Help us fundraise for legal costs

Evidence Portal

In the interests of the community and the public following Plane Sense Wellington Inc's High Court Case, a set of key documents, the key expert witness statements and the High Court judgment are provided below for transparency purposes.

In addition, Plane Sense is sharing extensive Official Information Act documentation that Plane Sense has been able to obtain.

We invite other communities to do the same to improve community-wide transparency and understanding of aviation decision-making in New Zealand. To contribute to a collated library of documents, you can send us yours by email.

Key Procedural Documents

Plane Sense Wellington Inc. Affidavits

High Court Judgment

Judicial Review Judgment (in full)

Complete/update our contact form

Expert Evidence Summary

*This information was provided prior to the Judical Review, as part of Plane Sense’s responsibility to keep affected residents informed of developments and explain why funding support is required. It continues to be a concise summary of expert findings.

Key Expert Insights*

Flight Operations: Experts in flight operations, instrument procedure design, and air traffic control have submitted affidavits exposing the safety issues involved with the DMAPS flight paths.
Economic Impact: An economist from Sapere Research Group, a leading Australasian consultancy, has provided an affidavit detailing the loss of property values for homeowners below and near the DMAPS flight paths and the wealth transfer from residents to multi-million-dollar corporations.
Human Health: An expert affidavit from an international expert on the effect of jet aircraft noise on human beings and how it can seriously affect human health and life expectancy has been filed.

Respondents’ Refusal to Disclose Information*

Our experts have been able to prepare significant evidence even though it is continuing to be difficult to obtain a full set of relevant documents from Airways and the Director of Civil Aviation. Plane Sense has applied to the Court for further discovery of documents but the application has been opposed by Airways and the Director.

Economic Transfer of Wealth*

The reduction in property values as a result of the DMAPS flight path change is independent of generic fluctuations in property values. Sapere Research Group is a leader in providing independent economic, forensic accounting and public policy services. According to their analysis:

Property Value Loss: Homes under the DMAPS flight path have lost between $20,000 - $28,000 on average, with some properties losing up to $262,000.

Significant Financial Impact: Total property value losses across the affected suburbs are estimated to be between $248 million and $453 million.
Wealth Shift to Corporations: The wealth reduction for thousands of homeowners involves a transfer of wealth, principally to the airlines and Wellington Airport, without compensation. The monetised gain from DMAPS for Wellington Airport is less than the monetised loss for residents.
Future Impact: Noise impact will worsen as flight numbers increase under Wellington Airport’s WLG 2040 growth plans, with larger and noisier aircraft and increasing aircraft numbers by 50%.

Widespread Impact: 12,423 properties across suburbs are adversely affected by the new DMAPS flight path. The impact on Johnsonville residents is greater with the DMAPS flight path than before, since the impact has shifted from commercial to residential areas in western Johnsonville.

Conclusion:

DMAPS has caused a direct and substantial financial loss to homeowners involving transferring wealth to corporate interests.

The funding we need to cross the finish line is a fraction of the cost to families’ homes. We have one chance to reverse this.

Help our community fund the final stretch and ensure the case (for invalidating the flight paths) is able to be heard in court - donate today.

Risky Operations*

Increased Complexity: DMAPS has added complexity for pilots and controllers, increasing workload and risks. Controllers have reported issues with DMAPS' complexity.

Navigation Over High Terrain: Jet aircraft turn toward Mount Kaukau during climb-out, introducing unnecessary danger of high terrain, especially in engine failure scenarios. Turns during take-off and climb-out should be minimal and directed away from high terrain and populated areas—DMAPS does the opposite.
Unnecessary Prioritisation: Safer and simpler procedures exist globally where missed approaches are not prioritised ahead of standard departure tracks. Potential alternatives over Wellington Harbour can avoid overflying high residential areas located on high terrain.

Separation of Aircraft: The DMAPS procedures allows aircraft movements to increase from 13 to 21 per hour, decreasing adequate separation between aircraft and increasing risk of safety incidents.

Reported Safety Concerns: Unresolved CAA safety concerns about adequate separation between aircraft continue to persist two years after implementation.
Exemptions: DMAPS operation has required two regulatory exemptions – one granted by the Director of Civil Aviation a year after implementation, and another exemption application - apparently still pending.

Unresolved Failures: Safety concerns have been repeatedly raised by the Director of Civil Aviation but apparently with no formal regulatory action to resolve them. This situation appears to be continuing.

Viable Alternatives: A longer track over water or lower terrain could allow safer, higher-altitude climbs before passing over residential homes.

Conclusion

The Court case will involve issues about whether DMAPS violates international best practices, with safer, quieter options available and whether Airways' adoption of DMAPS prioritises unnecessary and risky DMAPS procedures over resident well-being and aviation safety.

Help our community fund the final stretch and ensure the case (for invalidating the flight paths) is able to be heard in court - donate today.

Noise Impact*

Noise is most severe during take-off and climb-out, especially for homes on elevated terrain where sound cannot adequately disperse.
Jets fly lower over terrain than under the previous procedures, significantly amplifying noise.
Globally, aviation best practices require new flight procedures to minimise noise impact on communities below flight paths. DMAPS contradicts this principle.

Conclusion

The issue for the Court is whether Airways' adoption of DMAPS prioritises operational convenience and efficiency over resident well-being and best practice standards.

Help our community fund the final stretch and ensure the case (for invalidating the flight paths) is able to be heard in court - donate today.

Regulatory and Procedural Differences*

Airways claims that DMAPS cannot be withdrawn until December 2025, yet expert evidence confirms the previous flight procedures could be reinstated at any time. Plane Sense has requested that interim noise abatement procedure be adopted until a Court judgment is available but this has been rejected.

Conclusion

Our case is that DMAPS' retention is not inevitable as alternatives remain viable and accessible.

Help our community fund the final stretch and ensure the case (for invalidating the flight paths) is able to be heard in court - donate today.

*This information was provided as part of Plane Sense’s responsibility to keep affected residents informed of developments and explain why further funding support is required.