RECONSIDERATION OF LAAHNC PETITION FAA

- 2015

- 5041

– Special Federal Aviation Regulation ( SFAR) f or Los Angeles County Helicopter Minimum Altitudes

Los Angeles Area Helicopter Noise Coalition (LAAHNC) 1 of 8 Los Angeles Area Helicopter Noise Coalition (LAAHNC)

Post Office Box 571448 Tarzana, CA 91357

- 1448

Please provide all replies and communications regard this matter to: David Garfinkle, (818) 307

- 5080, email: drgarfinkle@sbcglobal.net

June 17 , 2016

US Department of Transportation

– Document Operations 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE West Building Ground Floor

Room W12

- 140 Washington, DC 20590

RECONSIDERATION OF LAAHNC PETITION FAA

- 2015

- 5041

S PECIAL FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATION (SFAR) FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

HELICOPTER MINIMUM ALTITUDES

On May 20, 2016, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) notified the Los Angeles Area Helicopter Noise Coalition (LAAHNC) that it was dismissing our petition ( FAA

- 2015

- 5041) to minimum helicopter altitudes over noise sensitive areas of Los Angeles County. The purpose of this letter is to petition the FAA to reconsider its dismissal.

CFR §11.73 lists the following criteria the FAA considers when evaluating a pet ition: 1) The immediacy of the safety or security concerns you raise; 2) The priority of other issues the FAA must deal with; and 3) The resources we have available to address these issues.

The FAA dismissal letter states, “After reviewing your request bas ed on the current priorities for the FAA and the guidelines found in §11.73, we determined the issue you raised does not meet the criteria to pursue rulemaking at this time.” There is no discussion as to what the FAA’s “current priorities” are

or where the issue of helicopter noise stands on the priority list. There is also no mention of lack of resources. But, it seems the main reason for the dismissal is that the FAA does not consider the issue of reducing helicopter noise in the Los Angeles County to be a high priority.

Under 14 CFR § 11.101, for the FAA to accept this petition for reconsiderati on, we must show the following: (a) That we have a significant additional fact and why we did not pres ent it in our original petition; (b) That the FAA made an im portant factual error in its denial of our original petition; or (c) That the FAA did not correctly interpret a law, regulation, or precedent.

The FAA has very narrow grounds for accepting a request for reconsideration and they do not allow us to question its priorities. However, at the end of its four

- page letter the FAA also states that, “For the reasons above, we are dismissing your petition for rulemaking in accordance with 14 CFR §11.73.”

The “reasons above” include a number of statements that seem to relate to the merits of our petition. Accordingly, we submit the following comments in support of our request for reconsideration. These comments consist of delineation of the factual errors in the FAA dismissal of our petition.RECONSIDERATION OF LAAHNC PETITION FAA

- 2015

- 5041

– Special Federal Aviation Regulation ( SFAR) f or Los Angeles County Helicopter Minimum Altitudes

Los Angeles Area Helicopter Noise Coalition (LAAHNC) 2 of 8 The Los Angeles Area Helicopter Noise Coalition believes that the FAA has made a number of important factual errors in denial of our Petition FAA

- 2015

- 5401. Note our discussion of the factual errors, in italics after the various statements containing those factual errors.

Factual Errors

Fixed

- wing aircraft and helicopters operate under VFR or IFR conditions while in flight. Aircraft under VFR are flown primarily by reference to visual cues outside the cockpit (e.g., horizon, buildings, rivers, highways, etc .) for orientation and navigation, and to maintain separation from terrain and other aircraft. Aircraft under IFR rely on instruments that allow pilots to operate them in poor visibility and at higher altitudes. Most helicopters operate under VFR which mea ns that it is the pilot's responsibility

to “see and avoid” other traffic, terrain, or obstacles. Simply speaking, the pilot is responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft, while ATC is responsible for the overall safety and efficiency of the airspa ce. Although air traffic controllers may provide traffic advisory service to VFR flights (workload permitting), this does not replace a pilot's duty to “see and avoid.” Many of the helicopter operations in Los Angeles County occur in Class G A irspace. Addi tionally, 14 CFR § 91.119(d) authorizes helicopter pilots to operate below the altitude minimums over congested or other areas as long as the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface.”

LAAHNC Comment: Fixed wing aircraft c urrently operate VFR in this complex airspace and are required to fly at least 1,000 feet above ground level. Even the helicopter industry’s long standing (and somewhat out of date) noise abatement program (Fly Neighborly Guide published by the Helicopter Association International or HAI) recommends that helicopter pilots fly at least 1,000 feet above ground level when flying over noise sensitive areas. In addition, the more recent HAI publications state that the “acceptable” noise level differs between low and high ambient noise environments and that helicopters should fly higher than 1,000 feet over low ambient noise areas (which would include scores of residential areas in Los Angeles County). Moreover, the FAA’s own advisory (AC 91

- 36D)

recommends that a ll aircraft fly at least 2,000 feet above ground level, whenever possible, over noise sensitive areas, including residential. Currently, on occasion, helicopter pilots observe these guidelines when flying in Los Angeles County, so it can and is being done. On the other hand, Los Angeles residents have no choice but to accept a very high volume of low flying helicopters engaged in law enforcement. They are providing a needed public service. However, there are too many low flying civilian helicopters which re sidents should not have to tolerate. If the FAA cannot figure out how to get civilian helicopters to share the same airspace (up to 2000 feet above ground level) with slower moving planes, the helicopter noise problem in Los Angeles County will never be re solved and residents will continue to be plagued by extremely large numbers of “unacceptable” helicopter flights.

“ The FAA established a collaborative process which included your organization and local helicopter operators beginning in 2012 until the spring of 2015 which evaluated whether helicopters could safely fly at higher altitudes within Los Angeles County given its unique geographic, topographic and climate

limitations. ”

LAAHNC Comment: After the last meeting on June 10, 2015, LAAHNC was never invited back for any further general meetings with the helicopter industry. By then, it had become apparent that the industry had no intention of collaborating with the LAAHNC, a group that represents the citizens
whose schools, residences, and other noise sensitive venues are constantly subjected to excessive helicopter noise.RECONSIDERATION OF LAAHNC PETITION FAA

- 2015

- 5041

– Special Federal Aviation Regulation ( SFAR) f or Los Angeles County Helicopter Minimum Altitudes

Los Angeles Area Helicopter Noise Coalition (LAAHNC) 3 of 8 “ The volume and complexity of fixed wing aircraft transitioning in various stages of flight (approach, departure, en route) prohibits the establishment of a county wide minim um helic opter altitude of 2,000 feet above ground level. ”

“ The majority of helicopter operations in Los Angeles County operate under visual flight rules where the pilot in comm and chooses a safe altitude to “see and avoid” other aircraft and ground obstacles.

Heli copters inherently operate at slower speeds than faster moving fixed wing aircraft and safety requires helicopters to be segregated from the faster moving aircraft. Requiring helicopters to fly at higher altitudes would negatively impact the safety of the National Airspace System (NAS) by placing helicopters in conflict with other aircraft and would increase the chance of a mid

- air collision. ”

LAAHNC Comment: These general statements sound plausible on the surface, but under closer scrutiny they are questio nable. First, Helicopters are not “required” to be segregated from other aircraft. If it were really unsafe for helicopters to fly in the same airspace as planes, there would be a regulation prohibiting them from doing so. But, there is no such regulation. Helicopters can and do fly in the same airspace as planes at lower altitudes (especially under 2 ,500 feet). Second, helicopter speeds are comparable to many popular planes used in general aviation. The most common plane in use for general aviation in this area is most likely the Cessna 172, which has a cruise speed of

140 mph. Note that the Cessna 172 is not the slowest plane. For example, cruise speeds of other popular planes are: Beechcraft Muskateer 117 mph, Grumman American AA

- 5 125 mph, and Piper

Cher okee PA

- 28 124 mph . The most common helicopter in use in this area is most likely the Robinson R44, which has a cruise speed of 130 mph; the Robinson 44 is not the fastest helicopter. The cruise speeds of helicopters are not that different from the cruise speeds of slower planes. Yet, we do not hear anyone saying the Cessna 172, or any of the other slow fly ing planes, cannot fly at 2,000 feet above ground level. In addition, common sense would indicate that, in general, flying slower should be more likely t o reduce the chance of a mid

- air collision rather than flying faster. In keeping with that principle, the FAA has maximum speed limits in airspace near airports.

