| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:3rd runway noise in Chiswick | |
| Posted by: | Jeff Gear | |
| Date/Time: | 08/02/08 17:40:00 |
| Interesting stuff there Tom, and food for thought. There's really nothing for me to argue with in what you say, but it ends up at a position that doesn't work for me. Thus: "My only issue is the chance of actually experiencing such a stream". Guess I was lucky, but I did. Spent a half hour there mid evening and only one 4 engine plane (747) was in the stream. Average spacing was about 120 seconds, but this was a noise environment I don't want to live in. "That is why we must get an ironclad guarantee on the 57 dB Leq contour area." I like the logic, but the history suggests that no matter how iron the cladding it will somehow melt when BAA want more plane movements. The other problem for me, as above, is that 57dB is too much anyway, but I recognise that only some proportion of Chiswickians will feel the same. I agree, trying to stop R3 is way to go. If R3 goes ahead I guess we'll have to move. "Because of the way the dB Leq contours work, a noisy plane landing on R3 will cost more than twice the contribution to the noise cap as landing on the existing runways." Why? Is a brief explanation possible? |