Heathrow night flights to continue - government wins appeal
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ploz
Noise from i/b to Heafrow ain't a problem on the Isle of Dogs. I know, I live there too. You can hear them, but that don't make it a problem. Try living in Hounslow, even Windsor on easterlies!!
The reason you get no hassle from LCY is twofold:
1/. they adhere to their noise restrictions far more rigidly.
2/. the inbounds only have lawnmowers for engines.
P7
Noise from i/b to Heafrow ain't a problem on the Isle of Dogs. I know, I live there too. You can hear them, but that don't make it a problem. Try living in Hounslow, even Windsor on easterlies!!
The reason you get no hassle from LCY is twofold:
1/. they adhere to their noise restrictions far more rigidly.
2/. the inbounds only have lawnmowers for engines.
P7
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P7
Well it wakes me up! Probably because the first few in are coming off the bottom of the stack and are a touch lower than the average. I grew up around Lightnings and Vulcans, so I think I can remember what real noise is all about and this isn't anything in comparison.
Funny thing is that locals used to complain about noise from London City until someone pointed out that the area was probably quieter with an airport than when it was a working dock.
Well it wakes me up! Probably because the first few in are coming off the bottom of the stack and are a touch lower than the average. I grew up around Lightnings and Vulcans, so I think I can remember what real noise is all about and this isn't anything in comparison.
Funny thing is that locals used to complain about noise from London City until someone pointed out that the area was probably quieter with an airport than when it was a working dock.
Last edited by Ploz; 15th Jul 2003 at 18:38.
Paxing All Over The World
"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."
A friend of mine lives in Rotherhithe, also under the turn in for westerly finals. She complains about the noise a lot. On the numerous occasions that I have slept there she will ask me in the morning if I was disturbed by the 05:00 / 06:00 arrivals? I never hear them and sleep through, she always gets woken by them. That is one of the greatest problems - each person hears noise and reacts to it - in a different way.
As to whether LHR will continue to grow? In years to come, I think that we will find we have already passed the balance point at which traffic is moving away to AMS/FRA faster than it is coming to us.
The issue of whether LHR should be a key national infrastructure is long past. It is but has not been recognised as such. BAA and BA and their chums in CAA and the various ministries will continue to arrange matters for their convenience - not ours. I know that all sounds bitter and twisted but after watching and using civil aviation in this country for 25 years as an adult - I can come to no other conclusion.
A friend of mine lives in Rotherhithe, also under the turn in for westerly finals. She complains about the noise a lot. On the numerous occasions that I have slept there she will ask me in the morning if I was disturbed by the 05:00 / 06:00 arrivals? I never hear them and sleep through, she always gets woken by them. That is one of the greatest problems - each person hears noise and reacts to it - in a different way.
As to whether LHR will continue to grow? In years to come, I think that we will find we have already passed the balance point at which traffic is moving away to AMS/FRA faster than it is coming to us.
The issue of whether LHR should be a key national infrastructure is long past. It is but has not been recognised as such. BAA and BA and their chums in CAA and the various ministries will continue to arrange matters for their convenience - not ours. I know that all sounds bitter and twisted but after watching and using civil aviation in this country for 25 years as an adult - I can come to no other conclusion.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Point 7 says : "Noise from i/b to Heafrow ain't a problem on the Isle of Dogs"
Wonko Says : In your opinion - which was perhaps the point I was making. Different people have different opinions and issues. When people have different opinions to yours, that doesn't necessarily make them wrong.
Ploz : "locals used to complain about noise from London City until someone pointed out ..."
Wonko says : There's also the fact that the local population / demographic has changed significantly in this region over the last 15 years - not sure how much that plays in the swing in opinion.
PAXBoy says : "On the numerous occasions that I have slept there she will ask me in the morning if I was disturbed by the 05:00 / 06:00 arrivals? I never hear them"
Wonko says : My experience too. Had lots of people stay here who are completely undisturbed by it. In general I'm not disturbed by it either, but if I wake up early in summer (windows open, etc), I can't get back to sleep because of it. By 7:00 the rest of the world is noisy too (plus I've got out of bed) so it's less noticeable.
