Heathrow night flights to continue - government wins appeal

[Flying Lawyer]

The anti-aircraft noise protest group 'HACAN ClearSkies' has failed to get a ruling upheld which could have led to a ban on night flights at LHR.
In 2001, the European Court of Human Rights upheld HACAN's argument that the government's 1993 decision to ease restrictions on flights between 2330 BST and 0600 BST violated the human rights of people living around Heathrow by disturbing their sleep. :rolleyes:
That ruling was not legally binding but could have led to a ban on night flights at Heathrow and other airports in the UK and Europe.

However the government, supported by BA, successfully argued that stopping night flights would cause severe economic hardship, undermining British airlines' competitiveness and giving European airlines an unfair advantage.
It has been estimated that switching landings at Heathrow from before 0600 BST to a later time could cost BA alone up to £320m a year.

HACAN claims noise problems caused by Heathrow's night flights are no longer confined to south west London.

(It also claims residents as far away from LHR as Kensington & Chelsea are affected by the aircraft noise. I can vouch for the fact that is nonsense. )

[Localiser Green]

This verdict is complete common sense, I can't see how they could have reached any other conclusion. If a ban had been enforced that would have opened the floodgates to similar claims across the country, possibly across Europe.

What if I work nights in a hospital or something? Is it my human right to a good days sleep? Presumably so... does that mean I could ban all day flights at LHR too?! :rolleyes:

And people living next to a train line, could they argue that trains starting at 5am breached their human right to a good nights sleep?

The whole country would descend into chaos if these tiny minorities got their way, so I'm pleased of course today that they did not.

[Three Mile Final]

It has to be said that leaving an asset worth so much .... billions of pounds .... standing idle for 27% of the time is crass stupidity and were BA and BAA doing it of their own volition, they would be rightly accused of commercial incompetence.

I don't know the full implications of this ruling (will the number of night flights rise above the current 16 in the 6.5 hour period ?? if so presumeably it'll give the opportunity for 27% more slots - at one a minute that's over 300 a day !!) but hope it does help to keep Heathrow (and the UK) able to provide what it's customers demand and thus allow it to remain more competetive than other European airports.

I can't believe that many people (apart from perhaps my uncle and aunt who have lived in Feltham since 1947) can say that they moved to the area totally oblivious of Heathrow and not expecting to hear any noise.

I have seen the Manchester second runway dispute run for years and then be lost, the end (I assume) of the ban on night flying at Heathrow is another step in the right direction .... the battle for more capacity in the South east is one to watch .... how come extending the runway at Luton never seems to be proposed as a part of the solution ??? .... and I guess a 3rd runway at Heathrow has to be the sensible first step to enable growth to continue on a single site.

The thing I fear - and despise - most, is the suggestion by some of the opposing groups that air travel should be taxed out of existence to protect their own little corners of England.

We have to accept that aviation (at the start of it's second century) is actually here to stay, and needs to be encouraged ... not only in our personal interests, but in the best interests of Britain.

[WHBM]

Hopefully HACAN will have to pay costs.

[Mode7]

It astounds me that these people can make a claim against the noise. It is SO much quieter than the days of 707/727/VC-10/DC-8 and Tridents. Get a life and move away if you don’t like it!!:mad:

[Three Mile Final]

Absolutely !!!!!! I used to live in Twickenham in the 60s and a good well laden Clipper 707 with "noisy, smoky, inefficient ..." JT3s made a rare old noise. Specially a freighter.

Nowadays it is terribly easy to know when Concorde is up and about ..... Only yesterday I know it was over Guildford ... and that was on it's way into Heathrow. I reckon that 25 years ago you could barely distinguish it from one on Ira Boeing's best.

[Localiser Green]

"It astounds me that these people can make a claim against the noise. It is SO much quieter than the days of 707/727/VC-10/DC-8 and Tridents."

I read somewhere that the number of people affected by aircraft noise around LHR has reduced from 2 million in the 1970s to around 300,000 today. And yet HACAN claim that aircraft noise can now be heard from Kensington & Chelsea!?! What are those guys smoking :ugh:

[Three Mile Final]

Quote from BBC's Website article on 8.7.03 ....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"HACAN said that although individual planes have become quieter, any benefit to residents has been offset by the increase in the volume of aircraft traffic.

It said noise problems caused by Heathrow were no longer confined to the south west of London, with more than half a million people now affected by Heathrow's night flights. "
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Firstly I can't see how the first paragraph stands up to scrutiny .... as far as my mark one eyeballs tell me for the past 20 years I doubt I've seen a spare slot at Heathrow. The volume has been constant ........ full to capacity .......... with increasingly quiet aeroplanes.

If half a million are affected now vs. 2,000,000 when the footprints were larger with older generation jets ... things seem to be getting better not worse.

And much as I mourn it's passing .... and hoping that RB does get his paws on it .... Concorde is likely to pass into history soon and make things even quieter.

[Sick]

infact cost were awarded against the government - odd decision(?)

[747FOCAL]

Well now that the Concorde is going to the graveyard the noise footprints around Heathrow are greatly reduced and it makes no difference.

I would still be scared if I owned a Rolls powered 744 though! :ok:

[Point Seven]

Three Mile Final

'Fraid this ruling doesn't mean more night flights, just means that the existing ones don't get scrapped just so Tarquin Hamilton-Bourgois can sleep in his Richmond mansion.

Funny how HACAN never has many folks from Hounslow or Hatton Cross present isn't it? They live right under short final (not five miles out like the toffs in Ken) and never a peep. Could it be that the majority work at, or get a lot of business, from the airport nearby? Surely not.;) Maybe they are just reasonable people.

Heathrow is an integral part of the NATIONAL economy and if you don't like the noise, DON'T BUY A BLOODY HOUSE NEARBY JUST BECAUSE THE AREA IS DE RIGEUR. If it were up to me, H24 would be fine. Certainly give the place some spare capacity. (Takes cover as the hand grenade of controversy sails into the air....)

P7

[Aussierotor]

I just bought a house at the end of the runway ,on a busy highway ,next to a train line.
Dont you think its fair and considerable that i should get some peace and quiet.

Sorry guys ,only pulling your leg hehe.

Actually in my experience ,people who live in such locations dont even notice it after a while.A newbe moving in has one person to blame--himself for being such a f-----g idiot

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

A sensible decision. There are hugely positive employment, trade and economic benefits from air traffic. Only the nation as a whole can decide what balance to strike. If Heathrow has to put up a Full sign, how can UK airlines expect to gain access to foreign airports if foreign airlines cannot get further access to Heathrow ?

Given the huge reductions in the noise footprints of modern airliners, I wonder what the average age is of some of these campaigners. They would do a little better to improve the quality of life of more people if, perhaps, they concentrated on other more local issues, eg. doing something to curtail the diesel fumes that spew out of buses, waste disposal, street environment, road traffic management. This campaign against aircraft is prejudiced and calculated elitism.

That all being said, ladies and gentlemen, it is probably not much point the members of Pprune consoling each other over the issue on an industry-focused website. Shouldn't the commercial air transport industry be much more proactive in putting its message forward publicly to counter some of more absurd propaganda being waged against aviation - local flyers in neighbourhoods of West London to set the message straight, full page advertisements in newspapers, radio adverts, opinion surveys to see what the silent majority think and want, and so on. It seems some of this may be under way, given British Airways's involvement in this case, but I am sure the industry could be doing more (though I hope I'm wrong !).

[headsethair]

Have to take issue with some of the points raised here. Some of you need your heads forcibly removed from the dune.
When people buy houses within the noise footprint of an airport, they can have no idea of how things will develop - there is no way of predicting what will happen to the noise footprint.
In the last 2 years, LHR has installed MLS which now means that flights can be vectored to short finals from all sorts of approach angles. This takes planes over places that have never heard them before - and makes for noisier joins on to finals, thereby adding to the misery of those already under finals.
In the last 7 years seperations have shortened and it is not uncommon to see an 80 second gap - that gap was 120 secs 7 years ago.
With regard to nightflights into LHR - here's the real pattern (as opposed to the one they talk about). Most nights the last landing will scream over West London at around 2330 local (last night it was midnight). Then the first early arrival (but deemed a nightflight) comes in around 0420. If that doesn't wake you, it'll be followed by several more at sporadic intervals - thereby ensuring that if you've dozed off, it won't be for long.
Then at 0600 the 1997 Prescott experiment continues - dealternation of the runways for one hour. That means landing on both runways if ATC need it. And funnily enough, they always do. This experiment appears to be permanent.
Finally, far be it from me to offer critique on immensely well-trained and skilfull pilots, there are some c**p approaches flown at all hours. I am seriously concerned for some of the flying I've seen onto finals at LHR. At least 20% appear to believe that the glideslope is actually a staircase. The sound of a throttle-joggler doing an imprecise balancing act in smooth conditions does not make for great PR on the ground.
So - all the above I hope goes some way to explain why people complain in increasing numbers about LHR noise. And why, when you read threads like the one about T4 congestion and the abysmal state of ops at LHR, you can't help wondering why they don't close the place after building a fab new London airport with six runways and 7 terminals somewhere at the end of a high-speed rail and 8 lane motorway.
Oh - they did. We just need the rail link to Holland.....

[BEagle]

When Flying Lawyer and I were students at London University, it was the era of the Trident/707/VC10/DC8 etc. The noise those made even over the East End was pretty loud - nowadays they're barely audible even 'up West'.

But my personal view is that expansion of Thiefrow should only go ahead after expansion of the grossly under capitalised UK regioanl airports such as Bristol Lulsgate, Cardiff, Exeter, Coventry, East Midlands, Teesside, Humberside, Norwich etc etc.

[Algy]

Headsethair,

your MLS comment sounds doubtful to me. One major driver for MLS (and FMS approaches/departures) was precisely the capability of mitigating noise by allowing routeings around communities. There is no question that that is in fact how the FMS procedures have been used. I don't think there is any evidence for your theory about MLS. Would be interested to hear it though...

[maxy101]

But BEagale, the airlines don´t want to fly into BHX, EMA, etc (except the low cost ones) The transit pax, i.e (Americans and Europeans we syphon off the mainland) want LHR. If we want to keep their business, I believe, we have to expand in the South East. We have to decide whether we want to a "player" in global aviation or not. If not , then let us keep everybody happy and build it in the Thames Estuary . However, we cannot keep giving UK jobs away faster than we are generating them, whether it be merchant shipping, fishing or manufacturing. We have to create value added jobs. Anybody that has been to the rest of the world can see that all these countries are thinking the same thing and ACTIVELY fighting for these types of jobs for their population. It would appear other countries in Europe have realised this and steam rollered expansion at airports and transport infrastructure through. However, H.M government have a long history of hesitation and lack of foresight, whether they be Labour or Conservative. I live in Spain now, and the public infrastructure and investment has to be seen to be believed.Most PPruners that fly shorthaul must get off the aircraft and think "Wow, why can´t we have terminals/trains/trams/railway station like this." What is the answer? I don´t know, but then I haven´t put myself up for election. If these politicians don´t have the answers , then they shouldn´t be there....

[Gonzo]

Headsethair....

We only have MLS on one runway at the moment (27L), and it won't be available for use until Autumn 2004. We're expecting the other runways' MLS to be certified before Christmas 2004. The first MLS equipped aircraft will fly just about then. By 2007 only 60-odd BA Airbuses will be equipped.

