<\/p>\n
This Federal Aviation Administration map shows where most noise is concentrated from departing and arriving aircraft especially at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. \u201cDNL\u201d is the agency\u2019s abbreviation for \u201cDay-Night Average Sound Level.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
(FAA\/Submitted)<\/p>\n
A new federal proposal to redesign Phoenix-area flight paths could change how often aircraft pass over Ahwatukee.<\/p>\n
The Federal Aviation Administration last week released a draft environmental assessment outlining a broad overhaul of airspace serving Sky Harbor and surrounding airports, part of a nationwide effort to modernize air traffic systems.<\/p>\n
Residents are being asked to weigh in on its Performance Based Navigation system, which will \u201cuse satellites to fly more direct routes with efficient climbs and descents.\u201d<\/p>\n
But as with another flight path revision that created controversy over a decade ago, the details of what neighborhoods\u00a0 will be affected \u2014 and how \u2014 are difficult to decipher.<\/p>\n
The lengthy FAA study issued last week notes that a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in May of last year on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) frees the agency from some considerations about the impact of flight changes.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt is no longer a legal requirement or the policy of the federal government to conduct environmental justice analyses,\u201d the FAA states.<\/p>\n
It adds that as a result of the Supreme Court decision,\u00a0 \u201cIt is no longer a legal requirement or the policy of the federal government to conduct cumulative impact analyses\u201d or\u00a0 \u201cconsider environmental effects of other activities and projects separate in time or place from the proposed action.\u201d<\/p>\n
The draft environmental assessment outlines a transition to satellite-based navigation designed to make flights more efficient and predictable.<\/p>\n
What it does not clearly show is which neighborhoods could see \u2014 and hear \u2014 more planes overhead.<\/p>\n
It also addresses air emissions, stating the proposed action \u201cwould result in a small increase in emissions when compared to the No Action Alternative.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cHowever, most changes to flight paths under the Proposed Action would occur at or above 3,000 feet (above ground level), where aircraft emissions are considered unlikely to affect ground-level pollutant concentrations.\u201d<\/p>\n
A familiar pattern\u00a0<\/p>\n
For many Valley residents, the proposal echoes the FAA\u2019s 2014 rollout of \u201cNextGen\u201d flight paths, which dramatically altered routes with little public warning and triggered widespread complaints, lawsuits and a federal court rebuke.<\/p>\n
Numerous Ahwatukee and other Valley residents began complaining when the FAA was beginning to implement NextGen here.<\/p>\n
In the meantime, the City of Phoenix filed suit in 2015 over the NextGen impacts on historic neighborhoods, resulting in a 2017 federal Court of Appeals ruling in the city\u2019s favor.<\/p>\n
The court rebuked the FAA\u2019s \u201carbitrary and capricious\u201d violation of the law and ordered the agency to begin a new environmental impact study.<\/p>\n
The new plan has no relation to that court case, the FAA notes.<\/p>\n
However, the FAA says it \u201cdoes not anticipate that this project will increase the number of aircraft operations at any of the Study Airports.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cThe FAA does not determine or dictate airline schedules, airport demand, or the number of daily aircraft operations. Those levels are driven by market factors such as passenger demand, airline business decisions, and broader economic conditions. \u201cAviation forecasts indicate that air travel demand may continue to grow over time, which is one of the reasons the FAA periodically evaluates and modernizes air traffic procedures.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cThis project focuses on how aircraft safely and efficiently fly within the airspace, not on increasing the number of flights. The FAA\u2019s role is to safely separate and manage air traffic using available airspace as efficiently as possible.\u201d<\/p>\n
But while the agency has scheduled public workshops and opened a comment period, the technical nature of the documents may leave many residents unaware of how the changes could affect them until after they are implemented.<\/p>\n
At the heart of the proposal is a shift to Performance-Based Navigation, allowing aircraft to follow precise, satellite-guided routes instead of being directed in real time by air traffic controllers.<\/p>\n
The FAA says the changes are needed to improve safety, reduce delays, increase efficiency, and better manage growing air traffic.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe need is to enhance traffic flow, reduce delays, and improve safety and efficiency,\u201d the report states, adding:<\/p>\n
\u201cSpecifically, the arrival and departure procedures serving the Phoenix area can be improved to optimize use of the airspace and maintain safety while improving operational efficiency, predictability and flexibility for the benefit of pilots, controllers and the public.\u201d<\/p>\n
It adds, \u201cConventional procedures rely on technology that cannot provided specific and precise navigational benefits for aircraft, including predetermined speeds or altitudes.\u201d<\/p>\n
But that precision can carry a downside.<\/p>\n
Instead of spreading flights over a wider area, modern routing often concentrates them into narrower corridors \u2014 meaning some neighborhoods may see significantly more consistent overflights.<\/p>\n
\u201cBased on the analysis of existing and proposed flight procedures, including routing, altitude, and operational variability, the FAA determined that the Proposed Action would not materially expand the overall geographic extent of aircraft operations but may change the distribution and concentration of aircraft within that existing operational environment,\u201d the FAA document states.<\/p>\n
What the maps don\u2019t say<\/p>\n
While the FAA has released detailed maps, they are highly technical and do not clearly identify neighborhood-level impacts.<\/p>\n
The study evaluates noise exposure across broad regions rather than showing simple \u201cbefore and after\u201d comparisons for specific communities.<\/p>\n
In practical terms, that means residents may not know whether their neighborhood will see more flights, fewer flights or none at all without digging deeply into complex data.<\/p>\n
The proposal affects 10 airports. including Sky Harbor, Mesa Gateway, Chandler, Scottsdale and Deer Valley.<\/p>\n
That regional approach means flight paths over one community may change not just because of Sky Harbor traffic, but due to coordination across multiple airports.<\/p>\n
Unlike NextGen, the FAA is seeking public input before finalizing routes.<\/p>\n
But once those routes are set, changing them can be difficult.<\/p>\n
The agency is holding virtual workshops and accepting public comments as part of its environmental review process.<\/p>\n
For residents concerned about aircraft noise, the current comment period may be the most effective opportunity to influence where planes ultimately fly.<\/p>\n
The FAA documents a broad series of interactions with local governments, tribal officials and others last year, stating it received \u201c21 response letters or emails comprising a total of 58 individual comments.\u201d<\/p>\n
It also states that 789.665 people are estimated to be affected by noise levels above 45 decibels, the standard for quiet to moderate noise.<\/p>\n
The FAA said it will accept public comments through June 22 on the proposed changes, but at deadline for this newspaper, it did not list a way to provide those comments.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Also not working was a site where residents are supposed to be able to plug in their address and get information about how noise levels would be impacted in their neighborhood.<\/p>\n
Possible scenarios<\/p>\n
The FAA\u2019s proposal is not about adding flights to the Phoenix sky.<\/p>\n
It is about redistributing and refining them to make routes more efficient and predictable.<\/p>\n
That predictability may determine which neighborhoods hear aircraft overhead for years to come.<\/p>\n
Possible scenarios could involve:<\/p>\n
\u2022 Shifted approach routes into Sky Harbor over Tempe. If arrival flows are adjusted, planes descending into PHX could be routed more precisely with approach paths shifting slightly east or west.<\/p>\n
Even small shifts matter as a mile or two could mean entirely different neighborhoods would be affected.<\/p>\n
\u2022 Higher consistency, less randomness. Even if total flights don\u2019t increase, residents may notice more noise as flights come in clusters at predictable intervals along identical tracks.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u2022 Impact from other airports. Because the plan includes multiple airports, traffic from Chandler or Scottsdale could influence routing as not all overhead flights are\u00a0Sky Harbor-related.<\/p>\n
\u2022 No major change for some areas or even reduced overflights.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"This Federal Aviation Administration map shows where most noise is concentrated from departing and arriving aircraft especially at…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":802508,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5131],"tags":[28686,5229,5643,1587,216567,1589,149587,326737,47027,67,586,132,5230,68,2969],"class_list":{"0":"post-803977","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-phoenix","8":"tag-ahwatukee","9":"tag-america","10":"tag-arizona","11":"tag-az","12":"tag-national-environmental-policy-act","13":"tag-phoenix","14":"tag-sky-harbor","15":"tag-the-federal-aviation-administration","16":"tag-u-s-supreme-court","17":"tag-united-states","18":"tag-united-states-of-america","19":"tag-unitedstates","20":"tag-unitedstatesofamerica","21":"tag-us","22":"tag-usa"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/116592850249037210","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/803977","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=803977"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/803977\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/802508"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=803977"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=803977"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=803977"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}