Aircraft noise - have your say...

[ruffers]

Otta Wrote:

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

> Why do you both think 3 is very unlikely? That one

> seemed plausible as weather is changing quite

> drastically iver the last couple of years.

>

> I'm no scientist, but it doesn't sound too

> outlandish to me.

Two no scientists... ;-)

Weather change surely is more gradual than this appears to be, I'd have thought. Also there has been no real mention of seasonal variations in complaints that I can see which would surely be significant if we're blaming humidity variations.

[fabfor]

Thanks for the excellent report, fazer. :-).

[numbers]

fabfor Wrote:

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

> QED?

yes, absolutely. You've demonstrated clearly that others who disagree with you are indeed trolls, no matter that they are excellent contributors to the forum who engage on a wide variety of topics and are helpful to others.

East Dulwich - I hope you've all set your alarm clocks to 4.24 am.

[El Pibe]

Hang on, a moment ago they were trying to stymie debate, now they're provoking response.

I'm confused....

[edcam]

El Pibe Wrote:

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

> Hang on, a moment ago they were trying to stymie

> debate, now they're provoking response.

> I'm confused....

I think that has something to with wind direction combined with having nothing that's actually important to worry about...

[Otta]

I work in an office that is 500ft away from the runway at city airport. When I go outside for the occasional fag you can stand and watch planes take off and land and I can still have a conversation without needing to raise my voice.

I don't doubt that the noise is annoying to those that say it's annoying. Why would I call them liars. What I find silly is the over egging of the pudding with things like YOU HAVE TO SHOUT ON THE STREET TO BE HEARD WHEN A PLANE IS FLYING OVERHEAD. That's just a nonsense, and doesn't exactly get people onside.

[fabfor]

"In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[6]"

[ruffers]

"by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community "

Shall we stick to the topic then? ;-

[Otta]

It's interesting you follow my post by repeating your troll definition fabfor. What exactly in my post about plane noise was troll behaviour?

[????]

i think we should change this thread's title to "Aircraft noise - don't have your say"

[wavyline girl]

A friend at work today showed me an "app" detailing flights coming into Heathrow?you could see them in a constant line over this area as they headed for the South runway. Apparently this could increase further, which will only make things worse.

"Hip, hip hooray" I hear those idiots say, that are attempting to trivialise people's concerns about the noise &/pollution.

Yes, noise is subjective,but surely only up to a certain point, and just because some people aren't bothered , or affected does that make it fair to say that everyone else shouldn't be. What kind of "I'm alright Jack" crazy logic is that?

Take it from me,the noise has definitely got worse. The number of flights coming in and out of Heathrow have increased, and City airport is also having an impact.

As regards solution?besides the obvious (putting up the cost of air travel/investing in other methods of transport)How about varying the landing routes a little more to share out the burden?

[edcam]

I don't think anyone is saying "hip hip hooray" are they? That's rather unfair and completely inaccurate. You also say it's subjective and then say "take it from me, the noise has definitely got worse", so which is it? In the opinion of most people on this thread it just hasn't got worse, that's all.

[StraferJack]

Wavy girl

If you give us the app name we could all see for ourselves the same proof.

[hpsaucey]

fazer71 Wrote:

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

> Brockley meeting. 18th March 2014

>

> I attended.

>

> Heathrow were there ?but not the air traffic

> control people? they did a long presentation of

> aircraft data with a nice PowerPoint lots of

> charts satellite images and flight path data with

> images from webtrack.

> Brockley Forest Hill and East Dulwich in the worst

> bit a joining circle of highest noise.

> At the end of the presentation Heathrow view was

> nothing has changed since 1998 ?other than an

> increase in the landing approach height for some

> aircraft.?

>

> Residents from Forest Hill and Dulwich Village

> also attended and surprisingly others from

> Coulsdon which is way out under the holding stack

> zone.

>

> Heathrow admitted they?ve had a big increase in

> complaints since Nov 2012

> ?It?s also my experience that is around the time I

> noticed noise levels had increased becoming

> intense and intrusive in East Dulwich so no

> coincidence. I?m not the only person who?s noticed

> so I?m not going Mad ! phew?

>

> Heathrow have absolutely no idea why people are

> noticing the noise more than prior to Nov 2012.

> It is very odd that the complaints have increased

> after the END of the trials.!

>

> SO It?s a mystery for Heathrow and for us.

>

> Possible answers.

>

> 1. Webtrack data is wrong / inaccurate and the

> flight paths have changed. Heathrow stand by their

> data but can we trust it? (V possible)

> 2. Following the trial people have a heightened

> sensitivity. This is Heathrow?s current possible

> answer. IMO doesn?t make sense. (unlikely)

> 3. The density of the air over South London has

> changed more humid causing an increase in sound

> transfer. (V unlikely)

> 4. Some element/s on aircraft or engine design has

> increased the high pitch whistling noise. Heathrow

> don?t believe anything technical on the aircraft

> has changed. An instrument hole on the wings of

> the A320 is known to cause a whistling noise they

> are looking at shielding the hole to stop the

> noise. It is also possible the engine turbines on

> newer aircraft emit the sounds which annoy at

> approach speeds a noise the older jets didn?t

> make. It?s also possible that some other technical

> change has created the noise, a combination of

> elements. Also this may be a noise which falls

> outside the test noises which aircraft

> manufacturers need to control. (V possible)

>

> Heathrow appear to be taking the post Nov 2012

> noise increase issues very seriously they assured

> us they are working to find the cause and an

> answer.

> They will put sound monitoring equipment in

> Brockley. (too late imho no data available for pre

> and post 1998)

>

>

> In the opinion of the many locals Webtrack data is

> inaccurate or just not precise enough to show the

> changes. Heathrow say you can?t compare Webtrack

> with looking in the sky as the human eye can?t

> judge how high and how far away the aircraft are.

> (umm V possible)

>

> Some believe Webtrack data has been tampered with

> they don?t trust Heathrow.

> V possible as there?s no independent data.

> Heathrow have everything to gain by tweaking it.

>

> Quite possible Webtrack doesn?t show that the

> flight corridors have narrowed since Nov 2012

> causing noise in certain areas to be amplified,

> resulting in consistent constant noise in the same

> locations for those residents (reflection from

> hard surfaces amplifying noise etc) which may have

> resulted in the noise impact becoming more and

> more noticeable for those residents.

>

> Something I learnt which is counter intuitive, a

> higher approach by a lot of aircraft is more

> noticeable than a lower approach, as the aircraft

> are more visible and the spread of noise is

> carried over a wider area, basic triangulation

> from a greater height. So the increased height

> isn?t better and may be contributing.

>

>

> Overall quite frustrating for those of us who are

> affected and also for Heathrow (at least the bit

> of Heathrow who attended) as they don?t have an

> answer but they know something is definitely

> different.

Thanks for the feedback on the meeting.

HP

[stephent]

Elements of the flight path change every few years (eg CDA in 2002 and 2006)...

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> So what Heathrow have confirmed is that the flight

> paths haven't changed for at least 15 years, apart

> from the trials?

>

>

>

> Well - you heard it here first folks (slaps

> forehead)

[*Bob*]

Ok, elements, yes, fair enough. CDA does technically affect 'flight paths' but - for the purposes of what we're talking about here, it's immaterial I'm sure you would agree? ie The method of descent may have changed from stepped (to CDA) but they're still 'in the same place' - just coming down slightly differently.

[fabfor]

wavyline girl Wrote:

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

> A friend at work today showed me an "app"

> detailing flights coming into Heathrow?you could

> see them in a constant line over this area as they

> headed for the South runway. Apparently this could

> increase further, which will only make things

> worse.

> "Hip, hip hooray" I hear those idiots say, that

> are attempting to trivialise people's concerns

> about the noise &/pollution.

> Yes, noise is subjective,but surely only up to a

> certain point, and just because some people

> aren't bothered , or affected does that make it

> fair to say that everyone else shouldn't be. What

> kind of "I'm alright Jack" crazy logic is that?

> Take it from me,the noise has definitely got

> worse. The number of flights coming in and out of

> Heathrow have increased, and City airport is also

> having an impact.

> As regards solution?besides the obvious (putting

> up the cost of air travel/investing in other

> methods of transport)How about varying the landing

> routes a little more to share out the burden?

Well said.

Now, this is a constructive post. It happens to be on my side of the argument (:-)) but it's not an attack on the person, it's not patronising/condescending (CBT, etc.), it doesn't promote a nonsensical viewpoint (protect the community from less noise), there's no hint of the negativity that characterises trollish activity and it's, well, constructive (repeated,yes).

[fazer71]

I?m pretty sick of the trolls morons on this thread is the title

(No Aircraft noise - have your say...) nope ?.

OK a Revelation of sorts I think I hope?

TODAY 20th March 2014 04:30am

IE This morning I didn?t hear any aircraft noise until 6:00am

And Heathrow is operating on its usual westerly approach so I should have!

Why no noise this morning?

Because the flights heading into Heathrow are on (what I believe was) the ORIGINAL flight path (the one which follows the Thames.)

Run flightradar and select 20th March 2014 04:30 and you will see the flights didn?t go over East Dulwich this morning!

http://www.flightradar24.com/2014-03-20/04:31/12x/51.46,-0.17/12

So .. This is what I believed from the beginning.

Heathrow must have changed the corridor they were using after the trial as a result since Nov 2012 early morning flights and others have been on a very very narrow corridor further south which had intensified the noise over certain areas ?areas which may have had some noise but since Nov 2012 have suffered from a concentrated constant noise?

Heathrow should just go back to the pre Nov 2012 flight corridor (ie the one they used This Morning!).

Very Odd I've done some comparison with previous days where the noise was much louder than this morning and the flight path looks very similar.

Totally weird !

Maybe the flightradar data is incorrect as now even previous noisy days show the flights further north.

Back to square 1 ????

Very very odd.

I was wide awake at 4.30am and the aircraft noise was there but distant compared to say the 18th when is was very loud.

So could it be atmospheric conditions could it be the flightradar data?

Doesn't make any sense !

[StraferJack]

" but it's not an attack on the person, it's not patronising/condescending (CBT, etc.), it doesn't promote a nonsensical viewpoint "

in reference to a post that says

""Hip, hip hooray" I hear those idiots say, that

> are attempting to trivialise people's concerns

> about the noise &/pollution. "

anyway - once we all have this app that gives so much info we can all see how bad the situation is, right ?

[JamesMS]

Thanks to those who attended the meeting in Brockley. Interesting.

This morning the flight noise has been especially bad since 4:30am - it has been like a near constant wall of sound emanating from the grey cloud.

I appreciate that not everyone seems to experience this - could it be to do with location in ED? For example, those near the Plough end of ED are probably better off than those living in roads like silvester road/pellat road (the planes literally go straight overhead (when it is not cloudy you can see the undercarriages)).

Anyway, for those who are affected, perhaps it is more constructive to send an e-mail to [email protected]. Apparently, they track the numbers of complaints received through this e-mail address and log the complainant's location on a map.

[Medley]

I work in an office that is 500ft away from the runway at city airport. When I go outside for the occasional fag you can stand and watch planes take off and land and I can still have a conversation without needing to raise my voice.

I don't doubt that the noise is annoying to those that say it's annoying. Why would I call them liars. What I find silly is the over egging of the pudding with things like YOU HAVE TO SHOUT ON THE STREET TO BE HEARD WHEN A PLANE IS FLYING OVERHEAD. That's just a nonsense, and doesn't exactly get people onside

----

That sounds jolly sensible, but it's unfortunately not true. I live in Honor Oak Park and when the planes are right overhead you have to markedly raise your voice if outside - not quite to shouting, but nearly.

I think the point I take from this is that the noise experienced is a) subjective of course, but b) highly variable depending on distances vertical and horizontal, wind direction, engine/plane type, surrounding environment etc. So generalisations that ignore peoples' experiences don't, er, fly.

[StraferJack]

hang on - mis read so I posted badly

[StraferJack]

but I genuinely would like to see a situation where some of the people suffering met some of the people not bothered in a mutually agreed location (somewhere the noise is deemed partiularly bad) and have some sort of conversation

I'd love to see who needed to shout to be heard

I think the harsh reality of shared experience might surprise some people

[*Bob*]

Maybe someone should invite the Heathrow noise team to participate on here?

Seems to me if they're looking to engage and inform, they'd be better-off on an internet thread on here with 14,000 views than speaking to six people and a dog in a pub.

Personally I find the 'Airbus whistle' (the two-toned descent noise) the most intrusive sound - as mentioned in the Brockley meet report. It's cured on the latest planes - and I think some of the fancier airlines (ie willing/able to spend the cash) are retrofitting their fleet with the 'fix' - but I don't know if they'll do the other 6000 which are knocking about.

[stephent]

Immaterial in some senses, but these things can have pretty substantial changes to noise (due to speed, height, flap settings, etc)

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> Ok, elements, yes, fair enough. CDA does

> technically affect 'flight paths' but - for the

> purposes of what we're talking about here, it's

> immaterial I'm sure you would agree? ie The method

> of descent may have changed from stepped (to CDA)

> but they're still 'in the same place' - just

> coming down slightly differently.