We do not always land on both runways....One one of my last night shifts, which covered Monday morning to 0700, we only landed ONE on the departure runway before that time, and that was only because it came in too fast and was catching up the one ahead, so we had to switch it

What do you mean by 'staircase'? You think aircraft on approach keep levelling off, then going down a bit, then levelling off once more? Doesn't happen.

About power variations, I'd imagine that's because aircraft on approach fly generally 160kts to 4 miles, so to maintain a constant speed and descent rate while the aircraft configuration (gear, flaps etc) is changing, then I'd imagine some power changes are needed.

Gonzo

[headsethair]

Gonzo - thanks for the info. Healthy discussion! I am pro-airports and flying - but I am worried that the industry is doing itself no favours with its attitude to aircraft noise. How many nightflights are REALLY necessary ? There's one that comes in from Boston at around 5am - why couldn't that come in later? (Maybe because it has to get out of Boston before they shut ? I don't know).

The HK flights used to come in very early to LHR because of the curfew at the old HK airport.

If other international airports can have strictly observed curfews, why can't LHR?

MLS - I hear what you say. But please explain what appears to be an increasing habit of planes being given short finals and vectoring over areas not covered by long finals.

Dealternation - one quiet Monday doesn't a summer make! The general situation is that you make use of both runways from 06-0700 local on most weekdays. (And often you delaternate during the day - which isn't such a problem.)

Power alterations/staircases : please believe me. I see/hear it every day 7 miles out. I even know the names of the worst airlines - but I'm not going to state them here.

All I know, from actual experience under a busy approach - the plane that comes in quieter does more good for the industry than the one making the noise.

And, Gonzo and others, one simple question.

Is it possible to steepen the glideslope into LHR ? Would this put aircraft at a higher alt over London and reduce the noise complaints ?

I'm only asking. I've asked this question before and never got a direct answer.

I am wearing a steel helmet, just in case you're gonna start throwing things. ;)

[Gonzo]

Me? Throw things? You obviosuly don't know me........disconnecting your car's brake cable, that's more like me..... ;)

How many night flights are necessary? Don't know.

I realise that it was 'one quiet monday' as you put it. However, the reason why we usually use both runways from 0600-0700 is there are up to 20 a/c going round the holds waiting until the night jet ban to end at 0600, and all our flow control planning is based on zero inbound delay at 0700, becuase we'd all quickly go under if there's 20 mins inbound delay already existing at 0700. That'll quickly build past 30 mins, and then a/c start holding higher and higher and further out which has a pretty bad consequence for my radar colleagues, less airspace capacity, more delays for overflights, delays build up all over Europe. Not saying this is right, but it's what happens if we don't land both runways to 0700.

On last Monday, there was a Cathay Pacific freighter 747 that arrived at the Lambourne hold at 0510 local, but cannot land until 0600 and thus was circling LAM for 50 minutes.

This past year it has been quieter generally than usual due to Iraq and SARS, and what happens when it's quiet is that inbound a/c tend to be given a more direct routeing to a shorter final approach. When it gets busy, the 'length' of the final approach increases.
About 'staircases'....well, all I can say is that sitting in the tower 6 out of every ten days one can see if an a/c levels off when he's on the glideslope, when one is below or above it, and while I've sometimes seen a/c high on approach, I've only ever seen an a/c noticeably low once. That looked scarily low, but we found out later it was only 100ft below the glideslope at 3 miles (so 800ft rather than 900ft).

Making the glideslope steeper?

Well, I'm no expert, but a/c need special certification to be able to use London City's 5.5 degree (I think) slope, and many of the aircraft using LHR at the moment (777-300, MD11, 747 freighter) have problems flying at 160kts on a 3 degree slope, so not sure if it would be possible

Gonzo.

[radeng]

Slightly off topic, but who makes MLS now? Last I heard, the major US manufacturer (Wilcox) had stopped, the argument being that differential GPS was more accurate. Radeng can show his age by remembering back when the various MLS systems were being evaluated by ICAO, and the present one chosen. That was when radeng was an apprentice and I'm 4 years off retirement now.......I know NATO keep saying that they're going to equip lots of European airfields with it, but haven't heard in the industry much in the way of the orders having appeared. The NATO argument may be one to keep the (currently unused!) frequency allocation

[Hand Solo]

Headsethair you appear to speak with great authority on subjects which you have no in depth understanding of! Increase the glide slope angle? Well you might get it up to 3.5 degrees, with all the attendant problems of slowing down a slippery jet, but thats still only going to give you 500 feet more at ten miles. Hardly worth it I think.

Power Alterations? I challenge you to fly a constant power approach in any jet with strict ATC speed requirements and config changes. Staircases? Well you tell me who you think the worst offenders are and I 'll tell you how they score, based on BAAs monitoring data for continous descent approaches which is sitting on the desk in front of me.


far be it from me to offer critique on immensely well-trained and skilfull pilots..... Then don't! I don't think I'm in any position to criticise someone flying an R22 based on looking from the ground 7 miles from touchdown, why do you presume you know whats going on in the cockpit of other aircraft?

[headsethair]

Hand Solo: "Headsethair you appear to speak with great authority on subjects which you have no in depth understanding of!" Leaving aside the fact that my English teacher always told me not to end sentences with a preposition, I speak with no authority. That's why I asked the question - and you have given an answer. That's all I wanted.
If I have any "authority" it's the fact that I do live 7 miles out from the threshold and I do see and hear things which make me ask further questions. Gonzo has explained perfectly the reasons why there's been an increase in short finals, how MLS works (or will), and given his viewpoint on the type of approaches he has witnessed. Good healthy discussion.
The only reason I raised the issues is because the industry is in danger of losing its PR battle over noise. The HACAN case will now revert to the UK courts (where it should have stayed IMHO) and there will be another few years of negative publicity for aircraft noise.
Keeping long finals and steeper approaches (if at all possible) would seem to me obvious ways to reduce noise and complaints.
But I'm not an authority. But neither do I sit and read books of stats and believe them. I just happen to live beneath the approach to the world's busiest international airport - and I see far more approaches than any of you. Bedcause real life isn't a shift. And I mean that without a touch of sarcasm. Thanks for taking the time to help out.

[Curious Pax]

May be straying off topic slightly, but isn't the issue of transit pax preferring to go through Heathrow something of a vicious circle? As it stands at the moment LHR has the biggest variety of international destinations, mostly with 2 competing airlines, of almost any airport in the world. As such a fair proportion of transit pax don't have too many options but to go through Heathrow.

If more was done to try and encourage airlines to start routes from regional airports, this would in turn lead to more choices for transit pax other than LHR.

As a related aside, a question: Frankfurt is obviously Lufthansa's main hub, but they seem to be making a success of developing Munich for both short and long haul. Why does this work for them, but BA seem unable/unwilling to do the same with Manchester? This is not to discount the new European destinations BA have introduced from MAN, but they seem very reluctant to go further afield.

[Algy]

Radeng,

primarily it's Thales ATM.

[Hand Solo]

Headsethair - point taken, and I shall correct my grammar to wot is proper also(?). At 7 miles you are probably in the worst position to gauge a CDA from the ground. 7 miles is roughly 2100 feet on the ILS, which in normal operation is around the time I'll be doing 180 kts, selecting the second stage of flap (with associated ballooning and aerodynamic noise followed by stuffing the nose down to maintain the glide). This is immediately followed by lowering the gear - more drag, more power, more noise, more attitude changes. Shortly after this we'll be asked to reduce to 160kts to 4dme, which means power back to idle. From 7 miles out this may look like a staircase but the aircraft will be staying fairly close to the glideslope throughout, despite the attitude and config changes. I'm still interested to see who you perceive to be the worst offenders though. Is it by aircraft type or operator?

[headsethair]

Mr So Low:

"Is it by aircraft type or operator?" Now you're making me nervous. We're straying into legal territory.....
But I hear what you say about 7 miles out - a lot happening, hence the extra noise. It's hell out here. And hopefully (for the industry) those factors will reduce over the years. Let's just hope Airbus are working on that with their 600-seater.
Prepositions : I am the sort of person who hears the Currie Motors ad on the radio and shouts back. (They have a jingle which ends "Currie Motors - nice people to do business with.")
As a result, I've never been near them for a car.
However, I do understand why they have stuck with this massacre of English for 15 years. Somehow you can't easily sing "Currie Motors - nice people with whom to do business."

[BEagle]

Curious Pax - absolutely right! It's the same as Red Car Theory:

"Why do people buy red cars?"

"Because manufacturers only offer red, white, silver and 3 shades of $hit"

"But why don't they ask for other colours?"

"Because we can sell them a red one"

Which becomes:

"Why is there such demand for airport expansion in the south-east?"

"Because that's where the big airports are - the alternatives aren't up to it"

"But why don't the passengers ask to fly from other airports?"

"Because we can sell them seats from Thiefrow"

[t'aint natural]

I think there's rather too much crowing about this. Let sleeping dogs lie, if they can.
I live in Richmond, 4nm 27L EGLL, my name's not Tarquin and I don't object too much to aircraft noise or hold any brief for Nimbys, being a helicopter pilot and all.
But many of my neighbours are members of HACAN. They are not unreasonable fashion-victims who have suddenly realised there's an airport nearby, they are not knee-jerk environmentalists and above all, they are not Nimbys - there are more than a thousand aircraft a day in their back yard and they are prepared to co-exist with most of them.
But they do know they've been lied to constantly by BAA and BA, and they do have questions which I find hard to answer.
Permission for Terminal Four was granted on condition that there be no further expansion at Heathrow. I personally bought my house when there was a guaranteed ceiling of 260,000 flights a year at Heathrow. Now it's almost twice that. The Terminal Five inquiry opened with a promise from BAA that there would be no third runway at Heathrow. I don't know why they thought they had to say that.
When my neighbours look around the world and see major airports where aircraft disturb far fewer people yet have 6am curfews, they're entitled to ask why. When they ask why the UK's three major airports are virtually co-located in one corner of the island; why a Scotsman must travel for a day to get to an aircraft which then flies him back over his own home to get him to North America; why a third of the seats that are hauled over their heads - the equivalent of perhaps 400 aircraft a day - are empty, I find it hard to give a rock-solid answer. "Well, you see, we have a public duty to bail out the world's most incompetently-managed airline," doesn't quite have the right resonance. And don't even start on the fuel tax and VAT questions.
What would you say to them when they ask whether, when the government lawyer who led the task force that privatised British Airways wound up three years later as the airline's chief executive, there's not something deeply unhealthy about the government's relationship with the airline? "Yes," you might say, "in any other country it would be called corruption, but it's perfectly normal really." How do you parry questions about King and Burnside? "They're gone, and the appearance that their modus operandi remains is illusory."
You can't blame BAA and BA; they're private companies that must act solely in the interests of their shareholders, and they will carry on expanding Heathrow until they are stopped. They have fantastic lobbying and PR operations; BAA owns the Chamber of Commerce, BA has the slickest handling operation in the UK for journalists, ministers and civil servants. I know this from experience. You people who wonder what all those bodies in the Waterside are up to, worry no more - they're earning their corn. And the company can afford to hire the best advocates - no offence intended, FL.
But adhering to this fiction that the economy of the UK is somehow inextricably bound up with the further expansion of Heathrow is an insult to anyone's intelligence. And it's interesting to note that BAA was the most stalwart opponent of Terminal Five in the pre-privatisation days when it had a responsibility for the public interest. Nobody has that public interest brief now.
So don't crow too loudly. One of these days you might wake up someone in government.
What do I care? I'm moving to Cornwall.

