Village asserts that Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) approval process overlooks a fair and equitable solution that will deliver the most relief from overnight aircraft noise to the most communities

On October 9, the Village of Elk Grove filed a petition against the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. The purpose of this petition is to compel the FAA to analyze reasonable alternatives when completing its statutorily required environmental review of the impacts of the proposed permanent Fly Quiet Program at O’Hare Airport. 

The Village is asking the FAA to follow the law and review all reasonable alternatives, including Alternative H, and to study which departure headings are most suitable to achieve the goals set forth at the outset of this process.

“Just as all the communities near O’Hare benefit from the airport, they should all share in the impact. We believe in equal benefit, equal burden,” said Elk Grove Village Mayor Craig Johnson. The permanent Fly Quiet runway rotation program is the only feasible opportunity to provide relief to residents around the airport and it is critical to make decisions based on real-world impacts.

Village officials pointed out that the Village is not seeking preferential treatment or trying to unfairly shift nighttime noise to its neighbors. The purpose of the lawsuit is simply to ensure that the FAA reviews all reasonable alternatives as it is statutorily required to do.

For several years, the Village, through its efforts with the Suburban O’Hare Commission (SOC), has been trying to work with the O’Hare Noise Compatibility Commission (ONCC) to create a plan for a reasonable distribution of nighttime air traffic around the airport. SOC engaged a premier team of aviation experts in JDA Aviation, including Cynthia Schultz and Dr. Antonio Trani, who have significant experience working with the FAA to understand flight impacts. Dr. Trani has analyzed the available data and has found, in no uncertain terms, that Alternative H provides for a more fair and equitable distribution of noise impacts around the airport when compared to Alternative B (the only proposed plan put forward by the ONCC and submitted for review by the Chicago Department of Aviation (CDA)).

“We’re here to make sure the FAA does its job,” said Mayor Craig Johnson. “If the FAA properly completes the environmental review process, it will lead to a permanent Fly Quiet program that provides the relief needed based on not what seems fair, but what actually is fair.”

The ONCC Fly Quiet Committee considered numerous alternatives for the Fly Quiet Program before selecting Alternatives B and H as the most viable options. Even though Dr. Trani’s analysis showed Alternative H to be the fairer of these options, SOC continually advocated to advance both proposals for environmental review by the FAA.

“The ONCC could have put forward the two plans they had been considering, but it chose to submit the one that is less fair,” said Mayor Craig Johnson. “If we’re seeking overall fairness, we need to make sure the process considers all reasonable alternatives.”

The FAA has refused to analyze Alternative H and multiple headings as a reasonable alternative to the plan proposed by the ONCC and the CDA.  Instead, the FAA directed the Village to consult with CDA, an agency that has refused to respond to several communications sent by the Village and, at present, is not authorized to conduct the environmental review process. 

“The CDA has never responded to explain why they are unwilling to put forward two alternatives for FAA review with this permanent Fly Quiet Program,” said Mayor Craig Johnson. “They put forward three alternatives for FAA review as part of the Interim Fly Quiet Program, which was only temporary.”

“The FAA should be conducting this analysis to evaluate each plan designed to distribute noise fairly,” said Cynthia Schultz of JDA Aviation. “Unfortunately, the ONCC and FAA have been swayed by a few communities to push for a single alternative that favors a few to the detriment of the many.”

The three sets of runways used during the Fly Quiet Program primarily impact three different populations: North parallels, South parallels, and Crosswind parallels. The Crosswind parallel runways, however, are significantly shorter than the north and south parallel runways. Heavy and large aircraft flying long routes, which produce the most noise, often require a longer runway.  As a result, whenever a crosswind runway is shown for a particular week in the runway rotation program, both Alternatives B and H include a designated long runway (one of the north or south parallels).

“The schedule for Alternative B shows equal participation by each set of runways, but the real-world impact is an unequal burden on the north and south parallel runways. The low usage of crosswind runways by heavy and some large aircraft will result in a high number of runway operations on the parallel runways, even when the crosswind runways are designated for use,” said Dr. Antonio Trani. “Alternative H is fairer because it accounts for the real-world fleet mix and runway usages during Fly Quiet.” 

While the crosswind runways appear more often in the schedule for Alternative H, the data shows that with Alternative H the crosswind runways would still see slightly less operations than the other sets of runways, as shown in the figures below.  Additionally, the operations on the crosswind runways would generally be the lighter aircraft with lower noise impact.

“Over the past several years, I have represented JDA at numerous ONCC Fly Quiet Committee Meetings and the Committee’s discussions vastly oversimplified the issues that will drive real noise relief in the Fly Quiet Program” said Cynthia Schultz of JDA Aviation. “This is exactly why the FAA is required to do an environmental analysis, to ensure the real-world impact is understood before moving forward with a permanent change to airport operations.”

In addition to data analysis showing that Alternative H provides the fairest noise distribution for the Fly Quiet Program, JDA also demonstrated the unintended consequences of using runway headings (designated turns) to distribute noise. JDA’s analysis showed that turning aircraft is not the best way to distribute noise—especially when the turns are executed at low altitudes--because the turn itself increases the noise impacts of any particular flight and larger turns produce more noise. Turning aircraft climb slower and noise is higher when aircraft are closer to the ground. This means that turns cause increased exposure to higher noise levels at the ground.

“When aircraft turn, it reduces their climb rates, keeping aircraft closer to the ground, where they produce more noise impact,” said Dr. Trani. “The turns produce large flight track dispersions that expand the noise contours on the ground, affecting more people.

This conclusion will be readily apparent when reviewing a heading sensitivity analysis that demonstrates the real-world impact of aircraft noise signatures caused by sharp turns.  Through the lawsuit, the Village also seeks to ensure that such an analysis is completed by the FAA as part of its environmental review. This will ensure that recommended headings can be chose in a way that does not unnecessarily increase the noise impact.

Dr. Trani’s analysis has already been provided to the ONCC, CDA and FAA, and the Village remains a willing partner to provide the FAA with additional information if they review reasonable alternatives as they are required to do.

“The FAA has provided no explanation for its denial of the Village’s request, nor has it complied with the basic aspects of a NEPA public process” said Andrew Barr. “We have always been, and remain, willing to work with all stakeholders to ensure this process is completed lawfully and fairly and we encourage the FAA to comply with NEPA now.”