The graphic (website) version of this newsletter can be accessed at:
http://pages.prodigy.net/rockaway/newsletter404.htm
Quote of the Week: "Modeling baseline for noise and capacity was
manipulated to show efficiency gains." from a summary of a re****t by
Williams Aviation Consultants prepared for Connecticut communities
fighting
the FAA's Airspace Redesign Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Aviation Conspiracy Newsletter
#404.........................................................................November
26, 2006 Past newsletters can be accessed at:
http://pages.prodigy.net/rockaway/ACNewsmenu.htm
The PASSUR air****t
flight
tracking system at many major U.S. air****ts
http://www.passur.com/sites.htm
(you must have Java installed to view it). If you want to get the
newsletter
sent to you every week, sign up to AviationWatch. Bill Mulcahy
rockaway@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Redesign: Conn. Communities Threaten FAA With Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
As Bill Sees It: (Editorial) Connecticut Communities Threaten FAA Suit
Over
Airspace Redesign Analysis "Manipulation!!!" I got an email (see below)
from
Robert Belzer, President of NJCANN, which included a recent review of the
FAA's Region 2 Airspace Redesign Plan by a Connecticut community-paid
consultant, Williams Aviation Consultants. According to Mr. George
Williams,
the FAA's scheme's "Modeling baseline for noise and capacity was
manipulated
to show efficiency gains. As anyone familiar with the FAA knows, whether
it
is the 9/11 attack or an air****t expansion, it is the FAA policy to lie,
deny and deflect attention away from real analysis. I hope the Connecticut
communities of Larchmont and Mamaroneck not only threaten but actually go
forward with their lawsuit; because lawsuits are the only thing the FAA
and
their aviation industry pals pay attention to.
FAA Tells Florida Community They Can't Shorten Their Own Air****t's
Runway!!!
Using their favorite ploys of "safety and efficiency" against communities
who want to in any way limit the use of their own air****t the FAA is
fighting efforts, of a Florida community assaulted by their air****t's jet
noise, to reduce the noise by shortening the runway. The Martin County
community, like the Connecticut communities fighting increased LaGuardia
Air****t noise, is threatening to sue the FAA. From the stories I read this
week, it looks as if that will be the only way to get the FAA
quality-of-life destroyers, and their general aviation cohorts, to back
down.
Florida: FAA Fights Community Effort To Shorten Runway: STUART - Federal
officials said they cannot sup****t the shortening of Witham Field's main
runway but they will give Martin County more time to prove its case before
denying the proposed shortening, according to a letter received by the
county Wednesday. "The Federal Aviation Administration cannot concur in an
action that adversely affects the safety, utility or efficiency of the
air****t," reads a Nov. 17 letter to Martin County from Bart Vernace,
assistant manager of the FAA's Orlando district office. Martin County
commissioners voted 3-2 in August to render a 460-foot extension to runway
12/30 built in 1998 unusable to pilots. Neighbors of the air****t have been
lobbying for the removal of the extension for years, claiming it caused
jets
to fly closer to their homes, increasing jet noise and pollution. "The
proposal to abandon the 460-foot extension Dave Shore, president of the
Witham Air****t Action Majority Inc. group that has lobbied for years to
shorten the runway, disagreed with the FAA's findings. The county has
spent
millions of dollars in federal grants buying out homes near the runway
because of noise problems, and removing the extension might lessen the
need
to buy homes, he said. "That's the benefit," Shore said Wednesday, adding
that he hopes the county votes to shorten the runway regardless of the
FAA.
"Unless it affects the safety of current users, the FAA should step back
and
not get involved."
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/local_news/epaper/2006/11/23/m1c_mcair****t_1123.html
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aviation News Stories This Week
FAA Understates Aircraft Noise Damage From LaGuardia Fanning Proposal
According to George Williams of Williams Aviation Consultants, the FAA has
understated the aircraft noise impact from its "fanning" proposal for
departures for LaGuardia Air****t. Mr. Williams is an aviation industry
consultant hired by Quiet Skies from Larchmont/Mamaroneck to review the
draft re****t for the FAA's Airspace Redesign alternatives. Mr. Williams
concluded that the agency understated the noise impact from LaGuardia
traffic by removing larger noisy aircraft and replacing them with smaller
quieter aircraft in modeling the noise impacts for the project. In
addition, the agency currently has a demand management proposal under
consideration that would force the air carriers to utilize larger aircraft
at LaGuardia.
I have listed Mr. Williams' summary conclusions below. The full summary
re****t, which Williams published in April 2006, is available at the below
Internet Link.
Robert Belzer
President, NJCAAN
www.njcaan.org
Williams Consultants Summary:
Link:
http://www.larchmontgazette.com/2006/articles/DEISNYWACEXSUMFINALcaw4-13-06.pdf
We have identified several deficiencies and issues in this DEIS; all of
which are well do***ented in the Chapters and Appendices that we reviewed.
Some of the issues identified were:
1) Modeling baseline for noise and capacity was manipulated to show
efficiency gains.
2) The modeling baseline eliminated more than 80% of the Study Area
air****ts
from the analysis.
3) The modeling baseline eliminated over-flights, VFR, general aviation
and
military traffic.
4) The capacity analysis did not consider the impacts on adjacent centers.
5) The capacity analysis did not model ground operations.
6) The capacity analysis did not model the transition of aircraft to the
enroute ATC system.
7) The capacity analysis assumed that the enroute controller would accept
"stacks" of aircraft in one Chapter and then admitted that "stacks" would
not be the norm.
8) The fleet mix for the area's air****ts was manipulated.
Large narrow body aircraft were eliminated and replaced by regional jets.
Loud, noisy aircraft were taken out of the noise model and replaced by
quieter regional aircraft. The manipulation of the fleet mix resulted in
no
adverse noise impacts on areas being over-flown.
9) The LGA over the water route (055 degree heading) is being eliminated.
10) LGA over the water departures will now over-fly the land areas west of
the Sound.
11) The FAA's Consultant states that there are no adverse impacts on
residents or on land use but later states that there will be adverse
impacts. Impact on land use not evaluated.
12) ICC is not an option not within the DEIS timeframe.
13) ICC did not consider impacts of building and construction of a
facility
to house the combined ATC facilities.
14) The ICC alternative only shows a benefit based on the manipulated data
base.
15) The alternatives without ICC do not meet the stated need.
16) No noise mitigation measures are proposed although the FAA's
Consultant
admits that the project will result in adverse impacts.
17) The alternatives in the DEIS are capacity enhancing but the FAA's
Consultant did not identify air****ts where the additional operations would
occur or the impacts on the underlying land areas.
|
