Conference on General Aviation
Airport Noise and Land Use Planning
           Volume III Proceedings


                October 3-5, 1979


           Georgia Institute of Technology

             Prepared Under Contract G8-01-5040
            For Environmental Protection Agency,
            Office of Noise Abatement and Control

-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read luunictions on the reverse bt-J'orc complctini;)
1. REPORT NO.
  EPA 550/9-80-320
                             2.
                                                           3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
  Conference on General Aviation Airport Noise and
  Land Use Planning  Vol.  III.   Proceedings
             5. REPORT DATE

                  Approved  February 1980
             6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)

  Edited by Clifford R.  Bragdon
                                                           8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
  College of Architecture
  Georgia Institute of Technology
  Atlanta, GA  30332
                                                           10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
             11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
                  EPA  68-01-5161
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
  Office of Noise Abatement and Control
  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
  Washington, D.C. 20460
             13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
               Final,  3-5     October 1979
             14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE

                   EPA/ONAC  ANR-471
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
  This report constitutes  the proceedings of the three  day  conference on general
  aviation airport noise and land use planning.  Included are  advance copies of
  the speakers' presentations that were available at  the conference,  a summary of
  each of the five panels, a noise bibliography, and  a  transcription  of all
  discussions including audience participation.

  The conference was  unique in the sense that a diverse group  of individuals were
  invited to attend representing the wide range of constituents  of general  aviation.
  They were encouraged to  participate by expressing their interests and views and
  to interact with each other.  Because of the novel  aspects of  the conference and
  the fact that there is no comparable information available elsewhere, it was
  determined to reproduce  all discussions as accurately as  possible.   It is
  anticipated that other conferences of this nature will be held and that this
  report will provide valuable background and reference information.
17.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                              b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                          c.  COSATI Field/Group
  Aircraft Noise, Airport Noise, Aviation
  Noise, Avigation  Easement, Community
  Response, FAR Part  36,  General Aviation,
  Joint Use Airports,  Land Use Planning,
  Noise Abatement Flight  Procedures, Noise
  Compatible Land Use, Noise Impact, Zoning.
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

  Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
  Unclassified
                                                                         21. NO. OF PAGES
                                              20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
                                                Unclassified
                                                                         22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)

-------
                                                           EPA 550/9-80-320
             CONFERENCE ON GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT

                    NOISE AND LAND USE PLANNING



                       VOLUME III   PROCEEDINGS

                             3-5 October 1979



                      Georgia Institute of Technology

                             Atlanta, Georgia
                               Prepared For:
                   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                   Office of Noise Abatement and Control
                       Under Contract No. 68-01-5161

This report has been approved for general availability. The contents of this report reflect the
views  of the contractor, who is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of  the data
presented herein, and do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of EPA. This report
does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

-------
                               TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                          Page
Foreword	iii
Morning Session:   October 3, 1979 	    1
Afternoon Session: October 3, 1979 	   37
Morning Session:   October 4, 1979 	   89
Afternoon Session: October 4, 1979 	  141
Morning Session:   October 5, 1979 	  179
Afternoon Session: October 5, 1979 	  229
Glossary	265

-------
                                    FOREWORD
         This is volume III of the report on the Conference on General
Aviation Airport Noise and Land Use Planning at Georgia Institute of
Technology, October 3, 4, and 5, 1979.  It contains verbatim transcripts of
the panel discussions together with a glossary of some of the terms used in
the discussions.

         Volume I presents summaries of panel discussions held at the
conference.  Volume II includes the 12 prepared papers which were presented at
the conference.

         The verbal presentations at the conference differed in content and
format from these prepared papers and there was general discussion of each
subject after the verbal presentation.
                                       iii

-------
                  CONFERENCE ON GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT  NOISE
                             AND LAND USE PLANNING
                        GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
                           SPACE SCIENCE BUILDING II
                                MORNING SESSION
October 3, 1979                                            9:00 o'clock a.m.
         (The conference on General Aviation Airport Noise and Land Use
Planning, co-sponsored by the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Noise Abatement and Control, and Georgia Institute of Technology,
convened at the Space Science Building II, Georgia Institute of Technology, on
October 3, 1979, commencing at the hour of 9:30 o'clock, a.m., with Dr.
Clifford Bragdon, Director, Program for Interdisciplinary Studies, Georgia
Institute of Technology, presiding.)

-------
         DR. CLIFFORD BRAGDON:    Good morning.  I am Clifford Bragdon, a
Professor of City Planning here at Georgia Tech and Conference Director for
what we hope will be quite an interesting conference for people from a variety
of diverse groups to come together and talk about a subject that really links
us together.

         For the conference, we do have a court reporter, Ms. Suzanne Miller,
who will be transcribing the entire conference, both formal remarks and also
the discussions.  Those then will be edited, reproduced, and printed and they
will be distributed as part of the proceedings to all of the attendees here
and EPA will be distributing those in some quantities through their office in
Washington.  Also, we have received over 100 requests from people who cannot
be here but who do want to receive the proceedings.  We will have the
proceedings published and the time will probably be about two months after the
final conference.  Those will be available in addition to the remarks that you
have or will receive in the book.

         In terms of format, we will have an opportunity to have a maximum, we
hope, of interaction.  Each of the speakers will be making a presentation
which should be 20 minutes in length.  Each of the speakers will have the
opportunity of  addressing their subject for up to one-half hour.  We have
instructed the  speakers to try to limit it to 20 minutes and allow 10 minutes
after their formal speech to have comments from the floor and at that time we
will answer those questions, following the four speakers.

         Then for each of the sessions we will have a series of panelists with
the speakers on the platform up here after the four speakers have finished.
At that time we will have approximately one hour for discussion between
panelists and speakers and also between people on the floor with the panelists
and the speakers.  The whole idea here is to maximize the chance for everybody
to get together in a type of dialogue  if you care to do  so.

         On Thursday night all the people here, as part  of the registration
fee, are invited to a dinner-banquet which is being held at The
Sheraton-Atlanta Hotel.  There will be a social hour from 6:00 to 7:30.
Following that, we will have  dinner from 7:30 to 8:30 p.m.  Our dinner speaker
is Congressman  Ambro (Jerome A. Ambro) who  is a member of the Aviation
Subcommittee as well as the Science and Technology Committee  in Washington,
D.C.

         Turning to the program, we are going to  try to  minimize introductions
to maximize the time to get together and get to know each other a  little
better.  All of you who are attending  — and we will have approximately 110
people here —  have been  invited, which in  itself becomes somewhat unique.
Too, we feel the people here  are representative of a cross  section of  interest
groups  in the decision-making area who will  influence and have a way of
influencing the decision  process.  Hopefully, one  of the objectives will be
meeting people  from other disciplines, whom you have never met, and  I  hope
that will occur.  That  is one of our  interests  in  having this conference.

          I  might  add that we  really have no  preconceived notions as  to what
the  overall outcome of  the  conference  will be.  We want  to  create  the
opportunity for people  to meet  together from a  collective background of
experience  and  interdisciplinary interests  to  try to focus  on a problem that

-------
could be, quote, a problem.  I think It is important because unlike
air-carrier operations, we will be looking at general aviation before it may
become a problem.  So it is really a conference dealing with prevention rather
than reaction, which is a very unique opportunity which most of the parties
never have.

         We want to encourage interaction between the speakers, the panelists,
and the attendees.  Our interest is really to establish a dialogue and as best
we can to learn about all interests of all parties in terms of how to address
the question of land use planning in airport development — which is obviously
a very important thing.  Obviously, we will have no single answers.  I have
already talked to about five or ten people before the conference and they are
looking for answers.  They have partial answers; possibly they have a lot of
problems but there aren't any single answers, and it would be a collective
group such as this, hopefully, who will try to focus on things that no single
person can certainly answer.

         So,  it really is  the opportunity to learn from others, which is the
whole theme of this conference, and present what you have to contribute in a
constructive manner.  We hope you will enjoy yourself here and avail
yourselves of the City of Atlanta  if you haven't had an opportunity to be here
before.  We will  look forward to having your participation and, again, I am
pleased that you are all here.

         At this time  I would  like to  introduce  the Dean of the College of
Architecture, Dean William Fash.

         DEAN WILLIAM FASH:  Thank you, Cliff.   It  is  indeed my pleasure to
welcome you on behalf of the Georgia Institute of Technology and on behalf of
the College of Architecture.  We are very pleased that  this timely and
important conference can be held here.  You certainly  are  a distinguished
group.   Each  of you has brought distinction  to yourselves  already  and  in
representative  areas of  interest and activity that  certainly,  collected
together,  offers the potential to  come up with  some  answers or some
refinements of  answers to  a problem that besets  everybody  who  lives here.

          I think  it  is quite  appropriate  to  have the conference  here  at
Georgia  Tech.   Georgia Tech people  have played  significant  roles  in the
development of  the  aircraft  industry in the United  States.  The  Guggenheim
School of Aeronautics  was  established  here  in 1930,  and to try to  put  it into
perspective,  that  is just  three years  after  "Lindy"  crossed to Paris.  Things
have  certainly  changed a  lot  in the  50-odd years since.

          Georgia  Tech  research  and  Georgia  Tech  graduates  have played  quite  an
active role  in  the  development  of  what has  happened  in  the 50-odd years
since.   Astronaut  John Young  and  John  Sanford,  who  is  the  President  of  Boeing
Aircraft Company in Seattle,  are  examples  of graduates  of  Georgia  Tech who
have  had something  to  do with  what has taken place.   So I  think  it  is  fitting
and  proper  that all  of you be  collected here  in  a place that  deals with the
sophisticated technology of which  we  are  all very proud to try to  find  some
way  with which  we  can  deal  with the problems that result from  that technology
as  well.

-------
         Personally, I am an airplane freak.  Probably my first experience
with building anything was with the little balsa wood models that you used to
be able to buy of airplanes, where you put every little dinky piece together.
It was great for motor skill development.  As a result of that I still have
quite a fond place in my heart for anything that has to do with airplanes and
I am reminded that the sound of an airplane was once quite a beautiful sound.
During the early stages of development of aircraft and probably during the war
years particularly the sight and the sound of an airplane coming home really
was quite beautiful and it stirred people's hearts and invoked great feelings
of pride.

         I think it is with the airplane as it has been with the automobile.
Melvin Kranzberg, a member of the faculty here at Tech involved with the
history of technology, speaks about the automobile and calls attention to the
fact that at one time the automobile was seen as a great magic answer to the
problems of pollution in the cities that came from all the horse-driven
carriages.  Now the automobile has become a source of pollution in the cities
and presents an old problem needing a new answer.

         I think pretty much the same thing has happened with the airplane.
Air travel was once seen as a modern miracle enabling people to move a long
way quickly.  Now that the airplane and air travel have become commonplace we
respond more to the problems that have been created by them than to the wonder
of them.  I happened to be near an airport  last night.  This one was a
military airport -- without any intention of calling attention to that type of
airport ~ but being there certainly brought home the reality that there  is a
problem in residential areas and in developments around  airports.

         We think of the problem from the perspective of an advanced country
with advanced and sophisticated technology.  It is really a growth problem  and
when we remember that two-thirds of the world population lives in the southern
hemisphere and think about what is going to happen as these countries develop
~ and they are very busy trying to develop — what will happen to them,  as
well as to us, as technology advances unless we can find some better  answers
than we have to carefully plan around the airports and how to control the
pollution resulting from the noise.  I think we need  answers badly.

         Cliff spoke of the conference as dealing with prevention  so  far  as
general aviation  is concerned, trying to learn from the  history of the  air
carrier industry  and  I think nothing could  be more timely or appropriate  than
to bring all of you together to address  such questions.  I  am hopeful that  the
conference will prove to be the stimulus for finding  some new answers for some
changes in answers  that will work better.

          I welcome you and  I certainly wish you every  success.   If we  in  the
college or here  in Georgia  Tech can  be of  any  help  to  you  in any  way  while  you
 are  here  I hope that you will make  some  noise.

          DR. BRAGDON:   Thank you for those remarks.   I  am  pleased  at this
 time  to  introduce Charles Elkins.   Chuck Elkins  is  Deputy Assistant
Administrator  for the Office of Noise Abatement Control,  U.S. Environmental
 Protection Agency,  located  in Washington,  D.C.

-------
         MR. CHARLES L. ELKINS:   I want to welcome you to this EPA
Conference.  If you have been to any conferences lately you may have heard the
joke about the three most unbelievable statements.   Don't worry, I am not
going to repeat the joke in its entirety but the joke leads up to the punch
line, "Hi!  I am from the Federal Government and I  am here to help you."  That
certainly is unbelievable but I think maybe another version of that may be
that one of the three most unbelievable statements  would be that I am from the
EPA and I want to help you.  I am providing you with a conference where I
expect you to be the main beneficiary rather than the EPA.

         Now, that  is unbelievable because we all know that EPA wants to
regulate the world  and we are testing whether or not this economy or any
economy so regulated and so controlled can endure.   I wouldn't blame you if as
you have gone over your agenda, you have looked to see whether there are some
things written between the lines there, some kind of hidden objectives that
appear if you look  at  it while holding it over  a candle to see what might come
out on the  secret writing.  But  I want to assure you that  it  is all there  in
black and white and that it will, hopefully, come to surface  ~ not the usual
bum rap the EPA gets  in the newspapers, that we just had  a weak moment and
designed the whole  conference  to double the taxpayers' money  -- that it will
be beneficial to you and I am  hopeful that you  will be convinced  that the
dialogue which goes on here the  next  three days will be quite worthwhile to
you as individuals  and the groups that you represent and  that you will find
that out without any heavy hand  of  a  regulatory agency, from  EPA, FAA or
anyone else out of  Washington.

         Of course,  it is  because  of  that main  theme and  purpose  of the
conference  that we  in  EPA  are  hopeful that the  conference will  play a major
role in charting the course  of general  aviation development  in the future.
Our focus,  of course,  is on general  aviation noise,  noise in  the  neighborhoods
that surround the  nation's airports and, clearly,  general  aviation does
produce  noise  in neighborhoods.  But  how much  of a  problem really is this?
Will it get worse  in  the future?  Are there  adequate remedies to  be  adopted  by
the  affected  communities,  by  the manufacturers? And if  the  answer  is  "yes"  to
any  of those  questions,  how  soon must that  action  be taken?   So these  are  the
questions  which  I  hope among  others that we  can talk  about during these  three
days.

          I  would  like  to  take a  moment to  thank Cliff  Bragdon of Georgia Tech
for  organizing  this conference and acting  as  our conference host.  He,  along
with Bill  Sperry  and John  Schettino of my  staff,  has put together what  I  hope
will be  an excellent conference  for you.   Cliff is  well  known to many  of you
for  his  leadership in  noise  and  land use  planning  and  he seemed a perfect
choice  as  the person who  could bring us  all  together to discuss these  serious
matters  in a  relaxed and  non-adversarial  atmosphere.

          So,  first of all, what is EPA doing,  holding a conference on  this
particular subject?  Well, most of you probably know that EPA has been in  the
 noise  business  since the passage of the Noise Control  Act back in 1972,  and
 the Act laid out Congressional policies to promote an environment for  all
Americans free from noise that jeopardizes their health and welfare.   That is
quite  a tall  order.

-------
         Specifically, that Act directs EPA to design and carry out a national
program to abate and control noise.  Now, because of FAA's active role in the
aviation noise area, EPA was given an advisory role in that area and a
regulatory role with regard to all other environmental noise sources.  Those
of you who have followed the aviation noise area during the last few years
know that we in EPA have focused most of our aviation noise activities on the
problem of the commercial fleet.  We have made a number of regulatory
proposals to the FAA and have been actively involved in the promotion and
implementation of noise abatement planning at the Nation's commercial air
carrier airports.  Significant progress has been made in this area but, of
course, much still needs to be done.

         Reauthorization of the Noise Control Act, which is now pending before
Congress — and if Congress would stay in session instead of going home for
the holidays maybe we will get it passed -- requires EPA to prepare  a
five-year plan for its activities for the coming years.  The mandate is
explicit in requiring EPA to update  its 1973 Report to the Congress  on
Aviation Noise, which some of you may remember.  One of the purposes of this
conference then, from my point of view,  is to provide guidance to us in EPA
about our activities in the general  aviation area during the next five years
and the years beyond.

         Now, we have been  impressed with the difficulty in the air  carrier
area of trying to control aviation noise in a situation where the problem is
already severe and the order of the  day  is abatement and retrofit rather than
prevention.  One needs only to read  the  newspapers to realize that noise has
become a real albatross  around the neck  of the commercial air transportation
system and it is a public nuisance for the neighborhoods around most of our
major airports.

         The noise problem from general  aviation  is clearly not that acute and
yet the rapid growth projected for the future for general aviation raises the
question of whether preventive steps are needed now in order to avoid  serious
political and economic constraints on the growth  of this valuable part of the
Nation's air transportation system.

         Now, by its very nature,  prevention of a future noise problem at
general aviation airports would involve  many actors, not just the Federal
Government.  In fact, the major burden for prevention would most probably fall
on the private sector and on States  and  localities.  Those who would expect
the Federal Government  to solve this problem would not be  in my view very good
students of contemporary political  science.  Thus, although we in EPA  have
taken the initiative  and called this conference — and we want to see  what
role we might play  in the future  in  this area  —  the focus of this conference
must be much broader.

         If a preventive program  is  needed, what  mutually  supportive roles
might a whole variety of parties  take  in this  effort?  Now, we in the  EPA are
prepared within  the  limits  of  our statutory  authority to draft regulations for
consideration by the  FAA in this  area, give financial assistance under the
Quiet Communities Act to local  communities  and  States for  airport noise
abatement planning  and  continue to help  bring  together interested parties for
discussion and possible  agreement on appropriate  courses of  action.  Deciding
whether EPA plays such  a role  is  less  important for  this conference  than

-------
identifying whether or not there will be a noise problem in the future and
laying out what actions might be appropriate to minimize this problem.

         Now any assessment of the potential seriousness of the general
aviation noise problem must begin, we believe,  with an assessment of the
effects of noise on people.  I think it is always surprising that those people
who come to the noise area from another field -- and that may be most of us at
some point in our career -- find that so much is already known about the
effects of noise on people, because, although noise is an environmental
pollutant, it is much less well known than, say, air and water pollution,
although noise is the most pervasive of our environmental pollutants  and it
has the longest history.

         Long before man knew that  the water and air he was drinking  and
breathing were bad for his health,  he knew the difference between sound and
noise -- and he knew he didn't  like the noise.   Noise is the one pollutant
which nature has given us the ability to monitor.  We don't need a Government
bureaucrat to tell us whether noise  is out there or not because the fear of a
loud noise is one of the two fears  we are born with and our bodies still react
to a loud noise even though we  may  consciously think that we are ignoring it.
But this natural aversion to noise  has been borne out by subsequent scientific
research and we have found now  that our automatic response to  noise has  turned
out to be quite sensible ~ but for far more subtle reasons than we originally
suspected.

         Now, most of us today  are  aware  of the  impact  of noise on our
hearing.  Millions of Americans today have  severe hearing  loss because of
their exposure to noise.  What  is perhaps not known by  most Americans,
however, is that people risk  losing  their hearing in the presence of  much
lower exposure levels than they would ever  suspect  are  hazardous.  On the
basis of the latest scientific  evidence,  we in EPA  have established an average
level of 70 decibels  over  a 24-hour period  as the level  necessary to  protect
the public from significant adverse effects on their hearing,  with an adequate
margin of  safety.  Those who  are  exposed  to higher  levels  than this for  40
years or more run the risk of  losing  some of their  hearing  and,  needless  to
say, millions of Americans are  exposed  in this  country  to  levels of noise
significantly above 70  decibels,  particularly  in their  employment —  also
around some of our major  airports.

         Of course, noise  control ordinances across the country and  lawsuits
against  airport proprietors today are based not  so  much on  a  concern  for
hearing  loss on the part  of the public  but on  something more  fundamental.
People just don't  like  noise.   It is  hard to find words to  characterize  this
aversion  to noise.  The traditional word  of the  art in  the scientific
community  is "annoyance,"  but  generally we all  use  the  word  annoyance to
signify  something  not very serious. Those of you who  have had to deal with
angry citizens around  airports  know they  certainly  do  not  regard  aviation
noise  as  some  insignificant  irritant in their  lives,  so the word  annoyance  is
certainly  a misnomer.

          As the scientific community has  searched  for  an understanding of this
type  of  reaction,  they have found,  as you would  expect, that  enyironmental
noise  interferes  with normal  conversation and  a number  of  relaxing  and
educational  activities  on  which people  put a great  deal of value.  Those hours

-------
spent in the home after a hard day's work in the office or factory are in some
ways more valuable to us than the other hours of the day, and yet that seems
to be where noise intrudes the most.  It also disrupts sleep, and if a person
lives in an environment that is continually impacted by noise each night, such
as near a major airport, the destruction of sleep could become a serious
health problem for that person.

         Based on these impacts, EPA has identified a day-night average  level
of 55 decibels as the level necessary to avoid most of these difficulties, but
recently scientists have been focusing on a more fundamental aspect of noise.
The annoyance reactions that scientists have identified so far may only be the
tip of the iceberg when it comes to the real health effects of noise.  The
facts aren't in yet but there are some very serious signs in front of them.
We have known for some time, of course, that noise is a stressor and the body
reacts to stress in many subtle ways that we are not conscious of.  Noise
triggers an automatic response in our bodies which is not controlled by  our
conscious minds — it probably stems from the fact, as I mentioned, that the
fear of loud noise is one of the two fears we are born with and we can never
forget it.  Outwardly, we may seem quite calm in the presence of noise but
internally our heart rate goes up, our blood pressure goes up and adrenalin is
secreted, and our bodies are prepared for the suspected assault which is
associated with noise.

         We in EPA are currently sponsoring a study of Rhesus monkeys at the
University of Miami in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health.
This study stems from the fact that there are over 40 epidemiological studies
from foreign countries which show a relationship between noise and
cardiovascular disease.  This preliminary monkey study has shown that after
several months of noise exposure -- which is similar to that received by
millions of working Americans today ~ the monkeys have sustained an elevated
blood pressure of 3056 even after the noise source was removed.  It is too
early to draw conclusions from this experiment, further research is  necessary,
but beginning with the fiscal year that just began this week EPA has a small
amount of money to kick off further research in this area.  But if noise is in
fact tied to elevated blood pressure hypertension, the control of noise  may
become one of the foremost public health programs in the country, since
hypertension is directly  linked to heart-disease and stroke — and these two
diseases alone account for 48% of the people who die in this country every
year.  Cancer is a small problem compared to those.

         So, in short, noise is not something we can laugh at or tell
ourselves that it is something we can get used to.  It is a serious  health
problem and the evidence  is tending to indicate that the effects could be more
serious and much more wide-ranging than we ever imagined in the past.

         Now, from the point of view of the airport proprietor, it may matter
less exactly what the health effects of noise are and more that angry airport
neighbors can prevent an  airport's expansion and improvement.  Their lawsuits
and political activity could in the future  significantly slow, if not stop the
growth of the air transportion  system.  Rightly or wrongly, citizens in  this
country are becoming  les  and less tolerant of public officials who make
pronouncements that airport expansion  is for the public good and that private
individuals must give up their property rights and suffer in order that  others
may fly or otherwise  have  the  convenience of the airport.


                                        8

-------
         So from many perspectives, noise is an environmental pollutant to be
reckoned with and  it behooves us to examine the extent to which noise is
already a serious  problem around some of our general aviation airports and
whether or not growth of the industry will exacerbate this problem
significantly in the coming years.

         As we begin this conference, what do we know about the noise
characteristics of the general aviation fleet?  Let me just go quickly over
them.  Putting aside the military aircraft, there are approximately 185,000
aircraft registered for operation in the United States and only about 3,000 of
these civil aircraft, as you know, are operated by air carriers as part of the
commercial transportation system.  So the rest, 182,000, are operated as
general aviation aircraft by individuals, businesses, and governments.  Most
of these aircraft, as you know, are propeller-driven rather than jet powered,
although jets are  gaining a larger share of the fleet every year.

         These 185,000 civil aircraft operate into approximately 14,000
airports in this country.  Half of these 14,000 airports are open to the
public and about 600 of these are certificated for air carrier operations.  It
is estimated that  we have about 130 million operations annually at these
public use, general aviation airports with daily operations maybe up to about
500 a day, and FAA estimates that these operations may grow double that,
almost double that to 220 million by 1987.  Perhaps John Wesler can give us a
closer insight into those numbers, but the general trend seems to be an
increase from about 185,000 general aviation aircraft to 240,000 of the same
type of aircraft in that period.

         Now, most of the country's attention, as you know, has been focused
on the 100 largest air carrier airports.  Our analysis of these air carrier
airports indicates that in ^975 approximately 6 million people were exposed to
noise levels of a  day-night average of 65 decibels or greater due to air
carrier aircraft alone.  A number of steps have been taken recently which will
bring down the number of people exposed to these high levels of noise over the
next several years, with the greatest benefit occurring sometime around the
year 1985 when the retrofit/replacement rule will be fully implemented — if
the Congress doesn't meddle with that regulation.

         Unfortunately, because of the growth in size of the commercial
aircraft fleet and increased operations, we can expect the number of people
exposed to start going back up significantly after that date and,
consequently, we in EPA are actively encouraging further steps to reduce
exposure to commercial aviation noise around our Nation's airports.  Now, we
know very little about the noise at the rest of these 13,000 airports serving
the general aviation fleet.  We also realize we know very little about the
noise contribution of general aviation to the noise problem at our major air
carrier airports.

         EPA has undertaken studies at the present time to predict the noise
exposure from these aircraft, both now and in the future, but the numbers of
aircraft and airports are so large that it will be some time before we have a
fully comprehensive national view of the scope of the problem.   Now, surely,
general aviation noise is a serious problem at some airport but we at EPA have
no preconceived ideas about the severity of this problem and the extent to

-------
which it may become a national problem.  We cannot look at just the aircraft
or their operations, we must consider the airport as well.  If land use around
the airport has evolved wisely, there may be little or no disturbance for the
community.  On the other hand, ambient noise levels in the communities
surrounding general aviation airports may be significantly lower than around
our major commercial air carrier airports; thus, the general aviation noise
may be more intrusive for those neighborhoods than for people who live around
some of our commercial airports.  Consequently, the fact that general aviation
aircraft are quieter than commercial jets is no reason for complacency; thus,
the possible noise problem associated with general aviation is not just a
technological matter.  There are socio-economic and environmental implications
which must be considered as well.

         We are anxious to hear from each of you in this conference concerning
the extent to which you believe, based on your experiences, that general
aviation is a problem today or will be one in the future.  This will help
guide future studies by the Federal Government in this area and give us all a
sense of perspective on general aviation noise.

         Now, if general aviation noise is today or will be in the future a
serious problem for this country, what can be done about it?  I hope in this
conference we will hear a lot about that, but I think it will come as no
surprise to any of us that there is no single solution to a problem as complex
as aviation noise.  In our experience in the commercial aviation noise area,
we have found that any realistic solution to the problem must combine actions
by a variety of parties, all taken in coordination with each other.  Needless
to say, orchestrating such a control program is very difficult, particularly
when large investments have already been made on the basis of the status quo.
That is why working on the general aviation noise problem before it becomes a
national crisis is attractive.  Prevention is usually much cheaper and much
easier to bring about politically than retrofit and abatement.  Instead of
making investments obsolete, as we must do in some cases in the commercial
aviation area, a preventive program might be able to focus future investments
with little additional cost involved.

         Now, when people talk about quieting any aviation problem they
usually think first about quieting the source of the noise, which in this case
are the aircraft themselves.  Some steps have already been taken by the
aircraft industry to produce quieter aircraft and, for this reason, it is no
longer possible for us to talk about quiet propeller aircraft and noisy jets.
Some of our new jet aircraft today are quieter than propeller aircraft and,
hopefully, quieter operation is the trend for the future for both types of
aircraft.  At the same time, NASA is conducting research with assistance from
EPA and FAA to develop quieter propeller-driven and jet-powered general
aviation aircraft.  We are hopeful that some technological advances, even if
they are only small ones, will result.  But, of course, there is no automatic
link-up between technological innovation in the laboratory and the
incorporation of such improvements in the aircraft of the future.

         One of the difficult policy problems for any person in the Federal
regulatory arena, such as EPA or FAA, is the extent to which the manufacturers
can be expected to aggressively move ahead to incorporate new technology and
to develop new technology of their own instead of waiting to be forced to do
                                       10

-------
so through some type of Federal, State or other local agency, or for that
matter, government regulation.

         Quieting of the source of noise has proven to be in and of itself
insufficient to solve the commercial aircraft noise problem and may well prove
to be so in the general aviation area as well.  Ways in which the aircraft are
flown and the way in which airports are developed and expanded can have a
major influence over the amount of noise exposure in the neighborhoods
surrounding general aviation airports.  New takeoff procedures incorporated
now in an FAA advisory circular will provide considerable relief to airport
communities surrounding air carrier airports in the future if the circular is
complied with by the air carriers.  Similar improvements in takeoff and
landing procedures might provide some relief from general aviation aircraft
also.

         And then there  is the  area of land use control.  This country has
been notoriously unsuccessful in controlling the land use around airports.
Even airports as modern and advanced as Dallas-Fort Worth, and Dulles in
Washington are now beginning to suffer from encroachment from residential
communities.  Communities that  once vowed that they would hold fast to
decisions to ban incompatible land uses are now caving in to the economic
pressures to allow residential  development in areas impacted by the airport
noise.  Thus, we can expect that even our airports which are built out in the
countryside will soon be subject to lawsuits by citizens who are outraged by
the increasing noise coming from these major facilities.

         We need to seek stronger and more effective methods for controlling
land use around commercial airports.  The question for us then at this
conference is whether such advances can be pioneered and perfected in the
general aviation area where economic pressures today are not quite as great as
they are around commercial airports but where the need in the future may be
just as great.

         We have in this audience today and during this week, people who can
give us a good perspective on the potential for the various means of dealing
with general aviation noise.  We have representatives here from Federal, State
and local governments, from the aviation industry, airport operators, aircraft
operators, aircraft manufacturers, representatives of environmentally
concerned groups, neighborhood  representatives, leaders of the real estate and
lending institutions of our country, and spokesmen of the air carrier airports
and military airports.  Many of these groups have already had unique
experiences in dealing with general aviation airport noise.  Some have been
involved in the adoption of regulations concerning general aviation airport
uses.  Some have seen these regulations struck down or are now involved in
litigation concerning aviation  regulations.

         All of us would like to share each other's experiences.  I hope there
will be a mutual benefit from this exchange, and speaking for EPA we hope to
gain added insight into the ways in which all of us can work better together,
in the years to come.  So I urge all of you to make your views heard.  Is
there a general aviation problem today or will there be one  in the future and,
if so, what is its extent?  Are there ways of controlling this noise in the
future and how effective would  each of these methods be?  What actions need to
be taken by some or all of us to bring about these solutions?


                                       11

-------
         In order to make this conference a working conference ~ that is,
more than a series of lectures — we have restricted the total number of
participants.  In many cases, you may be the only person at the conference
with a particular perspective.  So please take an active role in these
discussions.  Express your views so that they may affect the conclusions of
the conference and thereby the policies and actions of all of us in the future.

         We in EPA look forward to working for you during these next three
days.

         DR. BRAGDON:   This next session's presentation deals with an
evaluation of a  land use planning matrix.  The reason for establishing it was
to try to get a  sense of who all the role players are that enter into the
process of decision making.  It is interesting that all institutional groups
feel that they have the pulse of the interest group and can be the
spokesperson for that group, but if you take all of the associations and
affiliations individually, they do not constitute an answer.  It really can
only be resolved in a greater understanding of the problem by the collective
involvement of all the disciplines and, really, that is what we have tried to
assemble here.   I think from talking to Chuck among others, we have assembled
quite an interesting group of people who represent a divergent group of
opinions and interests and which I think is representative of sort of a
cutting edge of  where things are.  So, I am quite pleased to have all of your
participation, and if we cannot learn from one another then we are in trouble
because that is  really what  we  are here for.  This is not going to be any
lecture-type of  setup and  it  is going to be the experience of everybody,
shared  in a collective manner.

         Essentially, this matrix was devised to  try to get a handle on what
all these people are doing and what are the roles they have and maybe get  a
better  look  at the problem of  land use planning.  Historically, it has been
left to some land use planners, quote, to get a handle on the process, and  in
all honesty  that is  only one role player.  What we are trying to  do  here  is  to
find out what the  lending  institutions are saying, what the regulatory
agencies are saying, what  the  private sectors, what  the manufacturers  through
their professional affiliations, fixed-base operators, proprietors,  what  are
all  these people saying.   Naming these all collectively reflects  what  the land
use  is.

         So  today, essentially,  land  use management  embodies  the  common  thread
in which we  are  all  working  together  in  a group.   Unfortunately,  we  have  been
along a parallel track, each group  doing their  own  thing; one,  the mortgage
banker  with  the  assistance of  the professional  planner; two,  the  regulatory
agencies and so  forth.  Today we  can, hopefully,  get off  our  single  track and
work  together  in a matrix  and that  is what  this  little matrix  is.

         The land  early  reflects  an indicator  of  cooperativeness  or  lack  of
cooperativeness.  If we  look around an  airport  and  see what is  occurring,
whether it  be, quote,  the compatible  or  incompatible use,  the degree of
compatibility  reflects  the value  systems of  the collective  group  that is
 involved  in decision making — and  that  is  really the final  test  of  the
success or  failure of land use management,  the operation  of the airport
                                        12

-------
relative to its adjacent environment.  If it is working properly, essentially
the incompatibilities are nominal or minimal.

         There are real basic questions from a cost-benefit standpoint.  As a
professional society, should we be spending great sums of money for taking
care of mistakes?  Should the Atlanta Airport, the Los Angeles Airport, the
Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport be spending millions of dollars to correct
mistakes that have occurred?  Had there been a dialogue at the outset could
some of this have been eliminated or minimized in a preventable way?  That is
really what we are dealing with.  The need for planning is critical.  Everyone
in this room has, I am sure, a definition of what they think planning is and I
suspect if we took a definition of all those terms we would come up with
probably 15 different definitions.

         And who is, quote, the planner?  I am sure the mortgage banker would
say the professional planner, the architect, the regulatory group.  All these
groups feel that they are planning and surely they are but, again, in somewhat
of an individual way.  The thing that brought this to a head was the
evaluation of 111 general aviation airports that I prepared in a report to
EPA.  This evaluation was really to see to what extent in general aviation
there was recognition of a problem of:  one, noise; two, what was the
magnitude of the problem; three, what were the strategies for recognizing that
problem; and; four, what were they doing about it.

         In a summary of 111 airports in the United States, we found first of
all that 50% of the airport master plans being done for general aviation
airports did not even address the question of off-airport land use planning.
Now, these plans were done from the period 1974 to 1977, so we are not talking
about two or three decades ago; we are talking about a year, to a year and a
half ago, two years — and that is significant.  Fifty percent of
comprehensive airport plans have not  addressed off-airport  land use
questions.  Now, of those that did address that issue, we found that less than
25% were doing anything in a preventive way to minimize that impact.   In other
words, noise was recognized but as a  question of land use was not integrated
into the resolution of the problem.   So if we look at 111 general aviation
airports and we find that only in this group something like 30 are even
addressing the question, much less resolving the question, then there  is
concern and that is one reason why we are here today -- to see if we can
assist.  There are, obviously, reasons for their lack of awareness, but I
think this is something we need to look at very carefully.

         Now in terms of what we have attempted to do in this matrix, we have
attempted to develop two matrices.  One is looking at how do we plan around
airports and, secondly, how do we implement plans around airports.  The
planning, notoriously, is excellent in looking at what the problem is and,
generally, has been unsuccessful as a single party in doing anything about
it.  Now that doesn't mean they are not doing something about it but it means
a collective approach, so we are looking at  implementation as well as the
planning process.

         Within this, the report contains four sections.  The first is
evaluation of noise control measures.  What are those noise control measures
that we can look at?  The second identifies the parties that are involved in
planning and implementation, and parties in a very broad sense.  Thirdly, we


                                       13

-------
want to find out what role these parties have in, whatever term you may want
to use.  And then finally what conclusions can we draw.

         What I would like to see, and hopefully — many of you have expressed
this ~ is a general road map that has all the rules to play the game and have
all those people interacting on that same road map — so that we don't have 27
road maps, we have one.  So at least we can get that type of group together
and concentrate and focus in on the issue.

         In terms of noise control measures, we are really talking about two
types; remedial measures and preventive measures.  Now the remedial measures
are those that must be applied when a problem already exists.  In other words,
there are some incompatible conditions -- and these may include tax
incentives, airport noise reduction, airport operator controls, fair
disclosure, ordinance restrictions on private mortgage loans, housing
relocation, and many others.  Now we are not saying that these are mutually
exculsive but we are saying that remedial measures are one set of strategies
that have to be applied to the airport planning process.

         The second is a set or series of preventive measures, and preventive
measures are really to eliminate or reduce the potential for incompatible
development.  As you will see later in the program, we are going to have
people talking about remedial strategies where they already have an existing
impact problem, and others will be talking about preventive measures where a
problem doesn't exist but they want to insure that a problem does not
develop.  So those sets of conditions are going to be different and the
measures that may be necessary to be applied:  such as the use of zoning,
subdivision regulations, building codes, capital improvements programming, fee
simple purchase, revolving purchase, installment purchase.  These can be
preventive measures that can minimize potentially the problem of impact to the
given area.

         The second area of this matrix deals with the parties.  Who are the
people and where do they come from?  Well, the parties, essentially, come from
both the public and private areas, public sector and private sector.  All too
frequently the planning process incorporates the public sector.  The land use
planners, many times, are regulatory agencies ~ or at least the governmental
agencies had their dialogue with the public sector and excluded, either
intentionally or unintentionally, the private participation.

         If, for example, the United States — looking at HUD in terms of
mortgage approval in the United States ~ a Federal policy is established to
have compatible development around airports through the lending process of
mortgages, this has an impact on maybe 30% of all mortgages in the United
States because they come through the public lending institutions or at least
they are supported through the public lending institutions by HUD.  But
approximately 70% of all mortgages in the United States are handled through
the private sector, through places like lending institutions which are not
supported by HUD directly.  So if we address the question of mortgage process
in terms of a strategy for land use planning, we have to look at it from the
viewpoint of the mortgage banker as well as the public sector.  So this is the
type of thing that we must examine much more carefully.
                                        14

-------
         The public sector, again, is defined in the paper which you have,  and
it is a broad spectrum.  Certainly, it involves the local  planning body,  the
local governing body.  Many times these are quite different groups, as you
have found out many times I am sure in public hearings.  We are also talking
about the airport operator as a public operator, the State, sub-State regional
authorities and then the State administrative agencies, and we have
representatives from three different State offices — California, Georgia,  and
Maryland — in terms of aviation planning at the State level.  Obviously, we
also have the Federal Government involvement, the FAA which we have
representatives from, HUD, as well as EPA.  So all these groups play some role
in terms of the public sector.

         Turning to the private side, we have the fixed-base operator, the
property owner as a private home owner or private individual, and we have
representatives from these groups:  neighborhood organizations and
environmental groups,  real estate  firms, private developers, private lending
institutions, aircraft engine manufacturers, planning  and  environmental
consultants who sometimes work for the public sector,  sometimes for the
private sector.  All of these groups collectively have some role  to play in
terms of noise control measures.

         Now, what we  have done here  is  to  try to construct  a matrix that
deals with the level of involvement that these groups  do play,  and  this
involvement has either a  direct  involvement or  indirect involvement, depending
on what the issue  is.  Chuck  Elkins alluded to  it earlier.  The EPA is
involved in certain  things in terms  of conditions of aircraft but at the same
time the decision making  about the land  use is generally part of  the home rule
process, or at least a locally determined process.  So the role  of EPA as a
Federal Agency, in terms  of  land  use decision making,  is  a little different;
similarly with the FAA, in terms  of what  their  responsibility   is.  Even
though a conference  for airport master planning  has to address  the issue of
land use planning, the ultimate  determination  of the management  of the land
use plan does not  rest with  the FAA,  but  has to  be  implemented  by local
goverment.

         Now, there  are  some interesting  characteristics  that  can be
constructed  to insure  that the money  that  is being  spent  around  airports
addresses  the question directly,  in  terms  of accountability.   I  think  that  is
one of the biggest problems  we have  in  terms of  effective land  use planning.
No one  is  held accountable for the process  of  land  use planning.   There  is  an
interesting  test case  underway now for  professional  liability.   It may deal
directly with  decisions  associated with  environmental  issues.   Test cases now
in California  and  Nevada  suggest  that  professional  opinion may  have some
inherent professional  liability.   Now  maybe that is one  of those roles that we
must be  a  little more  aware  of  in terms  of  making decisions  that are
accountable  in terms of  land use  planning  itself.   An  interesting concept —
 it may  be  discussed  during these next  three days.

         The  interest  in  involvement,  again, is to see what  the direct
 involvement  is and then what is  the  indirect involvement  of  these groups,  and
what  I  will  do shortly is show you the matrix  which,  unfortunately —  by
virtue  of  the  size of  the auditorium --  will not be able  to  be  seen very well,
but  will be  best  seen  through the book  that we have.   However,  we have talked
 about the  levels  of  party involvement,  the  level of actors in  terms of


                                        15

-------
solutions.  Those that are directly involved are the parties who serve in an
advisory capacity, those directly involved with the party that has some
economic stake to those involved with it, parties involved in an
administrative or legislative or policy-formulation manner.  That is one set
of involvement.  Then there is a set of indirect involvements where the party
is participating in an advisory capacity, has no direct interest but is only
involved in an advisory capacity.

         Interestingly, when talking with a mortgage banker about our concern
about airports, he related to me, "We are really not too concerned about the
impact around the airport.  All we are concerned about is getting mortgages
approved and loaning money for mortgages."  Well, in this particular case his
perception, in this individual's perception, is that they have a very indirect
involvement in terms of land use planning; they have a direct involvement in
terms of economics, but there  is no association between the lending of money
for a mortgage and the potential impact that may be associated with the
environment.  And yet we know  of larger banks who are involved in this.  Chase
Manhatten,  in their environmental division, their mortgage banking group, now
has a specialist  reviewing mortgages in terms of environmental noise.  So it
depends on who you talk to and what their interests are.

         The type of noise control measures are also put together in this
matrix.  What we  will do  is show you the concept and spend very  little time at
all trying  to examine  it.  The main point is it is  schematic  in  nature.  This
is a report that  was prepared  for EPA dealing with  the issue  of  general
aviation airports in eight southern states, which evaluated  some 111
facilities  from  1975 to 1977.

          (Slide)  This  is the  matrix.  The  important thing  here  is  that  you do
have a  series  of  players  that  are described here.   These  are  coded  to your
book.   Essentially,  "A" at the top would deal with  the public sector  in  terms
of the  Government.  The ones  across are measures that could  be  applied  in
terms of planning anyway, and  the  degree of  involvement  is shown there.  D-l
through D-3 is  a direct involvement, and 1-1 though 1-3  is  an indirect
involvement.   What  I  suggest  here  is that  at any airport  in  the  country,
whether you do  it formally or  informally, this  type of matrix exists.   What we
have done  as  a professional  society  of planning  groups, we have  gone  down  one
or two  of  these  tracks  and we  made the  letter  "W"  or the  letter  "V" and  we
haven't looked north  or south  or to  the  top of  us  or  underneath  us.

          Now we are  going down a single  line of  track  or  maybe two  or three
tracks, but we don't  see  the dynamics  of these  relationships with other
groups.  And just to  make a  point:   HUD,  in the proper  approval  of  mortgages
around  airports and the policy of the  private  lending  institutions  in terms of
mortgages around airports and the policy of the private  lending institutions
 in  terms  of mortgages around airports  are  two  different  philosophies  and they
may  not even know what each  person's perspective is.

          What this  is attempting to do is  to put it all  onto one large map.
 Complex?   Yes, it is — but  at the same time,  its  complexity can audibly
 resolve conflict if you at least know who is in the game.  Many times,  we play
 the game but we don't have the same rule book.   One person is playing one way
 and you another; you are  playing with a slow pitch, another person is playing
 the fast pitch; a case of one using a softball  and one using a hard ball;  one


                                        16

-------
person has three outs, the other person has four outs.  We are not on the same
wavelength.

         So, that is what we are trying to do here these three days -- trying
to get everybody together to see where we can interrelate and understand the
dynamics of decisions.

         This first one deals with the question of planning itself, at what
points are planning and process decisions made.  The second one deals with
measures, what can you do and what type of implementation strategies can you
get involved in.  I had a very  interesting experience working in a consulting
capacity in Florida with the Chamber of Commerce in one of the larger
communities.  Historically, Chambers of Commerce from the private sector have
shown very little direct interest in airport planning but that interest could
be cultivated.   In this particular situation, they took the environmental
leadership in a  large regional  community in terms of getting resolutions so
they could use the airport as a dynamic force in terms of industrial and
economic development, rather than one  of great  conflict.  So, the point here
is that  all groups are interested in some  type  of dynamics in terms of  an
airport  issue.   If you get the  people  involved  -- whatever your role  is, at
least get  the people  around the table.

         This  last week  I have  been working with a group  that I have  never
worked with, assessors.  We will  have  one  presentation from this group.  It  is
an extremely unique  group  and  very foreign to me, but in  many ways the
decisions  of an  assessor have  a lot to do  with  the future form of  a city;
whether  one  area is  to be an area of growth  or  decay, whether an  area  is going
to be transitional from  residential to non-residential uses.  You  can  see very
easily on  an assessor's  report  who  is  very,  very aware  of the process  of
planning in  a  very formidable  way.  So from  an  economic  standpoint, the real
estate appraiser or  the  real estate assessor  has  a role  and  that  person should
be participating.  At least, we should know  the dynamics  of where  these people
are  coming from  in  terms  of  an  ultimate resolution  on airport  issues.   So,
those are  the  formal  comments.

          I would just like  to  conclude with  what  is  certainly  a  schematic.
This may not fit any given  location but at least  it  is  an attempt.   What we
have done  with this  — working  with one of my Graduate Students,  Jim  Reese,
who  has  helped prepare  this  -- we have thought this  through  in a  given
situation to see how it  would  work, but in no way would  it  work,  obviously,  in
a collective way.   But  it  may  fit in  a given situation by changing different
blocks  and so  forth.  At least, this  is a think piece and I  hope  if  we don't
do anything else as  a conference  that  we have a greater  appreciation  of the
roles of different  people in terms  of  where  they are coming  from  in  the
decision process and how we. may work  together to  have a  mutual  interest that
can  resolve a  potential  problem that  could exist  or  may exist in  the future.

          At this time it is  my pleasure to introduce John Wesler.   I  have
known John for a long period of time  and I have known him in a  variety of   ,
capacities.  One capacity,  not in the  program,  is  one which  he  previously  had
 and  was  with the Department  of Transportation.   John now has two hats with
FAA; he  is Acting Associate  Administrator of Policy and International  Aviation
Affairs  and also Director of Environment and Energy for  the FAA.   I  am pleased
 to introduce John Wesler.
                                        17

-------
         MR. JOHN WESLER:  Thank you, Cliff, very much.  My role here this
morning is really two-fold; one is to show that the FAA and the EPA do work
together — because I am here — and secondly, as formally shown in the
program, to provide some idea of the extent of general aviation and general
aviation activities in the United States as a basis or textual arrangement for
the subject of your three days of meetings here.

         I also, while at the platform, would like to expound upon a couple of
ideas which we at the FAA have regarding noise abatement, particularly in
general aviation airports — but I will do that in a minute.

         In any discussion of general aviation it is probably a good idea
first of all to define the term.  General aviation is not strictly defined in
any given place within the Federal Aviation Regulations which the FAA
promulgates to fulfill its mission of regulating air commerce; promoting,
encouraging and developing civil aeronautics; controlling the nation's air
space and protecting the public health  and welfare.  There  is no definition of
general aviation, so in most of the work and the analysis which we do we
consider general  aviation to refer to all civil aircraft operating in the
United States, except those that are operating under Parts 121 and 127 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations.

         Now, I will probably tell you  a little more about  this than you
really want to know, but essentially in Part 121 and Part 127, we refer to air
carrier operations, fixed wing or helicopters or rotorcraft types of
airplanes.  So in effect, insofar as we are concerned, general aviation does
not only include  the recreational type  of small, propeller-driven airplanes
which are most normally  associated with general  aviation, but also includes
air-travel clubs, air taxis, commercial operators of the smaller aircraft,
cargo carriers, and business-corporate  jets, of course.  For  example,  in 1977,
our last good census of general aviation type aircraft, there were thirty
707-720 aircraft  included among general  aviation aircraft.  There were
twenty-seven DCS's, a hundred  and ten DC9's, and fifty 727's.  So general
aviation has encroached  and incorporates a wide variety of  types of  aircraft.

          I  think  our interests  here  these  three  days are basically in  the
smaller aircraft  and so  I will  try to  address those  and use those as
illustrations from  now on.  By  the way, the Federal Aviation  Administration
does publish a  number of types  of censuses  for  all  kinds of aircraft,
including  general aviation.  One of  these,  for  example we  just published  this
past April, has general  aviation activity  and  avionic  survey.  This  report  is
available  in the  public  domain, certainly  — and  annually  we  compile and
publish  aviation  forecasts.  We forecast  aviation  activity for 12 years  into
the future.  For  those of you  not  in the Federal  Government,  12 years  may
sound  like a rather weird period of  time,  but  it  allows  us  to do our budgeting
for two years  beyond that;  hence,  the  12-year  kind  of  prediction.  And by the
way, this  is the  advance copy  of the next  forecast,  which  will be  published  at
the end  of this month.

          As I mentioned,  there  are  roughly 193,000  general  aviation  aircraft
 at present operating  in  the United States.  This  compares  with  something  less
than 3,000 of  the larger air  carrier type  aircraft,  so you see that  the vast
                                        18

-------
majority of the aircraft are of the smaller G.A. type.  These G.A. aircraft
are flown by something like 800,000 active pilots.  They fly something like 54
million recorded operations at airports with FAA towers, and there are only
something like 490 airports with FAA towers so this woefully underestimates
the number of operations by G.A. aircraft in this country.

         By way of measure of sophistication of G.A. aircraft, of those 54
million operations, some 17 million of them are instrument operations which
indicate that about 31% of those operations are done by aircraft with some
sophisticated avionics equipment on board; they are not the simple Piper Cub
out flying for a weekend of recreation.

         General aviation has grown significantly over the past five years and
it will continue to grow over the next 12 years, according to our forecast
here.  In 1991, for example, we forecast that there will be slightly over
300,000 general aviation type aircraft in this country.  That is an annual
increase of 3.9% in the number of aircraft alone in active use.  There will be
something over 1.1 million active pilots, piloting  an aircraft — once again,
an annual percentage  increase of about 2.8%.  The hours flown will rise to
something like 64 million during 1991.  We forecast because we are interested
in the workloads at our FAA facilities, and it  is forecast that there will be
some 76 million recorded operations at FAA-controlled airports.  About 40% of
those will be instrument operations, again reflecting the increased percentage
of sophisticated general aircraft with sophisticated  avionics aboard.

         We also forecast that corporate business flying will constitute a
growing proportion of G.A. activity but that purely recreational flying will
form a decreasing proportion of G.A. activity,  and  the reason is quite
obvious:  the increasing cost of fuel  is going  to cut back somewhat the purely
recreational flying but will probably have very little effect on corporate and
business flying.

         These statistics, as I mentioned, display  only a portion of the G.A.
activity in the country.  The operations listed, as I mentioned, are only
those that affect the FAA's workload; that is,  those  that have an FAA tower to
handle it in terms of approaches, landings, takeoffs  and advisories.  At the
beginning of this year there were 14,574 airports in  the United States and of
those only 1,730 handled air carrier operations, so the difference is
something close to 14,000 that are purely G.A.  airports, as we know them.

         There are a  large number of G.A. airports  and, contrary to general
opinion, the number is increasing and  it has been forecast to increase.  The
number of airports is forecast to increase along with the aircraft
themselves.  Now the forecasted growth of G.A.  activity portends some growing
problems of the smaller G.A. airports.  Just the sheer increase in number of
takeoffs and landings will increase the potential number of noise events.

         Added to the absolute growth of the activity in the G.A. airports is
another factor.  The potential danger of mixing operations of small and large
air carrier aircraft at major hub airports was tragically illustrated a year
ago last month at San Diego.  As a part of its effort to improve air safety,
particularly all air carrier safety, but air safety in general, the FAA has
launched a program to improve what we call or refer to as "satellite" airports
located around major hub airports across the country.  We have announced a


                                       19

-------
$100 million program over the next four years to improve the capabilities of
approximately 85 airports located around 56 hub airports across the country.
Their capabilities will attract general aviation and training operations away
from major hub airports and to those smaller satellite airports.  There will
be more of this in the years to come.  And so in addition to the sheer number
of operations of G.A. airports, there will be additional operations as
operations now being handled at major hub airports are attracted away from
those major hub airports.  This will be a program to improve G.A. satellite
airports around those hubs, improve in the sense of better runways,
strengthened runways, more apron and parking area, better electronic and
avionic equipment for instrument landings and that sort of thing, for creative
purposes and for safe operation.

         The Federal policy regarding aviation noise abatement was stated in
1976, and I am sure you are all familiar with the aviation noise abatement
policy statement that was issued jointly by the Secretary of Transportation
and the Adminstrator of FAA back in 1976.  Although that is almost three years
old now, the principles stated  in there are still valid and we still adhere to
them.  It is out-of-date in some respects.  For example, the Airline
Deregulation Act of  last year  has thrown some of the statements  in there out
the window, but most of the philosophy that is stated  in our policy statement
is still good.

         For example, there is  still a shared responsibility among all
elements of the airport community for  aviation noise abatement.  The statement
defines very clearly what the  Federal Government's role is.  It  defines  that
as the control of aircraft noise at the source, that is the airplane itself,
the control of aircraft operations  and management of the national  air  space
with minimum economic  impact and for the highest degree of safety.  It
provided funding to  permit airport  noise abatement projects, both  planned and
concrete projects, and the support  and encouragement of research and
development for noise  abatement.

         Now, we in  FAA, naturally, feel that we  have  met those
responsibilities insofar as we could.  We  have  issued  and are  continuing to
issue noise standards  for most all  types of aircraft,  including  small
propeller-driven aircraft  — unless  small  propeller-driven aircraft are
defined as those  less  than 12,500 pounds gross  weight.  A standard was issued
in 1976 for new designs, effective  then,  and beginning next year those
standards  are  applied  to new production  aircraft.  So  those  aircraft produced
beginning  next year  will be quieter than previously  in production.

         We have  also  proposed noise  standards  for helicopters this past July,
so another type of  aircraft will be covered  in  our noise regulation.   We are
continuing to  look  at  the  stringency  of  those  standards to see if  technology
and  economics  will permit  an increased stringency.   We are meeting next  week,
as a matter of fact, with  several working  groups  of  the International  Aviation
Organization  to addresss exactly this  question,  both on an  international
front,  as  far  as  those things  are  concerned,  and  as  far as  I  am concerned  on a
national front.   So  we have,  I believe,  done  our  best  to  limit the noise at
the  source, the aircraft  itself.

         We do control  operations  at FAA-controlled  airports to minimize noise
as far  as  possible.  This  in  itself is not a  very easy thing,  as I am  sure


                                        20

-------
most of you know, because we may divert the departure tracks and arrival
tracks to remove noise impact from one area of the community but somebody else
is going to get it and the new area is not happy.  Our role here was to try to
make the least number of people unhappy because we are never going to satisfy
everyone.

         We do provide financing for airport projects and we have proposed new
legislation under the Airport Community Development Program.  Trust fund
legislation expires next year, and we have proposed the continuation of that
program to include additional eligible projects for noise abatement purposes;
operating systems, for example; land acquisitions for noise abatement
purposes; soundproofing of public buildings around airports — and so we do
provide Federal funding and  financial assistance for noise  abatement
projects.  And finally, we work closely with NASA and with  industry itself in
trying to develop better  noise  abatement  technology insofar as possible.

         But  obviously, the  Federal efforts here are not going to  solve the
noise problem and so  the  other  elements of the  airport community also have
responsibilities.  Among  those  shared responsibilities are  the airport
operators and state  and  local governments.  This is  largely what we are
talking  about here these  three  days, the  state  and  local governments and the
aircraft and  airport  operators  themselves.

         Although our subject here  today  is primarily  land  use planning,  I
would like to concentrate first on  a  couple of  things which we  suggest,  and  we
recommend that  airport proprietors  could  do to  reduce the  noise.   Restricting
land  uses for noise  incompatibility is  an agonizing  task,  as  all  of you  know.
In  many  cases,  it  is  an  impossible  task  if the  airport  surroundings  are
already  developed.   Typically,  as has  already  been  said,  land use  planning  is
only  feasible as  a means  of preventing  further  incompatible use  and  noise
impacts, rather  than correcting those which  are already  present.   The  less
land  that  is  affected, the easier is  the  case.

         An  airport  proprietor  is in  an uncomfortable position.   He  finds
himself  legally responsible and financially  responsible  for damages  which
arise from the operation of his airport,  and  yet in many cases he sees  that he
has little  responsibility or even authority  over the noise conditions  at these
 airports.   He feels,  generally, that  the Federal Government has preempted
control  over  the noise generator, the airplane  itself,  and over the  manner  in
which the  airplane is flown.  So, what is left?  Obviously, one of the things
that  is  left is the  control or  restriction of the use of that airport,  either
 in  terms of hours of use or in  terms  of types of aircraft that may use  his
 airport.

          There have been curfews imposed at certain places which,  in general,
 we  think are quite appropriate, so long as the curfews are based on a real
 need  for noise abatement and are imposed in  a non-discriminatory manner.   The
 usual second Constitutional test of undue burden on interstate and foreign
commerce generally doesn't apply to G.A.  airports,  but the test of
discrimination does.  For example,  in several  cases across the country -- and
Santa Monica has been a recent  example of this — use restrictions have been
placed  in  the sense  of a jet ban.  Whereas,  one type of aircraft has been
 banned  from use of an airport because it is,  quote, noisy, unquote,  we feel —•
 and the Court agrees with us — that  that type of restriction for noise


                                        21

-------
purposes is illegal.  There are some jet aircraft that are alot quieter than
some propeller aircraft and that, therefore to restrict jet aircraft because
they are, quote, noisy, unquote, is discriminatory.  We have done tests to
substantiate this and, as I mentioned, the initial Court findings in Santa
Monica have upheld this position.

         We feel, however, that there is a way to restrict aircraft at
airports on the basis of noise.  In support of this approach we have recently
published our Advisory Circular Number 36-3, dated May 29th, 1979.  For those
of you who have not seen this, it is essentially a listing in order of noise
level of all the aircraft for which we have valid data at the three FAR-36
measurement locations.  Essentially, we have listed, in terms of maximum
A-wave sound level, the noise levels of a wide variety of aircraft in
descending order of noise level.  These noise levels are based on standardized
tests, following procedures defined in our standards, and they thus proved
what we consider to be a viable and directly comparable and standardized set
of noise values.

         An airport operator may then, we feel, limit the use of his airport
to aircraft that generate no more than a fixed noise level based on this
standardized listing.  And he has available to him, through our advisory
circular, a non-arbitrary and, we think, a non-discriminatory basis for
determining which type of aircraft should be restricted.  The actual noise
limit, of course, should depend upon the degree of noise protection that the
airport needs and, of course, an airport operator will need to examine
carefully just what restriction will do to the airport and the aircraft
operators.

         It is often tempting to install a microphone off the end of the
runway and use direct measurements as a means of restricting aircraft.  Aside
from the technical complications and the expense of such an approach, we
oppose such restrictions on the basis of safety.  Pilots ~ and especially
some of the less-experienced pilots who may be using general aviation airports
— may be tempted to beat the box in such instances by flying in an unsafe or
potentially unsafe manner in order to reduce the noise over the monitoring
points.  In addition, the constantly changing propagation and meterological
conditions will cause the noise levels at a given point to change from day to
day, even though the same aircraft is flown consistently in the same manner;
thus, a pilot is never certain that he or she will meet the set, measured
noise limit each time he or she flies that aircraft and may be tempted to
alter the flight procedure just to be sure.  We believe that the standardized
noise levels that are presented in our Advisory Circular 36-3 provide a better
means for restricting aircraft use at an airport rather than the use of
monitoring single-event levels.

         In summary, I have tried to say that general aviation activity is
growing, as you know, and will continue to grow in the foreseeable future.
Although individual noise levels of new-generation aircraft will become
quieter as our noise standards become increasingly effective, the sheer volume
of activity may cause additional problems at some airports.  Land use controls
and land use zoning are difficult to impose and represent, essentially, the
last resort in airport noise, abatement.  We feel that there are constitutional
and practical means for restricting airport use for noise control purposes.
                                       22

-------
         MR. PETER Q. ESCHWEILER:  Peter Eschweiler, Westchester County, New
York.  Could you go over again the distinction that you made on the use of
your new Advisory Circular, between the previous practice of trying to
discriminate against the jet operations because jets were noisy and the
ability to discriminate against the noisier airplanes on your list?  It is
still discrimination, is it not?  How are you going to get around that test?

         MR. WESLER:  Well, the discrimination is on the basis of the main
thing which you are attacking, and that is noise.  If the reason for
restricting use of an airport is noise, then noise should be the basis on
which the restriction is imposed.  Now, we have essentially listed the noise
levels under standardized, measured conditions of all kinds of aircraft, both
propeller-driven and jets.  To ban jet aircraft because they are jet aircraft
is discriminatory.  We have shown and we have data to prove that some jets are
quieter than some props.  To limit those jets because of noise is
discriminatory.

         We propose the use of the standardized tests rather than a local test
or a local continuous measurement because they are  literally standardized;
they are directly comparable.  If an aircraft is noisier on this listing, we
feel it will be noisier in the field — even though it may not be operated in
exactly the way our standard test procedure is.  It will be comparable on the
basis for which the restriction  is imposed, noise.

         MR. WILLIAM J. CRITCHFIELD:  Bill Critchfield, Torrance, California.
You have described FAR-36  as somewhat a clinical evaluation of noise
characteristics of aircraft.  Our experience has been that in many cases the
aircraft is extremely noisier than your stadards would indicate when
operating.  My question is:  does the FAA plan to  improve on the standards for
operators of the aircraft  in anyway in terms of  regulation or guidelines to
flight standards?

         MR. WESLER:  Well, the  first  point is that our FAR-36 finds  that
noise levels are not representative of the noise  levels actually used  in the
field.  This is quite so.  This  is an  inherent part of the standards.  The
standards are  literally that, a  standardized procedure, a standardized method
for measuring  the noise and the  degree to which  noise-making technology could
be included in the aircraft.  They are not necessarily representative  of the
way  the aircraft is flown  in service.  It is quite  so that aircraft may be
noisier in  the field, operating  day to day, because of different operating
procedures.

         So far as controlling the operation of  the aircraft themselves at the
various airports, we attempt to  do this through  our air traffic control
procedures.  These  procedures, in general, are advisory in nature; they are
not  mandatory  because in  the  last resort  it is the  pilot himself who  decides
what is safe and when he  should  deviate from the advisory type of direction.

         MR. CRITCHFIELD:  This  is why I  was asking  if you were going  to do  it
through flight standards  to,  let us say,  tighten up the standards for
obtaining a pilot's  license to fly these  aircraft  and including noise
abatement techniques and  procedures in the syllabus for flight training on the
crew of FAA flight  students.
                                        23

-------
         MR. WESLER:  To the best of my knowledge, they are, or should be if
they are not.  I know that our check pilots, for example, do emphasize noise
abatement takeoffs for the air carrier pilots, at least, and for the
commercial pilots.  Perhaps this is not as stressed as it could be for general
aviation or the everyday pilot.  But you are right, that educational processes
are needed.  We have been attempting this and you are saying we have not been
very successful.

         MR. CRITCHFIELD:  Well, we have been reasonably successful as a local
proprietor.  Unfortunately, I am having a little trouble with my local flight
standards district offices.

         MR. WESLER:  Let me know.

         MR. CRITCHFIELD:  I will.

         MR. WESLER:  But I think this is a valid thing for an airport
operator or proprietor to do.  Education is not alone the FAA's job; it is
everybody's, including airport proprietors.

         MR. CRITCHFIELD:  Our concern, as yours, is safety but I don't
believe that safety is that big a problem from our experience.

         MR. WESLER:  Yes, sir?

         MR. RICHARD W. PROCUNIER:  Richard Procunier from San Francisco.  I
was going to ask just a quick question first.  Do you have any idea the
percentage of fuel that general aviation consumes compared to commercial
aviation?

         MR. WESLER:  I don't have that data  available.

         MR. PROCUNIER:  That would be interesting.

         MR. WESLER:  It is a very small percentage.

         MR. PROCUNIER:  It's a very small percentage.

         ATTENDEE:  If you compare it by a gallon, all aviation consumes about
one tablespoon full per gallon of fuel consumed for all purposes in the United
States.

         MR. WESLER:  That is quite so — something like three-tenths of a
percent.

         MR. PROCUNIER:  I want to talk a little bit about safety  and
particularly your concern  about putting in a  training facility which would not
only impact  noise but also safety in urban areas, moving them from urban areas
and attracting them to outside  areas.  I think that is a very  important
situation.   Not only the dramatic situation  at San Diego but just  in the
regular, routine G.A. operation ~ especially with  low-experienced pilots —
the safety  record is not all that great, and  first-time  or several-time pilots
pose really  a public health and welfare hazard in urban  areas.  You talk about
improving the runways at these more remote  locations, so I am  wondering if


                                       24

-------
there is not a way we can also encourage that through either the training or
availablity of pilot instructors — some active encouragement.

         Also, I think the FAA could, in a way that the DOD does, calculate
safety hazards around airports and in that way, when the local decision makers
become aware of the hazards over their areas from civil aviation aircraft in
training operations, we cut down the number of operations and thereby the
noise impact and safety hazards in urban areas and encourage them to move to
the more remote areas.

         MR. WESLER:  I agree with you, Dick.  Training is an essential part
of aviation; if we are ever going to improve the safety, obviously we need
training.  There are clear zone requirements for any runway under the FAA
Regulations.  Those clear zones are essentially safety-oriented and require a
certain clearance, among which are the highest obstructions within a conical,
if you will, or trapezoidal area approaching each runway.

         MR. PROCUNIER:  Actually, the way DOD does it, it puts numbers down
~ you know, quantifies it.  We have had requests in San Francisco for that
kind of information and it just doesn't seem to be available.

         MR. WESLER:  No, I think certainly the Department of Defense has done
a far better job in that than we have.  I suspect there may be some feeling
within the FAA of scaring off people because of airport potential danger.  I
think the illustration of Thurmon Munson from the Yankee baseball team
recently represents the potential danger in the less-experienced aircraft
pilot.  I agree with what you say.

         MR. PROCUNIER:  Because of the ecomomic impact -- the schools want to
locate in the urban areas; that is where the customers are.   So, I think we
have to counter that by offering really active encouragement, not just
improving the facility; really saying, "Look, you really want to be located
out here where  it is safe to fly over the population and there is less noise
impact."  Thank you.

         MR. WESLER:  I agree with you.  Joe?

         MR. JOSEPH R. LEWIS:   I have a question on Federal funding.  Right
now Federal funding is dependent upon the airport operator requesting  it.   In
other words, the community could not request Federal funding  from the FAA to
set  up a number of monitoring stations around  an airport.   I  am  particularly
referring to the awful situation at Kennedy, where the one monitor the Port
Authority has at the end of only seven of the  eight runways  is really
nothing.  We would  like to see  about 22 monitors around the  airport and we
would like  to see the FAA do this.  But as  I understand  it now,  the only one
to request  that would be the Port Authority, the operator of  the airport, not
— let's say offhand -- the City of New York.

         MR. WESLER:  Well, Federal funding for that sort of  thing is
restricted  to the airport sponsor, that is  the operator of the airport.  That
is correct.

         MR. LEWIS:  Well, the  point  is:  does it use  just exclusively the
economics of the  situation and  things  like  that — which are  really a


                                       25

-------
fallacy?   I  think  it  is  something that  should  be  looked  into.  The  local
government should  be  able  to  apply further  for these  things.   I would  like  to
point  out  something that possibly some  people  are not  aware of.   We talked
about  FAR-36  noise levels.  The  only  time the  airplane has to  meet  that  is
when it comes off  the production line.  That's it.  Take the 747.   The first
time it came  into  Kennedy  Airport it  came over us at  about 500 feet.  We
didn't know  he was there until we looked up  and saw him  and we heard him  later
and I  can  tell you we can  hear the 747  coming  in  there now.  So the whole
system is  really all mixed up.   It doesn't mean anything.

         MR.  WESLER:  To contradict something  which you  said,  it  is not  the
test of the prototype or the  first off  the production  line that is  the only
time that  they are tested  normally.   That is correct  for noise, but the
quality assurance  of all aircraft coming off the  assembly  line insures that
technology is in that prototype.

         MR.  LEWIS:  When  you go for  your driver's license, whoever is there
can grant  your license if  you can drive at the sustained speed limits — and I
say it is  the same thing with FAR-36.

         OR.  BRA6DON:  Thank you, John.  Our next speaker  is Lucie  Searle.
Lucie  is Community Liaison with the Massachusetts Aeronautics  Commission in
Boston.  We are pleased  to have  her here today to speak to us  on  the issue  of
State  perspectives on land use planning.  Lucie Searle.

         MS.  LUCIE G. SEARLE:  Thank  you, I  am delighted to be here as a
participant  in the Conference on General Airport  Noise and Land Use Planning.
It is  a subject that is  close to our  hearts  and our ears in Massachusetts,  so
I welcome  this opportunity to be here today  to share with you  our thoughts  ~
which  are  from the perspective of one State.

         When I was putting together  my remarks for today, I ran  across an
article which I wanted to  share  a quote with you  from  because  I thought it  was
pretty interesting.  It  is entitled:  "Airplane,  Stay  Away From My  Roof."   The
author writes,  "You move  out from the  noise of the city and you  pay a premium
to be  away from the railroad.  You go to a lot of trouble and  expense to get
on a side  street, away from the buses and trucks.  So, what do you  get?  Right
along  with a  big mortgage, neighbors, a mangy  lawn and a leaking basement,  you
get planes.   It turns out  that your quiet residential  street is a boardwalk
for modern aviation, and the planes come over  as  if you had put suet out for
them."  This  article appeared in a 1947 issue  of  Saturday Evening Post.  It
was cited  at  an earlier  aviation conference that  was sponsored by the National
Aeronautic Association in  1947.  It was used in a speech at that  time,
entitled:  "Making Neighbors of Airports."  Obviously, somewhere between then
and now we have not followed  a lot of the advice  and a lot of  solutions or  I
suspect we would not be  here today.

         We have a general aviation noise problem in Massachusetts  that
impacts not only airport neighbors, like the writer of this article, but also
threatens  the viability  of several of our key  suburban G.A. airports.  Because
of noise,  we  are having  a  great problem of carrying and maintaining  what we
already have.  We have a problem of carrying runways and taxiways,  not to
mention extending or adding new runways.  In fact, if you really want to have
a showdown between airport and neighbors, try  to  put in an instrument landing
                                       26

-------
system — I think this is quite irrational, but there is a great concern that
it is going to generate more operations, which is going to lead to more noise.

         I have to relate this to John Wesler's point about FAA efforts to
improve reliever airports.  In Massachusetts, our reliever airports do not
want this kind of improvement because they are convinced it is going to
generate more noise, so we do have a problem there.

         The solutions to our noise problem today I suspect are just about the
same ones which were  identified in 1947; noise control at the source by
manufacturing quieter aircraft, operating procedures, and land use contols.
From the State perspective, I am going  to review each of these with you and
give you an idea of what our experience has been on each of these three
elements.  When I talk about our experience, I refer to a State system of 25
publicly owned airports and another 25  that are privately owned and open to
the public.

         We have, as you know, one major air carrier airport, that  is  in
Boston, Logan, and all the rest of our  airports are  almost entirely general
aviation.  Some have  a few air carrier  operations but G.A. is the primary
use.  To try to pinpoint the problem, I have to say  that our G.A. noise
problem  is concentrated on our Greater  Boston  Area where our most important
G.A. airports are, where our most active ones  are.   The remainder do not have
a problem now but we  are working on a preventive basis  with those.

         To get to the first point, source  control.  This  is primarily a
Federal  and industry  responsibility.  From a State veiwpoint, we believe that
a great  deal remains  to be done there,  particularly  with piston-engined
propeller  aircraft.   These  are the biggest  users of  our G.A. airports,  whether
it  is for  touch-and-go operations that  are  associated  with flight training or
whether  it  is with  the business fleet.  The prop aircraft  are  the biggest  part
of  the business fleet and  those are the biggest  users  of our G.A. airports.

         Prop noise  could  be contolled  by  reducing propeller-tip  speed and
this can be done  by  a slower turning  prop  or a multi-bladed  prop.   From what I
have been  able to  learn,  we  are  already aware  of a great  deal  of knowhow  that
goes back  many years  —  and  additional  research  is going  on  right  now  on  how
to  build a low-noise  prop.  This  is being  done by  M.I.T.  and NASA  under a
program  that  is  being sponsored by the  EPA.  It  seems  to  me  that what  is
missing  here  is  the incentive; partly because  it is  only  in  recent  years  that
general  aviation  airport  neighbors have started  to flex their  political
muscles  and also  for  the  other part,  because FAA's FAR-36  standards for light
props  present  little  or  no challenge  to the industry.

          I have  to  disagree .very  strongly  with my  good friend,  John Wesler.   I
don't  think the  FAA is  doing  its  best.   Since  FAR-36 was  established in 1969,
the modest standards  that were set  for  light props —  and  here we are  talking
about  props that  were under 12,500 pounds  — these standards  have  not  been
amended  to require  more  stringent  noise levels.  The result  is that the vast
majority of props  in  our  fleet have for sometime met FAA's lenient  standards.
I  should point  this  out.   I  want  to  give  this  example here because  I think
this is  very important.   The marketplace  right now can do better  than  what the
standards  are and I  want  to  give  you  a  couple  of examples.
                                        27

-------
         Cessna has come out with a single engine, the 182Q.  It makes 69.1
decibels at a 1,000-foot flyover.  The FAA standards for this plane are 77.9.
They are about eight (8) decibels higher than what the marketplace can already
do.  The Cessna-152 is 65 dBA on flyover.  The FAA standards require 71.8.
Piper comes out with a single engine that makes 68.8 at a 1,000-foot flyover,
while the FAA only requires a 77.9   So the marketplace could already do
better than the ones on the books.  We are not even talking about technology,
which I am arguing is there to permit us to do even better.

         From the industry's point of view, one obstacle may be the enormous
cost and complexity of FAA certification of even the slightest design change.
This is a situation which, obviously, discourages innovation.  And I also want
to acknowledge that there are some manufacturers that are doing a good job
here, as I have pointed out.  The ones I am familiar with are Cessna and Piper
and I think from what I can learn that they have made these gains primarily  by
lowering the RPM's with these single engine aircraft.

         I was very pleased to see that Stan Green of GAMA  is on the program
and I think we will probably be  learning a lot more from him on this.  I am
very anxious to hear what he has to say.  At any rate, it is our opinion and
our experience that the compelling case can be made for tightening these
standards, particularly when we  remember that the prop fleet does not turn
over very quickly.  Some props are with us for a long time.

         There is what I call a  back door approach to dealing with this
Federal regulatory intertia, which my own Commission has refused to sanction
so far, partly because of the chaos that we think would result from airport  to
airport and State-to-State, and  also because my Commission  does not want to  be
regarded as a State with an anti-business image -- which we hear is suspected
by many.  This back door approach is the setting of maximum aircraft noise
standards by the airport proprietor.  Now, if I understood  John Wesler
correctly, he is promoting this  approach.  How does a proprietor set his own
standard?  Let me give you an example of an experience we have just gone
through in Massachusetts.

         One of our key G.A. airports in the Greater Boston Area proposed to
set a noise level that was more  stringent than FAR-36, but  for several reasons
my Commission turned the proposal down.  The point I want to make is that we
would like to tie our statewide  source control policy to a  national noise
standard such as FAR-36, but it  becomes  increasingly hard to do this when the
FAA's present standards for light props  are so weak.  Now enough about props.

         The effort to quiet the business jet fleet is, in  my opinion, another
story and a much better one.  Here I believe we have been more successful.
The design standards first set by the FAA in 1969 were tightened in 1977 and
have a production cutoff date for older, noisy models that  was set in 1975.
There is hardly an  airport neighbor  in my State that cannot tell you about  the
Cessna Citation.  The quietness  of this  plane  is appreciated and very
recognized.  There  are  others  that have  similar impressive  noise records --
and here I think of the Falcon 10, the Westwind and the newer Lear jets.  We
have documented at  one  of our G.A. airports  that over 40% of the business jet
fleet is made up of these quieter, smaller, turbo jets like the Citation.   And
it wouldn't surprise me to learn that many of our other airports --  I do not
have the figures, but  it would not surprise me to learn that their business


                                       28

-------
jet fleets are becoming composed more  and more  of  these  quieter  planes.   The
point  is  that the FAA standards have  been tighter  here and  that  technology and
the marketplace have responded.

         The operating  procedures  is  the second of the three-part solution.
This involves designing site  specific  measures  that address an airport's
particular noise problems.  In Massachusetts,  the  kind of things that we have
used have included  prescribed flight  paths,  preferential runways, requirements
that touch-and-go  airplanes be  airborne in  the first half of the runway, time
of day and seasonal  restrictions  for  touch-and-go  operations, and designated
areas for runups.   We  have found  the  most effective results come after we have
a participatory  effort  that involves  airport neighbors and users as well as
responsible  Federal,  State and  local  officials. Operating particularly if
some non-residential  areas still  exist over which  aircraft can be diverted.
Also,  I think  operating procedures often offer the only tangible relief that
airport areas  can  feel  right  now.

         When  I  think about operating procedures  at our G.A. airports,  I
cannot help  but  single out the National Business Aircraft Association,  NBAA,
which has been a leader in developing procedures  and  spreading  the noise
abatement message among its members,   and I think  they deserve to be recognized
for this.

         One final point on procedures  that we have found,  and  that  is  to get
the most out of our procedures we believe we need more  help from the  FAA tower
controllers at those airports that have towers.   We know that they cannot
enforce  our local rules, but we think we can use  much more  help from  them  in
reminding and informing pilots of what  is  in effect at  that local  airport.

         Land use  is the  third of the noise abatement trio  that I  have
identified.   It is the most  critical  and challenging  task  of all.  It is
undoubtedly a local and State responsibility;  although  I think  there  is a
Federal  role, primarily in the financial area.  Here  are some observations  and
highlights, based  on our  experiences:

          In our State, and I suspect  this  is  true in  many  others,  land  use is
a  very closely  guarded local function.  A  large part  of this,  I suspect,  is
because  of property tax implications.  Our one effort in 1976 to enact  State
legislation that would have  required  local  governments  to  exercise land use
controls near airports was unsuccessful.   It  was  very controversial,  primarily
because  the local  powers  and the  localities  felt  they were being threatened.
The problem, of course,  is compounded by the  fact that you need land use
planning not only  on the  part  of  the municipality that  owns an  airport  or in
which the airports are  located  but also on the part of abutting communities.

          We have  in  Massachusetts the classic story of what not to do.   One of
our more important Boston-suburban G.A. airports, Beverly Airport, is located
about 35 miles  north  of Boston  and  is owned by the City of Beverly.   A very
small part  of  it  is  found in the Town of Danvers  and abuts a third community,
the Town of Wenham.   When the  airport was  sited back in the 1940's it was
totally  undeveloped  land  around  the  airport.   In  the very late 60's   a
developer purchased  a  large  farm in  the Town of Danvers and put in several
hundred  homes.   Some  of  these  are less than 400 feet off the end of  the
                                        29

-------
largest runway.  The situation is a no-win one for the people who have had
noise abatement restrictions imposed on them.

         What are we doing on the State level to try to prevent this from
happening?  Basically, four things:  providing technical assistance, promoting
airports as economic and transportation assets — what I call "jawboning and
moral suasion" — and involving recruits in the cause.  On the first one,
providing technical assistance, this is a large part of my job.  It means
working with local planning boards and seeing if there are things that can be
done by us on a site-specific basis.  Can we buy land?  Can we rezone a parcel
from residential to industrial or commercial-owned space; subdivision control,
permits, notice to prospective residents that there is an airport nearby?

         Because I have spent so much time going around and needed  to have a
laundry list, I have put together what we call the Guide to Compatible Land
Use Planning Near Airports  in Massachusetts.  This is kind of a soup-to-nuts
cookbook that lists all of the kinds of strategies and ideas that we could
come up with.  I would love to have people here take a look at it and give me
suggestions for improving it.

         The second point:  remind the communities of the economic  and
transportation value of their airports.  Somewhere between the early days of
aviation when a municipality was willing to give  its eye teeth for  an airport
and today's no-growth, environmental philosophy, many of our cities and  towns
in Massachusetts have forgotten  or they have  lost sight of the value of  their
airports.  I am convinced that my  job would be a  lot easier as far  as
persuading the planning boards that they ought to rezone a certain  parcel to
prevent residential development, I am convinced that  it would be  an easier
task if they saw some direct relation between their role of protecting the
airport and the airport's contribution economically to that city  or town.

         Most  of our  G.A. airports  in Massachusetts just about break even.
They do not directly  enrich the  local coffers, and  in most cases  there is a
good deal  of tax-exempt  land  that  is  tied  up.  So all of this makes it
difficult  to quantify the value  of our G.A.  airports.

         What  are  we  trying to do  about this?  We have  been  pointing  to
airports as generators of jobs,  both  on the  airport  and  as  a way  of attracting
industry to the  area.  We have been  doing  this through  papers,  through
articles,  through  talks.  We  have  also been  recommending that  when  airport
master plans  are  done, the  master  planners or consultants  be required  to talk
about  the  airport's economic  role,  both now  and  in  the  future.   I  brought with
me  an  article  that I  prepared  for  an  industry magazine,  talking  about
corporate  flying  in Massachusetts.  This  is  an example  of  how  we  are  trying  to
show some  relationship between  the need  for  land  use  planning  to  protect the
airports  and  the  economic contribution that  they  make.

          The  third, what I  call  jaw-boning and moral  suasion,  I  think  can best
be  illustrated by an  example.  About  three years  ago,  the  City of Worcester
 announced  plans to build an industrial park  near  their  airport and this  is
 something  that we applauded very much.   As a part of this  plan,  they  were
going  to run  a very sophisticated, limited-access highway up to the airport
 and this  would permit the industrial  park to get  built because the whole area
 is  land-locked.   As soon as the plan was announced,  an abutting land  owner


                                        30

-------
realized that his property became immensely more valuable and he proposed to
put in almost 500 homes on a 130 acre parcel that he owned.

         This was entirely a local matter.  The State of Massachusetts had no
legal authority there but we used what I call jaw-boning, moral suasion.  From
the State Secretary of Transportation on down, we pointed out all the reasons
why this was a very bad thing to do, on the inconsistency of promoting
industrial development on one side of your airport and permitting homes on the
other.  A local pilot's group applied pressure.  We carted it through the A-95
review process.  At the time, I was fairly new at my job and I was really
determined that this thing should not fall through the cracks.  I even called
in Bob Miller from Bolt, Beranek & Newman, who was doing noise consultant work
with us at that time, to help make a case as to why this should not happen.

         It just so happened that Congress has recently  renewed ADAP  in 1976
to permit up to 90% Federal funding to acquire land or interest therein to
promote noise compatibility.  We went ahead and prepared a grant application
for the City of Worcester and I rushed around  telling the City mothers  and  the
City fathers that I was sure we would be  able  to get Federal funding  for them
for this project.  Well, it turned  out we did  not — and I will explain that a
little later.  However, the City went ahead with their own money and, much  to
their credit, spent the $150,000 to buy 130 acres.  I am told  that  thanks to
my repeated assurances that I could get them Federal money,  this parcel has
ben unofficially named the Lucie Searle Memorial Park.

         On the fourth tack,  involving recruits, this is my  way of  saying that
at least in Massachusetts we  have to do a better job of  getting help  from
people who know more about land use than  we  do.  My staff at the Aeronautics
Commission is made up  of primarily  engineers  and pilots, which  is fine  from
the  aviation point of  view but  it does mean, when we come to land use
planning, we do not have all  the expertise  we  need, and  we need  to  get  some
help.  There are a couple of  things we  are  trying to do  on this  score.  One is
— and I suspect this  is true in many States  -- that we  have these  regional
planning agencies.  Our State  is divided  up into regional planning
authorities.   In the past, they  have been primarily highway  oriented.  We  are
trying very much to get them  to  do  aviation  planning because our  airports  are
regional facilities, they are not municipal  facilities  and when  you talk  about
land  use you need to approach  it  as  a regional problem.

