« PreviousContinue »
quired in order to accomplish a similar flight test demonstration for the JT2D powered aircraft.
Senator CANNON. Now, do you think that if NASA were to go ahead with an R. & D. program with the JT3D in next year's project, which they now propose to cut out, do you think that that would give us a product, a usable product-strike that.
Let me put it a different way; at what point in time do you think that we could come up with a usable product that could be retrofitted into these aircraft?
Mr. McPike. I would respond that it should be about the same time that we are able to fly certifiable hardware, on the order of late 1975. There would be an additional time to provide the production kits, of course, to put on to the aircraft.
Senator CANNON. So that if you had a flight demonstration program in 1975, then how long a time do you think it would be before production kits would be available after that demonstration?
Mr. McPike. If the production decisions could be made, perhaps early in 1975, before the final flight test program, and I should point out that there would be what we tend to call a boiler plate hardware flight test program earlier than that to demonstrate proof of concept.
I would say that sometime between 1 and 2 years after the late 1975 date would be required in order to provide the first kits suitable for incorporation on aircraft.
Senator CANNON. So, we would be talking, in terms of the start of a retrofit program, somewhere along the line of early in 1977?
Mr. McPIKE. 1976 and 1977, yes.
Senator Cannon. And to complete a program of that type on the aircraft involved, the 707 and DC-8's, would take how long a period of time in your judgement?
Mr. McPIKE. Generally speaking, a period of 3 years has been used to incorporate such a device as this into a total fleet of aircraft. Of course, it would depend on the size of the fleet.
Senator CANNON. So, this would take us up, roughly to the first part of 1980?
Mr. McPIKE. It would approaching that.
Senator CANNON. And these would be the factors that would have to be fed into the economics question as to whether this is the most economical way to proceed, or whether the best way to proceed would be to force an earlier requirement which, in turn, would force a retirement of the aircraft?
Mr. McPIKE. That is correct.
I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that this has been a very, very helpful statement. I was interested in the concept of the continuing program of R. & D. in order for the future to develop the quieter engines above and beyond, perhaps, even what we have with the DC-10. I think that this makes a good deal of sense. But, I for one believe that the DC-10 is quieter, significantly quieter than the
DC-8 and 707's, and will be most beneficial to the people in the community in which it is flying in and out of airports as contrasted to what would be the case with the 707's, or the DC-8’s flying in and out.
I would finally like to say, Mr. Chairman, how much I appreciate your bringing this committee out here to Los Angeles today and giving the people from this community an opportunity to testify as well as, of course, the Federal agency officials that have been here.
I think that there is probably no community that is more concerned about airport noise than the people of Inglewood. I know that it was a considerable effort at which you came here yourself and brought the committee here and I am most appreciative and I speak for the citizens of this community in expressing gratitude to you.
Senator Cannon. Well, I just wish that we had been able to develop some quick solution to the problem, but unfortunately there is just not an easy or quick short-term solution that I see.
We are certainly going to explore every possibility we can and, operationally, of course, I am sure that you have heard some of the witnesses testify as to some of the benefits that can perhaps be achieved through operational procedures.
But, this is only really scratching the surface.
Ms. NEUMAN. Senator, I have traveled 150 miles on very short notice, and I wonder if I could be given permission to address two questions to you and Senator Tunney?
Senator CANNON. Yes. I don't know that we would answer them.
We are here to ask questions, not to answer questions. But, go ahead.
Ms. NEUMAN. Well, my first question is that I was just talking to Mr. Vasnite as he went out and it is my understanding that—by the way, I am Lynn Neuman, and I started the stop committee, that is Stop the Overhead Planes in Inglewood.
Well, that was a year ago last September and my blood is spilled all over this place for 14 months, 24 hours a day so I feel very close to this problem.
Mr. Vasnite told me that within about 30 days' time there is going to be a hearing in Washington, D.C., with a program laid out for you gentlemen, or this is not clear in my mind-for an offshore airport.
Are you aware of this?
Senator CANNON. I am aware of a considerable amount of talk about offshore airports, the fact that there has been some consideration given to it, in the talking stages in this area, as there has been in the Chicago area in the lakes. I am familiar with the general consideration, but I know of no current proposal for an ongoing program, at the present time, to finance and/or construct offshore airports.
Ms. NEUMAN. Well, will this be brought before your committee, within this 30 day thing
Senator Cannon. I cannot tell you that. I don't know whether someone has a proposal
Ms. NEUMAN. Well, I will send you a letter, then, or have someone else.
Now, my second question is this, and I would like to say thank you. Many of us have written letters requesting a grand jury investigation and a Congressional hearing on our problems out here and when I was called yesterday afternoon I was just, oh, how beautiful, our prayers have been answered, and I called Mayor Mergelle and he said “Lynn, I don't know too much about it. I have been invited. I am not even sure that you can go to the hearing." So,
from that standpoint I am disappointed. Now, I did hear Senator Tunney say that you arranged this. Thank you. Now, may I request that you arrange input from we, the citizens. We would likewill tell you one thing, you will learn an awful lot. Senator CANNON. Uh-huh.
Ms. NEUMAN. Senator Cannon, we have lived with this for many years and I know that you have received it from the airport today, and our good Mayor. I got caught up in a traffic snarl and I did not hear his speech, but I know you had some very good testimony here today.
But, would you listen to us?
Senator CANNON. I think we are very well aware of your problem. I think I know about as much about airports and airport problems as a lot of people in the country because I have had the opportunity to see them as chairman of the committee, in many many places around the country and yours is not the only problem in the country.
So, I can say that I am fully aware of your problem and I can certainly sympathize with you. What I am trying to do is to find some reasonable solution that we can try in order to solve this problem in an early time frame rather than the time frame of 1978 to 1982 that has been referred to here today; that is the difficult thing.
You see, we could take every step in the world necessary to give you a completely quiet airport in 1982 and that is yet 9 years from now.
You cannot live with that.
Ms. NEUMAN. Ms. Garheart is ready to lose $80,000. Her apartment house under the south runway is in foreclosure. I am under the north runway and for the first time in 8 years I have a vacancy factor of 3 months. People are not even looking.
We need relief now. Now, the over ocean approach and departure are one solution and, of course, after they are implemented, and we get the pilots accustomed to this we will fight for it on a 24 hour basis.
But, that is not the solution because Ontario was not going to take this and the Antelope Valley is not going to take this.
The offshore airport for Los Angeles is the only solution. We do need an airport here, Senator Tunney. You are right. We are not fighting that per se. But, we also know that our health, our welfare, and our safety are constantly in jeapordy.
Senator CANNON. We know that and we wish we could tell you that we have a solution we could put into effect next month.
Ms. NEUMAN. I wish you did too.
Senator CANNON. But, if you had heard these witnesses and I am sure you have heard some of them
Ms. NEUMAN. Oh, I have just
Senator CANNON. This gentleman right here I think gave us the real hard practical answers because we must establish what can we do short of stopping the airplanes from flying.
Now, if you want to abandon the airport, that is a political decision you have to make with your local governing officials, and your Los Angeles airport authority.
If you want to terminate activities at the airport, that is the problem here, not our problem.
Ms. NEUMAN. Well, you know the problem started with the second north runway. I think this is where blood really boiled.
Senator CANNON. Well, the problem really started with the advent of the jet aircraft because they—
Ms. NEUMAN. Right.
Senator CANNON [continuing.] They brought on noises that we had not been accustomed to before and, as the jet aircraft came in, the frequency of flight increased and this compounded the problem.
So, it is something that is
Ms. NEUMAN. Will you answer this, Senator Cannon, did you ask for this
Senator CANNON. For which ?
Senator CANNON. Senator Tunney requested that I come to Los Angeles and have a hearing right out here so that I could be on the ground and hear some of these people and hear what the problems are right here in this area. That is why we are here.
Ms. NEUMAN. Did you know that we were not notified on it?
Senator Cannon. If you prepare a statement, you can send it to me in Washington and I will make it a part of the record of this hearing.
Ms. NEUMAN. Thank you very much.
ADDITIONAL ARTICLES, LETTERS, AND STATEMENTS
BOEING COMMERICAL AIRLINE GROUP,
Seattle, Wash., March 2, 1973. Mr. ROBERT E. GINTHER, Professional Staff Senate Commerce Committee, Washington, D.C.
DEAR BOB: I'm enclosing a copy of a paper (D6-60199) that we prepared for the Congressional Subcommittee on Advanced Research and Technology (Hechler) for their hearing beginning on March 6. Copies of it have also been given to Bill Sperry of the EPA. Its purpose, as requested by the House, was to update the paper presented to both the EPA and the House in November 1971 and January 1972. It may be of interest to you and your people. Yours very truly,
Vaughn Blumenthal, Director, Noise and Emissions Abatement Programs. Enclosure: