Farnborough
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Hotels
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Farnborough
New restrictions for Farnborough.
"Currently, only aircraft types that are compliant with ICAO Chapter 3 criteria and above are permitted to operate.
In accordance with the Airport Master Plan published in April 2009 and as a condition imposed to allow the increase in movements, noise restrictions at Farnborough will be tightened to allow only those jet aircraft meeting ICAO Chapter 4 criteria from January 1st 2013, with the exception of flying associated with the Farnborough International Airshow.
This does not mean they must hold a Chapter 4 noise certificate as only aircraft designed after 2006 may have this; however they must comply with Chapter 4 noise criteria.
Examples of types that currently operate at the airport which will not be permitted after January 1st 2013 are Cessna 560 Citation V, Dassault Falcon 20, Dassault Falcon 50, Gulfstream 3, Hawker 125- 600A, Hawker 125-700A and Hawker Beechjet 400 depending on the individual engine type fitted to each aircraft."
Looks like they've got their own little emissions tax going also:
"The scheme is based on the European Civil Aviation Conference's recommendations on NOx landing charge systems (European Civil Aviation Conference, Recommendation ECAC/27-4) which makes use of the ICAO standard landing and take-off cycle (LTO).
A NOx levy will apply to all arriving aircraft.
For jet (turbofan) aircraft with a rated output of greater than 26.7kN with a MTOW greater than 2730kgs the levy will be calculated based on the number of engines multiplied by the Engine NOx Index for that particular engine type listed in ICAO Aircraft Engine Emissions Databank [Updated December 2010] for jet aircraft which can be accessed at
http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=702&pagetype=90
The charge for 2013 will be £5 per kg NOx .Each aircraft invoice will have a separate item listed as Aircraft Emissions Levy. VAT will be charged where applicable."
"Currently, only aircraft types that are compliant with ICAO Chapter 3 criteria and above are permitted to operate.
In accordance with the Airport Master Plan published in April 2009 and as a condition imposed to allow the increase in movements, noise restrictions at Farnborough will be tightened to allow only those jet aircraft meeting ICAO Chapter 4 criteria from January 1st 2013, with the exception of flying associated with the Farnborough International Airshow.
This does not mean they must hold a Chapter 4 noise certificate as only aircraft designed after 2006 may have this; however they must comply with Chapter 4 noise criteria.
Examples of types that currently operate at the airport which will not be permitted after January 1st 2013 are Cessna 560 Citation V, Dassault Falcon 20, Dassault Falcon 50, Gulfstream 3, Hawker 125- 600A, Hawker 125-700A and Hawker Beechjet 400 depending on the individual engine type fitted to each aircraft."
Looks like they've got their own little emissions tax going also:
"The scheme is based on the European Civil Aviation Conference's recommendations on NOx landing charge systems (European Civil Aviation Conference, Recommendation ECAC/27-4) which makes use of the ICAO standard landing and take-off cycle (LTO).
A NOx levy will apply to all arriving aircraft.
For jet (turbofan) aircraft with a rated output of greater than 26.7kN with a MTOW greater than 2730kgs the levy will be calculated based on the number of engines multiplied by the Engine NOx Index for that particular engine type listed in ICAO Aircraft Engine Emissions Databank [Updated December 2010] for jet aircraft which can be accessed at
http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=702&pagetype=90
The charge for 2013 will be £5 per kg NOx .Each aircraft invoice will have a separate item listed as Aircraft Emissions Levy. VAT will be charged where applicable."
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Hotels
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Similar emissions charging schemes are in place at a number of major airports including Heathrow and Gatwick in the UK, and Zurich and Stockholm-Arlanda elsewhere in Europe, but their use at smaller airports is currently limited. By introducing such a charging system, the Airport would be an industry leader in the UK and provide best practice for Business Aviation elsewhere.
Lets hope this is the exception, not the rule. We could potentially end up paying for the EU-ETS and a local airport charge...
