Jump to content

Recommended Posts

At Heathrow, easterly winds need to be greater than 5 knots before they switch to easterly operations. It's called the 'westerly preference'. This doesn't apply to City.


There was a consultation a couple of years ago where Heathrow proposed ending this arrangement - planes would land from the west when wind speed was under 5 knots and blowing from East.

Visit Flightradar24.com and use the playback feature - the icon that looks like a clock on the right-hand side menu. You can plug in a start time and playback speed. This shows planes actively passing over East Dulwich from around 05:00 but the frequency increasing from 05:30.
  • 4 weeks later...
The last three days have been horrendous?.literally no interval between planes! Surely the cretins that organise the flight paths can vary them so that we have some peace!!!!!!! In response to my letter to Helen Hayes and the Transport office I have been informed that there has been no material increase in the number of flights over East Dulwich! I would really like to see this data because from first hand experience that's absolutely crap!

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> US Air-force B52s used to fly over my house in

> Oxford on training flights - very low level

> flights (things used to be shaken off shelves) and

> they were carrying nuclear weapons. Civil aircraft

> flight paths over ED are a doddle...


I did a POEU (Post Office Engineering Union) course at Alvescot Lodge late 1970's Near Brize Norton where the B52's were based.

They were LOUD.. The Earth shook when they went over..


DulwichFox

pop9770 Wrote:

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

> D fox

>

> What has that got to do with Heathrow plane noise

> over east Dulwich

>

> Really very peculiar comparison

>

>

> Do you work for Heathrow airport these days?


Why dont you ask Penguin68 who brought up the subject of US Air-force B52s..


Or did you just want to bash the Fox without reading all the posts..


D.F.

Talking about aircraft noise in Southwark and not historical off topic ???



From Southwark News



Khan is very quiet

Heathrow Airport is truly a monstrosity of commercial infrastructure ever devised for London the ?Greatest Capital City In The World??

London?s Labour MPs (and others no doubt) are to be given a free vote on Heathrow expansion. A free vote means MPs can ignore their constituents wishes and vote for what suits them personally or politically and where kowtowing to the corporate lobby is almost certainly a factor in MPs voting on Heathrow.

Let?s be reminded that a bigger Heathrow will mean more noise day and night, more pollution, more vehicle congestion all around and leading into and out of Heathrow. In short Heathrow expansion will be more of a nightmare than it is at present. And, let?s not suppose that expansion just effects the immediate environs of Heathrow Airport.

Anyone who lives under flight paths that blight whole swathes of London knows what a horrendous effect is incurred to the quality of our lives with endless aeroplane noise. Shamefully Labour supports Heathrow expansion ? so did Sadiq Khan when a Labour MP before becoming London Mayor. But, Khan turned-turtle when campaigning for that prestigious municipal office he now smugly occupies. He wasn?t stupid to realise Heathrow was a very contentious issue his main mayoral rival Zak Goldsmith had already been extremely, and rightly, hot on for years. Khan could ill afford to loose anti-Heathrow mayoral votes ? so he cynically bit his ?faithful lip? and went for a London lie.

But, now how quiet is our London Mayor on Heathrow expansion as it (Heathrow) is about to be voted on in parliament, and which he?s professed a half-hearted ?no? to expansion ? unlike his predecessor Boris who lambasted horrendous Heathrow for a more user-friendly alternative built away from populations?

Now, when it matters, not a whisper from London Mayor Sadiq Khan about ?the greatest city in the world? soon to be overflown and polluted with even more noise and other environmental blight even more often, and often, and often?

Brace ourselves for the nightmare of noise and fuel polluting aeroplanes over our capital while the London Mayor and our MPs (bar a few) raise barely a whisper against Heathrow?s expansion about to roar ever more often over our London rooftops.

Bobbie Carnegie, Peckham

pop9770 Wrote:

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


> Anyone who lives under flight paths that blight

> whole swathes of London knows what a horrendous

> effect is incurred to the quality of our lives

> with endless aeroplane noise.


I live under the flight path and it doesn't bother me in the least. I accept that some people are disproportionately bothered by it but I do wish they'd stop trying to suggest everyone is like them.

edcam


Yes not everyone has the same hearing and ability to sustain annoyances so obviously not everyone is affected by aircraft noise to the same degree.

Thanks for stating the obvious.


I would say though on balance many more are affected and as a consequence suffer a poorer quality of life as a consequence.


Maybe the question those who do not suffer should ask themselves is do they feel it is acceptable to support inflicting pain on others less fortunate than themselves or are they happy to look themselves in the mirror and live with double standards?

That's good

But what about the noise?


Would be nice if he proposed ending all flights before 8am and after 11pm



But they'll never do that or will they once there's a third runway ... It Should be possible



Just shows how Heathrow airport is in the wrong place 100% wrong

pop9770 wrote

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

> Maybe the question those who do not suffer should

> ask themselves is do they feel it is acceptable to

> support inflicting pain on others less fortunate

> than themselves or are they happy to look

> themselves in the mirror and live with double

> standards?


Sorely tempted to say YES in this instance pops

The views of those who understand aircraft engineering is that the current new generation of planes (and those being planned) are less noisy and (particularly) less polluting than previous generations and those planes currently mainly still in service. This was in the most recent report on airport expansion. On at least a like-for-like basis things are thus getting better and their estimate was that even with a new runway (and more flights) things would still be better in future than they are now.


The expansion plans are clearly an issue for those living close to either Gatwick or Heathrow, but Dulwich is not really seen as falling into that category. For I would guess many people the aircraft noise is not really an issue, it isn't for me and (although I am old) my hearing is tested as being good (and absolutely, not just for my age). For those people for whom it is an issue, the level of irritation and upset they suffer (which is entirely 'real' for them) is perhaps exacerbated by their own focus on the noise. It is like a dripping tap in the night, where the drips start to boom and echo if you can't fall to sleep. I am therefore somewhat sanguine that my approach equates to supporting the infliction of pain on others. Are we to legislate for absolute silence across the land because people can be sensitive to particular noises (without belittling their sensitivity).

pop9770 Wrote:

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


> Maybe the question those who do not suffer should

> ask themselves is do they feel it is acceptable to

> support inflicting pain on others less fortunate

> than themselves or are they happy to look

> themselves in the mirror and live with double

> standards?


I genuinely don't believe it's much of a problem here and that it's a minority of people who are sensitive to it. I have friends who live much closer to airports, where the noise is far greater than it is in these parts and on the whole they're ok with it. I know one couple that found it too much in West London and moved elsewhere. Now that I understand but aircraft noise is a fact of life if you live in a major city. And it's really not that bad here.

pop9770 Wrote:

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

> As I expected one rule for you and another for

> others.

>

> Very sad selfish society still all the rage ..



Sorry but this post doesn't make any sense. In what way am I saying "one rule for me and another for others"? We live in a city with a lot of aircraft overhead. There are a lot of things that irritate me but don't irritate others. I don't expect anyone to pander to my preferences.

edcam Wrote:

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

> pop9770 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > As I expected one rule for you and another for

> > others.



> I don't

> expect anyone to pander to my preferences.


Yes you do you expect others to accept poor air quality noise pollution because you are happy to live with those life damaging conditions.


I'm saying it is not acceptable for others.


If you were affected then you wouldn't put up with it, but you expect others to put up with it even if it blights their lives.



Double standards.. Clearly..

pop9770 Wrote:

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

> edcam Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > pop9770 Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > As I expected one rule for you and another

> for

> > > others.

>

>

> > I don't

> > expect anyone to pander to my preferences.

>

> Yes you do you expect others to accept poor air

> quality noise pollution because you are happy to

> live with those life damaging conditions.

>

> I'm saying it is not acceptable for others.

>

> If you were affected then you wouldn't put up with

> it, but you expect others to put up with it even

> if it blights their lives.

>

>

> Double standards.. Clearly..



But it doesn't blight the majority of people's lives. Most people barely notice it. We'd know about it if it was a major problem. Have you thought about moving? I can see it's a huge problem for you but really, for most people, it isn't an issue.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • why do we think we have the right for the elected local council to be transparent?
    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...