Business History Books » Business Plans » A Quiet Con? – HACAN Press Release
A Quiet Con? – HACAN Press Release
Question:
A Quiet Con? by Mike Riley, HACAN Southwest Often in the media aviation statistics claim that that aircraft are getting quieter reflecting even lower noise levels being suffered by people living around an airport or under a flight paths. HACAN recently investigated these claims by installing a noise monitor in a garden in Sunbury, Middlesex, under the Compton flight eleven and a quarter miles from takeoff at Heathrow. The information graph below shows the spikes caused by individual aircraft flying over Sunbury at between 70 and 80 decibels, the equivalent noise of being three feet away from a powered lawnmower or 30 feet away from a pneumatic drill. The Government’s LEQ system measures these same noise elevels, but also adds in the quiet periods between aircraft resulting in a reported figure of 59.2 decibels!! A ‘quiet con’? Yes!! See: http://campaign.freeservers.com/images/MR190902.gif In simple terms the aviation industry and Government bodies measure noise by including quiet periods. For example, if two aircraft fly overhead five minutes apart,each causing 80 decibels of noise for the 30 seconds it takes for them to fly over, the Government’s measurement system would report noise levels of less than 60 decibels. In other words the longer the period of quiteness between aircraft, the lower the reported noise levels!! Technically if the system measured the noise from Concorde for its say two flights a day this would be reported as almost nothing!! The noise measurement system used by aviation bodies and accepted by Government is termed LEQ. The LEQ average is itself modally adjected. This means that the silent days, when for instance aircraft are using another runway, are factored into the noise level calcultations. Therefore local residents affected by noise on some days, and some days not, are described as being outside the noise annoyance zone altogether!! The Word Health Organisation indicates that serious community annoyance is experienced if the LEQ is above 55 decibels for periods up to 16 hours. The UK Government, for their own reasons, have chosen a higher figure of 57 decibels. There is also the matter of Heathrow’s unaccounted for hour when aircraft arrive at heathrow between 06.00 and 07.00., which is a particularly disturbing time because people are likely to be woken up before their clocks go off, and also because this is the noisiest time with the highest number of longhaul arrival flights. These flights are not included in any noise calculations produced for Heathrow!! The reason for this is that these flights arrive in the ‘night flying period’ of 23.00 to 07.00 and so escape the day modelling contour. Also they do not appear in the night data either as this quota ends at 06.00!! Another ‘quiet con’? Yes!! For the benfit of all and to simplify the situation further: if you measure noise from an all night party running from say 11 pm to 7 am with noise full blast, the Government’s current system for measuring aviation sound is to ignore the period from 6 am to 7 am and also include an additional quiet period of 16 hours. This means that the party noise which kept you awake all night and early in the morning would be reported as being the same as normal daytime background levels!! A ‘quiet con’? DEFINITELY YES!!
Response:
!! >For the benfit of all and to simplify the situation further: if you >measure noise from an all night party running from say 11 pm to 7 am >with noise full blast, the Government’s current system for measuring >aviation sound is to ignore the period from 6 am to 7 am and also >include an additional quiet period of 16 hours. This means that the >party noise which kept you awake all night and early in the morning >would be reported as being the same as normal daytime background >levels!! >A ‘quiet con’? DEFINITELY YES!!
A simple test!…… was Heathrow there before the current occupants of any of the houses? Advice…. move away! its not going to get any better! Martin WY
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >!! >For the benfit of all and to simplify the situation further: if you >measure noise from an all night party running from say 11 pm to 7 am >with noise full blast, the Government’s current system for measuring >aviation sound is to ignore the period from 6 am to 7 am and also >include an additional quiet period of 16 hours. This means that the >party noise which kept you awake all night and early in the morning >would be reported as being the same as normal daytime background >levels!! >A ‘quiet con’? DEFINITELY YES!! >A simple test!…… was Heathrow there before the current occupants >of any of the houses? >Advice…. move away! its not going to get any better! >Martin WY
Oh you took the words out of my mouth. The airport has been there for years and years, people come along and buy houses nearby at vastly reduced prices then start complaining! Incredible! The first thing you do when you buy a house is check the area to see if there are noisy roads, railways, or the busiest International airport in the World nearby. Oh and it doesn’t take very much common sense to realise the trend of expansion in road, rail, and airport that has been in place for years and years too! –==++AJC++==–
Response:
>Oh and it doesn’t take very much common sense to realise the >trend of expansion in road, rail, and airport that has been in place >for years and years too!
I am afraid judging by the whinnying and moaning of my neighbours it seems to require a vast amount of common sense to work something like that out. Seeing as the plans for a fourth operational runway, which is what this is, have been around for 30 odd years, with a little amount of effort people could have found out for themselves the possibility of it coming to fruition. Still why make any effort on your own behalf when you can bleat, moan and blame everyone else latter on. It is rocket science to see that airports have expanded and this one has continually since being built in the 1940s. — Lansbury
Response:
> Oh you took the words out of my mouth. The airport has been there for > years and years, people come along and buy houses nearby at vastly > reduced prices then start complaining! Incredible!
Vastly reduced?? When was this?? A quick look in the local property papers doesn’t indicate an area whose properties are "subsidised" by living near an airport. Well, maybe only recently when the area was blighted because of the possible 3rd runway. >Oh and it doesn’t take very much common sense to realise the > trend of expansion in road, rail, and airport that has been in place > for years and years too! > –==++AJC++==–
But where does it stop? The Southern perimeter road along Brighton beach? As I have mentioned in a previous post, should the 3rd runway get the green light my main concern is getting proper compensation. My opinion is that BAA should pay the "going rate" for the properties and land, rather than getting a nice little present from the Government through compulsory purchase. Rob
Response:
> >Oh and it doesn’t take very much common sense to realise the >trend of expansion in road, rail, and airport that has been in place >for years and years too! > I am afraid judging by the whinnying and moaning of my neighbours it > seems to require a vast amount of common sense to work something like > that out.
What th OP provided was a proposition that the measure of noise and noise impact is biased. Anyone care to respond to that allegation? NIMBY or anti-NIMBY, the additional runway will change the noise levels – the question is, how accurate are the predictions and are they within what a reasonable person should have expected. Until the issue of how the noise levels are measured is resolved, one can’t even begin to address the other questions – well, not without bleating, moaning, and whining – and that’s independent of which side of the fence you might be on. > Seeing as the plans for a fourth operational runway, which is what this > is, have been around for 30 odd years, with a little amount of effort > people could have found out for themselves the possibility of it coming > to fruition.
Predict, if you will, the probability of it coming to fruition. I’m not convinced that it will, even at this point. > Still why make any effort on your own behalf when you can > bleat, moan and blame everyone else latter on. It is rocket science to > see that airports have expanded and this one has continually since being > built in the 1940s.
But the basic traffic pattern has not – however, the new addition will impact on people previously unimpacted by Heathrow noise – at least at the decibel levels considered problematic (or so they say). In light of that, the "you shoulda known better" argument has little support.
Response:
> The information graph below shows the spikes caused by individual > aircraft flying over Sunbury at between 70 and 80 decibels, the > equivalent noise of being three feet away from a powered lawnmower or > 30 feet away from a pneumatic drill.
The perceived noise is often more affected by the tonal qualities of the source rather than the dB measurement itself. Compare the noise of an aircraft with the noise of a moped with a bad exhaust. They may have the same noise *levels* but one is much more jarring than the other. The ’spikes’ may be up to 80 dB, but the ambient noise level seems to be around 50-55dB according to the graph. That makes a mere addition of, say, +30dB due to aircraft (lets be generous.) I assume you mean db(A). A quick search on the web shows 80dB(A) as "Inside a car at 50 m.p.h." or "inside a busy office" or "Busy traffic". Whereas 30dB(A) equates to "A soft whisper" or "rustling of leaves". See? We can all publish misleading figures. Aircraft are no more than a soft whisper above ambient noise levels…
Response:
> What th OP provided was a proposition that the measure of noise and > noise impact is biased. Anyone care to respond to that allegation?
Yes.
Response:
>What th OP provided was a proposition that the measure of noise and >noise impact is biased. Anyone care to respond to that allegation?
The measurement is done in a way which is publicly known and the results made public. Some of the things he claims in what he says is a con and known facts. Modern aircraft are a lot quieter that old ones. He says that one hours worth of flights are not included, I haven’t the faintest idea if that is right or not, but it can’t be a con because if they are not included that fact is known. It would be a con if they were claimed to be included and were not and that fact hidden. >NIMBY or anti-NIMBY, the additional runway will change the noise >levels – the question is, how accurate are the predictions and are >they within what a reasonable person should have expected. Until the >issue of how the noise levels are measured is resolved, one can’t even >begin to address the other questions – well, not without bleating, >moaning, and whining – and that’s independent of which side of the >fence you might be on.
