Feb 4, 2009 11:02PM

Aviation lobbyists were successful in getting a handful of senators to include funding for the Airspace Redesign in the Economic Stimulus Package. It also accelerates the implementation of the Redesign. We are waiting for changes to be made on Rockefeller Amendment 182 which is included in the massive package of amendments called Senate Amt. 98. Rockefeller amendment was not debated or voted on seperately.

Senator Dodd's office has been very helpful in reaching out to other senators to make this change. We applaud his efforts to support environmental law and due process in his efforts.

The problem with the Rockefeller Amendment is that it hides the funding for this failed and flawed project while combining it with a very useful project which deservs funding. That is Next Gen Technology. We are wholly supportive of funding for Next Gen Technology. We are not however supportive of funding the Routes and Procedures associated with perfomance based navigation because these essentials are Airspace Redesign, which is in litigation and is being unlawfully implemented.

Environmental protection organizations like Our Airspace are requesting only to amend this proposed legislation to say "excluding any Routing changes or Procedures associated with the Airspace Redesign."

We have notified Senator Schumer, Senator Lautenberg and Senator Rockefeller of the changes we are requesting to this Amendment. We await their response. They are aware that their support of this measure as written will undermine all of the efforts we have made to protect our communities and stand up for environmental law.

Click here to email your Senators about this issue.

Too Many Flaws in Airspace Redesign
To the Editor of the New York Times: Published: September 30, 2007

“What’s That in the Sky? A Plane?,” by Kate Stone Lombardi (column, Sept. 23), led readers to believe that our opposition to the Federal Aviation Administration’s airspace redesign is about protecting our own backyard.
This notion is potentially dangerous to the 29 million people who stand to be affected across five states. The consequences of implementing a flawed plan of this scope will have far-reaching negative effects both economically and environmentally.
The risks and flaws of this design are on public record. Concerns over its safety and effectiveness warrant further study by the inspector general, and lawsuits are filed in all affected states.
The plan reduces safe distance between planes when near-misses are critically high. Low-altitude landing approach over populated areas carries fuel jettison risk.
Many affected communities are not aware of this plan. The F.A.A. has apparently been conducting test runs over our area for two months. This provides a unique opportunity to see and consider the actual effects.
We conducted research and met with elected officials, industry experts, environmental directors, pilots, airport managers and aviation subcommittees. What we found was alarming. Ourairspace.org includes links to these scientific studies, background, legislation and further research.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Apr 21, 2008

New York- The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) refuses to release public information on aircraft overflight. Historical data on overflight is used to create noise contours of communities. Noise contours help local governments understand normal traffic flows and gauge quantitative impact of airspace design changes.

Withholding this information allows the The FAA effectivly ignor due process and environmental law and hide airspace design changes from impacted communities. With benchmarked data on current air traffic, the FAA will be forced into following due process and environmental law. Aircarriers will be held accountable for introducing air and noise pollution to communities and more likly to engage in noise mitigation measures.

"Historical data on overflight was promised to us in a face to face meeting with the FAA in November of 2007," says Heather Wolf, director of OurAirspace.org an advocacy group based in New York.

"We specifically requested 2 years of data on overflight. A Month overdue, the FAA delivered us a short illustrated Power Point presentation containing a handpicked selection of days." said Wolf. "This is absolutely not acceptable. "

"Our community is very concerned about recent low altitude overflight. We need a baseline, a noise contour for our community," said Wolf. "This is public information which they outright refuse to give to us."

"The FAA clearly wants to keep communities in the dark when it comes to aircraft utilizing our airspace. The largest airspace redesign in 60 years is underway and the FAA refuses to show how we will be impacted. By withholding previous overflight data, the FAA seeks to keep us in the dark, further violating due process. "

We call on the GAO to deliver us this data on overflight. We seek transparency in government.

Here is the actual technical request the FAA refuses to deliver on. Communities need this data to get baselines.:

Request for  raw data on low altitude overflight for your community for LAG Arrivals, and HPN arrivals and Departures delivered as .XLS Comma or tab-delimited file format:

• Technical instructions:
  Select Departure Airport, Arrival Airport, Time, Date, Tail Number, Minimum Altitude
  From Datawarehouse
  Where the Overflight Area is {Your Community}
  and Where the Altitude is Less than 3000 feet
  and where dates are between (June 2005 and present)
  
  This will produce a report full of data detailing low altitude flight over pound ridge. This will be our baseline.

Congressman John Hall (D) structured the meeting with the Town of Pound Ridge and the FAA to discuss the recent changes to flight paths and altitudes in October of 2007. The FAA flatly denied that any changes occured which was in strict opposition to public testimony and data on overflight gathered through public Flight tracking systems.

In a letter circulated to residents this week, Congressman Hall writes "I share your frustration at the continued lack of responsiveness from FAA, and I assure you that I will continue pushing FAA officials until they fully understand the aircraft noise problem you face, and agree to hold a long-overdue public meeting."