Residents listen, give input on proposed OLF
Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
CAMDEN — The Navy will be flying F/A-18 SuperHornets over Camden County in the next year to show the community what type of noise they would make if a pilot training field was located here.
A Navy spokesman made the comment at a public "scoping" meeting at Camden High School on Tuesday attended by hundreds of residents.
 Justin Falls/The Daily Advance |
| Denise Mitchell, (left), and Rosie Hale, (right), talk as Fred Pierson, (back left), a community planner for the U.S. Navy, explains data on a noise contour map to William Mitchell during the Navy's 'scoping' meeting on its proposed outlying landing project at Camden County High School, Monday.
|
At that meeting, Navy officials passed out literature and spoke one on one to residents about the proposed Outlying Landing Field, a pilot training field where touch and go landings and takeoffs would be practiced mainly at night before pilots graduated to carrier ships.
Navy officials also passed out literature to try and clear up "misperceptions" about how the field might impact Camden County if it is chosen.
But they had a tough sell.
Most residents said the field would ruin Camden.
"Our whole lifestyle (with an OLF) will be destroyed here," Camden resident Pat Cuthrell said.
The Navy is studying the Hales Lake site in Camden, the Sandbanks site in Gates County, as well as three sites in Virginia for the OLF.
At the scoping meeting, Navy officials also solicited input from residents, who jotted down their concerns on paper and stuck them in comment boxes.
It was the Navy's sixth "scoping" meeting to take public input as part of a kickoff to an environmental impact statement study. The two-year study will be used by the Navy to recommend what site moves forward in the summer of 2010.
Navy spokesman Ted Brown said the flyover demonstration in Camden will occur within the next year after proposed flight patterns have been established through this study.
He said there would be advance notice so residents could make sure they are in their homes and businesses to truly gauge the real jet noise.
He said the noise in the demonstration would be louder than if the jets were actually touching down. He said they would only fly as low as 500 feet.
"At that altitude, the noise is actually going to spread out farther," Brown said.
"What we want to do is eliminate a lot of the speculation (about jet noise)," he said.
He pointed to a chart showing the Navy's 30,000-acre jet noise contour, which illustrates areas in Camden where jet noise might be irritating to some. He said there is no doubt the jet noise will be extremely loud in the 2,000-acre landing area in the middle of this ring, which is why the Navy would buy that land.
"That's why we don't want anyone to live there," Brown said. "But it's (the noise) going to get progressively quieter as you go out from here (the landing strip), and we believe a lot of the people who live outside of this area are probably thinking it's going to be a lot louder than it's going to be."
Veronica Gubbs lives outside of the 30,000-acre noise contour zone in Moyock and is convinced the jet noise will be unbearable for her family.
She said it makes sense to locate an OLF in a less congested area than Camden and Currituck.
"People down here are retired," she said.
She has lived in Moyock since 1994 and raised her children there. She said she plans to stay, and hopes the OLF is not part of the future.
"I would like them (her children) to have a peaceful environment," she said.
The Navy's literature touted some of the economic benefits of the OLF, noting 62 full-time civilian jobs, $4.2 million in yearly salaries and benefits, and $68,000 average annual pay, plus benefits.
The literature said that the construction of an OLF would result in civilian jobs and construction-related dollars that would positively impact the local community over the two-year period
The Navy estimates that the construction work would generate 560 to 630 jobs, with regional economic impact of $100 million.
Navy officials also passed out literature about "misconceptions" about the OLF.
One of those, it said, was that the Navy could use a decommissioned carrier or offshore platform for the OLF.
"The demanding task of landing an aircraft on the deck of a carrier must be practiced on land with an adequate margin for safety prior to attempting to perform that task," the Navy response stated.
Another "misperception," the literature stated, was that the Navy could use abandoned or underutilized existing military or civilian airfields for an OLF. It said the Navy has evaluated several existing military airfields recommended by officials in the state of North Carolina and Virginia, including Fort Pickett, Fort A.P. Hill, and Wallops Island, and none are considered feasible.
"Concerns with these sites include conflicts with existing operations, high populations near the airfields, and the distance of these locations from NAS Oceana and Naval Station Norfolk," the Navy response said. "The transit time, fuel usage, the physical wear on the airframe would be unacceptable. The same is true for civilian commercial airports, such as Kinston Airpark in North Carolina."
Vote for this story!
Comments
By Ira Tateu
May 8, 2008 5:22 PM | Link to this
I forgot to add this and saw someone who was asking. The actual decibel level for the flight passes at my old house were stated to be 117DB per pass. However, they were measured by a third party to be louder.
Why do you think the Navy settled the lawsuit?
By Ira Tateu
May 8, 2008 5:11 PM | Link to this
Enough of this crap about the DB levels being below 100. I assure you that you will not care about averages when they fly non stop for 8 hours and then average in the 16 they do not. This is beyond loud, it makes your home shake! I was run out of my home in VB when the new jets moved in. The 'new' jets are more than twice as loud as the old ones. So if you allow the OLF, you cannot guarantee how loud the next jets will be either. Then when you start complaining citing the fraudulent levels you were provided with, people will ask why you were no smart enough to not live near the base. This is your chance to be smart: fight it all the way!
Instead of repeating this I copied it from my last posting on another thread:
The OLF will ruin your way of life. Regardless of where ou stand now, you will sorely reget it's proximity. One poster on here is Carolyn R. who is very vocal on the Virginia Pilot boards in support of the field. She herself has stated that she feels a sense of relief when she leaves VA and returns to her NC home. I questioned her on why she would want to destroy her own way of life but she has never responded. Folks, I came back to NC after living 3 miles from the base in VA. I have no ploitical agenda against the Navy but they will lie to you. Do not believe in the decibal averages. You will not care about the averages when the individual flight is making your children cry inside of your home. You will not be feeling patriotic when your windows are shaking or you realize you cannot leave your windows open anymore. Don't beleive this crap about simply being inconvenienced by not hearing your Tv. As a witness to the noise, you will be holding your ears and asking how it is legal to be that loud. Aside from those having their land stolen, those of you that are left will have your property values destroyed.Sure, some at the beach have maintained or gained value, but your not at the beach. You know this with your gas bill if you have to commute. Many of us are in NE Carolina to avoid the problems associated with Hampton Roads.
By NCguy
May 7, 2008 10:42 PM | Link to this
When the Navy, since July 2003 has been telling the region they do not require an OLF to support the mission at Oceana, I believe them. With that, much of this who would you rather hear, us or someone other country's jets is unfounded. The Navy has the capacity to protect us. They have the training facility. This second OLF is only a want.
People of NE NC have been asking the Navy for 8 years to show us the need. Show us why we MUST sacrifice a community for pilot training. The Navy has not provided us with a need based statement that proves they do not have the capacity.
The only way they can attempt to try to get a need based statement is Fentress ALONE on the longest day of the year, and for that month, two weeks before and two weeks after the longest day, might be overcapacity and 63% of the time.
The Navy also has a goal of stopping flights by 10pm. Not sure how they can accomplish this goal and still be over capacity 63% of the time in summer. These two statements do not work together.
Oceana and Fentress are doing 38% less today, then they did in 2000. At that point, a second OLF was not required. In fact, NC lost planes from Cherry Point because to build more runways would go against BRAC mandates of reducing overall carrier air wing capacity on the east coast.
If anything, this OLF might actually be against the law???? because it is a decision that contridicts 2 BRAC with the increasing of capacity.
When all the assets available to the Navy are brought into the equation, the Navy has capacity. They have the capacity for day to day operations or night to night, and they have the capacity for surge operations.
So now we are back to quality of training.....at Oceana, the quality of training is highly degraded to the point were the mission has been determined should be abandoned.
At Fentress, the quality of training for our pilots is degraded to the point were the Navy is forced to fly patterns that do not match what they encounter at sea.
This is what the Navy is doing to our pilots. Forcing them to continue to train to protect us at two airfields were the training is wrong for our guys.
The Navy is trying to convince us that an OLF will magically fix these problems. Or they are trying to work the arguement that hey we need this OLF anyways, maybe in a few years, Virginia Beach just might fix these encroachment problems and then all will be well. Only problem with this pipe dream is Virginia Beach cannot, nor will not condemn the dwellings required to bring the training from degraded mode. Thus no matter what happens, our pilots will not get the training they deserve.
And this is Camden and Gates County's fault???? I do not think so. If people are worried about bad guy jets flying over your heads, please make the comments to the Navy that they need to give our pilots training fields that are free from encroachment. Please make Oceana and Fentress meet the requirements our pilots deserve. That is the true sound of freedom.
By Mary
May 7, 2008 10:39 PM | Link to this
Our quality of life, environmental impact and our economic loss will have been brought to us without our choice. Many people chose to locate here responsibly. Many of these people including myself have relocated from the Fentress/Oceana area. These are the people who did not complain to the Navy with regard to noise; we/they never asked for damages or compensation. We took responsibility and moved from that location.
Iıd like to make it clear. I strongly support our military. I believe it takes courage and honor to serve our country. I appreciate all the sacrifices our military families and soldiers make on my behalf. I understand that North Carolina is a strong military supporter and I want it to stay that way, however, the location of the OLF must be done strategically and not politically. The Navy needs a long term plan of action to achieve their goal. The Hales Lake site is a bad location. There are too many people already located in the area. I believe our Federal and State government has a full responsibility to protect the health, welfare, and safety of all citizens
We want to help the Navy and our elected representatives find the best long term plan for a new Outlying Landing Field if their existing location is not suitable. Hales Lake is not the answer; there is not enough open grounds to support this mission. We must also take into consideration the taxpayersı money in this decision. This short term plan is not the long term answer.
By ???!
