What Is an Example of an Appropriate TFR for a ‘Hazard’?

Recent news stories have chilled those of us who care about good governance, Democracy, and the critical need for a free Press. We have learned that, yet again, FAA is abusing its authority, imposing flight restrictions to shut down the Press, so they cannot obtain valuable imagery at the major environmental protest happening in eastern North Dakota. (click here to view a copy of the Cannonball, ND DAPL TFR

Readers may wonder about these TFR’s (Temporary Flight Restrictions): what are they, and what would be an appropriate TFR imposed by FAA?

Here’s an example, and not very far from North Dakota. One clearly appropriate TFR would be to protect aircraft from being hit by rocks during a large-scale surface blasting operation.20161205scp-mine-blasting-tfr-fdc-notam-6-5664-hibbing-taconite-mine-in-mn-for-20161207

Hibbing Taconite operates a massive strip mine in the Mesabi Range of Minnesota. They have operated the Hull–Rust–Mahoning Open Pit Iron Mine north of Hibbing since 1976, and online mining production data (which oddly ends in the early 1990s) shows that they shipped an average 8 million metric tons of taconite pellets during the timeframe 1987-1993. The Wikipedia page on ‘Mesabi Range’ says this is one of the world’s largest open pit iron ore mines.

An analysis of satellite imagery reveals that the mining process (documented in a series of screen captured satellite images in this scrollable PDF) is as follows:

  1. remove the vegetation and soil overburden (averaging 5 meters depth).
  2. set and detonate an array of charges over the area to be extracted.
  3. load the blasted ore layer into massive dump trucks and haul it to the processing plant, where the ore is separated/cleaned. The ore is shipped for steel production; the byproduct (water, soil, and other materials) is flowed into a tailings pond, where the sediments settle out.
  4. when the supply of extractable ore begins to run out, repeat the process, blasting a new extraction area.

The latest blast area is within the eastern part of the pit, and is the subject of the TFR on 12/7/2016. During a one hour window, FAA is excluding flights, from using airspace within a 2-mile radius of the blast, at altitudes below approximately 2,500-ft above ground level. A temporary flight restriction seems quite appropriate, as there is a real hazard.

Contrast this with the DAPL protest near Cannonball, ND. There, FAA has AGAIN abused its authority to impose flight restrictions aimed NOT at safety, but at hampering the Press. This, clearly, is wrong.

[KSMO]: Grossly Incompatible with the Community Around It

It has been a busy Fall at the Santa Monica Airport [KSMO], where FAA is flexing its administrative-legal muscles, intervening to delay city efforts to evict two private operators. The City wants to take over fuel sales and other airport services (known as ‘FBO services’), but the private FBOs do not want to accept that their leases are expired, nor do they want to give up lucrative profits. Just like FAA does not want to adhere to the agreement they struck with the city, in 1984, which meant the city could outright close the airport in July 2015.

In a recent email, Nelson Hernandez, the Senior Advisor to the Santa Monica City Manager, offered yet another update on the city’s progress. He noted that, “…on August 23, Council directed the City Manager to establish a city-owned FBO by December 31, or as soon as practicable….” He then added, there is ample precedent for airport authorities (in this case, the City of Santa Monica) setting up their own FBO services at an airport, instead of letting an out-of-state operator reap the hefty profits. He noted three airports: “…in the last two years, Fort Wayne, Greenville, and Chattanooga, created their own City FBO for similar financial reasons….” He was referring to airports in Fort Wayne, IN [KFWA], Greenville, NC [KPGV], and Knoxville, TN [KDKX].

Out of curiosity, I did some online research and confirmed that, yes, all three of these airports have city-operated FBOs. And, all three appear to be very healthy airports. Nelson’s list of three airports included one with an FAA control tower [KFWA] and two with no control tower [KPGV] and [KDKX]). Here’s the data on these three airports, with [KSMO] added for comparison:

    • KFWA: 70 based aircraft, a 12,000ft runway and an 8,000ft runway. FAA data shows the airport had 36,100 landings and takeoffs in 2015, down 71% from its peak year (124,000 ops in 2000). [3,400 acres, surrounded by farmland]
    • KPGV: 71 based aircraft, a 7,200ft runway, and a 5,000ft runway. Form 5010 shows 48,200 annual operations in the year ending 5/30/2016 (this is a rough estimate, as there is no tower). [872 acres, surrounded by forest, farmland and limited residential development]
    • KDKX: 167 based aircraft, and a single, 3,500ft runway. Form 5010 shows 68,400 annual operations in the year ending 4/30/2013 (this is a rough estimate, as there is no tower). [200 acres, surrounded by a river, a large quarry, and farmland]
    • KSMO: 249 based aircraft, and a single 5,000ft runway. FAA data shows the airport had 90,200 annual operations in 2015, down 62% from its peak year (234,800 ops in 1991). [215 acres, surrounded by dense residential neighborhoods; and, within the airport, substantial footage is presently subleased to non-aviation business uses, generating profits for the FBOs.]

I noticed something else, too, which was a bit startling. You’ll see it starkly presented in the three image-pairs below. When you look at how Santa Monica’s runway is shoe-horned into the neighborhoods, and when you compare it to the ‘airport normality’ of these other three, far less crowded airport locations, it just jumps out at you. And, when you look at the series of images showing how many houses were removed in recent years for a runway expansion at a very slow Greenville airport, you just have to wonder how in the world people can coexist with business jets so close to their Santa Monica homes. I mean, if FAA moves people out of their homes in Greenville, what is it about Santa Monica homeowners that makes them less at risk than North Carolinians? And given that there are so many Santa Monica homes, would it not make the most sense to simply close the airport??

Clearly, each of these three airports is far more compatibly located than is the Santa Monica Airport. In fact, looking at these three, I just have to say: if I was the new FAA Administrator, I’d be quick to ask my new highly-paid subordinates:

“Why are we NOT working with the city to expedite closing this airport? After all, it is grossly incompatible with the community (look at all those houses, and so close to the runway!), it is clearly a health hazard, and we have plenty of other LA Basin airports and longer, safer runways to serve the business jets and general aviation, all of which are far below their historic high traffic levels. So, when are we going to start serving everyone, not just our buddies who employ us after we retire?”

20161201scp-ksmo-vs-kdkx-sat-views-w-rwy-lengths-comparing-airport-compatibility-impact-on-people

20161201scp-ksmo-vs-kpgv-sat-views-w-rwy-lengths-comparing-airport-compatibility-impact-on-people

20161201scp-ksmo-vs-kfwa-sat-views-comparing-airport-compatibility-impact-on-people


UPDATE, 12/6/2016: — per a request, click here for a PDF version of this entire Post.

A NextGen Noise Victim Imagined Receiving This Letter…

Image

…it’s not a real letter, just what they assumed they would hear from FAA and the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey (PANYNJ), if there was a rare case of authorities simply being honest and speaking the truth. In this example, they might be a sleep-deprived resident of Flushing or Malverne or Roslyn; somebody sick of the ‘Arc of Doom’, or the TNNIS Climb, or other ATC procedures issued to jam repetitive airline flights low and slow and loud, in and out of the hub airports at LaGuardia and JFK.kjfk-20161129scp-wake-up-residents-of-nassau-county-hypothetical-letter-by-faapanynj

Obviously, the noise onslaught needs to end, and the Av-Gov players (FAA, airport authorities, airlines, etc.) need to adopt new policies and standards that properly consider noise and air pollution impacts.

[QUOTE]: Shuster Again Carrying Water for Airline Lobby

Aside

QUOTE

“…Shuster is in the back pocket of the A4A. Anything he says comes from the A4A, and doesn’t represent anyone but them….”

– a reader comment to the ANN article, “Shuster: IG Report Underscores Need for ATC Reform”

Click here to read the source article for this reader comment, or click here for an archived PDF copy. The article is based on this 11/10/2016 DoT-IG Report: ‘Total Costs, Schedules, & Benefits of FAA’s NextGen Transformational Programs Remain Uncertain’.

Aerial Imagery: Water Cannons Aimed at People, in the North Dakota Cold

This drone video says it all. This is why FAA should NOT be abusing it’s ‘aviation safety’ authority to impede journalism:

Let’s be very clear. Imposing a TFR does nothing to assure ‘aviation safety’. Rather, it aims solely to ensure the public is left ignorant about the harsh and shameful reality of what the state and federal government are failing to stop, near Cannonball, ND.

The only hazards at this location are being intentionally and arbitrarily created by security forces, some privately hired and some on the public payroll. What these men and women are doing is disgusting (and, my guess, most of them were cute little boys loved by moms, long, long ago). They are abusing their authorities while knowingly and needlessly endangering citizens with a legitimate protest. Disgusting.


See also:

GAO’s Dillingham, video interview by ‘Government Matters’

This is how compromised the ‘watchdog’ GAO is: creating videos laced with promo statements about NextGen. Unbelievable.
The video interviewer opens with, “Before we get into the numbers, what is NextGen, and what will it do for the American people and the aviation system when it’s fully deployed?” Dillingham then proceeds to offer the Av-Gov scripted salespitch on the alleged needs for and benefits of NextGen. The effect is that GAO, rather than doing critical and objective analysis, is instead lending credibility to the NextGen fraud.

In context, the timing of this interview closely follows release of the latest GAO Report on November 17th: ‘NextGen – Information on Expenditures, Schedule, and Cost Estimates, FY 2004-2030’ (click on the link to view/download a copy of the 13-page report, archived at aiREFORM).

A Good Website to Learn About ATC History: ‘ATC – 25 Best Years (1958-1983)’

Here’s a suggestion, for those who want to learn more about the evolution of ATC and technologies used in ATC: check out the website by retired air traffic controller Ron Fandrick. Ron’s career started in 1969, and included certifications from Chicago Center to Oakland Center, and some mid-career time spent at FAA Headquarters.

The ATC – 25 Best Years (1958-1983) website is laid out with a set of ‘Albums’. Ron has put a considerable amount of effort into finding and compiling photos, newsclips, and other data relevant to each event in the FAA/ATC timeline, including accidents, technological advances, the introduction of new aircraft, and much more.

The images alone are invaluable in showing how far ATC has evolved from FAA’s inception during the Eisenhower administration, in 1958. 20161130cpy-shrimp-boats-f-atcs-25-best-years-1958-to-1983-album-3-by-r-fandrick20161130cpy-radar-display-presentations-transition-from-horizontal-to-upright-f-atcs-25-best-years-1958-to-1983-album-3-by-r-fandrickBack then, center (aka ‘enroute’ or ARTCC) controllers used a primitive horizontal radar display and pushed flight-ID ‘shrimpboats’ across to ‘track’ flights, all while pinching their head in a visegrip headset trying to hear crackling transmissions through radio static … and they made it work! Since then, the old equipment has been upgraded many times; shrimpboats are now just a distant (and, even somewhat incredible) memory.

Despite the politicized misinformation being pushed today by FAA and industry players, our ATC technology and systems have evolved quite substantially. For example, by 1983, most of the following improvements were made for the radar displays:

  • horizontal presentations became upright (enabling easier coordinate between adjacent ATC positions)
  • secondary targets were added (enhancing the radar, reducing an early problem of target intermittancy)
  • digital datablocks were added (enabling controllers to see the whole picture, without reference to paper strips, and also enabling controllers to add information tags useful in coordinating with adjacent controllers)
  • conflict alert and resolution functionality was added (software automation that increased controller productivity)
  • automated handoff functionality was added (again, substantially reducing controller workload, as the computers eliminated earlier requirements to punch a button and verbally coordinate each flight to the next ATC sector)
  • the radar presentation was digitized, to enable full color display enhancements, mosaicing of data from multiple radar systems (including weather radar), time estimates, separation ‘bubbles’ and lines projecting positions X-minutes ahead, precise background maps, and many other valuable functionalities
20161130cpy-r-d-side-image-with-2col-strip-bay-f-atcs-25-best-years-1958-to-1983-album-13-by-r-fandrick

A typical ATC sector workstation, as it would appear by the early 1990s, staffed by a radar controller (R-side) and Data controller (D-side). The R-side’s left hand works a slew ball (similar to a computer mouse), and his right hand works an alphanumeric keyboard. The D-side manages the paper flight strips and handles landline communications, such as to coordinate with the next ATC sector. The D-side anticipates what the R-side needs done (marking the paper strips, punching buttons to call/coordinate with other sectors, scanning for problems and assist the R-side to resolve them, etc.), and accomplishes those tasks while the R-side focuses on handling all radio communications. Note some strips are ‘cocked’ as a very efficient method for the D-side to help the R-side manage the full picture. Note also the radar presentation includes datablocks showing flight ID, speed, altitude, destination, etc.

Of course, the improvements have continued over the past three decades, too. GPS was incorporated into air navigation in the mid-1990s; satellite communications, including via (text) datalink, has been used for decades now. So, when Bill Shuster, Nick Calio, Paul Rinaldi et al try to sell you on the ‘need’ for NextGen as a ‘transformative’ technology upgrade, well, they’re fibbing. It’s that simple.