They are measured in a may approved by those official watchdogs that fine the airlines when the levels are exceeded. As to the predications being within a reasonable level, they must be within what is allowed now or the plans couldn’t go ahead. > Seeing as the plans for a fourth operational runway, which is what this > is, have been around for 30 odd years, with a little amount of effort > people could have found out for themselves the possibility of it coming > to fruition. >Predict, if you will, the probability of it coming to fruition. I’m >not convinced that it will, even at this point.
As I am privileged to information due to the nature of my job at LHR it would not be right for me to make any comment on that point. > Still why make any effort on your own behalf when you can > bleat, moan and blame everyone else latter on. It is rocket science to > see that airports have expanded and this one has continually since being > built in the 1940s. >But the basic traffic pattern has not – however, the new addition will >impact on people previously unimpacted by Heathrow noise – at least at >the decibel levels considered problematic (or so they say). In light >of that, the "you shoulda known better" argument has little support.
The change in the pattern could easily have been predicted as the plans show the runway right where it is planned to put it now. When it was drawn up the aircraft then were noisier and climbed slower so anyone buying then should have been well warned of what might happen. I bet very few of them bothered to do any checking to find out. — Lansbury
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > !! >For the benfit of all and to simplify the situation further: if you >measure noise from an all night party running from say 11 pm to 7 am >with noise full blast, the Government’s current system for measuring >aviation sound is to ignore the period from 6 am to 7 am and also >include an additional quiet period of 16 hours. This means that the >party noise which kept you awake all night and early in the morning >would be reported as being the same as normal daytime background >levels!! >A ‘quiet con’? DEFINITELY YES!! > A simple test!…… was Heathrow there before the current occupants > of any of the houses? > Advice…. move away! its not going to get any better!
Don’t you believe it, with the proposed expansion of aircraft numbers, the world oil supplies will run out quicker, and within a few years there will be no aircraft at all! So why mess about destroying villages for a temporary increase? Alan — Reply to alan(at)windsor-berks(dot)freeserve(dot)co(dot)uk
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > !! >For the benfit of all and to simplify the situation further: if you >measure noise from an all night party running from say 11 pm to 7 am >with noise full blast, the Government’s current system for measuring >aviation sound is to ignore the period from 6 am to 7 am and also >include an additional quiet period of 16 hours. This means that the >party noise which kept you awake all night and early in the morning >would be reported as being the same as normal daytime background >levels!! >A ‘quiet con’? DEFINITELY YES!! > A simple test!…… was Heathrow there before the current occupants > of any of the houses?
This, and similar comments have been made before, and they are some of the _most_ idiotic comments that I have ever read. Most of the homes which now suffer from Heathrow, were builkt in the 1920s and 1930s, when Heathrow was smaller than Denham, when the Great West Road was developed into the major industrial area it was at the start of the war. It would have been far more sensibe to have developed Blackbush as a commercial airport as there is not the density of housing around it. And there is still Greenham Common, which has runways capable of accomodating most of the passenger aircraft which are in use today. Why build a third runway when this airfield is unused? Alan — Reply to alan(at)windsor-berks(dot)freeserve(dot)co(dot)uk
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Oh and it doesn’t take very much common sense to realise the >trend of expansion in road, rail, and airport that has been in place >for years and years too! > I am afraid judging by the whinnying and moaning of my neighbours it > seems to require a vast amount of common sense to work something like > that out. > Seeing as the plans for a fourth operational runway, which is what this > is, have been around for 30 odd years, with a little amount of effort > people could have found out for themselves the possibility of it coming > to fruition. Still why make any effort on your own behalf when you can > bleat, moan and blame everyone else latter on. It is rocket science to > see that airports have expanded and this one has continually since being > built in the 1940s.
