Mile-Hi Skydive’s ‘Noise-Offset Strategy’ gets a big ‘Thumbs Down’

Skydiving operators like Frank Casares at the airport in Longmont, CO are well aware that they generate lots of noise. They select their equipment for maximum climb rate, and they pressure their pilots to maximize the number of trips in each day. 20150629scp.. F.Casares in TimesCall videoThis translates to very loud noise impacts, a grinding drone-noise that routinely runs for 10-15 minutes per flight, impacting every home on the ground below, particularly those homes within 2-3 miles of the climbing aircraft.

At the same time, skydiving operators like Mr. Casares need to be on good terms with the airport officials. The airport officials HATE noise complaints. So, how can Mr. Casares minimize his noise complaints? Easy: instruct his pilots that, after they take off, they need to fly away from the airport and conduct the bulk of their noisy climbs more than three miles from the actual airport. The radar data, viewable online, clearly shows that the bulk of Mile-Hi climbs are conducted far to the south (near Gunbarrel) and far to the west (near Altona). Thus, applying this ‘Noise Offset’ strategy, Mile-Hi focuses most of their climb noise impact upon distant communities, far away from downtown Longmont. How bad is it? Check out this link to a YouTube video of skydiving noise near Altona.


Drop Zone is at KLMO (red hexagon). Impacted neighborhoods include Gunbarrel (6.2 miles south) and Altona (7.5 miles west). Boulder’s airport is 9 miles southwest (purple square); in fact, Mile-Hi does much of their climbing CLOSER to Boulder’s airport pattern (which has a long history of midair collisions) than to Longmont’s air traffic pattern.

Of course, for safety reasons, the skydiving planes also must remain compliant with the Letter of Agreement signed with the Denver TRACON (ATC). In fact, it appears Mile-Hi is routinely non-compliant, particularly in how they fly beyond the western boundary and northeastern boundary of the operations box.

A recent ‘Letter to the Editor’ to the Times-Call illustrates what happens when skydive operators use this Noise Offset strategy. Peter Gibbons writes of his support for the skydiving operator, and his personal disagreement with the people who are irritated by the skydiving noise. But, in the context of his letter, Mr. Gibbons is also revealing this important fact: due to Mr. Casare’s practice of offsetting his noise far from the skydiving ‘Drop Zone’, people in Longmont and near the airport are effectively made unaware of the extent of the noise impact elsewhere.

This pop-out view is scrollable, and the PDF copy may be downloaded.

So, Peter, your letter offered some rhetorical questions; here are some answers:

  • You say “…Why all of the negative press … over someone who doesn’t even work or live in our city?….” Well, Peter, simply because the skydiving operator is knowingly exporting his noise to distant areas. Would you understand if a community downstream from a polluting factory got upset when the toxic wastes were piped miles away for release in their neighborhoods? If Rocky Flats had ‘offset’ their hazardous waste to Longmont, would you be upset? I hope you would…
  • You say “…every weekend I see the residents of Longmont gathered at the statue, paid for by the city, watching and enjoying the skydivers….” They watch it, but they do not hear what others have to deal with, all day long for most summer weekends. Why don’t you try this, Peter; join me in asking Mile-Hi Skydive owner Frank Casares to take just one weekend and fly their climbs within 2-miles of the airport center (and thus miles away from Gunbarrel, Altona, and other distant impact locations). This will enable those gathered people to ‘hear’ the noise, too, and decide if they would be thrilled to watch every weekend if they also got to hear the planes all day long. If in fact the people in your town would love to hear it, then let’s ask Mr.Casares to contain his climbs as close to the statue as possibly … and far, far away from places like Gunbarrel and Altona.
  • You say “…Did everyone forget what Mile-Hi is to the community?….” Um, evidently not. For years now, many have expressed their deep concern about the adverse noise impact, all for a profit that goes narrowly to the skydiving operator. (NOTE: Most of this noise is so people can pay ~$200 to become a ‘student’ for a couple hours, then hitch a ride on a 2-person ‘tandem’ parachute. ‘Students’ who pay another $99 (cash discount price) get to take home a DVD video of their jump. Care to guess how much of this money goes ‘to the community’?) In short, Peter, impacted neighbors continue to complain because Mile-Hi’s gross profits carry a huge cost for people on the ground. And, local officials are unable to restore balance to Mile-Hi’s impacts. Sadly, the FAA sees its role as supporting aviation activities without any real concern for the environment and quality of life. Sadder, still, local officials and even the courts tend to defer to FAA’s authority, even while ignoring that FAA is failing to fulfill the mission Congress has assigned.

