The ghost of Concorde has been enlisted to help to justify a third runway at
Heathrow and an extra 500 flights a day over London.
The supersonic fleet was withdrawn and sent to museums in 2003, but it is
being included in the Department for Transport’s comparisons for noise
levels at the airport. The Government has pledged that the area blighted by
57 decibels, known as the 57 decibel contour, will be no greater than in
2002, the last full year of Concorde flights.
This will make it much easier to approve the new runway because Concorde was
by far the loudest aircraft operating out of Heathrow. One Concorde flight
produced as much noise disturbance as 120 Boeing 757s, according to the
DfT’s method of calculating noise.
The 57 decibel contour — so named because that is the level at which the DfT
deems noise to be a nuisance to residents — covered 49 square miles (127 sq
km) in 2002 but has since shrunk by more than 4 square miles and is likely
to carry on shrinking as quieter aircraft are introduced. The number of
people living inside the contour has fallen by more than 20,000 since 2002.
The new runway, which could open by 2017, would increase noise disturbance
greatly, but the Government would be able to claim it was only as bad as in
2002.
Residents living under Heathrow’s flight paths argue that this is unfair
because there were only two Concorde flights a day — one take-off and one
landing — but they will be replaced by dozens of modern aircraft. Noise from
Concorde used to reach more than 100 decibels for those living close to the
airport. John Stewart, chairman of the Heathrow Association for the Control
of Aircraft Noise, said: “It is absurd to use an ear-splittingly noisy
aircraft now lying in museums in the standard used to determine whether
Heathrow can be expanded.
“The Government should, at the very least, be pledging that there will be no
more disturbance than there is now. Instead, they are trying to dupe us with
a worthless benchmark relating to the situation five years ago.”
Mr Stewart said that many residents had tolerated the noise created by
Concorde because it lasted for only a couple of minutes and the delta-winged
aircraft provided a great spectacle. “But it will be replaced by the
non-stop drone of aircraft every two minutes. It is the regularity of the
flights that causes the problem, but the Government is failing to take this
into account.”
A report on aircraft noise by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs in 2004 found that Concorde had a “distorting effect” on the setting
of noise limits for Heathrow.
It said: “Concorde movements, despite being relatively infrequent compared to
other aircraft types, have a dominating influence on the shape and size of
the noise contours for Heathrow Airport.”
The report added that a more accurate assessment of the disturbance caused to
residents could be obtained by excluding Concorde flights from the
calculations.
The DfT published the results of a six-year study into aircraft noise last
week. It found that noise causes far more annoyance than previously thought
and concluded that the method of calculating noise, adopted a quarter of a
century ago, was too narrow and failed to take account either of the huge
growth in the number of flights or the public’s growing intolerance of noise.
The study also found that the public began to be significantly annoyed by
aircraft noise when it reached 50 rather than 57 decibels.
There are 258,000 residents inside the 57-decibel area, but ten times that
number live inside the 50-decibel area.
The Government has refused to take the research into account in the debate
over the third runway because it claims that there is still no consensus
about what level of noise constitutes a serious problem.
Jim Fitzpatrick, the Aviation Minister, has told local authorities around
Heathrow that he expects to publish proposals for expanding the airport
towards the end of next month.
As well as the third runway, the Government will propose ending the current
system of runway alternation which gives residents half a day’s respite from
aircraft approaching over their rooftops.
The two existing runways could accommodate an extra 60,000 flights a year if
they were used for take-offs and landings throughout the day.
Virtually everyone who lives in the vicinity of Heathrow has moved there since the airport has generated significant amounts of noise - time we bit the bullet and made a world-class and safe airport for London, even if this requires flattening homes in the Heathrow area. Operating at current levels of traffic density, Heathrow is potentially one of the least safe major airports and desperately needs that third runway.
Neil Marshall, Cambridge, UK
This is not 57dB(A) we're talking about - it's an 'equivalent continuous noise level', usually measured over 16 hours (day) or 8 hours (night). The correct unit is 57dB(A)Leq (time). This is a false construct resulting from computer derived desk top modelling that has nothing to do with the real world - no one was ever disturbed or woken up by an average noise level! it just so happens that if I hold a noise level meter 30cm above the bonnet of my Fiat Punto with its engine ticking over, the meter registers 57dB(A). So, an averaged Concorde take-off equals one Punto over what, sixteen hours?
Graham Stocks, Loughborough, Leicestershire
I think the government spin here is cynical beyond belief. As I understand it, the conclusions of the investigation into aircraft noise from a proposed third runway do not support the case for building the runway. The goverment is just trying to score cheap points with the environmentalists by reminding them that "noisy" Concorde has been stopped. I agree with Jetinder Sira - people's disgust at what happened to Concorde will simply damage the government's case still further.
K John, London, UK
Oh for god's sake!
Everyone prattles on about living near airports, if you don't like it MOVE!
Simple as that...i appreciate LHR is a large airport and affects a great many people in and around London...but who on earth lives in London for the peace and quiet?!
If people live in Urban areas it is noisy. That's the way it is.
It'd about time people stopped blaming airports and aircraft for all the worlds ills.
I will guarantee you that 80% of the people living next to major airports thank their lucky stars they live so close when they want a holiday.
We live in a hypocritical world nowadays
Andy, Chester, UK
Some of the smallest planes make the most noise. I live near Newcastle airport, the planes we hear making the most noise are the little 2 seat flying club aircraft. It's more the type of noise than the volume in my mind. Big comercial flights make a low drown, but it's gone very quickly. The little private planes make a much loader and higher note that seems to last forever! Many people from this part of the world and Scotland too, travel to London for flights to destinations not flown from here. Surely the answer may be to enlarge regional airports of bring routes to regional airports to take pressure off London airports?
RayB, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
They've got a nerve to use Concorde in this way. In 2003 they could have stopped Concorde from being scrapped but instead they didn’t and sat there watching while the pride of our nation was slaughtered, stuffed and turned in to a mummy. They could have brought one Concorde back for air shows but they didn’t do that...... now they the cheek to use Concorde for their own needs.........
Jetinder Sira , Romford, Essex, UK
I'm always annoyed by the people who say "don't buy near an airport, it's you own fault..." Do people know just how large an area Heathrow affects? The problem lies with constant expansion and massively overrunning flight quotas. In the days of us all suffering endless 'green' taxes, this government has a heck of a lot to answer for with its support of BAA.
Mike Briggs, Windsor, UK
I think we should keep Heathrow as it is and hopefully over time it will become quieter and have another airport between Swindon and Oxford or someplace similar as many of the people who use Heathrow and Gatwick live miles away from it and use it as they have no local alternative. There is nothing to beat flying from an airport within 30 miles or so of your home.
Mike Greer, Stroud, Gloucestershire
It sounds like the DFT don't know that a median (noise level) is more appropriate than a mean in this situation. It better represents the day-in-day-out annoyance. Concorde would have had an appreciable effect on the mean but would not change the median much. (Note to pedants: I'm talking about the mean/median of the peak levels of the aircraft as they pass over. The median of total (continuous) noise levels would probably be close to zero.)
Having said that, the extra-noisy planes are a real pain where I live. You have to choose between having the TV or radio on really loud (and waking the kids) or having subtitles on (not great for radio or live TV). And there are a lot of these extra noisy planes - they are called Boeing 747-400 and Airbus A340-600 - probably a hundred or so flights a day.
Bob MacCallum, Fulham, London, UK
And the moral of the story is....If you don’t like aircraft noise, don’t buy a house near a flight path. Quite simple really.
Mike, Berlin,
We should get real, big business wants then new runway and so the reports we will get, consultations etc are already declared and this will go ahead no matter what.
It is a pity for those living under the flight paths but they ultimately could sue for noise nuisance or possibly some EU Human rights laws.
Joe Kellie, Edinburgh, Scotland