Author Topic: Teterboro Airport  (Read 103318 times)

Offline McKenna

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Karma: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Teterboro Airport
« Reply #30 on: May 24, 2005, 02:33:31 PM »
After thinking more into the topic, Teterboro has been here for 70+ years, longer than most things in this area, and the construction of such objects like roads and what would be deemed as "valuble" structures. This ironically seems like the same kind of problem that has recently happened out at Somerset airport with the arrival of Northstar, though they are more focusing on the noise. They are creating an argument, when they are the ones using the service most. As a note, accidents happen at all airports, and it was poor planning for the companies around the airport to set up this dangerously close.

Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4113
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Re: Teterboro Airport
« Reply #31 on: May 26, 2005, 11:36:31 PM »

Offline lab94

  • HackensackNow Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 16
  • Karma: 2
  • Hackensack Now Patron
    • View Profile
Re: Teterboro Airport
« Reply #32 on: May 31, 2005, 01:39:09 PM »
Wow, another plane crashes at Teterboro!!! Is anyone keeping count? I think thats 3 this year and about 10 in the last 5 or 6 years if you include the planes that crashed in route to other airports. I had people over on Mon. (I live on Hopper St.) and they were amazed at how low they come in. Every 2 minutes, we were taking bets if the planes would give us the high beams if we flipped them the bird as they flew over. But, ask them if I'm in the flight pattern?  They tell you the planes only use a north approach in bad weather (IFR). But on Mon. the weather was not that bad out; in fact I got a nice tan watching them fly over my house.

Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4113
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Re: Teterboro Airport
« Reply #33 on: May 31, 2005, 04:04:01 PM »
Latest story: Plane Crashes at Teterboro Airport in N.J.

(See above post by Lab94 about the crash)

Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4113
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Re: Teterboro Airport
« Reply #34 on: June 01, 2005, 11:29:09 AM »
Latest stories:

Pilot hurt as crippled craft misses runway and burns

(See above article for a "Timeline of Incidents" at Teterboro.)

Crash injures pilot, renews fear

Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4113
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Re: Teterboro Airport
« Reply #35 on: June 02, 2005, 09:27:28 AM »
The following was sent to me for posting:

TETERBORO AIRPORT CRASH SITE RUNWAY OPERATES IN VIOLATION OF FAA REGULATIONS.

The Instrument Landing System on runway 19, site of yesterday's jet crash, operates in violation of FAA regulations.  The Record stated "when it comes to controlling the number of flights in and out of Teterboro, Port Authority officials said their hands are tied."  We have been working without success for five years to point out to the PA, state, federal and local officials that their hands are not tied and to reveal what eventually will be a fatal mistake:

Acceptance of the FAA's flawed environmental impact statement that allowed installation of the Instrument Landing System (ILS) on runway 19, the runway on which yesterday's crash occurred.  The FAA's environmental impact statement allowed the ILS to operate because annual aircraft takeoffs and landings would "remain under 170,000" until 2007" (please see below).  There were more than 202,000 flights this year, a 4% increase from last year.

The Port Authority could reduce takeoffs and landings to 170,000 tomorrow if they wanted to comply with the ILS environmental impact statement.  Or, alternately, the PA could shut down the ILS in order to comply with the environmental impact statement.  If the FAA balks, the PA can go to court, citing the requirements of the FAA's own environmental regulations.  But, officials will not shut down the ILS-19 nor limit flights.  Why won't the PA, Congressman Rothman and our Senators -- one of whom wants to be governor -- use the FAA's own regulations to reduce flights at Teterboro?  Why won't The Record or other local media cover the story of the illegal operation of the ILS?

There is a money trail that allowed the ILS to be built and to continue to
operate in spite of violating FAA's own takeoff and landing restrictions.  I am afraid only the horror of a jet plowing into Hackensack's Medical Center and high-rise apartments, which lie dozens of feet beneath the ILS approach to runway 19, will force compliance with the FAA's own regulations. 

Dr. Richard L. Bruno
Hackensack

Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4113
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Re: Teterboro Airport
« Reply #36 on: June 02, 2005, 09:34:36 AM »
The following was sent to me for posting:

   Today's RECORD states "when it comes to controlling the number of flights in  and out of Teterboro, Port Authority officials said their hands are tied."  We  have been working without success for five years to point out to the PA,  state, federal and local officials that their hands are not tied and to reveal  what eventually will be fatal mistake: Acceptance of the FAA's flawed  environmental impact statement that allowed installation of the Instrument Landing System  (ILS) on runway 19, the runway on which yesterday's crash occurred.  The  FAA's environmental impact statement allowed the ILS to operate because annual  aircraft takeoffs and landings would "remain under 170,000" until 2007" (please  see below).  There were more than 202,000 flights this year, a 4% increase from  last year.

   The Port Authority could reduce takeoffs and landings to 170,000 tomorrow if  they wanted to comply with the ILS environmental impact statement.  Or,  alternately, the PA could shut down the ILS in order to comply with the ILS  environmental impact statement.  If the FAA balks, the PA can go to court, citing the  requirements of the FAA's own environmental regulations.  But, officials will  not shut down the ILS-19 nor limit flights.  Why won't the PA, Congressman  Rothman and our Senators -- one of whom wants to be governor -- use the FAA's own  regulations to reduce flights at Teterboro?  Why won't The Record or other  local media cover the story of the illegal operation of the ILS?

   There is a money trail that allowed the ILS to be built and to continue to  operate in spite of violating FAA's own takeoff and landing restrictions.  I am  afraid only the horror of a jet plowing into Hackensack's Medical Center and  high-rise apartments, which lie beneath the ILS approach to runway 19, will  force compliance with the FAA's own regulations. 

Dr. Richard L. Bruno
Hackensack


Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4113
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Re: Teterboro Airport
« Reply #37 on: June 02, 2005, 09:39:11 AM »

Letter to Hon. Jon Corzine
:

The Honorable Jon Corzine
United States Senate

August 27, 2003

Dear Senator:

Since April, 2000 I have been working with Congressman Steve Rothman  regarding the numerous errors, inconsistencies and obfuscation in the FAA's "FINDING  OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT" that allowed the ILS on Runway 19 at Teterboro  Airport (TEB) to open and allowed planes to fly dozens of feet over the high-rise apartment buildings in the Hackensack Heights and Hackensack University Medical  Center (HUMC). 

Congressman Rothman arranged with the FAA for planes to fly an  eastern offset to Runway 19, taking them down the Hackensack River, when planes were not using the ILS during bad weather.  With the appointment of new FAA  Administrator Blakely, planes are once again flying directly over HUMC.  With  the August 5, 2003 crash of a corporate jet at a small Connecticut airport,  North Jersey residents are terrified that a corporate jet, or soon the 737  Boeing Business Jet, will cartwheel through the Hackensack Heights and HUMC,  killing thousands.

In 2002 you wrote to FAA Eastern Regional Administrator Arlene Feldman,  asking her to respond to my letter asking about the "FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT  IMPACT."  With Congressman Rothman's arrangement there was no need for these  questions to be answered.  Now it is vital to the safety HUMC patients and staff  that the questions finally be answered and that ILS-19 approach once again be  directed away from the Hackensack Heights.

As you know members of the New Jersey delegation have been calling FAA  Administrator Blakely and DOT Secretary Minetta about their concerns.  Neither has returned the calls.  Can you please help us at least get answers to our  questions regarding the significant safety concerns of flights over HUMC?  These are  Administrator Feldman's responses to my questions on 2002:

1998 TEB Operations Exceed FAA Projection for 2007.

The FAA "FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT" that allowed ILS-19 to open states:

p3: "Recently, total activity levels appear to have stabilized at  approximately 160,000 annual movements.  Total activity has remained at or very close  to this level since the end of 1989. Forecast data used for the Environmental Assessment noise analysis were  predicted on three well established trends (including) Total airport operations  remain under 170,000 annual operations. This leads to a total annual movement sum  of 167,799 by the Year 2007." (page 2)

 p7:  "The proposal is not expected to increase traffic levels at TEB."

The FAA was asked for the actual number of total TEB operations from June,  1999 to June, 2000.  Ms. Feldman refused to provide the total TEB operations  data but instead reported operations only for Runway 19.  She does apparently  revise upward the TEB aircraft operations forecast, providing a 1999 number that  is within 627 operations of the 2007 prediction:

"The projected total landings and takeoffs used in the noise analysis for the  two-year period ending 1999 was 166,172 operations, or a 4.3% increase over  1996 operations.  For the seven years from 1990 to 1996, there was a 0.5%  decrease in traffic, however, the EA used an estimated 4.3% increase over the two  year period ending 1999, as a conservative estimate.

In 1996, according to data provided by the airport operator, Johnson  Controls, the specific mix of total operations using Runway 19 was 15,057 landings and  6,539 takeoffs.  Johnson Controls  also provided us with data relevant to the  use of Runway 19 for the period of June, 1999 through the end of June, 2000.   Specifically, there were a total of 47,177 flight operations (36,241  arrivals, and 10,936 departures) using Runway 19 during this period."

In a May 19, 2000 letter to me, Robert Helland, an aide to now Senator Jon  Corzine, uncovered the fact that the FAA recorded 198,466 annual operations at  TEB during 1998, a 10% increase over 1997 and an 18% increase over the "FINDING  OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT" projection for 2007.   

Without even considering the numerous other errors in the application of data  and inconsistencies in the ILS-19 "FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT," if the  reports environmental impact conclusions were predicted on total airport  operations remaining under 170,000 through the year 2007, the FAA's own record of  198,466 annual operations at TEB in 1998 violates the cumulative noise impact  projection and alone invalidates the "FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT."   This data should force a restriction of flights using TEB to within 170,000  until a valid and unbiased environmental assessment can be conducted.

The data Ms. Feldman provided does show that there was a 118% increase from  1998 to 1999 in flights using Runway 19.  While this number represents only a  portion of total TEB flight operations, it is representative of the marked  increase in traffic into TEB and contradicts the reports statement that "The  proposal is not expected to increase traffic levels at TEB."  Most important, the  118% increase in traffic using Runway 19 explains the increased concern of  those at HUMC.  It is the flights using Runway 19 that are placing our lives at  risk. 

Elevation Danger in the Hackensack Heights not Addressed.

The FAA "FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT" states:    p4: ILS-19 "moves the approach away from residential areas to the  predominantly industrialized areas North of the airport."
ILS-19 is in actuality an approach directly over residential areas to the  northwest of the airport, residential areas containing the tallest buildings in  the area.  On p 4-1, the report does note that "community areas to the west and  north lie at much higher elevations than the airport. These include  Wood-Ridge, Hasbrouck Heights and Hackensack."  But the wisdom of aircraft flying over  those "higher elevations" is never addressed.

The FAA was asked to address the reports misstatement that ILS-19 "moves  the approach away from residential areas to the predominantly industrialized  areas North of the airport," never mentions the effect of noise and safety on  these "much higher elevations" nor the implications of aircraft flying  apparently 50 feet above numerous high-rise buildings and over a majo medical center.   I also asked for FAA radar tape data documenting the minimum and average  altitudes of aircraft flying over HUMC.  Ms. Feldman did not address the  misstatement, provided no data for actual aircraft elevations but provided the following  calculation:

"An aircraft using ILS guidance will generally be at a 3 degree angle  downward to the touchdown point on the runway.  Therefore, by taking into account and  adjusting for the height of a building such as the Hackensack University  Medical Center (HUMC), as well as considering the physical terrain in the  vicinity, we are able to determine that an aircraft using an ILS approach to Runway 19  at TEB would be approximately 400 feet above the top of that building."

Although we have no measurements or radar data, simple observation and  photographs indicate that aircraft are consistently less than 400 feet above HUMC  and less than 100 feet above the high-rise apartment buildings just north of  HUMC.

(continued in next post)

Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4113
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Re: Teterboro Airport
« Reply #38 on: June 02, 2005, 09:39:32 AM »
Continued from prior post:

Noise Levels Over HUMC.

The FAA "FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT" states:    p 25: "No hospitals are included within any noise contour" (i.e., noise   >>65 Ldn).

Fig 3-4: "Departing aircraft must not exceed 80 dB(A) Between 2200 and  0700 local time and 90 dB(A) at all other times at Noise Monitor 1 located 1.9  nautical mile from normal brake release point."

The FAA was asked what peak and average noise levels the FAA monitors have  actually recorded since ILS-19 opened in June, 1999 and to calculate a new noise  contour based on those data. Ms. Feldman provided no noise data but stated:

"Teterboro Airport and the Teterboro Advisory Noise Abatement Advisory  Committee (TANAAC), comprising the political leaders and representatives of  surrounding municipalities, maintains an extensive network of noise monitors.  The FAA  does not conduct independent noise monitoring.  Additionally, a TEB Noise  Abatement Procedure is in place encouraging users of TEB not to exceed specified  decibel levels upon takeoff from the airport.  This too, is not a FAA  requirement or regulation."

Table 6-1 of the "FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT" shows that the average  1996 noise at HUMC was 58.8 dB (RMS3 monitor).  The 58.8 dB level at HUMC was  primarily the result of flights whose path is to the east up the Hackensack  River.  This 1996 noise level cannot reasonably be used to predict the noise  levels created by ILS-19 in the year 1998, in which 118% more aircraft flew dire ctly over HUMC.  In fact, TANAAC monitors have measured noise levels of over  100dB since ILS-19 opened at HUMC and Hiller School, (which is south of HUMC  along the ILS-19 flight path), not only during the day but also at 1:00 and 3:00  AM.  Similar A-weighted noise levels were recorded during the Summer of 1999,  and now again in 2003, on Prospect Avenue.  Such noise levels produced by  approaching aircraft at less than 400 feet (by Ms. Feldmans HUMC altitude  calculation) above Hiller School exceed even the "recommended" noise levels of  departing aircraft 1.9 nautical miles from TEB. 

An objective and accurate environmental impact statement is needed that will  assess the safety of low-flying approaching aircraft over  HUMC and calculate  the actual day/night noise level now that ILS-19 is operating.  Such an  environmental assessment will undoubtedly show that HUMC is within the 65dB noise  contour, a noise level unacceptable for a hospital.  Again, these current data  should at least force an immediate restriction of flights using TEB to within  the 170,000 allowed by the FONSI until a valid and unbiased environmental  assessment can be conducted.

Can you please help us require FAA to finally answer the questions that are  so vital to our well-being and safety?  The administration worries about  medical personnel being decimated by a smallpox attack.  Yet they allow our medical  center to be threatened daily by a more clear and present danger.  I ask that  you please help us take action to stop flights over HUMC before a tragedy like  that in Connecticut occurs in New Jersey, with a corporate jet cart wheeling  into the medical center.

Yours truly,

Dr. Richard L. Bruno

Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4113
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Re: Teterboro Airport
« Reply #39 on: June 02, 2005, 09:51:32 AM »
Latest story:  PA chief would cut Teterboro air traffic

Many posts were entered before this one.

Offline Rob Gartner

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Teterboro Airport
« Reply #40 on: June 02, 2005, 04:21:57 PM »
As usual, Dr. Bruno makes some outstanding points. There are two points I would like to follow up on. Both of these points are based on conversations I have had with Port Authority and FAA officials over the last few years. First, only departing flights are subject to noise restrictions. Arriving flights (like the ones over the hospital) are not subject to regulations and can never be cited for violation. Second, FAA internal systems did not, at the time the ILS was approved, account for changes in elevation of the surrounding area when laying out flight paths. The heights of flight paths were only measured relative to ground level at the runway not relative to buildings the planes would fly over. The change in elevation between the airport and Hackensack and the height of buildings were simply not figured into the analysis. I was told that this was going to be corrected in later versions of their analysis but that was too late for ILS 19.

Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4113
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Re: Teterboro Airport
« Reply #41 on: June 04, 2005, 11:08:59 AM »
COALITION FOR PUBLIC HEALTH & SAFETY MEETING

Monday, June 13, 2005  -  7:30PM
Hasbrouck Heights Borough Hall
Senior Center - Main Level
320 Boulevard, Hasbrouck Heights

ALL ARE WELCOME TO ATTEND THIS MEETING

TOPICS OF DISCUSSION:

1        May 31, 2005 Crash at Teterboro Airport; Red Neck Road/Moonachie Road - Twin Engine plane on approach - no deaths - pilot sustained injury

2        Petition to FAA for Rulemaking Changes with regard to Teterboro  Airport

3        Plan of action - Support of elected officials with regard to capping Teterboro Airport's operations, do we need more?
« Last Edit: June 04, 2005, 11:15:57 AM by Editor »

Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4113
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
« Last Edit: June 06, 2005, 10:00:41 AM by Editor »

Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4113
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Re: Teterboro Airport
« Reply #43 on: June 16, 2005, 08:53:13 AM »
Latest story: Taming Teterboro

Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4113
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Re: Teterboro Airport
« Reply #44 on: June 18, 2005, 10:33:08 AM »

 

anything