Gatwick arrivals
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: farfaraway
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folk these days don't know the meaning of aircraft noise. In mah day we had Tridents BAC111 B727 not to mention Coronados AND we lived in a shoe box ot t'end of t'runway: noise? you don't know meaning of t'word
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: 285ft agl
Age: 35
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@interpreter
"Noise has taken second place or even third place to CO2 emissions but it is more likely in the future to be heading for number one position."
If that was a case then why are there restrictions when an aircraft can intercept the ILS at certain airports? Intercepting at say 10DME rather than 5DME due to noise restrictions surely adds tracks miles thus extra emissions?
"Noise has taken second place or even third place to CO2 emissions but it is more likely in the future to be heading for number one position."
If that was a case then why are there restrictions when an aircraft can intercept the ILS at certain airports? Intercepting at say 10DME rather than 5DME due to noise restrictions surely adds tracks miles thus extra emissions?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gatwick ATC
ZOOMER
Been there; done that, am old stick and yoker.
The principle feeling on noise is that those that should be exposed to noise are those who have purchased properties very close to the airport OR under the extended centreline in each direction. Those property prices would have reflected the noise issue.
However, NATS and GAL are now directing both arrivals and departures over new flight paths or a variation on flight paths that introduce serious noise to people who have purchased properties well away from the airport for peace and quiet or as the scientists call it, tranquility. The base db at these locations is about 35-42 db and when the aircraft pass over this can rise as high as 85 db - yes 85 db (I have a calibrated noise monitor). Around Heathrow for example the base db is frequently a constant 65db and on the approach to LHR from the east it is about 65 even 15 miles from the threshold.
It is perfectly possible to plan CDAs that keep noise to the minimum and departures and arrivals that stay on or arrive at the Gatwick extended centre line until at least 7000 feet on take off and above 7000 on arrivals; well below LHR traffic. Arrival merge points should ALL be located over the Channel.
I am sure I do not have to remind you that noise amplitude measured in db is a logarithmic scale. Thus the amplitude of 90db is 10,000 times the amplitude of 30db. It can be horrendous.
As far as autonomous navigation is concerned I have a friend who is even now working on the system for the next range of aircraft.
Been there; done that, am old stick and yoker.
The principle feeling on noise is that those that should be exposed to noise are those who have purchased properties very close to the airport OR under the extended centreline in each direction. Those property prices would have reflected the noise issue.
However, NATS and GAL are now directing both arrivals and departures over new flight paths or a variation on flight paths that introduce serious noise to people who have purchased properties well away from the airport for peace and quiet or as the scientists call it, tranquility. The base db at these locations is about 35-42 db and when the aircraft pass over this can rise as high as 85 db - yes 85 db (I have a calibrated noise monitor). Around Heathrow for example the base db is frequently a constant 65db and on the approach to LHR from the east it is about 65 even 15 miles from the threshold.
It is perfectly possible to plan CDAs that keep noise to the minimum and departures and arrivals that stay on or arrive at the Gatwick extended centre line until at least 7000 feet on take off and above 7000 on arrivals; well below LHR traffic. Arrival merge points should ALL be located over the Channel.
I am sure I do not have to remind you that noise amplitude measured in db is a logarithmic scale. Thus the amplitude of 90db is 10,000 times the amplitude of 30db. It can be horrendous.
As far as autonomous navigation is concerned I have a friend who is even now working on the system for the next range of aircraft.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: T.C.
Age: 56
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interpreter you talk total crap.
So all aircraft depart straight ahead to 7000ft, how does this fit in with GAL's drive for 55 movements an hour, as departures will need to be separated by 2 minutes. How do the Heathrow departures fit in around the Gatwick departures.
Arrivals all come straight in from the East, over the sea, what happens on Runway 08 then??.
Please, please please stop writing rubbish, remove yourself from your soapbox and visit Swanwick.
So all aircraft depart straight ahead to 7000ft, how does this fit in with GAL's drive for 55 movements an hour, as departures will need to be separated by 2 minutes. How do the Heathrow departures fit in around the Gatwick departures.
Arrivals all come straight in from the East, over the sea, what happens on Runway 08 then??.
Please, please please stop writing rubbish, remove yourself from your soapbox and visit Swanwick.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's in the national economic interest of the 60 million+ people of the UK population comes first, before noise to a small minority of near by residents. The greater good of LGW and other London airports is more important and outweighs your property price, lifestyle or tranquility. 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ladies and gents it should be possible to have a discussion on PPRUNE without resorting to abuse of other posters.
Apart from the ADNID trial and the allegedly PBN design compliant departures from RWY26, the only impact of PBN is to make aircraft fly departure routes that correspond to lines along the ground they should have flown for many years.
As far as the 26 LAM/DVR SID is concerned, when I was a TMA controller some pilots told me the conventional SID was not flyable. I have lost count of the number of flights that overturned to the NW and had to head SE to regain the DET radial. If you look at the track plots of the PBN 08 SAM/KENET SIDs, presumably designed using the same criteria, they seem well within the NPR swathe but the 26 departures are not. Something is obviously wrong somewhere. Could it be the 26 LAM/DVR NPR has always been misaligned and this has only been exposed by the introduction of PBN?
