[Misc] People moaning about aircraft noise at Gatwick

Timbo · Friday at 11:31 AM

I live next to a railway line and quite like the trains and the noise doesn't bother me at all. I've also done quite a bit of work lately directly under the flight path at Heathrow and I find the noise of an aeroplane unbearable. So what I've come up with is a genius plan that involves never living anywhere near a flight path! I don't know how I came up with it, just came to me one day

chip · Friday at 11:33 AM

BLOCK F said:
Is it really that bad where you live near Goodwood? We live near Chichester and I have to say I have never given aircraft noise a second thought. Perhaps we are not directly affected like you.
I do remember living in Bognor as a lad and back in the ‘50’s you could clearly hear the cars racing at Goodwood when there was a meeting and also the gun practices at Portsmouth.

I started to notice a few Gatwick flights late at night, every night, some years ago. No, it's not really bad, but an unwelcome additional intrusion. Nothing like the Red Arrows at the Festival of Speed.

I have more of a problem with the nutters visiting who think they are in the races than the car noise - at least they sound different during the day. As for guns, it's people with excess money blasting pheasant nowadays.

BLOCK F · Friday at 11:35 AM

DavePage said:
Why don’t they make all planes sound like Spitfires or Lancasters, everyone loves that.

In summer, we frequently have the Goodwood Spitfire going overhead, a lovely evocative sound.

Doug-ees-evil · Friday at 11:36 AM

PILTDOWN MAN said:
When I first started as an apprentice aircraft engineer at LGW for BCal we would often do engine runs during the night. This would be full throttle on 1-11's. Yes they put the aircraft with mufflers at the rear of the engines to deflect the thrust/noise upwards, however you could even hear them in Horsham, a rumble in the distance, especially in the winter with thinner air. The high bypass engines on the aircraft these days are quiet as a mouse in comparison.

I remember and loved the ear-splitting roar of the 1-11's as a kid spending all day in the Sky Lounge (?) viewing gallery at Gatwick. A viewing gallery so amazing you couldn't even see the runway.

BLOCK F · Friday at 11:50 AM

chip said:
I started to notice a few Gatwick flights late at night, every night, some years ago. No, it's not really bad, but an unwelcome additional intrusion. Nothing like the Red Arrows at the Festival of Speed.

I have more of a problem with the nutters visiting who think they are in the races than the car noise - at least they sound different during the day. As for guns, it's people with excess money blasting pheasant nowadays.

Oh well, no more pheasant shooting until 1st October. I have to admit to being rather partial to a bit of pheasant.

MJsGhost · Friday at 11:57 AM

Flounce said:
Much like people who live near churches moaning about the bells, why buy a house near something that annoys you? If you decide to suck up the downsides!

I am a bit confused as to why these people expect their complaints to be taken seriously, some even expecting compensation

The second runway at Gatwick has been on the cards for years.

Awaiting posts backing the protestors, I know they’ll be coming

Anyone on here live on the flight path?

I think there are separate circumstances being treated the same here.

It's one thing to move next to an airport / church / music venue / pub etc and then complain about the existing level of noise / disturbance (i.e. a tw@t move - you knew about it, or should have, before you moved there, so suck it up). But it's another thing to object to plans that would result in a significant increase in noise or disturbance.

What's the increase in capacity from the new runway? It must be significant or they wouldn't be bothering, so I don't see why those people who are used to the current noise levels should have no right to object about an increase.
What if it was proposed that there would be no restrictions on night flights instead of a new runway - would the locals just have to suck up the constant noise just because they moved next to an airport (under very different circumstances)?

portlock seagull · Friday at 12:09 PM

Flounce said:
Could be worse, you could buy a house in London and pay a premium for air pollution and grime in the air. I need a shower every time I get home from there

Boast if you live on the coast

Fools gold, the entire SE England is above dangerous levels. I’m sure new runways are going to help. I just feel sorry for those with respiratory diseases, some people literally need to move locations and even countries to live normally. Only going to get worse, but feck ‘em. Vast majority of us aren’t affected in the short run at least so bring it on.

Flounce · Friday at 12:11 PM

portlock seagull said:
Fools gold, the entire SE England is above dangerous levels. I’m sure new runways are going to help. I just feel sorry for those with respiratory diseases, some people literally need to move locations and even countries to live normally. Only going to get worse, but feck ‘em. Vast majority of us aren’t affected in the short run at least so bring it on.

