While there was not enough members physically present (several joined by conference line) for a quorum at the December meeting, attendees agreed to proceed with the ACR agenda with the understanding no official actions would be taken.
ACR member Bob Petruska presented an analysis of pre and post Nextgen altitudes for arrivals and departures over southwest Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The presentation was posted on JetNoiseCLT.com in November:
Much as anecdotal observations and previous data reviews have confirmed, arrivals and departures are indeed significantly lower, but some still arrive/depart at higher, less disturbing altitudes. Bob’s analysis highlighted a key point: obviously arrivals and departures can be at higher altitudes if the powers in charge want them to be higher. Hold that thought for later...
Local FAA representative Mark Clark made a presentation regarding data and questions introduced by ACR member Brian Cox at the November meeting. Using 2013-2017 sample data provided by Charlotte Aviation noise abatement staff, Brian showed dramatically lower arrivals over the South Charlotte area.
The FAA data provided by Mr. Clark confirmed the findings and, as Mr. Clark put it, flights are actually even lower than presented by Brian. However, the most disturbing admission is the FAA's procedural change to bring arrivals lower as soon as possible and in a concentrated path over heavily populated South Charlotte.
In the picture above, arrivals from the northeast fly toward the "big buildings" and take a hard left proceeding over East and South Charlotte for descent. (If you are wondering how in a post 9/11 world it makes sense to have hundreds of jets flying directly toward Charlotte skyscrapers daily, you are not alone.) After an arriving jet makes the left turn to the south, its descent will have it less than a mile overhead by the time it is over South Charlotte neighborhoods. Back out our 780 foot elevation, and the result is hundreds of arrivals 3000-4000 buzzing the most densely populated area of the city every single day.
That's the plan. When challenged, Mr. Clark's reply was "efficiency and safety." When asked if any variance could be made to disperse traffic or revert to any old procedures, his reply was reverting to an old procedure is essentially a "new procedure." The implication is a change will require a lengthy review.
The full presentation is here:
The item to add a public appearance section to the standing agenda was tabled since the ACR had no quorum.
Discouraging. Stonewalled. Follow the money. Please continue to submit complaints as those will be important as political and legal avenues are considered. Write the mayor. Write your Congressman. Be heard.