Greenwich Council Fail to Hear Aircraft Noise, Whilst BACityflyer and LCY Celebrate the Noisiest Jets

PRESS RELEASE – IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 08.11.10

Greenwich Council Fail to Hear Aircraft Noise

"It would be funny if it were not so serious. Greenwich Council are actually supporting expansion at London City Airport on the misleading premise that they believe jets to be quieter than propeller planes whilst the airport and British Airways celebrate the noisiest jets at the airport”.

Greenwich Council Planning Committee voted to support expansion at London City Airport on the basis that the airport introduce more jets to replace propellor planes in the belief that they are quieter and have less impact on the communities. But this is contradicted by work done by the Civil Aviation Authority. It shows that Jets at London City Airport are significantly noisier than propeller planes – in particular the new Embraer E series jets are considerably noisier than the old BAE RJ Avro 'whisper jets' that they are replacing (1).

Fight the Flights, the campaign group which is legally challenging the decision by Newham Council to approve the expansion of flights at the airport in the High Court in London next week (2), can reveal these figures as London City Airport and British Airways Cityflyer welcome with some fanfare the 700th E jet using the airport (3). 


The new jets have already impacted on community noise levels showing an increase in complaints being made to the airport as discussed in the London City Airport Consultative Committee Meetings (4). 

The noise difference between a propellor plane and an Embraer E series jet on take off/reverse thurst landing is an increase of 13dbs, this represents a 130% noise impact increase in real terms and is comparable to standing beside a road drill. The difference between an old jet and the new jets is 5dbs on a gliding approach which represents a 50% increase in noise impact in real terms. 

Anne-Marie Griffin, Chair of Fight the Flights commented: “It would be funny if it were not so serious. Greenwich Council are actually supporting expansion at London City Airport on the misleading premise that they believe the jets to be quieter than propeller planes whilst the airport and British Airways celebrate the noisiest jets at the airport. Surely if a borough is heavily overflown at just a few hundred feet on arrival and departures any council would wish to consider the noise impact above their borough not only the noise impact a mile away in another borough”. 

She added: “The Planning Officer either failed to understand the official statistics on the aircraft noise profiles and impact or was given incomplete information as the jets used are far noisier than the propeller planes. In a Freedom of Information request Greenwich Council revealed that their decision and understanding of the noise levels was based on stationary aircraft noise readings measured on the airports runway, approximately a mile away in London Borough of Newham. Greenwich has significant residential areas, including schools, covered by excessive noise levels”. 

ENDS

Notes for Editors:

1. International Civil Aviation Organisation:official noise database: http://noisedb.stac.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/

Noise Level of 

Propellor plane: ATR-42 Model: ATR42-500 Engine:PW127M 80.7db on full power lateral, take off, reverse thrust landing.

Jet aircraft: Embraer 190 Model:ERJ190-100 Engine: CF34010R6A0-1 93.3db on full lateral, take off, reverse thrust landing 


2. The legal challenge is taking place at the Courts of Justice on the Strand on 18th and 19th November. FTF launched it, with the help of Friends of the Earth in September 2009 to the London Borough of Newham’s decision to grant approval to a 50% increase in flights at London City Airport. There are three aspects to Fight the Flights claim. In summary they are (1) that Newham failed to have regard to the Government’s policy on climate change and aviation; (2) that Newham failed to consult relevant neighbouring local authorities; and (3) Newham failed to consult the residents of those boroughs. A copy of the legal grounds are available on request/or on our website at http://fighttheflights.com/. FTF, founded in 2007, is a non party political residents group covering all areas affected by London City Airport operations. FTF works with not only the community and NGO‘s, but also lobbies decision makers.

3. London City Airport and British Airways Cityflyer celebrate the 700th E jet : http://www.londoncityairport.com/AboutUs/ViewRelease.aspx?id=1245

4. An increase in complaints regarding the new larger jets: Embraer E series, being used at London City Airport has been discussed at the London City Airport Consultative Committee, with complaints being raised by two local Newham Councillors: 

http://www.lcacc.org/accmins/accmin0710.pdf     Item 17E 

http://www.lcacc.org/accmins/accmin1010.pdf      Item 6J 


Additional sources of information: 
The number of jets using City Airport has risen, jets from the airport are individually noisier than the propeller planes which have previously made up a greater proportion of flights.

