Today's most viewed
| NEWS | | | | | SPORT | | | | | INTERVIEWS |  | | | FEATURED ARTICLE | | | | COMPETITIONS | | | |
|
|
|
Noisy planes are blighting our villages
RE: Last week's article which told how Susan Pratt of Lane End complained to the Civil Aviation Authority about planes doing aerobatics near her home. However, Wycombe Air Park in Booker said pilots would not have broken any rules.
REGARDING the noise from the aerobatics over Lane End, I sympathise with Mrs Pratt.
Many of us in this village heard the tedious droning of the offending planes, we too have also experienced our own noisy "air shows" close to our village.
If these were the only antisocial planes flying out of Wycombe Air Park I am sure most of us could let it pass. However this is absolutely not the case.
It is a sad fact that the significant air traffic generated by the Air Park has become a blight to many surrounding villages and districts, the majority of which lie within the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
With 100,000 movements a year, the air park provides an environmentally unfriendly, noisy leisure activity for a minority.
Years of constructive complaints, directed to the management of Wycombe Air Park from those of us who are detrimentally affected by the often incessant noise, have been routinely ignored. We live inside the "voluntary" Noise Abatement Zone (NAZ) as designated by Wycombe Air Park, a misnomer if ever there was one.
Via the Wycombe Air Park Action Group (WAPAG) web site we have already sent in over 130 formal complaints to the air park and Wycombe District Council environmental office in the last four months, mostly concerning errant flying of fixed wing planes inside the NAZ in our area. These are just a fraction of infringements we actually witness while we are in our garden and walking locally.
Surely when one of the aims of the Management Plan for the Chilterns AONB Conservation Board is to restore peace and quiet to the countryside, the time has come to ask Wycombe District Council as owner of the land used by the air park, to address this problem of antisocial noise not only for the sake of the people who live here but also for the sake of the thousands of visitors who come to this otherwise beautiful area.
Andy Chanter, Frieth
12:27pm Friday 15th August 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Tharus Bond, Wycombe on 1:36pm Fri 15 Aug 08
I've been on cressex road and it might not be a busy time on part of the airpark but the traffic on the road was louder. some subaru driver putting his foot down was louder than the plane flying overhead!
I've been on cressex road and it might not be a busy time on part of the airpark but the traffic on the road was louder. some subaru driver putting his foot down was louder than the plane flying overhead!
Posted by: resident, marlow on 4:17pm Fri 15 Aug 08
It seems that things have got a great deal worse than when we were living in deeds grove. Then even for us as far as we were away from the airfield, the noise from aeroplanes going round in circles around booker was intolerable especially on Wednesday nights. I wish the wycombe air park action group every success and even if they do manage to curtail the flights WDC seems determined to inflict a group of egg chasers upon them. The residents of Booker just can’t win. They have my sympathies
It seems that things have got a great deal worse than when we were living in deeds grove. Then even for us as far as we were away from the airfield, the noise from aeroplanes going round in circles around booker was intolerable especially on Wednesday nights. I wish the wycombe air park action group every success and even if they do manage to curtail the flights WDC seems determined to inflict a group of egg chasers upon them. The residents of Booker just can’t win. They have my sympathies
Posted by: wayne, wycombe on 6:30pm Fri 15 Aug 08
Andy Chanter, or should that be Andrea Chanter????
Andy Chanter, or should that be Andrea Chanter????
Posted by: jamie, wycombe on 6:45pm Fri 15 Aug 08
dont like the air park ?
well then move, it has to be near somebody and was probably already there when you purchase your house.
dont like the air park ?
well then move, it has to be near somebody and was probably already there when you purchase your house.
Posted by: Edgar, High Wycombe, Bucks. on 11:33pm Sat 16 Aug 08
"Tedious droning" could equally apply to Mr. Chanter. Booker is open, to traffic, for a total of 69.5 hours per week; at 52 weeks that's 3614 (3625 if I add the extra day) so we arrive at 21750 minutes. To have 10,000 movements, per year, there would need to be one every 2.17 minutes. I can believe that of Heathrow, but Booker? Please spare us this nonsense.
Does anyone keep up with the news? There are plans to close White Waltham, and, before the celebrations start, it would clear the way for Heathrow's third runway. Dispose of Booker, and there's little to stop aircraft, after they've taken off from Heathrow, from turning right, straight over Lane End, Frieth, Stokenchurch, etc. I wonder if you really want to replace the odd Cessna with A380, 747, etc., overflights? Still, the "incessant droning" will have gone, so obviously the roar of jets is preferable?
"Tedious droning" could equally apply to Mr. Chanter. Booker is open, to traffic, for a total of 69.5 hours per week; at 52 weeks that's 3614 (3625 if I add the extra day) so we arrive at 21750 minutes. To have 10,000 movements, per year, there would need to be one every 2.17 minutes. I can believe that of Heathrow, but Booker? Please spare us this nonsense.
Does anyone keep up with the news? There are plans to close White Waltham, and, before the celebrations start, it would clear the way for Heathrow's third runway. Dispose of Booker, and there's little to stop aircraft, after they've taken off from Heathrow, from turning right, straight over Lane End, Frieth, Stokenchurch, etc. I wonder if you really want to replace the odd Cessna with A380, 747, etc., overflights? Still, the "incessant droning" will have gone, so obviously the roar of jets is preferable?
Posted by: Andy Chanter, Frieth on 8:19pm Sun 17 Aug 08
Congratulations Edgar on your calculations. Perhaps now you can undersatnd why so many people are fed up with the constant noise from the Air Park. You will find that the 100.000 movements a yearis data provided by Wycombe Air Park. In fact this figure does fluctuate year on year from just below to just above this figure. The precise up to date figure from Jul 07 to June 08 is in fact 96,843 so 265 per day average up to end of June. This figure fluctuates on a daily basis according to the weather.
Broken down:-
55,045 fixed wing
17,410 helicopters
24,196 gliders and tugs
190 turbo-prop movements
2 pure jet movements
Congratulations Edgar on your calculations. Perhaps now you can undersatnd why so many people are fed up with the constant noise from the Air Park. You will find that the 100.000 movements a yearis data provided by Wycombe Air Park. In fact this figure does fluctuate year on year from just below to just above this figure. The precise up to date figure from Jul 07 to June 08 is in fact 96,843 so 265 per day average up to end of June. This figure fluctuates on a daily basis according to the weather.
Broken down:-
55,045 fixed wing
17,410 helicopters
24,196 gliders and tugs
190 turbo-prop movements
2 pure jet movements
Posted by: wayne, wycombe on 10:17pm Sun 17 Aug 08
Not only would the figure fluctuate according to the weather Chanter, the given area over which these aircraft fly, would also be effected considerably by the direction of the wind. Airfield movements is a gross figure that ais provided by your ilk more for effect than of their net value.
Flying over a
particular area would depend on which runway is in use at the time, at Booker there could be a number of runway changes in a day which also means that the circuit changes too; your gross figures are hot air unless you factor these runway changes in.
Not only would the figure fluctuate according to the weather Chanter, the given area over which these aircraft fly, would also be effected considerably by the direction of the wind. Airfield movements is a gross figure that ais provided by your ilk more for effect than of their net value.
Flying over a
particular area would depend on which runway is in use at the time, at Booker there could be a number of runway changes in a day which also means that the circuit changes too; your gross figures are hot air unless you factor these runway changes in.
Posted by: Tharus Bond, Wycombe on 8:11am Mon 18 Aug 08
well if leaved next door to these whiners then they would get the pleasure of hearing the major action scenes from 633 squadron and the dambusters on surround sound as loud as it can be!
not just planes droning but the sound of flak and explosions!
I was in lane end when the vulcan bomber flew over the village an amazing sight!
well if leaved next door to these whiners then they would get the pleasure of hearing the major action scenes from 633 squadron and the dambusters on surround sound as loud as it can be!
not just planes droning but the sound of flak and explosions!
I was in lane end when the vulcan bomber flew over the village an amazing sight!
Posted by: resident, marlow on 3:18pm Mon 18 Aug 08
[quote][bold]jamie[/bold] wrote:
dont like the air park ? well then move, it has to be near somebody and was probably already there when you purchase your house.[/quote] we nearly bought a bungalow on the western edge of booker common many years ago. Before we signed the contract we began clearing the site one Sunday morning and saw for ourselves the misery caused by aircraft missing the bungalow roof by only a few feet. Withdrawing from the purchase was the best thing we ever did.
jamie wrote:
dont like the air park ? well then move, it has to be near somebody and was probably already there when you purchase your house.
we nearly bought a bungalow on the western edge of booker common many years ago. Before we signed the contract we began clearing the site one Sunday morning and saw for ourselves the misery caused by aircraft missing the bungalow roof by only a few feet. Withdrawing from the purchase was the best thing we ever did.
Posted by: wayne, wycombe on 6:32pm Mon 18 Aug 08
Oh how dramatic!!! only a [bold]few feet[/bold] above the house!!! [bold]misery[/bold] !!!! I doubt you know what misery is you silly self centred prat.
Go and visit a kids hospital or a cancer ward, then you'll begin to understand misery.
Oh how dramatic!!! only a
few feet above the house!!!
misery !!!! I doubt you know what misery is you silly self centred prat.
Go and visit a kids hospital or a cancer ward, then you'll begin to understand misery.
Posted by: RobinsonR44, Lane End on 9:31pm Mon 18 Aug 08
Wayne you need to be very careful making nasty obnoxious comments like this. For all you know the writer has had or lost a child to cancer. If this is the case then your remarks are inhuman. And as, once again, you are not fully informed you should err on the side of caution. I have been on cancer wards with a sick child and find your remarks offensive.
Wayne you need to be very careful making nasty obnoxious comments like this. For all you know the writer has had or lost a child to cancer. If this is the case then your remarks are inhuman. And as, once again, you are not fully informed you should err on the side of caution. I have been on cancer wards with a sick child and find your remarks offensive.
Posted by: RobinsonR44, Lane End on 10:01pm Mon 18 Aug 08
Tharus Bond - at least stick to the point. White Waltham makes every effort to be a good neighbour to residents and funded the fitting of silencers to their planes to reduce noise impact on residents - they also moved the helicopter training facility to WAP to reduce local noise . WAP on the other hand had an offer from a local resident who wanted to fund the fitting of silencers to all planes operating from WAP. WAP refused to fit the silencers. This is just one example of the anti social, "I will do as I please" attitude from WAP towards residents. If you knew the full story you would not be suprised that there is a group of campaigners against the air park. The wind direction COULD change many times in a day but realistically does not - therefore the same planes circuit round and round without a break all day long. YES 96,000 of them per year - so amazing that Edgar did not believe it !!! Wayne since when do Helicopters rely on wind direction? Helicopters fly low and over roof tops when there is plenty of open land over which they can fly - why ? Because they choose to - just because they are pilots it does not give them the right to inconsiderately fly noisy aircraft solely to create annoyance to those on the ground.
Tharus Bond - at least stick to the point. White Waltham makes every effort to be a good neighbour to residents and funded the fitting of silencers to their planes to reduce noise impact on residents - they also moved the helicopter training facility to WAP to reduce local noise . WAP on the other hand had an offer from a local resident who wanted to fund the fitting of silencers to all planes operating from WAP. WAP refused to fit the silencers. This is just one example of the anti social, "I will do as I please" attitude from WAP towards residents. If you knew the full story you would not be suprised that there is a group of campaigners against the air park. The wind direction COULD change many times in a day but realistically does not - therefore the same planes circuit round and round without a break all day long. YES 96,000 of them per year - so amazing that Edgar did not believe it !!! Wayne since when do Helicopters rely on wind direction? Helicopters fly low and over roof tops when there is plenty of open land over which they can fly - why ? Because they choose to - just because they are pilots it does not give them the right to inconsiderately fly noisy aircraft solely to create annoyance to those on the ground.
Posted by: wayne, wycombe on 11:50pm Mon 18 Aug 08
I dont need to be careful at all, who are you, the Stasi? I certainly need no lectures from you on what is or isn't appropriate, if people are going to use emotive terms such as 'misery' to describe aircraft noise, then they should expect somebody to put 'misery' into perspective for them.
Now to your question "since when do Helicopters rely on wind"; helicopters transition and approach into wind the same as a fixed wing aircraft, they rely on lift like any aircraft and flying into wind simplistically put, promoted lift thus redusing the amount of power one needs to sustain lift. Helicopters might well be able to hover but many of they still have limitations like any motor vehicle.
As for wind changes, again you are ill advised, ignorant of the airfield operations or both, you will find that there can be a number of runway changes in a day, sorry but it's a fact.
As for residents, you speak for a very small minority, 100 or so out of 497000 is a drop in the ocean but the pro-airfield people of the area will soon have an opportunity to convey their feelings on the airfield and the flying activities.
Lastly, a piece of advice, take it or leave it, before you put White Waltham on a pedestal, I suggest that you undetake a little more research before trying to set the example, you might judt find that to do so, you will end up with 'egg-on-your-face', mind how you go.
I dont need to be careful at all, who are you, the Stasi? I certainly need no lectures from you on what is or isn't appropriate, if people are going to use emotive terms such as 'misery' to describe aircraft noise, then they should expect somebody to put 'misery' into perspective for them.
Now to your question "since when do Helicopters rely on wind"; helicopters transition and approach into wind the same as a fixed wing aircraft, they rely on lift like any aircraft and flying into wind simplistically put, promoted lift thus redusing the amount of power one needs to sustain lift. Helicopters might well be able to hover but many of they still have limitations like any motor vehicle.
As for wind changes, again you are ill advised, ignorant of the airfield operations or both, you will find that there can be a number of runway changes in a day, sorry but it's a fact.
As for residents, you speak for a very small minority, 100 or so out of 497000 is a drop in the ocean but the pro-airfield people of the area will soon have an opportunity to convey their feelings on the airfield and the flying activities.
Lastly, a piece of advice, take it or leave it, before you put White Waltham on a pedestal, I suggest that you undetake a little more research before trying to set the example, you might judt find that to do so, you will end up with 'egg-on-your-face', mind how you go.
Posted by: Ivor on 12:11am Tue 19 Aug 08
[quote]Via the Wycombe Air Park Action Group (WAPAG) web site we have already sent in over 130 formal complaints to the air park and Wycombe District Council environmental office in the last four months[/quote]Who has sent in the complaints? Real members of the public or the NIMBY’s who want to get rid of the airfield?
[bold]S[/bold]ave [bold]W[/bold]ycombe [bold]A[/bold]ir [bold]P[/bold]ark!
[bold]Have you read Ivor’s blog today?[/bold] Click on the [bold]“Readers Blogs”[/bold] link on the menu on the left.
Via the Wycombe Air Park Action Group (WAPAG) web site we have already sent in over 130 formal complaints to the air park and Wycombe District Council environmental office in the last four months
Who has sent in the complaints? Real members of the public or the NIMBY’s who want to get rid of the airfield?
Save
Wycombe
Air
Park!
Have you read Ivor’s blog today? Click on the
“Readers Blogs” link on the menu on the left.
Posted by: RobinsonR44, Lane End on 7:25pm Tue 19 Aug 08
No one is putting White Waltham on a pedestal - just simply saying they have gone a long way towards making some moves to being a good neighbour. It is to be noted Wayne that you make no refrence to WAP and the refusal to accept funding of silencers. Clearly you have some kind of love thing going with WAP - I can predict your reply so save yourself the bother.
No one is putting White Waltham on a pedestal - just simply saying they have gone a long way towards making some moves to being a good neighbour. It is to be noted Wayne that you make no refrence to WAP and the refusal to accept funding of silencers. Clearly you have some kind of love thing going with WAP - I can predict your reply so save yourself the bother.
Posted by: wayne, wycombe on 9:42pm Tue 19 Aug 08
[quote][bold]RobinsonR44[/bold] wrote:
No one is putting White Waltham on a pedestal - just simply saying they have gone a long way towards making some moves to being a good neighbour. It is to be noted Wayne that you make no refrence to WAP and the refusal to accept funding of silencers. Clearly you have some kind of love thing going with WAP - I can predict your reply so save yourself the bother.[/quote] You have asked so I will reply, Much of the noise of a propeller aircraft is of aerodynamic origin due to the flow of air around the blades or in the case of helicopters, the rotor and tail rotor. A silencer would be an expensive token gesture and also generally results in less power availability, a loss of performance and a higher cost. These also have to be fitted and maintained to CAA engineering standards.
Besides all that, WAP aren't doing anything illegal, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't so why bother.
RobinsonR44 wrote:
No one is putting White Waltham on a pedestal - just simply saying they have gone a long way towards making some moves to being a good neighbour. It is to be noted Wayne that you make no refrence to WAP and the refusal to accept funding of silencers. Clearly you have some kind of love thing going with WAP - I can predict your reply so save yourself the bother.
You have asked so I will reply, Much of the noise of a propeller aircraft is of aerodynamic origin due to the flow of air around the blades or in the case of helicopters, the rotor and tail rotor. A silencer would be an expensive token gesture and also generally results in less power availability, a loss of performance and a higher cost. These also have to be fitted and maintained to CAA engineering standards.
Besides all that, WAP aren't doing anything illegal, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't so why bother.
Posted by: wayne, wycombe on 9:45pm Tue 19 Aug 08
Oh and as far as neighbours go, again, it was YOU who moved next to the airfield, I think it is you who is being a bad neighbour?
Oh and as far as neighbours go, again, it was YOU who moved next to the airfield, I think it is you who is being a bad neighbour?
Posted by: RobinsonR44, Lane End on 10:00am Wed 20 Aug 08
I dont remember asking for tech detail on helicopter noise but thanks for the info which I knew anyway. You are missing the point entirely but then that happens when you become obsessive !