See also:

‘Dear President Obama’ – An Outstanding Anti-Fracking Website

This Post is not directly about aviation, but it is highly relevant and presented for four reasons:

  1. just like aviation, the hydro-fracking industry is highly impactful against the environment and local quality of life;
  2. the adverse impacts of both aviation and hydro-fracking tend to be focused on specific communities, whose members increasingly find a rigged system, wherein the industry is bolstered by captured regulatory agencies while the People have no real voice;
  3. aviation is horribly dependent on the use of fossil fuels (there are simply no clear alternative energies that can feed aviation’s energy appetite), thus is a key industry driving hydro-fracking and other ‘dirty energy extraction processes; and,
  4. the ‘Dear President Obama’ website presents an outstanding format, using video, images, and written content, to help illuminate the national scope of these many local problem areas.

Here are two sample videos…


If you are concerned about aviation impacts, by NextGen or by your local unregulated activities (e.g., skydiving, air tours, banner tows, etc.), please spend a few minutes looking at the ‘Dear President Obama’ website and watching some of the videos. Think about your own local story, and the letter you want to send if/when we can find an official who cares to fix aviation problems. In the coming years, we will need to work together; creating a similar website focused on aviation impacts is a project some of us should take on, and it would be a great step forward.

Airport Noise: Fifteen Ways to Quiet the Skies

The following list was compiled by one of the oldest groups advocating for cleaner and less impactful aviation in the United States: US-CAW (U.S.-Citizens Aviation Watch). A reference to ‘Stage IV’ suggests this was compiled long ago, even as early as the 1990s. Items #1, #2, #3, and #12 would greatly improve quality of life at Santa Monica, Longmont, East Hampton, and the growing list of NextGen-impacted airports (Phoenix, Charlotte and LaGuardia stand out on the list).

The list below is filled with great ideas, but we all just wait for the long overdue action by Congress and FAA….

  1. Increase local control of airports.
    Demand that two-thirds of airport commission members live within the high impact area where average day/night levels exceed 65 dBA (what the FAA calls moderate noise exposure). Also, increase local control with regard to expansion, number and time of takeoffs, landings, ground operations, etc.
  2. Remove FAA from oversight of environmental quality and public health.
    This would remove a significant conflict of interest for the FAA which has too often seen its role as promoting air transportation. Noise and other environmental pollutants need to be regulated by some combination of EPA and local oversight.
  3. Abandon the day/night sound pressure level of 65 dBA that the FAA uses to separate “low” noise exposure from “moderate” noise exposure.
    The 65 dBA value is too noisy and unhealthy. Use 55 dBA as an interim value until a descriptor that includes low frequency noise, and better reflects the impacts of aircraft noise such as sleep disturbance, interference with learning, and other noise impacts.
  4. Develop high-speed rail alternatives to aircraft flights of less than 500 miles.
    Redirect government investment from airport expansion to high-speed rail. Also, support efforts to quiet rail transit.
  5. Protect the public from environmental and health hazards at and near airports.
    These include the release of significant amounts of toxins, known carcinogens and de-icing fluids. Existing Clean Air and Clean Water regulations need to be enforced and new regulations addressing the public health and environmental impacts of airports and airplane travel need to be adopted.
  6. Support a Global Nighttime Curfew.
    Around the world, hundreds of airports already have curfews. Local nighttime curfews, while a positive step, shift the problem elsewhere. A nationwide and global effort is needed.
  7. Demand that airports and airlines pay the full cost of airline travel.
    Remove all FAA subsidies; increase landing fees to cover lost property value, insulation programs, health effects, and annoyance; increase fuel taxes to account for environmental and public health damage; and remove local subsidies.
  8. Expand soundproofing programs to all homes, churches, schools, hospitals, and commercial businesses experiencing a day/night average of greater than 55 dBA from airports.
    Eventually, all sensitive properties–homes, churches, schools, day care, hospitals, etc.–should be protected against indoor single event readings exceeding 45 dBA with windows open. Insulation and soundproofing alone, however, is not the solution because it neglects outdoor noise. Insulation does not provide for the full enjoyment of common and private property. However, at least it protects people inside their homes.
  9. Demand objective health studies of noise and other pollutants near airports.

  10. Support quieter and cleaner aircraft technology (called Stage IV).
    Stage IV technology may be years away, and in the future, aircraft may achieve smaller reductions in pollution, both in terms of air and noise pollution. Therefore, Stage IV technology should not be relied upon as the main solution to aircraft pollution. Nevertheless, technological improvements should be aggressively pursued.
  11. Ban flights over and within 2 miles
    of non-urban National Parks, Wilderness areas, National Monuments, National Seashores, and other sensitive and pristine public lands (except for emergency, research, construction and maintenance activities).
  12. Increase the minimum altitude for general aviation craft and helicopters
    to 2,000 feet above ground level and implement an effective policing mechanism. Impose a minimum flight altitude for 2,500 feet above ground level for all tour operations and commercial transport services (for example, air taxis).
  13. Ban commercial and corporate SST flights from United States Airports and airspace.

  14. Avoid solutions that shift noise to others.
    The FAA likes to pit one community against another because it divides opposition to its policies. A fairer distribution of noise might make sense for many airports, but moving the noise around doesn’t solve the problem and divides people who should be united against airport noise. The problem of airport noise will not be solved one airport at a time. Persons with airport noise problems must unite. Significant changes in the FAA will likely occur only when airport groups can show significant power and support to Washington.
  15. Foster connections with and support other noise pollution organizations.
    A victory for any group fighting noise is a victory for all. This is the only way to create a broad enough coalition to actually reduce noise pollution.

UPDATE: Citizens for Quiet Skies Legal Action in Longmont, CO

In her decision on May 21st, U.S. District Court Judge LaBuda sided with Mile-Hi Skydiving. At the root of Judge LaBuda’s decision was a total deference to FAA, the federal agency that manages aviation issues by letting operators do whatever they want … and the same federal agency that protects aviation from environmental accountability. A classic captured regulatory agency. This huge legal effort by Citizens for Quiet Skies (CQS) has always been aimed at correcting this problem, seeking to restore meaningful local control so airports will again serve not just pilots but the local community, too.

In June, Judge LaBuda awarded nearly $68,000 to Mile-Hi for supposedly “reasonable costs.” These costs included $40,000 for Mile-Hi’s noise expert, and costs incurred for defense counsel Anthony Leffert to fly to California and sit next to the noise expert during his deposition. Adding insult to injury, two months after the trial’s conclusion the Judge went further and granted another $48,000 in “attorney fees” to Mile-Hi Skydiving, opining that the lawsuit was ‘frivolous’ and agreeing that the plaintiffs should be punished for some of the claims that were dismissed prior to trial. The plaintiffs must now submit 125% of the awarded amount to the court until the appeal is concluded – $145,000 in total.

These are ordinary citizens who, as you can well imagine, will have to liquidate retirement accounts and make very difficult financial choices. Make no mistake, Judge LaBuda’s clearly punitive actions toward the plaintiffs are aimed at driving a stake right through the heart of citizen activism – not just at this airport, but at ALL U.S. airports.

Citizens for Quiet Skies is standing tall. Kimberly Gibbs wrote a great letter, No Ceiling for Noise, posted at on August 2nd. Kimberly also shares that the first payment to the legal team has been made, with CQS offering many thanks to the hundreds who have contributed to help cover legal expenses throughout the trial and now with the appeal. 20150808cpy.. Fundraising letters received KLMO picFunds are still needed to cover the expense to proceed with the appeal, so please consider making a generous donation to this effort – their work is on behalf of many skydiving victim communities across the country. It’s easy, just click the donate button on their website at:

One reaction to Judge LaBuda’s decisions has been some fairly intense (and often very uncivil) commentary, particularly at the local Longmont newspaper ( and the local Boulder newspaper ( A better collection of letters, with faster access, no ads, and more moderate and civil comments, is viewable at It is clear that the community is very deeply split. Skydivers and other aviation-types (including airport officials) continue to make wild claims of how the airport boosts the economy, and the worst members of their ‘group’ continue to attack Ms. Gibbs and others; a growing number of neighbors have had enough, are rejecting the pro-aviation pitches and expressing outrage at what the court has done.

Here is a recent online comment by one of those neighbors:

Michelle Sullivan: Let’s find middle ground on plane noise
“I have lived in Longmont for over 13 years. The noise from the skydiving planes has been a growing issue, especially since they added the newer plane. At times when my husband and I are outside, enjoying our otherwise beautiful back yard, we have to halt our conversation when the plane is climbing because we literally cannot hear each other talk.
It is time for this to stop. If you are a citizen affected in the area, please do something to help this fight.
It appears to me that the judge was extremely bias and the Citizens for Quiet Skies were not treated fairly. I found this especially true the day the judge did a site visit to hear the plane. I was outside the entire day, and I assure you that was the quietest I have ever heard the plane climb. If the judge wanted to be totally fair and hear an accurate flight she should not have announced when she was listening.
I believe the judge’s efforts to punish the group further by the outrageous award for attorney fee’s is unfair. Furthermore, it was disrespectful to call the lawsuit frivolous.
During the summer especially, it is miserable to be outside listening to a 12-hour stint of unreasonable noise, not to mention we can clearly hear it in our house all day long. Surely there is a middle ground here. ”

Click on page two to view copies of more online comments supporting the need for mitigation of the Mile-Hi Skydiving noise impact.

UPDATE, 8/18/2015: — The KLMO airport webpage now includes a Reference Page with an extensive collection of links to online articles, letters-to-editor, and more.

A Sample Letter to Congress, Seeking Help to Manage Excessive Skydiving Noise

“The current FAA rules actually provide loopholes that serve to protect offenders and prevent the application and enforcement of reasonable noise standards for aviation operators. Many of these aviation businesses that create excessive community noise impacts are based at airports subsidized using federal air passenger taxes, and these taxes are paid by people flying through the large commercial airports. Thus, FAA is using our money to enable skydiving, air tour, and other recreational operators to generate large personal profits, while at the same time diminishing the quality of life for our neighborhoods.”
– a key point made in the attached ‘Sample Letter’

A common practice among skydiving operators is that they will fly at least a few miles away from their base airport, so that the long drone of their noisy climbs will not disturb people at and near the airport. The effect is an offset of the noise impact, typically onto quiet rural areas and/or distant residential neighborhoods. Suddenly, for entire weekends, areas that previously had no substantial aviation noise are hearing the irritating grind of skydiving climbs ALL DAY LONG!

This is an ongoing problem in communities across the nation. So, when the homeowners near Longmont, Colorado pressed their skydiving noise concerns all the way to their local U.S. District Court, they did us all a great favor. Unfortunately, the Judge deferred strongly to FAA to justify not ruling against the skydiving noise operator. And so, Mile Hi Skydiving Center is continuing to destroy quality of life in the residential neighborhoods they climb over … some near the Longmont Airport, but many quite a few miles away. Check out this outstanding video created to document the impact for a typical day of Longmont skydiving noise:

In the big picture, if FAA was doing a ‘balanced’ job, regulating aviation commerce while also serving the larger public, we would not have such severe noise impacts, and we would not need civil actions like Citizens for Quiet Skies et al v. Mile-Hi Skydiving Center. But the fact is, FAA is failing, especially as regards the substantial environmental impacts of aviation. So, our best bet to demand real performance by FAA is to go to Congress, and get our elected officials to demand FAA clean up its act.

Page two of this Post presents a sample letter to elected officials. You can use it to model your own letter, wherever your home is being impacted by out-of-control skydiving noise. This particular letter was submitted anonymously by a person familiar with the Longmont skydive noise issue and the recent District Court trial. The author presents some very good points, as well as suggestions for how Congress can correct some of FAA’s failures.

So, please read this letter carefully and, if you are inspired to write your own, please consider sharing it with this website, where we will gladly post it as you wish, with (or without) your name.

Citizens for Quiet Skies et al v. Mile-Hi Skydiving Center


“Your home should be a place of Peace and Quiet…
…but God help you if you live near
a skydiving operation!”

Such might have been mumbled by a homeowner or an old-fashioned reporter, at the conclusion of the case, Citizens for Quiet Skies et al v. Mile-Hi Skydiving Center, heard in the U.S. District Court, in Boulder, Colorado.

The case was a bench trial before Judge Judith LaBuda, who heard five days of testimony, April 13-17, 2015. Judge LaBuda conducted a site visit on May 2nd, to experience the noise impact (while defendant Mile-Hi kept their flights far away … but only for a few hours!) and closing arguments were presented on May 6th. Both parties submitted Proposed Findings of Fact on May 15th. Judge LaBuda issued her decision on May 21st, siding with Mile-Hi Skydiving while articulating a heavy deference to FAA’s regulatory authority.

The principle spokespeople for the two sides were Kimberly Gibbs and Frank Casares. Both speak in this video, posted at TimesCall, one of the local papers that has been following this issue.

Ms. Gibbs lives 6-miles south of the Longmont airport. Like her neighbors, she pays taxes on the home in her neighborhood. She works. She comes home to relax and recover for her next workday. She sometimes invites friends over to enjoy each others’ company, to have conversations and a nice meal on a pleasant afternoon. She lives in a part of the world blessed with fine weather for outside living, where a backyard barbeque is a treat. All of these activities are possible when normal backyard noise conditions exist. These activities are destroyed by persistent noise.

20150629scp.. K.Gibbs in TimesCall video

(click on image to view video at start of Ms. Gibbs’ comments)

Mr. Casares is an aviation business owner. He makes money by carrying as many people as possible to an altitude of 17,999 feet (the highest FAA will allow), so they can drop out of an airplane and parachute back to the airport west of Longmont. The faster his airplanes climb, the more profit he makes; so, the aircraft types are selected, and propellers and fuel-flow rates are also selected, to maximize rate of climb. A consequence of these settings (prop RPM, prop pitch, etc.) is that his aircraft make a much higher level of irritant noise than do other small aircraft. So, to keep the airport happy, he simply has his pilots fly a few miles away from Longmont. This ensures that the local airport neighbors do not have to endure a droning climb noise all day long on his most profitable business days. And, as a benefit, the vast majority of people impacted, say 5- to 8- miles away, have no idea that the horrific droning airplane noise is part of a skydive operation, making all that noise heard by thousands of residents, sometimes to serve just 2- or 4- skydivers.

20150629scp.. F.Casares in TimesCall video

(click on image to view video at start of Mr. Casares’ comments)

So, the crux of the problem at Longmont is this: because Mr. Casares’ pilots go miles away from their drop zone to do their long and noisy climbs, other – and more distant – airport neighbors bear the brunt of the noise impact. FAA is granted wide deference in matters that relate to aviation. So, when a case about aviation noise nuisance goes to trial in a U.S. District Court, it is not unusual for the Judge to defer to FAA. But, what the Judge is not factoring in is how deeply FAA serves aviation money, and how the record shows, FAA would really prefer to not waste its time balancing the profit ambitions of aviation businesses to preserve the residential expectation of ‘Peace and Quiet’.

This is what is called a ‘taking’. Mr Casares’ planes fly for his profit, and when FAA lends cover to Mr. Casares, Ms. Gibbs’ home becomes not a place of ‘Peace and Quiet’, but a place to leave on days when skydiving happens. In effect, Mr. Casares, with a little help from FAA, has ‘taken away’ the rights of Ms. Gibbs and her neighbors to enjoy the homes and the liberties we like to think are protected in this nation.

See also… (blue dates link to online content)

With ears to the sky, judge visits 2 homes in Longmont airplane-noise lawsuit
TimesCall article by Karen Antonacci. Includes webtrak screen captures indicating that, during the site visits by Judge LaBuda, Mile Hi kept their flights miles away, operating in distant parts of the climb box.
Plaintiff’s Proposed Findings of Fact
Defendant’s Proposed Findings of Fact
Decision by Judge LaBuda, Gibbs et al v. Mile-Hi Skydiving (2013CV031563)
PDFs of related documents are attached at pages 2 thru 5.

A Visitor to Longmont, CO, Shocked by the Skydiving Noise…

…over and over again, by Mile-Hi Skydiving, while the family tries to enjoy a Sunday morning celebration for their high school graduate. This Letter to Editor tells the story quite well:20150602scp..Mile-Hi Skydiving Noise interferes with family celebration in Longmont (TimesCall LTE)
Yet another example of FAA’s failure to manage aviation impacts. Time for Reform.

ANALYSIS: Three Decades of Aviation Noise Politics May be Bracing for Impact

The news this year has been abuzz with Aviation Noise articles, and it does not appear to be slowing down.

Yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Judith LaBuda heard closing arguments in a Boulder, CO trial, where impacted residents are seeking relief from the noise of Mile-Hi Skydiving Center, operating out of Longmont’s Vance Brand Airport [KLMO].

