I once came upon an airplane-related website,
http://pages.prodigy.net/rockaway/ACNewsmenu.htm
If you click
http://www.pages.prodigy.net/rocakaway/
that should give an index of many 'newsletters."
I admired the website's spirit, and its striking graphics -- a creature that's half plane half snake, stayed in my mind. I think that was before the airplane noise started rattling Fairfield County. When the noise started in 2007, I looked for the website, but did not find it. I thought it was probably gone.
Last week, when searching the net, I found the site again! I printed and read its pages.
It has a very different perspective than what I've seen so far on the internet. Since it's been around since before the lawsuits and Shays and Himes' involvement with the issues, the site does not view "politicians" as potential allies. Also, I'm not sure how often it's updated.
But the different perspective is refreshing! I believe it's worth a click and a look. Here are some excerpts I chose, then you can decide if to click or not.
"...It looks as if the [redesign] is starting to get some real heat when the state of Connecticut, not just a group of towns, joined in the lawsuit this week. This is a good beginning. Now what has to happen is more states start lawsuits and eventually ... form a coalition to bring one massive lawsuit against the FAA scheme. This lawsuit will be fought against by [New York] politicians..."
"State of Connecticut Sues the FAA!!! NEW CANAAN -- opponent of the plan to move air traffic over Fairfield County spoke yesterday about alternatives, like directing the planes over Long Island Sound and promoting train travel.
State representatives from Fairfield County and U.S Rep. Christopher Shays... spoke against the Federal Aviation Administration at a rally held by the New Canaan Environmental group... Speakers accused the FAA of neglecting the environment and area residents.... State rep. Antonietta "Toni" Boucher, R-Wilton, called for an increase of mass transit and promoted rail travel, which would decrease dependency on air travel for longer trips, she said. "the skies have started to emulate what has happened to the roads, especially in Connecticut," she said.
I have heard it said that perhaps air traffic should be managed more along the lines of managing cars: Just as cars are confined by law to travel on roads and cannot travel over fields and any other terrain at will, there should be "highways" of sorts on the ground -- tracts of land which planes can fly over at low heights but which are deemed unfit for human habitation because of the noise and fumes. That's not exactly what the website says but it is what several people have said.
Promoting rail travel is IMO a good idea. train noise is confined to near the rail, and the noise and ground-shaking that used to accompany train travel have been reduced considerably over the years. The travel itself is healthier: We've heard stories about blood-clots forming in passenger's legs as a result of sitting still in cramped seats. We heard plenty about the foul air which airline passengers willingly breathe. On trains, you can eat well, you can move around, watch movies, look out the window, sometimes even open a little window and even if not, the air is probably much less putrid than on planes.
A May 2007 item has one very interesting point or issue. It may not be useful to us but we should at least know about it:
"It's Time For A change In 1990 Anti-Airport Curfew Law!!! I'm always learning new things about the insidiousness of the Aviation Cabal (aviation industry, politicians and the FAA). I remember hearing a while back something about there being a federal law against local communities and airports putting a curfew on their own airports, especially at night... I never investigated it further... last week... I found [that] apparently there is such a rule in the 1990 Aircraft Noise and capacity Act. I think it is outrageous that the federal government has taken away local control by communities over their own airports. Voluntary curfews are a joke. I have been looking at the Aircraft Noise And Capacity Act and found it full of confusing legalese obviously designed to sneak a no curfew rule past unsuspecting congress and communities... I will not rest until local communities once again get control over their won airports!"
The website quotes a "RECOMMENDATIONS -- Not later than July 1, 1991, the secretary shall transmit to Congress recommendations on - (1) the need for change in the standards and procedures which govern the rights of State and local governments (including airport authorities) to restrict aircraft operations for the purpose of limiting aircraft noise. (2) the need for change in the standards and procedures which govern law suits by persons adversely affected by aircraft noise..."
Note "standards" for lawsuits -- that may have been the undoing of Mr. Blumenthal last may.
For those of us living in the Riverside area, this may be of some interest: Last week the local papers reported on a big meeting at Town Hall, concerning a proposal to erect a cell-phone "tower" next to the Mianus (elementary?) School. The town's planning and zoning commission listened to the public's concerns, but let people know that the placement of cell towers is "strictly controlled" by the state's "Siting Council," thanks to an F.C.C "ruling" (part of a so-called "Telecommunications Act?) which "stripped local communities" of any control of the matter. Another example of stripping communities of control of their local surroundings!
Back to the website --
"In particular, a 1990 federal law requires airports seeking to restrict air space for noise reasons to follow a lengthy set of rules."
This paragraph mentions New Canaan and Greenwich; "New Canaan is pursuing a three-part plan to oppose the FAA... First, a consultant, Williams Aviation, has been retained to critique and raise objections to the technical aspects of the FAA's plan. ... third, the town is organizing political opposition to the FAA's plan... According to the New canaan FAA Advisory Committee, in order to increase the number of arrivals into Newark Airport the FAA's plan pushes LaGaurdia arrivals eastward over Fairfield County. In effect, Ridgefield, New Canaan, Darien and Stamford will experience a substantial increase in air traffic that didn't exist before so that the capacity at Newark Airport can increase, the committee reported.
State Rep. John Hetherington, a member of the committee, said the FAA, instead of selecting the most aggressive, intrusive alternative, should make modifications to the existing airspace... Remarkably, the impact of airplane noise on the people living in fairfield County was not a consideration in their design work... Of the four alternatives considered by the FAA, they selected the one that causes the largest noise increase in Fairfield County."
And finally, something that tells us that "the cat is out of the sack" as far as the need to get realtors involved: According to the New Canaan FAA Advisory Committee, "6. Fairfield County property values will decrease under the new plan. Despite the FAA's statement that there is no link between increasing airplane noise and decreasing property values in a community, we do not agree with that assertion. Any Realtor can tell you that increasing airplane noise will reduce property values[emphasis mine]."
Finally, "The Committee also calls our elected representatives in Washington, DC to withhold funding for the FAA Integrated Airspace Alternative, to prevent implementation of the proposed changes and to require the FAA to examine alternatives that are less intrusive and damaging to Fairfield County."
Signatory Committee members are: Jim Beall, resident,
Kit Devereaux, New Canaan Town Council
Paul Giusti, Chairman, New Canaan selectman
Guy Brossy, resident, private pilot
John Hetherington, CT State representative.
(end of excerpts from http://pages.prodigy.net/rockaway/ACNewsmenu.htm
website.
Another interesting website, also from 2007, deals more with the area near Reagan National Airport. http://www.palisadesdc.org/airplanenoise.htm.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Bird strikes:
Part (I.)
