When air traffic control first evolved in the 1940’s and 1950’s it was a service based largely on set procedures.

There was little use of radar so aircraft had to follow established tracks guided by ground based navigation aids. Pilots then confirmed their altitude and the time of passing navigation fixes in order for the controller to build a picture of the traffic environment.

The deployment of primary radar, and subsequently cooperative secondary radar, radically changed the role of controllers and permitted a step change in airspace capacity. Radar provided a more accurate picture of what was in the skies allowing aircraft to be closer together and enabling greater efficiency and expediency. Air Traffic Management evolved from a procedurally based service to tactical Air Traffic Control.

Night sky

We are now at the dawn of a third age, a new, or maybe not so new, world of systemisation. But what do I mean by this?

It means that aircraft will once again be separated to a greater extent procedurally. The use of tactical intervention will reduce as the routes and trajectories of flights will have been determined long before the aircraft even enters our airspace. Air Traffic Control will evolve from tactical control to Air Traffic Management with an emphasis to optimising the aircraft’s ideal trajectory, transmitting that approved trajectory to the aircraft and then monitoring conformance with that plan.

This revolution in ATM will offer big operational efficiencies to our airline customers in terms of reduced fuel burn, the ability to deliver and then operate to a plan for our airports customers, and opportunities for improved productivity in our own operations.

So what does ‘systemisation’ mean in practice?  As the aircraft taxis out to the airport holding point, departure tools can start to become very precise in determining its actual airborne time. We will know the aircraft’s performance capabilities all of the way up to cruising altitude and also the ideal point for it to enter ‘Free Route Airspace’. Our systems will use all of this information gathered from all the aircraft in, or planning to enter, our airspace to design and transmit the optimal trajectory for the aircraft from take-off to cruise. This trajectory will be designed using very accurate Performance Based Navigation (PBN) principles to deliver assured separation from other traffic, with the system and controllers then monitoring performance to plan once the aircraft is airborne.


It is our vision that this concept of operation will cover all phases of flight from take off to landing, excluding the cruise during which aircraft will be in Free Route Airspace.

This isn’t some far off pipe dream. We are working to deploy these new SESAR based techniques and technologies from 2018 onwards. The first step is through deploying more PBN routes with assured separations to reduce tactical intervention and eventually, as the systems evolve, to deliver the full systemisation vision.

In simple terms change can go in circles to the benefit of our customers, from procedure based separation to radar intervention and soon on to procedure based separations again. Only this time our vision is based on technologies unimaginable to those pioneering pilots and controllers of the ‘40s and ‘50s.

What do you think of this vision of the future?


Please respect our commenting policy and guidelines when posting on this website.

Leave a Reply



Peter Alderson

Good luck. I hope you are not planning to implement PBN below 10,000 feet or it could be 2028 not 2018 when it happens




Interesting article from the industry’s viewpoint. I note no mention of the impact on the population living under the flight paths who are outraged at the effect of this new technology on their lives as demonstrated by the whole of the town of Teddington signing a petition against the testing of this technology in summer last year. What’s more important: fuel efficiencies or the health of hundreds of thousands of people?



Dixon N

This looks like the way forward. But how does this translate in terms of technology available? Of course GNSS would be the best platform when it comes to PBN. Have issues with current GNSS been address, or would use of GNSS in its current state bring expected benefits?

Thank you for your comment. Undoubtedly the integrity and resilience of GNSS is a concern but not a blocker. I believe that the current equipage mandates, and SESAR R&D, places the industry in a good place to exploit this technology. Current mandates and capabilities enable us to deploy to RNAV5 standards, with RNP deployment and aircraft compliance firmly on the timeline for the future. This will deliver the accuracy required for the kind of airspace optimisation we are looking for in the future. If I had one concern over the industry’s capability it would be in finding a timely solution for the datalink of complex clearances.




It’s all great to improve the efficiency of our skies from the airports and customer’s point of view, but radar-led concentrated flight paths are already creating extreme reactions around the world, making the lives of those living near airports hell and moving noise from some communities to concentrating it massively over others.

Modern high-tech aircraft like the A380 promise to bring quieter planes to our skies when they become more prevalent but instead, airports already allow them to use their new systems to take off using a more shallow take-off departure procedure to save fuel, at the expense of not being as quiet as they could potentially be. It’s clear that money and business always come first, affected populations are always an afterthought.

