A Spin-Story by National Geographic?

In the blog ‘Flying Less: Reducing Academia’s Carbon Footprint’, Parke Wilde has written a deep analysis of a recent National Geographic ‘article’. The article, by Eric Rosen, generally looks at how commercial passenger aviation is growing in Asia. Mr. Wilde found parts of the article implausible, especially where aviation was presented as an increasingly ‘green’ industry. So, he researched and wrote a blog post. He also asked National Geographic to explain how they appear to be failing their traditional high journalistic standards; the magazine officials did not reply.

The bottom line on air travel is this: there is nothing else you can do that has a higher carbon impact per hour. The industry and the faux-regulators are working hard to propagandize, but they cannot get away from this harsh reality. Carbon offsetting schemes and alternative fuels are NOT a solution; the are illusion.

If you must travel, minimize it. Each mile you fly translates to a substantial consumption of fossil fuels, and thus a substantial creation of more atmospheric CO2. If your credit cards and the airlines and the mainstream media are trying to convince you to fly more, well, that tells you the best strategy is to fly less.

Click here for an archived PDF copy of the analysis. Also, you can read more about FlyingLess at the blog or at twitter.


See also:
  • PETITION: Fly Less – an aiREFORM Post about Parke Wilde’s petition, calling for universities and professional associations to reduce flying, since flying contributes significantly to global climate change. (11/2/2015)

Representative Karen Bass Speaking About FAA Impacts, at a Rules Committee Hearing

A ‘thank you!’ is owed to Karen Bass, member of the U.S. House of Representatives. She has offered amendments to H.R. 3354, the ‘Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act, 2018’, legislation supported by the White House, aimed at funding what appears to be all or nearly all domestic policy agencies.

In the clip below, Bass speaks for just a couple minutes. It is interesting to notice the massive paper piles, the many empty chairs, the distractions of nearly all participants who are focused on their devices. One wonders how we can possibly accomplish meaningful legislation in these conditions and with these habits and attitudes. That said, Rep. Bass does make some very good points.

(click on image to view Rep. Bass’ speech)

FAA Ordered to Vacate Their 2014 NextGen Routes in Phoenix

After three years of misery and sleep loss, residents in the Phoenix area may finally see some relief. This Judgment was just announced:Using the only legal recourse available to those impacted by FAA’s NextGen implementations, both the City of Phoenix and historic neighborhoods filed a Petition for Review at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. FAA lawyers, aided by attorneys from the U.S. Department of Justice, delayed and wrangled for dismissals. It took nearly two years to get the case argued; that happened on March 17, before Judges Griffith, Rogers, and Sentelle. (Click here to go to the USCADC website, where you can read the bios for each judge.)

Nearly six months later, finally, the Judges issued their decision: for the people, and against the FAA. Here’s a copy:

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

The Opinion found that FAA was arbitrary and capricious, and in violation of the National Historic Preservation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Department of Transportation Act, and the FAA’s Order 1050.1E.

This Decision deserves careful study by all of us who are increasingly impacted, across the nation, by FAA’s brutally impactful NextGen implementations. City officials and airport authorities need to take notice: quit telling everyone that nothing can be done; instead, start advocating for health, quality of life, and real local control at these airports.


See also:

UPDATE, 8/30/2017: — Peter Dunn’s Analysis – a condensed review, posted at the Fair Skies Nation Facebook page (Boston area); click here for the source, or here for the archived copy.

UPDATE, 9/1/2017: — see the analysis written by Steve Edmiston (click here for the source, or here for the archived PDF); Steve is a Seattle-area attorney, and a lead activist seeking to correct the over-expansion of the Sea-Tac Airport [KSEA].

UPDATE, 9/5/2017: — yet another excellent analysis, this one blogged by Kevin Terrell (click here for the blog source, or here for the archived PDF). Kevin resides in an area impacted by the Delta hub at Minneapolis- St. Paul [KMSP]. Kevin’s activism has included creation of an outstanding series of educational videos that explain aviation noise while also illuminating FAA’s total failure to manage the noise impacts.

Did This Letter Motivate Huerta’s Response to Governor Hogan?

