Campaigners demand 'plane English'

Paul R Taylor

July 16, 2009

| Submit Comments | Comments (6) | Previous | Next

AN aircraft noise consultation document produced by Manchester Airport has been slammed as `baffling' by campaigners.

The airport published its 54-page Draft Noise Action Plan to seek people's views on its efforts to combat the disturbance caused by planes.

It has a glossary of 15 complex technical terms used frequently, along with 21 graphs, seven tables, eight maps and nine other graphics.

But the document, which includes new proposals for reducing the impact of aircraft noise and summarises existing policies, does not explain many of the terms.

Campaigner Jeff Gazzard, of Manchester Airport Environmental Network, said: "Even professional council officers are going to struggle to understand this."

The consultation closes on October 21. Staff from the environment and community relations teams will be holding six outreach surgeries in the nearby communities.

Dr Tim Walmsley, airport head of environment, said: "The noise action plan contains more than 50 policies designed to manage the noise impact of our operations."

An airport spokesman said people could attend the meetings if the document was proving too difficult to understand, but it was obliged to include the technical information.

Visit www.manchesterairport.co.uk/manweb.nsf/Content/NoiseActionPlan

| Submit Comments | Comments (6) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 6 and replies | View All

The Higher Openshaw Exile, MANCHESTER (16/07/2009 at 10:27)

A case of baffle 'em with a lot of big words that nobody apart from a boffin can understand. M C Council have been doing this for years and get away with it.

Holly Harper (16/07/2009 at 10:46)

A lecturer of mine at university used to say "If you can't dazzle them with diamonds baffle them with bull s**t"

Ace , manchester (16/07/2009 at 11:03)

You mean that good old plain english where words like "Butter" that sounds like bueer,Or "Think"That sounds like "Fink".Some need to speak plain english before they can understand english.

Technobabble, Manchester (16/07/2009 at 13:01)

I'm betting that even the "experts" who wrote the document don't know what half the words mean.

Maybe it wasn't even written by humans, but rather a computer programme designed to use as many buzzwords as possible. I'm sure i heard about some university working on such a project as few years ago.

Andy Gagae (17/07/2009 at 10:23)

You mean something technical had the audacity to contain technical terms and present DATA? Maybe I'm crazy and old-fashioned but if I put myself at the front of a campaign I'd probably make sure I have a vague amount of knowledge or willingness to learn about what I'm opposing and how they do things. Fifteen terms aren't hard to learn, and anyone who bothered to pay attention during maths at school can decipher a graph. Not having the knowledge or willingness to understand something doesn't make it meaningless, it means you're just arrogant.

andy waytomakeacomment, Greater Manchester (18/07/2009 at 13:18)

Only 54 pages?

Only 15 technical terms in the glossary?

Having read the document, it seems to make straight forward reading. Granted you may need to put a bit of effort in if you're a little rusty in the old reading-absorbing-thinking department - but then, most things do!

If the campaigners are struggling to grasp the content of this relatively brief document then perhaps they need to consider whether they are able to give full credit to their campaign.

()

Report

News