View Full Version : Radio 5 Live tomorrow morning...

24th Sep 2005, 19:04
After 10 am

Taken from BBC wesbite:

" 10:00 The Worricker Programme
Investigative journalism, current affairs, politics and showbiz gossip. Including the Five Live Report:

Plane Noisy

Night flights disturb the sleep of thousands of people on a daily basis, yet over the years, the volume of plane traffic during the early hours has steadily increased. The Government has always justified this on the grounds that they operate strict noise regulations that keep the loudest planes from flying at night. Now, they want to allow even more planes to fly at night.

But Five Live Report reveals that the governments regulations are based on flawed calculations and that they are playing down the actual noise these flights make. What's more, with a new Civil Aviation bill about to come in which is set to remove the controls on night flights, we ask whether we face a future of unrestricted night flights and spiralling numbers. And if so, at what cost?"

1. Flawed calculations?
2. Playing down the actual noise?

I can see which way this is going to go already. So much for the BBC upholding the fine traditions of journalism.

Anyway, I'm going to listen and try not to phone in and rant.

24th Sep 2005, 20:16
I read recently in an anti-Stansted leaflet that the noise measuring method is deemed to be flawed on the basis that when calculating an average noise level the 'lows' are also taken into account.

If you have a low of absolute silence and a high of, say, 90db then the average is 45db which of course suits the pro-aviation lobby.

Lifting the datum to (say) 40db would make the average 65db (40db+50% of the difference between 40 and 90) which would suit the antis.


dawn raider
24th Sep 2005, 21:16
I am an airline capt and also happen to live on the flight path to a UK major airport. Now I appreciate all the arguements about where I bought my house etc but traffic volume is constantly growing 'real' spacing is not always three miles and with noisy old widebodies for freighters and NO night resrictions, it make life a living hell.

at 5 am every morning I am woken by the first arrival of a 76 freighter thundering over the house.

I've been trying to move for ages and the sale has fallen through several times because of the noise issue.

I accept and appreciate the need for air travel for econimic growth etc (mine included obviously !!) but I really get pissed when people in the industry treat residents of airport areas like pariahs or idiots.

simple things like off set approaches, leaving the auto-throttle in as long as possible, lower flap landings for ldg and better noise abatement for take off would all make huge differences but little more than lip service is paid to any of the above although it's all fairly easy and not expensive.

if I had my way the gov should make the BAA buy all the houses for 5 miles on the approach for market value. then tarmac the lot and make hangars and car parking. all revenue neutral, no more complaints and probably a good investment.......or is that just wishful thinking on my part!!!:ugh:

24th Sep 2005, 21:40
I don't know about making 'antis' pariahs but I have varying degrees of sympathy based upon how long they have been resident etc.

Let's be honest, anyone who bought a house in the last 10 years anywhere near an operating airport probably got it cheap(ish) because everyone with an ounce of common sense saw what was coming. To buy under those circumstances and then whinge about the aircraft gets not one drop of sympathy from me.

On the other hand long term residents deserve consideration and their complaints taking seriously. In the meantime maybe we can all give a little more thought to noise abatement.

24th Sep 2005, 21:48
Hi Dawn Raider,

While I'm not a pilot, I do work in the aircraft noise field at one of the UK's larger airfields, and I can tell you that a lot more than lip service is paid to the subject. Meetings with DAP/DfT/NATS/BA/VS/AA on a monthly basis are a lot more than talking shops. Would you not agree that CDA
( continuous descent approach ) is a proven noise abatement procedure and if so, did you know that the 3 south east airports are 1,2 and 3 in the world
( looking at the published figures anyway ) at achieving CDA? :ok:
Add to that fining for gross track deviations, punitive fines for noise infringements etc, and I'd hope you'd agree that someone is trying to improve things, whilst balancing that with your need for employment.

24th Sep 2005, 22:38
How many of the complainers are relatively recent arrivals - well after the airfield was built?

Robert W. Service had something to say about this affliction:

"Now Sam McGee was from Tennessee, where the cotton blooms and blows.
Why he left his home in the South to roam ‘round the Pole, God only knows.
He was always cold, but the land of gold seemed to hold him like a spell;
Though he’d often say in his homely way that he’d “sooner live in hell.”

24th Sep 2005, 23:41
Dawn Raider,

First of all, I'm genuinely sorry that you live beneath a busy flightpath and I apreciate that it must at times be extremely irritating.

A couple of comments from a current airline Capt also.

a) Offset approaches into very busy airports can just move the noise footprint to somebody elses house.

b) Leaving the autothrottle in as long as possible? This suggestion surprised me (unless you are part of BA Airbus flight management!) as I fail to see what contribution to noise reduction this could make; i.e. for a given aircraft the thrust required remains the same for a given landing configuration whether the A/T is in or out. On certain types of A/C the A/T can be particularly active leading to frequent thrust changes on the approach whereas manual thrust setting can be a little more 'intelligent'?

c) Lower flap settings for landing: I believe most UK operators are already doing this for reasons of noise, fuel savings, and on-going maintenance savings. As you know there are limited options available to the operator in regard to each type's minimum landing flap setting. If you live near an airport with a particularly short runway then this will obviously influence the selection of landing flap. (probably not a good idea to lobby your MP for an increase in runway length however:D )

d) Better noise abatement for take-off: 'Better' noise abatement procedures have been adopted at a number of UK airports - take Manchester on westerly departures for instance. I'm sure that these procedures have benefited some, but perhaps this has been to the detriment of others. Maybe more work is needed in this area, particularly in the SID routing. As you know most operators already reduce take-off power and climb power to the minimum required in order to increase engine life- but I accept that this, whilst reducing the total noise emitted, can increase the general noise footprint as most departures will suffer a reduced rate of climb.

e) "If I had my way the gov should make the BAA buy all the houses for 5 miles on the approach for market value."

To take this statement literally then you would receive the market value given the fact that the house is situated under a flight path to a major airport.

However I gather that you would like to receive an increased value based upon similar houses that are not in a such an unfortunate position.

That is how I would feel also, but you know as well as I that the market does not work like that. I presume that as a current airline Capt you moved in after the major UK airport had been built (kind of an age thing!) and therefore you bought the house at a discounted price - if that is the case then you should not profit at the expense of council tax payers or airline consumers.

You still have my greatest sympathy.


25th Sep 2005, 00:07
I read recently in an anti-Stansted leaflet that the noise measuring method is deemed to be flawed on the basis that when calculating an average noise level the 'lows' are also taken into account.

If you have a low of absolute silence and a high of, say, 90db then the average is 45db which of course suits the pro-aviation lobby.

Lifting the datum to (say) 40db would make the average 65db (40db+50% of the difference between 40 and 90) which would suit the antis.


It strikes me as absurd.

0 dB is not "absolute silence". 0 dB is the limit of audibility.

The decibel scale is logarithmic. 0 dB corresponds to 10^-12 Wm-2. 80dB is 10^-4 Wm-2. The average of 10^-12 and 10^-4 is about 5 x 10-5, which is not much less than 80 dB.

Averaging logarithmic scales is odd.

25th Sep 2005, 06:34
Radio Five Live has just announced (by way of a trail for the highlighted prog.) that the B747F with RR engines has been 'misclassified' and is much louder (they said noisier) than THOUGHT - and SHOULDN'T be doing the night-runs to and from LHR.

Whatever happened to the 'silent' airliner?

(Evacuation times would seem to be a problem.)

25th Sep 2005, 08:04
B747F's dont "do" night runs from LHR.
Not regularly scheduled anyway. :D

25th Sep 2005, 08:39
I also live under a busy approach to a major airport. Roughly at the point where most incoming flights become established.

On a summers afternoon it is a glorious pastime to sit outside and watch the action above - som many different techniques employed by different pilots. For the most part, you don't hear the noise, so familiar is it that your mind removes it. Only in the summer when the windows are open sometimes you can't hear the dialogue on TV for about 5 seconds. It's no problem.

Then when the wind changes and the reciprocal is in use you get silence for days. It's really not a problem, I can think of far worse places to live.

dawn raider
25th Sep 2005, 09:33

happy to let the house go 50k BELOW whats it's been valued at by 5 different surveyors, so I don't think I'm being greedy.

as far as the auto-throttle issue is concerned I would have thought the same as you but trust me. clapped out old 80's boeings aside the automatics do a far better job with less 'large' thrust changes. I can actually tell the type for sure, the series 70% of the time and the airline about 50% of the time by the sound on approach.

as for the sympathy thing. absolutely right. none deserved or required. I didn't think it'd bother me at all after all these years but it does. much more of this and I'll get paul McKenna to come round and hypnotise me into loving the noise. :ok:

the others on this street have been here over 20 years (pre-runway) and it's getting them upset now -

25th Sep 2005, 09:40
Good job there are flight computers and printed nomograms to help us with log scales!
Rule of thumb guide to adding dB noise levels:
If the difference between two or more noisde levels to be added is less than or equal to 1dB, add 3dB to the highest level. If the difference is 2 to 3dB, add 2dB to the highest level and if the difference is between 4 to 9 dB, add 1dB to the highest level. However, if the difference is 10db or greater the noise level (i.e. the highest) remains unchanged.

Eg: If you add 50dB(A) to 56dB(A) the result is 57dB(A).

To make matters worse, you often see references to 57dB(A)Leq contours drawn around aerodromes. This is a 'continuous equivalent noise' metric - an 'average' in plain English. It means that within this contour your would hear (if it was humanly possible to sense an average sound) the equivalent of a continuous 57dB(A) roar. Aviation professionals and politicians alike frequently mix 57dB(A) and 57dB(A)Leq...

Another factoid of possible interest: aircraft noise does not attenuate in accordance with the Inverse Square Law.

25th Sep 2005, 09:49
>On a summers afternoon it is a glorious pastime to sit outside and watch the action above - som many different techniques employed by different pilots. For the most part, you don't hear the noise, so familiar is it that your mind removes it. Only in the summer when the windows are open sometimes you can't hear the dialogue on TV for about 5 seconds. It's no problem.

We are 13 miles (as the 737 flies) from touchdown at a regional airport. 'Planes must maintain a minimum of 3500ft (as there is a military corridor crossing at right-angles), so, apart from OLeary's old 737s heading AWAY late at night we hardly hear anything. On the other hand we ENJOY the fast-jets at low level, but they're usually too fast to be able to get a good look at.
I have suffered severe aircraft noise when living within a mile of Luton (BAC 1-11s taking off in the late 60s/early 70s!), and also when visiting London (places like Richmond). What sort of altitude gives 'nuisance' - ie how low are the routes incoming over Richmond?

25th Sep 2005, 10:00
I live just to the left and about 4 miles (as the scabby old freighter flies) from the end of 26L and suffer no take off noise at all. Until there's bad weather in line with centre line and they decide to vector you boys directly over my house, that is.
I work in the industry, I knew about the airport when I moved here 10 years ago. I am blissfully happy. My children love their school and Mrs SP has a great circle of friends.
My motto? Get on with life and accept that you had a choice before making the choice.
I din't pay under market value for my house because of the airport, the house was top dollar then and it still is...... because of the airport.

25th Sep 2005, 10:24
INCOMING flight noise is not measured (according to the programme).
B747-RR is apparently QC4 rather than QC2 as registered, and most early morning arrivals are (surprise, surprise) B747s . . .

Bring-on the double-decker 'bus:-

25th Sep 2005, 10:53
Flightman I can see which way this is going to go already. So much for the BBC upholding the fine traditions of journalism. It sounds to me as if they are challenging the current thinking - that everything is under control and there is no problem. In order to raise debate they have to play Devil's Advocate.

Since the people affected by airport noise is a very small proportion of the populace, they need to show that something is not normal to the 99%(?) of the country that does not live near a busy airport. Perhaps when you have listened to all of the programme, we can debate what happened?

25th Sep 2005, 10:55
LCY has a steep approach, therefore a/c are higher at any given distance. Is there any future in increasing approach angles at major airports (LHR and EMA!) to lessen the ground-noise effect?


25th Sep 2005, 12:17
The Radio 5 Live programme no doubt was referring to the comprehensive data gathered by the CAA's ERCD in their report (published in full in April 2003 as Report No. 0205).

All RB211-powered B747 variants are rated as QC4 for departure AND approach, using the US 'Integrated Noise Model' processing program. Like it or not, the UK's ANMAC system is much more accurate and is therefore fairer.

Using the ANMAC system, the CAA's ERCD found that for departure, all B747 variants actually rated QC8. The only B747s requiring a QC8 ARRIVAL rating are the JT9D-powered B747-200s.

Playing with semantics by saying that aircraft are 'quieter' when they are in fact marginally less noisy is not being fair if it adversely affects sleep.

A four-page account of the ERCD Report can be accessed in the ERCD Newsletter for August 2004 (Issue 4) via Google. The report itself is on the CAA website.

Sven Sixtoo
25th Sep 2005, 14:32

"Aircraft noise does not attenuate in accordance with the inverse square law."

That's counter to everything I've learned. Can you elaborate?


25th Sep 2005, 14:38
>"Aircraft noise does not attenuate in accordance with the inverse square law."


. . . and duck's quacks don't echo . . .

25th Sep 2005, 14:45
The issue is not aircraft noise per se... rather the fact that is so much louder than the surrounding back ground noise....

The issue as pointed out by dawn raider is that in he early morning the increase in noise (db (A)) over the prevalent will cause him to awake... if we imagine that where he is the nighttime Leq is somewhere in the 35-40 db (A) range... then an approaching aircraft will push the Lmax to somewhere approaching 70-80db (A) in a very short space of time...

That difference is what causes sleep disturbance.

So unless the aircraft noise can be reduced from the current levels to around 50-60db (A) the problem will still exist... the WHO guidelines for residential accommodation is to ensure Lmax =45db (A) in bedrooms at night.

It pretty easy to achieve an NR factor of 15-20db (A) with standard domestic construction in glazing systems...

In order to reduce the 'noise level' from say 71db (A) to say 62 db(A) we would need to half the sound presure level to get 68db, then halve it again to get 65db then halve is again to get 62 db... a reduction of 87.5% in SPL.....now that would be fantastic.

I do agree however that axail development along extened centrelines is absurd and yes it does go on...sadly it easier and cheaper of both developers and authoriteis to develop green field sites tha to CPO these areas and create either daytime employment nodes or large scale warehousing facilties in these areas...

Flying Mech
25th Sep 2005, 15:26
If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen! All the old noisy A/C like B707/727/DC8 to the best of my knowledge have been banned in europe. So all operating A/C's are stage 3 compliant. So they should be allowed operate 24/7 into any Airport wiith sufficent runway lenght. Aviation keeps a lot of people including me in a job so the more flights the better. Look at those Belgian fools in BRU complaing about DHL who will now move in 2 years time to Leipzig where the locals will be glad of some employment.
If the noise bothers you go and spend some money. Triple glaze your windows, Insulate your roof. You will save money on heating your house over the winter. If your still not happy sell up and move on. The airport is much more important than a few moaners who live on the approach/departure paths.

25th Sep 2005, 16:03

The airport is much more important than a few moaners who live on the approach/departure paths.


