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:
