Proposed changes to Glasgow Airport flight paths

[toddler]

I have just learned that Glasgow airport are consulting on proposed new departure routes which will send all aircraft departing runway 05 between 23:00 and 06:00 directly over my house at a height of about 5000ft. My house is the orange dot in the picture below.

Old and new by tuglet1969, on Flickr

Changes are being driven by improvements in navigation technology which means that these aircraft will in future stick very closely to the flight path, unlike now, where they are spread over quite a wide swathe.

NTK by tuglet1969, on Flickr

So rather that the odd one coming directly overhead, they will all come directly overhead at about 5000ft. At the moment most flights are at a distance/height that is not particularly intrusive. I can hear them clearly if I’m lying awake at night, but only a few are loud enough to actually wake me.

I only moved 5 months ago and had I known this was being proposed I would have looked elsewhere or delayed buying until the consultation was over and a decision made. What is the most effective way to have my objections heard? Glasgow Airport have an online form so punters like me can show support or raise an objection which I will fill in and submit. What else can I do that won’t be a complete waste of time?

Edited by toddler on Monday 29th January 10:53

[Mabbs9]

As someone flying over your head, the variation in paths is due to ATC sending the departures along a different path. Not navigation errors, on the whole. I know of nothing that will significantly increase nav accuracy in the near future. It's already very good.

Runway 05 isn't commonly in use and the horizontal difference in path, even if overhead, will be small and not likely to affect the noise footprint. The aircraft will often be in a turn at this point too.

I suspect a small impact if any to you, so I just wanted to reassure you.

Atvb

Mabbs

And apologies for not actually answering your question.

[toddler]

Mabbs9 said:

As someone flying over your head, the variation in paths is due to ATC sending the departures along a different path. Not navigation errors, on the whole. I know of nothing that will significantly increase nav accuracy in the near future. It's already very good.

Runway 05 isn't commonly in use and the horizontal difference in path, even if overhead, will be small and not likely to affect the noise footprint. The aircraft will often be in a turn at this point too.

I suspect a small impact if any to you, so I just wanted to reassure you.

Atvb

Mabbs

And apologies for not actually answering your question.

Hi Mabbs

Thanks for the quick reply, and thanks for the reassurance. I pray you're right.

I agree Runway 05 isn't commonly in use. The consultation document says: "Owing to the prevailing winds affecting the region, Runway 05 is only in use around 22% of the time for departures (and arrivals)."

Regarding nav accuracy, the consultation document says:

"The conventional array has developed over time and is overly complex. It will be impossible to fly them by conventional means once the VOR has been withdrawn. Furthermore, the SIDs no longer meet the needs of many of our airline customers and, as a result, they are not being fully flown with aircraft turning earlier upon satisfying the Noise Abatement Procedures. ATC can re-route aircraft tactically onto more expeditious routings against other traffic within the airspace. The swathes that resulted from a combination of the limitations of conventional navigation technology and the lack of track adherence (brought about by ATC instructions) are clearly shown by the NTK plots in Figure 1 below affecting a very large part of the region."

That sounds like a mix of ATC instructions and "limitations of conventional navigation technology"?

The consultation document also says:

"As the proposed procedures are designed to RNAV-1 standard, with optimum routing in mind, the expected track adherence is expected to be very close to that depicted. Even once the proposed NAP of passing 4,000 feet has been satisfied, there should be little need to deviate from the tracks as shown."

and

"All the proposed SIDs will utilise a higher navigational standard. RNAV-1 criteria require aircraft to be within 1NM of where they should be 95% of the time. Navigational accuracy of RNAV-1 has proved to be far more accurate than the allowable tolerance and track adherence is therefore expected to be much tighter."

and

"It is widely acknowledged, and supported in DfT guidance, that the application of PBN principles to terminal airspace operations, including the introduction of RNAV SID procedures, will serve to enhance aircraft navigational accuracy, meaning that aircraft will be more concentrated towards the centreline of published procedures. This means that noise impacts will be spread over a smaller area and fewer people will be exposed to aircraft noise than has historically been the case. The unintended result is that those affected by aviation noise (albeit fewer) may well be affected on a more regular basis."

That sounds like I may well be affected on a more regular basis, or am I reading it wrong?

Edited by toddler on Friday 26th January 12:44

[toddler]

Mabbs9 said:

I suspect a small impact if any to you, so I just wanted to reassure you.

This Difference Contour map seems to agree with you if I'm reading it right. My house (orange dot) is outwith the coloured area. Does that mean there will be no change?

"Difference Contours are designed to depict how an airspace change redistributes noise burdens. These contours show the relative increase or decrease in noise exposure, typically in LAeq, on a base scenario, which is normally chosen to be the current situation. The increases decreases are shown in a graduated colour coded heat map, red showing a relative increase and blue showing a relative decrease in the noise."

Diffcont by tuglet1969, on Flickr

Edited by toddler on Friday 26th January 12:41

Edited by toddler on Friday 26th January 13:01

Edited by toddler on Monday 29th January 10:54