It's funny - I'm trying not to offer up opinions here, but I will say this :
London City Airport is very local, yet it doesn't adversely impact my environment in a way that I notice daily and as someone who has been a regular euro-commuter, I've gained real benefits from having an efficient, useful airport within 10 minutes cab ride.
Heathrow is not really local (1hr+ cab ride outside of rush hour, similar times in public transport), it does affect (environmentally) my life (see prior postings), and if it wasn't for the fact that there are no real alternatives for travelling from London to USA/Canada, I'd avoid it like the plague - 'cos it's the worst run airport I've ever been to.
Isn't there a compromise somewhere ?
Wonko Says : In your opinion - which was perhaps the point I was making. Different people have different opinions and issues. When people have different opinions to yours, that doesn't necessarily make them wrong.
Ploz : "locals used to complain about noise from London City until someone pointed out ..."
Wonko says : There's also the fact that the local population / demographic has changed significantly in this region over the last 15 years - not sure how much that plays in the swing in opinion.
PAXBoy says : "On the numerous occasions that I have slept there she will ask me in the morning if I was disturbed by the 05:00 / 06:00 arrivals? I never hear them"
Wonko says : My experience too. Had lots of people stay here who are completely undisturbed by it. In general I'm not disturbed by it either, but if I wake up early in summer (windows open, etc), I can't get back to sleep because of it. By 7:00 the rest of the world is noisy too (plus I've got out of bed) so it's less noticeable.
It's funny - I'm trying not to offer up opinions here, but I will say this :
London City Airport is very local, yet it doesn't adversely impact my environment in a way that I notice daily and as someone who has been a regular euro-commuter, I've gained real benefits from having an efficient, useful airport within 10 minutes cab ride.
Heathrow is not really local (1hr+ cab ride outside of rush hour, similar times in public transport), it does affect (environmentally) my life (see prior postings), and if it wasn't for the fact that there are no real alternatives for travelling from London to USA/Canada, I'd avoid it like the plague - 'cos it's the worst run airport I've ever been to.
Isn't there a compromise somewhere ?
747
I'm not sure I agree with you re your point about a decrease in both airframe and engine source noise, my understanding is that both were likely to increase, if you can point me to a source of information to your viewpoint I would be very interested. As approach noise is monitored at a specific point for certification (for both departure and approach noise levels), they do not take into account operational variations as described by Hand Solo. They are also assuming a stabilised approach/departure on a 'standard' day. Interestingly I am not aware of any airport that as yet has a noise restriction scheme with penalties for breaches relating to ARRIVAL noise. If any Pruner knows of one, I would again be very interested to hear of it.
Airframe noise particularly flap deployment, does give significant changes in the noise levels achieved, having stood at various points along a normal 3 degree ILS from 10 miles out I can personally vouch for this. Another factor is the topography around the airport, if the ground rises away from the airport along the approach path, then disturbance can be noted from people quite a long way out (note rising ground not the case at LHR). PAXboy for example will be closer to approaching aircraft to LTN than he would be if he lived on the eastern side of the airport, however he only gets that 30% of the year.
747 is almost certainly correct in his final comment re airport community noise. Probably the biggest increase may come from MLS approaches. With an ILS you get a 'sausage machine' i.e 10 miles stabilised approach with a 3 degree descent profile. Hence you will get a linear noise contour along the approach path. Most crews I have spoken to in the past like to be fully stabilised at 5 miles, (ideally earlier), and I assume that would still be the case with an MLS approach. If this is the case then outside of 5 miles we might well see a greater variation and spread of track keeping, thus increasing the area of the noise contour, and the disturbance to local residents. However, if MLS allows an even later allignment than 5 miles, then the spread will be greater for both the noise contour and potential disturbance, which I can promise you will be interpreted as an increase in noise.
And finally for Ploz the tree huggers answer will be don't fly at times that require you to be stooging around at night/early hours of the morning. Oh and then you can open the fuel can of worms, tankering, taxes blah blah blah......