On the East Coast and the West Coast (in East Hampton, NY, and in Santa Monica, CA), citizens have ‘Just Said No’ to FAA grants for decades to get out from under ‘grant obligations’ and try to regain local control of their airports. They are now working diligently to finish their trek, to ensure local officials will not cave to late pressures from FAA and the industry. For once, they hope to see their local officials act to manage aviation noise and preserve ‘quality of life’. At East Hampton [KHTO], residents want relief from noisy commuter helicopters. At Santa Monica [KSMO], the biggest noise offender is also commercial, in the form of charter jets using a too-short runway, and also spraying soot and jet blast onto neighboring homes.

And, of course, there are the ongoing (and growing!) NextGen debacles impacting hundreds of thousands of sleep-deprived residents. Phoenix, Chicago, and New York have generated lots of big stories; Charlotte, Minneapolis, Seattle, Boston, Palo Alto, … the list will grow on. At each impacted community, millions of taxpayer dollars are used by FAA to attractively (and fraudulently) ‘green-wrap’ the debacle, and always stated as ‘in collaboration with industry stakeholders’. And, in case you missed it, FAA even wished everyone a Happy Earth Day!

Lots of news, but very little progress. Such is the politics of FAA and aviation noise.

Censorship in Colorado

As an example of how intensely political aviation noise is becoming, a conservative-leaning paper in Longmont recently censored out a reader comment. The paper,, has generally been doing an excellent job of covering the citizens’ lawsuit against aviation operator Mile-Hi Skydiving. And their articles provide a ripe forum for people to express their views. As has come to be the standard in today’s online forums, the views are hugely polarized and sometimes downright rude and uncivil.

So, here’s a short overview of what happened at A person using the tag ‘JustSayinEP’ (Estes Park?) had made a comment which was promptly deleted by the website administrator. But, before the deletion, another person using the tag ‘Querty123’ responded, questioning if ‘JustSayinEP’ was threatening to use a rocket launcher to shoot down the main offending Mile-Hi Skydiving airplane, the loud white/purple Twin Otter. ‘JustSayinEP’ then promptly replied, and within his reply noted the content had censored. To their credit, did not censor this follow-up. Thus, we are all able to plausibly reconstruct their justification for the censorship. Here’s a screen-capture showing the comment thread (orange-box added by

(click on image to read original article and reader comments at

(click on image to read original article and reader comments at

The censored comment included lyrics from Bruce Cockburn’s 1984 song about oppression in Guatemala, ‘If I had a Rocket Launcher’. The opening stanza of the song lyrics includes, “Here comes the helicopter, second time today, everybody scatters and hopes it goes away, how many kids they’ve murdered only God can say….” The second stanza includes, “I don’t believe in guarded borders and I don’t believe in hate, I don’t believe in generals or their stinking torture states….” See the full lyrics here; the song is short and simple, and the lyrics webpage has lots more information about how the song came to be written.

Here are two embedded YouTube videos. Take your pick (or, better, listen to both). The first is the video at the link posted by ‘JustSayinEP’, which has video images showing the human face in Guatemala; the second video is an acoustic version, on a stage in Canada, that many find more artistically impressive:

Both videos present a great song. This song is NOT intended to stir up violence. It is clearly intended to stir up PEOPLE, to get us to CARE ENOUGH to take non-violent action, to right an obvious wrong. As Bruce Cockburn explained about his new song, in a late 1984 interview, “this is not a call to arms. This is, this is a cry….”

A cry. In 1984, and again in 2015.

Which is why it seems surprising that would see fit to censor it.

The Politics Go Back to Ronald Reagan

The deeper story gets into politics, and reveals some of the oppressive dark-side of aviation. Mr. Cockburn wrote this song more than thirty years ago, early in the Reagan Administration. Two of the biggest presidential moves on aviation were done by President Reagan in 1981. In August, he fired most of the FAA air traffic controllers, for their strike, an action that still resonates with labor today. Earlier in the year he had persuaded Congress to support his proposal to shut down the Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) at EPA, an action hugely relevant to the NextGen implementation debacles.

That was Reagan’s first year, 1981. In early 1982, in Central America, General José Efraín Ríos Montt staged a military coup and became President of Guatemala. He had distant support from a few other nations, including the Reagan administration, and he used aviation as perhaps his most powerful tool of oppression. Bruce Cockburn visited the Guatemalan refuge camps in the Mexican state of Chiapas, during the Montt dictatorship. He saw the way helicopters routinely ignored national borders to fly menacingly over and sometimes fire into refugee camps. An avowed pacifist, he was outraged by the inhumane oppression he saw, so he wrote this song. And, thankfully for the Guatemalan people, the presidency of General Montt was short-lived; it ended in August 1983.

Mr. Cockburn’s song does a fantastic job of illustrating the simple fact that people who are oppressed need relief from their oppression. No matter how peaceful people are, if a state of oppression is sustained, it is only right to stand firm and resist. The individual standing against oppression was once at the heart of our national identity. If the oppressor denies the oppressed effective recourse, in due time some may feel compelled toward violent action to retake their freedom. We took up arms against the British, and that crystallized our national identity. We all want to avoid violence, which is why we want to believe we have an open press and deliberative Courts, the essential nonviolent venues for maintaining civility. But history has shown, if the press and the Courts fail, peace too will soon fail. Thus, we MUST have a strong press and reliable Courts, openly covering the NextGen noise debacles, and justly deciding cases like the one in Boulder.

In the big picture, if we truly want a happy and peaceful world, we have to start with preserving basic quality of life, which includes vigorously guarding against oppression.

Noise is oppression.

Noise is oppression. Not as horrific and potentially lethal as an armed helicopter, but still oppressive. And bureaucratic inaction, as FAA consistently shows, doesn’t just frustrate the noise-oppressed; it also scuttles their chance for relief from other venues, such as when Courts reflexively defer to FAA, ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT FAA IS DOING ITS LEGISLATED DUTY. Which, by the way, FAA is NOT.

For reasons unknown, FAA has completely abandoned their federal responsibility to manage aviation noise. Some would conclude it is easily explained, if you simply understand that FAA today is a captured regulatory agency, existing solely to serve the industry.

In essence, the only difference between an aviation lobbyist and an FAA official in Washington is that the latter is still making small contributions into their federal retirement pension. So, as it stands today, if the airlines want political cover to add a few more million in annual profits by making early turns to climb out over Phoenix and Flushing, FAA provides that cover. Complaining citizens are just beaten down and ignored.

Today’s Noise Politics: On a Collision Course?

Today, NextGen noise is Oppression, and FAA is the intransigent Oppressor. Near NextGen airports, where new procedures are being implemented without needed environmental reviews and citizen input, ‘We the People’ are now ‘We the Oppressed’.

The current situation has become so untenable that in New York, U.S. Representative Grace Meng is advocating for a different agency to take over where FAA is failing. She wants to mend some of the errors of 1981, by resuming funding for the Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC). And she wants EPA to run it, because, as she says, “(FAA) has failed to convince me and the public that it can objectively handle the problems caused by noise pollution. The EPA is better suited to study the consequences of noise pollution and propose measures to ameliorate this ongoing problem….” The proposal is presented in Congresswoman Meng’s 4/30/2015 letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.

Her concerns are echoed in Arizona Senator John McCain’s 4/30/2015 letter to Administrator Huerta, seeking resolution of the Phoenix NextGen debacle.

Rocky Mountain Loud: Skydiving Noise Impacts near Longmont, Colorado

20150421cpy.. Flatirons Boulder picThe Front Range west of Denver offers spectacular vistas, like the Flatirons shown above, just south of Boulder. Ample sunshine makes it a natural for people to be outside. Many are drawn here for the opportunity to have an active and outdoor lifestyle. But, due to lack of effective FAA regulation, what might have been John Denver’s ‘Rocky Mountain High‘ has instead become a noise nightmare reminiscent of Jack Nicholson in ‘The Shining’. Repetitive noise, just like intense silence, drives people crazy.

Northeast of Boulder an outfit called ‘Mile-Hi Skydiving’ has been impacting quality of life around Longmont since the mid-1990’s. It is a classic example of the skydiving impacts that FAA refuses to address, just like happens in hundreds of rural areas around the country. Typically, these outfits set up business just outside large urban centers. In Portland, OR, for example, a skydive company intensively advertises on busses and bus shelters to draw customers out to Molalla. A few city-dwellers then drive out to the country and pay for a cheap thrill ride, oblivious to the fact they are destroying the country lifestyle below. The flights are under the south arrival corridor into [KPDX], so way back in 1991, FAA officials coordinated with the operator to do their climbs about 8-miles to the northeast of their airport [OL05]. Most people in that area are unaware of why they are subjected to so much airplane noise, particularly intense on weekends and nice summer days.

