Comment from City of Des Moines

See Attached

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4814

Open/Download Filing

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from United Airlines

United Airlines has reviewed AD 2023-17-14 Docket No. FAA-2023-1814. United Airlines concurs with the Final Rule, but requests clarification, detailed below.

In AD 2023-17-14 Paragraph (h)(6), the AD states that if a fastener cap seal is removed for inspections required by SB 777-57A0122, a cap seal must be reapplied with BMS 5-45 per figure 1 to paragraph (h)(4). The referenced AMM 28-11-00 and Airworthiness Limitation 28-AWL-28, state “NOTE- Not all fasteners and fittings have cap seals. If fastener or fitting sealant is damaged, there will be residual evidence of a previously installed cap seal on fasteners and fittings in areas where installation is required.”

United believes that clarification is required to further explain which fasteners may not require cap seal, if any. If there is no cap seal on a fastener prior to SB 777-57A0122, will a cap seal need to be added? If so, United believes the AD needs to state that more clearly.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-1814-0002

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Southwest Airlines Co.

Comments of Southwest Airlines Co.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-1857-0274

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Anonymous

I am a citizen impacted by aviation, and support comments submitted by Morteza Karimzadeh: Comment ID
FAA-2023-0855-4097

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4332

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Adrienne Meisels

I live on W.70th Street, off of Central Park West. I started noticing continual helicopter noise around 2021. These helicopters fly over the Upper West Side to do flyovers over Central Park. There's at least one an hour from early in the morning until late into the night (~9-10pm). They fly "low"; we're on the 9th floor of my building, and we can see them clearly (so, maybe they're 100 ft above us in the air?) The noise is constant; I am on conference calls at home now and sometimes I have to close my windows so I can hear/be heard. They also are constantly gassing off pollutants into our air, which is unhealthy for us residents, who have to breathe in the byproducts day in and day out so that these tourists can get their joy ride (I've found out that that is the nature of these flights; tourists who want to see Manhattan from the air and some to take "shoe selfies" (see pics below, including one company advertising what seems to be a very dangerous activity.)). I do not know why their thrill-seeking trumps my right to quiet and my covenant of quiet enjoyment as well as my health. When I go to the park to get some fresh air and "peace", there are times when I've seen 2 or 3 helicopters circling over Sheep's Meadow. I've gone to concerts at the clamshell near 72nd st transverse in Central Park, and the sound of the orchestra is drowned out by the roar of the helicopters.

None of this ok; we are losing our rights for peace, quiet and fresh air for those who are privileged enough to be able to pay for a ride over the city. It's a one-time trip for them but a continuous, unending violation of our rights as residents.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4290

Open/Download Filing

Open/Download Filing

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Anonymous

I live in a 7-story building on the upper west side of Manhattan near 96th street. There seems to be some kind of aviation corridor across Manhattan at 96th street because on days when it is not raining, there is a continuous cacophony of helicopters and small planes that come up the Hudson and transverse Manhattan here. It’s unbearable, even with the windows closed. It’s at least 12 hours per day. Sometimes the fly really low, like 600 feet (see attached screenshots), which is extremely loud and seems dangerous. The buildin next to me is 20 stories high. Please do something to end unnecessary tourist flights over our home.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4569

Open/Download Filing

Open/Download Filing

Open/Download Filing

Open/Download Filing

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Lora Tenenbaum

See attached file(s) helicopter noise is unconscionably loud.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4265

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Friends of Liberty State Park

As president of the Friends of Liberty State Park with our 700 members and representing the many years of opposition to tourist helicopters flying over an adjacent to LSP, the waterfront oasis on the Jersey City waterfront , I'm writing to condemn the tourist helicopter companies for Violating the Liberty State Park Avoidance Zone which the NPS established with their Agreement with the tourist helicopter companies last winter. I attached the 2263 comments to the NPS during the 2022 Thanksgiving/Christmas holiday season opposing their draft agreement which had their route going fully over LSP. Their revised agreement - though creating an Avoidance Zone over the eastern part of LSP, still was unacceptable as it allowed the helicopters to go over the main picnic area, the picnic pavilion area and the noise from the Avoidance Zone route would still barrage park users with loud noise - BUT this past summer, I saw and heard the tourist helicopters throughout the day - arrogantly still Flying in the Avoidance Zone between Lady Liberty and Liberty State Park! I notified Congressman Rob Menendez who has been an advocate against the draft and then the final agreement with the companies as he also feels strongly that the helicopters shouldn't fly at all over LSP. The link to the Friends of LSP's statement opposing the revised plan and calling for the Avoidance Zone to be over the entire popular urban state park is at https://www.folsp.org/preservation/FOLSP_statement_against_NPS_tourist_helicopters.pdf In case you couldn't open that, I also attached our statement urging the whole park as an Avoidance Zone. But for now, the immediate horrendous assault by the companies is their flying Into the Avoidance Zone! PLEASE DIRECT The Tourist Helicopter Companies to obey the Agreement and stay out of the LSP Avoidance Zone! The Friends of LSP also condemn the all day every day helicopter flights over the Jersey City Heights and other parts of Jersey City, and also condemn the flights over the Hudson River by JC and NYC, including over Central Park. Non-Essential helicopter flights should be banned and as a start, the number of flights should be limited and they should not fly over Liberty State Park or Central Park! Please show respect for the quality of life of urban residents whose lives are negatively impacted for the profits of private companies taking tourists over heavily used LSP and over Manhattan. Please be an advocate against these noise barrages harming urban residents and urban waterfront park users.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4421

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Dick Hingson

See attached file(s)

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4543

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Nancy and Brad Martin

Los Altos is now under a super highway of jet traffic for ALL international and domestic jets flying into SFO. This includes massive 747 cargo planes from China and Taipat at 1:00 and 4:00 AM. They wake us up every night without fail and disturb our sleep.

We have calculated that we endure an average of 700+ commercial flights and 500+ private planes being flown over our house PER DAY!

757’s, 737s, 747’s Airbuses, loud Embraers and 777’s now fly in this superhighway over Los Altos as low as 6,000 feet and then over to Palo Alto, who get the worst it as the jumbo jets quickly descend to 4,000 ft and then as low as 3,500 ft over East Palo Alto as they head out to the bay on to their final approach. The nonstop noise disturbs our sleep and agitates our daily life.

The FAA once promised not to allow flights lower than 8,000 ft. But they have broken their own rules.

Next GEN uses satellite navigation so they stack the planes as close together as one minute apart. Los Altos and Palo Alto are now a virtual funnel for ALL air traffic at all hours.

SFO is an international airport with no time restrictions. It’s a nightmare to live under its flight path. We would never have bought a house in Los Altos 25 years ago if this had been the case. We paid more for a house here, as opposed to buying in Burlingame, because there wasn’t any air traffic overhead. It’s a crime that the FAA was allowed to change these air traffic patterns with no regard to the residents it impacted.

In addition, we have to endure the SJC air traffic when it rains and now they are sending them our way on clear weather days because the flight load into SJC is so heavy. The SJC flights are even worse. They fly as low as 2,500 ft. A jet of any size at that low altitude is extremely loud. One after another is just a constant roar!

Reverse the Incoming air traffic into SFO, back to the 2012 process! This is when the departures and arrivals were done over the ocean.

There’s no new logistics needed! It is how it was always done and how it was intended to be when airports were built back in the 1920 and 30’s. The reason the airports were designed and built next to the water was to minimize noise to the residents and for safety, since Its always more dangerous to fly over houses then over water to approach and depart. The most dangerous time of any flight is the first five minutes of takeoff and the last ten minutes of landing.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4437

Open/Download Filing

Open/Download Filing

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Hannah Rakoff

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please see my comment in the attached letter.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4516

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Robert Weiser

Planes taking off and land from the west to the south runway at FLL has been a noisy issue. See attach3d pictures of a plane landing from where I live at 4955, Leeward Ln, Fort Lauderdale FL 33312, Village of Harbor Isle. Also see pictures of planes that actually fly overhead of my house and others while landing at FLL. The noise is intolerable and we need some help of reducing the noise inside our homes at all hours of the day!

