Encino/Stop the Noise Coalition!
January 1998 Community Update

by Gerald A. Silver

President Homeowners of

PO Box 260205, Encino, CA 91426

This month, we address the issue of the Noise Regulation being considered for Van Nuys Airport. A meaningful noise regulation was proposed for the airport several years ago, but is under heavy attack. The regulation languished with the Board of Airport Commissioners (BOAC) for several years. It was finally brought to the LA City Council's Commerce, Energy, and Natural Resources Committee (Galanter, Ferraro, and Savornich) on Oct. 28, 1997.

Airport tenants, fixed based operators (FBO's), and other pro-Van Nuys Airport expansionists have been heavily lobbying Council members to gut the already weak, and ineffective proposal. The matter was continued to January/February, 1998. If you or your community association are plagued by aircraft noise, it is essential that you make your voice heard before the committee.

You should also contact your council person and insist that the environment, and the rights of residents living in the Santa Monica mountains, and around Van Nuys Airport be protected, over business and airport expansion interests. If you don't take action now, then your community will experience unprecedented noise in the future from an expanding Van Nuys Airport. This is an airport with no effective noise controls and no plan to phase out the noisy jets and helicopters that now operate from the airport.

Letter to:

Los Angeles City Council, Commerce, Energy and Nat. Resources Committee
200 N. Spring St. Los Angeles, CA 90009

Re: CF 97-1639 Van Nuys Airport Curfew Regulation Committee Hearing Date: February 1998

Please consider the following comments in regards the LA Board of Airport Commissioner's Resolution 12655, Ordinance 155,727 to add one hour to the nighttime curfew on aircraft departures and to establish a non-addition rule on new Stage 2 [noisy jets] at Van Nuys Airport.

1. We urge you to adopt the above measures, without compromising. However, your motion must be expanded to include a phase out of noise [Stage 2] jets as well. The original curfew regulation contained three elements; all of which were grandfathered under ANCA Part 161 rules:

a. Extend the night departure curfew on noisy [Stage 2] jets from 11 p.m. to 10 p.m.

b. Add a non-addition rule that would preclude adding more noisy [Stage 2] jets to the fleet.

c. Phase out all noisy [Stage 2] jets over a five-year period.

This three-part resolution would have made significant improvements in the noise situation at VNY. However, the motion was withdrawn in favor of the failed, "Fly Friendly" program. This program has been an abysmal failure, as evidenced by the continually expanding noise contour around VNY.

There should be no doubt about the necessity to include all three elements in the current motion. By ignoring the five-year phase out element, the Council will only lock in the existing noise problem, with no promise of relief. The Council should recognize that there are no legal or financial incentives in your present motion for current operators to replace noisy Stage 2 jets with quieter Stage 3 jets. Applying only two of the three elements clearly will not even begin to address the existing noise problem.

The present motion is loaded with loopholes that further undermine the reduction of noise. For example, the proposal before you allows an unlimited number of noisy Stage 2 jets to operate from VNY at all hours of the day or night, as long as they are in for refurbishment, or maintenance. The motion also fails to address the vast number of itinerant jets, which would not be affected because they not are covered. What is really present is a daytime--no limits--no controls--policy. As I write this letter, a Boeing 727 [341TC] has just departed, screaming out over Encino and Sherman Oaks, heavily populated residential communities.

Also note that the proposed motion only applies to departures, and still allows unlimited arrivals at all hours of the day and night for noisy Stage 2 jets, with no noise limits! And the term "non-addition" is not fully defined. Does it allow a replacement of a noisy Stage 2 with another noisy Stage 2, or must it be replaced only with a Stage 3 aircraft?

The record should be clear that the FAA has not been the one to delay implementing Stage 2 noise controls. If the DOA has acted in a timely manner and written a revised regulation, conforming to ANCA, the FAA would have accepted it years ago. Why did it take five years for the DOA to rewrite a simple regulation, to conform to the FAA's clearly written ANCA requirements? The delay in implementing Stage 2 noise controls rests firmly with the DOA, and it is only reasonable that these measures now move forward as promised. In the face of the failed Fly Friendly program, the Council has a moral obligation to implement the full three-point program, including the phase out of noisy jets.

2. A shortcoming of the proposed motion is that it does not include a 7 a.m. curfew on helicopters. Residents were promised action on this matter years ago. Each year more and more noisy media, sight seeing and training helicopters operate from VNY. Santa Monica Airport has a 7 a.m. helicopter curfew, and VNY's lack of a curfew is a continual open invitation to any and all helicopters to move to VNY.

We ask that you immediately draft a 7 a.m. curfew on helicopters, and conform it to the ANCA Stage 2 rules. The FAA is clear that an authority may place curfews on helicopters. The AC Part 36 bulletin lists all current helicopters as Stage 2. This allows you to begin the ANCA Part 161 process immediately. Once the procedural steps are followed, no FAA permission is required, since helicopters are considered Stage 2 aircraft.

There should be little doubt in anyone's mind that the VNY's noise problems have been given little of no attention by the BOAC. It is regrettable that the BOAC has not seen fit to hold regular quarterly meetings in the Valley, or to move aggressively on curfews and elimination of noisy jets. Valley residents have waited a long time for noise relief. Now is the time for the City Council to act and to do much more than is proposed in the motion before you.

Cordially yours, Gerald A. Silver President