Spin Begins on Flight Tests

One of the rare areas of agreement in the El Toro commercial airport battle was the assumption that not too much should be expected from the recent flight tests. But as unscientific as they may have been, the tests aroused enormous interest, stirring the pot even more than anticipated. In the intervening month, there has been considerable speculation about what the findings on noise levels and other details of the two-day operations would reveal.

The passage of time has left opportunity for this speculation to grow. The immediate availability of data from unofficial sources, and the fact that the planes were seen and heard by residents, means that there already is an established perception of the impact in surrounding communities. The release of the information, now said to be coming sometime in the next few weeks, will not arrive a moment too soon. The county has promised to make a full disclosure, and this is what should happen.

The early unofficial data have provided fodder for the debate over whether noise from single incidents, as experienced when one plane flies directly overhead, or the average of noise taken over time from many flights, is the truly meaningful measure of the impact of an airport.

For example, Supt. James A. Fleming of the Capistrano Unified School District concluded that early noise information from one elementary school raised a question about whether the effect on learning would be worse than anticipated. That was on the basis of two things: a report from district personnel that people had to stop talking each time a plane flew over and news reports that the decibel level was roughly that of a vacuum cleaner.

A married couple in Irvine wrote in to say they couldn’t understand what all the fuss was about in their city; they said they didn’t hear anything during the tests.

A poll conducted for the Airport Working Group that showed 42% of South County residents thinking the jets were louder than expected and 48% saying they were quieter, or that they didn’t hear the planes at all, was greeted with predictable spinning by the various partisan groups in the airport debate. Remarks by Charles V. Smith, chairman of the Board of Supervisors, about noise he heard have raised the question of what mitigation might be necessary and how much it would cost.

Concern about the flight data and the official information has been fueled further in recent weeks by efforts in the city of Irvine to demand a full accounting. Meanwhile, the 5th District representative on the Airport Commission, David Markley, said he felt pressured to leave the operations shack when he went out to observe, and complained that access was tightly controlled even though he is a licensed aviation mechanic who knows his way around a runway. The county cited the Marines’ control of the base as the reason for the restrictions and, in Markley’s case, the need to make accommodation for visiting grand jurors.

The county has been complaining about misinformation; full disclosure is a good way to address that.

The positive side of having to wait is that there is a lot of information to be compiled and assimilated. This can address information in flight logs on such matters as weight and fuel levels.

It also would be desirable for the county to make available any communication with the Federal Aviation Administration about the terms under which the tests were conducted.

In the continuing political debate, the most important information will be the noise readings from 10 monitoring stations that the county had around the region. In view of concerns that have been raised about average noise levels versus those on single occasions, it is good that the county says it intends to release the readings from each flyover.

It is important to remember that, while the community debate over whether to have an airport continues, the planning process is proceeding with the assumption that it will be built.

If residents and professional flight observers get a detailed report to consider, then the wait will have been worthwhile. The tests will have provided a useful benchmark along the long planning road.

Successful tests mean not that the airport idea was sold, but that the tests did what they were supposed to do in conveying the experience. Releasing as much information as possible can contribute to the public’s understanding.