Noise is causing the Navy and communities located adjacent to the Naval Air Stations a multi-million dollar headache.
Peculiarly enough, this is a problem that concerns more seriously naval aviation than it does the U. S. Air Force or civilian aviation. This is because Field Carrier Landing Practice, or FCLP as it is known to the aviator, makes the Navy field an infinitely busier and noisier place than its Air Force or civilian counterpart.
Field Carrier Landing Practice is the term applied to that part of Fleet aviation training which develops the proficiency and technique required for landing aircraft aboard the aircraft carrier. This practice is conducted night and day on the naval air stations ashore prior to qualifying the individual aviator and the squadron aboard the carrier. The pilot is controlled from the ground by a landing signal officer as he flies a low altitude pattern over the terrain to simulate as near as possible his approach and landing on the carrier at sea. The operation of aircraft from carriers at sea calls for an extraordinary amount of training to develop this highly specialized flying skill. Pilots, during their entire careers, continually make these field carrier approaches and landings over and over until the technique is practically a second nature, so that they can land their jet and propeller planes at speeds up to 125 mph on the pitching deck of a carrier, in the dark of night, guided by little more than the motions of the Landing Signal officer.
What is the background, and the solution, to this problem that makes the community and the Navy jet field look upon each other as mutually undesirable neighbors? It is certainly a matter well beyond that usually covered by the phrase “Public Relations.” Fortunately, it is a matter which can be solved if the Navy and the adjacent communities will face the issue squarely with mutual understanding and cooperation.
Naval aviation, an integral part of the Navy, was developed for fighting at sea. Quite naturally its bases were built at major seaports. At the end of World War II, naval aviation found that during its forty years of existence it had outgrown its seaport stations, and studies were immediately instituted to develop an orderly, well planned program to provide for aviation bases that could cope with the unprecedented advancements in naval aviation.
In 1949, the basic peacetime plan for the naval aeronautics shore establishment, commonly known as the “Woods Plan,” was promulgated. As proposed by this plan, naval aviation embarked upon the master jet field (combat) program. This concept was that continental fleet air support should be developed around the six major air seaports, (Quonset Point, Norfolk, Jacksonville, San Diego, Alameda, and Seattle) where supply, transport, shipping, berthing, overhaul of seaplanes and miscellaneous aircraft would be centered. Behind and supported by each of these seaport installations is one master jet field (combat) to support all carrier type and other naval air combat landplanes. From this concept were developed our modern master jet fields, such as NAS Miramar, NAS Moffett Field, NAS Oceana, NAS Whidbey Island, MCAS Cherry Point, MCAS El Toro, and NAS Key West.
Naval air shore establishment appropriations supported this master jet complex by providing 8,000 to 10,000-foot heavy duty parallel runways at these fields, as well as modern hangars, fuel farms, and the attendant permanent administrative, shop, and housing facilities. Indeed, a significant portion of the entire naval construction appropriations for the last five years is represented in these modern air stations.
Today the value of these stations to the Navy is seriously threatened because they are admirably accomplishing their designed function, and they have become a community problem within the areas where they are located. This problem has far transcended purely local interest and has, instead, become a matter for national concern.
The master jet fields were originally located at considerable distances from city limits and well away from significant habitations. Complaints received by the commanding officer of the air station in those days were infrequent and not very loud. However, the air station acts as a magnet, and the businessman with his concessions soon draws near. Attached to any air station are people. The real estate speculator has been fast to see the opportunities and is now eager to sub-divide the land surrounding the air station for the purpose of residential development.
Naval aviation has found that residential development within 1,200 feet—roughly two and one half miles off the center of the service runway—is incompatible with the demands and requirements of naval aviation.
The naval air station, which three or four years ago was in open country, is now being surrounded by residential areas. The Navy is responsible for protecting its investment as well as for providng for the safety and welfare of the people living in the vicinity of the airfield. This can only be accomplished by preventing extensive residential development within this three mile radius of the runway.
Noise, inherent in our service aircraft, goes far beyond the nuisance phase. High intensity noise is a threat to the health of personnel living below the traffic pattern, as the upper limit of human noise tolerance has already been reached. Anyone who has served aboard a carrier is painfully aware of this. Auditory effects of high intensity noise are fairly common and may be of both a temporary or permanent nature. Perhaps more important are the extra-auditory effects concerning which, up to the present time, research has been quite limited. It is known, however, that intense stimulation of the proprioceptive fibers of the nerve system may occur, which in turn can result in temporary weakness or collapse of the individual exposed to intense noise. Some observers have reported adverse psychological and psychiatric effects from repeated exposure to high noise level.
