Noise News
Below are links to stories about noise in relation to airports and aviation.
Night flight noise likely to increase risk of Type 2 diabetes for those living under flightpaths
Research by the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute in Basel has shown that people who live below an airport flightpath are more than 80% more likely to have type 2 diabetes than people who live in quieter areas. The findings have led scientists to suggest that aircraft noise, rather than air pollution, could be to blame. The noise of the planes overhead, when they are low and loud, is likely to have a devastating effect on the body’s metabolism, leading to increased blood sugar levels. The effect is largely from noise at night, confirming that night flights are damaging to health. The cost to the health of over-flown populations needs to be properly taken into account, and given enough significance against small economic benefits of night flights to airports and airlines (which is how the DfT assesses the issue at present). Heathrow already has - by an order of magnitude - the most people affected by night flights, with over 700,000 living within the 55 Lden noise average contours. The link to diabetes is through the body's reaction to stress, raising blood pressure. Noise stimulates the body's sympathetic nervous system and the hypothalamus–pituitary–adrenal axis, leading to increased blood pressure, heart rate, and levels of the “stress hormone” cortisol. Type 2 diabetes can lead to heart disease, strokes, limb amputations and blindness. It affects over 3 million people in the UK.
Click here to view full story...
Willie Walsh adamant Heathrow must have arrivals well before 5.30am – then full on for next 2 hours
International Airlines Group (IAG), which is Heathrow’s biggest customer, has submitted its evidence to the Transport Committee, to its inquiry into the Airports NPS. IAG does not agree there should be a ban on night flights of six and a half hours, that the NPS and the DfT are proposing - hoping that would overcome local opposition to the runway. The WHO says for good health, people need 7 - 8 hours sleep, and more for some age groups. Therefore even six and a half hours is not enough. But IAG says ..."the NPS does not recognise the operational flexibility required for flights to connect and deliver the associated benefits. The Government should therefore avoid unreasonable restrictions on night operations that would prevent economically valuable connections." ... from small changes IAG has made "Local communities have therefore benefited ... from a reduction in noise while no additional night movements have been granted at Heathrow in return." ... if Heathrow opened at 7am, that would be 2 hours later than Frankfurt ... to make the best use of the new runway, increase connectivity etc ... "the first arrivals will need to be scheduled to have landed and be on-stand ready to disembark passengers by 05:30, with a high arrival movement capacity in the subsequent 1-2 hours."
Click here to view full story...
Residents face just 4 hours free from aircraft noise if 3rd Heathrow runway goes ahead
Sarah Olney, the new MP for Richmond Park, has criticised the Department for Transport for not being open with residents that a 3rd runway at Heathrow could mean just 6 or 4 hours per day respite from aircraft noise. Currently residents under many of Heathrow's flight paths can expect up to 8 hours without being disturbed by incoming and outgoing flights from Heathrow. However, hidden away in the public consultation on a third runway (the draft NPS) is an admission from the Government that whilst residents can expect more ‘certainty’ over when respite periods will be, the number of hours they can expect to be free from aircraft noise will drop to just 6, or even 4, hours. Sarah Olney raised the issue in the House of Commons on 30th March, asking the Transport Secretary, Chris Grayling, to explain why the consultation did not make this evident. Responding for the Government, he failed to answer the question, stating only that the consultation “set out in broad terms the impact of the changes”. Speaking after their exchange in the House of Commons Sarah Olney commented that the government is treating local residents with contempt. If Chris Grayling cannot even give a proper reply in Parliament, either he isn’t aware that residents will suffer from more noise (if not, why not, if he is Minister in charge of the process), or he isn’t willing to admit it. [No questions of ministers on Heathrow are ever answered properly - always evasively].
Click here to view full story...
MSP motion lodged at Holyrood about Edinburgh Airport flawed flight path consultation
Neil Findlay MSP (Labour Party) is a firm opponent of the changes to flight paths, overflying many areas that were previously unaffected, that Edinburgh airport is planning. He has lodged a motion at Holyrood about the airport’s current consultation on airspace change. If the motion gets sufficient support from MSPs across at least 3 political parties, it becomes eligible to be debated in the Chamber. Neil Findlay was able to lead a previous members’ debate in September 2015 which led to the scrapping of the airport’s TUTUR flight path trial. Neil has now put down a motion in the Scottish Parliament (Motion S5M-04708) saying: "That the Parliament notes what it sees as the growing concerns about Edinburgh Airport’s plan to introduce new flight paths; and asking "Edinburgh Airport scraps what is considered this flawed consultation and begins the process again with up-to-date information and a more robust and credible consultation process." People in Scotland are encouraged, by Edinburgh Airport Watch, to contact their MSP by email to ask them to sign his motion. The consultation by Edinburgh airport is inadequate, contains incorrect information, and is based on faulty data. But the altered routes would inflict noise on new areas, and for huge numbers of those sensitive to noise, have life changing consequences.
Click here to view full story...
Edinburgh airport flawed and inaccessible consultation on airspace changes condemned by opponents
On 2nd February, Edinburgh Airport launched its second consultation, which closes on 30th April, on its airspace change programme. The consultation is very hard for a layperson to understand, with voluminous documents. The aim is to make more "efficient" use of airspace - ie. fit in more planes, especially at the few times of day when Edinburgh airport is particularly busy, like early morning. People are asked to comment on various route options, many of which mean new areas overflown, and some areas newly intensely overflown, under narrow PBN routes. Hundreds of local people, who will be badly affected by some of the proposed changes, have attended packed public meetings. The local group Edinburgh Airport Watch (EAW) are very worried about the lack of justification for the plans. There are no projected numbers on flights, types of planes, the times of day that planes may fly. EAW say the noise shadows created by the proposed flight paths will be enormous, and will affect hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom will not have been exposed to aircraft noise before. Areas excluded from the initial stage consultation were excluded from the published swathes, told they would not be affected and now find flight paths directly over them. Not surprisingly, they are furious. Neil Findlay MSP has lodged a motion in the Scottish Parliament, asking that the consultation be re-done, with proper information.
Click here to view full story...
Blog: “One flew over the cuckoo nest, then another hundred, and another, and another…”
In July 2016, a seminar was held in the House of Commons, on the link between exposure to high levels of aircraft noise, and mental health. It is known that the stress of finding one's home is newly under a busy flight path affects some people very badly. With planes at low altitude - one after the other, hour after hour, day after day - the impact of this new intrusion into someone's home life can cause anxiety, stress and depression. This is particularly the case for those with pre-existing susceptibilities. The situation is made worse when those now subjected to intense, almost daily, plane noise find there is no source of help, and no way to reduce the problem - causing a feeling of helplessness, and even despair. The problem has only become intense in the past few years, now the aviation industry is using P-RNAV. That means constantly repeated noise for those below flight routes. But what can be done to help people whose mental health is harmed, through no fault of their own, when they find - without warning or permissions - that a flight path has been created over them? Is "respite" for a few hours per day, or a few days per week, enough to make a difference? Would providing funding to move house be the answer, for those whose mental health is seriously damaged by the noise intrusion? Read a new blog by a noise sufferer, on the difficult, but important, issue of mental health impact of more concentrated flight paths.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow 2.0: a ‘sustainable airport’ that pretends no one has to choose between planes and pollution
A thoughtful article, by two leading academics in public policy and ideology, casts huge doubts on the claims of Heathrow to have solutions to the increased environment problems of a 3rd runway. It is well worth reading it all. A few extracts: "Heathrow expansion has become an emblematic issue in the fight against climate change. ... An airport that exists above politics gives the illusion that no one has to choose between planes and pollution ... its “cake and eat it” narrative, in which we could fly more and still cope with rising CO2 ... the plans lack clarity and ambition. Strategic priorities like a 'noise envelope' ... are often stated, but not accompanied with clear targets ... As Heathrow itself accepts, the airport cannot deliver on most of the claims it makes ...The airport is simply trying to fill the void left by Theresa May and Chris Grayling, who have abandoned their responsibility to offer policy leadership ... this absence of leadership betrays the emergence of a new “post-sustainable” aviation, designed to accommodate the challenges of Brexit ... people are increasingly urged to believe that human progress and innovation are enough to meet environmental challenges. ... In this emerging discourse, the demands of economic growth trump those of the environment and social well-being."
Click here to view full story...
Evidence session on Heathrow impacts held by the GLA Environment Committee
The GLA Environment Committee held a meeting on 16th March, to which they invited both Heathrow staff (Matt Gorman, and Andrew Chen) and opponents (John Stewart, Jenny Bates and Simon Birkett) to reply to questions. The Committee has serious concerns about the environmental impacts of Heathrow, and they have not yet been persuaded by the bland assurances that Heathrow continues to give. The transcript of the session is not yet available, but it is all on Webcast. Important points were made, in response to Assembly Members' questions, on issues such as how much Heathrow would actually pay towards necessary surface access improvements; how long Heathrow will take to install noise the pledged £700 million (up to 20 years, Matt Gorman says); and how the ban on night flights should mean 8 hours without planes, not only the six and a half hours without scheduled flights, that Heathrow has grudgingly agreed to consider. The committee have experience of needing to mistrust bland assurances by Heathrow on how a 3rd runway could meet noise and air pollution challenges. They will be submitting their response to the DfT's consultation on the draft NPS.
Click here to view full story...
Launch of new group “Plane Justice” for those newly affected by Gatwick Route 4 since May 2016
Residents north of Gatwick, from Newdigate through to Salfords, have launched "Plane Justice", a collective of communities which seeks to support (whether through campaigning, communications, discussion, negotiation or legal process) those who are, or would be, newly affected by aircraft in airport ‘catchment areas’. Formed in response to changes made to Gatwick departure Route 4 in May 2016, the founders of Plane Justice have experienced on a personal level the stress, anxiety and sense of hopelessness and financial insecurity that changing flight paths causes to communities. The group describes the current iteration of Route 4 as the "Route to Misery", with a noisy turn and a more southern trajectory after the turn, which overflies more than 7,000 new residents. They want to bring an evidence-based and ethical dimension into decision making about the management of airspace, which in their experience to date of Gatwick and its associated aircraft noise, has been surprisingly lacking. Many people feel there has been a serious injustice in the way areas have been targeted by unacceptable levels of aircraft noise. Plane Justice wants Gatwick's hated "Route 4" to be returned to its pre-2013 “legacy” position, which was flown for decades with negligible complaints.
Click here to view full story...
“Aircraft Noise 3 Villages” says DfT’s Heathrow consultation is ‘flawed’ as Surrey Heath left in the dark
The Aircraft Noise 3 Villages group, that represents residents in Lightwater, Windlesham and Bagshot, is angry that local councils are not doing anything to get the amount of aircraft noise from Heathrow reduced. They want action by Surrey Heath Borough Council (SHBC) and Surrey County Council to tackle the issue of increased aircraft noise. They are also concerned that their areas were excluded from the distribution of 1.5 million leaflets by the DfT, inviting members of the public to a series of public events on the Heathrow National Policy Statement (NPS) consultation. The DfT is holding 20 events in areas affected by Heathrow, but this has not covered many of the places that either already get, or will get, intense levels of plane noise if there was a 3rd runway. Rosalie James, from the Aircraft Noise 3 Villages group, has written to the DfT, Surrey Heath MP, Michael Gove and Surrey County Councillor, Mike Goodman, to say their areas should have had a DfT info event. The absence of DfT events is yet another way in which the NPS consultation is widely regarded as deeply flawed. Even if people can attend a DfT event, they will find no information on future flight paths, though it is known that almost 50% more Heathrow flights, using more concentrated flight paths, would cause severe noise problems for those overflown.