Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Brilliant!


Back on topic - Can't they just come in at a higher altitude and take a steeper landing path closer to the airport, just like they did at the old HKK airport!? Yesterday was crazy - they were coming directly over my flat. There were 2 within 2 minutes of each other. I think one was heading to City and the other Heathrow.


Why can't they invent planes that can glide in to land!!? Wouldn't that be great :) lol

The flights come in lower when there is cloud cover (they try to go under the cloud) and also it depends where the plane was in the stack when it comes off the stack. If it was at the top, it comes in higher, if it was at the bottom it comes in low. Also, planes now come in lower than they did five years ago. They now 'glide' in. This is to reduce noise levels on areas close to the aiport from the planes making a steep descent and to reduce fuel consumption. The result is planes being lower much further out than they used to be. Technically the government does not recognise that ED has a plane noise problem as the noise levels are high enough to be considered bothersome. This is why contacting (and keeping up that contact) government memders is so important. They don't think we have an issue!


Lastly, the reports are that the planes will ger LOWER in the new expansion plans. I did some rough number crunching and if the government gets its way do away with runway alteration and expand runway use, ED could have one plane a minute going over it for 16 hours a day. That would only give us half the flight going over London a day. ED is on a straight line to Heathrow so ED will be very badly effected by the expansion. All I can say is that I will be long gone from the hood by then. I do not want to spend my life looking at the sky, turning up the stereo, shutting the windows, not using the garden and lying awake counting planes at 5am....The flight noise over ED is sad joke.


I will look into the petition.

Very depressing news indeed. So the 'gliding in' reduces the noise for those that live closer to the airport, but increases it for those living further out.


I've never had much sympathy for people that chose to live near airports anyway, so sod 'em I'd say! I chose to live out in ED to get away from city noise and never expected low flying aircraft!


Tessa Jowell is the MP we should email. Here it is...


[email protected]

From the automated email:


If you are contacting Tessa about constituency casework please make sure

that you included:

Your full name.

Your postal address (including full postcode if known).

A contact telephone number.

Any reference numbers that relate to your case.

A summary of your problem including any steps you may have taken

  • 2 weeks later...

"Not sure I'd feel happy on a plane with a steep landing angle. It's bad enough as it is."


You obviously haven't had the joy of landing at city approaching from the west then. As you pass over Canary wharf you start a manoeuvre that wouldn't have been unfamiliar to stuka pilots.

It's quite fun after your first time.

I am back from holiday and was woken by the planes this morning. The only thing to do, for me at least, is to get up and do something less boring instead. It is the really early ones that are the worst. The far east planes come in first and they are all queueing up to get in, the varmints! Double glazing is not that effective, likewise earplugs. The only solution is to go to bed early and look forward to the early morning run/crossword/baking/gym visit.

As much as it galls me, I accept the noise as part & parcel of access to air travel. few of us can legitimately claim to oppose the use of these planes if we go on holiday / buy mange tout / use DHL ...ad nauseum. YOu Been been shopping to NYC ? a conference in HK or a romantic break in Paree ?


Do you want the best for the world or the best of both worlds ?

They do now:


Dear Mr xxxxxxx,


Thank you for your email.


I have written to Rt. Hon. Ruth Kelly MP, the Secretary of State at the Dept. for Transport, and I will get back to you when I receive a response.


In the meantime, if there is anything further I can do to be of assistance, please do get in touch.


With best wishes,


Yours sincerely,




Rt. Hon. Tessa Jowell MP

AcedOut Wrote:

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

> They do now:

>

> Dear Mr xxxxxxx,

>

> Thank you for your email.

>

> I have written to Rt. Hon. Ruth Kelly MP, the

> Secretary of State at the Dept. for Transport, and

> I will get back to you when I receive a response.

>

> In the meantime, if there is anything further I

> can do to be of assistance, please do get in

> touch.

>

> With best wishes,

>

> Yours sincerely,

>

>

>

> Rt. Hon. Tessa Jowell MP


xxxxxx


I had exactly the same email from Tessa Jowell a week or so back :)

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

    • According to https://www.compass-pools.co.uk/learning-centre/news/the-complete-guide-to-swimming-pool-maintenance/: ... "Your weekly tasks should include: ...  Checking the pH levels and adjusting the water balance ... The ideal pH rating of swimming pool water is between 7.0 and 7.6. Anything lower than 7.0 and metals and pool finishes can start to corrode, while anything above 7.8 and there can be issues with scaling due to calcium salts in the water and chlorine becoming ineffective." And for comparison of different pH values, see for example the examples chart at https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/z38bbqt#zb2kkty There are several other sites that can easily be found that say something about variation and correction of pool pH levels.  
    • Perhaps we should all ask Lord Ali to help out as he does seem to help out those that make these charges?
    • I find it worrying that the pH problem was considered  bad enough for the pool to be closed. Something must either have been wrong with the water going into the pool in the first place, or something was added afterwards which shouldn't have been, or in the wrong quantity? Whatever, surely there should be checks every time a change of any kind  is made to the water, and appropriate action taken? Or was this closure a result of such a check? In which case, I wonder what went wrong?  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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