Excellent article - note the accompanying FAA stream which provides example of the type discussion that goes on with this topic.

Well Said! The low flying aircraft have woken me up at 1am, and at some points in the afternoon are incessant. Time for a change!

All should note that not only SFO traffic is impacting us. This morning, San Jose (SJC) arrivals were coming over midtown at ridiculous, unsafe altitudes (under 2000 ft in altitude) to squeeze between SFO traffic and PAO and San Carlos GA traffic. It was non-stop from 8:30-10 am.

I mostly agree with this opinion writer, and share her journey of discovery, although I noticed the change a year ago. Thanks for describing our community's suffering and the players who can make a change if they wish to.

I do NOT have a warm spot in my heart for hobby and business GA traffic out of PAO and San Carlos. Most all of this traffic is unnecessary. It is left to pilots to decide how and where to fly. No air traffic controller is watching them unless they are taking off or landing. That, is a huge security risk. One of their own flight school training pilots (escaping the law) stole a plane last winter and just disappeared over Mexico, because NO ONE is watching these planes. The FAA has decided to NOT impinge upon the GA pilots' individual freedom in the skies. Libertarian style. What about OUR freedoms? These planes are in your face, loud, and take longer to pass over. Ever notice the hella-loud antique things flying in formation over your homes? That is G-Max which is an aerobatics outfit: the joy riders who act like cowboys and destroy the peace overhead to tear up the skies like a ATV does in the desert. All GA is for entitled people who are just too important to get somewhere like the rest of us. We support their pleasure and benefits with our suffering.

There are circling student pilots over our Baylands "park" that is essentially an extension of their runway. It is lead fuel being burned overhead, too. Such an anachronistic phenomenon--like smokers from the 60's--this practice of polluting our town has to stop!

From my garden yesterday, just before 6 pm, I saw a C206 (6 seat prop plane) tail number N206HG, owned by a Palo Alto resident of Kirby Place, flying over north PA and then Midtown at well below the 1000 ft. minimum flight altitude standard for populated areas. Forget about the noise abatement rec of 1500 ft.! This guy was thumbing his nose at his neighbors. No traffic over the Bay at the time of his approach to Palo Alto Airport. He could have flown high over town and descended over the Bay--instead he buzzed us from between 700 ft (per San Jose WebTrak5) and 900 ft (per Oakland WebTrak5). Whatever the precise altitude, it blasted our homes with noise and showed terrible disregard for quality of life in our town. Shame on this selfish yahoo and all the other pilots who flagrantly pollute our neighborhoods with noise and leaded fuel emissions. Shame on the FAA for not having the will to stand up and regulate them.

Groundling, well said. I have been woken by low-flying small prop planes at 10 pm, 11 pm and later, and by large jets at 3 and 4 am. On calling the Palo Alto airport, I was surprised to learn that there are no regulations limiting restricting private flights at night. On contacting SFO, I learn that they accept complaints, but take no action.

The daytime noise is incessant.

SkyPosse has just published a quantitative analysis that further proves our misery is real. Palo Alto's future looks bleak if we just sit there without doning anything about it!

Web Link

Thank you for Rachel for a well written article that states the issues and facts! There's no questioning the fact that Palo Alto residents are being subjected to increased noise from aircraft. As members of the public, we should report offensive aircraft to SFO (or San Jose) airports and support Air Posse. Otherwise we'll be scrubbing tire marks off of our roofs from the jumbo jets...

As I have posted many times there is no excuse for or justification for landing aircraft to the south in San Jose and to the north at SFO. Such a practice requires the south landing planes at SJC to fly beneath the north landing planes at SFO.

Such a practice is a very recent change by the FAA which used to always "turn around" all of the Bay Area airports at the same time so that they were all landing in the same direction.

I urge Palo Alto and other impacted residents to raise hell about this practice and demand that it be stopped.

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 10, 2015 at 10:45 am
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

I sent the following to Cong. Eshoo's office:


From: Peter Carpenter
Subject: This should be an easy fix
Date: August 10, 2015 at 10:42:58 AM PDT
To: karen.chapman

Karen,
Historically the FAA has always coordinated the landing patterns at SFO and SJC so that planes at both airports are landing in the same direction. Recently they have gotten into the habit of allowing landing from the North at SJC while still landing from the South at SFO. This overlaps traffic over Palo Alto and forces the SJC inbound traffic to fly very low to stay below the SFO inbound traffic.

There is no reason for this change from the long practiced process of coordinating the landing direction at these two airport.


Let me know if you need more details.


Peter Carpenter

Thank you Rachel for stepping up to raise awareness of this serious impact to our environment. I especially appreciate that you did your research, and took action. I'm a frequent complainer to SFO, have signed the Sky Posse petition, signed up to be on the Sky Posse mailing list, and will write to our elected officials at all levels of government to help resolve this situation.

Posting to Boston West Fair Skies Facebook page. Excellent article.

This is not just Palo Alto issue. I have learned the planes from Monterey Airport, San Jose and SFO intersect in Capitola. I hear the planes in Capitola and over the Santa Cruz Mountians through Los Gatos and beyond. I have tracked and sent examples of noise... 25 plane in 1 1/2 hours of being outside, huge planes that I hear inside my house within in minutes of each other and many others.

Who are the KEY people/agencies to send concerns? I have send email to SFO noise with CC to Anna Eshoo, Dianne Fienstein and local government.

I am tired of complaining and want to make impact?

Good article! However the occasional plane sound does no seem to bother our family; in other words, a none issue for us.

Great article. The parade of planes overhead seems unending at times. I am so sad about the loss of quiet. Have done all of what rabble mentions and will continue to do so.

Such a relief to see the experience quantified in such stark numbers in the Sky Posse report. Really nice work.

Wow, impressive and thorough report and great article! Thank you to Sky Posse Palo Alto for pursuing this! Having experienced a change in employment status over the last year, I can tell you that the airplane noise is much less noticeable when I am away at work all day than when I am home all day. That seems like an obvious statement (Doh!) but what I mean is, the 24x7 noise is what really begins to take over your existence. People that are away all day get a huge relief from it and consequently may not "hear" as much of it when they come home in the evening and on the weekends. (Incidentally, same with the gas blowers.)

For those of you who say the noise doesn't bother you, consider which camp you are in and be understanding of those who are living a different, daily reality. I used to be in the "it doesn't bother me" camp, but now I'm firmly in the "this has to stop!" camp.

One comment on Dr. Christel's excellent report - figure 11 doesn't seem to jibe. The graph appears to show Atherton climbing at a steeper rate, but the label indicated Palo Alto's climb is higher. You might double check that.

To the neighbor that commented the "occasional plane" noise was not an issue for her family, I would note that yesterday morning between 9am and 11am I recorded on my phone low-flying commercial jets passing over my house at the rate of one every one or two minutes. That's at least 30 jets per hour.

If you are inside the house the noise is noticeable but not disturbing. Outside in the garden it feels like you are at the airport.

Thank you Sky Posse--good to see the solid data.

I live off a noisy street and I still hear the noise--indoors. It's really disruptive.

@Fantastic, fig 11 accurately shows the data of Table 8. This is why stock market prices are plotted on a logarithmic scale. On a linear scale the apparent line slope is a misleading indicator of growth rate. Actually the difference between 281% and 302%, while statistically significant, is pretty small. In the two year period Dr Christel's numbers show Atherton gained 20 San Carlos arrival overflights per day, while Palo Alto neighborhoods gained 17 San Carlos arrivals. By my count, Surf Air's current schedule shows 14 SQL arrivals per day (averaging weekday and weekend). So clearly most of the San Carlos traffic growth is Surf Air, which wasn't flying in May 2013.

It's a great report and shows how disproportionate impacts can be demonstrated with available data, even in the absence of costly noise monitors.

Let's start with the airport in Palo Alto with a runway that is aimed directly at my house. Hard to have sympathy.

"As I have posted many times there is no excuse for or justification for landing aircraft to the south in San Jose and to the north at SFO. Such a practice requires the south landing planes at SJC to fly beneath the north landing planes at SFO."

Just tell those puddle jumper jockeys ar PAO to stay under 1,500 ft. The sightseeing's better down there anyway.

Jeez, are you the same Peter Carpenter who's been telling everyone the FAA is always right?

"Jeez, are you the same Peter Carpenter who's been telling everyone the FAA is always right?"

I am Peter Carpenter and I never said that the FAA is always right - you might try reading all of my posts before making such a false comment.

"I am Peter Carpenter and I never said that the FAA is always right - you might try reading all of my posts before making such a false comment."

I have followed your postings, so I can authoritatively place your epiphany approximately two weeks ago, prompted by this SJC approach issue. Welcome to the righteous side, sir.

Aviation Impact Reform has a good article on how the FAA is sabotaging the "Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex" (OAPM) process, and in doing so, violating the law.

"How FAA is Sabotaging the Citizen Involvement Process on OAPMs"
AIReform ~ August 21, 2015 Web Link

I think Portola Valley and Woodside have the right idea - file a law suit.
That is the only way that some action will be obtained.

Roger - I challenge you to show where I ever stated that the FAA is always right. I never have and I resent you lying about what I have and have not said.

Peter,

You do not need to rely on Mr. Overnaut to resolve this matter. You can easily prove him wrong, by simply reiterating the things you think the FAA is not doing right.

Your position does seem to have changed recently, so I think a lot of Town Square readers would appreciate clarification from you.

I agree with @Roger and @Jetman. Carpenter has done the proverbial 180 on this topic. My recollection is his position has been that there is no noise problem in Palo Alto and the FAA knows what they are doing and do the right thing.

No, I'm not going to dig through years of posts when many of us have the same perception and recollection. Perhaps Carpenter can cite posts where he agreed there was a problem since he is so offended by our recollections.

"My recollection is his position has been that there is no noise problem in Palo Alto "

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jun 1, 2015 at 2:25 pm
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
sketchy - in my decades of dealing with airplane noise complaints and my 5? years of experience with Town Forum discussions on airplane noise I have come to appreciate that:
1 - the majority of people who complain sincerely believe that they are being significantly and personally impacted by airplane noise
2 -some of these people engage, like we all sometimes do, in both hyperbole and exaggeration in order to emphasize and justify their complaints
3 - the only way to have a fact based discussion is to encourage people to provide date, time, place information which can then be used to independently assess what actually happened.
4 - no amount of data can deny how a person feels but the documented facts can be used to stimulate timely discussion and decisions regarding what public policy changes are appropriate.

If I were living in Atherton, and an avid follower of flying and flight patterns, I would be very happy about the change over the last year or so wrt low-altitude SFO arrivals over my house. What strange luck! But now, with my neighboring city complaining more and more effectively about flight noise, I would be concerned about that change reversing, and so would be doing my darnedest to strongly and exclusively promote those solutions that help alleviate my neighbor's problem while not impacting my own hometown. Examples: the SFO/SJC issue, the herringbone approach, etc. This is the kind of argument that I'm seeing of late, so I'm not really seeing it as a 180. It's pretty consistent, just adapted to a new reality.

@Peter:

I'm surprised you are supporting my position, but I'll assume it's part of you 180. The post you cite refers to people "believing" they hear noise, and "exaggerating" the noise they hear, and suggests they find data to back it up.

You are not stating you believe there is a noise problem in Palo Alto, and you are implying there is NOT one.

How deep can you dig?

I do not find a "fact based" discussion meaningful.

It is individual experience--and efforts to express this through the general imprecision of words--that is of great value to me.

Peter,

OK, lets talk about the facts Mr. Chrystal has assembled in his analysis of NOP flight data, and stay away from petty arguments. After all, this is the hard data you have been waiting for. Finally you have something you can really sink your teeth into!

"Preliminary Flight Data Analysis"
Lee Chrystal ~ August 19, 2015 Web Link

This particular data stream is not about Peter. Let's not make it about his issues. It is about Palo Alto Issues. Reality is the Palo Alto issues are not the same as Atherton issues. They are conducting their own streams of discussion on the Almanac.

Hate to say I told you so

But it was brought up that "if you think Surf Air is bad wait until next gen starts" was said in one of the original Surf Air complaint threads back in 2013,

SA had first started generating complaints and next gen had not yet started but was in the final design phase.

Some wise person, Menlo Voter, Jet Man or PC brought it up, can't remember which now. but no one listened.

It's better to see what's coming next than wait until it's to late.

Well Neighbor - I attended one of the original Surf Air Meetings in Atherton conducted by the then mayor way back when. That meeting had reps from San Carlos Airport, FAA, city councils = Atherton, Menlo Park, and legislative councils. Everyone who was anyone was there, including the then Surf Air Rep. All of the "wise" people.

You would think with all of that horsepower out there trying to mediate the situation it would get better.

So how has that all worked out for everyone?

Palo Alto has conducted meetings in which the SFO Noise Abatement Manager and Manager of the PAO were in attendance on the SFO issue.

So how has that worked out for everyone?

Many cities have now had meetings with the FAA and legislative reps. Hopefully more horsepower is working the issue but no one is in the dark here.

Everyone fully understands what is happening and attempting to mediate he situations.

Aviation experts,

Yesterday was brutal, non-stop jets/small planes flying overhead every 5 - 10 minutes all day long.