Concerning the arrivals for 26, there has never been a fixed route nor has any warranty been given about where aircraft will be positioned on base leg/finals. Aircraft have been vectored in a radar manoeuvring area as a matter of routine practice for decades. The track plots show that most of the affected area was already overflown by Gatwick arrivals but concentration has increased significantly. Frankly I don't see how the benefit of avoiding some missed approaches that account for a tiny percentage of arrivals is worth Gatwick starting a war with its neighbours.
Apart from the ADNID trial and the allegedly PBN design compliant departures from RWY26, the only impact of PBN is to make aircraft fly departure routes that correspond to lines along the ground they should have flown for many years.
As far as the 26 LAM/DVR SID is concerned, when I was a TMA controller some pilots told me the conventional SID was not flyable. I have lost count of the number of flights that overturned to the NW and had to head SE to regain the DET radial. If you look at the track plots of the PBN 08 SAM/KENET SIDs, presumably designed using the same criteria, they seem well within the NPR swathe but the 26 departures are not. Something is obviously wrong somewhere. Could it be the 26 LAM/DVR NPR has always been misaligned and this has only been exposed by the introduction of PBN?
Concerning the arrivals for 26, there has never been a fixed route nor has any warranty been given about where aircraft will be positioned on base leg/finals. Aircraft have been vectored in a radar manoeuvring area as a matter of routine practice for decades. The track plots show that most of the affected area was already overflown by Gatwick arrivals but concentration has increased significantly. Frankly I don't see how the benefit of avoiding some missed approaches that account for a tiny percentage of arrivals is worth Gatwick starting a war with its neighbours.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: England
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft have got land somehow and as far as I'm concerned if the safest and most efficient way is over my house, then so be it.
I quite enjoy watching the various arrival and departure routes that go near me.
I quite enjoy watching the various arrival and departure routes that go near me.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wales
Age: 44
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wont somebody think of the children! 
I follow this quite closely and the hypocrisy of these people is unbelievable.
I saw a lady complaining via Twitter last night and on close inspection her Twitter page cover photo was a photograph of her on a very tropical looking beach somewhere.
Was she thinking of the noise her aircraft was making as it took her on holiday?
I follow this quite closely and the hypocrisy of these people is unbelievable.
I saw a lady complaining via Twitter last night and on close inspection her Twitter page cover photo was a photograph of her on a very tropical looking beach somewhere.
Was she thinking of the noise her aircraft was making as it took her on holiday?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gatwick ATC
NIMMER. clearly I have touched a sensitive point with you. Gatwick will just have to handle what it can. As a totally foreign owned tax avoidance company operating the so called "Eurobond scandal" it gets no sympathy from me or most of West Sussex, Kent and East Sussex not to mention the North Weald area.
They will just have to knuckle down and have as many departures as they can safely operate off a single runway and they cannot, as a commercial enterprise, inflict their misery as they wish on the general public.
Returning to the matter of dispersal and 7000ft somebody, who shall be nameless, at Swanwick has confirmed that this is perfectly possible if required.
The fact is that Gatwick is just in the wrong place and permanently trying to operate beneath the arriving and departing aircraft of Heathrow. Now that Birmingham are wishing to increase their activity as well as Luton and Stansted Gatwick is becoming an anomaly in the major airport league. It will remain a cheap flight holiday destination airport and that is fine. With business travel down by some 23% and the CBI in London saying Heathrow is where they want expansion, creating more jobs and expanding business Gatwick is likely to settle down to a successful, largely holidaymaker airport.
They will just have to knuckle down and have as many departures as they can safely operate off a single runway and they cannot, as a commercial enterprise, inflict their misery as they wish on the general public.
Returning to the matter of dispersal and 7000ft somebody, who shall be nameless, at Swanwick has confirmed that this is perfectly possible if required.
The fact is that Gatwick is just in the wrong place and permanently trying to operate beneath the arriving and departing aircraft of Heathrow. Now that Birmingham are wishing to increase their activity as well as Luton and Stansted Gatwick is becoming an anomaly in the major airport league. It will remain a cheap flight holiday destination airport and that is fine. With business travel down by some 23% and the CBI in London saying Heathrow is where they want expansion, creating more jobs and expanding business Gatwick is likely to settle down to a successful, largely holidaymaker airport.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's an idea......
Let's build a second runway at EGKK.
AND, start immediately on the construction of a third runway at EGLL.....To replace all those they once had........Which now have 'terminals' built on them.......Which are causing 'runway-congestion'.
Oh, and while we're on a roll........Build a second runway at EGSS.
Then, between the 3 airports, London will have the same number of runways as EHAM has now.
It's not rocket-science.
Let's build a second runway at EGKK.
AND, start immediately on the construction of a third runway at EGLL.....To replace all those they once had........Which now have 'terminals' built on them.......Which are causing 'runway-congestion'.
Oh, and while we're on a roll........Build a second runway at EGSS.
Then, between the 3 airports, London will have the same number of runways as EHAM has now.
It's not rocket-science.
