Airplane noise Friday

[righteousness-1.livejournal.com]

Someone posted a comment that aircraft noise had increased over Davis recently. Today, I was sick in bed and I thought I was going to go insane. An aircraft flew over my house every minute, no kidding, all day long from 5am this morning.

I'd really appreciate it if fellow Davis Square readers who dislike noise especially from aircraft could make a complaint to Logan. Please don't flame the thread if you think airplanes are cute or you simply love noise.

Unless we speak out, even a little, no one will give a damn. I spoke to the airport people and they said they will act and possibly re-route or stagger flight paths but only if they get complaints.
Apparently, ever since a new runway went in, they have received an increase in complaints. 
http://www.massport.com/logan/airpo_noise_comcom.html
Thanks.

Call (617) 561-3333
or
This is the link to report a complaint: http://www.massport.com/logan/airpo_noise_form.aspx

Comments

Re: NIMBY? or NIABY?

[limbodog.livejournal.com]

Blegh. Figures when I want it I can't find it.

OK, "lifting bodies" are not new. The stealth fighter/bomber are both lifting bodies. It's just where the entire plane provides lift. We've had that technology since the 50s.

And sound reflects off hard objects. So jet engines hung under the wing reflect the sound downward onto the houses below. Put 'em over the engine and the sound reflects upward.

I've found some quasi-helpful links:

http://travel.howstuffworks.com/sai.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051110214321.htm

There's also a study going on about making jet engines electric. No combustion makes considerably less sound. I can't find the article on those however. Perhaps the S.A.I. has it somewhere.

Re: NIMBY? or NIABY?

[davelew.livejournal.com]

I always thought the vibration of airplane wings (from having a flexible beam attached to a vibrating engine) caused the noise, not the reflection of radiated sounds off the lifting surface.

Also, I think the lifting body idea is unfeasible. It takes a long time to design a new aircraft and bring it into production. If you want to see results, you can encourage airlines to use quieter planes with quieter engines with existing technology. Here's a link to the FAA guidelines on airplane noise:

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/aeab4e3e783d2b6086256e3700762a57/$FILE/AC36-3H.pdf

Planes range from the MD-90 at 83 dBA to the 747-100 at 94 dBA. Basically, smaller commuter planes are less noisy than super-mega-jumbo jets.

Re: NIMBY? or NIABY?

[limbodog.livejournal.com]

Logan doesn't even allow those smaller planes. Those get diverted to Green or Norwood.

And yes, you won't see immediate results with the lifting body designs. They need to be made first, you can't just go to the store and pick one up. But complaining about the route isn't going to do much either. Might as well pick the one that will eventually have a chance on working.