The graphic (website) version of this newsletter can be accessed at:
http://pages.prodigy.net/rockaway/newsletter429.htm
Quote of the Week: "While the FAA does not consider the increase in noise
or air traffic in Fairfield County to be significant, we do. " from New
Caanan, Connecticut FAA Advisory Committee's 10 reasons they oppose the
FAA's Airspace Redesign Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Aviation Conspiracy Newsletter
#429.........................................................................May
20, 2007 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]
's Time To Change 1990 Air****t Curfew Law!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
As Bill Sees It: (Editorial): Its Time For A Change In 1990 Anti Air****t
Curfew Law!!! I'm always learning new things about the insidiousness of
the
Aviation Cabal (aviation industry, politicians and the FAA). I remember
hearing a while back something about there being a federal law against
local
communities and air****ts putting a curfew on their own air****ts,
especially
at night. I don't know why I never investigated it further. However, last
week I started doing research into it and found apparently there is such a
rule in the 1990 Aircraft Noise and Capacity Act. I think it is outrageous
that the federal government has taken away local control by communities
over
their own air****ts. Voluntary curfews are a joke. I have been looking at
the
Aircraft Noise And Capacity Act and found it full of confusing legalese
obviously designed to sneak a no curfew rule past unsuspecting congress
and
communities. No doubt it was written this way by the airline industry and
given to their congressional flunkies to push it through. However, any law
passed can be amended or completely overturned. I think it is time to
start
on this one. Using the excuse that a community will interfere with the
mysterious "national trans****tation system" (whatever that is) if they
don't
want loud planes going over their heads all night long shows the corrupt
viciousness of "our" government!!! I don't care if politicians who have
sold out our health and quality of life stick it in a amnesty bill or a
law
that gives the FAA bosses salary increases, but I will not rest until
local
communities once again get control over their own air****ts!!! As far as
I'm
concerned any government employee, senator or congressperson who is not
working to overturn this rule does not deserve to be feeding off our
taxes.
Maybe fighters for air****t noise justice should start a countdown clock on
THEM!!!
Is This The Part Of The 1990 Aviation Noise and Capacity Act That
Prohibits
Local Communities From Having A Night Curfew On Their" "Air****t? Editor's
Note: It's hard to tell what if this is the community prohibition as it
seems to leave it up to the Secretary of Trans****tation. I suppose we will
have to find out what the Secretary of Trans****tation recommended.
Page 480
(c) RECOMMENDATIONS - Not later than July 1, 1991, the Secretary shall
transmit to Congress recommendations on- (1) the need for changes in the
standards and procedures which govern the rights of State and local
governments (including air****t authorities) to restrict aircraft
operations
for the purpose of limiting aircraft noise; (2) the need for changes in
the
standards and procedures which govern law suits by persons adversely
affected by aircraft noise; (3) the need for changes in standards and
procedures for Federal regulation of airspace (including the pattern of
operations for the air traffic control system) in order to take better
account of environmental effects; (4) the need for changes in the Federal
program providing assistance for noise abatement planning and programs,
including the need for greater incentives or mandatory requirements for
local restrictions on the use of land impacted by aircraft noise; (5)
whether any changes in policy recommended in paragraphs (1) through (4)
should be accomplished through regulatory, administrative, or legislative
action; and (6) specific legislative proposals necessary for implementing
the national aviation noise policy
Las Vegas, Nevada: New Night Flight Path Disturbs People's Sleep!!!
Residents hoping for a late night curfew on jets making the "right turn"
might instead want to buy some earplugs and sleeping pills. Federal law
makes it virtually impossible for McCarran International Air****t officials
to restrict departure times, according to Randall Walker, director of the
Clark County Department of Aviation. Since March 20, on most days about
200
planes have been using the new flight path, taking off west and then
arcing
to the north -- a right turn -- before heading east. That flight path has
divided the community. Those under the new departure path complain of
sleepless nights, unusable patios and depreciating home values. The
Federal
Aviation Administration and McCarran noise complaint hot lines have been
flooded with such complaints. Those living elsewhere in the valley say
they
have had to live with airplane noise for years, and it's about time
residents under the new flight path share the burden. The city of Las
Vegas
has a lawsuit pending in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging the
FAA's finding that the flight path would have no significant impact on the
environment. The city pitched restricted flight times as a compromise with
federal and air****t officials. But Walker said several issues make it
impossible to limit the hours of flights. In particular, a 1990 federal
law
requires air****ts seeking to restrict air space for noise reasons to
follow
a lengthy set of rules. The rules demand that "the restriction is
reasonable, nonarbitrary, and nondiscrimatory." Editor's Note: How long
will
the Federal Government (obviously run by the airline industry) and the FAA
be allowed to destroy people's sleep and health?
http://www.lvrj.com/news/7509682.html
New Canaan, Connecticut Committee Gives Reasons It Opposes FAA's Airspace
Redesign Plan!!! The FAA Advisory Committee this week released "Ten
Reasons
to Oppose the FAA Airspace Redesign Plan." The committee, after conducting
research on the issue and attending the FAA's Public Information Session
in
Stamford on Tuesday, April 24, concluded that the plan as proposed by the
FAA will have a "significant negative impact" on the quality of life in
New
Canaan and Fairfield County. "We prepared this do***ent so that the people
of New Canaan will have a better understanding of the impact that the
FAA's
plan will have on our community," Selectman and Committee chairman Paul
Giusti said in a press release. "We want people to be informed so that we
can work together to oppose the implementation of this plan." "The FAA's
plan will dramatically increase the number of airplanes over New Canaan
and
Fairfield County," Mr. Giusti said. "We need to make certain that our
elected representatives in Wa****ngton understand loud and clear that we
are
opposed to this plan. Implementation of the FAA's plan will cause a
deterioration of our quality of life and that is simply not acceptable."
Read article below or go to:
http://www.acorn-online.com/news/publish/newcanaan/18111.shtml
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Im****tant Aviation News Stories This
Week
Late night jet curfew not likely
Federal aviation rules make limiting flight hours difficult, McCarran
officials say
By DAVID McGRATH SCHWARTZ
REVIEW-JOURNAL
Residents hoping for a late night curfew on jets making the "right turn"
might instead want to buy some earplugs and sleeping pills.
Federal law makes it virtually impossible for McCarran International
Air****t
officials to restrict departure times, according to Randall Walker,
director
of the Clark County Department of Aviation.
Since March 20, on most days about 200 planes have been using the new
flight
path, taking off west and then arcing to the north -- a right turn --
before
heading east.
That flight path has divided the community.
Those under the new departure path complain of sleepless nights, unusable
patios and depreciating home values. The Federal Aviation Administration
and
McCarran noise complaint hot lines have been flooded with such complaints.
Those living elsewhere in the valley say they have had to live with
airplane
noise for years, and it's about time residents under the new flight path
share the burden.
The city of Las Vegas has a lawsuit pending in the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals, challenging the FAA's finding that the flight path would have no
significant impact on the environment.
The city pitched restricted flight times as a compromise with federal and
air****t officials.
But Walker said several issues make it impossible to limit the hours of
flights. In particular, a 1990 federal law requires air****ts seeking to
restrict air space for noise reasons to follow a lengthy set of rules. The
rules demand that "the restriction is reasonable, nonarbitrary, and
nondiscrimatory."
That condition would make it impossible to eliminate early morning or late
night right-turn flights without also eliminating all other departures at
those times, Walker said.
Since the law's passage no air****t has successfully met the federal
requirements to restrict aviation space, Walker said. As a result, the
air****t is not going to look at restricting flights, he said.
"We're not going to spend money on a task that's impossible," Walker said.
"Under the rules, that would basically be a non-starter."
Del Meadows, FAA air traffic manager for the Las Vegas district, said the
busiest hours for the air****t, and the hours when the right turn is most
needed for efficiency and capacity, are between 10:30 p.m. and 12:30 a.m.
"We didn't create (the new flight path) to take the noise and move it
someplace else. We did this for airspace reasons," he said.
Ultimately, though, any decision to restrict hours of operation would have
to be made by the air****t, Meadows said.
Air****ts with restricted flight times, known as curfews in the aviation
community, had them in place before the 1990 law and the restrictions were
grandfathered in, Walker and Meadows said.
Anne Kohut, publisher of the Air****t Noise Re****t, a national newsletter,
agreed that air****ts cannot put mandatory restrictions to curb noise.
But she said other air****ts have had voluntary noise procedures put in
place, such as using only certain runways late at night. Those voluntary
procedures would have to be agreed upon by community representatives,
air****t officials, the FAA and airlines, she said. Getting that kind of
consensus is unlikely in Las Vegas' contentious debate.
Clark County and the FAA have recently stepped up their defense of the
departure path, saying it improves efficiency and capacity at the air****t.
"Let me say, without equivocation and without hesitation, the new
departure
is every bit as safe as the previous one and every other procedure in use
at
this air****t," Meadows said.
In response to Meadows' statement, Mayor Oscar Goodman said: "I'd like to
interrogate him under oath."
Goodman has said his major concern about the flight path is safety.
Councilman Steve Wolfson said he has set up a meeting with Walker for
later
this week to discuss options for noise abatement, including limiting
flight
times.
"The community is as bothered and annoyed and appalled as ever," Wolfson
said.
But FAA and McCarran officials said some of the complaints that have
poured
in since the change are unfounded.
The FAA gets complaints about the right turn on days when that
configuration
is not in use, Meadows said.
Some complaints have come in from residents near Palace Station, at Sahara
Avenue near Martin Luther King Boulevard. A takeoff pattern over that area
has been used for decades when high or ****fting winds force the air****t to
use different runways for departures.
Other complaints have been about planes at 4 a.m., when there are no
flights
making the right turn. That noise is from flights going to the Nevada Test
Site as they have for years.
"Any airplane in the northwest area now that's up there for any reason,
people are attributing to the right turn," Meadows said.
May 18, 2007
FAA Advisory Committee lists 10 reasons it opposes redesign
The FAA Advisory Committee this week released "Ten Reasons to Oppose the
FAA Airspace Redesign Plan."
A full listing of the 10 reasons can be found below.
The committee, after conducting research on the issue and attending the
FAA's
Public Information Session in Stamford on Tuesday, April 24, concluded
that
the plan as proposed by the FAA will have a "significant negative impact"
on
the quality of life in New Canaan and Fairfield County.
"We prepared this do***ent so that the people of New Canaan will have a
better understanding of the impact that the FAA's plan will have on our
community," Selectman and Committee chairman Paul Giusti said in a press
release. "We want people to be informed so that we can work together to
oppose the implementation of this plan."
Three-Part Opposition
New Canaan is pursuing a three-part plan to oppose the FAA, the committee
re****ted.
First, a consultant, Williams Aviation, has been retained to critique and
raise objections to the technical aspects of the FAA's plan.
Second, New Canaan submitted objections to the draft environmental impact
statement noise mitigation re****t last week; those comments were prepared
and filed in conjunction with the Town of Greenwich. The filing is in
preparation for a possible legal challenge to the plan.
Third, the town is organizing political opposition to the FAA's plan. This
will be through both formal political channels, as well as by having the
people of New Canaan contact their representatives in Wa****ngton.
A survey that citizens can sign to express their opposition is also
already
circulating, the committee re****ted.
"The FAA's plan will dramatically increase the number of airplanes over
New
Canaan and Fairfield County," Mr. Giusti said. "We need to make certain
that
our elected representatives in Wa****ngton understand loud and clear that
we
are opposed to this plan. Implementation of the FAA's plan will cause a
deterioration of our quality of life and that is simply not acceptable."
According to the New Canaan FAA Advisory Committee, in order to increase
the
number of arrivals into Newark Air****t the FAA's plan pushes LaGuardia
arrivals eastward over Fairfield County. In effect, Ridgefield, New
Canaan,
Darien and Stamford will experience a substantial increase in air traffic
that didn't exist before so that the capacity at Newark Air****t can
increase, the committee re****ted.
State Rep. John Hetherington, a member of the committee, said the FAA,
instead of selecting the most aggressive, intrusive alternative, should
make
modifications to the existing airspace.
"The FAA has not demonstrated why it is necessary to affect the lives of
so
many people in New Canaan and Fairfield County," he said. "They can
improve
the air traffic system without the negative impact."
Mr. Hetherington also said that U.S. Rep. Christopher Shay has been out
front on this issue and has consistently voiced his opposition to the
FAA's
plan.
"Chris has demonstrated real leader****p in opposing this plan," Rep.
Hetherington said.
Rep. Shays can be contacted at rep.shays@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christopher Dodd's office can be reached at
http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3128&cat=Opinion.
Sen. Joe Lieberman's office at
http://lieberman.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm?regarding=issue.
Ten Reasons to Oppose the FAA Airspace Redesign Plan
The New Canaan FAA Advisory Committee believes that the Federal Aviation
Administration's proposed Integrated Airspace Alternative Plan will have a
significant negative impact on the quality of life in New Canaan and
Fairfield County. We are opposed to the implementation of this plan for
the
following reasons:
1. The residents of Fairfield County will have a significantly increased
number of planes overhead. In order to create more airspace for the
arrivals into Newark Liberty Air****t, the FAA's plan will route many
LaGuardia arrivals over Fairfield County. Once the FAA's plan is
implemented, between 70 and 150 additional planes per day will be
overhead.
In effect, capacity will be increased at Newark Air****t at the expense of
the quality of life in Fairfield County.
2. The FAA stated that they did not consider the impact of noise in their
original design. In their original "purpose and need" which outlines the
goals for the airspace redesign project, the FAA limited the scope of
their
efforts to improving air traffic efficiency and reducing delays.
Remarkably, the impact of airplane noise on the people living in Fairfield
County was not a consideration in their design work.
3. Of the four alternatives considered by the FAA, they selected the one
that causes the largest noise increase in Fairfield County. The FAA
indicated that increasing the arrivals into Newark's Liberty Air****t
requires air traffic patterns for LaGuardia-bound aircraft to be ****fted
over Fairfield County. While the FAA feels these changes are necessary,
it
is unclear why they selected the alternative that causes the largest
increase in the volume of traffic overhead and is the most detrimental to
the quality of life in Fairfield County. The FAA's process lacked
transparency and they did not adequately explain why they selected the
most
radical plan versus less intrusive, less costly alternatives.
4. The FAA did not provide the necessary information to the public during
the current Draft Environmental Impact Statement comment period.
Responding
to pressure from area residents and community leaders, the FAA only
recently
released the underlying data that they used in redesigning the airspace.
Given that the current comment period is only 30 days long, there is not
sufficient time to analyze the data and provide a reasoned, thoughtful
response to their airspace redesign.
5. The FAA used outdated information to develop the proposed plan. Many
of
the assumptions used by the FAA have, by their own admission, been
overtaken
by events. For example, the demand projections for Kennedy Air****t
already
exceed their projected demand for the year 2011 and the use of Stewart
Air****t for commercial flights was not considered.
6. Fairfield County property values will decrease under the new plan.
Despite the FAA's statement that there is no link between increasing
airplane noise and decreasing property values in a community, we do not
agree with that assertion. Any Realtor can tell you that increasing
airplane noise will reduce property values.
7. The FAA did not consider less costly and intrusive alternatives. The
use of congestion pricing, charging the airlines varying fees depending on
when their flights are scheduled to depart and arrive, is a market-based
mechanism to reduce air****t delays. This less costly approach is rejected
by the FAA because setting these fees is outside their jurisdiction. The
use of Stewart Air****t was also not considered. A comprehensive solution
is
needed, not just one under the FAA's control.
8. While the FAA does not consider the increase in noise or air traffic
in
Fairfield County to be significant, we do. The FAA stated that they do
not
consider any noise less than 45 to 60 decibels as requiring mitigation.
Given that the volume of air traffic will increase significantly under the
FAA's proposed plan, there will be both a visual as well as a noise impact
that the FAA is generally ignoring. Further, we think any place where the
noise doubles or triples, such as it might in New Canaan, should be given
consideration.
9. The manner in which the FAA calculates aircraft noise on the ground
understates the impact. The FAA projects the impact on the ground of
aircraft noise using the DNL, or Day-Night Average which projects noise
from
aircraft over a 24-hour period. Because LaGuardia Air****t and Westchester
County Air****t, for the most part, do not operate between the hours of
midnight and 6:00 am, there is no projected increase in noise during those
hours. Since the overall DNL is projected to increase in our area, the
impact during the remaining 18 hours of flight operations will necessarily
be significantly higher.
10. Once the FAA changes are introduced and more airplanes are flying
over
Fairfield County, there is nothing to protect residents from increasing
noise, lower flight altitudes and increased air traffic. As the
LaGuardia-bound arrivals flying over Fairfield County increase under the
FAA's plan, there is almost nothing that residents will be able to do to
change those flight patterns. Increased airplane traffic and noise will
become a fact of life in our area. The FAA has unilateral authority to
change altitudes, directions and frequency of airplane approaches over our
homes.
Action
In response to the above, the Committee believes that the FAA's proposed
plan will expand airplane traffic, increase airplane noise and be
detrimental to the quality of life in Fairfield County. Therefore, we are
calling on the FAA to stop consideration of the Integrated Airspace
Alternative plan. Instead, the FAA should make improvements to the
existing
air routes by exploring less intrusive alternatives, including
consideration
of the impact of noise and other environmental factors in their "purpose
and
need" statement.
The Committee also calls on our elected representatives in Wa****ngton, DC
to
withhold funding for the FAA's Integrated Airspace Alternative, to prevent
implementation of the proposed changes and to require the FAA to examine
alternatives that are less intrusive and damaging to Fairfield County.
Signed,
New Canaan FAA Advisory Committee
Jim Beall, resident
Kit Devereaux, New Canaan Town Council
Paul Giusti, Chairman, New Canaan selectman
Guy Brossy, resident/private pilot
Fred Gabriele, sesident/cor****ate pilot
John Hetherington, CT State representative
|