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4321

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Kim Van Riper

Please see attached files

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4487

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Shoshana Montanye

Thank you for considering our comments. I live in the very small mountain town of Rollinsville, Colorado which is 45 miles, an hour and a half drive away from Denver International Airport and is located in Gilpin County. I live here specifically for peace and quiet, and to help with my insomnia and anxiety. Since the rollout of the Nextgen plan, the flight traffic noise over my home is almost constant. During the busiest times (including as I am writing this comment) commercial jets are passing over my home at an altitude of 14,500-17,000 feet every 30 seconds, climbing the Rockies. The noise from one jet is still audible, as the next one approaches, and as many of these jets are flying low, it is quite loud and very disturbing. We literally never get a full minute of quiet during the busy hours, which are usually all day and night Fridays, Sundays, and most all afternoons and evenings. During the less busy hours, a commercial jet will pass over approximately once every four minutes. Multiple times a week I see jets passing over flying below 15,000 feet (see attached screenshot of a Boening 787-9 flying very low over my house just 30 minutes ago). It is illegal for commercial jets to be flying at an altitude under 16,000ft over Gilpin county, but multiple jets a week (probably a day, I'm just not catching them), are doing so, and are extremely loud. I have sacrificed many of the conveniences of the city to live this far into the mountains, and have done so for my physical and mental health, yet it sounds like I am living right next to the airport. I know that with the Denver Metroplex project and Nextgen plan, several flight paths that were spread out across the front range are now concentrated over Nederland and Rollinsville. I also know that not a single member of the FAA ever set foot in Gilpin County to assess the impacts this huge increase in flight traffic would have on our small mountain communities. This is completely unacceptable. The impact the increased flight traffic is having on the residents here who have gone to great efforts to find quiet, is huge. We live far from any decent grocery store, from any hospital, and an hour and a half drive from the airport, but cannot enjoy a single minute of quiet free from jet noise. It is completely unacceptable that the flight path was moved from passing directly over Boulder (an urban area full of people who have chosen to live in a city with all of its conveniences, and noise) to passing over a rural community of people who live far away from everything for the sake of their mental health and peace. I am personally suffering terribly from insomnia due to the near-constant flight traffic at night, and even had custom earplugs made at great personal expense to try eliminate the flight traffic noise when I sleep, but unfortunately the jet noise is so loud and constant, that even custom earplugs, designed specifically for my ears, are not working, and I am extremely sleep deprived the majority of the time. My physical and mental health is suffering due to the lack of consideration and foresight on the part of the FAA, and a flippancy in deciding to hurt rural communities, as opposed to keeping the flight paths spread out across the front range, and concentrated over urban areas. I request that the flight paths be restored to the pre Denver Metroplex formations, with the flight paths being spread out across the front range more equitably, and concentrated over urban areas, where the residents have elected to live in a location with more noise.

Thank you for your consideration.

Regards,

Shoshana Montanye

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4461

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Walter Weis

See Attached

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4810

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Gabriel Freiberg

This comment is also in addition to the many comments submitted by residents of the Town of Superior and other residential areas near General Aviation Facilities.

The attached document contains the verbiage and research conducted by residents in our area. My individual additions are as follows:

2b. What interests or concerns do communities in the vicinity of airports have? How can these concerns be addressed using noise metrics? What noise metrics would address these concerns? Please explain your reasoning.

Communities in the vicinity of airports need a standardized and legally recognized set of metrics to measure noise and how it affects residents. We are concerned with general aviation facilities which are expanding and operating without consideration for residences in their vicinity.

In our home aviation noise has contributed to sleeplessness, stress, and disruption. The noise caused by aviation in our town should be studied and based on the output of those studies, limits in grants or limits in expansion for nearby airports should be enforced. Having accurate metrics which capture the effects of that noice is critical to creating meaningful outcomes for residents.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4275

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Boulder County

Thanks for the opportunity to provide input. Our public submission is included in the attached document, Boulder County FAA Noise Policy Review Comments

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4299

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Suzanne H W

Addressing primarily Question 2.c:

Densely populated urban areas, such as most neighborhoods in New York City, not in the immediate vicinity of airports, are suffering new post-ANAP (1976) increasing levels of overflight noise exposure from “Urban Air Mobility” vehicles. These are helicopters (with very few passengers per flight) used for sightseeing, taxiing between airports and to resort areas -- all nonessential flights.

Helicopters, notoriously, are exempted from the altitude regulations in Title 14, CFR Sec 91.119. The Noise Policy Review should consider regulations for more stringent control of the uncontrolled airspace between 400 ft and 3,000 ft. Many of the helicopters flying slowly and hovering over residential, commercial, institutional and educational buildings and parks are as low as 600 ft, some at 300 ft, so that the decibel rating is more than “annoying” – one can’t focus on the activity, hear the conversation, program or music. Please see the attached screenshots of some flights.

The helicopter taxis should be required to fly above the center of the Hudson River and New York Harbor and only over the sea to reach Long Island and New Jersey – prohibited from flying over all boroughs of New York City and the adjacent counties.

The DNL should focus less on the “average” and give more weight to the frequency of the many trips and the lengthy duration of the continuous loud noise of the rotor blades.

What I understand to be some of the noise mitigation rules, such as directed flight paths, are not being followed or enforced:
•Jet airliners of major airlines flying low toward LGA directly over outdoor concerts at Lincoln Center on the West Side of Manhattan;
•Helicopters and jet airliners flying over the parks and residential streets of Manhattan instead of over the Hudson River.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4707

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Karl Drake

See attached file(s)

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4737

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Robert Holbrook

Please see my comments in the attached document.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4704

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from j katzenstein

Noise and near collisions over Anaheim Hills, Calif. at John Wayne Airport in California.
The FAA and the pilot-in-command have “full jurisdiction and responsibility for flight paths and altitudes” Safety and flight paths should be reviewed by the FAA. No action affecting flight paths can be initiated locally.
I have been discussing the issue of flight paths and safety with Representative Young Kim. She states that members of congress are not able to directly request changes to flight paths. This must be done in collaboration with the airport and other community stakeholders groups in order to be studied and considered by the FAA, typically using the community roundtable format. The FAA has shared that administrators at John Wayne Airport are considering starting a roundtable.
My concern with the flight path results directly from the full implementation by the FAA of the NextGen Metroplex project in year circa 2017. NextGen “trajectory based operations” force arriving aircraft from the north (flights coming down the coast and then over Huntington Beach and Santa Ana) directly and coincidentally into the same airspace as flights arriving from the east (over Gypsum Canyon). Near collisions are occurring over East Anaheim and East Orange where arriving flights enter the existing Standard Terminal Arrival Route (STAR) for John Wayne Airport and compete for clearance for landing.
I live in the area and many times I have witnessed what I believe to be near collisions of aircraft as NextGen directs incoming flights into the SNA STAR for landing. On January 20, 2022 at approximately 5:26PM over East Anaheim on a cloudless afternoon with pristine weather and visibility, SWA 2282 (Tail N8611 DEN-SNA) flew precipitously close to SWA 2137 (Tail N406WN; SJC-SNA). The two aircraft had a vertical clearance of approximately 900’ with a lateral clearance of approximately 4000’ (per Flight Tracker). This is less than the required separation
We might attribute the clearances between these two flights as "depicted by Flight Tracker to be for “illustrative purposes only” with “no warranty or guarantee of the accuracy of database” as suggested by the Flight Tracker web site. This is totally plausible because, per the DOT Inspector General’s Report of August 27, 2019, the 45 billion dollar Nex tgen Metroplex project is a “failure .I would of course expect the existence of inaccurate data on the website. This “failure” of Next gen Metroplex also would explain why I continually observe jets being steered headfirst into each other over East Anaheim and East Orange on clear and cloudless days. In respect to the two flights I referenced above, their proximity to each other appeared exceptionally close to my naked eye (as have other near collisions I have witnessed at this location.)
The deficiencies of the Next Gen project have resulted in a suboptimal outcome in Orange County. It is readily apparent to any layperson that the Optimized Profile Descent (“OPD”) application within Next Gen is malfunctioning. As designed, OPD combines satellite based navigation data with the current and forecasted location of other airborne flights to optimize a flight path that is safe, as direct (short) as possible, and as efficient as possible (minimal fuel burn). OPD does this by speeding up or slowing down aircraft in flight in an attempt to minimize air traffic congestion to and within in the Metroplex destination which then should enable a safe and conflict free landing. We are experiencing the exact opposite at STAR SNA. Conflicting arrivals over East Orange and East Anaheim force numerous flights arriving from the east into large divergent 270 degree loops over Yorba Linda, wasting fuel and spewing exhaust, noise, risk, and greenhouse gases over hundreds of thousands of people who should, in theory, never experience any overflights at all (if Next gen functioned properly).
Flights arriving to STAR SNA from the north add to the conflict. One would think that most if not all of these arrivals should simply “arc” or curve into SNA in the most efficient and least obtrusive path permissible (see Flight Tracker for March 1, 2022; 4:53PM, SWA 1494, Tail N7445W, OAK-SNA). Unfortunately, as I previously mentioned, these arrivals are repeatedly directed by the FAA to fly additional miles over the cities of Santa Ana, Orange, and Anaheim and into air traffic conflict at STAR SNA, leaving the numerous innocent citizens of these cities to suffer the consequences of the noise, pollution, and risk associated with these unnecessary “overflights”.
One of the stated goals (and purported “benefits”) of Next Gen is “increased capacity”. Fruition of this goal will require an always increasing number of flights into and within the Air traffic conflict over East Anaheim. If the FAA fails to mitigate this conflict, then I am afraid that at some point in the near future there will be a collision.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4742

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Gary Stavella

My comments are in reference to the Tourist Helicopter noise and traffic along the Hudson river adjacent to my residence.