Now then about this environmental consultancy fee.....
I'm not sure I agree with you re your point about a decrease in both airframe and engine source noise, my understanding is that both were likely to increase, if you can point me to a source of information to your viewpoint I would be very interested. As approach noise is monitored at a specific point for certification (for both departure and approach noise levels), they do not take into account operational variations as described by Hand Solo. They are also assuming a stabilised approach/departure on a 'standard' day. Interestingly I am not aware of any airport that as yet has a noise restriction scheme with penalties for breaches relating to ARRIVAL noise. If any Pruner knows of one, I would again be very interested to hear of it.
Airframe noise particularly flap deployment, does give significant changes in the noise levels achieved, having stood at various points along a normal 3 degree ILS from 10 miles out I can personally vouch for this. Another factor is the topography around the airport, if the ground rises away from the airport along the approach path, then disturbance can be noted from people quite a long way out (note rising ground not the case at LHR). PAXboy for example will be closer to approaching aircraft to LTN than he would be if he lived on the eastern side of the airport, however he only gets that 30% of the year.
747 is almost certainly correct in his final comment re airport community noise. Probably the biggest increase may come from MLS approaches. With an ILS you get a 'sausage machine' i.e 10 miles stabilised approach with a 3 degree descent profile. Hence you will get a linear noise contour along the approach path. Most crews I have spoken to in the past like to be fully stabilised at 5 miles, (ideally earlier), and I assume that would still be the case with an MLS approach. If this is the case then outside of 5 miles we might well see a greater variation and spread of track keeping, thus increasing the area of the noise contour, and the disturbance to local residents. However, if MLS allows an even later allignment than 5 miles, then the spread will be greater for both the noise contour and potential disturbance, which I can promise you will be interpreted as an increase in noise.
And finally for Ploz the tree huggers answer will be don't fly at times that require you to be stooging around at night/early hours of the morning. Oh and then you can open the fuel can of worms, tankering, taxes blah blah blah......
Now then about this environmental consultancy fee.....
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This just in!
NEW LAW ON MANAGING AIRCRAFT NOISE
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pns//DisplayPN...n_id=2003_0091
NEW LAW ON MANAGING AIRCRAFT NOISE
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pns//DisplayPN...n_id=2003_0091
Guest
Posts: n/a
jumpseater,
What I was saying is that our understanding of airframe source noise is advancing. We can reduce airframe source noise as well as reduce engine noise on future aircraft. If one is looking at the spectrum of an overall noise signature of any aircraft you can pick out components of the airframe, but the engine noise will always drive the certificated noise levels.
What you are hearing by standing at different points along the approach is the increase in thrust required as the flaps and the gear come down and increase drag. There is not one spot along the flight path(well maybe touchdown as the engines go to idle) where you will hear airframe noise that is louder than the engines.
and I do get paid daily for environmental consultency.
What I was saying is that our understanding of airframe source noise is advancing. We can reduce airframe source noise as well as reduce engine noise on future aircraft. If one is looking at the spectrum of an overall noise signature of any aircraft you can pick out components of the airframe, but the engine noise will always drive the certificated noise levels.
What you are hearing by standing at different points along the approach is the increase in thrust required as the flaps and the gear come down and increase drag. There is not one spot along the flight path(well maybe touchdown as the engines go to idle) where you will hear airframe noise that is louder than the engines.
and I do get paid daily for environmental consultency.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jumpseater
The idea of MLS at Heafrow is not to allow these curved approaches that everyone talks about whenever MLS comes up, but to increase landing capacity during LVPs.
As the localiser sensitive area (LSA) is much smaller than that associated with ILS, previous landing aircraft are clear of the LSA quicker so you can reduce spacing required on approach (for both landing runway and TEAM-ing). The requirements for establishing outside ten miles on westerly ops will not change, as these are designed to reduce environmental impact, so the noise footprint should remain the same.
P7
The idea of MLS at Heafrow is not to allow these curved approaches that everyone talks about whenever MLS comes up, but to increase landing capacity during LVPs.
As the localiser sensitive area (LSA) is much smaller than that associated with ILS, previous landing aircraft are clear of the LSA quicker so you can reduce spacing required on approach (for both landing runway and TEAM-ing). The requirements for establishing outside ten miles on westerly ops will not change, as these are designed to reduce environmental impact, so the noise footprint should remain the same.
P7
747, I fully agree with your points re certification and the place that engine noise takes in that, unfortunately telling the 'locals' that usually results in 'character building' discussions! I'm still not fully convinced however on your point regarding airframe noise, I can clearly recall observed instances of flap deployment where the airframe noise certainly added significantly to the overall noise to the extent where the engines were nearly drowned out (chp 3 types however). At the time we had no monitor to measure this, and of course you had to be in the right place/right time to experience it.
P7 thanks for the clarification re MLS, so putting on swampy's hat MLS will increase noise levels (whilst staying within the noise contour), as the rate of landings will be increased during LVP's, from the current less frequent rate, also allowing that currently you probably 'lose' one or two due to fuel divs.
Right I'll get my rather smelly and unusually stained coat!
I'm still not fully convinced however on your point regarding airframe noise, I can clearly recall observed instances of flap deployment where the airframe noise certainly added significantly to the overall noise to the extent where the engines were nearly drowned out (chp 3 types however). At the time we had no monitor to measure this, and of course you had to be in the right place/right time to experience it.P7 thanks for the clarification re MLS, so putting on swampy's hat MLS will increase noise levels (whilst staying within the noise contour), as the rate of landings will be increased during LVP's, from the current less frequent rate, also allowing that currently you probably 'lose' one or two due to fuel divs.
Right I'll get my rather smelly and unusually stained coat!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jumpseater
That, mate, I can't argur with. I was hoping you wouldn't see through my charade!
747FOCAL
What I was referring to was the idea that approaches with MLS can be flown with a LATERAL curve. You don't have to intercept a centreline beam and follow it, you can fly a continual curve due to the higher precision of the MLS (certification pending of course). CDAs are possible at Heathrow and as much as possible these are what LL INT controllers are aiming for, however there are very many factors both within and outside of their control that sometimes mean not all approaches are of a continuous nature.
P7
That, mate, I can't argur with. I was hoping you wouldn't see through my charade!
747FOCAL
What I was referring to was the idea that approaches with MLS can be flown with a LATERAL curve. You don't have to intercept a centreline beam and follow it, you can fly a continual curve due to the higher precision of the MLS (certification pending of course). CDAs are possible at Heathrow and as much as possible these are what LL INT controllers are aiming for, however there are very many factors both within and outside of their control that sometimes mean not all approaches are of a continuous nature.
P7
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: manchester
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gonzo and Handsolo - just two quick questions about BA SOP's ;
(i) Does the requirement to accelerate at 1000AGL cause more noise?
Other operators climb to 1500ft with TO thrust then take climb power and often don't accelerate till 3000AGL thereby minimising noise footprint. BA's method seems a bit old - fashioned?
(ii) Do you think the airbus req't to drop the gear before 2000 creates unecessary noise at six or seven miles out?
(i) Does the requirement to accelerate at 1000AGL cause more noise?
Other operators climb to 1500ft with TO thrust then take climb power and often don't accelerate till 3000AGL thereby minimising noise footprint. BA's method seems a bit old - fashioned?
(ii) Do you think the airbus req't to drop the gear before 2000 creates unecessary noise at six or seven miles out?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know about number one, but I seem to remember somebody explaining the various ICAO noise abatement take off techniques on here some time ago and I think the BA SOP did comply with one of them.
As for number two, well you've got to put the gear down somewhere! I don't think you'd want to delay to below 2000 or you'll have fun reducing to 160 to 4. Lowering it further out is likely to lead to higher power settings as you drag the aircraft in at 180kts with the wheels down, so it may be a no win situation. Either way I often find I'm taking the gear anywhere between 2000 and 3000 feet because I like to be fair with the noise and I can't manage my energy very well.
As for number two, well you've got to put the gear down somewhere! I don't think you'd want to delay to below 2000 or you'll have fun reducing to 160 to 4. Lowering it further out is likely to lead to higher power settings as you drag the aircraft in at 180kts with the wheels down, so it may be a no win situation. Either way I often find I'm taking the gear anywhere between 2000 and 3000 feet because I like to be fair with the noise and I can't manage my energy very well.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shuttleworth.....
No idea!
Don't work for BA!
At the moment in LVPs we use 6 mile spacing. The theory is that after MLS is in use, we'll keep landing ILS only a/c on the landing runway, and land the MLS equipped a/c on the departure runway at about six an hour (judging by the percentage of traffic so equipped). If we mixed ILS and MLS a/c on the same runway, we reckon we would use five miles, instead of six, in front of MLS a/c.
No idea!
Don't work for BA!
At the moment in LVPs we use 6 mile spacing. The theory is that after MLS is in use, we'll keep landing ILS only a/c on the landing runway, and land the MLS equipped a/c on the departure runway at about six an hour (judging by the percentage of traffic so equipped). If we mixed ILS and MLS a/c on the same runway, we reckon we would use five miles, instead of six, in front of MLS a/c.
Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Northumberland, UK
Age: 61
Posts: 293
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Made some comment in the similar thread on Jet Blast, saying that in my opinion a car in the street is more disruptive than a modern commercial aircraft flying overhead. Decided that my opinion was a wee bit subjective so asked one of my friends who is an acoustic scientist working as a specialist acoustic consultant. Some very interesting and relevant comments which I will try to report faithfully here.
He ducked fully answering my statement about the car and the aircraft. While I gather there is some basis for the statement, but understandably there are too many variables for a simple meaningful comparison.
Even in the most aerodynamically dirty condition, a landing, even if having to use some additional engine power while manoeuvring, aircraft will not generate as much noise as aircraft engines on take off. No great surprise there, except that the difference is quite significant and the actual noise measurement is not the complete assessment of noise disruption.
Complicating the process is something he called 'noise perception'. In other words, if somebody perceives something to be noisy, it will be regardless of the actual scientific assessment of the actual noise. Hence, Paxboy's friend hearing the landing aircraft, perceived as noisy, while Paxboy, with a more relaxed attitude, slept on. My friend was very scathing of the approach adopted by one of the scientific advisors to the Heathrow protestors. He did not go as far as saying it was bad science, but I understand that, extrapolating the methodology adopted, even if an aircraft were totally silent, it would still count as noisy! Talk about playing with loaded dice! Certainly it does beg a question about the validity of the complaints, or at least some of the complaints.
It also suggests that the government chose to follow good science instead of bowing to perceived political pressure. Think the last time that happened in the British Isles was when the Druids got planning permission for Stonehenge...
With regard to the buying a house under flight paths and complaining later, there was an interesting negligence case reported recently in the surveying journals. As part of the instructions to a valuer, a purchaser of a property in the Home Counties insisted that the valuer check for disruptive aircraft noise. The valuer reported no problems, so the purchaser went ahead only to find that the house was under a turning point for LGW (do not blame me if that is technically wrong, I am merely recounting the law report from memory!). The court found the valuer negligent and they had to pay compensation. Compensation culture or legitimate gripe?
He ducked fully answering my statement about the car and the aircraft. While I gather there is some basis for the statement, but understandably there are too many variables for a simple meaningful comparison.
Even in the most aerodynamically dirty condition, a landing, even if having to use some additional engine power while manoeuvring, aircraft will not generate as much noise as aircraft engines on take off. No great surprise there, except that the difference is quite significant and the actual noise measurement is not the complete assessment of noise disruption.