Here are two links to help you enjoy this website:

WTO Finding: Boeing’s 777 Project was Illegally Subsidized by State Legislature

LeehamNews.com does a great job covering the commercial aviation manufacturing industry, especially the often complex politics surrounding Boeing in the U.S. versus Airbus in the E.U. The latest blogpost, ‘Airbus, Boeing claim victory in today’s WTO ruling over Washington State tax breaks’, goes deep into the WTO panel report that was just issued today: ‘Dispute Settlement – Dispute DS487, United States — Conditional Tax Incentives for Large Civil Aircraft’. Essentially, WTO found Boeing’s 777 project was illegally subsidized by tax incentives created by the state legislature, in House Bill ESSB 5952. That legislation, passed in November 2013, was aimed at securing local jobs, thus improperly favoring the local economy.

This subject area is a bit off-topic for aiREFORM but worth archiving here, as it sheds further light on the extent of subsidy that props up aviation. We often hear that airports and aviation are huge catalysts for local economic development. Well, it turns out, this line is just more spin to dupe elected officials and citizens into accepting the latest aviation development scheme. In most examples, subsidies such as the huge tax reductions and tax credits given to Boeing, come with substantial costs elsewhere. Two key areas where the costs are transferred elsewhere:

  1. somebody has to pay the taxes that are excused when legislators offer sweet deals to large corporations; that burden falls more heavily on the regular Joe taxpayers, the ones raising families, for example.
  2. when jobs are sucked up into concentrated mega-factories, like the new wing production plant in Everett (at KPAE), those jobs no longer exist dispersed over numerous smaller communities. Time and again, those small communities start to shut down and become economic wastelands with relic facilities now standing silent.

When viewed objectively the ‘net economic benefit’ becomes just a wash, really nothing to get excited about.

Much like our federal laws have enabled banks to concentrate and become ‘too big to fail’, laws related to aviation have enabled airlines, airports, and manufacturers to concentrate, becoming ‘too big to function without imposing excessive impacts’. These impacts need to be objectively addressed, not glossed over because they do not conform to a propaganda campaign. Congress has failed us big time, these past few decades, and the trend does not look promising.


UPDATE, 11/29/2016: — Two months ago, WTO made a similar finding, but precisely opposite, finding illegal subsidies of Airbus by the EU. There is an apparent history of legal busy-bodies doing a huge amount of work and rendering critical decisions, but in the end taking no real action to change anything. This pattern is much like we see with FAA’s faux-regulation of aviation interests.
The documentation is deep, but a fascinating read. There is much to be learned about the politics (and complete absence of free and open markets) in aviation, by looking at related articles and past WTO actions. See, for example:
  • 9/22/2016 – a 574-page report issued by WTO, in response to the United States’ complaint against the European Union (EU)
  • 9/22/2016 – 154-page Addendum to the above report. See in particular the Executive Summaries submitted by the two parties.
  • 9/22/2016 – LeehamNews Post summarizing the report issued by WTO.
  • 11/29/2016 – 154-page Addendum to the above report. See in particular the Executive Summaries submitted by the two parties.

FAA Again Caught Undermining The Peoples’ Access to News & Data

20161122-dapl-water-cannon-at-night-image

Water cannons at night, in North Dakota. Late November 2016. This is ‘the land of the free and the home of the brave’?

A major news story has been largely ignored by the mainstream media: the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) protest in North Dakota. Nonetheless, stories and images are leaking to the world, and embarrassing our nation, not just for the excessively militarized brute force being used, but for the silent complicity of higher officials, all the way to the White House.

Lacking media coverage, people get creative to cover the story themselves, and drones are a very safe and efficient way to capture images, to share the story with the rest of the world. The response by local law enforcement has included shooting down the drones, which itself creates a substantial hazard to the protestors below. So, after a lot of delay, FAA over-asserts their authority to impose airspace restrictions.

Former NTSB member John Goglia offers some excellent inquiry with a recent Forbes news article (PDF copy below):

Click on the image below for a scrollable view; the PDF file may be downloaded.

Goglia looks closely at a recent blogpost by Peter Sachs, at DroneLawJournal. He notes FAA was caught shutting down journalism two years ago, after Michael Brown was shot and killed on a Sunday by a cop in Ferguson, MO. But, there was yet another example in recent years, though slightly different, also under current FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. mayflower-spill-pic-replace-deadlinkRemember when another pipeline BURST and flooded the neighborhood streets of Mayflower, AR, and then proceeded to pollute a nearby fishing lake? Yup, same routine there, too. In April 2013, FAA not only issued airspace closures, but they actually had the audacity to delegate authority for that airspace to a pipeline employee! Here are links to three aiREFORM Posts:

FAA is grandiose (and dismissive to the rest of the world) when they declare they are all about safety and efficiency. That’s utter bullshit. Safety is taken care of by operators and manufacturers who, if they ignored safety, would get slaughtered by the legal system. And, efficiency is similarly an objective clearly in the best interest of operators to achieve. So, when you get down to the core of it, FAA’s TRUE ROLE has become nothing more than parasitism: they feed off the money that flows into aviation (hence, the aviation customers, we the people, are their parasitic host) so as to prop up FAA’s programs and the eventual pensions of those FAA employees.

When they stand in the way of a fundamental right, such as journalism covering a major news story, FAA serves corporate and ruling oligarchic interests, not we the people. A shrewd President would never allow this, and would demand the immediate retirement of an FAA Administrator with the pattern we see here: first Mayflower, then Ferguson, and now DAPL. This is not acceptable.

Why They are so Upset in Malverne and Under the L.I. ‘Arc of Doom’

Below are two scrollable PDF plots, one for KJFK Runway 4L departures impacting Malvern, and the other for KJFK Runway 22L arrivals using the infamous low-altitude ‘Arc of Doom’. Both plots were extracted from the recent noise study report done for FAA, by ESA, posted online at the airport authority PANYNJ website (report referenced in this article). Be sure to expand the view to see the finely detailed color-dots for these routes.

Click on the images below for a scrollable view; click here for a downloadable copy of the first PDF (Departures Runway 4L) and here for a downloadable copy of the second PDF (Arrivals Runway 22L) .

Generally speaking, repetitive noise impacts are more problematic the closer the flights are to the ground, but impacts tend to abate to a tolerable level at or above 8,000 feet altitude (blue dots on the Departure PDF, above).

Note also the extraordinary added distances being flown for these arrivals (see the light gray dots, at or above 6,000 altitude). Anyone who has been a passenger on a flight to KJFK has experienced the interminable arrival path that chugs along at low altitudes. This added work by ATC is created by too many flights, in too small an arrival window, forcing controllers to over-control the flights. The simplest solution, to reduce delays and noise and air pollutants, and to optimize efficiency, is for FAA to start managing capacity: setting and enforcing much lower hourly arrival rates and departure rates.

And What are PANYNJ Authorities Doing About It?

After years of complaints, Part 150 Studies were ordered for KJFK and KLGA. This formal process is designed to create an enormous volume of documents, many of which are almost indecipherable, to feed the illusion that citizens have an opportunity to aid in a decision-making process. In truth, it is all only for show; there is no meaningful or effective citizen involvement.

Here’s a challenge: go to this website (PANYNJ’s official webpage for the KJFK Part 150 Study) and spend a few minutes reading it and intuitively navigating. Try to learn from it, and see what valuable info/data you can find. More likely than not you will quickly leave your exploration, because PANYNJ, FAA and their well-paid pro-aviation consultant have created such an incredible volume of technobabble, and presented it in such a bizarre layout, that only the most obsessive individuals will press onward past the many click-deadends and long download times. I located some documents and spent well over an hour downloading the October 2016 ‘Draft Noise Exposure Map (NEM) Report’; 13 PDF files, measuring 1,349 pages (149Mb) total. Just finding and copying the documents is a substantial effort, and then to read all those pages? Do they really expect the average concerned citizen to do this much work??? Of course not.

If you liked that challenge, do it again at this website (same Part 150 page design, this time for KLGA!).

This appears to be what has evolved. Whether it is for a small and nearly dead airport in MN, AR, or wherever) or a huge chunk of airspace such as the LA Basin or the NYC area, FAA has evolved the public participation process (a requirement dating back to even before the 1946 Administrative Procedures Act) to make sure the average citizen is blown away with so much documentation (and much of it superfluous) that they simply give up even trying.


UPDATE, 11/25/2016: — A recent email by a resident with Plane Sense 4 LI points out repetitive noise impacts on Malverne, caused by approaches to LaGuardia. Click here to view an archived copy.