Bird strikes were in the news last January after Flight 1549 landed on the Hudson. In January and now more recently in June of 2009, there’s been talk on the radio of killing all geese "living" near airports. (I heard Mayor Bloomberg talking about the geese Friday June 19 on WOR710 radio station, I didn’t catch all of the interview). I know of no comment from PETA, the animals-rights organization which fights against cruelty to animals.
This is from a New York Magazine (Feb, 9, 2009, starting p. 30) article titled: "My Aircraft, Why Sully [the captain of flight 1549] may be the last of his kind." Underline for emphasis is mine, square brackets are mine.
The article begins with "Modern piloting is based on routines. hundreds of man-hours have been poured into analyzing every possible eventuality..." anyway, at the time of the incident,
"The skies were clear and calm... Sully saw the birds a second before they hit -- at 3:27 P.M., a huge flock of them. His first impulse was to duck. He heard them connect - thump! Then he smelled them. There was no mistaking it. Every pilot with enough flight hours has smelled burning birds. There's usually not much more to a bird strike than that -- maybe a little hiccup in the hum of the engines before the plane keeps on climbing. [then why the impulse "to duck?" What, precisely, does the writer mean by this?] But this was different. This time, the craft lurched, then there was silence. Sully had probably experienced something like that long ago, as a trainee, when his instructor leaned over, shoved the throttle into idle to mimic the loss of engine power, and asked: Okay, now what?" but this wasn't a lesson."
Toward the end of the article, we read that "David Sontag, a 74- year-old screen writer turned professor, was flying home ... on Flight 1549... From the back of the plane, in seat 23F, he had heard the bang a minute into the flight. From his window he could see flames coming out of one engine. The next five minutes were a blur of fear: the impact, the evacuation, waiting on the wing to be rescued.... Sontag believes Sully did one crucial thing that day that prevented a widespread panic: he didn't announce 'Brace for impact' until it was absolutely necessary. 'My feeling is he waited that long to keep people from freaking out,' Sontag says."head down
The article also laments (with considerable elaborations I won't quote) that "40 years and 19,663 flight hours ago, commercial-airline pilots were like gods. It was the age of Chuck Yeager and Pan Am....Where the piloting ranks were once made up of former Air Force jocks, many of them combat veterans, they are now filled mainly with civilians for whom flying is less an adventure than a job. 'Twenty years ago, we were a step below astronauts' says one former pilot. 'Now we're a step above bus drivers. And the bus drivers have a better pension.'...Sully has been in the business long enough to witness firsthand the domestication of the airline pilot.... The airlines liked miliary pilots, in part, 'because the government had done all the work for them,' says Don Skiados, who has worked closely with pilots for 40 years..."
"Points to Ponder:"
1.) After the Flight 1549 event, there was much talk about eradicating geese. Was the flight used as a pretext for extending the FAA's jurisdiction on the ground? Here, we read that bird strikes are very routine: "There's usually not much more to a bird strike than that," meaning the smell, "maybe a hiccup..." However, this time, we read about "flames coming out of one engine." One passenger could see only out of one window, so we don't know whether or not flames came out of the plane's other engine. In any case, one wonders: A presumably routine thing, the bird strike with "a little hiccup," suddenly caused a major failure -- not only stalling of 2 engines, but also a fire in at least one.
2.) The article raphsodizes about past and present pilots, and only says things to the effect that pilots ain't what they used to be. They've been "domesticated." The article does not say it, but this is probably due to increased number (and lesser average training time and quality) of pilots.
The article asks nothing about ground-maintenance people. Has there been a decline in their status (god-like or otherwise) due to increase in numbers?
And, is the FAA re-design meant to accommodate further "domestication?" Is "domestication" a code-word for "dumbing down?"
3.) Note the lowest of low opinion of passengers. The quote comes from a fellow passenger who may be a bit too full of himself and perhaps full of screen-plays with god-like pilots. Be that as it may, its excusable in someone who had just survived what Mr. Sontag survived. The writer's use of the quote is not excusable. It shows contempt toward passengers and toward the public.
I think everybody who ever experienced an occasion in which "timing is everything" knows that when you tell someone to brace for something, and the "something" does not come immediately, well, it's human nature to relax a bit, inhale, "sneak a peak," try and "get comfortable," and the like. All of these involve becoming un-braced! It's a teeny bit like blowing out candles on a birthday cake: You don't tell your friends to "Prepare to blow!" and keep them in that state of preparedness. It's One-Two-THREE! Since you can't quite go 1-2-3 in an emergency landing situation, you do the closest thing to 1-2-3, which is what Sully did.
To be fair, there was a report in a People Magazine article (Feb. 23, 2009) titled "The Right Stuff" to the effect that the plane filled with water "after a passenger opened the tail door." Was it indeed a passenger and not a crew member? And was the passenger probably told to open the door by someone claiming to know about planes? It seems that every aviation-related event brings out numerous people who claim to have been pilots or to have a pilot's license. In any case, stories I heard after the Sept. 11 attacks and its resulting evacuations, make it very hard for me to believe in the ease at which the public panics.
Part (II.)
A Jan. 30, 2009 post on Quiet Rockland’s website
http://ejectsturgell.blogspot.com/
says:
“Other News:
Quiet Rockland Feeds Information On “The Goose Coverup” To Fox News, Bill O’Reilly, And Geraldo Rivera – And Fox Runs The Story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,483344,00.html
It Was Foreknown Defective-Engine Failure, And Not Geese, That Crashed U.S. Airways Flight #1549 Airbus Into The Icy Hudson River On January 15, 2009.
Quiet Rockland Was The First To Break This Story Publicly.
I wanted to update you on recent developments in the State of Connecticut's challenge against the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) proposed airspace redesign over southwestern Connecticut. “
Excerpts from the text on that link:
Interview
WHERE IS HERO US AIRWAYS PILOT CAPT. SULLENBERGER?
• Monday, January 26, 2009
This is a rush transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," January 23, 2009. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the "Radio Factor!"
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: Continuing now with FOX News anchor Geraldo Rivera. Last week, the biggest hero in America was Captain Chesley Sullenberger, who successfully crash-landed a US Air jetliner on the Hudson River. Nobody was killed, an amazing achievement. But where is Captain Sullenberger? So what's going on? Why isn't he out there?
GERALDO RIVERA, HOST, "GERALDO AT LARGE": I don't know why he hasn't spoken up until now, but I do know that tomorrow in his {Danville, California] hometown…
O’: Parade.
…
R: ...he will get a hero's welcome.
O’: There's a parade.
R: And he should.
O': Right, right.
R: It's the most, as I said, the most incredible feat of aviation skill that has ever happened since at least Charles Lindbergh flew the Atlantic solo nonstop or Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier. This guy is a magnificent hero.
The bigger question as we see the emergency float being deployed there — and that's incredible video — the bigger question is: Why did those engines stall? Was it just the bird strike?
O': Bird strike, yeah.
