§ Mr. Churchillasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, in view of the recent British European Airways Trident airliner crash he will undertake a full review of the London Airport noise abatement procedures which require aircraft at full gross weight to manoeuvre at low altitude, low speed and reduced power after take-off; and if he will make a statement about the hazards these involve for the safety of passengers and crew of aircraft using Heathrow and residents living under the flight-path.
§ Mr. Michael HeseltineNo noise abatement procedures are introduced and continued unless they are fully consistent with the high standard of safety requirements. Nevertheless, as stated in my reply to points raised by the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason)on 19th June, it is to be expected that this is one of the matters which will be probed at the public inquiry. To express more precisely the point I made on that occasion about noise abatement procedures and the Trident accident, the noise abatement cut-back would have taken place well before the point at which the flight recorder indicates that the droop retraction started.—[Vol. 839, c. 46.]
§ Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the length of the noise footprint of a jet airliner observing current noise abatement regulations at London or Gat-wick Airports during its take-off and climb to 3,000 feet; what are its likely noise levels; and what is his estimate of the size of the noise footprint and the noise level on the basis of allowing the aircraft to climb to 3,000 feet on 90 per cent. of throttle all the way up.
§ Mr. OnslowA typical take-off by a full laden DC8 or Boeing 707 from Heathrow produces a noise footprint on which the 110 PNdB contour extends for some 20,000 feet from start of roll. Comparable data for a climb to 3,000 feet on 90 per cent. throttle is not available but work is being done to assess the pattern of noise disturbance likely to be created under various climb procedures.