Transport for London, London City Airport and The Cable Car

Pictured above: CAA revised London City Airport PSZ Map

We've been closely following the story of the cable car crossing from North Greenwich to the Royal Docks in Newham and the issue around the Public Safety Zone (PSZ/crash zone). Many of you will know we are fairly familiar with matters of the PSZ and have written about it many times before which can be seen here, here, here and here.

Transport For London (and interested parties) want a cable car to cross the Thames, from the South to the North and land at the West end of the Royal Docks, Newham. There's just one problem though: the cable car goes right through the current PSZ of London City Airport. Low flying planes on landing and take off, a cable, cable houses, and an estimated 5000 travellers an hour, all at the end of London City Airport's runway. It's a bit like putting an electric fan heater in the far corner of a bathroom and hoping that it doesn't get splashed with water (please don't take anything electrical in the bathroom, it is a hazard to life). If an incident were to happen where the cable was broken, it appears the whole cable car system would be affected. We do not want to see anything like the Cavalese Cable Car Incident happen in London.

It appears however that the authorities wish to down play, or actually ignore the PSZ policy which is written by the DfT. Richard de Cani , Director of Strategy and Policy at Transport for London, who submitted the planning application, even went so far to state in the Newham Council Planning Meeting minutes that:

"The public safety zone issues relating to the London City Airport were not material considerations for the Cable Car. "

So that's alright then!

What concerns us is that TFL choose to ignore something as important as your safety when the DfT have clearly put a policy in place for all airports to protect and reduce the risk to persons in the areas each end of runways. TFL did however suddenly find an interest in the PSZ as they spent a considerable amount of time and days on this blog during the week of the planning meetings.

The DfT circular on the PSZ policy is quite clear: no new developments are to be built in PSZ areas and the people present in the PSZ should be reduced over time. There is a clause for low intensity transport, but 5000 passengers an hour dangling in cable cars from a cable that goes right across the PSZ and flight path of London City Airport flights is not 'low intensity'. The PSZ has grown as the planes have got bigger and more flights are allowed, so the size of the PSZ is simply a further blight on the use of land in East London for regeneration, but it seems that some authorities want to have their cake and eat it, especially if the risk is someone elses. Who better than the unsuspecting public?

Even London City Airport themselves raised the concern of Crossrail using an area of land within the PSZ in the Royal Docks and objected in their petition to the House of Lords:

"The worksite proposed as part of the Crossrail proposals at the Connaught Bridge falls within the Public Safety Zone at the western end of the airport. This is contrary to the objective of the Public Safety Zone which is to minimise the number of people working or congregating within the Zone.Aircraft operations at London City Airport cannot be modified to accommodate the extent of activity in this area. Should such activity be deemed to be unsafe by the Civil Aviation Authority , restrictions may be imposed on the aerodrome licence , which would severely curtail or prevent commercial operations......."

We are told that Transport for London's Richard DiCani was alegedly clasping an out of date PSZ map as his justification for not needing to consider the PSZ at one of the planning meetings. However considering the ATWP is quite clear that any planning authority considering applications around an airport should always take into account the full masterplan, and that the Civil Aviation Authority had released a new PSZ map in mid December to both Greenwich and Newham Councils (which is a notification, not consultation, there is a distinct difference between the two) which clearly indicated that the cable car was to travel through the PSZ.

The extent of the PSZ (albeit different to the most recently published map) had also been indicated in predictive maps in the London City Airport expansion application, so there is really little excuse for the PSZ and the associated risks not to have been fully considered as required by the DfT circular and policy.

What is even more surprising is that it is very hard to find where the PSZ has been properly addressed at all in the Cable Car application process and three authorities went ahead and approved it 2 weeks ago. It is that which appears to have raised enough concerns from Friends of the Earth and a local Tower Hamlets resident to challenge this approval, both of whom we are assured fully support a cable car, but not at the expense of the safety of those on the ground and passengers.

The latest development in this sorry saga is the release of a wake turbulence report from London City Airport (more to follow on this in the coming days!). The cable car not only sits in the PSZ, it also sits in the wake turbulence path as modelled by Halcrow. At the Greenwich Planning meeting it was stated that "the applicant has been advised by London City Airport that wake turbulence will not be a significant issue". Considering the reports indicate that there have been two incidents of wake turbulence damage recorded (considerable damage to a roof of a building in one) and it appears these have been so since the introduction of larger jets, it seems that the focus should be on the word 'significant'. Wake turbulence is heard 3-4 times a week at the end of the runway, and cannot be ruled out as not a risk to the cable car system at all - hence the use of the word 'significant' no doubt! We suspect that most passengers in the cable car would not wish to be caught up in a wake turbulence vortex, not unless they were expecting a white knuckle ride across the Thames.

To illustrate the impact of wake turbulence on the ground, let alone to a cable car, this may assist: "In the late 1970s I was driving north on I-5, passing the end of SAN Lindbergh Field. A Delta L-1011 was just touching down on 27 and I noticed that a palm tree in the median of the freeway was flailing wildly. A moment later the vortex hit me. It almost rolled my VW bus over." More documentation of just how serious it can be read here and here.

We will be posting a lot more on wake turbulence, what it is and what residents experience in a wake turbulence attack in the coming days.

Now objections have been submitted to the Mayor of London Boris Johnson and he has been requested to call the application in on safety grounds. Boris is going to have to deal with just one of the consequences of his support for London City Airport expansion now, how untimely that it should come so soon!

We are just struck by how the PSZ suddenly became less important and one that apparently local authorities can afford not to fully consider to protect the safety of individuals around airports.

The Public Safety Zone (Crash Zone) is getting bigger - will it cover your home?

The Civil Aviation Authority has submitted a proposal to revise the public safety zone (PSZ) at London City Airport. The proposal can be seen here and most importantly maps are included so that you will be able to see if your property is currently or will soon be in the PSZ crash zone. Organisations and residents who will be affected are invited to respond. The closing date for submissions is the 2nd February.

More information about what a PSZ is can be found here. Long term followers of ours will be aware that we have raised multiple concerns about the PSZ and consultation procedures in the past, here, here, here and we are yet again dissapointed that it appears that the very people this change will affect have not been consulted and will be completely unaware of this proposal. Greenwich Council appear to have made no effort at all to ensure that the areas affected are kept informed by those responsible.

As a general view of the PSZ map the only residential properties covered by the PSZ are in:

West Thamesmead, Greenwich, SE28 therefore if you live in this area this is of particular importance to you.

No properties appear to be covered by the PSZ in Newham.

If you wish to respond to the CAA proposals and require assistance to do so please email: fighttheflights@yahoo.co.uk and we will do all we can to assist.

Press Release: Mayor Boris Johnson To Review Support for London City Airport Expansion

At yesterdays London Assembly Mayors' Question Time (1) the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson stated that 'in retrospect he realises that his decision to support the flight expansion at London City Airport  needs reviewing'. He went on to say he felt very anxious about the impact of extra flights over London and that the 'consequences of the expansion had been unexpected and we need to look at the impact of aviation over huge areas of East London'. The Mayor also indicated that he had written to the Civil Aviation Authority expressing his concern and requesting further information over the near collision (2) between a Heathrow 777 and London City Airport Cessna in July 2009.

Anne-Marie Griffin, Chair of Fight the Flights welcomed the news stating "We have been expressing our concerns about the impact of the expansion of London City Airport for over 2 years to the Mayor. We felt that the Mayor had been ill advised but it is now clear that he is acknowledging the full impact of extra flights over London, particularly over East London.What is important now is to see what action the Mayor takes and we'd certainly welcome the 'fresh thinking on aviation expansion' which the Mayor referred to".

The Mayor was also asked regarding the pledge(3) he made at the Ilford Environmental Question Time in early 2009, to support a call for a public review (4) of the London City Airport Flight path changes by the Civil Aviation Authority. Griffin said "the Mayor does acknowledge his pledge and response to the FTF question, however he appears to have moved the goalposts by commenting that he would ensure that the review 'would be useful to the public and get the facts into the public domain'. That simply isn't the same as calling for a public review. The CAA are still reviewing the flight path change behind closed doors so the Mayor still has time to put Londoners first and insist that the review is a public one".

End

Notes for Editors:

(1) http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/the-london-assembly/webcasts

(2) http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23875801-jet-in-near-miss-with-heathrow-airline-over-london.do

(3) http://londoncityairportfighttheflights.blogspot.com/2010/01/boris-backs-call-for-public-review-of.html

(4) http://londoncityairportfighttheflights.blogspot.com/2010/08/caa-update-on-post-implementation.html

For further information:
FTF spokesperson 07984 300558  

Website: http://www.fighttheflights.com/
Blog: http://londoncityairportfighttheflights.blogspot.com/


Press Release dated 16/9/10

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.

Peaceful Day 5 - Before and After The Volcano No Flights Zone

Day 5 of no flights. The skies and sound of London are now almost unrecognisable - residents who never complain of flight noise have suddenly realised how quiet it is, how they are sleeping better and for longer and feel much more relaxed. It seems the UK is having a holiday without having to go on holiday.

Before: Contrails line the sky above London and apparently contribute to the  south east of England getting less sun than other parts due to the heavy air traffic and contrails left:

After: clear blue skies, no cirrus, no contrails - a rare sight over London.

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.

Boris, oh Boris - Are you listening?

Back in January Boris Johnson, Mayor of London pledged his support for a public consultation on the CAA review of flight path changes.

Since then we've written to Boris to try and find out what he's been doing to ensure that the CAA don't carry out a private consultation of their own, but a public one, where the residents who have to suffer the consequences of the CAA's decision get their say.

So far we're not convinced Boris is listening as we, nor any other residents have heard so much as a twitter from Boris over his pledge for a public consultation of the flight path review.

Let's hope Boris decides to reply to the residents soon, otherwise all those residents who packed out the auditorium in Ilford at the Mayor's climate question time might just end up thinking his pledge was worth very little.

Come on Boris, get a move on.

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)).

PRESS RELEASE: Controversial New City Airport Flight Path to be Reviewed

A controversial new City Airport flight path, introduced earlier this year, is to be reviewed. In a letter to the campaign group Fight the Flights, the Civil Aviation Authority, has said that the flight path will be reviewed next year.

The flight path has resulted in flights taking off from City Airport flying over many areas on East London for the first time. Amongst the areas affected are Leytonstone, Wanstead, Newbury Park and parts of Havering. The boroughs of Waltham Forest and Redbridge have formally complained that they were not properly consulted.

The Civil Aviation Authority has told Fight the Flights that a review of the flight path will need to be carried out approximately a year after it was installed on 7th May 2009. Amongst the things the review will examine is the impact of people on the ground.

Anne-Marie Griffin, Chair of Fight the Flights, said, “We welcome this review. We want to make sure that residents get their opportunity to have their say about the affect the new flight path has had on their lives. Most people had no idea that the flight path was changing.”

ENDS

Press Release dated: 1 December 2009

Notes to the Editor:

London City Airport Fight the Flights is a non party political group made up of residents from across the boroughs whom are negatively affected by the expansion of London City Airport.

In September 2009 Fight the Flights, with the assistance of Friends of the Earth's Rights and Justice Centre, launched a legal challenge against the London Borough of Newham regarding the legality of their decision to allow a 50% increase in flights from the airport.

Fight the Flights is anti expansion, not anti aviation.

CAA To Allow Night Flights At London Airports For Olympics

The CAA look set to lift night flying restrictions at all London Airports during the Olympic Games adding further to the misery of the growing aviation noise pollution across London.

In an article in today's Evening Standard, John Stewart ,from our alliance partner campaign group HACAN commented:

Anti-airport expansion campaign group HACAN denounced the measures. Chairman John Stewart said: “These revelations are shocking. Londoners could be bombarded by aircraft noise day and night.

“There would be a big incentive to introduce night flights at London City airport in particular as it's so near Stratford. There are so many people living near there it would be horrific.
“The airspace above London would become absolutely chocka when it is already the busiest in Europe. It would be a relentless noise nightmare. Londoners would never get any sleep.”

Mr Stewart added that the industry could push to keep any new air routes after the Olympics.

