m away from it”. On study tours of nursery operations in Germany and the United States, Davidson saw aircraft used effectively for inspections. In February 1990, he acquired an Enstrom F28F and undertook flying instruction from Chris Townsend at Hoxton Park, soloing the following year during which also saw a helipad constructed at the nursery. Perhaps nowhere else in Australia are helicopters, and their operations, more problematic than in the Sydney metropolitan area. Long after Melbourne and Brisbane’s CBDs got heliports, Sydney is still without such a facility. This is partly because, under the Local Government, and Planning and Environment Acts, helipads (private facilities), and heliports (public facilities) are “designated developments”, of which the Minister for Planning must be advised, and in which he can intervene. No other State or Territory has this requirement. After airports, heliports and helipads are arguably the country’s best examples of the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) and
Banana (build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone)
syndromes. Almost invariably, whenever application is made for a helipad, there is strenuous opposition although, strangely enough, if the pad is approved, there are very few complaints once helicopters begin operating. In January 1992, after the Enstrom had operated 22 times to the nursery, the NSW Environment Protection Authority advised Davidson that there had been a noise complaint and that he should submit a development application to his local council. The aircraft was transferred to Hoxton Park pending completion of an environment impact statement (EIS) to support the development application lodged with Hornsby Council. This was the first such application that Hornsby Council had received. In accordance with the legislation, Council advised the Minister who chose not to intervene. After examining the EIS, and consultation with other councils, and taking into account the area the Davidsons occupied, 31 acres, Hornsby town planning staff advised Council that it had three options: approve; approve with conditions; disapprove. There was a lively debate, with Council finally resolving to give conditional consent to the development. These conditions were: approval for 12 months; engine to be muffled to reduce noise by 3-4 decibels; two flightpaths, to NW and NE, with NW path for landings only; coloured balls to be fitted to the powerlines traversing the Davidson property; restrictions on number of movements, and in daylight only. In NSW, local council decisions can be appealed in the NSW Land and Environment Court. A small, but vocal, residents’ group, Galston Area Residents’ Association (GARA), did just that, with the effect of injuncting any operation of the aircraft at the site, save for noise tests, until the case was decided. GARA conducted a vigorous publicity campaign in the district, reminiscent of that 20 years earlier when an airport was proposed for the area. Black and yellow signs appeared in the district proclaiming “No Helicopters Here!” Helicopter noise demonstrations were conducted in the local shopping centre, as the association solicited donations to finance its court action. Readers of its newsletters could have been forgiven for believing that they were going to be subjected to an ongoing invasion à la Apocalypse Now! On May 23 1994, the matter of Beverley Anne Inshaw v. Hornsby Council and Rodger and Wai Davidson opened, the association’s research officer having been designated the nominal applicant. Initially listed for five days, the hearings eventually took nine, including an onsite inspection of the helipad and demonstration of the helicopter. Eighteen points of issue were agreed among the parties. Evidence was given, and largely countered, that there were species endangered by helicopter operations. The court heard that one resident attributed cracks in her house to the helicopter’s operation, while another claimed that “her body and chest vibrated” when the helicopter passed overhead. A number claimed that horses were spooked by the aircraft. Evidence was given, and essentially discounted, that the presence of a helipad would depress surrounding land values. The respondents gave evidence that, during noise trials, horses in an adjoining paddock had continued to graze; that there had been no flushing of birds during flights. The respondents disputed claims of “pristine quiet” for the area, demonstrating that heavy vehicles frequently passed through the area, that trail bikes were regularly used in the district, as well as chainsaws. There was reference to the aviation activity already mentioned. Indeed, much of the respondents’ evidence was borne out on May 25, when the Court visited the nursery for an onsite inspection. Horses didn’t cease grazing; no birds were flushed and, across the road from the pad, this writer didn’t have to raise his voice, to continue a conversation, while the aircraft was running up to max revs. Back in court, Rodger Davidson gave evidence that for his purposes, it was impracticable to hangar the helicopter elsewhere, and also stated that he was very much a fair weather pilot. He stressed that the helicopter was merely a tool in support of his business, and rejected the suggestion that he would use it for joyflights. There are a number of court cases which have considered the use of helicopters. Perhaps the most relevant is Warringah Shire Council v. Raffles. That case, in the NSW Equity Court in 1978, found that a helicopter was permitted use in a non-urban area, and that the respondent, a Dr Raffles, had a right to personal transport, whether it was a horse and buggy, or indeed a helicopter. Justice Bannon handed down his decision on June 15, a fortnight after hearings concluded. To the surprise of many, while acknowledging Raffles’ case, and finding in favour of the respondents on 17 of the 18 points of issue, the judge found that use of the helicopter would impair the amenity of the area, and allowed the appeal, thereby overturning Hornsby Council’s consent. Referring to expert testimony, His Honor said in the judgement, “..no matter how