SCANA and Quiet Skies 

SCOTTSDALE COALITION FOR AIRPLANE NOISE ABATEMENT

MARCH 2022 UPDATE #2

 

IN THIS UPDATE:

 

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS HEARS ORAL ARGUMENTS IN THE CITY OF

                  SCOTTSDALE'S LAWSUIT AGAINST THE THE FAA                                                       

 

On Monday, March 21st The City of Scottsdale and the FAA presented their oral arguments to the U.S. Court of Appeals judges regarding the lawsuit Scottsdale initiated against the FAA over new flight paths it placed over the City in late 2014.  Judges Raymond Randolph, Justin Walker and Robert Wilkins sat on the bench.  Each set of attorneys is given ten minutes to make their case regarding the facts and merits of the case.  That is not nearly enough time to articulate all the details of the cases but is intended to let the attorney's make their main points clear and to allow the judges to ask questions.  The session started with Steve Tabor, from the City of Scottsdale's law firm of Leech, Tishman, Fuscaldo & Lampl, Inc., getting the first ten minutes.

 

Mr. Tabor started his statement by attempting to to give the Court three reasons why the Scottsdale petition should be granted.  The first was this same Court's decision in 2017 that granted Phoenix and the Historic Districts relief from the FAA's NextGen flight paths also implemented in 2014.  That decision stated:  ".......we grant the petitions, vacate the September 18, 2014 order implementing the new flight departure routes at Sky Harbor International Airport, and remand the matter to the FAA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."  However, no sooner than did Tabor get the words out of his mouth than the judges stated that that decision doesn't apply because the eastbound routes were not "new" and left Tabor scrambling to refute that view.  Tabor responded that they were new but the judges kept peppering him with questions that inferred they believed they weren't new.  In our view, the judges didn't seem to be versed with or concur with Scottsdale's brief and second, that Tabor needed more time to re-enforce the following: 

 

1)  Visual graphics of the previous flight paths and the new NextGen satellite consolidated flight procedures over Scottsdale clearly shows the movement of Sky Harbor northeast bound flights from a diffused but predominate pathway over the east mountain ranges to a single consolidated "freeway" down the middle of the City for all northeast bound flights.  The NextGen paths were clearly a change from where planes were flying under the old more dispersed radar based flight procedures. 

2)  Previous flight paths only had two routes north while the new NextGen paths created three routes north.  There were only two navigation way-points named CHILY and SILOW for northeast bound departures in 2014 but three new way-points named ZEPER, QUAKY and MRBIL after November 2014.  Plus, the paths from Sky Harbor to the three new way-points were consolidated into a single track for all northeast bound flights down the middle of Scottsdale communities until they reached further north of Scottsdale at which point they were directed to one of the three new way-points. 

3)  The FAA itself signed off on language in a November 30, 2017 Court Memorandum that stated "Whereas, on September 18, 2014, the FAA published new flight routes and air traffic procedures at Sky Harbor International Airport.......". 

4)  Documented Scottsdale noise complaints about Sky Harbor flights went from 7 to 17,000 in the years post NextGen.  This proves something was drastically new and different that prompted Scottsdale residents to file a huge number of new noise complaints.

 

The judges then questioned if Scottsdale had "standing" to have the right to file the lawsuit because Scottsdale had sustained no injuries (meaning there was no new noise impacts),  and that the 60 day time limit to file a suit had expired.  All of these questions had been addressed and answered in the Scottsdale brief.  Again, it seemed the judge's weren't familiar with Scottsdale's brief or were looking for ways to deem Scottsdale's arguments inadmissible.

 

With the judges questions, Tabor's 10 minutes expired and he was never able to get to his two other reasons he was going to present as to why Scottsdale's petition should be granted.  The judge's then gave him 2 minutes to compensate after the FAA gave it's arguments.  Little time to make up for what he lost.

 

The FAA's attorney then stepped up for his 10 minutes.  He reiterated the argument that the eastern flight paths were not new, as they were in the case of the Phoenix western flight paths the FAA was ordered to remand, and so differed from the eastern flight paths.  He argued that Scottsdale had no standing to sue and had suffered no injuries.  He stated that the FAA's noise monitoring showed no difference in noise levels pre NextGen and post 2014.  Of course he didn't state that "What was lost in translation was that the FAA's valid numbers were based on MACRO (disbursed flight paths) impacts; while the new NextGen routes, due to the precision of RNAV, concentrates the noise on a MICRO basis." (from JDA Journal).   The judges asked him few questions and he was able to finish his presentation in less that his allotted 10 minutes.

 

Tabor's extra two minutes were then spent by him stating that there was no Environmental Impact Statement conducted by the FAA on the eastern flight paths and that Scottsdale's suit did not exceed the 60 day filing time limit because it was based on the FAA's final decision in January of 2020 to make no further changes to the NextGen paths, and consequently was filed within the correct time frame.    He asked the judges to grant Scottsdale's request to remand the FAA's actions.  With that, the session came to an end with the judges saying they would take the matter under consideration.

 

For the City, SCANA and residents supporting Scottsdale's law suit, it was a disappointing start to the judges deliberation of the issues.  If the orals are any indication of the judges leaning on the issues, it does not bode well.  It can only be hoped the judges were presenting the arguments that the FAA had made in its brief, to allow Scottsdale to shoot holes in the FAA's arguments.  That may be wishful thinking and time will tell.

 

No word on when the judges will announce their decision.  When that happens, SCANA will send out another update.

 

_______________________________________

 

 

 

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 its 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.  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

 

2.  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 home life and 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.

 

 

10115 E. Bell Road, Suite 107, #132 Scottsdale, AZ 85260
scanaPHX@gmail.com

Share on social

Share on FacebookShare on X (Twitter)Share on Pinterest

Check out our website