Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance

24/05/2026

Does aircraft noise affect you? Comment below 🛬

Aircraft noise from Brisbane airport operations afflicts over one million Brisbane residents during the daytime, and about two hundred thousand at night.

Retired Brisbane GP Dr Karin Hage and Brisbane environmental scientist Dr Sean Foley write that Brisbane airport’s aviation operations are a health risk for most Brisbane residents.

"Global scientific evidence shows long-term exposure to aircraft noise negatively affects both physical and mental health. The UN World Health Organization and European Union recognise aircraft noise as a major public health risk."

Read the full article at https://village-voice.com.au/aircraft-noise-why-it-can-harm-your-health/

08/05/2026

A night curfew on flights departing and landing at Brisbane Airport would produce considerable economic benefits, including a significant reduction in adverse health impacts from aircraft noise.

This from a comprehensive report The Economic Case for a Curfew at Brisbane Airport by University of Queensland Economics Professor John Quiggin, which he presented to the town hall meeting organised by the Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance (BFPCA) on February 15.

He pointed out that the public costs of continued 24-hour operations are borne daily, in the form of fragmented sleep, elevated health risks, declining neighbourhood amenity, and deepening social inequity.

Read more about the research findings on our news site at https://village-voice.com.au/economic-and-health-benefits-from-a-brisbane-airport-night-curfew/

17/03/2026

New “Flying Considerately” proposal won’t fix aircraft noise – here’s why

The Australian Government is seeking feedback on a new proposal called Flying Considerately, part of its Aviation White Paper process. It is presented as a way to reduce the impact of aircraft noise on communities. BFPCA has reviewed the proposal and submitted a detailed response. While the intent is acknowledged, the reality is that this approach will not deliver meaningful change.

1. What is this consultation paper about?

The Flying Considerately proposal is aimed primarily at general aviation – smaller aircraft flying under visual flight rules, often outside controlled airspace. The Government is proposing a set of guidelines encouraging pilots to operate in ways that reduce noise over residential areas. This includes suggestions such as avoiding populated areas where possible, adjusting flight paths or altitudes, and being more aware of community impacts.

However, these are not rules. The framework is entirely voluntary. It is designed to work through awareness and cooperation, without imposing additional regulatory requirements on pilots or operators. In other words, it relies on individuals choosing to do the right thing.

2. What are the issues?

The problem is that aircraft noise is not something that can be solved through voluntary behaviour alone.

First, the proposal depends on goodwill rather than enforceability. There are no obligations, no monitoring requirements, and no consequences if the guidance is not followed. We have already seen how similar “Fly Neighbourly” guidelines operate in practice—they exist, but adherence is inconsistent and communities remain exposed.

Second, the proposal focuses on pilots rather than the system that shapes their behaviour. Aircraft noise is largely determined by flight path design, traffic distribution, and how often aircraft are routed over the same areas. These are system-level decisions. Pilots operate within those constraints, often with limited scope to change what they are doing in the moment.

Third, the proposal treats noise as a series of individual events, when in reality communities experience it cumulatively. The issue is not just one aircraft passing overhead, but repeated overflights throughout the day, often from multiple sources at once—general aviation, commercial traffic, helicopters, and increasingly drones. This ongoing exposure is what drives real impacts, including sleep disturbance, stress, and broader health effects.

Finally, the proposal lacks any meaningful way to measure or verify outcomes. There are no baseline metrics, no targets, and no reporting framework. On top of that, many aircraft in low-level airspace cannot be reliably identified in public tracking systems, making it difficult—often impossible—for communities to attribute noise events or hold operators accountable.

Collectively, these issues mean the framework is unlikely to produce consistent or measurable improvements.

3. What does BFPCA want to see?

BFPCA is calling for a more serious and effective approach – one that reflects how aircraft noise is actually generated and experienced. This starts with moving beyond voluntary guidance. If noise impacts are to be reduced, there must be enforceable expectations built into how the aviation system operates, particularly in areas where communities are already experiencing significant exposure.

Noise management also needs to be addressed at the system level. That means embedding it into flight path design, airspace planning, and traffic distribution, rather than relying on individual pilots to make discretionary adjustments. Crucially, aircraft noise must be recognised as a cumulative exposure with real health implications. Policy needs to account for frequency, concentration, and long-term impacts – not just isolated overflights.

There also needs to be proper monitoring, transparency, and accountability. Communities should be able to see what is happening in their airspace, understand patterns of exposure, and have confidence that impacts are being measured and managed. This includes ensuring that aircraft operating in affected airspace can be identified.

Finally, any framework must take a whole-of-airspace view. General aviation does not operate in isolation. Drones, helicopters, and emerging air mobility technologies are all contributing to the same noise environment. Addressing one part of the system while ignoring the rest will only deepen the problem over time.

The bottom line is simple. Flying Considerately may sound constructive, but in its current form it does not match the scale or nature of the issue. Communities need more than good intentions. They need a system that is designed to reduce noise and protect health and wellbeing in a consistent, measurable, and accountable way.

Read our full submission here: https://bfpca.org.au/flyconsiderately/

16/02/2026

Curfew Won’t Hurt the Economy – But 24-Hour Flights Are Costing Brisbane Dearly

BFPCA Media Release, 17 February 2026
https://bfpca.org.au/quiggin-report/

- Up to $100 million a year in health and sleep-related harms imposed on Brisbane residents.
- A night curfew would cost around $10 million or less – a fraction of the community damage.
- The airport’s growth projections in the Draft Master Plan 2026 are “highly unlikely” to be realised.
- Health benefits alone exceed $100 million annually if a curfew is introduced.
- Reduced property values linked to aircraft noise are estimated at $200–$350 million annually.
- Only 2.5% of flights operate overnight – yet hundreds of thousands of residents bear the cost.
- Freight can be shifted to Wellcamp Airport at minimal cost.
- Legislated curfews are in place in Sydney, Adelaide, Gold Coast and Melbourne (Essendon).

A night flight curfew at Brisbane Airport would not damage the economy and its growth figures are over-egged, new independent economic analysis by Professor John Quiggin from The University of Queensland has found. Contradicting decades of aviation industry messaging, the report finds the modest economic cost of a curfew is dwarfed by the enormous health bill generated by aircraft noise in the 2032 Olympic host city.

The report asks who bears the cost of Brisbane airport operations and aircraft noise. It finds that a small share of late-night flights – roughly 2.5% of total movements – generates concentrated commercial benefit to Brisbane Airport Corporation and the economy but the costs are shouldered by communities and outweigh benefits. The airport socialises the costs by spreading noise pollution across hundreds of thousands of residents exposed to repeated night-time sleep disruptions.

The economic cost of a 10pm–6am curfew would be modest – in the order of $10 million per year or less – while the community benefits would be substantially larger. Without a curfew, health-related costs alone are estimated at around $100 million annually. Broader impacts on residential amenity and property values are estimated at $200–$350 million annually. Put together, the economic burden imposed by overnight aircraft noise rises significantly.

The analysis also addresses Brisbane Airport Corporation’s Draft Master Plan 2026. Passenger growth projections underpinning continued 24-hour expansion are tested against recent performance. Over the past decade, both domestic and international passenger numbers have remained broadly flat. Post-pandemic recovery has been slower and structurally different from previous growth cycles, with business travel lagging. The report concludes that the Master Plan’s forecasts are unlikely to be realised in the time frame projected.

Prof. Quiggin’s findings challenge the long-standing narrative that Brisbane’s 24-hour operations are economically indispensable. Other Australian capitals such as Sydney and Adelaide operate successfully with legislated night-flight restrictions. The report argues that introducing a curfew would bring Brisbane into line with established national and international practice while delivering a clear net public benefit.

The economic question, the report concludes, is no longer whether a curfew is affordable. It is whether continuing unrestricted night operations can be justified at all.

The original night-time curfew in Brisbane was lifted in 1988 with the launch of Brisbane Airport in its current location. Since then, Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC) has argued that imposing a night curfew would damage the economy without ever providing a proper cost-benefit analysis as is done in Prof. Quiggin’s new report.

The full report is available at: https://bfpca.org.au/quiggin-report/

Quotes Attributable to Prof. John Quiggin

“A curfew would not ground the economy but it would finally let Brisbane residents sleep.”

“On conservative estimates, Brisbane residents are collectively losing up to $100 million per year in the form of sleep disruption, elevated health risks, reduced quality of life, and depressed land values.”

“The costs of a curfew are modest, of the order of $10 million per year, or even less. By contrast, the potential health and economic benefits of a curfew are valued at $50 million or more.”

“The imposition of a curfew would yield health benefits from reduced coronary attacks and other severe effects of around $100 million per year. Hedonic land valuations, which incorporate less severe effects such as annoyance, yield much higher values, ranging from $200 million to $350 million. A curfew would also yield benefits in the form of reduced public subsidies.”

“The persistent suggestion that aviation should be exempt from regulatory constraint because it is an ‘essential service’ is analytically unsound. Industries that generate externalities – whether transport, manufacturing, or energy – are commonly subject to operating limits, particularly during sensitive night hours. It is time to bring Brisbane Airport into line with the rest of the country. A curfew is standard policy, not radical reform.“

“It is highly unlikely that the growth projections of the Master Plan will be realised.“

25/11/2025

Even moderate night-time aircraft noise can increase insomnia – particularly for children. The US and UK both do more to mitigate the noise around airports.

👉 Read the full story: https://theconversation.com/aircraft-noise-from-new-runways-will-hit-thousands-more-homes-australia-needs-fairer-solutions-270149

10/11/2025

This post is appalling. Sadly the commenter is ignorant of the harms to their child from GAM’s lead based Avgas operations. No level of lead is safe for children and their developing brains. We also have these aircraft traversing our skies.

07/11/2025

Transport Minister Catherine King agrees to only four of 21 aircraft noise fixes

The federal government has been accused of dodging 17 Senate recommendations to tackle aircraft noise, including two that would have greatly helped long-suffering southeast Queenslanders.

The federal government has dodged two key Senate recommendations that would have directly helped cut aircraft noise across Brisbane, Logan and Redland, critics say.

06/11/2025

Government Grounds Reforms: A Betrayal of Communities under Flight Paths

BFPCA Media Release, 6 November 2025: https://bfpca.org.au/inquiry-response/

– Only 4 of 21 Senate Inquiry recommendations supported in full – the rest merely “noted” or “agreed in principle.”
– No new commitments to curfews, caps, compensation, or independent oversight.
– Reform delayed to 2030 under the Aviation White Paper and future legislative reviews.
– Minister King launched the Parliamentary Friends of Aviation just a week prior to the release of the government’s response
– BFPCA says the response reflects regulatory capture and betrays 700 Australians who made submissions seeking urgent action on aircraft noise pollution.

Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance (BFPCA) has sharply criticised the Australian Government’s response to the Senate Inquiry into the Impact and Mitigation of Aircraft Noise, released this week.

The Albanese Government has endorsed only four of 21 recommendations in full. Describing it as a calculated evasion of responsibility, BFPCA says the Government’s response to the 2024 Senate Inquiry on aircraft noise took nearly a year to eventuate and fails communities in Brisbane and around the country who are suffering.

The 2024 Senate Inquiry – initiated by the Australian Greens with Coalition and crossbench support – was chaired by Queensland LNP Senator Matt Canavan with astute support from Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie. It produced a landmark set of 21 recommendations after hearing extensive testimonies from residents, industry stakeholders, and academic experts at hearings held in Brisbane, Sydney, Hobart, and Canberra.

The Inquiry generated historic levels of community engagement, including a record 700 submissions and public attendance at hearings in Brisbane exceeding venue capacity.

“This document is a masterclass in delay and deflection,” said Prof. Marcus Foth, BFPCA spokesperson. “Communities have been waiting and hoping for almost a year for this report that’s nine months late. And now we finally have it and all the government has done is rehearse industry talking points and push any hope of meaningful reform out to 2030.”

The response arrives amid deepening concerns about the government’s proximity to the aviation lobby. On Monday 27 October 2025, Minister Catherine King launched the Parliamentary Friends of Aviation group at Parliament House in Canberra. The group is co-chaired by South Australian Labor MP Clare Clutterham, a Royal Flying Doctor Service board member, and Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie, who had been a key member of the Senate Inquiry.

BFPCA described the optics of a ceremony celebrating aviation industry ties held days before the release of a government document that dismisses nearly every proposal for community relief from aircraft noise as “deeply troubling.”

