Palo Alto residents be warned... coming soon to an airport near you!

It is madness in the skies above Palo Alto from all the regional airports (Surf Air flights do transit above Palo Alto). The biggest offender remains SFO, but they all add to the pain. This is not sustainable. When will there be a reduction in this madness?

The growth of these private airlines will get bigger. Yesterday on the new. "Airline customers complain about crowded skies, delayed flights and etc" so with some new earned wealth why fly commerical.

Palo Alto is about to become a town in which holding a normal conversation would be possible only in a sound proof basement.

@Madness:

It must be pointed out that SFO (a.k.a. Mills Field) was built in 1929, well before the SF Peninsula was heavily populated.

This is the same genre of comment as people saying that "Caltrain cut our communities in half." The truth is that the Southern Pacific tracks have been there for 150+ years and the towns along the Peninsula grew up on both sides of the tracks (not at equal rates) because of this.

Yes, we acknowledge your concern about the current airports' activities, but let's face it. The property you are living on wasn't in existence when places like SFO or the SP right-of-way were built.

@Jay Park

When I bought my house, I carefully considered airports. Palo Alto is 15 to 20 miles away from SFO. At this distance, we should not be getting the many, low-flying, SFO-bound jetliners that we get over Palo Alto. As a matter of fact, we did not get them when I bought my house. They came later. So, the argument that Palo Alto is close to SFO and SFO predated most Palo Alto housing, and thus we have no right to complain about SFO, is not valid.

Hate this news enough to act on your own behalf? Call San Carlos Airport (573-2666) to protest the increasing number of planes from there, that are flying over us rather than over the bay--just to get somewhere 2 minutes faster. The residents of San Carlos and Atherton are very organized and vocal about planes over their homes. We need to scream or the turbo jets will keep tearing up the skies over our homes.

Also, to be honest, most low, loud, prop planes are from PA Airport. The City is trying to boost business out there to make that money-sink break even; six flight schools/clubs offering lessons and cheap introductions to flying. Oh, and a couple helicopter training schools. Feel safer, now?

Call their noise complaint line, 329-2405, when you are bothered. Noise abatement procedures ask pilots to remain above 1500 ft over PA, west of 101, but that is NOT a rule--only a rarely followed recommendation. If planes are really low, (<1000 ft) call the FAA Flight Standards District office, (408) 291-7681 and tell them what you witnessed at what time. They have investigators who look into these things and enforce whatever flight rules were broken. (Maybe.) Direction of travel helps. A photo or flight tracker screen shot really helps. For trackers, try the San Jose Web Trak5--easy to use on a desk top: Web Link

We need to write the Palo Alto City Council and ask them what they are doing to protect us from increasing small planes from Palo Alto Airport or San Carlos. The booming economy means a bunch more people choosing to fly themselves about, because they are ENTITLED. Those on the ground are SO behind the times.... and missing out on the joy of elitist travel. We just get the fumes and noise.

Great- more flights more noise.

Anyone else notice more helicopters flying in and out of Palo Alto airport. Apparently you can now take lessons. So every weekend helicopters do circles over palo alto practicing take-off and landings

Web Link

The city has a noise complaint hotline and email address. But it's fairly worthless as the city can't enforce any violations of the voluntary noise abatements.

Why did the city of Palo Alto choose to take over operations of an airport they have no control over the pilots who use it. This is especially irksome given the recreational use on weekends. Pilots enjoying a Sunday fly at the expense of us on the ground. Perhaps a question for our city council.

Groundling

Funny our posts happened the same time. Couldn't agree with you more.

I haven't noticed noise from the smaller Surf Air planes, whereas the bigger SFO jets rattle our windows regularly.

Helicopters are EVIL. Whop, whop, whop. Even on Easter Morning. Write to your council members. Bitching here has absolutely no effect. Write to your council members, every time you hear them!!! Whop, Whop, WHOP. Eventually they might hear the message. Whop, whop, whop.

Cut and paste this into you email address: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Admittedly, I'm in South Palo Alto, but t I rarely hear aircraft at all. Certainly not enought to be up in arms about?

Good for Surf Air. I'm glad to see them doing well.

And I don't mind the planes overhead.

This is great news for the area. Means the economy is sound. Everyone will benefit from this. As usual, the 3-4 usual suspects, who feel that the world revolves around palo alto and that noise should be banned from Palo Alto, are busy making their hysterical complaints about imaginary noise

@Great news: perhaps the noise is "imaginary" in your neighborhood; it is not in mine.

@ Jay Park, I have resided here for more than 10 years and it is only in the past several years that we have faced an outrageous increase in major jet aircraft noise overhead here in North Palo Alto. While the patterns and noise levels vary week to week, there is NO question there has been a re-routing overhead of us and why should we have to take this quantity of the incoming flights? Clearly, someone has pushed it onto us.

@Jay Park. How many planes were flying in to sfo in 1929? I'm sure the complaints will stop if the traffic is reduced to 1929 levels.

Using your logic we should just accept everything. Governments have always been corrupt. Racism has always existed. Men have always been paid more than women. Etc...

Do you honestly believe that if we disagree with something we should just take it? If they decide to turn your street into a freeway, will you accept that w/o a fight? Cars have always driven down your street, after all.

Who were the officials that approved the use of San Carlos for a major commuter airline? They should be fired/recalled/sued.

Palo Altans need to get ahead of Surf Air attempting to use the PA Airport. Close the PA Airport.

Retiree,

When the city of San Carlos accepted FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP) money, they entered into a contract with the FAA which essentially gave control of the airport to the FAA for 20+ years, and that contract with the FAA says the airport cannot restrict ANY aircraft operator from using the airport.

The Palo Alto City Council entered into a similar AIP contract with the FAA in the forth quarter of 2014, so Surfair can start operating out of Palo Alto Airport any time they please.

@Jay Park - It should be fair that only people who used the airports before the peninsula was heavily populated should be able use them. Newcomers shouldn't be allowed to use them.

My house was built in 1921. Four generations of the same family have used it. So does that mean if I don't want the airport noise it has to stop.

@Jeff Keller

Sure, just as long as when you sell it you only ask for 1921 prices.

Don't worry. Some of the flights are just by Palo Alto's favorite realtor, DeLeon Realty providing his clients a better view of your houses and yards so they can make the most lucrative offers (for themselves).

Just try to enjoy it and say hi to your future friends and neighbors! I saw DeLeon's ad promoting this service in the printed version of the Palo Alto Weekly about half a year ago I think. I guess nothing beats living in a place with some of the nation's highest property values! That's the whole point of it isn't it?

Retiree,

"Who were the officials that approved the use of San Carlos for a major commuter airline? They should be fired/recalled/sued."

I heard that Surf Air is considered GA because they work with that club system.

I agree that once it becomes a commuter line, it's different.

"once it becomes a commuter line, it's different. " Not true.

San Carlos is an officially designated reliever airport and a long time and continuing recipient of FAA Airport Improvement Grants which OBLIGATE them to permit airplane operations on a nondiscriminatory basis. Therefore San Carlos cannot prohibit Surf Air or anybody else from operating for-profit flights.

Here is the Grant Assurance language:
"22. Economic Nondiscrimination.
a. It will make the airport available as an airport for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical activities, including commercial aeronautical activities offering services to the public at the airport."

It's hard to hear Atherton complain about a few more Surf Air planes flying over their homes, when here in Palo Alto we have taken the burden of SFO arrivals. A few more Surf Air planes is not even comparable to what we endure here in Palo Alto on a daily basis from SFO.

FWIW, I love the fact that we have so many planes flying overhead. As musician Seal once said, "In a world full of people, only some want to fly; isn't that crazy?!?!"

P.S. - my son got his pilot's license at PA airport, and I'm grateful we live in a city that has its own airport.

I vaguely recall that Paly offered instruction to pass the Private Pilot written exam back in the early 70's. Does anyone remember that? I was at Cubberley. At Wilbur my ninth grade science teacher was a pilot and she taught a few of us after school about navigation, weather, aviation charts and pre-flight planning. Plenty of useful real-world math and science applications there. Many kids really light up at the prospect of a ride in a small plane. Parents on the other hand would be aghast these days.

Jay Park lives in Mountain View. Note Moffett Field - Fed-Ex wanted to use that field for their service center but the city voted that down as it would create excessive noise from continual planes. It was also voted down to use that field as a small plane airfield. Now that Google now leases that airfield maybe Surf Air can move some of their activities down to that airfield. Maybe it is their time at Moffett Field - then Jay Park can revel in the developments in his area.

The San Jose Airport due to bad weather uses the reverse landing pattern - coming down HWY 85 and rotating in Southern PA and Mountain View in the approach to the airport.

I don't get Rick where he lives and does not hear anything - planes are going directly over my head to make their transition north for the SFO approach in that area. I think it may be the type house you are in - maybe new so that it is using more modern building materials vs an Eichler.

I am a great fan of Stuart Woods books - latest is Hot Pursuit. All about flying, airports, and politics. Note that the smaller airports like San Carlos have no passport control or security related to passengers - only to the airfield itself. A lot of questionable traffic goes through the smaller airports - both people and "stuff" that they are carrying - no gun controls.
Since Surf Air is a "private plane" that is selling their services on a subscription basis then they are transitioning through the smaller airports with no accountability.

For those of you alarmed at the increasing noise over our city I urge you to write our city council and ask what their vision is for the palo alto airport (PAO). Let's not get blind-sided someday by Surf Air or other small airline using PAO. Ask how we manage PAO? Who manages it? What is the oversight of their operations? Who looks out for the 99% of Palo Altans who don't use the airport and get ZERO benefit. And lastly what does it cost to run this airport? Are the citizens of Palo Alto coming out of pocket so a few hundred people can enjoy their private aircraft?

Note on PAO - under management of the County the expenses were identified specific to the individual airports but the profit and incoming funding was put is the general fund so that all of the small, regional airports showed up as losses. That type of government accountability is evident throughout many government functions - incoming money is often reallocated with no accountability as to source.
Now that the PAO is owned by Palo Alto both the income and loss need to be isolated so that the airport as a city asset is reported as a "profit center".

You will note that the city web page does not have a specific category for the airport but that is being rectified.

[Portion removed.] Surf Air's 31 flights a week are almost 5 flights a day. The horror!

@ Resident1

Please, do not advocate for Surf Air to move to Moffett. That would make the noise situation much worse for Palo Alto because the planes would be over Palo Alto just after take off, much in the same way as we once had the P3s. This would be MUCH worse than what we have now.

@ Eric,

It would not be 5 Surf Air flights a day above us, it would be five EXTRA such flights a day. But you are right. Our biggest problem is the 200+ SFO bound flights we get every day. Plus of course SJC traffic (extremely bad in stormy weather), and PAO traffic. It is non stop above our heads.

Madness correctly points out that this is a zero sum game and moving flights from one place to the next simply move the attendant noise from one place to the next.

Be carefully what you wish for.

I live in a Brown and Kaufman - near enough to an Eichler for sound purposes. I just walked outdoors to see what I could see. There was a Robinson R44 helicopter fairly overhead. According to the flightradar24.com website it was at 900 ft. doing 50 kts. Sure, I could hear it outdoors, but barely and not for long. There is a China Southern 787-8 about a mile away at 4,000 ft. - also barely audible. Now there is a SouthWest 737-7 almost directly overhead at 5,000 ft. Can hear it outside, but not in. Now an AA 737-8 also overhead at 4,000. Now SWA 737-300 overhead @ 5,000. All this within 30 minutes. Now that -is- a lot of aircraft, but if I wasn't responding to this thread and consciously seeking them out they wouldn't register at all. On the other hand, I used to work directly under the flightpath for SJC, close enough the jets were 1,500 ft or less overhead. When they were departing flights you couldn't hold a conversation outdoors for the 30 seconds they were directly overhead. Peak departures were every few minutes or so. Perhaps it is all relative. . .

@ Eric

it all adds up. You obviously don't live near PAO and enjoy the pleasure of 100+ takeoffs per day on the weekends. Most of which are recreational pilots, many of them learning to fly. Oh and throw in a few helicopter lessons to add to the enjoyment

On a related note... if you (all) get a chance, watch the aviation documentary One Six Right, about the Van Nuys Airport. It's a compelling look at small airports and at general aviation.

