Aircraft noise -

[pop9770]

Toffee Wrote:

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

> Exactly cardelia. Im woken at 4 am with birdsong,

> my cat crying for breakfast, the distant sound of

> London coming to life, various sounds, yes

> including planes. Oddly enough the plane noise is

> the quietest

Why don't you start your own thread about annoying birds waking you up?

And keep off this thread for people who are annoyed by aircraft noise?

#bizarre

[DulwichFox]

Toffee Wrote:

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

> Exactly cardelia. Im woken at 4 am with birdsong,

> my cat crying for breakfast, the distant sound of

> London coming to life, various sounds, yes

> including planes. Oddly enough the plane noise is

> the quietest

That is true.. If I leave my window open which faces West so the jet engines are directly pointing at me

and the flight path is most of the time directly above me.

Yet at night there are cars roaring below my window all night long. and because we only have 3-4ft gardens out front the road is directly below my bedroom. Traffic noise is worse when the roads are wet.

And the birds wake me up 4.00am long before any aircraft. The little buggers..

DulwichFox

[pop9770]

Anyone else care to use another noise as a comparison?

Eg Neighbour farting at 3am ?

I'm delighted for those who don't have a problem with aircraft noise. Fox Toffee .. Really I am .

Maybe their hearing isn't the same as others or they happen to live in a sound shelter location.

But

Aircraft noise is the single most annoying noise for many who live under the Heathrow flight path.

[aerie]

Toffee Wrote:

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

> I take it that none of you ever fly? Why are you

> so bothered about the aircraft noise here but not

> bothered about the aircraft noise in the countries

> you visit? Some xountries have aircraft literally

> all but landing on the beach! Says it all: not in

> my back yard. Think about it and please come on

> here and tell me you've never flown anywhere, or

> if you have, do you give a damn about aircraft

> noise elsewhere. So worried you all are about the

> world - no, how damn selfish and u

> Inward thinking can you be. Well, come on, waiting

> for replies.

Toffee, you sound like Yoda - what is the thrust of your argument? and why are you so cross? and why are you taking on RH, you are like a terrier with a rat - growling away. Dulwich Park is a different thread.

Perhaps you should have realised by now, that age and length of residency is not necessarily advantageous or of greater importance when debating or even remarking on anything current. I find your posts provocative and combative mostly, and often derail an ongoing discussion, and slow it down. I hope you find these points helpful, as they are not meant unkindly, but delivered in a state of exasperation.

[DulwichFox]

People going on about aircraft noise should of lived here when Concord was Flying over head.

Now that was noisy.. 4 very loud Olympus engines based on those employed in the RAF's Avro Vulcan strategic bomber.

DulwichFox

[toto]

The fact that Concorde is no longer flying (since 2003 !) doesn't make the noise of the current aircrafts less disturbing.

[pop9770]

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> People going on about aircraft noise should of

> lived here when Concord was Flying over head.

> Now that was noisy.. 4 very loud Olympus engines

> based on those employed in the RAF's Avro Vulcan

> strategic bomber.

>

> DulwichFox

Should have. not. Should of .

If you're going to go all pro aircraft noise at least use proper English.

[Zebedee Tring]

By all means challenge Dulwich Fox on what he says if you don't agree with him. But please don't criticise him - or indeed anyone else - for their spelling. That's just patronising.

[aerie]

pop, Honestly, I do not think you are in a position to correct anyone - pan, kettle, black?

Your misprints, spelling, grammar and syntax leave much to be desired.

My own daughter, adopted the would of, should of, could of, apparently

from SATC. I eventually bashed it out of her. And a short form of would've,

heard phonetically, displayed as of, which looks far worse in print - hardly worth a condescending post.

[DulwichFox]

pop9770 Wrote:

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

> DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> -----

> > People going on about aircraft noise should of

> > lived here when Concord was Flying over head.

> > Now that was noisy.. 4 very loud Olympus

> engines

> > based on those employed in the RAF's Avro

> Vulcan

> > strategic bomber.

> >

> > DulwichFox

>

>

> Should have. not. Should of .

>

> If you're going to go all pro aircraft noise at

> least use proper English.

Im an Engineer and Technician. Not an expert on English language grammar.

I'm also not 'all pro aircraft noise.

Pedant..

DF.

[pop9770]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> By all means challenge Dulwich Fox on what he says

> if you don't agree with him. But please don't

> criticise him - or indeed anyone else - for their

> spelling. That's just patronising.

It wasn't spelling or a typo.

It was a grammatical error.

I'm happy to be corrected for anything obviously grammatically incorrect I post.

If others are so thin skinned they can't take being helped they hey ho.

Honestly it's common courtesy isn't it ?? I mean DF would have gone through his life writing ,could of, should of, looking silly when he should have written , have .

No good deed ...

[Zebedee Tring]

Pop 9770, it's just as patronising to pick up someone on a grammatical error. If you can't see that, then there's nothing further that I can say.

[pop9770]

You're not really helping DF.

You're just massaging your own ego by telling me off for helping him.

That's really sad.

[pop9770]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> If you can't see

> that, then there's nothing further that I can say.

Tbh Not a lot you can say regardless of what I see.

Are you the forum busy busy body fighting for PC rights?

[hpsaucey]

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> People going on about aircraft noise should of

> lived here when Concord was Flying over head.

> Now that was noisy.. 4 very loud Olympus engines

> based on those employed in the RAF's Avro Vulcan

> strategic bomber.

>

> DulwichFox

Yeah, but Concorde only flew over a couple of times a day didn't it so wondering what your point is?

HP

[pop9770]

Misery tonight windows and doors open because of the heat and TV has to be turned up full blast because I can't hear it above the aircraft noise.

This is horrible.

[AbbieP]

pop9770 Wrote:

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

> Misery tonight windows and doors open because of

> the heat and TV has to be turned up full blast

> because I can't hear it above the aircraft noise.

>

>

> This is horrible.

Yeah, I have a similar situation - open windows because of the heat which makes it impossible to sleep.

Closed windows - too hot, open - too noisy...

[TheArtfulDogger]

pop9770 Wrote:

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

> Misery tonight windows and doors open because of

> the heat and TV has to be turned up full blast

> because I can't hear it above the aircraft noise.

>

>

> This is horrible.

Your poor neighbours having to listen to your telly at full volume...

The aircraft noise in Eadt Dulwich, whilst slightly loud at times, isn't as bad as it could be if you were in the final approach path.

It's the devil and the deep blue sea situation, people like the convienince of being able to fly around the world and the relative ease of getting to an airport but don't want the noise when they aren't flying ...

[pop9770]

TheArtfulDogger Wrote:

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

> pop9770 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Misery tonight windows and doors open because

> of

> > the heat and TV has to be turned up full blast

> > because I can't hear it above the aircraft

> noise.

> >

> >

> > This is horrible.

>

> Your poor neighbours having to listen to your

> telly at full volume...

>

> The aircraft noise in Eadt Dulwich, whilst

> slightly loud at times, isn't as bad as it could

> be if you were in the final approach path.

>

> It's the devil and the deep blue sea situation,

> people like the convienince of being able to fly

> around the world and the relative ease of getting

> to an airport but don't want the noise when they

> aren't flying ...

I like the convenience of driving on the motorway doesn't mean I'd be happy for one to be built at the end of my garden!

There is no correlation between flying and accepting aircraft noise disturbance in ones home.

None whatsoever!

You have a very blinkered odd way of justifying things if you believe what you have written to be morally acceptable.

There is no good reason that every flight into Heathrow should go over East Dulwich, as we know when the wind blows in a different direction they don't, equally the flights could fan in to land rather than the current conveyor belt approach system.. A fan in landing setup would give respite to millions.

Your view is rather defeatist and sad.

