Heathrow consultation and ED

[colville09]

Glossy leaflet came through the door today about Heathrow airspace and future operations consultation. Does anyone know how their 'emerging' plans will impact on ED and will they increase the flight traffic above us.

[i*Rate]

I did'nt get one of those leaflets, I wonder how many were distributed?

I often complain about the aircraft noise ruining this area and always get polite and detailed responses, but when I enquired last year about how they would route the extra 300 flights a day into a third runway, answer got I none (as they say in Private Eye).

Heathrow is one of those great British Cock-ups - a major airport (biggest in Europe) built on the wrong side of the capital city - and they ain't gonna move it!

Fasten your seat belts and put your earplugs in!

[Tony2014]

...and City Airport may increase the number of flights. With their noisier jets it could be very unpleasant. https://www.itv.com/news/2018-07-09/london-city-airport-may-seek-permission-for-more-flights/

[JW]

Here's a link to the website - https://afo.heathrowconsultation.com/

If you type in an ED postcode we are listed as being affected, looking at the details on how is a bit confusing! It doesn't appear to show what the current state is, so commenting on the implications of any expansion is hard.

Looking at this page - https://feedback.heathrowconsultation.com/step/topic/1

which shows various scenarios, which we can comment on - but I'm not entirely sure what actual difference these changes will make from a noise perspective.

Does anybody else have a sense of that?

[Cardelia]

i*Rate Wrote:

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

> Heathrow is one of those great British Cock-ups -

> a major airport (biggest in Europe) built on the

> wrong side of the capital city - and they ain't

> gonna move it!

>

> Fasten your seat belts and put your earplugs in!

Why is Heathrow on the wrong side of London?

The plans look like they're at a consultation stage right now, so if respondents make the case that ED is disproportionately affected by approaches to Heathrow then things may change. A key part of the proposals is that both runways will be used for takeoff and landing so in theory there will be two approach paths operating simultaneously. This should mean that ED will have fewer planes per hour, although the hours of operation may be longer.

[Flux capacitor]

Not one word about environmental concerns https://www.quora.com/How-much-CO2-do-planes-produce . Aren't we supposed to be reducing CO2?

[i*Rate]

Caredelia,

I asked Heathrow the question about the additional flight path for the third runway and no answer as I stated earlier. They only sent me details of how the area around the airport would be effected with no reference to areas like ours.

What we could have are two parallel flight paths over us - think about that!

Flights into Heathrow are supposed to increase from 400+ per day to 700+ per day.

[Applespider]

We are affected more by City flights since they added a flight path directly over us in 2017. Barely noticed planes before that. Now I can?t have windows open on easterly days as the planes drown out the TV. City say that it?s only 30% of days but still adds up to over 10,000 planes per year!

[Cardelia]

i*Rate Wrote:

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

> Caredelia,

>

>

> I asked Heathrow the question about the additional

> flight path for the third runway and no answer as

> I stated earlier. They only sent me details of how

> the area around the airport would be effected with

> no reference to areas like ours.

> What we could have are two parallel flight paths

> over us - think about that!

> Flights into Heathrow are supposed to increase

> from 400+ per day to 700+ per day.

We can't have two parallel approaches to Heathrow over ED, there isn't enough airspace to do so. If Heathrow's proposed change to use both runways for takeoff and landing goes through, there will be one approach path over south/south-east London and the other approach will have to come from the north.

[Flux capacitor]

Food for thought... https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/15/asia/asia-smog-pollution-intl/index.html?utm_source=twCNN&utm_content=2019-01-15T10%3A28%3A45&utm_term=link&utm_medium=social

[DiD]

Just looked at the consultation -- they only seem to be concerned about 'local factors'. What doe they mean by that? It doesn't seem to suggest we can complain about the noise impacting on us as residents. Which is already too much!

