Return to Front Page Monday, July 12, 2010 articles (index)
Former MCAS Beaufort executive officer says Option #1 “may be environmentally disastrous” for Beaufort

Gives his support nevertheless

Former MCAS Beaufort executive officer says Option #1 “may be environmentally disastrous” for Beaufort

Mayor Keyserling makes a good case for Option #1 if one only focuses on money rather than on our unique environment which makes Beaufort such a wonderful place to live.

These basing issues are complicated and thus there are no easy choices. Option #1 as written could environmentally damage Beaufort for decades to come. The current noise studies in the Environmental Impact Statement are based on F-35A data. The “A” model is a totally different machine to the “B” which the USMC is getting and which has a lift engine which gives it the vertical landing capability.

I have talked to several operational people (one a former F-18 Marine Air Group commander and the other a member of the F-35B Site Activation Task Force at MCAS Beaufort) who indicate that F-35B noise may not significantly differ from the F-18 or F-35A. Note the word “may.” If this is so then part of the problem disappears and I desperately hope that this is true. This seem to be the Lockheed Martin public relations position and is at odds with countering claims.

The following quote is one example the counter claims based on a citizen’s tests at Eglin AFB near Crestview, Florida. Again this is the F-35A not the B which is being discussed.

“May 11/09: In response to claims from Lockheed Martin that the F-35 was no noisier than F-16s or F-15s (see March 11/09 entry), Valparaiso resident Bob Webb, an audio professional who is retired after 30 years working at Eglin AFB, recorded F-35s, F-16s, and F-15 landings on April 22 and 23, saving the results to his laptop while recording the decibel levels on calibrated meters.Webb compiled the data and determined that the noise level created by a landing F-35 measures at 105-106 dB, compared with the F-16’s 90 dB, and the F-15’s 91 dB. These figures are slightly lower than the 19db difference in the USAF’s original environmental assessment, but a 15db difference is still about 3 times as loud. Webb played his clips, and delivered a 45-minute briefing on the subject, at a May 11th Valparaiso City Council meeting. NWF Daily News.”

Before any decision on basing two Fleet Replacement Squadrons at Beaufort with their associated huge increase in airfield operations, City Council and County Council must have accurate noise data on the F-35B so that they can make informed decision on supporting Option #1. They do not currently have that information. BRING AN F-35B HERE TO BEAUFORT AND LET US HEAR ONE.

Option #1 would increase MCAS Beaufort operations by over 44,000 a year. That is a huge increase. Right now the Hilton Head City Council, the Beaufort County Airports Board and to a certain extent the Beaufort County Council spend a great deal of effort dealing with environmental issues (noise, trees, safety zones) concerning Hilton Head Airport and its surrounding areas. In 2009, according to public records, there were a total 40,527 operations (approaches, landings, takeoffs) at KHXD. Those operations were (1) general aviation single and twin engined light aircraft, (2) corporate turboprop and jet aircraft capable of operating off a less than 5,000 runway, and (3) turboprop airliners. All of those aircraft are quiet in comparison to a military jet fighter such as the F-18 and the, as yet unknown noise level, of the F-35B.

Option #1 projects MCAS F-35B airfield operations will exceed current annual F-18 operations by over 44,000. That is a higher volume of added traffic at Beaufort than the entire number of operations at Hilton head last year. That is 120 extra operations a day, 7 days a week 365 days a year, Memorial Day. New Years Day, Christmas Day. Do we really want to do that? My answer would be no.

How do we avoid that? Possibly with an auxiliary landing field. In my humble estimation the auxiliary landing field as currently presented, is a “Red Herring.” Unless our local governments know a great deal more than they are publicly stating, they know as well as I do that such a field is a major project that has to go through the Department of Defense/Congressional requirement, funding, and acquisition, cycle which takes five to seven years. In these times of tightening budgets what are the real chances are of an auxiliary landing field project surviving that process (especially if it is ruled out in the published EIS)?

The possible solution is joint use of an existing facility such as Charleston AFB Auxiliary Field North (KXNO) in Orangeburg County. McEntire has also been mentioned as a possibility but it’s a long way away (more than 90 nautical miles)? Joint use too, is a long and complicated process, which like Townsend Target which I was instrumental in reopening in the late 1970s, only works if it is advantageous to all parties. If that is truly in the works then the details should be published. If it is not, it is dishonest to use it as a carrot to gain support for Option #1.

We residents are being aggressively “sold” and rushed into Option #1. County Council and Beaufort City Council seem to have delegated the decisions on F-35B MCAS Beaufort basing, a matter which will effect our environment for decades to come, to the Military Enhancement Committee of the Chamber of Commerce et. al. As far as I can tell no one on that committee has been within 50 feet of a modern jet fighter such as the F-18 and certainly not an F-35B.

The basing issue is highly complex and is intertwined with supersonic airspace, airways, ranges, etc. It is an arcane and complicated subject. You wouldn’t be very happy sitting in the back of an airliner if someone came out and said, “We’ve got a little problem. We need one of you to come up front and shoot the ILS to 36 Right at Charlotte.” That’s basically what you’re asking the MEC to attempt.

Are there any recently retired F-18 pilots on that committee who can address the basing concerns with the residents of Beaufort? The committee is a subset of the Chamber of Commerce and their focus is Commerce. Who is providing technically knowledgeable unbiased information to local governments? It is certainly not the County Airports Board; it’s never been on our agenda. It is certainly not the MCAS base commander or his staff. They are Marines who are primarily interested in national defense and no matter how much they love Beaufort, they are going to follow the directions of their higher headquarters and Headquarters Marine Corps. They are not and have never been placed here for the benefit of the town and county of Beaufort, South Carolina.

Looking after the well being of county and town citizens is the charter of the Mayor and the town and county councils as our elected representatives. It is certainly not within the purview of the Chamber of Commerce whose focus is business and commerce.

I have a personal dilemma in this matter: As a member of the County Airports Board, I have consistently supported clearing the approach zones and lengthening the runway at Hilton Head. I have done this on the basis of having flown literally hundreds of night instrument approaches into KHXD as a Piedmont Airlines captain. I believe that this has to be done for safety reasons and that such measures would significantly benefit Hilton Head’s prosperity and economy.

I am now faced with a similar situation in regard to F-35B basing at MCAS Beaufort. I suspect that Option #1 may be environmentally disastrous for the town but I also realize that if we are not up front and get the F-35B here “now” and “big” we may not get to play in the F-35 game at all. Playing in that game is important to the growth and prosperity of Beaufort.

But what of the potential environmental cost? Do we take the risk? Do we support Option #3 which is the right option for us but which may never come to pass or do we support Option #1. There is risk in everything in life and in this case it is the risk of getting Option #1 and than not being able to alter it to an acceptable state which will not seriously damage our community.

We are between the perennial rock and hard place and after a great deal of agonizing I have decided that I have to be consistent and if I’m for the “greater good” in Hilton Head, I must be for the “greater good” in Beaufort. I therefore with great misgivings tend to concur with Option #1 but only with the caveat that the EIS noise profiles are updated with F-35B data and the results remain within acceptable limits as decided by our elected representatives and that there is real effort to acquiring an alternative landing field.

Graham Kerr
LTCol. U.S. Marine Corps Ret.
Former Executive Officer, MCAS Beaufort, SC

Related posts:

1. F-35B jets are on the way: MCAS Beaufort slated for doubling of aircraft activity
2. Beaufort County’s Risk Management & Safety Officer charged with criminal sexual conduct
3. Historic Beaufort Foundation executive director opens home to art lovers & preservationists
4. County appoints new Risk Management & Safety Officer
5. USCB appoints Dr. Harvey Varnet Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

Return to Front Page