YES WE CAN: make it work

Profitable. Sustainable. Sound commercial proposition. Good corporate citizen. These are just some of the good things that happen when you work with, rather than against, those around you.

It's not rocket science. It's not even science. It's sense.

Infratil have paid a lot for Manston, and have spent a lot on it since. To see any kind of return on their investment, they need Manston to generate a steady and healthy profit from the air traffic it handles.

BAA, the country's largest airport operator was recently deemed to have a near-monopoly, and has been forced to sell off some of its airports in order to increase competition. The increased competition will bring prices down as airports fight for market share. There won't be any plump, lucrative contracts left - making money will rely on the sheer volume of traffic.

Basic business logic and a few simple facts from the real world lead us to the conclusion that there's going to be a lot more planes over East Kent. This is the time to get our heads together and figure how to manage this so that it works out as well as possible. Recently we had a bit of a mad flurry when Infratil thought they were going to get a cargo contract from BA - everything was done in a rush and nobody was very happy with it.

Thanet District Council are planning ahead for how to deal with night flight requests. Infratil have set out their MasterPlan for the airport. Any change in the pattern of use of the airport, or growth in traffic, will mean that the S106 agreement has to be re-negotiated. The S106 is a bilateral agreement thrashed out between a few dozen people (Thanet Councillors and the senior management of Infratil) but the consequences of the agreement will affect the lives of tens of thousands of people for years to come.

And this, dear reader, is where you come in.

Over the next few posts, I'll be running though some of the things that I want to see in the S106. I cordially invite each and every one of you to comment on the posts, or email me direct with your shrewd and wise thoughts and observations. I will gather together everything you send, and press it on anyone who'll listen. And some who won't.

YES WE CAN: sleep

Absolutely no night flights. Not scheduled flights. Not chartered flights. No night flights. Diversions from other airports (due to emergencies, bad weather and so on), humanitarian missions or national crisis are fine. Obviously. But otherwise... Absolutely no night flights.

I hope that's clear.

A plane coming in to land makes a LOT of noise. At night, when everything else is that much quieter, the sound stands out against the reduced background noise, so seems louder, and is more disruptive. This much is self-evident.

Even modern planes are noisy, and even when they're relatively high up. An enquiry at Stansted in 2007 took evidence of noise complaints that came from a roughly rectangular area 35 miles by 60 miles around the airport. The sound footprint of each aircraft is large; the combined impact of all an airport's traffic taken together is huge.

The noise itself is stressful, as is the loss of sleep - a 10 decibel increase of noise at night raises the risk of hypertension by 14%. On health grounds for all those within earshot, night flights are a non-starter. From the point of view of quality of life, ditto.

Economics: the aviation group of the Local Government Association reports that “no evidence has been produced by the Government or the aviation industry to justify claims that night flights have an overall economic benefit”. That sentence is worth re-reading out loud and thinking about carefully. The LGA, which covers the whole country, but concentrates on local interests and priorities has a 'Strategic Aviation Special Interest Group'. They've done their homework, they've done their sums, and they've come to the conclusion that night flights don't make economic sense.

Matt Clarke (Infratil's Chief Exec) has said that Manston is operating at a fraction of its capacity. Surely there can be no need for them to operate night flights. As there's plenty of available daytime capacity, that should be used up first.

Night flights: unhealthy, uneconomic, unwanted and unnecessary.

YES WE CAN: enjoy being awake

Yes we can: the story so far... To be commercially viable (let alone successful), Manston will have to be very busy; and night flights are undesirable on a number of counts. Top marks to those of you who have leapt to the conclusion that there will be a lot of daytime flights.

During the day there's the advantage that fewer people will be woken from their sleep. For those already awake, the planes will be just as loud as at night, but the higher level of background noise means that the overall effect is less startling and disruptive.

It's worth remembering that the human body is designed to work best with a 'normal' background level of entirely natural noises - think in terms of the plains of Africa, Garden of Eden, Sherwood Forest, walking in wide open countryside, that sort of thing. Anything above and beyond that rapidly becomes stressful - just how stressful depends on the volume, pitch, repetition and so on. Even relatively small changes in the noise levels can have a significant effect. A brief digression for a quiet chat about decibels:

Sounds are measured in decibels. Zero (0) decibels is the softest sound a person with normal hearing can hear at least 50% of the time.The important thing to know about decibels is this: if a sound increases by 10 decibels, it doubles in loudness as we perceive it - it sounds twice as loud. Here are decibel levels of everyday sounds:

• 0 Decibels Threshold of hearing
• 10 Rustle of leaves
• 20 Water dripping
• 30 Whisper
• 40 Quiet radio in room
• 50 Moderate rainfall
• 60 Conversation, dishwasher
• 70 Busy traffic, vacuum cleaner
• 80 Alarm clock
• 90 Lawnmower
• 100 Snowmobile, chainsaw
• 110 Rock music
• 120 Jet plane takeoff

Now you know.

The point of telling you these things is to let you grasp the significance of this: a 5 decibel increase of noise during the day has been linked to primary school children being up to two months per year behind in their reading age. Five decibels is a relatively small increase in noise levels. Currently in Ramsgate there are primary schools operating what has been called "jet-pause teaching", where everything just comes to a halt until everyone can hear themselves think again. This is unacceptable. Nobody should have to put up with that, least of all our kids.

