GERNOT TROLF, THE MISSION BEACH REPRESENTATIVE TO THE PART 150 CAC, THROWS MISSION BEACH UNDER THE B
Updated: Jun 1, 2020
Yesterday, the Airport Authority Noise Abatement Office conducted a meeting of their part 150 Study. Representatives from different communities impact by airport noise were chosen to be on the CAC committee.Gernot Trolf, a resident of Mission Beach, and Debbie Watkins right hand person on the Mission Beach Precise Planning Board, was chosen by the Airport Authority Noise Abatement Office to be the Mission Beach representative, in spite of the fact that his technical knowledge and understanding of aircraft, engines and engine and aerodynamic noise, and are extremely limited. At a MBPPB meeting, Gernot confirmed that his experience on aircraft operations was serving coffee and tea to passengers as a flight attendant.
One of the recommendations proposed going all the way back is noise mitigation thrust management. Noise is reduced over residential neighborhoods by flying the aircraft at a reduced thrust, reduces engine noise, and speed, reduces aerodynamic noise. I submitted a proposal to analytically evaluate this approach and potentially work with a community group at John Wayne airport to conduct some flight operational tests, as they have done there. This idea does not shift noise making it very attractive for Lindbergh.
It was clear at the outset that the Airport Authority Noise Abatement Office did not want to pursue this approach, referencing work done for the 2010 Part 150, and claiming that the benefits now as then would be in the 1-2 dB range.
As the discussion amongst CAC committee members ensued, there were several members who pressed to go through an analysis phase to evaluate candidate thrust profiles.
NOW KEEP IN MIND THAT MISSION BEACH WOULD LIKELY BE THE GREATEST BENEFICIARY OF LOW NOISE THRUST PROFILE. ONE MORE TIME FOR EFFECT. MISSION BEACH WOULD BE THE PRIMARY BENEFICIARY OF AN OPTIMIZED THRUST MANAGEMENT PROFILE. AND YET, OUT OF NO WHERE, GERNOT STEPS UP AND DECLARES THAT THIS STUDY WAS DONE 10 YEARS AGO, THE FINDINGS WERE NOT POSITIVE AND WE SHOULD MOVE ON.
NOW THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT GERNOT, AND DEBBIE, HAVE TAKEN POSITIONS CONTRARY TO THE BEST INTEREST OF MISSION BEACH. DEBBIE AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED IS KEPT ON THE ANAC FOR THIS VERY REASON (THIS IS HER 12TH YEAR). WHENEVER THE NOISE ABATEMENT OFFICE WANTS TO KILL AN IDEA, THEY GO TO THEIR FRIENDS WHO THEY HAVE DEVELOPED OVER THE YEARS. DEBBIE IS ONE OF THESE "FRIENDS' AS THEY ARE REFERRED TO. SO, SJOHNNA KNACK WINKS AT DEBBIE WHO THEN WINKS AT GERNOT AND GERNOT SAYS SOMETHING REALLY STUPID. HOPEFULLY THERE IS ENOUGH MOMENTUM FROM THE REST OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO KEEP THIS IDEA ALIVE, AS IT IS ONE OF THE FEW THAT CAN HELP MISSION BEACH.
And it get worse on this Nextdoor briefing. I have included below the actual action items coming out of the CAC meeting, and frankly Gernot might as well have not reported anything than what he did it was so useless.
Dear CAC Members, Thank you so much for your participation and excellent comments yesterday. Also thank you for your patience as we learn to conduct these discussions virtually via Zoom. Based on your feedback, the actions the Part 150 Team will be taking are summarized below:
More quantitatively review the Noise Abatement Departure Procedure (NADP) - We can do some additional analysis and speak with the carriers to examine this measure further to address some or your comments. Gernot tried to kill this.
The team will examine if there is good location on the airport where a Noise Barrier that would provide some relief.
We will add more reference points to the graphic such as the Noise Dots and Waypoints.
The team will take a deeper look at the land use including housing counts and population.
In the chapter discussing operational alternatives, we will add some “additional considerations” to include information that was analyzed in the Flight Procedure Analysis.
The team is also reviewing some of the other questions that came up and will address some of them in the FAQ section on sannoisestudy.com over the next few weeks.
We want to stress once again, that the items presented yesterday were not recommendations; they were the results of the initial analysis of alternatives suggested by ANAC, Committee members and community members. The Consultant Team will form and present recommendations later in the process subsequent to additional Committee and public input. As a reminder, CFR Part 150 studies typically consist of two primary components: (1) the Noise Exposure Map (NEM), and (2) the Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) report and all of the associated documentation. Committee members will have the opportunity to review all of the chapters in draft form prior to submission to ANAC While we are happy to collect comments from all committee members over the next 60-days, we would request that if your comments include alternatives that may require analysis or noise modeling they are submitted by June 30th. This will allow us to complete any additional modeling prior to our next meeting. While we cannot commit to modeling every suggestion, we will review all comments and model those alternatives that have the greatest potential for reducing aircraft noise based on our experience. Finally, we have heard from some of you that you would like to receive a list of fellow committee member’s contact information. To respect the privacy of the members, I would ask that you respond to this e-mail and let me know if you do NOT want your contact information to be included. I would like to remind everyone that while it is good to share information, formal committee dialogue and dilberations should occur with the entire group at our formal CAC and TAC meetings. Again thank you all for your time and we look forward to meeting with you (likely virtually) later this summer. Have a great weekend, Heidi Heidi Gantwerk H.G. Consulting Group (858) 342-9916 www.hgconsultinggroup.com