Complicating the process is something he called 'noise perception'. In other words, if somebody perceives something to be noisy, it will be regardless of the actual scientific assessment of the actual noise. Hence, Paxboy's friend hearing the landing aircraft, perceived as noisy, while Paxboy, with a more relaxed attitude, slept on. My friend was very scathing of the approach adopted by one of the scientific advisors to the Heathrow protestors. He did not go as far as saying it was bad science, but I understand that, extrapolating the methodology adopted, even if an aircraft were totally silent, it would still count as noisy! Talk about playing with loaded dice! Certainly it does beg a question about the validity of the complaints, or at least some of the complaints.
It also suggests that the government chose to follow good science instead of bowing to perceived political pressure. Think the last time that happened in the British Isles was when the Druids got planning permission for Stonehenge...
With regard to the buying a house under flight paths and complaining later, there was an interesting negligence case reported recently in the surveying journals. As part of the instructions to a valuer, a purchaser of a property in the Home Counties insisted that the valuer check for disruptive aircraft noise. The valuer reported no problems, so the purchaser went ahead only to find that the house was under a turning point for LGW (do not blame me if that is technically wrong, I am merely recounting the law report from memory!). The court found the valuer negligent and they had to pay compensation. Compensation culture or legitimate gripe?
Guest
Posts: n/a
jumpseater,
Which airplane was it that you noticed the airframe noise and how high(approx) was he when he deployed the flaps? I am still inclined to think that you are confusing increased thrust for airframe noise.
We use a very sofisticated(some 250 mics) phased array to pic out various airframe and engine noise components.
I guess now that I think about it, that a NG 737 at flaps 40 there is some airframe in the EPNL.
Which airplane was it that you noticed the airframe noise and how high(approx) was he when he deployed the flaps? I am still inclined to think that you are confusing increased thrust for airframe noise.
We use a very sofisticated(some 250 mics) phased array to pic out various airframe and engine noise components.
I guess now that I think about it, that a NG 737 at flaps 40 there is some airframe in the EPNL.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
747F
Thanks for your input on this thread/argument. I'm going to bow out having taken note of all your points and accept that in the current generation of aircraft, engine noise will always dominate. It seems to me that airframe noise can be kept to manageable proportions through good aerodynamic design and that as progress in engine noise becomes harder to realise, then manufacturers are looking to make a contribution to overall noise through tackling the airframe. Nevertheless, with heavier aircraft in the pipline, higher Cl on approach will always be required to keep appoach speeds manageble and the higher induced drag will lead to increased thrust and, incidently, increased airframe noise. It seems that the larger the aircraft, the noisier the approach is going to be.
Incidently, while living around military airfields, I often noticed significant airframe noise on approach especially from Phantoms and a peculiar phenomenon of high pitched whistling as very tight vortices interacted with the ground - typically a few seconds after the aircraft had passed over. Has this ever been seen (heard) with commercial aircraft on still days?
Thanks for your input on this thread/argument. I'm going to bow out having taken note of all your points and accept that in the current generation of aircraft, engine noise will always dominate. It seems to me that airframe noise can be kept to manageable proportions through good aerodynamic design and that as progress in engine noise becomes harder to realise, then manufacturers are looking to make a contribution to overall noise through tackling the airframe. Nevertheless, with heavier aircraft in the pipline, higher Cl on approach will always be required to keep appoach speeds manageble and the higher induced drag will lead to increased thrust and, incidently, increased airframe noise. It seems that the larger the aircraft, the noisier the approach is going to be.
Incidently, while living around military airfields, I often noticed significant airframe noise on approach especially from Phantoms and a peculiar phenomenon of high pitched whistling as very tight vortices interacted with the ground - typically a few seconds after the aircraft had passed over. Has this ever been seen (heard) with commercial aircraft on still days?
747
As I recall the type was either B757/767 or Airbus A300/310, certainly one of the big twins, it was only an aural impression if you follow, as at that time we didn't have our one and only B&K portable noise monitor. It would almost certainly have been around the 8-5 mile mark and I recall in the height band 1500-2500ft agl (measured using radar plots). I used to discretely visit the complaint location to get a feel for what the complainant was experiencing. How it would have shown on a scientific reading I don't know.
92220
Departure noise historically has been the primary problem, but with the phase out of CH2 types, improvements in departure noise and increased environmental awareness arrival noise is very much an up and coming issue. In the UK a good number of the larger airports have noise penalty schemes where a departure may be fined for excessive noise. These fines are levied based on a particular point in the departure profile and is as I recall at the same point in terms of distance, for all the airports. When I departed the tree hugging field there was no 'standard measuring point' for arrival noise, but various trails were taking or due to take place. Hence we could not l;evy fines for a 'too noisy' arrival, always a bone of contention for a complainant.
Noise is indeed very subjective, and could be described as unwanted noise. An example to demonstrate this would be Fido the family dog, whilst dashing round the garden chasing the squealing kids, and yapping in delight, next door Mr Smith, (not a dog lover), may well be loading the over and under Purdy for when Fido next passes the gap in the fence! . Note Mr Smith is unkeen on dogs anyway, so his tolerance/subjectiveness to the noise is already lower, than it would were it just the kids messing about and making a noise. Think about the number of serious neighbour vs. neighbour disputes you read about that involve noise and theres part of the answer re subjectivity, and the potential extreme reaction to noise. The last thing an airport needs is a community feeling that aggrieved.
Re estate agents, I dont know the case but can see how the agent may have missed it, therefore it might not be their fault.
I always used to suggest when asked that the puchaser spend as much time as possible at the location at different times, so they could assess all impacts, not just aircraft. Also if the property fell inside the airdrome traffic zone then the answer was yes, you are likely to be overflown, because you are under the ATZ, a nice simple answer that covers all angles. Because the runway use in SE england is broadly 70% westerly and 30% easterly, in some locations there can be weeks or months when a property is not overflown, hence the perception can arise that they are not on the flightpath, when in fact they are!, always an entertaining discussion that one!
As I recall the type was either B757/767 or Airbus A300/310, certainly one of the big twins, it was only an aural impression if you follow, as at that time we didn't have our one and only B&K portable noise monitor. It would almost certainly have been around the 8-5 mile mark and I recall in the height band 1500-2500ft agl (measured using radar plots). I used to discretely visit the complaint location to get a feel for what the complainant was experiencing. How it would have shown on a scientific reading I don't know.
92220
Departure noise historically has been the primary problem, but with the phase out of CH2 types, improvements in departure noise and increased environmental awareness arrival noise is very much an up and coming issue. In the UK a good number of the larger airports have noise penalty schemes where a departure may be fined for excessive noise. These fines are levied based on a particular point in the departure profile and is as I recall at the same point in terms of distance, for all the airports. When I departed the tree hugging field there was no 'standard measuring point' for arrival noise, but various trails were taking or due to take place. Hence we could not l;evy fines for a 'too noisy' arrival, always a bone of contention for a complainant.
Noise is indeed very subjective, and could be described as unwanted noise. An example to demonstrate this would be Fido the family dog, whilst dashing round the garden chasing the squealing kids, and yapping in delight, next door Mr Smith, (not a dog lover), may well be loading the over and under Purdy for when Fido next passes the gap in the fence!
. Note Mr Smith is unkeen on dogs anyway, so his tolerance/subjectiveness to the noise is already lower, than it would were it just the kids messing about and making a noise. Think about the number of serious neighbour vs. neighbour disputes you read about that involve noise and theres part of the answer re subjectivity, and the potential extreme reaction to noise. The last thing an airport needs is a community feeling that aggrieved.Re estate agents, I dont know the case but can see how the agent may have missed it, therefore it might not be their fault.
I always used to suggest when asked that the puchaser spend as much time as possible at the location at different times, so they could assess all impacts, not just aircraft. Also if the property fell inside the airdrome traffic zone then the answer was yes, you are likely to be overflown, because you are under the ATZ, a nice simple answer that covers all angles. Because the runway use in SE england is broadly 70% westerly and 30% easterly, in some locations there can be weeks or months when a property is not overflown, hence the perception can arise that they are not on the flightpath, when in fact they are!, always an entertaining discussion that one!