As an aviation student and Rolestown resident it’s very interesting to see how ignorant the IAA are to admit to fault and change routing. Very well explained video
Thank you. It clarifies what is going on. We live near Kilcoskan National School and are inundated by intolerable noise since the opening of the second runway operating in contravention of their planning permission.
Planning was granted based on flightpaths detailed in the planning application, but the planes are now flying on a completely different path. This is the equivalent of changing where you are going to build a motorway without any planning or consultation with the people affected. DAA, AirNav and the Government must be accountable to this or what is the point in having a planning system. No amount of DAA or Ryanair spin in the media should change this. Fantastic presentation with a positive approach to solving the problem.
Fantastic presentation explaining the dynamics of this problem. People suffering unnecessarily for several months now and the Irish Government turning a blind eye on the severity of the matter. Shame on them.
It was a bate and switch. If we had known the planes would be flying so low over Ashbourne there wouldve been thousands of objections. It needs to be corrected now if DAA want to have any hope of raising the cap at the Airport.
Love that path right over my head in Lusk. I love planes and the airport and I know a fair bit about what's going on with planes but there's periods where the noise just sounds like there's a plane stopped over the house at full power for 15 minutes. I can't imagine how the folks in those Meath towns feel.
Why don’t they use the left runway for takeoff and the right runway for landing. This way the noise level would be the exact same as before the right runway came into use. The landing noise is not usually an issue for residents
Amazing work on this. Clearly presented and well thought out. At first I was all “why does a runway have its own UA-cam channel?” but now it makes sense.
THANK YOU to the creators of this video!! I live close enough to the airport and alot of the residents are constantly talking and complaining about the noise. I've tried a few times to find information about the proposed planning permission flight paths and the ones they're using but never found it! But this video has basically explained everything in great detail and explained easy enough for people who aren't very aware of flight rules etc. Very well done!! 👏
Instead of noise I’d be far more concerned about the pollution. A little bit hypocritical perhaps as I fly light aircraft near populated towns. The kids growing up near those exhaust particles of 100LL are much more likely to develop issues.
Both are a problem, the noise is more immediate as it's destroying lives. No public consultation was ever held, the people overflown never had any part in the planning/permitting process. I don't fly over towns anymore. Even if it's a waypoint, I divert around the town and pick up the magenta line on the far side.
Thank you for this excellent and informative video. I have a question: it seems to me that planes landing on the South runway, force constraints on planes taking off on the North runway. So why not use the North runway for landings instead of the South? Planes taking off on the South runway are not a problem. And a missed approach on the North runway could take the 30 degree turn that the currently taking off planes take. Am I missing something?
TL; DR: Money and influence and the threat of legal action from people who can afford it and are ready, as they’ve have had years of warning. There are solutions that would allow landing on 28R without overflying Portmarnock, but DAA and AirNav management aren’t smart enough to use them. When An Bord Pleanala overruled the elected representatives on Fingal County Council and their own Planning Inspector to grant permission to build the north runway they specified they included 31 conditions. One of those is that when operating 28 (to the west) the aircraft must, as much as possible, land on the south runway 28L and take off from the north runway 28R. [Condition 3(b)] “when winds are westerly, Runway 28L shall be preferred for arriving aircraft.” The basis for this was the Environmental Impact Statement lodged by DAA which showed straight ahead take off from the new runway 28R over empty fields, affecting very few people. The approach to 28L (the old runway) has relatively few houses under it as it has been the approach for 30+ years. Landing on 28R overflies Portmarnock which in 2005 had about 8,000 people and now has 10,000+ so it made sense to avoid overflying 10,000 people as much as possible. However, when DAA unilaterally changed the flight paths without Environmental Impact Assessment or Public Consultation in breach of Condition 1 of the planning permission, they changed that calculus completely. Now to avoid overflying 10,000 people on approach to 28R, they turn north and overfly 30,000 people on departure from 28R. So why does DAA choose to break Condition 1 when breaking Condition 3(b) would affect fewer people? The people in the relatively affluent Portmarnock area knew for 20 years that a flight path over their homes was coming and got organized. As a result, DAA and the various agencies and politicians have been warned by several individuals and groups in Portmarnock that if they swap the runways, they will find themselves in the high court at an injunction hearing. Fingal and Meath County Councils and the people being overflown by the departures from 28R were told for 20 years that they would NOT be overflown and were unprepared. When the initial flight paths in August 2022 did “unexpectedly” affect north Fingal residents, DAA changed the flight path to move that noise into Meath, even closer to the 16,000 people living in Ashbourne, where it no longer affected Fingal residents whose councillors decide DAA planning applications. It is possible to land on 28R without directly overflying Portmarnock using and offset approach. This is common in competently run airports where the management team are smart enough to avoid overflying communities creating a groundswell of opposition to their expansion plans. La Guardia in New York is just one such example. Sadly, DAA and state-owned sister company AirNav (Air Traffic Control) are run by unqualified incompetents skilled only in lying, gaslighting and spin.
Unbelievable that DAA would not take this proposal seriously and implement it. It would be a much better situation for everyone and ultimately benefit the DAA with greater goodwill from people in Fingal and East Meath. DAA say they want to be a good neighbour. Well, here’s your golden opportunity DAA!!
WRONG! Despite DAA propaganda, AirNav is merely the subcontractor. DAA is the licence holder for the aerodrome and 100% of the responsibility lies with the executive and board of DAA. DAA wants to just "control the terminals", more precisely the shopping centres in the terminals which generate the cash. There just happens to be a few runways out the back and DAA sub-contracted out operation of the tedious flying stuff to AirNav despite them having no qualification or experience of designing procedures for parallel runways. Despite what Kenny Jacobs claims, there is no such thing as "devolved responsibility"; just because you sub a function out to a third party does not remove your responsibility for ensuring it is done to standard.
Why are our elected representatives not ensuring that this presentation is brought to the attention of Government and raised in Dail with the relevant Minister. With Local and European elections on the horizon now is the time for action on this shameful saga.
The transatlantics are the worst because they are really labouring over Baltrasna which is right under the deviated route. DAA consulted nobody in Meath and treat us like we are a different country instead only dealing with Fingal.
Hello. I just found this video on my recommended feed. I don’t live in Ireland but I could see you used Google Earth to conduct your visualisations of the flight paths out of runway 28R. I have a home flight simulator and if you’re interested I could potentially record departures out of this runway on the simulator using software to plot the aircraft’s track over the ground. It might assist in your visualisations. If that would be of interest to you then let me know. Otherwise, nice video. Seems illogical to me that the airport authority couldn’t shift the missed approach course for 28L to go left - London Heathrow has a similar runway configuration and does exactly that. I could also provide some of the real-world SID charts that pilots use if you would like that too?
We had similar problems in Sydney. All is much better now, the noise is spread around-great you have the fields to play with, YSSY is located in the suburbs. Am shocked at the deviation from the original environmental impact plan for the parallel runway. Campaign for a CURFEW at 23:00 to 06:00 hrs.
@@shellt2694 I'm a Planespotter who likes to planespot from the comfort of my home well sometimes at the airport especially since aircraft land at runway 10L from the north and if it is clear I planespot and have gotten some really good photos and seeing these Idiots making a video to attempt to dictate DUB for its is surely attempting to Ruin Planespotters from aircraft Flying from there home. AND, LEAVE, PLANE SPOOTERS, ALONE!
@@Transport_MayhemI respect your hobby, but there a lot of people negatively impacted by this situation. Would it really be that difficult to plane spot on a different route?
Excellent explanation. Unfortunately, those in charge of changing things are too egotistical to listen to a rational, workable solution from "Ordinary People".
Well done. Consise, clear and very informative. As somebody who lives in the area and works in an aviation related sector, i've been trying to explain (& failing) exactly what you've laid out here. Another question I have - and I dont know if this is the right place to ask - but why no take offs from 10L, in easterly winds, or landings onto 28R in westerlys????
Cheers. We have content explaining further at www.dublin-north-runway.com also. As you mentioned, it's difficult to explain this without descending into jargon and terminology and these days it's hard to get anyone to read 1,000 words! The original Environmental Impact Study (EIS) placed priority on landings on 28L and departures from 10R to avoid Portmarnock reducing disturbance on 10,000 people. This was on the basis that there is low population density to the east of the south runway and to the west of the north runway (straight out). When daa+AirNav changed the flight path as shown in the video, they ruined the numbers. There are now 30,000 people suffering departure noise, to protect 10,000 people from arrival noise.
@@DUB-NorthRunway I watched your presentation and found it informative, obviously I can understand your anger/disappointment that planning was given on a provision that isn't being followed. I should state personally I love aviation and despite living on Newcastle's flight path (probably a third of the departures of Dublin) the noise doesn't bother me. This is a genuine question. How many of the 300 actually overfly or impact Ashbourne? From watching flight radar the vast majority seem to perform a tight 180 turn to head East over Greenogue and straighten back out by Ballyboughal and are at around 8000ft at that point. Does Ashbourne still get high noise levels from that?
@@britannia079 I even live near the approach path of some aircraft landing on Runway 28L from the North from North America, now used to hear it every day!
@@joemet If you here it all the time you will get used to it, but these guys are complete Idiots that are spreading this propaganda video to ruin plane spotters who wants to planespot aircraft from the comfort of there home as well as attempting to DICTATE the DAA and AirNav
Would swapping the runways around so that 28L would be for TO and 28R would be for Landing? So if there's a missed approach on 28R they'd head north and come back around?
That is definitely an option. It could be done tomorrow with the existing procedures and could be a "band aid" solution while DAA and AirNav work on the real solution. It's not our favourite option as a long term solution, but it would put the onus on DAA and AirNav to actually work on the real solution instead of kicking the can down the road. When the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was done in 2004/2005, the population of Portmarnock was about 8,000; it's now about 10,000. The flight path for departure from 28R was (as shown in the video) modelled to be over largely empty fields. The calculus was therefore to land on the south runway to avoid 10,000 people being subject to landing noise because virtually no one was to be subject to take-off noise.The calculus was completely invalidated when DAA and AirNav (then IAA ANSP) decided to turn the departure path resulting in 30,000+ people subject to take-off noise to prevent 10,000 in Portmarnock hearing landing noise. DAA and AirNav simply ignored the EIS and figured they'd do whatever they want and no one will hold them to account. So far, they've been correct. While landing aircraft are quieter than departing, it's still to be avoided if possible which is why we want to fix the 28L missed approach and put the 28R departures back where they're supposed to be which minimizes the noise disturbance for departures and arrivals - as designed in 2004.
It's trickier than simply swapping the runway for departures, as runway 28l is 8652ft long and can't accommodate some heavier aircraft. 28R is 10,200ft long and can allow heavier aircraft to depart nearer there max takeoff weight. As before the new runway every aircraft crossing the Atlantic or heading to the middle east were weight limited.
Guess another reason to keep departures on 28R is that it's longer, and the big heavy long hauls have an easier time getting airbourne with less engine power required. Whereas they are obviously much lighter when landing so the shorter runway is sufficient to stop on.
As mentioned, for various reasons it's not our first choice. However, it could be done immediately, with no need to promulgate new charts. Such limitations as you describe would then encourage DAA to contract design of the procedures to a competent design agency and get the existing mess fixed. As it stands DAA is breaching the law every day they use the runway. Whether official Ireland will ever force a State-owned company to comply with the law, much less get their act together ...
Can I ask for the simulation that you flew. The weights of the aircraft for landing used. Also was the simulation run with a go round on single engine (engine failure) as this is taken into account when a go round procedure is being drawn up. I ask as a pilot from a major airline flying thd A320. And have tested your procedures you proposed.
It was run at max t/o weight, no fuel burn (fuel constant) with 1 engine INOP and a 10kt tailwind in B737, A320 and A330. In each case L turn 30 degrees at DAP and straight until 4000ft. Weston was cleared by at least 500ft and the aircraft reached 4000ft prior to reaching the R15. As far as I remember it required a climb gradient of approx 5%. This of course is academic to meet the required criteria and has no relation to what happens in 99.99% of go-arounds. An A330 with V1 cut on t/o is the worst case: full fuel, max gross, etc. The above is utterly unrealistic in this scenario as: 1. The captain should not accept a tailwind landing. 2. In still air or westerly wind the captain should inform ATC "in the event of a missed approach we will climb straight ahead." This would mean stopping departures from the parallel for the few minutes of the approach. Once the aircraft was down and stopped, departures can recommence. The track shown in the video is the far more common case of go around at minimums with both engines operational and L turn UMOWI upon reaching 4000 which occurs well before reaching Weston or the R15.
@@DUB-NorthRunway so if at MTOW that would already put the aircraft above MLWT and not safe ie, outside safety margins of the aircraft and landing. On average climb gradient is approx 3.2%. With one engine failed on the 320 you'll Ger a climb subject to weight and which side eng 1 or 2 will change those climb ratios even further. Losd of the number 2 and associated hydraulics you lose with that you get a clime of 750ft. Your waypoint of proc3 in video also places the aircraft out over the restrictions of the phionex park, special criminal court. We ran our simulation 56 times with all live weather scenarios in a level D sim. May I ask what simulator you were using for your videos. And you have avoided the question on what simulator/simulation software was used for the video.
Hi @irish_skies836, When you say we, who do you mean? AirNav per chance? 56 runs in a commercial level D sim? Why did you put so much effort into this? What's your interest in the outcome? I avoided nothing. The insert is a video of the PFD in an A320 training simulator. The video of the flight paths is Google Earth based on various data points from the sim run and ADSB data for the actual flight shown.
BTW the Phoenix Park (P11) restriction is to 1000ft and Mountjoy (P18) is 550ft. Are you really telling us you couldn't fly an A320 to 1000ftMSL by the Phoenix Park starting at >130KIAS and already above 300MSL at MAPt?
@@DUB-NorthRunway air nav are not a airline they don't need pilots. Airlines have a Interest in safety. The park is 1000ft and the turn radius is wider than Mountjoy so no need to consider it. So your saying a full flap climb to above thrust reduction alt is efficient and safe like in the simulation? Definitely not if sheary conditions. Think your "pilot" needs to look through the FCOM and manual again, safe and efficient climbing is 185kts for best climb speed in conf 1+f, at Dublins thrust reduction alt and ACC acel of 1220ft (generating and showering of noise)
After takeoff from 28 why dont they avoid swortd and exit to the irish sea from between balbriggan and drogheda where there is no large population centres
Here's the issue, its near Gormanston Airfield which can be a restricted area, tho doing that will also mean that I can planespot near my house, so that's not an issue...
The flight-paths were designed by air-traffic controllers acting as amateur design engineers. No competent, qualified people were involved in the design and both DAA and AirNav have done whatever they want, with zero oversight for the past 30 years. They didn't intentionally design the flight paths to fly over the maximum people possible, they simply never looked at the ground maps when they drew them up. The Dublin Airport fiasco is a failure of governance by the boards of DAA and AirNav, a failure of oversight by the Department of Transport and a personal failure by the Director General of Civil Aviation in Ireland, Ethna Brogan and her predecessors at the top of the Department of Transport.
Hi, Do you have any contact details so we can make this an election issue for Regina Doherty and Helen McEntee who are local politicians who depend on Fingal and Meath East for election. Losing Ashbourne, Ratoath and Dunshaughlin would take a chunk out of the McEntee vote and Fingal would damage Dohertys MEP ambitions. This noise is unacceptable.
We have met the local TDs, two of whom are government ministers (Helen McEntee and Thomas Byrne). They agreed to ask Jack Chambers (Junior Minister for Aviation) to meet us. He refused and they took no further action. Several Councillors and Darren O'Rourke TD have been helping as they can, but the Ministers, with the most access to the government, don't appear to think the multi-decade serial failures of three State bodies - daa, AirNav and IAA is that big a deal and are much too busy to help 30,000 affected people in their constituency. Meath East TDs thomas.byrne@oireachtas.ie darren.orourke@oireachtas.ie helen.mcentee@oireachtas.ie MEP regina.doherty@oireachtas.ie (candidate) colm.markey@europarl.europa.eu lukeming.flanagan@europarl.europa.eu chris.macmanus@europarl.europa.eu maria.walsh@europarl.europa.eu Councillors Ashbourne Alan.tobin@members.meathcoco.ie conor.tormey@members.meathcoco.ie joe.bonner@members.meathcoco.ie suzanne.jamal@members.meathcoco.ie helen.meyer@members.meathcoco.ie amanda.smith@members.meathcoco.ie Ratoath brian.fitzgerald@members.meathcoco.ie deirdre.geraghtysmith@members.meathcoco.ie Nick.killian@members.meathcoco.ie Maria.murphy@members.meathcoco.ie gerry.oconnor@members.meathcoco.ie Gillian.toole@members.meathcoco.ie caroline.oreilly@members.meathcoco.ie Kells paul.mccabe@members.meathcoco.ie mike.bray@members.meathcoco.ie eugene.cassidy@members.meathcoco.ie Sean.drew@members.meathcoco.ie michael.gallagher@members.meathcoco.ie David.gilroy@members.meathcoco.ie Sarah.reilly@members.meathcoco.ie Laytown-Bettystown Stephen.mckee@members.meathcoco.ie geraldine.keogan@members.meathcoco.ie tom.behan@members.meathcoco.ie Wayne.harding@members.meathcoco.ie elaine.mcginty@members.meathcoco.ie Paddy.meade@members.meathcoco.ie sharon.tolan@members.meathcoco.ie Navan Tommy.reilly@members.meathcoco.ie edward.fennessy@members.meathcoco.ie padraig.fitzsimons@members.meathcoco.ie yemi.adenuga@members.meathcoco.ie francis.deane@members.meathcoco.ie alan.lawes@members.meathcoco.ie emer.toibin@members.meathcoco.ie Trim Noel.french@members.meathcoco.ie niamh.souhan@members.meathcoco.ie aisling.dempsey@members.meathcoco.ie Joe.fox@members.meathcoco.ie Trevor.golden@members.meathcoco.ie ronan.moore@members.meathcoco.ie
The key learning from the Dublin fiasco is that the project team designing the new runway and in particular its procedures didn't understand that they were not "adding a runway to the airport" they were changing the aerodrome from single runway to parallel runway operations. This is a fundamentally different design and it invalidates all the old procedures and flight paths. There is literally a manual for this ICAO 9643 and it appears that neither DAA nor IAA ANSP knew this in 2004/5 when developing the planning application. To do this correctly you have to start over with a blank sheet recognizing the different requirements of parallel runway operations and this clearly did not occur. DAA hired a sub-contractor (IAA ANSP) with no obvious experience or qualification to perform aerodrome design (an engineering function) and in particular no knowledge of parallel runways. They had to learn on the job, while they tried to minimize the work they would have to do by leaving the old procedures unchanged as much as possible and using a copy-paste from south runway to north. The result is a completely invalid Environmental Impact Statement which was the foundation of the grant of planning permission for the runway. In a functioning democratic State this would completely invalidate the planning permission as granted, but in Ireland ... Ah sure ...
But how come when they are landing on 10L and departing on 10R, the departing aircraft can continue straight ahead. What happens if an aircraft goes around on 10L. Is it not the same situation but on opposite directions.
@KC-RallyPlanes Im pretty sure that not an issue with your example since it's pretty empty but DAA won't update 28L because if you get rid of one and add another that has a higher population (in this case North of Dublin) it DOESN'T HELP. The best fix I found is to reduce engine power to climb power 70 percent it sound reduce noise significantly.
LOL I'm one of the mad few who would love to be subject to that every day, being a bit of a plane spotter, especially in the garden with a cool drink and a camera :)
That's a personal choice that might well suit you. It sound like one you think would be fine, but haven't actually made the choice to move under a flight path. Of course, none of the people affected by these flight paths chose to live under them either. Quite the opposite, because the flight paths were moved by many miles after the runway was built!
They could. However, daa jumps immediately on the fact that one of the planning conditions forbids that. This condition is important to them as it aligns with what they want to do. Condition 1 which underpins the entire grant of permission? Breaking that one they're fine with. The reason for the runway choice is that departures from the north runway are supposed to overfly empty fields and solar farms. On that basis it made sense to have arrivals overfly Portmarnock (10,000 people) as little as possible by putting them on the south runway. Once daa chose to intentionally and illegally ignore the designated noise zones, they completely undermined ABP's reasons for granting the permission. By departing over 30,000 people, mostly in Meath, they made mince meat of the decision to protect Portmarnock from arrival noise and the logic dictates the runways should be swapped. Unfortunately for Meath East, we have lightweight Government Ministers (Helen McEntee and Thomas Byrne) and Portmarnock has Darragh O'Brien, a Pitbull, on their side!
I watched your presentation and found it informative, obviously I can understand your anger/disappointment that planning was given on a provision that isn't being followed. I should state personally I love aviation and despite living on Newcastle's flight path (probably a third of the departures of Dublin) the noise doesn't bother me. This is a genuine question. How many of the 300 actually overfly or impact Ashbourne? From watching flight radar the vast majority seem to perform a tight 180 turn to head East over Greenogue and straighten back out by Ballyboughal and are at around 8000ft at that point. Does Ashbourne still get high noise levels from that?
As they make that turn to the east the majority are at altitudes between 4,000 and 5,000ft MSL. The cone of noise is behind the aircraft as the majority of the noise results from "jet blast" which occurs outside the back of the engines. At this altitude the width of that cone spreads the noise further laterally and to the rear. In effect the noise nozzles are pointed at Ashbourne while the aircraft are still low enough to routinely put 65dB(A) on the ground. In winter, if your house is well insulated and you don't have vents in your rooms the noise is audible, but will only wake light sleepers. Of course, only if you have a heat recovery system throughout the house can you fill up the room vents, otherwise you risk interior damp and sickness from insufficient ventilation. In summer, if you open your windows because you'd rather not suffer with the heat, everyone is up by no later than 07:00 from 65db(A) coming in the windows. The further south you head, the worse the problem as the aircraft are lower. Keep in mind that all this is in the context of no benefit to the airport from flying these paths. Even if certain people (who don't live here) don't accept that this level of disturbance is anything to worry about, there is simply no need for it to occur because empty fields and solar farms are in the land reserved for the flight paths when the runway was designed.
@@DUB-NorthRunway Thanks for such a complete answer. Has anyone given you an answer as to why they don't use the alternative/original route to the South? And is legal action not an option if the planning was put through on an alternative route to what's being flown?
Question to daa on 5/April/2024: "Why do you want to fly over concentrated populations instead of empty fields and solar farms?" Answers: "Everyone we talk to wants the flights to be somewhere else" and "We wish no one was overflown, but we have to fly somewhere. If we change the flight paths, then someone else will complain." Because flying over a few hundred people who have been told since 2007 they will be overflown is the same as overflying 30,000 people who have been told since 2007 they won't be overflown, right?
All these folk who moan about aircraft noise, well i guess they never go abroad on hols hey! Its only when you think of aircraft that you actually hear them, its the way the brain works! Airport was there before the residents, sinple as
@@DUB-NorthRunway Why not aircraft just use less power on takeoff and still continue to go in the same path, take London Heathrow for example after takeoff they use like 60-70 percent of power after takeoff and continue to climb slowly.
Finally, someone telling the whole truth about this sorry shameful mess, well done 👏👏
Telling Propaganda to Dictate DAA and AirNav and ruining Planespotters who want to planespot from the comfort of there home...
As an aviation student and Rolestown resident it’s very interesting to see how ignorant the IAA are to admit to fault and change routing. Very well explained video
It’s AirNav role, not IAA issue who can only confirm if route is safe. AirNav are contracted to DAA.
Thank you. It clarifies what is going on. We live near Kilcoskan National School and are inundated by intolerable noise since the opening of the second runway operating in contravention of their planning permission.
We're further north so it's much worse where you are. Hopefully we can get some of the representatives to hold DAA to account.
Stupid Comment tho, gotta be honest
@@Transport_Mayhemwhy?
@@LeMerch letting propaganda dictate DAA, Airnav and IAA.
Planning was granted based on flightpaths detailed in the planning application, but the planes are now flying on a completely different path. This is the equivalent of changing where you are going to build a motorway without any planning or consultation with the people affected. DAA, AirNav and the Government must be accountable to this or what is the point in having a planning system. No amount of DAA or Ryanair spin in the media should change this. Fantastic presentation with a positive approach to solving the problem.
Superb explanation, not too technical.... even DAA and AirNav can understand this.....
This is so clear and simple to follow DAA need to see this. Also Prime Time to counter ridiculous DAA presentation.
Forward it to anyone who's willing to spend 10 minutes on learning the truth!
@@DUB-NorthRunwayRuining Planespotters who what to plane spot from the comfort of there home
Fantastic presentation explaining the dynamics of this problem. People suffering unnecessarily for several months now and the Irish Government turning a blind eye on the severity of the matter. Shame on them.
Indeed! Share this with anyone who will spend 10 mins. The more who recognise how bad DAA is the better to combat their disinformation
Shame on You, watch this video as a propaganda tool to ruin plane
Spoters from ability to planespot from the comfort of there home
Well done great explanation DAA should be forced to change the paths
Letting these Idiots Dictate DAA for no reason...
And that Immediately proves my point. These Idiots are makeing this video to use as a propaganda tool and to Dictate DAA and AirNav
Very helpful explanation of the situation and, More importantly, how straightforward the fix is.
It was a bate and switch. If we had known the planes would be flying so low over Ashbourne there wouldve been thousands of objections. It needs to be corrected now if DAA want to have any hope of raising the cap at the Airport.
