Talk:Aircraft noise pollution/Archive 1

Archive 1

Change title from aviation noise to aircraft noise

I propose this article is moved to Aircraft noise. It's not aviation that makes the noise, it's the aircraft! Renaming will help people locate the article in a search - besides, no-one I know refers to it as aviation noise. GRAHAMUK 11:21, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Agree

I woudl agree with the aforementioned comment

Agree --Hooperbloob 04:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agree - Adrian Pingstone 15:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agree. There's also Car noise. GregorB 21:02, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

strongly agree' --the entire body of scientific and popular literature on this subject uses the term "aircraft noise"....also this article needs a lot of work with references, discussion of standards and mitigation programs...i will do some of this Anlace 18:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

i have made this change with the concurrence above...Anlace 23:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Enroute noise bad too

Somebody please mention that even after planes have reached cruising altitude, they are still noisy, at least to countryside dwellers. They ought to move those routes to go over the ocean more. E.g., see my http://jidanni.org/comm/air/m750/ --jidanni 2/06

i shall try to address this jidanni, thanks for the mention of an important concept Anlace 23:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

issue has been attended to with a discussion under health effects. Noise health effects generally embraces annoyance issues. cheers Anlace 06:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture of aircraft

I think this is an appropriate pic as it shows how near planes get to the houses and gives an idea of how noisy it must be in those houses.--Light current 01:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Noise levels

Cant just say 113 dB. We must define exactly the level. Is it a a SPL of 113 dB rel to 1mw? At what distance would this SPL be measured?--Light current 23:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Fix

Seems to be disorganized. The section on Sonic Boom is empty, and the page has numerous formatting errors.

Floating airports

This material should be stricken in entirety. It is not a realistic or well supported scheme. If no citation to the contrary can be advanced, it needs to be eliminated rapidly as it distorts reality of present day economics. Anlace 04:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

An issue with neutral point of view

I believe that the user Aeroblue is pushing a particular point of view and using Wikipedia to promote his own interests. Aeroblue is both a 527 political action committee and a 501(c)(4)in NJ and the founder is an individual that has in the past ran the Solberg Airport Website. Solberg and the township of Readington are in a heated legal battle over the Airport's expansion and this particular user is using Wikipedia to promote his particular side of the debate by including it in this article.

The whole paragraph regarding Readington Township's fight should be stricken from the Airport noise section. One section in particular about Readington states:

While the FAA and the aviation industry have made aircraft considerably quieter, local municipalities continue to zone and build homes and schools at the end of runways, such as in 2003, Readington Township, NJ which built an Elementary School at the end of Solberg Airport Runway 31. In situations such as this, only the local authorities can be responsible for this type of inadequate planning.

The Elementary school in question happens to be right next to the middle school that has been there since the early 1960's. The runway in question is a dirt crosswinds runway that receieves very little usage. Regardless of this information Aeroblue is pushing his particular point of view into an article about aircraft noise.

Aeroblue then goes on to promote his organization:

Organizations such as AeroBlue.Org propose stronger controls to improve the integration of airports with local land-use patterns. In addition, Home Owners have a responsibility and control of where they buy a home or choose to live.

For these reasons I will edit the content and removed if from the page. If Aeroblue wishes to add only the facts of the Readington/Solberg issue that would be acceptable.

Npsguy 14:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Point of View

Aircraft noise is a difficult issue and requires input from all points of view. The example noted above is an excellent example that adds value to the discussion. Factual errors in the comment above have been removed, however, clearly the author includes his own bias.

This Wiki is a valuable collection of input from several organizations involved in addressing this issue.

The comments include several factual errors and illustrates the bias against proper planning. The comment attempts to rationalize building a school at the end of a runway.

AeroBlue 12:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to Aeroblue

The elementary school in question has no known Aircraft noise complaints from the airport next door. This is primarily because that runway in question is a grass runway and rarely used. So the question is WHY should THIS school be mentioned in an article about Aircraft noise? It doesn't add to the article at all and if anything... confuses the topic.

If Aeroblue wanted to discuss a school with aircraft noise issues, he should have mentioned the schools around Teterboro airport in which the state of New Jersey paid over $2 million recently in sound proofing. These schools are far more appropriate for this article on aircraft noise. Not a school that currently has no known noise issues.

Now why does Aeroblue decide that Readington township which has no current aircraft noise issues require a mention while other more busier airports do not. Well... unfortunately for two reasons. One because the director of Aeroblue works for Solberg Airport (the airport he mentions) and that leads to a very "biased viewpoint". As you can see from the Aeroblue.org website at [1] the founder (Hitzel) is also director at the Solberg “public outreach” website www.partners-solberg.org [2]

Aeroblue also happens to be a political action committee whose website says "AeroBlue.Org Aviation Political Action Committee is a federal political committee which primarily helps members elect candidates who support Aviation through a variety of activities aimed at influencing the outcome of the next election." (see the bottom of [3] )

Now I take issue with what Aeroblue states; that I have factual errors. I wish that he would point out exactly what facts are in error but let's assume he means everything I wrote.

So my statements "The Elementary school in question happens to be right next to the middle school that has been there since the early 1960's. The runway in question is a dirt crosswinds runway that receives very little usage" must be in error?

Well let me point you to exhibit "A", a map that shows the two Readington schools and Solberg airport: [http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&t=h&msa=0&ll=40.585669,-74.747844&spn=0.015513,0.043001&z=15&om=1&msid=104741853684414382765.00043a1eaf53cdf6ffa2b ]

On the left map you can see the two schools with Holland Brook elementary to the Northeast. Both schools share the buses that are parked in the middle school parking lot and they share a number of other resources as well. The middle school has been there since the early 1960's (It may have been 1959 actually). The property that the elementary school was built on was already owned by the township. As you can see… they are right next to each other.

You can also see the Solberg grass crosswinds runway is to the east of Holland brook; however the issue of planes "buzzing the school" doesn't happen because the runway is not used as often as the main paved runway. Also the FAA stated prior to building the school that the safety zone around Solberg does not extend as far to the west as the school.

I was wrong to say "dirt" runway however. From the Satellite image it is really a grass runway. Not enough traffic seems to wear the grass down enough for it to be dirt. My mistake.

Now Aeroblue has already ran into issues on Wikipedia with an editor (see [[4]] ) for "the commercial links/content you added to the page Airport were inappropriate, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should not be used for advertising or a collection of external links."

If I am biased as Aeroblue claims, I am biased that I do not like to see works such as Wikipedia be used by a political action committee to be used in upcoming municipal elections. Call me crazy.

In conclusion it is sad and unfortunate that a PAC is using Wikipedia for their own gain.

Npsguy 22:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Vandalism - accusation

You are engaging in Wiki Vandalism if you persist in deleting content.

Here are the facts you are mistaken about: "The elementary school in question has no known Aircraft noise complaints from the airport next door."

Rebuttal: http://www.readingtontwp.org/TC_Minutes05-01-06.pdf

"Resolution from the Readington Township Board of Education expressing opposing the expansion of Solberg Airport and encouraging the Township Committee to take appropriate action to prevent such expansion, noted for information. No action taken."

"If Aeroblue wanted to discuss a school with aircraft noise issues, he should have mentioned the schools around Teterboro airport in which the state of New Jersey paid over $2 million recently in sound proofing. " Rebuttal: So why build a new school next to an airport that will then require sound proofing? This is a valid topic of the WIKI discussion.

"One because the director of Aeroblue works for Solberg Airport" Rebuttal: This is absolutely untrue. "is also director at the Solberg “public outreach” website www.partners-solberg.org" Rebuttal: Which has no ties whatsoever to the airport business or its prorprietors.

"Now why does Aeroblue decide that Readington township which has no current aircraft noise issues" Rebuttal: Point in fact: The town is currently in court using Eminent Domain to take over control of the airport. See www.readingtontwp.com/aircraft-noise.pdf and www.readingtontwp.com/Solberg_Updates.html

"The Elementary school in question happens to be right next to the middle school that has been there since the early 1960's." Rebuttal: Take a big look around the schools and airport. There is lots of other available land in the area besides that at the end of a runway. Why create a problem where none existed? This is the topic of the WIKI.

"The property that the elementary school was built on was already owned by the township. As you can see… they are right next to each other." Rebuttal: Real estate investments by the school board could have been swapped with other land in the township's considerable land holdings. Since there was a noise concern, why not just swap the land in a more desirable location in the interests of the school children and tax payers?

"Not enough traffic seems to wear the grass down enough for it to be dirt." Rebuttal: If there is so little traffic, then why is the Board of Ed or the township so concerned as to use Eminent Domain to take over the private airstrip? Eminent Domain is typically used FOR transportation improvements, not to prevent them.

"I am biased that I do not like to see works such as Wikipedia be used by a political action committee to be used in upcoming municipal elections." Rebuttal: AeroBlue.Org is a civic organization. There are many organizations participating in this Wiki, and this post made no mention of any political position, party or candidate. It also was the only information regarding Compatible Land use which is backed by current US Federal and state Law. http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/aep/planning_toolkit/media/II.A.pdf Further, Our US government is a democracy which provides the tools and rules for its citizens to participate under.

Please DO NOT VANDALIZE this wiki again by deleting valid discussion points. Use this as an opportunity to clarify the issues. Here are the rules on vandalizm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VAN

AeroBlue 02:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC) AeroBlue

Aeroblue, you have already brought this up for mediation. Why are you posting this in the discussion page and not the mediation page? You brought me up for mediation but you have not signed the agreement.

Please move this over to the mediation page so we can resolve it once and for all.

npsguy 03:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Aeroblue my response and proposed compromises

Aeroblue, I answer each of your rebuttals and then make two suggestions at the end on how to resolve this issue.

First, does the PDF you reference in your first point mention current aircraft noise as an issue? Well I read the document (and I was also present at the meeting) and no where in the township meeting minutes you post is there a mention of any current noise complaints about Solberg airport. So my statement about there being no current noise issues at the school still holds does it not? Therefore your entry on Readington schools does not apply to this article.

Your second rebuttal: "So why build a new school next to an airport that will then require sound proofing?" As I pointed out... it doesn't require sound proofing at all. There is no current issue with noise from aircraft is there and neither the 50 year old middle school on the same piece of property. There are no requests for state or local dollars for sound proofing. See this press release for schools who have requested funding. [5] Therefore your entry on Readington schools does not apply to this article.

Your rebuttal stating that "The town is currently in court using Eminent Domain to take over control of the airport." is also not true AT all is it? Solberg airport sits on a portion of a 725 acres tract of land. According to the declaration of taking [6] [7] filed with the courts, the township wishes to use eminent domain to buy the land not being used as an airport. No part of the operation airport will be taken and it will remain in the hands of the Solberg family as it always has, correct? Therefore your entry on Readington schools does not apply to this article.

You also stated: "There is lots of other available land in the area besides that at the end of a runway. Why create a problem where none existed? This is the topic of the WIKI". No...actually the topic of the Wiki is 'Aircraft noise'. It is not about a rural township name Readington whose schools have no current issue with aircraft noise. This is why your entry on Readington schools does not apply to this article.

You then go on to say: "Real estate investments by the school board could have been swapped with other land in the township's considerable land holdings.” Aeroblue aren’t we debating if the Readington schools merit the mention in the ‘Aircraft noise’ section?? We are not debating the township’s real estate purchases that took place back in the 1950’s. Again this is why your entry on Readington schools does not apply to this article.

You then ask "If there is so little traffic, then why is the Board of Ed or the township so concerned as to use Eminent Domain to take over the private airstrip?" This statement is incorrect as I stated above. The history is that the State made an offer to purchase Solberg airport in the early 2000’s. At first there was agreement on the price of $22 million for the whole airport but then Solberg pulled out of the deal. The negotiations that fell apart were coincidentally conducted by Simeon Hitzel, Director of Aeroblue.org, which your user page says you are a member of (as well as your user name).[8]

AOPA Airport Support network volunteer Simeon Hitzel played a critical role in bringing the state into the negotiations and in keeping both pilots and the public involved in the process. Some state officials called Hitzel's involvement "key" to making the deal.

In Feb 2006 owners of the Solberg airport requested that the citizens be allowed to vote on a bond referendum to purchase the land around the airport, but not the airport itself. [9] The citizens voted and the bond vote was passed by the people of Readington. Now while all of this current local history is fascinating… it doesn’t justify mentioning Readington’s schools in the ‘aircraft noise’ article. Again your entry on Readington schools does not apply to this article.

You then go on to say "AeroBlue.Org is a civic organization. There are many organizations participating in this Wiki, and this post made no mention of any political position, party or candidate."

Aeroblue's website that is linked from your user page states

“AeroBlue.Org Aviation Political Action Committee is a federal political committee which primarily helps members elect candidates who support Aviation through a variety of activities aimed at influencing the outcome of the next election.”

. [10]

I also showed above your pamphlet that you sent out to legislators of New Jersey pushing a bill to propose removing schools from around airports. Readington Township was the first name on the list of schools. It makes one suspicious that you chose Readington to give credibility to your lobbying efforts; especially now when there is a current legal court case going on between Solberg and Readington [11] [12] [13]

You then end with "Our US government is a democracy which provides the tools and rules for its citizens to participate under."

I agree the US Government does provide ‘tools’ for citizens to participate under. Is Wikipedia one them? No. Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia, not a debate forum.

Think about this...if Wikipedia allows you to post what many from ‘my side’ feel to be a PAC's non-neutral viewpoint then others will feel compelled to post rebuttal. Very soon I fear this article will more than likely degrade into a battle zone over the current Solberg/Readington legal case taking place. That is what I am trying to avoid here. The sysop’s and mediators have enough issues to contend with.

Now I proposed a compromise to this... that you write a neutral commentary about a school that does have a long documented history of aircraft noise issues. Here is a link [14] to the Port Authority’s press release from this year about the 10 schools in the NY/NJ area that are receiving millions of dollars to sound proof their schools.

As you can see, Readington is not on the list at all and it isn’t even near any of these places. Chosing one of them and discussing their issues would be more in line with what this article is about.

In addition, we could jointly create a Solberg airport page where both your side and mine create our own section that discusses what two different sides are fighting for. I think that both these suggestions go a long way towards a final amicable solution and maintains some level of neutrality.

Thank you Aeroblue for your time and I hope you kindly consider what I have said here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npsguy (talk • contribs) 15:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Table Needed comparing aircraft noise

It would be nice if there was a table comparing aircraft noise. e.g. noisy aircraft and quiet ones.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.92.73 (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

New Section Needed: Noise Monitoring Equipment

A new section is needed to explain how airport carry about noise monitoring equipment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.201.85 (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

New Section needed : Ground Running

Airport carry about Ground Running of aircraft - what does this mean? As this adds to airport noise..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.90.194 (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Mention biggest noises first

Be sure to order the article with biggest noises first, and say so. It is also currently not clear how big each type of noise is compared to another. Jidanni (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Noise reduction methods

I found a reference at https://www.domeenergy.com/the-real-benefits-of-natural-gas-vehicles/ that cars converted to CNG seem to be quieter than cars that run on plain gasoline. So, would the same also be true for aircraft (these use a turbofan, so the engine's different -cars tend to have inline engines-, but depending on what the reduced noise is caused by, perhaps the same would apply with aircraft too) ?

The main thing I'm thinking of, is that the exhaust gas temperature might be lower when burning CNG, which could cause the noise to be lower then. If this is the case, it wouldn't matter whether the CNG fuel is burned in a turbofan, or in an inline engine; it would always lower the noise by a certain percentage.

I'm not sure whether the noise reduction is going to be very high neither. Still, it seems practically doable at least, especially as some companies are already working on CNG conversion kits for aircraft. KVDP (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Article title - changed -

As the article is about pollution, I think its title should be changed to ‘Aircraft noise pollution’, and the lede should begin: ‘Aircraft noise pollution is a harmful noise effect produced by any aircraft or its components…’ Valetude (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

In the absence of any objections, I tried this today, but the word 'Wikipedia' has got in ahead of the title! If anyone knows how to remove it, I would be grateful. Valetude (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

- What was the old title "aircraft noise" ? We still need the non-pollution aspects. New name slants the coverage. jet noise doesn't cover it. - Rod57 (talk) 12:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Lead now says only concerned with noise "in-flight" - not taxiing, takeoff or landing ?

Can we clarify scope includes takeoff and landing ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)