I have lived at 2 Constitution Ct and Sinatra Dr in Hoboken NJ for 20+ years, and during that time the helicopter noise and traffic in the area has increased tenfold.

When I first moved here, regulations on tourist flights seem to have been enforced with limits the times that were allowed to fly 9:00 am- 7:00 pm., and the number of tourist flights to a maximum number per tour company per week (perhaps 80?).

Now flights begin before 8 am and last until after 10 at night.

The number of flights per company seem unlimited. And the number of tour companies have increased from 4-5 to at least the 30+ separate companies listed on Viator.com.

The flights up and down the Hudson are continuous though out the day with multiple flight paths over lapping and one following another. It is not unusually for 18+ helicopters to be in the air at one time between the Statue of Liberty and the Lincoln Tunnel.

The noise from the helicopters is also unrelenting from morning to evening, which shut windows do not muffle.

The helicopter noise outside also makes it difficult to carry on a conversation if you are near the river.

There are now multiple locations from where the helicopters depart. Whereas five years ago there were maybe 4 helipads in Manhattan. Now there are also several in NJ contributing to the traffic along the Hudson.

Flights from the NJ locations in Kearny, Linden and Newark, fly directly, and seemingly very low over the roof tops of Hoboken and Jersey City.

Regulations on time, number of flights, flight paths, number of tour companies, altitude etc, now seem to be suspended or simply ignored.

All of the information that I have submitted above can be verified with information provided by the app FlightRadar24. A sample of which I have posted in the files section.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4674

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Asa Elterich

Relentless RMMA aviation noise disrupting community

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4740

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from New York Community Aviation Roundtable (NYCAR)

See attached file(s)

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4605

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from FUCK YOU BURBANK AIRPORT TORTURING STUDIO CITY

This comment is in addition to any previous comments. We support the following:
Aviation-Impacted Communities Alliance (AICA) Comment, ID FAA-2023-0855-2206; and
RETROACTIVE APPLICATION: Any changes to the Noise Policy must retroactively apply to Overflight Communities already suffering from NextGen’s low, concentrated, and extended flight paths. Those communities impacted by NextGen inspired this NPR and yet they are ironically left out of the redress process. The government is responsible for NextGen's impacts and must rectify the current situation while creating policies to help future victims.

BURBANK HAS ILLEGALLY BEEN SENDING EVERY SINGLE DEPARTING AND ARRIVING FLIGHT ALL DAY AND NIGHT OVER THE STUDIO CITY FOOTHILLS. THEY CHANGED THE FLIGHT PATH WITHOUT DOING THE REQUIRED EPA AND SEVEN YEARS LATER STILL STILL!!! HAVE NOT COMPLETED THE EPA WHICH WOULD SHOW THAT THESE MOUNTAINOUS REGIONS ARE BEING BOMBARDED WITH LOW-FLYING LOUD JETS EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY DAY AND NIGHT AND THEY ARE TORTURING US!!

THESE HOUSES WERE NOT DESIGNED TO BE UNDER LOW-FLYING JETS AND THE JET NOISE ECHOES OFF THE CANYONS AND EACH JET SOUNDS 10 TIMES LOUDER THAN THE JETS NEAR THE AIRPORT!!

BURBANK AIRPORT IS TORTURING AND KILLING THEIR NEIGHBORS ILLEGALLY!! STOP THE TORTURE!! PLEASE HELP US!!!

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4638

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Rod Paine

Dear FAA Representative,

I am writing to implore you to do something about the helicopters flying over the Upper West Side of New York City.

Several times a day very loud, low-flying Sikorskys roar through at an ear-splitting volume, even shaking things in the apartment. I believe your prescribed route for them is over the Reservoir in Central Park.

But much worse is the tourist traffic out of South Kearny, NJ. They send at least two aircraft every hour during the weekdays and up to three or four choppers each hour in the nicer weather. I have video of four of their helicopters circling the El Dorado (at Central Park West and 90th Street) at sunset and many other incursions on other days.

Why can't these choppers be made to fly over midtown, where the buildings are hermetically sealed and virtually impervious to outside noise? Why are the citizens of the City singled out for the hourly cacophony of helicopters, each of them carrying less than five tourists? For every five joyriders flying over Central Park, there are tens of thousands of residents being annoyed. Not quite fair, is it?

Please use your Federal authority and return the skies of New York City to people who live here. I believe your Administration was created to, and for large part does, ensure a peaceful balance between aircraft and residents. Please correct this gross distortion that has arisen with the tourist helicopter outfits.

Many thanks for your consideration.

Rod Paine
West 87th Street
New York NY

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4646

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from City of Monterey Park

City of Monterey Park Support for LAX/Community Noise Roundtable
Responses to FAA Requests for Comments on their Review of the Civil Aviation Noise
Policy
Reference: DOCKET #FAA-2023-0855

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4655

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE)

Please see attached for comments from the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE).

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4700

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Eastern Queens Alliance, Inc.

See attached file(s)

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4701

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Amber Greves

I am a Colorado citizen impacted by aviation; largely from KBJC (aka Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport) and other CO general aviation airports. I support comments submitted by Morteza Karimzadeh: Comment ID FAA-2023-0855-4097.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4682

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Cindy Christiansen

This comment is in addition to any others I have submitted. Along with my comments in the attached document, I support the following submissions:
•Aviation-Impacted Communities Alliance (AICA), Comment ID FAA-2023-0855-2206
•Massachusetts Port Authority Community Advisory Committee. FAA-2023-0855-0001
•Montgomery County Quiet Skies Coalition https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2023-0855-3843
•Quiet Communities Inc https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2023-0855-3885
•Citizens for Quiet Skies FAA-2023-0855-4119
•Groton Ayer Buzz FAA-2023-0855-2553, among others.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4709

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Igor Alves

Background
Background
I am writing as a 20 year resident of my town in Southern Bergen County, New Jersey. I realize we are 6 miles from Teterboro Airport and 8 miles from Newark Airport. Yet, most planes traditionally flew over the Meadowlands marsh (EWR) or up the Rt. 17 highway (TEB). As a video producer, I have mostly worked from home during the past decade, and have a sense of local noise levels because I often need to hear and make audio recordings at home. Until 2019/20 I could expect a loud plane noise about every 8-10 minutes, with ever increasing frequency over the years.

Noise levels
Since 2021/22, however, the pace and the scope has ballooned exponentially to the current levels which can reach 80db, most often at least 72db and above (self-recorded over months), every few minutes. The "normal" background averages about 35-40db, so these huge peaks are especially rattling, and impactful to stress and health levels.

Lived experience
Since then, I and neighbors find ourselves living in a sound inferno, where we often need to pause conversations in the backyard to wait out the plane disruptions, or go indoors to handle a phone call. And sleeping with the windows open is a non-starter, though closed isn't much better, when the rumbles pierce through walls and the house shakes at times.

Type of noise
There are a variety of ripping and rumbling sounds. Some sound like rolling waves of rumble while others sound like the classic dive bombing plane sound - and that "impersonation" is both shocking and revealing of the impact. These flights are noise bombs dropped overhead, 18+ hours a day, 7 days a week.

About 1/3 of the planes are turning overhead, and these produce a particularly gutteral noise. Many of the turning flights are large passenger though a large number are cargo flights (i.e. Fedex and UPS).

Frequency
The frequency ranges between every 30 seconds to 90 seconds during a majority of the day, alternating between departing Newark Airport flights and Teterboro (mostly) landing flights.

Time of day
The flights occur from 8am to 2am, 7 days per week, with peak frequency between 8am - 10pm, and 5pm and 12am.

Flight altitude
The private jets landing at Teterboro fly above at anywhere between 750ft to 1200ft, and the larger Newark planes at 3000-6000ft.

Carbon emissions
The private flights are responsible for many multiples per person in emissions, and need to be taxed accordingly.

DNL
Simply not an effective metric!

Impact
I'm stressed, and cannot properly work from home or sleep or enjoy my own backyard!

My outreach
I have contacted my Town Mayor (wants to hush issue to not affect property values), State Assemblyman (supportive, admits flights changed) and Senator Bill Pascrell's office (seem concerned about helicopters and just taxing a bit more). I also spoke with TANAAC Teterboro noise specialist, who suggested I ask for improvements in engine adoption and widening the soundproofing radius to cover my town. He mostly denied the extraordinary jump in flight and noise levels, just conceding that private flights have gotten popular.

Expectations
I desperately hope the FAA will adopt a new noise policy and new metrics that protect overflown communities and near-airport communities from harm, and that air operators be held to higher environmental and health standards, which include paying their fair share of the impacts caused. (E.g. private jets should not cost users way less in taxes and fees per flight than commercial flights)

See attached file(s)

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4718

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from A P

Please find my responses to your request for comments in the attached file: FAA Questionnaire Sept 29 23. Thank you.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4293

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Jennifer Trujillo

See attached file(s)

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4534

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from J Sea

We look forward to catching up with the twenty first century way a community should be seen especially those on the ground near general aviation training airports. The FAA is our agency that guides those who fly and in my opinion has overlooked the effects of noise created over living beings and its harm for a very long time. No better time than now to get it together and maybe even have a bake sale for public airports instead of property tax dollars supplied off the backs of local residents and travelers.

See attached file(s)

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4550

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Jennifer Landesmann

Letter to Mr. Don Scatta. This comment is in addition to a previous comment.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4263

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Small UAV Coalition

Small UAV Coalition comments FAA Civil Aviation Noise Policy

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4378

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Michael Matthias

See Attached

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4809

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from DCNR

See Attached

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4815

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Jay Sonbolian

I would like to offer anyone from the FAA or Transportation Dept. to my house for breakfast any day of the week to hear firsthand what we live with now that the NextGen virtual flight path's have become a reality (and nightmare). When I moved into my house, we had maybe a 10 - 20 flights overhead at low altitudes (takeoff/landing altitudes) daily. Once NextGen rerouted ALL flights literally over my house at approx 3K feet, we get approx 400 - 600 flights per day. To be clear, i'm not against planes, air travel, noise, etc. I fully understand that this is part of the world we live in and are totally willing to share the burden. Even though it was not part of what I expected when I moved here. I do not believe we should send planes over lower income areas or even the areas that full well knew of the air traffic volumes when they did purchase their houses or move into their neighborhoods. I'm a proponent for simply sharing the burden these airports and planes cause. To do that, I strongly believe we should simply fan the plane flight paths for takeoff and landing, when they're at their lowest altitude and create the most air pollution and noise pollution. Spread it out. Pick 5 paths and for every plane that takes off, send it in 1 of those 5 in as fair of a manner possible. My family and kids taking 100% of the air pollution and noise pollution is not fair or right. Nor is the 4 elementary schools directly in the low altitude path fair to take it either. To circle back to my offer at the start, I would love for anyone from the FAA or Transportation department to come to my house for coffee or breakfast literally any morning of their choosing and hear firsthand what we deal with. I'm also available for a call, email, or i'd even come there to meet if that is helpful to anyone. I attached my airnoise.io app complaints from last month, just when I happened to be home. Much appreciated! Jay Sonbolian, jsonbolian@gmail.com, 617-407-0768, 4129 Camellia Ave, Studio City, CA 91604

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4811

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Tracy & Anthony Williams

This comment is in addition to any previous comments.
See attached file of the flight paths of some of the Auburn University Regional Flight School airplanes flying in our community.

Respectfully,
Tracy & Anthony Williams

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4729

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from National Business Aviation Association (NBAA)

See attached file.

The National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) appreciates the opportunity to comment.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4711

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Paul Hamilton

MOSAIC Speed Topic Background;
There are two opposing speed safety theories for weight-shift-control (and for that matter this can be applied to all aircraft).
•First: Slow theory. The slower the aircraft and/or lower the wing loading, the safer the aircraft because you cannot get going fast enough to hurt yourself. This is a valid point.
•Second: Fast Theory: The faster the aircraft and/or higher the wing loading, the safer the aircraft is because they are not thrown around as much in turbulence, especially near the ground, and you can safely fly and land in higher winds. Generally higher speed weight-shift-control, as well as airplanes does require a higher pilot skill level, as well as airplanes.
It is interesting that some camps believe in the first, slow is safer, others in second, fast is safer. Both camps have merit. However, to take one side verses the other, is not in the best general interest of aviation.
Currently, the FAA Sport Pilot speed endorsement, FAR 61.327, accounts for the faster and the slower. Most weight-shift-control are currently in the slower below 87 knots and 61.327 (a), clearly accounts for this. 61.327 (b) brilliantly accounts for aircraft (weight-shift-control) above Vh 87 knots. As the FAA has acknowledged, the endorsement process works.
There are huge potential developments in weight-shift-control wings on the horizon. One obvious example is the variable geometry/twist used in hang gliders for about two decades now. There are plenty of advances to the weight-shift-control wing that can make it more efficient and thus faster.
Specific 14 CFR recommendations for MOSAIC – Weight-shift-control STALL SPEED.
Simply, keep the same stall speed limitations as proposed for airplane.
There is no logical reason for this limitation except the “slow camp” single sided listed above. For the FAA to not allow faster weight-shift-control/flying wings, is not practical or productive. There is no reason to increase the stall speed for airplanes and not weight-shift-control. This would be unnecessarily discriminatory against the weight-shift-control category with no logical basis. Listen to the industry leaders who have experience in this category. Do not stifle the development of weight-shift-control. The flying wing concept is confusing to most aviators, but you must let the weight-shift-control evolve in efficiency and speed like the airplanes.
Part 22 Design, Production, and airworthiness requirements for non-type certificated aircraft.
Specifically: 22.100 (a) (3) last sentence simply get rid of the last words “or 45 knots CAS for weight-shift-control”.
Part 61 CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS and GROUND INSTRUCTORS
61.316 (a) (1) Add and Weight-Shift Control to read ….. except for airplanes “and weight-shift-control”

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-1377-0573

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from SABIC

SABIC's comments are submitted as an attached PDF file. We are submitting these as public comments, with no confidential information.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2019-0491-0097

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Kenneth Desforges

MOSAIC RESPONSE

Dear Sir/Madam

I am a 60-year student pilot who has loved aviation for as long as I can remember, and last flew as PIC at the controls 40 years ago. I have raised 4 adult children three of which hold a Private Pilot Certificate. Due to highly restrictive medical requirements that have been shown to provided little protection to the General Aviation flying and non-flying public, I am only able to fly using the “Driver License Medical” of the Sport Pilot Certification or the no medical certificate requirement for Gliders and seek a Powered Glider endorsement.

This even though I can drive high performance cars (200MPH+), SUV’s and LARGE Recreational Vehicles at HIGHWAY speeds throughout the United States (with 1-9+ people on board) with the same underling medical issues that the FAA uses to prevent me from flying small/light aircraft navigating to and through the SAME METROPOLITAN DESTINATIONS with MUCH denser threats in all directions.

1.)Why not make “Driver’s License Medical” the standard for ALL Certificate Types and just limit the passengers (1-3?) allowing us to get Instrument (and Commercial? For Flight Instruction at least) if we only wanted to fly ourselves and our family in our new technologically current aircraft.

BOTH Gliders and Light Sport aviation have proved to have significant unintended additional limitations that have proved restrictive for my obtaining a higher rating than Student Pilot. For Gliders with a power option, very few older aircraft exist and the only NEW currently available aircraft I am aware of in this category is the Pipistrel Sinus. A European aircraft worthy of consideration, but it has a 265lb weight limit per seat that does not match my needs. The Light Sport pilot certification WOULD WORK FOR ME, however the current restrictive weight limit of 1320lbs gross means ONLY the M Squared Breese 2 aircraft with the ROTAX 582 (no longer made) would meet my needs to obtain my Sport Pilot license with another person (Instructor or DPE) aboard. But there are VERY few of these aircraft in existence and none that are registered as SLSA at an active Flight School that I am aware after a nationwide search. Additionally, many of M Squarred aircraft are ESLA and many instructors and DPE’s have no interest in providing their services in those aircraft regardless of condition or the fact the ESLA and the SLA are the exact same aircraft, even with a Letter of Deviation from the FAA.

There is certainly a good reason to obtain training and certification in an aircraft of the general “type” you intend to fly. However, in my case and that of other FULL-SIZE Americans that is simply not an option with SLSA under the current rules. (i.e., I cannot fly a Cessana 172/177/182 and take a check ride in it for my Sport Pilot certificate. Would have been NICE if I could have…) The new rules as I understand them would expand the aircraft available to the community greatly and would specifically address my exact situation. Allowing me to use a 4-seat aircraft (really just an increased load capacity aircraft) for training and Sport Pilot certification (limited to two occupants). If the NPRM results in regulations generally in line what I see today I would likely purchase an existing certificated aircraft that meets the new expanded Light Sport Aircraft standards or purchase a NEW 2-4 seat Light Sport aircraft in 2025 that would allow ALL of my family members to continue their enjoyment of aviation in our own family aircraft using both Private and Sport Pilot privileges as appropriate to the PIC. Thank you!!!

Generally, I support the changes as proposed in the Sport Pilot Certificate and Light Sport Aircraft but want to highlight some areas that don’t seem to have been fully rationalized, particularly in the area of the repairman certificate.

See attached PDF for comments

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-1377-0585

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Gloria Boyce-Charles

See attached file(s)

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4713

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Paul Hamilton

Specific 14 CFR recommendation for MOSAIC – Raise WSC SEATING CAPICITY to three.
Simply, allow three seated, including the pilot for weight-shift-control aircraft.

There are three seated WSC trikes built in the world today. Just as safe as the two seaters. As with two place, the one or two passengers sit at the center of gravity. A simple addition of weight. There is no reason why three people, including pilot, should not be allowed for weight-shift-control. The sport pilot could fly with only one passenger, similar to the proposed rules for airplane with four seats. A private pilot weight-shift-control could operate with 3 people, pilot and two passengers. Again, no reason to limit the number of seats when the airplane is proposed to have four.
Part 22 Design, Production, and airworthiness requirements for non-type certificated aircraft.
22.100 (a) (1) Except for an airplane and weight-shift-control, ……… Add the three seats for weight-shift-control along with the airplane or add a new number 22.100 (a) (X) For weight-shift-control, have a maximum seating capacity of three, including the pilot.
Part 61 CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS and GROUND INSTRUCTORS
61.316 (a) (2) Add at the end of the paragraph ……and Weight-Shift Control which may have a maximum seating capacity of three persons.
Part 91 General operating and Flight Rules
91.327 (f) add new number (x) more than three occupants including the pilot if a weight-shift-control.
Change 91.327 Special Light Sport (f) add at end of (2) ….other than an airplane “or weight-shift-control.”
Note for 91.319 Experimental
Do not see two and four passenger for updated two and 4 light sport which should be added as needed. Experimental weight-shift-control should also be able to carry three occupants including the pilot.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-1377-0574

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Elena Byrgazova

We have been asking to adjust a flight path for West Flow Departures from PDX. Please see attached images with a black line suggesting the path adjustment. We are having too many planes flying over Ashcreek Neighborhood, SW Portland. We are wondering why the flights to the East are flying over SW Portland when the shorter and more efficient path is through SE Portland. We have been sending this to the NW Ombudsman for over 2 years and there is no response. Please help.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4804

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Anonymous Anonymous

The associated noise exposure to residents is unrelenting day and night, and cumulative to the number of similar overhead flights per day. Multiple studies show that continuing exposure to noise over a short-period, even a matter of minutes, increases mental and physical responses in humans and we have had the National Academy of Sciences as commissioned by Congress confirm the health effects of noise and leaded fuel.

To reduce program costs and time, training flights often occur close to the originating airport and at lower altitudes. Despite guidelines such as AOPA Noise Awareness Steps and “fly friendly”, many training programs ignore those guidelines. For example, the FAA’s minimum AGL (1,000) is differs from the AOPA guideline of 2,000ft AGL.

2) Early pilot training programs typically utilize noisier small single-engine propeller-driven planes, e.g. Cessna 172. Many of these planes are older models (on average 42 years old) without the latest in noise reduction technologies. which causes repeating variations in propeller loading and tip speed, the primary determiner of small plane noise generation. Training aircraft like the Cessna 172 have two-bladed propellers, which increases propeller noise.

Out dated Master Plans and ALPs which exclude the public effected by training activities is unacceptable. The FAA doesn’t require these to be updated on a regular basis.

Lobbyist such a AOPA paint residents as “hostile” when all they want to be able to do is live their lives in peace. They install their people in airports to “quite” residents. The FAA has noise ombudsman who are unresponsive to residents concerns.

The FAA does little to address residents concerns when contacted about the issues. The focus for noise has been on NextGen not general aviation.

The FAA needs to examine its noise policies and revise 65DNL measurement of noise, implement new technology to measure noise, and address the public’s concerns more effectively. They say a picture speaks 1000 words - here is a picture of one plane. Imagine 258 in a day flying circles over a resident who just had cancer treatments?

Montgomery County Airpark has backing from AOPA, a lobbyist group who is pro aviation. We are residents trying to enjoy our homes. The behaviors of pilots from flight schools can change such as flying high power over densely populated areas, the FAA can enforce limitation of grants to airports that require noise remediation.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4808

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Garmin Intl.

Comment from Garmin Intl.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2019-0491-0098

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from brian knott

The last five months has been awful to live near BJC ( RMMA / Jefferson County) airport for the intense and consistent noise ( vibrations) from the aircraft . I have been in my house ( 3030 E. Yarrow Cir. Superior CO 80027) for 12 years and it was not till this last May that I even noticed the airport but things have changed dramatically! Starting in the first week of June I couldn't sit on my couch ( indoors) without hearing and feeling a constant flow of propeller airplanes flying over or near my house. This continued throughout the month of June and lead me to try and figure out why my house and yard that I've completly enjoyed for the past twelve years has now become a miserable and incredibly noisy place . Using websites that track flights I discovered how these flight paths ( noise) of low flying prop planes was destroying any peace at my house. I have included many screen shots in the attach files of the constant barrage of airplanes over my house. As the summer progressed I found myself waking up and putting noise cancelling headphones on as soon as possible or turning up the TV volume just to try and counteract the extreme airplane noise . Unfortunately even this was negated by the vibrations ( hertz) of the prop engines and realized the vibrations of the plane engines were felt as well as heard - every shower I take now I can feel and hear the airplanes. ATP ,Spartan and other flight schools have increased operations so much that on a daily basis the noise from one plane will bleed into the other giving a non-stop effect of noise and vibration. My sleep has been reduced significantly and my mental well being is greatly effected. I completely avoid hanging out on my back deck or doing lawn work because the onslaught of airplane noise makes being outside unlivable . Even being inside the noise penetrates the house and makes me not be able to keep a train of thought or get any work done. I have reached out to the airport and the FAA and am not satisfied on what is going on as far as airplane noise currently in my town ( Superior, CO). Please change how these aircraft can distroy one's quality of life.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4298

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from State Representative Sally P. Kerans (13th Essex)

Attached is Massachusetts State Representative Sally Kerans submission to the Federal Aviation Administration regarding Beverly Airport.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4266

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Nick Wigston

I have lived in Rock Creek, adjacent to what is now named Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport (RMMA) but what was a local county airstrip. The current number and type of aircraft taking off and landing over suburban homes, incessantly except in case of wind or other adverse weather, is not tenable. The noise, primarily from touch and go flight school operations, is disruptive to sleep and work on a daily basis, from 5:40am to well after 9:30pm. I am concerned about lead and other pollution from the sheer number of outdated planes taking off overhead as well as the noise, but it is primarily the noise that disrupts most waking and many sleeping minutes of each day.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4346

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Anonymous

We live in Sun city Summerlin. We live 7 miles away from north Las Vegas airport and 13 miles away from Harry Reid. For the past 8 months, we have been targeted by loud stunt planes of sky combat ace, 450 low flying planes (flight schools, low flying helicopters) and commercial planes from Harry Reid. Sky Combat Ace loud stunt planes really has no place over densely populated residential areas. Tens of thousands of people who live in quiet neighborhoods 7 -12 miles from an airport should not be subject to acrobatic airplanes ripping over in formation at full power, often less than 1000ft off the ground and in excess of 180 knots, probably 20-30 times a day just so tourists can pay 1000 bucks an hour to play war games over the mountains. At nights we can't sleep because of loud commercial planes being rerouted over our homes and early mornings we are under aerial assault by loud stunt planes (95 db), abusive GA pilots and their war games.

Currently, some special interests are lobbying Congress to make changes to U.S. aviation safety laws, including further weakening pilot-training requirements and arbitrarily raising the mandatory retirement age without first studying the safety implications of such a move. Clark county department of aviation has been retaliating against residents and rerouting Sky Combat planes over Sun city homes at low altitude, 20 to 30 times a day. Look at these salaries, they own the airport and are making money off of our suffering, they have told residents to move out of their homes because of this horrible business: https://transparentnevada.com/salaries/2022/clark/

There are airports everywhere so the ‘just move’ argument is dumb. People have to live somewhere and the entire City of Las Vegas is built around major airports. North Las Vegas airport needs to be a better neighbor and manage this heavy traffic and fire abusers like Sky Combat and a dozen others. If a municipal airport wants to expand and it is not compatible with the built up community, then it needs to stay the same. Take a look at the flight school flight and touring business patterns taking off and landing at KVGT, and on top of densely populated. Non-stop touch and goes, short flights and endless lopping and circling at low altitude. Sky Combat loud stunt planes are adding to the built of the traffic here over homes west of the airport.

Whomever approved this dangerous aviation activity (selling adrenaline on top of our homes) and flight patterns should be FIRED immediately. These reckless maneuvers, loud decibels and stunt planes war games and nonstop touch and goes by flight schools is putting the entire community at risk. This is not flight training, they are selling adrenaline like drug to junkies. This is constant harassment of the residents underneath. Just because someone wants to own a business (aviation or otherwise) doesn’t mean that they get to steal someone else’s property rights or be in breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment. That is what we have zoning laws for, to create balance. Forcing these changes without due process, consent and compensation to impacted land owners violates the fifth amendment and all the values this country stands for. Please BAN this horrible business within City limit https://www.change.org/p/move-sky-combat-ace-out-of-kvgt (they are retaliating against the residents because of the petition) and stop rerouting big commercials (early mornings and late at nights) over homes 11 miles away the airport.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4566

Open/Download Filing

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Anna Wintour

Regarding Issue FAA–2023–0855

To whom it may concern,

I write today in regard to the civil aviation noise exposure in the Long Island neigborhoods of Brookhaven, Mastic, and Shirley. We unfortunately have come to understand firsthand the detrimental effects of loud and repetitive aircraft noise over the previous years.

The incredibly noisy Skydive Long Island plane makes numerous trips each day in our area from 1 April to 1 October. These trips often happen within 15 minutes of each other and on a highly repetitive loop pattern. The seemingly continual whine of the engines has made it virtually impossible for anyone in the area to enjoy being outside. What used to be an immense pleasure of mine—spending time in my garden—has, frankly, turned into a nightmare from above.

The Skydive plane is climbing dramatically over land to reach its eventual drop altitude rather than gaining a majority of its altitude over the water, which would reduce noise on the land. Not to mention, the southward trajectory of the plane often passes over National Wildlife Refuge, making permanent damage to what should be a well-protected, clean area from the leaded fuel. We believe that the almost constant noise and worrisome fuel pollution should, at the very least, be spread more widely over the area—something that could be achieved easily if 50% or more of Skydive’s flight patterns were directed toward the more sparsely populated area north of Calabro Airport, or if the plane spent more time flying further out over the water to the south and east of us.

I ask that you consider the severe impact that this exposure has had on our neighbors and community and ask for your help in making an effective change.

Anna Wintour

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4287

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Jim Mosher

See attached file(s)

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4413

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Robert Mirviss

See attached file(s)

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4549

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Mary Ellen Stickel

I am writing to the FAA’s attention the issue of the frequency of the private jets that fly over Bergen County, New Jersey. I live in the Township of Washington. We are 20 miles from Teterboro Airport. The private jets arrive into Teterboro and the route they take is over my house. My concern is the planes fly very, very low. My other concern is the frequency that the jets flew over my house.
I have filed multiple complaints with Teterboro Airport.

The environmental aspects are enormous also. The soot from the planes is falling on our houses and the noise is just horrible all hours of the day and night. I lived in my house close to 20 years and just in the last few years this has become an enormous issue in our town and the surrounding towns.

I fear that private jets will crash. They jets fly over us every few minutes (this is not normal). None of this is normal and we are made to believe that this should be our new normal for us to deal with.

I have attached a flight map that Teterboro airport provided me for the arrivals of private jets on July 26, 2023. My home is noted on this map. ALL flights arrive over my house.
I hope he can help us.

Thank you,
Mary Ellen Stickel
201-306-2337
191 Walnut Street
Township of Washington, NJ 07676

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4439

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Anonymous

I support the Town of Los Altos Hills and Cities of East Palo Alto, Los Altos, Menlo Park, Mountain View, and Palo Alto, California (the Cities) ID No. FAA-2023-0855-4086 and Concerned Residents of Palo Alto ID No. FAA-2023-0855-2265. In addition are the following points and for some I have attached supporting documents.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4552

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Sarah Katherine Plautz

See attached file(s)

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4715

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Anonymous

See attached file(s)

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4665

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from BURBANK AIRPORT IS CRIMINAL

This comment is in addition to any previous comments. We support the following:
Aviation-Impacted Communities Alliance (AICA) Comment, ID FAA-2023-0855-2206; and
RETROACTIVE APPLICATION: Any changes to the Noise Policy must retroactively apply to Overflight Communities already suffering from NextGen’s low, concentrated, and extended flight paths. Those communities impacted by NextGen inspired this NPR and yet they are ironically left out of the redress process. The government is responsible for NextGen's impacts and must rectify the current situation while creating policies to help future victims.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE HELP STUDIO CITY WE HAVE BEEN SUFFERING FROM THE ILLEGAL NON-STOP LOW-FLYING JETS DEPARTING AND ARRIVING FROM THE BURBANK AIRPORT NON-STOP FOR SEVEN YEARS AND NO EPA HAS BEEN DONE!! THEY ARE ILLEGALLY USING THE STUDIO CITY MOUNTAINS AS THEIR DUMPING GROUND FOR THEIR PLANES THAT NEVER STOP FLYING LOW AND ECHOING OFF THE CANYONS SOUNDING LIKE BOMBS ARE GOING OFF DAY AND NIGHT AND NIGHT AND DAY!!!

FOUR MILLION COMPLAINTS AND YET NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE!!!

PLEASE HELP US! PLEASE HELP STUDIO CITY!! NO ONE WILL LISTEN TO US!! WE ARE SUFFERING DAY AND NIGHT PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE HELP US!!!

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4653

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Anonymous

This comment is in addition to any previous comments. We support the following:
Aviation-Impacted Communities Alliance (AICA) Comment, ID FAA-2023-0855-2206; and
RETROACTIVE APPLICATION: Any changes to the Noise Policy must retroactively apply to Overflight Communities already suffering from NextGen’s low, concentrated, and extended flight paths. Those communities impacted by NextGen inspired this NPR and yet they are ironically left out of the redress process. The government is responsible for NextGen's impacts and must rectify the current situation while creating policies that will help future victims.

STOP BURBANK AIRPORT FROM ILLEGALLY FLYING NON-STOP LOW-FLYING JETS OVER THE STUDIO CITY FOOTHILLS ALL DAY AND NIGHT!!!! NO EPA HAS BEEN DONE AND THEY ARE KILLING US!!!!

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4641

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Anonymous

This is in response to the FAA request for input on the FAA noise policy review. It is encouraging that FAA is soliciting input on its approach to aircraft noise metrics and decision making and communication regarding aircraft noise. The FAA needs a new noise policy that properly assesses acute and chronic concentrated noise of its Precision Based Navigation (PBN) and includes solutions to the devastating impact of the implementation of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) on millions of Americans around the country. Specifically our community in the San Francisco Bay Area experiences overflights from at least two major airports and is directly underneath three major NextGen flight paths (OAK departures, OAK arrivals and SFO departures) subjecting our neighborhoods to an incessant barrage of aircraft noise during the day and night.

To date, the FAA has failed to properly assess the noise impact of NextGen on the communities underneath the flight paths. Communities are left bearing the noise and public health burden of NextGen even while the benefits to the airspace users are questionable. In its 2019 report on the FAA Metroplex Program, the US Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General concluded that “Metroplex benefits to airspace users have fallen well short of predictions, and there is no consensus on actual benefits achieved”. For our area, the report additionally concluded: “no positive or negative benefits regarding fuel consumption could be confidently attributed to the Northern California Metroplex implementation”.

The focus of this response is on FAA questions 2a-c and 7b.

2a. Noise metrics should include an evaluation of what impacts communities the most including low and loud overflights, chronic concentrated overflights, and nighttime flights. All parts of the flight – en route, take off and landing – contribute to noise and should be evaluated. The noise and solutions to the noise impact should be considered in the context of the geographic area in which the impact occurs.

2b and 2c: The main concern is the current concentrated and chronic aircraft noise that has resulted from the NextGen implementation and that remains unmeasured, unregulated and unmitigated and the projected increase in aircraft traffic. Another concern is the lack of interest in and response to community concerns, revolving door FAA representation on aircraft noise forums and the lack of progress in addressing community noise concerns.

7b. Aircraft noise is a public health risk. There is a growing body of evidence that chronic noise exposure from aircraft is associated with negative health outcomes, particularly cerebrocardiovascular and psychological health outcomes. Studies have demonstrated that communities experiencing chronic concentrated aircraft noise have an increased risk of mortality due to myocardial infarction, increased risk of hospitalization due to stroke and related mortality, metabolic abnormalities and psychological disorders (e.g. Hahad et al 2019; Wang et al 2022 attached). Nocturnal aircraft noise exposure further increases these risks (e.g. Schmidt 2015 attached). The physiological mechanisms for these outcomes are well understood and described in scientific literature. The FAA noise impact policy -- in addition to the acute and chronic/cumulative noise metrics -- should include metrics of the risks of adverse health effects on the overflight communities.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4650

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Tracy & Anthony Williams

This comment is in addition to any previous comments.

We support Quiet communities in their submitted comments (see attachment). We also support the Aviation-Impacted Communities Alliance (AICA) Comment ID FAA-2023-0855-2206.

Respectfully,
Tracy & Anthony Williams

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4695

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Sandra Barrington

I live in Severn, MD. I've lived in the community for over 40 years and in my current home for the past 25 years. Since NextGen, I have hundreds of plans and helicopters over my home daily. There is no time day or night that is off limits. If I'm able to sleep 2.5 hours on any given day, that's a good day. It is not healthy nor sustainable. It starts in the 5am hour - today 9/29, my earthquake plane literally was at 5:21am! My home vibrating because the blast of the plane. My home built mid/late 1970s is not built to offer any type of barrier from the noise and blasts. I submitted the request again on 9/28 to be included in the BWI Noise Remediation Program and denied again because according to the Noise Contour Map, I don't live in a noise zone. Hundreds of plans and helicopters daily before 6am daily, throughout the morning, afternoon, night, and early AM hours and the Noise Contour Map has yet to be updated. I cannot sleep in my own home. I have worked from home for the past 25 years 100%. I chose my home because growing up here, I knew I could work in peace - at least that was until NextGen. On 9/28, I submitted complaints via the MDOT MMA Noise Aircraft system 12:10am, 1:17am, 1:24am, 1:56am, 1:58am, and the noise again started before 6am and I gave up with my head under 3 pillows submitting complaints at 6:15am, 6:26am, 6:28am, 6:30am, 6:31am, 6:33am, 6:35am, 6:36am, 6:38am, 6:40am, 6:41am, 6:43am, 6:44am, 6:46am, 6:47am, 6:49am, 6:51am, 6:55am, 6:56am, 7:03am, 7:04am, 7:05am, 7:06am, 7:08am, 7:09am, 7:11am 7:15am, 7:20am,.......NEVERENDING! And I will state again, I don't live in a noise zone per the BWI Noise Contour Map - I do not qualify for my home to be renovated to mitigate the noise. Attached are some screenshots of me trying to note planes and helicopters while I'm working to phone in complaints at a later time. I'm a consultant - I'm on conference call with clients obtaining requirements and working through testing, I write requirements, design, and installation documentation, and I perform system configure and coding for my projects. I NEED QUIET. There is not a moment of quiet when I'm generally working from 8am - 8pm weekdays and hours on the weekends. I cannot be productive and creative with less than 3 hours of sleep daily. I shouldn't have to work 12 hour days to do 8 hours of work! On August 8th my Dad passed away. I was at the hospital all night and was home about 6:30am. Having been awake for over 24 hours - I wanted to send out a few work emails and sleep a few hours before starting work. I didn't get any sleep that morning because of the constant noise. I cannot sleep in my own home. I cannot work in peace. I don't live in a noise per the BWI Noise Contour map. We have major highways, roadways, industrial areas around BWI and yet NextGen flight patterns are primarily over residential communities - especially the primary flight pattern over my home in Severn.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4712

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Brian Hicks

I am a citizen impacted by aviation, and support comments submitted by Morteza Karimzadeh, Comment ID FAA-2023-0855-4097, and the Aviation-Impacted Communities Alliance (AICA), Comment ID FAA-2023-0855-2206.

In addition to the above, I personally submit the following:

Plots are attached to this Comment summarizing the trajectories of a total of forty-two (42) selected flights spanning dates ranging from September 13-27, 2023 for which projected and line-of-sight distances have been calculated relative to a central location within the South Rock Creek neighborhood of Superior, Colorado. These flights correspond to flight school operations out of Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport (BJC) involving the practice of touch and go landings. The sample was selected on the basis of being representative of ongoing and worsening traffic affecting the health and well-being of the town's residents. My family is included among the residents, including my toddler daughter who underwent brain surgery for epilepsy and a tumor in May earlier this year. Until around 2019, noise associated with flight traffic out of BJC was considered to be tolerable by the long-term residents of Superior. While my family has not lived here as long as many of our neighbors, in the time we have lived here, traffic has gone from being noticeable to nearly intolerable. The representative sample of flights corresponds to current examples of flight schools profiting from flights and private aviators that take off well before 7am and as early as 5am, but also sometimes occurring throughout the night after 10pm, disrupting the sleep of everyone from working taxpayers, to sick children, to retirees who have lived in the community for decades prior to what has in court been ruled an unlawful increase in operations out of BJC triggering avigation easements to be vacated for a large fraction of the town, including my family's home. As can be observed in the two-week sample, it is quite common for these flights to exceed ten circles, and during the day, it is not uncommon to have many such planes flying in similar patterns at the same time with noise levels exceeding levels that result in negative debilitating psychological affects compounding the affects of lost sleep. Finally, in the worst cases, as evidenced by flight school supporters, including pilots or employees of BJC "trolling" residents impacted by airport noise commiserating with and consoling one another impacted by flight school noise, incessant circles are flown at early hours and dangerously close line-of-sight distances. Note that the altitude resolution is limited in the attached plots and the ground elevation at the chosen reference coordinate is 5600 feet (1707m).

As a voting, law-abiding, taxpayer and father, a man who in fact loves all modes of getting around, including flying, I request that the FAA please take to heart the health and well-being of not just the pilots and passengers that it serves first, but also also the health and well-being of the far greater number of all citizens, including passengers and pilots, living on the ground in the vicinity of airports. I request that the FAA take every possible action now to enact every policy possible that mitigates noise, including mandatory upgrades or decommissioning of outdated, unsafe, noisy engines, requiring airports to mandate landing fees, require flight schools to circle in widely dispersed patterns over minimally populated areas at maximum altitudes, enact strict penalties on pilots and flight schools that can be perceived as aggressive toward residential areas, as well as penalties for more than two touch and go landings per training flight.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4621

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Mark Gailus

Please see my comments in the attached file "Attachment_2_Comments re Docket No FAA-2023-0855 rev3"

Thank you.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4687

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Bill Plautz

My family of 5 lives on Beacon Hill. We have been here for 20 years (moved here in 2003). We love the neighborhood and the diversity of the 98108 zip code. However, the air traffic is bad - and I use the word “bad” lightly. The air traffic and associated noise was a problem when we first arrived and it’s only gotten worse. The opening of hte 3rd runway, which was only supposed to be used on select occasions (only for inclement weather and for light bodied aircraft) has only exacerbated the problem. The 3rd runway turned out to be a major runway (“major” is my laymen’s term for a runway that is used much if not all of the time). 2 of our 3 kids have chronic illnesses and we have multiple neighbors who have kids with asthma. It’s hard not to believe the aircraft pollution including but not limited to noise and particulates have been contributing factors.

It would seem there are solutions if the relevant governmental organizations had the will to pursue and implement them — distributing air traffic evenly throughout (over) ALL neighborhoods in the greater Seattle area, implementing air traffic curfews, moving Fly Quiet traffic over only Boeing Field, the I-5 Corridor & Elliot Bay (not over a densely populated neighborhoods with residential, schools, hospitals, etc.), etc. Much of the areas disproportionately impacted now are lower impact and lack the “voice” to object.

Please see the attached files regarding Fly Quiet traffic patterns including approaching and after midnight over high density residential including Beacon Hill.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4710

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from BURBANK AIRPORT IS EVIL CRIMINAL BURBANK AIRPORT

This comment is in addition to any previous comments. We support the following:
Aviation-Impacted Communities Alliance (AICA) Comment, ID FAA-2023-0855-2206; and
RETROACTIVE APPLICATION: Any changes to the Noise Policy must retroactively apply to Overflight Communities already suffering from NextGen’s low, concentrated, and extended flight paths. Those communities impacted by NextGen inspired this NPR and yet they are ironically left out of the redress process. The government is responsible for NextGen's impacts and must rectify the current situation while creating policies to help future victims.

STOP BURBANK AIRPORT FROM TORTURING STUDIO CITY WITH NON-STOP LOW-FLYING JETS THAT ARE RUING OUR COMMUNITY! NO EPA HAS BEEN DONE AND WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR SEVEN FUCKING YEARS!!!!!!!!! STOP THE NEXT GEN TORTURE!!!!

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4651

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from James Willey

I live near an airport in an airport critical zone. I was not aware of this when I purchased my home more than 30 years ago. Following a nationwide pattern, things changed at this regional airport (Rocky Mountain Metro Airport, Broomfield, CO) in 2018 when flight schools were expanded. Now there are nearly 800 ops per day from this once sleepy airport that had served primarily GA traffic. Add regularly scheduled charter flights (JSX business model, skirting safety, security and other FAA regulations) and this airport has ruined the lives of nearly 500,000 people who live in densely populated areas around this airport. I have attached two files here that demonstrate only part of the harm that this airport is doing to those of us who have lived nearby for so long. Our health is harmed, our property values are depleted and most of us have few alternatives. The FAA must change the way it evaluates noise and find a balance between aviation needs and the harm this is doing to communities. USE THE SCIENCE OF NOISE TO DO THIS. IT HAS BEEN AVAILABLE FOR MANY DECADES. THERE IS NO EXCUSE.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4557

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from City of Malibu, California

Please find attached comments from the City of Malibu regarding the Federal Aviation Administration’s Noise Policy Review, As requested by the Federal Aviation Administration on May 1, 2023, Docket No. FAA-2023-0855. Thank you for providing us the opportunity to comment on this important issue. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the comments, please feel free to reach me at the contact information listed above.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4606

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from American Public Health Association

Please accept the attached comment on behalf of the Noise and Health Committee of the American Public Health Association. It is in response to the FAA's call for public comment on its Noise Policy Review.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4434

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Jessica Williams

This comment is in addition to any previous comments. We support the Aviation-Impacted Communities Alliance (AICA), Comment ID. I live directly under the flight path of a metropolitan airport in Colorado (KBJC), and the noise has significantly and detrimentally aspect many aspects of me and my family members. I am the homeowner and local business owner, and have three young school aged children who live in our home and who go to school in the community school also impacted by the airplane noise (as well as leaded avgas pollution). Please see my attached file. Thank you.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4328

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Centennial Airport

See attached file(s)

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4409

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from FUCK YOU BURBANK BURBANKISEVIL

This comment is in addition to any previous comments. We support the following:
Aviation-Impacted Communities Alliance (AICA) Comment, ID FAA-2023-0855-2206; and
RETROACTIVE APPLICATION: Any changes to the Noise Policy must retroactively apply to Overflight Communities already suffering from NextGen’s low, concentrated, and extended flight paths. Those communities impacted by NextGen inspired this NPR and yet they are ironically left out of the redress process. The government is responsible for NextGen's impacts and must rectify the current situation while creating policies to help future victims.

BURBANK AIRPORT HAS NOT DONE THE REQUIRED EPA AND STUDIO CITY HAS BEEN TORTURED FOR THE LAST SEVEN YEARS WITH NON-STOP LOW-FLYING JETS OVER OUR FOOTHILLS!!! THESE JETS FLY A FEW HUNDRED FEET ABOVE OUR HEADS ALL DAY AND NIGHT AND THE SOUND ECHOES OFF THE CANYONS AND IS SO LOUD YOU CANNOT HAVE A CONVERSATION IF YOUR WINDOW IS OPEN OR YOU ARE OUTSIDE!!!

PLEASE MAKE THEM STOP TORTURING STUDIO CITY AS BURBANK CITY PROFITS!!!!

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4644

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from FUCK YOU BURBANK AIRPORT

See attached file(s)
This comment is in addition to any previous comments. We support the following:
Aviation-Impacted Communities Alliance (AICA) Comment, ID FAA-2023-0855-2206; and
RETROACTIVE APPLICATION: Any changes to the Noise Policy must retroactively apply to Overflight Communities already suffering from NextGen’s low, concentrated, and extended flight paths. Those communities impacted by NextGen inspired this NPR and yet they are ironically left out of the redress process. The government is responsible for NextGen's impacts and must rectify the current situation while creating policies to help future victims.

STOP THE TORTURE FROM THE ILLEGAL FLIGHT PATHS OUT OF THE BURBANK AIRPORT!!! SEVEN YEARS OF "TENTATIVE" FLIGHT PATHS WITH NO RELIEF FOR THE MOUNTAINS NEARBY!!! WHEN WILL THE EPA BE COMPLETED? STALLING SO WE CANNOT SUE - BURBANK AIRPORT ARE CRIMINALS WHO ARE TORTURING THEIR NEIGHBORS IN STUDIO CITY BECAUSE WE DON'T PROFIT FROM THE AIRPORT!!

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4626

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass

September 29, 2023

The Honorable Polly Trottenberg
Acting Administrator
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20591

Dear Acting Administrator Trottenberg,

The City of Los Angeles is home to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), an international hub and the sixth busiest airport in the world, and Van Nuys Airport (VNY), one of the busiest general aviation airports in the world. Noise from these and other regional airports impact many of our communities in the City. As the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) undergoes an important and comprehensive Noise Policy Review, it is crucial that impacts on local communities are prioritized and local agencies are empowered to mitigate impacts on our constituents.

I urge the FAA to take into serious consideration the comments, requests, and ideas from local L.A. communities and stakeholders that effectively, materially, and safely improve our communities’ experience of airport and aviation noise in a timely manner. I also ask that the FAA work with federal partners to provide financial resources and tools for airports and local governments to implement any required and new noise mitigation measures and strategies that result from the update.

Due to the importance of our airports and the Southern California airspace, the FAA will benefit from listening to and working with our residents who live with the resulting noise and environmental impacts. I am optimistic that the FAA can develop responsive policies and financial support that will improve the lives of Angelenos and communities across the country.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

KAREN BASS
Mayor
City of Los Angeles

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4389

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Anonymous

Concern over noise violations from Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport (RMMA) in Jefferson County, Colorado.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4391

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Airlines for America

Please see attached for comments submitted by Airlines for America.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4402

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Wing Aviation LLC

Wing Aviation LLC's comments regarding the FAA's noise policy review.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4433

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from A P

Please find my attached file with links to articles related to my earlier comments.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4454

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Thomas Hanks

See attached file. I'm glad to see the FAA is reviewing this policy, I think there's a significant opportunity for improvement. Thanks for listening.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4330

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Erik Jensen

See attached file(s)

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4319

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Joby Aviation

Joby Aviation (Joby) appreciates the opportunity to respond to the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA’s) request for comments related to its civil aviation noise policy. Please see the attached comments.

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4369

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Sara Jensen

See attached file(s)

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4609

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from Dorinne Tye

This comment is in addition to any previous comments and below comments.

We support the Aviation-Impacted Communities Alliance (AICA), Comment ID FAA-2023-0855-2206.
We also support the Quiet Communities, Comment ID FAA-2023-0855-3885
I also support AiReform/Jeff Lewis submitted comments and Oregon Aviation Watch’s submitted comments, Dr. Daniel Fink’s comments, Arlene Bronzaft’s comments, Quiet Florida
I honor Dr. Muntzel’s research and Quiet Skies Caucus

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4720

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder

Comment from H.A.R.N.E.S.S. Oregon

See attached file(s)
This comment is in addition to any previous comments and below comments.

We support the Aviation-Impacted Communities Alliance (AICA), Comment ID FAA-2023-0855-2206.
We also support the Quiet Communities, Comment ID FAA-2023-0855-3885
We also support AiReform/Jeff Lewis submitted comments and Oregon Aviation Watch’s submitted comments, Dr. Daniel Fink’s comments, Arlene Bronzaft’s comments, Quiet Florida
We honor Dr. Muntzel’s research and Quiet Skies Caucus

We do not need more studies, we need urgent action against aviation noise and pollutants

Comment Date:2023-10-02T04:00:00Z

Comment On Document ID:FAA-2023-0855-4719

Open regulations.gov Docket Folder