Fairness in the Skies Ep.2

🗣️ Virtual Airports and Real Voices: What We Learned from 130 Community Members 

Airspace design is typically driven by data and performance – but what happens when you put the people most affected by aircraft noise at the centre of the conversation? 

In our recent research with Manchester Metropolitan University for London Gatwick Airport, we set out to do just that. Through a series of 13 focus groups, we engaged over 130 community members using an innovative virtual airport tool. 

What we learned was both insightful and challenging – and it’s reshaping how we think about relative fairness in the skies. 

🧪 Why a Virtual Airport? 

Aircraft noise is hard to visualize, and harder still to debate without common ground. So, we built a virtual model where participants could test different airspace design concepts – seeing for themselves how changes might affect people on the ground. 

We explored: 

• Replication of existing routes
• Limited and wider dispersal 
• Extensive sharing via new routes 

The goal wasn’t just technical evaluation – it was to uncover how real people perceive relative fairness. 

📢 What the Community Told Us 

• Concentration feels unjust. Overburdening those already most affected was seen as unreasonable – especially if tied to increased traffic over time. 
• Limited sharing felt fairer. Spreading the noise slightly – especially among those already familiar with aircraft – was seen as more acceptable. 
• Big changes = big pushback. If new communities were introduced to noise, resistance might spike. Fairness wasn’t just about noise levels – it was about expectations. 

🔍 More Than Noise – It’s About Trust 

Our participants highlighted the need for transparent explanations, genuine consultation, and clear communication. These are hallmarks of informational and procedural fairness, and they matter just as much as the technical metrics. 

💡 Looking Ahead 

The virtual airport gave communities a voice in shaping airspace decisions. The findings? Nuanced, honest, and valuable. 

As the UK continues to modernise its airspace, we hope these voices remain at the centre – not the periphery – of the conversation. 

👉 Curious to dive deeper? Download the CAP2971 final report and our presentation materials from our Resource page. 

Let’s keep building solutions with communities

What do you think matters most to communities when it comes to aircraft noise and route design? (pick a top 3 or add more) 

🗣️ “We want to be heard—not just informed.”
⚖️ “Fairness means not always being the ones who carry the burden.”
🔍 “Transparency matters more than perfect solutions.”
🕰️ “Start the conversation before decisions are made.”
📢 Being clearly informed about why changes are made
🤝 Ensuring noise is shared more fairly across communities
🗳️ Having the chance to participate in decisions
🏡 Keeping noise levels as low as possible near my home 

  Can You Hear Fairness? How Noise Metrics Like N65 Reveal What Communities Really Experience 

When it comes to aircraft noise, averages don’t tell the full story. People don’t perceive noise events as an average noise level! 

That’s one of the most important insights from our recent study with Manchester Metropolitan University for London Gatwick Airport. Traditional metrics like Leq (which calculates average noise levels) often fail to capture how people actually experience noise – especially in communities near airports. Change is key. 

To address this, we explored a more intuitive alternative: the N65 metric and its changes. (Note that other N metrics also may also have merit). 

 What is N65? 

N65 counts the number of noise events above 65 decibels at a given location. Why does this matter? 

Because it reflects the frequency of interruptions – those distinct moments when an aircraft disrupts a conversation, a child’s sleep, or a moment of calm. 

This shift from averages to event-based metrics and changes in these metrics has profound implications for the perception of relative fairness in airspace design.  

 Noise People Feel, Not Just Measure 

In our community focus groups, participants immediately grasped the N65 concept. It aligned with their lived experience far better than Leq ever could. 

With N65, we could: 

• Map where people would hear more or fewer noise events, 
• Show how noise burdens shift with each airspace design option, 
• Quantify those shifts using the Person Events Index (PEI)—a powerful tool combining population data with noise events to assess overall noise load. 

 Fairness Is Transparent – and Understandable 

This approach isn’t just technical. It about human perception.  

When people can clearly see and understand what’s changing – and why – they’re more likely to engage in meaningful dialogue. This is informational fairness in practice, and it’s essential for understanding the relative risk of social unacceptability of different airspace design options. 

 Why This Matters for the Future 

As CAP1616 guides the next wave of airspace change, we believe N65 and PEI should play a complimentary role. Not to replace policy – but to enhance it with transparency, empathy, and real-world relevance.  

 Access the full report (CAP2971) and our slides on the Resource page to learn more about how noise data can support better, fairer decisions. 

Let’s move beyond averages – and toward metrics that reflect what communities actually experience. 

What might make noise data easier for your (or a) community to engage with? 

Answer Options:
A. Plain-language explanations
B. Interactive tools like virtual maps
C. Fewer technical terms and more real-life examples
D. Regular updates on how things are changing 

Email your answer to: [email protected]