Hi guys, check this out. Those of you fly in fs to VIDP must be knowing from updated afcads in library that a new runay 11/29 was commissioned in 2008. The airport location is very close to the main city and all three runway paths are over populated urban area. the LDAs are: rwy27=2660, rwy28-3810, rwy29=2970. The private airport operator had a Develope and Operate pact which means it gets higher revenue operating 11/29. The issue is, inspite of having three options (currently 2 as 28 is closed upto sept) only 29 is being preferd for night landings. The communities and a full scale hospital (3nm from threshold) have tried various legal methods but have been unsuccessful in making airport use 27 and 29 on alternate nights (11pm-6am). The govt regulatory authorities seem to be in hand with the operator (corruption). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQT6DGWrREEHere are the claims of operator & govt:1. Runway 27/09 is a secondary runway and cannot share the traffic load due to its length and orientation. (what do you think?)2. Runway 29/11 has direct linkage with terminal T-3 and will curtail taxing time after landing. (not commissioned yet)3. Runway 29/11 is code compatible and caters to latest aircraft such as A-380 and Bo--787. (not arriving yet)4. Night closure would badly effect country's economic growth, GDP and international image. (?)5. Noise level is exaggerated and has no ill effect on health. (80dB measured)6. Expansion of airport should have been forseen by the residents.7. Noise is permitted by ICAO especially during takeoff and landing.8. All environmental clearances were obtained.9. Solution is to mitigate the noise by a list of 15 other means but not by restricting night flights.I have talked to various societies who are seeking legal action. The lack of availability of knowledge about airport and traffic is been taken full advantage of by operators. Authorities have made silly claims like using constant decent and low drag approach for low thrust to be used, which actually is STAR and nothing to do with noise at 3nm.what I know: 1. rwy27 was used for all landings (6am-11pm), rwy28 all movements(11pm-6am) when 29 was under construction in 2008. 2. Airport does not have enough night traffic to exceed single runway capacity.I would like to know from fellow simmers if any international organization exist that can intervene in the matter.Do have your say. More info will be greatly appreciated.Regards

This is a weird situation. Like most airports, this probably started way out in the country when first built. Since then, again, like most airports, the city has moved out and around the airport, thus creating problems that were never there previously. This happens at all airports, especially large airports. Unfortunately, I know of no entities who can help persuade the airport operators and government to not operate in a specific manner. Residents can petition them, but the need for a lawyer is there.

On that note, I am of the belief that when a person moves into the proximity of an airport, they must accept that it will be noisy and that as a business entity, has the right to be able to operate as it sees fit. That is what bothered me about some residents of a subdivision that was built in the late 80's early 90s next to the airport back where I grew up and the airport first started operating in 1949.

VIDP (Indira Gandhi) is a major international airport that serves Delhi. It is reported to be the busiest in South Asia. It's use will be determined by India's national interest and in accordance with Indian law.You do yourself no favours by raising conspiracy theory, nor by misunderstanding what a constant descent and low drag approach actual is - it is not a STAR.India is a sovereign country and no international organisation can intervene in its internal affairs without its Government's agreement.

It's simple. Move.The airport was most likely there before that which surrounds it. Complaining about it's noise is ridiculous when it's the fault of those who choose to live that close to an airport in the first place.

I live under the flight path of an Air Force base, I know what it's like to hear larger jets flying overhead, and I've gotten used to it. If your house isn't shaking, adapt or move. If your house is shaking, move!

I live under the flight path of an Air Force base, I know what it's like to hear larger jets flying overhead, and I've gotten used to it. If your house isn't shaking, adapt or move. If your house is shaking, move!

I hear ya. I have to admit I have only heard fighter jets like FA-18s up close a few weeks ago (at some other place, not where I live), which kinda "blew" me away, sound wise (pun intended). But I have also had years of C-17s on final just over my head at home, which is already loud enuff. If you don't like it you've gotta move, planes are not gonna stop flying for ya, and I feel I sort of know what I'm talking about since I have them every day and every night, this airport has more than a thousand movements every day and it will become more in the future due to another runway. Especially those summer nights where you can't close the window, like right now hehe! Where I live there have been discussions about aircraft noise and night flying regulations etc etc etc forever although I have not witnessed to live near Kai Tak when it was still there, but that doesn't quite compare anyways. :(RegardsEtienne

It's simple. Move.The airport was most likely there before that which surrounds it. Complaining about it's noise is ridiculous when it's the fault of those who choose to live that close to an airport in the first place.

It's not as simple as that. Airports evolve and change with time. For example,London-Stansted began as a WW2 airfield used by the USAF Eighth Air Force. Immediately after the was it was used for storage and as a prisoner of war camp with no flying. A few charter airlines used it between 1949 and 1954 when US forces returned and extended the runway with a view to it being used by NAT0. It finally reverted to civil use in 1996. It was then developed as London's 3rd Airport and a new terminal opened in 1969. It was decided to increase its capacity further and another new terminal was opened in 1991 when it handled 2M pax/year. By 1997 this had reached 5M pax/year and continued to increase reaching 16M pax/year in 2002, and 23M pax/year in 2006. There were plans (now abandoned) to increase its capacity to 35M pax/year by building a new runway.Many people lived nearby before this massive expansion which began less than 20 years ago and didn't in fact chose to live close to an airport handling 23M pax/year - many lived there before. Also noise doesn't just affect those living close to the airport. Look at the area with flights below 3000ft AMSL in the attached figure. It covers long establshed towns and communities that were there long before the airport. I agree the airport is there and will stay, but complaints will help ensure that the nuisance due to noise in minimised to the benefit of everyone living near airports.

so is it perfectly fine for the operator to use 29 even when an option of using 27 to give some relief similar to heathrow exists without under capacitating the airport given the traffic? I am asking because if the alternative of 27 not exist there wont be any issue.

From what I see of the airport (via Google Earth), there is less of an impact on the population for 11/29 than 9/27. There are homes closer to the end of 9 than there are to the other runways though there is a population center right between 28 and 29. As I said, airports are built in the middle of nowhere and houses are allowed to be built (usually with local governmental approval) in close proximity to said airports. No matter which runway they take off or land on, there will be some impact to the surrounding community.I have lived near US Air Force bases and airports of some sort all my life. Right now I get Sky Pigs (C-130s from the 94th AW) the odd E-2C Hawkeye (used in drug interdiction), F-18s, C-5s (Lockheed is working on the M model improvements for it here), C-17s and C-21 and fresh off the assembly line F-22s flying over my place (C-130s are also built here). Back when the production line was going full bore back in 2005, I was awoke daily by first flights, especially when they zoom climbed.

Problem solved.

thanks for all the thoughts guys

From what I see of the airport (via Google Earth), there is less of an impact on the population for 11/29 than 9/27. There are homes closer to the end of 9 than there are to the other runways though there is a population center right between 28 and 29.

presently, 11/29 for all arrivals and 9/27 for all takeoffs 24hrs. also you may find this interesting (aircraft involved VIR a343): http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/de...how/6060556.cmsIn case you need deeper info of airport specs: http://www.aai.aero/public_notices/DELHI_amendment.pdf

Problem solved.

With attitudes like that in the aviation community it's not surprising that practically all airport developments world-wide are vigorously opposed.London-Stansted wanted a second runway but now won't get it. One of the reasons was a campaign by individuals and local authorities. In effect they adapted the airport supporter's argument that that the airport was here first and if you don't like it move your home elsewhere to argue successfully we were here first and if you don't like it move your proposed new runway somewhere else.I'm in the UK, and there are currently complaints in my local news paper about a selfish pilot who took off from our local airfield and then practiced aerobatics over a built-up area for several hours when he could have flown a few miles to open countryside. The aerodrome's response was that was entitled to do it and that he'd done nothing wrong. However, the next time the aerodrome seeks planning consent for any development from the local authority it will find that it's just created a new group of objectors and consent might be refused or only granted with restrictive conditions.I've worked in aviation and have held a PPL so I've no objections in principle to aviation. However, I recognise times have changed and, given a chance, objectors will sieze on any opportunity to frustrate futher developments. With the increasing acceptance of environment concerns we need to be careful not to give them any unnecessary ammunition. The people who take the decisions are politicians, and if they are faced with chosing between a large group of annoyed residents (who vote for them) and a small group of private pilots pursuing their hobby (who probably don't) guess who they'll tend to favour!

Do you remember the crash of the F-18 as it was trying to make it back to Miramar MCAS a couple of years ago with an emergency? The plane crashed into a local neighborhood and killed 4 people in a house after the pilot ejected. This is a classic example of an airport that has stuff grow up around it and what is faced for the operation of an airport on a daily basis. The residents of the area even signed disclosure forms stating that they were aware of overflying jets and yet they demand that the place be closed and moved away from where they live. The place was originally opened in 1918 and those homes have only been there for the last 35 or so years, if that (I don't remember it being that crowded down there when I had to go to Miramar back in the 80s). Accidents such as this has caused the government to try and buy up properties around bases to have a bigger exclusion zone, something that local governments overlook when first granting permits to build around airports. This includes noise complaints.In the case of the airport in New Delhi, it is not just a small airport, but a large, international airport with regular passanger and cargo flights. There is some military traffic and some GA traffic in and out, but I doubt the GA traffic is to blame for the above concerns. If they are landing on 11/29 (which has the shorter landing area) and using 9/27 for take-offs, then noise is being taken into account as more noise is generated then typically and for longer periods of time.

Do you remember the crash of the F-18 as it was trying to make it back to Miramar MCAS a couple of years ago with an emergency? The plane crashed into a local neighborhood and killed 4 people in a house after the pilot ejected. This is a classic example of an airport that has stuff grow up around it and what is faced for the operation of an airport on a daily basis. The residents of the area even signed disclosure forms stating that they were aware of overflying jets and yet they demand that the place be closed and moved away from where they live.

In the real world it doesn't matter how long the airport has been there or what disclosure forms have been signed. People will continue to complain and seek political support - especially if friends or neighbours have been killed in an aircraft accident. there's no point in saying they shouldn't - they will.

I'm in the UK, and there are currently complaints in my local news paper about a selfish pilot who took off from our local airfield and then practiced aerobatics over a built-up area for several hours when he could have flown a few miles to open countryside.

Selfish? That's kinda harsh (and wrong). As long as he's not doing it below 1000' from the ground, it's legal.For what I see in Google Earth...runway 29 has a massive threshold displacement and it's not because of terrain itself, it's because of the homes built right under the approach path.Mind you, ILS approaches for all 29, 28 and 27 runways come from the Sampla VOR which is some 20 NM out of VIDP. Once you cross that VOR, you fly straight ahead for about 5NM and then you do A FOURTEEN DME ARC! That's waaay outside the city. Add that to the fact that the Localiser gradient is 3