Town Square

Post a New Topic

Plane Noise

Original post made by Catherine on Apr 5, 2014

Does anyone feel like they are hearing constant plane noise flying over their home? What is going on? The plane noise is louder and the plane frequency is rising. Over the past year I have noticed quite a change and it is really unpleasant.

Comments (601)

Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 5, 2014 at 6:15 pm

Yes, jet noise is increasing over Palo Alto... here's why:

In August 2013 the South China Morning Post reported that the FAA, in response to the Asiana crash at SFO, "temporarily" banned Foreign Airlines from using the 5,000' visual approach routes into SFO, and instead advised them to only fly 3,000' GPS final approach routes. As a rule of thumb, ground level aircraft noise doubles for every 1,000' reduction in altitude.

SFO is also transitioning to a new air traffic control system known as "NextGen". The FAA kicked-off the three-year roll-out of "NextGen" at SFO in January 2013. Under "NextGen", aircraft "coast" down from altitude at high speed along several precisely navigated approach routes.

The precision navigation used in the "Nextgen" system channels air traffic into several narrow flight paths on their way to SFO, and allows air traffic control to use much tighter aircraft-to-aircraft spacing. While the "Nextgen" approach may slightly reduce the noise emitted by an aircraft's engines, residents living under a "Nextgen" approach route will experience a dramatic increase in noise at ground level, due to the greater number of aircraft passing overhead, the lower altitudes flown by "NextGen" approach profiles, and the higher approach speeds, which produce more airframe noise.

The FAA has called the "NextGen" air traffic system "highways in the sky". Under the prevailing westerly wind pattern, there are five highways into SFO. Three of these highways pass over Palo Alto on their way to SFO, and then converge over northern Palo Alto.

"FAA Plan Seeks More Direct Air Routes in Bay Area"
SF Gate ~ Tuesday, January 15, 2013 Web Link

"New Technology Promises Less Noise from Jet Engines, but to Whose Ears?"
The Almanac ~ August 29, 2012 Web Link

SFO approach and departure plan illustrated: Web Link


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 5, 2014 at 7:18 pm

I sent an email to SFO today concerning the number of 747-400's that are coming over at a very low altitude. Many of these I think are second time around because they do not show up on flight tracker. What I want to know is the FAA recommended altitude for this area. They have not responded yet.


Posted by Sparty, a resident of another community
on Apr 5, 2014 at 7:34 pm

I lived on Grant for 11 years and listened planes throttle back all day long, every day of the year


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 5, 2014 at 10:34 pm

Resident 1...

Imagine Palo Alto is a pie divided into quarters along El Camino and Embarcadero if it extended through Stanford. The allowed altitude for commercial aircraft in the quarter that contains downtown is 2,500-10,000'. In the other three quarters, the allowed altitude is 4,000-10,000'.

There is a small shop in the Palo Alto Airport that has lots of inexpensive maps published by the FAA. The "San Francisco TAC - VFR Terminal Area Chart" shows the altitude requirements for the whole Bay Area. The maps usually show altitude in hundreds of feet (40 means 4,000'). San Carlos Airport has a pilot's shop as well.


Posted by Sparty, a resident of another community
on Apr 6, 2014 at 12:33 am

You can get the San Francisco TAC - VFR Terminal Area Chart for free right here, the new one as of March 6 2014

Web Link

Once again, no one on the Town Sq forums ever searches for anything!


Posted by Fred Balin, a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 6, 2014 at 11:29 am

Fred Balin is a registered user.

As I understand it, the approach paths are more narrowly channelled and come in at a lower altitude. While plane engines are said to be cut to save fuel, the lower approach increases the noise level below. Two of the paths converge over a section of Palo Alto. If you are under it, you will experience a substantial difference.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 6, 2014 at 3:43 pm

About two weeks ago I was watching a noisy four-engined aircraft pass low over head in clear skies, when suddenly it began to emit a single contrail like stream from the belly of the fuselage along the center-line of the aircraft. As quickly as it started, it stopped, leaving a trail that was about twice the length of the craft, which quickly dissipated.

I sure hope that wasn't the contents of the lavatory tanks!


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 6, 2014 at 8:09 pm

Jetman - that information is depressing. I think you should email SFO in their comments section when you see something like that. I think that is illegal. I think SFO needs to be on notice that people are paying attention to sloppy performance.
That is like cruise ships and other ships that discharge stuff into the ocean near ports. They get fines now for that.
I need to understand how much control the airport tower has and what type of instruction they give to individual airplanes when they start their approach. The airport should have a policy that altitude and descent has to be input in the plane control system to meet the requirements of the airport. The airport should be providing that information to it's main carriers and get some type agreement on that.


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 6, 2014 at 8:22 pm

We are a group of concerned Palo Alto residents, including jetman, who are in touch about the local airplane noise issue. If any of you want to join our little group, you can reach out to us at the following e-mail address:

veroforyou at gmail.com


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 7, 2014 at 12:12 pm

Resident 1,

To get a feel for the type of communications that is taking place between the SFO Control Tower, and aircraft on approach to SFO, you can listen in on this website: Web Link

Just find the row for "San Francisco" (it is usually in the top 50), and then click "listen".


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 7, 2014 at 1:31 pm

Thank you - that is interesting. My questions to SFO will be:
1. Airlines that are under contract to land at SFO - does the contract specify the requirement concerning the dumping of any effluent from the plane in the approach to SFO? I am assuming that United and other major US companies that use SFO as a hub are good partners. However International airlines may not be as concerned - is there anything in their contract that places a requirement on them?
2. Is there any contract specification that requires a minimal altitude on the approach to SFO? If there is a go around are they required to maintain the minimal altitude?
3. Noise control - is there a requirement for a minimal level of engine maintenance that would control noise?

My opinion is that you have to start with what the airlines are under contract for relative to use of the SFO Airport. The airlines are paying to use the airport so a contract does exists that should address this.

Is SFO and the FAA actively enforcing quality control on the maintenance of the planes to reduce noise?
Are the pilots cleared to fly the planes? How is that all controlled?
Who is liable in these situations - SFO cannot allow planes to fly in that are below the minimum requirements for safety - either mechanically, technically, or lack of training.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 7, 2014 at 4:18 pm

Resident 1,

Yes, of course, there must be a contract! SFO and the airlines are both for profit businesses. SFO is always shirking responsibility off onto the FAA, or the Airlines... but the contract binds them to the Airlines.

There is also a legal concept known as the "attractive nuisance doctrine". You can't just put cheese out in your back yard, and then tell your neighbors it is not your fault, the area is swarming with rats.

San Francisco (who owns and operates SFO) uses this legal concept to control bars and nightclubs that attract noisy customers into residential neighborhoods.

SF keeps eye on dark side of nightlife
SF Examiner ~ May 13, 2012 Web Link

Attractive nuisance doctrine: Web Link


Posted by musical, a resident of Palo Verde
on Apr 7, 2014 at 4:31 pm

SFO attracts revenue. I.e. money. Planeloads of it.


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 7, 2014 at 5:08 pm

Well everything is quite clear now. SFO is a nuisance to Palo Alto. The world revolves around Palo Alto. Therefore SFO should be shut down. Anyway, people need to bike and walk instead of flying-- that way we will become the leading bicycle city in the nation. Also without people flying in, thee will be much less traffic problems in the Bay Area. A win win for everyone.


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 7, 2014 at 5:30 pm

And by the way-- regarding the utterly unsubstantiated comment about planes releasing effluent, which others seem to think is true:

Web Link
"Planes don't jettison sewage mid-flight. In fact, waste is collected in a secure holding tank which no plane crew can dump while in the air. The tank can only be discharged via an exterior valve by the ground crew."


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 7, 2014 at 5:52 pm

Win win,

Even your cited reference (a trivia website) admits that lavatory waste can, and has, been released in flight, so it is not impossible.


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 7, 2014 at 5:57 pm

Jetman-- please note the following:

Web Link
" It goes into a tank that is properly emptied and disposed of by a sanitization crew at the airport. And contrary to urban legend, pilots do not dump the waste midflight. In fact, they couldn't dump the waste in mid-flight if they wanted to — because the lever to open the tank is located on the outside of the plane and can be opened only by a lavatory waste crew once the plane is on the ground (or a very skilled goose)."

So take note that a pilot cannot release the waste. Yes, it can be released, but not in the manner you suggest in your posting. It would be nice if,people stocked to facts and stop trying to fan the flames with bogus stories.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 7, 2014 at 6:21 pm

Musical,

SFO attracts revenue and noise. San Francisco gets most of the revenue, and the Peninsula gets most of the noise.

According to the SFO Noise Abatement Office's figures, in 2013 the number of flights over some locations in Palo Alto grew by 50% over 2011-2012, and grew 200% over 1999-2000. All of the years referenced were years with a similar number of total flights into SFO (17,189-17,963 flights per month).

Some of your neighbors are seeing (and hearing) a dramatic increase in jet noise.


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 7, 2014 at 6:25 pm

Win-Win- sarcasm not withstanding - it is published fact that many pilots will be required to retire at age 65. That is your group of highly skilled pilots. They will be replaced by younger pilots who are not as experienced - from feeder airlines. The cost for pilot training is very high and the pay for the younger pilots very low. This has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Chronicle, etc.
As you have noticed in the Malaysian flight, and the ASA flight last year pilot error or emotional / physical phenomena is not uncommon, especially in very long flights from Asia across the Pacific - or non-stops from Europe to SFO.

If you go to the SFO site they invite community involvement so pointing out that there is some sloppy activity in the approaches and requesting that they provide more guidance in their contracts with the carriers on the altitude and noise level is part of the job - their job.
I have lost track of where the "community center" is now since the whole city appears to be leveled or "in process for improvement - come back next year." I wonder if you are deaf.


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 7, 2014 at 6:30 pm

Rsident1- while you people may have a logical basis for you complaints ( though it is hard to tell since people in Palo Alto complain about everything and anything and have a massive sense of entitlement) you should stick to the facts.
The Malaysian airlines fought has not been found. So any speculation about what happened is just speculation-- so mentioning pilot, error or any other suggestions is out of line.
And since Palo Alto,leads the Bay Area in complaining, I tend to take these complaints about airplane noise with a grain of salt.


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 7, 2014 at 6:32 pm

Jetman-- more exaggerations. Palo Alto and the rest of the peninsula make plenty of money from the people that fly into SFO. But I understand that if palo,alto is inconvenienced, then things must change to satisfy palo,alto alone


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 7, 2014 at 6:44 pm

Jetman-- regarding your attractive nuisance doctrine link:

"In the law of torts, the attractive nuisance doctrine states that a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by a hazardous object or condition on the land that is likely to attract children who are unable to appreciate the risk posed by the object or condition. The doctrine has been applied to hold landowners liable for injuries caused by abandoned cars, piles of lumber or sand, trampolines, and swimming pools. However, it can be applied to virtually anything on the property of the landowner."

What does SFO have to do with hazards to children?
You continue to weaken your argument with every bogus posting


Posted by neighbor, a resident of another community
on Apr 7, 2014 at 6:44 pm

You all live in an urban area that is growing and will continue to grow. There are three international airports. Much of the traffic (air and auto) is related to the thriving economy here.

Your trade-off is that your home has tripled in value in just a few years. Supply/Demand has been very very good to you.

You can continue to watch your real estate investment grow, or take the profits and move to a quieter area. You'll be able to buy a mega-mansion in most of the less urban areas of the U.S., and have enough money left over to buy a second house too.


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 7, 2014 at 6:49 pm

Hey Win Win - the planes are directly over my head. And do people complain? You bet they do - you were not part of the Atherton debacle on Surf Air last year - they had town hall meetings on that topic with San Carlos Airport and the FAA. They did not like the NOISE over their head.

Read your newspaper - people are complaining all of the time - big on commuter buses in SF. They even put costumes on for that. Have you noticed that SF is the center for people who want to converge and complain about whatever the topic of the day is.

Tonight in the CC they will complain about the naming of the library.

SFO is a business - they are big boys and want feedback on how they are doing. They have a whole section in their web page for that. That is what doing business is all about. - Feedback and improvement.
Quit being a bully.


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 7, 2014 at 6:57 pm

Resident 1-- expressing ones opinion is being a bully? That is another tactic of the Palo Alto complainers-- claim that anyone who questions their comments is " bullying" you.
And the planes are DIRECTLY over your head? I doubt it. Based on all the complaints it seems that planes are flying over every neighborhood 24/7. Read neighbors comments above.
As he suggested- take the money and run or would you prefer another recession?
You cannot have it both ways-- you want prosperity, plenty of tax revenue, high property values etc. then suffer through a little airplane noise.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 7, 2014 at 7:40 pm

Win win,

How much aircraft noise are you suffering through? Maybe you are fortunate enough to live in a neighborhood that has not had the dramatic increase in jet noise, that others are experiencing.


Posted by Barron Park Resident, a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 7, 2014 at 8:41 pm

I don't know about you all, but I rather like watching the planes that fly over my house. I've sent several emails to SFO encouraging them to route more traffic over Palo Alto, with what appears to be some success--now they are sending planes over in clear weather as well as fog :).


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 7, 2014 at 9:01 pm

Win Win

No one is asking that all flights stop coming above Palo Alto. If you look at diagrams released by the SFO airport itself, you'll see that Palo Alto has been on receiving end of a disproportionate number of flights coming into the airport for landing. We are bearing the brunt of it.

It is perfectly reasonable to ask for some relief from the constant noise of airplanes continually flying at 4000 feet above us. The burden should be shared by other communities as well. The current state of affairs is that San Mateo County south (other than East Palo Alto and a section of East Menlo Park) has gotten relief from most (not all, but most) incoming lower altitude airplane traffic, at the expense of Palo Alto. We are asking for a rebalancing of traffic, nothing more. I still remember a time in the early nineties when my neighborhood (Midtown)had no traffic from SFO flying over. Now we are clobbered with such traffic, at times a plane every two minutes or so.There must be a happy middle ground somewhere. Everybody should share the burden. Right now, it's disproportionately born by Palo Alto.


Posted by neighbor, a resident of another community
on Apr 7, 2014 at 9:28 pm

The Peninsula noise "burden" is shared by thousands -- like in Redwood Shores, Foster City, San Mateo. Not to mention those communities that are right under the take off patterns.

Then there are the communities around OAK and SJO. Geez folks, many other communities have much worse airplane noise. Get real.


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 7, 2014 at 9:34 pm

Thank you Midtowner. Win Win wants to knock everyone else on their opinions or their positions on a issue. What a guy!
I am not talking opinion here - talking fact. Go to the SFO site and go to their flight tracker. It shows the planes, flight number, altitude, speed, plane type, carrier. What I have discovered is if the plane is in a go around it does not show up on flight tracker because it is now at a lower altitude relative to the other scheduled flights.
The airline business is a fact based business. You have to have Java to run flight tracker - it shows the incoming and departing flights.


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 7, 2014 at 9:53 pm

Wrong neighbor

Under prevailing wind patterns, communities such as Redwood Shores and Foster City do not get landing planes directly overland. The planes are over Bay water by the time they reach those communities. In Palo Alto, we get the traffic above land, above housing. I wish they were over the bay, rather than overhead when in Palo Alto. No such luck.

The planes have to turn somewhere for sure. The problem is that landing planes from the South, North and West, overwhelmingly cross over Palo Alto land. That's the problem.

Besides, neighbor, where do you live? I'd love to know. Some places, such as Atherton, have it much better than Palo Alto airplane noise wise. Not saying they don't get any planes at all, but they get much fewer planes. It can easily be seen when looking at the flight trackers that Resident1 is referring to and that I have been using too.


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 7, 2014 at 10:48 pm

I looked up where the community center neighborhood is - north of Embarcadero and east of Middlefield - Rinconada Park Area. I do not think the planes are going directly over that part because the PA Airport is at the end of Embarcadero. The approach in this area would be over Stanford and I do not think they are flying over Stanford and PA Airport.

I live next to Charleston,east of Middlefield near 101 - opposite side of town. The trans-pacific planes are arriving over the hills here - they come in over Los Altos Hills and shoot down the hill and then make their turn to the SFO north approach. Friends in Los Altos Hills are telling me that they come in over the ocean at that angle. The planes have to be picking the lowest point in the hills to cross in from the ocean.

That is the trans-pacific planes. There is also the LAX - SFO group that comes up the coast then cuts in. LAX to San Jose comes up through the valley.


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 8, 2014 at 11:13 am

Resident1

We also get the planes you mention over Midtown. I guess when it's a little quieter here, you are on the receiving end of the planes, and vice versa.

We also get planes that come down from Portland and Seattle. They go down the Peninsula over the hills and then veer over Palo Alto.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 8, 2014 at 12:17 pm

I was on the Stanford campus this weekend for a sporting event, and there was nonstop jet noise all afternoon. They were actually loud enough that on several occasions I noticed a coach get distracted from the game, and look up to see what was making the noise.

When I got back home I checked the charts, and realized the nominal heading, that the Oceanic flights fly from the west, takes then directly over the Woodside VORTAC, SLAC, and the Stanford Stadium. This is probably a legacy of a time when the pilots were on visual flight rules and used these highly visible structures as navigational waypoints.

I also noticed a lot of flights from the north (the ones that make a u-turn over midtown) flying south over the campus.


Posted by LOL, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Apr 8, 2014 at 12:28 pm

Non stop jet noise??????" do you know what that means about how many planes would have had to be flying over? I was on campus and did not hear much of any airplane noise
Is it any wonder that SFO does not take this seriously when we have wild stories like this?
BTW, jet man, what neighborhood do Yu live in?


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 8, 2014 at 1:02 pm

Neighbor,

The burden may be shared by thousands, but the burden is not shared by everyone, or shared equitably. Portola Valley, Woodside, and Atherton have been complaining about jet noise for years. SFO and the FAA gave into political pressure from these communities, and gerrymandered the routes and their policies to provide relief for these communities by pushing the burden off onto others.

If you think the burden is shared by everyone... try going over to East Palo Alto. The thee approach routes that fly over most of Palo Alto at 4,000', and northern Palo Alto at 2,500', all converge over East Palo Alto at 2,500' to begin final approach to SFO.

Or... try going up to San Francisco. You can spend a entire day in San Francisco, and never hear a jet plane. The only time you hear jet noise in SF is during Fleet Week. I wonder why? Could it be because San Francisco owns and operates the airport?


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 8, 2014 at 1:13 pm

LOL,

I stand corrected, the noise was not "constant". The jet noise I experienced on Campus last Sunday afternoon was approximately 60-90 seconds of jet noise, every 10-12 minutes.


Posted by Duveneck resident, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 8, 2014 at 1:13 pm

Commercial aircraft noise has greatly increased over Duveneck neighborhood and it turns towards SFO (or Oakland, I suppose). There has been a definite negative change, for the worse here in PA in terms of commercial aircraft noise. I have lived here 10 yrs.


Posted by #firstworldproblems, a resident of Walter Hays School
on Apr 8, 2014 at 1:25 pm

You moved under a flight path. One assumes by free choice.

Try Foster City, or San Bruno for a week. You won't hear a thing after returning back to PA.

#firstworldproblems


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 8, 2014 at 1:46 pm

The Walter Hayes School is in the community center area. You have the PA airport at the end of Embarcadero. Planes are not going over your head because of the location of the PA Airport. When we moved here there was no airplane noise except some PA Airport noise.

We have a line of tall Redwood trees coming down from Mitchell Park to Louis Road. The redwood trees seem to be a marker because they are highly visible.


Posted by #firstworldproblems, a resident of Walter Hays School
on Apr 8, 2014 at 3:18 pm

"The redwood trees seem to be a marker because they are highly visible. "

Whaaa???? A marker for WHAT? Really?!?

Mostly, I'm referring to commercial noise; if this thread is solely about little planes, then forget it.

re: WHS - I'm not there at 6am when they start flying over PA, fwiw. You have no clue where I rest my head, you just want to attack when someone calls you on your #firstworldproblems

So call someone in San Bruno or Foster City, they'll be happy to trade places for a week. Then you'll get it - PA has insignificant jet noise.

Also try the Menlo/Woodside flyover and east RC.


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 8, 2014 at 3:51 pm

@ #firstworldproblems

Actually, when I moved here in the early 90s, it was specifically to avoid SFO airplane noise which I was subjected to where I lived before. At the time, there was no SFO traffic at all over my Palo Alto neighborhood. It was subsequently rerouted

So, I did not move under a flight path. And of course, I purposely avoided such locations as Foster City and San Bruno, that are so close to SFO that one should clearly expect SFO airplane noise over them. However, in Foster City it's actually relatively quiet, remarkably, because landing planes are above water at that point, not above houses as they are in PA.

As to Menlo Park, other than on the easternmost section of Menlo Park, SFO bound planes don't fly above that city near as much as they fly over Palo Alto. It's easy to verify by using the SFO flight tracker.

The planes that fly above Woodside do so at higher altitude and then veer and descend above... Palo Alto where they find themselves at 4000 feet, joining up with planes from the south that also fly above PA but not above Woodside.

If you don't live in PA, and you don't appear to live in PA, it is hard for you to know and comment on the full extent of the problem here.


Posted by #firstworldproblems, a resident of Walter Hays School
on Apr 8, 2014 at 4:05 pm

"Menlo Park, SFO bound planes don't fly above that city near as much as they fly over Palo Alto."

Nah, the Woodside corridor meets over Menlo and takes a left.

The folks outside of PA don't know the extent of what is whined about in PA.

Go back over the last half dozen years and the dozens of threads about "intolerable" noise over PA. Folks have been railing on it for ages. Absurd.


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 8, 2014 at 4:52 pm

A question for you #firstworldproblems

I understand that you don't have a problem with airplane noise. You are lucky. If you came here to discuss some problem you have, I would not adamantly deny that you have that problem. So, why do you expand so much time and effort denying that we have a noise issue here? I just don't understand.

Besides, I encourage you to use the SFO trackers and see where flights go. Some of them go over Menlo Park. The overwhelming majority of them, fly above Palo Alto, especially the large, very noisy, commercial jets, such as 747s. What I mostly see over MP are small turbo-props. I am exclusing East Menlo Park from this statement as they are also subject to the planes that cross Palo Alto.


Posted by Robert, a resident of another community
on Apr 8, 2014 at 5:14 pm

@Midtowner

Don't shoot the messenger, but I'm pretty sure he's just pointing out that will all the problems facing this country and around the world, economically and otherwise, that so much effort would go into concern over airplane noise, especially when said airplane noise is directly attributable to how prosperous this region is. Its kind of like how the rest of the world sees humor in the Atherton police blotter (Web Link).


Posted by #firstworldproblems, a resident of Walter Hays School
on Apr 8, 2014 at 5:31 pm

"The overwhelming majority of them, fly above Palo Alto, especially the large, very noisy, commercial jets, such as 747s."

Then post the noise readings. Simple as that. Show us the facts about how noisy it is (yes, I don't agree that it's much noisier than many other areas I've listed -- it's just the PAO threads over the years that go overboard.)


Posted by #firstworldproblems, a resident of Walter Hays School
on Apr 8, 2014 at 5:35 pm

Here ya go -- the sister pub, Almanac has threads about noise all the time, also: "For some residents of Portola Valley, Woodside and nearby communities, the current level of commercial aircraft noise in the skies... "


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 8, 2014 at 7:59 pm

It is unfair to ask the citizens of Palo Alto to monitor the noise created by widespread, 24/7 industry. It is the responsibility of SFO, the Airlines and the FAA to monitor the noise created by the aircraft industry. SFO monitors the noise north of the San Mateo border with 22 automated noise monitoring stations. There is even one on Menlo Park. Why no monitoring stations south of the San Mateo border, when Palo Alto has so much jet traffic?


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 9, 2014 at 6:42 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

There is no SFO noise monitoring station in Menlo Park:

Web Link


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 9, 2014 at 12:28 pm

The reference to redwood trees is land signatures and reference points. I did go to the PA Airport and get the FAA San Francisco TAC map and it notes both geographical and building structures as reference points. Local are Stanford Stadium, SLAC - both bigger type than the university. Some are no longer there - like Bay Meadows racetrack - now a mega-city in process. It provides the FAA desired altitude limits - high and low for the various areas throughout the bay area. They note Mission San Jose, the Pruneyard - a shopping center that is becoming houses. It is a strange selection of items to note. When you fly in at night you can see major thoroughfares as markers.

First World Problems - why don't you start a thread on whatever topic you are trying to address? You can talk about first world problems to your hearts content. Or -if you go SFO's site they have a program that tracks all flights both arriving and departing - you can click on the plane and it will tell you everything you want to know about the plane - altitude, speed, plane type, and you can watch it travel up the bay. You can do this all by yourself. You show Walter Hays - I think the Walter Hayes people had a fit over mountain lions a while back - one appeared in a tree. How many mountain lions land out in your area. Keep your eyes open for those.
And you Robert - why not say where you live and address whatever problem you want to address - this thread is about airport noise.
There is a whole selection of topics out there - pick the one that is "all world".
And win-win - when I say a plane is flying over my head then there is a plane over my head. A 747-400 - 4 engines is a very big plane. I have spent a lot of time on Air Force bases - yes I know what a Boeing plane looks like. I prefer small jets- they will be here for a demonstration for Fleet Week.

The whole topic of noise became big last year when Surf Air - a commercial jet company in a small, very noisy jet started flying over Atherton to San Carlos Airport. This plane flies in over Middlefield so you Community Center folks do / will get a slice of Surf Air. Now that the weather is great and everyone is outside you will become familiar with Surf Air. They will be part of your barbecue life outside. They fly lower - maybe they will hit a redwood tree.

Last year in Atherton meetings regarding Surf Air - they had a town hall with the FAA, Mayor of Menlo Park and Atherton, reps from San Carlos Airport, Rep for Jerry Hill, and a host of speakers. Guess what - they know how to manage meetings and get things done - they know how to complain in a very effective way. It was wonderful to see how effective a city can be when it focuses on a problem and wants it fixed. Very professional in the approach.

That is in contradiction to other cities that will remain un-named who are all over the place. Some cities have a problem focusing on a issue and applying a logical fix to it.


Posted by noisy fella, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 9, 2014 at 3:12 pm

>>>> "You show Walter Hays - I think the Walter Hayes people had a fit over mountain lions a while back - one appeared in a tree. How many mountain lions land out in your area. Keep your eyes open for those."

What the heck?!? Someone's lost it.

YES, there are commercial planes overhead! But get real, those planes then fly over Menlo, Woodside, Burlingame, Foster City, Millbrae, San Mateo, San Bruno, etc..

Even Atherton.

I recall having a police officer doing a noise measurement of an event I hosted. A neighbor who complained was livid that the cop pulled out his instrument to measure, but then just stood and waited. Finally the neighbor (think: Mrs Kravitz!) couldn't stand it any longer and demanded: "why aren't you measuring?!!?"

The officer replied: "I'm waiting for that plane overhead to move out of the area."

I couldn't hold back the laugh.

Much like this thread: a bunch of Palo Alto residents moaning about noise over their little village and unwilling to acknowledge that commercial traffic flies over the whole peninsula after it departs Palo Alto airspace.

Amazing, isn't it? Whodathunkit?

Now that I've had my fun (and I have!) why not quit moaning here on an anonymous blog and actually DO something? Lobby for a noise monitoring station in PA. Call PAPD and ask them to measure. I'm sure Peter has a host of ideas, as well. Then you'll have data and we can compare that with the rest of the peninsula.

And have quite the laugh.




Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 9, 2014 at 4:37 pm

I agree with "noisy fella" about the noise monitoring stations. The last time SFO upgraded their noise monitoring system was 2006. Given the time it takes SFO to implement technology, the system was probably designed around 2001-2002. With the evolution of the internet over the last few years, it seem like it should be relatively inexpensive to have a much more extensive system of noise monitoring stations.

If we had more data, we could be a lot more scientific about the way we go about solving this problem


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 9, 2014 at 8:48 pm

I find it strange that Atherton residents come here to "laugh" at Palo Alto residents who discuss airplane noise, knowing that Atherton itself has had its issues with airplanes and has actually successfully lobbied to get air routes changed. For example, they managed to obtain a rerouting of Surf Air jets which no longer fly above their neighborhoods but rather down Middlefield and eventually over Palo Alto.

The fact that this discussion resurfaces periodically does indeed indicate that there is an airplane noise issue in Palo Alto. Otherwise, people would not start such threads.

Also, saying that we have to choose between prosperity and quality of life is offering a false choice. We can be prosperous but also do something about quality of life. It would take some adjustments but definitely not impact prosperity.

Finally, airplane noise is not just a nuisance, it's also a health issue. Among other issues, airplane noise may increase the risk of heart problems for people subjected to it:

Web Link

Who is subjected to airplane noise in the Bay Area? Here is a map of routes produced by SFO. Note how landing planes converge on Palo Alto from three directions, descend so that they are flying at 4000 feet in Palo Alto (and East Menlo Park and East Palo Alto) before reaching the bay where they impact many fewer people obviously, being above water. Before flying above Palo Alto, airplanes are at a higher altitude (such as about 8000 feet at Woodside). Palo Alto is clearly quite impacted by airplanes landing at SFO.

Web Link


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 9, 2014 at 10:50 pm

Midtowner - thank you for the graphic. I was at the airport today and you can tell that maintenance is an issue. A large KLM was very whiney going into take-off, whereas Southwest was normal sounding. I think the international airlines are more challenged as their planes are long haul, typically in the air for a very long period, and possibly older. Making sure that all have the most current upgrades for noise abatement may not be a priority. That can be an element that is addressed in the contract with the carrier.


Posted by CrescentParkAnon., a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 9, 2014 at 11:11 pm

I started noticing this years ago, posted about it here and got rounding picked on for being a whiner.

Here's what happened. I started staying up very late working on programming and started to notice planes flying over very low at night. On occasion my house would vibrate. I started to notice it when I was asleep as well ... and here is what I think happens with most people. The plane comes in while the sound intensity/vibration gets higher and higher until you sort of wake up and may notice it, but at that point the sound started to fade so you go back to sleep.

The studies on sleep though talk about how when you are awakened like this, especially several times a night your quality of sleep suffers. You can get tired and depressed during the day, and your mind does not functions as well as it should.

People told me - you knew the Palo Alto airport and SFO was around when you bought your house so quit whining.

Well, over the years I tried posting about it several times and finally people are starting to notice this.

Even during the day I see very large planes constantly flying over the Crescent Park area, and very low. About 30% of them are loud enough to interfere with conversation or to be heard loudly indoors as well.

There is a mix of small planes from the PAO and large planes from SFO ... also sometimes large cargo planes from Moffet are in the area, but usually not over Palo Alto.

The one thing I never minded was when the WWII group came through and would fly the WWII fighters and bombers over Palo Alto, They are really amazingly loud, but they are cool ... I had never seen a real B-17 flying before. I wish I thought it was sensible to drop $500-$800 to get a ride in one someday, but that just seems ridiculous. Those old planes are beautiful.


Posted by CrescentParkAnon., a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 9, 2014 at 11:14 pm

How do we set up a noise monitoring station, and can it be done by some kind of bluetooth device that will relay to a person's PC and then to some central location ... like the 311 website?

I am very sick and tired of being told I am whining every time I seek to make my neighborhood and Palo Alto a nicer place for all of us. What is wrong with some people?


Posted by CrescentParkAnon., a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 9, 2014 at 11:17 pm

Jetman - - -
> SFO monitors the noise north of the San Mateo border with 22 automated noise monitoring stations. There is even one on Menlo Park. Why no monitoring stations south of the San Mateo border, when Palo Alto has so much jet traffic?

Ha ... I bet I can guess that. They put the real sensors in San Mateo Country and if they had to actually measure it, they would have to do something about it ... so they probably route the traffic over PA and Santa Clara county because they know it will take a long time to organize and demand for something to be done. Corporate thinking, not citizen thinking - thanks to our corporate government and our corporate Supreme Court.


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 9, 2014 at 11:23 pm

Hey Atherton - at least we have a "little village". You have El Camino - which everyone has. Do you have a village? Where do you people shop?
Sorry - could not resist that.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 9, 2014 at 11:40 pm

Resident 1,

Please resist those impulses, they are counter productive ~ thanks!


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 10, 2014 at 12:03 am

CrescentParkAnon,

Peter has provided up to date information on the locations of the automated noise monitoring stations from the SFO Noise Abatement Office website. It appears the current system employs 29 stations, and the southern-most station is located in Redwood City, not Menlo Park.

Map of noise monitoring stations: Web Link


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 10, 2014 at 9:17 am

Downtown North plane noise is every 1-2 minutes. Not sure if it is only SFO or just different planes going to different airports. There just seems to be continual plane noise one after the other. Most of the noise sounds are different, some large jets and some small planes. I do see the Surf Air in the mix too. After many years of living here it's a substantial difference, enough that I am alerted to it and was wondering if others were experiencing the same thing.


Posted by it takes a village, a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 10, 2014 at 9:36 am

"I was at the airport today and you can tell that maintenance is an issue. A large KLM was very whiney going into take-off, whereas Southwest was normal sounding."

And there is the kind of 'data' that makes this thread patently absurd - one plane sounded different, therefore maintenance is a problem, therefore noise abatement is ignored, therefore poor Palo Alto suffers more than other "villages" in the area!

Snikes!!

Between ridiculous statements like that, and the confusion over commercial, PA airport, and other traffic, this thread is just a bunch of noise until someone measures the actual noise level, for each type of traffic.

In the meantime, I'm closing my window because of the leaf blowers that started up a few minutes ago, and those damn large black birds that caw all day.


Posted by LOL, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Apr 10, 2014 at 9:37 am

Catherine-- that means 30-60 planes an hour over DT? Are you sure you are not exaggerating?


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 10, 2014 at 9:57 am

Well, the other night I sat out on my patio and within a ten minute period I counted 8 planes. It's all types of planes in all different directions. I'm really not exaggerating and as the plane gains distance it still hums in the air and then a brief quiet moment and then another one starts again.


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 10, 2014 at 11:01 am

@ Crescent Park Anon and all PA residents wanting to fight airplane noise:

We are a group of concerned residents who have started to organize. You can join the group by contacting us at: veroforyou at gmail dot com


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 10, 2014 at 12:27 pm

Catherine's claim of a plane plane flying over northern Palo Alto every two minutes is not unreasonable, if you do a little back of the envelope math.

Figures I have from SFO show in September 2013 there were 17,459 arrival flights into SFO. That is 582 flights per day. Three of the five standard arrival routes into SFO converge over northern Palo Alto, that gives you 349 flights per day over northern Palo Alto. If you figure most of these flights occur between 6:00am, and midnight... you end up with about one flight every three minutes, and that is just SFO arrivals.

