stephent

> Weather patterns dictate a lot of it > as do the established flight corridors that act to > separate all those flights. > Also, how are aircraft supposed to land at > Heathrow if they're higher coming over Dulwich?! > The whole point they're that height is because > they're landing there. If they were higher or > lower they'd miss the landing and/or hit something > else... > Actually with modern navigation and approach systems theres a fair amount of scope to vary both flight paths and angle of attack (CDA, steeper approaches, etc). It does take a long time to analyse and implement these though, as there?s a lot of trials and modelling that needs to take place.

That?s why they?re exempt from the congestion charge. The do emit pollution though and thus have to pay the ULEZ charge. natty01295 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Because they free up traffic therefore should be > Exempt from ULEZ > > Sally Eva Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I don't understand the relevance of this. > > > > natty01295 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Motorcycles,Motor Scooters > > > Don't get stuck in traffic like Cars do !!

50 years ago a B and a C were all you needed to get in ;) https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/gallery/prince-charles-trinity-college-cambridge-12245421

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To a all the people who claim they don't make any > noise difference whether planes fly above us or > not, please have a listen today - when they don't > - and realise how badly Heathrow is located. > > Or how badly you are located? Or did you move to > your current address before the airport was built? When Heathrow opened it carried 63,000 passengers a year, and was (initially) built very intelligently to allow for takeoffs and landings in a wide range of directions. If that were still the case I don?t think many people would be complaining about the noise. Aircraft technology changes, flight paths change, passenger numbers change; as such the number and location of impacted people change.

Black cabs are highly regulated, and drivers have almost no choice in the vehicle they buy, so it makes sense these are outside the ULEZ scheme. There is a separate scheme already in place to modernise the black cab fleet (indeed for new cabs the emission requirements are much stricter than ULEZ). Willard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > cella Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Why? > > > Because they help ease congestion and hence > already alleviate pollution. > > It is hard to take this scheme seriously when > disgusting noxious old black cabs are allowed to > continue to pollute. I had to walk through the > Euston station underground car park recently, past > a line of 50 odd black cabs waiting for customers. > All just sat there with their engines idling. I > had to put my jumper over my mouth to stop myself > being sick.

Have you ever considered cycling - I do North Dulwich to Moorgate every day, and it?s 25 mins by bike.

> Closer to the airport (closer than us) you know > exactly where the planes will be, depending on > which runway they're landing on. Further away, > where we are, there is more fluidity; controllers > can send aircraft this or that way before they > line-up, depend on the amount of air traffic, > which stacks they're coming from etc etc. > > So if you get a busy spell you didn't notice last > week, it's not a conspiracy or a 'change in flight > paths' - it's just one of those things. One day - > or hour - they're particularly loud, the next, > they're a bit further away and you don't hear them > so much. I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure the landing stacks are pretty well defined based on planes in the sky, runway in use, etc, and from there planes are precision guided into the runway. As such there's really not much scope for planes/ATCs to choose some different path. Indeed people are worried that the new precision guidance tech in planes will mean flight paths (and noise) get even more concentrated as every plane will follow the exact same path.

The whole airspace around London needs to be re-designed as part of this decision - I believe that will take about a year or so to prepare (there'll be a public consultation on it)...

Frankfurt has 0 night flights because the German government banned them.

I believe drivers/passengers in the cars themselves are actually the worst affected by NOX, rather than pedestrians, but still yes - any additional lifespan has to be a positive.

I fully support the UlEZ extension, but it's not very helpful to quote the 10k deaths number whilst debating an extension to the south circular. The 10k number covers 2 emission types and covers the whole of London, so the extension would impact only a fraction of these 'years lost'. Also it doesn't seem like a very sensible policy to extend the ULEZ whilst also building a new runway at Heathrow...

Can I ask which park of the discount you disagree with - the diesel standards were introduced so recently it seems unfair not to allow a discount on at least say Cat 5 diesels?

The CPZ around North Dulwich station was put in place a week ago, so not sure if this has pushed any commuters over to ED?