FEBRUARY 2021 UPDATE
IN THIS UPDATE:
- STATUS OF CITY OF SCOTTSDALE LAWSUIT AGAINST THE FAA
- FAA PUBLISHES NOISE SURVEY REPORT
- OTHER REACTIONS TO FAA NOISE SURVEY REPORT
_______________________________________________
CITY'S LAWSUIT AGAINST THE FAA DELAYED ONCE AGAIN
Once again, the lawsuit the City of Scottsdale has outstanding against the FAA in the U.S. Court of Appeals has been delayed. This is the fourth extension that the City has agreed to, seemingly because the FAA doesn't have resources to have internal meetings due to the Covid virus. This makes one wonder how the FAA can respond to issues such as the 737 Max problems and continue it's day to day operations by not having countless meetings. This would appear to be an excuse in order to delay the legal process that might hold it accountable. The next briefing date has been extended to April 12th. The FAA will surely ask for another extension at that time. The two parties are in mediation discussions but since the FAA has required the City to not release any updates or information on how the talks are going, it is impossible to know if anything worthwhile is being considered. It is SCANA's guess that there is nothing significant. If after a year of delays and discussions, if nothing of substance has been agreed upon it is unlikely there ever will be and the FAA will continue it's stall game.
SCANA is urging the City to end the FAA stall game and on April 12th re-engage the legal process and move the suit forward. This will force the FAA to respond to the suit. After six years of suffering the flight paths the FAA illegally placed over Scottsdale, it is time to bring the issue to a head and either win it or lose it. There is no certainty that the suit will be won, or if it is won that complete recession of the flight paths will be obtained. But the process being undertaken today is apparently not producing results. Another five years or more of delays and "talk" by the FAA resolves nothing. Perhaps it's time to bring a conclusion to this issue one way or another. And to be clear, SCANA is not faulting the City. The City has stepped up on behalf of it's residents to right the wrongs the FAA has imposed on Scottsdale. SCANA continues to support and appreciate all of the City's efforts. Residents are just anxious to see a light at the end of the tunnel.
Here is the latest Court schedule:
Petitioner brief due April 12, 2021
Respondents brief due May 12, 2021
Petitioner reply brief due June 2, 2021
Deferred Appendix due June 9, 2021
Final briefs due June 23, 2021
___________________________________________________
FAA ISSUES NOISE SURVEY REPORT THAT BEGAN IN 2015
On January 21st of this year the FAA finally released a report on the noise survey it undertook many years ago. The survey began and examined noise and environmental issues at 20 airports across the Country (Phoenix Sky Harbor was not one of them). The report is 451 pages long and if you have a PHD in physics you might be able to understand most of it. For those of you who do, a link is shown below to connect you with the full report. It is not surprising that after this extensive effort which states the pubic annoyance of aircraft noise has exponentially risen, the FAA then states: " The FAA will not make any determinations based on the findings of these research programs for the FAA's noise policies, including any potential revised use of the Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) noise metric, until it has carefully considered public and other stakeholder input along with any additional research needed to improve the understanding of the effects of aircraft noise exposure on communities."
In other words, after 6 years of studying all this data, the FAA says more research is necessary to determine if there are any noise issues affecting communities! As stated above, the FAA's plan to address community issues is to always simply drag things out for years on end.
Among the FAA's statements in the report:
- FAA: "Since the mid-1970s, the number of people living in areas exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise in the United States has declined from roughly 7 million to just over 400,000 today. At the same time, the number of commercial enplanements has increased from approximately 200 million in 1975 to approximately 930 million in 2018."
SCANA RESPONSE: This claim would seem to be illogical. Plane traffic has quadrupled,
there are many more flight paths, flight paths have been moved over more residential
areas and away from historical less noise sensitive tracks, and complaints are up
nationwide. The FAA attributes the claim to quieter aircraft. While jet engines and aircraft
have indeed been made quieter, they are not quiet. Noise complaints are up markedly
across the Country after the NextGen rollout that demonstrates more people are being
exposed to aircraft noise than before NextGen. The FAA admitted: "....... as aviation
industry growth has led to an increase in operations in many areas, the number of people
and the size of the areas experiencing significant aircraft noise has started to show a
gradual expansion".
- The FAA has used a tool developed in the 1970's called the Shultz Curve to calculate the public annoyance factor of aircraft noise. The FAA states the Curve: ".... is now on average more than 40 years old and warrants an update." and "........the Schultz Curve may not reflect the current U.S. public perception of aviation noise."
