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.
To: Mr Jack Byrom June, 17, 1997
Chairman A.N.A.P. (Noise Panel)
Reno, Nevada
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.
Ronald Mallard
Director Flight Control
Reno Air
***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.
The Reno Citizen internet magazine
That's the Way You Do It! Safely and Sanely!
[Here is another of a plethora of logical and safe Noise Mitigation ideas that we have presented to the Reno-Casino Airport. They continue to refuse to listen to reason... and in fact, go out of their way to generate Noise... in order to embezzle more taxes from the FAA... to continue their diabolical land grab from innocent citizens.]
By Sam Dehne'
Fact: Reno's Airport is much too noisy.
Fact: The majority of landing approaches at Reno are of the "VISUAL APPROACH" variety. That is because Reno has generally excellent weather... 90% of the time there are VFR (Visual Flight Rules) conditions, and pilots can look outside and see where they are going.
So, in the name of sanity, why can't the majority of departures also be of the "VISUAL DEPARTURE" variety also? THEY CAN!
It does not take a rocket scientist to recognize that there are many ways to reduce the terrible noise pollution created by the airliners. And we have been recommending several:
1. Reduce power on takeoff after safely airborne. This is a proven-safe procedure that is mandatory at Orange County airport... one that has been used safely for many years.
2. Make VISUAL DEPARTURES on days when the weather is good... the vast majority of the time. 85% of departures are to the south, and our recommended visual departure would include a turn to the east just after passing Rattlesnake Mt.
(The Nevada Air Guard used this departure for many years without a single unsafe incident.)
When the pilots can see outside, use this procedure. When it is cloudy, use the standard straight out departure. The result would be that this procedure should be used 90% of the time, AND the terrible noise pollution would be drastically reduced... at least to citizens living beyond Rattlesnake Mt.
If an airliner has an engine failure (an extremely rare event), it merely has to retrace its flight path and land at Reno... not continue on... as one of the local airline's top pilots says he would do. Any pilots worth their salt could perform this simple feat. Remember, the plane is in VFR weather and can see where it is going.
This is just another citizen-friendly idea that we have proposed... that will be ignored for as long as possible by the airlines and the duplicitous Reno Airport... because of their arrogance and refusal to listen to logical reason... their refusal to give a hoot about the safety and welfare of Reno citizens.