         There  has been  a bill  before Congress —  it may be  in the  ADAP Bill,
I  am  not  sure  -- but there  is  a  bill that would  provide  money for these
regional planning agencies  to hire  aviation planners  so  that we  could correct
some  of  this highway  imbalance  that we  have had  in  the past.  The second
example  I can  give you makes  me  go  back to  my story about Beverly Airport,
which is  located in the midst of  three  communities.

         Recently, the regional  planning  agency for Beverly, which  is the
Greater  Boston  Regional Planning Agency,  took  on a  joint study at the request
of these  three communities  and  they wanted  a study  of the area where  the three
communities  come together, which  is  right around the  airport.  They have  come1
out  with  this  study just  in  time  for me to  bring it with me.  I  am  going  to
show it  to you  because it  is  the  first  time we have  had  a regional  planning
agency get  involved with one  of  our airports  on  the land use question.   They
have  come out  with a good plan  and  they have  come out with all their


                                        31

-------
recommendations.  On the other side, we don't necessarily agree with all of
the recommendations but the point is here that it was the first time they have
ever met with an airport commission, so we are trying to make some strides
there.  As I said earlier, land use controls are, undoubtedly, a local and
State responsibility, but I also alluded to a Federal role.

         To tell you what I have in mind here, I will have to go back to my
Worcester story.  I explained that we were trying to get 90% Federal funding
under ADAP for Worcester; however, what happened is when the FAA Regulations
came out it was pretty clear that Worcester would not qualify because the
noise levels there were not high enough for the FAA guidelines to apply.

         Now, Worcester is an air carrier airport.  They have only two
operations a day by Delta.  Almost all of their operations are general
aviation.  I use it as an example because it is very similar to our other 6.A.
airports where we didn't have a noise problem.  Now, we had a lot of land that
we could buy but by the Federal standards this airport was simply not
eligible.  This would be true of all our G.A airports under these existing
guidelines, so you have kind of a "Catch 22" situation.  Again, on a national
level, this is the third year that Congress has considered Federal noise
legislation and each bill has contained a provision for land use compatibility
planning, but the bills apply only to air carrier airports.

         We, in Massachusetts, every time we have given testimony on these
noise bills, have said why don't you include G.A. airports; at least include
the 11 commuter airports.  Now, it is not my intention to be critical of the
FAA or Congress on this score because I realize  it would be impossible  to fund
all of the land use requests that you would get.  Noise is noise and it  is
understandable that FAA guidelines would favor the noisier airports.  My point
is that this usually leaves out the G.A airports.

         It seems to me that there  is one way, possible, to get out of  this
bind; that is to make block grants to the States.  There is reason to be
optimistic here because the ADAP bills, the bills to renew the Airport
Development Aid Program that are before Congress -- there  are three of  them.
One is  a proposal of Senator Howard Cannon of Nevada:  one is the proposal of
the Administration,  and the third does not yet have  a  sponsor but has been
carefully  thought out by  the National Association of State Aviation
Officials.  These ADAP renewal proposals call for block grants to the States.
It  seems to me  if we could get this, this would  be  some funding we could use
on  the  land use planning  for our G.A. airports.

          In one other area where  I could see  how the Federal  Government could
make  life  easier for all  of us is by eliminating the alphabet soup we have  to
deal  with  when  we try to  designate  a measurement —  a  system  for measuring
noise and  another system  for measuring  impact on so  on and so forth  —  and
designate  one  system for  measuring  noise  and  describing its  impact.   I  wish we
could just get  on with  it because  it  is terribly confusing.

          I have concentrated on  the land use  part of the three  solutions
partly  because  I think  it is the most difficult  task and partly because it
makes up half  the title  of this  conference,  as  I think  it  should.
                                        32

-------
         So to recap what I have said:  yes, we do have a noise problem in our
G.A. airports in Massachusetts and primarily at the most important, active
ones where we have got a real problem now.  There are also lesser active ones
where we are at the preventive point.  I think the solutions are well known;
they have been around for some time.  It all boils down to source control,
which is legally an industry problem and a Federal responsibility.  We need to
make better use of the technology we have.  Standards for light props must be
tightened.

         The second, operating procedures.  These can provide meaningful noise
relief to our airports now and are site specific.  The only exception here are
the NBAA procedures which are based  on power management and those  are
appropriate at any airport.  Our major task on procedures is spreading the
word among pilots and getting them to follow the procedures.  The  aviation
press has helped here and I  would like to single out, particularly, Business
and Commercial Aviation, which has a noise  column covering a different  airport
every month.  Very useful!   We could, of course, use more help from our FAA
tower controllers.

         Land use control requires action from  local governments.  Thus far,
this has been the weakest  link in the chain.  We  in Massachusetts  have been
unsuccessful.  I would urge  other States  to very  seriously consider
legislation which would  give them clout  in  this area, which  is a  local
matter.   I see friends of mine here  from  Maryland  and  also from the  State  of
California.  They are the only two  States that  I  know of that  have been
successful in getting a  noise bill  through  their  legislatures.  I  hope  that we
will have a chance to hear from  them at  some  point  on  this score.

          And  the  third point --  and  I made  this earlier  -- was  that  our
ability  to purchase  land near our G.A.  airports would be  improved if  our
chances  of getting Federal money to  do  the  job  were better.   I  think  the  way
out  of  this  is to urge more  block grants  to the States  in  the  Area of ADAP.

          These  are what  we  see  as solutions from  the perspective  of the State
of  Massachusetts, and what  needs to be  done to  apply  these  solutions.  I  am
looking  forward  to  hearing from  the rest of the people on this program in  the
next two and  a  half  days because I  think  there  is a chance  to  get much  more
specific about  the  general points that  I  have made.   Thank you very much.

          MR.  JAMES K. THOMPSON:   Jim Thompson,  Consultant for  Operations
Research,  Inc.   You  stated  that  your main noise problems are in  the areas
where  there  are  a lot  of people  and that the  other airports  don't seem to have
the problem.   Is  it  possible that the airports  out in the boondocks have  no
problems because  they  only affect two or three  families,  and two  or three
families either do  not  know know or --

          MS.  SEARLE:   Sure,  I think it  is two things:   they are not as active,
most of them probably  have under 100,000 operations a year,  and:  secondly,
they don't have the residential  development around them.

          MR.  THOMPSON:   So knowing  whether  there  is or is not  a problem in the
rural  areas  is  really  technical; is it  not?  You  have to know what the noise
exposure is  and  where  people are; that  is,  each one is a specific, technical
problem.


                                        33

-------
         MS. SEARLE:  I think it is, but I think a lot of times we make it
more technical than we really have to.  A lot of it is common sense.

         MR. THOMPSON:  You couldn't get at it from numbers of people?

         MS. SEARLE:  No, I don't think you could.  At one of the airports I
spend the most time dealing with, the noise level is not any greater than the
ambient noise level.  The ambient noise level in the Town of Norwood is
between 50 and 55 Ldn, and off the airport boundaries the noise level
generated by the airport is not any greater than that but we have a terrible
community problem.  Part of it is single-event noise where you have an
occasional business jet or occasional noisy prop.

         MR. JOHN M. TYLER:  I have several comments and I don't think I will
take up them all.  Mostly, I agree with what you have said.

         MS. SEARLE:  Thank you.

         MR. TYLER:  What I would like to mention is more or less reinforcing
your comments.  You mentioned that people oppose ILS's on general aviation
airports.  It has been my experience  that when an ILS is proposed for an
airport there is an environmental impact statement made which invariably says
that after the TLS has been installed the noise will be reduced below what  it
was before the ILS was installed.  This is a standard routine.

         MS. SEARLE:  Because of less missed approaches and that sort of thing.

         MR. TYLER:  Yes, and the people who buy the ILS know perfectly well
the reason for putting the ILS in is  because they would like to increase the
traffic and they know that aircraft are more likely to be based there if there
is an ILS system which allows them  to operate under all weather conditions.
So this is merely one step in the process of increasing the operations at the
aiport.  Therefore, people oppose the environmental impact statement on the
basis that they know they are being deluded by this information with regard to
the real purpose of the  ILS.  We all  agree that  improved safety is  highly
desirable but we would like to have people, our  airports in particular,
explain honestly what the plans  are.  You can read  in the terminal  area
forecast that this particular airport is expected to double its operation in a
certain number of years  and they are  saying  it's  going to be reduced.

         ATTENDEE:  I don't agree with the gentleman's statement.

         MS.  SEARLE:  I will  say that we  have gone  back  and forth with this
and our Regional FAA Office can  cite  a number of  airports where they put ILS
on and the  traffic  is not  changed,  the number of operations.  That  may be a
function of the  location of the  airport.

         MR.  TYLER:  This  could  well  be.

         MS.  SEARLE:   I  think you express the airport  neighbors' point of view
very well and I  think  I  pointed  out another  side of it,  so  it  is good  for
everyone to hear both  sides.
                                        34

-------
         MR. TYLER:  I happen to know of several cases where it was the
reverse case, where they knew perfectly well the ILS was there to attract
traffic to the airport and they knew this was going to increase the traffic.

         With regard to standards, you mentioned that you were confused by
them.  I assume you are talking about a proliferation of standards.  I would
like to point out that the FAA and the EPA have, over the past ten years in
particular, followed a pretty consistent pattern of using NEF and Ldn.  The
California standard fits in without any great problem but people continually
say we are confused by a proliferation of standards.  I think this is
primarily to distract people's attention from the fact that we do have good,
usable standards for single events, for cumulative noise impact, and we are in
a good position to go ahead and do our planning if we are willing to use the
tools available.

         MS. SEARLE:  I think that is  a good point.  My point is that
sometimes we have master plans done and the consultant  always wants to know
which he should use and the FAA says one thing  and the  EPA  says one thing  and
the community doesn't understand  any of them at all.   It just seems like it
would be a  little more efficient  if we were  all talking the same language  on
that.   I agree that we do  have a  number of good tools.

         MR. TYLER:   I happened to  live with these  standards many years.   I
had something to do with putting  both  of them  together.  Any  impact based  on
the measurement of noise,  EPNdb,  which is a  little more  accurate as far  as
noise is concerned than dBA  --  takes  into account  tones, this  sort of  thing,
and  it  is  desirable from a manufacturer's standpoint  to get credit for just a
fragment noise.  The  FAA uses  this for certification.   On the  other hand,  EPA
uses dBA for measuring  impact  in  their Ldn  portion,  and the reason  they  do
this is that other noises  in the  community  are  measured in  dBA.  All  the rest
of  the  world uses  dBA except FAA, and  if you  are  going  to  relate airport noise
and community noise you have to use  dBA.  Now,  the differences  between dBA and
EPNdb  are  really compared  to the  decisions  you  have to make and compared to
where you  draw  the line, but for  land  use planning I  know  of  no one who  would
object  to  using Ldn.

         MS. SEARLE:   I don't  want to  take  too much time,  but the  problem  is
that most  times the  Ldn, won't make a  case  around most of  our G.A.  airports.
 It  is  hard to make a landing case using those so I argue for  common sense  and
judgment  on a  lot  of this  stuff -- and our  experience.

          MR. TYLER:   I  think that is because you  are looking  at the future
 rather  than --

          MS. SEARLE:   But  I  am basing  it on the past.

          DR. BRAGDON:  Thank you  for your excellent presentation,  Lucie.
                                        35

-------
                               AFTERNOON SESSION


October 3, 1979                                          1:30 o'clock, p.m.


         DR. CLIFFORD BRAGDON:  If we can get seated, please, we will start
this afternoon's session.

         T am pleased to introduce the next speaker, the first one of the
afternoon — Bob Doyle.  Bob Doyle is a partner in Peat, Marwick & Mitchell,
located in the San Francisco Bay area.  He  is an alumnus of Georgia Tech --
which I am pleased about -- in the area of Urban Planning.  His presentation
this afternoon is going to be on general aviation activity and land use
planning.

         MR. ROBERT DOYLE:  Thank you, Cliff.  As a  long-time student  in my
twenties and then as  a university-level  instructor for  several years,  I
discovered  very quickly that  the worst hour you could have for anything  is
right after  lunch;  it is a time when  students prop their chairs back  and go to
sleep and the  professor wishes he could.   I am going to try  to make  this as
interesting, hopefully, as possible  -- and  every now and then maybe  shout  and
wake up a few  folks and keep  your interest  with us.

          I  am  going to give you a little secret.   I  am  going to expose a
couple of myths that  we have  found -- we,  being Peat, Marwick & Mitchell -- in
some 30 to  40  years of airport planning  that will  put me with one  foot in  each
canoe; that  is, of  those who  do not  like airports  and  those  who do like
airports  or the aviation  interests.   They  are myths  that we  find constantly
being  repeated:   I  even  heard a few  of  them this morning.   Hopefully, that
will make it a little more  lively when we  get  into discussion.

          I  do  not need to  talk  about a  lot of  things that  I  had in my notes
 that were already discussed  this  morning,  but  I  would  like to highlight a  few
 of those.

          General  aviation activity,   let us take that term; it is growing in
 numbers  of  intensity and sophistication -- John Wesler gave us  a good
 run-through of that -- the sophistication coming in higher-powered aircraft,
 requiring more sophisticated navigation and so forth.   Deregulation has
 pointed up the need for reliever airports  in the metropolitan areas.  That
 need was there before; deregulation  has pinpointed  it.  The San Diego air
 crash, I think, has  stirred people to action,  whereas the problem has been
 there for a long time -- not only in San Diego, but also elsewhere.

          We find in doing a lot of noise study related to airports and
 environment plans concerning the airport and its impact on the community that
 we are haying to spend a lot of time with how you deal with single-event
 problems in contrast to overall  noise exposure.  Now,  the single events are
 reflected in the overall noise exposure patterns but we are finding,
 particularly at some of the smaller  airports, that  we  having to deal, most of
 our time, with what  can be done on-airport and off-airport with respect to
                                         37

-------
single-event activities.  All of this boils- down to the fact that this is a
very timely conference.  General aviation activity is coming under closer
scrutiny and I think that it is high time.

         We are going to talk today, as much as we can, about the land use
considerations that relate to airports, but I think we need to set the stage
for that.  You heard this morning about the growing aircraft fleet.  You heard
about the growing aircraft flying hours.  You heard about how many airports we
have in the country, something  like 14,000 and maybe half of them are public.
That is kind of an interesting  number, that half of them are public.  We will
come back to that in a minute.  I think what you have not heard yet is that
general aviation activity takes place at many places other than general
aviation airports.  In fact, much general aviation activity is associated with
air carrier airports; thus, the noise of general aviation activity at those
airports is folded into the noise studies and sometimes obscured.

         More and more we are finding that airport clients, the community
itself, are asking us the acoustical experts to pull out what is the
contribution of general aviation activity to the overall noise pattern.  As I
think was mentioned this morning, very often if you look at a general aviation
airport's noise patterns, whether you are using Ldn or NEF or whatever, you
have a hard time getting the so-called critical areas off of the airport
property.  That does not mean there is not a problem, as we have also heard
this morning and as we are all  well aware.  It means that overall noise
exposure techniques do not necessarily properly and clearly reflect the
magnitude or details of that problem to those who wish to know about it.

         We find, for example,  that there are some airports which are general
aviation only, a lot of them; but in other cases there is a high general
aviation activity and a low air carrier activity at airports that are somewhat
surprising.  At Oakland, for example, 90% of its activities are general
aviation, and the reverse is true of the major, so-called large hub carriers.
As they get larger and larger in activity the general aviation activity tends
to decrease.  At Atlanta, for example, G.A. is about 10%, and we find that
most of the large hub airports  that have settled down after a while and carry
a lot of activity, that G.A. represents about ten percent,  in that range.  And
that is of a more sophisticated, jet, commercial-like aircraft.

         Another thing we have  not talked about is location of the
facilities.  We found general aviation airports, if you will, but certainly
aviation activities taking place in urban settings.  At the San Jose Airport
in California, 87% of the activity is general aviation and  it is located about
eight blocks from the downtown  and the tallest structures in town.  It  is an
urban airport.  It is not a suburban airport, even though San Jose is called
often a suburban airport for Los Angeles North and what have you.

         The suburban airport — we have a number of those that have been
alluded to this morning.  I will not go into that.  There are such things also
as rural airports and I think it was referred to again this morning that the
intrusion of aircraft noise in  a rural setting is more of a problem than it
would be, say, in a comparable  urban setting.  A few months ago, I saw  on
television a noise readout display in downtown Tokyo that consistently  ran
over 80 dB on the A scale.  That's downtown Tokyo.  So, if you put an airport
into a highly noise-oriented setting you are going to have one reaction,


                                       38

-------
compared to putting it in a rural setting.  Finally, there are remote airports
and they cause interesting land use problems and interesting land use
considerations — remote in the sense that they may be strips — and you get
into some very, very touchy environmental clashes often on those kinds of
airports.

         Some of the key trends that I think we need to talk about — we have
heard some of them.  By 1990, ten years from now, we are going to have
two-thirds more aircraft.  We are going to have three-quarters more aircraft
hours flown.  This is in general aviation.  However, according to the AOPA,
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, we have had a net loss of 39
public-use airports per year for each of the last 10 years.  Now we are not
gaining airports, yet we are gaining activity.  And, John, I will want to
quarrel with you a little bit later on about how many new airports we can
really get, realistically.  That is a useful and desirable goal but a very
difficult one to accomplish.

         It is clear that there  is a vital need for more G.A. airport
facilities in metropolitan areas but there is a persistent inability to get
new sites approved due to several factors; environmental concerns, high land
costs, and often -- interestingly enough  -- institutional or management
problems.  I attended an FAA forecast  session in Seattle which went on for a
full day.  Two-thirds of that meeting  addressed how in the world they could
get a new G.A. airport on the east side  of Seattle.  At the end of the day, it
was very frustrating to everyone who was  there because no one wanted that bill.

         I am sure you have  heard that old joke about the football team that
was getting clobbered by about  eighty  to  nothing, and the only player they had
who could do anything was a  fellow named  Leroy.  Leroy would  get the ball  and
he would make  a  couple of yards  and he would1 get smashed.  That was going on
all day  long,  and  finally the team was giving Leroy a rest.   He was  in the
backfield,  and the home crowd behind  in  the grandstand said,  "We want Leroy,
we want  Leroy.   "Finally, the quarterback stopped  the  game  and  hollered  back
to the crowd,  "Leroy  don't want the ball  no more."  That  is  exactly what we
found  in Seattle;  no  one wanted that  hot potato.   The  Port  of Seattle did  not
want  it; the State did not want it, the  County  did  not want  it, the  City did
not want  it; the Legislature did not  want it, had  no  heart  for  special
district  legislation  on  it  — et cetera, et cetera  -- the  complications  of  new
airports  that  are in  the metropolitan areas.

         On the  environmental  factors that we have  talked  about,  a little  bit
on  noise.   John  mentioned  that  Circular  36-3, and  I picked  just  a  few numbers
out  of there.   General  aviation aircraft -- and  not counting  some  of the big
fellows  that John was  talking  about  — from that  table,  as  I  got  it, on
takeoff  range  from a  low of  51  decibels  -- remember,  that  is  estimated  on  an
A-scale in that  circular  --  51  decibels  on takeoff up  to 99.1 decibels  for a
Lockheed Jetstar.   So over  a long range, in terms  of  takeoff, this compared to
air  carrier loads of  99.7  for a DC-10 and up  to —not  counting the Concorde --
up  to 105.7 for  a few versions  of aircraft.   So say 99.7 to 106 is your  range
then.   In  general  aviation  aircraft you  are dealing with some equipment  that
 is  pretty high on approach.   According to that  table,  it ranged on the  G.A.
side from  58 for a Cessna-150 up to  110  for the same  Jetstar.  Air carriers
went from a low of 85 up to  a high of 108 almost  — this was  for  a 707.   So,
                                        39

-------
you cannot really say that general aviation aircraft does not make noise; it
makes noise.  It is perceived and displayed differently perhaps than air
carrier noise.

         I would like to talk a little bit about the safety factor.  Now, we
are talking about aircraft noise but I have found that you cannot get the
safety process separated from the noise process.  There are apparently some
very good reasons for those, in listening around the country.  There are
psychological considerations by many people that relate to the aircraft
flyovers or the aircraft operations.  To quote a recent acoustical
consultants' report, the extent to which an individual fears physical harm
from the source of the noise will affect that person's attitude toward that
noise.  Now you might say, how do we deal with that; what are the results of
that?  Let me tell you the Hawaii story.  Hawaii has been trying to get a
general aviation reliever airport for the last 17 years for the State of
Oahu.  They have had the money; money was never a problem.  The FAA has
supported it all the way and was willing to give whatever money necessary.
They went through several site selections, in many cases before NEPA, and met
the environmental impact report requirements.  They were turned down because
of safety fears on part of both native Hawaiian Islanders as well as people
who came over from the mainland.  And these were airport sites which were
essentially in the middle of a pineapple or sugarcane field with few houses
around them.  Nevertheless, the opposition was strong enough to stop the
building of those airports which in themselves were a safety solution.  The
San Diego thing started it up again, as it has in many places, and now,
interestingly enough, the best thing the State has going for it is the pilots
have given Honolulu International a black star and that is pushing some action
toward the reliever airport again.

         Again, a lot of it has been psychological but some of it has been the
usual things.  Some of the aircraft owners did not want to drive 20 miles out
to the middle of Oahu; it was closer to Honolulu International.  The
environmental interests wanted no airports because that meant more growth, at
least from their perspectve.

         There are certain other environmental concerns I would like to at
least touch on:  the touch-and-go training operations that have been
mentioned.  The repetitive nature of this G.A. activity may cause problems or
distress, particularly when it happens down in Monterey, California, which is
a resort community and it occurs on Saturday and Sunday morning — and
everybody raises cain about it.  It is not so much the noise, it is the
repetitive nature of the operations.  I think they have restrictions where
those are not even permitted now, and apparently they are being upheld, on
weekends.

         The growth-indue ing aspects of an airport, new or expanded, often get
everyone worked up quite substantially.  Now it depends again on your
perspective.  The growth-inducing aspects may generate opposition instead of
support for the venture, and I find as a very interesting thing that there are
what I call an inclined plane of environmental concerns around the country.
What is an environmental problem say in California or Florida or Oregon is not
necessarily an environmental problem in Missouri or Kansas or other midwestern
or southwestern States which apparently have and feel that they have more land
and are not as concerned about the environmental implications.  This is
important in trying to structure the kind of study or plan that you are trying
to develop.
                                       40

-------
         In working on the Kansas City project, we were puzzled about the
very, very prodevelopment attitude of the planning department, city
management, city officials and all until we found out — and I think Cliff
Bragdon mentioned this somewhat this morning — that 60$ of the funds of
Kansas City come from an earnings tax, not from the property tax.  It is
therefore to everyone's interest, including the property owners, to promote
development to all the cornfields surrounding the Kansas City International
Airport.  There is an industrial park located here.  The signs have been there
10 years, ever since the airport was built.  So now, somebody comes along and
says I would like to put an industrial park or my plant here and the guy says
fine.  He has not been paying much in the way of taxes through the years; the
zoning has been favorable from his standpoint, and as a consequence it is a
very prodevelopment oriented situation in contrast to many of the other
situations that we find where it is just the reverse.  Any improvement has got
to necessarily be bad; this we learned in several places.

         I would like to point out that there are changing community
priorities concerning financing.  First of all, most general aviation airports
have a very difficult, if not impossible, way of paying their own way; they
certainly don't do it.  They have to be, for the most part, subsidized.  Those
subsidies have to come from some source because they will not come from the
landing fees or the lease arrangements, so you come back to the city councils
or the county board as such.

         Community priorities have changed.  Ten years ago an airport was a
community status symbol; it is not necessarily that anymore.  There are other
things that communities are interested in so it is not as high on that
priority list for either support or for financing.  To many people in
communities, as I have heard expressed and Tarn sure most of you have heard
it, the airport and its related aircraft activity is often viewed as being of
value to only a small group and of little or no value to the majority;
therefore,  if you have to have bond issues and financial decisions it is hard
to get support for that because of that attitude, right or wrong.  And a minor
problem, there is a growing case  list of general aviation controversies
centering around  pesticide operations relative to air quality and water
quality.

         Finally, there  is the  location of airport facilities in environmental
areas which might be extremely sensitive.  Here, I am thinking of Lake Tahoe
where most  of the air travel  in the area is  general aviation type, Lockheed
Jetstars and so forth.  There is  a major battle going on over Lake Tahoe
because it  is supposedly a pristine environment and it is one that a lot of
people have an interest  in protecting.  Also,  I recently read where the
Department  of Interior will not  let the Jackson Hole Airport be expanded any
further —  which  is in the National Forest Area in that area — again for many
of the same reasons.

         Let us go to some of the land use considerations that we find.
First,  land use decisions or  land use considerations may have a regional as
well  as a  local policy context  concerning how  or what matters are  important
and what planning procedures  are.  I was the director of a regional planning
agency that had to do with the Cape Kennedy  expansion  in the  '60's, so  I am
not sure that I would agree with the  lady from Massachusetts that the regional


                                        41

-------
planning agencies are the way to go.  I would almost go the other way.  I
would say that unless those regional planning agencies have some real teeth in
them to do something, then they are not the way to go.  I have done them
myself and did not get much action.  I can guarantee you that most of the
interests will look at the studies, participate by going to the meetings and
ignore them, go their way — whether we are talking about community interests,
institutional interests or airport interests.  That is a harsh thing to say
maybe, particularly by one who is an urban planner and has been a regional
planner, but I have no faith in them unless you have an organization that does
have some real teeth in it.  And I believe you will be hearing from the
Minneapolis people where there has been legislation passed through the State
Legislature for regional control.

         But if you are going that way and if you do not couple the control
with the planning, it is not going to make a whole lot of difference.  It
might produce some information and so will not be totally wasted, but I don't
think it will be as big and beneficial as we all might hope.

         Now, for the delineation of airport impact, how general aviation
impacts from a noise standpoint, especially at air carrier airports, we use
the overall exposure pattern, the NEF or Ldn version, and that works pretty
well at outer limits.  Well, suppose you do not have the jurisdictions and so
forth but you have to work it by figuring out what is the impact area, what
neighbors might be included and what might not?  Secondly, along delineating
the airport  impact area, Cliff mentioned the preventive or remedial
processes.  On some airports, new ones or relatively new ones, preventive
measures or actions can be taken on the land use side as an effective means of
dealing with the noise impact.  Then on existing airports that means you  look
to remedial means for correction, operational or even runway  reconfiguration
schemes to handle that type of thing or prohibitions against  certain
activities at certain times.  So you have different measures  that must be
applied to the corrective remedial situation versus the preventive situation.
Now,  I would say that an awful lot of airports have both to deal with.  They
have a corrective situation that they need to get straightened out and they
have a preventive situation to deal with, but you have to look at those from
those standpoints.

         I think it  is pretty obvious  in terms of a land use  pattern  — but  it
is obvious and acceptable to everybody — that if you had an  agricultural
pattern around an airport  it would work pretty well from the  standpoint of
noise exposure,  and you try to get that.  But agriculture is  often dependent,
particularly commercial agriculture, upon changing market and union
conditions.  Again,  Hawaii — pineapple and  sugarcane are going out.   It  is
too costly to have local workers on those plantations and they are moving  that
to the Far East.  That means agriculture, just by and of itself, may  not  be
enough to protect those airports.   Even agricultural  reservations  like we  have
in California and several other  states  are  not necessarily good enough, but  it
is a  good start.

         Recreational use of certain types  — obviously, we have  all  seen  golf
courses and  they seem to be acceptable.  Although, Dudley Hines was  telling me
about a lady in  Miami who was objecting to  a noise  situation  on  her  golf
                                        42

-------
course near the Miami International Airport because it would bother the
golfers when they were on the tee, trying to drive down the fairway, and she
made a big case of this.

         Low density industrial use -- you do not get that use out that far,
particularly in areas where you might have either a noise or safety problem.

         Finally, low density residential -- now, I know that will be a little
controversial.  Let me tell you the story of the Fairfax County-Dulles
Airport.  That area has some aviation activity and in fact is growing and  is
looking to fill northern Virginia's general aviation needs.  Dulles Airport
went out there 15 years ago.  Loudoun County and Fairfax County,  Virginia,
between their various plans and zoning ordinances, have reserved  about 20,000
acres of industrial  land around Dulles International.  We would applaud that
as the way to go, that  is what the  local planners ought to be doing.
Unfortunately, there have been about 300 acres developed in the 15 years  since
the airport has been out there.   And the same story applies to the Kansas  City
International Airport, which is 15 miles out and has had the same reaction.
The problem is that  there is no market for the kinds of industrial  activities
or commercial activities that need  a  lot of space, a good  amount  of  land  space.

         Washington, D.C. is a paper  place; printers do very well there.   Even
government employment  centers  have  a  lot of people but they do  not use much
space.  So, okay  --  where are the planners  on this?  Well, they  are  being sued
or they are being threatened with suit.  The  land  is  rocky and  no good  for
agricultural  purposes,  no market  for  industrial  purposes,  so the  only market
is --  guess what? —  residential.   So  they are  fighting  the battle now;  doing
some  very  effective  things  in  trying  to  get  as  low a  residential  density  as
they  can  in there through the  subdivision  approval process and  through  the
real  estate transfer process.   I  think  they are  doing  probably  as well  as
anyone could  with that kind of  a  problem.

          I  am just pointing out  that  it  is not  a fantasy,  saying to put
industrial  zoning around  the airports,  and when  you  do put the  industrial
zoning around the airport  areas  you might  get nailed.

          We have said that  the planning process  needs to provide adequate
citizen and airport  user involvement.  I could  not agree more.    In Seattle,
3,000 people  participated directly in a very effective program that turned
everything around from a very negative situation, both on the part of the
 airport and the community,  to a very positive one.   Let me say here that some
of the needs  relating to the planning process are attitudinal  needs and do not
 apply to anybody and everybody but do apply to many in many,  many places
 across the country.   There  needs to be a more concerned attitude by airport
management and interest about the problem.  Some managements feel like:  let's
 not get off the reservation because there are Indians out there  and they will
 shoot us.  That  is  true.   They will.  Airport management has to  take the
 lead.  I think the bullet has been bitten by some and they have  gone out and
 they have met the Indians and they have a powwow and it works out real well,
many times.

          Secondly,  there needs to be a more tolerant and comprehensive view by
 affected citizens and property owners.  Now that is easy to say  but it can be
 done.  In Seattle,  all of the citizens, quote and unquote — understand, all


                                         43

-------
wanted the Port of Seattle to buy the entire airport out, all the area, at a
cost of $60 million.  After they got into the process they said that was the
worst thing that could happen.  They did not want their school base
decimated.  The citizens themselves reversed their field and  looked at it then
more comprehensively.  They looked at it strictly from a community standpoint
rather than an individual viewpoint.

         I think there needs to be a more realistic viewpoint taken by State
and Federal aviation officials.  This is the only point where I take issue
with John.  The FAA, by its charter, has to encourage growth  of new airports
and new airport facilities for the additional aircraft and flying hours to
come, but I guarantee you that you can count off the number of new airport
facilities that have been built in this country on these two  hands from the
ground up and you are not going to see, in my opinion, many new airports of
any kind, general aviation or air carrier.  I wish that was not true but we do
not yet seem to have the mechanism to do that effectively and I think  it is
foolish to take the view that we are going to have more airports when  all the
additional aircraft come.  Those additional aircraft, those additional hours
are going to come right back to the existing facilities and are going  to add
to the problems already in the file.

         The local planners are either very biased environmentally against the
airport or are very biased developmentally for the airport, but the local
public planners sometimes get too biased.

         And, finally, to cover all the bases, there needs to be a more
straightforward presentation of information by airport and acoustical
consultants.  I sat through a meeting the other night where a good acoustical
consultant and one of the best airport consultants absolutely confused
everybody in the room.  I am aware that both'airport and acoustical
consultants were hooted off the stage relative to the Washington National
Airport because they were talking too technically.  No one could understand
them, all that gibberish ~ you know, but I do not.

         Finally,  let me talk about a couple of things that we can do.
Special zoning designations -- Kansas City,  I think,  is  a good case  in point.
When they established the new airport they formed the Kansas  City
International Airport District.  This  is  like a planning and  development
district.  I will  not go into all the details.  There are a  lot of details to
it but  it works pretty well.  I will simply say they have a big plan for the
airport and the area around it and the zoning tied to that plan.  Another one
coming  along is in Fresno, California, where we have been involved in  the
development of a combined noise and safety or obstruction zoning ordinance
overlay for the present air terminal.  That  is an overlay process where both
the noise and safety areas or zones are  imposed on the new subdivisions and
the property owners that live within that area.   I think we could use  these  in
a lot of the aspects of  localized conditions to help protect  airports  —
soils, floodplains, so forth.

          I mentioned the planning development process.   I think that  is a
worthy  one to be  looked at  in a lot of places and finally,  let me conclude,  I
think we  are making gains  in this.  It  is a  slow  process.   I  think this
conference is really the first one  to focus on general aviation activity  and
land use planning  and  it is high  time we  are getting  information.   It  is
coming  along and  I  think all of us  can help with  the  problem.  I do  not think

                                       44

-------
anyone ought to have a rosy future in mind though, in view of Proposition 13,
the problems in terms of financing at the local level, and the inability of
Congress to agree on any kind of aircraft noise bill for the third time.
Frankly, I do not know where the financing is going to come from for the
planning we need to do.  Even in the ADAP bills the planning gets submerged
down in the projects.  And I know airport and city managers well enough to
know that most of them want to pour concrete; they do not want to do planning
studies.

         Finally, my two myths.  As I said, this will put one foot in each
canoe.  There is a myth that the presence of an airport facility does not
guarantee but tends to attract industrial development activities.  This may  be
true in a few instances.  It most often  is not true.  The airport is a service
facility.  If the combination is there,  it provides a service and a function
for that community which may induce a new industrial plant to locate, but  I
think it has about as much stock as the  fact that years ago, when I was a
public planner, I used to get a list of  industrial development  locations.
There were 10,000 of them on that list,  including Hong Kong who said, "Come  to
Hong Kong.  We have cheap labor.  Bring  your plant here."  True,  it is a very
important thing when you are talking about attracting industrial  development
but you have got to have a whole lot of  things going for you; it  is not a  top
factor.

         Second, presence of or noise from an  airport reduces or  decreases
residential property values.  Tell that  to the people on the  San  Francisco
peninsula or  in the San Jose airport  area where  the  housing  values  are  going
up $1,000 a week and I  don't think they  will tell you their  properties  have
been depressed.  That  is not to say  it does  not  have  an  effect,  but the  bigger
effect  is the  local economic condition.

          In Seattle, at the  time we  were doing the  study six  years  ago,  Boeing
was on  strike  and there was  a  656 unemployment  rate.   Today, you couldn't touch
the property  at the  same ratio you could during  those conditions.

          MR.  JOSEPH  R.  LEWIS:   I think your  talk was  very,  very,  enlightening
and I  agree with an  awful  lot  of  it  and  one  thing I  agree  with  completely  is
that  I  cannot separate safety  from  noise --  they both go together.  Also,  the
way you said,  the  reports  and  talks  will have  to be in  less  technical
 language.   I  go  to  a lot  of meetings and it  really bothers me because somebody
 in the community will  get  up and  say something that requires an answer  by say
 the  FAA or  Port  Authority  and  the  representative will  get up and start
 spouting off  speeds and what is  being said  and he gets  snowed under.   That is
why the airport  operators  and  the  FAA and the  others can get away with  the
 things that  have  been  going on.   So  any move that we can make to have
 technical  reports  and  explanations  to people in  a less  technical  language
 would  be a  big step in the  right  direction.

          Also, about the  fact  that  we need more  cooperation between the
 commmunities  and Federal  agencies,  State agencies,  airport operators, speaking
 for  the New York Area --  and it  is  probably  true in many other areas  -- the
 credibility gap  that exists between  the communities and the airport operator
 and  the FAA is so  great that —  I  don't know.   I wish I knew the answer to
 this.   I have tried to do  something  about it but it is  like swimming upstream,
 because the people have been literally  lied  to for so many years that when you


                                         45

-------
tell them the truth, they don't believe it.  In fact, many times when I will
get up and say something at a meeting that is favorable to the airport
operator or the FAA, somebody will yell out from the audience, "What did you
do, go over to their side?"  I mean, this is the attitude and this is
something that should be taken into consideration also be everybody.

         MR. BERNARD MARTIN:  My name is Bernard Martin, Director of Airport
Planning, Robert & Company Associates.  We are presently conducting an airport
site selection for two counties in Metropolitan Atlanta, and we spent several
weeks, even months, putting together what we thought was a pretty good public
involvement program during the course of the study.  We found out it is not as
good as we thought it was; it does have several holes.  The question I would
like to put to you:  recognizing that each area requires a unique, particular
solution, based on your experience will you enumerate the steps for a good
citizenship involvement program?

         MR. DOYLE:  Okay.  I think I can do that pretty quick — at least I
will try.  First of all, you have to have some local public staff commitment
to handle the myriad administrative details of trying to get maximum
participation.  Now, you know when I say maximum participation relative to a
particular project, that doesn't mean to go around and knock on everybody's
door and beg them to come to meetings.  Number one,  it requires that you go to
the maximum lengths to provide input to the process  to let the citizens know
about it; to invite them in, so to speak, in the planning process as well as
the reaction or review process.

         Now, when you invite them into the planning process, you know, there
are a lot of my good airport manager friends who say that is like inviting a
lion right into your tent.  But believe me, if you want something that works
at the end, you almost have to do that, even in the most controversial
situations.  So you need a lot of staff time.  Consultants cannot do that.
Consultants cannot do the day-to-day activities that are associated with the
administration of a good citizen's involvement program.

         Now, it gets more complicated with the more jurisdictions you have.
The fewer jurisdictions you have, the easier it is.  I would say use every
technique possible.  Number one, get maximum word out about it:  sell  it.
Send out notices to 40,000 homes through the county  water-billing process —
40,000 homes, 150,000 people in one project.  There  was no excuse for  anybody
not knowing about it.  There was also the usual coverage of the press.  There
were special television programs put together.  There were short courses
literally developed during the course of the project at the community
colleges.  There were all kinds of workshops.  There were small group
sessions.  The problem with being in the audience in the lecture process is
that it is a difficult situation for most citizens.  Most citizens are
uncomfortable; they do not want to get up and say something because if they do
about the only ones they hear from are just a few who are willing to do that,
so you have to figure out what is the problem.

         You cannot take anything said as being too  frivolous or too stupid or
dumb to address.  That is often done.  The question  comes up and  it is not
properly answered and it should be answered in some  effective way, either
there or in writing.  The problem is the cost of the administration of it.
But again, maximum involvement means to get the ideas of the citizens  in my


                                        46

-------
view, as well as aviation interests -- and that means in technical committees,
in policy review comittees, in workshop sessions.

         As we have mentioned, put out newsletters which give your progress
reports.   Put out fact sheets.  Explain how you work out alternatives; how do
you wade through 150 alternatives for say a particular thing, how do you
reduce that?  It takes time -- I know -- but it cannot be done any other way.
I know of no way you can do it in six months or seven months for a complicated
project.  In my judgment it takes two years to go through the process and come
out with something that will work at the end.  But having been through it a
few times, it is worth the time and effort and if you do not do it there is no
end.  Thank you.

         DR. BRAGDON:  I am real pleased to have the next speaker here today,
Bill Galloway.  Bill is Principal Consultant with Bolt, Beranek & Newman in
California.  I have worked with Bill  in the ANSI working group in terms of
developing land use planning criteria with noise standards  and noise
guidelines and I feel he is one of the top authorities  in the United  States.
Bill Galloway.

         MR. WILLIAM J. GALLOWAY:  Having had  the benefit of not  hearing at
all what was said this morning -- I just arrived at  1:30 -- I may say some
things which you may have  heard but maybe I will not.   I was asked to say
something about how noisy  general aviation is.   That was sort of  a general
instruction.  I thought that what might be useful would be  to provide some
simple charts.  You do not have them  because  I just  brought the originals,
which I will turn over to  you  so you  can reproduce  them and people can  take
them  before they  leave.  These make comparisons  of  small aircraft,
propeller-driven  small aircraft that  are typically  mixed  in the fleet today,
provide some design charts that say:   gee, I 'don't  have to  go through an
elaborate  analysis of my airport  to at  least  find out  whether or  not  I  should
look more  carefully  at this.

         So  I am  going to  show you  a  series  of charts  that  give you  some
 information  on  noise that  is  generated  by nothing but  small propeller
aircraft,  to  see  how far out  in  this  community does some particular  day-night
average  sound levels take  place  as  a  function of the number of operations  I
have.   There will be some  similar  charts for  business  jets. Two  sets; one  with
 a composite,  if you will,  fleet  that  existed  at  the end of  1978  and  then  —  to
show you  there  is  a  lot  more  hope  than  that  might  indicate  --  some  other
 charts  which  are  sort  of  a composite  of  the  more recent turbofan  engine
 aircraft  that have  come  into  existence since the early 1970's  and,  of course,
the predominant-selling  aircraft  in the  jet  market  today  and are  the ones  that
 will  constitute the  bulk  of  the  fleet for  some time to come.   I  understand
 Stan Green is going  to  give  you  some  predictions of this  later  on in the  week,
 as to what the  fleet may be  doing in  this  area.

          Then,  sort  of  a last little  quick-and-dirty chart.  Bob  Doyle
mentioned  that  there are a number  of  airports in which a predominance of
 general  aviation  takes  place  but  smaller  numbers of carrier operations  are
 either  being introduced  or have  been  introduced, and after  deregulation — who
 knows what is happening  these days?   So,  I  am going to give you  a chart on not
 how much  noise  all  the  different  aircraft  in the transport  fleet  make,  but
 what is the equivalent  numbers of small  aircraft that each  one  of those big
 airplanes  constitute at  some close-in distance.   I  am just  going to run
 through these charts.
                                        47

-------
         Now, to start it off — not with the design charts but just to give
you a table — you are going to get saturated with 36-3 and 36-this and that
and the other thing, and FAR-36, appendix three here and appendix up there and
all of this sort of stuff; different measures, different performances,
different aircraft, different places, different things.  For various reasons,
the distance of 6500 feet from takeoff roll has become a predominant element
in my life in the last few months and it does not sound like too bad a spot at
which one could say, well, gee, general aviation airports are typically, and
let my say exclusively those airports that are going to have runways in the
order of two to maybe 5,000 feet.  Presumably, when you get much bigger than
that you are getting aircraft operations that will dominate the noise in the
community.  But 6500 feet is not a bad spot where we could say what kind of
levels I am going to get.

         The levels I am going to show in the first chart are sound exposure
levels, a quantity which you have not heard too much about.  Basically, it is
a weighted sound level but it also has a duration factor built into it.  This
is the basic, single-event element that goes into calculating the united
average sound level.  It is also the single-event noise exposure level measure
that was used in California airport noise studies.

         (Slide)  Well, this is not to give you some be-all, end-all  list of
things.  This takes a representative list of aircraft  that are typical of
those that operate  throughout the fleet.  The first column and the  top of the
second column gives you the spread of propeller aircraft, typical propeller
aircraft.  Some of  the older ones are at the top of the list.  As you can see,
at the lower noise  levels some of the newer prop aircraft are coming  in; for
example, the Cessna-152, the Cessna 182Q, considerbly  quieter than  the earlier
models of 182, things like that.

         It shows you that even at 6500 feet, there is a range from about 65
to 102 decibels just from propeller-driven aircraft alone — and that 37 dB  is
an awful lot of room.  Now in comparison also, the jets are put on  at this
same distance.  It  is not really quite fair to compare the jets necessarily  at
such a close-in distance  as compared with, say, the certification distance for
jets, which  is 6500 meters, three and a third times as far out.

         But one  thing is significant, and that  is, if you  look at  the bottom
of this  list, at  the  lower ones, these are the newer aircraft that  are coming
into service.  These  aircraft,  even close  in,  are quieter by as much  as  10 or
15 decibels than  a  lot of the existing propeller aircraft flying around  today,
aicraft  that will be flying around for a long, long time to come.   So on the
one hand, people  think jets are the noisiest things around  and that is true  if
they are very old jets.   But there  is a whole  class of new  business jets,
general  aviation's  largest growth area, which  are as quiet or quieter than a
lot of the propeller  aircraft around.  Sure, they are  a little bit  noisier
than the smallest training aviation aircraft but they  are not any noisier than
the average, energy average  if  you will;  if you  take the entire prop  fleets,
the newer jets are  just  about the same as  those.  Which means you can intermix
those quieter jets  with  the existing propeller fleet  and not significantly
change the community  noise environment.   Not  so  with the older jets.
                                        48

-------
         MR. GALLOWAY:  What this next chart does is it takes the composite
propeller-driven fleet alone.  By composite I mean, if one takes a thousand
measurements at random under a typical general aviation airport and measures a
single-event level, what would the level be that would represent the energy
spread from all this distribution?  Or put alternatively if all the aircraft
had this same number then you would simply use this to calculate day-night
sound levels directly by just putting in the number of events directly.

         MS. LUCIE G. SEARLE:  Could I ask you a question while we are waiting?

         MR. GALLOWAY:  Please, do.

         MS. SEARLE:  The chart you just showed us, how does that differ from
the FAR-36 measurement point on takeoff for the jets?  For instance, I know
that a Cessna Citation is much lower than the number you had on there.  All of
those are lower than the number you. had on there.  All of those are lower on
takeoff for FAR-36 measuring points.  Why are yours higher?

         MR. GALLOWAY:  These are  all at 6500 feet from brake release, close
in at the end of the takeoff of the general  aviation airport, as contrasted to
the appendix FAR-36  location which is 6500 meters,  a little over three and  a
half nautical miles.  So this is  less than  a  third  of  the distance, so we  are
much lower at that point.   That  is the reason.

         MR. GALLOWAY:  All  right, What this  tells  us  is, suppose you  have  a
single runway and you simply want  to get a  quick  look  at where  in the
community would I expect to have  certain kinds of  these composite noise  levels
~ day and night average sound  level  being  used  here because this is now the
measure which  is used in place  of  NEF and CNR by  the Department  of Housing  and
Urban Development,  by DOD,  recommended  by EPA and  by FAA for use  in
environmental  assessments.

         And, what  they tell you  is you could have x-number  of  operations  per
year  and you put them all  on one runway, then this tells you what the  takeoff
noise from  brake release point  would  be to  gain  any particular  day  to  night
sound level.   Now,  if one  picks  65, which  is pretty far  up on  that  skirt,  then
that  65  is  the  new  regulation  that says 65  or below is an  acceptable
environment.   I am  not urging this number on anyone.   I  am simply picking  it
as an example  here.

         Finally,  if you go out to 300,000  operations  a  year  -- there  are  not
too many general aviation  airports with that number of operations,  although
there are  some. --  that you have a closure  point at this  65  dB  day-night
average  sound  level, only  about 7500  feet  into  the community.   What  this  tells
you  is,  if  this is  the  kind of  measure  you  want  to use,  you  have to have one
whale of a lot of  small  propeller aircraft  before you  meet these cumulative
measured higher values.  Now,  the world  changes  dramatically,  of course,  if
you  mix  in  heavier aircraft with jets of  the older type,  not jets like the
Citation.

          So,  let's  go on  and look at  what  typical  business  jet is equivalent.
Now,  I'm sorry ~  if you can,  translate 300,000 oeprations  at  about 7500 feet
to  get  65  and  see  what  happens  with  the jets.
                                        49

-------
         ATTENDEE:  Excuse me.  You are saying hundreds but it reads thousands.

         MR. GALLOWAY:  Hundreds of thousands is what I meant to say.  I am
sorry — 7500 feet is what I thought I said for 300,000 operations a year.
Does that come out right to you now?

         ATTENDEE:  I should have commented on the Ldn 65.  If you use a
threshold of community noise to the point where they produce pickets, people
walk around with antinoise signs and attend meetings and that format, the
thing that I see is about a 10 dB conversion.  In other words, an Ldn 65 with
a major air carrier is worth about 55 at a general aviation airport, and so
therefore the threshold is 65, while maybe inside the boundaries that reading
is very deceiving.  I would say that is about equivalent to a 55.  Now, I know
California law, for instance, makes no distinction.  I am just basing that on
my own experience and the airport proprietors here might confirm that.

         MR. GALLOWAY:  I am not going to endorse one number against the
other.  That is why the chart goes down to 50 and up to 70.  Pick your number
and make your choice.  Just remember, the traffic noise ought to be counted on
here.  Here is a number for you to keep in mind.  The Cessna Number 172 is one
of the most popular airplanes in the general aviation fleet.  The Cessna-172,
on takeoff at 1,000 feet overhead, makes the same maximum A-level as the
normal passenger car driving by you at 50 feet away at 30 miles an hour.

         (Slide)  Now, this chart gives you the same kind of thing if you talk
about new turbofan aircraft.  The one I wanted to show for this was for
essentially the composite of all existing jets, not just straight jets and
turbofan and that sort of thing.  You can go through the same exercise of
picking the numbers.  This is now based on daily operations, which is a little
more easy to work with in terms of jets.  The reason for putting the previous
slides in terms of hundreds of thousands of operations, by the way, is that is
typically the kind of thing recorded for an airport if you look at the
statistics books -- unless you go out and actually start counting the
airplanes.  It is a little bit hard sometimes to count that there are 722 prop
airplanes per day at a given airport.  It is a lot easier to figure out that
there may be only five or ten jets going off.  But this gives you an idea that
you can have a fair number of the newer, quieter jets and still get a
day-night sound level which is not terribly different from what you get from a
lot of the same kind of prop operations.

         (Slide)  We go on now.  This is the one I wanted to put in before.
This shows you the older business jets are obviously very much noisier than
the current ones, as we said before.  But this chart tells me -- gee, I only
have to have three or four or five of these a day to swamp out all my prop
operations.  So when one talks about business jets he has to be very careful
to talk about whether you are working with newer ones, working with fleet
averages or what are you doing in your planning.

         Remember that the total mix of this fleet of planes is changing
dramatically.  In 1975 — I cannot remember the numbers exactly but maybe Stan
will correct me if I am wrong.  In 1975, 85% of the existing business jet
fleet in this country consisted of the older aircraft.  At the end of 1978 —
now the fleet has gone up substantially — over 35% are the new quieter ones,
but the rate of addition of these is 85 to 90 percent of all sold are
                                        50

-------
the quiet ones.  If you are doing planning for five to 10 years from now, give
some thinking to what kind of aircraft will be expected in the airport.

         (Slide)  This is an approach design chart which gives you the
distance from your threshold of the runway that you are concerned with, the
approach noise again for mixes of jets — new ones and old ones.  I did not
build an approach noise chart for small aircraft because the approach noise
for small aircraft is strictly general aviation props and is relatively
insignificant compared to any other kind of noise you have in the vicinity; so
it is almost a foolish exercise to draw it if you are drawing something for 43
dB or 53 dB or something like that.

         (Slide)  This is again the second chart for new jets versus old
jets.  Now this is the chart that says:  okay, if I try to take a quick  look
at my airport and somebody says I am going to fly in a bunch of Beech 99's and
start a commuter service or maybe I have had Beech 99's and although I am
strictly general aviation, except for  a couple of flights a day, somebody gets
a wild idea that maybe he can run DC9's or 737's in once or twice a day.  An
easy way to use the  other charts with  this is to put these jets and small
props into the context of how many  little  airplanes would it take to make the
same level, and this  chart gives you that  number.  So  if you have say  200
small props a day and you put a 727/100 in there on approach, that  one
approach makes the same  amount of total noise that all  those small  props did.
So you can do some game  playing that will  make  it easy  for you.   If you  would
comment — John Wesler,  part of the  thing  he missed was  advocating  using the
new 36-3 Circular that identifies the  maximum weight  levels of  various
aircraft types at the FAR-36 locations and putting that  information to use  in
terms of selecting or  identifying which aircraft would  be appropriate  to use
at a given facility.  You know, this problem recently  came up  at  Santa
Monica:  how do you  arrive at a reasonable level, what  criteria,  et cetera.

         ATTENDEE:   What I would  ask you  for  are your  viewpoints  on the
relative correlation say between  those kinds  of FAR-36 numbers  and  the levels
of noise that  are  frequently admitted  in  the  community.   I think  what  you  have
presented  here  is  very useful  --  those are flyovers,  close-in  points where  we
are  generally  concerned  about  the impact  of  general  aviation  noise.   But I  do
a  lot of my  work with vehicle  noise and I  am  very  aware of the fact that
certain  FAA  procedures are  used  for certification.   In traffic, automobiles
and motorcycles  bear little  resemblance to what they actually do  in the
community  so  I  would like to use  the kind  of  information that  FAA has  made
available  but  I  would also  like  to  have some  idea  of what kind of condition
should  be  placed  on  the  use  of  that information.   Does it give us a viable
tool for  screening?   I  know  it  is all  relative  levels by saying relative test
procedure,  but in  your opinion  how useful  is  that  in terms  of  eliminating
noisier categories  of aircraft  from using a  facility?

         MR.  GALLOWAY:   I think  36-3 could be used in the same fashion.  For
example,  if  you will take 36-3 and  take the business jets I  have listed here
on the  first chart,  the 6500 feet exposure levels  versus maxi  levels,
whatever,  and you  rank these aircraft, you will find that except for  one or
two  that slip by a dB or two because of the close-in performance, the rank  for
 appearing  on the list is almost identical, so one  can make  that kind  of
 translation.   You  know,  all  you have to do is ask  people which ones are not
 and they will  tell  you.   You can go to either kind of a chart,  I  think, and


                                        51

-------
decide — Okay, that is the kind of thing they are talking about.  But I think
36-3 is a good step forward.  At least you can compare the aircraft on
comparable bases, although 6500 meters out for 152 may not be that many.

         MR. SWING:  It certainly is for noisy aircraft.  On a relative basis,
it still provides that in terms of comparing them at the same places under the
same kinds of operating conditions.  Thank you, very much.

         ATTENDEE:  Would you describe again the mix of the light plane fleet
that you used on that -- singles, twins, day-night operation?

         MR. GALLOWAY:  What this is is a composite.  It cuts across the
weighted average of the fleet:  how many 172's how many 402's, how many 560's
that sort of thing that you have got in the fleet.  This is such a way that if
you had this kind of distribution operating out of an airport, then the energy
average —  if you will -- level that you would measure is 6500 feet for that
composite fleet, with the numbers used for this.  It turns out that it is
about 83 dB for a single and about 85 or 86 for a twin at this point in sound
exposure level units.  It is sort of about two-thirds of the way and the fleet
gives you a representational fleet.

         ATTENDEE:  How much of a standard deviation would you expect from one
individual  flight?  I know there are a lot of questionable data, and I wanted
to present  one fact; that I guess there were 500 flights analyzed at National,
and one air carrier — that is, a 727 aircraft at 512 flights over nine months
was eight decibels difference between carriers.  Now there is good reason for
that, but I am wondering in G.A. what sort of range would you expect in
individual, pilotage type change.

         MR. GALLOWAY:  Well, it is not only1pi lots, it is weight and all the
rest of the stuff going with it.  Close in,  I think you would expect that from
measurement to measurement you could have as much as five to 10 decibel
spread.  I  think  in 100 measurements or 500 measurements the standard
deviation close  in ought to be no more than  about one or two decibels for the
same type of aircraft, and  less than one for the same type of aircraft for the
air.

         ATTENDEE:  Let me ask one more question.  This became an irrelevant
point in that  last hearing that you and I were involved in.  Would you comment
on this?  People were trying to prove at one time that jets were more
offensive than props because of their special characteristics, and I think
that in the recent tests that I have witnessed the new generation of business
jets are ~ I will not say they are generally pleasant, but they certainly do
not have these tone characteristics that you have identified with other types
of aircraft.   Can you generalize on the special characteristics  of how they
have been changed with the  newer generation  of aircraft?

         MR. GALLOWAY:  Well, there is not that much difference  in the
spectrum.   The fact that you are talking 15  to 20 dB lower is the large part
of it.  I think  the second thing is:  the original business jets, the early
business jets  have relatively high pressure  ratio engines and you get crackle
problems with  those that you do not get with the modern bypass fans.  So  if
you actually look at the spectrum  of a Citation, for example, in flight it is
                                        52

-------
really not that much different from a Lear with an early G.E. engine.   But the
fact that the levels are 20 dB lowered all the way across the board,  I think
is a large part.  That, plus the crackle problem.

         MR. E.H. HOOPER:  E.H, Hooper, Beech Aircraft.  If I can prevail — I
hate to use your time to respond to a question from this gentleman, but I have
performed some calculations concerning our aircraft in response to his
question regarding the variation.  And I am showing that the total variation
in single-event noise exposure level due to aircraft piloting, operation
procedures, and meteorological conditions — primarily, temperature — might
not be the five dB that you are talking about but as high as plus or minus 15
dBA.

         MR. GALLOWAY:  Well, again, this is under what test condition?

         MR. HOOPER:  This is to cover a range from just 59 degrees to 77
degrees Fahrenheit, and from the very unusual case of a "buzz job" pilot up to
the 700-to-l,000 foot altitude that you normally see the 1500 feet from
breakaway.

         MR. GALLOWAY:  I do not disagree that it is possible.  I am just
saying that if you have people flying normally, the way they should typically
be flying, that that  is the kind of spread I expected.

         DR. BRAGDON:  Thank you again, Bill.  Well, we are going to move into
the economic area.  We had some comments earlier by Bob Doyle on the economic
impact of general  aviation and its need for some support by the local
community.  This afternoon we are going to have Michael McCarty, who is
Manager of the Airport and Environmental Section for NBAA, the National
Business Aircraft Association, to give us some insight in terms of how they
perceive general aviation activity in relation to its  local community.

         MR. McMARTY:  It's a pleasure to be here today and have this
opportunity to describe what impact general aviation has on the country's
economy.  For one  reason or another, there seems to be a mysterious cloud
which lingers over the people's version of what role general  aviation activity
and the community  airport plays in their everyday lives.  Part of this mystery
can be resolved simply by realizing what general aviation really stands for.

         "General  aviation" itself is that very loose  and misleading term
which is usually associated with everything except the airlines and military.
That means that private business aircraft, air taxis and charters, air
freighters, contract  carriers, mail plans, pleasure and acrobatic aircraft,
flight trainers, crop dusters, banner towing, construction helicopters,
blimps, free balloons, gliders,, frisbies, and high flyballs to rightfield are
all placed in the  general aviation category.

         With all  this activity, no wonder general aviation accounts for 98
percent of the active aircraft, 87 percent of the total hours flown, 65
percent of the aircraft miles flown, and 81 percent of all aircraft
operations.  It's  necessary, however, to go beyond all this and attempt to
                                       53

-------
Identify, in one word, what a majority of general aviation is all about.  The
word I keep coming back to is "business" — that's right, general aviation
means business.

         Two years ago, the St. Louis Globe-Democrat took a survey to identify
what function the general aviation activity in the area was serving.  The
Globe found the 72 percent of the activity was for business and commercial
purposes, 23 percent was for personal transportation and proficiency training,
and only 5 percent for pleasure.

         Now, as I represent business flying which is under this general
aviation umbrella, I would like to narrow my text to this specific area.  I
also believe it would be helpful to briefly describe the business fleet and
why companies use aircraft.

         There are today some 50,000 business aircraft in the United States,
of which nearly 10 percent are turbine powered.  This is approximately 17
percent of the total general aviation fleet.

         A recent study by an independent research firm shows that, of
America's top  1,000 industrial corporations as listed by FORTUNE Magazine,
514 now operate their own business aircraft -- a total of 1,773 planes.  This
compares with less than 450 companies just four years ago!

         BUSINESS WEEK Magazine last year pointed out that "corporate aircraft
are radically transforming the way many companies do business.  And they are
helping to change the geographical tilt of the United States economy, as more
companies build plants without regard to the rigid corridors of public
transportation."  This article also stated that "the impact of corporate
flying, moreover, may grow more than the sheer numbers growth would indicate.
Increasingly, U.S. companies are using their aircraft as sophisticated tools
that do more than simply haul top brass from point-to-point in comfort."

         A few examples of company use of business aircraft are:

         Oxford Industries, Inc., an Atlanta-based apparel maker that uses a
twin-engine Beechcraft to fly department store personnel to its plants where
they can oversee orders being produced.  According to the firm's Vice
Chairman, giving buyers commercial airline tickets would not work because the
company's 38 plants are scattered across six southeastern states — many in
towns with grass airstrips that lack commercial service.

         Xerox Company is reported to fly 15,000 employees a year on a company
owned shuttle plane between its Stanford headquarters and its Rochester, New
York, plant -- saving $410,000 a year over commercial airfares  and cutting
travel time as well.

         One of the key reasons why more and more businesses are turning to
the use of their own aircraft is that airline service is declining — both in
numbers of flights and in points served.  According to CAB figures, the
certificated airlines now serve only 400 points in the Continental United
States ~ a 30 percent decrease from the 567 served in 1960.
                                       54

-------
         As things stand today, the company airplane may well be the only link
for a manager in reaching more than 19,000 unincorporated communities, and
even 379 cities with population of over 25,000 that do not have any airline
service.

         There are, of course, many reasons other than declining airline
service for more and more companies to add aircraft to the company inventory
of productive tools.  But they usually get down to the convenience, mobility,
and flexibility that allow managers to increase their radii of action ... to
decentralize their plant, warehousing, and marketing structures... to
diversify their scope of operations... compete in unpenetrated markets... and
to maximize the potentials of plant locations through greater mobility for
managers.

         The company aircraft can be scheduled to go where the manager wants
to go, when he wants to get there; and "there" may be someplace not even
served by commercial airlines.

         The company aircraft usually provide an office environment that
increases management productivity.  It is a very common enroute work pattern
for a two-to-four man conference to be held.  Or individual executives can
empty the briefcase of work while traveling -- something they would hesitate
to do in the close-quarters setting of a commercial flight.  Or, they may plan
their business call at the destination city, or prepare their formal trip
reports on the way home.  In fact, the chief executive officer of one of our
larger NBAA member companies says that "...using the company plane is a sneaky
way of getting more working time out of our executives."

         And, of course, there are the obvious advantages.  No time need be
lost waiting for the next scheduled flight once business is concluded.
Conversely, no efficiency need be lost because sufficient time cannot be
allowed to complete the business because the executive must "catch a plane."

         From the self-serving point of view of the businesses themselves, it
would appear that the use of aircraft is a productive addition to the
corporate economy.  But, by now you are probably asking what all this has to
do with the impact business aviation has on the national economy?  What is the
public benefit from general aviation activity?

         Unfortunately, this has never been measured in any great depth by
anyone -- including the Federal Aviation Administration.  However, by sampling
some individual situations around the nation, it is possible to get a feel for
the contributions made by aviation in general, and business aviation in
particular.

         In Ohio, for example, a statewide airport program was initiated in
1965 with $6.2 million in State funds.  Sixty-four counties participated by
building new airports and improving existing facilities.  When the State later
conducted an evaluation of the program, the following specifics were
determined:

         At 20 new airports created under the program, almost half of all
landings and takeoffs being made were by corporate aircraft and commercial
cargo planes.


                                       55

-------
         More than half of 150 manufacturing firms selected at random
throughout the state use their air transportation facilities frequently.

         The counties with new airports had a three-percent higher payroll
rate increase after completion of the airport than did the counties which did
not participate.

         Extrapolating from the experience of participating counties, compared
with non-participating counties, it appears that over a four-year period, Ohio
netted $250 million in additional personal income, and created more than
60,000 new jobs by virtue of the airport development program.  That is a
benefit-to-cost ratio of 20 to 1.

         On a national basis, the JOURNAL OF COMMERCE on March 27, 1978,
reported on the growth of the corporate aircraft fleet, and stated that,
"...over 1,000 plants in the last three years have been located in the areas
distant from major city airports.  Decentralization makes it tougher to keep
tabs on operations without bloating the executive ranks.  In addition, the
airports with airline service are dwindling."

         Many towns and communities nationally recognize this.  Lee's Summit,
Kansas, for example, recently purchased a private airport for the City, and is
extending the runway from 2,400 to 3,000 feet to accommodate twin-engine
aircraft.  The stated purpose is to make the airport an attraction for
industry.

         Dr. A. Erskine Sproul, Chairman of the Shenandoah Valley Airport
Commission, at Staunton, Virginia, reported that 10 new industries employing
at least 4,000 people have moved into the area in the last 17 years, and
airport facilities were listed as a prerequisite by all of them.

         The Milan, Tennessee, MIRROR, reported last year on Gibson County's
opening of a new airport with a 4,500 foot runway to "handle all business jets
and piston driven planes..."  Mr. Argyle Graves, Chairman of the Airport
Commission, was quoted as saying, "Seventy-five percent of prospective plants
use jets, and I know of one big plant which bypassed Milan and went to a
neighboring Tennessee town because they had adequate airport facilites.
Contrary to what many people think," Mr. Graves continued, "airports are not  a
luxury enjoyed by a few.  They have become vital  links for the business
world.  With the new facilities at Gibson County Airport, a business executive
can fly to Chicago and back and transact his business in less than eight
hours.  I feel that the airport will be one of the county's greatest assets."

         In 1978, the Santa Barbara, California, NEWS PRESS ran a roundup on
local airports  and what they contribute to the economy.  They stated that
because of industry located on the airport, the Santa Maria Public Airport
provides jobs for 1,600 area residents.  It makes possible private and airline
transport to cattlemen and vegetable producers.   Columbia Records uses it for
air freight service; oil companies use  it as a staging airport for geologists
in the area.  The report also included  the Lompoc Airport, with  a 3,600 foot
runway, and states that this airport has 16 persons employed on  it with  an
annual payroll  of $100,000.
                                       56

-------
         The Oxnard, California, PRESS-COURIER reported that the Camarillo
Airport, with 90,000 takeoffs and landings in 1977, generated $310,000 in
revenue -- more than it costs the county to operate the airport.  It also
generated $64,000 in local taxes.  In addition, tenants at the airport employ
approximately 390 persons with a payroll of over $3.5 million annually.

         At Odessa, Texas, the Airport Board surveyed 135 businesses selected
at random in the area and found that 46 percent of the companies had
customers, business associates, or company personnel who travel to and from
Odessa by business aircraft.  This represents a passenger flow of 385
passengers a month traveling by other than scheduled aircraft.  Over 50
percent of the businesses that operate aircraft to Odessa stated that
additional facilities would encourage more use of the airport.

         The Santa Ana, California, Chamber of Commerce sent questionnaires to
1,000 randomly selected businesses in the area and received 518 replies.
Seventy-one percent of the replies showed a need for air transportation
facilities.  Twenty-eight percent of the 518 companies said the Orange County
Airport had influenced the decision to locate within the County.

         Twenty-five percent said they use general aviation aircraft,  and
average ten flights per month.  Of that group, roughly 40 percent — or 51
companies — had their own aircraft; the remainder chose to use charter
flights.

         All these examples support the finding of a U.S. Department of
Commerce survey which polled 3,000 manufacturing firms to determine factors
influencing industry location decisions.  The  availability of air service and
preferred community size were two survey items.  For 11 percent, availability
of air  service was considered critical; and for 17 percent, significant.
Cities  of under 25,000 were the preferred size for 20 percent of the firms,
with 38 percent choosing cities of 50,000 or less.

         Another survey of leading United States firms revealed that 80
percent would not  locate a plant  in an area  lacking an airport, and 57 percent
indicated that the  airport should be capable of handling heavy  twin engine
aircraft.

          In addition to bringing  business into a community and  helping local
people  to conduct  business outside the community,  airports bring very  tangible
benefits  to the entire population.  The access an  airport provides  and the
employment opportunities  it offers are easily  recognized.  Less apparent,
perhaps,  but no less important  are:

1.        Value of  time saved (by  passenger plus "domino effect")
          A.   Business flying
         B.   Pleasure flying
         C.   Utility flying
                                        57

-------
2.       Emergency value (human life and property)
         A.   Natural disaster (earthquakes, floods, wind and weather)
         B.   Crime control and law enforcement
         C.   Riots and civil disturbances
         D.   Rescue and life savings
         E.   Forest fire fighting

3.       National defense value
         A.   Pilot training and availability
         B.   Value to war time combat use
         C.   Civil Air Patrol

4.       Promotion or stimulation of air carrier flying -- provides valuable
         feeder traffic.

5.       Entertainment value
         A.   Value to general aviation passengers (in terms of gratification)
              1)   Air shows
              2)   Radio, TV, movies
              3)   Vacation and resort area development
              4)   Sightseeing and other transportation modes
         B.   Value to entertainment industry

6.       General business industry associated with general aviation travel
         A.   Hotels
         B.   Ground transportation (taxi, limousine, car rental, etc.)
         C.   Meals

7.       Specific benefits related to general aviation
         A.   Aerial photography and mapping
         B.   Fish spotting and fish savings
         C.   Forest fire patrol
         D.   Power and pipeline patrol
         E.   Corporation internal business aircraft management, maintenance,
              and operations, personnel and expenses.

         The local airport is rapidly becoming the principal gateway to the
nation's modern transportation system.  Communities  large and small are
realizing that to be without air service today is as detrimental to their
development as being bypassed by the railroads was a century ago, or left off
the highway map 25 years ago.

         Communities that are not readily accessible to the airways may suffer
penalties that can affect every local citizen — whether he flies in a general
aviation aircraft, uses commercial airlines, or never has occasion to travel
at all.

         The role of the general aviation airport in providing air access is
increasing.  By having access to all the Nation's airports, general aviation
aircraft can bring the benefits and values of air transportation to this
entire country.

         THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, AIRPORTS AND GENERAL AVIATION MEAN BUSINESS.
                                       58

-------
         MR. LEWIS:  You paint a very rosy picture about an airport coming
into a community,  and a lot of it is true, but what you have not told us about
is when a new airport comes in and a new industry comes in, how many people
that have lived in the community are hired for this new industry; or do they
bring in people from the outside, thereby increasing the burdens on the
police, fire department and everything else because new homes have to go up?
These all have to be taken into consideration.  And what I am thinking of is a
situation that developed in Newbergh, New York a number of years ago.

         When the MTA, I think it was, took over the airport and expanded it,
they sold the people there a bill of goods about -- Newbergh is going to be
put on the map, it is going to be the answer to New York City and everything
else.  They had public meetings and we went up there, I and two other people
who knew something about aircraft noise and what airplanes do to a community
to try to tell these people that they were being given a snow job — and I use
the term "snow job" very often because this is what a lot  of agencies and
groups do to people.  Well, we were practically booed out  of town.  Even the
Mayor said, "These fellows don't know what they are talking about."  Well, if
we went up there today I think they would give us a tickertape parade through
town.  So when you paint the rosy picture, paint the other side of it too.
Now, if you have comments I would be interested to hear them.

         MR. McCARTY:  As I said, there are not a lot of available figures;
figures on when a  plant comes  into a community how many people they  are going
to employ.  Certainly, the employment ranks is one consideration a company is
going to look at before they build in any given area.  And when you  say that
it means new homes and things  like that, certainly it means new development.
Basically, I think we have to  realize that there  is no such thing as a free
lunch.  We have to realize that we are going to have to balance the  importance
of the airport and some of the problems that may be associated with  the
continual growth.

         MR. LEWIS:  Who  is supposed to make that decision -- the local
government of that area,  the  airport operator, or the people that are  living
in the area who are  going to  be  affected  by the increase  in noise pollution
and  everything else?

         MR. McCARTY:   I  think that  the size of the airport itself and  the
facilities you want  to offer  are  up  to the citizenry.  But once you  make that
decision,  that is  when  land use  control and planning come  into effect.  It
should not  be a decision  that  is  made —  Well, we sure would  like to see Allis
Chalmers but --

         MR. LEWIS:  Well, the thing is that  too many  times I find this to be
so.  The people are  brought into  the picture after decisions have been made
and  this  is wrong.   This  is why  we  have all these problems.  People  have to be
brought  in  from day  one,  not  day  two.  This does  not happen.

         MR. McCARTY:  Well,  I will  certainly  agree with  that.   Communication
is  a big thing and I know that my association  has the  same problems  by the
fact that  FAA  and  other Federal  agencies  do certain things without consulting
us.  And  so  I definitely  support  an  open  discussion by all parties involved.
                                       59

-------
         MR. LEWIS:  You see, I represent local government, and local
government is just that, local government.  I mean, our residents can  talk to
our elected officials.  They can call them up at home and everything else, and
we are concerned about what is happening -- which is not the case in a lot of
other areas, unfortunately.  That is why sometimes I may sound like some guy
out carrying a picket sign.  And I have carried picket signs too, objecting to
JFK and everything else, and I am proud of it.  But the thing is, FAA, airport
operators, various aviation industry associations must take into consideration
the people living under the paths of those airplanes, whether they are talking
about a Cessna or a 747 or a Concorde or anything else.  And until the
aviation community admits this and does something about it, we are going to
have problems.

         DR. BRAGDON:  Thanks again, Mike, for your presentation.  At  this
time we have the last role player, so to speak, in this afternoon session.  We
have had some comments about citizen groups but this individual represents a
very active and professionally involved group.  Her name is Joan Caldwell.
She is President of the Northwest Greenwich Association of Greenwich,
Connecticut.  Joan is going to be discussing an issue that she has been
dealing with quite a while, the impact of general aviation activity on airport
community residents.

         MS. JOAN CALDWELL:  It is at moments like this that I wish I  was a
lot taller.

         Last week I had the priviledge of working for a five-day session with
members of the Eastern Region FAA and the New York Port Authority.  We were a
group of 18.  I was the only female and the only member of a citizens group,
and when I was introduced, I was introduced as the enemy.  I would hope that
you will not view me the same way.  As for how I view aircraft, I think it is
a necessary part of our commercial community.  I think that airports and
aircraft owners can be made good neighbors and that is what I been have
working on for the past five or six years.  The FAA is distributing a
publication called, The Westchester Experiment.  I have a copy which has been
reproduced and distributed to you.  I would like to pass along this
publication because I think what you need to know  is how one community was
plagued — and that is the word I want to use — by aircraft noise and how we
have chosen to deal with it.

         Westchester County Airport is located on  the New York-Connecticut
line.  It was plunked right down in the middle of four residential communities
which, if you look at their incorporation charters, were there probably at the
time that this country became a country.  So it was not the question of the
neighborhood moving in on  the airport.  The airport moved  in on the
neighborhood.

         When it was created, it was created as a military base and served the
northeast area during World War II.  At the end of the war the State deeded
the property to the county and the county continued to operate the facility as
a general aviation airport, servicing primarily single engine piston
aircraft.  In those days it was rather fun to get  in the car  and  take a Sunday
afternoon trip to go out and see all the  airplanes.  But then, sometime around
1962, a phenomenon took place and instead of having a piston engine, you  began
to get the corporate jets  and with them the tremendous exposure to noise.


                                       60

-------
         The  corporate  fleet increased tremendously and throughout the late
'60's we found ourselves with more and more planes coming in and out and
particularly late-hour  traffic; traffic that disturbed the residents' sleep,
disturbed the pleasure  of their homes during the weekends, and just disturbed
the residents generally.  As a community and as a home owner association which
has long been established, we tried to deal with this, as we tried to deal
with any problem within our community.  That is when I was made representative
of the Westchester County citizens group.

         Now let me explain here, Westchester County Airport was owned and
still is owned by Westchester County, New York.   It was operated by the Gulf
Oil Company in their holding operation.  It is now operated by  PanAm
Airlines.  Greenwich, Connecticut is  a political  subdivision that has nothing
to do with Westchester County.  They  could not care less  about  us at  that
point if they tried.  We had no votes to hand them.  That  is what they were
looking for.

         So, my predecessor  and I would  go from office to  office, from FAA  to
operator to owner, seeking  some relief from this  noise exposure which was
increasing.  We would be  very  gently  passsed off  to the  next man.   The FAA
said  it was the operator; the  operator said it was the owner; the owner said
it was the FAA, and we  had  a merry shell game.

         In 1973, the operations  of Westchester County Airport  were 282,000.
That  is  a lot of operations.   A good  percentage of them  were  the  corporate
jets.  We had in addition,  however, military aircraft.   We had  the  Skymaster
and  the  training operation  for the Air National Guard.   It is  a push-pull
job.  Some of you may know  it.   It has a prop  on  the  back. The prop on the
back  sets up  conflicting  air currents with two  struts.   It is  a funny looking
little plane.   Four of  those in formation  will take the  fillings  right  out  of
your back teeth, and we had to do something about that.

         We  had the single-engine pistons  and  training operations and these
formed what  I called the  "daisy  chains."  If you  sat  out in the backyard  you
could see five  or  six  of  them circling  all  around —  and it would go on from
ten  or  eleven o'clock  on  Saturday morning  to four or  five.  It  was  like
reaching for  a  fly; you could not quite  get  it.   You  knew it  was  annoying you
and  you  could not  get  it  and you  could  not stop  it.

         We  had the commercial  airlines.  At that time it was  Mohawk, a single
airline; now it was Allegheny, which  operated  very infrequently but when  it
did  you  knew it did.   You could  hear  it  for miles.  All  of these  in 1973  until
the  neighbors had  had  it  and I said  okay.  We  filed  a $20 million lawsuit with
the  Federal  Court.  We had to get the mule's attention.   We got it.  We filed
a suit  against  Westchester County as  the owner,  the FAA for controlling the
airspace,  Gulf  Oil  as  the operator,  and  we were  willing to invite anyone  else
to the  birthday party  we  could think  of.

         What happened was the County,  I think largely with the efforts of the
NBAA, decided that negotiation with  the  neighbors was a better way to go, and
 it is the  way that I would strongly  recommend  to  you  because  the  problems with
airport noise stem from the fact that;  one,  the neighbors do  not  know and do
not  understand, and; two, they think  you do not know  and you  do not understand


                                        61

-------
their problems.  Dialogue, if it is begun early and particularly if you are
going to get into any long-range planning, can diffuse opposition long before
the opposition has a chance to form.

         In the case of Westchester, they came in and said we would like to
negotiate.  My immediate reaction was no way — for three reasons.  One, I did
not trust them.  I did not trust them at all.  Two, I was afraid that
unprogrammed informal negotiations could go on with no meaningful progress.
Three, I was afraid that long-term or prolonged negotiations would empty our
coffers of the money that we had set aside, and we were ready to go the whole
way.  So what we did was set up a settlement stipulation and in  it we asked
for negotiations using residents in this case represented by the Town of
Greenwich, who instituted the suit along with the Home Owners Association of
which I am President.  On the opposite side of the table we had  the NBAA as
representative of the corporations flying out of the  airport, and the local
pilot's organization, representative of the people operating that aircraft.
We had and still have as resource people the FAA tower man, the  airport
operator, and occasionally a representative of the airport owners, Westchester
County.

         The agreement was satisfactory to us and  so  it was signed and
submitted to the Court.  We are now functioning under that.  We  have been
functioning for four years.  Attached as an appendix  to that stipulation was
the following  document, which says the committee shall initially consider,
study, and  if  possible, report  on the following items:

          1.   Nighttime operations  at the  airport  between the hours of  11:00
               p.m.  and 7:00 a.m.

          2.   Abatement of noise disturbances from engine run-ups  and  ground
               operations.

          3.   Touch-and-go flight procedures.

          4.   Scheduling  of student  pilot  training.

          5.   The feasibility  and desirability  of  establishing  a preferential
               runway system.

          6.   Runway restrictions.

          7.   Raising the floor under  the  LaGuardia  Control  area in  and around
               Westchester County Airport  to  a minimum of  4,000  feet  MSL,  or
               above,  from its  current  floor  of  3,000 feet MSL.

          8.   The safest  and most desirable  angle  for the existing glide  slope
               and any future  glide  slopes  that  might be  installed.

          9.   The  installation of  a VASI  system on Runways  11,  29, and 16.

          10.   The feasibility,  desirability and possible consequences of  the
               installation of  noise monitoring  equipment.

          11.   Helicopter  operations.


                                        62

-------
         12.  Use of thrust reversers.

         13.  Discussion, proposal and implementation of other practices and
              procedures which will reduce noise and emissions and increase
              safety from the operation of Westchester County Airport.

         Now, this list was put together by the Home Owners Association based
on the kind of problems we have had.  In four years, we have helped to make
Westchester Airport a better neighbor.  There is long way to go but we are on
our way.  The key to it is trust and credibility.  It means I have to do my
homework before I go in that negotiating room, but so does the pilot and so
does the FAA.  And when we go in there, we go in with a common purpose and
that is to solve the problems in the most amicable fashion possible and the
safest way possible.

         The first negotiation session was held in September, about four years
ago.  I remember it very clearly because there was some question in my mind as
to who was going to come out scarred.  It was a hostile session.  There was a
great deal of anger expressed on both sides of the table.  This I can say,
from other experiences I have had, you can expect.  You can give the community
that has been impacted by the airport the opportunity to vent anger and its
frustrations, but once that has happened, once that is clear and the air is
freshened, then you can begin to work for positive solutions.  And it is in
that fashion that you will come out with a noise abatement procedure that will
work.

         In terms of Westchester, the impacts on the surrounding neighbors
were two-fold.  One, you took a man's house in a sense.  You flew over it,
making it at times a very unpleasant place to be.  You had also an impact on
its economic value.  In the case of Greenwich, Connecticut, what you had been
flying over was the highest tax base  in the town.  Right now those properties
are selling for between a quarter and a half million dollars, and anything
that jeopardizes that tax base affects the whole town.  So it was a community
problem.  It was not just a neighborhood problem.

         In terms of communities and  long-term planning, there is a long-term
plan being developed for Westchester County Airport and our association has
been involved in it.  But there is some concern on the part of the Home Owners
Association and in my mind as to whether or not Westchester County's plan for
the airport and the use of the land around the airport under their control is
compatible with what is already existing in Connecticut.  We have not been
able to, what I call, get a good meaningful dialogue going back and forth.

         In terms of the master plan, there was one meeting held in
Greenwich.  In all honesty, I should say that we probably had the first
meeting to air and presumably get some opinion from the residents of Greenwich
as to what should be done with the airport.   I have attended a great many
public meetings.  This has to have been the worst.  We had well over 60 people
there.  We had a turn-away crowd with very little opportunity for the citizens
to speak.  Instead, the master planner came in with charts, with diagrams,
with a great deal of technical description, and in the end he successfully
convinced 60 people that they were being hoodwinked and not told the truth.
                                       63

-------
That was not what he went in there to do.  That was not what he intended to
do.  And I don't think that was the case, but that is the impression he left.
And since he had come, I have had the job of repairing the fence, of trying to
make them believe that Westchester County does care; that it is trying to plan
an airport that will be a good neighbor, that will not commercially expand and
that in fact there is still good faith and bargaining going on in these
negotiations.

         It  is tough, but citizen involvement and involving citizens in a
meaningful way is the only way we are going to solve the problems we have got
today and, unfortunately, we have run into a problem in Westchester County.  I
would like to answer your questions.

         MR. KENNETH J. DELINO:  My name is Ken Delino of Systems Control,
Inc.  You never told us if any of the noise stopped.

         MS. CALDWELL:  We have reduced the noise to the point where I can
honestly say that I do not find the airport as objectionable as it was four or
five years ago.  However, we instituted the use of a voluntary curfew on
takeoffs between 11:00 o'clock at night and 6:30 in the morning.  Now, that
curfew is about 76% effective.  The other 25% stands out so much that in
future negotiations, in fact, in the set coming up I plan to raise the subject
of how we are going to create something more effective and forceful.  These
are residential communities.  People are entitled to sleep.  We did eliminate
the use of reverse thrust at night.  It was a terrible situation.  We have
managed to reduce, or better control engine runup, high-frequency runups.  We
placed these on the airport  in such a fashion now that -- well, in general,  in
using a number of procedures, yes, we have reduced noise to a point where yes,
it is a better neighborhood  but we go step by step.

         MR. JAMES F. WALTERS:  Jim Walters, National Park Service, Grand
Canyon.  We  are constantly hearing complaints in the Park Service concerning
aircraft noise.  In talking  with the people, we find that a lot of the
animosity and the feeling is directed toward a frustration concerning not  so
much the decibel levels but  there is an  intrusion upon peace and quiet  in the
park.  I wondered how you attempted to quantify exactly what it was that was
irksome to people; or do you have to quantify it?

         MS. CALDWELL:  Yes, we did have to quantify it.  The comparison of
the single-engine piston and the jet is  just itself incomprehensible.  One can
understand how the jet can bother and annoy, but to say this little plane  is
bothering you the pilots would not believe it.  We had to bring people  in  and
have them actually explain what was the  way it annoyed them.  It was the
rapidity of  it overhead; it  was a little bit fear, where there  is a very  low
ambient noise level.

         MR. WALTERS:  Thank you very much.  I think you are beginning  to
identify what is going to be more and more a problem around the  U.S.,  and
certainly the National Park  Services are trying to address the problems in
those areas  that are specifically set aside to maintain peace and quiet.   Good
luck to you.

         MS. CALDWELL:   I might add here that one of the things we were doing
last week at LaGuardia was working with  the FAA on what they called a


                                        64

-------
Community Involvement Program.  They have a publication out and it has got
some good material  in it.  I told them if they had done it 15 years ago we
would have all been a lot happier.  The important thing here is that for those
of you who are working in communities there are some excellent guidelines and
suggestions.  And,  one of the things that I cannot too strongly emphasize is
that if you are fortunate enough to get a couple of dozen residents into a
public meeting, the way you structure your meeting will determine its success.

         If you stand up here and talk to them the way I am talking to you,
you can count on having a flop.  But if you open it up and encourage them to
talk, by either asking questions or just allowing them to complain to you, you
will then vent the anger and pretty soon you will have a couple of dozen
people who are really talking up the problem and working towards solutions.

         MR. WALTERS:  Where or how does one get a group like that in say a
National Park somewhere, where they are changing people all the time?  I get
notices from people who are way out on the back country or in some meditation
center or somewhere quite removed from an airport.  If you are right around
the airport, you own the property there, I can understand a reason for your
getting together and for advocating a particular policy.  I am absolutely
convinced that there is no one who can influence public policy more than an
organized citizens group.  I  don't think there is anyone in Washington or
Congress or whatever who wouldn't listen to an organized citizens group  at the
local level because  it  is a local issue.  So how does  one structure a meeting,
even if you want to  have it open, when you have got people who are coming and
going and do  not own the property?

         MS.  CALDWELL:  Where you have transients in  an area  it is obviously
very difficult  if  not perhaps impossible.  Curiously  enough,  one of the  people
at this meeting last week has done a great deal of work with  the Department of
Interior, its parks  in  California, and he  indicated that he had been  running
into this and what they have  done is:

         They have gone through  -- I guess there  are  registration  slips  that
have to  be  filled  out to use  the Federal parklands.   They  have gone through
those registration slips and  found the repeaters, those that  came  back  from
year to  year  and sent them  notices that  there  would be a  public meeting.
Those  in the  area  did come  and  his  indication,  if  I remember  correctly,  was
that they had group  of  about  50.  And that 50  made  their  concerns  and their
apprehensions known.  This  then  became kind of a  task force who could from
time to  time  deal  with  the  airport question on a  level,  and  I guess that it  is
an  ongoing  thing.  I would  be glad to  give you his  name.

          DR.  BRA6DON:   Any  other questions?   I would  like  to  find  out about
this  publication.  Maybe John could  enlighten  us  in terms  of  possibly getting
it  or making  it available.   It  is a  May  '79 date.

          MS.  CALDWELL:   FAA,  EE-79-06, published  May, 1979.

          MR.  WESLER: My office  published  it  and  I  would  be  happy to  provide
copies  to any of you who would  like  it,  if  I  can  provide  such copies  to Cliff
to  be  included  in  your  handouts  of your  transcript.
                                        65

-------
         This is in the nature of a workbook which is being used in a series
of seminars around the country to teach our own people, speaking for the FAA
as well as others involved in airports, airport noise and other environmenal
problems on how to conduct an effective participation program.

         MS. CALDWELL:  But the procedures are excellent.  I mean, I have gone
through it and they will work just as well for an airport operator trying to
reach into his community or an airport owner.  Thank you.
                                       66

-------
                                PANEL DISCUSSION


October 3,  1979                                              4:00 o'clock, p.m.


         DR. BRAGDON:  I would like to introduce the five panelists.  John
Tyler is on my far left, consultant with N.O.I.S.E., the National Organization
to Insure Sound Control Environment, for Glastonbury, Connecticut.  Joe Lewis,
immediately to my left, is Executive Director of Town-Village Aircraft Safety
and Noise Abatement  Committee, from Lawrence, New York, Town of  Hempstead.
Jack Swing, next to  John Tyler.   Jack  is with the California Department of
Public Health, located in Berkeley, California.  Shirley Grindle, citizens
representative from  Orange County, California.  We  are  pleased to have Shirley
here.  And the last  person,  directly in the middle,  Angelo  Campanella,
President ACCULAB, Columbus,  Ohio.

         MR. JOHN TYLER:  While  we are waiting  for  Cliff to work out  this
little detail, let me make an announcement.  Whereas I  am  listed as a
consultant to  N.O.I.S.E. —  N.O.I.S.E. is  an organization  called the  National
Organization to  Insure Sound Control Environment —  I  am  in no position to
speak for N.O.I.S.E.  You know,  a consultant responds  when  he  is asked
something but  he does not speak  for  the organization that  he works  for.   So,
let  the  record show  that  I  am not speaking for  them.

         ATTENDEE:   Who are  you  speaking for, John?

         MR. TYLER:   Just  let me take  a second. Bill  Sperry  asks who do  I
speak for.  Just to  give you a little  background,  I  have  been  an employee for
Pratt-Whitney  Aircraft for  a period  of 30-odd years  in charge  of jet  aircraft
noise research and development.   Prior to  that, I  have worked  in the  aviation
field.   As  a matter  of fact, I worked  on the first  DC3 that was  being built
for  American Airlines back  in 1937.  As a  result,  I  have  a  rather wide
experience  of  aircraft  problems, both  in the vibration field  and noise  field.
At the  present time  I  am  doing work  primarily for  communities  around  airports,
which maybe some people might think  is a switch after working  for  industry.
But  as  a matter  of fact,  it  turns out  to be just the same  kind  of material,
applied  pretty much  in  the  same  way  as when I worked for  Pratt  and  Whitney.

         MR. JOSEPH  R.  LEWIS:  I am  the Executive  Director  of  the Town-Village
Aircraft Safety  and  Noise Abatement  Committee,  which is in  the office of  the
 local  government of  the Town of  Hempstead, New  York, and  which concerns  itself
with aircraft  noise  and  safety of the  airport.   Now the Town  of  Hempstead has
a population of  about 85,000 people.   Thirty-eight  percent  of  the population
 is  affected by the noise  of  Kennedy  Airport,  and when you  talk  about  safety,
just about  everybody in the  town is  concerned with  safety  in operations  at
Kennedy Airport.  We have been making  some progress though, even though  some
of the things  I  may  have  said here today,  questions and all —  I may  have been
giving you  the impression  that the FAA is  all bad  — sounded otherwise.   FAA
 is  not really  all bad;  it  is about 95% bad.

         MR. LEWIS:   Now  the thing  I have  found, the important  thing  —  and
this is something  I  think that everybody should bring home  with  them  --  is
when they  are  dealing with  a government agency, do  your homework.   Because


                                       67

-------
when you come up against these fellows in the Regional Offices, if they know
you have not done you homework they are going to walk all over you.  These
books I have are just samples of some of the records we have back in the
office.  We have about 30 or 35 big, thick looseleaf books with records.  In
fact, I daresay, John, some of our records are better than the FAA records of
Kennedy Airport.

         And we get things done.  We have gotten them to comply with the
preferential runway system up there just about as close as is humanly possible
to get.  We have gotten them to comply with the midnight runway selection
program, which is a big thing too.  We still have a couple of controllers that
are rugged individualists, but we are working on them also and we will have
them in line before long; won't we, John?  That is about all I can say.  As we
go along, if any of you have any questions I will give you the right answers.

         MS. SHIRLEY GRINDLE:  I was introduced this afternoon by Cliff as
being a citizen representative from Orange County, California -- and I would
like to add a little bit to that.  I spent four years between 1973 and 1977 on
the Orange County Planning Commission — two of those years as its chairman.
And one of the biggest issues that surfaced during those four years and is now
becoming one of the biggest political issues in Orange County has to do with
airport noise activity.

         At the time that I was on the Commission, the big issue was whether
or not to allow residential development around the El Toro Marine Corps Air
Base.  The issue has not gone beyond that to one of where are we going to
build another commercial, general aviation airport in Orange County.  I do not
want to get into that subject right now, but later on, if anyone would like to
know more about that issue, I would be glad to maybe try and enter into it
during our panel discussion.

         I would like to say something today about the speakers.  I related to
many of them but I noticed that every one of them said that the most difficult
aspect of correcting the conflict between airport noise  and land use was the
land use aspect.  In other words, you could change the FAA standards and
enforce them or you could change the operational procedures or the third
solution was to do something about the land use, and every one of them said
that was the most difficult one to deal with.  But nobody said why.  It is as
though all of us really  ignore how those land use decisions came about, and
maybe that is because as a nation we have become very apathetic.  We accept as
a way of life the political decisions that ended up creating these problems to
begin with.  Someone at every airport, some local jurisdiction, a city council
or board of supervisors had to approve the land use or disapprove it.

         If we were to have a chairman of the Orange County Board of
Supervisors sitting here today, I would ask him one question.  In face of all
history and all of the facts about conflicts between home owners and airport
activity, why, chairman so-and-so, did you recently approve a 500-unit
development 100 feet from the end of the airport runway?  Now, he  is not going
to tell us the answer.   In fact, he will probably be sweating about that time,
but  the real answer is that probably — undoubtedly — the person who owned
that property was a major campaign contributor to get him reelected.
                                        68

-------
         So I am saying that most of the problems of airport conflicts with
residential property owners have come about because of very, very poor
political decisions.  We have the knowledge.  We have the ability.  We have
the planning ability and we have the technical knowledge to not have any of
this happen, but we do not have politicians in this country who have the
integrity and the long-range vision to make decisions that protect the
long-range future, because the long-range future to a politician is his next
election — and that is one of the big problems.

         MR. AN6ELO J. CAMPANELLA:  My name is Angelo Campanella.  By way of
introduction here, I will mention some of my background.  In this general area
of technology, I am a consultant in acoustics and noise control.  Among my
many activities have been the noise analysis for at least three general
aviation airports around Ohio.  I spent the last year, a meeting or so a
month, on a committee in the City of Columbus, Ohio to help redraft all of the
city ordinances against noise to bring them up to date and make them
compatible with the people that have to enforce them.

         I have performed perhaps a dozen-odd noise analyses for developers of
residential tracts of land, none next to airports for a reason that I will
state in a moment, but a lot near highways and railroads.   I have had
inquiries over the phone about airport noise but it never went very far.  The
problem there is that the people come to me seeking FHA financing, insurance
for mortages, and FHA throws the ball to HUD and HUD pulls  out the 13.92 and,
lo and behold, in 13.92 they allow anything up to — 30.  And you go  to most
general aviation airports and not get you up to Ldn 65, so  that means no noise
analysis required.  That is the problem with the one organization that does
have some clout, so to speak, which is HUD, in the  planning phase.

         They have  a couple of comments here, but again  I sense the same
thing.   I see no action whatsoever, certainly in my area, on the  part of local
officials to do land planning with respect  to the noise  about  airports.  I
know that the NEF contours  exist  now  and the  ranges have  to be applied  and,
certainly,  I will spend the next year of any volunteer time trying to help
them come  to some conclusion  in that  area.

         Some comments along the way  here for the young  lady from
Massachusetts.  You mentioned  something about  ILS  impact  and that brings an
interesting fact  up.   Every time  a master plan  comes  along, for those that
have to  be  rationalized  —  and  I  use  the word rationalize for  obvious reasons
—  as to how these  airport  improvements are going to  affect the environment,
and the  two items  that  always  come  up are the  length  of  the runway  and  the
installation of the ILS  or  landing  systems.   Taxiways come  up  too but that  is
not usually a factor.  And  often  as not,  I  have  heard some  of  the semi-experts
who will  say that  an  ILS will  reduce  noise  and  that a longer runway can reduce
noise  also.  I  do  not  necessarily support that.   I  think  the public  is  fairly
quick  to pick  up  the  fact  that  this might not be so.  And we need more
definition in  those areas  as  to  show  exactly  what the impact the  long runway
and the ILS system  would  be.   This  is undeveloped territory to my knowledge
right  now.

          I  wish I  could  learn  what would motivate the officials to provide
sensible land  use  plans  about  airports.   It is critical  and it may be that  it
will  take some serious impacts  like they have had  in  Los  Angeles  and


                                        69

-------
Westchester County and so forth to bring those officials to the point where
they realize that there is a real problem, that the airport is not going to go
away and that it is a permanent member of their community and it needs to be
treated as such, a permanent facility, just as a river or harbor and so on.

         MR. JACK SWING:  We could spend a bit of time discussing the, quote,
California experience, but there are enough people here from California that
we will hear plenty of that.  There are a couple of things we do do in
California that I think are significant that begin to address this problem.
We do require land use planning elements of each community's general plan.  I
mean, the fact that we require a community general plan in the first place  is
somewhat unique.  Very few states in the country require that.  Our general
planning requires a noise planning element to-boot.  If this were not enough,
we also created airport land use commissions, which I am sure Shirley has
dealt with extensively.  They have not been largely effective but at least we
are recognizing that airport noise is a unique, distinct problem.  And they do
not limit their activities only to commercial airports.  They are beginning to
consider general aviation airports more and more.

         The particular types of problems we run into, and through my office
we get quite a number of complaints on noise pollution problems throughout  the
State, we deal with some and some we try and pass on to local agencies for
their own resolution — but we end up doing a traveling road show.  Quite
regularly, we go out and attempt to offer suggestions on what the problems may
entail and some concepts for solutions.  I have been very involved  in the El
Toro Marine Base situation down in Orange County.  But  I see a couple of
things that have been said by our previous speakers that I recognize happening
in California more and more that make general aviation noise a unique
problem.  And if I may generalize, which I am going to do anyway, we see quite
a number of situations in which general aviation noise tends to affect higher
income residential areas.

         L.A. International tends to affect Inglewood and a number  of let's
say lower economic strata.  You get into a situation where Torrance Airport
affects Rolling Hills, some rather expensive real estate.  Orange County
Airport is sort of a mix of commercial and general  aviation.  It affects a  lot
of expensive homes sites.  We see this happening throughout the state.

         There are two ramifications of that.   Impacted people are  well
informed about the law, about their political and  legal recourse to a noise
intrusion.  These people also have moved a bit  beyond the fundamental demands
of just eating and those kinds of things that the  lower  incomes deal with.   So
they now are more concerned with their peace and quiet  and enjoying their
environment.  General aviation noise affects a  slightly different portion  of
the population.

         This other thing that we talked  about  earlier, a number of people
mentioned.   It generally affects them at rather  lower  levels than in the
commercial  airports.  Seeing an Ldn 65 would be rather  an extreme situation
for most general aviation airports  in California.   Typically, the levels  are
well below  that.  So we see that  it  is  not perhaps  the  composite exposure  that
is bothering people.   It  is single  events, and  this has been brought  out  by
Mr.  Doyle  and I think even  Chuck Elkins made  some  allusion to that.
                                         70

-------
         I wrote an editorial a few months ago that appeared in the Institute
of Noise Control Engineering foagazine, copies of which are being prepared and
will be available for you in the morning.  It received a lot of criticism and
that was the plan.   You will receive a copy of that in the morning, and in
this editorial I suggest there are two or three potential solutions to let's
say an aircraft noise problem, and the solution really needs to take the form
of a balance.  I am suggesting that within California, especially,
encroachment is really here today.  We are not dealing with unimpacted
airports anymore; we are dealing with the facts of life that wherever you
build a house, if it is between the runways at El Toro, someone is going to
try to do it.  So we can fight the real estate battles over and over and will
probably lose.  So then you deal with the situation, how to achieve
compatibility or how do you reduce the impact of this aircraft noise.  There
are a couple of solutions we talked about in the editorial.  You can place
people in bomb shelters.  In Minnesota that might not be a bad idea because it
is pretty damned cold back there and the mosquitoes eat you in the summer
time.  So that might work in some parts of the country.  It may be compatible
with your life style.

         There are other things you can do.  You can get people to waive their
rights to all future use of the airport, future recourse to the airport.  One
of my pet peeves is aviation easements, and I am going to badger John Wesler
about that after a while.  And then there is another possible partial
solution, and that is if we can adequately inform people of the effects of
noise, of this particular noise from a general aviation or any other source of
annoyance; describe that noise in such terms that they can relate it to their
everyday human activities.  Then they can make an informed decision.  Is this
noise really a significant impact?  Will it really alter my life style?

         MR. JOHN TYLER:  I guess everybody up here is making a speech.  We
are here not more than a half hour, more than halfway through our hour and I
do not know how much time we will have for you to ask questions and for us to
ask questions, but let me make a little speech and end it up with a question.
And the question is to John Wesler and it has to do with the subject that has
been discussed by practically each of the panelists coming up to me.

         The airport system throughout the United States started off with a
bunch of strips in cow pastures and places around the country where people had
airplanes and wanted to fly them.  There was a great impetus to this airport
development during World War II when somebody in Federal Government decided it
would be desirable to have little airports spread throughout the country to
protect the communities surrounding those airports.  Looking back, it was a
pretty ridiculous idea but, at any rate, a lot ot airports got developed at
that time.  And after the war was over the Federal Government deeded these
airports over to the communities that surrounded the airports.  Maybe the
communities would not have gone out of their way to develop an airport there
but since they were given an airport they developed it there.

         Now many of these airports were put in positions where they were
surrounded by towns that have been there from back to the Revolutionary
times.  In fact, we heard an example this morning about Westchester County.
Look at Clover Field which was an airport which served a Douglas Aircraft
production facility outside of Chicago during World War II.  At the end of the
war it was turned over to the City of Chicago and became the primary airport


                                       71

-------
for Chicago.  The towns  along the  railroad,  Des  "laines, Park  Ridge, the whole
district had been there  for generations  and  after  the  airport  was  established,
it was  in the middle 1960's (1966) when  President  Johnson appointed a  task
force supervised by his  science-technology adviser.  This particular effort
was called the Program Evaluation  and  Development  Committee, and it was
chaired by Nick Gollivan.

         During that period there  was  a  major  national effort  to do something
about aircraft noise.  As part of  this program,  the  lawyer for the City of
Chicago was asked to provide some  justification  for  the attitude which the
City of Chicago took with regard to the  area surrounding the airport.  He very
naively gave a very honest expose  of the internal  philosophy of the group that
ran O'Hare.  He said, what we need is  authority  to control land use out to ten
miles from the center of the airport, in  all  directions.  He pointed out that
the airport expected to expand rapidly.  They  had  some runways that were there
when the airport was turned over to the  city.  They  had already added  a few
and they knew they were going to add some more,  but  they had no idea of where
they wanted to add them.  So rather than getting together with the communities
around O'Hare and deciding what was already  a  city right here off the  end of
the runway, let us not point a runway  in that  direction right off the  boundary
of the airport.

         He said what we need is the authority to  put a runway anywhere we
want to, and the City of Chicago has been pretty autocratic over the years.
They have put the runways anywhere they  wanted to.    They have now two  separate
airports on opposite sides of the  terminal building  and they have enough
runways to handle all the traffic  that the air above the airport can handle.
Now, this is sort of typical of what happens where there is a need for an
airport.

         Now many of the airports  which  are  now  small around the United States
are expected to grow in the future as  airports like  Chicago and Kennedy and
Atlanta and so on meet capacities.  Any  expansion  in operation has to  be taken
care of by reliever airports and,  since  it is  very difficult to get a  new
airport started, these reliever airport  operations are going to grow into
airports already in existence, where there is  a  total of one little strip that
can be expanded into a larger airport by extending a runway a few hundred feet
this year and putting in another runway  next year  and so on.  In each  case no
great increase in capacity but step by step you make a bigger airport  out of
it.

         Now when we come to studies of  airports in  general, the attitude of
the Federal authorities — an^ I sort of point to  John Wesler because  he
represents the FAA, that we can take Congress  and  any other group and  they say
if you want to make a study of airport noise and land use planning, let us
confine it to the airports that already  have a problem.  Let us not dig down
into a situation where they do not have  a problem,  because you are going to
stir people up and get them against the  airport.   Now,  it is really those
airports which have not already used up  the land around the airport which
could now be planning such that in the future  they would have proper use of
that land where there is going to be a high noise  impact in the future.

         Now,  I have talked long enough  but I think you see the picture that I
am drawing.  If we are going to do anything that is going to protect us in the


                                       72

-------
future, we have to do it before the land around the airport is already used up
by residential use.   So why do we not look at the layer of airports where
there's still an opportunity to do something and where we know that in the
next twenty years or maybe forty years there is going to be increased
operations?  Because whatever we do, either on the airport side or on the land
use side, becomes very permanent.  If you put in a new runway or expand a
runway, nobody is going to run in there and yank it out.  If some developer
gets authority to build houses over a thousand acres that are going to be
exposed to high noise impact levels in the future or in the distant future, it
is going to be very difficult to go in and yank those out.  So why do we not
concentrate our planning or at least include in our planning areas that we
know in the future are going to be problems and we can now do something about
it?

         DR. 8RAGDON:  Taking it one step further, to both you and Chuck,
where you add an airport where the problem already exists, what I see here is
that we are talking about it from the preventive standpoint, and would there
be under the FAA or is there a possibility where the airport does not want to
expand necessarily but wants to look at the long-term facilities?  Is there
that chance?  Or is it more oriented toward problems that we know exist and
therefore must solve as a priority?

         MR. WESLER:  Well, typically those priorities are for those locations
where problems already exist.  It is difficult to get people to look ten years
into the future and predict dire things.  No one wants to do that,
particularly politicians.  I agree with what you are saying, John, except I
disagree with what you are saying — that what we do now, particularly on the
land side, has a permanent effect.  I think you can take a look at any land
use zoning around a prospective airport.  That is not permanent by any means.
But without a question, eligibility and trust fund financing go to the
locations where problems are, not where they might be in the future.  This may
not be right but it is a fact of life.

         MR. SWING:  It is a question about the allocation of ADAP funds to
reduce noise problems.  I already warned John I was going to do this.  We have
a problem in California with the use of aircraft easements or aviation
easements.  They are sort of a major loophole in our aeronautic standards and
they are not well understood.  Unfortunately, a lot of times people give away
any future rights to recourse to aviation noise or any form of impact when
they sell off their rights to an avigation easement.  Now the reason I want
John to explain something — I was under an impression that there were some
constraints over the fact of Oakland to produce unlimited amounts of noise and
other disturbances, unquote, over this certain area where the easements
applied.  Unfortunately, that gets the Port of Oakland off the hook with our
division of aeronautics and now they are going ahead and developing condos and
single-family residential in there because it has an aircraft noise easement
and it's now considered noise compatible land use.  I am not blaming John for
this exactly but I am just suggesting — and he can respond — that when these
ADAP funds are given out let's say as a remedy for aircraft noise problems,
that perhaps the conditions of an aircraft noise easement need to be expanded
and perhaps some conditions should be placed on them.  What is the possibility
of that any time in the future?

         MR. WESLER:  I have forgotten the exact wording, but as I recall the
eligibility is for the purchase or financial control over noise impacted

                                       73

-------
areas as eligible items under trust funding.  Let me take the opposite tack.
Not necessarily that I believe it but just for argumentative purposes.  Noise
is a threat to the public welfare, not the public health and, therefore, what
is wrong with an easement if an individual feels that his annoyance is worth
so much money and he is willing to accept it?

         MR. SWING:  Actually, our staff psychologist would differ with you,
the fact that it is not a health problem.

         MR. WESLER:  He works for the Department of Health.

         MR. SWING:  But if it was strictly attitudinal and not at such high
levels, perhaps I could agree with you, but this easement allows unlimited
amounts of noise — so it certainly suggests that it could evolve into a
health problem, if you define health as strictly violating OSHA standards, or
however you want to define it.

         MR. WESLER:  You have a point there and I would say that also perhaps
those people who sold that easement must be awfully naive.

         MR. SWING:  It was clever.

         MR. WESLER:  Or uninformed — Perhaps that is a better word.

         MR. SWING:  The whole point of this was to suggest that when
easements are used as a remedy, they need to be done with a disclosure -- and
some form of adequate disclosure.  And also it would seem to me to be FAA's,
or whoever grants these funds, responsibility to insure that they were used
for a responsible purpose; that they did not just alleviate any recourse these
people have in the future.

         MR. WESLER:  I agree with you.  I think there should be some
safeguard to make sure that people who sell away their rights understand, if
you will, what they are doing and know what they are getting into.  I am not
familiar with the Oakland situation but I will find out.

         MR. SWING:  I picked it because it is the most outrageous example.

         MR. WESLER:  Yes, ma'am.

         MS. GRINDLE:  The audience and you may be interested in knowing that
in Orange County recently the board of supervisors approved a large
residential development that was within sixty-five CNEL around the Marine
Corps Airfield, El Toro.  And a condition of approval was the requirement that
the developer sign over to the county an avigation easement over all the
property.  That was later ruled illegal and cannot be done and I support the
fact that that was ruled.  That would be the developer giving away the
homeowners' rights in the future.  But the interesting thing about this is the
board of supervisors used that as a copout to approve the residential
development.  It did not change the noise level.  In fact, I am fully opposed
to avigation easements of any sort.  They do not solve the problem; they call
it something else.

         DR. BRAGDON:  I would like to raise one question.  There have been
discussions today from the people from the Park Service, and Joan Caldwell  and
                                       74

-------
others have suggested that the levels of noise  associated with G.A.  aircraft
may not be in the same ballpark or level with commercial aircraft, but  still
may be an impact because of the ambient which previously existed.
Particularly, a G.A. area may be rural in nature  and therefore the
introduction of a G.A. airport raises the ambient  significantly  by virtue of
what was previously there.  The question I have,  and I would  like to address
it to both John and Bill Galloway:

         Is there any merit in suggesting that  we  look more beyond what we  do
have now as an Ldn 65 or as a base, to ,see if we  need to protect rural,
nonurbanized areas from potentially increasing  ambient due to the  introduction
of a general aviation facility?  Is there some  merit in there and  is that
being looked up?  I would like to have Bill  give  his indication  based on what
he has done, if that is a concern; then John, to  see if FAA has  looked  at  it
or is looking at it.

         MR. GALLOWAY:  That  is not a G.A. airport problem you  are stating,
necessarily.  It is a question of what the situation is and what is  being  done
to look at the question of superimposing some mechanically  induced noise
environment on the tip of some background levels  that  are there  at the
moment.  Yes, this is an area of concern of  which  not  too much  is  known.  As
you are well aware, most of these facilities surveyed  are at  higher  levels  and
usually they are places of higher other urban noises.   I do not  know what  is
going to happen, but certainly this has been discussed  in various  NASA
circles, FAA and others, and  presumably some work  will be done  to  look  at
these areas  in which two things happen.  One, you  have  a moderate, cumulative
exposure superimposed on a very low background  level,  but caused in  two
different ways.  One  is a relatively  small number of quiet  noise events, as
compared to  the  same cumulative measure being caused by  lots  of  relatively low
events.  We  do not know the answer.   Nobody  knows the  answer, but  as far as I
am concerned that  is  the basic  area that  needs  to be explored by the
responsible  agencies.

         MR. WESLER:  Bill  is obviously  right.   He always  is.  But everybody
keeps coming back  to  65.  You know, 65  is  a  generally  accepted  guideline and I
think  it  is  a good one, particularly  around  the larger airports  where most of
our emphasis has been placed  in the past.   It  is not  a hard and  fast standard
and we  have  carefully not,  at least from  FAA's  point  of view, tried  to say it
is  a  standard.   There has to  be some  judgement  used in things like this too
and the use  of  a lower  guideline  or  a lower  planning  level  around more noise
susceptible  areas,  such as  general  aviation  airports,  is  entirely profitable
and  should  be done.   It  is  a  basis  of judgement in many cases and it is quite
appropriate.

          DR.  BRAGDON:   John  Schettino.

          MR.  JOHN  C.  SCHETTINO:   Cliff,  I  don't think  you  really have got an
 answer to the  question.   The  question should have been addressed to  the
 Environmental  Protection  Agency whereas  in  fact has the responsibility for
establishing the health  and welfare criteria upon which regulations  are
 based.   Since  the  levels  document was published, a number  of  additional
questions have  arisen concerning  what are the  levels  requisite  to protecting
 the public health  and welfare.  As many of  you  are aware,  we  have a choice of
 criteria now.   We have  single event  criteria,  many of  which have been applied
                                         75

-------
in several of the regulations already proposed.  In this particular area,
general aviation, we have for over a year now been investigating the
appropriateness of existing aviation criteria to the general aviation noise
environment.  Our Scientific Assistance Staff has been running that program,
and I would expect that it would be their plan to initiate some public
ordinance resulting from their findings which we in turn would then use to
establish the appropriate criteria for general aviation.  And I think that is
really the only statement that the Government can make at this time.  We are
aware of it.  We have work underway on it and I would be very surprised if
Chuck Elkins does not intend for some public discourse to take place upon our
findings in order that we can establish criteria for that.

         MR. LEWIS GOOOFRIEND:  I have a question for either Bob Doyle or
Cliff Bragdon or maybe both.  It is:

         After land use planning, what next?  How do you achieve
implementation after planning?  This is the real question that needs to be
answered by planners in order to help the people in general on aviation noise
field or the air carrier airport field or the land use planning problem area.
You can plan, you can have regional plans, you can have municipal plans, you
can have city plans.  Planners are generally  in an advisory capacity to the
municipality, to a bank, to a mortgage agency, and it is the municipal
government, the municipal zoning board that actually governs the land use in
the municipality — and the courts.  Because  if the applicant for a particular
land use that might not be covered or might not conform does not like the
municipality's rulings, they can go to court  and try to have them overturned.
It really boils down to how.  Let us go back  a moment.

         In each of the fifty states there are fifty ways of enacting zoning
regulations, taking advantage of planning, and enacting municipal laws.  So
how can the planner and the citizen who are involved in these noise problems
take advantage of the information to obtain implementation of the good
planning concepts?  That is one of the things  I really feel ought to come out
of this meeting, because without that  all the concepts of  land use planning
and general aviation noise cannot really  go anywhere.

         DR. BRAGDON:  Bob, do you want to start off on that?  I will chime  in.

         MR. DOYLE:  Okay.  Maybe we can  put  it away.  One  key you said was
fifty  laws, fifty ways of doing things, plus  added to by  all of the  local
communities.   I  think it has to be recognized  that as consultants across the
country, we find ourselves trying to keep track of those  laws, those abilities
and so forth.  In California, in Washington,  and  in a few  other states, a plan
that has been mentioned  in an ordinance --' the plan itself  is an ordinance.
Once you get the plan accomplished, you must  adopt it as  an ordinance and
zoning must track that.  And there are court  cases in those states which
indicate very  clearly that the zoning must track those plans.  The trick is  to
get the plan approved.   In those situations,  unfortunately, too often the plan
looks  like  the existing  zoning because that  is where the  property interests
and the political interests  often lie.
                                        76

-------
         I would say there are many ways of implementation.  I would say,
start your planning on the basis of where you are going to end up.  What can
you implement?  You know, what is an implementable action:  This is why I
mentioned that regional agencies that are going to do planning for airport
systems or for airport facilities which have no control or authority are not
really the right ones to be doing the planning.  Now, if you take an
organization like the Metropolitan Council in the Minneapolis area, and the
Atlantic Regional Commission, they have special legislation, particularly in
Minneapolis, which does give them an opportunity to build a system, if you are
looking at an airport system.  And they have through that Metropolitan Council
legislation the ability to veto local plans which are at variance with these
metro-wide systems.  That is one side of the coin.

         At the local level, I can certainly appreciate Mrs. Grindle's
position that it is a political decision 99 times out of 100.  We are having
the same difficulty in the San Francisco situation where we are dealing with
nine different jurisdictions, and the jurisdictions themselves — it is a
joint land use study by the nine jurisdictions — do not want to  face up to
their responsibilities concerning land use decision.  They have not only
approved apartments along Highway 101, which happened also to be within the
airport's area, but they continue to do so.  They feel that everything should
be done on-airport.  Well, we have looked at it from every way and from every
angle, the entire group has, and maybe 80 percent of the problem can be
resolved on-airport, but there is still 20 percent that is going to have to be
done in the community.

         I would like to say that I believe there are a few places around that
have done some implementation.  I mentioned the Kansas City special zone.
That is a zone which is unlike most zoning classifications.   It is like  a
planned unit development process and that process is as follows:

         A master plan for the development of  for the most part,  usually
undeveloped areas  is put together.  Then that  eventually becomes  the zoning
for that area, that  is that master plan.  And  everything that goes on within
the area covered by the  plan unit development  approach has to fit that master
plan.   Now, there  are  provisions typically for updating or changing these
master  plans.  The Kansas City Airport special district is that kind of  a
plan, where on-airport and off-airport decisions  are geared to that master
plan, which is supervised by the local city department.

         There  are other forms of implementation.  One of  them is fairly
extreme.  A lot  of airports have had to do it, particularly major airports
where  -- with FAA  funds  and  sanction — where  houses are  in areas exposed,
let's  say to 75  Ldn or above and are going to  continue to  be exposed according
to  all  the  forecasts;  those  lands are  acquired and a relocation process  comes
through.   It  is  a  very traumatic socio-economic process.   In  some cases, it is
well  accepted;  in  other  cases,  it is not.  Boston balked,  as  I remember.
Boston  neighborhoods  balked  at the process.  They did  not  want to move.

          Another process, but this goes even to the easement  — In Seattle,
the area which  is  above  the  accepted noise levels now  but  is  expected to be
within  acceptable  levels  — without  going  into details —  but based on FAR 36,
aircraft,  changing operations and so forth, the property owners within that
                                         77

-------
area were given several choices by the Port of Seattle, and I will tick them
off.

         It was called a Purchase Insurance Area.  Number one, if the noise
was of great consequence to them, of great concern to them, the Port of
Seattle would purchase the property and would relocate them under the Uniform
Relocation Act of the U.S. Government, because Federal funds would be used as
well as state and local.  The presumably equitable settlement would be arrived
at by the party being moved  in terms of its value.  The port would then
insulate that house and resell it within an avigation easement attached.  It
would be insulated to fit the standards, again under the national noise policy
of FAA.  That was one choice.  If noise was of such great consequence to you
and your family and your situation, you could get out.

         Second choice was that  if you really wanted to stay  there and a lot
of people did, you could get a grant for noise  insulation  in  return for an
easement.  Now the reason for the return was because they were not certain
that anybody was actually going  to take the money  and  insulate the house, for
one thing.  Plus, there was  no guarantee  that the  property  owner  would not
come back at some later date  if  there was  no easement  attached.   Now, granted
the easement has to be tied  to existing noise  levels.   If  those were exceeded,
then the easement went out.  That was the  second choice; you  could  insulate
your property  and stay there.

         The third choice, and many  people interestingly  enough chose this,
they did not want anybody messing with their  house.   They  did not want any
easement.  They did not want  any insulation.   They did not  want to move.  That
was their choice.  That seemed to work very well in  that community with those
citizens because they worked  out their scheme  to a large extent with the help
of technicians, and it was a plan  and  program then that was implementable by
the people who had to make the very  two  decisions.   In that case  it was the
property owners and residents  and that got them completely out of, you might
say at  least,  the political  decisions,  at least in that area.

         DR. BRAGDON:  Well,  I think the  most  important thing is  that  the plan
be  a legislative document.   It has  to have legislation standing.   It  has to  be
adopted as part of policy  by that  community.   Shirley was  talking about the
commissioner can decide what he  wants  to  do for that county by virtue  of some
decision he makes with  a  friend  who  is  a  politician or a friend who is
supporting his political  campaign.   There has to be first of all  some  legal
standing for the document, which is  what  Bob was talking  about earlier.  That
is  extremely critical.   Now  even in  California, to have legal standing, the
thing  has  to be  adopted  by the legislative branch.

         MS. GRINDLE:  Three votes change it,  and we do it all the time.

          DR.  BRAGDON:  All  right.   I did  not realize it was three votes.   But
even  if it were  adopted,  that does not assure the continuity.  And that is  a
point  I would  like  to stress,  that the planning process is a continuous one
and only if  there  is  a continuous monitoring of that process is  there going  to
be  assurance  that  there is the interest of the community being expressed.
                                         78

-------
        We could make  the  same  analogy with noise control laws in the United
States,  and there are 1,900 of these among cities above 10,000.  How many of
those  are  in  operation?  Very few.   Why? The politican wants to get on the
books  that he is for environmental  control and does not put any money in to
insure that they be enforced.  So the question is not to turn it away from the
planner.   There has to  be an accountability process going on.  It takes
citizen's  groups and, sure, there is a continuity in the terms of mandated
authority  and enforcement of that authority and that is the thing that
concerns me.

        There is only  one  example that I know of where they have actually
looked after  the case of the economic impact of making a decision and then
evaluating it later. What  happens in cases, obviously, is the case will be
made for rezoning and everybody thinks it is terrific and then two years later
they come  back and  find out by virtue of that decision there is a turnover
rate,  there  is a potential  abandonment of that facility and there is a loss in
the tax base  for that particular use, if they permit it.

        What I would like to see is the alternative choice examined.  I
haven't seen  it.   I would like to see it tried for the first time,  looked at
over the long term  for  the interest of alternative signs for the community  in
terms of economic  costs and economic benefits when the zoning case  comes up.
It seems to  me it  is apparent what the advantages would be on a long term
versus the short  term.   And  it seems to me  that  it should be an inherent
requirement  that  the long term commitment to planning must be looking at what
the consequence is  of decision A versus decision  B.  And  there's no
accountability there.  I think that is one  of the things  that the planning
community  has not  done.  They have not shown what happens if you make this
decision versus that decision, what is the  economic  impact.

        We  have  a general aviation group here talking to us, saying that the
development  of an  airport will stimulate economic development.  We  do not have
any quantitative cost for that.  The point  here  is that you  have got  to  argue
in terms of some hard core data  to  refute a political opinion that  has been
expressed  by a councilman who says  this  is  in  the best  interest of  our
community.  The citizens do  not  ask for  this  but I think  they  should  demand
that kind  of decision making.

         MR. WESLER:   I think all we can  do is close and  say implementation in
a democracy  is very difficult.   It  typically  involves compromises  and as a
young man twenty years  ago  I  had to get  used  to  that.  The  only thing that
helped me out along the way  was  what Churchill said,  that democracy is the
worst form of government that we have  except  all  the rest.   I  happen  to
believe that.  This is  a democratic situation  and everybody is  involved  in
this, the plan that comes out of these  efforts — with heavy citizen
involvement, with  heavy management  involvement,  with heavy  federal, state  and
local agency involvement ~  will be a  compromise plan.   It  will not be
everything the citizens want; it will  not be  everything management  wants;  it
will not  be  everything  the  FAA wants;  it will  not be everything the
consultants  want.   I happen  to find that works pretty well.   It does  not give
perfect solutions.   I  have  not  seen very many of those,  but it works  better.
As  Churchill says,  it  works  better  than  anything else.
                                        79

-------
         ATTENDEE:  I would like to comment on what has gone on in the last
couple of speeches.  You know, Lou, your question implied what goes on after
the plan and then the response we heard was the plan is a continuous one and
it is a continuing, ongoing one, and I think that is the difference in
concept.  If you had a contract to do a plan, you finished it.  There it is.
It is a piece of paper.  But the plan should have included a strategy that had
some implementation in it.  And I think the two elements that I heard and part
of the plan is that it had a public persuasion element to it and some kind of
enforcement credibility or accountability.

         The persuasion element could include, for instance something like
Torrance's news letter to inform pilots.  It could include signs like those at
Buchanan Field that the pilots can read as they are approaching the runway.
It can include, like Orange County's, inserts for the aviation manual.  It can
include regular announcements to the press, or whatever, a lot of other
things.  But there has got to be a public pursuasion element, and I think that
applies to surface transportation in other areas as well.

         And that gets into the fundamental issue that is still a continuing
resolution in the courts between local and federal issues, but if you are just
keeping statistics on what aircraft are flying and what  is happening, just the
number of operations; if you do not get hard data like Cliff  was talking
about, at least it is playing on something that is giving the public some
sense of credibility in understanding the problem.

         MR. TYLER:  During the last two sessions of the  legislature there
have been bills in Congress to provide ADAP funds for  airport  land  use
planning and for  land use change.  Now, these bills have essentially been
designed by ATA, which works very closely with the Aviation  Subcommittee  of
Public Works.  The bills  are designed to benefit the air  transport  system.
They would provide funds  to airports which would be used  to  draw  noise
countours for the condition at the present time, also  for 1985, and then  have
public hearings with communities around the  airports and  work with  the
communities around the airport to develop a coordinated  plan, taking  into
account the future plans  of the airport and  also the present and  future  plans
of the communities.  Now, there are funds available for  that sort  of  thing
right now.  They  are on an 80/20 basis.  The ADAP funds  pay eighty percent  of
the cost and the  local airport twenty percent of the cost.   In most cases the
airport does not  pick up  those funds because  there  is  no real  reason  why they
should plan with  the communities around the  airport.   Why pay for  that  twenty
percent, even though it is a small percentage,  if you  do not have to  spend
anything?

         I think  people living  around  airports  should  be aware  of  this  sort  of
thing that is going on in Congress  and  they  should  ask that this  kind of
program be made mandatory; that  any  airport  that receives ADAP  funding  for  any
purpose make a plan showing what the  noise  impact will  be,  what  it is now and
what  it will be  in  1985,  1990,  1995.   Under  the  present  circumstances,  with
the change  in noise characteristics  of  the  airline  fleet over a period  of ten
to twenty years,  we know  what  the  noise levels  and  what  the noise impact will
be so that these  contours could  be  drawn,  the communities could  be advised  as
to what the  airport  planning  is  which  would  make  it possible for  the
communities  to coordinate their  plans.
                                        80

-------
         Now, I believe that communities around airports should get together,
work on their Congressmen to make this sort of thing mandatory rather than
voluntary on the part of the airport.  And I know there are communities all
over the United States that work in connection with the impact of noise on
their community, but they are so fragmented that they have no impact on the
Congressional legislation and I think this is one of our real problems.  The
industry — ATA is a well organized — a $20 billion a year industry.  They
can lose a few $100 million in their lobby in Washington and never miss it,
and they do a very good job of lobbying -- which you would expect.  But the
people of the United States have to get together and let their Congressmen
know what their needs are, and if they do so I think real improvement in the
situation could be brought about by requiring that these plans be developed.

         OR. BRAGDON:  Chuck, you had a comment.

         MR. ELKINS:  I have a comment and a question on a different subject.
My 60-second comment is:  I am much more cynical than most of the other
speakers.  I think maybe it is the job I have.  I feel the sooner we come to
grips with the idea that money is going to have to change hands and hopefully
not the way Ms. Grindle suggested, but money to buy the rights for
development, rights for some other type of -- not an avigation easement but
some way to change the land use of the property.  The sooner we come to grips
with this problem the sooner we are going to solve it.

         Sure, some communities solve it by the legislative point zoning plan
— which lets the citizens enforce it by watching closely.  But as a general
rule, I think we are going to have money spent to buy up the land, buy up the
development rights, and I think that is going to take two things.  It is going
to take a coming to grips with the problem on the part of the aviation
industry that they have to pay all the costs of their industry and not expect
society to carry it.  To the extent that we think that airports are a general
good and we should promote airports and not make those who fly pay the whole
cost, then it ought to come out of the general treasury.  But to ask it to
come out of the hands of those people who own land is, I think, in the long
run foolhardy because they are going to put all the pressure, they are going
to have lawsuits, they are not going to stick with it.  And by and large we
are going to end up with the impacted airports again.

         Let me ask this of Lucie Searle.  You thought one thing you could get
some help on in your state is for the FAA to help with enforcing operations
control.

         MS. SEARLE:  You mean at towers?  No, I said we have gone through
this with them and they will not enforce.  We accept that.  We think they can
do much more to inform and remind pilots that such and such is in effect.  You
know, someone wants to make a departure and requests a certain runway, and
they say yes, please maintain a heading for noise abatement such and such --
or please make a — we don't get the cooperation we want.

         MR. ELKINS:  Why do you say you accept that they do not enforce it?
We expect local communities and states to come in and enforce Federal rules.
                                       81

-------
         MS. SEARLE:  I think you should pose the question to them.

         MR. ELKINS:  Just so we have John answer that question.

         MS. SEARLE:  I think their rationale has been that these are local
rules and it is up to the local management.  They concur with them — they are
fine from the safety standpoint, yes, reasonable from the FAA's point of view,
but they are your rules and you enforce them.

         MR. ELKINS:  Well, when the local governments tell me about Federal
rules, I give them a speech about I did it for you, we are all in this thing
together, why don't you help me out because I don't have enough resources to
do that.  And I expect them to say, I am a good citizen, I will help out, why
doesn't the Federal Government help out too?

         MR. LEWIS:  Concerning these FAR regulations of the FAA,  I have a
question on whether they could make the noise and safety regulations or
anything carry penalties, and a flight controllers' answer to me on the
question of the pilot, as to what would happen to him if he violated the noise
breaker regulations at Kennedy Airport sums up the whole thing.  The
controllers' answer was:  A slap on the wrist with a wet ruler.  Now, when the
FAA puts in monetary penalties or threat of lifting a pilot's license for
thirty days or something then we could see good noise abatement as far as
procedures, runway use is concerned.  As long as it is the way it  is now, you
are going to find an awful lot of pilots that are just laughing at everything.

         MR. WESLER:  Violation of a FAR is punishable by a $1,000 fine for
each violation.

         MR. LEWIS:  Okay, John, why is the FAA so averse to using that then?
I could give the Eastern Region at least 150 violations.  I would  like to see
these pilots kept from flying.  I will get together with you and I will give
you other things and let us get these guys.

         MR. WESLER:  I think an interpretation of what is a violation is kind
of broad, Joe, but there are penalties.  These go far beyond, of course, just
air traffic control FAR's.  Our administrator has attempted to get these
raised to $25,000 per event, for reasons other than ATC.  Why don't we enforce
local regulations?  In many cases, we do.  In many cases, the local
regulations, in terms of departure headings, departure routes are  enforced if
they are not at a legal level.

         MS. SEARLE:  At none of the G.A. airports that I work with will these
pilots enforce our locally adopted rules.  We have discussed this many times
with our regional FAA office and the most that can be approved is  for them to
be willing to be informed when time and personnel permit.  And unfortunately
~ I really hate to say this about your business — I have gone in there many
times, in a number of airports, and have really tried to give them clues and
say are there any noise abatement things in effect here, or is there anything
we should use.  And they will often say:  Well, say you have a right or a
left-hand turn in effect, use whichever you like when it is clear, but by
giving off either a right or left-hand turn we would avoid a residential area.
                                        82

-------
         MR.  WESLER:  I can only guess that most of the occasions you are
speaking of are VFR, visual flight regulations, and all air carrier
operations, IFR —

         MS.  SEARLE:  Now, back to G.A., I would guess it is because these air
traffic controllers are not really demanded to do that.  Well, is there
anything your office can do to get them to play a bigger role here?  Maybe we
are not talking to people high enough.

         MR.  WESLER:  I suspect if you talked to Bob Whittington in Boston you
would get some better answers.  And insofar as getting more air traffic
controllers —

         MS.  SEARLE:  I don't think we need more in many of these places.  I
think it is just a matter of working closer with the management.

         DR.  BRAGDON:  Yes.  I think it would be good for that to be handled
outside.  I am trying to raise additional questions that other people might
have that have not had a change to speak.

         MR.  WILLIAM J. CRITCHFIELD:  Commenting on Mr. Tyler's suggestion
that funds be provided to develop contours for airports in terms of general
aviation, we provided our own funds to develop the contours.  And we
discovered or the community suggested that rather than adjust the land use to
meet the contours, they adjust the contours to meet the land use — which we
are doing at the expense of aviation.

         To comment on Jack Swing's offering on the Oakland matter, it occurs
to me that when you purchase an avigation easement you are paying the owner of
the land for the decrease in the value of his property because you are going
to use it to make noise over it.  Therefore, the planning body should
recognize that and should deal with it in terms of the permitted uses.

         A comment on the air traffic controllers.  In terms of their making
any enforcement of local regulations for dealing with aviation noise, the air
traffic controller is in the forefront; he is the point man.  If we cannot
have his cooperation and assistance -- We do not need his enforcement, just
his cooperation and assistance -- in dealing with the noise problem at local
airports who have local problems, then it is practically useless to have an
effective program for dealing with noise abatement.  It then degenerates into
a, quote, gotcha game — and you can waste a lot of time resources and efforts
in playing gotcha.  Thank you.

         MR.  RANDY BARNES:  Randy Barns, City Planning Program.  One of my
concerns has  to do with environmental economics and I would like to address
both Mr. Elkins and Mr. Wesler.  It seems that the rising cost of energy has
increasingly caused the political area to re-evaluate environmental
legislation.   It is already on the books.  There has been talk about relaxing
air quality standards, for example — in particular, to allow more
sulphur-content coal to be burned.  Along those same lines, the rising cost of
energy is also impinging upon the commercial aircraft industry as well as the
general aviation industry.  The rising cost of jet fuels is expected to double
or triple within the next year or so.
                                       83

-------
         My question is, how would this matter, especially as an aviation
lobby, affect the outcome of noise abatement criteria within EPA?  At the same
time, I would like to ask the FAA if this type of economics allows them to
reappraise angles of ascent and rates of ascent and rates of descent over busy
airports?  In other words, it is a logical assumption that the lower the rate
of ascent, for example, the lower the thrust — especially with jet aircraft.
So if you have a 15 degree rate of ascent over a residential area, you are
going to be impacting for a longer period of time over a longer distance of
residential community and more residential neighbors.  So with that in mind, I
would like to know whether or not this kind of economics is having any play in
the affairs of both airport management and the decision to establish noise
abatement criteria.

         MR. WESLER:  Well, so far, the rising cost of fuel is probably the
best friend that noise abatement ears have had in a long time.  It comes about
because most of the newer aircraft combine both less noise and better fuel
efficiency.  And if there is any drive that will bring an aircraft operator to
a new aircraft, it  is the cost of operating that aircraft, not necessarily
noise.  So particularly in the jet aircraft, and particularly in the air
carrier jet aircraft but also in regard to the business jets, the newer
aircraft are both more fuel efficient and quiet and the fuel cost,  if nothing
else, is driving the operators to the use of those aircraft.

         Now, there are other things that we are doing in order to  save fuel,
from a national point of view,  one of these things  is maximum descent, for
example.  You mentioned this.  By descending from cruising altitudes almost at
flight idle, this is saving fuel and it is a quieter approach, although most
of the quiet, of course, is at 39,000 feet, below which is does not make that
must difference anyway.  But in effect, so far, the  rising cost of  fuel has
not been contrary to noise abatement.

         Now it comes  into account and  it does come  into conflict  in certain
specific instances.  One of these  is in Boston, for  example, where  the
departure route from one runway there,  22-right has  become quite  a
controversial thing around Boston, routes would be to  depart  and  quickly  turn
left and, essentially,  do  a 360 degree  turn and back up  and  over  the  airport
and head west over  the  airport.  This  is  also  the most fuel-wasteful  of the
various alternatives which were analyzed  for 22-right  departures  at Boston.
And so you have a conflict here,  a direct conflict between  potential for  fuel
economy and noise abatement.  And  the  balancing of these,  along with many
other items, is a very difficult  judgment to make.   It is  a  judgment  and  it  is
a judgment that will be made by different people representing  different
interests. It usually  falls to the FAA to make the judgment  and,  rightly  or
wrongly, we make  it.   I think  it  was Secretary Bill  Coleman  who  used  to  say
that you  are never  going  to please everybody.  Probably your best decision  is
that which makes  both  ends of  the  spectrum  equally unhappy.   So I guess  that
is our criterion.

          DR. BRAGDON:   Any comment  from EPA on the  issue  of environmental
energy  legislation?

          MR. ELKINS:   Just very quickly on  this.   You  used the word criteria.
I  cannot.  We  always make the  distinction between  what on the one hand the
health  effects  are and what  science says  on the  one  hand and,  secondly what


                                        84

-------
the final decision should be.  I can assure you that our assessments, then, as
they affect health and welfare, are very well thought out, are not influenced
by cost, energy or anything like that.  But when it comes to making regulatory
decisions, we spend much more money figuring out what the economic impact of
our decision is, including energy, instead of health and welfare because that
is where the politics are.  So our feelings are you put it out on the table so
that everyone knows what you are doing.

         What happens at the economic end -- when manufacturers are looking at
new aircraft they seem to be very inclined to worry about range, payload, and
now energy. We have not seen a great deal of inclinaton that aircraft
designers build in noise control as one of the major considerations.  It
always seems to be the afterthought -- well, let's see now.  We have got this
airplane  and we surely want to fly it at this speed.  Now let's see how we can
make it  a little bit quieter and, of course, you have already made those
design decisions that keep you from having a quieter aircraft.

          So  I think energy and economy are the current reasons that people
give for  not doing what we think maybe they ought to do.  Next year  it will be
something else.  That does not mean that we do not give a hoot, certainly; but
I  think  part of our job in the EPA is to try to put  it in the right
perspective.

          MR. KENNETH J. DELING:  My name  is Ken Deli no, Systems Control.   We
have done these noise control  and  also noise abatement programs across the
country.  We have found the  airlines  have  been  in the forefront of noise
reduction by reducing the fuel consumption.  Most of the major  airlines  also
have given  to each of the pilots  a program-learning  document on how  to save
fuel.   These include  idle-thrust  approaches with depressed  flaps.   In fact,
Northwest Airlines stops  the flaps  at  35  degrees  and on takeoff thrusts  by up
to five  to  six  percent, to  save  not  only  fuel  but  also engines.   And  we  have
measured up  to  10 dBA differences  on  this.

          What actually  caused  us  to  look  into  it, we saw  the  10 dBA
differences  and then  we  found  the program-learning  document that  each of the
airline pilots  get and  the  airlines  are  computing  a savings of  up to $10
million a year  by saving  fuel  and also  reducing the noise.

          DR. BRAGDON:   This  is a secondary benefit.

          MR. STANLEY  GREEN:   Stan Green  from GAMA.   On this same  point,  I
would  like  to  point  out to  Mr. Elkins that the Concorde,  which  is not a
general  aviation aircraft,  obviously is  a '66  design.   We didn't  consider
noise  at that  time.   Today,  noise is a prime design parameter,  has been  for
some ten years.  And  while  you may not sit at  the table,  I  think  if  you  will
talk to the people you  will  find that it is a key design  parameter.   Noise is
 an impediment  to sales  and  we do not like things that do not sell.

          Another point  — and I bring this up because of the question that was
just raised on  the energy issue.  Yesterday, I had a bit of a conflict between
GAMA and FAA on the  question of noise versus energy, and there  is a conflict
 there in some  of the cases.  We've received permission from FAA to establish a
 limitation —  and I  will discuss this in my paper Friday in more detail  —
                                         85

-------
limitation to so-called maximum normal operating power which will achieve
through operation a legally enforceable operating limitation on the airplane
over and above what they are making today.  Those that meet the requirements
will be from 4 to 9dB less in noise than they are right now.

         Yesterday, there was a meeting going on at GAMA offices between FAA
and GAMA on ways to conserve energy.  One of the programs that was being
worked on was how to get the airplanes to get more miles to the gallon.
Unfortunately, one of the systems that was being proposed and apparently
generally agreed upon by both sides, were some climb profiles and power
scheduling that would wipe out at least part of what we hope to gain from the
noise side.  So we do have some problems there.  In effect, what I instructed
my staff to do was get on the computer, see where we can make the best
compromises with respect to fuel and noise, take the least dB cut that we have
to from the gain that we intend to make, and maximize the energy conservation.

         We have two national goals.  They are in conflict.  Anyone here that
says that we should forget the fuel and worry about the noise is as much wrong
as someone who comes up with the alternative.  Don't kid yourself, we are not
going to waste the fuel to save the noise, but we are not going to make more
noise to save the fuel.  We have got to figure it out.  It  is a problem and
there are a number of other areas along the same line.

         The same in the jet aircraft — Using flight idle  or close to it has
some problems too, as I know John knows.  The guy who never heard it thirty
miles out is now getting a little bit of it because the bird is  lower than it
used to be.  Well, we have to work together.  You cannot  ignore  one in favor
of the other.

         MR. TYLER:  May I comment on that one?  With regard to  this, we are
now discussing operating procedures to reduce noise and,  as Mr.  Green just
mentioned, there  is a noise reduction takeoff procedure,  originally developed
by the Northwest Airlines and  later approved by a resolution by  the Airline
Pilots Association, which is the best noise abatement procedure.  I might
mention that Bill Sperry wrote  a paper which was published  in the Institute of
Noise Control Engineering Magazine  and  I may want to  include that in the
documents available for this meeting.   In that, Bill  has  described  all of the
six procedures, using three dfferent  kinds of aircraft  and  from  the size of
the footprints produced by a takeoff  and  landing by these aircraft  at  both
maximum and minimum weights.   So,  it  is  a rather comprehensive  study and shows
the benefits from a noise standpoint  of  using these different procedures.

          I might mention that  the Northwest procedure  is  used completely by
Northwest Airlines and  is also  used by  North Central  — which how has  a
different name.

          DR. BRAGDON:  Republic.

          MR. TYLER:  Yes, and  most  of the other airlines  use a  procedure,
which  is  labeled  ATA, which does not  have noise abatement in it.  Now,  let me
mention that  noise  is  a function of thrust reduction.   Jet engines  are
certificated  by the FAA with two ratings.  One  is a takeoff rating, which  is
limited  in  time  and  is  used  by aircraft operators during  takeoff and  initial
climb.  Another  is well-called a continuous  rating, which is a  maximum that
                                        86

-------
can be used beyond this limited takeoff period.  The ATA talks about a thrust
reduction, but it is a thrust reduction to climb thrust, not to a variable
load thrust, which therefore has no noise reduction involved.  And as Bill has
pointed out in his paper, it is possible to make a greater thrust reduction if
the airplane is light than when it is heavy.  And in order to follow noise
abatement procedures and get the most out of it, the pilot has to determine
what thrust pattern he will use with his thrust reduction after he has
completed the ground roll, initial climb, a period of acceleration and climb
in which he reduces flap as quickly as possible to get to zero flap and then,
under those conditions, make the thrust reduction.

         MR. CAMPANELLA:  I have some comments that I want to give in this
general area also.

         MR. TYLER:  This procedure is not used generally by airlines.  I
happen to know in particular that Delta does not use it.  The pilots are not
aware of the procedure's being available and I know there are several other
airlines that are in the same position.  But this is because the pressure, the
educational impact, has not been brought down  to the pilot level at this time.

         MR. CAMPANELLA:  Most of the hard core data we know about has been
developed in respect to air carrier aircraft and we appreciate the fact in
general aviation that that has given us a beginning.  But if we only focus on
that, we are going to miss what we are trying  to achieve.  The land use and
traffic control varies from airport to airport and there  is  a much greater
variety of general-use airports than air carrier airports and we have a much
broader problem than air carrier airports do as far as finding a solution for
a small body of people like this to work out.

         For instance, I believe that most  of  the general aviation noise  is  in
the five-mile radius doughnut or pillbox called the air traffic area, ATA,
that every pilot knows about.  Some people  call it by the misnomer, control
zone,  but that is the ATC, Air Traffic Control, and  in  that  situation there
may or may not be a tower  there, or the  strict definition is  that there  is a
tower.  Still, the  size of the box  is  where all the problems  lie.   If there  is
a tower operating,  then you say ATC said do something  about  it.  You  are
speaking only of a  tower  operator, not of  a radar  person  vectoring  an aircraft.

         There is one device called a  visual  approach  slope  indicator, or
VASI,  which helps on  landing.  And  this  is  very common  knowledge among pilots
now that you should use this when you  are  approaching  an  airport because  it
keeps  you  in a nominal  slope.

         Finally, the jet  aircraft, the  jet takeoff  is  the worst offender  as
far as we  are concerned,  the biggest single impact,  and  it  is the most
difficult  to control  and  it  can occur  at non-tower  airports.   So  if  we  are
going  to  talk  about jet  aircraft,  that is  the  only type of thing we  should be
concerned  about.

          MR. LEWIS  GOODFRIEND:   I  have one last  comment.   To answer  the
question  about the  airport developer  having a hidden  plan which will  nibble
away  at  the  environment,  that  can  no  longer really happen with the
implementation or  with  the adoption  of an  FAA environmental  document.   I
                                        87

-------
believe it is 1050.1C, and I believe it has just been issued.  It has a
statement in it and it was issued in response to a CEQ requirement.  It
specifically states about the long-term plan, not just this 700 of runway or
this additional taxiway or that additional apron, has to be covered by the
Environmental Impact Statement, but the long-term development has to be
examined along with the request for funding the EIS for the particular piece
of activity for funding that they are looking for.  I think that this is one
of the good features of that document.  There are some others that I am not as
enthusiastic about.

         MR. WESLER:  What noise office?

         MR. 600DFRIEND:  Your noise office, Mr. Tedrick's Office.

         MR. WESLER:  It is not out yet.

         DR. BRAGDON:  That is one of the problems around airports.  When you
talk about compatibility, its incremental growth, what happens this year, is
not a big problem, just a small runway extension.  And what you are saying is
if that small runway extension runs at a parallel across, then you have a
problem on your hands and that has been one of the problems the planning group
dealth with — incremental analysis without looking over the total plan.

-------
                                 MORNING SESSION


October 4, 1979                                             9:10 o'clock, a.m.


         DR. BRAGDON:  The first presentation this morning  is by Lewis
Goodfriend.  Lew is President of Lewis  S. Goodfriend  and Associates  in Cedar
Knolls, New Jersey.  Lew has been in the business many years and has
established quite a reputation in the area of community noise and
environmental noise and has been involved in all aspects of it over  a
considerable period of time.  Lew's presentation will deal with remedial
measures dealing with noise associated  with G.A. activity.

         MR. LEWIS S. GOODFRIEND:  Thank you, Cliff.  Good morning.  It was a
pleasure yesterday to hear some people  describe some  case histories  of
airports toward remedial measures.  I was particularly interested  in what
Lucie Searle and Joan Caldwell had to say, and you did hear the kinds of
problems that we run into when all you  could talk about was planning, from
Shirley Grindle.  I do not plan to go over that kind  of territory  in detail.
In fact, I think I can limit my talk by telling you some things I  am not going
to talk about.

         I am not going to talk about fighting the aircraft.  I am not going
to talk about how to change the zoning  because I don't know how to make people
change zoning.  I wish I did.  I am not going to talk about how to fly general
aviation aircraft.  I am not going to discuss the two-segment approach for
business jets, things like that.  I think that can be discussed by others.
And I am not going to talk about the kinds of solutions that could be
considered under ADAP's program quite a few years ago from the Federal
Government which resulted in how you reduce the impact of noise in communities
around carrier airports by doing things like sound-proofing houses or the like.

         I would like to address the problem of how you implement  some of the
communications and how you cover some of the problems of communication between
airport people, airport operators and the community.  I am going to  cover alot
of old ground, but let us see if I can  emphasize it and systematize  it so it
will be a little more useful.

         The first step in remediation  is the identification of the  nature of
noise impact in portions of the surrounding community for which the  noise
problems exist.  This first step in the problem itself may be the  major step
in remediation.  The use of conventional noise descriptors to try  and describe
the impact does not appear to be suitable for general aviation noise
assessment.  One of the problems in applying such noise descriptors  is
different operations at the same sound  level cause different responses or at
the same descriptive level.

         Flight tracks vary widely for  the same category of aircraft over a
point or a radius from the start of roll or from the  midpoint of the runway.
You pick the point where you want to measure and the  aircraft will not fly
over it.  This will yield a large spread in your measured ground level and the
community response appears to occur as  a complex function of flight  frequency,
                                        89

-------
maximum level, duration above ambient, and visibility.  This has been
confirmed to some extent by the study done by B. B. Andrew and reported by
Andrew Harris in their work for the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission, and
also by some work that was performed by my associates in some airports,
Morristown Municipal and some other nearby airports.

         In one case, the noise occurred only when the aircraft land at night
and we discovered that the neighbors only complained when the aircraft landed
with their lights on before they got over the fence.  If there are not lights
on the aircraft, until the aircraft is on the airport property there are no
complaints.  So that may tell you what the neighbors are complaining about.

         If you consult Harris's paper, he says that cumulative aircraft noise
near the ambient or other noise resulted in concerted community action.  He
goes on to say that these airports were all in relatively quiet areas.
Serious complaints and concerted community action  occurred with aircraft noise
levels in the range from Ldn 50 to Ldn 55, levels  far below current official
standards of acceptability.  He also touched on touch-and-go flights,  and said
the complaints about touch-and-go flights did not  occur when the  levels of
exposure, due to touch-and-go flights, were below  Ldn 50 but occurred  on a
regular basis when exposure exceeded Ldn 50.

         We have run a number of calculations as to what happends when you
have a change in Ldn of 5.  At an ambient sound level of Ldn 52,  30 aircraft
operations with SEL's of approximately 90 — and these are  light  aircraft —
during daytime hours only will raise the Ldn to 57; however, with a site of an
Ldn of 56, 76 aircraft operations with an SEL of 90 are required  to raise the
Ldn by 5 dB,  or 37 with a SEL of 93.

         What I am  saying here is that the descriptor is sensitive to  level
itself, and the number of flights will vary from — the  levels that Harris was
talking about were  a  little above.  We are talking about the kind of activity
you get with  touch-and-go traffic mixed with departures  or  landings.

         It is probable that  a careful record of community  complaints  is the
best indication that  there  is a general  aviation airport noise problem.
Serious noise problems can  be monitored  using conventional  level  monitoring
equipment, but the  use of such data to predict  impact could probably best  be
done on a  specific  runway on  the  basis of  local community noise response
information.

         The  first  slide, please.

         In order to relate airport  operations  to  noise impact, detailed
information on  the  individual general  aviation  airport  is necessary.   This
information —  some of it  is  not  too  easy to  get — includes size,  what is the
area covered  by  the airport,  what are the  runways; physical relationship of
airport  and  noise-sensitive areas; what  is the  traffic  volume.  Just  try to
find out from your  local  FAA tower  about what the  volume of specific  types of
aircraft  is.   It is not  that they would  not like  to help in most  cases,  it is
that they  do  not keep that  kind  of  detailed records.
                                        90

-------
         Traffic mix for prop only; frequency of  the  jet  traffic; fixed base;
activities, especially static engine runups, and  finally  the actual runway use
do not give us the windows and tell us what  is covered 90 percent of the
time.  What is the actual runway use?  You may have to go out  and spend a year
taking physical measurements and aircraft counts  to find  out what the facts
are.  With this information in the complaint records,  it  may be possible
without any further acoustical information at all  to  estimate  the noise impact
on surrounding areas.  Add to these data ambient  noise levels  in the area and
the actual predicted noise levels of the noise sensitive  locations  and you
probably have the point of the problem.  The next slide,  please.

         With respect to jet traffic, it appears  that  there is no simple
relationship between frequency of flights and annoyance.  Community responses
do occur in two distinct steps.  I don't think there  is a continuum of
response to jet aircraft traffic if you have awareness of it.  You  know that
there is a jet aircraft that has gone overhead.   You  have annoyance because
there are several flights and it may distract you in  your fear of some
activities.  Then you reach a level when you have group action against the jet
flights, and I think from Bill Galloway's charts  that we  saw yesterday, you
might be able to make some predictions as to where these  break points occur.

         Slide, please.

         It is clear from this preliminary discussion  that there are few
functional relationships to guide as in the  assessment of impact of general
aviation airport noise in the surrounding community.   However, the  remedial
measures available are also discreet in nature so that we are  not faced with
measuring a small change in noise level or impact.  If we cannot make a change
equivalent to a 5 or 10 decibel in level, we will  see  no  change in  community
response.  Now, there are several generic types of remedial measures.  These
include political, regulatory, operational,  economic,  and community relation
measures.  I will go over these in detail.   Some  remediation is accomplished
through a combination of these elements and  maybe all  of  them.

         Political solutions are those which result from  actions by municipal
bodies, such as the governing body or the planning board  action, which deal
with the zoning of properties around the airport  on the basis  of a  one-time
local or regional plan — is an example.  Such political  solutions  are seldom
feasible today, particularly in the northeast because master plans  have been
adopted and changing them may create hardships and inequities  that  result in
litigation.  The partial solution is the purchase of  properties that are or
will be impacted by airport traffic, but even such land purchases can lead to
litigation.  However, land use planning is a continuing process and must
continue to be a major element in individual airport  planning.

         Other political remedies involve landing fees, hangar rental, and the
rate of development of the airport in view of its attractiveness to both based
and itinerant aircraft.

         Regulatory measures include those activities which are under the
control of the airport management.  These include noise limit  monitoring
locations and the use of curfews on aircraft not  meeting  published  noise level
standards.
                                        91

-------
         Operational measures available to the airport operator include the
publication and use of a preferential runway system, the use of noise
abatement flight procedures, and the identification for pilots of noise
sensitive areas.  Of course, for single runway airports the preferential
runway idea is not much help; however, flexibility in the assignment of
departure times and close cooperation between FAA tower personnel and the
airport management can reduce the impact during high density traffic periods.

         For smaller airports, touch-and-go traffic may all occur near or over
residential areas.  It is here that attention needs to be given to the place
of flight training in the airport community relationship.  It may be that
airport operators will have to decide whether business traffic and aircraft
maintenance activities are more important than flight training and hangar or
tie-down income.  It has occurred to many in the general aviation area that
some tradeoff in this area may be in order.  Just turn on your radio on some
clear Friday afternoon and listen to the combination of student pilots,
business twins, and high performance jets all in the same traffic pattern.
The combination of regulatory and operational measures has been adopted by
some airports.

         The next slide, please.

         This requires the filing of application by those wishing to operate
turbine-powered aircraft into the airport, and also requires that certain
procedures be followed during landing and takeoff.  These procedures are
published in some cases in Jeppeson-like pages, and you see this is just a
piece of the page from the Teterboro product that Frank Gammon is going to
talk about later.  I don't want to give his talk, but it shows the
instructions on the front side and on the reverse are detailed operational
instructions for the noise abatement program.

         Economic remedial measures  include incentives for major corporations
to maintain a good-neighbor  image by minimizing their fleet impact  in the
neighboring community.  This requires strong motivation to operate  quietly and
to upgrade the fleet with quieter aircraft.  Another economic aspect of
remediation exists when the  impacted community includes members of  the owning
company staff.  I should also mention that economic remediation is  available
through Federal agencies like HUD, which has developed critiera for land use
for HUD-supported projects, whether they are guaranteeing the mortage or
putting up the money.  You must file an appropriate environmental impact
statement, including the noise, and they have some explicit noise criteria.
Of course, appeals to HUD officials can sometimes get them bent a little bit,
but generally the standards  are pretty well met.

         At some airports the management works closely with the neighboring
communities to pinpoint those operations that appear to have the greatest
impact, and with the cooperation of  the FAA personnel  implement noise
abatement plans such as the  one you  saw.  Also, corporate pilots have joined
together in formal organizations at  some airports, and among other  activities
work toward noise abatement  and improved community relations.  This may
include and assessment of operational procedures for noise abatement,
involving turbine-powered equipment  noise as well as participating  in
community activities.   It has been known for many years that noise  annoyance


                                        92

-------
activities.  It has been known for many years that noise annoyance is
increased by the belief on the part of the auditor that the noise is
unnecessary or can be easily abated.  It is also known that good community
relations are worth up to 10 dB of noise reduction.  With this in mind, it is
clearly important for airport managers to work at  improving community
relations.

         Programs which identify communications cause for complaints,
follow-up reports on complaints, and disseminate information on studies,
programs, and actions taken to improve the noise situation are very
important.   This is not issuing press releases but meeting with elected
officials in the neighboring municipalities and community groups and bringing
in the pilots' organization and FM staff where they can hear the problem at
first hand, discuss the operational aspect, and then discuss the potential
measures to reduce the noise impact, those in the  near and long-term future.
There are some problem areas though.

         Next slide.

         There are some problem areas where the ideas that have been presented
will not be easy to implement.  These include airports in one municipality
that are owned by another governmental entity, such as an adjacent county or a
quasi-governmental authority.  There are airports  on the edge of one
municipality that cause noise problems in another  municipality.  There are
suburban airports initiating turbine-powered activity and there are airports
opening new fixed base jet maintenance facilities.  Nevertheless, programs for
remediation should always be available to each airport manager.

         The next slide.

         It should be operative before any complaints occur, probably long
before a new airport or facility is opened, and it may result in never having
a serious noise complaint -- not most of them, but the most serious.  Such a
program would include preparation of topographic maps and area photographs
with the expected traffic patterns overlaid.  That Morristown Municipal
Airport, when they applied to extend the runway, they and no off-airport
topogrpahic information in the application or the  master plan.  It did not
show — also, the application for the ILS, which was part of that -- nowhere
was shown the fact that south of the airport on the runway extension there was
a hill 165  feet high, that FAR-36 measurement.  And on top of that 165-foot
rise were trees about 150 feet tall and a pair of  church spires.  And number
one, the back court at that airport, is unusable.  It is proposed that it
would be used.  It is unusable and the departing jet aircraft were given a
heading of 20 degrees east of the runway center line extension to get them
over that hill without the possibility of their going through the church
spires.  So, topographic map and aerial photographs are really imperative and
off-airport information is imperative too.

         You need to delineate the noise sensitive areas.  You need to list
the airport telephone information numbers.  Who do we call if we want
information or have to report something?  What happens if an aircraft lands in
your back yard and it is a terrible thought that there might be an accident,
but how would you call?  It may not be as bad as that.  Noise complaints may
                                        93

-------
not be as bad as that, but if we do not know who to call for noise complaints,
you might not know who to call for the others.   You should have available
instructions for recording complaint information by the FAA, the airport
management, the police, and the municipal  officials.  If they do not know
what to do with a telephone call, the management is in trouble.

         You need a noise coordinating committee to review operations,
recommend noise abatement procedures, and assess complaints from an
operational point of view.  You need to  issue noise abatement procedures if
they are required to be and can be used.  You need regional information and
you need education.  You want to get out in the community and explain what you
are doing openly and explain how you are going to cope with any potential
noise problems.

         You need the cooperation between the airport management and the local
governing bodies and planning boards in order to achieve long-term benefits
from land use planning.  If you do not have any cooperation, all the planning
in the work is not going to offset the attitude of the governing body or the
county governing body or the State — and they are the only people who make
the laws.

         And you need to review the FAA  documents and the environmental
requirements for airport development.  There is a wealth of information
available and sometimes FAA tower personnel are not familiar with the latest
output of FAA questions.

         Finally, you need an annual review of all of your programs.  There
are no breakthroughs.  There is no state of the art methodology  in remedial
measures for noise control.  As Joan Caldwell said yesterday,  have
face-to-face conference table meetings,  not lectures.   It takes  hard work, and
probably very hard work by volunteer community associations and  citizens to
help solve the real problem.

         I want to take another couple of minutes to tell you  about planning
at the local level.   I have been a consultant to a local New Jersey planning
board, industrial and recreational development they  have been  involved  in for
many years.  The planning board has been considering an application for
certain  industrial activity which  is carried on out  of  doors.   I don't want to
get too  specific.  There probably  is going to be  litigation over this before
we are finished.  The planning  board has been meeting  and  I have been meeting
with them  and hearing evidence  from the  applicant, from the objectors, from
the town engineer for months — two or  three nights  a month.   Less  than  a week
ago the municipal governing body made the particular industrial  operations
illegal  in any  area except the  industrial zone, so that you cannot  even  get a
variance,  which is what this  planning application  involved.  You cannot  even
get a variance  to carry out this  industrial operation  in this  municipality.
The planning board has been meeting.  The municipal  body knew  they  were
meeting  and yet they  waited  and waited  and one  evening  last week they just
made  it  illegal.

         Now,  this is a continuing problem for  those who are planning
professionally.   I think  the  city  planners, urban  planners, regional  planners
                                        94

-------
must come to grips with this problem before you can have good remediation or
good initial planning.  I do not want to say too much more.

         DR. BRAGDON:  Tying in with the overview which Lew has given, we
wanted to give you a specific case study and we have a very qualified person
to do that.  Bill Critchfield, who is manager of the Torrance Municipal
Airport in Tsrrance, California, has had considerable experience and has
initiated, I feel, some very innovative things which I feel will be useful for
us to examine.

         MR. WILLIAM J. CRITCHFIELD:  General aviation as  a mode of
transportation has come of  age.  Unfortunately, this convenience and
sophistication have  developed additional problems which plague general
aviation.  Most airports which make general  aviation a convenient and
efficient method of  transportation have two  things  in common; they are located
in a crowded urban area, and they are heavily used.  The Torrance Municipal
Airport is no exception.  It is located in the South Bay area of Los Angeles
County, serving a population in excess of two million.  It is also about the
twelfth busiest airport in  the nation.  The  airport was developed as a flight
strip by the Bureau  of Public Roads in the late 1920's.  It was transferred to
the U.S. Corps of Engineers and developed as a fighter strip in the early  and
middle forties.

         It was acquired by the City of Torrance  in 1948.   At that time, the
airport was surrounded by agriculture, oil fields,  and some  industrial use.
The community, now the City of Lomita, to the  east  was mostly agricultural-use
and residential lots.  The  airport and its surrounding community remained  in
this general  land use pattern for ten years.   In  1948, the City of Torrance
took action to develop the  airport to meet the growing need  for general
aviation.  Over the  next five years  the control tower  was  constructed, the
second runway was built, taxiways, parking aprons,  lighting, and hangars were
constructed; concurrently,  housing and apartments were  developed around  the
airport.

         The  objections  to  aircraft  noise  and  conflicting  land  use patterns
first became  evident in  1965.  The City of Torrance started its remedial
measure at  that  time.  This dealt with land  use.   The  area immediately west  of
the airport had been permitted  to develop with poor quality housing for  single
families and  multiple-family  residential  use.   This is the area that  you  see
to  the  left of the  screen.  Many  of  the houses were freeway move-ins,
displaced  by  freeway right-of-way  acquisition  and relocated.   In order  to
protect the airport, the City  of  Torrance  initiated a  Federal  Housing  and
Urban Development redevelopment  project  to  convert the residential  land  to
 light industrial.

         The  project amounted  to  $7  million  on the one-third matching  grant,
 loans,  and  local  funding basis.   The  original  project  converted residential
uses  impacted by airport operations  to  light industrial,  office and  commercial
uses  that  were compatible  in  this  area,  and  in five instances  created light
 industrial  office use with  direct  access  to the airport.   Today,  it  is  an
 example  of  effective redevelopment.
                                        95

-------
         Another project under state guidelines, using local funds, will take
place immediately north of the existing Meadow Park Redevelopment Project.
Part of the problem we had in that was we applied to the Federal Aviation
Administration for funding for an approach protection zone and found out that
the cost on that little piece of land, about 56 acres, was about the
equivalent of all reliever airport monies for the State of California.

         In 1965, the city took other land use measures which continue to be
utilized.  These are the acquisition of avigation easements which require
height limit, grant the right of flight and, in some instances, require
acoustic treatment.  Avigation easements are obtained both as deed
restrictions on tracts for new development and as a condition of land use
changes or modifications such as conditional-use permits, lot splits and other
land use modifications.

         Acoustic construction is also required for new structures having
critical uses in the commercial industrial areas.  This includes the hospital
and medical facilities which require low interior noise levels.  Believe it or
not, I have a hospital right here (indicating).  Now, that may not seem to be
quite the thing you would think about near an airport, but my avocation tends
to have me spend time in the orthopedic ward on the fourth floor, and my
doctor always says:  Oh, you want to be overlooking the airport, right?
Believe it or not, you cannot hear airplanes in that hospital.  Another aspect
of it is that we have constructed a helicopter stop in this location
(indicating).  I think probably the Torrance Memorial Hospital is the only
hospital in the area that has positive control clearance approaches and
departures for the Coast Guard, the sheriff, and other medivac-type operations.

         Avigation easements are obtained just as street, sidewalks, sewer,
and other easements are obtained for newly-developing property or property
requesting modification of existing uses.  In congested urban area land use
planning, reuse, deed restrictions, and avigation easements are limited as
remedial measures.  All you have to do is look at this area on the photo and
you will see how limited they are.  There still exists residential uses which
are impacted by general aviation aircraft operations.

         In 1970, aircraft noise, together with changing land use, raised
questions in the minds of the city council and members of the community.  A
process was started to review the goals for the airport which resulted in
development of the new airport master plan and the noise abatement program
being used today.  We spent seven years in dealing with this master planning
effort, three of them involved review of eight draft EIR's.  The eighth one
was finally accepted.  We are now being sued by a neighboring community who
feels that the eighth one was not adequate.  A series of public hearings was
held on both the noise abatement program and on the master plan.  This was a
trade-off here.  Prior to the point in time in 1970 when we began examining
the airport, the city council was definitely anti-airport.  When we put
together the master plan, the trade-off was we would also put together an
airport noise abatement program.  I am happy to say today that the airport is
supported basically by the city council because of the political process, the
community involvement process we went through.  We began the hearings on the
airport master plan in July, 1976.  Every Tuesday night for the next several
                                        96

-------
months, through December, 1976, I went to a city council meeting  to deal with
an element of the airport master plan in the public  hearing.

         Before making additional adjustments,  it  is  essential  to perform an
objective analysis and evaluation of the environment  of the  airport.  This
includes not only the communities surrounding the  airport, but  the airport
itself — its use, types and class of aircraft, and  the spectrum  of experience
of the aircraft operators.  You must identify the  problem  and the problem
areas.  The average general aviation pilot does not  perceive his  operation
into and out of the airport as a problem.  The  pilot,  generally has no
perception of the noise impact of his aircraft  operations  on the  environment
on the ground.  It is akin to turning a driver  loose  on a  parkway or  a freeway
without a speedometer and cautioning him not to exceed the speed  limit.

         Noise is a primary problem.  As some have mentioned before,  safety
may be brought forth as a problem, but generally it  is secondary  and  it  is
used to support resistance to noise impact.  The magnitude of the noise  must
be analyzed; the source, in terms of the aircraft, its capabilities,
limitations of its performance, and its noise.  He also must be familiar with
the airport area.

         Another element of the noise problem is frequency of occurrence.  The
volume of the noise may be low but many aircraft may be operating in  the
training mode and the frequency of occurrence of the  operations may be every
45 seconds.  The noise may not be loud, but it  is  steady or  recurrent.   The
third element is time of occurrence.  We must analyze the  time  of occurrence
and the noise events in terms of the community  cycle.  What  are the people
doing at that time of year, the time of week, or that time of day that the
noise from aircraft operations would annoy them or create  problems for them?

         Torrance, with the aid of a portable noise  monitor  and later a
sophisticated computerized system with 11 monitor  sites, conducted a  series of
noise analyses of operations primarily from Runway 29 Right. Eighty  percent
of the operations occurred to the west.  A significant amount occurred on
Runway 29 Right.  From this analysis we developed  a  curve  which identified the
bulk of the aircraft operating at Torrance Municipal  Airport.   We determined
that above 82 maximum and 88 single event noise exposure level, five  percent
of the aircraft fleet would be affected.

         The city council, in initiating action to control the  noise  in  the
vicinity of the airport, selected these as the  upper limit for  daytime
operations, together with 76 maximum and 82 single event as  the nighttime
limits.  These limits were selected based on an analysis of  aircraft  mix and
their impact on the community.  Our selection and  decision appear to  have been
justified, in view of the court decision in Santa  Monica.

         Once the information, identification of the problem and  possible
solutions are assembed, the third effort at remedial  measures must be
initiated.  There must be an education program  for both pilot,  users, and the
community.  When you talk about education, most pilots say,  "No way," and most
community representatives say, "You've got to be kidding."   Pilots resent the
implication that they are less than competent at their technical  skill and a
community does not believe that the people thundering overhead  and making
                                        97

-------
noise can ever be educated.  Nonetheless, we have attempted it and we have
been reasonably successful.  Some of our means are a monthly newsletter,
provisions for operational evaluation of aircraft to determine noise level,
and most important of all, communications.  The monthly newsletter is sent to
both pilots and persons in the community who wish to receive it.  We have a
subscription list of over 4,500 at this point.  And in this newsletter we
report on the current status of the noise abatement program, new techniques ~
caution on time of occurrence and frequency of occurrence.

         With evaluations, the city has utilized the newly acquired and
installed noise monitoring system to review pilot, aircraft performance,  and
flight techniques.  As you can see, we have a multi-type unit here.  On 22.9,
with this thing here, we can talk directly to the pilots through our own
frequency acquired from the FAA for noise abatement purposes.  A pilot can
make two or three runs using different techniques and get instant answers on
which technique is most effective in reducing noise from his aircraft
operation.  The great majority of the pilots are cooperative and understanding
in response to the education program.  Pilots pride themselves in the
professional execution of their skill.

         The education program is also an excellent tool for communications
with the community on what is being done, what is not being done and why.

         This is a recording device.  We have a noise complaint hot-line.  The
number is published  in the newsletter regularly, and it is available both  in
the police department and the city hall switchboard.  We do not man the noise
abatement line 24 hours a day, but with this we can get effective response
back to a resident when someone in the community complains about aircraft
noise.  We also have an advisory  line, pilots' information.   If someone wants
to find out what the restrictions are or what the problems are  at Torrance,
they are merely asked to dial that number and we have a prerecorded message on
the noise abatement  program and precautionary measures.  Education  is
voluntary and only goes so far.

         The fourth  element in remedial measures  is enforcement.  The City
Council of Torrance, based on data gathered,  analysis, and evaluation of the
airport noise environment, adopted an ordinance  and submitted  it to the
Federal Aviation Administration for review.  The  city received  approval of
certain provisions  in that ordinance, the limitation on time  periods when
touch-and-go training operations  could be performed, and the  institution of a
departure curfew.   Enforcement of these  provisions commenced  in October,
1978.  A series of  citations were issued, or  complaints filed,  and  incidents
of violations of these portions of the ordinance  are  now  zero.  I guess  the
message there is voluntary compliance and notices of violation  do not work.
You have to deal with the 10 percent  who do not  really believe you mean  it.

