‘Stay Grounded’: International Action has Begun, to Curtail Aviation Excesses

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

Over the past year, activists from around the world held a series of lengthy teleconferences to craft a position paper,’ 13 Steps for a Just Transport System and for Rapidly Reducing Aviation‘. This is a great group of people, concerned about aviation excesses in the face of unmitigated climate change.

Here are a few links:

  • Action weeks: the first two weeks of October 2018
  • Support: how you can support the Stay Grounded effort
  • Position Paper: download your own PDF copy of an excellent analysis (English version)

An example of recent activism was the protest by Stay Grounded leaders, at an EU aviation summit. Click here for a video, with a great protest speech. This is the kind of calm and factual activism we need across the planet, to rein in the damages and injustices being caused by excessive aviation growth.

Given the depressingly evident impotence and indifference of many U.S. elected officials, and the captured status of FAA as an industry-servant, we need this kind of activism here in the U.S. Can we return to our roots, as strong individuals who speak truth to power and demand meaningful civic involvement, or has this become a relic of our past American glory?

FAA Investigates: Police Helicopter ‘Crashing’ of a Football Tailgate Party

Who’s idea was it, anyway, to use a helicopter to fly over tailgating crowds ‘to make crowd announcements’?

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

OK, let’s suppose a nearby nuclear reactor is melting down, say Three Mile Island (though I understand, yes, it is not actually near the stadium Lot 23 area for Penn State football games!). But, just to put this in perspective, would it be a good idea for a helicopter pilot with an announcement system to swoop down very low over a crowd to issue an urgent message aimed at triggering an immediate orderly evacuation? Well, yes and no. First, how likely is it the announcement will not be heard over the ‘whop whop’ roar of the helicopter? And, second, how smart is it to apply this level of intervention, this form of technology, to potentially trigger a stampede? If there is an urgent need for people to vacate an area, sending in a helicopter at tree-top level or even lower is like throwing gas onto a fire. Not a good idea.

Now, is it surprising that this pilot flew so low, endangering so many people? No, not at all. FAA’s regulations for Minimum Safe Altitude (officially known as FAR 91.119) are carefully worded so as to exempt helicopters from the ‘1,000-ft above’ requirement that all fixed wing aircraft have to comply with. Well, sort of. The ambiguity within FAR 91.119 creates a barn door wide enough to fly a helicopter through … or, at least, it creates opportunities for FAA to justify taking no enforcement actions. The key phrase within FAA 91.119 is this:

“(Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below) … an altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.”

Check out the videos online, by tailgaters at this Penn State incident. How was this helicopter going to safely execute an emergency landing without actually crushing or chopping people and ‘property’ below in the congested, open air assembly of tailgaters? And, when the impact causes fuel to burst out and ignite, how does the PA State Police mitigate the ‘undue hazards’ of being burnt to death?

Let’s put this in FAA’s perspective: aviation is good, people are dumb, and we, as the federal ‘regulator’ with sovereign authority for all things U.S. aviation, do everything we can to grow aviation commerce and allow even stupid aviation activities.

  • From FAA’s perspective, why not allow the use of helicopters swooping low and back-and-forth to herd wild horses or cattle … or PEOPLE?
  • From FAA’s perspective, why not ignore the obvious hazard and imprudence of using helicopters for drying cherries, or suspending enormous brush-trimming devices? Why not also ignore the ‘candy drops’ and ‘turkey drops’? After all, candy drops help sell aviation to kids, the same way turkey drops and heli-hunting sell aviation to, well, redneck yahoos … so, both are best ignored, right? [Check out this Heli-hunting video. with two shooters on the left side of a low-flying Robinson R44. Try to estimate the altitude, but try not to ponder too hard the possibility that any human or animal (a dog or livestock?) might be within the aerial hunt zone.]

  • From FAA’s perspective, why not pretend to care about safety – better yet, make ‘safety’ our most over-used word – by creating rules such as FAR 91.119 but carefully including enough ambiguity to ensure every errant pilot can walk away from enforcement – that is, so long as they are not killed by their own stupidity? Did you know: the FAR 91.119 language protects persons and property ‘ON THE SURFACE’, but the pilot (a person) and aircraft (a form of property) are NOT ‘on the surface’, and are therefore disposable?
  • From FAA’s perspective, why not perpetuate a convenient privilege for those people who choose aviation as their hobby or profession? Why not continue FAA’s ongoing failure to meaningfully investigate and enforce violations of FAR 91.119 and other FARs? After all, we wouldn’t want to dampen demand for flying, would we?

It amazes me that FAR 91.119 is so riddled with ambiguity, almost as much as it amazes me that FAA does not really give a damn about enforcing safe practices … at least not when they interfere with the expansion of air commerce. In this context, I suspect FAA will do nothing to correct the excesses that happened with the state police helicopter, at the Penn State tailgate last Saturday.

FAA investigates? We all have our doubts.

Airline Consolidation: Just Like the Banks?

A friend shared an article that included a variation of this diagram about bank consolidation.
Notice the pattern: banks consolidated from 37 in 1994, to 19 in 2001, to 11 in 2005, and to only 4 in 2009. Banks became less accountable and more inclined to gouge customers for absurdly high ‘fees’ (e.g., stuff like $31 for each ‘overdraft’ debit card usage, even for $1 or $5 purchases … they offered so many conveniences, but not the easy service of alerting customers and rejecting the debit request at the point of sale). The greed-driven policies at the consolidated banks eventually created a financial meltdown. They were labeled ‘too big to fail’, so as to justify the enormous bailout by federal officials, using public funds. Our public funds, used to reward the overpaid bank greedsters.
It struck me that the diagram looks just like what has happened with U.S. airlines, where today we are ‘served’ by only six airlines and the so-called ‘regional’ feeders they contract with. Our final six are American, Delta, Southwest, United, Alaska and JetBlue.

If there is one big trend that we can all agree is happening in the U.S. and across the planet, it is industry consolidation and globalization. The gap between big and small, and the fraction controlled by big, just keeps growing. We now have fewer (but larger) banks, grocers, hospitals and immediate-care chains, gas stations, telecom providers, etc. It is also reflected in the widening wealth gap between the 1% and the 99% … and, again, not just in the U.S., but also in corrupt banana republics and across the globe.

We only hope that this trend is not driven by corruption even in nations like the U.S. We only hope that, if in fact this trend is as unsustainable as it appears to be, the ‘market correction’ will be peaceful and not too painful. Are we becoming the biggest Banana Republic in the history of the world? We only hope not.

Yesterday’s SkyJustice Phone Conference

The featured speaker at the 9/29/2018 Sky Justice National Network monthly phone conference was Jim Spensley. Airline and airport consolidation was front and center. A few of the many interesting points discussed included:

  1. The ‘final-6’ airlines are consolidating their schedules into fewer (but larger) hubs; i.e., while a few airports are seeing growth in annual operations counts, most airports have declined substantially for decades now. [for data, see the aiREFORM analysis at this 1/17/2018 Post (1990 vs 2005 vs 2016 Operations: Exposing FAA’s Inaccurate Forecasts), and see also this 10/23/2017 aiREFORM Post (NAS Annual Ops Have Declined for Decades Now, And NextGen Is Just Hype)]
  2. Most commercial service airports within the U.S. National Airspace System (NAS) offer monopoly or near-monopoly service; i.e., the predominant pattern is either only one airline offers direct service between two airports, or one airline has strong dominance on that airport-pair. This pattern appears to be an antitrust collusion between airlines; it also appears that federal regulators, including DoT, DoJ and FAA, are willingly not acting to end this antitrust collusion. [see this 2014 aiREFORM analysis (A Table Showing the ASPM-77 Airports – (Peak Years, Traffic Declines, and Trends Toward Airline Monopolies)]
  3. While the general public assumes there is an economy of scale that lowers unit costs and thus causes ticket prices to go down at larger hub airports, the opposite appears to be happening. Two key reasons are:
    1. the monopoly power held by the hub-dominant airline enables them to get away with setting much higher prices; this is especially true on those feeder routes to/from cities served by no other airlines.
    2. the airport authority accumulates an enormous debt burden for massive airport infrastructure expansion, all of which is predicated on continued unsustainable growth rates. In other words, a balloon is inflated, catalyzed by FAA grant funding and laws that incentivize hub concentration, and the balloon becomes primed to burst. The sudden popping of an airport hub balloon can be triggered by a general economic downturn, or it can happen if/when the hub-dominant airline arbitrarily decides to move to another airport; a prime example is the former Delta hub near Cincinnati [KCVG].
  4. There are other, environmental costs associated with these consolidated hubs, borne by residents and other ‘non-airport stakeholders’, but both FAA and airport authorities work hard to ignore and even deny these costs. The consolidation of flights into fewer but larger hubs causes more noise impacts (both persistent and repetitive noise patterns), more air pollution (thus more health costs), more destruction of residential neighborhoods and communities due to ‘land-grabbing’ by the airport authority, etc.
  5. One of Jim’s key points was that the airport authority has considerable power to set policies, to choose to NOT expand excessively … but the airport authorities tend to be beholden to the airlines, especially the hub-dominant airline. Why would someone like the Port of Seattle, PANYNJ, or Massport be so subservient to the hub-dominent airlines? It all comes down to money, needed to expand plans (and annual bonuses, in some cases), and also needed to pay off past and future development debt. The fear of an abrupt airline departure – like Delta did at KCVG, American did at KSTL, and United is now doing at KCLE – creates a peonage, rendered on a massive scale.

Solutions?

So, who can solve the growing impact problems caused by airline consolidation and hub concentration? If both FAA and airport authorities are effectively captured, serving industry, we can expect they will continue to play a good-cop-bad-cop game, passing citizens back-and-forth to each other while offering no answers and no solutions. This is where we are today. It is why we depend even more on our elected officials. Especially in Congress, we need them to change the laws; take back what was taken from the people in the 1990 passage of ANCA [see this 6/9/2015 aiREFORM Post (Wendell Ford’s Edsel: Many of FAA’s NextGen Dirty Tricks were Also Used in the 1990 Passage of ANCA)]; restore local control, to include ensuring local residents have power over their airport authority; even, impose a steep carbon tax on aviation fuel, so that excessive airline hubbing is disincentivized.


See also:

Who is to Blame – and Who Can Fix – the Impacts Around U.S. Hub Airports?

A Short Video by Tyndall Centre

The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research created this short video:

The most important fact laid out in the video is that aviation technologies are already highly evolved and, as such, there are no great gains to be achieved with further technological improvements. Thus, impacts need to be addressed by reducing number of flights and total distances flown.

To take real actions to correct this situation, we need to tame the marketing that fools people into thinking aviation is cheap and good for the economy, while obscuring the environmental and social impacts. We also need to change tax laws and aviation fees, to remove incentives for excessive flying and hub concentration.

The smartest moves now are actually quite simple: change the fee and tax structure on aviation, so as to disincentivize aviation consumption. We need to impose a steep carbon tax on all aviation fuels; we need to impose passenger fees that are proportional to distance flown; and, most importantly, the fee and tax revenues need to be spent OUTSIDE of aviation, in other economic sectors.

Read this, to Start Understanding the ‘Greener Skies’ Fraud

Click here to read an interesting article about the ‘Greener Skies’ program fraudulently pushed by FAA, Port of Seattle (POS), and industry, and approved by FAA in late 2012.

‘Greener Skies’ was pitched, but it actually never really happened. David Suomi (now FAA Regional Administrator) admitted as much when doing his 4/25/2017 spiel for the Port of Seattle Commissioners. Conspicuously, ‘Greener Skies’ was focused ONLY on west-side arrivals. Why? Because if FAA had tried to create similar concentrated arrival streams over Bellevue, the entire proposal would have been killed by the residents below.

‘Greener Skies’ was supposed to bring enormous impact reductions. The key design element was to flow more than half of all Sea-Tac arrivals in over Elliott Bay, miles from homes, thus with almost no noise impact. Are they doing that, nearly six years later? No, not at all, not even in light traffic, and not even on clear Fall days perfect for flying. Why are the Elliott Bay arrivals so rare? Because the air traffic controllers have to fit all arrivals together, into the final landing flow; i.e., they need to merge both the west flow (especially the HAWKZ arrivals over Vashon Island) and the east flow (the CHINNS downwinds coming up from the southeast entry post near Mt. Rainier, as well as the GLASR feed from the northeast entry post near Leavenworth). The ‘Greener Skies’ design was fatally flawed, by the simple fact it intentionally DID NOT try to create RNP procedures for all the arrivals on the east side. The net result is kind of like having the tires aligned on your car… but not all tires, just the left side.

A half-assed design that cannot produce the desired results, and is simply doomed to fail. That is ‘Greener Skies’.

 

‘Rush to Reauthorize’, or should we bear down and ‘Get it Right This Time’?

The two houses of our national Congress have reportedly hashed out some details that may enable them to quickly reauthorize FAA. Is this good, or is this not so good? Should we ‘Rush to Reauthorize’, or should we bear down and ‘Get it Right This Time’?

I am for the latter, for three reasons. First, we are stuck in a rut (aviation over-expansion at all costs, with no accountability) that will not change, so long as we apply bandaids onto dirty wounds. Second, when we rushed to reauthorize the last time, it gave us horrible new laws like expanded CatEx; simply, rushed reauthorizations NEVER turn out well. And, third, the key lobbyist for the airlines (A4A) announced today, they ‘applaud’ this Congressional progress … which, frankly, coming from A4A, is like the smell near a run-over skunk; i.e., if A4A is for it, then whatever ‘progress’ Congress has made is almost certainly filled with industry privileges and community damages.

Some activists will be excited to see a glimpse of ‘progress’, too. But, be careful to not feel so beaten down that ANYTHING even slightly positive becomes something to thrill over. It is much like how people dying of hypothermia feel oddly warm just before their end. Stay focused; stay strong; know what industry and FAA are aiming to pull off; and, demand real reforms.

Reclaiming FAA for ‘WE THE PEOPLE’

Here is a PDF with a short analysis of the current situation, by aiREFORM:

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

It is worth repeating…

…We can have a federal agency that serves WE THE PEOPLE, not just industry. We can benefit from aviation, while also ensuring aviation does not diminish our lives. And, this industry is strong enough to prosper without playing FAA and too many elected officials like puppets. But, nothing can happen, nothing will happen, until Congress steps up to the plate and reclaims FAA.

Demand real reforms at FAA. If this agency is too arrogant and too power-obsessed to heel, take away their power. Give that power back to the people, where it belongs.

Now is the time, Congress; you need to step up and serve the People, not the corporations.

10 Sample Questions for the Sea-Tac SAMP ‘Scoping’

More fine work by Quiet Skies Puget Sound. Check out the 2-page PDF below, their sample questions to try and get Port of Seattle (POS) to fully address health and environmental impacts within the so-called ‘Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP)’ review process.

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

A quick note adding on to #9 of the suggested questions in the PDF above (“What if Your Projections Are Wrong?”): aiREFORM! did a quick analysis of monthly operations at Sea-Tac, using FAA’s own ATADS data, and it suggests substantial growth is again happening this year. In fact, at the current pace, the operations total for 2018 will be roughly 439,600, an annual increase of 5.6%. This is what happens when airlines double down on profits via hub through-passengers; we see impactful growth rates that have no connection whatsoever to the local population or economy (i.e., it is purely airline ‘demand’, accommodated by the airport authority and FAA).

And one closing comment…

That POS has chosen to add the word ‘Sustainable’ in front of this latest airport master plan is quite out of touch with a stark reality: aviation is the most fossil-fuel intensive activity we arbitrarily do, and as such aviation is the fastest way to further pump up record CO2 levels and further destroy the future climate and habitability of our planet. Calling this ‘sustainable’ is like putting lipstick on a pig to make her ‘pretty’ (I mean no offense to pigs; they are beautiful too, after all).

