Airport News
Below are news items relating to specific airports
HACAN East meets CAA to thrash out noise problems caused by newly concentrated routes
John Stewart and Rob Barnstone from HACAN East at London City Airport had a 2 hour meeting with the five members of the CAA, to discuss the new concentrated flight paths-causing intensified noise. The CAA is aware of the unhappiness amongst communities and local authorities at their decision to allow flight path changes in February 2016. One of the most unpopular changes is concentration of the departures route, in westerly winds, that takes off towards the west and turns north and east. The other change is for arrivals, in easterly winds, when planes approach from east, south of the airport. Most of these communities are also overflown by Heathrow planes on the days there is a westerly wind. Both these have led to intensified noise for thousands of people. London City Airport had argued that they could get away with minimal consultation on these changes because the changes were "not significant." However, there has been a definite change since February. HACAN East pointed out that the CAA that there was no mechanism to look at changes over time. There were many changes made in 2008 when the flight paths were changed to accommodate the larger planes which needed to make a much wider turn. HACAN East stressed that respite was important to local communities. People are encouraged to contact the CAA and the airport, to express their views on the noise issue.
Click here to view full story...
AirportWatch calls on the Advertising Standards Authority to take action to remove misleading ads speedily
A bizarre court case has seen two environmental campaigners landed with a bill for more than £2,600 after they "corrected" a Heathrow Airport billboard promoting a new runway - even though the Advertising Standards Authority subsequently ruled that Heathrow's claims were indeed incorrect. Lawrence Rose and Joseph McGahan were found guilty of defacing Heathrow billboards near the airport, and in their view correcting misinformation on the adverts in March 2015. The adverts about local support and about benefits to the UK economy were referred – in March or April 2015 - to the Advertising Standards Authority, which ruled in September 2015 that these adverts were misleading. Larry and Joe were given suspended sentences, after a jury trial, and fines including a cost of £1,200 to Heathrow airport for the cost of tidying up the damage to their incorrect and misleading adverts. They were also fined £1,440 of court costs. For many months in 2014 and 2015, Heathrow placed these misleading advertisements in very public places. Thousands or hundreds of thousands of people will have seen the ads. Though the Advertising Standards Authority eventually ruled against them, the process took many months so by that time Heathrow had had extensive publicity and been able to convey misinformation. AirportWatch believes this is wrong. The process by which incorrect adverts are removed should be improved to ensure unsubstantiated claims by huge companies, like airports, are not left in place for months after being challenged.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow protesters found guilty of graffiti subvertising misleading pro-3rd runway billboards
Two protesters in March 2015 subvertised two Heathrow advertising hoardings, and removed one Heathrow poster from a bus stop. They changed one massive hoarding, on a road close to Heathrow, that said "Those living around us are behind us" to say "Those living around us are CHOKING." Another billboard with the slogan "Expand Heathrow and you grow the economy by up to £211 billion" was changed to say "Expand Heathrow and you grow the economy by destroying homes." The two men, Larry Rose and Joe McGahan, were tried at Isleworth Crown Court and found guilty. They were charged with criminal damage. They pleaded not guilty, and defended themselves using the defence of lawful excuse. They had attempted to alter Heathrow’s fraudulent billboards in order to portray a more accurate reality of the harm and misery Heathrow’s expansion would bring to local residents and the environment. They cited evidence of the health impact of air pollution around Heathrow, and the increased carbon emissions that an extra runway would cause. The two were given conditional discharges and fines totalling £2,640 - of which £1,200 was to Heathrow to pay for cleaning up. Both adverts were subsequently found to be misleading by the Advertising Standards Authority, and Heathrow was told to withdraw them.
Click here to view full story...
