Impacts on Ocean Beach and Point Loma Part of Discussion
Editordude’s note: The followed is an abbreviated version of Anthony Steigler’s entire report of two recent meetings of the Airport Noise Authority Committee and here only includes the June meeting. For his full report at La Lolla Light, go here. Phrases below in bold are mine.
By Anthony Steigler of Quiet Skies La Jolla / La Jolla Light / June 25, 2019
Airport Noise Authority Committee (ANAC) Meeting: June 19
ANAC met again on June 19. Significant developments included a report from the Flight Path & Procedures Study consultant, recommending which proposals should be tabled until the Part 150 Study is concluded in about 16-18 months, because the proposals may affect the initial departure heading off the runway. The Part 150 study addresses noise directly around the airport, in the 65 CNEL contour, which includes part of Ocean Beach .
The consultant’s recommendations were approved, which means a substantial delay in moving forward with the proposals to mitigate noise in La Jolla, as these proposals might influence the noise envelope in in the 65 CNEL. The AA’s consultant recommended against requiring aircraft departing after 10 p.m. to turn west after reaching 0.5NM off the runway, on a heading to a new Bird Rock (BRCK) waypoint because of aircraft separation rules, instead opting for a comparable turn at 1.5NM off the runway to BRCK.
Unfortunately, the latter is slightly less helpful to La Jolla but will still provide some relief. The consultant also recommended against advancing a proposed revision to the northern arrival flight path, which would have moved the noise closer to the 805/56 interchange (and away from the neighborhoods of La Jolla Shores, Mt. Soledad and others), because it would shift the noise closer to other communities, including Kearney Mesa.
However, there are still reasons for optimism in the Part 150 Study, First, the informal night time “noise abatement” procedure for Point Loma is up for discussion, which currently requires that all night-time departures be on a 290-degree heading along the La Jolla coast line, far north of the 275-degree Jetty waypoint off Ocean Beach used during the day for half the flights.
Second, the ELSO proposal, advanced by Quiet Skies La Jolla’s paid consultant, could permit both day and night departures to fly on a 10-degree separation track, rather than 15 degrees, due to improvements in satellite navigation. If ELSO is implemented the initial departure track would fly farther from the La Jolla shoreline.
Notably, Mission Beach residents turned out in force at the June 19 meeting and are very engaged. They are experiencing the brunt of the NextGen Metroplex departure changes, as planes fly at only 1,500-3,000 feet directly over their homes, schools, beaches and parks. Where planes used to depart by flying directly west over Ocean Beach or over the jetty channel, they now cut the corner toward South Mission Beach, directly over many residences.
During the “public comment” period, Mission Beach residents spoke of the constant barrage of oppressive jet noise, black fuel soot and grime left on cars and the environment, interrupted phone calls, inability to watch television, visitors leaving early because of intolerable noise day and night, increased anxiety and sleep deprivation and other health consequences. Mission Beach’s ANAC representative observed that the critical issue is the initial heading off the runway on western departures. Requiring departures to remain over the jetty channel, at around 275 degrees, will help Mission Beach and will correspondingly help La Jolla.
———
• The Next ANAC Meeting will be held at 4 p.m. Wednesday, Aug. 21 at the Holiday Inn at 4875 N Harbor Drive. Please try to come. The topics will include the airport expansion plan, the AA’s and FAA’s capacity and operations forecasts, and the Part 150 Study.
ANAC member and Scripps interventional cardiologist, Dr. Matthew J. Price, also requested that ANAC be provided with data about the health risks associated with jet noise, including cardiovascular, mental health and sleep interference.
Please come to the meeting and prepare 3 minutes of remarks for the “Public Comment” period expressing your views. Our real-time noise complaints filed through the Air Noise button (airnoise.io) are another way to make our voices heard, so please continue (or start) using it to easily and automatically file complaints.
Finally, our voices may be heard if challenges are required to the proposed ADP airport expansion project, in which case pocketbook help will be welcome and necessary. This is a critical juncture for public engagement and we hope to see you involved.
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
It’s a tough situation. ATC and the FAA have to consider noise, flight safety, economics and a myriad of other factors. La Jolla and MB want flights to go further south or north of their respective areas – which of course, moves the noise to other neighborhoods including OB.
I can say that more-efficient and quieter aircraft engines are being deployed by the airlines every day. In particular, if/when the B737MAX can be certified to fly again, we’ll see a good decrease in noise and a smaller contour. Southwest Airlines, American, United , WestJet and Alaska could and plan to deploy some of these quieter aircraft to SAN and join the A230neo and others.
“… It’s a tough situation….” indeed, there are other factors… don’t forget the shareholders.
And this “quieter aircraft” will then be flown even lower, over more homes, schools and houses of worship – same as we’ve seen since the flight path changes of 2015. FAA says 1000′ AGL is all they need.
Oh, and don’t forget the increase in aborted landings (missed approaches).
I’m not sure about the lower flightpath comment. I don’t see any plans or evidence airlines will opt to fly a lower flightpath when departing when their goal is to reach a proper and safe cruising altitude
Planes have been directed by FAA/SoCal TRACON to reduce climb rate and climb angle on departure to save money on fuel and “enhance” the user experience of flying out of SD.
Vern, you are woefully uniformed about how jet departures from SAN are operated. ATC does not dictate the noise abatement profiles flown by airline jets.
Rather, they comply with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards called NADP’s-Noise Abatement Departure procedures. They are known as NADP-1 or NADP-2 procedures.
After takeoff, the aircraft generally climbs at a minimum after takeoff speed, until 1000 feet above the departure field elevation. Most airlines use a reduced thrust ( quieter and more fuel efficient) unless maximum thrust is needed for takeoff performance. At that 1000′ AGL point, thrust is reduced to climb power, the aircraft accelerates and retracts the flaps and climbs away at 250 knots climb speed until above 10,000 feet where further acceleration occurs.
I’m not sure where you’re getting your information, but it is incorrect.
Info came directly from an FAA representative at public forum, October 2016.
Check with them.
I am a frustrated resident of Mission Beach. We are subject to as much, actually more airport noise in South Mission Beach than you who live in Ocean Beach. This is in part because of an illegal move decades ago of the post 10 pm departures off of the 275 and on to what is referred to as the 290 nighttime noise abatement agreement LOA. The LOA was initiated by the City Council, supported by the Port Commission and implemented by the FAA / ATC. Each and every night every departure post 10 pm to 11:30 pm flies over SMB. This LOA is illegal because it was implemented without an environmental assessment.
Now the Airport Authority is conducting studies under the pretense of reducing noise for those of you living within the 65 eB CNEL using a Part 150 study, but the real reason is to eliminate the illegal 290 procedure and move these nighttime departures on to a track that flies over SMB called the PADRZ SID. But, their plan and their method for accomplishing this objective has been exposed. They have literally fudged the input data to the AEDT models that are intended to describe the flight tracks for the 290 LOA and the PADRZ SID. In one final report, their consultants claim that the 290 is not an approved FAA procedure and therefore they have simply merged these departures on to the PADRZ tracks. Our analyses show a different story with at least a quarter mile difference in the two tracks at the coast.
In Flight Procedure Analyses (FPA) studies, they stated that there was no difference, or at least minimal, in the noise in Mission Beach associated with this new nighttime procedure, which is not surprising given the inputs they used in the models. Mission Beach residents would like to see the PADRZ SID track moved south of the MB peninsula, but this is opposed by the folks in Ocean Beach, Pt. Loma and Loma Portal, even though the shift in noise would not be discernible to the human ear, because of the delta distance change in the track is small compared to the distance from the new PADRZ track and Ocean Beach.
Other alternatives were proposed that would substantially decrease noise for those living directly under the flight path in Ocean Beach, but these were discarded as well because they would be part of a compromise that would allow the PADRZ SID to move south. The myopic opposition taken by the OB committee members is difficult to understand since this dispersion to multiple tracks would be one of the only ways to reduce noise for those residents living under the 275 track in the last 75 years.
The issue is even more perplexing because I believe the opposition in OB is driven as much by the point that the idea was developed and presented in this publication by a La Jolla attorney as anything else as though the concept is some sort of conspiracy to decrease noise in La Jolla. In point of fact, the noise difference to La Jolla residents would not be noticeable.
So, in the end, it will be the FAA and the Airport Authority that will get what they want, and Ocean Beach and Mission Beach will be left on the sidelines pointing fingers at each other.