The UK Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions' (DTLR) protests about David Learmount's article on environmental pressures on civil aviation (Flight International, 15-21 January) hides a more pressing problem that the DTLR is less willing to discuss. The debate has so far centred on further operating restrictions that may be applied to existing procedures and hours of operation, to reduce noise and the general environmental impact of civil aviation.
Yet the approach and departure (standard instrument departures (SID) and standard arrival procedures) procedures flown today in the London terminal area were designed in a different age for different aircraft and a different operating environment. Most aspects of aircraft flying these outdated procedures - aircraft mix, load factors, performance etc - have changed radically over the last 30 years.
In fact, current SIDS at large UK airports are "noise preferential routes" and do not always conform to international standards.
Today's aircraft can fly more accurately and in optimal configurations to reduce both fuel consumption and noise. Our understanding of best aircraft operating procedures has increased dramatically. Not only can we reduce environmental impact but with new procedures, we can also increase safety and capacity.
Consequently, these procedures need to be urgently revisited. Yet there is evidence that both the DTLR and the airports are unwilling to consider change. Why? Because new procedures would mean that aircraft would fly over places that they haven't flown over before, incurring the wrath of a new group of people not now exposed to the downside of aviation.
Safety is a factor here. For example, "environmentally friendly" missed approach procedures at Gatwick fly straight ahead, requiring air traffic control (ATC) intervention, whereas it might be more sensible to turn.
Changing ATC procedures can also significantly reduce environmental impact (for example by allowing aircraft to fly the final segment without arbitrary ATC turns) as has been demonstrated by more progressive airlines and authorities. Yet the old hands of ATC are reluctant to let go or to change their role.
Flight management system arrival trials are being blocked by National Air Traffic Services - which is even more interesting considering their new owners.
If the DTLR, airports, ATC and airlines genuinely want to reduce the environmental impact of civil aviation, then they need to openly and honestly debate these issues.
The DTLR also needs to support the development and implementation of new procedures that are designed for today's aircraft in today's operating environment.
This will leave much greater room for negotiation on environmental impact versus demand/capacity and hours of operation.
Kim O'Neil
Via email
Source: Flight International
