Aircraft noise - have your say...

[StraferJack]

"If I hear someone has a problem and it?s a problem which doesn?t affect me I listen to their moaning say I don?t have an issue and move on?.

Would I rubbish them NO! "

well apart from the fact that your post is all kinds of aggressive, name calling insinuations, no you don't rubbish anyone

But to answer the question about why people who don't agree with you might be trying to make an opposing argument, it's because living in a major capital city involves all kinds of compromises in order for the WHOLE thing to function, and single issue petitions like yours don't solve anything

let's say you succedd - what happens to the people living elsewhere in London who would have to take the brunt of the diverted traffic?

If your answer is for them to do as you did and THEY all succeed, what happens to all of the planes which need to fly/land to facilitate your, mine and everyone elses work/leisure/holiday schedules

of COURSE you can hear more traffic/noise because you have allowed the issue to dominate your thinking - you spend your time bareley sleeping, waiting for that first drone so you can jump up and shout "aha!!!"

The people who are arguing against you are living close to you and offering solutions. Crazy ranty posts like your win noone over

[natsw]

Just to be clear, let's not pretend that excessive aircraft noise is caused by everyone on this tiny island flying all over the world (although many of us do), it's about Heathrow being the world's third busiest airport due to it being Europe's major hub. That is what the expansion plans are about: making more money and keeping business away from Schiphol and Frankfurt who are threatening to take some of that precious business away. The rights and wrongs of that are a whole other issue but this is not a simple case of people in London take flights and that's why a flight lands or takes off every 45 seconds at Heathrow.

[Penguin68]

As I have said in another thread, sometimes changing yourself, rather than changing the world, is a more effective tactic in dealing with issues that trouble you.

I have lived for 25 years in ED (under, as I have also said) the old Concorde flight path. If I concentrate I can be aware of planes passing overhead (I must admit I have not noticed any increase in frequency or noise levels over my time here). But only if I concentrate (my hearing, by the way has been recently tested as being 20-30 years better than my actual age).

As a child I lived under the old B52 training flight paths (in Oxford). There the US bombers flew so low that the house shook and ornaments would move. I had recurrent nightmares about these planes crashing for years. In ED I have had nothing like that - athough I am as much disturbed as anyone else by circling police helicopters when they are in 'search' mode.

Learning to live with annoyances which you are very unlikely (petition or no) to be able to change is a rational choice - I am not saying that you do not, or should not, find aircraft noise annoying, what I am saying is that there are effective methods to reduce the amount of annoyance you feel.

[fabfor]

12am to 6am. 6 hours noise free.

That should be a minimum standard.

It protects everyone from babies to sensitive adults.

What's wrong with you??

[Penguin68]

It protects everyone from babies to sensitive adults

A lot of research shows that babies, once asleep, are very difficult to rouse through external sounds. A baby is quite unlikely to have disturbed sleep through aircraft noise. Adult anxieties can of course effect children's sleep patterns (and general well being).

[StraferJack]

"It protects everyone from babies to sensitive adults. "

you aren't under attack!

babies sleep fine through the night in ED - mine did

more likely to be woken up by weird parents prowling the hallway with a radar in one hand and a microphone in the other

[fabfor]

OMG. It's pathalogical. I'll say it slowly. Listen carefully if you can.

1. It's hurting people. Fact.

2. A minimum standard protects everyone, even you and yours should it get worse in the future. Fact.

Really, what is wrong with you? Your neighbours are disturbed by this and you don't give a ....? And what's more, you're only too proud to say so. Empathy, what's that?

What's wrong with you?

[StraferJack]

Are you posting under multiple names on same thread?

anyway

"OMG. It's pathalogical. I'll say it slowly. Listen carefully if you can.

1. It's hurting people. Fact.

2. A minimum standard protects everyone, even you and yours should it get worse in the future. Fact.

Really, what is wrong with you? Your neighbours are disturbed by this and you don't give a ....? And what's more, you're only too proud to say so. Empathy, what's that?

What's wrong with you?"

Firstly people who make dubious statements followed by ?fact? ? annoying

It is NOT a fact that it is ?hurting? people. Some people seem to be oversensitive to the noise in a manner that suggests its more about them than the noise. Given how many people the noise is NOT affecting, the noise doesn?t seem to be the root of the problem. Stating it as fact that it is hurting you is just not true

I care a great deal about my neighbours - one way or another ? but when those neighbours are wrong about something I try and tell them why. In all my years in Dulwich, speaking to neighbours, air traffic has rarely come up in conversation. And when it does NONE of them have minded (this is in various different SE22 postcodes btw)

[Earl Aelfheah]

I used to be disturbed by the sound of fast cars, but I'm alright Nyyyyooooowww.....

[fabfor]

Surprise!surprise!

Looks like 4 times more people are suffering (some here excepted) than we were previously told: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2565835/Report-reveals-one-million-people-suffer-Heathrow-aircraft-noise-FOUR-times-official-estimates.html

[fabfor]

Just found an interesting blog on noise here:http://hacan.org.uk/blog/?p=233

I found this particularly interesting:

"What happened when the fourth runway at Frankfurt opened is instructive. The shock to the system of a plane coming over every 90 seconds or so brought thousands on to the streets in protest. These protests still continue well over two years after the runway has been open"

Of course, it's stable doors and horses all over again.

[SplendidLikePeckham]

"Why do Jah Lush KidKruger *Bob* El Pibe amongst a number of posters on here appear intent at one level or other of insisting / telling those of us who have become increasingly bothered by the every increasing aircraft noise to bury our heads in the sand.??????????

Are they the missing link between us normal Humans and Ostrich?

Do they have some other agenda ?

Shares in Heathrow associated companies a desire to avoid negative topics Re East Dulwich?

FFS The mind does boggle!"

This thread has clearly gone a bit ranty, but I have to say I too find it very odd that those not affected by an issue would take the time and effort to even read, let alone then post such vociferous comments a) denying the issue's existence and b) denegrating those who claim to be affected by it ("176 bus overcrowded? RIDICULOUS! IF you want to get into the West End MOVE NEARER. Or just BUY SOME ROLLERSKATES!")

The noise clearly varies depending on wherabouts in the area you live, quality of windows, how light a sleeper you are etc - and I am genuinely pleased that many aren't affected by it - but to attack those who post here saying they are is downright peculiar in my opinion.

The only people I can think of who would go to the effort to do so would be a)the incredibly bored b)estate agents and/or house owners fearful of the effect "East Dulwich/Peckham blighted by flightpath" headlines might have on houseprices c)shareholders/employees of BAA/British Airways/Virgin etc.

It would be fascinating to know whether those descriptions are accurate in this case, but sadly we'll never know. Such is the beauty/frustation of an internet forum like this.....

Ho hum

[Jah Lush]

I repeat - What's the title of the thread?

[StraferJack]

?It would be fascinating to know whether those descriptions are accurate in this case, but sadly we'll never know?

Well that?s not true because I am happy to answer all of the above

?The only people I can think of who would go to the effort to do so would be a)the incredibly bored b)estate agents and/or house owners fearful of the effect "East Dulwich/Peckham blighted by flightpath" headlines might have on houseprices c)shareholders/employees of BAA/British Airways/Virgin etc.

?

No to each of those

I?ve already posted about how a major world city needs to accommodate the various aggravations to rub along ? flight noise is one of these things.

It?s misrepresentation to say most of the people named ?are not affected? by it ? it seems obvious that people manage the noise

The 176 IS overcrowded ? so walking is an option for many/some (NOT all)

But someone starting a petition to alleviate that problem would be asking for more buses, no? Which is more traffic ? which is more congestion

This is all quite different to starting a petition to STOP expansion and then hectoring people to sign it

It?s the lack of awareness and context as well as the tone and attitude which I am responding to

[*Bob*]

Perhaps the OP should change the title of the thread to:

"Aircraft noise - have your say (but only if you agree)"

? ?

Incidentally this thread - like so many others - would have dropped off the radar (boom boom) with a measly few hundred views.. without the help of some dissenting voices spicing things up. So assuming your aim is as wide an audience as possible (perhaps even reach the holy grail of, ooh I dunno - 150 signatures?) I'd be thankful for them.

[SplendidLikePeckham]

Jah Lush - in answer to your question, the title to this thread is "Aircraft Noise - have your say". I created it in April 2011 as an opportunity to flag up to anyone who wanted to respond to the review subsequently published in Dec 2013 by Sir Howard Davies into airport capacity in the south east of England. Presumably you submitted your views, outlining how aircraft noise is a complete non-issue in East Dulwich and those who think it is should just buy some ear plugs? If not then never mind, I am sure there are many who will still be glad to receive and publish them - the letters page of Heathrow's in house staff magazine for example. Go for it - have your say.

StraferJack my point about the 176 bus was intended to illustrate the strange anger - apparent here - that seems to be emanating from people annoyed at others who have dared to claim to be affected by something that doesn't bother them. I have no views either way on the 176 bus. Hence I personally couldn't be ar..d to wade into a thread started by those who do, or to dispute their experiences.

And besides - for all your denials you might be Willie Walsh for all I know. Or Richard Branson posting from your laptop in Necker Island. I have no idea and never will. And as I say the anonymity offered by a forum such as this by its very nature theoretically allows anyone to keep vested interests hidden.

[SplendidLikePeckham]

*Bob* - as you'll see if you go back to my first post, this was never a signature collecting excercise, it was an invitation for those who wanted to to respond to the Davies led review into airport capacity. To 'have their say'. I thought that was fairly obvious but hey sleep disruption can affect concentration so I'll forgive you.

[Penguin68]

Several points:-

1. The Daily Mail story link was covered by either The Standard or the Sunday Times last week (can?t remember which) ? but included a Db ?contour map? which showed ED conspicuous by its absence from any of the sound contours measured. So it falls outside the critical sound footprints being discussed.

2. All the evidence of this thread suggests that the sound impact of aircraft on us in ED is a very subjective area. (I doubt whether this would be true much closer to e.g. Heathrow.) This may well be evidenced by impressions of some posters that the ?problem? is significantly on the increase not being supported by actual published figures (although the fact that Heathrow is now operating at 98% capacity does support some increase, though this may be on aircraft loadings rather than frequency).

3. Unless the intention is to restrict overall the number of flights into and out of London ? which will not exactly help the economy, creating a 6 hour window of silence would simply increase traffic in the remaining 18 hours and possibly substantially increase safety issues as even more planes occupy a limited air space at one time.

4. In fact it seems possible that many people supporting this simply wish to shift the ?problem? onto someone else.

5. The benefits of living in a modern society come with some costs. I find living relatively close to airports a good thing ? I don?t have to travel for hours to get to an airport. The cost of that is living relatively close to aircraft as well. It?s a cost I?m prepared to pay.

[StraferJack]

"And besides - for all your denials you might be Willie Walsh for all I know. Or Richard Branson posting from your laptop in Necker Island. I have no idea and never will. And as I say the anonymity offered by a forum such as this by its very nature theoretically allows anyone to keep vested interests hidden."

leaving aside the fact that you are insuating I'm a liar, I need to point out that I am far from anonymous - anyone who has ever taken issue with me has been able to arrange to meet me where we can argue over a pint. No keyboard warrior me

[Earl Aelfheah]

Well I for one am convinced that StraferJack is actually Richard Branson

[Jah Lush]

SplendidLikePeckham Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jah Lush - in answer to your question, the title

> to this thread is "Aircraft Noise - have your

> say". I created it in April 2011 as an opportunity

> to flag up to anyone who wanted to respond to the

> review subsequently published in Dec 2013 by Sir

> Howard Davies into airport capacity in the south

> east of England. Presumably you submitted your

> views, outlining how aircraft noise is a compelete

> non-issue in East Dulwich and those who think it

> is should just buy some ear plugs? If not then

> never mind, I am sure there are many who will

> still be glad to receive and publish them - the

> letters page of Heathrow's in house staff magazine

> for example. Go for it - have your say.

Nah! Don't think I'll bother. I've `had my say' on here. I'm also, like everyone else living around ED, miles from Heathrow and really don't think they need my input. However, when a thread gets turned around slightly by other posters (I'm looking at you fabfor) whose sleep is affected by 'aircraft noise' I feel I'm entitled to 'have my say' on a local forum entitled 'Aircraft noise - have your say.'

I'm not Richard Branson and neither is StraferJack.

[KidKruger]

I think it's all relative, in your priority of what's important at the time. I mean, no-one complained about the noise of aircraft engines during the Blitz.

Which proves that the people bothered by aircraft noise would likely be distracted by any feint noises.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not Richard Branson and neither is

> StraferJack.

That's EXACTLY what Richard Branson would say.

[Penguin68]

As Mr Branson is the most self publicising billionaire possible, the chances of him denying his own identity are so slim as to be invisible even to an electron microscope.

[Earl Aelfheah]

StraferJack is an anagram of 'A-crafts Jerk' - Pretty blatant cover for Richard 'The Aircraft Jerk' Branson