What a load of cobblers, can you tell me what the benefit is?? Please do not make me throw up by saying all the commercial benefit the UK gets. If flying from 06.00 to 22.00 only were allowed, commerce would sort itself out and would have to pay the proper price for its services and not be subsidised by those poor 'peasant' who suffer without any way of stopping yet another Blair fiasco.

Trinity 09L
25th Sep 2005, 16:31
"If the noise bothers you go and spend some money. Triple glaze your windows" - er sorry but the local conservation police in this area under the approach will not allow this, but my loft is insulated:D

PS please fly clean and make less noise - I know you can do it,and why not use 09R? ( answer = because they have not built taxiways due to the Cranford agreement - but now we have quieter aircraft for takeoff):*

25th Sep 2005, 16:53
Happy to oblige Sven.

The real world is seldom like the test bench in the lab. The complex mixture of frequencies and harmonics generated by engines and airframes don't behave themselves when it comes to physics textbooks telling them what they should be doing.

Air with an RH of <50% and a temp above 15C means that frequencies in the 25 to 600Hz range attenuate by -30dB at 1,000 metres from the source. In the 600-1200Hz range, things start to drop off and in the 1200 to 9600Hz range attenuation at the same distance rises to -40 and -70dB respectively.

Another rule of thumb, which is fine for the lab, is if you double the distance the level drops by 6dB. This is only OK if you're demonstrating a pure note point source and move a sound level meter along a measured distance for the benefit of students inside a room reasonably free from reverberation and quacking ducks, or was it clucking bells?

Sven Sixtoo
25th Sep 2005, 18:29
I'm still puzzled.

To demonstrate whether the inverse square law applies or not, you need two points on the curve surely? If attenuation at range x is y, for inverse square law not to apply the attenuation at 2x would be not 4y but some other number. Actual attenuation may (as you post) vary with frequency and transmission medium, but the attenuation ratio could still be constant across the frequency range, and across the range of temperatures etc (not saying that it is, just that it could be).

Regarding your second rule of thumb, double the distance and the power goes down by a factor of 4 (inverse square law), which since log2 =0.3 approximately is -6dB approximately.

What am I missing here?


25th Sep 2005, 19:46
300Hz: 100metres from source attenuates by just under 10dB. At 1000 metres it is nearly -30dB.
At 3000 metres attenuation is almost -40dB.

900Hz: 100 metres from source the attenuation is also -10dB, though at 1000 metres it drops off by around 33dB. At 3000 metres attenuation is approximately -43dB.

1500dB: -10dB, -40dB and -63dB respectively.

9600Hz: -13dB, -70dB and off the scale respectively.

Sketch these out roughly on log x log graph paper with the origin at -70dB on the y-axis.

There is a calculator at
though this seems to apply only to higher frequencies.

Oshkosh George
25th Sep 2005, 22:19
If flying from 06.00 to 22.00 only were allowed

This sort of comment has me asking myself how all the people who WORK nights(and there must be a lot!) fare,as they have to sleep when traffic is at it's normal heavy daytime level.

The whingers will of course repeat that it is in relation to the ambient background noise,which is higher during the day. But that doesn't detract from the fact that night workers do it without complaint,and get used to it!

25th Sep 2005, 23:19
That's what I was saying.

Changing the assumed "background" from 0 dB to 40dB makes no discernible difference to the "average" noise level. Simply adding two dB values together and dividing by two, as the leaflet suggested was done, is gibberish.

26th Sep 2005, 05:20
>Simply adding two dB values together and dividing by two, as the leaflet suggested was done, is gibberish.


Must have been a journo (that's like a typo, but intentional . . . )

26th Sep 2005, 11:43
OG, any idea what %age of the population within the noise areas we are talking about, work nights? I agree with you about night workers, however having worked nights myself, I agree with the comments made about background noise being a major factor.

Oshkosh George
26th Sep 2005, 15:40

I have no idea,but having worked nights for more than 20 years(but NOT near an airport),I did appreciate their position.