Love that path right over my head in Lusk. I love planes and the airport and I know a fair bit about what's going on with planes but there's periods where the noise just sounds like there's a plane stopped over the house at full power for 15 minutes. I can't imagine how the folks in those Meath towns feel.
Why don’t they use the left runway for takeoff and the right runway for landing. This way the noise level would be the exact same as before the right runway came into use. The landing noise is not usually an issue for residents
That would require left hand drive aeroplanes 😅😅
@Greg2603 most planes aren't made in Ireland so are left hand drive
@@drewdabbs418 I was joking 🤭... Most aircraft, like my favourite egg, have two yolk's
@Greg2603 I prefer right hand drive eggs with one yoke
@@drewdabbs418 😆
Well done!! Very clear explanation and straightforward solution.
Thanks for the feedback. Hopefully it will help towards getting the flight paths fixed!
Amazing work on this. Clearly presented and well thought out. At first I was all “why does a runway have its own UA-cam channel?” but now it makes sense.
THANK YOU to the creators of this video!! I live close enough to the airport and alot of the residents are constantly talking and complaining about the noise.
I've tried a few times to find information about the proposed planning permission flight paths and the ones they're using but never found it!
But this video has basically explained everything in great detail and explained easy enough for people who aren't very aware of flight rules etc.
Very well done!! 👏
Excellent
Thank you! Cheers!
Very informative and solution focused, well done 👍
Excellent video. I hope it has the necessary impact. Writing this comment while listening to the airport noise above. 😢
Great presentation, than you.
Very welcome. Hopefully it will help
Very informative, and makes perfect sense. Best of luck.
Well done great presentation 👏
Thank you
It’s almost like they are DELIBERATELY going over major populated tows/citys……. Some serious questions need to be answered
Instead of noise I’d be far more concerned about the pollution. A little bit hypocritical perhaps as I fly light aircraft near populated towns. The kids growing up near those exhaust particles of 100LL are much more likely to develop issues.
Both are a problem, the noise is more immediate as it's destroying lives. No public consultation was ever held, the people overflown never had any part in the planning/permitting process.
I don't fly over towns anymore. Even if it's a waypoint, I divert around the town and pick up the magenta line on the far side.
Very Informative and makes sense. Happy to support further
Thank you for this excellent and informative video.
I have a question: it seems to me that planes landing on the South runway, force constraints on planes taking off on the North runway. So why not use the North runway for landings instead of the South? Planes taking off on the South runway are not a problem. And a missed approach on the North runway could take the 30 degree turn that the currently taking off planes take.
Am I missing something?
TL; DR: Money and influence and the threat of legal action from people who can afford it and are ready, as they’ve have had years of warning. There are solutions that would allow landing on 28R without overflying Portmarnock, but DAA and AirNav management aren’t smart enough to use them.
When An Bord Pleanala overruled the elected representatives on Fingal County Council and their own Planning Inspector to grant permission to build the north runway they specified they included 31 conditions. One of those is that when operating 28 (to the west) the aircraft must, as much as possible, land on the south runway 28L and take off from the north runway 28R. [Condition 3(b)] “when winds are westerly, Runway 28L shall be preferred for arriving aircraft.”
The basis for this was the Environmental Impact Statement lodged by DAA which showed straight ahead take off from the new runway 28R over empty fields, affecting very few people. The approach to 28L (the old runway) has relatively few houses under it as it has been the approach for 30+ years. Landing on 28R overflies Portmarnock which in 2005 had about 8,000 people and now has 10,000+ so it made sense to avoid overflying 10,000 people as much as possible.
However, when DAA unilaterally changed the flight paths without Environmental Impact Assessment or Public Consultation in breach of Condition 1 of the planning permission, they changed that calculus completely. Now to avoid overflying 10,000 people on approach to 28R, they turn north and overfly 30,000 people on departure from 28R.
So why does DAA choose to break Condition 1 when breaking Condition 3(b) would affect fewer people? The people in the relatively affluent Portmarnock area knew for 20 years that a flight path over their homes was coming and got organized. As a result, DAA and the various agencies and politicians have been warned by several individuals and groups in Portmarnock that if they swap the runways, they will find themselves in the high court at an injunction hearing.
Fingal and Meath County Councils and the people being overflown by the departures from 28R were told for 20 years that they would NOT be overflown and were unprepared. When the initial flight paths in August 2022 did “unexpectedly” affect north Fingal residents, DAA changed the flight path to move that noise into Meath, even closer to the 16,000 people living in Ashbourne, where it no longer affected Fingal residents whose councillors decide DAA planning applications.
It is possible to land on 28R without directly overflying Portmarnock using and offset approach. This is common in competently run airports where the management team are smart enough to avoid overflying communities creating a groundswell of opposition to their expansion plans. La Guardia in New York is just one such example. Sadly, DAA and state-owned sister company AirNav (Air Traffic Control) are run by unqualified incompetents skilled only in lying, gaslighting and spin.
@@DUB-NorthRunway Very interesting. Thank you very much for such a detailed explanation.
Excellent video hopefully people realise how easy it is to fix this mistake
It's an irreversible fix flying over the city only creates more problems...
Unbelievable that DAA would not take this proposal seriously and implement it. It would be a much better situation for everyone and ultimately benefit the DAA with greater goodwill from people in Fingal and East Meath. DAA say they want to be a good neighbour. Well, here’s your golden opportunity DAA!!
The Daa aren't responsible for this. They control the terminals. AirNav Ireland are responsible.
WRONG!
Despite DAA propaganda, AirNav is merely the subcontractor. DAA is the licence holder for the aerodrome and 100% of the responsibility lies with the executive and board of DAA. DAA wants to just "control the terminals", more precisely the shopping centres in the terminals which generate the cash. There just happens to be a few runways out the back and DAA sub-contracted out operation of the tedious flying stuff to AirNav despite them having no qualification or experience of designing procedures for parallel runways. Despite what Kenny Jacobs claims, there is no such thing as "devolved responsibility"; just because you sub a function out to a third party does not remove your responsibility for ensuring it is done to standard.
Why are our elected representatives not ensuring that this presentation is brought to the attention of Government and raised in Dail with the relevant Minister. With Local and European elections on the horizon now is the time for action on this shameful saga.
The transatlantics are the worst because they are really labouring over Baltrasna which is right under the deviated route. DAA consulted nobody in Meath and treat us like we are a different country instead only dealing with Fingal.
Must be better to make go around deviate 30 degr left or right and keep all normal flights in and out on track. Go around is not a daily happening
Hello. I just found this video on my recommended feed. I don’t live in Ireland but I could see you used Google Earth to conduct your visualisations of the flight paths out of runway 28R. I have a home flight simulator and if you’re interested I could potentially record departures out of this runway on the simulator using software to plot the aircraft’s track over the ground. It might assist in your visualisations. If that would be of interest to you then let me know. Otherwise, nice video. Seems illogical to me that the airport authority couldn’t shift the missed approach course for 28L to go left - London Heathrow has a similar runway configuration and does exactly that. I could also provide some of the real-world SID charts that pilots use if you would like that too?
We had similar problems in Sydney. All is much better now, the noise is spread around-great you have the fields to play with, YSSY is located in the suburbs. Am shocked at the deviation from the original environmental impact plan for the parallel runway. Campaign for a CURFEW at 23:00 to 06:00 hrs.
Thank you for this, a must share
Sharing Propaganda to Dictate DAA for no reason
@@Transport_Mayhemno reason?
@@shellt2694 I'm a Planespotter who likes to planespot from the comfort of my home well sometimes at the airport especially since aircraft land at runway 10L from the north and if it is clear I planespot and have gotten some really good photos and seeing these Idiots making a video to attempt to dictate DUB for its is surely attempting to Ruin Planespotters from aircraft Flying from there home.
AND, LEAVE, PLANE SPOOTERS, ALONE!
@@Transport_MayhemI respect your hobby, but there a lot of people negatively impacted by this situation. Would it really be that difficult to plane spot on a different route?
Excellent explanation. Unfortunately, those in charge of changing things are too egotistical to listen to a rational, workable solution from "Ordinary People".
Well done. Consise, clear and very informative. As somebody who lives in the area and works in an aviation related sector, i've been trying to explain (& failing) exactly what you've laid out here. Another question I have - and I dont know if this is the right place to ask - but why no take offs from 10L, in easterly winds, or landings onto 28R in westerlys????
Cheers. We have content explaining further at www.dublin-north-runway.com also. As you mentioned, it's difficult to explain this without descending into jargon and terminology and these days it's hard to get anyone to read 1,000 words!
The original Environmental Impact Study (EIS) placed priority on landings on 28L and departures from 10R to avoid Portmarnock reducing disturbance on 10,000 people. This was on the basis that there is low population density to the east of the south runway and to the west of the north runway (straight out). When daa+AirNav changed the flight path as shown in the video, they ruined the numbers. There are now 30,000 people suffering departure noise, to protect 10,000 people from arrival noise.
@@DUB-NorthRunway yeah because arrival noise is soooo loud 🙄
@@DUB-NorthRunway I watched your presentation and found it informative, obviously I can understand your anger/disappointment that planning was given on a provision that isn't being followed. I should state personally I love aviation and despite living on Newcastle's flight path (probably a third of the departures of Dublin) the noise doesn't bother me. This is a genuine question. How many of the 300 actually overfly or impact Ashbourne? From watching flight radar the vast majority seem to perform a tight 180 turn to head East over Greenogue and straighten back out by Ballyboughal and are at around 8000ft at that point. Does Ashbourne still get high noise levels from that?
@@britannia079 I even live near the approach path of some aircraft landing on Runway 28L from the North from North America, now used to hear it every day!
@@joemet If you here it all the time you will get used to it, but these guys are complete Idiots that are spreading this propaganda video to ruin plane spotters who wants to planespot aircraft from the comfort of there home as well as attempting to DICTATE the DAA and AirNav
Would swapping the runways around so that 28L would be for TO and 28R would be for Landing? So if there's a missed approach on 28R they'd head north and come back around?
That is definitely an option. It could be done tomorrow with the existing procedures and could be a "band aid" solution while DAA and AirNav work on the real solution. It's not our favourite option as a long term solution, but it would put the onus on DAA and AirNav to actually work on the real solution instead of kicking the can down the road.
When the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was done in 2004/2005, the population of Portmarnock was about 8,000; it's now about 10,000. The flight path for departure from 28R was (as shown in the video) modelled to be over largely empty fields. The calculus was therefore to land on the south runway to avoid 10,000 people being subject to landing noise because virtually no one was to be subject to take-off noise.The calculus was completely invalidated when DAA and AirNav (then IAA ANSP) decided to turn the departure path resulting in 30,000+ people subject to take-off noise to prevent 10,000 in Portmarnock hearing landing noise. DAA and AirNav simply ignored the EIS and figured they'd do whatever they want and no one will hold them to account. So far, they've been correct.
While landing aircraft are quieter than departing, it's still to be avoided if possible which is why we want to fix the 28L missed approach and put the 28R departures back where they're supposed to be which minimizes the noise disturbance for departures and arrivals - as designed in 2004.
It's trickier than simply swapping the runway for departures, as runway 28l is 8652ft long and can't accommodate some heavier aircraft. 28R is 10,200ft long and can allow heavier aircraft to depart nearer there max takeoff weight.
As before the new runway every aircraft crossing the Atlantic or heading to the middle east were weight limited.
Guess another reason to keep departures on 28R is that it's longer, and the big heavy long hauls have an easier time getting airbourne with less engine power required. Whereas they are obviously much lighter when landing so the shorter runway is sufficient to stop on.
@@sushiat with 28R (north runway) they also have a larger safety margin incase of rejected takeoff (rto)
As mentioned, for various reasons it's not our first choice. However, it could be done immediately, with no need to promulgate new charts. Such limitations as you describe would then encourage DAA to contract design of the procedures to a competent design agency and get the existing mess fixed. As it stands DAA is breaching the law every day they use the runway. Whether official Ireland will ever force a State-owned company to comply with the law, much less get their act together ...
Can I ask for the simulation that you flew. The weights of the aircraft for landing used.
Also was the simulation run with a go round on single engine (engine failure) as this is taken into account when a go round procedure is being drawn up.
I ask as a pilot from a major airline flying thd A320. And have tested your procedures you proposed.
It was run at max t/o weight, no fuel burn (fuel constant) with 1 engine INOP and a 10kt tailwind in B737, A320 and A330. In each case L turn 30 degrees at DAP and straight until 4000ft. Weston was cleared by at least 500ft and the aircraft reached 4000ft prior to reaching the R15. As far as I remember it required a climb gradient of approx 5%. This of course is academic to meet the required criteria and has no relation to what happens in 99.99% of go-arounds.
