We hate to say it but: We told you so. Near Collisons Over London

Above: sequence of events leading, and to avoiding the near collision as illustrated in the Daily Mail.

Since the very start of this campaign, and of suddenly finding out that London City Airport wanted to expand to bigger jets, and more flights on one of the shortest runways, and in the most densely populated area in the country, we've been worried. Worried about a lot of things: pollution and the impact on health,well being and the environment, and of course safety. Why allow an airport to expand when at the most basic it's crash zone is going to cover hundreds, if not a thousand residents in the borough of Greenwich, let alone all the other worrying issues around safety?

Over the past few years we've seen increasing amounts of residents expressing fears of what they see in the skies above them: aircraft too near to one another. Some report it to the airport/CAA too: but the aviation industry always has an answer, usually one's we've heard hundreds of times before but simply can't be proved or disproved. But of course, as it's the big world of aviationistas with money to burn on expensive public relations firms,well and truly helped along by all those tax breaks (welfare benefits in our view) and VAT free fuel - then the non aviationista resident is soon shot down with the formula responses:

"the two jets crossing one another, it's an optical illusion"

"it was an air proximity report, it wasn't a near miss"

"it was not a near collision, it was a near miss"

"there have been no flight path changes at all, but the Standard Instrument Departures have shifted to the north"

"there's no opposition to the expansion of LCY" (Ok, that one is not relating to safety, however it was a statement made by the airport around the time the legal challenge was launched against Newham Council and we'll throw it in for the sake of it).

Wake up aviation industry, government departments and quangos: there are more residents than possibly ever before in history that understand more about operations, and know when you are trying to pull the wool over their eyes. We've even see MPs/elected officials subjected to this ridiculous wool pulling from DfT, National Air Traffic Systems etc. Residents are not stupid, and never have been, and neither are our politicians: the aviation industry was simply always given the upper hand and was party to more information than we ever had access to. No longer. Residents are more educated, knowledgeable and informed than ever before on the industry and operations thanks to campaign groups such as HACAN, umbrella group Airportwatch and NGOs Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the Aviation Environment Federation along with the Freedom of Information and Environmental Regulation Act. Hooray for at least some people power in this democracy.

If you approach the Civil Aviation Authority on safety concerns, (who wholeheartedly get behind the aviation industry regardless with full blinkers on, no matter what, and continue to approve larger and larger jets to operate out of LCY): well they'll call/write to the airport that you have concerns about, have a chat, ask the environmental officer at the airport to write a response and......say everything is fine! We'd be shocked to hear anything different now.

Strangely, a resident raised safety concerns about how London City Airport air traffic control were allowing jets to take off and land in the most appalling storm conditions a couple of years ago. Readers have to consider the situation of LCY's tiny runway to understand the full concern. The same jets sometimes took 3 attempts to land at the site, attempting landings from different directions and perilously aborting landings when around a 100ft or so above the runway. Some were struggling to reach a height above the conifers planted on the Royal Albert Basin at the end of the runway east bound. It must have been a scary experience for those drivers on the Sir Steve Redgrave, and Connaught bridge that day, perhaps also Canary Wharf. It was scarier still for residents watching from a living room window, thinking the unthinkable, and reminding themselves that the public safety zone is not also called also called a crash zone without good reason. Most 'incidents' - crashes to you and us (see what we mean about the language that the aviation industry use), are in the take off and landing stages.

Interestingly, and thankfully, those few weeks of terrifying activities to onlookers that year, haven't been witnessed to the same degree since. They were of course never discussed either, but who takes the concerns of residents seriously in the world of aviaiton? However concerns over the flights in the sky have increased, and this can be witnessed in the complaints being made. But despite the aviation spin on safety, near misses (or air proximity reports) are no strangers to London City Airport activities. The Wanstead and Woodford Guardian excellently highlighted the issue (and for which they famously received some bullying phonecalls from the London City Airport PR person over, to which the Editor firmly responded to with an editors comment the following week, with residents letters of support) gives a good overview of this, and we ourselves covered the amount of air proximity reports here and here.

We dare say that since the date that the blog was written, it's likely that there's more incidents to add. We certainly know we can add the Heathrow 777 and London City Airport Citation Jet July 2009 near collision, investigated by the Air Acidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) here, here and here in national headlines. You know that things are bad when even the AAIB comments: "the consequences of a midair collision in this part of the London TMA would be particularly serious because of the population density below". Not much comfort when it states that private jets are not required to be fitted with "crash‑protected recorders or flight data monitoring recorders". "Neither TCAS unit fitted to the aircraft involved had capability to record event data".

Predictably the Citation was not fitted with the equipment (and there's no confirmation at all that all the business jets are now either).Why do something unless your forced to is clearly the motto. Fortunately Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP has picked up on the issue and in her bulletin states:

"Then yesterday a report was issued about a very alarming potential for disaster over London City airport. A near-miss happened between a business jet leaving LCA and a commercial flight coming in to land at Heathrow, see here:

“The incident on 27 July last year highlighted the potential for human error to cause disaster above the heavily populated area between Hackney and Stratford where planes leaving London City airport routinely cross the flight path of incoming Heathrow-bound aircraft.”

One recommendation by air safety watchdogs is that all planes operating in this zone should be equipped with a collision-avoidance piece of equipment known as a TCAS II, which the business jet did not, and I intend to take this up with ministers.

Has anyone considered how many private jets fly out of LCY each year? It's not mentioned at all, probably because they were never recorded, but a free for all until last summer. Free for everything it seems, including the tax breaks. But be warned, the AAIB states, they investigate incidents, they don't report to apportion blame, but to make recommendations. Of more concern is that we couldn't find that anything stating that they perhaps investigated so that could identify who was responsible. But we realise that corporate responsiblity is regarded as dirty term. Some residents have asked why it took a year to carry out the investigation, quite. That this incident was AFTER the Standard Instrument Departure flight path changes signed off by the CAA in May 2009, reason given: safety and for jets, the whole incident appears to be a complete shambles and the changes appear to have seen one of the closest near collisions at LCY in the past few years to our knowledge.

It's just a shame that a lot of the media missed the real issues: there's simply too many aircraft over London, and how the 50% expansion of London City Airport flights aren't without cost and impact to Heathrow flights, queuing up for Heathrow from the east and the 13+ flight paths that cross over some areas of London, that there's a school less than 200 yards from the runway, homes alongside that school....and oh dear it just gets worse the larger the area you look at. NATS had already commented some time ago, that if all the expansions planned in South East airport masterplans were implemented then there wouldn't be enough airspace.

It seems that's the case already, and allegedly other factors such as saving money might be influencing some decisions and even the Pilots are now calling for an urgent change in regard to the London City Airport near collision, Coalition Duckhouse quotes British Airline Pilots' Association (BALPA) Captain Martin Alder: We don't have appropriate "failsafe" co-ordination at the moment for the unique aspects of this operation. It could best be achieved by redrawing the London City airport departures or alternatively not permitting London City to act independently.'

Julian Bray, an aviation expert commented: "Air safety is not a cash or financial issue, airlines and airport operators go into this business knowing that safety of both staff and passengers cannot under any cicumstances be compromised and that all costs to supply a level of safety are part of operational cost budgets and not subject to savings or culling."

London City Airport were predictably quiet on the negatives of operations and near collisions from it's residential hub:

London City Airport's Statement on the AAIB Report
Date: 09/09/2010 "Following the publication of the AAIB’s report into the incident at London TMA (terminal control area) on 27 July 2009 London City Airport has thoroughly reviewed the report issued by the AAIB. Following advice from NATS and the CAA procedural changes have been made which comply with the AAIB's safety recommendations."

So that's alright then. It's just a shame that sentiment isn't echoed elsewhere beyond the LCY Public Relations machine!

On the same day that the near collision report was released, comments were also released from David Miliband (really, the timing could not have been better/or worse depending upon which side you sit on expansion) asserting that a 3rd runway at Heathrow should go ahead. So where to fit the aircraft in then David, and what about the 1000s of Londoners who are dying prematurely from air pollution, which airports add to in aviation and road traffic pollution ten fold? What about the fact that there's only 1000ft between Heathrow and LCY flights, sometimes dangerously less. We hope you are prepared to take the consequences of your blinkered view of safety over London by supporting more flights in what is already the most complex, and busy flight path area in the world.

We don't need more flights, we need the flights we already have to be operated safely and more efficiently before the unthinkable happens. LCY cannot expand without an accumulative effect not only on pollution (air and noise) but also on flight paths with Heathrow and also the other various flights that overfly London and the south east.

BREAKING NEWS: Boris Johnson appears to have committed at Mayor's Question Time to be reconsidering his position on supporting the 50% expansion at London City Airport in light of the near collision last year. More to follow.

Are NATS Misleading Boris Over London City Airport Flight Path Changes?

Months ago, the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson was asked by FTF to pledge his support for a public review into the flight path changes which the CAA and NATS had already implemented, but which the CAA are carrying out a 'private review' of. The Mayor did indeed pledge his support for a public review.

We asked Boris to ensure that this private review would be a public review. Boris replied on 14 May, however the response indicates that he may have been misled or perhaps there has simply been an misunderstanding regarding the situation with the CAA's 'private review'.

The Mayor responded:

National Air Traffic Services (NATS) announced in October 2009 that it will be undertaking a new consultation, on behalf of the CAA, on revised proposals for aircraft routes and airspace management in the area of South East England, referred to as Terminal Control North. This follows the consultation undertaken in 2008.

My officers have spoken to the stakeholder relations team at NATS. However, at this stage I have no further information regarding the scope of the proposals, as NATS does not expect the consultation to start before September at the earliest, due to the need to undertake further analysis.  NATS will be consulting the local authorities affected by the proposals, and I have given a commitment that I will work with the London Boroughs and the London Assembly to ensure that these proposals are widely and robustly considered. I will also work with NATS to ensure that these proposals are more widely publicised.

Well that all sounds great. However the key point that we asked the Mayor to ensure was that the CURRENT private review which the CAA are already carrying out on the London City Airport flight path changes was made public. This point has failed to be addressed and instead it appears that NATS may have misled the Mayor by indicating that a re-consultation is going to happen in September.  So now the Mayor believes that NATS are going to reconsult on the LCY flight path changes which were implemented in 2009. 

They are not and FTF have been told this by the Director of Airspace Policy at the CAA. So why has NATS misinformed the Mayor in this way?.

NATS are indeed to re-consult on the other flight paths from airports in the South East which were included in the original TCN document, as we have written before, but not the LCA flight path which was implemented last year, and which has caused no end of disturbance and upset to thousands of East London households.

So despite Boris's pledge, we haven't seen any evidence in the response to confirm that the CAA have been asked to carry out a public review rather than a private one, and we now also see the Mayor being misled into believing that the very flight path which has been so controversial is to be reconsulted upon - when it is not. 

Why not contact the Mayor and ask him to fulfil the pledge he made to a packed Ilford auditorium at the Mayor's Environmental Question Time? You can email him: mayor@london.gov.uk

Confident About Ash. Just like the Tobacco Industry

So the big bullies (BA) threw a few jets out of the pram last night.  Lord Adonis, CAA and NATS appear to have buckled - though it's hardly surprising with the relationship which government has with aviation in this country.  The CAA's overstatement that they are 'independent' smacked of an overcompensation to encourage the public to believe they really are.

In what appears to have been a cornering of the 'experts' who had imposed the flight ban over the UK for safety reasons, the big aviation bullies otherwise known as 'profit before people' appear to have forced them to change their minds and forget about how volcanic dust and airplanes just don't go together. It is felt that the risks that are being passed to technology and the government, and of course no doubt the taxpayer are quite astounding.

The denial by the airline operators and their organisations that volcanic dust isn't really anything big at all made it interesting to read in Business Week alongside the recommendation by the aircraft makers that "The two big engine makers, General Electric Co. and Pratt & Whitney, said Tuesday they were advising airlines to avoid volcanic ash, and to inspect engines that may have encountered it accidentally."

But fear not airline companies: those whom subscribe to the Association of European Airlines will be overjoyed to hear that David Henderson, like much of the aviation industry tends to do, has cherry picked his stand point on this one: "David Henderson, spokesman for the Association of European Airlines. He said airlines did not expect that they would have to increase the tempo of regular engine checks".

"As far as airlines are concerned, they are confident that their established, regular maintenance inspections are perfectly adequate to detect the effects of ash," Henderson said.  

It's strange, from our experience aviation is very happy to quote the airline makers evidence and recommendations on other issues to get what they want: but Mr Henderson has clearly rejected something which might cost more money, even if it did make crew, passengers and those of us on the ground more confident about flights operating near/in volcanic dust.

However it appears that the confidence that Mr Henderson has in 'business as usual' in an exceptional environment is not shared by all in the aviation industry. As reported by Reuters:

Airlines say some 40 test flights over the weekend showed little risk, but experts say the dispersal of the ash appears to be far from uniform. That means patches of relatively dense ash may be scattered all over Europe, with potentially disastrous consequences.

"Since forward-looking weather radar and other sensor systems aboard modern aircraft cannot see this stuff, the very real possibility exists that a passenger jet could fly into one of these high concentration pockets and suffer serious damage," said aviation consultant Chris Yates.

The ICAO regulation that has prompted this widespread grounding is from experience gained from over 80 incidents between 1980 and 2000 and computer modelling (or) best guestimate," said aviation consultant Chris Yates. "The airline industry will know this very well and are clearly making the argument that we are being over cautious."

"Once the existence (of the) cloud was known, just one incident of major engine failure, let alone an accident caused by the ash, would have left the airlines and aviation regulators with a heavy responsibility as well as a legacy of distrust amongst the public, possibly for years to come," said Nick Pidgeon, professor of psychology at Cardiff University.

"Under such circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the cautionary approach to risk has been adopted." 

We wonder what Nick Pidgeon now thinks of the lifting of the 'cautionary approach to risk'?

You may also wish to read more about why airlines have resisted setting safe dust levels in the past in an article in todays The Guardian.  Money rules.

The CAA: Who's In Charge Of the Flight Paths? An Unelected Decision Maker and The Aviation Industry

Almost 2 years ago, National Air Traffic Systems (NATS) released consultation documents on proposed changes for Terminal Control North - the London and South East region. We are led to belive it was the biggest consultation of its kind in the history of flight path proposals.

The proposals for London City Airport had been submitted to 'accommodate jet aircraft that use the airport today' (quote taken from a NATS letter to MP's 2009).

The consultation document was placed in some libraries, and was advertised via the NATS website. We have also since been told it was available on disk. But unless you visited a library (not too many people do these days) or have a pc (not too many people do in the poorest parts of the country such as Newham) then it seems unlikely you would have found out about the flight path changes that were being consulted upon. The campaign community were of course aware, and did their best to alert residents to changes which may effect them.

After the deadline passed for comments, NATS wrote to those who had responded, advising them that the whole consultation was going to be carried out again due to the feedback they had received. Great. Only that wasn't the whole truth.

Last June residents complaints went as sky high as the flight paths themselves. Residents who perhaps had only had a handful of planes fly overhead and hardly noticed them had suddenly found themselves being disturbed by a fairly constant stream of planes from LCY or at the least concentrated batches of planes at certain times of the day. Nobody knew what had happened. After all NATs had written and advised FTF that the consultation for changes to the flight paths was to be re-run in late 2010.

Residents were being told by the Department of Transport(DfT) (see the document on our website named DfT Response to Resident or email us) and London City Airport(LCY) that there had been no 'route changes' from London City Airport in its 20 odd years of running. Other residents were told by LCY that the Standard Instrument Departures (SIDs) had indeed changed.

The first image beneath shows the original flight path and density of flights. The second image is the density of flights after the flight path changes, red indicating 80 or more flights a day. This is as far as we understand the current situation of the westerly departure flight path over East London.

Then finally the full truth was revealed in a response from the CAA to a local resident, which confirmed that the SIDs (aka flight paths/routes, whatever you want to call them, they are all simply a flight path to those who live beneath them) had indeed changed. The City Airport proposals that had been submitted in the NATS document had indeed been implemented, despite NATS telling respondents that they were to be consulted upon again. The proposals which did not relate to City Airport were not implemented. There will be another consultation for them, probably later this year.

Additionally, upon further inspection of the CAA/NATS stakeholder letters sent out to stakeholders inviting them to comment, it was felt that the impact on areas such as Waltham Forest and Redbridge were underplayed. It was not made clear that the flight path would be moving further north, away from the borough of Newham and just how this would affect the communities beneath the moved flight paths in Waltham Forest and Redbridge.

FTF submitted a formal complaint to the CAA in late 2009 regarding the manner in which the flight path changes had been implemented, and the apparent misinformation given by NATS in the consultation process. The CAA responded helpfully to the complaint, and FTF were invited to a meeting at the CAA to discuss the issues and processes. The meeting explained the processes well - however it was unable to resolve why residents were misinformed by NATS, nor why residents did not know that the LCY flight paths would not be consulted upon again.

The CAA were not able to answer why even those who had responded to the consultation had not been told that the flight paths had been implemented until after the fact. One interesting point the CAA made was that the LCY flight path changes had been in the pipeline for 5 years, so these proposals should have been widely known, you would have thought.

The CAA have continued to point towards their press release on the issue of the flight paths being implemented in May 2009. Unfortunately we have been unable to find one paper that ran with their press release, nor any resident, nor campaign group that was aware of the press release until a local resident in Wanstead was given the link in a written response from the CAA.

