Why are you not considering respite routes for London City?
Extra routes to provide respite may be seen to beneficial in some circumstances however they have the following potential disadvantages:
1. they spread noise over a larger area
2. additional routes for respite purposes may also be longer in which case there may be fuel and CO2 implications
3. They can also have operational implications: for flight systems (eg flight database capacity), for flight crew (in terms of familiarity), and for ATC (in terms of increased complexity) given these generic
Given these disbenefits, we do not consider respite routes a practical solution London City traffic flows above 4,000ft. Specifically:
For arrivals the traffic volumes involved are relatively small and the arrival swathes is over the Thames Estuary as far as possible; additional routes would spread the impact and so make it less likely that the flight paths could be limited to airspace over the sea.
For London City departures, the route being addressed in this consultation is subject to a complex interaction with Heathrow arrivals. Increasing the complexity with additional options for respite is not operationally desirable. Furthermore the potential benefit is limited given that the route changes in question are above 4,000ft and the route is not particularly busy (on average 4 aircraft per hour). For these reasons we have not considered respite an appropriate option for London City routes to the south above 4,000ft.
Posted in: k) London City