An A330 with V1 cut on t/o is the worst case: full fuel, max gross, etc. The above is utterly unrealistic in this scenario as:
1. The captain should not accept a tailwind landing.
2. In still air or westerly wind the captain should inform ATC "in the event of a missed approach we will climb straight ahead."
This would mean stopping departures from the parallel for the few minutes of the approach. Once the aircraft was down and stopped, departures can recommence.
The track shown in the video is the far more common case of go around at minimums with both engines operational and L turn UMOWI upon reaching 4000 which occurs well before reaching Weston or the R15.
@@DUB-NorthRunway so if at MTOW that would already put the aircraft above MLWT and not safe ie, outside safety margins of the aircraft and landing.
On average climb gradient is approx 3.2%.
With one engine failed on the 320 you'll Ger a climb subject to weight and which side eng 1 or 2 will change those climb ratios even further.
Losd of the number 2 and associated hydraulics you lose with that you get a clime of 750ft.
Your waypoint of proc3 in video also places the aircraft out over the restrictions of the phionex park, special criminal court.
We ran our simulation 56 times with all live weather scenarios in a level D sim.
May I ask what simulator you were using for your videos.
And you have avoided the question on what simulator/simulation software was used for the video.
Hi @irish_skies836,
When you say we, who do you mean? AirNav per chance?
56 runs in a commercial level D sim? Why did you put so much effort into this? What's your interest in the outcome?
I avoided nothing. The insert is a video of the PFD in an A320 training simulator. The video of the flight paths is Google Earth based on various data points from the sim run and ADSB data for the actual flight shown.
BTW the Phoenix Park (P11) restriction is to 1000ft and Mountjoy (P18) is 550ft.
Are you really telling us you couldn't fly an A320 to 1000ftMSL by the Phoenix Park starting at >130KIAS and already above 300MSL at MAPt?
@@DUB-NorthRunway air nav are not a airline they don't need pilots. Airlines have a Interest in safety. The park is 1000ft and the turn radius is wider than Mountjoy so no need to consider it.
So your saying a full flap climb to above thrust reduction alt is efficient and safe like in the simulation? Definitely not if sheary conditions.
Think your "pilot" needs to look through the FCOM and manual again, safe and efficient climbing is 185kts for best climb speed in conf 1+f, at Dublins thrust reduction alt and ACC acel of 1220ft (generating and showering of noise)
After takeoff from 28 why dont they avoid swortd and exit to the irish sea from between balbriggan and drogheda where there is no large population centres
Here's the issue, its near Gormanston Airfield which can be a restricted area, tho doing that will also mean that I can planespot near my house, so that's not an issue...
The flight-paths were designed by air-traffic controllers acting as amateur design engineers. No competent, qualified people were involved in the design and both DAA and AirNav have done whatever they want, with zero oversight for the past 30 years. They didn't intentionally design the flight paths to fly over the maximum people possible, they simply never looked at the ground maps when they drew them up.
The Dublin Airport fiasco is a failure of governance by the boards of DAA and AirNav, a failure of oversight by the Department of Transport and a personal failure by the Director General of Civil Aviation in Ireland, Ethna Brogan and her predecessors at the top of the Department of Transport.
Hi, Do you have any contact details so we can make this an election issue for Regina Doherty and Helen McEntee who are local politicians who depend on Fingal and Meath East for election. Losing Ashbourne, Ratoath and Dunshaughlin would take a chunk out of the McEntee vote and Fingal would damage Dohertys MEP ambitions. This noise is unacceptable.
We have met the local TDs, two of whom are government ministers (Helen McEntee and Thomas Byrne). They agreed to ask Jack Chambers (Junior Minister for Aviation) to meet us. He refused and they took no further action. Several Councillors and Darren O'Rourke TD have been helping as they can, but the Ministers, with the most access to the government, don't appear to think the multi-decade serial failures of three State bodies - daa, AirNav and IAA is that big a deal and are much too busy to help 30,000 affected people in their constituency.
Meath East TDs
thomas.byrne@oireachtas.ie
darren.orourke@oireachtas.ie
helen.mcentee@oireachtas.ie
MEP
regina.doherty@oireachtas.ie (candidate)
colm.markey@europarl.europa.eu
lukeming.flanagan@europarl.europa.eu
chris.macmanus@europarl.europa.eu
maria.walsh@europarl.europa.eu
Councillors
Ashbourne
Alan.tobin@members.meathcoco.ie
conor.tormey@members.meathcoco.ie
joe.bonner@members.meathcoco.ie
suzanne.jamal@members.meathcoco.ie
helen.meyer@members.meathcoco.ie
amanda.smith@members.meathcoco.ie
Ratoath
brian.fitzgerald@members.meathcoco.ie
deirdre.geraghtysmith@members.meathcoco.ie
Nick.killian@members.meathcoco.ie
Maria.murphy@members.meathcoco.ie
gerry.oconnor@members.meathcoco.ie
Gillian.toole@members.meathcoco.ie
caroline.oreilly@members.meathcoco.ie
Kells
paul.mccabe@members.meathcoco.ie
mike.bray@members.meathcoco.ie
eugene.cassidy@members.meathcoco.ie
Sean.drew@members.meathcoco.ie
michael.gallagher@members.meathcoco.ie
David.gilroy@members.meathcoco.ie
Sarah.reilly@members.meathcoco.ie
Laytown-Bettystown
Stephen.mckee@members.meathcoco.ie
geraldine.keogan@members.meathcoco.ie
tom.behan@members.meathcoco.ie
Wayne.harding@members.meathcoco.ie
elaine.mcginty@members.meathcoco.ie
Paddy.meade@members.meathcoco.ie
sharon.tolan@members.meathcoco.ie
Navan
Tommy.reilly@members.meathcoco.ie
edward.fennessy@members.meathcoco.ie
padraig.fitzsimons@members.meathcoco.ie
yemi.adenuga@members.meathcoco.ie
francis.deane@members.meathcoco.ie
alan.lawes@members.meathcoco.ie
emer.toibin@members.meathcoco.ie
Trim
Noel.french@members.meathcoco.ie
niamh.souhan@members.meathcoco.ie
aisling.dempsey@members.meathcoco.ie
Joe.fox@members.meathcoco.ie
Trevor.golden@members.meathcoco.ie
ronan.moore@members.meathcoco.ie
Very good work indeed, and potentially useful if a second dual-use runway is ever on the cards for Gatwick Airport.
The key learning from the Dublin fiasco is that the project team designing the new runway and in particular its procedures didn't understand that they were not "adding a runway to the airport" they were changing the aerodrome from single runway to parallel runway operations. This is a fundamentally different design and it invalidates all the old procedures and flight paths. There is literally a manual for this ICAO 9643 and it appears that neither DAA nor IAA ANSP knew this in 2004/5 when developing the planning application.