many arithmetical calculations are produced and averages recorded, single event intrusive noises of a discordant variety jar upon the human ear, whether they be helicopters, or offkey sopranos or tenors”. When the NSW Land and Environment Court was established, it was legislated that appeals against the court’s decision would only be on questions of law, and not of fact. Issues of amenity have been determined to be questions of fact, and therefore the Davidsons’ legal advice is that there are no grounds for an appeal. They are considering other options. The case has implications for the immediate future. Computers aren’t the only technology becoming increasingly available to the community at large. Since the 1950s, there have been predictions that personal helicopters would become an everyday form of transport. Helicopters such as the Robinson R22, at $180,000 and the R44 at $380,000 are now available. An Italian single place model is due for release next year, at about $60,000. As these aircraft are becoming more affordably within the reach of the general populace, at about the same price as a number of luxury cars, the ’50s predictions may well come true. As the recession lifts, more will be able to afford these machines and, like the Davidsons, will see a use for them in support of their businesses. It is reasonable to ask should development approval be required, where a helicopter is concerned. After all, DA is not required if a resident buys a trail bike, or a chainsaw — yet both these machines can generate considerably more noise than a light helicopter, and for longer periods, than the few minutes it takes for a helicopter to warm up, takeoff, or land. A helicopter cannot be operated in this country unless it meets strict noise standards. Aviation fuel and engine time is expensive: no operator is going to run the machine longer than is absolutely necessary. Safety might be a consideration but helicopters, any aircraft for that matter, have to be operated in strict conformance with Civil Aviation Authority regulations — a Federal matter. It’s significant that Bureau of Air Safety Investigation research, since 1967, shows that no third party has ever been killed as the result of a helicopter crash in this country. Indeed, passengers and crew in a helicopter stand a better chance of survival, in the event of engine failure, than occupants of a fixed wing aircraft, by virtue of the helicopter’s ability to autorotate to a safe landing. It can be demonstrated that the “tall poppy” syndrome applies with regard to helicopters, that a semitrailer generating 87 decibels will be tolerated, while a helicopter, generating 10 decibels less, will be resented — dismissed as a rich man’s toy. Research for NASA by Dr J B Ollerhead, who exposed subjects to a range of noise events, including helicopters, at varying levels, indicates that it may be the sight of a helicopter, not the noise, that generates hostility. In his research, only on sight of the helicopter was animosity evident when subjects were both aurally and visually exposed to the same range of noise sources, the inference being that attitudinal and other, non acoustic, factors are in play. This research was referred to by all three parties during the Davidson case. There was evidence from a council town planner during the case that, although helipads and heliports were strenuously opposed during the application stage, there were few complaints after approval. Enquiries of the FAC, NSW EPA and a number of local councils revealed that they received very few complaints regarding helicopter operations. Warringah Council, with four helipads in the Terrey Hills area, had had no complaints at all. If potential helicopter operators have to go through the painful process outlined above, they may not be so keen. According to Terry Mortimer, general manager of Sydney based Heliflite, there is no doubt that the requirement for development approval has a braking effect on sales. Heliflite recently introduced the Robinson R44 to this country, of which 10 have been sold so far. Of those, only four are for Sydney clients which is disproportionate to the total population. Mortimer is convinced that helicopters enhance economic development and create jobs, and that the reverse is true, both directly and indirectly. In terms of the helicopter industry, he believes, the DA requirement means fewer aircraft are sold; fewer jobs created, particularly for LAMEs and AMEs; while potential operators’ businesses do not expand as rapidly, again impairing jobs growth. Meanwhile, having spent about $100,000, the Davidsons consider their position. Their helicopter remains at Hoxton Park, useless for the purpose for which it was acquired. For the moment, a campaign of half truths, selective quotation, and scare mongering has succeeded — their expansion is hamstrung. As far as helicopters are concerned, it would seem that nowhere else does the Tall Poppy Syndrome triumph so miserably, and with legislative backing, as it does in New South Wales. Is this really The Clever Country?
This content is available exclusively to Australian Aviation members.
A monthly membership is only $5.99 or save with our annual plans.
- Australian Aviation quarterly print & digital magazines
- Access to In Focus reports every month on our website
- Unlimited access to all Australian Aviation digital content
- Access to the Australian Aviation app
- Australian Aviation quarterly print & digital magazines
- Access to In Focus reports every month on our website
- Access to our Behind the Lens photo galleries and other exclusive content
- Daily news updates via our email bulletin
- Unlimited access to all Australian Aviation digital content
- Access to the Australian Aviation app
- Australian Aviation quarterly print & digital magazines
- Access to In Focus reports every month on our website
- Access to our Behind the Lens photo galleries and other exclusive content
- Daily news updates via our email bulletin
Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make Australian Aviation a preferred news source on Google.
Click here to add Australian Aviation as a preferred news source.
