4 ms·

Flight paths change sometimes. Airports expand, etc.

happertiger 8y ago
This is true. If you live near an airport the disclosure is required by law if you buy a house in the are. However, it doesn’t preclude expansion and changes. If for example your airport moves from 12 hour a day to round-the-clock flights... nothing you can do. It’s a sticky wicket.
- Carpetsmoker 8y ago
  Not all noise complains are from people who actually live near airports. I already linked this in my other reply, but: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/former-astronaut-files-1000s-of-noise-complaints-against-reagan-national/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/former-astronaut-fil... > located five miles from Reagan National Airport. That's not really close. The reason there are planes there is due to the flight paths: > To reach Reagan National through the congested and closely monitored DC airspace, flights must basically follow the Potomac River. The problem for Vittori's neighborhood is compounded by the fact that the airport recently adopted a new flight navigation system known as NextGen to help cut carbon emissions and reduce fuel consumption. This brought planes directly over his Georgetown neighborhood. Also see the other commenter whose living 12 miles from the airport!
- chii 8y ago
  Cities should of course be building airports outside of the city!
  - sargun 8y ago
    Doesn’t this somewhat defeat the purpose of the airport?
    - chii 8y ago
      Not if they could put in good mass transit to and from the airport. Airports, like heavy industries, should be outside the city limits, away from populations.
      - bobthepanda 8y ago
        The problem is that access to the airport becomes a location amenity for some businesses, which in turn will draw housing for workers, and eventually the city will envelop the airport.
        Symbiote 8y ago
        It's easy to forbid residential (or all) development under the flight paths.
      - gambiting 8y ago
        By that logic, London should build their airport about 2 hours by train away from the city, because anything within <2h radius is still within highly populated zones.
        Retric 8y ago
        2 hours by HSR is a very long way ~300 miles from London. In reality, 50 miles north east of London is farm land. The core problem is when you build an airport you decrease the value of all nearby property. If people building airports directly compensated people say 50,000$ each property they would build airports in the middle of nowhere and opposition would likely be minimal. Instead people suddenly hate where their living but can’t afford to move.
        gambiting 8y ago
        Not everything is connected by HSR. Getting from Heathrow to city centre can take ~1.5h on public transport, and that's like ~15 miles in straight line.
  - gambiting 8y ago
    And they do, but of course cities expand. What might have been an airport in the middle of nowhere 30 years ago, might be a city airport nowadays.
    - accnumnplus1 8y ago
      Exactly. Heathrow was setup as an airport in the middle of the last century, and continues to be used as if London hasn't grown in that time, and won't grow in the future. With plans to extend. I regularly get woken at 4:30am. Undoubtedly, at some point during the day I'll see headlines or commentary about mental health or strain on the NHS. I wonder how many would be feeling considerably better if they simply weren't subjected to sleep deprivation and a plane flying overhead every 120 seconds.
picklebutt 8y ago
Not really, runways are really expensive, long, wide roads, they may get lengthened slightly or have safety devices installed on the ends but their location is so fixed that few have changed since they were built, and most were built during the war years.
cyberferret 8y ago
Airport expansion, or addition of new runways etc. are usually a tediously long process, and usually with a lot of community feedback and approval etc. (at least, here in Australia it is). Not something that can happen overnight without anyone knowing. Flight path changes are more common. But then again, those are usually departure pathways. The worst noise issues are on final approach or on the takeoff run on runway heading, which rarely change. Most turning points are above 1000ft AGL where the noise levels are a lot less.
- masonic 8y ago
  usually with a lot of community feedback and approval Has "community approval" ever been a prerequisite for commercial jet airports in the US?
- pongogogo 8y ago
  You would probably use the buttons as part of a campaign to prevent the expansion of an airport further, to prove that aircraft noise is already louder than the authorities say it is. I doubt the current measurement of aircraft noise at ground level over wide areas and long periods is that great, and airport operators have a heavy incentive to understate the levels of noise pollution.

This is true. If you live near an airport the disclosure is required by law if you buy a house in the are. However, it doesn’t preclude expansion and changes. If for example your airport moves from 12 hour a day to round-the-clock flights... nothing you can do. It’s a sticky wicket.

Carpetsmoker 8y ago
Not all noise complains are from people who actually live near airports. I already linked this in my other reply, but: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/former-astronaut-files-1000s-of-noise-complaints-against-reagan-national/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/former-astronaut-fil... > located five miles from Reagan National Airport. That's not really close. The reason there are planes there is due to the flight paths: > To reach Reagan National through the congested and closely monitored DC airspace, flights must basically follow the Potomac River. The problem for Vittori's neighborhood is compounded by the fact that the airport recently adopted a new flight navigation system known as NextGen to help cut carbon emissions and reduce fuel consumption. This brought planes directly over his Georgetown neighborhood. Also see the other commenter whose living 12 miles from the airport!
chii 8y ago
Cities should of course be building airports outside of the city!
- sargun 8y ago
  Doesn’t this somewhat defeat the purpose of the airport?
  - chii 8y ago
    Not if they could put in good mass transit to and from the airport. Airports, like heavy industries, should be outside the city limits, away from populations.
    - bobthepanda 8y ago
      The problem is that access to the airport becomes a location amenity for some businesses, which in turn will draw housing for workers, and eventually the city will envelop the airport.
      - Symbiote 8y ago
        It's easy to forbid residential (or all) development under the flight paths.
    - gambiting 8y ago
      By that logic, London should build their airport about 2 hours by train away from the city, because anything within <2h radius is still within highly populated zones.
      - Retric 8y ago
        2 hours by HSR is a very long way ~300 miles from London. In reality, 50 miles north east of London is farm land. The core problem is when you build an airport you decrease the value of all nearby property. If people building airports directly compensated people say 50,000$ each property they would build airports in the middle of nowhere and opposition would likely be minimal. Instead people suddenly hate where their living but can’t afford to move.
        gambiting 8y ago
        Not everything is connected by HSR. Getting from Heathrow to city centre can take ~1.5h on public transport, and that's like ~15 miles in straight line.
- gambiting 8y ago
  And they do, but of course cities expand. What might have been an airport in the middle of nowhere 30 years ago, might be a city airport nowadays.
  - accnumnplus1 8y ago
    Exactly. Heathrow was setup as an airport in the middle of the last century, and continues to be used as if London hasn't grown in that time, and won't grow in the future. With plans to extend. I regularly get woken at 4:30am. Undoubtedly, at some point during the day I'll see headlines or commentary about mental health or strain on the NHS. I wonder how many would be feeling considerably better if they simply weren't subjected to sleep deprivation and a plane flying overhead every 120 seconds.

picklebutt 8y ago

Not really, runways are really expensive, long, wide roads, they may get lengthened slightly or have safety devices installed on the ends but their location is so fixed that few have changed since they were built, and most were built during the war years.

cyberferret 8y ago

Airport expansion, or addition of new runways etc. are usually a tediously long process, and usually with a lot of community feedback and approval etc. (at least, here in Australia it is). Not something that can happen overnight without anyone knowing. Flight path changes are more common. But then again, those are usually departure pathways. The worst noise issues are on final approach or on the takeoff run on runway heading, which rarely change. Most turning points are above 1000ft AGL where the noise levels are a lot less.

masonic 8y ago
usually with a lot of community feedback and approval Has "community approval" ever been a prerequisite for commercial jet airports in the US?
pongogogo 8y ago
You would probably use the buttons as part of a campaign to prevent the expansion of an airport further, to prove that aircraft noise is already louder than the authorities say it is. I doubt the current measurement of aircraft noise at ground level over wide areas and long periods is that great, and airport operators have a heavy incentive to understate the levels of noise pollution.