Government decides not to devolve APD to Wales
The UK government has confirmed that there would be no devolution of APD to Wales. APD has been fully devolved to Scotland, and SNP has the intention of halving it and eventually scrapping it. Some in the Welsh Assembly wanted devolution of APD to Wales, so it could be cut - in the vain hope that would boost the profitability of struggling Cardiff airport. Airports in England, and Bristol in particular, were deeply opposed to APD in Wales being cut, in case that encouraged people to use Cardiff airport rather than Bristol. The local Bristol MP said that would cause unfair competition between airports. The impact of abolishing APD would only be at most £13 per return flight for anywhere in Europe, (£26 for a return flight within the UK) - with no difference for a child under 16, so hardly worth the trip all way over to Cardiff. In a Commons debate on the Wales Bill, parliamentary under secretary of state for Wales, Conservative MP Guto Bebb, said: “Air Passenger Duty has been raised during the debate, and the fact that we are not proposing to devolve it has been criticised, although I think that that is right and proper.” The loss of income from the removal of APD would in all likelihood be larger than any benefit from more inbound tourism etc, causing a net loss to the Welsh economy.
Click here to view full story...
Tunbridge Wells aircraft noise group produces report on correct 3 degree CDA heights for Gatwick arrivals
The Tunbridge Wells Anti Aircraft Noise Group (TWAANG) has researched the actual heights of aircraft around their area, approaching Gatwick. They are concerned that planes are not descending into Gatwick using the approved 3 degree Continuous Descent Approach (CDA), from 7,000 ft or even 6,000 ft. Instead, planes as far out as 20 - 30 miles from the runway are descending by merely 1 or 2 degrees, and are much lower than they should be, using a proper 3 degree CDA. TWAANG have produced data showing the actual heights of planes arriving at Gatwick, against the heights they should theoretically be at. For example, at 15 nautical miles from the runway, planes descending at 3 degrees should be at about 4,500 feet, and at 20 nm out, they should be at 6,000 feet. At a 1 degree the heights would be 3,500 feet and 4,000 feet respectively. Pilots are encouraged by DfT and industry guidelines to keep their aircraft high and to use a 3° angle of descent in a low power low drag (LPLD) configuration. The lower heights mean there is greater disturbance than necessary for people being overflown, and the flatter angle of descent is likely to require engine power to sustain, creating unnecessary noise and poor economic performance. TWAANG say: "We observe plenty of aircraft making full CDAs from 7,000ft already, what is difficult to understand is why such a high proportion fail to follow their example."
Click here to view full story...
Stop Stansted Expansion prepares to launch legal proceedings against Stansted airport, over compensation delays
Stansted Airport faces legal action on behalf of thousands of local residents denied compensation over devaluation of their property caused by airport expansion. The cost to the airport could run to hundreds of millions of pounds. Stansted failed to meet a deadline (31st May) to make a public statement agreeing to introduce a compensation scheme for local residents after years of prevarication. Since 2002, Stansted has used the excuse that it has no legal obligation to pay compensation until it has completed everything listed in its 1999 Phase 2 planning consent. Completion of a small part of these works, the Echo Cul-de-Sac, has been repeatedly postponed - most recently until the mid-2020s - and has thus been branded the 'golden rivet' loophole. Stansted lawyers finally accepted this, but then immediately put forward a new excuse for rejecting compensation claims - that claims were now time-barred under the Limitation Act. This gave rise to withering criticism from the judge who remarked: "So, after years of telling people you can't claim until the works are complete, you're now saying Tee-Hee - you're too late." Due to Stansted stalling, SSE are now taking legal action, to safeguard the interests of local residents. SSE's preparations for a legal challenge ,on the airport's use of the Limitation Act, are underway. They have appointed and briefed its legal team, which includes two expert barristers and one of the country's foremost planning solicitors.
Click here to view full story...
Stop Stansted Expansion sets out details of Stansted’s devious attempts to avoid compensation payments from 2000
Stop Stansted Expansion have catalogued the appalling deceit and prevarication used by Stansted Airport, in its attempts to avoid making compensation payments to people affected by airport's expansion. Work on Phase 2 was started in 1999, to take the airport up to 15 million passengers per year, and claims should then have been possible. But Stansted insisted that no claims could be made until one of the taxiway piers, Echo, was completed. Each year, from 2004 to 2011 the date when the Echo stand's completion date was pushed further and further back (partly as Stansted had a dramatic fall in passenger numbers in the recession). Finally this April Stansted's lawyers said " ...1 March 2007 is a relevant date at least in respect of some of the works in paragraph 1.8..” In other words Stansted finally concedes that it had been wrong to use the ‘golden rivet’ ploy to avoid paying compensation. But now Stansted has a new ploy to avoid paying compensation, saying any claim had to be brought within 6 years. The Deputy President of the Lands Tribunal remarked: “So, after years of telling people you can’t claim until the works are complete, you’re now saying Tee-Hee – you’re too late?” Stop Stansted Expansion gave the airport until 31st May to make a public statement reversing this stance – or face a legal challenge. No satisfactory response was received in time from owners, MAG.
