Would you believe, that I've heard of noise complaints over GLIDER planes!!!
the parachut on the winch whistles too loud when it's falling
the whining of the speed brakes disturb
once there was a complaint about a glider circling in one spot... the complainer said the glider pilot was probably only trying to see this guys wife, who was sunning in the garden!

those are real complaints! not made up! the local authorities once get written complaints against all aircraft that took off a particular airfield between 8 a.m. and 5. p.m. :\ luckily the authority just chucked those....

And, even though one particular noise group has lost at court a number of times, they continue to complain... don't they have anything better to do??? they should get a life.......

Westy

It's a shame that debates like this always degenerate into slanging matches. Both sides have valid points to make, and would benefit from listening to each other.
I'm a pilot, a helicopter instructor and a former resident of Richmond, 6nm short of 27L at EGLL. I bought my home there at a time when it was firmly promised that T4 would be the last development at Heathrow, and that movements would be capped at 260,000. I've never objected to aircraft noise (I do make rather a lot of it myself) but my former neighbours often did, because they felt they'd been deceived over the expansion of Heathrow.
There were a few questions I found difficult to answer. It was galling for them to be told that aircraft had to land at Heathrow at 4:30am because of night curfews in places like Narita or Mascot. Why, in a country the size of the UK, were the three major airports virtually co-located in one corner, remote from the 'C of G' of the population? Why did a Scotsman, or a northerner, have to travel all day to reach Heathrow, then fly back over his own home to get to North America? Is it the case that the population is there to serve the airports, or the airports to serve the population? When my neighbours say aviation policy in the UK is largely made by BAA and BA for their own benefit, it's hard to argue.
Most of my neighbours objected most strongly to the 20 or so landings between 4:30am and 6am (out of what, 1,200 movements daily?). If they were removed, I suspect HACAN would just melt away.
On the other side of the coin, it is important to stress that aircraft have become significantly quieter over the years, and the demise of Concorde has made a huge difference. But I think the simple if-you-don't-like-it-move argument is wooden-headed, and sets us up for confrontation when dialogue would be constructive.
Of course, I live in Cornwall now, so I don't give a stuff.

remote from the 'C of G' of the population

Proximate to the 'C of G' of the GDP

Cheers

WWW

Pat, let's see if we can keep it constructive. It is an emotive issue, and it's easier (I should know ;) ) to attack the player rather than the ball.

I am interested in hearing Mr Stewarts response to the few questions put to him here. If he would be so kind.

Nicely put Pat, :ok:

I've a lot of sympathy for the people that have been lied to by numerous governemets over the years.

Unfortunately it's all too easy to promise everyone that "This'll be the last terminal, honest" when you know full well you won't be in office to handle the ramifications in 20yrs time.

I remember spending a lot of time studying airport expansion as part of an Economics A-Level - it came under the heading of 'Market Failure'.

If politicans were open about the required long term rate of expansion for given airports, people would be in the position to decide for themselves.

As it is plenty of people (i guess they're not in the airline business :hmm: ) believe that there's only one round of expansion to go all the time. That makes house prices artificially high, and of course with the inevitable long term increase in flights they fall behind unaffected areas.

Why's it fair for someone to get pushed down the house ladder because they were lied to/not given the full picture?

The only solution I can see is for the government to draw up long term expansion plans and make them public. That way the free market will sort out the true value of the affected areas and people shouldn't loose out in the future.

Although they could just avoid all the hassle that would bring them of course....

Stu

p.s. as for the wingers that start complaining as soon as they move into the area :yuk:

Hmm...

6% or 400,000 consider it a serious problem...

By my maths that makes:

94% or about 6,266,667 (six MILLION, two hundred and sixty six thousand, six hundred and sixty-seven) who DON'T consider it a serious problem.

Sort of puts it into perspective eh?

:ok:

Like Westwind, I live under both a departure and arrival route for FRA - although under prevailing wind conditions it is departures. However, I am sufficiently far away from the airport to rarely even notice passing aircraft. Having said that, our village has a very active anti-noise campaign. Even to the point of sending a questionnaire to each and every resident asking if they or their children had any medical complaints (high blood pressure, headaches, migraine, heart conditions, kidney complaints and so on and so forth) which could be "related to aircraft noise".

With the planned airport expansion at Frankfurt, these campaigns are intensifying but many of the complaints are groundless. Having said that if you live in places like Kelsterbach - which really is right on top of the airport (and maybe the village Westwind mentioned) - then you probably do have a case. Many of the houses there were built before the airport was anything like the size it is today.

Personally, there is no way in the world I would live in Kelsterbach, but many people do and the close proximity of the aircraft doesn't seem to have a vast impact on house prices.

I live in Chiswick just off the A4. HACAN annoys the hell out of me, they are simply a job creation scheme for professional nimbys who have discovered a soft target in Heathrow(the big..the multinational...the profitmaking evil empire etc etc).
Now try banning boy racers on motorbikes, trucks, and close the M4 after 11pm.
After all, sometimes it keeps me awake......
Cities make noise, its a trade off for vitality, economic power and the ability to get a loaf of bread at 4 in the morning if you need to.
As the previous respondent suggested- if you dont like it-move to Cornwall.
Here's my vote for an extra runway and a circular high speed rail link between Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.
I havent noticed the value of houses in Hounslow being diminished in the slightest by the prospect of a 3rd runway, but then again I'm not planning to move.

There's a concrete motorway near my home that generates higher perceived dB's than the airport does. But I've never heard anyone complaining about it? :}

well put,aztruck.i live near to a major airport,and the plane noise is not a problem at all...but what really is a nuisance is the people who ignore all the other forms of noise like motorbikes etc because airports are a soft target (as you say,the multinational entity etc...) to these people who,i suspect,are driven by a fair measure of spite and who overlook the totally unproductive sources of noise pollution because they'd rather have a dig at a big airport operator.

As for what O/ZON has to say...

if people move to an airport,they know what to expect,so it really is quite a poor show if they then are opportunistic enough to try to 'get something out of' the airport companies by way of concessions/payouts etc.that sort of thing is in very poor taste and should be condemned as it really borders on extortion.

secondly,these people and their children must have been born with extremely sensitive ears because if they can hear acft noise through double glazing (provided free by BAA) to the extent that it causes ailments then they are all sensorially superior to me!

i've stayed across the road from 27R and with double glazing,i barely heard a sound as even 742's rumbled past on takeoff.

As another point, while I respect every individuals "right" to stand up for what they believe, what about when the expression of this standing up impinges on the rights and saftey of others?

I seem to remember a demonstration at Heathrow involving some protesters and a crane. The HACAN website claims

HACAN aparently wasn't directly involved (how many HACAN mambers are also HANT members?), yet surely supporting this illegal and very dangerous "right" to expression isn't exactly the sort of exposure a "reputable" organisation wants. And the demonstrators who climbed the crane weren't even from the Heathrow area, and were infact from up north.

John, I'm not deliberately trying to belittle your organisation, just attempting to obtain some input on your thoughts on some of these matters. Your initial post seems to highlight you readiness to enter into this discussion, so please continue to do so.

Lets be honest here...... Anybody that believes their governments, like any business owner, will not try to increase their "business" in the future and generate increased cash flow is an idiot that lives in a fantasy world. What business is any government in??? COLLECTING TAXES. :hmm: Any airport the size of Heathrow is a huge cash cow for their local and country leaders. Not just from taxes on operations, but from income taxes on the jobs created by the airport itself.

The officials are not fools. They realize that people will always find something to complain about, it is in their nature. Imagine the demonstrations if their were rampant unemployement and the government, because they do not make much money after somebody shut down every facility they had to generate cash flow, had no funds to feed and house the unfortunate. They would be hanging from the walls at the palace. When people feel left out by the government and deceived they must realize.......time changes things. Decisions made in the past were made using the best information in hand at the time. When that changes the path must change. Faced with putting up with a few complainers of something like aircraft or train noise, they choose the tough answer and meet the needs of the majority. :ouch:

Hate the game, don't hate the player. :E

For us out-of-country people... who/what is HACAN? :confused: ;)

Times change, situations change. There are many different reasons for expantion. I remember when the first B747's came out... they didn't fit on the terminals! So obviously new terminals had to be built. And of course, with the world getting smaller through television, etc. people want to travel to see it.... and it's not the "luxury" it once was! So, more people WANT to fly, airlines WANT to provide it, so the aerodromes must be expanded to meet the capacity... very simple fact! It's not always possible to move a whole aerodrome, like Munich did (causing people to suffer noise that never dreamed they'd one day be near an airport!)

A German flying magazine brought the following notice one year: all persons that complain about noise at a neighboring would be put on a "black list" and as soon as they booked a vacation flight, they would not be allowed to fly.

Unfortunately it was an April fool's joke :{

Westy

Screw 'em - the one's that complain the most, are ALSO the most vociferous when they have to travel all the way to Luton because they can't get a flight to xyz from their local airport:mad: :mad:
Sad t0ssers.......modern aeroplanes are so quiet......

Oh yes. I did live under left base to 26L @ LGW, never heard them unless a whingy neighbour pointed them out........

Bring back RR speys, tays, conways etc:E :E :E

WestWind1950,

That is the best thing I have heard in a long time..... Anybody that complains gets put on a black list and is banned from flying. Better yet, charge 3 times the amount for the ticket and pass the costs of noise reduction on to the people that want it the most. :E :E :E

Westwind - HACAN is the "Heathrow Action for the Control of Aircraft Noise". They are apparantly a member of FANG - The Federation of Aircraft Noise Groups :hmm:

White knight

Yes, and fly all the remaining VC10's, 707's, 727's, 1-11's etc into Heathrow over the course of one night. Should give the more vociferous complainants something to think about! :E

In short - yes - noise complainers do have a right to moan.We all have a right to complain about perceived injustices or nuisances. If we are really serious we will then make the effort to substantiate our moans with well reasoned, difficult to challenge and logical arguments and, most importantly, come forward with practical solutions. Unfortunately the Chairman of HACAN appears unwilling to engage in discussion through this forum.Could it be that the professional status of most forum members is worrying him? Perhaps the public visibility of these forums is insufficient? Maybe he is unable to substantiate the "moans" in an acceptable manner as prescribed above.
I, together with (probably) the overwhelming majority of this nation find that noise pollution is one of the major nuisances of life in the 21st century. However, I do not have an answer nor a sustainable solution to the problem and choose, where possible, to take and make my own decisions to lessen the impact of noise pollution on my life.
The crusading, belicose attitude of so many "action" groups leave me cold and totally unimpressed.

Would this work?

1) Heathrow has all noise and curfew limitations lifted - use the airport 24/7 as hard as possible.

2) But no VC10s et al - just modern high bypass quiet aircraft.

3) The increase in producivity generates £x Million pounds of profit.

4) £x Million pounds of extra profits are spent on paying 90% of the council tax of all houses within 2 miles of Heathrow.

Everyones happy, everythings productive as possible.

Just trying to think laterally.

Cheers

WWW

So can all the residents that live next to a rail way line get it closed down from 11pm until 5.00 am? No, thought not.
Some things are for the greater good. Probably find they´ll all complain when their council tax goes up because they have to pay for the housing benefit of all the workers that lost their jobs at LHR.

Quote:
"secondly,these people and their children must have been born with extremely sensitive ears because if they can hear acft noise through double glazing (provided free by BAA) to the extent that it causes ailments then they are all sensorially superior to me!"

RUDAS,
Acting in my capacity as Devil's Advocate, do you think that it might be possible for those you mentioned with sensitive ears to occasionally leave their house with it's double glazing and perhaps sit in the garden? Or should they stay huddled up inside their house.