Getting POUNDED tonight (Floral Park, Roosevelt, Westbury: living, versus, airport)

[scottzilla]

Originally Posted by Johninwestbury

The FAA decided to change the routes and put more planes over my town, without any input. I am not a NIMBY, I definately dont support the way these towns are blocking a 3rd track. And BTW, I used to live right near the mainline tracks and it never bothered me. These planes are LOUD and CONSTANT. It's easy to say how I'm a whiner, why not come here and deal with it? The FAA could someday dump planes on your town. And you wont be able to do a damn thing about it.

"I am not NIMBY".

[azzurrony]

Samyn,

Thank you for your information. The more knowledge we have the better. I sympathize with the difficult job that ATC has. However, I think we have to continue open dialogue to come to some solutions. I have a couple of questions. You say that only people directly on a straight path to the runway would be affected.

This is true of the ILS approaches from what I can gather. They essentially come in at 225 degrees on a straight path to 22L (which I believe is 222 degrees). I'm not sure why there is a 3 degree difference. That said, the communities of New Hyde Park, Floral Park and Elmont should expect a lot of jets over their head. No one denies that.

The problem comes in with the VOR/DME approach. This simply is NOT a straight path to the runway. This approach comes in at 232 degrees...that's 8-10 degrees off center. That might not seem a lot but its enough to pound Westbury and Garden City A LOT.

Now, I'm not advocating that each plane comes in on a different approach every 2 minutes in order to mitigate noise. I'm advocating that different approaches be used on DIFFERENT days. What I'm wondering is why essentially there are only 2 real approaches to 22L that are used. (I know there are many but they all boil down to two predominant paths.)

The VOR/DME procedure should have been expanded to include at least 2 other approach angles (say 222 degrees and 227 degrees). Only ONE approach would be used at any given time...thereby not affecting plane safety. This would not alleviate the burden on a particular neighborhood during any given approach. HOWEVER, what it would do is distribute the burden to other areas over the course of a few weeks and/or months. So, for example GC would get hit maybe 1 time a week instead of 4.

No one has yet been able to articulate why this can't be done.

[Rachael84]

John, do you really think officials and higher-ups would go calling homes in Westbury asking if it's okay if the flight pattern goes over the area? I don't think they care, no offense.

[crescent22]

This is the wind pattern out of JFK recently: Windfinder - Wind & weather statistic John F Kennedy Intl

Notice in the summer months the strongest winds are north-south. That means you can't use the east/west runway (13/31) as much. It's better for them to use the north/south runways (4/22). The approach pattern for aircraft from the east (Boston + Europe) puts them over the Hamptons and if they have to land on 4/22, then a windy path over communities like Westbury.

Now, I don't know why they don't take them over the Atlantic to land going north on runway 4 as opposed to runway 22 via central Long Island- I have also read this is governed by what runway La Guardia is using.

Sorry, but it's not about the noise to certain communities - it's wind necessity.

Also remember they are closing 13R/31L at JFK in spring 2010, that may mean even mroe landings on 22L next year.

[samyn on the green]

That is rather perceptive of you to notice that the ILS is off set by 1 degree from the runway heading. Runway 22L has a heading of 224 degrees. The ILS is 225 degrees while the VOR approach course is 232 degrees. They alternate approaches on different days.

The procedures are offset because the signal the planes are flying towards is slightly different than the runway heading. The ILS localizer sits right in front of the runway but it transmits offset by 1 degree. The VOR is a piece of equipment that is few hundred feet from the runway, so the procedure is offset from the runway heading by 8 degrees. On the VOR approach that plane is tracking towards a piece of equipment that sits beside the runway. With the two different approaches one day people that live under the ILS like Azzurrony get pounded while on days when the VOR is in use John in Westbury is being fed material for his posts and youtube vids.

The reason they do not have unlimited approaches is for simplicity and confusion avoidance. The only types of approaches available are ILS, VOR, GPS or a visual approach. Many planes do not have the equipment on board to do a GPS approach and it is not as reliable as the older ILS or VOR type approaches. Notice that tonight the published approach is the VOR while last night was the ILS. Every plane has that published approach on board and knows what they are going to fly as it is published and broadcast for all airmen to know. If they have 6 different VOR approaches now we open up the possibility of pilots flying the wrong approach and ATC controllers not only managing plane separation but also managing an alternating approach program. Crews would not know their approach to the last minute and would be unprepared.

It is impossible to have more than one VOR approach for a runway as there is only one VOR and basically the planes are flying towards that piece of equipment that is transmitting a signal. Same deal with an ILS, there can only be one ILS for a particular runway. It would be unheard of to have more than one VOR sitting on the field and multiple approaches at the same time would add additional complexity to an already complex situation where one mistake could lead to the death of hundreds.


Tonight the wind is strong at 14 knots out of the south so runway 22 is the optimum runway to use. Runway 4 would have a tailwind that would make it illegal/dangerous for most operations and a moderate crosswind for runway 31R. Last night the ILS was in use for 22L, tonight it is the VOR. So it seems like they do alternate approaches so a slightly different area gets affected every other night.

JFK ATIS INFO I 0251Z. 21014KT 10SM OVC075 17/11 A2982 (TWO NINER EIGHT TWO). APPROACH IN USE VOR/DME RY 22L. DEPG RY 22R. NOTAMS... RWY 13R, 31L CLSD, RWY 13L, 31R CLSD. BIRD ACTIVITY VICINITY ARPT. AS DEE EX IN SERVICE. ALL AIRCRAFT OPERATE TRANN SPONDERS WITH MODE CEE ON ALL TAXIWAYS AND RUNWAYS. READ BACK ALL ASSIGNED ALTITUDES. READBACK ALL RWY HOLD SHORT INSTRUCTIONS. IN THE INTEREST OF NOISE ABATE MENT PLEASE USE ASSIGNED RY. ...ADVS YOU HAVE INFO I.

Originally Posted by azzurrony

This is true of the ILS approaches from what I can gather. They essentially come in at 225 degrees on a straight path to 22L (which I believe is 222 degrees). I'm not sure why there is a 3 degree difference. That said, the communities of New Hyde Park, Floral Park and Elmont should expect a lot of jets over their head. No one denies that.

The problem comes in with the VOR/DME approach. This simply is NOT a straight path to the runway. This approach comes in at 232 degrees...that's 8-10 degrees off center. That might not seem a lot but its enough to pound Westbury and Garden City A LOT.

Now, I'm not advocating that each plane comes in on a different approach every 2 minutes in order to mitigate noise. I'm advocating that different approaches be used on DIFFERENT days. What I'm wondering is why essentially there are only 2 real approaches to 22L that are used. (I know there are many but they all boil down to two predominant paths.)

The VOR/DME procedure should have been expanded to include at least 2 other approach angles (say 222 degrees and 227 degrees). Only ONE approach would be used at any given time...thereby not affecting plane safety. This would not alleviate the burden on a particular neighborhood during any given approach. HOWEVER, what it would do is distribute the burden to other areas over the course of a few weeks and/or months. So, for example GC would get hit maybe 1 time a week instead of 4.

No one has yet been able to articulate why this can't be done.

[LIMA]

Originally Posted by Johninwestbury

I keep calling my elected officials and writing the FAA. No one ever gets back to me!

Oh c'mon stop the bs JIW.
1. the planes are 30 times quieter then they were years ago... I would love to be present in your house windows closed and hear the supposed bs noise...
Roosevelt field was a race track JIW...that is why they have the vanderbilt cup runs there every year....do you know where you live?

Then you can come to my parents house where the planes REALLY are only 150' to 200' feet over the house, and closer then your zoom camera belly shot with no zoom..and then i want to hear your bs....
I lived with it when we had the concorde 2 times a day and the SST 2 times a day and real noisey 747s, 707's.. every 3.5 to 4 minutes all day for 22 years, my Dad for his entire life, my grandparens, both sides and my mother her entire life....how can they even bother you at over 1000' .... it's impossible!
Also yes you are a nimby john and stop bs'ing yourself and everyone else....
Next step im gonna send you a dress... Stop with these bs whining like a a little girl posts of planes over 1000' above you having any negative effect on your life.....
Go to court and tell them to lower your property taxes because the planes ruined your QOL...

[LIOC]

Originally Posted by LIMA

Oh c'mon stop the bs JIW.
1. the planes are 30 times quieter then they were years ago... I would love to be present in your house windows closed and hear the supposed bs noise...
Roosevelt field was a race track JIW...that is why they have the vanderbilt cup runs there every year....do you know where you live?

Then you can come to my parents house where the planes REALLY are only 150' to 200' feet over the house, and closer then your zoom camera belly shot with no zoom..and then i want to hear your bs....
I lived with it when we had the concorde 2 times a day and the SST 2 times a day and real noisey 747s, 707's.. every 3.5 to 4 minutes all day for 22 years, my Dad for his entire life, my grandparens, both sides and my mother her entire life....how can they even bother you at over 1000' .... it's impossible!
Also yes you are a nimby john and stop bs'ing yourself and everyone else....
Next step im gonna send you a dress... Stop with these bs whining like a a little girl posts of planes over 1000' above you having any negative effect on your life.....
Go to court and tell them to lower your property taxes because the planes ruined your QOL...

LOL, he pays no property tax, he's a renter (and not even paying that out his own pocket). There really is no reason he can't move.

[azzurrony]

LIMA

If the planes are only 150 feet over your parents house, then that means they live right on top of JFK. Noise is to be expected and it is built into the price of your house. For Johninwestbury and others (including myself), we did not bargain for an increase in air traffic over our homes given that we are much farther from the airport.

[azzurrony]

Samyn,

Thanks for the information. I'm troubled with the logic though that pilots cannot handle more than a couple approaches into a runway. Pilots fly to multiple airports around the world and here in the US. If they can't handle an extra approach or 2 into runway 22L, then we have more serious problems with our aviation system than I thought.

I'm also confused about the VOR. You made it sound like only one approach can be used. I thought VOR's were omnidirectional. In other words, a radial could be drawn from the VOR to any other point. So is it just a matter of having another transmitter out in Long Island so they can intercept a different radial?

If so, this would help a great deal so that the 232 degree radial isn't being overused all the time and the same neighborhoods aren't impacted.

Finally, I've read that VOR navigation may be phased out in the next decade. If so, what would replace it and how would that impact the approaches. For example, if some sort of GPS navigation replaces it, would that add a lot more variety in approaches?

[samyn on the green]

zzurrony,
With the stiff winds out of the northwest RWY 31R is being used for arrivals & deptures. This shows that winds do in fact drive runway configuration. With 13R/31L closed 31R is being used for departures which is unprecedented. If you really want loud you should go down to South Jamaica tonight and listen to the departures all night off 31R, it will be an ear buster near conduit.

Hypothetically more than one VOR approach could be published for each runway using a different radial off the VOR. The idea of only having one VOR for the runway is that when the VOR approach is in use it is very clear what procedure the runway is using. By introducing another VOR procedure now that opens up the possibility of people flying the wrong procedure - is it VOR A or VOR B; not that any runway in the world has two VOR approaches for a given runway.

Are you able to notice a difference between the nights they use the ILS or the VOR approaches? It seems like the 7 degree approach course really would not make much of a difference.

- JFK ATIS INFO R 0451Z. 31017G30KT 10SM BKN055 14/02 A2987 (TWO NINER EIGHT SEVEN). APPROACH IN USE ILS RY 31R. DEPG RY 31R. NOTAMS... RY 31L GS OTS. RWY 13R, 31L CLSD. TWY N TURNOFF CLSD. LOW LEVEL WIND SHEAR ADZYS IN EFFECT. BIRD ACTIVITY VICINITY ARPT. AS DEE EX IN SERVICE. ALL AIRCRAFT OPERATE TRANN SPONDERS WITH MODE CEE ON ALL TAXIWAYS AND RUNWAYS. READ BACK ALL ASSIGNED ALTITUDES. READBACK ALL RWY HOLD SHORT INSTRUCTIONS. IN THE INTEREST OF NOISE ABATE MENT PLEASE USE ASSIGNED RY. ...ADVS YOU HAVE INFO R.

Originally Posted by azzurrony

Samyn,

Thanks for the information. I'm troubled with the logic though that pilots cannot handle more than a couple approaches into a runway. Pilots fly to multiple airports around the world and here in the US. If they can't handle an extra approach or 2 into runway 22L, then we have more serious problems with our aviation system than I thought.

I'm also confused about the VOR. You made it sound like only one approach can be used. I thought VOR's were omnidirectional. In other words, a radial could be drawn from the VOR to any other point. So is it just a matter of having another transmitter out in Long Island so they can intercept a different radial?

If so, this would help a great deal so that the 232 degree radial isn't being overused all the time and the same neighborhoods aren't impacted.

Finally, I've read that VOR navigation may be phased out in the next decade. If so, what would replace it and how would that impact the approaches. For example, if some sort of GPS navigation replaces it, would that add a lot more variety in approaches?