Document created: 18 August 03
Air University Review, March-April 1975

Crisis Around the Airpower

Twenty-two children and adults die when a privately owned, Korean War-vintage F-86 Sabrejet fails in an attempt to take off from a Sacramento, California, airport and crashes into an ice cream parlor directly off the end of the runway. The store had been built as part of a shopping center despite opposition from the state.¹

A fully loaded Air Force KC-135 tanker takes off from McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas. Moments later it crashes into a residential area in Wichita; 23 civilians and the seven crew members perish.²

Forty-nine homeowners living near Los Angeles International Airport are awarded $365,700 by a jury to compensate them for devaluation of their property caused by airplane noise.³

An F-4 Phantom jet fighter taking off from Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona, plunges to the ground one mile from the Ease. Four civilians die in the accident, which a local newspaper calls a "fiery crash of an Air Force jet into a supermarket and residential area." ⁴

A United Airlines Boeing 737 on final approach crashes into a heavily populated neighborhood less than two miles from Chicago’s Midway Airport. Forty-three aboard and two on the ground are killed. It is speculated that more passengers might have survived if part of the plane was not inside a house.⁵

TAKEN individually or collectively, these incidents are tragedies. But beyond the loss of life and material value, these and many similar events in recent years have real significance as manifestations, indicators, symbols of the crisis around the airport—a crisis that is facing the Air Force and the other military services, as well as civil and commercial aviation to an even greater extent in some ways.

Since December 1903, when the Wright brothers made powered, controlled flight a reality, aviation has progressed from being a curiosity to its present state as an important part of the daily life of virtually everyone in the United States. Food, newspapers, flowers, components of everything—from a transistor radio to the rockets used to hurl our astronauts into space—are carried routinely across the nation and around the world by air. In 1973, almost 185,000,000 passengers were carried by airlines within the United States.⁶ Business and government executives no longer depend on time-consuming exchanges of correspondence to solve problems involving widely scattered firms and departments. They solve them immediately in face-to-face meetings and conferences, often in six or seven different cities in a three- or four-day period. They are able to do this because of the reliability and accessibility provided by aviation.

Major cities, even states, depend on the airlines for their economic livelihood. Hawaii had over 2,245,000 tourists in 1972. Tourism tops pineapples and sugar as the major industry of Hawaii. Tourists spent over $755 million there in 1972. The only bigger industry, and that by a very slight margin, is defense spending.⁷

Las Vegas, a city with a population of only 310,000 people, draws annually over 17,400,000 tourists, who spend and gamble over $1 billion.⁸ New York, Reno, Niagara Falls, Miami Beach, Chicago, Los Angeles, New Orleans, San Francisco, San Diego—name a major city in the United States, and the tourism, conventions, and businesses that are major economic factors in sustaining its prosperity are nurtured by a steady flow of nonresidents in and out. The heart that pumps this economic lifeblood of people and money is aviation.

Yet the very technological growth that has enabled aviation to produce faster, bigger, and more efficient aircraft capable of moving up to 400 passengers from New York to Miami Beach in less than three hours has also spawned the crisis around the airport.

As the aircraft industry has grown more complex and expanded its size and services to meet the demands of our business and leisure economy, the size of airports and the ancillary industries associated with them have turned the areas around major air terminals into industrial complexes. Simultaneously, businesses that rely on air transportation have gravitated to the vicinity of the airport to reduce costs in transportation of goods, as well as the time required to get goods to distributors and consumers.

With the airport now an industrial center employing directly or indirectly in some instances tens of thousands of people, it is only natural that those people employed in the industries at or near the airport should purchase or rent homes as close to their place of work as possible. This creates a need for shopping centers, schools, recreation facilities, churches, and all the other necessities of a residential community, which in turn increase the population dwelling near the airport as the people who provide these services move into the area to be near their place of business. The services and facilities, new housing developments, and modern highways and other means of transportation linking the airport to the metropolitan center increase the property values of land near the modern airport complex. This increases its desirability as a residential area for people who have no connection with the airport. Thus the airport, once a remote facility beyond the edge of town, becomes an integral part of the city itself.

When all these factors are combined—the technological growth of aviation that has produced bigger and bigger aircraft that fly more and more frequently with larger and noisier engines that emit untold pollutants into the air, and the encroachment of cities up to and in some cases past the airport--the crisis around the airport occurs. Accidents, noise complaints, environmental questions, suits and court tests then become common. That point has been reached around the airports of the United States today.

John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City is a classic example of this. Created some fifteen years ago from the muck and marshes of Jamaica Bay in a sparsely populated area that lacked easy accessibility by road or any other means, today Kennedy Airport is surrounded by housing on virtually every piece of land within twenty miles in any direction. Dulles International Airport, which serves Washington, D.C., is starting to see the same thing happen. To a greater or lesser degree, encroachment is taking place at almost every commercial, general, or military aviation facility in the United States.

As encroachment grows around an airport, dissatisfaction with the airport arises. Complaints about noise, pollution, and crash potential are received by the airport, community, state, and federal officials. In most cases the airport was there first, but that justification makes little impression on most people who view the airport's activities as an invasion of their privacy. They don't want flying to stop; they just want it to stop in their neighborhood.

IS this a real problem or is it only something that seems to be a problem? For many Americans the idea of an airport crisis is unreal.

It is hard for the traveler sitting in the cocktail lounge of a Boeing 747, sipping a martini, or an Air Force pilot willing to give his life in defense of our nation, to realize that they are involved in and contributing to the crisis around the airport. Similarly, it is difficult for a recent retiree and his wife who are moving into a home directly under the flight pattern of the USAF's largest fighter base to comprehend that they are part of a national problem that extends well beyond the aviation industry. But they and literally millions of other Americans are intimately and inexorably part of the problem.

Nevertheless, according to Gary D. Vest, of the Environment Planning Division, Directorate of Civil Engineering, Headquarters USAF, "Airports and their impacts are real. They are here to stay. However, there exist serious conflicts between many airports and the land areas in their environs."⁹

That conflict extends in many directions. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers the problem of noise from airport operations to be quite serious and growing more so every day. It estimates that there are 16 million people in America living or working in and near airports who are affected by aircraft noise. In ten years the EPA predicts the figure will grow to 24 million people.¹⁰

Harry Nelson, a medical writer for the Los Angeles Times, states: "There is good reason to believe that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Americans are slowly becoming partially deaf—painlessly and usually without an awareness of what is happening to them."¹¹This loss he attributes to the rising noise level of the American environment, a noise level which he says for people in and near airports is largely attributable to the noise from jet aircraft.

Citing studies in Europe and at the University of Southern California and California medical schools, Nelson points to physical and mental effects from exposure to high noise levels, such as the 100 decibels generated by a jet transport at 1000 feet. These studies showed that elevated diastolic blood pressure occurs in men exposed to noise near 100 decibels, and if the exposure is sustained the blood pressure does not return to normal, even with the aid of drugs, when the individual is removed from the noise environment.¹² Couple this with the emissions from jet engines adding pollutants to the air and the physical effects of aviation on the well-being of millions of Americans become evident.

But there is more to the crisis around the airport than the physical and psychological effects on people. There is a decided economic effect too. Land around airports is valuable. The people who own it expect big returns on their money. In most instances they wish to subdivide the land for residential use.

A recent lawsuit filed by a landowner against the county board of supervisors in Maricopa County (Arizona) Superior Court highlights the problem of regulating land use around airports. In this case the supervisors, following the recommendation of the county planning and zoning commission, refused the property owner's request to subdivide his land into residential lots because it was less than two miles from the runways of Luke AFB, the USAF's main F-4 Phantom jet fighter training facility. The supervisors felt that the development would expose residents to danger from possible crashes and the noise of the aircraft, whose flight pattern would pass near or over the homes in the proposed development. According to newspaper reports, the lawyer for the landowner saw the action as denying his client a chance for a fair return on his investment: "If we meet all legal requirements, we have a right to legally subdivide in accordance with regulations." 

Even more interesting is what was planned if the zoning had been approved: "We intended, after receiving county approval, to approach the Air Force to determine what dangers existed what the noise levels were. Then we would either seek compensatory damages from the Air Force, or ask them to buy the land."¹³

With no county or state statutes adequately covering the matter of land-use planning around airports, this suit may succeed, not because the board of supervisors is doing something wrong but because it lacks legal authority to protect the people as well as the airport.

How much money was involved? As farmland, the property was worth $18,000; subdivided, the price tag was $3.6 million.

At one point Los Angeles International Airport was the defendant in noise damage suits totaling $5 billion.¹⁴ Prior to the trial, which cost the airport $365,700, the city bought 34 other homes for $1.8 million.¹⁵

One cannot shrug off figures like these, as well as multiples many times greater that could come to pass in the future, by simply saying "The property owners deserve it; the government should pay or build the airports someplace else." It takes only a moment's reflection to realize that we are running out of the wide-open spaces around our cities, that it costs too many billions of dollars to construct first-rate airports when we already have them, and we cannot afford to keep threatening the health of people and then paying them damages. Aviation is not going to fold its tent and leave the transportation scene as did the sedan chair and the horse and buggy. Along with the automobile, aviation is the basis for our mobile American society.

WHAT, then, are the alternatives? Although the crisis at the airport is a complex issue involving many more things than have been enumerated here, and any solution would be almost equally complex, there are some basic courses of action to consider.

First, there is the laissez-faire, or no action, approach. While many may contend this has worked until the present, the reverse is true, as exemplified at Los Angeles International Airport and Luke Air Force Base. Ultimately the money paid out of the public coffers would have to come from the people, thus adding to the tax burden or depriving our society of some benefit.

As communities have grown, the economic importance of the military to them has diminished. Pressures to end flying and close the field follow. Bolling, Lowry, Oxnard, Chanute, Mitchel, and Hanscom Air Force Bases and Floyd Bennett Naval Air Station are among the military airports that have either stopped flying or closed entirely. While there is little argument that many military installations were justifiably closed for sound national defense, economic, or other reasons, there is little logic in allowing a base such as Luke to suffer a similar fate because of urban encroachment. Replacement of Luke, which has perfect year-round flying weather, dual runways, modern support facilities, and accessibility to an ideal gunnery range, would run close to $1 billion.¹⁶ Anyone looking at recent defense appropriations can see that requests for major construction of new installations would stand little chance of acceptance by Congress.

Yet letting things go on as they are is simply unacceptable, both economically and in terms of the health of the American people.

A second approach to the problem would be to use our technology to develop quieter and less-polluting aircraft, to introduce vertical and short takeoff and landing (V/STOL) aircraft that incorporate the quieter and cleaner engines, and to alter flight patterns so as to minimize the harmful effects of noise.

The quieter and cleaner engines are coming. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) already is requiring quieter engines on new commercial aircraft, and it has let contracts for design modifications to retrofit older aircraft. To reequip one Boeing 707, however, has been talked of as costing up to $750, 000. ¹⁷ Where that money would come from is a serious question for an industry already beset by financial woes caused by new equipment purchases and the rising costs of operation, some of which resulted from increased fuel costs.

V/STOL aircraft could prove to be a partial solution to the noise and crash hazards of the crisis around the airport. What type of V/STOL aircraft is right presents a problem. According to Charles W. Harper and Albert J. Evans of NASA'S Office of Advanced Research and Technology, "If it is to be, initially, a suburban-area-to-central-airport system, one kind of aircraft is called for. If it is to be, suburban-or-outlying-airport-todowntown, another type would be chosen. If many downtown stops are envisioned, still another type might be chosen."¹⁸

To be effective, the V/STOL aircraft must provide a means of giving more services to more people and of reducing noise, pollution, and crash hazards. Harper and Evans put this very succinctly: "It will take a well coordinated and decisive effort by city planners, aircraft designers, airway systems designers and operators. . . to succeed."¹⁹

Flight pattern alteration is another way to reduce the effects of noise. While this can be extremely effective, it can also present problems, particularly for military aviation, which trains large numbers of pilots in high-performance aircraft. Safety is the prime consideration. While take-off power may be curtailed, a steeper glide path used, or a segmented approach tried, these are all compromises in terms of the ideal operating mode of the aircraft, and a compromise could produce fatal results in case of an emergency.²⁰

Nevertheless, all possibilities should be considered. The FAA is currently working on a two-segment approach that would keep aircraft higher longer as they prepare to land. The FAA has also been studying lower wing flap and reduced engine thrust combinations. Similar tests have been and are continuing to be conducted by the airlines.²¹

A third alternative is to adopt planning and zoning legislation that will prevent encroachment upon airports. This, however, is a very sensitive subject. Great pressures can be brought to bear on city, county, state, and federal government by business, industry, and landowners when somebody starts telling them what they can or cannot do with their land and expansion plans.

Despite this, there is still hope. The Air Force has devised a tool that can be used by communities in planning land use around airports, whether military or civilian. The tool is called the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ). AICUZ blends information such as flight patterns and accident patterns of aircraft operating from an airport and noise generated by the aircraft with possible land uses around the airport. It also provides degrees of noise attenuation achievable in relation to the aircraft noise through different structural design and the choice of construction materials. With the data furnished by AICUZ, and given that legislation is on the books allowing zoning around an airport, a planning and zoning commission or county board of supervisors can make appropriate decisions that will allow the airport to operate and provide the landowner a fair return on his land when the health, welfare, and safety of the entire populace are considered.

None of these three approaches is truly going to solve the crisis around the airport. Realistically, a total solution to the situation that would keep everyone happy is probably impossible. Yet some things can be done to reduce the problem considerably. Perhaps a program is needed that incorporates some aspects of the second and third approaches.

