Airport noise problems are on the rise

TimesLedger Newspapers
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

The letter from Sharon Pinkerton in a recent edition of the Times Ledger (“Keep noise down, efficiency up at Queens airports,” March 4) is not only misleading, but also incorrect. NextGen has not reduced the noise problems in communities surrounding JFK and LaGuardia airports, but actually increased them, despite the fact that today’s high bypass jet engines are quieter. And, this has happened because easy and safe noise abatement procedures have been abandoned in order to save on airlines’ fuel costs.

Probably the best example of this is the takeoff procedure on LaGuardia’s Runway 13. During the many years that I flew in and out of LaGuardia, the takeoff procedure known as the Whitestone Climb called for an immediate right turn to 175 degrees. In doing this, jets were routed over Flushing Meadows Corona Park rather than populated areas. Today’s NextGen procedure routes planes taking off on Runway 13 directly over populated Flushing. Ask why this is done and you will get a variety of responses from the Federal Aviation Administration (if you are fortunate enough to even get a reply), but it boils down to the fact that this procedure saves airlines money in the form of fuel expenditures.

The same applies to landing on Runway 31. I can count on the fingers of two hands the number of times I flew an instrument approach to Runway 31. Rather, the standard approach to that runway was known as the Expressway Visual Approach, which once again kept the jets away from populated areas and associated noise problems.

Yet with today’s NextGen system, instrument approaches are commonplace and once again take the planes directly over Flushing. Ms. Pinkerton’s most egregious misrepresentation is where she states that the airlines are committed to working with the FAA and all communities near them (I presume she means the airports, but doesn’t state that) to hear their concerns and find solutions. The solutions to noise problems already exist and are quite simple to implement when one places quality of lives over a few bucks in fuel savings.

Also conveniently omitted is one of the major problems at LaGuardia that is responsible for most of the delays there; that being the two runways intersect each other, which greatly restricts the number of landings and takeoffs for flight safety reasons. Nowhere is this even mentioned in the article. Furthermore, Ms. Pinkerton casually mentions “Mother Nature” as being responsible. This impact is far greater than she admits because by their very nature, aircraft always attempt to take off and land into the wind, again for flight safety reasons. This means, for example, a strong wind out of the northeast, a common occurrence here in the New York area, means that LaGuardia is forced into a single-runway operation; in this case Runway 4. All takeoffs and landings must be done on this one runway. Add into this the required aircraft spacing, again for safety reasons, and it is no wonder that delays persist.

Furthermore, aircraft have had the ability to go direct from point to point for many years via the use of Inertial Navigation Systems, OMEGA and more recently, GPS. The problem comes in terminal areas, where the aircraft still need to be spaced. During times of heavy use, aircraft must still be slowed and/or radar vectored to fit into the landing patterns and NextGen does not resolve this dilemma. Airline deregulation has increased this problem because you can only stuff a certain amount of aircraft into a limited amount of airspace and still maintain a safe operation—with the key word being “safe.”

George Jehn

Pilot for Eastern Airlines and US Airways for over 30 years, flying in and out of all three New York area airports.

Posted 12:00 am, March 12, 2016
Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

Reader feedback

Pat from Valley Stream says:
Thank you for this excellent article.
March 13, 2016, 12:05 pm
Ardastos from Bath Beach says:
As you can see I live in Bath Beach Brooklyn, clear across the land from LGA, yet since June of 2012 when NextGen was implemented, I now have to hear lanes landing at LGA every 30 seconds a day, for 20 hours a day, every day.
This is criminal.
I don't live any where near an airport and should NOT have to hear planes at this multitude. No way does NextGen keep planes quieter. How can more planes and terribly low altitudes keep be quieter.
We know what this is, it is a way for the airline to make more money at the taxpayers expense. When we hear the FAA say, "were taking more direct flights to airports" , translated that means: were flying over your homes and we don't care.
Our elected officials Schumer and Gillibrand need to be booted out of office once and for all, neither one of these two morons have done a thing for us since this terrible thing called NextGen was implemented. I want to know why Phoenix, and Palo Alto residents are suing and us New Yorker's are doing nothing? Why is that? Why are we allowing all these planes flying very low over our homes happening. Both of our airports are built on the water for a reason, as to keep the planes away from our homes. Well NextGen does not do that, NextGen allows planes to ply directly over our homes, and in my book, that is criminal.
Shame an oth FAA for doing this, and shame on congress for allowing this.
It is one thing when you already live near an airport, noise is expected, but I did my due diligence and bought a house 9 miles away from both airports, yet I hear and see them landing and taking off on a daily basis, and I don't want to. Also, you cant even move, there is no area in Brooklyn or Queens that has not been touched by the re routing of airplanes.
We matter, the tax payers matter, the airline industry should NOT come before us.
Shame on the President for allowing this. Sham e on him.
March 14, 2016, 8:27 am
really from Queens says:
It is criminal to land planes at an airport? Really. Where should we land them instead?
March 14, 2016, 10:51 am
Mike R. from Malverne says:
Not funny, "really." Really.
March 15, 2016, 8:02 pm

Enter your comment below

By submitting this comment, you agree to the following terms:

You agree that you, and not or its affiliates, are fully responsible for the content that you post. You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually-oriented material or any material that may violate applicable law; doing so may lead to the removal of your post and to your being permanently banned from posting to the site. You grant to the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part world-wide and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.


Keep it local!

Stay in touch with your community. Subscribe to our free newsletter: