The FAA delivered three PDF documents about changes to the Metroplex. You can download them here:
READ THE LETTER TO THE MID-PENINSULA COMMUNITYOn Friday afternoon, Quiet Skies Mid-Peninsula sent a summary analysis to its mailing lists. Read the letter here. It makes many of the same points that we make in our longer analysis, below. It also announced a public meeting which was held at the Los Altos Hills Council Chambers on Saturday, June 4, between 10am and 12:30pm. THE FAA MISSES THE BIG PICTUREInstead of taking a thoughtful look at the noise complaints of thousands of Bay Area residents and attempting to devise solutions, the FAA asked non-experts to make recommendations for technical procedure changes. Then, the FAA rejected a number of those recommendations out of hand because they were “not feasible” under existing FAA technical criteria. This was an entirely predictable (though disappointing) outcome: the FAA should not be asking lay people (who are not aviation experts) to recommend technical changes which must meet the FAA's own technical requirements (e.g. "overall fly-ability"). Before getting too excited about the FAA's response and the Quiet Skies NorCal ("NorCal") claims that the FAA's response is good for the Mid-Peninsula region, consider the following:
What is their target for noise reduction? Who will hold them accountable if we do not get sufficient noise reduction? Who will ensure that any noise reduction is achieved and maintained over time? Unfortunately: *not* the Select Committee appointed by Reps. Eshoo, Farr, and Speier. Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian (chairman of the Select Committee) said on Saturday, May 14, in a Los Altos Community Forum that the FAA, the Congressional Reps, and the Select Committee are not intending to stay involved with this problem for more than a few months. We need our elected officials to insist that the FAA stay engaged, commit to continuous improvement of noise, and measure (with appropriate metrics) the actual noise on the ground before and after any changes. We also need our elected officials to hold the FAA accountable for results. The combination of politicians who want to move on to other issues, and a very narrow 'menu' of options to be entertained by the FAA should have you all very worried. Addressing the Mid-Peninsula specifically, our assessment is, unfortunately, different from the Quiet Skies NorCal group's position. The leadership of that "NorCal" group lives in the Santa Cruz Mountains (Los Gatos, Saratoga, Soquel) which probably will see the maximum benefit of what the FAA has deemed feasible. For Belmont specifically, it appears there is very little in the FAA's response which will provide relief. Most noisy overflights are following the BDEGA arrival route, for which no solution is offered by the FAA. WHY THE FAA DOCUMENT FALLS SHORTConsider the following shortcomings in the FAA document:
Even those routes for which the FAA has offered to make changes (e.g. the SERFR arrivals which overfly Los Altos and Los Altos Hills), we believe any noise reduction will be relatively modest and will be short-lived. Furthermore, without any commitment by the FAA to distribute the planes more fairly, Belmont (and the Mid-Peninsula region more generally, including East Palo Alto, Woodside, Portola Valley, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Palo Alto) will continue to bear an unfair share of noisy airplane traffic—and the brunt of future increases in numbers of flights to SFO. THE RIGHT SOLUTIONWe at QSB have consciously not joined the rush to propose specific solutions. We believe that potential the remedies that will make up effective solutions are well understood. These include:
We believe that it is the responsibility of the FAA to assemble these possible remedies into viable solutions for every metroplex. If you're unhappy about the noise being dumped by the airlines with support from the FAA, contact your elected representatives and join our efforts.
|
News on Noise >