But I noticed some days were a bit "quieter" relatively. I am wondering if they used alternative routes? How can there be noticeable fluctuation if the commercial jet's routes are assumed to be the same? If they are using alternative routes, they can definitely do something to distribute the noise more evenly. Aren't they?

OK, let’s develop a Draft SFO Approach Protocol which is based on simplicity, equity and technical feasibility.

As a starting point I recommend the following report:

An AEF Report for HACAN on:
Approach Noise at Heathrow: Concentrating the Problem

Here is the full report:
Web Link

Here are some highly relevant excerpts:

“And the solution that has been championed concerns air traffic management, specifically the more
widespread use of Continuous Descent Approaches (CDAs). Traditional approach paths involved
aircraft descending through different blocks of airspace in a series of steps, using flaps and power
changes to manage speed. In CDAs, in contrast, aircraft descend into the airport at a steady 3
degrees; while there will still be some noise from the engine, additional noise from the aircraft itself
is reduced. This procedure, combined with the use of P‐RNAV and changes to the joining point for
final approach, have increased the concentration of aircraft along corridors. For pilots, this reduces
the number of factors having to be taken into account when landing. For Government, it helps to
satisfy the environmental objective of minimising the number of people affected by aircraft noise
when determining arrival and departure paths and airspace revisions.
Changes in the joining point to optimise Continuous Descent Approaches have produced as many
losers as winners: it has resulted in more concentration of flight paths many miles from the airport.”

“But alternative approaches do exist…..a number of schemes are being trialled at airports around
the world or at least being assessed.

To deal with the issue of concentration of traffic, some airports have been trialling curved CDA
approaches. This gives the benefit of a continuous descent but allows air traffic controllers to have
several CDA approaches – more akin to the fanning effect of traditional approach paths – reducing
the number of overflights in any given place. Other airports have also looked at using curved CDA to
join the final straight approach at different points, effectively a herring bone pattern.”

Here is a diagram of such a herring bone pattern:
Web Link

****************************
So using the concept of a herring bone pattern and Advanced (or curved) Controlled Descent Approachs (CDA’a) here is a Draft SFO Arrivals Protocol:

1 – Establish two 25 mile plus 284 degree radials form SFO – one as an extension of Runway 28 Right and the second as an extension of Runway 28 Left.

2 – Place intercept points on each of these 284 deg radials at ½ mile intervals starting 10 miles from SFO where the 3 degree glide path interception point would be at 3000 ft and continuing out to the 25 mile point for a total of 32 interception points on both radials.

3 – ATC to randomly assign Curving CDAs to airplanes from the North and East to the 16 interception points on 28 Right radial.

4 - ATC to randomly assign Curving CDAs to airplanes from the South and West to the 16 interception points on 28 Left radial.

5 – Between 2100 (9 PM) and 0600 (6 AM) aircraft would be randomly assigned to interceptions point no closer than 20 miles from SFO.

6 - Future improvements could be made when and if steeper glide paths ( greater than 3 degrees) are approved.

*************************************

What are the specific problems with this DRAFT proposal?

How can it be improved?

Is it simple?

Is it equitable?

Is it technically feasible?

Item 2 - You are defining the Item 2 as 3,000 ft 10 miles out. That is a San Mateo concern. We are looking for a 5,000 altitude over PA.
Item 6 - we are not looking for a steeper glide path - that creates the problem in the first place.

We have someone from SU who is coming up with some "engineering" recommendations.

"Item 2 - You are defining the Item 2 as 3,000 ft 10 miles out. That is a San Mateo concern. We are looking for a 5,000 altitude over PA. "

There are only two of the 32 intercept points at 3000 ft. All of the remaining 30 interpret points are progressively higher. My objective was to evenly distribute the flights rather than to give any one city an arbitrary height limit.

"Item 6 - we are not looking for a steeper glide path - that creates the problem in the first place."

Wrong, steeper glide paths mean that plane would be higher at any given distance from the airport and higher means less noise.

@midtowner

One difference yesterday (Saturday) and Friday was the number of SJC arrivals coming in low over Palo Alto.. they usually aren't taking that path in. Plus small planes seemed more numerous .. lots of pilots out enjoying the lovely weather.

@anon

Thanks. Looks like we are at the mercy of SJC. And relaxing in my backyard seems like a distant memory...

The San Jose Group are turning in to the major bad boys. IF any one knows which ATC is providing that guidance let us all know. We do not need to see SW planes coming in over our heads at less than 2,000 ft.
And that MD plane - it looks like it is on a bomb run - flats all out. That is one ugly plane.

[Post removed.]

@Agenda, the other Palo Alto problems have their own threads.
What else do you expect to be discussed on this one?
People who aren't interested will ignore it, or maybe realize that hard data are being developed and increasing pressure will be applied to mitigate the situation.
Feel free to dispute the data.

Agenda

If you want to discuss other issues facing Palo Alto. You are welcome to start another thread and voice your opinions there.

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

Maybe there is an Air Traffic Controller's brotherhood - really stressed out people who are now between a rock and a hard place.

I know someone that was an ATC - for one year and said enough of that. Now they are the VP of a major bank. But given the stock market maybe that is a different kind of stress.

This started out with a very well delivered Palo Alto perception of a problem and that is the way it is going to stay.

This is beginning to remind me of the show the Sopranos - as you recall it starts with the Newark Airport and roles out with the theme song. We use to fly a lot to Newark and had the theme song recorded. we took great joy in putting the theme song on while we were rolling up the road. Yes - we were in Tony's land - the Boss's land.

SFO needs a theme song. Not quite a Tony Soprano but close.
Agenda - got any suggestions?

Tony Bennett?

Editor-- please remove musical and another's postings above. You removed my innocuous post. You should now also remove their responses to my comment. Please try to maintain some balance in your editing of this thread, though it has been lacking in all the other threads dealing with airplane noise in Palo Alto. Your bias is obvious.

I agree with Midtowner that yesterday was awful. Relentless noise.

For those interested in filing complaints with SFO, I'd encourage you to bookmark the spacefrog site on your smartphone (https://spacefrog.herokuapp.com). Filing complaints for such a massive number of disruptive flights is arduous in itself, and the mobile access makes it less of a chore.

Note that SFO warns us not expect a timely response "due to an unusually high volume" of complaints. Nice.

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

@ Peter Carpenter

Thank you for sending your comments to Eshoo's office about reverse flow of SJC arrivals while SFO is in normal arrival pattern. I will do the same, and add that planes are coming in far lower than necessary only because the incessant SFO traffic is SO low. Lately, many of the SJC jets hit 1900' - 2000' coming into PA from the south, perform a hard u-turn over Midtown, and maintain that same altitude over the Bay almost to Alviso, before descending further. This is not a continuous descent at all. Are they braking over us and then accelerating to maintain altitude? I am no expert, but it is roaring loud and some kind of dirty maneuver. Or maybe there is just no way to fly a jet less than 1/2 mile up and be quiet.

I am also intrigued by your draft "solution" to inequitable aircraft noise distribution, and if you have friends in high places, Congress or FAA, I encourage you to share your thoughts with them. About the controversial intercept point at 10 miles from SFO, which puts planes at a much lower altitude over San Mateo County--perhaps only smaller, quieter aircraft would utilize those approaches? Or reserve those approaches for skilled pilots who can handle a steeper glide slope than 3%, thus allowing them a higher approach. Random assignment wouldn't allow this nuanced type of traffic control.

Palo Alto is ~four miles across, so that still puts eight x 1/2 mile spaced paths through us. We hear planes at least a mile away in either direction, so unless the the use of those 8 paths were staggered over time, we'd still be suffering. It would be a chore (though not impossible with NexGen technology) for ATC to stagger the use of each path--skipping by mile increments up and down the peninsula as each flight is routed in. That would be better than random. Residents under any one path could have 20 minutes between flights--even if flights are arriving 1/minute, as long as the pattern shifted by 1/2 mile each pass through the 16 entry points.

I love the idea of 9pm -6 am being for much higher entry points--however, a limit on number planes would still be preferable during night hours--or those "20 miles-out" folks get hammered--even though they'd be slightly higher altitude flights. How high would the 20 mile entry point be?

Your proposal is a major redesign for the FAA to implement. If the City of PA does a comprehensive study of the noise and the problem, the alternative routes will hopefully be part of it. It is probably costly to design a viable plan. Perhaps other communities should ante-up for the cost of doing this fairly.

Lastly, about the curved approaches you describe: would that maneuver cause more airframe noise, turbulence, or other noise impact below? I do feel that the current u-turn "teardrop" over PA is the worst in terms of noise experience on the ground--possibly because of braking while turning, turbulence, etc. I am no aviation expert. Perhaps someone who knows what makes airplanes so loud can inform me?

Groundling - Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

"unless the the use of those 8 paths were staggered over time, we'd still be suffering."

Random assignment of intersection points would provide staggering so that Palo Alto would get only 25% of the traffic coming from the West and South - a big improvement.

"Lastly, about the curved approaches you describe: would that maneuver cause more airframe noise, turbulence, or other noise impact below?"
Curved CDA's would require both fewer airframe configurations and power changes and therefore would be quieter.

"Your proposal is a major redesign for the FAA to implement."
With NextGen the approaches that I propose would be very easy to implement.
With pre-NextGen technology these approaches would be impossible.

Where would you suggest the air traffic fly? I guess if it's over some other community it would satisfy your needs. Just move it somewhere else, right? Sounds like your organization' only motive is to make it some else's problem. Welcome to the city.....

Peter said:

"What are the specific problems with this DRAFT proposal?"

The biggest problem with "your" proposal is the FAA is dead-set against this type of plan, because of the "complexity".

What you are proposing is really nothing new. This idea has been around since the early days of "nextgen" (15+ years ago). You don't need to propose this concept to the FAA. The FAA is very aware of the concept. In fact the FAA through its various contractors (NASA, JPDO, MITRE, etc) actually created it. The concept has had various names, but the FAA currently refers to it as "randomization".

Why doesn't the FAA want to implement is own concept? The FAA says it is because of the "complexity". The world has changed in the last 15+ years, and "nextgen " has evolved. Perhaps, the $40+ billion "mextgen" ATC system cannot perform up to its original technological promise, and the FAA is afraid to challenge "nextgen" with the complexity of randomized, herringbone patterned, curved CDAs?

Or, perhaps the FAA's priorities have changed. The FAA says its top priority after safety, is "efficiency". When the FAA talks about "efficiency" they are talking about at least three different kinds of efficiency:

1. FUEL efficiency - this is the type of efficiency we all understand, and most commonly associate with the word efficiency.

2. MANAGEMENT efficiency - this means managing as many aircraft as possible, with as few air traffic controllers, and as little ATC infrastructure as possible.

3. AIRSPACE efficiency - this means cramming the airlines into as small of a portion of the airspace as possible, to make the remainder available to other types of aviation, especially the type of aviation who's operations are fundamentally incompatible with piloted craft.

Mr. Carpenter, this isn't the simple technical problem, you would like it to be (or would like others to believe it is). Fundamentally it is really a political problem... what priorities should the FAA have, and where do groundlings fit into those priorities?

"What you are proposing is really nothing new. This idea has been around since the early days of "nextgen" (15+ years ago). You don't need to propose this concept to the FAA. The FAA is very aware of the concept. In fact the FAA through its various contractors (NASA, JPDO, MITRE, etc) actually created it. The concept has had various names, but the FAA currently refers to it as "randomization"."

Actually you are wrong and I challenge you to post FAA documents that describe the mutiple ACDA herring bone approach that I have proposed.

The first public mention of that concept that I could find is in the non FAA March 2010 report cited above.

And in any case regardless of when it was first proposed why should we be so afraid to propose it now?

I tire of people who simply say something can't be done and refuse to offer specific alternatives.

Either Lead, follow or get out of the way.

Sky Posse's petition states"NextGen’s precision routing technologies could in fact dramatically improve the situation to the benefit of both the flying and the residential public". But Sky Possee makes no specific recommendation.

Well the above proposal provide a concrete example of how that can be done.

Sky Posse's petition states "The San Francisco Bay presents a unique opportunity to avoid flight descents that cross the heavily populated Midpeninsula residential areas below 6000 feet. Better design can be achieved with community input to assist the FAA in developing a more flexible and thoughtful route system. Improvements for both the residential and the flying public are possible - better flight routing, more equitable sharing of noise impacts, and the continuation of the FAA’s work on the modernization of other methods of noise abatement." But again Sky Posse makes no specific recommendation.

Well the above proposal provide a concrete example of how that can be done.

Lead, follow or get out of the way

SFO is much more of a problem than Surf Air. Nothing is worse than a loud whining jet flying over your home repeatedly for hours. Also Surf Air doesn't fly over my house at 12, 1, and 2am in the morning like SFO planes do. I'm woken up every night. It's a very real problem.

" Also Surf Air doesn't fly over my house at 12, 1, and 2am in the morning like SFO planes do."

Note item 5 in the above proposal:

"5 – Between 2100 (9 PM) and 0600 (6 AM) aircraft would be randomly assigned to interceptions point no closer than 20 miles from SFO."


This would require intercepts south of Palo Alto and at over 6000 ft..

What are the specific problems with this DRAFT proposal?

