Climate Change Kills Third Heathrow Runway.
Discussion
I don't get the blindness here. Our governments have put in place very expensive policies to reduce greenhouse gases , yet:
Just one return flight from London to New York produces a greater carbon footprint than a whole year’s personal allowance needed to keep the climate safe.
wtf?
BTW, Just to be clear, this is not my personal motivation, which is mostly to eliminate the huge noise intrusion (from 'quiet' planes - compared to a Saturn rocket).
Just one return flight from London to New York produces a greater carbon footprint than a whole year’s personal allowance needed to keep the climate safe.
wtf?
BTW, Just to be clear, this is not my personal motivation, which is mostly to eliminate the huge noise intrusion (from 'quiet' planes - compared to a Saturn rocket).
NicD said:
I don't get the blindness here. Our governments have put in place very expensive policies to reduce greenhouse gases , yet:
Just one return flight from London to New York produces a greater carbon footprint than a whole year’s personal allowance needed to keep the climate safe.
wtf?
the flaw in that thinking though is this, even if we don't build any additional capacity, somebody somewhere else will, so the net result is more CO2.Just one return flight from London to New York produces a greater carbon footprint than a whole year’s personal allowance needed to keep the climate safe.
wtf?
same argument as we don't burn much coal here anymore, but China certainly does!
Not too sure about the noise modern jets make being too loud. I was at an open air music / beer festival last night with jets flying over us continually at circa 800 - 1000 feet, and if it was not for their navigation lights, they were hardly noticed, if at all.
I make most of my living via using cars, and live on a very noisy road, so I would hardly be in a position to complain about vehicle noise, and trying to get it stopped, so I don't.
Surprisingly it is the same as friends of mine who bought a house next to a railway, I noticed the trains continually going by, but they it seems had got used to it, and did not.
There are individuals who are perhaps more sensitive to this sort of noise, than others, who would be best suited not to buy or live in properties close to 24/7 active, international airports.
If they cannot do this, it is their problem, not the airports. especially as in many cases the airport was there, `before' they were.
If those that don't like aircraft noise, actually travel on airliners for whatever reason, this further somewhat weakens their position regarding complaining about the noise that aircraft make.
I make most of my living via using cars, and live on a very noisy road, so I would hardly be in a position to complain about vehicle noise, and trying to get it stopped, so I don't.
Surprisingly it is the same as friends of mine who bought a house next to a railway, I noticed the trains continually going by, but they it seems had got used to it, and did not.
There are individuals who are perhaps more sensitive to this sort of noise, than others, who would be best suited not to buy or live in properties close to 24/7 active, international airports.
If they cannot do this, it is their problem, not the airports. especially as in many cases the airport was there, `before' they were.
If those that don't like aircraft noise, actually travel on airliners for whatever reason, this further somewhat weakens their position regarding complaining about the noise that aircraft make.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Not too sure about the noise modern jets make being too loud. I was at an open air music / beer festival last night with jets flying over us continually at circa 800 - 1000 feet, and if it was not for their navigation lights, they were hardly noticed, if at all.
Really? I just don't believe it.All that jazz said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Not too sure about the noise modern jets make being too loud. I was at an open air music / beer festival last night with jets flying over us continually at circa 800 - 1000 feet, and if it was not for their navigation lights, they were hardly noticed, if at all.
Really? I just don't believe it.Yup. Even in the breaks in the music, where people were just drinking, the jets were passing overhead
with very little noise, such that no one even bothered to look up at them. and some of the passing jets at around just 800 to 1000 feet AGL.
TTmonkey said:
Most observers looking up at a plane wouldn't be able to accurately tell you its height - many would guestimate 800Ft when reality is its probably 2000 or more.
You're wrong I'm afraid. Many people can accurately tell the height, and lateral position of an aircraft using calibrated sticks, and sellotape stuck on glass windows. Also aircraft are deemed overhead when they are at least 5 miles away.None of this is made up.
LHRFlightman said:
TTmonkey said:
Most observers looking up at a plane wouldn't be able to accurately tell you its height - many would guestimate 800Ft when reality is its probably 2000 or more.
You're wrong I'm afraid. Many people can accurately tell the height, and lateral position of an aircraft using calibrated sticks, and sellotape stuck on glass windows. Also aircraft are deemed overhead when they are at least 5 miles away.None of this is made up.
'
None of this is made up.Correct if one knows the size of an object, any object from a transit van, to a specific type of airliner, making a reasonably accurate estimation of its distance from you, is relatively easy.Yes. And when the viewer is basing his judgement on viewing a 773 when the aircraft in question is actually a 320? At 9,000ft?
