Noise, Parliament and Manchester

[Bally Heck]

Just been watching the Right Honourable Member for Tatton (George Osborne) displaying his awsome grasp of our industry on lunchtime news.

I believe his well heeled constituency is the one which has pilots doing aerobatics trying to follow noise abatement SIDs on 24L/R at MAN.

Any t' road, 6500 of us apparently took liberties with it last year interupting croquet games and garden parties. And worse still we did it deliberately "because we know we can get away with it".

Mr Osborne is going to try to have fines levied on operators who flaunt these procedures.

He is also going to try to have arrival noise abatement procedures instigated. This presumably means that you will have to track 095 degrees to intercept the LLZ at 3.2d when making an approach to 06.

On the plus side, he wants night flights stopped out of MAN.

I am all for that one

[cossack]

BH
3.2 DME MCT.
That's 0.9 DME 06R ILS.
Way to fly 'em.

[Bally Heck]

Bugger

That's me picked up another bloody noise abatement fine then. At least I avoided the 30 degree turn at 250 ft

I wonder how the Right Honourable commutes to London!

I wonder why the residents of Stockport, Wythenshawe, etc don't have this problem!

[jumpseater]

Bally,
There is currently no statutory definition of 'on' or 'off' track, therefore any airport trying to penalise financially for track violations will have a challenge on their hands. In due course however (scuse pun) I anticipate there will be a definition which will allow financial penalties to be applied, as per noise violations currently.

[sky9]

The noise routes don't comply with ICAO criteria either so even though you are off track on the airport noise routes you could fully comply with the ICAO criteria - but then why lets facts get into the way of a good story.

It would be so much better if MP's would get their facts right BEFORE speaking.

[chiglet]

Donkeys ago, [well before R2] ATC Ops had several maps showing the SIDs...and ALL digressions thereon This was wit eighties tecnology.I was told that a combination of the ATM [DFTI, as was] and the noise monitor points helped to catch the transgressors, and if they didn't have NSD [none standard dep] on the strip, then they were fined!
I don't know how much has changed.
p.s. A lady moved into a house with an approach light in the garden because she LIKES aeroplanes
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[ 18 July 2001: Message edited by: chiglet ]

[sky9]

I have taken the liberty of copying the URL the Hansard report of the UK House of Commons adjournment debate on aircraft noise.

Apart from not knowing his west from his east I leave others to decide the value of the contribution.
http://www.publications.parliament.u...10717h05_head0

Personally I cannot see how MIA can fine aircraft that go outside the noise area when the area itself is arbitrary and does not comply with Pan. Ops. A large aircraft at max RTOW will inevitably go outside the area because its take off speed is greater than that used to draw the limits of the noise area. . Take those departures out and the actual number of exceedences would be minimal.

At the present time the Airport Authority is happier blaming pilots rather than owning up to its own inadequacies. It has to stop.

[160to4DME]

Sky9

Isn't it surely the driver's responsibility to notify ATC at some time prior to departure if he/she considers they may not be able to adhere to the SID ???

ATC can then enter the magical NSD notation, and everyone except the Knutsford NIMBYs are happy

[sky9]

160 to 4DME

We are complying fully with the SID, the problem is that the noise charts are just fiction. As an example on the Conga departures off 06 the inside of the turn is drawn at 90kts.

On the WAL departures again off 06, at max RTOW, turning at the correct DME it is inevitable that you go outside the turn.

I suspect that the real problem is that if the noise charts were drawn in accordance with Pan Ops the noise areas would be so wide that half of Manchester and Cheshire would be covered and nobody would ever be fined. In PR terms with the local population that would be a disaster for the MIA.

[160to4DME]

Sky

Ahhhhhh, now I understand

[Bally Heck]

Thanks for the Hansard link Sky9. Impressed and surprised that some sense is talked in parliament. (Not by Mr Osborne)

You can pretty well stay with most of the SIDs if you use raw data and anticipate the turns by a couple of tenths of a mile and go round the turn with take off flap. It does make for a pretty high workload at a time when the workload is pretty high anyway. Hardly surprising that a few of us get it wrong occasionally.

[sky9]

Bally Heck,

We do that (but surely you should be able to fly the SID without local knowledge)!! but it doesn't work on a heavy aircraft at max RTOW. Get the noise charts out , measure the radius of turns and check it against the groundspeed at Take Off Flaps. You will make it on 737 & 757 using heading select and take off flap, but the radius of turn increases by the square of the speed so the faster you go the "greater*greater" the radius. I don't think that it is surprising the Virgin and PIA go outside the MNR, I would have thought that a 747 to Lahore or Karachi is a heavy (fast) aircraft.

If you are really keen get a copy of the Pan Ops regulations (they are in the Jepp. Text Manual) and read the regulations. They are a mile away from what was drawn 25 years ago by the MIA.

[PFR]

Considering the thread and the concerns residents of Knutsford have made with noise, especially recently with their meeting in the Civic Centre (last Friday) and the TV piece on the local BBC news (North West Tonight, circa Tuesday), can I pose the following query to the experts ?
Considering that a significant level of concern/disturbance is from landing traffic generated by the fact that R2 (06R) is primarily used for landings when Easterly's prevail, as currently, bar between mid-day and 15:00 when operations swap to R1, what possibility exists to stagger arrivals between R2 & R1 ? Similar to that done at LHR described in another thread `Runway Open'.
That's to say when landings are required 06 use R1 for a given period (day about or week about) then swap to R2 for a similar period. Alternatively could the early hours say before 09:00 be prioritised for 06L with 06R being used afterwards until early evening, afterwhich landings would revert to 06L. Some similar arrangements could cater for weekends when as I see it significant disturbance occurs Saturday/Sunday mornings as people are lying-in (especially compounded by the summer months when people sleep with the windows open, when we get a summer !).
It may seem insignifcant but I'm sure that if MIA would make some gesture to use 06L for more arrivals like in the old days this would pacify a lot of the residents and improve their community relations.
For those not aware using 06R for arrivals means a/c are signifcantly lower and more over residential areas. Comments would be greatly appreciated.
I suspect that the ground infrastructure can't support 06R being used for departures if 06L is the arrival runway, especially in peak times, Am I right ? What implications for the STAR's also ?
Sorry it's so long, but I really would be interested in the professional opinion.
Many thanks PFR

[sky9]

PFR
You are absolutely correct in that the design of the runways and taxiways for 24R/06L only allow takeoffs on 24L and landings on 06R. The problem being that space doesn't allow parallel taxiways to the western end of the new runway.

The design is frankly a "buggers muddle" but then who is surprised by that? No doubt they will be back in a year or two with plans for a new runway to the north of Terminal 2, which they should have done in the first place.

I have heard on the grapevine that there are problems with the switch over time for the backup lighting power supply on 24R, anyone know anything?

[Wasps]

The minimum noise corridors are drawn to appease the local community and the SIDs designed to fit them. The MONTY and CONGA SIDs off 06L have to be flown at around 180kts to keep the radius of turn low, but the SRG of the CAA will not publish speeds as part of SIDs. We therefore fly the SIDs, as published, and get violations as a consequence. Welcome to Manchester Airport!

[cossack]

PFR
It is not feasible to utilise our runways in the manner you describe used at LHR. As you say yourself, the ground infrastructure is not there to facilitate this. The procedure you outline is do-able as was proved very capably yesterday but at a cost: delays.

For those not aware, yesterday morning from about 0745 local time, 06L was available for departures only, with a TORA of 2100m due to a badly damged light fitting. Aircraft unable to depart with this distance available were allowed to depart from 06R. 06R was still the arrival runway. The movement rate achieved was remarkable considering the 20+ departures from 06R (many of them "heavies") had to backtrack almost the full length of the runway in the face of arriving traffic. This lasted over 2 hours. The delay to departures needing to use 06R was about 15 minutes on top of the normal taxy time of 15 minutes. Who would tolerate that on a regular basis just to reduce noise in one area and move it somewhere else?

At this time it is not possible to spread the noise around more evenly by using different approach paths. Considering that the 6s are in use for less than 20% of the year (my estimate), I think you have little to complain about on the noise front! What about the residents to the north east of the airport. They get the noise for 80% of the time, with comparatively few complaints.

As for allowing some aircraft to land on 06L instead of 06R, we (ATC) are not allowed to offer the switch.

I do not understand your reference to STARs as they terminate at the holding fixes and what happens after there is of no relevance.

sky9
There is space for a parallel taxiway to 06R but it would require the two tunnels to be joined to make one long one. For the amount of times it would be used, I feel it would be difficult to make a business case when terminal expansion and parking are in short supply already.

I don't see any need for a third runway.

BTW It was a pleasure to be a part of D watch yesterday morning (as it is most days ) it was a great team effort!

[PFR]

Thank you for your replies Sky 9 and Cossack. Get the impression Cossack that your somewhat frustrated by my offerings, apologies if I've touched a raw nerve. Appreciate that MIA has come in for a lot of flack since the opening of R2, especially from residents of Knutsford. For one I appreciate that as controllers & pilots respectively your doing your jobs and with procedures that may not be ideal but have indeed been developed with consideration to the surrounding community. Just wondered if these could be improved upon.
Ref your observation for residents suffering 80% of the disturbance at the 24 end, for sure residents living under 24R have far more to tolerate and have done so since MIA was Ringway. However if the infrastructure was such that 24L could be used predominately for arrivals and 24R for departures both communities would surely gain benefit and no doubt residents at Wythenshawe and Stockport would be grateful for the relief. Again ground operations and infrastructure issues would need changing together no doubt with procedures to ensure that operators wouldn't suffer in getting to the terminals, a plus for the current situation with 24R as the arriving runway.
Appreciate that all these ideas have cost implications especially infrastructure changes, new taxiways etc (merging of road tunnels), but what price good community relations.
PFR

[sky9]

PFR

From a pilots point of view it really is a not starter. If aircraft were landing on 24L they would get very close to aircraft taking off on 24R. I will let acontroller tell you the technical reason because there will be one.

At the end of the day the answer really is if you don't like aircraft noise don't buy a house under the flightpath. I used to live under the flightpath some years ago and the 0650 Trident was really noisy!

[Not Long Now]

Just to let you drivers know it's not only you who get caught by noise restrictions. I control in the London TMA and if I 'inadvertently' vector an a/c before the noise restriction ends (above 4 for LL and 3 for KK, plus one million and one dotted lines on the radar to miss 'noise sensitive areas'), I can expect a little tap on the shoulder a couple of weeks later saying "why did you take an a/c off the SID before noise ended".
Strangely enough I can hardly ever remember why or where I vectored one a/c twenty days ago. It is possible, usually, to pull the RT recordings and see if it was me vectoring too early or the a/c "getting it wrong" should I deny all knowledge.
It seems it's all to do with blame and statistics, and which operators are currently top of the bad boys and trying to lower their profile.

Strangely enough, those who complain about the noise don't seem to be the ones who've been in situ since before the airport was built, and don't volunteer to drive back from the airport after their holiday via somewhere three hours away.
Well I live right under the BPK westerly departure from LL, and boy does it get noisy about 10pm. But I also live ten minutes from work. And I'm not moving.

Happy headings!

[cossack]

PFR
No apology required! Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Whether or not the practicalities of the situation can accomodate those opinions is what is at question here and in this case they cannot.

MA have gone to great lengths to make the introduction of R2 have as little impact on communities as possible. The Cheshire 106 agreement requires southbound jets above a certain size to fly a Honiley departure from the 24s. Well before the runway opened ATC were all too well aware of the implications this would have on the departure rate, MA were made aware of it, but they stuck to the agreement. So you can see they do try and foster good community relations at the expense of some delays, but the scenarios you have outlined go beyond what would be acceptable in business terms.

In an ideal world, parallel runways would not be staggered like at MAN and the terminals would be in between them. Sound familiar? In order to provide a segregated service (two runways operating independently of each other) as we do now, the runways would need to be 760m apart in order to comply with ICAO criteria. The choice is now yours. Do you build runways 390m apart and stagger them by 1850m as we have now, or do you try and build them 760m apart? Just think of the land that would have taken and the environmental impact. If MA had applied to build them 760m apart they would have got nowhere.

As it is they have an airport which is not constrained by runway capacity and with planned future terminal expansion will see them well into the future and the forecast traffic growth.

As sky9 mentioned, landing 24L and departing 24R would have its limitations. The runways would not be segregated so arrival spacing would have to be increased to permit departures. There would need to be very large gaps after every 3 or 4 arrivals to back-track those that have arrived (assuming no southside parallel taxiway was built). I would imagine that the overall movement rate would be well below what was achievable with only one runway. Not much of a return on your investment is it?

In the end what do passengers want? They want to be able to fly to where they want, when they want from where they want. Many of those people who complain about noise from Manchester Airport, are the very same people who would complain if their flights were delayed because of airport capacity constraints. You can't have your cake and eat it.

[ 22 July 2001: Message edited by: cossack ]