The obvious solution is to regulate and manage the flow of air traffic. This will inevitably involve trade-offs: for good practical reasons the planes like to have a long straight run-up to the runway when landing. An absolutely straight line may take them right over a town. We need to work together to see how much leeway there is, and how far the flight path can be curved away from town. It may be worth exploring trying to keep the planes higher for longer - we all know that some come in too low, too soon. We could look at the timings of flights - aircraft noise during the rush hour would seem less intrusive. We need imaginative solutions.

This should be one of the cornerstones of the S106 re-negotiations: avoid flying over built-up areas wherever and whenever possible - use the sea, or unpopulated/sparsely populated land instead. As I said before, it's not rocket science, just sense. Add your comments below, or email me.

YES WE CAN: monitor

Yes we can: the story so far… Infratil need Manston to be very busy; night flights are a bad thing; and the daytime flight paths must be designed to be as people-friendly as possible. So what happens next? Step aboard the time machine of your imagination, and gracefully swoop into the future…

Let’s suppose that Infratil have impressed everyone with their keenness to encourage clean and quiet planes to fly as cleanly and quietly as possible, at considerate times of day, where there are least people. Marvellous. I for one would be proud to brandish their commitment as an example to airport operators across the country. But how could I prove that their high ideals were the real deal?

This very question was addressed in the 2005 Alan Stratford & Associates report to Thanet District Council when they were reviewing the S106 agreement with PlaneStation:

To properly manage noise and environmental matters related to the operation and future growth of the airport, it will be essential to have in place a rigorous and comprehensive monitoring process. This needs to be adequately resourced, in terms of equipment and staff, and have in place clear and measurable targets and standards which have been mutually agreed, with related penalties for non-compliance. Demonstrable monitoring and enforcement is essential, also, in regard to the confidence within the surrounding communities that the airport’s activities are taking place under the influence and control of the Council.

Simply put, monitoring is the only way of being sure whether we are getting lots of dirt and noise, or little dirt and noise. Anyone who is not constantly working towards the latter needs to be taken out and flogged. In a constructive, educational and empowering way.

There are established and reliable technologies available for monitoring the presence and immediate environmental impacts of carbon dioxide and other gases, fumes, particulates, droplets, leakages and spillages. Given the towns at either end of the runway; the surrounding farmland; the underlying aquifers; the commercial sea fishing; the internationally important conservation areas; and the Isle of Thanet’s vulnerability to climate change, it’s in everyone’s interests that these monitoring systems should meet or exceed the highest statutory requirements. I don’t doubt for a moment that there would be no shortage of advice and support from Natural England, CPRE Kent, Kent Wildlife Trust, etc, etc. It’s all just there for the asking.

Noise and location are obviously closely linked. The Civil Aviation Authority has clear guidelines for what constitutes best practice for noise monitoring – at least two fixed microphones at each end of the runway, and at least one mobile microphone for measurements further from the airport. Historically, Manston’s noise monitoring has been sub-standard – as far as I know it’s still not up to scratch. Their radar has also been very basic, relying on a PSR system.

Primary Surveillance Radar (PSR) is akin to a bat’s echolocation: the transmitter emits a powerful pulse, some of which is reflected back – the reflection and the delay indicate the direction and distance of an object.

Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR) is more like a conversation. The transmitter sends a question and a transponder on the plane replies with information gleaned from the cockpit instruments. Again, the delay in the answer arriving indicates the distance; the answer itself confirms the distance and identifies the aircraft, location, speed, bearing, height, etc.

To monitor adherence to agreed routes and altitudes, SSR is essential. An airport can buy its own SSR system, or hire SSR feeds from a third party. In a recent phone conversation, Matt Clarke of Infratil said that Manston currently rents SSR feeds from the MoD. However, TDC don’t seem to be aware of this:

TDC’s Airport Working Party’s recent minutes state “It was understood that at the outset of a new service featuring some night-time aircraft movements, the secondary radar capability necessary to operate web tracking would not be affordable. However, an appropriate threshold of business levels ought to be established for its introduction.”

Similarly, “Noise abatement routes can only be monitored if secondary radar capacity is provided. This represents a considerable investment which cannot be justified by current aircraft usage. A threshold of aircraft usage should be set for its introduction.”

The impression I get is that in their conversations with TDC, Infratil are quoting a figure of £2½ million for their own SSR system (probably accurate) and using this as an excuse for not getting it yet, and thereby being unable to monitor their planes. This is, at best, disingenuous. For low volumes of traffic, it makes sense to hire a feed; when volumes increase sufficiently, the cost/benefit equation will tip in favour of buying their own. It’s a straightforward commercial decision – this is the cost of doing business.

Infratil are doing themselves no favours by trying to avoid monitoring by hiding behind the largest quotable cost. They have a duty of care to everyone on the ground, and everyone in the aircraft, to know exactly where everything is in the airspace over East Kent. Quite frankly, if they’re even hinting at not taking this seriously, they’re not fit to run an airport.

So there we have another solid pillar for the S106 Agreement: the immediate provision and consistent use of excellent monitoring equipment. Common sense demands it. TDC are perfectly within in their rights to request it. If Infratil were shrewd, they would forestall the issue by taking advice from the relevant aviation and environmental bodies and installing top notch monitoring systems. It wouldn’t be hard for them to present it as evidence of a green conscience, willingness to be a good neighbour, etc. It could win them friends. Everyone needs friends.