As a result, with Congressional interest, the FAA conducted this new survey called the
National Environmental Survey (NES). The results of the NES survey tell a much different
story than what the FAA Shultz Curve has been saying:
At DNL 65dB noise levels:
Shultz Curve says 12.3% of people are annoyed
NES survey says an average of 65.5% of people are annoyed
At DNL 60dB noise levels:
Shultz Curve says 6.5% of people are annoyed
NES survey says an average of 48.8% of people are annoyed
INTERPRETATION: The FAA has been using historically flawed data to claim aircraft noise is not a significant issue.
"The introduction of Performance Based Navigation (PBN) procedures, .........has also provided noise benefits for many by allowing for new and more efficient flight paths, but has in some places resulted in community concerns, particularly related to increased concentration of flights".
INTERPRETATION: The FAA claim that new NextGen flight paths placed over heavily populated areas and moved from historical less noise sensitive tracks have somehow provided a benefit for noise reduction is a cruel, false claim. The FAA's definition of "more efficient flight paths" means it chopped the flight paths to make them shorter and moved them to previously undisturbed residential areas, resulting in the airlines saving negligible amounts of both money on fuel and only minutes shorter flight times. But at what cost to the public and residents under these new flight paths? The "efficient" flight paths causing "increased concentration" have ruined the lifestyles of thousands of Scottsdale residents.
The FAA is asking for comments on the report and it's findings so that it can continue to study the issue further. More study is not necessary. Tens of thousands residents and multiple cities and communities know the solution: Move the paths back to historical tracks with wider dispersal. It's not rocket science. But the FAA will study the issue for decades with no respect or consideration given to residents lifestyles that it has intentionally and callously ruined.
SCANA is urging all residents impacted by the FAA flight paths over Scottsdale to file comments with the FAA by March 15th. In your comments it is suggested you:
1. Demand that the FAA rescind three NextGen Sky Harbor eastbound departure paths over Scottsdale. Those flight paths are identified by using the ZEPER, QUAKY and MRBIL route RNAV (navigation points) descriptions.
2. State that the NextGen implementation processes were found to have been implemented at Sky Harbor illegally by the U.S. Court of Appeals in 2018 and the FAA will be held accountable to rectify the remaining NextGen flight paths that were moved illegally.
3. Add your own personal comments about how the illegal flight paths are impacting your life.
Your comments must include the docket number FAA-2021-0037 and be received by March 15, 2021.
Electronically: go to https://www.regulations.gov/
type FAA-2021-0037 into the search bar
on the next screen click on the Comment Now button
Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
CLICK HERE to see the 451 page report. Scroll down to the Download button
CLICK HERE to see the FAA summary of the report:
_______________________________________________
ANOTHER TAKE ON THE FAA'S NOISE REPORT
Here is a written summary on the report passed on to SCANA by the National Quiet Skies Coalition.
Dear Colleagues for Quiet Skies:
This thoughtful analysis titled "FAA Research on Environmental Issues Ignores Significant Factors in Public Discontent" comes via Barbara Lichman, Ph.D., J.D. of Aviation & Airport Development Law
(www.aviationairportdevelopmentlaw.com).
On January 13, 2021, the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) published, in the Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 8, Docket No. FAA-2021-0037, p. 2722, a necessary, if somewhat belated, “summary to
the public of the research programs it sponsors . . . that could potentially inform future aircraft noise policy.” While the “spirit” appears willing, the “execution” is weak.
FAA first claims, by way of “background,” that “the number of people living in areas exposed to SIGNIFICANT levels of aircraft noise in the United States has declined from roughly 7 million to just over 400,000 today.” Id., at 2723 [emphasis added]. FAA credits that reduction principally to “phased transition to quieter aircraft;” efforts by local governments to reduce the number of people living in close proximity to airports through planning; sound insulation; and, perhaps most ironically, the introduction of Performance Based Navigation (“PBN”), or RNAV procedures which consolidate flight corridors, thus reducing the NUMBER of persons overflown, while, at the same time, increasing noise for residents under the newly consolidated flight tracks.
FAA’s conclusions are skewed by reliance on outdated assumptions. First, FAA’s definition of “significant noise” is predicated upon continued reliance on the DNL metric. Under DNL, noise during night hours, from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. is weighted by an additional 10 decibels (“dB”) for the apparent purpose of expressing community “annoyance” level. Second, FAA continues to rely on sound insulation of noise-impacted homes as a panacea, although, as FAA itself observes, “[w]hile sound insulation reduces indoor noise levels, it does not address concerns about noise interfering with the enjoyment of the outdoors.” Id., at 2723. Finally, FAA reluctantly acknowledges that PBN has led to community concerns resulting from “increased concentration of flights,” Id., a statement some would view as the “understatement of the century”.
To remedy these and other problems, FAA states that it has continued to test the origins of these conclusions. As a beginning, it claims to have implemented new techniques for noise modelling using new noise metrics. As an example, FAA calls out the Aviation Environmental Design Tool (“AEDT”), a comprehensive test strategy that incorporates aircraft emissions testing as well as noise. In addition, FAA claims to be studying supplemental noise metrics, although there is no mention of a supplemental metric already required in California, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (“CNEL”). CNEL adds a 5 dB weighting for noise created during the evening hours from 7 p.m.-10 p.m., which more efficiently represents noise “annoyance” during family evenings and in rural areas. Despite the alleged enhancement of metrics supposedly arising out of FAA’s testing, and the already existing CNEL
metric, FAA has already made up its collective mind that “other noise metrics may not provide as complete an understanding of the cumulative noise exposure from an activity around an airport.” Id., at 2727.
Finally, FAA claims that it is also supporting multiple efforts to identify means to abate noise through changes in the way aircraft operate in the airspace over communities. As an illustration of this
effort, FAA points to “Voluntary Noise Abatement Departure Procedures” (“NADP”), as well as a re-examination in the PBN contest of the way “to routinely consider noise during flight procedure design,” Id., at 2727. This effort is claimed to include an “exploration of how PBN can better control flight paths and move them away from noise-sensitive areas”, Id., and “how systematic departure flight track dispersion can be implemented to abate noise concerns,” Id., both of which should have been considered before implementation of PBN procedures, thus forestalling needless controversy and multiple legal actions from around the Country.
FAA asks for comments on its various proposals to be submitted by March 15, 2021, focusing on the following issues:
(1) Additional investigation, analysis or research that needs to be done concerning: (a) effects on aircraft noise on individuals and communities; (b) noise modelling and noise metrics; and (c) reduction and abatement of aviation noise;
(2) Factors that have led to increases community annoyance caused by aviation noise since the 1970s; and
(3) Additional categories of investigation, analysis or research that should be undertaken to inform FAA noise policy.
Will FAA rely on the results of this and other research to inform its decision making and change its policies? History is not encouraging but FAA’s solicitation of comments, and potential willingness to
listen to the voice of communities is a step in the right direction. Stay tuned for the result after March 15, 2021.
________________________________________
FILE A NOISE COMPLAINT AS OFTEN AS YOU CAN!
While it may feel useless to continue to file noise complaints, it is important that complaint statistics show continued resident opposition to the NextGen flight paths. Complaints should be filed with both the FAA and Sky Harbor Airport. For the FAA, CLICK HERE FAA to go to their complaint form and CLICK HERE SKY to go to the Sky Harbor compliant form to log a complaint. No log in is required and it only takes a minute!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Please take a few moments to do the following:
1. If you haven't already, please go to the SCANA website at airplanenoise.org and vote YES to support SCANA's efforts to restore Scottsdale's quiet skies.
2. Go to the SCANA Facebook page at Scottsdale Coalition for Airport Noise Abatement
https://www.facebook.com/airplanenoise and "Like" the page and "Follow" it.
3. Contact our elected representatives often to voice your concerns over the FAA's arbitrary actions in the implementation of these flight paths. Go to the Complaint page on our website to click on the parties you wish to contact. Contact the Scottsdale City Council members via email here: citycouncil@scottsdaleaz.gov
4. Spread the word about SCANA and our website to neighbors and friends who are also concerned about the loss of their safety and the loss of the enjoyment of their outdoor activities. Ask them to sign up on our website to receive our updates.
PLEASE CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE EFFORTS TO RESTORE THE QUIET AND SAFE SKIES SCOTTSDALE ENJOYED BEFORE THEY WERE STOLEN BY THE FAA
WE DID NOT MOVE TO THE FAA, THE FAA MOVED TO US!
Thousands of homeowners in Scottsdale and across the Country purchased their homes before an airplane superhighway was "arbitrarily and capriciously" placed over their neighborhoods without their knowledge or input.
