Latest Posts



Some three years ago I built my first composter. Prior to that I had been buying and using commercial composters. None of those managed to get the compost hot enough, so it took forever to break down and weed seeds weren't killed. After attending a class on composting, I decided to build my own compost bins based on plans that were provided. However, I wasn't satisfied with those plans, so I redesigned it, and posted my version on this blog.

It worked well, but, over time I learned more about composting in my garden, and how my composter design fared. Among other things, two bins holding one yard each just wasn't enough for the quantity of material my yard was producing. Also, I decided that I did want a third bin to hold completed compost - a feature I had deleted from the original plans. Yes, it does take space, but, I needed somewhere to put the completed compost until I was ready to use it. Another problem with the prior design is that it didn't hold enough moisture. It used a lot of chicken wire (or hardware cloth) instead of wood. I'm not sure what environment they had in mind when they designed it that way. Not knowing any better, I followed their instructions and used wire mesh for four sides of my composter. Over time I replaced the two short sides with wood, and added irrigation to keep the compost moist and cooking. I didn't want to make the same mistake this time - only solid sides for the new composter.

Another problem was that I had used pine. I knew that pine wouldn't last, but, I wasn't sure if I would really be doing that much composting, so I wanted to keep the cost down. Yet another issue resulted from the fact that I built the bin on my nice, level driveway, then carried it down to its resting place in the garden. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to get the ground level where the composter was to sit, so, it ended up at an inconvenient angle and twisting to conform to the uneven spot. Over time I added and removed wood panels and screws to accommodate the bending, but, there was no doubt that its days were numbered, both by choice of materials and location.

Earlier this year I demolished the old composter and spent a couple of months building The Grand-daddy of All Composters. It is a huge three-bin affair that holds about 4.5 yards of material. I had originally intended to build it using mostly cinder blocks. However, I was fortunate in being able to acquire a supply of thick, large redwood boards from a neighbor. These were a great resource, enhancing my design, and saving a ton of money. My neighbors had recently renovated their 1950's home and had the contractor save any good redwood that came out of the house. It was a great idea to save it, but they didn't actually have a purpose for the wood, so they were happy to give it to me to get it out of their yard, where it had been sitting for some time. It took a lot of effort to remove vast numbers of nails, and there was a certain amount of planing involved, but getting all that old, structurally stable redwood was a huge win. They also had an old security door which turned out to be a great resource for screen panels. I had my own supply of redwood 4x4's left over from a prior project - another savings.

Note that unlike my prior composter design, I am not including any plans. This design is predicated on the particulars of the location, and the type and size of materials I had available. So, it is unlikely to generalize for other's use without significant modification. I am presenting the project here in the hope that some of the methods, tools, and ideas might be reusable in other contexts.

The cinder block frame for the foundation 
The first thing I did this time was to build a foundation as a base for the composter. I built a cinder block wall and drove rebar several feet into the ground through some of the blocks. After mortaring the cinder block, I then filled the holes with concrete. Granted this could be overkill since I am not building a structure for habitation. However, since I live in an earthquake zone, I didn't want my compost bins to someday slide down the hill and move into my neighbor's garage.

The cinder block frame for the foundation - front view
I spent quite a while trying to decide what to use to fill in the foundation. Initially I planned on just building the cinder block wall, and filling it with compost, but, I had a few considerations. Among them, that seemed like a waste of really good compost. I preferred to use the beautiful compost from the prior bin in my garden. Also, when turning, moving, or harvesting compost, it wouldn't be obvious when to stop digging. Lastly, I didn't want to make it too easy for rats to burrow up into the bins from below and make nests. I could have put down chicken wire or hardware cloth on the bottom, but, as I had learned, that rusts and deteriorates over time. Also, any such material catches the tines of a spading fork.

Soil, rock, and concrete are expensive and heavy (surprisingly, in bagged form, concrete is the cheapest of the three.) In addition, bringing in soil had most of the same negatives as using compost. And, I didn't relish humping buckets or bags of any such material down to the bottom of the garden where the composter was to be located. There was also cost; buying enough bagged soil or rock would have been crazy expensive, plus the cost of moving it; though loose material is cheaper, paying for delivery would have been expensive, not to mention the time & cost of carrying buckets of material from where ever it was dumped.

Checking on craigslist, I found someone giving away "urbanite," less than a mile from my home. ["Urbanite" is a neologism meaning "broken pieces of unwanted concrete leftover from a demolition project".] While urbanite is heavy to lug around, it had the distinct advantages of being (1) free, (2) a good act of recycling, and (3) relatively easy to carry in blocks. So, I used this found material for filling in the foundation. We filled in the space with as many of these chunks of old concrete as we could, then topped with a few bags of base rock.