SFO approach and departure plan illustrated: Web Link


Posted by Lol, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Apr 10, 2014 at 12:35 pm

Well, hetman, if you check out your own link, you will see that departing flights pass over other areas, so that is another red herring you are introducing. And how many flights in each arriving route? And at what altitude are they. Looks like the whole bay area is covered between the three airports, so where would like all the flights that are going over palo alto now be rerouted to? Which city should they fly over so thatntheprima donnas in PA are not inconvenienced


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 10, 2014 at 3:08 pm

The exact number of flights over any location, or even any address, during any given time period, can be obtained by contacting John Hempel at the SFO Noise Abatement Office:

Phone: 650-821-5108
email: sfonoise@flysfo.com

The SFO Noise Abatement Office maintains a large computerized database of all flight tracks, which can be queried in various ways. Mr. Hempel is friendly and helpful, and requests are answered promptly.


Posted by Wondering, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 10, 2014 at 3:46 pm

I'm wondering about whether planes over Palo Alto really stay above 4000 feet, and if there is any consequence to the airline when their planes do not stay above 4000 feet.

It's also peculiar to me to have a poster or two consistently deny the airplane noise over midtown and its impact.

It's one thing not to hear the noise, and that's fine. But why deny, minimize, mock, and otherwise deride and devalue the articulation of what others experience?

What's in it for such posters?


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 10, 2014 at 8:36 pm

Cresentparkanon,

I agree with your perception of the sleep issue. The conscious mind shuts down quite quickly when we fall asleep, but seems to "boot up" rather slowly when we are aroused from deep sleep. A loud jet takes 60-90 seconds to pass overhead.. If it takes the conscious mind 60-90 seconds to become aware, and make sense of the external world, the loud jet may be gone, or only a distant whisper.

This could account for why there is no statistical difference in the negative health effects between people who report they are disturbed by the noise, and those who say they are not. As for the effects on health... it seem to me the effects could be quite similar to those of sleep apnea.

From an economic standpoint... what is the cost of having the workforce living under these flights, sleep deprived and/or depressed?


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 10, 2014 at 9:53 pm

Good question on getting a airplane noise monitor in PA. I believe the SFO airport has portable monitors that it can deploy, but it may be limited to San Mateo County and San Francisco County. Not sure if they will deploy in Santa Clara County since they only made deals with SM and SF counties.

Could we band together and purchase our own? Or is the cost prohibitive? As mentioned earlier, do not hesitate to contact us at veroforyou at gmail dot com

Several persons posting on this thread are already part of the group.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 10, 2014 at 11:50 pm

CrescentParkAnon,

I kind of like your idea of setting up our own noise monitoring stations, with some kind of bluetooth device that would relay noise data to a volunteers's PC, and then on to some central location ... like the 311 website.

I recently purchased a Raspberry Pi and it is a very capable but inexpensive little machine which will work with an inexpensive wireless dongle. I kind of like the idea of using technology to do an end run around the whole ossified FAA-SFO-PACC bureaucracy.

Raspbery Pi: Web Link


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 11, 2014 at 7:30 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

If anyone is interested in the facts then look at this Bay Area wide aircraft noise level chart:

Web Link

Palo Alto is certainly not being disadvantaged compared to any of its neighbors.

And this report also includes a chart which shows that some people are more sensitive to a given noise level than others:

Web Link

Thus some people can claim it is too noisy ("It's also peculiar to me to have a poster or two consistently deny the airplane noise over midtown and its impact.") while others can feel comfortable tha it is not


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 11, 2014 at 8:30 am

Jetman - looking at your web link for the SFO approach and departure plan, I can see why I'm continually hearing plane noise. My home sits under 3 converging routes. One of the routes that flies in the southerly direction and then loops northbound literally makes the turn right over my home. The route over the Stanford hills into SFO flies directly over my home also. What is strange though is that over the past year it is much more noticeable. Either the planes are louder due to flying lower or there are many more planes in the sky, or both.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 11, 2014 at 8:34 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Jetman;s link is an "illustration" not a map of actually flight paths or noise levels.

IF you want the facts rather than an illustration then look here:

Web Link

Web Link


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 11, 2014 at 8:45 am

I would like to use the Volans flight tracker, but when I click the icon I get a blank page. I have the Java update installed but that doesn't seem to make a difference. Is anyone able to use the Volans icon link to launch the SFO flight tracker or is it down?

Web Link


Posted by LOL, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Apr 11, 2014 at 8:50 am

The over exaggerations continue unabated. Not sure Catherine, how you can tell from the map that jetman provided, where exactly your house is and where exactly planes make a right turn at. No neighborhoods shown on they map and palo alto,is abut a small dot on it. Please tell us how you managed to get the information that you claim from that small picture????
Also, what city would you like the planes to,fly over so that you will never have to be disturbed again.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 11, 2014 at 8:56 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Catherine,
The Voltrans tracker will not run on a Mac - are you using a Mac?

Try the SJO web tracker - it covers Palo Alto and works on a Mac:

Web Link


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 11, 2014 at 8:59 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"The over exaggerations continue unabated. Not sure Catherine, how you can tell from the map that jetman provided,"

Jetman did not provide a map but an "illustration" that does not represent any actual flight data. The actual flight data and noise data MAPS are listed above. And they all show that Palo Alto is certainly not being disadvantaged compared to any of its neighbors.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 11, 2014 at 10:00 am

Thank you Peter for the information. Jetman's flight path diagram illustrates paths and from what I see in the sky above me the paths the planes are taking seem to fit the diagram exactly. I have a full sky view from my home and I can see the planes approaching from far away in the distance southbound and then looping over my place in a northerly direction and then heading towards SFO. On my south side each night I see a stream of planes coming over the Stanford hills and then flying over my place on their way to SFO. The paths they are taking looks like they fit the diagram that Jetman provided exactly.


Posted by LOL, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Apr 11, 2014 at 10:13 am

Catherine-- what jetman provided is a small scale illustration. Based of the size of palo,alto in that illustration every plane flies over the entire city of paloalto. Amazing that you can actually see all those planes. But what would you like done? What city should these planes fly over instead of palo alto?
You may want to check out flightaware.com/live/airport/KSFO. For accurate information


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 11, 2014 at 10:20 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Catherine - what you are providing is anecdotal information. And Jetman's illustration contains no actual flight data and is like looking at a comic book to determine how much traffic there is on a street.

A proper discourse should be fact based. Look at the web links that I have provided above - they are fact based.


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 11, 2014 at 11:33 am

The illustration provided by jetman actually is a map that SFO provides to anyone who contacts its noise abatement office. It's as official as can be. It clearly shows three paths converging mostly over Palo Alto. Such routes over Palo Alto were basically non existent in the early 1990s, at least in South Palo Alto.

Maybe the burden of SFO inbound flight paths could be shared a little more evenly between the Palo Alto/East Palo Alto/East Menlo Park area and the rest of South San Mateo County which currently received much lighter SFO traffic (mostly smaller jets and/or higher elevation traffic over the hills at 8000 feet or more, and traffic above Bay water that does not fly directly over housing). More inbound SFO jets could turn above Menlo Park/Atherton for example. Sharing the burden a little more fairly above the area should not be that difficult to accomplish.


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 11, 2014 at 11:38 am

To those of you interested in knowing more about the negative health impact of aircraft noise, here are two good links:

A press release from Harvard about one of its studies on the cardiovascular health impact of aircraft noise:
Aircraft noise linked with heart problems
Web Link

The text of the study (accompanied by a video) as published in the British Medical Journal in 2013:
Residential exposure to aircraft noise and hospital admissions for cardiovascular diseases: multi-airport retrospective study.
Web Link


Posted by LOL, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Apr 11, 2014 at 11:48 am

Midtowner- what jetman provided is a pretty picture of the area-- tell me where mountain view, menlo park, Los altos and east palo,alto are in that picture and how you conclude it is accurate. For accuracy check out the link that Peter provided. Shows that air traffic shared across the entire peninsula. Of course, since the world revolves around palo alto, we can never be inconvenienced by airplane noise-- let someone else suffer. It appears that no matter what the traffic is-- air, car, bike pedestrian, palo,alto,residents will complain


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 11, 2014 at 11:54 am

@ LOL

Once again, the map is an illustration provided by SFO. That's a fact. That it is a summary not showing all the individual flights is understood by everyone. It remains that it shows the prevailing routes, once again as provided by SFO. Fact.

Furthermore, no one asks for all planes to be rerouted from Palo Alto. We are asking for some relief and some sharing of the burden.

Plane noise is not an issue for you (I underline you). Great for you (once again underlined)!


Posted by LOL, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Apr 11, 2014 at 12:13 pm

Midtowner-once again, in that illustration can you actually differentiate between PA, MV, EPA, LA etc. no you cannot. So that illustration does not actually show how much traffic is,over palo alto. Peters link actually shows the distribution over the entire peninsula and it shows that pa is not " burdened" and traffic is shared over the whole area.
So once again, do not use cartoons that really show nothing and claim that we are overburdened. Of course, palo alto,will alwya complain about being unfairly burdened by everything.
Air traffic is not a major.problem for,palo alto, some people just make it sound that way. Palo,alto gets no more traffic then any other city in the area


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 11, 2014 at 12:19 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

I suspect that Jetman and Catherine use 5 year old street maps to figure out where the traffic was yesterday or is today.


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 11, 2014 at 12:29 pm

I would like to repeat the links to an interesting study on the effect of aircraft noise on health.

A press release from Harvard about its study on the cardiovascular health impact of aircraft noise:
Aircraft noise linked with heart problems
Web Link

The text of the study (accompanied by a video abstract) as published in the British Medical Journal in 2013:
Residential exposure to aircraft noise and hospital admissions for cardiovascular diseases: multi-airport retrospective study.
Web Link


Posted by LOL, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Apr 11, 2014 at 12:41 pm

Midtowner-- why repeat something you just posted less than an hour ago.is it really relevant to this discussion? Was SFO suddenly plopped down in our midst 10 years ago? Let's address my questions-- how do you differentiate the cities on jetmans cartoon? How do you ignore peters figure showing equal distribution? Why do you continue to insist t hat palo,alto,is overburdened?


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 11, 2014 at 1:31 pm

SFO approach and departure plan illustrated: Web Link

The illustration above is not from a comic book. It is an illustration that the SFO Noise Abatement Office includes in their "First Time Caller's Packet", to help the non-pilot understand how the SFBA airspace is organized.

The illustration, illustrates a Plan. It shows the routes all aircraft would fly if everything went according to Plan. In the real world there are a number circumstances such as the limitations of older navigation systems, delays, or missed landings, that can lead to the Tower instructing a flight that was not able to execute the plan, to fly an alternate route.

That being said... the plan illustrated above is the plan the for the Bay Area under the prevailing westerly winds, and is in effect 83% of the time. Most of the flights are able to execute the plan, and the plan is to have three of the five approach routes converge over northern Palo Alto to begin final approach to SFO.

As the "building blocks" of the sophisticated "NextGen" air traffic control system are rolled out over the next 2-3 years, more and more of the flights will be able to execute the plan, and when "NextGen" is completed, very few will need to deviate from the plan. The FAA has called the "NextGen" air traffic control system "highways in the sky", that should give you an idea of what to expect when "NextGen" is completed.

In the flight tracker trace linked below, you can see the thick red line where multiple flight tracks converge over Palo Alto, and then continue over parts of east Menlo and East Palo Alto.
Web Link


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 11, 2014 at 1:33 pm

SFO approach and departure plan illustrated: Web Link


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 11, 2014 at 1:39 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"SFO approach and departure plan illustrated:" which is the equivalent of a road map and which tells you nothing about where the traffic actually is on the roads.

Facts please, not illustrations.
Actual Bay Area aircraft sound level footprint:
Web Link

Cumulative radar dat for a year:
Web Link


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 11, 2014 at 1:52 pm

Peter,

Cumulative radar data for a year? What year?


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 11, 2014 at 1:59 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Probably 2011 or 2012


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 11, 2014 at 2:06 pm

Question to all of you experts:
The SF TAC Chart calls out different categories of airspace - class B, C, D, E. What is the high and low altitudes attributed to the different categories.

What planes would you expect to see in the different categories?

If a 747-400 - 4 engines, double decker is going over what category of airspace does it need to be in?
A Southwest plane - 2 engines - what category of airspace?
Or am I reading this wrong?
How are planes assigned their minimum level of altitude as they approach SFO? Is that a computer program that is guiding the plane?

I can see on flight tracker what they are reporting as their altitude as they approach, but am noting that if they have a go around they are dropping lower and do not appear on flight tracker. If a 747-400 is going over but not in tracker to show the altitude then I believe it is a go around. Also I think they are masking the go arounds in the system.

I know who is suppose to be here and when they are coming over - and when they report they have landed at SFO.

The problem I see is the altitude for very large planes. A KLM 747-400 with code share came from Palm Springs and was extremely low - like he though he was a commuter plane.

The commuter planes - SkyWest are running higher altitude than the 747-400s.

As to noise in general I think the arriving planes have more noise in the gradual step down as they approach the north arrival path. The Departures go to altitude very quickly over a under-populated area so think they are less of a problem.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 11, 2014 at 2:18 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

All planes arriving SFO do so in Class B airspace. The SFO Class B airspace was established for the sole purpose of controlling traffic arriving and departing SFO. Other planes are allowed to fly through the SFO Class B airspace but only when under positive radar and radio control.

Over most of Palo Alto the floor of the SFO Class B is 2500 ft except west of the Stanford Stadium where it is 4000 ft.


Posted by musical, a resident of Palo Verde
on Apr 11, 2014 at 3:06 pm

Allow me to respectfully elaborate. Over Palo Alto the floor of SFO Class B is 2500 ft only above the downtown corner of the city east of El Camino and within 15 nautical miles of SFO (roughly Addison Avenue). The floor rises to 4000 ft for all of Palo Alto outside of that.

Anyone looking at the Terminal Area chart can probably figure out that Class B is marked by the heavy blue lines. Finding the altitudes of each sector is less straightforward.

I'll further note an occasional point of public confusion. Planes in Class B under radio control does not mean they are actually radio-controlled, only that air traffic controllers will direct the pilot where to go, and the pilot would need a very good reason to deviate.

The rate of descent getting from 4000 ft over Palo Alto to the ground at SFO is almost as steep as coming down the grapevine on I-5.


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 11, 2014 at 3:25 pm

Peter - thank you. So a 747-400 can go cruising by at 2,500ft. I will have to start watching for that. One weekend was bad - a glut of commuter SkyWests were arriving at SFO but somehow managed to derail a couple of 747-400s. Those two came over again to circle around extremely low - large planes from the Orient I think have more confusion when they get here and possibly want to fly over once just to see where everything is.

Part of a discussion with the FAA/SFO would be that the larger planes need to exceed 5,000 in this area then ramp down when over the bay water.
As there are more large planes in the sky they will have to get into a higher altitude over land.

FAA is going to have to upgrade the map - this one is valid through 21 August 2014 - many of the features they are calling out are losing their identity - like Bay Meadows is now becoming a mega-city. Likewise Pruneyard is undergoing development.

So next question is Surf Air - what is the minimum altitude required for that plane in the Palo Alto area? If we use your take on it would be 2,500 feet?


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 11, 2014 at 3:30 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"So next question is Surf Air - what is the minimum altitude required for that plane in the Palo Alto area? If we use your take on it would be 2,500 feet?"

No, a plane arriving San Carlos from the south must be below 2500 over downtown Palo Alto and would, given a standard approach descent of 3 degrees it would be at about 1500 ft., but legally it could be lower.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 11, 2014 at 3:50 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

I want to correct myself. Her is the San Carlos approach plate - note the glide path portion near the bottom right:

Web Link

The waypoint named CUZUP is located between Bryant and Waverly and Lincoln and Kingsley. At that point a plane on this glide path would be at 2000 ft - not 1500 as I suggested above.


Posted by musical, a resident of Palo Verde
on Apr 11, 2014 at 4:07 pm

>> "So a 747-400 can go cruising by at 2,500ft."

You'll never (under normal circumstances) see commercial airliner flights into SFO at 2500 feet over Palo Alto. They don't immediately nosedive when crossing the 4000 foot boundary. And air traffic control does not allow them to fly around sightseeing.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 11, 2014 at 4:20 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Here is one of the most common approaches for airliners flying into SFO from the west or south:

Web Link

Planes flying over Palo Alto would usually join this approach near or just north of ROKME so they would have to be above 4000 ft at that point and hence higher than that over Palo Alto.
Planes flying over the peninsula further north would be vectored via Menlo where they would have to cross at or above 4000 ft.


Posted by Anonymous, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 11, 2014 at 4:24 pm

@resident1 - go take a few flying lessons from one of the clubs at Palo Alto Airport. You'll learn pretty quickly that Oceanic arrivals are not orbiting over SFO to get oriented. If you just take a training flight from here to Concord or Livermore while talking to air traffic control you'll get a whole new appreciation for what a great job the FAA does in designing and operating one of the most complicated airspaces in the world, how professional the airline crews are and how well trained the local GA community is.

It's always entertaining to watch the conspiracy theories float by on "who changed the airspace" when in fact nothing has changed, except more flights in and out of SFO. If you want less SFO traffic, switch your air travel to San Jose. Same distance from Palo Alto as SFO, convenient parking and fewer weather delays.


Posted by musical, a resident of Palo Verde
on Apr 11, 2014 at 4:38 pm

Or you can fly to Shanghai and back for the cost of a few flying lessons.


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 11, 2014 at 4:49 pm

Peter,

Anyone who looks at the airports' flight trackers can see that in reality, regardless of theory, the majority of SFO bound planes above Palo Alto, at least East of El Camino Real or Alma, fly at 4000 feet (and sometimes less right near 101). So, the impact of such flights on Menlo Park would not be any worse than the impact on PA were some of those flights to cross MP rather than PA.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 11, 2014 at 5:04 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" So, the impact of such flights on Menlo Park would not be any worse than the impact on PA were some of those flights to cross MP rather than PA."

I agree and note that many of these flights already fly entirely over Menlo Park and never overfly Palo Alto. However almost ALL of the flights that fly over Palo Alto also fly over eastern Menlo Park and East Palo Alto AND at a lower altitude than when they flew over Palo Alto.


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 11, 2014 at 5:55 pm

I agree that East Palo Alto and eastern Menlo Park are on the receiving end of most of the flights crossing Palo Alto. I consider them to be in the same boat as we are in Palo Alto.

The rest of Menlo Park (outside eastern MP), when one looks at the SFO tracker, does get some SFO bound traffic, but many fewer planes than Palo Alto gets, which matches the officially reported SFO routes. Also SFO planes above MP that do not cross PA are mostly smaller, less noisy jets, with a few rare exceptions. (For the sake of completeness, I will add that the planes coming down the Peninsula to cross over PA are mostly over the hills and at a much higher altitude).

The Palo Alto/East Palo Alto/East Menlo Park area bears the brunt of the SFO bound traffic coming from three directions, and we are focused on this being alleviated.


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 11, 2014 at 6:06 pm

"The Palo Alto/East Palo Alto/East Menlo Park area bears the brunt of the SFO bound traffic coming from three directions, and we are focused on this being alleviated."
How do,plan to have this " alleviated?
I believe that peter carpenter posed a link that shows that the entire peninsula shares the air traffic load. So, sounds to me like your claims are bogus. You just want the planes to fly over another city and you do not care which one, as long as it is not Palo Alto. There really is not a major problem with aircraft over Palo Alto.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 11, 2014 at 6:12 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Actually about 20-25% of cross peninsula traffic crosses Menlo Park without ever touching Palo Alto - here is a typical example:

Web Link

Traffic over Palo Alto is always higher, and therefore quieter, than when it is over San Mateo County cities. Look at the noise foot print:

Web Link

Palo Alto should consider itself fortunate rather than being discriminated against.


Posted by Anonymous, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 11, 2014 at 6:20 pm

@musical - you probably won't learn much about SFO airspace on your Shanghai flight. But you make a really good point.

No one here is very worried about cost analysis. You can push all the SFO arrivals way down to East San Jose to line up at 8000 feet. Then you can try to redesign the San Jose departure without messing up Oakland arrivals.

You'll add 15 minutes to most SFO flights - call it $8000 of extra cost per flight. Millions of $ to redesign the airspaces and retrain the controllers. Or you can spend a couple hundred $ on some flying lessons and learn how it really works.


Posted by Anonymous, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 11, 2014 at 6:20 pm

@musical - you probably won't learn much about SFO airspace on your Shanghai flight. But you make a really good point.

No one here is very worried about cost analysis. You can push all the SFO arrivals way down to East San Jose to line up at 8000 feet. Then you can try to redesign the San Jose departure without messing up Oakland arrivals.

You'll add 15 minutes to most SFO flights - call it $8000 of extra cost per flight. Millions of $ to redesign the airspaces and retrain the controllers. Or you can spend a couple hundred $ on some flying lessons and learn how it really works.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 11, 2014 at 7:06 pm

The FAA has spent the last decade redesigning the US airspace, and it is costing you plenty - but will the change bring any relief to the taxpayers suffering on the ground?

"NextGen" was originally forecast to cost $40 billion, split between government and industry, and to be completed by 2025. But an internal FAA report estimates it will cost three times that much and take 10 years longer to complete, Scovel said. FAA officials have largely stopped talking about end dates and completion costs as the technologies that make up NextGen continue to evolve. The agency currently spends about $800 million a year on the program." Web Link

"FAA Plan Seeks More Direct Air Routes in Bay Area"
SF Gate ~ Tuesday, January 15, 2013 Web Link

"New Technology Promises Less Noise from Jet Engines, but to Whose Ears?"
The Almanac ~ August 29, 2012 Web Link




Posted by Jetgirl, a resident of Stanford
on Apr 11, 2014 at 10:16 pm

This site has useful information especially in regard to pollution impacts:

Web Link


Posted by Observations, a resident of Evergreen Park
on Apr 11, 2014 at 10:16 pm

I also don't see the motivation behind those few posters who deny, distort, attack, mislead, misstate, and derail the discussion.

There is significantly more airplane noise over parts of Palo Alto than there has ever been.

There are predictable times every day when the disruptive sound of one plane lasts until that of the next.

There are loud planes flying over parts of palo alto at 4:00am and other night times that should be quiet times.

There is significantly more disruption from airplane noise in these areas than almost anywhere else on the peninsula at any significant distance from the airport.

Posters first deny that there's noise, then claim there's not very much noise, claim that laws of physics prevent such noise, claim that even if there is a lot of noise other places also have it, claim that the noise was here before the residents, claim that the residents want to shut down the airport, claim that life 20 miles from an airport naturally includes disruptive airplane noise from that airport, claim that the residents are selfish, claim that even if there is more noise in certain areas there is no one to complain to about it, claim that no one will respond to ways to save money and time and fuel on flights, claim that even if the right complaints are made to the right people, responding to noise involves so much nebulous and secret bureaucracy that response can not happen, claim that airport-provided info on flights in the Bay Area is unreliable and mock such info, claim that they themselves are the only experts who can understand what's involved in excessive airplane noise, and deny facts about actual flights of large commercial airlines flying low over certain parts of Palo Alto.

Why??? Why do these posters want excessive airplane noise over parts of Palo Alto to persist?


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 11, 2014 at 10:17 pm

Oceanic flights - both coming and going - tend to stop at SFO to fuel up to go on to their final destination. Flights from Washington that are going on to Hawaii stop at SFO to fill up the fuel tank. They have to come down the peninsula and then circle back up to the north arrival. There are a lot of delays on the Hawaii side from those flights that do have schedules but are delayed. SFO is a major transition hub and the central point to Hawaii. A plane showing as coming from Washington - or elsewhere - could be making a pit stop to pick up more passengers and top off. Likewise a lot of Hawaii to SFO top off here then go on to Washington.

Likewise a KLM 747-400 is really not a commuter- it is preparing for a long haul flight and has to fuel up here at SFO. It is just coming up the central valley and getting in the line up.

Collectively all of the planes should be at a higher altitude and move over the bay as quickly as possible - there are two bridges that they have to cross over.

Win Win - we are trying to analyze traffic flow - I do not understand why you have all of this sarcasm - what is the point - it adds nothing to the conversation.

Paris to SFO non-stop is not a pleasant trip however much you paid for it. Especially if there is a baggage strike and you are delayed on the ground for 3 hours before you take off. Or a European Air Controllers strike because Europe has too many major and feeder airlines and the system is too old. That was June 2013. There are a lot of variables in play.

San Jose is losing customers / providers while SFO is gaining providers. Some politics at play here also with Oakland that is trying to pick up more providers.

FAA has a responsibility to provide over-site that produces a level of security for the people on the ground as well as the planes. There has to be a balance.


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 11, 2014 at 10:30 pm

Inbound SFO traffic flies at about its lowest over Peninsula houses when above PA/East PA/East Menlo Park. Before reaching this area, traffic is higher, mostly by a factor of 2 or more. After passing above this area,inbound traffic is lower but above Bay water. Houses in PA/EPA/EMP are thus impacted by the lowest inbound airplanes of all houses on the Peninsula. (Note that I am talking about inbound aircraft, not departing ones).

Hence the noise issue in our area.


Posted by Jetgirl, a resident of Stanford
on Apr 11, 2014 at 10:32 pm

Observations, That is an important question. I have wondered same often. Perhaps large individual differences in hearing airplane noise exist, or strong psychological needs to deny are powerful. I concur with you however that the airplane impacts over Palo Alto are outrageous. Apparently studies exist that even when asleep, stress impacts are measureable from exposure to airplane noise. Whether heard or not, our bodies react negatively to the toxic experience.


Posted by Anonymous, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 11, 2014 at 10:41 pm

@Observations - your questions aren't bad, but they're misleading. Only two things have changed in the last 20 years. One is there's more SFO traffic. The other is that planes are quieter than they used to be. It's true there are more planes over Palo Alto than before, but it's only because there's more traffic. Not because there's some big conspiracy to move traffic away from someplace else. The problem with this recurring discussion is a bunch of people who have no understanding of how the FAA manages the airspace think there's some secret cabal that can shift air traffic around without a complex analysis and a very public process. The only real fix is to reduce SFO traffic, which means choosing to fly out of Oakland and San Jose.

No one is defending airplane noise, except as a consequence of living in an area that's well-served by airlines.


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 11, 2014 at 11:02 pm

Actually, starting in 1980, through the Joint Action Plan agreed upon by the San Francisco Airport and San Mateo County, flights have been re-routed. Changing flight paths was an item in that Plan. At first, it applied only to departing flights, not incoming flights. But it later was also applied to incoming traffic.

In 1992, there was an amendment that specifically mentioned eliminating the "Woodside shorcut" for incoming traffic. Shortly thereafter, in the mid-90s, I started noticing planes in my PA neighborhood, while there had been none when I first moved here in the 1990.

In 1997, southern San Mateo County towns were added to the plan through another amendment. And lo and behold, flights increased above Palo Alto. The precedents of the 1980s and early 1990s lead me to believe that there were further deals made between San Mateo County cities and SFO even though I have not found any traces of this in writing (yet).



Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 11, 2014 at 11:31 pm

Anonymous,

Since you have such a deep understanding of how the "FAA manages the airspace", please educate the rest of us! How does the FAA manage the Bay Area airspace?

I am especially interested in the "very public process" you mention. How does that work? Are there hearings or town meetings? Debates? Do people vote? Are any of these "very public process(es)" recorded and made available to the public? If so, please provide weblinks. Thanks!


Posted by Anonymous, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 12, 2014 at 9:06 am

Here's an example of a notice in the Federal Register for a 2010 Philadelphia Class B Proposed Airspace Redesign. Can't get much more public than this.

Web Link


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 12, 2014 at 9:21 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

As Anonymous documents changes in Federal airspace are always open to public comment.

The local noise issue will however remain unresolved because the individual perception of noise varies as does the individual's assessment of the reasonableness of such noise.

However, the facts are clear that Palo Alto is not subjected to more, or even as much, aircraft noise as are its neighboring communities to the north where the aircraft are lower and hence sound levels are higher - even if the aircraft are over water because even then the slant distance to homes is often much less than the 4000 ft typically seen over Palo Alto.


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 12, 2014 at 12:21 pm

Musical - the SFO airport is going to shut down two runways this summer and is busy re-negotiating the contracts with the individual carriers to change their schedules so there is not bunching at certain times of the day.

The SFO spokesman Doug Yakel indicated in the article that a number of planes would be "sightseeing" while they wait for their turn in the line-up. Departures typically heading east will now depart over Daly City - which typically only gets the Asia / Hawaii flights. Reference SJM 03/14/14.

The fix is on the shorter runways that will have "engineered materials arresting systems" installed which will slow the momentum of the planes. This is a FAA required fix. The shut down of the runways is May through September.

They are trying to reduce the number of flights coming in through negotiation with the carriers with varying degrees of success.

Anonymous - No one here cares about Philadelphia - or more currently New York which has a big round of aggravated people. We are the SFO aggravated people. So where is the public comment section for us? You are such an expert I am sure you know where that is.

I have an idea - let the planes stage over the ocean the come over hwy 92 - that is a low population area.


Posted by Miss Direction, a resident of another community
on Apr 12, 2014 at 12:22 pm

Anonymous did not document that "changes in Federal airspace are always open to public comment." Anonymous did not answer Jetman's question, "How does the FAA manage the Bay Area airspace?" Anonymous did not answer Jetman's questions, "Are there hearings or town meetings? Debates? Do people vote? Are any of these 'very public process(es)' recorded and made available to the public? If so, please provide weblinks."


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 12, 2014 at 12:30 pm

"No one here is very worried about cost analysis. You can push all the SFO arrivals way down to East San Jose to line up at 8000 feet. Then you can try to redesign the San Jose departure without messing up Oakland arrivals.

You'll add 15 minutes to most SFO flights - call it $8000 of extra cost per flight."

This cost argument is quite interested, especially in light of the fact that incoming flights paths were rerouted from San Mateo County to North Santa Clara County (i.e. Palo Alto) in the mid-90s, thereby lengthening flights and increasing fuel costs.

So, we could both lessen noise over Palo Alto AND reduce airline costs by simply having flights staying entirely above San Mateo County instead of detouring above Palo Alto.

Win win solution for Palo Alto and the airlines.


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 12, 2014 at 12:34 pm

The biggest change is that there are more 747-400s that are code shared - carrying many people from other airline carriers. More gigantic planes than before. I just clicked on a number of flights both arriving and departing.
Many arriving planes from Washington and Portland will fuel up then go on to the Islands. They will come down the peninsula then circle back up to get in the north arrival queue.


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 12, 2014 at 12:34 pm

I am pleased to see the high level of interest in this important discussion.

Any Palo Alto resident concerned about airplane noise above our town is invited to join our group by contacting us through this gmail e-mail address:

veroforyou

You'll be joining such posters as Catherine, Jetman, myself and more in a group that is intent on finding a way to ease SFO noise above Palo Alto.


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 12, 2014 at 12:38 pm

"You'll be joining such posters as Catherine, Jetman, myself and more in a group that is intent on finding a way to ease SFO noise above Palo Alto."
There is no noise problem in Palo Alto. No more than there is in any city in the area. Catherine, Jetman and others play fast and loose with the facts ( constant planes over Stanford, constant planes over DT, listening posts in menlo,park, cartoons that show all the planes over Palo Alto).
This is just the natural extension of the " too much traffic" claim that is popular in the city


Posted by #firstworldproblems, a resident of Walter Hays School
on Apr 12, 2014 at 12:57 pm

This. (and it ain't often that I second a PC opinion, fwiw.)

"The local noise issue will however remain unresolved because the individual perception of noise varies as does the individual's assessment of the reasonableness of such noise.

However, the facts are clear that Palo Alto is not subjected to more, or even as much, aircraft noise as are its neighboring communities to the north where the aircraft are lower and hence sound levels are higher - even if the aircraft are over water because even then the slant distance to homes is often much less than the 4000 ft typically seen over Palo Alto."

Not ONE OF THESE WHINERS has proven with FACTS that PA is noisier than other towns!

What is the sound reading?!?!?!?!?!?

You're all just like me -- getting older, bars and restaurants are too loud now, I can't hear because more people mumble nowadays (not!), etc.. IT IS YOUR PERCEPTION, not fact, until you get readins to prove it. Enough of the ""I was at the airport today and you can tell that maintenance is an issue" and WHS has mountain lions type of noise.

Get over it.

Or get someone to measure the 'noise'.

So.... "There is significantly more airplane noise over parts of Palo Alto than there has ever been." Prove it. At least prove it re commercial traffic, after all, your PA airport noise is your problem.


Posted by third worlder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 12, 2014 at 1:39 pm

#firstworldproblems,

So, this is a process like any other.

One person's interpretation of the problem or lack of a problem will not end this story.

I hope that EPA and Palo Alto will work together on this one. Besides measuring the noise, maybe we can get some soundproofing for our homes.

I certainly see no reason why the growth and prosperity of SFO needs to be done on the back of residential neighborhoods whether rich or poor. We all work, we all have to get sleep at night and our children deserve peace of mind, no less than any other neighborhoods.




Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 12, 2014 at 4:36 pm

You are absolutely right. Palo Alto and East Palo Alto should work together on this.

Any EPA resident concerned about SFO noise should also feel free to reach out to our group through our gmail address: veroforyou


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 12, 2014 at 5:28 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

I caution those of you who are organizing to do something about the perceived problem that:

1 - There is no factual proof that Palo Alto is subjected to more ground level airplane noise than are many of your neighboring communities,

2 - None of you have suggested a solution that won't simply shift your perceived problem to some other community,

3 - The FAA's primary concern is with safety and aircraft noise abatement is an extremely low FAA priority.

That said, feel free to try to slay the dragon but realize that your chances of success are nonexistent.


Posted by third worlder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 12, 2014 at 6:51 pm

Peter Carpenter,

If the FAA''s concern is safety, concentrating airplane highways over schools, hospitals, and the most densely populated areas of downtown Palo Alto, and EPA doesn't make sense.

I would think that noise abatement though is a commercial issue. If there is economic gain from SFO activity, that should certainly be used to abate impacts on the public. Soundproofing homes, etc.

Does the FAA protect airports from obligations such as soundproofing homes?


Posted by #firstworldproblems, a resident of Walter Hays School
on Apr 12, 2014 at 6:57 pm

"If the FAA''s concern is safety, concentrating airplane highways over schools, hospitals, and the most densely populated areas of downtown Palo Alto, and EPA doesn't make sense."

Okay.

Noted without comment (but significant amazement!)


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 12, 2014 at 7:07 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"If the FAA''s concern is safety, concentrating airplane highways over schools, hospitals, and the most densely populated areas of downtown Palo Alto, and EPA doesn't make sense."

You confuse safety with where the planes fly - making sure planes are operated safely and separated from one another provides, as has been historical proven, a great deal of safety both for the passengers and those on the ground. The number of people on the ground in the US that have been killed by airplanes over the last 50 years is probably less than a hundred.

