The following document was sent to the FAA in response for public comments on Docket 30086.
HOMEOWNERS OF ENCINO [dba National Helicopter Noise Coaltion] GERALD A. SILVER, PRESIDENT P. O. BOX 260205 ENCINO, CA 91426 EMAIL: gsilver@sprintmail.com
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
In the matter of: ASSESSMENT OF NON-MILITARY HELICOPTER OPERATIONS FOR A DENSELY-POPULATED AREA (HELICOPTER NOISE)
REGULATORY DOCKET 30086
PUBLIC COMMENT * JULY 20, 2000
Submitted to Office of Chief Counsel Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave. S. W. Washington, DC 20591
PUBLIC INPUT FOR STUDY TO CONGRESS ON HELICOPTER This document is in response to the Federal Aviation Administration's efforts to seek public comment to help the agency prepare a report to Congress on the effects of non-military helicopter noise on individuals in densely-populated areas.
Section 747 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2000 directed the FAA to conduct a study that would focus on air traffic control procedures to address the helicopter noise problem and take into account the needs of law enforcement. The comments below are submitted to the FAA to become part of the official record.
II.
THE FAA ASKED FOR RESPONSES TO FOUR QUESTIONS In its request seeking public comment, the FAA asked for responses to four questions:
1. What are the types of helicopter operations that elicit the negative response by individuals in densely populated areas?
2. What air traffic control procedures are applicable in addressing helicopter noise reduction? Why?
3. What impacts could restrictive air traffic control procedures have on operation of law enforcement helicopters, electronic news gathering helicopters, sightseeing tour helicopters, emergency medical services helicopters, corporate executive helicopters?
4. What are the recommended solutions for reduction of the effects of non-military helicopter noise?
III.
HOMEOWNERS OF ENCINO'S RESPONSE TO THE FOUR QUESTIONS
Q-1. What are the types of helicopter operations that elicit the negative response by individuals in densely-populated areas?
A-1 Almost all helicopter flights over the San Fernando Valley, including Encino, Sherman Oaks, Tarzana, Studio City, the Cahuenga Pass, Hollywood and the Santa Monica mountains cause an enormous amount of noise and negative public reaction. Early morning media flights, emerging from Van Nuys Airport (VNY), are the source of the most troublesome operations. TV Channels 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 34, and radio KFI, KNX and KFWB are some of the most distressing, low flying, or hovering flights (characteristic of news operations). In addition, a larger number of sight-seeing/tourist flights are operated from VNY and they too are very troublesome at all hours. These flights frequently begin from VNY, fly over Universal Studios, the Hollywood sign, the homes of celebrities or various landmarks.
Van Nuys Airport has become the region's helicopter center for a vast number of media, sight-seeing, training and City helicopters. This heavy concentration of helicopters, frequently flying as early as 5 a.m., and at low altitudes has become a major community nuisance that the FAA must address.
Q 2. What air traffic control procedures are applicable in addressing helicopter noise reduction? Why?
A-2. The local airport operator, Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), has not established local flight procedures that adequately address the helicopter noise problem. Six routes are used by helicopters to flyer in and out of VNY. These routes, especially the Sepulveda Basin South, take helicopters over a large, heavily populated urban area. Since the FAA has refused to establish minimum altitudes for helicopters (short of what the pilot deems safe), helicopter pilots do what they like.
[See Docket 27371]. This results in loud, frequently, low flying helicopters over heavy residential populations at virtually all hours of the day and night. To control urban helicopter noise, we believe it is imperative for the FAA to implement the flight procedures below:
1. Establish minimum altitudes over populated areas. Clearly a minimum altitude of at least 1500 ft. AGL should be established over populated urban areas. The lack of minimums create a horrendous noise problem for residents on the ground. The hope of "self-regulation" by the helicopter industry has proven to be a failure, as has the industry's "Fly Friendly" program. The FAA must step in an resolved this issue.
2. Limits must be placed on the number of helicopters than can be involved in reporting a car chase, loose dog or cat on the freeway, or minor blaze in a residential dwelling or office building. The current FAA policy allows dozens of helicopters to track one car chase, creating an enormous noise problem on the ground, and an unnecessary burden for FAA traffic controllers. Rules must be established to control this kind of activity, including a requirement that helicopters "pool" their news coverage.
3. Limit use of helicopter to gather electronic images, rather than allowing helicopters to serve as low altitude "TV studios." There needs to be regulations on what kinds of activities are permitted in the air.
4. Freeways should not be arbitrarily defined as established helicopter routes. These routes create a heavy noise burden on residents that live near freeways. It is a fallacy that residents living near freeways are less disturbed by helicopters than other residents. These people often endure excessive traffic noise, and adding more helicopter noise makes matters even worse. The FAA should not take the "easy way" out and blindly adopt freeways as approved helicopter routes. What is needed is a careful assessment of land uses on the ground before defining any helicopter route. When defining a route, preference should be given to over-flying commercial or industrial land, not freeway routes located near residential populations.
5. Larger N numbers must be required on helicopters. While many media outlets paint large graphics or station call signs on their helicopters, they should be required to paint large N numbers on them as well. This would enable people on the ground to readily identify disturbing helicopter operations.
6. Police, fire and other emergency helicopters should be required to adhere to high minimums when not in active service. This would prevent, for example, a police helicopter from flying low when returning to the heliport, after it has completed its assignment.
7. Maximum time limits must be established for hovering or stationary operations over urban areas. Helicopters frequently hover over an accident scene, minor disturbance or police investigation for several hours. This interferes with police work and generates an enormous noise problem for residents on the ground.
8. Each metropolitan area should have a helicopter noise hot line, funded by the FAA or local airport that is well publicized for the public's use. It should be promoted in the media to encourage residents to report offending helicopter operations. The FAA needs to staff these hot lines and contact the nuisance helicopter operators when necessity.
9. Limits must be placed upon the frequency of sight-seeing and tourist helicopter operations over urban areas. In some communities, sight-seeing helicopters fly the same routes repeatedly every ten or fifteen minutes. This must be stopped, regulated or severely limited.
10. Curfews should be established to control industry excesses. Unless a sound justification is made for an exception, a 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfew should be established for helicopters operating over populated areas.
Q-3. What impacts could restrictive air traffic control procedures have on operation of law enforcement helicopters, electronic news gathering helicopters, sightseeing tour helicopters, emergency medical services helicopters, corporate executive helicopters?
A-3. We believe that the restrictions that we have suggested above would significantly reduce noise on the ground while having only a marginal or inconsequential impact on law-enforcement or emergency operations.
1. Law-enforcement helicopters should be allowed to perform necessary operations when and where needed. However, when not in active service these helicopters should be required to conform to a 1500 ft. AGL minimum altitude.
2. Electronic news helicopters are for the most part a major nuisance; they provide entertainment for the television viewer. Better traffic reporting options are available. In some localities, such as Los Angeles, the California Dept. of Transportation's (Caltrans) Maxwell system enables the media to gather traffic information through a system of cameras and sensing loops embedded in the freeway network. This system, available to all media, and the public, is efficient, safe, requires no fuel and creates no noise or environmental problems. The FAA should investigate funding or making such traffic systems mandatory, rather than allowing helicopters to perform a redundant service.
3. Sight-seeing by helicopter over the city is not a desirable activity. Restrictions on such flights are necessary, since other forms of sight-seeing transportation are available.
4. Emergency medical service helicopters are almost without exception a tolerable necessity. However some regulation needs to be placed on these operations, where residents living near emergency facilities receive most of these flights. Helicopters flying to such facilities should use routes that take them as a matter of regulation over the least densely-populated areas.
Q4. What are the recommended solutions for reduction of the effects of non-military helicopter noise?
1. Minimum operational altitudes should be established for urban helicopter over-flights.
2. FAA regulations/rules should authorize local governments to restrict or to forbid placement of helicopter launching/landing facilities, and to place flight restrictions on some helicopter operations.
3. Sight-seeing flights over densely settled areas should be forbidden or severely limited. The FAA should allow the local jurisdiction to restrict or forbid such flights.
4. The FAA should adopt a rule which would allow local police, fire and highway patrol agencies to place a flashing blue light on a helicopter's underbelly. This would signal residents below that the helicopter is in public service, not sight-seeing, media or unnecessary operations. This key piece of information would help residents below assess the nature of the helicopter noise, and perhaps reduce the number of unnecessary complaints.
5. The FAA should devise and implement new noise standards for helicopters. A phase-out program for older models should be put in place. There should be a definite phase out time limit on all Stage 2 helicopters.
IV.
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. Of major concern to us is whether the FAA has the commitment, staffing, facilities, or the organizational structure to take on regulation of helicopter flights over populate areas. We question whether the FAA will be able to resist the heavy lobbying efforts of the helicopter industry, including the Helicopter Associates International (HAI), and local media helicopter trade groups.
2. We are disturbed by the close and frequent contacts that exist between the FAA and HAI, with their heavy Washington DC presence, and other pro-aviation lobbying groups. It is essential that the FAA seek out local community groups to ascertain the real conditions and problems vis-à-vis helicopter noise.
3. We believe that the FAA's method of involving and informing the general public in helicopter noise matters is most unsatisfactory. There are hundreds of noise organizations, and tens of thousands of individuals across the country that are actively engaged with airport, aviation and helicopter noise issues. The FAA should have made a much more massive and thorough attempt to reach these organizations for comment for Docket 30086.
Our organization, Homeowners of Encino (dba National Helicopter Noise Coalition [NHNC]), was actively involved in proposing minimum helicopter altitude regulations several years ago [See FAA Docket 27371]. Yet we were not informed by the FAA of the current docket effort. This speaks volumes about the intent and real commitment the FAA has to address the helicopter noise problem. Our organization, which sponsors the National Helicopter Noise Coalition (NHNC), maintains an extensive list of groups and individuals across the country who should be informed directly by the FAA of Docket 30086. We will make this list available to the FAA, upon your request at no charge.
5. We find is distressing that such a short time frame was allowed by the FAA to gather public comment on the helicopter noise issue. Many community groups and individuals are vitally affected, but cannot prepare the necessary response in the short time allowed for public comment.
6. The requirement for actual physical receipt of comments in triplicate is unreasonable. The FAA should also solicit comment by email, and fax, and establish a voice mail hot-line to record spoken comments.
7. Many community, citizen, neighborhood and volunteer groups hold monthly meetings, and frequently take off summers. These groups will not have been properly notified of the FAA's interest in seeking comment on the helicopter noise issue.
8. The FAA must resist helicopter industry distortions and pressure.
Hopefully the FAA will discount the flood of comments that may be received from the HAI or other vested helicopter industry groups. It would not be fair for the FAA to report to the Congress that there is little interest in this issue or that problems are minimal.
V.
Executed at Encino, California on July 20, 2000 by Gerald A. Silver, President, Homeowners of Encino.
_____________________________________
Gerald A. Silver