Why would WAP be damned for fitting free silencers - the research done on safety amd loss of power is already documented - from noise point of view silencers are a benefit - the tugs have them (please dont go into bigger engine/more powerful bit) there is no valid reason to turn down FREE silencers to improve noise footprint other than being bloody minded.
Silencers are fitted world wide, if there was good reason to doubt their performance manufacturers would have gone out of business a long time ago. It is also unversally recognised that quieter planes are a requirement for the future - hence the millions of pounds being spent on research for quieter planes and halicopters. WAP planes are old - very noisy gas guzzling machines.
DO YOU NOT HAVE TO FIT A SILENCER TO YOUR CAR - if you have one - planes with silencers are no different in terms of noise - if every ng individual has to comply with the law for cars then why should rich boys toys be any different - except - before you tell me - there is no law affecting silencers for planes - the issue would be a public relations one - but the WAP boys like to ROAR over the villages of Bucks - fitting silencers would be like taking away some of their pleasure !!!! We could not have that could we - they might throw a tantrum.
Again Wayne you are assuming I moved close to the air field - assume makes an **** out of u and me - no one said I actually live in Lane End - I may visit/or not visit a lot but there is nothing to say I do or do not live there.
I dont remember asking for tech detail on helicopter noise but thanks for the info which I knew anyway. You are missing the point entirely but then that happens when you become obsessive !
Why would WAP be damned for fitting free silencers - the research done on safety amd loss of power is already documented - from noise point of view silencers are a benefit - the tugs have them (please dont go into bigger engine/more powerful bit) there is no valid reason to turn down FREE silencers to improve noise footprint other than being bloody minded.
Silencers are fitted world wide, if there was good reason to doubt their performance manufacturers would have gone out of business a long time ago. It is also unversally recognised that quieter planes are a requirement for the future - hence the millions of pounds being spent on research for quieter planes and halicopters. WAP planes are old - very noisy gas guzzling machines.
DO YOU NOT HAVE TO FIT A SILENCER TO YOUR CAR - if you have one - planes with silencers are no different in terms of noise - if every ng individual has to comply with the law for cars then why should rich boys toys be any different - except - before you tell me - there is no law affecting silencers for planes - the issue would be a public relations one - but the WAP boys like to ROAR over the villages of Bucks - fitting silencers would be like taking away some of their pleasure !!!! We could not have that could we - they might throw a tantrum.
Again Wayne you are assuming I moved close to the air field - assume makes an **** out of u and me - no one said I actually live in Lane End - I may visit/or not visit a lot but there is nothing to say I do or do not live there.
Posted by: wayne, wycombe on 10:40am Wed 20 Aug 08
Make your mind up!! is it about noise or a misconceived'class' war? you're all over the place, do you know yourself?
Again,one does not have to be rich in order to fly, fact!
If you "already knew anyway", then why have you been wrong on a multitude of points?
As for your dramatical "[italic]ROARING over the villages of Bucks piece[/italic] ", I have to concede that that alone,is worthy of the peabody amateur theatrics scholorship, could get you into the Lane End players that.
As far as "requirement for the future goes", I think you'll find that people will have a lot more to be concerned about in the future, than perceived noise from light aircraft.
Make your mind up!! is it about noise or a misconceived'class' war? you're all over the place, do you know yourself?
Again,one does not have to be rich in order to fly, fact!
If you "already knew anyway", then why have you been wrong on a multitude of points?
As for your dramatical "
ROARING over the villages of Bucks piece ", I have to concede that that alone,is worthy of the peabody amateur theatrics scholorship, could get you into the Lane End players that.
As far as "requirement for the future goes", I think you'll find that people will have a lot more to be concerned about in the future, than perceived noise from light aircraft.
Posted by: stewj, Loudwater on 1:13pm Wed 20 Aug 08
If you really want to moan why not move near heathrow or Gatwick
Stop moaning about light aircraft
If you really want to moan why not move near heathrow or Gatwick
Stop moaning about light aircraft
Posted by: resident, marlow on 6:48pm Wed 20 Aug 08
The exchanges above have persuaded me never to return to this web site let alone this web page.
The exchanges above have persuaded me never to return to this web site let alone this web page.
Posted by: Wally, Beaconsfield on 10:27pm Wed 20 Aug 08
It was hilarious to see an article in the same paper a few pages later where a some war veterans nostalgically comment on the excitement of seeing/hearing second world war fighter planes flying over Kingshill. It would be fun to put both parties together in a pub in Lane End.....
It was hilarious to see an article in the same paper a few pages later where a some war veterans nostalgically comment on the excitement of seeing/hearing second world war fighter planes flying over Kingshill. It would be fun to put both parties together in a pub in Lane End.....
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
