Noise News
Below are links to stories about noise in relation to airports and aviation.
Government and CAA hope that “community engagement” will remove aircraft noise problems with 3rd runway
The proposed 3rd runway at Heathrow is intended to increase the number of annual flights to 740,000 per year - an increase of 260,000 from the current cap of 480,000. This will mean huge numbers of people newly affected by aircraft noise, and changes to the noise for those currently affected. New flight paths would be required, and these would need to be consulted on. The government and the CAA have misguided faith in the magic solution of "community engagement" to solve the noise problems. In the recent documents from the DfT and the CAA, there are numerous comments about how Heathrow will be required to "engage." The fallacy, and the incorrect impression it is intended to create (especially to the naive) is that somehow having information about the noise, and being told about it, makes it less of a problem, and less annoying (stressful, depressing, or damaging to house prices). Some examples of the disingenuous and guileful wording are: (CAA) “… airport expansion can only be permitted if there is a credible package of measures to deal with local communities.” … On legitimate concerns of local communities that “… will require changes to operating practices and full community participation in the airspace changes that will be required.” And (DfT) “Proposals will be brought forward …. including the way in which affected communities can best be engaged.”
Click here to view full story...
Simon Jenkins: Expanding Heathrow will be a monumental blight on west London
Another of Simon's brilliantly written pieces. Just a few extracts: the runway decision is "...a result of that blight on modern government, lobbying. If anyone complains about public cynicism towards politics, just say Heathrow." ..."We should remember that 10 years ago Heathrow’s owners planned to shift their future expansion to Stansted because they expected no government would allow anything as polluting as more Heathrow." ... "Heathrow may be full. So are Paddington and Victoria stations, so are the M25 and M40, so are Barts and Guy’s hospitals. Supply does not have to answer demand. Price can take the pressure. We no longer “predict and provide” the supply of roads or houses or even hospitals." ..."London now faces two decades of controversial mega-project disruptions, for Heathrow, HS2 and Crossrail 2." ... "Suppose the proposed “year of consultation” yields an overwhelmingly hostile response, leading to furious public inquiries, Supreme Court hearings, civil rights claims and global warming protests? The smart money already is on this being, in reality, a do-nothing decision." ... "The one overwhelming case against it is that in the 21st century it should be inconceivable to send vast, noisy jets screaming over the heads of millions of people". ... "For passengers it is mostly a luxury service. Barely 20% of London air travel is for “business”, the rest being tourism and leisure, overwhelmingly for Britons going abroad. That does nothing for exports. "
Click here to view full story...
AEF damning assessment of Heathrow recommendation and its environmental impacts
The AEF (Aviation Environment Federation) is the main group in the UK assessing UK aviation policy for its environment impacts, with several decades of expertise. They have had a first look at the government's Heathrow decision, and are underwhelmed. Some of their comments: On CO2 the DfT says that keeping UK carbon emissions to within the 37.5 MtCO2 cap while adding a Heathrow runway effectively cannot be done. AEF says the DfT now has no commitment to the 37.5 MtCO2 cap, and just includes vague references to the ICAO global carbon offsetting scheme for aviation agreed this month, and to potential efficiencies arising from better air traffic management -though both measures are (effectively) already taken into account in the CCC’s modelling. On air pollution, the DfT says “a new runway at Heathrow is deliverable within air quality limits, if necessary mitigation measures are put in place, in line with the ‘National air quality plan’, published in December 2015.” But AEF says Government appears to have little idea what those mitigation measures will be, and the deliverability of the plan has already, therefore, been questioned through the courts. And on noise AEF says the noise impact will depend heavily on the precise location of flight paths, which are unknown.
Click here to view full story...
