Carrying out a consultation doesn't necessarily involve offering communities a veto over whether a trial does/doesn't happen.
That's excatly my point. Many of the community groups believe it does (witness the various groups protesting about the LAMP1A City RNAV routes, who claim that there was no consultation. When evidence is provided of the consultation, they come straight back and say that their responses were ignored), and thus if the hypothetical trial still went ahead, the relationship between airport and communities would probably worsen further.
How much would the publicity, how much would a pre-trial consultation, do to increase awareness and heighten the perceived noise annoyance?
118.7, I assume you've also read 10.15-10.24 and 10.39-10.44. In my direct experince with local authorities, they never think they have enough time! I'm not taking sides here, but there are many sides to every story.
One issue is that the OF trials were very complex, with several modifications to procedures being introduced simultaneously. It is sometimes not possible to exactly quantify the effect, or how the overall operation will change, when faced with such a complex trial. This was the point of the OF trial.
Maybe we should all start doing pre-trial trials, to find out the effect of the trial?
Not sure about you folks, but I'm very happy I've not yet written 'trails'. A pitfall the CAA unfortunately did not avoid in CAP1117!