London City Airport Air Transport Movements – % of Jets [as opposed to the propellor planes they are replacing], data provided by the Civil Aviation Authority:

1999     43 

2000    33 

2001     29 

2002     25 

2003    26 

2004    28 

2005    36 

2006    37 

2007    50 

2008    58 

2009    63 (Jan-Sept) 

http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/environmental-health/noise/facts-and-figures

These residential noise readings in normal flight periods can also be contrasted to The World Health Organisation recommendation that noise levels should be less than 35db(a) in classrooms to allow good teaching and learning conditions and under 40db(a) outside of a bedroom overnight to prevent adverse health effects from night noise (4).

Fightthefights.com      http://londoncityairportfighttheflights.blogspot.com/ 

For more information: 

FTF Spokesperson: 07984 300558 or flighttheflights@yahoo.co.uk

Press Release dated 08/11/10

Clearing the Air: The Myth and Reality of Climate Change and Aviation

You may wish to read the excellent report by the European Federation for Transport and Environment...point 3 blows away Peter Simpson's, of British Airways Cityflier, unsubstantiated claims about the 'better for the community' Embraers he is introducing to London City Airport (of course if Peter would like to pass the data over, along with the methodology he used to make such claims, then he knows our email address). In fact the whole report puts into question most of what the aviation lobby uses as it's 'formula' to justify the threat of continued greed not need expansion:

Executive summary:

• in 2000, aviation was responsible for 4 to 9 per cent of
  the climate change impact of global human activity – the
  range reflecting uncertainty surrounding the effect of cirrus
  clouds
  ◗ aviation has by far the greatest climate impact of any transport
  mode, whether measured per passenger kilometre, per
  tonne kilometre, per € spent, or per hour spent
  ◗ today’s passenger aircraft are no more fuel-efficient than
  those that flew half a century ago
  ◗ the importance of aviation for the economy and employment
  is far less than its importance for climate change
  ◗ every segment of the aviation industry including manufacturers,
  airlines and airports is subsidised and enjoys major tax
  exemptions

Section 2 examines some of the policy options under consideration
to combat the climate impact of aviation.
The main conclusions of this section of the report are:

• ◗ regional initiatives, such as those under discussion at EU
  level, provide the best hope for a multi-lateral solution to
  international aviation emissions for the foreseeable future
  
  
• ◗ EU-level action does not affect the competitive position
  of EU airlines compared with their non-EU competitors,
  provided that policies do not discriminate between EU and
  non EU carriers flying the same routes (which is obligatory
  anyway under the Chicago Convention)


• including aviation in the European Emissions Trading System
  (EU ETS) can be a good first step, provided the system is
  designed right additional measures like kerosene taxation and Nitrogen
  Oxide (NOx) emissions charges at airports are not only
  environmentally important but also justified in terms of cost
  effectiveness


• aviation is overwhelmingly an activity of the richest elements
  of society, measures to combat the environmental impact of
  aviation would not adversely impact the poor


• a ‘development tax’ on tickets is a good way to make up
  for the VAT exemption of international air tickets and would
  benefit poor regions, not hurt them

And you may wish to consider the following information against the recent report that 55% of children in the London Borough of Newham live in poverty - after 20 years of the airport running, and it claiming to have brought prosperity to Newham:

More expensive air travel is bad news for the poor.

“Air transport contributes to citizens’ desire for more travel at
democratic prices.”
AEA 2006

REALITY

It’s the rich that fly, even in this era of low-cost
carriers – if aviation paid its true costs we could
help the poor a lot more.

All italicised extracted from:
http://www.transportenvironment.org/Publications/prep_hand_out/lid:430

Pictured above: Cirrus clouds

How's Your Health: Around London City Airport?

