US Captial



bulletin board

CAAN BULLETIN BOARD ITEM HEADLINE

donate to caan

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

 

31 Jan 10 Jet noise connected to stroke, high blood pressure and heart disease says German epidemiologist
19 Dev 09 Public On-line Tracking data avaiable for National and Dulles
17 Dec 09 Study links jet noise with serious health risks!
22 Jun 09 Proposed Crystal City Development
11 Sep08 APC Meeting Notes
 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 06 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.

Study: Airport Noise Increases Risk of Strokes
By TRISTANA MOORE / BERLIN
Tuesday, Dec. 15, 2009
Time in Partnership with CNN

Living under a flight path can seriously damage your health. German researchers have discovered that people who are exposed to jet noise have a substantially increased risk of stroke, high blood pressure and heart disease. The findings are bound to provide further ammunition to anti-airport campaigners and make uncomfortable reading for world leaders at this week's climate summit in Copenhagen.

According to the unpublished study, commissioned by Germany's Federal Environment Agency, men who are exposed to jet noise have a 69% higher risk of being hospitalized for cardiovascular disease. Women living under flight paths fare even worse, logging a 93% higher rate of hospitalization with cardiovascular problems, compared with their counterparts in quiet residential areas. The study found that women who are exposed to jet noise (of about 60 decibels) during the day are 172% more likely to suffer a stroke. (Go to <www.time.com> and then type in tristana moore in the SEARCH TIME.COM box and then scroll down to Study: Airport Noise . . .)

The report, due to be published in January, is based on the analysis of data from public health insurers that were drawn from more than 1 million Germans ages 40 and over who live near Cologne-Bonn Airport in western Germany. "These figures are worrying. It's quite clear that living near an airport is very dangerous for your health," says Eberhard Greiser, an emeritus professor of epidemiology at Bremen University. "Jet noise is more dangerous than any other kind of road-traffic noise or rail noise because it is especially acute and sharp and it induces stress hormones."

People living close to Cologne-Bonn Airport also tended to suffer from psychological illnesses. "There was a higher incidence of depression among women who live near the airport," says Jens Ortscheid of the Federal Environment Agency. "This report should come as a warning signal to all governments and authorities that are planning to expand airports — there are serious health effects which need to be considered." Ortscheid says the report is in line with previous studies on the health effects of jet noise.

In a separate study commissioned by the local Bonn authorities, Greiser discovered that women near Cologne-Bonn Airport had an increased risk of developing breast cancer and leukemia. His research found that women who are exposed to 60 decibels of jet noise at night are twice as likely to contract breast cancer. "It seems women are more sensitive to jet noise than men, but I would advise everyone to think twice about living near an airport because it's not just aircraft noise which can be deadly; aircraft emissions are also dangerous," says Greiser. . . .. .

. . . Greiser is convinced his report provides unequivocal evidence of the health risks associated with jet noise. "When it comes to expanding airports, governments and the courts all over the world will have to weigh the benefits of commercial interests against the danger to public health," he says. "How many additional diseases is society prepared to accept?"

This study corroborates earlier studies that CAAN has reported on in past years, but with a larger group of people and with more serious evidence of medical consequences to people's health.

12/19/09. The Airports Authority (MWAA: mwaa.com) has, after considerable effort and encouragement from the community, provided an on-line tracking function for the public so it can use their own computers to check out who was flying over their property on any given day and time, with the added caveat that there may be up to 72 hours delay (for security purposes) in posting the data. The Airports Authority has teamed with AirScene, an ERA company that provides this type of data to many U.S. airports. To get to the tracking function, citizens may go to the Airports Authority's website or go directly to the AirScene websites for either National or Dulles. To use the MWAA website, click here for National or here for Dulles. Then click on the picture of the terminal down the page. That will take you to the AirScene website. Also, below the picture of the terminal is a users guide (in very pale gray font) for the AirScene website. If you want to go directly to the AirScene website, you first have register for an AirScene ID and password. but to get that, you must go through the MWAA to reach AirScene and then click on the complaint page box to initiate the registration form. A note: when you reach the AirScene website, there appears to be no directory. It's located in the spaces between the vertical bars.

12/17/09. A study based on German research, to be published in January, presents evidence that people living close to airport flight paths have increase risk of stroke, heart disease, high blood pressure, and for women, a higher risk of breast cancer. This tracks with smaller studies CAAN has reported going back 8 years or more. The German study collected the data from 1 million people ages 40 and above living near the Cologne-Bonn Airport. Read on:

Tristana Moore Time.com Berlin Tuesday 15th December 2009

Living under a flight path can seriously damage your health. German
researchers have discovered that people who are exposed to jet noise have a
substantially increased risk of stroke, high blood pressure and heart
disease. The findings are bound to provide further ammunition to
anti-airport campaigners and make uncomfortable reading for world leaders at
this week's climate summit in Copenhagen.

According to the unpublished study, commissioned by Germany's Federal
Environment Agency, men who are exposed to jet noise have a 69% higher risk
of being hospitalized for cardiovascular disease. Women living under flight
paths fare even worse, logging a 93% higher rate of hospitalization with
cardiovascular problems, compared with their counterparts in quiet
residential areas. The study found that women who are exposed to jet noise
(of about 60 decibels) during the day are 172% more likely to suffer a
stroke.

The report, due to be published in January, is based on the analysis of data
from public health insurers that were drawn from more than 1 million Germans
ages 40 and over who live near Cologne-Bonn Airport in western Germany.
"These figures are worrying. It's quite clear that living near an airport is
very dangerous for your health," says Eberhard Greiser, an emeritus
professor of epidemiology at Bremen University. "Jet noise is more dangerous
than any other kind of road-traffic noise or rail noise because it is
especially acute and sharp and it induces stress hormones."

People living close to Cologne-Bonn Airport also tended to suffer from
psychological illnesses. "There was a higher incidence of depression among
women who live near the airport," says Jens Ortscheid of the Federal
Environment Agency. "This report should come as a warning signal to all
governments and authorities that are planning to expand airports — there are
serious health effects which need to be considered." Ortscheid says the
report is in line with previous studies on the health effects of jet noise.

In a separate study commissioned by the local Bonn authorities, Greiser
discovered that women near Cologne-Bonn Airport had an increased risk of
developing breast cancer and leukemia. His research found that women who are
exposed to 60 decibels of jet noise at night are twice as likely to contract
breast cancer. "It seems women are more sensitive to jet noise than men, but
I would advise everyone to think twice about living near an airport because
it's not just aircraft noise which can be deadly; aircraft emissions are
also dangerous," says Greiser.

That's not what the proponents of schemes to expand airport capacity wish to
hear. In the U.K., the government faces strong opposition to its plans to
build a third runway and sixth terminal at the congested Heathrow Airport in
London. In February, campaigners are set to mount a legal challenge against
the scheme in London's high court, saying the consultation process was
flawed and the plans could prevent Britain from meeting its commitments to
lower carbon emissions.

German authorities face similar obstacles in their struggle to win consent
to boost the capacity of airports in Berlin and Frankfurt. The expansion of
Schönefeld Airport, in the southern outskirts of Berlin, has already drawn
fire from environmental campaigners and residents who are demanding a ban on
night flights. The new international airport — called Berlin Brandenburg —
Willy Brandt, after the former German Chancellor — is due to be completed by
October 2011 and will be the capital city's main hub, catering up to 27
million passengers. That means over two years, hospitals near the new
airport can expect a rise of about 5,000 patients suffering from
cardiovascular disease, including 1,350 men and women with a stroke, if
Greiser's predictions are accurate.

Plans to expand Frankfurt's airport are also controversial. In August, a
court in the state of Hesse gave a green light for the expansion of the
airport but recommended imposing tougher restrictions on nighttime flights
to protect residents from aircraft noise. The German airliner Lufthansa has
launched legal action against the night-flight curbs, saying they threaten
its freight business. But the local Green Party has renewed its calls for an
outright ban on night flights, and the legal battle is set to drag on.

"The new airport at Schönefeld is crucial for the Berlin economy, as it'll
provide up to 40,000 new jobs," Ralf Kunkel, a spokesman for Berlin
Airports' Authority, tells TIME. "By closing all the inner-city airports in
Berlin, we are relieving tens of thousands of Berliners from the perils of
aircraft noise, and so there's a positive ecological balance," he says..

Greiser is convinced his report provides unequivocal evidence of the health
risks associated with jet noise. "When it comes to expanding airports,
governments and the courts all over the world will have to weigh the
benefits of commercial interests against the danger to public health," he
says. "How many additional diseases is society prepared to accept?"

6/22/09. CAAN has received a copy of an Arlington County Board conceptual long term development plan (PLA - 5130) for Crystal City. This plan would encompass a time line of 20 to 30 years, and envisions buildings some of which reach heights of 300 feet. This plan apparently is not public knowledge, at least for the people, who should know, that CAAN has contacted. The plan should raise questions at both the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority and the FAA because it puts these high rise buildings less than 0.25 mile from Runway 15/33 and about 0.6 of a mile from the main runway, Runway 1/19. While aircraft pilots can prsently navigate their planes down the river and land when the weather is good, having to contend with these buildings at night or in inclimate weather may pose an unwarrented safety risk. Futher, if the pilot requests or an air traffic controller orders a wave-off (go around), the only direction the pilot can go is towards the west, right where these 200 to 300 foot buildings will be placed. This would definitely pose a serious safety risk not only for airline passengers but also for the people in the buildings. Below is the plan view map of the proposed development showing the layout and an expanded legend of the building heights.

development plan

9/11/08. Notes takken by CAAN from the Aviation Policy Committee, APC, (formerly the CONAANDA committee) meeting held Sept 10th.

1. The Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study for National Airport has finally been approved minus a couple of items requested by the original study committee. The FAA deleted anything within the 65 DNL contour that don't improve matters, like retraining controllers about noise abatement procedures. It also didn't approve money for a new noise monitoring system either. However, The Airports Authority expected that and went ahead and purchsed the system with their own money, at $ 1.7 million. This system, which will have citizen on-line interactive capabilities, is nearing completion and is undergoing preliminary tests and training for the staff. There are still a few additional telephone links to be established and some fine tuning of the software. The Airports Authority reported that the system should be ready for demonstration by the end of the year, and representatives will be available to communities for demos and explanations about mid 2009.

2. The noise monitoring system on-line features are expected to be:

• aircraft ID, time and date and its track in relation to where the citizen lives (you put in your address and it will show you the tracks for that date and time period). However, because of Homeland Security concerns, track data will not be available for three days after the fact.

• Ability for citizen to file complaints on-line, and get a reply via email.

3. Follow the River route. For years, CAAN has pushed for using GPS (Global Positioning System) to more accurately fly aircraft up and down the middle of the Potomac River so that the noise from arrivals and departures would be reduced for people living along the river. Finally, with help from Rep. Frank Wolf, this capability seems to be on a positive track, and we should see implementation sometime in the next eight or nine months. Why so long? The airlnes have to try out the proposed waypoints (turning points along the prescribed course) in their simulators for each type of aircraft they operate and for both departures and arrivals. Then various FAA departments like flight standards nnd flight safety have to evaluate the course and waypoints. Hence, nine months.

4. Helicopters. The APC chairman, Rob Krupicka, reported that helicopter noise stays high on the list of citizen concerns. This was corroborated by representatives from Fairfax and Arlington Counties. It should be mentioned that 90 percent of the helicopter activity is from the military. The Council of Governments (COG) will be holding a forum on helicopter noise in the near future. The point of contact is George Nichols (202.962.3355).

5. The Green Airport Initiative. Mr. George NIchols (COG) gave a presentation on the government and the Rockefeller Foundation sponsored Green Airports Initiative. This effort will create a blueprint for making airports carbon neutral. The effort will address air and water quality, noise, and energy conservation. Logan Airport in Boston is leading the way with the application of many new technologies. CAAN hopes that both National and Dulles Airports will jump in and follow suit. These two airports presently contribute 4 million tons of carbon per year to our atmosphere, and that represents 5 percent of the region's carbon. Top of Page

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.
Top of Page

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. Top of page

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.
Top of page

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
Top of Page

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.

Top of Page
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.

 

caan ltr

Top of Page

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!

Top of Page

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!

Top of Page

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.

Here's a copy of the article:

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?

Top of Page

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.

Top of Page

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?

Top of Page