Last edited by ZOOKER; 24th Apr 2015 at 16:15.
AND, start immediately on the construction of a third runway at EGLL.....To replace all those they once had........Which now have 'terminals' built on them.......Which are causing 'runway-congestion'.
Just curious.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
interpreter,
Quite a few points highlight your lack of knowledge and indicate some sort of grudge against LGW.
A few examples:
What are your statistics and evidence for this claim? This is at best an assumption and at very worst, totally inaccurate.
There's only misery found by people such as yourself who totally refuse to co-exist with a major airport and cannot accept that your frankly disproportionate views are under no obligation to either be heard or acted upon by GAL, NATS or anybody else. 
So you are suggesting that we essentially re-draw every procedure to do with LGW (and by extension some of LHR and LCY, as well as Biggin and Farnborough) simply to accommodate a compromise situation to appease people like you? 
You do realise that there are other airports in the London TMA that are far closer together and conflict with each other's traffic, Stansted and Luton as well as LHR and LCY both spring to mind. So shall we go about changing the procedures there as well because they are 'just in the wrong place' 
Quite a few points highlight your lack of knowledge and indicate some sort of grudge against LGW.
A few examples:
it gets no sympathy from me or most of West Sussex, Kent and East Sussex not to mention the North Weald area.
nflict their misery as they wish on the general public.
Returning to the matter of dispersal and 7000ft somebody, who shall be nameless, at Swanwick has confirmed that this is perfectly possible if required.
The fact is that Gatwick is just in the wrong place and permanently trying to operate beneath the arriving and departing aircraft of Heathrow.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: solent-on-sea
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact is that Gatwick IS in the wrong place, but it's not the only one. IF we assume, for the sakes of ease and of argument, that Heathrow, as the largest and busiest of the London airports, would be most difficult to relocate, then why on earth would we have not just Gatwick, but Stansted, Luton, London City, Biggin Hill, Farnborough, Southend, Northolt and the host of other 'minor' airports all within less than 50 miles?
It is not Gatwick's fault, nor is it NATS' fault, but a result of historic development of infrastructure in a completely haphazard way with no single cohesive national transport policy, which in my view makes it the governments' fault, and so by implication, as members of our wonderful but hugely inefficient and cumbersome 'democracy', OUR FAULT.
Tinkering at the edges, as has been done recently, may produce some gains and benefits, but a radical redesign to provide a 'future proof' aviation model for not just the south east, but all of the country, will require a government who are willing to put in place a strategy which will, in the long term, prove beneficial to hopefully all, but in the short term will annoy a huge number. So let's see the plans put forward after May 7th..... but don't hold your breath.
It is not Gatwick's fault, nor is it NATS' fault, but a result of historic development of infrastructure in a completely haphazard way with no single cohesive national transport policy, which in my view makes it the governments' fault, and so by implication, as members of our wonderful but hugely inefficient and cumbersome 'democracy', OUR FAULT.
Tinkering at the edges, as has been done recently, may produce some gains and benefits, but a radical redesign to provide a 'future proof' aviation model for not just the south east, but all of the country, will require a government who are willing to put in place a strategy which will, in the long term, prove beneficial to hopefully all, but in the short term will annoy a huge number. So let's see the plans put forward after May 7th..... but don't hold your breath.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: T.C.
Age: 56
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not Long Now, brilliant post. Being part of the team trying to re-design the London TMA for the past 3 years, your words get straight to the main issues.
I can't see any Government actually agreeing to another runway at Gatwick or Heathrow never mind a new airport. Unfortunately the noise lobby, (interpreter, Tubby and pals), are so powerful that all the politicians are frightened to upset them, as are the Airport owners. Therefore we will continue with the mess, extremely well controlled as it is, that is the London TMA.
I can't see any Government actually agreeing to another runway at Gatwick or Heathrow never mind a new airport. Unfortunately the noise lobby, (interpreter, Tubby and pals), are so powerful that all the politicians are frightened to upset them, as are the Airport owners. Therefore we will continue with the mess, extremely well controlled as it is, that is the London TMA.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nimmer,
I was involved in earlier LTMA changes. I wish you luck. We just had to contend with NATMAC. You have FR24 and thousands of 'airspace design experts' with political support!
I was involved in earlier LTMA changes. I wish you luck. We just had to contend with NATMAC. You have FR24 and thousands of 'airspace design experts' with political support!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not Long Now,
I'm with Nimmer. A great post. We seem to have no long-term plan, not only for this, but many other facets of The U.K.'s infrastructure. It's all driven by the 5-year political-cycle unfortunately,
Skim-reading 6 of the current party manifestos, each one contains some good ideas.
In an ideal world, we need a group of people to select all the best bits and combine them into a coherent national plan with a life-cycle of at least 50 years.
I'm with Nimmer. A great post. We seem to have no long-term plan, not only for this, but many other facets of The U.K.'s infrastructure. It's all driven by the 5-year political-cycle unfortunately,
Skim-reading 6 of the current party manifestos, each one contains some good ideas.
In an ideal world, we need a group of people to select all the best bits and combine them into a coherent national plan with a life-cycle of at least 50 years.