“ Helicopter operators have voluntarily adjusted the altitudes of aircraft flying over the Holl ywood Sign and Griffith Park area as much as feasibly possible without compromising the safety of operations. ”

LAAHNC Comment: The helicopter operators have made little or no attempt to fly higher in the Hollywood sign and Griffith park area; note, for ins tance, the 85 incidents on one day of helicopter flights between 200 and 900 feet above ground level over the Griffith Park area i n 14 hours on February 13, 2016 (s ee the Attachment 1).

Significant Progress and Improvements

“ Although the FAA cannot at this time conduct rulemaking for the specific petition requested, it has taken important steps that further voluntary action on the part of operators, residents, and other stakeholders. The FAA and the stakeholder working groups have made significant progress on each of the six actions specified in the 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Public Law No. 113

- 76 (January 3, 2014).”

LAAHNC Comment : This is simply not true. See the details below and in our attached letter, dated May14, 2015, submitted in response to the FAA document, dated January 16, 2015, claiming significant progress in all six actions specified.

“ The FAA is committed to working with stakeholders as they further mature and formulate additional voluntary measures. Significant resources have been expended to analyze how helicopters integrate into the complex airspace of Los Angeles County, including developing new methodology and tools toRECONSIDERATION OF LAAHNC PETITION FAA

- 2015

- 5041

– Special Federal Aviation Regulation ( SFAR) f or Los Angeles County Helicopter Minimum Altitudes

Los Angeles Area Helicopter Noise Coalition (LAAHNC) 4 of 8 identify helicopter flight tracks. Gaining a better understanding of existing helicopter operations was a

neces sary first step in evaluating existing helicopter routes and altitudes, and the FAA shared its work

in

- progress with stakeholders through detailed briefings and working group sessions. With this foundation, the FAA and stakeholders have made progress in id entifying route adjustments that could lessen impacts on residential areas and noise

- sensitive landmarks while avoiding shifting noise from one residential neighborhood to another. Specifically the FAA has developed specific beacon codes for use in Los Ang eles County to enhance safety by distinguishing helicopters from fixed wing aircraft and increasing situational awareness of pil ots and air traffic controllers;”

LAAHNC Comment: These beacon codes are strictly voluntary and simply not generally being used. Code 1206 is supposed to be used by first responders, 1205 by others. Yet analysis of several months of data shows very few 1206 or 1205 codes. The overwhelming majority of flights show no call sign at all; the vast majority of those that do broadcast a b eacon code use the 1200 code. As an example, analysis of the individual WebTrak data in the San Fernando Valley shows that the majority of complaints are for helicopters using code 1200 while the tracks themselves most likely indicate LAPD.

“ Has completed extensive in

- depth analysis of adherence to existing helicopter routes and potential for route adjustments for the Hollywood, Torrance, Palo s Verdes, and Long Beach areas;”

LAAHNC Comment: Somewhat true, but the results of the analysis clearly indicate th at pilots are simply ignoring the suggested route adjustments in all area. As an example, Redondo Avenue is a major helicopter corridor in Long Beach and receives approximately 30 percent of all helicopter traffic in the city. Pilots routinely fly from the airport southwest to the Queen Mary, the oil islands, Catalina, or to the port or fly south

- east to Seal Beach and Orange County. Instead of flying over Redondo Avenue which is a four lane stree t, helicopter pilots routinely “cut the corner” and fly over

homes and schools.

In 2013, Ron Reeves, Noise and Environmental Officer for the Long Beach Airport, issued an

“ Analysis of Helicopter Operations S outh of the Long Beach Airport.” The airport staff analyzed helicopter operations that use the Redondo helicopter route and collected data on flight tracks,
altitudes, short

- term noise measurements and community complaints. It was noted that approximately
4,900 helicopter flights annuall y fly over the homes and schools near Redondo Avenue and that pilots consistently flew over Horace Mann Elementary School. Noise monitors near the school noted two flight school helicopters within a five

- minute time frame at 72.5 dBA maximum noise level. E ach and every day, helicopter flights interrupt both indoor and outdoor instruction at Horace Mann despite repeated requests for pilots to avoid the school by flying directly over Redondo Avenue.

The Long Beach Airport staff completed a study in April 201 6 that compared the 2013 data to 2015 data and found that no progress had been made in mitigating the noise levels over the residences or over Horace Mann Elementary School during this two

- year period. Altitudes remained unchanged (on average of 640 feet a bove sea level) and pil ots routinely fly as low as 200 to 500 feet over the school. This comparison study clearly shows that voluntary measures and collaboration have been ineffective and have done nothing to protect the homeowners, teachers and children f rom the negative impact of helicopter noise. The Long Beach Airport study is clear ... there has been no improvement in mitigating noise levels despite fourteen separate meetings with pilots, FAA representatives, residents and local city officials. Voluntary measures and collaboration have done nothing to improve helicopter noise in Long Beach.

A second example is the Cahuenga Pass and Griffith Park area, where extensive analyses were conducted by the FAA’s Seattle team under the supervision of Clark Desing. In response to theRECONSIDERATION OF LAAHNC PETITION FAA

- 2015

- 5041

– Special Federal Aviation Regulation ( SFAR) f or Los Angeles County Helicopter Minimum Altitudes

Los Angeles Area Helicopter Noise Coalition (LAAHNC) 5 of 8 complicated traffic in this area, one of the recommendations published in a presentation to LAAHNC and pilots is that helicopters fly on the chart

- designated route, which in this case is the Hollywood Freeway. Yet, tour helicopters opt t o get a bit closer to the Hollywood Sign and the Griffith Observatory. As they do, the uplifted terrain of the Eastern Santa Monica Mountains brings them more than 1,000 feet closer to ground level than over the freeway, with serious impacts to hillside re sidents and recreationists in this wilderness park.

“ Has provided stakeholder briefings to review and explain the results of the in

- depth analysis; and has identified a new voluntary offshore route based on analysis of coastal air traffic and stakeholder i nput. ”

LAAHNC Comment: This is simply not true

. LAAHNC agreed to discuss the FAA suggested offshore route of 1⁄4 mile offshore, although we expressed reservations about the lack of indication of suggested

altitude. Instead, closed

- door meetings were held between the FAA and the helicopter industry. LAAHNC stakeholders were not invited or even advised that the discussions were taking place. The route has no suggested minimum altitude which not only seriously increases the noise impact on the shoreline communities, but is a serious safety problem as very low altitude makes it impossible to conduct safe autorotation landings in the case of engine failure and allows no time to choose a landing spot that does not endanger people along or near the shoreline. In addition the route apparently only covers the northern portion of the county shoreline. See the separate LAAHNC Petition Response 5044 for further elaboration.

“ The FAA is committed to continuing its evaluation of helicopter traffic in L os Angeles County and will continue community involvement to promote voluntary measures for noise reduction. ”

“ The FAA has collaborated with community representatives and helicopter operators to identify and promote existing best practices to reduce noise. It continues to issue Advisory NOTAMs for large events and encourage helicopter operators and news organizations to employ practices that reduce noise. The FAA and helicopter groups have taken advantage of opportunities to educate pilots and encourage bes t practices. It remains alert to the potential to use regularly scheduled meetings, conferences, and special events that attract helicopter pilots as well as various methods of communication, including printed material, Web sites, and targeted emails to in crease awareness of noise issues and best practices to reduce noise over noise

- sensitive areas. ”

LAAHNC Comment: While some attempt has been made by the two primary helicopter operator organizations (PHPA and LAAHOA), the results have been ineffective sinc e:

• Those “best practices” were unilaterally developed by a few members of the helicopter industry

and do not correspond to the parameters of the Best Practices Working Group, to FAA Advisory

Circular AC 91.36D or to the suggestions of the HAI, the international pilot association. All of

these suggest flying at least 2000 feet above ground level unless there is a reason to do otherwise

such as weather or air port ingress and egress traffic;

• Those two organizations (PHPA and LAAHOA) represent less than half of the helicopter pilots

flying in the county ;

• Only a subset of the two organizations have attended those meetings or been advised of the “voluntary” measures unilaterally developed by the pilot organizations ; and

• The suggested measures are extremely fragmented and do not cover the county. When asked about

some of the suggested altitudes, Chuck Street, the primary pilot representative, did not seem to either be aware of the suggestions or know how they were developed.RECONSIDERATION OF LAAHNC PETITION FAA

- 2015

- 5041

– Special Federal Aviation Regulation ( SFAR) f or Los Angeles County Helicopter Minimum Altitudes

Los Angeles Area Helicopter Noise Coalition (LAAHNC) 6 of 8 “ The FAA has implemented a dedica ted helicopter noise complaint system for Los Angeles County which consists of a dedicated web portal, radar flight tracking, and a brokering system that can route complaints associated with a s pecific airport to that airport’ s noise office and forward hel icopter noise complaints received by airports to the centralized helicopter noise portal. This system has the potential

to form the basis of an on

- going helicopter noise program. Monthly complaint review committee meetings are taking place between industry and your organization to discuss complaint system results and help make informed decisions about modifications to helicopter routes and operations. ”

LAAHNC Comment: While the ACS system does provide a method to register complaints, it is now a full year since the Automated Complaint System (ACS) was released and it still suffers from serious shortfalls. We feel that the majority of these shortfalls are the result of not conducting a beta test before the public release of the system. LAAHNC had provided a list of suggestions for such a test, but it was never implemented. Some of the shortfalls, such as height above ground level (which has been available on other B&K systems for some time) have since been corrected, but should have been included in the origi nal release. Remaining problems include:

1. Missing tracks. While there appears to be some improvement, we have found that many of the egregious flights we see and hear do not show up on the ACS system. In addition, WebTraks that do show up on the individual airport WebTrak systems do not show up on the ACS. There also does not appear to be effective sharing of helicopter noise complaint statistics between the ACS and the airports.

2. No information on type of flight. On the Van Nuys WebTrak, a significant number of flights have, or at least previously had, a notation of what organization is involved, particularly PD XX for police flights and News XX for news flights. As we are primarily trying to identify egregious flights by other than first responders, that inf ormation would greatly help our analysis. In addition, tail numbers are rarely provided, making follow

- up more difficult.

3. Squawk Codes or SSR. The codes that show up on the tracks don't show any consistency or help to identify the type of flight. The generic 1200 code does not provide the information needed to identify if it is a first responder code. The designation 1206 for first responders is supposed to have been implemented by now

, yet is rarely used, or at least rarely shows up on ACS Webtrak s

. There is also often a lack of consistency between the SSR noted on the table of complaints and what shows up when you click on the aircraft on the WebTrak flight. As noted above, easy identification of first responders by a consistency of usage would gr eatly help our analysis.

4. Columns on the data monthly sheet. We certainly note, and appreciate, the recent addition of height ( above ground level ) indication on the WebTrak flight identification. We have asked whether that information could be displayed as a column on the mont hly data spreadsheet for

WebTrak

- specific flights as it would greatly simplify our analysis of egregious flights

5. Complainer id. It’s useful both to us and to industry to know if the same people are complaining or if there are new compla iners. We understand the need for anonymity, but understood that the complainer id would identify a specific person and that the id would remain tagged to that person from month to month. That’s obviously not the case. The very frequent complainer in Decem ber was #126, in November it was #61, in October it was #82. As these are all in the same zip code, our guess is they are the same person.

6. Language. While not in the original contract, it would be helpful for non

- English proficient

stakeholders to be able to report an incident using the phone

- in option in several other languages, including Spanish, Mandarin, and Cambodian. This is particularly a problem in Long BeachRECONSIDERATION OF LAAHNC PETITION FAA

- 2015

- 5041

– Special Federal Aviation Regulation ( SFAR) f or Los Angeles County Helicopter Minimum Altitudes

Los Angeles Area Helicopter Noise Coalition (LAAHNC) 7 of 8 (world’s largest group of Cambodians outside of Cambodia), the San Gabriel Valley (very lar ge Chinese population), and throughout the county given the very large population of native Spanish speakers.

A far more serious problem is the lack of action on the part of the helicopter industry personnel on the ACS Committee to influence the behavior of the pilots. The agreement, reached early in our collaborative meetings, was that the LAAHNC personnel would identify clusters of egregious flights and particularly egregious individual flights. The industry personnel would then attempt to modify the pil ot behavior to decrease the noise impact on noise sensitive areas such as residences, schools, and popular tourist and entertainment venues. LAANC has brought numerous examples of egregious flights to the attention of the Committee, including flights by he licopter tour operators, news helicopters, Robinson helicopter Company, and first responders. However, we get very little feedback by the industry representatives and little indication that the pilots are willing to initiate changes in their flight
practic es to reduce the noise impact. Specifically:

1. Tour helicopters. There has been no significant meeting with tour helicopter pilots, although the subject has been raised at every ACS Committee meeting this year. A meeting was held on May 5,

but it was attended by only a handful of the helicopter tour industry involved. LAAHNC was not advised of the meeting until late in the evening before the meeting and invited to participate only in an informal after lunch chat. At that meeting the constant refrain fr om the representatives when shown an egregious example was “that was not us, it must have been someone else.” We were asked to provide tail numbers of the helicopters, a nearly impossible requirement since the WebTrak data almost never provides that inform ation and few of us carry high powered

binoculars with us at all times.

2. News helicopters. There has been no meeting with news helicopters pilots although an early “best practices” of flying at least 2000 feet above ground level and limiting hover time was agreed to at the first Best Practices Working Group meeting almost two years ago

.
3. Robinson helicopter. Robinson helicopter conducts test flights in the South Bay area, routinely flying over densely populated residential areas and schools. In addition to t est flights, they conduct training classes on a regular basis, where pilots unfamiliar with the specific helicopter models fly the same dangerous, noise impacting flight paths. LAAHNC has made a number of suggestions to mitigate the problem, including flyi ng on a dispersed number of flight paths, rather than concentrating on the same exact route, and conducting the training exercises at a more

remote location.

The foregoing constitutes the summary that may be published in the FEDERAL REGISTER as provided un der Subpart B.

Executed at Tarzana, California on June 17, 2016.

David R. Garfinkle Chairman, Best Practices Working Group Treasurer, Los Angeles Area Helicopter Noise CoalitionRECONSIDERATION OF LAAHNC PETITION FAA

- 2015

- 5041

– Special Federal Aviation Regulation ( SFAR) f or Los Angeles County Helicopter Minimum Altitudes

Los Angeles Area Helicopter Noise Coalition (LAAHNC) 8 of 8 ATTACHMENT 1Griffith Park and surrounding hillside communities.1. Single-family hillside and canyon homes characterized by:- very low ambient sound levels, and- canyons and steep terrain which echoes and reflects sound2. Passive recreation in open space presents a unique land use challenge regarding sonic disturbance3. Grifith Park is a Sensitive Ecological Area (SEA) per Los Angeles County General PlanFAA Subject Matter Expert Team Recommendations(Dec 3rd, 2014 Working Group)A) Stay on the routes when practical (add to route chart).B) Identify Universal City as reference point (add to route chart).C) At nighttime (2300-0600), go higher by contacting ACT (add to route chart).D) FAA continues to provide data on advisory-only basis.LAAHNC position during working group sessions:- A 1500 feet minimum altitude ceiling AGL is possible on designated helicopter routes, with few exceptions.- Pilots should use chart-designated routes in the Cahuenga Pass-Griffith Park AreaDistribution of AGLs Griffith / Hollywood Sign / ObservatoryFebruary 13, 2016(Flights 900 AGL and less)Note: Average AGL is 616010020030040050060070080090010001 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85

AGL in Feet