Residents get few answers they like at $25-million meeting with FAA over Logan flight paths

It must be terrible to hear all that plane noise. There are plenty of houses for sale in suburban Worcester, where there is no plane noise. It's only 40 miles away - the people should look in to that option.

I dont worry about jets but usually have a helicopter or two flying over anytime between 7 and 10 at night. Granted I live near the pike and not in the "really really rich part of Newton"

Noise and public health is a major issue, however in the US it is not really taken seriously like it is in Europe. The Dutch have nose abatement down such that you could be traveling under the equivalent of the masspike and still hear birds chirping. A combination of pavement tech and noise absorption.

Its harder with planes but there ought to be some way to reduce the engine noise or some combination of rotating flight paths...

I don't care about the noise, I have lived around the world and I have had it worse. I also understand that a vibrant airport is absolutely necessary, and that in a global world, departing and arriving times are sometimes strange (5am?!).

The only thing I want to know is the reason why, in the flight route map, there is a highway through JP/Roslindale, that, at least for flights that go West/North-West, seems to have the only purpose to avoid Brookline. Is there a reason for that?

When not listening, FAA officials mostly told residents why their requests could not be fulfilled. One Hull resident asked when departing planes can't simply be moved a mile further out over water; FAA officials said that would get them too close to planes arriving via another runway.

I wish I'd been there to hear the context for that. As a standalone statement, it doesn't seem to make much sense.

Departures passing over Hull would probably be departures from runway 15, correct? "Sending the further out over water" sounds to me like that would be turning (at some point after takeoff but before Hull) from the runway bearing of south-southeast (150 degrees) to something more like east-southeast (120 degrees). That makes sense, as far as that goes.

What runway would be used for arrivals when 15 is being used for departures? Different arrival runways would have different area approach patterns, but I'm having trouble figuring out which runway would mean some sort of conflict with traffic departing from 15.

This is the first time I visited this website. I am shocked at the comments' poor quality and lack of basic knowledge about the subject. Also at the hatred towards the "rich". The majority of people on this forum do not understand the issues but offer unfounded opinions.

Yet, when I tried posting a comment that had information about the issues, also a reference to Massport's software showing planes do fly every 43 seconds over us, I found out you are actually moderating those messages. Do you really? Do you think that 60% of what you are posting here should be approved messages or do you get higher ratings if you have a high number of posts so then you go ahead and post everything, no matter the language, tone etc.?

I am just curious. It doesn't matter much because I will not return to this site. It's unfortunate since the article is quite well written.

I think you are all missing the boat. There was a suit filed in Milton and we lost!! The reason we lost is that the judge made it clear that the FAA was folowing all the laws,rules, and regulations as required.

Who maes those laws? Congress. So you can get all upset with the FAA if you want and applaud Congressman Lynch, but it is he and his ronies who make the laws. Check out and see who donates to these Congressman. The Airlines??? The Airline Unions???

If you want things to change, get Congressman who are willing to change laws. Don't blame the public servants who make those laws.

Congressman Lynch was way out of line and should not be applauded for his actions. He is part of the problem, and don't let him tell you otherwise.

Greetings all,

I hadn't seen this until now. I am so happy to hear that Boston is fighting back. The airlines are not happy about how NextGen is being implemented, and every bit of pressure helps...

In Phoenix and northeast Queens, the NextGen routes are not a direct overlay of the former SID routes. Instead, the RNAV "cuts" through a large and highly populated area that had previously not been under a flight track. Previous flight tracks had utilized waterways, parks and industrial areas.

I am not sure if the same situation exists in Milton/Boston. I would guess that it does. I'm going to guess that flight tracks have been shortened, truncated and altered in addition to being concentrated.

When these new, refined routes were exempted from environmental review under the condition that they be less noisy than a previous route on a "per flight basis", they were supposed to be exact overlays of the previous route, and not, in effect, a completely new route. That was the nature of the 2012 CATEX.

I just wanted to mention this since the FAA is claiming that they can't do anything. At every meeting, they say they can't move anything around. I guess they have their marching orders. They get through meetings by harping on minor details and the meeting devolves into technical minutiae.

Sure they can change things. They can still use RNAV's over the previous routes and still concentrate the track. They can do this without changing the track of the route itself, which is the primary problem in many areas. But that's the part that they don't want to do. They are condensing the airspace and utilizing all available airspace.

With the CATEX they now have a tool to fill every open patch of air with a plane. They can replace Noise Abatement Departure Procedures (NADP's) with new procedures that cut directly over an area which never had a route before. On Long Island, NY, they have arrivals coming in to JFK's runway 22L at 2000 feet, with departures from 31L layered above the arrivals!

I hope Massachusetts stays in the fight. Good Luck.