Pan Pan Pan said:
LHRFlightman said:
TTmonkey said:
Most observers looking up at a plane wouldn't be able to accurately tell you its height - many would guestimate 800Ft when reality is its probably 2000 or more.
You're wrong I'm afraid. Many people can accurately tell the height, and lateral position of an aircraft using calibrated sticks, and sellotape stuck on glass windows. Also aircraft are deemed overhead when they are at least 5 miles away.None of this is made up.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Hackney said:
Scuffers said:
as for noise, it's way quieter now that it has been for at least 60 years, no more 707's, Concorde, VC10's, etc etc etc. the current airline fleets are getting ever more quiet.
My main point though is if you don't like the noise, why live there?
Thanks for quoting wiki and proving my point.My main point though is if you don't like the noise, why live there?
There's a difference between accepting the status quo - tolerating the existing noise - and wanting more noise. Or is your logic as bad as your maths?
For heaven knows how many decades, forecasts for the global aviation industry, have shown that it will increase, not decrease , so buying a house near an aviation facility which is known by just about everyone will be increasing its activity when one doesn't like aircraft noise, is also insane.
Also airports by their very global nature are 24/7 operations, Or do you expect airlines from the other side of the world, to hold flights just because it will be night time at the destination airport? Anyone who thinks about international aviation as a `local' issue, perhaps needs to look a bit further than their back yard fence. Their whingeing is made worse by the fact that many who do this, seem to have no difficulty using them, when `they' want to go on holiday, or attend a foreign business meeting.
The airport (as it stands) may have been there long before current housing, but this isn't about now, it's about future development. People have bought houses knowing conditions as they are.
Where do you live, and why? What if your nearest factory / pub / airport / nightclub / trunk road - was asking to double in size / extent opening hours etc, etc, etc, would you be happy because it was there when you moved in so what right do you have to complain?
To most people an airport is a necessary evil, given the choice I, and many other people, would not set foot in them. If possible my holidays and business trips are based on not flying rather than thinking how wonderful it is that I have to pay an extortionate fee to get to a warehouse with no seats then wait for two hours.
Hackney said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Hackney said:
Scuffers said:
as for noise, it's way quieter now that it has been for at least 60 years, no more 707's, Concorde, VC10's, etc etc etc. the current airline fleets are getting ever more quiet.
My main point though is if you don't like the noise, why live there?
Thanks for quoting wiki and proving my point.My main point though is if you don't like the noise, why live there?
There's a difference between accepting the status quo - tolerating the existing noise - and wanting more noise. Or is your logic as bad as your maths?
For heaven knows how many decades, forecasts for the global aviation industry, have shown that it will increase, not decrease , so buying a house near an aviation facility which is known by just about everyone will be increasing its activity when one doesn't like aircraft noise, is also insane.
Also airports by their very global nature are 24/7 operations, Or do you expect airlines from the other side of the world, to hold flights just because it will be night time at the destination airport? Anyone who thinks about international aviation as a `local' issue, perhaps needs to look a bit further than their back yard fence. Their whingeing is made worse by the fact that many who do this, seem to have no difficulty using them, when `they' want to go on holiday, or attend a foreign business meeting.
The airport (as it stands) may have been there long before current housing, but this isn't about now, it's about future development. People have bought houses knowing conditions as they are.
Where do you live, and why? What if your nearest factory / pub / airport / nightclub / trunk road - was asking to double in size / extent opening hours etc, etc, etc, would you be happy because it was there when you moved in so what right do you have to complain?
To most people an airport is a necessary evil, given the choice I, and many other people, would not set foot in them. If possible my holidays and business trips are based on not flying rather than thinking how wonderful it is that I have to pay an extortionate fee to get to a warehouse with no seats then wait for two hours.
If person buys a house specifically because it is `not' near any of these installations, but then finds out that one, or several of them are to be built in the area, I would have some sympathy for that persons position, not least because if they were their first, their complaint would carry much more weight. But to have a house in such an area, and then be surprised if the facility in question is enlarged, (especially when history, and most forecasts for the installation indicate that it would most likely increase its operations) is a little naïve, especially an international facility whose operations can be affected by matters far outside this countries borders.
Some should be careful what they wish for, a group (many of whom had recently moved into the area) close to an operating airfield, successfully campaigned to have it shut down. They celebrated for a while, until that is, the airfield was turned into an industrial complex. So instead of an open field, and the occasional drone of an aircraft, they got factory buildings, factory noise, and HGV traffic past their front doors 24/7.
Because aircraft by their very nature, are not confined to operating solely within the confines of an airport, it is obvious that their operating footprint is going to be far outside the airfield boundary. The bigger the airport, and the aircraft types using it, the bigger its overall footprint is going to be.
h about the noise.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff