http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla ... story.html

Maryland plans to sue the FAA to restore pre-2014 traffic patterns affecting BWI and DCA airports. FAA says no can do, but is willing to talk.

The article is a little light on facts, such as where the 107-decibel reading originated; but the NIMBYs are upset.

As someone who is buried in NYC Airspace, right on many approach and departure paths for JFK, here's my view on this: You live in the most congested air space in the country, deal with it. Airplane noise is part of a day in the life along and around the BOS-WAS corridor. I'm native to the area, so I've dealt with it. If you live there, you deal with it too.

107 dB? Yeah right.

You can never satisfy the NIMBYs. I doubt this lawsuit will get far.

The people complaining about this are probably the ones that are already complaining. You live next to an airport for crying out loud. I live on the downwind departure pattern for one of the runways, still close enough to know the plane based on the engine sound. Never was loud enough to make me want to complain.

“I’ve had sound levels up to 107 decibels, which is high enough to cause permanent hearing loss,” she said. A 33-year resident of Elkridge, she said she and her late husband never heard planes when they first moved there.

Lying out their back side if they never heard planes back then or even now, living that close to the airport, since both runways fly over Elkridge. 33 years ago those same runways existed

YoungDon wrote:

107 dB? Yeah right.

You can never satisfy the NIMBYs. I doubt this lawsuit will get far.

You say that, but this happened two weeks ago..

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/loc ... 612134001/

These lawsuits are getting ridiculous, because these improved procedures aid operational efficiencies. Not only are they far more fuel efficient and better utilize very congested airspace, but Climb Via/Descend Via dramatically reduces pilot and controller workload, and decreases congestion on frequency. If you buy a house near an airport, expect to hear airplanes.

What NextGen has done is to concentrate air traffic into much narrower but denser corridors due to advances in navigation technology.

So instead of approaches and departures (and their noise) being more scatered, they now generally operate in much more narrow corridors, which regretably has caused increases in noise levels for those under them.




This Maryland case is one of dozens across the nations. Recently in Arizona FAA was ordered by Federal Appeals Court to revert to old traffic patterns finding new routings were "arbitrary and capricious that have harmed communities under them."

Sadly, I think this noise angle is an issue that was not given proper consideration when developing Nextgen, which is now coming back to bite the FAA as according to recent media story I saw there were so far 54 legal challenges as result of the new noise impact on communities.

Any Potomac TRACON or ZDC controllers on here that know anymore about it want to comment? Performance based navigation is a cornerstone of Next Gen and through the use of "climb via" and "descend via" RNAV STAR's and SID's pilots fly a series of GPS way points that are charted on a procedure. While this makes it easy to know where exactly planes who are flying these routes will go, the folks on the ground get to hear every plane that flies over that exact way point (probably more annoying honestly). This is why some ATC facilities have it in their orders to utilize RADAR vectors as opposed to procedure ground tracks when traffic and weather conditions permit (well when there is weather planes are getting seriously vectored anyways).

I know that the FAA was eyeballs deep in community noise issues with the Socal metroplex changes last year and was going through some changes with procedures for aircraft flying in and out of airports where lots of complainers live.

I know that these OPD's save fuel and whatnot so it will be interesting to see if the FAA takes them away. If so, does the FAA prioritize noise over fuel/emmissions? If so, the NIMBY's will be happy but the tree huggers might not. Also not good PR for the FAA in that regard. Also, the airlines like these procedures as well because it saves them fuel because essentially (in a perfect world) the engines can be set on idle and maintain a constant descent down on the arrival.

I'm not a center puke so I can't comment on working aircraft that fly them but I've heard mixed feelings about them. Some Z controllers say that aircraft performance characteristics between aircraft make it hard to sequence and get the in trail e.g. 752 or 773 behind a CRJ2. Some aircraft who are not RVSM capable or don't have an FMS like the DC9 or 727, or most props can't even file the SID or STAR anyways.

@LAXintl your picture describes perfectly the situation that people are complaining about.

ATCSuggester wrote:

Any Potomac TRACON or ZDC controllers on here that know anymore about it want to comment? Performance based navigation is a cornerstone of Next Gen and through the use of "climb via" and "descend via" RNAV STAR's and SID's pilots fly a series of GPS way points that are charted on a procedure. While this makes it easy to know where exactly planes who are flying these routes will go, the folks on the ground get to hear every plane that flies over that exact way point (probably more annoying honestly). This is why some ATC facilities have it in their orders to utilize RADAR vectors as opposed to procedure ground tracks when traffic and weather conditions permit (well when there is weather planes are getting seriously vectored anyways).

I know that the FAA was eyeballs deep in community noise issues with the Socal metroplex changes last year and was going through some changes with procedures for aircraft flying in and out of airports where lots of complainers live.

I know that these OPD's save fuel and whatnot so it will be interesting to see if the FAA takes them away. If so, does the FAA prioritize noise over fuel/emmissions? If so, the NIMBY's will be happy but the tree huggers might not. Also not good PR for the FAA in that regard. Also, the airlines like these procedures as well because it saves them fuel because essentially (in a perfect world) the engines can be set on idle and maintain a constant descent down on the arrival.

I'm not a center puke so I can't comment on working aircraft that fly them but I've heard mixed feelings about them. Some Z controllers say that aircraft performance characteristics between aircraft make it hard to sequence and get the in trail e.g. 752 or 773 behind a CRJ2. Some aircraft who are not RVSM capable or don't have an FMS like the DC9 or 727, or most props can't even file the SID or STAR anyways.

@LAXintl your picture describes perfectly the situation that people are complaining about.

Yes. I don't know any specific details about this situation beyond what's mentioned here. 99% of arrivals into IAD/DCA/BWI are RNAV capable and get the Descend Via clearance. It's generally better from an ATC perspective, but usually there are additions or addendums to the DV clearance typically regarding speed restrictions (or ignoring them, rather). "Descend via the XXX arrival except maintain 300kts or better until XXX.", "...resume published speeds at XXX", etc. From an overall workload and structural standpoint, things are pretty efficient as is. The airspace is designed to have some room for vectoring if necessary to achieve the required miles-in-trail, or to hold if applicable. DCA requires holding fairly regularly, especially during SWAP.

If communities continue to challenge these procedures in court, then not only is it going to be a pretty big setback to overall modernization of the NAS, but it's going to cost millions in taxpayer dollars developing new procedures. These things take years to implement. The more effective approach would be to petition the FAA to make changes to the existing procedures...but that won't happen.

Oh... my... GOD. Don't these people have actually important things to focus on in their lives???

atcsundevil wrote:

ATCSuggester wrote:

Any Potomac TRACON or ZDC controllers on here that know anymore about it want to comment? Performance based navigation is a cornerstone of Next Gen and through the use of "climb via" and "descend via" RNAV STAR's and SID's pilots fly a series of GPS way points that are charted on a procedure. While this makes it easy to know where exactly planes who are flying these routes will go, the folks on the ground get to hear every plane that flies over that exact way point (probably more annoying honestly). This is why some ATC facilities have it in their orders to utilize RADAR vectors as opposed to procedure ground tracks when traffic and weather conditions permit (well when there is weather planes are getting seriously vectored anyways).

I know that the FAA was eyeballs deep in community noise issues with the Socal metroplex changes last year and was going through some changes with procedures for aircraft flying in and out of airports where lots of complainers live.

I know that these OPD's save fuel and whatnot so it will be interesting to see if the FAA takes them away. If so, does the FAA prioritize noise over fuel/emmissions? If so, the NIMBY's will be happy but the tree huggers might not. Also not good PR for the FAA in that regard. Also, the airlines like these procedures as well because it saves them fuel because essentially (in a perfect world) the engines can be set on idle and maintain a constant descent down on the arrival.

I'm not a center puke so I can't comment on working aircraft that fly them but I've heard mixed feelings about them. Some Z controllers say that aircraft performance characteristics between aircraft make it hard to sequence and get the in trail e.g. 752 or 773 behind a CRJ2. Some aircraft who are not RVSM capable or don't have an FMS like the DC9 or 727, or most props can't even file the SID or STAR anyways.

@LAXintl your picture describes perfectly the situation that people are complaining about.

Yes. I don't know any specific details about this situation beyond what's mentioned here. 99% of arrivals into IAD/DCA/BWI are RNAV capable and get the Descend Via clearance. It's generally better from an ATC perspective, but usually there are additions or addendums to the DV clearance typically regarding speed restrictions (or ignoring them, rather). "Descend via the XXX arrival except maintain 300kts or better until XXX.", "...resume published speeds at XXX", etc. From an overall workload and structural standpoint, things are pretty efficient as is. The airspace is designed to have some room for vectoring if necessary to achieve the required miles-in-trail, or to hold if applicable. DCA requires holding fairly regularly, especially during SWAP.

If communities continue to challenge these procedures in court, then not only is it going to be a pretty big setback to overall modernization of the NAS, but it's going to cost millions in taxpayer dollars developing new procedures. These things take years to implement. The more effective approach would be to petition the FAA to make changes to the existing procedures...but that won't happen.

Good info. Thanks brother!

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The aviation industry has spent countless BILLIONS of dollars and engineering on Stage III and, now with the C-Series Stage IV, planes for what? It's hardly like B707 water wagons are flying over their heads. It's time to tell NIMBYs to sit down and STFU.

GF

The fact that planes are quieter now compared to decades ago does not negate the massive increase in noise frequency people under the NextGen flight paths are having to deal with. The implementation has been an utter failure from a PR perspective.

I plead major ignorance here, since I'm not familiar with the necessity of consolidating flight patterns into such tight corridors, but if the system is able to consolidate routes in such a way, surely it can just as easily work to evenly disperse them in an equally efficient manner? Is fanning out departures and arrivals over a larger area really that much less efficient?

Some thoughts living 'near' BWI:
- I think some PCT controllers run/have been fed aircraft close together for no real reason. Weather was great, but 'Maintain 160 knots' to multiple aircraft 8+ miles out transitioning ANTHM+RAVNN to Rwy 10. That seemed to have resulted in avoidable noise.
- Not sure why west traffic usually circles around to the east when landing 33L, maybe how airspace laid out, but it might be less noise intensive if they'd go under departing 28 traffic.
- Perhaps landing Rwy 28 could be used more often to distribute noise.
- It seems unlikely that those living in Elkridge have not heard airplane noise at current levels under the 15R approach... movements up but they have been recovering from 2008 levels.
- Labquest, charter, freight flights at night are not ideal. Fedex always seems to fly low.

LAXintl wrote:

What NextGen has done is to concentrate air traffic into much narrower but denser corridors due to advances in navigation technology.

So instead of approaches and departures (and their noise) being more scatered, they now generally operate in much more narrow corridors, which regretably has caused increases in noise levels for those under them.

I think what you wrote is true.

Also true is that the more scattered approaches were less efficient, both in terms of fuel and noise. Airliners were in the air longer, burning fuel and generating noise longer. This change reduces total noise (but might concentrate it, like you wrote)

JRL3289 wrote:

The fact that planes are quieter now compared to decades ago does not negate the massive increase in noise frequency people under the NextGen flight paths are having to deal with. The implementation has been an utter failure from a PR perspective.

I plead major ignorance here, since I'm not familiar with the necessity of consolidating flight patterns into such tight corridors, but if the system is able to consolidate routes in such a way, surely it can just as easily work to evenly disperse them in an equally efficient manner? Is fanning out departures and arrivals over a larger area really that much less efficient?

No, it cannot. NextGen is putting airliners onto the most efficient paths. Scattering the airliners would result in less efficiency. In particular, it would result in more airliners flying longer, generating more total noise.

From a PR perceptive .. I'd be amazed if 1% of the US population knew or cared about NextGen.

A fair bit of ignorance here from the STFU brigade as to the effect that subtle changes to historical flight paths can have on adjacent airport communities

The concentration of noise, even at modest levels, can have a dramatic effect on quality of life even on communities that have lived for years with airport patterns. LAXintl, your graphic demonstrates this beautifully.

