New London Heliport
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although SIMNLLOYD’s particular idea strikes me as a non-starter, I think it’s ludicrous that London, as a major international city, doesn’t have a helipad near the City.
Unfortunately, the noise of those who object to something ususally carries an inordinate amount of weight – because the majority hold no strong views either way and are simply the silent majority. Combine that with the policies (and personality) of the current Mayor of London and it seems highly unlikely we’ll see a heliport in the foreseeable future.
IMHO, as someone who’s lived near the River (in Putney, Fulham and Chelsea) for 29 years, and worked immediately adjacent to it for 33 years (Temple, until a couple of weeks ago), claims/complaints about helicopter noise in London are grossly exaggerated. My local authority (Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea) has, for some reason, taken up the fight against the 'problem' of helicopter noise. There is no justification for such a stance; there isn't a problem. They claim helicopter noise along the River is a problem. Utter nonsense. It’s impossible to hear helicopters along the River from most parts of the Borough and, where it can be heard, it’s not intrusive except in the immediate vicinity of the River.
Is there a problem with the noise of mil helicopters over London?
If there is, I haven't noticed.
I live half a mile away from Chelsea Barracks and the sound of Chinooks and other heavy helicopters going in and out isn’t to everyone’s taste, but it’s so rare that it can't reasonably be described as a problem and, as the Barracks has been sold, any perceived ‘problem’ will come to an end permanently.
As for noise near the City airport, I’ve got no sympathy with people who choose to live near an airport and then complain about noise - or who object to expansion and/or an increase in movements. If noise is an issue, don't live near an airport.
IMHO, people who regard peace and quiet as a priority should live in the countryside (or at least in the suburbs), not in a big city.
That said, many of them would probably be the sort who buy weekend cottages in the country and then complain about church bells on a Sunday morning.
Unfortunately, the noise of those who object to something ususally carries an inordinate amount of weight – because the majority hold no strong views either way and are simply the silent majority. Combine that with the policies (and personality) of the current Mayor of London and it seems highly unlikely we’ll see a heliport in the foreseeable future.
IMHO, as someone who’s lived near the River (in Putney, Fulham and Chelsea) for 29 years, and worked immediately adjacent to it for 33 years (Temple, until a couple of weeks ago), claims/complaints about helicopter noise in London are grossly exaggerated. My local authority (Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea) has, for some reason, taken up the fight against the 'problem' of helicopter noise. There is no justification for such a stance; there isn't a problem. They claim helicopter noise along the River is a problem. Utter nonsense. It’s impossible to hear helicopters along the River from most parts of the Borough and, where it can be heard, it’s not intrusive except in the immediate vicinity of the River.
Is there a problem with the noise of mil helicopters over London?
If there is, I haven't noticed.
I live half a mile away from Chelsea Barracks and the sound of Chinooks and other heavy helicopters going in and out isn’t to everyone’s taste, but it’s so rare that it can't reasonably be described as a problem and, as the Barracks has been sold, any perceived ‘problem’ will come to an end permanently.
As for noise near the City airport, I’ve got no sympathy with people who choose to live near an airport and then complain about noise - or who object to expansion and/or an increase in movements. If noise is an issue, don't live near an airport.
IMHO, people who regard peace and quiet as a priority should live in the countryside (or at least in the suburbs), not in a big city.
That said, many of them would probably be the sort who buy weekend cottages in the country and then complain about church bells on a Sunday morning.
Crab:
Tell that to people who ride horses.
Crab - you are so far off beam on this one. You don't live in London air traffic as a controller - AlanM does and he speaks the truth. We all respect our military - but there is a limit to their bad behaviour when it is not necessary.
Batting around London beneath standard operating altitudes, hammering Chinooks through London in the dead of night - all fine if there is a real reason. But there wasn't.
London operators in the civilian world are under a lot of pressure to reduce noise - but they aren't the ones causing the problems. We have a police ASU which has chosen to operate noisy machines 24/7 often on night missions with little useful purpose. And we have a military who are choosing to ignore the ANO and the published standards.
And to refuse a direct routing offered is just plain daft if speed was the need.
