Posted by
Requires DOT to review flight path changes at civilian airports to determine…
NDAA 2017
The actual text says that for all flight paths changed after February 2012, the FAA administrator must review those changes “to determine if the implementation of the procedure had a significant effect on the human environment in the community in which the airport is located.”
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/us-senate-passes-bill-requiring-the-faa-re-evaluate-noisy-flight-path-changes-in-phoenix-8892254
McCain said the new law “requires the FAA to mitigate the negative effects of flight path changes that have already been implemented, while providing impacted communities and airports a seat at the table before any future changes are made.”
FLIGHT PATH CHANGES AT PHOENIX SKY HARBOR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
The NDAA includes a provision that requires the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to review flight path changes like those in Phoenix and take steps to mitigate the negative effects these changes have had on the community. It also ensures that other airports and communities have the opportunity to fully engage with the FAA before any future changes are made.
“This legislation provides an important step forward in making sure Phoenix residents impacted by flight path changes at Sky Harbor International Airport have the opportunity to make their voices heard,” said Chairman McCain. “This legislation requires the FAA to mitigate the negative effects of flight path changes that have already been implemented, while providing impacted communities and airports a seat at the table before any future changes are made.”
“I am pleased this bill includes measures to address complaints of Arizonans who have been negatively impacted by the flight path changes at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. The provisions we were able to add establish a process to address those hardships and ensure the FAA will better consult with affected communities on future flight changes,” said Senator Flake.
—
I am still confused by the exact language of the law as opposed to the bill and when it takes effect. FY 2017 began Oct. 1, 2016.
More links:
notes “rider” to NDAA 2017:
As FAA continues to implement new NextGen procedures across the country, community opposition has presented a significant hurdle for the agency’s plans. Several ongoing and recently decided lawsuits challenge FAA’s procedures as not properly considering community concerns before adopting new flight patterns. Congress remains concerned as well, as evidenced by recent Congressional action that attached a rider to the defense authorization bill requiring FAA to consult with local communities before implementing NextGen flight patterns. In addition, in two recent audits, the Department of Transportation, Office of the Inspector General has criticized FAA for its failure to implement a comprehensive approach to NextGen implementation. FAA has taken a number of steps to improve community outreach and engagement, but it remains to be seen how well they will work to satisfy airport and community needs and expectations. For further information, please contact…
http://airportnoiselaw.org/
————–
Wow. You can look around the web and find an awful lot of people affected. You shouldn’t have to join a community group to do anything. Anyway, this woman is boisterous.
I moved to a small town (Morgan Hill) that is 10-15 miles south of San Jose 5 years ago to escape the hustle & bustle of the big city. Morgan Hill was a tranquil, peaceful environment – until just over a year ago when the FAA and San Jose airport changed their flight plans. Now there is a constant stream of low flying aircraft into San Jose airport focused in a pencil thin corridor directly over our neighborhood, it is like San Jose airport suddenly moved to Morgan Hill, even though the airport is over 20 miles away!
I did some research and found that this is due to implementation of a new “nextgen” system across many cities and states. There are numerous complaints and some Cities have filed law suites (Palo Alto, Phoenix)
This has greatly impacted quality of life, we can’t sit outside and have a conversation anymore because of the constant barrage of noise. I have written complaints to San Jose airport (and even our local congresswoman) for several months but they are ignored.
Is it possible to file law suite for damages? What would the chances be of attaining damages? Would it be expensive?
Thanks,
Robin Peatfield
Again, I am thinking fine, I’ll sell my house. How much is DIA and/or DOT going to give me for the loss in value?
—————–
I think you do a great job, I was just waiting for an update!
I’m looking at it from a bit of a different angle–I’ve yet to look into top FAA administrators but I have a hunch they’re not consumer service experts. Even something like “community interests” is vague as hell. You can’t say they’re not feeling a backlash. It is a meticulous industry, and they goofed on the details of this one.
As for me, 60 miles away and my house is at 7,500 feet… As many as 100 jets a day right overhead and that is only a portion of all the air traffic. It isn’t something I expected when I bought the house 19 years ago. Anyway, I’ve already looked into renting or selling it, so it is about How much are you going to give me for the loss in value? (EDIT: Academic argument? Perhaps. Do it as a statement? Why, thousands of others can do it better than me. But as a “consumer” I’m maybe less deterred by small claims court than some lawyers, as you briefly mention on your site.) It says right on the DIA flight tracker, which undercounts here by maybe half, check here RE real estate. The point is, many INDIVIDUALS are affected.
I didn’t know the act became–or read as–law without being “meshed in” somewhere but I couldn’t find it in the act either. I did write a few things on this at pcpfeiffer.com/columns if you’d like to look. Thanks a bunch.
Peter
On 3/26/2017 11:01 PM, Howard Beckman wrote:
On 3/25/2017 1:40 PM, Peter Pfeiffer wrote:
Hi and thanks for your site.
I’m trying to find the exact language of NDAA 2017 and how “This
legislation requires the FAA to mitigate the negative effects of flight
path changes that have already been implemented, while providing
impacted communities and airports a seat at the table before any future
changes are made.” (This is one of several inexact quotes I’ve found.)Your site doesn’t quite explain it and I can’t find it elsewhere.
It appears the bill language made it in?
I’m in Evergreen, CO, 60 miles from Denver Int’l Airport and am greatly
affected by NextGen.I wish I had more time to always provide detail on bills concerning aircraft/airport noise, but I find myself habitually playing catch up. At the top of the list of bills there is a link to www.congress.gov, which is exceptionally comprehensive and detailed but also very easy to navigate. The advocacy websites concerned with airport noise are not very helpful in disseminating news on legilsation (most don’t bother giving the bill number). The McCain amendment did make it through, and since it passed it is noted on my list of Acts of the Congress concerning airport noise (file name is acts.html at my website). The NDAA 2017 is Public Law 114-328, and the amendment is in Sec. 341(b) of the Act.
.