Citizen July, 1997
The Reno Citizen takes no responsibility for views expressed by its writers. (But we would if we could.)
Comments happily accepted. Click on the Mailbox,
Read This Month's "Citizen Gadfly Asks" by clicking here.
WHY IS RENO AIR ATTEMPTING TO THWART NOISE MITIGATION (REDUCTION) SUGGESTIONS?
A brief response by The Reno Citizen (see bold print and ***) to Reno Air's critique of two of Mr Sam Dehne's numerous perfectly safe Noise Mitigation (reduction) suggestions for the Reno Airport. Reno's "Hometown" Airline prefers to shoot the messenger, quibble, and rely on the notoriously lethargic FAA bureaucracy... rather than address the fact that any person of intelligence and intuition would easily recognize the validity, safety, and citizen-friendliness of the suggestions.
THE LETTER & OUR RESPONSE:
To: Mr Jack Byrom June, 17, 1997
Chairman A.N.A.P. (Noise Panel)
From: Ron Mallard of Reno Air
I would like to take the opportunity to review Mr. Dehne's recent comments at the public Noise forum May 21, 1997. Mr. Dehne's initial proposal was to initiate a thrust cut back departing Reno, similar to what is used in Orange County on our southbound departures off of runway 16R. First of all I am quite surprised with Mr Dehne's aviation background, that he would even propose such a departure at a high altitude airport that is surrounded by mountainous terrain.
***The perfectly safe "thrust reduction" suggestion was only to apply:
a. to light gross weight airliners (those on short flights with small fuel loads)... wherein the airplane does not need continuous full thrust. (Applicable to approximately 90% of Reno departures.)
b. on "nice" clear weather days... when the pilots can see outside and are not totally restricted to instruments... AND can see and avoid the "mountainous terrain". (Applicable to approximately 90% of Reno departures.)
This technique, in combination with that briefly described below, is perfectly safe, and any airline pilot of average competence should easily be able to handle it.
Not only is this procedure unsafe at Reno, it does not meet the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 25 Aircraft Certificate nor will it meet FAR part 121 Regulations for a commercial aircraft at normal operating weights.
***These are the 90s, and it is time for the top-heavy bureaucratic FAA to catch up with the times. Quoting Regulations that are outmoded and inflexible cannot be a substitute for good judgment... and consideration of citizens' rights. The airlines and FAA tried these same Regulation-quoting tactics at Orange County, and it didn't work there. Today's citizens are sophisticated enough to know when they are being hornswaggled.
Second, even if you could do this procedure out of Reno, the proposed thrust cutback at Orange County was for close in noise relief, moving the noise foot print out to the ocean. In the case of Reno we would move the noise footprint away from the commercial property, and into the residential community of South Hills. This was all brought out during the Noise forum.
***There are far more citizens in the "close-in footprint" than in South Hills. Besides, the thrust reduction, in conjunction with a turn to the east would go a long way toward solving BOTH OF THESE, CURRENTLY IGNORED, NOISE PROBLEMS.
Once this review was finished, Mr. Dehne again proposed that the commercial aircarriers should perform a quote "F4" military departure off of runway 16R with a thrust cut back. This procedure consists of making a hard left turn after passing Rattlesnake Mountain, and head directly for Virginia Mountain range. Again, we are surprised that Mr. Dehne would even propose that a commercial aircraft perform a military procedure.
***Mr Dehne NEVER proposed a "hard" left turn, NOR a "military procedure". The suggested procedure... at light aircraft operating weight (when there would be an excellent thrust to weight ratio) AND in clear weather (where the pilots can see everything going on around them)... would be to reduce thrust AFTER safely airborne and make a GENTLE climbing turn to the southeast where it is sparsely populated. Why Reno Air would object to this PERFECTLY SAFE AND SIMPLE noise mitigating procedure defies logic. It even saves wear and tear on their very own aircraft engines... making it that much less likely that engine damage would occur. Should a problem develop, the pilots could simply re-apply power within seconds, and/or return and land at Reno.
We have reviewed this procedure with our performance engineers, and our aircraft manufacturer, again we found that this procedure was unsafe for a commercial aircraft, and did not meet Federal Aviation Regulations at normal operating weights.
***This is one of the critical points that Reno Air is overlooking. The procedures would be used at LIGHT operating weights (some 90% of short-haul flights out of Reno) and in clear weather when the pilots can see outside!
Reno Air has always been active with A.N.A.P., and working with the Reno Tahoe Airport Authority on noise abatement procedures for our community. We are currently finishing two noise abatement procedures, the Sparks Visual, and the Steamboat Departure. Reno Air plans to implement these new procedures within the next forty five days for evaluation by the Reno Air Traffic Control Tower, and the Reno Tahoe Airport Authority.
Director Flight Control
***In closing, it is interesting to note... that it behooves Reno Air to make as much noise as possible; in accordance and conjunction with the Reno Airport Director's cancerous expansion plans. The on-going goal of the Airport has been to maximize Federal "Noise Money" collection, in collusion with the FAA, to beused to grab land away from innocent citizens. "Cheap" Airport expansion, subsidized with "free" FAA money allows Reno Air to expand its operations... at the expense of the USA taxpayer.
So it is not surprising that Reno Air would try to thwart excellent noise mitigation suggestions.
By:The Reno Citizen internet magazine
[Read more on this subject... Click here.]
JUST ANOTHER MILITARY SEX SCANDAL...
By Rebecca Devonshire
This time it is the Air National Guard that is being charged in scathing accusations by a female officer... who alleges her career was destroyed because she refused sexual advances and would not attend sex orgies in the mid-eighties.
Air Guard major M. Lynom, an officer in the Washington DC Air Guard, claims her accusations and evidence were buried by the highest ranking members of the Air Guard... naming several generals... including former commander of the Air Guard, Lt Gen John Conaway, and the Inspector General.
CNN and Time combined for a special TV exposé on this issue, and, once more, it does not look good for the military. It was also reported that even an Air Force investigation found that, "Major Lynom's treatment by the Air Guard bore many [indications] of improper command conduct."
Are any of these chauvinists ever really punished... in a meaningful way?
The Reno Citizen has continuously asked what those Air Force and Air Guard fighter-bombers have been doing in Reno on weekends... when there is nothing of military significance in this town. We may have found the answer.
Most patriotic Americans continue to be appalled at this unfair treatment of female soldiers. Is it time to add an extra wall to the Pentagon... so they can more appropriately rename it the Sexagon?
Stay tuned for more on this one...
ABOUT THE 100% PARKING METER FEE INCREASE... WHERE WERE YOU?
Dear Reno City Council Member,
I pointed out to you at the city council meeting of 24 June that parking fees were going to escalate dramatically (over 100%) starting 1 July. I then told you that I had attended almost every meeting and never heard this critical issue discussed. I asked each of you, "Why?"
From the hubbub that ensued at table, it was obvious that even some of you did not know that the fees were exploding... from 25 cents to 50 cents per hour (7 days per week). One of you even commented that... the last you heard the parking meter issue had been sent to "engineering". Is this true?
Does "engineering" have the right to do things like this to Reno citizens... without formal public discussion and vote?
What are you going to do about it?
Citizens have a right to know about this... beyond a "blurb" in your bi-monthly propaganda page in the Reno Gazette... just days before it is to take effect.
Why do I have to always be the one who brings these problems to your attention?
Is there somebody on your highly-paid staff that you can't depend on?
Maybe you should take some time off from catering to the developers.
Maybe you should do yourselves, AND REGULAR RENO CITIZENS, a favor and appoint me to the Reno Airport Board of "trustees". (Only one nomination out of 21... tsk, tsk, tsk...)
Sam Dehne, a concerned Reno Citizen
The Reno Citizen [http://www.renocitizen.com]
PS Thank you councilwoman Pruett for being brave... and honest.
CONTEMPT OF RENO CITY COUNCIL
By Cyrus Overslinger
With reference to the "Paiva Wrongful Death" lawsuit that was unfortunately settled before the truth could be brought out in court... Reno citizens take great offense at your staff attempting to make fools of you.
Notwithstanding the fact that you voted to not allow the "Wrongful Death" lawsuit to go to trial, what we find equally repugnant is the audacity of city staff broadcasting a "news bulletin" (THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN PREPARED BEFORE YOUR VOTE!) within minutes after your vote. This document essentially attempts to try the case, and to find Mr Paiva guilty... on Reno city letterhead paper.
You should recall that as part of your city council vote, it was stipulated that presiding judge Reed's scathing remarks about law enforcement actions would be included as part of the record.
Amazingly, instead of including even one of judge Reed's comments, one of your staff attorneys and your public information officer made unsupported statements and comments in the "news bulletin" that attempted to paint Mr Paiva as some sort of militaristic pervert and intimated that the police were possibly justified in shooting 18 bullets into this citizen's own home and killing him.
Spurious statements and quibblings such as those included in the "news bulletin", especially by city employees on city letterhead, are contemptuous of the city council, the city manager, presiding judge Reed, AND the citizens of Reno who were stuck with a $250,000 settlement bill.
Stuck with a $250,000 bill... not because of any overt action by Mr Paiva (who was in his own home, never fired a single shot, had no background of this type of violence, was left-handed, even though a gun holster found on him 4 hours later was for a right handed man)... stuck with this $250,000 bill... because some policemen standing outside his home fired 18 bullets into his home.
Unlike the "news bulletin", we are not attempting to indict the police. The case was settled and therefore there was to be no presumption of guilt or innocence on the part of either party. But the city's "news bulletin" negated any semblance of morality in this settlement.
Judge Reed can not be expected to be happy when he finds out that any semblance of a fair and just settlement has been grossly and premeditatedly violated by members of the Reno city staff.
What must Mr Paiva's parents be thinking right now?
What are you and the city manager going to do about it?
There is very little room left in the worm can.
Citizens are delighted that crack Sparks Tribune columnist-reporter, Ralph Heller, is continuing his investigative analysis of the Reno-Casino Airport. His recent justifiably blistering comments showed that he has a keen sense of the terrible improprieties that are being perpetrated over there. He warns readers: Please don't believe the propaganda hooey being slung all about by some of the news media and/or reporters around Reno. Kudos, Mr. Heller!!!
Click to Return to Front Page