Heathrow night flights to continue - government wins appeal
Slightly off topic, but who makes MLS now? Last I heard, the major US manufacturer (Wilcox) had stopped, the argument being that differential GPS was more accurate. Radeng can show his age by remembering back when the various MLS systems were being evaluated by ICAO, and the present one chosen. That was when radeng was an apprentice and I'm 4 years off retirement now.......I know NATO keep saying that they're going to equip lots of European airfields with it, but haven't heard in the industry much in the way of the orders having appeared. The NATO argument may be one to keep the (currently unused!) frequency allocation
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Headsethair you appear to speak with great authority on subjects which you have no in depth understanding of! Increase the glide slope angle? Well you might get it up to 3.5 degrees, with all the attendant problems of slowing down a slippery jet, but thats still only going to give you 500 feet more at ten miles. Hardly worth it I think.
Power Alterations? I challenge you to fly a constant power approach in any jet with strict ATC speed requirements and config changes. Staircases? Well you tell me who you think the worst offenders are and I 'll tell you how they score, based on BAAs monitoring data for continous descent approaches which is sitting on the desk in front of me.
far be it from me to offer critique on immensely well-trained and skilfull pilots..... Then don't! I don't think I'm in any position to criticise someone flying an R22 based on looking from the ground 7 miles from touchdown, why do you presume you know whats going on in the cockpit of other aircraft?
Power Alterations? I challenge you to fly a constant power approach in any jet with strict ATC speed requirements and config changes. Staircases? Well you tell me who you think the worst offenders are and I 'll tell you how they score, based on BAAs monitoring data for continous descent approaches which is sitting on the desk in front of me.
far be it from me to offer critique on immensely well-trained and skilfull pilots..... Then don't! I don't think I'm in any position to criticise someone flying an R22 based on looking from the ground 7 miles from touchdown, why do you presume you know whats going on in the cockpit of other aircraft?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hand Solo: "Headsethair you appear to speak with great authority on subjects which you have no in depth understanding of!" Leaving aside the fact that my English teacher always told me not to end sentences with a preposition, I speak with no authority. That's why I asked the question - and you have given an answer. That's all I wanted.
If I have any "authority" it's the fact that I do live 7 miles out from the threshold and I do see and hear things which make me ask further questions. Gonzo has explained perfectly the reasons why there's been an increase in short finals, how MLS works (or will), and given his viewpoint on the type of approaches he has witnessed. Good healthy discussion.
The only reason I raised the issues is because the industry is in danger of losing its PR battle over noise. The HACAN case will now revert to the UK courts (where it should have stayed IMHO) and there will be another few years of negative publicity for aircraft noise.
Keeping long finals and steeper approaches (if at all possible) would seem to me obvious ways to reduce noise and complaints.
But I'm not an authority. But neither do I sit and read books of stats and believe them. I just happen to live beneath the approach to the world's busiest international airport - and I see far more approaches than any of you. Bedcause real life isn't a shift. And I mean that without a touch of sarcasm. Thanks for taking the time to help out.
If I have any "authority" it's the fact that I do live 7 miles out from the threshold and I do see and hear things which make me ask further questions. Gonzo has explained perfectly the reasons why there's been an increase in short finals, how MLS works (or will), and given his viewpoint on the type of approaches he has witnessed. Good healthy discussion.
The only reason I raised the issues is because the industry is in danger of losing its PR battle over noise. The HACAN case will now revert to the UK courts (where it should have stayed IMHO) and there will be another few years of negative publicity for aircraft noise.
Keeping long finals and steeper approaches (if at all possible) would seem to me obvious ways to reduce noise and complaints.
But I'm not an authority. But neither do I sit and read books of stats and believe them. I just happen to live beneath the approach to the world's busiest international airport - and I see far more approaches than any of you. Bedcause real life isn't a shift. And I mean that without a touch of sarcasm. Thanks for taking the time to help out.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 58
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
transit pax
May be straying off topic slightly, but isn't the issue of transit pax preferring to go through Heathrow something of a vicious circle? As it stands at the moment LHR has the biggest variety of international destinations, mostly with 2 competing airlines, of almost any airport in the world. As such a fair proportion of transit pax don't have too many options but to go through Heathrow.
If more was done to try and encourage airlines to start routes from regional airports, this would in turn lead to more choices for transit pax other than LHR.
As a related aside, a question: Frankfurt is obviously Lufthansa's main hub, but they seem to be making a success of developing Munich for both short and long haul. Why does this work for them, but BA seem unable/unwilling to do the same with Manchester? This is not to discount the new European destinations BA have introduced from MAN, but they seem very reluctant to go further afield.
If more was done to try and encourage airlines to start routes from regional airports, this would in turn lead to more choices for transit pax other than LHR.
As a related aside, a question: Frankfurt is obviously Lufthansa's main hub, but they seem to be making a success of developing Munich for both short and long haul. Why does this work for them, but BA seem unable/unwilling to do the same with Manchester? This is not to discount the new European destinations BA have introduced from MAN, but they seem very reluctant to go further afield.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Headsethair - point taken, and I shall correct my grammar to wot is proper also(?). At 7 miles you are probably in the worst position to gauge a CDA from the ground. 7 miles is roughly 2100 feet on the ILS, which in normal operation is around the time I'll be doing 180 kts, selecting the second stage of flap (with associated ballooning and aerodynamic noise followed by stuffing the nose down to maintain the glide). This is immediately followed by lowering the gear - more drag, more power, more noise, more attitude changes. Shortly after this we'll be asked to reduce to 160kts to 4dme, which means power back to idle. From 7 miles out this may look like a staircase but the aircraft will be staying fairly close to the glideslope throughout, despite the attitude and config changes. I'm still interested to see who you perceive to be the worst offenders though. Is it by aircraft type or operator?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr So Low:
"Is it by aircraft type or operator?" Now you're making me nervous. We're straying into legal territory.....
But I hear what you say about 7 miles out - a lot happening, hence the extra noise. It's hell out here. And hopefully (for the industry) those factors will reduce over the years. Let's just hope Airbus are working on that with their 600-seater.
Prepositions : I am the sort of person who hears the Currie Motors ad on the radio and shouts back. (They have a jingle which ends "Currie Motors - nice people to do business with.")
As a result, I've never been near them for a car.
However, I do understand why they have stuck with this massacre of English for 15 years. Somehow you can't easily sing "Currie Motors - nice people with whom to do business."
"Is it by aircraft type or operator?" Now you're making me nervous. We're straying into legal territory.....
But I hear what you say about 7 miles out - a lot happening, hence the extra noise. It's hell out here. And hopefully (for the industry) those factors will reduce over the years. Let's just hope Airbus are working on that with their 600-seater.
Prepositions : I am the sort of person who hears the Currie Motors ad on the radio and shouts back. (They have a jingle which ends "Currie Motors - nice people to do business with.")
As a result, I've never been near them for a car.
However, I do understand why they have stuck with this massacre of English for 15 years. Somehow you can't easily sing "Currie Motors - nice people with whom to do business."
Curious Pax - absolutely right! It's the same as Red Car Theory:
"Why do people buy red cars?"
"Because manufacturers only offer red, white, silver and 3 shades of $hit"
"But why don't they ask for other colours?"
"Because we can sell them a red one"
Which becomes:
"Why is there such demand for airport expansion in the south-east?"
"Because that's where the big airports are - the alternatives aren't up to it"
"But why don't the passengers ask to fly from other airports?"
"Because we can sell them seats from Thiefrow"
"Why do people buy red cars?"
"Because manufacturers only offer red, white, silver and 3 shades of $hit"
"But why don't they ask for other colours?"
"Because we can sell them a red one"
Which becomes:
"Why is there such demand for airport expansion in the south-east?"
"Because that's where the big airports are - the alternatives aren't up to it"
"But why don't the passengers ask to fly from other airports?"
"Because we can sell them seats from Thiefrow"
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there's rather too much crowing about this. Let sleeping dogs lie, if they can.
I live in Richmond, 4nm 27L EGLL, my name's not Tarquin and I don't object too much to aircraft noise or hold any brief for Nimbys, being a helicopter pilot and all.
But many of my neighbours are members of HACAN. They are not unreasonable fashion-victims who have suddenly realised there's an airport nearby, they are not knee-jerk environmentalists and above all, they are not Nimbys - there are more than a thousand aircraft a day in their back yard and they are prepared to co-exist with most of them.
