We recall the supportiveness of U.S. Rep. Chris Shays and his dynmaic staffer Chris catropa. When U.S. Rep. Jim Himes took office, he and staffer Amy Lappos lost little time in also coming to our side, holding several meetings on the topic and reportedly contacting several FAA-related entities. Most recently, he met with us last June, at 2 locations, in order to observe planes with us. However, the meeting I attended happened on a day that had rainy weather. Usually in such weather, planes go elsewhere or just sit on runways… Moreover, IIRC, The Iceland Volcano was having a flare-up around that time. Even so, we did spot a few low-flying planes.
Speaking of volcanos, we've had some unplanned but welcome “relief” from plane-noise, due to the Iceland Volcano. The economic slowdown in the Gulf of Mexico region may have contributed too. But 2-3 weeks ago, the noise returned, at higher levels than ever before! The planes seem to be flying a bit lower over Greenwich and Stamford than they flew before the Volcano & Gulf ordeals.
Most recently, I’ve contacted a Republican candidate for the U.S House of Representatives -- Dan Debicella, to ask what his stance on the FAA redesign is. He wrote to me that
"Hi Gila,
.... I actually sat down with a supporter yesterday who is advising me on FAA and aviation issues.
Living in Greenwich, the flight patterns are obviously an issue for you and if elected I will certainly do whatever I can to influence the FAA and their determinations regarding air traffic.
.....
I am committed to helping you and your neighbors on this."
.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
An interestingly similar case
Looks as though the noise-blight reaches as far as Oregon! And I thought Portland, Oregon, was such a "green" place...
http:///http:// www.oregonaviationwatch.org
Related topics: christopher corich, hillsboro airport, land use board of appeals, miki barnes, oregon aviation revealed, port of portland, runway extension. (Link updated in 2013)
http:///http:// www.oregonaviationwatch.org
Related topics: christopher corich, hillsboro airport, land use board of appeals, miki barnes, oregon aviation revealed, port of portland, runway extension. (Link updated in 2013)
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Flight Delays: Fresh (Red) Herring!
Recall my post from July 2009: "Flight Delays, a Big Red Herring?" I wrote that "...We allow for the possibility of [ground-traffic]delays when we set out for a meeting or an appointment. We know it's ridiculous to fix a precise to-the-minute time-estimate to a car trip: If we want to be sure to arrive on time, we have to leave early... We think nothing of ground-traffic delays. The time may have come to accept air-traffic delays, especially in light of the increased and increasing traffic-volume." That was following discussions from 2007 and some in 2008, whereby "flight delays" were citerd in several newspaper items as the FAA's justification for the Airspace Redesign.
This blog has debunked that whole myth: Over time, we've collected numerous instances of flight delays, the overwhelming majority of which are caused by weather. Can the FAA redesign the weather?
Here is a recent "sample:"
1. June 17, 2010, (Thurs.) 4:10 pm: Newark has (1 hour?) delays on arrivals, "they say wind is the problem."
2. June 23 (Wed.) 9 am and 12 pm news: A Virgin Airlines flight London to Newark was diverted to Bradley Airport "because of bad weather." Passengers were stranded from 8:20 pm till 1 am. They "yelled and screamed" but to no avail. A few passengers fainted.
There are rules regarding passengers "stranded on the tarmac," (I believe they limit the time passengers can be held on a plane) but they do not apply to international flights!
3. June 24, 2010, 9:38 pm WCBS880: "We still have airport delays, call your carrier." This was the day of the tornado in Bridgeport, CT.
4. June 25, 12 pm: A flight "taxiing" for takeoff from Atlanta was "turned around" because... a TURTLE was discovered on-board! The only pets allowed on planes are cats and dogs, in appropriate boxes. There are several versions as to what the fate of the turtle, named after a character in the film "Avatar," was. One is that passengers and cabin-attendants said to pout the turtle under a passenger-seat, but the crew refused. Another story is that the plane's crew told the turtles' owner/s to put the turtle in a trash-bin in the terminal, abut the airline claimed that "kids," (turtle's owners?) "chose to do that." The kids' family reported the incident to PETA.
5. July 13, (Tues.), a storm was approaching. 11 am: "all three airports are reporting delays because of the weather."
4 pm: 4 hours and 15 minutes delays.
5:30 pm: "Delays at the airports so keep calling [your carrier]"
6. July 19 (Monday): Sky darkened abruptly around 9 am, heavy rain with some wind tapered off to light rain and no wind.
10:00 am: Newark and LaGuardia "both reporting delays" because of the weather, "... I guess you can throw in JFK, too."
4:30 pm: "Up to 1-hour delays at the airports."
5:30 pm WOR710: Up to 1-hour delays at the airports.
7. July 23 (Friday). Weather -- Storm and tornado warning. overcast, which a friend told me was said to reach altitude of 44,500 feet.
"Accu-Weather" TV channel 7: "You want to check ahead at the airports..."
8. July 25, rain and overcast, power-outages in some regions, tornado suspected to have occurred in the Bronx.
9:08 pm WCBS880: "We are seeing delays at the area airports..."
The Greenwich area had milder weather than described, so planes were passing overhead every 3-4 minutes.
9. July 28 (Wed.): Weather was fine, but the U.S. President was visiting the tri-state area, many "frozen zones" reported due to security measures.
5:00 (and 5:30?) news: Newark has delays up to 1:10 hours.
10. July 29 8:50 am: "Airports [have] up to 1-hour delays, that's weather-related."
So... this "sample" picked up a delay roughly evenry 6 days. Note that unlike the delays in some of the "horror stories" used by some to justify the aAirspace re-design, weather delays can persis for well over 24 hours.
Of 10 "data-points," weather: score=8, turtle=Score 1, President? score 1.
This blog has debunked that whole myth: Over time, we've collected numerous instances of flight delays, the overwhelming majority of which are caused by weather. Can the FAA redesign the weather?
Here is a recent "sample:"
1. June 17, 2010, (Thurs.) 4:10 pm: Newark has (1 hour?) delays on arrivals, "they say wind is the problem."
2. June 23 (Wed.) 9 am and 12 pm news: A Virgin Airlines flight London to Newark was diverted to Bradley Airport "because of bad weather." Passengers were stranded from 8:20 pm till 1 am. They "yelled and screamed" but to no avail. A few passengers fainted.
There are rules regarding passengers "stranded on the tarmac," (I believe they limit the time passengers can be held on a plane) but they do not apply to international flights!
3. June 24, 2010, 9:38 pm WCBS880: "We still have airport delays, call your carrier." This was the day of the tornado in Bridgeport, CT.
4. June 25, 12 pm: A flight "taxiing" for takeoff from Atlanta was "turned around" because... a TURTLE was discovered on-board! The only pets allowed on planes are cats and dogs, in appropriate boxes. There are several versions as to what the fate of the turtle, named after a character in the film "Avatar," was. One is that passengers and cabin-attendants said to pout the turtle under a passenger-seat, but the crew refused. Another story is that the plane's crew told the turtles' owner/s to put the turtle in a trash-bin in the terminal, abut the airline claimed that "kids," (turtle's owners?) "chose to do that." The kids' family reported the incident to PETA.
5. July 13, (Tues.), a storm was approaching. 11 am: "all three airports are reporting delays because of the weather."
4 pm: 4 hours and 15 minutes delays.
5:30 pm: "Delays at the airports so keep calling [your carrier]"
6. July 19 (Monday): Sky darkened abruptly around 9 am, heavy rain with some wind tapered off to light rain and no wind.
10:00 am: Newark and LaGuardia "both reporting delays" because of the weather, "... I guess you can throw in JFK, too."
4:30 pm: "Up to 1-hour delays at the airports."
5:30 pm WOR710: Up to 1-hour delays at the airports.
7. July 23 (Friday). Weather -- Storm and tornado warning. overcast, which a friend told me was said to reach altitude of 44,500 feet.
"Accu-Weather" TV channel 7: "You want to check ahead at the airports..."
8. July 25, rain and overcast, power-outages in some regions, tornado suspected to have occurred in the Bronx.
9:08 pm WCBS880: "We are seeing delays at the area airports..."
The Greenwich area had milder weather than described, so planes were passing overhead every 3-4 minutes.
9. July 28 (Wed.): Weather was fine, but the U.S. President was visiting the tri-state area, many "frozen zones" reported due to security measures.
5:00 (and 5:30?) news: Newark has delays up to 1:10 hours.
10. July 29 8:50 am: "Airports [have] up to 1-hour delays, that's weather-related."
So... this "sample" picked up a delay roughly evenry 6 days. Note that unlike the delays in some of the "horror stories" used by some to justify the aAirspace re-design, weather delays can persis for well over 24 hours.
Of 10 "data-points," weather: score=8, turtle=Score 1, President? score 1.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Modi'in website update
Available in English (this link) as well as Hebrew! The good people of Midi'in are struggling against the Infra-Structure Oligarchy of the region they live in.
See also posts from last summer about their protest-convoy.
See also posts from last summer about their protest-convoy.
Recent from Congressman Himes
In a Nov. 19 letter, U.S Representative Jim Himes writes
"As you may be aware, in June, State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal argued before the U.S District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that the FAA had not conducted an adequate analysis of the effects of the change in flight patterns on air quality and noise pollution over our district. I was disheartened by the Court's short-sighted decision to side with the FAA."
I was disheartened but not surprised. I'm not a legal professional but I believe the lawsuit is flawed because it does not address the actual harm (including loss of sleep) caused by the FAA. We in the Greenwich area are affected by an increasing number of planes flying lower and lower overhead later and later into the night.
Himes' letter continues:
"On Tuesday, November 17, Attorney General Blumenthal filed a brief with the United States Supreme Court requesting that this decision be overturned. At the core of the Attorney General's argument is Connecticut's 10th Amendment right to seek the elimination of federal policies harmful to its citizens. "
Good point about the 10th, but IMO there hasn't been nearly enough emphasis on the "harm" part.
"I continue to monitor this matter closely, and stand behind the Attorney General's challenge. This flawed and poorly-implemented redesign should not continue to move forward without an adequate analysis of the negative effects it will have on residents of southwestern Connecticut."
The redesign may be moving forward but meanwhile the FAA is causing some area residents to move out... Perhaps that is what some so-called developers want -- cover our entire region with hermetically sealed office-towers. Simply chase residents away since they're powerless anyway.
"As always, if you have comments or concerns you would like to communicate to me regarding the FAA redesign, please email me at himes.noisewatch@mail.house.gov. Thank you for your continued efforts.
sincerely (signature)"
.
"As you may be aware, in June, State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal argued before the U.S District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that the FAA had not conducted an adequate analysis of the effects of the change in flight patterns on air quality and noise pollution over our district. I was disheartened by the Court's short-sighted decision to side with the FAA."
I was disheartened but not surprised. I'm not a legal professional but I believe the lawsuit is flawed because it does not address the actual harm (including loss of sleep) caused by the FAA. We in the Greenwich area are affected by an increasing number of planes flying lower and lower overhead later and later into the night.
Himes' letter continues:
"On Tuesday, November 17, Attorney General Blumenthal filed a brief with the United States Supreme Court requesting that this decision be overturned. At the core of the Attorney General's argument is Connecticut's 10th Amendment right to seek the elimination of federal policies harmful to its citizens. "
Good point about the 10th, but IMO there hasn't been nearly enough emphasis on the "harm" part.
"I continue to monitor this matter closely, and stand behind the Attorney General's challenge. This flawed and poorly-implemented redesign should not continue to move forward without an adequate analysis of the negative effects it will have on residents of southwestern Connecticut."
The redesign may be moving forward but meanwhile the FAA is causing some area residents to move out... Perhaps that is what some so-called developers want -- cover our entire region with hermetically sealed office-towers. Simply chase residents away since they're powerless anyway.
"As always, if you have comments or concerns you would like to communicate to me regarding the FAA redesign, please email me at himes.noisewatch@mail.house.gov. Thank you for your continued efforts.
sincerely (signature)"
.
Radio Mention of Airplane Noise
.
On the morning of Nov. 17, I was listening to WNPR (88.5FM) program "Where We Live." There was a discussion of the recent "rankings" of Connecticut towns by Connecticut Magazine.
It seems that Greenwich usually tops the magazine's (yearly) list, but this year it's second to Fairfield. That resulted in frequent mentions of Greenwich during the program. That gave me a chance to call it and... talk about Greenwich... meaning, the airplane noise, the the destructive impact of the FAA redesign on the Greenwich area.
The program's call-screener was extremely nice, very professional and competent. My question to the program's guest was -- why airplane noise was not one of the magazine's "ranking" criteria.
It sounded to me that the editor knows about the noise-problem, and would like to use more environmental factors in his magazine's rating-system. In any case, our cause got a wee bit of fresh "air time."
Recall that the noise had been mentioned some months ago on WSTC1400. To my knowledge, WSTC doesn't archive past programs on the Web. Where We Live might.
Interestingly, at a later point in the Where We Live program, one of the participants described a town that 'looked good' on paper, but, when some people moved there based on rankings they'd read, they were faced with the rude reality of a plane flying over them every 15 minutes! So the editor said -- do your "due diligence" before moving.
I couldn't help think: 15 minutes??? Here in Greenwich, there are many many days where a plane passes low overhead every 2-3 minutes, for hours on end!
But even the "every 15 minutes" mention shows more people are becoming aware of the noise-pollution, and, probably, are becoming less fearful of speaking out about it.
.
On the morning of Nov. 17, I was listening to WNPR (88.5FM) program "Where We Live." There was a discussion of the recent "rankings" of Connecticut towns by Connecticut Magazine.
It seems that Greenwich usually tops the magazine's (yearly) list, but this year it's second to Fairfield. That resulted in frequent mentions of Greenwich during the program. That gave me a chance to call it and... talk about Greenwich... meaning, the airplane noise, the the destructive impact of the FAA redesign on the Greenwich area.
The program's call-screener was extremely nice, very professional and competent. My question to the program's guest was -- why airplane noise was not one of the magazine's "ranking" criteria.
It sounded to me that the editor knows about the noise-problem, and would like to use more environmental factors in his magazine's rating-system. In any case, our cause got a wee bit of fresh "air time."
Recall that the noise had been mentioned some months ago on WSTC1400. To my knowledge, WSTC doesn't archive past programs on the Web. Where We Live might.
Interestingly, at a later point in the Where We Live program, one of the participants described a town that 'looked good' on paper, but, when some people moved there based on rankings they'd read, they were faced with the rude reality of a plane flying over them every 15 minutes! So the editor said -- do your "due diligence" before moving.
I couldn't help think: 15 minutes??? Here in Greenwich, there are many many days where a plane passes low overhead every 2-3 minutes, for hours on end!
But even the "every 15 minutes" mention shows more people are becoming aware of the noise-pollution, and, probably, are becoming less fearful of speaking out about it.
.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Some updates
Two short noise logs have been added to
New data has been added to our 'sister-website,
http://AirplaneNoiseOverConnecticut.blogspot.com/
They are not long but illustrate the frequency of noisy over-flights experience in the Greenwich area.
New data has been added to our 'sister-website,
http://AirplaneNoiseOverConnecticut.blogspot.com/
They are not long but illustrate the frequency of noisy over-flights experience in the Greenwich area.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)