LHR Temporary Midhurst SIDs?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aren't all the holding stacks due to vanish with the introduction of "Point Merge"?
It seems odd to inflict the pain of nudging routes to avoid stacks when it will only be a short-term temporary gain until the other changes are made.
Is there a Masterplan vision of what the area will look like when LAMP is fully completed ? Or does it just develop piecemeal by growing like Topsy ?
It seems odd to inflict the pain of nudging routes to avoid stacks when it will only be a short-term temporary gain until the other changes are made.
Is there a Masterplan vision of what the area will look like when LAMP is fully completed ? Or does it just develop piecemeal by growing like Topsy ?
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not just about avoiding stacks it is also about reducing time intervals between departures on different SIDs.
Besides, if the stacks were abolished completely the point merge arcs for Heathrow would extend from Oxford to Petersfield and Hatfield to Tunbridge Wells!! LOL
Besides, if the stacks were abolished completely the point merge arcs for Heathrow would extend from Oxford to Petersfield and Hatfield to Tunbridge Wells!! LOL
Thread Starter
EoK , if part of this is to reduce time intervals on different SIDs why move MID and SAM tracks much closer together . I know I am an amateur but while the logic of the LHR argument holds up the practical implementation seems to negate what they claim they want to do.
Yes there is a local area (Surrey Heath) meeting on Friday and indeed another one on Monday (Ascot).
As for doing away with the stacks the NATS publication I read didn't mention LHR just LGW and LCY and the explanation of Point merge made it look exactly the same as todays system just putting the holds further out and adding a bit of a countryside tour between the hold and final approach vectoring .So I can see it making a difference when there are only a couple of aircraft that would otherwise be held but lets face it at LHR the holds are pretty busy all day .So at first glance it looks like a lot of window dressing to me
PB
Yes there is a local area (Surrey Heath) meeting on Friday and indeed another one on Monday (Ascot).
As for doing away with the stacks the NATS publication I read didn't mention LHR just LGW and LCY and the explanation of Point merge made it look exactly the same as todays system just putting the holds further out and adding a bit of a countryside tour between the hold and final approach vectoring .So I can see it making a difference when there are only a couple of aircraft that would otherwise be held but lets face it at LHR the holds are pretty busy all day .So at first glance it looks like a lot of window dressing to me
PB
EoK , if part of this is to reduce time intervals on different SIDs why move MID and SAM tracks much closer together . I know I am an amateur but while the logic of the LHR argument holds up the practical implementation seems to negate what they claim they want to do.
"This SID Trial package introduces six westerly SIDs, with the intention of investigating reducing the angle of divergence between RNAV1 SID tracks for one minute departure intervals. Currently a one minute departure interval would require an angle between SID tracks of 45° or more, however it is hoped that data gathered by this trial may lead to a reduction of the angle to between 10° and 30°"
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wales
Age: 44
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A blog entry from John Stewart, chair of HACAN, the main aircraft anti noise lobby group.
Flight Paths Matter: there is a chance we can get them right
Posted on October 5, 2014
5/10/14
by John Stewart
Recent events have illustrated how much flight paths matter. As Mark Hookham put it in today’s Sunday Times “low-flying aeroplanes are causing uproar in affluent commuter towns and idyllic villages across Britain as airports test new flight paths” – Suburbia in revolt at new f light paths
Unless you are a Harmondsworth resident whose home is threatened by a third runway or an Indian farmer whose land is taken for a new airport, flight paths are what is likely to matter most to you. If planes could land and take off perpendicularly most local objections would fade away.
Flight paths are the motorways of the sky. Building new ones or doubling the traffic on existing ones will always bring a flood of complaints. It happened in Ascot and Teddington in recent months. Eighteen years ago it happened in Brixton, Stockwell and Clapham when landing procedures were tightened up. Aviation Minister Glenda Jackson told the House of Commons (28/10/97): “when the airport is busy, which is for much of the day, aircraft will join the ILS [the final descent path] further east over Battersea, Brixton or Lewisham.” Ms Jackson, the least sympathetic of recent aviation ministers, refused to meet with residents.
One resident wrote at the time: “I’ve lived in Clapham North at the same address for almost 20 years. Until 3 years ago one hardly noticed the planes, apart from Concorde, of course. Then in summer ’95, as if someone somewhere had flicked a switch, the occasional drone became a remorseless whine. It was like an aerial motorway, open from early morning till at least mid-evening.”
And flight paths are going to change again. This time driven by the new computer technology which enables planes to be guided more precisely when landing and taking off. The industry believes this will allow it to make more efficient use of airspace, thus saving on fuel, cutting emissions and reducing delays.
The American airports have gone for the easy option and concentrated flights on a very few number of routes. This has resulted in big protests in places like Chicago: Noise Complaints About O'Hare Skyrocket | AviationPros.com London City Airport, to its shame, is proposing to do the same thing: CAMPAIGNERS CALL ON CAA TO SUSPEND CONSULTATION ON CITY AIRPORT FLIGHT PATHS | HACAN East
I believe concentration is indefensible in built-up areas. It is asking the chosen communities to bear all the pain. And, whenever surveys are done, they show that people prefer the flight paths to be shared, so that everybody gets a break – some respite – from the noise. That doesn’t mean piling the pressure on Ascot so that other areas can get some relief. What it does mean is finding a balance so that the fewest number people possible are truly disturbed by the noise.
I would argue the current situation across huge swathes of London and the Home Counties is untenable and change can only be a good thing. 40 planes an hour an overfly the Oval Cricket Ground or Clapham Common. This video of Vauxhall, 17 miles from Heathrow, gives a flavour of the disturbance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXf8o_khz8s. A report commissioned by HACAN from the consultants Bureau Veritas found that in Ruskin Park in Camberwell, almost 20 miles from the airport, “aircraft noise dominates the local environment”. And many under the take-off flight paths are experiencing a volume and concentraion of planes they never imagined possible twenty years ago.
Heathrow estimates that, if they get it right, most communities could get relief from the noise 50% or even 75% of the time. In an attempt to get an answer which works both for the industry and for as many residents as possible, Heathrow is doing more pre-planning and conducting more experiments than any other airport in the world before it puts its final proposal out to public consultation.
The devil will be in the detail and there will be areas where ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ – maybe parts of West London which enjoy runway alternation. And real care should be taken to avoid the very few plane-free ‘oases’ which still exist. But there is a fighting chance of getting it right and banishing the dark era Glenda Jackson helped usher in nearly 20 years ago.
Ms Jackson is standing down at the next General Election.
Flight Paths Matter: there is a chance we can get them right
Posted on October 5, 2014
5/10/14
by John Stewart
Recent events have illustrated how much flight paths matter. As Mark Hookham put it in today’s Sunday Times “low-flying aeroplanes are causing uproar in affluent commuter towns and idyllic villages across Britain as airports test new flight paths” – Suburbia in revolt at new f light paths
Unless you are a Harmondsworth resident whose home is threatened by a third runway or an Indian farmer whose land is taken for a new airport, flight paths are what is likely to matter most to you. If planes could land and take off perpendicularly most local objections would fade away.
Flight paths are the motorways of the sky. Building new ones or doubling the traffic on existing ones will always bring a flood of complaints. It happened in Ascot and Teddington in recent months. Eighteen years ago it happened in Brixton, Stockwell and Clapham when landing procedures were tightened up. Aviation Minister Glenda Jackson told the House of Commons (28/10/97): “when the airport is busy, which is for much of the day, aircraft will join the ILS [the final descent path] further east over Battersea, Brixton or Lewisham.” Ms Jackson, the least sympathetic of recent aviation ministers, refused to meet with residents.
One resident wrote at the time: “I’ve lived in Clapham North at the same address for almost 20 years. Until 3 years ago one hardly noticed the planes, apart from Concorde, of course. Then in summer ’95, as if someone somewhere had flicked a switch, the occasional drone became a remorseless whine. It was like an aerial motorway, open from early morning till at least mid-evening.”
And flight paths are going to change again. This time driven by the new computer technology which enables planes to be guided more precisely when landing and taking off. The industry believes this will allow it to make more efficient use of airspace, thus saving on fuel, cutting emissions and reducing delays.
The American airports have gone for the easy option and concentrated flights on a very few number of routes. This has resulted in big protests in places like Chicago: Noise Complaints About O'Hare Skyrocket | AviationPros.com London City Airport, to its shame, is proposing to do the same thing: CAMPAIGNERS CALL ON CAA TO SUSPEND CONSULTATION ON CITY AIRPORT FLIGHT PATHS | HACAN East
I believe concentration is indefensible in built-up areas. It is asking the chosen communities to bear all the pain. And, whenever surveys are done, they show that people prefer the flight paths to be shared, so that everybody gets a break – some respite – from the noise. That doesn’t mean piling the pressure on Ascot so that other areas can get some relief. What it does mean is finding a balance so that the fewest number people possible are truly disturbed by the noise.