          Initially,  the  local Federal Aviation Administration office made
minimal cooperative effort in the city's  enforcement  of touch-and-go
limitations and departure curfews.  After some discussion,  the Federal
Aviation Administration  now  issues  advisories for the  purpose of  assisting
pilots who may be  unaware of the  limitations  —  advisory  for  noise  abatement,
request you make  a full  stop,  in  response to  a request for touch-and-go  during
prohibited hours.   One  afternoon, the controller was  a  little more  explicit
                                       98

-------
when the guy asked him for a second time for a touch-and-go.  He said, "Okay,
it will cost you $130."  Needless to say, the guy decided to make a full
stop.  Now, all of this has been most helpful in preventing pilots from being
cited and brought into court and fined.  Our objective, after all, is to
reduce the noise impact, not to collect fines or cite for misdemeanor
violations.

         The City of Torrance plans to expand its enforcement activities into
the maximum noise level portion of the ordinance, based on Judge Hill's
decision in the Santa Monica case.  This will impact those pilots who have
selected aircraft that cannot meet the standards of Torrance, or those pilots
who do not or will not utilize the tested and proven techniques for reducing
noise from their aircraft operations.  Again, the purpose is not to fine, not
to cite, but to reduce noise.

         Pilots and aircraft owners who meet the limitations at Torrance are
benefitted by this enforcement.  It reduces the amount of overall noise
impact and reduces the pressure for additional limitations on the airport and
its operations, thus making this mode of transportation available to the
majority of users.

         The fifth, most important remedial measure is to report the results.
In the four previous steps, reporting the steps and their results is the most
important outgrowth and support that can be used.  A full disclosure of
information, good or bad, on the results of the overall noise abatement
program is important in obtaining credibility and support of those pilots and
community.  The newsletter, presentations to groups and service clubs and
organizations of the noise abatement program's functions and objectives
interface with media to keep them advised as to the progress.  All are
important to a successful program.  The Federal Aviation Administration's
aviation noise abatement policy, published in November of 1976, furnishes a
basic guideline for noise reduction programs.  A reasonable program, based on
proper analysis, evaluation and preparation can be assured of a reasonable
response from the FAA.

         Unfortunately, there  are some elements  in any given program that from
time to time receive a negative response from the Federal Aviation
Administration based on national policy.  The Federal Aviation
Administration's strict adherence to national policy in certain matters  is
unresponsive and negative and  its impact on  local communities, agencies  and
airport proprietors who need all the help they can get to maintain the
terminal element of our air transportation system.  The success of remedial
measures by the City of Torrance and other general aviation airport
proprietors would be much more productive  if the Federal Aviation
Administration were more responsive at the local level, permitting the
regional offices more flexibility with general aviation airports, their  needs
and their requirements.  This  will lead to a policy which can reflect positive
noise abatement efforts in general aviation  designed specifically for general
aviation airport proprietors.

         In summary, the case  study of remedial measures at Torrance Municipal
Airport includes  land use controls by  redevelopment and reuse, deed
restrictions, avigation easements, and acoustic construction requirements to
                                        99

-------
protect the airport and the community.  It includes commitment of resources to
a program.  Without this commitment of dollars and people,  any program is only
paper, ordinances, laws, codes, and it will be a paper tiger.

         The problem involves analysis of and defining problems,  more
resources, dollars, people, and equipment.  The program involves  education for
those who can do  something about the problem, pilots, the community,  more
dollars and resources.  The program involves enforcement.  Some require
greater incentive than others to take positive steps to do something  about the
problem — more dollars and people.  And finally, reporting the results of the
program to the community and pilots.  Use of the newsletter, periodic reports
to the citizens advisory committee, airport commissions, and city council keep
the pilots and the community informed of progress.

         With these remedial measures, Torrance has reduced the airport noise
contours, accommodated a slight increase in operations, gained a significant
increase in revenues, and we have no more demonstrations and protests in front
of the city council.  It has worked for Torrance.  We think it is a model
program.

         I would  be remiss if I did not give credit where credit is due.
Chuck May, my airport program specialist; G.A. noise abatement specialist,
John Carisan, and Ron Waddell, Department of Safety, compose a noise  abatement
team.  These poeple are ready and willing at any time and under any conditions
to deal with community questions, the pilots' evaluations,  aircraft
manufacturers, anyone that wants to talk to us.  We have gathered a
significant amount of data on general aviation aircraft in the last three
years and these three gentlemen are primarily the people who have done it.  I
would also like to give credit to the Division of Aeronautics of the State of
California.  They chipped in $152,000 to make up the $165,000 for that nice
piece of scrap iron I showed you there.  That has been a significant help in
our program because it has identified the problem and it has identified some
of the solutions  to the problem.

         One of the things we are tagging onto that computerized system in
cooperation with EPA Region 9 is an automatic aircraft identification mode.
We are going to do this for evaluation and we probably will have it installed
next week.  If any of you are in the area, you are welcome to come down and
see our facility, our system, and to see this application of Auto ID  for
aircraft.

         And last of all, I have a few examples on that far table back there
of the information items that we have turned out.  It  is a very small amount.
We have probably turned out over a truckload of paper  in the last three years
in this program.  It consists of a Jeppeson insert; a fact sheet on the noise
monitoring system; a brief fact sheet on noise, single event, and giving  some
types of aircraft and their noise, maximum and minimum; a couple of copies of
our newsletter.

         Thank you for your time and patience.

         MR. STANLEY GREEN:  Bill, basically, what kind of a program do you
have with respect to itinerant traffic, informing them?  We understood you had
                                       100

-------
some proposed requirements on training at your airport with respect to the
itinerants.   Is that not true?

         MR. CRITCHFIELD:  No.  With respect to itinerant traffic on what is
happening at Torrance, we have mailed 30,000, almost 40,000 Oeppeson inserts
out, based on the list from the medical certificates from all  the cities
supplied by the FM.  We also have a program that every itinerant that comes
in, one of these little bags that you get on your door knob with advertising
in them, we put information in them and we hang it on the aircraft.  I think
what you are speaking of, specifically, is the restrictions of itinerant
training.  We have submitted to the FAA a program for several  changes in the
traffic pattern and operation of the airport.  And among those is a
recommendation or a proposal to exclude itinerant training traffic at Torrance
Airport.  We think that this is part of our problem.  Our traffic pattern
seems to extend so far beyond what is an acceptable pattern for a training
airport, we believe it is people who are unfamiliar with the airport and we
think that what a lot of the airports are doing in the Los Angeles area and
Santa Monica and Hawthorne  is exporting air training problems to Torrance.
Incidentally, our six flight schools support this concept.

         MR. GREEN:   I understand  it from the local point of view but, as you
pointed out, if everybody exports their training, no local training permitted
or put restrictions on it,  where is one to get training?  I know you have
explained you have a  good program with respect to informing itinerants.  Is it
not possible to do the same thing with those people who need some cross
country work?

         MR. CRITCHFIELD:   We do not have any problem with the cross country
if they make a full stop.   It is the circle and bounce that causes problems.
All I can suggest is  Chino, Fox Field, and you pick up your cross country
while you go do your  training basically.  Mojave, that is a long way to go.

         MR. GREEN:   It  is  a  long  thrust.

         MR. ROBERT DOYLE:  Bill,  my question relates to the land use side of
your remedial program.   You may well know there are about 15 states,  led by
California, that have I  think tax  increment financing procedures as part of
their redevelopment program.  Burbank  has used this very extensively  to change
a  mixed-use neighborhood  which  is  incompatible with aircraft operations.  Did
you consider that?

         MR. CRITCHFIELD:   We considered  tax  increment financing.  As a matter
of fact, a part of  the initial  Meadow  Park Redevelopment Project, most of the
funding was based on  tax  increment  financing.  The  new Sky Park  Redevelopment
Project, just north of that —  it  would  not  fly because of Proposition 13.
There wasn't enough margin  left  in  the tax revenues so what they actually did
was that when the  land management  team in the city  -- consisting of executive
staff,  department heads  —  they devised  a plan to go  out  to private developers
to bring  light  industrial  commercial  use  into that  area and they would put  up
the front money.  The city would  acquire  the  property and  put the  deed
restrictions on  it  and the height  limit  on  it and they would transfer  it  to
the developer.  We  had five proposals  and we  selected one  and went with  it.
                                       101

-------
         MR. DOYLE:  Thank you.

         MR. ELKINS:  Chuck Elkins, EPA.  Bill,  what is your reaction  to  the
Federal policy that airports should control  source noise  only  in terms of the
levels of the aircraft measured according to the FAR procedures, and that
airports should not have monitors off the runway to check performance  or
operation.  It sounds to me as if you have problems there in terms  of  how the
aircraft is operated and where, in addition  to just what  kind  of aircraft the
people are operating.

         MR. CRITCHFIELD:  I do not agree with it.  I think it penalizes
general aviation.   It works fine for air carriers, but I  definitely feel  it
penalizes general aviation.  Because if you  become involved in a type-ban of
aircraft simply because one aircraft or a small  group of  that  type  of  aircraft
is creating problems — let's give it an example.  I think you all  know a
Beech Bonanza can be a very noisy aircraft.   You have 20  Beech Bonanzas and
three owners fly theirs like the Battle of Britain, for  lack of a better
term.  So, you have a problem.  You have a community pressure  for a type-ban.
So, you type-ban.  All 17 guys take it in the necks for  three  guys'
responsibility.  Our experience has been that in the general aviation  sense,
if your monitored sites are properly located, there is no way  the guy  can fly
the airplane to beat the box.  And to supplement that we  have, as you  saw, the
614 portable monitor.  If we begin to generate complaints of guys throttling
back to beat the box and pouring the coal to it later, we will go out  to  that
site and we will set up that monitor and that will go on  battery for four
days.  If we begin  to develop a problem area, we will go  back  to the pilot.  I
really don't agree with it.  I think it is penalizing the users and the
industry; coupled with the fact that we work with general aviation  pilots.  We
have talked to them and the majority of them are like the community; they
understand.  They find out that they can fly the aircraft quietly and  they go
about their business and they do not say anything about  it.  But, five percent
or ten percent or whoever they are who just are not going to cooperate, I do
not want to use the word but who just are not that proficient, are  the ones
who protest.  We have found that our system seems to be  working.  We wish
somebody would come out and take a good long look at our system and talk  to
some of our pilots  on the field and find out how it is working and  how well it
is working.

         MR. GOODFRIEND:  Lewis Goodfriend.   I have a question on the
economics of this activity.   I would like to know the population  of Torrance
and what the noise  abatement budget and annual budget are.   I  think this  is an
excellent program but in terms of applicability to other municipalities,   I
don't think it would work.

         MR. CRITCHFIELD:  The population of Torrance is 134,000.   The annual
budget for the noise abatement program  is a $100,000.  The capital  investment
we have in the program so far is a half million.  I think what you  have to
understand is that  Torrance Municipal Airport serves an  area of two million
population.  If you will recall some of the slides that  I was showing you,
especially the map, the aerial photos, the airport was developed  in such  a
manner a  long time  ago so that it would never be a burden on  the general  fund,
the city.  It would be self-sufficient.  The commercial  frontage along the
Pacific Coast Highway, the industrial developments on the north side,   the
                                       102

-------
shopping center to the right of your screen, all of these things generate
least revenues.  I commented to Bob yesterday, when he mentioned the
difficulty in supporting a general aviation airport, believe it or not I am
being accused of not being self-sufficient because now people are saying,
well, you know, the aeronautical area does not support itself.

         I don't know, you cannot win, so this is where our revenue base conies
from, primarily that.  Also, we are not cheap on our fees.  Of course, we have
not equaled what the marinas charge for ship rental.

         ATTENDEE:  What are your fees?

         MR. CRITCHFIELD:  Basic class one -- which is your average general
aircraft --  is $45; fuel, speed gasoline, three cents a gallon; oil, twelve
cents a gallon.  And of course, we have our rental rates  on most of our  land,
based on eight percent capitalized value of the land value.  We also have all
our  leases since 1958.  The rental is tied to the wholesale price index  of all
commodities, now called the producers index.  The poor guy who rented a
tie-down spot  for  $15  in 1969  is now paying about $32 a month.   I am sorry,
for  a hangar site,  just the bare ground, $15 a month in  '59 and is now paying
about $32 a  month  for  that same hangar site based on the  price index increase.

         Incidentially, our costs have gone up  horrendously.  I pay five times
as much for  weed  killer today  and it does  a third of the  work.

         ATTENDEE:   I  think your  tie-down fees  are  too darned low.  I give you
an example:  At Van Nuys, it is $8 for the  same thing.   I think this  is  an
area that pilots  will  protest  from now to  doomsday, considering the shortage
of tie-down  space  in  the major metropolitan area.   It  is  unfair to the  airport
to tie  itself  to  an unreasonable  amount of  revenue.

         MR. CRITCHFIELD:   I understand  and I agree with  you.  From strictly  a
land value base,  they should be about $65  a month right  now but the pilots
also have access  to my board of directors  just  the  way the  community  does.

         DR. BRAGDON:   Our  next speaker will  be talking  in  a different  area
and  this  is  in the whole  area  of  preventive measures for  dealing  with noise  at
general  aviation  airports.  Before,  we were talking about remedial
techniques.  Now  we are into  the  preventive area.   I  am  pleased to  introduce
Gordon  Jackson,  Deputy Regional Manager  of R. Dixon Speas & Associates,
Atlanta.  Dixon Speas & Associates  is one of  the large airport  planning  firms
working just in airport planning  in  the  United  States  and has had considerable
experience  working with many GA airports  throughout the  country.

         MR. GORDON JACKSON:   Thank  you,  Cliff.   I  have  always  wanted  a
pendant but  I  had hoped it  would  be  gold.   I  was unable  to be  here yesterday
and  just so  I  can expect  the direction  of some  questions  for your own
interest, may  I have a show of hands as  to how  many of you  here are  from
public  agencies,  city, county  government  planning agencies  or  something of
that nature?  How many of you  are?
                                        103

-------
         MR. JACKSON:  How many from associated industry in general  aviation
or aviation as a manufacturer, GAMA, ALPA, people like that?  How many of you
fall into that category?

         MR. JACKSON:  That is the other 90 percent.   Getting down to the
question of preventive measures associated with general aviation, it is a
little difficult perhaps to really differentiate between pure remedial
measures and those which are purely preventive measures.  In the industry we
quite often use a number of cliches or various expressions, trying to
differentiate various things.  One expression that we quite often hear, not
only in this industry but in terms of a lot of other industries, is  that there
is no such thing as a free lunch.  Well, basically this is true.  We hear this
quite often when any number of groups may be polarizing on a particular issue
and presenting simplistic solutions to questions which many of us feel are
anything but simplistic.  In the free lunch bit, if we can examine that just a
little with respect to the simplistic answer thing, while the lunch  I enjoyed
was very much free — since Tom bought it — it was not free for Tom.  So,
with respect to that kind of thing, I would like to perhaps throw out one more
little cliche, one that Mr. Newton solved; that is, for every action there is
an opposite and equal reaction.

         I think just this morning you have seen that anything dealing with
noise problems associated with any size airport, I don't care what size
airport it is, there are very definitely two sides to the question.   On the
one hand we can reduce the impact of general aviation noise considerably by
carrying out XYZ actions.  But the other side of that particular coin is that
there are costs associated with those actions which must be examined to
determine is that particular action warranted.

         In the case of Torrance, which we just went through, we have an
operating budget — I think Bill mentioned, if I can generalize in round
numbers, it was somewhere in the neighborhood of slightly less than a dollar a
head for the operating budget for the community to run the noise monitoring
system.  But for that particular community they have decided that that is a
worthy cost for them.  In some of the other airports around the country we
find similar situations and I think again the Santa Monica case is one which
certainly will be getting more and more light as time goes on.

         I recently had occasion to visit an aircraft manufacturing plant and
that was the first time I had been back in such a facility since I was
involved in an undergraduate career.  At that time I was working in a sheet
metal and welding fabrication plant as a jig builder and so on, so forth.  And
I will have to confess I had forgotten how noisy a rivet gun working on metal
suspended in a jig can actually be.  I want to tell you I walked by the
particular area where they were fabricating a nose cone rather quickly.   I
will also confess I had my fingers in my ears.

         I checked with some of the guys in the plant  later and found that the
plant had met all of OSHA's requirements for whatever OSHA does, all  of the
noise associated with the plant ~ ear protectors and that sort of thing.  But
nonetheless, the noise was still, to my ears, most significant.
                                       104

-------
         Fortunately for general aviation, the measures are a little bit more
productive than either walking around with your fingers in your ears all the
time or, on the other hand, preventing the noise from occurring.  The only way
you can really prevent the noise from occurring is that of stopping the
noise.  We hope that does not happen too terribly often, but doing noise
abatement studies which we quite often do, the ANCLUC studies, there are
basically two approaches you can take and usually you take both of those
approaches.

         One is to quiet the source to the degree possible, i.e., the vehicle,
the aircraft itself in its operation.  In dealing with  air carrier noise
problems, we look at the approach patterns, departure patterns, the kind of
noise abatement profiles that we are actually flying in an attempt to reduce
the impact of the noise on the  ground in any particular spot.  Beyond being
able to reduce the amount of noise received on the ground, then we have to get
into Lew Goodfriend's talk this morning in remedial measures of what can be
done to make the ground underlying any particular noise level more compatible
with that  noise.  I think here  the Santa Monica case is somewhat  interesting.

         There are two sides to that particular question.  One, they have a
lot of  noise  in the community and, as has quite often been said  about
California, things happen there first.  They are very,  very concerned with the
amount  of  noise in their community, and I think Bill indicated  the same thing
for the Torrance area this morning.  And coming up with the kinds of noise
abatement  plans that  they  are coming up with  in these particular  areas, I
think  it  is plain that these communities have decided that to quiet the
aircraft  noise  impact is very,  very important to them -- aven to  the extent  of
perhaps  tightening down a  little bit on the"flexibility of the  aircraft
machine operating in  general aviation service.

          I do  not think that  it would be  well at this point to  spend a  long
time  trying to convince you of  how  important  general aviation  is  to the
nation's  economy.   I  think ALPA and GAMA  will probably  attack that fairly
well.   I  would  like to  leave  it if you  will allow me, with  the  explicit
assumption that general  aviation  is most  necessary  to the  nation's business
community as  well as  our overall  transportation  in  this country.

          Having stated  that then, what  are the ways  in  which  we may provide  a
preventive treatment  to  the effect  of aircraft  noise?   There  are basically
three methods.  These are  the  treatment of noise  at  the source;  secondly, the
treatment in  the planning  for  airport facilities  and,  the third one, the
protection of  those facilities  from  encroachment.   Now  if you  are thinking
 that  you  have heard  some  of this  this morning, you  are  right.   Perhaps  we can
discuss it in  just  a  little bit of  a  different  light.

          Our  work has involved  several  of the airport  noise  and land use
compatibility studies or  as we  colloquially say,  ANCLUC studies.   In those
 studies we have to  recognize  that  much  of the work  deals  with the treatment of
the residual  noise,  that  which  is  left  after  the  source has  been quieted to
 the extent possible and/or reasonable.  And  again  we come back  to the
 trade-off of  the  two  sides of  the  question, because both  have to do  with  that.
                                        105

-------
         Noise can only be abated at the source.   In  other  words, we  have  got
to quiet the vehicle.  If we have a truly quiet airplane then  we will  not  have
the kinds of problems we do in trying to treat noise  and planes for those
problems associated with them.  At the recent NBAA Convention  here  in town
last week, many of the new aircraft that were displayed at  DeKalb-Peachtree
Airport were dressed out in the new props -- coincidentally, they were
mentioned in Bill's newsletter back there ~ that were bent back toward the
cockpit.  And checking with the manufacturer with respect to the kinds of
noise or solution of the noise problem, whatever they may offer, we were
informed that the basic noise relief is in the cockpit.  The parcel has not
come to the point at this time of being able to relate that to whatever
benefit may accrue to those on the ground.  We would  hope that at some point
in time similar benefits for the ground will exist with either this or some
similar type of prop treatment.

         General aviation pilots can fly most types of takeoff procedures.
They can fly them perhaps as well as air carrier pilots.  Again,  I  think we
come to a point here this morning, stressed to some degree, and  that  is
education.  It is incumbent upon those of us in the industry to  educate the
general aviation pilots that, first of all, there is no such thing  as a free
lunch any more — if there ever was — but certainly none exists  at this
point.  So that those pilots of us who are operating from places  like
DeKalb-Peachtree or Torrance or Santa Monica or any other number  of other
metropolitan airports that we can name today, there are some very significant
problems associated with the manner in which they operate their  aircraft.

         Now, I noticed on Bill's noise abatement profile, which  I  had not had
the occasion to see previously, that they are suggesting flying  somewhat
steeply and then converting to a cruise climb to a safe altitude.

         In some of our work we have investigated various procedures  and we
have recommended to climb to 1000 feet at best rate of climb,  in whatever
vehicle it might be.  We have recommended best rate of climb  over best angle
of climb since general aviation quite often has a number of first-time riders
in that aircraft.  For those of you who are not familiar with  those terms,
best angle of climb is the best angle of climb which would give you the
maximum altitude over the shortest linear distance along the ground.   The best
rate of climb gives you the highest altitude  over a time limit.

         So, in climbing at best angle of climb, that  climb is a little bit
steeper than it is at best rate of climb.  The best  angle of climb  has been
known to, we would not say frighten, necessarily, but  cause some apprehension
in the back seat of airplanes when it was the first  time for riders.   They
were not exactly sure of what was going on.

         General aviation has this problem.  General aviation has the  problem
of not necessarily negative press but they sure  like to report the night  a
G.A. airplane goes down.  So, with respect to this —  you know,  this  is one  of
the other sides of the question.  We have got to recognize that that  is a real
problem.

         However, we can climb out very safely at best rate of climb  to some
predetermined altitude.  The particular case where we  recommended 1000 feet,
                                       106

-------
most G.A. airplanes can get up and get to 1000 feet and remain, not
necessarily on airport property but close enough to the area so that there is
not the impact it would be if they dragged the thing out right on across the
countryside.  We are recommending that they get up and then convert and
throttle on back to a cruise climb or regular climb power for climbing on out
of the particular area.

         The general aviation pilots can fly these kinds of profiles if they
are educated as to, one, the absolute necessity for their doing so because
again, as I think perhaps both speakers this morning indicated, there are a
number of G.A. pilots who kind of feel that does not mean me, because all I am
flying over here is a 172 or 182 or a Cherokee, or whatever.  I have got to
confess that one of the noisiest airplanes I have ever heard is a Cessna
Mixmaster, front and rear props.  If you have never been under one of these
things when he was -- well, the prop noise from the particular machine is
significant.  It is significant though and it has to be recognized.

         There were a couple of other points made this morning which I think
were terribly appropriate and that is in Andy Harris's paper in the INS
magazine, that the perception of the community as to what is actually
occurring when you see  these guys out running around doing  the bump-and-goes,
touch-and-goes.  What does a community actually perceive going on here?  That
it  is  a  useless activity, and the response to that  useless  activity is that
they are much more annoyed at much lower levels of  Ldn or any other method of
description you care to use.  They are still highly annoyed at a much lower
level  of sound than we  otherwise would have thought.

         My own arm chair reasoning for this is that the community unit  often
perceies that this is  a useless activity; that some rich guy out here in his
airplane is just flying around the skies and boring holes -- is  the term --
spending his money; he's got  it, he can spend  it that way,  that  kind of  thing.

         There  is  very  little realization  in the community  that  first of all,
for general aircraft to come  out of the doldrums with respect  to our safety
record which has got to occur, we have got to  have  training and  proficiency
flying.  Now  if you can, differentiate between those two things  for just a
moment.  We can call training, primary and secondary training  in terms  of
commercial  and  instrument  ratings.  Proficiency flying  is that kind of
activity which  has to  go on to maintain your currency  and,  quite frankly,  I  am
a firm believer that strictly meeting the FAA  guidelines for currency just
does  not really get it.  To really be proficient, you  have  to  fly just  a
 little bit more than that  to  be good  and proficient,  if  I can  use the term
proficient  instead of  current.

         Those  two categories of flying are  very,  very  important to  the
 industry, but they have got to occur  and  I think that  we have  not made  the
point  strongly  enough  with  the community that  these are  really necessary forms
of flying.  On  the other hand, we have  not made the point to the pilots  that
while  this  is really a necessary  activity, it  can  be  done  in  a manner which  is
more  compatible with environs of the  airport.  And  I think  those are points
which  must  be made.
                                        107

-------
         In looking into the airport planning scenario,  I  do  not  know what we
can do in terms of airport planning to prevent the impact  of  airport noise.
Quite frankly, in most of the airports which have been discussed  here today,
there is doggone little we can do to prevent the impact  of noise  through
airport planning.  We can do a number of things, such as noise  barriers,
certain categories of operations, and in terms of maintenance run up type of
activity.  We have to go out and run up an engine somewhere and we can perhaps
prevent the impact.  Again, we cannot prevent the noise  but we  can prevent the
impact from reaching a particular segment of the community through locating a
run up area which is specifically the only run up area that can be used on the
airport.

         Again, this comes back to the airport operator's  obligation in making
sure in his airport rules and regulations that that is the only one that is
being used.

         Noise barriers, sound barriers, sometimes may provide  some benefit.
We worked with Dr. Clifford Bragdon on some issues up in Norfolk  awhile back
in looking at what kinds of treatment can we use in terms  of  noise barriers,
sound barriers, and we did find that in these specific instances  some cases
around Norfolk where we might be able to get some benefit  through barrier
erection, not to prevent the noise but to prevent the impact  from reaching
certain significant areas of the community which would not be satisfactory for
redevelopment.

         These kinds of things we can look at but, quite frankly, they more
nearly qualify —• as Lewis Goodfriend was saying this morning —  in terms of
remedial treatment rather than preventive treatment.  About the only real
preventive treatment I think we can look at is site selection for new airports
to pevent the impacts of 6.A. or any other category of noise.

         Some time ago there were a couple of different categories of noise of
airports, the two largest ones in the country that I would intend to discuss
with you in a second; Dulles in Washington, D.C. and Dallas-Fort  Worth.  The
sites of these airports were selected and they were generally way out in the
country.  As a matter of fact, on the Dulles Airport we kept  hearing in the
press a lot of discussion about the airport was so far away from town that
nobody was ever going to use the thing.  Largely, that has been true.  Up
until recent years it has been the intercontinental or west coast kind of
airport, only long haul with everything else being carried out of National
Airport.

         Congressmen like to fly out of National Airport.   The Dallas-Fort
Worth Airport was originally constructed on I think a land mass of some 17,000
to 18,000 acres and at that time was considered to have a very large land mass
and would be able to delete noise problems for some time to come.  Well, that
ain't necessarily so.  Both of these airports are presently having noise
problems because, like the photographs which were shown this  morning, the
community has all of a sudden found the airport and  is encroaching upon  it.
We would hope that in selecting sites for new general aviation airports we
could prevent that kind of thing from happening.
                                       108

-------
         But when we do select a site for a new general aviation airport it
should be one which has a very minimal amount of residential development
around the thing, and we would hope that we could follow it with some
preventive land use and zoning protection for the airport.

         Now, this is the third type of treatment that I think you might want
to look at.  Land use and zoning basically are good until the next meeting of
the commission or the city council or the county commission, whichever it
might be.  We have all had experience with this and we know how well we come
along and develop all these but the little plans we never get opened.  We have
got to stop that kind of thing.  We have got to be realistic in our approach
to land use planning and zoning and impress upon our city officials, county
commissions, whomever they may be, that — Look, guys.  Right now the airport
does not have a problem and we have got an airport sitting out here and there
is nothing around it for six miles in either direction.  That is right now.
Two years from now, five years from now, whatever it may be, that airport may
very well be encroached to the point that the usefulness of the airport is
reduced considerably.

         We talk about remedial noise abatement measures, any kind of
preventive measure to reduce noise impact on the community and that is what we
are really worried about.  If the aircraft noise were  not affecting the
community  and the community's development, then we really could care  less how
much noise the airplane makes.  That  is not the case.  We have very
significant problems  in the fact that the aircraft sound -- air carrier,
general aviation -- strictly across the board affects  the ground which
underlies  the approach and departure paths of the airport.

         Once the thing hits 30,000 feet  it is  a flame thrower and, again, we
are not necessarily worried about it  or  if it gets to  whatever altitude given
to the type of general aviation,  again that is  not significant.  But  we are
very, very concerned  about that part  which lies within the  immediate  vicinity
of the airport.  That is where your complaints  come from and, generally,  that
is where all the hassle comes from.

         So  I think  we have an  education  program on our  hands.  We  are  trying
to educate the pilots, telling  them — Look, guys, you really cannot  fly  the
aircraft this way.   But on the  other  hand, we  also have  got to  convince and
impress  upon our  duly elected  officials  that  if you really  go ahead with  this
particular zoning change that you are talking  about and  change  this  commercial
district or  this  industrial district  to  single  family housing,  or whatever  it
might be,  that downstream  —  and  we  need  to  start quantifying what  kind of
downstream problems  we are talking  about  — your  airport is  going to  be
restricted.

         Any  of  these measures  we talk  about  are  basically  restrictions to  the
airport  or to  the  operation of  the  aircraft  at  the  airport.   I  think  Bill will
agree with me  that  this  is exactly  what  they  are  talking about  in Torrance,
California,  anywhere else.

          Pete  is going  to  talk  about it  in Westchester County.   I was up  there
several  years  ago  doing  a  tour  around there  for some  work  we  were doing in  the
territory  and  I  had the opportunity to go around  the  airport and  observe  some
                                        109

-------
of the things going on around there.   That  particular  scenario  is
neighborhoods, clusters of small  boroughs which  get  impacted  and the  aircraft
noise gets high.  Westchester Airport is an airport, as  I  can recall, which  is
very heavily used by the home offices of major corporations  in  the  country.  A
lot of business activity at that airport is essential  to the  business activity
being located in that vicinity.

         Now, I believe also that there have been some major  corporations  move
from that area.  They are settling around out here now,  but they have got  the
same problem.  The airport is vital to the continued success  of the community
but, by the same token, the airport has got to live  in the community  so we
have two sides of this question.

         I do not want to beat a dead horse but  I think  it is essential that
we all realize that there are pros and cons to each of these  issues.   If I
cannot arrive in the middle of the night when I  have been  out on the  road
somewhere and get back in, then that is a cost to me.   It  is  a  cost of  a motel
somewhere else, perhaps; it is a cost of the wasted time which  we  all have
enough of anyway, I suppose.  But these are costs which  have to be  articulated
and recognized as being problems.

         We have found in our studies that air carrier airports are not alone
with their problems, with the fact that the county commission does  not  really
realize what is going on.  We see any number of comprehensive plans --  and
here I am hollering at some of the planning consultants  as well as  people  who
work in the planning departments.  We see any number of comprehensive plans
which have not recognized to any degree the fact that there is an  airport
noise problem associated with any airport.  Now, we also have to recognize
that there are trade-off problems involved.  We recognize that and  get it  out
of the way, but we daily see these particular problems.

         Some reasonably major communities have not even recognized that there
is an airport there in terms of what sorts of development they are planning
around the particular airport.

         I think we have got to start recognizing this kind of thing.
Certainly, there is an opportunity to cast a shadow on the value of the land
involved of a particular developer.  Developers  are very influential  people
and, quite frankly, without them we would have a hard time doing anything in
our communities, certainly.  But by the same token, the particular developer
holds a piece of land somewhere very, very near the airport and he perceives
the best use for his particular land  is  going to be multiple residence
dwellings.  Perhaps that should be reviewed  by  local officials.

         Is your airport manager or the airport  commission keyed into  the
decisions made  in the planning field  in  terms of any kind of land use  planning
made around the airport?  Quite often they are  not.  They are  the  last  guy  to
hear.  Perhaps  they should be  the first  to hear.  We find that in order for
some of these things to be recognized,  we  have  got  to expand our
communications.  We keep hearing communication,  everybody has  to communicate
with everybody  else but by the time we  get through  doing  the thing the plan is
six years old.  Hopefully, sometime  along  the line, we will be able  to hasten
this process  and get key people  into  the front  end.
                                       110

-------
         I know the guys at Fulton County keep the Fulton County manager  keyed
into anything going on around that airport.   Whatever may be coming  up, he  is
one of the first guys they contact to say what do you think about it too.
That is absolutely the way I think it should be.

         In recognizing again that there is  a down side to some of these
questions, in the case surrounding Dulles we have been informed that in
Fairfax County, the Fairfax County pilots have submitted to the Virginia  State
Legislature a legislative package to enable  the county — Let's see if I  can
get this correct -- to enable the county to  zone areas in the immediate
vicinity of the airport for residential development, based on the premise that
the residences developed in this area will have sound insulating
characteristics associated with the development of those structures.

         Why are they doing this?  Why is Dallas-Fort Worth area developing
around the airport to the extent they are?  My answer is basically that along
with many other areas, metropolitan areas in the country, Atlanta is certainly
not the least of these, there are developing pressures for new housing which
are extremely strong, such that we cannot sterilize the  land to the degree we
would  like to.

         So, the value of the land is extremely high and  in order to develop
this land I think the approach they are taking in Fairfax  County, that of
having legislative approval for differentiated building  codes to allow them to
stress sound insulating characteristics in various  residential buildings,  is
an approach which  is  going to get a lot more  coverage in  the future and  any
other  number of areas.

         We were informed some time ago back  that the State Attorney General
had looked at this just a little caustically  because they  cannot allow
differentiating building codes  in the State of Virginia,  Commonwealth  if you
will.  I understand you have that in Torrance and it  is  something that is
going  to be  looked at a lot more.  I think we have  got  to look  at it  because
all of a sudden you come around to Dulles Airport or  any other you  care  to
pick on and  it will be stymied  in its  ability to  serve  the transportation
needs  of the country.

          Just  to try  to summarize and wrap  up some  of these  things,  I  think
the American economy  is built very  largely  on the free  flow  of  goods  and
services  across very  wide areas  of the  country,  internationally  if  you will.
Transportation  is  and has been  the  life blood of  the  economy and  air
transportation  is  not the  least  of  these  transportation means.   General
aviation  is  playing  a larger  and more  important part  in this particular
picture as every year goes  along.  Right  now  general  aviation  is  coming  very
much to the  forefront because those  of  us who travel  quite often  are  having  a
heck of a hassle trying to  get  onto  air carriers.   A  couple of  years  ago we
could  walk over to the airport  10 minutes before  the  flight  and get on any
particular flight  because  there were  always  seats available.   I  am  wasting an
awful  lot of time  now by getting  to  the  airport  40  minutes early just so I do
not get bumped.
                                        Ill

-------
         So, general aviation is now becoming a lot of companies.   Businesses
are realizing that in order to move their personnel in a timely manner, have
them there at the time they need to be there, that general aviation is
becoming about the only way they can really do that.

         Just an example, mechanicals will happen in any aviation  industry.
But I was an hour and a half late getting to Fort Lauderdale the other day
because I sat on the ramp over there while they supposedly had to  bleed the
hydraulic system.  I didn't hear any bleeding going on but there sure was a
lot of airplanes stacked up and I think there was a gate holding process.
Well, needless to say, I was just a tad late getting to the meeting.
Therefore, in resorting to Mr. Newton's law, those communities which  construct
curfews and operational restrictions will find themselves in some  difficulty
in providing no access to a transportation system to those pilots  and aircraft
operators who violate common sense rules and do not operate the aircraft
according to the regulations and policies, and will also find themselves
welcome in fewer and fewer communities.  Obviously, no one is really
interested in preventing the operation of aircraft because, again, I  think it
is becoming extremely necessary.  But those who are not interested, the top 10
percent or top whatever percent it might be, will find themselves  in  some
difficulty.

         The prevention of noise in the community will require the full
cooperation of the manufacturers, the pilots, and the operators and the
planners of airport facilities to bring all of this thing together in terms of
continuing full access to the nation's transportation system.

         Thank you for allowing me to be with you this morning.

         DR. BRAGDON:  The next speaker is Peter Eschweiler.  Peter is a
Commissioner of Planning for Westchester County Airport in New York and will
be presenting the discussion on his airport in terms of a case study.  Peter.

         MR. PETER Q. ESCHWEILER:  Thank you very much, Cliff.  Good morning,
ladies and gentlemen.  You know, the last speaker on the morning program
always anticipates that his time is going to be compressed and many of the
things that he wanted to say have already been said by the others, but to have
had the preceding speaker give the first five minutes of your opening talk,
that is

         I am Commissioner of Planning in Westchester County, and we do
operate the county airport facility there.  It is the only airport within
Westchester County.  It is the fourth busiest airport in New York State or
possibly third, depending on the year.  ! think it was Chuck Elkins yesterday
who, when we closed, gave as a final note the reaction to the comment:  After
planning, what next?  We were not going to get anywhere with this unless we
were willing to put our money where our mouth is.

         Well, my notes said:  Bribery.  This is really the message I want to
bring you this morning, except please call it intelligently applied capital
improvement programming.  It seems that nothing we  do in Westchester County
ever fits the norm.  If there is a simply way of doing it, we have invented  a
more complex way and, as a result, we have had our  share of problems at the
                                       112

-------
airport.   We have had our share of problems with operations.   We have had our
share of problems with noise.  We have had our share of problems with
lawsuits.  Some of these problems are due to the nature of traffic that we
handle at our airport, some to do with its location, some to do with the fact
that we are in a neighborhood with very well-to-do, very sophisticated people
who have sophisticated ways of reacting to the irritation of their patterns of
living and means of defending what they believe to be their inherent property
rights.

         Some of our problems are due to the nature of powers of government in
New York State.  Where we have succeeded, it has been a product of a program
of investigation, cooperation, and participation.  Where we have had our
failures, as Joan told you yesterday, it has generally been the failure of
communication or rather, in some cases, a failure to communicate at all.  We
have found that where we have given our airport neighbors an opportunity to
participate with us and treated them honestly and fairly, we have been
responded to in kind.   I would like to tell you some more this morning about
our particular program and our approach.

         (Slide) Westchester County is located in the southeast corner of New
York City, just north of Manhattan and extending perhaps 30 miles beyond, down
here just north.  We  are one of New York State's smaller counties with an area
of about 450 square miles, but we have one of the  largest populations.  The
chart  shows that the  county  has a population  larger than 11 of the  50  United
States and, indeed,  larger than a couple of them combined.

         Westchester  County's shape is that of an  hour glass, with most  of the
land area in the northern part but most  of the people-sand in the hour glass
in the southern part.   We have a population of 900,000, slightly  less, and it
is a declining population.   Housing pressure  is  there but they  are  not in the
open competitive market  for  the  land.

         For many years  we have  been thought  of  as  a bedroom community for New
York City, but today  over 360,000 people both  live  and work  in  Westchester
County.  Those whom  we  export  to work  generally  go to New York  City by
commuter rail.

          In terms  of our topography, Westchester can be  likened  to  a piece of
corduroy,  a  lot  of generally parallel  north-south  trending  valleys.   It  makes
traveling  north  and  south  into New York  City  relatively  easy but plays havoc
with  any attempt to  move east  and west in  the county.  And that means that the
cross-Westchester  corridor,  which  is  an  interstate system going  there
 (indicating)  just  south of the county  airport is a critical  one in  terms of
movements  throughout Westchester County.

          Our  industrial base in most parts  is in office  and  service,
government,  retail  and  the  like.  We  have  a  large  manufacturing population.
We are home  to a number of major  industrial corporations  of  America but  very
 little of  their  manufacturing work takes place in  Westchester  County.  Our
 list of  national  headquarters  is  impressive;  that  is,  AMF,  Nestle's,  Texaco,
 IBM,  Pepsico,  and  General Foods.
                                        113

-------
         In addition, in nearby Connecticut,  are headquarters,  such  as  those
of AVCO Corporation, Xerox and American Can.   Many of these  firms  own  one or
more corporate aircraft and base them in our  county facility.

         Westchester County is a source of water supply for  New York City and
although the city's aqueducts now extend far  beyond Westchester County, all of
them pass through Westchester County and many of the lakes of  the  county are
actually manmade, holding bases for the city's water supply.  The  lakes
themselves are an important asset in the open space of the county,  and the
City of New York is one of the largest property owners and taxpayers in
Westchester County.  The reservoir system is  an important element  of our
approach protection to the county airport and not only does  it help  there but
also adds to the charm of the county and adds about 16,000 acres of  park-like
open space to the county's own park system, which involves another 14,000
acres.  This means that over ten percent of the county is preserved  in a
permanent, open category by just two governments.

         Add to that the lands held in the schools, colleges,  municipal park
systems and you have a relatively open countryside, one which  our  residents
are very eager to defend.

         Joan mentioned to you yesterday the history of the  county airport;
that in 1941 the county had decided to build an airport at the present site
and had indeed made a proposal to purchase the land.  But before we did so,
Pearl Harbor intervened and the Federal Government withdrew its promise of
support for the construction of the municipal airport.  A few  days later they
arrived oack on our doorstep with a proposal  that if we bought the land they
would build a military base and at the end of the war would  turn it back to
the county as an operation for their county airport and, in  turn,  we would
inherit all the buildings, runways, and appurtenances to us  at no cost other
than our investment in the land.

         By 1944, due to a change in the war, such that the military realized
they would never need to use this as a base for the New York metropolitan area
and so it was turned over to us even before it had been completed.  It was
never used for military operations.

         As a result, it did not have the  hangars, control tower,
administration building, terminal, none of the other things that we had been
led to believe would be there when we took it over.  So, the county, after
much soul searching decided not to go into the operation of the airport as a
county facility but rather to lease it out to private enterprise to run on a
concession basis for us.  They went through a period of bidding as  to who
would take over the airport.  The successful bidder was a subsidiary of Gulf
Oil Corporation and an 18-year lease was negotiated with them  in which they
would operate the  airport and in return would build many of the buildings ~
the control tower, the hangars, the terminals,  so  on — for us at no cost and
at the end of the  lease the buildings would come back to Westchester County.

         That lease was extended in the mid 1950's  to run to 1977.  But
towards the end of the  lease  it became clear  that  this  particular method  of
operation was not  meeting the needs of the county.   We  needed  an operation
that would be more responsive to the users, to  our tenants, to the  county
                                       114

-------
itself, and particularly to the community.  As a result, we have done away
with the concession form of government and have turned instead to a
professional manager.

         Our manager is the Metropolitan Air Facility Division of Pan American
Airways.  Now, that manager works for the county.  He is treated as a
subdivision of the Department of Public Works and works for a fixed fee on an
incentive bonus and his connection to the county is through the Commissioner
of Public Works, who can work with him in setting of operational policies.

         High on the priority list of these policies is an improved community
relations program, and one of the first things that was established was the
noise complaint phone that is manned 24 hours a day at the county airport.

         As a result of the sub-concession agreement with Gulf, a number of
private corporations did become subtenants on the airport and built hangars of
their own, either to serve their own fleet or in some cases to provide
facilities for aircraft of other corporations.  There are 23 fixed base
operators at the present time.  Two of them serve the heavier corporate
aircraft and others serve the light plane market, including flight school and
light aircraft repairs.

         The fourth FBO will be added in the near future in order to give
greater competition  in service to the light aircraft general aviation fleet.

         Our airport is purely and simply a general aviation airport with
great emphasis on the heavier corporate fleets owned by Westchester County and
nearby Connecticut corporations.  Certificated airlines service has been
provided to a  limited extent over the years by first American Airlines, then
by Mohawk and more recently by Allegheny.  But with the advance of
deregulation, Allegheny, our  last surviving certificated carrier, has
discontinued service as of September 5th of this year.

         We are served by several commuter airlines which operate under Part
135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations,  and which do a good business although
they  lack appeal  to many of the airline customers that the  larger certificated
carrier provided.

         Over 350 aircraft are based  at Westchester County Airport.  Over 100
of these are turbo-powered aircraft, either jet  or turbo prop.  For example,
we have 23 based  G-2's and almost 80 percent of  all the based  aircraft are
operated for business purposes.  There are three runways on the airport;
Runway  16/34,  the longest; Runway 11/29 is the shortest, 4,500  feet; and  the
third  runway,  53, has been closed for several years —  it  is 5,000 feet  long
— closed due  to  deteriorating surface conditions.  It  is currently used  as a
taxiway and our master plan will recommend that  it remain  so.

         Runway 16/34 has recently been repaved  to a bearing strength of
120»000 pounds.   Runway 11/29 will be  improved  in the coming year  to 60,000
pounds.  Radar is on the field, we have an  instrument  landing  system for
Runway 16 coming  in  from the  northwest and a second  ILS has been proposed for
the opposite  end  of  that runway, since the back  course  of  that  is  not a usable
ILS,
                                       115

-------
         This proposal, however, is being blocked in the courts  by the Town of
Rye, the area south of the airport, by a suit against the FAA on the adequacy
of the Environmental Impact Statement.

         Now, contrary to the point Mr. Tyler was making yesterday, our second
ILS was not installed for the purpose of increasing traffic or based aircraft
on the field, but to get rid of a rather horrendous circling approach
procedure at 600-foot minimum which had a severe noise impact on this area
over here (indicating) when the wind conditions are such that you cannot land
from the southeast.

         Another operational constraint is that the area over Long Island
Sound, down here, is owned by La Guardia from 2,000 feet up and  so that
aircraft departing from the county airport have to stay below 2,000 feet and
make a sharp turn away from Long Island Sound and head back to the northwest
out of that portion of the county, staying at a relatively low altitude.  I
think they are 3,500 feet by the time they get to the Hudson River, because
they cannot climb in this direction any farther to any part of the southeast
and that results in a noise problem for us.

         Curiously, though, the approaches to the county airport have been
relatively free of major conflicting developments.  One of the major
objectives of our planning program therefore is to protect these approaches by
the encouragement of development only that will be compatible.

         Total movements from the airport in 1978 were at about  190,000, down
10 percent from the year before, principally because we closed the runway for
repaying.  We anticipate an increase to 350,000 by the next five or ten years.

         Now, if open approaches to the airport are threatened by development
and if-approach protection is the name of our game, why does not the county
simply change the zoning to limit the land use within the approach zones?
That is the New York State wrinkle.  We cannot do it.  County governments in
New York State are unlike counties in most other areas.  We are divided into
cities and towns, with the latter being defined as unincorporated areas.  But
unlike other parts of the country, New York State counties have  no land use
control in the unincorporated areas, since towns in New York State are
self-governing, self-taxing, and have control over their local planning and
zoning.

         We have 43 separate municipalities in the county, all of whom have
their local zoning ordinances, their local subdivision regulations,
development plans and in some cases have parochial planning objectives.  We
have 43 separate school districts which may or may not combine to align with
the towns and communities which they serve and they, too, are self-taxing and
are separate from the government of those municipalities, so that you have 86
separate taxing jurisdictions who are very anxious to get a high level of
ratables in their community so they can balance their own budgets, because
they rely almost completely on the property tax.
                                       116

-------
         The county has no direct control over any form of land use in the
traditional sense, nor over the issuance of any building permits.  My
department, my county planning board, can only give advisory opinions to
municipal governments and then only in certain cases.  If we are to develop a
county land use plan therefore we need to use indirect controls, using the
municipality to act as our agent.

         The key element of our strategy here is to use the county dollar for
capital  improvements.  Our capital budget each year is over $20 million for
such purposes as airports, public buildings, roads, bridges and parkways,
recreational facilities, transportation, sewer and water district purchases.
The budget  is financed by a cash contribution from the county of about 20
percent, operating aids from the State and Federal Governments  are about 60
percent  and the remaining 20 percent  is bonded long-term debt.

         Where we spend our capital funds therefore can have a  great  impact on
the course  of local development.  In  as rugged a county as Westchester, the
ability  to  control where the water and sewer facilities go, for example, or
the transportation lines will go a long way toward determining  what the urban
pattern  of  the county  is going to be  in the future.  This concept we  have
incorporated into our  urban forum plan for Westchester County which deals not
specifically with the  types of land uses across the countryside but rather
with the intensity of  use and demand  for environmental support,  since these
are the  things which we provide  in the county capital budget,  lanes of
highways,  treatment plants for millions  of gallons of capacity,  water lines
and so on.

         We are  in the process right  now of doing an  airport master plan for
our county airport.  The county  offered the opportunity to the  surrounding
municipalities to become co-sponsors  with this program, as the  FAA asked us
to, and  not unexpectedly they turned  us  down.  They  said they  did not want  to
be  linked  in any way which would imply  an endorsement of the operation  of the
airport, but they were interested  in  what we  are  doing.

         We had  the  opportunity  to  involve  them more fully through airport
noise  control and  land use compatibility studies  which  we are  undertaking
simultaneously,  the ANCLUC.

         The principal thrust of the ANCLUC  is that  it will be  possible to
make both  long-term  and  short-term  operational facility  changes on the  airport
to  reduce  noise  and  also  exercise greater  land use control of  the  area  around
the airport.  Our  objective  is  a plan of cooperation between  us, as the
airport  owner  and  operator,  and  the surrounding municipalities  which  will
minimize the opportunities for  land  use conflicts.

         My department has  a major  role in  coordinating  the  land use  element
of  the ANCLUC,  acting  as  the liaison ~ which means  the county government  and
the Public Works Department  and  their consultants, Howard,  Needles,  Tanmen  &
Bergendoff.  In  the  course  of the ANCLUC study we will investigate several
major  areas.  We have  developed  a short-term noise abatement  plan  which
includes those  operational  and  facility changes which can be  made  within a
minimum cost  and within  the  next three years.
                                        117

-------
         Now, the long-term noise abatement plan will combine those facility
changes and the  land use and management plans for the land around the
airport.  Here is the preliminary identification of the primary and secondary
noise impact areas, the primary area represented by that contour line.  This
is Ldn 65 above  and around the county airport.  The secondary impact zone  is
Ldn 60 and above.  Ordinarily, we would have expected that the major areas for
control would have been within the primary zone, but because the impact zones
have to be modified by areas of noise complaint — you can see the clusters of
areas where there has been a pattern of complaints which would have been
revealed by our  telephone hot line and by the meetings with other officials.

         As a result of these, the plan identifies areas with potential
conflicting land use.  All of these areas shown in the pattern here are of
conflicting land use and the areas of schools, institutions, so on are
represented by the cross-hatch area and the red dots.

         On the  technical side, the ANCLUC will be looking to the remedial
measures we were talking about.  This one is interesting because it deals with
the proposal of  a second runway parallel to the instrument runway, to be
limited solely to VFR and general aviation light traffic.  In our computer
analysis of this program, this shows the reduction of noise impact areas that
would occur if that VFR runway were established and would permit us to
separate the high performance jet traffic from the lower landing speeds of the
light aviation traffic, and I think undoubtedly will go in and be added to the
airport.

         Simultaneously with the start of the airport master plan study, our
department was doing another study of the Interstate 287 corridor.  That links
the Tappanzee Bridge on the west side of the county that goes to Tarrytown,
the county seat, White Plains, in this area — Tarrytown over here, White
Plains and then  on to Interstate 684, which turns north at this point and  goes
up to the vicinity of the airport.  Further on it goes on and connects to  the
New England Throughway, Interstate 95.

         We were studying this area of the county in particular because of the
tremendous congestion that can occur along 287 during the afternoon rush hour,
and particularly because of these parallel service roads on each side of the
road and county  highways.  We had a capital investment in those roads and  our
department investigated the degree to which development had occurred in the
cross-Westchester corridor and the degree to which potential additional
development would happen.

         Our study found that within this area, and I just pointed out that
the airport is located here, within the entire colored area there are today
some 27,000 employees coming to work each day.  And that simply on the
developed plan in this area, principally that represented by the pink and  the
blue, within that developed area there was some potential of an increase to
38,000 to 44,000 employees each day by the year 1980, simply in those areas
that are currently developed, expansion plans for present industries.

         In addition, there are 240 acres within the study area where plans
are announced for construction, which are already underway, and which would
add another 7,200 additional workers to the highway system.  In the vicinity of
                                       118

-------
the airport our plan identified that there was another 3,200 acres of land
around the airport which was, although now zoned for single family residents,
was vacant and developable and, if the town plans were to be believed, was
programmed to go into some form of development within our study period.

         Now I told you at the beginning, nothing is simple.  Our county
airport is located in three communities in Westchester County, all of them
towns, each one given a color up there -- Rye, Harrison, and Northcastle, and
the blue area just to the east of the airport is the town of Greenwich in the
State of Connecticut.  Looking north, the county airport lies up here.  This
area is the town of Harris, this area is Rye, over here is the town of
Greenwich, and up at the north is the town of Northcastle.  You can see the
proximity of the New York City reservoir lands here off the approach end of
Runway 16.  This is a state university campus being built.

         Headquarters of the Pepsico Corporation, a property  I will refer to
from now on as the 300  acres, representing this area right off the approach
end of Runway 34, another 400 acres in this  area, which is under  litigation
right now as to the appropriateness of the zoning and a county road,
Andersonville Road, coming across the southern portion of the picture.

          Interstate 684 passes along the west side of the airport, as does the
state highway, 120, and 128 comes down the state line over  there.

          We had reason  to be concerned about this 300-acre  tract  because
several years ago there was  a proposal to put a major planned unit development
on  it called the Ryetown Country Club.  This was to  include one million  square
feet of retail floor space,  11 million square feet  of office  floor space, and
eleven hundred dwelling units.  The dwelling units were programmed to start at
somewhere  around $90,000 in  condominium form and go  on up.  The  land  use  for
the area  which abuts the southern border  of  the county airport right  there,
north is  in this direction,  land use had  the retail  facilities here,  the
office facilities in there,  and the  residential facilities  along  the  south  and
along Andersonville Road  across the bottom.   It was  a rather  impressive
looking development.

          The  county airport  here  at the  north at this  time, retail,  office,
residential,  and  to  its credit a good  amount of  open space.   And  this  date,
based on  the  composite  noise ratio  data  at  that  time,  the most  severely
 impacted  area being  here  and so that is  the  area they put into their open
space.

          We  had  objections to the  proposal  both  from the county  planning
 standpoint,  from  the  county  planning principally because of the  retail
development  there being in competition with  our  established centers  elsewhere
 in the  county,  in  a county with the climbing population.   There  was  simply  no
market  support for  that type of  development.

          But  secondly,  from  the  airport  standpoint  we deeply  resisted any
major concentration of population in any form immediately off the approach  end
 of the  major runway of the airport.  The program ultimately fell  of  its  own
 weight because it depended to a great extent upon  the contribution of the
 highway improvement to the program to make it work.  But it gave us  the tip
                                        119

-------
for the future, that if this area was to be developed in a pattern  that we
would like to see happen,  the control of access to it and the making  available
public water and public facilities,  public sewer facilities,  both of  which are
unavailable on the airport,  could be a key factor in determining how  that area
ultimately developed.

         We have precedent for that.  In the other part of the county,  across
the county, the Union Carbide Corporation operates a major technical  center in
Tarrytown.  The county wished to induce Carbide to expand their operation at
the research center from 1,700 employees there now and expand it by the
addition of additional buildings which would be lucrative to the two  towns in
which it was located and helpful from our own economic development  standpoint.

         The county and the towns agreed to join together in a $2 million road
improvement program at no cost to Carbide, the county putting up the  lion's
share of this, contrary to our general procedures, about one $1.6 million
going to the improvement of the road and the State putting up a portion of the
program in the area of an interchange near the Sawmill River Parkway, where
they would make additional investment to make better traffic possible to that
area.

         Looking back to the area around the airport, not only Rye, the 300
acres here in Rye would benefit from this program of improved access, but we
could see that Greenwich,  which has questions of land use change along its
borders, would benefit from more direct access to the interstate,  if  indeed
they wanted to change their zoning.   And the Town of Harrison, the 400 acres
in litigation right here would also benefit from it.

         So, we approached the Town of Rye and entered into a second
memorandum of understanding with them, under the terms of our airport planning
agreement.

         Now, that had to do with the economic development of these 300
acres.  The town and the county jointly recognized the importance  of improved
access to that area and pledged their cooperation to obtaining better  access
for it to the Interstate 684.  The procedure that we used was to go beyond the
standard ANCLUC requirements in the planning of the 300 acres south of the
airport and to work with the town in the development of alternative  land use
studies for that area which would look at different development schemes and
access for it which might improve its access out to 684 in one form or another.

         We went through a variety of approaches, looked at various
alternatives that might be possible under different road schemes to see when
parcels benefited from it both in Rye and possibly  in Greenwich, if that  town
should choose to follow and take advantage, and came up with  a proposal which
generally met with the approval of the political  leaders  involved.  That  is
one which  involves an improvement of the airport  access road  from the
interchange at the interstate onto  the airport property and  then continues up
from the  interchange and back around onto the airport property, continuing
around past the Town of Greenwich as a four-lane  divided  facility.

          It would be brought past the National Guard  hangars  and into  the
vicinity  of the Westchester County  terminal,  past the new rental car parking
                                       120

-------
lot that is under construction, and would be continued to the southern border
of our airport to intercept with Lincoln Avenue,  an east-west local  road at
the north end of the 300-acre property.

         In return for the construction of this road as a county capital
project, we would obtain land use concessions from the town that the property
would be developed only in accordance with a prudent schedule, something that
we could live with in terms of our airport planning and with a normal amount
of height limitations, so on.  We have offered a similar agreement to the Town
of Harrison, which is an area southwest of the airport, being over in that
direction, where they have programmed previously a 400-acre industrial park in
the vicinity, just south of the southerly border of the airport.

         This area they have shown as an industrial park with a new access out
of 684 and a new interchange to be constructed there.  This study was based on
the possibility that that interchange might not be possible and the other
three are variations of that scheme, as shown on the town development plan,
with that interchange changing locations to fit the particular development
options.

         Is there a payoff in this process?  Almost immediately there began a
psychological payoff.  The idea of connecting to this highway system, even
though the developers themselves would still have to build their own  local
roads, has caused no end of real estate interest and the imminent announcement
by the developer-owner of one of the properties that a major conference center
would be built  in this area at a very  low density on his property so  that  it
would be consistent not only with the  airport noise situation but would freeze
the land with a type of development that was compatible to both of the towns
and municipalities.

         The test for the county is in terms of its pay-back in additional
taxes over a period of years.  Sometimes this pay-back is tested by a rigorous
accounting method, other times the political factor is introduced and the
accounting is allowed to slip a little bit  or there may be an employment
factor or there  is the  leverage factor, the fact that  the county's
contribution may make desirable development happen.

         We have no final decision yet on the airport  access  road but the
county has kept faith.  We have submitted for the  next year's capital
improvement program a request  for design funds for the establishment  of the
design  and construction of the airport access road in  cooperation with the
town.  We have yet to achieve  cooperation agreements with the other
communities around the  airport but we  expect that  these will be forthcoming.

         So, whether  it is capital improvements program or bribery or contract
zoning  or  any of a variety of  other euphemisms you may put to it, the idea of
our program  is  to find  out what the other guy really wants and  then  see  if
there  is  not  some way you can  get  it  in  a way to help  him get it and  then, as
a consideration for that, you  can  require that his development  be in
accordance with your  standards and you are  going to be far,  far ahead.  Thank
you.
                                       121

-------
         DR. BRAGDON:  I would also like to introduce each of the panelists as
they come up and I will start here with Ken Delino.   Ken Delino on my left
here is Manager of Airport Noise Programs for Systems Control, Incorporated, a
firm located in Anaheim, California.   I believe Bob Clark is next to Ken,  and
Bob is Director of the Department of Planning and Research for the City of
Kinston, North Carolina.  Bob has done a very interesting and innovative plan
and has been working in the trenches, so to speak, and planning quite a while.

         The next individual of course is Bill, who gave his presentation this
morning.  Next is Bob Miller, Senior Consultant with Bolt, Beranek and Newman,
Incorporated in Boston.

         Next we have Jesse Borthwick, Executive Director of the National
Association of Noise Control Officials, located in Shalimar, Florida.

         MR. KENNETH J. DELINO:  I said I was going to start out with a
question.  Let me make a comment first.  Most of the speakers have been
talking about long, drawn out processes anywhere from 4 to 15 years, if I
remember my figures right.  I would like to ask some of the speakers and maybe
some of the other panelists to share some of their heartaches with us and tell
us what they would do over again or how they would do it over again to make it
proceed alot quicker.  I guess I would like to ask Bill Critchfield that first
since he has been at it quite a while.

         MR. CRITCHFIELD:  Well, I don't think I could make it any faster.
There were a lot of things that I would do if I had my druthers.  I would get
to the community sooner with more information and I think there's always a
tendency when you go into a plan to have pride of authorship and you try to
defend that.  I think probably what I would do is to use more of my staff and
I would use a more perceptive approach and when a protest or a disagreement
came up, we would try to spend more time with the group or the individuals who
expressed their concern.

         I think this would be more effective.  It may speed up the process
too.  I would not advocate that as a method of clarifying the process and
subsequently it may speed it up, but I would not  see any way of compressing
this process into say a six or even an eight-month period.  Master planning a
land use plan and noise abatement program is a critical process and I don't
see how you could do it in  less than,  let's say a very minimum of three years.

         MR. ROBERT CLARK:  First of all, I would like to say  I think that Mr.
Eschweiler's presentation summed up what I perceive as being the type of
approach that works well  if you have the type of, if I can use the term
sophistication of local government to  be able to get the job done.   It has
worked well in some communities I am familiar with but, first  of all, I would
like to comment that most of the situations I have been involved in  in eastern
North Carolina deal with  small G.A. facilities.   We are dealing with a
situation where we have a full-time airport manager who is 90 percent
ex-Marine pilot and who has perhaps 10 percent of his day devoted to
administrative-type tasks.

         He spends the rest of his time trying to keep the  facility maintained
and keep the fixed base operators happy.
                                       122

-------
         The type of local governments that we deal with are quite frankly not
very sophisticated and this has been one of the most difficult aspects of the
programs I have been involved in, is that it is very easy to subjugate the
whole process by only a few protests, not a lot of protests, but just a few
that have given me some objections.   My perspectives may be of some help to
the smaller based facilities more than the larger ones.

         I think the presentation he just gave is very good and, as I say, is
very typical of what has been done nationwide when you could do it.  I do not
have any questions at this time.

         MR. ROBERT MILLER:  I guess I would like to start off by commenting
on your initial question, and that is I think that the planning process, as it
basically was done 10 years ago, was kind of a closet operation and speed
there was something which was achieved but at the expense of leaving out very
important parties.  I think the days of that kind of planning, as we have
heard from almost every speaker here, are over with.

         It is an educating process  and that is a slow process and there is
going to have to be considerable effort.  It has become a much more full-time
job, if you will, to get  a master plan planned and adopted.

         With regard to some other comments which have been made earlier today
and even some yesterday as well, there has been a lot of discussion about the
value of Ldn's as a descriptor around small airports and its applicability to
situations where there are a few number of loud jet operations.  I guess I
would like to comment that I do not  really believe that  it  is as inappropriate
as it has been characterized here.   Primarily, I guess I draw attention to the
charts that Bill presented.  We saw  there that about three  to five noisy jet
operations per day are equivalent in  level to something  on  the order of
300,000 operations per year by a quiet aircraft.  Well, that  is an indication
of the extent to which Ldn will deal with noisy operations  and will highlight
those as being an important factor in the noise environment.

         Also we heard a  lot of comments about the distraction from
touch-and-go operations and they are sort of incessant occurrences and that
kind of gives another  indication of  how there has  to be  some measure which
includes the combination  of both high levels and frequent occurrences.  So I
think I would like not to have a metric instead of Ldn downgraded  for the
purposes of doing many of these evaluations.  I think it is still  a very  valid
way of looking at airport noise.

         MR. JESSE BORTHWICK:   I have just a couple of points,  I guess.
Perhaps the most  important —  I am always happy to see people gather  like we
have gathered here to  exchange  information and exchange  experiences because  I
think that  is the true learning method.  That is what NANCO is really all
about, communication.  Communication and noise control officials,  back  in the
early '70s, quickly found out  that working independently and  running very
rapidly  in  the dark does  not work too well and it  is much better  if you can
learn from  each other's experiences.
                                       123

-------
         So we as an organization are going to try to get case histories out
as were presented this morning by Bill and Peter.  I think we can all learn
from their experiences and they have been bottled up too long.  We have not
been familiar with what our colleagues are doing and it has stymied the growth
of comprehensive programs.  So I think this is a good experience and I think
we need more of sharing of experiences in whatever fashion we can use.

         The other point that I had, I was unable to be here yesterday,
unfortunately, but something I see missing from the agenda is the presentation
to you as planners or to those of you who are working in the field, I see
missing the presentation of simple planning tools that you can take back to
your office when you leave the conference.  I think that is something that is
extremely important.  We need to go back and actually sit down at our desks
and start working on a problem and have some information that will support our
work.

         I do not know how many of you are familiar with the handbook that FAA
has put out.  I'm not that familiar with it.  I have used it but I have not
actually applied it.  The title of it is Handbook for Developing Noise
Exposure Contours for General Aviation Airports and it is fairly simple to
apply.  The fine tuning of it is perhaps not as simple, but it is a fairly
simple approach that can be used by what I would consider a non-acoustician
and is very important from a planning standpoint.  I know there are much more
complicated models available and they have their application.  But in terms of
planning, I think the general models often suffice and we usually do not plan
because the models we are told to use are too complicated; we don't understand
them.  That is one point.

         And my last point, I noticed in Peter's conversation that he was
talking about the interstates around the airport and their concern in the
planning process with their carrying capacity and their access to those
facilities.  The pet point I have here is I often go to ANCLUC meetings and
other meetings that have to do with airport noise and compatible land use
planning and often-times there is an interstate  next to the airport that is
probably generating just as much noise in fact as the airport and nothing  is
either done or mentioned about the impact from the highway.  So I would
encourage you in your planning process to consider all of the major  noise
forces, both surface and air transportation.

         Again, there are very simple models or  tools available for  the
application I am talking about, tabletop models  that you can apply one
afternoon and come up with a reasonable estimate of what your problem  is.  And
that is really all I have.

         MR. ESCHWEILER:  The first panel member asked what would we do
differently or what we learned on the program.   In our case,  I think  we would
push to see that the lead agency, as far  as administering the master plan, was
not an engineering department.  The attitude of  our engineers, and  I  worked
very closely with them, but, as John mentioned yesterday, the public  is the
enemy and there is always that feeling that you  are giving  up too much  if  you
even begin  to cooperate with them.
                                        124

-------
         Secondly, we found very quickly that if you are calling it a noise
study you had better have microphones and tape recorders out there because the
public is going to be looking for them.  They want to make sure that you tell
them you can do just as well with one or two readings on a computer model may
be true in an engineering sense but it certainly is not true in the case of
public acceptance.

         Thirdly, if I had my choice of the two agencies for public
participation support, I would turn to EPA rather than the FAA.  EPA
administered a program for us on water quality planning and it required a
public participation element in there which makes the FAA program simply look
sick.

         OR. BRAGDON:  Any other comments?  If not, are there any comments
from people from the floor?

         MR. GALLOWAY:  I would like to make two separate comments.  One of
the statements was made first, earlier this morning, and was a question of
well at NBM they were shown colors and things like that.  There is a lot of
hope engendered that small aircraft noise levels will come down.  They
probably will come down somewhat but the fact that is continually overlooked
by as lot of people  in flying is that there are roughly 200,000 aircraft in
our current inventory.  Attrition is very, very small.  The attrition of prop
aircraft is not over four or five percent a year.  But it takes a long, long
time to lower the prop aircraft noise  level by 10 dB a year or before the
aggregate of this fleet can come down.  You can go through the thing yourself
and you are going to see the levels you have got now and those levels are
going to be representative of the fleet at large for a very long time.

         Now, that is for prop aircraft.  Take the picture for jets and it is
totally different because of the vast  addition, great addition of this quiet
aircraft.

         The second  point, apropos, of the comment which considered highways
along with airport noise.  The new HUD regulations require that you look at
all the sources present, not at airport or highway or something else.  Levels
of acceptability are determined by the contribution from every source in the
community.  I think  that is the way it ought to be.

         MR. JOHN R. JANSEN:  Dick Jansen -- I am with the Southern Regional
Office of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.  I think
inadvertently someone slipped yesterday and said that the HUD noise standard
is 65 Ldn.  According to the new Part  51 noise regulations with HUD, at the
regional administrator's discretion HUD will issue a mortage insurance for
noise levels as high as 75 dB, and this is important especially in terms of
what Mr. Eschweiler  said, that not only is one of the criteria determining
whether a 75 dB area will be allowed to be developed under FHA mortgage
insurance and whether or not sewer and water lines are  in place in the  area
within a two-mile radius.  So if the local planning agencies are able to, by
their own land use planning and desire, keep an area free, one of the ways
that they could keep HUD out is to keep water and  sewer  out.
                                       125

-------
         So the point I want to make is 75 is allowable at the discretion of
the regional administrator.

         DR. BRA600N:  Just a little added point to that whole issue of
capital improvements.  We talked yesterday about what can planning do and the
issue of capital improvement is probably one of its strongest legal  tools.  If
any of the panelists have any comments to make, please do and then we will go
on to the next speaker.

         MR. CRITCHFIELD:  I would like to make a comment about Bill
Galloway's comment about the longevity of the present fleet of general
aviation.   This is one of the things we have been looking at.  Also we have
been looking at bent tip propellers that come in under aircraft conversion,
and we have looked at muffler stacks that will fit on the aircraft.

         Here we get tangled up with the FAA in the aircraft engineering
branch.  We think there might be a lot of AFCA market products that could be
applied to that old aviation fleet that would improve the noise
characteristics.  If there is anybody out there who has got any ideas on how
to deal with the aircraft engineering branch of the FAA or if they have got
any ideas on AFCA market products, I wish they would let me know because we
are working on them right now.

         MR. DELING:  One of the techniques we have been successful with is
allowing each community to determine its own criteria and level through
analysis,  first of all noise complaints, public opinion surveys, through a
workshop and, of course, education on what exactly is noise and what noise
supposedly affects people across the world.  What I would like to ask,
especially from someone like Bill Galloway, what is in the future in this sort
of approach?  And to ask some of the panelists who have had to deal with the
public, how is it working wth national standards, worldwide standards actually
because the criterion levels do come from worldwide surveys.  How do other
people feel about allowing the individual community to determine what is an
invasive or impinging noise level?

         MR. GALLOWAY:  Hopefully, in the very near future there will be
issued an American national standard on land use and compatibility with
noise.  I think we are on the seventh revision.

         DR. BRAGDON:  Seventh revision.

         MR. GALLOWAY:  In this the recommendation is indeed, it is the  local
community's responsibility to decide where it wants to be.  There is  an
appendix to this that suggests ranges of definitely compatible, marginally
compatible, clearly incompatible, applications according to noise levels
compared to noise levels of different land uses.  But it is urged upon the
communities to adopt for its own purposes within its particular set of
strength where it wants to  lie in that range.  Hopefully, this one  will get
passed.

         MR. JACKSON:  Could  I comment on that one second.  We were recently
involved in some work up in Norfolk which dealt with that particular  question,
in that someone  in the community  said that,  first  of all, they have got  a
                                       126

-------
noise problem.  We can recognize that, straight out.  They said, well,  can we
do something that is not quite as bad and tried to address the question of
abridgement of standards, if you will.  The one observation that we have on
that at this point is that over the time our study has been going on and it is
now in the very final stages of completion, there has been in that community,
and I think I have observed fairly widely across the country that the same
thing has occurred, as people are becoming more and more aware through the
various programs which are promulgated basically by EPA in terms of
information on noise in all categories, not just aircraft — motorcycles,
cars, take your pick, anything ~ the more people have become aware that they
can complain about these things and that these things are damaging to their
health in some form or other, the more they are starting to complain about it.

         So my suggestion here is that had we taken surveys 18 months ago, two
years ago to determine what the standards in that community may have been, my
suspicion right now is that those standards would no longer be applicable to
that particular community because of the changes that are now taking place.

         DR. BRAGDON:  So, you are talking about sensitivity as a key changing
factor?

         MR. JACKSON:  Right.

         MR. THURMON THOMES:  My  name  is Thurmon Thomes, Regional Civil
Engineering in Dallas, Texas.   I  will  address my question to Mr. Bill
Critchfield from Torrance.  Was the hospital that you mentioned  in your
presentation  already  in  existence before you started your noise tests?

         MR.  CRITCHFIELD:  No,  it was  not.  The  noise program,  as such,  was
after the hospital  but we were  aware  some 8 or 12 years  ago of the  noise
problems that general aviation  was developing.  One of the things we did,  and
thank goodness the  city  council  and city staff backed us  on that, was we made
it  one of the conditions of the  land  use change  for that  parcel that the
hospital would be  acoustically  treated to certain  standards and there was  a
show down over that because  a hospital  is  very sensitive  to the  community, and
you are  talking  about motherhood  and  apple  pie and  God and country  when  you
are talking about  a hospital.

         But  we  got the  full  backing  and the hospital finally decided  all
right, that they would do it  because  they  wanted that site.  They did  it and
are happy with the results.

         MR.  THOMES:  Approximately  how far is the hospital from  the  runway?

         MR.  CRITCHFIELD:  About  2,200 feet perpendicular from  the  runway site.

         MR.  THOMES:  Does  this hospital by any  chance  have  any funding
capability  from  HEW,  or  is  it strictly a city-county  thing?

         MR.  CRITCHFIELD:  As I  recall,  there  was  some funding  from HEW; yes.

         MR.  THOMES:  Now for the purpose  of my  question,  in  the Department  of
Defense, just like you  in general aviation airports do  your  studies,  we  do
                                       127

-------
make certain noise studies which are sent to HEW for their  verification  of
schools, hospitals, nursing homes,  et cetera,  that might be close to our
airports.  I just wanted to find out, did you get something out of sound
attenuation beforehand or you first approved the hospital facility's aspects
of how much sound attenuation they  needed with HEW?

         MR. CRITCHFIELD:  HEW,  to  my knowledge, was not brought into it at
any point in time.  They may have been aware of it.  We did all of the
negotiations, poker playing, if  you will, on our own — based on our findings
and based on the consultant's findings that worked for us.   And we said,
basically, if you do not want to come play with the standards then we will do
everything in our power to prevent  you from building this hospital at that
location.  We never got to the point where we had to discuss it with HEW
because they complied.

         DR. BRAGDON:  Okay, John.

         MR. TYLER:  I would like to comment along the same lines of several
comments that have just been made since the question period started.  The air
carrier field, the industry, is  able to predict with a relatively high degree
of accuracy what the noise levels of future aircraft will be from one
generation to another.  And looking down the road we can see some noise
reductions in the generation of aircraft to be built in 1990, beyond the
generation going into production in the 1980's.  This type  reduction is
relatively small.  We are getting down to the point where we technically
cannot predict significant noise reductions beyond that point.

         The aircraft to go into production in the 1990's will undoubtedly be
in production for at least ten years because it takes at least five years or
more to pay for the tooling.  You have to have that span of product to make it
financially profitable.  Those aircraft will then be in service for at least
ten years beyond the point where the production stops, which means that they
will be in service through 2010, probably to 2015.

         The general aviation aircraft turnover has historically been slower
than the air carrier change in their use of technology and  continuation of
service.  So we could probably make some fairly reliable predictions as to
what noise impact will be around general aviation aircraft  well into the  next
century, perhaps to the years 2020 and further.

         Looking at the question which is part  of this morning's  discussion,
which is preventive measures, we now have a relatively large number of general
aviation airports which  are scheduled to have  increased  number of operations.
If you  look  at the general area forecasts, you can pull  out  individual
airports which are expected to  increase their capacity by  two times, three
times,  four  times, six,  eight, even ten times capacity between now  and the
year 2000.   Many of these airports at the present time have  no noise problems.

          If  you draw a contour  at 65 Ldn it will not extend  significantly
beyond  the airport and in many cases the land  that will  be covered  could  be
used for different types of purposes.

         However,  if you look at the 65 Ldn contour,  let's say projecting it
to the  year  2000 so we have a number to work with  and then just judiciously
project beyond that point, we can envision  some rather severe  problems.   Now,


                                       128

-------
when we have environmental impact statements that are made with regard to
proposed airport changes, we think in great detail about land use around the
airport.  What would be highly desirable, I think and I would like to have a
comment from the panel on this point, is if the airports project their
expansion plans to the period beyond the year 2000, draw contours which they
believe will be the ultimate contours for that airport as far as they can see
in the future, and this means that the 65 Ldn would then expand to include a
lot of area beyond their present boundaries, an area which at the present time
could be properly zoned or perhaps air easements could be obtained to insure
that they are not used for purposes which would be incompatible with that
future projected aircraft operation.

         And then I would like to have comments on the point that when such
contours are drawn and the communities around the airport have some reasonable
assurance that they could use areas which are not included in that 65 Ldn
contour for residential purposes, that airport would guarantee and be willing
to have written into their title, property, whatever, that they will not at
any time support operations which will produce above 65 Ldn noise level
outside of the contours which they have  drawn.

         Now, this is  looking at the problem of the community with regard to
its support of the airport, and  I think  in many cases if we had  a guarantee
from the airport that  they would say this  is the  extent of our impact and we
can go thus far and no farther,  then I think you  would find community support
for that kind of an airport approach and I would  suggest that  in such a
program the airport could be  a little conservative from the standpoint of
being willing to draw  those contours large enough  so as to insure that they
will include  all areas which  they would  expect everyone to use for purposes,
for activities that would produce noise  above the 65 Ldn contour.

         Now, how would  the panel members  react  to the  airport having written
into the title of the  property the fact  that  it will never produce noise which
is  beyond this specified  65 Ldn  contour?  I think perhaps Mr.  Eschweiller
would  like  to respond  to  that.

         MR.  ESCHWEILLER:  What  would be the  penalty  if  I signed the agreement
and then did  not  live  up  to  it?

         MR.  TYLER:   Pardon?

         MR.  ESCHWEILLER:  What  would be the  penalty  if  I did  not  live  up to
 it?  My experience with  the people  who  would  be  doing  that  sort  of  thing  would
be  that they  would  say:   Yes, we will sign it  but, of  course,  we cannot  commit
a future  legislature  or  future  elected  body,  just as  I  cannot  get  a  budget
commitment  more  than  to  the  determination of  my  current year.   I think  it is
obviously  something  that delights  a planner's  heart,  but  that  it —  I  am not
sure that you could  guarantee a  commitment over  that kind of time  because you
 are talking about  committing  land uses  to 35  years into the  future.   You are
beginning  to  talk  in  terms  of renovating land uses at the end  of that time
 span,  usually,  and  renewal.

          DR.  BRA6DON:   How about Bob Clark basing his experiences at Kinston?
 You did an  airport  plan  and  then you have been living with  trying  to fight  off
 some of these problems.


                                       129

-------
         MR. CLARK:  Our biggest problem was,  one,  we were using a CNR
projection at that time.  But regardless of methodology;  one,  the public nor
do I believe the city council or airport commissioners believed we would ever
produce that kind of noise, no matter what methodology or how far out.  And we
were dealing with an area primarily undeveloped,  about 95 percent rural land;
mostly utilities not available; poor soil conditions, as  far as septic tanks,
if you get anything at all, but rapidly becoming  important because utilities
are going to be put in there.

         The difficulty that I see is that, first of all, and I agree with the
comment made here about not being able to guarantee that  I think from the
airport operator's standpoint, whatever that condition will be 20 years from
now in terms of airport noise.  I would say that  the three tools I have seen
that I think will work under the most adverse  conditions  are capital
improvements, programming, and directing development through that method;
through purchase of easements, avigation easements in the area in which you
are going to operate and potentially operate in the future; and to look into
fair disclosure, disclosure of type of problem we can see coming up presently
as well as in the future through not only improvement permits, building
permits and deeds.

         I really do not have great experience in the City of Kinston and
Solos Field (phonic spelling) from the standpoint of having all my
recommendations accepted.  None of them were accepted. None of them have been
implemented, and we have had three years now since that sort of fell  apart.
But it is interesting to see that some of the same things we recommended in
the study of what to do about land use control and so forth are sort of
coming, starting to come about now naturally.

         I do not think it is related to your question originally, but I would
like to emphasize one thing and that is land use controls, particularly zoning
possibly for subdivision regulations.  In the area where  I deal with and have
dealt with, a number of communities are very conservative, rural property
rights advocates, they just do not work and they are not  a long-term
solution.  If you can afford to buy it, put an easement in and run in the
utilities.  Where I have dealt, that has been the most successful.

         MR. TYLER:  Are you saying that avigation easements do not hold
forever, that they can be revoked?

         MR. CLARK:  No.  What I am saying is that avigation easements can
work the same thing in terms of a disclosure.  But normally those things do
not specify your noise  level and I think you will have a hard time doing
that.  You can make a decent projection as to a most  likely severe occurrence
and you can work for that, but the question comes back to saying what  is the
penalty to the airport operator that will help enforce that.   It is too  easy
to, I think, have to fall back on people down the road who may or may  not be
following a proper procedure.

         MR. TYLER:  I understand avigation easements are  obtained with  the
permission to produce noise up to a given  level.  Do you believe that  that  is
not legal?

         MR. CLARK:  No, I did not say that.  I said  the problem that  I  have
seen is that the airport operator, in his difficulty  to  invoke a penalty for
that.
                                      130

-------
         MR. CRITCHFIELD:  I have to agree with Peter in a little different
context.  The situation with most airport proprietors, their board of
directors are political persons.  Most astute political persons on the average
will not commit themselves beyond the foreseeable term of their office.  So,
while the idea of having a commitment, if you will, that you will not from
this day forward make any more noise in a given area is nice.  I really don't
think it falls under the heading of practical solutions.

         MS. CALDWELL:  I would like to put on another hat for this question,
and that is as an elected member of the Town of Greenwich legislative body.
With Mr. Eschweiller and I both here, you have an opportunity to get two sides
or two viewpoints on the same question.  In reference to the noise level that
was set for the master plan for the Westchester Airport, our association had
tests made  in the Town of Greenwich, next to the airport.  We had three
different installations for a noise monitor.  Our ambient noise level is 55
Ldn.  Subsequently we went to one of the early planning stages with the master
plan and gave them this input.  Anything obviously over 55 Ldn is going to
stick out like a sore thumb.  We really wanted that as a bottom level.  What
we have wound up with is 60 Ldn.  Whether they ever heard us, I don't know.  I
certainly doubt it, but this is one of the problems you run  into in dealing
with neighborhood groups.  If they give you information and  it does not appear
to be understood or taken into consideration, then the whole process is
somewhat undermined.

         I believe that in certainly three or two of the other communities
surrounding the airport, two that are now in Westchester County, would have
the same ambient noise levels, certainly, in relation to where they are to the
airport and what they have for development within their municipal boundaries.
That is one comment.

         The second — Pete, I have a question based on this.  We have a
pollution problem.  It is a noise and air pollution problem  and we have tried
to participate with you to solve that problem.  I am delighted to see my
master plan for the airport, to see the county do some long-range planning for
the land use around the airport.  We would like to do some in Greenwich but  it
makes absolutely no sense to us to solve one pollution problem by creating
still another, and what Westchester County is proposing is going to create for
the Town of Greenwich a bigger pollution problem very shortly now.

         Let me give you some measurements.  We have 200 acres right now zoned
for residential use that are immediately adjacent to the airport.  It is hot
in my opinion suitable for residential use.  It is large-lot zoning, as is
most of the other land in Greenwich in that area.  When I say large lot, it  is
four acres  a building site.  They will probably run a minimum of $125,000 to
$150,000.

         Now this land is currently owned by corporations who bought it
unconditionally to try to break the zoning, to put up corporate headquarters.
The town and the residents in the area oppose it, not because of its
incompatibility with the airport but because of its incompatibility with the
residential neighborhood on the other side and because of the vehicle traffic
which the local road network cannot handle.
                                       131

-------
         We have now two-lane winding  roads.   Three  weeks  ago  a  pilot  coming
to Westchester Airport got off on one  of our  exits from the Merritt  Parkway,
cut across country using the country roads,  hit a kid on a bicycle and ran
over a fence.   This is the kind of a problem we are  facing regularly now.

         Westchester County is presuming to  rezone approximately 300 acres  now
and there are 3,200 acres in there for corporate development.  Our estimate is
that somewhere in the neighborhood of 35 percent of  that traffic is  very
likely to come out of southern Connecticut,  the southwestern area.   We want to
know what guarantees the county can offer us that the local roads in Greenwich
will not be used, because we cannot afford to enlarge them and we cannot
afford to lose the children.

         Peter, sorry to put you on the spot but this is a land  use  problem.

         MR. ESCHWEILER:  You are quite right, Joan, with respect to the zone
of 300 acres south of the airport.  It is a single  family residence  zone but
again Rye, never doing things quite by the book, also has SBO, special
business office zoning so no zoning of that land is necessary.  All  the
development proposed for  it that we are talking about here would be  in
accordance with the existing zoning that has been on that property for 15 or
20 years, so there is no  action on the county's part to do any rezoning, nor
could we because we don't have that power.  We are concerned about the flow of
traffic, as I  indicated  in my closing remarks.  We have not yet tested this
program against an air pollution mode or aganst traffic engineering mode.  I
do not know if the interchange we  are dealing with can handle that question.
The point is,  we are responsible to the  legitimate  land use development
proposals of one of our  communities seeking an  alternative to development that
will not route this traffic  under  King Street, Route 120A, which forms the
Greenwich west town  line.

          I think the audience should know about  the American Can situation
which  is  a triangular piece  of Greenwich property north of the  airport,
landlocked in  Connecticut and one  of the headquarters  buildings  I showed you
is  located on  that parcel.   Access to  it and  from it is over  Westchester
County highways  and  there is no  (ratable) in  Westchester  so it  is not always
Westchester County  deflecting traffic  or being  the  boogie man.

          MS.  CALDWELL:   We  did try to  stop  that but we did not  succeed, Peter.

          MR.  GOODFRIEND:   I  have two  comments.   One,  Joan reminded  me that
when we  saw  the contours for Torrance  and then saw  the contours for
Westchester,  it  demonstrates the difference  in size of contours;  same similar
aircraft,  even a larger number  of runways at  Westchester  but  the contours
seemed to go  out much farther over a  much  larger area. This  is the kind of
problem that is very difficult  to come to grips with and  only using overlays
 and information of that kind are you  going  to really see  what is happening in
Greenwich or Rye or other parts  of Westchester.

          The other thing I want to talk about is that John Tyler's  scheme
 cannot work where you have this intergovernmental  situation.   One airport  in a
 town owned by another or three towns or owned by a county government in a
 municipality I don't believe it can work,  John.
                                        132

-------
         MR. RICHARD PROCUNIER:   I would like to make a conment on that
dialogue that went on.   My name is Richard Procunier, EPA, San Francisco.   My
comment on the land use is a local decision and that is very difficult from a
national policy level to send out a directive, whatever that is, and see that
that is actually enforced or that it has any likelihood of happening.

         The other thing is, Shirley mentioned yesterday the people that I am
representing here are the ones that really hold the power, and that is the
elected officials, and they are very much an important part of the whole
process.  And the other comment was that Bill's leadership from the position
of being the proprietor of  the airport, that he is really there to protect
that Federal investment and facility I think is very important; that all the
planning decisions and all  the other decisions are very necessary and that
support is very necessary,  but the leadership still has to be at the
proprietor  level and I guess that  is what the courts are determining because
that is where they leave the legal liability.

         DR. BRAGDON:  I would li.
-------
campaign contributions that the supervisors were getting elected by,  and we
are talking about campaigns that were running in the order of $300,000 to
$400,000 for a $35,000 a year job.  So, we went to the heart of the problem.
I resigned from the planning commission and I headed up Orange County's first
county-wide commission.  It was called Tin Cup.

         The initials for:  Time is now, clean up politics.   We had 1,500
citizens who collected over 100,000 signatures and it is now a law in Orange
County ~ what we have done is put an ordinance to the books that does two
things.  We went to the heart of the problem.  We said that if an elected
supervisor accepts more than $1,000 campaign contribution within a 48-month
period, four years, from an applicant or his representative, then he is
disqualified from voting on that applicant's project.  Boy,  has that stopped
the little games that were going on.

         Second thing we did, we said that lobbyists — we are going to call
you something else now.  We are going to call you what you really are when you
buy votes.  You are an influence broker so we said it is okay for you to
lobby; lobbying is a very honorable profession if you are not trying to buy
votes.  But we said if you are lobbying and you simultaneously contribute to a
supervisor's campaign in excess of $250 within a twelve-month period you are
now one of those dirty SOB's called an influence broker, and now we are going
to limit you to $500 total within a 12-month period to any or all five
supervisors.

         We have essentially put the lobbyists out of business in Orange
County.  They have been a big influence in Orange County.  About half a dozen
of them who were literally giving anywhere from $30,000 to $50,000 in loans to
supervisors for their campaigns.  That buys a lot of votes.

         Anyway, the ordinance has passed.  We qualified the matter for the
ballot and the board of supervisors then had the option of either adopting it
or putting it on the ballot.  They didn't want me rubbing their nose in it for
another six months so, at my urging and their better discretion, they went
ahead and adopted it.  It is now a law.  It has been in effect for seven
months.

         We are tracking it.  We don't trust the foxes  to guard the chicken
coop so we are tracking the ordinance and monitoring all campaign
contributions.  We had everything put on a computer  system and now if anybody
wants to know how much money is being given who, what company's on which board
of directors, blah, blah, blah, we can tell you.  Essentially what it has  done
is clean up their act and the net result is we  hope  to get better decisions
out of elected officials because we hope we have removed the  influence  of
large campaign contributions.

         We want them in a position where they  are  as responsive to the
public's interests as they are to the major campaign contributors'.  Time  will
tell.  I cannot guarantee that we are going to  get  that.  If  we do not, then
the next election we are going to run will be  for a  single term only.   In
fact,  I advocate that for all officials.  They should be  in office for  one
term.  All the terms would have to be  lengthened from what they are now, but  I
don't  think we need to put up with reruns  and  that  is what  a  lot of
politicians are, who make a  lifelong career  out of  being  in public office.
Any questions?

                                       134

-------
         MS. CALDWELL:   I would like to add something.  The Government has
given us help.  The Federal election laws say that whether you are voting for
the President of the United States or a mayor of the town, they are limited to
$1,000.

         MS. GRINDLE:  I could not hear your question.

         MS. CALDWELL:   The Federal disclosure law now requires that you give
no more than $1,000, regardless of whether you have just come through a
campaign --

         MS. GRINDLE:  It is $5,000, is it not?

         MS. CALDWELL:   No, $1,000.

         DR. BRAGDON:  Ken, do you have a comment?

         MR. DELINO:  I would  like to comment on being a technician working in
Shirley's environment,  because I was a city planner while Shirley was a
planning commissioner.   One of the things we learned from that experience was
to try to get some commitment  during any study from the executive branch of
the Government  and one of the  techniques I think Jesse down the table was
asking for  was  how do we actually, what techniques do we actually use.

         One of the  ones we have been successful in,  in some of our projects
anyway, is  writing into the work scope a decision point for an executive
committee comprised  of elected officials.  Now usually they are the ones who
sign the contract and it has worked  in some cases and it has not worked  in
other cases.  But if we can put into the work scope a decision point, either  a
recommendation  process or  a decision among the alternative for the elected
officials,  we have found that  we have kind of bypassed some of the inertia
that results  in this political process.

         And that is a direct  result, I think, from -- well, our whole firm
has worked  under the system that Shirley has been describing to you and  it is
one of the  ways that I think can be  used to help bypass that.

         MR. LEWIS:  Joe Lewis, Town of Hempstead.  One thing  I was very happy
to see  is that  there was much  more  awareness on the part  of everybody that the
public has  to be brought in at the  beginning of programs  that  will wind  up
affecting the public.   If  we can bring one unnamed  Federal  agency  up  into the
twentieth century to accept that,  I  think  we will really  be making some  good
starts.

         Another thing  I would like to comment  on  is  that Lew  or  Bill was
talking  about the complaint numbers being  set  up for  people who call  in
complaints.  We have ours  at Kennedy in  the sense  that  it is really defeating
the purpose it  was  set  up  for, because of  the  fact  that the people  answering
the phones  evidently have  not  been  trained on  how  to  answer  the phones.   I
mean,  when  you  get  some  irate  person calling up  to  complain  about the noise  or
whatever and  to have the person on  the other end  say:  Well,  look, all  I am
here for is to  take  your name  and  telephone  number  and that  is it;  I  don't
care about  the  complaint.
                                        135

-------
         This is not the way to gain friends  and influence people.   So,  I
think it is important to bring out that when  a telephone number is  set up,  the
people who are going to answer the phones have to be specially trained to
handle those calls.

         And then -- I forget now who it was  who made the comment about pilots
resenting the inference that they have deficient technical skills.   I think it
was you, Bill.  I know from the activities at Kennedy Airport there are some
pilots — and I am talking about commerical pilots — who I question how they
are keeping their licenses.

         The third thing I would like to bring up is the insulating of
buildings.  Now, I personally do not buy that route and I will tell you why.
It is fine to insulate a building and while the person is inside the building,
fine; he doesn't hear anything.  But he does  not spend all of his time inside
that building.  My theory is if they complain after the building is insulated,
the FAA particularly would come back to them and say:  Look we insulated the
building — now what are you complaining about the noise for?  This is not a
route an irate person would recommend.

         Also one other thing.  Peter, I think it was, was talking  about
rather dealing with the EPA than the FAA.  I agree with that one million
percent.

         MR. CRITCHFIELD:  In response to your comments, the Western Region of
the FAA has been somewhat sympathetic to what we have been trying to do.  One
of the reasons I guess is because the regional director flies his own aircraft
off of Torrance Airport.  Your second comment, I think, dealt with  pilot
efficiency.

         MR. LEWIS:   Pilot deficiency.

         MR. CRITCHFIELD:  Okay, pilot deficiency.  This is one of the things
we do.  We appeal to the pilots, in executing noise abatement procedures,  to
their sense of professionalism.  I say if they really feel they operate the
aircraft in a professional level, then they will look at these procedures  and
see if they cannot phase their professional operation into that.

         In terms of the other thing, about the complaint  line; yes, we do  try
to be sympathetic to people and find out exactly what their problems are.
Naturally, when we have the tape on, the tape is not very  sympathetic.  But if
they do leave their numbers, we follow up the next day to  get more
information.  I cannot remember what the third one was.

         MR. LEWIS:  I am not trying to say that Torrance  is  not doing the
job.  In fact,  I think they are doing one hell of a job and  I would  like to
see what we could adopt and use in our area.  The third thing was  the
insulation of buildings.

         MR. CRITCHFIELD:  Okay.  No place else — well, maybe that  is the
wrong approach.   I cannot think of other places except maybe  Florida, the
southeast  and southwest southern coastal areas  of the United  States,  do you
have  such  a lifestyle  as  in California and acoustic  insulation treatment  is
not going  to  deal with it.  It  is more  intended for  the  critical use  areas  —
hospitals, meeting rooms,  examining rooms  in  doctors' offices, conference

                                       136

-------
rooms, rooms in commercial industrial centers, some acoustical treatment of
houses.  But obviously, you are not going to deal with a guy trying to
barbecue on a Sunday afternoon in his patio.  There is just no way you are
going to get around that.

         MR. LEWIS:  That is what I was thinking of primarily, the ones that
go out to the pool and the backyard.

         MR. CRITCHFIELD:  On adjusting the contours,  I would leave you with
this old adage, sort of following up on Shirley.  It is an admonition to
traffic engineers.  You know, when a group of residents comes in and wants to
put a stop sign on a particular corner and your warrant system shows that it
is not warranted, you can be assured that your political body or your city
council will place that stop sign on that corner over your bleeding and
technically correct body.

         ATTENDEE:  Question for Robert Clark.  You said there were
recommendations that you had which were not followed.   Was that with land
planning that they would not be followed?

         MR. CLARK:  No, actually  it was the full gamut of the recommendations
to the local government  involved.  There were two to three operators who were
actually in control of the local government who did not admit any of the
recommendations, ranging from sound  impact, runways, buildings, landings, all
the way to the state legislative action, that were necessary  to get state
legislation to do  some of those things.  Is that what you are asking?

         ATTENDEE:  Well, the specific land use procedural recommendations
that you made, it  just did not work?  You gave them as  an expert and you say
they  did not work  or they were not  accepted; which were they?

         MR. CLARK:  They were not  accepted by the local governments  involved
in implementing the program.  There  were a  lot of reasons why they were not
accepted not related to  the  type of  the program.  They  were based  on  political
aspects as  to why  they were  not implemented.

         MR. CAMPANELLA:  My name  is Angelo Campanella, by the way.   I was
going  to say that  sometimes  introducing a term into the language can  have a
great  deal  of  influence  on public  policy; for example,  the person  who
introduced  "beat  the box," I think  did a great service  to  somebody by  that
term  — I  am not  sure  that that was  noise abatement --  the implication being
that  a pilot will  fly  in  an  unsafe manner to  beat the  box.  Therefore,  noise
abatement  and  safety are  anti.

         I  think  the same  thing happened with "ripoff"  instead of  stealing,
and  a lot  of things  like this  in society.   I  was going  to question whether we
should introduce  the term, "break  the box."   Now,  how do you  catch the person
who  is deliberately  buzzing  or making noise  in  a particular  location?   I  am
wondering  if in fact —  and  the question really  is  not mine,  it came  from
somebody else  in  the EPA —  is there a strategy  that  we can use to influence
the  pilot  who  is  interested  in beating the  box  or  --  really,  I think  Bill
mentioned  there  is a small percentage of pilots  that  really  are trying  to  fly
loud.  So  short  of a big monitoring  program,  expensive one like you have,  or
some  other way,  is there some  way  we can use  specifically  peer pressure?  That


                                       137

-------
is the question.  Can you use peer pressure through your pilot's organization
or somewhere else to really try and influence the person who is trying to beat
the box or fly in a very noisy, deliberate manner?

         MR. CRITCHFIELD:  We think so.   In fact, a part of the success of our
program is based on the peer group pressure.  We have gone to several
different pilots' organizations and explained to them.  Civil Air Patrol, for
example, is wholeheartedly in support of our noise abatement program,  and in
terms of their air search and rescue safety records they have a very good
influence in terms of peer group pressure.

         The local pilots1 organization — one of them is primarily a social
organization and it does not have that much influence, but the pilots
belonging to this subscribe to our suggestions.  They evaluate their aircraft
and they look at it and they say, for example:  Hey, I think Gordon said this
morning that the departure was rather steep shown on our Jeppeson insert.  We
suggest the best rate of climb for many reasons; number one, better
visibility, better cooling, more comfort, and best angle of flying.  But we do
not say best rate or best angle.  We just say to climb as rapidly as possible
because some people feel more comfortable with best angle.

         The demonstration grant we are working with, Region 90, included a
provision for peer group counselling for people who had problems operating
their aircraft.  One of the things we wanted to develop was:  If a guy flys a
Skymaster and he cannot seem to make it and there are other people on the
airport that own and operate Skymasters, we felt we would get them all
together and find out what type of techniques these other guys use, apply
these techniques so the other guy can fly this Skymaster quietly.  This  is
peer group counselling rather than pressure.

         We feel both of them are equally reasonable and productive.

         MR. CAMPANELLA:  I regard pilots in their behavior.  I have been
flying 15 years  now, have about 2,500 flying hours, owner of  an aircraft, and
I think of those groups and I think I am representative of them.  I am not
sure, but I don't think they go out there and do these things purposely.  I
don't think that is  in their psyche.  I think it  is more a matter of almost
carelessness.

         A good  example  is the  handling of  the rpm control.  The prop  itself
is really an rpm control, as everybody knows.  We  in the room know that  the
higher rpm makes more  noise.  The  pilots who would  leave  it  in  high rpm  too
much, all the time  are the ones that would  be making the most noise and  they
would not be doing  this purposely  because part  of the pilot  training,  when you
are  in the city, full forward,  full rpm  is  a  safety measure.  This  is  basic
and  most  instructors will tell you this was the  way it was  in the past.   It
has  only  been  in the  last two years, perhaps  —  I  know the  last one year ~
that general aviation  instructors  got out the message that  this is  not always
the  best  way to do  it  around airports because  of harrassment in the community.
So I don't point to the pilots  in  saying  these guys were  doing  it  like some
teenage hoods  on the freeway going around without the tailpipes on.  That is
not  the case.
                                       138

-------
         MR. GREEN?  I was not referring to the vast majority of pilots.  I
was referring to that very, very small percentage.   I assume there is only a
very, very small percentage that ever try to beat the box.

         MR. CAMPANELLA:  I wouldn't bother to tackle it because it is not
there.  It is errors of omisson, not commission.  They just do not know that
this is going on.

         MR. GREEN:  There are a couple of points that I think are very valid
we are trying.  There is a lot more information being put out in the new pilot
handbooks now directed simply to the issue of noise control, how to fly your
airplane quietly, but we do have a few recalcitrant type pilots and I would
disagree with Angelo on that point.  There are a lot of guys that flat hat and
they like to go under the bridges and a few other things.  I am not going to
advocate this procedure, but it was a very successful one and it in part is
based upon the experience that came out of Torrance, I think.

         They have an internal counselling session, kind of program going on
and perhaps Westchester is a close second, if not equal.  But the system
works, peer pressure works.

         There's the theory of why one guy, one particular guy who was flying
a Bonanza, which can be flown quietly as well as noisily, why he flew at
maximum continuous power — and a beautiful pilot technique -- exactly 1,000
feet above terrain, barely within human possibilities of a human pilot.  It
was determined he was doing this to impress some of his friends.  He happened
to be a doctor ~ you cannot say they are responsible members of the community
— but his friends, fellow pilots, determined that it was due to the fact he
was excessively dirty.  And at 3:00 o'clock in the morning, with an ice cold
shower and  some of the same brushes one uses to scrub floors, they removed
that dirt.

         And  after some thoughts about lawsuits ~ he was going to sue them
all  ~ he calmed down, straightened out to save his skin, literally, and flew
a  little higher.  That  is  an extreme case of peer pressure,  but it was  a very
severe local  problem with  this one doctor in that community  and he was the
cause, perhaps more than 99 percent of all the flying of the inadvertent type
where they made more noise than necessary.

         That demand near  doomed the  runway extension program and  the
resurfacing of what they call the  taxiway, which I call open woodland,  head
one.  One guy damned near  killed that whole program and  it was a severe case
with perhaps  a severe solution but the real point  is that there is something
that can be done to the guy that does not know how.

         And  remember the  point that Angelo made a minute ago.  We were taught
to pour the coal to it  in  the vicinity of the  airport because, boy,  I got  to
go around.  You've got the power there and you know  it  and you keep the power
on and many aircraft — and we  are getting into other issues on fuel
conservation  now too.  We  are rethinking the kinds of things we thought we
needed for  safety  and I am asking  the question, do we really need  that  power
for  safety.   And where  we  find  we  can do without  it, we  are  cutting  it  back.
I  will get  into  that  tomorrow a  little more on my  talk.
                                       139

-------
                                AFTERNOON SESSION


October 4, 1979                                              2:00  o'clock,  p.m.


         DR. BRA6DON:  We are going to have each of the participant  panelists
spend up to five minutes making an opening statement  in terms of  what their
feelings are in terms of the regulatory responsibilities.  We purposely
structured this panel to represent a diverse group of interests from the
governmental sector, so we have Federal, State, and local people  being
represented on this panel.

         Then, as you can see from your program, we have people from the
private sector and these people will all get together and attempt to discuss
their perspective among themselves, at which time we will then open  it up  for
any type of dialogue for as long as you want to go.  Again,  I have one other
comment; that since the remarks are being recorded, we would like you to
indicate your name and essentially your affiliation so she can put that down
on her tape and so we do not lose that information later.  The proceedings
will be published with the person's name indicated, so you get either the
appropriate credit or liability for what you have said — depending  on what
your position is.

         I would like to have those panelists come forward if they could and
we will arrange ourselves along this front barrier here and  I would  like to
introduce each person.

         We will go through some brief introductions.  The first  panelist  is
Herman Bernard.  We have been discussing this morning politicians' interest
and involvement in land use planning and the need for accountability, so I
think you will get some interesting questions today.  Herman is City
Councilman from College Park, Georgia and is on the Board of Directors and
serving as President of N.O.I.S.E., National Organization to Insure  Sound
Control Environment,

         I might add that there were some brochures and still are of that
organization on the back table.

         Next to him is Stan Green.  Stan is Vice-President  of General
Aviation Manufacturer's Association out of Washington, D.C.  and has  been
extremely involved in the general aviation industry in trying to  fill orders
which, presently, are a little behind at this time.

         Steve is lost somewhere and we are trying to get him down.  Steven
Schwenk, who is appropriately of the National Pilots Association, so he  is
stuck somewhere up in the atmosphere.  No, he should  be here and  we  are trying
to get hold of him.

         Bob Montgomery.  Bob is with the State Aviation Administration for
the State of Maryland and represents that sector from the state's standpoint
and has been active in airport noise in that area.
                                       141

-------
         Charlie Blair, our second representative from the FM.  Charlie is
with the Region 4 office, Atlanta, is an airport planning specialist and he
will have a lot of comments, I am sure, today.

         Next to him is Maurice Gosnell.  Maurice is President of the Pilot
Lawyers Bar Association and is located in Lawrencevilie, Illinois.

         The last person -- his name tag is incorrect -- is Fred Gammon.  Fred
is Airport Manager for Teterboro Airport in New Jersey.

         So what we would like to do at this time, starting off with Herman,
is to make an opening statement and we will go down the table to have each
panelist make an opening remark, after which if the panel wants to discuss
among themselves or comment on each other's remarks, they may, and then we
will go into an open discussion among all the people that are here.  I am sure
there will be plenty of questions to go around.

         MR. HERMAN BARNARD:  Thank you, Dr. Bragdon.   I might say that I am
Herman Bernard, representative of the City Council, City of College Park.
Most of you might not know  it is  a part of Atlanta Hartsfield Airport.
Hartsfield Airport  is in the city of College Park, so we have for a long time
been well aware of  the noise problems that beset  the busiest airport in the
world. I'm also, as Dr. Bragdon said, actively involved  in a national
environmental organization  known  as N.O.I.S.E., as he so stated, presently
serving as president of this organization.  I do  feel  like there are some
things that can be  done to  assist general aviation and  I will make a couple of
brief comments on it.

         In response to our organization and  our  need  to organize some ten
years ago, we saw the real  problem as being not the general aviation but the
type that you see around O'Hare,  Atlanta Hartsfield, Kennedy,  and major
airports like this.  General  aviation has not caused a  whole lot of problems
to the people involved  in  our N.O.I.S.E. organization  at this  time.  However,
we begin to have some  interest, from the standpoint of  College Park and from
representing the citizens  of College Park.

         We do  not  have  this problem particularly in College Park.  We  do  have
some general aviation  at the Atlanta Hartsfield Airport, but a big part of  it
is moving out and I understand most of  the rest of  it will soon be gone.   Of
course, we, as  neighbors of the second  biggest  airport,  are glad  to see this
happen.  We think it probably should be rerouted  and moved to  some other type
of  location or  some other  location.

         There  is a question  on what can be done  about  regulating general
aviation, as well as any of the aviation problem.   Is  it permissible?

         Most of you here  I am  sure  know that general  aviation,  like  others
regulated by the Federal Government, FAA, we  find that  there's a  lot  that  can
be done, but it really  cannot be  done  from  the  local  level too much;  however,
there  are some  things  that can  be done.  There  are more things that can be
done with a sponsored  airport,  of course, than  can  a  non-sponsored.   What  I
mean by this, College  Park, of  course,  the  airport  is  in College  Park.
However, we are  a non-sponsored city.   We do  not  have  any  control,
                                       142

-------
particularly, except that that we can pass through our ordinances, that would
stand up in court.

         We do have a noise ordinance in College Park that we have had for
some time; however, it is limited as to what control we can impose on the
traffic at the Atlanta Hartsfield Airport.

         One of the basic remarks that local government might make is when you
start a new airport, in relation particularly to general aviation and if it is
in your jurisdiction -- and then of course you do act as a sponsor, the city
-- you do have some control.  Local government, of course, can set up zoning
restrictions and permits and et cetera.  This would give you some control over
what happens.  Most of our problems at this point have been after the fact.

         The industry has grown so rapidly that before we realized what had
happened the noise had infiltrated into areas that were being lived in by
people.  Some of them have been there for many years.

         I find that one of the objections that I have as a city councilman is
that too many people -- and you might have heard this on the panel this
morning — is that too many people in the planning departments have an
opposite view and concept of what I do as a representative of the people; in
that they suggest that you, through planning and this type of deal, move the
people away from the noise.  But from a political standpoint, representing
people that have been there since the early 1900's, and of course College Park
being a perfect example by being chartered in 1892  -- a lot of these people
feel that they were there first and maybe you should begin to move some of the
noise away from the people.

         Some planning and zoning and these type restrictions do  not work
particularly well  in a fully-developed city like College Park.  We have
approximately nine square miles of area and that is relatively small for
27,000 people.  Our city  is already developed  and has been before the jet  age,
so my feeling and my position  has been, as a representative of the citizens,
to do what  is possible to move the noise  away from  the people.  I realize that
is not particularly good  planning but there are things that can be done.

         Of  course, you have more control on noise  generated from the ground,
run-up noise, this type of  thing, than you do  when  the  aircraft leaves  the
runway.  Then  it  begins to  be  the  responsibility of the FAA and there  have
been some  tests over  this  in the city  of  Santa Monica  as  to what  can  be done,
what local  government  can do to  aleviate  some  of the  noise  and set  some
restrictions and  so forth.

          However,  I will  not go  into  that in depth  at  this  time,  but  we are
watching  this case with  interest.  The  lower courts have  ruled  in favor of the
people  in  that  city.   The responsible  city  does  have  to  do  certain  things  in
helping  to alleviate  some of the unnecessary  noise  around the  airport.   So our
organization,  as  well  as  myself  individually  as  a  representative  of  the
citizens  of College Park, we  are looking  and  searching  out  means  and  ways  to
allow us  to do  more to alleviate at  least the  unnecessary noise.
                                        143

-------
         Now planning, as I stated before,  is one thing and all this will work
good in some areas of our country but it will not work in College Park.  I
might say that Dr. Bragdon, of course, is very familiar with our situation in
that some years ago he did a study of our problem, so he probably is as much
aware of the situation out there as I am; maybe more.  We do feel like there
are some rights that the people have and with certain ordinances and controls
we feel like some help can come about.  Thank you.

         MR. STANLEY GREEN:  This is Stan Green again of GAMA.  Under the
general heading of regulations that we have  got is a topic I have got,
somewhat separate, but obviously linked into the topic of general aviation
noise.

         The issue I would discuss is, I think most of you are  aware that the
FAA regulations are virtually  identical to the ICAO, the International Civil
Aviation Organization regulations.  This was not done  by chance, this was done
by a design issued by us simply because we export  aircraft and  we cannot
afford to have different countries have different  certifying regulations  if we
are going to be able  to  sell a product.

         This type of situation has  resolved itself  in the international  field
fairly well with  the  continuing pressure from particularly the  Europeans  who
are about ten years  ahead  of us in handling  noise  problems.  We feel  that
there  is going to be  some  reasonable continuing  pressure on the regulations
and as  long as it is  done  in a uniform manner —  from  our  strictly  monetary
point  of view, the costs of certification  -- we  will be  ahead  of the  game.

         However, when you get to  the United States, with  respect to  the
airport  situation,  I  think we  also need  uniform  regulations throughout the
United States; regulations that  are  applicable  to all  airports, particularly,
or  at  least  airports  that  have received  Federal  funds.  Now,  this does not
mean  that  the same  noise level necessarily would apply to  each airport.   That
would  have  to be  determined  on a  fair and  reasonable basis at the  local
 level.   We  can find  no  solution  to a question that was once posed  to me: What
 if  we can  find the  money to  buy  out  all  the people;  where  am  I going to put
the 490,000 people  from Nassau County that we were going to move away from La
Guardia?  There  are no  solutions  to  that,  no practical solution.

          So we have got to adjust to the local  issue,  in most cases the local
 problem.

          The noise levels  must be calculated by the same methodology.  They
 have got to be sure and certain that a pilot can meet then before he sets out
 on a trip.   The noise levels obviously must be reasonable, compared to the
 local conditions.  Many times we cannot afford to cater to the idiosyncracies
 of a few airport neighbors who think that their automobiles and trucks and
 lawnmowers have  a right to make more noise than airplanes, and this is perhaps
 a rather keen quote.  There's a regulatory proposal that was made by the Air
 Transport Association,  but published by the FAA as an advanced type notice of
 the proposal we  are making, and while the proposal as written  would apply only
 to air carrier airports,  I think it could be expanded and would suit the needs
 of all the airports in the United States with respect to the planning and
                                        144

-------
promulgation of definitive noise plans for each airport on a fair and certain
basis for everybody.

         On another point of the — I would like to somewhat answer a question
that was raised yesterday on why our airplanes seem to be ahead of the FAA
standard itself in propeller-driven aircraft noise.  The key to all of this is
the fact that we have a reasonable regulation on the books.  That regulation
was developed to be in accordance with basic technology.  It was developed in
accordance with not only U.S. but with European data, and it stands as a cap
-- noise cannot escalate above the levels — and that particular regulation
goes from 68 dB, from the lightest weight aircraft on up to 80 dB.

         The key as we see  it in this regulation is another piece of  law, not
that part under which the regulation was written but the part that says: in
each individual aircraft type certificate you will strive to reduce the noise
of that  airplane type as low as practicable.  And  that means if you can beat
the  limits  in  the  law, you  do so.  But you  have got to  remember too at that
time that the  standard itself is a broad-based one.  It covers aircraft with
different payloads  and types of engines.  The  same basic engine may be in two
different airplanes,  and the noise of those airplanes will  vary because of the
different ways that they can be operated.

         The  techniques that are used to  make  one  aircraft  quiet will wipe out
another  aircraft.   It will  cut  its payload  by  a quarter to  a half  of  what  it
was, increase  fuel  usage  and cost  about 30  percent more to  buy.

         They  key  to  it,  I  think,  is  an  analogy  that  I  would  like  to  throw out
—  if  I  can find  the  beginning  of  it  here.   Let  us assume we  had  a shortage  of
cloth  in the United States  and  the clothing protection agency  studied the
problem and came  to the  following  conclusions  based  on its  report; that  the
 lack of suitable  cloth  for  clothing  the  population could cause a health
problem-in  the United States,  primarily  in the north where the cold weather  is
experienced.   There is  much wasteful  use  of cloth  in the manufacture of
 various styles of clothing  to  suit the  purported  needs of people and,
 therefore,  the fisherman,  the business  person, the farmer,  the construction
 worker,  and the secretary are  all  going  to wear the same style and type of
 clothing.

          Further, the clothing  is now made in all  different sizes, some of
 which use more material  than others, and since we note that there are some
 suits and dresses made in smaller sizes,  size seven for women and size
 thirty-four for men are going to be the standard  from now  on for all suits and
 dresses.

          I propose to you,  ladies and gentlemen,  that  the  reason that the
 Cessna  Citation can make its noise level  is based upon not the technology that
 was used, that is  available to the 747 as  well, but the fact that that
 airplane is a  relatively short-range jet of light weight and  if one  needs a
 loner range jet of bigger  capacity he cannot wear the  size thirty-four suit;
 he  has  to use  an  airplane  that makes more  noise.

          We cannot say that the  lowest airplane in  the scale  is  now  at. the
 state of technology.  It just does  not work.  We  have  different  aircraft for
 different  purposes.  Some  aircraft,  as I mentioned, with  the  same  engine  in


                                        145

-------
it, make substantially more noise, because they climb slower; they carry
bigger payloads, more economical in some fields.  They do not go as fast
perhaps and they do not serve the purposes of everybody who needs them.

         The current technology that we are talking about in the
propeller-driven aircraft field is a technology primarily based upon engine
propeller combinations.  It is the propeller that makes the noise, the tip
speed of that propeller.  We can add more blades, we can gear the engine and
make it turn slower and get the tip speeds down, but these cost money, this
takes anywhere from one to three years to develop.  They increase the fuel,
which is a national goal perhaps in conflict with noise, but one that we
cannot avoid working on.

         And we can go on.  The regulations, FAR 36, of both the turbine and
the piston-powered aircraft, propeller-driven aircraft are current
technology.  They are being made today.  The fleet as we see it today is
coming off the  line in accordance with those standards.  The FAR 36 Appendix
requirements for propeller-driven aircraft in fact do not come into effect
until the end of this year.  As a matter of fact, in 1976 all propeller driven
aircraft under 6,000 pounds meet the requirements by the end of -- well, in
fact by the end of August all aircraft in production now meet the
requirements.  Obviously, we could not afford to wait until the last moment to
be certificated aircraft.  Each of the certification programs in themselves is
a major activity upwards of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

         I have one last piece  in the recommended rule making area, somewhat
directed at the EPA.   I think they are in the wrong part of this business.
The industry and the government have spent an awful lot of money and time
going into proposed rules that  EPA has submitted to FAA, then FAA by law is
required to publish and then industry is obligated to comment on  it.  The
majority of the proposals, the  vast majority of the proposals from EPA, did
not meet the statutory requirements for promulgation of final rules.

         I think they  knew that.  Economics were not considered.  Techno-
logical practicality was not considered.  In a  nutshell, we wasted a  lot of
time.

         The EPA proposals were just like my size seven dress and thirty-four
suit.  They were the lowest sizes made and that is the  state of technology
and, by God, you are all going  to wear them.  But there is  a rule that  EPA, I
think, can have and should have and should be following, and I don't  see very
much of it being done.  And that  gets  into a lot of the basic understanding of
psychoacaustics and the determination of what we need, what  levels we ought to
be having.

         In the Santa  Monica case, in which I was an attorney of  record,
participating  in the trial, I kept on hearing the EPA has  set a standard of 55
dBA on the Ldn  scale.   I have never read that  in any of the  EPA documents.  I
know what the goals say.

         An awful  lot  of rhetoric  is passed out and people do not know, people
do not understand.  Noise  is a  rather complex  issue.  We had a brilliant judge
in this case there  and there were many things that  he could  not understand  and
                                       146

-------
required repeating and repeating again.   There has got to be some simple way
that we can better understand the psychology of noise and the mechanics of
noise.  I think this role should be filled by EPA as its major obligation
under the Noise Control Act of '72.

         Psychology of noise and its effect on people is not known.   If you go
back to the levels document and the other reports that came out of that time,
you see a lot of questions raised -- but since 1973 we have not seen the
answers.  We have not seen better-refined questions even, and we sure-as-heck
have not seen any solutions.  I think EPA is missing its obligation in that
sense.

         One last point, and it is somewhat along the same  line.  I think we
have got to all better understand noise, in the sense that we have the data
reported today.  As a result of some questions that were raised during the
meetings and some discussions that I have had with some individuals here, I
have come to the conclusion that many people, including some who have  an
involvement in the noise problem, do not understand what those  advisory
circulars that FAA puts out mean, what certification data means; that
certification data, whether you are talking props or recips or  rather  jets,
specified conditions the airplanes will make this much  noise and unless you
duplicate those conditions  and make all the corrections that they made  and
measure  at the exact point  that were measured under those conditions,  you will
not get  the same  data.

         You cannot  look to FAA data and only on  the  advisory circulars  and
say,  well, my field  is quieter or  noisier than this,  unless you reduce the
data  at  exactly the  same point.  The latest  advisory  circular,  36-3,  is  to me
a  classic, usable document.   It gives you a  darned good picture of what  the
airplanes will do, whether  they are jets  or  props,  at your  airport  if you
properly convert  it.   But you  cannot use Advisory Circular  36-3 and  say the
information  in 36-2A  is wrong.  There are different measuring  points,
different  conditions  of measuring,  and  that  is  a  key  point  to  this  thing.   We
have  got to  understand  the  measuring system.

         There  is  sufficient  data  for  any airport,  using FAA's  published data,
to determine probably within  a dB  what  any  airplane will  make at any field,
with  some  few  exceptions  of oddball  experimental  airplanes  which make hardly
any noise  or some antique  airplanes  which,  like  antique cars,  do not have any
requirements anyway.   You  have got to  use that  data better.  Thank  you.

         MR. ROBERT P.  MONTGOMERY:   Bob Montgomery -- I am the Manager of
Aviation Noise Programs for the Maryland State Aviation Administration.  The
State of Maryland is somewhat unique in two factors with relation to aircraft
 noise.  Number one,  while our other states  own and operate airports, there are
 other states that own and operate an air carrier airport.   The State of
 Maryland bought  what was then an Air National Guard airport in 1972 and since
 that time  has  operated it as the Baltimore International Airport.  So that we
 have a role not only of the normal state responsibility, but also as the
 airport operator with respect to one air carrier airport.

          We are also the only state that I am aware of that has a legislative
mandate to establish and control land use around all licensed  public-use
 airports in the State of Maryland.  The state has some 43 public-use


                                        147

-------
facilities which are licensed by the state.  Primarily, they are licensed to
insure that they meet the necessary state standards and so that those which
are municipally owned can participate in state as well as Federal funding for
airport improvement.

         But in 1974, the Maryland Legislature passed what was called the
Maryland Environmental Noise Impact Act.  This was a comprehensive noise act
and it gave to each of the departments in the state government specific
responsibility for the state aviation administration.  It specifically said,
number one, you will set out a step-by-step procedure.  First of all, you will
select a measure of cumulative noise exposure which you will use to evaluate
noise around airports.  Having selected this measure, you will then establish
criteria of permissible levels for residential and other  land uses around
airports.

         We did this  in 1975.  We  adopted  the Ldn  after considerable  studies
and public hearings.  We established a  single set  of criteria for  land use
around  airports in  which we  said,  essentially, that  new residential  and
institutional  uses  would not be  permitted  inside the  Ldn  65 contours  around  an
airport; of Ldn 75,  basically, only  airport-related  uses  -- mining,  fishing.
I  do  not remember  if  seminars fall  in that category  or not, but  very few uses
were  permissible  inside the  Ldn  75 contours.

         Then  the  legislation  said that each  airport proprieter  would provide
an analysis of the current  and  future  impact  of  operations  around  that
airport.   In  practice,  that  means  that  the airport proprieter  provides us with
 information on actual  traffic  patterns, numbers  of aircraft, types of
aircraft,  and any specific  procedures,  percentage  of runway use, this sort of
 information.   We then,  as  the  state,  will  develop  the noise contours around
 each  of those airports.

          We  send these back to the local jurisdiction and they are then
 required to  determine if there are any existing  land uses which are impacted
 according to our regulations.

          About the current and future airport operations, we only look ten
 years into the future.  We do not try to look beyond that to 20 or 40 years.
 If there is an impact identified,  then the airport proprieter must develop a
 noise abatement plan to minimize that impact.  We do not say he has to
 eliminate it because in many cases he cannot eliminate the impact of airport
 operations,  but he must certainly strive to minimize that impact within the
 limits of not affecting flight  safety and  it has  to be an economic and
 technically practical sort of thing to do.

          Now, the  legislature gave us a number of options, not mandatory but a
 number of things which could be done, as  examples including alteration  of
 flight tracks, development  of noise abatement takeoff and departure
 procedures, arrival procedures, things of  that sort.  Now, having gone  through
 and developed a noise abatement plan, which we as the state agency  are
 responsible for administering,  we then go  through another round of  evaluation
 of the actual noise  impact  with the noise  abatement  plan in effect.

          Any  residual areas in  which the  noise exposure  of an airport exceeds
 Ldn 65 are then established as  an airport noise zone around the airport.  The


                                        148

-------
counties then, who are the principal government units in Maryland, are given
up to six months to adopt regulations, to enforce building permits, zoning
permit activities within this airport noise zone.  In fact, we find that we
have one county that has already adopted regulations, although we have not yet
put the airport noise zone into effect.

         But in any case, anybody who wishes to build a structure, alter a
structure, make some substantial changes, or who wishes to change a land use
is required to get an airport zoning permit.  If the property lies within this
zone, basically under the regulations, they cannot be granted a permit unless
the predicted noise exposure is less than the limit  of use which  is asked
for.  This purposely is  intended to prevent the development of new or
incompatible uses around the airport.

         Now, there is  an out to this.  This is  sort of an administrative
level.  Anybody who does not like the  decision then  may take their case  to  a
board of  appeals  who can hear and grant  the variances from these  regulations
to permit  actual  construction proceedings.  There  is one  mandate  that  must  be
met,  however.  The board cannot  issue  a  permit unless they are  assured that
construction  proposed will  provide  adequate noise  reduction  so  that the
interior  noise  levels will  be at  least as  low  as  they would  be  for a  similar
use  outside  of  the airport  noise  zone.

          That briefly  is what our program  involves.  Now, we do of course
develop the  airport  noise  zone.   We do have land use controls  to prevent
further incompatible  development  around airports,  but  I  think  the primary
thing that we try to  look  at and  should be involved  in  most  of  all is the
actual  development of airport  noise abatement-plans.

          Now as operator of two state-owned facilities, we actually have gone
further with these two airports.   We have Baltimore-Washington International.
 We also have another general aviation facility,  Glenn L.  Martin Airport, which
 has a combination of corporate aircraft, Air National  Guard, and other
 piston-engine aircraft as well  as one barracks of the State Police, who
 primarily have helicopters based at that facility.

           In developing  our noise abatement plans, we do  have a legislative
 mandate.  As proprietor, we do develop  a plan and we are the people who must
 adopt the plan;  however, we cannot adopt a plan and make it stick unless we
 can get some form of agreement out of the  actual  airport user, so that most of
 our  activities over the years have been related to; number  one,  working with
 the community to insure that they  are  aware of what we are  doing and  so  that
 we are aware of  what their  problems  are and; number two, working with the
 pilots,  the  pilots of  the  corporate  aircraft, the State  Police,  the  Air
 National  Guard,  and fixed-base operators  to develop procedures which  can be
 used to minimize the actual impact of operations.

           Now,  at the Martin Airport,  we have  developed  and  have  put  in  flight
  tracks for  departing  aircraft  under visual flight rule conditions.   We  have  a
  control  tower  at Martin but it  is  not an  FAA  control  tower.   It is  a private
  contractor  who operates it,  so  working with  him and working with the National
  Guard  and others we  have developed flight tracks  which were acceptable and
  minimized,  we  believe, the noise of departing  aircraft on surrounding schools
  and residences.


                                         149

-------
         We found it necessary, however, considering the number of corporate
aircraft we have there, to deal with the Federal Aviation Administration and
we went through a long, drawn-out process before we finally got an agreement
with the FAA on the local control tower at BWI on instrument flight rule
departures which are basically handed off to the BWI control tower shortly
after they get off the ground.

         It took us well over a year before we had any agreement on instrument
flight departures.  Those have been in place for about eight or nine months
now and seem to be working.

         The only thing I really can say at this point is that while we have a
mandated responsibility to develop and adopt abatement plans, and we recognize
that the FAA has a certain amount of interest in it, in those things that make
up the noise abatement plan, we have found in general that we can arrive
through discussion at a reasonable noise abatement plan.  It may not be
everything that we want initially.  We work and it is a continuing sort of
process, but you have always operated under the theory that when we started
this program, that since we have a legislative mandate to do something like
this we abhor a vacuum and if other agencies will not step in and adopt or
take action to provide the maximum noise abatement within our understanding of
our responsibilities, we will take that action.

         MR. CHARLES BLAIR:  My name is Charles Blair and I am in the Airports
Division of FAA, Southern Region of Atlanta, Georgia.  I regret that I was not
here yesterday when Mr. Wesler spoke, because I am sure that he referred
several times to the Department of Transportation's continuing Noise Abatement
Policy, dated November 18, 1976.  This document, which is more or less our
Bible, for the first time very clearly, concisely defines what our role is and
what the local government's role is and we have used it quite a bit.

         So, I am going to read from it for about three or four minutes on the
authorities and responsibilities under the policy.  The Federal Government has
the authority and responsibility to control aircraft noise by the regulation
of source emissions, by flight operational procedures, and by management of
the air traffic control system and air space  in ways that minimize noise
impact on residential areas, consistent with the highest standards of safety.

         The Federal Government also provides financial and technical
assistance to airport proprietors for noise reduction planning and abatement
activities and, working with the private sector, conducts continuing research
into noise abatement technology.

         Airport owners  are primarily responsible for planning and
implementing actions designed  to reduce the effect of noise on residents of
the surrounding area.  Such actions include optimal  site location,
improvements in airport  design, noise abatement ground procedures, land
acquisition, and restrictions  on airport use.  And we tend to quiver when we
hear that comment.  The  airport owner must weigh the costs of alternative
means of achieving noise  compatibility  against  any economic penalties that may
result from the decision  to limit the use of  the airport through curfews or
other restrictions.
                                        150

-------
         The powers of the proprietor to control  what types of aircraft use
his airport, to impose curfews or other use restrictions,  and subject to
Federal Aviation Administration approval, to regulate runway use and flight
paths, are not limited.  Its actions are subject to two important
restrictions.  It may not take any action that imposes an  undue burden on
interstate or foreign commerce and may not unjustly discriminate with regard
to any airport users.

         We hope that after a few of the court cases are settled — and the
Santa Monica is one of them — we will know how to more realistically
interpret what use restrictions do interfere with interstate commerce.  We do
not at the present time have any clear, concise definitive answers to that and
very probably will not until several of these court cases  are resolved.

         The FAA has  long encouraged planning to assure not only that airports
will be  adequate to provide the service required in the future, but that
prospective  noise  impacts are  evaluated  and minimized.  The FAA policy  has
been  implemented through  four  principal methods  involving  the Airport
Development Aid Program.

          First, under Section  16  of  the Airport  and  Airway Development  Act,
the Secretary  may  approve a project  only if  he  is  satisfied  that  it is
reasonably  consistent with  the plans of planning agencies  for  the development
of the area in which  the  airport  is  located.  A  project may not be approved
unless fair consideration has  been  given to  the  interest  of communities in or
near  where  the projects  may be located.

          The Act  further declares,  as national, policy,  that the projects
 involving airport  location, runway  location  or  a major runway extension shall
provide for the protection  and enhancement of the  natural  resources and the
quality of  environment of the Nation.

          In essence,  what we  mean is these types of projects fall within the
 provisions  of 102cc of the  National Environmental  Policy Act.  It also
 provides that when a major runway extension will have adverse environmental
 effect, it may not be approved unless no feasible and prudent alternatives
 exist, and that all possible steps have been taken to minimize such adverse
 effects.

          In addition, Section 18.4 of the Act provides that among the
 conditions precedent to  project approval are: appropriate action,  including
 the adoption of the zoning laws, has been or will be taken to  the extent
 reasonable to restrict the use of land  adjacent to  or in  the immediate
 vicinity of the airport  to activities  and purposes compatible with normal
 airport operations,  including  landing  and takeoff of aircraft.  These  are the
 conditions  of certification that the  airport proprietor give us when  a grant
 of agreement  is executed.

          While the FAA does  not  and,  in  our  judgment, should  not have  the
 power to control  land use  around airport throughout  the  United States,  the
 grant of Federal  funds for airport  development  has  been  and will  continue to
 be conditioned on the application  of the foregoing  principles.
                                         151

-------
         Secondly, FAA has awarded ASAP funds for the development of airport
master plans.  These plans contain an environmental analysis and planning
assessment to assure that the airport's noise impact is held to a minimum.  I
was reading this morning while waiting for this — Dr. Bragdon completed a
study and we assisted him somewhat, and it involves a view of master plans in
the land use data book, and discovered that about 50 percent of the master
plans did not really get into the off-airports land use planning situation.

         Third, the recent Airport and Airway Development Act Amendments of
1976 authorize for the first time the use of Federal airport development funds
on projects  used to achieve noise relief.  Specifically, section II of the Act
now authorizes Federal financing of land acquisition to insure compatibility
with airport noise  levels and the acquisition of noise suppression equipment.
We are also  seeking an amendment of that Act which would authorize the use of
ADAP funds for the  purpose of noise monitoring equipment.

         Fourth,  and  as  a result of the ADAP Noise Policy, FAA  initiated  a
pilot project  to  encourage the  preparation  of comprehensive  noise  abatement
plans by airport  proprietors.   These  planning studies were called  ANCLUC,
Airport Noise  Control  and Land  Use Compatibility studies.

         At  the present  time  we have  studies under way  at Fort  Lauderdale,
Orlando, Cincinnati,  Atlanta, and  Birmingham.  Thank  you.

         MR. MAURICE  E.  60SNELL:   My  name  is Maurice  Gosnell.   I  am  a  lawyer
from Lawrenceville,  Illinois, and  I  am not  the  President  of  the Pilot  Lawyers
Bar Association right now.   I am the  immediate  Past-President.   However,  I
spent four years  in that office and  hopefully  learned a little  bit about it
and  to  some  extent  a bit about  some  of the  problems  that  we  are discussing
here  today.

          I presume  I must be here as a member  of the private sector because I
 am about  as  private a sector as you  can get in the aviation  field.  I  fly my
 own  airplane around.   I flew in here this morning and I did not have a bit of
 trouble with the PVA down here.  Many people complain about it but all I have
 is a private license with an instrument rating.

          I have done quite a bit of flying around the country and I really
 approch this subject first as a pilot, because it does seem to me that we must
 be looking  into the future to some extent here when we worry about general
 aviation and the noise abatement procedures and policies that are now being
 considered.  The reason I say that is because I have made a little study about
 the noise produced by general aviation and I can assure you that  there is no
 way that with my Beechcraft Traveler, I could even approach these noise  levels
 that are concerning the people who are working on the problem.

           I  have been  told by people who claim to know, at any rate, that about
 the only  general aviation aircraft that would violate the regulations that  are
 presently in  existence would be perhaps a  Gruman-2 — that  is  a big jet  —  or
 the Lear.   Apparently, the Learjets  are pretty  noisy.  When you get down below
 that, as the  representatives from GAMA here said  a while ago, you have the
 Citations which  are  pretty quiet.  Most of the  other general aircraft jets  are
 pretty quiet.  In  fact,  I have  also  been told that even the commercial
 carriers, airline  jets,  are  getting  quieter.


                                        152

-------
         The 707's,  for instance,  I have been told were the noisiest and now
the 747's,  unless I  have been misinformed,  are quieter than the old 707's.   So
we must be  talking about the future so far  as noise control for general
aviation is concerned.

         Day before yesterday, I was at West Palm Beach International and I
visited a bit with my friend, Kim Tilford,  who operates Tilford Aviation —
and he is still the head man around the place even through I think that it has
been taken  over by a larger operation.  He was giving a TV program and  he was
being interviewed on Channel 12 there at Palm Beach about the master plan that
is being developed for Palm Beach  International, and which apparently is a
result of some of the things that  are being discussed here today.

         One of the things that interested me was that general  aviation
operations at  Palm Beach International this year, I believe I was  told,
amounted to 150,000, and the master plan is considering 800,000 operations by
1985.

         Now,  that just does  not to me  seem  to  be realistic.

         I might  say that Kim  felt the  same  way.  Of  course,  no  one  is
objecting to a master  plan.   In fact,  it is  a good  idea but what  I am
suggesting  is  that we  maybe  get a  little ahead  of the story when  we  talk  about
controlling  general  aviation at Palm  Beach  International  to cope  with  the
noise  situation.

         The other  aspect  of my appearance  here is  connected  to the fact that
 I am a lawyer  and,  as  such,  I  am  absolutely mystified at  the  disorganized
condition  that I  find  the  noise abatement  efforts to be in.   For instance, in
 the State  of Illinois  a great friend  of mine, Bill  Scott, who is the Attorney
 General, has been accused  of tilting  at windmills.   He right  now is tilting,
 or was recently,  last  time I read it, tilting at, of all  places, Pawaukee and
 DePage County.

         Now,  they do have quite a few jets based at Pawaukee, and I don't
 think there are any out of DePage County,  but he, as I understood the
 situation,  filed some kind of complaint with the EPA.  Now, I am  not exactly
 certain what the nature of the charge was and there really has not been any
 trial or any hearings, other  than just some sort of preliminary skirmishing to
 find out who was going to do  what.  Of course we have got O'Hare  right next
 door to Pawaukee in DePage County where the  noise, according  to the people who
  live there, is so tremendous  they cannot even keep pictures on the wall,  but
 that is not from general aviation aircraft.  That  is from the airlines, of
 course.

          Now  another  little tidbit of  information  that I  got  there  at  Palm
  Beach was that — well, this  will give you  some  idea of  why  I  think that  the
  whole situation  is  disorganized.  I  learned  of a suburb  of Palm  Beach  that
  just  extends  right  off runway 9-left.  That  is  their main  runway.   Nine-left
  has  an ordinance that restricts flying over that  suburb  to 1,000  feet.   Well,
  suppose I  was City  Attorney of that  suburb.  Would I file charges against all
  those  aircraft  that take  off  there on  9-left and  do not   get to 1,000  feet
  before they get  over  this  suburb  which adjoins the end of the runway?   In


                                        153

-------
fact, I was told it conies right up to the approach lights for the back course
localizer approach to the B27-right,  so that could be done.

         The City Attorney of that suburb could have filed a charge against me
this morning when I took off there because I sure did not get above 1,000
feet.  And I suppose he could have said that as quiet as my bird is, at that
low altitude it might have come up to some of the restrictions that we are
talking about.  Fortunately, he doesn't do that.  It appears to me that some
of the problems they are facing came about because once a developer learned
that an airport was going to be established at a certain place, the developer
then immediately went to whatever zoning or other regulatory authorities who
had charge and control of that particular area outside of the airport
boundaries and got variances from them so that he could build subdivisions,
which at that point seemed to be a very attractive situation.

         Of course, later on the people then began to become a little bit
unhappy with the city when the noise got like it does around the major
airports, and that is where we get the complaints.

         To solve that problem is going to be one area that I presume all of
the people interested in aviation must look to, because that is  in the past;
that is something that can't be done, can't be  improved -- other than, as the
gentleman said, by moving all those people out from under, like  La Guardia's
appraoches, and we know that is impossible.  So that is one area of effort
that really needs immediate attention and, so far as I can see,  probably is
going to require the best efforts of everyone in general aviation and all
other branches of aviation.

         Now, to give you a little example of another type of sitution which I
think is probably where the best work can be done, our  little airport at home
is one of about four airports that has been singled out by Flying Tiger
Airlines as a possible base for their big U.S. operations.  At this point, as
soon as that information came out, then everyone began  getting all sorts of
suggestions.

         At the time when this first started, I was a member of  the authority
that operated the airport and I can tell you what was done there, and  I think
it probably would work, at  least  so far as other  airports  are concerned in the
future where there is apt to be a large-scale development.

         At that point, the Flying Tiger Airlines being realistic about the
whole situation, know that they could not come  in there ~  if they did decide
to — and have housing developments and other types of  people congregating
under their approaches and departure lanes.

         Then, one of the requirements that they  laid down for even
considering our airport was that  there had to be  a zoning  ordinance developed
for  the county.  The county board had to  adopt  a  zoning ordinance which not
only zoned the areas,  so far as the airport operation is concerned, but  also
zoned the  areas surrounding the airport  so  that developers could not  slip  in
and  build  something that would be profitable momentarily for them and  then be
an embarrassment to everybody later on.
                                       154

-------
         And the Bay State Authority also did institute an effort to get an
airport development plan which would utilize the space there to the best
advantage for everyone and would prevent many of the problems that we are
talking about here and now and the situations where the problems do exist.

         As soon as the movement was put under way to adopt a zoning ordinance
for the county and to restrict the use of land — you see, it had to be in the
entire county, could not just be there where the airport was — you really
find out who is interested in the zoning and who is not.

         Those people who  live in the approach and departure lanes, naturally,
are the people who were interested in the noise control,  and they made
themselves pretty vocal.   Everyone knew  about their problems.   It also
developed that there were  other people who  thought maybe  they could make  a
buck by getting involved  somewhat with the  airport operation.   They were  the
people who wanted to prove it by the traffic there at  the airport.  They  are
not so interested in the  zoning, in the  regulations that  we  are talking about.

         And  then the  last group that we found was  a  little  bit unhappy with
zoning was the  industry that  already was located  in the country.  You  see,
that fact that maybe  an oil refinery would  be seven or eight miles  away from
the airport  did not seem  to the  refining company  to be a  reason to  impose
regulations  on  it,  just because  they  happened to  be  in the same county as the
proposed base for Flying  Tiger.

         Of  course, Flying Tiger might  not  come  there anyway,  so here  they end
 up with  the  zoning  regulations  which  would  also  have  to apply  to all  industry
 in the county and  all  of  the  operations that would be involved.  And so the
 result was  that we  had opposition  from  those people.   Fortunately,  those are
 all problems that can be  worked out,  I  think.

          Now, the last comment I would   like to  make is that I  have read enough
 about the Santa Monica decision to have some feelings about it too.  I think
 everyone in this  case, the lawyers and  the judge, the witnesses, must have
 done  a fine job because from what I read,  evidently the  judge was educated
 pretty thoroughly about what the problem was before his court.  But I have a
 feeling  that that decision is only going to apply to one  particular airport.
 It would be my guess at this moment that those same lawyers who did so well  in
 the trial  of that case and,  undoubtedly, will do well  in  the appeal, could be
 just  as ingenious in restricting the application of that  decision, when  it is
 all over, to a situation  which would be peculiar there to Santa Monica.

          So actually, I  came here today to  learn.  I  am  listening with great
 interest to see how these gentlemen who are  involved  with the  subject of noise
 abatement and the other  controls, to see how they suggest that they be
 handled.  Thank you.

          MR. FRED GAMMON: My  name is  Fred Gammon.   I  am the Airport  Manager
  at Teterboro Airport  in  New  Jersey.  You have  learned a  little bit  about
 Teterboro Airport  from Mr. Goodfriend  this morning when  he  described  some of
  our procedures.   I do work for  Pan Am.  Pan Am  does  operate Teterboro Airport
  but they  have  me  as  a general  aviation airport  manager only.   I do not feel
  there is  any conflict.
                                        155

-------
         I will just briefly go through what I feel an airport operator's
obligation is.  I am a staunch believer in self help and if you can avoid
regulation where possible, you are much better off because by avoiding the
regulations, you also avoid some of the controls that can eventually hurt
everyone.

         And I think that not just as a description of that ~ It is like the
case, in a sense, in Santa Monica; that too no one really wanted it.  I think
that is a case that certainly is true in the control of airport noise too,
that no one actually or not everyone will win.  You cannot control airport
related noise and expect the airport, the aircraft operator to altogether win;
nor, on the other side, the community.  What you have to do is strike an even
balance, because as an airport operator, my responsibility is to two distinct
groups; that is, the airport user and the community that the airport is in.

         We have nine different communities that I have to deal with at
Teterboro.  We are in a very heavily populated area in Bergen County, New
Jersey.  We are about twelve miles from midtown Manhattan, and we are the,
what I like to claim, New York area reliever airport.  We run about 290,000
operations a year, of which between 10 to 15 percent are corporate jets.  Of
these total operations, we estimate — I have no real background statistics to
prove it — but we estimate of the numbers we have, about 70 percent of the
total traffic is transient.

         We have another peculiar problem though, we must use preferential
runways.  We use noise abatement departure procedures, primarily adopted from
the NBAA procedures.  We have turnout procedures from certain runways and, by
the way, we have been in this business of abatement at the Teterboro since
1970, so it is not a new thing with us.

         We have a confirmed noise complaint procedure and followup
procedure.  We have a monitoring procedure that we use primarily to check and
confirm our program and our existing procedures.  If there were any program
that I would adopt today as a self-help program, I would go to the EPA's
suggestions as to how to — a derivative of that, perhaps, but at least
something along that line ~ evaluate an existing airport's situation in its
community.

         On the other side, we have established a very definite communication
with the pilots.  We hand out information sheets to the pilots, every new jet
that arrives at the airport, and we have a control of those numbers so that we
know when it is a new jet.  We hand out an information package and the pilot
has to read it on the spot and sign that he understands the noise abatement
procedure; in that way, when we may approach him later on he cannot claim that
he did not understand, that his company did not understand the procedures that
we have laid out.

         We have a group of signs on the airport that indicate the various
procedures.  We publish them.  I have operations meetings with the tenants and
the aircraft operators at least every two months, usually every month, to
discuss noise abatement and changes in procedures.

         We also have a community information program.  We have airport PR
programs which I think also is important.  A community has to understand the


                                      156

-------
airport.  I do not know how many noise complainers that I have invited down to
the airport and I have taken them on a tour of the airport, shown them the
inside of an airplane.  I have explained the ILS system to them and how the
instruments work in the aircraft, and you would be surprised at the type of
response that you would get.  I hear comments like:  I really didn't
understand it; you know, it really was never clear to me; I always felt that
there was a brick wall between, or a very noisy wall between the airport and
my home and now that I better understand the airport I can better understand
your situation and mine as being ours.

         So there is a mutual understanding, a mutual respect that has to be
obtained, and this can only be done by communication.  Again, I think people
have mentioned that on several occasions here and I really cannot — It is
really on of the most important aspects of any program.

         Certainly, better  airport planning, evaluation, master plans have to
include impact of noise.  I think Pete mentioned a while ago the possible
impact of a parallel runway to reduce noise.  Certainly, at Teterboro, that
would help me because I have a tremendous mix of general aviation traffic.  I
have 6-2's in the same pattern with Cessna 150's.  That  is a mix of those  very
unsophisticated student pilots;  in the sense that they are learning and they
are in the same pattern and it creates a lot of situations.

         It creates go-arounds which  are very noisy  -- G-2's following the
150's and they have all the flaps hanging out and have got all  the power on.
So, I think there are certain areas of airport planning  that can affect the
surrounding noise and the impact.

         Zoning and land use regulations certainly  are needed,  although at
this point I  do not know how  it  would work  in places like  Teterboro, where we
lie, really,  as I say,  on three  communities, as  in  Westchester  they have three
communities.  They have  another  state to contend  with.   Certainly, down in
Trenton, New  Jersey it  is the  same  situation.  They really practically  lie on
the state  line between  New  Jersey  and Pennsylvania.

          I think  that the Maryland  plan  certainly sounds logical.   I  don't
know that much  about  it.   I think  there  are  other  states that  have  similar
plans,  but  it seems as  though  the  approaches are good,  at  least from  my
standpoint;  although  I  would  tend  to, I  think,  disagree  a  little bit  with  Stan
in that a  uniform noise standard or regulation  for airports  can almost  be
analogous  to  his  size thirty-four  suit,  with airplanes  —  every airport is
different.

          It  has  to  be tailored to  the airport's  situation.   You have  different
terrains.   You  have different types of  aircraft using that airport.   You  have
communities  that are  different locations from the runway and the impacted  area.

          As  I recall, in one situation  that was described  before,  the best
rate  of climb may work because of the community's location -- and let's face
 it, we are talking  about the impact that the airport has on  the nearest
community.   That is what we are concerned about.  So if there is not a
 community there and there is not a noise impact on an individual in that
 location,  then perhaps our abatement procedures would not work in that
 situation.   Certainly,  if you have a reduced power climb --  and I have had


                                        157

-------
this described to me a couple of times — in instances where airports have
instituted noise abatement procedures, where they have reduced the power at
takeoff, by the time they get over the community they are ready to add full
power back in to go to their standard climbout, and that defeats the purpose.
So certainly, the best rate of climb may work in another.

         DR. BRAGDON:  I would like to lead off with one question and then
open it totally up.

         It seems from all of the standpoints of people here that there has
been a concern about ability in the sense that when something is planned it
should be insured that it is implemented.  I would like my question to go to
both Charlie as well as Bob on this.  First, to Charlie — On the question of
land use assurance, the provisions indicate that the community's assurance to
the FAA that they are doing land use planning and zoning is a mechanism, but
my concern there is what does the FAA do about it?  Is there followup to
insure that there is planning continuity?  And if the planning ceases after
the ADAP award is given, what type of responsibility is there by the FAA, or
is this sort of a one point in time shot?  My concern is, is there any
continuity that the FAA monitors beyond the point of the actual ADAP award,
relative to effective land use planning in the future?

         MR. BLAIR:  Section 1884 is not new.  It has been with us, even if we
did not pay a lot of attention to it in years past, I am afraid.  Response was
very casual, a very casual type of assurance and we give it a very casual type
of review and I will accept the criticism that we probably never formed much
of a followup.  That has changed quite a bit, primarily I guess because of the
National Environmental Policy Act, and primarily because of the position we
have taken in the Southern Region.

         We performed an evaluation not long ago and we did discover that in
may cases the responses gave us assurances that were not adequate.  They did
not identify the measures they were going to take or a schedule and we had not
established followup procedures.

         One of the problems with the assurances, if you read it closely, are
the words, "Reasonable to the extent possible."  There is no clear definition
of what reasonable effort is, so that is a decision we have to make
ourselves.  We do require now that they give us an assurance, an idea of what
they consider reasonable.  If they do not have zoning, we require that they
identify a schedule, how they will go about implementing the zoning, the time
period schedule, and when they expect to adopt certain zoning ordinances.

         Now, when you talk about land use planning and the formation of
ordinances, and the actual adoption and implementation, it can be quite time
consuming and in most cases, probably 90 percent or more, that process takes
longer than the life of one individual grant.  So what we do is obtain
realistic assurances from the sponsor and follow up on subsequent grant
agreements.

         I do not know that we have ever refused a grant to a major airport
because of inadequate assurances.  I anticipate that some time in the future
we may be forced to make such a decision, and I think that we will probably
either delay some of the projects or refuse to issue a grant simply because of


                                       158

-------
inadequate assurances.  I guess what I have said is, we are doing a much
better job within the Federal Government of getting reasonable and realistic
assurances.

         DR. BRAGDON:  Okay.  Relating that to Bob's experience, I would also
like to have a state planning process in terms of looking at land use.  Bob,
have you seen a high degree of compliance with this or have you seen
opposition or are there loopholes in terms of not how people try to beat the
box but try to beat the land game?

         MR. MONTGOMERY:  Somebody, I believe it was yesterday, pointed out
that local communities have very jealously guarded their ability to control
land use and zoning.  That  is true in Maryland as well as in most other
states, and so when we develop our regulations, we did not say that this would
preempt the zoning.  Local communities can zone the land any way they want to;
however, they are going to  have to eventually use it in a manner which  is
compatible with the airport.  We have a very good degree of cooperation with
the counties where this process has been underway so far, but it is a very
time-consuming process.

         For example, the county that BWI is located in has about five
different zoning restrictions, and they go through a comprehensive rezoning of
each district, sequentially.  We were very fortunate in that the one  district
which comprised most of the area west of the airport was in the process of
being rezoned at the time we were developing the airport noise  law, so  in
general they are adopting zoning which is compatible with the limits  for
exposure.

         Now there  are  other areas where they have  not gone through this
rezoning  so far and,  in fact, there are significant business communities who
are reluctant to adopt more stringent requirements  then the state  requires.
Most of these facilities  are owned by local governments so that  is a  powerful
incentive.

          DR. BRAGDON:   If Gordon Miller is here --  Gordon  is going to be
speaking  tomorrow,  but  he is responsible for the State of  California  Aviation
Program,  which has  a  land use  element process.  It  would probably  be  very
useful  to  have his  experience  and  how successful the  land  use element is,
which  is  part of the  planning  requirement  for  the  state.

          MR. GORDON  A.  MILLER:  Ours  has  not been  too  successful,  I will  start
off  saying  that.   Let me  explain.   It  is  a little  different  than Maryland's.
We have a strong tradition  of  local  government  in  California  and the  counties
do have land use controls outside  the incorporated  areas  in  the counties.

          In the  incorporated  areas,  of  course,  the  cities  control  it,  We  have
several airports there  in the  state,  particularly  in  the metropolitan areas,
where  the noise  impact  of the  airport extends  over  several  political
jurisdictions, maybe over several  cities  and  including  at  least one  county and
 in some cases more than one county.

          Recognizing it was very  difficult to  deal  with  airport noise,  where
you  had these multi jurisdictions  — and  that  had  been talked  about  here  quite
 a bit  —  the  Legislature adopted  legislation  that  required an  airport land use


                                       159

-------
commission in each city and in each county having an airport serving scheduled
air carrier service, requiring about, I guess, a dozen counties to have them
right away.

         The law has been extended now so that all counties must have such an
airport land use commission.  The land use commissions were set up to do land
use planning in the vicinity of airports, with the idea of identifying the
area that should have development compatible with the operation of the
airport.  Unfortunately,  a couple of things were missing.   One is that there
is no requirement, no date when these land use plans had to be finished or
adopted.  So that in some counties, in a few counties I guess would be a
better way to put it, we do have airport land use commissions but in most of
the counties we do not.

         Part of it is because of just a general lack of interest in the
counties to go ahead and do something like that, and the other is a lack of
funds.  The legislation provided no source of funds to do the planning.

         The land use commissions were envisioned to be made up of specific
kinds of people, people representing the county, county government, government
of the cities in the county, airport management, and some members representing
the general public.  But the law allowed an escape clause, by saying that any
planning body with duties for doing land use planning could be relegated to be
the land use planning commission.

         Where that has been done, of course, it is just an extra duty for the
county planning commission and/or the city planning commission.  So that it  is
just the same people looking at the same problem without any particular
additional requirements to consider land use planning around airports.

         The other thing that has made it fairly weak is that in the final
analysis, local government can overrule the airport land use commission
plans.  By a fourth-fifths vote, the county ruling body — the board of
supervisors or the city council, if it is city land that is impacted — can
just fault or overrule what the airport planning commission has done.

         Of course, it puts a little heat on a city council or a board of
supervisors to vote four-fifths to override a plan that has been carefully
done.  And the effort has not been totally wasted, but there are only, I would
say, probably a half dozen counties in the 58 counties in California where it
has really been effective.  We are trying to find some other way to beef it  up.

         The state has provided funds for a couple of technicians, a couple  of
land use planners in one of our metropolitan counties, San Bernadino County,
to actually work with the county planning group to do the technical work, and
that was taking place in some county which could have done it for  itself.

         But in the final analysis, we run into the problem which  has  been
mentioned quite a bit here today, and that is the fact that when you come
right down to it.  Political decisions have to be made if you are  going to
have a plan that is going to have any chance of being implemented.  The
technicians can do all the work they want, come up with a wonderful plan, but
it has to be adopted politically.
                                       160

-------
         So, I cannot report that we have had great success.  I think it has
been educational.  I think that just having this law on the books, having a
commission in business and getting some publicity has assisted some places,
and we are further ahead overall now in California than we would have been
without it.  But we really have not done the job we had in mind when we first
got the law.

         MR. LEWIS:  First thing I would like to say — Herman, I know you are
a member of N.O.I.S.E.  In fact, my wife is on the board of directors and we
are proud to be a part of that organization.  Now I have some comments and
questions for Stan Green.

         I agree with you.  Europe is at least ten years or more ahead of us
in airport noise abatement practices and things.  We did a study about a year
and a half ago and we contacted 252 airports throughout the world.  We had a
return response of about 46 percent and it clearly showed that Europe and even
Africa were way ahead of the United States in airport noise abatement
practices.

         There was one statement that you made though, Stan, that I think  I
paid great  attention  to, and that  is we cannot cater to the idiosyncracies of
a few neighbors who feel their cars and lawnmowers can make more noise than
airplanes.  These people who object to the noise of airplanes  are not some
nuts off the wall.  First of all,  airplanes are going 24-hours a day, seven
days a week:   lawnmowers are not;  cars are not going, normally, unless maybe
you are near  a highway or something.  You  are talking about people who live  in
residential communities.  So when  statements like that are made,  I think they
hurt the cause of  noise  abatement.

         Next, in  talking about fuel economy possibly taking  a front  seat  over
noise abatement,  if the manufacturers of your commercial airplanes can come
out with new  airplanes that  are more fuel  efficient  and quieter, why  cannot
the manufacturers  of  the Cessna and other  of general  aviation  do the  same
thing?  It  would  seem to me  that would be  an easier  job to  do  it  on  a small
airplane than  a  big airplane.

         MR.  GREEN:   I want  to answer  some of these.  You just threw a  bunch
of questions  at  me.

         All  right.   Let me  actually clarify rather  than  give an  opposing  view
to both  issues that you  have raised.   The  point  of  hurting  our cause by
complaining,  in  a sense,  that  to  the complainers  is  a valid one and  I do not
intend  and  I  hope I  did  not  convey the  view that  anybody who  complains  about
aircraft  noise is a kook  or  a  nut  or a little old  lady  in Tennessee,  as  the
old  cliche  went.   But there  are very valid problems  of  noise  at airports and
there  are  very valid  complaints,  but there are  complaints  that have  to  be
balanced  in many cases  and  we  do  not seem  to  be balancing.

          Now,  at the  Santa  Monica trial  — and  it  is in  the testimony — a
very intelligent individual  with  whom  I  had some very fine  conversations
during  the recesses —  we had  plenty  of those in the trial  — on the stand,
 was  asked  the simple  question  — and  this  had to do with  the jet issue and I
 think  he destroyed a bit of the case  for his  side — would  you object to a jet
 aircraft  that was 15  dB  quieter than the limits you  have  got right now.

                                        161

-------
         His answer was:   I object to any jets;  I don't care how quiet they
are; I just don't want jets in here.

         MR. LEWIS:  That is right.

         MR. GREEN:  Now, from the validity point of view,  I think noise is
noise.  I am not saying that the straight energy level of a jet aircraft is
perceived by people the same as the equivalent energy level of a prop, but
there are ways to equate them.

         But to object irrationally to a jet aircraft does not help anyone.
Santa Monica has now proposed to lower their noise level to 85 on the CNEL
scale.  The reason is a very simple one — what they stated in the newspaper
is  so they can keep the jet out, irrespective of what the judge said, what he
stated  in the order.  Of course, to keep them out of a contempt situation,
what was said was  we feel we need  to meet the goal of 55 CNEL and ban all
props or jets above 85.

         Their measured CNEL, without  aircraft,  any aircraft, Cessnas, 152's
and any others on  up  is  approximately  62 CNEL now.  If they wiped out every
aircraft they would not  get to  this magical 55,  because they have lawnmowers
and they have cars at the  rate  of  400  an hour's  average during the day, 7:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m.  —  to  11:00 p.m. by  one  of the measuring  sites.

         Now if  they  want  to  stop  the  car  traffic and  the  lawnmowers  and  the
barking dogs, I  guess  they can  reach this  level.  But  those are  the  kind  of
irrational  efforts —  we will  not  compromise, we will  not  talk,  we will do
everything  we think we can to  get rid  of  the  aircraft  noise and  to hell with
the rest of it.

         MR. LEWIS:   That's right.  I  come up against them too,  where they say
shut  the airport down,  and it is  a hell  of a  job to try to convince  them  this
is  not  a viable  argument and  to forget about  it.  But the  point is,  when  they
make  statements  that  these people are  kooks,  they are not  going  to cause  any
good.

         MR.  GREEN:   All  right.  Let us not talk about the kooks any more.
Let me  answer your other question.  Fuel  and  noise  in general.  The  two do go
together,  particularly in the determinations  we make.  We are planning
tremendous advances  in the fuel reduction capability we have in the  fan-jets,
as  have the airplanes.

          I am looking right now,  in a sense,  at engines that are going to be
on  line in 1982, 1983 for a new class  of aircraft,  the commuter aircraft.
This  transportation needs a lot of larger aircraft that are being used today.
 We  are a little behind the power curve there, with respect to deregulation.
 It  has a tremendous effect.

          But the two things that  are  very noticeable about the new engines
 that we are talking about for 1982, '83 certification, which mean they will be
 in  aircraft about 1985, the fuel  specifies number — meaning the amount  of
 fuel  they use per unit of power — are numbers that were undreamably low  five
 years  ago, even.  They are talking of 50 percent to 75 percent  actual savings


                                        162

-------
over existing new technology engines, and they are also expected to be five to
eight dB quieter than the ones we are talking about today.

         The new, modern, quiet turbofan engines today are going to be, in the
next generation of engines, even quieter.  The two go together but now you get
into the balancing, and particulary in the piston engine fleet, of equating
noise and fuel and we have a little problem there.

         I will go into it a little bit more perhaps tomorrow, but I will
cover a little bit now.  What we are doing is establishing some new power
limitations that will be instituted, starting this year, but the main effect
will come next year.  This is in cooperation with the FAA but they will be
established by the manufacturer and made a limitation on operation.  They will
knock off about four to nine dB from the legal way a person can fly an
airplane -- and most pilots fly it by the book.

         The problem we came up with is also the one we talked about briefly,
how to optimize your fuel.  The faster you get up to an altitude, generally,
the less fuel you can use over a long trip.  You are not going to be able to
get up there as fast.  And we also have the  issue of climbing  at VX and VY,
the maximum angle versus the maximum rate.   We are trying to come up with an
optimization that will get the airplane the  quietest along the track, no
matter what way he climbs, by limiting the power but by not getting the
airplane too slow in a climb situation, the  engine has to reach.  The extra
reach means you are flying on more fuel and  when you are paying as much as
$1.50 a gallon for aviation fuel and watching the prices go up, guys don't
want to do that.

         We can save,  sure -- not  a  lot, eight or nine-tenths  of a  gallon of
fuel pound of  fuel on  a  trip but multiply that and that is the reason why we
are having to  spend  a  little extra time  in the computers  to figure  out where
the optimization  is.   But there  is  a definite  trend, a very distinct  link
between fuel  economy and  less noise.

         MR.  LEWIS:  Yes,  but  I  think  that the aviation  industry  as  a  whole,
whether they  are  talking  about general  aviation  or commercial  airlines,  has  to
realize that  noise  abatement  costs and they  are  going  to  have to  accept  those
costs because they  are the  ones  who  are  causing  the  reason  for noise
abatement.  And  if  it  costs  some pilot,  whether  he is  a private  pilot  or an
airline pilot, a couple  of  extra bucks for the fuel,  this is  the  price he is
going to  have to pay.

          MR.  GREEN:   How about  the fact that it  takes  fuel  out of your
automobile.

          MR.  LEWIS:   We  pay the price too.

          MR.  GREEN:   I did not say it was because of a cost thing,  but if we
do not  have enough fuel  and we decide, or the government decides that aircraft
 flying  is more important than your driving,  then you have another complaint.

          MR.  LEWIS:   Well,  I  think somebody here said yesterday that aviation
 uses  —  What is it?
                                        163

-------
         MR. GREEN:  We use seven-tenths of one percent of the fuel used in
transportation; not all fuel, but just used in transportation— a minuscule
amount.
         MR. LEWIS:
any effect on it.
Then the increase or decrease of fuel should not cause
         MR. GREEN:  I agree with you on that.  The only problem is, we are
forced by government regulation to give as much credence to fuel economy as we
are to noise.  Now, it is your government as well as mine so you have a right
to complain and tell the Department of Energy that the aviation people should
have all the fuel they need and we will love you for it — and we will be
quiet.

         MR. LEWIS:  Okay.  Maurice Gosnell, you made a statement about why
everybody is getting so excited about general aviation noise when there is not
really a problem at this time -- at least, that is the way I read your
statement.  Number one, while we around Kennedy Airport do not really have a
problem as far as general aviation noise is concerned, there are other people
that do and I think the reason may be that the mistakes that were made in
letting commercial aviation make the noise that is causing all the problems in
the carrier airports now, we are trying to avoid in the general aviation
airports.  So the idea is to look at the problem when it is first starting up,
not after it has become unmanageable.

         I just want to make a statement like that and see if  it fits in with
what you meant.

         MR. GOSNELL:  Are you addressing that question to me?

         MR. LEWIS:  Yes.

         MR. GOSNELL:  I think that is a fair statement.  I was willing to
throw up my hands about the situation as it exists with regard to O'Hare and
perhaps Kennedy and La Guardia.  I do not know much about them and my
recommendation was that a little more organized program be set up for those
airports where there is an opportunity to undertake zoning and the regulations
so that the same problems will not exist again.  But I was a little
discouraged to hear the gentleman from California put the finger right on the
sore spot, and that is when you get right down to the bottom line in these
efforts  it is applying the controls.

         I would like for you to go back and think about those developers who
got variations to put subdivisions around O'Hare and the other airports.

         MR. LEWIS:  But you are basing everything on land use.  What about
procedures for takeoff and landing and runups and all this touch-and-go?
These are the items that are part of the noise problem too.  Land use is one
part and, admittedly, a big part and hopefully that will be solved.

         MR. GOSNELL:  I have no objection to including that in the master
plan also and in the county zoning ordinance and those bodies  who do regulate
the operation of the airport.
                                       164

-------
         I am all for corridors,  corridors which would be set up so as to not
involve anyone who happened to be living underneath those corridors.   I would
perfer those and I think anybody who flies an airplane would prefer that type
of recommendation rather than to have to climb slow, like our friend up there
talks about, and expose the passengers in those airplanes -- whether they are
general aviation or airlines.

         MR. LEWIS:  Expose them to what?

         MR. GOSNELL:  Expose them to getting killed.

         MR. LEWIS:  Thank you.

         MS. SEARLE:  I am Lucie Searle from the Massachusetts Aeronautic
Commission.  Stan, I took quite a few notes during your comments and  I would
like to respond to a few of them.  First of all, I don't have any quarrel with
you on the business jets.  I think I mentioned yesterday that we have done
some real good things there and there has been a lot of progress.  Besides the
Citation there are a number of other jets that do have a longer capacity, that
you were talking about, that are quiet and I think the industry has to be
complimented for that and should be.

          It is on  the props that I think you and I will maybe agree to
disagree for quite a while.  The fact is that the standards that we have now
for props do not anywhere come near  reflecting what  props are already doing,
and I  think there  are three  levels to look at this.

         One is  the marketplace, which to me means  what  is  going on right
now.   And the  second is what I call  available technology, and that means what
we have that know-how to do.  The third  is what  I call future technology.  We
are still learning and  want  to build a better mousetrap  but  haven't quite
learned how.

          In the  marketplace  right now —  I have  to  repeat some  of  the
statistics  that  I  gave  you yesterday --  there are  a couple  of Cessna  models,
single engine  props, in the  market  that  do under 70 decibels  at the 1,000-foot
on a  1,000-foot  flyover.  FAA  only  requires  them to do  almost 78;  in  other
words, they are  eight decibels quieter  than  what the standards  call for.

          I  think that there  is  a philosophical  delimma  here.  You  see it on
one  side  and  I see it on the other.   The standards  reflect  the  barest minimum
of what we  are capable  of  doing  or  should  standards be  a goal that we strive
for?   Now,  I  see them as a  goal,  something that we want to  work to do better
on.   And  I  think perhaps you see them as reflecting the very bearest  minimum
of what we  are capable  of  doing.   That  is  what  we  have  now  with FAA-FAR 36
standards for  props.  They  do  not,  in my opinion,  give  us  any reason  to be
innovative  and give us  much  incentive to try to do better.

          As far as available technology, what I call that  second level, there
are  probably people here —  particularly Bill  Galloway — who can  elaborate
all  the more on this.   I know some of the homework I have done  goes back to
the  1940's  to research  in my area;  Harvard and  M.I.T.,  with Dr. Otto Koppen
and  Dr.  Lynn Bollinger.  They experimented on four-bladed props, got the rpm's
                                        165

-------
down to 1,200 and came up with a very quiet, light prop.  That says to me that
the technology is there.

         I know you cannot wait to say some things, but let me just finish on
my other point.  Last summer I was in Great Britain on my vacation and toured
the Downey-Roble plant, which is just outside of London.  They have been
working on what they call an abductive propulsor; it is a fan.  Now this is
suitable for retrofit.  They have fitted this on a Norman Islander — this is
a conventional twin-engine prop and they claim a noise reduction value of 20
decibels.

         They also claim they are not sacrificing performance.  You may
disagree.  I saw a flight demonstration and from what I did not hear and from
what I saw, it was very impressive.  To me, that is part of this available
technology that I am not sure we are taking advantage of.

         What I call the future technology, we are not  sure how to do yet but
we are trying to learn, is going on now.   I see one place I can cite is the
M.I.T-NASA work that is being sponsored by EPA.  You mentioned that some of
this work takes a while to develop and I think you mentioned  some of it takes
three years for the industry to turn out one of these newer model planes.  My
response to that would be, that is not an  awful lot of time,  and remember that
the props are going to be with us for ages.

         Probably many of you know Crocker Snow -- I work with Crocker  — and
he is flying a 1946 Navion and has been flying it since 1946  and he has taken
good care of it.  There are thousands of people like this who still have these
planes.  They are in the fleet for ages.

          I will just make one more point because I am sure you have a  lot that
you want to say.  You questioned some of the EPA work,  the relationship we
have here with the EPA work, the relationship we have here with the EPA
proposing and then the FAA disposing.  I don't have all the research in front
of me but from what I recall, the FAA turned down the EPA's proposal for
tighter  standards for  light props, not on  the basis of  technology but  simply
on the basis that the EPA had not made an  adequate health and welfare
argument.  Now, this  is very different from technology.  So these are  the
things I  really want  to record to  show because  I think  they are pretty
important.

         MR. GREEN:   Let me start  at  the beginning of your  list and  I  think
that was  the question of whether we should have a  standard  as a goal or as  a
state of technology.  The problem with the standard as  a goal is  it would  not
pass our United States  concept of  fair play.  The  law cannot  require that
which you cannot do and to  have a  law on the books that if you do not  meet  the
goal you  do not get certified.

          MS. SEARLE:   You are  already meeting the  goal  with lots  of your
planes.

          MR. GREEN:   With some.  Now,  let  me answer that  aspect of  it.   I
don't think you quarrel with  us when  we come in under the  limits.  An  airplane
that  is  required to be  at 80  or 70 or whatever  number  dB you  want  to  pick  and
then  it  comes  in under  that,  is just  as quiet as  an airplane  that  we  required


                                       166

-------
to be at 77 and came in at 77.  It doesn't matter how we get there but there
is a part of the law that is an individual aspect of the FAA mandate, in a
sense, of the 1972 Noise Control Act, which says each type airplane will be as
quiet as it is practicable to be.  So if you have got a law that says 80 is a
top limit and 68 is the bottom limit and there is a weight basis in there, and
you are capable of building an airplane that will come in at 50 dB and serve a
useful commercial purpose as far as you are concerned, you are in fact
obligated to do so.  And that is the reason why we are under the limits in
many cases.

