Aircraft noise -

[ruffers]

Seriously fazer71, calm down. Go on a break.

[TheArtfulDogger]

Sigh, this will only get more heated once the proposed 3rd runway goes ahead (as it will)

My advice is simply if you can't stand the aircraft noise now then get out of the flight path before the expansion.

[fazer71]

According to Heathrow. "their lie machine"

There are fewer people suffering from aircraft noise today and with the ne third runway even fewer will suffer with aircraft noise.

So it would appear they take us all for morons.

[henryb]

It is not looking good though.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33340565

[BrandNewGuy]

"Sir Howard said that the recommendation for a new runway to the north of the present airport was "clear and unanimous"."

And

"Sir Howard said that a second runway at Gatwick was a "credible" option but was less able to provide connections to long-haul destinations and would create lower levels of economic growth."

So, bearing in mind his admission that the Gatwick option has less of an environmental impact, it might be unanimous but it's far from clear.

Another decision delayed, despite how it's been reported.

[James Barber]

Don't you love the newspeak of that commission report and Heathrow people.

Business travel is going down - so the answer build another runway.

Passenger growth is solely confined to the wealthiest flying more - so lets use lots of public money to enable Heathrow to increase capacity for the wealthiest to do this. Subsidising the wealthiest to fly more.

While Stansted sits with all the spare capacity London could need for the next 30 years.

Cameron doesn't like doing U-turns. He stated categorically in 2009 Heathrow expansion shouldn't happen. This is likely to be a defining decision for the tories and their future. subsidise the wealthiest at the expense of the environment.

[fazer71]

The solution is to make Heathrow a passenger only airport.

One of Heathrows arguments is the benefits a third runway will benefit it's cargo business.

Brompton bicycles could just deliver their bikes to Stansted or Gatwick.

That would free up Heathrow for more passengers.

Regardless the whole thing is insane.

Heathrow is the last place we should have an Airport.

Boris is the only politician with any balls and the brains to look 100 years ahead.

All the others are burying their heads in the sand.

[whymewhynow]

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.

[edcam]

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.

[fazer71]

edcam pm'd

whymewhynow thanks for an excellent balanced post, agreed on the incredible increase in noise since 2008.

Your 4.(ii) suggestion is potentially a great short/medium term solution.

[edcam]

fazer71, have replied to your rather hypocritical private message.

[*Bob*]

HELLO ALL - great to be back.

The thing that's always puzzled me about HACAN is this: the thrust (no pun intended, plane fans) of the argument (and indeed the argument's' on here) are the same: that there are aircraft flying over places they didn't previously - and possibly more of them and at lower altitudes. Fair enough.

So.. Bearing in mind that it would have been perfectly possible to collect and collate radar data over a period of years to prove or disprove this - and that this would singularly prove to be THE best weapon available (if it were found to be true) - bearing all this in mind.. why didn't they?

Lesson:

Spend more time collecting data which is useful

Spend less time arranging a few hundred people on a hill spelling out 'no'

[James Barber]

Hi *Bob*,

But HACAN have undertake all sorts of work showing Heathrow assertions to be wrong or at best muddled.

for example Night flights were critical to the UK economy. Our economy couldn't survive without night flights. HACAN showed this to be wrong. The Davies report say they're no longer needed. HACAN 1 - Heathrow nil on the facts of that debate.

So yes they do stunts to get noticed. But they're about providing cogent real arguments to refute Heathrow propaganda.

[fazer71]

REALITY Heathrow blatantly LIE.

They're not even clever about it.

I was at last years meeting in Brockley and Heathrow "Reps" didn't have a clue, they kept saying nothing had changed for 20 years they couldn't understand why there tens of thousands more complaints!

I guess that to shows Heathrow management don't even tell their own staff "Reps" etc the truth.

FWIW some for those who were not aware ... the last three days have been quiet

This is due to EASTERLY operations at Heathrow

Unfortunately not due to a move back to the northerly landing flight path under Westerly operations pre 2008/10.

[*Bob*]

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.

[whymewhynow]

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.

[whymewhynow]

*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.

[DulwichFox]

whymewhynow Wrote:

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

> 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.

Total crap.

I did not say I could not hear the planes,

I said they did not bother me.

I would be concerned about going deaf if it wasn't for

The fact that I get woken up my a mouse scurrying above my bedroom ceiling.

Yet another case of selective reading and prejudiced views to climb the

Popularity charts.

Dulwichfox

[whymewhynow]

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

[DulwichFox]

Although it does not affect me I'm happy to put pen to paper

To support any campaign that is launched for people who do find it a problem.

It's what do. I just do it. And don't go on about it.

Foxy supporting good causes

[whymewhynow]

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.

[DulwichFox]

Thank you

DulwichFox

[fazer71]

whymewhynow

We're dealing with weird people who have a lot of ego and zero empathy.

Unfortunately that sums up the people of ED who attempt to dominate all discussion on this forum and who the moderator is biased in allowing to dominate this form.. Sure the mod gives the occasional nudge for show, but these flame trolls just keep going on the knowledge they will be tolerated by the mob and mod.

Even on holiday DF can't let it go, the ego just keeps the madness going.

Mod fwiw

The best way to generate decent posts and attract new quality members is to deal with these egocentric posts.!

whymewhynow makes one fabulous post and is criticised immediately buy two of these ego maniac members.

Not on is it?

Edit to add..

Realise this is about Aircraft noise, not EGO, if those of us who have a problem are to discuss our problem (Aircraft noise) why must we also deal with the thread being derailed by those who do not have a problem?

Edit to add..

Bizarre having just read the above, why would anyone support an issue they don't have a problem with?

Is my logic wrong here?

I fear the lack of sleep may have driven me potty?

If I'm not, then shouldn't people who really really really want to HELP give us the space to discuss?

[DulwichFox]

Whymewhynow

Take no notice of fazer71

My offer of support is genuine and there is no place

Here for those that continuously spout out hate and contempt

If expressing a will to help others is egotistic and narssisicist (excuse spelling)

Then I will put my hand up ,

Foxy

[fazer71]

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> Although it does not affect me I'm happy to put

> pen to paper (because I have no moral compass)

> To support any campaign that is launched for

> people who do find it a problem. (Even though I don't find it a problem I wind up those who do on the EDF)

>

> It's what do. I just do it. And don't go on about

> it. ( I do silly things all the time without thinking about what I'm doing)

>

> Foxy supporting good causes (Even when I don't know what the cause is care about the cause or have a clue about

> other people and how my many useless posts drive them potty. I just do it because I'm not a moron.

Genius