To do this correctly you have to start over with a blank sheet recognizing the different requirements of parallel runway operations and this clearly did not occur. DAA hired a sub-contractor (IAA ANSP) with no obvious experience or qualification to perform aerodrome design (an engineering function) and in particular no knowledge of parallel runways. They had to learn on the job, while they tried to minimize the work they would have to do by leaving the old procedures unchanged as much as possible and using a copy-paste from south runway to north.
The result is a completely invalid Environmental Impact Statement which was the foundation of the grant of planning permission for the runway. In a functioning democratic State this would completely invalidate the planning permission as granted, but in Ireland ... Ah sure ...
But how come when they are landing on 10L and departing on 10R, the departing aircraft can continue straight ahead. What happens if an aircraft goes around on 10L. Is it not the same situation but on opposite directions.
It should be. The missed for 10L turns 30 degrees left. This is exactly what they need to do for 28L but refuse to.
@KC-RallyPlanes Im pretty sure that not an issue with your example since it's pretty empty but DAA won't update 28L because if you get rid of one and add another that has a higher population (in this case North of Dublin) it DOESN'T HELP. The best fix I found is to reduce engine power to climb power 70 percent it sound reduce noise significantly.
Excellent now all we need is for daa and particularly Kenny Jacobs to pay attention and be a good neighbour
Well done 👏 would love to see your overview in a "tiktok" format that's easier to share on social media with wider demographic if possible
Good thinking. We had a quick look at that but struggled with making it portrait format. Sounds like a new project for the weekend!
@@DUB-NorthRunway you need a teenager to create it in minutes lol 😆
LOL I'm one of the mad few who would love to be subject to that every day, being a bit of a plane spotter, especially in the garden with a cool drink and a camera :)
That's a personal choice that might well suit you. It sound like one you think would be fine, but haven't actually made the choice to move under a flight path.
Of course, none of the people affected by these flight paths chose to live under them either. Quite the opposite, because the flight paths were moved by many miles after the runway was built!
Could departures not be done on South runway & arrivals on North runway.....or is that too simple a solution??
They could. However, daa jumps immediately on the fact that one of the planning conditions forbids that. This condition is important to them as it aligns with what they want to do. Condition 1 which underpins the entire grant of permission? Breaking that one they're fine with.
The reason for the runway choice is that departures from the north runway are supposed to overfly empty fields and solar farms. On that basis it made sense to have arrivals overfly Portmarnock (10,000 people) as little as possible by putting them on the south runway.
Once daa chose to intentionally and illegally ignore the designated noise zones, they completely undermined ABP's reasons for granting the permission. By departing over 30,000 people, mostly in Meath, they made mince meat of the decision to protect Portmarnock from arrival noise and the logic dictates the runways should be swapped.
Unfortunately for Meath East, we have lightweight Government Ministers (Helen McEntee and Thomas Byrne) and Portmarnock has Darragh O'Brien, a Pitbull, on their side!
I watched your presentation and found it informative, obviously I can understand your anger/disappointment that planning was given on a provision that isn't being followed. I should state personally I love aviation and despite living on Newcastle's flight path (probably a third of the departures of Dublin) the noise doesn't bother me. This is a genuine question. How many of the 300 actually overfly or impact Ashbourne? From watching flight radar the vast majority seem to perform a tight 180 turn to head East over Greenogue and straighten back out by Ballyboughal and are at around 8000ft at that point. Does Ashbourne still get high noise levels from that?
As they make that turn to the east the majority are at altitudes between 4,000 and 5,000ft MSL. The cone of noise is behind the aircraft as the majority of the noise results from "jet blast" which occurs outside the back of the engines. At this altitude the width of that cone spreads the noise further laterally and to the rear. In effect the noise nozzles are pointed at Ashbourne while the aircraft are still low enough to routinely put 65dB(A) on the ground.
In winter, if your house is well insulated and you don't have vents in your rooms the noise is audible, but will only wake light sleepers. Of course, only if you have a heat recovery system throughout the house can you fill up the room vents, otherwise you risk interior damp and sickness from insufficient ventilation. In summer, if you open your windows because you'd rather not suffer with the heat, everyone is up by no later than 07:00 from 65db(A) coming in the windows. The further south you head, the worse the problem as the aircraft are lower.
Keep in mind that all this is in the context of no benefit to the airport from flying these paths. Even if certain people (who don't live here) don't accept that this level of disturbance is anything to worry about, there is simply no need for it to occur because empty fields and solar farms are in the land reserved for the flight paths when the runway was designed.
@@DUB-NorthRunway Thanks for such a complete answer. Has anyone given you an answer as to why they don't use the alternative/original route to the South? And is legal action not an option if the planning was put through on an alternative route to what's being flown?
Any comments DAA?
Question to daa on 5/April/2024: "Why do you want to fly over concentrated populations instead of empty fields and solar farms?"
Answers: "Everyone we talk to wants the flights to be somewhere else" and "We wish no one was overflown, but we have to fly somewhere. If we change the flight paths, then someone else will complain."
Because flying over a few hundred people who have been told since 2007 they will be overflown is the same as overflying 30,000 people who have been told since 2007 they won't be overflown, right?
Maybe we need to protest outside airnav and iaa office on dolier st. And protest at DAA offices
And that is clearly propaganda that those idiots do. Let the matter drop now, SERIOUSLY!
All these folk who moan about aircraft noise, well i guess they never go abroad on hols hey!
Its only when you think of aircraft that you actually hear them, its the way the brain works! Airport was there before the residents, sinple as
ua-cam.com/users/shortsttH3VhdFDXE
www.dublin-north-runway.com/runway-info/you-live-near-the-airport/
Everyone of you moaning should be band from using the airport… live by an airport… expect airplanes..🔨🙄🙄
Always a good idea to watch the video before commenting.
What's your definition of "live by an airport"?
ua-cam.com/users/shortsttH3VhdFDXE
@@DUB-NorthRunway Why not aircraft just use less power on takeoff and still continue to go in the same path, take London Heathrow for example after takeoff they use like 60-70 percent of power after takeoff and continue to climb slowly.
Sack the IAA, hire retired librarians instead. Oh wait.....
The airport was there long before most of the residents. When 10 is in use, noise over Nth Dublin is just as bad.
The runway wasn't. The aircraft don't need to fly over the residents. How would it hurt you if this mess was made better?