Noise News
Below are links to stories about noise in relation to airports and aviation.
Environmental Audit Committee says Government must ensure a 3-runway Heathrow is genuinely no noisier than with 2 runways
The Environmental Audit Committee report looked at noise, as one of the issues that need to be revolved, if the Government wants to approve a Heathrow runway. The EAC says the current metrics that average noise are inadequate. They do not account for peak noise events, and may "ignore a swathe of people who are overflown infrequently but loudly." "These metrics need to be measured against international standards such as WHO recommendations and inform a change in Government policy on aviation noise." A new Independent Aviation Noise Authority will "need a more up to date understanding of people’s attitudes to noise if it is to be credible. One of the first tasks of such a body should be to undertake a survey of people’s attitudes to aviation noise." The EAC says the government has to show "whether an expanded Heathrow would be noisier or less noisy than a two runway Heathrow at the same point in time." On night flights the EAC says: "The Government should publish a plan, including a series of binding milestones, to deliver the proposed ban as part of any announcement to proceed with expansion at Heathrow..." And even if there is no 3rd runway, an Independent Aviation Noise Authority and a Community Engagement Board should be set up, to address the rock-bottom level of trust local people have in the airport.
Click here to view full story...
Environmental Audit Committee says government should not permit Heathrow runway without strict conditions
The EAC report's conclusions say: "The Government should not approve Heathrow expansion until Heathrow Ltd. can demonstrate that it accepts and will comply with the Airports Commission conditions, including a night flight ban, that it is committed to covering the costs of surface transport improvements; that it is possible to reconcile Heathrow expansion with legal air pollution limits, and that an expanded Heathrow would be less noisy than a two runway Heathrow. In each case - climate change, air quality and noise - it needs to set out concrete proposals for mitigation alongside clear responsibilities and milestones against which performance can be measured. It should report regularly to Parliament, through this Committee and others, on progress. The Government should not avoid or defer these issues. To do so would increase the risks of the project: delay through legal challenge, unquantifiable costs resulting from unclear responsibilities, economic risks through constraint of other sectors to meet increased aviation emissions and longterm costs to public health from the impact of air pollution and noise."
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow not willing to accept a ban on night flights, saying it constrains links to regional airports
John Holland-Kaye is hugely confident that he will get a new runway, saying he was now “80%” sure that David Cameron’s decision would be for Heathrow. The Airports Commission suggested a condition that there would be a complete ban on flights between 11.30pm and 6am due to the unacceptable noise of night flights.Mr Holland-Kaye says night flights were not something to “throw away lightly”. Heathrow currently is allowed 5,800 night flights per year, meaning an average of 16 arriving each morning, typically between 4.30am and 6am. British Airways wants to keep night flights, and is Heathrow's largest airline. Last week Mr Holland-Kaye said shifting night flights to later slots would damage connections to the rest of the UK. “If I talk to regional airports, they all want to see early morning arrivals into Heathrow. They want a flight that comes in from their airport before 8 o’clock in the morning so people can do a full day’s work, can do business in London or can connect to the first wave of long-haul flights going out. You are very quickly going to use up all of the first two hours of the morning if we have a curfew before 6 o’clock, particularly as we then have to move the 16 flights. That really constrains the ability of UK regions to get the benefits from an expanded hub. So it is not something we should throw away lightly." Heathrow's links to regional airport would actually fall, with a 3rd runway, according to the Airports Commission. .
Click here to view full story...
Despair in East London as CAA approves new concentrated flight paths – there may be a legal challenge
Many residents in East London are in despair following the CAA announcement that it will allow London City Airport to concentrate its flight paths. Campaign group HACAN East is considering legal action against the CAA. Departure routes will be concentrated over places like Bow, parts of Leyton, Leytonstone, Wanstead, Dagenham and parts of Havering. Areas of South London will also experience more concentrated routes. The decision follows uproar at the lack of consultation on the proposals last year. City Airport just put a technical document on its website and informed the Consultative Committee. It was left to HACAN East to hold public meetings in the areas which would be affected. The airport argued it only had to carry out a minimal consultation. Local people, backed by many local authorities, MPs and members of the GLA, said that a full consultation should have been carried out as some areas would get 30% more planes than now. The CAA was inundated with letters calling for a fresh consultation, but the new announcement means it has ruled this out. For those who barely had planes over them in recent years, facing living under a concentrated flight path indefinitely is a miserable prospect. The CAA is not fit for purpose, and being funded largely by the airlines, it should not make these decisions.
Click here to view full story...
CAA approves so-called “environmentally friendly” changes to Stansted Airport take-offs
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has approved changes to ensure aircraft departing from Stansted to the south-east will climb higher sooner – slightly reducing fuel burn and CO2 emissions. This is part of major airspace changes approved by the CAA, as part of the FAS (Future Airspace Strategy) which is set to modernise UK airspace by 2020. The Stansted plans, which are included in the LAMP (London Airspace Management Programme) phase 1A, were submitted to the CAA by NATS, and followed a public consultation between October 2013 and January 2014. The FAS is the UK part of the wider European changes, under SESAR (Single European Sky), which hopes to improve airspace infrastructure to make its management more efficient, reduce fuel burn. It would also, by faster climbs and continuous descent approaches, slightly reduce the amount of aircraft noise for those over-flown. The aim, however, is it maximise use of airspace, enable more planes to fly in the same airspace, and save the airline industry time and therefore money. The Stansted route change approved is for more departures to go via Clacton to a point off the north-east corner of Kent (over the sea).
Click here to view full story...
New group (RAGE) in Elmbridge, to oppose Heathrow noise and expansion, want MP Dominic Raab to “come off the fence”
A new community group has been formed in Elmbridge. RAGE (Residents Action Group Elmbridge) is opposing changed Heathrow flight paths & a 3rd Heathrow runway, believing there is quite enough noise pollution and air pollution already, from the airport. Elmbridge is affected by Heathrow flights. RAGE campaigners have demanded that their MP (Dominic Raab, Conservative - Esher and Walton) and Elmbridge Council take a stance on the issue - as a government decision on a new runway is anticipated before Christmas. Neither has reached an official view on a Heathrow runway. Dominic Raab is sitting on the fence, and not committing to oppose a Heathrow runway, presumably not keen to fall out with Tory leaders. He has said he is "scrutinising the Davies Report carefully, including testing the economic and environmental assumptions." Mr Raab appears to be hoping there could, magically, be less noise for Elmbridge with a 3rd runway than currently. "I want to check the facts and evidence very carefully before coming to a firm view...." RAGE were shocked that Elmbridge Council had only just formed a task force on the issue. RAGE spokeswoman Katy Glassborow said Heathrow expansion would bring more noise and pollution, and Dominic Raab should find out what local people think and work to prevent the negative impacts on his constituents.
Click here to view full story...
Robert Goodwill on flight path noise problems: “we must think about this carefully”
Changes to Gatwick flight paths, using satellite precision-area navigation (PR-Nav) technology, have meant an increase of noise for those under flight paths that are now narrower, or those under new routes. This has led to a huge number of noise complaints, as well as anger and upset for those affected. Reigate MP, Crispin Blunt leads the Gatwick Co-ordination Group of MPs in Parliament, opposed to the changed flight paths and to plans for a 2nd runway. Crispin has been trying to ascertain, from Aviation Minister, Robert Goodwill, that the new technology would be used in a way that allowed aircraft to be spread out as widely as possible, rather than being concentrated. In a recent letter to Robert Goodwill, Crispin asked for stronger policy guidance from the Government to ensure "noise ghettos" are not created, by reducing aircraft concentration, maximising dispersal and by permitting multiple arrival and departure routes to give respite to communities affected. In his response, Mr Goodwill said "it is extremely important that we listen to the concerns of communities on these matters", before giving an assurance that the Government will consider the issues raised and the need for appropriate guidance to achieve "solutions which are locally suitable when airspace changes must be made". He said "we must think about this carefully."
Click here to view full story...
Sally Pavey’s comment on the CAA’s Gatwick PIR – it ‘ignored’ human cost of changed flight paths
Responding to the publication of the PIR (Post Implementation Review of Gatwick flight path changes since 2013, Sally Pavey (Chair of CAGNE) commented that it was "extremely disappointing". It concluded that only the departure route taking off to the west, and heading north, had to change. Local group, Plane Wrong, welcomed that admission, but are dismayed by the CAA’s conclusion that the easterly departure route does not need to be changed. The PIR said a route towards the south-coast and another heading east were acceptable but should be reviewed by Gatwick; the remaining six routes did not need to change. Sally said the PIR now needed to be reviewed by the Aviation Minister, Robert Goodwill: “For a Government, in this day and age, to implement and subject residents to such an airspace concentrated system without any research into the noise readings or emissions from concentrated routes is beyond belief.” She added: “The noise shadow is far grater from a concentrated route than a dispersed route. It’s like having a country lane next to your home, which might see a few cars throughout the day and night, and changing it to the M1 overnight. The noise is relentless. Until the aviation industry recognise that concentrated routes create noise shadows these reports are pointless as they serve only the aviation industry and not the taxpayers.” The report offers little for people affected in West Sussex.
Click here to view full story...
The CAA’s disappointing PIR finally published, showing only one Gatwick route to be slightly changed
Since autumn 2013 there have been changes to flight paths for Gatwick airport, given provisional approval by the CAA. Routes have been altered, and flight paths have been more concentrated. This has been done without consultation of affected communities. The CAA has done a PIR (Post Implementation Review) that ended in January. It has finally, after delays, published its findings. These are regarded as very disappointing, as almost no concessions have been made and though hundreds of complaints were sent in, there are few changes to routes. GACC says: "In a 198 page report they devote only 2 pages to the possibility of dispersal – spreading the aircraft over a wider area – and to the possibility of respite – giving people a break from constant noise. And then reject both. We will now need to take the case to the Government and indeed will raise this when we meet the Minister for Aviation, Robert Goodwill MP ...on 18 November." The more concentrated noise has caused great distress for the people unlucky enough to live directly under the flight paths. The only change to a route is one which takes off to the west, and flies over Holmwood, Brockham and Reigate - Gatwick will be consulting on a revised route in the next few months. People are angry that the CAA, yet again, ignores input from the public.
Click here to view full story...
More people living near airports in the US suffer intense noise from NextGen narrow flight paths
The Wall Street Journal has reported on the noise problems that people are experiencing at many US airports, due to NextGen - with concentrated flight paths. There are slight reductions in time and fuel burn for planes, but at the cost of hugely more intense noise suffered by those unlucky to live below. Communities say they weren’t fully warned about the new flight paths, and now neighbourhoods that never had much airport noise are getting bombarded. Opposition groups across the USA are blitzing airports with hundreds of thousands of noise complaints and a few lawsuits to stop the changes. Many people, who had no flights over them, have found their peace shattered, with no consultation about the fate that was due to befall them. A key example is at Phoenix, where until September 18th 2014, planes taking off to the west turned north about 9 miles after take-off - but now they all turn after about 3 miles. Planes are below 2,000 feet, and at that height, the noise from the big ones is enough to scare people. It is especially unfair on those who bought their homes in places away from flight paths, only to find the flight paths moved. Communities say the FAA bungled implementation of the new routes, thinking only of what’s good for airlines and their passengers and not for people on the ground. They want environmental impact assessments.