         Now, I have seem some of the work that was done on the quiet
airplanes in the 1950's.  I was privileged some years ago to stand some 300
feet under an airplane and when it went overhead you bearly heard it.  It was
a Lockheed Q-fan.  It was extremely quiet but it was with that airplane, just
as it was with the designs that were done at M.I.T. some years ago, that it
was just not practical economically and simply because of the 300-mile range,
no payload; they are not economical airplanes.

         MS. SEARLE:  We have all talked about the problems of touch-and-go,
which are training operations.  Now, wouldn't that be an attractive trainer?

         MR. GREEN:  A $300,000 trainer would not be a trainer.  No one could
afford it, aside from the fact that they are extremely complicated airplanes
to fly and you would need a good, highly qualified pilot at that.  They are
not easy airplanes to fly.  You swing in a big hunk of props, as slow as they
were, you have got a torque problem.  I wouldn't want to be within throwing
distance of the metal that is going to be landing down the runway.

         Now granted, we defend the commercial need theoretically but it is
done as a result of what we feel the customers want in the way of airplanes,
what they need in the way of transportation vehicles, and maybe we have made
them right or maybe we have gone wrong occasionally but, generally speaking,
we meet the public needs.

         The point is that for one airplane to use a geared propeller or a
slow turning, short propeller that comes into a low noise may work fine, and I
am then faced with developing a different engine for another aircraft to meet
the same basic noise requirements and I find that I am economically unable to
do so.

         The development of new engines is extremely expensive.  It  takes four
to five years to put a piston engine on the market when the determination has
been made to fill that need.  It takes ten years to bring a turbine  engine on
the line.

         Now if we saw the market for those kinds of airplanes, because noise
is a factor  in selling airplanes -- and I kid you not that Cessna and Piper
are in a war in the training  issue and Beech  is getting into that thing — and
one of the things they anticipate  is how quiet their airplanes are because a
noisy airplane is going to mean  it is not going to get bought as a training
airplane in places where training  is normally required.
                                       167

-------
         These people would buy those  engines  if  they were  available but there
is not a big enough market to justify  it  and they do  not  get  built.   I  know
turbine engines are available.  We cannot  seem to get one at  a price we can
fit into a typical light training plane,  I mean because of  the price and
weight.  Yet, if  I had a good, light turbine engine,  swing  in a prop at 1,700
rpm, we would come in very, very low on noise.

         Now you  do have one.  You have got the Dash-7 which  is a big,
four-engine 50-passenger transport.  That  is an extremely low noise  vehicle.
That same engine  ~ granted,  it is a 1,200 horsepower engine  which is roughly
three times larger than any of the pistons we  use ~  if we  can get one  small
enough, turn the  prop at a reasonable  speed such  as that  one  is,  we  could get
the noise down, but you no longer have a  $50,000  airplane because your  engine
is $250,000 to start with.

         So the technology is there but not at a  dollar cost  that anybody can
even conceive.  To give you a very specific example,  and  this was, I think,
the reason why FAA turned EPA down.  We provided  a tremendous amount of
economic data based on studies — I am sure Ed Hooper can elaborate  on  them
better than I can — on what  it would  cost to  meet the requirements  proposed
by EPA in lieu of those required by FAA as far as propeller-driven aircraft.
Those standards in effect were wiped out  in the sense that  engines were not
available.  They  would have to be developed from  scratch  and  this is a  four or
five-year lead time and there was no money to  do  it.

         We are talking about a simple piston  engine  program  in the  order of
threw million dolars to develop an engine  from an existing  model.  When you
get into the small jets you are talking in the neighborhood of close to eighty
to a hundred million dollars.  There has  got to be a  pretty good sized  market
out there to demand something  like that.

         We are looking at a  new generation of engines.   They are turboprops
and several companies are involved, big names  ~  Pratt-Whitney, 6.E., Garrett
Aviation Company.  They are looking at a  reasonable sized market for this
class of aircraft but they started the engine  development years ago.  We won't
have them except  in prototype until 1985  and it  is a  long,  long process.

         MR. JOHN SCHETTINO:  Before I asked the  question though, for the
people in the audience who might not be familiar  with the language of Section
7 of the Noise Control Act, there is some  unique  language pertaining to the
issuance of new type certificates for  aircraft for which  no noise requirements
have been established.

         Now, we  at the EPA were aware of  the  General Council's interpretation
of that language  and how it was getting applied by the FAA, because  we
encountered a situation where new-type certificates were  being awarded  for
helicopters for which there were no regulations  and still are no regulations.

         And we were under the understanding that the FAA was making
determinations against each specific application  for  a new type certificate
and it was a written determination in  which they  would say this airplane A, X,
G, B, does in fact incorporate all of  the  available technology and therefore
it could not be made any quieter through  the existence of a Federal  regulation.
                                       168

-------
         So that was the satisfaction; that  is  it  satisfied  legal  requirements
under the Noise Control Act Section 7.  Now  I will  get  to  your  timely  comment.

         I infer from your comment, which  I  am  led  to  believe  is  a current
inference by Bill Galloway's  statement, that in  fact  if a  type  certificate  has
been applied for, for a small propeller-driven  aircraft, that  notwithstanding
the level, the maximum level  permitted under the FAA's  regulations for small
props, that if the particular region  has made a determination  that available
technology could be incorporated  in the airplane for which the  type
certificate was made, you would lower the  levels and the FAA could in  fact
require that technology to be incorporated and  that is  why we  have airplanes
that are so much quieter than those permitted by the FAA regulation.

         My question now:  Is that in fact a correct inference  by me
concerning your comment?

         MR. GREEN:  Yes.  That is what is going on.   But  frankly it  had been
aided by the marketplace.  The marketplace demands  quieter airplanes  today  and
perhaps we maybe read the marketplace wrong, but noise  we  know  is an
impediment to sales and we know each  of the  companies  — and there are a
couple of them represented here,  a couple  of companies  here  I  think can pretty
well tell you they look at noise  and  they  try to beat  those  regulations by  a
fair margin.

         Now, there is another reason of course  why in  many  cases we  want to
beat the regulations, and that is to  allow for  growth.   As they grow  in size,
of course, the engine grows in thrust.  We need  some margin  for that.   But
particularly, when you get into airplanes  that  we  know  are not  really going to
change, where growth is not an issue, the  point  is, it  is  good  business to  get
it down as low as you can, plus we have the  regulatory  or  the  statutory, in
fact, obligation,

         Sometimes — and I want  to point  this  out  --  I still  think it is
rather humorous.  I don't think anybody here is  from FAA's Noise Certification
Office now, but for a long time they  required basic evaluation  of every glider
that was built to make sure it doesn't get any  noisier  than  it  was.

         MR. SCHETTINO:  Okay.  There is a difference,  and I don't really
think that is any cause for humor, the law.   And incidentally,  you made some
earlier comments concerning the EPA and how  it  was  administering the  law.  I
think therefore, for the record I would say  that EPA does  not  write the laws
of this land.  We did not write the Noise  Control Act.   The  Congress  wrote  the
Noise Control Act and they mandated us to  do certain things  under that Act.

         And I think that if you, as  a manufacturers'  representative  or
manufacturers' association representative, feels like  the  law  is  not  working
properly or needs modification, then  I think that  should be  made known to the
Congress.  We interpret the law and we try to carry out those mandates,
because as public officials we now can as  a  matter  of  fact be  dragged  into
courts and sued for not implementing  the law of  the land —  let me get back to
this comment.
                                       169

-------
         The law says that the FM cannot in fact  issue  a  certificate,  a  new
type certificate unless a noise regulation exists  for  it,  and  since  noise
regulations do not exist for dirigibles and gliders  and  frisbees  —  Is  that
the correct term?  Frisbees?  You can tell how  old I am  already — then in
fact the FAA has to make a determination that the  best available  technology
has been incorporated.  That is the  law of the  land  the  the  FAA has  to
administer that law just like we do  ours.

         But I want to make sure that the question and inference  that I drew
from your comment is clearly understood because  in effect, what you  are saying
is that the FAA had determined that  when in fact technology  is available  which
would make it possible for the manufacturers to  certify  a  noise level lower
than what is required by the Noise Control Act,  and  that they  in  fact are the
certified noise levels.

         I think that is terribly important because  I  have not been  aware of
that and I don't know who else has been aware of it  on this  floor.   I just
assumed that all that the manufacturer had to do,  like he  does with  any other
noise regulation, is show compliance with the maximum  noise  level specified by
the regulation.  But apparently the  General Council  of FAA has made  a further
determination as a result of Section 7 of the Noise  Control  Act that in fact
the FAA can require airplanes to demonstrate that  they are capable of lower
noise levels.  I think that is terribly important, because I think you  should
be commended for that, Stan.  And I  think that  all these people should  be
aware of that.

         MR. GREEN:  I think it did  shock a number of  people.  We got
letters.  I say we, individual companies got letters asking  have  you met  the
best noise technology available.  Now, it was a qualified  quote available
unquote, because it does get into the economic  reasonableness  and
technological practicalities.

         In one case of an airplane  that I am aware  of —  it was  a  light  twin
— the company had to go through their analysis  where  they were balancing two
different engines.  They chose the straight shaft  engine which their analysis
showed that because of economics were available, and the weight of  the
airplane ~ the other engine weighed about 60 pounds more, which  they couldn't
take, both were approximately the same horsepower  in the sense the  gear engine
was a higher horsepower but they could have derated  it.

         They showed why they chose  that other  engine.   They went through an
analysis of why they picked the particular  length  prop and,  frankly, that prop
cost them a little bit in the sense  of performance of  the  airplane,  but they
felt it was not critical and the difference as  far as  they were concerned was
3 dB.  The airplane came in 7 dB and gained a  little performance, but they
felt the 3 dB was worth more than performance and  they made  an analysis,
passed it on to the FAA and they accepted it.   This  goes on  all the  time.
Sometimes it does not get as formally recited as I just  did  right now.

         And the FAA guys are sitting there with the company,  going  through a
debate in a sense of why this versus that, but  these are all economic as  well
as legal factors within the company.  Right now, performace  is a  fine thing in
the airplane and everybody likes the airplane to go fast and far  and carry a
lot of payload, but we do not have umlimited range there in  the sense of


                                       170

-------
picking all these parameters.  We have just thrown  another  parameter in  there
and that is noise and we balance  it  against the  range  of the airplane,  the
weight of the airplane, like we do in any  other  aspect of it.

         Fuel consumption, of course, is another issue.

         MR. SCHETTINO:  I will sit  down.  Some  other  questions can be  asked
but I wondered if the FAA representative,  whether he  can answer that the FAA
— I set the timer for my question and it  went off  some while  ago ~ whether
the FAA is making a similar  interpretation for transport category aircraft?
Can we interpret the General Council's instructions to the  regions to apply to
all classes?

         MR. GREEN:  Actually, I  address this to Mr.  Elkins or to you,  John
Wesler, I don't care who.  But I  think there  is  a role that the EPA ought to
be involved in more and I will try to hit  it  briefly.

         I do not think it is accomplishing any  real  work,  at  least I haven't
seen any or do not know of anybody that  has really seen any or do not know of
anybody that has really seen enough  of this work and  I went back to the levels
document and all of the other reports that were  issued at the  time.

         I am sure I do not  agree with everything that was  in  them but  I don't
think anybody, including some of  the people in EPA, agree with everything in
them.  I think we need to do some more work.  I  think  you guys need to  do some
more work and I think under  the authority  of  the Act  you have  got the right to
do it in a broad sense, as my remarks said.

         Perhaps there need  to be a  change in the Noise Control Act.  I  think
I said that some way you had to get  out  of the regulation writing business,
which I think I somewhat —

         MR. CHARLES ELKINS:  We  hadn't  boasted  that  one as being eminently
successful.

         MR. GREEN:  But there is a  tremendous amount of work  in psycho-
acoustics that needs to be done.  Here we  are talking about level of 65 Ldn as
being acceptable and one of  the documents  on  the noise standards says — and I
have it quoted in my pitch tomorrow  that 65 is a reasonable level for airport
areas.  That is fine and dandy.   It  is not bringing any credence with any of
the people in some of the communities though.

         Maybe in some areas we have got to have some different standards.  We
have got to define better what is annoying people and perhaps  tailor the
concept to them.  I was advocating a national system,  but not the same levels
and the same requirements at every airport in the United States.

         I believe we are going to need  to give  local  requirements but they
have to come from a national base of expertise and knowledge and there is
where I think EPA ought to be developing this psychoacoustics  and acoustic
knowledge, so we can apply this to the local  community, recognizing that,
okay, never mind that they took the  Federal dowry and benefited from it
locally and now they let the houses  move up to the boarder, which gets  the
airport and aviation people  upset.   It is  there  and we cannot  get rid of the


                                       171

-------
people.  So what can we do at that  airport?   We  don't  know  enough  about the
total picture of aviation noise  and  local  traffic  noise  and the mix of the two
at any local situation that we can  apply to  the  airport  in  any way that makes
sense to the local population.

         You know, we keep accusing  or  recognizing,  I  should say,  that we are
talking among ourselves here.  You  understand acoustics  and the airplane
business — you have been in  it  --  and  others do,  but  try to explain what an
engine rpm and prop size does.   It  is a noise to a local  resident.  All he
hears is noise.  He does not  care how you  do it  or where  you do it or what you
are capable of doing.  We have got  to reach  these  people.

         MR. ELKINS:  Let me  see if  I can  for the  record, answer a couple of
your questions.  First, let me start by saying that  the  levels document has
been notoriously misinterpreted  in  this country.  The  levels document is not a
regulation nor is  it a standard.  It satisfies the requirement of  the Noise
Control Act, which says the EPA  shall determine  and  establish the  levels of
noise requisite to protecting the health and welfare of  the nation with an
adequate margin of safety.  Arid  that is what we  attempted to do.

         There is a big caveat,  as  everyone  here probably knows, right at the
beginning of that document that  says:   this  is not a standard; this is not a
regulation.  There has been no attempt  to  quantify the economic impact of any
of these levels.   It is a recitation of what the EPA considers to  be the
levels of noise requisite to  protecting your public  health  and welfare with an
adequate margin of safety.

         I think that the low boundary  was established on the basis that that
was probably the threshold level  below  which there were  no  known adverse
consequences to noise environment or to noise exposure.   And the upper limit
was based on the meager knowledge that  we  had at that  time  on hearing
impairment, for the effects of noise on hearing.

         Now, you  are correct that  we have not attempted  any way to break down
what happens between Ldn 55 and  Ldn  75  or  greater, except that based upon the
extensive work that has been  done in the aviation  community, for which they
should be commended.  Again,  for the record, they  had  established  that
apparently Ldn 65  is about the threshold that you  can  expect organized
complaints about aviation noise. That  has since been  confirmed with highway
noise also, that you get about the  same results.

         There is  a need, without question,  to refine  the data as  to what
occurs between Ldn 55 and Ldn 75 in terms  of the public's perception with the
noise environment.

         I think that need, however, Stan, if I  might, on the record state for
you that the noise is so dominant right now that we are not really worried.  I
mean, I would be delighted if I  could point a way  to achieve an Ldn 65 around
commercial carrier airports  in this country.  I  cannot see  a way within the
next 20, 30 years  and it may  not be possible in  the next 150 years, short of
shutting down the major airports in this country which I can assure you that
EPA is not going to recommend, at least not as long as I am responsible for
aviation noise.
                                       172

-------
non
as
         But I don't believe we need to worry about that because I would like
to be able to say that the aviation community which includes the Federal
Government, state government, manufacturers — can at least hold out the
promise to those people that are presently being exposed to levels of Ldn 75
or greater that they can look for relief through our actions because I think
that is a terrible indictment upon our community to allow that to continue.

         And it exists.  I mean, we all know in this room that it exists.
Now, when you get to this general aviation area, we do not know enough about
what is the general aviation situation.  That is the reason for this
conference.  We wanted to hear from experts, the people who are dealing with
the problem on an everyday basis as to what do they do.

         I mean, I would be delighted to be able to tell my boss that I think
that Federal involvement is really not necessary at this point, except perhaps
in an advisory role to make information available, to act as a catalyst; you
bring groups like that together around the country and we may very well
determine from this conference that that is in fact the best course of action
for the Federal Government at this point.

         So, we did not come here with any preconceived notion that there was
a problem.  We did start some work however; as a result of the FAA's
   prescription notification to us on our small propeller-driven rig because,
   Lucie reminded us, the nonprescription notification was based upon an
inadequate showing on the part of EPA that general aviation which of course
the small prop rig is, what it was directed at primarily, was in fact, a
problem.

         MR. SCHETTINO:  They did not say anything beyond that.  As a matter
of fact, they made a commitment that they would look into that themselves and
as a consequence of our being unable to determine that they had done anything
like that, we have initiated at least two pieces of work that I earlier
identified for you and which again I am sure you are aware of, as are others
in this room.

         We are taking a look out into the future to see what is the general
aviation situation, just as we have done with commercial carrier aircraft.  We
have taken a look out into the future to see what we can expect.  Now out of
that study -- which incidentally was awarded to Bolt, Beranek and Newman and
was a result of competitive procurement where we had a number of companies
compete —  we hope to get a better handle on what these 14,000 airports are,
or whatever that number is, and what can be expected in the future as those
things change.

         So, that is one piece of work we are doing.  The second piece of work
we are doing deals with the very issue that you have raised, health and
welfare.  And as I indicated yesterday, your science advisory group has for
over a year now been involved in a study to determine what are the appropriate
criteria to be used in evaluating general aviation exposures, noise exposures
and I would fully expect that Elkins expects to have a public dialogue take
place as we did with the levels so we can get the benefit of the experts in
this country who deal with what psychoacoustics is, because we certainly are
not experts.
                                       173

-------
         We do not even have the tools to use  to  claim  any expertise in  that
area.  So we hope that answers your question  in a way on  the  general subject
of health and welfare.  I think Elkins stated  to  you that he  is  getting  very
concerned about the health  aspects of noise,  because there seems to be a body
of evidence developing that noise in fact may  be  responsible  for some very
serious health problems.

         He is spending a considerable amount  of  time and budget on that
subject and most of that has been the result  of the Congressional  mandates and
the reauthorization acts pending now for the  Noise Control Act.

         I believe that those budgets carry several million dollars to do that
kind of work.  So, it will  get done because the Congress  has  mandated that it
get done and so I hope we will have some additional information  on health and
welfare.

         OR. BRAGDON:  All  right.  Lew has been standing  here so we will let
him speak.

         fft. GOODFRIEND:  My name is Lewis Goodfriend.   I think  that John has
entered the accusation about EPA and its scientific basis for knowing the
effects of noise on people.  They are working  in  that area.  They are getting
help in that area but I think that I should say one word  in defense of the
scientific acoustics or psychoacoustics community.

         A lot is known on  the effects of noise on people. Behavior response
may be something a little different and it is  the same  problem.   If we knew
the answer as to why people respond in a particular way to a  noise, I think
that we would also understand why people went  out and bought  a particular fast
food chain.  I don't believe it is so simple  that you can look at the
psychoacoustic response to  noise level.

         I said this morning and I am convinced from everything  I  have heard
— I refer to Andy Harris1  papers — that is  no simple  functional  relationship
between noise levels, frequency of occurrence, and human  response.  It is a
very complex area.  Noise is one stressor in  a human experience  for each
individual and that individual's response is  going to be  governed by his
entire history up until the moment that he responds.

         And I don't see that even with the help  that EPA is  going to get,
that we are going to be able to produce that  answer that  you  appear to allude
to.  Now, maybe you were merely attempting to  get EPA's attention but I  wanted
to stress the point that a  great deal is known about the  physiological
response and psychological  response to noise  of various types, various levels,
doing various things with various psychoabrasive  units.

         That to me is not  the problem and not the problem EPA faces, not the
problem the scientific community faces.  It really boils  down to a political
problem.  One of the things I predicted about  the EPA petition to the Federal
Aviation Administration, I  believe if that were adequate  or made into a
regulation it would destroy the potential for  local municipalities to properly
zone and control aircraft noise or aircraft operations  of any kind at
airports, general aviation  airports within their  communities.
                                       174

-------
         DR. 8RAGDON:  I know we are getting close  to  the  end.   Some  people
have to leave.  I have a question I want  to ask of  Herman,  because  it came out
earlier, and that is the whole question of political accountability for
decisions that planners make in concern with public participation.

         Some points have been made by some speakers during the  dialogue  about
what happens when the best, quote unquote, land use plan  is developed.   It
seems like the politican or at least the  political  community does  not always
or have very rarely or to some extent in  between  those two do not  respond or
try to make those political changes necessary  to  insure that he  is  reelected.
My concern is what role do you feel this  politician has,  particularly in  terms
of long-range planning?  It seems like comments yesterday  were that the
politician is concerned about getting elected  for his  next term  and long-range
issues are not issues on which the politician  can get  elected; therefore, the
issue of airport planning, which is a more long-term thing, may  not be that
attractive.

         What would be your general comments about  that from a political
perspective?

         MR. BARNARD:  Dr. Bragdon, it is clear that  a lot of politicians ~
maybe I am one of them — cannot see beyond or cannot  plan beyond  the next
election; however, I think that some politicians  do go beyond their next
election.  I think there is some planning being done that  is meaningful.

         Some governments lean on their planners  and  their administration to
lead and to carry out work on the public  and may  be excusing the position that
you might have in saying, you know, the best  information  we can  get from
professional planners  is that this  is the right way to go.  That will get you
by the citizens' complaints — but you cannot  always  get  by the citizens'
complaints, and the democracy we  live  in  says  that  the public determines  the
routes the government  takes and I subscribe to this and I have for the
eighteen years I have  been involved  in this position  and  I intend to
continue.  You have just about got  to  do  that.

         In College Park's case, where  it has  —  But,  yes; we do respond to
good planning.  Good planning is  necessary.  However,  in  College Park's case,
I have to admit that we have not  done  so  to  any great  extent because, as I
mentioned, our city was planned and  developed  and zoned and it is not a matter
of good zoning in College Park.  The zoning was  there  before the jet aircraft
was, so it  is a matter now of rezoning, and you  have  got  to tell people that.
You have got to get out, get out of the way  of good planning and that is just
hard to do.   I do confess I do not  subscribe to this  too  much.  As I  said
earlier, there has got to be a balance,  I believe,  of  not only moving the
people away from the noise but you  have  got  to do some of both.   You have got
to move the noise away from the people  some.

         MR. CAMPANELLA:  I will  preface  my  remarks with  the fact that we are
supposed to be doing land planning, yet we  are talking a  lot about aircraft.
But I think that is  good because  it  puts  the whole  thing  in perspective for
those of us here to show that planning  is the  necessity because the aircraft
can be quiet, but we are showing  it  cannot  always be  quiet and put things in
perspective for us to  plan the so-called  airport  of the future.
                                        175

-------
         The propeller technology was mentioned  before,  that  there  are  large
props available which cause the  aircraft  to  fly  quietly,  so forth.   I  spent
four years — I quess almost a year on  and off —  studying this,  both
informally as a paper published, and also formally as  a  student for FAA.   So,
I feel that I have learned alot  about propeller  application as  it were,  not
design but application.   It is true the larger ones can  be used.  They  call
for usually gear  incorporation and this gearing  costs  a  lot.  This  is the main
barrier toward their being implemented;  yet,  if  they are feasible,  why  are
they not being applied more freely?

         My conclusion in the study for the  FAA, with  the sense that it  is
within the state  of the art because of  economic  motivations,  which  is just
going to be slow  in coming.  I was pleased to hear your  comments  and that you
have essentially  applied  these ideas; that  is, they brought the levels  down to
lower levels than the nominal 80 that was required for those  propeller
aircraft.

         The Dash-7 was mentioned as a  very  quiet  aircraft, so  there are
technological ways to achieve a  propeller aircraft to  be extremely  quiet, but
they are not practical because of the cost  involved.   The exceptions to  that
rule are the exceptions that are being  implemented and we should  be thankful
that the exceptions are being implemented.

         A comment on standards  and limits.   There is  a  little  bit  of a  word
game going on here.  To one person a standard is a way to do  something;  to
another person a  standard is a limit that it  cannot exceed, and to  a third
person it may be  something else.  The standard may be  how you measure it  but
the limit is the  number in mind  here.

         As you and others pointed out,  there is an absolute  limit  and  there
is a desired limit and we should never  confuse the two because  when a number
goes into the FAA, FAR 36, that  is an absolute  limit.  I think  we ought  to be
aware of that fact and that actually the  limit cannot  be set  at the desired
level because you have a Mexican standoff.   It will not  work.  It cannot  be
done, so we have  to keep that in perspective  when  anyone criticizes it.
Remember, these are the absolute limits for  everybody  to meet.   Desired  limits
might be stated but they  probably will  not be stated in  the standard.   They
will be stated somewhere  else in other  literature, like  levels  document is a
good place to state the desirable levels.

         On touch-and-goes it is true they are noisy.  I am tickled to  hear
that things like  the Cessna 152  and others  are now much  lower and therefore
were more acceptable trainers because that helps both  the conversation  in the
cockpit between the student and  the instructor as  well as the community.   At
Ohio State University, where I am associated  now,  they are experimenting  at
great lengths with synthetic trainers,  which  you used  to call the Link
Trainer, to train students even  though  pre-solo  level  of confidence, not  that
they finish the training there but they start it there.   I myself got my
instrument rating in a simulator it was an experimental  program in  1966,  where
I took 20 hours in the simulator, 20 hours  in the  air  and I got my  instrument
rating like that  instead  of 40 in the air.

         I learned a great many  things  from  my  instructor, that is  a good
place to introduce procedures but you cannot  really finish them because the
                                        176

-------
flight environment is different than the ground  environment,  but  there  is  50
percent reduction in operations and that is  an  important  fact.  The  fuel
shortage is going to add fuel to that  situation  there  since there will  be  less
flight per pilot training as time goes  on.

         My last comment is about Ldn  65,  and we have  said  it more than once
here.  It is not a desired level.  It  is an  absolute  limit  where  anybody who
builds a house in Ldn 65 is a fool.  Okay?   In  other words,  it  is a  limit  of
that type and it is supplied for the instructor's use  and it  is successful and
I am all for it.

         Finally, Ldn 55 is what I felt to be a  threshold of  concern.   Below
that there would not be any objections; above it,  I  guess that  you —

         MR. GREEN:  Just a quick comment.   I think  I  would  like  to  make two
comments actually.  In the Santa Monica trial,  the city's noise expert,
psychoacoustics expert, repeatedly referred  to  the EPA standard of 55  Ldn.
This is the basis for their latest effort, is to admit the EPA  standards of 55
Ldn.

         The second comment I have --  and  this  is one  I wish  EPA  would  get
involved in, in the sense of doing some work.   In a  speech  that I made  about a
year and a half ago to a group of engineers,  I  went  through  the following
soliloquy and I will be quick about it.  It  rained on  Saturday.  Sunday
morning it dawned bright and sunny and  it  dawned on  the student pilots  and
instructors being filed out to the aircraft,  starting  their  engines  and taking
off on a program of patterend flying.   The cows  and  the chickens  hadn't
wakened yet; the trucks and the tractors and  other farm machinery hadn't fired
up and the impact on the local ambient  noise  level of  about 35  was rather
significant.  These airplanes came in  at about  50, 55  dB, but it  sure  as hell
woke me up that day — I was out there  on  the farm and it is  an issue,  it  is a
real problem.

         We had reached the bottom of  our  technological capability with that
airplane at 55 but we were an obtrusive noise and this is a very  serious
problem.  We have talked enough about  touch-and-goes  here to  recognize that it
is the repetitiveness and the fact that it does  get  to you.   We have got a
problem.  I think we have got to do some more basic  research  on the  thing.

         MR. TYLER:  I just wanted to  comment on Stan's comment about  the  EPA
and their recommendations to the fact  that in 1972 the Congress was  very
anxious to have EPA look over what the FAA was  doing from the standpoint of a
whole list of things which were spelled out  in  the law and he gave his
response.  And in connection with the  limits  proposed, they analyzed the
economics the practicality and all the  way down  probably.  If you remember,
each document was about that thick and  you and  I both  testified at the
hearings on those.

         Having spent about 30 years with  a  manufacturer  I  am a little  bit
embarressed, Stan, at having a manufacturer  sort of  say,  well,  gee whiz, we do
not want anybody else coming in and telling  us  we ought to lower  our noise
levels if they can be lowered.
                                        177

-------
         Now, in addition to that — which  is  sort  of  something  that I  have
heard echoed here from quite a few people at  this conference  who reacted after
your statement, your opening statement,  one other factor  I  think was very
important  in the EPA recommendation and  it  had to do with the timing of the
proposed noise regulations.

         As you are well aware, when the '69  regulation was promulgated it
covered aircraft certified back in 1966.  It  covered all  the  wide bodies,
including  the 747 which had been certified  in  '65 and  it  more or less put an
umbrella over the technology which was available  in '65,  '66.

         It did not say, look boys, sharpen up your pencils and  your next
generation of aircraft, try to do something better. Now, when the EPA  came
out with their comments and the proposed regulations,  they  looked at current
technology which was available to be implemented  immediately,  technology which
had been demonstrated in the research phase which could be  implemented  five
years later, and said to the FAA:  Look,  take  a look at the technology  which
is so-called future technology but has been demonstrated, we  know it could be
implemented.  Tell the manufacturers in  your  next generation  of  aircraft to
try to implement these things too.  Yet,  they  did not  do  that when they
brought out the regulation in '77.

         I think that is a point that is very  important.  It  is  a question of
what comes first, the chicken or the egg.   Do  you certify aircraft because
they have  been designed and built this way, or do you  tell  the manufacturers:
Look, technology exists to do a little bit  better;  see if you can implement
this.  Thank you.
                                       178

-------
                                 HORNING SESSION


October 5,  1979                                              9:00 o'clock,  a.m.


         DR. BRAGDON:  Good morning.  This morning we  are  going to  change  the
scene to deal with some of the economic  influences that many times  shape
decision processes about airports.  We  have  been  focusing  in on a variety  of
other factors, much from the public sector and  the regulatory responsibilities
but to begin with this morning we are going  to  be looking  at how the  economic
market, playing its various roles, has  a  lot to do with decisions around
airports and what impacts they may cause, positive as  well  as negative.

         We have a lot of very good speakers, the first of which  is Richard
Forbes.  Mr. Forbes is a professor of real estate at Georgia State
University.  Professor Forbes will discuss The  Role of the Real Estate
Industry and the General Aviation Airport Land  Use Compatibility Plan.

         MR. RICHARD FORBES:  Thank you,  Clifford,  Good morning, folks.   This
topic and the way the words go together  made me worry  a little bit  about how
do I define the subject, and I began to  get  a handle on what is general
aviation airport land use compatibility  planning.  Then I  began to  try to
think about what have representatives of  the real  estate  industry really done
as they have seen general aviation airports  develop.   And  one has to  conclude
that probably the real estate industry  has not  participated in the  planning
function, and it is not possible to, as  the  American Heritage Dictionary of
English Language says, to, quote, state  the  precise meaning of a phrase, word
or term because we do not have much background  to go on.

         The real estate representatives  in  the front  end  of the whole
business of the changing custom dynamics  in  the general aviation arena really
leave something to be desired.  The real  estate industry,  I think you will
find if you look at and recall your own  experiences, look  at what
representatives of the real estate industry  may have done,  you may  have a
narrow notion of what we in real estate  think is  an arena.

         We really have not done as much  as  one might  prefer. Certainly,  the
real estate industry has worked  in response, and  Dr. Bragdon's presentation on
Wednesday I think outlined this and showed the  many places, in terms  of
general aviation airport implementation  measures, that we  have seen fine
representation and fine response from members of  the real  estate  industry.
They have responded basically to the public  investment, to the private
investments, the action at the general  aviation airport.   But they  have
responded I think too much, far too much after  the fact.

         When I was talking with Cliff  about this conference and the  kind  of
approach that was going to be taken, I  came  upon  an example that  sort of
disturbed me of the kind of response the real estate industry is sometimes
likely to make to an issue.  Dr. Bragdon  tried  to get  somebody from the
National Association of Realtors, among  others.  He was not able to get a
representative of the national representative group as the spokesperson for
the real estate industry.
                                       179

-------
         Now there would be many people who  could  speak  for  the real  estate
industry and there are many organizations that  could  speak for  the real  estate
industry, and yet these national organizations  do  not respond,  which  is  kind
of symbolic of the problems that we may have here.  We may have some  of  the
communication problem.

         So, I have an interesting task here of trying to point out ways that
the industry I suppose can be  induced  or  encouraged to get in  on this
front-end action and to remain  in on the  action of the planning.  I think
there are many advantages to this because the industry is not  just the real
estate broker.  The industry is not just  the agent, whether  the agent be
working in a private arena, as  a public land acquirer, a land  agent.   The real
estate industry includes a great many  kinds  of  activities and  a great many
kinds of organizations, all sorts of wrapped up and loosely  held together by
what we call the real estate industry.

         We talk about appraisers, we  talk about bankers ~  we will hear about
them in a little while.  We can talk about developers.  We have agents and
brokers who are highly creative individuals  who specialize  in  the development
of very unique kinds of products in the real estate  industry and for  the
market generally.

         We have people in the  industry who  can respond  in a planning
circumstance and can respond in a very creative way.   And one  of the
interesting things about real  estate is that we find  this wide range  of
individuals who are, in many cases, people who  enjoy  playing the game for the
high stakes involved.  The rewards for successful  enterprise in real  estate
are simply enormous, and this  kind of  spirt  can be captured, I think, and put
to work at the front end and through the  process of planning and developing
the general aviation activities around which real  estate can be meaningful.

         We do more than just  buy and  sell  land.  We  do  more than help to sell
the land around the airport or  to buy  the expansion  area for the land around
the airport.  We can do this in a very positive fashion  as well as in the
negative fashion.  One of the  things I am sure  we  have all experienced is the
problem of the airport and its  neighbors  which  has been  messed up by  the real
estate industry, by someone who misunderstands, who does not really care, who
sees an opportunity and who moves to kind of mess  up  some future opportunities
at the airport for the airport  itself.

         We can respond even when not  wanted, and  we  can be  speculators.  We
can go in and take a few dollars and leverage it into quite  a  handsome reward
to the derogation of general aviation  activity, but that is  not the only thing
that can be done.  We can respond in this front end  and  there  are some fine
examples of response at the planning end  and the development end.

         We can continue in this arena but we have got to be asked, and I am
not sure how many times some of these  creative  individuals  in  the real estate
industry have in fact been asked by general  aviation  airport operators or any
of the others, proprietors of  these airports.

         How many times in your recollection and your experience have you
found someone or have you ever  asked somebody from the real  estate industry,
                                       180

-------
other  than  the  broker who might be able to bail  you out of a problem,  to come
in at  the front end to give some of these reponses and creative ideas  as
things are  being put together?  Airport planning is really a sort of quiet
activity, I think,  as far as most people are concerned, as far as most people
in real  estate  are  concerned.  They know it is there.  They know that  there is
something about the increase in traffic in the area.

         They know  that traffic is going to be moved if possible from
Hartsfield  to some  of the general aviation airports.  They may suspect there
is an  opportunity.   They may not know how to define it.  They certainly do not
know how to define  it or to be positive and helpful if they have not been
really well informed.  It is very difficult sometimes to be aggressive and
collect that kind of information early.

         Now, the advantages have to be spelled out to the representatives of
the real estate industry, probably very forcefully, but I think you will find
these kinds of  people and you have go to pick the right kinds, obviously, and
we can talk about who they are in a moment.  But you have got to find these
highly creative, responsible people.

         Now what can they do for you?  Well, if you think about some of the
interesting things  in the landscape of cities and surburbs in metropolitan
areas, you  can  find a number of very important things the real estate industry
representatives have done.  I am sure you have all been exposed to office
parks — they were invented by the real estate industry.  As a matter of fact,
one interesting mention of that is that what purports to be, and I believe it
to be, the very first one in the United States was built right here in
Atlanta, not more than about half a dozen miles from where we are right now.

         It was a creation of a real estate broker who made himself completely
independent because of the success.

         Industrial parks probably were invented by  railroads, maybe, but that
is a little hard to say for sure; they certainly have a great deal of input
from the real estate  industry, and real estate types and real estate
developers have proceeded to develop them.  We have  action from the public
now, obviously, but there have been many kinds of things of that sort in many
places around the nation where because of this unique kind of creative  juice,
sometimes fouled by greed by members of the real estate  industry, by an
individual, developments were created of enormous value  in convenience  and
service to this country.

         We have some things going on today that you may be aware of that are
equally  important in terms of what can be done.  You might not be particularly
interested in the condominium arena.  We have seen  the real estate  industry
take the condominium  away from Florida and put it around the United States.
We have developed many condominium complexes of all  kinds  and  all sorts and
one would think, well, that  is a  nice way for that  arena  to go,  but now what
are we doing in the real estate  arena?  We are converting  existing  apartments
in condominiums.

         These creative real estate developers are  picking up  a  great deal of
money, shall we say,  and not right  in this particular  arena.   In some places
it is quite controversial but, nevertheless, here  is an  industry which  is
responding to another kind of an  opportunity.

                                       181

-------
         As I worried about coming and making this presentation, one of the
things that I really wanted to be concerned with was at what point and where
can the real estate industry be responsive in the general aviation arena.
Well, that is very hard to define because these individuals who respond to the
situations that are available will respond in the circumstance that is
presented at the time.  And the thing that needs to be done by the general
aviation industry and the airport operators, pilots and manufacturers, is to
give members of the real estate industry the opportunity, and these people are
the creative ones, the developers, the persons who are motivated by the
opportunity not only to make money but to be of service, to help manufacture
an opportunity for themselves, and for their communities and for their
airports — and you are talking about the whole configuration of people.

         You are talking about, as I said, real estate brokers.  You are
talking about developers.  We are talking about appraisers, mortgage bankers.
We even include planners, both private and consulting types of planners.

         We have members of the industry who are in organizations such as the
Society of Industrial Realtors, which is highly specialized in this arena.
The general aviation industry is large enough and important enough, it seems
to me, that it would not be out of the realm of possibility to see some kind
of specialization and organization in the real estate industry and relate to
it not only on a pi ace-by-place basis but on a national basis where there
might be opportunity to create some policy.

         Who knows what can be invented?  Who knows what kind of development
can be generated?  Who knows what kind of laws we might be able to pass if
there was this kind of input at a high policy level as well as the operating
level in each community at each of these airports?

         There is an enormous amount of opportunity it occurs to me, not only
for the service as I said, not only to try to bail out the problem to help
acquire more land but to enjoy this creative responsive kind of thing.  And  I
think that is the one message that I really need to leave with you this
morning.

         I might be able to talk in response to questions  all the better  if
you have specific things in mind, but I think that one of the  important parts
of this is that the industry needs to begin to  interest  the real estate
entrepreneur, this person who may think of himself as a wonderful  impresario,
and, believe me, those who do industrial parks  and office  parks are that.
Those who undertake development of large projects, whether they be apartments
or whether they be other kinds of things, are highly creative,  highly
responsive, very carefully moving people and they can be a very, very  valuable
resource.

         They will have market insight.  They will have  understandings  and
perceptions that  I think you will find extraordinary in  terms  of what  they  can
do with an  idea and with a problem.  And  I think that the  general  aviation
industry, the operators, proprietors, the  developers, pilots,  and
manufacturers have really been too much focused on those kinds  of  things  that
seem  unique to the airport and they talk mainly  to each  other  but  not  as  much
to the real estate  industry as they  should.
                                        182

-------
         I  think  maybe it might be useful  now if you could have some questions
for me to kind of discuss maybe some of these particulars.

         MR. CAMPANELLA:  My name is Angelo Campanella and I have a question.
I like this idea tremendously and I can envision it around an airport that I
am very familiar with.  Take the last mile of an ILS approach to an airport,
what can we do with it?  One of the things to do is to put a golf course in,
and that is probably a copout as far as the real estate industry is
concerned.   What is the better thing to do with it?  This is a very direct
question, I realize.

         MR. FORBES:  Well, I didn't say I was going to.

         MR. CAMPANELLA:   In the general aviation airport when you  look at the
ILS area, it is well below 65 Ldn.  It is probably  — maybe 60 times.  I would
say it  is usable for real  estate but the G.A. does  not  like to see  that happen.

         MR. FORBES:   I  am sure  I cannot really respond to  what  it  should be
because  I am not familiar  with the  situation.   I would  have a  reaction, I am
sure,  later on after  some  study  and some introspective  thought about  it.

         MR. CAMPANELLA:   Okay.

         MR. FORBES:   But  I think  if you pulled  together  the team  of  a
 developer,  some  people out of  the mortgage  finance  arena, some other  types,
 depending upon your community, you  would find that  you  would get some
 synergistic response  to the problem.

         MR.  CAMPANELLA:  What are  the ground rules?  Basically  it is
 agricultural,  right,  but what  goes  in  there must be profit-creating,  is that
 true?

         MR.  FORBES:   I think  that is  one  way to motivate people in the real
 estate industry, certainly;  but  I think you would find that,  for example,
 starting off  with  the golf course idea,  that may sound like a copout but  that
 can be a very attractive generator for other kinds of uses, not  necessarily
 residential uses.   I  do not know that there have been any golf courses
 developed  around an office park or an office park developed with it.  They may
 have a golf course but it occurs to me that that is not  so far out of the
 realm of possibility; however, that would depend upon on the terrain.  It
 would depend upon the development capability of the community.  It would
 depend upon whether or not you had an office market that had some  needs that
 might be met and whether there is  growth in the community, what the pattern of
 usage at the airport might be.

          It seems to me that the airport office park with  a golf course and
 some other kinds of uses  tied to it might be very  exciting, very attractive
 sometimes to industry.  If you have that kind of space and the  opportunity,
 that might be the  sort  of thing that you could go  to the representative of an
 industry and say,  "How  about this  kind of thing?"   And you will find a
 response forthwith.  There may be  some completely  wild ideas that  may sound
 wild but might  be  highly  successful.

          MR. CAMPANELLA:  So you are  suggesting  the brainstorming  approach?


                                         183

-------
         MR. FORBES:  That is one way of getting into the definition of the
planning issue; yes.

         MR. CAMPANELLA:  Thank you.

         MR. FORBES:  You are welcome.

         MR. JAMES THOMPSON:  We have had planning tools for use around the
airports for years.  I know the CNR (Composite Noise Rating) method was
developed way back in the 60's.  While we have had planning and the planning
could have been used, it has not been used.  One of the things that seems to
be important is the commitment on the part of the zoning authorities to accept
the plan and to try to live with it.

         We heard last night how independent the zoning authorities are.  Does
it not seem to you that an accepted plan, a plan that has been accepted by the
community, on the basis of that plan people make commitments of their own;
financial, let-living, whatever?  It seems that that plan has a level of
importance and that should not be ignored, and a good land use plan is not
complete until there is agreement with the zoning authority that they will
give appropriate and reasonable consideration to any variations of that plan
and that there should be some sort of liability.

         MR. FORBES:  That is a tough issue.  I happened to have participated
as a member of a zoning party of an Atlanta reliever airport.  We have not had
this problem but it is not very far from possible.  The Charlie Brown Airport
with its five jurisdictions  I believe, includes Atlanta.  This is a good
example I think of a place where you can run afoul of the inertia on the one
hand sometimes, with the zoning policies of the community or a group of
communities, and the dynamics of the general aviation airport on the other.

         Yet, you can see those things reverse and you can have a plan for an
airport which may not be responsive to the community as the community's needs
change.  Likewise, you can find the zoning authority willing to make an awful
lot of changes, that you do  not want to have made.  I think that some of this
is an outgrowth of the very  close kind of planning, almost closed planning
that I mentioned earlier, associated with airports.

         They  tend  to be projects and many times  I think airport operators and
developers or  public agencies, commissions, what  have you, tend to  say  —  Here
is the plan.   If we are going to get the money, we have got to have this
plan.  It has  got to be approved.   It is sometimes almost "here it  is"
circumstances.  Most governments will respond to that, most zoning
authorities, planning authorities will respond ~ and I think it might  be  put
into the zoning policy, but  it strikes me that there has not been enough
dialogue between those who  are developing the airport land  and those who  are
implementing the zoning.

         MR. THOMPSON:  The  zoning  people are not about to  adopt something
they did not have a part  in  developing.

         MR. FORBES:  Well,  there  is  a resistance to  it but there  is also  very
frequently  a willingness  to participate.  And one of the things that sometimes
                                       184

-------
happens  is  the  folks  who do the zoning are separated from the folks  doing  the
planning, or  there is not that much communication.

        MR.  JACK SWING:  I am Jack Swing with the State of California.   One
of the concepts that  one hopes to accomplish in achieving let's say noise
compatibility land use is somehow to match the land use of the people, with
their life  styles, to the noise environment.  One of the ways you try to do
that is  through this  concept of a disclosure clause, explain to people what
the noise  environment is at a given site before they buy or rent or lease.
What I would  ask you  would be to comment on is a simple mechanism for getting
this disclosure clause between, let's say, the purchaser, the buyer, the
renter,  the leaser, and the person that has the property to offer.  What is a
reasonable mechanism for getting that information transferred so that it
really means  something to the prospective buyer and they don't see it until
they close escrow and there it is all of a sudden, a footnote on their deed
and they had  never seen it, before?  Have you ever seen that?

         MR.  FORBES:   It is a matter of some difficulty because you have so
many people involved.  Many of the real estate agents  or brokers who are
operating in  the  arena  are potentially involved.

         It strikes me  that one of the best ways would be to  try to
communicate to those  individuals through  the  local real estate board  and
through them therefore  to  the person who  is buying  or  selling the real estate
product.  But  it  is a problem of very substantial  scale.  That is, the best
organization is the organization which does tend to  centralize.

         The other place where  it might  be  done would  be through --  since  not
everybody is a member of a local real estate  board  --  would  be through state
licensing procedures  and that  kind  of thing.   It  is  a  very difficult  kind  of
thing to conceive.  One way might  be  to  try to  reach  some  of the  developers
who  are in fact  doing it.  Now  there, of  course,  it  might  not be  in  their
interest to have  this kind of  disclosure.

         MR. SWING:   That  is  the general  problem  we face and we  also question
the  interest of  the  real estate  broker.   He tends  to represent both  the  buyer
and  the seller,  alternatively.

         MR. FORBES:  Well,  the broker  technically is the seller,  but I  recall
this.  As  the  aviation  industry increased its activities in  Atlanta,  I
happened to  be involved in some activities around College Park.   I  was amazed
to find pilots buying houses  virtually  under  the approach zone as they were
converting to  jets.   You  know,  these were people who were complaining.   It was
the  comnercial pilots,  the people  who were complaining in the Collge Park City
Hall  about the noise,  they were some of the people who were buying  the houses.

         MR. SWING:   Gee,  we always thought that was great compatible land
 use,  with  the  pilots around the airports (Laughter).

         MR. FORBES:   I always wondered about that.  They loved  those noises,
 I guess.

          But it is an extraordinary problem because the industry is
 representing the seller.  And one of the reasons the  industry should be


                                        185

-------
able to be at the front end of the planning is to try to get that land moved
into the kind of use that would be productive for the airport, for the
community, and not a problem for the wrong occupants, which we have done so
much.

         And this speaks to the issue of too much closed planning in the
airport projects and not enough planning that would extend into the community
- and one part of the community is the real estate industry.  So, I think the
real estate board is probably the best route for the home builders, that kind
of group.

         MR. SWING:  Thank you.

         DR. BRAGDON:  Thank you Dick.  Our second speaker is James Scott who
is President of Scott Appraisal Services.  The whole field of appraising, and
its relationship to general aviation planning, is extremely important.  I
think this is one of those elements in the matrix we talked about the first
day that is many times overlooked by the aviation community and planning
community, and I think this subject is a very critical one to all those here
today.  James Scott.

         MR. JAMES F. SCOTT:  Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  After that
introduction and a few kind words about appraisers, it makes me feel a little
bit better about appraisers, it makes me feel a little bit better about many
of the unpleasant experiences I have had testifying in courts, especially in
areas of condemnation in the vicinities of airports.

         The comment about commercial pilots complaining about noise was
interesting to me because I have testified as to values concerning properties
where people had not only bought a piece of land directly under the flight
pattern but moved in and in less than a year complained about the noise.  I
think that is probably a caveat emptor.  They know the noise  is there, they
buy it with full knowledge.  I have sympathy with them but not to the extent I
should.

         Also, I think perhaps that one of the reasons the concepts of values
have changed, I think, is because airports and aviation have  changed a little
bit from the era of romance now into a pure industry.  For the commercial
pilot again to complain  about the noise he probably said ~ and  I don't know
but I am assuming this is what he said because I have heard them before:  The
reciprocating engines just weren't that bad.  We could put up with  it.   It was
noisy but the noise  levels were different, the peak sound did not  last as long
and we were used to  it.

         But I ask you,  ladies and gentlemen, where  in the hell were  these
pilots when jets came out during World War  II and the transition was  taking
place?   It  is like  the person  who builds  a  single-family house adjoining
almost any major highway and  sets  it back forty feet  because  that  is  all  it
requires  arid that  is  all the  driveway he  wants and  them complains  rapidly as
the  traffic  increases  and the  noise  increases and  he  feels  he is  upset by what
is  going  on.

          I feel  that  many of  these people know the problems they are  getting
into but for many  reasons of  their own they  have  chosen this  and  then  suddenly
                                       186

-------
realize what is going on.  Part of it perhaps is the romance is gone, the
blush has gone off the rose a little bit and now we are talking about real
industry.

         My assigned subject originally was in financing and lending.  Well,
lenders will lend on anything that has value and anything that has security
and to the borrower who can reasonably prove that he is going to be able to
pay it back.  So I think we can take that concept towards the lender and
almost dispense with it at this point because a lender will, as I said, lend
on anything that has value and lend to a borrower who has the ability to pay
it back.

         Let's look at it from an appraisal point of view and I will go back
briefly  and tell you why I am so interested  in real estate  and why I am so
interested  in appraising and in aviation and in airports.   I was I think  about
five years old when my father bought a farm  in late 1928 and paid a very  large
price for it.  We moved out in the country so about the first thing  I remember
is the conversations of plummeting values.  Milk had gone from something  like
$2.00 a  hundred down to something like five cents a hundred, almost
overnight.  So you searched rapidly and drastically for ways of creating  value
and I can remember we logged off the land.

         We leased hunting rights.  We  leased fishing rights.  We gave rights
for people  to go down and gather reeds  to make baskets  out  of.  We raised
every crop  available.  We ate the things that we shot.  We  trapped everything
that was fur-bearing that you could sell.  And this  is  the  type of thing  you
do.  And you  lease additional  land for  a crop that  can  produce something  or
you  lease  land out to somebody who can  make  it more  productive than  you can.

         So what you are  looking for  is  something that  will produce  value.  As
far  as  aviation  is concerned,  I was fortunate enough  to be  qualified as  an
aviation cadet for the U.S. Air Corps  and  all those  things  they  say  about not
volunteering, of course,  are  always true --  you  all  know that.   Because  of  my
size,  if you  are over five  ten they  automatically  said  you  were  a  bomber
pilot.   So  I  volunteered  for  everything,  including  the  bombers,  hoping that I
would  not  get  into the bombers.

         And  the day of  graduation  I was delighted  to hear  them say  we have a
few  open assignments.  We are asking  for seventeen  pilots  to go  to a special
twin-engine fighter  project.   So  I  stuck my hand right  straight  through  the
top  of  the  hangar  and  I  was one  of  the  first to be  accepted.

          I  sat  there for a week  and I  got  ten days leave and by the time I got
home I  was  sent  to  navigation school.   Now I got suspicious.  You do not do
too  much in navigation,  especially  celestial navigation,  and without telling
me what I  was  doing,  the next thing I  knew I was sent about six weeks later to
Pensacola.

          I  went  back to basic flight school and learned to fly the PBY.   Now,
 a PBY  is a long  way from twin-engine fighters but I got an appreciation of
real estate of all  types, of how important a good ramp  is,  how important a
good beach is for  beaching.  You learn to sail  the things as well as to fly
 them.
                                        187

-------
         And I was  in rescue  in  the  Pacific  and  in  the Pacific,  during any
kind of a conflict, you  learn a  different  kind of appreciation for real
estate, real estate that you  can manage  to get hold of and protect and have it
do something for you.

         So, I got  into  real  estate  brokerage and then into real estate
appraisal, in the State  of Florida first,  and worked for  a firm that appraised
for revaluation for  large municipalities  for tax purposes.  There I got a
good feeling about airports.  One of the airports we appraised,  in and around
the airports at that  time, was the Fort  Lauderdale  Airport.

         I moved from there to Rochester,  New York  and was there for about two
years and during the  time I was  there I  did  a study on Rochester Airport and
Buffalo and Syracuse, and a lot  of it was  in connection with a land use  plan
and a reorganization  of  the land of  Rochester, New  York near the county
airport.  And I found that what  they had been doing for years ~ and they are
finding how in a series  of studies on the  west coast — is that the value has
been placed in the past  on primarily two things.

         One is what  did it cost us?  We will try to get  some money back out
of it; lease or buy land on the  airport  and  around  the airport and arbitrarily
— Of course, you cannot help but see that the possibilities of political
implications would sneak into something  like that because a board could
arbitrarily set up what  is the value of  land on  the airport or adjoining the
airport if the municipality owned it. That  has  been going on for years.

         And I found  one instance where  one  politically-favored group has one
hangar, about 15,000  square feet.  They  also had  about 10,000 square feet of
office space for which they paid the magnificant  sum of $175.00 a year.

         Now, the lease  from  the one hangar  alone pays the entire rent.   They
had a great deal of land and  ramp space  facing them.  Of  course, now they have
changed and they have recently had a reappraisal  of the entire land on and
around the airport.   The company that bought my  firm out  when I left recently
completed it.

         Let me talk  about a  few things  that have happened around the country
and how rapidly land  goes, for what  it is  used and  how you really just cannot
plan enough about land in advance.

         Let us talk  about Memphis.   I have  flown into Memphis quite a few
times, nice airport.  They have  a fantastically  good industrial park around
there, if you have ever  been  over there.  I  have  appraised several large
properties over there, including the sort-of  illfated Admiral plant that sold
five times I think  in six years.  I  was  referred  to Doug  Buttry over there,
who is with Federal Express,  not to  anyone at the airport because they said he
is involved in real estate and we are referring  you to him because they  have
just acquired ninety-five percent of the available  industrial land in the
vicinity of the airport  over  which we have control.

         So I talked with Doug about it  and, of  course, that airport is
expanding rapidly, partly because of deregulation and partly because of  the
                                       188

-------
increased emphasis on air travel but a great deal because of the Federal
Express itself.   They have a fleet right now of twelve 727's, thirty-two Fan
Jets,  and varying between ten and sixteen small aircraft that they use.  They
just bought thirty-seven 727/100's and they expect to have between fifty and
sixty 727's in the next four years.

         Now Federal  Express, who handles only small, high-priority,
time-sensitive packages, is moving 75,000 units a night through Memphis
International Airport and they have no idea of what it is going to expand to
except they are attempting now to expand through not just flying high-priority
and time-sensitive things; they can go into air freight and air cargo and
carry passengers.  I  think with deregulation you may find some more of this
and some more discounted fares.  And you will find more use of airports
twenty-four hours a day.

         In Canada and Alaska, it is reported to us that they are carrying
freight and passengers in the same aircraft and this has been going on for
years.  As a matter of fact, that was the way the bush pilots and the small
airlines got started in Canada and Alaska.

         What he is doing up there is buying land, buying and/or leasing land
at about the same rate as they pay off-airport, about a $1.00 a square foot.
Now, that is $45,365 an acre.  The land closer in than that has a commercial
connotation.  They are paying as high as five or six or leasing on the basis
of around ten percent of that.

         In addition to this, he told me we should remember the fact that  in
certain airports and in Memphis especially, I think  it is something like $94 a
linear foot that they pay in addition to the leased  price of the land for
exposure of a building to a direct ramp or apron access, and they are paying
something like $6.00 for exposure of the building itself to the ramp.

         (Slide)  Now to give you an idea of what they are doing there  as
compared to SETAC, most of you are probably more familiar with SETAC than  I
am.   I have got quite a bit of  information  about it  and talked to the
gentleman who happened to be a good friend of mine who is doing the on-site
appraisal for SETAC.  SETAC  looks like this  in the yellow, which  is
predominantly around it and  is  single-family residences.  The brown enclosure
is medium and the light and dark brown is high-density residential, and the
gold  is office.

         The area that they  have  is some 906 acres.  They started with  this  in
1942  and they are now up  to 2,200 acres  in  1978, and this entire package,  as
they  have it envisioned here,  is up to 14,400  acres, which will bring  it up  to
the size of Dallas-Fort Worth.  They hired  the appraisal firm of Bruce  Allen.
Bruce Allen did the  appraisals for them.

         He  immediately made a  search of most  of the major  airports ~  San
Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver.  He made a  few other airports but those are
primarily the ones he went  to  -- Minneapolis-St. Paul as well.
                                        189

-------
         He found the same thing that I found out earlier; that the values
have been raised; one, by cost; two,  by an arbitrated decision by a board.
But now they are going more and more to competitive uses of the value on the
airport as competitive to those off the airport.  Of course, it goes nothing
but up.

         I think we should stop and think about an airport.  You gentlemen are
professionals that — Most people look at the airport as a quick place from
here to there.  They see a few billboards, they do not think about them.  They
drive by, hope they can find a parking place.  If they are coming out, they
try to lease a car either on or off the airport.  They know there is a bar,
restaurant, any number of other things.  But the thing that they just do not
see is that it is real estate, it is all real estate and it is worth a hell of
a lot of money and it is generating fantastic sums of money for a lot of
people.

         Of course, the biggest sums you will find is in the concession, such
as Rent-A-Car will probably pay as much as anyone else.  It is up so high now
that they bid for it and we were surprised that a consortium of small
individuals outbid one of the big four in Fort Launderdale-Hollywood
International Airport.  So they moved in; took six of them to do it.

         To give you an idea of what it is doing to land value — If you are
familiar with the Fort Lauderdale airport, as you come out of the airport onto
U.S. 1, right on the corner, right-hand side, which is a very choice piece of
real estate, is a place that used to be called Everglades-Rent-A-Car.  Now it
is Trailways-Rent-A-Car, and of course Trailways has a suit against them for
the use of the name.

         When that was purchased six years ago  it was bought lock, stock  and
barrel for $500 thousand.  We  appraised it for them on the  value of a going
concern and found out that after you take out all of the costs  incidental to
the business itself, giving a  good profit to the owner, reasonable return on
everything, good management fees, it was worth  about five  hundred seventy-five
~ which was about right because the man who sold it was in difficulties  so
you see they bought  it on a pretty good deal.  And besides that, it was one of
these  transactions in which someone from New York flew a suitcase of money
down to pay for  it,  all  1n cash.

         So that  is  highly negotiable.  He did  not have to worry about  the
financing  of the bonds.

         We recently did  an update on  this appraisal and using  exactly  the
same method we did before, the same methodology to find out what value  would
accrue back to the land,  it was  almost  $2 million.

         Now  obviously the land  is not  worth that much money.   For the  usual
purposes  it would  be probably  worth maybe $700  thousand.   But  that  does give
you an idea of what  is generated on  lands on and  next  to the airport.
Although  this was  not  part of  the  airport per se,  it was  separated  from the
airport  only  by  a  service road and a  railroad and  it was  between the  railraod
and U.S.  1.
                                       190

-------
         Another instance of what is happening to land values and uses and how
the uses are changed is down at Miami.  In Miami, across from the National
hangar on LeJeune Road, east — and I think it is 24th, 26th, along in there
— about five years ago we did an appraisal down there for the same company
and found that the land uses around there, all those older buildings extending
over to the canal, were primarily storage.  Some of it was sort of dead
storage or a few mechanic's trades going on.  Most of it was not too valuable.

         Probably twenty percent at the most was airport oriented.  If you go
down there now and drive — and incidentally, there were two automobile
agencies, rent-a-cars located in the area of perhaps within thirty blocks and
these were off the main street.  Now eight months ago there were eight
autombile rent-a-car agencies located in there.  One of them just bought
almost half an acre of land that is completely covered with buildings, most of
which is going to have to be torn down to be able to park cars adjoining the
airport.  And land values go roughly from $3.00 a square foot for land alone
back in this tier where he is now on up to $8.00 a sqare foot — and the
airport generates all of this for him.

         So the thing that we have to keep in mind is, one, airports, like
seaports before them attracted people, attracted industry, attracted
commerce.  It attracted everything, all the good and all the bad.  Canal ports
did afterwards, railroads you only have to stop and think of New York's Penn
Station and Grand Central Station.  Grand Central with the Commodore Hotel
across from it, you did not have to get very  low in the building before you
knew the trains were going through.  As a matter of fact, when you were very
sensitive you knew when the trains were going through all the time.  So this
type of thing with noise and disturbances by proximity of something that
creates noise is not new at all.

         I recall one of my uncles who lived  all his life, and just sold  it a
few years ago, who did not work for the railroad had a house that was about
eighty feet away from the mail  line of New York Central.  And in his  declining
years, of course, the New York  Central was not running as rapidly but you
could carry a conversation with him and as the train approached, he stopped.
As the noise diminished, he would continue on with his conversation as  if  it
had never occurred.  It is sort of a conditioned reflex.

         But we are getting more and more  aware of the fact that we cannot  put
up with this even  if we enjoy it.  He enjoyed watching trains.

         As a matter of fact, there is an  area here  in Atlanta which  on one
street as a matter of fact the  houses are  in  high demand because  sitting  up on
a ridge behind the houses about 300 feet  back  is where the trains go  through
and train buffs are buying them.  I do not know  of many jet  buffs buying
directly under the flight paths, but  some people are attacted to certain  areas
where others are  definitely repulsed  by them.

         But let  us  look at SETAC one more time.  After his  study  he  found  out
more and more of  them  are turning away from  cost, the  cost  as strictly  book
value.   I am not  talking about  value  — what  it  cost to acquire  it, what  cost
to build it, and  as they were  depreciating  it what  they should get  as a return
                                        191

-------
on their book value.  And he found out they are now going almost primarily to
what the competitive land value is off of the airport.

         About the only difference you will see in values on an airport and
off an airport is that they tend to make their leases based on an entirely
different rate of return, shall we say a lower rate of return.  They are
basing it on internal rate of return.

         Competitive land a few years ago, when their appraisals were first
started around there, the leased land netted around ten to eleven percent and
that covered around nine or ten percent interest and one to one and one-half
percent for taxes; whereas the airports primarily are on a bond issue basis
and their leasing land.  Recently leases were made in the SETAC area with a
return of about seven and a half to eight percent of value; whereas on the
airport now it is twelve, thirteen percent.

         So competitively, it is still a little higher but they are getting
closer and closer to it all the time.

         So the SETAC was originally appraised five years ago at that time
about $3.00 to $4.00 a square foot was the going rate.  Now this is higher
than what I have mentioned before of $1.00 and $2.00 which was a few years
ago.  This was about seven years ago.  They call this one overall value but
they considered it primarily as similar to the light industrial on which you
will find some commercial enterprises; sales, service, some sort of
warehousing and transportation type of thing going on.  That has now gone up.
It  is increasing at the rate of approximately 15 to 17 percent per year over
the last five years.

         Wondering whether or not this was a true pattern or whether this was
indicative of the airport only, they made a study of the consumer price index,
the overall price index and for the period of time and without compounding you
would see we had about fifty percent increase, comparing that to the consumer
price index and the consumer price index overall was 53 percent for the same
time.

         So it is slightly over ten  percent per year which makes it only  a
little bit less than the  airport  land.

         Now, the airport land, of course, is growing.  Everybody knows  it  is
highly  in demand.   When you announce  a plan that  is going to  expand 900  acres
up  to some $14,000  an  acre, you know there  is  a demand.  So everyone expects
that the prices are going to be going up  higher and higher.

         He found out  that  the potential  uses,  as you  are getting closer  and
closer  to the hangar-terminal  areas,  was  about  $6.00  to $8.00 a  square foot.
Now, that  is  not  commensurate  with commercial  land  as  you think  of  it  say in  a
downtown area but  it  is more than many shopping centers  are going for  in  the
area, much more.  Because you  can buy shopping  center  land  and office  park
land sometimes now  between $1.75  to  $3.50 a  square  foot  —  but they  did  not
break  it out.
                                        192

-------
         At  first they thought that they should have someone who had ramp
access directly onto a ramp pay more for rent than the man who is directly
behind it.   They have changed their theory on that now because the man who is
on the airport directly behind the ramp or on the ramp either one, if he had
to move on  the airport would probably be paying 20 to 50 cents more.

         To give you another idea of how you can tell what land values are,
especially for light industrial warehousing, moving of materials  is going up
in value.  If you would draw a circle around Hartsfield International Airport
and put it in quarter-mile increments coming away from the airport, you would
find it was probably increasing at the rate of twenty percent per quarter of a
mile because it costs money to move things.  It costs time and money to move
their cargo freight and high priority stuff, so the closer you are to your
point of departure or your point of arrival the less money you are going to
spend the more valuable your land  is and  the less your overhead and costs are,
therefore, the more valuable the land.

         So it is analagous to almost any other kind  of airport use.
Hartsfield, you are probably more  familiar with that  than you really want to
be.  It has put out some  interesting publications recently and one  of the
things that is very interesting to read  is the  issue  of the  airport facility
revenue bonds.  If you read through  this  very  carefully you  will  find what
they are doing with it and you will  find  how valuable the real estate  is  and
how desperately the need  and how rapid  the growth  is  in and  around  the  airport
itself.

         There  is no  question  about  the fact — the gentlemen's  name  I  don't
recall.  He used to speak for  General Motors.   He  said the  greatest change  in
the century was the advent  of  the  jet  airport.  It  had  great effect --  and
this  one thing  impressed  me.   About  the last thing  he said  was  it has  greater
effect on real  estate than  anything  else, any  other single  event because now
in 24 hours you can be any place  in  the world  by  commercial  aircraft.   Stop
and think,  he  said, for example  a  generation  ago  it would take college
students going for  a  ski  vacation, a week by water  and  a  day or two by rail
each  way and  it would cost a barrel  of money and  take a lot of time.

         Now for  very,  very low discounted cost fare, below $500 anybody from
the east coast can  fly to the Alps and have two fantastic days of skiing and
 be back  on  the campus in  a little over three days.

          Hartsfield,  I  will have you a quick  idea of what their acquisition
 costs are  and what  they are planning on doing.  They are going to acquire a
 total of 282 acres,  phase one, two,  three and four.  And that is going to cost
 them  a total  of about,  budgeted, $18.6, which  will  run closer to $20 million.
 Their acquisition and administrative costs will run them about a $1.38 per
 square foot on budget and about a $1.61 on what they anticipate on what their
 increased  budget will be.  Plus, the holding costs of the land, the additional
 improvements, so on, that will increase  it at least ten percent per year.
 There is no question about it at  all.
                                        193

-------
         There has been heard some questions earlier about impacts and what
you do with smaller airports.  The Minnesota Department of Aeronautics
prepared I think a pretty good study of the impact — how many of you have
this?  Most of you have got  it, have you not?

         It is the study of  socio-economic impact of aviation on selected
communities.  It is prepared by the Minnesota Department of Aeronautics.  It
goes through a series of small airports, small and large airports and the
specific benefits of airports, the number of jobs that they create and the
money that they generate for the community.  It is not all directed into the
airport; most of it is indirect because as anyone knows the cost — well, some
of you gentlemen have come quite a few miles to attend this seminar.  If you
go to other seminars, especially the ones that are designed to bring your wife
and children to, you know you are going to spend far more money when you get
there than the cost of getting back and forth.  So it is very important to the
community.

         The smaller airports, speaking now of general aviation, are somewhat
affected the same way as the larger air carrier airports, but some of them are
being choked out by unrealistic people.

         For instance, I could not believe my ears when someone told me, this
is what made me supersensitive.  I guess because they had aircraft at
Peachtree-DeKalb at the time.

         This one is right after the jet went through the top of an apartment
building because of ingesting several  hundred starlings one morning, and one
of the commissioners of DeKalb County  really  said the best thing to do was not
to do away with the land fill that attracted the birds but to do away with the
airport and have one big land fill.

         Now, OeKalb-Peachtree generates a fantastic amount  of money.  They
are getting more and more jets in their facility all the time.   I will  give
you a quick example.  Over a period of five years my tie-down space went from
$40.00  to $50.00 to $70.00 to the point in which I was taking the space  I
thought was best for me.  It was  leased space that EPS had and  I was  paying
$70.00  a month for  it.

         He said, "This  is the best space.  Why  don't you move  it from  where
you are up  there; I'll give  you a break."   So I  had  to move  it  almost
completely  off  the  airport and the only way I could  stay  there  was  to lease
space  in the building  adjoining it.  That  gives  you  an  idea  of  what  is
happening on the airport.

          I  do not know if you  are familiar with  the way it  is growing up there
or  the  way  it  is run  up  there —  ILS,  runways.   It  does  not  run 24  hours a
day.  They  cannot expand very well.  Where they  are built tightly around it
they  cannot, whereas  Fulton  can expand.  They have more  land to expand,
although  they  do  have a land problem.

          The money  that  generates  value comes not  just from  the airport
 itself,  the terminals,  the air freight.   It comes  from all  the  concessionaires
 and there are  hundreds of  them,  everything from  the one who  sells flowers for
 a buck  and  a half  a piece  for a rose  up to the people who are furnishing all


                                       194

-------
the food for the airlines.  The same thing is true on smaller airports except
on smaller airports you find individual businesses rather than large
businesses, doing things like avionics, repairs, reupholstering of aircraft
and things of this type.

         So I think probably what my whole thrust is that use, use makes
value.  Nothing has value without use and the better the use, the more intense
the use, the more concentrated the use, the higher the value becomes and as
the uses within our airports grow greater and greater, and greater, the values
increase.

         There is one other thing I should mention; this is the attitude
toward air carriers and the people whom they call the signatories, users of
airports, the ones who sign letters on the bonds as part of the indebtedness.
They were given preferential treatment in the past.  Based on what is
happening at a few airports now,  I don't think it is going to be so in the
future.  I think they are going to be charged exactly the same rate as other
users in the airport.

         Now this is something that will be taken up as leases expire and new
leases are coming up.  The fact that they put the money into it that made it
possible does not justify giving  them a discount because they are going to
profit anyhow and they should be  reflecting their investment in the airport
into the charges they are making  for the uses and services they are providing.

         I do not know quite enough about that to make comments on it;
however, I can say that the value of airport land does nothing but go up.  It
is far more than most people realize and the need for it grows almost every
day.  Thank you.

         DR. BRADGON:  Our next speaker is Stan Green.  Stan is with GAMA or
General Aviation Manufacturers Association in Washington, D.C.  His
presentation this morning will be on the role of aircraft manufacturing
alleviating general aviation noise.

         MR. STANLEY GREEN:  I would like to start off not with anything that
has to do with my basic topic of  what the manufacturers are doing but as sort
of my personal note on this conference.  I was a bit apprehensive at first
perhaps because I saw EPA on the  headliner of a conference on general aviation
noise and that gets me a little nervous.  I want to make it very, very clear
and plain that I am no longer apprehensive.  I am appreciative.

         I think this has been a  fabulous idea and I think EPA and Georgia
Tech deserve one great hand for it.  I think that the idea of getting the
group of people that we have had  here together, listening to some other sides,
politics of which perhaps has no  answer, but hearing some of the other aspects
of planning has been one super idea and I would strongly recommend that we get
some other conferences going.

         I would strongly recommend that EPA not only sooner but push them and
I think you are going to get a much bigger second round group here.  I think
we can accomplish a lot in this business.
                                       195

-------
          Now  let  us  get  to  what  I  have  prepared.   We heard a lot of statistics
 and  terminology of what  is  general aviation.   I  think it is worth giving you a
 little  repeat  of  some  of that  from the  way we in GAMA see it and will get into
 the  800,000 pilots and 200,000 aircraft.   We  will say that is an approximate
 number.   We have  got 14,000 airports  but,  more importantly, we transport over
 110  million intercity  passengers  annually. That is  about one-half of what the
 airlines  do but that is  still  rather  significant.

          General  aviation includes, as  most of you are aware, the commuter
 airlines  which are just  absolutely growing ~ the air taxis and the business
 and  then  personal aircraft.  There are, as of last week, only 383 airports
 that now  receive  scheduled  airline service and we service the additional
 18,000  communities that  have G.A.  airports.

          We are about  300,000  people  in employment.   There are 5,000 local and
 independent businesses involved.   Historically,  we ship about one quarter of
 our  product overseas and  the result of  that is about ninety percent of the
 total fleet of general aviation  airplanes  in  the world are manufactured in the
 United States.

          Beginning in  1970,  this decade, the  G.A. fleet has grown about sixty
 percent,  from 130,000  to  200,000 airplanes.   The number of hours flown has
 gone up 56 percent to  about 39 million  annual hours.   In 1970, GAMA members
 and those that report  their  sales  to  GAMA  delivered  7,300 airplanes.  Last
year we delivered 18,000.

          The shipments of multi-engine  airplanes, piston and turboprop, are up
 25 percent.  The Airline  Deregulation Act  has proven to be of rather
considerable benefit to the  general aviation  manufacturers.  More and more
businesses are flying their  own  airplanes  because they are indispensible
business  tools.

          I mentioned there  are 383 places  in  the United States that have
scheduled airline services.  That  is  because  there have been 120 points
dropped in the past  ten years  and  there are 131  additional applications into
the CAB to drop from 383, but  it is where  in  some cases there is only one
 airline or where there are  more than  one,  one of those airlines wants out.

          We have got a lot  of  concerns  in  our business that we term
environmental and they are  all related  to  the airport down here.  Now that EPA
has reduced its requirements with  respect  to  emissions, all we have got left
 is noise.  I do not  think anybody  will  question  the  fact that we need an
airport at each end  of every successful trip, and we are rather concerned
about the loss of airports.  We  are losing airports,  as a net, each year.
Now, the  concerns that we know were once wholly  the  bailiwick of a civil
engineer  are now concerns of everybody  in  the business, from the manufacturers
on down.

          I said it the other day and  I  repeat it, noise is an impediment to
sales and you try and you work like hell to remove impediments because we are
                                        196

-------
in business to sell airplanes.   Where we are in the noise business, and I
guess it has got to the stage to where we are now,  we have got to know where
we are.   It goes back to the FAR 36, 1969 requirements and the objectives of
those requirements by FAA were simply they would put a cap on aircraft noise.
They put a cap on it because it was clearly escalating.

         In 1975 the aircraft that we were still producing had to meet in a
retrofit basis on fuel manufactured airplanes — I do not mean the airplanes
in the fleet — we had to recertify all the production aircraft in 1975 to
meet those original limits to quantify these limits for the general aviation
jets which we consider those of a maximum gross takeoff weight of 75,000
pounds or less.  And we know there are some large aircraft, airline-type
aircraft in G.A. service but they will have to meet the airline standards.

         But for those in our business fleet we had the approach and sidelines
at 102 EPNdB.  We had the takeoff at 93 EPNdB.  We had to go through a number
of things to get those aircraft to meet the requirements.  We used hush kits
primarily, a muffler-type system; special operating techniques, which reduced
the way the airplane could be handled to a very specific formula which was
required and re-engining.

         But the re-engining was usually accompanied by other modifications to
improve the performance of the  aircraft.  The engines used were certified in
1971-72 time frame.  There were just two of them, the Garrett Jet  TFE 731 and
the Pratt-Whitney  JT15D.  We had two engines, one about a 300 pound thrust —
I will add here that the results of re-engining were dramatic, substantial
reductions in noise  levels were one of the benefits, primarily reduced fuel
consumption.  So,  we had one with a 300 pound thrust engine, the other about a
200 thrust engine.  That was your whole choice.

         These engines were also utilized  in new aircraft designs  as well, and
designs that had substantial margins between the regulatory  allowable  noise
levels in  lieu of  future growth of both the engine  and the aircraft; the
engine's growth potential so  it could  be used  in other aircraft, the
aircraft's growth  potential to  expand  its  market capabilities.

         And we know the regulatory  need  is  always  toward  tougher  requirements
and  now with FAA's latest rules, the 1976  notice which led to  the  1978 FAR 36
standards.

          As  I  pointed  out earlier,  we  export  about  25  percent  of our  total
product.   Obviously,  we  are very  interested  in  the  civil  aircraft  market
throughout the world.   It is  a big  percentage  dollar-wise  so we work  rather
closely with  the  International  Civil Aviation  Organization,  ICAO,  and  its
committee on  aircraft  noise.   We  like  to  use  the  word insist but we  hope that
the  U.S.  and  the  ICAO rules will go hand  in  hand.   We cannot afford
certification  at  two different standards.

          I think most  of you  people will  agree, who are  knowledgeable, that
European  standards,  their treatment of noise,  that  at least  they  are as  good
as  us and many think they are a lot further  ahead.   It was the consensus of
                                        197

-------
 ICAO at the fifth meeting, CAN 5, that these new  levels that FAA now uses be
 adopted.  These  in fact were adopted, utilizing the expertise not only of FAA
 and EPA, who participated at the time, but of the foreign airworthiness
 authorities and  noise authorities from the major  European countries.

         To quantify these new regulations as far as they mean for our jets,
 the approach limit props from 102 to 98 dB, the sideline from 102 to 94, and
 the takeoff from 93 to 89.  I would like to put a viewgraph on right now.

         (Slide)  All right, the first viewgraph  deals with the takeoff noise
 levels, the top  solid line labeled '69 FAR 36 is  the FAA original '69
 regulation.  The triangle shows the noise level of many of the original
 aviation jets, including the Lear series, the Rockwell series, Lockheed
 Jetstar and the  Grumman Gulfstream too.  As I mentioned earlier, when the
 aircraft was still in production we were required to reach the '69 rules.  We
 did so through a number of techniques, including cutback and various sound
 suppressors.

         These aircraft are indicated by the hexagons; the original aircraft,
 of course, are those triangles.  And you see where some of those are on the
 scale well above the '69 levels.  The triangles and the hexagons fit into the
 various places.

         Some aircraft were modified by re-engining with the modern turbofan
 engines, and these aircraft we have shown as the  square.  There is one there,
 and another one  there.   The symbol, whether it is a triangle or hexagon or
 square, is filled into a solid symbol.  It means we have used cutback as part
 of the required  operating technique.   The results of re-engineering are
 oftentimes dramatic.  You will note the open triangle at the 106 label and if
you take a look  at that little square back there, that is the same airplane.
 It is 93 from 106, a drop of 13 dB and rather noticeable.

         As is evident,  the modern turbo-fan-powered general aviation aircraft
 ~ those are designed from the ground up — are shown by the circles and those
 are in most cases substantially below the 1978 limit.  It simply means we view
 noise as a prime design parameter.

         (Slide)  Now if we could turn to chart number two, which shows the
 approach levels  and the symbology of the same, with the exception of course
 that you do not  use cutback on approach.  The noise levels in the newer
 designs are in all cases below the original aircraft.  Turn the slide off.

         The new engines that we have not scheduled for certification in the
 next few years — I think I did mention this yesterday ~ in addition to
 having a rather  dramatically improved fuel specifics, are going to be much
 quieter.  There  is a new class of aircraft, the FAR 24 aircraft.  They are
 going to be turboprops,  they are going to be used in close-in communities and
 they are going to have to be and they will be quieter.

         In the  propeller-driven aircraft area which includes the turboprops,
 we also recognized in 1970-71 that we were going  to have to do something about
 the noise.  Now, we did not feel, frankly, that we had a real problem back
 then» except in  the pure economics area.  Switzerland had introduced its noise
                                       198

-------
requirements to take effect in September of  '71.  Germany had noise
requirements that were taking effect sometime in 1972, and they were  different
and they were going to require certification in each of the countries that
adopted a different noise requirement.

         It was our view that we had to get, as we did in the jets, an
international standard acceptable throughout the world.

         In April of 1974 ICAO adopted a recommended practice establishing
such limits.  The FAA adopted these limits in January of 1975 to become
operative on January 1st, 1980.  The requirements for propeller-driven
aircraft are not in effect; however, in 1980, January 1st, every airplane
produced must meet the levels or come below those levels.  At the end of this
year, no propeller aircraft can receive an original airworthiness certificate
— which means it cannot fly in the system -- unless it has met the standard
and been certified.

         When the work was started by ICAO in 1972, as I mentioned, a major
portion of the fleet then currently produced did not meet these levels and we
started work because it takes anywhere from one to three years to recertify an
existing aircraft for noise problems that we would have if we did not meet the
requirements.  When you stop to figure that a company like Cessna who has
upwards of 25 models, Piper about the same, even some of the smaller companies
with three or four models with limited engineering staffs to be devoted to
this subject, you recognize that the best that a company can handle would be
three or four or five a year if it still wants to continue to produce and
design new aircraft.

         And I am sure many of you are aware there is a headhunter in the
audience here from one of our Wichita companies.  I notice he brought shackles
and chains to get some of the engineers back.  We are short on engineering
talent in the industry and it is a real problem.  We just cannot take on major
undertakings of trying to recertify the whole fleet this year.  For instance,
to try to meet that 1980 limit, as a consequence it was evident by the end of
1976, all aircraft that were under 6,000 pounds has been brought into
compliance with the FAR 36 levels, Appendix F.  By this summer, by the end of
August,  all  the aircraft will have been certified.

         Now we have looked back and we have quite a bit of engineering work
going on in  further reducing the aircraft noise.  I think we explained
yesterday and there is no sense going into it again today.  As you know, we
try to better these levels.  We are obligated to do so but it is also good
business practice to do so.

         From the hardware point of view, we are attacking the noise problem
through typically technology development and it is primarily a propeller
problem so we are looking primarily at propellers.  There is a fair amount of
work going on sponsored by the government, NASA, EPA, FAA.  There is a lot of
in-house work going on in new propeller designs as the first stage.  There is
some work now going on in muffling which is now primarily a benefit only to
interior noise but if we can get the prop noise down then yes, the engine will
become an issue and we will be looking at that.
                                       199

-------
         But we do  not expect  anything  to  be  certified  in  the  fleet  from these
efforts for the next  five  to ten years.

         The more immediate results  in  noise  reduction  are going to  come about
through changes in  operating procedures  of aircraft.  We  are  accomplishing
this through what we  call  GAMA Specification  One.   GAMA Specification  One,
usually known as the  specification for  pilot's  operating  handbook,  is  an
industry-wide standard that is used  by  manufacturers  in preparing their own
POHs, pilot operating handbooks and  airline manuals.  We  designed it as a
guide to provide a  handbook to the pilots  that  would  be of maximum usefulness
as an operating reference  handbook and  in  addition  meet the Government's
requirements that requires such manuals  to be supplied  with each aircraft.

         The specification has been  used successfully for  a number of years
now and we are now  in the  process of revising it  to account for other purely
operational considerations --  fuel economy and  noise  reduction.  In  accordance
with the FAA Regulations the original specification provided  a maximum
continous power limitation.  That is the highest  power  that the engine has
been demonstrated to  deliver safely  without any time  limitation in its use.
Airplane performance  however does not require the use of  maximum continuous
power for normal operation, other than  for takeoff.  Continuous use  of this
power has a major effect on noise as well  as  some effect  on fuel economy and
engine wear.

         We therefore have established  a limitation on  the use of maximum
continuous power by defining it as the  maximum power  permissible continuously
during takeoff, one engine operative, abnormal  and  emergency  operations only.
Maximum permissible power  continuously  during all normal  operation is called,
"Maximum normal operating  power," and obviously the acronym MNOP —  because
you should never use  a term that does not  have  an acronym.

         There is going to be,  and in a few cases this  year,  a limitation, a
legal limitation on what the pilot can  use.  He will  not  be able to  exceed
this if he is going to fly the airplane  in a  legal  manner. It is going to be
the power he uses for all  normal climb  and cruise conditions  and it  is going
to result in a lower  noise level of  typically from  4  to 9 dB  less than the
same airplane would make at maximum  continuous  power.  All the performance
information the pilot will have in the  POH will be  based  on the new power
limitations.  And if  you ever  want to hear a  battle between the advertising
people and the marketing people in the  companies  when it  was  determined that
the advertising matter is  also going to  have  to track what is  in the pilot'
operating handbook.

         The 200 MPH  airplane  which  really does about 165 knots, maximum
continuous power, is  now going to drop  down anywhere  from ten  to fifteen
percent and the advertising people did  not like that  idea.