“This is not governance; it’s choreography,” said Prof. Foth. “While communities wait for real action to give us quieter skies, the government is busy rolling out the red carpet for the aviation lobby.”

Only three of the Inquiry’s twenty-one recommendations dealt directly with the Brisbane debacle – and even those have been mishandled, watered down, or quietly dismissed.

Recommendation 4 called for Airservices Australia to maximise the use of Simultaneous Opposite Direction Parallel Runway Operations (SODPROPS), enabling over-water flight paths that would spare more than 220 suburbs from incessant aircraft noise. The Government claims to support this recommendation, noting that Minister King issued a Direction in September 2024 requiring Airservices to prioritise SODPROPS during both day and night operations when conditions allow. However, this Direction has already failed to achieve even Airservices’ own meagre 5.3% target.

Recommendation 5 proposed prioritising Continuous Descent Operations (CDO) and Continuous Climb Operations (CCO) – procedures designed to reduce noise and fuel burn. The Government “agreed in principle,” but Senate Estimates evidence confirmed: “Continuous climb operations are not being considered at this stage.” And the so-called “predictable sequencing” trial planned for Brisbane is not genuine CDO. Predictable sequencing merely streamlines aircraft arrival spacing at high altitudes to improve air traffic efficiency; it does not alter low-altitude descent profiles, where noise exposure occurs. In practice, it delivers operational and fuel benefits for airlines, not meaningful noise abatements for communities. True CDO would require a complete redesign of approach procedures to enable continuous low-power descent from cruise to landing – something that BFPCA has been calling for but the Government has not committed to pursuing.

Recommendation 6 urged the Government to amend the Air Navigation (Aircraft Noise) rules for Brisbane so that night operations meet the stricter ICAO Chapter 14 noise standards. The Government “noted” this recommendation – effectively rejecting it – and reiterated its refusal to introduce curfews or movement caps at Brisbane Airport.

Together, these three responses epitomise the Government’s stance: symbolic gestures, bureaucratic hedging, and a steadfast unwillingness to implement enforceable protections for Brisbane residents who have borne the brunt of aviation’s expansion since 2020. For BFPCA, this confirms what residents have long suspected: that Australia’s aviation regulators remain effectively self-policing, with the Department of Infrastructure, Airservices Australia, and airport corporations writing their own rules and marking their own work while sipping taxpayer funded champagne in Canberra.

Quotes Attributable to BFPCA Spokesperson

“The Senate Inquiry was a rare moment of political unity. Communities, experts, and senators across the spectrum agreed that reform was overdue. The government’s refusal to act on that consensus is indefensible.”

“Minister King’s decision to launch the Parliamentary Friends of Aviation just days before releasing this response and her ongoing refusal to meet with our community shows exactly where her priorities lie.”

“Australians under flight paths deserve curfews, flight caps, compensation, and accountability – not another round of engagement theatre stretching to 2030.”

“This is state capture in real time. The industry gets a seat at the table; the public gets a pat on the head.”

23/10/2025

BFPCA Calls on Environment Minister to Close Airport Loopholes in EPBC Act Reforms

Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance (BFPCA) has written to the Federal Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator the Hon Murray Watt, calling for critical changes to the Government’s proposed reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

The EPBC Act is Australia’s main environmental law. It sets out how major projects – including aiports and runways – are assessed for their environmental impacts. The Albanese Government is currently finalising a major rewrite of the Act, which they claim will improve environmental standards, streamline approvals, and strengthen accountability.

BFPCA’s letter argues that, for airports, there remains a serious gap in the law. Since 2006, airport developments on Commonwealth land have been assessed only through ministerial advice rather than a formal approval process. This means that false or misleading information provided by airport operators is not an offence, unlike in other environmental assessments.

BFPCA argues this loophole has had real consequences for Brisbane residents. When Brisbane Airport’s New Parallel Runway opened in 2020, new flight paths were introduced that concentrated aircraft noise over densely populated suburbs, despite assurances that “over-water” operations would reduce noise over the city. Independent reviews – including those by the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman, the Brisbane Airport PIR Advisory Forum, TRAX International, AAB, and a 2024 Senate Inquiry – have confirmed that communities were misled by flawed noise modelling and poor consultation.

