Northern Hills Homeowner's Association

Bigfoot, Nessie (the Loch Ness Monster), and the Far 150.

Sep 19, 2001

Bigfoot, Nessie (the Loch Ness Monster), and the Far 150.

What do these three things have in common?
1) No one can prove the existence of Nessie, but a few people have sighted
her..
2) No one can track down Bigfoot, but some people claim he is real.
3) Only a select few Ricondo consultants have seen the new Far 150 Noise contour maps.

In programming, there is a old saying that goes, "The bitterness of poor
software quality will outlast the sweetness of making the deadline." I
think we can apply that rule to our Part 150 study. The findings of the
TAC (Technical Advisory Committee) were proposed last year, but when
Northern Hills complained about not having representation, it was decided
to reconvene the TAC for one last meeting. They were to meet and decide
if keeping all of the recommendations was in order.

I attended that meeting, and I have copies of the minutes. In that
meeting, John Williams, of Ricondo stated that by order of the City
Council, the TAC was to be reconvened with the order that they bring the
program forward by November of 2001. So, it was announced that a last
public meeting would be held in September, and that after the public
meeting, the FAR 150 update would be presented again to City Council.
There was never a call for a vote. They did not discuss the merits of the
items in the recommendations. The last meeting of the TAC was just a
stage for Mr. Williams to review what a thorn the folks from Northern
Hills have been.

He reviewed the goals of the TAC.
1) Meaningful, noticeable noise abatement.
2) Insure participation by all interested parties.
3) Reduce noise without moving noise
4) Safety

Mr. Williams talked about their discussions with the FAA, but never
indicated if the FAA actually approves of the plan. Ricondo only can say
that the FAA did not absolutely reject the plans.

Then Mr. Williams discussed different noise abatement measures and what
the FAR 150 had produced so far.

1) Quantify and assess the impacts of aircraft noise on the area
surrounding the airport
2) Identify measures to reduce noise around the airport (Noise abatement)
3) Limit effects of noise on community -(Noise mitigation )
4) The TAC worked to create a program that will work for abatement and
mitigation.

He then explained how noise exposure maps for 1998 and the projected maps
for 2004 were developed
He said that some measures at previous meetings had been rejected for
various reasons, but that the NCP (Noise Compatibility Program) was
reviewed and endorsed by the TAC.

He discussed that although projections for 2004 were for more aircraft,
the noise contours were projected to be smaller due to the use of quieter
aircraft that will be in use by then.

He then discussed that the flight track changes recommended considered
turns and courses and safety. They also looked at preferential runway
use. Mr. Williams said that 80% of the comments at the Coker United
Methodist Church public meeting in October were against the proposal. He
also stated that because the neighborhood that was most affected by this
plan was not at the table, two representatives of Northern Hills are now
attending the last TAC meeting.

He discussed the noise monitoring tests. Our yearly sound averages will
be determined by sound samples taken on 2 days in the winter, 2 days in
the spring, and 2 days in the summer. The winter tests would have planes
use the "far out" take off procedure, the 2 days in the spring would be
the "close in" procedure, followed by 2 days of "far out" testing in the
summer. Data from these tests was not yet available.

Other parts of the NCP were discussed, such as the engine run-up study.
Some of these items are already being done, although the plan has not been
officially endorsed by City Council.

Then they outlined the next steps the FAR 150 study would take.
1) Revise the NCP report to reflect measures that have already been
undertaken.
2) Publish a final NCP report
3) Hold a public hearing to receive formal public comment.
4) Request formal City Council approval (November 1, 2001)
5) Submit to the FAA for review and approval

I don't want to misrepresent the meeting, so I will use the wording from
the official minutes.

"Mr. Williams closed the meeting by stating that there will be many more
steps in the process of these measures being implemented, but to stop the
study now by not approving the NCP would not allow the potential for noise
abatement to be identified. The City understands the neighborhoods'
concerns of more overflights, and understands the controllers concerns
about airspace mix and interactions. As stated at the beginning of the
meeting, the answers are not easy, but until the study goes forward, there
is little progress being made. The Study Team will add more documentation
to the report and update it, then distribute it for public view.

Dom Smith of the Aviation Department closed the meeting by thanking the
City Councilmen and the TAC members for their continued participation of
the process."

So, after the presentation and a little discussion, the meeting was
closed. Yesterday the revised documents were sent to the public library.
There was no vote by the TAC. It just happened.
Now, here is the updated information in the new documentation added by the
Study Team.

For analysis purposes, it was assumed that half of the Runway 3 jet
departures would be turned to follow the proposed departure corridor and
half would be directed to fly straight out along the runway heading, i.e.,
to follow the current flight tracks. This assumption was made solely to
assess the potential change in noise exposure and resulting impacts on
population and households. The actual number and types of aircraft that
could likely be assigned to the Runway 3 noise abatement departure
corridor would be identified as the procedure was developed in follow-on
studies. Exhibit A-10 depicts the noise exposure contours resulting from
implementation of these measures with half of the Runway 3 jet departures
following the noise abatement corridor. DNL grid values for 2004 with and
without the preferential runway use program and partial use of the Runway
3 noise abatement departure corridor are show on Exhibit A-11.

Now, back to Bigfoot and Nessie. Who knows what the future will be? I
certainly don't feel safe knowing that someone can go to a computer
program, change a few numbers, and come up with a noise contour map that
fits the noise into the package they want to sell. I have these questions
for the "experts".
1) At what altitude did the planes in the new model begin their turn?
2) What was the fleet mix used. 737's, 727's, Airbus, etc.
3) How many private jet aircraft were directed over the "cement plant"?
4) By 2004, the airport will have more gates. Did they increase the
number of flights?
5) If 80% of the commercial flights departing SAT are Southwest Airlines,
and the new flight tracks are voluntary, and SWA will not voluntarily make
the turn, what kind of noise exposure map would that produce?

So, what we have here is pure assumption on the part of the people getting
paid to do a study, in which the only thing they can tell us for sure is
that these things will require more study. Sounds like job protection to
me. The problem is, the City wants this issue out of the way, and they
have imposed a deadline of November 1st. That means that instead of
getting the real facts, we have to accept assumptions.

Now, where is Nessie? In the pond? Yes, and who's that with a fishing
pole? I assume it's Bigfoot.



John Penry
jpenry@satx.rr.com