Why is there no effort (or even mention) of how new technology could perhaps be used to reduce the impacts of aircraft noise?



Fiona Lake

You ask what we think of this vision of the future. As someone living under a concentrated flight path, thanks to this technology, I can tell you that it is having a terrible impact on our quality of life. We live in an area never before affected by noise but are now subjected to aircraft flying at under 4000 feet (often below 3000 feet) every 3 minutes. The benefits to the aviation industry are clear but it appears that absolutely no thought has been put into the impact of the many thousands of people affected, very adversely, by this technology. Or maybe you just don’t care?



S Cooper

Living under a concentrated flight path is TORTUROUS. My family have been subjected to this by Gatwick Airport. Going from complete rural tranquility to having low flying aircraft fired overhead every two minutes is extremely damaging to health. Within weeks I experienced exhaustion due to sleep deprivation and panic attacks due to stress. The feeling of being trapped under this assault, with no escape is unimaginable unless you are subjected to it. Result: prescribed sleeping pills and treatment for depression, which I have never suffered from prior. It is impossible to rest or relax in one’s own home. It is impossible to work to study or to concentrate on tasks. Our homes are devalued and lives devastated. PBN creates noise ghettos which divide our communities. It creates inequality in society. Health and life chances for those subjected to this nightmare are badly affected. Why should all the noise and pollution be concentrated over innocent citizens?Worldwide people are protesting loudly and clearly about the implementation of concentrated flight paths. You can hear them. Stop ignoring them.



Reigate resident

PBN has already been implemented on departures from Gatwick and it has been an unmitigated disaster bringing constant noise misery to communities that weren’t previously affected. It is a grossly unfair technology in terms of intensifying noise for people close to the concentrated routes and implementation of it needs a huge rethink.




Nats should be condemned for the misery they are causing with concentrated flight paths out of Gatwick. PBN has been introduced to benefit airlines and Gatwick’s profits with no research or consideration to what impacted concentrated routes on residents lives and health



simon Byerley

We in West Kent are already experiencing the full impact of concentrated arrivals via existing ‘vectoring choices’. The advent of PBN Below 4000ft fills us with horror… So what do we think? We see an apocalyptic future. The technology is fully capable of proving fair and known dispersal of aircraft within existing NPRs to minimise noise impact yet you wilfully ignore this opportunity to share the burden of overflight by penalising targeted communities purely for profit.
Your ‘customers’ should be held accountable to the actual owners of the airspace which is us the Great British public.



John kelly

The experience is dire for anyone unfortunate to be beneath a concentrated PBN route, especially when they are newly exposed to them. Sleep loss, noise pollution, air pollution and overall raised stress levels are not conducive to a decent living standard. You will be aware of this by now due to earlier trials and implementations so shame on you for now inviting feedback when you know that you have already created suffering for tens of thousands in the UK, let alone globally.




Residents around your PBN systemisation routes are not impressed. Want you to return to ‘seat of the pants’ based navigation.




If your computers are so clever why can’t they randomised dispersal routes within NPRs ?



David Morgan

I think your goals are admirable. I’m a solid proponent of our use of technology to enhance or progress as a species. However, having watched the deployment of NextGen in the United States since Dec 13, 2014 I have found there to be a profound lack of consideration for those who live on the surface of the planet around airports. Suffering constant arrivals and departures has always, and rightly so, been the bane of those who chose to live inline with the runways. Planes generally have only two choices of path.

GPS navigation should be and appears to be the next step in airspace guidance. It’s good we take advantage of this for the benefit of all; ‘including’ surface dwelling flora and fauna. NextGen does not do this; at all. NextGen provides the most efficient path and then every plane follows that particular route creating several highways in the sky which have been implement only with airline industry and passenger comfort in mind. Efficiency (fuel savings) are achieved by shortest distance and passenger comfort is achieved by high acceleration, low altitude, slow climb departures and long drawn out low altitude arrivals, both of which result in highly concentrated corridors of engine noise and emissions. Woe unto those living under or to either side of that concentration.

I can tell you from having living in one of those corridors it is a nightmare one is unlikely to ever forget. Many cannot tolerate them at all and move away from long established homes often with losses in property values. Dozens of studies performed since the 1970s indicate or show clear connections with a variety of health issues for those impacted by jet noise. It’s important to remember that these studies were all done prior to deployments of PBN/NextGen. Therefore the studies’ results are exponentially exacerbated in one of these corridors. Most disturbing however are the studies of the affects on children; from cognition and memory damage to links to autism and potential demise for asthma suffers.

I could write a tome on this topic but I will just point you to some items I’ve already written at https://stopcltnoise.wordpress.com and you can also browse through ~7000 Tweets by @stopcltnoise to glean more of my thoughts on the subject. In a lot of my Tweets I have been rather hard on my government and some of it’s foot-soldiers. Frankly given the pain of long periods of 8 to 10 hour departure corridor experience it’s a wonder I’ve been able to refrain from more robust expletives.

I’ll leave you with the main two requests of millions of surface dwellers:

– Achieve rapid ascent to high altitude as soon as possible. If you must have planes in tracks put those tracks high and get them there fast. An Airbus A320 can climb 3300′ per minute. Take advantage of that. Arrivals should do the exact reverse; approach high then get on the ground fast.

– Spread them out. NextGen design documents note an option called Fanning which shares what necessary noise exists across a wide area. Noise impact should be fair across the board.

Certainly airlines will complain of any cost and some passengers might not care for G-forces. I can understand these in general but they’re unacceptable given the life or death consequences to those on the ground beneath the planes. Airlines will need to “man up” on costs and passengers will get out of their seat-belts quicker.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the conversation.




“This will deliver the accuracy required for the kind of airspace optimisation we are looking for in the future.”

You missed out “and never the people who live under the concentrated flight paths”. A number of other commenters have raised this and the lack of response is interesting if unsurprising.

What I find amazing is that the accuracy of the technology acutally allows for a very fair dispersion of noise by accurately sharing it around all areas surrounding ariports.

But that would require NATs to actaully care and plan accordingly.
I don’t believe it does (witness changes to Ockham stack, no consultation, no information that it happened and a refusal to change back even when requested by Heathrow).
Fortunately NATs can easily state “safety” reasons for every change that they make.



Stuart Green

PBN is the worse idea ever, never had an issue with planes in 20 years now there’s one overhead practically ever minute for 18 hours a day. UK CAA must bring back dispersal or respite before it all kicks off in the South East.



Mr T Reid

Although technology is a great tool for aircraft it offers
the residents living under the new noise and air pollution a living hell!




Great technology, but it’s all about efficiency, savings, and ‘customers’, isn’t it. Focus too myopic. Lack of balance/heart.

It has , and is being used to compress noise into narrower swathes across communities so that the noise footprint ‘shrinks’ and the voracious industry expands, regardless of the impact on people’s health, or welfare, or blight it creates.

Yet if it was used more imaginatively, and fairly, with noise being dispersed more fairly then this would to most people seem to be the right way to go (especially where vertical noise mitigation not available).

The attempt to shrink NPRs from 3 to 1 Km is simply wrong where this is done by creating (and denying) noise ghettos.

Last Saturday – a day of departures, locally – saw narrow flight paths and very low, noisy aircraft climbing over local roof tops. The noise wasn’t effectively /fairly dispersed, Today – Saturday a week later – not an easterlies departure day but the sky was awash with lavish contrails of immensely quieter, and higher departing aircraft for a few hrs ….Even the (smaller), HIGHER , arriving aircraft performed better…compared to the usual belly-flopping whines from mile + away(?)




Wow! PBN has been so amazing. I am now not able to sleep at night and get no respite from aircraft noise even though my family and I were not previously affected.

We are not alone, such is the destructive nature of PBN that whole communities not deemed as ‘local’ to airports as we are 20 miles away are being tortured 24/7 by aircraft noise, the A320 Airbus whine is particularly ear piercing. All this above rural areas with no buffer against the sound of planes. No consultation from Gatwick just unconsulted change that is now destroying lives.

Our basic human rights have been taken away and sleep deprivation is rife. When a 7 year old has to complete a headache diary due to sleep deprivation it makes you wonder how this was allowed.

PBN is torturing lives NOW, if torture is the way of the future it’s not a future I look forward too.

For reference thanks to PBN all flights come in under 3,500ft altitude with no respite. It is usual for x60 flights to bombard the night skies between 11pm to 2.30am, this happened overnight 12 months ago and previously were unaffected by aircraft noise. Humans cannot survive on this 4 hours disrupted sleep.




You make the new navigation system sound very attractive and efficient but of course you are only discussing the perceived advantages from a narrow viewpoint. Please comment on the hundreds of thousands of people across the world upon which the system inflicts intolerable levels of noise and pollution on a daily basis. Many of these people are nowhere near an airport yet suffer because of re routing and lowered trajectories. Not such a wonderful navigation system for them!




We have lived alongside Gatwick for 20 years and have always accepted the occasional plane overhead. However, since mid-2014 and the sudden introduction of PBN/PRNAV we have been subjected to a constant stream of planes from 5.30 a.m. to well past midnight, every single day, not just from Gatwick but also increasingly from Heathrow. These planes fly low, outside the NPR, and are a clear indication of the authorities prioritising the aviation business needs over the health and well-being of the poor souls on the ground.

PBN/PRNAV is used to direct flights over important AONBs and densely populated towns; creating ‘motorways in the sky’ which bring a toxic combination of misery, noise and pollution.

Our homes have not moved, the operation of aircraft has.

Dare we hope that this blog indicates NATS beginning to acknowledge the enormous distress being caused by the imposition of PBN/PRNAV on ordinary citizens and taking responsibility for a humane use of modern technology?



Mark J

Narrower concentrated flight paths are already deeply affecting the area we live in even though the previous trials have allegedly halted. I cannot bear to imagine what will happen if these are implemented without consultation going forward, which I am sure they will be. I moved to an area that was RARELY overflown but now have planes every 90 seconds at 5000 feet flying on a laser line over the house. And I’m 20 miles from Heathrow… New technology is meant to benefit more than the money makers. Bear that in mind.




You have destroyed the lives of thousands by doing this without full and proper consultation. It’s all about the profit rather than health, environment and community well being. What a very sad state of affairs to put technology before our people and planet.



Edward Pinnell

Why is there no discussion here about how this technology could be used to ensure maximum noise relief and distribution for populations living under the flight path?




Absolutely no mention of the people on the ground, who’s lives have been made a misery, the aircraft noise and air pollution should be cut, not made worse, its utter tosh to suggest that new aircraft will be “cleaner”, especially when you plan to put more aircraft into our already overcrowded sky’s, no thought has been given to residents or their families as to the sheer misery heaped upon them, you would treat an animal this badly. Brendan Kelly should get real about the misery this system has bought to our homes and environment.



Teresa Cassidy

I live 20 miles away from Gatwick Airport in the UK and the introduction of PBN in the past year has made my life and the lives of thousands of other people in the area an absolute misery for the past 12 months. We now have aircraft overhead at a height of between 2000 – 3500 ft and the noise and level of intrusion is intolerable. Coupled with a narrowed corridor of approach for arrivals into Gatwick our peace has been shattered and this continues through the night with no accountability from Gatwick. Forgive me for not feeling enthusiastic about your article




That all sounds very exciting, 21st century and delightful for the airline companies.
Now how do you intend to deal with the additional and constant noise pollution created for the human beings who are unfortunate enough to have their homes in the noise corridor created by your ideal trajectory and increased capacity?




What about the communities living underneath the new flight paths?! The recent changes have affected thousands of people so that profits can increase. The issue of noise pollution must be tackled before the new technology is implemented – this is making thousands upon thousands of people’s lives an absolute misery.



Mr and Mrs T N Reid

Having a weekend with aircraft noise continuous at all different heights and angles carrying from morning
till 11.30pm.Our family do not see any benefit from your new flight system NOT very forward thinking!




The article is very interesting but as is mentioned in some of the other responses below there is no mention of the effect upon residents underneath these new flight paths. Increased efficiency and performance is beneficial to everyone but surely there must be some compromises. Since ‘smarter’ flight path control has been introduced at Gatwick last year it has caused horrendous problems for residents previously not affected by flight noise. The compression of approach paths has meant that residents have suffered with no respite from low flights at significant distance from the airport. Why can’t the new approaches be used to create multiple approach paths to spread the pain as this currently does not seem be have been done so far.



Chris Pulsford

I think you guys need to stop patting each other on the back and go back to the drawing board. You’ve created noise ghettos with concentrated flight paths and planes are now not taking the most direct route into Gatwick – look at any incoming flight on Casper and you’ll see the ludicrous new wide arcs they are taking over populated areas which never used to suffer from much aircraft noise.
If PBN is so good then it should be able to share the burden across a wide area – just like it used to. You have gone against government policy and dramatically increased the number of people significantly affected by aircraft noise. Time for a rethink and consideration/consultation with those on the ground.




