NATS drops Heathrow in it
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trouble is, most complainants moved into the post-1946 Heathrow area seemingly with an expectation that air traffic would actually decrease as time progressed. Wouldn't that be a bit like moaning about the ravens at the Tower of London? Or shift workers near Edinburgh Castle complaining about that cannon being fired at 1pm every day?
Aye, there's nowt so strange as folk.
Aye, there's nowt so strange as folk.
MM
Since 1964 onwards, Constellations to 787.
However, the pattern of landings and departures are moving for the benefit of the airport, airlines, & NATS at the behest of investors that are linked.
Information & knowledge on landings and departures is now readily available rather than in 1946. Also if Hillingdon Council withdrew there objection to 09L departures a lot of hassle would be removed from the Berkshire area as well.
Since 1964 onwards, Constellations to 787.
However, the pattern of landings and departures are moving for the benefit of the airport, airlines, & NATS at the behest of investors that are linked.
Information & knowledge on landings and departures is now readily available rather than in 1946. Also if Hillingdon Council withdrew there objection to 09L departures a lot of hassle would be removed from the Berkshire area as well.
Trinity, as a former resident in the effected areas all I can say is so what? There is a big airfield nearby, you live within 10nm of the place (I assume) you can expect some noise QED. A380's/787's are certainly quieter than Connies, DC9s and Tridents, but they still make noise...but you knew that in 1964, didn't you?
MM
I am aware that noise has been reduced by quieter aircraft, but in return volumes of aircraft have increased with the advances of technologies.
In respect of my circumstances, I am quite happy to live where I do, and therefore please also accept that certain occupations require that we live within a certain distance of our place of employment.
What is discussed here is that HAL asked NATS if any changes had been made, and NATS said "no", and with further investigation + CAA, changes had been made. So who in NATS made the decision to change departure routes, but failed to disclose this information?
I am aware that noise has been reduced by quieter aircraft, but in return volumes of aircraft have increased with the advances of technologies.
In respect of my circumstances, I am quite happy to live where I do, and therefore please also accept that certain occupations require that we live within a certain distance of our place of employment.
What is discussed here is that HAL asked NATS if any changes had been made, and NATS said "no", and with further investigation + CAA, changes had been made. So who in NATS made the decision to change departure routes, but failed to disclose this information?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basically, LL controllers can now climb the CPT easterly departures to FL80 (1013hPa or more) or FL90 (less than 1013hPa) without prior co-ordination with London TMA controllers. So now the LL guys and gals have the confidence the departures will be "up and away" sooner, they will 95% of the time turn them 'on the inside' of the downwind inbounds, which involves them being turned on to a heading of 270-290 degrees shortly after making the initial right turn out. When the LL controllers didn't have the option to climb higher than 6000' (without prior co-ordination), a much higher percentage would be taken further south before being turned 'on the outside' of the downwind inbounds, thus a greater spread of the noise.
That's what I think anyway. Apologies if this has already been explained/expressed before.
That's what I think anyway. Apologies if this has already been explained/expressed before.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the big deal?
I don't recall anyone consulting the residents of Loughborough/East Leake/Ashby-De-La-Zouch etc when EGNX opened, and the skies were suddenly filled with Viscounts, BAC 1-11s, DC4s, DC6s, DC3s and Tridents.
Aircraft noise is transient, unlike road-traffic noise, which is, by-and-large, continuous.
I don't recall anyone consulting the residents of Loughborough/East Leake/Ashby-De-La-Zouch etc when EGNX opened, and the skies were suddenly filled with Viscounts, BAC 1-11s, DC4s, DC6s, DC3s and Tridents.
Aircraft noise is transient, unlike road-traffic noise, which is, by-and-large, continuous.
T09L, isn't the point that the changed routes are of aircraft above 6000'? (see post#2 for quote from HAL CEO) and as such NATS had no requirement to tell HAL.
If NATS changed routings of Heathrow outbounds above 20,000' would they still be expected to inform HAL? Where should the line be drawn?
At the moment it seems to be at 4/6000' and above that level, any changes are coordinated with the CAA. (any noise complaints from aircraft above that level should be directed to CAA)
From the article, it appears that NATS has complied with all the rules. If the airport feels it should be first port of call for noise complaints up to 10? thousand feet then the rules should be changed (after consultation) but NATS seem to be getting a raw deal here both from the article and posts on this thread.
If NATS changed routings of Heathrow outbounds above 20,000' would they still be expected to inform HAL? Where should the line be drawn?
At the moment it seems to be at 4/6000' and above that level, any changes are coordinated with the CAA. (any noise complaints from aircraft above that level should be directed to CAA)
From the article, it appears that NATS has complied with all the rules. If the airport feels it should be first port of call for noise complaints up to 10? thousand feet then the rules should be changed (after consultation) but NATS seem to be getting a raw deal here both from the article and posts on this thread.
Thread Starter
Any from the ATC fraternity here a have any idea how the super long 27R/9L LHR expansion proposal would affect this area, I imagine planes would be lower both on departure (27R) and landing(9L) as the effect of this idea is to move the runway 2-3 miles westwards.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Del Prado,
http://www.icao.int/publications/Documents/10031_en.pdf
ICAO Guidance on Environmental Assessment of Proposed Air Traffic Management Operational Changes
Table 3.1 seems to indicate that noise environmental impacts are relevant up to 10,000 feet and even, according to note 3 :
In Bracknell MP's rage at unannounced Heathrow flight path changes - Get Reading
the local rag says that "The staff told Dr Lee they were simply following procedure."
It would appear that the procedure isn't good enough and needs to be changed.
http://www.icao.int/publications/Documents/10031_en.pdf
ICAO Guidance on Environmental Assessment of Proposed Air Traffic Management Operational Changes
Table 3.1 seems to indicate that noise environmental impacts are relevant up to 10,000 feet and even, according to note 3 :
3. Noise may need to be assessed for changes above 10 000 ft (3 000 m)
in areas where the background noise levels are very low
(for example, in some specific areas protected by law), in
which case an upper limit of 18 000 ft (5 500 m), or higher, may be
more
appropriate in certain circumstance
in areas where the background noise levels are very low
(for example, in some specific areas protected by law), in
which case an upper limit of 18 000 ft (5 500 m), or higher, may be
more
appropriate in certain circumstance
the local rag says that "The staff told Dr Lee they were simply following procedure."
It would appear that the procedure isn't good enough and needs to be changed.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: T.C.
Age: 56
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I repeat my earlier statement, live near a large international airport expect aircraft noise.
It is totally ridiculous that consultation is required on the changing of airspace routes below 7000ft. How long have the UK airports been established?
The NIMBY culture in the UK prevents any development in the transport infrastructure.
It is totally ridiculous that consultation is required on the changing of airspace routes below 7000ft. How long have the UK airports been established?
The NIMBY culture in the UK prevents any development in the transport infrastructure.
When the easterly departures to the South west were changed in the (much noisier) 1970s to route down the Mole valley I gave some technical assistance to our local anti-noise committee.
We were particularly puzzled by one rather tortuous path until we discovered that the chairman of the Noise Advisory Council lived at Epsom.
Strangely enough, the SID seemed to route around Epsom.
Never underestimate the power of major bureaucrats to influence your life.
We were particularly puzzled by one rather tortuous path until we discovered that the chairman of the Noise Advisory Council lived at Epsom.
Strangely enough, the SID seemed to route around Epsom.
Never underestimate the power of major bureaucrats to influence your life.
I accept the noise and it has been reduced by individual aircraft movements. Paradoxically aircraft movements have increased, together with T4 & T5. It is the expansion of 3rd runway & the huge land grab accompanying this request that has caused objections to the proposals. The objections are less vociferous than for HS2, and here rail expansion can be increased by improving current lines with by & over passes, (even less if businessmen used IT conferencing etc - ps I have just communicated with an individual on board by wi fi in the mid east).
This country is small in physical size.
This country is small in physical size.
Gonzo,
The party I was most interest to talk with, those promoting the double length northern runway seem to have gone into receive only mode since the consultation ended , hence my request for opinions here.
PB
The party I was most interest to talk with, those promoting the double length northern runway seem to have gone into receive only mode since the consultation ended , hence my request for opinions here.
PB
Thread Starter
The party I was most interest to talk with, those promoting the double length northern runway seem to have gone into receive only mode since the consultation ended, hence my request for opinions here.
The split-runway proposal served a useful role as a makeweight, in order to pad out the Airport Commission's shortlist from 2 to 3 candidates, but without a snowball's chance of being adopted (as the airport owner has made clear to the Commission).
So the promoter's work is now done.
If you're interested in opinions on the proposal, there's a ton of debate about it over in the Airlines, Airports and Routes Forum, both in the main Heathrow thread (from December 2013 onwards) and in this one:
http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airpo...twick-2-a.html
And if you PM me, I can put you in touch with the with the guy - a former Eastern Airlines pilot - who first patented the split runway scheme.