I would argue the current situation across huge swathes of London and the Home Counties is untenable and change can only be a good thing. 40 planes an hour an overfly the Oval Cricket Ground or Clapham Common. This video of Vauxhall, 17 miles from Heathrow, gives a flavour of the disturbance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXf8o_khz8s. A report commissioned by HACAN from the consultants Bureau Veritas found that in Ruskin Park in Camberwell, almost 20 miles from the airport, “aircraft noise dominates the local environment”. And many under the take-off flight paths are experiencing a volume and concentraion of planes they never imagined possible twenty years ago.
Heathrow estimates that, if they get it right, most communities could get relief from the noise 50% or even 75% of the time. In an attempt to get an answer which works both for the industry and for as many residents as possible, Heathrow is doing more pre-planning and conducting more experiments than any other airport in the world before it puts its final proposal out to public consultation.
The devil will be in the detail and there will be areas where ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ – maybe parts of West London which enjoy runway alternation. And real care should be taken to avoid the very few plane-free ‘oases’ which still exist. But there is a fighting chance of getting it right and banishing the dark era Glenda Jackson helped usher in nearly 20 years ago.
Ms Jackson is standing down at the next General Election.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: T.C.
Age: 56
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I stand by my original statement whiners who bought a house near a major international airport.
It's not difficult to work out where Heathrow is read the signposts look at a map before you buy a house, flight paths can and should be changed to ensure the airport runs efficiently.
Think, why is the house such a good price, before you buy.
It's not difficult to work out where Heathrow is read the signposts look at a map before you buy a house, flight paths can and should be changed to ensure the airport runs efficiently.
Think, why is the house such a good price, before you buy.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: etha
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The current system is no longer the best system and needs changing, there will always be gainers and losers. And it is not just about LHR departures, there are future projects being worked on for these routes (or similar) being passed to allow other changes further down the line. There is a lot of great information in the posts above, sad to see those requesting this information brushing some of it off thinking "that won't happen" in their opinion, get ready for a shock or two.
Thread Starter
Mr N , as I said before the people in the effected areas know all about LHR, many live in these areas because of the proximity to the airport , many work there and many more fly from there. it is not noise per se but a seemingly random change that causes some inconvenience.
Mr Z , If you think there were ever low house prices in these affected areas think again-one of the most expensive areas on England outside a few London post codes. That of course also means the people who live there have the money and knowledge to fight their corner pretty hard and effectively. Google 'Camberley Mosque' if you don't believe me
And where on earth among western democracies does your idea that a major airport , railway factory etc etc should be allowed to run purely to suit its own objectives without any regard at all for environmental impact. That doesn't and should never happen. There are plenty of options about how flights can be routed using new technology and all it needs is a bit of thought and discussion to ensure majority of the traffic is kept over less or uninhabited areas in the region.
Mr Z , If you think there were ever low house prices in these affected areas think again-one of the most expensive areas on England outside a few London post codes. That of course also means the people who live there have the money and knowledge to fight their corner pretty hard and effectively. Google 'Camberley Mosque' if you don't believe me
And where on earth among western democracies does your idea that a major airport , railway factory etc etc should be allowed to run purely to suit its own objectives without any regard at all for environmental impact. That doesn't and should never happen. There are plenty of options about how flights can be routed using new technology and all it needs is a bit of thought and discussion to ensure majority of the traffic is kept over less or uninhabited areas in the region.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: T.C.
Age: 56
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr PB, The last time I looked Heathrow was surrounded by built up areas, to try and avoid them would be impossible.
I don't know if you have noticed but there is a another fairly large airport to the south of a heathrow, also pumping out planes at 1 minute intervals.
How do you propose to avoid all major towns and all the other aircraft with your proposed flight paths?
However as you hinted, if the planes flew over the poor areas nobody would bother complaining.
My statement still stands, your a whiner who bought a house near a major international airport.
I don't know if you have noticed but there is a another fairly large airport to the south of a heathrow, also pumping out planes at 1 minute intervals.
How do you propose to avoid all major towns and all the other aircraft with your proposed flight paths?
However as you hinted, if the planes flew over the poor areas nobody would bother complaining.
My statement still stands, your a whiner who bought a house near a major international airport.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PB,
At first sight it looks illogical to try and reduce the time interval between take-offs by putting routes closer together. However, as someone has already mentioned, the increased accuracy of PBN means that route divergence for a 1 minute time interval could be cut from 45 degrees to around 20 degrees. The trials are collecting data to try and establish if this can be safely achieved.
If these trial routes are implemented, it would be possible when taking off from 27L/27R to go from 3 departures in 4 minutes with a combination MID followed by CPT followed by SAM to potentially 3 departures in 2 minutes. That is where the payback is for Heathrow.
From the point of view of pilots and controllers these routes are probably deliverable with appropriate safeguards. The only question that has to be answered - is the political pain worth the gain?
