Flightpaths over ED

[Sue]

ianr Wrote:

> 4:30 4500 Avondale Rise 270

> 4:33 4400 Avondale 270

> 4:36 4400 Avondale 270

> 4:39 4300 Avondale 270

> 4:42 4200 Court Lane 285

> 4:51 4100 Burbage Rd 295

> 4:57 3700 Avondale Rise almost due west

> 5:00 3200 Jn, LL + ED Grove ~ 275

> 5:03 3800 Avondale 270

> 5:05 4500 Avondale 270

> 5:09 4500 Avondale 270

> 5:13 4000 Avondale 270

> 5:16 3900 Avondale 270

> 5:19 4500 Avondale 270

> 5:22 4300 Avondale 270

> 5:30 4400 Just s of Avondale ~ 270

>

>

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

That's horrific - I thought it was just my imagination that they were so frequent.

I've also been labouring under the delusion that it was just a few planes going round in circles over East Dulwich :))

Right, I'm going to chase Tessa Jowell for a proper reply to my email .....

[SeanMacGabhann]

but Sue - what is it exactly you are going to say?

I don't want these flights - give them to someone else?

[Jeremy]

Exactly. Are you expecting them to re-route the flights? Reduce the number of flights in/out of London airports?

I just consider it part and parcel of living in a major capital, served by 5 international airports.

Although interestingly, I see there is a proposal to replace Heathrow with a new airport on reclaimed land in the Thames estuary. Presumably that would somewhat reduce flights over residential areas.

[Brendan]

Surely doing something like maybe shooting everyone who exceeds the speed limited or drives recklessly around our narrow streets would be more constructive?

[Sue]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> but Sue - what is it exactly you are going to

> say?

>

> I don't want these flights - give them to someone

> else?

xxxxxx

My understanding is that they are coming in a lot lower than they used to and that that is part of the reason for the excessive noise.

I think there are a lot of issues involved, both on a local (nimby) level and also far wider, and one of them is what the government is doing or intends to do about the increasing use of air travel at a time when climate change would seem to be the world's main priority.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Sue

I hear you but I don't think you can lay it at the governments door - any government is going to have deal with howls of outrage from everyone addicted to cheap flights. Once again, responsibility for the problem is as much with the people as it is the government

Personally I'm with Jeremy - it's a price we pay for living in a word city. I'm pro flight-reduction on an environmental basis but the case has to be made - and I don't think it's a case that can be made on a local basis - it's all or nothing on this one I reckon

[lozzyloz]

What would you have the government do?

It seems to me that any viable alternatives will only come with future improvements in technology related to energy and transportation.

[Sue]

lozzyloz Wrote:

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

> What would you have the government do?

>

> It seems to me that any viable alternatives will

> only come with future improvements in technology

> related to energy and transportation.

xxxxx

Well, may be too late by then, but hey, that's a rather bigger issue than too many planes flying low over my house at 4.30am and disturbing my sleep.

[ianr]

Sue Wrote:

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

> That's horrific - I thought it was just my

> imagination that they were so frequent.

I suspect that snapshot will be close to the _current_ maximum density for ED, and that there's a large amount of variation, both within and between days. Perhaps I should ask BAA if there's an easier way of abstracting data, to get a fuller picture of the current load and distribution ... Perhaps one of the campaigning groups has already been down that route ...

I remember inbound flights in the mid-70s going over Kew up to every 90 seconds. From Wimbledon Common nowadays, you can see them slipping into a stream with just a minute's separation.

[SeanMacGabhann]

So if you are discounting the bigger argument, and we are left with "I don't want them over my house at 4:30am", you can't bottle out and NOT say whose house you DO want them over at 4:30am

(sorry Sue - I'm not trying to pick on just you - I think you are making the same points that many people are making)

[Asset]

great website ianr, strangely fascinating. Early flights are showing a flight number now.

[Moos]

Sean sezI hear you but I don't think you can lay it at the governments door - any government is going to have deal with howls of outrage from everyone addicted to cheap flights. Once again, responsibility for the problem is as much with the people as it is the government

SeanMac, not sure I follow the logic that says Sue can't petition the government to reduce flights because people don't want fewer flights? Doesn't she count as people?

Also, support for the Thames estuary airport = less noise over very densely populated areas. The idea is that circling planes do their circling over the Channel.

[AcedOut]

I'm personally not saying that they should start reducing flights, but there must be something they can to in terms of staggering flight paths over the London approach. Going through the replay on that website, they all follow pretty much exactly the same path over ED on any given day. I realise that wind is a factor, but 9 flights in 30 minutes all taking the same flight path seems pretty excessive. Why can't they come in on slightly different paths, at least to reduce the frequency in the affected areas.

