Boris Island

Author
Discussion

109er

433 posts

129 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
I don't think many people think of the main problem if it was built.

Canvey Island has a problem with possible flooding and has sea defences
in place.

If Boris Island was built, a vast volume of water would be pushed/directed into
Canvey Island. The consequences of this would result in the entire island to be
evacuated and the people rehoused at vast expense. It would not take long for
the defences being overrun and the island flooded and possibly being washed
away over time.

Green points out Canvey and rough red = flow of water twice a day as the tide
comes in.



hidetheelephants

23,772 posts

192 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
109er said:
I don't think many people think of the main problem if it was built.

Canvey Island has a problem with possible flooding and has sea defences
in place.

If Boris Island was built, a vast volume of water would be pushed/directed into
Canvey Island. The consequences of this would result in the entire island to be
evacuated and the people rehoused at vast expense. It would not take long for
the defences being overrun and the island flooded and possibly being washed
away over time.

Green points out Canvey and rough red = flow of water twice a day as the tide
comes in.


Regardless of whether BI is built there is a need for Thames Barrier II, which is quite likely to be somewhere near Canvey Island. It's not much of leap to attach a manmade island to the barrier and build an airport on it, the barrier is going to be a massive civil engineering project anyway, costing billions and taking a decade+ to build.

greygoose

8,225 posts

194 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
The loss of Canvey Island may be seen as a bonus for anyone who has been there, if it could take Sheerness too all the better.

hidetheelephants

23,772 posts

192 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
greygoose said:
The loss of Canvey Island may be seen as a bonus for anyone who has been there, if it could take Sheerness too all the better.
No need, when the Liberty ship full of WW2 bombs goes bang it will cause millions of £ of improvements to Sheerness.

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
It is not just the immediate vicinity of airport, the whole of North Kent and South Essex would be blighted by aircraft either on approach or departure.

Langdon Hills,(where I live) is very quiet, with a large nature reserve. The area would be hammered by the continual noise from arrivals or departures from a new airport. Expensive desirable areas such as Upminster, Brentwood, Shenfield, Billericay would also likely be under the flightpath. Leigh-on-Sea, Thorpe Bay and Southend also expensive areas, would also now look out onto a massive noisy airport.
The North of Kent would also be affected.

Boris smacks of wanting his own vanity project, an equivalent to HS2, but not on his new potential constituency doorstep.

In South Essex, we currently have the flightpath for Stansted, Aircraft at around 7,000 - 9,000 feet heading south to Germany and France, perhaps one aircraft every 10 or 15 minutes.
We also have occasional aircraft at around 5,000 or so feet on approach/Departure to London City, but again busier some times of day than others.
We very rarely (once a week) have an Easyjet A319 over on it's way in to Southend at about 1,500- 2,000 feet, (depending on wind direction at the Airport) on its way from Belfast.

Imagine going from this to an airliner going over at 3,000- 6,000 feet every 90 seconds from 4 in the morning until midnight, every day.

This leads me to the next point.

If you build a huge airport off Southend, then your departures or arrivals would put you directly over south Essex, which would then conflict with aircraft operating in and out of London City. It would also put you in conflict with the Southerly heading Stansted Flights. It would also render the up and coming Southend Airport useless, as it would also conflict with traffic using that airport. The approach for Southend takes aircraft right over Canvey Island.

Meanwhile Manston, a former military diversion airfield with a huge runway, that could be developed as a hub, is sitting empty after hitting financial difficulties again!





Thankyou4calling

10,595 posts

172 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
Why is it that this country makes such a song and dance about things.

If a new road, rail line,hospital or bridge is proposed we go quite literally through years of consultation, proposals, loans, apoeals on and on and on.

It's daft to propose building an entirely new airport, it wastes time and distracts, we can't even widen a motorway without making allowances for an endangered species of frog of building a bridge so a couple of badgers can cross ( I'm sure others can put this better)

There's a massive international airport at Heathrow, that's where people want to go. If the Prime a Minister took the bull by the horns and said the country needs to develop it with a third maybe even a fourth runway, new roads too it as well it could be done.

It wouldn't cost a lot in the big scheme either.

But it won't happen as there are just simply too many hoops to jump through, too many committees, rules and regs which other country's just don't have.

Here, we work against this type of thing.

There have been proposals to expand capacity at Heathrow for way over 20 years and we just talk and talk and don't just tear up the rule book and get stuck in.

crankedup

25,764 posts

242 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
hidetheelephants said:
greygoose said:
The loss of Canvey Island may be seen as a bonus for anyone who has been there, if it could take Sheerness too all the better.
No need, when the Liberty ship full of WW2 bombs goes bang it will cause millions of £ of improvements to Sheerness.
Shhhhhhhhh! any more of this and house prices will drop in the area. wink

onyx39

11,109 posts

149 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
crankedup said:
hidetheelephants said:
greygoose said:
The loss of Canvey Island may be seen as a bonus for anyone who has been there, if it could take Sheerness too all the better.
No need, when the Liberty ship full of WW2 bombs goes bang it will cause millions of £ of improvements to Sheerness.
Shhhhhhhhh! any more of this and house prices will drop in the area. wink
Don't! I've had debates on Facebook with people in Yateley and Camberley today convinced that, because a new flight path is being trialled and their houses are overflown, that by Christmas they be worth tuppence!