Click here to view full story...
St Helena airport (for which UK spent £285 of aid money) to boost tourism – “indefinitely delayed” due to windshear danger
Back in 2010 the UK government approved some £285 million of the aid budget to be spent on building an airport on the remote island of St Helena (population 4,000). Now it has emerged that the airport has been mothballed, and delayed indefinitely due to windshear problems for planes using the runway, because of the position of the runway at the top of an almost 1,000 foot cliff. It is too dangerous for passenger planes to use. The island, a UK overseas territory, is about 1,200 miles west of Angola, with the sea trip (3 times per week) to Cape Town taking 5 days. It is one of the most remote populated places on earth. Keeping the territory going costs the UK money, and it had been hoped that the airport would mean enough inbound tourists could visit the island, bring in currency, boost the economy - and end up costing the UK less. The islanders were very excited about the prospect, and the logistics of building a large enough flat platform up on a cliff were complex. The amount of earth moving and concrete pouring etc, on this remote island, were technically challenging. There would always have been difficulties in running a full air service, due to the inevitably short runway. The island's only connection with the mainland is the ageing Royal Mail ship St Helena which is soon to be retired. Questions are being asked about the wisdom of this use of UK aid money, to attempt to reduce the cost of the island to the UK.
Click here to view full story...
Edinburgh airport starts 1st stage of consultation to get more RNAV routes in place by summer 2018
Edinburgh airport met strenuous opposition when it ran a trial that started in June 2015 of the TUTUR route. Now Edinburgh has put out a consultation (ends 12th September) of the first phase of a process of getting more airspace changes. The consultation is not on actual routes. The airport says: "The positions of the new routes have not yet been determined. We seek to inform the decisions regarding where best to position these routes by consulting with those impacted or who have an interest." The question in the consultation is “what local factors should be taken into account when determining the position of the route within the design envelope given the potential impacts, and why?” They say feedback "will inform the detailed design process and will influence the design options." Once draft routes have been designed, a further consultation (probably summer 2017) will take place on the detailed design of the routes. After the second consultation, Edinburgh Airport will submit an airspace change proposal to the CAA. They have been careful to get their consultation in quickly, before the CAA system of improving the airspace change process comes into being. " The target date for the RNAV routes to come into operation is Summer 2018." Consultees cannot comment on air traffic growth, airport expansion, or government policy on airspace noise (or the lack of it), or of PBN or the desirability of RNAV.
Click here to view full story...
Gatwick Chairman writes to David Cameron re-hashing unconvincing claims on desirability of its 2nd runway
Gatwick has made its last ditch attempt to persuade the government to let it have another runway. It is thought likely that some runway decision will now be made by early September at the latest, if it is not made before about 18th July. Gatwick Chairman Sir Roy McNulty has written to David Cameron, hoping to persuade him that Gatwick will not cost the air passenger any more than £15 per flight. Gatwick claims they can manage the noise levels, though are not entirely clear how. They hope sharing out the noise over more people will keep the numbers within the 57 dB and the 55 Lden to manageable levels. They hope to get the runway started before the next election, thereby not having given the electorate the change to vote on the matter - as the Airports Commission announcement in July 2015 was deliberately after the last election in May 2015. They claim there will be no cost to the taxpayer, but there are estimates of possibly £12 billion by TfL for the necessary transport work to deal with another 40 million passengers. Gatwick hopes its paltry £46.5 million offer will cover all that. And Gatwick claims it will never have an air pollution problem - rather ignoring the pollution caused by the inevitable traffic, as there is inadequate public transport. Looked at in detail, the offers (like those of Heathrow a few weeks earlier) are very threadbare indeed.