Noise News
Below are links to stories about noise in relation to airports and aviation.
Heathrow again promoting its “sticking plaster” solution of adobe huts for school noise problem
Last April, keen to persuade politicians that a 3rd Heathrow runway should be allowed, the airport said it was installing noise insulation at the 42 schools and other community buildings (31 in Hounslow) where it promised in 2005 to carry out the work. It has taken 10 years so far. Heathrow said in April 2015 that a total of 10 schools would have adobe structures in their playgrounds by the end of the year. They now say 7 are done with 7 more in the pipeline. The domes are meant to provide a quieter place in the playground, where the aircraft noise of about 87 decibels outside (Hounslow Heath infant school) is cut to 70 decibels. Bearing in mind that average speech is around 60 decibels, and a teacher needs to be able to project their voice at least 10 decibels over background noise, that is still not good. There are concerns that the adobe structures don't solve the noise problems for schools under Heathrow flight paths. The issue for young children is that they need to play together, and hear each other while playing. That is not easy with a plane nearly over head every minute. The educational disadvantages of schools affected by aircraft noise are now sufficiently well researched; considerable evidence exists to show that it can mean young children suffer impaired performance.
Click here to view full story...
“Gatwick Obviously NOT” given permission to take their JR of the CAA to the Appeal Court
The group, "Gatwick Obviously NOT" (GON) has received the welcome news that their appeal to be allowed to make a Judicial Review (JR) against the CAA has been successful. They have now won Permission to go to a Full Hearing in the Appeal Court. In March 2015, Martin Baraud, the Chair of GON, served a JR upon the CAA, with Gatwick Airport Ltd and the Secretary of State for Transport as an ‘Interested Party’. The “Ground of Claim” is that there has indeed been a change in the use of airspace and that the CAA should first have consulted on such change before it was put into effect by GAL and NATS. In August, they were refused permission to proceed with the JR. Taking advice from their QC, John Steel, they appealed. GON say the judge, Mr Justice Haddon-Cave, while refusing the Permission, added a postscript, seeming to suggest that there may be an issue about the need for consultation for ‘seismic’ events (such as the flight path changes introduced without notice) that is more a matter for the law-makers, not the lawyers. Now GON are pleased that the Judge The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Burnett has stated that the case - very significantly - must be held in the Appeal Court rather than the High Court. This is in order to "'obtain an authoritative ruling on the meaning of relevant provisions, which govern similar arrangements at airports other than Gatwick".
Click here to view full story...
Gatwick sets up a “Noiselab” website, so people can see more about its plane noise
Gatwick airport realises the increased impact of the noise from its planes is causing considerable upset, anger and opposition. As part of its PR offensive, to try to persuade people that it is going everything possible to minimise noise and take people's complaints ("concerns" in Gatwick language) seriously, it has launched a website called "Noiselab" as a noise monitoring tool. The aim is to allow people to look at the noise close to various monitors and see how much is from aircraft, how many flights etc. It does not appear that many of these noise monitors are new. The noise level readings at the various monitoring points are only given as averaged LAeq values over a 16-hour day and a 8-hour night. This averaging process destroys the usefulness of this tool as a measure of noise annoyance, especially under flight paths. What people hear is the noise level (LAmax) of each aircraft. The “fly-over” average also reduces the actual noise nuisance, and there is no measure of background noise levels (LA90) against which each aircraft noise event is clearly heard. However the network of monitors should be welcomed because they could be put to proper use, for example if LAmax measurements were taken and the N70 metric [this means the number of noise events noisier than 70dB] was used and the “fly-over” value was given as a Sound Exposure Level (SEL).
Click here to view full story...
John Redwood losing patience with inadequate responses on aircraft noise from John Holland-Kaye
John Redwood, the MP for Wokingham, has been in correspondence with Heathrow's CEO John Holland-Kaye, about the considerable increase in aircraft noise that his constituents have been subjected to since mid 2014. Mr Holland-Kaye has replied, setting out a long list of possible improvements to how much noise Heathrow flights might produce. John Redwood replied: "The changes that NATS made, without consultation, in June 2014 to the Compton Gate have resulted in incessant noise over the Wokingham area due to the concentration of flights over one area, rather than their dispersal. The various mitigating effects that you have described to me over the past months appear good in theory but they are having no effect on reducing the noise level above our houses. I have no wish to engage in a continuous dialogue or await some new consultation. What I and my constituents wish to see is a return to the pre-June 2014 dispersal and Gate policies. It is difficult to see why Wokingham would wish to support an expansion of the airport if this matter cannot be put right promptly." So, roll on the consultation by the CAA this year, and then the other by the DfT, on aircraft noise and airspace change.
Click here to view full story...
Linlithgow MSP sends her own 42-page report on impact of Edinburgh flight path trial to CAA
The "Tutur" flight path trial at Edinburgh airport created a storm of protest, from those finding themselves under a new, narrow flight path for the first time. The trial had to be stopped two months early, in October, because of the opposition. Now Fiona Hyslop, the MSP for Linlithgow, which was partly overflown in the trial, has herself surveyed 2,000 residents in West Lothian to find out their views. She has sent her 42-page report to the CAA. Ms Hyslop said the reason for her report was that residents had been kept in the dark about the potential for a new Edinburgh flight path and although the CAA "will receive a report from Edinburgh Airport stating that the complaints they received have originated from a small number of residents who have repeatedly complained, Edinburgh Airport did not proactively contact each individual resident as I have." Of the 2,000 surveyed, she found that 1,220 respondents felt that noise created by planes overhead was intrusive or disturbing while they were in their house with the windows shut. 760 of those surveyed found that there had been either no change, that the noise was barely noticeable or that it was tolerable. In two areas, the number saying they had been adversely affected were 71% and 60%. These results give a much fuller picture of the noise impact than "simply stating the results from two temporary noise monitors as Edinburgh Airport propose to do.”
Click here to view full story...
Letter to Bo Redeborn – re. Gatwick flight path review: “Don’t let us down”
People living in areas around Penshurst, Crowborough, Tunbridge Wells, Bidborough etc began to suffer from far worse Gatwick noise from early 2014. Changes had been made to Gatwick arrivals flight paths, without consultation. There is now an independent review being undertaken, of the changes. It is being done by Bo Redeborn and Graham Lake, and will be published on 28th January. It is hoped that this will not be a whitewash. A resident from a village in West Kent has written to Bo Redeborn, expressing very clearly the necessity of the review being genuinely independent, and avoiding the ambiguities, evasions and half-truths that have plagued the whole flight path change situation from its start. The writer says: "Until or unless you are able to tell us precisely what changed, why it changed, who proposed it and who authorised it then to all intents and purposes this really is 'vectoring choices'. If this is not PBN, if this is not SESAR, if this is not government directed policy, then this really is caused by a bunch of ATCs [Air Traffic Controllers] making arbitrary decisions to send planes down pig trails. So it can, and should, be restored 'overnight' as confirmed by Charles Kirwan-Taylor." He concludes: "Mr Redeborn, an awful lot of people are depending upon you to repair their shattered lives; don't let us down." See the whole letter ....
Click here to view full story...
“Plane Wrong” critical of CAA’s PIR decision to permit new easterly take-off route to continue
The CAA published its long-awaited Post Implementation Review report in early November. Gatwick is required by the CAA to change one westerly departure route (Route 4) that affects people in many villages to the South of Dorking and across to Reigate and Redhill. This has to revert back to being within the NPR (noise preferential route) as before. Local group, Plane Wrong, set up in response to the noise problems caused, says it welcomes the decision and wants this to be implemented rapidly so that residents do not have to suffer the noise for another summer. Plane Wrong is, however, dismayed at the CAA decision in respect of Route 3, which is not to be changed despite the fact that many more people are significantly affected by the change. This appears to have been entirely ignored. Plane Wrong has considerable doubts about some of the methodologies employed by the CAA to reach both these decisions. On the change to Route 4, Plane Wrong says the changes should be completed quickly, though the CAA has to test the change in simulators for Boeing and Airbus. They do not yet know when this work will take place. There is also a 2 month period that has to elapse after that, and there is no indication yet of when this will end
Click here to view full story...
Ministers should publish details of flight paths for new Heathrow or Gatwick runway
One of the glaring omissions from the Airports Commission's report and its areas of research was to establish the flight paths for the three short listed options. As the noise impact is an absolutely critical factor in the opposition to a new runway, information on these routes is key. But because UK airspace is being re-designed at present, there is no certainty even about the existing flight paths several years ahead, let alone new ones. It would be unavoidable that tens or hundreds of new people would be overflown for the first time by planes using a new runway. So far, these people are entirely unaware of the problems they would face. Ruth Cadbury asked Patrick McLoughlin about this on 14th December: "Will he force Heathrow airport to declare where the flight paths will be, particularly the approach paths..." Sadiq Khan said Londoners had been “kept in the dark for too long” on the runway decision, and detailed flight paths should be published for a Heathrow 3rd runway to show which communities would be blighted by more noise. The same are needed for areas affected by Gatwick, especially as it has far more night flights than Heathrow. Zac Goldsmith has already published indicative routes for Heathrow, but these are just speculative at present.
Click here to view full story...
Report by independent consultants, Helios, highly critical of CAA over its airspace change process
Helios, a management and technology consultancy, was contracted by the CAA to undertake an independent review of its airspace change (AC) decision-making process. Its report presents the results of the review together with Helios' recommendations for a revised AC process. There have been a huge number of complaints in the last few years about how the CAA deals with airspace change, and the inadequate way in which it communicates with the public. Helios is highly critical of the way the CAA has conducted consultations about flight paths at airports across the UK, saying there has been a lack of transparency. Helios also says there is a problem in the CAA being both judge and jury. The report comes just ten days after the CAA announced that it would allow London City Airport to concentrate its flight paths. That decision was severely criticized by campaign group HACAN East, which complained about the lack of proper consultation - most people did not know they would be getting concentrated plane noise in future. The CAA refused to re-consult. The Helios report has called for an Oversight Committee to be set up to allow people to challenge the CAA’s decisions on flights paths.
Click here to view full story...
The conditions recommended by the EAC apply at Gatwick, as well as at Heathrow
The Environmental Audit Committee proposed a series of environmental conditions (noise, CO2 and air pollution) that the government should impose on a 3rd runway at Heathrow. They also said Heathrow should pay for necessary additional surface access infrastructure. GACC has pointed out that very similar conditions would have to apply for a 2nd Gatwick runway. On Noise, the condition that Heathrow should be less noisy with three runways than with two would absolutely rule out a new Gatwick runway, as it would affect three times as many people as it would with one runway. There would also need to be a ban on night flights. The carbon emissions over future decades from flights using a 2nd Gatwick runway would be very similar to those from a 3rd Heathrow runway, so the same condition would apply. ie. that "the CCC’s advice on aviation in relation to the 5th carbon budget, introducing an effective policy framework to bring aviation emissions to 2005 levels by 2050 no later than autumn 2016….” On air pollution, although a new Gatwick runway might not breach EU limits it would adversely affect more houses than one at Heathrow. And on paying for surface transport, the airport should pay for all necessary transport upgrades, assessed when the airport is two- thirds full, not merely when it is just one-third full.