At first sight it looks illogical to try and reduce the time interval between take-offs by putting routes closer together. However, as someone has already mentioned, the increased accuracy of PBN means that route divergence for a 1 minute time interval could be cut from 45 degrees to around 20 degrees. The trials are collecting data to try and establish if this can be safely achieved.
If these trial routes are implemented, it would be possible when taking off from 27L/27R to go from 3 departures in 4 minutes with a combination MID followed by CPT followed by SAM to potentially 3 departures in 2 minutes. That is where the payback is for Heathrow.
From the point of view of pilots and controllers these routes are probably deliverable with appropriate safeguards. The only question that has to be answered - is the political pain worth the gain?
Thread Starter
Dear Mr Nimmer
I was born and grew up 400m south of LHR and lived their for 25 years . Iwas a plane spotter in my early teens. My father , father in law and mother in law worked at LHR. My wife worked at LHR .I have lived close to LHR all my life and like aircraft. Noise does not bother me in the least as nothing in the air today comes close to a VC10, &)& or anything else I grew up with so I think you jumped to ever so slightly the wrong conclusion. I also do not recall making any personal attacks on you although I did suggest you checked your facts alittle more and had a little bit of understanding for peoples concerns
Have you ever looked at a map of the LHR area -it is not built up at all except to the east -west of LHR is Stanwell Moor Staines common Runnymede , Chobham Common Burnham Beeches Windsor Great park , Bagshot ranges, Broadmoor etc etc , for southern England it is one of the least populated areas that there is.
My remark about the residents of the area was that people have the knowledge to argue their case, many being airport workers anyway.
Also with tracks being the same for 20 odd years people have a reasonable expectation that noise should not be suddenly thrust upon them. HAL have claimed that this trial is for resiliency not movement increase and if they genuinely have a point then it need only apply to the busy times of the day- no need to use it at all after 7 30 pm when fights on the MID route drop off radically .
I am aware that there is an element of interaction with Gatwick partially because on a clear day I can see the Gatwick inbounds, LHR outbounds and inbounds to Ockham plus a whole lot of other stuff in the sky above me soI know airspace is congested.
I have no personal axe to grind merely having been asked to help out some who are concerned and affected by the change (it has no effect on me at all where I live).
I do not understand how bringing the SAMPTON and MID tracks much closer together to the point where they are almost on the same track on leaving LHR can increase departure rates or resiliency and that there are many better ways of achieving the stated objectives by using a combination of improved navigation performance with good judgement and flexibility and neither do many other people I have spoken to in the real world and on here
Anyways I think we have all beaten the issue to death on here for now. So thanks to all for comments on the matter and that includes those who feel that LHR should expand as it wishes with no regard for anyone at all.
PB
I was born and grew up 400m south of LHR and lived their for 25 years . Iwas a plane spotter in my early teens. My father , father in law and mother in law worked at LHR. My wife worked at LHR .I have lived close to LHR all my life and like aircraft. Noise does not bother me in the least as nothing in the air today comes close to a VC10, &)& or anything else I grew up with so I think you jumped to ever so slightly the wrong conclusion. I also do not recall making any personal attacks on you although I did suggest you checked your facts alittle more and had a little bit of understanding for peoples concerns
Have you ever looked at a map of the LHR area -it is not built up at all except to the east -west of LHR is Stanwell Moor Staines common Runnymede , Chobham Common Burnham Beeches Windsor Great park , Bagshot ranges, Broadmoor etc etc , for southern England it is one of the least populated areas that there is.
My remark about the residents of the area was that people have the knowledge to argue their case, many being airport workers anyway.
Also with tracks being the same for 20 odd years people have a reasonable expectation that noise should not be suddenly thrust upon them. HAL have claimed that this trial is for resiliency not movement increase and if they genuinely have a point then it need only apply to the busy times of the day- no need to use it at all after 7 30 pm when fights on the MID route drop off radically .
I am aware that there is an element of interaction with Gatwick partially because on a clear day I can see the Gatwick inbounds, LHR outbounds and inbounds to Ockham plus a whole lot of other stuff in the sky above me soI know airspace is congested.
I have no personal axe to grind merely having been asked to help out some who are concerned and affected by the change (it has no effect on me at all where I live).
I do not understand how bringing the SAMPTON and MID tracks much closer together to the point where they are almost on the same track on leaving LHR can increase departure rates or resiliency and that there are many better ways of achieving the stated objectives by using a combination of improved navigation performance with good judgement and flexibility and neither do many other people I have spoken to in the real world and on here
Anyways I think we have all beaten the issue to death on here for now. So thanks to all for comments on the matter and that includes those who feel that LHR should expand as it wishes with no regard for anyone at all.
PB
Also with tracks being the same for 20 odd years
To quote from one of Heathrow's factsheets:
"NPRs [Noise Preferential Routes] were set by the Department for Transport (DfT) in the 1960s and were designed to avoid overflight of builtup areas where possible. They lead from the takeoff runway to the main UK air traffic routes, and form the first part of the Standard Instrument Departure Routes (SIDs). The routes have not been altered since they were established in order to give people the predictablity of knowing where noise from departing planes will be heard. Their location remains the responsibility of the Government. As an airport operator, BAA [sic] has no authority to change them. Any significant changes to the NPRs would be subject to public consultation by the Government."
http://www.heathrowairport.com/stati...partures11.pdf
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: etha
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not understand how bringing the SAMPTON and MID tracks much closer together to the point where they are almost on the same track on leaving LHR can increase departure rates or resiliency and that there are many better ways of achieving the stated objectives by using a combination of improved navigation performance with good judgement and flexibility and neither do many other people I have spoken to in the real world and on here
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: T.C.
Age: 56
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Mr PB,
You are basically a plane spotter, who has a little bit of knowledge, but is failing to listen to those who have the full picture.
Yet the various noise groups in the area are using you as an expert??
That is dangerous.
Nimmer
You are basically a plane spotter, who has a little bit of knowledge, but is failing to listen to those who have the full picture.
Yet the various noise groups in the area are using you as an expert??
That is dangerous.
Nimmer
Thread Starter
Nimmer
You really are one for name calling-yes I was a plane spotter from 1965 -1967 actually.
I don't for a moment doubt that there are benefits to what is being proposed or something like it , but as another poster has pointed out if you change something that's been pretty much the same for 40 years there will be issues with some people and they are entitled to react a bit.
I do not doubt that people who are expert on the matter have looked at this in detail but by just launching into it without any thought they have caused people concerns, one example being why not only use the new method when LHR is busy as opposed to slavishly sticky by it all day. Also I think all western airports make a serious effort most of the time to take into account the concerns of those who live in areas affected by them-you seem to think that just to get a few percent increase in LHR movements it is ok to completely ignore valid concerns and questions and so as you have been happy to stereotype me, spotter, whiner etc could I ask why your stake in this game is please. And I am not acting as an expert for anyone , I was just asked to help gather some information on it, and a lot of current and ex lhr and airline people have been very helpful on that point, and I was asked to do that because I have a little bit of knowledge and can probably ask the questions more easily.
I am a regular PPrune viewer and it amazes me that people often are very aggressive and moderately insulting to all sorts of people on here which is a sad commentary on todays world . yet ironically people who really do know what they are talking about are often very generous with helpful comments or references to detailed documents. I am not saying this negative attribute applies to you , and indeed I share your view that people who live near an airport that's been around for 60 years should generally not complain but that doesn't mean they have no right to express the occasional concern.
PB
You really are one for name calling-yes I was a plane spotter from 1965 -1967 actually.
I don't for a moment doubt that there are benefits to what is being proposed or something like it , but as another poster has pointed out if you change something that's been pretty much the same for 40 years there will be issues with some people and they are entitled to react a bit.
I do not doubt that people who are expert on the matter have looked at this in detail but by just launching into it without any thought they have caused people concerns, one example being why not only use the new method when LHR is busy as opposed to slavishly sticky by it all day. Also I think all western airports make a serious effort most of the time to take into account the concerns of those who live in areas affected by them-you seem to think that just to get a few percent increase in LHR movements it is ok to completely ignore valid concerns and questions and so as you have been happy to stereotype me, spotter, whiner etc could I ask why your stake in this game is please. And I am not acting as an expert for anyone , I was just asked to help gather some information on it, and a lot of current and ex lhr and airline people have been very helpful on that point, and I was asked to do that because I have a little bit of knowledge and can probably ask the questions more easily.
I am a regular PPrune viewer and it amazes me that people often are very aggressive and moderately insulting to all sorts of people on here which is a sad commentary on todays world . yet ironically people who really do know what they are talking about are often very generous with helpful comments or references to detailed documents. I am not saying this negative attribute applies to you , and indeed I share your view that people who live near an airport that's been around for 60 years should generally not complain but that doesn't mean they have no right to express the occasional concern.
PB
one example being why not only use the new method when LHR is busy as opposed to slavishly sticky by it all day
Restricting the RNAV departures to certain times of day would have required a longer duration to gather the same amount of evidence.
With hindsight, that might have been a good subject for a consultation before the trial was designed.