Any comments from someone in this situation?

26th Sep 2005, 16:35
If flying from 06.00 to 22.00 only were allowed, commerce would sort itself out

You have no idea what goes on at night do you. How do you think your post gets about. Next day delivery with no night flights, I dont think so. Parts for your car, urgent vaccines, that stuff you just ordered from "amazon" vast sections of the economy and public service are absolutely dependant on overnight delivery without nightflights the cost to europe would be phenomonal.

26th Sep 2005, 17:45
(Published September 2003)
The new system means we will, for the time being, no longer transport mail by rail.
The use of modern containerised aircraft will give increased aircraft
speed and improved handling together with improved reliability.

Royal mail announces new network for moving mail by air
“Air operators were invited to tender for services and we chose the Channel Express and Titan Airways alliance as the preferred supplier . . . "
Royal Mail will continue its air operations from Aberdeen, Belfast, Benbecula, Bournemouth, Bristol, East Midlands, Edinburgh, Exeter, Glasgow, Guernsey, Inverness, Kinloss, Isle of Man, Jersey, Kirkwall, Newcastle, Stansted, Stornoway and Sumburgh airports.

Oshkosh George
26th Sep 2005, 18:17
I worked for Royal Mail too. They wanted to close their LPL airport operation,but were persuaded to retain it(you notice it wasn't present in the last posters info--no pun intended!). I don't personally know of any mail transported by rail these days(except at Chruistmas).

26th Sep 2005, 22:44
Well I listened to the whole programme, and to be fair to the R5,who didn't use any of their established transport correspondants - who are usually well informed, they produced a reasonably balanced and informative programme.

The "anti noise" protesters were represented by a gentleman who made a very balanced argument, backed up by recordings of the disturbances along with decibel readings. Sadly, the small minority of loonys who advocate violence and direct action, as per the animal rights morons, were given a very short airing as well.

The great shame of it all was, that the only mature and congent arguement for increased night flights, was from a gentleman from East Midlands Airport. The BAA were nowhere to be seen or heard, and that does them far more harm than good.

27th Sep 2005, 06:40
For those that want to listen to the Radio Five programme:-

27th Sep 2005, 10:03
Quote: 'Only in the summer when the windows are open sometimes you can't hear the dialogue on TV for about 5 seconds. It's no problem.'

I think if you experienced persistent and high levels of aircraft noise throughout each and every night in your bedroom, even with no ventilation from a window, you might express a different view, C_T.

It is no defence to plead that the plaintiff/householder moved to the alleged nuisance. Possibly going off-topic here but there are precedents re. unacceptable defences where torts relating to private land (nuisances) are concerned. For example:

If a statute authorises the defendants' activity the defendants will not be liable for interferences which are inevitable and could not have been avoided by the exercise of reasonable care, such as airports & aircraft operators, for example.

In Alien v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd (1981) a statute authorised the defendants to carry out oil refinement works. The plaintiff complained of noise, smell and vibration. It was held that the defendants had a defence of statutory immunity.

It is not a defence to plead:

(1) The plaintiff moved to the nuisance: Sturges v Bridgeman

In Miller v Jackson (1977), cricket had been played on a village ground since 1905. In 1970 houses were built in such a place that cricket balls went into a garden. It was held that there was a nuisance; there was an interference with the reasonable enjoyment of land. It was no defence to say the plaintiff had brought trouble onto his own head by moving there.

(2) That there is a substantial public benefit

In Adams v Ursell (1913) the defendant ran a fish and chip shop. The plaintiff objected to the noise and smells. The defendant tried to argue that the fish and chip shop was of public benefit but it was held that this was no defence.

With the recent unsustainable expansion in flights at most UK airports, exporting jolly-seekers to the Costa Majolica and importing foreign-made goods undermining UK exports, I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Darling received legal actions similar to those quoted.

