I heard a plane yesterday. Was that related to the soccer game?
Can't recall any others in the past few months.

Yes - to be sure, this problem gets discussed periodically.
Here on this forum I think this is the 3rd time it has come up to my recollection, with puzzled residents like yourself (an me) noticing a CHANGE -- an unpleasant one -- and then responses from a few vociferous defenders of airplanesin general who resent any commentary or perceived criticism(pilots, obviously -- whether private or commercial, hard to say) telling us to lay off and shut up. If you have double-paned windows then you sometimes don't notice it as much until you are outside and get puzzled by that noise.
I have to say I appreciate having airplaces, they are a great invention, and don't suggest returning to the stone ages (as pilot defenders have seemingly mocked me in past on this forum) though I personally distinguish a bit between commercial aircraft flying multiple persons vs. private aircraft with joy riders, who have the complete leisure to make choices to affect fewer vs. greater people. We live in modern times, we all get that.
Even so, there are times when one gets the definite sense we are being targeted as a low-level, noisy flyover (or perhaps, a particular noisy aircraft type -- like what -- is the giant overseas Airbus --A380?? -- coming in from Australia once per day over the Pacific and coming over us before turning up the bay?? Who knows??)
My personal theory - over quite a few yrs living here and in a neighboring community - is that they route lower altitude arrival patterns over people until they complain a lot. Another thing is air travel DOES change, flights change seasonally and according to mergers/acquisitions of airlines, the economy, ticket prices, and so on. When the complaints mount up sufficiently to have attracted a lot of attention, then they re-route a bit. I am not involved with aviation, so I am sure some private pilots will scornfully reprimand me, but this is my belief based on evidence and my experience.
So, I am with you - what is that ph # again (up at SFO, I seem to recall) to leave a message? Perhaps we can try to make a difference.
I do NOT like the idea that our extremely costly Palo Alto residences be lowered in value owing to the eyesore and noise of low-level noisy aircraft frequently flying over on the way to WHATEVER airport. There are options and other possible routes. Fly over highways, the garbarge dumps, open land, lower cost industrial areas.

Another issue is weather patterns (fog, wind, temperature). Weather can change flight routes, perhaps bringing airplanes closer to the shoreline instead of their normal routes over the bay. Also, wind direction can make the planes sound louder even when they are following their normal routes.

Supposedly, global warming is causing a long term trend of stronger north winds in the Bay Area, which means cooler, less humid air around here. I suppose that can make noise travel longer distances, too.

Planes above Palo Alto have been a problem since some time in the late 80s or 90s when San Mateo communities, not liking the airplane noise above their heads struck a deal with the airport to have (mostly landing) airplanes rerouted over Palo Alto. It does get really bad, especially in bad weather and especially in summer (more flights?).

I too think that airplanes are a great mode of transportation but I also feel that having bought a house far from SFO there is no reason we should get more of the airplanes and their noise over our heads than do people who knowingly bought in San Mateo county, closer to the airport. Yet, that's what we get.

Personally, I almost want to leave Palo Alto because of it, and I might do it after my kids are done with school here.

SFO is not the only problem. In south-east Palo Alto - Charleston Gardens we continually get helicopters flying low right over our heads, they come from Moffett Field. They are CHP and media copters.

When I flew into SJO from Reno we circled the entire field, flew over South PA and came into land from the north side. Not all planes are heading for SFO. Also, the GOOGLE fleet takes off and lands at Moffett right over south PA.

Yes, plane noise is much worse because we don't have the clout Atherton does when it comes to negotiating flight paths.

@ Too much noise

It seems that planes landing into SJC from the north must not be the usual pattern, although i'm sure it happens.

Google does not have a whole fleet of planes out of Moffett Field. I am aware of just a couple of them (I have not ties with Google). It's not that many flights. Major airports are more of an issue. In truth, I'd rather have Google at Moffett Field than have Moffett Field become a full fledged public airport... or worse cargo airport...

As to helicopters they can be annoying too. But it seems to me jet airplanes are more numerous and regular.

I have been saying this or years. it is bad enough, in fact I think too much during the day, but it is late at night when they really can get by with it because by the time people wake up to the sound it is fading away.

I think the do it because they save gas at low altitudes and there is no way to complain or monitor them.

I am up very late/early most nights and there are some nights when the whole house shakes.

What is the channel for sending complaints, I'd sign a petition or complain somewhere if I could.

Glad to know I'm not the only one noticing the noise. Here is a link to SFO noise abatement: Web Link

It includes a way to track flights and provides info on altitude, speed, airline and flight number (with 10 minute delay). It also provides a way to complain -- I submitted a complaint last night. when I looked on the tracking map, there were consistently 5-10 commercial flights lining up and going over Palo Alto -- at MIDNIGHT. I continued to check until about 1am -- still lots of flights. Although a few were departures, those flew north from the airport; those going over Palo Alto were all arrivals. It seems they could move a bit east and fly over the water rather than straight over the peninsula. Hopefully complaining will help.

Glad to know I'm not the only one noticing the noise. Here is a link to SFO noise abatement: Web Link

It includes a way to track flights and provides info on altitude, speed, airline and flight number (with 10 minute delay). It also provides a way to complain -- I submitted a complaint last night. when I looked on the tracking map, there were consistently 5-10 commercial flights lining up and going over Palo Alto -- at MIDNIGHT. I continued to check until about 1am -- still lots of flights. Although a few were departures, those flew north from the airport; those going over Palo Alto were all arrivals. It seems they could move a bit east and fly over the water rather than straight over the peninsula. Hopefully complaining will help.

This topic does re-occur in summer time, every year or so. I don't know if the noise is increasing or not; someone suggested at one point that it comes up because people are spending more time in their yards. In any case, it is interesting to see it come back again. The more things change, the more they stay the same!

Here are a few instances:

Jet Airplane Noise in Palo Alto July 2007
Web Link

SFO Airport Noise In Palo Alto Getting Worse Aug 2008
Web Link

Increase in air traffic? May 2009
Web Link

Point of clarification:
The A380 is the largest thing flying, but it is exceptionally quiet in my personal observation. Lufthansa is flying it. It arrives around lunchtime from Frankfurt. From the ground it pretty much looks like a 747 with "fatter" wings. During the winter, they swap it for a 747 I believe.

I definitely won't attack anyone for being concerned about this issue, but I think people don't always realize how complex landing hundreds of jets per day in changing weather and air traffic conditions is. You've got airspace for San Jose, Oakland and SFO all rather close together. Air tickets are already expensive enough, and think of how much you'd have to add if they had to spend extra fuel on "threading a needle" through unpopulated areas.

We all have "our things." So, I don't blame the original poster. My thing is off-leash dogs. I get irritated by that! Some people don't care about that. That's life.

@ Ronnie

What has me riled up is that years ago most of those SFO flights were passing above San Mateo county but they were rerouted above Santa Clara County (and off course Palo Alto) 20 years ago or so, after SFO and San Mateo COunty struck a deal for airplane noise abatement.

What fair about getting more here planes so that other communities get less? Especially communities where people settled knowing full well they would be closer to SFO than others, like us, are.

I'm a relative newcomer to the area, so I'm not familiar with this noise abatement deal with San Mateo.

I would say that many parts of SM County do get plenty of noise. I used to live in San Mateo right over by the Bridgepointe Center (Mimi's Cafe, Target, etc), and we got a lot of noise all day when the planes were on the 28L approach - and of course you'd have that pretty much from Redwood Shores on up through Foster City and all the way to the airport. On takeoff, many flights fly the runway heading northwest over San Bruno then Daly City.

Many flights vector over the Woodside VOR, then head to Palo Alto where they begin their "base turn" for 28 L/R. Due to how high and fast they are going they sometimes turn over different points. You do get noise from that, but they are going slower and using less power. Sometimes they are turning right over midtown, sometimes over north Palo Alto.

When its cloudy, especially during the winter, you will often see planes really low over Palo Alto - they are not SFO bound, they are actually flying to San Jose - they come in low under the clouds, head north past SJC, fly over palo alto, then make a big 180 degree turn (towards the bay) and head back south to line up with the SJC runway. That does make a lot of noise and its kind of scary. I was on a flight that did that once, and everyone onboard was really confused.

I grew up in the Chicago area, about 7 miles from ORD, and let me tell ya, that was way worse! The good news is that new planes are definitely a lot quieter than the older ones.

Keep fightin' the good fight!

@ Ronnie,

Since you are a newcome, I will repeat to you that around the early 90s there was an agreement between San Mateo County and SFO to reduce (and I never said eliminate) airplane noise from SFO inbound and departing jets over San Mateo County. If you don't believe me, here is an article mentioning it:

Web Link

Before the rerouting happened Palo Alto was much quieter although it did, at the time, get some military traffic (P3s) from Moffett Field, but only during the daytime.

Again, I think that it was an unfair deal. I know that personally, when I moved to Palo Alto from San Francisco in 1990, I had investigated airplane noise in the area because I am sensitive to it and did not want too much of it. One reason we had for moving to Palo Alto specifically was because we wanted to avoid airplane noise. Of course, after we moved the rerouting happened.

Let me add that choosing to live 7 miles from an airport (as you did in Chicago) is quite different from choosing to live some 20 miles from the airport. I did not choose to live 7 miles away from SFO.

The bottom line is I'll probably move away from Palo Alto (in large part because of airplanes) in two years, when my last child has graduated from high school. We will move even farther away from SFO and other major airports.

Good for you if airplane noise does not bother you. I does me. And at the end of the day, I will always feel there is no fairness involved when rerouting airplane noise from near the airport to further away from the airport.

@Don't like the noise -- checked your link and found it very interesting that Palo Alto was second only to Daly City in complaints about the noise. These data are airplane noise complaints to SFO from May 2011:

Brisbane: 78
Daly City: 315
Foster City: 5
Half Moon Bay: 1
Hillsborough: 2
Menlo Park: 2
Oakland: 5
Pacifica: 77
Palo Alto: 245
San Bruno: 5
San Francisco: 14
South San Francisco: 8
Total: 757

You guys realize that the problem we have with noise from late arrivals is because SFO often times gets reduced to one runway for arrivals when there's semi-low visibility, which, by the way, happens a lot.

SFO needs a new runway so there's enough separation between the 28R and 28L so they can use current technology to land even when SFO is socked in by fog. Unfortunately the NIMBYs and greenies here won't let that happen.

So, blame the folks who won't let a new runway be built for the late night noise. And if you're one of those folks who hindered SFO from getting a new runway when it was last considered in 2000, well, you got what you wanted.

@ Neighbor from Greenmeadow

I agree with you that those statistics are interesting. There is a problem with planes above Palo Alto when in one month the airport gets 245 noise complaints from this city, second only to Daly City in the whole area. It does illustrate the harm done here by the rerouting of jets that used to fly above San Mateo County.

Something ought to be done about this situation, whatever it takes.

I looked at the noise complaint dataset at www.flyquietsfo.com Web Link

The data looks a little different than described above. For all of 2012 (through May), there were 3877 complaints from 261 callers (that seems a little odd - there are some instances where 1 caller seems responsible for dozens of complaints). Palo Alto accounted for 208 complaints - about 5% of the total. They came from 7 callers (see what I mean?). In January, there were 147; that dropped to 9 in April and 0 in May.

Not sure what that all tells us, but I think the data bears some further examining before reaching conclusions.

I think that some of the loud noise that I am hearing is in and out of Moffett Field - yesterday afternoon something landed that was so big/loud that several car alarms in the neighborhood went off.

Towns in the direct path:
San Bruno: 5
Millbrae: 0?
Burlingame: 0?
San Mateo: 0?
Foster City: 5
Belmont: 0?
San Colas: 0?
RWC: 0?
Atherton: 0?
Menlo Park: 2

Town below "the turn" over MP -

Palo Alto: 245
What a joke.

I was walking along the shore in Foster City yesterday, just south of the bridge. Wow. You can almost reach up and touch the planes. Spent a night in San Mateo last week, windows open, and you can hear the roar when they go full power to take off. Loud enough that you can almost feel the low end of the roar go through you, many, many miles away from SFO.

PA noise? A bunch of whiners.

This problem has been around for a while. Unfortunately, we haven't been able to quantify it in ways that can demonstrate the problem. We have the technology to measure noise--yet we don't. (Meaning the City of Palo Alto does not perform these measurements.) We, as residents, don't get together, and fund a consulting house to measure this noise for us. It is not a difficult problem to do--all we have to do is put some dollars on the problem.

Given that the City government is out-of-control, it's not clear what will cause them to make these measurements. Maybe the City Council could force the issue--but these folks are only interested in furthering the goals of the special interests that got them elected.

Self-governance is a failure in this town. And we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Ronnie agrees with me: "they are not SFO bound, they are actually flying to San Jose - they come in low under the clouds, head north past SJC, fly over palo alto, then make a big 180 degree turn (towards the bay) and head back south to line up with the SJC runway"

I'm glad someone else agrees with me about planes coming over south Palo Alto and turning to land at SJ0 because I was in one of those planes.

They seems to line up over south Palo Alto along with planes that turn north to SFO. I can see them, some turn left, go up the Bay to SFO and some turn right and land at SJO over the south Bay.

So far as south Palo Alto is concerned we have a problem with two commercial airports with planes lining up in what looks like a joint landing pattern right over us, some turn left to SFO, some turn right to SJO.

just like they come in over menlo and turn north, yet no one whines much in other towns

call city hall

Perhaps they don't whine as much because they've had to put up with it so long that they've finally given up? Or, it was obvious when they moved in, so they bought with their eyes wide open? The aircraft noise factor has changed significantly in Palo Alto, most likely as a result of the agreement with San Mateo County -- lived here for years without noticing anything but the small planes buzzing overhead on their way to PA airport. As one person pointed out, the numbers don't always tell the whole story.

Buses make noise and trains make noise so just let's shut them all down. You want to travel somewhere then just walk - quietly of course.

It's after 2 in the morning and I just as just woken up by an airplane landing ( or taking off). WHY ARE THEY FLYING AT THIS HOUR OUT OF PALO ALTO AIRPORT ANYWAY?!!!!!!!!!

The thing is, many of these planes make a 120 or 180 degree turn over midtown. Essentially a U-turn. So they stay over midtown longer than most of the other areas they fly over.

Are planes louder when they turn? They are from inside.

Editor,

Two threads have now been locked down about airplane noise due to inappropriate comments from a few posters. If that is intended to silence the discussion (no pun intended), I hope you would consider reporting about the issues surrounding the complaints which are not just about the noise, but the models and methodology the FAA uses to assess environmental impacts (including noise).

The FAA has requested input from the public, and that should be news, not silenced.

To comment or learn about about the FAA's models, and the environmental assessments based on these models

go to the website is oapenvironmental.com Web Link

and email the FAA before April 24 (deadline for public input) at

7-ANM-NorCalOAPM@faa.gov


In case someone wants to make specific noise complaints to SFO, these are the numbers.

How do I File a Noise Complaint?

Noise Complaint Hotline: 650.821.4736

Toll Free Noise Complaint Hotline: 877.206.8290

Noise Complaint Email: sfo.noise@flysfo.com
- See more at: Web Link

Thank you all for the information on this thread. I have been on the other thread and this is the first time that I saw that San Jose and SFO are both coming in over South PA. So it is a double up on us. I am confused as to a third group that sometimes passes east to west - I think it is Oakland going to Hawaii and can't go more north because of the heavy air traffic is the upper SFO area. Now that is one that can startle you - you are watching planes overhead that are traveling west to east with a "presumed" turn north but then you have a east going west in the same space. I actually emailed SFO last year on that one.

It would be possible to program the aircraft to land themselves in a power-off
glide from cruising altitude. The space shuttle glided in for a power-off landing from orbit, airliners could easily do the same. It would also save fuel and lower the cost of air travel.

Looks like the Palo Alto noise "problem" has been solved. Here is the complaint data for May 2011:





And here it is for March 2014:
Web Link


Success.

Peter proves that Palo Alto ain't no Brisbane!

Where are the actual noise measurements, in order to show the world how aggrieved Palo Altans are?

[Post removed.]

Peter,

Your data is very similar to the FAA model which arrives at conclusions, without actual noise measurement in Palo Alto.

The fact that I didn't call to complain in March, or for that matter in all of 2014 doesn't mean that I do not think noise traffic is increasing.

I really like the information provided on this stream. Note above 07.03.12
the noise complaints registered at SFO. Palo Alto - 245 and Daly City - 315 top the list for a total of 560 out of 757; 05/2011 through 05/2012.
That is good information.

Note that SFO does not have any noise monitors located in Palo Alto - that is in accordance with the SFO Noise Abatement Office.

The deadline for submittal of information to the FAA / SFO is coming up - check the other stream on this topic data. This is your opportunity to submit your concerns in a clear, concise manner. I am sure they are not expecting people to be rocket men but you should demonstrate that you understand the data the airport has put on their website.

SFO / FAA understands that the individual at a home computer does not have access to the same information that SFO / FAA has on their computers. They already know where the planes are, where they have been, and the problem of where they plan for them to be in the future.

"I really like the information provided on this stream. Note above 07.03.12
the noise complaints registered at SFO. Palo Alto - 245 and Daly City - 315 top the list for a total of 560 out of 757; 05/2011 through 05/2012.
That is good information."

Yep, and in March 2014 Palo Alto had only 2 complaints out of 929 - very impressive progress. This is even better information. Well done SFO !!

"They (the FAA) already know where the planes are, where they have been, and the problem of where they plan for them to be in the future.

Yep, and here is that data:

Web Link

And here is the full report:

Web Link

These ground level noise patterns are based on
""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"

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.

Peter,

You always forget to mention that the FAA data is mostly forecast, and estimates based on zero actual noise data in Palo Alto, and it leaves out a variety of noise measures.

Your data and the FAA's noise data is the equivalent of using estimated average blood pressure of patients in Modesto to prescribe optimizations for people with diabetes living in San Jose. Yes, it's all California, but that's about it.

By the way, where in the report is the detail explanation for projected percentage increase of flights per airports?

Also, does the FAA base their traffic (noise) optimization plans on complaint calls to specific airports?

"Also, does the FAA base their traffic (noise) optimization plans on complaint calls to specific airports? "

No because complaint calls have very little relationship tom actual ground noise levels but instead are linked primarily to highly noise sensitive individuals - like the 10 individuals who generate 817 noise complaints in Brisbane last month.

"You always forget to mention that the FAA data is mostly forecast"

PLEASE read what I have posted from the OPMA report - better yet read the whole report so that it does not have to be spoon fed to you page by page. The data use was from 690,384 IFR-filed flights to/from the Study Airports for the 2011 calendar year for all IFR-filed flights that operated at the Study Airports within the General Study Area.

That is hard data, not forecasts.

"where in the report is the detail explanation for projected percentage increase of flights per airports? " Please read the report yourself.

Peter,

" Please read the report yourself."

Thank you Peter, I agree that everyone should look at the report. The Noise Technical Report can be found at Web Link

The FAA has requested input from the public on their report.

go to the website is oapenvironmental.com Web Link

and email the FAA before April 24 (deadline for public input) at

7-ANM-NorCalOAPM@faa.gov

Since the complaints in 2012 resulted in a substantial increase in airplane noise over Palo Alto, the smart Palo Altans decided to stop complaining this year because we don't want another increase in noise next year.

"That is hard data, not forecasts."

It's hard data about flight plans filed.

Not about where the planes went, or the noise generated, or noise heard on the ground, or measured on the ground.

That's all modeled.

Your statement that this is hard data, is true, but it's only the input to a model. It's misleading to claim these are hard facts in the context of a discussion about facts regarding noise in Palo Alto resulting from planes flying overhead.

"I heard noise at 8:02" is a fact. "The model says there was no noise" is a fact.

"There is no significant or disproportional airplane noise" is an opinion.

Some people think if you state an opinion often enough it will become a fact.

"It's hard data about flight plans filed.

Not about where the planes went,"

PLEASE read the report and study the methodology sections.

It used flight plans 690,384 IFR-filed flight plans.

It then took the ACTUAL radar tracks for those flights.

It used the known noise generating characteristics of each of those specific aircraft to generate the ground noise profile at each point in the planes flight track.

Those are all facts, not my opinion.

""The model says there was no noise" is a NOT a fact but rather is an oft repeated lie.

Peter,

Again you are stating facts about other places - not Palo Alto.

"Again you are stating facts about other places - not Palo Alto."

Read the report and study the map. The map shows that all the Palo Alto census tracts experience between 45- 50 dB DNL - not zero.

Web Link

You folks are starting to believe your own oft repeated falsehoods - very dangerous. If you actually did your homework you would not be making these false statements.

Oh BTW, he map shows that all the Palo Alto census tracts experience between 45- 50 dB DNL - not zero but significantly lower than many of the communities to the north of Palo Alto.

[Portion removed.]

Peter,

Census tracks are not actual noise measurements.

There is no actual noise data for Palo Alto.

"Census tracks are not actual noise measurements. "

Census TRACTS are geographical places on the ground - perhaps you should start with the dictionary rather that the forum or the report.

"There is no actual noise data for Palo Alto. "

Only if you fail to understand the methodology. Do you believe that there is no sunrise and sunset data for Palo Alto just because it is not measured on the ground in Palo Alto?

These comments are why I refer to the Palo Alto protestors/deniers as living on their own self created island - which upsets them and the editors.

Note - The editors allow people to post stupid statements but then do not allow anyone to point out that those statements are stupid. Evidently Palo Alto PC trumps truth.


[Portion removed.] is the clue to such stupid censorship.