Advertisement


Air Traffic, ILS & Navigation Aids

oldendays

Well-Known Member
Sep 19, 2009
539
406
63
I've observed that visual approaches from commercial flights into LBA have become less common in the last decade or so. I expect the steady increase in traffic is partly responsible, with multiple inbounds making visual spacing less practicable. Individual AOC holders' SOPs may also call for an instrument approach at all times, providing one is available.
 

Advertisement


Offint

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2016
357
366
63
Ilkley
There is no ‘correct’ path as such - as long as the aircraft ends up on a stable final approach then they can elect to take a visual approach (guiding the aircraft visually, without using the ILS), or they can accept vectors from ATC for a shorter final intercept, which looks like the case with the Sunwing.

When there are multiple arrivals, the track an aircraft follows will ultimately be what is required by ATC to ensure appropriate spacing between successive aircraft, which may be why the Ryanair above took a longer track.
Virtually 98% of flights take the same route as the Ryanair flight, I thought they had to take a specific route as not to upset homeowners....or is that just on take off?
 

White Heather

Platinum Member
Jan 14, 2009
3,528
1,559
205
64
Leeds
Virtually 98% of flights take the same route as the Ryanair flight, I thought they had to take a specific route as not to upset homeowners....or is that just on take off?
There is no standard routing for arrivals. We already have aircraft approaching the glidepath from both the South side and North side of the approach for runway 14. I would think that if the aircraft is low enough to intercept the glideslope at the right level then it can do so and can do a shorter approach without the need to go all the way out towards Skipton to commence the 14 approach. The same applies on runway 32 as well. Some aircraft join the glideslope over South Leeds, others further out, depending on their origin and routing up to LBA.
 

Aviador

Administrator
Staff member
I've upgraded to support F4A!
Jan 12, 2009
12,229
3,121
323
HEAD OFFICE
Admin #308
Any mention of the word decibel and it makes the average noise hater cringe. So let's have a closer look.

The YEP reports that 200 people will now be subject to "noise levels as high as 57 decibels." Lets see what that compares with?

The average "conversation" comes in at 60 decibels so that's 200 people who never talk? A toilet flush is a little bit louder. Light road traffic is just under.

So basically as per usual, the usual shite reporting we've come to expect from the YEP.

https://www.noisehelp.com/noise-level-chart.html
 
Jan 14, 2009
3,528
1,559
205
64
Leeds
No doubt Look North will pick up on it too and probably Liz Green on Radio Leeds. She always looks for something negative. Fact is that this is going to be happening across the country, not just at LBA, so all those who don't like it had better get over it. The key thing is that the average noise levels will reduce. For everyone who gets more noise (what little there is) others will lose noise as they will no longer be on the arrival or departure route. Both arrivals and departures will also be higher, so make less noise. Arrivals will be on a constant descent with engines more or less idling all the way down, so again, less noise.
 

Tarn Spotter

Well-Known Member
Nov 5, 2012
753
306
63
When a wolf whistle may possibly be treated as a hate crime, the bar now very low as to what people may complain about.
As I have mentioned on another thread on this forum, some request by members of action that the airport should take to aid expansion, in my mind will increase the determination of some locals to campaign for the whole airport to be shut.
I am sure WH ear is nearer to the ground, but locally I hear nearly daily compliants about current activity after 10pm, my own experience this summer was hearing more and louder noise after 10pm, whilst I have no wish to complain, my neighbours in general just looking for an issue they can all get behind.
 

a300boy

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 8, 2010
1,879
512
123
68
Leeds Area
Moderator #311
I have the same situation with my neighbours who are close to the runway.
My issue would be if they try building houses at the top of the dam right at the side of the runway at a time when they are looking to expand operations.
My spotter head wants more flights and destinations but if the management want to put another mass of anti-airport families so near to the noise and emissions generated by modern aircraft I may feel the need to form a new LACAN action group would be required.
We have a problem with noise at present but any new houses built closer would have unacceptable levels of both noise and emissions plus safety issues.
Hope we do not need to go there.
 
Jan 14, 2009
3,528
1,559
205
64
Leeds
I get that but is that land owned by the airport?
It is.
Speaking as someone who has lived close to LBA all my life, and campaigned for it several times, including directly opposing LACAN, I have little sympathy for anyone who knowingly bought a house almost next to an airport, or under an existing flight path, and who then complains about aircraft noise. Fair enough if they have lived there years and since before the airport grew to what it is, but those who buy property at the ends of the runway or near any airport and then complain about it seriously annoy me. That is like people buying an apartment in the city centre and then complaining about traffic noise! Plain selfish. In the past, the council pandered to these people in order to ensure that their councillors were re-elected. Fortunately, those days appear to have gone and LCC knows the value of the airport - and so do most of their councillors.
As for flying after 10pm, I am not sure what the local people can rightly complain about (other than noise in general). The airport is now a 24 hour airport, able to fly 24h 365 days per week. Not flying overnight in winter is a voluntary closure as there is no demand to stay open later, but if the need is there, they can and do. It has been that way since the mid 90s. Yes, there may be more flights landing, but that was entirely predictable as the airport grew. Night movements are way within the night-time movement restrictions imposed as part of the planning restrictions, and even then, the vast majority of night movements are between 0600 and 0700, which at every other airport, is not even classified as a night movement.
 

Aviador

Administrator
Staff member
I've upgraded to support F4A!
Jan 12, 2009
12,229
3,121
323
HEAD OFFICE
Admin #314
Yes but what if you buy a home knowing where the airport parimeter is and then the airport sells some of this land for housing, which is I think what @a300boy is meaning. In my humble opinion, no land owned by the airport should be handed over for housing. Any unused land should be safeguarded for future airport use only, even if it's just a noise buffer zone.
 
Jan 14, 2009
3,528
1,559
205
64
Leeds
I agree that the airport selling land right next to the runway for housing makes little sense, even though it will earn them quite a lot of money. Chances are that the houses will be expensive, and occupied by a number of people who will then waste no opportunity to complain about aircraft movements whether by day or night, in which case the airport have just made a rod for their own backs.
However, if they do sell it for housing, then those people buying there have no right to complain about the airport or aircraft noise, provided the airport is operating within the planning approvals, which it is. And even then, planning approvals can be changed in the future. Since the period 0600 to 0700 is normally treated as a daytime movement at other airports, it wouldn't surprise me at all in the future if LBA sought to have it changed from a night time period to daytime. It makes little sense to have it classed as night time when half the city is getting up and ready for work/school/whatever at that time. Buying a house based entirely on how things are now and then complaining if things change isn't acceptable in my view, as you have to assume that change may happen.
 

Advertisement


Top Bottom