Ah… I hear that City has reopened 
Yes it’s been open for a few weeks, but we’ve had westerly winds so no arrivals over us.
Wind changed to light easterly yesterday meaning for the next few days we get Heathrow and City together.
At least London City can’t fly from lunchtime Saturday to lunchtime Sunday and both airports are operating at only a small% of their usual numbers.
Who’d want to expose themselves or families to airports and flying atm though, unless you really have to.
I think I’d be more concerned about the Tube ride to Heathrow at the moment.
I want to go up to Scotland to see my family in the next few weeks - as I’ve missed a few family occasions and haven’t seen them since Christmas. And am debating whether an hour’s flight is better or worse than a 5 hour train journey in terms of risk and likelihood of others keeping masks on. Depressingly the flight is less than half the train fare…
If I owned a car, I’d probably drive up as the least risk. Somehow I don’t think my usual cycling mode of transport is a great option this time 
1 Like
One hour flight plus time for check in, security, and arrival.
I know… but door to door journeys are still 4 hours v 7 hours.
It’s the really enclosed bit that I’m weighing up as should be easier to avoid people not wearing masks at the station/airport. Are plane HEPA filters better than a train’s air-con? And the train goes through bits of the country which have higher R numbers than London at the moment…
But social distancing is likely to be better on the train… even if people are less likely to keep masks on for the full enclosed journey.
The air in a plane has HEPA filters and the air is renewed every 4 minutes according to our Queasyjet blurb.
Tricky one, and there seem no rights and wrongs. Really hard to weigh it all up when we have so little information to help. Is each hour on a plane with cramped seating and no social distancing a higher or lower risk than 4 hours on a more socially distanced train? Who knows.
With planes, there have also been daily pics of large numbers queuing in close proximity at airports at security/passport control and at least trains avoid that. Maybe I’d feel more in control of my own actions, interactions and events with the train option.
I suspect that the risk of any one individual catching Covid on any given mass transport journey is miniscule. But then so is the risk of any one person catching it in a pub- but we still know clusters have happened in some.
In the rush for passport control at Stansted social distancing went out the window. Thank goodness for masks.
Very few aircraft in the sky right now, and the industry is desperate to reintroduce leisure flights and reduce quarantine times for passengers. So noise over SE23 will eventually climb back to its 2019 levels again over time, about 3 years.
So how are the noise interests of the overflown to be represented as they build-back-not necessarily-any-better? Not by the Civil Aviation Authority or the Dept for Transport for sure.
But ICCAN, the Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise , 2 years into its mission, is asking for views on what it should do next.
Critics say ICCAN is a talking shop, providing cover for unlimited expansion of the sector. I’ve met their Head Commissioner a few times, and that’s not what I think, though the pace of meaningful change in aviation is glacial.
To challenge airports and their industry on noise, flight paths and so on, I and others have had to become more expert than we should ever have to be. Without expert resource there is very little the overflown can do. ICCAN is now suggesting it should become a statutory body, with powers to set standards, be a statutory consultee on planning applications and airspace change.
I agree, and will be attending a focus group at ICCAN for the Forest Hill Society in a couple of weeks. Better to have ICCAN there with expertise to keep aircraft noise firmly on the agenda, than for it to either not be there or to have no power to influence anything.
To put your view there is a very easy read 10 page document and questionnaire here.
ICCAN’s emerging view on the future of aviation noise management – ICCAN
6 Likes
Not many aircraft over us at the moment, but thought some would be interested in seeing the type campaigning that is going on around night flights - the government has a consultation ending in a few days on national night flights policy from 2024.
One of the most common complaints in SE23 is of the early morning arrivals to Heathrow rumbling over us from 4.30 a.m. on warm summer mornings. Heathrow seem completely resistant to making any change to this, despite of course having runway capacity to spare at the moment if the will were there to reschedule these flights for later to spare Londoners the wake up .
Meanwhile and to recap, locally the Forest Hill Society has had strong support in its campaigning efforts from London Assembly Member Len Duvall, MP’s Janet Daby and Ellie Reeves, and Lewisham Cllrs not limited to but including Leo Gibbons and Sophie McGeevor to challenge in particular London City Airport’s low altitude concentrated flight path over Lewisham. This includes attending meetings with London City Airport with us, taking up our issues with Ministers , asking questions in Parliament and writing supporting statements to our submissions. Ellie gave further assurance of her support at the FHSoc AGM in late 2020.
3 Likes
Funny you bring it up as I’ve really noticed planes the past couple of weeks.
Had a really loud plane fly over at about 10-11pm in the direction of Heathrow the other night whilst trying to sleep. And had extremely low flying planes during the day at weekends towards London City, so low that I can see the airline logo (I’m short sighted and can’t watch tv without my glasses).
1 Like
interesting you say that - I wonder if, as both airports pick up again, more people will notice and/or be bothered by the noise than they were before. With our parks and open spaces being used more than ever before, we’ve become used to the peace and quiet of outdoor spaces and gardens.
I realise it’s not a universally popular view, but I think while demand is so low it’s an opportunity to close London City airport for good, leaving the area to be developed for housing and business and improving the environment for millions across London. No need for an expansive, international, increasingly leisure flight oriented airport in the middle of our city when there are so many other airports with capacity within easy public transport range of all Londoners.
4 Likes
Yes, I agree .Closing it might not to be the best outcome but it should be discussed. The neighbours of the airport and those who live in the northern part of Thamesmead under very low airplanes have it much worse than us. Of course they tend to be poor in those areas so do not get considered. It is the interests of the City which are but maybe the airport is not going to be that important to the City in the future.
1 Like
I’ve never seen a more complex survey, clearly designed to make people give up.
1 Like
Couldn’t agree more from an individual person perspective. fortunately the major campaign groups are not easily deterred and have submitted detailed responses.
2 Likes
London City Airport Community Fund – 2021 second tranche
London City Airport Community Fund is open for applications.
If you are a charity or a not-for-profit organisation delivering project/programme for your local community, you may be eligible to apply for a grant between £300 - £3000.
Please have a look at the eligible boroughs and funding criteria to ensure your project falls within these. For more information and how to apply please visit our Community Fund website.
Applications are now open, deadline for this round is 5pm on Friday 28th May 2021. Awardees will be announced w/c 26th July 2021.
1 Like
This feels like a bit of bribery for us SE23 residences who have been putting up with & complaining about the excess noise & pollution from London City airport low flying planes since 2016.
I am very sad to say the planes are back, yesterday was bad with one after another low flying excessively noisy planes over my house & garden. I dread easterly wind direction as that mean City airport are back. I have a app that tells my all the information on said planes, flying over me at between 1600 to 1800 feet. Not the 2000 feet the airport always states when I complain. It has been so nice to be rid of this intrusive damaging noise in the last year, we could live our lives as before 2016 & actually hear the birds song & have conversations.
2 Likes
agree the London City flight path over Lewisham is a disgrace. It is low altitude and in a single line over us since 2016. I attend (for the Forest Hill Society) their consultative committee meetings and despite support from Lewisham Council and our MP, the process of getting this changed for the better is unfortunately glacially slow and tied to a national airspace redesign programme.
As for the airport’s charity it is part of their overall PR strategy, though they would call it community engagement. Set up just a couple of years ago, I believe that they would have limited applicants to the one or two boroughs close to the airport if they hadn’t had pressure from activists. The charitable funds are available to Lewisham, sources of funds are hard to find, and I try to encourage local charities to apply. Even if they have to hold their noses while doing it.
2 Likes
At a meeting I attended in 2019 which was arranged by Lewisham East MP & attended by representatives from both Heathrow & London City airports, city airport had not included Lewisham in the grants to Lewisham. The reps for city airport we’re using the grants to justify their low flying aircraft as giving something back for the nuisance they were causing but on questioning conceded that Lewisham was not included. In fact Harmen who replies to complaints to London City Airport stated in answer to my complaints some years ago about low flying aircraft that LCA gives grant to areas affected by the airport. On questioning she agreed that Lewisham was not one of these boroughs, so this grant to Lewisham is recent & will be used as a justification for the disturbance & pollution to us in Forest Hill which will not help our fight to get an acceptable outcome for us long suffering residents.