Following a reading of Roger Mason’s report to the Kew Society (see https://childlawobserver10.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=3829&action=edit) a short online debate ensued involving Alastair Grant, well known on here for his ambulance drives to Ukraine, Nick Pack, a retired airline pilot and the author (RW).
NP and AG: We do not suffer unduly from early morning noise but both hate noise when we are sitting outside in the afternoon or evening.
RW: This trail started when the residents of Richmond Park Road suffered several days of low-flying, very noisy planes from 530am to 930am. There appears to be no control or supervision of this and data is published so far after the event, that it is lost in history. [And this morning the planes started at 4.36am, followed by 4.46, 4.53, 4.58, 5.02 and 5.05, all outside the permitted hours, save in exceptional circumstances. Have they forgotten the clocks have gone back? And they have been going ever since.]
NP: I have long had an axe to grind about pilots, generally not BA, putting the gear down far too early, which creates unnecessary drag on the aircraft, increased power settings, noise and fuel consumption.
AG: Gatwick is better for a second runway on grounds of cost, speed and safety from terrorists. I don’t think we have a chance of stopping pre 0700 flights but routing over Richmond Park, proper runway alteration as well as choosing the Windsor approach in mild wind speeds, will all reduce SW14 bother.
NP: Whatever is decided for Heathrow, a third runway is unlikely to be completed before a lot of us are pushing up the daisies! At the moment there are two plans, one involving the re-routing of the M25 under a new runway to the NW and the other, further east, will be shorter, demolish the existing offshoot from the M4 to Heathrow and quite a few houses not previously threatened. Both choices, particularly the first one, will involve massive disruption in an area which is prone to heavy congestion already.
NP: It is a view that East Sheen is not going to be worse off once the new runway is operational as the approach path is further to the north than the existing northerly runway.
NP: The second runway at Gatwick is a no-brainer and can be completed in a significantly shorter time. But, whilst the airlines will welcome that, they would infinitely prefer Heathrow with its more extensive hub and spoke and interline facilities, whereas Gatwick is orientated to long and short haul holiday spots.
NP: Talking of noise, I’m always perplexed by the runway alternation programme to reduce permanent misery for those under the flightpath, the latter being rather compromised by allowing both runways use in the ‘rush hour’ between 06-0700, thereby ensuring the whole diaspora to the east is awake!
NP: It is possible to use runways with a tailwind of up to 10kts but it does compromise safety in that it reduces the amount of paveway for an emergency stop, engine wear is increased because higher power settings may well have to be used for take-off and it can prevent heavy long haul flights from taking off at all as they can’t comply with the fuel and performance requirements.
NP: As regards the STARS [standard arrival routes], the use of GPS [PBN] and curved approach routes, I don’t think that’s likely to make matters any worse in East Sheen, possibly better in fact. A lot of people have got rather hot under the collar about arrival flights being routed over Richmond Park but I see that as being preferable to flights over built-up areas where it can be avoided.
NP: One of the major safety requirements demanded of pilots is mandatory stability i.e. the correct speed, flap setting, rate of descent and runway alignment by 1500’ [or possibly 1000’ in good weather]. All routing inbound, curved or otherwise, has to recognise that.
Conclusions
Gatwick is better for a second runway on grounds of cost, speed and safety from terrorists.
There is no chance of stopping pre 0700 flights at Heathrow because of inevitable international flight times.
Routing over Richmond Park, with proper runway altenration as well as choosing the Windsor approach in mild wind speeds, would all reduce SW14 bother.
Perhaps the best battleground for now is to seek to tackle the noise (and pollution) which Heathrow and the Government continue to ignore. There are more immediate remedies that could be considered other than the long term plans for aircraft design.
