Here are some of my other answers, adapted from the W4 forum, if ut;s helpful, etc:Question 7:I object to new flight paths over Acton Central and its area being covered by any design envelope, especially A1. The Heathrow Expansion proposal is designed with the greatest contempt for London and its residents, especially those in the A1 flight path where previously there was no flight path. This proposal will directly affect communities not previously under the flight path which is in direct conflict with the design principle 6(b). These new flight envelopes will require aircraft to bank steeply, needing more engine power and noise to do so, producing not just noise pollution but air pollution than currently occurs with glide paths. This too is in direct conflict and incongruence to design principle 6(a) using more noise efficient operational practices. There appears to have been no attempt to evaluate the detrimental effects of the independent parallel approaches nor has there been any parliamentary scrutiny. This is particularly surprising given the concerns that exist over the use of concentrated flight paths over densely populated areas.Question 8:Your airspace proposals contravene your own design principles – something Heathrow agreed to. It is disingenuous and incongruent to continue with such proposals and to do so is in contempt of that agreement. Heathrow agreed to minimise the number of newly overflown residents. To fly in the face of such an agreement is to put economic and business interests above the mental and physical health of the local community. I therefore object strongly to this life-changing airspace proposal.Question 9:I strongly object to the fact that Heathrow have failed to hold a consultation event in Acton Central, so our residents who will be very badly affected if the proposals were to be implemented, with so many newly overflown homes (should Heathrow fail to comply with its design principles). I question the validity of this online consultation. And then the question about Noise (can't remember which question or section that was) I put the following, which I mentioned in a previous post:Noise:Acton Central will be under your A1 flight path and is currently not under a flight path - this will change the quality of life in the area. Aircraft will be flying as low as 2,000 with decibels of 63-86, depending on the aircraft, etc. This is unacceptable. The World Health Organisation has issued guidance showing that aircraft noise above 45 decibels on average is associated with adverse health effects. Acton Central is also not flat and has higher land in parts, therefore, the ground elevation will increase noise pollution. Is the 2,000 to 3,000 ft flight path measured from sea level or the highest point in Acton Central? It is recommended by the NATS that low level flight paths should avoid high ground. NATS also say that continuous descent approach (CDA) creates less noise and air pollution. With your proposals for a steeped descent over A1 areas, there will be increased noise and air pollution.The Guardian, 2013, reported a British Medical Journal study looking at the” health of people living in the vicinity of Heathrow airport which found those with the highest noise exposure were 10-20% more likely to be admitted to hospital for stroke, coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease. There was also an increased risk of death from those diseases. Those who had to put up with the highest noise levels – more than 63 decibels in the day or 55 decibels at night – had the highest risks.”
Angela White ● 2615d