“We’re asking the Minister to ensure the lived experience of Brisbane communities is reflected in the EPBC Act reforms,” said BFPCA Chair Professor Marcus Foth. “No other industry would be allowed to submit misleading information about environmental impacts without consequences. Airports shouldn’t be exempt.”

BFPCA has requested a meeting with Minister Watt to discuss how the reforms can restore accountability, transparency, and consistency in how environmental impacts – including aircraft noise pollution – are regulated on Commonwealth land.

Read the full letter at: https://bfpca.org.au/epbc-reform/

23/10/2025

Brisbane, have your say: New plan for 1600 flights a day

BFPCA Media Release, 23 October 2025: https://bfpca.org.au/bac-masterplan/

– Passenger numbers forecast to double to 52.3 million by 2046.
– Aircraft movements set to surge to 382,000 annually plus 195,000 from Archerfield, bringing the Brisbane Basin close to 600,000 flights each year or around 1,600 flights per day.
– Night-time freight operations entrenched, with no curfew and continued reliance on older, louder aircraft.
– Noise mapping underplays impacts, with ANEF noise contours based on just two years of data.
– Sustainability claims undermined by tenants operating 50-year-old aircraft on lead-based avgas fuel.
– Expansion plans include Terminal 3 by 2031 and safeguarded land for future runway extensions.
– The mandatory 60-business-day consultation period ends on 30 October 2025. Have your say: https://bfpca.org.au/noway

Passenger numbers from Birsbane Airport will more than double from 25.7 million in 2026 to 52.3 million by 2046 with aircraft movements rising from 225,000 to nearly 382,000 annually, according to Brisbane Airport’s new Preliminary Draft 2026 Master Plan.

Combined with Archerfield Airport’s projected 195,000 flights per year, the Brisbane Basin could see almost 600,000 flights annually or around 1,600 flights per day. These forecasts represent an entirely unsustainable total number of daily aircraft movements.

This is the result of two decades of aggressive growth and expansion pursued by Brisbane Airport that will turn Brisbane into an “aerotropolis” and lock us into a future of more flights, more noise, and more disruption for communities across South East Queensland.

The Master Plan will make Brisbane Airport Australia’s overnight freight network hub, with the heaviest flows between 7pm and 6am, condemning residents to decades of night-time disruption that is most damaging to community health and wellbeing.

Brisbane Airport’s aircraft noise maps in the plan confirm hundreds of thousands of households in Brisbane will experience frequent disruptive noise events above 70 decibels or the equivalent of a lawn mower being turned on in their living room. However, these maps do not reveal the true extent of the noise fallout. The draft master plan relies on outdated ANEF noise contour mapping, which is based on two years of noise data and fails to capture the full extent of aircraft overflights or the true distance that noise travels from the flight paths.

Meanwhile, sustainability claims in the draft master plan are undermined by major airport tenants such as GAM Aviation, which continues to operate aircraft over 50 years old using lead-based avgas fuel. This makes Brisbane Airport one of the city’s least regulated polluters.

Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance is calling on greater Brisbane residents to lodge a submission to the Master Plan. Together, we can demand a fairer, healthier future for Brisbane’s communities.

Submissions close 30 October 2025. Have your say: https://bfpca.org.au/noway

Quotes Attributable to the Chairperson of the Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance (BFPCA):

“Brisbane Airport’s Master Plan reads like a blueprint for unchecked growth, with no regard for the airport’s host communities who already bear the brunt of the noise and pollution.”

“Almost 600,000 flights a year or 1,600 a day in the Brisbane Basin is not a sustainable future. It is a recipe for health impacts, sleepless nights, and declining liveability.”

“BAC’s so-called sustainability plan is a sham when one of its anchor tenants is still operating 1970s aircraft on toxic lead-based avgas fuel.”

“The Master Plan lays out a vision of wild aviation growth, worsening noise and pollution, heavier night-time disruption, and greater road congestion – all while glossing over negative impacts and limiting genuine community consultation.”

“Communities deserve more than spin, selective mapping, and token consultation. Brisbane residents have a right to honest information and a seat at the table.”

“We urge all Brisbane residents to make a submission before 30 October. This is our chance to hold BAC accountable and demand a fairer, healthier future for our city.”