The Skydiving Business Model

'Here's Johnny!' J.Nicholson pic in The Shining

“Here’s Johnny!”

Jack would understand: this is a business, aimed at making a profit. Mile-Hi flies large and noisy aircraft up and down, up and down, all day long. To maximize profits, they select aircraft for maximum climb rate. If a particular engine or propeller design/setting increases the climb rate, they use it, with zero regard for the noise level. If a noisier climb takes only 12-minutes but a quieter climb takes 15-minutes, most skydiving outfits will opt for the noisier climb to save 3 minutes (and thus add a few more flights per day). Commonly, with skydive operations, they hire pilots on the cheap, which is easy to do since FAA and the industry have worked together for decades to ensure there is a large pool of eager, low-hour pilots. They need to build up hours before airlines will hire them. So, when a company like Mile-Hi offers a $199 cash price for tandem jumps (the kind where you are strapped to a so-called ‘instructor’ for your one-time lesson thrill-ride), their profit margin is enormous. Which makes it all the more puzzling why local airports often charge very little (or even nothing) to set up at fields like Vance Brand Airport [KLMO], in Longmont. (see the pink circle below)20150424cpy.. VFR chart vicinity [KLMO]

As a business, they take a fee from each skydiver, to add to their company profit. But that is not the only ‘taking’. They also take peace and quiet from thousands of local residents who must endure the low-frequency reverberating drone that destroys their summer days. Worse yet, the impacts also happen for hours and even full days in the other seasons, for year-round operators like Mile-Hi. The local residents lose quality of life; they get no compensation for their loss. They can complain to FAA, who will routinely tell them to take it up with the business or airport. They can complain to the business or airport, who will tell them the program is ‘FAA compliant’ and refer them back to the FAA with their complaint. The citizens face a black hole where neither operators nor FAA officials are held accountable; thus, real citizens effectively have no rights to resolve an adverse impact that FAA condones.

The Civil Action

20150421scp.. portion of homepage,

(click on image to view the Citizens for Quiet Skies website homepage)

The matter has irritated local residents so much that they filed a lawsuit. A group called Citizens for Quiet Skies gradually formed, and in late 2013 the group and seven individuals filed a lawsuit (Case# 2013CV031563) at the U.S. District Court in Boulder, CO. A 5-day trial was held last week. District Court Judge Judith LaBuda plans to do a site visit on May 1st, before issuing her ruling.

The group raised funds to cover their legal expenses, and some incurred personal debt. Of course, people should not have to take on personal debt to right a wrong, and they would not have to if FAA would properly apply environmental considerations to regulate operations like Mile-Hi Skydiving. Nor should people have to endure harassment by aviation companies or even by aviators in flight. In May 2012, Mile-Hi sent Kimberly Gibbs a letter, with a “Have a Great Summer!” poster, as well as a bumper sticker that read ‘I love airplane noise!’. Weeks later, there was the Memorial Day family gathering in the backyard, when a helicopter suddenly appeared over the treetops and hovered at less than 200-feet altitude. This incident is a blatantly serious case of aviation harassment, the sort of thing FAA would aggressively act on, if they were not so in bed with the industry they fail to regulate.

Good people know right from wrong. Better people refuse to cower to bullies. The best people fight back, to not only take care of their own bad situation, but even more to protect others from future repeats of the same injustices. As Ms. Gibbs puts it, “Sometimes you have to stand up and push the bully back into the lockers.”

We should all be able to relax in our homes. With summer coming, we are entering the peak season for aviation impacts by parachute operations. If you are impacted at your residence, please contact the administrator (ReformFAAnow at Gmail dot com) to help us compile more data documenting the extent of this U.S. aviation problem.

Parachute Accident: Lucky to Be Alive

A skydiver in Cañon City, Colorado was wearing a helmet-camera a few years ago, when he had a serious accident. Fortunately, he survived (though he had to have his left arm amputated) and generously shared the ten-minute video. Here’s the video:

The presence of a truck and trailer in the designated drop zone area was an important factor contributing to this accident. The trailer provided  benches for the skydivers to sit on while they rode back to the skydive building. Many commenters recognized that this rig became an unnecessary hazard when it was parked too close to the landing area.

To see more, including a series of video frame-captures, click on page two.