How can it be improved?

Is it simple?

Is it equitable?

Is it technically feasible?

I agree that SFO is much more of a problem.

The points that Jetman has brought up make a lot of sense.

Why would a disproportional amount of traffic be concentrated over Palo Alto if the experts already knew they could use Nextgen technology to do anything. By definition (meaning whenever the new technology was conceived), they would have known that they could either randomize or concentrate.

They clearly picked to concentrate. All the videos about Nextgen are many line fuzzy over a larger area made into a concentrated line Web Link The whole problem is that lines have to be drawn in the first place and I don't trust that when priorities are so stacked against us.

"The whole problem is that lines have to be drawn in the first place and I don't trust that when priorities are so stacked against us. "

That is why you have to propose a SPECIFIC, feasible solution.

Just complaining will not solve the problem.

What is your specific solution?

Shortly after a particularly loud jet passed overhead my middle schooler came into my bedroom to say she was having trouble sleeping. I wonder how many of our kids are having their sleep disrupted every night, whether or not they realize it? Could this be contributing to student stress and depression?

I wonder if this is the missing link that could explain why Palo Alto fairs so much worse than other, equally high-performing school districts when it comes to teenagers emotional health and well-being.

"What is your specific solution?"

7,000+ ft until over the bay, then full flaps and dive brakes (as available) right onto the runway threshold. The onboard robots can accomplish this easily while the pilots enjoy the ride.

I agree with your viewpoint BUT I could do without the boiled frog metaphor. With all due respect.

@jetpilot - there are four runways at SFO.

Jetman is correct. Put your thinking caps on - who built the satellite(s) that are running this show.

Who developed the programs and updates that are running this show.

Now the problem is how to put the leash on this dog. The dog is running loose.

Another clue - a number of former mayors of surrounding cities are fully aware of the program and the specifics of how it works.

In case you all haven't noticed you have been surrounded by the biggest defense companies in the business. This is the state of California - so quit thinking this is a mystery project and only a select few can figure out the intricacies of the business. Between Silicon Valley and Southern California you have the majority of companies that have thought this all up.

The problem is when the government buys off the program and starts running amuck.

PACO - we live in mid-Midtown. My husband and I met while he was studying for his PhD in Aeronautical Engineering at Stanford. My father was a lifelong pilot - twenty years in the military, then as an instructor pilot for United. I am familiar with airplanes.
The air traffic has increased tremendously over our house recently. To answer your question, for many years, we watched the commercial planes line up over the Bay toward SFO in a long approach. No cities were flown over, no homes were bombarded with noise. It can be done.

There is a show on Channel 24 called "Why Airplanes Crash". They go into specific incidents and state why the problem occurred - usually mechanical - and the what the pilot did to attempt a correction to the problem.

In many cases the pilot did not have sufficient training to recognize what the problem is and what is the correct maneuver to at least get the plane on the ground safely.

Pilot's comments bring to mind any extreme nose up or down maneuvers are uncomfortable for the plane passengers and the plane. Yes - I understand that the runways have been rebuilt to create stops for the planes but hope that we have adequately trained pilots that are not into extreme maneuvers.

They featured a China Airline plane that had engine trouble so they directed it to SFO vs LAX - it's destination. It would not have made it to LAX.

I followed some of what was happening in Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport when there was hope that the FAA would work with them Web Link I recall that the FAA accused the City of Phoenix of not coming back with a "specific" solution, and discussions broke down because Phoenix had made a specific request. Phoenix proposed to use the new technology with the routes that were used before Nextgen. Simple enough, there was a specific proposal, but still unclear why that could not work.

"7,000+ ft until over the bay, then full flaps and dive brakes (as available) right onto the runway threshold."

At what distance from SFO would your proposed approach intercept the 284 radial and at what altitude?

What would be the resultant glide slope?

thanks.

Speaking to the political problem, below is a recent posting on the Save our Skies Santa Cruz Facebook page Web Link

"Save Our Skies shared a link.
Yesterday at 11:01am ·

The Real Impact of Aircraft Noise is a national story with local implications across America. Key aspects include:

Nationally, the significant impact of aircraft noise is 20 times what ...
MSPFAIRSKIES.COM VIDEO Web Link

from Poster Pepper Kat

"Please, everyone, take the time to click through and watch these two videos. The presentation is amazing ... very well-researched and very informative, and it adds a level of explanation as to why the FAA is so entrenched in not changing its new routes.
2 · 14 hrs"

" it also makes the critical point that the FAA Reauthorization Act is up for congressional action again in September 2015 ... and that the FAA is responding to all of the nation-wide anger and outcry about the lack of transparency, sabotage of the system that's supposed to encourage public involvement, and thug-like imposition of its will via self-justified CATEXes by proposing changing essentially NOTHING about the way it has been doing business -- except to the wording in one section to make it clear that it will only apply CNEL (which, while not great, is better than DNL) in California, where it is already required to do so. (Previously, the language suggested that it COULD apply this metric in other places if it chose to do so.) September is not far away! NOW is the time to redouble communication with our congressional representatives and DEMAND that THEY demand a change in the way the FAA operates. We need Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer to HEAR US when we tell them that the lives, quality of lives, health, and financial security of people ON THE GROUND are AT LEAST AS IMPORTANT as the profits of airlines the FAA appears to regard as its only REAL "stakeholders"!!!!!
2 · 13 hrs

It's more quiet already. Enough with messing with the air traffic, we look like a bunch of privileged whiners. I hope to God there's no air accident due to all changes to the air traffic. Meanwhile, the building of ONE BASEMENT in ONE PRIVATE HOME wasted 8.3 MILLION gallons of premium aquifer water down the storm drain. Think about what REALLY counts right now.

When it's "quieter" it's because there are less or no airplanes flying around, that is obviously also safe.

[Post removed.]

[Post removed due to deletion of referenced comment.]

Easy does it, Peter. Remember the last thread they locked down after one of our banters.

Can someone tell me why this SFO bound airplane from San Diego has to do a big S over Palo Alto while it can easily cut through Redwood city or Atherton to make the landing? Why went through so much trouble to fly over Palo Alto?

Is this really more fuel efficient?

Web Link

Enough - if you look at the topics covered there is one on the water that is being drained out for new houses. Your concern is being addressed and you can go to that site. That topic is not on this thread - it is on it's own thread.

It's quieter today because there are fewer planes flying along a narrow diagonal path over Palo Alto today.

- no SJC arrivals tracking over PA
- international flights seem to be mostly tracking over Atherton and/or Stanford, well above 5,000 ft
- as are many flights coming from Oregon and Washington, also at reasonable altitudes
- or they are passing north of Oregon Expressway or south of San Antonio rather than the usual Los Altos, Arastradero, Alma/Oregon Exp., Middlefied/Embarcadero approach to the Dumbarton Bridge.

I wonder why this isn't the pattern more often, particularly the use of higher altitudes along with the use of multiple paths.

[Post removed.]

@ Midtowner,

I'm no expert, but from your screen shot I'd say it is because it cannot go over SJC, Moffett, and PAO at the proper altitudes to be on final for SFO due to conflicts with traffic to those other airfields.

@Old Steve,

I understand that there maybe constraints that forced this plane to fly over Palo Alto. But funny thing is, it is almost guaranteed that any time I go to this website, I can easily capture a plane that's doing the same thing, i.e. making a big S turn flying over Palo Alto. They are mostly from LAX and SAN.

I seriously doubt the fuel efficiency that NextGen promises to deliver.

"Can someone tell me why this SFO bound airplane from San Diego has to do a big S over Palo Alto "

It is NOT flying an S over Palo Alto.

The entire time this plane is over Palo Alto it is flying a straight course to the SE - in order to intercept the inbound radial to SFO at the proper altitude and to maintain spacing from other aircraft.

Can't claim I have seen or followed this airplane but how do you fly "SE" from San Diego to San Francisco?

If that is South East.

This plane was probably directed to the Woodside VOR and then it was vectored to fly southeast until it reached the Bay when it turned north to intercept the 284 radial from SFO.

@rabble,

The trail of the plane being discussed is here: Web Link

Unfortunately, it seems like a pattern for these planes to fly over PA when apparently they can easily bypass PA with alternative routes

" it seems like a pattern for these planes to fly over PA when apparently they can easily bypass PA with alternative routes"

Why should planes bypass PA?

What is so special about PA that planes should not fly over PA?

That same plane flew over Woodside, Portola Valley, and Atherton before it flew over Palo Alto.

"What is so special about PA that planes should not fly over PA?"

I was under the impression that the tool you love so much called NextGen is so special that it should be able help that plan bypass Palo Alto, Atherton, Woodside and others.

"I was under the impression that the tool you love so much called NextGen is so special that it should be able help that plan bypass Palo Alto, Atherton, Woodside and others."

Wrong - planes don't just descend from heaven.

The proposal I presented above is designed to uniformly distribute flight over many cities, not to provide some sort of special protected status to any one city.

I hope that PA posters recognize that they are now blatantly proposing that PA be a "Plane Free Zone".

[Portion removed.]

Since they are no longer flying over Atherton I can get you into a cute little rancher for $6,985,000

very quiet area in Lindenwood, down the street from Peter

except for that pesky surf air,

this may get pulled but you have to inflect a little humor every once in a while

Surf Air must stand out :)

*sigh* No one that I know is proposing that Palo Alto be a Plane-Free Zone (tm). That doesn't make sense, right? Rather, they are commenting on the fact that sometimes it feels that planes are going out of their way to go over Palo Alto. I've seen tracks that make me feel that way, and the "S" could be construed as similar. When you watch enough flightradar, and you are feeling beseiged by overhead flights, you can start to feel this way.

Also, we keep getting asked for a specific proposal. I'm having a hard time understanding why residents are being asked to design the air space. But okay, let's go with it. Currently planes from the north, the south, and the west are all flying over Palo Alto on their way to the bay. Let's shake that up a bit. Let's say planes from the south enter the bay from the south. Planes from the north enter over Atherton. And planes from the west enter over one of Palo Alto or Mountain View. That way none overlaps, and the flights are spread out more over our cities.

"Also, we keep getting asked for a specific proposal. "

I have already posted one and asked for comments:

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 23, 2015 at 10:58 am
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
OK, let's develop a Draft SFO Approach Protocol which is based on simplicity, equity and technical feasibility.

As a starting point I recommend the following report:

An AEF Report for HACAN on:
Approach Noise at Heathrow: Concentrating the Problem

Here is the full report:
Web Link

Here are some highly relevant excerpts:

"And the solution that has been championed concerns air traffic management, specifically the more
widespread use of Continuous Descent Approaches (CDAs). Traditional approach paths involved
aircraft descending through different blocks of airspace in a series of steps, using flaps and power
changes to manage speed. In CDAs, in contrast, aircraft descend into the airport at a steady 3
degrees; while there will still be some noise from the engine, additional noise from the aircraft itself
is reduced. This procedure, combined with the use of P‐RNAV and changes to the joining point for
final approach, have increased the concentration of aircraft along corridors. For pilots, this reduces
the number of factors having to be taken into account when landing. For Government, it helps to
satisfy the environmental objective of minimising the number of people affected by aircraft noise
when determining arrival and departure paths and airspace revisions.
Changes in the joining point to optimise Continuous Descent Approaches have produced as many
losers as winners: it has resulted in more concentration of flight paths many miles from the airport."

"But alternative approaches do exist…..a number of schemes are being trialled at airports around
the world or at least being assessed.

To deal with the issue of concentration of traffic, some airports have been trialling curved CDA
approaches. This gives the benefit of a continuous descent but allows air traffic controllers to have
several CDA approaches – more akin to the fanning effect of traditional approach paths – reducing
the number of overflights in any given place. Other airports have also looked at using curved CDA to
join the final straight approach at different points, effectively a herring bone pattern."

Here is a diagram of such a herring bone pattern:
Web Link

****************************
So using the concept of a herring bone pattern and Advanced (or curved) Controlled Descent Approachs (CDA'a) here is a Draft SFO Arrivals Protocol:

1 – Establish two 25 mile plus 284 degree radials form SFO – one as an extension of Runway 28 Right and the second as an extension of Runway 28 Left.

2 – Place intercept points on each of these 284 deg radials at ½ mile intervals starting 10 miles from SFO where the 3 degree glide path interception point would be at 3000 ft and continuing out to the 25 mile point for a total of 32 interception points on both radials.

3 – ATC to randomly assign Curving CDAs to airplanes from the North and East to the 16 interception points on 28 Right radial.

4 - ATC to randomly assign Curving CDAs to airplanes from the South and West to the 16 interception points on 28 Left radial.

5 – Between 2100 (9 PM) and 0600 (6 AM) aircraft would be randomly assigned to interceptions point no closer than 20 miles from SFO.

6 - Future improvements could be made when and if steeper glide paths ( greater than 3 degrees) are approved.

*************************************

What are the specific problems with this DRAFT proposal?

How can it be improved?

Is it simple?

Is it equitable?

Is it technically feasible?

Indeed, I saw that. Can't we have two proposals? Re yours, I have no idea how to comment on it. You are not speaking my vernacular. If you can comment on how the proposal would impact the key metrics reflected in Dr. Christel's report, that would be a great start.

Good article in the WSJ today concerning "Sarcasm". In this case it does not help the situation and is geared to create dissension. Suggest that everyone skips the sarcasm. It does not add anything to the topic at hand.

I like residents idea of planes that arrive from the south enter over the bay, planes from the north over Atherton, and planes from the west over PA / MV. The point that residents are be asked to redesign the airspace in today's environment is a no go. The federal government controls the airspace so it will be government negotiating that will adjust the status quo.

" If you can comment on how the proposal would impact the key metrics reflected in Dr. Christel's report, that would be a great start."

As already noted under my proposal the random assignment of intersection points would provide staggering so that Palo Alto would get only 25% of the traffic coming from the West and South - a big improvement.

" Let's shake that up a bit. Let's say planes from the south enter the bay from the south. Planes from the north enter over Atherton. And planes from the west enter over one of Palo Alto or Mountain View. "

Unfortunately planes can get to the Bay by JUST flying over one city but always have to fly over more than one peninsula city. Atherton, for example, does not abut the Bay.

Correction: Unfortunately planes CANNOT get to the Bay by JUST flying over one city but always have to fly over more than one peninsula city. Atherton, for example, does not abut the Bay.

I think the overall intent is very clear here. Planes from the north come down the peninsula and make a rotation to turn north. The suggestion here is that the rotation is in the 101/Marsh Road /84 area at which point the planes turn north. They cross Atherton as part of the rotation to go out into the bay on the northward approach.

"I think the overall intent is very clear here. Planes from the north come down the peninsula and make a rotation to turn north. The suggestion here is that the rotation is in the 101/Marsh Road /84 area at which point the planes turn north"

In my proposal planes from the North would be randomly assigned to enter the 284 radial from the East side and would never fly over the peninsula.
"3 – ATC to randomly assign Curving CDAs to airplanes from the North and East to the 16 interception points on 28 Right radial."

We look at the flight paths on a continual basis. The planes come down the peninsula and make a rotation to go into the north approach. There are other planes that are coming from the east coast and entering on the east side of the bay - Fremont - two lines of planes enter the approach path - each heading to a different runway. How does you plan accommodate that there are two different approach paths heading into the north approach.

No one is arguing the east coast planes on the east side of the bay - we are only arguing the planes that are on the west side of the bay.

Assume that everyone on this thread has looked at the flight paths for a very long time and are very familiar with the traffic patters.

So basically move your problem north,

"How does you plan accommodate that there are two different approach paths heading into the north approach."


1 – Establish two 25 mile plus 284 degree radials form SFO – one as an extension of Runway 28 Right and the second as an extension of Runway 28 Left.

2 – Place intercept points on each of these 284 deg radials at ½ mile intervals starting 10 miles from SFO where the 3 degree glide path interception point would be at 3000 ft and continuing out to the 25 mile point for a total of 32 interception points on both radials.

3 – ATC to randomly assign Curving CDAs to airplanes from the North and East to the 16 interception points on 28 Right radial.

4 - ATC to randomly assign Curving CDAs to airplanes from the South and West to the 16 interception points on 28 Left radial.
******************
So planes from the North and East use the right 284 radial and planes from the West and South use the left 284 radial.

What everyone seems to agree with is that noise is a problem.

Noise has been concentrated over Palo Alto, how else do you deal with "the problem" if not involving some moves (not all) North, South, East, etc. Resistance to any moves whatsoever sounds like some areas expect to be protected from any noise at all.

" Resistance to any moves whatsoever sounds like some areas expect to be protected from any noise at all. "

I can't find anybody who advocates no moves whatsoever.

Neighbor - if you read this whole scenario there are three paths. One coming from the south, one coming from the west, and one coming from the north.
We are getting the one coming from the west - and San Mateo is getting the one coming from the north. Yes - that path is moving north - from were it originally was occurring. I think you remember that.

If we can route all the SFO arrivals from the north to the eastern side of the bay, even better. (Those flights are split today between east and west, and I figured there was some reason for that, so kept that split in my proposal.)

I don't really understand the proposal to distribute all the flights from the south and west across intercepts spaced a mile apart between San Carlos and the end of the Bay. Seems less efficient and more impactful (noise-wise) than routing planes from the south to the south, and planes from the west farther north. And south in general is preferable, since planes can fly more of their arrival over the bay.

So I still stick with the proposal to have planes from the south arrive at the end of the bay (largely around Santa Clara and Sunnyvale), and those from the west distributed between Redwood City through Mountain View (say). Ideally those from the north can be routed over the east bay.

Resident,

I like your compromise even though I would be getting more traffic,

What do we do about Surf Air,

I rarely get commercial traffic now but am willing to absorb some. Is everyone else willing to agree to spread the noise from What is soon to be thousands of flights from that noisy little Surf Airline flying over at 800'-1000'

They have announced they will buy 50 more planes, So yes thousands,

"Is everyone else willing to agree to spread the noise from What is soon to be thousands of flights from that noisy little Surf Airline flying over at 800'-1000'"

Again, a solution to that problem has been posted weeks ago - a herringbone pattern of ACDAs converging on the 298 deg radial from SQL.


"So I still stick with the proposal to have planes from the south arrive at the end of the bay (largely around Santa Clara and Sunnyvale), and those from the west distributed between Redwood City through Mountain View (say). Ideally those from the north can be routed over the east bay."

This approach will not ensure that the flights are uniformly distributed over the Peninsula cities.

IMO a uniform distribution is not the fairest one. The question of what is fair is interesting. I would account for a number of factors, including:
- historic patterns (i.e., matches expectations)
- proximity to airport (i.e., matches expectations)
- airplane elevation (i.e., impact on residents)
- population density (i.e., impact on residents)
- sharing (i.e., some amount of sharing the cost of a shared resource)

What to do about Surf Air? Do we have any maps illustrating flight patterns/volumes into and out of the airport? I'd also love to know what went into the contract that allows them to increase business so significantly, who negotiated it, and with whose interests in mind.

I'd worry that with this small airline, there is less room for flexibility. Are they looking to expand elsewhere? If so, that gives us more leverage, as we can work to kill any expansion plans until they fix the situation here.

But what to do about the here and now?
- discourage ridership (public complaints, protests, etc)
- lobby for taxes/fees with funds directed to tech/research to mitigate noise impact
- lobby for taxes/fees designed to encourage flight patterns that minimize noise impact
- law suit (but need to determine who to sue, and on what basis)

I dunno...

I'll offer one statistic straight from one of the county airport managers, whose name I'll leave out for now as they were very upfront when we first discussed the disruption caused by Surf Air. Going back to 2013, when SA was only flying a few flights a day

I was told that San Carlos Airport had around 100,000 operations a year. Surf Air accounted for at that time less than 1/3 of 1% of all operations yet accounted for over 30% of all the noise complaints.

We all new the airport was there when we bought our homes. What we didn't count on was the noise, the volume of flights, the size of the aircraft, and that a commercial Airline would be allowed to pollute a small general aviation airport.

After many conversations with pilots,small charter operators, tower operators, and county managers, believe me they are as frustrated as we are but feel their hands are tied.

According to Mr. Potter, the CEO of Surf Air he'll fly as many planes as he wants to when ever he wants to.

It's unfortunate that Surf Air has brought so much attention to the recreational aviation community.

I'm sure a lot of people are more aware of and are complaining more about local general aviation than before Surf Air showed up.

The other real victims here are the majority of good quality, responsible local GA pilots, getting so much negative attention brought to the recreational general aviation community.

I'm sure more people are aware of and are complaining more about local general aviation than before Surf Air showed up.

Not sure why this was delayed and then had to be re-written, Same point,

apologies to readers for the confusion

@Peter Carpenter

Let's say we all agree on the proposal. How would you plan to implement it? Why would the FAA give a damn about it?

I have already discussed this with Cong Eshoo's staff and they have submitted it to the FAA.

The next step would be for lots of individual people and local elected bodies to support the ACDA Herringbone approach pattern.

If there is broad support for a technically feasible solution I believe that the FAA would adopt that solution.

"ACDA Herringbone"

Do you have a more detailed official like proposal of it online somewhere I can go take a look?

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 23, 2015 at 10:58 am
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
OK, let's develop a Draft SFO Approach Protocol which is based on simplicity, equity and technical feasibility.

As a starting point I recommend the following report:

An AEF Report for HACAN on:
Approach Noise at Heathrow: Concentrating the Problem

Here is the full report:
Web Link

Here are some highly relevant excerpts:

"And the solution that has been championed concerns air traffic management, specifically the more
widespread use of Continuous Descent Approaches (CDAs). Traditional approach paths involved
aircraft descending through different blocks of airspace in a series of steps, using flaps and power
changes to manage speed. In CDAs, in contrast, aircraft descend into the airport at a steady 3
degrees; while there will still be some noise from the engine, additional noise from the aircraft itself
is reduced. This procedure, combined with the use of P‐RNAV and changes to the joining point for
final approach, have increased the concentration of aircraft along corridors. For pilots, this reduces
the number of factors having to be taken into account when landing. For Government, it helps to
satisfy the environmental objective of minimising the number of people affected by aircraft noise
when determining arrival and departure paths and airspace revisions.
Changes in the joining point to optimise Continuous Descent Approaches have produced as many
losers as winners: it has resulted in more concentration of flight paths many miles from the airport."

"But alternative approaches do exist…..a number of schemes are being trialled at airports around
the world or at least being assessed.

To deal with the issue of concentration of traffic, some airports have been trialling curved CDA
approaches. This gives the benefit of a continuous descent but allows air traffic controllers to have
several CDA approaches – more akin to the fanning effect of traditional approach paths – reducing
the number of overflights in any given place. Other airports have also looked at using curved CDA to
join the final straight approach at different points, effectively a herring bone pattern."

Here is a diagram of such a herring bone pattern:
Web Link

****************************
So using the concept of a herring bone pattern and Advanced (or curved) Controlled Descent Approachs (CDA'a) here is a Draft SFO Arrivals Protocol:

1 – Establish two 25 mile plus 284 degree radials form SFO – one as an extension of Runway 28 Right and the second as an extension of Runway 28 Left.

2 – Place intercept points on each of these 284 deg radials at ½ mile intervals starting 10 miles from SFO where the 3 degree glide path interception point would be at 3000 ft and continuing out to the 25 mile point for a total of 32 interception points on both radials.

3 – ATC to randomly assign Curving CDAs to airplanes from the North and East to the 16 interception points on 28 Right radial.

4 - ATC to randomly assign Curving CDAs to airplanes from the South and West to the 16 interception points on 28 Left radial.

5 – Between 2100 (9 PM) and 0600 (6 AM) aircraft would be randomly assigned to interceptions point no closer than 20 miles from SFO.

6 - Future improvements could be made when and if steeper glide paths ( greater than 3 degrees) are approved.

*************************************

What are the specific problems with this DRAFT proposal?

How can it be improved?

Is it simple?

Is it equitable?

Is it technically feasible?

It would be great if someone could convert this to a nice graphic that shows the relationship of the proposed approaches to the geography of the Bay.

Here is a aeronautical map of the 284 radial that a good graphic artist could use to make a computer graphic with city boundaries etc.:

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1509/00375RZ28R.PDF

Here is a diagram of such a herring bone pattern:

Web Link

There are a number of variations on the planes that come down the peninsula:

1. Smaller planes from Oregon / Washington - typically smaller planes;
2. Large planes that have come from the east coast - gone over SFO at a high altitude - a fly over - then come down the peninsula to make the rotation to turn north. This happens at the 'commute" times of the day when there is an over load of arriving planes that are waiting to get into the landing queue;
3. Oakland planes many are now crossing the bay at the top to cross over the peninsula and then head out - many coming down the peninsula to head to SOCAL, etc.;
4. Oakland planes going to Hawaii - a growing business for them - Alaska and Hawaiian. Those cross at the lower end of the bay.

Oakland is a growing airport and using a number of flight paths over the peninsula. They are competing with San Jose for the Hawaii bound flights.

Some strategy needed to consider the flights from other airport - Oakland and San Jose, and over flights from east coast.

"1. Smaller planes from Oregon / Washington - typically smaller planes;"
Those would go the the 284 Right ACDAs

"2. Large planes that have come from the east coast - gone over SFO at a high altitude - a fly over - then come down the peninsula to make the rotation to turn north. This happens at the 'commute" times of the day when there is an over load of arriving planes that are waiting to get into the landing queue;"
Those would go the the 284 Right ACDAs

"3. Oakland planes many are now crossing the bay at the top to cross over the peninsula and then head out - many coming down the peninsula to head to SOCAL, etc.;"
Those are quite high and not part of the ground level noise problem

"4. Oakland planes going to Hawaii - a growing business for them - Alaska and Hawaiian. Those cross at the lower end of the bay."
Oakland seldom takes off to the South so this is a very minor issue

For those interested in the PAO they have a site on the City of Palo Alto Official web page - Departments / Public Works / Palo Alto Airport.
Included is the fee schedule, Account Update form, Companies Operating at the PAO; Services offered; and a Noise Sensitive section with a map. It is noted that there is a 1,500 altitude requirement west of 101. Also noted is that the FAA is part of the control tower activity - and hours of operation.
It is good to know that the information is available on the city's official web site.

@Resident 1

Large bodies - 747, 777, 787 - coming from Europe and Asia - also regularly come down the peninsula before turning north to SFO.

In addition

Occasional early morning flight to Hawaii from SJC cross low over PA

On some days, low flying arrivals heading to SJC also pass low over PA

(plus Surf Air of course.. tracking low over El Camino/Alma/Middlefield)

For all the folks looking to play doctor to our population on this matter, there is news on Nextdoor that the City of Palo Alto is taking steps to address aircraft noise. I check the sky posse website frequently and also found the same news there. If you look at the new information on their website, re-patterning will be a good idea because the concentration over some areas is really bad.

I wonder if the FAA knows that what is covered by red in the graphic shown on the sky posse website is pretty much all of Palo Alto. It's not like we have the "other side of town" where there is no noise. And people wonder why we get cranky about parking.

I'm all for changes but what worries me is that this herringbne pattern is still the word "pattern." And by agreeing to a random pattern, what prevents a creep back to a pattern using an unsuspecting place.

"Large bodies - 747, 777, 787 - coming from Europe and Asia - also regularly come down the peninsula before turning north to SFO."

As they would be arriving from the North and East they would be randomly assigned to the Right 284 ACDAs.

"Occasional early morning flight to Hawaii from SJC cross low over PA"
This is a departure issue which is not addressed by the current proposal.

"On some days, low flying arrivals heading to SJC also pass low over PA"
This is the result of an unusual, recent and unnecessary decision by the FAA to land SJC flights to the South who landing SFO flights to the North and there is no excuse for this practice.

"I'm all for changes but what worries me is that this herringbne pattern is still the word "pattern." And by agreeing to a random pattern, what prevents a creep back to a pattern using an unsuspecting place."

The randomness of assignments to the 32 proposed ACDAs would be easily audible from radar tapes.

I don't agree with the your proposal. It has flights from the south entering at San Carlos as often as at Santa Clara. It has flights entering at 3000 ft as often as at 7000 ft. And it is overly complicated. We can and should do better. Otherwise the FAA (or whoever) is going to chip this into something we don't like. Let's get our best proposal together. Flights from the south should enter towards the south. Etc.

And, yes, big thanks to Sky Posse for making inroads with the city.

@PC,

Where would you route UAL858, currently flying across the peninsula from the west, heading to SFO from Shanghai?

I assume that the random pattern is with lines all around the Bay?

How is this different from the brilliant idea of entering the Bay from the respective directions that planes are coming from?

Since I learned what the "teardrop" pattern is, I always say they don't call that a teardrop for nothing. Flying it is even stranger - a plane from the East side of the Bay going high over SF, high over San Mateo, and as soon as the border is crossed past San Mateo the altitudes start dropping way low low low to go all the way West to take a look a the Ocean on the West, and then flatten out over Palo Alto (at the lowest over here).

forgot to mention that with the teardrop, you go East to SFO, fly over SFO, give a wave to SFO, to go South (for a pretty long time) just to descend at Palo Alto. How is that fuel efficient by the way?

"We can and should do better."

I look forward to an alternative proposal which is technically feasible.

It is time to lead, follow or get out of the way.

"Where would you route UAL858, currently flying across the peninsula from the west, heading to SFO from Shanghai?"

That arrival from the West would be randomly assigned to one of the 16 ACDAs on the Left 284 radial.

"I assume that the random pattern is with lines all around the Bay?"

No - it is with 16 ACDAs connecting to the Right 284 radial for planes coming from the North and East and 16 ACDAs connecting to the Left 284 radial for planes coming from the South and West.


The exact shape of each plane's ACDA would depend on their approach path to the bay area but in no case would a plane using the proposed twin herringbone pattern do a tear drop (which is a 180 deg course change).

" It has flights from the south entering at San Carlos as often as at Santa Clara. It has flights entering at 3000 ft as often as at 7000 ft"

It is called "sharing".

And night time flights are moved further out:
5 – Between 2100 (9 PM) and 0600 (6 AM) aircraft would be randomly assigned to interceptions point no closer than 20 miles from SFO.

It makes a difference how leadership will work on this issue. Certainly all options should be considered, none left on a table or drawer. I have always liked knowing what options didn't work and why not before concluding on one that could work. What would be really strange is if a powerful person's preferred alternative is the one that the FAA would favor looking at first. That's not a way to lead in my view.

If the Town Square options are being voted on, I vote for Resident Fairmeado's proposal.

Rabble - OK, let's see your alternative proposal.

Or is this to be the Palo Alto Process where something is studied forever and nothing is ever actually done?

"If the Town Square options are being voted on, I vote for Resident Fairmeado's proposal."

Unfortunately that is an inchoate idea not an operational proposal.

I would welcome it be reduced to something concrete that could be compared to the ACDA Herringbone proposal and submitted to the FAA.

Studying and testing solutions does not have to be mutually exclusive.

Noticed that a very divisive comment has been made about the proposed Palo Alto study, and resolution - "accused of being wealth centric" by one of the posters on this thread.

I can only hope that comments like that and such attitudes will get out of the way.

The "wealth centric" comment is on this new thread Web Link

On Monday night the PACC voted to fund a study on the problem of airplane traffic and airplane noise. The study should be concluded by December.
So action is going forward on this issue. Thank you Air Posse for pushing this issue forward in Palo Alto and the PACC.

As to 3,000 feet forget it. We do not want to see SFO traffic in Palo Alto at 3,000 feet.
PC - you made a big deal about 4,000 feet at DUMBA - which in reality is not met - so what is the 3,000 feet about? Why not 5,000 feet? 5,000 feet is not the perfect answer but better than 4,000 feet.

As to planes going higher and getting stopped on the SFO runway remember it is not an aircraft carrier that does need to stop planes quickly. It has better runways - rubberized which slow the plane and other safeguards.

I am concerned that the City of Palo Alto is moving forward with a study based on meetings between Palo Alto and the FAA - and a separate action is ongoing concerning airspace over Palo Alto by an Atherton, San Mateo resident approaching Ms. Eshoo.

The Atherton resident has previously indicated that he is not being paid as a consultant by any agency or company, so it presumably acting alone as an individual contributor.

That is I believe a conflict of interest. Ms. Eshoo is supposedly working the Palo Alto concerns and is being approached by the Atherton individual.

It is a possible legal issue if the consultants being hired by the City of Palo Alto are approached by outside interests other than those designated to support this issue.

Sky Posse - your take on this please.

" Ms. Eshoo is supposedly working the Palo Alto concerns and is being approached by the Atherton individual."

Guess what - Ms. Eshoo is also my Congressional representative.

"The Atherton resident has previously indicated that he is not being paid as a consultant by any agency or company, so it presumably acting alone as an individual contributor.

That is I believe a conflict of interest."

And since when is speaking out as an individual constitutes a conflict of my interests? Please read the First Amendment - which applies even in Palo Alto.

PC - you an speak out all you want - but you cannot demand that others volunteer information or share information that may be counter to your position on the matter. Guess what - we are all individuals with the same rights so we can all pursue our own take on how this goes down.
You have no more rights than anyone else here.

No one in Santa Clara tried to take over the Surf Air debate that is raging in San Mateo County - City of Atherton - despite the fact that we also have to endure Surf Air flights.

However - we do not have the right to be part of the SFO Roundtable despite the fact that a disproportionate amount of flights go over our city. So lectures to us somehow are hollow.

"PC - you an speak out all you want " - Thank you.

"you cannot demand that others volunteer information or share information that may be counter to your position on the matter" If others choose to bring opinions and facts to the table that is great but I clearly cannot and do not want to force anybody to do anything. I would prefer that they try to tell the truth.

Everyone is telling the truth - you just don't want to accept that everyone else here would prefer to see the study by the city performed and let our city staff and legislative supports get involved here. We cannot do this without their buy-in. We alone - including you - need to push this up because we are dealing with the federals and that takes horsepower to do that.

So who in San Mateo County is your horsepower? You are not doing this alone - you are the fixer for other people.

And there may be FAA people here since they work at the PAO so they need to understand where we are coming from. That is our Airport.

" You are not doing this alone - you are the fixer for other people. "

Wrong as I have stated many times.

Another Surf Air just passed by, It's more of a buzz,

This is getting really old,

Where is our working group?

All righty. Here's a picture to help explain the heretofore inchoate proposal, derived from the alternate and most choate (I know it's not a word. Why not?) proposal: Web Link

The proposal is to use the southernmost 7 intercepts for the planes arriving at SFO from the south, and the 8 northernmost intercepts for planes arriving at SFO from the west. The values of 7 and 8 may be adjusted upon further analysis to accommodate altitudes (may want to have more flights arriving to the south, where altitudes can be higher) and/or flight frequency (may want to allocate more intercepts to the set with more flights).

Flights arriving to SFO from north and east go over the east bay.

I can't comment on ACDA yada yada. I don't know pros/cons, and I can barely spell it. Plus it makes me think of Angus Young, and I'd rather not.

"The proposal is to use the southernmost 7 intercepts for the planes arriving at SFO from the south, and the 8 northernmost intercepts for planes arriving at SFO from the west. "

Great suggestion - thanks.

And thanks for the very nice diagram.

Do you have a feel for what the % distribution would be between flights from the west and those from the south?

It seems more flights from the west arrive at night and this would put them closer to SFO and lower over the peninsula.

Why not shift all night time flights to the southern most intercepts?

Great to have such a positive dialogue - Thanks.

This is what the Forum was designed for "a thoughtful gathering place".

There is a good article in the SJM today 08/27/15 - "New Bridge to London". This is a discussion concerning British Airways having a non-stop to the UK once a day out of San Jose Airport.

What is most interesting about this article is the amount of detail on the "shopping" of the airport to make up for the debt attributed to the expansion, the degree of competition with SFO and Oakland, and the monetary concessions in the contract to British Airways to locate an office in the airport area.

Everyone who is anyone is involved, including the Mayor of San Jose - Sam Liccardo, Carl Guardino, CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group representing the major companies in the area that want expansion of travel choices, increased business opportunities - (don't go to SFO - it is all here in San Jose).

San Jose is actively "shopping" it's airport. How does Southwest feel about the concessions made to BA? San Jose is considered the Number 3 airport in the area with SFO the main dog followed by Oakland.

The business base of an airport and its contribution to the general business base of a city is a major political power house relative to the FAA and ATC.

So planes randomly flying around on the Friday and Saturday forays over Palo Alto, Googleplex, etc. - is this part of the "shopping" expedition to pump up the San Jose Airport's profile?

We all have seen some very bizarre and unexplainable plane maneuvers on the trackers that do not make sense if the story line is to "save gas money".

We need the City Managers, and mayors to get involved in pushing the interests of the cities so there is some balance here.

Political push is an important as engineering - the engineering has already been done - so now is the time to manage it in relation to the welfare of the cities directly affected by - up to now- incompetent direction.

Since Surf Air pops up in these discussions you will note that Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Mateo, and San Carlos are in major growth activities.
They are building new hotels, business parks, and housing.

The San Carlos Airport is owned by the County of San Mateo who derives the cost and profit from that airport, as well as the other county airport - Half Moon Bay.

Surf Air is helping to "shop" that area - it will help the San Carlos Airport expand their facility. Surf Air will not abandon that airport since we can assume that it is getting price concessions.

However if you look at the PAO data of the city web site you will note that there is a San Carlos Company noted - think this is the maintenance crew, and the PAO has hired a San Carlos Airport individual to run the flight line. So the migration of potential business is apparent - but I am sure that Surf Air plays a big part in the growth of the San Mateo County business and housing base.

I was never bothered by San Carlos Airport. Barely knew they were there. Wasn't even bothered by small private planes, With Surf Air all flights have become more noticeable.

A lot has been said criticizing Surf Air and the noise they create flying in to San Carlos. As with a lot of things they hope to wait out the complaints and keep increasing their number of flights.

My suggestion is to either limit the number of Commercial Surf Air flights going into San Carlos Airport or close it down. San Carlos a public Airport governed by San Mateo County representing us the tax paying citizens.

If you can't come to a compromise then close it.

Groundling calls for action so here is a proposed action:

IF you want a simple solution then Palo Alto should just request that the FAA do the follow three things:

1 - All SFO inbound traffic from the North and the East must use the RNAV (GPS) X RWY 28R approach and must enter that approach at the ANETE Initial Approach Fix (IAF) for which the minimum crossing altitude is 7000 ft,

Web Link


Alternatively these aircraft could us the ILS or LOC RWY 28R approach and must enter at ARCHI IAF for which the minimum crossing altitude is 7000 ft,

Web Link

2 - All SFO inbound traffic from the South and the West must use the RNAV (GPS) X RWY 28L approach and must enter that approach at the Faith IAF which has a minimum crossing altitude of 7000 ft.,

Web Link

Entry to this approach via MENLO intersection would not be permitted.

Alternatively these aircraft could us the ILS or LOC RWY 28L approach and must enter at the FAITH IAF for which the minimum crossing altitude is 7000 ft,

Web Link

Entry to this approach via MENLO intersection would not be permitted.


3 - SFO and SJC must be landing in the same direction unless the wind differential between them is greater than 1o knots.

These recommendations use existing and established procedures and do not impinge on the SJC airspace.
If these recommendations were to be adopted then Palo Alto's problem would go away. Some communities further to the South would see significant increases in overflights but these would be at higher altitudes.

@ Peter Carpenter--

Serious question-- Whose job is it to sell this plan to the FAA?

"Whose job is it to sell this plan to the FAA?"

1 - The City of Palo Alto
2 - Our elected Congressional representatives
3 - an engaged and enraged citizenry

If these recommendations were to be adopted then Palo Alto's problem would go away.

Some communities further to the South would see (Significant Increases) in overflights but these would be at higher altitudes.

Peter, Is their a way to quantify this?

"Peter, Is their a way to quantify this?"

Probably but I do not have the data to do so.

Clearly every plane that is moved out of Pal Alto's airspace will have to go somewhere else so it is a zero sum game except that planes flying over, for example, San Jose, at 7000 ft will create less ground noise than if that same plane had instead flown over Palo Alto at 4000 ft.

We are pushing for the 5,000 over Palo Alto. That value has already been established - there is no reason to not push for that altitude. It has been a documented value already negotiated back in time.

Move on and solve the problem.

There is no legal agreement re 5000 ft over Palo Alto.

Groundling wants action, not hand wringing.

Surf Air has indicated they will order up to 50 more Pilatus planes.

How many flights in to San Carlos does that work out to.

Next Gen was not given much thought until it was implemented, It was in the planning stages for several years. Now it's probably too late for Palo Alto.

I think it's time to put some numbers to Surf Air's flights now not wait until it's too late .

50 Planes!!!!!!

New jobs for 100 pilots!!!!!!

I had dinner last night at Stanford Shopping Center - North side, outside, facing North.

I was pleased to see 4 Surf Air flights fly directly over the Shopping Center - well to the West of the AMBEY approach. All were flying clean.

Surf Air seems to be spreading their flights out away from the single AMBEY corridor and to be flying clean.

Thanks.

I am tired of Surf Airs overflights, There is a tone that Surf Air is willing to be a better corporate citizen. And to that I say, on occasion even Monsanto will support charitable causes.

Let's be honest Surf Air is a for profit corporation their only obligation is to their investors.

They are well aware of the complaints and the best way to temper them on a sliding scale. I'm quite sure they have staff that read these threads.

They will revert back to more frequent Ameby approaches which is quicker, cheaper, and easier as the complaint level allows. If I were an investor that's what I would what them to do. However I'm not, I'm a person that is bothered by their flights and they detract from my quality of life.

Similar to the suffering of people living in Palo Alto by nextgen but it is my intention to stay ahead of the curve.
My sympathies to them, but for anyone else who is affected by Surf Air flights get involved now. Unless they are willing to come to the table and compromise their flight numbers they will probably increase by 10 fold at some point.

San Carlos Airport Noise complaint line is 650-573-3700, to call Surf Air to complain the number is 571-438-
8001
Please leave out the Atherton remarks, The people suffering the most with the least representation and the most likely to stay silent suffer the worst in North Fair Oaks. Who speaks for them?

I have watched the Surf Air flights closely and they are doing exactly what the community asked them to do - spreading their approaches out laterally and fly clean (flaps and wheels up) as long as possible.

SurfAir is not going away and their current flight patterns are a commendable response to community input.

People who do not want any airplanes flying near their homes needs to pull up stakes and move to a very different place than the Bay Area.

"People who do not want any airplanes flying near their homes needs to pull up stakes and move to a very different place than the Bay Area."

Sorry, Peter, but airplanes have to coexist with us, or else pay our relocation costs. Ever heard of Taking, per the 5-th Amendment? Thought not.

This is still America, not Russia.

I appreciate that SA has spread their flights, I've heard them promise other details in the past and not live up to them.

ie; at a meeting in Atherton, Dec. 2014, they will fly up to 18 flights a day, per one of the execs, My last count as per their own schedule posted online, they are up to 31, w/ up to 50 more planes to be ordered,

Are you really that naive to think that they won't go back to what drives their bottom line. This is business not wonderland.....

A number of calls from the beleaguered folks from the Surf Air brigade asking for our support.
How about a trade here - we get voted into the SFO Roundtable where we have a voice so that we can officially provide some support.
Does that sound like a good deal?

Why is the world does Palo Alto want to join the SFO Roundtable which has an official policy that states:

"The Airport/Community Roundtable reaffirms and memorializes its longstanding policy regarding the
“shifting” of aircraft-generated noise, related to aircraft operations at San Francisco International
Airport, as follows: “The Airport/Community Roundtable members, as a group, when
considering and taking actions to mitigate noise, will not knowingly or deliberately support,
encourage, or adopt actions, rules, regulations or policies, that result in the “shifting” of
aircraft noise from one community to another, when related to aircraft operations at San
Francisco International Airport.” (Source: Roundtable Resolution No. 93-01)."

There is no way that Palo Alto would be able to single handedly change this policy and yet as a member of the Roundtable it would be bound by this policy.

"Sorry, Peter, but airplanes have to coexist with us, or else pay our relocation costs."

That issue has been well litigated and you would not be entitled to relocation costs.

If you find that the costs of living in the dynamic Bay Area outweigh the benefits then you can chose to move - your decision, your relocation costs.

Counter,

This is an article about filing small claims.

Web Link

"That issue has been well litigated and you would not be entitled to relocation costs."

Don't give up the fight so easily. Judicial about-faces happen. Remember Citizens United? Overthrew a whole century of precedents.

Why Peter - You are misrepresenting the situation - kind of a divide and conquer response.

Reality is that we need to function as a regional group so we can mutually support the next gen as it becomes a standard that will affect all groups of people on the peninsula. Nex gen is affecting everyone so everyone will benefit by working as a united group. It is called teamwork.

Surely you see the benefit of teamwork and should applaud the benefits that all will derive from a good working group.

"Why Peter - You are misrepresenting the situation "

I am not misrepresenting anything - please explain your statement.

PC - your lead in statement is inflammatory. Are you a member of the SFO Roundtable?

As you are well aware numerous attempts have been made to join the SFO Roundtable as that appears to be the group to which the FAA responds. They are under the impression if you are not a member that why talking to us.
It is called " a place at the table". Is that your table?
If not then you are not the host.

Parsing other people's notes when the total message has an intent is rude.

I simply asked why Palo Alto would want to join an organization that has a VERY strong policy statement that they "will not knowingly or deliberately support,
encourage, or adopt actions, rules, regulations or policies, that result in the "shifting" of
aircraft noise from one community to another, when related to aircraft operations at San
Francisco International Airport."
when shifting aircraft noise IS Palo Alto's objective.

To me this does not make sense.

What does "shifting" noise mean?

Is there a technical explanation, or does it mean ANY change.

"What does "shifting" noise mean?"

In this context it means moving flight paths from being over one community to being over another community.

Interesting excerpt from SFO Roundtable minutes regarding Palo Alto membership:

"5. Request from the City of Palo Alto for Roundtable Membership

Rosanne Foust, City of Redwood City Representative, and Rich Newman, C/CAG Representative, noted they agreed with the memo in the agenda packet regarding the Palo Alto membership request subcommittee’s recommendations. Both representatives were on that subcommittee. Rich Newman then MOVED adoption of the four bullet point recommendations by the subcommittee. Dave Burrow, Town of Portola Valley Representative, noted he did not see a reason why the Roundtable would stay just within San Mateo County. Chairperson Lentz mentioned that it is financial and logistical concerns. Dave Burrow noted that the City of Palo Alto would be willing to pay membership dues. Chairperson Lentz further explained the financial implications of bringing in another city into the Roundtable’s membership. Rosanne Foust noted that changing the Roundtable’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) would be an issue, requiring adoption of resolutions from each existing member city to change it. Dave Burrow indicated that the Roundtable has changed the MOU before, and having more representatives on the Roundtable would give it greater influence and voice. He also noted that County boundaries are historic and arbitrary, and would be limiting influence by not allowing Palo Alto to join.

Richard Newman recollects that the original Roundtable MOU has grown within the County of San Mateo and is not intended to be a regional body that addresses noise concerns. The Regional Airport Planning Committee (RAPC) is the regional/Bay Area group for noise concerns outside of San Mateo County, and the Roundtable should express to RAPC to get active again in such concerns.

Sue Dirge, City of Pacifica Representative and Palo Alto Membership Request Subcommittee Member, noted that the memo is a summary of what was discussed by the subcommittee for the group to consider. Expanding the Roundtable’s boundaries could bring strength but can bring dilution by expanding further south. She indicated that the Roundtable should take care of outstanding issues before allowing additional members to join, and encourage RAPC to be active regarding noise, as it will benefit everyone, not just one area.

Dave Burrow surmised that noise is biggest closer to the airport, and therefore adding people farther away would dilute the Roundtable because it should focus on closer areas, and inclusion of areas further away is not consistent with that logic. Mr. Burrow asked if that was a better way of stating what the subcommittee intended to say.

Elizabeth Lewis, Town of Atherton Representative, stated that Palo Alto experiences a lot of air traffic noise from SFO operations, is very close to Menlo Park, and does not have impacts from San Jose International Airport. She expressed that their membership would not dilute the Roundtable.

Andrew Swanson, Palo Alto Airport Manager, stated that he discussed this issue with the Palo Alto mayor, who underscored that Palo Alto’s aircraft noise impacts are from SFO. He noted that the Menlo intersection is actually over Palo Alto, and not Menlo Park.

Palo Alto resident Jim Harriet indicated that Palo Alto is the convergent point for three different paths into SFO. Over 200 flights went over Palo Alto last week with readings of over 80 dB on his noise meter. Tina Nguyen, Portola Valley resident, noted she spoke with Palo Alto residents. She questioned why Palo Alto cannot be a member of the Roundtable considering Congresswoman Eshoo’s office is in Palo Alto, the existence of the agreement that aircrafts should fly at 5,000 feet above the Menlo intersection (but actually fly at 3,800 feet), and that SFO Noise Abatement Office staff attends council meetings in Palo Alto.

Bert Ganoung, SFO Airport Noise Abatement Office Manager, clarified that an altitude adjustment at the Menlo intersection is for two visual approaches only during clear weather (such as the “Tip-Toe” visual approach and the “Quiet Bridge” visual approach). The altitude for instrument approaches during non-visual conditions is 4,000 feet. Woodside resident Jim Lyons interrupted out of order in disagreement, and Chairperson Lentz called a five minute recess.

After Chairman Lentz called the meeting back to order, San Mateo County Board of Supervisor Dave Pine questioned what could be an established standard if Palo Alto was allowed to join. Richard Newman responded by noting that there was not any way to define a boundary that “didn’t strike us at the subcommittee level as being arbitrary.” Bordering on county boundary was one way, but it became impossible to allow in just the next city without subsequent cities. He noted the city of Bolinas and Tiburon wanted to join in the past, and that it was “brought back to us through historical record” that the Roundtable was intended to be a San Mateo County body, hence the recommendation.

Rosanne Foust noted the subcommittee went back to why the Roundtable was created to look at why it was formed the way it was. She noted that the Roundtable should be a partner with Palo Alto and help it form a Roundtable that can be effective in that area. She also indicated that the subcommittee wanted to find something that was amenable, and that having 20 cities amend the charter would be a minimum of 2 years. Dave Burrows responded that the MOU has been amended in the past in a short amount of time.

Sue Dirge noted that the dilution issue was having the RAPC part “as strengthening all of our positions; that it is better to have a strong voice here and a strong voice there that are in concert with each other for the same goal. That it would bring more power to Palo Alto and to who we are here.” The intent was to be proactive and to suggest that people can still participate with the Roundtable. The focus was on the Roundtable’s strength for Work Program goals, to discuss the 65 dB noise level, and have ongoing dialogs with aircraft companies and how aircrafts operate.

Elizabeth Lewis noted she understands the Roundtable being a San Mateo County body and it has grown to include more cities, but expressed that the name of the group is the “San Francisco Airport Community/Roundtable,” not say “San Mateo County Community Roundtable.” She believes that people impacted by aircraft operations from SFO should have a voice on the Roundtable, and does not see any dilution with Palo Alto joining or as an issue different from other cities in the south county.

Richard Newman discussed when the City of Atherton joined, it did not happen on the first request. He noted at the subcommittee there was some concern that cities in the north part of the county would be likely to not support a move that would dilute their position. Southern cities would want to support inclusion.

Naomi Patridge, City of Half Moon Bay Representative, indicated that Rosanne Foust’s history was correct in that the Roundtable was originally a small group that started as a regional commission that developed into the Roundtable. She further discussed the history of when the Roundtable was organized and issues with bringing stakeholders together. She also indicated that this is her last meeting and will not run for reelection for the City of Half Moon Bay city council. She expressed that taking on more issues will not help take care of existing issues that the Roundtable is attempting to address.

Richard Newman MOVED adoption of the subcommittee recommendations. Ken Ibarra, City of San Bruno Representative, encouraged Palo Alto to stay in contact with the Roundtable and voice issues at the Roundtable. Dave Burrow commented that the Roundtable does two things: In the short-term, we try to get the airlines to minimize noise and adjust routes, and in the long-term, to have larger impacts in influencing programs like OAPM, NextGen, and randomized or focused aircraft flight paths. He expressed there is strength in numbers, and with our congressional representatives and having more people will be more valuable. It was questioned if RAPC would be more comfortable having one Roundtable body instead of two to work with. The objective of reducing noise involves working with the FAA and continuing with what the Roundtable does, and this should be an objective reason to allow an additional city in to the Roundtable.

Ricardo Ortiz, City of Burlingame Representative, noted he did not understand the “dilution issue” and is not convinced that Palo Alto should be excluded. Chairperson Lentz mentioned resources as an issue and there is a finite amount of resources. Sue Dirge noted that the dilution issue point was to not take away from what the Roundtable already has, and believes having two separate groups would be more effective.

ACTION: Richard Newman MOVED to adopt the subcommittee’s recommendations. The motion was seconded by Rosanne Foust and CARRIED with nine in favor, five opposed."

It very specifically says "shifting of aircraft noise"

It does not say shifting of "aircraft flight paths"

Is the context defined or reflected in another document?

What authority does this organization have to move or refuse to move noise or flight paths?

"What authority does this organization have to move or refuse to move noise or flight paths?"

None.

The SFO Roundtable exerts its influence on these matters via its interaction with the FAA. The FAA has final and total authority over flight paths.

"The SFO Roundtable exerts its influence on these matters via its interaction with the FAA"

Does this mean that SFO exerts its influence with the FAA using the influence of the SFO Roundtable?

"Does this mean that SFO exerts its influence with the FAA using the influence of the SFO Roundtable?"

I assume that SFO (meaning the airport itself which is owned and operated by the City of San Francisco) exerts its influence as an airport directly with the FAA as well as via the Roundtable.

The SF airport has staff that assist the Roundtable and the City of San Francisco has two seats on the Roundtable -one for the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors and one for the City and County of San Francisco Mayor’s Office.

Dear Peter carpenter:
I have lived in Palo Alto my whole life (50+) years. The arrivals runways were never set up to have Palo Alto be the main arrivals skyway into SFO. San Mateo cities, County, SFO, Glen Martin and nameless other bureaucrats with influence over the FAADumped all their toxic flights over Palo Alto. Amazingly the City had no effective management to see the writing on the wall. A few citizens stood up to warn CC what was going to happen, too little, too late. To deny "air traffic has not moved", is unbelievable. As a sleep deprived citizen at the breaking point from being under constant roar from jets, the repetition of "noise has not moved" needs to be clearly dismissed as fiction.

To deny "air traffic has not moved", , should say "air traffic has moved". Mistake due to lost brain capacity from noise and sSTRESS.

Get Real - I certainly don't deny that air traffic has moved. Why address your comment to me?

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

You have been to City Council about this problem? wow

so what is your specific solution for the SFO Roundtable and SFO (with 2 seats on the Roundtable) influencing the FAA and excluding Palo Alto?

resident 1's original question implied an assumption that people can work together, you ridicule that, so what is your solution.

"so what is your specific solution for the SFO Roundtable and SFO (with 2 seats on the Roundtable) influencing the FAA and excluding Palo Alto?"

Note the Roundtable discussion above on why it did not admit Palo Alto - "The Regional Airport Planning Committee (RAPC) is the regional/Bay Area group for noise concerns outside of San Mateo County, "

"resident 1's original question implied an assumption that people can work together, you ridicule that, so what is your solution."

First, I did not ridicule that suggestion but asked why it made sense given the Roundtable policy firmly against the very things that Palo Alto wants done,
Second, my solution continues to be to design and prose very specific flight paths which either distribute the SFO inbound flights more evenly and/or raise the altitude of SFO inbound flights over any populated areas. Both proposal have been posted above and shared, via Cong Eshoo's office with the FAA.

I have also strongly urged Pal Alto residents to ask for the following:


1 - Why hasn't the PA City Council passed a resolution demanding that the FAA return to the long standing practice of always coordinating landings at the Bay Area airports so that those landings are all in the same directions?

2 - Why hasn't the PA City Council called upon Korean Airlines to modify the approach path of their last night flight?

3 - Why hasn't the PA City Council called upon the carriers involved to modify the night time approaches of their flights from Hawaii?

[Portion removed.]

There is an interesting moderator bias on this Forum.

Anybody can ask me anything and I am expected to answer but when I ask someone else a question my question is deleted:

[Portion removed.]
[Portion removed.]
[Portion removed.]

Why?

PC - you are not the arbiter of Palo Alto's membership in the Round Table. You are an "opinion person" here only.

The points made by the Roundtable members - some good and helpful - thank you very much - others blind to the facts.

A percentage of the planes coming in from the west - over the ocean enter the mainland at San Gregorio - San Mateo County.

The planes then go to the VOR and cross between Woodside and Portola Valley. From that point - at about 7,500 they then proceed down over SLAC, SU, and proceed across PA to the PAO.

At that juncture they then go out over the bay and proceed up to SFO over the water.

The amount of time the planes are directly over homes and highly valued organizations - SLAC, SU, Googleplex, etc. is proportionately higher in PA than San Mateo County.

If the majority of flight time for any one plane from entry to area through to SFO is over Santa Clara County then why would the Round Table believe that this whole topic only applies to San Mateo County. They don't own the water. The water is not negotiable. The majority of flight time in San Mateo County is over water.

The gentleman from Burlingame - the planes are on the ground at that point, or near the ground. Whatever happens before it gets to Burlingame will be the same no matter where the planes enter the mainland. What is his contribution to this if the net effect does not change for his city? It is the same for him no matter what happens.

I am seeing that more planes are now up in the 5,000 altitude while over PA so that is good news. Thank you to Bert Ganoung of SFO - he is one of the very good guys.

"PC - you are not the arbiter of Palo Alto's membership in the Round Table. You are an "opinion person" here only."

I never said I was - I just asked you a question which you refuse to answer:

Why is the world does Palo Alto want to join the SFO Roundtable which has an official policy that states:

"The Airport/Community Roundtable reaffirms and memorializes its longstanding policy regarding the
"shifting" of aircraft-generated noise, related to aircraft operations at San Francisco International
Airport, as follows: "The Airport/Community Roundtable members, as a group, when
considering and taking actions to mitigate noise, will not knowingly or deliberately support,
encourage, or adopt actions, rules, regulations or policies, that result in the "shifting" of
aircraft noise from one community to another, when related to aircraft operations at San
Francisco International Airport." (Source: Roundtable Resolution No. 93-01)."

There is no way that Palo Alto would be able to single handedly change this policy and yet as a member of the Roundtable it would be bound by this policy.

******
So Resident 1, why do you refuse to answer this question?

I have answered the question - you just don't like the answer.

"The amount of time the planes are directly over homes and highly valued organizations - SLAC, SU, Googleplex, etc. is proportionately higher in PA than San Mateo County."

Given that Woodside, Portola Valley, Atherton, eastern Menlo Park and East Palo Alto are all in San Mateo County this is a factually incorrect statement. Particularly since almost none of these planes from the West go as far South as Moffat and hence they never fly over the Googolplex.

[Portion removed.]

"I have answered the question - you just don't like the answer."

No you did not. Prove me wrong by posting your answer.

Here's an interesting route. Lucky for us, they still managed to go over Palo Alto! Wouldn't want to miss a flight.

Web Link

This plane to going the intercept the 284 radial from SFO and if it was to intercept that radial further North then they would have to be much lower over residential areas.


Planes do not fly over Palo Alto simply to bother people - they do it for operational reasons.

?? By that argument (south = higher = better), why didn't it enter the Bay over Sunnyvale? Why is Palo Alto so often the sweet spot?

And isn't at least one of your proposals specifically recommending that flights go over more entry points along the radial?

Will continue to share interesting trajectories, hope others do as well.

"?? By that argument (south = higher = better), why didn't it enter the Bay over Sunnyvale? Why is Palo Alto so often the sweet spot?"

Absolutely and that is why my simple short term proposal has ALL traffic entering the 284 radial much further South at at 7000 ft..

"And isn't at least one of your proposals specifically recommending that flights go over more entry points along the radial?"

Yes, my NextGen compatible proposal has 32 entry points so as to evenly distribute the flights over all of the surrounding cities.

Here is an interesting question... if the SFO Round-table is an organization for San Mateo County, and only San Mateo County, then how does the City and County of San Francisco get two seats on the round-table? Last time I checked the City and County of San Francisco was not in San Mateo County.

Downtown Palo Alto and downtown San Francisco are roughly equidistant from SFO.

It was mentioned in one of the first surf air complaint blogs 2 years ago that next gen was coming and it would funnel aircraft into a very small path and it would be a problem, Nobody listened.

I mention it because a lot of people dismiss surf air as a small problem but as they keep adding planes and flights it will become a big problem in the next two years, it has been happening gradually and will slowly continue to get worse until it's too late,

Does anyone remember next gen two years ago when it was quietly announced,

easier to act ahead of the game than after

I mention it because a lot of people dismiss surf air as a small problem but as they keep adding planes and flights it will become a big problem in the next two years, it has been happening gradually and will slowly continue to get worse until it's too late,

Does anyone remember next gen two years ago when it was quietly announced,

easier to act ahead of the game than after

An interesting question for an attorney... when an official statement from the SFO Round-table refers to "communities" such as:

"The Airport/Community Round-table members, as a group, when considering and taking actions to mitigate noise, will not knowingly or deliberately support, encourage, or adopt actions, rules, regulations or policies, that result in the "shifting" of aircraft noise from one community to another, when related to aircraft operations at San Francisco International Airport."

In the context of a statement from the SFO Round-table, does "communities" refer to all communities, or only communities within the boundaries and/or membership of the organization?

We need to remember the SFO Round-table was set up by some slick politicians and attorneys, so we need to be suspicious that there might be some legalistic slight-of-hand going on with the way they use language.

In regards to planes from the west flying close to the Googleplex, more of them are. In the past only planes from the south that came up roughly following Hwy 17 and Hwy 85, flew over to the bay within earshot of the Googleplex.

But I've noticed more and more jets this past year (using the Plane Finder and FlightRader24 app) that are originating from the Far East or Hawaii flying up roughly parallel to Hwy 85 and San Antonio Road within earshot of the Googleplex and over south Palo Alto. Before it was mainly jets from the south, predominantly from Southern California that flew following this approach to SFO.

While I'm concerned by the increased number of flights over Palo Alto, not only from the jets flying into SFO but also SJC, I simply cringe at the hyperbole and gross exaggeration expressed by many residents about the noise generated by the aircraft overhead.

Throughout the day where I live in south Palo Alto there must be aircraft flying within earshot of my home about every two to five minutes. When I'm outside, I can clearly hear them (and usually see them) flying overhead, but the noise level of almost all of those aircraft I would classify as moderate (or less). A normal conversation outdoors (voices NOT raised) with my neighbors easily drowns out the noise emanating from almost all of the overhead aircraft.

For those who want to appreciate what real loud noise from aircraft sounds like, I would suggest visiting some neighborhoods in South San Francisco or northern part of the City of Santa Clara as a comparison.

The aircraft that I find to be most excessively loud over Palo Alto aren't the jets flying into SFO, but the general aviation planes taking off and landing at PAO, or worse some of the TV stations helicopters that will start circling around for many minutes at a time if a "newsworthy" story happens in Palo Alto like when the murder-suicide occurred at the senior living complex adjacent to the JCC. Now THAT'S very loud and very disruptive.

" how does the City and County of San Francisco get two seats on the round-table? Last time I checked the City and County of San Francisco was not in San Mateo County.?"

Simple,they own the airport.

The Googolplex is between San Antonio and Shoreline Blvds. It is clearly marked on the maps. Moffett Field is further south and has it's own airspace. It is still a Navy / NASA designated location. Do not confuse the Googolplex with Moffett Field.
Moffett has it's own designated flight path over the Sunnyvale golf course.

San Francisco owns the airport and has 2 seats, as owner, not community rep? That makes it even worst - the "owner" of the airport and 1 county have influence with the FAA.

Let me count the ways that the owner will have interests to push on the roundtable.

Palo Alto never had a chance to be admitted, everybody knows that.

If Palo Alto wants to have regional impact on air traffic patterns then it should mobilize the relatively moribund Regional Airport Planning Committee (RAPC) and serve as a leader in that group.

Web Link

The alternative of continuing to join the SFO Roundtable makes no sense as that group has chosen to be San Mateo County specific and it has established policies that would require Palo Alto to commit to "not knowingly or deliberately support, encourage, or adopt actions, rules, regulations or policies, that result in the "shifting" of aircraft noise from one community to another, when related to aircraft operations at San Francisco International Airport."

revive a moribund "committee"

is this your political solution?

revive a moribund "committee"

is this your political solution?"

Absolutely if the alternative is being required to give up your major objective as a condition of membership.

Or PA can go it alone with predictable results on other communities.

What is your solution?

Here is why the RAPC could be a powerful tool for Palo Alto:

"Regional Airport Planning Process
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and MTC jointly prepare and update the Regional Airport System Planning Analysis (RASPA) under the direction of the Regional Airport Planning Committee (RAPC). RAPC is made up of elected officials from the three regional agencies and staff from the region's airports.

