台灣高層航線噪音與繞行

Taiwan high altitude airway noise and roundabout routes

積丹尼 Dan Jacobson

  1. 噪音 Noise

    筆者住鄉下， 發現這些最高層， 八至十二公里高航線， M750 為例， 多種氣象下， 聲音仍明顯。 市區夜深人靜時， 與鄉下一樣， 聽得清清楚楚。 白天則仍增加噪音背景值。

    The author lives in the countryside and has discovered these highest 8-12 km. high airways, e.g., M750, in most weather, are still quite audible. And in the city, late at night when other sounds have died down, you hear the planes just the same as in the countryside. And even in the daytime they contribute to the total background noise.

    聲音類似洗刷馬路之清潔車， 慢慢經過您家前， 一小時可達幾次！

    You might say they sound like a street sweeper truck, passing very slowly in front of your house, up to several times each hour!

    惟如南投埔里等少數角落倖免， The only lucky exceptions are e.g., Puli in Nantou etc. few corners of Taiwan,

    正如「中部火力發電廠 - 中央罔顧中部人健康」… Just like "Taichung coal power plant - central government places health burden on local residents"...

    且本文講的這些飛機根本不是起降在台灣， 而只是高空經過。

    And these planes we are talking about in this article aren't even arriving or departing from Taiwan, but simply passing over it at the highest levels.

    希望多些飛機由海線， 少些飛機由陸線。 希望多仿造中國 M503 全由海域！

    One hopes more planes will routed over water and less over land. One wishes more routes could be like China's M503 all water route!

    是的， 把這些航線從陸路改由海路， 仍在台灣的飛航情報區 (FIR) 內， 對台灣收入一毛不會少。

    Yes, simply moving these routes over water instead of land would still leave them within Taiwan's FIR (Flight Information Region), i.e., no loss of income to Taiwan.

    陸路改海路， 長度不會增加， 長度一樣。

    Realigning land routes into sea routes wouldn't increase their lengths at all. Their lengths would be the same.

    Q: 那麼要變成如「北韓禁航區」？ So you want to become like a "North Korea no fly zone?"

    A: 不。 有很多海島國家沒有正好好幾航線經過。 No. There are many island nations without a bunch of routes that happen to go straight over them.

    中國已開闢 M503 離海峽中央線往西幾公里， 那麼我們台灣同樣開一條， 離該線往東同樣同樣公里數。 公平公義。 開往桃園班機亦能， 接近桃園時轉出， 離開我們此新航路！

    China opened up their M503 to the west of the center line of Taiwan Strait several kilometers. Well we Taiwan could open up our own route, to the east of that line, those same several kilometers. Fair and square. Planes going to Taoyuan could also simply turn off our new route when getting near Taoyuan!

    Q: 那麼就要取消 R(CR-)5, 8, 9, 11 禁航區？ So we must cancel the R(CR-)5, 8, 9, 11 prohibited airspaces?

    A: 釋出的海上空域可開闢多條新航線！ 禁航區r若不夠可擴大 R17 好了。 The released oversea airspace could be used for several new routes! If then there is not enough prohibited areas, then make R17 bigger.

    COVID-19 期間客機的確變少了， 但貨機變多了。 那麼一旦危機解除， 兩者又多…

    During COVID-19 indeed there are fewer passenger planes, but more cargo planes. Once the crisis is over both will be more...

  2. 繞航 Roundabout routes

    另外， 所謂兩岸「直航」其實繞好大。 桃園至福州為例， 原 184 公里， 仍必繞總共 806 公里。 耗能、 時、票價、 碳排放。

    In addition, the so-called "direct flights" between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are in fact unimaginably circuitous. E.g., 806 km. are spent flying the 184 km. between Taoyuan and Fuzhou. A waste of energy, time, ticket costs, and carbon emissions.

    赴廈門為例， 連出程雖無木馬之憂卻仍須繞 Example: looping even on the outbound leg to Xiamen, despite no Trojan Horse concerns..., 文 Text。

  3. 結論 Conclusion

    飛機應該避開人民住的地方， 而非避開虛擬軍事區。

    Planes should avoid populated places, not imaginary military corridors.

（本文僅談及人民健康。 至於航線改海路是否更影響海生物， 非本文範圍。）

(This article only discusses public health. As to if shifting routes over water increases their affects on marine animals, that is beyond our scope.)

積丹尼 Dan Jacobson

Last modified: 2024-05-20 12:12:40 UTC