Airport Commission Votes Unanimously to Seek Near-Total Ban on Non-Compliant Jets-September 11, 1973

Moving aggressively to curb mounting noise pollution, the Norwood Airport Commission voted unanimously last night to seek a near-total ban on turbo-jet aircraft at Norwood Airport.

Expansion of Jet Restrictions and Federal Compliance

If approved by state and federal aviation authorities, the new regulatory measure would prohibit all turbo-jet airplanes failing to meet strict federal engine noise regulations—specifically FAR-36—from utilizing either runway at the Norwood facility. Currently, only three small jet aircraft types comply with federal noise standards, and of those, only a single model, the Cessna Citation, regularly operates out of Norwood. More than five other types of jets currently utilizing the airport would face an immediate ban on all landings and takeoffs if the regulation is enacted.

Last night’s decisive action significantly expands upon a partial regulation enacted back in May, when the airport board voted to prohibit noisy jets from taking off toward or landing from the town side of the noise-sensitive east-west runway. The expanded ban was galvanized, in part, by announcements that both the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission (MAC) had officially approved the earlier partial restriction.

Furthermore, rising traffic figures presented to the commission—showing 13 jets in July and 11 in August, compared to a total of only 22 during the entire January-to-June period—convinced commissioners that word had spread among pilots that Norwood was an accessible landing spot.

Airport Commissioner Dianne C. Kearns moved to extend the jet ban beyond federal noise limits to encompass the north-south runway, while Commissioner Pauline M. Grasso amended the motion to include the Canton side of the east-west runway. Mrs. Grasso argued that the commission was merely seeking FAA approval to enforce the agency’s own established regulations, while Mrs. Kearns pointedly asked why corporate-owned jets should not be forced to modify their engines to comply with environmental noise thresholds.

Only newly appointed Commissioner John J. Mellon voiced caution, warning that restricting jets could cripple neighboring industries and expressing skepticism that the expanded ban would secure FAA and MAC approval. Nevertheless, acknowledging the broader consensus, Mellon joined the rest of the board in voting unanimously for the proposal, which will now be submitted to the FAA and MAC for formal concurrence or rejection. Commissioner Thomas DiFrancia supported the expansion, noting that restricting only the east-west runway would simply funnel all jet traffic onto the north-south strip.

Control Tower Infrastructure Funding and Control Debate

Despite extensive deliberations, the commission remained deadlocked over funding responsibilities for tree-clearing and electrical wiring required to bring the newly installed, federally funded control tower up to full operational capability.

Acting Chairman James J. Drummey informed the commission that FAA environmental specialist Donald George was currently on-site identifying trees whose crowns require cutting to secure a clear line of sight from the control tower to the eastern end of the east-west runway. An upcoming coordination meeting involving George, the commission, airport management, and the Conservation Commission will determine the exact scope of required tree removal. Drummey asserted his belief that the airport manager, Boston Metropolitan Airport Corp., should finance the work as part of its contractual maintenance duties.

Regarding the estimated $7,900 electrical wiring project needed to relocate runway light controls into the new tower (down from an initial $19,000 estimate), Drummey reported that FAA officials suggested the MAC might possess available funds. However, Commissioners DiFrancia and Grasso strongly objected, arguing that such a maneuver would circumvent town meeting’s traditional veto power over municipal airport expenditures. They maintained that standard funding formulas dictate a 75 percent FAA and 20 percent MAC split, contingent upon town meeting appropriating the total cost and being subsequently reimbursed except for a 5 percent local share.

Drummey countered that the commission had already notified state and federal authorities that the town had no funds available, noting town meetings had routinely rejected secondary projects in the past. Supported by Commissioner William C. Kendrick, Drummey argued that the town held no responsibility for installing the control tower beyond leasing the land to the FAA, and therefore the federal agency should absorb all subsidiary tower integration costs.

“If the FAA is going to slap our hands until we knuckle under, why have an airport commission at all?” Mrs. Kearns asked.

Mr. Kendrick added, “It isn’t necessary for the airport commission to go to town meeting for every action it takes… We are mature, experienced individuals who have some authority under the statutes to act in the best interests of the town.”

Ultimately, the commission voted to request more granular financial data from the MAC regarding tower wiring costs. In other routine actions, the board voted to request a $250 reserve fund transfer from selectmen to paint pavement lines and install stop signs restricting unauthorized motorists from runways and taxiways, and voted to query engineering firm Fay, Spofford & Thorndike regarding the completion timeline of the controversial airport master plan ahead of public hearings.

Archival Note: This article has been dynamically reconstructed from the original public record print archives of the Patriot Ledger