NATS here in the UK fell foul of experimenting with arrival and departure routes at LHR in 2015. The planes were of course no louder, but noise concentration increased massively in some areas. In the NATS case it also emerged that routes had been selected with no regard to adjacent populations, so Westerly departures that were largely flown over open countryside changed to flying over heavily populated adjacent towns. The experiment was dropped.

STFU? No shout if you are not being listened to.

This is a matter in which the FAA needs to stand firm. ATC modernization is intended to more efficiently use airspace, reduce fuel burn and emissions, and improve on-time performance. The Montgomery County, NoVa, and Anne Arundel County NIMBY's likely use these airports without hesitation. Aircraft are quieter. The industry has made massive strides in reducing noise, while air travel has grown phenomenally.

The Washington Post had a piece on the DC and Baltimore-area controversies. Maryland Gov. Hogan, as a Republican, isn't getting re-elected in heavily-Democratic Maryland without some Montgomery and Anne Arundel support, which may help explain his own outspokenness. Virginia U.S. Rep. Beyer, of course, represents Alexandria. DCA long predates most of the young professionals who moved to Alexandria despite the very visible planes over the Potomac. These airports are major employers, doesn't that fact deserve consideration, too?

Again, the FAA needs to stand firm. They should take any adverse court rulings all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. Airports and aviation are essential to the 21st century economy and way of life. I live near hospitals and a fire station, which means sirens and low-flying helicopters. They are part of life here, and I don't try to interfere with their operation.

Jim

You think this is abd try living less than a mile from lake hood seaplane base in the summer. That's where I live.

This is all relative. If you look at the earlier graphic, it is probably safe to say that instances of noise have greatly increased for a few neighborhoods, even if overall the area exposed to noise is greatly reduced. If you lived in Glen Echo, you no doubt would be used to some noise, but now the new NextGen approach pattern goes right over you, and with way more flights than just the few under the previous system. Someone made a decision that has adversely impacted these neighborhoods. They live over 10 miles away from the airport, not next to it.

Question, does anyone have a graphic of the river approach to Runway 1? I would imagine that folks living in some neighborhoods in Ward 8/Anacostia are getting a ton more noise as well. But they are neglected. Noisewise, for departures they do have advantage of the wider tidal Potomac , but I imagine approaches are just as much a problem as they are for the rich folks up north.

The NextGen approach from the west does not seem very efficient. Arriving flights are required to fly south of IAD clear down to Alexandria, make a 180 degree turn and fly over Arlington, then another 180 to get the river. That seems like a lot more fuel burn than just flying straight in above IAD arrivals and picking up the river further north closer to Leesburg. NextGen should allow for greater routing flexibility for the most efficient route to the approach not force everything into a tube regardless of origin.

Runway 4/22 is barely used. Anacostia is fine for the time being.

l87e wrote:

Some thoughts living 'near' BWI:
- I think some PCT controllers run/have been fed aircraft close together for no real reason. Weather was great, but 'Maintain 160 knots' to multiple aircraft 8+ miles out transitioning ANTHM+RAVNN to Rwy 10. That seemed to have resulted in avoidable noise.
- Not sure why west traffic usually circles around to the east when landing 33L, maybe how airspace laid out, but it might be less noise intensive if they'd go under departing 28 traffic.
- Perhaps landing Rwy 28 could be used more often to distribute noise.
- It seems unlikely that those living in Elkridge have not heard airplane noise at current levels under the 15R approach... movements up but they have been recovering from 2008 levels.
- Labquest, charter, freight flights at night are not ideal. Fedex always seems to fly low.

One thing I've noticed about BWI is that since the crossing runways are at an approximate 30 angle, landing and departing is not really interchangeable on both main runways to minimize taxi time on the ground.
West/Northwest operations will have planes land 33L and takeoff on 28. East/Southwest operations will have planes land on 10 and take off on 15R.

My guess on the circling east to land 33L is probably to avoid interference with DCA traffic. I don't think IAD factors into it since it always seems like we're at least 10,000 feet high when we pass over that airport. I'm only a passenger on with above average aviation knowledge though, so i don't know the exact reasoning for the current setup.

kitplane01 wrote:

JRL3289 wrote:

The fact that planes are quieter now compared to decades ago does not negate the massive increase in noise frequency people under the NextGen flight paths are having to deal with. The implementation has been an utter failure from a PR perspective.

I plead major ignorance here, since I'm not familiar with the necessity of consolidating flight patterns into such tight corridors, but if the system is able to consolidate routes in such a way, surely it can just as easily work to evenly disperse them in an equally efficient manner? Is fanning out departures and arrivals over a larger area really that much less efficient?

No, it cannot. NextGen is putting airliners onto the most efficient paths. Scattering the airliners would result in less efficiency. In particular, it would result in more airliners flying longer, generating more total noise.

From a PR perceptive .. I'd be amazed if 1% of the US population knew or cared about NextGen.

It doesn't matter how efficient it is if the result is more noise. There are 2 equal factors in the equation: noise to the residents and efficiency. It sounds to me that only 1 factor was considered.

For comparison: It's more efficient for me to drive from point A to point B in a straight line. But if that means that I have to build a highway thru people's backyards, it's a non starter.

DCAfan wrote:

Runway 4/22 is barely used. Anacostia is fine for the time being.

Actually, don't approaches to runway 1 from the NE go down the east bank of the river and then turn to come back north? Anacostia is on the east bank of the river.

If anyone has a graphic of the NextGen approach for runway 1 at DCA that would be great.

capitalflyer wrote:

DCAfan wrote:

Runway 4/22 is barely used. Anacostia is fine for the time being.

Actually, don't approaches to runway 1 from the NE go down the east bank of the river and then turn to come back north? Anacostia is on the east bank of the river.

If anyone has a graphic of the NextGen approach for runway 1 at DCA that would be great.

Here's the approach plate for 1. The RNAV approach from the northeast (CLIPR1) essentially comes in straight southbound right past the east side of P56.

Cubsrule wrote:

capitalflyer wrote:

DCAfan wrote:

Runway 4/22 is barely used. Anacostia is fine for the time being.

Actually, don't approaches to runway 1 from the NE go down the east bank of the river and then turn to come back north? Anacostia is on the east bank of the river.

If anyone has a graphic of the NextGen approach for runway 1 at DCA that would be great.

Here's the approach plate for 1. The RNAV approach from the northeast (CLIPR1) essentially comes in straight southbound right past the east side of P56.

And right over Anacostia. Anyhoo, any review should include runway 1 arrivals and runway 19 departures as well with consideration of folks to the east, not just in Alexandria.

If you're getting >100dBA then you must be so close to the airport that there is little ATC can do as the plane will be flying in a straight line towards the runway.

https://www.nats.aero/environment/aircraft-noise/

capitalflyer wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

capitalflyer wrote:

Actually, don't approaches to runway 1 from the NE go down the east bank of the river and then turn to come back north? Anacostia is on the east bank of the river.

If anyone has a graphic of the NextGen approach for runway 1 at DCA that would be great.

Here's the approach plate for 1. The RNAV approach from the northeast (CLIPR1) essentially comes in straight southbound right past the east side of P56.

And right over Anacostia. Anyhoo, any review should include runway 1 arrivals and runway 19 departures as well with consideration of folks to the east, not just in Alexandria.

Anacostia, the specific neighborhood, is not under any flight paths for DCA.

If you're instead talking about Ward 8 in general (a much larger area than just Anacostia), none of those neighborhoods are particularly under the flightpaths either. Landing on Runway 33 usually involves a similar approach over the Potomac, flying over Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling before a slight left turn to land on 33.

Either way, check out pages 10-11: http://www.flyreagan.com/sites/default/ ... _final.pdf

That report was from a period when runway 4-22 was closed for construction. You will occasionally see a few northerly departures on either 1 or 4 make a hard right turn and fly up the Anacostia river (judging by what I hear, almost always turboprops). But this is very few departures overall. Helicopter traffic along the river is far more frequent (and noisy).

Turnhouse1 wrote:

If you're getting >100dBA then you must be so close to the airport that there is little ATC can do as the plane will be flying in a straight line towards the runway.

https://www.nats.aero/environment/aircraft-noise/

How many current-gen aircraft produce >100db on takeoff or landing? I can pick out the few cargo 727's and occasional fighter jets, these days everything else is quiet enough not to be noticed.

capitalflyer wrote:

The NextGen approach from the west does not seem very efficient. Arriving flights are required to fly south of IAD clear down to Alexandria, make a 180 degree turn and fly over Arlington, then another 180 to get the river. That seems like a lot more fuel burn than just flying straight in above IAD arrivals and picking up the river further north closer to Leesburg. NextGen should allow for greater routing flexibility for the most efficient route to the approach not force everything into a tube regardless of origin.

RNAV procedures aren't necessarily created with the shortest straight line distance or the quickest way in/out of the terminal area. These various procedures all have to work with each other around very complex airspace. They'll make seemingly strange turns or loop far away from the airport so that departures can climb out above/below arrivals. You can't just look at one procedure on its own, you have to look at the big picture and how they all interact with each other. They're also affected by procedures to adjacent airports. Not only do IAD/DCA/BWI have arrival and departure procedures, but so do JYO/HEF on the TRSTN THREE, for example. The airspace around here is all about efficiency, so while things may not seem to make complete sense, just trust me...they do. The airspace has taken a lot of years to craft into where things are today.

capitalflyer wrote:

Actually, don't approaches to runway 1 from the NE go down the east bank of the river and then turn to come back north? Anacostia is on the east bank of the river.

If anyone has a graphic of the NextGen approach for runway 1 at DCA that would be great.

The vast majority of traffic in and out of DCA still uses the River Visual, and will for the foreseeable future. RNAV approaches aren't yet considered precision approaches in the US (except Alaska, I believe), so they'd just be running the ILS if the airport is below minimums. The RNAV procedures predominantly used around here are the departures and arrivals — CAPSS THREE, RAVNN SIX, CAVLR THREE, and WIGOL ONE (ATC assigned when weather affects other arrivals), just to name a few. Actual RNAV approaches won't really start to gain traction at major airports until they're designated precision approaches. They've replaced a lot of old VOR or NDB approaches to smaller airports, but larger ones still tend to either run visual or ILS procedures.

airbazar wrote:

It's more efficient for me to drive from point A to point B in a straight line. But if that means that I have to build a highway thru people's backyards, it's a non starter.

Yeah, but you do have highways from A to B and they were built through somebody's back yard or farm land or whatever, and they beat the heck out of one big slab of concrete.

kitplane01 wrote:

JRL3289 wrote:

The fact that planes are quieter now compared to decades ago does not negate the massive increase in noise frequency people under the NextGen flight paths are having to deal with. The implementation has been an utter failure from a PR perspective.

I plead major ignorance here, since I'm not familiar with the necessity of consolidating flight patterns into such tight corridors, but if the system is able to consolidate routes in such a way, surely it can just as easily work to evenly disperse them in an equally efficient manner? Is fanning out departures and arrivals over a larger area really that much less efficient?

No, it cannot. NextGen is putting airliners onto the most efficient paths. Scattering the airliners would result in less efficiency. In particular, it would result in more airliners flying longer, generating more total noise.

From a PR perceptive .. I'd be amazed if 1% of the US population knew or cared about NextGen.

Depending on your definition of efficiency, this simply cannot be true in absolute terms. We're talking about concentrating flight paths into a very specific corridor versus fanning them out in a comparatively small radius. The savings or efficiency gained in terms of fuel saved, time saved, whatever the metric is, must be balanced against the negative impact of concentrating those flight paths over a smaller area. People move into cities knowing there will be aircraft noise to a certain level, but when that changes (seemingly out of the blue) there is bound to be backlash. It's not something that can be discounted or dismissed.

Moreover, more than one percent knows about the effects of NextGen which is precisely why you are seeing several lawsuits and public inquiries popping up all over.

airbazar wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

JRL3289 wrote:

The fact that planes are quieter now compared to decades ago does not negate the massive increase in noise frequency people under the NextGen flight paths are having to deal with. The implementation has been an utter failure from a PR perspective.

I plead major ignorance here, since I'm not familiar with the necessity of consolidating flight patterns into such tight corridors, but if the system is able to consolidate routes in such a way, surely it can just as easily work to evenly disperse them in an equally efficient manner? Is fanning out departures and arrivals over a larger area really that much less efficient?

No, it cannot. NextGen is putting airliners onto the most efficient paths. Scattering the airliners would result in less efficiency. In particular, it would result in more airliners flying longer, generating more total noise.

From a PR perceptive .. I'd be amazed if 1% of the US population knew or cared about NextGen.

It doesn't matter how efficient it is if the result is more noise. There are 2 equal factors in the equation: noise to the residents and efficiency. It sounds to me that only 1 factor was considered.

For comparison: It's more efficient for me to drive from point A to point B in a straight line. But if that means that I have to build a highway thru people's backyards, it's a non starter.

Wrote all the above and just saw you explained the problem perfectly.

shankly wrote:

A fair bit of ignorance here from the STFU brigade as to the effect that subtle changes to historical flight paths can have on adjacent airport communities

The concentration of noise, even at modest levels, can have a dramatic effect on quality of life even on communities that have lived for years with airport patterns. LAXintl, your graphic demonstrates this beautifully.

NATS here in the UK fell foul of experimenting with arrival and departure routes at LHR in 2015. The planes were of course no louder, but noise concentration increased massively in some areas. In the NATS case it also emerged that routes had been selected with no regard to adjacent populations, so Westerly departures that were largely flown over open countryside changed to flying over heavily populated adjacent towns. The experiment was dropped.

STFU? No shout if you are not being listened to.

I agree with everything you wrote. Flying more efficient flight paths does several things (1) concentrating the noise (2) reducing the total amount of noise (3) reducing greenhouse gasses (4) reducing travel times (5) reducing travel costs.

One can argue that this change is good or bad. But it does not seem the sort of thing that ought to be decided in the courts. As much as everyone hates politicians, balancing trade offs like this is exactly their job.

One problem with our political system is that anything that offers concentrated benefits and diffuse costs (like putting the airways back to their older, less effective paths) tends to be decided in a less-than-optimal way. The few people (concentrated benefits) shout loudly, and the many people (diffuse costs) individually don't care enough to call their congress-critter. This is a very well known problem. http://www.commentarius.com/2011/03/09/ ... use-costs/

airbazar wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

JRL3289 wrote:

The fact that planes are quieter now compared to decades ago does not negate the massive increase in noise frequency people under the NextGen flight paths are having to deal with. The implementation has been an utter failure from a PR perspective.

I plead major ignorance here, since I'm not familiar with the necessity of consolidating flight patterns into such tight corridors, but if the system is able to consolidate routes in such a way, surely it can just as easily work to evenly disperse them in an equally efficient manner? Is fanning out departures and arrivals over a larger area really that much less efficient?

No, it cannot. NextGen is putting airliners onto the most efficient paths. Scattering the airliners would result in less efficiency. In particular, it would result in more airliners flying longer, generating more total noise.

From a PR perceptive .. I'd be amazed if 1% of the US population knew or cared about NextGen.

It doesn't matter how efficient it is if the result is more noise. There are 2 equal factors in the equation: noise to the residents and efficiency. It sounds to me that only 1 factor was considered.

For comparison: It's more efficient for me to drive from point A to point B in a straight line. But if that means that I have to build a highway thru people's backyards, it's a non starter.

I'll try and be more clear. It produces LESS TOTAL NOISE. The airplanes are in the air for less time, and therefore emit less total noise. Less total noise is given to residence. Most people hear less noise. A few people hear more noise. But the total amount of noise generated is less.

