| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
The quiet skies over London town
Rather nice, isn't it! Enjoy it whilst you can.
|
The quiet skies over London town
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. |
The quiet skies over London town
Mizter T gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: Rather nice, isn't it! Enjoy it whilst you can. If you don't like it, don't buy a house under the flight path. It's that simple. 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 quiet skies over London town
"Adrian" wrote in message
Mizter T gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Rather nice, isn't it! Enjoy it whilst you can. If you don't like it, don't buy a house under the flight path. It's that simple. 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?) Yes, but never more than two in use at any one time, just like today (well, OK, not today!). You can just about make out the outlines of the four closed (and partly built-over) runways from modern aerial views. |
The quiet skies over London town
On Apr 16, 2:31*pm, Adrian wrote: Mizter T gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Rather nice, isn't it! Enjoy it whilst you can. If you don't like it, don't buy a house under the flight path. It's that simple. 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?) Angry man! Calm down dear. Anyhow, large swathes of London are affected by aircraft noise, including areas quite far away from Heathrow. |
The quiet skies over London town
On 16 Apr 2010 13:31:34 GMT
Adrian wrote: Mizter T gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Rather nice, isn't it! Enjoy it whilst you can. If you don't like it, don't buy a house under the flight path. It's that simple. That would be most of london then. B2003 |
The quiet skies over London town
Mizter T gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: Rather nice, isn't it! Enjoy it whilst you can. If you don't like it, don't buy a house under the flight path. It's that simple. 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?) Angry man! Calm down dear. Not at all angry. Anyhow, large swathes of London are affected by aircraft noise, including areas quite far away from Heathrow. Umm, yes, and? |
The quiet skies over London town
On 16 Apr, 14:42, "Recliner" wrote:
You can just about make out the outlines of the four closed (and partly built-over) runways from modern aerial views. Out of interest, did they form a "star of David" pattern, or are they now somewhat more subtle in terms of visible remains? PhilD -- |
The quiet skies over London town
"PhilD" wrote in message
On 16 Apr, 14:42, "Recliner" wrote: You can just about make out the outlines of the four closed (and partly built-over) runways from modern aerial views. Out of interest, did they form a "star of David" pattern, or are they now somewhat more subtle in terms of visible remains? Yes, three pairs of relatively short parallel runways, forming an enclosed hexagonal central area (hence the the need for road tunnels). Some parts of the closed runways are currently used as taxiways, but the remote T3 pier is clearly built right on top of one of the old runways, as is the new control tower. The two remaining 9/27 runways are now much longer than they were originally. |
The quiet skies over London town
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." |
The quiet skies over London town
On Apr 16, 3:01*pm, Adrian wrote: Mizter T gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Rather nice, isn't it! Enjoy it whilst you can. If you don't like it, don't buy a house under the flight path. It's that simple. 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?) Angry man! Calm down dear. Not at all angry. Funny, you sounded like a spluttering self-righteous so and so to me. Anyhow, large swathes of London are affected by aircraft noise, including areas quite far away from Heathrow. Umm, yes, and? So don't live in London is basically what you're saying? Right. Anyway, I can't quite connect your outburst to the two sentences of observation in my original post. |
The quiet skies over London town
"Basil Jet" 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?). |
The quiet skies over London town
Mizter T gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: Rather nice, isn't it! Enjoy it whilst you can. If you don't like it, don't buy a house under the flight path. It's that simple. 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?) Angry man! Calm down dear. Not at all angry. Funny, you sounded like a spluttering self-righteous so and so to me. Not at all the intent. If you wish to assign any tone of voice, then "tired of whinging fools" is probably closest. Anyhow, large swathes of London are affected by aircraft noise, including areas quite far away from Heathrow. Umm, yes, and? So don't live in London is basically what you're saying? Right. No, not at all. Just don't moan about the things which are inherently London, and were predictably so when you moved there. It's like buying a house looking onto say the A1/A406 junction, then complaining about there being lots of traffic noise. Or buying a house next to a village church then whinging about the bell-ringing. Or buying a house on the lane between a dairy farm's yard and grazing then whinging about cow**** on the road. All of which people do. Regularly. It's certainly not a London thing. Anyway, I can't quite connect your outburst to the two sentences of observation in my original post. Simple. Only a fool would buy a house under the flightpath to one of Europe's busiest airports then complain about aircraft noise. "Enjoy it whilst you can" certainly sounds like a complaint to me. |
The quiet skies over London town
Recliner 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. -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
The quiet skies over London town
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, 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? 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, particularly since the proliferation of freight flights during the 1980s. For many, the night quota system introduced in the 1990s was the final straw - the last scheduled flight arrives at Heathrow at 11.30pm and the busy early-morning period starts at 4.55am. Less than five-and-a-half hours sleep is not enough, especially since the night quota allows for a number of flights even during that precious period of calm. -- Paul Terry |
The quiet skies over London town
Paul Terry gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying: 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, 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? Not at all. Those people voluntarily chose to live there since the aircraft noise was a fact of life. 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. They bought the house cheaper, or a better house for the same money, than if the aircraft noise was not there. Now that they've forgotten about the benefit side of that particular cost/ benefit equation, they want to ignore the cost side, too. Tough. Life don't work like that. You made your bed, now lie in it. The number of aircraft movements since then has increased many times, particularly since the proliferation of freight flights during the 1980s. ~25yrs ago. For many, the night quota system introduced in the 1990s ~15yrs ago. was the final straw - the last scheduled flight arrives at Heathrow at 11.30pm and the busy early-morning period starts at 4.55am. Less than five-and-a-half hours sleep is not enough, especially since the night quota allows for a number of flights even during that precious period of calm. I lived in the NW quadrant of the M4/M25 junction for several years since that night quota introduction. I've since lived directly under the flightpath of Luton airport, roughly a mile from the eastern end of the runway - since that airport's proliferation of cheapies. I've been there, done that. Surprisingly, when I moved to each of those, I was well aware that it wasn't actually a rural idyll. I found you tuned the planes out quickly. For those who find they can't ignore them, and the resulting period of sleep insufficient, I'd suggest they consider moving house - just like those for whom changes 15-25yrs ago were "the final straw" presumably did. Oh, look. They might have to pay a bit more to get an equal house. Just like they would've done when they moved in. |
The quiet skies over London town
On Apr 16, 3:59*pm, Adrian wrote: [stuff] You've made a ****load of assumptions. I've got a lot on this weekend but I'll be back to respond properly when I can. |
The quiet skies over London town
In message , Adrian
writes Paul Terry gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: 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, 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? Not at all. Those people voluntarily chose to live there since the aircraft noise was a fact of life. But the noise was considerably less back in the 1970s, when I bought my house. 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. Bollox. Houses in Richmond are among the most expensive in the country. Now that they've forgotten about the benefit side of that particular cost/ benefit equation, they want to ignore the cost side, too. You've made the error of thinking that your equation is correct. -- Paul Terry |
The quiet skies over London town
Mizter T gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: [stuff] You've made a ****load of assumptions. I've got a lot on this weekend but I'll be back to respond properly when I can. Please do. I'm sure there must be somebody in the area who's had no opportunity at all to move house since the end of WW2, and can still hear the planes. Can I trust you'll introduce me to them? I'm sure they'd be a fascinating person to chat to. |
The quiet skies over London town
Mizter T wrote:
Rather nice, isn't it! Enjoy it whilst you can. It must be amazing :-) Just like olde tymes. But -- I'm coming over in exactly 2 weeks, so please clean up that ash!!! rc |
The quiet skies over London town
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? |
The quiet skies over London town
Adrian wrote:
Mizter T gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Rather nice, isn't it! Enjoy it whilst you can. If you don't like it, don't buy a house under the flight path. It's that simple. 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?) But didn't that have to do with wind direction and the strength of engines? it's not as if they were all in constant use. |
The quiet skies over London town
Adrian wrote:
Paul Terry gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: 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, 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? Not at all. Those people voluntarily chose to live there since the aircraft noise was a fact of life. 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. They bought the house cheaper, or a better house for the same money, than if the aircraft noise was not there. Now that they've forgotten about the benefit side of that particular cost/ benefit equation, they want to ignore the cost side, too. Tough. Life don't work like that. You made your bed, now lie in it. The number of aircraft movements since then has increased many times, particularly since the proliferation of freight flights during the 1980s. ~25yrs ago. For many, the night quota system introduced in the 1990s ~15yrs ago. was the final straw - the last scheduled flight arrives at Heathrow at 11.30pm and the busy early-morning period starts at 4.55am. Less than five-and-a-half hours sleep is not enough, especially since the night quota allows for a number of flights even during that precious period of calm. I lived in the NW quadrant of the M4/M25 junction for several years since that night quota introduction. I've since lived directly under the flightpath of Luton airport, roughly a mile from the eastern end of the runway - since that airport's proliferation of cheapies. I've been there, done that. Surprisingly, when I moved to each of those, I was well aware that it wasn't actually a rural idyll. I found you tuned the planes out quickly. For those who find they can't ignore them, and the resulting period of sleep insufficient, I'd suggest they consider moving house - just like those for whom changes 15-25yrs ago were "the final straw" presumably did. Oh, look. They might have to pay a bit more to get an equal house. Just like they would've done when they moved in. I live in Manhattan over a busy Avenue. I get fire engines, ambulances, police cars screaming into the night. I also get private garbage trucks humping onto the pavement (they growl as they do this) at 1 and 4 a.m. and then grinding down the trash propelled into them by banging cans. I also get leaf blowers and snow blowers depending on the season; car alarms and angry honking drivers. Then there are the news helicopters every time there's an event like a parade up Fifth Avenue or a Marathon. And the private tourist helicopters and the spluttering little hobby planes. Punchline: I live in one of the most expensive neighborhoods in America. Solution: Keep the windows shut, run the air conditioner for white noise. What? I can't hear you. :-) rc |
The quiet skies over London town
Paul Terry gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying: Not at all. Those people voluntarily chose to live there since the aircraft noise was a fact of life. But the noise was considerably less back in the 1970s, when I bought my house. Did it come as a great surprise to you, back then, that aircraft movements would increase? Have you had no opportunity in the intervening 35 years to move? 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. Bollox. Houses in Richmond are among the most expensive in the country. "among". 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? |
The quiet skies over London town
|
The quiet skies over London town
Mizter T wrote
Rather nice, isn't it! Enjoy it whilst you can. Had a nice walk (Ripley/ Pyrford), could still hear the M25. One light aircraft from Fairoaks too. -- Mike D |
The quiet skies over London town
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. |
The quiet skies over London town
On 16/04/2010 17:55, Richard J. wrote:
Recliner wrote on 16 April 2010 15:34:33 ... "Basil wrote in message 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. Doh! |
The quiet skies over London town
In message , Adrian
writes Paul Terry gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: But the noise was considerably less back in the 1970s, when I bought my house. Did it come as a great surprise to you, back then, that aircraft movements would increase? Yes. In fact, air travel was declining rapidly after the 1974 oil crisis: BEA and BOAC had been forced to merge, many routes were abandoned, and the Bermuda II agreement meant that many transatlantic services had to use Gatwick rather than Heathrow. It was not until the late 70s that cheap flights (often using larger, noisier aircraft) began to have an impact, and passenger numbers started to increase rapidly. Have you had no opportunity in the intervening 35 years to move? Why should I be forced out by the inconsiderate behaviour of others? Do you normally penalize the victim? 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. -- Paul Terry |
The quiet skies over London town
In message , at 06:57:18 on Sat,
17 Apr 2010, Paul Terry remarked: It was not until the late 70s that cheap flights (often using larger, noisier aircraft) began to have an impact, and passenger numbers started to increase rapidly. The only problem with that argument is that very few charter/low-cost flights use Heathrow - it's almost entirely full service airlines. -- Roland Perry |
The quiet skies over London town
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? |
The quiet skies over London town
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 |
The quiet skies over London town
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 |
The quiet skies over London town
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) |
The quiet skies over London town
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 |
The quiet skies over London town
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) |
The quiet skies over London town
"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 |
The quiet skies over London town
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. .. .. |
The quiet skies over London town
"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 |
The quiet skies over London town
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 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:58 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk