House Oversight Hearing: How Leaded Aviation Fuel Is Poisoning America’s Children

An important hearing was held today at the Environment Subcommittee of the House Oversight Committee, chaired by Representative Ro Khanna. Both FAA and EPA were asked to attend; they both refused to attend. No surprises there… failure hates to confront accountability.

The hearing is well worth a listen. It ran for 106-minutes, but your listening time is actually only 76-minutes, due to a full 30-minute recess (starts at minute-24, and you can skip ahead to minute-54) for a House Vote. A general timeline follows at the bottom of this post.

One interesting twist to ponder… so, as mentioned at the Hearing, FAA refused to show when invited. Where were they? Well, it so happens today is the middle of the week for the biggest General Aviation (GA) event of the year: AirVenture at Oshkosh, WI. Yes, FAA will have MANY officials rubbing elbows with the mostly recreational-flying community, as they celebrate their rights and freedoms at Oshkosh, but our national regulator cannot find even one FAA official to appear at this hearing. And, the interesting twist… well, as testimony to how FAA is deploying its ‘delay-delay-delay’ tactic, check out FAA’s PDF of their PAFI presentation at Oshkosh this same week 6-years ago, on July 26, 2016. Back then, FAA sent a team to present to pilots, letting them know how hard FAA was working (budget ~$6M per year, thank you Congress!) to safely and quickly achieve the end of leaded fuels. Within the PDF it declares goal was implementation by 2018. Um, that was how many years before how many pandemics and how many insurrections?

And, wouldn’t it be interesting to know just one short set of figures:

  1. how many gallons of leaded fuel were consumed for flying to and from (and at) this year’s AirVenture in Oshkosh?
  2. how many aircraft flew to and departed from the AirVenture event this year, and what is their composition, in terms of how many must burn leaded fuel versus how many can burn unleaded fuel or leaded, versus how many can burn ONLY unleaded fuel?
  3. can we have a short list of all aircraft types within each of the three categories listed above?
  4. similarly, can we have a short list of all aircraft engine models that are lead-only, versus lead or no-lead, versus unleaded only?
  5. and, lastly, can we include on the above two lists the year of introduction for each aircraft type and engine type?

The last item on this list would be fascinating to learn. Is it possible, in the roughly thirty years FAA has had to ‘fail’ to phase out lead, that nonetheless FAA has successfully certified numerous NEW aircraft types and NEW engine types that must burn leaded fuel, only perpetuating the problem … and just how messed up is that, from an environmental justice and health perspective?

What was my read?

As an ‘overall view’, I found it interesting AND VERY CLEAR that (R)’s tended to be on the side of aviation and commerce, while (D)’s were pushing to clean this up. No surprise there, given recent history. Just as interesting, clearly, D’Acosta was the mouthpiece (sort of the Giuliani?) for the (R)’s to bounce questions off, all aimed at legitimizing this ongoing failure… or, at least, aimed at suckering regular people into believing the lie that FAA and industry are actually making progress. It’s all smoke and mirrors and lots of delay.

Other Activist Views:

During the preparation of this Post, other activists shared a few good thoughts:

  • Cindy Chavez deserves a National award!
  • Does anyone know how to obtain a copy of the AOPA letter Herrell entered into the record? Her opening statements regarding GA had more to do with fire-fighting and life flight whereas the complaints filed by the public are much more focused on flight training and private pilots. As far as the economic benefits of GA, it’s a heavily subsidized industry. If it was a good business investment then why the chronic dependence on public handouts? I’d rather see my taxpayer dollars spent on jobs focused on environment safeguards, reducing global  warming, education, health care, parks and the arts as well as high speed rail.
  • Democrats and Republicans have very different reasons for wanting to issue subpoenas. A lot of politics involved. That being said, both parties seem to be frustrated by the FAA and EPA foot-dragging. Flood’s comment on EPA top down decision-making regarding an endangerment finding or leaded fuel ban is preposterous. If any sector engages in a top down approach its the FAA and the aviation industry.
  • Both Khanna and Lofgren called the avgas issue a national health crisis. There was a declaration of this nature made during the Flint water crisis and a lot of bottled water was shipped in as a result, but how replace lead polluted air?
  • Dr. Lanphear referred to it as an urgent public health problem. Tlaib also emphasized the need for a greater sense of urgency as children are being poisoned now. Lofgren described the RHV lead study findings as “terrifying.” Both she and Khanna spoke of being outraged by the ongoing inaction. Like Lofgren, I’m appalled that the FAA would tell communities they have to continue poisoning children due to grant assurances.