PBN driven RNAV departure procedures implements at Phoenix Sky Harbor have been a complete disaster for entire neighborhoods. Where planes previously climbed out over a very sparsely populated dry river, the PBN procedure now takes heavy jets low and loud over previously quiet neighborhoods. Being a busy airport, this means that for hours and hours each day, residents are subjected to soul crushing noise as often as every 60 seconds. It is no exaggeration to say that these changes have destroyed life in these neighborhoods. It is clear that these procedures were designed with little to no consideration for people on the ground. These procedures were designed to benefit only the airlines while residents pay the price.



Accidental Plane Spotter!

For the airline industry, PBN allows greater accuracy, and thus the concentration of flight paths which, in addition to intensifying noise pollution in certain locations, opens up airspace and so the possibility of new flight paths that will then do exactly the same to another area of the population.
PBN will permit more air traffic which – when airports are built in inappropriately densely populated locations (like Heathrow) – can only increase the worst consequences of aviation, and so increase the misery of residents on the ground.



Avril Horn

My original comment seems to have been lost from here. I have lived happily in the TW2 are for over 25yrs and have benefited from living near Heathrow. I have never had cause to complain until summer of 2014 when PBN flightpaths were implemented. Every time LHR is now on easterly departures we are assaulted by noise, and planes as low as 1500ft over our home. We have never had this in the past. In addition, in the past 2 months, we are aware of constant rumbling of landings as landings are now lower. the rumblings are interspersed with roaring as aircraft turn to come in to the landing track. Please don’t lie, I can see them.

Please for the sake of the sanity of my family, revert to dispersed flightpaths.




Whilst embracing development and technology, consideration for the people it affects needs to be considered – before changes.

A blatant change with no consultation is simply not fair. I’ve gone from living in a peaceful environment for 15 years to being subject to flight noise never experienced before.

Following flight trials, LHR took the brunt of the blame for flight noise outside the trial dates. Affected residents later discovered that NATS had changed flight paths under the cover of these trials – and that was that

No consultation. No warning.



Rob Beere

The consideration of increased noise creation to people on the ground being significantly affected by these changes is nil.
Consideration of profits and liaison with the airlines and airports is potentially award winning. When are you going to undertake the consultation with the “28 Million” following your creation of “the perfect storm” in the South East.



hazel kiddy blake

I assume this innovation is why I now have almost permanent aircraft noise over my house when previously I had none. It is making my life a misery and seemingly I am powerless regards wanting my peaceful life back. My children sleep is affected. No quiet times in my garden this summer. You should be ashamed at the lives you are blighting.



Paul Haynes

I fully support all the negative comments posted on this site regarding the back door introduction of PBN by Gatwick Airport and NATS. Like many people living in the country, we have gone from relative tranquility to low flying aircraft noise every 2 minutes from early in the morning until well past midnight. This has been introduced without consultation or advance warning and has created a motorway above our heads with no thought for the long term health and well being of residents who now find themselves trapped in a “noise ghetto” I have read that this is to make the use of the space in the sky and the use of aircraft more efficient but in reality there is only one reason – money! It seems to me that NATS and GAL have hidden behind and used Government policy and so called complex technology to create the concentrated flightpaths that are making so many peoples lives hell. I fully support and sympathise with the thoughts and comments posted by S Cooper on the 29 May. I am also concerned about the CAA, what are they doing while all this is happening? They appear to be standing on the sidelines washing their hands of the whole thing. They are the Regulatory Authority whose job it is to provide a series of checks and balances to protect the public from the actions of Airport Operators and NATS, this clearly is not being done.



Jane Byford

Living in an area which until last year had only low level aircraft noise, and where a sunny afternoon like today is now blighted by one flight after another, thank you very much for using this technology to reduce the quality of our lives, with no consultation whatsover. Clearly saving money for the airlines is more important than the lives of the people who live near airports, and also more important than any kind of democratic process.




To all those who complain of noise… did you not see the roadsigns for the major airport as you drove to the house viewing before you bought it?