         I have got to point out that the  selection of  the MNOP is a judgment
factor by each aircraft manufacturer.   It  is  going  to vary as  a percentage of
maximum continuous  power at least 75 percent, varying on  up to anywhere from
80, 85, perhaps as  high as 90  or 95  percent of maximum  continuous power.  We
have got to do this in order to minimize the  noise, because you have tradeoffs
between higher climb  capability, where  you are  higher over the airport, versus
                                       200

-------
the lower rpm of the propeller which is the prime noise maker.  This is a
delicate balance and has been further complicated by the need to maximize the
fuel situation.

         So maximum normal operating power is going to vary in such a way as
to produce the least amount of sound, considering all of the climb and other
requirements that go into an airplane.

         We are going to have to do some of this type of thinking in the
jets.  It is going to be more conceptual, similar to the reduced power takeoff
information which has been used up to now to provide engine economies.  But we
will provide the jet pilot with the necessary operating information to
minimize the noise of his aircraft.  Instead of telling the guy how to fly the
airplane on the purely operational basis, he is going to have the capability
to fly on a low-noise basis as well.  This new information could be used to
determine the expected noise level of the aircraft under various atmospheric
and operation conditions, such as a lower weight or a high temperature
humidity situation.

         Without getting into the details of what goes on  in  a typical
certification, where you are looking at prop sizing and blading and engine
derating and all of the recertification activities which are  rather complex,
the engineering expertise that we need is there; the technology is there,
there is no question about it.  We will continue to do this kind of work.  We
will continue to work the problem and make the compromises we need at a
reasonable pace, being one we can afford and have the people  to work.  We will
continue to improve the noise levels of the existing airplanes, including
those that meet the requirements, including those that exceed the requirements
today.

         It is going to come about through a reasonable way but it will come
about.  New technology is expected to bring some small increments.  We are not
going to see the breakthrough that we saw when we went from the straight jet,
for  instance, to the fan jet.  This does not however completely cover our role
in  the noise issue.  We are going to continue to support reasonable
rule-making efforts, both  in the  United States and abroad.

         I would like to quickly  cover something I hit yesterday.  We need
uniform  airport noise regulations, uniform throughout the  United States, but  I
do  not mean the same noise  level  at  every  airport.  Every  airport has to be
looked at as a unique situation,  with  its  local  topography, with  its  local
noise impact problem but we have  got  to be able  to have the same basic
computational methods used  to compute what noise level that local community
selects  so that a  pilot on  the east  coast  can fly to the west coast with the
certainty that he  understands what they mean when they say 99 on  an SENEL,  if
they want to use SENEL, and know  that  the  SENEL measurement is  a reasonable
one for  the local  community.

         The difference we  have  seen  between Torrance  and  Santa Monica, with
noise levels in one case  at SENEL 100  and  in another case  88, and one was
measured at about  3300 feet from  the end of the  runway and the  other  being
measured at 1500 feet.  The numbers  in fact come out pretty close but we
cannot tolerate this because we  cannot get this  information and we  have  got  to
have some standards.
                                        201

-------
         A suggestion was made yesterday in a lunch conversation that perhaps
a simple index-type of a number would work.  I think this is something we
ought to explore.  We have got to be able to calculate the same methodology no
matter where you are in the United States.

         Now with respect to the G.A. jets, most of them are about 10 to 15 dB
quieter than the large quiet airline jets but since we want to come into the
G.A. airports, which perhaps have unique noise problems, we are going to
obviously continue to work these areas.  One point to remember, however, is
that the frequency of occurrences, of takeoffs, approaches and landings, for a
general aviation business jet is markedly lower than for a typical commercial
airline.

         Average utilization of a business jet is approximately 640 hours for
the typical airline jet.  We have on an average about 10,000 jet operations,
both takeoffs and landings, per day at the major air carrier airports.  Now,
there are some unique cases.  In Westchester County is a unique case.  If
there is a general aviation fleet that met the 1978 noise standards, if it
operated into and out of the air carrier airport, there is no way that the
fleet at its typical operating frequency would affect the noise level at the
air carrier airports.  However, when you get into the G.A. airport you have a
slightly different situation.  There the fleet may have an impact.

         Now, we have looked at EPA's thinking in this area and I do hope that
EPA gets some more work going on and updates this effort.  We have looked at
their 1974 comments on the FAA aircraft noise standards and we like one thing
we saw in there.  I think I would like to read it for a second:

         The EPA noise standard for aircraft type certification.  EPA said  an
Ldn of 65 dB is a reasonable objective for airport neighborhood communities --
and I am quoting now, "That because present data indicates that at some
airports an Ldn contribution of noise from aircraft of less than 65 dB is
difficult to distinguish from other ambient noise, given the environmental
noise level other than from aircraft around those airports."

         Perhaps we have got to define that remark.  Perhaps we need some more
data.  We calculated however what the effect of the community noise exposure
from a fleet of general  aviation propeller-driven aircraft would be, meeting
that standard and using  a statistical mix  of aircraft.  We computed the Ldn at
a point 3500 meters from-the beginning of the takeoff roll at 2833 airports,
and those airports selected were ones  at where 95 percent of all G.A.
operations occur.

         We1 also calculated  separately for Santa Ana, which has perhaps one of
the highest frequencies  of general  aviation movements, about 100  an hour.   At
this airport our calculated  Ldn from the  typical fleet mix was 64 dB.  Santa
Ana's calculated Ldn for 64  propeller-drive aircraft was then compared with
the measured value of 68 from all aircraft noise sources, including a few  air
carrier flights.  It comes down to  the fact that if you wipe out  all
propeller-driven aircraft from Santa Ana,  the measured value drops out  about
IdB.  The same  effect  is felt at  some  other airports at  smaller magnitudes.
This, though  seemingly  low  is to me significant.
                                       202

-------
Santa Monica is a very good case.  The  Ldn  is  63  with  all  aircraft,  62 without
it.

         Now, as Bill Galloway noted yesterday, the attrition rates  for
propeller-driven aircraft are rather small  and the  effect  of the quieter
propellers that we are producing  today  for  propeller-driven aircraft is not
going to have a real measurable effect  on the  fleet, simply that in  the past
five years we have produced about 30,000 quieter  airplanes in addition to the
U.S. business fleet and the attrition rate  was probably less than ten percent
of that and add that to the fleet  and you get  about 200,000 airplanes today.
We probably lost 6,000 airplanes  in the past ten  years and put 30 in, so the
new quieter ones just cannot have  an effect as dramatic at least, as we had in
the jets.

         Now, as to modification  of existing aircraft, which was also brought
up, to incorporate noise-reducing  devices is extremely expensive. Anyone who
has gone through a certification  activity with the  FAA knows that you are
talking about six months for the  simplest little  work, on  up to at least three
years for a major complex thing such as an  engine modification.  Our primary
noise source is the propeller, as  I have mentioned, and to develop a new
propeller for a particular engine  is as costly as it would be to devise almost
a complete new airplane.

         You go through propeller  engine and vibration surveys.  Aircraft
performance testing and evaluation are just two items  that are extremely
expensive and take perhaps nine months  to a year  after you have got  your
hardware developed.  We do not look at  retrofit in  this business as  being a
very fruitful area.

         I would like to make one  last  point,  however, with respect  to the
jets.  The introduction of the lower technology jet aircraft has resulted in a
reduction of the day-night noise  levels around airports served by these
aircraft.  As these new aircraft  become an  increasingly larger percentage of
the fleet, the average day-night  noise  levels  attributed to all general
aviation business jets is going to significantly  fall.  Based upon our
forecast sales and presently expected rate  of  attrition in the fleet, the
airport day-night noise levels attributable to this fleet  are going  to
decrease approximately 5 to 6 dB  per decade for fixed  activity rate.

         We are finding that the  attrition  rate is  greater now.  It  may be
getting noisier down in South America but here in the  States many aircraft
users are replacing their current  jets with new technology jets and  the
production is virtually sold out  through 1983  —  and that  is at the  best rate
we can manufacture them.  It is a  delightful situation from a manufacturer's
point of view to be in.  We simply cannot get  enough production people and
tooling and additional engineering talent to increase  these delivery rates
much more than we are doing.

         (Slide)  Now I would like to put on graph  3 for a second and take a
look at what is going to happen with respect to the fleet  noise levels.
Again, this is a consideration of the particular  attrition and the levels that
are being made right now.  There  were ten operations per day in 1975 and you
can see the line where the ten falls in.  And  this  produced a day-night notse
level of 59 dB.
                                       203

-------
         By 1985, with the expected jet mix then,  the level  of noise will  drop
to 53 dB.  If there were fifty operations per day in '75 and this is typical
of what we have got into up in Westchester County, the noise will go from 66
dB to 10 dB in 1985.  More importantly, even if the number of jet operations
at a particular airport doubles, the noise level still goes  down.

         If ten operations produced a level of 59  in 1975, twenty operations
will mean only 56 in 1985.  Incidentally, the dash-D lines on that chart
indicate the 65 and 55 Ldn levels that we have been talking  about for the past
few days.

         Go to Chart 4.

         (Slide)  Here we show you a similar type of reduction over the years
for the approach condition.  It is not a dramatic as you do have in the
takeoff condition, which is, of course, the main noise producer.  With five
operations in 1975, the Ldn is 56; in 1985 it drops to 51 dB.  Ten operations
per day, double the amount, the Ldn drops to 54, two dB less and half the
number of operations created ten years earlier.  I will again point out that
attrition rates are faster than we predicted and our sales rates of the new
class, the quiet class are higher than predicted.  And we expect to better
these numbers.

         And now we are back to this —

         DR. BRAGOON:  Do any of those have the night-time penalty or are all
of those operations during the day?

         MR. GREEN:  This includes the twenty-four hour nighttime penalty.

         DR. BRAGDON:  So the seventy operations are all during the day.

         MR. GREEN:  No, we have used a fairly good statistical mix of what
kind of operations.  There are a few operations in here at night.  In other
words, we basically used a one out of fifteen or one out of sixteen of these
operations, and I don't recall the exact number, considered to be after 11:00
p.m. with the 10 dB penalty.

         DR. BRAGDON;  Thank you, Stan.

         Our final speaker will deal with  a role which we have  not discussed,
and that is the pilot's responsibility and role in  implementing  airport
operator control.  It  is interesting that  the airport which we  had, Torrance
Airport, was presented very capably by Bill, and Ted Elmgren, who  is president
of the Torrance Pilots Association, is going to discuss the pilot's role  at
the same airport, which would suggest  to me that they are both  talking to each
other -- which  is good, when people who  are responsible for regulatory or
administrative controls can talk  to pilots.  Ted.

         MR. THEODORE  ELMGREN:  Thank you  very much,  Cliff.   Good morning,
ladies  and gentlemen.
                                       204

-------
         You are probably interested  in what  makes  me an  expert  qualified to
address such an august assemblage as  this.  So  to be  able to  tell  you,  I went
back over my personal history, looking for the  answer,  and frankly I did not
find anything that made me an expert  — but a little  bit  about me.

         For the past twenty years I  have been  on the staff of El  Camino
College in Torrance, which is a large metropolitan  community  college with
26,000 students.  I have been the Associate Dean on the Division of Industry
and Technology there and I retired from that  job six  weeks ago.

         I am also a pilot and for this past  year I have  had  the privilege of
serving on the citizens advisory committee for  airport noise  in  Torrance,
appointed by the city council.  That  has been an interesting  experience and I
think a worthwhile activity in Torrance.

         You heard from Bill Critchfield yesterday, who is the airport  manager
iii Torrance, and he probably told you a little  bit  about  this committee.  I
viewed my role on that committee while I was  a  pilot  as one to pour oil on
troubled waters and I tried to find a middle  ground,  a compromise if you will,
between the pilot on the one hand and the homeowner on the other hand.

         You know the old problem of  homes around airports and we certainly
have that in Torrance and we had to try to find a balance between the economic
value of the airport's being in existence there and the annoyance to the
homeowners at being there.  I noticed one of  the speakers referred to
annoyance as being hardly an appropriate word when  you are a  homeowner  rather
than listening to a homeowner.  So on the one hand  we had the pilots who said
no one is going to tell me how to fly when I  am flying.  Now, let me qualify
that by saying that is an extreme point 6f view of  the pilot. Most of  the
pilots who have been involved in Torrance in  this new program have been
exceedingly cooperative, but there are those  on the other extreme who are not
going to be told anything.  And then  on the other hand, the extreme homeowner
who says, "Shut it down, It is the only way to  go.   Just close the airport and
plow it under."  But in all fairness  I qualify  that too and say  that is the
extreme homeowner.

         We heard from all these points of view, as committee members,  and
tried to mollify and placate the various concerns.   The city  council of
Torrance appointed the committee and  then tried to  balance it between pilots
and homeowners and that is a delicate thing to  do.   We did have
representatives of both groups and we heard then from people  in  the community
who came in to address our committee  about their concerns.

         We were kind of a buffer, I  suppose  you might say between these
concerns and the city council.  They  came and talked  to us and then we
referred and reported our information to the  city council, but middle ground
and compromise was our main effort there.

         The city council of Torrance, after  agonizing over this problem many
years, passed an ordinance a couple of years  ago that imposed certain
regulations upon the airport and upon those using the airport.   For example,
we have a curfew at the airport that  says you may not fly between 11:00 p.m.
and 6:30 the next morning, except under special circumstances that require
                                        205

-------
prior approval.  Anybody flying during those hours without prior approval  is
guilty of violating an ordinance, and I believe it is a misdemeanor.  Is that
right, Bill?  It is a misdemeanor and it carries quite a fine.

         You may not do touch-and-go landings except between 8:00 a.m. and
8:00 p.m. on weekdays and on weekends and holidays between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m., letting the homeowners sleep a little later in the morning on weekends.

         Torrance has set up and does monitor the noise situation.  They have
ten microphones established around the airport in the community and they can
monitor the noise level of aircraft landing and taking off there at these
locations.  It is a pretty sophisticated system and I think it is working
pretty well.  I certainly want to commend the people involved in the noise
abatement program at Torrance for their efforts to educate the pilots and to
inform the community about what  is being done.

         In monitoring the noise, they are looking for a noise that exceeds 82
decibels on the A Scale.  That is the maximum that you should impose upon the
area  if you are a pilot taking off there or landing there, as the case may
be.  There are a number of variables in this noise situation that relate to
the aircraft and they all must be considered.

         Stan Green mentioned the propeller as probably the greatest
contributor to noise and that is true; it is not the engine, it is  the
propeller.  So much must be done about the design of the propeller  in the
years ahead.  I was pleased to hear him say that things are moving  well ahead
and we will have quieter aircraft -- and then he said within five or ten years
and I was disappointed to hear that.

         In addition to the prop, you have got the exhaust of the engine
itself and that is a contributor to the noise.

         At one of the evening meetings of our advisory committee on  airport
noise a party showed up at the meeting and said, "I have a muffler  that will
help make the airplanes fly less noisily."  As a pilot  I have wondered why  we
do not have better muffler systems on aircraft.  We have them on cars but not
on aircraft.  So this fellow came in with an  object about the size  of a coffee
pot, maybe a little smaller, or  water jug, whatever it  is, and said this will
reduce the noise on the aircraft.  We were excited about this ~ this is
wonderful.  However, he said,  "It has not been proven.  It  is just  inventive
and here  is the first model.   It will really  do  a  lot of good."

         So, one of the members  of the committee said,  "Well, I will  test it
on my airplane and we will find  out."  But as  soon  as we thought  about that we
realized, knowing the FAA  is going to  say you  are modifying  an  airplane  if  you
put  a muffler  on it  and  it violates  the  rules  or  regulations  and you must make
application and have  specs and  after  Congress  has  acted on  it, the  Supreme
Court has reviewed  it, we might  consider letting you make this  test.

         So what happens?  This  pilot  — who  will  remain  anonymous  ~ took  his
airplane and flew  it  out  to  a  desert  strip  and bolted this muffler  on along
with  the person who manufactured this  thing  and  they  tried  it out with  a
microphone  and some  noise monitoring  equipment.  Away  out there  in  the  desert,
                                       206

-------
if it fell off the worst it could do was hit a cactus  or  jack  rabbit  —  no
danger.

         Well, it did not make much difference in  the  noise  of the  airplane,  I
am sorry to say.  We had high hopes for the thing.   Maybe with refinement  it
could improve it.  It was not heavy.   It was not  large.   It  made  a  little  bit
of difference but not much.

         I have mentioned here some of the variables that affect  noise.  An
airplane taking off on a normal day or cool day, you might have 600 or 800
feet of altitude by the time it crosses the airport  border.  On a very hot day
it might have only 400 feet of altitude.  So the  atmosphere  itself  affects the
sound impact on the community.

         Altitude is probably the greatest thing  that  affects  the noise  that
impacts on the community.  There is no substitute  for  altitude.  So if we  can
get the airplanes up there, we are not going to bother the community so  much.

         What is the biggest variable  of all in this whole picture  is the
pilot.  The pilot can make the greatest difference of  all because the pilot is
the man with the hand on the throttle  or variable  pitch control and working
that expeditiously he can have a considerable impact.   In talking with Chuck
May, who is in charge of the airport noise monitoring  system at the airport,
he said recently that one of the pilots who exceeded the  noise level  was
called in and came into the office, as is a usual  procedure, to talk  to  him
and explain the problem and situation  and how he  might improve it.

         He asked the pilot how he thought he might  fly less noisily. The
pilot said, "Well maybe I can throttle back or take  off at a steeper rate  and
throttle back after I get up there."   So Chuck said, "Let's  try it."

         So the pilot and he went out  and he improved  his impact  on the  order
of 10 to 15 decibels — one airplane,  one pilot,  one effort.  That  is a
significant improvement I would say.

         The final variable that we must consider  is the  type  of  aircraft.
For example, the Cessna Skymaster is a two-engine  aircraft;  one engine is  in
the front and one is in the rear.  The propeller  in  the back tends  to be a
noise-maker because of the disturbed air as it flows over the  fuselage or  the
nacelle, and therefore it is more noisy.  I personally live  in the  flight
pattern for Hawthorne Airport.  The Northrop Corporation  which builds its
F-5's and F-18's there uses an aircraft called the Piaccia for transporting
their personnel.  It is a noisy aircraft.  It has  two  pusher engines and props
and besides that they dump the exhaust right into  the  prop and it chops  up in
the prop so it is noisy.

         Some aircraft types are more  noisy than  others.  We have tried  to
stay away from saying that certain aircraft may not  use this airport; maybe
some day we will come to that but I hope not because the  big variable, as  I
mentioned is the pilot.
                                       207

-------
         About a week ago or so I decided to test this system myself in flying
myself into Torrance Airport.  So I called the airport noise center and said I
would like to fly into Torrance; I would like to take two or three touch-and-
goes and have you monitor my aircraft and tell me how I did.  So they said
okay.

         So, I was not taking off from Torrance, I was going from Hawthorne,
not far away.  "When you get airborne in our vicinity, call us on 122.9, our
frequency, and let us know you are coming and we will monitor it."  So I did
that and I called on 1.229, identified the aircraft.  They said, "What kind of
an aircraft?"

         And I said it was a Cessna 172 Skyhawk, green and white, and I gave
him the regulation numbers.  I said, "Now I am transferring to the tower
frequency."

         They said, "We will monitor you." So I did.  I made three
touch-and-go landings.  The first one, I used the standard pattern, standard
landing and standard takeoff.  The second landing, I used a steep descent and
a steep takeoff and in the third landing I used a low, slow drag-in type of
descent and a steep takeoff, best rate of climb.  Then after that I landed and
I went into the office, said, "How did I do?

         Chuck said, "Ted, you are flying like a church mouse.  You ranked
between 62 and 64 decibels on your flying."

         Well, it was a pretty standard day and I was alone in the aircraft so
it was light and I did take off steeply on those two that I mentioned — and I
think therein lies a message that we should get to the pilot.

         I do not think I am being unfaithful or disloyal to pilots when I say
we can learn to fly less noisily and to take off with a rather steep rate of
climb while you are still over the airport.  It is the noise impacting on the
area where it does not matter.  People who work around airports do not mind
the noise so much.  What is noise to one person is music to another.

         So after you climb up at a rather steep rate of climb to get off the
airport boundary, then you can get to a cruise configuration and change your
throttle setting or change your prop setting and therefore reduce the noise.

         At Torrance they have made up a little flyer which fits into your
Jeppeson manual and which has been mailed to every pilot in the western United
States and it describes the best takeoff and landing configuration; climb as
rapidly as possible to save maneuvering a lot and then go to cruise climb
power and configuration to climb cruise.

         The microphone that monitored my performance and all the other
performances, the main one, monitor No. 1 is located 3,400 feet from the end
of Runway 29 Right.  It is out in the residential community.  An  interesting
thing about this, Torrance Airport, just before you reach that community,
                                       208

-------
is Hawthorne Boulevard and it is a commercial  street with a lot of stores and
businesses and so on.  So, the ideal takeoff from Torrance Airport would be to
take off, climb steeply to Hawthorne Boulevard — where you ought to have at
least 600 feet of altitude at that point — make a normal right-hand
thirty-five degree turn and continue to climb out over Hawthorne Boulevard,
continuing to climb where the noise is impacting down on businesses,
industries, but not on homes.

         Well, some pilots say, "You are not going to tell me how to do that.
I will fly the way I feel is safe and right for my airplane according to the
conditions."  But if the pilots will do this, it will impact much less upon
the community.

         What about  operators' controls, the control tower as it relates to
the pilot?  I have found the FAA reticent on enforcing local ordinances.  They
simply do not want to be  involved in that, although  I have heard the tower
say, for example:  For noise abatement, no turns until the coastline -- which
is a couple of miles off  the end of the runway  at Torrance.  I personally feel
that the tower could mention local ordinances and penalities for violating
such ordinances and  I, as a pilot, would not be offended  by their so doing.

         There are a lot  of transient pilots at Torrance  and where they have a
noise situation I think this would help.  Pilots are generally willing to
cooperate if they know what  is  required of them.

         Recently, the chief of Torrance tower  wrote a letter  and I would  Tike
to quote just briefly from that, in which he talks  about  this particular
issue.  This  is from Richard Cox and he says:

         "The central issue concerning controllers  and noise abatement  is  the
methodology controllers employ  to communicate  local  airport use  restrictions.
Remember, the controller's primary  duty is  to promote  a  safe,  orderly, and
expeditious flow of  traffic.  Yet because  of FAA's  concern for  noise
abatement, controllers are allowed  to  issue noise  abatement advisories and
communicate airport  restrictions as other  duties permit.   Specifically,  how
does  this  noise abatement communication by  the  controller work?  Assuming
airport  use restrictions  are  being  employed,  a  controller responding to  a
pilot's  request to make  a touch-and-go  landing, will state:  For noise
abatement  request  a  full  stop  landing.  Controllers will  make  this
transmission  provided other  duties  permit.   If  the  pilot elects  to  make  the
touch-and-go  landing anyway,  despite  the  controller's  noise  abatement
advisory,  then the controller  must  issue  the  touch-and-go clearance, knowing
well  that  the controllers are  expressly prohibited  from  enforcing  local
airport  use restrictions. This is  FAA  policy."

          "In  summary, The FAA  uses  many techniques to  encourage pilot
 acceptance of noise  abatement  procedures  but  the  controller  may only issue
advisories as other  duties permit.   Controllers cannot take any action which
 infers enforcement  of  airport use  restrictions."

          Now,  that is  from the Chief  of the Torrance tower.   Maybe as  time
goes  on  the FAA,  in  reviewing  their policies,  will  be  more willing  to  advise
                                        209

-------
pilots, especially about if you do this, here is the penalty.  I think that
will help get the message across.

         What is the solution about all this for new airports?  Well, you have
been talking about this all week.  I have heard from greater experts than I.
I certainly think for anyone who is planning a new airport they are well
advised to build a buffer zone of industries and commerce around that airport,
not homes.  And last of all, to advise and educate the pilots on how to fly
quietly.  I thank you.

         DR. BRA6DON:  Thank you, Ted, for those comments.

         At this time I am pleased to introduce our panelists.  The gentleman
who is closest to my left is affiliated with the real estate program, College
of Business at Georgia State University, Dr. Jim Vernor.

         Next to that gentleman is somebody who is affiliated with the real
estate industry.  I want to indicate that we were able to get the
participation of Lyndall Hughes, who is President of the Real Estate Aviation
Chapter for the National Association of Realtors.

          Immediately to Mr. Hughes's left is Terry Love, who is a professor  in
the College of Architecture at Georgia Tech and has had considerable interest
and experience in the area of economic marketing analysis.

          Immediately to his left is the last gentleman  in our group, Julian
Diaz.  His firm is the International Appraisal and Research Group,
Incorporated.  He and his father have done considerable work in this area of
real estate appraisal and its relationship to aircraft  noise and have made
this one  of their specialties.

         At this time I would like to  have each panelist, beginning  with Jim
Vernor, present their opening remarks.  After that we will open it  up for
questions from the floor.

          DR. JAMES D. VERNOR:  Thank you Cliff.  Before I got  into  university
teaching, I worked as a mortgage lender at a savings and  loan  association  and
as  a real estate broker.   I think  of myself  as  an urban land economist  doing
applied research.

          We are concerned with where  our  land uses  locate and  I think  I  see
the problem here as  one of  profits  and losses  in the use  of  land around
airports.  Jim Scott told  us  about  the profit  opportunities  in compatible  uses
immediately adjacent to the airport.   A problem that we should go on and look
at  then  is the  least compatible,  least profitable uses  at some greater
distance, especially real  estate uses.

          As a private sector  operator,  I  see several problems  involved  in  the
 airport  area market. As  a realtor,  I  am  concerned  that a customer  who  buys
                                        210

-------
property from me might come back dissatisfied later and claim perhaps
misrepresentation or concealment.  I would like to furnish him with infomation
so that he understands the situation he is getting into.  As an appraiser, I
have a hard time gathering data to understand what is happening in the market,
what sales are occurring, and just exactly how the proximity of the airport
and the noise impacts on the usability and the value of that land.

         Before I came over here we did some checking in our university
library to see what has been written and published in the area of airport
noise and there is very little.  Very little information exists for most
appraisers and the professional audience to access.  Perhaps the specialists
like Mr. Diaz and Jim Scott have more elaborate information plants, as we call
them, but for most of the operators the information is very sketchy.

         As a mortage lender I am concerned about  lending in the airport
proximity because of the risk of future land values and I think I would be
inclined to be much more conservative.  Whereas I might make a seventy-five or
eighty percent loan on certain kinds of commercial facilities elsewhere in the
city, in the  airport region I might make it only sixty percent.  So I am going
to control myself in that way and, of course, there are obvious risks to the
owners.

         But  I do think Jim Scott's comment was really on target.  We have a
modified caveat emptor system; profits  and losses  in land use and development
are part of the equity of ownership of  land and I  think we  need to keep that
in mind.

         I would  like to undertake programs to deal with the problem of
airport noise that really addresses imperfections  in the market,  such as  lack
of  information, primarily, and try to make the operations allocate  land to  its
highest and best  use.  Now, again, that is background.  I wanted  to comment on
two or three  of Dr. Clifford Bragdon's  suggested ways for dealing with the
problem on page four  in the binder.

         I do not consider these  necessarily  advocated, but he  listed them  as
possibilities.  One was  tax  incentive for the  installation  of  sound
attenuation  insulation.   It  seems  to me that  as the market  allocates  land to
its users  and users to the sites,  the prices  on the property  nearest the
airport that  are  adversely impacted fail  to  reflect that.   I  think  that
informed buyers get somewhat of  a  bargain price on property they  buy  in order
to  offset  the damage  that  they  will suffer.

          I  am talking  about  economic  damage.   I do not  know how they  address
harm  to  health  and  happiness.   I  am talking  about  things we can quantify
monetarily.   It  seems  to me  if  the house  is  bought at  a bargin  price  and  then
given a  tax  abatement  as  an  inducement  to insulate it,  the  properties become
 less  vulnerable  to  the  negative  influence and they will probably  rise  in
value.   What we  have  is  a  transfer of wealth  from  the  public,  who bear  the
cost  of  tax  abatement,  to  the  land owners who can  then  sell those properties
 at  closer  to their  otherwise  normal value.   So I do  not find  that an
 especially attractive  possibility.
                                        211

-------
         A second suggestion, not necessarily in order, was a fair disclosure
requirement.  This does appeal to me.  I am eager to see the market work and
that entails the providing of information to the participants in the market.
I think that if left to their own devices, entrepreneurs can do a fairly good
job of making the profitable land use work.  What we need to do is to help
safeguard the uniformed, the unsophisticated, the unsuspecting, the ignorant
buyer.  I think an information requirement would be appropriate for them.

         There is precedent for it.  We have a requirement now that settlement
costs be disclosed to buyers and they have to sign off, indicating they
received this information.  I do not think it would be difficult to move in
that direction, to establish an airport noise zone and assure that either
realtors or lenders inform the prospective buyers of this difficulty.

         Dr. Bragdon suggested that this would indicate local legislation.  I
think there is precedent for Federal legislation.  As it is now, we have
flood-plain zoning and any lender with a Federal connection has to assure that
there is appropriate flood insurance if the property is located in that area.
This is enforced at the Federal level.  It is a requirement imposed on lenders
who are chartered by the Federal Government to sell loans to the Federal
Government, whose loans are insured by the Federal Government through the FDIC
or Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation.  That takes in probably
ninety-six percent of most home loans made today.

         So I think that would be a highly feasible possibility.  I do not
think as a lender I would like to put restrictions on private mortage loans.
I think that runs the risk of interfering with the entrepreneur's ability to
recognize the highest and best use -- period.

         Lastly,  I did not hear very much discussion of the use of LDl's.
Maybe this is too futuristic an idea.  It appeals to me.  I would think that
perhaps tax increment bonds could be sold to raise money by a community to
finance a land planning operation, land banking operation, and this in
connection with transferable development rights which would remove development
potential from the land a little farther away from the airport that does not
offer the potential to be transferred to the sites closer in that do.

         Finally, I think there is substantial sentiment for private land
owners absorbing this kind of risk too late to check the citation.  One of my
colleagues told me about a case in California where a jury denied damage to a
homeowner for damages caused by airport noise and told him that is part of the
privileges and risk of home ownership.  They did not feel the public sector
should absorb that for him through the assessment of charges upon the airport.

         MR. LYNDALL HUGHES:  Good morning.  I certainly enjoy being here.  I
wondered when I was called what I could offer to this conference and after
being here three days I think I have found something.  I know that the tenor
of the meeting is all about major airports and there are an awful lot of
little airports out there.  I operate my airplane from a 2,000-foot landing
field.   Until just recently I lived in the flight plan.  I was approximately
3,000 feet away from the field and the field has, as I said, 2,000 feet at the
                                       212

-------
end of the runway.  There is about a 200-foot area of grass and power lines
and a road.   On the opposite side of the road is a housing development.

         Now, when you take off with airplanes towards those houses — and
fifty percent of the flights are in that direction -- by the time you reach
the power lines you are just clearing them and as you go over the houses you
are perhaps at 100, 150 feet.

         Now, I have lived there for ten years.   The houses that are in the
area — I come from a transient community called Chagrin Falls, Ohio.  It is a
bedroom community for Cleveland.  The turnover of the real estate is
approximately every three years, so we have a bedroom community with young
executives on the way up.  They are constantly moving.  All of these houses
have changed hands many, many times.

         Now, in ten years I have never heard one complaint from any of the
residents that purchased houses in these areas.  As a matter of fact, I am
sure you all know that airplanes have a distinct sound.  I fly a twin-engine
Piper Aztec and with the field being so small, my plane was the largest on the
field.  When I would leave at unreasonable hours, the next day or a couple of
days after I got back people would ask me where  I was going because they knew
it was my airplane.  If I would come home in  the middle of the night they
would say, "Where were you?  We heard you come in."

         They never complained  and I never thought  about it until I came to
this meeting.  They just adjusted to the fact that  it was happening and I
think I understand why now.  The frequency was not  very great.  The airport
that  I am talking about, when the GI bill was running strong was a flight
training school and a primary flight training school  in the Cleveland area.
There were times when you would have four, five,  six  Cubs  and then it turned
into  Cessna ISO's and Piper  Cherokees and they were constantly running, but
there were not any complaints.

         Now I believe that  the information you  have  compiled  is fantastic and
it really was brought to my  attention before  but  I  think that  this record
should show  that  there  are  many, many airports out  there which really do  not
have  noise problems because  these people who  are  living around this  area  know
me.   I have  a pretty  prominent  spot  in  the community  and  if  they were going to
complain  they would let me  have it.  I  know  that.

          I think  I get  as much  noise, as much of a  noise  probably from  the
motorcycles  that  run  down my street  because  I live  about a hundred feet back
from  the  road —  or from the hotrods.   The strip  I  live on is  a  little  bit
barren so they decide to rev it up  a little  as they are going  down that strip
but I just kind of  accept that  because  it does  not  happen  all  the time.   It  is
just  an  occurrence that  is  very slight.

          Now I am in  the real estate business,  as you know.   I am  a  developer,
a syndicator.  I  have dabbled  in  the promotion  of oil  wells  in my  area  and I
have  done a  lot of  things,  but  I  was kind of disturbed  to  hear people come out
and say  developers  are  bad  guys because I don't  consider  myself  a bad guy.
                                       213

-------
 I think developers are good guys.  We make things happen.  As far  as the
 planning  is concerned, most of my experience with planners has been that  in
 many cases they have nice plans but they never  contact the real estate people,
 as was mentioned before.  Try as I will — many, many times  I have tried  to
 get on the local zoning board but that  is almost an  impossible task for a real
 estate man in the so-called suburban communities.

          The powers that be, that get elected,  seem  to think that  a real
 estate man is trying to cut something for himself.   They tend to ignore us, to
 the detriment of themselves in my opinion because we have a  lot to give.  They
 make stupid mistakes and I am not speaking of the planners,  but I  am speaking
 of the local government bodies, because they start to produce plans which they
 think are great but which are uneconomical.  Most of the plans that I have
 seen came about in this manner:

         The regional planning commission would start and they would bring
 this plan out to the local community and the local community will say, "We
 don't like this.  We don't want the commercial.  We  don't want the
 industrial.  We want a park here.  We want this here."

         So, it is sent back to the regional planning commission and after two
 or three trips like that the planning commission gets tired  and puts down
 exactly what the local officials want and they  call  this a regional plan.
 Frankly,  I do not think that is planning at all.  I  think the plans come  about
 in the majority of the small communities, suburban areas, by the loud vocal
 voice of the complainers who always think that  any change of zoning is going
 to affect the value of their house.

         My group is a very specialized group of realtors.   We right now  are
 composed of about 250.  We are a division of the Farmland Institute, which is
 also an arm of the National Association of Realtors.  The Farmland Institute
 has 6,000 members and is a very, very active group which is  primarily oriented
 to development of land.  They would be a tremendous  group that you could  call
 upon and  I would be glad to furnish a list of our members to anyone here  who
 is directly involved in real estate aviation.

         We have some members right now who are producing industrial parks
with a landing strip attached.  They are creating the whole  thing.  We have
members who are producing residential developments with landing strips as part
 of the development and I, frankly, am at the very moment personally involved
 in an industrial development, a 100-acre industrial  park.  It is not too  big
 and I am trying to get the adjoining property owners to give me a  little  piece
 of their  land to make a condominium landing strip along the  edge of this
 industrial area.

         Now, the area that I am talking about  is an area of about 1,000  acres
of which my 100 will be a part, and operating with a hundred acres you do not
have enough space to put your own landing strip in.  I came  up with the idea
of having each of the owners of the adjoining parcels give me a small portion
to condominiumize that into a landing strip for the  benefit  of all those  who
contributed.  I do not know whether it is going to work out. I have been  going
                                       214

-------
on it now for about a week.  The response has been positive but I cannot give
you the answer yet.

         Another thing that bothers me is the closing of small airports.
Since I have been flying, which is since 1960, I have seen in my area alone
five airports close, gobbled up by land development -- and even with that
experience my eyes were shut.  I was off doing something else in a crowd
because the landing field that is 3,000 feet from my house was just gobbled up
by one of my competitors for that very purpose.

         However,  as a backup for that, Governor Rhodes' good old airport
development program has been able to take up some of the slack from the
closing of these airports and I was able to get — after listening here Monday
-- I was able to get some information on this which I have given to Dr. Bragon
who will see that  it is produced.  So that you will have that information,
because it is a very, very great development program.

         And as to the closing of these small privately-owned airports  —
those are the ones  that are closed -- I think  it  is a tragedy and I really
would recommend to any of those people here who have the ability to do  so,  to
go back to their areas and see what they can do about stimulating airport
development on a county-wide basis or any basis that you could see fit,
because I see real  trouble with the lack of airports  in the  future.

         One airport in particular in our area was gobbled up by a land
developer — but  I would call him a good guy  — and he kept  a runway  and he
put  his houses around  it so  the people that are coming in to buy these  houses
have direct access from their back yards to the landing  strip.

         EPA is here and everybody knows that  EPA wants  to put sewers
everyplace.  They  want to  sewer the United States --  and  I can accept that.  I
have to.  But I was completely  surprised when  I went  to  EPA  with my  new
industrial park to find  out  that they were telling me that  I could not  put  a
sewer  plant  in.  They  would  not  accept that.   The only thing they will  accept
on this piece of  property  is  septic tanks.

         So, there are two  sides  to everything and  there  is  constant  change.

         MR. TERRENCE  LOVE:   In  business school they  teach you that  nobody
makes  any money  until  somebody  sells  something and  whether  we like  it or not
we  are  all  in the  private  sector  because the  private  sector  is basically where
 the  selling  happens.   Our  consulting  firm  has never really  looked  for
consulting  in the  areas  of  airport  noise.   It is  not  an  expertise  that  is
 thought or  developed  but it  is  certainly  one  you  can  back  into  in  a  hurry.

         As  a consultant in  real  estate  development in  my  area,  irrespective
 of scale, there  are six  places  that  I  have had some experience,  sometimes
 limited  and  sometimes  extensive.   I will  try  to vignette something  out of each
 of those:   Real  estate appraisal;  highest  and best use  analysis  of land;
 submission  of  applications  for  project  approval;  study  of  airport
 attractiveness,  what  tenants might an airport bring around it;  then a role as
 an architect  and  a role  as a real  estate  broker.
                                        215

-------
         Going back to the first one might be the safest  place to  be  if you
can find comparables within the same airport noise rating.   We call  them
centers, CNR's, or the three zones,  three as defined by HUD — and I  don't
know how many other institutions will use the same zone letter —  where they
can blow you away at the 75 decibel  level measured, as Lyndall was saying, on
frequqncy; does it achieve 75 decibels during an eight out  of twenty-four-hour
period.

         A discretionary level we found with HUD, where it  is normally
unacceptable and you will have to write it is normally unacceptable and you
will have to write an EIS that will  have to be read in Washington  —  you  can
imagine the amount of time that that would take — in the 65 to 75 decibel
level or CNR zone two, with the clear zone under that at  65 decibels.  This
would allow on a map an appraiser to say:  Look, this homeowner suffered  under
the same zone or the same noise rating as the subject property did,  therefore
adjustments are not necessary between those comparables according  to  the
standards used by, originated by, whatever, HUD.

         In the highest and best use analysis the same kind of measures would
be required, or would be certainly of interest to a client.  The highest  and
best use, if an FHA requirement is to be met, you could change substantially
what the use, what the density, what the architectural character might be of
development within the zone of that  subject property.

         Third, in the submission or in application for project approval
before a subdivision house, simple house is to be built in  terms of new
construction, many times formal approvals of the subdivision would be
necessary.  Fannie May, the Federal  National Mortage Association,  is the
biggest secondary lender along with  Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Mortage
Corporation.

         For many years I thought these were the Fannie Mays out of the back
of Penthouse Magazine.  It was quite a disappointment to  find out that these
were not the young ladies who frolicked on those pages, but they were highly
institutionalized lenders in the secondary market that you and I would not
normally work with but who might purchase all of the mortages out of Lyndall's
subdivision or who might hold my personal house mortage.   The Veterans
Administration I think would fall in a category like that,  having its own
standards but really is shaded toward the veteran borrower or the buyer and if
the veteran wants to live in a high noise-rated  area  it is very likely that
that mortage can be guaranteed for him.

         FHA falls within HUD but also HUD can hold some strings on sewer and
water bonds, on other kinds of monies for apartment loans,  for properties that
come through HUD.  And so property may carry with  it  a reject stamp requiring
just a few hours of research, not an extensive highest investments,  to qualify
under HUD for a noise rating in an area  like this.

         The fourth place that we have been thrust  has been  in the study  of
land around  airports as regards not the  detriment  but the  attractiveness  for
sitting industrial parks, for office parks, other  kinds of airport-related
uses.  We found in our area there to be  a  good  deal  less attractiveness for
                                       216

-------
office users who really put being near the airport next after whatever,
whatever being perhaps is the site near where I work, is it near where my
employment is, where my clients might be and being near the airport always
falls in after other more normal real estate decisions, criteria.  This could
be true in airport industrial and in particular air freight where the
inventory may only stay in that location, warehouse, what have you for a few
hours.

         If it was important that it be air-carried in the first place, then
you do not leave it in a warehouse any longer than is absolutely necessary and
so the same physical space handles far more  inventory than any other kind of
warehouse that you might think of.

         The fifth role I have been  in is an architectural role where  a former
architectural firm did the research  campus for Lockheed and the research was
highly scientific, meaning we are not just talking about people being  annoyed
by sound and, more likely, being annoyed by  vibrations.  But the campus was
not  located across town as far away  from the airport as you can get, it was
right on the same premises with Dobbins and  the Lockheed base.  Here,  with
sound attenuating architectural designs we had never done before,  it took a
great deal of research to find almost automobile-type gasketing  around windows
with  a four-inch dead  space  required, so the windows did not stay fogged all
the time, individual desiccate decanters at  every window.  But there are ways
with  architectural design to circumvent or master some of the problems that we
were  talking about that otherwise might be inherent  in that dirt,  in that
land, in that real estate.

         And the  last  role was  a broker's role, where  again you  could  look at
the  rent comparables around  an  apartment project that  I am involved  in now,
where the other parameters in that  immediate area suffer under the  same sound
problem; point to them as rent  comparables and if there are detriments to the
subject real estate then, of course,  they have fallen  on all the comparable
real  estate as well and you  do  not  isolate your private sector "piece  of the
world" apart  from that immediate environment.

         You  say, "Oh, this  is  terrible," but  again, following Lyndall's
remarks, there  is a good  deal of building up or developing callouses on your
eardrum,  I  suppose, among those  in  many cases.  Jim's  remark about  caveat
emptor relates here — You know the noise is there  many times before the real
estate is sold.

         This issue is something  I  have  not  received yet but it  was just
published July 12th of this  year,  "Environment Criterion and Standards," from
Federal Regulations.   We  will  all  need  that  in our  work kits as  we move on  in
the  private sector  relations and environmental  impact  statement  ratings, what
have you.   These  things can  change  after  properties  have been  acquired.

         MR.  JULIAN DIAZ:  The  firm that  I represent,  International Appraisal
and  Research  Group, has been involved with  a lot  of noise-type  problems  with
the  Atlanta airport for many, many  years.  Most recently  and probably  most
visually, we  have been involved in  the Mountain View Project where a noise
 impacted  area has been,  or funds  have been  allocated to buy  up  residences  in
what was  considered a  noise-impacted area.   We had  the responsibility  of
                                        217

-------
overseeing and reviewing all the appraisal work in that project and it is
still going on today.

         It is one of the pilot projects of that type in the country now, but
my major concern about the noise issue and the airport noise issue is that I
do not feel the definition of the problem has really been crystallized.  I
mean we all know that noise is the problem but I think to a higher extent that
people's reaction to noise is the problem, how noise affects them, the problem
from the medical point of view.  We have got a lot of evidence but from a
value point of view there is very, very little evidence on this.

         I think the effect that noise has on value is a a major concern of
people and it is evidenced by the weight of all the lawsuits that we have
right now; the dockets are just filled with them and my major concern is that
the decision makers do not have the proper amount of data to make the
intelligent policy decisions, to make intelligent regulations in the field of
exactly what is the effect on values.

         For this reason, my major interest has been the development of
various methodologies that can be employed by appraisers and employed by
statisticians and others who are in the field.  These are methodologies that
can be applied to measure what this effect is.  I think that it is absolutely
essential that this sort of data is made available to policymakers so that we
can be sure that the proper goals and proper standards are designed and are
implemented and also so that local authorities, in trying to meet the
regulations, can know what procedures will maximize their efforts in getting
these goals and these regulations.

         The methodologies that basically we have come up with are pretty much
a marriage of the input of the appraiser and the sophisticated statistical
skills.  Unfortunately, most of the studies I have looked at by appraisers in
the past have shown a lack of use of these sophisticated statistical skills or
on the other hand if they were done by statisticians they were shown to have a
certain amount of naivete about how the real estate market reacts and what
factors are value-oriented.  So the methodologies have to be a sort of
marriage of these two skills, and this is what we have tried to develop.  So
the methodologies that would be developed could be ones that would be applied.

         The preliminary applications of the methodologies that we have come
up with in the area have shown a certain amount of overreaction as far as
development of policies go.  For instance, off of one runway we were able to
statistically determine that the no-effect zone on value — in other words,'
where value was not depreciated as a result of the noise — was the thirty NEF
zone.  We did our study in NEF's.  I think that is approximately equal to 75
Ldn or something like that.

         ATTENDEE:  Sixty-five.

         MR. DIAZ:  No, I think - Well, whatever.  Anyway, it is
substantially higher exposure than for instance the EPA has said it must be,
the area where we must concentrate our efforts.  I think their response has
been 65 Ldn, as the zone where you cannot tell any difference between noise of
                                       218

-------
airports and noise of environments.  But that is not the same thing as the
point where people will tolerate noise or that there will be some sort of
compensating factors for the benefit of being around the airport versus the
problems of noise.

         Now we have found out that there is definitely a zone for residential
property where there is value but it is very important, we feel, that that
zone is identified.  So I think that it is very important that our
methodologies be disseminated among appraisers and other value-oriented
consultants so that the planners and the policy makers can have the data that
they need to implement the policies and regulations that will not only be of
service to the airport but also minimize the problem and will not over react
from the taxpayers point of view.

         DR. BRAGDON:  At this time are there any questions directly from the
floor concerning either the speakers or panelists?

         MR. ROBERT CLARK:  Bob Clark, Kinston, North Carolina.  Richard
Forbes, I believe he left the meeting, but he mentioned or somebody from the
audience mentioned a fair disclosure earlier today  and I would just like to
mention to the audience that we have in North Carolina two, only two examples
I know of where local governments  have adopted fair disclosure ordinances.
And  I would like to report just quickly what the results of that have been.

         In the last four years both of these ordinances were adopted as part
of a development around Cherry Point, the Marine Corps air base which impacts
Havelock and Craven County.  Both  of those communities have  adopted fair
disclosure ordinances.  One is a issuance.   In that part of the country  in
this particular location, much development occurs with septic tanks for
single-family housing  as  well as for some commercial activities.

         The other one from the City of Havelock was for a partial moratorium
on utility blackouts but  primarily was related to notification  at  deed
transfer or at closing with the financial market.   Both  of those ordinances
have had some impact,  but primarily, after looking  back  over the  last several
years,  not  as much as  we  had expected  originally.

         First of  all, most of the area  is covered  by  at  least  65  Ldn for most
of the  city and the  effect  has been that  although there  may  be  some
measureable decrease  in the rapidity of  sales of  properties  for  vacant  lots
for  housing development,  it has  not really been  apparent because  they are
still filling up  in  this  area.  The disclosure  actually  on the  ordinance for
the  city,  they almost  come  too  late to  the closing.

          I  have suggested to  somebody  down there  that  they  start  looking at
the  possibility of disclosing  at  an earlier  time,  perhaps  at the contract or
option  state  for  development.  One thing  I would  like  to report and  the
national  institutions,  particularly the brokers  though,  are  the best policers
of the  program and they also  are  advertising that their  neighborhoods are
quiet,  their  lots are  not impacted by  noise.  This  may or  may  not be so but
that is what  they are  adverstising.

          Moving on to  another  quick question I  have for James  Cott,  I would
 like to mention that in the Kinston area we  are  still  selling  some property


                                       219

-------
near an airport for five cents a square foot, not $5.00 a square foot.
Specifically, this comes to a severe problem.  In fact, when it comes down to
the real nitty gritty of a zoning decision it is much easier for a zoning
board to be pursuaded or dissuaded from one classification to the next when
there is a marketability for both types of uses.

         You speak of the creative developer and the usefulness of this land
but how can we?  I do not think it is going to work very well in our situation
at this time under these kinds of market conditions when giving utilities
there to support both types of development to some extent.  How do we inspire
the nonresidential types of development in this area?

         MR. SCOTT:  The question is, how do you inspire the nonresidential
developer to come in and take advantage —

         MR. CLARK:  And not necessarily through zoning, which is temporary in
some cases.

         MR. SCOTT:  They will come in if it is attractive.  They will come in
if it is profit-making.  The big problem — and I had several questions after
I spoke about zoning — is how do you attract people.  How do you keep the
residences out?  How do you keep commercial and industrial in?

         On a small airport where the growth is not yet started, where there
is not yet a lot of impetus behind it, you cannot do it or you are going to
stifle the growth.  I think you are better off with the zoning that is
encompassing, one that allows all the classifications into it and tends to let
it find its own level because you can destroy it if you are too restrictive.

         I did work around one in upstate New York in which they had zoned a
thousand acres for industrial and in the area that they zoned for industry
around the airport they took in one of the best hunting and fishing areas
around there.  And it was so restrictive in zoning that they could no longer
build fishing and land cultivation projects along the river.

         MS. LISA H. WOGEN:  My name is Lisa Wogen from National league of
Cities.  I want to assure Stan Green that we are trying to do something about
the barking dogs we have.  Maybe we could distribute a few thousand of them
around the country for training jets.  But I also wanted  to concur.  In think
this has been really a valuable experience for  all of us.

         From my point of view I have learned a lot  and I  hope to be able  to
take it back and share it with my constituency  of liberal  elected officials.
They are concerned.  We just did a recent survey in  which  eighty percent of
them responded that they did not think enough was being done  about noise.  I
think part of their problem is they do not have answers.   None of us have
answers but coming to this one conference and hopefully future ones I think
will be the means of giving people information.

         The elected officials have to know  what you are  thinking and
hopefully we will be able to get more of them together with you to give you
their viewpoints and speak of the problems that they are  having.  Thank you.
                                       220

-------
         DR.  BRAGDON:  Thank you for your comment.

         MR.  JOHN TYLER:  John Tyler speaking.   I would like to comment on the
presentations of the first two speakers, our real estate expert and our
appraiser expert.

         During the last ten years in particular, big companies and big
industries have been criticized for their lack of concern of the environmental
impact of their activities on the country.  We now find big industries like
the oil industry, for example, with big TV programs.  You will notice on the
Shell Oil programs their support for various programs.  They tell what they
are doing to support environmental protection around the world.

         I am a  little concerned about the attitude which I have gotten from
the presentations this morning as to bankers, for example, and mortage money
and developers and so on with regard to providing support for the development
of residential units right  in the middle  of a place which has been identified
as something which either is or will shortly be  an  area where the noise
exposure would be way beyond what would be acceptable for residential use.  I
have gotten  the  impression  here that the  feeling  is the buyer should beware.

         Somebody mentioned this morning  that the pilots in College Park
bought property  and  then  later found out  the noise  was way beyond what they
expected and they were  concerned.   I would  like  to  just describe a situation
that occurred with regard to  an SAE Committee which met in New York.  And  the
secretary of the committee, a professional staff  man,  had a wife who wanted to
buy  a  house  farther  out on  the  island.

         Many of the committee members'are  here  today  and we  know the  story
pretty well. The wife  was  told:  You  go  out  and find  a house that you think
you  like and just make  sure you go  and see  several  times.  Well, the wife
picked out a piece  of property  which happened  to be directly  under the takeoff
flight pattern  from  one of  Kennedy's runways  and visited  it  seven  times  and  at
no time  during  that  period  was  there ever an  airplane  in  sight  in the  sky.

          This was contrived by  the  real  estate  agent who  had a telephone
 number to the  tower  she could  determine when  the runway  was  in  active  use.   If
the  runway was  in use  she was not available to show the property so  that she
really researched this  thing  very carefully.   And her  husband,  knowing all  of
 this,  just collected this data  for  the information of we  industry members who
 sort of  dedicate our lives  to do  something  to help  this  problem.

          But here  is a realtor  who sort of  undermines all  of our activites,
 gets people  to  come in, sign on the dotted  line, move in  and the next  day,
 boy,  all hell  breaks loose.

          Now our professors on the panel this morning I note have  considerable
 interest in  this problem  and I  am pleased to see that they are interested in
 determining  what the noise  impact is in the areas where houses are being
 built.  And  earlier in this session material  was presented which could be used
 as a rule of thumb  to indicate what the  noise impact would be,  either today or
 with the operations which might exist ten years from now or twenty years from
 now, so  that if you dig a little bit below the surface you can obtain this
 information.
                                        221

-------
         My question is:   How much interest do you  suppose will  be  shown  by
the banking industry,  for example, the real estate  industry,  the appraising
industry in taking on  the responsibility of making  sure that  the buyer  is
aware of what the problem will be so that it is not really false advertising
or false presentations as is the case all  over the  country?

         This problem  has been discussed in Congress.   They  have considered
the requirement of disclosure of noise impact on residential  areas  before
houses are sold.  It did not get through because the lobbyists from the real
estate industry are too strong.  But let us hear your  reaction to that  problem.

         MR. HUGHES:  Could I comment on that:

         DR. BRAGDON:   Surely.

         MR. HUGHES:  I am sorry you are talking about an experience with a
so-called realtor, but the first thing I would like to point out is that
realtor is not a generic term; it is a specific group  of real estate brokers
and I hope the real estate broker who did this to your friend was not a
realtor.

         Second, as far as disclosure is concerned  let me say that  the
Securities and Exchange Commission is at the present breathing down the necks
of all real estate brokers in the country.  I believe  that in the next four or
five years all real estate brokers will be forced to have securities
licenses.  They have decided that in about eight-five  to ninety percent of the
cases the sales by real estate brokers constitute an investment contract, and
if in fact that is the case and I believe it is, under the terms of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, someone who is  not informed of  all  the
facts in a sale of a private, single-family residence could  go back to the
salesman or the broker that that salesman worked for and demand his money back.

         Now this is rather a severe penalty and I  do not believe that the
realtors in general will try in any way, shape or form to hide the  disclosure
of printed facts such as flight patterns.  It may be going on now but it may
be to a certain degree done because they do not have the facts  in front of
them.  I am sure it is in the case where you are talking about  because it is
very common knowledge.  But in many instances in other communities  the buyer
on the ground really cannot tell where the airplane is.

         He gets too mired up in  twisted streets and connections from one
street to another.  They do not know where the airport is and they have no
idea whether the runway  is pointing in their direction.

         I do feel a plan that could be sent  out to the real estate  board  in
the city, with the request that every one of the members receive a copy, would
be very well received by the real estate community because although  the
average real estate broker does not know the facts that I have  just  told you
— because  it has not been disseminated down  to them — it is a fact.  I
happen to be the state president  also of the Real Estate Securities  and
Syndication Institute of Ohio, which  is a division of  the National Association
of Realtors and it  is a pretty involved thing and it  is going to be  quite  a
sweeping change, I believe, in the real estate business.
                                       222

-------
         So, I think  if the  disclosure  information  is  provided  to  the  realtors
 they will be happy  to disseminate  it  and they will  do  it  up front  because the
 major thing is to do  it up front.

         MR. TYLER:   Let met tell  you that  the  airport operator does not
 disclose this  information.   He  keeps  it close to  his chest and  if  anybody has
 a set of contours or  operations distributed he  may  well  disallow any
 connection with  that  particular plan  because the  airport  operator  wants to
 protect his interests.  So,  it  is  not a matter  of something being  disseminated
 and the realtor  using it.  The  question is:  Is the realtor interested in
 looking into this on  his own to protect the buyer?   I  would like to hear  a
 response from  our appraiser  too.

         MR. SCOTT:   All right,  if I  may, you are asking  the  lending
 institutions to  go  back  into something  they were  accused  of and practically
.run out of business for  or certainly  badly  ridiculed for.  That is a type of
 red  lining and they are  sure as hell  not  going  to be back into  anything like
 that.  They are  not going to withhold loans from  borrowers  to which they  can
 legitimately make  loans  in areas where  people can legitimately  make the
 request for such a  loan.

         There is  another problem and this  is  a human  factor.   It is  a very
 selfish and very egotistical thing built into people.   I  do not know why  but
 you will find  that  many  people will buy Consumers Digest for  six months,  do
 comparison  shopping in everything else  and  ask  everybody everything,  all  the
 experts they know,  which  is  the best iron to buy or which is  the best  radio or
 oven  or something  like this  or  a TV but they are  all  experts  and they  know
 more  about  real  estate than  any real  estate broker, lender or appraiser ever
 knew.

          It  is simple to hire a consultant  and  ask  another broker or  if they
 want  to hire you on the  basis of $25.00 a day  and expect you  to give  a
 $100,000 job.  That is true.  But ask them to  get this information, never.
 People have  this built into  them.  This is  their castle,  you  cannot take  it
 away from  them if they want  this for their  castle.   They have a built-in  idea
 to dislodge.

          You  have two factors — you cannot impose these on - rather,  I should
 say the  lender cannot self-impose these on himself and the other thing is the
 people have this built into  themselves.  They know more about it than anyone
 else, especially on their own property.

          MR. TYLER:  Disclosing information with regard to noise  impact in
 that  area?

          MR.  SCOTT:  You mean after they have  agreed  to buy a residence
 subject  to a mortage, the lender  is supposed to say to them this is not a good
 place for you  to invest your money because  it  is near the airport?

          MR.  TYLER:  Yes.

          MR.  SCOTT:  I see  problems that just  proliferate out  of  the  ground
 but I do not think that lender would appreciate  it or brokers  of  any  type
                                        223

-------
would appreciate it if the man was reasonably apprised of the proximity of the
airport.

         MR. TYLER:  You are sort of skirting the question.

         MR. SCOTT:  No, I don't think so.

         MR. TYLER:  The reason he should be apprised of the proximity of the
airport — Let us say if he is specifically informed with regard to the noise
impact as compared to what is considered to be acceptable for residential use.

         MR. SCOTT:  If you do that you must have, as Julian so well described
and others have, you must have a highly sophisticated noise level plan that
reflects exactly what happens at the airport.  That must be available to
everyone and it could be available in welcome kits, from realtors, chambers of
commerce.  This is the only thing you can do because I can see so many
problems of someone saying you are within a half mile of the airport, you
should not buy.

         Julian has just finished a study tht says it is an area of
inconsequence,  it makes no effect to value.

         MR. TYLER:  Maybe what we should be talking about is an additional
asset, just a simple little thing an Ldn value at that location.

         MR. HUGHES:  Let me  say that you are talking over the head  of the
average real estate person when you talk in terms of numbers and symbols.   I
did not know what you were talking about when I got here.  Even  now  I have  a
vague idea that the bigger the number the worse it is.

         DR. BRAGDON:  What we are showing here is the need of greater
communication,  which is the benefit of what we are doing and hopefully will
extend.  One quick example of the need for cooperation,  a  fair disclosure
ordinance that  was developed  for the City of Virginia Beach which goes back  a
couple of years.   It was  passed by the city planning commission, passed  by  the
city council.   The next day it was defeated, it was repealed by  the  real
estate  board who felt this was not the type of information that  would enhance
the City of Virginia Beach.

         The point is,  there  is  some dialogue that does  suggest  that certain
real estate interests may not feel that  this information is going  to be  useful
or would be educative for all groups.  I mean, that  is the other side of the
issue.   I just  wanted to  mention  that.

         MR. LEWIS:  Joe  Lewis, Town  of  Hempstead.  May  I  just  add  to this?
We are  really off  the track when  we  talk  about the disclosure.   The fact that
an area is  an NEF  30, 40, 60  Ldn  and  if  it  is mentioned  means  nothing.   I have
this every  week.   I get two or three questions on what John  was  talking
about.   If  somebody comes out to  look  at a  house  when  they are  using a
particular  runway  at  let's say 11:00  o'clock  in the morning,  there may be an
airplane coming over  every five,  seven,  eight  or  ten  minutes and they say,
"Well,  I can  live  with  this." Let  them  come out  between 4:00  in the afternoon
and  11:00  that  night  and  you  have got an airplane coming over ~ and I  am
talking about  big  jets  now — they  are coming  over every sixty,  seventy,


                                       224

-------
eighty or ninety seconds.  That is a whole different ball  game.

         So when you are talking about disclosures, you have got to be careful
of what you put in there.  If you just say it is under a flight  pattern,  it
means nothing, absolutely nothing, and I think that this is something  that
everybody has to think about.  And for Jim, this is in line with what  you said
about when people buy homes under a flight pattern and then they complain
because many times -- and I have three or four requests a week from real
estate people, from private individuals selling their homes asking is  it  all
right to have somebody come out to the house at 2:00 o'clock to  look at it —
what runway are they using?

         You see, this is all part of the whole thing and I think I have  an
answer to the land use around airports.  Sell it only to pilots  to live there.

         MS. LUCIE SEARLE:  My name is Lucie Searle from Massaschusetts.  I  do
not want to belabor this but I think there is a distinction here between  the
actual fair disclosure statement, which is a very legal kind of  element,  and
the role that I think in Massachusetts we would like to see real estate people
play.

         This is simply to let someone know that there is an airport nearby
when you are showing homes, and the point I want to make is there are  a lot  of
people that do not regard an airport as a neighbor they do not want.  There
are people who want to live near an airport.  They would like to.  They are
pilots and they are people who have a plane they would like to keep nearby.
An airport is an attractive thing to some people, some homeowners.

         The point is to let them know, make sure they know that is what  they
are getting into.  Now, as you know, in Massachusetts we have the state
agencies now and what we have done is on those airports that I have some  hard
data about noise contours, I have written to realtors and particularly one I
can remember — this was a Century 21 — either wrote or called  up and they
said we would like to know about our airport, which was exactly  what I wanted
to hear.  It was a perfect opportunity.

         I sent them all the information that we had and said here is  the
airport manager's number, call him, take the people over,  show them the
airport, make sure they know how close it is, et cetera, et cetera.

         Just to summarize:   Yes, there are some people who do want to live
near airports and I do not think brokers are all bad at all.   I  think  there  is
a role there to play and I think we need to help them because it is extremely
technical  and maybe this is something not for an airport operator but  a state
agency.

         I have a question now on fair disclosure statements.  I can
understand how it might be easy to get something like this in the case of a
new home probably requiring it.  What I have all the more trouble with is an
existing house that has been around for a number of years  and someone  owns it
who wants to sell it.  Where do you break in on that vicious circle?
                                       225

-------
         Now, does that usually require some sort of state legislation?
Because I suspect the homeowner is going to argue that there is a  good chance
that he is not going to be able to sell his house for as much and  he  should
not have to pay the penalty for that.  So is that something that usually  takes
some state legislation?

         DR. BRAGDON:  Is there comment from the panel  here?

         MR. HUGHES:  The only thing I can say is, in our area if  we  had  such
a paper like that recorded at the courthouse which showed an area  of  noise
intensity and some description of what it meant in words, I would  think that
all the title companies — this is, of course, without mentioning  it  to the
realtors — all the title companies would actually pick this up upon
examination of the title and it would be part of the title paper.

         I would also suggest that if you are going to do that,  you do what  I
said and get the information to the real estate boards, because I  really  feel
they have a definite interest in their own behalf to do that, to disclose that
information.  I do not mean a legal disclosure.  I mean full disclosure.

         MR. LOVE:  We have found it to be in operation that if  a  formal
approval  of a subdivision is necessary, such as HUD approval, like the acreage
level, which I think is a very proper one, we found these contour  maps hard  to
get, almost impossible to get.  I called the environmental  officer at the
Georgia Area HUD Office and, if I called him with any frequency  he would  cut
me off, and I would have no supply there.  So disclosure begins  with
availability, I believe.

         In the defense of the lenders, lenders are probably more  concerned
about the new laws in equal opportunity in lending.  They are probably more
concerned about the borrower having some recourse against them for denying the
loan than they are about that borower having any recourse against  them about
making the loan in a noise level.  The little study from which this map was
taken was a multimillion dollar acreage parcel intended for high density  —
well, mild and moderate density residential  development, a thousand units or
something like that.  I doubt that the sophisticated developer who bought it
ever gave a thought to the fact that he actually was in a discretionary
disclosure normally unacceptable level and plunked down a million  dollars or
whatever and his lender who plunked down several million after that.

         MR. JOHN SCHETTINO:  John Schettino, EPA noise office.  I wanted to
comment about some remarks.

         First, Mr. Hughes, I can assure you that the Office of Noise
Abatement and Control does have an interest in sewers, septic tanks,  garbage
disposals.  As a matter of fact, I suspect that a regulation on compactors has
been issued now since I came down here on Monday, but beyond that  we  have
regulated several pieces of construction equipment and so we hope  you see
those on your sites.

         Concerning Mr. Diaz1 comment, I believe you misstated EPA's  position
vis-a-vis Ldn 65.  EPA has never said that Ldn 65 was acceptable in any
                                       226

-------
 circumstance.   The  document  in  which  we expressed what national  goals or
 national  strategy should  be  indicated an agenda that said we should do
 everything  possible immediately to remove people or to improve the exposure
 for  those people  that were presently  exposed to Ldn 75 or greater.

          The  second statement in that document says that we should then
 proceed  to  take the steps and to do the things necessary to improve exposure
 to Ldn 65.

          The  final  statement that we  make in that agenda is that for any new
 activities  and  for  long-range planning, Ldn 55 or lower should be the
 objective and that  was to be accomplished by bringing all of the people that
 are  affected  by noise together  to see that that was achieved.

          Now,  when  we talked specifically about aviation, I think that many of
.us here  who have  been dealing with the carrier-type airports, large commercial
 carrier  airports  and for which  I think we have a better feel for the nature
 and  extent  of their problem, I  think  that most of us have concluded that it is
 going to be a monumental  task to even  improve the situation for those people
 who  are  presently exposed to Ldn 75 and greater in the remaining years of this
 decade.

          The  question that we have is whether we do things now to solve that
 problem  that  might circumvent lower levels sometime in the future, that is
 below Ldn 75.  I  do not believe there  is anyone in this audience  that can
 accurately  represent or present to you on a national basis what the general
 aviation situation is, and I don't even know whether  it  is possible to
 collapse the  general aviation situation such that you can look at it broadly
 on  a national basis.  I would conclude from what I have heard over the  last
 three or four days that the  range or spectrum of noise  levels that pertain
 around general aviation airports varies anywhere from Ldn 45 up to perhaps Ldn
 65  or 70, and to my mind that is a monumental task to try to develop some
 national strategy — and that is primarily what EPA attempts to do.

          If there  is a possibility of  a national strategy to be developed that
 can  be effected by the Federal Government, then that  is where they will put
 their resources on a priority basis.   But if that task  looks like it is more
 amenable to be solved by the people on the local level,  by the people sitting
 in  this  audience, then we would prefer that that is where it comes from,
 without Federal involvement.  And perhaps our role is to bring these people
 together more often  in a nonhostile, nonadversarial situation which  always
 pertains when the Federal Government gets directly involved  in regulations.  ,

          This audience would separate  out into  about  four or five groups that
 would no longer be talking to each other but would be contacting  me, sitting
 up  there trying to defend what  I was trying to  do to  satisfy all  of  their
 interests and we do  not  like that role if we can avoid  it.

          And so my final comment, as far as what I have  heard about  the real
 estate or realtors or real estate developers  and the  lending  institutions,  I
 don't believe that I have really gotten  a good  feel for  how  those elements  get
 involved or participate  in solving some  of these problems.   I think  that, with
 only very rare exceptions, most of the aviation  noise problem has resulted
                                        227

-------
from encroachment.  I am old enough to know and remember that you had to drive
for at least an hour in order to show your son what a real airplane looked
like and not that model that you carved out of balsa wood for him ~ and I did
that many times.

         I can go back to a number of those airports now as an older and wiser
man and find not the pastures, not the dumps, not the swamps, but residences
and blocks and tracts of residences.  So there was encroachment.  That
encroachment came about because a developer built there and people bought
those homes and that problem still continues.

         Pertaining to the real estate developers and/or banking interests,
what obligations do they have to participate directly in a land use planning
and zoning process to insure environmental protection?  If they have any
obligations, how are they discharged?  Do national organizations get involved
or just local interests?

         Finally, if the answer to my first question is no, but we here
believe that they do have a role and should participate, what can we do to get
them involved?  I think that ought to be a closing note.  I was not really
asking for any comments at this point on that.
                                        228

-------
                                AFTERNOON SESSION


October 5, 1979                                       2:10 o'clock, p.m.


         DR. BRAGDON:   This afternoon we are moving  into the experiences of
the air carrier airports, to describe those experiences and how those efforts
can assist general aviation.  It is always fortunate  to have some historical
perspective; unfortunately, many times you learn at the expense of their
experience, but G.A. has the opportunity of learning  from significant efforts
made by several major airports throughout the United  States.

         We have a very distinguished group of panelists as well as speakers
this afternoon and they are going to relate those experiences to you.  The
first of them is Walter V. Collins.  Walter Collins is with the Los Angeles
International Airport, referred to as LAX.  He is in  charge of noise abatement
for that airport and he is going to relate to us the  experiences of noise
abatement efforts around the Los Angeles area.

         MR. WALTER V. COLLINS:   Good afternoon!  I  am pleased to be here and
I will be glad also to catch the airplane fortunately if I leave on time this
afternoon.  That is, what I am going to  give you is the history, and "oi vay,"
the history!

         I guess we are probably notorious for this problem that you people
have discussed for most of the week.  I  will be  as brief as I can, hit the
highlights and hopefully by 4:00 o'clock you may have some specific questions
that perhaps I could give you a more pointed answer to.

         First of all, the statement of  the problem of the impact of general
aviation noise upon airport communities  has been a growing problem during the
past two decades and will continue to be a problem during the foreseeable
future.  The problem developed due to the commensurate growth of airport
communities with air transportation.  Since the  advent of the air carrier jet
aircraft at Los Angeles International Airport in 1959, the City of Los Angeles
Department of Airports has aggressively  sought methods to reduce the impact of
aircraft operations on surrounding communities in addition to supporting
local, State, and Federal efforts to enact noise abatement legislation.

         In keeping with this position,  the department, in conjunction with
the City of Los Angeles Planning Department and  other interested groups,
formulated a LAX airport development plan which  is highly sensitive to the
continuing integrity of the neighboring  communities.  For some time the
department has encouraged public participation and input concerning airport
expansion and major facility improvements.  Most of the input is obtained
through the environmental process and public hearings; however, the department
has established a Citizens Airport Advisory Committee that meets on a regular
basis.

         This committee is comprised of  representative members from
surrounding communities and provides much needed communication on airport
problems especially noise.  At this time, I would like to mention some of the
programs at our airport, the FAA and the airlines in  general have conducted to
acquaint you with our efforts to minimize our noise problem.

                                       229

-------
         Number one, we modified the traffic patterns that insure the highest
aircraft altitude while flying over populated areas.  Now, on that point, when
I first came into noise abatement there was a FAR, which still exists today
and which says the minimum altitude around an airport is 1,500 feet around an
air carrier facility.  It was a big deal back in 1968 when the FAA considered
raising it 500 to 2,000 feet minimum.  That was two thousand, and now they
have raised it to where it is at 5,000 or at least 5,000 or above when
adjacent to downwind north of our airport.

         (Slide).  Now I realize that this color and this chart is not
adequate for this large of an auditorium and distance, but we have two runways
in the north, and two south runways running parallel to each other, both
complexes.  We have on this chart, the ocean, Inglewood, Los Angeles, and the
City of El Segundo.  Here is the airport for the City of Hawthorne and its
single runway, a general aviation airport.

         We have Hughes Airport and Santa Monica above this.  Now they are
above 5,000 turning outside of Hollywood Park Racetrack, and making their
entry into their final approach to both complexes.  Of course, we raised the
ILS glide slope from 2.75 to 3 degrees back in 1962.

         We developed a suppressor shield for night maintenance, which is
another area of concern, and spent $200 thousand for that, and identified a
large piece of property and built the suppressor with minimum costs.  As a
matter of fact, the architect drew the plans for nothing.  However, extensive
tests proved that it was not workable for the needs of the airlines.

         Of course, the tests imposed upon that structure were at high power,
with four engines in a 707 and it choked itself to death with the ingestion of
the exhaust gases, so as a consequence we built another one that is even more
effective.

         We banned maintenance between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. in the
morning, except for a single engine at any site may be turned up not exceeding
idle power so they could accomplish leak checks, in a sense, for any auxiliary
units that they may have, or changing of piping or hosing, and they could at
least make a security or a leak check.

         But there are no power turnups where they used to run triple checks
at 3:00 o'clock in the morning.

         We conducted residential and school sound-proofing pilot studies at a
cost of a half million dollars.  They have been best sellers, I think, over
the years, and our sound-proofing became somewhat of a textbook in a way, in
that the FAA has published it for information for communities that may be
considering such action.

         Five, we have modified departure tracks to remain over water as long
as possible, and to insure recrossing coastal areas at high altitude.  In the
past, many years back until we changed the first route on departure, the
nighttime operations — night departure tracts — were the same as during the
daytime.  The FAA did not feel it was compatible with their needs and safety
to adjust those tracks even though the traffic was minimized.
                                       230

-------
         However, with some inducement, cajoling, and the pressures getting
greater,  they considered commencing at 8:30 until around 6:30 in the morning;
all departures would fly on continuous climb over the Seal Beach area and then
go on to their destinations to the south and northeast, and due east of the
airport.   Prior to that, and subsequently during the following years during
the daytime, the tracks were maintained on takeoff to fly over the Pacific
Palisades-Beverly Hills area with a constrained altitude of 5,000 feet to
provide for the arriving aircraft, so that there would not be any conflict
with their letdown.

         Also that departures going to the east during the daytime overflew
Palos Verdes and Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, but now they do not cross
either the northern area or the southern area 24-hours a day; they all go to
the south over Seal Beach for those that are going in those southerly
directions.  As well as to the northeast, at the choice of the airlines, the
ones that used to go to the north or Daggett, which is an intersection that
they proceed on to the northeast  as well, they do what we call the Daggett
loop in that they take off from the North runway and do like a ninety-two
seventy and come out and cross over the coast not less than 10,000 feet.

         Now the 747's cannot be  routed that way, but  all other aircraft can.
So the contribution of changes in tracks is enormous  in that our source of
complaints were as far as Pacific Palisades all the way down to Palos Verdes,
well to the south.

         So at a busy airport you can  change tracks.   That  is  a contribution
that can be made at most every airport.  In most instances  it  can  be done and
the only one that  can do it is the Federal Aviation Administration.   In
addition, the Department of Airports has encouraged doing everything
economically feasible consistent  with  safety to  reduce noise within the  limits
of available technology.  With the support of the FAA  an  over-ocean program
has been  in use for  some time, which  I just explained  to  you.  We  also  have,
and probably the first, over-ocean approaches at night.   These what is  called
over-ocean  approaches occur between midnight and 6:30  in  the morning  where,
during good visibility, we have  simultaneous takeoffs  and landings with  a
middle separation.  This is approximately  a mile between  the complexes.

         We use the  input runways as  preferential runways for  takeoff to
lessen the  noise  impact on the side;  and when they  takeoff  they  are routed,  as
I  have described previously to you, between the  midnight  and 6:00  o'clock
period and  all approaches check  over Santa Monica,  VFR, turn  in, and  land  on
Runway 6-Right or  7-Left, the  inboard  runways.

         Under instrument conditions,  however, the  FAA employs a system known
as "metering" where,  depending upon the  numbers  landing  and taking off  there
are  say,  for  instance  as an example,  thirty minutes of takeoff,  thirty  minutes
of landing, but  there  is no counter traffic during  low visibility  or  during
instrument  periods.

          Land  acquisition  is  also considered  a  means of  mitigating noise.   The
department  has  acquired over  640 acres of  impacted  property at a cost of one
hundred  forty-four,  including  $7 million beyond  of  ADAP  funds  which  come to
                                        231

-------
our rescue.  Although land acquisition is costly, it is effective for
communities located in areas of high noise impact because it is a permanent
solution and offers the possibility of a return on the investment since the
acquired land can ultimately be placed into compatible and productive use:

         When the negotiations are concluded to purchase a home, the resident
is paid in addition to a fair market value for their property:

         1.   Relocation advice and assistance.

         2.   Actual moving expenses within an area not to exceed fifty miles,
and if beyond this area moving expenses not to exceed $500.

         3.   Replacement housing supplement not to exceed $15,000.

         4.   Interest equalization benefit which is to provide the additional
costs of the loan between the old mortgage interest and the new mortgage
interest of their replacement home.   This is not to exceed $15,000.

         5.   Rental supplement payment — in the case of a renter of a house
that has been purchased by the Department of Airports, this supplement is
given to the renter should he rent another residence or apartment, or it may
be used by the renter for a down payment on a house should he decide to
purchase.  I think in all that is not to exceed $4,000.

         I think in all that is a fair way of dealing with the public.  The
owner of the property does not pay title fees, escrow fees, prepayment
penalties on the existing loan, or brokerage fee.

         The department has also acquired avigational easements and
experimented with soundproofing as potential mitigation measures.  Avigational
easements are an effective tool to protect the airport operator in that the
purchase of an easement removes the airport operator from liability for
inverse condemnation.

         And in the department's experimental soundproofing program a variety
of homes within the impact area were insulated to various degrees.  As a
result of the study, it was determined that soundproofing is not cost
effective in high noise impact areas because in Southern California most
people do a great deal of outdoor living.  However, in areas less  impacted by
noise, soundproofing ~ including air conditioning — may be a valuable method
of mitigating noise impact.

         California has established a phased schedule of airport noise
reduction standards as well as regional airport land use commissions to
control development around airports.  Now that is a noise phase, however,  I am
afraid it has been a failure.  The principal objective of the state noise
standards is to obtain zero impact by 1985.  Zero impact is defined as a
situation where there are no incompatible land uses within the noise impact
area of 65 CNEL or greater.
                                        232

-------
         I draw your attention to our current 75 CNEL, and it runs across the
property lines that were all appropriated with our condemnation that I
mentioned.

         For 140 miles there were homes along the beach sideline.  This area
was a golf course originally so I would not include that; and in this area and
in the eastern end of Westchester.  Now all of that property is inside the 75
which I will trace here.  I know it is difficult for you to see from where you
are.

         The 75 runs like that around LAX.  You will note that the 75 is even
enroaching within the property of the City of El Segundo, and when you condemn
land and negotiate the purchase prices that I mentioned and all the ancillary
inducements that lessen the trauma of selling your home, El Segundo has not
requested the Department of Airports to consider condemning and paying for the
properties in El Segundo, they prefer to remain there.  Their property is very
expensive, as I think you can imagine looking over the beautiful Pacific.

         For these people here when they had to see their homes with the sites
along the coastal area of California where it is very limited — it has been
well controlled with the Coastal Commissions -- as a consequence those people
were unable to replace those sites.  Oh I image some of them did but not many
of them could afford to buy more developed or increased prices over the
years.  Now that is all completely vacant.

         I may mention, however, a special appeal by a woman who never, or in
very few instances, missed a homeowner's meeting group against the airport —
that she went and made a personal plea — she lived right in this area — to
be the last one to leave, but she was denied that.  Upon the clearing of her
escrow — she was paid off finally — she had to move, but she wanted to
remain and I can understand.  I think there are all kinds of wants and traumas
that people suffer.  They have lived there for many years and it is very
understandable why they did not want to leave but, nevertheless, ultimately
the only solution to her and the neighbors' problems was to get them out of a
high noise area.

         The Department of Airports proposed recently to the Los Angeles City
Council and the council has passed as an ordinance a noise control regulation
that is patterned closely after FAA Rule 19, and would insure timely
compliance with Part 36.  Essentially the objectives of the proposed noise
control regulation and to set a limit on the existing noise and  to provide for
the orderly reduction of aircraft noise over a  specific period of time.

         More specifically, the objectives of the proposed regulation provide
a set of rules that can be monitored and achieve compliance with Part 36 no
later than January 31, 1985 by a systematic phase-out of non-complying
aircraft.

         This regulation, as drafted, will be responsive to the  needs of both
the communities and the air carriers.  A copy of the noise regulation itself
is available.  Rather than expending a lot of time explaining the precise
details of the proposed regulation, I have brought a copy and  I  am sure,
hopefully, it will be reproduced and be annexed to the compilation of the
proceedings of this group.


                                       233

-------
         Now to cover noise litigation for a moment relative to the
experiences of a large airport.  The Los Angeles Department of Airports has
been involved in many noise litigation cases, four of which are of some
interest.  The first of these cases is Aaron versus the City of Los Angeles,
1972, in which the Court held the airport operator liable for inverse
condemnation resulting from airport noise.  The settlement for Aaron versus
the City of Los Angeles was approximately $650,000 for property damage and
avigational easements.

         The Aaron case was soon followed by the Japan Airlines versus the
City of Los Angeles case, wherein the Court established that the airport
operator, in this case the Department of Airports, did not have the right to
require indemnification from the airlines for inverse condemnation costs.

         The Crotti case concluded that the airport operator had not only the
right but the obligation to control aircraft at airports.

         The last case is the Greater Westchester Homeowners' Association
versus the City of Los Angeles.  This case involved both inverse condemnation
and personal injury — such as loss of hearing and emotional distress - which
has no specific legal criteria.   The inverse condemnation portion of this
lawsuit was settled several years ago.  However, the portion of the lawsuit
which deals with personal injury and emotional distress is still under appeal.

         Several homeowners in the Greater Westchester area had claimed both
personal injury, such as hearing loss, and emotional distress, as a result of
aircraft noise.  The Court awarded $86,000 to the plaintiff for personal
injury; however, subsequent to that decision another case, the San Diego Port
Authority versus Superior Court was adjudicated.  The Court held in this case
that the airport operator is not liable for the noise impact of aircraft in
flight, therefore, the personal injury and emotional distress portion of the
Greater Westchester case is under appeal and the San Diego case may prove
beneficial to the department's position.

         In the Los Angeles City Unified School District versus City of Los
Angeles, the plaintiff claimed $140,000,000 in inverse condemnation affecting
62 schools and several thousand children.  The case was settled out of court
for $21,000,000 which gave the airport significant avigational easements for
aircraft overflight, provided now that those easements are not burdened
overtime with a noticeable increase of operations as provided and stipulated
in the settlement.

         The noise monitoring system was installed under contract with
Hydrospace Challenger to assist in assessing the effectiveness of the
department's policies and those of other agencies to lessen the impact of
aircraft noise and to comply with the monitoring requirements of the
California noise standards.  The system, which cost $250,000 monitors all
aircraft operations with two kinds of information.  First, the peak noise
levels of each aircraft overflight and, secondly, the accumulated noise to
which a community is exposed for a twenty-four hour period.  In both cases the
system distinguishes aircraft noise from barking dogs, automobiles,
lawnmpwers, et cetera.

         The monitoring system also records noise and percentages of jet
aircraft operations for each of the four runways at LAX.  A map display board,

                                       234

-------
which includes an aerial photograph of the communities surrounding LAX and the
location of each of the twelve remote monitoring sites, provides a readout in
dBA for each aircraft overflight, and keeps a twenty-four hour record upon
which the daily airport CNEL is computed.  Since we installed that, hardly
anyone in the community ever comes by to look at the numbers.

         The noise monitoring system has the capability of producing daily
CNEL information so that we can develop our quarterly CNEL contours that are
submitted to the state.  And the noise monitoring system is an integral part
of our noise regulation recently passed by the Los Angeles City Council, in
that we have specific levels of the twelve microphones that shall not be
exceeded by a new operator with a new type of aircraft.  And if he were to
introduce a new aircraft that did not operate between January 1978 and June
30th of 1978, upon which the monitoring system established that two percent of
the operations would exceed a given level at the twelve microphones.  Now if a
new operator comes in, he must demonstrate that two percent of his operations
will not ~ that ninety-eight percent of his operations would not -- exceed
the levels established at the microphones.  I hope I have made that clear.

         What it is, it establishes a capstone on the amount of noise —
presumably a capstone on the noise that is currently being generated at LAX,
and that a new operator should he introduce a new type of aircraft — and
let's take one, the SST — he would have one difficult time in operating at
LAX in view of this ordinance should it be upheld if it has been challenged in
the courts.

         Now we are running short of time and that is all I am going to say
unless you have questions afterward.

         DR. BRAGDON:   We are now going to change direction and go from the
civilian side of the spectrum, commercial air carriers, to look at the
experiences of the military side.  The head of that program from Washington,
D.C. is Howard Metcalf, Deputy Director of Construction Standards and Design
with the U.S. Department of Defense, and Howard is in charge of the AICUZ
program which has been operating, interestingly enough, well in advance of
what the commercial air carrier has done and has a long history back to the
late '50's.

         MR. HOWARD METCALF:  Thank you very much — and presuming that my
voice holds out, I may get through this thing.  I was sorry  I was not able to
participate  in this conference, but I got a sinusitis-bronchitis thing the
other day which knocked me completely out, and I hope that I am about ready to
recover and enjoy a long three-day week-end.

         Our policy is called Air Installation Compatible Use Zone, "eye-cooz,
ai-cooz," whatever pronunciation you like to put on the combination of
letters.  It was developed originally along about 1972.  We sent copies of our
proposal to roughly 150 different state offices, area clearing houses, and
federal agencies, et cetera, for comments and we received replies and comments
from about fifty of them at the time.

         We made several changes and our current one was again revised in
1977, but this time we did not go through the  long environmental  impact
process.  However, we did publish it in the Federal Register and received


                                       235

-------
exactly two comments on the current one.  So apparently either no one reads
the Federal Register or people have lost interest.  I am not sure.

         The AICUZ concept was originally composed by the Air Force in a
concept called Greenbelt, and in the Greenbelt concept we would have bought a
piece of land roughly two miles wide and five miles long centered on every
runway we owned.  They proposed this concept because we were getting a lot of
complaints about noise.  Development was occurring around our bases and in
some cases the complaints about noise were escalating into suits and something
had to be done.

         A large military installation, jet installation, today costs maybe
four, maybe $500 million just for the fixed facilities on the base.  I can
remember when they cost five hundred twenty.  And if encroachment occurs to
such an extent that we have to move the airfield, then that investment is gone
and the development around the airfield that has occurred probably because of
businesses that moved in around it.  The businesses are hurt, the people and
land values are hurt, and everything — the Department of Defense, the
taxpayer, the local community is hurt if we have to close an installation and
move to another place, and we really had to do something.

         The Greenbelt concept as it originally was proposed was very simple.
We bought the land and left nothing in there.  It would have cost — I don't
know, various estimates from four to $8 billion were suggested.  We did not
have four to $8 billion and we looked for another system.  So we proposed and
adopted our first AICUZ program in 1973.

         Basically, what the AICUZ program does is tell people what we are
doing.  We tell them how much noise we are making, we tell them what we think
is compatible with this noise, and in our original plans we still did plan to
buy a fair amount of land and a fair amount of interest in the land rather
than set up restrictive easements.

         We do not  like to buy land.  We like to  spend our money on airplanes,
tanks and carriers  ~ whether nuclear powered or  oil powered, either way  ~
but we  do not  like  to  buy land.  We do not  like to manage  land.  We do not
like to take land off your tax rolls.  We do not  want it.  We do not need it.
If you  look at the map of government-owned  land west of the Mississippi,  you
might dispute that, but really, the Department of Defense  does not buy any
land we do not need.

         Also we have to ask Congressional  approval when we buy land.  We have
to get  authorization,  and we have to get funds.   When we started asking
Congress about this, Congress suggested maybe we  were not  doing the right
thing,  that purchase of  land just for noise reasons alone  probably was not in
the best interest of the country.  And  in fact three of the four committees we
dealt with in the House, Senate, Appropriations and Armed  Services, three of
the four committees were disturbed that we  were considering buying land for
noise reasons  alone, and they suggested that we might concentrate more on the
safety  aspects of accidents  ~ buying  land  in the high  accident potential
areas ~ and concentrate much more on  cooperation with  local  communities  and
local planning boards,  and getting zoning  in the  noise  areas.

         Basically  that  was  the change  in  our  1977  policy.  We just  put more
emphasis on the  cooperation  with the  local  boards and more emphasis  on  zoning

                                       236

-------
and restricted in general the purchase of land to areas where we could show
that there was a probability of accidents, not a specific probability but a
significant probability, and the accidents do tend to occur off the ends of
runways more than they do the further we get away from the base.

         I think I should say that we stress in our policy the same thing that
the California Airport Board does and just about everyone else does that looks
at this problem.  The first thing we will do is try and cut down the amount of
noise we make.  Indeed we have changed traffic patterns, we have, in some
cases where we could, done away with night landings.  We have spent over the
years — well, I will not give a figure.  We started buying sound suppressors
for Air Force engine runups way back in the early '60's.  I think we have
practically all of those covered on Air Force fields, Air National Guard
fields, and on a lot of Navy fields.

         We have bought, on occasion, hush houses where the whole airplane is
enclosed for runups and these run three and a half, five, six million dollars
apiece.  We would prefer not to have to do that.  All these things cost money,
but that is the first thing we tried to do, cut down the amount of noise we
make and we are still going to end up making noise that people do not like.

         If we then go out to buy some  land or interest in land, the Congress
has insisted that we have complete records of all the discussions and
negotiations, and the testimony and so  on and so forth with local boards, with
planning commissions, and so on — and  this is good.  In the process of making
these complete records you can be sure  we have talked to everyone.  We have
really tried to inform the public, and  basically I think we have.

         I heard a comment this morning that there was not a lot of
information available on noise contours,  and we  have both our Air Force and
Navy studies  in libraries, and in county  planning boards, and in county and
city councils, and so forth all over the  country.  We print thousands of those
things whenever we make one up so they  should be available.  They are
available somewhere  and that may be in  some cases where we just  have not got
out the word as to where to look to find  them, but they are, in  our case
anyway, available.

         In the course of making these  studies,  developing these studies as to
where the noise zones are, where the accident zones  are, what might be done,
we  involve the  local people in the making of the study.  We do  not want to  all
of  a sudden publish  a book some day that  is going to significantly  affect
possibly real estate values, or existing  homes,  or  possibly new homes, without
the people who  are going to be affected having been  involved in  the production
process of the  study.  So we insist that  all the  local  commissions and board
people  be involved right from the beginning  in the making of the study, not
just when it  is finished.

          I have not  really been following my written thing here at  all, but  it
says:  Does the  system work?  Sometimes  it does.  The Air Force  has published
as  of  last week seventy-three AICUZ studies of twenty-five jurisdictions
having  included the  AICUZ  studies  in their comprehensive  land  use  planning
process  and  in  their plans.  Two  areas  fully  incorporated the AICUZ
recommendations  in their zoning recommendations.
                                       237

-------
         Thirty-three areas have incorporated parts of the AICUZ study in
their plans.  In only ten areas can I find requests for zoning changes or
building permits that were denied specifically because of the results of the
AICUZ studies or changes that would have been permitted otherwise, that is,
denied strictly on the basis of noise or air traffic.

         Two states where it was necessary have passed laws allowing local
governments to include the AICUZ studies in their zoning or land use
planning.  Two states have bought land in our high accident potential zones to
keep the land from being developed.  These are El Toro and one is Hill Air
Force Base at Ogden, Utah where the state actually bought a fair amount of
land.

         On the Navy's side, when you run down the number of Navy studies that
have been published, I think it was 40-some right now.  Jacksonville, Florida
enacted zoning regulations including compatible use zones for three Naval Air
Stations in the area and the local Jacksonville airport.

         In Maryland, zoning regulations were passed  incorporating the AICUZ
studies into the zoning regulations.  In this case, however, I am challenging
the court.  The court held that where some uses had been permitted prior to
the adoption of these zoning regulations, the uses still would be permitted.
So zoning in all cases is not a final solution.

         In some Navy areas, the Norfolk area perhaps  is the best example, and
Virginia Beach was mentioned earlier today, the encroachment is such that
about the only solution we have if we want to protect  the Oceana Naval Air
Station is to go buy out stuff that is already built  and move it away from the
ends of our runways and the boundaries of the base.   This is extremely
expensive, and what it would cost in the long run now I do not know.  I think
through 1980, which began Monday, we will have spent  $20 million there, which
of course is nothing compared to what they spent around LAX, but over the
years it may be considerably more.

         We do not  plan  any major changes  in the policies we have now in  the
immediate future.   We do have — and you may notice this  if you study it  — a
different situation for  the Air Force and  the Navy.   Air  Force bases are
generally in more rural  areas with  less development  around them.  Navy bases
are generally right smack downtown  in a beautiful coastal area where
development is going on, whether this is the San Diego area or the Norfolk
area or Florida.

         So we do have a different  problem in general  for Navy installations
than we do have for Air  Force installations.   In general, we will probably be
able to handle most of our Air Force bases with  local  zoning, local  land  use
planning, whereas we may have to buy land  and buy restrictive easements  and
land in most of the Navy facilities.

          I am trying to  be  very general here.   I say  most because there  is  no
absolute  in any of  the situations.   I have not mentioned  the Army.   We do have
Army air  fields which are probably  more comparable  to your  general aviation
air field in that the aircraft  are  smaller.  Army  air fields  are  generally  not
a  problem because Army bases  are  very,  very  large.   Their air fields  are small


                                        238

-------
and they are using light aircraft and the air field is maybe within a few
miles of the installation.  So you have few problems with the Army air bases
except one or two problems where we have a high concentration of helicopters
and helicopters can be noisy.

         Generally that is our experience to date.  As I say, I departed
almost completely from my prepared text here.  I hope that you will have a
chance to read it, and I hope you will have a chance to read the policy that
goes with it -- the Air Installation Compatible Use Instructions.  And that is
all I will say at the moment.

         DR. BRAGDON:   We appreciate your coming and also your presentation.
It is interesting to note the findings of your experiences which have not been
accounted for in many other areas.  So it is good to see that the DOD is
looking at a follow-up on what the master planning process has been in terms
of success.

         We are moving into a third area here dealing again with application.
This deals with work done up in Minneapolis, which again has been very
significant, and there are a lot of applications to the rest of the country by
virtue of some of their,  I think, very innovative, large-scale planning
requirements -- particularly through the Airport Zoning Act which was passed
in that state.

         We have a representative from that area, Jeff Hamiel, who  is a Noise
Abatement Manager for the Metropolitan Airport Commission  in Minneapolis.
Jeff is going to discuss  the experiences of air carrier operations  in terms of
general aviation planning.

         MR. JEFF HAMIEL:  Good  afternoon.  Excuse my voice —  I have the  same
problem the previous speaker had, I guess.

         For the last two and a  half days or  so, many of you have come up  to
me and expressed a real interest  in listening to my presentation, my talk  I
guess, and  I have really  been flattered  until I realized  I was  the  last
speaker on the agenda and after  I finish you  can  all go home.   Now  I
understand my significance.

         Okay.  Minneapolis-St.  Paul, Minnesota has enjoyed,  I  think,  a
reasonable  role  in the  area of noise abatement  and  airport planning over  the
past ten years I suppose.  We do  have  a  pretty  good  system of  airports  and I
think some  of the statistics  I could provide  you with  today would surprise
you.  We operate five of  those general  aviation airports  of the  14,000  plus
airports that you have  learned of around the  country, which you  have  heard
reference  to over the  last two and  a half days.

         The system  is  larger than most  of  you  would  expect.   In fact,  I  would
go so far  as to  say  that  the Metropolitan Airport  Commission's  system of
airports  is the  third  largest system of  airports  operation-wise in  the  United
States  today.  Los Angeles,  and  Walt  has the  honors  there with  the  largest
number  of  operations,  followed by Dade County,  Miami  and  then  comes the
Minneapolis-St.  Paul  International  Airport  and  its  general aviation facilities
with  about one point two  million operations a year.
                                       239

-------
         How does this relate to general aviation?  What I will do throughout
the talk for the next few minutes is discuss Wold Chamberlain Airport, which
is our  air carrier airport, and than I will go into the 6. A. operations which
are really the bulk of our operation.  Our air carrier airport has about
263,500 operations a year, all of which about 122,000 are G. A. operations.

         But more importantly, our remaining five general aviation airports
consist of about 887,500 additional operations a year.  So you can see that
the vast majority of the airport-aircraft operations in the metropolitan area
of Minneapolis-St. Paul is really general aviation activity.  So we feel that
although we have gained a reputation throughout the country as being an air
carrier-oriented noise abatement program, we do in fact have a pretty
extensive 6. A. program also.

         In 1978, approximately thirty-three percent of our traffic, total
operations, were associated with Wold Chamberlain Field, our Minneapolis-St.
Paul International Airport, and the remaining seventy-seven percent go to what
we call our reliever airport system.  The word is genuinely selected as
reliever and not secondary, because it is a reliever of Wold Chamberlain, that
airport.

         We tried to provide comparable facilities to general aviation
operators and we are in the process of developing two intermediate — and I
will clarify the two in a moment -- intermediate airports to meet the business
and business jet needs.

         We have a unique political structure in the State of Minnesota and
particularly within the metropolitan area of Minneapolis and St. Paul in that
we have a regional, seven-county planning agency known as the Metropolitan
Airport Council.  They play a significant role in designating the needs of the
metropolitan area in all aspects of planning but also in the area of air
transportation.

         The Metropolitan Airport Council, to diffuse a sensitive term, has
changed the FAA's terminology of general utility, air transport, air carrier
to a minor, intermediate and major designation.  Something just happens in the
community when you talk about operating an upper county airport to make it a
basic transport.  Pretty soon we have visions of DC6's and whatever anyone
else can fly, just an occasional jet airliner.  And so they have elected to go
with the term "intermediate," but it is just a basic transport airport.

         Passenger-wise ~ and I will just give my last little pitch about the
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport — in 1977 we had about 8.4 million
passengers go through the facility.  In 1978 we had about the same number,
which says "Hey, Minneapolis is not growing."  But as a matter of fact, during
the four busiest months of the year, Minneapolis's Northwest Airlines, which
account for about forty-two percent of our operations, were on strike — so we
took a real hit.  It was probably the most effective noise abatement program
that I have had since I have been with the MAC — and I will have to claim all
the credit for it.

         In 1979 we were looking at the close of this year somewhere in the
vicinity of ten and one-half to ten and three-quarters million operations.
                                       240

-------
Some folks want to say eleven, but that just scares the everloving out of me
so I will just go with ten and a half.  So, there is growth and they are
anticipating additional growth.

         Contributing to the growth of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International
Airport has been the Deregulation Act of 1978.  In fact, two weeks ago, the
Great Lakes Regional Office of the FAA called and were very curious:  Jeff,
what is happening in Minneapolis with the noise abatement program?  And I kind
of thought it was peculiar; you know, they know as much about it as we do
basically, and I really did not understand what Bob was getting at.

         What it boils down to is that statistically Minneapolis has
experienced probably the heaviest hit of any airport in the country with about
an increase of twenty percent  in our air carrier activity in one year.  They
have applications for twelve additional air carriers, we already have eleven
on the field, and we really do not understand completely why there has been
such an influx of increase, but it is there and we have gone from daily
airline operations of about 430,000, 440,000 a day up to 520,000 operations  a
day at the present time, and I think our new consolidated schedule is going  to
hit five and a quarter.

         So it is a healthy increase  and it is one we have to deal with.
Interestingly enough the community residents near the airport have not
increased their complaints.   In fact, the complaints have decreased.  I will
caution you and qualify it, and I will say this: with our citizens groups we
do not use the complaints  as a real barometer, as a measure of noise  impact,
but it is a way of keeping in  touch with the community and I am quite
surprised that the complaints  have absolutely decreased.

         The nighttime activity in Minneapolis — and  I will discuss this  in a
moment — has not increased substantially —  in fact that means one or two
operations, and that is after  a good  deal of  arm twisting, jawboning, and
intimidation.

         We have  in Minneapolis some  seventeen various noise abatement
programs  in effect  at  the  present time.  We  are  also  in the process of
evaluating each one of those  programs because, quite  frankly, we  think a good
number of them were good  a few years  ago and  probably  not  very effective any
longer -- and  let's go ahead  and  get  the deadwood  washed  out of the program
and maximize the  potential of  the programs that  are good.  Some of these
programs were  preferential runway system which has  been  in effect since
1969-1970, and  it is very  significant,  probably  the number one program that we
have  as  far  as  reducing noise  in  certain areas around  our  airport.

         We  have  a  restriction on airline  training  flights,  and what  it  boils
down  to  is we  do  not permit  our carriers  to  do  any training  at our airport.
That  is  a real  problem for our carriers, because we  are  home base for
Northwest Orient  Airlines, and we  are also  the  home of  what  was  then  North
Central  and  is  now  Republic  Airlines.  These  two companies comprise about
sixty-two  to  sixty-four percent  of  our total  operation,  and  both  of them at
the present  time  have  their  training facilities  in Minneapolis.   However, I
 understand  Republic is now moving their training facilities  down  to Atlanta,
 and so for  those  of you who  live  in Atlanta,  good  luck!
                                        241

-------
         We also have a nighttime voluntary agreement at the Wold Chamberlain
Airport.  It is an agreement signed by the signatory carriers — at that time
only nine — limiting their operations to the  level of October, 1970.  That
boils down to twenty-seven operations a night, and we define night in
Minneapolis from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.

         That was a painful process and it was done well before my time, but
many of you in the audience here did experience  it and were participatory  in
that process.  After a good deal of:  We can't do it, it's impossible, we're
gonna move, you have got to do something.  Okay, we will compromise a  little
bit and back and forth over the course of time,  and it resulted in their
adopting this 1970 level of twenty-seven, and  it is interesting to note that
ever since 1970 those levels, or those numbers,  have dropped off to the point
where today we have thirteen scheduled airline operations per night.

         I think it boiled down to  economics basically.  I think that
Northwest and Republic both have the sincere desire to cooperate, which may be
unique  to the Twin Cities.  They have a sincere  desire to reduce their noise,
and I think Northwest particularly  has received  national recognition
throughout the past ten years in their efforts.  So that reputation they
wanted  to continue with and also the savings --  and there has been a
phenomenal savings there.  The airplanes that  once flew empty or hauling mail,
or whatever — and it was upward from six, seven, eight flights per night  to
Chicago — has now been reduced down to one or two.  And now we are working
very, very hard to retain that.

         A case in point:  Two weeks ago Don Morrison of Ozark called  up  and
said, "Gee, we just -- there is just no way in the world that we can avoid not
putting an airplane into Minneapolis at 12:37  in the morning.  Can you help  us
out?  You are just going to have to."

         He insisted that that  is  the way  it  is.  The schedule would not
permit  it.  In a nice sort of way  we just  said,  "No, you cannot operate the
airplane at 12:37 in the morning;  we are not  going to permit  it  and we will
resist  you efforts."

         And Don Morrison said, "Now come  on.   I have got  this problem.   I
have got this airplane that is going to jump  all over the midwest  and  is  going
to terminate and spend the night."

         This brought up the next  question,  "When  is  it  going  to  leave in the
morning?"

         "Well about 5:35."

         "No it is not going to do that either."

         So we haggled back and forth for  a while,  and Don  got  together  with
Ron Gish, who is the station manager, telling  him  about  this  guy  in MAC who
would not permit them to operate.   At that  point he  said  he would  go with 6:00
o'clock in the morning but he simply had to  land at  12:37.

         He called us back and  —  I am making  a  long  story out of  it.  What it
boils down to was "Well, okay, we  will  go  with 12:07."   Now we are an  hour and
                                        242

-------
seven minutes too late.  It was 11:00 o'clock in Minneapolis and that is where
we were going to hold it, and if he wanted to go beyond 11:00 he had better go
to — this is what I told him -- to one of the other airline companies that
already holds a slot that they are not utilizing and borrow time from them.

         Well Northwest and Republic are not in the mood for giving away their
slots, because they are kind of hedging, and with their reputation of trying
to keep the noise at the minimum level.  So finally it went on for about three
or four days with no call from Don Morrison.  I thought I had better give him
a call and find out what was happening, because when things get quiet we do
not like it in Minneapolis because most everyone does talk.  We have an open
dialogue and pretty much an open-door policy with the carriers.  So I was in
the process of looking up Don's number when my phone rang.  He just said
"Alright, we cancelled it.  We are not going to fly in Minneapolis.  We
figured out another way; but geez, sometime we have got to get in there in the
nighttime hours."

         I said, "Well maybe sometime in the future something will happen
where the Commission will do that but right now, no dice."

         This goes on continuously.  Sometimes we are successful and sometimes
we are not because, when you get right down to the bottom of the line, the
airport proprietor really does not have any business telling an  airline
company what time it can operate or  bring  equipment into an airport at night.
But through the cooperation and I guess a  little bit of  intimidation and
jawboning, as I mentioned the first  day, it does work.  And for those of you
who deal with an air carrier on a minimal  basis, communication really does
help out.

         Of course  it has taken a lot of years to get to that  point.  The
noise-impact departure procedure I am not  going  to dwell on.   It is a
procedure that has been recognized nationally.   It works beautifully in the
metropolitan area of Minneapolis and St. Paul.   Many, many hours of toil have
gone  into that procedure and most recently the FAA has  put out an  advisory
circular, I guess literally endorsing the  Northwest procedure  as being
probably the quietest  procedure available  today  under most  situations.

         We have a runup restriction program  in  Minneapolis.   After 11:00
o'clock at night runups  are only permitted on  an emergency  basis  and must  be
cleared through our offices.  An emergency, however,  is  defined  very  loosely
by us  because we realize that  some equipment  that  needs  repair has to  get  out
at 6:00 or 6:15 or  6:30  in the morning, so it  has to be  checked  before  it
flies, so there are exceptions to that.  But we  have  it  down to  the point
where  we have about 800 runups every two weeks during the night  hours  and  a
good  deal of that was  resolved through the efforts  of Dave  Braslau of  Braslau
Associates who did the study for us  and through  his work we  developed  a  field
rule  and submitted  an  order and we now have what we think  is pretty good
control of the situation.

         MASAC —  I will talk  about  tnis  in a  moment.   Metropolitan Sound
Abatement Council  is  still  a viable, functioning organization  after ten
years.   I think just  about every major  airport in the  country  has  heard  talk
of us  and visited the  Twin  Cities  and  looked  at  this  group.   It  has  a  group
                                       243

-------
membership now of twenty-six persons, thirteen of them are citizen
representatives who live in the areas adjacent to our airport and the other
thirteen members are user representatives consisting of FAA, the airline
companies, and so forth — corporations in the business or in the business
climate.

         A good part of the success of MASAC is that we have Art Hinkey
(phonic spelling), a retired captain with North Central-Republic who has been
there for years and maybe you know him.  He was our chief of flight operations
up until retirement a few years ago.  Ben Griggs (phonic spelling),
vice-president of Northwest Airlines, is a regular member and sits in
regularly, which is surprising to many but not since as vice-president of the
airline he realized it is the best investment the company has in the
metropolitan area.

         And there are various and sundry other chief pilots and high-level
people in management of airlines that I am talking about and they sit in on
this board constantly.  And it is through MASAC that all of these noise
abatement programs have either been encouraged or developed or recommended.

         Let's talk about the 6.A. airports for a little while.

         The Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport is located right smack
dab dead-center in the metropolitan seven-county area.  We are a metropolitan
agency.  We were created by the Minnesota State Legislature in 1943.  We are
our own municipality.  We are not part of the City of St. Paul or the City of
Minneapolis.  We were created in the state legislature.  We have our own
police and fire department.  We generate our own revenue and we do not depend
on the Twin City metropolitan area for any kind of a taxing authority although
we do have a one-third mil rate authority.

         We do it through various lease and rental agreements that we have and
are able to pay our $22 million a year operating cost or thereabouts.

         I should also point out to you that Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport is the only revenue generator we have as far as paying
for itself and through the various concessions — landing fees, rental space
agreements and so forth, land leases to the airline companies that are
home-based in Minneapolis — we are able to support our entire reliever
airport system.

         That system, which I think you are primarily more interested in now,
is associated with Minneapolis airport as is the St. Paul downtown Holman
Field, which is presently being developed as an intermediate facility which
will be basic transport in FAA terminology.  Presently it has a control tower,
it sits in a hole, but it is a nice facility.  We are putting a new runway in
that will extend about 8,000 feet once we get through the clearing process as
far as environmental assessments go.

         Lake Elmo Airport with 146,000 or so operations a year — Lake Elmo
Airport, estimated at 100,000 is your typical non-tower-controlled airport.
                                       244

-------
It is rural.  It is removed from any real development of population and has a
couple of crossing 3,000-foot runways.  However, when things start to get hot
out there, it is surprising where the people come from, just right out of the
woodwork.

         Another county airport presently is in real controversy in our
system, and quite honestly the airport  is in jeopardy as far as development.

         The Metropolitan Airport Council designated Anoka County Airport and
St. Paul Downtown Airport to be the reliever aiports for Wold Chamberlain, so
these are in the very painful process right now of starting studies on
master-planning that airport and there  is a very, very strong citizen
resistance group there that we are just now beginning to deal with.  But
actually we have been working with them for about two years and the planning
process is now started and the revitalization and participation of the public
have also been revived, and so we are having some real serious problems there.

         Crystal Airport—Anoka County Airport, by the way, has about 190,000
to 200,000 operations a year and Crystal about 200,000 operations, a tower
control facility, completely encroached by people but really minimal noise
complaints from the standpoint of complaints and citizens' disapproval of its
operation.

         We do a good deal of things to try to  improve the situation here.  We
just finished relocating runup areas as runup areas prior to takeoff.  All of
these airports basically are single engine prop, primarily intensive airport
with some jet operations.

         The largest G.A. airport we have in our system, with a little over a
quarter million operations a year, is Flying Cloud Airport, and we have just
met a success story at Flying Cloud and some of you may be aware of some of
our efforts down there.  In fact, I will be happy to elaborate for a moment on
that because it is interesting I think.

         Two years ago, Flying Cloud Airport was in the process of moving out
of the single engine prop area and we saw an introduction of corporate jet
activity.  The operators have been there but all of a sudden the economy
started to pick up and as soon as they  saw the  increased operations it was
their key to start coming down on the airport.  That was the beginning of a
very difficult process that went on for many months, which resulted in what we
call ordinance 51.

         It is a jet restriction on the airport; it is a compromise the
airport commission made with the community and we found it to be initially a
good idea, with some hesitation about restricting any airport, but is has
proven now to be a very successful effort.  The restriction basically states
that only those aircraft that are certified to  be in compliance with FAR 36,
at the 1975 noise levels, may operate out of the facility, and no jet aircraft
may weigh more than 25,000 pounds gross weight.

         What it does basically then is limit the airport down to Lear Jets or
Citations or Sabre or Rockwell Bonanza.  To date we have had in the last
nineteen to twenty months five violations and all five violations were dealt
                                       245

-------
with from a corresponding standpoint  reproaching  the  pilot  and basically it is
not being aware that there was a restriction.   It has given us some peace with
the community, so much so that the citizens  committee that  we worked with at
Flying Cloud Airport recommended a runway extension program to put traffic to
the south of the airport, so that is  a success  story.

         As you see, this is the Minnesota River.  At the present time you
have two parallel runways running east and west and prior to the expansion the
northern parallel runway was our primary runway,  with all the traffic going up
over the residential area near Flying Cloud  Airport.   With  the extension they
are routed over a rapid drop of land  and terrain, like three to four hundred
feet.  Now the traffic flow will be concentrating over the  river basin and
river valley and away from the residential community, keeping in mind,
however, that with over a quarter of  a million  operations a year you cannot
keep all the airplanes over the river.  But  we  can put the  jet traffic on the
longer southernmost runway and keep them out of the community, and put the
heavier transient aircraft on the south runway  with the small single-engine
activity that is quite a bit quieter  over the residential area.

         So that is the MASAC's system of airports, and it  works pretty
effectively.  At each of these airports we do have citizen  participation --
grievance committees, airport advisory panels,  whatever called the Flying
Cloud Citizens Aiport Commission, which is a pretty fancy name for folks to
sit down and talk to us, but it works.  And I guess it works because in recent
years MAC has had a philosophy of we  are not arguing with you anymore.

         There is a noise problem not only at Minneapolis International but at
all of our airports, and we have to responsibly plan for the future.  If we do
not, we are going to have some serious problems that are going to encroach us
very rapidly, and so let us sit down  now and talk about it.  Let us figure out
what we can do to make the system comply, and if we cannot, then we will try
to adjust the operation so it will be somewhat  at least compatible.

         And through that kind of attitude and  approach it has been quite
successful.  I do not know that that would work necessarily with all of your
airports, but it works very well in Minnesota because, I think,  it  is a pretty
liberal and politically active group and all they want is responsible public
officials.  So that is the MAC system.

         I should point out that down here to the south there is the Air Lake
Industrial Park.  This will very shortly be the seventh airport within our
system.  We are in the process of working out the details with the FAA on
installing an ILS system at Air Lake Industrial.  To look at  it you would be
amazed — maybe 8,000 operations a year at the  present time.  It is out in the
middle of no man's land.  It is a single runway operation that is marginally
acceptable for operation at the time, but what  it does do for us is relieve
Wold Chamberlin-Minneapolis International Airport of IFR,  ILS training type
activity.

         The big flaw in our Minneapolis  system  is that we have  a micro-wave
ILS at Flying Cloud which doesn't do  anybody a whole  lot of  good;  and we have
a microwave ILS at St. Paul Downtown Airport; and we have  a  conventional  ILS
at Mineapolis International; and we have  several, however many you  want to use.
                                       246

-------
         But  the problem is — and it was highlighted with the San Diego
incident,  accident,  situation, crash, whatever you want to use — and we have
all  of  our G.A.  traffic flying around the International Airport so our
attempts  are  to  move on down to Air Lake Industrial Park and get all of our
flight  schools  at our G.A.  airports to move on down south and use the facility
there for  a training facility primarily.  And as I say, we are willing to
negotiate  a program on this with the FAA for acquisition.  We are looking at
about a $6 million investment down there.

         I see  our time is running out so let me just spend another minute or
two  talking about the Metropolitan Airport Council.  In Minneapolis we have
the  typical players in the land use and planning areas:  the FAA, the Airport
Authority, the  Minnesota Department of Transportation, and local governments
that are affected by our airport.  But we also have another organization known
as the  Metropolitan Airport Council.  This is sanctioned by the State
Legislature.   It deals with all the transportation needs in the seven-county
metropolitan area.  Their function, and they sometimes lose sight of it, is to
basically tell  us what the needs are of the Twin Cities metropolitan area and
with the cooperation of all affected parties, including the MAC, we work out
and  contour our airports, take a look at the growth demands and so forth for
the  facility utilization, storage space available, whatever, and then the
council comes to the Airport Commission with their recommendation.

         They do this with what they call the aviation guide chapter of the
metropolitan development guide, and this is basically their way of telling us
as a municipal  agency:  Start planning now because this  is what our needs are
going to be.

         Recalling the map that was just on the wall, my council most recently
in their 1978 revision have indicated to us that there  is going to be a need
by 1990 for two new G.A. airports.  One will be located  in exactly the  same
industrial area as the Air Lake Industrial Air Park, which is again probably
why we  are very much  in favor of acquiring the property, and also  in the
northwest suburb area of Hampton County.  These have been designated by the
council as being future G.A.  airport locations and we  are in the  process of
starting our study of that issue.

         I was going to talk  to you  about some forecasting and  so  forth, but  I
think  I will pass on that because our time is short  and  I know  you  are  anxious
to leave and get on with the  panel discussion.  But  let  me say  that there are
a few  unique things -- and this  is kind  of the pot  luck  of summarizing  -- in
Minnesota.  We have the Minnesota Pollution Control  Agency which  is really the
thorn  in the side of the airport proprietors, but  it  is  a fact  of  life  because
this agency has elected to establish a  descriptor  for  a  noise  standard  based
on L10 of 65 Ldn.   It  is a difficult, difficult descriptor to  use.  What  't
basically says  is that the noise  level  for the  busiest  hour  of  a  typically
busiest day during the year,  your noise  level cannot exceed  65, ten percent of
that busiest hour.

         Okay,  I may  have  said  it  ir kind of  a roundabout way,  Vjt  what  it
means  is we cannot  during  our busiest day of  the  busiest hour  of  the year
exceed 65 decibels more than  six minutes.  That  is  tough, and  I brought  along
two real quick photographs to show you  what happens  when you  use  that.
                                       247

-------
         The first one is our Ldn and the dash lines or the hash marks
represent the Ldn 65 contour, and then the darker area represents the Ldn 75.
It is manageable, you know, but it is tough.  It is a tough problem, so we
think that in the process of evaluating and studying our existing procedures
and the implementation of additional procedures, I guess making our program
run more efficient and so forth, we can draw our Ldn contours in a little
tighter and become a little better neighbor with the LlO/65 contour.

         I have had the lady put that slide on now.  That is what we have to
deal with and it is a monstrosity.  Just take the exterior most line as being
the LlO/65.  We have some serious problems with it and we are going to be
discussing this whole descriptive methodology with the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency very shortly.

         Let me give you an example of why we have so many problems with it.
First of all, it is larger.  In fact, it encompasses most of South
Minneapolis.  This cannot be resolved through insulation of homes for example,
because it is an indoor-outdoor health standard that the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency has established.

         In other words, if you live in this area your health is in jeopardy
based on their definition, so you either live in a house and close all the
windows and never use your back yard and never go outside, or we have to
comply.  Highland Park in St. Paul, for example, looks like we have a
tremendous problem from the airport all the way to the downtown area, but in
fact that situation occurs about three to four percent of the time.  So how do
you as a land use planner or as an airport proprietor, deal with this sort of
a contour?  You cannot do it and there are some serious, very serious problems
with it.

         But I just presented this thing to you just to let you kind of get a
look at some of the problems we are facing and the size.  This thing
encompasses I don't know how many thousands of housing units.  To give you an
idea of what our air carrier problems are, the same methodology used at all of
our 6.A. airports where we have an Ldn contour that does not go off of the
airport, we have an L10 contour that does not go off the airport as much as a
half to three-quarters of a mile.  We can manage that, we can work with that.
I think we can bring that under compliance.

         Thank you.


         DR. BRAGDON:  We have three panelists who will be here to react to
the speakers and also make any comments they would like to make.

         On my immediate left is Gordon Miller, Deputy Chief, California
Department of Aeronautics, Sacramento.  In the middle is Tom Duffy, Director
of N.O.I.S.E, National Organization to Insure Sound Environment, from
Washington, D.C.  Any to my far left is David Braslau, David Braslau
Associates, who is President of that firm located  in Minneapolis.

         I will let Gordon lead it off at this time.  Thank you.
                                        248

-------
         MR. GORDON A. MILLER:  First, I want to say the same thing that
several people have already said today and that is I am certainly glad I was
able to be here.  I think this is a great group and we will all go away from
here with quite a lot of new knowledge.  I find that what we are doing in
California has been talked about from the point of view of an individual
airport pretty well, particularly Walt's talk when he described, very well I
think, our airport noise standards, and at least how they apply to our biggest
airport, Los Angeles International Airport.

         Those became effective in 1972 and initially eleven airports were
designated as having a noise problem under the noise standards.  The first
step in instituting a noise program on an airport was for the county to
designate the airport as a noise problem airport.  The main emphasis in these
standards was for local control of airport noise.

         Recognizing the difference in noise sensitivity between the
communities, the Legislature and the committees that were set up to actually
draft the legislation and help us draft regulations, emphasized this all the
way through the standard that local people working with the standards that
were set were to actually determine how the noise would be dealt with.

         The noise standards do apply to all civil airports but they have been
effective mostly on the airline airports.  The noise standards themselves were
set with the large jet airliners in mind and we found that on practically all
of our general aviation airports the criteria and noise level of 65 CNEL
remains within the airport's boundaries, so that under the standards we have
no purely general aviation airport that has a noise problem.

         The CNEL standard that we use is very similar to Ldn and we have been
very happy to see, particularly within the last few years, more and more
movement toward using Ldn by nearly everyone.  And I suppose that when we get
around to making some changes in our noise standards, which I hope we will
within the next couple of years, we are very likely to change over to the Ldn
method.

         Our standards had in addition to the cumulative standard of CNEL,
NEF, SENEL, a single event noise level.  Within a year or so after the noise
regulations became effective, ATA, joined by some airports which shall be
named, joined in a suit against the state over the noise standards and the
upshot of that; the Court's decision was that the SENEL regulation was tossed
out.   It was determined by the Court that regulating a single noise event came
too close to regulating the flight of aircraft, which is a province retained
by the Federal government.  So that is no longer part of our standards.

         Of the eleven airports which were initially determined by the
counties to have noise standards, two of those designations were withdrawn so
that we have and still have nine airports that are officially designated  as
having a noise problem or standards actually, though only five  airports have
non-compatible land use within the criterion noise level.

         Now it was recognized that to reach the CNEL level, which is the
criterion level that the standards are aiming for, it would not be possible to
                                        249

-------
put that into effect immediately.  It would have meant practically closing
down airports like LAX and several others in California.

         I think the people working on setting the standards — and most of us
were overly optimistic on what could be done in quieting the airplanes — I
think we all thought that by 1980 we would be much further down the road
toward quieting the airport and coming closer to meeting the standards than we
have been able to do.

         With that in mind, a variance procedure was set up in the standards
so that for an airport that had non-compatible land use in a high noise zone
would apply to the department and get a waiver under the standards to operate
within the law for the next year.  In o^der to issue the variance, however, we
had to work with the airport and determine that they had a reasonable noise
abatement program in effect so that at the end of that year the airpprt would
be making some progress toward meeting standards.

         Well, we have had I guess as many as five variances now, five annual
variances on some of our airports and we are making some progress on them.
The airports are all making progress but on some of them we are a long way
from meeting the standards.  It is also recognized that 65 CNEL was too low a
level to start with so we have airports now that are required to only meet 75
CNEL.  Those are airports where four-engine jets are operating.  They had to
meqt 70 CNEL by the end of next year and all airports have to meet 65 CNEL by
the end of 1985.  That is the standard set.

         We have at least three or four airports that this probably will not
be possible to do.  We are going to have to find some way to deal with that,
whether it might be something on the order of a SETAC by recognizing that some
people would rather stay close to the airport and put up with more noise than
others and maybe by insulation or by buying those people out who would like to
move out, by buying up the land close in that is just too noisy for anyone to
be there and maybe redevelop in compatible use.  Some things like that will
have to be done.

         We are finding now that we have some policies  of Federal agencies
that are certainly interfering with our meeting the noise standards.  The
deregulation of the airlines has put a new wrinkle in the whole thing.  San
Diego, for instance, is one of our airports having a very difficult time  in
order to comply with the variance conditions we have issued.  They are trying
desperately to keep the noise level down certainly to what  it is  now, maybe  a
little quieter.  But at the same time they have several new airlines wanting
to institute new service.

         They adopted a local resolution or regulation  not  allowing any new
service.  They got a pretty strongly worded letter from the FAA saying that
they could not do that or they would lose all the Federal money they had  and
all they ever had and maybe go to jail.  And that has happended at Santa
Monica and in Orange County and at Burbank and  it looks like it is probably
going to happen in San Francisco.
                                       250

-------
         So we have two Federal policies really that are banging heads
together right now — that is the Federal airport noise policy and the
deregulation policy.

         Of course, there is a strong impetus in the Federal Administration to
make deregulation work, so I do not know how that is going to be resolved --
in court, I suppose.

         I mentioned the other day, yesterday, that we have  an Airport Land
Use Planning Law.  It is not directly related to the noise standards
themselves but, of course, there  is some relationship there  in that that law
requires an airport landings commission to be set up in each county that has
an airport and that planning related to noise abatement be done around each
airport and as I explained yesterday, that is not being very well done.

         There is no time specified when those plans have to be done.  There
is no fund provided for it in the  legislation and there just has not  been very
much participation.  It was a good  idea and has raised a lot of discussion
about planning around an airport.   I think people in California know  more
about what can be done than they  would have if we had not had the commissions
formed, but it certainly has not  done the job that  we hoped  it would.

         We have provided noise monitoring for some G.A. airports,  airports
where we were certain that the noise did not exceed what the noise  standards
called for, but  recognizing that  nevertheless those general  aviation  airports
had noise problems  and needed some  way to  identify  where the noise  problems
were.  Torrance  was one of those  and we  agreed with airport  management there
that  if the noise could be described, it would put  the airport  in a better
position to discuss the subject with the community  and that  has really come
about.

         I think the fact that Bill  Critchfield  has a  very  sophisticated
system for monitoring  noise  and being able  to draw  noise contours has put  him
in  a  much  better position to  have a meaningful  dialogue  with the  citizens  and
with  the pilots  in  encouraging the pilots  to  fly more  quietly.

          Incidentally, the  pilots'  group  has  objected  to having the noise
monitors  in Torrance.  They  threatened  a lawsuit.   I  think  if they  could  have
gotten  enough  money together  they might  have  had one.   But  I believe that
everyone concerned  has recognized that  having that  monitoring available was
very  helpful  in  working  out  the  problem  with  the program that they have there
now.

         One  other  thing  I would  like  to touch  on just briefly.  We have  not
had very much  discussion  about the Federal  noise bills that are pending  in the
Congress  now,  Kennedy's  bill  on  the Senate side and the House bill  also
pending.   There  are some  good things in those bills,  money for noise abatement
planning and  of  forcing  implementation,  but as  most of you know there are also
 some  provisions  to waive  the date for compliance with FAR 36 and we are very
much  concerned about that -- and  I guess we would,  or I know that we would
 like  to have  noise legislation.   We would like to  have the good things that
 are in those  bills but if we had to, we would be willing to give that up to be
 sure we do not get those waivers in.
                                        251

-------
         But we are hoping that the move to take the good parts of that bill
out and fold it in with ADAP legislation will come about.  I think that is all
I have.

         DR. BRAGDON:  Tom?

         MR. THOMAS A. DUFFY:  I think I came to this conference as sort of a
basic training session because the N.O.I.S.E. group has been involved almost
completely with air carrier noise problems in the past.  I have learned a
couple of things and I have a couple of things that I want to react to that I
have heard this week.

         I function as staff for N.O.I.S.E., the people who write my
paychecks, or the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National League of
Cities.  I have been listening for a couple of days to how every land use plan
related to an airport in the country has caved in within fifteen minutes of
somebody asking to encroach, and I have heard people try to analyze why that
has been happening.

         We heard the dramatic statement of some "indictably" corrupt
operations in Orange County the other day.  Last night, quite humorously, we
heard about some folks who stood to gain by operations of land use games near
them, very friendly with folks who did.  We heard the other day of the folks
who were unsophisticated whom I took to be dumb, and I recognized several of
those people because I have been working with city and county officials
nationally for seven years or so.  I probably know or have known between 1,000
and 1,500 mayors and city councilmen from all across this country, and frankly
I did not recognize the profile that we have heard drawn this week with the
profile of people I have known in those seven years across the country.

         I think of a city councilman in Fort Worth, Texas who is well off,
net worth $750,000, not in the land development business, who gets paid $10 a
week if he shows up at a council meeting.  He is not in it to make a bundle
any more.  He is not in it to take care of his friends.  He is in it because
he figures that he has made a good living from his place and he owes it a
couple of years of services.

         Now, those guys -- and I take Fort Worth because I am very intimately
familiar with those people — spend their time and spend their worry and spend
those couple of years of hard service, I think, with some very honorable
motives.

         Now there is still a question.  Why do all these encroachments take
place?  Why do local officials seem so uninformed, dumb, whatever, when you
try to come to them with airport needs, and Lisa Wogen of the National League
of Cities and I were talking about this the other day and we evolved part of a
theory anyway.

         Part of it rests on the fact that local politicians, like all other
politicians, thrive on compromise.  When they run into airport noise problems
there does not seem to be any avenue of compromise for them.  They have on the
one hand neighbors who are screaming and yelling, "We need help.  We are being
molested in our homes by this noise.  Do something."  They go to the airport
                                       252

-------
on the other hand and the minute they talk about fixing noise you get pilots
talking about, "You are trying to ruin safety and make us crash," and all this
sort of thing.  That is all they get.  They never get into the avenues of
compromise that are normal to them  in every other thing they do  in the country.

         And perhaps one of the things we should learn from this and the talk
about communication and education we have had for everybody else and heard
about for a couple of days, is that they need to be shown some avenues of
compromise.

         The Torrance experience I think is an excellent one in  a sense
because they went out and told the  local officals and people about the things
that could be done in their operations and were being done and when people
understand that things are being done, they help.

         Some ways of compromise of land use -- of the Los Angeles airport
experience, some of those cities, Inglewood, are finding out that you may have
to move people but it does not have to be a dead financial loss.  What you  can
do is redevelop in an economically  profitable way so there does  not have to be
a monstrous cost to the city, State, and Federal Government.  The point here
is that if you show them the avenues of compromise that they can follow in  the
ways that they do everything else,  they will be more amenable to meeting
airport needs or going at least halfway toward them.

         Other subjects -- Let me put to you a proposition.  The proposition
is this:  that airport operators do not have a noise problem; that aviation
manufacturers do not have a noise problem; that planners, anyone else we have
heard this week, do not have a noise problem.  Only people have  a noise
problem.  The problems that all the rest of us have are  in reacting and
dealing with the people who have a  noise problem.

         Now, this is not just a cute little exercise  in  semantics.  There  are
a couple of lessons to be learned by  it.

         When we look at  a problem, we  look at  it  in our  terms.   If we  are
planners, we  look at it in planning terms.  If we  are  airport operators, we
look at it in airport operational terms.   If we  are pilots, we  look at  it  in
terms of how do you operate an aircraft, and you concentrate on  those  aspects
that you can deal with.   If you are a pilot, you deal  with pitch settings  or
rpm's.  If you are an airport operator, you deal with  flight patterns.   If  you
are a planner, you deal with land use controls.  You take a piece  of  the
problem and you deal with it from your  point of  view.

         And because you  are a professional you  abstract  and you go further
and further and further back.  It dawned on me yesterday  when  I  was  listening
in the name of a noise problem to a discussion  of  why  it  took three  and a  half
years to get  a certificated engine  onto an  airframe to fly it.   Now,  as 1
thought about it and later  I figured  I  could get  back  to  where  we  were to  the
discussion on the noise problem,  but  I  had  to make  an  effort.   We  tend to
extend or  attenuate our thoughts  I  think  in our  own  disciplines, far  away  from
the basics of the problems  and maybe  now  I  am  suggesting  the  Vince Lombardi
approach to airport noise maybe,  to get back to  basics.
                                       253

-------
         If you don't, what can happen?  — is something that has happened
with the noise bill we just heard about, Gordon talked about.

         Somehow, the people who are interested in having this noise bill
passed managed to convince the Congress by some kind of strange logic that the
noise problem was how much money the airplane manufacturers had and the
airlines had to pay for retrofit and reengining, and that in fact by passing
this noise bill you were solving the noise problem.  Now that again on its
face is stupid, but if again you get far away from the basics, that people
have noise problems and nobody else does, you can get back into that kind of a
logic and you can get bills whipped through the committee or the whole
Congress on that kind of basic.

         I struck the other day when I heard about avigation easements;
thought about these for a while.  Avigation easements do not solve noise
problems.  Avigation easements solve the legal liability problem for an
airport operator, which does not approach whether people get sick or are hurt
physically or hurt psychologically or can live well because an airplane flies
over their head.  Just because an airport is able to buy an easement and can
thereafter fly with inlimited noise over an area forever, the third owner of
that house after they got nothing out of the original easement payment for it
and is suffering from the noise problem and has less ways of dealing with it
as a citizen of this country then the original owner did.  And when you go
into quote solutions like that, I think quite often we are getting on the
wrong track.

         It is an iffy legal device but it just does not approach the main
problem.  I think that is just about the sum total of what I have to say.

         DR. BRA6DON:  David?

         MR. DAVID BRASLAU:  Let me just briefly run over my background so you
will know where I am coming from.  We have done a lot of noise modeling —
highways, airports, and other areas.  I am chairman of a committee in
Minneapolis called the Metro Clean Air and Noise Committee.  I am chairman of
the American Society of Civil Engineers' committee called the Air Site
Committee which deals with air space around airports.  And I am now vice
president of a new group in Minneapolis call HUSH, which stands for nothing
unless you can think up a name.

         My company is an associate member of the National Business Aircraft
Association.  I was attending a conference here last week and we also fly a
Cessna 310.

         We have worked on air carrier airports, general aviation airports; we
have done master plans and we were the people that were guilty of recommending
the change in name of minor, intermediate, and major airports in Minnesota
that Tom Duffy talked about, and we also recommended that the Hampton County
Airport be upgraded to intermediate, which means it would handle business
jets.  My day was made however when Jim Scott held up a report from MBA and
                                       254

-------
said it was one of the best reports he had seen to the benefit of aviation.
That was a study we completed for the Division of Aeronautics and Department
of Aeronautics in 1975.

         Now I think the concept of the level of expectation appears to be
very important for general aviation noise impacts.  We were talking with John
Schettino at lunch.  There seems to be a possible threshold level above which
people will complain and below which there are not always complaints evident.
A fellow in Sweden has been doing some work in this.  That threshold is
approximately a hundred operations a day.  Was that jets?

         ATTENDEE:  That is what my memory was.

         MR. BRASLAU:  Now, we have done a lot of work on the intrusiveness of
noise in very quiet areas.  We did a snowmobile study in Minnesota in which we
found out you could hear a snowmobile for as much as ten to fifteen miles
away.  A more recent study was done as part of a copper-nickel study in
Minnesota, where analysis was done on the distance away where you could hear
the trucks that were actually involved  in the mining, and this was in the
wilderness area.

         There are four basic categories of noise environments: urban
environment, suburb environment, rural environment, and the wilderness and
national park environment.  Urban environment, of course, you can make no
noise.  Suburb environment, of course, we have trouble in the Twin Cities
where the intrusiveness is not quite as critical.  In the rural environment,
as well as the particular wilderness environment, it becomes extreme.  In
fact, Jackson Hole Airport is a good example, where the airport will actually
be closed eventually because it is inconsistent.  It had been found to be
inconsistent with the  quietude that is  supposed to be found  in the national
park.

         Another area, Ldn -- Technically, I do not think the Ldn contour is
completely well defined.  I do not think there is agreement  among the people
who are predicting Ldn.  I have heard the term used in a lot of different ways
but I have heard discussions about contours and I have heard discussion about
Ldn at points.  I was  talking with Dick Procunier about Buchanan Field in
California and he indicated that the consultant had come up  with an Ldn
contour, as you usually find in small airports, and indicated that for
measurements the contour was actually a big circular area which was indeed
much larger.

         I think one problem here, and maybe he could clarify this, I think
that the concept of Ldn was developed initially when the levels documents
referred to an average-annual exposure.  And I think if you  take the maximum
exposure for each day  and you look at the  locus of  all these, you will end  up
with a much larger contour.  I think if you do that you will  lose the
relationship between NEF and the complaints which  I feel have developed in
average-annual traffic.  And this  is another area that I think should be  at
least discussed in a little more detail.

         The Ldn  is, I think, not  sufficient to describe the noise environment
of small airplanes.  I think you need something like times  above or duration
above, time of frequency.  We have done a  lot  of  studies in  Minnesota where  we
have this L10, and where we have actually related HO to time above levels,  to

                                       255

-------
Ldn and Leq.  We have found that the 10 Ldn number is not good enough any
more.  It  is actually a non-linear function in incline with the log.  So,
there is a complex relationship between Leq, Ldn and time above.

         And I think that when you get down to the airports with a small
number of  operations, the Ldn really fails and I think that is why people have
mentioned  this, that people complain even though the Ldn is below 55.  Joan
Caldwell,  I think, mentioned this too.

         One issue that I just wanted to mention, helicopter noise.  At the
NBAA last week there was a lot of discussion about executive helicopters.  It
is going to become more and more and more an issue and I think this was
something that was not really touched on here.  This is something that I think
should be given some more consideration.

         For EPA, in their interests in looking at general aviation aircraft
noise, I think in Minneapolis the problem of reliever airports is very
important.  That Anoka County Airport, which was recommended as a reliever,
was done to remove this traffic from Chamberlain and therefore to keep the
noise contours at Chamberlain reasonably small.  So therefore the issue of
general aviation airports and general aviation noise is not strictly one of
the G.A. airport contour or impact itself.  It has to be tied into hub areas
with the idea of keeping a major hub airport contour small by removing a noise.

         This brings up an issue.  The HUSH group was founded actually last
week.  We had a meeting.  NANCO, the National Association of Noise Control
Officials, met there with EPA.  Chuck Elkins was there along with Dick
Bartwith and there was a person who was fighting the Anoka County Airport.
She was asked to be on the board.  We had a dinner and she met me.  She found
out that I was one of the people who recommended her airport be expanded; that
was strike one.

         Strike two, the organizational HUSH meeting was going to be held at
Walter Rockenstein's house.  He was an alderman who has been very active in
dealing with the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and he has also
been pushing in some respects for the Anoka County Airport.  I will not go
into the history but Minneapolis was going to have a northern airport site at
one time.  The idea that the EPA was coming to meet at Walter Rockenstein's
house suggested to her that this was in fact a guise to push for a northern
airport again and to put it in Anoka County, and that the upgrading and master
plan for Anoka County was in fact a guise to develop a new major airport in
Anoka County — and she declined to come to the meeting.  In fact, she
declined to serve on the board.

         And I guess I would like to know how one deals with people like this
who are so paranoid, who are so mistrustful of the establishment that -- we
are looking for ways to deal with them so if anybody has any suggestions I
would appreciate the advice.

         And I think finally, Minnesota is proposing or somebody in Minnesota
is proposing a noise disclosure act for the state and our committee is having
a meeting  on November the 8th to discuss some of the applications of this.
The reason they are doing this became very clear that it is not clear to us.
What should be included in a noise disclosure act as the level?  Is it
location?  Is it the type of source?  In other words, what do you do in terms

                                       256

-------
of value and property value degradation?  What do you do when somebody is in
fact told that the noise might be greater here on this piece of property?

         Crystal Airport, which was mentioned by Jeff Hamiel, had exactly this
problem, not from the noise point of view but just from the safety point of
view.-  Minneapolis has zones A, B, and C and because of the Minneapolis Land
Use Planning Act these zones have been on the books for about, I don't know
how many years, three or four years.  But because of the Land Use Planning
Act, they had to be  incorporated  into the comprehensive plan and therefore
they became very important and the people that found themselves in these zones
all of a sudden started screaming and said  in effect:  If you are saying you
cannot build in our  neighborhood, you in fact are redlining us and reducing
the value of our property.

         I am not sure exactly what  the resolution of that finally was.  So  if
anybody has any suggestions on the idea of  noise  disclosure  legislation and
what should be  in it, I would also appreciate your input and I think with that
I will split.

         MR. JAMES K. THOMPSON:   I am still  trying to get  a  feel for how
important — I mean, just what  is the scope and  significance of the G.A. noise
problem?  I noticed  from  a report that FAA  had  that  two  out  of four private
airports throughout  the United  States, the  length of  the maximum runway  is
3,000 feet.  Now, that  is  down  to the basic one  utility  type.   It  is one out
of  four, two out of  four  and  one  out of four of  the  civil  airports.

         Now that says  there  are  a  lot  of  airports  with  small  runways  but  it
does not tell  us where  they  are  and  it  seems like a  lot  of these  airports  are
located  in  rural areas  and  a  lot  of  them may be located  in the more  congested
areas around cities.

          I  had  some  ideas on  how to  get  a  handle on  what kinds  of  experiences
they have.  They mentioned  in North  Carolina where in some areas  they  are
really  out  in  the  boondocks.   Does  anybody have any feel  for what  percentage
of  the  general  aviation type  airports really have noise  problems?

         MR. CAMPANELLA:   May I make a  comment there.  I do not  think  that is
a fair  question.   I  do  not think that is  a fair question,  stated  in  its
general  form because most of the airports  that have noise problems did not
have  a  noise  problem at one time.  So if you say what airports have  noise
problems today you  get a set of answers.   Five years from now that would be
 insufficient  to the question.  I think the only answer is that all Airports
have  a  potential  noise problem and,  as one of the speakers said this morning,
there ought to be on file in the courthouse or the county seat somewhere what
 the noise contour is of that airport, and  it need not be a precise contour.
 It may  not  need to  be one that is adjusted to the traffic every year but some
 person  who  goes there to buy a house or put a house in a residential area
 needs  to have his petition, his plat, compared with that contour and a yes/no
 position could be developed relatively early in that planning exercise.

          That is the problem.  I will say  it once more.  All airports have  a
 potential  noise problem, period.
                                        257

-------
         MS, SEARLE:  I have a quick question for Jeff Hamiel and maybe Gordon
would want to comment after.  Do you feel at Minneapolis that the increased
traffic, promoted primarily by regulatory reform, is a concern to you
noise-wise and is it something that would lead you to want to discourage CAB
approval let's say of multiple route awards for CAB approval of routes that
would lead to additional traffic?  Do you share the same concern to that point
that Gordon does?

         MR. HAMIEL:  Yes, I do.  There  is just no way to get around it if you
are going to increase your airline or air carrier activity by twenty percent
and therefore approximately twenty percent of your total utilization of
runways.  Over a populated city like Minneapolis, you have got a problem.  We
did not recognize the problem existed for probably the first four or five
months of the year because of the relatively elaborate runway rehabilitation
program that was going on and the reshouldering.  We attributed the increased
complaints -- people calling up and saying, "There are more airplanes; why?"
We said that it was because one of the two parallel runways was closed and
there was more traffic on the other parallel runway and, as a result, there
was the traffic.  But after looking at the consolidated schedule, we are
taking a closer look now, Lucie.  No.

         MS. SEARLE:  I am interested in the balance here ~ I am a great
believer in regulatory reform.  I think  it has done great things for the
consumer, for the flying public -- and how you balance that against the
interest of airport neighbors.  I think  Gordon is worried about that in
California.

         MR. MILLER:  Yes.

         MS. SEARLE:  And when you remember that it takes a doubling of
operations to increase noise by three decibels —

         MR. HAMIEL:  I would not make that statement in my community because
I would be shot right out of the water.  I think I share the same view that
Gordon has basically, and that is — Let me say one thing, and that is if
deregulation is on the increase now, it  is a reaction type of a situation at
the present time.  Many of the companies are feeling their muscles and testing
the water.  That is going to settle down.  It may take a year, it may take two
years, but it is going to settle down.

         However, our attitude right now is that we are not going to change
CAB's philosophy.  Deregulation tied to  environment is here.  San Diego, San
Francisco very shortly has felt the blunt of any kind of action a proprietor
has taken and so our philosophy now is to discourage the stuff that really
hurts us, which is the flight time activity like my story about Ozark, and see
what happens.

         It is a tough thing to do, to sit there and watch it happen but what
else can you do at this point?

         MR. DUFFY:  One aspect of that  is now  it affects general aviation
more than anything else.  A case that has gone on at Love Field in Dallas,
which'has been essentially a general aviation airport except for one small
                                       258

-------
airline, suddenly a lot of airlines want to fly in there from Miami, New
Orleans straight into Love Field.  A Federal judge has ruled ~ and of course,
there are several suits on this -- that about the ony judgment that the CAB
can use anymore is the fitness of an  airline to carry passengers.  Local
noise, local environment, local desires are not in it, frankly, and you are
just sort of stuck with what you get.  And what you do, you take Jeff's
approach and try to deal with it after you get it.

        _MR. MILLER:  We have had an indication though from the CAB that they
are working hard to try to devise some way to -- they are primarily concerned
with discrimination at San Diego and at Burbank.  At each of these places
there was an ordinance developed that  would keep out new air carriers and
those drew  letters right away back from the FAA and the CAB.  The Burbank
manager got about a twelve-page letter from their economist describing in
theory a system of allocating noise.

         Their contention is that you  cannot discriminate against an airline
that wants  to come in.  You have to find some way to let him have equal access
to the airport that the  incumbents have.  So in effect what you are saying,
you are going to have to take something away from the guys there  in order to
give part of it at least to someone who wants to come in, and immediately you
see all kinds of problems here.  An airport has all kinds of contracts with
the incumbent airlines.

         But we have heard last week that the CAB does have a special
committee and a report is due to come  out soon and we are eagerly awaiting
that.  It is hard for us to imagine that it is really going to solve things
but it may  point the direction of some way that the airport can deal with the
additional  flights and at the same time satisfy the requirements  of not being
discriminatory.

         A  curfew is one thing to help keep out the night flights but our
major airports are running into problems there too.  San Diego again, they
imposed a nighttime curfew on themselves.   In out  last waiver or  variance
under our noise standards we asked them to  extend that one hour on each end.
They declined to do that, took us to court, and the Federal court judge said
that the state could not impose that kind of restriction.  The airport
operator himself could.  He could extend the curfew as long as he did not
interfere unduly with interstate commerce but we,  as a state, could not tell
him to do that.

         So, we have got an interesting set of things that need to be done  and
Federal policies to deal with that make it  a little bit unclear how we are
going to get from here to there.

         DR. BRAGDON:  Okay, Joe?

         MR. LEWIS:  Joe Lewis, Town of Hempstead.   I would just  like to make
a  statement.  I have been to many conferences of the FAA and the  EPA and the
Port Authority and everything else and I think this  is the best one.  I think
we have accomplished a  lot here these  few days.
                                        259

-------
         One of the things I think has been brought home to everybody is that
all people involved in a decision have to be in on that decision making at the
beginning, at day one.  You cannot start with say the airport operator and the
FAA and then bring in the public or the carriers or what have you.  Everybody
has got to be in from day one.

         Another thing I think was brought out here is that, unfortunately, in
the weight and balances the dollar sign has too much weight.  We have got to
equalize that somehow.  How?  I don't know.

         And the third thing is that I hope that this type of a conference
will be held more often by the EPA and I think John Schettino and Bill Sperry
and Cliff Bragdon and the others involved in this ought to be given a big
round of thanks for pulling this off, because I think they did one hell of a
job.

         And finally, I would like to put into the record a quote from someone
who when I was in school — which I am not going to tell you how many years
ago — appeared and spoke to us and I think this quote is very befitting of
the things we have been talking about here, and it is:

         "Concern for man himself and his fate must always form the chief
interest of all technical endeavor.  Never forget this in the midst of your
diagrams and equations."

         That was said by Albert Einstein and I think  if we remember that, it
will be good advice to all of us.

         MR. MILLER:  I think if I can make one more  point  —  I agree with
what Joe said.  I think we have had a very good dialogue here.  One of the
things I find most irritating is to hear people on either  side  of the
discussion  implying bad faith to the person on the other side.   I find myself
thinking that way at  times and  it  is hard to  keep  in  mind  that  the other  guy
probably has some very good  reason for  the way he  feels the way he does  and  he
is  probably just as honest as you  are and  had just  as good  intentions  as  you
have.  And  any time you slip away  from  thinking  like  that,  I  think the
conversation is going downhill.

         DR. BRAGDON: Any other comments?

         MR. JAMES HAHNE:  Just  a  personal  comment.   My name  is James Hahne.
I am with the EPA in  San  Francisco and  I  have been sitting here through the
whole  session —  I have not  said  a word.   I  have  talked to a lot  of  people and
one of the  objects of this meeting was  to  try to  come up  with some answers on
these  problems ~ and we  have discussed many aspects of the problem.

          I  have kept  a  record.   Other  than the word "promulgation" and the
phrase "technically feasible and  economically reasonable" there were two other
words  that  came up consistently out  of  some thirty-eight  speakers and
panelists.  Thirty of them mentioned communications and education and of all
the people  that  I talked  to  individually,  my first question or second question
was:   Out of this conference,  what was  the one thing that you think  is needed
for the  next conference?
                                        260

-------
         And those two words always came up, communication and education.
This is where we obviously need some more work and I would hope to think that
the conference would keep that in mind and try to come up with some ideas —
constructive, whatever — in that vein of thought.  Thank you.  That is all.

         DR. BRAGDON:  All right, any other comments?

         I have some summary remarks but I want to give everybody an
opportunity to put their words into the record.  There are not many left.

         I will summarize this by saying that I think first of all the
appreciation of the support we have received is mutually shared by a lot of
people.  The conference itself is based on the enthusiasm of the people and I
think I have seen considerable dedication on everyone's part to participate,
to try to learn about something they did not know about.  I think that is the
first thing that is important.

         The most difficult thing I have ever found is to recognize the fact
that I may not know something and the people in this room today and the people
who have been here for three days have given that time to determine the fact
that they want to learn about something they do not really know about -- and
that is the most important step I think that we can take in any meeting, and I
have learned considerable.  I would say my  level of knowledge has gone up to a
very significant level and hope everybody can say that to some extent.  So, I
think that is the first point.

         The second is that we have established some communication and that
communication, interesting enough, has been reflected in a variety of
different ways.  One is that a lot of jargon which we could have thrown  around
has been generally kept to a lower level, although we have come up with  a lot
of words that our reporter has not been able to understand and I think she  has
a better perception than anyone here of what this conference means.  She
should be giving the wrapup.  She has done  an excellent job,  I might add.

         From this standpoint we have attempted to communicate in a language
none of us have ever used or have rarely used because we have been in our own
interdiscipinary areas and I think that is  the second step — the enthusiasm
and the second is the ability to communicate with other people.

         The third point is that I think a  dialogue has been established.
Various people have said we need to get together  in different ways.  The
sharing of information I think is a key to what we have done  in this meeting.
If nothing else, we have allowed the opportunity to share experiences, but
also to start sharing physical information.  Without that physical information
we are not going to get any further down the road than we are.  That means  the
real estate  interests, the planning interests, the engineers' interests, the
regulators'  interests, everybody's interest — and  I hope we  can  establish
that process.

         In  terms of findings, just to highlight  a couple of  things I think
are sort of  important; one is we have looked at the issue of  technology  and,
unlike the commercial aircraft,  it looks  like G.A. technology, interestingly
                                       261

-------
enough in several areas is coming in below what a standard is, rather than to
meet a standard — in some areas.  So I think that is one thing that is
certainly constructive in terms of the manufacturing side.

         The increase of growth, of deregulation is going to have a very
significant impact, as was mentioned earlier.  The number of G.A. airports or
the decrease in the number of commercial carriers, and the role of G.A.
aircraft is going to increase as opposed to the status quo in the future.

         The question of impact — I think that one has been addressed, it has
been skirted around but certainly raises some basic questions but maybe we do
not have the right descriptor to determine what impact does exist at
airports.  The gentleman from the Grand Canyon, talking about wilderness areas
in general aviation to Chagrin Falls, Ohio, talking about a very small number
of operations, to Torrance, California, one of the largest G.A. airports.  So,
we are talking about different scales, possibly different levels of impact
that we all must address to represent and protect the interests of the public
and the economic base of our communities.

         The concern of descriptors of impact from the health as well as
economic standpoint, the real estate interests have determined to a great
extent the economy essentially determines or the market essentially assesses
the impact and reflects that impact in terms of price.  The concern there of
course is if you do not integrate health effects into the economy then the
real estate industry has no way of discounting that factor — and I think that
is one thing we all must look at, is the quantitative basis of the health
impacts in terms of economic disability — something that we as a professional
group must translate to the real estate industry as a factor in terms of what
quote is a market.  Because I think my opinion is that the market is not
totally sensitive to the impact in terms of the population at the present
time.  But that is a failure of communication.

         Another factor is that noise has been a technical area.  It was
interesting to hear today that when somebody was talking about planning around
airports being done in a very isolated way, and yet we think about public
participation.  But evidently we are not participating at the level of all
parties which are involved in the planning.  So as we talked about the first
day, the matrix I discussed, we all think we are doing planning but we are
going down one avenue and we are not looking from our left to right.
Obviously, this is something we must continue to do and  improve upon  it.

         There is an interesting question of the census  of information.  The
people in this room probably have a greater sensitivity  of what the problems
are but we do not know the scale of the problems we are  dealing with.  We do
not know the number of airports, nor do we know their demographic or
geographic distributions, nor do we know the population  being affected or
potentially impacted.  We know there is a potential problem but the magnitude
of scale is not known.  I think that census of impact and concern is  something
we must address before we go on.

         The role of the regulatory process has been mentioned and the use of
other techniques to accommodate or to compliment the regulator process is one
that looks to me has a lot to offer.  The experiences of Torrance and  other
                                       262

-------
communities to try to use a  softer  sell than the  regulatory process.  The
pilots  cooperation  and working with  that  seems  to  me  to be a complementary
role tnat is extremely  important.

         Those are some of the observations  that  I  have had.  I guess the  last
one in terms of this process  is the politician  and  we  feel I think  as a
collective group that greater communication  is  necessary and the  role of the
politician being a person representing  a compromise situation is  something we
must deal with.  Give them the tools  to help them make decisions  but not to
the point that the politician works his way  out  or  her way out of the
decision, but to assist them in making  a rational decision -- which gets down
to the question of accountability.  And all  of  us are  involved or should be
involved in the accountability process.  I think  that  is really where we have
to play a role in the future.

         The second  factor in the future I think  is how we develop  some
informational base for communication.   I have received probably fifteen to
twenty items that people want to get  to other people and I think  that is
something that we need to look at in  the future.   I would encourage that and  I
hope that EPA would  pick up  on this,  and not only EPA  but also work with the
FAA to insure that there is  communication  at the  Federal level, but then get
the private sector folks involved.  Lyndall  Hughes, sitting here  in an
audience which is totally foreign to  him for three  days and yet being the
person who is here at the end of that  conference  indicates cooperation  and
interest on his part — GAMA and other  groups.

         I think what we need to do,  hopefully,  is  to  establish a team,
collective team that will work toward  resolution  of this and hopefully  a
conference of this type would be continued  in future forms with a certain
schedule of activities.

         At this time I would like  to  turn this  over to the comments of
anybody from the EPA if they  have any  comments  to add.

         I would like to thank Jim  Reese and Randy  Barnes, two of my graduate
students, who worked extremely hard.   They are  not  right here, but  are
packaging materials  on the floor below.  Also,  I  would like to thank Bill
Cleary and Judy Beaver and our court  reporter for the  fine job she  has  done.
It would be my hope  that what we have  done today  and these past two days could
continue.  And it is up to everybody  in this room to have that process
continue through your effort  of advocacy.

         At this time,  if EPA has any  remarks,  I  just  hope they would be
supportive of the types of things we  have  had for this time period.

         MR. ELKINS:  Well,  let us  just say  we,  obviously, do appreciate all
of your participation.  I think the conference  from our point of  view has  far
exceeded our expectations.   We were rather hesitant, quite frankly, at going
into this because it was somewhat unknown  and unstructured compared to most of
the things we get into.

         If you have any suggestions,  either anonymous or signed, that you
would like to send to us about how  the  conference could have gone better,
                                       263

-------
please do so while it is fresh in your memory, so that we can find a way to
sponsor similar conferences ourselves next year or can find other sponsors to
go with us.  I think one group that I would seek very hard to try to go with
us, if we were able to participate again, would be the FAA.  I have missed
John Wesler's attendance here and his colleagues equally with EPA.  I think we
have failed somewhat to get them as much involved as I would have liked to
have seen.  Although they were here, supportive of the conference, I would
like to have their money and other participation too.  But I think equally so,
the private sector, if you have suggestions on what we might do  to continue
the communication during the year and in years to come, we welcome those as
well.

         MR. LEWIS:  Chuck, I suggest the next one be held in Hawaii.

         DR. BRAGDON:  At this time, other than those remarks which I
certainly endorse, we will call the conference closed and thank  you for your
attendance and time.
                                        264

-------
                                    GLOSSARY

Agency, 31 (Searle)

Atlanta Regional Commission, 76 (Doyle)

ADAP (Airport Development Assistance Program), 31 (Searle), 79 (Tyler), 150
         (Blair)

AICUZ (Air Installations Compatible Use Zones) (see Land use)

Air carriers and general aviation traffic (see Air traffic)

Aircraft certification, 28  (Searle), 160 (Green)

Aircraft manufacturers (see GAMA, Engines)

Aircraft mix in general aviation fleet (see General aviation)

Aircraft noise (see Noise, General aviation, Engines, Aircraft operating pro-
         cedures, Airport operating procedures)

Aircraft operating procedures, 10 (Elkins), 198-202 (Green), 203-207 (Elmgren)

         best angle/rate of climb, 105-106 (Jackson), 137  (Critchfield),
         205-207 (Elmgren)

         pilot cooperation, 101, 135,  137  (Critchfield), 136-137 (Campanella,
         Critchfield), 154  (Gammon)

         traffic patterns (see Airport operating  procedures)

         thrust control, 84-86 (Delino, Green, Tyler),  195 (Green)

Airport benefits (see  Economic impact)
                                       265

-------
Airport - Community negotiation, communication,  and  cooperation,  60-61
         (Caldwell), 91-92  (Goodfriend),  111-112 (Eschweiler),  154-155  (Gammon)

         compromise, 250-251  (Duffy)

Airport master-plan, 62-63  (Caldwell), 68-69  (Campanella), 90  (Goodfriend),
         116  (Eschweiler)

Airport operating procedures, 11 (Elkins), 29  (Searle),  60-63  (Caldwell), 91
         (Goodfriend), 94-98  (Critchfield), 153-156  (Gammon),  203-204
         (Elmgren), 227-233 (Collins), 239-240  (Hamiel)

         engine run-up, 29  (Searle), 61  (Caldwell),  227-228  (Collins),  241,
         243  (Hamiel)

         flight curfews, 29 (Searle), 60  (Caldwell),  203  (Elmgren),  239-241
         (Hamiel)

         maintenance curfews, 228-229 (Collins)

         noise monitoring system, 22 (Wesler),  97, 101  (Critchfield, 103
         (Jackson), 204 (Elmgren), 232-233 (Collins), 249-250  (Miller)

         noise advisories and air traffic control, 20-21, 23 (Wesler),  29
         (Searle), 97-98 (Critchfield), 207 (Elmgren)

         traffic patterns, 228-229 (Collins)

         traffic restrictions, 240 (Hamiel)

Airport penalties (see Economic impact)

Airport policy board (see Planning board)
                                       266

-------
Airport-proprietor

         options  available  (also  see Airport operating procedures, Land
         acquisition), 89-93  (Goodfriend)

         responsibility,  21,  24 (Wesler),  107  (Jackson), 132 (Procunier),
         153-156  (Gammon)

Airport, reliever (see Reliever airports)

Airports, effects on property  values (see  Economic  impact)

Air traffic

         air carriers and general aviation, 9  (Elkins), 37 (Doyle), 110
         (Jackson), 238 (Hamiel)

         densities, 53 (McMarty)

         noise advisories (see Airport operating procedures) patterns (see
         Airport operating  procedures)

         restrictions (see  Airport operations  procedures)

ATA (Air Transport Association)

         reduction to climb thrust (see Aircraft operating procedures, thrust)

Aviation noise abatement  (see Aircraft operating procedures, Airport operating
         procedures, Engines)

Aviation easements, 72-73 (Swing, Wesler, Grindle) 95 (Critchfield), 127-128,
129 (Tyler, Clark), 230 (Collins), 252 (Duffy)

Business aircraft (see General Aviation)
                                       267

-------
Business aircraft as a contributor to general aviation noise, 28-29 (Searle),
         200-201 (Green)

California, 157-158 (Miller)

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality), 87 (Goodfriend) City Council of
         Torrance, 97 (Critchfield)

Civil aircraft (see General Aviation)

Clear-zone, 25 (Wesler)

Climb, best angle of (see Aircraft operating procedures)

Communication, importance of in disputes, 62-63 (Caldwell), 97 (Critchfield)

Community development, 109 (Jackson)

Community noise control, 89-93 (Goodfriend)

Community response, 90 (Goodfriend), 106 (Jackson)

Compatible land use (see Land use)

Compromise in airport-community negotiation (see Airport-community negotiation,
         communications, and cooperation)

Curfews (see Airport operating procedures)

Decision-matrix technique, 12-17 (Bragdon)

Defense Noise policy (see Land use)

Deregulation, 36 (Doyle), 187 (Scott), 239-240 (Hamiel) 249 (Miller), 256
         (Searle, Hamiel, Duffy, Miller)
                                       268

-------
Economic impact

         benefits of airports, 30 (Searle), 39, 44 (Doyle), 55-57 (McMarty),
         184-193 (Scott), 217-218 (Clark, Scott)

         effects of noise, 215-216 (Diaz)

         penalties of airports, 57 (McMarty), 58 (Lewis)

Engines

         Cost of design, 166, 199 (Green)

         design for noise abatement, 166, 196 (Green)

         propeller technology, 27 (Searle), 104-105 (Jackson), 125
         (Critchfield), 163-166 (Searle, Green), 174 (Campenella), 195-196
         (Green)

         run-up (see Airport operating procedures)

         time-lag in design, 166 (Green)

         Turbojet and turbofan technology, 51 (Galloway), 196 (Green)

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)

         function in control of general aviation noise, 5 (Elkins), 144
         (Green), 172 (Goodfriend),  175, 193 (Green)

         function in relation to function of FAA, 5 (Elkins), 35 (Searle), 124
         (Eschweiler), 166-171 (Green, Schettino, Elkins)

EPA levels document, 144 (Green), 171 (Elkins), 225 (Schettino)
                                       269

-------
FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), 6 (Elkins), 18-21 (Wesler), 43 (Doyle),
149-150 (Blair), 156 (Bragdon, Blair)

FAR (Federal Aviation Regulation), 22, 23 (Wesler), 48 (Searle-Galloway), 50
(Galloway), 174 (Campanella), 176 (Tyler),  195 (Green)

Federal function in noise control (also see EPA, FAA), 15 (Bragdon), 210
         (Vernor)

FHA (Federal Housing Administration), 68 (Campanella), 124 (Jansen), 214 (Love)

Fleet noise levels, 51 (Galloway), 195 (Green)

Flight curfews (see Airport operating procedures)

Fuel consumption and noise, 83-84 (Wesler), 84, 160-161 (Green)

GAMA (General Aviation Manufacturers Association), 194, 198 (Green)

General Aviation

         air carrier traffic (see Air traffic)

         business aircraft, 28 (Searle), 52-57 (McMarty), 200 (Green)

         fleet, 9 (Elkins), 18-19 (Wesler), 49 (Galloway), 52 (McMarty), 124
         (Galloway)

         growth, 19 (Wesler), 200 (Green)

         noise, importance of, 10 (Elkins), 36, 37 (Doyle), 127-128 (Tyler),
         162 (Lewis, Gosnell), 200-202 (Green), 255-256 (Thompson, Campenella)

Greater Boston Regional Commission, 31 (Searle)
                                       270

-------
Handbook for Developing Noise Exposure Contours for General Aviation Airports,
         123 (Borthwick)

Health and welfare, 8 (Elkins), 73 (Esler, Swing), 74 (Schettino), 172
         (Goodfriend)

HUD (Housing and Urban Development) 16 (Bragdon), 68 (Campanella), 94
         (Critchfield), 124 (Jansen), 214 (Love)

ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization), 197 (Green)

ILS (Instrument Landing System) 26-27 (Searle), 34 (Tyler), 68 (Campanella)

Kansas City International Airport District, 43, 75 (Doyle)

Land acquisition,  33 (Searle),  76 (Doyle), 90  (Goodfriend), 229-230, 231
         (Collins)

Land development,  109 (Jackson) 152  (Gosnell),  162 (Gosnell), 178 (Forbes),
212 (Hughes)

Land use, 29 (Searle), AICUZ,  233-237  (Metcalf)

         control,  11 (Elkins),  29, 33  (Searle), 80 (Elkins)

         Airports  Guide  to  Compatible  Land Use Planning Near, 30  (Searle)

         planning, 75-80 (Goodfriend,  Doyle,  Bragdon, Grindle, Wesler, Tyler),
         127-129  (Tyler,  Eschweiler, Clark)

         restriction,  126 (Critchfield),  141  (Barnard)

         study,  71 (Tyler)

Legal  action,  111  (Eschweiler)
                                        271

-------
 Levels  document  (see EPA levels document)

 Litigation,  important results of, 21-22 (Wesler), 50 (Galloway), 153
 (Gosnell), 231-232 (Collins)

 Los Angles,  227-233 (Collins)

 Maintenance  curfews (see Airport Operating Procedures)

 Maryland

         Environmental Noise Impact Act, 146 (Montgomery)

 Metropolitan Airport Commission (Minneapolis), 76 (Doyle)

 Military aviation (see Land use)

 NASA (National Aviation and Space Administration), 74 (Galloway), 164
         (Searle)

 National Business Aircraft Assoication (NBAA), 29 (Searle), 154 (Gammon)

 Night maintenance (see Airport operating procedures)

Noise abatement plan, 59-60 (Caldwell), 95-99 (Critchfield), 145-148
         (Montgomery), 154-156 (Gammon), 228-232 (Collins), 238-245 (Hamiel)

         abatement training, 23 (Critchfield)

         advisories,  (see Airport, operating procedures)

         business jet fleet, 28 (Searle)

         complaint,  89 (Goodfriend), 97 (Critchfield),  154 (Gammon)

         control matrix (see Decision-matrix techniques)


                                       272

-------
         control strategy (see Aircraft operating procedures,  Airport
         operating procedures, Land use, Planning)

         descriptors, 33 (Searle), 35 (Tyler), 48-49 (Galloway),  89
         (Goodfriend), 253 (Braslau)

         disclosure, 183 (Swing), 209 (Vernor), 219-224 (Tyler, Hughes,  Scott,
         Bragdon, Lewis, Searle, Love), 254 (Braslau)

         measurements of aircraft in general aviation fleet 46-47 (Galloway)

         moderate levels in low ambient levels, 74 (Galloway), 175 (Green)

         problem identification, 88 (Goodfriend) 95, 96 (Critchfield), 251-252
         (Duffy)

         safety, 39 (Doyle)

         standards, 33 (Searle), 35 (Tyler), 125-126 (Delino,  Galloway,
         Jackson),  160 (Green), 200 (Green), 247 (Miller)

         as a design parameter, 83 (Elkins), 84-85, 196-197 (Green)

Noise Control Act of 1979 (also see Quiet Communities Act), 5  (Elkins),  145
         (Green), 166 (Schettino)

Orange County Planning Commission, 67 (Grindie)

Party involvement (see Planning)

Pilot cooperation (see Aircraft operating procedures)

Pilot operating handbook, 198 (Green)
                                       273

-------
Piloting techniques (see Aircraft operating procedures)

Planning (also see Land use)

         causes for failure in implementation, 67 (Grindle), 90 (Goodfriend),
         107-108, 111 (Jackson),  130 (Caldwell), 141 (Barnard), 182-183
         (Thompson, Forbes), 212  (Hughes), 249 (Miller)

         community, 69 (Swing)
         developers in, 109 (Jackson),  177-180 (Forbes), 212 (Hughes)

         party involvement in, 33-34, 45-46 (Doyle), 122 (Miller)

         regional, 209 (Searle),  40-41  (Doyle), 114 (Eschweiler)

         time for implementation, 121 (Critchfield)

Planning board, 90 (Goodfriend),  158 (Miller)

         Atlanta Regional Commission, 76 (Doyle)

         City Council of Torrance, 97 (Critchfield)

         City of Los Angeles Planning Department, 227 (Collins)

         Greater Boston Regional  Agency, 31 (Searle).

         Kansas City International Airport District, 43, 76 (Doyle)

         Metropolitan Airport Commission (Minneapolis), 76 (Doyle), 237
         (Hamiel)

         Orange County Planning Commission, 67 (Grindle)

         San Francisco, 76 (Doyle)
                                       274

-------
Political decisions, factors in, 29 (Searle) 67 (Grindle), 90 (Goodfriend),
         130 (Critchfield), 132-134 (Grindle, Delino), 136 (Crtichfield), 173
         (Barnard), 250 (Duffy)

Preventative measures, 10 (Elkins), 104 (Jackson), 153-154 (Gammon), 162
         (Lewis)

Propeller technology (see Engines)

Property value (see Economic impact)

Public awareness, 30 (Searle), 42, 45 (Doyle), 63, 64 (Caldwell, 91
         (Goodfriend), 95 (Critchfield), 104, 106, (Jackson), 124 (Eschweiler),
         (Lewis), 154 (Gammon), 227-228 (Collins), 244 (Hamiel), 259 (Bragdon)

Quiet Communities Act (also see Noise Control Act of 1972), 6 (Elkins)

Real estate appraisal, 184-193 (Scott)

Real estate developer, 30 (Searle), 181 (Forbes), 212 (Hughes)

Real estate developer, function of in planning (see Planning)

Regional planning (see Planning)

Regulations, 142 (Green), 154 (Gammon), 194  (Green), 249 (Miller)

         Los Angeles noise control, 233 (Collins)

         Zoning, 90 (Goodfriend), 93  (Goodfriend), 108 (Jackson), 129 (Clark),
         130 (Caldwell, Eschweiler),  141 (Barnard), 152 (Gosnell), 157
         (Montgomery), 222 (Scott), 235-236  (Metcalf)

Reliever airports, 71 (Tyler), 242 (Hamiel)

San Francisco jurisdiction, 76 (Doyle)
                                       275

-------
Santa Monica (see Airport operating procedures, Litigation)

Sound-insulated construction, 126 (Critchfield), 135 (Lewis)

Source control, 11 (Elkins), 27 (Searle)

State-level effort, 145-147 (Montgomery), 157-159 (Miller), 230 (Collins),
         247 (Miller)

Tax incentive, 209 (Vernor)

Torrance, 94-99 (Critchfield), 203-208 (Elmgren)

Touch and go, 39 (Doyle), 59-60 (Caldwell), 89 (Goodfriend), 97 (Critchfield),
         174 (Campanella), 204 (Elmgren)

Town-county cooperation, 115-119 (Eschweiler), 131 (Goodfriend) 242 (Hamiel),
         254 (Braslau)

Transient propulation, method of contracting, 64 (Caldwell)

Turbofan technology (see Engines)

Turbojet technology (see Engines)

Turboprop technology (see Engines)

Zoning regulations (see Regulations)
                                       276

-------