9 ms·

Just wondering if these devices are only issued to people who had houses in that area before the airport was built. IMO if you knowingly purchase a residence u

Just wondering if these devices are only issued to people who had houses in that area before the airport was built. IMO if you knowingly purchase a residence under a flight path, you lose any privilege of complaining about the noise. Modern aviation is already far quieter, and there are plenty of regulations in place to minimise the noise footprint (e.g. modern fanjet engines are far quieter than the older turbojets, most airports have curfew hours to prevent late night/early morning noise, plus I know at our local airport, aircraft cannot use reverse thrust braking when landing in the early morning hours etc.).

Anechoic 8y ago
IMO if you knowingly purchase a residence under a flight path, you lose any privilege of complaining about the noise. It's not just about knowingly purchasing a home under a flight path, it's also about the commitments made by airports and airlines. For example, an excessive noise event may be caused by a pilot not following a proper noise abatement procedure. And while airplanes have gotten quieter over the last 30 years, delivery companies frequently purchase older aircraft that may not be as quiet. As those freight operations scale up, they can create more noise than anticipated. Finally, the use of GPS assisted takeoff and landings can create issues - previously aircraft were more spread out in their takeoff and landing patterns, which would mean more people are exposed to (relatively) less noise. With the increased accuracy of GPS navigation, flight patterns and much narrower, so the concentration of aircraft on a flight pattern means fewer people are experiencing more noise.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- cyberferret 8y ago
  I totally support pulling up pilots who break the noise abatement rules. If these devices were used as intended, we could expect sudden occasional spikes in reports to pin point a flight where the pilot strayed too low etc., but I expect that these devices will mostly be used by irate people who just keep stabbing the button several times a day every time they cannot hear their television clearly.
  - slavak 8y ago
    In fact, the article makes it clear that this is exactly the case: ' “Oh, the joy, the sheer pleasure of pushing that button and seeing the complaints mount up,” she wrote in response to a reporter’s query. “We are over 115,000 complaints for BWI, more than 35,000 in just the past 30 days! So now when MAA wants to know ‘which flight bothered you,’ I have a real answer! ALL OF THEM.” ' Sure, noise complaints can be valid. Even saying "all the flights bother me" may, in some cases, indicate a real problem with the noise abatement procedures at the airport. In 99% of cases, however, noise complaints are simply NIMBYism, or people for whom any amount of noise is too much. Everyone wants to fly somewhere on vacation, or order cheap products from China online and have them delivered by air within a few days. Aviation is necessary, and airplanes need to land somewhere, but too many people are unwilling to tolerate even a small amount of discomfort to allow that. It doesn't matter that there's literally nowhere you can put an airport where the planes wouldn't fly over someone's house, as long as it's not _their_ house... For every legitimate complaint caused by changes in approach procedures or the use of new navigation technology, there are 10,000 that can be summed up with "flying a hundred tons of steel through the air generates sound, more news at 11!" All it achieves is drown out the real problems in a sea of pointless griping.
- masonic 8y ago
  Oracle's Larry Ellison's private jet was infamous for ignoring San Jose's noise curfew and flying too loud a jet for night flights. Meanwhile, the San Jose Sharks' charter would often get bounced to Oakland if they missed curfew.
socialist_coder 8y ago
If you read the article you would have learned that this became a problem in the last 10 years because the FAA rolled out a new system for managing flight paths so a lot of new homes were now experiencing aircraft noise for the first time.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  That doesn't answer his question. So the changed flight paths 10 years ago.. are they giving these buttons to people who moved under these 'new' flight paths a year ago?
  - socialist_coder 8y ago
    What? The buttons are a totally private endeavor. You have to buy the buttons. They aren't "giving" them to anyone, and anyone can buy them. And again, all those questions are answered from reading the article. Also, I was responding to him saying that he didn't think people should have a right to complain if they knowingly bought a house under a flight path. I'm saying that of the people they are quoting in the article, it sounds like many of them have owned the same house for a long while and their problems with aircraft noise are only because of the FAA changing flight paths.
    - darkpuma 8y ago
      You're being bizarrely pedantic. I never meant to suggest that Airnoise is public endeavor nor that the buttons are free. >"I'm saying that of the people they are quoting in the article, it sounds like many of them have owned the same house for a long while and their problems with aircraft noise are only because of the FAA changing flight paths." And his point is that while the people interviewed for the article may have been living there for a while, many of the complainers probably haven't been. Does the guy behind Airnoise.io vet that the people using his system have legitimate grievances (e.g. the flight paths were not over their house when they bought the house)? I seriously doubt it.
Rebelgecko 8y ago
Flight paths change all the time.
- ams6110 8y ago
  Well not all the time. They can change, but approach and departure paths need to be approved by the FAA and published in official navigation charts. So they don't change on a whim.
  - Rebelgecko 8y ago
    Most people probably don't check official navigation charts, so they don't realize that just because they don't hear airplanes in a house when they visit it doesn't mean they won't later (like swapping runway direction depending on wind conditions). The FAA NextGen changes have also moved flight paths quite a bit over the last few years. My parents live somewhere where they wouldn't expect to have airplane noise (about a 40 mile drive from the nearest airport, although more like 30 as the crow flies), but starting a year ago they've have planes flying 3,000 feet over their roof, low enough to be noticeably loud.
    - sokoloff 8y ago
      30 miles at 3000’ or below is an unusually and incredibly long low approach path for jets. Most class B (largest 30 or so) airports only protect out to 20 miles and often only above 4000’ and none protect the airspace out to 30 miles. (Except DC which is protected post-9/11 not because of airplane needs.) I don’t find small piston aircraft to be annoying (though perhaps constant beach banner towing or helo tours would be), but understand why people don’t like jet noise overhead. Fortunately jets climb quickly (for their own fuel efficiency needs) and while they have to be low for approaches, that’s generally well inside of 20 miles.
whyenot 8y ago
As detailed in the article, due to the FAA's efforts to modernize the air traffic control system, planes have different flight paths than they used to, and communities near airports which used to not experience noise problems, do now. Still, airports are too important and it is virtually impossible to build new ones. The needs of the airports and the airlines should take precedence over those of homeowners. Homeowners can move. Airports can not.
Carpetsmoker 8y ago
> if you knowingly purchase a residence under a flight path, you lose any privilege of complaining about the noise. Honestly, this line really grinds my gears. Let me explain: First, people don't always know. Actually I think people frequently don't know. It's not like estate/rental agents are known for their outstanding honesty. Also remember that the loudness and frequency of air travel can change a lot. An airplane every few hours and none during the night? That's probably okay. An airplane every 15 minutes for 24/7? Probably not. But the most important point is that it's a bit of a discussion stopper; in the end, no one really wants to live under a flight path, and we all have to live on the same planet. I'm not saying we can always accommodate everyone, but dismissing people's real daily struggles with this out-of-hand is probably not great, especially as there are many important details missing. I had a noise problem at my previous apartment. I lived about 20 metres from a church repurposed as a "community and arts centre". Turns out, that this is code for "we will do rave parties where we literally pump out 100dB of bass until 5am every weekend during the winter season". I wouldn't have minded if it was the occasional thing, or if it wasn't literally 100dB (that was their limit, which by their own admission they also breached sometimes), or if it wasn't every weekend. I complained but they were very dismissive about it. It's one of the reasons I ended up moving. My point is, there are many factors: loudness, frequency, time of day, etc. In a lot of airports the total loudness may be less (I'll take your word for it), but the frequency and time of day has definitely increased in many cases, as people are flying much more.
- c54 8y ago
  I appreciate your example especially since it’s something you couldn’t really have looked up beforehand. Imagine searching “raves til 5am in my area” But flight paths are a known known. Maps exist. Noise level maps exist. Airport locations, runway directions, departing and arriving flight paths (and altitudes!) all exist. Caveat emptor, you got a “good deal” on a house because it’s in a loud area. If you cared about the noise then you should’ve done your homework. Or.. move somewhere else? Again— all this only applies to people walking in to buying homes under takeoff paths. If the airport did this to existing homeowners that’s a prolem, and I think complaints are justified. (This case also runs into NIMBYism, which is also a problem, and so on)
traek 8y ago
Aircraft noise can change after an airport is built. From the article: > The multibillion-dollar program is changing the way air traffic is managed, moving it from radar to satellite navigation. Proponents say it makes the air traffic system more efficient because it allows planes to fly more direct routes to their destinations. > But the shift has angered residents, who live in neighborhoods that are below the new flight paths. Residents in Northwest Washington sued the FAA over the changes but lost in court. A suit filed by the state of Maryland is pending. > McCann was one of those affected. He lived in La Jolla for more than a decade and, other than the occasional stray plane, had not had problems with noise. But that began to change in fall 2016.
porlune 8y ago
I don't think you lose your right to complain, even if you knowingly purchased a home that has a negative externality that you'd like to see removed. If we lived by that logic, places would steadily become worse since complaints would only be valid if you lived there before a change took place. Edit: removed my analogy because that's not really the point of my comment. Edit: would sure like to hear from others about why they disagree and why they are down-voting this.
- leetcrew 8y ago
  the pool analogy is a bit absurd, but similar things can and do happen. for example, if your private driveway connects two public roads and you don't actively prevent the public from exploiting that connectivity, eventually it becomes a public right of way and you lose the legal ability to stop people from using it. > If we lived by that logic, places would steadily become worse since complaints would only be valid if you lived there before a change took place. maybe. or maybe if this were the case it would exert a large enough downward pressure on property values that the current owner would be forced to resolve the issue before selling.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - porlune 8y ago
    >>> maybe if this were the case it would exert a large enough downward pressure on property values that the current owner would be forced to resolve the issue before selling. This is exactly what the current owners are trying to resolve via their complaints.. which is why their complaints are valid, even if they didn't live at the residence before the issue arose. Edit: Hence the logic holds that if complaints are required to reduce an externality, and you simultaneously hold that complaints are only valid if they are made by residents who have lived there before said externality began, then places would only become worse.
    - leetcrew 8y ago
      first off, I'm not seriously trying to make the point that it's totally illegitimate to complain about things that you knew would happen going in. but by "current owner" I meant the person who owned the property before the annoying circumstance began.
Reason077 8y ago
> “if you knowingly purchase a residence under a flight path, you lose any privilege of complaining about the noise” Flight paths aren’t always static. Neither are the volumes of traffic using a given path, or the times of day when planes are flying on particular paths. Aircraft noise is a mild annoyance when you have occasional flights during the day, but becomes life-ruiningly bad when you have departing 747s and A380s making turns over your house every few minutes at around midnight. Despite living more than 15 miles from the airport in an area of London that wasn’t previously known for aircraft noise. In my case I was renting and could move, but if you were stuck with a house you owned (and couldn’t easily sell) it would be an awful situation to be in.
sgustard 8y ago
Flight paths change. It's been a big issue for these folks in some pricey neighborhoods: "The FAA implemented NextGen, changed flight procedures, and moved vast quantities of jet traffic over Palo Alto." http://www.skypossepaloalto.org/ http://www.skypossepaloalto.org/
magic-chicken 8y ago
I think that for most people in the article, their house was not under a flight path when they bought it : >>> The multibillion-dollar program is changing the way air traffic is managed, moving it from radar to satellite navigation. Proponents say it makes the air traffic system more efficient because it allows planes to fly more direct routes to their destinations. But the shift has angered residents, who live in neighborhoods that are below the new flight paths. Residents in Northwest Washington sued the FAA over the changes but lost in court. A suit filed by the state of Maryland is pending.
rco8786 8y ago
The article (sort of) addresses that. Apparently ATC has changed systems in the last few years resulting in a bunch of new flight paths near airports. So neighborhoods that were not affected by airplane noise say, 3 years ago, are now directly under a flight path.

Anechoic 8y ago

IMO if you knowingly purchase a residence under a flight path, you lose any privilege of complaining about the noise. It's not just about knowingly purchasing a home under a flight path, it's also about the commitments made by airports and airlines. For example, an excessive noise event may be caused by a pilot not following a proper noise abatement procedure. And while airplanes have gotten quieter over the last 30 years, delivery companies frequently purchase older aircraft that may not be as quiet. As those freight operations scale up, they can create more noise than anticipated. Finally, the use of GPS assisted takeoff and landings can create issues - previously aircraft were more spread out in their takeoff and landing patterns, which would mean more people are exposed to (relatively) less noise. With the increased accuracy of GPS navigation, flight patterns and much narrower, so the concentration of aircraft on a flight pattern means fewer people are experiencing more noise.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
cyberferret 8y ago
I totally support pulling up pilots who break the noise abatement rules. If these devices were used as intended, we could expect sudden occasional spikes in reports to pin point a flight where the pilot strayed too low etc., but I expect that these devices will mostly be used by irate people who just keep stabbing the button several times a day every time they cannot hear their television clearly.
- slavak 8y ago
  In fact, the article makes it clear that this is exactly the case: ' “Oh, the joy, the sheer pleasure of pushing that button and seeing the complaints mount up,” she wrote in response to a reporter’s query. “We are over 115,000 complaints for BWI, more than 35,000 in just the past 30 days! So now when MAA wants to know ‘which flight bothered you,’ I have a real answer! ALL OF THEM.” ' Sure, noise complaints can be valid. Even saying "all the flights bother me" may, in some cases, indicate a real problem with the noise abatement procedures at the airport. In 99% of cases, however, noise complaints are simply NIMBYism, or people for whom any amount of noise is too much. Everyone wants to fly somewhere on vacation, or order cheap products from China online and have them delivered by air within a few days. Aviation is necessary, and airplanes need to land somewhere, but too many people are unwilling to tolerate even a small amount of discomfort to allow that. It doesn't matter that there's literally nowhere you can put an airport where the planes wouldn't fly over someone's house, as long as it's not _their_ house... For every legitimate complaint caused by changes in approach procedures or the use of new navigation technology, there are 10,000 that can be summed up with "flying a hundred tons of steel through the air generates sound, more news at 11!" All it achieves is drown out the real problems in a sea of pointless griping.
masonic 8y ago
Oracle's Larry Ellison's private jet was infamous for ignoring San Jose's noise curfew and flying too loud a jet for night flights. Meanwhile, the San Jose Sharks' charter would often get bounced to Oakland if they missed curfew.

socialist_coder 8y ago

If you read the article you would have learned that this became a problem in the last 10 years because the FAA rolled out a new system for managing flight paths so a lot of new homes were now experiencing aircraft noise for the first time.

darkpuma 8y ago
That doesn't answer his question. So the changed flight paths 10 years ago.. are they giving these buttons to people who moved under these 'new' flight paths a year ago?
- socialist_coder 8y ago
  What? The buttons are a totally private endeavor. You have to buy the buttons. They aren't "giving" them to anyone, and anyone can buy them. And again, all those questions are answered from reading the article. Also, I was responding to him saying that he didn't think people should have a right to complain if they knowingly bought a house under a flight path. I'm saying that of the people they are quoting in the article, it sounds like many of them have owned the same house for a long while and their problems with aircraft noise are only because of the FAA changing flight paths.
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    You're being bizarrely pedantic. I never meant to suggest that Airnoise is public endeavor nor that the buttons are free. >"I'm saying that of the people they are quoting in the article, it sounds like many of them have owned the same house for a long while and their problems with aircraft noise are only because of the FAA changing flight paths." And his point is that while the people interviewed for the article may have been living there for a while, many of the complainers probably haven't been. Does the guy behind Airnoise.io vet that the people using his system have legitimate grievances (e.g. the flight paths were not over their house when they bought the house)? I seriously doubt it.

Rebelgecko 8y ago

Flight paths change all the time.

ams6110 8y ago
Well not all the time. They can change, but approach and departure paths need to be approved by the FAA and published in official navigation charts. So they don't change on a whim.
- Rebelgecko 8y ago
  Most people probably don't check official navigation charts, so they don't realize that just because they don't hear airplanes in a house when they visit it doesn't mean they won't later (like swapping runway direction depending on wind conditions). The FAA NextGen changes have also moved flight paths quite a bit over the last few years. My parents live somewhere where they wouldn't expect to have airplane noise (about a 40 mile drive from the nearest airport, although more like 30 as the crow flies), but starting a year ago they've have planes flying 3,000 feet over their roof, low enough to be noticeably loud.
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    30 miles at 3000’ or below is an unusually and incredibly long low approach path for jets. Most class B (largest 30 or so) airports only protect out to 20 miles and often only above 4000’ and none protect the airspace out to 30 miles. (Except DC which is protected post-9/11 not because of airplane needs.) I don’t find small piston aircraft to be annoying (though perhaps constant beach banner towing or helo tours would be), but understand why people don’t like jet noise overhead. Fortunately jets climb quickly (for their own fuel efficiency needs) and while they have to be low for approaches, that’s generally well inside of 20 miles.

whyenot 8y ago

As detailed in the article, due to the FAA's efforts to modernize the air traffic control system, planes have different flight paths than they used to, and communities near airports which used to not experience noise problems, do now. Still, airports are too important and it is virtually impossible to build new ones. The needs of the airports and the airlines should take precedence over those of homeowners. Homeowners can move. Airports can not.

Carpetsmoker 8y ago

> if you knowingly purchase a residence under a flight path, you lose any privilege of complaining about the noise. Honestly, this line really grinds my gears. Let me explain: First, people don't always know. Actually I think people frequently don't know. It's not like estate/rental agents are known for their outstanding honesty. Also remember that the loudness and frequency of air travel can change a lot. An airplane every few hours and none during the night? That's probably okay. An airplane every 15 minutes for 24/7? Probably not. But the most important point is that it's a bit of a discussion stopper; in the end, no one really wants to live under a flight path, and we all have to live on the same planet. I'm not saying we can always accommodate everyone, but dismissing people's real daily struggles with this out-of-hand is probably not great, especially as there are many important details missing. I had a noise problem at my previous apartment. I lived about 20 metres from a church repurposed as a "community and arts centre". Turns out, that this is code for "we will do rave parties where we literally pump out 100dB of bass until 5am every weekend during the winter season". I wouldn't have minded if it was the occasional thing, or if it wasn't literally 100dB (that was their limit, which by their own admission they also breached sometimes), or if it wasn't every weekend. I complained but they were very dismissive about it. It's one of the reasons I ended up moving. My point is, there are many factors: loudness, frequency, time of day, etc. In a lot of airports the total loudness may be less (I'll take your word for it), but the frequency and time of day has definitely increased in many cases, as people are flying much more.

c54 8y ago
I appreciate your example especially since it’s something you couldn’t really have looked up beforehand. Imagine searching “raves til 5am in my area” But flight paths are a known known. Maps exist. Noise level maps exist. Airport locations, runway directions, departing and arriving flight paths (and altitudes!) all exist. Caveat emptor, you got a “good deal” on a house because it’s in a loud area. If you cared about the noise then you should’ve done your homework. Or.. move somewhere else? Again— all this only applies to people walking in to buying homes under takeoff paths. If the airport did this to existing homeowners that’s a prolem, and I think complaints are justified. (This case also runs into NIMBYism, which is also a problem, and so on)

traek 8y ago

Aircraft noise can change after an airport is built. From the article: > The multibillion-dollar program is changing the way air traffic is managed, moving it from radar to satellite navigation. Proponents say it makes the air traffic system more efficient because it allows planes to fly more direct routes to their destinations. > But the shift has angered residents, who live in neighborhoods that are below the new flight paths. Residents in Northwest Washington sued the FAA over the changes but lost in court. A suit filed by the state of Maryland is pending. > McCann was one of those affected. He lived in La Jolla for more than a decade and, other than the occasional stray plane, had not had problems with noise. But that began to change in fall 2016.

porlune 8y ago

I don't think you lose your right to complain, even if you knowingly purchased a home that has a negative externality that you'd like to see removed. If we lived by that logic, places would steadily become worse since complaints would only be valid if you lived there before a change took place. Edit: removed my analogy because that's not really the point of my comment. Edit: would sure like to hear from others about why they disagree and why they are down-voting this.

leetcrew 8y ago
the pool analogy is a bit absurd, but similar things can and do happen. for example, if your private driveway connects two public roads and you don't actively prevent the public from exploiting that connectivity, eventually it becomes a public right of way and you lose the legal ability to stop people from using it. > If we lived by that logic, places would steadily become worse since complaints would only be valid if you lived there before a change took place. maybe. or maybe if this were the case it would exert a large enough downward pressure on property values that the current owner would be forced to resolve the issue before selling.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- porlune 8y ago
  >>> maybe if this were the case it would exert a large enough downward pressure on property values that the current owner would be forced to resolve the issue before selling. This is exactly what the current owners are trying to resolve via their complaints.. which is why their complaints are valid, even if they didn't live at the residence before the issue arose. Edit: Hence the logic holds that if complaints are required to reduce an externality, and you simultaneously hold that complaints are only valid if they are made by residents who have lived there before said externality began, then places would only become worse.
  - leetcrew 8y ago
    first off, I'm not seriously trying to make the point that it's totally illegitimate to complain about things that you knew would happen going in. but by "current owner" I meant the person who owned the property before the annoying circumstance began.

Reason077 8y ago

> “if you knowingly purchase a residence under a flight path, you lose any privilege of complaining about the noise” Flight paths aren’t always static. Neither are the volumes of traffic using a given path, or the times of day when planes are flying on particular paths. Aircraft noise is a mild annoyance when you have occasional flights during the day, but becomes life-ruiningly bad when you have departing 747s and A380s making turns over your house every few minutes at around midnight. Despite living more than 15 miles from the airport in an area of London that wasn’t previously known for aircraft noise. In my case I was renting and could move, but if you were stuck with a house you owned (and couldn’t easily sell) it would be an awful situation to be in.

sgustard 8y ago

Flight paths change. It's been a big issue for these folks in some pricey neighborhoods: "The FAA implemented NextGen, changed flight procedures, and moved vast quantities of jet traffic over Palo Alto." http://www.skypossepaloalto.org/ http://www.skypossepaloalto.org/

magic-chicken 8y ago

I think that for most people in the article, their house was not under a flight path when they bought it : >>> The multibillion-dollar program is changing the way air traffic is managed, moving it from radar to satellite navigation. Proponents say it makes the air traffic system more efficient because it allows planes to fly more direct routes to their destinations. But the shift has angered residents, who live in neighborhoods that are below the new flight paths. Residents in Northwest Washington sued the FAA over the changes but lost in court. A suit filed by the state of Maryland is pending.

rco8786 8y ago

The article (sort of) addresses that. Apparently ATC has changed systems in the last few years resulting in a bunch of new flight paths near airports. So neighborhoods that were not affected by airplane noise say, 3 years ago, are now directly under a flight path.