M-A-G  MACC INFO  WIGGINS TDC MP's LINKS  NEW OOP's                          If you want to make comments or find out more about the Manston Airport Group, email on 
g r o u p @ m - a - g. f s n e t. c o. u k  or post to P.O. Box 311, Ramsgate CT11 9XL. ALL enquiries are confidential.

A preliminary update on today's Manston Airport Consultative Committee held at the airport. (26/03/02)

Tony Freudmann announced plans for compulsory redundancies amongst airport staff.  Initially he said the job losses would be among middle management.
However, when asked if the information was confidential he said it was not and said they had been talking to the TGWU about the redundancies.  I don't know too many middle management who would be members of the TGWU.  He didn't give numbers.

Freudmann was very down-beat about prospects for this year.
He confirmed that the cruise-ship business would not be happening this year, that Mama-air could not raise the finance and so were unlikely to start this year and that no other passenger carriers were planning anything for this year.  He said they still had some freight, but there was no indication of any dramatic escalation of freight tonnage and no mention of new carriers or routes.  He confirmed that the airport  was still losing money.  I assume they don't foresee a rapid turnaround or they wouldn't be planning to lay people off.

They STILL haven't got working noise monitors at either end of the runway and so there is still no data to tell us what noise levels we are having to endure.

They STILL have no tracking equipment and so they can't prove whether aircraft were on track or at the right height when complaints are made.

They hadn't produced a compilation of the complaints statistics for the meeting.  Mr. Robertson claimed that this was because they lacked the equipment.  Given that this can all be done on any old PC, I find his claim worrying.  If an airport hasn't got the available technology to produce a simple spread-sheet, how much faith should we have in them to land a Jumbo jet just feet above our rooftops.

The new aprons are not in use because they haven't yet been handed over.
They didn't elaborate on the reasons for this.
As of the end of the month all Chapter 2 planes are officially banned from Europe.  This will make no difference to the current situation since all of the Chapter 2 planes currently using Manston have ben hush-kitted to make them Chapter 3 compliant.  Of course, this doesn't make them a lot quieter from our (the public's) point of view, but it does at least mean an end to the old Russian freighters for which hush-kits are not available.   We need
to take notice of what is flying in and out after March 31st.  There is no further legislation pending and so anything flying in and out after March the 31st can continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

When airplanes fly at night, airport neighbors complain. After years of trying to find compromise, airport officials in Burbank, Calif., say their next step will be to ban night flights altogether, essentially closing the field from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Among the hardest hit would be Ameriflight, a priority-air-freight company based at Burbank Airport that is responsible for about half of the night operations there. 

"Business and commerce in Southern California dictate that these items get moved at these times," Ameriflight president Gary Richards told the Los Angeles Times. "If we didn't do it, someone else would." The company has tried to minimize its impact, varying flight paths and flying quiet aircraft, but complaints continue. And probably will continue for a while -- the curfew requires FAA approval, which is expected to take years to obtain. 

 Owners of everything from older model Gulfstreams and Learjets to general aviation aircraft could be socked by higher fines levied recently by the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority.
In 1981, the airport authority set up a 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. takeoff and landing curfew for so-called "Stage 2" turbojets. Those are the older and noisier jets that airport neighbors love to hate. The fine for breaking that curfew has jumped to $3,000 from $1,000. Commercial and most GA aircraft are exempt from the full curfew, but can still be fined for doing touch-and-goes, run-ups and mid-field take-offs between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. If pilots are caught checking their magnetos in a disturbing manner, they can be fined $1,000 -- with $1,500 for subsequent violations. During the past two years, the airport says there were 28 violations of the curfew and eight of their other banned activities.

In 1999, press stories circulated in Thanet of a new purpose-built freight aircraft. The aircraft, a Tupolev 204-100C was claimed to be very quiet and was, therefore, dubbed the "Stealthfreighter." On the 14th of December 1999, the Thanet Times carried an article claiming that the aircraft would be based at London Manston. No doubt those who planted the story were seeking to improve community relations with local residents, fed up with being battered by a barrage of noise from decrepit old Boeing707, Illyuishin 76, DC10 and DC8 aircraft.

Those of you who pass through Manston regularly will have see a Boeing 707 with TAAT emblazoned on the tail. This aircraft has been sitting on the tarmac for the last year, and looks set for the breaker's yard. However, its sister plane met a far more dramatic end. Take a look at the following link:

The plane shown in the pictures was a regular visitor to Manston, before the crash. We have a picture of it sitting on the tarmac at the airport, taken some six months before its rather undignified end:

<http://avweb.com/articles/707swim/>

Unconfirmed reports suggest that the crash was largely caused by a malfunctioning altimeter. We can be thankful that no-one was killed or injured. We can also comment on how fortunate it was that the approach route was characterised by a nice soft lake. At Manston the same approach is characterised by 40,000 nice soft people.

