noise campaigners-the right to moan?

[RUDAS]

Well of course,they certainly should leave their houses and go out into the garden,in fact they should do it whenever they feel like it,and maybe in so doing they might learn to be tolerant of the percieved noise.i know that i,for one,have learned to be tolerant of the considerable noise around where i live.

i strongly doubt,however,that they will be in their gardens long enough for the noise to start causing medical conditions,and if it does,then perhaps they are of such feeble constitutions that it would be better in any case for them to stay "huddled up" indoors.

PS:in heathrow's case,i think the chances of people WANTING to spend large amounts of time in their gardens is a bit far-fetched, unless you're talking about asylum seekers from Iceland living in Hounslow!

[Flip Flop Flyer]

As a guy who've lived next door to CPH for +30 years, and for the last couple of years between runways 07L25R/07R25L in BRU let me just make a single comment: You'll get used to it! As a matter of fact, I'm having problems sleeping if there is no aircraft playing lullabys. And BRU got far more night traffic than LHR, courtesy of DHL.

I knew damn well that establishing myself in Zaventem would mean aircraft noise. Anyone stupid enough to locate near an airport and then complain about the noise is just that, stupid. Are we now at the point in human history where stupidity is being rewarded?

Sorry, but if you can't stand the smell in the kitchen - leave. Airports and aircraft were around before most, if not all, of these people were even born. Aviation brings jobs, possibilitis and prosperity. It also "pollutes" by making a bit of noise. I say, let's ban everything oil, gas or coal burning. In fact, why don't we just nuke ourselves and go back to the stoneage?

Question: Why is Blighty the whinge capitol of the world?

[Jerricho]

I guess Mr. Stewart has had his say, and isn't prepared to rationally discuss any further. Oh well.

Roghead raises an interesting issue. Groups (such as HACAN, HANT etc) are very vocal in the protest against existing situations. Yet you never hear intelligent proposals as to how to make the situation better for all. A blanket "reduce the number jets" and "stop airport expansion" are coming from a very old and tatty song sheet. I hold the utmost respect for individuals such as Roghead who admits (like many of us!) not to have answers or solutions, but by the sounds of it, hasn't joined 'rent-a-mob' (I tried not to resort to name slinging, but our crane sitters last year were from Stafford - isn't exactly close to LHR is it!)

[Mr Chips]

I live near Heathrow, have done my entire life. I had no choice, I was born in the borough of Hounslow. My family moved to Heston (not far short 27R) in 1969. Whilst obviously there was already an airport, the volume of aircraft was not as great then as it is now. Yes, we got free double glazing from BAA, and even a new rof. We got these because the airport operators saw the need to give them to us - the roof scheme ewas due to the incredibly high number of houses that were affected by aircraft vortices. I can also rememebr growing up unable to hear the TV on occassion due to aircraft noise, and as for Concorde.....

I am NOT an anti noise protestor, i certainly have no love of HACAN who seem to think that they represent all locals. They don't, in fact they have never asked my opinion on anything! I was a supporter of T5 and I make my living from aviation.

HOWEVER I do take exception to the tone of some peoples postings here...

Secondly,you'd have to be deficient upstairs not to realise that if you move nearby to the world's busiest airport,you'd be in a noisy environment that,like with most things,is bound to expand and develop,so why didn't they think about this before moving there?

Of course - we all took into account economic growth, development in aerospace design etc.... I think not.

i understand that BAA has even installed double glazing for people free of charge near lhr in an effort to satisfy them,and they apparently are involved in many community endeavours like schooling,public projects etc,and yet these people still have the cheek to complain constantly about the noise!

Actually, the community projects are funded by... NOISE FINES

It has, I believe, been proved that children schooled near to the airport are affected by the noise.

Yes, the airport provides employment to a huge number of locals, despite HACANs ridiculous claims over T5 employment. Yes, many people have moved into the area in fairly recent times. Yes, Hounslow surprisingly remains fairly affluent due to the airport

BUT as others have said, can we please keep the debate "friendly" without resorting to slamming the local residents when you don't know how many have lived in the area for generations, and CAN remember when there was less noise from the airport.

As to the chairman of HACAN, i agree that having popped your had up once, you should have the decency to come back and face your critics. i would like to hear your response to the fact that the crane protestors were not even from South East England

Mr Chips
Hoping for some sanity

[747FOCAL]

Kinda off the topic, but how many of you pilots are getting asked or demanded for "Noise Certificates"? Besides the French , who is being the most demanding of these?

Thanks

[Bletchley]

Hello guys,

When I lived in Lincoln, we moved to a house near to RAF Waddington.

We knew it was an operational RAF airfield and accepted the risk that it would be noisy.

Occasionally it was, especially during the Waddington International Airshows....but then again how many people can have the pleasure of the Lancaster in a holding circuit at about 500 feet above your house?

I have the greatest regard for the RAF as they were absolutely wonderful neighbours. They always took off at low power and only used full power once at a reasonable height.

When they occasionally needed to make noise (such as during the Gulf War or if an aircraft needed to use maximum thrust for some reason) we NEVER complained. Neither did our neighbours

Put quite simply, you 'pays your money and takes your pick'.

I note the frustration of Pilots. As a railway professional I was amazed when flats and houses are built near to a railway line, people move in and THEN complain about the noise.

Is it me? Am I missing something here.

If the noise doesn't suit do something positive...MOVE

[mrodent]

dear brainless children

Obviously many of the contributors to this thread are rather young and seem rather worried about their own job prospects.

The first thing that must be understood by the aviation people in this thread is that the idea that Heathrow is at all beneficial to the economy of London and the Thames Valley is rejected by many expert economics academics speaking from positions of impartiality. Do your homework on this point before you reply. But this point is a crucial one. You lot are actually wrong about this: you must understand you are not on the moral high ground here, quite the opposite...

Second: you have to be very stupid indeed not to appreciate how millions of Londoners of all ages, sexes, economic categories, etc. etc. are massively pissed off when, on a summer weekend, they can't sit in their garden, local park, roof terrace, etc. listening to the sounds of summer without the vile roaring of endless streams of aircraft frames (yes, it's the frames as much as the engines so it ain't gonna change with new technology).

Third, Heathrow is singularly inappropriate as a hub. Roissy is 30 miles out of Paris, and surrounded by far fewer residential districts. I can't remember whehter they have 3 or 4 runways now. Clearly it would be far better if someone flying from Edinburgh to Tokyo changed planes in Paris rather than London.

Fourth: only a complete cretin likes the sounds of aircraft roaring overhead at 6 am on a weekend morning. Grow up. Why, intrinsically, should any pro-aviation person object to this time being shifted forward to 7 am or 9 am on Saturdays and Sundays?

Fifth: any line like "move out to another area then" is just baby-talk. I love London, and I don't actually hate the people who fly civil aviation, but I do hate the aviation industry shareholder-cynics who have manipulated unsubtle, uneducated people like you into thinking that you are speaking a) truth or b) virtue by the line taken in this thread.

Sixth: it's all about politics. Numbers are what matter here... and there's little point in trading insults.... let battle commence .

Signed
A person in their forties living a long way from Heathrow in South London, surrounded by neighbours who hate the noise just as much as me!!!

[exeng]

<<and there's little point in trading insults>>

In that case why did you start your reply with the comment:
dear brainless children ?

<<yes, it's the frames as much as the engines so it ain't gonna change with new technology>>

Airframe noise has reduced significantly since the 50's so what scientific insight do you posess that makes you so sure it will not reduce further in the future?


Regards
Exeng

[HAMMY]

dear brainless adult.
opions are what this forum are about.Do you know the people posting on here personally.No I thought not.So lets skip the snide remarks.How about just stating your own opinion and not lowering your obviously well educated self to other peoples levels.

[747FOCAL]

mrodent,

You must be daft, plus you just registered today so your statements are worth nothing.

Your statement regarding airframe noise proves you know little of what goes into the noise signature of modern aircraft.

With the exception of a few(747, A300, DC-10), airframe noise is so buried in the engine noise that you will never hear it and never on takeoff. Only on some very lightweight approaches will you hear the airframe noise. What really gets you is when the approach weight is so low that the power required drops the aircraft engines into the bleed schedule. A lot of the large aircraft approaching Heathrow are coming from a VERY long distance and are way down from their maximum approach weight and end up in the bleed schedule( ). When they show you a noise footprint it will not be taking that scenario into account. I Better shut up or the greeners will be up at arms.

As to your comments about Heathrow not affecting the economy of London??? Your just plain stupid to believe that.





ps. exeng-airframe noise will not get that much better in the future with present day technology. We understand it much better, but you really can't reduce it much more than we presently have.

[Jerricho]

mrodent before we continue, would you be so kind to please answer a question that has been asked here a couple of times already:

"Have you taken a flight ANYWHERE in the past year, and if so, where from and where to?"

The points you mention:

rejected by many expert economics academics speaking from positions of impartiality

And is supported by how many "expert economic academics" both of impartial positions and from within the industry? As we all know, statistics can be made to say whatever you want them to say.

you have to be very stupid indeed not to appreciate how millions of Londoners of all ages, sexes, economic categories, etc. etc. are massively pissed off

Or very stupid to believe the contary to this, as per your argument above. And very stupid not to consider the number of Londoners that use the airport for both travel and work (hence my question above).

Clearly it would be far better if someone flying from Edinburgh to Tokyo changed planes in Paris rather than London

So, you subscribe to the NIMBY song sheet as well.

Fourth: only a complete cretin likes the sounds of aircraft roaring overhead at 6 am on a weekend morning

Just as much as myself, being a shiftworker, loves to hear trains blasting along at 0430 , or mowing of grass when I have just come off a night shift, or listening to fireworks around Bonfire night. An earlier poster mentioned noise is a part of our society now. And when you live in such a huge density population area such a London........I'll let you do the math.

I'm sure your use of words like "cretin", "very stupid", "baby-talk" really just goes to show that you're not really prepared to enter in to an adult conversation about this, discussing theoretical proposals (aside from NIMBY) aside from those that have been listed already and are incorporated into ATC procedures. Unfortunately there was only one person using baby talk here...........that would be you!

[Bletchley]

mrodent

So where exactly would you send people to catch an airplane?

Somebody else's city? If so which one? What about the people there or don't they count?

How would we all get to Paris?

So having moved LHR out into the 'sticks' somewhere, how do you get there?

Oh I know ! by train?, by road?

So lets build a few more eh?.

In deciding where we like to live we have to take many pragmatic decisions, including noise. I don't like the noise from the traffic where I live but I have to accept that if I want good transport and road links I need to live near them.

I chose not to live near to Birmingham International airport, but had I done so it would have been in the knowledge that aircraft actually fly from there.

Environmental noise is something that we all now have to accept, not all of us like it but then that's life.

I believe this forum started off life as a question about people who MOVE to a location near to an airport and then complain.

I feel sorry for the people who have had to live with an airport increasing its traffic, however there are economic benefits to the Country which is why Frankfurt, Schipol and Paris would so like to gain much more International traffic from LHR.

There is no simple answer to the problem of noise and your comments about the people who post here suggest more about your approach than I can say.

Not everyone here is young (which seems to worry you for some reason), I certainly am not, or are worried about their jobs (I for example don't work in the air transport Industry).

Please feel free to Post replies but please do not be offensive and if you are going to quote statistics then make sure they are real and can be validated. It does help.

To the rest of you, apologies for the very long reply.

[RUDAS]

well,mrodent,i'm obviously one of the "complete Cretins" you referred to,because i would prefer the sound of a set of rb211's over the sound of you complaining anytime of day or night.

You,perhaps,need to "grow up" as you so self righteously suggested,and realise that in todays society we do need to make allowances for THE GREATER GOOD.

[Jerricho]

I wonder if mrodent will play the same game his little HACAN friend played? If your aim to elicit reactions, congratulations, you achieved this. First day registered and first post, will we see anymore?

(I'm trying SO hard not to call you a ****..............but we weren't going to start name calling, so I won't.)

[SLF3]

There are a lot of people who live around Heathrow who do not qualify for glazing but who suffer from aircraft noise. When I bought my house I got maps from the CAA showing the tracks around Heathrow and made sure the house was away from them. I also sought advice and was told the tracks were very unlikely to change. They did.

