Letters to the Editor: Airport 08.18.16

The Only Way

Laurel

August 15, 2016

To the Editor,

This past Saturday I attended a meeting of the airport noise citizens advisory group in Wainscott. Although I live on the North Fork, the noise from helicopters and seaplanes that is generated from traffic to and from the East Hampton Airport has drastically changed the quality of life for those in my area, not for the better. 

As the result of a Federal Aviation Administration decision that offered pilots the option of some new routes, our neighborhood has been besieged by a relentless hum and rattle that reaches a peak on Mondays and Fridays. 

I attended the meeting to lend my support to the committee for its efforts and, hopefully, to have some questions answered. While my questions still exist, I developed a new appreciation for what the residents of East Hampton and other locales are going through. 

On the North Fork, our hope for relief from this situation is to change the traffic pattern to the airport. Whether it’s a route that follows Long Island Sound around Orient Point or a South Shore route that keeps most traffic away from the North Shore, neither of these solutions will help your residents. We are fighting different aspects of the same battle.

Much of the discussion at this meeting revolved around defining noisy aircraft. While much of the debate was over a decibel level and which aircraft might exceed this level, the issue of frequency of flights took a secondary role. 

Listening to the discussion of decibel levels, what kept popping into my head was the quote of former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart regarding trying to define pornography: “I know it when I see it.” With airport noise, I know it when I hear it. 

In years past, hearing an occasional seaplane flying overhead had an almost romantic quality to it. The barrage of noise now from these planes and helicopters on both Forks has more than likely interfered with a few romantic moments, as well as other aspects of daily life.

Many of the committee members spoke of what has become a decades-long fight. As someone who has only recently been affected by this invasion and is attempting to become involved, I commend them for their persistence, but fear that the lengthiness of the legal process will wear down those fighting the battles.

How do we move forward? The many organizations and committees that exist on both Forks have to identify and endorse candidates who are sympathetic to concerns about aircraft noise and frequency of flights. Votes are the only way to get the attention of politicians. If the people who appoint the protected and unresponsive officials of the F.A.A. are voted out of office, maybe we will see some results.

Make your voice heard.

JIM UNDERWOOD

About Peter Kirsch

Wainscott

August 14, 2016

Dear David,

I fully agree with David Gruber’s assessment of the hard work and serious effort the airport noise subcommittee gave to this matter. As I read David’s letters to the editor in this paper, together with all those who served on that committee who also agreed with him, I thought, one of the best decisions I made was to nominate David as chair. What an outstanding job he has done, together with the selfless contributions and support of every person who served on that committee. The findings are a testament to the fine work of experts in our community giving solid, sound advice to the East Hampton Town Board. 

There were three attorneys in this group, and they all agreed. Have you ever heard of such a thing? What did the board do with that advice? They are the decision-makers. The outcome sits on their shoulders. 

Then it hit me like a ton of bricks. What was said about Peter Kirsch in the past few weeks was also said, in essence, a long time ago. The words spoken then, like now, were totally ignored. What’s truly amazing, my partner in crime Barry Raebeck and I, who both founded Quiet Skies Coalition, called it then. It’s still true today. It’s on my website if you wish to look it up, ehhelicopternoise.com. 

In a letter to The Star on Sept. 17, 2012, titled “Failed Policy,” I wrote that “There is a reason why Peter Kirsch is considered the rainmaker at his firm, Kaplan, Kirsch, Rockwell. Peter Kirsch is also the attorney at Naples Airport, where noise-abatement policies under grant assurances have set back that municipality more than $6.6 million. After spending all that money, there are still no solutions, no end in sight for the noise.” 

“Noise abatement is a failed policy all around this country. East Hampton Airport is not unique. Santa Monica Airport is the poster child for failed noise-abatement policies. With the strictest noise-abatement regulations and highest fines in the country, that city is considering closing the airport in 2015.”

“It is silly for the Town of East Hampton to spend millions of dollars to come to the same conclusion several years from now. The legal bill of $135,000, which caught the town board by surprise, will seem like a drop in the bucket if they don’t wake up.” 

In a letter to The Star published Feb. 6, 2013, titled “Obvious Solutions,” Barry wrote: “Please note that what Kirsch is proposing will not alleviate what we citizens of East Hampton and the East End know to be the primary two problems at East Hampton Airport. These remain: 1. The intolerable noise generated by helicopters at any time, and 2. The intolerable noise generated by all aircraft during inappropriate hours of operation. Mr. Kirsch is not offering anything of real value, because he ignores the obvious solutions to these two enduring and escalating problems.” 

“The obvious solutions: 1. Ban helicopters from East Hampton Airport, and 2. Impose an actual curfew of 5 p.m. to 9 a.m. Nowhere else in this town is random and extreme noise permitted at midnight, or 5 a.m., or whenever some inconsiderate operator decides he wants to generate ridiculous amounts of noise when flying over thousands of innocent citizens simply trying to sleep in what used to be our quiet homes.” 

“Forget Mr. Kirsch. Return the airport to its original purpose — or close it, and save the money and the bother.” 

Then again only as he can say it, in a letter on May 5, 2015, titled “Get a New Lawyer,” Barry wrote: “Now that the town has finally taken some modest action to curb airport noise — and is under attack in federal court by the New Jersey-based helicopter companies (allied with Ben Krupinski’s Sound Aircraft Services) — the question has to be asked: Why is the attorney Peter Kirsch still representing East Hampton in aviation matters? This man has been wrong in just about everything significant that he has advised the town on over the course of nearly a decade. Not only has his advice been consistently bad, he has often contradicted himself. His history as an aviation litigator? He lost to the Federal Aviation Administration on the critical legal issue in the Naples airport litigation.”

“The helicopter companies now suing the town have incorporated in their legal papers one of Kirsch’s public presentations to East Hampton. They are using the public statements of Kirsch to make their case against us. You can’t make this stuff up.” 

“Also ignored by the current town board and supervisor is that not so long ago Kirsch accompanied Councilman Dominick Stanzione on an unauthorized trip to Washington, D.C., to lobby the F.A.A. They were trying to get another F.A.A. grant that would have prevented the town from adopting airport noise rules for 20 more years. Kirsch then hid Stanzione’s unauthorized travel expenses in one of Kirsch’s legal bills. How can this be reconciled with the ethical requirement that a lawyer not ‘engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation’? Yet he remains East Hampton’s highly compensated attorney.” 

“Several citizens have called for the town board to get a new lawyer to represent us in this critical environmental battle. Kirsch is surely not the best person to lead us in our ‘fight’ to control our own airport. Or perhaps the board doesn’t really want to control it anyway.” 

This board saw the chameleon change its colors when he argued to take F.A.A. money when paid by the prior administration, and then flip-flopped to be in favor of not taking F.A.A. money when paid by this administration. I continue to believe Kirsch’s only motivation is to be rainmaker, considering East Hampton’s perceived wealth. 

The airport noise subcommittee, an advisory committee appointed by the town board, has reconvened on their own, as the airport noise citizens advisory committee, to continue their good work. At their second public meeting, held at LTV Studios this past Saturday, it was noted that five attorneys now serve on this committee. There was an attorney in the audience participating in discussions; that makes six attorneys studying this issue in our community, all agreeing on this issue. Unprecedented! 

So, what’s the East Hampton Town Board waiting for? The writing has been on the wall for a long time. Give me a break, the evidence is overwhelming, it’s a very easy decision. Dump Kirsch! 

Very Sincerely,

FRANK DALENE 

Gone Unanswered

East Hampton 

August 15, 2016 

Dear David,

At Saturday’s meeting of the Airport Noise Citizens Advisory Committee, I learned that Freedom of Information Act requests for the raw data from the airport on operations and complaints have gone unanswered for weeks. 

We know the data exist. Is the town deliberately withholding it or delaying releasing it so that we who hear, feel, and see the volume of noisy aircraft traffic will not have data to confirm our experience?

When elected, the town board promised transparency in management of the airport and remediation of the noise problem. What happened?

Sincerely,

SUSAN McGRAW KEBER 

A Serious Issue

Wainscott

August 14, 2016

Dear Editor,

Reading the numerous letters in last week’s edition listing the unbearable noise disruption is totally understandable. It is impossible to even sit outdoors and dine on your own property with the incessant low-flying aircraft, which seem like kamikaze attacks. This is nothing new.

However, safety seems to be omitted and should be included along with the noise issue. Every single day there are news reports of small planes crashing. Just last Friday, six were killed in Virginia on an aborted landing where the plane crashed into trees.

Yesterday at Smith Point Park a small plane did an emergency landing on the beach. Thank God, no one was killed or hurt. We have had crashes here that seem to be forgotten. One on Mill Hill Lane in East Hampton, and because of empty fuel tanks there was not fiery disaster. July 2003 three killed taking off from Montauk. August 2015 one killed in Westhampton Beach. September 2011, Stephen Sullivan, killed and missing in helicopter crash, south off Montauk. He was never found.

Now, we also have a serious issue here. The current town board is being pressured by a small group of pilots, many who do not even live here, to have an abandoned runway (deemed as unsafe and unnecessary by the Federal Aviation Administration) repaired. At that time there were sneaky requests for F.A.A. funding, which were denied. The verbatim reasons are available and have been printed in The Star in letters.

Promises were made by the opposition to give the pilots this disastrous idea for their support. Why the current board is even taking this under consideration is beyond belief. This is a reversal of their promises and there is no political reason. Or is there?

There are 140 homes north of the highway alone that are impacted by this, and that doesn’t seem to be of any concern. There is a school and rehab center under that flight path, when it was operational, despite being deemed abandoned by the F.A.A. Planes flew as slow as 50 feet over houses on Debra’s Way when landing, and just as low after taking off, and no fire hydrants. The studies by the F.A.A. based upon historical wind conditions proved that the other secondary runway was safer in the crosswinds. Plus, it went out over a sand pit and endangered no homes or families.

The board has to deal with the serious noise issue but has a sworn duty to protect the safety of those families on the ground. The estimated cost is over $3 million. Does the safety of families have a price tag?

ARTHUR J. FRENCH

As to Noise Metrics

East Hampton

August 15, 2016

Dear David,

This is episode three of the legal misadventures of Peter Kirsch, East Hampton Town’s aviation counsel. I was going to write today about Mr. Kirsch’s most egregious blunder, the effect of which may be to completely disable the town’s efforts to control airport noise for another five years.

However, I have decided to return to the subject of episode one, the failure of the town to employ two different metrics for defining “noisy aircraft,” subject to airport access restrictions. This was of great interest to the public at last Saturday’s meeting of the airport noise citizens advisory committee, particularly for residents newly plagued by seaplanes and wondering why.

The town board-appointed citizens’ noise subcommittee that I chaired for 15 months from the beginning of 2014 recommended a dual noise threshold of 91 EPNdb (effective perceived noise level in decibels) for aircraft that have such a rating, and 80 dbA for aircraft that do not. A dual EPNdb/dbA metric is used by Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Prague, and San Diego airports. A dual metric of dbA and a third measure, SEL, is employed at Salzburg, Austria, and Orange County, Calif.

Why a dual metric? Because aviation regulators around the world, including the Federal Aviation Administration, do not employ a single metric for all aircraft types, and few types are rated with more than one. If only one metric is used, operators simply substitute types that are not rated, without any discernible reduction in noise. The noise subcommittee warned the town board that this would happen at East Hampton if it adopted only a 91 EPNdb threshold. The board ignored the committee. 

Instead, on the advice of Kirsch, it adopted only a 91 EPNdb metric for defining noisy aircraft. As predicted, the result has been an increase in operations by seaplanes and Bell 407 helicopters, which do not have an EPNdb rating, with no gain to the community. Indeed, for many, things are worse, because these types would be rated “noisy” under the 80 dbA standard we proposed. And that is with only the noisy aircraft curfew in effect. If and when the judicial stay is lifted and the limit of one round trip per week for noisy aircraft goes into effect too, the shift to these unrated types will be more severe.

At its last public airport noise report in the spring, the board boasted about this outcome, as if growth in seaplane and Bell 407 traffic represented some benefit to the community. They might as well boast that they don’t know what they are talking about and are darned proud of it. Let me assure you, the board is in fact way in over its head when it comes to regulating and managing the airport. It lacks the necessary experience and expertise. 

The board attempts to compensate for its lack by hiring consultants such as Kirsch and its noise consultant, HMMH. But then it doesn’t have the competence to supervise them properly. Faced with these experts, the board doesn’t even know the right questions to ask. This is the very reason why citizen participation is essential. Our community does have within it the skills the board lacks. Even the City of New York, with a much larger professional staff, relies on citizen advisory boards for this very reason.

Unfortunately, under the delusion that it had learned enough in the 15 months that the noise subcommittee met, to do it itself, the board dissolved the committee right after adopting the town’s first-ever airport noise rules. A very few of the committee’s recommendations were adopted. Most were ignored, and we are seeing the consequences — that the board’s efforts so far have been largely ineffectual. The particular failures, including the failures of the board’s legal tactics, were not unanticipated. The committee warned the board of just these outcomes. 

Sadly, our town board members are unequipped to recognize that they are being snowed by Kirsch. The community pays the price. 

The noise subcommittee has reconvened on its own, as a citizen advisory group, because it is apparent that the town board, left to itself, cannot do the job the community needs. At our second public meeting last Saturday, we set at the top of our agenda producing an ironclad report as a basis for correcting the board’s error as to noise metrics. Our third public meeting will be on Aug. 29 at a location to be announced. 

DAVID GRUBER

North Shore Route

Mattituck

August 8, 2016 

To the Editor:

The Federal Aviation Adminisration  continues do nothing to resolve helicopter noise on the East End. Pilots continue to fly repeated flight paths over the same communities and schools, using the same waypoints and routes designed by a select few individuals. Yet somehow the F.A.A. continues to claim that the extension of its mandated Long Island North Shore route until 2020 in the current Federal Register was necessary.

Under section 40103, the administrator of the F.A.A. has authority to “prescribe air traffic regulations on the flight of aircraft (including regulations on safe altitudes for . . . protecting individuals and property on the ground (49 U.S. (40103 (b)(2)(B)). In addition, section 44715(a) provides that to “relieve and protect the public health and welfare from aircraft noise,” the administrator of the F.A.A. “as he deems necessary, shall prescribe . . . regulations to control and abate aircraft noise.” This statement alone is laughable, as thousands of us noise-affected residents, all located in the infamous “flight path” from Queens to Orient, Noyac, Sag Harbor, and other South Fork towns, have filed thousands if not millions of noise complaints for many years. 

It’s important to question why the Eastern Region Helicopter Council continues to design flight paths over the East End so as to pummel the same neighborhoods and protect other, elite ones. The council is a high-profit helicopter trade group that cares about profit, and not noise-affected people. What right does any aviation organization have to send flights repeatedly over nature preserves, that as taxpayers we have spent millions of dollars to protect? Nowhere on the helicopter flight map presented by the helicopter council back in March at their own trade meeting does it state that the F.A.A. approved or agreed to these flights. Again, these helicopter routes were designed with the input of the East Hampton Airport manager and the vice president, Jeff Smith, of the council. It’s clear their intent was to custom-design arrival and departure routes that somehow omit many prestigious homes in East Hampton township.

How can it be that only an estimated 20 to 25 percent of the air traffic that flies in and out of East Hampton doesn’t even affect their own taxpayers? Yet thousands from Queens to Orient and towns in Southampton are burdened with over 75 to 80 percent of the air traffic to and from East Hampton Airport? Nimby, without a doubt, applies here. Will the F.A.A. administrator correct this, since his quote clearly states that the need for extending this rule was because he felt it was necessary to “protect individuals and property on the ground”? How is it fair that this percentage is so unbalanced?

Is there a separate flight path that the public is unaware of that specifically generates helicopter flights over East Hampton township that we are not privy to? My guess is no, because those residents will cry about the noise over their expansive, privet-lined estates. This is an airport located on the South Fork that collects landing fees, curfew penalties, hangar fees, and therefore should bear the brunt of the helicopter noise, air pollution, and traffic in its own township. This huge imbalance is unacceptable.

Please take note, not one pilot has ever flown the entire length of the F.A.A.-mandated North Shore route, all due to the many loopholes in the original ruling. The F.A.A. has yet to mandate flotation devices (a compact F.A.A.-approved life jacket: starting prices are as low as $36.95 and up) on all “taxi” type or “civil” helicopters flying to and from East Hampton Airport, Southampton heliport, or Gabreski Airport. No portable flotation devices even after a recent helicopter crash in Hawaii in which a young man died. Not one flotation device was on the chopper body itself (even though these choppers fly over the water) or inside the chopper for the paying passengers. I wonder if the passengers knew this before they got onto the chopper? I wonder if BLADE customers have ever inquired about flotation devices?

The F.A.A. also states in the most recent ruling the following: “Further, the F.A.A. has initiated a ­second project in an effort to test a different methodology for gathering information on community annoyance for residents in the vicinity of helicopter operations.” Based on this language alone, anyone in the flight path is excluded, it appears. Vicinity of helicopter operations? What radius is the F.A.A. including at the N.Y.C. heliports and the South Fork airports and heliport? This statement alone should send up a red flag. 

Repeatedly it has been stated that routes are not a solution, yet three routes, custom-designed by the Eastern Region Helicopter Council with the help of the East Hampton Airport manager, now affect residents in Southampton, Southold, and Riverhead townships. These routes were implemented without any of the three town supervisors’ consent. The extension of the F.A.A. North Shore route is once again forced upon thousands of us without public comment — for not one, two, or three years, but four excruciating years. Keep in mind, we do not have a commercial airport or heliport on the North Fork, yet we are subjected to the excessive noise and pollution. 

If the East Hampton Town Board and residents want to keep this airport open as a commercial airport, then routes over East Hampton township, in combination with other logical solutions, must be implemented. A weekend of this incessant, relentless, pounding noise (which pilots are clearly ignoring the curfews) would either quickly remedy itself or, for some residents, it would inspire them to demand that it be shut down. 

TERESA McCASKIE

Southold Helicopter 

Advisory Committee