82.1 F
San Fernando
Thursday, Mar 28, 2024

Learning to Live With Jet Noise

In 1973, federal courts granted airports the right to enact reasonable, non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory noise abatement procedures that pose no hazard to aviation safety. Since then, Van Nuys Airport and Bop Hope Airport in Burbank have imposed virtually every noise abatement procedure known to exist – all to achieve a balance for residents impacted by the airport, according to Gina Marie Lindsey, executive director of Los Angeles World Airports, the operator of Van Nuys Airport. Ironically this balance doesn’t apply at Los Angeles International, even though it makes more noise for more residents who live closer to that airport than Van Nuys will ever comprehend. Yet these programs have done nothing to satisfy the complaining communities. In fact the issues remain so inflamed that Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Burbank, has promised to back door the issue to Congress by introducing legislation that would establish permanent and mandatory curfews at both Van Nuys and Burbank. However, there is substantial evidence to prove that Schiff’s proposals and the existing noise abatement procedures at both airports are unreasonable and compromise aviation safety. The first and primary factor is safety. U.S. Department of Transportation policy states: “There is simply no margin for error when it comes to the safety of our air transportation system.” Yet, National Transportation Safety Board accident investigation reports reveal that since 1987 at least 181 innocent persons have been killed and 37 have been injured in noise abatement accidents. These accidents all occurred under identical circumstances. There were no structural or mechanical problems with the aircraft, nor were there physical or medical problems with the flight crews. Instead the crews became so intimidated and stigmatized by the potential consequences if they failed to comply with noise abatement procedures, or broke a curfew, that they omitted or overrode a safety procedure that would have prevented the accident. For a case in point, cockpit voice recordings revealed that the flight crew of a Northwest DC 9 was in such a rush to depart Detroit before bad weather approached on Aug. 19, 1987 – which would have delayed their departure and caused the flight to violate the curfew at John Wayne Airport – that they failed to use their taxi checklist and set the flaps and slats in the proper takeoff position. As a consequence the aircraft stalled on takeoff and crashed, killing all 156 persons aboard. Without the curfew factor, the crew would have simply waited for the bad weather to pass before departing. For safety reasons alone, politicians and airport management should push the FAA to outlaw curfews and cease pandering to noise complaints and using them to harass and intimidate pilots. The second factor is economic. Rep. Schiff and other political leaders who grandstand about noise should realize they are the same leaders who promote strong pro-economic policies that create aviation demand and its noise. Dios Marrero, the late executive director at Bob Hope, said it best: “Political leaders are creating jobs, they’re bringing in industry, they’re implementing economic development strategies, and then they’re shocked when that creates aviation demand.” In other words, if you want a major league economy, run major league airports to handle it. The third factor is political. There is a preposterous belief that airports in densely populated areas are entitled to arbitrarily move their problem noise to other communities and airports that are more rural, and that rural airports should gladly accept the noise. Nevertheless, the FAA is very clear about noise transfer schemes and makes no allowances for population density or proximity to the airport. The FAA’s Western Pacific Regional Administrator wrote to Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Sherman Oaks: “The FAA will not arbitrarily move noise from one community to another. Therefore, any changes will require concurrence from all impacted communities.” Later, El Segundo objected to Burbank’s proposed curfew when their attorney wrote: “Noise relief for one community should not come at the expense of another.” Therefore, Bob Hope and Van Nuys should improve their noise mitigation standard to at least that level and manage their own communities to take at least the same noise they think others should take on their behalf. To conclude, if noise abatement is the answer, why does either airport still have a noise issue? It’s because noise abatement procedures are not the answer. For another case in point, when I used the safety, economic and political factors noted earlier to mitigate the hostile communities and their political leaders at Indianapolis Executive Airport, they understood and accepted the growth and noise without complaint and without noise abatement procedures. As a result, the airport has operated since 2001 without a single noise abatement procedure – not even a “Fly Quiet” sign, and no one has complained more than once. Instead of nearly closing due to noise complaints and community opposition, the airport has grown to become so successful and user-friendly that the Aviation Association of Indiana named it Airport of the Year for 2009. And during the 2012 Super Bowl, it hosted nearly 90 corporate jets and hundreds of out-of-town airplanes around the clock without a single noise complaint. Jon Rodgers is president of Jon Rodgers Aviation Consulting in Van Nuys.

Featured Articles

Related Articles