LHRFlightman

1,929 posts

169 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
onyx39 said:
Don't! I've had debates on Facebook with people in Yateley and Camberley today convinced that, because a new flight path is being trialled and their houses are overflown, that by Christmas they be worth tuppence!
The new routes, of which the closest to Camberley and Yateley is DOKEN, route aircraft inside of both localities.

Heathrow is testing new, precision based navigation techniques ( which has been mandated by Europe ) that, amongst other things, could allow the concept of respite for local communities affected by aircraft noise. Currently aircraft fly on Noise Preferential Routes, to an altitude of 4,000 amsl at which point ATC vector them to their onward destination. This means that aircraft can be seen to overfly a large area, but infrequently. You never know when one will appear. Respite would concentrate aircraft in narrower corridors, but the communities under those corridors would get days when they had no overflight at all.

As I said its a trial, testing new concepts, and we'll see where it leads.

If anyone is interested, have a look here:

http://www.heathrowairport.com/noise/airspace-mode...

and here;

http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/Heathrow_Noi...

and here:

http://webtrak5.bksv.com/lhr4


Edited by LHRFlightman on Tuesday 2nd September 21:04


Edited by LHRFlightman on Tuesday 2nd September 21:04

paolow

3,208 posts

257 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
LHRFlightman said:
The new routes, of which the closest to Camberley and Yateley is DOKEN, route aircraft inside of both localities.

Heathrow is testing new, precision based navigation techniques ( which has been mandated by Europe ) that, amongst other things, could allow the concept of respite for local communities affected by aircraft noise. Currently aircraft fly on Noise Preferential Routes, to an altitude of 4,000 amsl at which point ATC vector them to their onward destination. This means that aircraft can be seen to overfly a large area, but infrequently. You never know when one will appear. Respite would concentrate aircraft in narrower corridors, but the communities under those corridors would get days when they had no overflight at all.

As I said its a trial, testing new concepts, and we'll see where it leads.
This is interesting - on a recent (2 weeks ago) flight from LGW we took off as per norm then when stable the engines settled into a much more quiet (and presumably lesser thrust level) while we turned onto the flightpath whereupon they kicked up again until we settled into a climb. I considered at the time that this was for noise abatement, but its interesting to see ideas brought forth. I did not mention this to Mrs Paolow who is a terrible flyer and was crying into my shoulder, and oblivious to this fact at the time...
Also interesting was that the aircraft, on arrival back at LGW carried on massively down the apron before touching down and then scooted back to the stand - would that have been to reduce turbulence for the queue of aircraft seeking to take off or another reason?

LHRFlightman

1,929 posts

169 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
paolow said:
This is interesting - on a recent (2 weeks ago) flight from LGW we took off as per norm then when stable the engines settled into a much more quiet (and presumably lesser thrust level) while we turned onto the flightpath whereupon they kicked up again until we settled into a climb. I considered at the time that this was for noise abatement, but its interesting to see ideas brought forth. I did not mention this to Mrs Paolow who is a terrible flyer and was crying into my shoulder, and oblivious to this fact at the time...
Also interesting was that the aircraft, on arrival back at LGW carried on massively down the apron before touching down and then scooted back to the stand - would that have been to reduce turbulence for the queue of aircraft seeking to take off or another reason?
Depending on the route you took from LGW I can understand the lower thrust levels you heard. Some LGW routes are held at lower levels to avoid conflict with LHR routes. That would explain the noise you heard, or lack of it. LHR has the same issues. If you ever depart west, then do a 180 degree turn to head east, the DOVER SID, you will invariably be held at 5,000 feet for around 15-20 miles to avoid conflict with LHR inbounds via the OCK and BIG stacks. It's not efficient, costly to airlines, and noisy too. It's why the airspace changes are needed.

Chrisgr31

13,440 posts

254 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
LHRFlightman said:
The new routes, of which the closest to Camberley and Yateley is DOKEN, route aircraft inside of both localities.

Heathrow is testing new, precision based navigation techniques ( which has been mandated by Europe ) that, amongst other things, could allow the concept of respite for local communities affected by aircraft noise. Currently aircraft fly on Noise Preferential Routes, to an altitude of 4,000 amsl at which point ATC vector them to their onward destination. This means that aircraft can be seen to overfly a large area, but infrequently. You never know when one will appear. Respite would concentrate aircraft in narrower corridors, but the communities under those corridors would get days when they had no overflight at all.

As I said its a trial, testing new concepts, and we'll see where it leads.

If anyone is interested, have a look here:

http://www.heathrowairport.com/noise/airspace-mode...

and here;

http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/Heathrow_Noi...

and here:

http://webtrak5.bksv.com/lhr4


Edited by LHRFlightman on Tuesday 2nd September 21:04


Edited by LHRFlightman on Tuesday 2nd September 21:04
Hasn't Gatwick been testing this recently leading to a huge surge in complaints about noise? Must admit I really don't understand it all because there have been a number of letters tweets etc from peiple that live in the same place I do complaining about the increase in aircraft noise. Well maybe the aircraft dont fly when I am at home as I never really notice them.

LHRFlightman

1,929 posts

169 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
Chrisgr31 said:
Hasn't Gatwick been testing this recently leading to a huge surge in complaints about noise? Must admit I really don't understand it all because there have been a number of letters tweets etc from peiple that live in the same place I do complaining about the increase in aircraft noise. Well maybe the aircraft dont fly when I am at home as I never really notice them.
Correct, LGW is trialling its own precision based routes. I won't talk specifics as it's a Gatwick trial, however one issue LGW has is that being a rural airport any changes to flightpaths, whilst affecting fewer people, or far more noticeable due to the much lower background noise levels. This change took the new route over a small village and the reaction wasn't favourable. I think Boris Johnson's mother lives in the village and I'd imagine she has friends in high places.

The whole community reaction to aircraft noise is something I could prattle on about for ages. It is very subjective however. Two people,living next door to each other can have diametrically opposed views to it.

Some quick anecdotes.

People complaining that the trial has made their lives he'll. The response? The trial doesn't start for 6 weeks.

A Richmond resident. I didn't buy a £4m house to be overflown by aircraft. Send them over the council estates.

Someone complaining their late night, naked pagan ritual dancing in the garden was being disrupted by aircraft noise.

Someone complains they were trapped in their tower block as the radar from the aircraft had jammed the lock on the communal door.

A noise complainer being given an hour of an air traffic controllers time to be taught how arrival procedures work, with the emphasis on why Heathrow couldn't operate without the 4 stacks. His first question was, "why can't you get rid of two stacks?"

smash


Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
What does it for me is that all these sad c**ts must have moved there, heathrow has been there for over 100 years, its hardly a new thing.

hidetheelephants

23,772 posts

192 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Boris Island as proposed has aircraft approaching up the Thames, not overflying anything except water, mud and stehawks; as options go, this is about as low impact as it gets.

The Don of Croy

5,976 posts

158 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
LHRFlightman said:
The whole community reaction to aircraft noise is something I could prattle on about for ages. It is very subjective however. Two people,living next door to each other can have diametrically opposed views to it.
It's the current flavour of the month under the LGW flightpath - where I live. But, having lived under various flightpaths for more than 40 years, it's not really much worse...but that's subjectivity for you.

What is 'new' is the organisational ability of locals, and the ready market for non-news from the local TV/radio/rag giving any such controversial matter maximum airplay. Luckily our local TV was able to broadcast live from LGW last night with the breaking news that the decision will be announced...in nine months' time. Phew.

As far as the Heathrow plan goes, does anyone else think that moving the M25 might be vexatious?

onyx39

11,109 posts

149 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
Scuffers said:
What does it for me is that all these sad c**ts must have moved there, heathrow has been there for over 100 years, its hardly a new thing.
Not technically correct... I think you'll find that Heathrow opened in the late 40's !

wink

The "Nimby's" that are moaning are the people who have not previously been overflown (approx. 15 miles from LHR) but are being overflown now.

jogon

2,971 posts

157 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
Thankyou4calling said:
Why is it that this country makes such a song and dance about things.

If a new road, rail line,hospital or bridge is proposed we go quite literally through years of consultation, proposals, loans, apoeals on and on and on.

It's daft to propose building an entirely new airport, it wastes time and distracts, we can't even widen a motorway without making allowances for an endangered species of frog of building a bridge so a couple of badgers can cross ( I'm sure others can put this better)

There's a massive international airport at Heathrow, that's where people want to go. If the Prime a Minister took the bull by the horns and said the country needs to develop it with a third maybe even a fourth runway, new roads too it as well it could be done.

It wouldn't cost a lot in the big scheme either.

But it won't happen as there are just simply too many hoops to jump through, too many committees, rules and regs which other country's just don't have.

Here, we work against this type of thing.

There have been proposals to expand capacity at Heathrow for way over 20 years and we just talk and talk and don't just tear up the rule book and get stuck in.
So for the sake of some birds and sparsely populated countryside we should triple the amount of aircraft flying over millions of residents of central and SW London.

This was August 2012, could you imagine what it will be like with 2 extra runways with flights going none stop from 4.30am till 11pm, like they do already.



Fittster

20,120 posts

212 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
jogon said:
So for the sake of some birds and sparsely populated countryside we should triple the amount of aircraft flying over millions of residents of central and SW London.
I was under the impression that birds and jet engines don't get on.

LHRFlightman

1,929 posts

169 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
Looks to be quite a large area there that isn't overflown to me? And what are the heights of those aircraft flying at? A modern jet at 4,000 ft and descending isn't going to be that noticeable above the general hullabaloo of good old London Town!