Then why did the Government's official Working Group on Noise from Air Traffic say:"It is the Working Group's opinion that the noise levels recorded at Heathrow during Concorde's flight endurance programme were intolerable to the community"and"The Working Group consider it is unreasonable to ask the community to tolerate the increased disturbance from Concorde without being offered some form of alleviation in return..." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3581192.stm

Because they paid too much attention to the activists!!!!!!!!! I lived there for 20 years and no one ever complained about Concorde!!!!!!!vololiberista

Because they paid too much attention to the activists!!!!!!!!! I lived there for 20 years and no one ever complained about Concorde!!!!!!!vololiberista

Activists are those who object to aircraft noise - of course they should be ingored! yAnd no doubt others were dancing in the streets to the sound of music and popping champagne corks as Concorde flew over.

KBUR in California is a good example of the airport and community working together. Several years ago, after numerous noise complaints from the nearby residents, tyhe Airport commission came up with a workable solution. In return for signing an Avigation Easement, which basically states that you give the airport the right to have a/c fly over your home and will not sue for damage, the city paid to have the homes within a few miles refitted with douible windows, blown isulation between walls, new higher power HVAC and additional electrical capacity for those that needed it. Additionally the airport gas *requested* that operatgors do not depart after 10PM or before 7AM and for the most part, they respect that.I live just west of the flightpath to rwy 15 and frankly, unless I'm outside, I hardly notice the traffic which is mainly airline and some corporate traffic.The additonal bernefit is that the cost of homes is lower than in some other areas.Vic

KBUR in California is a good example of the airport and community working together. Several years ago, after numerous noise complaints from the nearby residents, tyhe Airport commission came up with a workable solution. In return for signing an Avigation Easement, which basically states that you give the airport the right to have a/c fly over your home and will not sue for damage, the city paid to have the homes within a few miles refitted with douible windows, blown isulation between walls, new higher power HVAC and additional electrical capacity for those that needed it. Additionally the airport gas *requested* that operatgors do not depart after 10PM or before 7AM and for the most part, they respect that.I live just west of the flightpath to rwy 15 and frankly, unless I'm outside, I hardly notice the traffic which is mainly airline and some corporate traffic.The additonal bernefit is that the cost of homes is lower than in some other areas.Vic

That is an exellent example of working together. It's far better than the approach advocated here by others effectively - the airport was here first so we'll do what we ****-well like and to **** with the rest of you.

That is an exellent example of working together. It's far better than the approach advocated here by others effectively - the airport was here first so we'll do what we ****-well like and to **** with the rest of you.

I don't see anyone in this thread advocating that. I do seem some that are astonished that is very often exactly the attitude of people towards airports who chose to move by the airport by their own choice.

I don't see anyone in this thread advocating that. I do seem some that are astonished that is very often exactly the attitude of people towards airports who chose to move by the airport by their own choice.

I suggest that those who are astonished by complaints about airport noise are being naive - in the real word people will continue to complain regardless. In the long run it will be counter-productive to ignore them - as is saying "move" or offering ear-plugs.

I suggest that those who are astonished by complaints about airport noise are being naive - in the real word people will continue to complain regardless. In the long run it will be counter-productive to ignore them - as is saying "move" or offering ear-plugs.

Nobody said anything about ignoring them. I will however still maintain my right to be astonished by someone who by choice would move next to an existing airport and then complain about the noise.I believe in personal responsibility and common sense. I realize that is not the rage right now in todays world. I will continue to be astonished. "in the real word people will continue to complain regardless"Change the words "the real" to "today's" and I couldn't agree more.

KBUR in California is a good example of the airport and community working together. Several years ago, after numerous noise complaints from the nearby residents, tyhe Airport commission came up with a workable solution. In return for signing an Avigation Easement, which basically states that you give the airport the right to have a/c fly over your home and will not sue for damage, the city paid to have the homes within a few miles refitted with douible windows, blown isulation between walls, new higher power HVAC and additional electrical capacity for those that needed it. Additionally the airport gas *requested* that operatgors do not depart after 10PM or before 7AM and for the most part, they respect that.I live just west of the flightpath to rwy 15 and frankly, unless I'm outside, I hardly notice the traffic which is mainly airline and some corporate traffic.The additonal bernefit is that the cost of homes is lower than in some other areas.Vic

They have done similar insulation projects around KATL due to noise complaints. I am not sure about restricting flights at night, but there may be some that I am not aware of.

I do seem some that are astonished that is very often exactly the attitude of people towards airports who chose to move by the airport by their own choice.

Exactly that. Knowing that Dobbins was right next door with a major military aircraft supplier along with Navy, Marine and Air Force assests did not stop me from moving in to where I live, but I will not complain about the noise, even if it wakes me up.

Geof I think your right on the marks. Some people will complain no matter what, just to get attention and feel important. Refer to my post here on page two; After the uproar about KTOL the Toledo Lucas County Port Authority and the FAA did a study on a project to move some of the cargo traffic to KTDZ - Metcalf, one Nm south I my home town. Their plan was to add a new runway and other necessary improvements. The new runway would have directed either arrivals or departures directly over town. Here is what followed. The FAA did several low (very low) pass tests following the proposed runway heading with wheels down, flaps down to simulate landing and departure. In week or so a town meeting was scheduled, with all residents and interested parties invited to attend. All of the local news media showed up, hoping for a big screaming match about the noise issue. Here is what happened instead; It was quiet and orderly, you could actually her people speaking in their turn, with, I should add, very intelligent and informed questions. Questions such as: "Will the aircraft departing over town be at a safe altitude which would enable the aircraft to avoid the town if there was a massive system failure of some sort?" The FAA response was: "That question has no fixed or definite answer, given all the possible variables involved such as the altitude of the aircraft after leaving the runway, flight configuration of the aircraft at the time of failure and weather conditions. If the aircraft was directly over town when the failure occurred then yes the pilot could direct the aircraft away from town, unless it was a massive failure involving the airframe and controls." Then the gentleman added, with out being prompted, "This does not however speak for the possibility of pilot error which on very rare occasions can happen and can not have predictable consequences." (What a great and honest answer!) This was followed by some question about the financial aspects. When the subject of noise finally came up the FAA representative asked if anyone had noticed their 707 doing the the tests and nobody had. (we are all accustomed to the occasional private jet running the engines up and departing.) At this point one person, just one, stood up and started ranting about noise levels. It turned out he was a land developer who had his eye on some farm land right across the road from the airports north boundary fence and wanted to put a housing addition there. Boy was the media disappointed, they lowered the microphones and cameras and left. There was never even a mention of the meeting in the news, because all they were their for was a big screaming match they could 'make' news with.In our case (the residents of Walbridge) the 'system' worked just the way it should. Honest, open and sane.In the end the plan was dropped, not because of safety or noise issues, but because of a school that was located across the road from the airport on the southeast side. Ironically, the school was destroyed last month by a tornado which also did some damage to the airport.Regards,MelP.S. The developer was never seen or heard from again and the actual landowners say they knew nothing about this guy or his claims of impending purchase of the land. We have come to the conclusion that either he was a "plant" or someone trying to get camera time and attention or both.

Nobody said anything about ignoring them. I will however still maintain my right to be astonished by someone who by choice would move next to an existing airport and then complain about the noise.I believe in personal responsibility and common sense. I realize that is not the rage right now in todays world. I will continue to be astonished. "in the real word people will continue to complain regardless"Change the words "the real" to "today's" and I couldn't agree more.

You assume that only those who move next to an airport complain about the noise. People have been adveresly affected for yeas by the ever increasing noise levels caused by growth in air traffic.I was taken to Heathrow as a child in the 1940's when the terminals were canvas tents alongside the Bath Road, all the aircraft were piston-engined and there were so few movements that 15 minute sight-seeing flights in a dh89 Dragon Rapide were on offer. (I think that flight triggered my life-long interest in aviation). Do you really think people should have anticpated the growth in traffic, or that the British Government would exempt Concorde from the noise regulations applied to all other aircraft. A report for the British Government in 2007 found that levels of annoyance at Heathrow noise were consistently greater than they were 27 years earlier. Surely, people have the right to complain about increased noise levels. Shouldn't the authorities have taken some responsibility - personal or otherwise.The report also concluded that more than 2 million people were adversely affected by noise from Heathrow - that's more than 3% of the total population of the UK. The areas affected extended as far as 20 miles from the airport. That's hardly "next" to an airport.http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/...alissues/anase/Today's world is the real world we llive in - not a remembered world of 25, 50, or 100 years ago.

It's over 1400 meters long.

It is real simple to solve-people can stop flying and go back to the levels of the world 25,50, or 100 years ago-or they can accept the real world of today they have created. Are there any stats on how many of those 2 million people took a flight last year? Did they complain on the day they took their flight?

It is real simple to solve-people can stop flying and go back to the levels of the world 25,50, or 100 years ago-or they can accept the real world of today they have created. Are there any stats on how many of those 2 million people took a flight last year? Did they complain on the day they took their flight?

You stated what I have been thinking for the last couple of days, We can do away with flight, but we would need to go back to steamers and trains. International travel would drop close to nil as it would take close to a week to get to get to international destination, at least between NA and Europe. Most cruise lines only visit select ports now as it is so passage would be by cargo ship. Noone would want to only spend a day in London having to travel that way unless they had a months worth of vacation time set aside.

[

It is real simple to solve-people can stop flying and go back to the levels of the world 25,50, or 100 years ago-or they can accept the real world of today they have created. Are there any stats on how many of those 2 million people took a flight last year? Did they complain on the day they took their flight?

The number who took a flight is irrelevant. Having put up with noise from the airport all year they'd be fools not to use it.

Trains are noisy too. Will people be willing to give up some of their land so trains can have the necessary right of way needed to expand a new network of tracks? People here in the States have fought against tranfer centers from rail to road in the past. Imagine the uproar of needing to lose some land for said tracks. How about England, would they want to go back to just train travel? I know that England has a good rail system already (I have used it), but would residents allow for it's expansion?

There are proposals for new high-speed rail links to the north of England that would remove air traffic from the UK. There will be objectors but fewer of them. Research has shown that of the three major forms of transport (rail, air, road) railway noise produces the lowest incidence of annoyance. A survey in Scotland found that 75% of the population reported hearing aircraft noise and 34% were bothered, annoyed, or disturbed to some extent. For railways the corresponding figures were 29% and 5%, and for roads 88% and 37%. http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/internet/Attac...20Pollution.pdf The 3rd runway at Heathrow would have required demolition of some 700 homes, a church and eight grade II listed buildings. The village of Sipson would be totally destroyed and the high street in Harmondsworth split, a graveyard bulldozed. There were similar problems with secomd runways at Stansted and Gatwick - both of which have also been abandoned. Surely a case for saying we were here first: put your runway somewhere else?

The report also concluded that more than 2 million people were adversely affected by noise from Heathrow - that's more than 3% of the total population of the UK. The areas affected extended as far as 20 miles from the airport.

But then again, in this case, "affected" is a very wide term. And to me, that statement translates into "2 million people have heard an airplane that took off from Heathrow and they heard it a bit louder than they would should they be living in the British Midlands (where most airplanes are on the upper airspace)"And...2 million? A likely figure indeed if we use my "translation" since the urban area population is a tad over 8 million.The thing is that the govt should do its best to mitigate the effects of aviation on the airport neighbours, but the neighbours shouldn't complain over every little thing they heard because, as Geofa said earlier, it's something they know beforehand. It is something you know it's going to happen, just as if you are moving next to a very busy avenue or a dangerous part of the city; you know eventually there's going to be trouble.So the matter actually, is how can the airport and its neighbours come to a middle ground between what they both want, as it is not possible to satisfy completely just one of the parts involved.