[i*Rate]

Yes, have just completed consultation online and it certainly ignores the fact that we have enough noise already! Also states that early morning flights start at 5.30 - no thay don't. I got woken at 4.30am one day and counted around ten flights overhead until just gone 5.00am.

It also shows diagrams of how there could be parallel flight paths over us once there is another runway and two more holding areas over other parts of London with the flight of off them too. Many more London residents with additional noise misery if the third runway is built.

Our mayor's in favour of it, so probably it will!?

Cheers.

[alex_b]

i*Rate Wrote:

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

> Yes, have just completed consultation online and

> it certainly ignores the fact that we have enough

> noise already! Also states that early morning

> flights start at 5.30 - no thay don't. I got woken

> at 4.30am one day and counted around ten flights

> overhead until just gone 5.00am.

They open for unrestricted operations at 5:30; however, this covers up they're allowed a restricted number of movements overnight (which they typically use for flights coming in from Asia at 4:30-5am). For me it's a meaningless distinction as it really doesn't matter if I'm being woken up by 10 planes between 4:30 and 5am or 20 planes in that time frame.

[JW]

So are people commenting as part of the consultation and if so what?

[Cardelia]

i*Rate Wrote:

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

> It also shows diagrams of how there could be

> parallel flight paths over us once there is

> another runway and two more holding areas over

> other parts of London with the flight of off them

> too. Many more London residents with additional

> noise misery if the third runway is built.

> Our mayor's in favour of it, so probably it

> will!?

>

> Cheers.

Sorry, but it doesn't show this at all. The consultation shows the current Heathrow holding stacks which won't change significantly even if a third runway is built. Two are north of the Thames, one is south east (Orpington) and one is south (Reigate). These will never affect ED because we are the point of final alignment for the current approaches, so we need clear airspace hence we can't have holding stacks above us.

Flightpaths are mandated to be a certain width, generally 10 nautical miles. Although the final approach paths to Heathrow are obviously not 10 nautical miles apart, we don't currently have one plane on each flight path running next to each other so there is still suitable separation. If concurrent landings are going to happen at Heathrow, what will change is that one flightpath will move its point of final alignment much closer to the airport. If the northern approach changes, ED doesn't see any difference to current operations because the southern alignment point will still be over ED. However, if the southern approach changes, the point of final alignment will move from ED to Barnes/Chiswick. This means that all the planes will need to fly over Clapham, Mitcham etc. in order to reach that alignment point and ED will get respite from noise.

[rendelharris]

i*Rate Wrote:

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

Many more London residents with additional

> noise misery if the third runway is built.

> Our mayor's in favour of it, so probably it

> will!?

Where on earth do you get that idea from? Suggest you Google "Sadiq Khan third runway" and you'll find that he vehemently opposes Heathrow expansion and supports legal challenges against it: "While I believe in a better Heathrow, I do not believe a bigger Heathrow is the right answer for London and I remain committed to opposing such a short-sighted decision."

[i*Rate]

rendelharris,

I stand corrected about the major's views on Heathrow; thank you for pointing that out. I did get it wrong there.

[alex_b]

I replied. I found it very hard to follow and the questions were vague to the point of uselessness. I simply stated and restated the need for proper noise respite in SE15/SE22 and to take into account the combined effect of Heathrow and London City for our community.

[Tony2014]

A few thoughts regarding this consultation:

1.On the leaflet that came through the door, there is not a single consultation event in south east London.

2. On Wentrak there is only one point in SE London (Camberwell) noise levels are taken despite it being the area where plane engines 'spool-up" (https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/12997/if-airplanes-cant-use-reverse-thrust-in-flight-what-am-i-hearing) ie make that sudden loud noise,

3. There is no account taken of the cumulative annoyance from City Airport flights particularly the new planes that have been allowed there. They may be quieter at cruising speed but when they are accelerating away from the airport they are definitely louder than the original permitted planes.