Activists in Maryland shared a copy of this letter, another excellent effort by their Governor, Larry Hogan.

(click on image to view archived copy of full letter)

Essentially, the Governor sent a letter on May 11, pressing FAA to take actions to reduce impacts on constituents under flight paths for both Reagan National [KDCA] and Baltimore-Washington [KBWI]. Nearly three months after sending his letter to Michael Huerta, and having gotten no reply, Governor Hogan followed up with a letter to the Secretary of Transportation, Elaine Chao. Here’s an excerpt:FAA’s reply letter, dated 8/3/2017, is here. That is, if you can even call it a reply.

FAA has a shameful record of not just blowing off everyone – even Governors! – but also engaging in obfuscation to frustrate activists. This pattern of failure needs to end.

Hub Airports, Repetitive Airplane Noise, and Hypertension

A sobering read. Also, a growing body of evidence supporting the need for sleep-hour curfews, local control, and scaling back the over-scheduling common at the largest U.S. hub airports.

Click on the image below for a scrollable view; click here to download the PDF file.


See also:

NYC Mayoral Debate: Will Airport Impacts be Discussed?

Can we find just one candidate for elected office who prioritizes community health and quality-of-life? Who will fight for balance, to empower local airport curfews and limits on hourly operations at impactful hub airports? Sal Albanese may be the answer for New York City. Check out the debate this week…

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

(…thanks to NextGenNoise.org, the source for this info!)

A Work-Around to FAA’s Failed Noise Models

This Post looks at how a simple and economical noise study for a large park and natural area suggests a better way to study airport noise. It essentially presents a work-around to two root problems in how FAA and industry ‘collaborate’ to obstruct aviation noise activism:

  1. that FAA knowingly uses noise metrics and noise models that work great for the airlines – since they completely fail to define and mitigate aviation noise impacts, but work terribly for people – since they consistently fail to objectively quantify noise and impacts; and,
  2. that, whenever citizens approach FAA or airport authorities with their concerns, and seek hard data to help define and fix the problems, both FAA and airport authorities routinely withhold that data, and instead work to confuse and disillusion these activists.

The Boston (Logan) Noise Impacts

In recent years, FAA has become extremely accommodating to hub airlines, by no longer pushing back against excessive flight scheduling. At Boston Logan [KBOS], the airport configuration allowing the highest capacity in terms of ‘runway throughput’ or operations per hour, includes using the parallel runways 4L and 4R for arrivals. KBOS has major hub operations by JetBlue, and minor hub operations by American and Delta. So, with FAA intensifying the use of runways 4L and 4R for arrivals, even in crosswind and slight tailwind conditions, they are imposing an enormous noise and air pollutant burden on communities under the straight-in arrival corridor.

The impact upon communities below, such as Milton, has been intense. People are losing sleep (the short term impact) and breathing more aviation pollutants (which will cause serious long-term health impacts). They are complaining to both FAA and the airport authority, Massport, as well as to their elected reps and local community officials. Their complaints continue to be broadly ignored by the key authorities – FAA and Massport – both of whom routinely reply that ‘nothing has changed’ and ‘the perceived impacts are not significant by our standards’. Needless to say, this mishandling by FAA and Massport only infuriates and further sensitizes the impacted communities.

Something has to change. FAA/Massport must stop pretending to comply with federal and state environmental impact assessment processes, which they do by using worthless impact models. Frankly, these models were designed to create an illusion that impacts are objectively measured, and they were also designed to bias the conclusions to ensure validation of any and all airport operational expansions. We need a new model that is objective; a model with people collecting REAL noise data and compiling it into impact contours may be the best way to go.

Noise Modeling at Blue Hills Reservation

The Blue Hills Reservation includes 125-miles of trails on 7,000 acres. A prominent water body in this natural area is Houghton’s Pond, which happens to be under the straight-in approach to runways 4L and 4R, at approximately 11-miles from the landing threshold.

Friends of the Blue Hills is a local non-profit organization that coordinates volunteers and works to preserve and protect this wonderful natural resource. A recent Post at their blog announced a great project. It looks like Boston University is doing a noise study; professor Richard Primack and doctoral student Lucy Zipf appear to be crowd-sourcing the use of an iphone app by volunteer hikers, to compile an actual noise map of the trails for most or even all 7,000 acres of Blue Hills Reservation.It will be very interesting to see what they produce. Seemingly, if the app-devices are synchronized, they could create a noise contour map that would show actual noise levels at any one time. Further, a collection of maps could be created, so that noise impacts for varying conditions can be compared.

How This Might Be Used For Aviation Noise Impacts

The app and methodologies could easily be applied to a residential community, such as Milton (or Des Moines, WA; or Cabin John, MD; or Palo Alto, CA; etc.). What’s to stop a local activist group from staging a grid of 4- or 6- or even dozens of devices at mapped street locations in Milton, and compiling the data into maps that show REAL decibel-level impacts? What’s to stop that same group from creating reference maps on days where there are no runway 4R and 4L arrivals, to establish a definitive baseline noise level?

Let’s watch this project and see if it offers a smart and economical work-around, so we can move beyond the ongoing data obstruction by FAA and airport authorities.


Boston noise activist groups:

The Third Head of the NextGen Hydra: How FAA is Jamming Arrivals Closer Together

Three months ago, the ‘Dissecting NextGen’ presentation was made in Des Moines, to help people better understand the impacts of NextGen around Sea-Tac International Airport [KSEA]. Included within that presentation was discussion of ‘Hub Concentration’ and ‘Route Concentration’, as two of the main changes that are causing NextGen impacts. Well, continued research in the past months has revealed a third head to this monster: efforts by FAA to alter rules, to reduce spacing between arrivals, even setting up side-by-side arrivals to closely-spaced parallel runways.

FAA is using two main strategies to reduce arrival spacing:

  • Wake Recat: short for ‘wake recategorization’, this is the reduction of minimum safe distances behind larger aircraft that create wakes. Without getting into too much detail, a series of fatal accidents decades ago forced FAA to impose longer distances between successive flights on the same route, called ‘wake turbulence separation’. But, in time, with pressure to remove capacity limitations, the rules are being modified to shorter distances.
  • Simultaneous Dependent Approaches to Closely Spaced Parallel Runways (CSPR): many of the main hub airports rely on use of parallel runways that are spaced even less than half a mile apart. ATC can accommodate a lot of flights on/off parallel runways, primarily by using one runway to land and the other to takeoff. But, when weather deteriorates, especially if visibility is reduced or the ceiling (altitude of lowest cloud layer) gets to be too low, capacity plummets. So, FAA has been working with airlines to develop new ATC procedures that allow flights to be spaced much closer together when set up for landing on two or more parallel runways. [click here to view archived copies showing the evolution of FAA Order JO7110.308B since 2008]

What’s Bugging People?

Although most airports continue to be far below historic traffic levels, there are a dozen or so main hub airports where the ‘Final Four’ airlines (American, Delta, Southwest and United) schedule excessively. These are the airports where people are upset. They are seeing more flights, and they are seeing/hearing flights that are lower, often slower, seemingly louder (which is a given, for lower flights), and often turning closer to the airport than ever before. They are also seeing surges of flights — both departures and arrivals, in rapid succession, sometimes even side-by-side. It is scary to some, and deeply disturbing to many. Even retired air traffic controllers cannot believe what they are seeing. It is as if these few airports have acquired a meth or steroid addiction.

Authorities insist nothing has changed, but they are totally wrong. Well, not just wrong: they are lying, and they know it. At these few hub airports (Sea-Tac is the one growing the most in recent years, due to Delta’s 2012 decision to create a new hub), traffic volume is up, especially during the surges that happen in relation to expanded hubbing. But, there are also forces that are pushing arrivals closer to the ground. For example, with wake recat, the key thing to understand about aircraft wakes is they descend; i.e., the hazard that can flip a smaller airplane slowly drifts downward toward the ground, so ATC works hard to keep the trailing aircraft at least slightly above the leading aircraft. But, if ATC is trying to bring both aircraft in to land, on parallel runways, than ATC needs to push the lead aircraft down lower ASAP. Why? Because, if the lead aircraft is not descended low enough, the trailing aircraft will end up too high, unable to finish the approach. This results in a go-around, which carries higher risks and makes both flight crews and ATC do a lot more work.