At first glance the solution to this noise problem might appear very simple. If noise could be attenuated at its source, no problem would exist. Aircraft designers and manufacturers must assume a share of the noise alleviation task. They have been, in the past, chiefly concerned with noise levels within the aircraft. In the jet aircraft age they must also now concern themselves with minimizing noise outside the aircraft. Unfortunately, a solution is not in sight. In fact, aircraft promise to become noisier than ever as they develop.
The source of objectionable noise may be placed in two categories: noise associated with ground operations, and noise associated with flight operations. The principal noise- makers are the piston engine, the propeller, the jet engine, the jet engine with afterburner, the rocket engine, and possibly the supersonic propeller, in ascending order. Operational aircraft have already passed the jet engine with after-burner phase. The problem is particularly vital in this discussion, since the after-burner is used in takeoffs and at times may be cut in during the Fleet Carrier Landing Practice.
Noise associated with ground operations may be alleviated to some extent by placing run-up and testing activities in areas of the station where the minimum of nuisance will be caused. Sound baffles in test cells, blast deflectors, and use of buildings as sound baffles all help. Heavy grass, shrubs, and bushes are fair sound absorbers. However, though all the aforementioned may minimize the racket of ground operations, the noise level still remains at a density which makes living in the area unpleasant.
Even greater difficulties are posed once the aircraft is airborne. Noise multiplies with increased performance potentiality. Aircraft engaged in Fleet Carrier Landing Practice around a naval air station fly at a maximum altitude of 300 feet, with a high percentage of power thrust creating an unacceptable noise level below the pattern. The frequency of flight may be an aircraft overhead every thirty to sixty seconds. The flight pattern may extend to 12,000 feet, depending upon the proficiency of the group being trained. At the very best, people cannot live below this pandemonium. In addition, buildings may suffer broken windows and cracked plaster. Obviously, the area below the Fleet Carrier Landing Practice pattern is no place for residences or schools.
Since 1945, there has been continuing research into the problems of external noise. The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, the Noise Control Committee of the Aircraft Industries Association, and the military services, through the Panel on Acoustic Noise Reduction of the Research and Development Board, all have the subject under consideration. The Medical Department of the Navy, particularly the flight surgeons, are intimately concerned with the effect of noise on the individual. Unfortunately, the prospects of successfully attacking noise at its source are not bright. The urgency of such efforts is emphasized by the knowledge that the airfield is no longer remote from habitation, and that all future aircraft power plants will be noisier.
In addition to the noise consideration, the Navy is concerned with the safety of the pilot and the aircraft when it flies in the traffic pattern, as well as with the safety of the people who may be living below the traffic pattern.
To provide a safe flight path for the pilot as he traverses the traffic pattern, the Navy must insist that the approaches and traffic pattern be kept clear of any obstructions. In addition, the land beneath the flight pattern must be maintained as clear of construction as practical in order to provide for the ever present possibility of a forced landing. It must be borne in mind that the take-off and landing periods are the critical times of flight.
Absolute safety for the individual is an ideal which has ever been sought but never attained. The pilot, quite naturally, accepts personal risk. However, in the final analysis the direct sources of hazard to people on the ground are the airplane and the crew who fly it. If one or the other fails, and a crash occurs, it is the Navy’s responsibility. The Navy can face up to the responsibility by endeavoring to keep residential development from encroaching into the areas beneath the Fleet Carrier Landing Practice flight pattern. This does not imply that the land beneath the pattern is to remain barren. Recreational developments such as golf courses, or light industrial developments are acceptable. Residential, hospital, or school development in this tract should be unacceptable for the reason that the public welfare is at stake.
What, then, may be done by the Navy and the community to protect the civilian interests as well as to protect the Navy interest? Obviously the matter might be ignored by merely marking and lighting obstructions, but this would solve nothing since structures, although adequately lighted and marked, would still remain a hazard, and the noise factor would still be with us. There remain two possible solutions to the problem: acquisition by the Navy through fee title of the land adjacent to the air stations, of avigation easements of flight over property surrounding the air station, and finally zoning by state and local governments of the areas in question.