Why do we and others want to stop expansion at London City Airport? That little matter of health is rather important us, even if it isn't to LCY (and its supporters) who are allegedly hiding air quality readings from the GMB who accuse them of a toxic terminal!
Well here's some toxic evidence for you:
Health in the areas around the airport:
The Biggest killers in the London Borough of Newham are: in order;

1.Cancer
2.Chronic obstructive pulmonary
3.Stroke
4.Pneumonia
5.COPD
6.Asthma

The 2001 Census reported that 26,000 people (10.5% of total population) in Newham live with a long term limiting illness; including 4,000 under 19, and 12,500 aged 65 and over

Newham has higher than average infant mortality and the gap is widening

Higher than average respiratory diseases

Highest level of mortality rates in under 30s with asthma in the whole country

Higher than average mortality rates from asthma, pneumonia and chronic obstructive pulmonary (CHC) disease than London and England

Higher than average infant mortality rates: Newham has above average levels for London and England – with the gap widening, not narrowing

Comparative evidence of the connections of these illnesses to aircraft pollution:

Taken from campaign group LEAD: http://www.lead.org.au/Lanv7n3/L73-4.html
“The area heavily contaminated by a light to medium traffic two runway airport is approximately 12 miles around the field and 20 miles or more downwind. A single runway equipped airport with light to medium traffic contaminates an area about 6 miles around the field and 20 downwind”.

Extract of "Airports: Deadly Neighbors" by Charles R. Miller

What kinds of health effects may be occurring to the population in your neighborhood can be seen from a report, dated June 20, 1997 to the Georgetown Crime Prevention and Community Council by the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health.

Georgetown is an area of Seattle, and surrounds the King County International Airport (Boeing Field), King County, in turn, surrounds greater Seattle. (The Georgetown Council is a sister organization to AReCO and member of US-CAW (United States Citizens Aviation Watch). When comparing hospitalization rates for Georgetown (Zip Code 98108) to those of King and North King Counties, the following, alarming statistics resulted:

a 57% higher asthma rate
a 28% higher pneumonia/influenza rate
a 26% higher respiratory disease rate
an 83% higher pregnancy complication rate
a 50% higher infant mortality rate
genetic diseases are statistically higher
mortality rates are 48% higher for all causes of death: 57% higher for heart disease, a 36% higher cancer death rate with pneumonia and influenza among the top five leading causes average life expectancy 70.4 years (the same as in many developing nations) compared to Seattle's of 76.0 years.

Can you see any similarities there? It's hard not to see them. Still the aviation industry will keep telling you how clean and green they are, Peter Simpson of City Flyer is one of those who should be answerable to those individuals in the area around London City who are ill from the effect of his business seeking more profits, whilst air limits already exceed EU recommended levels by 50%.

British Airways Can't Do The Maths

British Airways Press Release (see below)just further misleads the residents of East London and beyond, and those who care about the environment.

Now lets make the article they have released CLEARER to the press and RESIDENTS.

1.British Airways DON'T say that they are YET to receive approval from the Civil Aviation Authority to fly the polluting jets out of London City Airport. The Jets HAVE to meet noise restrictions and we have not seen any notification from the CAA that they have approved the jets operation.

2. BA's Peter Simpson claims the new Embraer is helping them to meet 'environmental objectives'. This is utter NONSENSE when BA are INCREASING flights.

BA claim that the Embraer will improve C02 emissions by UP TO 56%. The trouble is that London City Airport has had a 50% increase in the amount of flights approved by Newham Council - despite the appalling environmental effects on East Londoners.

So lets do the maths:

Apart from the fact that the jets will contribute to excessive noise pollution for 100,000s of residents in the middle of the most densely occupied area of the Country consider:

that a 50% increase in flight expansion out of London City Airport has been approved, this will result in 120,000 flights a year in a RESIDENTIAL AREA, no doubt many of them British Airways' own.

So 50% extra flights of bigger, noisy jets versus UP TO 56% CLAIMED reduction in CO2 emissions...

Hmmm allegedly the maths indicate that this works out at about NO DIFFERENCE in C02 emissions over East London! Isn't it just another case of GREENWASH? For British Airways to make any difference (reduce) in their emissions from London City Airport, they would need to maintain the level of flights they have had in the past at the airport - not increase them, new jets or not.

_______________________________________________________________________________

British Airways has placed firm orders for a fleet of 11 new generation fuel efficient aircraft that will offer passengers unrivalled levels of space and comfort on board.

The airline's wholly owned subsidiary BA CityFlyer is to take delivery of the first of its new Embraer aircraft, which will fly exclusively from London City Airport, from September 2009. ........