To discuss the current CAA proposals.

The Community Protection Principal explained to Members that Heathrow Airport occasionally needed to operate Tactically Enhanced Arrival Measures when incoming aircraft arrived late, which meant landing on the departures runway. However with the rise in Performance Based Navigation, consideration was now being given to the implementation of Independent Parallel Approaches. This would lead to delayed aircraft following set flight paths so as not to interfere with incoming air traffic that was running on time, and reduce stacking. A consultation on the proposed implementation of IPA had been carried out. A copy of a letter outlining the Council’s response to the proposals was circulated to Members. The Community Protection Principal explained that although the Council’s position was that it was challenging any proposed expansion of the airport, it agreed with the four basic principles relating to IPA that had been identified. However the response letter also noted that noise burdens were not equal for all communities, and no health impact study had been undertaken as part of the report proposing IPA. Members were informed that the topic of airspace change would be considered later during the Development Consent Order process, and this would have to go through the HSPG.

The Chairman explained that a Time Based Separation could also be in operation, which when combined with IPA would enable an even higher number of aircraft to land when strong headwinds and inclement weather was taken into consideration. An Enhanced Time Based Separation system had also been suggested. This system would mean greater overflying of the Royal Borough on easterly landings at lower heights. However both the implementation of IPA and TBS would need to be agreed by the Department for Transport.

Andrew Hall stated that there was evidence that not all aircraft were sticking to the set flight paths, and that this had been noticed by residents who lived under the flight paths. Cllr Hilton said that the concentration of aircraft noise at ground level in Ascot during trials in 2014 had caused anger to residents. The Community Protection Principal said that the topic of expectations of noise levels at ground level had been raised during the High Court legal challenge.

The Chairman informed the Forum of two recent examples of aircraft coming in to land at Heathrow that had not followed the flight paths. The most serious of these involved an aircraft that failed to land and passed in close proximity over central London to another aircraft, which had been forced to take evasive action. The Chairman stated that at one point the two aircraft were just 500 feet apart. He stated that he would be following up to see what the outcome of this incident would be.

Cllr Hilton then gave Members a presentation on his personal experience of the Heathrow Community Noise Forum, which had initially been set up as a consequence of the 2014 Performance Based Navigation trials. Since its first meeting in 2015 the number of attendees had more than doubled. The Forum had verified the use of HAL’s noise and track keeping systems, but had also learnt that its modelling system had underestimated the process of how recording noise levels worked. Cllr Hilton stated that the Forum had learnt that HAL had little understanding of how aircraft were flown, how airlines change climb rates, where they fly within the SIDs, and the gradual process of concentration. The number of noise monitors deployed by the group had been increased to 45, and a standardised local reporting format for noise, track keeping and aircraft movements had been established. Members were told that the Forum had initiated a 5 per cent climb rate trial on the Detling SID, and the final report on this was due in early 2019. Cllr Hilton said the Forum had helped all of the individual community noise groups to have a collective voice.

Cllr Hilton said that HAL had agreed to fund an Independent Technical Advisor. The position would be advertised prior to an interview process, with the community representatives drawing up a shortlist before the HCNF made the final selection.

The first independent project proposed by the HCNF would be a comparison of noise levels, comparing World Health Organisation guidelines against the results of the Survey of Noise Attitudes. Cllr Hilton stated that the WHO guidelines matched the results of a different study that had been discredited.

With regards to Performance Based Navigation, Cllr Hilton informed Members that there had been much resistance to it from communities that had been affected by its introduction. It was perceived that the only beneficiaries to its use were the airlines. Cllr Hilton highlighted cases in the USA and Canada where legal challenges against the use of Performance Based Navigation had been launched.

Regarding the Future Airspace Strategy, Cllr Hilton said that eight high priority risks had been identified, the most significant of which related to the redistribution of aircraft noise. Cllr Hilton said the redistribution of noise impacts risks deterring the re-design of SIDs and arrival procedures or aircraft at low altitudes. He said that if local consultative groups were effective in blocking the proposals, sponsors could become unwilling or unable to incur the costs associated with deploying the changes required to realise sufficient benefits from some FAS initiatives.

Cllr Hilton informed the Forum that Heathrow Airport’s Sustainability Director Matt Gorman had recently accepted that the airport may not be able to realise the full capacity of a third runway because of the amount of resistance from campaign groups, including the HCNF. He said he hoped the HCNF would continue to work with the CAA and DfT in order to find a solution.