The purpose of the RASPA is to provide analysis and policy level guidance on aviation requirements for commercial and general aviation airports in the region."

You mean for flight path policy and guidance?

Or limiting growth of surf air type business?

It is a waste of time to discuss Roundtable vs. RAPC. Both are a big waste of time. These organizations are not where decisions are made regarding flight routes and patterns.

"You mean for flight path policy and guidance? "
Yes for all airports including SFO and SQL.


small claims - you did not answer the question that you were asked - "What is your solution?"

"It is a waste of time to discuss Roundtable vs. RAPC. Both are a big waste of time"

So what is your solution?

Not that anyone is obligated to respond here, but didn't I ask first, if RASPA your political solution?

I'm not sure what solution there is, kind of a weird situation.

"but didn't I ask first, if RASPA your political solution?"

Yes and I promptly answered:
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
2 hours ago
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
revive a moribund "committee"

is this your political solution?"

Absolutely if the alternative is being required to give up your major objective as a condition of membership.

Or PA can go it alone with predictable results on other communities.

What is your solution?

I answered already

"I'm not sure what solution there is, kind of a weird situation."

Let's be clear here - the area in San Mateo County is between Portola Valley and Woodside - the planes are at 7,500 here. The planes then move down over SLAC - which is on the border next to the creek. Once the planes cross over SLAC they are no longer in San Mateo County - the Creek is the county boundary. So the altitude in San Mateo County is between 7,500 and 6,500.

Now fast forward to the "suggestions' noted in this stream - come down Sunnyvale at 7,000.

So what has happened is that the flight line has been moved FURTHER SOUTH with the selling point that 7,000 ft is noise damper.

So 7,000 ft either in San Mateo County or Santa Clara County looks like the same thing to me.

And the next problem you have is that as you go FURTHER SOUTH then you are now in San Jose air space.

So if you look at the roundtable guidelines you cannot move flight lines.
Now in theory they are not - already done- but others are attempting to do that. They are trying to go further SOUTH.
Does not work for me - is really not doable - just pushing the problem from point a to point b.

btw - did you mean "predictable results on other communities" as the results we are seeing now?

"btw - did you mean "predictable results on other communities" as the results we are seeing now?"

Yes - zero results in getting flights distributed more evenly. That is the price of going it alone.

"So the altitude in San Mateo County is between 7,500 and 6,500."

No because many of the flights that cross Palo Alto THEN cross Menlo Park and/or Wast Palo Alto well below 7000 ft..

3 years ago Nextgen was being finalized for implementation, Then it just showed up, Can you imagine the uproar had they announced it was coming to the areas that would be effected. Palo Alto would have probably stopped it if they new had bad it would be.

Surf Air is now uncomfortable imagine it in 2 years w/ 10-20 times as many flights. Welcome to Nextgen from Mtn. View to Redwood City. from 800-1500 ft. above ground..

[Post removed; please do not use all-caps]

"Yes - zero results in getting flights distributed more evenly. That is the price of going it alone."

you must be confusing me with somebody else, or confused...not sure about solutions or your idea to distribute flights with this group you mentioned, maybe you can be more specific about how the group you suggest can help

No confusion here

Posted by small claims
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
3 hours ago
btw - did you mean "predictable results on other communities" as the results we are seeing now?



Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
3 hours ago
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
"btw - did you mean "predictable results on other communities" as the results we are seeing now?"

Yes - zero results in getting flights distributed more evenly. That is the price of going it alone.

Once the planes come down to the PAO they are now going out over the bay. They are now going over as far as the Don Edwards Preserve on the other side of the bay. They are not in West Menlo Park. They are not in San Mateo County in the bottom rotation.
The only time they get into the lower part of San Mateo is if it is a high traffic period and some planes have to circle over the top of SFO, come down the peninsula to rotate back. That is called a go-around.

The planes coming in from Hawaii have no involvement with San Mateo -the land portion - after they fly over the mainland to SLAC on the San Mateo / Santa Clara border.

The planes that vex San Mateo are the Surf Air planes that appear to be incessant - they are going to the San Carlos Airport - in San Mateo County.

So in effect San Mateo owns the Surf Air issue and they cannot solve it. It just gets worse.

But don't confuse that with the SFO problem, or the San Jose problem - because those are now the problem of Santa Clara County.

As an elected public official one of my biggest disappointment is that citizens do not pay attention to public notices and fail to participate in the process of policy development.

For example, Table A-5 in this Draft Report shows 18.25 PC-12 arrivals per day in 2035. The PC-12 is the aircraft the SurfAir flies.

Web Link

Does anybody believe that SurfAir will only have 18.25 arrivals per day in 2035?
Has anybody commented on this draft report?
Why not?

What I was asking is what you meant by "predictable results on other communities" your words

Sounded like you meant something bad on other communities....

PC - you need to ask the residents of San Mateo County that question. San Carlos is a county airport. It's income and expense goes in to the San Mateo County books. So San Mateo County is enjoying the income from Surf Air. And San Mateo County is going into a giant building boom which requires more money for improved roads and infrastructure. Note that San Carlos is building a new condo / hotel complex. And I am sure that the San Carlos Airport will get additional new buildings as part of the great building boom. San Mateo County owns that problem.
And it is not going to push that problem SOUTH.

"Sounded like you meant something bad on other communities.... "

No I meant that Palo Alto is having zero success in getting its aircraft noise problem moved someplace else by operating alone.

Peter,

I wouldn't be too sure of that. I was just on Flightrader and noticed three flights from the north (UA595, AAL241 and DL5738) follow a new path--across southwest SF and Daly City, then down SE across the Bay, bank around Ardenwood and then up the Bay to the airport.

Maybe SFO is trying out a new pattern for some flights instead of having all three converge over PA? We're still getting some of the long flights, but some of the smaller planes seem to be doing something else--at least from the north.

Hope this is not trial by error

Surf Air currently flies 31 flights a day into San Carlos, this is 2015,

Not sure where the 18 came from.

The residents of Santa Clara County have no authority on the workings of Surf Air. The San Carlos Airport is authorizing their flights and encouraging their flights. The residents of San Mateo have to muscle San Carlos Airport - it can't be done from Santa Clara. So why are we wasting time commenting on it? We have a lot on our plate right now.

If the residents of San Mateo are unhappy then I suggest they sue the County for disturbance of the peace, creating a major safety issue, and interfering with the other private pilots who have signed leases at the airport.
Take a leaf from the other airports that have sued - if negotiation does not work then go to Plan B - Sue them

Resident,

I was actually wondering *what* was going on with the first plane, but then it was followed by three more, I figured it wasn't just a one-off. Another small plane from Medford just did this loop--so it looks like SFO is trying out some sort of adjustment for flights from the north as far as smaller planes go.

And nowww it's time for the European arrivals--those continue to be over our heads--London, Munich--the Great Circle route.

@Stop Surf Air, not sure where the 31 came from. I count 19.

Resident1,

The reason I comment on it now is I want those currently affected by the noise and disturbance of Surf Air to read and try to comprehend that they will be in the same position Palo Alto is in 2 years from now. and those people also read this blog,

Palo Alto was blind sided that does not have to happen to those bothered by Surf Air.

Only then it may be too late or at least more difficult to contest. The flight path for Surf Air is over Mid Town, North and other parts of Palo Alto, parts of Allied Arts, Lindfield Oaks, parts of Atherton, Felton Gables, Fair Oaks, North Fair Oaks, and Redwood City all the way to Maple, A much larger swath than what is the area this blog has been reporting.

Surf Air is an Airline, SQL is a general Aviation Airport, When they start flying at capacity, 100-200 flights a day people will complain but it may be too late. Allow us to share your blog,

This is not going to end. As I sit here this evening at 10:03 I have counted 9 planes zooming past me in the last 18 minutes. It is relentless. Theses post are great to get the anger out but all we get back is the ongoing Peter carpenter " I told you so" yap. I have called and emailed both Simitian and Eshoo 6 times this week. I have filed 10 SFO complaints. I will do so every week. I will do so as often as I hear the deceleration of the SFO bound jets overhead. I was thinking of taking photos as the jets pass by an forward those to city concil to add to their study... Got to go, can smell the jet fuel of another passing plane that once few over Atherton that needs a picture.

Gee Stop Surf Air - you are on this particular stream because it is about SFO air traffic that used to go over San Mateo and is now over Santa Clara.

And the Surf Air planes are over our head too. But we here are not in a position to make any "business" actions since the airport is in San Carlos. What do you expect us to do about it?

No - we are not going to take over Surf Air at the PAO - the PAO manager knows he would be toast if he did that - also the city manager and mayor.

My last comment on Surf Air - go to their web-site - they have a lot of destinations they go to. They have a well done web site. Yes they are buying more planes but those planes are all not coming here.
They mention Santa Monica and Palo Alto in a round about way but reality is they do not go to Santa Monica or Palo Alto.

A Santa Clara location for them could be Reid Hillview - check out their site - They have all information you could wonder about - they appear to have it all together. Very professional web site.

"NextGen Being Used to Justify Lower & Noisier Flying While Ignoring Impacts"
AIReform ~ August 26, 2015 Web Link

Had you only known. About Nextgen 2 years ago i woul bet it woul not be in effect now

So stop - what are you doing since you live in Atherton? You are in San Mateo County so should have some pull.

Interesting article in the Daily Post today,

The reason I keep bringing up Surf Air is a result of reading all the reactive posts from people who suffer from Next Gen.

As I have said before if residents of Palo Alto had known two years ago how bad NextGen would be they would have fought it then and a different plan would be in effect now. They were "sand bagged"

When Surf Air gets up to 50 planes, not all but many of which will be flying in to San Carlos Airport it will be similarly unbearable but as w/ Nextgen more difficult to stop/slow down/alter after the fact.

The two problems are connected and this thread applies to both. Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Stanford, Atherton, and Redwood City all will continue to be effected by traffic from Surf Air, This is our two year notice that Palo Alto didn't get.

SSA,

Surf Air has been a news story, and has been discussed in The Almanac's Town Square for three years now. You might want to put Surf Air into the Almanac's search bar, and see what comes up. The Almanac featured an editorial about Surf Air in 2013, and that wasn't the first time Surf Air appeared on the pages of the The Almanac.

"Editorial: Permanent solution needed for noisy planes"
The Almanac ~ December 19, 2013 Web Link

SSA - what are you - a Monday Morning Quarterback? There was a meeting in Atherton a couple of years ago concerning Surf Air - so it is not news.
And if you go to their site you will see that they are adding destinations to other places so those added planes are going somewhere - anywhere - not all here.
So what is your point? You keep repeating the same thing. This has been on the Almanac and Weekly for a number of years so it is not news.

And we have been discussing Next Gen for a number of years - it is not new news.

OPar, regarding planes from the north flying down the bay, u-turning around Ardenwood and then going back up the bay to land, I had read SOMEWHERE that that was the normal path for arrivals from the north, and that the route that goes down the peninsula and u-turns over Palo Alto, was a secondary route. And that after the Asiana crash in 2013, the FAA pretty much abandoned the over-the-bay route and started sending all/most of the planes from the north down the peninsula. Don't know why. BUT, I can't find the website that said that, so I don't know if it is really true or not. Looking at the flight tracking websites, I see lots of flights down the peninsula and very few down the bay. Does anyone know any more about this?

Now this was noise !!

Five military fighter jets at full power off Moffat and over Atherton at 3600 ft. and FAST.

Web Link

They never touched Palo Alto.

What do you think they were doing, Very unsafe for local traffic

They were in constant comunication with ATC - that it what professionals do.

Sorry I missed it. From WebTrak I clock them at 71 seconds over the 6.9 miles from 101 to 280, or 340 knots while climbing about 1500 feet per minute. Whether that's really "full power" depends on the aircraft type.

Gack. Transposed my speed digits. 304 knots. (350 mph)

Joe Giraffe,

I remember that there was some change in flight patterns after the Asiana crash, but I don't remember the details.

What I've noticed about the flights from the north is that we get the larger jets on the longer flight paths. We're more likely to get the flight from Istanbul and the East Bay's more likely to get the commuter plane from Eureka. Maybe something to do where the plane joins the line-up for the Bay descent to SFO? The East Bay descent puts a plane in front of the Eastern path,while the ones over the Peninsula seem to line up at about the same point--so longer descent over the Bay.

I am a homeowner in Broadway-Flushing, Queens, New York. The neighborhood is listed on the National and New York State Register of Historic Places. The FAA does not care about this significant designation. We were blasted out of bed by jets screaming above our residential neighborhoods almost four years. This was done with no warning, no public hearings, no environmental studies, no warning to elected officials and our Community Board. This article could have been written about excessive airplane noise in New York, Phoenix, Chicago, DC, Boston, etc. We are very proud of our Representative Grace Meng and the Quiet Skies Caucus for their call to action to RE-FUND the EPA's Office of Noise Abatement. The flawed implementation of NextGen flight patterns around the country has caused the intolerable destruction of the quality of our lives - nobody should have to live under a NextGen flight pattern. The FAA has forced ordinary citizens to become airline and noise experts. The airline industry needs to catch up with new airplane and jet engine design to mitigate excessive airplane noise caused by NextGen flight patterns.