------------------

Western Daily Press 

05/01/2001
By Sam Dunn

THE dream of a £2 billion Hong Kong style airport jutting out into the Severn Estuary moved a step closer last night.

The airport plan, christened Chek Lap Kok II after the Hong Kong airport opened in 1998 on reclaimed land in the South China Sea, has been re-launched by a bold band of entrepreneurs.

Severnside International Airport, a group set up to develop the airport on reclaimed land on the Welsh side of the River Severn, yesterday resurrected their plan on the back of a booming order book for the new 555seater Airbus super jumbo.

SIA first mooted the idea back in the 1970s and say their confidence has been renewed after the worldwide flood of orders for the double-decker A380.

But last night a spokesman for Bristol International Airport said the plan had as much chance of success as the Dome had of becoming the world's greatest attraction.

The proposed new airport would require about 3,000 acres of land, 80 per cent of which would have to be reclaimed from the Severn estuary. It would aim to handle 30 million passengers a year.

Plans to submit an official application last year were put on the backburner but Peter Charles-Greed, a member of SIA who lives in Bath, said the time was fast approaching for action.

He said he hoped consultative papers on air travel and industry capacity would be drawn up and released by the Government later this year. If they proved a need for airports like that proposed by the group, Mr Charles-Greed said a planning application could be issued within weeks.

"We could put in an application almost immediately, " he said, adding that it would have to go straight to a Government department since it was a major project.

"In the last year, 167 million people travelled in and out of Britain by air and figures are estimated to show that will rise to £333 million by 2015.

"If every airport were to develop to its capacity, there would still be a shortfall. Somebody has to build an airport somewhere, " he said.

However, it is believed that financial backing for the project has yet to be secured. Although Newport county council gave its support in principle for an airport on Severnside back in 1998, a planning application for such a project has yet to be submitted.

Over the years plans for such a project have regularly been mooted by a clutch of audacious developers.

Last March, Mr Charles-Greed's group, which includes former MP Michael Stephen as one of its investors, announced its proposal to build the £2 billion airport only days after Princess Anne opened the new £27 million terminal at Bristol International Airport.

At the time, it was also in competition with a rival scheme drawn up by Bristolbased European Airport Consortium to build a £400 million airport at Pilning and Easter Compton on the Bristol side of the Severn.

Mike Luddy, commercial director at Bristol International airport, yesterday said the latest proposal had as much chance of success as the Greenwich Dome had of becoming one of the world's greatest attractions.

"It is not worth serious consideration by us, " he said.  

---------------------------

       Here's an interesting theory -- reduce air pollution by building a runway. That's what officials are arguing for at Atlanta's Hartsfield International Airport. In a $3-million environmental-impact study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the FAA, 600 pages of text support the notion that a fifth runway would reduce the time that aircraft sit taxiing and idling and thus cut emissions overall. Skeptics, though, cite a different math, saying more runways allow for more airplanes and inevitably, more pollution. The airport has already gained approval to build a 6,000-foot runway for commuter traffic, but officials hope to add 3,000 feet to that runway to accommodate larger aircraft. Atlanta is in violation of federal clean-air laws and under a mandate to clean up its act by 2003. Later this year, the airport will begin using compressed natural gas to power  airport vehicles and will require contractors to retrofit vehicles to reduce emissions once construction on the new runway begins.

 ...While Sky Harbor Runway Has Neighbors Raising Ruckus...

      Across the country in Phoenix, Ariz., it's noise pollution that has residents near Sky Harbor Airport upset. Airport officials told The Arizona Republic that complaints skyrocketed in the last quarter of 2000 -- almost 3,000 complaints in three months, after only about 400 in the first nine months of the year. Most of the complaints seem to be generated by a small handful of residents, who say that  problems have escalated since the opening of a new runway in October. Some critics say new flight paths send jets in a low flight pattern over their homes, but airport officials say flights stay 5,000 feet above homes, and they've tested decibel levels to prove they are quieter than a normal conversation. The airport's "noise information manager" said she sends a summary of the complaints to the FAA, but that's all she can do about them. Meanwhile, community activists encourage residents to "complain, complain, complain," so the noise is likely to continue on both sides.

 ...And FedEx Just Says No To Quieter Planes

 Oakland, Calif., has been having its share of noise problems, too, and complaints from residents prompted Oakland Airport manager Steve Grossman to ask Federal Express late last year if it would fly something a little less noisy at night. The company refused, Grossman told a community group last month, on the grounds that it would set a bad precedent for its operations at other  airports across the country. FedEx flies a lot of older B-727 jets, which have been retrofitted with hushkits that meet the FAA's noise standards, but they are still noisier than newer jets like the B-757. The cargo company flies about 40 planes into Oakland over each 24 hours, and about 10 or 12 of them are the hushkitted 727s.

Aircraft wings create swirls in the air known as wing-tip vortices. These are like mini-tornados and are easily powerful enough to can flip a small plane over. All aircraft create this effect but as a general rule the bigger the aircraft, the bigger the vortices. The vortices combine in the wake of a plane to cause what is known as wake turbulence. Large aircraft have to maintain a certain spacing in the sky to avoid hitting the wake turbulence of the plane in front. For some aircraft, the space required can be as much as 4 miles.

Wing-tip vortices also affect people and buildings on the ground. Once an aircraft is below 1000ft. the vortices can reach the ground. One common effect is that roof tiles are stripped off. Television aerials, overhead wires and antennae may also be damaged. At big airports, such as Heathrow, there are programs in place to mitigate the damage caused by wing-tip vortices. The airlines have to pay into a fund which is used to strengthen roofs and to fix tiles more firmly.

If anyone were in any doubt about the scale and strength of the vortices, take a look at the following link : http://www.aviationpics.de/pretty/pretty.htm

It shows a Jumbo Jet flying low over the rooftops of an industrial area. Someone is burning rubbish and the smoke from their fire is whipped into a huge swirl by the passing plane.

If Manston were allowed to become a major international airport, handling huge planes of the sort shown in this picture, it seems likely there would be extensive problems caused by wing-tip vortices. Aircraft landing at Manston cross the coast at around 1000ft., and are well below this height as they cross the town. Many of the buildings in Ramsgate are listed. Roof strengthening would require the permission of the Heritage Society. If Manston is to become a major airport, such permissions need to be obtained BEFORE any expansion takes place. Otherwise, we could be in the situation where someone is killed or seriously injured by falling roof-tiles, caused by a low-flying aircraft.

Travel boom 'may increase cancer peril near airports'

Campaigners have warned that increased cancer rates around airports could result from the huge boom in air travel.

A report by Transport 2000 said people and the environment face serious threats from the rapidly-growing aviation industry, including more noise and climate change gases.

Airports produce large amounts of toxic emissions, including nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) which research in the US has linked to elevated rates of cancer in the vicinity of Chicago-Midway airport.

Transport 2000 predicted that by 2015 air travel will grow to more than double 1995 levels and if current trends continue, by 2050 passenger-miles flown could grow to between five and nine times the figure for 1995.

Professor John Whitelegg, who researched the report, called for an environmental charge on air travel based on emissions and the ending of tax exemption on aviation fuel.

He also highlighted the need for more stringent standards on noise and emissions around airports, better monitoring of the effects of air travel and more promotion of the alternatives such as rail for short-haul flights.

Heathrow Airport is already one of the UK's main producers of VOCs and building the controversial fifth terminal there would make the situation worse, said the report.

The report said that World Health Organisation noise limits are regularly exceeded, with one in eight people in the UK affected by noise pollution from aircraft.

It claimed that by 2050 aviation is set to become one of the biggest single sources of greenhouse gas emissions with around 10% of climate change directly attributable to aircraft.

Stephen Joseph, Director of Transport 2000, said: "Aviation has got away with too much for too long. People and the environment will pay the price if we let air travel continue to soar."

Last updated: 00:42 Thursday 25th January 2001

Councils in 33 towns and cities, including Liverpool and Luton, have failed to protect the public from polluting factories by not doing regular tests on air quality, the Department of Environment reveals.

The councils are "named and shamed" by the ministry for only checking air quality once every two years instead of every six months. The authorities, however, are paid by firms to monitor air quality outside premises.

Checks in England and Wales cover 18,200 premises including chemical, asbestos, glass and rubber factories, iron and steel foundries, incineration plants, waste oil burners and petrol stations.

From 2004, a European directive will oblige councils to give up-to-date air pollution figures. Michael Meacher, the Environment minister, has already been insisting that two checks each year on factories.

The councils and port authorities with the lowest number of checks include Gosport, Manchester port harbour authority, Rutland, Barnet, East Devon, Guildford, Southend-on-Sea, Wokingham, Thanet and Tunbridge Wells. All had under 20 inspections last year. Merlin Hyman, director of the environmental industries' commission, said: "These problems are undermining well run companies who want a level playing field."

http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4121948,00.html