Acquisition by the Navy of property adjacent to the air station would provide the best solution. It would be desirable, of course, from the Navy point of view, to have fee title to the land in question. Acquisition through leasehold interest would be less desirable, since the government would have no protection against exorbitant demands which might be made time and time again at the periods of lease renewal. Were it economically feasible to purchase these tracts of land, absolute control of their use could be maintained. However, this proposal runs counter to the pressure to limit government land holdings. There is already much public concern over the amount of government-owned lands and the attendant loss to communities which follows removal of these lands from the tax rolls. Congress has indicated that appropriations directed toward purchase of additional lands would only be approved when such lands were to be actively engaged in military activity. Justification for purchase of lands solely for a holding purpose to protect other installations can hardly be expected to meet with the approval of Congress. Unfortunately, acquisition by the Navy of this property, however desirable it may be, is clearly a possibility beyond our means.
Acquisition by the Navy of avigation easements of flight over property surrounding the air stations has some merit. The avigation easement is based upon the theory that the land owner owns as much of the air space above the ground as he can occupy or use with the land. Invasions of these air spaces are in the same category as invasions of the surface. The common law rule that ownership of land extends to the periphery of the universe had been determined to have no place in the modern world. Normal flight does not constitute an invasion of the land owner’s rights. Normal flight may be defined as flight within the minimum altitude as prescribed by the Civil Aeronautics Administration. The air space below this navigable air space has not been placed by the Congress within the public domain. It follows that flights over private land are not a taking of the land owner’s rights unless they are so low and so frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land by the owner. Obviously the Fleet Carrier Landing Practice constitutes this taking of the land owner’s rights.
The avigation easement would reimburse the land owner for the government’s taking of this privilege. At the outset this easement presents a very practical problem of evaluation, but it is difficult to determine accurately the value of such an easement. The owner’s loss, not the taker’s gain, is the measure of value of property taken from a citizen. Valuation of these easements has been determined with reference to the highest and best use to which the property in question might have been devoted. In addition, the cost to the government may possibly be recurring and periodically open to re-negotiation. Upon examination, the avigation easement assumes the same monetary appearance as does fee title or leasehold interest in the tract in question.
Zoning by state and local governments of the tracts adjacent to the naval air station is presently the most satisfactory solution to the problem. Adequate zoning laws will protect both the aircraft using the field from obstructions in flight and will also protect the people on the ground from the hazards and noise incident to the operation of an air station. The ultimate solution would, of course, be enabling legislation from the Federal level. And, the cost of avigation easements may well pave the way toward Federal Zoning Enabling Legislation.
Zoning is a function of government, primarily local government, that is of fairly recent origin, dating back a scant twenty-five years. More recently, zoning has been legislated or practiced in rural as well as urban areas so that today hardly any governmental sub-divisions are without zoning ordinances that in some measure regulate the use of land. Zoning in the United States is based upon two legal concepts: the common law principle of nuisance, and associated therewith the principle of the police power of the state. The foundation of common law imposes the condition that the individual use his land in such a manner as not to impede the reasonable use of the adjoining property. The right to use property as the owner may see fit is today not absolute. The foundation of the police power of the state decrees that the government shall invoke and enforce regulations essential to the promotion and protection of the public health, safety, morals, comforts, and general welfare. The exercise of public police power in zoning, as in everything else takes away some rights of the individual in consideration of the public interest. The United State Supreme Court has upheld the exercise of the police power of the state in regard to zoning.
Zoning may be of two general types, either comprehensive zoning, which is the ordinary and the more generally used method, or specific zoning, which is directed at some particular problem or activity not governed by comprehensive zoning. Comprehensive zoning is general zoning which divides an entire city into specific use, height, and area sub-divisions. If the municipality could be planned from its inception, this type of zoning would indeed be adequate and enduring. The airport would be provided with a tract in the general planning scheme just as would the stockyard, the soap factory, and the residential district. The town could then develop each into its properly zoned areas. Unfortunately, this Utopia has never been realized in municipal planning, so the city, regardless of how well it has been planned, is always faced with requirements calling for specific zoning ordinances. Airport zoning is specific type zoning, which in effect does not differ greatly from comprehensive zoning since it also involves the imposition of restrictions of land use. Comprehensive zoning involves the allocation of land use according to an overall integrated program for the benefit of the entire community. Airport zoning is designed and directed toward maintaining lands in support of an existing airport. Obviously, by specific as well as by comprehensive zoning, the community as a whole benefits from airport ordinances. The need for zoning has previously been discussed, and this requirement generates the power to zone. Naturally, like any other police authority, the authority to zone is a limited one. It must not be arbitrary, and its administration must not be left open to charges of discrimination or uncertainty. A height limitation of ten feet would be a case of unreasonable zoning; the only remaining use for the property would be agriculture, and this would constitute an unreasonable taking of the land owner’s rights. If, however, zoning structural limits would permit a height of fifty feet, the zoning would be reasonable, since the land still retains its potential characteristics. Proper zoning can achieve a reasonable balance between the interest of the land owner, the interest of the air station, and the public welfare.
