........ 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.

I think it already is.

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 ?

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.

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?

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.

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).

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)

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

I see that a planning application has now been submitted to Southend Borough Council for a new 6-storey, 132 bedroom hotel next door to the Holiday Inn.

Eight diversions from fog-bound LCY this morning within a short space of time. Must have challenged the ground handling team.

LTNman

I don't quite follow the logic of "When the Council put in overnight restrictions on passenger aircraft .... they clearly didn't think that the same type of aircraft flying in freight would land and take off instead." It was only scheduled passenger flight departure times that were banned overnight; all other types of flight are allowed (excepting commercial helicopters) including private passenger flights, in any size of aircraft, and freight flights, provided all such aircraft are compliant with the night noise limitations imposed. I'm sure the Council did expect some freight night movements as these have operated at SEN for decades in much greater numbers than is now the case.

In answer to your other question; no, Southend Council do not receive any fees per passenger.

Musket90

The ASL aircraft have never used Delta at all. All freight is loaded or off loaded on the North Apron stands since the start of SEN operations. I don't know if ASL use TOGA or de-rated take-off power settings. I believe EZY use TOGA but RYR de-rate whenever conditions allow.

In short the airport's official position is that they comply fully with the Section 106 agreement restrictions. Whether they have been wise to attract an ASL night operation is another matter as it was obviously going to re-ignite the night noise nuisance issue.

Expressflight Why did they restrict passenger flights at night? My thinking is that they assumed cargo flights would be using similar aircraft as before and not 737 freighters. From a homeowners point of view a 737 is a 737 whether it is passenger or cargo so why ban passenger night flights when the same type of aircraft can fly in and out cargo?

Perhaps EZY were happy to set up a SEN base with a 17 hour operational day, while the Council were also able to placate the noise lobby by reducing greatly the number of night movements allowed from 900 to 120 per month. That small number would not have given much scope for night scheduled pax operations in any event. In the '80s and '90s SEN supported a fairly intensive night freight operation that included types such as Carvair, Viscount, Herald, Electra, CV-580 etc., none of which were particularly quiet, so I doubt if it came as much of a surprise that the B737 later found itself in the role of freighter operations.

Prior to Stobart taking over, how many night large movements took place regularly? Hardly any? Comparing the 80s or 90s to the 2020s is meaningless.

I wasn't aware we were in the 2020s yet; I must have overslept. I cannot answer your question as to the situation prior to 2009 as I was living in France at that time and didn't keep up with activities at SEN.

Whatever the history, it does seem strange that movement restrictions have been applied to passenger flights only, rather than all movements.

Noise is noise, irrespective of what's on the aircraft.

Some might be interested in this video filmed in and around Southend Airport including the control tower

Chisinau
 

What has happened to the Chisinau flights? I thought that when it dropped to one a week on Tuesdays that was for the winter period but there hasn't been one now for the last couple of weeks. Have I misunderstood or missed something?

They restart this month, once weekly until end of March.

Thank you tophat and thank you LTNman for that interesting video.

The mortgaged Eddie Stobart shares may be the downfall of the Stobart Group today. Andrew Tinkler is positioned to buy the trucking group who are in a financial mess. There is a second bidder in the frame and shareholders are voting today on who should take the group forward. If no agreement can be reached the banks will foreclose. Interestingly, if Tinkler succeeds in his bid, the banks will still call in their loans. Either way this is not good news for the airport owners who borrowed £53m against their shareholding in Eddie Stobart. If the shareholding turns to dust, the £53m becomes repayable immediately, and with no cash available the Stobart Group may well follow Eddie Stobart into receivership.

The vote went the way of the other bidder, not Tinkler

Shareholder approval was "overwhelming" in favour of the DBAY proposal and will result in the injection of £55m of new financing to provide the required financial stability. The FCA has acted quickly in granting the application for a Change of Control of the company that was a condition of the deal being implemented.

Over to you asdf1234.

That £55 million is to stop the group folding I would have thought. Not sure how one bit of Stobart connects to the Stobart aviation side but for the future prosperity of Southend Airport maybe the lease needs to be sold. That idea might not go down too well here but if you was an institution would you lend Stobart new money to expand the airport when it is in financial difficulties? Stobart might find there are no airport investors or the interest rates are too high for those willing to take the risk. I would assume the collateral would normally be the airport but then Stobart doesn't own the airport.

The £55m is for Eddie Stobart - the Haulage company. Stobart Group, the airport operator, are a seperate firm.

According to asdf1234 above, Stobart Group are also shareholders in Eddie Stobart, and have borrowed against the value of these shares.

Media reports describe the £55m of new financing as a "high interest loan".

Good news for ESL today however their shares still suspended and as mentioned elsewhere, the bail out of ESL comes at an eye-watering cost. Stobart Group mortgaged their shares in ESL and that debt remains unpaid today. The danger of Stobart being in default remains extremely high as the underlying security is still worthless (as the shares can't be sold or traded).

As the airport grows, so does the tension between those adversely affected and the management.

There is nothing new in the the Echo report, except Glyn Jones stating that Bizz Jets are no longer 24/7.

https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/180...ghbours-homes/