UK

9° London Hi 11°C / Lo 6°C

Targets urged to cut Heathrow stacking

By Peter Woodman, Press Association

Excessive stacking at Heathrow in west London has 'negative environmental impacts' say MPs

ADRIAN DENNIS/AFP/Getty Images

Excessive stacking at Heathrow in west London has 'negative environmental impacts' say MPs

Targets to eliminate excessive aircraft stacking - where planes queue up to land - must be set if a third runway is built at Heathrow, a report by MPs said today.

The Government should also look at limiting noise levels and aircraft numbers over beauty spots, the report from the House of Commons Transport Committee said.

MPs were also concerned that the extension of the European Aviation Safety Agency's remit could mean a lowering of safety standards.

Entitled the Use of Airspace, the report said some stacking was inevitable but that excessive stacking such as frequently occurred at Heathrow in west London had "negative environmental impacts".

The committee said: "A third runway at Heathrow, if built, offers a real opportunity to add resilience into the air traffic management system and to help reduce excessive stacking.

"If a third runway is built at Heathrow, the Government should create a framework for setting targets to eliminate excessive stacking around the airport."

The report said that the Department for Transport (DfT) and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) should "examine the case for adopting maximum limits on noise levels and numbers of aircraft permitted per hour over sensitive areas such as national parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty".

MPs also called on the DfT to issue up-to-date environmental guidance to the CAA before the end of the year, with the guidance representing current Government thinking on carbon dioxide and other emissions in relation to transport decision-making.

The report said: "The Government and CAA must work to ensure that environmental assessments for airspace-change proposals use reliable evidence-based criteria."

The committee also asked for six-monthly reports on the European Aviation Safety Agency whose remit is now set to include aerodrome safety, air navigation services and air traffic management.

MPs said they supported the principles of the single European sky initiative to create a more rational organisation of European airspace.

The report concluded there was "much to commend" in the current management of UK airspace and that the committee had been impressed by the "technical competence and professionalism" of the CAA and of air traffic control company Nats.

MPs rejected suggestions that responsibility for decision-making about airspace be placed in a different organisation than the CAA.

However, the committee said the CAA should review the techniques it used to design controlled airspace around airports and improve the way it communicated with stakeholders.

The CAA should also encourage a choice of options wherever airspace changes were proposed.

The committee's chairman Louise Ellman MP said: "If a third runway at Heathrow Airport is built, then the Government should set targets to cut stacking.

"Tranquillity is a key factor in sensitive areas such as national parks. Current guidance appears to allow unchecked increases in aviation activity over these areas. Without some level of constraint, the noise environment in these areas may degrade progressively as traffic increases. The DfT should fund exploratory research on how to set useful limits."

Ralph Smyth, senior transport campaigner at the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said: "With ever more people holidaying in England this summer, the proposal to limit flying over sensitive parts of our countryside such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty have not come a moment too soon."

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

MPs and Heathrow
[info]cryptonemesis wrote:
Friday, 10 July 2009 at 11:01 am (UTC)
I would like to know the connections between this 'Group of MPs' and the airline industry. This industry gives directorships, consultancies, cash for grands projets, perks and party donations to MPs, their families and party workers. The practice is widespread throughout government (petrochemicals. armaments, 'big finance', etc, etc) and is a much larger indictment of the failure of playing ping-pong between two ossified and corrupt adversarial parties than crooked MPs fiddling expenses.

This report is an attempt to normalise the thought of having a third runway at Heathrow which would ensure this cash cow for the airline industry has to be maintained through a period of economic and passenger decline, and a long time into the future. It would be fascinating to calculate how much the airline industry has paid for this report.

The statement: "A third runway at Heathrow, if built, offers a real opportunity to add resilience into the air traffic management system and to help reduce excessive stacking." is so supine and fatuous as to defy comment. Suffice it to say that if no third runway is built, as most of these MPs constituents demand it shouldn't, there would be an infinitely smaller chance of any 'excessive stacking'.



Stacking - NOP in the UK
[info]fungpee wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 08:43 am (UTC)
I have found stacking to be very useful as it allowed me to tidy up ready for a rapid exit upon landing as well as to make discrete cell calls. Besides it is Normal Operating Practice which is caused by the airlines trying to be able to claim they have the earliest departures/arrivals.

Had the authorities treated this matter seriously they could have eliminated much of this aerial noise disturbance. If they have to stack let them do it over the Atlantic or North Sea and not over Berkshire and Buckinghamshire.

Flights from Bangkok start off with BA closely followed by TG (Thai). The first departure, and subsequent departures, could be delayed by 30 minutes with little inconvenience to anyone so that the first inbound flight only enters UK airspace 15 minutes ahead of airport operating starting time.

The airlines certainly can't blame early arrival on 'wind' as the prevailing winds are against them on this sector. Besides, why should all this aeronautical soot be dumped on the green fields of England?

Willy whatever of BA would also save fuel if they applied common sense to this problem. Passengers don't select carriers by first arrivals but by service, something that BA seems to have lost in these days of restraint.

Most popular in UK News



Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date