Links to the South coast being as bad for pollution as London? Don’t believe it.

Aircraft noise these days is lower than it was a few years ago, so yes there will be more takeoffs but they won’t be as loud. I’d factor the increased aircraft noise into any decision I took to live near an airport personally though. I wonder if residents of Goodwood have a whinge about car noise.

Going off topic, don’t you think the smoke from the flame guns or whatever they are called at night games at the Amex affects those with respiratory diseases? I don’t suffer from them but I am pretty certain it’s not good for those who do?

portlock seagull · Friday at 12:16 PM

Flounce said:
Going off topic, don’t you think the smoke from the flame guns or whatever they are called at night games at the Amex affects those with respiratory diseases? I don’t suffer from them but I am pretty certain it’s not good for those who do?

We’ve talked about that in the North Stand also. Feel the heat, smoke is a chocker. It’s a strange thing really, it looks daft when you’re playing Plucky on a Tuesday night in winter. But more than anything is just so hypocritical and double standards. However football is full of them so we just put up with, stupid as it is.

Flounce · Friday at 12:18 PM

MJsGhost said:
I think there are separate circumstances being treat the same here.

It's one thing to move next to an airport / church / music venue / pub etc and then complain about the existing level of noise / disturbance (i.e. a tw@t move - you knew about it, or should have, before you moved there, so suck it up). But it's another thing to object to plans that would result in a significant increase in noise or disturbance.

What's the increase in capacity from the new runway? It must be significant or they wouldn't be bothering, so I don't see why those people who are used to the current noise levels should have no right to object about an increase.
What if it was proposed that there would be no restrictions on night flights instead of a new runway - would the locals just have to suck up the constant noise just because they moved next to an airport (under very different circumstances)?

I’d say yes, airline travel is likely to keep on growing and the noises/disturbances will as well. You need to factor stuff like this in when you move there, surely?

chip · Friday at 12:24 PM

Flounce said:
I wonder if residents of Goodwood have a whinge about car noise.

Yes, lots do. But at least we see a direct input into the local economy, there is a visible benefit.

Planning permission was rejected by an inspector for homes on the approach to the airfield north of Chi because of the noise at Goodwood a few years ago.

sydney · Friday at 12:43 PM

Harry Wilson's tackle said:
Viz was brilliant.
They absolutely nailed the human condition
The Southpark boys must have been influenced.

I can't say f.....
I can't say f.....

("He can't say fairer than that")

VIZ one of the best things ever to come out of Britain , that is something no one , ever will be able to take away ......first thing in a time or space capsule.......tiiits ooooht..!!

MJsGhost · Friday at 1:01 PM

Flounce said:
I’d say yes, airline travel is likely to keep on growing and the noises/disturbances will as well. You need to factor stuff like this in when you move there, surely?

Let me get this right.

If you live near an airport, you have accepted in advance that the noise level / disturbance caused is going to be significantly increased, so you should just bend over and take it with absolutely no right to raise an objection?

I'd understand if it was a bit of fiddling around the margins, so not a great deal of change, but an extra runway?

How many more runways would need to be proposed before locals had a right to object?

By the way, I don't necessarily think the plans should be shelved just because locals don't like it. I just recognise their right to ask that the effect on them is considered before consent is given, so people shouldn't poo-poo them having a say.

Flounce · Friday at 1:04 PM

MJsGhost said:
Let me get this right.

If you live near an airport, you have accepted in advance that the noise level / disturbance caused is going to be significantly increased, so you should just bend over and take it with absolutely no right to raise an objection?

I'd understand if it was a bit of fiddling around the margins, so not a great deal of change, but an extra runway?

How many more runways would need to be proposed before locals had a right to object?

By the way, I don't necessarily think the plans should be shelved just because locals don't like it. I just recognise their right to ask that the effect on them is considered before consent is given, so people shouldn't poo-poo them having a say.

You have every right to protest but don’t be gobsmacked if you are ignored :smile:

MJsGhost · Friday at 1:28 PM

Flounce said:
You have every right to protest but don’t be gobsmacked if you are ignored

Indeed

I do think it's important to be clear that people aren't complaining about the existing noise of the planes (which they accepted when they moved), but about a future increase.
IMO that's not the same as moving next to a music venue and then complaining that they can hear music when there's a gig on, or complaining about church bells....

Creaky · Friday at 1:31 PM

Weststander said:
You’re right. But I was correct that no need for > £1b compulsory land purchases to the south.

Gatwick Airport: Second runway backed by government

Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander says she is "minded to approve" the expansion, which faces opposition.

www.bbc.co.uk

I was hoping that the original plan for a second northern runway would go ahead. This was planned to have one end virtually in the carpark of the Black Horse pub on the A217.

Our house and 5 acres of woodland was proposed in those plans for compulsory purchase and commercial development.

With the current rules for compulsory purchase, compensation is calculated on the value for intended use not on current use.

As it is we are perpendicular to the centre of the runway less than 2 miles away. We never hear planes landing or taking off and we are too close to the runway to hear any aircraft circling.

For context we bought in 1978 when Gatwick was little more than a small provincial airport with one tiny terminal suspended over the A23

Washboard Didgets · Friday at 1:34 PM

Flounce said:
Much like people who live near churches moaning about the bells, why buy a house near something that annoys you? If you decide to suck up the downsides!

I am a bit confused as to why these people expect their complaints to be taken seriously, some even expecting compensation

The second runway at Gatwick has been on the cards for years.

Awaiting posts backing the protestors, I know they’ll be coming

Anyone on here live on the flight path?

The CAGNE campaign group are particularly irritating, they have posted lots of times on social media with misleading or just plain incorrect information. Once I commented on a post correcting the inaccuracies and they blocked me!

Washboard Didgets · Friday at 1:41 PM

beorhthelm said:
new runway is about 500m south, between the current airfield and Crawley, half of which is industrial estate the rest some fields. no doubt some rare newt and bats live in the "unspoiled" farmland.

That was the plan submitted a few years ago for a new runway. The plan that was in the news yesterday relates to a change to the 'spare' northern runway that already exists and is used as a taxiway and provides cover when the main runway is being resurfaced etc.

They are wanting to widen the northern runway to shift it 12 metres north. This will move the centreline over to increase the separation between the two runways allowing both to be used at the same time.

The second runway would then be used for departures only (smaller short haul aircraft only).

Other changes will be made including additional taxiways, but all the works will be entirely inside the footprint of the current airfield and use the existing flightpaths.

Weststander · Friday at 1:51 PM

Creaky said:
I was hoping that the original plan for a second northern runway would go ahead. This was planned to have one end virtually in the carpark of the Black Horse pub on the A217.

Our house and 5 acres of woodland was proposed in those plans for compulsory purchase and commercial development.

With the current rules for compulsory purchase, compensation is calculated on the value for intended use not on current use.

As it is we are perpendicular to the centre of the runway less than 2 miles away. We never hear planes landing or taking off and we are too close to the runway to hear any aircraft circling.

For context we bought in 1978 when Gatwick was little more than a small provincial airport with one tiny terminal suspended over the A23

I remember in the early 70's as a nipper, going with my parents to drop their mates off at Gatwick for their 2 weeks in the sun via Girona. At the time it all seemed very glamourous. It was just a drive up a ramp, to what's now the south terminal. Obviously much smaller.

Our first flight was with Dan-Air in a de Havilland Comet in 1978. Mid flight with permission you were allowed to go in the cockpit to chat with the team.

Tom Hark Preston Park · Friday at 1:53 PM

HeaviestTed said:
The problem with more passengers via Gatwick is there isn’t enough train of road capacity to get people there - already the trains in peak season are full, it only takes one cancellation to make it a disaster and the m23 isn’t big enough.

One of the pre-conditions of the second runway is that public transport provision has to be bolstered to meet the needs of the projected passenger numbers. Which has to spell good news for providing extra train capacity to and from the airport. It'll be somehow magicked up, despite all the usual suspects saying it can't be done. Tho, as always, they just need to think a bit harder

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Misc] People moaning about aircraft noise at Gatwick

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Oooh Matron, I'm an

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

tinky ****in winky

Oooh Matron, I'm an

Well-known member

Oooh Matron, I'm an

Well-known member

Graphic Designer

Graphic Designer

Well-known member

Will Post For Cash

Share this page