Side note: I seriously considered using Styrofoam blocks to fill the space. Styrofoam is light, and I have a lot of old Styrofoam squirreled away in case I ever move again. However, I couldn't find out much about how Styrofoam would behave with concrete poured on top of it, and I really didn't want to have the whole thing collapse some day if the Styrofoam broke down.

The foundation partially filled with "urbanite"

Mostly we just stacked and piled hunks of old concrete into the hole, but, in some cases, a little extra finesses helped.

Here I am working with a stone chisel making a few of the pieces fit "just right"

The foundation filled with urbanite and topped with gravel before topping with concrete
To be honest, I completely lost count of the number of bags of concrete we mixed. Dozens? Fortunately, Nick, my gardening assistant, became quite expert at the task.

My assistant, Nick, mixing concrete

The finished foundation
Though I wanted a surface that would make it easy to manage the compost (i.e. not wire mesh), and wouldn't let rodents in, I also wanted the compost to be able to "communicate" bacteria, moisture, and worms with the underlying soil. So, we made a number of holes in the concrete as it was setting (hopefully none big enough to let rodents in.) The urbanite chunks made this a challenge, but, we were able to force rebar through to make the holes.

The main structure of the compost bin is based on 4x4 redwood fence posts. To hold them in place they are screwed and/or bolted onto supports. Three of the four posts are free-standing - without panels connected to them. To support those posts I used larger and more expensive brackets that were set directly into concrete. Only one of these three were set into the cinder block wall, so, for the other two, we needed to build frames and pour concrete footers to hold them.

Heavy duty fence post bracket set in concrete footer
The remaining five posts would get some support from the wooden walls of the bins. For those I didn't need as beefy  (and expensive) supports. Instead I embedded bolts into the concrete that I poured into the cinder blocks. Afterwards, I screwed the brackets down onto the bolts. Note that this also required that I drill holes into the ends of the redwood posts to fit over the nuts and bolts sticking up. Hopefully this will not introduce a point of rot.

Lighter fence post bracket for posts that don't need as much support

Redwood 4x4 bolted and screwed onto light weight bracket
We spent considerable time making sure that the 4x4's were lined up, of the same height, and properly oriented to each other. Any error now would certainly translate into pain later on.

Using a string to make sure the posts are lined up

All the posts installed on the foundation
Once the foundation was done and all the posts were secured to their brackets, it was time to begin cutting and planing the reclaimed lumber, and attaching it to the non-removable sides. Note that only the back and one end are attached to the posts. Every other panel - inside and out - is removable. We made the right end removable because interference from the tree would have made accessing that bin from the front a general pain in the butt. [Side note: subsequent to these photographs, we poured a concrete step on the right hand side.]

Boards attached to the back posts to make up the rear wall
The bolts used to attach the 4x4's to the brackets meant that bottom panels needed to be notched. In some cases I simply cut out an appropriate chunk of the board. In other cases I went entirely crazy custom fitting the pieces.

The bottom panels had to be notched to fit over the post bolts

Another of the big challenges was how to create tracks to hold the removable panels. In the previous composter, the removable panels were slid between a 2x2 and the front 2x6. In that design there were only two removable panels requiring only four pieces of 2x2. At 35" each, I could get two out of a single 2x2x8. No big deal. In this case I had six removable panels, and the way I designed it, I would need two tracks for each end of each panel. As built, these bins are 42" tall. That meant I needed 24 pieces of track material at 42" each. Using 2x2's would have required 12 2x2x8's, which in redwood is crazy expensive. I started looking around at various kinds of metal brackets, including things like carpet runners and door frame insulation. In each case I kept on blowing past $100 for these tracks alone! Anything even halfway descent in cost was flimsy and likely to corrode. Moreover, the more expensive solutions also seemed like they would be a pain to cut and install.

Then, while walking through Home Depot I had an epiphany: PVC pipe. PVC pipe wont break down in contact with soil and moisture - that is the environment it is made for! The material is slippery enough that wooden planks would easily slide by without binding. They are easy to cut and not hard to drill either. Best of all,10' lengths of PVC are cheap. I also realized that they didnt really need to go all the way to the tops of the 42" 4x4's in order to hold the panels. By cutting them into 40" segments I was able to get three pieces from a single 10' pipe. I bought eight 1/2" PVC pipes and cut them into the 24 40" pieces that I needed. I then pre-drilled them and screwed them to the redwood 4x4's. Note: I found that the easiest way to drill the PVC was using a drill press. Once they were all cut and drilled, screwing them into place with decking screws was a snap.

