Talk:Aircraft noise pollution

Aviation Unassessed

	Aviation portal This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Physics Start‑class

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I propose this article is moved to Aircraft noise. It's not aviation that makes the noise, it's the aircraft! Renaming will help people locate the article in a search - besides, no-one I know refers to it as aviation noise. GRAHAMUK 11:21, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Agree

I woudl agree with the aforementioned comment

Agree --Hooperbloob 04:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agree - Adrian Pingstone 15:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agree. There's also Car noise. GregorB 21:02, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

strongly agree' --the entire body of scientific and popular literature on this subject uses the term "aircraft noise"....also this article needs a lot of work with references, discussion of standards and mitigation programs...i will do some of this Anlace 18:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i have made this change with the concurrence above...Anlace 23:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enroute noise bad too

Somebody please mention that even after planes have reached cruising altitude, they are still noisy, at least to countryside dwellers. They ought to move those routes to go over the ocean more. E.g., see my http://jidanni.org/comm/air/m750/index_en.html --jidanni 2/06

i shall try to address this jidanni, thanks for the mention of an important concept Anlace 23:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

issue has been attended to with a discussion under health effects. Noise health effects generally embraces annoyance issues. cheers Anlace 06:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of aircraft

I think this is an appropriate pic as it shows how near planes get to the houses and gives an idea of how noisy it must be in those houses.--Light current 01:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noise levels

Cant just say 113 dB. We must define exactly the level. Is it a a SPL of 113 dB rel to 1mw? At what distance would this SPL be measured?--Light current 23:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fix

Seems to be disorganized. The section on Sonic Boom is empty, and the page has numerous formatting errors.

Floating airports

This material should be stricken in entirety. It is not a realistic or well supported scheme. If no citation to the contrary can be advanced, it needs to be eliminated rapidly as it distorts reality of present day economics. Anlace 04:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An issue with neutral point of view

I believe that the user Aeroblue is pushing a particular point of view and using Wikipedia to promote his own interests. Aeroblue is both a 527 political action committee and a 501(c)(4)in NJ and the founder is an individual that has in the past ran the Solberg Airport Website. Solberg and the township of Readington are in a heated legal battle over the Airport's expansion and this particular user is using Wikipedia to promote his particular side of the debate by including it in this article.

The whole paragraph regarding Readington Township's fight should be stricken from the Airport noise section. One section in particular about Readington states:

While the FAA and the aviation industry have made aircraft considerably quieter, local municipalities continue to zone and build homes and schools at the end of runways, such as in 2003, Readington Township, NJ which built an Elementary School at the end of Solberg Airport Runway 31. In situations such as this, only the local authorities can be responsible for this type of inadequate planning.

The Elementary school in question happens to be right next to the middle school that has been there since the early 1960's. The runway in question is a dirt crosswinds runway that receieves very little usage. Regardless of this information Aeroblue is pushing his particular point of view into an article about aircraft noise.

Aeroblue then goes on to promote his organization:

Organizations such as AeroBlue.Org propose stronger controls to improve the integration of airports with local land-use patterns. In addition, Home Owners have a responsibility and control of where they buy a home or choose to live.

For these reasons I will edit the content and removed if from the page. If Aeroblue wishes to add only the facts of the Readington/Solberg issue that would be acceptable.

Npsguy 14:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Point of View

Aircraft noise is a difficult issue and requires input from all points of view. The example noted above is an excellent example that adds value to the discussion. Factual errors in the comment above have been removed, however, clearly the author includes his own bias.

This Wiki is a valuable collection of input from several organizations involved in addressing this issue.

The comments include several factual errors and illustrates the bias against proper planning. The comment attempts to rationalize building a school at the end of a runway.

AeroBlue 12:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Aeroblue

The elementary school in question has no known Aircraft noise complaints from the airport next door. This is primarily because that runway in question is a grass runway and rarely used. So the question is WHY should THIS school be mentioned in an article about Aircraft noise? It doesn't add to the article at all and if anything... confuses the topic.

If Aeroblue wanted to discuss a school with aircraft noise issues, he should have mentioned the schools around Teterboro airport in which the state of New Jersey paid over $2 million recently in sound proofing. These schools are far more appropriate for this article on aircraft noise. Not a school that currently has no known noise issues.

Now why does Aeroblue decide that Readington township which has no current aircraft noise issues require a mention while other more busier airports do not. Well... unfortunately for two reasons. One because the director of Aeroblue works for Solberg Airport (the airport he mentions) and that leads to a very "biased viewpoint". As you can see from the Aeroblue.org website at [1] the founder (Hitzel) is also director at the Solberg “public outreach” website www.partners-solberg.org [2]

Aeroblue also happens to be a political action committee whose website says "AeroBlue.Org Aviation Political Action Committee is a federal political committee which primarily helps members elect candidates who support Aviation through a variety of activities aimed at influencing the outcome of the next election." (see the bottom of [3] )

Now I take issue with what Aeroblue states; that I have factual errors. I wish that he would point out exactly what facts are in error but let's assume he means everything I wrote.

So my statements "The Elementary school in question happens to be right next to the middle school that has been there since the early 1960's. The runway in question is a dirt crosswinds runway that receives very little usage" must be in error?

Well let me point you to exhibit "A", a map that shows the two Readington schools and Solberg airport: [http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&t=h&msa=0&ll=40.585669,-74.747844&spn=0.015513,0.043001&z=15&om=1&msid=104741853684414382765.00043a1eaf53cdf6ffa2b ]

On the left map you can see the two schools with Holland Brook elementary to the Northeast. Both schools share the buses that are parked in the middle school parking lot and they share a number of other resources as well. The middle school has been there since the early 1960's (It may have been 1959 actually). The property that the elementary school was built on was already owned by the township. As you can see… they are right next to each other.

You can also see the Solberg grass crosswinds runway is to the east of Holland brook; however the issue of planes "buzzing the school" doesn't happen because the runway is not used as often as the main paved runway. Also the FAA stated prior to building the school that the safety zone around Solberg does not extend as far to the west as the school.

I was wrong to say "dirt" runway however. From the Satellite image it is really a grass runway. Not enough traffic seems to wear the grass down enough for it to be dirt. My mistake.

Now Aeroblue has already ran into issues on Wikipedia with an editor (see [[4]] ) for "the commercial links/content you added to the page Airport were inappropriate, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should not be used for advertising or a collection of external links."

If I am biased as Aeroblue claims, I am biased that I do not like to see works such as Wikipedia be used by a political action committee to be used in upcoming municipal elections. Call me crazy.

In conclusion it is sad and unfortunate that a PAC is using Wikipedia for their own gain.

Npsguy 22:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]