747
As I recall the type was either B757/767 or Airbus A300/310, certainly one of the big twins, it was only an aural impression if you follow, as at that time we didn't have our one and only B&K portable noise monitor. It would almost certainly have been around the 8-5 mile mark and I recall in the height band 1500-2500ft agl (measured using radar plots). I used to discretely visit the complaint location to get a feel for what the complainant was experiencing. How it would have shown on a scientific reading I don't know.
92220
Departure noise historically has been the primary problem, but with the phase out of CH2 types, improvements in departure noise and increased environmental awareness arrival noise is very much an up and coming issue. In the UK a good number of the larger airports have noise penalty schemes where a departure may be fined for excessive noise. These fines are levied based on a particular point in the departure profile and is as I recall at the same point in terms of distance, for all the airports. When I departed the tree hugging field there was no 'standard measuring point' for arrival noise, but various trails were taking or due to take place. Hence we could not l;evy fines for a 'too noisy' arrival, always a bone of contention for a complainant.
Noise is indeed very subjective, and could be described as unwanted noise. An example to demonstrate this would be Fido the family dog, whilst dashing round the garden chasing the squealing kids, and yapping in delight, next door Mr Smith, (not a dog lover), may well be loading the over and under Purdy for when Fido next passes the gap in the fence!
. Note Mr Smith is unkeen on dogs anyway, so his tolerance/subjectiveness to the noise is already lower, than it would were it just the kids messing about and making a noise. Think about the number of serious neighbour vs. neighbour disputes you read about that involve noise and theres part of the answer re subjectivity, and the potential extreme reaction to noise. The last thing an airport needs is a community feeling that aggrieved.
Re estate agents, I dont know the case but can see how the agent may have missed it, therefore it might not be their fault.
I always used to suggest when asked that the puchaser spend as much time as possible at the location at different times, so they could assess all impacts, not just aircraft. Also if the property fell inside the airdrome traffic zone then the answer was yes, you are likely to be overflown, because you are under the ATZ, a nice simple answer that covers all angles. Because the runway use in SE england is broadly 70% westerly and 30% easterly, in some locations there can be weeks or months when a property is not overflown, hence the perception can arise that they are not on the flightpath, when in fact they are!, always an entertaining discussion that one!