Web Link

The film's official synopsis:

One Six Right considers local airports through the life, history and struggle of Southern California's Van Nuys Airport. Through aerial sequences and stories told by pilots, air traffic controllers, historians and flight enthusiasts, including well-known faces such as Sydney Pollack, Lorenzo Lamas, Paul Moyer, Hal Fishman, Desiree Horton and many others. The film uncovers the history of the airport where Amelia Earhart broke a world speed record over its runways, and where Marilyn Monroe was discovered while working in its hangars; scenes from Casablanca were filmed on the grounds.

A historical perspective of airplanes from the 1920s to the business jets of today frames appreciation for the significance of all general aviation airports as a critical component of the communities they serve. Located in the heart of the San Fernando Valley, VNY is today the world's busiest general aviation airport and contributes over $1 billion each year to the southern California economy.

One Six Right explores common misconceptions about general aviation airports, which are often criticized for noise pollution and viewed as exclusive playgrounds for the rich. The film creates an awareness of the threat to these community airports through staggering statistics of airports that no longer exist, and the rapid rate at which they are continuing to close: one per week in the U.S. These smaller and often forgotten airports are the foundation of the aviation industry, contributing to global commerce and the breeding ground of the pilots of tomorrow.

@Don

although i'm sure you didn't intend it thanks for giving us optimism - hopefully PAO is next!

No, TKO, Buena Vista is next.

I'm not against airports or travel, obviously it's a big part of everyone's lives. But the noise is a big problem and apparently not taken seriously.

The rule posted by Peter Carpenter, it has some interesting language "unjust discrimination" - that's pretty strong language to protect economic interests.

22. Economic Nondiscrimination.
a. It will make the airport available as an airport for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical activities, including commercial aeronautical activities offering services to the public at the airport."

Don:
>> The film creates an awareness of the threat to these community airports through staggering statistics of airports that no longer exist, and the rapid rate at which they are continuing to close: one per week in the U.S.

Awesome ... may Palo Alto Airport be next, or soon. Listen to the way you load that story of the airport, a struggle with lots of celebrities, and they're dying at an alarming rate ... oh, dear! There is "significance" to the airports from the communities they serve. I doubt most Palo Altans have ever had anything to do with the airport, and the benefit is to companies that have no loyalty to Palo Alto at all except the location is nice and they need office space and will do anything to get it.

The bottom line is that while private airplane travel used to be small enough and distributed enough to not cause much of a problem for everyone else, now everyone can afford a plane, and populations are concentrated.

To want a private aircraft you have to also want to be close to it, like a boat, so you force everyone else to breath your "LEADED" exhaust and have their ears filled with all the noise, as well as take the risk of power lines being knocked down or people and property on the ground being destroyed ... with long legal battles to be compensated even when we all know blame is clear.

But because the class of people with private airplanes are as a group powerful enough to shove this onto the general population everyone else has to suffer through something that in its current form should be obsolete simply because people would not use their airplanes and that sector of the economy would suffer if they had to relocate outside the local residential areas.

There is a reason those airports are going away, they are a big irritant to most people, and not that much of a benefit. Sure, bigshot CEOs can do business globally now, and they could just as well before. Just like regular people have meetings and meet on the phone or online so can these CEOs ... this is an ego trip ... whose plane is bigger and more powerful.

Great, just put it far enough away so the rest of us to not have to have it ruin our cities!

>> common MISCONCEPTIONS about general aviation airports, which are often criticized for noise pollution and viewed as exclusive playgrounds for the rich.

Private jet owners have an average annual income of $9.2 million and a net worth of $89.3 million. They are 57 years old. And 70 percent of them are men.

For even a small propellor plane there are numbers on the internet of costs, probably much more around here ... here is an example:

$42,000 - airplane
$ 2400, insurance for 2 years
$ 5000 2 annuals
$ 1000 - tie down and unexpected repairs [1 voltage regulator and vac opump]
$ 500 - oil changes -

Close to $50K ... I think most of us would call that affluent, and those who would not do not know what affluent means, and that is incomplete since it does not include rent or storage or whatever it is called ... "berthage"?

I think the history of these general aviation airports is interesting in terms of the evolution of our national aviation network. Back in the day when Glendale was the major gateway to Southern California and not LAX these tiny airports probably didn't seem so insignificant.

I happened to be reading about this a couple weeks ago and the FAA reclassified Palo Alto Airport around 1972 to a lesser importance level or removed it from the list of essential airports as compared to small airports in rural communities that serve essential transportation needs. I read somewhere that back in 1936 American Airways actually operated at Palo Alto Airport but only to provide excursion flights. I don't think they served any destinations from there. I thought that was interesting.

Still I don't understand all the hate for this little airport. I know I am approaching this issue from a different angle but as a kid I loved going to the bay lands park just to see the planes take off and land. Also I can't help but feel nostalgic for the sight of the P3 Orions from Moffet Field circling in the sky's in the 70's and 80's. It was just an accepted part of living in this area. Considering we also had fears of nuclear war and Palo Alto commonly referred to itself as "Ground Zero" (due to the concentration of tech industries) I am sure people had other priorities.

Question for all of the recreational pilots posting on this forum...

Do you really think it is in your best interest, to ally yourselves with Surfair, and/or the FAA and their plans to commercialize the smaller regional airports that primarily serve recreational fliers?

Nobody in Atherton really knew that SQL even existed until Surfair figured out a scam that allowed them to operate a commercial airline out of SQL under a GA classification. Surfair catalyzed community activism against aircraft noise, and put SQL under the microscope of public, and official, scrutiny.

SouthBayResident ... >> Still I don't understand all the hate for this little airport. I know I am approaching this issue from a different angle but as a kid I loved going to the bay lands park just to see the planes take off and land.

Yeah, I did as well .... in the 70's, when I was a child. Today the planes are bigger and louder, and there are multiple planes taking off or landing at the same time. It ruins the Baylands. Yeah, you can go park at the run-down Interpretive Center, off of the run-down boardwalk that also used to be memorable to go out to. You can walk down the Bayside of the airport and get right under the planes taking off, or from the other side, Byxbee Park you can see them coming in and landing. That gets old.

That gets old fast, and after that you might like to have a conversation with the person you are walking with, or even hear the programming in the audio device of your choice, but you can barely hear anything thanks to the noise from the airport. Not to mention that daily there is something going on, perhaps lessons with the helicopter where it just hovers over by the intersection where Embarcadero Tees right and left. It fills the whole area with loud noise.

It might be fun for a little toddler to see the airplane for a short time, but for a real waterfront park experiences, not to mention a natural wetlands preserve we need the Palo Alto airport gone.

The Baylands is an unpleasant place these days. How great the Palo Alto Baylands would be if it did not assault your ears and your nose every time you went there. Palo Alto is not the right place for an airport, we already get too much noise from SFO and San Jose, not to mention we have had our lucky chance with that crash a few years back,

If any of this concerns you then write the city council and give your point of view. As posted by Crescent ParkANon the dirt little secret(pardon the pun) is these planes use LEADED fuel. And I'm not making this up. please read this link

Web Link

CrescentParkAnon,

The 101 freeway adjacent to the Baylands is also incredibly noisy and ruins your peace and quiet if you are walking down that pedestrian/bicycle path adjacent to the frontage road (or visiting Greer Park to the west of it). Unlike the airport noise the freeway has a constant annoying drone you can hear for at least half a mile either side. Think about what it would be like to live a couple blocks from it as many people do? Those houses and apartments were built before the 101 had as much traffic as it does now so no one should give another one of those "the freeway was there first" excuses!

Please provide your suggestions as to how the City of Palo Alto can remove this nuisance from the community.

Would you suggest closing the freeway? Maybe narrow it down to one lane each direction so the traffic moves slower and is quieter? For further traffic calming those unsightly overpasses could be torn down and replaced with at grade intersections and traffic lights.

Otherwise how about burying the 101 thru Palo Alto and putting it in a tunnel or trench with a lid? Who needs 2 freeways through a city anyways? If passing through couldn't you just take the 280 or stick to the east bay and avoid the peninsula entirely?

Best of all one can expect the state would pay for everything because "doing it right" means applying different standards to communities that already have high property values. And finally, please no more ugly sound walls that just pick up the noise and move it somewhere else!

Now seriously; in some respects don't you think the Baylands is quieter than it used to be? Remember there used to be that dump with the bulldozers (+back-up beeper noise) shuffling trash around attracting swarms of squawking seagulls? I thought that was a fun place to visit as a kid too but accept it's better without it.

I am not advocating for Surf Air to go to Moffett however I believe that was one of their strategies a while back. In any case that is out of our hands. If you look at the FAA rules then how does it get excluded when others are saying that SQL is required to take Surf Air based on funding.

I have noted that the incoming flights are extremely low and they actually adjust the pattern to come in over Middlefield. However the outbound goes out over the mountains to Aptos very high up. So maybe it is part of our job to get them to come in over the mountains vs up the central valley.
We need to focus on getting them to adjust their incoming flight pattern. In any case the excuse that the FAA makes them do that is not believable - they do it to save gas.

Side notes -
The Santa Monica Airport is on the site of the McDonnell Douglas facility which moved to Huntington Beach - eventually bought by Boeing.

The Burbank Airport is on the site of a Lockheed facility which has a very rich history for that product line.

San Jose Airport was not a large airport and is struggling now - the cost to expand it has been passed on to the airlines who can change up and base in SFO or Oakland.

This topic is also being discussed on the The Almanac Online. Some posters here, might find the comments of interest.

Link to the The Almanac: Web Link

Well at least the sound of the noisiest plane is nothing compared to whistle tips:

Web Link

Imagine if you had to listen to this all day and night!
"Whistle tips go WOOOOOOO!!!" Imagine a sound like a screeching BART train everywhere you go in your neighborhood!

How about closing the airport early like 10:00pm and not flights land/take off before 6:00am?

I am sure you have thought about these restrictions.


Respectfully

You want to close the public streets also?
Unrespectfully.

The contrast between the last two posts.

A suggestion to have a night curfew for an airport is met with "want to close public streets also"?

Public streets and aviation activity at night are not the same. Wouldn't a night curfew be considered a "reasonable" , term for activity in any public space. Are the airports considered public like the streets?

Airport curfews are legally permissible provided that they are done on a no-discriminatory basis.

Before getting excited about this "solution" I suggest that you look at the data - there are actually very few flights between 10 PM and 6 AM. The political effort/cost to create such a curfew does not seem worth the benefit. And once a curfew is in place an argument could be made that the elected officials have already solved the problem so stop bothering us.

Peter Carpenter,

What do you mean 'already" have solved the problem, and who is "us" in stop bothering "us"?

Would be good to know what you see as the problem.

I'm seeing a problem with a commuter business being run under the auspices of what I thought is more recreational or educational activity.

What is a "reliever airport?"

Is the relief to provide economic relief to Surf Air, or because there is no other way for those people to get here and there, every day.

I think the San Mateo Sheriff's have a plane there. One time I saw a small plane late night tracking under commercial airlines - it kept changing it's flight pattern to go under the planes. I called the airport to report a security issue with that plane - turned out to be a sheriff's plane.
I think they were in training because there was no reason why they would be acting that way. I don't think they always realize that people are watching for one thing and then another thing pops up that does not make sense.

I think at the meeting coming up it has to be determined who has the authority to work this issue - flight path. It is like the Pointer Sisters - always point to someone else -"the FAA made me do it". Right! Sorry - not believable anymore. Everyone want to be in charge but do not think they have the actual authority to impact what is going on. Who in the FAA? Who at SQL? Name, rank and serial number required.

"I'm seeing a problem with a commuter business being run under the auspices of what I thought is more recreational or educational activity. "

Well your thought is wrong - Surf Air is being run as a commercial operation and that is explicitly allowed, in fact required to be allowed, at SQL.

"What is a "reliever airport?"

Anser per FAA :"Reliever Airports are airports designated by the FAA to relieve congestion at Commercial Service Airports and to provide improved general aviation access to the overall community. These may be publicly or privately-owned."

Without reliever airports like SQL, PAO , Heyward, Concord and Livermore the Primary Commercial Service airports (SFO, SJC and OAK) would be clogged up with a lot of additional smaller airplanes.

"I'm seeing a problem with a commuter business being run under the auspices of what I thought is more recreational or educational activity. "

Well your thought is wrong - Surf Air is being run as a commercial operation and that is explicitly allowed, in fact required to be allowed, at SQL.

"What is a "reliever airport?"

Answer per FAA :"Reliever Airports are airports designated by the FAA to relieve congestion at Commercial Service Airports and to provide improved general aviation access to the overall community. These may be publicly or privately-owned."

