No Fly Day on October 24th

In less than two weeks, No Fly Day happens. People across the nation are pledging to not fly, in protest of FAA NextGen implementations, which are causing severe aviation noise impacts at many of the major commercial passenger airports. FAA and the airlines and airport authorities are literally destroying neighborhoods and quality of life, inflicting a noise-cost upon hundreds of thousands of people so that the four largest airlines can add to their quarterly profits.

Here is an image of a flyer by one of the Boston-area airport noise groups, Boston West Fair Skies (BWFS). This group is well-organized; they created their own QR code (scannable square) to help people get to their website, and they are encouraging other groups to act fast on a Groupon for a 6′ by 2.5′ protest banner (ends on 10/14 at the end of 10/13). Also, please see two additional images with text summarizing the goals, as well as the FAA’s failures that necessitated this protest.

20151024.. No Fly Day flyer, KBOS version (A.Poole, 10-12-2015)

20151024.. 'Reasons for the Protest' (NoFlyDay flyer content)

(click on image to read a timeline about FAA’s ongoing NextGen failures)

20151024.. '3 demands of FAA to Protect' (NoFlyDay flyer content)Learn more and sign the pledge:

NOTE: individuals or groups interested in joining the protest, producing local materials, etc. are encouraged to contact at:


PETITION: Culver City Opposition to NextGen-Related Route Changes

20150906cpy.. SoCal flights, color-coded by airport, showing KLAX dominance, routes

(click on image to view petition at

Parents and Residents of Culver City are petitioning President Obama, FAA Administrator Huerta, and others to stop new NextGen-related routes FAA proposes to implement over Southern California. The petition includes the above graphic, which appears to show a sampling of actual radar tracks for the LA Basin, color-coded by airport. LAX tracks are in magenta.

The Culver City area has been delineated on this aviation plot. It is the white patch outlined in red, and sits north-northeast of LAX and just east of Santa Monica. The magenta routes show that Culver City is under a heavy LAX arrival stream from points north, particularly the Bay Area. Note the fan of magenta lines from the northwest corner of the image; these are arrivals, converging over Santa Monica, where they then make a slight left turn to create an eastbound downwind leg for LAX. ATC then peels off these arrivals to fit into the arrivals from the east (most of the U.S.); i.e., notice the long series of sweeping right turns from the downwind onto final for landing LAX.

The petition makes some very good points. It also provides many links to articles and related materials. An easy and informative read, well worth a look.

Here are three links:

How FAA is Sabotaging the Citizen Involvement Process on ‘OAPMs’

Suppose you live in Southern California, maybe near the airport in Santa Monica. And, suppose you are highly responsible, the kind of person who doesn’t just take the time to vote but also sacrifices even more of your precious personal time to participate in important decisions by your government. You make it a habit to stay informed and involved.

One day, a news item announces that FAA has a big airspace redesign project: the SoCal Metroplex OAPM.**OAPM = ‘Optimization of Airspace & Procedures in the Metroplex’. You read the article and see that FAA has posted documents online and will have public ‘open houses’ at libraries and other locations, to answer questions and to enable citizen awareness of the proposals. At the end of the ‘open houses’, FAA has set a deadline for you to offer your concerns, suggestions, etc.

You are a busy person, with a job and a home and a family, but you nonetheless make time to do what you feel is your civic duty. You go online and find a slick webpage (created by a contractor for FAA) with an overview and more links. You click on the ‘Documents’ link and find another slick page, this one with links to 57 documents totaling 793 megabytes. Some of the links point to PDF files so large (the largest three are 70MB, 83MB, and 84MB) that you cannot even bear the long wait time to finish a download. You nonetheless wait through the slow downloads and open a few of the links.

You then wade through hundreds of pages, filled with aviation acronyms and other gobbledygook. You are bright and curious, and try your damnedest to make sense of what you are reading, and yet many pages are filled with information that appears to be completely irrelevant. Not just irrelevant to your small area of concern (how will these changes impact my home and my family, here in Santa Monica?), but even for the larger area of focus identified in FAA’s 57 online documents (the entire SoCal Metroplex, spanning from the Salton Sea to Solvang, and from Victorville to Tijuana).

You plow ahead and formulate a few questions. You attend a local Open House, where you find a team of FAA employees and aviation professionals awaits, ready to answer your questions. They eagerly focus on the claimed benefits, especially the claimed reduction in fuel consumption, but they grow quiet on some of your questions. You become perplexed when you realize: they are refusing to answer any questions related to the environmental impacts of their proposed changes. It is as if the proposal is all about enhancing capacity while blindly ignoring the environment. You depart the Open House and maybe, just MAYBE, you still have enough energy left to write and submit a comment before the deadline. Or, perhaps more likely, you simply shake your head and wonder: Why is this such a broken process?

The Laws…

Rest assured: it was never intended that the process would evolve as it has, to narrowly serve only the regulator and the regulated, at the expense of the much larger Public. And it is not you; it is the process that has gone nuts.

In the big picture, there are two fundamental elements needed for the effective functioning of Democracy and representative government:

  1. maximum informational transparency (in the timely release of quality reports and draft documents),
  2. and the assurance that individual citizens have an opportunity to meaningfully participate in the decision-making process.

To protect the people against agency regulatory capture, many federal laws have been deliberated and passed by Congress. Not least of these laws is the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The APA was passed in the 1940’s, aimed at bringing the evolving over-reach of numerous federal agencies back under control. Aimed at ensuring, no matter how simple or complex a proposed new rule was, agencies were not allowed to operate in a vacuum, and citizens were empowered to make meaningful contributions. Essentially, it is a check-and-balance; our past Congress’ passed laws that empowered our federal employees to create changes, but to protect our rights and ensure an effective process, Congress also passed laws requiring an open process engaging the public.

Wonderful concept, isn’t it? The problem, though, is this is only a ‘concept’, because in reality FAA (and more than a few other federal agencies) have slowly developed strategies for subverting the process. FAA is the regulatory agency with the authority to regulate airlines, manufacturers, and other aviation entities. But, FAA is a captured agency, and as such routinely serves the interests of the airlines and others FAA is supposed to be regulating.

…And How FAA is Subverting the Laws

FAA is knowingly ‘fixing’ the outcome of the reviews for changes in airport procedures and airspace design, by using the following strategies:

  • overwhelm the individual citizen with documentation, so that it is impossible for a responsible citizen to dedicate enough of their personal time to completing a thorough review. For example, a typical airport Master Plan, even for a very insignificant rural airport with little traffic, commonly measures 300-500 pages; it is hard for even a very intelligent citizen to sort through the document, even just to establish which pages are relevant and which pages are irrelevant.
  • further overwhelm the individual citizen by expanding the scope of the changes being proposed. By doing this, even the sharpest citizen (and what are the odds they are also blessed with limitless time and obsessive research skills?) will find it impossible to produce any kind of focused, specific comments. In the example of the current SoCal OAPM, the only people who MIGHT be able to process all the data are the FAA contractors who earned millions in public funds creating that webpage with 57 links to 793 MB’s of PDF files. And, don’t forget: FAA and its contractors are all biased toward approving the proposals!
  • be selective with FAA’s answers to citizen questions. By routinely ignoring the environmental questions, the agency (and, also, the aviation professionals who are ‘collaborating ‘ with FAA in this selective ‘non-answering’ policy) will nudge concerned citizens toward self-doubt. Some may even begin to question whether they are too sensitive about a problem the so-called experts cannot even recognize.
  • drag it all out forever. Delay, and delay some more, so that the process cannot possibly engage the ongoing attention of a concerned citizen. They can come to a long series of presentations, and hear the same garbage. Each time, the citizen is allowed to express his or her concern. After doing so a few times, they may just get the intended message: “WE ARE NOT REALLY LISTENING! So, move along and shut up, and accept we will do what we want at this airport!”
  • Divide and conquer. The larger Public is horribly disserved, but FAA does their job very well (that is, their REAL job, which clearly is ‘serving aviation interests’) when they find ways to get those who question airport projects to instead fight among themselves. Even good, smart and dedicated people have their limits. Stress them with noise and leaded exhaust and jet fumes, then do little to mitigate the problems; eventually, passions will flare and more citizens will give up.


Growth of Jet Operations at KSMO, 1983-2014

20150202cpy.. KSMO Annual Jet Ops chart, 1983-2014The number of jet operations per year, in and out of the airport at Santa Monica [KSMO], was barely 1,000 in 1983, and peaked at around 18,000 from 2004-2007. There was a substantial decline coincident with the financial collapse of 2008, and jet operations bottomed out below 13,000 during 2010-2012, before climbing back to 15,000 in 2014.

FAA’s records indicate there are only 6 or 7 jets actually hangared at KSMO. In fact, much of the jet traffic at KSMO is on-demand charter jets, often flying relatively short distances to Arizona, Nevada, the Rockies, or the Bay Area. The on-demand charter jets also frequently fly repositioning hops between KSMO and the three closest airports: KLAX, KVNY, or KBUR. Thus, a 6-mile or 8-mile direct trip becomes 50-60 miles of flying, mostly at altitudes no higher than 5,000 feet. The noise, soot, and other pollution impacts are substantial. And, as close as the houses are to the runway at KSMO, these jet operations are certainly not good for the health of local residents.

Below are aerial views showing the approaches to the two runway ends: Runway 21 (the primary runway) facing towards the ocean, and Runway 03 (used far less frequently) facing away from the ocean. These images are copied from a November 2011 presentation by Martin Rubin, Santa Monica Airport & Public Health.20111130.. aerial view RY21 looking SW [KSMO]20111130.. aerial view RY03 looking NE [KSMO]
Given the dense residential development close-in to the runway, air charter service to the Santa Monica area would be more safely and efficiently handled out of KLAX, KVNY, or KBUR. All three of these other airports offer much longer runways as well as multiple runways, so they can safely segregate faster jets from slower recreational aircraft. Plus, at all three airports, the controllers regularly work steady jet flows.

See also:

A Petition: Delta Airlines Lost Our Dog

With help from FAA, airlines routinely dodge accountability. When they screw up, if a family is hurt, the airlines feel no obligation to make them whole. This is a simple petition, asking that Delta Airlines behave responsibly about the loss of a family dog. Check it out by clicking on the image, and please sign on to help this family get fair treatment by Delta Airlines.
(click on image to view and sign the petition at

(click on image to view and sign the petition at