whymewhynow

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Or is it another example of a Foundation school > showing contempt for the local community? chip on the shoulder much?

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > information on every > single flight path, altitude and time flown over - > accurate to the very house more or less - has been > freely available to the public for years, provided > by an independent third party. Bob, I should be grateful if you could point me in the direction of the web-site for this information. I have not had occasion to keep track of overflight info for my own home over the years because I didn't view it as a problem until about two years ago (and so I have no prior store of data against which to compare any new observations). If the historic info is easily accessible almost down to an individual addresses, I am happy to take observations going forward and compare them to historic data. Well done to you by the way for going down the path of taking your own observations over such a long period. You're a better and more far thinking human than me. I tend to resolve towards action only when the pain of doing nothing becomes rather extreme....

Thank you DF, I appreciate that sentiment. We might yet have need to call upon you to do just that. In the interim enjoy your holiday and don't pay any attention to our mundane mutterings.

I quote below your post in this very thread that irked me. You might want to read it again. There were myriad others which the moderators have thankfully deleted for want of relevance. As nobody on the ED forum knows me, I don't believe there are any popularity charts for me to climb. Anyway, enough with derailing this thread, I am happy to respond to any posts of yours that contribute to the discussion, others I couldn't care less for. "I am getting very concerned.. Aircraft literally fly directly over my house.. I sit in my garden and they do not bother me... Indoors with my windows closed, I do not hear them. What concerns me is... ...Am I going deaf.?? DulwichFox

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James if you read this thread - and hear similar > discussions in other parts of London, the basic > question people want answered is 'has something > changed? Is it worse than it used to be?'. Most > people accept the status quo: it's the suspicion > that The Powers That Be have pulled a fast one > under their noses that drives them crazy. > > When I moved here ten years back, the first thing > I thought was 'bloody hell those planes are loud' > - having come from somewhere I hadn't heard them. > So, being a bit of a bore, I looked at the > approach data. Oh right, I see I'm on a flight > path. Yes, they start at this time in the morning. > This is how high they are. This is how frequent. > > Being yet more of a bore, I've kept an eye on the > approach data over the years. A small (negligible) > increase in frequency to Heathrow. (City has > increased though). So I know the facts, at least > for my specific location. I have objective data - > and I can stop wetting my pants with anger about > it 'being different' and 'getting worse' as a > result. > > Perhaps HACAN is not interested in collecting data > because it's not in their interests to possibly > uncover data that will make people 'less angry' > about flights, thus undermining their agenda? > Perhaps collecting useful data is just a bit dull > and less fun than a photo op. Perhaps no-one could > be arsed. Who knows. What do you think HACAN's agenda is? You make it sound like a sinister front for more nefarious purposes than campaigning against - guess what - aircraft noise. It would be far easier for Heathrow and London City to publicly disclose flight patterns over specific areas, overflight frequency and noise monitoring data over the past several years - after all, they posses that data - than for individuals like you and me (and those that comprise HACAN) to try to unearth or reconstruct it ourselves. Despite this handicap, in my view the folks at HACAN have been doing a creditable job of analyzing flight plans and suggesting alternatives (in addition to their various day jobs). You might want to see the most recent public consultation from London City on more focused flight paths over South London, which was the most unintelligible document one could have produced on the issue - and this coming from someone who is moderately intelligent and, more importantly, sufficiently inclined to read through the document at some length. Here's the information they failed to put into the consultation: - for each area to be materially affected by new flight paths: (a) how many flights per day increase does this mean? (b) at what height? © how many hours a day respite from overhead flights would there be? How much of a decrease would this be compared to the current position? (d) what would be the median and mean decibel levels caused by the more focused flight paths over each such area? How much of an increase would this be compared to the current position? Of course, it simply wasn't in their interest to provide this information to the public in an easily digestible format, and it simply isn't the case that I could easily track down or decipher this information, much less convince others to do so. Anyway, I digress. If you have maintained a sufficient level of info for the last several years of flights over ED, would you be willing to share it? I find it is easier to record information on the fly (sorry about the terrible pun) rather than to reconstruct it from historic records. Thanks.

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Full marks whymewhynow for not calling people who > think the noise isn't a problem "morons". Zero > marks for suggesting people are "revelling in > their deafness" when they have a different opinion > to you. In fairness, the "deafness" statement - which I put in more out of frustration than any rational exercise of judgment - was linked specifically to a post by a poster called Dulwich Fox claiming he couldn't hear any aircraft noise and suggesting (sarcastically, no doubt) that it might be because he was deaf. It is frustrating to keep seeing these threads derailed by people who don't share the problem (and then claim there isn't a problem because they don't have one) but it wasn't my intention to be unduly acerbic. Apologies for that.

fazer71, I completely agree with your (some now deleted) postings on this subject about the intransigence of a small minority of posters to what is evidently a pretty big problem for many. 1. Aircraft noise is a serious issue for a lot of residents in ED, Herne Hill and Dulwich Village. It may not be for some, lucky them, but that doesn't invalidate the opinions or troubles of those for whom it is an issue. Coming here and revelling in your deafness or other such good luck isn't really adding much to the discussion. 2. Aircraft noise has progressively increased and become more incessant since 2008. I am fairly certain that this is not down to an increase in flight numbers, but most definitely as a result of changes to flight paths (the frequency of overflight has gone up 300% to 400%, flight numbers most definitely have not increased by this amount) 3. It is only going to get worse if the Heathrow third runway is progressed. The commission's answer to noise pollution appears to be more sound insulation in homes - effectively making your home into a prison and without regard to your use of gardens and parks! 4. To the few who keep harping on about those living in a city having to grin and bear the aircraft noise, this just doesn't follow. Clearly, as long as airports exist at Heathrow, Gatwick and London City, we are destined to have some noise. The question is whether that noise (i.e. the flight paths, the locations where aircrafts turn etc.) has to be concentrated over certain bits of London (such as Dulwich, which at 15 miles from Heathrow is not exactly a stone's throw from the airport's fence) or whether it can be more equitably distributed so that there is a decent respite from the noise blanket for everyone and very few face continuous suffering. (i) To be sure, this is a rhetorical question. (ii) HACAN has for some time now presented the Government and the National Air Traffic Service with suggestions for overflight plans across London which will more equitably share aircraft noise across the city. (iii) Sharing aircraft noise across the city doesn't increase the number of people suffering from noise. To take an example, if 2 people have 10 flights an hour go over their houses, while 8 have zero flights an hour overfly them, the total people suffering are 2. If all 10 have 1 flight an hour go above their houses, the number of people suffering is not 10 but 0 (since no one would ordinarily notice a small number of aircraft infrequently flying over their houses). It is the incessant nature of overflight above select areas that is the problem. 5. The solution therefore is not to ban more flights or retrofit any particular airport for equestrian travel or something similarly Luddite, but to look very closely at flight paths and see what needs to be done to more equitably share the noise across London. This needs to be done well before Heathrow or Gatwick or anybody else is sanctioned extra runway capacity. James, I would be happy to attend a public meeting on aircraft noise whenever it is organized. Worth doing this before a final decision is taken on a Heathrow third runway by the government, since once the decision is taken, there is very little we are going to be able to do about it bar a judicial review (which will be expensive and which may be difficult to win). Thanks.