[ed26]

Here's my take on it. The explanations on the consultation website are extremely detailed so I've only skim-read it at the moment and might have misunderstood it.

Considering we live 5 miles from the centre of one of the world's busiest cities, I don't think it's THAT bad at the moment....

I think that the design envelopes suggest what could happen in the event of a 3rd runway opening. Green areas will be worst hit as flights are 4000ft over us (orange area) and a bit more spread out.

I assume A3 and A4 are alternative arrival expansions and D is the departures expansion. A3 and A4 suggest that we would have between 0 and 47 additional flights over us each hour, but only 1 would be >65Db (i.e. super loud).

But the departure flight path suggests that we would have an additional 0-17 flights taking off over ED, and 0-17 of these would be super loud. This is very bad.

It looks like these departures will only come over us if a third runway is built; not if the capacity of the two existing runways is increased.

This website (http://myneighbourhood.bksv.com/lhr/) shows current flight paths. [Put in your postcode, or just East Dulwich and it will show departures (green) and arrivals (red). The percentages are the total percentage of flights in and out of Heathrow.] I'm not quite sure how to read this but I think it means that 52% of all arrivals come over us (28% from Essex, 12% from Bromley and 12% from Watford). I would have expected half of all of Heathrow's flights to be noisier than it is.

But importantly, no Heathrow departures come over us at all. This is why the proposed flight paths are going to be much, much worse for East Dulwich.

I wonder if, like me, many ED residents don't think it's that bad at the moment, and that it won't be much worse when the flight paths change. If my understanding of the diagrams is correct then a lot of people could be in for a shock.

I'm not sure if my interpretation is right, or whether we can do anything anyway, but maybe we should be giving the No Third Runway campaign some support if we are going to be affected?

[Applespider]

The majority of low flying planes over our area are to LCY rather than LHR. We are in the unfortunate position of having both depending on wind direction with few days of neither. As someone who has gone from barely noticing the LHR flights to having several thousand LCY going directly overhead without any consultation, don?t underestimate the impacting can have.

[alex_b]

Applespider Wrote:

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

> The majority of low flying planes over our area

> are to LCY rather than LHR. We are in the

> unfortunate position of having both depending on

> wind direction with few days of neither. As

> someone who has gone from barely noticing the LHR

> flights to having several thousand LCY going

> directly overhead without any consultation, don?t

> underestimate the impacting can have.

Of course this is true (and I made this point in my response to the Heathrow consultation). However the 4:30am-6am planes, which I think cause the most disturbance are all early morning LHR arrivals from Asia. I could cope with the daytime noise if I didn't get woken up so regularly.

[ThorNogson]

Still unsure about whether to respond to Heathrow and make sure our area?s views are heard? It?s now easy to make sense of what to say with the help of the Forest Hill Society?s new guide to the consultation for South East Londoners. For each Heathrow question, there are suggestions about what the key issues are for people in our area and what we might say about them.

https://1drv.ms/p/s!AuV6NOp8I8tAkX-wJntuswM5961T

The deadline for responding to Heathrow?s proposed redesign of flight paths over London is 4th March.

[klove]

Thank you for sharing, it's a worrying development. I've completed the questionnaire, basically just repeating that we need respite from the noise!

[hpsaucey]

ThorNogson Wrote:

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

> Still unsure about whether to respond to Heathrow

> and make sure our area?s views are heard? It?s now

> easy to make sense of what to say with the help of

> the Forest Hill Society?s new guide to the

> consultation for South East Londoners. For each

> Heathrow question, there are suggestions about

> what the key issues are for people in our area and

> what we might say about them.

> https://1drv.ms/p/s!AuV6NOp8I8tAkX-wJntuswM5961T

> The deadline for responding to Heathrow?s proposed

> redesign of flight paths over London is 4th March.

Thank you for sharing ThorNogson (great name by the way - are you from the Northlands??).

I've been put off completing this by the murkiness and complexities so this really helps.

HP