R: A random bird strike? I hold in my hand what's called an Airworthiness Directive. All right, this [December 31, 2008 ] Directive … reads: "This Airworthiness Directive results from an Airbus A-321 airplane powered by a..." and it goes on to designate the engine, the turbo fan engines experiencing high pressure compressor stalls during climb out after takeoff. In other words, airplanes with that Airbus with the engines that that airplane had were suffering stalls…. during climb-out after takeoff. So now you have December 31, 2008, Airworthiness Directive, every Airbus of that sort has to be inspected, OK. That's December 31, 2008.
What happens next? January 13, 2009, Tuesday, … guess what? The same aircraft experiences compressor stalls. The engine stalls…. That is the same aircraft, this is Tuesday, that on Thursday Chesley Sullenberger…
O': Not the same plane…
R: The fuselage number is N106US….
R: ...pure coincidence that that same aircraft that on Tuesday, two days before…
O': Stalled.
…
Content and Programming Copyright 2009 FOX News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2009 CQ Transcriptions, LLC, which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon FOX News Network, LLC'S and CQ Transcriptions, LLC's copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation
Bird strikes were in the news last January after Flight 1549 landed on the Hudson. In January and now more recently in June of 2009, there’s been talk on the radio of killing all geese "living" near airports. (I heard Mayor Bloomberg talking about the geese Friday June 19 on WOR710 radio station, I didn’t catch all of the interview). I know of no comment from PETA, the animals-rights organization which fights against cruelty to animals.
This is from a New York Magazine (Feb, 9, 2009, starting p. 30) article titled: "My Aircraft, Why Sully [the captain of flight 1549] may be the last of his kind." Underline for emphasis is mine, square brackets are mine.
The article begins with "Modern piloting is based on routines. hundreds of man-hours have been poured into analyzing every possible eventuality..." anyway, at the time of the incident,
"The skies were clear and calm... Sully saw the birds a second before they hit -- at 3:27 P.M., a huge flock of them. His first impulse was to duck. He heard them connect - thump! Then he smelled them. There was no mistaking it. Every pilot with enough flight hours has smelled burning birds. There's usually not much more to a bird strike than that -- maybe a little hiccup in the hum of the engines before the plane keeps on climbing. [then why the impulse "to duck?" What, precisely, does the writer mean by this?] But this was different. This time, the craft lurched, then there was silence. Sully had probably experienced something like that long ago, as a trainee, when his instructor leaned over, shoved the throttle into idle to mimic the loss of engine power, and asked: Okay, now what?" but this wasn't a lesson."
Toward the end of the article, we read that "David Sontag, a 74- year-old screen writer turned professor, was flying home ... on Flight 1549... From the back of the plane, in seat 23F, he had heard the bang a minute into the flight. From his window he could see flames coming out of one engine. The next five minutes were a blur of fear: the impact, the evacuation, waiting on the wing to be rescued.... Sontag believes Sully did one crucial thing that day that prevented a widespread panic: he didn't announce 'Brace for impact' until it was absolutely necessary. 'My feeling is he waited that long to keep people from freaking out,' Sontag says."head down
The article also laments (with considerable elaborations I won't quote) that "40 years and 19,663 flight hours ago, commercial-airline pilots were like gods. It was the age of Chuck Yeager and Pan Am....Where the piloting ranks were once made up of former Air Force jocks, many of them combat veterans, they are now filled mainly with civilians for whom flying is less an adventure than a job. 'Twenty years ago, we were a step below astronauts' says one former pilot. 'Now we're a step above bus drivers. And the bus drivers have a better pension.'...Sully has been in the business long enough to witness firsthand the domestication of the airline pilot.... The airlines liked miliary pilots, in part, 'because the government had done all the work for them,' says Don Skiados, who has worked closely with pilots for 40 years..."
"Points to Ponder:"
1.) After the Flight 1549 event, there was much talk about eradicating geese. Was the flight used as a pretext for extending the FAA's jurisdiction on the ground? Here, we read that bird strikes are very routine: "There's usually not much more to a bird strike than that," meaning the smell, "maybe a hiccup..." However, this time, we read about "flames coming out of one engine." One passenger could see only out of one window, so we don't know whether or not flames came out of the plane's other engine. In any case, one wonders: A presumably routine thing, the bird strike with "a little hiccup," suddenly caused a major failure -- not only stalling of 2 engines, but also a fire in at least one.
2.) The article raphsodizes about past and present pilots, and only says things to the effect that pilots ain't what they used to be. They've been "domesticated." The article does not say it, but this is probably due to increased number (and lesser average training time and quality) of pilots.
The article asks nothing about ground-maintenance people. Has there been a decline in their status (god-like or otherwise) due to increase in numbers?
And, is the FAA re-design meant to accommodate further "domestication?" Is "domestication" a code-word for "dumbing down?"
3.) Note the lowest of low opinion of passengers. The quote comes from a fellow passenger who may be a bit too full of himself and perhaps full of screen-plays with god-like pilots. Be that as it may, its excusable in someone who had just survived what Mr. Sontag survived. The writer's use of the quote is not excusable. It shows contempt toward passengers and toward the public.
I think everybody who ever experienced an occasion in which "timing is everything" knows that when you tell someone to brace for something, and the "something" does not come immediately, well, it's human nature to relax a bit, inhale, "sneak a peak," try and "get comfortable," and the like. All of these involve becoming un-braced! It's a teeny bit like blowing out candles on a birthday cake: You don't tell your friends to "Prepare to blow!" and keep them in that state of preparedness. It's One-Two-THREE! Since you can't quite go 1-2-3 in an emergency landing situation, you do the closest thing to 1-2-3, which is what Sully did.
To be fair, there was a report in a People Magazine article (Feb. 23, 2009) titled "The Right Stuff" to the effect that the plane filled with water "after a passenger opened the tail door." Was it indeed a passenger and not a crew member? And was the passenger probably told to open the door by someone claiming to know about planes? It seems that every aviation-related event brings out numerous people who claim to have been pilots or to have a pilot's license. In any case, stories I heard after the Sept. 11 attacks and its resulting evacuations, make it very hard for me to believe in the ease at which the public panics.
Part (II.)
A Jan. 30, 2009 post on Quiet Rockland’s website
http://ejectsturgell.blogspot.com/
says:
“Other News:
Quiet Rockland Feeds Information On “The Goose Coverup” To Fox News, Bill O’Reilly, And Geraldo Rivera – And Fox Runs The Story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,483344,00.html
It Was Foreknown Defective-Engine Failure, And Not Geese, That Crashed U.S. Airways Flight #1549 Airbus Into The Icy Hudson River On January 15, 2009.
Quiet Rockland Was The First To Break This Story Publicly.
I wanted to update you on recent developments in the State of Connecticut's challenge against the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) proposed airspace redesign over southwestern Connecticut. “
Excerpts from the text on that link:
Interview
WHERE IS HERO US AIRWAYS PILOT CAPT. SULLENBERGER?
• Monday, January 26, 2009
This is a rush transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," January 23, 2009. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the "Radio Factor!"
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: Continuing now with FOX News anchor Geraldo Rivera. Last week, the biggest hero in America was Captain Chesley Sullenberger, who successfully crash-landed a US Air jetliner on the Hudson River. Nobody was killed, an amazing achievement. But where is Captain Sullenberger? So what's going on? Why isn't he out there?
GERALDO RIVERA, HOST, "GERALDO AT LARGE": I don't know why he hasn't spoken up until now, but I do know that tomorrow in his {Danville, California] hometown…
O’: Parade.
…
R: ...he will get a hero's welcome.
O’: There's a parade.
R: And he should.
O': Right, right.
R: It's the most, as I said, the most incredible feat of aviation skill that has ever happened since at least Charles Lindbergh flew the Atlantic solo nonstop or Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier. This guy is a magnificent hero.
The bigger question as we see the emergency float being deployed there — and that's incredible video — the bigger question is: Why did those engines stall? Was it just the bird strike?
O': Bird strike, yeah.
R: A random bird strike? I hold in my hand what's called an Airworthiness Directive. All right, this [December 31, 2008 ] Directive … reads: "This Airworthiness Directive results from an Airbus A-321 airplane powered by a..." and it goes on to designate the engine, the turbo fan engines experiencing high pressure compressor stalls during climb out after takeoff. In other words, airplanes with that Airbus with the engines that that airplane had were suffering stalls…. during climb-out after takeoff. So now you have December 31, 2008, Airworthiness Directive, every Airbus of that sort has to be inspected, OK. That's December 31, 2008.
What happens next? January 13, 2009, Tuesday, … guess what? The same aircraft experiences compressor stalls. The engine stalls…. That is the same aircraft, this is Tuesday, that on Thursday Chesley Sullenberger…
O': Not the same plane…
R: The fuselage number is N106US….
R: ...pure coincidence that that same aircraft that on Tuesday, two days before…
O': Stalled.
…
Content and Programming Copyright 2009 FOX News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2009 CQ Transcriptions, LLC, which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon FOX News Network, LLC'S and CQ Transcriptions, LLC's copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation
Friday, June 19, 2009
Must Read New URL
http://www.indictsturgell.blogspot.com/2009/06/injustice-searchable-transcript-of.html/
See especially Heading (about half way down: "County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef Keeps His Year 2007 Promise To The People Of Rockland: Will Challenge D.C Circuit On Airspace Redesign."
Followed by heqading: Connecticut A.G. Blumenthal Rejects Junk "Justice,."
and later (very important to read!) "Injustice: Searchable Transcript Of The Monday May 11, 2009 Hearing Before The D.C. Circuit, In The Case Of "Rockland County v. FAA."
See especially Heading (about half way down: "County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef Keeps His Year 2007 Promise To The People Of Rockland: Will Challenge D.C Circuit On Airspace Redesign."
Followed by heqading: Connecticut A.G. Blumenthal Rejects Junk "Justice,."
and later (very important to read!) "Injustice: Searchable Transcript Of The Monday May 11, 2009 Hearing Before The D.C. Circuit, In The Case Of "Rockland County v. FAA."
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Hands Across The Water/We Are Not Alone...
Translator's Note:
An Israeli friend gave me a (printed) copy of an Airplane Noise news item from the "ynet.co.il" website belonging to a leading Israeli newspaper.
The URL was
http://www.ynet.co.il/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/Cda/ArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3728117
Regrettably, the serial-number at the end of this is incomplete or out-of-date: I have not been able to find the actual "Y-Net" post on the Internet just 6 days after it was written on June 8. I did find other articles about the same issue.
The translation to English is mine. I spelled the names as best as I could, at present I do not know if any of them can be found by searching the Net.
The town of Modin or Modi’in,(pronounced Modi'een) is not far from the historical site of where the Maccabee revolt against the Greek/Hellenic ruler Antiochus IV took place in... 167 B.C!
I believe this article has value and relevance to those suffering from the FAA redesign's noise in Fairfield County, U.S.A., for the following reasons:
First, in previous discussions, I mentioned hearing from engineer friends that when the U.S (or any other, I suppose) gov't undertakes a project, it precedes its actual implementation by test-runs, dry-runs, all manner of trial runs. That is probably what we've experienced since the summer of 2007. I suggested that probably the FAA was "being accurate without being truthful" in claiming (or allegedly claiming) that its NY/NJ/PA (sometimes referred to as the NY/NJ/Phila redesign has not yet been implemented. That could be so, but if that's the case, then what we've been subjected to since the summer or fall of 2007 must be the redesign's trial-runs.
Indeed, note that the article says that "Officials confirmed that during the trials of the new approach-path, there were "irregularities" as far as height of fly-overs." And note also that the Mayor of the town that's described in this story, Modi’in, is quoted as saying that
" ...if the approach-path over Modi’in is opened, 190 planes will pass over Modin each week..."
That is identical to the situation in Fairfield County: While discussions speak of what the redesign's effects "will" or "would" be, the actual noise we're hearing suggests rather strongly that the "will" should be changed to "is." The article describes a situation that's probably identical to ours: Amidst all the "will"s, trial-runs are already making noise and causing a major nuisance, so the "foretaste" of the "upcoming" redesign is already "here."
Second, although Israel is a different country and is thousands of miles from the U.S, it has cooperated very closely with the U.S on numerous matters.
I gather that any country hose planes land in the U.S or which wants U.S planes to land on its airports, has to abide by safety and procedural standards that are, basically, those of the F.A.A.
I may be wrong on this, but I heard once or twice that some U.S combat planes are "stationed" in a military base in Israel. In any case, the Israeli Air Force has relied heavily on planes made in the U.S. for over 40 years. So one could say, in a manner of speaking, that in the air, the U.S. and Israel are practically the same "entity."
Which could imply rather convincingly that the goings-on described in this article are not wholly and totally unrelated to what the FAA wants to do in Fairfield County.
Perhaps the Israeli town of Modi’in is experiencing the same reality we are to experience in the not-too-distant future?
As far as I know, all websites discussing the matter are in Hebrew. That may change, so FWIW, 2 of them are:
http://www.modiin.muni.il/ModiinWebSite/ChannelArticleNews.aspx?PageID=2_295&id=614
and
http://www.modiin.muni.il/ModiinWebSite/ChannelArticleNews.aspx?PageID=2_295&id=626
(Clickable Modi'in URL at
http://www.modiin.muni.il/ )
says that implementation has been postponed for 60 days to allow time to discuss solutions.
************************************
Words inside square [ ] brackets are mine.
Security Imperatives: The Planes Will Descend Over Modi’in
An eastern flight-path for approaching to Ben Gurion Airport [BGA] passes over the houses of Modi’in. The Airport Authority and the Civil Aviation Administration claims that security is their first priority and there is no alternative. The residents are troubled not only by the noise of 190 planes scheduled each week but also by planes which "scrape the roofs of the houses. This week [week of June 8, 2009] the confrontation in Israel's High Court of Justice [HCJ, in Hebrew it's called "Bagatz."] will continue.
By Zvi Lavi
One day, three months ago, planes began descending over Modi’in houses on their way to BGA. The inhabitants, who did not know what was going on,, were frightened not just by the noise but also by how low the planes were flying. "They nearly scraped the roofs of multi-story buildings," said Eyal Kimche, a local resident, today (Monday).
An investigation found that the source of concern is a flight-path which enables planes to approach BGA from the east. Since then, the municipality and the Airport Authorities are involved in a deep dispute over it. Modi’in's municipality and residents are asking to shift the flight-path to run over uninhabited areas. But the Authorities claim that the current approach-path is a security imperative and the anxiety of the residents is exaggerated. The Municipality appealed to the High Court, seeking an injunction against the inauguration of the new flight-path last April. A mediation-attempt by the Israeli parliament failed, and this week the confrontation will continue in the High Court.
Airport Authority: The New Path is a Must
Kobi Mohr, Director general of the Airports Authority, disclosed to the parliament that the plan for the new approach-path was borne following a "near accident" that occurred in February of 2007, when an El Al (Israel Airlines) plane nearly collided with an Iberia Airlines plane.
By contrast with the western flight-path, where instrument-flying is possible, landing via the eastern path is done "manually," [this probably means VFR] and is therefore vulnerable to human-error. Investigation of the near-collision pointed to the need to construct a system for electronic landing for the eastern path as well.
Mohr explained that "The approach from the east, for planes approaching BGA from the west entails circling in a wide arc, part of which passes over the Palestinian Territories. This is where the Defense Authorities intervened, and imposed on us limitations which compelled us to reduce the radius of the arc, and route the flight-path over Modi’in at low altitude."
"With these imperatives, from the point of view of flight security, there is no alternative route. We studied alternative approach-routes including the one proposed by Modi’in -- to move the path over open land -- and we found these alternatives aren't good for security. In any case, the approaches over Modin will go one for two years, until BGA runway will be extended to facilitate approaching from the north.
Modi’in: And What of the Residents' Safety?
These claims are not accepted in Modi’in. The mayor, Haim Bibas, said he learned of the new approach-path last summer, by sheer coincidence: A document was leaked to one of the town residents. "They [aviation authorities?] were surprised that we knew about it, but they did not listen to us, even after we begged and pleaded that they move the approach-path at least as far as the open land on the town's outskirts. They said the matter is settled and all they care about is the safety of the flights. But isn't the safety of 70,000 residents, 1/3 of whom are children, not important?
Bibas claims that if the approach-path over Modi’in is opened [implemented?], 190 planes will pas over Modi’in each week, 40 during the Sabbath and 150 at other times. "We insist on moving the path to outside of the populated areas, or going back to the original path over the Palestinian Territories which was used before the Defense/security imperatives were dictated. For us it's not a matter of honor or ego, for us it's a matter of life and death."
Officials confirmed that during the trials of the new approach-path, there were "irregularities" as far as height of fly-overs.
Bibas is troubled by these "irregularities," and claims that [during the trials] "three planes vanished from the Control-Towers' RADAR screens. In one case, a plane flew right in between two apartment-buildings. We were told it was a 'finger-error' but never got an explanation as to just what that means." He emphasizes that the residents did not object when planed flew over-head at heights of approximately 2,000 meters. [That's about 6,000 feet] "The flights at heights of near zero are the ones that scare us," he said.
Mohr said that the Civil Aviation Administration had checked and approved the planning and implementation of the new approach-route, and concurs that there is no viable alternative. "Any delay in the implementation of the new approach-path entails the risk that caused the near-collision 2 years ago. Continuing to land planes using the pilots' vision is the most dangerous, in contrast with landing planes using electronic instruments."
"A Monster Outside the Living Room"
Kimche is still concerned. "These monsters have passed right outside my living-room window. WE
sensed that even a slight deviation will cause a massive catastrophe. I fear we will have to evacuate is the flights continue along the same route at the same height. For us this is a question of life and death."
Members of the Parliament confessed they have no means of deciding who is right and who is wrong. Likud Party member Danny Danon asked the Aviation Administration: "If a defense installation's N-Fly-Zone were situated where Modin is now, would you still insist on this new approach-route? Well, are children less important and sensitive than Defense installations?"
Parliament member Yisrael Hassonn (Likud) claims that the imperative which prevent flying over the palestinian territories is inconsistent with agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. According to those agreements, the Palestinian airspace is part of the Israeli air space.
Parliament member Ofir Ekonis (Likud) [The chairman of a committee [dealing with the issue?] called upon the Civil Aviation Administration to re-examine, together with the Modin municipality, alternatives to the new approach-path. The committee recommended having an independent group of experts examine the flight-safety issue.
For information about the "Clear Skies" effort, see
http://h179336wp.setupmyblog.com/?p=210
/ )
An Israeli friend gave me a (printed) copy of an Airplane Noise news item from the "ynet.co.il" website belonging to a leading Israeli newspaper.
The URL was
http://www.ynet.co.il/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/Cda/ArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3728117
Regrettably, the serial-number at the end of this is incomplete or out-of-date: I have not been able to find the actual "Y-Net" post on the Internet just 6 days after it was written on June 8. I did find other articles about the same issue.
The translation to English is mine. I spelled the names as best as I could, at present I do not know if any of them can be found by searching the Net.
The town of Modin or Modi’in,(pronounced Modi'een) is not far from the historical site of where the Maccabee revolt against the Greek/Hellenic ruler Antiochus IV took place in... 167 B.C!
I believe this article has value and relevance to those suffering from the FAA redesign's noise in Fairfield County, U.S.A., for the following reasons:
First, in previous discussions, I mentioned hearing from engineer friends that when the U.S (or any other, I suppose) gov't undertakes a project, it precedes its actual implementation by test-runs, dry-runs, all manner of trial runs. That is probably what we've experienced since the summer of 2007. I suggested that probably the FAA was "being accurate without being truthful" in claiming (or allegedly claiming) that its NY/NJ/PA (sometimes referred to as the NY/NJ/Phila redesign has not yet been implemented. That could be so, but if that's the case, then what we've been subjected to since the summer or fall of 2007 must be the redesign's trial-runs.
Indeed, note that the article says that "Officials confirmed that during the trials of the new approach-path, there were "irregularities" as far as height of fly-overs." And note also that the Mayor of the town that's described in this story, Modi’in, is quoted as saying that
" ...if the approach-path over Modi’in is opened, 190 planes will pass over Modin each week..."
That is identical to the situation in Fairfield County: While discussions speak of what the redesign's effects "will" or "would" be, the actual noise we're hearing suggests rather strongly that the "will" should be changed to "is." The article describes a situation that's probably identical to ours: Amidst all the "will"s, trial-runs are already making noise and causing a major nuisance, so the "foretaste" of the "upcoming" redesign is already "here."
Second, although Israel is a different country and is thousands of miles from the U.S, it has cooperated very closely with the U.S on numerous matters.
I gather that any country hose planes land in the U.S or which wants U.S planes to land on its airports, has to abide by safety and procedural standards that are, basically, those of the F.A.A.
I may be wrong on this, but I heard once or twice that some U.S combat planes are "stationed" in a military base in Israel. In any case, the Israeli Air Force has relied heavily on planes made in the U.S. for over 40 years. So one could say, in a manner of speaking, that in the air, the U.S. and Israel are practically the same "entity."
Which could imply rather convincingly that the goings-on described in this article are not wholly and totally unrelated to what the FAA wants to do in Fairfield County.
Perhaps the Israeli town of Modi’in is experiencing the same reality we are to experience in the not-too-distant future?
As far as I know, all websites discussing the matter are in Hebrew. That may change, so FWIW, 2 of them are:
http://www.modiin.muni.il/ModiinWebSite/ChannelArticleNews.aspx?PageID=2_295&id=614
and
http://www.modiin.muni.il/ModiinWebSite/ChannelArticleNews.aspx?PageID=2_295&id=626
(Clickable Modi'in URL at
http://www.modiin.muni.il/ )
says that implementation has been postponed for 60 days to allow time to discuss solutions.
************************************
Words inside square [ ] brackets are mine.
Security Imperatives: The Planes Will Descend Over Modi’in
An eastern flight-path for approaching to Ben Gurion Airport [BGA] passes over the houses of Modi’in. The Airport Authority and the Civil Aviation Administration claims that security is their first priority and there is no alternative. The residents are troubled not only by the noise of 190 planes scheduled each week but also by planes which "scrape the roofs of the houses. This week [week of June 8, 2009] the confrontation in Israel's High Court of Justice [HCJ, in Hebrew it's called "Bagatz."] will continue.
By Zvi Lavi
One day, three months ago, planes began descending over Modi’in houses on their way to BGA. The inhabitants, who did not know what was going on,, were frightened not just by the noise but also by how low the planes were flying. "They nearly scraped the roofs of multi-story buildings," said Eyal Kimche, a local resident, today (Monday).
An investigation found that the source of concern is a flight-path which enables planes to approach BGA from the east. Since then, the municipality and the Airport Authorities are involved in a deep dispute over it. Modi’in's municipality and residents are asking to shift the flight-path to run over uninhabited areas. But the Authorities claim that the current approach-path is a security imperative and the anxiety of the residents is exaggerated. The Municipality appealed to the High Court, seeking an injunction against the inauguration of the new flight-path last April. A mediation-attempt by the Israeli parliament failed, and this week the confrontation will continue in the High Court.
Airport Authority: The New Path is a Must
Kobi Mohr, Director general of the Airports Authority, disclosed to the parliament that the plan for the new approach-path was borne following a "near accident" that occurred in February of 2007, when an El Al (Israel Airlines) plane nearly collided with an Iberia Airlines plane.
By contrast with the western flight-path, where instrument-flying is possible, landing via the eastern path is done "manually," [this probably means VFR] and is therefore vulnerable to human-error. Investigation of the near-collision pointed to the need to construct a system for electronic landing for the eastern path as well.
Mohr explained that "The approach from the east, for planes approaching BGA from the west entails circling in a wide arc, part of which passes over the Palestinian Territories. This is where the Defense Authorities intervened, and imposed on us limitations which compelled us to reduce the radius of the arc, and route the flight-path over Modi’in at low altitude."
"With these imperatives, from the point of view of flight security, there is no alternative route. We studied alternative approach-routes including the one proposed by Modi’in -- to move the path over open land -- and we found these alternatives aren't good for security. In any case, the approaches over Modin will go one for two years, until BGA runway will be extended to facilitate approaching from the north.
Modi’in: And What of the Residents' Safety?
These claims are not accepted in Modi’in. The mayor, Haim Bibas, said he learned of the new approach-path last summer, by sheer coincidence: A document was leaked to one of the town residents. "They [aviation authorities?] were surprised that we knew about it, but they did not listen to us, even after we begged and pleaded that they move the approach-path at least as far as the open land on the town's outskirts. They said the matter is settled and all they care about is the safety of the flights. But isn't the safety of 70,000 residents, 1/3 of whom are children, not important?
Bibas claims that if the approach-path over Modi’in is opened [implemented?], 190 planes will pas over Modi’in each week, 40 during the Sabbath and 150 at other times. "We insist on moving the path to outside of the populated areas, or going back to the original path over the Palestinian Territories which was used before the Defense/security imperatives were dictated. For us it's not a matter of honor or ego, for us it's a matter of life and death."
Officials confirmed that during the trials of the new approach-path, there were "irregularities" as far as height of fly-overs.
Bibas is troubled by these "irregularities," and claims that [during the trials] "three planes vanished from the Control-Towers' RADAR screens. In one case, a plane flew right in between two apartment-buildings. We were told it was a 'finger-error' but never got an explanation as to just what that means." He emphasizes that the residents did not object when planed flew over-head at heights of approximately 2,000 meters. [That's about 6,000 feet] "The flights at heights of near zero are the ones that scare us," he said.
Mohr said that the Civil Aviation Administration had checked and approved the planning and implementation of the new approach-route, and concurs that there is no viable alternative. "Any delay in the implementation of the new approach-path entails the risk that caused the near-collision 2 years ago. Continuing to land planes using the pilots' vision is the most dangerous, in contrast with landing planes using electronic instruments."
"A Monster Outside the Living Room"
Kimche is still concerned. "These monsters have passed right outside my living-room window. WE
sensed that even a slight deviation will cause a massive catastrophe. I fear we will have to evacuate is the flights continue along the same route at the same height. For us this is a question of life and death."
Members of the Parliament confessed they have no means of deciding who is right and who is wrong. Likud Party member Danny Danon asked the Aviation Administration: "If a defense installation's N-Fly-Zone were situated where Modin is now, would you still insist on this new approach-route? Well, are children less important and sensitive than Defense installations?"
Parliament member Yisrael Hassonn (Likud) claims that the imperative which prevent flying over the palestinian territories is inconsistent with agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. According to those agreements, the Palestinian airspace is part of the Israeli air space.
Parliament member Ofir Ekonis (Likud) [The chairman of a committee [dealing with the issue?] called upon the Civil Aviation Administration to re-examine, together with the Modin municipality, alternatives to the new approach-path. The committee recommended having an independent group of experts examine the flight-safety issue.
For information about the "Clear Skies" effort, see
http://h179336wp.setupmyblog.com/?p=210
/ )
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Organizing against the noise
The Connecticut State Attorney can be found on the Web of course. Last I checked, the mailing address was: Office of the Attorney General, 55 Elm Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06106
Telephone: (860) 808-5318. Addresses keep changing, so double-check at
http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?Q=441562&A=3673
The website of the Alliance for Sensible Airspace planning, at http://www.sensibleairspace.org/
has maps showing the new LaGuardia flight-path over our towns.
And of course don't forget to visit the excellent website directed by Heather Wolf, at
http://www.OurAirspace.org/
Telephone: (860) 808-5318. Addresses keep changing, so double-check at
http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?Q=441562&A=3673
The website of the Alliance for Sensible Airspace planning, at http://www.sensibleairspace.org/
has maps showing the new LaGuardia flight-path over our towns.
And of course don't forget to visit the excellent website directed by Heather Wolf, at
http://www.OurAirspace.org/
Friday, June 12, 2009
The Goose is Back?
Welll... looks like the Goose is back! :-)
In the late summer of 2007, residents of the very quiet, old, well-run and well-cared-for towns of Greenwich (including Cos Cob, Riverside, Old Greenwich) Connecticut, and of Pound Ridge, New York, and many other similar towns, noticed a marked increase in the number of airplanes flying over our residences. We noticed an increase in planes' noise due to markedly decreased flight-altitudes. A typical "evening rush-hour" consisted on planes flying over us every 2-3 minutes. Often they were flying so low that we could see their headlights blazing. I could discern their red-green lights even when wearing weaker-prescription glasses!
These new over-flights were not limited to "rush hours." Planes had begun flying low overhead well past midnight, often also at 2 or 4 a.m. Daytime hours also became filled with airplane noise. Some people sensed a change in the air -- we used to have crisp clean air on most days, but now it seemed just a bit more polluted. But the main issue was the noise.
It soon became known that the F.A.A., the Federal Aviation Administration, was implementing its new so-called "New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Airspace Re-design."
On Sept. 12, 2007, a meeting was held in the Greenwich Town Hall. Its purported purpose was to have a group of people who formed some sort of aviation "advisory committee" recommend to the town of Greenwich whether or not to sue the FAA over the noise. Some leading Greenwich politicians seemed reluctant to sue. I recall that on Sept 17, Jim Lash, then First-Selectman, e-mailed me and said that it actually may be in my interest to not oppose the redesign, because when it is fully implemented, planes currently flying over Greenwich will fly over different towns. A few days later, I received an e-mail from a woman who had attended a meeting in the town of Rye Brook, New York. Apparently, the residents of Rye brook were told that one the redesign took full effect, planes currently making noise over their houses will be flying over... Greenwich!
I feel greatly indebted to Greenwich Selectman Peter Crumbine, for his supportiveness in those early days and for telling others about my blog.
I know of 1-2 attempts to try and convince the populace that the planes had been there all along. In fact, I recall John Inserra, the kindly man who serves as the Noise Abatement officer at Westchester County Airport, suggesting that to me, however good naturedly... A newspaper article quoted an FAA representative saying the same thing: The planes had "been there all along," nothing had, as yet, changed in their flight-paths. "It's only that" people became aware of the planes when they heard about the impending redesign, and became more sensitive to the noise because of that.
While I realized that could have been so in some cases, I also doubted whether so many officials from so many towns in Connecticut would have taken the trouble to sue the FAA just because I, whom they had never met or even heard of... had become more sensitive to planes' noise! :-) very soon thereafter, Stamford, the largest town in the area, joined the lawsuit. I never heard a thing from or about Jim Lash after that time... Around the same time, Richard Blumenthal, the Connecticut State Attorney, declared his full support of the towns that were suing the FAA. Soon after that, the State of Connecticut filed its own lawsuit against the FAA and its redesign.
At some point, U.S representative Chris Shays joined our cause, organizing several meetings and declaring he is with us "one hundred percent." He assigned a "case worker" to the issue, Chris Catropa. Catropa organized several dozen residents to keep "logs" of plane overflights. Currently Shays' successor, Jim Himes, is supporting our cause.
The area towns formed an "alliance" for "Sensible Airspace." At one of their meetings, they displayed a beautifully designed sign with the words "Noise Destroys." They proposed to make copies of the signs and have people display them as yard-signs.
Unfortunately nothing seems to have come of that idea; Members of the Alliance suggested that we speak to our neighbors to make them aware of the lawsuits. But I'm sure many of us know by now that people often don't want to admit they are bothered by the noise. Making such an admission "advertises to the world" two things which people usually don't like to advertize about themselves: One -- the value of their home had just taken a nose-dive, two, they could be considered "health-risks" by, i.e, their insurance companies, since the planes' nocturnal over-flights may well be depriving them of sleep.
For whatever reasons, I found people I spoke to reluctant to join the groups we have, by now, formed in order to combat the re-design. Coverage in local newspapers and other media (especially around Greenwich?) has been scant and perfunctory, and certainly not at all sympathetic. Perhaps because so many real-estate firms and home-improvement entities advertize, or "have a presence" in, for example, the Greenwich Post and the WNLK1400/WSTC1350 radio station/s.
And speaking of real estate firms, "developers" and the like, at no time did I learn of any local entity that had expressed its opinion in favor of the redesign. However, it's not hard to imagine that some "entities" would like to see the redesign not only go into effect but help to chase at least some residents out of their homes: A book I saw last year, about real-estate appraising, often invokes something it calls "highest and best use" of a given piece of real-estate. Both Greenwich and Stamford have a lot of office-space. I'm sure some entities would like to see even more of the beautiful properties around here converted to office use! Office buildings are easier to sound-proof, and indeed according to a website called "quality sound" which sells sound-proofing services, the FAA has shelled out billions of dollars for soundproofing of homes near airports -- a bonanza of jobs for various contractors! Building more office-towers in Greenwich would be an even bigger bonanza. I don't know anyone who thinks along those lines but as a friend said to me last year, "there are people who think like that."
In 2007 and 2008, we heard or read often that the main reason for the FAA's redesign is to decrease the number of "passenger-hours" of flight-delays which, presumably, are caused by "congestion." However, in the nearly 2 years that have passed since that time, I and others have recorded numerous instances of flight delays that did indeed take place, that were indeed long, but... were not caused by "congestion," (whatever the unpredicted congestion was caused by...) they were simply caused by inclement weather! Said weather being fully noticeable around the Tri-State area. As far as I know, humans are not able to re-design the day-to-day weather. Occasionally there would be a delay caused by i.e a software "glitch" or a major power-outage. I recorded only one instance of hearing about flight-delays that seemed to be just that -- delays, for unspecified reason but not because of weather.
For a number of months during 2008, I ran a blog, as part of "AOL Journals," about the airplane noise issues. In Oct. 2008 AOL announced that it was doing away with its "journals" so would people please move their blogs to somewhere else. The advice given by AOL about transferring the blog was useless, and my blog was "down" for many months. I hope that I have found a way to renew it here. I hope to add to it a few of my old posts as well as, of course, new posts.
In the late summer of 2007, residents of the very quiet, old, well-run and well-cared-for towns of Greenwich (including Cos Cob, Riverside, Old Greenwich) Connecticut, and of Pound Ridge, New York, and many other similar towns, noticed a marked increase in the number of airplanes flying over our residences. We noticed an increase in planes' noise due to markedly decreased flight-altitudes. A typical "evening rush-hour" consisted on planes flying over us every 2-3 minutes. Often they were flying so low that we could see their headlights blazing. I could discern their red-green lights even when wearing weaker-prescription glasses!
These new over-flights were not limited to "rush hours." Planes had begun flying low overhead well past midnight, often also at 2 or 4 a.m. Daytime hours also became filled with airplane noise. Some people sensed a change in the air -- we used to have crisp clean air on most days, but now it seemed just a bit more polluted. But the main issue was the noise.
It soon became known that the F.A.A., the Federal Aviation Administration, was implementing its new so-called "New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Airspace Re-design."
On Sept. 12, 2007, a meeting was held in the Greenwich Town Hall. Its purported purpose was to have a group of people who formed some sort of aviation "advisory committee" recommend to the town of Greenwich whether or not to sue the FAA over the noise. Some leading Greenwich politicians seemed reluctant to sue. I recall that on Sept 17, Jim Lash, then First-Selectman, e-mailed me and said that it actually may be in my interest to not oppose the redesign, because when it is fully implemented, planes currently flying over Greenwich will fly over different towns. A few days later, I received an e-mail from a woman who had attended a meeting in the town of Rye Brook, New York. Apparently, the residents of Rye brook were told that one the redesign took full effect, planes currently making noise over their houses will be flying over... Greenwich!
I feel greatly indebted to Greenwich Selectman Peter Crumbine, for his supportiveness in those early days and for telling others about my blog.
I know of 1-2 attempts to try and convince the populace that the planes had been there all along. In fact, I recall John Inserra, the kindly man who serves as the Noise Abatement officer at Westchester County Airport, suggesting that to me, however good naturedly... A newspaper article quoted an FAA representative saying the same thing: The planes had "been there all along," nothing had, as yet, changed in their flight-paths. "It's only that" people became aware of the planes when they heard about the impending redesign, and became more sensitive to the noise because of that.
While I realized that could have been so in some cases, I also doubted whether so many officials from so many towns in Connecticut would have taken the trouble to sue the FAA just because I, whom they had never met or even heard of... had become more sensitive to planes' noise! :-) very soon thereafter, Stamford, the largest town in the area, joined the lawsuit. I never heard a thing from or about Jim Lash after that time... Around the same time, Richard Blumenthal, the Connecticut State Attorney, declared his full support of the towns that were suing the FAA. Soon after that, the State of Connecticut filed its own lawsuit against the FAA and its redesign.
At some point, U.S representative Chris Shays joined our cause, organizing several meetings and declaring he is with us "one hundred percent." He assigned a "case worker" to the issue, Chris Catropa. Catropa organized several dozen residents to keep "logs" of plane overflights. Currently Shays' successor, Jim Himes, is supporting our cause.
The area towns formed an "alliance" for "Sensible Airspace." At one of their meetings, they displayed a beautifully designed sign with the words "Noise Destroys." They proposed to make copies of the signs and have people display them as yard-signs.
Unfortunately nothing seems to have come of that idea; Members of the Alliance suggested that we speak to our neighbors to make them aware of the lawsuits. But I'm sure many of us know by now that people often don't want to admit they are bothered by the noise. Making such an admission "advertises to the world" two things which people usually don't like to advertize about themselves: One -- the value of their home had just taken a nose-dive, two, they could be considered "health-risks" by, i.e, their insurance companies, since the planes' nocturnal over-flights may well be depriving them of sleep.
For whatever reasons, I found people I spoke to reluctant to join the groups we have, by now, formed in order to combat the re-design. Coverage in local newspapers and other media (especially around Greenwich?) has been scant and perfunctory, and certainly not at all sympathetic. Perhaps because so many real-estate firms and home-improvement entities advertize, or "have a presence" in, for example, the Greenwich Post and the WNLK1400/WSTC1350 radio station/s.
And speaking of real estate firms, "developers" and the like, at no time did I learn of any local entity that had expressed its opinion in favor of the redesign. However, it's not hard to imagine that some "entities" would like to see the redesign not only go into effect but help to chase at least some residents out of their homes: A book I saw last year, about real-estate appraising, often invokes something it calls "highest and best use" of a given piece of real-estate. Both Greenwich and Stamford have a lot of office-space. I'm sure some entities would like to see even more of the beautiful properties around here converted to office use! Office buildings are easier to sound-proof, and indeed according to a website called "quality sound" which sells sound-proofing services, the FAA has shelled out billions of dollars for soundproofing of homes near airports -- a bonanza of jobs for various contractors! Building more office-towers in Greenwich would be an even bigger bonanza. I don't know anyone who thinks along those lines but as a friend said to me last year, "there are people who think like that."
In 2007 and 2008, we heard or read often that the main reason for the FAA's redesign is to decrease the number of "passenger-hours" of flight-delays which, presumably, are caused by "congestion." However, in the nearly 2 years that have passed since that time, I and others have recorded numerous instances of flight delays that did indeed take place, that were indeed long, but... were not caused by "congestion," (whatever the unpredicted congestion was caused by...) they were simply caused by inclement weather! Said weather being fully noticeable around the Tri-State area. As far as I know, humans are not able to re-design the day-to-day weather. Occasionally there would be a delay caused by i.e a software "glitch" or a major power-outage. I recorded only one instance of hearing about flight-delays that seemed to be just that -- delays, for unspecified reason but not because of weather.
For a number of months during 2008, I ran a blog, as part of "AOL Journals," about the airplane noise issues. In Oct. 2008 AOL announced that it was doing away with its "journals" so would people please move their blogs to somewhere else. The advice given by AOL about transferring the blog was useless, and my blog was "down" for many months. I hope that I have found a way to renew it here. I hope to add to it a few of my old posts as well as, of course, new posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)