The Airport Communities Podcast

Ep #24In our last episode, Honk If Ya Love California, we talked about the history of modern environmental law in America: the EPA, NEPA, SEPA.  We showed how many complex, interconnected pieces there are, like PSCAA. We took some time to mention how important WA electeds were in that process, and how they created carve outs for aviation.Today we're talking about what everyone always wants to talk about: flight paths. Because deep down, people just want the airplanes to go somewhere else. We get it. That is why the subject is always subject to extremes: magical thinking, or 'Don't like it? Move!' Neither were ever true.But the system constraints are also as split-personality as the environmental law in Episode #23. The legislators who helped create so many improvements to air pollution writ large were also key advocates for the aviation industry and very intentionally created the box we now find ourselves in.That was the Greater Good Argument. Reducing negative impacts overall was the win. Creating economic benefits overall was the win.The one-line rule of aviation law is this: No 'residential zoning'. The FAA gets stuck in the middle as the bad cop enforcing a system we all voted for,'Flight paths' is such a big topic, we had to split it into two episodes. Both are much longer than we would prefer. But you asked for it. Splitting such a tightly integrated system into pieces is just part of the Casino. One cannot see how rough it is without scanning everything from ancient aircraft to cutting-edge physics--and everything in between.In Part I, we discuss those 400,000lb tubes going 200mph and how FAA-speak like NextGen, SIDs, STARs, RNAV, Glide Slopes and Wake Recat figure into your rights. Most of it is depressing. Even worse, there are also several terrible jokes referencing Lord of the Rings, Star Trek and Orcas.In Part II, we'll use that to talk about why so many lawsuits fail, and some better options given the current playing field. TopicsHistoryLink: NEPAEp #4: The Railroad In The Sky!Ep #23 Honk If Ya Love California!Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA)Four Post Plan from FAA DECISION and ORDERSeattle Community Council Federation v. FAA 961 F.2d 929Gate to Gate How the FAA Manages Air TrafficFAA Puget Sound Area Airspace ExplainerQuieter skies ahead: Seattle at forefront of high-tech plan to change airplane trafficSea-Tac airliner tests could yield quieter, more efficient landingsFinal Environmental Assessment for Greener Skies Over Seattle

In our last episode, Why Port Package Update programs keep failing, we talked about some of the not well-considered proposals various activists keep supporting. And also, with the blizzard of agencies that all seem to be involved in air quality, how is it that the FAA seems to be the only true 'deciderer' when it comes to Sea-Tac Airport?This time we offer a 30,000 foot view of all those acronyms, and then provide a thumbnail sketch of how such a large administrative state could yield such poor outcomes over time for airport communities.Environmental policy has two eras: before 1970 and after 1970. Before 1970, there were various state environmental policies and separate federal laws covering water and air. Then NEPA was passed--spearheaded by our own Senator Scoop Jackson, creating one of the largest expansions to the administrative state in American history. The core argument was to create one standard.Meanwhile, Californians were able to a one of a kind carve-out in the Clean Air Act, to give them the ability to set their own standards for emissions. These become the better standards which have led to massive improvements in air quality in just a few years. Improvements we now take for granted.If the most consequential environmental policy in American History was created by a Washingtonian, and Boeing was located in Washington, why didn't aviation environmental law turn better?UW Meteorologist Cliff Mass has some black humor which explains this. "People who live in Puget Sound like to ride a bike to work every day, then reward themselves for their climate activism by flying to Europe twice a year." Noting that just those two transatlantic flights generate more GHGs than most people do in their entire home over the course of a year.Since then, Boeing has become a monopoly. There haven't been market incentives to improve the product (or even build a new product) in over a decade.The decision not to hold aviation to the same engineering standards as automotive was intentional, not an oversight. And today, every airport community continues to pay the price.TopicsFederal Register: Delegation of authority to regional clean air agencies (PSCAA)WA Ecology SIPSEPA: Air quality implementation plansHistoryLink: Senator Henry Jackson conducts U.S. Senate hearing on NEPAHistoryLink: NEPAWikipedia: Council On Environmental QualityClearing the Air: The War on Smog | American Experience | PBSUnited Airlines – 100% green Carbon neutral by 2050 

The original title was "Maps Are Good, Too!" But that seemed too vague.In the original Ep #21: Maps Are Good, we introduced several terms and concepts people need to have at their fingertips in order to dive in deeper.This time, we focus on two big ones DNL and RCW53 in order to explain why we keep failing to obtain Port Package updates -- even though the Port says it wants to do something, money has been allocated by Congress, and several proposals have been put forward by the State.The big confusion is that there is one land area known as the DNL specified by the FAA, which changes every time the Port does a 'voluntary' Part 150 Study. That boundary determined who gets sound insulation or property buyouts.We also discuss why that DNL began shrinking and how the process of End of Block evolved to make sure that the noise contours yield as many eligible homes as possible.Noise remediation can take two forms: abatement and mitigation. The 1970's and 80's were more about abatement: property buyouts, and industry efforts to make quieter aircraft. But with the Third Runway, mitigation: sound insulation, become the main approach. Thus, 90% of Port Packages were done in a very short period from 1998-2005.For a variety of reasons, in the State of WA, a lot of airport law, including a whole other noise impact boundary, got buried inside the Port Districts law -- RCW53. A lot of that law is not in sync with the FAA. For example, the current RCW53 boundary combines both Sea-Tac and Boeing Field airspaces -- even though Sea-Tac is the only commercial airport in WA owned by a port district.Could it get more complicated? Of course. This is just the tip of the iceberg.But that does not mean that there aren't simple solutions. It's only that we're not taking them. That's the Casino.Every year we try to tell advocates: get your stories straight. Make sure that your electeds and the City, State and Federal levels, are all in sync. And every year it doesn't happen. Every year both people and agencies pursue separate agenda. That is the reason we fail to fix failing Port Packages..We have dedicated electeds and non-electeds who want to solve many airport community issues -- including Port Package Updates. But it is that lack of shared understanding and shared strategy holds us back -- not the issues. In the case of sound insulation updates, there is money, and a working program model. The issue of fixing failed Port Packages is a solved problem. It is we who are failing.How do you tell people of such good will that it's not the issue that is the problem? How do you message that it is the inability to pull together in the same direction that keeps airport communities all across America from succeeding.

Our apologies for the delays between episodes - and for not being timely in updating you on our legislative efforts.We keep trying to tell a story — to provide a background on how airports work -- to benefit all airport communities. But this is the sixty-day legislative session in Olympia, the time of year where we have to try to turn those ideas into something real for you.The bad news: to all of you who have been putting off much-needed repairs-- waiting patiently to see results, it's not looking good. There are still one or two efforts we're monitoring, but they are Hail Marys.In a previous episode we talked about the problems with the original version of SB 5652 (2025). People recognized the challenges in that earlier version, but it was a moot point because it had no funding. Given the short session and the State's huge budget difficulties, frankly, we assumed it would be re-written as much simpler, straightforward bill to provide a direct path towards Port Package updates and help for cities when they most need it with the SAMP. Now.Instead, SB5652 came back in an even more expansive version, and coupled with a new bill SB6240 -- designed to provide money.Clearly, we did not succeed in selling the benefits of a more measured, immediate approach. Part of the problem may be that we had not yet done our planned episode on allowable uses of aviation revenues and taxation. Like second airports or flight path fixes, STNI tends not to talk about concepts that are usually too good to be true. Maybe that's on us.  This episode reviews what went wrong with SB 6240 and introduces the concept of revenue diversion .What happens at the airport stays at the airportSB6240 would have relied on an aviation fuel tax. The principle is extremely intuitive, the revenue opportunities are massive, and as such, various stakeholders, throughout America try it all the time. Precisely because it is so irresistible, Congress went out of its way to make the regulations almost airtight and that is why we tell people: do not try this without a ton of research.And yet, at the hearing, the WSDOT Director of Aviation was warning that S6240 may add to an ongoing conflict the state has been having with the FAA for over a decade. Advocates seemed oblivious, testifying in favor of it anyway, hoping to try again next session irrespective of her concerns.As we describe in the episode, if bill sponsors insisted on looking at fuel taxes rather than other options, there were less fraught models.Most people will say they can spot something when it is too good to be true. And yet we've watched so many people, year after year, rush to support bills like SB 6240 -- without doing the research. We often get accused of being scoldy. But STNI is a living archive. Part of our mission is to provide that expert research, free of charge, to enable advocates in all airport communities to make good choices - not place bets and hope for the best.https://seatacnoise.info/ep-emergency-sb6240-port-packages/

In our last episode (SB5652 Emergency Episode Port Packages), we talked about changes we'd like to see in Senator Orwall's airport legislation. But we didn't talk about why we're so concerned.Everything about airports is complicated. You need a map just to find your way through the terminal! Airport law is like that--multiplied by 1,000.Fortunately, we're now getting much needed help with mapping (Rami shout out!) You've already seen his great work in our Port Packages, Noise Trees Mapping projects. That's just the beginning.We now have to learn how to screen record his great work. The software is supposed to be "so simple a child can do it." Unfortunately, your host is JC, who only behaves childishly and did not follow the instructions carefully. Which means that this episode contains a few technical glitches--including clipped audio.Still, we think this is an important episode for understanding SB5652, the SAMP and the DNL65--all defined by boundaries on a map and all being decided this year. Ironically, most of the airport law you care about concerns land, not what is going on up in the air. This episode shows you the basics of those boundaries.TopicsSB5652RCW 53.020 - Aviation Impacted AreaPart 150 for dummies (DNL65 boundaries)SAMP Chapter 3 - Affected Environment (Area Of Potential Effects)Vision 2045 Goals & Objectives - KCIA (Boeing Field) Master PlanTo learn how you can make a difference, read our STNI: 2026 Legislative Agenda and:STNI.info/subscribeVideo feedFind us on all the best podcasts, including Apple and Spotify, or subscribe via