I would like better understand exactly what has changed in the past 5 years. I suspect it's mostly altitude, as I always remember flights going directly over ED. Most of those flights are at around 4000 feet! Seems they are all coming in over the North East/Peckham Rye side of East Dulwich. That explains why it's so noisy for me!

[Sue]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> So if you are discounting the bigger argument, and

> we are left with "I don't want them over my house

> at 4:30am", you can't bottle out and NOT say whose

> house you DO want them over at 4:30am

>

> (sorry Sue - I'm not trying to pick on just you -

> I think you are making the same points that many

> people are making)

xxxxxx

I'm not discounting the bigger argument!

I don't want them over anyone's house at 4.30am!

I also don't want to keep rehashing the same points as have been made earlier on the thread, but it's a long long thread to trawl through :-$

[SeanMacGabhann]

Moos:

I'm not saying Sue can't or shouldn't petition for fewer flights. I'm just saying that the government are unlikely to take any action over said petition when so many people want to fly and will do more than petition if prevented. Nor am I saying those people should be heard more.. I'm simply stating the likely outcome.

But really it seems people that people care about the noise over their house and not about the number of flights in general. When they get to the airport people tend to want MORE planes. I could be wrong and most people pn here WANT fewer flights in which case I stand corrected

Then again, as Sue says, all these points have been made on another thread (or earlier on this one). And apologies if I said you were discounting teh bigger argument - it was what I took from your statement "but that's a bigger issue too many planes flying low over my house at 4.30am and disturbing my sleep."

[AcedOut]

I don't think it's a simple case of reducing the number of flights in general. Rather the sensible and fair routing of the flight paths, the altitude, speed and time of day.

[Sue]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

>

> one). And apologies if I said you were discounting

> teh bigger argument - it was what I took from your

> statement "but that's a bigger issue too many

> planes flying low over my house at 4.30am and

> disturbing my sleep."

xxxxxx

A rather bigger issue THAN too many planes ....., I said :))

What a difference a word makes :))

Edited to put in a space after "than"

[Mr Bojangles]

I can't see why we can't live in an "international" city and aspire to have less air pollution. Other international cities seem to manage it. It shouldn't be a question of well if you want to use planes then you have to put up with being woken up at 4.30am. There are a number of long term solutions e.g. the thames estuary plan and I'm sure that there are a number of short term solutions such as less reliance on Heathrow and varying routing etc.

I don't see this as NIMBYISM as it is a london problem

[lozzyloz]

Air pollution in London is far better than it was last century but that's not to say there isn't room for improvement. Like it or not air travel is here to stay and despite a recent lull in capacity it will continue to grow. It's one of the things that makes London an international city. I tend to favour Boris' suggestion of a new airport in the Thames Estuary but I don't think that's not going to come at a big price. Many people will be staying awake at night worrying about the new transport links to make it viable, the upheaval that it causes, environmental damage, job losses at Heathrow and so on. There isn't an easy solution except that quieter and less polluting aircraft will make the pill easier to swallow.

[Brendan]

Airships! Airships are the answer. They have figured out how to make them so that they don?t blow up and kill everyone.

[AcedOut]

So how about all international flights to the Thames Estuary then airship everyone into central London? I like the idea of that!

How many people can you get on an airship!?

[lozzyloz]

Depends on how big the Grand Piano and Cocktail bar is. Six perhaps, plus 36 crew.

[SplendidLikePeckham]

I have started another thread about secondary glazing prompted by this issue, and would be particularly interested to hear any responses from those posting on this thread. thanks

[Huguenot]

Can I add that you can't get rid of the early morning flights without having the flights start later in the far east. All you'd be doing by saying 7am is the earliest would be making Johnny Foreginer suffer (much louder) take-offs at 2am.

If people take fewer low cost flights, there'd be fewer flights QED. If you reduce flights without reducing demand then the price goes up and many people don't get seats - cue public outrage. You should be grass roots campaigning against your peers, not the government! [see Plastic Bags]

Perhaps you could contact Eurostar for deals for ED residents who choose rail over flights to go to Europe (although it won't effect intercontinental flights). Run the deals through this forum. You'd probably also need to get hotels deals to cover all those businesspeople who have to spend an extra day away from their family to have morning meetings.

Or, of course, ban international travel.

[Sue]

Well, this took over two months to come (after a chaser yesterday) but there are two documents on Tessa Jowell's website which are interesting (they're currently the first two on the page), though the letter from Geoff Koon appears to be just passing the buck, basically.

Dear ,

Thank you for your email and I apologise for the delay in responding.

I have placed a copy of a response that I received on my website. You can see this at:

www.tessajowell.net/campaigns

I do hope this is helpful and please do let me know if you feel I can be of further help in the future.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Rt. Hon. Tessa Jowell MP