Hearing Timeline: (…times PDT)

~1106: Rep. Ro Khanna (D, CA Dist.17) chair, opening statement.

1111: Rep. James Comer (R, KY Dist.1), brief statement handing off to Rep Herrell.

1113: Rep. Yvette Herrell (R, NM Dist.2) member. Opening statement; she read off the debatable pro-aviation points so often pushed by FAA and industry, while ignoring the impacts. But, on a positive note, she did say the committee needs to issue subpoenas for FAA and EPA.

1117: Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D, CA Dist.19) her district includes KRHV.

1119: witnesses sworn in

1119: Cindy Chavez (Santa Clara County supervisor): discussed KRHV scope, lead history, efforts eliminate lead, role of industry lobbyists to block health initiatives, etc.

1124: Maricela Lechuga: lives 5-blocks from KRHV. Family history, historical context of Mexicans having East San Jose available for housing. Impacts of proximity to airport, to the point of not even being allowed to grow trees to offer shade for children.

1129: recess for voting at Congress. Reconvened at 11:59 PDT. (recess was for a vote related to semiconductor chips)

1200: Bruce Lanphear presented short video about impacts of lead on growing children, loss of IQ score even for very lead pollution levels. Also, increased ADHD incidence, increased risk of heart disease. Airborne lead: aviation produces ~70% of total pollution; particles are much smaller than lead particles associated with old-paint lead.

1206: George Braly, chief engineer at GAMI. Link to an AOPA article dated 7/21/21. “It’s just amazing, the bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo that has gone on….” He believes FAA is in defiance of Congress, in its failure to act, failure to even communicate.

1212: Chris D’Acosta, CEO of swift Fuels. Link to an AOPA article dated 11/11/13 when FAA approved use of Swift’s unleaded fuel.

1218: Rep. Khanna recognized self for 5-minutes of questions:

  • Supervisor Chavez, would you say lead is an environmental justice issue?
  • Lechunga, Do you feel your comment has received the concern and action it deserves?
  • further questions to Mr. Braly, Supervisor Chavez,…

1224: Rep. Herrell recognized. Offered AOPA written statement into the record. Series of Q&A to Mr. D’Acosta. Herrell: “It’s obviously a very robust process.”

1229: Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D, MI Dist.13) member. Concerns about what she has learned about impacts in Detroit area airports. Question to Mr. Lanphear, about the ‘cost’ of lead on IQ and health. Question to Supervisor Chavez.

1235: Rep. Pat Fallon (R, TX Dist.4) recognized. Asked Mr. D’Acosta to detail history on PAFI and EAGLE fuel programs. Video cut out before end. Links to background info…

  • PAFI White Paper (FAA, no date, 4p) at link. (download saved)
  • FAA’s webpage about Eagle Initiative at link. (PDF printed)

1241: Re. Lofgren recognized. Thank you to Supervisor Chavez. One question to Professor Lanphear, regarding blood level study. Expressed outrage over DoT Secretary not replying to letter from Congressional reps; “Hopefully we will get some action from this administration that is sorely lacking.”

1246: Rep. Mike Flood (R, NE Dist.1) Concerns about impact on agriculture (spray planes) if leaded fuel was disallowed. Questions to D’Acosta. At 12:50, at end of Rep. Flood’s time, Mr. D’Acosta asked to clarify on aircraft types.