A CAA spokesman said: “We are putting forward all possible ideas. This is blue sky thinking. None of this is final.” The Department for Transport said no firm decisions had been made.

So no denial from the CAA then.

If recent behaviour is anything to go by from the CAA and DfT they will simply try to push this through the back door without bothering to tell those who will be most affected. Why? Because the CAA and all those involved know that there is an ever increasing amount of residents all over London who are just about sick and tired of their crass and irresponsible decisions that effect Londoners health and welfare. So clearly new tactics are in order at the CAA - push the changes through the back door and keep it quiet.

We have a feeling of deja vu. Isn't pushing it through the back door exactly what happened over the changes to amounts of flights on any one day, and the subsequent application to expand flights by 50% at LCY by the respective authorities? In doubt and fearful of huge amounts of objections? Well try and push it in through the back door, purposely confuse residents with weasel words and perhaps nobody will notice! What it does show is the utter contempt that is shown for the communities most affected by themselves and the industry they regulate.

The CAA have only just recently cheated the residents who are most affected by London City Airport flight paths the right to a full and fair consultation on flight path changes. NATS told residents that the consultation was to be delayed for the TCN proposals at London City Airport however the CAA went ahead and signed off the changes to the LCY flight paths behind residents backs. Residents were only made aware after suddenly being plagued by LCY aircraft noise for the first time and a subsequent barrage of complaints being made. FTF have submitted a formal complaint regarding the issue and are awaiting a response from the CAA.

Residents will not sit back on this issue and the government, CAA and DfT should expect huge and very visible opposition on any proposal to lift night flying restrictions for the duration of the Olympic Games.

FTF Submit Formal Complaint to CAA over Flight Path Changes

Last year NATs launched a consultation on Terminal Control North flight path changes, we blogged recently about it here. One set of these flight path changes was for London City Airport. It is because of these changes, which were 'slipped through the back door' by the Civil Aviation Authority(CAA), without the National Air Traffic Systems (NATS) consultation being completed that have been responsible for causing aircraft noise misery to thousands of newly affected residents in east London.

Of course, the real reason as to why the flight path changes were requested was purely due to London City Airports increased use of the larger types of jet planes, which has steadily increased over the past few years, and which now make up the majority of flights. It is London City Airports' and Newham Councils' continued support of expansion at the airport that has forced such changes, because of course the CAA wouldn't say 'sorry, but the planes you want to fly, don't suit the current flight paths so you can't fly them'.

However, the effect of the changes has been so acute for so many residents even from far afield that FTF decided to submit a formal complaint to the Civil Aviation Authority in respect of this dire situation, the contents of which you may read beneath:

Dear Sir/Madam

We would like to make a formal complaint in regard to the changes made to the London City Airport (LCY) flight paths which were supposedly being consulted upon in the NATS TCN exercise in 2008 and which would have been required to be dealt with under the CAP725 procedures.

In 2008 we were made aware of NATS TCN consultation. We duly submitted comments on this. In late 2008 we received a letter from NATS which was quite clear that due to the hugely negative responses received from the general public, that NATS were essentially going to go back to the drawing board and would re-consult on flight path changes in 2009.

In late spring, our group suddenly received a considerable increase correspondance from residents suffering from the effect of aircraft noise in new areas. The majority of these were regarding London City Airport flights, and secondly some Heathrow flights. One such complaint came from as far as Gravesend, Kent regarding LCY flights in which the resident stated:

April 2009 "most of these flights are now flying directly overhead, not in a westerly direction along the river any more but 'north/north westerley in a line from say Dover to LCY. Also of those flying westerly I see more flying along the A2 corridor rather than along the river from the estuary"

and then followed a stream of emails, here being just a selection:

• April 2009, Havering:: "I noticed a huge increase in planes going over from September 2008". "I received a response from the department for transport who denied that there had been a change in flightpaths from LCA". "I just couldn't understand why there had been no consultation with residents whatsoever".
• June 2009 "I have lived at the post code RM9 for nearly four years and haven’t experienced over head departure from LCA till now, Why"? "When I called the CAA (aircraft noise nuisance department), I got some statistics and was informed that the whole flight path and number of flights changed on 6th May 2009". "My fears were realised about the whole thing". "I was surprised that the CAA did not except any responsibility in the matter and said that they were only concerned with safety and aviation licensing".
• June 2009 "I live in Leyton E10, and have done for 50 years, and have been used to air traffic noise but “distant” noise and accept it due to living near three busy London airports". "But what is happening at City Airport"? "Starting this year I noticed some aircraft flight paths had changed from south of my house, Newham, Stratford to right over my house"? "Not only flying over but accelerating making an unbelievable noise"!
• July 2009, Sidcup "Over the past month I have noticed a considerable increase in flights coupled with low flying aircraft. I wonder if it’s due to increase in London City Airport flights or change in flightpath"?
• July 2009, " I live in Leytonstone, E11, and for the first time yesterday, Sunday 17 August, I became aware and was disturbed by the noise of aircraft frequently flying overhead. I had not experienced that before".
  

For some time there was much discussion between residents and colleagues with regard to what had happened and why residents who had never been affected by LCY flights had suddenly had become so. Some residents wrote to London City Airport and were told there had been no changes made to flight paths, then in another response a resident had been told there had been a 'shift'.

As you will note above, another resident also wrote to the Department for Transport and there again was no mention of flight paths that were due to change at that time or perhaps had already changed.

It appeared that residents weren't the only ones who didn't know what was happening, councils and MP's also seemed unaware, despite any such changes clearly having an effect over their boroughs.

However we did not expect the flight paths to have been changed, as of course, NATS had advised us directly, by letter, that the TCN proposals were to be re-consulted upon during this year (2009), which included LCY's flight path. We were then dissapointed to discover that the CAA appear to have taken matters into their own hands, and have disregarded that the TCN LCY proposals were part of the consultation process and had signed off changes in late spring, with no publicity at all.

It appears to us that there has been a disgraceful lack of communication between yourself and NATS and in turn to the general public. For NATS to say that TCN was to be re-consulted upon, and then LCY flight paths to what appears to be cherry picked from that consultation and pushed through the back door, without any notification from NATS to residents, or indeed yourselves can only be seen as making changes by stealth without honouring the consultation and other procedural requirements. We have just last week received another letter from NATS advising that the TCN consultation is to be delayed for a further year, however this time, and may we add that it is AFTER the fact, that LCY flight paths had already been changed, by you, the CAA.

We would like to know why NATS and yourselves did not inform residents that are/would be affected that LCY's flight paths were to be changed quietly, whilst those few members of the public who had been made aware of the consultation were told explicitly that changes would not be made until a further consultation was carried out. NATS made no reference to any exception being made to LCY flight paths in the past prior to the letter received last week.

We do not wish to receive a response passing the buck to another agency, as so often seems to be the case when residents complain to NATS or either yourselves. It is for CAA and NATS to ensure that processes and consultations are carried out, fairly, and informatively. Between yourselves, something has gone wrong on this occasion, and we would even suggest that there has been a clear indication of negligence and disingenuity when dealing with the public. The residents comments above are an inditement of the effects of these 'unconsulted' flight path changes. As far as we can see the CAAs' actions to enforce the flight path changes at LCY, have ignored the consultation process, and the procedures around CAP725 are highly questionable. It would not be unfair to suggest that the events look in breach of the procedures required.

We would also like you to confirm and clarify the statement that NATS have made regarding the future TCN consultation. Please clarify and confirm whether NATs have been instructed to consult on the LCY flight paths in the next consultation. Is there any intention to revisit and re-consult the LCY flight paths at all? This has not been made clear, and simply adds to the confusion already made by NATS and the CAA.

We would appreciate your explanation as to how you believe the approach you have taken to sign off the LCY flight paths has followed procedures required in the CAP725, step by step. We look forward to your response, and we suggest if there is an element that NATS needs to contribute to for you to provide us with a full response to all the issues raised, then you pursue that as part of a joined up government approach, and one that promotes transparency in dealing with this formal complaint. We would also request that you respond using the minimum of aviation jargon as this again does not assist transparency.

Yours sincerely

Fight the Flights