Southend-2
........ and some vey intense resistance to such a move. I feel that aviation itself may be viewed in a somewhat different light in 10, or even maybe 5, years time.
Last edited by Expressflight; 18th Nov 2019 at 06:29. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: ESSEX
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it’s the late take off thats vexing most of Leigh on seas flight path residents. Will a still foggy night make it extra noisy ?
Last edited by SARF; 18th Nov 2019 at 20:17.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On another site a poster states that Southend ATC are now allowing Continuous Descent Approaches and a local living beneath the approach declares that the ASL 737-400 landing at 0200 this morning was quieter than an EZY Airbus.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 734 should exhibit the same noise characteristics as a 738, which are both louder than an A319 or 320.
Of course the approach is not the reason why locals are concerned about increased noise levels overnight. It is the use of reverse thrust on landing and then the subsequent take-off after a very quick turnaround, all pre-dawn.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you look at the approach tracks on Flight Radar or similar I would be very surprised if the overnight cargo flights are making use of a continuous descent approach. Maybe someone with more technical ability than me could extrapolate the data and comment?
The 734 should exhibit the same noise characteristics as a 738, which are both louder than an A319 or 320.
Of course the approach is not the reason why locals are concerned about increased noise levels overnight. It is the use of reverse thrust on landing and then the subsequent take-off after a very quick turnaround, all pre-dawn.
The 734 should exhibit the same noise characteristics as a 738, which are both louder than an A319 or 320.
Of course the approach is not the reason why locals are concerned about increased noise levels overnight. It is the use of reverse thrust on landing and then the subsequent take-off after a very quick turnaround, all pre-dawn.
RW23 was better but even though the procedure went straight outbound from the NDB it still involved unnecessary overflight of built up areas. It seemed to me seriously nuts that aircraft had to be operated like this in the 21st century.
Fortunately good changes appear to have occurred.. Looking at the FR24 traces traces for the past week I note that none of the night arrivals are now routing via the SND NDB and the published procedure.. RW24 arrivals are proceeding downwind off the East Coast to join the ILS. RW05 arrivals are proceeding direct from DET (or thereabouts) to join the ILS near the 8 DME, effectively straight in. I don't know whether radar vectoring is now being provided (staff costs being paid ?) or whether they are self positioning. From the FR24 traces I suspect the latter. And why not - they can remain within controlled airspace, observing safety altitude requirements, and the local skies will be empty at that time of the morning . They have a better chance of using CDAs but the main environmental gain for the residents of Southend is from the change of routing.
Last edited by Tagron; 24th Nov 2019 at 06:58. Reason: Minor changes
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hither and Thither
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RWY05 has a point 'GOBOP' published to facilitate a straight in approach.
RWY23 has a point 'GEGMU' published to facilitate a straight in approach. Whether the aircraft can find these points arriving from the south and then turn may be another matter. I would think Rwy 05 would be OK.
If radar is available, it can short cut these points further
RWY23 has a point 'GEGMU' published to facilitate a straight in approach. Whether the aircraft can find these points arriving from the south and then turn may be another matter. I would think Rwy 05 would be OK.
If radar is available, it can short cut these points further
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Starring at an Airfield Near you
Posts: 371
Received 15 Likes
on
7 Posts
RWY05 has a point 'GOBOP' published to facilitate a straight in approach.
RWY23 has a point 'GEGMU' published to facilitate a straight in approach. Whether the aircraft can find these points arriving from the south and then turn may be another matter. I would think Rwy 05 would be OK.
If radar is available, it can short cut these points further
RWY23 has a point 'GEGMU' published to facilitate a straight in approach. Whether the aircraft can find these points arriving from the south and then turn may be another matter. I would think Rwy 05 would be OK.
If radar is available, it can short cut these points further
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Starring at an Airfield Near you
Posts: 371
Received 15 Likes
on
7 Posts
These are all 5-letter navigation waypoints for approaches onto Southend.
GEGMU is shown here: https://www.aurora.nats.co.uk/htmlAI...ics/100915.pdf and here https://www.aurora.nats.co.uk/htmlAI...ics/111233.pdf together with OKVAP and GODLU.
GOBOP is shown here: https://www.aurora.nats.co.uk/htmlAI...ics/100918.pdf
(In case of difficulty with the links try "open link in new window" in each case)
Last edited by Downwind.Maddl-Land; 25th Nov 2019 at 14:55. Reason: Possible link difficulties
The STARS for Southend facilitate non-radar monitored 'straight-in' approaches to rwy 23 via GEGMU from all directions, so that should not be an issue at all. For rwy 05 from the 'north' one could route via the SPEAR STARS to pick up the 05 ILS/LOC/NDB IAPs from the overhead, or indeed via the GEGMU STARS from the south. Subject to traffic - especially at the hrs under discussion - and the flexibility of the individual ATCO, BRAIN, OKVAP or GODLU direct to GOBOP might be possible for a 05 shortcut, assuming Danger Area activity and GVS restrictions are respected (both should not be a problem, I would have thought).
But the AIP still stipulates that when radar is not available arrivals should route to the SND NDB and carry out the procedure from there. That presumably is to take account of Danger Area activity in day time. Time for an AIP revision perhaps
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I imagine the flight plans would be filed via the STARs, but the FR24 tracks suggest they get clearance direct to the approach fix by the time they reach the London FIR, possibly much sooner. The Danger.Areas not an issue in the middle of the night.
But the AIP still stipulates that when radar is not available arrivals should route to the SND NDB and carry out the procedure from there. That presumably is to take account of Danger Area activity in day time. Time for an AIP revision perhaps
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southend is in the unfortunate position of having home owners whose homes butt up against the runway. Even those that don’t will hear aircraft noise from a considerable distance particularly at night when laying in bed. Come summer when windows are open complaints will only get worse. Did Stobart really think no one would notice overnight Amazon 737’s or was it a case of we don’t care?
When the council put in overnight restrictions on passenger aircraft they did it to protect the public from excessive overnight noise but they clearly did not consider that the same type of aircraft flying in freight would land and take off instead which makes the passenger ban pointless.
What has happened now through Stobart greed is that noise has become a big political issue which will make expansion plans harder to get past the council planning committee. Maybe saying no to Amazon would have made it easier for the council to say yes to Stobart.
https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/180...night-flights/
When the council put in overnight restrictions on passenger aircraft they did it to protect the public from excessive overnight noise but they clearly did not consider that the same type of aircraft flying in freight would land and take off instead which makes the passenger ban pointless.
What has happened now through Stobart greed is that noise has become a big political issue which will make expansion plans harder to get past the council planning committee. Maybe saying no to Amazon would have made it easier for the council to say yes to Stobart.
https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/180...night-flights/
Last edited by LTNman; 26th Nov 2019 at 22:20.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southend is in the unfortunate position of having home owners whose homes butt up against the runway. Even those that don’t will hear aircraft noise from a considerable distance particularly at night when laying in bed. Come summer when windows are open complaints will only get worse. Did Stobart really think no one would notice overnight Amazon 737’s or was it a case of we don’t care?
When the council put in overnight restrictions on passenger aircraft they did it to protect the public from excessive overnight noise but they clearly did not consider that the same type of aircraft flying in freight would land and take off instead which makes the passenger ban pointless.
What has happened now through Stobart greed is that noise has become a big political issue which will make expansion plans harder to get past the council planning committee. Maybe saying no to Amazon would have made it easier for the council to say yes to Stobart.
https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/180...night-flights/
When the council put in overnight restrictions on passenger aircraft they did it to protect the public from excessive overnight noise but they clearly did not consider that the same type of aircraft flying in freight would land and take off instead which makes the passenger ban pointless.
What has happened now through Stobart greed is that noise has become a big political issue which will make expansion plans harder to get past the council planning committee. Maybe saying no to Amazon would have made it easier for the council to say yes to Stobart.
https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/180...night-flights/
All of this is most probably a perception issue. A flight landing in the dead of night will sound louder than a flight departing at noon. However the airport owners seem to be attracting late evening and overnight operators (undoubtedly due to operator cost considerations).
These flights help contribute to the overall movements target but I can't see them adding much to the profit margin. The downside is increased local antipathy towards the airport.
If only the airport could attract full fee paying European short haul business routes the flying hours would be a more 7am departures and 8pm arrivals.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: ESSEX
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The local mp’s will be paying lip service pre election.. post election it will be full speed ahead for jobs and loot
the airport is very popular in the borough. Alas with any big industrial project there is always some collateral
the airport is very popular in the borough. Alas with any big industrial project there is always some collateral
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are correct that MP’s can say anything and it will have little influence. Any application will be decided by the council but they will be mindful of public opinion. Councillors at Uttlesford District Council ignored their residents objections over a Stansted planning application and then all got voted out of power by independents on a ticket to block expansion.
No doubt like many airports those that are not affected by extra noise, pollution and road traffic will support airport expansion but those that will suffer will kick off. It might all come down to who has the loudest voice and whether those against the airport get really organised in their opposition.
Does Southend Council get a fee per passenger? That could make a big difference in any planning vote.
No doubt like many airports those that are not affected by extra noise, pollution and road traffic will support airport expansion but those that will suffer will kick off. It might all come down to who has the loudest voice and whether those against the airport get really organised in their opposition.
Does Southend Council get a fee per passenger? That could make a big difference in any planning vote.
Last edited by LTNman; 28th Nov 2019 at 06:13.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the landing distance of 1604m for both 05 and 23 is a bit limiting for a B737-400, so more reverse thrust required. Or maybe when landing on 23 they want to slow
down quickly to vacate at Delta if they park Northside therefore avoiding a backtrack. The take-off distances may also be limiting to performance so higher thrust settings
required.
down quickly to vacate at Delta if they park Northside therefore avoiding a backtrack. The take-off distances may also be limiting to performance so higher thrust settings
required.