LHR Night Flights ?????

[LRdriver]

Thanks Virgin,
I was starting to feel unpopular there for a short while..

"Never have so few done so much to annoy the p*ss out of so many.."
I 'specially like the list of dates when people moved in to the area on a previous posting. I am gonna buy a house on the M1 and get that shut down too..

[Mr Benn]

How ridiculous is this ruling?!!
Anyone live near a railway line want to try the same crap with the train companies?
I think we should try and find out what jobs the campaigners do. I am sure we could all think of ways of disrupting their lives too.
Why live there?
Mind you, one advantage, I won't have to do any night flying if the ban goes ahead... Course, I might not have a job either...
I liked this bit:-

"The judgment said that while night flights made a contribution to the national economy, the Government should have conducted more research into their effect on sleep patterns before implementing the 1993 rules at Heathrow, which led to an overall increase in aircraft noise."

Now when are they going to do some research into the sleep patterns of airline pilots? Surely the work patterns we do infringe OUR human rights then.

And I can't sleep during the day when its noisy.

When are we going to tell the EU where they can stick their stupid rules. I notice France just blatantly ignores any EU ruling.

All small airfields in the UK have similar problems with people moving next to an airfield and then claiming they didn't know it was there.

I guess we can all be happy in the knowledge that these anti-aircraft campaigners are all TOTALLY IGNORANT.

I really, really hope that this ruling ends up severely affecting their own companies and lives. I hope they find that they can't afford to go abroad on holiday and that they can't get their mail. I hope the companies that employ them go bust due to a knock on effect of this ruling. Then they can go and join the "low income families" that they mentioned before. You know, those people who get a free house with free double glazing and enough money for satellite TV and new cars and then turn around and complain about the location of the free house.

Ooh, it makes me mad!!!

Perhaps we can start up a petition against the outcome of this case?

[Squealing Pig]

Four of them nolonger even live in the area Cavalla moved out in 1996, Hatton in 1997 and Thake along with Bird moved out in 1998.

Makes may blood boil at sea level, as I am on the brink of getting my first job with a night frieght operator. Now I should sue them for loss of sleep due to stress but I won't lower myself to their level.

Bird Moved to Wokingham (Woken em.. get it)of all places

[ 03 October 2001: Message edited by: Squealing Pig ]

[masterplanner]

If LHR has the same noise policy as DUB they deserve what they got in Europe. Any aircraft can operate into and out of DUB at any time of day using any runway with SIDS and STARS that take little or no consideration for the local communities. Engine runs can take place from 0600hrs local to facilitate the night shift before they go home and often with an aircraft that may only be going on stand-by.

[Trinity 09L]

LR driver,apologies again, the HACAN site is not available, at this time, overloaded with enthusiastic comments?

[Trinity 09L]

SL4 2PB Old Windsor
Government is making proposals to get more planes in the air even though local people have made it quite clear that they object. There is no such thing as a quiet jet plane when it is flying over your house at a few hundred feet. This morning I was woken by an aeroplane coming in to land at 4.30am and then kept awake by a succession of planes for the next three hours, at which time I had to get up to go to work. I am now feeling very tired indeed. Increasing night flights will make this sort of situation a more permanent feature of my life
SW14 7RJ Mortlake
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that cannot arrive two hours later than 5am, be it people or freight. The current situation is reminiscent of Hitler's Germany and the Gestapo and Stalin's Russia and the KGB: prisoners were deprived of sleep when they were to be interrogated because such continued nightly deprivation of sleep caused extreme fatigue, disorientation, confusion and an inability to think and focus properly. I am self employed and need every ounce of energy I can muster to fulfil my working obligations. I am unable to work effectively. You are thus depriving me of two fundamental human rights: that of working and earning my living, and of my right to sleep. Anyone who proposes more aircraft should have to live personally with the consequences - namely, live directly under the flight paths to experience at first hand on a daily and nightly basis the noise, the sleeplessness and the ensuing tiredness, edginess and inability to lead a healthy and effective life

Examples of HACAN protesters

[apruneuk]

Hugmonster asks on page 4 of the rights of those who work night shifts to a good day's sleep. Should they be able to bring cases such as this? Fairly obviously not, as the economic balance (and this is, after all, what upholds Hacan's case), would never be proven in their favour unless the majority of the population switched to night shifts.
Spookily, though, I flew a turbojet single into Swansea last November at 11.00am to be greeted by the airport manager who informed me that a lady living on the final approach path within the ATZ had phoned to complain because she worked nights and was trying to get to sleep. I've just about sussed the kinked final the manager asked me to attempt in future to appease her - she'll probably complain next about the smoke coming from the hole just short of r/w 22 on the day I spin it in!
Still, you can't please all of the people....

[SLF3]

Quite a lot of vitriol here, but are the arguments really so one sided?

I live close to Heathrow, and have done for 20 years. Before moving in I got charts from the CAA showing flightpaths in and out of Heathrow. I also looked at the pattern of flights and concluded they would not affect me: for many years they did not.

Over time the type, routing and frequency of flights from Heathrow have changed. In the summer, with easterly departures, we suffer a continual stream of widebodies grinding overhead until very late at night. Yes, they do wake you up: no, it's not possible to get to sleep until they stop.

We also suffer very poor air quality, with a very high incidence of respiratory ailments such as asthma.

The biggest problem with Heathrow is that the authorities have consistently and knowingly lied as to how they intended to allow the airport to develop. The airport is now totally saturated: thoroughly unpleasant for both users and local residents. The answer is realistic limits on capacity at Heathrow coupled with increased capacity elsewhere, not a steady drive to increase the frequency and operating envelope of Heathrow. Unfortunately, this requires leadership from our politicians, something they appear to be unable or unwilling to provide in any domestic arena. And if the traffic goes to European countries who have more space than us, is that really such a bad thing?

I do not know on what specific grounds the court ruled basic human rights were not being respected. Although travesties of justice do occur, I would suggest that judges are not idiots, that the limits of the judgement were probably pretty narrow, and that they probably had good grounds for reaching the judgement that they did.

At the very least, I'm sure they took a far more dispassionate view of the issues than most of the contributors to this site!

[Sick]

Mark and Lard on Radio 1 did an excellent sketch today ridiculing the hypocracy of the protesters.

Spot on!

[nomdeplume]

SLF3
You say

"I live close to Heathrow, and have done for 20 years. Before moving in I got charts from the CAA showing flightpaths in and out of Heathrow. I also looked at the pattern of flights and concluded they would not affect me: for many years they did not."

Didn't it occur to you when you bought your house close to Heathrow that air travel generally would increase over the years?
Or that the traffic at Heathrow, as the world's busiest international airport, might expand.

"And if the traffic goes to European countries who have more space than us, is that really such a bad thing?"

Perhaps it depends whether your livelihood is affected or not. Mine isn't, but I'm concerned for others nonetheless.

I'm sceptical about the claims of these noise protesters, and very suspicious about their motives.
I lived in Twickenham for many years. Whilst I accept that my house guests were woken by the aircraft noise initially, they very soon (like me) didn't notice.
If the noise problem is really so bad, isn't it curious that people are still prepared to pay extremely high prices to live in the so-called 'noise hell' areas like Sheen, Richmond and Twickenham to the East, and Windsor etc to the West?

[hapzim]

Just allow airports to operate 24hrs, min holding with atc descents being constant min power to 10nm final closer for lighter traffic working on aircraft performance and saftey. Exactly the same for departures operate to produce min noise footprint no low level left right jinks to avoid, just get up and away into the skies with as many direct routing as can be managed by atc. This will cut down on noise , cost , fuel burn and enviromental damage caused by air travel. We can then start to improve the rest of mankinds habits.

I only fly to enjoy the view out of the window

[ayrprox]

These people really p*ss me off, like every body else. for those people who bought before LL got busy (ie before 1960) fair enough. You did not expect traffic to grow by as much as it has. Of those 8 people who complained three moved in within the last 10 years.These T*sspots have got not bloody excuses. They bought at a time when the airport was in full swing and the prices of their homes were probably a lot lower than they are now. It also strikes me that the aircraft we have in the skies now are a lot quieter than those flying in the seventies with improvement in engine designs.
My e mail has been sent and I await the standard reply with baited breath.

Just a thought, I bet these NIMBY's still go on holiday from EGLL and would probably complain like hell if they were forced to fly from one of those airports outside London which they are suggesting should be used more.
Sorry but these worthless people really should find something better to do with their lives other than trying to increase the jobless number in the aviation industry

[newswatcher]

Letter in the DT from a Peter Hickie, Castle Donington, which seems to put him about 1 mile due north of the western end of the runway at EMA. Reckons that aircraft regularly dump unused fuel on approach to airports. Can that be true?

"SIR - This ban is the best thing to come out of Europe only if our Government has the guts to enforce it. We need far fewer flights for non-essential purposes. Planes are far greater polluters - from waste products and noise - than any other form of transport.

Not only is the fuel untaxed, it is often dumped unused before landing, as anyone living under the flight path will testify. Heathrow's 16 landings per night on average pale in comparison with East Midlands Airport, where night-time aircraft movements average one every five minutes."

[ 05 October 2001: Message edited by: newswatcher ]

[Ace Rimmer]

Take heart me hearties, t'other day I found myself covering the Blairista conference for Rimmer News and found myself in conversation with self confessed "awkward old bat" Gwyneth Dunwoody who assured me that as far as she was concerned (Chairman of the Transport Committee let's not forget) the Court of Human rights could take a running jump and the ruling "has a snowballs chance in hell of being implemented" Gwynnie is not keen on anything that reduces the competitivenes of UKplc and EGLL in particular. In fact never mind not implementing the ruling or getting on with T5 Gwynnie reckons that a third rwy needs to be pushed through as fast as possible to maintain EGLL's postion.

[mainfrog2]

If A/c regularly dump fuel on approach to Castle Donington I'm going to move back there and arrange a lot of buckets in my back garden, and give up smoking.

[DOC.400]

The only reason they 'dump fuel' at East Midlands on westerley approaches is so they can watch me go skittering off at Donnington race track on a mixture of Jet A1 and rain water at Macleans Corner!

Does honk a bit sometimes, same at LHR, just assume it's unburnt fuel and not necessarily 'dumping' per se.

"I love the smell of Jet A1 in the morning.........."

[Flying Lawyer]

So that's why I used to go off at Macleans!
Now, if you could just find me an excuse for .....

As for aircraft noise
I have no sympathy for people who buy houses near airports/airfields, or under the flight path/circuit, and then complain about aircraft noise. I've lived in Putney and Fulham which are allegedly affected; you become used to it and it ceases to intrude.
According to Hacan's website, they have complaints from people in Chelsea. That only goes to show what we all know: that some people will complain about anything. I live in Chelsea. Aircraft noise can be heard, but the noise is certainly not intrusive.

[ 05 October 2001: Message edited by: Flying Lawyer ]

[virgin]

Isn't it sickening that at a time when there's been the worst terrorist atrocity in the history of the world, when 4 airliners full of innocent people have been used as flying bombs, when 7000 people have lost their lives and thousands more have had their lives shattered, when the free world has to defend itself in what may escalate into a third world war, and yes, when hundreds possibly thousands of people employed in aviation have lost/are about to lose their jobs ....... that these selfish sh*ts are celebrating their "victory" over aircraft noise and the aviation industry!
and

[ 07 October 2001: Message edited by: virgin ]

[jumpseater]

The potential impact of this descision is yet to be felt but do not lose sight of the fact that this has nothing to do with September 11th or any of the commercial outfall of that day. Many UK contributors will remember the decline of the coal industry here, the public has largely forgotten that many communities and families still struggle to this day because of that industries changes. As many of the various recent topics have pointed out some airlines were already in difficulty before this judgement was received. And before anyone gets on their high horse about me not losing my job, your are right, my wife however has a 70% chance of hers going though, meaning a greater than 50% loss of family income.

It is easy to shout NIMBY, but the environmental impact of our industry should not be underestimated, nor its potential to disrupt some peoples lives. In some quarters our industry has lacked foresight in being pro-active and endeavouring to minimise the chance of such a ruling. The genie however is now potentially out of the bottle.

After the anouncement there were several commentators stating aircraft are getting quieter, well they're not. We have just about now reached a plateau in terms of reducing engine noise for large aircraft. No one with any sense will be argueing that the A380's engines will be quieter than those currently fitted to a 777, the airframe noise will be a significant factor too. Over the years the emphasis has been on departure noise, but there has been a significant upward trend in complaints regarding arrival noise as well.

Some airport operators don't help themselves either. One London airport has recently notammed a SID permanantly withdrawn, the replacement is still considered a trial by those underneath it, no mention to the communities so affected, so is it any wonder with such short sighted management that the locals are unimpressed.

Many's the time I've seen the accusations of NIMBY on this site, but I wonder how many crew have actually taken the time to visit communities at public meetings so affected, not many I would venture. When you do visit you realise that many of these people are 'normal', and have the same concerns about employment and the economy that the rest of us do. I used to work in this area and saw very few pilots actually take an interest in these issues, those that did were worth their weight in gold when dealing with communities, and perhaps if more had been done in the past we might not be 'on the back foot' as much as we might be. Don't fall into the trap of thinking it won't happen, because it just might!. It may well form the basis of firmer night curfews with no exemptions under any circumstances at some airports. It could have a bearing on hush-kitted CH2 aircraft and their operating times. All airline operations managers and staff should take a long hard think about how it could affect them, and how best to meet that challenge.
JS

[Mr Angry from Purley]

When considering implementing the Ban, the UK Govt has to consider if by doing so, there would be any economical affects. At LHR it was suggested that the 16 flights need to arrive early / and release transitting pax to connections / also stand / gate issues etc. Probably (in normal times) not much of a economic case as the punters could always catch a later flight.
NOT the case though of the charter flights that come into the UK between 2200-0600 and
overnight express freighters.

Hope common sense prevails or else i'll get