Update: April 14, 2008

Aviation Industry Taps Educational Dollars

The following is an "In My Opinion" column published in the Hillsboro Argus (under the title "Flight Training: Too Sound an Investment") in response to a ballot proposal to increase funding for Portland Community College.

Special to the Argus
Friday, March 28, 2008
By Miki Barnes

There was a time when I would have wholeheartedly favored a Portland Community College bond levy ("College seeks support for bond levy," Feb. 29) as the vast majority of PCC's endeavors are well deserving of public support. Unfortunately the Rock Creek Aviation Sciences program, which has foisted unrelenting noise, pollution, safety and security risks on area residents, has severely eroded my commitment.

PCC established the Associate of Applied Science degree in Aviation Sciences for fixed wing aircraft certification in 1999 and the helicopter training program two years later. Prospective pilots take classroom coursework at the Rock Creek campus while required flight training is provided through Hillsboro Aviation at Hillsboro Airport. It is worth noting that the Port of Portland, which receives over $130,000 annually from their lease arrangement with Hillsboro Aviation, profits handsomely from this arrangement.

The advisory committee instrumental in establishing the aviation science program was comprised of representatives from the Federal Aviation Administration, Flightcraft, Horizon Airlines, Columbia Helicopters, Louisiana-Pacific Corp., Hillsboro Aviation, Embry Riddle Aeronautical University, Ameriflight, the Oregon National Guard and LifeFlight.

No homeowners association, neighborhood group or citizen participation organization representation was included. This carefully orchestrated exclusion of community input allowed the aviation industry "by wealth and by stealth" to align with PCC in siphoning off public money to promote their self-interest.

Flight training noise impact deserves closer scrutiny. Each student in the fixed wing or helicopter program is required to accumulate between 270 and 277 hours of flight time over two years. That equals over 11 full days per student; thus 100 students generate 1,154 days - more than three solid years - of aircraft noise.

Factor this in with the corporate jets, general aviation hobbyists, charter flights, sightseeing tours and air taxi services, plus air traffic from nearby airports such as PDX, Scappoose, Stark's Twin Oaks, Troutdale, McMinnville and Newberg and you have, communities, both urban and rural, with precious little respite from aviation noise.

Safety issues are also a serious concern. General aviation pilots (including students) are 55 times more likely than commercial pilots to be involved in accidents. The lack of federally mandated security standards at general aviation airports further compromise area residents.

And what about environmental considerations? At a time when climate change is a looming threat, why is PCC promoting an unsustainable mode of transportation? While many are struggling to reduce their carbon footprint, PCC is using taxpayer dollars to fund flight training in gas guzzling helicopter and fixed wing aircraft that spew benzene, carbon monoxide, lead and other deadly toxins into our air, water and soil.

Before seeking additional bond money, PCC should be held fully accountable for investing public money prudently and wisely. Probing questions need to be asked, such as why does PCC have 10 aircraft registered on the FAA Web site registry.faa.gov? Were they purchased with taxpayer dollars, and was the public involved in the decision-making process?

In any case, PCC's Aviation Sciences flight training program should be terminated immediately. The unholy alliance between publicly funded community colleges and the corporate entities who court them portends a dangerous corrosion of our educational system. PCC, instead of succumbing to the temptations of unchecked corporate greed, should educate students on the negative impact corporate, business and aviation practices have on our environment, educational institutions and democracy itself.

Miki Barnes has been involved with livability issues for many years.

Hillsboro Airport Issues Roundtable Caters to Aviation Industry

The following is an "In My Opinion" column published in the Hillsboro Argus under the title "Port's HAIR Panel Serves Select Group."

Special to the Argus
Friday, February 01, 2008
By Miki Barnes

In recent weeks the Port of Portland has run ads in the Argus recruiting Hillsboro Airport Issues Roundtable (HAIR) citizen representatives.

The port refers to HAIR as the official forum for discussion of Hillsboro Airport issues and further states "the committee members represent the airport's diverse stakeholders: nearby residents, neighboring businesses, airport tenants and users, and jurisdictions like the City of Hillsboro, Washington County, Metro, and State legislative districts."

After attending a number of HAIR meetings and reviewing more than 40 applications from citizens who initially stated an interest in serving on the committee, I am puzzled as to exactly what the port means by diversity. There do appear to be several women on this predominantly male committee. But I am not aware of a single person of color. Obviously diversity from the port's point of view does not refer to cultural or racial considerations or impacts.

Nor does this committee include members from the surrounding rural communities that are routinely pummeled by aviation activity from Hillsboro Airport.

Two of the current citizen representatives own businesses on or adjacent to airport property, and one is a student pilot. Another noted in his application that he lives at Olinger airstrip and that he "was instrumental in working with the FAA, Oregon Aeronautics, and Washington County in defining the 'Overlay Protection Zone' for all county airports."

The overlay protection zone, as implemented in ORS 836 and Washington County Code 385-86, was explicitly designed to protect a number of specified Washington County airport owners and airstrips, including Olinger and Hillsboro, while deliberately curtailing and seriously violating the rights of neighboring property owners.

Clearly the citizen representatives discussed above have a pro-aviation bias in that they stand to benefit financially and otherwise from growth and expansion at Hillsboro Airport. In all likelihood, they will align with other HAIR members handpicked by the port to advocate for pro-aviation business interests while dismissing serious environmental, noise, health, safety and security impacts.

In light of this pronounced bias in conjunction with the fact that not a single citizen participation organization, neighborhood group, homeowners association or environmental group was given an opportunity to appoint a citizen representative, it is obvious HAIR was designed to serve aviation interests and in this capacity has given little or no consideration to the erosion of livability due to noise and environmental degradation.

If it is indeed an "official forum," it is one that has systematically excluded substantive and meaningful citizen input. Since it has failed to serve the public good, it should be disbanded and replaced by a committee that is devoid of the conflicts of interest and biases that plague HAIR.

This new committee should be charged with addressing some serious questions such as why taxpayer dollars are subsidizing the private for-profit aviation interests of flight schools, corporate jets, air taxi businesses, aviation sales, sightseeing tours, general aviation hobbyists and air shows, all of which are activities that create undue noise and pollute our earth, air and water. It should also investigate why 13 million taxpayer dollars are earmarked for a third runway at Hillsboro Airport primarily to serve general aviation hobbyists and flight training schools.

Few, if any, countries in the world subsidize private aviation to the extent the U.S. does. Instead, unlike Oregon, they invest their monies more wisely into areas that benefit the greater good, such as universal health care including humane and compassionate treatment for the mentally ill, as well as high-speed rail and environmental protections.

Oregon should do the same.

Miki Barnes has been involved with livability issues for many years.