Response to questions contained in
LegCo Secretariat's letter dated 31 July 1998

  1. To assess the number of persons affected by aircraft noise and the noise impacts when Chek Lap Kok Airport operates with a single runway now, two runways in the near future, and at designed capacity.

    2. Similar to the territory-wide approach for assessing environmental noise impact of road traffic and train, the noise impact of the operation of the airport is assessed on the basis of the culmulative noise over a period of time instead of the noise of a single event. In line with the practice in many developed countries, Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) contours are used for assessing the noise impact of the operation of the new airport. The Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines stipulate that for general planning purpose, noise sensitive users such as domestic and educational premises should not be located within the NEF 25 contour for the new airport (a higher standard as against NEF 30 for Kai Tak Airport). This is in line with the standards adopted by many developed countries.

    According to the Environmental Impact Assessment completed in 1992 and its update completed in 1998, only a very small number of residents in North Lantau are within the coverage of the NEF 25 contour of the new airport at design capacity and regarded as subject to aircraft noise beyond acceptable level from a planning and land use point of view. The estimated population within the NEF 25 contour for the new airport and for Kai Tak Airport is as follows-


    New airport

    Kai Tak Airport

    Population within NEF 25 contour

    under 200 people

    about 760,000 people

  1. To inform members of the public the proposed alignment of flight path for the second runway.

    2. Taking into account all the relevant considerations, the Civil Aviation Department's Airspace Planning Consultant has recommended the main flight paths for the segregated mode and integrated mode of dual runway operation. These flight paths are contained in the New Airport Master Plan Environmental Impact Assessment Update 1998. Copies are attached at Annexes A and B. The segregated mode of operation would be adopted during the initial operation of the second runway. The integrated mode entails more sophisticated coordination of air traffic for dual runway operation and with neighbouring airports. The flight paths will need to be refined continually in the light of operational experience at the new airport. This mode would be introduced only after the Civil Aviation Department has gained more experience in dual-runway operation and when traffic demand requires increased runway capacity.

  2. To provide information on all possible alignments of flight paths which are in conformity with international standards and the reasons for selecting the current alignment.

    3. The flight paths for the new airport were developed through careful studies in accordance with international standards and recommendations. Their development took into account runway alignment, terrain environment and obstacle clearances, location of navigation aids, aircraft operating criteria, noise considerations, airspace co-ordination with nearby airports, etc. Annex C illustrates the flight path options recommended by the New Airport Master Plan Consultant in 1991 and Annex B illustrates those recommended by the Civil Aviation Department's Airspace Planning Consultant in 1994 following more in-depth studies. Out of the 24 options recommended by the Master Plan Consultant, 15 have been adopted, with or without modifications, for further development into flight paths for the new airport by the Airspace Planning Consultant and Civil Aviation Department. The rest have been discarded because of safety concerns and operational problems arising from terrain constraint or conflict with the flight paths of nearby airports. The flight paths recommended by the Airspace Planning Consultant will be adopted by the Civil Aviation Department generally subject to some refinement. More detailed descriptions of the acceptability or otherwise of these options are set out in Annex D.

  3. To make remeasurements with affected residents on aircraft noise levels in areas under the flight path.

    4. The following arrangements have been made in respect of remeasurements with affected residents on aircraft noise level in areas under the flight path:

    1. measurement in Shatin with a member of Shatin Provisional District Board on 7 August 1998.

    2. another measurement in Shatin pending advice from another member of Shatin Provisional District Board on the timing.

    3. measurement in Kwai Chung and Tsing Yi with the Kwai Tsing Provisional District Board on 12 August 1998.

    4. measurement in Ma Wan with a resident of Ma Wan on 13 August 1998.

      The results of the above measurements would be provided once they are available.

  4. To introduce mitigation measures to alleviate noise impacts on residents of Sha Lo Wan including relocating the affected residents.

    5. The Government and the Airport Authority have agreed to offer noise mitigation measures for Sha Lo Wan as follows-

    1. noise mitigation measures (for the installation of double-glazed windows and air conditioners) would be provided to owners of small houses within the village environment and owners of licensed structures in Sha Lo Wan within the 25 NEF contour.

    2. for administrative convenience and to give villages maximum flexibility, villagers would be given a lump sum cash payment in lieu of arranging the actual installation of such measures. The cash compensation would be at a standard rate of $55,000 per storey. The payment will be on an ex-gratia basis and will not include recurrent or replacement costs. This practice is in line with the Government's existing practice in providing noise mitigation to residents who are adversely affected by traffic noise arising from the use of a new road.

    3. eligible property owners will be screened via an application process being coordinated by District Officer (Islands). It is anticipated that payments could be made to residents within a few weeks after receipt of appropriate documentation.

    4. apart from noise mitigation measures, owners of all existing licensed structures could opt, on a voluntary basis, for clearance. Standard ex-gratia allowances and rehousing, subject to normal eligibility criteria would apply. This policy is only for licensed structures since it would go beyond existing policy and practices to compulsorily relocate permanent domestic structures on the basis of noise. To do so would have extremely serious policy and resource implications for the community.

  5. To consider prohibiting landing or taking off of flights at the New Airport during a certain period of a day.

    6. The new airport is designed for 24-hour operation in order to cope with the demand of air transport and maintain Hong Kong's status as a centre of international and regional aviation. Except a small number of residents in North Lantau, other noise sensitive receivers (for example residential developments and schools etc.) are outside the NEF 25 contour and this is in compliance with international environmental standards. For this reason, the Administration has no intention of restricting the taking off and landing of aircraft at the new airport.

  6. To release the minutes of meetings of the Advisory Council on the Environment at which the findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment Study on the New Airport were discussed, and to advise the Administration's undertaking on implementation of noise mitigation measures at such meetings.

    7. Minutes of all meetings of the Environmental Pollution Advisory Committee and the Advisory Committee on the Environment at which the new airport Environmental Impact Assessment has been discussed are provided in the attached bundle together with copies of the papers presented by the Administration to these meetings. These set out the Administration's views on mitigation measures.

  7. To provide information pertinent to the subject of aircraft noise in respect of the New Airport such as consultancy reports and findings of investigations, if any.

    One set each of the following reports are enclosed in the attached bundle-

    --New Airport Master Plan Environmental Impact Assessment - December 1991

    --New Airport Master Plan Environmental Impact Assessment Supplement - October 1992

    --New Airport Master Plan Environmental Impact Assessment Update - February 1998





Economic Services Bureau / Planning, Environment and Lands Bureau
August 1998



Annex D

Flight Path Options for the New Airport

First Runway




Arrival for Runway 07R



TR11 (1991) or

L1 (1994)

This is the only option recommended and is adopted.


Departure for Runway 07R



TR2 (1991)

or T2 (1994)

This is adopted.


TR3 (1991) or

T1 (1994)

TR3 is similar to TR2. The 1994 Consultant amended this flight path to T1 so as to segregate traffic departing to the north and east from those departing to the south. This will reduce conflicts between arriving and departing traffic at the south east of the airport, thereby enhancing safety and efficiency of airspace utilisation. T1 is adopted.

TR14, TR16 (1991)

There are hills on both sides of these flight paths, requiring steep climb gradients in order to comply with the obstacle clearance criteria prescribed by the International Civil Aviation Organization, which may not be able to be achieved by long haul aircraft carrying heavy load. They do not have a clear advantage over T1 or T2 in terms of noise impact.

TR17 (1991)

This flight path requires steep turns and operate at close proximity to tall hills at Castle Peak. It is acceptable for light aircraft operating on visual flights but not suitable for commercial aircraft using the airport.

TR32 (1991)

This flight path is too close to the flight paths of the Shenzhen Airport and therefore not acceptable from an air safety point of view. It also does not have a clear advantage over TR2 in terms of noise impact.


Arrival for Runway 25L



TR20 (1991) or

L3 (1994)

This is the only option recommended and is adopted.


Departure for Runway 25L



TR12, TR18 (1991)

or T5 (1994)

These are adopted.

TR22, TR33 (1991)

These flight paths conflict with those of the Macau Airport and Shenzhen Airport and do not have a clear advantage over TR12 and TR18 in terms of noise impact.


Second Runway




Arrival for Runway 07L



TR10 (1991) or

L2 (1994)

This is the only option recommended and will be adopted.


Departure for Runway 07L



TR6 (1991)

This will be adopted.

TR21 (1991)

This is similar to TR3 for Runway 07R and will be modified as per T1 to serve as one of the departure flight paths so as to segregate traffic departing to the north and east from those departing to the south. This will reduce conflicts between arriving and departing traffic at the south east of the airport, thereby enhancing safety and efficiency of airspace utilisation.

TR1 (1991)

There are hills on both sides of these flight paths, requiring steep climb gradients in order to comply with the obstacle clearance criteria prescribed by the International Civil Aviation Organization, which may not be able to be achieved by long haul aircraft carrying heavy load. It does not have a clear advantage over TR6 or TR21 in terms of noise impact.

TR8, TR31 (1991)

or T6 (1994)

Although these flight paths have a steep climb gradient which may not be acceptable by long haul flights carrying heavy load, for efficient dual runway operation, consideration would be given to adopting this flight path for those aircraft which can achieve the required climb gradient.

TR15 (1991)

This flight path requires steep turns and operates at close proximity to tall hills at Castle Peak. It is acceptable for light aircraft operating on visual flights but not suitable for commercial aircraft using the airport.


Arrival for Runway 25R



TR7 (1991) or

L4 (1994)

This is the only option recommended and will be adopted.


Departure for Runway 25R



TR13, TR19 (1991)

These will be adopted as two possible flight paths.

TR23 (1994) or

T7 (1994)

This flight path would be developed into a departure flight path.

TR34 (1991)

These flight paths conflict with those of the Macau Airport and Shenzhen Airport and will not be adopted.