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.

Wow, thanks for the HU. That's pretty impressive, indeed. Just estimated the displacement to be well over a thousand meters... Surely looks unusual from above. Gotta check this out in the sim asap. I knew JFK had some noticable displacement on 31L, and there are mabye many more that have displacements, but this here is really humonguous, lol. :( Thanks again!RegardsEtienne

Selfish? That's kinda harsh (and wrong). As long as he's not doing it below 1000' from the ground, it's legal.

Just because you'e behaving legally doesn't mean you're not behaving selfishly.rMy point is that by doing it over a built-up area he unnecessarily annoyed a number of people. When the aerodrome wants planning consent to improve its facilities there will be a whole lot more objectors who may succed in blocking it as a result of his actions. Does the aviation community benefit from that?Too often the aviation community seems to think it is somehow separate from the rest of the community. It isn't, and if it behaves as is if were the rest of the community will bite back to its disadvantage.

Wow, thanks for the HU. That's pretty impressive, indeed. Just estimated the displacement to be well over a thousand meters... Surely looks unusual from above. Gotta check this out in the sim asap. I knew JFK had some noticable displacement on 31L, and there are mabye many more that have displacements, but this here is really humonguous, lol. :( Thanks again!RegardsEtienne

It's over 1400 meters long.

That disclosure form is a legally binding contract. They can complain, but nothing will be done. Miramar still exists and is the largest Marine Corps Air Station any where in the world and it stands to grow even more.

National security may require that Miramar continues to operate. However, according to Wikipedia something can and is being done;:To lessen the noise impact to the community, MCAS Miramar has made adjustments to their operations over the years, including the use of hush-houses, limitations on engine run-ups, and modification to flight plans. Residents are able to file noise complaints via the Air Station's Noise Complaint hotline.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Corps_...Station_MiramarBeing realistic and sensible, Miramar clearly does respond to the concerns of the the local community.

Just because you'e behaving legally doesn't mean you're not behaving selfishly.rMy point is that by doing it over a built-up area he unnecessarily annoyed a number of people. When the aerodrome wants planning consent to improve its facilities there will be a whole lot more objectors who may succed in blocking it as a result of his actions. Does the aviation community benefit from that?Too often the aviation community seems to think it is somehow separate from the rest of the community. It isn't, and if it behaves as is if were the rest of the community will bite back to its disadvantage.

Somehow I find that a rather contradictory statement.You want the aviation community to go along with "the rest of the community", but you want airplanes that are basically operating within the legal limits to do their business away from "the rest of the community"?The thing is that people living nearby airports will always complain. Doesn't matter if the airport was there first, doesn't matter if the airport is doing stuff that are completely legal, doesn't matter if the airport puts special procedures in place. Anyone remember Concorde at JFK in the 70's? All the people complaining because Concorde was supposedly louder than other turbojet aircraft and that, unbeknownst to them, the B707 was actually louder...

Being realistic and sensible, Miramar clearly does respond to the concerns of the the local community.

In my opinion, so has done Indira Gandhi airport.

I should have phrased that as nothing will be done as to closing and moving the Miramar air station. As it is, the units stationed there are from the Tustin MCAS(H) and El Toro MCAS bases that were closed due to BRAC and pressure from other entitites. Tustin (I was stationed there) dates back to 1942 for Navy blimps for coastal patrols was nothing but country when first opened. While actually small in area, it was the largest base unit wise in the air wing. Everything grew up around it. I also can't tell you how many times a bird I was flying in had to take evasive action due to GA pilots straying into our airspace and practially up to the base's fence line. Back when I was there, we were only allowed 2 nights of night hops (Tuesday and Wednesday) and we had to be back in and shut down no later than 10 PM due to anti-noise rules in place. The military does try to take into account the surrounding communities, but sometimes, there are things that just cannot be helped.Heck, there are Sky Pigs flying in and out of Dobbins ARB as late as 11PM. I don't mind one bit.

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

The problem is that they all are complaining about the noise but when they have to drive an hour longer to get to the closest airport they will be complaining again that there should be one closer to them.Technology has greatly approved and those noise levels compared to what they used to be are amazing. The funny thing is the decibel meter they used registered the jet going over as 80 as the max that is between normal conversation and road noise. Give me a break that is the weakest argument ever.

The problem is that they all are complaining about the noise but when they have to drive an hour longer to get to the closest airport they will be complaining again that there should be one closer to them.Technology has greatly approved and those noise levels compared to what they used to be are amazing. The funny thing is the decibel meter they used registered the jet going over as 80 as the max that is between normal conversation and road noise. Give me a break that is the weakest argument ever.

still not getting the the point. do you find any reason not to use runway 27 at night for landings? if one say there are operational reasons that operator better understands, they have disclosed nothing except for the first point in my original post which is not satisfying. If they would have given a valid reason the arguments will be over as there would be no other option but to use 29 and understandable.which is why I have posted here, to have a healthy discussion on the runways' situation. if anyone of you can seriously take a look and point it out topic is over.btw how would you like being inside a car when you are not going anywhere or being played a stereo when you dont like the music, every 2 minutes non stop 24hrs?

Technology has greatly approved and those noise levels compared to what they used to be are amazing.

Lol, that's the truth. My grandparents used to live at the end of Dorval rwy 28, Montreal.In the 70

Somehow I find that a rather contradictory statement.You want the aviation community to go along with "the rest of the community", but you want airplanes that are basically operating within the legal limits to do their business away from "the rest of the community"?

It's not at all contradictory unless you think it's a good idea unnecessarily to annoy others in the community. All it has done is to build up more hostility to the aviation community so that when that aerodrome seeks consent for any development the rest of the community will, legally, do everything it can to stop it. That's not going to help the aviation community either - which is why that pilot's action was selfish: it didn't help anyone. In reality, in the UK because of environmental concerns it is now impossble to create a new aerodrome of whatever size, or to expand an existing one - plans for a third runway at London-Heathrow and for a second one at London-Stansted have been dropped.

There is aircraft noise and aircraft noise. surely

has to be the best aircraft noise ever heard. And long may it continue.vololiberista

"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." can you explain a bit further?

During takeoff, more noise is generated due to use of full or close to full power. The use of this amount of power for takeoff extends past the runway. You have asked why not use 27 instead of 29 and they are using 27, especially for the noisiest part of flight evolution. Sure, there is noise from the thrust reversers, but it does not last near anywhere near as long as. Heck, even the C-5 that flies around here is never heard when landing even though you can hear it take off, even from approximately 900-1000 meters away.

There is aircraft noise and aircraft noise. surely

has to be the best aircraft noise ever heard. And long may it continue.vololiberista

As far as the pblic is concerned there are noisy aircraft and very noisy aircraft. By definition noise "is a sound, especially one that is loud or unpleasant or that causes disturbance".The best aircraft noise is that from an aircraft with the engines off.

In reality, in the UK because of environmental concerns it is now impossble to create a new aerodrome of whatever size, or to expand an existing one - plans for a third runway at London-Heathrow and for a second one at London-Stansted have been dropped.

Hmm, so, what you're saying is that the UK (one of the world's biggest economies and industries) is now stuck with what they currently have?

The best aircraft noise is that from an aircraft with the engines off.

That just reminded me of a video I saw a couple of months ago (an interview to people complaining over the noise at the airport, how about that). One of the fellows said that "there are many technical ways to land an aircraft" and that they could "just land with the engines shut down". It's in Spanish, though as it was in a Colombian airport.Master piece of journalism demonstrated by the interviewer replying to the guy who said airplanes should land with engines shut down and with the gear down that "doing that on international flights it's extremely dangerous". Sure, but not on domestic ones, right?The guy replies back stating that there are "lots of technical ways to land an aircraft" and after some 5 seconds of stuttering, he says that the real reason why the CAA won't make the changes is that they "just won't listen to the people".Just in case you understand Spanish; watch it, it's worth it! :( http://www.citytv.com.co/videos/8956/prote...uido-de-avionesBTW, mgh, I know what you're saying about the guy in the aerobatic aircraft, but I just don't understand why people would get upset at something that is normal and legal :(