We don't have to comply with the ANO but we do so out of respect for the impact that military training could have on the public if we did it the way some other Armed Forces in the world might.
Crab - you are so far off beam on this one. You don't live in London air traffic as a controller - AlanM does and he speaks the truth. We all respect our military - but there is a limit to their bad behaviour when it is not necessary.
Batting around London beneath standard operating altitudes, hammering Chinooks through London in the dead of night - all fine if there is a real reason. But there wasn't.
London operators in the civilian world are under a lot of pressure to reduce noise - but they aren't the ones causing the problems. We have a police ASU which has chosen to operate noisy machines 24/7 often on night missions with little useful purpose. And we have a military who are choosing to ignore the ANO and the published standards.
And to refuse a direct routing offered is just plain daft if speed was the need.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jim - Not sure I said that they are badly behaved....!! They are also not subject to the ANO.]
As FL says though, it is pathetic that an important City such as London is, there are no readily available pleasure flights or landing pads for the business world.
Battersea Power Station should be the place for it......!!
As FL says though, it is pathetic that an important City such as London is, there are no readily available pleasure flights or landing pads for the business world.
Battersea Power Station should be the place for it......!!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In my box!
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have a police ASU which has chosen to operate noisy machines 24/7 often on night missions with little useful purpose.
Really i thought they were doing a great job and helping to keep us safe in our beds!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK
Age: 64
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer.
I was one of the early replies in this thread. To be very clear. The concern I raised was specifically about helicopter noise. I make no complaint about City airport and it would be hypocritical if I did. I use LCY frequently – and having it almost on my doorstep is a huge asset. As to choosing to live near an airport, when I moved to this area there were still ships being unloaded in Royal Docks and no one had ever landed a Dash7 on Herons Quay.
Back to this proposal. You may be right that there isn't a helicopter noise issue in Kensington/Chelsea. There is a problem in Greenwich / Isle of Dogs. Ironically the problem may be more prominent here because this part of London is comparatively quiet during the night and at weekends.
You say that if I want some peace I should live in the suburbs. I would rather eat worms. I do not want to spend hours of my life in a packed train, hours from my work and away from the amenities of the inner city. Although I chose to live in the inner City, that doesn’t mean I accept that everyone living in zones 1 and 2 has to put up with all night noise. I agree that there are some parts of central London where noise is inevitable and part of the territory, but there are lots of residential areas across inner London where the residents have a right to some sleep.
Right on cue to this debate there was another loud helicopter last night, at 2240. I don’t pretend to know whether civil or mil but I do know that had I been looking to get an early night it would have woken me. The nuisance value of a heli passing low, a deafening whumpa whumpa, (whether that happens to be overhead at 700 or 1500 feet) is on a completely different scale from the distant hum of a late arriving long haul heavy heading into Heathrow. (And of course - there is no night noise from CIty because it has a night curfew).
And your final paragraph. I do have a house in the country. I do hear the Church bells on Sunday morning when I’m staying there. I have never complained about them. But lets stick to the issue of helicopter noise nuisance over the most densely populated area of Britain.
I was one of the early replies in this thread. To be very clear. The concern I raised was specifically about helicopter noise. I make no complaint about City airport and it would be hypocritical if I did. I use LCY frequently – and having it almost on my doorstep is a huge asset. As to choosing to live near an airport, when I moved to this area there were still ships being unloaded in Royal Docks and no one had ever landed a Dash7 on Herons Quay.
Back to this proposal. You may be right that there isn't a helicopter noise issue in Kensington/Chelsea. There is a problem in Greenwich / Isle of Dogs. Ironically the problem may be more prominent here because this part of London is comparatively quiet during the night and at weekends.
You say that if I want some peace I should live in the suburbs. I would rather eat worms. I do not want to spend hours of my life in a packed train, hours from my work and away from the amenities of the inner city. Although I chose to live in the inner City, that doesn’t mean I accept that everyone living in zones 1 and 2 has to put up with all night noise. I agree that there are some parts of central London where noise is inevitable and part of the territory, but there are lots of residential areas across inner London where the residents have a right to some sleep.
Right on cue to this debate there was another loud helicopter last night, at 2240. I don’t pretend to know whether civil or mil but I do know that had I been looking to get an early night it would have woken me. The nuisance value of a heli passing low, a deafening whumpa whumpa, (whether that happens to be overhead at 700 or 1500 feet) is on a completely different scale from the distant hum of a late arriving long haul heavy heading into Heathrow. (And of course - there is no night noise from CIty because it has a night curfew).
And your final paragraph. I do have a house in the country. I do hear the Church bells on Sunday morning when I’m staying there. I have never complained about them. But lets stick to the issue of helicopter noise nuisance over the most densely populated area of Britain.
All reminds me of why I chose to be an expat: what a skewed perspective on things there is these days.
btw:
Are we sure about that? Not what I heard....
btw:
That said LCY has never and will never open for rotary wing traffic
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In my box!
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ELONDONPAX,
Rotorheads A haven for professional helicopter pilots to discuss the things that affect them.
This is a forum for helicopter pilots as it says on the tin, so what's your affiliation with helicopters then?
Rotorheads A haven for professional helicopter pilots to discuss the things that affect them.
This is a forum for helicopter pilots as it says on the tin, so what's your affiliation with helicopters then?
Only if you answer my question! Some uninformed bod at helitech mentioned it......
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In my box!
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh no - do I have to go too?
oh go on... let me stay!
oh go on... let me stay!
I'm just saying this forum is supposed to be a haven to positively discuss Helicopters......not slag them and the people that fly them down etc etc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gee thanks matey!!. To answer yr question with reagrd to helis at LCY
Yes I am sure I have heard nothing.....!!
I refer my honourable friend to the issue of real estate and stand availability causing enough problems there. Just yersterday there was a phone call from the tower to say that they were a stand down, poor departure slots and a need to increase inbound gaps from the normal operating procedure of 8, 5 and 5miles for subsequent planes to 8nm for everything. It is that tight at LCYmost of the time.
From our POV - helis are a piece of doddle when approaching a field - esp from due north or sue south in this case. (even the Vanguard is easy). Even if you can get past the noise issue (and surely LCY would save their brownie points with red Ken for additional and lucrative Olympic type movements) where would you put them? You would probably have to approach via the threshold, such are the CAA on such matters, thus affecting the instrument traffic.
As I said, a shame really. London really needs helicopter access.
Oh and finally, the noise at "Le Isle de chiens" is largely because aircraft transitting often hold there before going north. Also single engined helicopters do not help with reagrd to EGR160. Why not a Heli route going from Battersea - Battersea Park - Clapham to Crystal Palace area... available at 1500ft to the zone boundary then 2400ft and up and away! Singles could use it then... and no holding at London Bridge and Vauxhall Bridge etc.
Are we sure about that? Not what I heard....
I refer my honourable friend to the issue of real estate and stand availability causing enough problems there. Just yersterday there was a phone call from the tower to say that they were a stand down, poor departure slots and a need to increase inbound gaps from the normal operating procedure of 8, 5 and 5miles for subsequent planes to 8nm for everything. It is that tight at LCYmost of the time.
From our POV - helis are a piece of doddle when approaching a field - esp from due north or sue south in this case. (even the Vanguard is easy). Even if you can get past the noise issue (and surely LCY would save their brownie points with red Ken for additional and lucrative Olympic type movements) where would you put them? You would probably have to approach via the threshold, such are the CAA on such matters, thus affecting the instrument traffic.
As I said, a shame really. London really needs helicopter access.
Oh and finally, the noise at "Le Isle de chiens" is largely because aircraft transitting often hold there before going north. Also single engined helicopters do not help with reagrd to EGR160. Why not a Heli route going from Battersea - Battersea Park - Clapham to Crystal Palace area... available at 1500ft to the zone boundary then 2400ft and up and away! Singles could use it then... and no holding at London Bridge and Vauxhall Bridge etc.
Yes I am sure I have heard nothing.....!!
Sorry if my use of exclamation marks caused the wrong inference to the tone intended
I look forward to seeing how it pans out........
All I've heard (and I think it was discussed here last year) was that LCY had said they were obviously aware of the need for another heliport and that they were seeking some land outside their current boundary to see if they could build a site.
However, land (even horrible old sewage farm land) down that way is now getting £1.25m an acre.
And residential or industrial is going to generate a better return than a heliport.
However, land (even horrible old sewage farm land) down that way is now getting £1.25m an acre.
And residential or industrial is going to generate a better return than a heliport.
If large military helos are regularly (interesting to know how often this happens) operating below 1000' over built up areas, they are breaking our rules unless following ATC instructions. In that case, report them to Odiham/Benson and you should either find out why (if there were any mitigating circumstances) or stop them doing it again.
There is always a temptation to sightsee but 1 o'clock in the morning really isn't appropriate - if this is what they are up to (and I suspect it is an isolated case) then I apologise for their lack of consideration and professionalism.
The Chinook may be noisy but it is an awesomely capable helicopter which is why we use it.
There is always a temptation to sightsee but 1 o'clock in the morning really isn't appropriate - if this is what they are up to (and I suspect it is an isolated case) then I apologise for their lack of consideration and professionalism.
The Chinook may be noisy but it is an awesomely capable helicopter which is why we use it.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
or stop them doing it again.
And the helilanes are subject to differenet rules anyway (mainly they are SVFR which changes Rule 5). Otherwise how else could a route (H10 under 27L/R at LHR) be 750ft!
To my mind it is the holding that causes most of the noise. That is largely singles who are kept on the river and into confliction with LCY traffic.
At the very moment I write this a Chinook is doing a touch-and-go (apparently) at Woolwich Barracks and I can hear him from several miles away. It does seem more appropriate to do this training at 18.00 rather than late at night. It's a stormy, rainy night outside and I wish you well, chaps. Honestly.
Alan - I didn't mean that you personally had to stop them - just that if it is a regular occurrence then a phone call to the appropriate station is likely to trigger a response/bollocking to those involved.
For our purposes, rule 5 is irrelevant; however, they should try to keep within our rules (large helos should not fly below 1000 over congested areas) unless specifically cleared by ATC. They should go for the maximum route heights unless weather or ATC dictate otherwise.
For our purposes, rule 5 is irrelevant; however, they should try to keep within our rules (large helos should not fly below 1000 over congested areas) unless specifically cleared by ATC. They should go for the maximum route heights unless weather or ATC dictate otherwise.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mate, I here what you are saying and I applaud yr stance and your obvious dislike of rule breaking, but no ATCO will ever report any pilot for such a thing. (unless the facts are part of another need to report under the MOR scheme) It is simply NOT in our remit. Most ATCOs will not even know where the aircraft are based, let alone which Squadron. I still have links with the SH world so will be leaving that one to someone else!!
I have in the past given Helilane briefings to Odiham on Flight Safety Days, so am very much on your side.
Back to the topic..........
I have in the past given Helilane briefings to Odiham on Flight Safety Days, so am very much on your side.
Back to the topic..........
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Meon Valley
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Refurb an old yank junker ? Pie in the sky. I was involved with a study on one of these for another purpose and it failed on ££££. The best option was to start with a fresh barge and built on it what you wanted.
As for the London heliport question. The most obvious answer to mitigate any noise, would be to combine it with the city airport. 'Simply' fill in part of the basin to the North and there you have it. Some usefull pads, more parking for all, ATC already in place, light rail link and fixed wing connections. Current city owners (forgot who bought it) would be laughing all the way to the bank (unless it's Barclays or RBS, as there the next for a run ?) what would it all cost £ 100 mil tops. Then they can re value and re finance the complete site and pocked at least that as a bonus. and I'll take a 1% commision thanks
As for the London heliport question. The most obvious answer to mitigate any noise, would be to combine it with the city airport. 'Simply' fill in part of the basin to the North and there you have it. Some usefull pads, more parking for all, ATC already in place, light rail link and fixed wing connections. Current city owners (forgot who bought it) would be laughing all the way to the bank (unless it's Barclays or RBS, as there the next for a run ?) what would it all cost £ 100 mil tops. Then they can re value and re finance the complete site and pocked at least that as a bonus. and I'll take a 1% commision thanks