Rob –
No, I didn’t see any signs, because I live over 10 miles away from Heathrow, so there are no signs this far away. I don’t know where you live, but be warned – NATS can, at the moment, send the flights anywhere they want, with no recourse whatsoever to anyone or anything on the ground, so you could be next, wherever you are in the UK. If you’re complicit in this, you’re just being incredibly naive.



Ajay Mistry

Comments like those from ‘Rob’ are unhelpful, tedious & tiresome.

What so many airport fanatics & expansion supporters miss is that those of that bought our properties some years ago are well aware of Heathrow’s existence – what we object to is the blatant way they are constantly moving the goalposts, & seemingly, no-one is picking them up on it.

In a world where technology is supposed to make things better, I’m amazed that in this instance, it has made it much worse, for so many.




No mention made of those of us living under these concentrated flight paths. They were implemented in Phoenix, AZ by the FAA with no environmental impact study done and no notice to city officials or residents. My family woke up on 18 Sept 2014 to planes flying directly over our home every 45 seconds. Sky Harbor Airport went from approx 200 noise complaints a year to 11,000+ in the last 9 months since the new flight paths were implemented. We are being forced to move because it is loud, the air is heavily polluted from the jet fuel emissions, it’s unsafe to have large commercial jet airliners flying over densely populated communities and we are facing a significant drop in real estate values. The city of Phoenix tried to resolve the flight path problems with the FAA to no avail and ended up having to file a lawsuit against them. The FAA and aviation industry give no consideration to the large populations impacted by this new technology and by these flight paths. Profits to the airlines over people is what has happened. I hope that with more people speaking out a solution can be found because our city now has low flying airplanes EVERYWHERE.



Catrin Cameron

The impact of this operational change on hundreds of thousands of people on the ground will be nothing short of catastrophic. The noise created in my area by this technology is already being felt and it is a long term health hazard, unprecedented in its scope. Huge swathes of the UK population will being affected by this and are completely disenfranchised from the debate. Changes like these that adversely affect so many people need to undergo a full public consultation.



Mrs Darnley

To add my voice to the plea for NATS to return to dispersed flight paths. Since August 2014 we now get heavy bombardment from Heathrow departing planes over Reigate. Quite a distance from the airport. The narrowing of the paths causes intense misery and anger. Get the planes higher – quicker and dispersed. CAA need to act on this with the dept for Transport. The voting residents of this country need someone who’ll not be afraid to challenge the smug business men and small minded government.




Why have I not met a single person from Nats, CAA or Heathrow who is prepared to acknowledge that you are working in collaboration with or been notified by the airlines or other operators about the (as yet fairly intermittent) implementation of continuous climb departures (under various pbn/rnav/sedar umbrellas) using caa temporary airspace approved Sid rnav overlays?




Life is now hell for those of us living under the narrowed Compton route in the Ascot / Winkfield / Bracknell areas. It is a constant barrage of Heathrow aircraft noise from before 7am until after 11:30pm most nights, seven days a week, with planes going across every 1-2 minutes. Right now we are being bombarded with noise from flights to America and Canada, many of them extremely loud Boeings. Safely reasons, you say. What about the safety and well-being of us on the ground, with disturbed sleep, added stress, and deteriorating air quality? In 30 years of living in this area we have never suffered such noise before.



Edward Pinnell

Brendan – why is the ONLY response visible below is one you have made to the dozens of postings below, relating to a technical matter, totally ignoring the impact for people on the ground as clearly expressed in the multiple postings? Couldn’t your technology HELP on this issue? Please tell us it can and how. Or are the airports and the airlines the only stakeholders of interest to NATS?



David Perring

It strikes me that the tranquility of rural communities and residents is being used to subsidise the airlines and air traffic industries…

With the well know health impacts associated with persistent noise pollution well documented – we all end up paying despite those who live directly under the flight paths.

I live 40 miles away from Heathrow and am subjected to the whine and roar of Heathrow flights… made even more noticeable by the otherwise complete silence albeit wind in trees, pigeons and the church bells with flights coming in from after 5;30…

If the Heathrow extension goes ahead – Hundred of thousands of people who live under the flight path will be effected but not cunted because of the noise levels aren’t registered under 57db. This under reporting of noise pollution is a national scandal in the waiting.




Brendan, please come around to my house for a BBQ to enjoy our fantastic garden that has taken years to evolve, but you will have to bring ear protection along with some fine wine as your, yes YOUR team under YOUR guidance have created a ridiculous situation where air noise is constant.

I’m not sure how you sleep at night… Probably peacefully as you’ve re-routed planes away from your premises at a whim.

Please take heed of all of the comments here as there will have to be a backlash at some point. Profits should not come at the cost of human suffering, days of slavery ended a long time ago.

Brendan, YOU have the power to resolve this and to prove that you can make the technology work to benefit, not punish, the families under these new fangled routes.

Even I can see, using various tracking apps, that the flight routes now used are inefficient and are actually increasing noise and air pollution.

I am more than happy to come and show your team how things could be improved.

Alternatively, how about you buy my house and put an observation centre in the garden to understand the impact of the changes that are continually denied? You might as well as we can’t enjoy it any more…



Dana Golding

Whilst fuel optimisation is attractive from a cost perspective, the impact of the lower trajectory on terms of noise and air quality pollution Has been completely ignored. I live in the flight path and accept that flights will fly over sometimes. However, it’s unacceptable that noise and air quality should worsen – that is not progress. I find it astonishing that in an industry as advanced as this that you are making decisions based on a single primary metric rather than ensuring that other metrics (such as noise level, air quality and quality of life) are not balanced into the equation at all.

Rhere are a number of comments along these lines – do you have a response?



Concerned Resident

I notice, Brendan, that you have only responded to one comment, i.e. the one that isn’t pointing out the effects of PBN on the 1000’s of unfortunate people living beneath these flight paths and having their lives and health ruined. Are you going to address these any time soon?




Hi to all PBN sufferers. Idea: do you think we could combine £ and ideas to contest the policy of PBN… ie is the policy fair? Has it been reached fairly so that peoples interests were taken into account when the policy was agreed? Legally called a ‘procedural obligation; on government to do this. Use this place as a means to say if you’d be interested?



West Kent resident

A message to Brendan Kelly – The overwhelming response to this blog post is that NATS have implemented this system with no thought whatsoever to communities on the ground. Our lives have been severely blighted by concentrated flight paths. At least have the decency to respond to our comments.




PBN is a Noise Pollution and Nuisance disaster for the communities if affects.

LGW Planes flying at less than 4K over East Sussex and West Kent for hours and days at a time? It is irresponsible of the aviation industry to make profits out of people’s misery. THINK COMMUNITY.

I am also concerned about air pollution. I noticed the FAA have stated quite clearly that ground air pollution is increased even by flights over 3K. Is the idea to channel all the air pollution onto tens of thousands of people?



Iñaki González

Every holding @5000 is the chance 4U to make an APR to EDDM.




Your vision of the future is our hell. I live in Teddington and since April 2016 our lives have been hell on earth. 19 hours/day of low flying airbuses every few mins from 6 a.m. till 12:30 a.m. for months at a time. Reaching decibels of 97 and even after closing double glazed windows (on hot summer days of 32C) they still reach 76db indoors.

LH and NATS are destroyed lives by giving airlines carte Blanche to fly as low as they can in order to save fuel and make more money, no regard for the well being of us long suffering residents.

You should be ashamed of yourselves for destroying the lives of millions of us unfortunate enough to to be living under the flight path, some as far away as Windsor/Reading. New flight paths/patterns and lower altitudes/bigger and bigger planes mean that more and more of us are being affected.

The noise is torture, can’t enjoy our gardens, kids can’t play outside without being subjected to deafening noise, and they are often woken up with late night very loud flights and we can’t even have conversations in our own homes or watch tv without being interrupted by screeching planes.

While you boasting about the latest technology being such so good for the aviation industry, spare a thought for us human beings who have to pay the price with ruined lives. Our physical and mental health so adversely affected by what you call ‘improvement’.




How can someone think it is okay to concentrate or narrow a flight path over the same peope day in day out? People who brought their homes, now hate their homes they are working hard to pay for. I was never bothered by aircraft noise, as it rarely went over my home, if at all – I can’t remember. Now, thanks to your new technology, I am suffering from mental health issues – I can’t sleep at night, I have panic attracts in the middle of the night. Noise effects people, this continued unwanted noise from aircraft (effecting people over 10 miles away from an airport now) is inhumane. You have turned people who haven’t noticed noise, who probably didn’t know what a flight path was, into people that have lost hope from having a peaceful night sleep. Why would you do this to people?


Please start typing and we will search our website for you.

Search Results