Secret Heathrow plan to set noise levels soaring
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Secret Heathrow plan to set noise levels soaring
Secret Heathrow plan to set noise levels soaring
Times of London 06/03/04
author: Ben Webster
(Copyright Times Newspapers Ltd, 2004)
MORE than 40,000 people will suffer a severe increase in noise disturbance under a plan to allow an extra 200 flights a day to land at Heathrow, a study has found. The Government concealed the true impact of the scheme in December's White Paper on airport expansion.
Homes under Heathrow's flightpaths will no longer gain respite from aircraft noise as the scheme will abolish the present arrangement under which one runway is used for landings and the other for take-offs, with their roles switching at 3pm each day.
This "segregated mode" means that people living within a few miles of the airport have aircraft flying directly overhead for only half the day. But the Department for Transport (DfT) is conducting a study into "mixed mode", which would end runway alternation and allow planes to land simultaneously from the same direction. Passengers will be able to look out of aircraft windows as they approach the runway and see another jet close by on a parallel course.
Mixed mode would allow 70,000 extra flights a year at Heathrow by reducing the queues of planes waiting to land or take off. Ministers are keen to introduce it to relieve pressure at the world's busiest international airport long before the proposed third runway could be built.
But the White Paper made no reference to the increase in disturbance that would result from the scheme and an independent study by Cranfield University explicitly criticises it for concealing the scale of the impact. It also accuses the Department for Transport of underplaying the effects of noise.
Peter Brooker, Professor of Air Traffic Management and the author of the study, calculated that mixed mode would expose 42,000 people living mainly east of Heathrow to noise above the 57-decibel threshold deemed by the Government to cause serious annoyance.
He said: "The White Paper downplayed the effect of mixed mode. The department did not make it easy for people to understand the consequences. They should have made it clear to ordinary people what the impact would be rather than letting the truth dribble out afterwards."
Professor Brooker, who was formerly the DfT's chief adviser on aircraft noise, also criticised its decision to choose 2002 as the baseline for measuring changes in noise at Heathrow. That year was the last full year of flights by Concorde, which produced about the same noise energy as 35 jumbo jets. The total noise for 2002 was therefore significantly higher than in 2001, when Concorde had been grounded because of the Paris crash.
Professor Brooker also queried the White Paper's vague reference to introducing mixed mode only in "peak hours". "The text mentions peak hours but does not say what they might be. In fact, Heathrow has become such a valuable airport for operators that its peak hours have expanded over the day, over the week and over the year."
John Stewart, the chairman of ClearSkies, which campaigns against airport expansion, said: "Professor Brooker has exposed the huge numbers of people who would be affected by much worse aircraft noise if mixed mode went ahead.
"Any increase in flights would also break the Government's agreement to abide by the strict limits on landings and take-offs set as a planning condition for Heathrow's fifth terminal. We have got to the stage where we don't believe a word the Government says."
BAA, which owns Heathrow, said it did not expect mixed mode to be introduced before terminal five opened in 2008. "There seem to be clear economic benefits from mixed mode but we will have to take account of the environmental implications," it said.
The DfT has promised a "full public consultation" on mixed mode, which is expected to begin next year.
Times of London 06/03/04
author: Ben Webster
(Copyright Times Newspapers Ltd, 2004)
MORE than 40,000 people will suffer a severe increase in noise disturbance under a plan to allow an extra 200 flights a day to land at Heathrow, a study has found. The Government concealed the true impact of the scheme in December's White Paper on airport expansion.
Homes under Heathrow's flightpaths will no longer gain respite from aircraft noise as the scheme will abolish the present arrangement under which one runway is used for landings and the other for take-offs, with their roles switching at 3pm each day.
This "segregated mode" means that people living within a few miles of the airport have aircraft flying directly overhead for only half the day. But the Department for Transport (DfT) is conducting a study into "mixed mode", which would end runway alternation and allow planes to land simultaneously from the same direction. Passengers will be able to look out of aircraft windows as they approach the runway and see another jet close by on a parallel course.
Mixed mode would allow 70,000 extra flights a year at Heathrow by reducing the queues of planes waiting to land or take off. Ministers are keen to introduce it to relieve pressure at the world's busiest international airport long before the proposed third runway could be built.
But the White Paper made no reference to the increase in disturbance that would result from the scheme and an independent study by Cranfield University explicitly criticises it for concealing the scale of the impact. It also accuses the Department for Transport of underplaying the effects of noise.
Peter Brooker, Professor of Air Traffic Management and the author of the study, calculated that mixed mode would expose 42,000 people living mainly east of Heathrow to noise above the 57-decibel threshold deemed by the Government to cause serious annoyance.
He said: "The White Paper downplayed the effect of mixed mode. The department did not make it easy for people to understand the consequences. They should have made it clear to ordinary people what the impact would be rather than letting the truth dribble out afterwards."
Professor Brooker, who was formerly the DfT's chief adviser on aircraft noise, also criticised its decision to choose 2002 as the baseline for measuring changes in noise at Heathrow. That year was the last full year of flights by Concorde, which produced about the same noise energy as 35 jumbo jets. The total noise for 2002 was therefore significantly higher than in 2001, when Concorde had been grounded because of the Paris crash.
Professor Brooker also queried the White Paper's vague reference to introducing mixed mode only in "peak hours". "The text mentions peak hours but does not say what they might be. In fact, Heathrow has become such a valuable airport for operators that its peak hours have expanded over the day, over the week and over the year."
John Stewart, the chairman of ClearSkies, which campaigns against airport expansion, said: "Professor Brooker has exposed the huge numbers of people who would be affected by much worse aircraft noise if mixed mode went ahead.
"Any increase in flights would also break the Government's agreement to abide by the strict limits on landings and take-offs set as a planning condition for Heathrow's fifth terminal. We have got to the stage where we don't believe a word the Government says."
BAA, which owns Heathrow, said it did not expect mixed mode to be introduced before terminal five opened in 2008. "There seem to be clear economic benefits from mixed mode but we will have to take account of the environmental implications," it said.
The DfT has promised a "full public consultation" on mixed mode, which is expected to begin next year.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A full public consultation on mixed mode operations? I thought they ensured everyone that the same fiasco that hit the T5 planning proposals wouldn't happen again, now it looks like its back for something extremely petty in comparison.
I think they had better start the runway 3 consultation now in preparation for 2010 or whatever silly future date they have set
I think they had better start the runway 3 consultation now in preparation for 2010 or whatever silly future date they have set
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets face it: Most people living under the approach paths bought their homes since Heathrow was built. Indeed i'm sure purchase price reflected this.
If you made the mistake of buying here, then you live with the consequences of your choice, and stop bloody whinging. You knew there was going to be aircraft noise. Anyone with a brain would realise that the airport would grow and operations would increase.
Yes, Heathrow is in the wrong place from an environmental perspective, but that does not negate the buyer of a property from common sense especially when the airport was there first.
I would have a higher degree of sympathy for those affected by Runway three, as there could be an arguement that this could not have been predicted.
If you made the mistake of buying here, then you live with the consequences of your choice, and stop bloody whinging. You knew there was going to be aircraft noise. Anyone with a brain would realise that the airport would grow and operations would increase.
Yes, Heathrow is in the wrong place from an environmental perspective, but that does not negate the buyer of a property from common sense especially when the airport was there first.
I would have a higher degree of sympathy for those affected by Runway three, as there could be an arguement that this could not have been predicted.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: NE Surrey, UK
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess SNNEI is having a particularly bad day, but I will nonetheless rise to his/her wind-up, if only to return a smidgeon of levity to this post.
What he/she might have said is "anyone with a brain would realise that the commitments on movements and noise constraints around LHR given by the airport and government authorities are not worth the paper they are written on." That would be nearer the truth, but a very sad indictment on the way in which development of this environmentally misplaced airport continues to be carried out.
Let us all remember that the initial placing and building of the airport was a (eventually) self-confessed confidence trick by the wartime government of the day anyway, so perhaps those of us who do live around it should not be surprised that such a devious culture continues sixty years later.
And, in case it is thought that I had forgotten my undertaking to indulge in a degree of levity, let us also remember that Heathrow was originally designed with seven runways, including one north of the A4 close to where today's "third" (actually of course it is fourth after 23R....) runway is being proposed, so one cannot not even say that one was not forewarned of that either.
Incidentally the original plans also called for a two mile long canal to take flying boats, and I for one am extremely saddened by the fact that it was never built!
