HC Deb 04 December 1972 vol 847 cc900-2
23. Mr. Allason

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the comparable readings of flyover noise for the BAC 1–11 400 and the TriStar.

Mr. Onslow

The levels in EPNdB, for flyover, sideline and approach, as they would be calculated for noise certification purposes in this country, are:

Flyover Sideline Approach
BAC 1–11 400 98.9 106.5 104.6
TriStar 98 92 103

Mr. Allason

My hon. Friend has given me more figures than I require and he has slightly confused matters. What I am interested in are the flyover figures, because those are the figures that interest my constituents. They appear to be virtually identical for the notorious BAC 1–11 and the TriStar, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace in June as being much quieter than existing types. How does that square up?

Mr. Onslow

There are two types of BAC 1–11 flyover noise. For the 400 series it is 98.9 EPNdB and for the 500 series, accounting for 33 per cent. of the movements at Luton, it is 102.4. That compares very adversely with the TriStar figure of 98. My hon. Friend may care to have some further figures. He may like to know that the noise contour of the Lockheed 1011 in operation at Luton for 90 EPNdb will be a mere four square miles compared with 20 square miles for the 1–11.

Mr. Whitehead

In view of the extremely clear figures the Minister has just given, does not he agree that the success of aircraft powered by the RB211 engine has been made clear by orders received for that aeroplane? Will he make representations to BAC, if it is producing a new aeroplane for the Chinese market, that it might consider the VC10 with RB211 engines?

Mr. Onslow

That goes slightly further than the Question, but what the hon. Gentleman has said will no doubt be noted.

Mr. Simeons

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that Luton having rightly been encouraged to use the TriStar, our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his former incarnation as Secretary of State for the Environment failed to provide sites for it to take off? Will he encourage our right hon. Friend to see that a decision is made about the expansion of the runway at London Airport for the purpose?

Mr. Onslow

I understand that my hon. Friend is referring to whether there should be expansion at Luton. He will know that there is a planning application on the matter which will be determined shortly.

Mr. Mason

What is clear from the Minister's reply is that the TriStar is less noisy on take-off, landing and flyover than previous generations of aircraft, and the footprint of the TriStar over the airport is much smaller. Will the hon. Gentleman consider a subsidy to British airlines to see whether it is practicable to retrofit some aircraft with quieter engines or subsidise them to fit hush kits so that we can get quieter aircraft more quickly?

Mr. Onslow

We are substantially funding research into this matter. Until the results are known, it is too early to give a decision on the matters which the right hon. Gentleman has raised.