Citizen's groups around airports are "getting the run-around." as a group in Oregon complained,
"Valid community concerns regarding aviation noise and pollution (are) routinely deflected, ignored and minimized (by airport authorities) in an effort to promote aviation interests over the greater good."
As SMAAC has been doing for years, Oregon Aviation Watch strongly urges negatively impacted residents to hold their (elected officials) responsible for abiding rather than reducing overflight noise and pollution.
It is important but tediously slow to deal with airport/overflight noise. Important because noise complaints periodically cresendo to a politically significant level: that opens a door to examine all the advantages and disadvantages of the oveflights that make the noise. Tediously slow because the aviation industry leaders are resourceful, politically connected, and forward-thinking about profits. Profits are assured if government assumes liability and funds air traffic control, if government inspectors and auditors are scarce by lack of funding, if government subsidizes NextGen avionics, and if "fortress hubs" that reduce competition are the first but most costly to develop and operate.
In Minnesota as elsewhere, the focus on noise mitigation makes it easy for a Mayor to dip a toe into a really complex topic pool and seem to be diligently working against overf;ight pollution and disturbances by making a tiny media splash.
That is, years from now if pigs fly overflights will be in "Quieter jets" (an oxymoron) and mitigations will be working to reduce health risks and interruptions of classes. By pigs flying, we allude to the unliklihood that blessing contour maps made from phony flight forecasts will be the least bit effective.
For that reason, SMAAC supports revealing as much about the INM/DNL process and its faults as possible. We already know that DNL values as used for many years do not predict seriously impacted neighborhoods and that even a rigoorous 5 db sound-insulation job does not shield us from air pollution health risks. The President is right to require FAA and EPA to actually reduce green-house-gas emissions from flight opertions and reduce aviation pollution (such as lead from high-test gasoline used by small mostly private aircraft and sub-mcron paticulates from commercial jets.