NATS drops Heathrow in it

[DaveReidUK]

"I am very concerned that NATS made this change [to the routing of aircraft using the CPT SID] without informing the airport or affected communities about its potential impact, particularly given its effects on some of the same areas to the west of the airport that were affected by the airspace trials we ran last year. Because of the assurances we received, we in turn told residents in good faith that no changes had occurred. That is unacceptable and I unequivocally apologise to local residents.

At my request, the Chief Executive of NATS has agreed to urgently review his company's processes to ensure that NATS shares this information with the airport to prevent this happening again in the future."

(Heathrow CEO John Holland-Kaye)

Air Transport News (http://www.atn.aero/article.pl?id=54167)

[Del Prado]

"Procedural changes made by to the control of aircraft above 7,000 feet do not involve airports and there is no suggestion that NATS did not follow the current agreed process. Nevertheless where procedural changes occur that may have a discernable effect to the noise experienced by residents, we would expect NATS to make us aware of the changes and their potential impact so that we can answer questions from local residents."

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

The CPT SID on easterlies was always radar controlled after take-off so presumably that has changed?

[EastofKoksy]

Hopefully someone still working in TC can enlighten us.

It seems there is no change in the 09R CPT SID itself but there is apparently a change in where the aircraft are being vectored when heading towards the CPT area. This has resulted in noise complaints from Ascot and Bracknell. As the NPR ends at 4000ft I don't see what all the fuss is about or are they seriously proposing restrictions on vectoring below 10,000ft?

[DaveReidUK]

The CPT SID on easterlies was always radar controlled after take-off so presumably that has changed?Graphic here showing the effect of the changes:

http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/HeathrowNoise2/Downloads/PDFs/compton_before_and_after_maps.pdf

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

The OCK stack didn't present a problem, it's after the inbounds have left OCK that work is involved. Those maps from Dave's post don't look any different to when I was doing it 13 years ago. Usual procedure was for the outbound to be given a heading of around 240, then the INTS controller would turn it towards CPT or tie up a heading with TMA SW. Whatever happened, the outbounds basically went west when clear of Heathrow inbounds.

[Wham Bam]

A little investigating would have found that the CPT 4K/5J SIDs haven't changed since 2013, and the last change was a final altitude added to the SID so not even a route change (see here (http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/public/index.php%3Foption=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=94&Itemid=143.html) and scroll down to find Compton SIDs chart). The graphic posted by DaveReidUK just shows that the aircraft of 09 are now following the SID more often rather than being vectored off passing around 4000', so the locals are just getting more of what could always happen anyway. Can't see any NATS or public investigation will change anything! Or why NATS needed to consult this with anyone in the first place :ugh:

[Norman.D.Landing]

Have a look here to see how the locals are looking at it. Bear in mind this is an area that has benefited. :ugh:

NATS reveals changes! | Aircraft Noise Lightwater, Windlesham and Bagshot, Surrey (http://aircraftnoiselightwater.co.uk/nats-reveals-changes/#comment-526)

[EastofKoksy]

Looking at the maps these changes are occurring above 4000ft so no problem with the NPR and not really HAL's concern either. In fact, as another poster pointed out, the aircraft are now following the actual SID route much more closely than before!

HAL's problem seems to be that when they asked NATS if there had been any changes apart from the trial RNAV SIDs they were told "no".

[DaveReidUK]

Majority of tracks are >4000ft by Virginia Water.

Which is roughly where the NPR ends, in fact.

[pax britanica]

This issue is a complete cock up by HAL and NATS when they introduced a trial set of changes to the MID and SAM departures last year without telling anyone except the communities adjacent to the airport who of course aren't affected anyway as the initial departure segment remained exactly the same.

In response to numerous complaints from the Surrey Heath and Ascot areas they arranged a couple of meetings one in Bagshot one in Ascot. I attended the Bagshot one and it was woeful performance by the 'suits' of both organisations getting their facts wrong and generally appearing rather untrustworthy. Thus creating climate of concern where none existed before among people who are generally well disposed to LHR and its expansion as many residents work there or use it regularly or recognise the benefits it brings to the area.

What it showed was:-

If you make changes to established patterns people will notice

Although its not precise FR24 allows people to double check what they are told and compare routings

Do not try and blind people with science when many of the audience are expert /work in the same field -example, man from NATS ,' most departures over your area are at or above 7000 ft; Man in audience, 'I am BA captain and its been mostly 6000 or below for 20 odd years'.

If you represent NATS and HAL check out what might happen while you are at the meeting- at one point a succession of 4 'heavies ' lumbered directly overhead illustrating the concerns perfectly.

Try and keep some control so the time isnt taken up by people saying 'I am kept awake all night by noise' well of course there really isnt any. i was woken up at 3 am last week etc etc

So I can see why this more recent event caused some concern and indeed as someone points out here with a link there is now an active noise lobby in an area where there wasn't much of one.

Any from the ATC fraternity here a have any idea how the super long 27R/9L LHR expansion proposal would affect this area, I imagine planes would be lower both on departure (27R) and landing(9L) as the effect of this idea is to move the runway 2-3 miles westwards.

PB

[EastofKoksy]

Pax britanica -
Part of the PR problem is that the NATS contribution was handled by a guy whose expertise is environmental issues. He has never been a controller and has therefore never worked in the airspace/routes concerned. He may be a senior manager but just doesn't have the background knowledge to deal with questions. There was a big risk some of the audience could think he was being evasive, poorly informed or he inadvertently provided misleading answers.

[Wham Bam]

HAL's problem seems to be that when they asked NATS if there had been any changes apart from the trial RNAV SIDs they were told "no"
But there haven't been any changes, aircraft are just following the published route closer and more often, so NATS were telling the truth!

[pax britanica]

east of koksy

Thanks

I think thats a very apt comment- Ihad a chat with one of the HAL guys before the meeting and he seemed ok-it was the problem/nerves of facing a potentially hostile audience and I am sure factors like the one you mentioned which people would obviously not be aware of that made the whole process appear rather evasive rather than people deliberately being like that.

[Nimmer]

Live near a large international airport expect some aircraft noise, simple really.

[Cough]

One quote that I couldn't quite believe from those meetings was (from the NATS man) 'My radars measure the altitude of the departing aircraft and uses a completely different system to FR24'.

I did wonder how his radar measured the altitude of aircraft. I always thought the aircraft measured its own altitude and reported it to his radar... Same as FR24 via ADS-B then!

[EastofKoksy]

Cough,

Aircraft broadcast their level with reference to a 1013 pressure datum. In the London TMA that is converted to altitude at 6000ft or below using the Heathrow pressure and then displayed to the controllers. Depending on the pressure, an aircraft could seem higher/lower on FR24 than it really is. So strictly speaking the NATS guy was correct but I think as far as Joe Public are concerned it could be semantics!

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

"My radars "

Does he actually own the radars?

[DaveReidUK]

Depending on the pressure, an aircraft could seem higher/lower on FR24 than it really is.And that can be by a significant amount.

For example a couple of days earlier this month saw the Heathrow QNH hovering around 1040 mb, so uncorrected altitudes would be out by around 750'.

[pax britanica]

And parts of the Surrey Heath area are close to 500 ft above Heathrows 80 feet amsl' elevation so it would seem theres quite a bit of scope for misunderstanding and perception of height/noise etc.

The whole issue here is about HAl and NATS not doing themselves any favours ahead of the decision on new runways -there was no serious concern about aircraft noise in this part of the world until recently-if there were issues it was noisy low flying machines converting fuel directly to noise which I believe are called helicopters and which can largely go where they like.

[Monarch Man]

How long has LHR been there? How long have the complainers lived near LHR? Which was there first?...... Thought so...:hmm:

[seafire6b]

Trouble is, most complainants moved into the post-1946 Heathrow area seemingly with an expectation that air traffic would actually decrease as time progressed. Wouldn't that be a bit like moaning about the ravens at the Tower of London? Or shift workers near Edinburgh Castle complaining about that cannon being fired at 1pm every day?
Aye, there's nowt so strange as folk.

[Trinity 09L]

MM
Since 1964 onwards, Constellations to 787.
However, the pattern of landings and departures are moving for the benefit of the airport, airlines, & NATS at the behest of investors that are linked.
Information & knowledge on landings and departures is now readily available rather than in 1946. Also if Hillingdon Council withdrew there objection to 09L departures a lot of hassle would be removed from the Berkshire area as well.

[Monarch Man]

Trinity, as a former resident in the effected areas all I can say is so what? There is a big airfield nearby, you live within 10nm of the place (I assume) you can expect some noise QED. A380's/787's are certainly quieter than Connies, DC9s and Tridents, but they still make noise...but you knew that in 1964, didn't you?

[Trinity 09L]

MM
I am aware that noise has been reduced by quieter aircraft, but in return volumes of aircraft have increased with the advances of technologies.
In respect of my circumstances, I am quite happy to live where I do, and therefore please also accept that certain occupations require that we live within a certain distance of our place of employment.
What is discussed here is that HAL asked NATS if any changes had been made, and NATS said "no", and with further investigation + CAA, changes had been made. So who in NATS made the decision to change departure routes, but failed to disclose this information?:hmm:

[twentypoint4]

Basically, LL controllers can now climb the CPT easterly departures to FL80 (1013hPa or more) or FL90 (less than 1013hPa) without prior co-ordination with London TMA controllers. So now the LL guys and gals have the confidence the departures will be "up and away" sooner, they will 95% of the time turn them 'on the inside' of the downwind inbounds, which involves them being turned on to a heading of 270-290 degrees shortly after making the initial right turn out. When the LL controllers didn't have the option to climb higher than 6000' (without prior co-ordination), a much higher percentage would be taken further south before being turned 'on the outside' of the downwind inbounds, thus a greater spread of the noise.

