PUBLICATION: AAP Newsfeed
DATE: October 6, 1997
SECTION: Nationwide General News; Australian General News
BYLINE: Rod McGuirk
DATELINE: Perth, Australia
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Senator Andrew Murray, Australian Democrat
AAP Newsfeed reports that the Australian Democrat Senator Andrew Murray has proposed federal legislation that would place a midnight-to-6 am curfew at Perth Airport, similar to the curfews at the Sydney, Adelaide, and Melbourne Airports. While members of the public support the legislation, others are attacking it, including officials from Westralia Airports Corporation, the airport's new private-sector owner; Perth MHR Stephen Smith; and John D'Orazio, mayor of the noise-affected Bayswater.
According to the article, the Perth Airport is about 12 km from the city center. Senator Murray said the airport used to be "way out of town," but because of encroaching development, is now close to many residences. He added, "Naturally people buy there with the expectation things will stay the same and the idea they'll get a massive increase in air noise bothers them."
Opponents of the curfew say it would have a major detrimental impact on tourism and business in Perth and remote regional Western Australia, the article reports. There are many pre-dawn flights to and from Perth, the article says, so that people can make business trips without staying overnight. Scheduling flights around a curfew would be a problem, the article explains, because there is a two-hour time difference with the eastern states, which becomes a three-hour difference during daylight savings time.
Graham Muir, general manager of Westralia Airports, said air traffic at the Perth Airport is expected to continue to grow at twice the GDP for the next 10 years. But, he said, "there should never be a case for an airport curfew because there has been a lot of effort by councils and governments to make sure there hasn't been the residential development to the airport boundary that you see in Sydney and Adelaide."
Meanwhile, John D'Orazio, mayor of Baywater, said the best solution to the problem would be to soundproof the homes affected by jet noise in Perth, as happened in Sydney. He called on the coalition government today to honor a Labor Government commitment to soundproof the homes. He said soundproofing "would improve the quality of life for those in noise-affected areas and make sure that Perth can operate in the future without the problems of a curfew that would have a huge economic effect on this state." D'Orazio also said that former transport minister John Sharp had reneged on a federal commitment to conduct a noise audit of the area after Labor lost power last year, the article reports.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: October 6, 1997
DATELINE: Burbank, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Dave Golonski, Burbank City Councillor; Robert "Bud" Ovrom, Burbank City Manager; Margie Gee, airport opponent and former airport commissioner; Bob Kramer, Burbank Mayor
The Los Angeles Times reports the the outcome of a pending lawsuit between Burbank, California and Burbank Airport's airport authority will make it clearer for all airports as to when a local government can regulate aircraft noise at an airport. The first court appearance for the lawsuit will be on the last day in October in county court, although because of its implications the case may end up in the Supreme Court. The article discusses the background behind the fight, and how it will affect other cities authority to curb jet noise and designate land use for airports.
According to the article, the dispute at Burbank Airport has spanned three decades. A 1973 case reached the Supreme Court, but the issue then was a locality's ability to regulate flights. This case centers around a locality's ability to restrict expansion of an airport through land-use decisions. In both cases, the issue is federal vs. local authority over airports. Representatives on both sides have said they will continue to appeal any losing decisions.
The article explains that the airport authority is in favor of expanding the terminal from 14 gates to 19 immediately, and to 27 eventually. This would satisfy both the Federal Aviation Administration's safety requirement that the terminal be moved away from an existing runway, and an estimated 20 percent increase in demand for flights. Burbank says communities are too close to the airport to permit such increaed use, because of traffic, noise, and pollution issues.
The article goes on to explain the particular details of the lawsuit. Parts of California's Public Utilities code says that airports must follow local rules for land-use when obtaining land. This should apply to the airport's acquisition of land for the new terminal. Burbank officials say that "The airport authority simply wants unencumbered expansion at the airport. They think the expansion of the airport should purely be driven by market forces and that the constituents are the airlines. We say our constituents are the whole community."
The article goes on to say that the airport authority maintains that federal rules allow airports to overrule local regulations when it comes to construction for safety reasons. They also point out that Burbank's reasons for opposing construction center around noise, which federal rules say only airports can regulate.
The article notes that the deciding factor may likely be whether federal rules should still overrule local ones when it involves acquisition of new land.
The article notes that although Stage 2 jets are no longer used for regular operations at the airport, city officials want to make the creation of a curfew for the quieter, Stage 3, jets a required condition for any new terminal. The Federal Aviation Administration notes that approval for such a curfew is not likely.
The article notes that some observers believe, after seeing thirty years of debate, there will never be a complete solution.
The article reports that discussions outside the courtroom, designed to settle the dispute, continue to be held but most are not optimistic. The most recent discussions, which were to be mediated by a professional, broke down when the city said the mediator had made inappropriate comments. The city even considered not paying her.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: October 6, 1997
SECTION: Business; Part D; Page 1; Financial Desk
BYLINE: P.J. Huffstutter
DATELINE: Irvine, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Dimitri Papamoschou, professor of aerospace and engineering, University of California at Irvine
The Los Angeles Times reports that University of California at Irvine has been studying ways to reduce noise from supersonic jets for four years, with the assistance of NASA funds. NASA will give the researchers lab space in Virginia for larger experiments in February.
According to the article, the point of the research is to allow supersonic jets like the Concorde to use more U.S. airports by reducing its offensive noise.
The article explains that a major sticking point for researchers was that the traditional solution for engine noise -- a muffler -- is either light and ineffective, or effective but so heavy that supersonic transport is no longer economically beneficial. One possible solution is to surround the exhaust with a circle of air that will dissipate the noise.
The article notes that NASA has funded the project with $175,000 and lab space.
PUBLICATION: AAP Newsfeed
DATE: October 5, 1997
SECTION: Nationwide General News; Australian General News
DATELINE: Perth, Australia
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Senator Andrew Murray, Australian Democrat
AAP Newsfeed reports that Australian Democrats Senator Andrew Murray has introduced federal legislation that would impose a midnight-to-6 am curfew at the Perth Airport and a cap on the number of flights using the airport each hour. But Stephen Smith, MHR for Perth and a Labor Member of Parliament, today opposed the plan, saying it will have a negative impact on Western Australia, without improving the lives of residents near the airport.
According to the article, Senator Murray said the parliament would consider his proposal as an amendment to the government's air traffic amendment bill when that legislation is introduced to the senate. Murray went on to say that residents in Perth's eastern suburbs are worried about plans to increase the use of the privately-owned airport. Residents purchased their homes near the airport with the expectation that the situation would stay about the same, Murray said.
Meanwhile, Smith said Murray's proposal would not necessarily help residents under the flight paths because there would be increased traffic immediately before and after the curfew. He said, "It would dramatically reduce the viability of Perth airport and that means bad news for jobs, bad news for trade, bad news for tourism, bad news for West Australian minerals and resources industries. A curfew at Perth airport will have dramatic adverse consequences for Western Australia's economy and jobs, but at the same time it won't necessarily help those residents around the airport."
PUBLICATION: Providence Journal-Bulletin
DATE: October 5, 1997
SECTION: News, Pg. 4C
BYLINE: Tony DePaul
DATELINE: Warwick, Rhode Island
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: People Of Warwick Encourage Reduction Of Noise (POWER-ON); Stop Overhead Noise In Cowesett (SONIC); U.S. Senator John Chafee
The Providence Journal-Bulletin reports that officials from the Rhode Island Airport Corporation, which manages the T.F. Green Airport in Warwick, have announced they will apply for a federal grant to study whether the airport should adopt mandatory flight rules that would reduce jet noise. The noise study also would re-draw the noise contours around the airport, the areas in which jet noise is a problem, in order to determine which areas need soundproofing. The Airport Corporation has scheduled three public meetings this month to hear comments on the proposed study, the article says.
According to the article, the Federal Aviation Administration study would be a "Part 150" study, and would cost about $200,000. Such a study was last conducted at Green in 1986, and explored the idea of re-routing aircraft over Narragansett Bay. The idea was rejected, the article says, because the new flight path was not expected to decrease the number of people affected by jet noise. When that study was done, most airplanes were the noisier, Stage 2 aircraft, while today, about two-thirds of the planes based at Green are the newer, quieter, Stage 3 type.
The article reports that the airport has soundproofed 450 houses since 1992, at a cost of $12 million. Another 2,000 homes remain eligible for soundproofing under the current noise contours, which were updated with computer modeling in 1994, the article says. But the 1994 update also eliminated about 4,500 other houses, which brought criticism from city officials and residents, who claimed that the study relied on faulty data. The study assumed, for example, that the voluntary ban on overnight flights was never violated, but residents say the ban is routinely violated. The 1994 update also showed noise contours shrinking and predicted they would continue to shrink through 1998, but that expectation did not foresee the boom in air traffic that started a year ago, when the airport opened its expanded terminal. The article says a new Part 150 study would start from scratch to determine noise contours, using data of actual flights in 1997.
The action to seek funding for a noise study comes at a time when neighborhood groups are forming and circulating petitions to fight the increased noise from the airport's expansion. The article says the two most visible citizens groups are People Of Warwick Encourage Reduction Of Noise (POWER-ON), and Stop Overhead Noise In Cowesett (SONIC).
Meanwhile, U.S. Senator John Chafee, a Warwick resident, supported the plan to conduct a new noise study last week, the article says. Chafee wrote a letter to FAA Administrator Jane Garvey, urging her to "consider all reasonable and appropriate measures to address the problem of increased noise at Green."
The next step, according to Wayne Schuster, the Airport Corporation's director of planning and development, is to advertise for a consultant to manage the new study, which could begin early in 1998 and take 12 to 18 months to complete. Schuster said the study would take that long because "any time you're asking a pilot to do something differently, you need to carefully evaluate the purpose and the result and the benefits, because there are safety issues. And you want to make sure the new procedures reduce noise instead of increasing it." He added that "we would all like to see relief as soon as possible," and that the Corporation "is not going to take a laissez faire attitude on the noise issue."
However, the article says, Howie Barte, president of the Providence local of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, said residents should be realistic about how much control the airport can exercise over noise, even if certain flight rules are adopted at the end of the study. He said, "People need to understand that if they live near an airport there is going to be noise. While there may be some things we can do to minimize noise, we're never going to eliminate it and we're never going to make a huge dent in it. Not until the engines get quieter."
The article goes on to explain that air traffic controllers at the airport have complained that a story in the September 21 Sunday Journal incorrectly suggested that pilots can make unnecessary noise in the skies over Warwick as long as the control tower doesn't object. Barte said the control tower at Green has "no control whatsoever" over noise. He said air traffic controllers can never veto a pilot's decisions on takeoff speed and rates of climb, which determine how much noise a plane makes. "The law says the pilot has final responsibility and authority in the control of his aircraft," Barte said. "There are no limitations in place, and we as controllers have no authority to put limitations in place without a Federal Air Regulation Part 150 study."
Residents in Cowesett have complained that the control tower has given pilots new flight instructions since the expansion that route much of the air traffic over their neighborhood. But Barte said the departure and arrival paths have not changed in 10 years. He said, "The jets go out on runway heading, are given radar contact by the radar room, then turn toward Putnam, Connecticut, or East Hampton, New York, as soon as traffic allows. That has always been the case." The new noise study would look at whether pilots should continue those flight paths, or whether they should make a preliminary turn that would reduce the number of people affected by jet noise.
The article also notes that the three public hearings scheduled by the Airport Corporation to gather public input on the proposed study will be held on the following dates: Oct. 21 at Pilgrim High School, Oct. 23 at Warwick Veterans Memorial High School, and Oct. 29 at Winman Junior High School, all at 6:30 pm.
PUBLICATION: The Canberra Times
DATE: October 11, 1997
SECTION: Part A; Page 2
BYLINE: Brendan Nicholson
DATELINE: Canberra, Australia
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Kerrie Tucker, Greens MLA; Frank Pangallo, Queanbeyan Mayor; Jerrabomberra Residents' Association
The Canberra Times reports Australia's ACT Green Party, the Queanbeyan City Council, and the Jerrabomberra Residents' Association have formed a coalition to campaign together against the disruption of increased noise from the expanding Canberra Airport. The article says the formation of the coalition was encouraged by the statement of ACT Urban Services Minister Trevor Kaine that residents concerned about the noise could move.
According to the article, Kerrie Tucker, the Greens MLA, Frank Pangallo, the Queanbeyan Mayor, and Jerrabomberra residents are demanding an apology from Kaine for his offensive and insensitive remarks. Tucker went on to say that the group does not oppose the airport, and "accepts that international flight could bring major benefits to the region's tourist industry." But the group wants, at minimum, an environmental and noise impact study carried out, the article reports.
PUBLICATION: The Canberra Times
DATE: October 10, 1997
SECTION: Part A; Page 3
BYLINE: Jim Dickins
DATELINE: Canberra, Australia
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Frank Pangallo, Queanbeyan Mayor; Gary Nairn, Federal Member for Eden-Monaro; Kerrie Tucker, ACT Greens Member for Molonglo
The Canberra Times reports that Australian Tourism Minister Trevor Kaine suggested yesterday on a radio interview that residents in Jerrabomberra, a community near the Canberra Airport, who are disturbed by aircraft noise should buy property elsewhere. Yesterday, local Members and the Queanbeyan Mayor angrily condemned Kaine's remarks.
According to the article, Kaine made the comment in a radio interview on the 2CN Breakfast Show yesterday morning. He said residents knew the airport was there before they bought their property, and should have thought about the noise issue them. Kaine said, "If people don't want to be subjected to air-traffic noise then I can only recommend they buy a house somewhere other than Jerrabomberra." Yesterday afternoon, Kaine was "unrepentant," according to the article, but he acknowledged the expansion of Canberra Airport will bring some disadvantages. However, he maintained the economic benefits would far outweigh the disadvantages.
Meanwhile, Queanbeyan Mayor Frank Pangallo condemned Kaine's remarks, saying "I wonder how Mr. Kaine would react if it aircraft noise affected him in a similar way. What this demonstrates is just how out of touch he is with the issues of this region." Pangallo also called for a full environmental impact study before the airport is upgraded to international status. Gary Nairn, the Federal Member for Eden-Monaro, said Kaine's comments show he has no regard for his regional neighbors in Queanbeyan and Jerrabomberra. Nairn said, "Mr. Kaine's comments are unacceptable and unnecessarily inflammatory." Kerrie Tucker, the ACT Greens Member for Molonglo, said Kaine's attitude was "dismissive." She went on to say, "Mr. Kaine's arrogance over aircraft noise is breathtaking. What about the people in Canberra who are worried about increasing aircraft noise -- should they sell up and move on too? Yes, the airport was there 60 years ago, but it wasn't international, it didn't carry jets, and there was less traffic. Even over the last decade, as people moved to Jerrabomberra, the airport wasn't international and there was no looming risk of a sharp increase in traffic, so to say people knew of the risks is both deceptive and insensitive."
PUBLICATION: Dayton Daily News
DATE: October 9, 1997
SECTION: Neighbors, Pg. Z7-3
BYLINE: Peter Severino, Dayton resident
DATELINE: Dayton, Ohio
The Dayton Daily News printed the following letter-to-the-editor from Peter Severino, a Dayton, Ohio resident, regarding noise from aircraft over Centerville:
Re: The Sept. 18 letter, "Make Planes Fly Higher to Reduce Centerville Noise."
Just who do you people in Centerville think you are? Enough with the childish whining over some minor airplane noise. Until you can count the lug nuts on an Air Force C-141, with its landing gears down, none of you have the right or the excuse to complain about airplane noise. This area that we are all living in is the same area that is supposed to be "The Birthplace of Aviation," so airplane noise should be expected.
If you people in Centerville can't stand the noise from a few airplanes flying at several hundred to several thousands of feet above the ground, then get on your high horses and move out. I'm sure the airport facility that the aircraft are flying out of was there long before most of you who are whining started living there.
PUBLICATION: The Dallas Morning News (Dallas, Texas)
DATE: October 9, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. 35A
BYLINE: Sherry Jacobson
DATELINE: Dallas, Texas
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Russ Jewert, co-chair of the Love Field Citizen Action Committee; James Burkleo, resident; David Hendrix, resident
The Dallas Morning News of Dallas, Texas, reports that residents who neighbor Love Field believe the noise they've learned to live with will increase as restrictions put in place by the Wright amendment are relaxed in other states.
The article reports that until now residents have learned to lived with airplane after airplane flying overhead. Coexistence occurred only after lawsuits, noise studies, altered flight paths and quieter airplanes. Now residents say their concerns over noise and safety have returned as the Wright amendment, which limits commercial flights at Love Field, faces its first significant change since 1979. On Tuesday, a congressional committee voted to ease flight restrictions and expand nonstop commercial flights to three more states. If Congress approves the changes, as expected, residents are afraid it is only a matter of time before they lose the one protection that has kept their neighborhoods livable. "All we've got is the Wright amendment," said Russ Jewert, co-chairman of the Love Field Citizen Action Committee. "Everything else is voluntary."
According to the article, the Wright amendment, named for former House Speaker Jim Wright, a Fort Worth Democrat, was passed in 1979 to encourage airlines to use Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. It limits commercial flights from Love Field to contiguous states: Oklahoma, Louisiana, New Mexico and Arkansas. On Tuesday, Kansas, Mississippi and Alabama were added, along with permission to allow Legend Airlines Inc. to fly to any U.S. airport from Love Field using modified jets.
The article states that David Hendrix, a resident of Oak Lawn Heights predicted: "Once they got a nibble on it, I'd give it five years until the Wright amendment is off the books," he said. This recent action in Washington was upsetting to the group of neighborhood activists who have challenged the city, several airlines and even the federal government in their 18-year effort to protect the quality of life around Love Field. "Of course, we can talk about filing lawsuits to stop this or marching down Cedar Springs or going out to Love Field and protesting," said, a neighborhood resident for 13 years. "But what are we going to do?" In recent weeks, the group has written to city officials and members of Congress, entreating their help in preserving the amendment. The group feels the loss of U.S. Rep. John Bryant, a seven-term Democrat who long had watched out for their interests. He did not seek re-election last year.
According to the article, Mr. Jewert called the vote on the Wright Amendment Washington arrogance and pork-barreling. "It was done behind closed doors, and they cut out our representatives. We had no say, and that's inherently unfair and undemocratic." No consideration was given to the estimated 100,000 residents who are affected by Love Field noise and the more than 30,000 people who live within the high-impact noise area, area residents said, quoting noise studies conducted in recent years. Unlike D/FW, Love Field sits within a dense residential and commercial area, less than four miles from downtown Dallas.
The article goes on to say residents are angry at the suggestion that they should not have moved so close to Love Field if they were bothered by airport noise. They say they already have altered their lifestyles to accommodate the noise. Mike Dean, a neighborhood resident for 71 years, said he has installed double-pane windows to block out the noise. "Maybe it doesn't bother me so much anymore because my hearing is going," said the 81-year-old. But residents say they are encouraged with the city's plan to install a $ 1.5 million noise-detection system in the residential areas around Love Field next spring. More than a dozen microphones will be linked to computer and radar systems to track sound levels over their homes. Danny Bruce, aviation director at Love Field, said such efforts to control airplane noise will continue despite any changes approved by Congress. "We are still very concerned about keeping our neighbors happy," Mr. Bruce said.
PUBLICATION: LI Business News (Long Island, New York)
DATE: October 6, 1997
SECTION: Vol 40; pg 1
BYLINE: Nick Anastsi
DATELINE: Islip; NY; US; Middle Atlantic
The Long Island Business News reports that on Oct 1 Delta Express (Atlanta) began service at MacArthur Airport in Islip, New York with 737's equipped with hush kits. Aircraft noise has been an issue for a long time at MacArthur. Although officials believe the facility will become a thriving regional airport, MacArthur's service to limited destinations still forces many travelers to utilize JFK or LaGuardia airports.
According to the article MacArthur is the first new city Delta has opened in five years. Delta Express Vice President W E "Skip" Barnette declared, "If we get the support we anticipate, it portends well for the area and Delta." Asked about what Delta will do to prevent the short life of other carriers which have come and gone at MacArthur, he stated, "We studied those other airlines that failed and have made decisions to avoid those same pitfalls. We are here to stay."
The article goes on to say the aircraft that will be used by Delta Express are Boeing 737-200s which hold 119 passengers. The majority of those aircraft have been fitted with hush kits to reduce take off and landing noise levels. 737s were chosen because of their fuel efficiency and reliability. Aircraft noise has long been an issue at MacArthur. Contrary to popular belief, a curfew for departing and arriving flights does not exist nor has it ever existed at the airport. According to Barnette, Delta Express' earliest departure will be at 7:15AM and the latest arrival at 9:55PM.
The article says Delta Express, which has 25 planes, differs from its corporate parent Delta Airways in that it is a point to point carrier, Islip to Florida, as opposed to one which operates by a hub and spoke method which entails connecting flights. According to airline officials, this simplifies operations and keeps fares down. Airport and city officials are enthusiastic and optimistic about the economic impact of Delta;s arrival to MacArthur which has already led to a lifting of the freeze put on a $13.5 million airport improvement plan.
Previous week: September 28, 1997
Next week: October 12, 1997