Heathrow - Noise Reduction
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow - Noise Reduction
Anyone throw any light on this?
Teletext - Heathrow Noise Reduction
Good idea or bad (i.e. Safety, what difference is 140ft going to make)?
147...
Teletext - Heathrow Noise Reduction
Good idea or bad (i.e. Safety, what difference is 140ft going to make)?
147...
This would involve insetting the landing threshold by about 900 metres - a little like they tried at FRA a few years ago on 25L. Only trouble is it might compromise landing performance of some of the larger types so could be restricted to "shorthaul" Boeings, Airbus etc........
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
from BBC
Noise levels from planes above London could be cut after new landing plans were proposed by British Airways (BA).
The airline has suggested that landings should be made half-a-mile further down the runway at Heathrow airport.
This would allow planes to fly about 140ft higher over London, cutting noise levels for people who live near to the west London airport.
But critics say BA's plan published in its annual social and environmental report will make no difference to most.
Currently planes normally land only 150 yards from the beginning of the runway at Heathrow.
This plan is deceitful with a capital D
John Stewart, from Hacan Clearskies
BA chief executive, Rod Eddington, said: "The success of our business is not just about financial performance.
"It's also about gaining customer and employee loyalty and community trust.
"While we have made improvements in our environmental, social and economic performance, there are many challenges ahead and we are committed to manage responsibly and report openly about our performance."
But John Stewart, from Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise (Hacan) Clearskies said: "This plan is deceitful with a capital D.
"Unless you live within a few hundred yards of the airport, the fact that planes are 140ft higher makes no significant difference to the noise you hear.
"The plan is simply designed to make it easier for both runways to be used at the same time."
Noise levels from planes above London could be cut after new landing plans were proposed by British Airways (BA).
The airline has suggested that landings should be made half-a-mile further down the runway at Heathrow airport.
This would allow planes to fly about 140ft higher over London, cutting noise levels for people who live near to the west London airport.
But critics say BA's plan published in its annual social and environmental report will make no difference to most.
Currently planes normally land only 150 yards from the beginning of the runway at Heathrow.
This plan is deceitful with a capital D
John Stewart, from Hacan Clearskies
BA chief executive, Rod Eddington, said: "The success of our business is not just about financial performance.
"It's also about gaining customer and employee loyalty and community trust.
"While we have made improvements in our environmental, social and economic performance, there are many challenges ahead and we are committed to manage responsibly and report openly about our performance."
But John Stewart, from Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise (Hacan) Clearskies said: "This plan is deceitful with a capital D.
"Unless you live within a few hundred yards of the airport, the fact that planes are 140ft higher makes no significant difference to the noise you hear.
"The plan is simply designed to make it easier for both runways to be used at the same time."
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But John Stewart, from Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise (Hacan) Clearskies said: "This plan is deceitful with a capital D.
Controversial, moi?
Only trouble is it might compromise landing performance of some of the larger types so could be restricted to "shorthaul" Boeings, Airbus etc
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Times article: here
It makes it clearer that John Stewart of ClearSkies believes it is "paving the way for mixed mode operation", whereby both runways are used for takeoffs and landings, rather than segregated into one runway for takeoff and one for landing as is the norm at present. Presumably this would allow a significant increase in capacity?
It makes it clearer that John Stewart of ClearSkies believes it is "paving the way for mixed mode operation", whereby both runways are used for takeoffs and landings, rather than segregated into one runway for takeoff and one for landing as is the norm at present. Presumably this would allow a significant increase in capacity?
Last edited by Pax Vobiscum; 14th Jul 2004 at 20:48.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hampshire UK
Age: 70
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the Westerly thresholds are displaced, the turnoffs will be in the wrong places for maximum runway utilisation. This will reduce capacity as increased spacing would be required, and also severely limit any benefits to be gained from mixed mode operations.
M.Mouse
Not a problem for you - you're a Skygod, but have you ever seen some of the efforts the other guys put in? Saw an A340 from an "eastern" carrier performing a low flyby recently - nice touchdown (eventually) but a displaced threshold was the last thing he wanted.........
Not a problem for you - you're a Skygod, but have you ever seen some of the efforts the other guys put in? Saw an A340 from an "eastern" carrier performing a low flyby recently - nice touchdown (eventually) but a displaced threshold was the last thing he wanted.........
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Silly Cone Valley
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any document bearing this man’s signature is likely to be followed by a retraction, correction, and deletion.
I’ll take on the opposition anyday. It’s my management I can’t beat!
I’ll take on the opposition anyday. It’s my management I can’t beat!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: solent-on-sea
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I suppose it never crossed anyone at BA's mind that if they displaced touchdown a bit to the west they'd end up a bit closer to T5 a bit quicker....
or is that purely coincidental...
will they be offering to do this on easterlies as well, help out queenie when she's at Windsor castle...
hmmm...
or is that purely coincidental...
will they be offering to do this on easterlies as well, help out queenie when she's at Windsor castle...
hmmm...
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So please tell me they are not seriously suggesting that a/c land further down the runway ?? nnnnaaaaaahhhhh, don't belive that one ! for one thing,come the subsequent enquiry when said a/c runs off the end and presumably being flown to sopa's as laid down in the manuals (sanctioned by the management) d'management would be held personally responsible !! That's taken to the eennth degree presuming they find a pilot stupid enough to do it (doubtful) !
oh, better idea for BA, why not move the whole runway by 1/2 a mile !!!
There ain't nothing as useless as the runway behind ya !!
oh, better idea for BA, why not move the whole runway by 1/2 a mile !!!
There ain't nothing as useless as the runway behind ya !!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a stupid idea and I would be one pax petioning to make sure it doesn't happen. I like flying on planes which are allowed to use all the tarmac available, thanks very much. And I agree that given the number of floaty landings one experiences, one doesn't want to reduce the space available.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess that would mean putting in a new glideslope antenna halfway down the runway. I can just see the guy in the tower during CAT 3, switching between the two, depending what's on approach.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are the little darlings intending to displace the landing threshold so far down the RW that another aircraft can line up for takeoff at the full length point underneath the lander?
If so, selling it as a nice to the neighbours noise reducing programme when the real intent is to massively increase runway utilisation and thus noise, has got to be the most dishonest ploy of the year. Also one of the more cynically dangerous, no doubt hatched up by a bean counter with shares in the local undertakers company.
If so, selling it as a nice to the neighbours noise reducing programme when the real intent is to massively increase runway utilisation and thus noise, has got to be the most dishonest ploy of the year. Also one of the more cynically dangerous, no doubt hatched up by a bean counter with shares in the local undertakers company.
ponshus,
As a first posting may I say that your trivial little piece lacks style, elegance and is a tour de force of paranoia!!
Anything we can do to reduce the noise pollution of the environment for those who have recently moved to the Heathrow approaches is to be applauded and not treated in the derogatory manner which you seem to present yourself.
Your crass suggestion that anyone could be so base as to engineer an accident to benefit the local undertaker defies belief.
I wonder if the BAA is aware of your gross slander!!!
Hello??
As a first posting may I say that your trivial little piece lacks style, elegance and is a tour de force of paranoia!!
Anything we can do to reduce the noise pollution of the environment for those who have recently moved to the Heathrow approaches is to be applauded and not treated in the derogatory manner which you seem to present yourself.
Your crass suggestion that anyone could be so base as to engineer an accident to benefit the local undertaker defies belief.
I wonder if the BAA is aware of your gross slander!!!
Hello??
Last edited by Basil; 16th Jul 2004 at 11:09.
