||| FROM KIM KIMPLE for PORT OF ORCAS |||
Orcas Island Airport plays a vital role in connecting people and supporting the local economy. However, the noise generated by aircraft operations can have a significant impact on the well-being and tranquility of our community.
Recognizing this concern, the Port of Orcas is in the process of updating the Noise Abatement procedure with a proactive approach to address airport noise and ensure a harmonious coexistence with our neighboring community.
This process has included gathering information from ongoing noise complaints, holding a community conversation and focus group, opening discussion at commission meetings, engaging with local and visiting pilots, and working with our local commercial service providers.
Through the process, the Port of Orcas has identified areas of improvement to approach and departure patterns, is weighing options on flight tracking, and updating reference materials for pilots.
During a conversation with local frequent flyers, San Juan Airlines announced their plan for converting the engines in their fleet to a quieter type. “Please know we wish to be good neighbors,” shares San Juan Airlines owner, Jason Douglass. “We are doing all that we can to work with the surrounding community to continue to serve them, while minimizing the noise impact.” The conversion process has already begun on some of the aircraft and is estimated to be completed in 12-18 months.
The updated Noise Abatement procedure is slated to go into effect in early 2024. For more information about the Port of Orcas airport noise abatement program, please visit www.portoforcas.com, contact Kim at (360) 376-5285 or email manager@portoforcas.com.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
Thank you Kim, addressing citizens concerns such as this is a good start, and very much appreciated. One of the basic things that the airport could do is to revise the flight plans for both landing approaches, and takeoffs by deviating around the island (fly mid-channel) instead of over it. Airplanes taking off to the north and immediately turning to the south is EXTREMELY intrusive to those of us living in the neighborhood.
So…..a VFR airport. When the wind blows from the south, as it usually does. Airplanes take off over town. Not much you can do about that. Funny how people are. Move next to a dairy farm, complain about the smell. Move next to a school and complain about the traffic. Move to an island, complain about the ferries. Last but not least….move next to an airport and complain about the noise.
“ One of the basic things that the airport could do is to revise the flight plans for both landing approaches, and takeoffs by deviating around the island (fly mid-channel) instead of over it.”
“The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty over airspace of the United States
pursuant to 49 U.S.C.A. § 40103. The airspace, therefore, is not subject to private ownership
nor can the flight of an aircraft within the navigable airspace of the United States
constitute a trespass. “
“A consistent regulatory system for aircraft and use of airspace has the broader effect of ensuring
the highest level of safety for all aviation operations. To ensure the maintenance of a safe and
sound air transportation system and of navigable airspace free from inconsistent restrictions,
FAA has regulatory authority over matters pertaining to aviation safety.
Substantial air safety issues are raised when state or local governments attempt to regulate the
operation or flight of aircraft. If one or two municipalities enacted ordinances regulating aircraft
in the navigable airspace and a significant number of municipalities followed suit, fractionalized
control of the navigable airspace could result. In turn, this ‘patchwork quilt’ of differing
restrictions could severely limit the flexibility of FAA in controlling the airspace and flight
patterns, and ensuring safety and an efficient air traffic flow. A navigable airspace free from
inconsistent state and local restrictions is essential to the maintenance of a safe and sound air
transportation system.”
So, no, Orcas airport cannot “ revise the flight plans for both landing approaches, and takeoffs”
Our lifestyles are such that air service is needed to support it. “Get your package the next day!” Don’t expect to live a relaxed rural lifestyle and at the same time expect to benefit from a high tech and inevitable noisy support system. We can’t have it both ways, and even if you chose a simple lifestyle overall, your neighbors (99%) haven’t. We’re in this together (I live under the Friday Harbor northbound flight pattern). We’re in this together, and having brought air service, it’s here for the mixed blessings it brings..
Thank you. Vince… that makes sense. I appreciate that.
Randy… “move next to an airport and complain about the noise.” It’s more than that, it’s about the increased use, and the increased size of the aircraft.
And in your case (having listened to it coming from you), “Move next to a vacation rental, and complain about that.”
There’s one Kenmore Air plane that takes off with a great roar that must be due to a defective (or non-existent) muffler, usually at about 5 pm. It’s totally obnoxious! And should be retired at the earliest possible date. End the noise pollution.
Hi there Michael Riordan, I’d like to include your noise concerns in our noise abatement data. Please email me with a date(s) and time(s) of the instance(s) and I can work to track the aircraft in question and address it. I’m reachable at manager@portoforcas.com
“So…..a VFR airport. When the wind blows from the south, as it usually does. Airplanes take off over town. Not much you can do about that.”
Obviously the runways run north and south, and just as obvious the diurnal winds blow the same. This is a no-brainer and isn’t my concern, (this being an analogy that both oversimplifies the problem and misses the point).
Not totally buying into the “/we’re all in this together,” and “We can’t do it,” and “Get used to it” crowd my contention (in line with the gist of the article– airplane noise and us), is that many aircraft upon approach (landing from the south heading north) do so by flying over the area between the skateboard park and OPALCO first in order to line up with the south end of the runway. This does not seem to be in compliance with the chart in the Preferred Quiet Routes as outlined in the Port of Orcas Aircraft Noise Reduction Procedures.
During peak season this is non-stop and one often has to stop talking to the person standing 2 ft. in front of them until the noise dissipates. It’s not uncommon for one to hear several (3 or 4) aircraft at varying distances all at the same time. It didn’t use to be this way, it’s maddening, and it’s obvious that in the future there will be even more airplane flights (making this even worse).
Understanding that we don’t own the airspace, and that the FAA has flight paths that regulate airspace for safety is all well and good, but I have a hard time buying into the notion that reducing noise by analyzing current airspace patterns and possibly adopting changes that actually follow the letter of current airspace recommendations doesn’t fall into the category of reducing air safety and efficient air traffic flow, nor do I find it easy to believe that there isn’t any existing precedent throughout the entire country where other airports have not done the same. In short, I don’t buy that, “no, Orcas airport cannot “ revise the flight plans for both landing approaches, and takeoffs.”
Kim, if we were really interested in reducing noise from aircraft we would either reduce the numbers of aircraft flying in our airspace (not gonna happen), equip them with better mufflers and props (also not gonna happen anytime soon), convert them to elec. (not gonna happen anytime soon), or change their course ensuring they’re not flying over populated areas (in accordance with current policy).
In fact, I thought there was a mandate already in existence that stated that aircraft are required to fly mid-channel.
Just to clarify, 95% of aircraft noise that a person on the ground can hear from an propeller driven airplane flying overhead and towards you is “Prop Noise”. You can’t hear the exhaust noise until the plane is heading away from you because the prop blast is blowing the sound aft, behind the plane. And by then the noise is deceasing due to increased distance anyway.
Prop Noise can’t be eliminated because it’s a physical result of a moving propeller, but is can be reduced by pilot training. Especially on the high powered aircraft like the commercial planes. So an updated Noise Abatement Plan is a good thing. Actually, just publicizing the exist plan would probably help.
BYW: – the actual number of daily flights at KORS has been pretty much stable for 25 years or more, and – KORS is a 24/7, all weather airport. The number of people who complain about noise is what varies.
Its current location is really a pretty rotten place for an airport! Besides its location in a wetland, and having a very short runway, and the serious noise problem in town, it won’t be too long until it is underwater. Time to plan ahead!
“West Antarctica is already the continent’s largest contributor to global sea level rise and has enough ice to raise sea levels by an average of 5.3 meters, or more than 17 feet. It’s home to the Thwaites Glacier, also known as the “Doomsday glacier,” because its collapse could raise sea levels by several feet, forcing coastal communities and low-lying island nations to either build around sea level rise or abandon these places…”
“BYW: – the actual number of daily flights at KORS has been pretty much stable for 25 years or more, and – KORS is a 24/7, all weather airport. The number of people who complain about noise is what varies. The number of people who complain about noise is what varies.”
Point well taken Jack.
Whether accurate or not, like tourism, the volume of traffic is seasonal, and the family (my girlfriend) who owns the property that I’m talking about has been there for over 60 years. In that time the amount of airplane traffic, (and radio-controlled airplane traffic, and the new skateboard park, the whiffle ball area, and the size of the roadway and the resultant traffic), as well as the number of flights, and the size of the airplanes have all significantly altered the surrounding landscape in that time period, (as things tend to do in our world). But there really aren’t that many new homes in the specific area that I’m speaking of… though the North Beach area has certainly grown, the Mt. Baker Rd. area I speak of, with the exception of the Land Bank’s bird preserve, and the Crescent Beach hiking trails is pretty much the same– OPALCO’s still there, and the farms are still farms.
I have a post card of a friend who grew up here (a dirt airstrip, and, of course, a much smaller Eastsound), with the caption, “This was Eastsound when I went to high school here,” written on the back. All of this was, mind you, within many of our lifetimes.
The significance of this issue is obvious as airplane noise is extremely intrusive, and it’s future on Orcas Island is hand-written on the wall. The amount of land that the airport has acquired, the airport growth plans that the Eastsound community has been fighting tooth and nail forever, and the significant number of hangars for local sports pilots that have already been approved but not yet built, (is it 30, or 40, I forget?), succinctly spell out the future dynamics of an airport that has, in some ways, already outgrown the needs of our community, and is one that shows that aircraft noise is only going to get worse.
Don’t get me wrong. I love airplanes, I’ve spent time helping one of our local pilots build his own plane, and as a younger man spent a lot of time flying, and skydiving both. My dream job would be to fly the bi-plane that’s been associated with the airport forever. Trust me when I say that I live for the day when both the exhaust and the prop noise problems are solved. But, until that day, if at all possible, I’d like to see the traffic pattern altered and aircraft traffic moved mid-channel, away from the Eastsound area both upon initial approach, and immediately after takeoff, (no matter which way the wind is blowing). It’s only the noise that adversely affects us.
I applaud Kim for stepping up to the plate as the new airport manager… this makes two people oriented managers in a row. If it’s at all possible, I truly hope that the noise abatement issue will be further researched, and that some solution can be found.
Michael. VFR means basically this. You can have all the approach and departure regulations in the world here. The pilots can do exactly what they want, as long as they can see. Most pilots do the right thing. Some do whatever they want. As an ATC for years, I’ve seen everything. If a pilots in a hurry to get to Bellingham and the wind is coming from the south, it’s an immediate left turn over our little village, nothing we can do about it. Period. Except complain. Like my sweet VRs.
Your expertise is noted Randy. That being said just because you live in an area where the Eastsound traffic does not negatively impact you doesn’t give way to the fact that it is increasingly impacting others.
Your inference that VFR rules are there for a reason is also well noted, but non-stop aircraft noise at peak season (mid-summer) for those of us living in the Eastsound area has nothing to do with the visibility on a beautiful, calm, sunny day.
You may be correct when you state there’s nothing that we can do about it except complain, but in contrast to what you’re saying, this is an opportunity at the behest of the new airport manager for the public to voice their concerns, and I choose to take advantage of that.
Go to the “Minimum Standards 2014-02-26” link at the bottom of this Port Of Orcas web page http://www.portoforcas.com/airport-operations/ to download the current Operating Standards for KORS. As stated in the opening, these are the local rules, but at no time shall any local regulation violate any FAA rules.
It tells you everything about how the airport AND the aircraft are supposed to operate. Approach and takeoff patterns, noise abatement, etc., etc. A quick read through will make everyone better informed.
Thank you Jack,
After reading this in it’s entirety it doesn’t appear to me that what I’m suggesting would be in violation of any FAA rules.
Pertaining to my areas of concern according to the Orcas Island Airport Eastsound, WA Minimum Standards that you provided, it states–
P-14 Minimum standards
Section B – Aircraft Traffic
2. Turns: No turns shall be made after takeoff to the north until the aircraft has passed Parker Reef (1.1NM northeast of the Airport) unless required by Federal Aviation Regulations for commercial operations, or deemed necessary by the pilot in command for safety concerns. No turns shall be made after takeoff to the south until the aircraft has clearly passed the village shoreline unless required by Federal Aviation Regulations for commercial operations, or deemed necessary by the pilot in command for safety concerns.
3. Noise Abatement Procedures: The Port recommends that aircraft operators comply with the noise abatement patterns and avoid over flight of residential areas or noise-sensitive areas at low altitudes as described in the Eastsound Airport Noise Abatement Procedures leaflet (copies located in most Port buildings and the Operations Office).
Perhaps I’m overlooking something here as I don’t see anything either here, or in the airport noise abatement procedures that would prohibit the airport either suggesting, asking, or requiring pilots to fly mid-channel (away from residential areas).
I’m not trying to rewrite the playbook here, I’m just making what seem to me to be common sense suggestions that if implemented WOULD alleviate the noise problem. Nobody else seems to have come up with any.
It’s like a group of kids playing ball in front of your house and making a lot of noise, and you open the door and ask them to move it down the street a bit.
So Jack, et al… if there is no more air traffic than 25 years ago, why there has been a push to expand the airport!
What expansion are you talking about?
There are planned improvements. But they are for safety. And they are required by the FAA; as recommended by the NTSB as the understanding of what makes a safe airport evolves. That’s been an on-going process ever since the NTSB was given authority to “define” what is safe.
The old Bi-Plane hangar and the Vierthaler’s house (on the west side of the runway) are both within the FAA required “200′ from center-line” clear zone. The FAA has been trying to get the Port to remove both those structures since 2004. They’re finally getting around to it. And nothing is to be built in their places.
The new hangars proposed for the west side are a direct result of the high demand for for hangars. All the existing hangars on the east side of the airport are on Port property, but privately owned. The owners pay the Port ground yearly rent. The existing hangars on the west side are on private property, privately owned and the owners pay the Port to have access to the runway. Every time any of those hangars goes up for sale it’s gone pretty much immediately. The Port currently has no hangars that they own and can offer for rent. So the future, west side hangars are intended to satisfy that demand. Maybe that’s not a safety item, but it’s important to aircraft owners. Being able to tell you insurance company that your plane is “hangared” generally cuts your insurance cost by 40%. So the demand is there. And the cost to build will be recouped by the Port in rental fees received.
Planned runway and taxiway improvements are for safety only. There is no intention to allow aircraft heavier than 12,500# to land at KORS. That means the Caravans are pretty close the biggest planes allowed.
Despite being misreported, there are no plans by the Port Commission, and never were any, to expand the runway. The c–p about moving Mt Baker Rd was something proposed by an engineering firm that was hired to update the Master Plan (an exercise that the FAA requires be done every couple years) and the engineers were immediately told to delete that from the plan.
Slight correction: there are a few hangars on the east side that are privately owned on private property. But they still pay for runway access.
Jack Baker, and others:
“Planned runway and taxiway improvements are for safety only.” Those “safety improvements “ include widening the total width of the “nothing else is allowed here” zone enough that people’s houses, buildings and half the Marina would be wiped out, removed, eliminated forever. That sucks. Don’t smooth it over.
It’s a beautiful winter day, it’s the slow time of the year, and the airport is quiet. Seems funny we’re having a discussion about aircraft noise during a time of the year when there isn’t much. This all being a sign that the private pilots are mostly gone to their second homes, the tourist arrivals are not as active, and with there not being as many people on the island at this time of the year there’s less need for med-flights, or Mercy Flights, (bless you guys… you’re angels).
“The c–p about moving Mt Baker Rd was something proposed by an engineering firm that was hired to update the Master Plan….”
Well, ALL OF THE OPTIONS that were provided to the public at the time were initially approved as viable options, on paper, by the airport, via the Alaska “engineering firm” that was hired to do the planning. And though I can’t remember all of the details, I attended the meetings (as did many) back during the airport “improvement” conversation, and I recall that there was federal money (grants and loans) on the table, and that it was a “use it or lose it” mentality that seemed to be driving some of the options at the time, and also that the vast majority of the people at those meetings were adamantly opposed to future increased air traffic (noise), airport growth, larger aircraft, or the buyout of Brandt’s landing, (a historical critical marine use area, the only one serving the north side of the island).
I also remember that the “safety improvements” mandated by the FAA, as it turns out, were needed because of the past airports management allowance of aircraft landing on an airfield that was not designed for them… mission creep in other words, and just as importantly, BECAUSE OF THE INCREASE IN AIR TRAFFIC IN RECENT YEARS, and the PROJECTED INCREASE OF AIR TRAFFIC INTO THE FUTURE.
“What expansion are you talking about?”
Though I didn’t much approve of the once-applied for new showers for visiting pilots, I do understand the much-needed new Aeronautical Engineers building (though it creates more vehicle traffic for those living along the roadway), as it provides a better work atmosphere for those folks, (it’s to bad that it couldn’t have been done in the same area as before). The amount of land the airport owns west of the current runway, combined with recent land acquisitions, as well as the number of pending private hangars waiting in the que are tell-tale signs of the potential growth (increased numbers of aircraft and flights) into our airports future.
Getting back to the focus of Kim’s article, if we had quieter aircraft, say EV aircraft, (though an EV future hosts another whole set of problems for society in itself, and isn’t, as it’s turning out to look, as rosy a solution as folks first thought), but if we had quieter aircraft trust me when I say, I would have never made any comments in relation to this issue. In fact, Kim would never had posted the article in the first place.
It’s just the noise… let’s face it, aircraft are the loudest and most pervasive source of noise that there is on the island, and I appreciate the opportunity to voice my opinion on the matter, and hope we can come up with some viable solutions that serve us now, and into our future.