You wrote "if the result is more noise" ... the result is NOT more noise. It's less total noise, but more concentrated noise.

JRL3289 wrote:

Depending on your definition of efficiency, this simply cannot be true in absolute terms. We're talking about concentrating flight paths into a very specific corridor versus fanning them out in a comparatively small radius. The savings or efficiency gained in terms of fuel saved, time saved, whatever the metric is, must be balanced against the negative impact of concentrating those flight paths over a smaller area. People move into cities knowing there will be aircraft noise to a certain level, but when that changes (seemingly out of the blue) there is bound to be backlash. It's not something that can be discounted or dismissed.

What you wrote is true. Increasing the total amount of noise does not get my vote. Reducing the total amount of noise gets my vote. That seems likely to maximze total happiness for the most people. But I concede that what you wrote is true.

Going back to my example, here is the full story of the Heathrow change...amazingly Heathrow as an operator were completely unaware of the changes, but to their credit took the lobbying from residents seriously

http://mediacentre.heathrow.com/pressrelease/details/81/Corporate-operational-24/4458

It would probably be better if they take a look at where people are living before putting in tracks like this? Surely, intentionally avoiding where people live when concentrating tracks could result in less efficient pattern but those overhead are probably necessary

Wait a minute! I've been told over and over again NextGen and privatizing ATC were supposed to save and fix the U.S. National Airspace System. How can something like this happen!?

HVN2HEL2LAX wrote:

Wait a minute! I've been told over and over again NextGen and privatizing ATC were supposed to save and fix the U.S. National Airspace System. How can something like this happen!?

It do save what's up in the air but seems like it created some undesirable impact on the ground. These impacts can probably be nullified or minimized if they were considered during the planning stage, but this doesn't seems to be the case.

Adding more fuel to the fire, noise complaints are up at IAD and DCA

http://dcist.com/2017/09/report_noise_c ... p_four.php

Don't forget Santa Cruz and the SFO SERFR Arrival. Santa Cruz is nowhere near any of the Bay Area Intl Airport yet are subjected to these NextGen flightpaths and were not consulted about any of these changes.

I live not to far from BWI, and directly under the new path of the ANTHM3 from the west, I have to say I LOVE the endless stream of planes over my house! That being said, I also have no sympathy whatsoever for the people living in Elkridge and Ellicott City. I've been hearing planes there for the past 19 years, and NextGen really isn't the problem at fault here. It's just that they bought a house in SUPER PRIME real estate which just happens to be near an airport. Just because you paid a crapload of money to live there does not mean you get to push out an airport causing you a perceived inconvenience. Deal with it.

osupoke07 wrote:

My guess on the circling east to land 33L is probably to avoid interference with DCA traffic. I don't think IAD factors into it since it always seems like we're at least 10,000 feet high when we pass over that airport. I'm only a passenger on with above average aviation knowledge though, so i don't know the exact reasoning for the current setup.

This, plus changing flight patterns to the west of BWI would get the really powerful NIMBYs involved. The ones that live in Montgomery County (richest county in the US) and the most affluent parts of Howard County (top 10 richest county in the US) would sue the FAA's butt all the way to the Supreme Court if they had to. Generally not very nice people to deal with.

c933103 wrote:

HVN2HEL2LAX wrote:

Wait a minute! I've been told over and over again NextGen and privatizing ATC were supposed to save and fix the U.S. National Airspace System. How can something like this happen!?

It do save what's up in the air but seems like it created some undesirable impact on the ground. These impacts can probably be nullified or minimized if they were considered during the planning stage, but this doesn't seems to be the case.

Yeah again, just some really special snowflakes. For most of the Baltimore area, this is a super improvement. Ask anyone living in the city or a bit north and you'll hear them tell you how quiet it's become these past two years. Geographically, most arrivals to BWI arrive from the west, and they've now been rerouted towards the Pennsylvania border before dropping back over the city proper (which is already noisy anyway) and a sweeping left turn over the bay. Everyone just wants their day in court, and a governor just wants to get re-elected (full disclosure, I like Hogan).