At the time the last flight out of Terminal 2 was Air France to Paris at 8pm, and the last flight out of Terminal 3 was not much later. You could sit in the garden on a summers evening, and once the PIA Classic had gone by it was pretty peaceful. Now the widebodies grind over our roof until well past 11 pm at night, and the noise of the first has barely faded away before the next one is overhead. If you shut the windows you still hear them, roast, and cannot sleep. if you open the windows you cannot sleep. It is not the absolute noise level that it the problem. It is that the noise is unremitting and intermittent.

Single issue lobby groups like Hacan are bound to take fairly extreme positions, because they attrat zealots. But then the aviation community is hardly a bastion of reasonable people, is it?

The problem I have with Heathrow is that it does not work:
- It is a shopping mall, not an airport
- It is noisy, dirty and polluted
- The infrastructure around it is collapsing
- It is far too small

It is self evident that, for all sorts of reasons, Heathrow cannot handle the traffic it currently sees, and that the surrounding infrastructure cannot cope with expansion even if the airport itself can. The only long term solution is to have London's main international airport elsewhere.

[Jerricho]

Hi SLF3,

Your point of moving "London's main international airport" is an interesting one. IMHO, Heathrow is a victim of it's own success and location. Being located just 10 miles from London makes transport to and from the city easier (Train infrastructure - now there is something that is a MAJOR joke!). The vast passenger numbers that pass through it does cause the airport to creak and groan under the pressure. And it survives....just.

However, locations that are going to be as accessible to London are almost non-existant. The Cliffe idea was a pipe dream, considering not only the much publisied enviromental impact, but impacts on other airports traffic flows, as well as airspace implications with our very close european neighbours. Stanstead expansion is to go ahead, but once again Heathrow "Historical" attractiveness to those wanting to travel to London combined with Stanstead's proximity (or lack there of) to the city will make it less attractive to carriers and passengers alike.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Cliffe was always a red herring and was only there to divert the environmentalists attention away from Heathrow.(in my opinion of course)

Since land is so expensive and society will eventually encroach onto an out of town airport (look at the population that was around Heathrow in the '50's and '60's) the only real solution is to build an off-shore airport with an integrated transport system.

This would be massively expensive, but long term may well be the only real solution.

Fish don't form pressure groups or care about noise!

[Jerricho]

We could always send the population up north, nuke London and start all over again.

(Hang on, this isn't Jet Blast.......sorry )

[cortilla]

Great ponts by most. Just wondering if we could use the HACAN tactics. Ie if they have a forum post on it once by saying something like 'demolish most houses around heathrow, as with noone living near the airport there will be noone complaining about noise' and then run for the hills never to be heard of again. I would love to have a chance to have a proper debate with hacan, and point out that they always were and always will be NIMBY's and therefore need to wake up and smell the roses. How about we organise a PPrune pro aircraft noise campaign, and hold a pro noise protest while the nimby's are doing another one of their actions. I know the message seems a bit disjointed but i'm on strike now (no really i am) and so had a late night last night and got woken up very early by my landlord to fix the door.

[Jerricho]

Cort, unfortunately the dealings I have had with "rent-a-mob" from HACAN and various others never leads to intelligent discussion. As I have said, I respect those such as SLF3, and others who have taken the time to, in an adult manner, discus proposals and intelligent exchange of ideas. This doesn't seem to be in the HACAN dictionary.

I laughed so hard last year when an anti-noise billboard on a trailer was placed on a roundabout next to a service station just up from Sipson. SOMEBODY too exception to what was on it an vandalised it. People were up in arms, and rumours were that the perpertators of the vandalisation were wearing BAA reflective jackets, therefore it must have been a covert attempt by the airport to remove it. BAA reflective jackets..........wonder what percentage of the population living in the Sipson, Harmondsworth, Staines, West Drayton (etc) have been issued these jackets? But no, it definately was a black op by the airport.

And I know I am nit-picking, but (OK, it's got a hole in it at the moment), but Heathrow already has 3 runways. Little oversight that always makes me smile.