LHR - Steeper Approaches trial 14 September 2015
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: London
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This "steeper glideslope" nonsense won't make a jot of difference to those living anywhere near the LHR approach path. A poor attempt at a "sweetener" from those intent on building a third runway at Heathrow despite the objections from Londoners.
I moved to the East End of London in 2012 partly to try and escape the constant aircraft noise above our old house in Fulham (midway between 27L and 27R). Now it's just as bad in Walthamstow since they changed the approach paths. I have aircraft from both the BNN and LAM stacks being routed directly over our borough.
I love flying and I love aeroplanes but this third runway idea is ludicrous.
Today I joined HACAN. How ironic.
TrafficPilot
I moved to the East End of London in 2012 partly to try and escape the constant aircraft noise above our old house in Fulham (midway between 27L and 27R). Now it's just as bad in Walthamstow since they changed the approach paths. I have aircraft from both the BNN and LAM stacks being routed directly over our borough.
I love flying and I love aeroplanes but this third runway idea is ludicrous.
Today I joined HACAN. How ironic.
TrafficPilot
After 6 pages we can conclude that the effects of the trial are likely to be inconclusive ? At best a marginal improvement which 90% of people won't notice- plenty of ambient noise under the approaches from the east , traffic trains, lots of people etc etc .
It's probably worth keeping an eye on Heathrow's daily operational stats at
Daily Operational data - Heathrow Operational Data
which I assume will include the number of RNAV 3.2° approaches each day in addition to the other existing metrics (though the stats aren't broken down by airline or type).
Currently only showing up to 16th September (the day before the trial started).
Daily Operational data - Heathrow Operational Data
which I assume will include the number of RNAV 3.2° approaches each day in addition to the other existing metrics (though the stats aren't broken down by airline or type).
Currently only showing up to 16th September (the day before the trial started).
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 52N 20E
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The steeper the angle, the less time an aircraft spends at low altitudes, which means that fewer people should be affected by higher levels of noise,' airport authorities explained in a briefing document."
Bullsh1t!!!
Bullsh1t!!!
I do agree with the line "it won't make a difference to 95% of people" or whatever, however there are some quite defensive comments here, as if people are scared of the change and actually having to do it. I've done London ****ty (sorry City) and its really not that difficult, just a slightly bigger earlier more precise flare at the end. If a pilot can't adapt to that it's time to take up bus driving or lawn mowing.
P j
Agreed.
The trial approach(s) are no steeper than many an ILS 'slope across the world, it's certainly nothing like London City. OK, a bit more care and effort might be needed to make the 1000' AAL gate but after that I don't think the end users are going to see any real difference at all...and I don't think the listening audience is going to perceive anything differently either.
Agreed.
The trial approach(s) are no steeper than many an ILS 'slope across the world, it's certainly nothing like London City. OK, a bit more care and effort might be needed to make the 1000' AAL gate but after that I don't think the end users are going to see any real difference at all...and I don't think the listening audience is going to perceive anything differently either.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ijatta
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Narita requests the use of the minimum flap setting conducive for a safe approach and landing to help reduce the ground level noise contours for the surrounding communities.
e.g. For a B-777 that would mean final flaps of 25 instead of the usual 30.
e.g. For a B-777 that would mean final flaps of 25 instead of the usual 30.
Last edited by wanabee777; 23rd Sep 2015 at 17:29. Reason: requests rather than requires
For a B-777 that would mean final flaps of 25 instead of the usual 30.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ijatta
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
For a B-777 that would mean final flaps of 25 instead of the usual 30.
For a B-777 that would mean final flaps of 25 instead of the usual 30.
Airport authorities worldwide, not just LHR or NRT might like a lot of things done certain ways but safety can mean non-compliance. The authorities at NRT may "require" operators to use Flap 25 but regardless of their wishes I can promise you Flap 30 does get used.
"APPROACH (Delayed Flap and Reduced Flap Setting)
(b) Use, as the final landing flap setting, the minimum certificated landing flap setting published in the approved performance information in the Airplane Flight Manual for the applicable conditions."
There is no question that the PIC makes the final decision ref "for the applicable conditions".
Again, from Narita 20-4: "The final authority to apply these procedures, however, rests on each pilot-in-command, who may use other appropriate procedures if determined to be necessary in the interest of safety."
Last edited by wanabee777; 23rd Sep 2015 at 07:22.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Wannabee I operate the 777W into NRT close to MLW on a fairly regular basis and am aware of the notam, using F25 adds 7kts or so to the VREF and then unless you want to run into potential issues with hot brakes you end up having to use full reverse, making a heap of noise..but keeping the brakes cool. Or you use F30 with a corresponding reduction in brake energy. Airport authorities can promulgate what the would like for as long as they like, the reality however seldom matches the theory.
You can use F25 to comply with 160/4 then configure to F30 at about 5 miles, and be fully stable at VREF + 5 at 1200 AGL, I did it today in ISA + 20 conditions, its no drama at all, but it is a noisy way to do it, 170/5 works waaaay better at F15.
For those observing different operators' application of configuration/stabilisation in a B77W at or close to MLW full configuration is required to achieve 160/4. So for their may be a slight improvement with the 3.2. Though not on a lower than ISA day!
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Northern Territory Australia
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steeper approach, Noise
Travelling through Putney, I noticed no difference ( not that I would I suppose ) but what I did notice was that planes overhead were almost silent compared with the noise of road traffic. The MP for the area, Justine Greening, must have had super selective hearing to say that she was deafened by airplane noise.
We live on the 09R flight path where A380 and 787 pass overhead at around 1800ft and it is possible to continue an almost normal conversation. Impossible with BA747 and 777 etc,
We live on the 09R flight path where A380 and 787 pass overhead at around 1800ft and it is possible to continue an almost normal conversation. Impossible with BA747 and 777 etc,
Done quite a few of these now in 320s and 319s and it is, as you might expect, a complete non event, started slowing up a fraction earlier in the 319 but that's about it. Whether it makes any difference to those on the ground is a different matter of course, suspect not.
I think some people have forgotten that this is a trial, although not the last few comments to be fair, so let's see what the results show when the trial is complete. As someone who used to conduct trials work one might have an idea of the expected results but sometimes the actual data confounds this. It's called having an open mind!
The increase in angle, I should imagine, is a non event as max angle (appropriate name
) has said. Perhaps gear and landing flap a tad earlier or even "non standard flap 20" on the 744 ie flap and delayed gear. I guess in calm/ tail wind conditions then one might be at thrust idle for a greater duration but that should help all other factors being the same.
Will it make a difference that is discernible to the public under the flight path? Maybe not but I believe the trial is more than just about a steeper approach for noise issues. The subject of speed control with respect to time based separation will be addressed I'm sure. Just my two penn'orth.
The increase in angle, I should imagine, is a non event as max angle (appropriate name
) has said. Perhaps gear and landing flap a tad earlier or even "non standard flap 20" on the 744 ie flap and delayed gear. I guess in calm/ tail wind conditions then one might be at thrust idle for a greater duration but that should help all other factors being the same. Will it make a difference that is discernible to the public under the flight path? Maybe not but I believe the trial is more than just about a steeper approach for noise issues. The subject of speed control with respect to time based separation will be addressed I'm sure. Just my two penn'orth.
Originally Posted by Gove N.T.
Travelling through Putney, I noticed no difference ( not that I would I suppose ) but what I did notice was that planes overhead were almost silent compared with the noise of road traffic. The MP for the area, Justine Greening, must have had super selective hearing to say that she was deafened by airplane noise.
They just have an alternative agenda irrespective of the actual facts
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a human factors issue and has been known about for decades. You live on a busy road with lorries/motorbikes etc. thundering past, and as you sit in the back garden, not being able to see the trucks/etc, you filter out that regular, been there for years, ground noise. You can't do anything about it.
As you sit in your back garden a jet rumbles over head. You look at it, focus your eyes & ears on it and think how noisy it is. You grab the phone and complain, because you can. The politicians are mambying to a small minority. Years ago, west of LGW, there was a known local, who sat in his garden with binoculars, db meter and telephone to hand. There are just the same sort at all major airports. Some have more clout than others, and a louder voice in the relevant ears, but it's the same science and same problem as else where. It's a NIMBY issue. This, oh my gawd, steeper approach shock horror BS is just that. It won't solve the root problem, if there is one. Let's first identify the real problem and then design a solution, not suck it and see trials. That's the politician's answer, not the scientists.
But perhaps that is what is really going on; a political fudge to be seen to be doing something and then hide behind the report that will take yonks to be published; yawn, but clever.
As you sit in your back garden a jet rumbles over head. You look at it, focus your eyes & ears on it and think how noisy it is. You grab the phone and complain, because you can. The politicians are mambying to a small minority. Years ago, west of LGW, there was a known local, who sat in his garden with binoculars, db meter and telephone to hand. There are just the same sort at all major airports. Some have more clout than others, and a louder voice in the relevant ears, but it's the same science and same problem as else where. It's a NIMBY issue. This, oh my gawd, steeper approach shock horror BS is just that. It won't solve the root problem, if there is one. Let's first identify the real problem and then design a solution, not suck it and see trials. That's the politician's answer, not the scientists.
But perhaps that is what is really going on; a political fudge to be seen to be doing something and then hide behind the report that will take yonks to be published; yawn, but clever.
It's probably worth keeping an eye on Heathrow's daily operational stats at
Daily Operational data - Heathrow Operational Data
which I assume will include the number of RNAV 3.2° approaches each day in addition to the other existing metrics (though the stats aren't broken down by airline or type).
Currently only showing up to 16th September (the day before the trial started).
Daily Operational data - Heathrow Operational Data
which I assume will include the number of RNAV 3.2° approaches each day in addition to the other existing metrics (though the stats aren't broken down by airline or type).
Currently only showing up to 16th September (the day before the trial started).
Having said that, a quick-and-dirty analysis of landings last Friday (18th) on 27L (the only runway that's being noise-monitored) would suggest that around a dozen approaches were at or above 2500' AMSL at 7 DME, compared to only a couple on the Tuesday before the trial start (15th).
Of course that doesn't necessarily mean those arrivals were flying the 3.2° RNAV approach, they could have been high for any number of other reasons. No doubt we'll be told in due course.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO this is nothing to do with noise, it's a marginal gains thing.
More time spent at idle thrust, 1000' to TD slightly shorter, so 2 pints less fuel each approach.
1 aeroplane not much, 100 aeroplanes quite a lot, 1000 aeroplanes - departmental greeny wonk gets pat on the back for his lovely spreadsheet, and bonuses all round (the office).
More time spent at idle thrust, 1000' to TD slightly shorter, so 2 pints less fuel each approach.
1 aeroplane not much, 100 aeroplanes quite a lot, 1000 aeroplanes - departmental greeny wonk gets pat on the back for his lovely spreadsheet, and bonuses all round (the office).