That's what I think anyway. Apologies if this has already been explained/expressed before.

[ZOOKER]

What's the big deal?
I don't recall anyone consulting the residents of Loughborough/East Leake/Ashby-De-La-Zouch etc when EGNX opened, and the skies were suddenly filled with Viscounts, BAC 1-11s, DC4s, DC6s, DC3s and Tridents.
Aircraft noise is transient, unlike road-traffic noise, which is, by-and-large, continuous.

[Del Prado]

T09L, isn't the point that the changed routes are of aircraft above 6000'? (see post#2 for quote from HAL CEO) and as such NATS had no requirement to tell HAL.
If NATS changed routings of Heathrow outbounds above 20,000' would they still be expected to inform HAL? Where should the line be drawn?
At the moment it seems to be at 4/6000' and above that level, any changes are coordinated with the CAA. (any noise complaints from aircraft above that level should be directed to CAA)

From the article, it appears that NATS has complied with all the rules. If the airport feels it should be first port of call for noise complaints up to 10? thousand feet then the rules should be changed (after consultation) but NATS seem to be getting a raw deal here both from the article and posts on this thread.

[DaveReidUK]

Any from the ATC fraternity here a have any idea how the super long 27R/9L LHR expansion proposal would affect this area, I imagine planes would be lower both on departure (27R) and landing(9L) as the effect of this idea is to move the runway 2-3 miles westwards.I wouldn't worry about that scenario happening. :O

[Gonzo]

PB,

If you have questions about the 'Heathrow Hub' proposal and potential flight paths you'd be better directing them at that organisation.

[118.70]

Del Prado,

http://www.icao.int/publications/Documents/10031_en.pdf

ICAO Guidance on Environmental Assessment of Proposed Air Traffic Management Operational Changes

Table 3.1 seems to indicate that noise environmental impacts are relevant up to 10,000 feet and even, according to note 3 :

3. Noise may need to be assessed for changes above 10 000 ft (3 000 m)
in areas where the background noise levels are very low
(for example, in some specific areas protected by law), in
which case an upper limit of 18 000 ft (5 500 m), or higher, may be
more
appropriate in certain circumstanceIn Bracknell MP's rage at unannounced Heathrow flight path changes - Get Reading (http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/bracknell-mps-rage-unannounced-heathrow-8884994)

the local rag says that "The staff told Dr Lee they were simply following procedure."

It would appear that the procedure isn't good enough and needs to be changed.

[Nimmer]

I repeat my earlier statement, live near a large international airport expect aircraft noise.

It is totally ridiculous that consultation is required on the changing of airspace routes below 7000ft. How long have the UK airports been established?

The NIMBY culture in the UK prevents any development in the transport infrastructure.

[scotbill]

When the easterly departures to the South west were changed in the (much noisier) 1970s to route down the Mole valley I gave some technical assistance to our local anti-noise committee.

We were particularly puzzled by one rather tortuous path until we discovered that the chairman of the Noise Advisory Council lived at Epsom.

Strangely enough, the SID seemed to route around Epsom.

Never underestimate the power of major bureaucrats to influence your life.

[Trinity 09L]

I accept the noise and it has been reduced by individual aircraft movements. Paradoxically aircraft movements have increased, together with T4 & T5. It is the expansion of 3rd runway & the huge land grab accompanying this request that has caused objections to the proposals. The objections are less vociferous than for HS2, and here rail expansion can be increased by improving current lines with by & over passes, (even less if businessmen used IT conferencing etc - ps I have just communicated with an individual on board by wi fi in the mid east).
This country is small in physical size.:ok:

[pax britanica]

Gonzo,

The party I was most interest to talk with, those promoting the double length northern runway seem to have gone into receive only mode since the consultation ended , hence my request for opinions here.
PB

[DaveReidUK]

The party I was most interest to talk with, those promoting the double length northern runway seem to have gone into receive only mode since the consultation ended, hence my request for opinions here.I can't say I'm surprised.

The split-runway proposal served a useful role as a makeweight, in order to pad out the Airport Commission's shortlist from 2 to 3 candidates, but without a snowball's chance of being adopted (as the airport owner has made clear to the Commission).

So the promoter's work is now done. :O

If you're interested in opinions on the proposal, there's a ton of debate about it over in the Airlines, Airports and Routes Forum, both in the main Heathrow thread (from December 2013 onwards) and in this one:

http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/530084-heathrow-3-gatwick-2-a.html

And if you PM me, I can put you in touch with the with the guy - a former Eastern Airlines pilot - who first patented the split runway scheme.