Without reliever airports like SQL, PAO , Heyward, Concord and Livermore the Primary Commercial Service airports (SFO, SJC and OAK) would be clogged up with a lot of additional smaller airplanes.

My opinion - there is a saturation point as to the number of small airports and planes that are occupying the same airspace as SFO, San Jose, and Oakland.

Oakland is taking over the Hawaiian Air flights that come across Southern Palo Alto on their way across the Pacific. Also Southwest flights.

We also have the flights from Moffett - all types that come in directly across my house - I can stand outside and the plane is approaching directly to my area / front door.

At some point there has to be a consensus as to the impact to safety. Another Asiana Airlines flew in to the control tower in Japan - now creating the requirement for better pilot training. The people in the air up there are not always the best and brightest.

SurfGA?,

"What is a "reliever airport?"

When the FAA designates an airport as a "reliever airport" it means that the FAA has targeted that airport for commercial development by businesses like Surfair that exploit loopholes in the 60-year-old GA classifications.

This local ordinance, which will be the subject of a lawsuit, will provide a good learning lesson:

"The East Hampton Town Board voted on Thursday night to adopt three laws that it says will substantially reduce noise generated by air traffic stemming from East Hampton Airport.

The momentous act, which was applauded by the noise-affected residents of the town, comes just before the summer season begins, when air traffic is at its heaviest, and despite warnings from aviators who say they will file suit to fight the town on the issue."............

Web Link

The people of Phoenix are now in open rebellion against the tyrannical behavior of the FAA...

Phoenix councilman Michael Nowakowski calls the FAA's Western-Pacific Regional Administrator Glen Martin a liar... Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton says FAA did not work in good faith with the city... Council members and Mayor threaten lawsuit as early as May first (see video of news conference linked below).

"City of Phoenix FAA Flight Path Update"
City of Phoenix ~ April 15, 2015 Web Link

Okay this is interesting. I finally looked at a map of Surf Air's approach path to San Carlos and learned that I work pretty much directly beneath it just north of Atherton in Redwood City. Yes I can hear planes from time to time but I never would of guessed that is what all the complaints were about and that I am right in the thick of it.

I realize I am inside most of the day but honestly when I step out for a walk during the lunch hour my biggest complaint is traffic noise and people with obnoxious engine or exhaust modifications. Plenty of male drivers here like to do "burners" and accelerate full throttle to the next stop sign, for which they downshift making even more noise. Pedestrians are spared instant death by grace of God alone. That's my biggest noise complaint. And of course you can hear the constant buzz of the 101 from here (and everywhere) but that's comparably benign.

Further north closer to downtown Redwood City you can see and hear the planes more distinctly due to their lower elevation but then again considering everything else it still seems more like a novelty or at worst a bit of an annoyance. For me it all blends into the general background noise of an urbanized area. I swear I was expecting the complaints to be over something a lot more significant.

SBay Resident,

I see that a legal dictionary distinguishes between you being bothered (or not bothered) at work and you being bothered at home (on your property), private or public bother or nuisance.

any lawyers out there to confirm what this is all about?

Web Link
"The two types of nuisance are private nuisance and public nuisance. A private nuisance is a civil wrong; it is the unreasonable, unwarranted, or unlawful use of one's property in a manner that substantially interferes with the enjoyment or use of another individual's property, without an actual Trespass or physical invasion to the land. A public nuisance is a criminal wrong; it is an act or omission that obstructs, damages, or inconveniences the rights of the community."

Redwood City is not as bothered by airplane noise because the planes have now transitioned to the bay vs land. At least that is what I observe while in Redwood City. They make the transition over Menlo Park. The people that are complaining here are the people - on land - that are directly under the flight path. Atherton is the furthest north point of the people who are on this stream.
I do not see people in Redwood City complaining about this because the planes are now getting ready to cross the two bridges and are over water.

@resident 1 a resident of Adobe-Meadow, from our neighborhood descriptions, we're South PA neighbors. I don't get any of these airplane noise complaints. Sure, I hear them, but the rarer Harley on Louis is -much- more annoying. (WHY do people ride those things?). Fire station #3 is a couple of blocks away and makes frequent visits to Muldow and 101 and even that isn't troubling, noise wise.

If anyone in PA who is really annoyed by airplane noise is willing to invite me over for a visit I'd love to discover why our perceptions differ so much.

Surf GA?,

Well yes of course someone's responses to a perceived "violation" would be dependent on the context in which it occurred. I think intricate legal definitions are unneccessary to get the point.

It's all a component of basic psychology and recognizing that would help cut through a lot of the hyperbole on issues like this where people tend to overstate their reactions to perceived violations or downplay problems because it may be just one of many other issues to hassle over or it genuinely doesn't bother them.

Let's crowdsource this issue. I assume everyone has an iOS or Android device and can download an app to report ambient dB levels. Get one and post the name of the app and recorded dB for any noise incident. That should give us some real data to go on. If you can't back up an event with data, it didn't exist.

Rick,

My parents live in south Palo Alto in the south of Midtown area. What's most annoying is the early morning sound of the Caltrain horn at the crossings. It's just the horn that's the problem - one can live with and even learn to enjoy the passing rumble of the wheels. You can also hear the 101 but you only notice that while outside. I grew up with these noises and have grown accustomed to them so I would probably think something was seriously wrong if I didn't hear them!

The same applies to the airplane noises. I've never had issues with them and my parents aren't complaining either. Yes you can hear them but they are never so loud it causes any disruption. I actually think the planes sound kind of nice, especially the larger planes that have more of a deep baritone and as they make a turn you can hear a sort of shifting tone. Acoustically it's very interesting and sort of ethereal.

Rick,

First you say you do not hear aircraft at all, then you ask people to invite you over to discover the difference in "perceptions" - couldn't the first stop be your house? Maybe nobody can hear any noise at your house either. As far as measuring Surf Air noise, isn't that what Surf Air or San Carlos Airport should be doing?

southbayresident,

"I think intricate legal definitions are unneccessary to get the point."

I guess it's only ok to bring up intricate legal definitions when Peter Carpenter brings them up.

Rick and southbayresident,

The amount of new terminology you have both brought in to this thread sounds like Surf Air PR - "psychological" and "perceived' and "perceptions" "acoustically very interesting?"

Southbay resident on a different thread called real estate people "whores". I have never seen that before - and what is even worse his parents house has gone up in value! Shocking that would happen. You see most people are happy that their house has gone up in value. That is their biggest investment.
He must have been a psychology major - over thinking things.

Surf GA?,

Are you trying to tell me you think the subject of people's psychological reaction to sound and various forms of perceived (remember I said 'perceived' not 'imagined') annoyance is irrelevant to this discussion? Isn't that what we were really discussing 70+ posts back but no one bothered to identify it as such?

Also what makes you think I was speaking as PR for Surf Air? I was referring to the big jets on their approach to SFO like the 777, 747 and the A380. Those are the ones that make the beautiful ethereal sounds. I am sure American, British Airways and Lufthansa already have all the PR people they need.

resident 1,

I am sure you understood I was not saying Real Estate Agents were literally "Whores" but instead that the men and woman in that "profession" have been known to demonstrate unscrupulous behavior that could be best described as "Whore-ish". It's a common term but I apologize if I have offended any Sex Workers by associating them with Real Estate Agents.

And last of all I am not against people profiting from selling their property but when people transform that into an obsession that colors all decisions in their life I find that distasteful and vulgar. Sorry that might just be the inner Communist in me speaking.

SBR

The legal definition says that violating someone's space can happen even if there was no physical trespass, and distinguishes private and public nuisance. Public nuisance is something harmful to an entire community. Private may perhaps take each person's feelings into account.

Taking your psychological terms, you are on a far out part of the spectrum. FIrst you said you don't hear any aircraft. Now you are naming the aircraft which you like to hear. Anyway, you are selectively hearing and possibly making excuses for what to others is a nuisance.

It's like accepting the Harley that annoys you because they belong to your children. There are worst excuses people can make about harmful things of course.

Surf Air is not the rare Harley though. They are regular flights.

SFO is by far the biggest offender. Surf Air is not waking me up at 1am in the morning or flying over my home every few minutes. Palo Alto has taken the disproportionate burden of SFO arrival noise and the quality of life has diminished for those who live under the flight paths.

We have SFO arrivals, Surf Air, helicopters, and planes from our local airports. There is just too much noise all of the time. It seems to be a rare occasion when you can walk outside of your home without hearing plane noise of some kind. The birds aren't going to sing any louder so we can hear them! It's really a bad situation and I'm all for the city spending the money to do a air traffic noise study. I think this study will be a wake up call.

We are Saturday, and, once again, Palo Alto is being assaulted with unbelievable SFO traffic, frequent, low-flying and loud. This seems to have become our "normal" Saturday onslaught.

"low-flying"

At what exact time(s).

At what perceived altitude?

What is the nearest street intersection?

With answers to the above questions an exact altitude can be determined from the radar tracks.

" I'm all for the city spending the money to do a air traffic noise study. I think this study will be a wake up call."

Just make sure that data is collected in a comparable manner as is done by the official SFO and SJC noise monitoring stations so that there will be a comparison of how each community between San Jose and San Francisco shares the airplane noise burden.

WebTrak for me has about a 10-minute delay. Data on that Lufthansa Airbus 380 at 12:25pm (DLH454) showed 4,500 feet over midtown, descending to 4,000 over the P.A. golf course. That's been the only aircraft I've really noticed today.

I wonder at what point KPAO ATC would issue wake turbulence advisories.

musical,

What is KPAO ATC wake turbulence advisories?

"For operations conducted behind Heavy or Super aircraft, ATC will specify the word “Heavy” or “Super” when this information is known"

"A new class, the Super, above the Heavy class, has been approved on an interim basis for aircraft such as the Airbus A380 and Antonov AN225."

"In certain atmospheric conditions, primarily in en route operations, vortices from Heavy and especially Super aircraft can descend more than 1,000 feet."

So KPAO would issue a wake turbulence advisory when a heavy or super aircraft was passing within 1000 vertical feet of KPAO's pattern altitude of 800 ft which would mean the heavy or super would be 1800 ft above Palo Alto. NO SFO bound aircraft would be cleared to be below 2000 ft over Palo Alto so this would never happen.

Surf GA?,

You need to recognize that in the first example I was referencing Redwood City and in the second it was south Palo Alto. Remember I also referenced the different contexts in which you would hear the sounds hence the terms 'psychological' and 'perceived violation' which someone here poo-poohed. Otherwise you hit it exactly on the head with your Harley example and I absolutely HATE the sound of Harleys! Thank you nicely confirmed my point.

Surf GA?,

And as I already previously pointed out (to go full circle with your Harley example) there are some noises that practically everyone would have to agree are worse than airplane noises, and perhaps the worst Harley and that's why I referenced whistle-tips.

Web Link

Then again I am sure there are some people that have a positive psychological association with whistle-tips. Maybe they grew up with BART aerials running through their backyards and it's the sound that reminds them of home and childhood. Everyone is different and no one shares the same priorities with equal measure. It's about context and psychology.

If you were to apply strict legal definitions maybe every house would be required by law to be designed like an anechoic chamber. It's definitely possible but who would want to live like that? I am sure the occupants would be driven insane by the lack of outside noise.

Sound is an objective measure of the energy level.

Noise is an individual's response to any given sound level.

One person's irritant is another's pleasure and goes unnoticed by a third person.

KPAO never issues wake turbulence advisories for aircraft inbound to SFO. If anyone want to come to my place to evaluate aircraft noise, that works for me, but it is really so background compared to other human caused noises I can't see where it is worth the effort. The -birds- are louder than the jets.

When I lived in Mountain View and the P3s were doing pattern work - now that was aircraft noise.

Sorry for the jargon. Meant for Peter.

Without getting technical, wake turbulence is what you get in a rowboat when a big cabin cruiser sweeps by. Sometimes you feel it on the freeway behind a semi in the next lane. Wake is a problem behind a large aircraft in flight. The swirling air is invisible, persists for minutes, and tends to drift downward from the path of the aircraft producing it.

Peter is correct that planes staying in the normal Palo Alto pattern don't need to worry about SFO traffic, but I was thinking about departures.

Palo Alto standard departures proceed to the Dumbarton auto bridge before turning left to the coast or right to the east bay. This avoids a conflict with arrivals. Altitude up to 2500 feet is permitted in that area.

WebTrak showed the Airbus-380 at 3600 feet over the Dumbarton. Ok, still nothing to worry about, but getting close enough to be aware of.

Yes this strayed from the original topic, but useful to point out that more separation between aircraft is required than just what keeps metal from touching metal.

