CAAN BULLETIN BOARD ITEM HEADLINE

(click on the date for the article you wish to read)

DATE

18 Feb 08 Notes from APC meeting
13 Jan 08 New study on aircraft and airport noise.
9 Dec 07 Can aviation's emissions continue to be exempted from the clean air laws?
27 Nov 07 Airplane noise tied to high blood pressure risk
14 Nov 07 News items from the Airports Policy Committee (APC) — added flights at National dropped.
27 Sep 07 How noise affects the body – a new report
30 Jun 07 MORE Flights at National???
24 Jan 07 Notes from the Jan. 10th CONAANDA meeting.
3 Nov o6 Airports Authority's noise monitoring computer off the air for two years??
23 Oct 06 FAA allows experiments on pilot endurance with passengers on board?
5 Oct 05 CAAN adds noise footprint simulator for Dulles Airport.
29 Aug 06 New community noise level data posted.
19 Dec 05 Part 150 Noise Study for National Airport still pending.
2 Oct 05 New Helicopter Activity contact point.
15 Aug 05 CAAN updates website pages for Facts and Figures and Email Center.
27 Jul 05 Questions arise about the possibility of aircraft dumping fuel during Dulles and National airport approaches.
27 Jun 05 More about small airplanes and civilian airfield security.
8 Jun 05 Noise lawsuit results . . . Aircraft noise impacts on children's learning abilities - a new study
12 May 05 Small planes still a potential threat for Federal facilities.
9 May 05 More Noise coming to National Airport???
28 Apr 05 Helicopter Study Executive Summary
22 Apr 05 Mother Against Airport Pollution (MAAP) criticize Aviation's exclusion from Kyoto Accords.
21 Apr 05 Public meetings on Helicopter study to be held May 11th.
28 Mar 05 Congress to consider bills to open National Airport to General Aviation.

2/18/08. Notes takken by CAAN from the Aviation Policy Committee, APC, (formerly the CONAANDA committee) meeting held Feb. 13th.

1. MWAA reported that 29 of the 40 new noise monitoring stations have been installed. There will be 4 new stations in Fairfax County and 4 new stations in Loudoun County. The sites for Fairfax County have been selected while the sites for Loundoun County have yet to be named. All sites are slated to be complete by about 1 April. However, a training period has to be conducted, probably about 6 weeks. Also, the new on-line complaint system is still not ready. No ready dates were offered.

2. Residents around Clifton, VA have complained to Rep. Tom Davis about the noise level and he has intervened with the FAA. However, MWAA stated that Clifton is out of MWAA's jurisdiction and there is no terminal area radar coverage available for it. Further efforts on this issue will be coordinated by Jim Slate, Dulles Tower, and George Nichols of APC (202.962.3355). CAAN notes that Clifton is about 2 miles east of the Dulles approach path so it's possible that aircraft are straying a little eastward or flying lower than usual, hence the increase in noise.

3. Col. Remaly (Army Helicopter Group), who is the point of contact for military helicopter noise complaints said that citizens will improve their chances of identifying the offending helicopter if they can snap a picture and and send it to Col. Remaly <Steward.Remaly@jfhqncr.northcom.mil> along with your complaint.

1/13/08. The following article is an abstract of a study by three noted scientists working in the field of noise and emissions. CAAN has worked with Ms. Bronzaft in the past. Red text is CAAN's emphasis.

Airport-Related Air Pollution and Noise
Authors: Beverly S. Cohen a; Arline L. Bronzaft b; Maire Heikkinen a;
Jerome Goodman c; Arthur Nádas a
Affiliations:
a New York a University School of Medicine, New
York, New York
b Council on the Environment of New York City, New York, New York
c Consulting Engineer-Acoustics, Great Neck, New York
Published in: Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, Volume
5, Issue 2 February 2008 , pages 119 - 129
First Published on: 01 February 2008
Subject: Environmental Health;

Abstract
To provide quantitative evidence of the impact on people of a
neighboring metropolitan airport, La Guardia Airport (LGA) in New York
City, (1) airborne particulate matter (PM) was measured to determine
whether concentration differences could be detected between homes that
are upwind and downwind of the airport; (2) 24-hr noise measurements
were made in 12 homes near the airport; and (3) the impact of noise was
assessed by a Community Wellness and Health Promotion Survey.
Particulate matter concentrations were higher during active airport
operating hours than during nonoperating hours, and the percent increase
varied inversely with distance from the airport. Hourly differences
between paired upwind and downwind sites were not remarkable. Residents
living near the airport were exposed to noise levels as much as four
times greater than those experienced by residents in a quiet, comparison
home. Impulse noise events were detected from both aircraft and
vehicular traffic. More than 55% of the people living within the flight
path were bothered by aircraft noise, and 63% by highway noise; these
were significantly higher percentages than for residents in the
nonflight area. The change in PM concentrations with distance during
operating compared with nonoperating hours; traffic-related impulse
noise events; and the elevated annoyance with highway noise, as well as
aircraft noise among residents in the flight path area, show
airport-related motor vehicle traffic to be a major contributor to the
negative impact of airports on people in the surrounding communities.

Our study looked at air and noise pollution in the community near
LaGuardia airport in New York City. This airport has major highways and
roads leading to the airport, which indeed increases motor vehicle
traffic. Thus, it was appropriate to include noise and air pollution
from highway travel in describing impacts from air travel on these
community residents. Airports like LaGuardia with highways feeding
traffic to and from the airport must similarly address both
traffic-related noise and air pollution in evaluating impacts of air
travel on nearby residents. The INM mathematical model developed by the
FAA to predict noise impacts on residents fails to consider
traffic-related noise, as well as falling short in other ways, e.g.
impacts of low frequencies responsible for shaking people's homes and
windows, and should not be the primary indicator of impacts of
airport-related noise on residents. In assessing impacts of aviation
noise on residents, a wide range of airport-related noises should be
examined using instruments capable of measuring contributing noise
sources.

12/9/07. COMMENTARY. Aviation emissions have be exempted from the clean air regulation long enough, and now with the threat of world climate change, it is time to place this industry, indeed all excluded industries, under Federal emission regulations. The contribution to global greenhouse gasses by the aviation industry is rapidly growing as passenger, cargo, and business jet traffic expand. Although it is true that aviation's share of the world's total man-made greenhouse gasses is relatively low at about five percent, the industry's grow rate will become a major factor in a few short years. Exacerbating the issue is the fact that the greenhouse gas effect at higher altitudes is even greater than the five percent indicated, according to a consensus of climate scientists.

However, two new efforts are being pushed, one spearheaded by the State of California – which usually starts the ball rolling on environmental issues – and joined by the states of New Mexico, Connecticut, and Pennslyvania plus the District of Columbia and New York City. The South Coast Air Quality Management District -- the smog control agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties also joined the petition effort. These states and cities have petitioned the EPA to "crack down" on rising aircraft emissions pointing out that "Climate change is the most important environmental issue facing the U.S. and the world . . ." CAAN applauds their effort, but wishes that Maryland and Virginia had also signed this petition. Both have several major airports which generate huge amounts of greenhouse gasses.

The second effort comes from the Senate committee on Environment and Public Works. It has just sent to the full senate a bill (S. 2191) to establish a cap and trade system on carbon which for the first time includes the aviation industry in some meaningful energy regulation. Commercial aviation which has had a free ride for decades on a fuel tax and enjoyed enormous subsidies from Congress, now faces a new paradigm, global warming. It's time it got on board and joined other industries which are biting the bullet to restructure and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Some of the credit goes to Sen. Warner of Virginia who with Sen. Joe Lieberman of Conn. pushed this bill through the committee. It is good to see that Sen. Warner has become environmentally aware, even if late in his career.

11/27/07. Here's more evidence that aircraft noise can affect a person's health.

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) Fri Nov 16, 2007

Airplane noise tied to high blood pressure risk
By Amy Norton


People who live near airports may have an elevated risk of high blood pressure due to noise pollution, a Swedish study suggests.Dr. Mats Rosenlund of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and associates found that among more than 2,000 men followed for a decade, those who lived in areas with the greatest noise from a nearby airport had a higher risk of developing high blood pressure.

It's possible that the constant noise of planes buzzing overhead is a source of chronic stress for some of these individuals, which in turn may raise their blood pressure, explained Rosenlund.

"It is thought that aircraft noise causes stress problems when it interferes with people's ability to think, relax or sleep, for example," Rosenlund told Reuters Health.

A wide range of factors are known to affect heart health, and it's not yet clear that airplane noise is directly responsible for the higher blood pressure seen in this study, according to Rosenlund. But, he noted, this study, along with past research, shows there is an association between noise exposure and high blood pressure.

The study involved 2,027 men from four municipalities surrounding the Stockholm Arlanda airport who were free of high blood pressure at the study's outset. Their aircraft-noise exposure was estimated using government air traffic data, and the researchers tracked any new diagnoses of high blood pressure over the next 10 years.

In general, the 20 percent of men exposed to the highest average levels of airplane noise were 19 percent were more likely to develop high blood pressure than their counterparts with lower-level noise exposure, the researchers report in the medical journal Epidemiology.

Other factors they considered -- such as the men's age, weight, income and exercise habits -- did not change the link between aircraft noise and blood pressure.

Still, Rosenlund said, it's too early to say "with confidence" that living near an airport raises a person's risk of high blood pressure.

A large European study involving multiple airports is underway, he noted, and it may provide a more definitive answer.

For now, Rosenlund said he would hesitate to recommend that people living near airports find a new home. On the other hand, he pointed out, people who are "constantly annoyed" by airplane noise might want to consider a neighborhood more conducive to their overall happiness.


SOURCE: Epidemiology, November 2007.
© Reuters2007All rights reserved

11/14/07. Caan attended the APC (this group used to be called CANAANDA) meeting today and would like to pass on the following information:

9/26/07. How Noise affects the body. CAAN (and many other noise averse organizations) has often talked about the effects of noise on the health of the body. Here's the lastest report on a study sponsored by the World Health Organizaiton. It corroborates earlier studies:

Daily Herald

How it affects your body
New Scientist
Published: 9/24/2007

How could exposure to noise have such devastating effects on human
health as causing cardiovascular disease?

Key to solving this puzzle is recognizing that noise can create a form
of chronic stress that keeps our bodies in a state of constant alert.
Research published in 2006 by Wolfgang Babisch of Germany's Federal
Environmental Agency in Berlin shows that even when you are asleep, your
ears, brain and body continue to react to sounds, raising levels of
stress hormones such as cortisol, adrenalin and noradrenalin.

This makes evolutionary sense, as all animals need to be alert to
threats even when they are asleep, so they can wake up and flee if
necessary, researchers say.

However, if these stress hormones are in constant circulation, they can
cause long-term physiological changes that could be life-threatening.
The end result can be anything from heart failure and strokes to high
blood pressure and immune problems.

"All this is happening imperceptibly, and this is the key," says Deepak
Prasher of University College London, who collaborated on the WHO study.
"Even when you think you're used to noise, these physiological changes are still happening."

What's more, there are a wide range of sources of noise stress. Some are
big and obvious, such as constant heavy traffic or aircraft taking off,
while others are much more subtle and difficult to define as
"pollution," yet can still cause intense anxiety and irritation. In the
case of noisy neighbors, for example, stress might be triggered simply
by knowing a neighbor is in, even if they are not being noisy at that
point.

Noise can aggravate stress still further if it disturbs sleep, which can
result in constant fatigue and outbursts of aggressiveness and
irritability. People exposed to noise during their sleep have been shown
to wake up more often and fidget more in their sleep -- both indicators
of sleep disruption.

There's also mounting evidence that excessive noise disrupts learning
and education. As far back as 1975, studies in New York showed that the
reading skills of children in classrooms next to noisy railways lagged three to four months behind those of their peers in quieter classrooms.

6/30/07. There they go again. The Senate, via two Senators, Gordon Smith (R-OR) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) want to add 20 more flights at National, 12 of them to the West Coast. Apparently, Dulles is not convenient enough for them. Sen.'s Smith and Cantwell have filed an amendment to the FAA reauthorization bill to mandate these added flights. Never mind the noise and emissions impact on local residents. Hey, they don't have to answer to the people in the District, Maryland and Virginia. Forget the compact that the Federal Government made in 1986 with the local citizens that National would do the short haul flights and Dulles the long haul flights. They need CONVENIENCE! The House doesn't (yet) have a comparable bill, but Rep. Louise Slaugther of Rochester, NY thinks it's a fine idea. Much more convenient for her than Dulles or BWI.