What he/she might have said is "anyone with a brain would realise that the commitments on movements and noise constraints around LHR given by the airport and government authorities are not worth the paper they are written on." That would be nearer the truth, but a very sad indictment on the way in which development of this environmentally misplaced airport continues to be carried out.
Let us all remember that the initial placing and building of the airport was a (eventually) self-confessed confidence trick by the wartime government of the day anyway, so perhaps those of us who do live around it should not be surprised that such a devious culture continues sixty years later.
And, in case it is thought that I had forgotten my undertaking to indulge in a degree of levity, let us also remember that Heathrow was originally designed with seven runways, including one north of the A4 close to where today's "third" (actually of course it is fourth after 23R....) runway is being proposed, so one cannot not even say that one was not forewarned of that either.
Incidentally the original plans also called for a two mile long canal to take flying boats, and I for one am extremely saddened by the fact that it was never built!
that would have been fun to see!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: London
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can we have any debate about airports WITHOUT slagging off the local residents? many, many people who live in the area around LHR don't worry an awful lot about the noise, having got used to it over the years, and indeed many make their living at the airport, BUT
My parents bough their house in 1969. Funnily enough, not being aviation professionals, they did NOT work out how air travel would change in the next decades, what aircraft would be designed, how the airport would develop etc etc.
Like I said, can we PLEASE talk about airports WITHOUT lagging off all the residents
Lets face it: Most people living under the approach paths bought their homes since Heathrow was built. Indeed i'm sure purchase price reflected this.
Like I said, can we PLEASE talk about airports WITHOUT lagging off all the residents
mostly harmless
Wouldn't the third main runway remove the need for mixed mode?
So, could a commitment to end mixed mode if/when the new runway is operational actually get (some) locals to support the runway?
Mr Lewis, 'public consultation' does not equal 'public enquiry'.
So, could a commitment to end mixed mode if/when the new runway is operational actually get (some) locals to support the runway?
Mr Lewis, 'public consultation' does not equal 'public enquiry'.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My parents bough their house in 1969. Funnily enough, not being aviation professionals, they did NOT work out how air travel would change in the next decades, what aircraft would be designed, how the airport would develop etc etc.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's that 4 letter word "mixed mode" again eh Gonzo? 
Remind me again how you think it's gonna be a great idea!
BTW, it isn't really a secret. Been banded about for quite a while now.
Remind me again how you think it's gonna be a great idea!
BTW, it isn't really a secret. Been banded about for quite a while now.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: EGKK
Age: 42
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course I would be willing to bet that the noise from individual aircraft has since decreased
This occured during a 30 year period in which air traffic from LHR increased by almost 70%.
Despite the figures, the anti-noise brigade is louder than ever.
Can we have a debate about airports without slagging off the local residents? In this case, no. They've never had it so good.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: EGKK
Age: 42
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The figure is official but I will have to scour the net again to find a reference for you.
Basically CACI www.caci.co.uk (the demographic analysis company) estimated the population living in the area affected by the 57dB noise footprint around LHR as 374,000 (Source: HACAN).
The 57dB noise level is regarded as the "limit of community disturbance"
Whilst I can't find the official source, this Guardian Article refers to the number of people affected by noise at Heathrow having been "reduced to a fifth of what it was" (in 1972)
Basically CACI www.caci.co.uk (the demographic analysis company) estimated the population living in the area affected by the 57dB noise footprint around LHR as 374,000 (Source: HACAN).
The 57dB noise level is regarded as the "limit of community disturbance"
Whilst I can't find the official source, this Guardian Article refers to the number of people affected by noise at Heathrow having been "reduced to a fifth of what it was" (in 1972)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: London
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Localiser Green
What utter nonsense. IF less people are now affected, does that mean that the people who are still affected have less noise? fewer aircraft? Even if the aircraft are getting quieter, the sheer numbers have increased. The big row at the moment is about night flights, and the apparently elastic definition of "night" and the increased numbers of flights very late at night and very early in the morning
Also, you have quoted numbers of people affected NOT the amount of noise....
I am not an anti noise campaigner, I can't stand the likes of HACAN. My original plea was to have a sensible debate about airports without it turning into a "they bought the houses so stuff them" debate.
shall we try?
In 1972 the number of people affected by aircraft noise around Heathrow was 2,000,000. Today only 400,000 are affected, a fifth of the original total.
They've never had it so good.
Also, you have quoted numbers of people affected NOT the amount of noise....