Last edited by M-ONGO; 29th Jan 2013 at 20:52.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M-ONGO
It appears that the CAA have moved the emissions data from their site. I followed your link and ended up at EASA - ICAO Aircraft Engine Emissions Databank
.pdf)
This engine has an emissions value of 2562 grammes per engine, so 5124 total, 5.124 kgs, so is this value multiplied by UK5, or do they also include any other factors such as sector length / flight time?
Mutt
It appears that the CAA have moved the emissions data from their site. I followed your link and ended up at EASA - ICAO Aircraft Engine Emissions Databank
This engine has an emissions value of 2562 grammes per engine, so 5124 total, 5.124 kgs, so is this value multiplied by UK5, or do they also include any other factors such as sector length / flight time?
Mutt
Last edited by mutt; 30th Jan 2013 at 01:40.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Hotels
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't seem to attach the PDF document that I received in the MOL Mutt.
Looks like £5 (plus VAT) x 2 engines x NOx kg index.
I don't see any other factors such as sector length or time etc... Yet! The cost may not seem too much (at present) but paying this tax AND having to pay the ETS farse if that doesn't sort itself out...
FAB have had this charge in the airport master plan from 2008. It will be interesting to see if others follow suit.
Looks like £5 (plus VAT) x 2 engines x NOx kg index.
I don't see any other factors such as sector length or time etc... Yet! The cost may not seem too much (at present) but paying this tax AND having to pay the ETS farse if that doesn't sort itself out...
FAB have had this charge in the airport master plan from 2008. It will be interesting to see if others follow suit.
Farnborough - A deeply annoying airfield. Tried to get in there in a light single (for basic transport type reason). Not allowed and/or stupidly expensive due planning restrictions.
...... I'm sure I'm quieter and greener than your average bizjet and I hardly emit any NOx
...... I'm sure I'm quieter and greener than your average bizjet and I hardly emit any NOx
It would appear the new restrictions are the 'price' TAG has to pay for the local planning authority to allow more movements and are not of their making.
You have to meet some of the local objectors to find out how 'head in the sand' they can be; they form their own opinions on various issues based on flimsy evidence and convince themselves they are totally correct, you just can't convince them otherwise.
We did a presentation once to 'meet' the local populace direct and discuss various issues. Outside was a bloke who handed me a paper containing so called 'facts' about the safety of the operation which were 99% untrue and based on his personal opinions. How much aviation experience he had I don't know, but the problem is, some of the locals could have read his paper and believed it in toto.
You have to meet some of the local objectors to find out how 'head in the sand' they can be; they form their own opinions on various issues based on flimsy evidence and convince themselves they are totally correct, you just can't convince them otherwise.
We did a presentation once to 'meet' the local populace direct and discuss various issues. Outside was a bloke who handed me a paper containing so called 'facts' about the safety of the operation which were 99% untrue and based on his personal opinions. How much aviation experience he had I don't know, but the problem is, some of the locals could have read his paper and believed it in toto.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup, I know that stuff. We are 5nm away...
The aircraft aren't an issue, be it chapter 3 or 4. Heli's are a LOT noisier particularly as they are mostly VFR flights (ergo low) on random routes. When it comes to Helicopter noise, it doesn't matter where you live, you are going to be affected by it to some degree. I accept that. But for the airport to worry about chapter 3 or 4 I find astounding as to be honest I find little difference...
The aircraft aren't an issue, be it chapter 3 or 4. Heli's are a LOT noisier particularly as they are mostly VFR flights (ergo low) on random routes. When it comes to Helicopter noise, it doesn't matter where you live, you are going to be affected by it to some degree. I accept that. But for the airport to worry about chapter 3 or 4 I find astounding as to be honest I find little difference...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that...Still starts clear of me (Bagshot is about a 10min drive...) And mostly large twin engined heli's (Kinda thing I'd love to play on!) so as I understand it not restricted to the Heli lanes...Can't say they are very frequent though, just more disturbing than any biz jet into FAB... Mostly the biz jets are quite quiet!
Now did anyone mention the Dominie...
Now did anyone mention the Dominie...
There ARE designated heli routes in/out of Farnborough (mandatory within the ATZ) mostly using line features and avoiding built up areas; I originally designed them although they have been modified since I left 4 years ago in line with local consultations. They are published in the Farnborough section of the AIP in chart form. There is also a 'proviso' in the helicopter procedures that pilots must follow the BHA 'Pilots Code of Conduct' at all times; this is published in the BHA Information Handbook on page 153. For a copy of this contact the BHA on 01276 856100.
Chinooks (twin rotored VERY noisy) often transit to/from Odiham and the main London heli lane at Bagshot via just north of Farnborough, (ie between the circuit patterns at Blackbushe and Farnborough) as do Merlins and Sea Kings. All these military helicopters operate at far higher auws than most civil helicopters.
Chinooks (twin rotored VERY noisy) often transit to/from Odiham and the main London heli lane at Bagshot via just north of Farnborough, (ie between the circuit patterns at Blackbushe and Farnborough) as do Merlins and Sea Kings. All these military helicopters operate at far higher auws than most civil helicopters.
Last edited by chevvron; 31st Jan 2013 at 13:27.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Familiar what a chinook is. And a Lynx, Gazelle, Puma. These are more like 109's. I live on the western edge on D133 so outside any of the heli routes for FAB. Yes I do get the military guys overhead but as per my previous post, I have excluded them.
I AM NOT COMPLAINING! Merely pointing out the Heli's which blat across my house (and they do a few times every day) make far more noise than any of the chapter 3 bizjets do, thats all. Thats why I find the first post quite interesting given they have banned aircraft which I find lots quieter... Anyone else see the irony?
I AM NOT COMPLAINING! Merely pointing out the Heli's which blat across my house (and they do a few times every day) make far more noise than any of the chapter 3 bizjets do, thats all. Thats why I find the first post quite interesting given they have banned aircraft which I find lots quieter... Anyone else see the irony?
Last edited by Cough; 31st Jan 2013 at 14:44.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Popped in FAB a couple of times this week on business. Looking at vs LTN and it seemed that FAB was quiet whereas LTN was just as busy. Are these changes hurting them? or did I just hit quiet periods at FAB?
I hear NHT is doing good business as well?
I hear NHT is doing good business as well?
Don't forget Farnborough still has to put up with restrictions on annual movements although the limit is being slowly raised from 28,000 to 50,000 pa. There are runway end taxiways, so no backtracking and shorter queues at the holding point.
Farnborough ILS are both Cat 1 due to the 3.5 deg GPs so approach minima are higher, and departure minima is higher too as there is no centreline lighting.
All in all, add the fact the airport is presently in Class G airspace and I don't think they do too bad.
Farnborough ILS are both Cat 1 due to the 3.5 deg GPs so approach minima are higher, and departure minima is higher too as there is no centreline lighting.
All in all, add the fact the airport is presently in Class G airspace and I don't think they do too bad.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Groland
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.wingx-advance.com/downloa...March_2013.pdf
Looking at the WingX data, FAB and BQH seem to be down quite a bit on traffic at the moment.
Looking at the WingX data, FAB and BQH seem to be down quite a bit on traffic at the moment.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that CEQforever. With RSS at EGGW moving to it's own dedicated ramps which free up the South Stands for any FBO to use, I would expect further gains at EGGW as parking capacity has meant some business was sent elsewhere at times. The Luton thread shows they were used again today for the event in London yesterday. I suspect a few of the VVIP Heavies will come back to EGGW who have had to use EGGS for a few years now.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bristol
Age: 54
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CEQ Forever,
That document, on the face of it is interesting, however, just because it is written down does not mean it is true - I'd like to see more information on the methodology of collecting and qualifying the data - Bristol (EGGD) has seen additional contracts start which number approx 2600 contracted movements per year ++ as a result of Filton closing - and it is not shown?
Phil
That document, on the face of it is interesting, however, just because it is written down does not mean it is true - I'd like to see more information on the methodology of collecting and qualifying the data - Bristol (EGGD) has seen additional contracts start which number approx 2600 contracted movements per year ++ as a result of Filton closing - and it is not shown?
Phil