If you are not keen on this idea, contact your representative and senators. Let them know that you are tired of being dumped on (literally, the emissions add to our already bad air quality), and don't want any more flights added at National. Use our email center to send them your opposition message.

To give credit where it's due, Rep.'s Eleanor Homes Norton, Frank Wolf, and Jim Moran have issued a strong letter of opposition to these flights. Would that Rep.'s Davis (VA), Wynn (MD) and Van Hollen (MD) do the same. Also, the Airports Authority have made it plain that there isn't enough room to accommodate 20 more flights per day, despite what the GAO says.

CAAN has written a letter (see the following) to senators, representatives, and appropriate committee members expressing our displeasure, and asking them to reject the Smith/Cantwell amendment.

1/24/07. Notes from the January 10 meeting of CONAANDA ( now called the Aviation Policy Committee, APC): After being submitted two years ago, National's Part 150 (Noise Compatibility Plan) plan is STILL being questioned by the FAA. Until all questions are resolved, the six month clock for final approval cannot start. So even if all the questions are answered by March, the FAA could wait until September to approve the full plan. In all this time, the FAA seems to have ignored APC's request to fast track the use of GPS (Global Positioning System) for the Potomac River routing.

The FAA has, on the one hand, declared that there won't be any money for problems outside the 65 DNL contour, and on the other hand said that special situations may merit some funding ( It should be noted that there are no residential areas within National's current 65 DNL contour). Based on this recent FAA pronouncement, the Airports Authority's will use its own money to replace its noise monitoring system. The RFP should be on the street by the end of January. As stated below it could be over a year before the noise monitoring system will be operational.

Rather than wait for the Part 150 approval, airlines and its pilots will meet to work out details of implementing the GPS river routing. However, whatever they come up with will have to be approved by the FAA. Still, at least some one is working to expedite this much needed, noise reducing route procedure.

There is a U.S. Senate bill in the hopper to allow airports to ban the old, noisy stage 2 business and private jets. It's about time. Although it still has to get through the House, this is a welcome step.

Commentary: Readers may have noticed the Washington Post article on members of the Civil Air Patrol flying "bogie" missions in small aircraft ( Cessnas) around the metro area. These flights occur in the early AM hours of the morning. Attempting to "intercept" these flights are Coast Guard helicopters sometimes flying at low altitudes (less than 1000 feet). It would seem that our tax dollars are now being used to keep us awake by low flying helicopters. You have to wonder who cooks up these "helpful" ideas!

11/3/06. Readers of the Airports Authority's quarterly noise and operations report have no doubt noticed that there are no results for any noise monitoring stations for all of June. Nor will there likely be for the rest of the year and perhaps for the following year. The 18 year old central processing system which gathers all the data from the 32 noise monitoring stations has basically died and apparently cannot be repaired. Readers will also remember that as part of the Noise Compatiblity Study (Part 150), the Airports Authority was supposed to install a new system with an internet interface for public monitoring. At Part 150 study meetings, the Airport Authority said that it would use its own money to purchase this system. However, it later thought that the FAA might pay for the system, so the Authority decided to wait to see if the FAA would indeed foot the bill. However, the FAA has yet to approve the Part 150 study after nearly two years. CAAN learned from the Authority that this week the Authority will sit down with the FAA to see if it will approve the now urgently needed new monitoring system . . . and will pay for it. If the FAA declines to provide the money — and the FAA budget is very tight this year so that likeihood is high —, then the Authority will have to use its own money after all. Although no one can predict when a system will utterly fail, 18 years does stretch the limits with a computer system, and perhaps the Authority would have been wiser if it had addressed its replacement earlier.

So readers, if the Authority does the acquisition, it will likely take six months to get the system under contract and then another year or so to implement and install the new equipment. Thus the Authority's procrastination has consigned the public to perhaps two years without any noise information for its communities. Not good!

10/23/06. Commentary: For those who fly JetBlue, you might want to consider the posting from http://upgradetravel.blogspot.com/2006/10/jetblue-experimenting-with-passenger.html. These are not the things the public likes to hear, and if true, the FAA owes the public an apology and an explanation as to why this experiment was approved. Passengers should not be used as part of experiments in pilot endurance. Read on.

Fly with JetBlue last year? You may have been a passenger on a test flight: An experiment to see how long pilots can actually control a passenger jet before fatigue sets in.

You don't remember filling out a consent form? Oh, that's because the airline pulled a fast one: They convinced low-level FAA officials to bend the rules for their little experiment. Instead of limiting their flying to the legal limit of 8 hours per day, pilots spent as much as 11 hours at the controls.

It wasn't until someone called in the experiment to some FAA higher-ups that the experiment got canned. The Wall Street Journal reports (subscription only):
The two-pilot crews were equipped with specially designed motion detectors on their wrists to measure activity, and participated in tests with hand-held computing devices that issued random prompts and then recorded the speed of responses. All told, JetBlue says 29 pilots, including the backup aviators, participated in more than 50 data-gathering flights during May 2005. All of the flights were domestic, and a big portion were coast-to-coast trips.

The carrier says it proceeded under the assumption that local FAA officials had the power to approve the company's plans under so-called supplemental flight rules. Those rules specify that airlines flying longer distances must have at least one extra pilot on board so no single pilot flies more than eight hours in total. However, in the JetBlue test, even though each flight had a third pilot on board, the original crews stayed at the controls for more than 10 hours a day. None of the reserve pilots ever replaced a regular crew member.

Thankfully nothing seems to have gone wrong, and 2 to 3 hours of overtime is probably not that much of a stretch. But it's simply not acceptable that the company or its pilots play these kinds of games with passengers. Passengers should not be made unwitting co-test-subjects in a corporate experiment. Unless there is an experimental "informed consent" clause in the JetBlue contract of carriage?

It's apparently not enough that so many airline pilots sound like legendary test pilot Chuck Yeager when they're welcoming you onboard over the intercom. No, these guys actually wanted to BE test pilots.

Experiments are fine, but not with a plane full of unwitting subjects. And what were the results of those tests, anyway? As members of the "research team," doesn't the public have the right to know?



10/5/06.. At the request of people living around Dulles International Airport, CAAN has added a noise footprint simulator so they may obtain some estimate of the noise impact on nearby Dulles communities.

8/29/06. CAAN has updated its community noise level statistics for the year from Apr. 05 through Mar. 06. These data are based on MWAA's (Airports Authority) quarterly reports, but reconfigured to make them more meaningful for individual communities. The noise levels have gone down for some communities, some quite dramatically. However, other communities suffered an increase in noise levels, one in particular, a nearly five times increase in noise. Check our Facts and Figures page to see the results and how things have changed.

In preparing this data, CAAN noted the number of noise monitoring stations inoperative. In two of the quarters, the percentage of stations down ranged from 31 to 41 percent. One station, Bolling AFB, which usually runs above 65 dB, has been inoperative for the entire year. CAAN appreciates that some of the equipment is aging and that higher maintenance might be expected,, but failure rates this hign seem to show a lack of attention. Surely, MWAA has the money to keep the noise monitoring stations operating. If they are worn out, then MWAA should replace them with more modern equipment. CAAN should not have to remind the Airports Authority that the Part 150 Noise Compatibiiliy Study completed a year and a half ago, specified that the whole noise monitoring system was to be replaced with one which citizens could log onto via the Internet. Because the system would be paid for with MWAA money, CAAN has to ask, what happened to it?

12/18/05. Even though the Airports Authority submitted the Part 150 Committee's recommended noise study plan for National Airport last January, the FAA still has not approved the noise contour maps. Mr Neal Phillips of the Airports Authoity reported at the CONAANDA meeting last Wednesday that the FAA thought they may get the final approval signed this coming January. Once that happens, the six month clock starts ticking for the final approval of the plan and all the recommendations the Committee made like flying the river under GPS guidance at all times. If the noise maps are approved this January, it may be a modern era record. The last time it took seven years to approve National's noise maps.

Item: As many people already know, General Aviation may now fly in and out of National Airport. However, there are caveats to that permission. Incoming flights after scheduling their trip must first stop at one of certain designated airports to pick up a federal marshall who then flies with them. The net result of these restrictions is that there have been only seven General Aviation flights into National between October 18th and December 1st, and two of them were loaded with dignitaries to celebrate the event, so that only five real flights should be counted. I think CAAN can live with that amount of General Aviation activity.

10/2/05. Metropolitan area residents should know that there is a new point of contact for compliants about helicopter activity. Click here.

8/15/05. CAAN has updated the Facts and Figures page to show the latest noise levels (Apr. 2004 to Mar. 2005) for all 32 noise monitoring stations operated by the Airports Authority. These figures were compared to the year 2000 figures ( the last full year of operation before the terrorists attacks of 9/11) and the difference noted (click here to go to the Facts and Figure page). Also, the Email Center has been updated with changes in elected officials (click here to go to the Email Center page).

7/27/05. A Caan supporter contacted us a short time ago to let us know that she had heard that the Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Department had just received a grant to look at how the people in the flight paths of Dulles and National Airports might be being harmed by the dumping of jet fuel as planes come in for landings. The concern is that there are two constituents of jet fuel that can cause non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Linking that fact with the knowledge that we have a higher than normal rate of cancer in our area would justify the concern for residents' health. This story seems to have been precipated by a farmer in Poolesville who had his organic farming certification pulled because his soil tested high for the two jet fuel constituents. Caan contacted the Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Department and the county budget office and learned that no one has received any county money to study this issue. That does not mean that the problem doesn't exist, but at this time, we are told, no one is pursuing it.

Caan wonders if the farmer's soil contamination was derived from the jet exhaust components falling to earth and over time building up to a noticeable level. The FAA insists that above 2000 feet jet exhaust constituents are dispersed and nothing reaches the ground. However, any resident living along the flight paths can show you the oily spots on their lawn furniture. What about the oily spots in their lungs? This whole issue needs to be studied. We especially need a demographic study on the incidence of cancer among residents living along the flight paths of National and Dulles Airports. Studies at other airports, like O'Hare, Boeing Field in Washington state, Birmingham, Alabama, have shown significantly higher cancer rates than those found at more upwind suburban communities.

6/27/05. Commentary. It's a good thing that the FAA/TSA/DHS has greatly restricted General Aviation operations in and out of National Airport. About a week ago, a drunk pilot and his buddies stole a small plane from the Danbury, CT. airport and flew around for three hours with no one detecting they were gone from the airport or tracking them while they were in the air. At least they had enough sense to land at theWestchester County, NY airport when they ran low on fuel. It doesn't say much for smaller civilian airport security. That doesn't surprise CAAN and is the point it has been making for the past two years. There is essentially no meaningful security at small municipal airports. It is for this reason that CAAN thinks the authorities should continue the ban at National on all but well vetted General Aviation aircraft.

Note: CAAN has added a couple of new websites to its Other Groups page. They are from the UK and Australia and concern aircraft noise and its effect on sleep. Both countries are way ahead of the U.S. in aircraft pollution awareness.

6/8/05. Commentary. Several interesting items have crossed CAAN's desk recently:

One is the result of the long running lawsuit between the Naples Florida Airport Authority and the FAA. The Appeals Court of Washington D. C. ruled that the Naples ban on Stage 2 business jets is legal and will be allowed to stand. The Government did not prove its case. Unless the FAA chooses to appeal to the Supreme Court, this is the first successful Part 161 case on record, and may mean that other municipal airports can successfully sue for noise relief for their local residents - provided that they can make a convincing case in their Part 161, an onerus set of analyses proving that a ban will cause no ecomonic loss to local aviation.

A second lawsuit pits the local residents of the Georgia DeKalb - Peachtree Airport and the airport authorities. Residents have sued the airport authorities for violating the Georgia Open Records Act and Federal environomental laws. At issue is the release of data on fees the airport charges private aircraft owners, and on noise levels around the airport. The airports authority claims that a confidential agreement between it and the FAA prevents them from releasing the data. CAAN wonders why if Washington National Airport can release its noise data, why can't the DeKalb - Peachtree Airport authority release the same type of data. Sounds like a clash of personalities who have gotten their backs up.

A new study published June 4 in the U.K. Lancet medical journal corroborates earlier studies that the learning abilities of school children are adversely affected by aircraft noise. The researchers found that exposure to aircraft noise was associated with lowered reading comprehension, even after adjustment for socioeconomic differences between high-noise and low-noise schools. Reading age in children exposed to high levels of airplane noise was delayed by up to two months in the United Kingdom and up to one month in the Netherlands.. . . Professor Stansfeld's group collected data on over 2,800 children, aged 9 to 10, from 89 primary schools located near three major airports. These included Schiphol near Amsterdam, Barajas near Madrid, and London's Heathrow. Stansfeld speculated that airplane noise gets the children's attention, blocking out more useful noises that might be helpful in learning to read. "It may also have to do with interference in the communication between teachers and children," he said. Airplane noise is also more disturbing than [automobile] traffic noise," Stansfeld said. Traffic noise is a constant background, while airplane noise is a rapidly rising noise, which can be disturbing. "It could be the disturbance, as much as the noise itself, that's interfering with the children's reading. . . " Source Article: Airplane Noise Hurts Kids' Reading and Memory. Those exposed to constant airplane noise showed delayed reading abilities, U.K. researchers find. By Steven Reinberg, HealthDay Reporter.

CAAN notes that there are 27 schools in Montgomery County that are on or near National's flight paths. Undoubtedly, there are a comparable number in Virginia and the District. CAAN wonders whether there is adequate sound proofing in these schools to prevent the above impacts.

4/12/05. Commentary. CAAN wonders how many small plane incursions it will take for the powers-that-be to realize that it is virtually impossible to make Washington D.C. secure if they let General Aviation back into National Airport. Fortunately, Wednesday's incursion was once again caused by inept piloting. Will we be that lucky the next time or the time after that? Despite improved security, these blundering pilots got within one minute of the White House -- and they weren't even trying to be stealthy. Imagine what a terrorist with a little knowledge of radar could do in a small plane at night. Our military is trying, but there's a limit to what they can do. CAAN has commented on this issue several times (click here for previous comment) and is convinced that the only solution is a total ban on General Aviation.

4/9/05. Commentary. On April 27th, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee unanimously approved bipartisan legislation that would reopen Reagan Washington National Airport to general aviation within the next two months. The bill now goes to the full House floor for a vote. Its passage is likely. Then the Senate will consider George Allen's identical companion bill. It's not known what the Senate will do. CAAN has opposed this bill as it will no doubt bring more noise especially at night when many of the business jets arrive. Maryland and Virginia citizens who oppose this bill should let their senators know what the outcome will be - MORE NOISE!

4/28/05. The Helicopter Study Executive Summary is posted on the Council of Goverments website. Here are the links to find it.

1.  Go to http://www.mwcog.org
2.  On the left-hand side of the screen, click on Committee Business
3.  Under Environment, click on CONAANDA
4.  Click on Documents
5.  Find the two documents listed under "Other Documents"

4/22/05. Commentary on airport air pollution. The press release below is from a Chicago group, Mothers Against Airport Pollution (MAAP), which has been working to defeat the Chicago O'Hare Airport expansion. Chicago O'Hare, according to statistics collected by the American Cancer Society, has a severe airport air pollution problem with high cancer rates for surrounding communities. In connection with this problem, MAAP criticizes the Kyoto Accords for not including the effects of aircraft air pollution, not just for the low altitude pollution from departures and arrivals but especially from high altitude pollution which has longer lasting effects and is carried further afield. CAAN has spoken of this issue for some years and feels its time to remove aviation's exemption from the clean air laws. The excuse that aircraft are mobile platforms and therefore should not be charged as a polluter is specious. One has only to examine the high cancer and respiratory disease statistics around airports to see that they are indeed polluters. It is time for Congress to put an end to their head-in-the-sand way of goverance and correct this oversight.

* * * * *

Arlington Heights, IL–Earth Day 2005, MOTHERS AGAINST AIRPORT POLLUTION (MAAP) is coming out in partial agreement with the Administration's views that the international community is incorrect in its assessment regarding our Climate Change and the important causes of such change.

MAAP emphasizes that, while many in the international community are focusing on industrial emissions like cars and power plants, they should be focusing on one of the major causes of climate damage…jet aircraft.

The Kyoto Treaty, which the Administration has chosen to not participate in, is based on not bad, but rather, too limited science mainly because the world aviation transportation industry has effectively excluded aircraft emissions from the treaty.

The facts are, that while emissions from automobiles and power plants are polluting the air we breathe in our lower atmosphere, it’s the emissions from airplanes in our upper atmosphere that cause the most widespread and long-term damage to our climate.

Generally, emissions released into the atmosphere below about 1,000 meters (3,000 ft), within the “mixing layer” stay below that level, creating a smog effect, sometimes visible to the naked eye. Ground transportation's major harmful health effects and about 90% of their emissions are even more local than that, falling within only hundreds of feet of the roadway.

However, emissions released above this “inversion” layer tend to exist for long periods of time and become much more significant global warming “drivers” than the low altitude emissions, due to both the direct deposit of chemicals into our upper atmosphere, many of which are not naturally occurring, and also “contrail” actions.

The economic cost for upgrading power plants and automobiles is really what the industries are screaming about; however, the commercial aviation industry has been relatively quiet on the subject and refuses to publicly acknowledge its responsibility.

A small California study was published recently that looked at just the financial cost of potential droughts due to global warming for one year in one state. The study looked at the tens of millions of dollars spent on one year of drought and fire prevention and the ripple effect to the state’s economy. Magnify that cost for the entire country, including the added cost of floods, hurricanes, lost agriculture, work time, disease and you have a huge economic crisis looming, if we don’t take action to do something now!

An international treaty that truly addresses the problem and creates a realistic solution must include aviation as a major and unique culprit; and if, emission's trading is allowed as a solution, it must be specific to the air transport industry to be effective. The solution must have international cooperation in curtailing aviation pollution expansion, while moving toward more sustainable modes of transportation, allowing aviation technology a chance to catch up.

As anyone can plainly see, it’s not just the air we breathe at stake, but also our country’s economic survival and even our own national security. We demand that both the United States government and the signers of the Kyoto Treaty fully address this issue and act responsibly and swiftly before we all reach a point of no return.

4/21/05. PUBLIC MEETINGS. CONAANDA will hold two public meetings to discuss the findings and recommendations from the Helicopter Study sponsored by Conaanda and the Maryland Aviation Administration. Citizens who are impacted by helicopters should attend one of these two meeetings. The meetings will be held as follows:

Date May 11th

First meeeting:

Place - At Council of Governments building,

777 North Capital St. N.E., Washington D.C.

Rooms 4 & 5, first floor

Time - 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.

Second meeting:

Date May 11th

Place - Aurora Highlands Recreation Center (and Library), 735 South 18th Street, Arlington, VA. Use the Hayes Street entrance to parking lot with blue sign, park and walk to library building. An easy way to get there is to come south on Eads St. and turn right onto 22th St, then right at Hayes which takes you right into the Library parking lot.

Time - 7 p.m. to 8 p.m.

CONAANDA will be posting a copy of the Executive Summary of the study on its website, < www.mwcog.org> in a day or two.

3/28/05. Commentary. Senator George Allen and Congressmen Tom Davis and James Moran have introduced bills to open National Airport to General Aviation. Presently General Aviation is banned from National except for individually approved flights. The bill numbers are S.433 and H.R. 911. These identical bills call for the Homeland Security Department to promulgate security standards for a number of general aviation airports so that private aircraft may have access to National Airport.

CAAN opposes these bills for the following reasons:

  • Private aircraft flying into National from airports without comprehensive security measures potentially threaten not only officials in government buildings but our schools, business centers, and national monuments. Of equal concern is the threat to residents located under the flight paths. That an uauthorized plane could be shot down over our neighborhoods is a constant worry. Yes, the bills lay down some general requirements on security, but they are quite broad and open to interpretation. General Aviation airports are not known for rigorous security and allowing them access to National makes us uneasy. CAAN has said it before, that a plane loaded with 200 pounds of plastic explosive can do a lot of damage. Many general aviation planes can hold far more than 200 pounds.
  • CAAN also feels that the absence of general aviation from National Airport has helped the aircraft noise problem, especially noise from nighttime arrivals and departures. Many general aviation aircraft are under 75,000 pounds and therefore not subject to federal noise standards or National's noise abatement rules. The result is noisy nighttime flights that disturb residents' sleep and therefore their health. Commercial aircraft used by the airlines, which are subject to federal standards and National's noise abatement rules, do not have many flights at night because there is no market for them.

CAAN urges all citizens who oppose the idea of opening National to General Aviation to contact the above members of Congress and ask them to withdraw their bills. Use CAAN's letters to: page to get electronic mailing instructions.


go to home page, | donate to CAAN, | get the facts, | read the CAAN newsletters, | check action alerts, | use our email center,| contact us,| file a complaint, | visit other groups, | learn about CAAN.