The debate over aircraft and the environment is not going to go away until regulating authorities take the public's concerns into account
When the air transport industry made decisions about future policy or equipment, it used to do so according to the best way to meet demand and profit from its hard work.
The environment was a consideration, but rather peripheral, because in the days of screaming, smoking early Boeing 707s and McDonnell Douglas DC-8s the public was just as hypnotised by the possibilities offered by jet speeds as the airlines were, so criticism of their noise was no barrier to progress. Now, although jets are far quieter, criticism of aviation's intrusiveness into people's lives, their effect on people's health, and possible effects on macro-ecological factors like global warming are becoming a big issue. But, to coin a phrase, the industry ain't seen nuthin' yet
Aviation is really big business now, and while it gives the public something they want - and inexorably rising demand for travel proves that they really do want it - no-one wants it in their back yard. The forces working to prevent airport growth in some areas where it is badly needed are becoming formidable, and they command massive political attention.
Western Europe is the most obvious example of this phenomenon, and for those in the USA who cannot understand why this lobby has the power it does, simple mathematics provide the answer: its population density is nearly four times that of the USA. There is less land per head, fewer wilderness areas, and any kind of large-scale industrial activity impinges on the lives of far more people.
At its September/October general assembly this year the International Civil Aviation Organisation is going to be faced with a balancing act over environmental issues, particularly its standards for aircraft noise. ICAO always has the apparently impossible task of getting consensus on aviation standards from 185 member states, each with its opinion. And surely, once a standard is set it is the standard, or else what is it for?
ICAO has been asked to adjudicate in the long-running hushkits war between the European Union, which does not want any more hushkitted aircraft in its skies than it had two years ago, even if they do meet the current noise standards, and the USA, whose industries make the hushkits and produced the aircraft equipped with them. ICAO's decision was to suggest that the two could reach a compromise, so they should try again to do so.
But ICAO knows that there is a bigger issue here which needs solving, and all the signs are that it is coming down on the side of greater flexibility in response to local and regional environmental sensitivities. The Europe/USA argument is really about a difference of opinion on how quickly noise standards should be raised.
The present standard, Chapter 3, was conceived 27 years ago, and Chapter 2 aircraft will still be allowed to fly until early next year. That cycle is far too long for today's world, especially for densely populated, economically mature parts like Western Europe. Chapter 4 will be adopted at the September assembly, but it will only apply to factory-fresh aircraft and not until 2006. More importantly, there is no ruling on when Chapter 3 aircraft will have to be brought into compliance with the more stringent standards, or be grounded.
While all airliners in production are effectively compliant with Chapter 4 standards already, there are still a huge number of aircraft flying in the USA and Europe that only marginally meet Chapter 3 in their purist (ie non-hushkitted) form. The Boeing MD-80 twinjet is the most prolific.
Naturally it is unrealistic to force aircraft out of service after an uneconomically short working life, so there has to be a balance, but it can easily be achieved in today's world. The market provides the answer. Not all of the world is like Western Europe, so there will always be a big market for aircraft which are technically compliant - if only just - with current noise regulations. The USA will be a prime market - until the environmental lobby gets stronger there - and so will all those many countries in which the environment is lower in the priorities of the population. Meanwhile if Europe's people choose to force on the airlines the need to look well into the ecological future when choosing an aircraft type to operate there, that will become a local political reality.
Setting environmental standards is not like setting safety standards. Safety is a matter of life or death. Environmental standards are, for the moment at least, a matter of lifestyle and local or regional choices. ICAO realises this, and what is more it realises that any attempt to deny people or nations the lifestyle that they democratically choose is doomed to fail.
Source: Flight International