" Goldstein and colleagues were the first to quantify the risk for Americans of being killed on the ground from a crashing airplane for unintentional events, providing average point estimates of 6 in a hundred million for annual risk and 4.2 in a million for lifetime risk. They noted that the lifetime risk result exceeded the commonly used risk management threshold of 1 in a million, and suggested that the risk to "groundlings" could be a useful risk communication tool because (a) it is a man-made risk (b) arising from economic activities (c) from which the victims derive no benefit and (d) exposure to which the victims cannot control. Their results have been used in risk communication. This analysis provides updated estimates of groundling fatality risks from unintentional crashes using more recent data and a geographical information system approach to modeling the population around airports. The results suggest that the average annual risk is now 1.2 in a hundred million and the lifetime risk is now 9 in ten million (below the risk management threshold). Analysis of the variability and uncertainty of this estimate, however, suggests that the exposure to groundling fatality risk varies by about a factor of approximately 100 in the spatial dimension of distance to an airport, with the risk declining rapidly outside the first 2 miles around an airport."

Palo Alto is more than 15 miles from SFO.


Posted by About Why, a resident of South of Midtown
on Apr 12, 2014 at 7:25 pm

@Observations made a good summary of the "it's no problem, whiners!" arguments.
He asks Why??? Why do these posters want excessive airplane noise over parts of Palo Alto to persist?

I'm going to make some guesses about Why:
1) they or someone close to them makes money off of travel
2) they are sympathetic to the tea party that wants government out of the way
3) data that isn't numbers isn't data to a rigid mind; human experience isn't data
4) complaining is bothersome because maybe they have to do something about it.
5) they need to be right, even if they have to make up reasons.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 12, 2014 at 7:59 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

About why - you are simply wrong on all of your speculations.

The local noise issue will remain unresolved because the individual perception of noise varies as does the individual's assessment of the reasonableness of such noise.


Posted by #firstworldproblems, a resident of Walter Hays School
on Apr 12, 2014 at 8:16 pm

"Why do these posters want excessive airplane noise"

Nice straw man. Please tell us where anyone said they want "excessive airplane noise."

You have no data to prove things are any worse than before. Go put your group together, donate your nickels and dimes, and hire someone to take readings.

Or just post here, whining about how bad it is in PA, how everyone doesn't understand how bad it is, that the whole world is out to get you because we are PA.

"3) data that isn't numbers isn't data to a rigid mind; human experience isn't data"

And human "experiences" are wide open to perception and mis-perception; ie.. snow trolls -- it's snowed this winter, therefore there is no global warming.


Posted by third worlder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 12, 2014 at 8:23 pm

Peter Carpenter,

"The local noise issue will remain unresolved because the individual perception of noise varies as does the individual's assessment of the reasonableness of such noise."

I agree the reasonableness of airplane noise complaints are in question until individual perceptions become collective. Eventually if the noise is even more of a nuisance, what are currently random complaints will add up.

@firstworld,

"Noted without comment (but significant amazement!)"

Excuse my third world perception of safety. You sound like an expert, why not comment. If there are any experts out there, any chance of getting a translation of the garble Peter Carpenter just listed after Goldstein and colleagues.....?

Is this the FAA formula for safety?




Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 12, 2014 at 8:26 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"any chance of getting a translation of the garble Peter Carpenter just listed after Goldstein and colleagues.....?"

Easy - your chances of being killed or injured on the ground by an airplane are almost ZERO.

Clear enough?

Do you have ANY contrary evidence?


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 12, 2014 at 8:36 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Third worlder - I am being too polite in my above response.

If you do not understand this statement " The results suggest that the average annual risk is now 1.2 in a hundred million and the lifetime risk is now 9 in ten million (below the risk management threshold)." then there really is little hope for intelligent dialogue.


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 12, 2014 at 8:37 pm

Third Worlder - thank you - you have given me the biggest laugh - you are priceless.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 12, 2014 at 8:53 pm

Third Worlder,

Please contact Midtowner at veroforyou@gmail.com.

Thanks,

Jetman


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 12, 2014 at 9:22 pm

SFO monitors aircraft noise with 29 automated monitoring stations peppered throughout San Mateo County, and as far north as San Francisco.

SFO also monitors EVERY flight that passes over Woodside, and publishes a report on their website on website every 2-3 days.

If you look at page two of the report, you will find a map tracing arrivals over the Bay Area, that has more than a passing resemblance to the SFO and Departure Plan illustration.

Woodside Noise Abatement Report: Web Link

SFO approach and departure plan illustrated: Web Link


Posted by True Blue, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 12, 2014 at 10:54 pm

True Blue is a registered user.

Disclaimer: We do not experience airplane noise at our home in Palo Alto.

While we do not have a problem with airplane noise, I read through this thread because it has been appearing on the Town Square for a long time so I decided to take a few free minutes to see what the controversy is about.

After a quick read (no investigation of web links) I only wonder why those who say they have no problem with the noise are so passionate about arguing on this forum. If you have no problem with the noise, why the need to argue so much with those who say they do have a problem? Different parts of town experience different noise levels, and of course, different home construction types experience different levels of "noise insulation." We live in a two-story home with a full attic, so perhaps we experience less aircraft noise than someone in a one-story Eichler with no attic.

My point: Why are people who don't have a problem with the noise working so hard to contradict and discredit their fellow residents who are expressing a problem impacting themselves? Are the dissenters worried about the noise being shifted to their neighborhood, or some other negative outcome?

Peter Carpenter, Win Win, #firstworldproblems, et al: Please help me understand why you are arguing so hard against your neighbors who are expressing a problem they would like to solve. In this thread, you all just seem like you have your own agenda you are arguing for. Please share that agenda so we can help resolve your needs as well as those of those impacted by excessive airplane noise. It is possible to find a mutual solution/compromise if we all work together.

Now the haters will come forth with more attacks, and those with a truly positive agenda will respond with their real names. Everyone but the latter are cowards with a destructive agenda.


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 13, 2014 at 2:01 am

[Portion removed.]

Since you live in Adobe Meadows do you ever go outside? I am outside most of the day now that it is sunny. My yard is very open and lined up with a very long view in a west/east line. I guess being in an Eichler has some advantages as to more air space that is visible.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 13, 2014 at 7:32 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Peter Carpenter, Win Win, #firstworldproblems, et al: Please help me understand why you are arguing so hard against your neighbors who are expressing a problem they would like to solve."

Read again - I have repeatedly acknowledge that some people perceive that they have a problem but I have also stated that there is no evidence that their perceived problem in any worse or even as bad at the aircraft noise problem is in communities further to the north. The Town Square is meant to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion - that is what I am doing, not '"arguing against" my neighbors.

"It is possible to find a mutual solution/compromise if we all work together." By dumping what little noise that Palo Alto has on someone else?


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 13, 2014 at 7:43 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"a map tracing arrivals over the Bay Area, that has more than a passing resemblance to the SFO and Departure Plan illustration. "

A passing resemblance is an excellent description.

But thanks for the link of ACTUAL flight Tracks. When magnified it shows that only 53% of the flight tracks (20 of 38) on this map pass over Palo Alto. And it also shows flight corridors over Woodside and DOWN the bay that do not appear on the often cited "illustration". Detailed information like this is very helpful to clarifying the facts.


Posted by Mary Carlstead, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 13, 2014 at 8:32 am

Well, whatever it was last night , it was LOUD and shook the house - 11:59 p.m. Saturday night, last night. We have double-paned windows and are sound sleepers. That plane awakened both of us.

There's a complaint line number to call SFO Noise Abatement Hotline - day and night. Toll free number.
1-800 206-8290. Listen to the instructions carefully. If many people phone in, they have it in their system. Day time try to get the type of plane and the distinctive color makings and estimated height and the time. At night get the time. Give your address then they will know where you live - which part of Palo Alto. Keep the phone number by your bedroom phone or on your cell phone.

These complaints are seen by the San Francisco Airport Airport Commission. Sadly, cities in Santa Clara County were denied a 'seat at the table' about 15 years ago. I have all the correspondence from 2005. There was a BIG political fight to get in cities at the south end of San Mateo County, but I think only Redwood City got a bid. Councilmember Dena Mossar went to meetings and reportedly was not treated nicely. Then mayor Gary Fazzino and County Rep Joe Simitian also got involved. At the time Anna Eshoo negotiated an agreement with SFO that planes had to stay 5K feet over Palo Alto and Menlo Park....higher over Woodside, Portola Valley, etc. I think it was 8k' feet over I-280. but that has either been forgotten or overridden. Maybe it is time to get Rep. Eschoo on board again. A small group of residents including myself from Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton, Portola Valley, and Woodside fought very hard for noise relief.


Posted by Anonymous, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 13, 2014 at 9:29 am

@Trueblue

The issue here isn't whether airplanes pass over Palo Alto and are audible. No one disputes that fact. The issue is three fold:

1. Has anything (beyond more traffic caused by a robust economy) changed to increase the noise?

2. Does Palo Alto get more than a "fair share" of regional airline noise?

3. Can anything be done to reduce noise over Palo Alto without harming others?

There's a small group of posters here who are convinced that secret agreements have increased the noise over Palo Alto. They are convinced that no links to non-existent meetings proves the meetings are secret. They are convinced the non-existent agreements cause Palo Alto to get more than our "fair share" of noise. They believe that SFO (as an airport authority) controls how Bay Area airspace is defined and managed. They believe there are simple fixes to reroute SFO traffic without understanding that SFO traffic needs to coexist with San Jose, Oakland and all the reliever airports. (Saturday morning San Jose was landing to the south, and Southwest 737s were low over Palo Alto.) Some of them believe rerouting must not cause harm to other communities. Some of them believe that rerouting can cause harm to any community that's closer to SFO. They are convinced that empty jets are ferrying into SFO to refuel. They confuse advisory air traffic routing memorandums with airspace and procedure design.

It's a free country and they are free to organize and make a case that fewer planes should pass over Palo Alto. Given the process they are unlikely to be successful. Peter has done yeoman's duty pointing out the technical issues that govern how aircraft are routed, and pointed out factually that around half of SFO arrivals already pass over other communities. This topic is always fun to watch, but it's proof that facts don't change the true believers' minds about anything.


Posted by third worlder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 13, 2014 at 10:05 am

Anonymous,

"Peter has done yeoman's duty pointing out the technical issues that govern how aircraft are routed, and pointed out factually that around half of SFO arrivals already pass over other communities. "

That sounds like a good estimate, around half of SFO arrivals already pass over other communities and half over Palo Alto, and EPA. That's not exactly sharing the impact.

Peter has also pointed out that there is no safety reason why planes should not be ok to fly over anyone else or why the noise needs to be concentrated over 15 miles away from SFO. The statement "there is no evidence that their perceived problem in any worse or even as bad at the aircraft noise problem is in communities further to the north." is relative.

Compared to the data from noise measuring devices in San Mateo to no measuring devices in EPA and Palo Alto, yes there is no evidence.

I had to look up "yeoman."


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 13, 2014 at 10:16 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"That sounds like a good estimate, around half of SFO arrivals already pass over other communities and half over Palo Alto, and EPA. That's not exactly sharing the impact."

We are finally making progress when these facts are acknowledged. Now look at the same data and realize that almost ALL of the SFO inbound traffic passes over most of the cities between Palo Alto and SFO and at lower altitudes - even when those flights are over the bay the slant distance to bayshore residences is often less than the 4000 ft which generally prevails over Palo Alto.

The further southern SFO noise measuring station is in Burlingame!
Web Link
Why? Because most aircraft noise is generated in the takeoff phase when engines are at full power and 95% of SFO flights take off to the north.

" there is no evidence."
Once again here is the ACTUAL aircraft noise ground footprint:
Web Link

Palo Alto does not have a case that it is being unfairly burdened - period.


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 13, 2014 at 10:24 am

@ True Blue

You'll notice that some of the posters here who deny that PA has an airplane noise problem, and don't want PA to "dump" their airplane noise elsewhere, are Atherton residents.

That's ironic because Atherton is a city whose residents have been very vocal against airplane noise and whose city council is very involved in fighting it. Quite successfully, I might add. Most recent case in point: Surf Air flights out of San Carlos. Atherton residents have managed to get them rerouted away from their residential neighborhoods, and they now fly straight down Middlefield to come down and turn above... You guessed it: Palo Alto! This has actually increased airplane noise in PA as well.

Also, it appears some of those posters have had close ties with local airports (and airlines maybe?).

Of course there is a terrible noise problem in PA from inbound SFO traffic. Those airplanes were rerouted over PA starting in the mid-nineties. They did not fly here before. So, clearly the issue was dumped on PA by San Mateo County communities.

People who don't believe there is a problem demand noise measurements from Palo Alto. Guess what? Those simply don't exist because SFO's noise monitoring stations (all 20 or so of them), are in San Mateo County.

Finally, arguing that we must put up with all this noise for the sake of prosperity is a red herring. Prosperity and quality of life are not incompatible as Atherton residents could attest to.


Posted by third worlder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 13, 2014 at 10:34 am

Peter,

What you have just explained is that "ALL" of inbound traffic passes between Palo Alto and cities and SFO, my question is why Palo Alto and EPA at all?

You make the clearest case that there is no reason Palo Alto and EPA should even be in a position to be burdened.

No safety reasons
No noise reasons
No increased activity reasons
No evidence reasons

The activity should end in Menlo Park, and there is no reason for it to be here.


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 13, 2014 at 10:36 am

@ Third World we

Please read my post above yours. It may answer your question, at least partly.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 13, 2014 at 10:47 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"What you have just explained is that "ALL" of inbound traffic passes between Palo Alto and cities and SFO,"

95.7% of SFO's landings are on 28L and 28R so that the planes can land into the prevailing winds. And to land on runways 28R and 28L at SFO airplanes have to approach from the southeast and be on a roughly reciprocal heading for 10-15 miles on a stable glide path.

Here, thanks to modern technology, is a highly magnified portion of the Bay Area ground level aircraft noise footprint map:

Web Link

The only areas south of Foster City that see the blue 50-55 DNL level appear to be parts of east Menlo Park, East Palo Alto and Redwood City - NONE of Palo Alto sees more than 50 DNL. The way to avoid those higher DNLs in southern San Mateo County would be to move the turns of all aircraft approaching from the north, west and south further south.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 13, 2014 at 11:02 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

third worlder - Just to be clear, aircraft approach SFO on the flights paths they do for safety reason. The best way to ensure a safe landing is to have a stabilized approach:

"A stabilized approach is one in which the pilot establishes and maintains a constant angle glide-path towards a predetermined point on the landing runway."

In contrast here is one of the trickiest non-stabilized approaches in the world:

Web Link


Posted by third worlder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 13, 2014 at 11:17 am

Peter Carpenter,

" aircraft approach SFO on the flights paths they do for safety reason. The best way to ensure a safe landing is to have a stabilized approach"


They need 15 miles to stabilize?


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 13, 2014 at 11:24 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"They need 15 miles to stabilize?"

Yes - To be on a 3 deg glide slope at 4000 ft a plane needs to be 16 miles from touchdown.

I have flown the Paro Bhutan approach noted above and I can assure you that it could not be done in a wide body jet or by 99% of the pilots in the world.


Posted by Midtown, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 13, 2014 at 11:25 am

Let's be clear on something here.

DNL = Day Night Average Sound Level.

What this means is that all airplane noise is taken and averaged over 24 hours. So, the moments of complete silence will offset the noise level of airplanes rumbling and making high pitched noises overhead when flying over. You can have a DNL of 44 and yet have extremely loud airplanes that disrupt your conversations or wake you up at night. For your reference, a normal conversation is at about 65 Decibel and a quiet room at night should be under 30. If you have 3 or 4 airplanes overflying at night at 65 decibels, and you are woken up 3or 4 times from it, it is bad for your health and a DNL of 44 means nothing to you or for your health.

You are right, third worlder, we should not have this 15 miles away from the airport. The only reason we have it is that South San Mateo communities such as Atherton and Woodside have actively fought SFO for years and obtained the rerouting of planes over PA (and hence EPA and East Menlo Park), starting in the mid-nineties.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 13, 2014 at 11:31 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

We are making progress - Midtown admits that the solution to his problem is to simply shift the problem to someone else.

By my count less than 20 individuals identifying themselves as living in Palo Alto have posted concerns on this issue - that is much less than one tenth of one percent of the population.


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 13, 2014 at 11:34 am

Third Worlder,

There is nothing mandatory about airplanes flying above PA at 4000 feet to land at SFO. The reason they find themselves over PA at 4000 feet is that communities such as Woodside have obtained that airplanes flying above them be no lower than 8000 feet.

If airplanes were allowed to fly lower over Woodside they would be have no need whatsoever to be above PA.

Again, read my posts about South San Mateo County community activism that has resulted in a rerouting of airplanes above the PA-EPA-eastern MP area since the mid 90s.


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 13, 2014 at 11:36 am

There appear to be varying intelligence on the airline industry.
1. The planes that go over PA are typically those that are Pacific Coast commuters / Hawaii / Asia destination. Planes coming from the east / middle US are approaching a different set of runways on the far side of the airport. We do not typically see those planes - they go over Fremont and enter in over the bay. However that will change from May to September for fixes to the runways.
2. The goal to go to a lower altitude is based on the theory that the newer planes - bigger planes will be quieter. So how many airlines are in possession of the newer, quieter planes? What you have are aging planes that have been in service for a long time and are noisy. The airline industry has already made that point and is trying to correct it. It is not a debate - the industry acknowledges it. There are rankings on customer satisfaction, timeliness, equipment, etc.
3. The newer Boeing planes are being tested in Hawaii at the Kona Kailua Airport which has a very long runway. You have to have orders to build planes and there is a lot of competition to build planes these days. It is a slow process.
4. Opinion is that we acknowledge the shortfalls we have right now - aging equipment trying to maximize fuel costs by flying lower. And the citizens pointing out that flying aging planes lower does not work well for many reasons - that is for the bay area across the board.
5. We have a number of posters that have agendas to maintain the status quo but the airline industry is not in a status quo position - it is changing very fast - not only the airplanes but where they land. SFO is getting more airlines, San Jose is losing airlines. We need to help define how the changes are implemented - that is an active role - not a passive, sick your head in the ground role.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 13, 2014 at 11:36 am

Hmmm, let see if I have this right... if I SEE someone pull gun, and I HEAR a loud report, and I FEEL the bullet graze my shoulder, there is no evidence that a gun was fired.

Furthermore, even if this was evidence, I don't have a problem since this may, or may not, be happening in other neighborhoods.


Posted by third worlder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 13, 2014 at 11:37 am

Peter Carpenter,

"Yes - To be on a 3 deg glide slope at 4000 ft a plane needs to be 16 miles from touchdown.

I have flown the Paro Bhutan approach noted above and I can assure you that it could not be done in a wide body jet or by 99% of the pilots in the world."

Translation please.

Ideally with language that is not from the yeoman days.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 13, 2014 at 11:39 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"If airplanes were allowed to fly lower over Woodside they would be have no need whatsoever to be above PA."

Well there is a SLIGHT problem with flying lower over Woodside -it is more than 2000 ft higher than Palo Alto.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 13, 2014 at 11:41 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

third - what exactly is not clear?


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 13, 2014 at 11:44 am

True blue-- there is no problem. The people complaining are relying on factoids, misinformation, cartoons etc to make a case that does not exist. I am just responding to so e of the nonsense that is being posted. PA is not overburdened by airplanes and the " too much traffic " crowd do not see that.


Posted by third worlder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 13, 2014 at 11:49 am


resident 1

" the airline industry is not in a status quo position - it is changing very fast - not only the airplanes but where they land. SFO is getting more airlines, San Jose is losing airlines. We need to help define how the changes are implemented - that is an active role - not a passive, sick your head in the ground role."

If SFO is getting more airlines, and they all need to be in EPA and Palo Alto, I would like to know when they will be soundproofing our homes. Seems fair enough to me.



Posted by third worlder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 13, 2014 at 11:54 am

Peter,

What is not clear is that you say Palo Alto and EPA should have no concerns, and then you say all panes have to stabilize in Palo Alto and EPA.

Midtown,

I hear you (no pun intended). I just like to see how Peter Carpenter makes a case for exactly what you are saying.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 13, 2014 at 12:11 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"What is not clear is that you say Palo Alto and EPA should have no concerns"

I never said that - Palo Alto and East Palo Alto experience about the same level of airplane noise as doe other cities and less tha cities further north like Foster City.

" and then you say all panes have to stabilize in Palo Alto and EPA."

Please read what I have said - I never said that panes(sic) have to stabilize in Palo Alto and EPA.

Planes should to be on a stabilized approach when they descend below 4000 ft and for approaches to runways 28L and 28R at SFO that means about 16 miles to the southeast. ROKME waypoint is 13 miles from SFO and plane must cross ROKME at 4000 ft.. ROKME is just north of the Dumbarton bridge.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 13, 2014 at 12:52 pm

Seriously not exaggerating, the plane noise is almost non-stop. Constant rumbles in the sky of planes coming and going, some louder than others, and all different types going in different directions.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 13, 2014 at 1:04 pm

Thank you to True Blue and Mary Carlstead. I appreciate your comments and information. I agree, why do people who don't hear a lot of plane noise where they live have to belittle the ones that do. I would have never started this post if I didn't hear a lot of constant plane noise.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 13, 2014 at 1:09 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Being given factual information is not belittling you. I think all of the posters have acknowledged that you and a few other perceive the aircraft noise as very intrusive and objectionable. Where we disagree is what to do about your perceived problem. I do not believe that simply shoving it off on someone else is the solution particularly when, according to the data, you are already better off than most of your neighboring communities.


Posted by third worlder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 13, 2014 at 1:31 pm

Peter Carpenter,

"I do not believe that simply shoving it off on someone else is the solution"

The shoving solution has worked for San Mateo, Woodside, Atherton.....However, unlike these other communities which have done active noise abatement, Palo Alto and EPA have not, as far as I can see, and nobody is saying to shove the noise to others.

I'm still waiting to see if an expert has a better explanation of the FAA's safety consideration, other than the one offered by Goldstein and colleagues.


Posted by Soundproofing PA homes IS ON the list!, a resident of East Palo Alto
on Apr 13, 2014 at 1:31 pm

"I would like to know when they will be soundproofing our homes."

Good news, soundproofing Palo Alto homes is scheduled per a list I have somewhere around here...

Let's see, I've got the list around here, hmmm, where did I put it, gotta be here.... a list of dates for soundproofing Palo Alto homes, here it is!!!!

Yup, soundproofing Palo Alto homes, right HERE ON THE LIST!!! (who knew?)

Right after soundproofing the homes in San Bruno, Daly City, South City, Millbrae, Burlingame, Hillsborough (first on list - money talks!) San Mateo, Foster City, Redwood City, Atherton (second on the list - ditto!) Menlo Park, EPA, annnnnnndddd...

Palo Alto!!

Uh-oh, bad news! The list above hasn't been merged with the communities around other airports.

So -- San Jose goes to the TOP of the list!

Ever drive down Guadalupe? You can TOUCH the planes as they land.

Get a life, folks. Quit providing ammunition for the folks who think PA is full of entitled whiners.


Posted by third worlder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 13, 2014 at 1:34 pm

Soundproofing,

Please include East Palo Alto.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 13, 2014 at 1:35 pm

Have I ever in any one of my posts talked about solving the problem and/or pushing it onto someone else? I mentioned the problem in my original post of what I was experiencing and was wondering why the noticeable change over the years. I wanted to get educated on the flight paths, which I have, and I have also received contact information for SFO noise abatement from a few posters if I do decided to get involved. Jetman's so called "cartoon", as some posters have eluded, is from SFO themselves so I have to believe that it has some credibility. I see the looping with my own eyes of the planes over my home. I have to say Peter, I feel a strong agenda coming from your posts and repeated facts, my posts are coming from a place of curiosity and wonderment.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 13, 2014 at 1:37 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"I'm still waiting to see if an expert has a better explanation of the FAA's safety consideration"

Would you propose that safety not be the FAA's primary concern?

" nobody is saying to shove the noise to others. "

Only about 10 of the above posters, including YOU:
"The activity should end in Menlo Park, and there is no reason for it to be here."


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 13, 2014 at 1:38 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" I have to say Peter, I feel a strong agenda coming from your posts and repeated facts,"

That is exactly my agenda - to provide factual information.


Posted by third worlder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 13, 2014 at 1:48 pm

Peter,

Really?

All the FAA goes by is the chances of getting hit by an airplane? They take nothing else into consideration?

as far as the shoving noise goes. I do think Palo Alto and EPA have no reason to be included in the same bucket as areas which really are close to SFO. Menlo Park is the last place the SFO noise abatement initiatives reach. If they have no outreach for noise abatement in Palo Alto and EPA, they should have no business here at all. You have confirmed there is no need for planes to be flying over Palo Alto other than to share the burden.

You take up about 60% of the postings by the way.

Soundproofing,

"So -- San Jose goes to the TOP of the list!"

Apparently it is,

Web Link


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 13, 2014 at 1:51 pm

Peter, not sure I really believe that. Your facts have been given, received, and defended (multiple times). Thank you. Can we move on now?


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 13, 2014 at 1:52 pm

"involved. Jetman's so called "cartoon", as some posters have eluded, is from SFO themselves so I have to believe that it has some credibility"
Well, it is a cartoon. It may be from SFO, but all is shows are the general flight paths. And if you can pick out where PA is exactly in that cartoon , well...... If you want the real information, check out the links that peter posted-- they show the even distribution of noise all over the peninsula.
Regarding your claims about DT, IMHO, they are greatly exaggerated.


Posted by third worlder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 13, 2014 at 2:01 pm

Win WIn,

The distribution is impossible to tell from the summary data. Depending on the time of day, and type of noise, a particular neighborhood can be hit with more noise, and that doe snot mean that all neighborhoods then receive equal noise that same day or another. It's quite fuzzy.


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 13, 2014 at 2:05 pm

I think Win Win works for the FAA at the Palo Alto Airport. If he concedes that there is any verifiable truth in what is being said here then he is going to have to actually do some work. I am laughing at you Win-Win - you cannot dodge this one. You have a losing hand - your bluff means nothing.

If you have to be at 4,000 ft to go over the two bridges then it makes more sense that the planes have a minimum of 5,000 ft in this area. That means that the SFO TAC bulletin needs to be updated - which it will anyway because a number of locations noted are no longer valid.

And True Blue - where are you in the phonebook?


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 13, 2014 at 2:06 pm

Exactly third worlder. But from some of the postings here, it is made to sound like certain neighborhoods are hit with non- stop noise all day, every day. We know that is not true. Also, it has been pointed out that some people are more sensitive to noise than others. What does not help are the over exaggerations- Catherine's claims especially ( planes arriving, departingand turning all the time, every day). Palo Alto is not being over burdened with air traffic. Anyway, air traffic is one of the prices you pay when living in this prosperous location


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 13, 2014 at 2:09 pm

"I think Win Win works for the FAA at the Palo Alto Airport. If he concedes that there is any verifiable truth in what is being said here then he is going to have to actually do some work. I am laughing at you Win-Win - you cannot dodge this one. You have a losing hand - your bluff means nothing."

Here we go, when someone disagrees with you and presents real evidence and refutes the over exaggerations, you claim that they work for the FAA!!! And I thought that we would not more ridiculous claims than what has appeared so far.
Laugh all you want, resident 1, but there is no problem with airplane noise in Palo Alto.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 13, 2014 at 2:10 pm

Win win - So glad you agreed that Jetman's diagram does show general flight paths. That's really all I ever wanted to know. My intent was not to blame or shift any problems on to others.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 13, 2014 at 2:13 pm

Win win, do you live in the Cubberley Community Center area or Lucie Stern?


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 13, 2014 at 2:19 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Jetman's diagram does show general flight paths. "

No, it does not. This illustration is a graphic depiction that fails to show incoming streams from the north that come down the bay and from the west that NEVER cross Palo Alto.

Here are some actual flight tracks:

Web Link

18 of these flight tracks never touch Palo Alto and 20 flight track do cross Palo Alto. And all of these flight tracks cause more ground level noise for communities north of Palo Alto than they do to Palo Alto.


Posted by third worlder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 13, 2014 at 2:26 pm

win win, and Peter Carpenter,

Thank you. Merci beaucoup, muchas gracias.

I'm glad you agree that the noise data is fuzzy and that SFO data fails to show whatever ( I cannot understand yeoman speech).

That makes first hand complaints real.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 13, 2014 at 2:34 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"I'm glad you agree that the noise data is fuzzy and that SFO data fails to show whatever "

Wrong, the data was compiled as follows:
"A total of 690,384 IFR-filed flights to/from the Study Airports were identified through an
examination of radar data obtained from the FAA's Performance Data Analysis and
Reporting System (PDARS). The PDARS database was queried for the 2011 calendar year
for all IFR-filed flights that operated at the Study Airports within the General Study Area.
During this 365-day period, 15 days of data were unusable due to radar equipment
anomalies, operational outages, or extreme weather events that made the data unreliable.
The 350 days of usable data span all seasons and runway usage configurations for the
Study Airports in the General Study Area. This data was used to develop the average
annual day (AAD) fleet mix, time of day (day and night), and runway use input for NIRS.
More detailed information related to the NIRS inputs for Existing Conditions is provided in
the NorCal OAPM Aircraft Noise Technical Report, available on the OAPM Project website
(Web Link)."

Data from 690,000 flights vs a handful of anecdotal complaints - no contest.

You may well have a noise problem but the data does not support that your problem is worse than, or even as bad as, that of your neighboring communities to the north.


Posted by third worlder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 13, 2014 at 2:36 pm

Peter Carpenter,

It must be this third world thing.

Fuzzy.


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 13, 2014 at 2:39 pm

"win win, and Peter Carpenter,
Thank you. Merci beaucoup, muchas gracias.
I'm glad you agree that the noise data is fuzzy and that SFO data fails to show whatever ( I cannot understand yeoman speech).
That makes first hand complaints real. "

Twisted logic to reach a bogus conclusion. SFO data shows plenty-- it is just the "too much traffic" crowd fails to buy the reality of the situation.
The " first hand" complaints are not " real". They are over exaggerations. The data clearly shows that palo,alto is not burdened with air traffic. There is no problem in palo,alto. Nothing to complain about and nothing to,solve. But feel free to continue to seek a solution to a problem that you youse of admit is based on fuzzy data. Time to move on to another complaint ( not enough parking in DT or too many cars on university or too many people in Palo Alto or too many businesses I town)


Posted by third worlder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 13, 2014 at 2:55 pm

win win,

Based on your logic, what you and Peter say is also overly exaggerated.

It is only heard in TS, so just saying it does not make it true.

Until further notice, except for first hand complaints, the rest is fuzzy.

You apparently don't get to EPA very often.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 13, 2014 at 2:57 pm

SFO approach and departure plan illustrated: Web Link

The illustration above is not from a comic book. It is an illustration that SFO's Noise Abatement Office includes in their "First Time Caller's Packet", to help the non-pilot understand how the SFBA airspace is organized.

Illustrations are frequently used to teach complex subjects. Flight manuals are full of illustrations, and doctors learn about anatomy by studying illustrations in Gray's Anatomy, before dissecting a body.

If you make a trip up to the Stanford Dish, and take a few hours to watch the planes, you will see that >90% of the commercial aircraft are following the plan depicted in the illustration.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 13, 2014 at 2:59 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

tw - I am providing actual data not anecdotal complaints - there is a big difference between the two.

I can lead people to the facts but I cannot make them either accept facts which conflict with their deeply held perceptions.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 13, 2014 at 3:01 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" to help the non-pilot understand how the SFBA airspace is organized."

That is very different that a chart which shows the actual flight paths - sort of like using a highway map very a real time data of highway traffic.


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 13, 2014 at 3:05 pm

Jetman provides a link to his cartoon again, which does not show real time data. Can Jetman explain how he differentiates where PA, EPA, MV and MP are In his cartoon, since he claims all the traffic is over PA?
Third worlder-- so you accept " first hand" complaints as facts. And you ignore the factual information that is posted.
Go for it, take your " first hand" complaints to SFO I together with the claim that PA is overburdened by air traffic. Good,luck. Let us know how it works out for you.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 13, 2014 at 3:05 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"you will see that >90% of the commercial aircraft are following the plan depicted in the illustration."

If that is what YOU see then you are not seeing all the inbound SFO traffic - there are numerous other routes that are frequently used that are not depicted in this illustration as I have frequently documented with actual radar tracks.

I am inclined to believe what the radar sees rather than what one observer thinks he sees.


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 13, 2014 at 3:21 pm

Win Win - you have offered no factual data to this conversation - all you have done is mock everyone else. You are the joker in the deck. Every deck has a joker. You have to be involved in this for a reason - you aren't hanging around this thread as a casual observer.
No one says ALL of the traffic is over PA - only the west coast traffic.
All of your comments are exaggerations. You have no real evidence of anything.
It gets down to your comment that there is no problem, nothing to solve.
So that says there is some role you have to perform but you are trying to back out. Got it.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 13, 2014 at 3:24 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"No one says ALL of the traffic is over PA - only the west coast traffic."

And even that is not true:

Web Link

Only 53% of this traffic even touches Palo Alto.


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 13, 2014 at 3:29 pm

"Win Win - you have offered no factual data to this conversation - all you have done is mock everyone else. "
And you claim that the " data" provided by others ( Jetman, Catherine, yourself etc) is factual?

"You are the joker in the deck. "
You must be getting desperate if you are resorting to insults.

But I will repeat for your edification-- there is no,problem in palo,alto. Air traffick is shared over the entire peninsula.
But as I said to third worlder--Go for it, take your " first hand" complaints to SFO I together with the claim that PA is overburdened by air traffic. Good,luck. Let us know how it works out for you.

"Win Win - you have offered no factual data to this conversation - all you have done is mock everyone else. You are the joker in the deck. Every deck has a joker. You have to be involved in this for a reason - you aren't hanging around this thread as a casual observer.

"So that says there is some role you have to perform but you are trying to back out. Got it."
Not sure what this means. But I really do not care


Posted by Soundproofing PA homes IS ON the list!, a resident of East Palo Alto
on Apr 13, 2014 at 3:30 pm

Thank you! You made the valid point -- Palo Alto is whining about significantly less noise than MANY places arond the Bay!!

>>>...in San Jose's Guadalupe Washington neighborhood...

Omigawd!!!!!! You're comparing THAT neighborhood to PAlo Alto?!?!?!?!?

You can throw a rock from there and hit a plane just prior to touchdown!

[Portion removed.]


Posted by third worlder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 13, 2014 at 3:40 pm

Peter Carpenter,

"Only 53%"

Only 53%, you have some gems.


Posted by Jetgirl, a resident of Stanford
on Apr 13, 2014 at 3:50 pm


Jetman-Please will you review the research on the impacts of aircraft noise before you comment? Dr. Arlene Bronzaft has done excellent research. It is important information for we need awareness of the seriousness of the exposure in Palo Alto.

Web Link


Posted by third worlder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 13, 2014 at 3:51 pm

[Post removed.]


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 13, 2014 at 6:17 pm

@ Third worlder

Please don't let sarcastic posts get to you. Some people love to get a reaction from those they don't agree with. However, if posts become to inflammatory, the editor will close the thread.

Wherever you live, please consider joining us in our fight. We are a group of PA residents, also open to EPA residents, that was formed to combat airplane noise in our area. Contact us at veroforyou@gmail.com


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 13, 2014 at 8:14 pm

Jetgirl,

Thank you for directing me to Dr. Arline Bronzaft's article. The adverse affects of aircraft noise on cognitive development in children is very distressing. The very busy "Big Sur" route from the south flies directly over the eastern portions of the Castilleja School and Palo Alto High School.

The FAA is a profoundly corrupt Federal Agency, that is controlled by the industry that it is supposed to regulate. This corruption has turn the FAA's responsibility to the taxpayer on it head. The FAA is supposed to regulate the aviation industry and protect the public, but instead the FAA protects the aviation industry, and regulates the public. The state of affairs has become so blatant that wikipedia even cites the FAA, as an example of "regulatory capture" Web Link

Numerous studies have shown a link between aircraft noise and cardiovascular disease, but noise may not be the only problem. In the first study of its kind, experts from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, collected pollution from a commercial jet as it operated at different loads. They found microscopic droplets of unburned jet fuel in the exhaust, that when exposed to sunlight, break down into an even greater number, of even smaller particles, that can penetrate the lungs and blood-brain barrier.

The Carnegie Mellon Study, which was published in the Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physic, can be found here: Web Link

Jet pollution can penetrate the Lungs and Brain study reveals
News.com.au ~ May 13, 2011 Web Link

Living under a flight path can raise the risk of heart disease and stroke
The Telegraph ~ March 1, 2014 Web Link

Aircraft Noise: The Ailment and The Treatment
By Arline L. Bronzaft, Ph.D. Web Link


Posted by Jetgirl, a resident of Stanford
on Apr 13, 2014 at 9:21 pm

Jetman, I am writing to express deep felt appreciation for your post.

From my perspective, the exposure to jet emissions of all kinds is extremely serious. I am grateful for your understanding of this and the wisdom and knowlege of your response.

It is truly the shadow side of Palo Alto that we are exposed to this situation. It perplexes me that many don't seem aware and if they are aware-then apparently not to care.

Especially curious given that this is thought of as a health conscious area.

Your knowledge is greatly needed and I hope you will continue to express your viewpoint. Thank you.


Posted by Tim, a resident of University South
on Apr 13, 2014 at 10:51 pm

Haven't heard a thing.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 13, 2014 at 11:36 pm

Tim,

Strange time to start listening for planes. 11:00pm on a Sunday night is not a very popular time to arrive at an airport. If you live under one of the approach routes they will be back, in force, starting around 5:00am tomorrow morning.


Posted by third worlder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 14, 2014 at 12:05 am

Jetman,

Don't be so sure. At 11:59 pm a whopper passed, another one booming now at 12:03 @ Middlefield near University. Heard others tonight after Tim's "haven't heard a thing"


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 14, 2014 at 10:45 am

Fairly quiet this morning. Winds are WNW 7mph with a few clouds at 800 feet.
Overcast layer at 1100 feet. The few planes that do fly over seem muted. Makes me wonder how Palo Alto's notorious inversion layer affects the aircraft noise.

Is someone else getting the noise this morning? Is SFO using the "southern plan" even though the winds are out of the WNW? It will be interesting to see what happens as the skies clear this afternoon.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 14, 2014 at 10:54 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" Is SFO using the "southern plan" even though the winds are out of the WNW?"

No need to speculate on which way SFO is landing - just go here and see:

Web Link

Of course that is only if you want the facts.


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 14, 2014 at 10:55 am

Jetman,

When you say it's fairly quiet this morning, I assume it's over your neighborhood vwhich I don't believe you mention.

Noise can vary between neighborhoods as we all know. For example I heard the same planes late last night in Midtown as Third Worlder did in our near DT.

Also, did you see the letter I sent you about the FAA's new plans? If not, check your mail, please.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 14, 2014 at 10:56 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" Is SFO using the "southern plan" even though the winds are out of the WNW?"


SFO is landing to the North - as it does 95% of the time.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 14, 2014 at 10:59 am

11:50 skies are clearing over over land, but we still have low clouds over the southern portion of the bay that I can see. Still fairly quiet. Just saw a 747 on the Big Sur route about 5 minutes ago.


Posted by J, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 14, 2014 at 12:46 pm

Palo Alto has the heaviest SFO arrival traffic of any community on the Peninsula, and is the least prepared to cope with the expected increase in traffic, brought on by the forthcoming "NextGen" roll-out, and newcomers like Surf Air.

Under the prevailing westerly winds, three out of five arrival routes for commercial aircraft bound for SFO, cross over Palo Alto on their way to SFO. Aircraft arriving from the north, west, and south all converge on Palo Alto to begin final approach for landing at SFO.

Several communities north of the San Mateo County border have preexisting FAA air traffic control policies in place, that will help limit any increase in commercial traffic over San Mateo County. For instance, in 2012 Anna Eshoo negotiated a policy agreement to limit commercial traffic over Woodside, to no less than 8,000' whenever possible. SFO monitors air traffic over Woodside and publishes a compliance report on their website every three days.

The SFO Noise Abatement Office has "peppered" the Peninsula, north and west of SFO, with 29 automated "noise monitoring stations" to continuously monitor aircraft noise, however SFO has no noise monitoring station south of the San Mateo border.

Website for SFO's noise monitoring system: Web Link

Woodside VOR Reports: Web Link


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 14, 2014 at 1:30 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Under the prevailing westerly winds, three out of five arrival routes for commercial aircraft bound for SFO, cross over Palo Alto on their way to SFO."

Only about 50% of inbound SFO traffic cross Palo Alto and then all of those cross the neighbors to the north at a lower altitude with higher ground noise levels.

"Aircraft arriving from the north, west, and south all converge on Palo Alto to begin final approach for landing at SFO."

Only about 80% of such flights cross over Palo Alto.

Here is the ground noise footprint from aircraft in the Bay Area - Palo Alto is not disadvantaged compared to other communities:

Web Link

This is based on over 690,000 flights over 350 days in 2011.

I welcome any evidence (which does not include anecdotal reports) to the contrary.


Posted by Data, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 14, 2014 at 2:09 pm

Peter -

If noise from planes slowing and turning over midtown wasn't measured on the ground in midtown in 2011, how can the high-school science project chart you consistently champion represent it? Where's the measured data?


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 14, 2014 at 2:18 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"If noise from planes slowing and turning over midtown wasn't measured on the ground in midtown in 2011, how can the high-school science project chart you consistently champion represent it? Where's the measured data?"

Hardly a "high school science project:
"A total of 690,384 IFR-filed flights to/from the Study Airports were identified through an
examination of radar data obtained from the FAA's Performance Data Analysis and
Reporting System (PDARS). The PDARS database was queried for the 2011 calendar year
for all IFR-filed flights that operated at the Study Airports within the General Study Area.
During this 365-day period, 15 days of data were unusable due to radar equipment
anomalies, operational outages, or extreme weather events that made the data unreliable.
The 350 days of usable data span all seasons and runway usage configurations for the
Study Airports in the General Study Area. This data was used to develop the average
annual day (AAD) fleet mix, time of day (day and night), and runway use input for NIRS.
More detailed information related to the NIRS inputs for Existing Conditions is provided in
the NorCal OAPM Aircraft Noise Technical Report, available on the OAPM Project website."

Where is YOUR data?


Posted by Miss Direction, a resident of another community
on Apr 14, 2014 at 2:19 pm

" Is SFO using the "southern plan" even though the winds are out of the WNW?"

No need to speculate on which way SFO is landing - just go here and see:

Web Link
Of course that is only if you want the facts.

-------------
The link provided is to SJC traffic, not SFO traffic.

Don't provide a link to SJC traffic if you don't want people to speculate on which way SFO is landing.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 14, 2014 at 2:24 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

The SJC site, which is viewable on both Macs and PC while the SFO site is not viewable on Macs, DOES show all traffic landing and departing SFO. If you do not see SFO just expand the view - easy.

Let me know if it does not work.

Here is a sample:

Web Link


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 14, 2014 at 3:05 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

5 Planes inbound to SFO.
4 from the east never touch Palo Alto.
A 747 from Ireland turns over Menlo Park and never touches Palo Alto.

Web Link


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 14, 2014 at 3:37 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

# inbound to SFO.
2 fly over Menlo Park and never touch Palo Alto.
1 flies over Mountain View and never touches Palo Alto.

It is getting very hard to make a case that Palo Alto is being impacted by airplane noise as much as are its neighboring communities.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 14, 2014 at 3:53 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

4 inbound to SFO.
None even near Palo Alto.

Web Link


Posted by thirdwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 14, 2014 at 4:06 pm

Peter Carpenter,

"4 inbound to SFO.
None even near Palo Alto."

For which day and hour of the day is that?


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 14, 2014 at 4:08 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

4 inbound SFO.

Two cross over Menlo Park/

None touches Palo Alto.

Web Link

Have I made my point with real flight tracks that Palo Alto is not suffering from more airplane noise than are its neighbors?


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 14, 2014 at 4:10 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"For which day and hour of the day is that?"

April 14, 2014 at 15:39:54

The date/time stamp is on each of these images in the lower left corner.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 14, 2014 at 4:12 pm

Peter,

The basic question still remains... why 29 automated noise monitoring stations peppered throughout San Mateo County and NONE south of Redwood City?

Also, Let's deal in facts. How could a accurate sound map of the south and east bay be created without noise monitoring stations in place? Why are you posting a link to a screen-capture, instead of a link to a real website? The map is too small to read, is created with unknown methodology, and is of unknown provenance. The map you have provide as proof, is also clearly labeled "DRAFT" in the lower right-hand corner.

Link to Peter's map: Web Link


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 14, 2014 at 4:25 pm

Win win-- funny that Jetman is questioning the real maps that peter has posted, yet insists that his cartoon is an accurate diction of air traffic in the area. Also he claims that peters map is too small to read, yet uses his cartoon which does not show any demarcation between PA, EPA,MV,RC and EPA to claim that PA is constantly flooded with airplanes


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 14, 2014 at 4:27 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"why 29 automated noise monitoring stations peppered throughout San Mateo County and NONE south of Redwood City?"

Jetman - You are NOT paying attention. There are no noise monitoring stations south of BURLINGAME! Why? Because the stations are where the noise is.

"Why are you posting a link to a screen-capture, instead of a link to a real website? The map is too small to read, is created with unknown methodology, and is of unknown provenance."

Here is the source:
Web Link

"The map you have provide as proof, is also clearly labeled "DRAFT" in the lower right-hand corner."

Of course - it is from the DRAFT Environmental Assessment for Northern California Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex which is out for public comment.
And that map will not change in the final version because it presents the result of a study already completed.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 14, 2014 at 4:33 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"The map is too small to read,"

Jetman - You really are not paying attention - here is my earlier posting:
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 13, 2014 at 10:47 am
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
"What you have just explained is that "ALL" of inbound traffic passes between Palo Alto and cities and SFO,"

95.7% of SFO's landings are on 28L and 28R so that the planes can land into the prevailing winds. And to land on runways 28R and 28L at SFO airplanes have to approach from the southeast and be on a roughly reciprocal heading for 10-15 miles on a stable glide path.

Here, thanks to modern technology, is a highly magnified portion of the Bay Area ground level aircraft noise footprint map:

Web Link

The only areas south of Foster City that see the blue 50-55 DNL level appear to be parts of east Menlo Park, East Palo Alto and Redwood City - NONE of Palo Alto sees more than 50 DNL. The way to avoid those higher DNLs in southern San Mateo County would be to move the turns of all aircraft approaching from the north, west and south further south.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 14, 2014 at 4:36 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" is created with unknown methodology,"

Jetman - You are not paying attention. Here is my earlier post on the methodology used:

Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 13, 2014 at 2:34 pm
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
"I'm glad you agree that the noise data is fuzzy and that SFO data fails to show whatever "

Wrong, the data was compiled as follows:
"A total of 690,384 IFR-filed flights to/from the Study Airports were identified through an
examination of radar data obtained from the FAA's Performance Data Analysis and
Reporting System (PDARS). The PDARS database was queried for the 2011 calendar year
for all IFR-filed flights that operated at the Study Airports within the General Study Area.
During this 365-day period, 15 days of data were unusable due to radar equipment
anomalies, operational outages, or extreme weather events that made the data unreliable.
The 350 days of usable data span all seasons and runway usage configurations for the
Study Airports in the General Study Area. This data was used to develop the average
annual day (AAD) fleet mix, time of day (day and night), and runway use input for NIRS.
More detailed information related to the NIRS inputs for Existing Conditions is provided in
the NorCal OAPM Aircraft Noise Technical Report, available on the OAPM Project website."


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 14, 2014 at 5:01 pm

Peter,

Absence of proof, is not proof of absence.


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 14, 2014 at 5:08 pm

Jetman-- once again your provide much amusement. You once again get caught making bogus statements-- earlier you claimed that their were noise monitoring stations in menlo park- bogus. Now you are caught again making bogus statements about noise monitoring stations. You also earlier claimed that you heard constant plane noise over standord. Wonder, now, why most people do not take your claims seriously? Peter has effectively shown the facts, which you refuse to accept. So you reond with some hackneyed statement which means nothing!!!!
There is no airplane noise problem in Palo Alto.

BTW, third worlder-- speaking of whoppers!!!!!


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 14, 2014 at 5:40 pm

Win win,

Peter has proved nothing. There are no noise monitoring stations in Palo Alto to provide measurements of the noise, and Peter lives in Atherton which is too far away from Palo Alto for me to believe he is making regular direct observations in Palo Alto, or any other surrounding community outside of Atherton. Absence of proof, is not proof of absence.

The only proof we have so far is provided by the Palo Alto residents who are making direct observations, and reporting loud aircraft over Palo Alto.


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 14, 2014 at 5:47 pm

Jetman-- peter has presented plenty of proof- you just ignore it because it does not fit with your bogus scenario. And all you provide is factoids, bogus claims and distortions.
And calling the claims by 3 or 4 residents ( or 1 , as I see it) doesn't not constitute proof,of anything. Also remember that while this person is making his observation in palo,alto, he has no way of knowing what is happening in EPA, MP, RC and further up,the peninsula.
But feel free to make your demands to SFO.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 14, 2014 at 6:40 pm

Win win,

Without the ability to measure, or make contemporaneous direct observations Peter cannot prove anything.

The only proof we have so far is provided by the Palo Alto residents who are making direct observations, and reporting frequent loud aircraft over Palo Alto.

The information Peter offers as proof is from 2011 and cannot prove anything about what happened in 2012, 2013, or what is currently happening in 2014. In fact many Palo Alto observers noticed a dramatic increase in jet noise starting in the early fall of 2013.

If you are not hearing any noise, I am happy for you, but the only thing that proves is; you are not hearing any noise.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 14, 2014 at 6:51 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Jetman - you are hopelessly or intentional ignorant.

"Without the ability to measure, or make contemporaneous direct observations Peter cannot prove anything."

I am not measuring anything but providing the interested readers of this forum measurements which have been made by radar and by experts. In contrast you provide anecdotal observations made by untrained observers without any instrumentation - no contest.

I hear the aircraft noise because many of them pass within line of sight of my home but I accept that noise as an inevitable consequence of where I have chosen to live and my desire to be close enough to SFO to use it for my travels. You can make your own choices but you do not get to create your own facts.

"The information Peter offers as proof is from 2011 and cannot prove anything about what happened in 2012, 2013, or what is currently happening in 2014."

I have provide you information not only from 2011 but also from as late as today April 14, 2014 - you just refuse to accept either independent professional noise analysis or contemporary radar tracks.

Sadly I must conclude that you not a jetman but a jester.


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 14, 2014 at 6:57 pm

"The only proof we have so far is provided by the Palo Alto residents who are making direct observations, and reporting frequent loud aircraft over Palo Alto."
Anecdotal observations do not equal " proof".
How many residents noticed a dramatic increase in noise? Again this claim is not proof of anything.
Do you have sound measurements for the years you claim are so important? Peter has provided proof of where the planes are flying. He has provided results of studies and real time information.
I guess this does not constitute " proof" for you since it does not fit with your agenda.
Once again, let me say, that you have been caught over and over again making outlandish claims ( I.e. Constant air traffic over Stanford), bogus statements (listening stations in menlo park) and phony proof ( cartoons showing flight paths that do not actually show where the cities in question are).
Bottom line, you have no proof for your claims, so you must dismiss all real evidence that refutes your story as not being " proof". And your proof involves anecdotal evidence from 1 poster


Posted by jetgirl, a resident of Stanford
on Apr 14, 2014 at 7:32 pm

Jetman provided excellent research citations about the situation that was essentially ignored.

Narrative research is absoutely a valid scientific method.

It is sad to hear personal experience and accounta of aircraft noise being dismissed rather than validated.

Once I heard an expert define emotional abuse as "denying another person's perception of reality". There is sure a lot of that on this list.

Too bad a power struggle is initiated rather than a coming together of bright minds to solve a serious problem that increases the danger of climate change and diminishes the quality of life in Palo Alto in a major way.


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 14, 2014 at 7:41 pm

Very amusing post, jet girl. Anecdotal stories are not proof-- personal experiences and stories about aircraft noise ( I.e. Constant airplane noise over Stanford) while interesting to hear does not constitute proof that there is a problem-- all it indicates is that people are unhappy about something. But I assume you define jetmans comments as not being " emotional abuse" since it fits your scenario ( though I do find that comment extremely amusing).
This is not a serious problem. But feel free to approach SFO with your concerns. I am sure the complaints of 1 person will be taken seriously


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 14, 2014 at 8:02 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Narrative research is absoutely a valid scientific method."

The fact that you believe this is frankly scary.

Try getting a PhD in any scientific subject using 'narrative research'.




Posted by True Blue, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 14, 2014 at 8:04 pm

True Blue is a registered user.

Catherine, thank you for sharing a concern you have and seeking to understand if your community shares your concern. Clearly there are a lot of other Palo Alto residents that are experiencing what you are (17 of the people posting on this thread, versus 11 who wish to drown you out). It's clear there is also a very vocal minority bent on discrediting you and your neighbors based on their own agenda. Sadly, these lonely dissenters have a lot of time on their hands to flood this forum with noise.

As I mentioned, we don't have a particular problem with noise at our home, but I am offended at the tone and attitude taken by the online bullies who are working overtime to further their own agenda.

Peter, you said you wished to inform, and you've done that. You have posted 54 comments on this thread! That is 19 more than anyone else and almost 20% of the comments overall! How about letting the rest of the community get a word in?


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 14, 2014 at 8:11 pm

I have a few comments relative to the noise map posted by Peter Carpenter.

First of all, since noise is not measured in towns such as Menlo Park or Palo Alto, how can the airport know the noise level from SFO traffic or any airplane traffic in those towns?

Second, I note that all the gray areas are for a DNL equal to or below 45 (DNL being an average noise level calculated over 24 hours and having not much to do with the actual amount of noise a single plane generates when flying over). Still, let's assume DNL is a good representation of noise level for the sake of this discussion. We have a huge gray area on the map for noise at or below 45 DNL. This does not tell us much. For all I know, Palo Alto could be subjected to a DNL of 44 while Atherton could have a DNL of 30. That would be a huge difference that the map offered would not show.

In other words, that map is not a very good representation of the level of the noise problem in individual communities as compared to others. It only shows us that noise is extremely high right next to airports (such as in San Bruno or in some San Jose neighborhoods). We would logically expect that. However, it does not tell us anything about the difference in noise level between the Palo Alto/PA/Eastern Menlo Park area and the noise level in those other southern San Mateo County such as Atherton or Woodside.


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 14, 2014 at 8:14 pm

" It's clear there is also a very vocal minority bent on discrediting you and your neighbors based on their own agenda. Sadly, these lonely dissenters have a lot of time on their hands to flood this forum with noise."
It's pretty clear that a couple of people ( who pretend that they are 17) who have an agenda that involves pretending that their is a problem in PA. Note how all the recent posts supporting this claim all say the same thing

"As I mentioned, we don't have a particular problem with noise at our home, but I am offended at the tone and attitude taken by the online bullies who are working overtime to further their own agenda. "
So those that disagree with Catherine are " bullies" because they disagree with your agenda?

"! How about letting the rest of the community get a word in?"
No one is preventing anyone from posting their opinion.

Note how now that the person who is stirring the pot regarding the non existent airplane noise in PA has been exposed as a charlatan,he makes claims about others agendas and claims they are bullies?????


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 14, 2014 at 8:16 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"How about letting the rest of the community get a word in?"

Speak up, I am not stopping you. But I will challenge any absence of facts or inaccuracies in your postings


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 14, 2014 at 8:19 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" This does not tell us much. For all I know, Palo Alto could be subjected to a DNL of 44 while Atherton could have a DNL of 30. That would be a huge difference that the map offered would not show."

This difference between a DNL of 44 and 30 is imperceptible to the human ear.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 14, 2014 at 8:21 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"However, it does not tell us anything about the difference in noise level between the Palo Alto/PA/Eastern Menlo Park area and the noise level in those other southern San Mateo County such as Atherton or Woodside."

Please do your homework. The map does precisely that - look at it again:

Web Link


Posted by Really?, a resident of Fairmeadow School
on Apr 14, 2014 at 8:25 pm

Win Win: For someone who is not concerned about the complaints of "1 (sic) person," you are sure spending a lot of time belittling others and stating your case over and over. Are you sure you're not concerned?


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 14, 2014 at 8:29 pm

Let's see

30 decibel = quiet library
40 decibel = quiet conversation
50 decibel = average office noise

Of course, people can tell the difference, and this is averaged over 24 hours, which means than in reality the difference is even greater. Anyone could tell the difference between being in a library for 24 hours and having to listen to a conversation between quiet and average for 24 hours.

As I said, the map offered does not say anything about the potentially significant difference in noise between such places as PA/EPA and Atherton/Woodside.


Posted by Jetgirl, a resident of Stanford
on Apr 14, 2014 at 8:30 pm



Win Win, One can indeed get a Phd using narrative methodology. Although not the point of this discussion, it is relevant to pointing out the unfortunately hostile tone of some of the discussants. Please see below.



.

Web Results
[PDF]
The Narrative Interview - London School of Economi...

www.lse.ac.uk/methodology/pdf/.../Bauer-NARRAT1SS.pdf - Similar to The Narrative Interview - London School of Economi...

London School of Economics and Political Science. Methodology Institute ... became the focus of a veritable method community in Germany during the 1980s. The original ... The narrative interview is classified among the qualitative research methods (Lamnek, 1989;. Flick et al, 1991), ...... Swiss bank, PhD manuscript, LSE.


Scandinavian seminar series in narrative methods | Department ...

ki.se/en/nvs/scandinavian-seminar-series-in-narrative-methods

Narrative methods have been brought forth as a method and tradition with potential to capture these aspects and offer a complementary perspective.

[PDF]
Narrative Science - IJARCSSE

www.ijarcsse.com/docs/papers/Volume_3/10.../V3I9-0324.pdf

Narrative science is branch of NLP which turns data into stories.Narrative is defined ... organizations to generate it themselves using traditional method. Figure 1 Narrative .... PhD thesis, Northwestern University, June 2010. Google Analytics,.


[PDF]
A Review of Narrative Methodology - University of ...

www.cnr.uidaho.edu/.../ review%20of%20narritive%20methodology%20aust... - Similar to A Review of Narrative Methodology - University of ...

truth, and the application of scientific empirical methods to problem solving. Instead, ... Administration (Makerere, Uganda), a Graduate Diploma in. Education ...

[PDF]
The place of personal writing in a PhD thesis ... ...

eprints.qut.edu.au/1353/1/1353.pdf

and learning in Year 8 science students, this has led her to present her PhD ... scientific method, multilevel research, narrative inquiry as an alternative research .

[PDF]
Telling Stories: Narrative Approaches in Qualitati...

academic.son.wisc.edu/courses/N701/.../sandelowski_tellingstories.pdf - Similar to Telling Stories: Narrative Approaches in Qualitati...

typical science reports and the severing of method from results and from ... margarete sandelowskl, R.N., Ph.D., Alpha Alpha is Associate Pro~ fessor. Dept. of ...



Narrative Medicine | Curriculum | School of Continuing Education

ce.columbia.edu/narrative-medicine/curriculum - Similar to Narrative Medicine | Curriculum | School of Continuing Education

Master of Science inNarrative Medicine ... The Narrative Medicine graduate degree requires 38 points to complete. ... on whether the student must take Research Methodology—see below) of coursework in Narrative Medicine, four to six points ...


phd - Yishay Mor

www.yishaymor.org/phd - Similar to phd - Yishay Mor

The main outcome of this study is a methodological framework for design science of TEME which combines design narratives and design patterns into structured ...


King's College London - Doctoral Training Centre courses

Web Link

Doctoral Training Centre courses. ... Centre (DTC) will open its programme of advanced methods training for doctoral social scientists. ... Key concepts & methods - Political discourse analysis - Critical discourse analysis - Narrative analysis ...


Cheryl Mattingly PhD | USC Occupational Science and ...

ot.usc.edu/faculty/directory/Cheryl_Mattingly - Similar to Cheryl Mattingly PhD | USC Occupational Science and ...

Doctor of Philosophy (Ph D) in Anthropology and Urban Studies Massachusetts ... In J. Clandinin (Ed.), Handbook of narrative inquiry methodologies. Thousand


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 14, 2014 at 8:35 pm

Actually, looking at the map closely I see many less gray dots in the Woodside and Atherton areas than in PA. So, that would presumable show that it is quieter in Woodside and Atherton than PA (and of course EPA). This goes to support what we have been saying all along. Our area bears a disproportionate amount of noise from inbound SFO traffic, based on the number of gray dots. Thanks for the info.


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 14, 2014 at 8:48 pm

Really-- I am really not concerned. But you are.
Midtowner-- so if PA has a DNL of 44, that is between quiet conversation and average office noise. So this is what one person is upset about????
Jet girl-- why are you addressing your last post to me? I made Jo mentions of PhDs.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 14, 2014 at 8:50 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Our area bears a disproportionate amount of noise from inbound SFO traffic, based on the number of gray dots."

Look again - the most impacted areas are eastern Menlo Park and East Palo Alto AND the communities closer to SFO.

Why do you try to lie about the facts when they are so clear?


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 14, 2014 at 8:55 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Jetgirl - all your citations are social science and not the physical sciences.

And even in the social sciences narrative research requires these steps:

1. Develop a research question

A Qualitative study seeks to learn why or how, so the writer's research must be directed at determining the why and how of the research topic. Therefore, when crafting a Research Question for a Qualitative study, the writer will need to ask a why or how question about the topic.[12]
2. Select or produce raw data

The raw data tend to be interview transcriptions, but can also be the result of field notes compiled during participant observation or from other forms of data collection that can be used to produce a narrative.[13]
3. Organize data

4. Interpret data

Neither you or Jetman has done ANY of the above.


Posted by True Blue, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 14, 2014 at 9:49 pm

True Blue is a registered user.

Win Win: OK, you're pretty funny.

>> It's pretty clear that a couple of people ( who pretend that they are 17 (sic))

The Weekly will catch people posting multiple times as different users - but betting you already know that. Or maybe you don't, and the Weekly is asleep this week, and there is really only one person arguing that there is no airplane noise problem in Palo Alto...

>> who have an agenda that involves pretending that their is a problem in PA. Note how all the recent posts supporting this claim all say the same thing

Why would anyone do that? Talk about conspiracy theory... Maybe many of the posts say the same thing because that is the REALITY.

>> So those that disagree with Catherine are " bullies" because they disagree with your agenda?

No, the people that are belittling others, telling people they are "not paying attention," name-calling, and posting twice as much as any other user are bullies (you can call that name-calling back, if you like). Which side they are arguing is irrelevant, but in this case it seems to be the *one person* (to your point) claiming there is no noise problem in Palo Alto.

>> Note how now that the person who is stirring the pot regarding the non existent airplane noise in PA has been exposed as a charlatan,

"The person?" This is my third post to this discussion, and I'm pretty sure I have not "stirred the pot."

>> about the nonexistent airplane noise.

Really? You think people have nothing better to do than complain about something that doesn't exist?

>> "exposed as a charlatan?"

More name-calling (but kudos for the drama)!

>> he makes claims about others (sic) agendas and claims they are bullies?????

Yes, if you don't experience any problem with plane noise in Palo Alto there is no reason to be dominating the posts on this thread unless you have your own agenda (e.g. live in a nearby town, like Atherton, and are afraid the airline traffic will shift that way), and the tone of the messages have been bullying - ridiculing, belittling, and name-calling of those who have a problem with the noise.

I'm done with this thread, but the tactics of Win Win / Peter Carpenter (obviously the same person) have pushed me to stand with neighbors who have a problem with the noise - they are the only ones playing fair in this thread.

Cheers!


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 14, 2014 at 10:08 pm

Hey all - make sure you check out the moon tonight.

We are in a high traffic time of night - I was looking at Flight tracker and a Hawaiian airline went over the top of an AA commuter - which then scattered over the bay. Other planes were moving around at off angles.

This discussion started last year because SFO was updating runways which appears to cause mayhem at the busy times of the day and night. We can look forward to that May through September when it is hottest and everyone is outside.

The SFO TAC provides high and low altitude values - but all planes are not equal. A 747-400 is a big plane.

Possibly the FAA can come up with new criteria based on airline size. I am trying to figure out how fast one can descend. I think a number of reasonable approaches can happen now since SFO is going to shut down some runways. They are negotiating with the affected cities - we just became an affected city.
1. Redefine the upper and lower altitudes based on airline size
2. Request that equipment to determine noise level be installed. PA, Los Altos Hills - friends there say they get the noise from the planes coming over, East PA. Those are reasonable requests - we can call it a scientific study. Given that we are located between SFO and San Jose Airports then we should be good for a request for equipment.
3. Peter - does the PA Airport have any noise measuring equipment?


Posted by thirdwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 14, 2014 at 10:13 pm



Per Peter Carpenter

On April 14, 2014 at 15:39:54, "there were 4 inbound SFO. Two cross over Menlo Park/None touches Palo Alto."

Thank you Peter


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 14, 2014 at 10:19 pm

True Blue,

Please contact Midtowner at veroforyou at gmail.com. Midtowner will not send you spam, and will not contact you again, if that is your preference.

Thank you,

Jetman


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 14, 2014 at 10:32 pm

Tax day is no fun... could it be any more complicated?. Hope everyone is ready for tomorrow. Until tomorrow, good luck to all, and God help us!


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 15, 2014 at 7:00 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" Win Win / Peter Carpenter (obviously the same person)"

No - I ONLY post under my real name and I am a registered user so the Almanac has my ip address/email and would not permit me to also use another name,


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 15, 2014 at 7:01 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"3. Peter - does the PA Airport have any noise measuring equipment?"

Not that I am aware of.


Posted by jetgirl, a resident of Stanford
on Apr 15, 2014 at 7:32 am

True Blue, Thank you for confronting the bullies. The airplane noise is too serious of an issue to be sidetracked by power struggles.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 15, 2014 at 7:42 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

As I have frequently stated I understand that some people in Palo Alto are bothered by airplane noise but I cannot find any data that supports the contention that Palo Alto is disproportionally impacted by airplane noise compared to its more northern neighbors.

And when posters ask the same question time and time again after the answer has been posted time and time again then they are clearly not paying attention.

If you feel bullied because you are unable or unwilling to defend your position then that is your problem, not mine.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 15, 2014 at 8:38 am

Peter - "On April 14, 2014 at 15:39:54, "there were 4 inbound SFO. Two cross over Menlo Park/None touches Palo Alto."

Palo Alto Avenue borders Menlo Park so how do you know that the planes are not heard in downtown North even though they are said to be flying over Menlo Park? To say that the planes are flying in a perfect line with no deviation is probably not true.


Posted by Lol, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Apr 15, 2014 at 8:50 am

"To say that the planes are flying in a perfect line with no deviation is probably not true. "

Well, Catherine on April 11 th you wrote:
"Jetman's flight path diagram illustrates paths and from what I see in the sky above me the paths the planes are taking seem to fit the diagram exactly"

So when the diagram fit your scenario it was okay. But when it does not support the exaggerations regarding airplanes in PA then t is not true!!!


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 15, 2014 at 9:01 am

LOL! Fits the diagram in the fact that they loop over downtown north to fly into SFO. I never talked about the actual distance of the traffic lane. Is it one lane or thousands of lanes in which they can fly? I don't really know. I only talked about the pathway of coming southbound along the hills and then looping over Downtown North northbound towards SFO. They do, and I see them. I'm sure Menlo Park residents can see the same loop because we are so close. Sometimes the loop starts farther south of me, but the loop over to SFO happens and it's frequent. I was at Cubberely over the weekend and in 2 hours I only heard plane noise 3 times. Seems like they get less noise over there.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 15, 2014 at 9:22 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Palo Alto Avenue borders Menlo Park so how do you know that the planes are not heard in downtown North even though they are said to be flying over Menlo Park?"

When planes are flying over Menlo Park they probably are heard, but at much lower sound levels, over downtown North - and that is reflected in the NorCal OAPM map posted many times above.


"To say that the planes are flying in a perfect line with no deviation is probably not true. "

No one made such a statement. The radar tracks speak for themselves - they show exactly where the plane is flying as they are real time depictions , not "illustrations".


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 15, 2014 at 9:28 am

Thank you to all the posters that are accepting and understanding of what I'm experiencing and trying to figure out. The noticeable change baffles me, and I was just looking for answers as to why that was. It's not hard to figure out there is a change in the frequency of planes flying over my home over the past year. All I have to do is open my eyes, and any data that says I don't see what I see, is simply not believable. I'm convinced through these posts that Peter has an agenda and he has ever right to defend his area from taking more of the plane load if that is what his agenda is. However, more and more people in Palo Alto are seeing and hearing a difference and over time the burden of airplane traffic may shift. We'll see.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 15, 2014 at 9:33 am

Thank you Peter for agreeing that planes flying over Menlo Park can be heard by residents of Palo Alto North. We actually agreed on one thing. Like I said, plane noise is constant with one rumble dissipating and then another rumble starting. Even if I hear and not see a plane going over Menlo Park, it still is plane noise. So I'm not exaggerating when I say I hear plane noise every few minutes.


Posted by thirdwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 15, 2014 at 9:34 am


Peter Carpenter,

"I cannot find any data that supports the contention that Palo Alto is disproportionally impacted by airplane noise compared to its more northern neighbors."

What data do you have that shows the different noise levels - for example between Menlo Park and Woodside?

I don't think there is any noise measuring data to compare Palo Alto, since there are no measuring devices here.

To compare airplane noise, shouldn't you actually have measured noise levels to compare?


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 15, 2014 at 9:47 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"any data that says I don't see what I see, is simply not believable." Thank you for acknowledging that you will not allow the facts to alter your perceptions. Therefore presenting you with facts is clearly a waste of time.

I would note that the folks at SFO will have a hard time accepting your perceptions over their documented facts.

" I'm convinced through these posts that Peter has an agenda and he has ever right to defend his area from taking more of the plane load if that is what his agenda is."
As previously stated my agenda is to inform those which open minds of the documented facts regarding local air traffic and ground noise levels and to help them understand how well off or worse off they are than their neighboring communities, and to try to help them understand the many constraints on making any change in the air traffic control system.

My home is actually closer than yours to the east Menlo Park areas that have the higher DNL levels and I have NO concern about even more traffic over my home. As stated above "I accept that noise as an inevitable consequence of where I have chosen to live and my desire to be close enough to SFO to use it for my travels. You can make your own choices but you do not get to create your own facts."


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 15, 2014 at 10:05 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"To compare airplane noise, shouldn't you actually have measured noise levels to compare?"

PLEASE read the NorCal OAPM Draft Environmental Assessment that I have posted the link to many times - particularly Section 4.3.1 Noise.

Note:"4.3.1.1 Noise Modeling Methodology
To comply with NEPA requirements, the FAA has issued guidance on the assessment of
aircraft noise in FAA Order 1050.1E. This guidance requires that aircraft noise analysis use
the yearly Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) metric. The DNL metric is a single value
representing the aircraft sound level over a 24-hour period and includes all of the sound
energy generated within that period. The DNL metric includes a 10 decibel (dB) weighting
for noise events occurring between 10:00 P.M. and 6:59 A.M. (i.e., nighttime). This
weighting helps account for the greater level of annoyance caused by nighttime noise
events when ambient noise levels are lower. Accordingly, the metric essentially equates
one nighttime flight to 10 daytime flights."

"In addition to requiring the use of the DNL metric, FAA Order 1050.1E also requires that
aircraft noise be evaluated using one of three noise models: (1) the Integrated Noise Model
Environmental Assessment for Northern California Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex (INM), (2) the Heliport Noise Model (HNM), or (3) the Noise Integrated Routing System (NIRS). NIRS is typically used for flight track changes over large areas and at altitudes over 3,000 feet AGL. For this EA, the FAA uses NIRS, Version 7.0b to analyze noise associated with the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative."

"NIRS requires a variety of inputs, including local environmental data (e.g., temperature and
humidity), runway layout, number and type of aircraft operations, runway use, and flight
tracks. Accordingly, detailed information on aircraft operations for the Study Airports was
assembled for input into NIRS. This includes specific aircraft fleet mix information, including
aircraft type, arrival and departure times, and origin/destination airport."

That effort yielded the map of actual ground level DNLs that I have posted above many times. This is exhibit 4.2 labelled 2011 Baseline DNL Noise Exposure by Census Blocks in the referenced study.

"As discussed in Section 4.3.1.1, the NIRS model was used to compute DNL values for 2014
and 2019 Proposed Action and No Action Alternative conditions at three sets of data points
throughout the General Study Area:
1. 53,141 2010 Census block centroids;
2. 94,046 uniform grid points at 0.5-nautical mile (nm) intervals on a uniform grid
covering the General Study Area, which were also used to calculate DNL values
at potential Department of Transportation Act (DOT), Section 4(f) resources and
historic sites; and,
3. 12,215 unique points representing Section 4(f) resources too small to be
captured in the uniform grid, including 8,892 unique points representing National
Register listed historic sites."

I urge those concerned with aircraft noise to submit public comments on this draft - that is why it was published.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 15, 2014 at 10:16 am

Peter - "I would note that the folks at SFO will have a hard time accepting your perceptions over their documented facts."

Not really, all I would have to do is take time stamped photos and video and send them to SFO to prove my point. That would show the real facts. The way you repeat and relay your facts have a bias tone. It's quite noticeable. Even your commenting on how SFO will not accept my perception, is defensive in nature. Defend yourself, have an opinion, it's all fine. It won't change the fact that I hear and see planes more than I used to.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 15, 2014 at 10:30 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"all I would have to do is take time stamped photos and video and send them to SFO to prove my point."

Remember the claim is that Palo Alto is being disproportionately impacted by aircraft noise compared to other communities. All your pictures would prove is what you saw at some unknown distance. It tells nothing about what you heard and what people in other communities heard.

" The way you repeat and relay your facts have a bias tone." I repeat the facts because people keep asking me the same question and because people refuse to read what has already been posted - I have no intention of allowing ignorance of the facts to prevail.

As for any bias tone - that clearly is in the eyes of each reader. What specific bias do you perceive?

Again, I urge those concerned with aircraft noise to submit public comments on the NorCal OAPM Draft Environmental Assessment - that is why it was published.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 15, 2014 at 10:40 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

For those who question how the FAA makes changes in its air traffic system here is the introduction to the NorCal OAPM:

"The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) [42 United States Code (U.S.C.) §
4321 et seq.], requires federal agencies to disclose to decision makers and the interested
public a clear, accurate description of the potential environmental impacts that could arise
from proposed federal actions. Through NEPA, Congress has directed federal agencies to
consider environmental factors in their planning and decision-making processes and to
encourage public involvement in decisions that affect the quality of the human environment.
As part of the NEPA process, federal agencies are required to consider the environmental
effects of a proposed action, reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Action, and a No
Action Alternative (i.e., analyzing the potential environmental effects of not undertaking the
proposed action). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has established a process to
ensure compliance with the provisions of NEPA through FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1,
Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures (FAA Order 1050.1E).

This Environmental Assessment (EA), prepared in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E,
documents the potential effects to the environment that may result from the optimization of
Air Traffic Control (ATC) procedures that would standardize aircraft routing to and from
airports in Northern California, including San Francisco International Airport (SFO),
Metropolitan Oakland International Airport (OAK), Norman Y. Mineta San José International
Airport (SJC), and Sacramento International Airport (SMF). The Proposed Action, the
subject of this EA, is called the Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Northern
California Metroplex or "NorCal OAPM" Project. The procedures designed for the NorCal
OAPM Project would be used by arriving and departing aircraft operating under Instrument
Flight Rules (IFR) at the study area airports ("the Study Airports"), using currently available
navigational technology."


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 15, 2014 at 10:56 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

6 inbound to SFO.
3 over Newark.
3 over Palo Alto.

That 50:50

Web Link


Posted by Noisy nosys, a resident of East Palo Alto
on Apr 15, 2014 at 10:57 am

>>> Not really, all I would have to do is take time stamped photos and video and send them to SFO to prove my point.

This is INSANE!

Reading this thread - it's about perceived noise, yet posters keep deluding themselves with out any facts (LOOK, in the sky! it's a bird! No, it's a plane! Omigosh! And now another, I can SEE with my very own eyes, I mean ears!)

Where are the facts on the actual NOISE LEVEL??????


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 15, 2014 at 11:09 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

6 inbound SFO
4 over Newark
2 over Palo Alto

That is a ratio of 2:1


Posted by Mr.Recycle, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 15, 2014 at 11:36 am

The optimal number of flights over Palo Alto is zero, so take the information Peter has collected and go complain to the city council with it. It doesn't particularly matter if Palo Alto is being disproportionately affected. I'm not sure we need the city motto to become 'not quite as noisy as Newark'.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 15, 2014 at 11:43 am

Resident 1,

I don't know if Palo Alto has any noise monitoring equipment, but that is a good question.

SFO has four portable noise monitoring stations. As far as I know they are not currently deployed. Web Link

Bruel & Kjaer provides the equipment that a lot of the airports use. They make noise measuring instruments, as well as systems that can log and distribute the collected noise data to the public. They can also integrate the noise data into Flight-tracker. Bruel & Kjaer's website is an interesting read: Web Link


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 15, 2014 at 12:08 pm

Peter,

I reviewed the map showing the locations of SFO's 29 automated noise monitoring stations which is on SFO's website. I believe the map show a station Redwood City.

If you review the map, there is an inset in the upper right hand corner. In the lower right hand corner of the inset there appears to be a station next to the word "Redwood City". It id hard to read but it could possibly be station number "28". Please confirm if you agree.

Also, are you aware of any larger maps showing the locations of SFO's automated noise monitoring stations? If you are, please post a link. Thanks!

Map of Noise monitoring stations (scroll to bottom of page): Web Link


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 15, 2014 at 12:17 pm

Folks - if you go the SFO site - Tracker you can follow specific planes. It shows speed, type plane, altitude, latitude, longitude. You can follow the plane as it enters the SFO airspace to the point it lands. You can watch the altitude at which it enters the area and as it de-accelerates and lands. It tells you exactly where it is at all times. You can also tell where it is relative to the other planes that are in the airspace.

You can see who is in transit - and if coming from Hawaii you can see it as it transitions through to landing. 747-400'd tend to be lower and slower while the commuter planes from LAX to SFO are higher and quicker. Virgin Airlines have interesting patterns.

If Flight Tracker is the tool provided by SFO it represents the "official" record for any one plane that trumps whatever else you are looking at.
And you can do this all by yourselves - you do not need any advise from anyone else as to what the program is saying - it totally self-explanatory.
It is also very entertaining to watch the arrivals and departures - little planes flying around.

When all is said and done not all planes are equal, not all travel at the same speed, not all have the same equipment, not all are on the same flight path. The Hawaii flights tend to travel as a group. They are bigger planes and are typically code share flights.

There are periods of the day which are prime time and other times that are more quiet.

As to who has equipment - NASA is a Moffatt Field, other key players would know where to find the right equipment. We are not in the corn fields of Kansas here. The FAA people at Palo Airport should know who has what equipment. And the FAA people know who is in the sky at any time and where they are. And SFO should be on-board to the concerns - they are focusing on departures vs arrivals. Our issues are in the "arrivals" category.


Posted by Lol, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Apr 15, 2014 at 12:23 pm

Finally, someone ( mr. Recycle) honest enough to state what this is about. A small group,of people do not feel that any planes should fly over palo,alto-- even those going to PA airport. Let them disturb less important cities in the area. And once you get rid of all the airplanes, you can start a thread about too many cars in the city.


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 15, 2014 at 12:28 pm

LOL - you have totally misread what this is about. Another exaggeration on your part. We just need higher altitude for starters. SFO knows it has a problem and is working on solutions. We are not in a void of activity.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 15, 2014 at 12:29 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Jetman - I have enlarged the SFO Noise Monitoring Station Map. I think that you are correct - the insert show something near Redwood City but I cannot make out the #:


Web Link

There are no noise monitoring stations any further south.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 15, 2014 at 12:37 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"And SFO should be on-board to the concerns - they are focusing on departures vs arrivals. Our issues are in the "arrivals" category."

Departures are where the highest DNLs are recorded; in contrast arrivals are much quieter because they are flown at much lower power settings. So SFO IS focussing exactly where the problem is - departures.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 15, 2014 at 1:05 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

This is from the January and February 2014 noise complaint reports to the SFO Roundtable:

Web Link

Web Link

From SFO's perspective it sure doesn't look like Palo Alto has a aircraft noise problem.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 15, 2014 at 1:55 pm

Noisy nosys - I said photos and video. I think that a video would capture the sound. Don't you?


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 15, 2014 at 1:59 pm

6 inbound to SFO.
3 over Newark.
3 over Palo Alto.

That 50:50

Peter - What part of Palo Alto are they flying over?


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 15, 2014 at 2:01 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"I think that a video would capture the sound. Don't you?"

Yes but it would be an uncalibrated sound and there would be no way to know how loud the sound you heard actually was. Aircraft noise monitoring systems are all carefully calibrated to produce well defined sound level results.

Have you posted any complaints to the SFO Noise Monitoring Office?

Have you filed written comments in response to the NorCal OAPM Draft Environmental Assessment?


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 15, 2014 at 2:04 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Catherine - You are not paying attention.

I posted a radar map of their exact flight paths - what more can I do.

PLEASE look at the information which has been posted:

Web Link


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 15, 2014 at 2:08 pm

Peter - I'm in the learning and gathering information phase and will do some research and possibly pursue it further. Maybe we need aircraft noise monitoring systems in Palo Alto. I don't know, but thank you for all the information.

According to this data you posted, can you tell me where in Palo Alto they are flying over?

6 inbound to SFO.
3 over Newark.
3 over Palo Alto.

That 50:50


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 15, 2014 at 2:10 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Catherine - Did you look at the radar map that I posted?????


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 15, 2014 at 2:11 pm

I see your information, but I want to know what you think? When those 3 planes flew over Palo Alto, what neighborhoods were affected?


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 15, 2014 at 2:21 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" but I want to know what you think?"

What I think is irrelevant; the radar tracks are 'ground truth' and, since you need someone to tell you what you anyone can clearly see, the three airplanes flying over at 10:41 on April 15, 2014 were respectively:

1 - flying over west Menlo Park, then Stanford, then downtown Palo Alto and then over East Palo Alto

2 - flying over Woodside then Los Altos Hills, then south Palo Alto and then East Palo Alto

3 - flying over west Menlo Park, then Stanford, then downtown Palo Alto and then over East Palo Alto

Why is this not clear from the radar tracks that I posted?


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 15, 2014 at 2:41 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

When planes arrive from the south this is the most common route across Stanford, downtown Palo Alto, east Menlo Park and East Palo Alto:

Web Link

My home is shown as the "house" on this map - I am closer than most people in Palo Alto to this track and the planes are also at a lower altitude, hence more noise, when passing near my home.

Planes arriving from the north and pacific usually fly more northerly and less predictable tracks.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 15, 2014 at 2:46 pm

According to this link Downtown Palo is in the direct flight path of the Surf Air planes and I do see and hear Surf Air planes also. I wonder why Palo Alto wasn't included in the bar graph photo?

Looks like there is some history regarding plane noise in Atherton.....


Web Link


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 15, 2014 at 2:52 pm

"When planes arrive from the south this is the most common route across Stanford, downtown Palo Alto, east Menlo Park and East Palo Alto:"

I agree, the planes cross over Stanford and at night one right after the other right over my home. So to the back of my home I get the influx of planes coming over the Stanford Hills towards SFO and the front of my home gets the Northbound loop back to SFO. It's like a double whammy! But I have lived here for so many years and never noticed it before until fairly recently.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 15, 2014 at 2:55 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Catherine,
That is a great link -thanks.

Palo Alto is not included because the report was produced for the SFO Roundtable which does not, unfortunately, include Palo Alto. Getting Palo Alto on that roundtable would be a very constructive effort for concerned Palo Alto residents.

The SJC WebTRak does record SurfAir flights:

Web Link


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 15, 2014 at 2:59 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Catherine,
Note on page 8 of that report that the wealthy communities like Atheron and Palo Alto want to 'solve' the SurfAir noise problem simply by moving iy=t over less affluent communities - I strongly disagree even though my home is quite near the current SurfAir flight path.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 15, 2014 at 3:16 pm

Does anyone out there remember the Shoreline noise problems?

Just thought of it, and if I remember correctly it had some similarities to the current plane noise issue. People living on one block, were saying it sounded like Shoreline was next door, while two block away you could hardly hear a thing.

Shoreline and/or the City eventually brought in sound engineers to study the problem, and they ended up saying it had to do with a peculiar inversion layer over Palo Alto that could reflect and focus the sound from Shoreline onto certain neighborhoods, or even blocks in Palo Alto.

Shoreline made some adjustments to their acoustics, and it really has not been a big problem, since the adjustments were made.

In August 2013 the South China Morning Post reported that the FAA, in response to the Asiana crash at SFO, "temporarily" banned Foreign Airlines from using the visual approach routes into SFO which begin final approach at IAF Menlo at 5,000' and instead advised them to only fly GPS final approach routes into SFO. Some of the GPS approach routes begin final approach at IAF Menlo at around 3,000'.

Just wondering if this change in final approach altitude is allowing some of these larger overseas flights to slip beneath the Palo Alto inversion layer, so the noise is reflected to the ground, and onto certain neighborhoods?

FAA bans foreign pilots from visual approaches at SFO
Air Traffic Management ~ July 30, 2013 Web Link

TIPP TOE VISUAL RWY 28L/R: Web Link

RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 28R: Web Link



Posted by Noisy Nosys, a resident of East Palo Alto
on Apr 15, 2014 at 3:33 pm

>>> I think that a video would capture the sound. Don't you?

No. Your cell phone camera is hardly a calibrated monitoring device.

Does Palo Alto ever measure noise, anywhere? (loud parties? blowers? construction noise?)


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 15, 2014 at 3:38 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" Some of the GPS approach routes begin final approach at IAF Menlo at around 3,000'."

Any approach which begins at MENLO does NOT overfly Palo Alto at all.


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 15, 2014 at 3:50 pm

My take on this is that the altitude should be raised to 5,000 feet over this area until they cross the two bridges. They have the ability to de-accelerate fairly quickly. That would get everyone off the hook for the majority of the noise.

As to Surf Air it is going down Middlefield over many schools from grammar to high schools in that specific area - Palo Alto through Atherton, Redwood City to San Carlos. There are other private charter planes - Delta has a fleet of them - and others that are using different equipment. They are quieter. Surf made a bad choice in equipment - they are the only that is getting complaints. And SFO does have an area for the smaller private jets so they are not restricted to a low altitude like Surf Air.

Surf Air should be moved over the bay - not hug Middlefield. The area it would be over is industrial - not schools and homes.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 15, 2014 at 5:16 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Crossing the San Mateo bridge at 5000 ft when mean descending at almost 900 ft/min which is a dangerous and uncomfortable rate of descent.

Putting SurfAir east if 101 put then both over other people' s homes and in direct conflict with PAO traffic.


Posted by Jetgirl, a resident of Stanford
on Apr 15, 2014 at 7:24 pm

About fifteen years ago, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo established a 5000 ft rule. It was adhered to for a while, but gradually, the altitude creeped back down to even lower than before that rule. I saw a flight coming through College Terrace to turn toward San Fracisco directly over the intersection of California Ave and El Camino. It was so low and headed so close to the red brick building on the corner I was sure it was going to hit it-or so it appeared from my spot in my car. BTW--I used to attend the Roundtable until it became apparent that it was a space created to contain complaints with no change


Posted by musical, a resident of Palo Verde
on Apr 15, 2014 at 7:36 pm

That's why it is so important to keep the 55-ft limit on new buildings in Palo Alto.


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 15, 2014 at 7:37 pm

Jet girl-- yours is the funniest and biggest whopper of all the over exaggerations posted on this thread. A plane at the corner of California and el camino that was headed to SFO, that was so low that it was going to hit the " big red building" on the corner???? Wow and you are saying that with a straight face????
And I thought it was the FAA that determines altitudes etc. when did congress pass this law??


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 15, 2014 at 7:56 pm

Jetgirl,

Please contact Midtowner at veroforyou at gmail.com. No spam, and you will not be contacted again without your approval.

Thanks!

Jetman


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 15, 2014 at 8:07 pm

Can anyone out there confirm the exact location of IAF Menlo. I have read reports placing it as far north as the intersection of Willow and 101, and as far south as the intersection of Embarcadero and 101.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 15, 2014 at 8:23 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Waypoint Menlo is 37 deg 27' 49N and 122 deg 9' 13W which is about 1 mile north of Stanford Hospital and 1 mile west of PAO


Posted by musical, a resident of Palo Verde
on Apr 15, 2014 at 9:14 pm

That MENLO point maps to the Willows neighborhood of Menlo Park.
O'Keefe St and Laurel Ave is nearest road intersection, then move 250 feet northeast.
Say 0.36 mile south-southeast of Willow and 101.


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 15, 2014 at 9:59 pm

Anna Eshoo has been very active helping some local communities get relief from airplane noise. Congress does not vote on plane altitudes, but Washington politicians do have their connections in the administration and can get some things to change if they really want to push the idea with the proper authorities. I am sure that Win Win knows this.

Unfortunately, it seems Ms. Eshoo, a former Atherton and current Menlo Park resident, plays favorites with some communities in her district.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 15, 2014 at 10:43 pm

Peter,

OK, thanks. I'm getting the same location as Musical.

What I am observing is a steady stream of commercial jets flying north over the Southgate and Evergreen neighborhoods of Palo Alto. This is an area bounded by El Camino, Alma, Churchill, and Page Mill. If these aircraft continue on their path north, they would pass over the Old Palo Alto, Community Center and Crescent Park.

Since many of these aircraft have the distinctive orange Southwest livery, I have assumed these aircraft were the commuter flights arriving from the south along the Big Sur Arrival route, and they were heading to IAF Menlo, and final approach.

Flightracker traces confirm heavy traffic along this flight path, and Southwest even requires their pilots to perform virtual check-rides along the Big Sur route to Menlo IAF, to maintain their pilot status.

Palo Alto Neighborhood Map: Web Link

1hr Flightraker Trace 02/04/14: Web Link

Virtual SWA Check ride for Chief Pilot Status: Web Link




Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 15, 2014 at 11:10 pm

I am using FlightStats - download from the SFO site. It shows the planes -arrival are yellow, departures are blue. It has a program problem in the area between Woodside and Portola Valley - the image freezes in that area but you can click on the image and get the altitude. I was looking at a Japan Airlines 787-8 that was coming in around 5:00 and the image froze - then said that no information would be provided on that plane.
A lot of SkyWest and Compass Airlines in the commute traffic mixed in with the larger planes. One SkyWest was 2,300 over Menlo Park. It has a graph which shows all of the planes that are expected in that hour. I am going to email SFO and indicate the problem in that area since this comes from their site.


Posted by Noisy Nosys, a resident of East Palo Alto
on Apr 16, 2014 at 5:15 am

Y'all keep talking numbers of flights, tracks, altitude....

Isn't it about NOISE?

Who's going to measure the NOISE?


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 16, 2014 at 6:03 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

The minimum permitted altitude on the Big Sur route from BOLDR to MENLO IAF is 6000 ft and the 3000 ft from MENLO to localizer interception.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 16, 2014 at 6:06 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"I am using FlightStats - download from the SFO site."

I find the SJO WebTrak more user friendly and it covers most of the SFO airspace south of SFO and it works on a Mac:

Web Link


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 16, 2014 at 10:47 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

8 inbound SFO
5 over Newark
1 over Los Altos Hills and Mountain View
1 over Menlo Park and East Palo Alto
1 over west Menlo Park, Stanford and south Palo Alto

Web Link


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 16, 2014 at 11:47 am

Peter - you keep saying what the requirements are but it is not being followed. The planes are doing whatever they need to do in high traffic areas and time periods. Virgin Airlines is a "hurry up and wait". The Sky West commuters fitting in, half the time doing fly overs. They approach at a very high altitude then circle back down the peninsula and turn north. The 747-400's are sometimes higher, sometimes lower. If they are drifting past behind my tree line then they are lower.

And since we are the topic what is the requirement for the PA airport. There is this white airplane that goes over very low - it is suppose to be closer to the freeway and east of 101. That plane needs a complaint.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 16, 2014 at 12:07 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

resident - use SJO WebTrak to see the actual flight paths and altitudes and then both report the specific low ones her and to SFO.

Re the PAO complaint - again use SJO WebTrak to get the data including the tail number and report it to the PAO office.

On WebTrak you can go back to any previous time to get data on a particular flight that you feel is operating inappropriately.

Facts count, impressions are easily dismissed.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 16, 2014 at 12:18 pm

Peter,

I think your perception of this problem may be colored by your over reliance on the FlightStats tool, but is not necessarily in conflict with what people in Palo Alto are observing.

The FlightStats tool is showing a snapshot in time. During that snapshot there may only be one plane over Palo Alto, but if you took another snapshot 5-10 minutes later, you find another, different plane over Palo Alto, an so on, and so on.

This is what people on the ground are reporting... a plane flying over Palo Alto every 5-10 minutes, and creating 60-90 seconds of noise as it passes over.

The Flighttraker tool can do timed captures of flight tracks. In the example below, a one hour capture shows 13 flights over Palo Alto. 10 in the heavy track from the south, 2 from the north making a u-turn over Palo Alto, and 1 from the west.

1hr Flightraker Trace 02/04/14: Web Link


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 16, 2014 at 12:18 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Here is YOUR opportunity to both be better informed and to voice your opinion:

Web Link

FAA invites comment from residents under flight paths
by Dave Boyce / Almanac



A strong turnout from Portola Valley, Ladera and Woodside is expected at the workshop hosted by the Federal Aviation Administration in the San Mateo Public Library at 55 W. 3rd Ave. at 4 p.m. on Thursday, April 17.

At issue: the noise made by a gradually increasing number of commercial aircraft as they pass over Peninsula communities, some of higher altitude, as they approach the San Francisco International Airport.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 16, 2014 at 12:19 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Jetman - your web link does not work


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 16, 2014 at 12:22 pm

1hr Flightraker Trace 02/04/14: Web Link


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 16, 2014 at 12:38 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Jetman - Thanks. Are you running this on a PC or a Mac? I cannot get it to run on a Mac.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 16, 2014 at 12:59 pm

Peter,

A PC. Maybe you can get to work on a Mac using Bootcamp?


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 16, 2014 at 1:05 pm

"FAA invites comment from residents under flight paths"
The Almanac/Dave Boyce ~ April 16, 2014 Web Link

"New Technology Promises Less Noise from Jet Engines, but to Whose Ears?"
The Almanac/Dave Boyce ~ August 29, 2012 Web Link

"FAA Plan Seeks More Direct Air Routes in Bay Area"
SF Gate ~ January 15, 2013 Web Link


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 16, 2014 at 2:37 pm

I prefer the FLIGHTSTATS though not totally accurate. I was looking at the map and there was no plane over Palo Alto on the map, but overhead was an Airbus, LAX to SFO which showed up on the screen a bit later. Opinion I have been in a Airbus and it is noisy inside. Cheap Plane - stick with Boeing.
I accessed this from the SFO site, Arrivals - which provides a list - click on a right side box nest to any plane and it will provide the whole map with all planes in the vicinity - arrivals and departures. It is entertaining. The planes that get trapped between Woodside and Portola Valley are the planes that have arrived from the north and are going down the peninsula to get back in a north approach. Compass Airlines and SkyWest get caught here. I think there is a cell phone blank out here also.


Posted by Mary Anne, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 16, 2014 at 5:05 pm

I used the SFO flight tracker to track flights for numerous time periods. When one becomes familiar with the data, it is clear that Palo Alto bears a disproportionate burden of SFO bound air traffic. When winds are out of the usual direction - 80-90 percent of the time - the majority of flights transversing the peninsula fly over Palo Alto and East Palo Alto. There are no other cities on the peninsula for which this is true.

So for all those in this thread who want to dispute whether Palo Alto suffers a disproportionate number of jet overflights, I have a challenge: specify one 24 hour period when the majority of flights crossing the peninsula do not cross over Palo Alto. The data exists to prove or disprove this empirical statement in the form of the SFO Flight Tracker information (unlike all the musing about "sound levels" and "slant distances", etc.) You won't do this because there is no such 24 hour time period.

It's wrong that San Mateo County cities have used the political process to foist SFO air traffic problems onto Palo Alto. There is no reason, other than political reasons, why SFO couldn't return to a system where most flights fly over other cities on the Peninsula, like they did 20 years ago.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 16, 2014 at 5:09 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"When one becomes familiar with the data, it is clear that Palo Alto bears a disproportionate burden of SFO bound air traffic. When winds are out of the usual direction - 80-90 percent of the time - the majority of flights transversing the peninsula fly over Palo Alto and East Palo Alto. "

This is simply not true - I challenge you to provide evidence which shows ALL flights over the peninsula and what % of those cross over Palo Alto vs crossing over Menlo Park, East Palo Alto and Foster City.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 16, 2014 at 5:14 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Unfortunately the SFO tracker is not Mac compatible so hopefully Jetman with his PC can record a complete 24 hour period showing ALL of the SFO arrivals and we will see what is the truth.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 16, 2014 at 6:14 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Here is the classic SFO approach from southern California:

Web Link

Note that after these planes cross over Palo Alto they then fly over Menlo Park and East Palo Alto AT A LOWER ALTITUDE.

Now tell me again why you claim that Palo Alto gets more noise than its northern neighbors even from these southern California approaches?


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 16, 2014 at 7:18 pm

Peter,

Web Link
Your link (above) is showing exactly what I am seeing. Classic Big Sur route from SoCal heading for IAF Menlo, and final approach to SFO.

Once they pass Stanford Stadium the floor for class B airspace drops from 4,000' to 2,500 so Northern Palo Alto is in the same boat as eastern Menlo Park, and East Palo Alto, although you can argue that in practice they need time to get to the lower floor after crossing the boundary.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 17, 2014 at 4:06 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Jetman and I agree - Note that after these planes cross over Palo Alto they then fly over Menlo Park and East Palo Alto AT A LOWER ALTITUDE - which means higher ground level noise footprint.

Now tell me again how anyone can claim that Palo Alto gets more noise than its northern neighbors even from these southern California approaches?


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 17, 2014 at 7:55 am

Well - the true "season" is upon use. Marked by the flowers in bloom, longer days, and a change in the way sound moves. as it gets warmer the way sound moves changes.

Yes - very early the planes are rolling in. Like the waves in the ocean. We are now starting the real season of airplanes rolling in with their attendant noise.

Why you all are analyzing the situation note that the problem on hand is not who has more noise - but how to address the situation to reduce the noise. Isn't that the goal here?


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 17, 2014 at 8:59 am

"The FlightStats tool is showing a snapshot in time. During that snapshot there may only be one plane over Palo Alto, but if you took another snapshot 5-10 minutes later, you find another, different plane over Palo Alto, an so on, and so on.

This is what people on the ground are reporting... a plane flying over Palo Alto every 5-10 minutes, and creating 60-90 seconds of noise as it passes over."

Jetman - you are correct. Different planes, different directions, non-stop every 3-4 minutes. There is maybe 1 minute of quiet before another one starts. Downtown North is getting it's fair share as I'm sure Menlo Park and East Palo Alto are too.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 17, 2014 at 9:07 am

"Jetman and I agree - Note that after these planes cross over Palo Alto they then fly over Menlo Park and East Palo Alto AT A LOWER ALTITUDE - which means higher ground level noise footprint.

Now tell me again how anyone can claim that Palo Alto gets more noise than its northern neighbors even from these southern California approaches?"

Peter - do you realize how close Palo Alto Avenue is to Menlo Park? A few blocks maybe? There is even a bridge that connects us. The altitude in which the plane is flying is pretty darn close and I'm sure we are experiencing fairly the same amount of noise. Planes don't descend that fast.


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 17, 2014 at 11:06 am

Clearly, Palo Alto, East Palo Alto and EASTERN Menlo Park are getting much more noise than the rest of southern San Mateo County from SFO bound planes.

Part of the reason is that, through the intervention of Anna Eshoo, southern San Mateo has obtained changes that have pushed inbound airplanes into Palo Alto.

It is silly to argue that Palo Alto does not have a particular noise issue, especially coming from people who do not live in Palo Alto. Those people much have an agenda other than "educating" Palo Alto residents.

We all need to work together for a fairer spreading of airplane noise between all of our communities. I believe it is time for PA residents to take this issue to the political arena.


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 17, 2014 at 11:14 am

If Anna Eshoo represents Menlo Park who is representing Palo Alto? We need to lock into the people that have our interest at heart.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 17, 2014 at 2:49 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"It is silly to argue that Palo Alto does not have a particular noise issue, especially coming from people who do not live in Palo Alto"

I live in Atherton and I live closer to the souther arrival flight track that do most do residents of Palo Alto - and when the planes pass my home they are lower than when they are over Palo Alto. So quit trying to disenfranchise me from the discussion.

My home is shown on here relative to the southern approach track:

Web Link


Posted by Midtown, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 17, 2014 at 3:16 pm

Peter, you are wrong. You are not even close to those planes, which don't fly at all over Atherton. PA/EPA/Eastern MP are the communities that bear the brunt of those flights that fly directly above them.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 17, 2014 at 3:30 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Midtown - You are so egocentric that you refuse to accept that anyone except Palo Alto has airplane noise; look again:

Web Link

Closer to my home than to most Palo Alto homes and at a lower altitude.


Posted by thirdwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 17, 2014 at 4:12 pm

Peter Carpenter,

"Now tell me again how anyone can claim that Palo Alto gets more noise than its northern neighbors even from these southern California approaches?"

Not sure, I'm not an expert, but

The reason Palo Alto gets more noise is because the loudest airplanes are the ones changing altitude above Palo Alto. Their equipment changes make noise. It may as well be SFO the way some of the planes sound.

There is a big difference between silent planes flying over (we have some of those) and the ones making a racket.

I have a theory that Peter Carpenter has a plane of his own, and he's the one with the buzzing noise that we also get from time to time, clanky little planes from yesteryear.

The data remains fuzzy but the noise is loud an clear.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 17, 2014 at 4:16 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"I have a theory that Peter Carpenter has a plane of his own, and he's the one with the buzzing noise that we also get from time to time, clanky little planes from yesteryear."

No, I stopped flying my own plane almost 10 years ago.

So what is your next shot of trying to dismiss anyone who does not agree with your perspective?


Posted by Andrea Wolf, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 17, 2014 at 4:22 pm

@Catherine

"This is what people on the ground are reporting... a plane flying over Palo Alto every 5-10 minutes, and creating 60-90 seconds of noise as it passes over."

I have lived in the Midtown area for over 20 years. Additionally, I have an interest in gardening and aviation. Thus, when I am outside gardening I usually pause to look up and check out any plane as it passes overhead. I have noticed very little difference in aviation traffic over the past several years. As far as the noise itself, my experience is that there is enough noise for me to look up when I am outdoors, but not enough that I hear it indoors. In fact, the noise from the Oregon Expressway and Bayshore is more of an issue for me. Far worse than aviation noise, or the car noise I experience in my neighborhood, is the daily noise of a gardener mowing or blowing and the noise of houses being remodeled or rebuilt. I wish that the city much more actively enforced the laws we have on the books regarding these sounds.

I agree with some of the other comments here that suggest that people hear things differently, but since I have a reputation in my family for being extremely noise intolerant, I am surprised to hear that our local aviation noise is bothering that many of you. Many years ago I lived outside London in the flight path to Heathrow. During that time the Concorde flew in and out regularly - now that was noisy!!! And uncomfortable for the ears.

@ Peter Carpenter

Thank you for all of the web links you have provided. Facts are always helpful when trying to examine a problem or dispute. I appreciate the time you spend sharing the web links to maps, flight paths, etc...


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 17, 2014 at 5:36 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Here is a 747, one of those complained about above, that crosses Menlo Park and East Palo Alto and never touches Palo Alto.

Web Link


Posted by LMFTFY, a resident of East Palo Alto
on Apr 17, 2014 at 6:04 pm

The data remains fuzzy but the noise is loud an clear. :The data remains fuzzy but the noise is loud an clear."

LMFTFY

"The FLIGHT data IS CLEAR but the noise COMPLAINT is FUZZY -- DUE TO A LACK OF SOUND READINGS AND THE PERCEPTION (not facts) OF A SOME POSTERS."

THis is an insanely long thread -- without any data other than folks who are complaining about a noise they have/can not quantify.

If your neighbor is loud, you call the cops and get sound readings.

Why can't PA do that?


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 17, 2014 at 6:10 pm

A couple of people are having their fun by complaining non stop about supposed airplane noise. This is not backed up by any facts whatsoever. Instead we get claims of planes every 3-4 all day over a certain neighborhood, constant airplane noise over Stanford and the best one yet-- a claim that a plane flew over the intersection of el camino and California avenue so low that the observer thought it would hit the building on the corner!!!!!
Get what is going on here? People are playing the typical Palo Alto game-- complain about something--- car traffic, air traffic, parking ugly houses, too many workers, gridlock, greedy developers, the city council, trees. If it is not one thing it is another. One would think that some residents Actualy believe that the world revolves around Palo Alto.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 17, 2014 at 6:11 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Another of those 'noisy' 747's crossing Menlo Park and never touching Palo Alto - and quite near my house:

Web Link

Now tell me again how anyone can claim that Palo Alto gets more noise than its northern neighbors.


Posted by thirdwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 17, 2014 at 6:26 pm



"the noise COMPLAINT is FUZZY -- DUE TO A LACK OF SOUND READINGS"

This much is clear, we agree.

Complaints are fuzzy as long as there is not actual data, and therefore the data is also fuzzy.

Would you know how can we get actual data, actual readings?


Posted by Logic, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 17, 2014 at 6:45 pm

"I don't hear much noise, and what I do hear hasn't increased. Therefore anyone who claims otherwise is lying, stupid, crazy, or increasly ultra sensitive to airplane noise."

This is the rallying cry of a set of posters on various threads on this topic.

But it's faulty logic.


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 17, 2014 at 7:01 pm

Logic-- as opposed to a blatant lie-- you posting a quotation to make it look like someone actually wrote that. The 2-3 people who are stirring the pot on this issue will never go to SFO with their " complaints"-- they would be shown the actual data and the escorted from the building. However on this forum they can feel like they are accomplishing something


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 17, 2014 at 7:05 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Complaints are fuzzy as long as there is not actual data,"

There is lots of actual data - you just don't want to acknowledge it:

"A total of 690,384 IFR-filed flights to/from the Study Airports were identified through an
examination of radar data obtained from the FAA's Performance Data Analysis and
Reporting System (PDARS). The PDARS database was queried for the 2011 calendar year
for all IFR-filed flights that operated at the Study Airports within the General Study Area.
During this 365-day period, 15 days of data were unusable due to radar equipment
anomalies, operational outages, or extreme weather events that made the data unreliable.
The 350 days of usable data span all seasons and runway usage configurations for the
Study Airports in the General Study Area. This data was used to develop the average
annual day (AAD) fleet mix, time of day (day and night), and runway use input for NIRS.
More detailed information related to the NIRS inputs for Existing Conditions is provided in
the NorCal OAPM Aircraft Noise Technical Report, available on the OAPM Project website."

Web Link

Web Link

":"4.3.1.1 Noise Modeling Methodology
To comply with NEPA requirements, the FAA has issued guidance on the assessment of
aircraft noise in FAA Order 1050.1E. This guidance requires that aircraft noise analysis use
the yearly Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) metric. The DNL metric is a single value
representing the aircraft sound level over a 24-hour period and includes all of the sound
energy generated within that period. The DNL metric includes a 10 decibel (dB) weighting
for noise events occurring between 10:00 P.M. and 6:59 A.M. (i.e., nighttime). This
weighting helps account for the greater level of annoyance caused by nighttime noise
events when ambient noise levels are lower. Accordingly, the metric essentially equates
one nighttime flight to 10 daytime flights."

"In addition to requiring the use of the DNL metric, FAA Order 1050.1E also requires that
aircraft noise be evaluated using one of three noise models: (1) the Integrated Noise Model
Environmental Assessment for Northern California Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex (INM), (2) the Heliport Noise Model (HNM), or (3) the Noise Integrated Routing System (NIRS). NIRS is typically used for flight track changes over large areas and at altitudes over 3,000 feet AGL. For this EA, the FAA uses NIRS, Version 7.0b to analyze noise associated with the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative."

"NIRS requires a variety of inputs, including local environmental data (e.g., temperature and
humidity), runway layout, number and type of aircraft operations, runway use, and flight
tracks. Accordingly, detailed information on aircraft operations for the Study Airports was
assembled for input into NIRS. This includes specific aircraft fleet mix information, including
aircraft type, arrival and departure times, and origin/destination airport."

That effort yielded the map of actual ground level DNLs that I have posted above many times. This is exhibit 4.2 labelled 2011 Baseline DNL Noise Exposure by Census Blocks in the referenced study.

"As discussed in Section 4.3.1.1, the NIRS model was used to compute DNL values for 2014
and 2019 Proposed Action and No Action Alternative conditions at three sets of data points
throughout the General Study Area:
1. 53,141 2010 Census block centroids;
2. 94,046 uniform grid points at 0.5-nautical mile (nm) intervals on a uniform grid
covering the General Study Area, which were also used to calculate DNL values
at potential Department of Transportation Act (DOT), Section 4(f) resources and
historic sites; and,
3. 12,215 unique points representing Section 4(f) resources too small to be
captured in the uniform grid, including 8,892 unique points representing National
Register listed historic sites."

Plus contemporaneous data from both the SFO and SJC tracker web sites.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 17, 2014 at 7:15 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

More actual data:

Web Link

So why exactly is Palo Alto suffering?


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 17, 2014 at 7:31 pm

Residents of Woodside and Portola Valley are "up in arms" about proposed FAA changes to SFO air routes, and have received help from local politicians Anna Eshoo, and Jackie Speier.

Environmental report opens door for comment to FAA about aircraft noise
Almanac/Dave Boyce ~ April 10, 2014 Web Link


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 17, 2014 at 8:29 pm

Went to the FAA event today in San Mateo. Very well done - lots of people to talk to - FAA, SFO - all very congenial, actually a very informative event - everyone smiling. I understand what they are trying to do - control air space via satellite versus air controllers so they can control bunching and vectoring. They understand our concerns but have a lot of movable parts to work with including the geography of the area.

SFO does have portable noise equipment. The person to coordinate with if interested is:
E. R. Ganoung, Jr. Manager Aircraft Noise Abatement Office; 650-821-5100.

So happy to talk to the professionals. They are happy to have people come, ask questions, get new information, and support their attempt to resolve problems they are aware of. I came away with a lot of respect for their organizations, as well as the staff from SFO that was there to answer questions.
It helps to understand the job from their perspective - what they are dealing with - many airports within a small area, location of equipment, amount of concrete - determines type planes that can land - a 787 wing hit another plane.
The last workshop is tomorrow at the San Francisco Federal Building, 10 AM to 12 PM. I recommend that you go and talk to everyone. Great group of people.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 17, 2014 at 8:44 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Resident 1 - thanks for going to the meeting and thanks for the report.

The FAA is not the enemy.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 17, 2014 at 8:54 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

6 inbound SFO
5 over Newark
1 over Palo Alto and my house in Atherton:

Web Link

So why exactly is Palo Alto suffering compared to other communities?


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 17, 2014 at 9:14 pm

Peter that just can't be. As you are saying 1 over Palo Alto, 3 just flew over my house. Doesn't add up.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 17, 2014 at 9:16 pm

Thank you Resident 1 - Great information


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 17, 2014 at 9:47 pm

Jet noise seems really bad tonight along the Big Sur route from the south. Many of the airline that usually come in from the south are coming in very loud from the west, and then turning north over Palo Alto to head for IAF Menlo.


Posted by acknowledgement, a resident of Fairmeadow
on Apr 17, 2014 at 10:07 pm

"There is lots of actual data - you just don't want to acknowledge it: < various references to large numbers of tangentially related data>"

But not a single data point containing measured noise on the ground in Palo Alto.

It's like the church complaining that observed data about the planets doesn't fit the model supported by the bible's huge weight.


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 17, 2014 at 10:41 pm

Jetman,

I was really bad over Midtown between 7:00 and 8:15 PM. We went out for an evening walk. There was a plane every other minute, flying really low above our head, turning. Most of them were very large, very loud commercial jets apparently headed into SFO. I went and looked at the tracker for that time period afterwards. The planes were B733s, B737s, B757s, A320s, and even a B777 out of Hong Kong. Incidentally we also had a San Carlos bound Surf Air jet that was above Midtown at 3800 feet.

It was ugly. Our walk was made very unpleasant by the onslaught.


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 17, 2014 at 10:45 pm

Jetman,

Many of the planes that people may see over Stanford/College Terrace do go over Midtown, just south of Oregon Expressway as well. At least, they did between 7:00 and 8:30 PM tonight.


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 17, 2014 at 10:48 pm

Resident 1

I went to the same event in San Jose yesterday. I agree that it was well done, informative and that the FAA, airport and consultant staff present were eager to explain their work and were very friendly.

The problem actually is not the FAA staff. The problem is the political pressure that has been applied to the FAA by our local representative, Anna Eshoo. Deals are made high up that are completely political.

Thanks for the info on the portable noise monitor. We should look into getting it deployed in PA.


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 17, 2014 at 10:57 pm

"Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Menlo Park, extracted an agreement in 2001 with the FAA that requires arriving aircraft to stay at least 8,000 feet above sea level when passing over a navigation beacon in the Woodside hills."

Web Link

Folks, this is why we have airplanes at 4000 feet in PA. Keeping the airplanes at 8000 feet above Woodside has pushed them down south to Palo Alto. The FAA staff I talked to at the meeting yesterday confirmed this to me.

It's time for the City of Palo Alto to wake up to this problem.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 18, 2014 at 1:19 am

I was at the San Jose meeting as well. Midtowner and I both arrived early, and had the 14 person group from the FAA and Airports to ourselves for the first two hours. We came away from the meeting very well informed, and were given a lot of "off the record" information.

The FAA and Airport personal at the meeting were very friendly, helpful, conscientious, knowledgeable folks. They do not deny there is a problem with noise, and readily admit "we know we have a problem with noise".

As Midtowner has mentioned the problem comes from political deals happening above the staff level, and pressure from the airlines to cut costs on everything imaginable from pilot salaries, to tires.

I am left with the impression of an industry rushing headlong for "efficiency" through technological complexity, but oblivious to the fragility being introduced into the system, and its increasing vulnerability to a catastrophic "black swan" event. The decline in manual flying skills among commercial pilots, and their over-reliance on technology is very troubling.

I also stopped by the San Mateo Meeting, but did not get the same access to FAA and Airport staff that was available at the San Jose meeting. FAA and Airport staff had their hands full fielding questions from agitated San Mateo County residents.

Representatives for Anna Eshoo, Jackie Speier, and State Senator Jerry Hill attended the meeting. I also saw Almanac reporter Dave Boyce, so we should see an article in the Almanac soon.

What are "Black Swans": Web Link

To learn more about "black Swans" and anti-fragility read anything by Nicholas Taleb: Web Link


Posted by Real midtown resident, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 18, 2014 at 6:05 am

"I was really bad over Midtown between 7:00 and 8:15 PM. We went out for an evening walk. There was a plane every other minute, flying really low above our head, turning.

So you are saying that there were about 40 planes that flew overhead during that time. I live in Midtown and heard nothing.
In addition, I checked the flight tracker for that period yesterday and there was not that muchtraffic over palo alto during that time period.
Finally, there are no Hong Kong flights arriving during that time. One flight arrives well after 9PM and the other after 10PM.
Of course, midtowner, the real questions is how come these planes that are flying over your head do not collide withthe planes flying constantly over Cethrine's head


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 18, 2014 at 6:40 am

When I was at the FAA Meeting in San Mateo I discussed the discrepancy between the SFO Flight Tracker and what is really happening. Check the Flight Tracker - built by a company in Florida - a universally sold product not specific to SFO. It is a commercial product. They all understood that there can be up to a 15 minute delay between the tracker and reality.
The product is a radar driven product. The two radar locations in the area that monitor the airspace are Oakland and Moffatt Field. The Oakland location monitors SFO.
I noted the problem to them that the plane icons freeze in a location but if you click on it you can see the altitude decreasing. Yesterday the Hawaiian Airlines flight 12 froze in East Palo Alto but the grid on the side showed that it landed. Likewise the UA fight from Kona did not appear on the grid but showed up at SFO at 5600 ft.

Likewise I can see why the people in Portola Valley and Woodside are upset - the icons freeze in the frame yet they are decreasing in altitude if you click on the icon.
Something is very wrong here which may be why SFO is trying to change to a satellite driven system. There are other activities in the airspace that are interfering with the way that program works. Too much technology happening in this area.

One other topic we discussed is the vectoring of planes within any time period which means they have provided instruction to a specific plane to land and then have to manage the other planes in the area for the line-up. That is why you hear the speeding up and slowing down - they are trying to follow the instructions as to where they need to be and when they need to be there.

One person noted that two planes can cross in the airspace and they have to manage the differential in altitude real time.

What you see in the air and what the grid says is not tracking correctly. They all know that.

Do not assume that any one person in a home with home driven equipment will see what the actual equipment in the centers is looking at. In part there are some security issues related to home owners tracking flights vs the airport tracking flight.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 7:49 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

I find that the SJC tracker, which also covers all of the area and flights to the south of and including SFO, to be quite stable. It does not however have the ability to aggregate tracks over an extended time period.


Web Link


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 7:57 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Catherine = please check the time stamps, lower left corner, of the radar tracks that I post.

The SJC flight tracker delays its data, for security reasons, by about 15 min. By the time I take a screen shot, upload it to Dropbox and post the link the data is probably 20 min old.


However ,if you note the exact time of an overhead event you can go back to that exact moment in time and see the flight tracks at exactly that moment. Exactly what time last evening did you have 3 planes "over your house'? I will pull up and post those radar tracks.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 8:36 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Here are two of the AM 747 flights from the Far East crossing Palo Alto about 4700 ft:

Web Link


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 8:41 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

4 inbound SFO at 8.26 AM on April 18
1 Newark
1 Menlo Park
2 Palo Alto

The last three all cross EastPalo Alto


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 18, 2014 at 9:17 am

One crossed over my home at a little after 9am and it was at 1900 feet. Isn't that too low? According to the SFO tracker it was from the Rouge Valley International Airport Skywest Airlines.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 18, 2014 at 9:22 am

"However ,if you note the exact time of an overhead event you can go back to that exact moment in time and see the flight tracks at exactly that moment. Exactly what time last evening did you have 3 planes "over your house'? I will pull up and post those radar tracks."

Peter - I'm not exactly sure what time the 3 flew over last night but it was around 8:30pm. I could see the planes one by one about 4 minutes apart coming over the Stanford Hills, over the stadium, and then over my home. I'm starting to get familiar with the flight tracker and when I see a plane above me I quickly look at the tracker. There is such a time delay though.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 18, 2014 at 9:29 am

One just looped over my home but it didn't show up on the tracker?? Some do some don't, but if there is a 15 minute delay then it's going to be hard to figure out.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 9:48 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Just write down the exact time of your observation and then go to the tracker after 15 min and select historical on the left side, pick the time and date and using the slider at the very bottom to move from that time forward in 30 min time increments and you will see the actual flight track. Moving the slider back and forth over a 30 min time period gives you a really god sense of what is happening during that time block. Let me know if you having difficulty with any of these settings - they are not intuitively obvious on the web site.

Last night around 8.30 there were flights over Palo Alto at 8.41, 8.44, 8.46 (south Palo Alto), 8.51 (south Palo Alto), 8.52 (south Palo Alto), 8.55 (south Palo Alto) and 9.01.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 18, 2014 at 9:50 am

I have to agree with resident 1 because there are planes in the air that I can see from my home and they are not represented on the tracker map. On the tracker map the plane icon freezes in one spot and then minutes later it jumps across a couple of cities so you can't really follow their path. I'm not sold on this tool.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 9:54 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

One just looped over my home but it didn't show up on the tracker?? Some do some don't, but if there is a 15 minute delay then it's going to be hard to figure out.

Here it is:

Web Link

time 9:27:05


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 18, 2014 at 9:55 am

"Last night around 8.30 there were flights over Palo Alto at 8.41, 8.44, 8.46 (south Palo Alto), 8.51 (south Palo Alto), 8.52 (south Palo Alto), 8.55 (south Palo Alto) and 9.01."

Peter, this may be the flights that went over my home. South Palo Alto is just on the other side of University Ave. If they pass over South Palo Alto then it is highly likely they fly over North Palo Alto as well. The tracker is not showing the streets and this is what is needed I guess to better assess the situation. I will follow your directions tonight and write down the exact time they fly over and then check the tracker 15 min. later and see what I get. Thanks!


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 9:56 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Catherine - which tracker are you using SFO or SJC?

The SJC tracker is very stable and does not freeze.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 18, 2014 at 9:59 am

SFO. Right this min. 9:58 one is flying over my home.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 10:00 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"The tracker is not showing the streets and this is what is needed I guess to better assess the situation."

With the SJC tracker you can zoom in to a very close level. Here is an example:

Web Link

You can easily locate your home at this level and then permanently mark it on the SJC tracker using the tool in the upper left of the map panel.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 18, 2014 at 10:01 am

one is flying over right now 10:00am


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 10:02 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

I strongly recommend using the SJC tracker instead - it is very stable, covers the entire area south from SFO and has lots of good features.

Web Link


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 18, 2014 at 10:06 am

Your snap shot shows a loop but far from downtown north PA. If that plane is looping over Oregon Expressway then I would not hear it. It's not down to a science or street view so it is really hard figure out. I will try again tonight.

Another just flew over at 10:05am


Posted by Lol, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Apr 18, 2014 at 10:08 am

"One just looped over my home but it didn't show up on the tracker?? Some do some don't, but if there is a 15 minute delay then it's going to be hard to figure out.
Here it is:
Web Link
time 9:27:05"

That flight does not look,like it went anywhere near DT and Catherine. Especially in the zoomed in link.
Anyway, where does Catherine want these flights to go? Does nt sound like these planes are flying very low over palo,alto. Also what can one expect living near 3 large airports and some small ones? Absolute quiet?
Instead of posting here, the aggrieved residents should go,to so with their issues.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 10:18 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Your snap shot shows a loop but far from downtown north PA"
Catherine - that was a sample screen shot to show you the level of detail available on the zoom - not to show any particular flight.

Here are the 10 AM flights clearly shown on SJC tracker:

Web Link

And here is a zoom of the second 10 AM flight path:

Web Link


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 10:21 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Note that when you zoom in you are automatically excluding traffic over other areas so those view will reinforce your PA centric perspective. So also zoom out to see who else has overflights at the same time - they are not all over Palo Alto.


Posted by Mary Anne, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 18, 2014 at 10:30 am

Sure other towns on the peninsula have airplane noise from SFO. The issue that those of us are complaining about here is that Palo Alto, along with EPA and a portion of East Menlo Park suffer disproportionately from SFO bound airport traffic. Moreover this situation is almost entirely due to political deals made between San Mateo County politicians and SFO - as us well documented by the links in posts above.

San Mateo County cities had SFO overhead air traffic for SFO arrivals reduced because residents complained and organized and put pressure on their politicians to act. What's wrong with aggrieved Palo Altans doing something similar?

A lot of the disputation from those who deny that Palo Alto has an air traffic noise problem is in the form of cherry picked data for a single flight or small sampling of flights - or is "supported" hard to interpret fuzzy "noise profiles".

The only generally available hard data is in the form of the flight tracker data that is described above. It shows the number of flights and where they fly. If you aggregate this data it gives the most accurate picture of which areas suffer most from air traffic. I've examined the data and I have a simple way for those who really think Palo Alto's air traffic is no different from surrounding towns to demonstrate the correctness of their position. That is -- specify any 24 hour period when the flight tracker information does not show that the majority of SFO arrivals crossing the peninsula do so in a path that doesn't go over Palo Alto. You will not find the air traffic deniers here doing this because there is no such 24 hour period. Along with the aforementioned EPA and EMP areas, there is no other area on the peninsula that suffer this concentration of air traffic from SFO bound flights.


Those who complain about jet noise in PA aren't crazy, or unrealistic. We don't want to shut down the airport and we understand that living here means we'll never have complete quiet. But we don't understand why there can't be a more equitable sharing of the burden of SFO bound traffic on the Peninsula - other than the more vigorous political activity of San Mateo County city officials.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 10:32 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

10:17 Am April 18
8 inbound SFO
4 over Newark
1 over Menlo Park
3 over Palo Alto, Menlo Park and then East Palo Alto

Web Link


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 10:37 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"A lot of the disputation from those who deny that Palo Alto has an air traffic noise problem is in the form of cherry picked data for a single flight or small sampling of flights"

So go ahead and find counter examples - I keep asking but no one is willing to post those.

Many of my posting ARE of flights over PA but I also like to look at the bigger picture - how else do you determine if " Palo Alto, along with EPA and a portion of East Menlo Park suffer disproportionately from SFO bound airport traffic".

You claim that PA is suffers disproportionately and then challenge others to disprove your claim - that is not the way it works - YOU made the claim so YOU should be able to prove it.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 10:43 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

As a Mac user I cannot access the aggregate SFO 24 hr tracker data and the SJC tracker does not aggregate. I have repeatedly asked the PA posters to do a 24 hour aggregate screen shot of all SFO inbound traffic but no one will do it - why? Probably because it would not help their cause.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 18, 2014 at 11:19 am

Maximum Flight Tracker capture is one hour. I was awakened at 5:52am this morning by a very loud jet that shook the whole house. Not happy.


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 18, 2014 at 11:23 am

All - do you realize that there are now a lot of people through out the bay area - both east and west - that are clicking on icons on flight tracker?
This is a commercial program they would like to sell to you - they hopefully think. At this point you are all accessing a property owned by SFO with hundreds of people using it.

There are people in businesses that are looking to see when a business person will be arriving - when to pick them up. There are car rental agencies looking to see when a flight will arrive - x number of car rentals already reserved. Hotels with guests that will require a pick up. At some point the system will only transact a limit on the number of people accessing the information and clicking on icons.

I like the SFO tracker because it shows which flights by airline and flight number are arriving - important if you have to pick someone up. Also people who have planes and have their own programs they have purchased.

I think it is unrealistic to think that the program is going to jump through hoops for you clicking on icons every time a plane goes over.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 18, 2014 at 11:29 am

Peter,

Why doesn't Flight Tracker work on a Mac? It not 1980 anymore.
If you want to know what a 24 hour track looks likes, just imagine this, times about 16, with a few more thrown in for the hours between 10:00pm and 6:00am: Web Link


Posted by Lol, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Apr 18, 2014 at 11:35 am

Jetman-- I see a flight,NCA109 that passed over palo alto at 6300- 5000 feet at that time. And that shook your house? What neighborhood are you in exactly, because you can follow the path of the plane.
Is this anything like jetgirls flight?


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 18, 2014 at 11:48 am

@ "Real" Midtowner

Not a single plane last night over Midtown between 7 and 8:30 Pm???? Do you live East or West of Middlefield? I can guarantee you that, East of Middlefield,
1) The planes were there and it was outright awful, planes every other minute for 10-15 minute stretches. I was outside, saw them and heard them.
2) I looked, after the fact, at the Oakland tracker for that time period, and lo and behold, the planes showed up on the tracker, and were shown as SFO bound.

I could be wrong about Hong Kong, it may have been from Honolulu instead. But it was a B777 for sure.

If you did not hear a single plane you are either at the other end of Midtown, had so much ambiant noise in your house that you did not pay attention, or maybe


Posted by Midtowner , a resident of Midtown
on Apr 18, 2014 at 11:56 am

@ Peter

Thanks for pointing out to us the obvious, the sheer number of planes above (South) Palo Alto, which includes Midtown. You spotted on the tracker planes at 8:41, 8:44, 8:46, 8:51, 8:52, 8:55, 9:01!! Seven planes in twenty minutes.

Those were very other minute for some stretches. If you go back you'll probably see that a large number were large jets. And that they were probably at about 4000 feet.

Finally, most PA neighborhoods suffer through such unrelenting noise. Suffer is not too strong a word.


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 18, 2014 at 12:00 pm

Everyone who wants to fight SFO noise above Palo Alto is invited to go beyond posting here or just reading this thread.

Join our group by contacting us at
Veroforyou@gmail.com


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 12:11 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

SFO used to have a tracking vendor that was much better - it produced annualized aggregates like this one:

Web Link

Then SFO switched tracking vendors and the new vendor uses Java which Apple does not support.

*******

Jetman's recent posting
Web Link

proves my point that for most of the complainers it is all about Pao Alto - this screen shot shows just Palo Alto and none of the other SFO inbounds - of course if you look through this narrow lens that is all you will see and complain about.

*********************"
"I think it is unrealistic to think that the program is going to jump through hoops for you clicking on icons every time a plane goes over." The SJC tracker doesn't have this problem at all.

***********

Here is Jetman's 5:57 AM flight - it also went quite near ny Atherton home and at a lower altitude3700 ft than when over Palo Alto 4700 to 4000 ft.

Web Link


Posted by Real midtown resident, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 18, 2014 at 12:13 pm

"Finally, most PA neighborhoods suffer through such unrelenting noise. Suffer is not too strong a word."

Boy, what a complete, thorough and bogus exaggeration. There is no "unrelenting noise". What we have here is a series of gross exaggerations. We hear about planes every minute all over the city. We hear about planes almost crashing into buildings. We hear how PA has a disproportionate amount of plane traffic--none of this is borne out by the facts. Yet, we have no proof. Just anecdotal stories, some of them fantasies. Palo Alto is not "suffering" from airplane noise, they are suffering from people who do not realize where they live and what comes from living there.

By all means, join midtowners group and go to SFO with your "facts".






Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 12:21 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" You spotted on the tracker planes at 8:41, 8:44, 8:46, 8:51, 8:52, 8:55, 9:01!! Seven planes in twenty minutes."

And during that same period of time MORE planes inbound to SFO did NOT cross Palo Alto. You have to stop being so Palo Alto centric or just emit that you want to solve Palo Alto's "problem" but have no concern about what is going n around your little island.

Here is the bigger picture:

Web Link=

8 SFO inbounds and only 3 touch the island of Palo Alto.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 12:50 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Another myth in this thread is that air traffic over Palo Alto is caused by planes being kept high over Woodside. In fact 90% of the planes that transit Palo Alto come from the south and us the MENLO waypoint (note that waypoint is IN Menlo Park and not in Palo Alto) to join the SFO approach. This means that these flights cross over Palo Alto, then Menlo Park and then East Palo Alto but they never go anywhere near Woodside. There are no practical alternatives to this routing given the airspace around SJO, Moffat, Palo Alto and San Carlos.

Planes arriving vis the Woodside VOR OSI take a variety of routes after crossing OSI - some pass over Menlo Park but not Palo Alto, some cross over Palo Alto and some cross over Mt. View.

Planes arriving from the east coast almost always fly over Newark.

So, in total, Palo Alto does not get more than its share and what does come over Palo Alto is mostly unavoidable.


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 18, 2014 at 1:54 pm

Next to nothing over Atherton at 8:51 PM last night, interestingly. It does not look like the problem is everywhere to me.

[Portion removed.]

For those of you interested in joining a group of citizens concerned about SFO noise in Palo Alto:

veroforyou@gmail.com


Posted by real midtown resident, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 18, 2014 at 2:00 pm

[Portion removed.]
I am calling into question your overexaggerations and wild statements (i.e. Finally, most PA neighborhoods suffer through such unrelenting noise. Suffer is not too strong a word").
If you cannot take the criticism that comes with some of the stuff you are postings, then skip this forum and go to SFo. [Portion removed.] Get your group together with your evidence (FYI--evidence is not the anecdotal observations you all post about) and meet with the people at SFO.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 2:01 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


Posted by Andrezj, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 18, 2014 at 2:13 pm

If your house is not properly insulated, and you do not have dual pane windows, the noise will be magnified by the vibrations the passing planes cause to your house.

Once we had our house insulated up to current standards, and replaced our windows with dual paned ones, we could no longer hear the planes overhead unless we are out on the patio.

Also, if you live in an Eichler, noise and shaking will always be a problem because of single-wall construction.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 2:15 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Next to nothing over Atherton at 8:51 PM last night, interestingly. It does not look like the problem is everywhere to me."


Actually IF I look only at my own little island last night at 8.51 the only plane I see was over MY ISLAND!!

Web Link


Posted by Edward D, a resident of Menlo Park
on Apr 18, 2014 at 2:39 pm

"I was really bad over Midtown between 7:00 and 8:15 PM. We went out for an evening walk. ...
It was ugly. Our walk was made very unpleasant by the onslaught."

I've been out every summer evening for three hours, in East Menlo, for the last decade, and i can't fathom the above statement.

ONSLAUGHT?!?!?

Hyperbole, much?

This is a ridiculous thread. Someone said the SFO will come down and take readings. I can't wait to read them and compare them to other communities listed above (DC, SSF, San Bruno, Millbrae, Foster City, etc...)

Such idiotic hyperbole plays right into the hands of all the posters above who appear to be laughing at the usual PA whining brigade. I have much greater issues with the racket from small planes and gardeners.

Lastly: "Residents of Woodside and Portola Valley are 'up in arms'...."

Sorry, I barely see any reference to it in the Almanac, compared to this thread, at this writing: 415 comments | 2974 Views


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 2:56 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Here is the way that concerned, informed citizen have an impact - by working with the airplane operator and by not just trying to shove the problem off on someone else:

"Surf Air Meeting Update
David Fleck from Atherton Fair Oaks
NOTE: We will need your help, please read "Next Steps" below, if you don't want to read all the details!

Attendees
In attendance were the new VP Operations of Surf Air Jim Sullivan, and Cory Cozzens. Both Rick and Elizabeth, from Atherton Town council attended as well as various staff from San Mateo County and KSQL airport.

Meeting Notes
On Tuesday, we met with Surf Air and KSQL airport staff to continue discussions regarding the noise problem. The meeting was cordial and it gave us an opportunity to meet the new CEO of Surf Air.

We discussed past efforts for noise reduction such as varying visual approaches, dropping gear and flaps as late as possible, and implementing a permanent higher glide slope.

Visual Approaches: It was noted that the new visual approaches were helping by not concentrating the noise over the exact same neighborhoods 8 times a day. It was also suggested that the real noise test would come as residents of affected neighborhoods started to enjoy the better weather by leaving windows/patio doors open, and whether complaints would attain levels we saw during August- November last year.

Dropping Gear: We spent a lot of time discussing this and challenged Surf that not all flights were dropping gear as late as possible. It was agreed that for safety margins, gear could be dropped at about 3 miles out (from the airport). Surf will remind pilots to adhere to this when safe to do so.

Higher Glide Slope: The effort to increase the glide slope for GPS approaches continues. This requires a formal submission to the FAA and subsequent review process. The submission process will include letters from the community (see more below) to bolster the case for the higher slope. If approved, it could be implemented in about 6 months. This combined with dropping gear later could create significant positive changes in overhead noise.

Separate from above, we discussed Surf Air's expansion plans. They indicated that there are no current expansion plans other then previously announced service to Lake Tahoe. That service will begin in May and will not increase daily flights, currently at eight. Flights returning from Tahoe will use visual approaches when possible and since they will be coming over the Bay, there should be less noise impact over our neighborhoods (Bay Area traffic control may impact that).

Noise Complaints: The airport indicated that overall noise complaints are down. It appears residents are not calling in at the frequency they previously were complaining.

Next Steps
As part of the FAA submission for higher glide slope, we have been asked to supply letters from concerned residents supporting the higher glide slope. As such, we would like to coordinate efforts to have you create and send a letter, outlining your concerns about the noise, and indicating your support for the higher glide slope. We will provide a suggested template that can be used to author the letters. Details should be available next week at which time I will update everyone on how to participate.

---------


Posted by The Right Way, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Apr 18, 2014 at 3:19 pm

"Here is the way that concerned, informed citizen have an impact - by working with the airplane operator and by not just trying to shove the problem off on someone else"

"Next Steps
As part of the FAA submission for higher glide slope, we have been asked to supply letters from concerned residents supporting the higher glide slope. "

Doesn't this higher glide slope over Atherton push more planes over Palo Alto?


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 18, 2014 at 3:21 pm

Peter,

These are good suggestions that will help a little with Surf Air, but none of your suggestions woulds have any impact on commercial jet traffic.

1. FAA is doing away with the Visual Approaches to SFO, moving to all RNAV approaches which will channel the routes into even narrower paths.
2. Gear is already up over Palo Alto, Menlo, and EPA.
3. New RNAV approaches are less-steep than the abandoned visual approaches, and that is the way the airlines like it. The less-step glide path is easier approach for a poorly trained pilot to fly.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 3:24 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Doesn't this higher glide slope over Atherton push more planes over Palo Alto?"

No. The horizontal track remains exactly the same while the vertical track would be HIGHER over Palo Alto and Atherton.

Here is the existing approach plate showing both the horizontal and vertical flight paths:

Web Link


Posted by thirdwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 18, 2014 at 3:27 pm


Peter Carpenter,

Why all the fuss about SFO tracker, it doesn't show the other buzzers flying around?

Data is fuzzy.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 3:28 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"but none of your suggestions woulds have any impact on commercial jet traffic."

And just exactly what are YOU proposing???

I am just presenting the facts and trying, very, very hard, to explain how few alternatives are available for commercial air routings. But I suggest that if a few Palo Alto residents were as informed and enlightened as their Atherton neighbors that they would consider working with the individual carriers coming in from the south to modify their vertical flight paths and airframe configurations - of course that would be work which seems unattractive to the complainers.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 3:30 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Why all the fuss about SFO tracker, it doesn't show the other buzzers flying around?"

What exactly is your question???


Posted by thirdwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 18, 2014 at 3:40 pm

Peter Carpenter,

"consider working with the individual carriers coming in from the south to modify their vertical flight paths and airframe configurations"

How do you do this kind of work?

What I meant with my previous question is that there are airplanes which are not from SFO that are not on the much discussed trackers here.

The SFO trackers only measure SFO flights. So the overall data is incomplete - fuzzy.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 3:45 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.


'The SFO trackers only measure SFO flights. So the overall data is incomplete - fuzzy.'

I have always recommended the SJC tracker - it tracks every plane between San Jose and SFO.

""consider working with the individual carriers coming in from the south to modify their vertical flight paths and airframe configurations"

"How do you do this kind of work?"

You organize your facts and organize bright people and then you call up each of the carriers and ask to meet with them. They will not take you seriously if you do not have facts or significant membership supporting your concerns.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 18, 2014 at 5:18 pm

Peter - WebTrak is great. I just checked it out. You can see all the planes going right over my home coming from the Stanford hills. I'm going to keep watching until later this evening. Big and small planes seem to converge over Palo Alto. From what I see so far Palo Alto is a hub hub for planes. What planes do you think are not represented on this tracker?


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 5:26 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"What planes do you think are not represented on this tracker?"

None - I think it captures every flight between San Jose airport and SFO and has great features.

Mark your own house and then you can get it to tell you the point of closest approach.

And make sure you look at the entire south bay IF you are concerned with how traffic much one community gets versus what others get.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 5:29 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Catherine - let me know if there are particular times that you would like me to capture from the SJC webtrak and post for everyone to see.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 18, 2014 at 5:41 pm

Peter - Ok, thanks. What is the minimum feet that a large plane should be flying at over my home? I enjoy the small planes that fly over in all different directions and actually enjoy the sound of them. It's the large planes that are bothersome. The sky is continually grumbling.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 18, 2014 at 5:46 pm

5:44pm one just flew over my home but it wasn't on the tracker. Is there a delay? Are you sure all planes are represented? Even Surf Air?


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 5:48 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Planes approaching SFO are generally above 4000 ft over Palo Alto.

Small planes are generally required to below 2500 ft over north Palo Alto and 4000 ft over southern Palo Alto and Stanford. Small planes generally try to remain above 1000ft over populated areas except when in the process of taking off and landing. There are some exceptions when a small plane is under positive radar contact and in radio contact with the air traffic controllers and has been cleared to fly into the higher airspace.

This separation of inbound SFO traffic and small planes is one way that the FAA tries to avoid midair collisions - a very good idea. Commercial planes do NOT like to mix with small planes because small plane are hard to see and nobody wins in a midair encounter.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 5:51 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"5:44pm one just flew over my home but it wasn't on the tracker. Is there a delay?"

Yes, as I posted above there is about a 15 min delay for security reasons. If you go to the control pane on the left side of webtrak and select historical then you can select the exact prior time you wish to see.

"Are you sure all planes are represented? Even Surf Air?"

Yes, even law enforcement planes on 'secret' missions are shown.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 5:57 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

""5:44pm one just flew over my home"

Here is the 5.42 flight - as you can see it also came very 'close' to my house but it was an altitude of 4900 ft then so was over 5000 ft over Palo Alto:

Web Link


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 18, 2014 at 6:05 pm

Peter - 6:03 plane just flew over but not on Traker. Not a huge 747, but a mid size plane. Another larger plane just flew over at 6:05.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 6:12 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Catherine -PLEASE - as I posted there is about a 15 min delay on the webtrak.

Look at the time shown in the lower left and that is the time currently being displayed.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 18, 2014 at 6:30 pm

Peter, I know. I get it. The only reason I posted the times is that you said you would take a screen shot of the planes if I told you the times.

"Catherine - let me know if there are particular times that you would like me to capture from the SJC webtrak and post for everyone to see."


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 18, 2014 at 6:37 pm

From what I see over the last 45 minutes, Palo Alto, East Menlo Willows Neighborhood, and East Palo Alto get the most traffic. I haven't seen any planes go over Atherton yet. Have you? I see how Newark is pretty bombarded with planes too. Thanks for introducing this tool. It's great and a lot of fun to watch. I have learned a lot over this really long thread. Thanks to all!


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 6:44 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Here is the 1803 (6.03 PM) screen shot:

Web Link


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 18, 2014 at 6:46 pm

"From what I see over the last 45 minutes, Palo Alto, East Menlo Willows Neighborhood, and East Palo Alto get the most traffic. "
Get the most traffic relative to what?? The entire Bay Area, the entire peninsula, the entire state???? I think,peter has tried to,explain that crucial point, but as they say you can lead a horse to water......


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 18, 2014 at 6:49 pm

Yes, exactly. You can see the line of planes that come one after the other from the Stanford Los Alto Hills right across Downtown North PA. Then on top of that the planes you see coming southbound loop over Downtown North PA and then head north to SFO. It's like a double whammy! I have planes to the front of my home and planes to the back of my home. If I open both windows I can hear them on each side of my home. I have lived here for over a decade and it has never been this bad. Things have definitely changed.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 18, 2014 at 6:53 pm

Win Win,

You chime in every once in a while and don't seem to be adding any value to the conversation. If you live at the community center there are no planes flying your way so don't be concerned about what others are experiencing.

Thanks again Peter!


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 6:59 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.




Here is the 6:11 PM screen shot:

Web Link

7 inbound SFO
2 over bay from north
3 over Newark
1 over Stanford, Meno Park and East Palo Alto
1 over Palo Alto, Menlo Park and East Palo Alto


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 18, 2014 at 7:05 pm

"ou chime in every once in a while and don't seem to be adding any value to the conversation. If you live at the community center there are no planes flying your way so don't be concerned about what others are experiencing."

I did not realize that in order to post " you have to add value to the conversation". Of course, in this case " value" means agreeing with your point of view. Anyway, the reason I do not post more is that it is a real waste of effort, on my part. Certain people, including yourself, have come up with some real imaginative postings-( planes in the back of you house and planes in the front-- think about how high the planes are , so your claim is......)so I am too busy laughing to respond. And if you think that planes do not fly over community center, then the island that peter refers to means just downtown north to you. Palo,alto,is not that big, planes fly over many neighborhoods.
Palo Alto does not have disportionate burden of air traffic. But, you can respond to the questions I addressed to you in my previous post.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 18, 2014 at 7:05 pm

The one going over Stanford then goes over Palo Alto, so probably 2 for Palo Alto.


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 18, 2014 at 7:15 pm

Not necessarily, Catherine, but does 2 out of 7equal disportionate traffic over Palo Alto.?


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 18, 2014 at 7:22 pm

Win Win,

You don't get it. Out of the 4 high traffic spots of Newark, Palo Alto, East Menlo and East Palo Alto, Peter is showing the flights over these areas and who gets more. Newark is really bombarded as I said in my previous post.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 7:24 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"The one going over Stanford then goes over Palo Alto, so probably 2 for Palo Alto."

Wrong. Here is a zoom in on that track:

Web Link


So only 1 out of 7 goes over Palo Alto


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 18, 2014 at 7:32 pm

Peter,

Catherine is right. If you look closely it did clip Palo Alto. Look closely where it flys over the creek. Web Link


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 7:34 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

It crosses ECR maybe 3 feet inside Palo Alto - wow, are you rally suffering from that???


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 18, 2014 at 7:40 pm

Peter,

The noise is not just directly under the Aircraft, So the noise penetrated well into Palo Alto.


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 18, 2014 at 7:41 pm

"Win Win,

You don't get it. Out of the 4 high traffic spots of Newark, Palo Alto, East Menlo and East Palo Alto, Peter is showing the flights over these areas and who gets more. Newark is really bombarded as I said in my previous post."

Palo Alto is a high traffic spot? Oh, I forgot if-- that is part of the scenario-- palo,alto gets too many planes and is therefore a " high traffic spot". What about the cities closer to SFO? Are they " high traffic spots"? Palo Alto is not a high traffic spot.
Jetman, Midtowner, jet girl, Catherine-- all of,you need to,take your data and go to the people at SFO with your perceived problems. Writing on this forum will not solve your problems. My advice, don't start the conversation by insisting that palo,alto has the biggest problems with air traffic in the Bay Area.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 18, 2014 at 7:43 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" So the noise penetrated well into Palo Alto."

Wow, now it is anything that flies even NEAR Palo Alto.

These folks really are paranoid about their island and could care less about anybody else.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 18, 2014 at 10:10 pm

Peter - check the tracker and you can see just a portion of my night viewing planes over my home. They came one after the other from over the Los Altos/Stanford Hills. Also, check out the helicopter at 9:02pm. I used the tracker from 8:27 till 9:48pm and counted 22 planes (large and small) and 1 helicopter. Also saw one Beacon over Atherton at 9:24pm on the tracker and one other larger plane over Atherton but didn't log the time. The fact that I live in a high rise and have a full sky view I'm sure plays a role in the number of planes I experience. According to the tracker when a plane is going near Embarcadero or north of that I can see and hear it. They don't just have to be directly over my home to see and hear them. I even experience the planes south of University Ave.

9:34 coming from Los Altos Hills/Stanford big plane over home

9:36 coming from Los Altos Hills/Stanford big plane over home

9:39 coming from Los Altos Hills/Stanford big plane over home

9:42 coming from Los Altos Hills/Stanford big plane over home

9:46 coming from Los Altos Hills/Stanford big plane over home

9:48 coming from Los Altos Hills/Stanford big plane over home


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 18, 2014 at 10:17 pm

Jetman, I absolutely agree. In fact, that is just what I experienced tonight using the tracker. I saw and heard the planes, logged them, and then after a 11-15 min. delay I see them on the tracker and it can be shown much further from my home. However, it is still the plane that I experienced. Peter I can send you my full log if you want to see that I'm not imagining it.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 18, 2014 at 10:25 pm

Getting a big relief from plane noise for about 25 min. now. Yea! Planes coming from the South have died down for now. The parade is over.....


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 18, 2014 at 10:29 pm

Oops! I can see the light of another one coming. Passed over my home at 10:28pm. Check that one on the tracker Peter. I will see where it falls on the tracker map in approx. 15 min.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 18, 2014 at 10:42 pm

Saw the plane I just mentioned on the tracker at 10:39 and it is several blocks from my home and it literally flew over my home. The tracker is at least showing the plane in the near vicinity, but it's not right on target.


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 18, 2014 at 11:01 pm

If you look at the SFO tracker it shows a grid on the right hand side of all of the flights that are expected in the designated time period. If you look at where they are arriving from you can predict which will come on the peninsula side - LAX, SOCAL cities, Asia-Pacific flights. And if coming from Washington and Oregon then they will come down the peninsula and circle back up. You can already tell which planes are scheduled to arrive - there is a list. And if you click on the plane in the list it will tell you what type equipment.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 18, 2014 at 11:51 pm

Smoking-gun proof the flight path of aircraft arriving from SoCal, have moved south over Palo Alto.

At the recent FAA meetings, the FAA made it very clear that the proposed "procedures" would not change the actual path that aircraft are flying, because the actual path that aircraft are flying had ALREADY changed. The "procedures" were being changed so the "procedures" would match the actual flight paths that aircraft were in practice already flying.

Note in the map below that the proposed "procedure", which the FAA wants to move so it will match the actual flight path, is SOUTH of the of the existing (older) "procedure".

What the FAA calls "procedures", Almanac reporter Dave Boyce calls "routes":
"...The current routes are not precisely adhered to in practice. The proposed routes are new only to the extent that they are intended to mimic actual routes now in use by pilots..."

This proves that the actual flight path, that aircraft are using, has already moved south. So much so, that the FAA feels the need to move their "procedures" (or routes) south, so they will reflect the current reality.
Environmental report opens door for comment to FAA about aircraft noise
Dave Boyce/Almanac ~ April 10, 2014 Web Link

Map of proposed FAA "procedures", on this map labeled routes: Web Link


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 19, 2014 at 6:06 am

If it is dark outside, Catherine, how do,you know it is a " big" plane?. But make sure when you tomato SFO, you tell them it was a big plane and as your fellow traveller pointed out, since the sound penetrates into,palo alto, it does not mean it is over your home.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 19, 2014 at 7:31 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Catherine reports:
9:34 coming from Los Altos Hills/Stanford big plane over home

9:36 coming from Los Altos Hills/Stanford big plane over home

9:39 coming from Los Altos Hills/Stanford big plane over home

9:42 coming from Los Altos Hills/Stanford big plane over home

9:46 coming from Los Altos Hills/Stanford big plane over home

9:48 coming from Los Altos Hills/Stanford big plane over home"

And, by looking at the bigger picture 5 more planes arrived SFO 1 via the north and the bay and 4 via Newark - none crossed Palo Alto


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 19, 2014 at 7:42 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Here is the 10.38 PM plane over Palo Alto at 3000 ft getting ready to cross the MENLO waypoint in Menlo Park. It is an A320 - not a particularly big plane.

Catherine - what block do you live in and I will zoom this in to show how close it was to your home?


Web Link


Posted by Mary Anne, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 19, 2014 at 7:44 am

The chart posted by jetman is very revealing - and as he points out is smoking gun evidence of what those of us who are bothered by SFO-bound airplane noise have been saying: it's quite clear that the FAA and SFO are funneling cross-peninsula traffic into a route that passes over Palo Alto.

I've looked very extensively at the SFO Flight Tracker. I can't find a single day where the majority of SFO-bound traffic crossing the peninsula doesn't fly over Palo Alto - and not over any other peninsula city (with the exception of East Palo Alto and eastern Menlo Park). I'd be surprised if anyone can find a counter-example to this by pointing out a day when the majority of traffic doesn't fly over PA. Jetman's chart confirms that we get all this airplane traffic in PA because of the policies of the FAA and SFO.

One can cherry pick individual flights and ridicule those who hear jet noise in their houses, but the aggregate data is very clear as is the intention of the FAA to continue and intensify this policy. Palo Alto gets the brunt of inbound SFO traffic on the Peninsula...

As has been discussed above, and in the article jetman links, this is due to a policy brokered by San Mateo County politicians (who still - unlike our own politicians - are engaged in trying to protect their residents from SFO generated noise). Note that apparently the airlines and SFO feel free to disregard the agreement they've made with members of Congress by flying lower over Woodside than the agreement calls for.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 19, 2014 at 7:49 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Smoking-gun proof the flight path of aircraft arriving from SoCal, have moved south over Palo Alto."


Certainly not as I read this cartoonish map. The current route is shown as crossing 101 just south of Dumbarton which is consistent with the current southern arrivals route via MENLO while the proposed route crosses 101 south of the island of Palo Alto.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 19, 2014 at 7:56 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"it's quite clear that the FAA and SFO are funneling cross-peninsula traffic into a route that passes over Palo Alto."

On the contrary this map shows ONLY the traffic coming from the south and it shows the proposed routes as being SOUTH of the island of Palo Alto. Remember that there is LOTS of other SFO inbound traffic that comes from other directions and which is not reflected on this map.

Here is a closeup of the map:

Web Link

The proposed new flight path crosses 101 just beneath the 101 symbol and that point is much closer to 85 than to 84.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 19, 2014 at 8:02 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"the majority of SFO-bound traffic crossing the peninsula doesn't fly over Palo Alto - and not over any other peninsula city (with the exception of East Palo Alto and eastern Menlo Park)."

Just look at the new FAA map and realize that it "proves" that every bayside city in San Mateo County gets more overflights of SFO traffic than does the island of Palo Alto - you keep conveniently forgetting that real people live north of the island of Palo Alto and that the planes fly over them at much lower altitudes.

Your special pleadings will be drowned out by the noise once you dare to cross San Francisquito Creek.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 19, 2014 at 8:08 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Clearly the FAA "map" shows them moving the proposed southern arrival route from the MENLO way point to a point further south . This would eliminate traffic over downtown Palo Alto and shift it to or towards Mountain View.


Web Link

Now the north Palo Alto residents will be blamed for this "horrible political fix" to move their noise to someplace else.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 19, 2014 at 8:22 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Oh my gosh - my Atherton island is being invaded:

Two big planes flew over my house and one of them did not even touch the island of Palo Alto - but the other did fly over Stanford and a teeny little bit of Palo Alto:

Web Link


Posted by thirdwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 19, 2014 at 8:30 am

Win win,

"since the sound penetrates into,palo alto, it does not mean it is over your home."

Is there a reason why it would matter if the plane or the noise is over someone's home?

Peter,

"You organize your facts and organize bright people and then you call up each of the carriers and ask to meet with them. They will not take you seriously if you do not have facts or significant membership supporting your concerns."

Are you referring to facts as the info on their flights? Or what other "facts."?

Would you know the process that resident 1 posted about - SFO negotiations with carriers about bunching flights?

Why would SFO negotiate with carriers to not bunch flights? Is it because of an efficiency issue for them, or is it a disturbance issue?


Posted by Mary Anne, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 19, 2014 at 8:40 am

It's easy to cherry pick individual flights or short time periods where planes crossing the peninsula don't cross over Palo Alto - and it's easy to pick individual flights where they do.

But when you aggregate a full day, it's clear that the majority of flights that cross the peninsula on the way to SFO go over Palo Alto (and EPA and EMP). The majority of flights do NOT go over Atherton, or Portola Valley, or Woodside or any other city in San Mateo County where local politicians have been active in pressuring SFO and the FAA.

If those who dispute that Palo Alto bears the brunt of SFO bound traffic on the peninsula would point out the day - any day of your choosing - where the majority of inbound cross-peninsula traffic doesn't go over Palo Alto, I'd be happy to collect the data and post it here. But I've looked pretty carefully, and there is no day where it's even close.

We don't want to close SFO or limit operations there, we just want a little more equitable sharing of the burden SFO places on Peninsula cities. I suspect that is exactly what posters who live in Atherton and other nearby cities are afraid of: they've had overhead jet traffic significantly reduced due to the actions of their politicians...and so are afraid of changes to the status quo.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 19, 2014 at 8:45 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

The facts you need to present are the time, tail number, type and altitude of those flights which you consider offensive hopefully compared to what other communities between Palo Alto and SFO see and hear.


Resident 1 stated " I understand what they are trying to do - control air space via satellite versus air controllers so they can control bunching and vectoring." - I believe he is referring to the FAA's desire to AVOID bunching because bunching means less separation between aircraft and therefore greater risk of midair collisions. Also bunching overloads the runways which can only have ONE airplane on each runway at the same time.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 19, 2014 at 8:47 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"A lot of the disputation from those who deny that Palo Alto has an air traffic noise problem is in the form of cherry picked data for a single flight or small sampling of flights"

So go ahead and find counter examples - I keep asking but no one is willing to post those.

Many of my posting ARE of flights over PA but I also like to look at the bigger picture - how else do you determine if " Palo Alto, along with EPA and a portion of East Menlo Park suffer disproportionately from SFO bound airport traffic".

You claim that PA is suffers disproportionately and then challenge others to disprove your claim - that is not the way it works - YOU made the claim so YOU should be able to prove it.


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 19, 2014 at 8:48 am

Hi Third World - there are certain times of the day which are very high traffic. Since SFO is taking out some runways from May to September for reconfiguration they are tying to re-distribute the flights so they have enough "concrete" - their term - to handle the traffic efficiently.
This is a very complicated process if you consider that many flights are code shared, and the airlines need to make sure they have equipment when and where it is needed to meet the schedules for other airports, as well as their own staff - pilots, crew, etc.
There are standard flights every day with the assumption that when a plane gets to SFO it is serviced and ready to turn around for departure to meet another scheduled flight.
SFO is complicated in that it is a hub vs an end destination. They need United to get a plane to SFO which then will allow the travelers to transition to a separate flight. If the travelers miss the second leg of the journey then United will have to make amends in some financial manner.
It is all a domino effect.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 19, 2014 at 8:55 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" I suspect that is exactly what posters who live in Atherton and other nearby cities are afraid of: they've had overhead jet traffic significantly reduced due to the actions of their politicians...and so are afraid of changes to the status quo."

As I have stated repeatedly - I live in Atherton and I already get most of the jet noise that you get in Palo Alto - fewer planes but the ones that do pass by are at a lower altitude and hence create more ground noise. BUT I accept this as part of the bargain I chose in living in a dynamic metropolitan area and being conveniently close to a superb international airport.
Most of the inbound Pacific traffic flies over Menlo Park and Atherton and only a small portion flies over Palo Alto. Most of Palo Alto's traffic comes from the south, has NOT been diverted from flying over Atherton, and actually leaves the island of Palo Alto and flies over Menlo Par, and close to my home, and the East Palo Alto.

You are NOT being comparatively disadvantaged - show us the data that PROVES you are.


Posted by Mary Anne, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 19, 2014 at 9:05 am

"You claim that PA is suffers disproportionately and then challenge others to disprove your claim - that is not the way it works - YOU made the claim so YOU should be able to prove it."

I don't challenge anyone to disprove my claim: I assert that the majority of sfo bound traffic crossing the Peninsula crosses over Palo Alto. You don't have to disprove this. Indeed doing so with the tools available to us here would be impossible because of the amount of data to be collected.

I have no doubt if I posted the data for one date, you'd claim that it wasn't representative of the entire data set. And you'd be right. And if you posted the data for one date, I could claim that you cherry picked data that's not representative of the entire data set. So we'd have a standoff war of claims - neither of which is subject to definitive proof.

But I don't think you can find a single date to support your claim - not a single one. And if you can't specify a single date when what I claim is not true, it's fair to assume the truth of my claim

So, I'm asking for a very limited counterexample to my claim: if, as you contend, the majority of inbound SFO traffic doesn't fly over Palo Alto, you should be able to point out one day - one single day, not an analysis of ALL the flights for all time- where Palo Alto has less than the majority of inbound flights crossing overhead.

If I'm wrong, I'm sorry...but until then, what's the date?


Posted by Mary Anne, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 19, 2014 at 9:09 am

I should add that I can point out myriad dates where what I assert is true, and what you say is untrue. My claim is true for yesterday, for the day before that, and the day before that.... And your claim is false for every single day for which the Flight Tracker has data. And that's why you won't and can't come up with a date.


Posted by thirdwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 19, 2014 at 9:10 am

Peter,

"I believe he is referring to the FAA's desire to AVOID bunching because bunching means less separation between aircraft and therefore greater risk of midair collisions. Also bunching overloads the runways which can only have ONE airplane on each runway at the same time."

I've heard of "corridors" being developed with new technology, can you explain that if the idea is to not have bunching?


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 19, 2014 at 9:11 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"I should add that I can point out myriad dates where what I assert is true"

Fine - GIVE US THE DATA!! All flights into SFO from all direction and what percentage cross Palo Alto vs other peninsula cities.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 19, 2014 at 9:16 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"I've heard of "corridors" being developed with new technology, can you explain that if the idea is to not have bunching?"

The current system uses a small number of discrete waypoints like MENLO and the planes must be routed via these waypoints - this results in a few crowded routes. The NextGen system eliminates using these waypoints and will allow each plane to fly its own route - for example a gently curved route to SFO vs the current series of straight segments and turns. Since each plane will be able to fly a different discrete route the probability that a number of planes will fly over exactly the same points prior to arriving at the airport will be lower.


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 19, 2014 at 9:19 am

Third worlder-
""since the sound penetrates into,palo alto, it does not mean it is over your home."
Then why do the 2-3 people that are complaining insist that the planes are over their homes?

Mary Anne-- show us the numbers. Period. Plain and simple.
Actually, take it with you when you, Catherine, Midtowner, Jetman and jet girl go to speak with the powers at SFO.


Posted by Mary Anne, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 19, 2014 at 9:19 am

I gave you the dates where what I say is true- April 15, April 16, April 17.... EVERY DAY. Surely you can come up with a single date where what you say is true. You come up with only the date - I'll give you the data to show you're wrong.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 19, 2014 at 9:23 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"I gave you the dates where what I say is true- April 15, April 16, April 17.... EVERY DAY."


Fine - GIVE US THE DATA!! All flights into SFO from all direction and what percentage cross Palo Alto vs other peninsula cities.


Posted by thirdwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 19, 2014 at 9:25 am


Maryanne, and Peter

I think you could both be right and wrong.

The only way to settle this is to have analysis data from all airports.

Each airport should report the total amount of traffic running through their airport, and report in percentage form what the location and allocation of their routes are at any one time.

They already have the flights, they have the paths, they know where the planes have been. They just need to turn the data into an analysis report.


Posted by thridwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 19, 2014 at 9:26 am

Peter,

Can you please post a summary or report about NextGen?


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 19, 2014 at 9:31 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"NextGen is the transformation of how airplanes traverse the sky. It affects all of us: from the pilots that fly the planes, the passengers who enjoy the flights and the controllers who ensure the safety.
The thousands of planes overhead right now are flying indirect routes over radar towers. For close to six decades we have used this World War II era technology to transit the skies. NextGen is an upgrade to satellite-based technology.
Piece by piece we are installing this new system. It is a consistent and persistent effort to bring airplanes and airports online with NextGen technology.
Satellite navigation will let pilots know the precise locations of other airplanes around them. That allows more planes in the sky while enhancing the safety of travel. Satellite landing procedures will let pilots arrive at airports more predictably and more efficiently. And once on the ground, satellite monitoring of airplanes leads to getting you to the gate faster."

Here is a good source:

Web Link

Web Link


Posted by Mary Anne, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 19, 2014 at 9:41 am

I'd be happy to give you the data. As I pointed out above, it would be impossible given the tools we have available to list all the data for all time. And if we each listed data for only a day or two that supported our claim, which is all that really is practicable, the other would claim correctly that it isn't necessarily representative. But if either side can't list a single day to support their claim, then it's pretty fair to assume that the claim isn't supportable in the aggregate.

I can list myriad days that support my claim and show the falsity of the contrary claim. (And if you think the data for any one of these days is otherwise, show me.) You can't list a single day that supports your claim.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 19, 2014 at 9:44 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"And if we each listed data for only a day or two that supported our claim, which is all that really is practicable, the other would claim correctly that it isn't necessarily representative."

IF you give us one full day of all flights into SFO from all directions and show what percentage cross Palo Alto vs other peninsula cities I will accept that.

Now - give us the data for the day of your choice.


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 19, 2014 at 12:18 pm

Win-Win - some of have already talked to the SFO and FAA powers to be on this topic at their workshops this week. I talked to the SFO Manager of Aircraft noise Abatement -have his card. I have talked to the consulting firm based in Santa Clara that is monitoring noise. They are very aware that EVERYONE is concerned as to where the flight paths are and the noise level. They are also aware that everyone is busy tracking altitude levels of descent.

Very nice group of people. Very professional group and easy to talk to. I even talked to the gentleman who will be updating the SFO TAC report - told him he needs to remove Bay Meadows Racetrack. He knows that and will be looking for new line of site items to note.

Third World is correct - they already know the data. they just need to know who is noticing it - testing the waters.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 19, 2014 at 12:21 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

High Noon today.

4 inbound to SFO
2 over Newark
1 (a 747) over Atherton, Menlo Park and East Palo Alto; never touches the island of Palo Alto
1 over Palo Alto, Menlo Park and East Palo Alto

Web Link


Posted by Way to go, boys, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 19, 2014 at 12:30 pm

I wonder if Mr Carpenter advises the Palo Alto Traffic/Planning staff.
Instead of trying to fix a real problem, they get the public into long detailed arguments about data. And more data. And we need a program to collect still more data.
In the meantime we dont have to do anything. Toss the ball to the public. Make them come to meetings, read reports and spend lots of time and energy.
I have more numbers than you do. Nya, nya.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 19, 2014 at 12:41 pm

Peter,

All the data you could every want is already in the FAA's OAPM report. You do need any other source of data. The FAA data is the "gold standard".

The FAA has already analyzed the data, and come to the conclusion that the actual path aircraft are flying has shifted to the south, and out from under the FAA's published routes (procedures). This actual flight path takes the aircraft over Ladera (and Palo Alto). The FAA now wants to change their published routes (procedures) to match the actual flight path.

Please use the "Gold Standard" FAA data to prove the FAA is wrong, and the flights have not shifted to the south.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 19, 2014 at 12:49 pm

Peter, the San Jose Tracker shows a very large number of planes flying over Palo Alto, through the Menlo Park Willows neighborhood, and the through East Palo Alto. It is so obvious that the big jet planes coming from Southern California are going over Palo Alto. You really can't deny that. I watch the tracker at different times of the day and the large jets are going over Palo Alto way more than some of its neighbors like Mountain View, Redwood City, etc...

If any of you have not used the San Jose International Airport tracker you should. The SFO tracker is not nearly as good.

Web Link


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 19, 2014 at 1:04 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" It is so obvious that the big jet planes coming from Southern California are going over Palo Alto. You really can't deny that. "

Catherine - I have always stated exactly that because these flights are being vectored via the MENLO waypoint (which is IN Menlo Park and therefore they fly OVER Menlo Park after flying over Palo Alto and before flying over East Palo Alto).

But what your small group is claiming is that Palo Alto get more SFO traffic than any other peninsula city - that simply is not true.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 19, 2014 at 1:10 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" The FAA data is the "gold standard".

And here is that data:

Web Link

and zoomed in on the island nation of Palo Alto:


Web Link

The only blue (higher DNL levels) census tracts are in San Mateo County.

That what the gold standard shows.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 19, 2014 at 1:38 pm

Tonight watch for the larger jets not just the smaller propeller planes. The jets are what rumble the sky for a long period of time and echo throughout Palo Alto. That is what Jetman was saying when he said the noise penetrated Palo Alto.

Peter - here is my log of last night. It was a doozy. Please check this out on the tracker using the historical button. The 2 planes crossing over my home at the same time and the 4 planes coming over the Los Altos/Stanford Hills was really bad. You can see after looking at this log on the tracker how much Palo Alto experiences plane traffic.

After watching the entire log I have, please tell me that you see all of those planes passing over Palo Alto. It's crazy! Start the historical replay at 20:36.

Plane noise 4/18

8:27pm plane flew over looping

8:30pm plane flew over looping

8:35 pm one looping one going towards Stanford

8:38 right overhead

8:44 small plane overhead

8:45 big plane overhead

8:50 loud plane overhead

8:51 loud plane overhead

8:54 looping overhead

9:02 loop over house

9:02 Helicopter

9:04 small plane

9:11 looping right over my home

9:14 large over my house * saw this on tracker at 9:23

9:17 big plane from Stanford

9:19 big plane from Stanford Higher Altitude than last plane

9:21 very loud low big plane over house

Beacon Plane over Atherton 2200 at 9:24pm on tracker

9:34 big plane over house

9:36 Stanford big plane over home

9:39 Stanford big plane over home

9:42 Stanford big plane over home

9:46 Stanford big plane over home

9:48 Stanford plane sounded different

10:28 another plane from Stanford right over my home
saw it on tracker at 10:40 shown as several blocks away but it was directly over my home.


Posted by thirdwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 19, 2014 at 1:41 pm

It was crazy last night.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 19, 2014 at 1:42 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Catherine,
Great report from the island nation of Palo Alto.

What about what you observed about MenloPark, East Palo Alto, Newark and Foster City?

You did watch these as well I assume since your complaint is that Palo Alto gets more inbound SFO traffic than do these other cities.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 19, 2014 at 1:43 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"saw it on tracker at 10:40 shown as several blocks away but it was directly over my home."

Where is your home - just the block and the street, not the address? I will check the flight track and see exactly how close the 10:28 plane was to your home.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 19, 2014 at 1:48 pm

Absolutely, these other cities as I have said before bare the brunt of it as well as Palo Alto. I zoomed out and watched all the cities and it is plain as day that some are much more burden by plane traffic than others. Watch the log and you will see why this thread was started in the first place. I do have a valid reason for noticing much more air traffic than before and at least I know my claims are not beyond reason.


Posted by thirdwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 19, 2014 at 1:48 pm

Peter,

Why are you kind of insulting with your repeated use of "island"

You are choosing to participate in a Palo Alto thread, maybe you could consider some diplomacy?


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 19, 2014 at 1:53 pm

The problem with the tracker is that it can show the planes blocks away from my home but I still see it in the sky above me and also hear it. I'm Downtown North which borders Menlo Park and can hear and see the planes north of Embarcadero. To put it into perspective Embarcadero is only about 7 blocks from Downtown North so even a plane going over any street north of Embarcadero would be visible to me. Sorry, but I don't want to give out my street or address. Just know that I'm located in Downtown North.


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 19, 2014 at 1:56 pm

Please consider joining the group of PA residents organizing against SFO noise. We are open to EPA residents as well. Contact us at:

Veroforyou @gmail.com


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 19, 2014 at 1:57 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"After watching the entire log I have, please tell me that you see all of those planes passing over Palo Alto. It's crazy! Start the historical replay at 20:36."

Just did that and looked at the next 30 min - more planes arrived SFO via Newark than via MENLO waypoint during that period. And some of the flights you 'heard' did not even fly over Palo Alto but rather only over Menlo Park and East Palo Alto.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 19, 2014 at 2:00 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Why are you kind of insulting with your repeated use of "island""

Because the Palo Alto posters refuse to post data regarding what is happening outside of the hearing range - that is what the sociologist describe as an insular perspective. If you find it insulting then perhaps you should look more carefully at the behavior which it describes.

Insular -: separated from other people or cultures : not knowing or interested in new or different ideas


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 19, 2014 at 2:09 pm

Peter please, you need to watch until my last plane log of 9:48. Only a half hour? Really? You haven't even hit the crazy stuff yet. I have a feeling you don't want to see that 22 planes flew over Palo Alto during an hour and 15 min. time period last night. We are getting way too many big jet planes compared to other neighboring cities and that's a fact.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 19, 2014 at 2:10 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Here is the 2228 flight last night - right on the standard path to MENLO waypoint and not over Downtown North.


Web Link

However, IF you are sensitized to airplane noise and IF you were listening for airplanes THEN you may well have heard this plane - as would I in Atherton.


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 19, 2014 at 2:12 pm

""After watching the entire log I have, please tell me that you see all of those planes passing over Palo Alto. It's crazy! Start the historical replay at 20:36."

Just did that and looked at the next 30 min - more planes arrived SFO via Newark than via MENLO waypoint during that period. And some of the flights you 'heard' did not even fly over Palo Alto but rather only over Menlo Park and East Palo Alto."

So basically Catherine is making all of this up. That is probably why she will not tell you what street she lives on. Sounds similar to midtowners claims of air traffic in midtown the other day, jetmans claims of his house shaking and constant planes over Stanford and jet girls,plane that almost crashed into the building at el camino and California.
Some person(s) enjoys playing games.


Posted by thirdwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 19, 2014 at 2:12 pm

Peter,

Pretty funny that you should mention "insular" perspective - isn't that what the SFO Roundtable is?

As far as data, you have none that proves that the noise is not a Palo Alto issue.

You have no reliable analysis data.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 19, 2014 at 2:14 pm

"more planes arrived SFO via Newark than via MENLO waypoint during that period. And some of the flights you 'heard' did not even fly over Palo Alto but rather only over Menlo Park and East Palo Alto."

Like I said in the post above the tracker may show a plane in Menlo Park, but if it borders Palo Alto, I can see it and hear it. There is definitely a large radius.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 19, 2014 at 2:16 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Ok - I watched all 90 min last night from 8:30 to 10 PM.

More plane arrived SFO via the bay and Newark than over Palo Alto.

4 planes arrived via Menlo Park and East Palo Alto and never touched Palo Alto.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 19, 2014 at 2:20 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Like I said in the post above the tracker may show a plane in Menlo Park, but if it borders Palo Alto, I can see it and hear it. There is definitely a large radius."

Catherine, I will gladly acknowledge that you have very good hearing and are personally very sensitive to airplane noise. However, sound (no pun intended) cannot be based on the perceptions of a small number of outliers. To do otherwise would mean banning all airplane flights within about 2 miles of your home - not going to happen.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 19, 2014 at 2:21 pm

"Here is the 2228 flight last night - right on the standard path to MENLO waypoint and not over Downtown North."

Peter, that plane was 6 blocks from my house and I did see it and hear it. The best part is that it did in fact fly over Palo Alto. So your claim that I did not experience it is false.

You simply can not tell me that all of those planes last night did not go over Palo Alto.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 19, 2014 at 2:23 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"As far as data, you have none that proves that the noise is not a Palo Alto issue."

I have always acknowledged that a very small number of people in Palo Alto are bothered by airplane noise. But that does not make it a "Palo Alto Issue" and it does not demonstrate in any way that Palo Alto is impacted more by airplane noise than are many of your more northerly neighbors.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 19, 2014 at 2:24 pm

Peter, you feel that people don't get your facts, but I feel you don't get the truth. Next step for me is to not only log but take a picture of each of the planes. I see and hear them all otherwise I would not log them. I don't log for sound alone. I only log for visually seeing them above my home and for the noise they create.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 19, 2014 at 2:24 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"So your claim that I did not experience it is false."

Please read what I posted:
"Here is the 2228 flight last night - right on the standard path to MENLO waypoint and not over Downtown North.


Web Link

However, IF you are sensitized to airplane noise and IF you were listening for airplanes THEN you may well have heard this plane - as would I in Atherton."


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 19, 2014 at 2:25 pm

"Peter, that plane was 6 blocks from my house and I did see it and hear it. The best part is that it did in fact fly over Palo Alto. So your claim that I did not experience it is false."
All these planes were after dark-- so what did you see, Catherine?


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 19, 2014 at 2:26 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Catherine, I will gladly acknowledge that you have very good hearing and are personally very sensitive to airplane noise. However, sound (no pun intended) public policy cannot be based on the perceptions of a small number of outliers. To do otherwise would mean banning all airplane flights within about 2 miles of your home - that is not going to happen.


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 19, 2014 at 2:27 pm

Just checked out the link to tht 2228 flight and I have to say you must have extraordinary eye site, Catherine


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 19, 2014 at 2:28 pm

Midtowner - does your group have a Facebook page?


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 19, 2014 at 2:34 pm

Win win - did you know that planes have lights on them? As they fly over the Los Altos/Stanford hills I can see the head lights of each and every one right after the other. Again, I'm in a high rise so I have a full sky view! I have a large radius of what I can see and hear.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 19, 2014 at 2:37 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" I'm in a high rise so I have a full sky view! I have a large radius of what I can see and hear."

That explains a lot about your concerns and complaints - thanks.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 19, 2014 at 2:39 pm

Win win - I think I asked you somewhere on this thread to tell me where you lived. Are you at Cubberley or Lucie Stern or what community center?


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 19, 2014 at 2:45 pm

Phew! Thank you Peter. It is real and not exaggerated and the fact that I live in a high rise I'm sure amplifies the problem. However, I have been here for over a decade and just started to notice about 9 months ago the increased plane noise. That is what my original post was addressing. It was out of curiosity. I have learned a lot of great stuff from this post. It's probably time to move on.


Maybe we will win an award from Palo Alto Online for the most commented on topic in the Town Square!


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 19, 2014 at 2:49 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"It's probably time to move on."

Catherine - I agree and this thread that you started now contains a lot of information for anyone who wishes to be better informed, provided they read the whole thread.

Thank you and good day.


Peter


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 19, 2014 at 2:53 pm

Catherine-- check the 2228 flight link and you will see the community center neighborhood. In fact, that flight was closer to me than it was to you. Of course if you stand outside all day, you will see planes- most people do not do that. Still Jo way you saw that 2228 flight.
The facts show that the majority of,planes do not fly over Palo Alto. For those of us that stay inside, the noise is not an issue.
And you may recall that peter posted links to,the complaint logs for SFO-- little to no complaints from Palo Alto. Conclusion - this mis not a serious problem. This is just some people having fun.

The things I remember in palo,alto thread has the most comments


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 19, 2014 at 3:07 pm

Thanks Peter! It's been enjoyable. See ya on the runway! (no pun intended)

Catherine


Posted by thiridwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 19, 2014 at 3:07 pm

Win win,

"For those of us that stay inside, the noise is not an issue."

You definitely win


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 19, 2014 at 6:21 pm

Union City resident reports oily soot coating her driveway and home siding.

An Almanac reader named Julie went to the April 17th FAA workshop and met a Union City resident with photographs of an oily substance coating her driveway and home siding:

"I met a Union City resident who showed me photos of the oil-based soot accumulated on her home driveway and house siding. She said that it was even difficult to get it off with a power washer since it adheres to surfaces"

See comment posted by Julie on Apr 18, 2014 at 12:51 pm Web Link

Unburned jet fuel droplets can penetrate the lungs and brain study reveals
News.com.au ~ May 13, 2011 Web Link


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 19, 2014 at 6:50 pm

Thank you all for the reference points to data - very interesting. Jetman mentioned Julie - Julie was not a big fan of Surf Air. I have to break up laughing.


Posted by thirdwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 19, 2014 at 6:57 pm

Jetman,

"An Almanac reader named Julie went to the April 17th FAA workshop and met a Union City resident with photographs of an oily substance coating her driveway and home siding:"

If her area is lower income, lower income neighborhoods are not supposed to be disproportionally disadvantaged. It appears though that the choice traffic is going through less advantaged neighborhoods.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 20, 2014 at 10:37 am

As bad as the jet noise over Palo Alto is... don't forget, it is going to get worse.

As the FAA continues to roll-out "NextGen", all aircraft will increasingly be concentrated over the nominal routes, and aircraft-to-aircraft spacing will decrease dramatically.

The image below illustrates the "NextGen" roll-out from conventional routes, to RNAV, to RPN. The required minimum aircraft-to-aircraft spacing for conventional navigation is 6 miles. The required minimum aircraft-to-aircraft spacing for RNAV is 1 mile. The required minimum aircraft-to-aircraft spacing for RNP is <1 mile.

The FAA calls this "increasing airspace efficiency", or "optimizing use of airspace". Why do they need to optimize the use of airspace?.. to make room for domestic surveillance drones.

NextGen roll-out illustrated: Web Link

The FAA's enormous drone problem
J. Mac McClellan ~ November 13, 2013
Web Link

Boeing buys Israeli company that equipped AT&T spy-room
Narus in Wikipedia: Web Link


Posted by Data, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 20, 2014 at 11:47 am

I think the problems are:

- certain neighborhoods in Palo Alto are getting disproportionate impact from planes, especially large commercial planes arriving to SFO, although the neighborhoods are 20 miles or so from SFO.

- the planes are slowing down over PA, and that makes them noisier.

- many planes are flying lower than they should be over PA.

- many planes are turning over PA. That extends the duration of the impact and also increases the noise they generate.

None of this is reflected in the models Peter considers to be the only source of legitimate data on the subject of plane impact on Palo Alto.


Posted by thirdwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 20, 2014 at 12:48 pm

Data and Jetman,

Agree with Data. If it's going to get worse, and there is no way to measure before-after, any suggestions?

Maybe Peter's suggestion about going directly to the carriers is more useful than the smokes and mirrors that the airports and the FAA seem to have so efficiently set up.

Peter, you really left the thread? You never answered how and what one is to ask the carriers.

The drones story is even crazier. Nobody knows they are up there, they don't have to report.

Can any techies get a drone up there to measure aircraft noise?


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 20, 2014 at 2:37 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"None of this is reflected in the models Peter considers to be the only source of legitimate data on the subject of plane impact on Palo Alto."

Wrong - Please read the entire thread before posting erroneous information. ALL of this is reflected in the FAA Ground Noise Analysis because it used 350 DAYS of ALL flights in the bay area and tree ACTUAL radar tracks:
"A total of 690,384 IFR-filed flights to/from the Study Airports were identified through an
examination of radar data obtained from the FAA's Performance Data Analysis and
Reporting System (PDARS). The PDARS database was queried for the 2011 calendar year
for all IFR-filed flights that operated at the Study Airports within the General Study Area.
During this 365-day period, 15 days of data were unusable due to radar equipment
anomalies, operational outages, or extreme weather events that made the data unreliable.
The 350 days of usable data span all seasons and runway usage configurations for the
Study Airports in the General Study Area. This data was used to develop the average
annual day (AAD) fleet mix, time of day (day and night), and runway use input for NIRS.
More detailed information related to the NIRS inputs for Existing Conditions is provided in
the NorCal OAPM Aircraft Noise Technical Report, available on the OAPM Project website."

Web Link

Web Link

":"4.3.1.1 Noise Modeling Methodology
To comply with NEPA requirements, the FAA has issued guidance on the assessment of
aircraft noise in FAA Order 1050.1E. This guidance requires that aircraft noise analysis use
the yearly Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) metric. The DNL metric is a single value
representing the aircraft sound level over a 24-hour period and includes all of the sound
energy generated within that period. The DNL metric includes a 10 decibel (dB) weighting
for noise events occurring between 10:00 P.M. and 6:59 A.M. (i.e., nighttime). This
weighting helps account for the greater level of annoyance caused by nighttime noise
events when ambient noise levels are lower. Accordingly, the metric essentially equates
one nighttime flight to 10 daytime flights."

"In addition to requiring the use of the DNL metric, FAA Order 1050.1E also requires that
aircraft noise be evaluated using one of three noise models: (1) the Integrated Noise Model
Environmental Assessment for Northern California Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex (INM), (2) the Heliport Noise Model (HNM), or (3) the Noise Integrated Routing System (NIRS). NIRS is typically used for flight track changes over large areas and at altitudes over 3,000 feet AGL. For this EA, the FAA uses NIRS, Version 7.0b to analyze noise associated with the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative."

"NIRS requires a variety of inputs, including local environmental data (e.g., temperature and
humidity), runway layout, number and type of aircraft operations, runway use, and flight
tracks. Accordingly, detailed information on aircraft operations for the Study Airports was
assembled for input into NIRS. This includes specific aircraft fleet mix information, including
aircraft type, arrival and departure times, and origin/destination airport."

That effort yielded the map of actual ground level DNLs that I have posted above many times. This is exhibit 4.2 labelled 2011 Baseline DNL Noise Exposure by Census Blocks in the referenced study.

"As discussed in Section 4.3.1.1, the NIRS model was used to compute DNL values for 2014
and 2019 Proposed Action and No Action Alternative conditions at three sets of data points
throughout the General Study Area:
1. 53,141 2010 Census block centroids;
2. 94,046 uniform grid points at 0.5-nautical mile (nm) intervals on a uniform grid
covering the General Study Area, which were also used to calculate DNL values
at potential Department of Transportation Act (DOT), Section 4(f) resources and
historic sites; and,
3. 12,215 unique points representing Section 4(f) resources too small to be
captured in the uniform grid, including 8,892 unique points representing National
Register listed historic sites."


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 20, 2014 at 2:42 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"How do you do this kind of work?"

You organize your facts and organize bright people and then you call up each of the carriers and ask to meet with them. They will not take you seriously if you do not have facts or significant membership supporting your concerns.


Posted by thridwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 20, 2014 at 3:08 pm

Peter,

"the map of actual ground level DNLs that I have posted above many times."

They are not "actual" noise levels, when only three actual radar tracks are used. Models are otherwise models, not actual or they would not be called models.

You still have not clarified what the carriers can do. I get that you need to ask, that you have to ask facts, and that you have to have enough people - to ask what?


Posted by thridwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 20, 2014 at 3:10 pm

Peter,

that you have to have facts,

what facts to ask what from carriers?


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 20, 2014 at 4:18 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

third - If you don't have facts to support that their is a disproportionate airplane noise problem then the carriers will, quite properly, simply ignore you.

Look at the Atherton and SurfAir report - Atherton had facts, mobilized the local influential leaders and had specific requests of SurfAir.

I suspect that the PA protestors will never have their facts or their people that well organized.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 20, 2014 at 4:20 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"They are not "actual" noise levels, when only three actual radar tracks are used. "

Read again - they used the radar tracks of 690,384 IFR-filed flights to/from the Study Airports.


Posted by thridwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 20, 2014 at 4:57 pm

Peter,

"it used 350 DAYS of ALL flights in the bay area and tree ACTUAL radar tracks:"

"they used the radar tracks of 690,384 IFR-filed flights to/from the Study Airports."

It appears that only 3 out of the 690,384 radar tracks were from the Bay Area, none in Palo Alto.

A model which uses only 3 readings in the Bay Area should be disqualified as a model for the Bay Area.

Do you have a list of where the 690,384 tracks are?


Posted by thirdwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 20, 2014 at 5:00 pm



In other words, a noise model which has little or no actual noise data for that area should not be considered an appropriate "model."

That's not even a model.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 20, 2014 at 5:04 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"It appears that only 3 out of the 690,384 radar tracks were from the Bay Area, none in Palo Alto. "

Sorry, you are not reading the methodology correctly; "A total of 690,384 IFR-filed flights to/from the Study Airports were identified through an
examination of radar data obtained from the FAA's Performance Data Analysis and
Reporting System (PDARS). The PDARS database was queried for the 2011 calendar year
for all IFR-filed flights that operated at the Study Airports within the General Study Area."

Where do you get "just 3 readings" from that statement?

PLEASE read the entire referenced report - I am very tire of doing other people homework for them.


Posted by mutual gratification society, a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 20, 2014 at 5:05 pm

"...they get the public into long detailed arguments about data. And more data. And we need a program to collect still more data."

Au contrare... the posters here shifted from noise to useless numerical data of flights and their locations.

Dumb.

I thought this was about noise. There is zero objective date about noise - just white noise like 'a loud plane flew over...'

When is someone measuring noise?


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 20, 2014 at 5:07 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

thirdworld - you are simply a denier - you won't read the reports that I post links to but you deny their conclusions - I can't help you.


Good bye.


Posted by thirdwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 20, 2014 at 5:12 pm

Peter

"Where do you get "just 3 readings" from that statement?"

I read tree to be three from your previous comments.

What is a "tree track"?

Anyway, of the 690,384 tracks used for the noise model, how may were in the Bay area? How many near Palo Alto?


Posted by thirdwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 20, 2014 at 5:16 pm

Peter,

It would help to understand what I'm supposedly denying.

The noise model you have been using to convince everyone that noise is not an issue, to me, does not appear to have sufficient data to conclude about noise in Palo Alto.



Posted by jetgirl, a resident of Stanford
on Apr 20, 2014 at 5:23 pm

Mutual gratification society.

Thanks for your valuable post.


Posted by musical, a resident of Palo Verde
on Apr 20, 2014 at 8:16 pm

>> "When is someone measuring noise?"

One person's noise is another person's signal. Here's a data point from a parking lot in Stanford Research Park near Foothill and Page Mill 50 minutes ago: 7:26pm, PAL104 747-400 from Manila came directly overhead indicating 3600 feet on FlightAware. Ambient noise level 47dB. Aircraft sound ramped it up to 71dB and down again over a full period of about 40 seconds. (Ambient noise is mostly nearby building ventilation blowers.)

In the 1/2-hour previous to that, saw a number of higher-altitude 737's peaking at various numbers from 51dB to 58dB. Got an A300 at 56dB and a CRJ at 49.5dB. I'll let someone else explain dB, actually dBA if you want to get technical.


Posted by musical, a resident of Palo Verde
on Apr 20, 2014 at 8:52 pm

ps: WebTrak playback shows that 747 at 4000-feet, at 7:24pm. My watch was 2 minutes fast.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 20, 2014 at 9:13 pm

Musical,

Thanks for taking the time to advance the observation of aircraft noise to the next level, and for sharing your data.

Could you please share with everyone the type of equipment you used? I am not questioning the quality of your equipment, just wondering how accessible/affordable it would be to others readers.

A few more trained (and equipped) observers sprinkled throughout the city, would be a good start to getting a quantitative handle on the noise question.


Posted by Data, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 20, 2014 at 10:31 pm

Peter -

As I understand the links you provided describing PDARS,
it's data mostly based on flight plans, not readings of any kind for Palo Alto.

For example, no report can be generated showing the deviations from flight plans over Palo Alto.

The models do not account for additional noise generated from slowing or turning planes.

Nor is there any attempt from this model to report the noise endured by those neighborhoods most directly impacted by the increased large commercial flights over them. Rather, there is a city-wide noise impact estimate based on flight plans.

Are you house-bound or mobile? If mobile, perhaps you would be willing to experience the noise that is being reported here first hand. That might give you an ability to interpret the data more properly, and help us do some good.


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 20, 2014 at 11:36 pm

Musical - I am very impressed by the data you gathered - good going.


Posted by musical, a resident of Palo Verde
on Apr 20, 2014 at 11:38 pm

@Jetman, I was hesitant to open this can of worms. My meter is an Extech model 407736, acquired years ago for my own amusement, current list price $280, somewhat less at Amazon. For about half that price, there's a Mastech/Sinometer MS7600 meter that gets good reviews and has similar capability. Cheaper meters like from Radio Shack get mixed reviews on durability and workmanship.

Note that official noise monitoring stations are orders of magnitude more complicated and expensive. An indication of the measurement complexities can be found in the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 36, Appendix A. (e.g. Web Link )

My field is more the measurement of light rather than sound -- but many of the same concepts appear, like spectral content, instrument bandpass, and human perception.


Posted by thirdwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2014 at 12:26 am

Musical,

"Note that official noise monitoring stations are orders of magnitude more complicated and expensive. An indication of the measurement complexities can be found in the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 36, Appendix A. (e.g. Web Link )"

Thank you for opening the can of worms.

The measurement complexities are apparently not because it's difficult to measure noise, just how the FAA calculates noise (zero in Palo Alto) based on the models they use, which may not even remotely reflect what is experienced in Palo Alto.



Posted by thirdwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2014 at 12:45 am

Peter,

"The PDARS database was queried for the 2011 calendar year"

this would be another complexity.

The amount of noise is likely correlated with economic activity and growth of SFO. 2011 is a very different time than now.

Wonderful, we have noise estimates from 2011 to tell us that there is no aircraft noise in Palo Alto.

What else do people have for sale?




Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 21, 2014 at 8:43 am

Hi Again, I guess we are back in discussion mode. Peter, I know that you are not going to be happy with the comments I'm going to make, but it is clear as day that Palo Alto is a hub bub for plane flights. I found a new feature on the San Jose Tracker under the "investigate" tab and then the "what" tab that shows red circles around all of the planes that are near my home. Even planes that are in Menlo Park that are near 2 miles from my home are seen and heard by me. On the tracker they don't have to be directly over your home on the map to be seen and heard. There is a large radius. I have been watching the tracker for many hours throughout the day and I'm flabbergasted by the amount of planes that fly over Palo Alto compared to some of our other neighboring cites. Palo Alto, Menlo Park Willows, East Palo Alto, and Newark are simply bombarded by plane after plane after plane!

Palo Alto residents, I urge you to watch the tracker and see for yourself. It is so disproportionate. It saddens me that we are taking the brunt and our city hasn't noticed. Here is the link and be sure to take the time to look and use all of the features.

Web Link



I completely agree with Data's comment below.


I think the problems are:

- certain neighborhoods in Palo Alto are getting disproportionate impact from planes, especially large commercial planes arriving to SFO, although the neighborhoods are 20 miles or so from SFO.

- the planes are slowing down over PA, and that makes them noisier.

- many planes are flying lower than they should be over PA.

- many planes are turning over PA. That extends the duration of the impact and also increases the noise they generate.

None of this is reflected in the models Peter considers to be the only source of legitimate data on the subject of plane impact on Palo Alto.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 21, 2014 at 8:46 am

Also when using the tracker click on the plane icon and then the house icon and it will tell you how many miles from your home the plane is. A big 747 is easily seen and heard from my home at the 2 mile mark. This is just what Jetman was trying to say. It the noise permeates well into the city.


Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 21, 2014 at 8:57 am

Also, in order to show the flights near your home with a red circle around them, under the "investigate" tab you need place the home symbol icon on the map first. Insert your home icon on the map and then investigate. NIght activity is very noticeable between the hours of 8pm and 10pm.


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 21, 2014 at 10:33 am

Catherine - Peter is not the arbiter or the enabler for whatever result you are trying to achieve here. We do not have a need to prove anything to Peter. He, and everyone else are not paid to be exercised on this matter. Concerned citizens have been very gracious to provide data and opinions - but it is only data and opinions.

On another thread in PA On-Line is the form for comments to the FAA / SFO.
The FAA / SFO have stepped up to the plate and want comments. Present your data to the FAA/ SFO on the comment form and submit it. It is the FAA / SFO that is the arbiter and enabler of this situation. You need to go one on one with them in one concise presentation.

Catherine - you started this thread so take action directly with the people who are in charge of it.
The name and phone number for the SFO Manager of Noise Abatement if E.R. Ganoung, Jr. 650-821-5100


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 21, 2014 at 11:14 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Peter is not the arbiter or the enabler for whatever result you are trying to achieve here."

Thank you Resident 1. I have NO desire to be either the arbiter or the enabler; my goal has always been to point people to factual sources, try to explain what the roles of various agencies are and to describe how people who feel impacted might present their case.

You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink, nor can you make someone read a document which contains the very material that they claim does not exist.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2014 at 11:45 am

With Catherine's recent discovery of the "investigate" capability in the WebTrak tool, and Musical's measurements this weekend, we have made some real progress toward understanding the noise problem. Thanks to Catherine and Musical! I would also like to thank everyone who has contributed constructive comments, and information, especially those who took time out of their busy lives to attend the recent FAA meetings, and share what they learned with the rest of the community.


Posted by Lol, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Apr 21, 2014 at 12:06 pm

I see the tone of the complaining has evolved-- before it was the city that was " disproportionally" impacted ( disproportionally to,what has yet to emerge). Now it is certain neighborhoods are " disproportionally" impacted. Catherine must have amazing vision-- she can see a plane miles away from her high rise. Is she in a penthouse that has 360 degree views?
BTW, jetman-- the fact that you could track older flights is not a discovery-- it has been known for a long time.
Seems like a very small group of people are keeping this thread alive with continue nonsensical, anecdotal postings, while ignoring the facts.


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 21, 2014 at 12:20 pm

Hey Peter - some people live in the sweet spot - some don't. Some see planes directly over their heads - some don't.

In response to lack of representation from Senator Yee - in the newspaper today Senator Mark Leno, D- San Francisco and Senator Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo wrote in to say who they represent. Senator Jerry Hill is sitting in the Town and Country Shopping Center - Palo Alto - but does not represent Palo Alto. Palo Alto is not in District 13.

Jerry Hill is not our go-to guy concerning airport noise - SFO - or anything to do with Palo Alto. But people have assigned him as to go-to guy for San Carlos Airport, Surf Air noise. That is a different topic.
My son cracked up when I told him about SURF AIR - what a play on words for 4/20.


Posted by thridwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2014 at 12:34 pm

Catherine, and anyone measuring noise,

Please keep a copy or photo of your current readings. This is the only way to have any comparison data. We have some folks here who date airplane noise back to the 50's, and seem to recall "it's all the same."

Maybe at least those of us who measure or take note, will have something better than memory to rely on.

Is it the clouds or the noise here that has made the airplane noise outside quieter today?

I did not wake up today to three airplanes in a row, and the usual 1 AM flight did not seem to happen last night.

Must be the weather. Starting to like the cloudy days.




Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 21, 2014 at 12:42 pm

For those of you who want to comment to the FAA and SFO there is a deadline on your submittals. The more individual comments the better - my opinion.
You all need to get your comments in if you want your concerns to be registered.


Posted by heart o' da matter, a resident of University South
on Apr 21, 2014 at 12:45 pm

what the heck does this even mean????

>> "...just how the FAA calculates noise (ZERO in Palo Alto) based on the models they use, which may not even remotely reflect what is experienced in Palo Alto."

How does 50db compare to other spots on the Peninsula?

What does a typical gardener create with a blower? The constant small planes buzzing us? Train whistles? Crossing gates?


Posted by thridwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2014 at 1:01 pm

Data,

Consider also sending your comments to the public input requested for the FAA Environmental Assesment.

per the website

"A Draft Environmental Assessment document for the Northern California Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex (NorCal OAPM) project was issued by the FAA and is available here for review. Public comments will be received up to April 24, 2014.

in case the links don't work the email to send comments is

7-ANM-NorCalOAPM@faa.gov

the website is oapenvironmental.com Web Link

OAP stands for "Optimizing the Airspace Above Our Cities"

heart o' da matter,

Noise also depends on frequency. You would not hear leaf blowers going on at night, or train whistles all weekend.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 21, 2014 at 1:12 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Please keep a copy or photo of your current readings. This is the only way to have any comparison data."

Comparison data, by definition, means have the same data for every other community that is impacted by airplane noise and then demonstrating that Palo Alto is disproportionately impacted. Just getting the numerator is meaningless.

I predict that it will be difficult to refute the FAA's data analysis of 690,384 IFR-filed flights to/from the Study Airports over a 360 day period.


Posted by thirdwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2014 at 1:13 pm

Data,

The noise "model" is in the Env. Assesment so any comments about what the model fails to measure should be important.


Posted by thirdwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2014 at 1:18 pm

Peter,

Comparison for our own perceptions compared to the FAA model.

The FAA's model (not actual data for Palo Alto) tells us there is no noise.

Actual data analysis versus estimated should be of some use.

But what interest do you have if we measure and keep data whether it's useful or not?


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 21, 2014 at 1:31 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"The FAA's model (not actual data for Palo Alto) tells us there is no noise."

Read the report and study the map - that is NOT what the report states. The map shows that all the Palo Alto census tracts experience between 45- 50 dB DNL - not zero.

You folks are starting to believe your own oft repeated falsehoods - very dangerous.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2014 at 1:36 pm

In an editorial to the Almanac, two residents of Portola Valley and Woodside are also questioning the FAA's noise model. They have good grounds for questioning the model since as recently as 2012 SFO monitored the noise in Portola Valley, and Woodside, with two of their mobile noise monitoring stations.

"Why do computer-modeled noise projections disagree so significantly with data from actual noise monitors?"

Editorial: Written comments only at aircraft noise workshop
Almanac ~ April 16, 2014 Web Link


Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 21, 2014 at 1:46 pm

If you look at the tracker from San Jose it shows where the noise monitors are and what they are recording. There are no noise monitors in PA - that was confirmed by the SFO manager of noise abatement. He does have portable units - call him - the number is above. He indicated that the FAA does not monitor noise - the airport does.


Posted by Lol, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Apr 21, 2014 at 1:48 pm

Thanks for that link , resident 1. That editorial seems to undercut the belief by a few people that palo alto is disproportionately affected by airplane noise in palo alto. Oh, wait, the dogma now is that only certain neighborhoods in palo,alto are affected. Either way, that editorial says just the opposite.


Posted by thirdwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2014 at 1:57 pm

Peter,

As resident 1 explains, the FAA does not have actual readings for Palo Alto.

When you say census tracts, that's just specifying a delineation, and when you say what the census tracts "experience" you are talking about the virtual experience generated by the models.

The models are clearly flawed in some or many ways if the actual "experience" is vastly different from the modeled experience.

The FAA should be required to explain the differences between their model and actual readings and not proceed to "optimize" airspace without a model that is more accurate.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 21, 2014 at 2:27 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"FAA Order 1050.1E also stipulates that changes in exposure of DNL 5 dB or greater in
areas exposed to aircraft noise between DNL 45 dB and 60 dB should be considered for
airspace actions, such as changes to air traffic routes. This threshold was established in
1990, following issuance of an FAA noise screening procedure to evaluate whether certain
airspace actions above 3,000 feet AGL might increase DNL levels by 5 dB or more. The
noise screening procedure was prepared as a result of FAA experience that indicates that
DNL increases 5 dB or more at cumulative levels well below DNL 65 dB could be disturbing
to people and become a source of public concern."

This 5 dB difference level of significance would mean that any difference between the model's results for the Palo Alto census tracts and actual observed noise levels would have to be greater than 5 dB before the FAA would consider it meaningful. A +5 db change is a big increase in sound levels and I would welcome anybody providing data to support that big a difference between the models employed and actual ground noise levels.

"
The models are clearly flawed in some or many ways if the actual "experience" is vastly different from the modeled experience."
These models have been used in a number of airspace analysis reports and I can find no record of their validity being successfully challenged.

Current OAPM Locations
Atlanta Metroplex
Charlotte Metroplex
Florida Metroplex
Houston Metroplex
Northern California Metroplex
North Texas Metroplex
Southern California Metroplex
Washington DC Metroplex


Posted by thirdwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2014 at 2:50 pm

Peter,

"I can find no record of their validity being successfully challenged."

From the Almanac editorial, it appears that the process for challenging the validity of the FAA model is not exactly simple.

Challenging the model may first take challenging the process by which one can get answers from the FAA about the differences between their model and reality.

Is there a documented response from the FAA that explains the differences?


Posted by Miss Direction, a resident of another community
on Apr 21, 2014 at 3:10 pm

Catherine started this thread on April 5, 2014, and wrote, "Over the past year I have noticed quite a change and it is really unpleasant."

Peter Carpenter's reference to a total of 690,384 flights from calendar year 2011 has nothing to do with the change that Catherine wrote about.





Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 21, 2014 at 3:31 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

This is why reading the entire report is necessary before making stupid statements:

"5.2.3 Potential Impacts – 2014 and 2019
As stated in Section 5.1, the Proposed Action, when compared with the No Action
Alternative, would not result in changes in aircraft noise exposure in 2014 or 2019 that
would exceed FAA's significance threshold. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not
result in significant compatible land use impacts."


I do believe that the period 2014-2019 covers the current year.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 21, 2014 at 3:33 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"The forecast was based on the FAA's 2012 Terminal Area Forecast (TAF),26 modified for 2014 and 2019 with additional details using previously identified arrival/departure times, aircraft types, and origin/destination information. For 2014, a total of 826,187 IFR operations (2,263 IFR operations for an average annual day) were modeled
for all Study Airports. For 2019, a total of 900,324 IFR operations (2,467 IFR operations for
an average annual day) were modeled for all Study Airports."


Posted by Complete MISdirection, a resident of East Palo Alto
on Apr 21, 2014 at 3:55 pm

talk about MISDIRECTION!!

"Catherine started this thread on April 5, 2014, and wrote, "Over the past year I have noticed quite a change and it is really unpleasant." "

SHE TALKED ABOUT NOISE, and thus far, very little actual noise data has been presented.

See: "Does anyone feel like they are hearing constant plane noise flying over their home? What is going on? The plane noise is louder and the plane frequency is rising. Over the past year I have noticed quite a change and it is really unpleasant."


Posted by thirdwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2014 at 4:21 pm

Peter,

"I do believe that the period 2014-2019 covers the current year."

Given that it's 2014, why use a forecast? The forecast for 2019 you would think would be updated.

For areas which have actual noise measuring devices, the FAA model is not reflecting the actual measured noise. It could be that the forecasts are wrong, something is clearly off.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 21, 2014 at 4:22 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

If the above protesting posters submit comments on the Environmental Assessment for Northern California Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex report which reflect the same lack of understanding as do their postings here then those comments will be quickly and properly discounted - and the FAA will have reason to be concerned about the ability of Palo Alto commenters to read and to think.


Posted by thirdwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2014 at 4:28 pm

Peter,

I think if we admit we lack understanding, that would be appropriate, and of interest to the FAA.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 21, 2014 at 4:33 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Given that it's 2014, why use a forecast?"

Well it may have something to do with the fact that we are only at the 111th day of a 365 day year - it is pretty hard to have data for 254 days that have not yet happened. Even in Palo Alto.

The data in 2011 was based on 690,384 flights and the 2014 forecast was for 826,187 flights which is a 20% increase over 2011 flight levels. And for 2019 it forecasted 900,324 flights which is a 30% increase over 2011 flight levels.

In neither case would the Proposed Action, when compared with the No Action Alternative, result in changes in aircraft noise exposure in 2014 or 2019 that would exceed FAA's significance threshold.

[Portion removed.]


Posted by thirdwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2014 at 4:37 pm

Peter,

from the website Web Link

"The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires federal agencies to disclose to decision makers and the interested public a clear, accurate description of potential environmental impacts of proposed federal actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions."

the "interested public" can expect clear, accurate descriptions of potential impacts.

It does not say only connoisseurs of the FAA model can comment.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 21, 2014 at 4:53 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

The Environmental Assessment for Northern California Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex does provide a clear, accurate description of potential environmental impacts of proposed federal actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions.

[Portion removed.]


Posted by thirdwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2014 at 4:53 pm

Peter,

To forecast 2019, you can use 365 days of data in 2013. I would take that any day over 2011 readings.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 21, 2014 at 5:00 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

This study began in 2011 and took 3 years to complete. To use 2013 dat the study would not have been completed until at least 2015.

Of course in Palo Alto we know even the impossible can be done overnight.


Posted by thirdwolder, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2014 at 5:07 pm

Peter,

The study probably means all the other estimates, but the actual readings are readings. Do they gather those readings manually?


Posted by Why?, a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 21, 2014 at 5:29 pm

Peter -

Why do you make so many posts on this thread?

Others posting here are trying to reduce negative impact on their quality of life and perhaps on their health. You are not helping them, but rather, seem to be trying to misdirect and discourage them in every way you can.

What are you trying to accomplish or communicate with so many posts here? What's it to you?


Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2014 at 6:02 pm

Why,

Please contact midtowner at email address: veroforyou at gmail.com. You will not be recontacted without you permission.

Thank you,

Jetman


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 21, 2014 at 6:09 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Why - I have providing almost all of the facts on this thread and have tried to give the protestors my best advice on how to develop their case. Unfortunately they have no interest in either the facts or in how to better present their case. Also I do have an interest in the truth - which many of the protestors want to ignore - so that is "what's it to me".

And your contribution to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion is?


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 21, 2014 at 6:14 pm

[Post removed.]


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 21, 2014 at 6:31 pm

I am an actual resident of Midtown, who has an issue with airplane noise in our community. Together with other posters on this thread, we have created a group to work together on this issue. We have met and we have attended the recent public meeting organized by the FAA. We are researching the issue and organizing.

We are e-mailing people only with relevant info directly related to SFO traffic noise. For example, we let our members know about the FAA meetings.

We are open to PA and EPA residents concerned about SFO noise.

We do not send e-mails not related to SFO noise issues. We do not give e-mail addresses to third parties. We do not sell the info. We do not send spam. Anyone who requests being removed from the list is immediately removed from it.

veroforyou@gmail.com


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 21, 2014 at 6:35 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 21, 2014 at 6:39 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" Do they gather those readings manually?"

This is a perfect example of my frustrations with the protestors - I have posted the methodology used 5 times and it is clearly explained in the report. The protestors refuse to read what has been posted and wouldn't think of actually reading the report which provides all the facts that they need - because it doesn't provide the answer they want which is that they are more impacted that any other community by airplane noise.


Posted by Win win, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 21, 2014 at 6:39 pm

[Post removed.]


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 21, 2014 at 7:01 pm

[Post removed.]


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 21, 2014 at 7:03 pm

[Post removed.]


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
on Apr 21, 2014 at 7:06 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Touring the Southern California “Ivies:” Pomona and Cal Tech
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 5 comments | 2,665 views

Chai Brisket
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 1,884 views

Sometimes "I'm Sorry" Doesn't Cut It
By Cheryl Bac | 4 comments | 1,050 views

Couples: Parallel Play or Interactive Play?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,019 views

SJSU Center for Steinbeck Studies to Honor Author Khaled Hosseini on Weds Sept 10
By Nick Taylor | 0 comments | 639 views