There are three conditions which must be met before the municipality can safely embark on a program of airport zoning. First, the political unit promulgating the ordinance must have specific authority from state legislation to do so. State governments must confer upon the local municipal body authority on the municipality Is the exercise of the political sub-division’s police power warranted? Briefly, does the airport zoning regulation carry substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. Both the interest of the individual and, in this case, the naval air station must be considered.
In the case of the master jet field, the noise and hazards of the Fleet Carrier Landing Practice pattern definitely warrants the frequent, although sometimes reluctant, exercise of the police powers of the government.
If the first two conditions are met, the municipality is then faced with the third and very serious consideration of whether the zoning ordinance will constitute an unlawful taking of property. In the case of the tract of land adjoining the naval air station, the Navy’s demands are not capricious or unreasonable since it does permit the use of this tract by the land owner for light industry, recreation, or farming purposes. In brief, all that naval aviation does not want within this sensitive area is an accumulation of residences, or the construction of schools or hospitals.
The master jet air stations are, in the majority, located in areas where the imposing of zoning ordinances will not require the destruction of established structures or businesses. Zoning is always best when it has no retroactive effect. There is less apt to be a “taking” when zoning is based upon the restriction of the future use of a property. Zoning which limits future development is far more desirable than ordinances which affect already existing development. If the Navy is to realize the expected benefits from the master jet stations, it is then of the utmost importance that zoning action be immediately initiated relative to tracts adjacent to the station before these areas are improved to the point where the desired zoning becomes more complex and controversial.
In contests involving disputes between landowners and airports, the Courts have gone so far as to close down completely some airports by enjoining them as a nuisance. In 1944, a neighboring farmer obtained an injunction restraining the flight of airplanes over his land below one hundred feet, making it impossible for commercial planes to use Allentown airport. In many cases injunctions have been made requiring takeoffs and landings to be made above a certain altitude over objecting landowners property.
The Commander, Naval Air Bases, Eleventh and Twelfth Naval Districts, Rear Admiral George R. Henderson, USN, has been singularly successful in inducing communities adjacent to air stations within his command to enact zoning ordinances designed to prevent development of residences within the sensitive three mile area of the air station. The principal case in point is the Naval Air Station, Miramar, which at a cost of tens of millions of dollars was developed as the largest master jet station on the West Coast. Even before the area surrounding this station was annexed by the city of San Diego, Admiral Henderson envisioned the threat to the naval interests at Miramar, and by letter and conferences with city and county officials solicited the communities’ cooperation in the enactment of zoning ordinances for the mutual protection of the government’s installation and of persons who would occupy land within the flight training pattern. Some three years later, after persistent efforts by the naval air bases command and through the wholehearted cooperation of the local newspapers, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Navy League, all of whom endorsed the Navy’s stand in this matter, the San Diego City Council passed a zoning ordinance which permitted only light industrial development and prohibited residential construction within the 12,000 foot radius of the runway. The Naval Auxiliary Air Station, Fallon, Nevada, and the Outlying Landing Field, Crows Landing, are similarly in the process of being protected by zoning ordinances. It is noteworthy that once the public understood the Navy’s position in these instances, public opinion lined up strongly in support of the Navy’s desires.
If the Navy fails to procure protective zoning around its Master Jet Stations, at the very best the existence of the station and the surrounding community will be mutually irritating and hazardous. At the worst, the Navy may be faced with injunctions limiting the effectiveness of the station.
In conclusion, the public deserves a clear explanation of the flight procedures incident to the operation of the master jet air station. The Navy can provide this explanation. If the public and civic authorities understand the problem, the Navy may then hope to successfully proceed to solicit the enactment of proper zoning legislation.