Environment Audit Cttee will be calling Ministers to give evidence on Heathrow runway environmental impacts
The Environment Audit Committee has announced (already) that, after the government's announcement that it backs a Heathrow runway, it will be calling Ministers to scrutinise how environmental concerns are being mitigated. The EAC has scrutinised the Airports Commission in the past, on environmental problems of a Heathrow runway. The EAC wants assurances from the Government that a new runway will comply with key environmental conditions. Mary Creagh MP, Chair of the Committee, said it would be necessary to look at what the runway means for local residents, on air quality and noise standards and also on carbon emissions. She said: ..."we need a clear plan to reduce emissions from aviation to meet our climate change targets. ... The Government must ensure that current legal EU air pollution limits are retained after we leave, to protect the health and wellbeing of local people. We wait to hear what the airport's plans are for covering the costs of local transport. ... On noise we welcome Heathrow’s announcement that it will accept a ban on night flights. Ministers must ensure that local communities receive predictable respite from planes flying over their homes." The EAC report, published in November 2015, called upon the Government and Heathrow to demonstrate how issues were to be dealt with. They are not persuaded by the replies.
Click here to view full story...
Government decides on new runway at Heathrow – with no certainty on air pollution, noise or CO2
The government has made its announcement that it backs a 3rd runway at Heathrow, using the north west option (not the extended northern runway). It has decided to entirely follow the recommendation of the Airports Commission, by backing one runway only. The statement from Chris Grayling is on the DfT website, with a list of supporting documents. The government glosses over details of how it could ensure the runway did not cause worse air pollution, or worse noise, or higher CO2 emissions. Neither the DfT statement, nor Chris Grayling's contributions in the House, give any clarity or reassurances on most of the problems that a 3rd runway will create. There will be a consultation, starting in early 2017, on the National Policy Statement, which has to be agreed by both House of Parliament before Heathrow could go ahead with the planning stages for its runway. The government's statements say things like: "Despite the increase in flights Heathrow Airport Ltd has made firm commitments to noise reduction. The government will propose that a six-and-a-half hour ban on scheduled night flights ..." And "the government proposes new legally binding noise targets, encouraging the use of quieter planes, and a more reliable and predictable timetable of respite for those living under the final flight path." And new work "confirms that a new runway at Heathrow is deliverable within air quality limits, if necessary mitigation measures are put in place"..... ie. vague waffly aspirations, with zero practical details.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow opponents take inspiration from 5 years of noise protests after 3rd Frankfurt runway
With a decision by government expected shortly, and the likelihood of a Heathrow runway being approved, 3 Heathrow campaigners went to join in one of the massive (almost) weekly demos at Frankfurt airport. Back in October 2011 a 3rd Frankfurt runway was opened. The local residents had not been informed just how much worse the plane noise they suffer would become, with new routes and alterations to old routes. About a million people in the area are affected. Since then they have held hundreds of protests, almost every Monday evening, against this reduction in their quality of life, the noise intrusion they suffer, and the drop in the prices of their homes. The Frankfurt area residents say they will never give up. The Heathrow campaigners said something very similar would happen to noise, with a 3rd Heathrow runway. Speaking to the crowd of many hundreds of protesters in the terminal, John Stewart said: "What you are showing to the airport authorities and to government is that if they build a runway that people don’t want, people will not go away. We will say that we will protest like the people of Frankfurt have protested for 5 years." Neil Keveren, a Harmondsworth resident, said: "When the people of Chiswick, Hammersmith, Ealing and Southall realise they are going to be under a flightpath, I am pretty sure they are going to get the same sort of response at home."
Click here to view full story...
Study for Heathrow on “respite” from plane noise cannot define it or agree on its effective use
The concept of "respite" (meaning giving areas that are over-flown some time periods when they are not over-flown, is being considered as a way to make otherwise unacceptable levels of plane noise - eg. from a new runway - acceptable. The concept works well for the two Heathrow approach paths over London now, with the landing runway switched at 3pm, allowing people almost half a day without the noise. But with 3 runways, one would need to always be in mixed mode, and so people could no longer get such long "respite" periods. Nobody knows what actually constitutes respite, how quiet the quiet periods should be, how long they should last, how often they should be, how predictable and so on. Heathrow set up The Respite Working Group (RWG) in October 2014 to provide advice to the Heathrow Noise Forum on the management and assessment of respite. Heathrow employed Anderson Acoustics to look into respite, to define it and to understand how it might be useful. However, their review concluded that: There is currently no clear, consistent or universally accepted definition of respite. What the community values as respite is not fully understood. There is currently no single acoustic metric that can adequately describe respite. There is no universal formula for the successful implementation of an effective respite strategy and operational design for respite needs to consider operational conditions at an airport. And there is currently insufficient information on the benefits of respite to health and on the economic value of the effects of respite.
Click here to view full story...
Edinburgh flight path consultation ends, with the second part due early in 2017
The consultation by Edinburgh airport on changes to flight paths that started in June has now ended. The airport says the results were mixed, with some people not expressing opposition. This may be because the area that was covered by the consultation included places that have not seen increased plane noise, and have not been affected by the changes. There were around 5,000 responses, and the airport's consultation website was viewed about 80,000 times. Edinburgh airport say no changes could be made to existing flight paths until a further stage of consultation, proposing specific routes, was completed and the plans approved by the CAA. A detailed report on the airport's consultation is due to be finished in January, and the second stage of the consultation will begin early in 2017. Some residents are already affected by noise pollution from changes in the flight paths and have accused the airport of pushing ahead with airspace expansion without considering other ways to increase capacity. Edinburgh Airport Watch said that although the airport is 'consulting', they have already changed the pattern of use of the airspace - people have been robbed of their peace and quiet. The airport wants the change flight paths, in order to get more planes taking off and landing at peak times of day, in order to make more money for the airport.
Click here to view full story...
Blog on the problem of intense plane noise and mental health – is respite the answer?
The problem of aircraft noise is significant, especially for those living under flight paths that are now far more concentrated than before - as UK airspace is "modernised" to deal with ever more planes. Those with pre-existing mental health conditions, in particular depression, are especially vulnerable to the problem. In a blog, Chris Keady, sets out some thoughts on what needs to be done to protect people whose mental well being is vulnerable if they are exposed to intense plane noise, which they cannot escape from. Respite may help, but in situations of noise hotspots, with hundreds of planes overhead most of the day, it is not enough, particularly for those vulnerable to the noise, who will be disproportionately affected and where additional measures are called for. Though there is good evidence of noise from concentrated flight paths causing depression, there is no idea what a safe noise ‘dose’ is – but airspace changes are being introduced nevertheless. To do least harm, the noise needs to be shared out more widely and other measures introduced (respite plus). These are examined in the blog.
Click here to view full story...
CAA’s Andrew Haines says UK airspace ‘needs to be modernised’ in order to add a SE runway
In a blog by Civil Aviation Authority chief executive Andrew Haines, he says unless UK airspace is modernised, and around London in particular, "then we will not be able to use that additional runway wherever it is because the levels of congestion we have are very severe."... "Effectively the airspace structures have not been redesigned since the 1960s and 1970s. We're not using modern technology, we're using an incremental approach to flight paths which means it's not the most efficient." He admitted that flight paths and noise are a problem for communities. People living 30 or more miles from an airport can now be very negatively impacted by plane noise, due to the way flight paths are now concentrated - as part of the drive for modernisation. Airspace is more "efficient" for the aviation industry if flights follow set routes, rather than being more dispersed. Andrew Haines says the ability to "massively concentrate traffic" would be "brilliant" if that could be done over an unpopulated area (but we have no unpopulated areas in the densely populated south east). He adds that although the CAA approves modifications to airspace design, this is ultimately down to government policy, because "who should suffer most and least from noise is a political decision". But the DfT said: "We are currently reviewing existing airspace and noise policies and will consult on proposals in due course." Meaning after a runway decision. Not before.