Southend-2

[Expressflight]

........ 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.

[Barling Magna]

I think it already is.

[AirportPlanner1]

Well it looks like the residents will get some respite tonight anyway as the fog has set in

[SARF]

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 ?

[Barling Magna]

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.

[asdf1234]

Originally Posted by Barling Magna

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.

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.

[asdf1234]

Originally Posted by asdf1234

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.

Maybe a freight driver could comment on why the ASL flights are noisy in comparison to others? The -400 is a relatively old design but on paper they should not be noisier than a -800. Do freight operators insist on TOGA throttle settings whereas LoCo operators are more fuel/cost conscious with their takeoff performance?

[Tagron]

Originally Posted by Barling Magna

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.

Its not really about Southend ATC allowing Continuous Descent Approaches. The situation is (or was) that radar was not available during the night period when the 734s arrive, so they were flying the procedural ILS which commences at the SND NDB. When RWY 05 was in use an aircraft arriving from the south had to cross densely built up areas to reach the NDB, cross overhead to carry out a reversal to the north (more built up areas) leaving the NDB again on the outbound leg at 2500ft to be 2000ft at 8.1 DME, base turn still at 2000ft (so a long period of almost level flight partly over built up areas ) before joining the glideslope at 8.1 DME. Not only was there an excessive amount of overflight of built up areas but also from the operator's point of view significant extra flight time and fuel consumption.

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.

[Red Four]

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

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

Originally Posted by Red Four

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

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).

[southender]

Apologies for not being technical, but what or where are GOBOP and GEGMU

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

Originally Posted by southender

Apologies for not being technical, but what or where are GOBOP and GEGMU

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)

[southender]

Downwind.maddl-land,

Thanks for that, all makes sense now

Southender

[Tagron]

Originally Posted by Downwind.Maddl-Land

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).

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

[asdf1234]

Originally Posted by Tagron

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

As I said previously, I dont believe it is the approach path which has been causing the local residents sleepless nights. It is the use of reverse thrust on the landings and the subsequent take-off, all pre-dawn that affects a large amount of neighbours of the airport. Those on the flight path will of course be inconvenienced but their number is relatively small compared to those who can hear the reverse thrust and take-off noise. The local rag is now reporting that the local MP is getting involved.

[LTNman]

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/

[asdf1234]

Originally Posted by LTNman

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/

I do not think it is just the Amazon flights that are upsetting the locals. I have heard (forgive the pun) that the new Whizz flights depart late in the evening, and seem to be noisier than the FR flights, which in turn are noisier than the EZY 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.

[SARF]

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

[LTNman]

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.

[Musket90]

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.