Using PVC pipe to make tracks for installing removable panels

Corner post with PVC tracks on each side

PVC tracks for installing removable panels (top view)

Non-removable sides in place and removable panels started

Nick demonstrating his talents with tools
The next question related to the panels between the bins. In the prior composter the two bins were separated by a sheet of chicken wire stapled in place. This let the compost in the two bins connect, effectively increasing the total volume of compost cooking together. However, there were some downsides to this arrangement: Chicken wire breaks down - I had to replace it a couple times over the years. Again, tines of a spading fork get caught in the wire (and help to destroy it.) Finally, having a permanent installed barrier between the bins made moving material from one bin to another more difficult.

For the new composter I wanted to have removable internal panels. But the panels also needed to allow for "communication" of bacteria, worms, heat, etc., between the piles. I considered making the bottom halves of the dividers be permanent, with only the tops removable. That could have added support to the structure while still allowing for some increase in the ease of moving compost between bins. However, finding my neighbor's unwanted screen security door changed everything. Security doors are tough and strong and designed to face the elements. It took some time to cut, but, a metal cutting blade on my circular saw did the trick.

Pieces of screen security door used as internal panels
Unfortunately, when cutting the door apart, it wasn't possible to cut it in such a way as to retain the bars that gave the door its structure in each of the four panels. Three were fine, but, in one panel I had to just take the screen material and sandwich it between redwood 1x4's.  It is hard to tell from the photo below, but, there are two pieces of 1x4 sandwiching a piece of screen. On the back (not visible in the photo), the long edges run the full length. In the front (shown in the photo), the short edges run the full length. Thus, I was able to screw together the two thicknesses of 1x4 with the screen between.

Building a removable internal panel

Internal panels in place
As noted, I had problems keeping the compost moist with the original design of the prior composter. With this composter I closed off all sides to keep moisture in, and added drip irrigation into the lid. I also drilled holes in the lid to allow rain in. During the winter the irrigation rarely runs, but I want the compost to stay alive and keep cooking. By drilling holes in the troughs of the lid material, hopefully enough rain will drip through the roof in the winter.

Roofing material drilled so rain can enter in the winter

Drip irrigation added into the lid
[Side note: some photos (below) were taken before the irrigation was added.]

Another problem I faced was locating this set of large bins. The slope of the area posed the biggest problem. Any spot with a steep grade meant more layers of cinder block, a deeper foundation, and the need for steps to access the bins. I also needed a location that was convenient for access and would accommodate the work area where I run my chipper. The best location in terms of grade and access had a problem of coming very close to a tree. I considered a variety of options including making the whole composter shorter, narrower, or less deep. I also considered making the first two bins larger than the third bin, either in height or depth. Diminishing the size of the whole thing didn't appeal, as I wanted to thoroughly overcome the size problem of the previous bins. Making the third bin smaller would have required complications in how it mated to the second bin.

In the end I decided to keep all the bins the same size, but, for the third bin, I left off the topmost panel on the front, and I made the lid fold up accordion style, and notched it too. The whole thing works surprisingly well.

Third roof section hinged and notched for tree trunk

Third roof section hinged and notched for tree trunk - side view

Third roof section hinged for tree trunk - opening

Hinged and notched roofing section opened
It took a couple of months of planning, drawing, re-planning, and redrawing, purchasing or otherwise acquiring materials, demolishing the old composter, and building the new one. It turned into a huge  project building this huge composter. The cost of just the purchased materials was at least a couple hundred dollars, plus several hundred more for my assistant's time. Had I needed to purchase all of the lumber and pay myself for my time, the total cost would have been absurd. But, in the end it was an interesting project, and I expect that it should create great compost for years to come.

Inside completed composter

Completed composter with roofs closed

Completed composter with main lid open


Making compost



About two and a half years ago I bought an Echo Bearcat SC3305 3" chipper/shredder. It has been a great machine and is a vital part of my composting. From time to time the machine needs a certain amount of maintenance - oil changes, air filter cleaning/replacement, and blade sharpening. Sharpening the chipper blades is pretty straight forward, and there is plenty of information available online about how to get the blades out and bring them up to snuff. But, it is not at all obvious how to remove the shredder blades, let alone sharpen them.

There is one video on YouTube that tries to explain the process of removing the shredder blades on Echo Bearcat chipper/shredders. Unfortunately, the person that made that video had already done the job, and in the video he just gives a description of what the process involves, moreover, he leaves out the most confusing parts altogether. Comments that viewers added fill in a lot of the details, but, it is still less than obvious how to do this task.

After 2.5 years of heavy use, my shredder blades are, well, shredded. I purchased Echo's "Shredder Knife Kit #70973" for "all 3-inch chipper/shredders." Fortunately this kit comes with instructions. Unfortunately the kit is very expensive; I bought mine at the local shop where I originally got the shredder. The price, with taxes, was US$188.00. I have seen it online for about $30 less, but still, this is an expensive rebuild kit, and a lot of people are likely to choose to sharpen the knives rather than purchase the kit [note too that I have not found the knives for sale - only the whole kit.]

The shredder blades on my Echo Bearcat SC3305 before replacement

So, to help out anyone that may be wanting to replace or resharpen the the shredder blades on their Echo Bearcat shredder/chipper, I have produced a video showing the process.  It can be found on YouTube, here:

Please note that I am demonstrating the process for newer units. There is a different process for units with serial numbers earlier than #11010. Go figure.

Here, in PDF format, are the instructions provided with the rebuild kit Echo Bearcat Shredder Knife Kit Part #70973.

This is another very specialized post that will only be of interest to a very small number of people. However, I hope that it might help those that are interested in such things to identify this plant.

A couple years ago an attractive little ground cover showed up in my garden in Oakland, in among the Mazus reptans that I had planted. I knew that anything that shows up on its own is probably a weed, but, it was very attractive, didn’t appear to be moving very fast, and didn’t seem to throw seeds. So, I left it until I could find out what it was.

I took samples of the plant to a number of local nurseries, but no one was able to ID it. They all asked what the flower was like, but, as far as I knew I had never seen it in bloom. Well, this year I caught it flowering (the flowers are almost microscopic), and I identified the plant (though not from its inflorescence.) It is Hydrocotyle moschata, a somewhat invasive non-native from New Zealand. Here are some useful links for further info:
The following are photos of the plant, its leaves, stolons, and of the inflorescence taken using a microscope at 40x. I hope this is useful for someone.

Hydrocotyle moschata sprigs showing leaves, flowers, and stolons

Hydrocotyle moschata sprig with flower head

Hydrocotyle moschata flower under microscope at 40x

Hydrocotyle moschata flower under microscope at 40x (another view)


Happy New Year!

Do you trust Facebook to keep all of your data - all of you photos, chats, posts? What happens if there is a cyber attack on Facebook that wipes it all out.  Will you be OK with that?  Maybe its time to download a copy of your Facebook data.

Its easy to do.  Just click the down arrow on Facebook's tool bar and choose Settings.



That will take you to your Account Settings. At the bottom of the General Account Settings, click the link to "Download a copy of your Facebook data."


It will ask you to confirm your password, and then it will put together a Zip file of your data that you can download.  Easy peasy.

The United States of America was a grand experiment, but it is coming to an end. That’s OK. No empire lasts forever. Nearly two hundred and fifty years is a pretty good run. But over those 250 years the landmass and population have grown to be unmanageable. Let’s face it, the kids are all grown up, we’ve developed different interests, and we just don’t love each other anymore. We have irreconcilable differences. It’s time for an amicable divorce. There is no shame in that.

We tried secession once before. Ending slavery in the South was a laudable goal. Keeping the union together? Maybe not. So, before things get completely out of hand as they did in the 1860’s, let’s be adult about this and agree to go our separate ways.


The lines of the six new countries are pretty obvious:
  • Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland become New America.
  • The Confederate States of Dixie comprise Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma.
  • Then we have Centeram – Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas.
  • Heading westward we get to the states of Westeram: New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, and the Dakotas.
  • Pacifica simply contains California, Oregon, and Washington. Easy.
  • Last, but not least, is, of course, Texas.
I suggest that Alaska and Hawaii, as well as Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the other assorted territories, each have their own referendums as to which of the above six new countries they would like to join. Or they may want to be independent nations. Alternatively, they could choose to form their own union, or join other existing countries – for example, it would certainly make sense for Alaska to become part of Canada, and all the south pacific island nations might unite - together with the former US islands - to create a single country that will sink into the sea together. And lets not kid ourselves, Hawaiians hate “mainlanders”, so if they want to go, let ‘em go.

In the 2016 election season, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s slogan was, “Stronger Together.” With all due respect, I don’t think that’s true. We hate each other. Our language is full of derogatory terms for the "others" that aren't "us" – hicks, city slickers, northern intellectual elites, carpet baggers, hoi polloi, and so on… We are not one great nation standing together – and we never have been. The US constitution reflects the lack of trust between the original 13 colonies. As America has grown, this has become ever worse – distrust has become disgust.

Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign showed quite clearly that racial, religious, ethnic, and regional hatred never went away – it was just considered inappropriate to show it in public. We are, in fact, weaker together; frustrated, angered, and slowed down by fear and resentment of “other” Americans. There are some fights that are worth fighting, and others that just grind the participants down. This one is the latter.

Fortunately, we’ve already sorted ourselves into discrete regions. Let’s just go ahead and recognize that on the map. Granted, there will be some cost, inconvenience, and confusion involved. Maps will need to be reprinted, along with signs, documents, and so on. Each new country will need a capital, currency, a postal service, army, police, and a judicial system. Each will also need to write its own constitution, or use the obsolete US constitution. Each will need to decide what political system to adopt – a President and Congress, a parliamentary system, or something else – and what portion of the laws of the old USA they want to retain. Treaties will need to be renegotiated, and the UN will need to add more seats.

There will be some interesting questions to consider, such as, is a person a citizen of the region/country where they were born, or of the region/country where they resided at the time of the division. There will need to be agreements in place to allow people to remain where they are, even if they are no longer citizens of that nation. Finally, the new countries will have to allow free trade and open borders for at least the first decade or so.

But these are all details. The USSR broke up into more than a dozen countries. It was painful, no doubt, but they were weaker together. So too with what was once Yugoslavia. While the death toll doesn’t begin to compare to the civil war there, Americans are killing each other over our differences. Let’s learn from those that came before us and break up into the set of nations that will make us happy.

I look forward to being a proud citizen of the nation of Pacifica.


Will changes to air traffic control improve US aviation safety?

One of the goals of the FAA’s NextGen “Next Generation” Air Traffic Control System is increased aerospace safety. This is something we should all be able get behind. Isn’t it? The safer they can make flying, the better. Right? Right? Um, maybe. Before jumping to conclusions, let’s take a look at how NextGen addresses enhancing safety.

When most of us think of the dangers of air travel, we are pretty much worrying about not crashing, or being hijacked or abducted by terrorists. Changing air traffic routing has nothing to do with terrorists or other hijackers, but there is no doubt that not crashing is one of my personal priorities when travelling for pleasure or business. What causes airplanes to crash? There are a handful of factors involving equipment failure, human error, and mother nature (e.g. weather, clouds, lighting, birds, pterodactyls).

How can NextGen stop planes from crashing? NextGen only addresses air traffic control, so it has nothing to do with equipment failures, weather, or flying dinosaurs. While the FAA works tirelessly to help protect us from mistakes made by ground crew, as well as pilots that may be poorly trained, overworked, psychologically unstable, or otherwise unqualified, NextGen wont help with any of that either. By changing flight patters, the FAA claims that NextGen will reduce hazards that arise from congested air space, crossing flight paths, and air traffic controller errors. This is important because it will help to stop the scourge of mid-air collisions that are plaguing our skies. Wait. Huh? The scourge of mid-air collisions that are plaguing our skies? What scourge of mid-air collisions that are plaguing our skies?



Aviation Disasters

From the fiery end of the Hindenburg to the attacks of 9/11, there have been disasters throughout the history of aviation. Some will recall Valujet flight 592, which crashed near Miami after a fire erupted in the cargo hold. The disappearance of Malaysia Airlines MH370 may never be solved. Air France flight 447 cost the lives of 228 people; the unexplained explosion of TWA flight 800 will long be remembered. The "Bermuda Triangle" seems to have claimed many an airplane. Celebrities including Amelia Erhard to Buddy Holly, Patsy Cline, Otis Redding, and many others have died in airplanes.

But air traffic controllers (ATC) did not direct the airplanes that struck the World Trade Center towers on 9/11. The one thing we know about MH370 is that it was out of contact with ATC when it disappeared, and it was definitely not in US airspace. Actions by controllers could not have saved any of the airplanes brought down by fire or explosion. The region of the Bermuda Triangle is not controlled by the FAA, and if the planes lost there had been in contact with ATC, their disappearance might not be such a mystery. Celebrities killed in airplane crashes virtually always died in private planes, not commercial flights under ATC guidance.


 The history of mid-air collisions in the US

In the middle of the 20th century there were a series of mid-air collisions in the US that prompted the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. This act created the Federal Aviation Agency (later renamed the Federal Aviation Administration) whose primary responsibility was air traffic safety. The FAA has done a great job. According to Wikipedia, since the founding of the FAA in August 1958, there have been just 14 mid-air collisions (exclusive of military aircraft which fall outside the purview of the FAA.) Of course, each of these was a tragedy. But most of them were not commercial flights controlled by ATC.

