The debate over Naval air operations is too polarized

Editor,

During the discussion period preceding the deployment of EA-18G “Growler” the Navy statement said the noise signature of the EA-18G was similar to the EA-6B “Prowler” and no more intrusive.

Many of us with knowledge of the F-100 engine in the EA-18G were skeptical of that statement but on the basis of “if it can’t be proven to be wrong then it is fair game to say it” the Navy continued to push the argument. When the EA-18G’s arrived, we confirmed the noise signature is more intense and much more intrusive.

Now we have an FEIS for a major increase in Naval air operations at the NAS Whidbey Complex. Assumptions and predictions in this document are based on a simulation model that doesn’t have the fidelity to accurately model the noise contours.

There is not a single actual reported noise measurement to validate any of the modeled predictions. As every competent high school student knows, air of different densities don’t mix.

The environment is modeled as one homogeneous airmass at one temperature, one pressure and one level of humidity. Central Whidbey consists of 1,000 microclimates; resulting in zero confidence in any of the simulation predictions presented in the FEIS.

It’s unbelievable that the Navy would not recognize the need to validate a simulation model with actual measured data.

Growler FCLP flights around OLF are required to be under VFR requiring a minimum cloud base of 1,700 feet and 3 miles visibility, conditions not often met in the winter months. OLF FCLP flights will be concentrated in the summer and at the rare times in the winter when the weather exceeds the VFR minimums resulting in periods of around the clock very high intensity flying. I found no mention of this causal conclusion in the FEIS. We need to connect the dots to understand where the FEIS shows a far from realistic picture of the proposed impact.

Both runway 32 and runway 14 pattern changes further invalidate the baseline assumptions; substantially so for runway 14 with increased nighttime operations, presumably, to mitigate impact on Coupeville schools.

Military fighter jet flight simulators fall short of providing the level of fidelity for some procedures where system failure training is necessary; those procedures need to be flown in the real environment to validate the aircrew can handle system failures at critical times in the mission. Flying those procedures at OLF elevates the risk of a mishap, yet there is no mention of the level of system failure procedures that are being flown or the elevated safety risks around OLF in the FEIS.

Future changes from manned aircraft to drones is not addressed in detail.

What else that is significant, and causal, is not being addressed in this FEIS?

We can’t assume, as we did in 2005, that this will be the last word on the subject or that the Navy is going to be a good neighbor and honest with us, now or in the future.

Keith Turner

Coupeville