1251: Closing comments by Rep. Khanna, noting that House Reps have 5-days to submit written materials. Adjourned at 1252.


REFERENCE MATERIALS: (more to be added as found later)

 

Our Unsustainable Secret: Leaded Fuel and City-Owned Fuel Tanks at Santa Monica

UPDATE, 30 MAR 2022:Elected officials in Santa Monica continue to be paralyzed and unable to do the right thing: discontinue leasing out their old tanks for leaded avgas and jet fuel sales, tanks that are decaying and well past their prime. They fear a lawsuit, and the City Attorney is only adding to their fears, by failing to identify who might file, at what venue, and citing what laws or regulations. Lacking any legitimate basis for a lawsuit, the Council is effectively being bullied into paralysis.
Here are two recent items: a letter to the editor by Joseph Schmitz, and a Facebook Post by Charles Blum.

Here’s an excellent OpEd by Alan Levenson, a resident of Sunset Park, printed in the Santa Monica Lookout. His concerns are about toxic lead, still in the aviation fuel used by recreational pilots in small planes, a situation that persists in no small part because FAA resists changes, and because local elected officials are often too intimidated by FAA to lead and serve. This is a national problem, too; there are dozens of posts under the category ‘LeadedAvGas‘. Read on…

We are all aware of the controversial airport that sits behind a fenced area in the southeast corner of Santa Monica. We have heard of the noise problems, the safety problems and the pollution. We know we were promised a great park.

What most have not heard much, if anything, about is the lead. The same lead that has been banned in auto gasoline, paint and toys is used in aviation fuel.

The leaded fuel is burned by most of the small planes that take off and buzz around over neighborhoods. The lead comes out in the exhaust and falls on people, homes, and schools below; it drops like lead at the rate of two grams per gallon. The City need not sell aviation fuel. Storing and supplying fuel is not our responsibility, and it is definitely not a sustainable business.

What most do not know is the City owns six underground tanks, three of which are 36 years old. That’s old for an underground tank; old even when not in earthquake county. The tanks sit above our aquifer; the same aquifer that has already been fouled in the past by Douglas Aircraft and leaking tanks from gas stations in years gone by. The same aquifer that supplies drinking water. Sure, the tanks are periodically checked, but accidents and failures happen.

The City is voluntarily storing and selling a known toxin. Lead has been proven to be unsafe at any level. It has been found in the blood of children around a similar airport, Reid Hillview, in San Jose, CA, at the same levels found in the children of Flint Michigan. A recent air quality study found elevated lead levels in the air around our airport and declared the airport to be the only source of airborne lead in the area.

Last November 2021 Councilmembers Brock and de la Torre proposed the City staff divest from the storage and sale of leaded fuel and the council unanimously agreed (“Santa Monica Could Join in Call for Ban on Leaded Aviation Fuel,” November 5, 2021).

Our Airport Commission also agreed. Even though we are not required to do so, the City staff has recently undertaken a project to sell unleaded fuel from one of our tanks, but our staff has not charted a known course of action to stop the sale or storage of lead in the second and older 12,000-gallon tank.

The City Attorney claims shutting out of the second tank might cause a problem in the future with the FAA or the aviators. Yet we know that in the real and now present that lead is coming out of Santa Monica Airport, exposure to lead reduces the IQ in children, and its effects are permanent.

Lead is a clear and present danger. We know the tanks sit above our aquifer. Lead is the elephant in the room and in our tanks, and that elephant must be shown the door. Santa Monica does not have to participate in this dirty business that should have ended decades ago as it was with cars, paints and toys.

Pilots and aviation businesses alike claim they too would like to get the lead out of aviation fuel. Yet while leaded fuel is available, they continue to use it. We know lead is bad. Even a little lead is bad. No lead is good. Not in our water, our air, our soil or our bodies.

No one is putting a gun to anyone’s head to sell and store leaded fuel at Santa Monica Airport.

It’s not green, it’s not sustainable, and it’s not defensible. In fact, after being asked for a clear explanation as to why we cannot get out of the fuel business we were not shown a convincing answer. We are talking lead, not bacon wrapped hot dogs on the pier. You cannot refuse or hide from airborne lead. Aviation fuel is the serious stuff of industry. Toxic to living things.

Our FAA obligations do not allow the City to ban the total use or sale of leaded fuel at the airport, but in no place do they clearly state the City must provide tanks or the City must sell fuel. It is time to retire our old tanks and get out of the leaded fuel business. It makes sense to get out of the aviation fuel business altogether.

If an aviation business wants to bring in their own newer safe and up-to-code tanks, then let them bear the costs, as well as the responsibility for the harm they are causing to those on the ground.

There comes a time to stand up for what is clearly right and reject what is not. It is wrong for a responsible and sustainable city to support and participate in the sale and storage of lead and any toxic fuels. There is no safe level of lead in our water or our air. 

We have an obligation to keep the airport open until 2029. We have no obligation to store and sell fuel until then. 

Please get out of the fuel business. Do it for the kids.

Let’s replace the failed DNL metric; Submit Comments by March 15th

When it comes to mitigating (or even simply recognizing!) aviation noise, FAA has a proven track record of failure. This agency serves only industry, always working to enable more operations per hour at even the busiest airports. FAA consistently fails to properly assess noise impacts, and they persist in using the failed DNL noise metric designed to guarantees any and all expansion.

There is currently a solicitation for public comments. Please go to the Federal Register webpage and submit your comments, which might include:

  • Reject FAA’s use of the DNL noise metric, the 65 dB threshold, and continued use of the Schultz Curve.
  • Reject FAA’s desire to continue to research (and thus delay reforms).
  • Demand the use of noise metrics that already exist and actually work: a good choice might be simply quantifying the number of flights per hour in peak hours and the number of flights above (or audible) per day.
  • Demand widespread selective reversion of NextGen PBN procedures to reduce today’s impacts caused by repetition and route concentration; and,
  • Demand restored local controls (ability to limit traffic levels, impose curfews, etc.) and reassignment of federal ‘noise impact oversight’ from FAA to a restored ONAC-Aviation office at EPA.

Click here to view or download the packet of documents and analysis by aiREFORM. Click here to view the Federal Register webpage, and here to submit a public comment.

[ai-RCHIVE] Four Versions of FAA Advisory Circular 91-36

Here’s an example of abusive pilots, that also shows how FAA is a captured federal regulator actually enabling this type of abuse.

Fort Devens is a historic U.S. Army facility in the towns of Ayer and Shirley, roughly 25-miles west of Boston. Years ago, the Moore Army Air Field was closed. According to Wikipedia, part of the land then became a hospital facility, aimed primarily at serving specialized and mental health needs for prisoners.

Back in the early 1970’s, coincident with ‘Earth Day’ and the wave of citizen empowerment toward improving and protecting the environment, FAA was nudged into creating an ‘Advisory Circular’ about small airplane noise. The advisory circulars are not binding or regulatory, but they do spell out what FAA asks the pilot community to do, toward achieving certain objectives. This is how FAA treats pilots: ‘pardon me, would you please try this?’, like royalty. If pilots do not conform to the ‘advice’ contained within an advisory circular, eventually FAA can become compelled to issue actual regulations. Now, if FAA also chose to enforce those regulations, we might achieve a nice balance, between the right of the pilot community to use their aircraft, and the rights of the non-pilot community (aka, all of us residents) to enjoy our homes and yards without excessive noise and aviation air pollution.

Roughly a decade ago, residents around Ayer prevailed in a nuisance lawsuit filed against a group of pilots. Ever since, there has been an extraordinary concentration of low-level small-plane flight activity over the homes of the residents who won that legal action. When these residents complain to FAA, to MassPort (the airport authority), or anyone, they get nothing but deadends.

Check out this disturbing example, posted on Facebook.

Now, about that ‘Advisory Circular’. In the 46-years since it was first posted in 1972, it has been updated three times. The updates are generally unsubstantial, as you can see for yourself. Here are links to archived copies of all four versions of FAA’s Advisory Circular 91-36, ‘VFR Flight Near Noise-Sensitive Areas’. Each version is 2-pages, with minor changes as the Advisory Circular evolved. Version ‘91-36B‘ was signed off in 1982, version ‘91-36C‘ appeared in 1984, and version ‘91-36D‘ (the current version) was signed off in 2004.

Frankly, these four versions of Advisory Circular 91-36 show FAA’s ‘milquetoaste approach’ to NOT managing aviation impacts. FAA has made it clear to rogue operators like this one near Boston: they may bully with impunity, knowing FAA will not impair this perceived ‘right’. The impacts that FAA recognized in 1972 have persisted because FAA refuses to serve and fails to evolve. And so, across the nation, for two generations now, residents have complained and been ignored by an agency that serves only the industry it is supposed to be regulating.

Pine Island Glacier: the latest example of rapidly melting polar ice that will eventually flood major airports

Ecowatch published an informative article about a huge iceberg, roughly 115 square miles, that has calved off of the Pine Island Glacier. The article cites an interesting series of posts by Stef Lhermitte discussing a large new iceberg, designated B-46, which is rapidly disintegrating as it drifts toward the Pacific Ocean.

The series of posts includes a GIF slideshow showing annual sea-ice extent at the Pine Island Glacier. Here is a scrollable PDF showing a series of screencaps taken from the GIF slideshow, with images at roughly a 5-year interval from 1975 to 2018 (depending on what years had available images). The sea ice extent for each year is indicated by a color-coded thick line; over time, this line progresses upward, exposing more of the seawater below. In the background of all images, the satellite image appears to be current, as taken on 10/30/2018.

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

Overall, this series of images shows a pronounced decline in sea-ice coverage. Within the images, you will also notice that there were a few years, ending in 2013, where sea-ice cover was expanding. Since 2013, the melting/calving has been precipitous. Bear in mind, the polar regions are in total darkness for months each year, and it may take years for new meltwater to mix with the seawater below. Thus, massive ice melting may cause an easily frozen freshwater lens to sit atop the seawater. This will create an illusion of expanding sea-ice extent for a few winters. But, eventually, once the excessive freshwater becomes mixed, or as ambient air temperatures continue to increase, the expanded ice that peaked in 2013 will become just a distant memory.

Putting this in a Geographic Context

Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia, describing this specific glacier:

Pine Island Glacier (PIG) is a large ice stream, and the fastest melting glacier in Antarctica, responsible for about 25% of Antarctica’s ice loss.[3] The glacier ice streams flow west-northwest along the south side of the Hudson Mountains into Pine Island Bay, Amundsen Sea, Antarctica. It was mapped by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) from surveys and United States Navy (USN) air photos, 1960–66, and named by the Advisory Committee on Antarctic Names (US-ACAN) in association with Pine Island Bay.[1][4]

The area drained by Pine Island Glacier comprises about 10% of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.[5] Satellite measurements have shown that the Pine Island Glacier Basin has a greater net contribution of ice to the sea than any other ice drainage basin in the world and this has increased due to recent acceleration of the ice stream.

Here are a pair of images, showing Pine Island Glacier’s location on Antarctica, and showing the seas that surround Antarctica, connecting it to the extreme southern oceans.

What Does this Suggest for Our Global Future, and for Aviation?

The rate of calving in recent years is disturbing, and reflects a harsh reality: if our ever-expanding over-consumption of fossil fuels is not reined in, and we continue to see 2- or 3- ppm annual increases in average atmospheric CO2 concentrations (see Keeling Curve), we can expect collapse of these polar glaciers and large-scale sea-rise. Hundreds of the busiest airports across the globe will become underwater. Homes for more than a billion people will also become uninhabitable, under sea-rise. Displaced people will need to find new homes, and that situation will result in global conflict and likely massive human depopulation.

Would it not be a good idea to immediately impose policies that strongly disincentivize excessive and arbitrary use of aviation?

A Closing Image: Accelerated Melting is Likely

Below is a different perspective, rotated, but showing the recession of the glacier (roughly from left to right) and how it compares to actual shorelines beneath. The areas of ice over water are designated as the ‘northern ice shelf’ and ‘southern ice shelf’. Over land, colors appear to show ice flow rates using a spectrum, with red being fast, yellow being moderate, and blue being slow. A major concern among scientists who study polar ice loss and related sea-level rise is that loss of sea-ice eventually removes an important ‘plug’ that holds back glacial ice over land; kind of like eroding the footing out from under a bridge pier. In other words, in this example, the fear is that once the Pine Island Glacier recedes beyond the base of the SW tributary and the southern ice shelf is nearly gone, ice flow from the SW tributary will rapidly accelerate, which in turn will rapidly accelerate global sea-level rise.

It would seem to be very foolish, to continue to ignore this evidence.

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.

Part 2: “It is like being broken up with on a Post-It note”

More details to ponder about FAA’s latest tantrum: their refusal to communicate with Marylanders because the good Governor has filed a legal challenge against FAA. Sheesh.

Washington Post followed up on the Baltimore Sun news story. (click here for the source article, click here for an aiRchived version) The piece was by Michael Laris. There is a common and consistent problem with articles by the mainstream media, including Washington Post. In the middle of this article, a paragraph implying NextGen benefits is inserted, but none of the alleged benefits are supported by any real data. That is to say, the suggestion of addressing congestion fails against the reality that total airport operations (takeoffs and landings) at the main passenger airline airports have actually declined 14% between 1989 and 2017; in other words, the only ‘congestion’ is accommodation of airlines who ‘demand’ that a select few airports become superHubs. (click here for a 3-page PDF analysis; the combined data showing the 14% decline is at the bottom of page 3) And, as for efficiency, the only ‘gains’ are potentially realized by subverting the environmental review process (e.g., liberally applying the CatEx) to impose highly impactful routes with turns lower and closer to airport runways.; in other words, FAA is orchestrating a wholesale dismissal of environmental concerns.

There’s another important detail to consider, about the Baltimore-Washington airport. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Southwest is by far the dominant airline at KBWI, with nearly 69% of passengers. (click here for BTS website, click here for an aiRchived copy of the KBWI airport report) So, if FAA imposes changes that increase both impacts and airline profit margins, Southwest is the key player who could, in a very neighborly way, advocate on behalf of impacted residents. When is the CEO of Southwest Airlines going to stand up and protect community quality-of-life and health, by telling FAA to fix these new routes? If Southwest did this, they would stand to build even greater customer loyalty. That, coupled with their near-monopoly at KBWI (and dozens of other U.S. airports, BTW!), is always a good business move.

“It is like being broken up with on a Post-It note”

Alternatively, it is like the spoiled brat kid who, seeing his failure to get his way, abruptly takes his toys and leaves the sandbox.

Yes, this is today’s FAA.

A few years ago, FAA implemented NextGen changes that are destroying neighborhoods under heavily travelled repetitive flight segments. When people in Maryland had enough, they organized. Part of their organization was to accept FAA’s preferred process, creating a community roundtable, filled with concerned volunteers.

Now, the game plan for roundtables (and other aviation citizen-committees) includes lots of rigging. Be sure their work product conforms with what FAA/industry want to see. Assert some control. For example, FAA and the airport authority make sure plenty of pro-aviation participants ‘volunteer’ to be a part of the group. Also, the agendas for at least a year are stacked with sleep-inducing program scraps, long and boring sessions sharing koolaid glasses filled with technobabble and irrelevant metrics like ‘dNL’. Despite these shenanigans, most groups do seat at least one or two real activists. The kind who will not and do not give up. And, as happened in Maryland, sometimes real support is gained from local and state elected officials.

So, what’s going on here? Just another FAA temper tantrum. This time because the good Governor and his Attorney General took FAA to court, to protect Maryland’s people.

What’s the shortest way to spell ‘spoiled brat kid’? I’d try “F-A-A”.

Click here for the original Baltimore Sun article.

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

Now, how about a few questions:

  1. At what level of FAA was this decision made? This is a heavily top-down bureaucracy, to the point where a Deputy Regional Administrator doing as Ms. Stanco did was only following orders. So, how about if FAA produces all the records that flesh out why this decision was made, and who really made it?
  2. What level of outrage will we see from our federal elected officials? Will any of them demand FAA end their tantrum? Will any of them demand full transparency and accountability, including production of all records (see #1 above)?
  3. When will our Congress step up and do their job, serving the people? When will local communities become re-empowered, to the point where they can manage capacity at their local airport, guarding against excessive airline hubbing and scheduling?

“Lead makes the mind give way.”

So, too, do the intense politics and greed associated with the aviation industry. Even more so when industry ‘collaborates’ with faux-regulators like FAA, to spew out mountains of GWBS (a new acronym, standing for ‘greenwash BS’). But, we all endure; we learn, we share, we activate, we demand change.

There is a lot happening this summer. Not just the continued drive for more over-expansion at hub airports worldwide, but also as regards smaller airports. Miki Barnes at Oregon Aviation Watch has been one of the biggest activists in the U.S., seeking changes at FAA, Port of Portland, and the Hillsboro Airport [KHIO]. OAW recently sent out an email about the ongoing health impacts associated with lead, which remains in the common aviation fuel ‘100LL’ (the LL stands for ‘low lead’). Miki notes:

“The aviation industry is the largest source of airborne lead pollution in the country. The Port of Portland owned and operated Hillsboro Airport (HIO) is a prime example. The majority of the users of this facility are student pilots recruited from overseas and out of state to engage in flight training over the local community.”

So, at Hillsboro, an airport authority (PoP) was created long ago and collects local taxes, but PoP operates with no obligation towards accountability and transparency; furthermore, PoP has predictably evolved into a servant for industry, helping to gin up industry profits by blocking citizens seeking to moderate aviation impacts while also ignoring growing citizen concerns.

Two copies are aiRchived here:

Santa Monica Airport: Last Chance to Comment on Minimum Standards

Airport officials at Santa Monica are in the process of creating ‘Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronautical Service Providers. These standards can ensure that all potential operators are fairly treated when and if the airport authority denies certain operations. Last week, Airport Director Stelios Makrides issued a statement that the deadline for comments has been extended to June 21st. (click here for an archived copy)

Santa Monica is a very unique airport. It should have been allowed to close down years ago, but FAA has obstructed the will of the local community, solely to protect aviation interests who insist on using this deficient airport facility. How is it deficient? Just take a look at the satellite images and airport map, and note how closely the nearby homes and yards stand, relative to the runway. At Santa Monica, people have had their lawn furniture blown over by the blast from departing jets; REALLY!!

The runway was shortened last year, but now the City is failing to impose needed standards that block unsafe operations by jets and commercial operators. Aviation money appears to be impeding their judgment.

Santa Monica is also notable as an airport where FAA lawyers managed to convince the local elected officials to ‘settle’ legal differences with an inexplicable agreement to extend the life of the airport. Money talks, and rumor has it the elected officials were tired of spending so much money on legal services, trying to exercise their rights against FAA’s industry-serving will. You got it: our money, collected by FAA from we the taxpayers, and spent as FAA sees fit, is arbitrarily used to impede meaningful LOCAL CONTROL by compelling our own elected officials to use our money (local taxes, this time) to fight FAA in the courts.

Below is a copy of a recent letter by Gavin Scott, posted at NoJetsSMO. He summarizes what he observed at the June 5th Airport Commissioner’s Meeting. He also advocates – strongly – for people to submit their own comments right away, before the chance is gone.

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