As Vest says, "the solution of the airport. . . problem must begin with the recognition that there is, in fact, a problem and that if it is not resolved the results will be unacceptable." ²² Gaining recognition of the problem around military airfields is more difficult because in many instances they do not represent a major factor in the community. The problem will become even greater as the economic impact of these airfields on the local communities continues to decline and because the military members are really transients in the communities and unable to wield the political power of permanent residents.

If the hearing and psychic damage faced by 16 million Americans today, the billions of dollars in lawsuits already settled or pending, and the costs of building new airports, whether military or civilian, do not represent a recognizable problem, then there is a communication and comprehension gap.

The first thing that must be done is to educate people in all echelons of government, industry, and the American public about the problem. The Departments of Defense, Interior, Transportation, Health, Education and Welfare, the FAA, the ICC, and any other agency involved in aviation at the national level should combine and intensify efforts to obtain national legislation that will require states to provide laws of their own enabling proper land-use planning around airports or requiring that in the absence of such laws they follow a minimum federal statute. Similar action should be undertaken at state, county, and city level.²³ In addition, at the local level building codes should be sought that require appropriate and adequate noise attenuation, whether the source of noise is an airport or a toy factory. Here the catalyst should be the aviation and business communities, the people who own, operate, and use aviation on a daily basis.

Where inappropriate zoning has been made, government should subsidize noise attenuation, redevelopment, or even outright purchase of the structures, as was done in Los Angeles.²⁴ Although initially this might be costly, in the long run it could be considerably cheaper than the cost of lives and subsequent lawsuits that follow accidents. This program could save many airports that are now restricted in their operations or may face closing, thus saving the construction costs of new airports while providing convenient facilities for air travel within the city.

At the same time, every technological option, including V/STOL aircraft, should be explored. Similarly, flight patterns and procedures need to be carefully examined to see what, within the limits of safe operation, can be done to reduce noise.

Research efforts to produce quieter and cleaner-burning engines should be further underwritten, either directly or through tax advantages. At the same time, as quieter and more efficient engines are developed, the government should back low interest loans or other means of subsidizing the costs of retrofitting existing aircraft.

The solution, or even a marked easing, of the crisis around the airport requires a multifaceted, multilevel approach involving the total commitment of many government agencies and the entire aviation community working together. It is not a problem that will go away or be brought under control without hard work and much conciliation. How hard the leaders of government agencies and the aviation industry work will determine how quickly the crisis around the airport is diminished.

Notes

1. Gary D. Vest, AICUZ Information Bulletin Two, Headquarters United States Air Force AF/PREE, March 1973, p. 1-2.

2. Wichita Beacon, January 16, 1968, p. 1.

3. Myrna Oliver, "49 Families to Get $365,700 in Jet Noise Suit," Los Angeles Times, January 11, 1973.

4. Tucson Daily Citizen, December 19, 1967, p. 1.

5."National Transportation Safety Board Details Findings in Midway Crash," Aviation Week and Space Technology, December 17, 1973, p. 53; and January 7, 1974, p. 63; also Vest, op. cit.

6. Aviation Week and Space Technology, March 25, 1974, p. 38.

7. The 1974 World Almanac and Book of Facts (New York: Newspaper Enterprise Association, Inc.), pp. 649 and 712.

8. Ibid., p. 653.

9. Vest, p. ii.

10. Lucia Mouat, "Jet Noise Problem Continues," Hampton Roads Daily Press, February 1, 1974.

11. Harry Nelson, "Millions Going Deaf--But Don't Know It," Los Angeles Time, November 12, 1972.

12. Ibid.

13. Neil Mazurek, "Zone Limits Near Airfields Challenged," Arizona Republic; June 14, 1974.

14. Marvin Miles, "Miracle Cure Needed—But None" in Sight," Los Angeles Times, November 12, 1972.

15. Oliver, op. tit.

16. Department of the Air Force Environmental Statement on F-15 Beddown at Luke AFB, Arizona, July 1974.

17. Mouat, op. tit.

18. Charles W. Harper and Albert J. Evans, "The Drawing Board Dilemma," in Masterplanning the Aviation Environment, edited by Angelo J. Cerchione, Victor E. Rothe, and James Vercellino (University of Arizona Press, 1970), p. 31.

19. Ibid.

20.Vest, p.1-6.

21. Mouat, op. cit.

22. Vest, p. 1-1.

23. William R. Sims and Angelo J. Cerchione, "In Search of an Aviation Environment Master Plan," Air University Review, September-October 1969, pp. 64-72.

24. Oliver, op. cit.