‘We Have A Dream’ Letter

Another good example of activism, this time a letter from Plane Sense 4 Long Island, to the acting FAA Administrator. Their dream is shared by people across the nation, who need Congress and FAA to repair the damages being done under the NextGen program. Check it out:

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

Are the SAMP Open Houses Really Just ‘Propaganda Events’?

I attended a ‘Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP) scoping Open House last night, for one of the fastest-growing commercial airports in the U.S.: Sea-Tac, serving the Seattle and Puget Sound [KSEA]. There is a lot to report, but even more, a lot to think about, especially this: what can I say to empower other impacted citizens so they can be as effective as possible when attending these events?

As a retired FAA employee (an air traffic control whistleblower, no less) who spent a full career working within the FAA culture and then embarked on a decade of research on how the FAA work culture has performed while implementing NextGen, I may have some insights to share. One of those insights is simply this: from what I saw at Highline Community College, on September 10th, these Port of Seattle (aka, POS) scoping Open Houses are not even a dog-and-pony-show; they are just occasions for industry players to check off a list pretending to engage citizens, while also spewing out their pro-aviation propaganda. And, just to be clear, this is not an aberration; this is par for the course, as it has been for at least a decade; at nearly all of our airports, when public forums related to environmental impacts and master plans and such are held, they have generally devolved into just a gamed process, a charade … which is why lots of people choose not to attend. [NOTE: they want more of us to not attend, which is itself the imperative defining why YOU MUST ATTEND, if you care about your home and health!]

What To Expect When You Attend

A common event design is to set up a signup area and feed the ‘signed-in guests’ into the next room, where they can sequentially (or randomly) view a series of whiteboards. Each whiteboard represents an element of the review process, such as ‘noise’ or ‘air quality’ or ‘water quality’. Now, ideally, each whiteboard actually displays some valuable information – perhaps a design, a satellite view, a table, a list of project elements, etc. Well, that is the ideal. At the POS Open House last night, more than half the whiteboards were, well, just empty white boards. Nada. Zilch. In fact, the only area where they had consistently replaced the blank whiteboards was at the front end: the first half dozen were a blatant effort to dupe us into thinking the Seattle economy and the Seattle population were ‘demanding’ the growth in air travel. The very first whiteboard had some words laying out this spiel, and included a list of prominent Seattle-area businesses, including Costco, PACCAR, Amazon, etc. So, we are supposed to start to see, ‘gee, if Sea-Tac does not expand, maybe these big companies will leave town’. (hint: they likely will not and in fact, if things decline and they do, most of us will applaud their riddance) Two whiteboards later was a very deceptive graph with a green line and a blue, showing population growth as well as airport passenger growth. More about that graph later in this Post.

Another thing you will notice is there are LOTS of smiley-faced people wearing event badges and standing in front of the display boards. As you talk to them and ask questions, you will start to establish that most of them are employed by the Port of Seattle, but that also, quite a few are either FAA or contractors. Everyone of these people owe their income (and eventual retirement) to this industry, and as such it is not surprising that they come across as ‘all for expansion and just plain unable to understand how bad the impacts are on residents under the new concentrated flight paths. I also noticed that, by 7:30pm (2-hours into the 3-hour event), there were practically no residents left, but maybe 30- or even 40+ badge-wearing staffers standing around in front of all the whiteboards.

I found it disturbing, trying to communicate with these people on a human-to-human level. They come across as machines, rigidly focused on the industry-serving goal, which in this case is to spend billions of dollars expanding Sea-Tac’s airport facilities, to serve the demand generated by two dominant airlines, Alaska and Delta. Ask any of these people a hard question and their pat answer is to remind you, they are only here tonight to help you formulate your question so that you can submit it to the ‘scoping process’. Well, that in itself is bullshit, and here is why. For each of these people (some would accurately note they are in fact parasites feeding off the power and money of the aviation-government complex), their first and foremost reason for getting paid to stand in front of the display boards and greet you is to ease your acceptance of the fact they are going to ram this expansion project onto you and your home. They are there to help you believe the distortions behind the expansions.

These staffers were sized up perfectly with this famous quote:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”

This quote was by Upton Sinclair, back in the 1930s. Click here for a Post showing an example of how FAA, all the way to the top, could not understand an obvious controller safety error at a California airport … and know, too, these things happen surprisingly frequently.

One of Their Distortions is the So-Called ‘Demand’ Myth

OK, here is a copy of the graph mentioned earlier, at the front end of the area filled with whiteboards and staffers:

This is the demand graph POS displayed last night, although this is an online copy as displayed at a POS event in July. Interestingly, POS decided to remove the headline last night, perhaps because they know it is utterly false; just look at how passenger growth vastly outstrips population growth, with the green line CROSSING the blue line. So, although the headline was not displayed last night, nonetheless staffers were using this graphic and making comments, over and over again, to push the false perception that ‘demand’ at Sea-Tac is driven by Puget Sound area population growth. Such is not the case; AIRLINES DEFINE DEMAND, by scheduling in pursuit of higher profit margins.

You are supposed to believe that all of this Sea-Tac expansion is driven by market demand. This is false. The true demand is from the two major hub operators at Sea-Tac, Delta and Alaska. Each impacted citizen needs to understand the passenger airline business model. They make profits best when they route as many people as possible through the hub airports, where those people may never even leave the plane, or may exit one plane only to board another. The airport becomes a Grand Central Station for airline passengers, and the surrounding communities must bear an extremely intensified impact in added noise, added air pollutants, and overall diminished health and quality of life. This is what accounts for the bulk of the enormous growth at Sea-Tac since Delta announced a new business plan in 2012, with a new hub at Sea-Tac (operations grew 31% from 2012 to 2017, and have climbed 5.6% so far this calendar year). And, this is what is trashing lives under intensified and concentrated NextGen routes feeding in/out of KBOS, KDCA, KORD, KCLT, KSAN, KPHX, KSFO, and elsewhere.

Here’s another ponderous point on this graph, and something I asked to a few staffers last night (BTW, I never got a good answer): where did they get their population numbers? Using their numbers, for the 2017-2027 decade, the average annual growth is just 0.6%; umm, the entire U.S. averages closer to 1% annual population growth, and Seattle is bragged about (by people at POS, FAA, etc., no less!) as being a booming place (for population as well as economics). So, they created this graphic using data that does not come close to tracking the reality as measured right now. Indeed, Puget Sound Resource Council (PSRC) published a report ‘way back in August’ noting Puget Sound’s population is growing at a 1.5% annual rate. IMHO, the lack of diligence behind these graphics is shameful.

Frankly, if the Port of Seattle was sincere in defining this demand, they would do the hard work of accurately assessing precisely how many users of this airport are actually THROUGH-PASSENGERS, who fly in but then fly out, never even leaving the airport terminal. The best these connecting passengers will do to ‘boost’ the Puget Sound economy is waste away a few hours between flights, perhaps buying coffee or some fish and chips. Yet, because these two major airlines make substantial profits by offering these flight connections at Sea-Tac, there is much pressure on Port of Seattle (and FAA) to accommodate this airline demand. This is spun to us as ‘market demand’, which clearly it is not.

Let’s be clear: airline demand is not the same as market demand. The display boards referencing market demand are implicitly stating that you and I, as customers, define ‘demand’ for commercial aviation useage at Sea-Tac. We do not. The airlines define demand, and both the airport authority (POS) and the federal regulator (FAA) expend great effort to accommodate whatever air commerce asks for. Sadly, they do so while increasingly ignoring the real and growing impacts upon actual human lives.

Why is This Demand Myth Important?

It is extremely important, simply because the entire SAMP proposal is anchored on the idea their is real ‘demand’ creating a dire need to invest in these expansion proposals. Generally, where there is a desire to expand an airport (and, always, this expansion is simply to give more capacity to the dominant airline), there is a tendency for the data to be exaggerated to justify that investment. Thus, if and when any of us actually does the deeper research to see what FAA has forecast, we see an astonishing pattern of forecasts WAAYYYY over what history subsequently produces in real data. And, at events like the Open House last night, staffers are conveniently overlooking a shocking reality that they seem incapable of digesting: that, in the U.S., with the sole exception of a handful of airports where FAA and airport authorities are overly accommodating to enable the creation of ‘super-Hubs’ for near-monopoly airlines, operations have been flat and declining for decades.

The Demand Myth needs to be exposed and crushed. Read more at these earlier Posts:

What We Each Need to Do at These Open Houses

Yes, absolutely, you should submit comments (though you should also make your own copy or get POS to let you have a copy, so you have more tools to hold POS accountable with the comments you have provided). But, there is a lot more that can and should happen at each community event. Here are some suggestions:

  1. From the git-go, understand it is OK that you are not an expert, just an impacted citizen. As such, it is THEIR responsibility to help with the technical heavy-lifting.
  2. With the first note in mind, ask questions and DEMAND real answers. Then, ask harder questions. Follow through. Make these staffers serve you; after all, per NEPA, that is precisely what they are supposed to be doing at each such event, when they field your questions.
  3. With your questions, try altering your approach. For example, try to appeal to this aviation professional (the staffer there to talk with you) human-to-human; try to establish if they have the capacity to actually recognize the impacts their work is having upon you and your neighbors; try to see if they might possibly have the strength of character to speak up against the prevailing current within a culture that is biased toward commerce and against people.
  4. Think outside the box. For example, last night, it fit well to ask them if they agree that Sea-Tac is operating beyond its design capacity (they all felt it was not … tell that to those being delayed on arrivals, and those waiting for long periods after landing, needing a gate to open up). Ask them, would it help if Delta and Alaska voluntarily reduced their schedules by say 20% during certain peak hours? Ask them who has the authority to manage capacity at Sea-Tac … what can POS do, what can FAA do? Ask them, especially if they are a POS employee, have they ever advocated on behalf of impacted citizens, and will they serve the people (not just the airlines) by advocating for people in the future? Think national-scale and ask them, if Sea-Tac were to impose real capacity management, would these constraints really have an adverse impact on the entire national airspace system, or would they actually just nudge airlines like Delta and Alaska to increase schedules elsewhere, and not abuse Seattle with far too many flights?
  5. Always, ALWAYS, keep it clearly in your focus: the staffer you are speaking with works for you (in theory) and at that precious moment while you are chatting, you are the most powerful representative of humanity to assist him/her in learning their need to advocate for people first, ahead of industry players. Help them to see beyond the corrupted culture in which they are trapped solely for a paycheck.

More Letters: Congress Needs to Add Impact Amendments Before Passing Reauthorization

It appears that the two letters by aviation coalitions, dated July 26 and August 15, have spurred letters (and at least one petition) by many of those impacted by FAA and aviation.

Interestingly, we are seeing stronger actions by people across the nation – and people are working WITH others in distant impact locations. For example, Montgomery County Quiet Skies Coalition sent a solidly researched letter on 8/27 (click here for ai-Rchived copy). PlaneSense4LI coordinated with as many online activist groups as they could find, announcing their letter on Sunday and mailing it today, just four days later, with 20 signatories across the continent (click here for ai-Rchived copy). And, Tony Verreos created this petition at MoveOn.org:

(click on image to view petition online)

Thinking about it, what makes a Democracy work is that people have power, not because of wealth or connection, but simply because they are citizens. Power in Democracy requires knowledge, but it also requires communicating with others, to engage their support. But, frankly, there are many barriers that can prevent the process from working. If people lack knowledge, if they learn but do not follow through (distractions or the needs of daily life may interfere), if they have been made to be cynical and fatalistic to the point of not acting, or if they have been made fearful that there will be negative repercussions for speaking up … all of these will ensure that those with power (aka money, these days?) will continue to run the show and set the agenda. This is why it is so great to see, this week, that despite enormous odds that split us apart, many of us came together… writing, sharing, signing.

Let’s keep this rolling. Let’s take back control of our skies, of our air, of our own backyards. Let’s put quality of life ahead of airline profits, and let’s protect our families and neighbors from the illnesses caused by too many planes creating too much noise and polluted air.