An Example: A 13-hr Arrival Stream to Runways 4L & 4R at Boston

Boston offers an example of how badly communities are being impacted. Here, we have densely populated communities and a dominant regional airport, [KBOS], that effectively monopolizes commercial aviation.  Three airlines schedule excessively at KBOS: JetBlue, American, and Delta. JetBlue is the dominant hub airline with a schedule that generates a large number of through-passengers (thus imposing much larger impacts on the area, to accommodate the added flights).

To gain airline support for NextGen, or at least to ensure the airlines will not oppose NextGen (which would kill FAA’s chances of getting Congressional funding), FAA has sold out on their responsibilities to protect communities and the environment. FAA has apparently told the airlines that they can expect increased runway throughput, which FAA will achieve by abolishing all noise mitigation procedures and creating new flight procedures that turn lower and as close as possible to the runways. NextGen is being used as a decoy or cover; by claiming NextGen is all new and fancy, FAA tricks everyone – including Congress – into not noticing that what is REALLY happening is simply the wholesale abandonment of FAA’s past responsibilities to protect the environment and community health. And, by the way, NextGen is NOT all new and fancy; most of it has existed and been used for decades; the alleged benefits are just a fraudulent sales pitch.

Clearly, when you study what FAA has imposed at ALL NextGen airports, the game plan is to maximize runway throughput. This accommodates the ideal all airlines want: unrestricted scheduling to tweak profits higher using expanded hub operations. So, with this in mind, at an airport like Boston, FAA focuses on using the combination of runways with the highest capacity per hour, which at Boston is to have arrivals land on the parallel runways 4L and 4R. Just like happens when new freeway lanes are added, the airlines are quick to eat up the increased capacity; supply defines and expands demand. At Boston, FAA is now heavily relying on 4R and 4L to ‘accommodate’ the expansion by JetBlue, Delta and American. So much for quality of life under the intensified approach corridor. Milton does not really need to get sleep, do they???

A recent 13-hr arrival stream to Boston’s 4L and 4R

And, of course, FAA applies the same strategy at all airports where airlines want to expand hub-related profits: they use runway combinations that maximize capacity, even if wind and other factors might argue against these decisions. It’s called ‘choosing runways to traffic’, and it’s a way to be overly accommodative to airlines.

The result is streaming arrivals: nearly nonstop impacts on the ground, one arrival after another after another, sometimes even paired arrivals that are nearly side-by-side. As shown in this table, summarizing arrivals per hour on the intensified approaches to Boston’s runway 4L and 4R, the impact is relentless. Note the busiest hours are non-stop, averaging as little as 1.2-minutes between flights. [click here to view the entire stream in a data table]

And, adding insult to injury, when people notice and ask what has changed, both FAA and the airport authority (Massport, in this example) play with them: they say nothing has changed.

How Do We Kill This Monster?

FAA is simply out of control. And, Congress is doing squat to correct this problem. We need leaders in Congress to:

  1. demand that FAA serve the people ahead of the corporations, and this requires an emphasis on both transparency and accountability;
  2. demand that FAA cease spending our money to propagandize for the industry; this regulatory capture has gone on far too long;
  3. pass legislation that strongly disincentivizes airline hubbing – one of the simplest changes would be to formulate a new set of fees and taxes, the heart of which should be a very steep aviation fuel tax;
  4. and, pass legislation that restores local control, so that local communities have a real voice, and can impose reasonable curfews and capacity limits, and can say ‘NO!’ to airport over-expansion.

NextGen: “A Virtual Highway, and the Traffic Never Stops”

A good opinion piece related to NextGen impacts (and ongoing FAA failures) near the Baltimore-Washington Airport [KBWI]. This airport serves as the hub for Southwest, in the DC area (NOTE: the two other major airports serving the DC area are Dulles [KIAD] and Reagan National [KDCA]; United hubs at KIAD, and American dominates at KDCA]. There is some misinformation in the Op/Ed, as happens in a world run by money and set on crafting and pitching propaganda, but they also make some great points.

Here is an archived copy, with aiREFORM footnotes added:

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

URGENT – The SeaTac Hardstand Needs to Be Appealed by July 28th

If there is one matter that people around SeaTac Airport [KSEA] need to focus on right now, it is the urgent deadline, just over a week away, for filing an appeal at King County Superior Court. That appeal, if granted, would force review of POS’s recent SEPA ‘Determination of Non-Significance’, or ‘DNS’, for the so-called ‘Hardstand’ expansion project. What exactly is a DNS? In this case, the DNS is POS’s way of administratively declaring, “oh, we want to enable the airlines to park 6 more airplanes for handling their through-passengers, but this will not increase flights and will have no significant impacts.” Really!?! Hmmm … this determination seems to lack plausibility.

A Closer Look at the Environmental Review Process

The Port of Seattle (POS) has an environmental staff, and one of their duties is to maintain a webpage listing various projects for both NEPA (federal) and SEPA (state) environmental review. People need to understand how these processes flow, and how they are so strongly biased to enable airport over-expansion while creating an illusion that the general public was involved in the process. This Post takes a closer look at the state portion, SEPA.

So, how does the SEPA work in the State of Washington? Probably very much like what has evolved (or devolved??) for environmental review in most states. As has become a common strategy at major airports across the nation, a bunch of paperwork is created, and procedures are ‘checked off’. At the right point in time (usually, immediately after seeing that it looks like all boxes were checked), the airport authority can then simply do what they intended from the start: declare their ‘Determination of Non-Significance’, or ‘DNS’. So long as nobody finds time or money to file an appeal at the courts, it is ‘Game Over’. The airlines (served by the airport authorities) get more expansion, and more profit potential; the airport authority gets a fatter budget and more passenger fee revenues; the controllers see an increase in traffic and may finally nudge past a threshold to get a nice pay raise.

And what about the thousands more residents now awoken by night flights? Not a problem; they were determined by POS to be ‘Not Significant’. And if that seems inaccurate, well, just try to fix it!

In short, it’s a rigged system. No surprises there. So, what do we do about it? Demand the system be improved, and take action to fix what has been done wrong. We all need to get our community leaders to file appeals, before that looming deadline (July 28th).

Here’s a plausible sample letter or email, that defines the concerns we need to communicate to the City Manager and Council Members at Des Moines:

Example of letter for individual use: Request for appeal of POS’s ‘SeaTac Hardstand DNS’
The new ‘Hardstand’ capacity expansion proposal at SeaTac Airport, with all of its implications for increased aircraft support activity and toxic emissions, should be given the consideration of a full Environmental Impact Study (EIS). With all due respect, a determination of non-significance issued by the Port of Seattle does not inspire one with confidence, nor does it guarantee that this project will not further negatively impact the citizens living under and around the concentrated NextGen flight corridors.
Up to this point in time, the Port of Seattle and the FAA have been woefully lacking in following adequate procedures for public notification and transparency regarding airport expansion plans. Their preferred method of operation seems to be fast-tracking, in order to quickly implement changes while minimizing citizen opportunities for comment or input.  A full EIS performed by an impartial entity should be mandated before the Port of Seattle is allowed to proceed with any further expansion.
This airport is already overcrowded, and the schedule has been expanded too far. Please file the necessary appeal.

For reference, the table below lists archived copies of the key documents POS created; they hope to begin construction of the hardstand capacity expansion, later this year.

6/6/2017 SEPA DNS (3pg) [link] .. one odd puzzle about this DNS: it appears to cover only the so-called ‘hardstand holdroom’ building, but not the actual hardstand
6/6/2017 Checklist for SEPA DNS (22pg) [link]
6/21/2017 Comment Period Extension (1pg) [link]
7/7/2017 Final SEPA DNS (6pg) [link] .. declares 7/28 deadline to appeal for review, at King County Superior Court
7/18/2017 ADDENDUM to Final SEPA DNS (2pg) [link]