By Gary Wonacott
In late in 1970’s, the Port made an agreement with the FAA air traffic controllers to change the departure track from 270 (bottom dashed line) to 290 (middle dashed line) for departures 10 pm to 6:30 am. That was referred to as the 290 nighttime noise abatement agreement. Those housing units close in to the end of the runway experience the highest single event noise levels.
At that time there were two different federal laws that mandated evaluation of changes in flight departure tracks to ensure that noise was not being shifted from one housing tract to another. While the distance the track is moved is small, there is still a substantial noise shift. This was, I believe, intended to be a temporary noise relief measure along with other temporary measures implemented. While the other measures were rescinded, the nighttime noise abatement measure was not. At that time, there were no noise measurements or calculations made, or at least there is no record of any at the FAA.
Most recently, the FAA replaced the informal 290 agreement with a satellite navigation SID referred to as CLSSY (within the last couple of months). The FAA has not provided any environmental assessment in spite of being required by Congressional mandate to do so. This unilateral action by the FAA followed unsuccessful efforts during the recent Part 150 study to move the 290 to PADRZ SID (top dashed line).
It is unlikely that the people living under CLSSY have any idea this was done, but the people living in Roseville, Fleetridge, and Sunset Cliffs are keenly aware of this change, even though their properties are not in the 65 dB CNEL. This is a classic example of the wealthy pushing an environmental nuisance away from them no matter the health consequences of those most impacted.
FAA – Federal Aviation Administration
SID – Standard Instrument Departure
CNEL – Community Noise Equivalence Area
PADRZ, CLSSY, and ZZOOO are not acronyms, but names assigned to departures.
Just want to point out that the statement that no noise measurements or calculations were made in reference to the 290 heading is, at best, misleading.
Any time a Part 150 study is conducted, the noise contours are based on actual flight tracks, the number of flights and the fleet mix. What that means is that the Part 150 generated noise contours do take into account flights departing on the 290 heading.
I’m confused. “Wealthy push flight path away”. Last time I looked every house in 92106 and 92107 was worth well over $1 million. It seems like the fight path is being pushed from one wealthy neighborhood to another.
And where is the evidence that a particular group had influence over the path of departure headings?
IDK, maybe the FAA made the move out of some operational concern? There’s more to this story than meets the eye. I’d like to know more.
The bottom line is any analysis by the FAA would have stopped the 290 in its tracks, since it moves substantial noise from one neighborhood to another. AN individual from Sunset Cliffs tried to make the argument during the most recent Part 150 that his neighborhood was more deserving of quiet since it is single family residential versus the multifamily residential down in OB and Midway. I suspect those who live close in did not have a clue.
I had the same reactions. There’s no information about the FAA having listened to a particular group of people when making this change.
We know that around the time of these changes there were lawsuits against the Port. We know that there were noise abatement measures implemented including the 70-30 split and the 290 nighttime noise abatement measure. We know that the FAA was not directly involved in these decisions, that in fact decisions were made by the City Council and the Port Commissioners. The FAA and State were notified after the fact. And we know there were wealthy and powerful people with influence who lived to the northwest of the airport. Lastly we know there was no one to push back on these decisions.
I know much of the above based on direct experience or from documents obtained under Port of San Diego public records request.
First, you have to go back to the 1970’s when the 290 nighttime noise abatement informal agreement between the Port and the FAA Tower controllers was made. Pilots filed their plans as though they were flying straight out on 270, but then the tower redirected pilots to the 290. With regard to wealthy neighborhoods, you only had to attend the last Part 150 to hear the nastiness from those living in Pt. Loma and Sunset Cliffs towards those involved in La Jolla, even tough noise levels in La Jolla were not affected by any of the changes proposed.
I frankly don’t know if the comments were captured in the Part. 150 notes a few years ago, but I think we know that this kind of thing can happen. No, the Port made the move out of concern of additional lawsuits. Noise levels reached crescendo levels back then, which might very well have provided a rationale for temporary moves, which was the case, moving 70 percent of the departures towards Mission Beach, but that was a temporary moves. The 290 informal agreement should have also been rescinded.
Also, keep in mind there were some who were desparate to keep the airport at Lindbergh (Don Nay, for example) and the downtown hoteliers. So, no operational requirements that I am aware of for this move.
There was a effort to move the 290 to PADRZ SID during the most recent Part 150, but this would have caused a very small shift in the 65 dB CNEL, which was established as a no-go criterion. This was a stupid criterion since the 65 dB CNAEL was being moved one block in some cases. There were solutions that would have helped, but were shot down out of ignorance.
San diego airport has been there forever and the people that lived there way back when new of the flight pattern. No complaints then that was when the navy recruit depot was there. So if you do not like the noise move. That is all I am going to say.
Sounds like first world problems to me.
FYI the Port of San Diego keeps getting mentioned in this discussion. But SB 93 forced the Port to relinquish ownership of the airport to the newly formed San Diego Airport Authority. in 2001, 23 years ago.
So ya, any recent changes in the departure pattern is owned by the San Diego Airport Authority. The Board of Directors of the authority are all political appointees, many from east and south county. I do wonder how many Airport Authority bosses and board members live under the flight path.
This is not a matter of liking the aircraft noise or not. No one I know likes it. This is a question about the law being broken when the 290 nighttime noise abatement agreement was implemented and then not rescinded within a few years like other temporary measures.
Thanks for the extensive history lesson over the years.
The flight path after 10pm is only in effect for 1.5 hours and I see now that most of the aircraft are flown with the latest, quietest equipment. I see that as a win for San Diego. Note that a few flights in the 2200-2330 timeframe are going north and would go further north if the CLSSY SID was removed. The total noise impacts of the CLSST SID must be much less than taking aircraft over OB vs. Bill Cleator Park, Famoso Slough, Robb Field and the San Diego River. It also should be noted that when aircraft are over the tip of South Mission, they are much higher than if routed over the OB pier.
Re rich people getting their way, the big uproar was about the proposed elimination of the ZOOO fix on departures heading east. I was at the meeting and I didn’t see many aristocrats in the audience – seemed like concerned citizens. The request had nothing to do with the initial departure path or moving the path north, rather was to protest the quicker turn proposed with elimination of the ZOOO fix.
No, it is in effect from 10 pm to 6:30 am, only limited by a curfew. This is the most disruptive time of the day, so much so that when the noise contour is calculated, a factor of 10 dB is added to each aircraft. That is equivalent to 10 aircraft passing overhead. The CLSSY SID replicates the 290 nighttime noise abatement agreement. It might have a smaller spread than the 290, but there would be an equal number of flights going farther south as well. Tghe argument that fewer people are impacted with CLSSY rather than keeping the departures on ZZOOO is the same one that was used in 1979. This is exactly the reason for NEPA to keep more powerful and rich from moving environmental noise somewhere else. These aircraft on CLSSY are going back east, so full complement of passengers and fuel means lower altitude as they cross the coast if OB or MB. If I could add pictures I would show you that these aircraft are at the same altitude on both tracks. One difference is that OB is at a higher altitude. These aircraft are loud and disruptive. And when the curfew is eliminated it will not be for just 1.5 hours. One last point. The Airport Authority, Sjohnna Knack, handpicked the Mission Beach representative on ANAC who lives in north Mission Beach, Debbie Watkins. Watkins’s interests were counter to the residents of South Mission Beach.
Sorry, but one other point. I think we are all in agreement that at some point, the departures post 10 pm were redirected from the OB to MB. This cannot be done without an environmental assessment. If you can show me the environmental assessment that justifies this move, I will be forever quiet on this topic. And keep in mind, that the people in the map included close in were also dramatically impacted by the move, if even a few blocks. What about these people?
Got to agree with you, Paul, about the “wealthy” winning out over the poor people of South Mission. This is about as false a narrative as I can imagine.
And, by the way, I served on ANAC for a number of years and always found Debbie Watkins to be an involved, intelligent and sensible ANAC member. There was never an undercurrent of “I live in North Mission Beach and who cares about the people of South Mission” or whatever Gary Wonacott is trying to imply about her.
The CLSSY SID after 2330 isn’t a real factor – the next departure time is 6:30am, when the CLSSY SID expires even though the Night CNEL extends to 7:00am. The curfew does a really good job to have carriers avoid 2230 to 0630 – they may happen with weather delays which can exempt fines, but the fines are high and quickly escalate by carrier if they bust the curfew multiple times.
I agree the redeye eastbounds are ladened with fuel and would be noisier than a fight to SFO or Denver, but looking at the Noise website, dBs over MB during this period are about 5dB lower than the two monitors near W. Pt. Loma Blvd and Nimitz and much lower than those near Rosecrans.
The 10dB penalty after 2200 does reflect the impacts to most people vs. daytime, but that it undoubtedly why the CSSLY SID exists – to move noise from much of the dense portion of OB to areas with more canyons, parks and water. With the current situation MB is not under the 65dB contour. The closet home in MB to the airport is over a mile from the end of the 65dB contour. The 65 contour would defiantly grow by moving west and wider in OB if the CLSSY SID were removed as you propose.
Gary, you surely have the right to advocate for where you live, but undoing the CSLSSY SID would negatively impact more people than it would provide relief.
Pushing in a unified manor to decrease and eventually remove older generation aircraft and fighting against curfew relaxation or removal is the best way to pressure SAN to make improvements for all neighbors near SAN.
As a resident of Yuma AZ. who used to come over to OB because it was more eclectic and less crowded than surrounding areas. I found the article on noise abatement zones concerning aircraft takeoffs very interesting. The interesting part is that we here in Yuma have the same concerns but on different levels. Marine Corps Air Station shares the runway with commercial and civilian aircraft at Yuma International Airport of the opposite side of the airport. We to have noise decibel zones and landing and takeoff requirements. With Yuma’s explosive growth in the 10 plus years noise and encroachment are always a concern. We like you are looking for solutions. Newer commercial aircraft do have better noise reduction upgrades. However ,Yuma has new squadrons of F-35 Lighting fighter jets. If you think you have jet aircraft noise. I invite you to stand near the fence at the end of the runway when a F-35 is powering up then takes off down the the runway. My friends. That is LOUD. The sound of freedom ! Good luck with your endeavors. PS- The F-35 is loud to in vertical takeoff.
I agree that there are fewer people impacted with CLSSY than if these aircraft were taking off straight out over OB. This is not the point. The point is that federal laws were put into place by Congress that requires a NEPA to assess environmental noise impact. The FAA failed to do this assessment when the 290 nighttime noise abatement agreement was put into place in the 1970s, when it was the port and city council who were calling the shots.
Fast forward to the Part 150 a few years back. There was an attempt by the Airport Authority and ANAC to move the 290 to PADRZ (with Watkins support) that was rejected by the FAA. The Airport Authority then provided the FAA with a design for CLSSY. In their own words, the FAA stated that the CLSSY SID would not be implemented without an environmental assessment. If one was done, the FAA has failed to make it public.
I have another suggestion assuming that CLSSY survives the challenges. While PADRZ is a satellite navigation SID, we can see from Flightradar24 that the nominal turn angle on departure is 297 degrees. ZZOOO is 275 and CLSSY is 290. I believe that the majority of the integrity of the PADRZ SID can be retained if there is. PADRZ nighttime with the initial turn angle to 297 degrees to the same fix or waypoint used by CLSSY. This provides nighttime relief to Mission Beach without changing the 65 dBCNEL, recognizing that the majority of the highest noise is in the first mile of the departure. This could be done using an agreement with ATC as was done for decades with the 290, or a new noise abatement SID could be developed.
If as I have suggested above, post 10 pm PADRZ (PADRZ nighttime) would start on a near identical route to the current PADRZ and then transition to CLSSY, why would this be opposed by OB and Pt. Loma residents?