I am not an anti noise campaigner, I can't stand the likes of HACAN. My original plea was to have a sensible debate about airports without it turning into a "they bought the houses so stuff them" debate.
shall we try?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seloco
Seloco,
Obviously you didnt see part of my post before you went in on your attack.
"Yes, Heathrow is in the wrong place from an environmental perspective, but that does not negate the buyer of a property from common sense especially when the airport was there first"
Make my point any clearer now? I'm not having a bad day at all, but I simply cannot comprehend how anyone would buy a house near an airport and then complain about noise.
Obviously the ideal fix is that Heathrow is simply not there and a better equipped airport built somewhere that doesnt involve overflying a huge swathe of the City.
Yes, you are most correct when you say the environmental promises made were not worth the paper they were written on, but did anyone really expect any different? Was UK plc really going to be allowed to suffer to spare some residents near the airport? It doesnt work like that where politicians are involved i'm afraid...
I'm sorry if I offended anyone, but I think I am being quite pragmatic about it. Yes, it would be nice if promises were kept: but we live in the real world i'm afraid. The aircraft have been using those same approach paths, for at least some of the day, for quite sometime now. Anyone who bought there would have seen that.
Again, sorry if my post was inflammatory. It was not my intention to offend and I sincerely apologise to those upset.
The only sensible strategy for expansion of Heathrow is quite simply build it somewhere else. If poeple feel so strongly, that is what you should pressure the UK government to do.
Obviously you didnt see part of my post before you went in on your attack.
"Yes, Heathrow is in the wrong place from an environmental perspective, but that does not negate the buyer of a property from common sense especially when the airport was there first"
Make my point any clearer now? I'm not having a bad day at all, but I simply cannot comprehend how anyone would buy a house near an airport and then complain about noise.
Obviously the ideal fix is that Heathrow is simply not there and a better equipped airport built somewhere that doesnt involve overflying a huge swathe of the City.
Yes, you are most correct when you say the environmental promises made were not worth the paper they were written on, but did anyone really expect any different? Was UK plc really going to be allowed to suffer to spare some residents near the airport? It doesnt work like that where politicians are involved i'm afraid...
I'm sorry if I offended anyone, but I think I am being quite pragmatic about it. Yes, it would be nice if promises were kept: but we live in the real world i'm afraid. The aircraft have been using those same approach paths, for at least some of the day, for quite sometime now. Anyone who bought there would have seen that.
Again, sorry if my post was inflammatory. It was not my intention to offend and I sincerely apologise to those upset.
The only sensible strategy for expansion of Heathrow is quite simply build it somewhere else. If poeple feel so strongly, that is what you should pressure the UK government to do.
Do I qualify as a resident
I moved to Staines Town and bought a house in 1973.
Noise = many 1-11's 707,DC 8, 990, Tridents etc all departing over the town. Also landing/take off on cross runways.
Then moved within the town 76 - 94 gradaully less noise, all old jets withdrawn. Then heavies replaced by quieter engines.
Then moved to Windsor - directly under 09 etc. House prices risen faster, and the noise is less. I can sell my property tomorrow like anybody else, people will live where they wish in this area at any price. Mixed usage will be a benefit
I moved to Staines Town and bought a house in 1973.
Noise = many 1-11's 707,DC 8, 990, Tridents etc all departing over the town. Also landing/take off on cross runways.
Then moved within the town 76 - 94 gradaully less noise, all old jets withdrawn. Then heavies replaced by quieter engines.
Then moved to Windsor - directly under 09 etc. House prices risen faster, and the noise is less. I can sell my property tomorrow like anybody else, people will live where they wish in this area at any price. Mixed usage will be a benefit
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Localiser Green,
The methods used to estimate the noise footprints around airports is flawed and does not represent the actual footprints.
Footprints also only show you where the noise is, not the "depth" of the noise (like filling a glass with a little water each time an aircraft flies over).
Each event might be quieter than the distant past when it was 1-11 and 707s flying over, but when you have 30 to 1 flying now...........
The methods used to estimate the noise footprints around airports is flawed and does not represent the actual footprints.
Footprints also only show you where the noise is, not the "depth" of the noise (like filling a glass with a little water each time an aircraft flies over).
Each event might be quieter than the distant past when it was 1-11 and 707s flying over, but when you have 30 to 1 flying now...........