May 7, 2008 9:27 PM | Link to this
The truth is and what it boils down to is the fact that the Navy has two sites already built...Oceana and Fentress... that are well equipped and suited for their needs. The problem is the encroachment from builders and lawsuits from residents in those areas. Oceana has been there since WWII. The residents have not. The NAVY needs to stand up to the political fallout around Oceana and utilize what they already have there. The NAVY needs to continue what they started about three years ago and insist VA Beach condemn the houses recently built in that area(in violation of the NAVY's agreement in Virginia Beach). If the beach does not agree, OCEANA should close it's base there...The city would not survive without it. NAVY...QUIT paying out our tax dollars to pay off these lawsuits filed by people who built in an already established NAVAL JET TRAINING AREA!
By FormerAirdale
May 7, 2008 7:09 PM | Link to this
What it all boils down to is: Whose jets would you rather hear overhead? Ours, or somebody else's?
By NCguy
May 6, 2008 7:10 PM | Link to this
Noise concerns.
The Navy provided us with an in depth noise study, this thing is huge......It is 1370 pages total. It has 196 pages of noise data to depict how loud a plane is doing what kind of flight mission. It shows take off, landing, and pattern noise events around Oceana, Fentress and the second OLF.
It shows SEL, single event levels in dB. This is not the dB DNL the Navy throws around, but the actual noise. It also has the dB DNL calc for that event. Nifty.
This table is appendix F of the Noise Study from the Navy's historical documents page.
just some random numbers for the fun of it.
for comparison, normal talking 3 to 5 feet away is 60dB
Sound generated by a jet, in dB, from the FCLP pattern to the noise receptor (your ear!) pg F-187 1361/1370 adobe.
14,396 feet 75dB ----- dB DNL calc <45.0
9,301 feet 87.9dB ----- dB DNL calc 56.6
15,931 feet 75.2dB --- dB DNL calc <45.0
29,473 feet 58.5dB --- dB DNL calc <45.0
1,162 feet 111.7dB had to throw this one in. ----- dB DNL calc 80.3
21,187 feet 63.1dB --- dB DNL calc <45.0
All the above are found when the planes are doing the racetrack pattern. Not take off or landing. The dB DNL calc number is what would generate the dB DNL contour line. So if you lived 21,187 feet away from the jet, you could receive a noise impact of 63.1dB which would disrupt normal conversation, but the Navy says you would not be impacted by this utilizing dB DNL. Dang it, I lost my I BELIEVE BUTTON again. shucks, guess I cannot push it....
Take off
22,340 feet 67.9dB ----- dB DNL calc <45
8,913 feet 89.6dB----- dB DNL calc 50.7
12,802 feet 84.6dB --- dB DNL calc 45.6
I use a mile as 5260 feet?
4.25 miles away, you will get impacted with a disturbance of conversation, it will almost be twice as loud (I guess almost screaming at you) but this dB DNL system will say you will not be impacted. Nice story Navy.
What is not depicted here is the fly over noise. If you live between Oceana and this second OLF, what could you expect to hear is not depicted anywhere.
If someone did ask for that data (and a bunch of people should, you got till 7 June!) you would need to stipulate altitudes also. Probably in 500ft increments starting at 500ft to 17,000 feet. The plane can be anywhere between those alts over your head.
Also should stipulate low cloud cover with 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% humidity to take into account the noise ducting effects. Very nonscientific term but a valid concern.
By Old Aircrew
May 6, 2008 7:09 PM | Link to this
I've practiced Avation in EC for 30yrs. You can alway hear the planes coming off the Dare bombing range and flying over Camden. To have them doing touch and gos will be loud. Craven co. offered the OLF a home. that would mean that Cherry Point and New River with their 5 OLFs would grow and Va beach would be quiet. The Navy and Sen. Warner don't like being told what to do or losing. If the Dems get in the White House they won't have the money to fly much less build white elephants.
By NCguy
May 6, 2008 6:28 PM | Link to this
Fort Pickett studies....The Navy version.
The FEIS mentioned why FT. Pickett is undesirable. Pg 2-69. Adobe pg 194/1582. Basically it was to far away from Cherry Point, it has conflicts with Army live fire, and to many people in surrounding town. But please read the page, its one full page, 4 paragraphs.
The SEIS also mentions almost word for word, this, but also adds that Ft. Pickett was eliminated early on in the siting study performed. Funny, the siting study does not mention Ft. Pickett, so how could it be eliminated?
http://www.olfeis.com/historic_documents.aspx
Has the FEIS and the SEIS. Both are large documents. The siting study can also be found at that link, this is the study the SEIS quoted as saying addressed Ft. Pickett and eliminated early on in the study.
Because I do not recognize any other studies other then the NEPA documents I do not know of any other studies for Ft. Pickett.
Hope this answers the Navy's tale on Ft. Pickett.
This might be why it is hard to find any study on Ft. Pickett, one was not performed????
By Mike
May 6, 2008 5:24 PM | Link to this
Mary,
Wallops Island is Operated by NASA, plus the amount of Wildlife, Horse's and Fishing would be a Non Start.
[1 2 3 4] next
Commenting is open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. M-F, except on Tuesday when it's open until 9 p.m.
Post a comment
*HTML not allowed in comments. Your e-mail address is required.