N O I S E P O L L U T I O N
successful for several decades. AOPA’s senior director of
legislative affairs Scott Verstandig says he does not see
support in Congress for the new bill, which would overturn
the long established process that involves an
airport working with the FAA if it wants to
address noise issues.
“If this bill becomes law it would
create a patchwork of conflicting local
regulations, jeopardize safety and create
an economic burden on the aviation
community,” says Mike Ginter, AOPA’s
vice president of airports and state
advocacy. At the Experimental Aircraft
Association, director of communications
Dick Knapinski says that “it would be
more daunting for a pilot to fly to three
different airports with three different sets of
rules. That would be completely confusing for
pilots and bring economic harm.”
The proposed changes could affect the entire national
airspace system, according to Alex Gertsen, NBAA director
of airports and ground infrastructure. “If you restrict pilots
at general aviation airports, they may all go to air-carrier
airports. This would take away the reliever role the these
smaller airports now play,” he says.
AOPA and NBAA were co-signatories on a letter
opposing the new airport noise bill. The letter says that
the legislation would result in “undercutting the utility and
safety of thousands of airports across the
nation and reversing course on the need
to regulate aviation matters at the federal
level, which Congress has recognized since
the 1920s”.
Existing federal regulation has resulted
in “tremendous noise reduction with the
number of people exposed to significant
levels of aircraft noise in the USA dropping
by 94% since the late 1970s, even as
enplanements more than quadrupled”.
30 | BU S INE S S A I R P O RT INT E RNAT I ONA L A P R I L 2 0 2 0
“The bill is bad for
business and it
isn’t safe”
Paul Anslow, Rocky Mountain
Metropolitan Airport’s manager
Complaint escalation
The NBAA/AOPA letter is signed by seven other aviation
groups, representing most of the industry including
commercial, regional and cargo airlines. Urgency exists in
the aviation sector to get on the record opposing this action
right away.
“Thousands of bills are introduced and few of them make
it anywhere,” said Tom Charpentier, government relations
director at the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), one
of the co-signatories of the letter. “But a measure like this
could be scooped up into an omnibus bill, so it is important
to demonstrate early there is significant opposition.”
Knapinski said that noise abatement procedures can
reduce safety when the shape and size of the landing
pattern is altered, or arrival and departure paths are
restricted. The EAA does not believe that local communities
should be allowed to set their own standards on something
that is a federally funded and supported activity and which is
part of the national infrastructure.
The National Air Transportation Association (NATA)
takes issue with the bill for “unfairly targeting” operations
for compensation or hire when the owner or operator of a
personal aircraft could operate the same type of aircraft
at the airport in question without restriction. NATA’s vice
president of government and public affairs Jonathon Freye
Right: Flight schools have
been identified as a major
contributor to airport noise
because of the type of local
flying students perform
Below: Rocky Mountain
Metropolitan Airport is a US
Forest Service Tanker Base
Bottom: A US Marine Osprey
at Rocky Mountain Airport –
general and business aviation
airports are a vital part of the
USA’s national infrastructure