Also on that topic - I was in an older hotel across from the Metro-Link train in LA and when that went by at mach speed the turbulence beat against the building. Something to think about if HSR goes down Alma - the turbulence will slam against the buildings - especially the older apartments on that corridor.

Which leads to the other topic of airplane noise - there is such a disagreement on what people are hearing. It must be the age of the building, type of building, and the degree to which the building is buffered by the other buildings around it. Also if the building has been upgraded in preparation for sale - more, new soundproofing in the walls, new roof that has solar on top. All of those are buffers which would differ in any house in an area based on a lot of upgrades that have occurred.

Most office buildings have so much equipment in the ceilings that those are pretty protected from outer noise.

Metro link speed is 90 MPH tops.hardly Mach speed. But never let an opportunity to over exaggerate go by

There are more and more ads in papers and high level magazines about personal jet services similar to Surf Air - subscription ownership, etc. However - those are using actual jet planes which need to land at the personal aircraft section at SFO. The Surf Air is not an actual jet plane and does not need as much runway. I think that is why it is so offensively noisy - it is flying lower to stay out of jet traffic lanes. If it was going to SFO it would be higher, less noisy.

"I think that is why it is so offensively noisy "

I sat in my back yard for hours today and noticed many planes flying overhead. The SFO bound planes were higher and ,to me, less obtrusive. The Surf Air planes passed quickly and, to me, were hardly noticeable. The piston powered small planes were lower, slower and, to me, had a higher noise foot print.

As I stated, noise perception and sensitivity varies from individual to individual.

But why are individuals who complain about noise and low flying airplanes unwilling to provide the specifics as to time and place so that we can look at the real data?

@musical Nothing jargony about aircraft wake turbulance. It's caused by vortexes off the wings of all aircraft when flying low and slow on arrival and departure. Nothing at all like a boat wake or the turbulence behind a semi on the freeway. Larger aircraft cause larger vortexes causing the mandatory ATC warning when following "heavy" jets. The vortexes tend to descend and spread outward from the initiating aircraft in a well understood way. KPAO controllers would never need to issue a wake turbulence warning because wake turbulence doesn't affect aircraft within their purview. I was once, many years ago, flying with a KGO traffic reporter when we got bounced by wake from a SFO arrival, but that was north of the San Mateo bridge and it was just surprising, not dangerous.

@resident 1 - I think if we are outdoors it doesn't much matter about the composition of the building we live in.

Seriously. Let's have a block party on a block in Palo Alto where people are most exercised about noise from SFO arrivals. I'll buy the beer and someone else can spring for hotdogs and we can all have a listen.

resident 1,

If "Always Successful - Never a Failure" local Wonder Boy Elon Musk has his way you won't have to worry about 80 mph Caltrains or 120 mph HSR along Alma or even those puttering Surf Air PC-12's as all that traffic will be replaced by his Ultra High Speed LOW CAPACITY Hyperloop system sending pods every 2 minutes between SF and LA at 800 mph.

As I am sure you are aware it will all go through a system of elevated tubes that will look something like the Alaska Pipeline on steroids. Let me correct that: it will need to be more like 2 or 4 Alaska Pipelines on steroids as they try to address the problem of only being able to handle 1/10 the capacity of HSR.

Where will this be located? Don't worry the first phase will be in Oakland and the east bay so Palo Alto will not need to be the guinea pigs on this one. In the 2nd phase it will likely route down the (then former) Caltrain ROW along Alma. It won't exactly be mach speed but it's close and with further development will likely get to that.

When will it be completed? In about 10 years and for 10 billion or less if you believe Elon Musk's estimates and why would you believe all the naysaying civil engineers and contractors who say it can't be done for that cheap? Elon Musk is the guy who brought us Tesla and SpaceX so that means he is infallible and knows everything, even when he clearly doesn't.

How much noise will it create? Who knows it hasn't been tested. Sorry I meant to say it will be completely silent, not just in operation but with all the external mechanical systems required to reduce the operating pressure to 100 pascals. It will be even more flawless than a self driving Tesla for which you have nothing to fear unless you happen to be a pedestrian or a cat in the street.

If you happen to own a Tesla you will even be able to bring it with you in the pod when Elon implements the ULTRA-LOW CAPACITY version of the Hyperloop. Never mind the fact it will probably take you 2 to 3 hours to board the Hyperloop for your 35 minute trip but it will only cost you $20 (adjusted for inflation) and Elon is never wrong so what do have to worry about! Definitely no more complaints about noisy Caltrains or Surf Air PC-12's least! The future will be brilliant and best of all in Elon Musk's master plan it will include ZERO public transit and you will never have to walk anywhere again.

southbayresident
>> CrescentParkAnon,
>> The 101 freeway adjacent to the Baylands is also incredibly
>> noisy and ruins your peace and quiet if you are walking down
>> that pedestrian/bicycle path adjacent to the frontage road

There is a point there somewhere southbayresident. I almost
daily walk from Palo Alto to Mountain View and back, along the
trails from Byxbee Park to the Terminal Ave. entraince to Shoreline
Park.

When I am in the Baylands I really do not hear traffic from 101 and
it is not a problem. The problem is airplanes, particularly over the
air traffic lanes that run virtual north and south from the runway,
and from the helicopter that blanket the whole area with their
sound that goes out in waves over the entire area when they are
practicing hovering.

You are right though, on occasion I have taken the sidewalk along
East Bayshore road and the noise from 101 is very loud. There is
a solution to that and it would be putting up one of those sound
walls like on the other side of 101. But it is loud. I have occasionally
gotten a phone call while walking along there and can barely
hear the conversation.

However I rarely use the E. Bayshore sidewalk for that reason, and
also I do not like to walk or run on concrete. I think most people
would be much happier taking the paths in the Baylands if it was
safe and developed.

From a practical point of view, we all need and use 101, and until
we are all using electric cars it is likely to be loud, and with nothing
to be done about it. That is a pragmatic fact of life.

However there is something that could be done about air traffic.
That is move the Palo Alto airport out of there, and monitor or
shift traffic from SFO out towards the Bay or up higher when they
are going over the city. Jet airliner traffic in my opinion is not a
major issue in the Baylands, but it is in Crescent Park. Almost
every night around 2am I get woken up by a flight that always
seems to be coming in low.

>> Now seriously; in some respects don't you think the Baylands
>> is quieter than it used to be? Remember there used to be that
>> dump with the bulldozers (+back-up beeper noise) shuffling
>> trash around attracting swarms of squawking seagulls?

Uh, SouthBayResident ... you are confusing the Baylands and
the dump ... and in the past.

The sound from bulldozers does not carry or wash down from
above like an airplane. So, no, it is not in that respect
quieter than it used to be.

In the past there were fewer and smaller planes so again, in
that respect it is not quieter than it used to be.

Also, now that we have a very large tract of land for recreation
in the BayLands ... why are we not using it.

We are even going to put up this fancy bridge to get to the Baylands,
although it is not really to the Baylands per se, but just to the
east side of 101 ... but still, there is much here that is valuable
and useful to Palo Alto residents ... IF it was a more pleasant
envrionment.

The airport is one problem and the sewage treatment plant
is another. Modern technology can update the sewage
treatment plant to it does not spew noxious disgusting
vapors into the air all the time. Maybe we have to live with
a bit of that, but it should be much better.

The airport belongs somewhere else in my opinion.

I began hiking and running in the Baylands in the 80's and
before that only went out occasionally. But for decades I have
a very good idea of how things have changed. Before Byxbee
Park I am not sure even how many people went out on the
levees out there, but on the weekends not the parking lots
are full and overflowing almost every week,

The more people that go out there the safer is it for everyone.
There have been a few, but very few crime incidents out there
and if the Baylands had the City's support it would be better.

It is a great place to bike, hike or walk. One can start in the
Byxbee Park peaking lot and bike all the way up nearly into
Cupertino by using the Steven's Creek Trail ... I think it used
to take me about 1.5 hours to the 19 mile ride with my clunker
bike. Mountain View takes this resource seriously.

Anyway, the point is that today with more airplanes flying
more often there is more noise and it is louder. Just go out,
prak your car and stand in the Byxbee Park lot and see
for yourself just about anytime.

I am all for a different type of people mover - do not think HSR is the best choice. Saw in paper that Caltrain is buying some LA Metrolink cars that they can put to use now. I think it is important to maintain the universal Amtrack type rail on that corridor. Train travel is coming back in popularity and think an Amtrack ride down to the central coast would be great fun.

I think the tube should go on the HWY 280 corridor as an extension of the BART in Daly City and upper airport area so that it can extend down to Cupertino and then San Jose for the HWY 152 cross over to the central valley. We paid taxes to complete the BART circle of the bay and it has not happened making the 280 corridor a mess. Southbay has more travel options and choices of types trains. The peninsula is very limited in choices. Also limited in available space for major construction projects.

Back to noise I am in an Eichler which is all glass facing north and east. The plane travel pattern runs down the north side of the house so maximum noise at certain times of day - heavy plane commutes at early AM and later PM. Neighbors cross the street have the solid part of the house facing north and are not as affected by the noise. I think people in other type houses have less exposure to impact of noise. It is all location, location, location.

" It is all location, location, location."

And it can easily be mitigated by better insulation and multiple pane windows.

"SFO has one of the most extensive home insulation programs in the nation. Dating from 1983, over 15,000 homes, 8 churches and 7 schools have been treated in six geographic areas: County of San Mateo, Daly City, Millbrae, Pacifica, San Bruno and South San Francisco. The total program expenditure now amounts to over $153 million. The program is administered directly by the local jurisdictions which decide in what order eligible properties will be treated. Methods include: first come first served, lottery, and noisiest first. Localities also determine whether or not to include public buildings, multi-family residential buildings and/or rental properties. In all cases, the program is funded through a combination of FAA and airport funds distributed through the airport. FAA guidelines set the standard for eligibility for federal funds as noise sensitive properties within the federally-approved 65 dB CNEL annual noise contour."

*******

Using the above allocation system Palo Alto would be close to the bottom of the list for eligibility because of the very limited amount of aircraft related noise over Palo Alto IN COMPARISON to other communities.

If you are noise sensitive then invest in improved sound insulation of your home and the results will be very worthwhile.

Why not have Surf Air pay for insulation?

"Why not have Surf Air pay for insulation?"

1 - Because the ground noise level from the loudest Surf Air fly is far lower than the officially recognized 65 db CNEL.

As I sat in my yard yesterday the sound from the Surf Air overflights lasted less than 30 seconds and were much less noticeable the sounds from any of the piston powered airplanes.

2 - Why do some people always want somebody else to pay for their home improvements?

Peter Carpenter,

If the "improvement" is to deal with a nuisance caused by Surf Air, they should be paying for it.

Given that rules are exploited - such as Surf Air using GA classification, I would want to know if nuisance is actually measured by these decibel rules you mention. Is it just airplane nuisance that is measured in decibels or other stuff too.

Like if my neighbor was honking his horn every day, very unlikely he would get to honk all day without some accountability.

Are you saying that Surf Air gets to honk all day long, as long as it's not reaching some decibel?

"If the "improvement" is to deal with a nuisance caused by Surf Air, they should be paying for it."

There is zero evidence that Surf Air flights over Palo Alto or Atherton exceed the Federal Standard of 65 dB CNEL. Anything less than 65 dB CNEL is not a legal nuisance.

Even Palo Alto's noise regulations (which apply only to ground based noise sources) uses 70 dBA as its nuisance level.

"(a) General Daytime Exception. Any noise source which does not produce a noise level exceeding seventy dBA at a distance of twenty-five feet under its most noisy condition of use shall be exempt from the provisions of Sections 9.10.030(a), 9.10.040 and 9.10.050(a) between the hours of eight a.m. and eight p.m. Monday through Friday, nine a.m. and eight p.m. on Saturday, except Sundays and holidays, when the exemption herein shall apply between ten a.m. and six p.m."

As they say No Harm , No Foul.

"Given that rules are exploited - such as Surf Air using GA classification,"

PLEASE read the above postings. Surf Air is not using some fictitious GA classification. It is operating as a commercial carrier which is absolutely permitted at San Carlos.

Oh does that mean that commuter business like Surf Air are not coming to Palo Alto Airport?

"Are you saying that Surf Air gets to honk all day long, as long as it's not reaching some decibel?"

First, ONLY the FAA can control aircraft noise. Palo Alto cannot as it is prompted by Federal law from doing so.

Second, the total minutes per day of Surf Air flight over a given point in Palo Alto are probably less than 45 min and none of those minutes involve a legally defined nuisance level of noise at ground level.

"Oh does that mean that commuter business like Surf Air are not coming to Palo Alto Airport?
"

Any commercial carrier whose aircraft can safely operate from PAO must be allowed to do so - period.

Non-Surf Air Pilatus PC-12s already routinely operate out of PAO

Mountain View and Sunnyvale seem to be able to control who is in their airspace and who is using their facilities. The theory that Palo Alto has to have some tiny commercial airline crammed down their throats sounds like marketing with no credibility. I am buying that theory less and less - other cities seem to exercise their preferences just fine.

San Jose airport would be glad to have them if they could pay to be there - most commercial airlines now are backing off of that price tag.

Moffett at this time looks like a better option for Surf Air - all of the action is down in that area.

It comes down to the price tag for use of an airport - look at the price tag to control level of business. There are no free rides out there.

"Mountain View and Sunnyvale seem to be able to control who is in their airspace and who is using their facilities."

You have a false illusion on this - do you have any facts to support your statement.

We had a commuter airline serving Palo Alto airport in the sixties.

Moffett is currently a Federal Airfield, not for General Aviation.
Mountain View does not control Obama's flights into Moffett.
Not sure how operations are negotiated there. The Zeppelin was fun while it lasted.

We recently got an R-30 insulated roof and new double paned windows and we can still here every SFO arrival that flies over our home at an altitude below 5,000 feet, which the majority do. We have no peace and quiet inside our home, are losing sleep because of the after midnight arrivals, and we certainly can't enjoy our outside patio anymore. The FAA shows no accountability and only cares about what is good for their own needs. The fact that they have blocked our city from the round table discussions is disgusting and blatant disregard for a community that is bearing the brunt of their noisy airplane arrivals.

Moffett airfield is now leased to Google. Surf could deal with them. And we are not in the sixties - huge amount of development on the peninsula now.

San Carlos needed Surf Air - it was not doing well financially. It is in San Mateo County under their management.

The PAO is now a City of Palo Alto asset. You will note that the city of Palo Alto residents voted down the sale of pot in the city - and will again.
Not so for city of San Carlos. The use of all of these small airports is conducive to transportation of what is now illegal drugs and firearms. Also illegal aliens since there is no passport control.

Since PAO is now a city asset think we need a police substation located there and some police dogs. That would qualify as a entry point for all type of items we do not need in this city. And yes - we can control that. We can make PAO very uncomfortable for any of that inclination.

"The fact that they have blocked our city from the round table discussions is disgusting and blatant disregard for a community that is bearing the brunt of their noisy airplane arrivals."

The FAA does NOT control the membership of the SFO Roundtable -it is controlled by the members of the Roundtable.

"The Airport/Community Roundtable was established in 1981 as a voluntary committee to address community noise impacts from aircraft operations at San Francisco International Airport (SFO). The Roundtable monitors a performance-based noise mitigation program implemented by airport staff, interprets community concerns and attempts to achieve noise mitigation through a cooperative sharing of authority among the aviation industry, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), SFO management and local government.

The authority to control aircraft in flight and on the ground is vested exclusively in the FAA. The FAA, however, cannot control the number of flights nor the time of day of aircraft operations. Federal law preempts any local government agency from implementing any action that is intended to control the routes of aircraft in flight. Neither the Roundtable, local elected officials nor airport management can control the routes of aircraft in flight or on the ground."

Who does not like to be able to sleep in a little on a Sunday morning? Well, this is becoming near impossible in Palo Alto.

This Sunday morning, between 7:00 and 8:30 AM, we had 20 commercial jets above Palo Alto at an altitude of less than 5,000 feet, bound for either SFO or SJC. The weather is nice, yet we were in a reverse pattern for San Jose, and Palo Alto was hit by both SFO and SJC bound planes. How many towns are graced with such a "wonderful" situation, I wonder? So, seven of the commercial jets above Palo Alto were SJC bound, and almost all of those were at an altitude of between 2,000 to 3,000 feet. Sleep in? No way. Impossible.

At the same time, how many SFO and SJC bound jets were there over Atherton at less than 5,000 feet of altitude? I looked. The grand total was zero, ZERO, not a single one.

Numbers per SJC Webtrak. You can go and count them the same way as I did.

Now, the lovers of commercial jet noise who are here demanding numbers will say this is not enough numbers. We cannot ever give them enough numbers. Why? I believe it is because they are here only to defend the status quo. Why defend the status quo? Maybe, just maybe, because it works for THEM?

@Resident1

Stop asking for Surf Air to be at Moffett Field. I cannot understand why you think it would be such a sweet deal. They would be taking off above Palo Alto if they were there. How can you even mention this?

Moffett is a "low use" Federal airfield. This was decided when it was decommissioned as a Navy airfield and handed over to NASA. "Low use" is key. The lease with Google includes language meant to keep it low use. So, Google is bound to keep it as is, at low use.

It is in no one's interest in Palo Alto to have Moffett increase its traffic. I wish you could stop talking about Surf Air at Moffett.

@Resident 1. "The use of all of these small airports is conducive to transportation of what is now illegal drugs and firearms. Also illegal aliens since there is no passport control.

Since PAO is now a city asset think we need a police substation located there and some police dogs. That would qualify as a entry point for all type of items we do not need in this city. And yes - we can control that. We can make PAO very uncomfortable for any of that inclination."

Are you serious? Where are all these drugs and guns and aliens coming from where they are within the range of a light aircraft?

Who is in charge of the control tower at SFO? The control tower is suppose to be in charge of the flights and coordinating so people do not bump into each other - in flight or on the ground - which is happening.

The Asiana Flight that ran into the runway - that flight was too low over my house and friends up at Coyote Point in San Mateo were looking at it and knew that was a problem in progress - too low and too slow. If everyone looking can see there is a problem then why isn't the control tower looking and telling the plane to correct the problem.

Peter - you keep painting a picture in which everyone is a victim of the status quo. Time to rethink that.

"At the same time, how many SFO and SJC bound jets were there over Atherton at less than 5,000 feet of altitude? I looked. The grand total was zero, ZERO, not a single one."

You missed at least one - a UA 744(the noisiest aircraft around) at 4400 ft over Atherton at 8:03.

It is very unusual for SJC to be landing to the South while SFO is landing to the North. Usually Bay Control "turns around" all the airports at the same time. This is why the SJC flights were lower than usual because they had to be beneath the SFO flights.

@Residen 1. "the Asiana Flight that ran into the runway - that flight was too low over my house and friends up at Coyote Point in San Mateo were looking at it and knew that was a problem in progress"

Sorry. Ariana 214 was -too high- for most of its approach. The problem was compounded by their desire to lose that extra altitude too fast and too close to the runway threshold.

With all due respect, Peter, and I am very sincerely serious here, it is not unusual at all for Palo Alto to have both SFO and SJC bound jets at the same time. I watch it believe me, because I am under the flight paths. It happens very often to have SFO in regular pattern while SJC is in a reverse (we were told that SJC is in reverse 15% of the time, to me it seems to be more often, but I will take their word for it). I am sure you can imagine the noise when an A320 or a B737 flies above your neighborhood at 2,500 feet...

You are right, SJC bound flight dodge under SFO bound flights.

In my almost 20 years of flying out of PAO (which retired from 6 years ago) I never saw SJC landing to the South while SFO was landing to the North. In fact when inbound to PAO I remember being placed in a holding pattern while the entire Bay area was being "turned around".

Perhaps things have changed since I gave up flying. Perhaps someone with more recent experience can enlighten us.

This morning SJC was back to landing North at 10.43 AM.

Peter - your claim about the altitude - many at Dumbarton Bridge at between 3 and 4,000. I checked after everyone said the FAA requirement was 5,000 and saw that almost all were way under 5,000. Anyone can see that if they use the San Jose flight tracker.
I am wondering if there a "holes" in the system which fills in the desired altitude since the planes are in a tight maneuver making the transition for west to east, then east to north.

Sorry Rick - people who are very knowledgeable could see the problem with the Asiana flight.

And the drugs - coming in to the bay via small boats. Even my son knows that. It is reported in the SF Chronicle how they are trying to monitor the incoming drug transfers. Read your newspapers they tell you what is going on. How many flights are going from Half Moon Bay to SQRL - a number per day.
And we did vote on a pot initiative a while back which lost in this city- and the Lt. Governor is taking that up as a cause for his run for Governor.

" I checked after everyone said the FAA requirement was 5,000 "

Everyone never said that and the SFO approach charts show that the arriving planes MUST cross DUMBA at or above 4000 ft.

"everyone said " - why do you make things like this up?

"Sorry Rick - people who are very knowledgeable could see the problem with the Asiana flight. "

Rick is correct and if you bothered to read the NTSB report you would know that the flight was ABOVE the specified glide path until well past the San Mateo Bridge.

"The flight was vectored for a visual approach to runway 28L and intercepted the final approach course about 14 nautical miles (nm) from the threshold at an altitude slightly above the desired 3° glidepath. This set the flight crew up for a straight-in visual approach; however, after the flight crew accepted an air traffic control instruction to maintain 180 knots to 5 nm from the runway, the flight crew mismanaged the airplane’s descent, which resulted in the airplane being well above the desired 3° glidepath when it reached the 5 nm point. The flight crew’s difficulty in managing the airplane’s descent continued as the approach continued. In an attempt to increase the airplane’s descent rate and capture the desired glidepath, the pilot flying (PF) selected an autopilot (A/P) mode (flight level change speed [FLCH SPD]) that instead resulted in the autoflight system initiating a climb because the airplane was below the selected altitude. The PF disconnected the A/P and moved the thrust levers to idle, which caused the autothrottle (A/T) to change to the HOLD mode, a mode in which the A/T does not control airspeed. The PF then pitched the airplane down and increased the descent rate. Neither the PF, the pilot monitoring (PM), nor the observer noted the change in A/T mode to HOLD."

********
So clearly when the plane was South of the San Mateo bridge is was high and "knowledgable people" would not have seen a problem from the ground.

Again, why do you make up stuff like this?

Seems like this level of incompetence with the Asiana crash could have happened even if they were driving a boat.

"after the flight crew accepted an air traffic control instruction to maintain 180 knots to 5 nm from the runway, the flight crew mismanaged the airplane's descent"

What does "mismanaged' after instructions mean. A fluke that the mismanagement happened after the instructions or was there an issue with the pilots taking instructions?

"The flight crew's difficulty in managing the airplane's descent continued as the approach continued."

Was the "difficulty" part of that first level of "mismanagement" or was there a correction attempt in between?

"the pilot flying (PF) selected an autopilot (A/P) mode (flight level change speed [FLCH SPD]) that instead resulted in the autoflight system initiating a climb because the airplane was below the selected altitude."

This part is clearer- total confusion between who or what was flying the plane, auto features or the crew.

"The PF then pitched the airplane down and increased the descent rate. Neither the PF, the pilot monitoring (PM), nor the observer noted the change in A/T mode to HOLD"

3 people? Isn't it someone's job to read this kind of thing?

After the crash of Asiana 214 at SFO, ex-patriot western pilot instructors in Korea came out and said that cheating on examinations was rampant, student pilots had poor manual flying skills, and the instructors were under pressure from the airlines to pass poorly qualified students.

So what was the FAA's response? Were these incompetent pilots grounded? No... the FAA merely prohibited "foreign" pilots from flying manual/visual approaches to SFO, This forced "foreign" pilots off of the Bay approach from the north, and forced them onto the Peninsula "teardrop" approach that flies over Palo Alto.


"Former UAL Pilot, talks about Korean Flight Training"
Reddit ~ July 9, 2013 Web Link

Peter, Madness didn't miss one because the plane was actually flying over Menlo Park at 8:03am, but I guess you can still hear it since you are only 1.26 miles at the point of closest approach. The static line may show one or two seconds of flight over the Menlo border into Atherton, but I do have to give this one to Menlo Park and agree with Madness that not a single flight was over Atherton at 8:03am this morning.


"At the same time, how many SFO and SJC bound jets were there over Atherton at less than 5,000 feet of altitude? I looked. The grand total was zero, ZERO, not a single one."

"You missed at least one - a UA 744(the noisiest aircraft around) at 4400 ft over Atherton at 8:03."

I indicated Coyote Point - that is not south of the bridge - it is north of the bridge and within site of the landing guides in the bay. It is an extension of 3rd street in San Mateo. Anyone at Coyote Point can see all of the planes in their landing formation.

Rick - check the news - you can go up to the city tomorrow for 4/20 day - it is POT DAY. So where do all of these people get the pot -don't know - not my thing.

@Resident 1: "Rick - check the news - you can go up to the city tomorrow for 4/20 day - it is POT DAY. So where do all of these people get the pot -don't know - not my thing.".

Umm, they drive it in on the freeway like any rational person. Even assuming, for whatever reason, they used a boat or a plane somewhere in the transport, they have to put it in a car or truck at either end.

"I indicated Coyote Point"

Ref Asiana: you said the flight was too low over -your- house-

You do seem to be just making stuff up. . .

@Surf GA: ""The PF then pitched the airplane down and increased the descent rate. Neither the PF, the pilot monitoring (PM), nor the observer noted the change in A/T mode to HOLD"

3 people? Isn't it someone's job to read this kind of thing?"

This is really a question that should be answered by you reading the NTSB report rather than asking PA Weekly readers for their opinions. I believe the answer lies in how different cultures challenge or defer to authority as their default behavior.

@Jetman, the FAA can't "ground" pilots of other countries. In any event, this has nothing to do with proving that the dB levels of commercial aircraft over Palo Alto exceed the rather low thresholf that is currently mandated.

Rick,

The FAA's number one job is supposed to be safety, but they can't ground foreign pilots, no matter how incompetent, or poorly trained?!

[Post removed.]

@Jetman How could they? We can keep said pilots out of our airspace, but the U.S. Isn't the world's police force. You probably meant not let the, fly in our airspace" and I didn't pick up on that. Sorry. :)

Rick,

OK, "grounding" may be imprecise language, but I hope the FAA has the power to regulate foreign pilots when they are operating in US airspace, and/or prevent foreign pilots from operating in US airspace.

Worldwide safety standards (licensing, operations, airworthiness) are set by the ICAO. The FAA monitors compliance and does ban or restrict flights from countries that are incapable of regulating themselves. Every accident or incident is investigated and rules are tightened where warranted.

musical,

Any examples?

examples of bans or restrictions that is

The FAA can and does ban entire airlines from operating in US airspace but under international law it has very limited ability to restrict the privileges of an individual foreign pilot who is flying an airplane that is registered in that pilot's home country due to the US's obligations under the IACO treaty.

musical, PC,

That's pretty scary that the FAA relies on foreign airlines for the adequacy of pilots. Any examples of the FAA banning or restricting an airline?

Now I understand how an entire "crew" of incompetents did what they did. As long as they have an airline logo, and a uniform, it's ok with the FAA.

And this is considered safe?

Rick said:

"In any event, this has nothing to do with proving that the dB levels of commercial aircraft over Palo Alto exceed the rather low thresholf that is currently mandated."

I suppose he is talking about the 65 dBA limit. This is supposed to be a "low" threshold? You must really be a pilot or work at an airport or for the FAA to say something like this. In Europe the limit is 55 dBA. 65 is excessively high.

@Surf -- Germany and France rely on the FAA for the adequacy of our pilots flying into their airspace. International trade necessitates negotiated multilateral agreements. The alternative is isolationism, which some would prefer.

The advantages of international standards for aviation were recognized over a century ago, and the first conventions were held in Europe. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) was set up here in the U.S. in the closing days of world war two, and became an agency of the United Nations, also set up here in the U.S. We really do have a big say in how the world operates.

The FAA International Aviation Safety Assessment program confirms safety standards compliance before allowing a foreign carrier to operate flights into the U.S. or even to codeshare with a U.S. carrier.

Examples of countries found lacking are Nicaragua, Ghana, Uruguay, and Indonesia. India has recently been borderline and I don't know their current status. Countries like North Korea or Afghanistan won't be examined until they actually show intentions of operating here (yes, they both have international airlines).

@ Peter Carpenter

Peter, SJC is in reverse again this morning, while SFO is not. SJC bound jets are again flying above Palo Alto as low as 2,000 feet.

How is this fair to us? We purposely moved to a town not next door to a major airport and this is what we get.

The winds at SJC are 3 konts from the SW.

In my opinion that is not a sufficient reason to turn the landing pattern to the South.

It would be interesting if someone can tell us why SJC's patterns are not coordinated with SFO and OAK.

"We purposely moved to a town not next door to a major airport and this is what we get."

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there are actually three international airports in the area. That being said, I call shenanigans on that being your only/main reason for moving here, the vast majority of the state and the country does not have an airport in the vicinity, major or otherwise.

@ Robert

Palo Alto is 15-20 miles away from SFO. We also live 12-15 from SJC. We did take this into account when we moved. How come we get SFO traffic at 4,000 feet this far away from SFO and SJC traffic at 2000 feet this far away from SJC? This is the true question. It was not the case when we moved here years ago. It should still not be the case at such a distance, no matter the nasty comments you care to make. Period.

The Paris CDG flight controllers went on strike in 2013 because their air control system was 50 years old and not adequate to monitor the increase in air traffic. CDG is a major hub with both major and minor airlines making connections. Air controllers recognize their problems and limitations.

The UK's National Air Traffic Services (NATS) is in process of updating their airports world wide to increase efficiency, safety, and passenger experience.

Hopefully SFO is on the cutting edge of an updated air control system, along with Oakland and San Jose so they can keep everyone sorted out and flying within FAA guidelines.

The Asiana airline took off the top of an air control tower in Japan this last week so their level of training and air control inter-change of flight data looks inadequate. Asiana continues to be a loose cannon and should be banned from SFO for safety reasons. As an alternate bring them up the central valley and enter the bay at the bottom so that they are over water as soon as they enter the area. There has to be a way to limit the exposure of ill-trained flight crews over heavy populated areas.

SFO winds are WSW 10 mph and they are landing to the North.

SJC winds are S 4 knots and they are landing to the South.

This makes no sense !!!

Peter,

I am glad that you are commenting on this SJC issue. Thank you! It really means a lot. I think that you will now understand why some of us here in Palo Alto feel our town has become a dumping ground for airplane traffic.

If you have any suggestions on how to get to the bottom of this, we would greatly appreciate it.

Resident1-- if you are going to twist the truth to suit your fantasies, at least do it with facts that are not easily verified:
Web Link
The Asians jet skidded off the runaway-- it did not " take off" the top of any control tower. Maybe you should wait for the cause of the accident to be made public before you start with your " loose cannon" and " banning"
Oh, and the Asians jet that crashed at SFO, did not fly low over your house.

Facts please - I am stating what was reported in the newspaper. If it was in the newspaper than it should be accurate. I think you are confusing this incident with another - different location and plane. Use of the name "facts please" does not make you right. Sorry - no sale there. Turns out there are a lot of incidents happening right now.

Resident 1- nice try. Which newspaper was it reported in? I googled the accident last week and have found links to the BBC, Bloomberg new, ABC, Japan times, WSJ etc. no control tower taken out. Now the Telegraph states that when the plane skidded off the runway it took out a communications antenna- if that is what you are referring to, you are grossly exaggerating the incident. Plus we should wait for the report.
Which other incident are you referring to. You are right- no sale. You are exaggerating an incident involving an Asians jet. Do,you know of any other incidents involving Asians last week? What other incidents are happening now?
Please direct Us To links for these stories.

> SFO winds are WSW 10 mph and they are landing to the North.
> SJC winds are S 4 knots and they are landing to the South.
>
> This makes no sense !!!

Right now (4:30pm) winds at KSFO are 230 degrees @ 14 knots. They're landing to the south.

What was the specific WSW wind direction? Could be the N-S wind component didn't justify turning things around. Or it takes them some time to get the turn-around done.

Resident 1- found an old posting of yours where you claim that there was a near miss at SLC airport with an Asian airline.


Web Link

"On the ABC news was a report on the Salt Lake City Airport regarding a near miss between a Delta plane and an Asian based plane - and this was over the airport - this occurred in the last three days. The Air Controllers had to scramble to avert a mid-air crash. So things are not so ducky out there. And the Salt lake City Airport is not in what would be considered a difficult, hyper busy location. I am looking for more info on that but it seems to be in an "investigative" mode."

Seems that started quite a discussion in which you made a series of statements that were quickly disproven.

@Madness - I just downloaded an aviation chart for our area to refresh my memory. The floor of the SFO class B airspace over Palo Alto is 4,000 ft. MSL. SJC, for aircraft approaching from the South between us and NUQ (Moffett) the floor is 2,500 ft. MSL in their Class C. When I was in the baylands this morning the ANA flight into SJC looked about that. NorCal approach is resposible for coordinating and separating traffic into all major airports in the area. Not sure why SFO flights are so low this far out, except pilots like stabilized approaches. Not being held high and slam-dunked at the last minute.

Rick

"Not sure why SFO flights are so low this far out,"

Apparently some pilots cannot be trusted to actually fly a plane any higher than that, which is a mystery to me. Isn't it better if bad pilots fly higher?

Oh I forgot, in Asiana's case "the flight crew mismanaged the airplane's descent"

so that risk is there anyway but at least by flying lower starting in Palo Alto, accidents could be avoided on the runway?

Folks - why don't you focus on what is going on right now - all of the San Jose Southwest flights for the past hour and 1/2 have been coming down north of the googleplex putting them over south PA between San Antonio and Embarcadero at about 1,900, then circling out over the baylands back to San Jose. I have filed about 6 reports on that.
And HAL 42 crossed the Dumbarton Bridge at 3,500.

So this morning all of the arrivals at San Jose are now heading down to Mitchell Park, circling out to the PAO / Baylands at varying 1900 - 2,000.
This is a dramatic shift for their arrivals. You can see that they are shifting north in order to make the transition over Mitchell Park - visiting the new Children's playground. And of course for all travelers a circle over the baylands to see the Googleplex for their viewing pleasure.

And Surf Air is busy - URF 112 and URF 101 arriving over Atherton area at about 1,600 - 1,300 - varying by plane.

Somebody in the FAA's Bay Control has made a huge policy change to routinely allow SJC to be landing t the South while SFO is landing to the North. The result is pushing the SJC arrivals down below the SFO arrivals and very low over Palo Alto.

This is something to raise hell with your elected officials about.

Peter - if you are correct then I think that qualifies the PAO as having an official noise monitor that is recorded with all of the other noise monitors associated with the San Jose Airport. Of course it would do double duty for any planes going over - SFO and Oakland. Also, we need names of local FAA people who make these decisions if they are a radical change from the status quo. I think they should pay for the noise monitor.

I wait with interest to see if any of the Palo Alto posters actually do anything about this significant change in FAA procedures.

Peter - when you say FAA Bay Control which FAA office are your referring to? I went on the FAA site and there is an "official" site at San Jose airport area, and we know there is an FAA office at PAO. Is the Bay Control office at a different location - like SFO?

So what happened at the meeting yesterday for Surf Air? Any changes in the way they are operating?

Maybe other people would like to review the FAA site - they have a video on Next Gen but it does not include SFO in that presentation. However there are other "cartoons" that show flight paths.

And everyone else could be an air controller - job openings with training.

@res1 -- sounds like Peter is referring to NorCal TRACON (Terminal Radar Approach Control) which is physically located near Sacramento. They manage flights transitioning between our local airport control towers and the enroute airspace. But really I don't know who makes the call on runway direction. The local tower must have some input.

If you ever run across the FAA location in Fremont, that's "Oakland Center" (Oakland Air Route Traffic Control Center), controlling more enroute airspace than any other facility on the planet.

I think this San Jose set-up has been in place for a while. I do not think people realized the planes were going to San Jose vs SFO. The planes were going across the city - one almost as far as University to go down to PAO and out over the bay for transition back in to San Jose. A lot of people reported extremely low flying planes and "other people" made snarky comments.
So much for snarky comments - I have the dates April 21 -evening incoming commuter traffic and April 22 morning incoming Commuter traffic. Most are Southwest since that is the main plane for San Jose.
I made another complaint today and asked in that complaint about the policy change - when did it happen and who authorized it.

Are they running early morning noisy flights?

Is that a trick question? I had older relatives at Webster House in PA on the Webster side of the building. Large buses use that street and are stuck at the street light outside. They are noisy and dirty smelling. Older relative refused to wear the hearing aide so even if you were in the room with them they could not hear anyone talk. And if wearing the hearing aid there was ambient, uncontrolled noise that interfered with conversation. So age of person and hearing are control factors, as well as willingness to hear anything at all. A lot of people in the downtown area actively work at not hearing anything that interferes with their daily life. They like to read books in peace and quiet and listen to music from their phones.

Newer commercial buildings have a lot of noise modifiers in their building materials.

Children in the school systems are probably very well equipped to hear noise that interferes with the school room noise and outside noise at recess. The schools are not the newest buildings.

Hikers and walkers, runners at baylands hear a lot of noise.

@Peter: I can see why the FAA is being pushed to allow SJC arrivals to the south after the pattern has been turned to the north for SFO. I worked in Santa Clara for 15 years, only leaving last month. The area between Milpitas and SJC has been steadily infilled with expensive condos for the tech set. When SJC is departing over them it probably generates 10x the calls that arrivals do over Palo Alto. The noise from a departing AA MD-80 is simply unbelievable.

There used to be a concept of buffer zones around airports. Developers have put an end to that. Have you seen the office complexes just east of the Moffett runway? Now that is a disaster waiting to happe.

@ Air noise

Good question.

If some early morning flights woke you up today around 5 AM, in Palo Alto, they were not San Jose flights. They were SFO bound flights, all United Airlines from Hawaii. I know they woke me up. There were at least three that flew over us roughly between 4:43 and 5:03 AM.

Details:

UAL1724 - KOA to SFO, a B737
UAL 396 - HNL to SFO, a B777
UAL 1741 - OGG to SFO, a B757

All entering PA at 7000 feet then descending rapidly above our town, one to barely over 4,000 feet. Very loud, they wake us up.
No other traffic in the Bay Area at the time. For God's sake, make them fly elsewhere, higher, and quieter, so that they do not wake up people. This can be done. It is unconscionable that SFO/Tracon allow this.

I encourage you to report any loud airplane, especially those that wake you up at night or very early in the morning, to the SFO noise complaint system. Online at:

Web Link

Published approach procedures for SFO:

Web Link

I had lunch with three Palo Alto residents today, and all three were awakened around 5:00am this morning.

long-standing "gross offender" UAL396 crossed over Palo Alto at 5:00am followed three minutes later by UAL1741.

When UAL396 came over the mountains it was headed in a east-northeast direction for the western entrance to the Dumbarton Bridge (a track that would have taken it over Atherton/Menlo Park), but it abruptly changed course over Woodside/PV and then flew over Stanford and Palo Alto.

With nothing else in the sky at 5:00am, you have to wonder why TRACON vectored UAL396 over Stanford/Palo Alto.


SJC Webtrak: Web Link

Thursday afternoon I noticed SO many loud prop planes overhead in a short period--NOT Surf Air Turbo Jets. I went to the tracker and found that it wasn't many planes--it was one, very loud, joy-rider, out of PAO making repeated loops all over Palo Alto and surrounding areas. Tail Number N28CZ. Very interesting. Registered to an FAA-lauded pilot who lives in PA. Think he might be more considerate of the population down here? We are not amused Peter Alexander. Look at you, driving not a new spiffy QUIET plane, that burns clean, unleaded fuel, but an antique T-28. OVER HOMES! WHY??? To show off?

You didn't go anywhere purposeful. It was a JOY RIDE for you. But I hope you know that you ruined my peaceful time having lunch with a friend on my patio, with repeated flyovers. And looking at the tracker, I see that I was not alone. You polluted the air and disturbed the peace over Ladera, bucolic Jasper Ridge, over College Terrance and Stanford residences, you circled back over Crescent Park (maybe to have a look at your house?) and came over Midtown 3 times in that 1/2 hour. YOU are selfish, and inconsiderate. This is the kind of discretionary activity that has no purpose in this era where most of us recognize the importance of reducing carbon footprints.

Save that thing for the air shows--out in the desert somewhere. This is indefensible behavior. Shame on you.

Groundling - Great research and a great posting. The only way to change an individual pilot's behavior is to call them out.

Thanks.

Jetman - I agree. It's unbelievable to me that at hours such as 1am or 5am in the morning when the skies are clear with no competing flights, that the pilots fly over sleeping residents homes at altitudes as low as 3,900 feet. I'm sickened by the lack of consideration.

There is an FAA office at PAO. I am wondering if they are trying to expand their control over the area since there are so many strange changes which direct traffic over the PAO.
Time to put that question to PAO - what's happening out there?

I know that SF and Santa Clara are starting to wrangle over the upcoming Super Bowl. Wondering if they are trying out new flight paths to accommodate all of the activity that will occur for that entire week - two weeks.

Something is changing and they need to get up front on what is going on.

They don't vector commercial aircraft around without a reason. -Taxi- speeds are controlled by the respective airlines for fuel conservation or other r emus considerations. The reason, IMHO, that no one is taking Palo Alto seriously WRT aircraft noise is that on a scale of 1 to 10, we might be a 3. The people who are tasked to manage the noise issues know what it is like in San Mateo, South City, and Santa Clara. We might not like it, but routing SJC arrivals over the baylands might well be best for the region. You used to be able to pick up the phone at the base of the Palo Alto control tower and be invited up for a visit, workload permitting. Why not try that and see what the controllers think...?

@Rick

So, wait a minute. You are arguing that because people moved to offices and housing newly built right next to SJC, people in Palo Alto, 15 miles away, should put up with SJC bound commercial jets at altitudes as low as 2,000 feet per the SJC webtrak (even if the floor officially is 2,500 feet - not much better anyway)?

Obviously you do not live in one of the Palo Alto neighborhoods under these SJC flight paths.

Madness indeed.

@Madness, I'm not arguing for anything. It would be much better if 8 million people had not decided to cram themselves into the dusty little bowl we call home, but they did with their cars, trains, airplanes, shoddy natural gas lines and all. I tell them all to go home every time I'm stuck in traffic but no one seems to listen. ;)

We seem to have a number of people who think they are the "wranglers" and goat herders for the POA, SFO, SJC, and Surf Air. Maybe some people are designated to manage the discussion and run interference.

If you drive up 101 north you will see that there is a huge amount of baylands before you get to bay water. That is where the planes are after they transition in Menlo Park. Redwood Shores and Foster City get the hit but the planes are still not overhead at that point. They are in their final arrival path over water.

When it comes to the San Jose Arrivals they were coming in over HWY 85 freeway and turning at Moffett. Did the lease of Moffett to Google affect that route?

They still went over the baylands at that point to make the turn. Does the new stadium demand no interference because they are taking over Santa Clara?
The stadium people are taking over that entire city.

New soccer stadium in San Jose - is it looking for no interference during games?

There are a lot of competing business entities that do not need overhead interference in the San Jose Airport area.

Why the SFO people would be turning into PA to go down to the PAO then turning north is another indication that the facts of what is going on need to be put on the table by FAA and airport personnel.

Just looking for the last 20 minutes the SFO Arrival planes are coming down to Arastadero / Charleston / Oregon Expressway to PAO/FAA and making turn at that location to go north. Most are going over the Dumbarton Bridge from 3,400 to 3,700.

The larger planes coming from the east coast seem to be higher up over the Dumbarton Bridge. They are not crossing the peninsula.

The SJC Arrivals are on track with HWY 87 and making a straight approach to SJC. No peninsula crossings at this time.

So there is some type of trade-off going on - in any case Arastadero / Charleston / Paige Mill to PAO/FAA involves any one of the airports at some time.

So what happened to the Menlo Park transition? Not happening right now - that whole area is clean of commercial traffic - only the small private planes.

Many questions. Most of the facilities mentioned here are open to visitors, some by appointment. If you get a group together I'd love to go along.

Anyone else see the prop plane pulling an ad banner today, Saturday around lunch time? Is Palo Alto now being treated like a giant stadium? I saw it twice between Middlefield and Greer. A few weeks ago, there was a similar banner ad plane buzzing and circling the Googleplex for HOURS. Why is this even legal? Don't we have enough stuff in the sky?

The FAA tried use Earth Day to sell "NextGen" on their Facebook page, and got some interesting comments:

"What a farce NextGen is: Lies and deceit; Environmental “reviews” with no basis in facts; The ruination of quiet neighborhoods; Destruction of property values without any compensation. It’s Federal government bullying at its worst, and they claim to be celebrating Earth Day? George Orwell could not have written such a scenario"

(for more comments, see the article linked below)

¡¿Happy Earth Day, Mr. Huerta?!
Aviation Impact Reform ~ April 25, 2015 Web Link

@ Groundling

I wish I had the luxury to worry about prop planes going around at lunch time. I am too busy trying to get some uninterrupted sleep at night to worry about lunch time quiet. To me, the first priority is to stop the big commercial jets that are out there at midnight of five AM. Then, we will want to worry about prop planes interfering with patio lunches. First things first.

Groundling,

I've noticed that quite a few of the jetliners flying overhead now, sport gigantic corporate logos on the bottoms of the planes, and have been wondering if this could be why they want to fly so low?

Could the people isolated within the aviation industry's executive-office echo-chambers, be insane enough to see this form of advertising as a grand new business opportunity?

@Jetman: If I parse the complaints about NextGen correctly, the result will likely be moving the jets up over Belmont and away from Palo Alto. If it allows more precise navigation they will no longer be a need to vector them this far south. I doubt the site you linked to allows pro-government posts. :)

Rick,

I'm pretty sure AIR cherry-picked the quoted comments, but you can read all of the comments on the FAA's Facebook page. The original post is from April 22, 2015 and begins "Happy Earth Day".

FAA Facebook Page: Web Link

Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Atherton are exposed to 10% of the airplane noise that communities nearer to SFO and SJC experience. Just look at the sound monitoring levels for SFO and SJC - there is no need to even look at Palo Alto because it is so low on the ground footprint noise level in comparison.

I look forward to the Palo Alto noise complaint posters pledging to only fly out of Sacramento.

Peter Carpenter,

How do you calculate 10% of the noise exposure that is experienced nearer to SFO or SJC.

Just a back of the envelope numbers would be fine.

"Just a back of the envelope numbers would be fine. "

4000 ft above Palo Alto.

1000 ft above Daly City, Millbrae, San Bruno and South San Francisco.

Sound levels declined as the square of the distance.

Palo Alto is 4 times further away from the flight paths as the above communities.

Therefore Palo Alto has 16 times less ground level aircraft noise.

Therefore my 10% overstates Palo Alto's noise foot print - it is 6.25 % of the nearest communities nearest SFO.

Peter - in case you have not noticed we are the flight path. In spades. And today - the times I looked there was no commercial traffic over your neck of the woods - only the small aircraft.

What happened to the Menlo Park crossover location? Seems the planes forgot where it is. They think they are suppose to go to the PAO and launch out over the bay from that location.

So I saw on the Almanac that the 04/22/15 meeting with Surf Air was cancelled. However the flight paths of both San Jose and SFO magically changed after the supposed meeting. My guess is you all negotiated some deal. How about SJC planes coming over at 2,000 with the landing flaps down - heading north to the PAO so it can then turn south over the bay to SJC?

And the people in Belmont are not complaining - the planes are not over their homes - they are over the water. And if you have not noticed that when you are in the open space of the baylands and bay the sound does not have much impact. I have been out on those baylands so know there is little noise impact in that area from planes. The baylands are like a sponge for noise.

Someone has cut a deal somewhere and we will find out. It may be our own city employees who are trying to pump up the FAA office at the PAO, and the PAO itself. In any case we see the change and will figure it out. And don't worry about Atherton - your new hotel will push aircraft one way or another.

Time to start working the next issue which is the oil trains which will come in Alviso, San Jose on way to Central California.

I'm afraid I rate Facebook as a source of reliable information slightly less than the comments section of the Palo Alto Weekly. The forces that control the flight paths of commercial aircraft over the Bay may be complex and variable, but it is safety and the airlines bottom line that control them, not the Illuminati.

Rick - your first entry is that you do not hear anything from airplanes - or not nearly enough to be up in arms about. Your going in position - protect the status quo. However - the status quo keeps changing and people who do not see an airplane one day have one over their heads the next day at 2,000. And for the people in the peninsula upward no commercial planes over their heads except the very high altitude in a approach for the turn northward.
You can check the mapping for 06/21 evening commute and 06/22 morning commute for San Jose and see where your home is in relation to those planes.

Why would the fact that people who choose to buy homes next to an airport (and therefore experience louder noise) mean that people who live farther away should simply shut up and meekly absorb more and more "spillover" pollution as the airport expands operations to maximize its profits?

I've never understood this sort of argument. (As in: "I can't believe you're sending back your salad just because it had a roach in it! Sarah found TWO roaches in HERS!" or "How DARE you scream about these jagged shards of shattered femur sticking out of this gash in your thigh? Can't you see there's a guy over there with his leg blown clean off?")

Sure, most of us DO fly, at least occasionally. But that doesn't mean that any relatively small fraction of the public should be expected to bear ALL of the costs (to our environments and quality of life) while the rest of the public just enjoys convenient access to flights ... and the airports, airlines, and their pet bureaucrats reap ALL of the profits.

So -- how's this, FAA, Congress, and SFO? YOU decide unilaterally to move a flight route over my house that didn't exist last week -- OR to increase the volume of traffic in an existing route more than x% in a year ... OR to lower the acceptable altitude of planes in an existing flight route over my house?

Then you PAY me.

For every plane (or every EXTRA plane, or every LOW plane) that passes through my "noise zone," you get to write me a check. In fact, you get to write a similar check to EVERYONE who is newly impacted by your unilaterally imposed change(s).

Think of it as a royalty ... no, think of it as a RENTAL. A very, very small and ridiculously inadequate gesture in which you make the emptiest, most symbolic PRETENSE of compensating the people whose quality of life and property values you are destroying in your pursuit of higher profits.

Of course, this extra expense WILL cut into those profits and force you to raise ticket prices.

Which will, in turn, reduce the number of people who want to fly.

Which will, in turn, reduce the number of overall flights and noise pollution that everyone who lives "near an airport" (a term whose definition seems to be expanding outward at near incomprehensible speed) is expected to endure.

Best of all, this arrangement will help to ensure that the REAL costs of NextGen are shared equally by the ENTIRE public the program purports to benefit -- including otherwise unaffected people like Peter Carpenter -- and are not just heaped unilaterally and disproportionately onto a few devastated neighborhoods and communities.

Sound fair?

pepperkiity - Interesting proposal but you do not own the air rights over your home. We all "endure"various levels of inconvenience by choosing to live in a busy urban area in return for many more advantages. If you don't like the tradeoff then move.

Peter,

Actually Pepperkat does own the airspace over his/her home... we all do. The national airspace is the commonwealth of the American people.

The FAA doesn't own the national airspace, they just mis-manage it on our behalf. If anyone has the misconception that they own the airspace, it is the aviation industry, and airline companies, many of whom are not even US citizens.

Ah, but that's where we don't see eye to eye. I don't believe I actually DO live in a "busy urban" area. I don't live near SFO. I don't live in San Mateo County. I don't live in Palo Alto. I don't live in San Jose. Hell, I don't even live in Santa CLARA County.

I live in Santa Cruz County, over an hour and two counties away from SFO, the airport that is currently making my life a living hell.

Fifteen years ago, I very consciously and deliberately made the choice to trade away most "urban advantages" -- i.e., a shorter commute; convenient access to stores, restaurants, etc.; prompt restoration of power during frequent outages; relative freedom from scorpions and snakes; easy and unlimited Internet access, etc. -- to buy a home and settle in the Santa Cruz Mountains.

I did this SPECIFICALLY in order to live far from an airport, train station, or other obvious source of city noise. In fact, my husband and I searched carefully for 2 years to find the house we wanted -- one with relatively easy access to the highway, but far enough away to ensure no highway noise. For 15 years, we've been pretty content with the bargain we made (in spite of the scorpions, and the insanely high fire insurance, and the constant well problems, and the yada yada yada).

Until a few months ago when we woke up to find that the FAA had, without impact studies, public hearings, or notification, moved an aviation highway over our home.

Practically overnight, we went from rarely noticing a plane to finding ourselves under a relentless, near-constant assault from overflying jets on a descent path to SFO. Thanks to what I have since been told is an extended landing methodology, most fly over us at altitudes of between 8000 and 9500 feet. (Some are slightly higher, and I've tracked some as low as 6600.) Since our home sits at a 2000-foot elevation, truncate these numbers (and increase the relative volume/disturbance levels) accordingly.

By 6:30 pm yesterday, we'd had 116 descending planes and 63 ascending planes pass overhead. (Lest you think I'm pulling these numbers from some post-it pad where I ticked a checkmark whenever I imagined I heard something, I confirmed all via Web Link I still have another five and a half hours' worth of flights to log for Monday as a whole, but had to pause at the "6:30 pm" point because I'd reached the limits of my restricted Internet bandwidth here (10Gb a month, another "tradeoff" of non-urban living), switch over to DSL and postpone logging the rest of the flights until midnight tonight when the satellite co. gives us more "free time."

Most of the 179 flights counted so far for Monday were SFO flights, with a few OAK and SJC scattered in.

So ... we've gone from almost no flights, or at least hardly any flights low enough to create any noticeable noise disturbance here, to 200+ (probably close to 230 or 240) flights a day. And we've been told that this is not even the *full* rollout in this area ... that some flights are still using the previous routes, and that we can expect even more traffic by summer.

Some of the flights (obviously, mostly the descents) are "noisy" in a traditional sense ... some wake us up, even through ear plugs and white noise ... but no single flight has been so annoying that up until this nightmare began, I'd ever have consider complaining about it. No one event (or even three or four events in a given hour) would be this upsetting. It is the relentless, constant barrage that is driving me insane ... sometimes, a plane every two to three minutes, with no time for one to "clear" before the next begins. There have been hours in the past weeks when there was literally not a second that was free from droning.

And while we are on the subject of "noise" -- it is the low-frequency waves that pass right through ceilings and walls, unattenuated by air and unweighted/unregarded by the FAA or typical "A"-level noise meters and regulations (in spite of increasing indications that A-weighted measurements are not appropriate for gauging the levels or impacts of disturbance created by aircraft noise) that leave me shaking and unable to concentrate after three or four continuous hours of it. I would honestly prefer having a train horn going off outside every three minutes to this. At least THAT wouldn't be causing this nearly intolerable hum/buzz in the base of my skull ... the top of my spine ... the bottoms of my eyes ... with each new plane.

Listen, Peter ... I've lurked on this board long enough to know that we're not going to agree about this, so I've already wasted too much of your time. I'll try not to waste much more.

Suffice to say, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Should we all reasonably recognize that with population growth, there will be increasing pollution and inconvenience and have to expect to "suck it up a bit" and "endure" things we'd rather not? Of course. OBVIOUSLY.

But what is NOT reasonable? Is to expect a fraction of people to bear the complete brunt of something that is so devastatingly and excessively impactful that to call it an "inconvenience" is like calling a limb amputation without benefit of anesthetic "uncomfortable." Which is exactly what the FAA (and, by extension, Congress) have done with NextGen, in communities all over the country. As one of the "small number of people" impacted, I agree with the mayor of Phoenix's comment: "I think the choice that was made to have such a disproportionate impact over such a small number of people is really fundamentally unfair and unacceptable."

I believe that if the government is going to seize your property "in the public interest," it should compensate you for what it is taking. This is the basis of eminent domain law.

If the government does not physically seize your property but does something -- still "in the public interest" -- to significantly devalue it (for example -- builds a dam that results in natural water flow changes, so that your property is flooded or eroded ... or knocks down your neighbor's house to build that new six-lane highway, but stops right at YOUR property line, so that even though you never BOUGHT a house right next to a highway, that's suddenly what you've got! And now you're choking on the smog, and trying to sleep through blaring horns and flashing headlights! And your home value has plummeted, and you can't sell, because who the heck wants to live next door to a highway!) ... then -- again -- I believe the government should compensate you for what it has taken. That is the basis of inverse condemnation law.

The whole point of these laws is to recognize that -- at least outside of the tax system -- we as a society believe it is unfair for the government to impose the cost of a benefit to the entire population onto the backs of a few. If a benefit is important enough to us to justify "our" literally stealing something from a fellow citizen -- whether his physical property, his ability to use or enjoy it, or the value of it -- then "we" should at the very least be willing to share that cost.

And incidentally? I don't want to, but I *am* going to have to move. Which saddens me beyond belief. We have LOVED this house. But this is making an absolute hash of my ability to work. A few hours in on a bad day, and it is really hard to focus, or hold a thought together.

I just don't know where we're going to *go*.

Seriously. If an hour and several counties away from SFO isn't far enough away to be able to protect myself from suddenly having the government plunk a "concentrated flight route" for 200+ planes overhead? How far WOULD be far enough?

What more COULD I reasonably have done to protect myself from this devastation?

Pepperkat,

If there are any groups in Santa Cruz County organizing against this madness, please have them contact the folks at Sky Posse.

Sky Posse's website: Web Link

"Flying has become more energy efficient than driving:
By John Kemp

(Reuters) - Flying has become less energy intensive than driving, at least in the United States, according to the surprising findings of an analysis of energy consumption by the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute.

Transporting one person a distance of one mile by aircraft consumed on average the energy equivalent to 2,465 British thermal units (BTUs), compared with 4,211 BTUs for moving one person one mile by car, in 2012."

Full story at:

Web Link

Peter - that is interesting but what is the point? Are you suggesting a plane for every household? Are we suppose to be subjected to more noise due this factoid?

I would be wary of this supposed organization, sky posse. You never see a real name associated with them. The posters on this forum are all anonymous. If you want to contact them you need to provide your name and e mail address.

"Peter - that is interesting but what is the point?"

Simply that flying is more energy efficient than driving which is relevant given all of the negatives that you and other attribute to airplanes.

As you know I prefer a fact based discussion.

I find it interesting. Some people from a nearby town that has managed to miraculously be quite unscathed by commercial jet traffic (the SFO bound planes flying above that town are well above 5,000 feet and higher almost all of the time per the San Jose Webtrak), feel compelled to come again and again to this forum to defend the aviation industry and its government allies, the FAA and the local airports. Why such compulsion?

Sadly, the SurfAir service is deteriorating substantially. They are dropping cities and reducing flight schedules. They had promised a level of service that they couldn't deliver. In my 12 months of membership, my excitement has diminished as letdown after letdown has taken the gild off the lilly. I regret investing in the startup costs and member registration costs. Not to mention, I have had several unpleasant experiences with unfriendly and downright rude staff. The allure was strong, but for me, the overall experience is on a downward trajectory. I started off as an outspoken proponent to increase ridership and help this fledgling company grow. Now I must say, "buyer beware." Don't do it.

Chris,

Do you think the deterioration of SurfAir's customer service is related to the departure of founder and CEO Wade Eyerly (and other founders), and his replacement by former Frontier Airlines CEO Jeff Potter?

My impression is, that SurfAir was doing a better job of trying to work with the public, before Potter became CEO.

From the latest SkyPosse newsletter regarding the Select Committee Meeting on May 6:

"It was a positive and encouraging first meeting: everybody recognizes the serious noise problem and is eager to address it. The challenge will be, however, to find solutions that are acceptable by many. The FAA, who have ultimate authority, will not implement changes without regional consensus."

NextGen was implemented without regional consensus. But now, suddenly, no changes can be made without consensus. How convenient.

I work at home. Or, more accurately since NextGen, I try to work at home. Over the last half hour I've been interrupted by eight SFO planes, i.e. on average every 3-4 minutes. One was at 3300 ft.

Yesterday morning I was trying to enjoy a peaceful Sunday morning outside in my yard. Lol. Guess that's now a thing of the past. I, like peppercat, would _never_ have bought under a jet flightpath. Oh, excuse me a moment while another jet carves through the sky above my house...

Those under the new, ...oh, wait a minute, another jet overhead...

As I was saying, those under the new NextGen flightpaths unilaterally implemented by FAA without regional consensus should immediately receive compensation for the past few years ... (hang on... another jet...) and ongoing until the much needed solutions are implemented.

The federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled for the City of Santa Monica and against the Federal Aviation Administration in the City's lawsuit to establish its right to control use of the land now occupied by the Santa Monica Airport.

It is time for the City of Palo Alto to begin the long process of recovering local control of the land occupied by Palo Alto Airport.

"Santa Monica Airport: One Step Closer to Local Control"
AIReform ~ May 17, 2016 Web Link

Multiple flights under 4,000 feet coming over South Palo Alto today. Very noisy.

I live in an apartment in Redwood City, where the airplane noise has been increasing steadily for more than two years now, thanks to Surf Air. When their planes come in for a landing at San Carlos Airport, they are less than two hundred feet above my roof. Not only is the noise jarring, the potential danger posed by such a flight path should be obvious. When are the privileged (and those who want to be) going to cultivate a little compassion? They want their luxuries and conveniences, but frequently fail to demonstrate much interest in the impact their lifestyles have on the rest of us. In the end, it's all about money. If you have it, you have power. Power to decide how others will be allowed to live.