27th Sep 2005, 10:45
A good few years ago, we occupied the flat closest to the runway at LHR in Stanwell. The airport was there before we bought the house, so we just accepted the noise was there. This was in 1980.

Since then, the number of flights has dramatcally increased and so has the number of inconsiderate pilots who use reverse thrust when specifically requested not to do so! (Both LHR and LGW have this mandate in Standing Instructions!) Unfortunately, (or fortunately in an emergency) there is always the "get out clause" unless in the interests of safety". If a full courtroom investigation was held after each occasion where reverse thrust was deployed, I wonder how many pilots would continue to be pig-headed!

The people who live by the airports have, IMO, a justifiable argument to close runways altogether between 2200 and 0600. Even if the aircraft themselves were silent, the thundering of road traffic in rural areas (meeters and greeters, taxis, lorries etc) caused by night flights is absolutely horrendous. Coupled with this, people who travel frequently then move to the area to "live on the doorstep" and the next thing you know, you're being woken by your neighbours at all times of night!

It has been clear, watching British Airways/GB Airways conduct at Gatwick, that airlines themselves can't be trusted to self-regulate. The night take-offs permitted for "operational reasons" have become part of the "normal timetable", to the extent that check-in queues are developing from 03.30 am.

One thing is for sure, "His Tonyness" (title courtesy of Jeremy Clarkson) will not give the noise protesters support due to BA's sponsorship of the Millenium Dome, London Eye and promised Olympics support! Commerce is able to corrupt politicians' minds!

Another factor no one seem to care about either is the pollution caused by night aircraft. The area around Gatwick and Heathrow contains some of the finest agricultural land in Europe. The crops and the animals are ingesting literally tons of noxious chemicals from aircraft exhaust and fuel dumps and these hydrocarbons (carcinogens) are entering the human food chain in large quantities.

Human Health is, IMO, far more important than the needs of commerce or aviation enthusiasts.

I owe my career to aviation. I love aeroplanes dearly and my career has given me access to wonderful places that ordinary, fireside mortals can only see on TV! However, I love my fellow man more and for that reason alone, I fully support the "no night flights" campaign!

27th Sep 2005, 10:58
Human Health is, IMO, far more important than the needs of commerce or aviation enthusiasts.

Being such a humanist, you are obviously campaigning that aircraft shouldn't perform night flights at all or be serviced at night, due to the well proven health risks caused by shift work?

How far do you want to stretch this argument out?

To anyone who bought a house near an airport or moved into an area where the airport was there first.........


27th Sep 2005, 11:00
Hear Hear!

Despite being a (PPL) pilot I can't stand the noise of aircraft flying over our Fulham home in the early hours. Stop all night flights please!

27th Sep 2005, 11:32
Crikey mate! I heard some tall stories in my time and there are some beauties here to be sure.

But, the one about the airline captain that bought a house under the flight path to a UK major airport…and then complained about the aircraft noise!

That’s gotta take the cake!

27th Sep 2005, 11:39
NIMBY's, you've got to love them.

How about "We don't like the noise that aircrafts tend to make, so we wont buy this house". You get the same with idiots that buy houses next to train lines. These people get their houses for a discount price because of the noise, then complain!

There's been so many incidents in the states that's lead to airfields being shut down, it's getting beyond a joke. I was told a case once by a groundschool instructor that a guy bought a plot of by an airfield, then built a house, then complained about the noise and the airfield got shut down.

I can't stand the taste of chocolate. Ooh, I must go and buy a dairy milk....

semirigid rotor
27th Sep 2005, 13:33
I live very close to a busy GA airfield and as a police helicopter pilot (I know the worst source of late night noise) have no problems with the aircraft overhead, but can see the other side of the coin. We have many long standing residents who did not notice the odd aircraft until a combination of a change in procedures at the airfield and having several nearby airfields close down. Now this local airfield is very busy and there are "noise abatement zones"

Due to increase development, these noise abatement zones keep the aircraft away from some residents, but create noise sewers for others. In other words some have no noise and some have all the noise all of the time, something I personaly think is unfair:(

One last point, saying that moving next to an airfield and complaining about the noise - tough, shouldn't have bought the house in the first place; is a dead end arguement. The anti noise lobby is getting bigger and ironically louder. They now have the ears of the polititions, and if that means votes:\ we know how this government deals with popular band wagons such as this, it bans the perceived problem or brings in draconian restrictions :{

Our future is in our hands we have to address this issue.

27th Sep 2005, 14:19
We bought our house a couple of years ago. It's about 20 miles from Heathrow in Berkshire. We had no idea at the time that it was practically on the extended centreline of 09L, and we get overflown a lot by aircraft establishing on the ILS from the North, during Easterly operations.

Our house is well glazed and insulated, but at 4.30am when there's no other noise around, a "quiet" 747 going overhead even at ~4000ft is enough to wake me up.

I'm certainly unconvinced by the noise averaging technique used to justify the night flying - by that argument, it's OK to let off a flashbomb in the room once a week, and it shouldn't wake me up, because "on average" it's still quiet !

I think if there were no flights between 11pm-6am, there would be a lot less complaint. I simply don't buy the argument that the 15-ish night flights are critical to the UK/SouthEast economy. Critical to BA's aircraft utilisation maybe...

27th Sep 2005, 14:22
er....BAA IS the government !

( And trashey, lousy and two bit to boot !! )

27th Sep 2005, 14:25
>as a police helicopter pilot (I know the worst source of late night noise)


How true!
We don't mind the (old) 737s, or even the Harriers, Jaguars, Tornados, Hawks, F15s, Hercs - or even the Chinooks, but the local force Helo is the noisiest beast around, especially when hovering or even 'slow' slewing . . .
And it just won't go away, either (until it runs out of gas). It just hangs around like a bad . . .
. . . noise!

At least the local land bobbies swapped their diesel Festers for petrol ones (because you could hear them coming and the villians had time to do a runner). And the air boys dumped their fixed-wing (after expensive noise-reduction mods failed to make any difference to the din) . . .
The latest helo is the noisiest one yet !


Burnt Fishtrousers
27th Sep 2005, 15:25
Dont get me started on Police Helos that were up in Bristol last night at ..sorry this morning at 0015

Why not just arm them with an air to ground missile and toast the chav scum who insist on pinching cars at night. OK a bit noisy, but for a short space of time and great entertainment value knowing another piece of pond scum has been toasted instead of being asked to go stand in the corner by the local magistrate.

I have no problem with aircraft noise as the normal suburban sounds seem to eclipse them anyway.

If its not Bob Marley Wan**r man or some chav who insists on vibrating us all to death by using their MOT failures as mobile Bass boxes, it the Police chasing them or trains buses lorries etc

27th Sep 2005, 16:46
Yeah ban all flights between 11 and 6 then I can become Nightsleeper:E

importing foreign-made goods undermining UK exports

We do fly stuff OUT of the country as well you know :rolleyes:

Glad to see this thread has gone to JB where it belongs.

semirigid rotor
27th Sep 2005, 18:07
G-CPTN, burnt fishtrousers, et all.

The obvoius answer here is that if you didn't live in a bad housing area, the police helo would not turn up :E

Only joking!!! The police aviation would is very sensitive to the issue of noise, as you say at 3 o'clock in the am we are the only people around. We do try to complete the job as quickly as possible and disappear, unfortunately in this day and age some individuals on the ground do not help by either shinning powerful touches up at us, pen lasers and occasionally high powered lasers. So we move away, get the bobbies on the ground to have a word and then continue on with the job. Billy burgular now knows that when the helo turns up, its game up and increasingly more and more have surrendered to the helicopter. Unfortunately though that is when he is about and our results show we are the best at nicking him.