Opponents of the decision to base F-35 fighter jets in Burlington say newly obtained documents suggest the aircraft will likely be far louder than the U.S. Air Force and Vermont Air National Guard have previously acknowledged.
With the arrival of the next generation fighters just weeks away, critics led by Rosanne Greco, a retired Air Force colonel, are demanding the secretary of the Air Force block the basing of the plane at Burlington International Airport until new sound studies can be conducted.
They argue that sound studies predicting how the fighter would affect the area assumed that the jets would use their afterburners less than 5 percent of time. New documents, however, suggest afterburner usage might be 10 times that much — or more, Greco said.
“The Air Force finally had to admit to the public what they knew for a long time — that at the large Air Force bases where the F-35 is currently flying … they are taking off in afterburner 50 to 100 percent of the time,” Greco said at a press conference Thursday outside Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-Vt.) Burlington office.
Greco said the higher use of afterburners at other bases is “well known,” but she could not provide any documentation to support her claim. Instead, she and attorney James Dumont pointed to an email Greco said she received last week from a source.
The message, a copy of which she provided to Seven Days, appears to be from a civilian engineer who works for the Air Force in Tucson, Ariz.
The jargon-laden email says “the (Air Force) has decided to delay” a new round of environmental studies for a base in Fort Worth, Texas, citing “discrepancies and concerns over F-35 flight elevations and afterburner usage.”
Instead of assuming a 5 percent afterburner usage, new studies would examine different use levels of up to 50 percent, according to the email, a decision that would delay the process by four to six months. The author of the email, according to Greco, uses a profane military phrase in the message that starts with the word “cluster.”
“It’s all just a big Charlie Foxtrot that could have been addressed over a year ago when we all questioned the validity of using only 5 percent afterburners,” the email reads.
The author of the email, Christopher Brewster, did not return an email and phone call requesting comment.
Dumont argued that even a slight increase in the use of afterburners represents a significant change in findings of the Vermont study and could open it up to new legal challenges.
“The use of afterburners during takeoff terrifically increases the noise impacts,” Dumont said.
He noted that U.S. District Court Judge Geoffrey Crawford, in rejecting opponents’ legal challenge to the study, specifically referred to VTANG’s operational plan as a “prohibition on the use of afterburners at takeoff.”
Maps released in May showed that the number of dwelling units around the airport affected by high noise will nearly triple, to 2,640, by 2023. The number of people in the zone will rise to about 6,125.
Mikel Arcovitch, public affairs officer for the Vermont National Guard, said he couldn’t speak for other bases, but he said that “nothing has changed for Vermont.”
“We will use military power 95 percent of the time and afterburner 5 percent,” Arcovitch wrote in an email.
Leahy spokesperson David Carle said opponents have a “fixation” on the notion that the environmental study for Burlington was rigged. He said it is far from clear if the civilian engineer who wrote the email is correct that environmental studies for Fort Worth were being delayed and revamped.
But even if it is delayed, Carle said it doesn’t mean much.
“Vermonters should know that [the Texas base] is a much larger, and different, base than Burlington, and that Vermont has a Guard willing to adjust their flying operations to be better neighbors,” Carle wrote in an email.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Dude, you’re way off base. It was before 1970.
Hate to hit and run, but I have better things to do than argue with you.
“No one knew about hearing loss back then.”
That’s simply false. People have been warning about hearing damage from concerts at least as far back as 1970. I knew it, you knew it, everybody knew it.
You willingly endanger your hearing for things you like to hear, like amplified music, for hours. But you use the threat of hearing damage from noise that will occur a few minutes a month to stop things you don’t like, like military jets. That’s a politically motivated use of health information.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?…
Dude (knowassumptionsetc),
I went to the shows to see my favorite music. No one knew about hearing loss back then.
I wasn’t thinking of the future, you know? I was a kid.
We shall see how loud the things are, and how people feel about them, when they get here.
We’ll see if they sound political or just noisy.
1. The takeoff of the F35As at Burlington Airport will not involve a *catapult launch.*
2. If, as you say, noise above 85 decibels will likely cause permanent hearing loss, then why on earth would you go to music concerts that typically are 120 decibels or more and last several hours? How can you complain about a few minutes of jet noise when you voluntarily go to concerts? Answer: because your supposed concern about auditory health is politically motivated.
For Justahuman:
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/0…
And from: http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=…
“Tactical jet engine noise is one of the loudest sounds in the world, and can reach an ear aching 150 dB(A) for carrier aircrew standing along the foul line during a catapult launch.
According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (1998), continued exposure to noise above 85 dB(A) will likely cause permanent hearing loss. The maximum exposure time at 85 dB(A) is 8 hours, which should be followed by 16 hours of quiet recovery time. At 110 dB(A), the maximum exposure time is approximately one minute and 29 seconds. “
How loud was it where you were working?
@Charile Despite the fact that the f35 is still in development there have been full squadrons on regular flying schedules for over 5 years at various US bases. I have over three years working 5+ days a week on them while they are operating. I lived under 5 miles from the base. I stood next to them while they were running for hours a day and operated them my self (not a pilot). I would consider my exposure high. I underwent professional audio testing every year that specifically looked for hearing loss. I have copies of testing showing no depreciation.
Hi Justahuman,
Since they’re still in development, how can you have been working with them for years? And if you have, how would you not have noticed any effect on your hearing? Where was this exposure, and how much? When was your hearing tested? I don’t mind new evidence.
Just read the Air Force’s EIS (Environmental Impact Statement). Oh wait, that would involve READING… nevermind.
@charlie How is it I have lived next to and worked with f35s for years and had no hearling loss or fluctuation? No one I work with has had hearing loss either, we lived closer to 35s then Burlington residents will…. playing it fast and loose with the “facts” hu?
Ted,
The people who work at the terminals, if they’re out on the runway or in the vicinity, wear sound-reduction headgear. That is for a good reason.
We will indeed see how it goes when they get here. We just have to wait and see – and hear. If it’s okay, it’s okay. If it’s not, it’s not.
Many with hearing loss do not know it – until their partners say, “I’m speaking in a normal voice. Would you get your hearing checked? You’re driving me crazy!” That’s when they get a hearing test – an audiologist told me that – single folks Never get their hearing checked.
[I already have hearing aids – but I blew my ears out listening to people like Hendrix and The Who at live shows. It was a trade-off, and I’m not complaining.]