Paul Terry gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

Did it come as a great surprise to you, back then, that aircraft
movements would increase?

Yes.

gobsmacked

Why did they do that? Because the aircraft noise made _that_ house, in
a location of _that_ type, cheaper than it would have been if it
wasn't for the aircraft noise.

Houses in Richmond are among the most expensive in the country.

"among".

Exactly. Your claim that house prices under the flight path are cheaper
is not born out by the facts, except in the immediate vicinity of the
airport.

I notice you snipped the rest of that response. Shall we consider it
again?

Compare Richmond prices with an equivalent area, with equivalent
transport links and proximity to central London, but without the
aircraft noise.

Or, let's put it another way, what d'you think would happen to
Richmond house prices if the aircraft noise stopped tomorrow?

In message , Roland Perry
writes

The only problem with that argument is that very few charter/low-cost
flights use Heathrow - it's almost entirely full service airlines.

True, but it was the advent of low cost flights (notably Skytrain) after
deregulation in the late 70s that caused the main carriers to bring down
prices and thus trigger an enormous expansion in flights.
--
Paul Terry

In message , Adrian
writes

I notice you snipped the rest of that response. Shall we consider it
again?

Compare Richmond prices with an equivalent area, with equivalent
transport links and proximity to central London, but without the
aircraft noise.

Or, let's put it another way, what d'you think would happen to
Richmond house prices if the aircraft noise stopped tomorrow?

What on earth is the point of speculating on something that will never
happen? But do feel free to do so if you wish, and let us know what you
think would happen, and why.
--
Paul Terry

Richard J. wrote on 16 April 2010 17:55:28 ...
wrote on 16 April 2010 15:34:33 ...
"Basil wrote in message

Changing the subject slightly, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway
says "Runway designations change over time because the magnetic poles
slowly drift on the Earth's surface and the magnetic bearing will
change. When runway designations do change, especially at major
airports, it is often changed overnight as taxiway signs need to be
changed and the huge numbers at each end of the runway need to be
repainted to the new runway designators. In July 2009 for example,
London Stansted Airport in the United Kingdom changed its runway
designations from 05/23 to 04/22 overnight."

Yes, that happened at Heathrow many years ago. I think what is now 09
was 08 back then (or was it 10?).

Yes 09 and 27 were 08 and 28. The runways are currently 092º and 272º
magnetic.

CORRECTION ('cos what I wrote above is rubbish: 08 and 28 are 200
degrees difference and it must be 180!)
The current 09 and 27 were originally 10 and 28.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Basil Jet wrote:

Changing the subject slightly, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway says
"Runway designations change over time because the magnetic poles slowly
drift on the Earth's surface and the magnetic bearing will change. When
runway designations do change, especially at major airports, it is often
changed overnight as taxiway signs need to be changed and the huge
numbers at each end of the runway need to be repainted to the new runway
designators. In July 2009 for example, London Stansted Airport in the
United Kingdom changed its runway designations from 05/23 to 04/22
overnight."

I'm surprised that the bearings are magnetic rather than true (which would
never change, up to continental drift). Is the idea that the poor pilots
shouldn't have to deal with correcting their compasses in flight? What do
they do now they use (laser) gyrocompasses? Apply a magnetic decorrection
so they can work out where the runway points?

tom

--
Well parse this, you little markup asshole. -- The Parable of the
Languages

Tom Anderson wrote on 17 April 2010 14:03:46 ...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Basil Jet wrote:

Changing the subject slightly, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway says
"Runway designations change over time because the magnetic poles slowly
drift on the Earth's surface and the magnetic bearing will change. When
runway designations do change, especially at major airports, it is often
changed overnight as taxiway signs need to be changed and the huge
numbers at each end of the runway need to be repainted to the new runway
designators. In July 2009 for example, London Stansted Airport in the
United Kingdom changed its runway designations from 05/23 to 04/22
overnight."

I'm surprised that the bearings are magnetic rather than true (which would
never change, up to continental drift). Is the idea that the poor pilots
shouldn't have to deal with correcting their compasses in flight?

Poor pilots can only afford a magnetic compass.

What do they do now they use (laser) gyrocompasses? Apply a magnetic
decorrection so they can work out where the runway points?

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heading_indicator the
gyrocompass (heading indiactor) has to be reset several times an hour so
that it matches the magnetic compass, otherwise it will drift for
various reasons. In other words, it's the heading given by the magnetic
compass in straight and level flight that is the reference.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

"Adrian" wrote

[snip]

Yes, I'll cheerfully accept there might still be the odd resident
who
hasn't moved since Heathrow opened. 64 years ago. (Did you know
Heathrow
had six runways in the late '40s?)

My first trip through Heathrow was 58 years ago. I would have used
the old North Terminal, I guess, although I checked in at the BEA
terminal, which I think was around Waterloo somewhere - they hadn't
built their Kensington terminal off Cromwell Road then

Jeremy Parker

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010, Richard J. wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote on 17 April 2010 14:03:46 ...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Basil Jet wrote:

Changing the subject slightly, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway says
"Runway designations change over time because the magnetic poles slowly
drift on the Earth's surface and the magnetic bearing will change. When
runway designations do change, especially at major airports, it is often
changed overnight as taxiway signs need to be changed and the huge
numbers at each end of the runway need to be repainted to the new runway
designators. In July 2009 for example, London Stansted Airport in the
United Kingdom changed its runway designations from 05/23 to 04/22
overnight."

I'm surprised that the bearings are magnetic rather than true (which would
never change, up to continental drift). Is the idea that the poor pilots
shouldn't have to deal with correcting their compasses in flight?

Poor pilots can only afford a magnetic compass.

What do they do now they use (laser) gyrocompasses? Apply a magnetic
decorrection so they can work out where the runway points?

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heading_indicator the
gyrocompass (heading indiactor) has to be reset several times an hour so
that it matches the magnetic compass, otherwise it will drift for
various reasons. In other words, it's the heading given by the magnetic
compass in straight and level flight that is the reference.

That's for light aircraft. Commercial aircraft use laser gyros and so on.

Still, i suppose the point is that the system has to be set up so that
pilots with even the most spartan equipment can navigate safely, and that
means using magnetic bearings everywhere - apparently directional radio
beacons also use magnetic bearings.

Still, i'm surprised even light aircraft pilots have to correct their
indicators manually. 125 USD buys you this:

http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/pro...oducts_id=9623

Which is a hobbyist component, but should cost no more for a real
manufacturer, which includes solid-state accelerometry, turn-rate sensing,
and magnetometry in all three dimensions, and a processor. That could do
magnetically-corrected heading indication without too much trouble. I
suppose doing it robustly and then getting it certified would cost quite a
bit more.

tom

--
solvilvitur ambulando. copy a diamond shape, recording angel. .. ..

"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...
In message , Adrian
writes

If you don't like it, don't buy a house under the flight path. It's that
simple.

Since I know of nobody who actually enjoys aircraft noise
I'm sure there are people who actually enjoy it. I certainly went through a
phase where standing under the departure end of the runway at Gatwick was
considered a cool way to spend an afternoon. It just wouldn't have been the
same without the noise ...

are you suggesting that the 2 million people affected by noise from
Heathrow should be rehoused so that a quarter of London can be
depopulated?

I think he was suggesting the ones who didn't think they could stand it
shouldn't have moved there in the first place. When I lived near Gatwick
(see below) there were indeed times when I was 'affected' by aircraft noise.
Now I live in Hove, where I'm 'affected' by things like police sirens and
helicopters, late night revellers etc. If I found it intolerable I suppose I
would have to consider moving to a house in the rural middle of nowhere.
Trouble is that if everyone did that the rural middle of nowhere would get
awfully crowded - and it's a long way to the shops.

I know people who wouldn't even consider looking at a house if it was
anywhere near a railway line ("couldn't stand the noise") and yet were quite
happy with a house on a busy road. I know someone else who has the M20 and
HS1 at the bottom of his garden. No one is forcing him to live there, and he
definitely has the means to move to places that are both a *lot* quieter and
closer to his work in central London. He has been in this house for at least
15 years and shows no sign of moving. Just about anywhere in SE England has
its pros and cons. You choose what matters to you and pay your money
accordingly.

Yes, I'll cheerfully accept there might still be the odd resident who
hasn't moved since Heathrow opened. 64 years ago. (Did you know Heathrow
had six runways in the late '40s?)

The number of aircraft movements since then has increased many times
OTOH the aircraft are a lot quieter. I grew up in a house about 3 miles west
of Gatwick. In the 1970/80s you definitely knew about it when aircraft were
taking off in that direction. By the late 1990s when my parents moved away
the aircraft had gained a lot more height by the time they got to us and
they were a lot quieter anyway.

DAS

Basil Jet wrote:
On 16/04/2010 19:32, redcat wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
On 16/04/2010 14:08, Mizter T wrote:
Rather nice, isn't it! Enjoy it whilst you can.

Good time to sell that Hounslow house.

Basil Jet, they're allowing you out and about?

If anyone else had written that, I'd ponder its meaning.

But you understand me perfectly! How nice :-)

BTW -- my personal sun is gathering some clouds around it. This crazy
volcano stuff; am I going to be able to get to your fair city in 12
days? :-/

rc