The CAA have also continued to justify, what FTF felt, were changes made through the back door, as being essential to safety. What is also unclear is if all the changes made were had actually been consulted upon. A letter from the CAA to a resident stated that some of the changes were not consulted upon in the original NATS TCN consultation at all. So where does that leave the CAA who quote in their own press release:

"A change to the use or classification of airspace in the UK can take many forms but can only be made after consultation and where it is clear that airspace management considerations and the overriding need for safety allow for no practical alternative or where an overall environmental benefit will accrue". (CAA press release 29 April 2009)

The CAA, to their own admission, appear to say that NATS did not consult on all of the changes implemented. There is indication of this in the NATs letter to Stakeholders dated 8 January 2009 which refers to clear differences between that which was in the TCN document, and that which was to be implemented.

There are many more angles to this story, but the most illustrating one is how the changes were implemented with few people being aware until the noise from the flights became a problem. MPs and councils were not even aware.

So how is it that NATs get away with carrying out a consultation which essentially misinformed residents over LCY changes, and that the CAA went ahead and implemented the flight changes without even elected officials being aware?

It indicates that there is room for improvement in the process of consultation and communication between the CAA and NATS, no matter how good their intentions may have been in the initial processes of consultation. The DfT also appear to need to focus on the accuracy and clarity of it's responses to residents.

At the meeting we attended, the CAA showed a radar map of the current new flight path against the old flight path (see before and after maps above). The flight paths have moved around a mile north, and have got wider. Homes which were affected by less than 5 flights a day now find themselves in the middle of the flight path, suffering from however many flights a day LCY are operating on any particular day. The CAA unfortunately feel that the change is minimal, and stated that the areas had always been flown over. Well if you were not under a busy flight path before and you now are, there is nothing minimal about this change at all.

The density map was kindly provided to FTF by the CAA and it illustrates the change well. Sadly the CAA felt that people were only complaining because they had been told about the changes, and because others were complaining. It was quite astounding to think that the CAA were in such denial or perhaps were unable to grasp the effect and impact of their decisions on the ground.

An enlightening response to a question was later given by the CAA which may indicate who is driving these flight path changes: they were asked if the flight path shown on the radar map would need to be changed again. We were told only if the airport or airline companies request for it to be so. So who exactly is driving this unelected decision making outfit? The private businesses of aviation it seems.

Such responses indicate that issues of accountability need to be addressed. It seems quite unacceptable that an unelected quango, is allowing private businesses to drive the outfit in the direction they wish, without any elected officials involvement at all. Of course we know this will be vehemently denied, but it is clear that elected politicians are not included in this process at all, and it should be they who make such impactful decisions, not the CAA.

The CAA are now reviewing the flight path changes from LCY and Mayor, Boris Johnson said he supported a public review when he responded to an FTF request at the Ilford Climate Question Time. We await to hear more on his progress to ensure that the CAA don't carry out a private technical review, and it is indeed open to the public, and that the radar maps of before and after are openly shared, and transparency of the CAA is put into action. Even so, we would encourage you, whether you are a resident or elected official to submit comments to the CAA regarding the flight path changes as soon as possible.

Overall the CAA have been helpful, pleasant and have answered most of our questions, however in so far as offering a satisfactory resolution this has not been possible. There are simply too many pieces of the jigsaw missing, and a complete lack of accountability.

London City Airport Complaints Rise by 2,650%

In a freedom of information request to Newham Council it has been revealed that complaints made directly to them about noise from London City Airport have risen by a massive 2,650% over a period of 5 years.

Whilst Newham Council and London City Airport have gone to great pains to justify expansion, they have often claimed that complaint levels were low, alledgedly suggesting that there had not been any real increase in complaint levels over the years.

Even more shockingly, this massive increase only represents those complaints made directly to Newham Council. It does NOT include complaints made directly to London City Airport, National Air Traffic Systems, MPs, Councillors, the Civil Aviation Authority or any other London Borough such as Redbridge, Greenwich, Tower Hamlets, Barking & Dagenham, Bexley and Waltham Forest to name a few affected. We can therefore assume that this figure is just the tip of the iceberg.

To our knowledge these figures have never been made public before and indicate the increasing negative effect, and rise in complaints due to a continued increase in flights, and the use of jets at London City Airport. If we compare the increase to the percentage increase in the use of larger, noisier jets at London City Airport, there is a clear correlation.

Air Transport Movements – % of Jets Used at London City Airport - Provided by the Civil Aviation Authority:

2004 - 28%

2005 - 36%

2006 - 37%

2007 - 50%

2008 - 58%

2009 - [without data]

In 2004 there were just 28% of jets at the airport. By 2007 when the jets made up 50% of flights out of London City Airport complaints more than doubled in one year. With the last percentage of jets being stated at 58% by the CAA in 2008, and complaints having increased by over 2000% since, then it is clear evidence that the activities of London City Airport are disturbing and affecting the quality of life for more and more east and south east Londoners than ever before. What is more this snapshot of complaints from just one source shows that residents complaints have been growing incredibly fast, and have clearly been ignored and played down by Newham Council in discussions over London City Airport expansion.

FTF will be carrying out further research on the amount of complaints which are being received regarding London City Airport and we will report back with updates.

London City Airport - Hansard Adjournment Debate Houses of Parliament

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm091215/debtext/91215-0026.htm#column_939

London City Airport

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Mark Tami.)
11.41 pm

James Brokenshire (Hornchurch) (Con): I am grateful for the opportunity, even at this late hour tonight, to highlight my concerns and those of my constituents about the impact of flight noise, and the increase in the number of flights, from London City airport. It is also a pleasure to debate again with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark), on a transport-related matter and I look forward to hearing his response in due course.
In the past 10 years, the number of air transport movements at London City airport has doubled, from just under 21,000 aircraft departures in 1999 to some 42,000 departures in 2008. We are about to see a further significant shift in the use of the airport. The London borough of Newham has now granted the airport permission to increase the number of flight movements by 50 per cent. The flights permission would increase from 80,000 to 120,000 movements a year. London City airport forecasts that it will handle up to 3.9 million passengers by 2010, and there are long-term plans to accommodate up to 8 million passengers by 2030. That potentially significant change in the scale and nature of the operations at the airport has gone largely unnoticed by many people.

This is not simply about the number of landings and departures; it is also about the flight paths that the aircraft will take. Last year, NATS consulted on wide-ranging proposals for the busy airspace above the south-east of England known as terminal control north. The plans covered all London airports, with modifications to landing and departure routings and holding points. In the case of London City airport, one of the proposed changes was to alter the northerly departure routing. Instead of aircraft taking a sharp northerly turn almost immediately after take-off and, thus, over Woodford and Chingford, they were instead intended to take a flight path to the north-east over my constituency in Hornchurch.

In September 2008, I received a letter from the head of external communications at NATS stating that there would be a longer time period for consideration of the consultation, as further options were being considered, including in respect of London City departures over north London. It stated that "work is ongoing and further design options and suggestions are being evaluated",
adding that"we have not set a timetable for the next steps on the TCN proposal."

In response to a further inquiry from me about the nature of the revised options being considered for London City, I received a letter on 2 December 2008 stating that a number of options for the wider terminal control north area were being considered and that "there may well be a requirement for further consultation on any proposals that are brought forward, should they be significantly different to those on which we have already consulted."

It was therefore with some shock and surprise that I discovered several months after the event that on 8 January this year NATS submitted a formal airspace change [Column 940 Next section]proposal to the Civil Aviation Authority to alter the London City airport standard instrument departure routes, including the change to route more aircraft over my constituency. Ian Hall, the director of operations for NATS, was quoted in the accompanying press release as saying:

"These changes to the turn were proposed in the TCN consultation and are necessary to formalise the departure procedures for all aircraft using London City and will be an added safety benefit. It is a change we can achieve quickly and the CAA is keen that we do so."

I was subsequently informed in a letter from NATS that the CAA required it to expedite an airspace change proposal and that is self-evident when one reads the CAA decision letter of 20 February 2009. The letter stated that the changes were deemed by the CAA to be necessary to accommodate an increase in category C aircraft using the airport rather than following the STOLport configuration-or short take-off and landing airport configuration-that had originally been envisaged. In his decision letter, the then director of airspace policy at the CAA, John Arscott, stated that:

"As part of the TC North development briefings, my head of Controlled Airspace advised NATS that a re-design of conventional LCY SIDs"-that is, London City standards instrument departures-"to meet CAT C design criteria was required at the earliest opportunity and it was subsequently agreed that these re-designed SIDs should be incorporated within the TC North development project."

He went on to say:
"Following on from the TC North consultation, with the ongoing NATS evaluation of the TC North consultation feedback and a potential lengthy delay to eventual implementation, I decided that the LCY SID changes to bring conventional procedures up to CAT C design criteria could not be delayed any further; therefore, NATS was requested to submit a change proposal to bring the SID designs up to CAA and ICAO CAT C design requirements at the earliest opportunity."

It is interesting to note that that was virtually the last decision Mr. Arscott took as his term of office came to an end a week later on 1 March 2009.

So, in essence the terminal control north consultation as far as London City was concerned was potentially meaningless-one could say that it was a sham. The CAA had predetermined that change was necessary. I find that unacceptable and believe that I-along with my constituents-was given a completely false impression when the TCN consultation was initiated. The changes were brought into effect in May and are already starting to have an impact.

Both easterly and westerly departures from London City airport to the north that previously took a sharp turn following take-off are now being directed over my constituency following a similar track to the initial route adopted for north-easterly and southerly departures from the airport. Based on the 2009 usage rates published in the original TCN consultation, that will in future result in a near 50 per cent. increase in the number of departing aircraft overhead in my constituency from London City airport.

Although the CAA might have requirements to bring London City operations into compliance with CAA and International Civil Aviation Organisation design criteria for category C departures, that does not mean that my constituents should be forced to bear the brunt of the noise and environmental impact. Aircraft will be [15 Dec 2009 : Column 941]passing overhead at between 2,000 and 3,000 feet with a typical noise level of 57 to 72 dB and potentially up to 77 dB for BAE 146 or RJ aircraft. The CAA decision letter accepts that residents will experience additional aircraft noise. Having read that letter, I am left with the impression that the TCN proposals, so far as they affected London City, were a done deal, and that the consultation undertaken was effectively meaningless.

This comes on top of the Newham council decision to approve an increase in the number of flight movements at London City by 50 per cent.-from 80,000 movements to 120,000. The combined impact of the changes to the London City departure routings and the proposed increase in flights would, in essence, lead to a doubling of the number of departing aircraft over my Hornchurch constituency. That will have a noticeable and significant impact on environmental amenity for my constituents. The double-whammy effect was never communicated or consulted on; again, I find that utterly unacceptable.

It is not just me, however. Significant questions are now being raised by neighbouring boroughs about the nature of the consultation conducted by the London borough of Newham in relation to approving the increase in flight movements. The London borough of Redbridge passed an uncontested resolution in November condemning the failure to consult it on the expansion of London City airport, and opposing further expansion at the airport or changes to the flight paths or modes of operation at the airport that would result in an increase in aircraft noise suffered by local residents. If my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott) was in the Chamber, he would want to refer to that resolution because he has taken a close interest in the issue. However, it is not just Redbridge. I understand that motions in similar terms have also been approved by the London boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest.

London City airport is consulting on its draft strategic noise action plan. The draft plan will have to be submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport early next year for consideration before formal adoption under the European environmental noise directive. I urge the Secretary of State not to accept the plan unless the significant complaints and concerns that I have raised in the debate have been properly addressed, particularly the significant impact that residents in east and north-east London will suffer due to departing aircraft from London City as a consequence of the flight routing changes. There should be a consideration of changes to routings, when appropriate, and discussions with both the CAA and NATS, when necessary, so that my constituents are not forced to bear the brunt of what I consider to be a fundamentally flawed notification and consultation procedure on two fronts.

Will the Minister make urgent representations to both the CAA and NATS about the nature of their general approach to consultation? The case raises serious and significant issues, and if their approach is simply to go through the motions by carrying out consultation on a done deal, that is utterly acceptable.

I also urge the Minister to instruct NATS and the CAA to go back to the drawing board, reassess the departure routings from London City, and come back with revised proposals as part of the next round of consultation under the TCN proposals. It is worth making the point that London City was specifically stripped out of the TCN. All the other proposals are [15 Dec 2009 : Column 942] still subject to further consideration and public consultation. Regardless of what the CAA might say, it is odd that London City was stripped out in such a way when everyone was under the impression that the TCN proposals were still being considered and would be the subject of further consultation.
Given the circumstances of such a significant change and its combined effect with the general increase in flight movements, and the impact that that will have on areas such as Hornchurch, I believe that the regulators have a duty to look again at the damaging proposals that are being fast-tracked through. While there might be arguments for increasing London City's capacity, they need to be balanced against the impact of additional disruption due to noise. I object that my constituents will bear the brunt of the environmental downside without any clear upside, that they are told that they have a voice in a consultation when they are given only a partial picture of the true scale of changes and that, in any event, their views would apparently simply be regarded as irrelevant.

In Hornchurch, we are lucky to have the benefit of significant environmental amenities. We have a significant amount of green space, with a number of large parks and sites of significant scientific interest. Their enjoyment will be adversely affected by these changes.

I would therefore urge the Minister to use his influence to ensure that those agencies with responsibility for the planning of our flight paths look again at the design of the northerly routings from London City airport. They should look again at the serious environmental impact of their decisions, and be held properly accountable for their actions to my constituents and the residents of other affected areas.

11.55 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Paul Clark): At the outset, may I congratulate the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) on securing this debate. I am delighted to face him again and to have a further discussion on transport issues.

Our commitment to sustaining economic growth and protecting the environment is at the very heart of the Department's aviation policy-making process. With specific regard to smaller airports such as London City airport, the Government's 2003 White Paper "The Future of Air Transport" noted that regional and local planning authorities"should take account of the benefits that development at the smaller airports could provide, and consider policies which facilitate the delivery of growth"
and opportunities at these airports.

However, I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will agree that hard decisions have to be taken to strike a balance between tackling the environmental challenges, enabling people to fly and allowing the industry to compete internationally. Tensions will always arise in such matters, of course, but it is about getting the balance right.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues regarding recent changes at London City airport and I am keen to deal with them. I shall begin with Newham council's decision to grant planning permission for London City airport to increase by some 50 per cent. the total number of air traffic transport movements from 80,000 to 120,000 per year, and the impact that that might have on local residents. [15 Dec 2009 : Column 943]

The decision to grant that planning consent was entirely a matter for the London borough of Newham. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who knows the position of his own Front-Bench team when it comes to the decision-making process at a local level, will agree with that. Expansion of the airport is consistent with the Government's view that there is considerable potential for airports like London City to grow, and the airport is well placed to serve a niche business market.

James Brokenshire: It is important for the Minister to understand the Newham council decision, as one concern was whether it consulted properly with all the surrounding councils and all the residents who might be affected by the application. Will he consider that in the context of guidance given to planning authorities with regard to sensitive and significant applications such as this one? People who would have been affected found out about it only very late in the day, with the result that their ability to comment and provide objections was very limited.

Paul Clark: I was just about to come to that issue. A judicial review launched by the campaign group "Fight the Flights" is currently looking into whether there was consultation with the neighbouring boroughs of Redbridge and Waltham Forest, and their residents. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that it would be wrong for me to comment further, other than to say that the guidance as to the routes that should be taken is clear. Obviously, however, the judicial review will make its own decisions, and we wait to see what happens.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of standard instrument departure-SID-routes from the airport, which were introduced in May this year. These changes were brought about in order to bring London City airport's departure profiles up to the international design standards required for the mix of aircraft types that currently operate to and from the airport. Our airport operations have very high safety records, which is due in part to the hard work of all those responsible for maintaining that safety record and following the right profiles.

When the airport was first opened, the departure routings were designed to accommodate short take-off and landing operations. At that time the aircraft being flown from the airport were predominantly turboprops, which operated within certain departure speed categories, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises. Over time the aircraft operating from the airport have changed to more modern jets that require faster departure speeds. Accordingly, the Civil Aviation Authority instructed NATS, the air navigation service provider, to consider changes to the London City SIDs to reflect the International Civil Aviation Organisation's departure design standards for the aircraft types that are operating from the airport.

In practice, the revised SIDs have merely formalised the departure tracks that were already being flown by about 60 per cent. of the airport's traffic. These changes were undertaken independently of the planning decision of Newham council and implemented in accordance with the independent airspace change process. The approval of the Secretary of State was not required in order to implement the changes. Guidance on the airspace change process is readily available on the CAA's website, which I looked at earlier today.

[15 Dec 2009 : Column 944]
It might be helpful if I explain briefly the procedure for making changes to airspace in the UK. Airspace planning and regulation is the responsibility of the independent regulator, the CAA. The process for making changes to airspace is governed by the CAA's airspace change process. A change sponsor, in this case NATS, is responsible for developing and consulting on a proposal for an airspace change, ensuring that it satisfies and/or enhances safety standards, improves capacity and mitigates, as far as is practical, any environmental impacts in line with the Department's environmental guidance to the CAA.

Informed by the consultation, the airspace change sponsor must submit its proposal to the CAA. It is the CAA that then assesses the formal proposal against the regulatory requirements, including environmental objectives, which are clearly a concern to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, and either approves or rejects the proposal. If the CAA considers that a proposal could have a detrimental effect on the environment, it is required to advise the Secretary of State for Transport. It must refrain from making the airspace change without first securing his approval.
Therefore, airspace changes are made only where it is clear, after consultation, that an overall environmental benefit will accrue or where the airspace management considerations and the overriding need for safety allow no practical alternative.

James Brokenshire: I appreciate the Minister's generosity in giving way. As I understand it, he has said that the CAA makes the decision whether there is an environmental aspect that should be referred to the Secretary of State. The CAA appears to be the judge and the decision-maker on that. Is there any route whereby the Secretary of State could call in for consideration a proposed change in routing? It seems strange that the CAA can, in effect, require NATS to implement a change and decide on the environmental aspects itself.

Paul Clark: As I have indicated, the Secretary of State vests that power in the independent regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority, but it has to make those considerations in conjunction with the guidance-particularly on the environmental side-that is laid out in conjunction with the Government's policy.

I shall now turn specifically to the environmental impact of the recent changes to London City airport. I recognise that the levels of aircraft noise and air quality, and the visual impact on the hon. Gentleman's constituents, will of course be of concern. I understand that point, and that is why I said right at the beginning of my remarks that getting the balance right is a judgment that has to be made.

The CAA's guidance on the airspace change process includes substantive guidance on a range of environmental requirements, including noise, air quality, tranquillity and visual intrusion. With regard to noise issues at London City airport, the hon. Gentleman will recall from my answer to his recent parliamentary question that responsibility for monitoring noise levels of aircraft at the airport falls to the airport operator. There are no statutory governmental noise controls like those that apply to Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports. However, under the terms of local monitoring agreements with the London borough of Newham, London City is required to produce annual noise contours.

15 Dec 2009 : Column 945
Given that the airport is in the city centre and in close proximity to residential areas, it imposes stringent noise control measures that are designed to mitigate its local environmental impact. Those measures incorporate strict restrictions on opening hours, including a ban on night flights. In addition, the airport produces annual contours, whereby the noise levels at the airport are monitored by a noise and track-keeping system. Further, London City airport's noise insulation scheme has the lowest trigger of any airport in the UK. In developing an insulation scheme to reflect the local circumstance, the airport, I am encouraged to note, is able to set criteria so that properties within the 57 dBA contour can be considered for insulation. The hon. Gentleman will know that that goes beyond the recommended level of 66 dBA in the air transport White Paper.

In terms of noise, there are future initiatives and two key developments. The first relates to the proposed expansion of the airport. The planning conditions imposed as part of Newham borough council's planning consent requires the airport to develop an improved noise monitoring and mitigation strategy. That is expected to include the replacement of the existing noise and track-keeping system and improvements to the noise insulation schemes.

The second initiative relates to the requirement for the airport to prepare a strategic noise action plan under the European environmental noise directive. Under the terms of that directive, the airport is required to develop a draft action plan in consultation with the local community. The airport is conducting a public consultation on its draft noise action plan, and, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out on his website, the closing date is 15 January. He encourages everyone to participate in it, and that is absolutely commendable.

The consultation process is a valuable opportunity for the airport to work closely with its neighbouring communities in developing control measures that will apply over the next five years. The neighbouring communities are clearly important. Once the airport has completed its consultation and considered the responses, [15 Dec 2009 : Column 946] it will be required to submit the final draft plan to the Government so that it can be considered for formal adoption under the directive.

The airport is very aware of its local impact and seeks to ensure that local people see the benefit of living near an airport. The growth of the airport has encouraged businesses, investors and developers to locate in east London, bringing new services and facilities to the area.

Let me turn finally to TC North. TC North is one of the most complex pieces of airspace in the world, with routes in and out of the major airports of Heathrow, Stansted, Luton and London City. I must stress that the TC North proposals are not associated with, and do not assume, future development at Heathrow, Stansted or any other airport. As the hon. Gentleman said, the London City airport SID proposals originally formed part of the TC North consultation on a package of measures designed to reduce delay, maintain safety and improve environmental performance. That consultation on TC North was the largest of its kind undertaken; the population in the region affected is just under 13 million.

NATS directly consulted over 3,000 primary stakeholders, including MPs, county, borough, district and parish councils, environmental organisations and chambers of commerce. Before the launch of the consultation, NATS arranged briefings for local MPs and national and regional media. In response to concerns that there was not enough time to consider the details of the proposals, NATS extended the consultation period by four weeks, giving a full 17-week consultation period. Following that, NATS decided to review the TC North design options further. However, any revised designs for the TC North region are unlikely to be ready for consultation before autumn next year.
The CAA considered that further consultation on the London City airport SID proposals was not needed-

12.11 pm
House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).

Ssshhh! LET’S KEEP IT A SECRET !

PRESS RELEASE from Campaigners in Havering:

Havering, the outer London Conservative borough which is officer led, has the most laid back attitude to airport expansion and climate change in the south east.

However, local Tory MP, James Brokenshire, has realised the full impact of expansion at London City Airport. Those plans, combined with NATS flight path alterations, will affect Havering dramatically. However, any consultation with the people who live there has been non-existent.

Havering Tory leader, Michael White, says London City Airport’s growth will NOT create ‘unacceptable environmental impacts so far as we are aware.’ A response to LCA’s Newham planning application was not considered ‘appropriate’. Havering stood alone as the only local authority out of the many to be affected by expansion at LCA not to make ANY response whatsoever.

And how confident are they that the impacts of increased flights are ‘acceptable’? Well, no other members of Havering Council were aware of the LCA expansion plans apart from Michael White and the chairman who signed the decision. The matter was not raised at local area committees or indeed flagged up in the Council’s fortnightly free newspaper.

So Havering Council thinks it’s ‘acceptable’ not to respond to NATS surveys which propose increased over-flying in parts of Havering. It thinks it is acceptable to make no response to a plan to increase flights and emissions at LCA by 50% which will impact on the quality of life for many residents.

But the most staggering betrayal of local democracy is Havering’s secrecy about the whole issue. Local grassroots climate change activists have had to expose the effects of these planning issues and inform the local press, residents and Council members.

And as for public consultation….? Well don’t ask! But we can rest assured that the Council will keep ‘ these and other aviation matters under constant review.’

Well , that’s a relief!


Rosina Purnell
To get involved contact 01708 437811

London City Airport & Newham: How do you trim down a Public Safety Zone?

By ignoring the model that the Department of Transport provides to calculate it of course!

The public safety zone* maps (see definition of PSZ below) which LCA submitted to the London Borough of Newham appear not to have been drawn up using the required model provided by the Department of Transport. This gives the effect of making the public safety zone areas smaller than they should be and covering less households, and also perhaps, schools and other sensitive places - such as prospective bridges. Is this simply yet another attempt to bury the bad news so they can get those extra flights out - at any cost??

We can't think why they would ignore the DfT model to draw up the Public Safety Zones with the result in making them smaller? Even stranger that LB Newham didn't enforce that DfTs model was used in the process of the PSZ mapping by the consultants employed by LCA.

But it's not strange at all...it is just the continuing saga of LCA and Newham's disingenous behaviour throughout the whole of the consultation and application to expand LCA flights to 120,000 this year and another 50% next year, taking them up to 176,000 per year.

*What is a 'Public Safety Zone'? It is an area which is a long triangular shape at each end of any runway which is deemed at more risk of being affected by an air traffic incident upon take off or landing. The triangular shape widens and lengthens in accordance to the type, and number, of planes operating out of the airport.

Guidelines are set by the Department of Transport in how this area should be calculated and mapped out and where homes, traffic etc should not occupy the area at all, or in small numbers. New buildings are not allowed to be built in the PSZ unless planning approval was given before the PSZ was identified, current homes of which residents will find themselves being covered by the PSZ map are simply told to live with the risk. Despite the guidelines being set by the DfT it is the responsibility of the local council to apply them.

PSZ Enquiries: Department for Transport: 020 7944 8300 - Airports Section.
Document: free to download.

Newham Waits For NATS Report

The NATS report on the Thames Gateway Bridge and safety, which has held up the decision on LCAs expansion is still in progress. No Newham Planning hearing of the application can go ahead until the Mayor of London's office has received the report. In the meantime the Government Office for London is continuing to receive large amounts of evidence from residents in support of a call in of the application.

We will post any news on this as soon as we receive it.

Do you know what's coming to a sky above you?

In this months edition of the Bexley Chronicle , page 8, residents in south east London and Bexley are alerted to how the skies above them are going to get considerably busier as a result of London City Airport, Heathrow, Biggin Hill and any changes made by National Air Traffic Systems with regard to changing flight paths.

Are you aware of how the changes will affect you where you live? We'd recommend and remind you to take part in the consultation exercise that NATS is running until the end of May.

Once again we unfortunately see yet another council, Bromley, operating with blinkers on in regard to how flights and the associated noise from the airport (Biggin Hill as mentioned in the Chronicle) will affect communities. Just because there is a borough border does not mean that the noise suddenly stops at that line and hence their responsibility to consult.

We'd be pleased to see residents in the neighbouring boroughs to Bromley pursue the council over their obligation to consult with ALL those affected. It's about time airports and councils played fairly and increasingly they will find themselves being legally challenged to do so.

Noise Pollution from London City Airport - Courtesy of NATS

Residents have been fobbed off for so long with inaccurate noise measurements from LCA's often failing noise equipment (especially that at the east end of the runway). Unfortunately the noise measurements that LCA have used in their application to expand, despite it being estimates, would have all been taken from the periods when noise measurement was unreliable - and also which did not reflect the huge growth in the use of the noisiest jets.

So no surprise there - LCA burying the negative and only presenting the positive! All with a bit of 'go easy on them' from Newham Council who clearly have had little influence on the efficiency of LCA noise measuring processes as so well documented in the LCACC minutes of the past.

National Air Traffic Systems have released 2 documents on London City Airport in regard to the noise levels and contours that each plane type inflicts upon us - dependent upon which direction it takes off and lands in.

We think that most residents around the airport would find the noise maps and the levels indicated rather eye opening - but clearly they indicate the type of levels that our resident campaigners have recorded on their noise monitors as seen in our earlier post.

So 80db - 90db upwards is going to be standard with the frequency of the noisiest jet increasing, and British Airways big interest in services from LCA such as their transatlantic boeing service....and that's just for those properties deemed to fall into the contours.

If your property was built after 1990 - don't expect any help to reduce noise levels inside your home because it isn't going to happen!! London City Airport will NOT provide any help at all with noise reduction - only mechanized ventilation. So YOU, the residents, are left high and dry living with the daily 80-90db for hour upon hour of the day. *

We're sure they'll be even more casualities outside of those contours - but who will listen to them?

Nobody of course.

* The following paragraph was taken from LCACC Part IV Noise Insulation Programme:

It should be noted - see Noise Page - that where the listed homes (or noise sensitive community buildings) were built or given planning permission after 30 July 1990 they will not be eligible for noise insulation if this was required to be installed by statute or as a condition of planning permission. The premises may, however, be eligible for mechanical ventilation. This is likely to apply to many dwellings in West Silvertown.

The Objectors Grow With Help from NATS - Wanstead Residents

Yet more opposition to the expansion of London City Airport and to NATS proposals of new flight paths to spread the growing noise of aircraft to more residents in London and the South East.

In the Guardian Series (not online but in print) an article entitled 'Future's looking louder for some' - residents in Wanstead express their concern of more planes flying over them. So NATs proposed flight paths have managed to shift the problem of increasing aircraft noise to yet more residents in Wanstead - that's a really efficient way to deal with it - we don't think! That old can of worms.....

We were even happier to read that in addition to our own coalition campaigners up in Redbridge, that a lady called Anne Williams has been campaigning against the proposed expansion at LCA and was quoted as saying "the proposals (NATS) did not tackle the heart of the matter".

We couldn't agree more Anne, and if you are reading this blog - do please feel free to contact us!

Perhaps NATS and Ian Hall might start to realise that the proposals don't wash with residents at all - though Ian Hall's comments clearly had more concern about increasing efficiency (saving fuel no doubt), and reducing delays for the airlines, than for the residents that have to suffer the growing din of flight expansion beneath them. NATS need to look at their own comments on the CAA paper regarding lack of capacity in the South East's skies.

NATS approach:

1. Have a growing aircraft noise problem that has growing implications on health and welfare
2. Don't want to resolve it as there's too much money in it - greed before need.
3. Spread the noise out to more people and that will hopefully diffuse it a little.

How wrong they were!