[TheArtfulDogger]

My view is that of a realist, not a defeatist

You want to fly but you don't want the associated disadvantages

The argument that you like to use motorways but wouldn't want one at the end of your garden is frankly nimbyism

If you understood how many planes air traffic control have in the air at any one time then the concept of fanning them in becomes dangerous and invites an accident, they come down a single weather and wind restricted flight path as that is how the drop out of the bottom of the stack

If you want the convenience of flying from one of Londons three airports (city, Heathrow and gatwick) and you want to leave within spitting distance of the airports (as we do in south east London) then frankly you have to accept some noise until they introduce silent jets... or would you prefer that the airports are relocated miles away, making it a long long journey to get to them but also shifting the noise into someone else's back yard ?

[rendelharris]

pop9770 Wrote:

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

> You have a very blinkered odd way of justifying

> things if you believe what you have written to be

> morally acceptable.

I'm sure old Dogger is proudly immoral in many ways but I can't quite see what's immoral about taking a pragmatist view of aircraft noise, even if you disagree.

[uncleglen]

you only need to go to Putney to realise how much worse it gets as you go west

[Lowlander]

This argument has been going on since the 1940s - here's a report from Hansard dated 1959 where the New York noise limit level is reported to be 4 times lower than London's.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1959/nov/27/aircraft-noise-london-airport

The New York authorities were not happy about Concorde and its operations were restricted in New York

The fact remains that London is unique in having it's biggest airport in a foggy location, with prevailing winds dictating flightpaths over the city affecting the majority of residents.

You won't find this situation in any other major Western city.

The only normal thing is that it's been 70 years since the problem was identified and will probably be another 70 before it's dealt with - very British.

The only thing those who find the noise annoying is to keep complaining to Heathrow where there are apparent breaches, and to oppose the third runway (which I wager will never happen.

[Cardelia]

Lowlander Wrote:

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

> The fact remains that London is unique in having

> it's biggest airport in a foggy location, with

> prevailing winds dictating flightpaths over the

> city affecting the majority of residents.

>

> You won't find this situation in any other major

> Western city.

Well, Chicago frequently has fog rolling in from Lake Michigan and even though the approach path is generally over the lake, a lot of northern Chicago suffers terribly from aircraft noise. Boston is very similar, with fogs rolling in from the harbour and north Boston suffering from noise. In North America, off the top of my head, there's also LA, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New York (Newark), Toronto and Washington DC, all of which have some/most of their urban areas underneath the flight path and can suffer from severe fog delays. Heathrow's problems are not unique to Heathrow.

[pop9770]

TheArtfulDogger Wrote:

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

> My view is that of a realist, not a defeatist

>

> You want to fly but you don't want the associated

> disadvantages

>

> The argument that you like to use motorways but

> wouldn't want one at the end of your garden is

> frankly nimbyism

>

> If you understood how many planes air traffic

> control have in the air at any one time then the

> concept of fanning them in becomes dangerous and

> invites an accident, they come down a single

> weather and wind restricted flight path as that is

> how the drop out of the bottom of the stack

>

> If you want the convenience of flying from one of

> Londons three airports (city, Heathrow and

> gatwick) and you want to leave within spitting

> distance of the airports (as we do in south east

> London) then frankly you have to accept some noise

> until they introduce silent jets... or would you

> prefer that the airports are relocated miles away,

> making it a long long journey to get to them but

> also shifting the noise into someone else's back

> yard ?

I would definitely prefer the airports were moved further away the Thames Estuary new airport as supported by Architect Richard Rodgers and Boris would be a perfect solution.

There's good reason Croydon airport was closed why should Heathrow be any different?

Your inability to distinguish between usage and unreasonable impact is odd . Reality is the noise generated by aircraft to and from Heathrow is unacceptable as unacceptable as smog light polution particulate matter in the air the fact is such noise creates a poor quality of life and regardless of whether one fly's drives uses a coal fire the impact has no correlation. The government is supposed to protect us from all such environmental damage.

Aircraft noise has been shown to affect both physical and mental health.

Accepting such damaging environmental problems ..you appear happy to do so.. If not defeatist is maybe complicity with damaging environment and quality of life for millions of people and rather insulting.