STOP THENOISE

Courts rule Nuisance is a State Matter
----
Mass Nuisance Lawsuit Settled
 

ALERTS
Time Sensitive Events!

Keene, NH
15 March 2007

We have confirmed that the Portland, ME FSDO has received inquiries regarding establishing a waivered aerobatics practice box near Dillant Hopkins airport in Keene, NH. An inspector at the FSDO told STN that the applicant contacted the FSDO to enquired about the steps necessary to obtain a waiver. The interested party has not submitted an application for waiver yet.

It is interesting to note that as part of the application process when the proposed box is near an airport, that the airport owner must agree to the creation of the box. This is because the FAA is concerned about interfering with the day-to-day operation of an existing aviation interest. FAA does not, under current law, require the permission of the other property owners impacted by the box. FAA is required to consider their concerns in determining whether to approve or deny the application. In this case, the airport owner is the City of Keene, NH.

On 21 March 2006, the Keene Airport Advisory Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council approve the use of the airport as a location for an aerobatics practice box. From the minutes of the meeting, it does not appear that the noise impact was discussed at all.

On 10 May 2006, the Keene Planning Licensing and Development Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council approve the aerobatics box. Again, the minutes show no discussion of noise.

On 18 May 2006, the Keene City Council voted unanimously to carry out the recommendation of the Planning Committee and approved the use of the airport for an aerobatics practice box. The minutes show no discussion of noise.

Why is STOP the NOISE interested in an aerobatics box in Keene, NH? First of all, we are a national organization with an interest in FAA performance nationaly. Secondly, we are not so much interested in the box as in the process being used to implement it. We see an pattern of inconsistent application of the process for determining whether or not to approve a waiver application. There is a clear tendency the FAA and the aviation interests to exclude the public from the discussion. If the box discussed with the city of Keene is established, the public will learn of the box when the 37 aircraft start to use the box on a regular basis.

The available record indicates that people have been working on this for almost a year now. It may very well be that the people of Keene will welcome this new environmental feature with joy and enthusiasm. But just in case you are the type who doesn't like surprises, now you know. 

In fairness it is important to note that STN has discussed this matter with personnel at the Portland FSDO. The description of the process to be followed in Portland does seem to be more in line with the environmental safeguards written into the applicable FAA Orders and Guidelines than at any other FSDO we have contacted. We hope to see this continue. However, at this time, Portland is the exception to the rule.

For more information contact the FAA in Portland, ME, the Dillant Hopkins airport, and the City of Keene, NH.
 

Entire USA
29 Jan 2007

We have learned that the the International Aerobatics Club (IAC), a division of the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) is working with the FAA to rewrite Chapter 48  of the General Aviation Operations Inspector's Handbook, Order 8700.1. Chapter 48 details the process to be used by the local FSDO when processing an application for an aerobatics practice box. It seems no one at FAA has felt the need to inform the public about this or solicit input from anyone other than aerobatic pilots. We have heard rumors of this for about two years now. We first heard of it shortly after property owners in Mineral Point, WI successfully defended their homesteads by demanding that FAA follow its own procedures as detailed in Chapter 48 and perform the required environmental impact assessment. It was interesting to note at that time that the FAA had been delinquent for so long about performing these environmental assessments as part of the application process that FAA no longer knew what was required. This resulted in a moratorium on the issuing of new waivers for almost a year. we were recently provided a copy of the IAC Board of Directors minutes from October of 2006. The minutes contain the following item.

 An interim solution that FAA had come up with in response to Mineral Point was to rewrite other sections of the Handbook and related Orders to grant categorical exclusion from the requirement for an environmental assessment to waivers for temporary contest and practice boxes. Some of the local FSDOs have been abusing this provision by defining a 'permanent' practice box as 'temporary'. Temporary is how FAA refers to contest box waivers that typically last only 4-7 days. By that standard a two year or even a one year waiver is permanent, yet some FSDOs are claiming that a renewable two-year waiver for a 4 square mile box is a temporary. This artificial loophole has been allowing some FSDOs to sidestep the environmental assessment process. What is needed of course is to challenge them on the 'temporary' nature of a one or two year waiver. This action by FAA also demonstrated FAA's desire to exclude the 'non-flying public' from any decision making process.

We have also noticed that waivers which historically have been written for one year are now being written for two. It appears that FAA believes that the waivers are most vulnerable at renewal time. In fact,. the waiver can be cancelled at any time, for any reason. Public outcry should be a good enough reason.

It appears that what is going on now is that EAA is suggesting major revisions to Chapter 48  including elimination of the environmental assessment altogether and other changes unknown to us at this time. We will attempt to get details using the FOIA. We are also seeking representation on whatever committee is considering these changes. It is important that FAA not be allowed to forget who its real customers are.

It is important to note that because the Handbook provides guidance to inspectors and is not part of the FAR, proposed changes to it are not posted in the federal register as are proposed changes to the FAR. Concerned citizens should continue to check here for updates and should contact the FAA and their elected Senators and Congressmen for more information.