[Idunno]

Headsethair I agree with Hand Solo's comment regarding your impression of 'staircase approaches'. Most of the regular Heathrow users are aware of the requirement to fly CDA (Continuous Descent Approaches) where possible, and indeed I expect most try to do so because (a) pilots try to cut down on noise safely when possible, and (b) flying a CDA approach is challenging and rewarding if well judged. In addition the controllers at LHR vector us in a manner which promotes the chances of a CDA approach.

CDA ststistics for individual airlines are published by the CAA / Airport Authority, and there is quite a sense of pride in my own company that we are usually in the top 3 statistically. British Midland are generally first (darn 'em...we'll knock them off the perch yet!).:p

[headsethair]

T'aint:

Fantastic posting. Should be given wider circulation in the industry - and beyond.

Your neighbours (and mine) aren't (a) stupid enough to be duped or (b) lazy enough to give up. And there are a lot of them - with a lot of influence.

[jumpseater]

t'aint has made a few very good points, as someone who used to deal with aviation noise/environmental issues I can't disagree with any of his post. The 'don't live near an airport if you don't like it lobby' are living in a fantasy world. Firstly I have never heard any one define 'near', and it of course does not take into account differing peoples tolerances to aircraft noise, or indeed variations in their socio-economic status. For example your single mum, kid under age 4, unemployed, council flat, living on the approach/departure path, try considering real people's situations, it's not so easy then.

Some thoughts:
Aircraft are NOT going to get significantly quieter in the forseeable future. The phase out of CH2 aircraft has occurred therefore the 'worst' offenders have gone. Engine design is NOT expected to bring significant improvements in terms of noise, as aircraft get bigger then the aerodynamic noise from the airframe increases, so the A380 designers will have their hands full. This effect is almost certainly magnified when Mr Solo gets 'dirty' :ooh: seven miles out.

For Mr Solo
Noise by aircraft or operator?, in my experience both can have significant varitions in the noise generated. Differing techniques and procedures using same type, similar loads, sector length by different operators can have very different noise readings. No I'm not going to name names, to prevent the usual Pprune whinge fest of my airline's better that yours, that we all know and love.

In general
The runway utilisation in the uk is in general terms 70% westerly and 30% easterly, hence when runway changes take place, the effect is magnified for those not normally used to departing or landing traffic, which ever is the most prevalent for them. The airports traffic volume obviously plays a significant part in this.

Finally think about the present Government we have, on election there was to be an Integrated Transport Policy 10 year plan. Also no new roads, improve public transport etc.... Six years on we have no ITP, we're building new roads, erm public transport..... so what price no fuel tax?. Don't forget it won't be a fuel tax because we couldn't do that unilaterally, but what about an environmental tax? different name, same effect. Still if you keep your head in the sand it makes it easier for the opposition to insert the hedgehog on a stick!

[FOXIBOY]

Just to say that i agree with you guys, if people dont want disturbing by night flights then move somewhere else and dont buy near an international airport,also in reply to maxy101 ,maybe the gov should look to manchester as they have trains/busses/freesuttle busses/and soon the metrolink tram system extended to cover the airport.

I live near gatwick and there are night flights all the time and i dont mind as they dont disturb me,i used to live in charlwood which is at the end of the runway and rented a house without double glazing and guess wot it didnt bother me even at night:ok:

I have to disagree with beagle re;- regional airports well manch it is more than upto it the only lo cost airlines using man are fr and hx on 2 routes however the list of scheds is long,i feel it is little bit of short sightedness from ba that they only have short haul and 1 daily jfk when other airlines from around the world use man with success and unlike lgw stn it has a second runway 3 terminals and a great deal of room for expansion but then agaian maybe the baa are a little envious of a private airport not ruled by them being able to make it work.

[Ringwayman]

Foxiboy, you seem to have forgotten bmibaby with their current 6 destinations which will grow to 9 for the winter timtetable, plus MyTravel Lite from November.

I'm sure the BA people know what they are doing expanding the short-haul market (when was the last time they opened 5 routes in 6 months at a regional?); it may be the mid to long term before additional long-haul comes along.

[FOXIBOY]

;) Yep only for them to drop long haul routes out of man as they did in the past, like then it seems they dont think much of the regions but prefer to concentrate on the south east,why should people from the norh of the coutry have to travel to the london airports to get to where they want to go.I would love to travel BA long haul from man however i would have to fly another airline to vast majority of places direct from good old manch i say bring back the days of lots of

OPPS I MEAN BA LONG HAUL FROM MANCH !

[Wonko The Sane]

Flying Lawyer says "HACAN claims noise problems caused by Heathrow's night flights are no longer confined to south west London. (It also claims residents as far away from LHR as Kensington & Chelsea are affected by the aircraft noise. I can vouch for the fact that is nonsense. )"

Wonko Says : I can assure you, the aircraft noise at 6am in Wapping (some 8 or 9 miles east of Kensington) is impossible to sleep through with the window open. This is all due to Heathrow-bound traffic - the City airport traffic, surprisingly, is relatively quiet here. It's not just distance that counts - peak hours in Staines (just a couple of miles from Heathrow) is much quieter. Wapping is just under a turning point onto Heathrow finals, which may be a factor - there's the distinctive noise of engine power adjustment going on.

Don't brush off Joe Londoner here - Heathrow noise affects peoples lives well outside of the Heathrow area.

[Ploz]

Hmm - Jumpseater and Wonko seem to me to be right on here. I can attest to th 6am inbound to LHR being a problem on the Isle of Dogs just a stones throw from Wonko. Again, I experience far less noise intrusion from LCY.

An interesting (and difficult to overcome) aspect of airframe noise from large aircraft is that engine noise (fan and exhaust) are most audible fore and aft of the aircraft, but airframe noise is more omnidirectional. Could make it very difficult to meet lateral noise limitations, even if the overall figure is not that bad.

Just a note on optimisation for noise - how do all the "Greens" campaigning for quieter airports live with the fact that the A380 will have to burn more fuel overall so that it can meet their "Green" requirements in and around an airport?

[747FOCAL]

Ploz,

Airframe noise is not audible to the human ear with the engines running. You might be able to pick it out with a phased array mic setup, but unless the airplane is a glider you won't hear it.

FYI- 747-400 is 101.3 dB flaps and gear down pure airframe noise

Ploz,

Airframe noise is not audible to the human ear with the engines running. You might be able to pick it out with a ohased array mic setup, but unless the airplane is a glider you won't hear it.

FYI- 747-400 is 101.3 dB flaps and gear down pure airframe noise

:ok:

[Ploz]

747Focal - can't dispute your figures, but given that weight will increase in newer, larger aircraft, they will need more undercarriage and more high lift devices - all sources of airframe noise. If the engine manufacturers can deliver their promissed 10dB (halving current levels) reduction in engine noise by 2010 then airframe noise will become a significant factor.

[747FOCAL]

Ploz,

Actually, the technology and understanding of airframe noise is a new arena for noise reduction. Airframe noise will go down as well as the engine source noise. I will guarantee you that engines will never get quiet enough to where your airframe noise drives your overall noise levels.

If you are anywhere near the noise game you should know that every aircraft in current production meets the 10 dB reduction already so the manufacturers will not have to do anything to meet Chapter 4. 737s that are 20 years old meet the Chapter 4 noise level requirements. Heck, your going to see 727s that meet Chapter 4.

Listen to me when I tell you that you will not see noticeable noise reduction in airport communities for 20 years. They may demonstrate some small reductions, but those reductions are not noticable to any human.

:ok:

[Point Seven]

Ploz

Noise from i/b to Heafrow ain't a problem on the Isle of Dogs. I know, I live there too. You can hear them, but that don't make it a problem. Try living in Hounslow, even Windsor on easterlies!!

The reason you get no hassle from LCY is twofold:

1/. they adhere to their noise restrictions far more rigidly.

2/. the inbounds only have lawnmowers for engines.;)

P7

[Ploz]

P7

Well it wakes me up! Probably because the first few in are coming off the bottom of the stack and are a touch lower than the average. I grew up around Lightnings and Vulcans, so I think I can remember what real noise is all about and this isn't anything in comparison.

Funny thing is that locals used to complain about noise from London City until someone pointed out that the area was probably quieter with an airport than when it was a working dock.

[747FOCAL]

It's sad to say it, but 911 probably did more to reduce aircraft noise in the community by sending so many older aircraft to storage than any technology or procedure in the past 15 years. :mad:

[PAXboy]

"Wonko Says : I can assure you, the aircraft noise at 6am in Wapping (some 8 or 9 miles east of Kensington) is impossible to sleep through with the window open."

A friend of mine lives in Rotherhithe, also under the turn in for westerly finals. She complains about the noise a lot. On the numerous occasions that I have slept there she will ask me in the morning if I was disturbed by the 05:00 / 06:00 arrivals? I never hear them and sleep through, she always gets woken by them. That is one of the greatest problems - each person hears noise and reacts to it - in a different way.

As to whether LHR will continue to grow? In years to come, I think that we will find we have already passed the balance point at which traffic is moving away to AMS/FRA faster than it is coming to us.

The issue of whether LHR should be a key national infrastructure is long past. It is but has not been recognised as such. BAA and BA and their chums in CAA and the various ministries will continue to arrange matters for their convenience - not ours. I know that all sounds bitter and twisted but after watching and using civil aviation in this country for 25 years as an adult - I can come to no other conclusion.

[Wonko The Sane]

Point 7 says : "Noise from i/b to Heafrow ain't a problem on the Isle of Dogs"

Wonko Says : In your opinion - which was perhaps the point I was making. Different people have different opinions and issues. When people have different opinions to yours, that doesn't necessarily make them wrong.

Ploz : "locals used to complain about noise from London City until someone pointed out ..."

Wonko says : There's also the fact that the local population / demographic has changed significantly in this region over the last 15 years - not sure how much that plays in the swing in opinion.

PAXBoy says : "On the numerous occasions that I have slept there she will ask me in the morning if I was disturbed by the 05:00 / 06:00 arrivals? I never hear them"

Wonko says : My experience too. Had lots of people stay here who are completely undisturbed by it. In general I'm not disturbed by it either, but if I wake up early in summer (windows open, etc), I can't get back to sleep because of it. By 7:00 the rest of the world is noisy too (plus I've got out of bed) so it's less noticeable.

It's funny - I'm trying not to offer up opinions here, but I will say this :

London City Airport is very local, yet it doesn't adversely impact my environment in a way that I notice daily and as someone who has been a regular euro-commuter, I've gained real benefits from having an efficient, useful airport within 10 minutes cab ride.

Heathrow is not really local (1hr+ cab ride outside of rush hour, similar times in public transport), it does affect (environmentally) my life (see prior postings), and if it wasn't for the fact that there are no real alternatives for travelling from London to USA/Canada, I'd avoid it like the plague - 'cos it's the worst run airport I've ever been to.

Isn't there a compromise somewhere ?

[jumpseater]

747
I'm not sure I agree with you re your point about a decrease in both airframe and engine source noise, my understanding is that both were likely to increase, if you can point me to a source of information to your viewpoint I would be very interested. As approach noise is monitored at a specific point for certification (for both departure and approach noise levels), they do not take into account operational variations as described by Hand Solo. They are also assuming a stabilised approach/departure on a 'standard' day. Interestingly I am not aware of any airport that as yet has a noise restriction scheme with penalties for breaches relating to ARRIVAL noise. If any Pruner knows of one, I would again be very interested to hear of it.

Airframe noise particularly flap deployment, does give significant changes in the noise levels achieved, having stood at various points along a normal 3 degree ILS from 10 miles out I can personally vouch for this. Another factor is the topography around the airport, if the ground rises away from the airport along the approach path, then disturbance can be noted from people quite a long way out (note rising ground not the case at LHR). PAXboy for example will be closer to approaching aircraft to LTN than he would be if he lived on the eastern side of the airport, however he only gets that 30% of the year.

747 is almost certainly correct in his final comment re airport community noise. Probably the biggest increase may come from MLS approaches. With an ILS you get a 'sausage machine' i.e 10 miles stabilised approach with a 3 degree descent profile. Hence you will get a linear noise contour along the approach path. Most crews I have spoken to in the past like to be fully stabilised at 5 miles, (ideally earlier), and I assume that would still be the case with an MLS approach. If this is the case then outside of 5 miles we might well see a greater variation and spread of track keeping, thus increasing the area of the noise contour, and the disturbance to local residents. However, if MLS allows an even later allignment than 5 miles, then the spread will be greater for both the noise contour and potential disturbance, which I can promise you will be interpreted as an increase in noise.

And finally for Ploz the tree huggers answer will be don't fly at times that require you to be stooging around at night/early hours of the morning. Oh and then you can open the fuel can of worms, tankering, taxes blah blah blah...... :uhoh:

Now then about this environmental consultancy fee.....:E

[Ploz]

This just in!

NEW LAW ON MANAGING AIRCRAFT NOISE

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pns//DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2003_0091

[747FOCAL]

jumpseater,

What I was saying is that our understanding of airframe source noise is advancing. We can reduce airframe source noise as well as reduce engine noise on future aircraft. If one is looking at the spectrum of an overall noise signature of any aircraft you can pick out components of the airframe, but the engine noise will always drive the certificated noise levels.

What you are hearing by standing at different points along the approach is the increase in thrust required as the flaps and the gear come down and increase drag. There is not one spot along the flight path(well maybe touchdown as the engines go to idle) where you will hear airframe noise that is louder than the engines.

and I do get paid daily for environmental consultency.


:cool:

[Point Seven]

jumpseater

The idea of MLS at Heafrow is not to allow these curved approaches that everyone talks about whenever MLS comes up, but to increase landing capacity during LVPs.

As the localiser sensitive area (LSA) is much smaller than that associated with ILS, previous landing aircraft are clear of the LSA quicker so you can reduce spacing required on approach (for both landing runway and TEAM-ing). The requirements for establishing outside ten miles on westerly ops will not change, as these are designed to reduce environmental impact, so the noise footprint should remain the same.

P7

[747FOCAL]

Point Seven,

That is a CDA or continuous decent approach that you are referring to. Are you saying that CDAs are impossible at Heathrow?




:)

[Gonzo]

Bear in mind re MLS that we're expecting only about 60 aircraft (BA Airbus fleet) to be so equipped by 2007.

[jumpseater]

747, I fully agree with your points re certification and the place that engine noise takes in that, unfortunately telling the 'locals' that usually results in 'character building' discussions! :uhoh: I'm still not fully convinced however on your point regarding airframe noise, I can clearly recall observed instances of flap deployment where the airframe noise certainly added significantly to the overall noise to the extent where the engines were nearly drowned out (chp 3 types however). At the time we had no monitor to measure this, and of course you had to be in the right place/right time to experience it.

P7 thanks for the clarification re MLS, so putting on swampy's hat MLS will increase noise levels (whilst staying within the noise contour), as the rate of landings will be increased during LVP's, from the current less frequent rate, also allowing that currently you probably 'lose' one or two due to fuel divs.
Right I'll get my rather smelly and unusually stained coat! :ok:

[Point Seven]

jumpseater

That, mate, I can't argur with. I was hoping you wouldn't see through my charade!:rolleyes:

747FOCAL

What I was referring to was the idea that approaches with MLS can be flown with a LATERAL curve. You don't have to intercept a centreline beam and follow it, you can fly a continual curve due to the higher precision of the MLS (certification pending of course). CDAs are possible at Heathrow and as much as possible these are what LL INT controllers are aiming for, however there are very many factors both within and outside of their control that sometimes mean not all approaches are of a continuous nature.

P7

[Shuttleworth]

Gonzo and Handsolo - just two quick questions about BA SOP's ;
(i) Does the requirement to accelerate at 1000AGL cause more noise?
Other operators climb to 1500ft with TO thrust then take climb power and often don't accelerate till 3000AGL thereby minimising noise footprint. BA's method seems a bit old - fashioned?
(ii) Do you think the airbus req't to drop the gear before 2000 creates unecessary noise at six or seven miles out?

[Hand Solo]

Don't know about number one, but I seem to remember somebody explaining the various ICAO noise abatement take off techniques on here some time ago and I think the BA SOP did comply with one of them.

As for number two, well you've got to put the gear down somewhere! I don't think you'd want to delay to below 2000 or you'll have fun reducing to 160 to 4. Lowering it further out is likely to lead to higher power settings as you drag the aircraft in at 180kts with the wheels down, so it may be a no win situation. Either way I often find I'm taking the gear anywhere between 2000 and 3000 feet because I like to be fair with the noise and I can't manage my energy very well.

[Gonzo]

Shuttleworth.....

No idea!

Don't work for BA!:ok:

At the moment in LVPs we use 6 mile spacing. The theory is that after MLS is in use, we'll keep landing ILS only a/c on the landing runway, and land the MLS equipped a/c on the departure runway at about six an hour (judging by the percentage of traffic so equipped). If we mixed ILS and MLS a/c on the same runway, we reckon we would use five miles, instead of six, in front of MLS a/c.

[Evening Star]

Made some comment in the similar thread on Jet Blast, saying that in my opinion a car in the street is more disruptive than a modern commercial aircraft flying overhead. Decided that my opinion was a wee bit subjective so asked one of my friends who is an acoustic scientist working as a specialist acoustic consultant. Some very interesting and relevant comments which I will try to report faithfully here.

He ducked fully answering my statement about the car and the aircraft. While I gather there is some basis for the statement, but understandably there are too many variables for a simple meaningful comparison.

Even in the most aerodynamically dirty condition, a landing, even if having to use some additional engine power while manoeuvring, aircraft will not generate as much noise as aircraft engines on take off. No great surprise there, except that the difference is quite significant and the actual noise measurement is not the complete assessment of noise disruption.

Complicating the process is something he called 'noise perception'. In other words, if somebody perceives something to be noisy, it will be regardless of the actual scientific assessment of the actual noise. Hence, Paxboy's friend hearing the landing aircraft, perceived as noisy, while Paxboy, with a more relaxed attitude, slept on. My friend was very scathing of the approach adopted by one of the scientific advisors to the Heathrow protestors. He did not go as far as saying it was bad science, but I understand that, extrapolating the methodology adopted, even if an aircraft were totally silent, it would still count as noisy! Talk about playing with loaded dice! Certainly it does beg a question about the validity of the complaints, or at least some of the complaints.

It also suggests that the government chose to follow good science instead of bowing to perceived political pressure. Think the last time that happened in the British Isles was when the Druids got planning permission for Stonehenge...

With regard to the buying a house under flight paths and complaining later, there was an interesting negligence case reported recently in the surveying journals. As part of the instructions to a valuer, a purchaser of a property in the Home Counties insisted that the valuer check for disruptive aircraft noise. The valuer reported no problems, so the purchaser went ahead only to find that the house was under a turning point for LGW (do not blame me if that is technically wrong, I am merely recounting the law report from memory!). The court found the valuer negligent and they had to pay compensation. Compensation culture or legitimate gripe?

[747FOCAL]

jumpseater,

Which airplane was it that you noticed the airframe noise and how high(approx) was he when he deployed the flaps? I am still inclined to think that you are confusing increased thrust for airframe noise.

We use a very sofisticated(some 250 mics) phased array to pic out various airframe and engine noise components.

I guess now that I think about it, that a NG 737 at flaps 40 there is some airframe in the EPNL.

:)

[Ploz]

747F

Thanks for your input on this thread/argument. I'm going to bow out having taken note of all your points and accept that in the current generation of aircraft, engine noise will always dominate. It seems to me that airframe noise can be kept to manageable proportions through good aerodynamic design and that as progress in engine noise becomes harder to realise, then manufacturers are looking to make a contribution to overall noise through tackling the airframe. Nevertheless, with heavier aircraft in the pipline, higher Cl on approach will always be required to keep appoach speeds manageble and the higher induced drag will lead to increased thrust and, incidently, increased airframe noise. It seems that the larger the aircraft, the noisier the approach is going to be.

Incidently, while living around military airfields, I often noticed significant airframe noise on approach especially from Phantoms and a peculiar phenomenon of high pitched whistling as very tight vortices interacted with the ground - typically a few seconds after the aircraft had passed over. Has this ever been seen (heard) with commercial aircraft on still days?

[jumpseater]

747
As I recall the type was either B757/767 or Airbus A300/310, certainly one of the big twins, it was only an aural impression if you follow, as at that time we didn't have our one and only B&K portable noise monitor. It would almost certainly have been around the 8-5 mile mark and I recall in the height band 1500-2500ft agl (measured using radar plots). I used to discretely visit the complaint location to get a feel for what the complainant was experiencing. How it would have shown on a scientific reading I don't know.

92220 :ok:
Departure noise historically has been the primary problem, but with the phase out of CH2 types, improvements in departure noise and increased environmental awareness arrival noise is very much an up and coming issue. In the UK a good number of the larger airports have noise penalty schemes where a departure may be fined for excessive noise. These fines are levied based on a particular point in the departure profile and is as I recall at the same point in terms of distance, for all the airports. When I departed the tree hugging field there was no 'standard measuring point' for arrival noise, but various trails were taking or due to take place. Hence we could not l;evy fines for a 'too noisy' arrival, always a bone of contention for a complainant.

Noise is indeed very subjective, and could be described as unwanted noise. An example to demonstrate this would be Fido the family dog, whilst dashing round the garden chasing the squealing kids, and yapping in delight, next door Mr Smith, (not a dog lover), may well be loading the over and under Purdy for when Fido next passes the gap in the fence! :uhoh: . Note Mr Smith is unkeen on dogs anyway, so his tolerance/subjectiveness to the noise is already lower, than it would were it just the kids messing about and making a noise. Think about the number of serious neighbour vs. neighbour disputes you read about that involve noise and theres part of the answer re subjectivity, and the potential extreme reaction to noise. The last thing an airport needs is a community feeling that aggrieved.

Re estate agents, I dont know the case but can see how the agent may have missed it, therefore it might not be their fault.
I always used to suggest when asked that the puchaser spend as much time as possible at the location at different times, so they could assess all impacts, not just aircraft. Also if the property fell inside the airdrome traffic zone then the answer was yes, you are likely to be overflown, because you are under the ATZ, a nice simple answer that covers all angles. Because the runway use in SE england is broadly 70% westerly and 30% easterly, in some locations there can be weeks or months when a property is not overflown, hence the perception can arise that they are not on the flightpath, when in fact they are!, always an entertaining discussion that one! :E

[747FOCAL]

Jumpseater,

When do you think arrivals will start getting penalized?

Something for anybody that cares....... I have seen plenty of data from tests that shows people would rather have a louder noise for a shorter time than a quieter noise for longer duration. The people generally would stomach a 3-4 dB increase in noise for the shorter duration before switching to liking the quieter levels. If you do not understand the dB scale 3-4 dB is substantial. Now having said that I have seen A380 projected approach speeds.........she will be moving roughly 20-25 kts slower than a 747 on approach.

:ok: