Manston's rat-plane nose-dives in Dublin

Aptly named Bin Air joins the pantheon of unsavoury and unsafe airlines that are welcome at Manston airport. It would appear that Charles Buchanan, Infratil's representative on Planet Thanet, is so desperate for business that he'll do business with anyone. This does nothing for the confidence or peace of mind of those of us who live near the flight path.

---

Dublin Airport reopens after plane's wheel fails

​Picture from The Aviation Herald

The scene of a plane crash at Dublin Airport after the front wheel of the Bin Air aircraft buckled on landing causing the accident on the runway, Thursday March 7, 2013. Neither the pilot nor co-pilot, the only crew, suffered injuries, an airport spokeswoman said.

Flights at Dublin Airport were temporarily suspended Thursday when a BinAir cargo plane's nose wheel collapsed after touching down, the second such landing-gear failure to beset the small German charter airline.

The Dublin Airport Authority said nobody was hurt when the forward landing gear of the Fairchild Metroliner twin-turboprop aircraft failed.

The aircraft, operated by the Munich-based freight carrier BinAir, was carrying two pilots and a cargo of laboratory rats from [Manston] Kent, southeast England. It thumped to a stop with its nose on the tarmac.

Five inbound flights to Dublin were diverted and dozens delayed as authorities shut the obstructed runway. Unfavorable wind conditions meant it took about a half-hour to open a backup runway. The authority said flight schedules at the airport — the busiest in Ireland, averaging more than 400 flights daily — were back to normal by noon.

Thursday's landing-gear mishap was not the first for BinAir, which uses a fleet of about a dozen Metroliner turboprop aircraft and specializes in ad-hoc freight bookings.

In January 2010, a BinAir Metroliner skidded off the runway in Stuttgart, Germany, when the right-side landing gear collapsed upon landing. In that accident, the pilot reported a landing gear fault warning and aborted the initial landing, but ground crew said they could see the landing gear fully deployed. German air safety investigators determined that the right-wing landing gear collapsed upon hitting the tarmac.

European Union and German air safety authorities placed BinAir under "intensified" scrutiny, and warned it could lose its license to operate in Europe, but the airline undertook unspecified actions for "verified safety deficiencies" according to an April 2011 report by the European Commission's Air Safety Committee.

When contacted by telephone, BinAir owner Eugen Pansow declined to identify himself to The Associated Press and hung up. In a follow-up call, Pansow said he couldn't comment until he knew what caused the accident. He declined to specify the aircraft's age or date of acquisition.

The Fairchild Metroliner itself has had a troubled history. About 700 of the aircraft were built in many variants, chiefly in Texas, from 1972 to 1989. They have suffered a dozen fatality-causing crashes over the past quarter-century.

In February 2011, six people were killed at Cork Airport in southwest Ireland when a Metroliner operated by an Isle of Man airline, Manx2.com, clipped a wing on the tarmac and flipped onto its back while trying to land in heavy fog. That was the first deadly crash of a commercial airline flight at an Irish airport.

AP 7th Mar 2013

A reader writes

I should like to make a few points, of which Cllr Carter should be informed! Firstly, he says that Manston's runway is 2,752m. When I checked, it was 2,658m. Heathrow has two runways - 3,500m and 3,570m, with Gatwick's one at 3,750m. So nowhere near comparable.

He says that Manston "is able to cater for all modern jet aircraft"; that's all very well, but a fully-laden 747 or 767 could not safely take off because there is no room to abort a take off in case of problems. If you remember, an Afghan DC-8 almost came a cropper on 11th August 2010 when, as it was later discovered, it tried to take off 25,000 lbs overweight! (So where are our CAA checks? Who was responsible? How could this happen?) It only just blundered into the sky after gouging grooves in the grass at the end of the runway, just before it could have collided with the traffic on the bit of the B2190 between the Prospect and Manston Road roundabouts! Details of the AAIB investigation can be found here: www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1670.pdf. If it had been taking off over Ramsgate, it could have ploughed into the traffic on the Haine Road. So, safe, is it?

I don't want night flights, but I'm not against the airport succeeding. But why don't people look at past history? (Sorry - no one ever does!) No one has succeeded with pie-in-the-sky, fantasy ideas. It is a small airfield, not a major airport! It could succeed as a part cargo/part holiday destination airfield. Small aircraft, such as the Fokkers that had European destinations, could attract most of our limited catchment area. I note you say that people living within reach of Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Stansted, will obviously go there because of the choice of destinations. Agreed. We need someone to take over Manston who can see it for what it is and accept its limited capabilities. But now, I suppose, I'm looking at pie in the sky!

S.B.

Life under the flight path: 2

A reader writes:

I recently was speaking with a woman and we got on to the topic of the airport, not from a political anti-airport point of view, just mums chatting at a toddler group. She told me about her washing!

Funny little burn holes in her washing whilst it hangs on the line and she asked if we thought it could be aviation fuel?

The woman who runs the toddler group who lives in Cliffsend also said she gets tiny burn holes but only if the wind is in the direction of the airport. I wonder if this is a common phenomenon or coincidence?

---

Any thoughts?

Desperate times call for desperate customers

In the glare of the floodlights at a remote Home Counties ­airfield the crew of an Iran Air passenger jet set about a discreet spot of sanctions ­busting. The bizarre sight of the Tehran-bound plane has become a regular event as it refuels at one of the UK’s smallest airports so the scheduled flight can return to Iran.

Banned from filling up at Heathrow because of Western-imposed sanctions, the plane with up to 266 passengers has just made the quick hop to a virtually deserted Kent International Airport at Manston. Two fuel trucks bearing the insignia of Manston airport quickly arrive to make sure the jet has enough fuel for the six‑hour flight home.

For the past three months the regular Iran Air flights have taken a 40-minute diversion from Heathrow to the dimly-lit airfield near Ramsgate three times a week on the scheduled service to the Middle East.

On Thursday the Airbus 300-600, flight number IR170, landed at 5.40pm and taxied to an area near the tiny terminal building. It remained on the ground for an hour as the fuel was delivered and officials at the privately-owned airfield were paid for the transaction. Just a day earlier another Tehran-bound Iran Air jet from Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam was spotted landing at ­Manston for a refuelling stop.

A spokesman for struggling ­Manston Airport, owned by loss‑making New Zealand ­company Infratil, insisted the deal was not breaching ­guidelines in place against the hardline regime of president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over its nuclear programme. He said:

“We are complying with all the regulations laid down by the Civil Aviation Authority. There is no reason why we shouldn’t do it. As a small airport we have to do business where we can. We have flights from Iran Air refuelling on a regular basis.”

Infratil also owns Glasgow Prestwick Airport but together with Manston the two UK ­airports made a combined loss of almost £6million last year as passenger numbers fell. Oil giants BP and Shell have refused to service the Iranian jets at Heathrow and only this week the US joined the UK in announcing tough new ­measures against Iran. The UK said it was cutting all ties with Iranian banks as Chancellor George Osborne said all credit and financial institutions had to cease ­trading with Iranian ones.

Two-thirds of Iran Air’s planes are already banned from flying within Europe because of safety concerns. The Iran Air planes are able to land safely at Manston, a vital RAF base during the Second World War, because of its long runway. Manston Airport is ­considered a sanctions loophole as it has no direct business links with the US, which fears the Iranians are developing a nuclear bomb.

A spokesman for the Civil Aviation Authority said:

“We don’t get involved in the politics of whether it is right for the planes to land there because of sanctions in place in the UK.”

Express.co.uk 27th Nov 2011

Sanctions busting at Manston

Many of you have been wondering why the state airline of a pariah nation regularly visits a failing airport in the corner of England.

A while ago, I was told that Iran Air come to Manston to refuel, which struck me as a "reasonable reason" but a woefully inadequate explanation. Things are now becoming clearer...

For a number of historical reasons, Iran and USA are not best mates. The USA are currently showing their dislike of Iran through sanctions - read about the sanctions here. American foreign policy is conducted in such a way as to try to compel the rest of the world to follow their lead. The Americans "forbid companies and governments with economic ties with the US to trade with Iran".

Depending on your viewpoint, this can be regarded as the effective use of economic leverage, or as blackmail. Either way, it seems to be working, in as much as Iran Air is desperately short of spare parts to maintain its fleet. The inevitable impact on airworthiness probably explains why most of Iran Air's aircraft are banned from European airspace - read about the ban here. This BBC video clip shows a passenger explaining how the Iran Air plane's tyres burst when it landed at Manston, stranding the hapless Iranians in Thanet for the night.

Although the small fraction of Iran Air's fleet that is regarded as airworthy is allowed to land in London (not sure what they do about landing fees) they have to refuel elsewhere. Manton is apparently "devoid of American trade connections" and is thus free to flaunt the American sanctions without fear of retribution. If Manston ever tries running flights to the States, I expect they will find that the US Government and the Federal Aviation Authority have long and unforgiving memories. (Incidentally, does anyone know if Infratil has any "economic ties with the US"?)

So there you have it - Manston can get away with selling jet fuel to the Iranians because they are insignificant enough to slip through the American's sanctions net. When viewed alongside the track records some of Manston's other customers - MK Airlines' stop-frame bankruptcy; Kam Air's DC-8 close brush with disaster; Cargolux's part in the international criminal price-fixing cartel - it doesn't paint a pretty picture.

Manston: judge them by the companies they keep.

Urgent need for environmental assessment

Dear Sir,

I subscribe to your Newsletter which I find very informative. I would like to raise some questions about what involvement the Environment Agency (EA) have in these developments.

In my view, based upon past experience with Industrial Planning issues, the EA should be involved. Indeed I think they should be involved as part of all the planning issues and meetings. There are far too many environmental issues at stake for them not to be actively involved, these issues to name but a few are :-

• Noise
• Air Quality, seriously affected by emissions from aircraft engines, dumping of fuel under emergency situations, cargo handling equipment, lorries etc collecting cargo from the airport, passenger cars and the list could go on.
• Pollution arising from such things as run off from the runways, maintenance and servicing of aircraft and other vehicles, any form of accident and God forbid an aircraft crashing.
• For the current activities at Manston has there been an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) carried out?
• Is such an assessment planned for the proposed increase in activities?

In my experience there certainly should be such an assessment, otherwise there can be no record of what changes are occurring and what damage is being done to the environment.

When considering the environment it is not just the environment local to Manston for consideration the environment of a far wider area must be considered this could stretch from Whitstable all along the coast to Ramsgate and out into the sea, and down towards Maidstone, Ashford and Folkestone.

Continuing with the theme of assessments, again in my experience, Risk Assessments for all the activities at Manston should be carried out. These should take into account all the "What Ifs" such as:

• Serious accident ie, aircraft crashing
• Fire
• Are the Emergency Services currently sufficiently manned, trained and equipped to deal with such emergencies?
• Again the list could go on.

I will be very interested to hear your comments to my points.

Also, could you provide me with the contact addresses, emails etc of all our local councillors, MP and any other parties/persons to lobby. I firmly believe that as many of the public as possible should 'take up the cudgels' to curtail any further activities at Manston.

Yours Sincerely,

M.L. Herne Bay

---

ML - you have touched on a number of good points.

• There is no doubt that the EA should have been actively encouraged to be more closely involved, starting a long time ago.
• The only people who don't think an EIA is long overdue are the airport and the Council.
• The noise, air and water pollution are long-standing issues. On each count, both the airport and the Council have conspicuously failed to monitor the ongoing damage and the potential risks.
• No EIA has been carried out on Manston's activities. Whenever the prospect of an EIA is mentioned, both the airport and the Council go pale, and start wriggling.
• You are absolutely right to highlight the geographical scope of the airport's impact - the air and water pollution spread even further than the noise pollution.
• All emergency services live in dread of catastrophic major incidents. By definition, these are of such a scale that it is not economically feasible to be fully prepared for them. Put bluntly, the question becomes: by how much will the emergency services and medical services fail on the day?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if other readers have more comments of their own...

• You can contact all your elected representatives through www.WriteToThem.com
• You can find details of the Canterbury councillors here (Peter Vickery-Jones holds the Transport Portfolio and sits on KIACC)
• You can find details of the Thanet councillors here (Joanna Gideon chairs the Airport Working Party)
• You should consider supporting CPRE Protect Kent - they're supporting us.

Iran Air at Manston

Yet another one of our eagle-eyed readers has raised an important and interesting question:

HAS ANY ONE NOTICED THAT THERE ARE AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK FLIGHTS TO MANSTON BY IRAN AIR? I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE CARRYING TO THE U.K.

You can tell it's important, because it's all in CAPITALS.

And it's interesting because not many Iran Air planes are even allowed to fly anywhere near Europe... Here's what our beloved Foreign & Commonwealth Office have to say:

---

Safety and Security - Local Travel - Air Travel

The state carrier, Iran Air, has been refused permission to operate services to the EU with the exception of 14 aircraft of type A300, eight aircraft of type A310 and one aircraft of type B737. This restriction has been put in place because Iran Air has been unable to demonstrate that a number of aircraft in its fleet (including those of type A320, Boeing 727, B747-100, B747-200 and B747-SP) meet international safety standards.

You should be aware that Iranian airlines suffer from an increased probability of accident. Reports suggest that the accident rate among Iranian airlines is approximately four times that of airlines in the Middle East. Many of the planes flown on domestic routes in Iran are ageing. There have been a number of serious accidents in recent years.

On 9 January 2011, a 727 Boeing domestic Iran Air flight crashed near Orumieh in North-West Iran. Of the 105 passengers, at least 72 were reported killed and 33 injured. The cause of the crash is not yet known.

On 24 January 2010, a Taban Airlines Topolov plane flying from Esfhan to Mashad damaged its tail while landing and caught fire. 42 of the 157 passengers on board were injured.

On 24 July 2009, an Aria Airlines Ilyushin plane flying from Tehran to Mashhad skidded off the runway whilst landing and hit a wall. 16 of the 153 passengers and crew on board were killed.

On 15 July 2009, a Caspian Airlines plane crashed 75 miles northwest of Tehran shortly after takeoff from Imam Khomeini Airport. All 168 passengers and crew onboard were killed. The cause of the crash has not yet been revealed.

---

I would have thought that after coming unnervingly close to annihilating Ramsgate with an Afghani plane full to bursting with aviation fuel, our Kiwi chums who run Manston would be super-sensitive about the calibre of airlines that they allow to operate over our heads. Well, I can dream, can't I?

Anyway, here at NNF HQ, facts win prizes! So, there's prizes that are notionally worth thousands of dollars on offer for the first of you to tell me exactly what type of aircraft Iran Air is flying in, what their schedule is (if there is one), and what they're carrying.

Whoops Apocalypse!

Here's a detailed report of what appears to have been quite a close call. Afghanistan-based Kam Air's overloaded plane nearly didn't make it. You don't need to be a technical expert to figure out what would happen if 143,700 lbs of aircraft fuel hits the deck.

---

Kam Air DC86 at Manston on Aug 11th 2010, tail strike on takeoff

A Kam Air Douglas DC-8-60, registration YA-VIC performing a cargo flight from Manston, EN (UK) to Buenos Aires, BA (Argentina) via Cape Verde Islands with 3 crew and 9 passengers, struck its tail onto Manston's runway 28 during takeoff. The crew continued to Cape Verde Islands where evidence of the tail bumper contacting ground was discovered.

Inspection revealed the energency absorber had received deformation which however had remained within limits, no further inspection was required, and the airplane continued the flight to Buenos Aires.

The United Kingdom's Air Accident Investigation Branch released their Bulletin reporting, that Kam Air had acquired two DC-8s from an operator in the United Arab Emirates. The flight from Manston to Buenos Aires carrying 36 polo ponies. For the flight the aircraft was carrying two complete crews.

The flight engineer determined the cargo weight at 43,409 lbs, the aircraft carried 143,700 lbs of fuel - despite the computed minimum fuel required to Cape Verde being 97,661 lbs including a diversion - bringing the aircraft's takeoff weight to 343,346 lbs. The flight engineer entered a maximum takeoff weight of 349,000 lbs into the load sheet, however it was unclear how he arrived at that figure, the actual structural maximum takeoff weight is 358,000 lbs. The center of gravity was computed at 22.8 percent MAC which is about in the middle of the permitted range. Using the load sheet V1 was computed at 143 KIAS, Vr at 160 KIAS and V2 at 172 KIAS.

The performance table for Manston's runway 28 provided a takeoff weight limit of 317,300 lbs for the selected takeoff flap setting, thus the aircraft was 25,700 lbs (11,670 kg) over weight for takeoff from Manston's runway 28. The use of flap 23 would have increased the weight limit by 10,600 lbs. The flight engineer however did not refer to the runway performance tables.

The captain (55, ATPL, 15,000 hours total, 3,000 on type) was pilot flying for the sector, the runway was dry, temperature at 20 degrees C, winds came from 290 degrees magnetic at 7 knots.

A number of airport staff including loaders, air traffic controllers and operations staff commented that the airplane appeared to be slow on acceleration. The aircraft rotated near the runway end, a cloud of debris was thrown up as the aircraft climbed away.

The captain later reported he was aware of two jolts as the aircraft lifted off and suspected a tail strike had occurred. Subsequent inspection showed the aircraft had left a scrape mark on the runway that extended beyond the runway end onto soft ground. Manston's Air Traffic Control suspected a tail strike and relayed the info to the crew via London ATC. With all aircraft systems appearing normal the captain decided to continue the flight to Cape Verde, where the tail strike was confirmed.

Scrape marks began 35 meters before the runway end (runway's takeoff distance available 3,112 meters) over the next 24.6 meters, followed by a 23.8 meters long gap which however contained a destroyed center line lighting fitting, and continued as an up to 23cm deep trench in soft soil, the total length of the ground marks was 117.5 meters. The marks were consistent with the contact of a sole plate of the tail skid assembly. The center line light fitting was destroyed by contact with the right hand main gear.

The flight data recorder showed that rotation began at 159 KIAS consistent with the 160 KIAS target. The aircraft reached 8 degrees nose up pitch in the next 5 seconds and continued to increase at a constant rate until 11 degrees where a marked reducting in pitch rate occurred. A significant aft control input was made at that time after which the pitch continued to increase to a maximum of 15.2 degrees nose up. The AOM indicates tail strike would occur at 8.95 degrees nose up leading the conclusion, that the airplane had already just become airborne when the tailstrike occurred at 11 degrees nose up.

The AAIB analysed that the computer generated flight plans showed less fuel than actually necessary. The predictions by the computer flight plans were about 19% less than the actual fuel burn. The crew however increased the fuel amount by 47% which seems excessive.

The UK Government's Department of Transport decided upon receiving the AAIB report as well as information from a number of other sources that Kam Air would receive no further operating permits on UK soil for its DC-8 fleet and notified the European Union. Following ramp checks and the information from the UK government the European Union decided to put Kam Air onto the list of operators which are prohibited from operating in the European Union (published by Nov 23rd 2010).

ICAO reported that due to the travel restrictions imposed by the United Nations it had not been possible to perform an audit of Afghanistan's state aviation regulatory structure.

Four safety recommendations dealing with the audit of state regulatory bodies, where audit by ICAO can not be assured, have been released as result of the investigation.

Video snippets from RTC 25th October

Many thanks to our Multimedia Department (Outside Broadcast Unit) for the following video snippets from the Ramsgate Town Council meeting at Chatham House School on 25th October...

Jobs Promised 8½ mins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnO5DsICoyE

Noise & Health 6½ mins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHpIoO7KBq0&feature=mfu_in_order&playnext=1&videos=LR2iZqla9B0

Worse health and education services? 2 mins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jnv8oPVFJU0&feature=mfu_in_order&playnext=1&videos=RVhdl8aOSCc

Follow the money 1½ mins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku6kz1R_AuM&feature=mfu_in_order&playnext=1&videos=OWNuQQMOXI4

Impossible to land planes safely until NEXT November 2½ mins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr0L_OztAFQ&feature=mfu_in_order&playnext=1&videos=mvoiutz5fvU

Living Next to Noisy neighbours 2 mins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mr1ot2rUVs&feature=mfu_in_order&playnext=1&videos=DLkM3c2aOk0

WRIT of MANDAMUS (A writ issued by a superior court ordering a public official or body or a lower court to perform a specified duty)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADv4cQCqAAA&feature=mfu_in_order&playnext=1&videos=VtFfWkM3B7c

Our MPs’ views on Night Flights 1½ mins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXSi-c0vmsI&feature=mfu_in_order&playnext=1&videos=JjxdtkaY-Xk

Development & Public Safety Zones 3 mins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-I7_RJUshM

Previous Court Judgement about Planning Permission 5 mins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udVzcN0daCg&feature=mfu_in_order&playnext=1&videos=CFSY-wwg1i0

It makes all the difference, remembering to press the start button. Ahem.

See more on: Health

Manston: healthy and safe?

Brian Urwin (of the Ramsgate Alliance) spells it out, and tells the world. Public safety zones, fuel dumps, fireworks factory, flaky airlines, bird strike, radar interference from the windfarm, and NOISE... all this and more points to Manston not being particularly healthy or safe.

---

Text of Letter to Health and Safety Exec

24th August, 2010

Judith Hackett CBE

Health and Safety Executive

Redgrave Court

Merton Road

Bootle

Merseyside

L20 7HS

Dear Ms Hackett

Many of the residents of Ramsgate have queries concerning safety at Kent International Airport located on the outskirts of town at Manston. It is less than two miles from the centre of Ramsgate and many of the planes come into land very low over our heads. The airport is operated by Infratil which is now looking to expand the hours of daylight flying from 6am to 11:30pm and have a further quota of night flights.

In its Masterplan, Infratil acknowledge that the Public Safety Zones for the airport should have been done in 2006 and were not. We are aware there is a fireworks manufacturer at the airport, situated near the end of the runway and, according to the Masterplan, it is close to one of the airport’s two fuel dumps.

Ramsgate is a town of approximately 40,000. We have looked at the Public Safety Zones at other airports and believe that there are primary schools, a secondary school, a main road, a caravan park and a hotel all situated within what should be the public safety zones for Kent International.

The airport is used primarily by cargo planes. In its July 2010, operational report Infratil states that, "Freight traffic through Manston rose 12% against the previous year for the same month, with the rolling 3 month total up 5%. The recent demise of MK Airlines is beginning to be compensated by Egypt Air and Meridian who have increased capacity."

MK Airlines was banned from flying within the EU and Meridian has within the last few weeks been banned from flying within both the UK and Belgium. That leaves Egypt Air. We understand that last year the EU flagged up serious safety concerns about the safety of Egypt Air.

“EgyptAir has been warned that it risks inclusion on the European Commission's blacklist of banned airlines unless it addresses serious concerns in several areas of its operation. In a detailed assessment of its recent blacklist revision, the Commission states that 75 inspections since January last year turned up 240 individual safety findings, including 69 in the highest of the three classifying categories.The Commission expressed "serious concern" to the Egyptian civil aviation authority in May, regarding "systemic safety deficiencies" at the flag-carrier.”[1]

These cargo planes regularly approach Manston by coming in very low across Ramsgate harbour and across the most densely populated section of the town, passing over schools and homes. As the runway is so close to the town centre, the cargo planes seem to be below 1500 feet which is the height to which sea gulls can soar. Ramsgate’s gulls are very large indeed and very numerous. We fear that a bird strike to one of these old planes could have very serious consequences for the local population. This is doubly worrying because we understand that the Rescue Fire Fighting (RFF) category is 3-9 but 24 hours notice is required depending on the category required.

This part of the coast is often subject to violent storms and particularly high winds which is why Europe’s largest operational wind farm is less than 20km off shore and London Array is about to start building another. Infratil acknowledge that wind farms cause ‘clutter’ on aircraft radar up to a radius of 30km. As the aircraft line up with Ramsgate harbour, they come well within 30km of the Vattenfall wind farm.

To summarise the safety issue, we are worried about a combination of no public safety zones, high winds, radar interference, airlines with poor safety records, aged cargo planes flying very low over densely populated areas, the marked potential for bird strike, a fireworks factory and fuel dump located close to each other and to the runway; all this and 24 hours notice required depending on the RFF category. Sooner or later, all or some of these ingredients will coalesce and there will be a disaster and it should be noted that Manston’s administrative data states that airlines using the airport are only required to carry £500,000 third party insurance.

There is also the issue of health. Our local district council concedes there has been no noise monitoring of aircraft over the town because as a local councillor put it ‘no one realised the monitor needed to be connected to an analogue line not a digital’. Many residents are also concerned about air quality and the quality of the drinking water. Infratil acknowledge that the airport is over the town’s aquifer but they do not state what steps they are taking to ensure that it is not further contaminated.

We are not asking for the airport to be shut but there are a significant number of residents who are concerned about the safety of the airport and we feel that it is only right that their worries are addressed. We believe that, given the grave nature of their concerns, the HSE is the correct body to do this although we are aware that there may well be some overlap with other bodies.

Yours faithfully

Brian Urwin

Kim Gibson

On behalf of the Ramsgate Alliance of Residents Associations.

CC. Bob Bayford, TDC

Paul Twyman, Chair of KIACC

Laura Sandys, MP

Paul Carter, KCC

David Green, Ramsgate Town Council

Liz Green, KCC

Sir Terence Farrell

Philip Hammond, Secretary of State for Transport

Theresa Villiers, Shadow Secretary of State for Transport

Geoffrey Podger, Chief Executive, Health and Safety Executive

Gordon MacDonald, Director, Hazardous Installations, Health and Safety Executive

Gretchen Burrett, Group Director Safety Regulation, CAA Board

Dame Deirdre Hutton, Chair, CAA board

Captain Roger Whitefield, CAA Board

Patrick Goudou, European Aviation Safety Agency

Ms K Riensema, Aerodrome Standards, SRG, Civil Aviation Authority

Mr T Williams, Health Safety & Environment, SRG, Civil Aviation Authority

John Allan, Chair, International Bird Strike Committee

Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

[1] David Kaminski-Morrow, Deputy Editor, Air Transport Intelligence, 17th July 2009.

See more on: Health