But they do know they've been lied to constantly by BAA and BA, and they do have questions which I find hard to answer.
Permission for Terminal Four was granted on condition that there be no further expansion at Heathrow. I personally bought my house when there was a guaranteed ceiling of 260,000 flights a year at Heathrow. Now it's almost twice that. The Terminal Five inquiry opened with a promise from BAA that there would be no third runway at Heathrow. I don't know why they thought they had to say that.
When my neighbours look around the world and see major airports where aircraft disturb far fewer people yet have 6am curfews, they're entitled to ask why. When they ask why the UK's three major airports are virtually co-located in one corner of the island; why a Scotsman must travel for a day to get to an aircraft which then flies him back over his own home to get him to North America; why a third of the seats that are hauled over their heads - the equivalent of perhaps 400 aircraft a day - are empty, I find it hard to give a rock-solid answer. "Well, you see, we have a public duty to bail out the world's most incompetently-managed airline," doesn't quite have the right resonance. And don't even start on the fuel tax and VAT questions.
What would you say to them when they ask whether, when the government lawyer who led the task force that privatised British Airways wound up three years later as the airline's chief executive, there's not something deeply unhealthy about the government's relationship with the airline? "Yes," you might say, "in any other country it would be called corruption, but it's perfectly normal really." How do you parry questions about King and Burnside? "They're gone, and the appearance that their modus operandi remains is illusory."
You can't blame BAA and BA; they're private companies that must act solely in the interests of their shareholders, and they will carry on expanding Heathrow until they are stopped. They have fantastic lobbying and PR operations; BAA owns the Chamber of Commerce, BA has the slickest handling operation in the UK for journalists, ministers and civil servants. I know this from experience. You people who wonder what all those bodies in the Waterside are up to, worry no more - they're earning their corn. And the company can afford to hire the best advocates - no offence intended, FL.
But adhering to this fiction that the economy of the UK is somehow inextricably bound up with the further expansion of Heathrow is an insult to anyone's intelligence. And it's interesting to note that BAA was the most stalwart opponent of Terminal Five in the pre-privatisation days when it had a responsibility for the public interest. Nobody has that public interest brief now.
So don't crow too loudly. One of these days you might wake up someone in government.
What do I care? I'm moving to Cornwall.
I live in Richmond, 4nm 27L EGLL, my name's not Tarquin and I don't object too much to aircraft noise or hold any brief for Nimbys, being a helicopter pilot and all.
But many of my neighbours are members of HACAN. They are not unreasonable fashion-victims who have suddenly realised there's an airport nearby, they are not knee-jerk environmentalists and above all, they are not Nimbys - there are more than a thousand aircraft a day in their back yard and they are prepared to co-exist with most of them.
But they do know they've been lied to constantly by BAA and BA, and they do have questions which I find hard to answer.
Permission for Terminal Four was granted on condition that there be no further expansion at Heathrow. I personally bought my house when there was a guaranteed ceiling of 260,000 flights a year at Heathrow. Now it's almost twice that. The Terminal Five inquiry opened with a promise from BAA that there would be no third runway at Heathrow. I don't know why they thought they had to say that.
When my neighbours look around the world and see major airports where aircraft disturb far fewer people yet have 6am curfews, they're entitled to ask why. When they ask why the UK's three major airports are virtually co-located in one corner of the island; why a Scotsman must travel for a day to get to an aircraft which then flies him back over his own home to get him to North America; why a third of the seats that are hauled over their heads - the equivalent of perhaps 400 aircraft a day - are empty, I find it hard to give a rock-solid answer. "Well, you see, we have a public duty to bail out the world's most incompetently-managed airline," doesn't quite have the right resonance. And don't even start on the fuel tax and VAT questions.
What would you say to them when they ask whether, when the government lawyer who led the task force that privatised British Airways wound up three years later as the airline's chief executive, there's not something deeply unhealthy about the government's relationship with the airline? "Yes," you might say, "in any other country it would be called corruption, but it's perfectly normal really." How do you parry questions about King and Burnside? "They're gone, and the appearance that their modus operandi remains is illusory."
You can't blame BAA and BA; they're private companies that must act solely in the interests of their shareholders, and they will carry on expanding Heathrow until they are stopped. They have fantastic lobbying and PR operations; BAA owns the Chamber of Commerce, BA has the slickest handling operation in the UK for journalists, ministers and civil servants. I know this from experience. You people who wonder what all those bodies in the Waterside are up to, worry no more - they're earning their corn. And the company can afford to hire the best advocates - no offence intended, FL.
But adhering to this fiction that the economy of the UK is somehow inextricably bound up with the further expansion of Heathrow is an insult to anyone's intelligence. And it's interesting to note that BAA was the most stalwart opponent of Terminal Five in the pre-privatisation days when it had a responsibility for the public interest. Nobody has that public interest brief now.
So don't crow too loudly. One of these days you might wake up someone in government.
What do I care? I'm moving to Cornwall.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Headsethair I agree with Hand Solo's comment regarding your impression of 'staircase approaches'. Most of the regular Heathrow users are aware of the requirement to fly CDA (Continuous Descent Approaches) where possible, and indeed I expect most try to do so because (a) pilots try to cut down on noise safely when possible, and (b) flying a CDA approach is challenging and rewarding if well judged. In addition the controllers at LHR vector us in a manner which promotes the chances of a CDA approach.
CDA ststistics for individual airlines are published by the CAA / Airport Authority, and there is quite a sense of pride in my own company that we are usually in the top 3 statistically. British Midland are generally first (darn 'em...we'll knock them off the perch yet!).
CDA ststistics for individual airlines are published by the CAA / Airport Authority, and there is quite a sense of pride in my own company that we are usually in the top 3 statistically. British Midland are generally first (darn 'em...we'll knock them off the perch yet!).
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T'aint:
Fantastic posting. Should be given wider circulation in the industry - and beyond.
Your neighbours (and mine) aren't (a) stupid enough to be duped or (b) lazy enough to give up. And there are a lot of them - with a lot of influence.
Fantastic posting. Should be given wider circulation in the industry - and beyond.
Your neighbours (and mine) aren't (a) stupid enough to be duped or (b) lazy enough to give up. And there are a lot of them - with a lot of influence.
t'aint has made a few very good points, as someone who used to deal with aviation noise/environmental issues I can't disagree with any of his post. The 'don't live near an airport if you don't like it lobby' are living in a fantasy world. Firstly I have never heard any one define 'near', and it of course does not take into account differing peoples tolerances to aircraft noise, or indeed variations in their socio-economic status. For example your single mum, kid under age 4, unemployed, council flat, living on the approach/departure path, try considering real people's situations, it's not so easy then.
Some thoughts:
Aircraft are NOT going to get significantly quieter in the forseeable future. The phase out of CH2 aircraft has occurred therefore the 'worst' offenders have gone. Engine design is NOT expected to bring significant improvements in terms of noise, as aircraft get bigger then the aerodynamic noise from the airframe increases, so the A380 designers will have their hands full. This effect is almost certainly magnified when Mr Solo gets 'dirty'
seven miles out.
For Mr Solo
Noise by aircraft or operator?, in my experience both can have significant varitions in the noise generated. Differing techniques and procedures using same type, similar loads, sector length by different operators can have very different noise readings. No I'm not going to name names, to prevent the usual Pprune whinge fest of my airline's better that yours, that we all know and love.
In general
The runway utilisation in the uk is in general terms 70% westerly and 30% easterly, hence when runway changes take place, the effect is magnified for those not normally used to departing or landing traffic, which ever is the most prevalent for them. The airports traffic volume obviously plays a significant part in this.
Finally think about the present Government we have, on election there was to be an Integrated Transport Policy 10 year plan. Also no new roads, improve public transport etc.... Six years on we have no ITP, we're building new roads, erm public transport..... so what price no fuel tax?. Don't forget it won't be a fuel tax because we couldn't do that unilaterally, but what about an environmental tax? different name, same effect. Still if you keep your head in the sand it makes it easier for the opposition to insert the hedgehog on a stick!
Some thoughts:
Aircraft are NOT going to get significantly quieter in the forseeable future. The phase out of CH2 aircraft has occurred therefore the 'worst' offenders have gone. Engine design is NOT expected to bring significant improvements in terms of noise, as aircraft get bigger then the aerodynamic noise from the airframe increases, so the A380 designers will have their hands full. This effect is almost certainly magnified when Mr Solo gets 'dirty'
seven miles out.For Mr Solo
Noise by aircraft or operator?, in my experience both can have significant varitions in the noise generated. Differing techniques and procedures using same type, similar loads, sector length by different operators can have very different noise readings. No I'm not going to name names, to prevent the usual Pprune whinge fest of my airline's better that yours, that we all know and love.
In general
The runway utilisation in the uk is in general terms 70% westerly and 30% easterly, hence when runway changes take place, the effect is magnified for those not normally used to departing or landing traffic, which ever is the most prevalent for them. The airports traffic volume obviously plays a significant part in this.
Finally think about the present Government we have, on election there was to be an Integrated Transport Policy 10 year plan. Also no new roads, improve public transport etc.... Six years on we have no ITP, we're building new roads, erm public transport..... so what price no fuel tax?. Don't forget it won't be a fuel tax because we couldn't do that unilaterally, but what about an environmental tax? different name, same effect. Still if you keep your head in the sand it makes it easier for the opposition to insert the hedgehog on a stick!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: LGW
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re heathrow
Just to say that i agree with you guys, if people dont want disturbing by night flights then move somewhere else and dont buy near an international airport,also in reply to maxy101 ,maybe the gov should look to manchester as they have trains/busses/freesuttle busses/and soon the metrolink tram system extended to cover the airport.
I live near gatwick and there are night flights all the time and i dont mind as they dont disturb me,i used to live in charlwood which is at the end of the runway and rented a house without double glazing and guess wot it didnt bother me even at night
I have to disagree with beagle re;- regional airports well manch it is more than upto it the only lo cost airlines using man are fr and hx on 2 routes however the list of scheds is long,i feel it is little bit of short sightedness from ba that they only have short haul and 1 daily jfk when other airlines from around the world use man with success and unlike lgw stn it has a second runway 3 terminals and a great deal of room for expansion but then agaian maybe the baa are a little envious of a private airport not ruled by them being able to make it work.
I live near gatwick and there are night flights all the time and i dont mind as they dont disturb me,i used to live in charlwood which is at the end of the runway and rented a house without double glazing and guess wot it didnt bother me even at night
I have to disagree with beagle re;- regional airports well manch it is more than upto it the only lo cost airlines using man are fr and hx on 2 routes however the list of scheds is long,i feel it is little bit of short sightedness from ba that they only have short haul and 1 daily jfk when other airlines from around the world use man with success and unlike lgw stn it has a second runway 3 terminals and a great deal of room for expansion but then agaian maybe the baa are a little envious of a private airport not ruled by them being able to make it work.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Manchester
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Foxiboy, you seem to have forgotten bmibaby with their current 6 destinations which will grow to 9 for the winter timtetable, plus MyTravel Lite from November.
I'm sure the BA people know what they are doing expanding the short-haul market (when was the last time they opened 5 routes in 6 months at a regional?); it may be the mid to long term before additional long-haul comes along.
I'm sure the BA people know what they are doing expanding the short-haul market (when was the last time they opened 5 routes in 6 months at a regional?); it may be the mid to long term before additional long-haul comes along.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: LGW
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep only for them to drop long haul routes out of man as they did in the past, like then it seems they dont think much of the regions but prefer to concentrate on the south east,why should people from the norh of the coutry have to travel to the london airports to get to where they want to go.I would love to travel BA long haul from man however i would have to fly another airline to vast majority of places direct from good old manch i say bring back the days of lots ofOPPS I MEAN BA LONG HAUL FROM MANCH !
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flying Lawyer says "HACAN claims noise problems caused by Heathrow's night flights are no longer confined to south west London. (It also claims residents as far away from LHR as Kensington & Chelsea are affected by the aircraft noise. I can vouch for the fact that is nonsense. )"
Wonko Says : I can assure you, the aircraft noise at 6am in Wapping (some 8 or 9 miles east of Kensington) is impossible to sleep through with the window open. This is all due to Heathrow-bound traffic - the City airport traffic, surprisingly, is relatively quiet here. It's not just distance that counts - peak hours in Staines (just a couple of miles from Heathrow) is much quieter. Wapping is just under a turning point onto Heathrow finals, which may be a factor - there's the distinctive noise of engine power adjustment going on.
Don't brush off Joe Londoner here - Heathrow noise affects peoples lives well outside of the Heathrow area.
Wonko Says : I can assure you, the aircraft noise at 6am in Wapping (some 8 or 9 miles east of Kensington) is impossible to sleep through with the window open. This is all due to Heathrow-bound traffic - the City airport traffic, surprisingly, is relatively quiet here. It's not just distance that counts - peak hours in Staines (just a couple of miles from Heathrow) is much quieter. Wapping is just under a turning point onto Heathrow finals, which may be a factor - there's the distinctive noise of engine power adjustment going on.
Don't brush off Joe Londoner here - Heathrow noise affects peoples lives well outside of the Heathrow area.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm - Jumpseater and Wonko seem to me to be right on here. I can attest to th 6am inbound to LHR being a problem on the Isle of Dogs just a stones throw from Wonko. Again, I experience far less noise intrusion from LCY.
An interesting (and difficult to overcome) aspect of airframe noise from large aircraft is that engine noise (fan and exhaust) are most audible fore and aft of the aircraft, but airframe noise is more omnidirectional. Could make it very difficult to meet lateral noise limitations, even if the overall figure is not that bad.
Just a note on optimisation for noise - how do all the "Greens" campaigning for quieter airports live with the fact that the A380 will have to burn more fuel overall so that it can meet their "Green" requirements in and around an airport?
An interesting (and difficult to overcome) aspect of airframe noise from large aircraft is that engine noise (fan and exhaust) are most audible fore and aft of the aircraft, but airframe noise is more omnidirectional. Could make it very difficult to meet lateral noise limitations, even if the overall figure is not that bad.
Just a note on optimisation for noise - how do all the "Greens" campaigning for quieter airports live with the fact that the A380 will have to burn more fuel overall so that it can meet their "Green" requirements in and around an airport?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ploz,
Airframe noise is not audible to the human ear with the engines running. You might be able to pick it out with a phased array mic setup, but unless the airplane is a glider you won't hear it.
FYI- 747-400 is 101.3 dB flaps and gear down pure airframe noise
Ploz,
Airframe noise is not audible to the human ear with the engines running. You might be able to pick it out with a ohased array mic setup, but unless the airplane is a glider you won't hear it.
FYI- 747-400 is 101.3 dB flaps and gear down pure airframe noise
Airframe noise is not audible to the human ear with the engines running. You might be able to pick it out with a phased array mic setup, but unless the airplane is a glider you won't hear it.
FYI- 747-400 is 101.3 dB flaps and gear down pure airframe noise
Ploz,
Airframe noise is not audible to the human ear with the engines running. You might be able to pick it out with a ohased array mic setup, but unless the airplane is a glider you won't hear it.
FYI- 747-400 is 101.3 dB flaps and gear down pure airframe noise
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
747Focal - can't dispute your figures, but given that weight will increase in newer, larger aircraft, they will need more undercarriage and more high lift devices - all sources of airframe noise. If the engine manufacturers can deliver their promissed 10dB (halving current levels) reduction in engine noise by 2010 then airframe noise will become a significant factor.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ploz,
Actually, the technology and understanding of airframe noise is a new arena for noise reduction. Airframe noise will go down as well as the engine source noise. I will guarantee you that engines will never get quiet enough to where your airframe noise drives your overall noise levels.
If you are anywhere near the noise game you should know that every aircraft in current production meets the 10 dB reduction already so the manufacturers will not have to do anything to meet Chapter 4. 737s that are 20 years old meet the Chapter 4 noise level requirements. Heck, your going to see 727s that meet Chapter 4.
Listen to me when I tell you that you will not see noticeable noise reduction in airport communities for 20 years. They may demonstrate some small reductions, but those reductions are not noticable to any human.
Actually, the technology and understanding of airframe noise is a new arena for noise reduction. Airframe noise will go down as well as the engine source noise. I will guarantee you that engines will never get quiet enough to where your airframe noise drives your overall noise levels.
If you are anywhere near the noise game you should know that every aircraft in current production meets the 10 dB reduction already so the manufacturers will not have to do anything to meet Chapter 4. 737s that are 20 years old meet the Chapter 4 noise level requirements. Heck, your going to see 727s that meet Chapter 4.
Listen to me when I tell you that you will not see noticeable noise reduction in airport communities for 20 years. They may demonstrate some small reductions, but those reductions are not noticable to any human.