The developement of heathrow did not start until after the war had ended, and the original plans, published in the late 1940s, showed a lake for the use of seaplanes, now had the use of seaplanes continued, the noise and polution would have been over the sea and thus would not have made peoples life a misery, and they could still have made international flights. If, as you say, the plans for a fourth runway have been in place for 30 years, it was kept very quiet! It would be interesting, in view of your ‘mightier than thou’ attitude, to know where you live? Alan — Reply to alan(at)windsor-berks(dot)freeserve(dot)co(dot)uk
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->What th OP provided was a proposition that the measure of noise and >noise impact is biased. Anyone care to respond to that allegation? >The measurement is done in a way which is publicly known and the results >made public. >Some of the things he claims in what he says is a con and known facts. >Modern aircraft are a lot quieter that old ones. >He says that one hours worth of flights are not included, I haven’t the >faintest idea if that is right or not, but it can’t be a con because if >they are not included that fact is known. It would be a con if they were >claimed to be included and were not and that fact hidden. >NIMBY or anti-NIMBY, the additional runway will change the noise >levels – the question is, how accurate are the predictions and are >they within what a reasonable person should have expected. Until the >issue of how the noise levels are measured is resolved, one can’t even >begin to address the other questions – well, not without bleating, >moaning, and whining – and that’s independent of which side of the >fence you might be on. >They are measured in a may approved by those official watchdogs that >fine the airlines when the levels are exceeded. As to the predications >being within a reasonable level, they must be within what is allowed now >or the plans couldn’t go ahead. >> Seeing as the plans for a fourth operational runway, which is what this >> is, have been around for 30 odd years, with a little amount of effort >> people could have found out for themselves the possibility of it coming >> to fruition. >Predict, if you will, the probability of it coming to fruition. I’m >not convinced that it will, even at this point. >As I am privileged to information due to the nature of my job at LHR it >would not be right for me to make any comment on that point. >> Still why make any effort on your own behalf when you can >> bleat, moan and blame everyone else latter on. It is rocket science to >> see that airports have expanded and this one has continually since being >> built in the 1940s. >But the basic traffic pattern has not – however, the new addition will >impact on people previously unimpacted by Heathrow noise – at least at >the decibel levels considered problematic (or so they say). In light >of that, the "you shoulda known better" argument has little support. >The change in the pattern could easily have been predicted as the plans >show the runway right where it is planned to put it now. When it was >drawn up the aircraft then were noisier and climbed slower so anyone >buying then should have been well warned of what might happen. I bet >very few of them bothered to do any checking to find out. >– >Lansbury
I’m old enough to remember spending time at LHR back when those ghastly Tridents were the mainstay of BEA and then British Airways European fleet. I remember the way you not only heard, but felt those things take off. There is just no comparison with today’s fleets of 320 and 737NG series aircraft. Sometimes sitting out on my patio under one of the flightpaths to AMS I still marvel at how quiet some of these aircraft are these days. –==++AJC++==–
Response:
> Don’t you believe it, with the proposed expansion of aircraft numbers, > the world oil supplies will run out quicker, and within a few years there > will be no aircraft at all!
Trouble is I recall reading stories in 1972 about how there was only 10 years supply of oil left. Fact is there’s enough in Saudi Arabia alone to keep things rolling for at least 25 years and lets not even mention the Atabascan tar sands Keith
Response:
> > Don’t you believe it, with the proposed expansion of aircraft numbers, > the world oil supplies will run out quicker, and within a few years there > will be no aircraft at all! > Trouble is I recall reading stories in 1972 about how there was > only 10 years supply of oil left. > Fact is there’s enough in Saudi Arabia alone to keep > things rolling for at least 25 years and lets not even > mention the Atabascan tar sands
The Saudi cache is actually nearer seventy years at todays consumption rate. And the Iraqi reserves are also substantial (but that’s another debate…) FR — All killer no filler ratty at flyingrat.net Site being rebuilt: www.flyingrat.net
Response:
>There is also the matter of Heathrow’s unaccounted for hour when >aircraft arrive at heathrow between 06.00 and 07.00., which is a >particularly disturbing time because people are likely to be woken up >before their clocks go off, and also because this is the noisiest time >with the highest number of longhaul arrival flights. These flights are >not included in any noise calculations produced for Heathrow!! The >reason for this is that these flights arrive in the ‘night flying >period’ of 23.00 to 07.00 and so escape the day modelling contour. >Also they do not appear in the night data either as this quota ends at >06.00!! Another ‘quiet con’? Yes!!
Arriving planes a really quiet compared to ones that are taking off as they have the engines throttled way back. I bet they dont get near 80dbs even when right overhead. — Keith Laws What’s my solution? ….NOISE POLLUTION
Response:
> Arriving planes a really quiet compared to ones that are taking off as > they have the engines throttled way back. I bet they dont get near 80dbs > even when right overhead.
Yes and no. Don’t arriving planes fly much lower on approach than departing planes ? Also, when they deploy the thrust reversers and go full blast, those pesky DC-9s make as much rucus as when they take off. And if you live in an area where there is a real winter, when it gets very cold, aircraft are much more noisy in the air.
Response:
>The developement of heathrow did not start until after the war had ended,
It started in 1943 I believe, in fact there was an airfield there in 1919. >If, as you say, the plans for a fourth runway have been in place for 30 >years, >it was kept very quiet!
Really I saw it some time ago in a book written by a local historian, my copy of which I can’t find so 30 years was a recollection. In fact I seem to recall the plans he showed in the book were dated 1964, but I am not certain of that. >It would be interesting, in view of your ‘mightier than thou’ attitude, to >know >where you live?
I don’t have a mightier than thou attitude but I do have a considerable contempt for people who expect everything to be done for them and do not seem capable of thinking for themselves, but expect others to provide them with all the information they need without even asking. The DVT lot in court at the moment seem a prime example. I wonder how many of those thought before hand that sitting on an aircraft for 10 – 20 hours might not be good for them and did anything to find out about it. Not that it is any of your business but if your really want to know I live in Hayes, one of the effected areas, quite close to the airport. I purchased my house in 1996, before my employer moved me to LHR so had no inside information. But I did consider expansion and what other changes might be on offer so made an effort to found things out. Amazing what the local council records and public library holds. In my view it was my money and my life and my family are my responsibility and it was my responsibility to find out as much information as possible to make an informed decision on buying this house. I save my sympathy for those that made a similar effort and might have made a bad choice, not those who made no effort and protest afterwards, — Lansbury
Response:
>It would have been far more sensibe to have developed Blackbush as a >commercial airport as there is not the density of housing around it.
Develop it and watch the houses get built around it and people move into them. — Lansbury
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > Don’t you believe it, with the proposed expansion of aircraft numbers, > > the world oil supplies will run out quicker, and within a few years there > > will be no aircraft at all! > Trouble is I recall reading stories in 1972 about how there was > only 10 years supply of oil left. > Fact is there’s enough in Saudi Arabia alone to keep > things rolling for at least 25 years and lets not even > mention the Atabascan tar sands >The Saudi cache is actually nearer seventy years at todays consumption >rate. And the Iraqi reserves are also substantial (but that’s another >debate…) >FR
Drifting slightly OT but that ignores that notion that production is likely to peak in the not too distant future and then the total amount of oil produced will begin to decline……
Response:
> > Don’t you believe it, with the proposed expansion of aircraft > numbers, the world oil supplies will run out quicker, and within > a few years there will be no aircraft at all! > Trouble is I recall reading stories in 1972 about how there was > only 10 years supply of oil left.
What’s this about ‘72, Keith? The End Of Oil Supplies As We Know Them has been predicted for a lot longer than 30 years …
Response:
>The Saudi cache is actually nearer seventy years at todays consumption >rate. And the Iraqi reserves are also substantial (but that’s another >debate…) >FR > Drifting slightly OT but that ignores that notion that production is > likely to peak in the not too distant future and then the total amount > of oil produced will begin to decline……
Actually it doesnt Saudi proven reserves, that is fields driven and tested but not put in production are adequate for several decades of production at current rates. As I say I’ve been reading this same tale of how oil production will peak real soon since the early 70’s Keith
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I’m old enough to remember spending time at LHR back when those >ghastly Tridents were the mainstay of BEA and then British Airways >European fleet. I remember the way you not only heard, but felt those >things take off. There is just no comparison with today’s fleets of >320 and 737NG series aircraft. Sometimes sitting out on my patio under >one of the flightpaths to AMS I still marvel at how quiet some of >these aircraft are these days. >You can still hear/feel such things. Visit RAF Kinloss any time >between now and 2005 and you will hear and feel the noise of four >Rolls Royce Speys as the Nimrods take off. It’s a long way to travel >unless you are seriously into aircraft noise. >– >John Wright
Well I did get to ride on a Comet once! At one time there was an exhibition centre at Schiphol and there you could go in to little cubicles and press buttons to experience the noise of various aircraft types and other noise making inventions, including a lawn mower if I remember correctly. –==++AJC++==–
Response:
>As I say I’ve been reading this same tale of how oil >production will peak real soon since the early 70’s
Oil production keeps going through peaks and troughs depending on how OPEC want to manipulate the price — Keith Laws What’s my solution? ….NOISE POLLUTION
Response:
>>I’m old enough to remember spending time at LHR back when those >ghastly Tridents were the mainstay of BEA and then British Airways >European fleet. I remember the way you not only heard, but felt those >things take off. There is just no comparison with today’s fleets of >320 and 737NG series aircraft. Sometimes sitting out on my patio under >one of the flightpaths to AMS I still marvel at how quiet some of >these aircraft are these days. >You can still hear/feel such things. Visit RAF Kinloss any time >between now and 2005 and you will hear and feel the noise of four >Rolls Royce Speys as the Nimrods take off. It’s a long way to travel >unless you are seriously into aircraft noise.
Well, this might be a little further than most would want to go, but for quality of noise you can’t go past the earthquake simulator at Te Papa, the national museum in Wellington, NZ.