TagAviation Safety Noise Abatement Act 1978(4)

Advanced Search Options

  • 2024-01-09 20:55

    NTSB Investigators Examining Aircraft Debris

    Two NTSB investigators in the field examining what appears to be aircraft debris or wreckage in a residential neighborhood. The investigators are wearing official NTSB jackets and appear to be conducting a safety investigation.
  • 2023-07-28 21:39

    Aircraft Engine Failure with Fire During Flight

    Image shows a commercial aircraft engine with significant damage and fire/flames visible from the engine cowling during flight. The aircraft appears to be experiencing an in-flight emergency with engine failure over what looks like desert terrain below.
  • 2023-04-24 15:11

    StART – Memo: FAA Authority to Change the 65 DNL

    Re: FAA Authority to change the 65 DNL noise contour At a recent StART Aviation Noise Working Group meeting, I shared my professional opinion that it would take Congressional action to change the FAA’s 65 DNL noise contour standard. Below, please find additional details that informed my thinking on this topic. Background 1. First here is a quote from "A Guide to the Rulemaking Process" Prepared by the Office of the Federal Register: "Agencies get their authority to issue regulations from laws (statutes) enacted by Congress. In some cases, the President may delegate existing Presidential authority to an agency. Typically, when Congress passes a law to create an agency, it grants that agency general authority to regulate certain activities within our society. Congress may also pass a law that more specifically directs an agency to solve a particular problem or accomplish a certain goal." 2. There are at least three places where 65 DNL is spelled out specifically in federal regulations and federal orders. These are as follows: 2.1. Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 14 Part 161. This Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) describes the process from which any noise abatement rules may be required to show a cost benefit analysis prior to any approval or implementation. The rules dictate that all cost benefit analyses are limited to only the benefits within the 65 DNL contour. The authority for FAR Part 16 is spelled out in the Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA) of 1990. In this act Congress was vague…
  • 2000-02-25 00:00

    Letter to U.S. Senators Gorton and Murray Regarding Sea-Tac Airport Safety Issues

    On February 3rd and 4th, Seattle television station KIRO aired an expose titled "Exposed Hidden Dangers at Sea-Tac Airport". Their investigation ofthe NASA AMES files documented hundreds of near misses, close incursions, and mechanical problems in the very crowded airspace near Sea-Tac airport. The fact that these incidents are not reported (by the pilots, the airlines, or the aircraft controllers) to the FAA and then to the decision making local public officials is very serious. The FAA is the public lead ~gency responsible for protecting public safety in aviation matters. The KIRO report uncovered very disturbing information that may be only the tip of the iceberg. 'Ihe investigation indicated that there could be other agencies keeping information about safety issues at Sea-Tac Airport. The combined airspace of the Sea-Tac, Boeing Field, Renton, and Auburn airports now produces more than one million (1,000,000) aircraft operations a year. It should be a cause for concern that in addition to this very large number of current operations the Port of Seattle's Master Plan includes a major expansion with a 3rd runway to increase the number of operations. Would the FAA and our local officials support this expansion had they been aware of the dangers to public safety that the KIRO documentary has revealed? We are requesting that you initiate an investigation of the public safety issues that this very limited expose has uncovered. We suggest that the investigation should also cover any additional safety issues that come to light as it progresses. From…