One incident involved a collision of a commercial flight with a military plane. The two most recent collisions in US airspace involved news helicopters colliding in one case, and a private plane hitting a tour helicopter in the other. None of these would have been avoided if  NextGen had been implemented at the time.

Of the remaining 11 mid-air tragedies, 8 involved private planes striking commercial jets. It has been suggested that NextGen actually increases the hazard of collisions between commercial and private flights (aka “general aviation”.) The reason is that on takeoff and landing, commercial flights are now flying at lower altitudes, closer to the airspace where private planes fly. Whether or not this is true, NextGen does not address general aviation, so there is no reason to believe that it would decrease collisions between private planes, private planes and commercial airliners, or helicopter accidents. Even if NextGen did make it safer for commercial and private aircraft to share the same airspace, there have been no such collisions since 1990 – twenty-six years of safe flying in our skies.

The remaining three mid-air collisions happened in the 1960's, killing a total of 220 people. The first, the “Park Slope Plane Crash” of 1960, was the result of a combination of equipment failure, failed communications, and human error. The 1965 “Carmel Collision” could indeed have been avoided by better air traffic control. Thankfully, in that incident, of 112 people onboard there were only 4 fatalities, due to the efforts of the pilots of the two planes. Lastly, a mid-air collision in 1967 could probably have been avoided through better air traffic control. Would improvements by the FAA have saved these lives? Quite possibly. But keep in mind that these incidents occurred almost 50 years ago.



A virtually perfect record

There are over 31 million commercial flights over the USA each year, yet there have only been three incidents involving collisions of two commercial flights since the FAA was established, and none in almost 50 years. Over 600 million people fly in our skies each year. Of the billions of people that have traveled by air since the founding of the FAA 57 years ago, just 220 of them died in accidents that might be attributed to air traffic control. I don’t want to sound crass to people whose lives were touched by these events, but, statistically speaking, commercial air travel has been almost 100% safe from the kind of crashes that NextGen claims to address.

The FAA proposes that NextGen will improve safety. But how can it? How do you improve on an almost perfect record? There is no scourge of mid-air collisions that needs to be addressed. Travelling by plane is incredibly safe. Even if we include private planes, helicopters, military aircraft, and crashes that didn’t involve air traffic control, it is not dangerous to fly. When considering the number of flights, miles flown, billions of passengers carried, and tons of cargo delivered, air travel is astonishingly safe.



Safety is a red herring

NextGen may well have benefits in terms of efficiency, fuel savings, convenience, time saving, and increases in capacity. It is well worth considering how significant these improvements may be, and the trade-offs for people in the air and on the ground. However, the FAA’s claim that NextGen somehow improves on the near-perfect record of American air traffic control is specious. When debating the merits of NextGen, we should be concerned about not harming the extraordinary safety of air travel we all currently enjoy. Claims of increased safety should be left out of the argument.

As always, I look forward to reading your thoughts.



The FAA planned, designed, and implemented NextGen (their "Next Generation" air traffic control system) with very little public input or scrutiny. Since the rollout, there has been a huge outcry from people on the ground that have been impacted by the new flight paths. Until recently, the FAA seemed intent on ignoring all complaints and feedback.

As readers of this blog may know, I am fond of thought experiments. They help me get my brain around an issue. The other day I got to wondering about what would have happened if the impacts of NextGen were not the discomfort, annoyance, and potential loss of property values that are currently being reported. What if NextGen were fatal?

What if, for every day that NextGen were in place, some number of people living under the new flight paths died. Random people. Not young or old, or with impaired immune systems. Not people of any particular race, ethnicity or socio-economic status. For no apparent reason, every day, when a plane went over, some number of people would die.

Lets think about what would happen if in every region where NextGen was rolled out, one thousand people per day living under the new flight paths died. I would hope that NextGen would be rolled back instantly. They wouldn’t just stop the rollout. They wouldn’t form committees to study the problem. They would immediately roll back the implementation of the plan. There would be mass migrations of people away from the affected areas – even after the rollback. There would be congressional hearings, firings of engineers and scientists, lawsuits, and massive reparations. Right?

OK. That’s an extreme thought experiment. One thousand people per day is a lot of deaths. What if it were one hundred, or ten, or just one? There are millions of people in the bay area. What if NextGen measurably improved airplane safety and efficiency, but, as a direct result of the changed flight plans, one person on the ground died every day that wouldn’t have died under the prior air traffic system? I imagine that the effect would be the same as with one thousand people killed per day.

Let’s continue. What if it were one person per month? Or one person per year? What if the implementation of NextGen would cause the random death of one person per century? What if there were a one in a million chance that in any given year a person would die? It could be this year, or, it could be a million years from now. At what point would we say that was acceptable “collateral damage” for a new level of aerospace safety and efficiency? After all, even if the one death happened this year, it still probably wouldn’t be you. Right? What number would you choose? Or, is there any number of deaths that would be deemed acceptable? If we knew for certain that the chances were one in a million, or one in a billion, or one in a trillion, would people be willing to live under flight paths? I live quite close to the Hayward fault. We are overdue for a major earthquake. When that happens, some number of people are likely to die. But housing prices in my area have never been higher.

What about the other end of the spectrum? What if airplanes were silent and invisible? What if they were undetectable without radar or other special equipment? Now imagine that some people living under NextGen flight paths complained that they were scared by the idea that there were airplanes above them. What if some people said that they were terrified by the possibility of an engine falling off of a plane, or an invisible airplane suddenly crashing into their house? What if they said that they couldn’t sleep, their health was failing, and they could no long work, just from the thought of airplanes above them?

Would we expect the FAA to accommodate one person complaining that their life was being ruined by the fear of airplanes, even though there was no tangible impact on them? What if ten people were so effected? What if 10% of people under the flight paths were having their lives significantly affected by the knowledge that airplanes were flying over their neighborhood, even though there was no evidence of their passage? Would the FAA, Congress, and the nation declare that these people were just nuts? Would they say that progress should not be impeded by delusions? What if it were 20%? Or 50%? What if 100% of people living under NextGen flight paths indicated that they were being negatively impacted simply because there were airplanes up there somewhere? Is there any number of people complaining of "irrational" fears that would cause a change in NextGen?

To me the most important question is, who gets to make these decisions? The benefits are some amount of predicted increase in safety and efficiency*. The impacts lie somewhere on a scale from millions of deaths to the unfounded fears of one person. But who gets to decide the trade-off?

As it currently stands, Congress empowered the FAA to make the rules, and then directed them to develop a Next Generation air traffic control system with little or no further input. It was the FAA that decided how many decibels is “loud”, and how much of a change in decibels is an “impact.” The FAA themselves then concluded that the NextGen changes did not create an impact. There have been lawsuits against the FAA over NextGen, but they are failing, since there aren't grounds to sue. If you sue the FAA claiming that the noise is impacting you, and the FAA says that the numbers show no impact, then your suit is baseless. Is the fox guarding the hen-house, or does the FAA just not appreciate the true impacts of these changes in certain areas? How much do we trust the FAA to make the right choices, and who gets to decide?

I don’t have answers to these questions, but, I find them inherently interesting. They help me to think about the actual impacts of NextGen and the FAA’s lack of response. I would love to hear your thoughts.

* Note: According to the FAA's Environmental Assessment for Northern California Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex, section 5.7.1, "The Proposed Action would result in a relatively small increase in aircraft fuel burned: 0.40 percent in 2014 and 0.36 percent increase in 2019." This implies that NextGen is less efficient. However, it is not clear from the wording of the section if this refers to total energy use, fuel used by airplanes in while flying within the metroplex, or an increase in fuel purchased in the region for refueling of aircraft.

Airplanes crash into my quiet life

My peace and serenity have been taken from me. Nine years ago I bought a home in a quiet neighborhood of Oakland, California. I then spent over two and half years designing and building my “dream house.” I am very proud of what I created, and I love being here. But, recently, the FAA took the quiet life from me and my neighborhood.

For the past couple of years the FAA has been rolling out “NextGen”, the “Next Generation” air traffic control system. I won’t bother going into the details of NextGen – it is a very complicated set of changes, and is well documented elsewhere. Suffice it to say that NextGen has had noise impacts in every city where there is a major air traffic hub. The City of Phoenix, Arizona, was the first to sue the FAA over NextGen noise. Other citizens and cities have sued or threatened lawsuits. Congress-people are introducing bills to stop the changes and require the FAA to respond to complaints. Groups are organizing all over the country. The reason is that NextGen has changed flight patterns around airports, causing new routing of airplanes, and concentrating air traffic in narrow bands of high noise. Two of those bands go over my home.


 The relationship between airports and communities

 Since the start of commercial aviation, airports and communities have been involved in a conversation. Depending on where and when an airport was built, it may have been sited well away from the city (e.g. the new Denver International Airport), or, it may have been placed close in to facilitate easy access - the airport in Phoenix is downtown.Many airports are built on the edges of metropolitan areas.

