DOCSLIB.ORG

Alaska Army National Guard Bryant Army Airfield BASH Final EA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Alaska Army National Guard Bryant Army Airfield BASH Final EA Alaska Army National Guard Bryant Army Airfield BASH Final EA APPENDIX H. AKARNG OPERATIONAL NOISE MANAGEMENT PLAN H-1 ALASKA ARMY NATIONAL GUARD OPERATIONAL NOISE MANAGEMENT PLAN July 2005 ALASKA ARMY NATIONAL GUARD OPERATIONAL NOISE MANAGEMENT PLAN July 2005 Prepared By: Operational Noise Program Directorate of Environmental Health Engineering U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine 5158 Blackhawk Road Aberdeen Proving Ground Maryland, 21010-5403 AK ARNG Operational Noise Management Plan July 2005 CONTENTS Paragraphs Page 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 General ..................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1 History of Noise Controversy ....................................................................... 1-1 1.1.2 The Risk to Military Installations ................................................................. 1-2 1.1.3 Contending with the Risk ............................................................................. 1-4 1.1.4 The Army's Operational Noise Management Plan ....................................... 1-4 1.2 Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 1-4 1.3 Objectives ................................................................................................................. 1-4 1.4 Content ..................................................................................................................... 1-5 2 NOISE MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Noise Complaint Management ................................................................................. 2-1 2.3 Training Activities with Noise Generating Potential ............................................... 2-7 2.4 Noise Assessment ..................................................................................................... 2-8 2.4.1 Noise Zones ................................................................................................... 2-5 2.4.2 Small Arms Range Noise ............................................................................... 2-9 2.4.3 Aircraft Noise................................................................................................. 2-11 2.5 Aviation Safety ......................................................................................................... 2-12 2.6 Noise Mitigation ....................................................................................................... 2-13 2.7 Annoyance from Noise ............................................................................................. 2-14 2.8 Other Considerations ................................................................................................ 2-15 2.9 Summary .................................................................................................................. 2-15 3 STEWART RIVER TRAINING AREA 3.1 Location .................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 History ...................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.3 SRTA Mission and Training .................................................................................... 3-2 3.4 Noise Environment ................................................................................................... 3-2 3.5 Noise Effects ............................................................................................................ 3-2 4 AK ARNG AIRCRAFT NOISE 4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Bryant Army Heliport .............................................................................................. 4-3 4.3 Juneau AAOF ........................................................................................................... 4-5 4.4 Bethel AAOF ............................................................................................................ 4-8 4.5 Nome AAOF ............................................................................................................ 4-9 4.6 Summary .................................................................................................................. 4-11 AK ARNG Operational Noise Management Plan July 2005 APPENDICES A DESCRIPTION OF THE NOISE ENVIRONMENT, NOISE EVALUATORS AND NOISE CONTOURING PROCEDURES A.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. A-1 A.2 History of Noise Evaluators .................................................................................... A-2 A.3 LEQ/DNL Noise Evaluation ................................................................................... A-3 A.4 Noise Contours ....................................................................................................... A-4 A.4.1 Aircraft Noise.............................................................................................. A-4 A.4.2 Small Arms Noise ....................................................................................... A-4 A.4.3 Single Events .............................................................................................. A-5 A.5 Noise Level Reduction Features ............................................................................. A-5 A.6 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. A-7 B GUIDELINES FOR COMPATIBLE LAND USE B.1 Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land Use Planning and Control ................... B-1 C GLOSSARY OF TERMS, ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS C.1 Glossary of Terms ................................................................................................... C-1 C.2 Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations .............................................................. C-7 D REFERENCES AND SOURCES .................................................................................... D-1 FIGURES 2-1 AK ARNG Noise Complaint Form ............................................................................... 2-3 2-2 AK ARNG Training Notification Form ......................................................................... 2-7 3-1 SRTA Location .............................................................................................................. 3-1 4-1 Location of AK ARNG Aviation Facilities .................................................................... 4-1 4-2 UH-60 Blackhawk ......................................................................................................... 4-2 4-3 C-23 Sherpa .................................................................................................................... 4-2 4-4 Location of Bryant Army Heliport ................................................................................. 4-3 4-5 C27J Spartan ................................................................................................................... 4-4 4-6 Location of Juneau AAOF ............................................................................................. 4-6 4-7 Location of Bethel AAOF .............................................................................................. 4-8 4-8 Location of Nome AAOF ............................................................................................... 4-10 4-9 UH-60 Blackhawk at Nome ........................................................................................... 4-10 TABLES 2-1 Predicted Peak Noise Level for M-16 (5.56) Rifle ......................................................... 2-10 2-2 Maximum Noise Levels for Aircraft .............................................................................. 2-11 2-3 Percentage of Population Highly Annoyed from Aircraft Noise ................................... 2-12 4-1 Aircraft Operations at BAHP ......................................................................................... 4-4 4-2 Air Traffic Activity at the JIA from 1975 to 1995 ......................................................... 4-6 4-3 Military Aircraft Activity at JIA ..................................................................................... 4-7 AK ARNG Operational Noise Management Plan July 2005 SECTION ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 GENERAL. One of the goals of the Department of the Army (DA) is to plan, initiate, and carry out actions and programs designed to minimize adverse impacts upon the quality of the human environment without impairing the Army's mission. In keeping with this goal, the Army established an Environmental Noise Management Program as the framework for the control of noise produced by Army activities since noise has been determined by the United States Congress, as recorded in the Noise Control Act of 1972, to "present danger to the health and welfare of this Nation's population" (PL 92-574 1972). The primary strategy for noise management is the Operational Noise Management Plan (ONMP). 1.1.1 HISTORY OF THE NOISE CONTROVERSY. The advent of jet aircraft in the 1950's resulted in significantly greater noise levels around commercial airports that led to an intense outcry from the public. This
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Elmendorf Air Force Base (Afb)
    ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE (AFB) Contract Details Contract Type: Energy Efficiency; Energy Savings Performance Contract; Guaranteed Energy Savings; Natural Gas Facility Size: Nearly 800 buildings; Over 9.3 million sq. feet Energy Project Size: Elmendorf Air Force Base, located in Anchorage, Alaska, comprises nearly 800 facilities and spans 9.3 million square feet of multi-use space. Ameresco $48.8 million implemented an ESPC, which included supplying the base with natural gas and decentralizing the heating system. Energy Savings: Customer Benefits (CHPP) with a modern and high-efficiency system. Over 1 million MMBtu The Elmendorf Air Force Base entered a partnership Ameresco’s insightful and thorough review of the with Ameresco to design and implement an energy project concept indicated the infrastructure to support savings performance contract (ESPC). The project the CHPP was failing and too expensive to repair. After Capacity: utilized locally available natural gas as an energy additional discussions concerning security and 5.6 MW component. Ameresco took into consideration the Elmendorf’s future growth projections, converting the setting and brief construction time frame for on-time CHPP to a decentralized heating system with the project completion. Elmendorf achieved its sustain- capability to receive their full electricity requirements ability goals and reduced energy use without redundantly from the local utility became the project’s compromising its mission. This project alone made new direction. Elmendorf’s energy reduction goals and has had a Summary major impact on the Air Force’s goals with annual Thorough consideration to provide the Ameresco developed the new project scope, managed a energy savings of over 1 million MMBtu.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 [4910-13] DEPARTMENT of TRANSPORTATION Federal
    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 08/28/2018 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2018-18642, and on govinfo.gov [4910-13] DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Public Notice for Intent to Release Airport Property AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT ACTION: Notice of intent to rule on request to release airport property; Nome Airport (OME), Nome, Alaska SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the release of land at the Nome Airport, Nome, Alaska. DATES: Comments must be received on or before [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review by appointment at the FAA Anchorage Airports Regional Office, Molly Lamrouex, Compliance Manager, 222 W. 7th Avenue, Anchorage, AK. Telephone: (907) 271-5439/Fax: (907) 271- 2851 and the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Fairbanks Office, 2301 Peger Road, Fairbanks, AK. Telephone: (907) 451-5226. Written comments on the Sponsor’s request must be delivered or mailed to: Molly Lamrouex, Compliance Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Anchorage Regional 1 Office, 222 W. 7th Avenue, Anchorage AK 99513, Telephone Number: (907) 271-5439/FAX Number: (907) 271-2851. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Molly Lamrouex, Compliance Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Alaskan Region Airports District Office, 222 W. 7th Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99513. Telephone Number: (907) 271-5439/FAX Number: (907) 271-2851. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the request to release approximately 2.15 acres of airport property (lots 2 and 2B) at the Nome Airport (OME) under the provisions of 49 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Land Use Study
    Fairbanks North Star Borough Joint Land Use Study United States Army, Fort Wainwright United States Air Force, Eielson Air Force Base Fairbanks North Star Borough, Planning Department July 2006 Produced by ASCG Incorporated of Alaska Fairbanks North Star Borough Joint Land Use Study Fairbanks Joint Land Use Study This study was prepared under contract with Fairbanks North Star Borough with financial support from the Office of Economic Adjustment, Department of Defense. The content reflects the views of Fairbanks North Star Borough and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Economic Adjustment. Historical Hangar, Fort Wainwright Army Base Eielson Air Force Base i Fairbanks North Star Borough Joint Land Use Study Table of Contents 1.0 Study Purpose and Process................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................1 1.2 Study Objectives ............................................................................................................ 2 1.3 Planning Area................................................................................................................. 2 1.4 Participating Stakeholders.............................................................................................. 4 1.5 Public Participation........................................................................................................ 5 1.6 Issue Identification........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Public Law 161 CHAPTER 368 Be It Enacted Hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the ^^"'^'/Or^ C ^ United States Of
    324 PUBLIC LAW 161-JULY 15, 1955 [69 STAT. Public Law 161 CHAPTER 368 July 15.1955 AN ACT THa R 68291 *• * To authorize certain construction at inilitai-y, naval, and Air F<n"ce installations, and for otlier purposes. Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the an^^"'^'/ord Air Forc^e conc^> United States of America in Congress assembled^ struction TITLE I ^'"^" SEC. 101. The Secretary of the Army is authorized to establish or develop military installations and facilities by the acquisition, con­ struction, conversion, rehabilitation, or installation of permanent or temporary public works in respect of the following projects, which include site preparation, appurtenances, and related utilities and equipment: CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES TECHNICAL SERVICES FACILITIES (Ordnance Corps) Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: Troop housing, community facilities, utilities, and family housing, $1,736,000. Black Hills Ordnance Depot, South Dakota: Family housing, $1,428,000. Blue Grass Ordnance Depot, Kentucky: Operational and mainte­ nance facilities, $509,000. Erie Ordnance Depot, Ohio: Operational and maintenance facilities and utilities, $1,933,000. Frankford Arsenal, Pennsylvania: Utilities, $855,000. LOrdstown Ordnance Depot, Ohio: Operational and maintenance facilities, $875,000. Pueblo Ordnance Depot, (^olorado: Operational and maintenance facilities, $1,843,000. Ked River Arsenal, Texas: Operational and maintenance facilities, $140,000. Redstone Arsenal, Alabama: Research and development facilities and community facilities, $2,865,000. E(.>ck Island Arsenal, Illinois: Operational and maintenance facil­ ities, $347,000. Rossford Ordnance Depot, Ohio: Utilities, $400,000. Savanna Ordnance Depot, Illinois: Operational and maintenance facilities, $342,000. Seneca Ordnance Depot, New York: Community facilities, $129,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Notice of Adjustments to Service Obligations
    Served: May 12, 2020 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN AIR SERVICE PURSUANT TO PUBLIC LAW NO. 116-136 §§ 4005 AND 4114(b) Docket DOT-OST-2020-0037 NOTICE OF ADJUSTMENTS TO SERVICE OBLIGATIONS Summary By this notice, the U.S. Department of Transportation (the Department) announces an opportunity for incremental adjustments to service obligations under Order 2020-4-2, issued April 7, 2020, in light of ongoing challenges faced by U.S. airlines due to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) public health emergency. With this notice as the initial step, the Department will use a systematic process to allow covered carriers1 to reduce the number of points they must serve as a proportion of their total service obligation, subject to certain restrictions explained below.2 Covered carriers must submit prioritized lists of points to which they wish to suspend service no later than 5:00 PM (EDT), May 18, 2020. DOT will adjudicate these requests simultaneously and publish its tentative decisions for public comment before finalizing the point exemptions. As explained further below, every community that was served by a covered carrier prior to March 1, 2020, will continue to receive service from at least one covered carrier. The exemption process in Order 2020-4-2 will continue to be available to air carriers to address other facts and circumstances. Background On March 27, 2020, the President signed the Coronavirus Aid, Recovery, and Economic Security Act (the CARES Act) into law. Sections 4005 and 4114(b) of the CARES Act authorize the Secretary to require, “to the extent reasonable and practicable,” an air carrier receiving financial assistance under the Act to maintain scheduled air transportation service as the Secretary deems necessary to ensure services to any point served by that air carrier before March 1, 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations
    Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations Revised Report and Documentation Prepared for: Department of Defense U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Submitted by: January 2004 Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations: Revised Report and Documentation CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary..........................................................................................iii 2.0 Introduction – Project Description................................................................. 1 3.0 Methods ................................................................................................................ 3 3.1 NatureServe Data................................................................................................ 3 3.2 DOD Installations............................................................................................... 5 3.3 Species at Risk .................................................................................................... 6 4.0 Results................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Nationwide Assessment of Species at Risk on DOD Installations..................... 8 4.2 Assessment of Species at Risk by Military Service.......................................... 13 4.3 Assessment of Species at Risk on Installations ................................................ 15 5.0 Conclusion and Management Recommendations.................................... 22 6.0 Future Directions.............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of Environmental and Hydrogeologic Conditions at Bethel, Alaska
    Overview of Environmental and Hydrogeologic Conditions at Bethel, Alaska By Joseph M. Dorava and Eppie V. Hogan U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 95-173 Prepared in cooperation with the FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Anchorage, Alaska 1995 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Gordon P. Eaton, Director For additional information write to: Copies of this report may be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Earth Science Information Center 4230 University Drive, Suite 201 Open-File Reports Section Anchorage, AK 99508-4664 Box25286, MS 517 Federal Center Denver, CO 80225-0425 CONTENTS Abstract ................................................................. 1 Introduction............................................................... 1 Background............................................................... 1 Location.............................................................. 1 History and socioeconomics .............................................. 3 Physical setting ............................................................ 3 Climate .............................................................. 3 Vegetation............................................................ 5 Bedrock geology ....................................................... 5 Surficial geology and soils ............................................... 5 Hydrology ................................................................ 8 Surface water ........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • LEGISLATIVE BUDGET and AUDIT COMMITTEE Division of Legislative Audit
    LEGISLATIVE BUDGET AND AUDIT COMMITTEE Division of Legislative Audit P.O. Box 113300 Juneau, AK 99811-3300 (907) 465-3830 FAX (907) 465-2347 [email protected] SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Spill Prevention and Response, Oil and Hazardous Substance Release Prevention and Response Fund, March 18, 2008. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted a performance audit of the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Division of Spill Prevention and Response (Division). Specifically, we were asked to review the expenditures and cost recovery revenues from the Oil and Hazardous Substance Release Prevention and Response Fund (Fund). REPORT CONCLUSIONS The conclusions are as follows: all expenditures are not recorded according to activities compliance with statutory cost recovery requirements is unclear Division is not efficiently and effectively recovering costs most expenditures were appropriate legal costs need an improved budgeting process certain contractual oversight practices are weak detailed information on the Fund’s financial activities is incomplete During the audit we reviewed a $9 million reimbursable services agreement between the Division and the Department of Law for legal services related to two transit pipeline spills on the North Slope. The contract was funded by the Response Account without specific legislative appropriation. It would have been more prudent to follow the established legislative budget process, especially for long-term legal activities. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Division Director should improve the accountability for the Division’s activities and reporting of Fund expenditures.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary
    Yukon Kuskokwim Delta YKTPTRANSPORTATION PLAN Executive Summary March 2018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose I The purpose of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Transportation Plan (Plan) is to inventory transportation facilities and issues, and document transportation needs. The Plan identifies, prioritizes, and recommends the top five regionally significant projects1 for each mode of transportation (aviation, marine, and surface) in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta (Y-K Delta). The Y-K Delta is in critical Yukon Kuskokwim Delta need of basic infrastructure necessary for daily life activitiesYKTP including TRANSPORTATION PLAN transportation, facilities, housing, water and sewer, and utilities. The Plan is a 20-year, multimodal, regional transportation plan including various vehicle fleets (e.g. planes, all-terrain vehicles [ATVs], snow machines, barges, skiffs, and automobiles), and modes (e.g. aviation, surface, and marine) of transportation. The Plan is one of six area transportation plans being incorporated into the Alaska Statewide Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). This is an update to the original Y-K Delta Transportation Plan (2002 YKTP). The Plan is not a programing document. Communities, tribal and city governments, and funding agencies should use this plan as a tool to secure funding for projects from multiple funding sources. The vision for the Plan is: Yukon Kuskokwim Delta Transportation Plan VISION STATEMENT The Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Transportation Plan will guide transportation decisions in the Yukon- Kuskokwim region by promoting safety, livability, economic development, and intermodal connectivity throughout the transportation system. 1 A regionally significant project is one that provides connection between two or more communities; provides access to public facilities such as hospitals, schools, jobs etc.; or March 2018 provides access to alternative modes of transportation.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 59/Monday, March 29, 1999/Rules
    14972 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 59 / Monday, March 29, 1999 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Airspace Management, Federal Aviation comments on the proposal to the FAA. Administration, 800 Independence The FAA received 11 written comments Federal Aviation Administration Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; in response to the proposal to modify telephone (202) 267±8783. the Anchorage, Alaska, Terminal Area 14 CFR Part 93 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (Notice 97±14). These commenters [Docket No. 29029; Amendment No. 93±77] included the following parties: the Air Background Transport Association; Anchorage RIN 2120±AG45 On December 17, 1991, the FAA International Airport; Alaskan Aviation published, in the Federal Register, the Anchorage, Alaska, Terminal Area Safety Foundation; Alaska Airmen's Airspace Reclassification Final Rule (56 Association, Inc.; Department of the AGENCY: Federal Aviation FR 65638). This rule reclassified various Army; State of Alaska Department of Administration (FAA), DOT. airspace designations and deleted the Transportation and Public Facilities; ACTION: Final rule. term ``Airport Traffic Area.'' These and other concerned citizens. All changes were designed to apply to all comments received were considered SUMMARY: This action amends similarly designated airspace areas. before making a determination on this regulations regarding aircraft operations However, Title 14 of the Code of Federal final rule. The following is an analysis in the Anchorage, Alaska, Terminal Regulations (14 CFR) part 93, subpart D of the substantive comments received Area. Specifically, this action revises was not amended to reflect the airspace and the Agency's responses. the description of the Anchorage, reclassification effort. Alaska, Terminal Area and the In this action, the FAA amends the Analysis of Comments Communications requirements for regulations set forth at part 93, subpart Lake Hood Segment operating in the area; adds a new D, to reflect airspace designations in the segment, with communication and vicinity of Anchorage, Alaska.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Region (AAL) Runway Safety Plan, FY 2020
    COMMITTED TO CONTINUOUSLY IMPROVING SURFACE SAFETY. Alaska Region (AAL) Runway Safety Plan FY20 2019-2020 RUNWAY SAFETY COUNCIL (RSC) #45 www.faa.gov Executive Summary The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) top data, development of new safety metrics, and priority is maintaining safety in the National leveraged organizational capabilities in support TABLE Airspace System (NAS). The goal for runway of meeting this goal. safety is to improve safety by decreasing the OF CONTENTS FAA Safety Management System (SMS) 4 number and severity of Runway Incursions (RI), In support of the NRSP, and in support of Runway Excursions (RE) and serious Surface Air Traffic Organization (ATO) Safety and Incidents. FAA’s 2018- 2020 National Runway Technical Training (AJI) FY2018 Business Plan, the Alaskan Region (AAL) has developed this Regional Runway Safety Plan (RRSP) Methodology Safety Plan (NRSP) outlines the FAA’s strategy 6 to adapt its runway safety efforts through Regional Runway Safety Plan (RRSP) to provide enhanced collection and integrated analysis of a roadmap with regional emphasis for FY2020. 7 FY20 RRSP Initiatives 8 Safety Assurance 10 Safety Risk Management (SRM) 12 Safety Policy 16 Safety Promotion 4 Alaskan Region (AAL) Runway Safety Plan FY20 Alaskan Region (AAL) Runway Safety Plan FY20 5 FAA Safety Management FY18-FY20 NRSP Objectives System (SMS) SAFETY FAA is employing and evolving a Safety The National Runway Safety Plan 2018-2020 ASSURANCE Identify Operating Hazards Management System (SMS), which provides a aligns our strategic priorities with established Program Data formalized and proactive approach to system Safety Risk Management principles. The plan Remain the global leader in assuring Voluntary Safety Reporting safety in order to find, analyze and address defines how the FAA, airports, and industry runway safety enhancement initiatives Investigations risk in the NAS.
    [Show full text]
  • Ntsb/Aar-73/01
    - I’ N A T I. 0 N . .\I __. A .’ ‘~, ~Pan:,~~~~~~.~AirwayS, Ltd, L :. .~ b&ha -3lOC, N1812H ;:. T .,.” I R Missing Between . A Anchorage and Juneau, Alaska N S P 0 R T A T I 0 N S A F E .T Y .dOC 3 N 1st~ 3 AAH 73/01 4 c.2 c.2 3 3 _ L. r 8 File No. 3-0604 AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT REPO~RT I Pan Alaska Airways, Ltd. Cessna 31OC, N1812H Missing Between Anchorage and Juneau, Alaska October 16, 1972 ADOPTED: January 31, 1973 / NATIONAL TRANSPORTAjlON SAFETY BOARD Washington, D. C. 20591 Report Number: NTSB-AAR-73-1 I TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE I. Report No. 2.Government Accession No. 3.Recipient's Catalog No. NTSB-AAR-73-1 +. Title and Subtitle 5.Report Date Pan Alaska Airways, Ltd., Cessna 31OC, N3812H Janu r-v 31. 1973 Missing between Anchorage and Juneau, Alaska 6.Perfaorming Organization 1972 Code 8.Performing Organization Report No. 3. Performing Organization Name and Address lO.Work Unit No. National Transportation Safety Board Bureau of Aviation ‘Safety ll.Contract or Grant No. Washington, D. C. 20591 13.Type of Report and Period Covered 12.Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Aircraft .\ccident Report October 16, 1972 NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD Washington, D. C. 20591 14.Sponsoring Agency Code 15.Supplementary Notes 16.Abstract Sl812H, a Cessna 3lDC operated by the chief pilot of Pan .Alaska .liWa!s, Ltd., disappeared on a flight from Anchorage to Juneau, .Alaska, on October 16, 1972. In addition to the pilot, three passengers, including two 11.
    [Show full text]