But cities grow and change, and airports grow and change as well. Airports that were once on the edges of town may find themselves engulfed by the cities they serve, surrounded by commercial or residential areas that weren’t there when the planners first chose the site.

During the 90 years since its founding, Oakland airport and the community have been having a conversation about noise and air traffic impacts. Sometimes it has been explicit: When neighborhoods were excessively impacted, the airport met with the communities and attempted to accommodate their needs. The airport has worked to be a good citizen, serving the needs of Oakland and the region.


The invisible conversation

At the same time there has been an invisible “conversation” going on. Businesses that serve or rely on aviation, and other forms of transportation, have located near the airport. Real estate prices in these loud areas are generally low, so operations such as warehouses and storage units, that depend on low real estate costs, find the area around the airport to be attractive.

Some people want to live near the airport. They may work for airlines, aviation support companies, or the airport itself. They choose to accept noise in exchange for proximity. Frequent travelers may also make this choice, and there are hotels that cater to travelers by being as close to the airport as possible. Some people might live near the airport because they don’t mind the noise and choose lower real-estate costs over quiet. Finally, of course, there are far too many people who are forced to live in uncomfortable and unpleasant places due to financial hardship.

Others choose to live away from transit, airports, city centers, and other sources of disturbance. Such choices may mean long, difficult commutes; poor access to restaurants, shopping and entertainment.; they may face high real estate costs and property taxes. Some people are willing to go deeply into debt to purchase homes where there is peace and quiet.

This is not limited to the area around the airport. Any place in the metropolitan area that airplane noise can be heard will experience this kind of natural, organic separation. Residents self-sort by the priority they place on silence vs. other needs. Over years, people vote with their dollars and their feet to be closer to, or farther from, noisy locations. They also vote in elections for representatives that support their needs and desires. City planners establish zoning laws that enforce the decades old patterns created by peoples' choices of buying and selling, building and demolishing. These zoning regulations create the framework of stability that give residents and businesses the confidence to invest in the community.

This is not novel to Oakland. It happens everywhere in America. Through generations of explicit and implicit negotiation, a city falls into a certain shape.


The FAA upsets the apple cart

Then, suddenly, without any notice or conversation, the FAA upended the apple cart - showing no consideration for the delicate balance of quiet and noise worked out over the years. Formerly airplanes flight paths were spread out over a broad area. The NextGen system is now concentrating air traffic in narrow bands. Many of these fly above areas that used to be quiet - the very places where the most noise-sensitive individuals have settled.

As for myself, I have sacrificed proximity to transit, recreation, and city services. I have sacrificed time, effort, and energy. And I have sacrificed money. All because I place a high priority on peace and quiet. I would love to live downtown, with all it has to offer. But I can’t stand the noise! So, I live in Montclair where it is quiet – where it was quiet.


The FAA's mistaken mission

 How could this possibly happen? Our communities have had an ongoing relationship with our airports. How can the FAA ignore that? I believe the answer is in their mission statement, which reads:
Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.
Period. Therein lies the root of the problem. NextGen achieves this mission. NextGen makes the aerospace system safer and more efficient. Mission accomplished. The problem is that while the FAA has succeeded in their mission, it was the wrong mission.

I propose that the first step in stopping the noise problems created by NextGen is to change the mission statement of the FAA. I believe that the FAA’s mission statement should proudly proclaim:
Our continuing mission is to create and maintain an aerospace system that best serves the people of the United States.
If this had been the mission of the FAA, NextGen would have been designed very differently. The needs, comfort, and safety of people on the ground would have been every bit as important as the safety and efficiency of the system in the air.

The FAA is no doubt reluctant to meet with us, and take our needs into consideration, because NextGen is fulfilling their mission. Changing their mission to reflect the needs of the people will change the whole conversation.

The mission statement that I propose will not be alien to the FAA. Their “Vision Statement” says,
We strive to reach the next level of safety, efficiency, environmental responsibility and global leadership. We are accountable to the American public and our stakeholders.
Somehow that vision of accountability to the American public has been overlooked. The mission overran the vision.


 How do we move forward?

 We need to remind the FAA that we are their ultimate customers, and we are the arbiters of their success or failure. They should be reminded every day by putting this into their mission statement. The Federal Aviation Administration exists for the benefit of the American people, not for the benefit of abstract notions of safety and efficiency. Change the mission statement and NextGen will naturally change to serve the new mission – one that enhances the lives of all Americans, in the air and on the ground.




Life is dukkha.
The hummingbird does not know this.
Oh to be a hummingbird.