Despite rising community frustrations about airplane noise, the Palo Alto City Council decided Monday night not to launch a lawsuit against the Federal Aviation Administration at this time.
Rejecting calls for litigation from the dozens of residents who came to City Hall with signs, statistics and anecdotes, the City Council concluded after a lengthy closed session that suing the federal agency would probably not achieve everyone's shared goal: turning down the volume. The council reached its decision after hearing from a dozen residents and conferring with consulting attorneys for more than two hours.
Of those who addressed the council or submitted letters, nearly everyone spoke in favor of suing the agency, whose recent changes to flight paths have concentrated airplane routes over city, creating what many refer to as aerial "super highways." The problem began in 2014, when the FAA launched its NextGen program that instantly increased the volume of flights over many homes. Many feel the problem will only get worse as the agency moves ahead with START PIRAT TWO, its new procedures for planes flying from the west over the Pacific Ocean, toward a waypoint near Woodside.
The city had already submitted numerous letters to the FAA explaining its position that the procedures may further worsen the problem of airplane noise. After not receiving any responses from the federal agency, the council agreed last month to meet in a closed session to consider its legal options.
Since then, residents have continued to press the council to take legal action.
"Nearly five years have passed since the FAA designated sections of Palo Alto as a trash heap for airplane noise pollution and so far, PACC (Palo Alto City Council) attempts to work with FAA have been ineffective," High Street resident Jan St. Peter wrote in an email to the council. "It's time city representatives support tougher measures to restore Palo Alto to pre-NextGen noise levels."
"We have tried the 'polite' approach for 4-5 years and little has changed," wrote Micheline Horstmeyer. "I am afraid that the FAA will continue to ignore our concerns about jet noise until we TAKE LEGAL ACTION."
Many offered similar sentiments in person. Lois Shore, who works at JLS Middle School, told the council Monday that the problem has gotten noticeably worse at the school.
"We have loud planes going over constantly. When our KJLS broadcasts are recorded, you can just hear, 'Boom!' You don't know what the students say," Shore said.
Mark Shull said the city has tried other options, including committees, roundtables and letters but nothing has worked. He too encouraged the council to move ahead with litigation.
"Palo Alto has become a designated dumping ground and the reason of it is that we did not step up and demand meaningful representation. ... The city needs to break that cycle and a lawsuit is a great place to start," Shull said.
The council, which has been struggling to get the FAA's attention, shared the residents' frustrations, though not its preferred remedy. Mayor Eric Filseth said after the closed session that after talking things over with the attorneys, the council decided not to sue.
"Given the chance of success and what we realistically actually get if we won, and in the context of regional efforts, in the end we felt the best chance of getting relief for Palo Alto is to focus on the regional process without litigation at this time," Filseth said. "We realize this is intensely frustrating for the community. We are very frustrated ourselves.
"In the end, the council determined that this is the best of a palette of poor options," Filseth said.
This was the second time that the council had considered and ultimately rejected requests from residents to sue the FAA. In April 2018, the council similarly met in a closed session to consider a possible suit and ultimately opted not to move ahead with litigation.
Comments
Crescent Park
on Jun 11, 2019 at 3:55 pm
on Jun 11, 2019 at 3:55 pm
What Palo Alto would get from a successful appeal is the right to have some baseline of noise for Oceanic flights now and for generations that follow who - without a baseline - can get unlimited noise because nobody stops the shot clock of serial bogus environmental reviews.
Council voted to allow FAA to keep saying "nothing has changed" or "nothing changes" with a new procedure that has many unknowns (where the planes will fly, at what altitude, or what number of jets), when it's obvious something has changed and will change. In the case of PIRAT we know it's more impacts.
Council voted to allow FAA to document that there are no impacts to the City.
Council voted to sanitize a highly inappropriate environmental review based on a couple of political comments. And to sanitize that this route has never had an environmental review.
Council voted to not speak up for Palo Alto.
My view is that it was a calculated decision about how many people "care" about this and they figure it's only those who can wave hands at Council at 5 PM.
The attorneys will say whatever you want them to say.
In my view, we are dealing with a situation which has real impacts on the ground and it is unethical to not do proper accounting or advocacy on the basis of real data and analysis.
This was an opportunity to do things right, and Council voted for the status quo which is to keep everyone blind about what's going on in the hopes nobody cares.
FAA designed the PIRAT procedure with one day's flight track data. It's been pulled because it's unsafe but the lies in the environmental review documents will persist, now with PACC's flawed environmental review sanitation business.
Crescent Park
on Jun 11, 2019 at 4:11 pm
on Jun 11, 2019 at 4:11 pm
BTW who can show up at Council (at 5 PM!) is no indication of who this decision will impact.
A petition to reduce airplane noise has been getting hundreds of new signatures in the last few days, Web Link
Registered user
Palo Verde
on Jun 11, 2019 at 5:43 pm
Registered user
on Jun 11, 2019 at 5:43 pm
By choosing not to file litigation, basically the CC is giving away our basic human right to breathe clean air(no fine particulate matter), be bombarded with noisy airplanes as we are known as the sacrificial noise corridor for SFO. NextGen let SFO and SFO Roundtable dump all their noise over us. Before NextGen we were able to have a barbecue outside every summer night and enjoy the wonderful weather and ambiance. The City of Palo Alto has been working with regional bodies for 5 years, and it has gotten us nowhere. There was not 1 speaker last night who spoke up for working with our regional neighbors, in fact just the opposite! Palo Alto's neighbors have dumped the noise here and also outsmarted and outmaneuvered us at every turn. The Select Committee process was a sham. In fact, it basically made things worse. Now as SFO and FAA see that we have no backbone, expect more and more dumping of planes over Palo Alto!
So sad, we are the LOSERS!
Registered user
Palo Verde
on Jun 11, 2019 at 5:47 pm
Registered user
on Jun 11, 2019 at 5:47 pm
Our wonderful climate is well known, but if one has to wear noise canceling headphones to sit in ones backyard to enjoy the weather........
University South
on Jun 11, 2019 at 6:47 pm
on Jun 11, 2019 at 6:47 pm
Simple explanation. Palo Alto could not win this lawsuit.
University South
on Jun 11, 2019 at 6:48 pm
on Jun 11, 2019 at 6:48 pm
[Post removed.]
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 11, 2019 at 6:54 pm
on Jun 11, 2019 at 6:54 pm
The ex chief council for SFO doesn't want to sue the FAA. That's a surprise!
Palo Alto government, both elected offices and the upper echelons of the permanent bureaucracy, is stuffed with people who seem more concerned with protecting San Francisco's SFO revenue stream and the reputations of the party leadership in San Francisco, than the health and welfare of Palo Alto's residents.
The San Francisco owned and operated industrial facility known as SFO is using Palo Alto (and other Peninsula cities) as a dumping ground for the toxic byproducts of SFO's operations in order to increase through-put and profits from that facility.
The same virtue signaling hypocrites that want to ban soft drinks and soda straws to protect the health and welfare of San Francisco's residents, remain willfully ignorant while an industrial facility they operate dumps millions of tons of hydrocarbon pollution and toxic noise on the Peninsula.
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Jun 11, 2019 at 6:57 pm
Registered user
on Jun 11, 2019 at 6:57 pm
I turned this on TV - and it was a closed meeting. Then they went on to plastic. Going down to the City Hall now is not a pleasure - no parking outside. And parking in garage is by designated stickers up to a certain time period.
Suggestion here - they sit around and decide to cancel a topic by number only. No indication of what that topic is. Suggest that if a topic is cancelled then they state the number and topic of item so viewers know what to expect. Can't tell if the topic they cancelled is your topic.
Crescent Park
on Jun 11, 2019 at 7:15 pm
on Jun 11, 2019 at 7:15 pm
Jetman,
"The same virtue signaling hypocrites that want to ban soft drinks and soda straws to protect the health and welfare of San Francisco's residents, remain willfully ignorant while an industrial facility they operate dumps millions of tons of hydrocarbon pollution and toxic noise on the Peninsula."
Indeed there are a few incinerators in our skies operated by SFO, OAK and SJC.
The aviation legal counsel that advises the City is the City's airport business counsel and he also advises San Mateo County. Some conflicts of interest are ok.
@Next
PACC was going to ask for a toll of the statute of limitations until PIRAT impacts could be revealed. That much PACC understood, that there are no impacts available to look at. The City passed on even asking.
I doubt the FAA is losing sleep over if Palo Alto sues or not but PACC should be caring about how much pollution is landing on the City.
And we are supposed to trust Palo Alto representing us on a regional table? The point about being too polite is spot on. PACC would rather take on more incinerator facilities on our behalf than dare ask simple questions.
Old Palo Alto
on Jun 11, 2019 at 9:21 pm
on Jun 11, 2019 at 9:21 pm
Here was my full statement, to no avail:
Hi. I strongly urge the city to pursue legal remedies, against but not limited to the FAA, to address the egregious concentration of toxic air traffic over Palo Alto due to NextGen, FAA regulatory short cuts and the extreme inequities in regional representation that the FAA leverages to continue NextGen’s Architecture of Concentration over us.
SFO takeoff and landings have only grown by about 10% since the year 2000. Yet, traffic over Palo Alto has grown from around 70 flights per day in 2000 to an average of 250 to 300. Why, because of extreme traffic shifting.
The FAA does listen to communities in positioning its increasingly concentrated corridors. But, they are also fine gerrymandering who they listen to. The FAA’s community relations manual says bring in those who benefit, if others are harmed. Their Net Noise Reduction Model to measure environmental impact is based on giving some relief to a majority, by concentrating traffic on a minority. The FAA’s model is to play winners against losers.
Palo Alto has become the designated dumping ground. And, the reason for this is that we have not stood up and demanded meaningful representation. Yes, we have asked many times, and then been kicked to the curb by SFO, the SFO Round Table, and Congresswoman Eshoo time and again. The City needs to break this cycle, and a lawsuit is the right place to start.
FAA threats to stop working with us are nonsense. First, they aren’t working with us, at all. SFO is going live with GBAS next year, which will enable extremely concentrated rails. BSR will increase noise over us by 2 to 4 decibels DNL according to the FAA. BRIXX is a project to raise BDEGA West, moving it more over us. These changes all center on Palo Alto. Which one are they talking to us about?
Second, the FAA has consistently threatened to stop talking to communities that sue, and then worked directly with them. The FAA threatened in writing to stop talking in response to the Reagan National and BWI lawsuits, and then did nothing different, because they are under pressure to get stuff done. Moreover, the lawsuit did bring a focus and attention to the issue of the FAA moving traffic to communities who were not represented, at the behest of those that were.
Governments in cities in the LA region have gone on record to say their lawsuits caused the FAA to sit down with them and pay attention to their issues. That is what we need.
Pathetic was it was, the FAA did an EA when the SERFR OPD replaced conventional procedures. Now, they are hiding behind the Select Committee to skip an EA for the PIRAT OPD. The facts do exist to take a legal stand. Nobody else is going to help us, you have to.
Downtown North
on Jun 11, 2019 at 9:30 pm
on Jun 11, 2019 at 9:30 pm
The council simply took the course of least exertion. End of matter unless an initiative pops up.
Old Palo Alto
on Jun 11, 2019 at 11:05 pm
on Jun 11, 2019 at 11:05 pm
The concentration of jet traffic is about more than noise annoyance. That noise has documented health and learning impacts
Web Link One of the sections in that presentation discusses the impact of jet noise on children’s learning. It was therefore concerning to hear and read the comments of Lois Shore.
“Lois Shore, who works at JLS Middle School, told the council Monday that the problem has gotten noticeably worse at the school. "We have loud planes going over constantly. When our KJLS broadcasts are recorded, you can just hear, 'Boom!' You don't know what the students say," Shore said.”
From Congressman Adam Smith’s May 20, 2019 written testimony to the the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, “The narrowing of departure and arrival routes has concentrated noise and other impacts over specific areas and those living under these pathways now bear an increased majority of the noise burden”.. “In addition to noise impacts from aviation, ultrafine particles (UFPs) in the atmosphere pose an outsize threat to those living under flight pathways”...“According to the FAA’s preliminary research, fine and ultrafine particles in the atmosphere are considered health risks in humans because of their ability to penetrate deep into the human respiratory system”
Web Link
Palo Alto has three routes of SFO arrivals on their final approach to the airport, concentrated over it. After four years of inadequate response by the City, undefined “regional efforts” with no public discussion of why the Council expects results different from past “regional efforts”, is truly unacceptable. The FAA used the regional Select Committee (which did not include Palo Alto as a Principal, Web Link recommendation as their rationale for PIRAT2 Web Link
Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Jun 12, 2019 at 8:48 am
on Jun 12, 2019 at 8:48 am
Anna Eshoo said she was going to work with the FAA to solve this horrendous issue but she was too busy passing a law to regulate the volume of TV commercials. Turns out her law was not needed since the FCC already had that authority. But she did get a press release for her TV volume regulations.
Registered user
Palo Verde
on Jun 12, 2019 at 12:30 pm
Registered user
on Jun 12, 2019 at 12:30 pm
I am pleased that the city council decided to not file a lawsuit against the FCC.
I am not in favor of more airplane noise, but I don't support a lawsuit because the city would not win this lawsuit, as the FCC has full jurisdiction of the airspace and as far as I can tell the city has none. It would be a big waste of our tax money to do this with no chance of winning.
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 12, 2019 at 1:07 pm
on Jun 12, 2019 at 1:07 pm
This is a genuine problem that emerged several years ago when Atherton/San Mateo County successfully got their air traffic shifted to and concentrated upon....us. Owing to tangled bureaucracy, it’s not direct or easy to protest this. We’re at the very north of Santa Clara County, famously monies are taken from us for the benefit of San Jose down towards the south of the county. Clearly, see: transit. The lack of interest in Palo Alto (besides as a piggy bank) is clear.
But PA IS an important center of: finance, education, entrepreneurship and jobs. Oh, let’s “punish” Palo Alto any way we can, say most government officials (!)
Nevertheless, this current loud, heavy air traffic situation represents a lack of representation and advocacy by our local and county government officials on a huge quality of life and city property value issue. It was CHANGED, and Zi don’t blame FAA programs solely. San Mateo County and SFO appear gleeful.
I am disgusted by these politicians who cannot prioritize important issues of their constituents. Some are thrilled, too, that our single family zoning will be removed owing to the persistence of State Senator Scott Wiener. Our representatives don’t care.
another community
on Jun 12, 2019 at 2:07 pm
on Jun 12, 2019 at 2:07 pm
The chance of a lawsuit against the FAA achieving anything is slim. The FAA does not need to take into account noise; it has been allowed by our "representatives" in DC to ignore the impact of changes it makes. The FAA is a captive agency, and the aviation industry cares only about profits. NEXTGEN is about packing more planes into the sky, regardless of the cost to the environment.
In fact, despite the anger over noise throughout the US and elsewhere, the plans are to give us more: continued expansion of commercial and general aviation, delivery drones, flying taxis, supersonic (and if you think a commercial jet is loud, wait until you hear a supersonic with its fighter jet engines come in for a landing over your house).
Instead of asking the city to sue, your time and effort would be better spent creating a coalition of groups encompassing the whole bay area. Then you could put pressure as a unified whole on the entire industry: FAA, airports and carriers. Even better, join with other groups all over the US and demand that congress:
- institute meaningful noise limits, based on a per instance maximum, not an average
- set higher minimum altitude and minimum approach/departure angles
- take measures to reduce aviation, the most polluting form of transportation, such as a heavy tax on all aviation fuels, a ban on frequent-flyer programs, penalties on frequent fliers through escalating fees, cutting off all subsidies of aviation, etc.
- return control of airports to communities, so that if a community wants, for example, a curfew, it can have one
At the very least, stop using aviation. Don't fly unless you absolutely have to and don't have anything shipped by air.
Crescent Park
on Jun 12, 2019 at 4:50 pm
on Jun 12, 2019 at 4:50 pm
Tired of Noise,
"The FAA does not need to take into account noise;"
Actually, FAA does need to take into account noise. Every airspace action has an environmental determination.
FAA is required to observe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). To do that FAA has agency rules to observe NEPA. FAA's rules to observe NEPA are in Order 1050.1F Web Link
While FAA's thresholds of pain are very insensitive - +5db in an area of 45-60 DNL and use a single metric, *Order 1050.1F provides for the use of supplemental metrics.* It is not forbidden by FAA for say airports and communities to work out some extra metrics to use in evaluations.
The only reason FAA does not take into account noise is because everybody lets them not account for noise.
If you keep allowing FAA to never count the noise, or substantiate their declarations of "no change" of course FAA doesn't account noise.
another community
on Jun 13, 2019 at 9:00 am
on Jun 13, 2019 at 9:00 am
Jennifer L. - that's my point, the Congress allowed the FAA to determine that there was "no significant impact" regarding these changes, which is clearly ridiculous but points to the larger issue here: that they were allowed to do that at all.
Even if a change is made that increases the noise above 65 DNL, it can still be done (just look at the issue of F35s in Vermont). So no, the FAA doesn't really have to restrict its behavior regarding noise. Requiring them to do a study is useless if they can still carry out the same behavior.
Part of the problem with the complaints regarding aircraft noise is that people are demanding studies and to be informed of changes; neither does a bit of good if the aviation industry can continue to violate our rights.
Noise kills. If PA found significant lead in the water, the arguments wouldn't be "let's do a study", or "you should have told us you were going to put lead in the water", or "PA has more lead then neighboring communities, let's share it out equally." No, the only suitable response would be to remove the lead.
Crescent Park
on Jun 13, 2019 at 10:03 am
on Jun 13, 2019 at 10:03 am
Tired of Noise,
"Even if a change is made that increases the noise above 65 DNL, it can still be done"
While FAA can do anything or refuse to do something, the time they are required to consider noise is when making an environmental determination which also provides for the right level of community engagement and looking at alternatives to make the least impact on the ground. FAA has mandated tools analyze changes and potential impacts which FAA has yet to provide for a project in the Bay Area. They are still bringing flight track maps which are just lines and no noise projections.
If you want attention to something, your last call is when you see a problem. Not after FAA has moved on to the next change that will add even more noise to the last determination when you let them say, nothing to look at here.
Also, FAA doesn't have a file "regional agreements" so if you want attention to your particular issues, the most responsible thing to do is to ensure that there are adequate reviews and *timing is everything.*
Spending years getting together to do this or the other is OK but and letting flawed environmental reviews pass is not.
another community
on Jun 13, 2019 at 10:36 am
on Jun 13, 2019 at 10:36 am
Jennifer L. - I don't consider the type of environmental review the FAA would do the "right level of community engagement" simply because they can ignore all community concerns and environmental impacts. The FAA is regulating itself, which basically means the aviation industry is regulating itself since the FAA is a captive agency.
It's not enough to demand to be heard when what you say can be ignored.
"Spending years getting together to do this or the other is OK but letting flawed environmental reviews pass is not." Years have already been spent. You will get nothing but a flawed environmental review from the FAA because they are not required to provide anything else.
Crescent Park
on Jun 13, 2019 at 11:12 am
on Jun 13, 2019 at 11:12 am
Tired of Noise,
"You will get nothing but a flawed environmental review from the FAA because they are not required to provide anything else."
Our City's decision seems to follow that thinking and why I appreciate the actions of cities that have boldly and successfully been helping raise the standards for FAA's environmental reviews. And even FAA is rising to the challenge.
The Phoenix Catex has printed material, color maps, what if scenarios, alternatives to look at - and that is with a Catex. Much better than nothing and better than letting fibs fester. It's not perfect, it doesn't mean problem solved, it means you are working off some better material and there's room for improvement.
Palo Alto resigning to the idea that FAA will only do "what is required" (while watching FAA not provide basic information on the PIRAT Catex..say compared to Phoenix) is what those with more political pull benefit from while they get lots of stuff way beyond "what is required."
Midtown
on Jun 13, 2019 at 12:14 pm
on Jun 13, 2019 at 12:14 pm
I’m trying to understand council’s position on this.
Is it:
A) I’m not one of the hundreds of people under the flights who has not had good sleep for years and is enduring increased cancer risk etc., so throw them under the bus. They are collateral damage to the huge benefit of my leadership role.
B) I care about this and know it is serious but what can I, as an inept country bumpkin, do against a huge beauracracy? After all, it’s not like we have political clout, people with money, or intellectual horsepower in Palo Alto!
C) Straws are more important.
another community
on Jun 13, 2019 at 12:27 pm
on Jun 13, 2019 at 12:27 pm
Jennifer L. - how have the standards been raised? The FAA still makes decisions based on models, not real world measurements, and the only noise restriction is meaningless since it's 1: too high and 2: can be exceeded without real consequence. Great, they have pretty diagrams showing alternatives, but still no right to control what happens at their airport, even though the city owns it, and no right to not be subjected to noise that is proven to harm human health and the environment. Only the historic part of the city might get some relative relief, but others are still complaining.
And don't forget, most other lawsuits trying to challenge the aviation industry have had no luck, so there was little chance PA would have gotten even what Phoenix has, as pathetic as that is.
Crescent Park
on Jun 13, 2019 at 1:17 pm
on Jun 13, 2019 at 1:17 pm
Tired of Noise,
"how have the standards been raised?"
"The FAA still makes decisions based on models"
The study in Boston, a partnership with MIT, FAA, Massport, and communities is not perfect but is *way above* what we have in the Bay Area.
The Boston study calibrates the models with real noise measurements
It has additional models to refine the modeling work
It informs other FAA work in refining their own model
There is nothing wrong with using modeling if it's done even moderately right and especially with the amount of data that FAA has available, which is extraordinary. Literally every flight in the air is recorded and that data is available for years back.
Until you even try to use what is available though, how can you discount it?
On a practical level, FAA can't be in charge of noise measurements for every city in the US thus modeling makes sense.
It's up to the airports to do better in terms of measurements and where they measure. SFO's noise monitors end in Redwood City.
Crescent Park
on Jun 13, 2019 at 1:21 pm
on Jun 13, 2019 at 1:21 pm
FAA's modeling tools is AEDT
Web Link
Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT)
AEDT is a software system that dynamically models aircraft performance in space and time to produce fuel burn, emissions and noise. Full flight gate-to-gate analyses are possible for study sizes ranging from a single flight at an airport to scenarios at the regional, national, and global levels. AEDT is currently used by the U.S. government to consider the interdependencies between aircraft-related fuel burn, noise and emissions.
You can find information on obtaining AEDT as well as links to AEDT documentation and FAA guidance, on the official website for AEDT at Web Link
Crescent Park
on Jun 13, 2019 at 1:29 pm
on Jun 13, 2019 at 1:29 pm
Excuse the typos
Meant to say that FAA's modeling tool is AEDT
Instead of all the flight track lines that the Bay Area is used to working with, SFO, SJC, and OAK should be providing these analysis to communities.
The standard for airports being good neighbors is even lower than that for FAA environmental reviews. Regional tables are a forum to provide excuses why this or that is so difficult and to send people off to do things like change legislation for more laws to be defied.
Midtown
on Jun 13, 2019 at 1:57 pm
on Jun 13, 2019 at 1:57 pm
Time to get new leaders in office who care about the welfare of this city, the kids and future generations who will be living here. I recorded a half hour sitting outside in my back yard and within those 30 minutes 12 very loud airplanes went over head. That's a plane every 2.5 minutes! This is REAL and it affects every citizens right to quality of life which this is quickly diminishing. If this council has no guts...then we need representatives who will do exactly that...represent! Having lived here almost all my life, I am so shocked that the City Council took the cowards way out. It's not the way Palo Alto rolls...Even if you don't think you are affected by the noise, please unite as Palo Alto citizens to help each other out and stand with those who are.
another community
on Jun 13, 2019 at 3:35 pm
on Jun 13, 2019 at 3:35 pm
Jennifer Landesmann,
What you're focusing on is what the industry, FAA and our Congress are more than happy to focus on (clue #1 you're down the rabbit hole). Substantive results are needed nationwide. Sleep. Peace and rest inside and outdoors. Reduction in aviation use if human health and the environment are prioritized over profit, not expansion worldwide. And certainly a suffering competition is not what's needed, the demands to spread the damage equitably. Stop the damage, that's what's needed. But let's say a place "uniquely burdened" gets 300 low-altitude flights per 24 hrs and another gets 50, so you bump 100 more onto that less burdened place. Each now gets 150 low-flying aircraft. You celebrate that achievement? And as capacity is increased, which is the point of all this hell that's been unleashed by our Congress, then what? Keep it fair, if 50 more for US then 50 more for THEM and so on until both places are at the original level 300 that was so unacceptable? Basically this logic amounts to having no problem with noise torture and air pollution so long as it's spread equally, whatever the destructive, toxic level to humans and the environment.
It seems to be a logic that derives from what the industry banked on, and Congress and its agency the FAA. People will put flying and air shipments on demand and on the cheap above their own health, the health of others and the environment.
Don't worry, all the talk, studies, models, data collection will be yours for the foreseeable. That they can and will continue to do because it's just more public money being spent anyway.
Private industry profits keeps soaring.
Crescent Park
on Jun 13, 2019 at 4:08 pm
on Jun 13, 2019 at 4:08 pm
HitTheMoney,and all in other communities,
Please not change the subject. This is about a Palo Alto decision, which regards stewardship of Palo Alto neighborhoods and the well being of Palo Alto residents and quality of the environment of our schools - which should be a City priority.
As such, turning a blind eye to sloppy environmental reviews of airspace changes is in my view a mistake.
There have been no reasonable analysis with actual noise projections yet for any of the changes that are contemplated and it is long overdue. Reaching conclusions about what is a "realistic" win from asserting on laws meant to protect people is thus premature without even some basic information.
Nice try to take the focus to all the other many issues to deal with, I believe that by observing laws and doing things at the right time can help here. There is 60 years for doing everything else but only 60 days to speak up about a bad judgement of environmental review level.
another community
on Jun 13, 2019 at 4:47 pm
on Jun 13, 2019 at 4:47 pm
Jennifer Landesmann,
Whether sooner or later, people who focus only on their city, neighborhood, etc. (maybe will see focus on a particular street next) will be forced to face the reality that this is a nationwide program. A nationwide injustice. Congress passed the act, the President signed off on it. We're now years into this hell. If this aviation program's destruction is to be stopped it will again take an act of Congress and the President. Not more models, studies, and data and public outreach, but legislation prioritizing human health and the environment over profits in substantive terms, not calls for more studies.
If people want this to end, they need to poke their heads out of their own neighborhood, city, state and wake up.
But if you just want a tweak for your area, I guess keep going in the same direction. It's unlikely you'll get even the tweak, and more unlikely the tweak (e.g. historic neighborhood in Phoenix) will last given FAA can just make another procedural change and declare a finding of no significant impact, as the agency has done nationwide since the program kicked off.
The goal is expansion, ever increasing operations, regardless of the human and environmental costs. The skies nationwide are tarmac airports tarmac to line up arrivals and departures. If you don't question that core assumption, that there's no problem with increasing aviation operations then your fight will remain limited at best and ultimately pointless.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 13, 2019 at 6:11 pm
on Jun 13, 2019 at 6:11 pm
Hit said:
"Private industry profits keeps soaring"
Airports are a major part of the airline industry and ALL of the major airports (SFO, JFK, DEN, LAX, ATL, Etc) are owned and operated by city governments. The airline industry is impervious to criticism not just because it controls the FAA. The airline industry has also captured city governments through a business model that makes city governments willing and eager participants in the airline industry.
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 13, 2019 at 6:50 pm
Registered user
on Jun 13, 2019 at 6:50 pm
Jetman,
“ The airline industry has also captured city governments through a business model that makes city governments willing and eager participants in the airline industry.”
in a nutshell
Crescent Park
on Jun 13, 2019 at 10:08 pm
on Jun 13, 2019 at 10:08 pm
the airplane noice becomes more and more over the past months. While reading this article, I was recording the instances of passing airplanes. There are one airplane passing almost every 2-3 minutes! Now question is, what our residents can do to fight the noice? The noise has been disturbing everyone’s quality life. I wish there are people who have better knowledge educate us, is there a plan? Any concrete propose that residents can discuss?
Registered user
Atherton
on Jun 14, 2019 at 6:45 am
Registered user
on Jun 14, 2019 at 6:45 am
"Any concrete propose that residents can discuss?"
Yes -
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jun 9, 2019 at 5:30 pm
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
Palo Alto wants the traffic to be moved somewhere else.
Unless Palo Alto can show where to put the traffic so that impacts fewer people then Palo Alto will fail in its efforts.
Please support a better solution!
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
****************************
""those who are familiar with the new technologies suggest the fixes are not nearly so complicated and primarily involve some common sense adjustments to increase altitudes of planes when they cross the Peninsula"
I have posted two different ways to significantly reduce the ground noise problem.
The first proposal shifts all the entry point for SFO approaches to three Initial Approaches (IAF) fixes at the South end of the Bay and those intercerptions would take place at or above 7000 ft.. The negative aspect of the first proposal is that is does concentrate all traffic over the three IAFs and these IAF are above populated areas (although the 7000 ft or above entry altitude greatly reduces the ground level noise below these IAFs.
The second proposal randomly distributes all SFO inbound flights over a series of interception points beginning at 10 miles from SFO and continuing out to 25 miles from SFO. This random distribution would spread traffic over the entire South Bay area and some of it would of necessity be at lower altitudes in order to intercept the SFO glide paths.
Here are the two proposal - apologies for the dead web links but the Forum does not allow pasting documents with active web links:
First proposal:
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.
This proposal uses existing and established waypoints and procedures and does not impinge on the SJC airspace.
Second proposal:
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 these two proposal?
How can they be improved?
Are they compatible with NextGen technology?
Are they simple?
Are they equitable?
Crescent Park
on Jun 14, 2019 at 8:24 am
on Jun 14, 2019 at 8:24 am
Alicia,
You should know a couple of things about Peter's comments:
The one about "Palo Alto wants the noise to be moved somewhere else"
This is a fierce comment that suggests that people want to harm others which doesn't help anything and is especially unfair to accuse Palo Alto. Harm has been caused by many other issues and the most harm comes from keeping people in the dark about what is happening in our skies, and why a transparent process is needed.
Prior to 2014, aircraft noise was not a big problem as far away from airports as it is now and nobody had reason to pay attention. Except, from time to time there were issues and the way that the problems were solved was pretty much with political agreements. One such problem in the mid 90's happened because altitudes were lowered for some SFO bound flights and - the Oceanic flights which are the subject of this article - used to cross a few miles North.. Without public notice to Palo Alto residents and without any environmental review process, the folks up North arranged for the Oceanic flights to cross over Palo Alto instead because by moving the crossing to Palo Alto, the planes could fly higher. A collection of issues erupted surrounding some of those changes and eventually what was worked out was that SFO bound planes would fly 5000 and above Palo Alto.
Palo Altans were not as active or busy looking at what the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was doing in private agreements with other communities and as long as the planes were high, nobody was counting how many. And the way planes flew was with a set of flight plans and options which allowed pilots to fly even higher than 5000 feet and still land at SFO safely. Without getting too technical, the way planes flew gave pilots more control, and when weather conditions were good, they were on what is called visual flight plans.
In 2014, FAA started standardizing flight plans and switched pilots to what is called Instrument Flight Procedures which in the past were used mostly for bad weather or unsafe conditions.
What is important to know is that Instrument Flight Procedures require an environmental review process and that process should involve affected communities. FAA did one for some routes called the NorCal OAPM, but decided to not let people know that they would lower altitudes by 1000 feet and change the loads on the routes, putting more planes on these new procedures. FAA did not do an EA for Oceanics in 2014 and are now refusing to say where planes will fly, at what altitude, and how many.
The other thing that is important is that FAA uses the term "overlays" to suggest that no environmental review is needed so after doing an earlier sloppy environmental review, then FAA can go on an "overlay" binge, adding more planes and lowering altitudes even more and you will only know when you are experiencing the noise . But when you call and complain you will be told - the only thing that has changed is that there are more travelers, the economy is strong.
Peter's comment "Unless Palo Alto can show where to put the traffic so that impacts fewer people"
Because FAA has traditionally not affected people farther away from airports, and used to resolve noise problems with side agreements, the main focus of policy was to reduce the number of people affected in the loudest areas of the airport contours or what is called 65 DNL.
This has evolved into a mantra that "fewer people should be affected" which is quite dangerous if you decide that the fewer people should be only one city.
There have been inordinate efforts since 2014 to work out solutions. Many proposals, and now FAA has been arbitrarily picking what to focus on. The regional bodies are supposed to work on consensus but they are consensus from a majority of cities who do not have nearly the same problems that have been dumped on Palo Alto.
The decision by Palo Alto to play regionally is not the problem. The problem is playing regionally without pressing on environmental reviews. The regional tables are precisely to not do what is lawful or fair. It is to negotiate among majority players and compromise. They do not even look at noise. They look at flight track lines.
Peter's comment "Are they equitable?"
This should be a beginning of a regional process, which is that everyone who benefits from the airports and travel should be prepared to share *some* of the impacts. Not all, but some.
Crescent Park
on Jun 14, 2019 at 8:59 am
on Jun 14, 2019 at 8:59 am
Clarification
The inordinate efforts to find solutions since 2014 have been most successfully played by the folks who don't have nearly the amount of noise here and have time to play smokes and mirrors games with the public.
Crescent Park
on Jun 14, 2019 at 12:05 pm
on Jun 14, 2019 at 12:05 pm
Thanks Peter Carpenter and Jennifer Landesmann for the information.
searching relative information online, then I found Web Link and other very useful website like http://stop.jetnoise.net which can help recording number of disturbance. I hope those data been shared with our representatives to feel how we been impacted, badly.
another community
on Jun 14, 2019 at 12:39 pm
on Jun 14, 2019 at 12:39 pm
Jennifer Landesmann,
"The inordinate efforts to find solutions since 2014 have been most successfully played by the folks who don't have nearly the amount of noise here and have time to play smokes and mirrors games with the public."
Such a statement arises from pure ignorance or willful ignorance, neither of which is excusable this late in the game, about the nationwide damage of the NextGen program to human health and the environment. It's this kind of thinking, this kind of selfish and narrow basis for resistance against the program that will ensure these hellish skies are over our country for the foreseeable.
Maybe another 5 or 6 years of this will encourage you to look beyond thr borders of Palo Alto and to stop your myth-making about its unique burden. When this selfish path gets you nowhere then opting for solidarity across even 1 "metroplex" might become more appealing to you.
Crescent Park
on Jun 14, 2019 at 2:08 pm
on Jun 14, 2019 at 2:08 pm
HTM,
The "Metroplex" project is finished in Northern California.
What is happening now are various implementations which are both *new* actions but in terms of the overall Nextgen program are various features of Nextgen. Nextgen can be used for good, and that is why input from affected people matters because good in the Bay Area means - dump it all on the MidPeninsula.
New actions are the 1 opportunity for communities to get attention to concerns.
For new actions, you get 60 days to act to assert on the environmental issues.
I won't detract this topic from what is happening right now - which is that Palo Alto has shamefully passed on exerting influence to get a higher level environmental review. Political and side agreements get broken, or used against those most affected and it is plain wrong to give a wink to FAA defying statutes which can protect people.
If the regional process aids and abet this nonsense that is really bad. Very separate issue from Nextgen.
I think we can agree to disagree on where the focus needs to be and the timing issues.
Registered user
Atherton
on Jun 14, 2019 at 2:17 pm
Registered user
on Jun 14, 2019 at 2:17 pm
“Nextgen can be used for good, and that is why input from affected people matters because good in the Bay Area means - dump it all on the MidPeninsula.”
Exactly my point and why I stated the Palo Alto simply wants to move the noise somewhere else. And why I have instead proposed noise sharing plans.
Crescent Park
on Jun 14, 2019 at 2:33 pm
on Jun 14, 2019 at 2:33 pm
About the Metroplex,
While the Metroplex project is considered done, since 2014/15 FAA has been working with communities to address noise concerns and the Select Committee was set up for that.
Except, as mentioned the Select Committee is being turned into a smokes and mirrors game.
another community
on Jun 14, 2019 at 4:42 pm
on Jun 14, 2019 at 4:42 pm
Jennifer Landesmann,
"The "Metroplex" project is finished in Northern California."
"New actions are the 1 opportunity for communities to get attention to concerns."
Beyond your narrow focus and aiding the divisive myth of the unique burden (many other communities are operating this way with the same ineffective results), you are also focused on "new" changes. Because even if no more changes were in the pipeline the current blight isn't a human health and environmental problem that needs to be fought?
And as far as good things coming out of the NextGen program, what like new technologies? New technology doesn't dictate flying low, abolishing curfews, changing angles of ascent and descent into and out of airports, packing the skies with more and more aircraft and using low altitudes miles and miles from airports to line up arrivals and departures. It doesn't dictate turning the entire country's skies into a airport tarmac and dumpsite for aviation air and noise pollution.
So given there's been no substantive change nationwide since the program started with respect to noise and air pollution and the determination to increase those pollutants, I'm not seeing this good of the program you're seeing, nor are countless other citizens whose quality of life has been destroyed by it, who haven't had even a decent night's sleep since it began.
But if the endless studies, maps, data, committees etc. are what you call results, the FAA and elected officials taking action, then you should be quite pleased because there will be more of that in the pipeline too.
Too many people are "fighting" this the way you are, looking out only for their own backyards, their skies over their own heads, willfully forgetting those skies are connected to everyone else. This isn't a Palo Alto program so don't expect a Palo Alto "win" - expect denser and denser skies. That's the objective of the program nationwide. Your focus is the selfish mire that aids this objective.
Mountain View
on Jun 15, 2019 at 4:37 pm
on Jun 15, 2019 at 4:37 pm
I live in Mountain View, and feel there a couple of facts that need to be reinforced... given this much emotion and more than a few misunderstandings.
1) An SFO bound plane passes over my house every three minutes during the morning and evening commutes. They are not flying high enough to ignore (5,000 feet or more), but typically come through at around 3,500 feet... perhaps not as loud as the ones that go over Addison at maybe 2,600 feet - which is pretty ugly - but loud as hell nonetheles. You’re not alone. Note, this is SFO arrivals only, and during bad weather the diverted SJC traffic is even hairier, as it has to stay under the already-low SFO traffic.
2) The subject under consideration here is merely the Oceanic arrivals, only 5% of SFO arrivals which scatter randomly over the entire range from Menlo to Mountain and as such are not very important despite the misguided anger.
3) The Big Kahunas afflicting the Midpeninsula are the BDGA West arrivals to SFO - 22% of SFO arrivals, flying first over Los Altos then over MV to the Bay south of San Antonio. And the the other Big Kahuna is SRFR, SoCal arrivals at 30% flying first over Stanford then Palo Alto and going out to the Bay over the Willow/101 interchange. Unfortunately for Mountain View and Los Altos, during commute hours about a fourth to a fifth of the PA traffic gets shifted onto LA/MV by SFO air traffic control, to spread out the spacing safely on final approach. So, adjusting for this “vectoring” the Stanford/PA traffic and the LA/MV traffic into SFO are almost exactly equitably distributed at a little less than 30% each. The remaining 43% enters the Bay final approach over the East Bay Hills.
Why am I telling you this? Not to pick a fight but to clear up the emotion over the misperception that this is a Palo Alto-only problem. It’s ugly for many of the rest of us as well, and if you were to talk to Sunnyvale people they suffer similar ugly.
I’m telling you this to say that solutions have be regional, and please avoid fanning any one city’s culture of grievance.
By the way: Raise the altitudes to 5,000 or 6,000 feet, descending to below 4,000 only once over the water and our perception will change dramatically for the better!: Noise diminishes by the square of the extra distance to the ground. That’s a big deal.
3). So, the emotion is
Registered user
Atherton
on Jun 15, 2019 at 4:44 pm
Registered user
on Jun 15, 2019 at 4:44 pm
"By the way: Raise the altitudes to 5,000 or 6,000 feet, descending to below 4,000 only once over the water and our perception will change dramatically for the better!: Noise diminishes by the square of the extra distance to the ground. That’s a big deal."
That is exactly what both of my proposals posted above do.
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 15, 2019 at 5:01 pm
Registered user
on Jun 15, 2019 at 5:01 pm
Oceanics are the night low altitude flights and freighters
All night & 4:30 AM - so 5% of traffic could be 50% of your grief because it wrecks your sleep.
Obviously altitudes are an issue, they are too low all around
No emotion, just facts that everyone has known for five years
Midtown
on Jun 15, 2019 at 7:33 pm
on Jun 15, 2019 at 7:33 pm
@ Liam in Mt View
Some of your facts are inaccurate and misleading.
BDEGA West arrivals are not all flying south of San Antonio, far from it. We get a big share of them in Palo Alto, and also at times north of Palo Alto (Menlo Park). Only a fraction of them end up in Mt View.
SJC's south flow arrivals also impact a large swath of Palo Alto, including over my own neighborhood, where they fly as low at 1,800 feet (we are talking about full size commercial jets flying this low above us, including almost all the ones that fly in late after curfew). Actually, flights below 3,000 feet in Palo Alto are much more likely to be SJC bound than SFO bound, not that the noise impact is any less painful.
I agree with you on some key things. It is true that SERFR gets vectored an awful lot. Unfortunately, in my neighborhood, I get both SERFR noise and vectored flights...
I also agree that altitude is a huge factor. At times, when the skies are quieter here (it tends to happen just before Palo Alto has a big city meeting on airplane noise - go figure), I see that planes have not disappeared but more are flying above the East Bay, as opposed to SERFR (flights from places such as Phoenix or Dallas). Then, whatever flights are still flying above us fly higher and it is much more bearable...
I also agree that the race to cram more and more flights in the sky is the root of our problem. It is crazy, participates in polluting our area as well as precipitating climate change. Things have to change! People have to stop flying to places like LA. Build that train!
another community
on Jun 22, 2019 at 3:53 pm
on Jun 22, 2019 at 3:53 pm
Hi from the East Coast! (I lived in the Bay Area for 12 years so don't write me off yet)
I feel your pain--I live in Duxbury, MA, about 30 miles south of Logan Airport and get the same noise density as you all. I use FlightAware to track and record, and report, the flights over my house daily. I'm a physicist, FWIW.
I've contacted the FAA Ombudsman, the local Gov bloated bureaucracy known as Massport, my state Senators, the Congressional Quiet Skies Caucus, and my local Congress-critter. Results? Just like yours--nada, nothing, nuttin', zip, zilch. But given the Government's track record of negative-efficiency, I'm not surprised.
I've corresponded with a few leaders of online groups in NY, Boston and other areas, and there's a general consensus that without a National, strength-in-numbers effort, we will make no progress against the FAA and their NextGen fiasco. Some folks have advised suing the FAA through Torts claiming Nuisance associated with increased noise levels that adversely affect health, well-being, sleep-deprivation, anxiety, and PTSD-like symptoms (all documented through published studies).
In general, I'm not a fan of lawsuits but frankly I think it's the only way the FAA, and politicians will listen to their constituents...you know, us suckers who pay their salaries and pensions (not for long). I'd take it a step farther and sue the airlines--hey, this is America, you can sue anyone! (unfortunately)
Besides lawsuits, there are simple modifications that the FAA could implement to decrease the density of flights over our neighborhoods. One of NextGen's "features" is a more focused continuous descent approach (CDA), allowing multiple planes flying essentially the same descent path to an airport. The FAA could modify the CDA from a straight line to a curved geometry, or CCDA. This would not affect safety, performance, or feul consumption significantly, and would "spread out" the flights so neighborhoods would get some relief.
PUTTING THIS ALL TOGETHER.
I recommend the following, in no particular order...
1. Construct a NATIONAL quiet skies effort, comprised of the local states' efforts. We have some serious power behind us: Bay Area, Palo Alto, Boston, NY/NJ, Seattle/Tacoma, Phoenix, Maryland and Northern Virginia (DC airport and BWI), etc. A National effort is a Force Multiplier!
2. Sue the FAA, the FAA employees and their families, the Airlines, and the companies that built it: Boeing, General Dynamics, ITT. Harass the FAA employees by protesting and doxing them, shame them online. Lawsuit topics: Air Pollution, Noise Pollution, Global Warming, Global Cooling, PTSD, whatever--sue them *Personally* so we don't get shut down by the tyrannical "you can't sue the government" laws.
3. Set up a GoFundMe to fund the legal sheisters, I mean lawyers, who will do all of the above. Saul Goodman available? Send an email to every "Quiet skies" online group across the US, and cc all representatives (Congress and Senators) associated with these groups (Boston, NY, Palo Alto, etc.).
4. Fling dog poop at the FAA senior leadership. OK, that's going a bit far but I like to picture this when annoying planes go overhead!!!
What do you think??
Thanks for reading, and good luck to everyone.
Greg
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 24, 2019 at 12:03 am
on Jun 24, 2019 at 12:03 am
Another summer Sunday and another peaceful Sunday evening shattered by 6.5+ hours of non-stop jet rumble, whistle, and whine every 3-4 minutes. This started 4+ years ago and the Palo Alto city council, Anna Eshoo, and Joe Simitian have accomplished nothing.
What (or who) are they afraid of?
Nextgen is a huge festering election year embarrassment for the San Francisco political machine and their presidential candidate Kamala Harris. It is the height of hypocrisy to run on the global-warming issue and social justice while coming from the city that owns, operates, and profits, from the biggest polluter in the San Francisco Bay Area.
The city hardest hit by the biggest polluter in the Bay Area? East Palo Alto. Is that even legal? Maybe we should ask ex SFO General Council and current Palo Alto City Attorney Molly Stump... or ex San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris?
Community Center
on Jun 24, 2019 at 1:31 pm
on Jun 24, 2019 at 1:31 pm
Wow. Tried to read the whole thread, but geez...
I grew up in San Bruno, home of the airport. I find this thread amazing.
Between gardners, local construction, loud mufflers on cars, jerks on loud motorcycles, etc.. my amazement continues.
Where's the sound readings?
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 24, 2019 at 1:50 pm
on Jun 24, 2019 at 1:50 pm
Some excellent suggestions and comments by various posters above. To elaborate on one particular point: as someone above suggested, the NEXGEN technologies and capabilities can be used for good (or ill). But, good/ill depends on who you are and what your goals are.
Simply put, the implementation has prioritized -schedule- as top goal. Now, almost anyone who flies wants their flight to land at or before a predictable ETA. Everyone wants as many flights as possible to be at convenient times for customers. But, the result of schedule being the highest priority is a high concentration of lower altitude flights at particular times of day.
The result would be very different if the same technologies and capabilities were used to maximize fuel economy and minimize noise. In any comments you make to the FAA, make sure that you make it clear that fuel economy and minimizing noise are higher priority to you than schedule.
Crescent Park
on Jun 24, 2019 at 10:44 pm
on Jun 24, 2019 at 10:44 pm
Very different response from Los Angeles City Attorney and Mayor to FAA changes without considering the consequences of actions.
Web Link
Web Link
"The FAA made changes to a major flight path over Los Angeles without ever considering the environmental consequences of those actions. Then, the agency sought to curtail public comment on the FAA's own flight procedures website, including compelling members of the public to agree their input on the environmental impacts of proposed flight procedures won't count, as a condition of commenting on those procedures in the first place," said Feuer in a statement. "Those decisions must not stand. We're fighting to give L.A. residents the chance to engage on a major issue affecting their quality of life, and, ideally, to create opportunities to find real solutions to noise and other concerns. And we're fighting for the American public's right to have their comments on FAA actions actually matter."
LA Mayor Eric Garcetti said, "Angelenos should be informed, heard, and presented with options for relief when flight path changes affect their communities. This did not happen when FAA implemented the new North Downwind Arrival flight path — and this lawsuit demands that the agency better engage the public and help protect our residents' quality of life."
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 25, 2019 at 9:52 am
on Jun 25, 2019 at 9:52 am
Posted by Jennifer Landesmann, a resident of Crescent Park
>> Very different response from Los Angeles City Attorney and Mayor to FAA changes without considering the consequences of actions.
Sure, good for them. But, we sometimes forget that the population of our fair city is roughly 1/57 that of Los Angeles. It is not a good idea for each city in our neighborhood to do this on its own. Cities need to band together and work towards adopting common goals that work for everyone: Primary goals: fuel efficiency and noise abatement; Secondary goals: higher average flight paths, more spread out flight paths.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 25, 2019 at 12:58 pm
on Jun 25, 2019 at 12:58 pm
Anon said:
"In any comments you make to the FAA, make sure that you make it clear that fuel economy and minimizing noise are higher priority to you than schedule"
Thanks for your two cents, but it is hard not see the above comment as arrogantly naive or calculated misdirection intended to lead the unsophisticated reader down a long and well-worn garden path into a cul-de-sac.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 25, 2019 at 1:05 pm
on Jun 25, 2019 at 1:05 pm
Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
>> it is hard not see the above comment as arrogantly naive or calculated misdirection intended to lead the unsophisticated reader down a long and well-worn garden path into a cul-de-sac.
Because ... ?
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Jun 26, 2019 at 10:00 pm
Registered user
on Jun 26, 2019 at 10:00 pm
Last night was non-stop noise. I actually got up in the middle of the night to check out the flight tracker. Something last night was going on that was very different. Combination of heat but planes at higher altitude which changes the type of noise. Some were crossing over to go to Oakland. Suspect that some are freight or post office which would be why overnight flights. I am wondering if we are now having Amazon flights which are transferring packages all over. That is going to change when the flights are occurring if postal, Amazon, and Fed ex are accelerating their overnight flights for early morning deliveries. That is different then flights with people which tend to occur within a tighter schedule.
Palo Verde
on Jun 26, 2019 at 11:49 pm
on Jun 26, 2019 at 11:49 pm
Last night's 3:00 AM flight was a helicopter inbound to Stanford.
Same helicopter outbound from Stanford at 3:30 AM. Around 1200 ft altitude.
Low, slow, and reverberating. Don't know whether those show up on your flight tracker.
University South
on Jun 27, 2019 at 12:21 pm
on Jun 27, 2019 at 12:21 pm
Wow. Tried to read the whole thread, but geez...
"I grew up in San Bruno, home of the airport. I find this thread amazing.
Between gardners, local construction, loud mufflers on cars, jerks on loud motorcycles, etc.. my amazement continues.
Where's the sound readings?"
That's a good question. The airplane noise thing is dredged up every so often, presumably to generate participation here. It was established years ago that it is only a tiny percentage of Palo Altans who complain about plane noise. This was based on complaint statistics published by the FAA. The other 98 percent don't seem to be bothered. I mean who gets up in the middle of the night, and then hurries over to the computer just to track a plane? That only makes it much harder to get back to sleep.
Since the problem only affects one or two percent of the people, it makes no sense to waste city resources on the issue. A better way to deal with it would be to offer relocation advice to those intolerant of airplanes. Surprisingly enough, they don't complain nearly as much about traffic noise, which is louder than airplane noise, especially at rush hour. We live in a highly urbanized area, airplane overflights come with the territory.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 27, 2019 at 5:19 pm
on Jun 27, 2019 at 5:19 pm
Kenny,
Your superficial understanding of this issue is hopelessly dated.
With the implementation of the aviation industry's shallow "nextgen" approach angles, more people are effected by approach noise than departure noise. People as far away as Santa Cruz have registered a dramatic increase in SFO bound approach noise.
And, it is not just Santa Cruz. People all over the country have been effected by a dramatic increase in approach noise. If you want to learn more about this issue, the CBS report linked below is a good place to start.
"FAA's new flight paths spark noise complaints"
CBS Morning News ~ January 30, 2015 Web Link
Crescent Park
on Jun 27, 2019 at 5:45 pm
on Jun 27, 2019 at 5:45 pm
Kenny,
"Since the problem only affects one or two percent of the people, it makes no sense to waste city resources on the issue. A better way to deal with it would be to offer relocation advice to those intolerant of airplanes."
It is very inconsiderable to saying that. First, where do you get the data of "one or two percent?" Second, you cannot resolve a problem by resolving the people who raise the problem, it is very ridiculous and merciless statement.
People complain the noise because it is a new problem in their life, the increasing noise disturbs the used to be quite neighborhood. there is nothing wrong to stop bad changes in people's life.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 27, 2019 at 8:03 pm
on Jun 27, 2019 at 8:03 pm
In tonight's debate Kamala Harris criticized Joe Biden for working with segregationists but ignored her own complicity in racist policies when for years as the San Francisco District Attorney she ignored City of San Francisco owned and operated SFO's racist approach plans, which dump the worst of SFO's toxic noise and hydrocarbon pollution on East Palo Alto.
Meanwhile, in Palo Alto, Molly Stump ignores the City of Palo Alto's racist land use plans which pushed the location of PAO to the border of East Palo Alto where it dumps the worst of PAO's toxic noise and hydrocarbon pollution (which includes lead!) on East Palo Alto.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 28, 2019 at 1:45 pm
on Jun 28, 2019 at 1:45 pm
Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
>> Kamala Harris [...] ignored her own complicity in racist policies [...] ignored City of San Francisco owned and operated SFO's racist approach plans, which dump the worst of SFO's toxic noise and hydrocarbon pollution on East Palo Alto.
>> [...] ignores the City of Palo Alto's racist land use plans which pushed the location of PAO to the border of East Palo Alto where it dumps the worst of PAO's toxic noise and hydrocarbon pollution (which includes lead!) on East Palo Alto.
Extra points for creative use of the word "racist".
But, your post raises an interesting point. General aviation fuel is still predominately "100LL", which should have been phased out some time ago. Anybody know how Swift Fuels UL102 Web Link is coming along? I've read that testing has been successful, but, AFAIK, widespread distribution hasn't happened. Web Link
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 1, 2019 at 10:41 am
Registered user
on Jul 1, 2019 at 10:41 am
For person who grew up in San Bruno the planes at that point are over the water in their approach position. The planes cross over to the water at Redwood City.
another community
on Jul 9, 2019 at 5:31 pm
on Jul 9, 2019 at 5:31 pm
Here's a first-order estimation that the FAA are killing 50,000 Americans per year, based on the total number of lives negatively affected by their noise (easily, 5 million), multiplied by the degradation in the quality of lives and its equivalence to decrease in lifespans (at least 1 year, which translates to 5 million years "taken") divided by an actuarial lifespan of 100 years per person (approximate, based on people born between 1950 and 2000).
50,000 Lives Killed by FAA NextGen!
That's worse than the 9/11 terrorism, and the FAA does this every year.
Another fun fact..50,000 American lives taken each year puts FAA NextGen in the "top ten" causes of death. Web Link
Palo Verde
on Jul 9, 2019 at 9:02 pm
on Jul 9, 2019 at 9:02 pm
> 50,000 Lives Killed by FAA NextGen!
I could not find even one name out of these 50,000 per year.
I've known plenty of people (far too many) among the other "top ten" causes.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 9, 2019 at 9:11 pm
on Jul 9, 2019 at 9:11 pm
Posted by G Templar, a resident of another community
>> [...] (easily, 5 million), multiplied by the degradation in the quality of lives and its equivalence to decrease in lifespans (at least 1 year,
What is your source for the assertion that commercial flight noise affects about 5 million people at the 1 year lost lifespan level? Can you post a research citation for this? It is an interesting question what the impact is.
>> 50,000 Lives Killed by FAA NextGen!
You are equating an incremental technology program with -all commercial flight-? I don't understand that. Airplanes made noise before this program, and, actually, each jet (e.g. B707) made a vast amount more noise when I was a kid than a similar size jet (B737) does now.
>> That's worse than the 9/11 terrorism, and the FAA does this every year.
The life-shortening effects of heavy exposure to 9/11 dust and debris are still being felt today.
Web Link
Web Link
Web Link
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 10, 2019 at 8:42 am
Registered user
on Jul 10, 2019 at 8:42 am
So now we have a new problem specific to the Palo Alto Airport. Big article today about the use of helicopters as "uber" service to Oakland airport. And that is just one group who expect to expand to small airplanes. So who is approving helicopter taxi service at the airports? We already know that the PA airport is the turning point for planes on their approach to the SFO. So can we assume that there is now added personnel to manage the general traffic both over the airport and at the airport? How does this come up when we have so much discussion about noise and this slips through as a new active business? And a very noisy one?
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 10, 2019 at 9:22 am
on Jul 10, 2019 at 9:22 am
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, a resident of Adobe-Meadow
>> So now we have a new problem specific to the Palo Alto Airport. Big article today about the use of helicopters as "uber" service to Oakland airport. And that is just one group who expect to expand to small airplanes. So who is approving helicopter taxi service at the airports?
Good questions about noise. I wish we could make fuel efficiency and noise abatement into FAA goals for use of airspace.
>> We already know that the PA airport is the turning point for planes on their approach to the SFO. So can we assume that there is now added personnel to manage the general traffic both over the airport and at the airport? How does this come up when we have so much discussion about noise and this slips through as a new active business? And a very noisy one?
Not really how "airspace" works. There are different rules and management for zones around major airports depending on altitude. There is a picture here:
Web Link
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 10, 2019 at 10:51 pm
Registered user
on Jul 10, 2019 at 10:51 pm
WE have multiple issues with the PA airport.
1. SFO traffic - this is the turning point where the planes get into the que for SFO - higher altitude,
2. SJ traffic - depending on the wind direction - they are flying much lower and using PAO as a turning point to get in the que for San Jose - lower altitude;
3. General aviation
4. Uber helicopters
5. Oakland airport to Hawaii - high altitude.
So how many people are now in the PAO tower for all of the different type traffic patterns? This is turning into a regular business as opposed to a general aviation local airport. Hope we are getting compensated for all of the extra-curricular activity.
Registered user
Atherton
on Jul 11, 2019 at 7:39 am
Registered user
on Jul 11, 2019 at 7:39 am
Resident - PAO tower has no responsibility for or impact on SFO, SJC or OAK traffic.
PAO is not a designated turning point for any approaches to or departures from SFO, SJC and OAK.
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 11, 2019 at 10:36 pm
Registered user
on Jul 11, 2019 at 10:36 pm
If any one checks into the live approach shots that you can access via the SFO web page you can visually see the planes using the PAO location as the point at which they turn. And if you watch when the San Jose are using the approach due to wind they are turning at the location of the PAO. So if you would like we can say they are not using the PAO equipment but they are using the PAO location. And if the Oakland Hawaii flights are in process they are flying over the PAO location.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 12, 2019 at 10:04 am
on Jul 12, 2019 at 10:04 am
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, a resident of Adobe-Meadow
>> [...] see the planes using the PAO location as the point at which they turn. [...] they are turning at the location of the PAO. [...]they are not using the PAO equipment but they are using the PAO location. And if the Oakland Hawaii flights are in process they are flying over the PAO location.
I don't understand your point. They use all kinds of locations, including out in the Pacific Ocean and over the Santa Cruz Mtns to turn in holding and approach and departure patterns. (Not to mention turning -all the time-, which aircraft do?)
Earlier it was suggested that the PAO tower had something to do with managing SFO airspace management, which, it doesn't. Airspace zones are defined by altitude layers as well as the area on the ground. The reference that I posted above shows how it works.
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 13, 2019 at 10:45 am
Registered user
on Jul 13, 2019 at 10:45 am
I wonder about people who post on this site. We have pages of comments concerning the planes that are over the city. Planes over the ocean do not affect the residential population. This discussion is about the residential population that is affected by the lower attitude planes that are getting in the que for landing. It is at that point that they are lowering the altitude and focusing on specific points at which they transition. As to comments about what the PAO has to do with this is what we all learned when we went to Airport Day and had entry to the control tower and visual and discussion concerning the equipment and what the people were doing there. There are a lot of people in there who all have different roles and all are tracking all of the planes on their equipment. Whether they engage all of the planes is a different matter that can probably change throughout the day as needed. There is also the random flights at Moffatt which are both commercial and government which interject directly into the flight paths.
I think there are a number of people on this site which work at the PAO, fly out of the PAO, are pilots for the airlines, and/ or have contracts with the FAA to "guide" conversation concerning the roles and responsibilities of the FAA and other governmental agencies. The FAA is getting a lot of "heat' of late so suspect that there is a lot of attempts to water down what is going on over the bay area.
Tired of the FAA apologist who have a lot of knowledge but do not use it in a responsible manner.
Registered user
Atherton
on Jul 13, 2019 at 3:26 pm
Registered user
on Jul 13, 2019 at 3:26 pm
It is telling that this issue has never gained sufficient traction to make this a priority item for the Palo Alto City Council or the Menlo Park City Council or the East Palo Alto City Council.
Clearly there is a hard core of people who perceive themselves as severely impacted by airplane noise but that hard core remains small and is therefore a politically unimportant group.
another community
on Jul 13, 2019 at 4:36 pm
on Jul 13, 2019 at 4:36 pm
Re: 50,000 deaths per year....
I won't do all the math here, but I will provide some links and assumptions.
1. I looked at the total number of airports in the US with > 1,000,000 and there are ~ 100 (closer to 83 but I rounded up). Link here: Web Link
2. I then looked online for # of airplane noise complaints around those cities; not all were easy to find, and I won't list all of the links, and most news articles are 2016, 2017, and 2018, with a couple of outliers published in 2019. Using the data reported, on average there are ~ 50,000 complaints per year.
Here's one article in particular that referenced National and Dulles airports in NoVA (which I'm very familiar with the noise around Arlington, VA): Web Link
Note that linked article is 2016, and noise complaints have increased since.
3. Since a "complaint" is not the same as "number of affected" I had to take some liberty for my conversion of complaints to persons affected, and this is a real guesstimate. Not everyone affected complains (my girlfriend is one of those who doesn't bother registering a complaint but she hates the noise). On the other hand, there are people who submit multiple complaints. But taking these into account and the fact that the published data are 1-3 years old (and complaints have increased since), and airports with less than 1,000,000 enplanments certainly have noise but I did not count them, I assumed a factor of 1/10, i.e., 1000 airports X 50,000 persons affected per airport X 1/0 "Conversion Factor" = 5,000,000, or 5X10^6, or 5 million...pick your favorite representation.
4. The decrease in lifespan due to air noise is a bit of a hodgepodge of studies, articles, and links..this post is getting wordy, so I'll post a few links that you can research yourselves and compare notes with me on this board if you like:
• Link citing studies correlating noise pollution (multiple sources) to ailments, such as, cardiovascular disease, sleep disturbance (and deprivation), stress, and others in the article:
Web Link
• Link (contained in the link above) citing "World Health Organization has calculated that at least 1m healthy life-years are lost every year in western European countries because of environmental noise"
While this is not specifically airplane noise that is certainly one components, and there are decibel equivalents that once can draw their own conclusions:
Web Link
Finally, I read a few papers correlating stress and its impact on quality of life and estimated years lost due to stress-induced conditions (sleep deprivation, PTSD-like symptoms, anxiety, depression, etc.).
All in all, I estimated one year shaved off the 5 million people affected (see above) and used an average lifespan of 100 years.
[Portion removed.] Citing decibel levels as the one and only figure of merit to quantify an "unacceptable" level of noise is idiotic...I will gladly show you up close and personal the difference between shouting in your ear at 80 dB versus fingernails-against-a-chalkboard, which can be 40 dB but terribly annoying. Oh, for those under 40, chalkboards pre-dated whiteboards, webinars, and SLACK.
FIGHT THE FIGHT! NEVER GIVE UP...NEVER SURRENDER
another community
on Jul 13, 2019 at 4:38 pm
on Jul 13, 2019 at 4:38 pm
...ugh...
Item 1. should read as follows:
1. I looked at the total number of airports in the US with > 1,000,000 *enplanements* and..."
(Can we get an EDIT button around here???) lol
Moderator's Note:
Registered users posting on Town Square have editing capabilities for five minutes after the post is made.
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 14, 2019 at 12:26 pm
Registered user
on Jul 14, 2019 at 12:26 pm
The PAO receives money from the FAA. If the PAO is so inconsequential to the whole operation of plane traffic then the FAA would not bother. But what we do know is "follow the money".
As to Mr. Carpenters entry above you have always been an advocate
and now you have reversed field. That is like Hilary Clinton telling people - we will not use the word - but look what happened to her. If you are the person who has been advising the FAA, PAO, and PACC legal team then fess up. gain - follow the money - but make it the "right money".
Registered user
Atherton
on Jul 14, 2019 at 12:37 pm
Registered user
on Jul 14, 2019 at 12:37 pm
"As to Mr. Carpenters entry above you have always been an advocate
and now you have reversed field"
Wrong - I have been a strong advocate of better, less intrusive SFO flight paths.
I am also devoted to factually accuracy - "PAO tower has no responsibility for or impact on SFO, SJC or OAK traffic.
PAO is not a designated turning point for any approaches to or departures from SFO, SJC and OAK."
And it is clear that simply moving traffic from Palo Alto to someone else's community is an idea which has very limited appeal.
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 14, 2019 at 12:56 pm
Registered user
on Jul 14, 2019 at 12:56 pm
Anyone who watches the actual flight paths knows that the "location" of the PAO is the turning point. Everyone can see that. Your last sentence says it all - some "social" need to have the flights over us VS the "other people". All of which are associated in some manner with your city of Atherton, and now Facebook. Anyone who drives into EPA will note the new apartment complexes. And the new commercial buildings. And the old commercial buildings made into new commercial buildings. Marsh Road is becoming a center of great commercial growth east of 101. As to the Government facilities in Menlo Park they are moving to Moffett. The demographics of the area are changing at a rapid pace but you have always been there to protect "the other people". That is your trump card - no pun intended.
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 14, 2019 at 2:10 pm
Registered user
on Jul 14, 2019 at 2:10 pm
It is time to hear from the manager of the PAO vs "other people" who have a financial interest in steering the conversation away from the FAA - who are currently being sued by the state of Maryland for the redirection of flights out of BWI. Think they are being sued by a number of other groups.
Registered user
Atherton
on Jul 14, 2019 at 2:27 pm
Registered user
on Jul 14, 2019 at 2:27 pm
"Anyone who watches the actual flight paths knows that the "location" of the PAO is the turning point. "
Please look at the facts!. Here are all the published approaches to SFO - NONE of them use PAO as a turning point:
Web Link
Many of them do use MENLO waypoint as a turning point and MENLO is miles away from PAO.
It is harmful to their cause for advocates to make these false statements.
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 15, 2019 at 4:21 pm
Registered user
on Jul 15, 2019 at 4:21 pm
What is the address of the Menlo waypoint/ we will check it out. Be specific. Note that the PAO is on the creek which is the border of San Mateo County and Santa Clara County. EPA, Atherton, MP are in direct location of the PAO.
Registered user
Atherton
on Jul 15, 2019 at 4:41 pm
Registered user
on Jul 15, 2019 at 4:41 pm
Latitude 37° 27' 49.270" N
Longitude 122° 09' 13.170" W
Registered user
Atherton
on Jul 15, 2019 at 4:48 pm
Registered user
on Jul 15, 2019 at 4:48 pm
This is at 716 Laurel Ave in Menlo Park[
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 16, 2019 at 11:31 am
on Jul 16, 2019 at 11:31 am
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
>> Many of them do use MENLO waypoint as a turning point and MENLO is miles away from PAO.
Strictly speaking, true, but, in this case, "miles" is between 2 and 3 miles. Not that far apart at 150-250 kts. Aircraft do actually turn near the northwest end of the PAO runways. That location, at e.g., 4000 ft altitude and above, just doesn't have anything to do with PAO. At least, on a good day. The real issue isn't 2.5 miles, it is the confusion of the role of PAO in SFO air traffic control, which is-- nothing. PAO has no role in SFO ATC. PAO has its own issues-- mainly, a lot of people find the noise pattern of GA aircraft extremely annoying. No reason to mix SFO approach noise issues with PAO noise issues-- it just confuses things.
>> It is harmful to their cause for advocates to make these false statements.
I agree 100%, and, I wish the folks with noise issues would be more careful. To the extent that people look uninformed, it just makes it easier for their concerns to be dismissed. Another example of confusion is the NextGen program example. The NextGen enabling technologies, described here Web Link could be used for a lot of things, including noise abatement and reducing fuel consumption. It is unfortunate that the technologies are being directed almost exclusively towards scheduling improvements-- specifically tighter spacing on approach.
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 16, 2019 at 9:06 pm
Registered user
on Jul 16, 2019 at 9:06 pm
This idea that what hurts is noise people’s lack of understanding of whatever aviation jargon. GA folks just fret that noise should be associated with their freedom to fly.
Does the FAA understand noise? No
So why would FAA know how to use NextGen tools for more than a limited self serving and only polluting use.
Meanwhile other more forward thinking countries (like where Airbus is from) are taxing air operations. They get it, we’re just behind.
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 17, 2019 at 6:23 am
Registered user
on Jul 17, 2019 at 6:23 am
Next Gen is a tool that can do anything. It is the implementation of the tool that is the problem. The FAA is making choices in how it is implemented which is really conceding to the airline industry what every money saving idea they can come up with. The FAA conceded to Boeing on the software for the Max jets. Look where that has got us. What ever expertise that agency used to have is somehow debilitated by airport managements trying to add more flights to generate profits and airlines looking to reduce costs. It is a weakened agency that does respond to law suits.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 17, 2019 at 9:51 am
on Jul 17, 2019 at 9:51 am
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, a resident of Adobe-Meadow
>> Next Gen is a tool that can do anything. It is the implementation of the tool that is the problem. The FAA is making choices in how it is implemented which is really conceding to the airline industry what every money saving idea they can come up with.
Agree 100%. FAA documents clearly show that they have prioritized schedule above fuel efficiency and noise abatement, despite the fact that these were touted as being program benefits early on. It isn't even clear that airline profits are benefitting either, but, it is clear that major hub airports, like ATL, ORD, and LAX, prefer it this way. SFO (roughly #7 in the US) and other top airports are "self-licking ice cream cones" Web Link Mid-size twin-engine aircraft are as efficient as the super-jumbo jets now, and, the economic drivers for super-giant hubs like ATL and ORD are reduced. There are now more direct flights between mid-size airports again, like there used to be. No need to fly through ORD to get there. But, airport revenue bonds that financed super-hubs have to be paid off, so, ...
>> The FAA conceded to Boeing on the software for the Max jets. Look where that has got us.
"Death by MBA". Interesting article in Bloomberg about Boeing Max project management. Web Link . Interesting other sources describe outsourcing software development: Web Link
>> What ever expertise that agency used to have is somehow debilitated by airport managements trying to add more flights to generate profits and airlines looking to reduce costs.
I don't think will help airline profitability. But, the largest airports want to keep the revenue flowing through them.
>> It is a weakened agency that does respond to law suits.
Sure. But, IMHO, it is better to focus on the real issue we have here, which is SFO pushing for tighter spacing on approach for the benefit of SFO, not the general public, or even, the flying public. If "we" are going to sue, let's all sue together for something that will benefit everyone, rather than try to move too-low too-tightly-spaced approaches to Menlo Park or whoever gets the short end of the stick.
Crescent Park
on Jul 17, 2019 at 1:22 pm
on Jul 17, 2019 at 1:22 pm
Anon,
Lawsuit challenges to FAA and a federal agency are fact and case specific, and the "win" is also very specific. As far as I know, you cannot pick any reason to sue or to have your choice of compensation or mitigation.
The lawsuits that have been won - say Phoenix - are on the basis of 1) FAA not following it's own rules to comply with NEPA or 2) violating some part of NEPA.
Examine the reason WHY this matters - it's because by having a proper NEPA process you can - if done right - have a fairer outcome in terms of adequate weight and attention given to an FAA action. FAA giving no weight, or attention to their actions means that FAA gets by with doing nothing about noise or emissions. Sort of like if the Stanford expansion would get by with an ADU permit.
The Boeing MAX was going to continue flying if not for other regulators abroad disagreeing with FAA or Boeing, and basically not being shy to say that the risk was not worth taking. We don't have leaders here who understand that yet because they are too busy perhaps doing the rep work for the airports or as I have mentioned above, it's calculated by some politicians that it's not worth their attention.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 17, 2019 at 2:42 pm
on Jul 17, 2019 at 2:42 pm
Posted by Jennifer Landesmann, a resident of Crescent Park
>> Lawsuit challenges to FAA and a federal agency are fact and case specific, and the "win" is also very specific. As far as I know, you cannot pick any reason to sue or to have your choice of compensation or mitigation.
So far as I know, all true. A party to a lawsuit has to have some {injury, loss, etc.} and seek a remedy of some kind from someone in order for a court to have something to do. You can't just sue to make things better.
If we are talking specifics, a lawsuit -might- (I'm not a lawyer, don't pretend to be one, and am not proposing anything specific), -might- say something like, "The citizens of Mtn View, Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton, Redwood City, San Carlos, (whoever else), hereafter referred to as "Citizens", are being injured by noise and air pollution from aircraft approaching SFO for landing. The Citizens seek a remedy from the entities FAA and SFO of modified approach patterns at significantly higher altitude and reduced frequency over any one city. To accomplish this, the Citizens propose that the FAA re-define the goals of NextGen at SFO as safety, fuel efficiency,
GHG reduction, air pollution reduction, and noise abatement, the result of which will be to disperse approaches over a much broader area, at higher altitude, more over the Bay, with steeper approaches over the Bay. At SFO, this will necessarily result in landings being less closely spaced, which is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Note that PAO is not mentioned, and is irrelevant to this particular lawsuit. It will need its own separate legal action.
Note also that it doesn't say, "roll back the clock on NextGen", or, "move the flights to another city less important than Palo Alto." This is all win-win except for SFO which presumably benefits from all those flights packed at certain times.
Crescent Park
on Jul 17, 2019 at 3:11 pm
on Jul 17, 2019 at 3:11 pm
Anon,
"To accomplish this, the Citizens propose that the FAA re-define the goals of NextGen at SFO as safety, fuel efficiency, GHG reduction, air pollution reduction, and noise abatement, the result of which will be to disperse approaches over a much broader area, at higher altitude, more over the Bay, with steeper approaches over the Bay."
Your lawsuit idea is asking for a remedy that involves multiple stakeholders and I doubt that the courts have a basis to direct or prescribe a switch or realignment of priorities. Am also not a lawyer but I would imagine the courts would look to the laws on the books to make a ruling.
This goes back to existing legislation and I don't see what is so complex about actually asserting on the laws on the books which can help. The City of Palo Alto had the opportunity to assert on a proper (better) look at PIRAT and it is outsourcing that to a regional process which may or may not deliver. But if the regional process does not deliver the City lost recourse by not filing on time.
About the "short end of the stick"- I think it absolutely matters for folks with a short end of the stick to make noise about it. Otherwise you play into the game of letting regional processes dilute serious problems when "everyone" is actually not suffering them.
Or the other game of pitting communities against each other. As the airlines suggest - in an emergency use the oxygen on yourself first before trying to save others. PIRAT was a clear opportunity to use some oxygen. Getting proper or better NEPA reviews would help the public.
Crescent Park
on Jul 17, 2019 at 6:08 pm
on Jul 17, 2019 at 6:08 pm
THIS ....
> The San Francisco owned and operated industrial facility known as SFO
> is using Palo Alto (and other Peninsula cities) as a dumping ground for
> the toxic byproducts of SFO's operations in order to increase
> through-put and profits from that facility.
Thanks Jetman
DO YOUR JOBS PALO ALTO CITY GOVERNMENT!
Forcing Palo Alto residents to cower indoors protected by walls and
insulation and air-conditioning on summer nights so they are not
awakened by the noise and vibrations of roaring jets flying overheat,
is akin to saying the answer to global warming is for all of us to wear
spacesuits when we go outside.
Crescent Park
on Jul 17, 2019 at 11:11 pm
on Jul 17, 2019 at 11:11 pm
Jennifer Landssman
> The inordinate efforts to find solutions since 2014 have been most successfully played by the folks who don't have nearly the amount of noise here and have time to play smokes and mirrors games with the public.
What is that supposed to mean?
Another dismissal of people are who affected and bothered by this? Why is the con side of this issue always making personal type attacks against the people who are affected by the airplane noise and never willing to agree to collecting and interpreting data. Do you have an economic or political interest against fixing airplane noise?
Crescent Park
on Jul 18, 2019 at 12:56 am
on Jul 18, 2019 at 12:56 am
CrescentParkAnon,
Regarding my comment about a lot of work to find solutions (a good thing) and noise reduction results from those efforts (not so good ) referred to how there are interests that stand to benefit from causing confusion (somers and mirrors) and making time pass, undermining efforts to find solutions.
Example: If you contact the airport and complain about noise, the airports often reply that "nothing has changed" - you've always had this noise. Probably social media is causing the rise in complaints.
My general comment was that as the City engages regionally, it should press for environmental reviews - which is actually where collecting and interpreting data has a place and where FAA has more of a duty to comply compared to the regional discussions which actually rely on airports for data and how is that working for reducing noise?
Crescent Park
on Jul 18, 2019 at 11:44 pm
on Jul 18, 2019 at 11:44 pm
Jennifer Landesmann , Why the complexity and double-talk?
Put wireless noise monitors every 1/2 mile throughout the city and post the metrics
every day along with the scale of health effects foir residents to interpret, along
with the normal ambient noise.
Why even talk about complaints? I spent several of the past years waking up, going
to my computer and inputting complaints into the online jetnoise page and finally
just got tired of it. Meaning ... relying on complaints that one never sees an response
to may be better than nothing, but it is not a good way to seriously scope this problem.
I do feel that things have gotten slightly better since I remember first commenting on
jet noise back about 7-8 years ago, from outrageously intolerarable to just intolerable.
There is a void of facts on this issue, and data. You mentioned it ... so what do you
suggestion ... how aout some specifics, preferably, in plain English please?
Crescent Park
on Jul 19, 2019 at 5:13 am
on Jul 19, 2019 at 5:13 am
Crescent ParkAnon,
"There is a void of facts on this issue, and data. You mentioned it ... so what do you
suggestion ... how aout some specifics, preferably, in plain English please?"
In plain English you are being rude (easy to do Anonymously) - why not post your name next time you choose to attack me personally. .
My suggestion is that you file complaints on intrusive jet noise, it is the data that got the FAA to start the committees in the Bay Area and if any work will continue it won't be to address an absence of complaints. Eventually when the data is used it can help inform discussions. For example, in an airport-FAA- communities initiative to address similar noise issues in Boston, the metric Above60 dBA is being used as an alternative to DNL to consider some options and this metric matched well with the complaints received by Massport.
I could go on in Portuguese now, but you are correct that there is "void of facts" and encourage you to get facts from someone you trust.
Crescent Park
on Jul 19, 2019 at 5:16 am
on Jul 19, 2019 at 5:16 am
correction - the metric *N*Above60dBA
more info on metrics here Web Link
Crescent Park
on Jul 19, 2019 at 5:35 am
on Jul 19, 2019 at 5:35 am
CPAnon,
Another reason to not discount filing complaints is that when routes change, people who are affected need to speak up and until there is a better way to track and measure noise.
More on the NAbove metric from Massport
Web Link
"The "Number Above", also referred to as N-level sound metric or Count Above, is the total number of aircraft sound events that exceeded a specified sound level threshold (LAmax). The MAC publishes N-level information in the monthly MSP operations reports (link is external), including a count of departure events and arrival events when the maximum sound level of those events exceed 65, 80, 90, and 100 dB levels."
This also shows how airports can use a variety of metrics without having to wait for laws to change.
another community
on Jul 28, 2019 at 4:01 pm
on Jul 28, 2019 at 4:01 pm
With all do respect to Ms. Landesmann's comment above, the report you linked to is Minneapolis' Metropolitan Airport Commission, not MassPort (which is Taxachusetts' bloated crony landing for failed politicians and their in-laws...but I digress). However, I agree with Ms. Landesmann's comments regarding not discounting filing complaints.
I'm trying one approach here in the Boston area--contacting local representatives, i.e., at the State level, where they are much more likely to address local concerns. My two reps are somewhat responsive and seem to actually care about their constituents--a rarity nowadays. I'm asking them to contact other Reps in nearby cities/communities affected by noise and to form a local coalition, which could potentially spread nationally--basically like the National Quiet Skies Caucus but comprised of local aggregates.
The ONLY thing that politicians and Government entities listen to is money. I believe the FAA actually listened to one of the local reps, Peter Lynch (D-South Boston) "moved to cut $25 million intended for public outreach from the FAA’s budget."
Web link here: Web Link
Unfortunately, the FAA and local transportation authorities, e.g., MassPort, don't give a darn about the studies that show deleterious medical effects that noise has on adults and children (e.g., cardiovascular illness, stress hormone level increases, irritability, PTSD, etc.). They ONLY care about $ and their jobs. It's too bad that they forgot they are CIVIL SERVANTS, emphasis on SERVANTS, and we taxpayers are the masters.
The NextGen system is capable of fanning out flights to de-concentrate the flights overhead. A while back, Peter Carpenter of Atherton posted some good information about herringbone patterns that could achieve the desired effects of fewer flights overhead. I have a tech background (physics, UAS interceptor algorithms) and ran a first-order assessment of Mr. Carpenter's assertions and they seem legit. Folks, the FAA can easily make these changes but won't. They kowtow to the airlines and despise the taxpayers who are "complainers." It's as simple as that.
Good luck to all, continue to FIGHT THE FIGHT.
Portola Valley
on Jul 28, 2019 at 4:59 pm
on Jul 28, 2019 at 4:59 pm
Instead of complaining, why not speak with your money and move? I sold my house during Obama’s Great Recession, back when zuckerburg overpaid for his house in Palo Alto. Never been happier with my decision to leave.
Crescent Park
on Jul 28, 2019 at 5:22 pm
on Jul 28, 2019 at 5:22 pm
> In plain English you are being rude (easy to do Anonymously) -
> why not post your name next time you choose to attack me personally. .
It should be up to the poster how they decide to comment.
I replied to you personally. What was rude? One obvious reason is that
since I don't think I was rude, and you don't seem to have read or responded
to what I actually said, is if I had not posted anonymously maybe you would
hold a grudge or something? I don't mean that as rude or an accusation,
but posting anonymously avoids any problems like that. I just stand by
my comments - I really dislike arguments by authority, particularly on this
subject as some of the authorities who inititally posted on this issue were
very biased and insistent.
Did you even read my comment?
I have spend many nights listening to jet noise and filing complaints through the
SkyPosse web interface. They are doing a good job, and it is not their fault that
this issue seems to be stalled.
I have suggested distributing information on noise pollution.
I has suggested the City supporting monitors for noise pollution, and making them
the data public.
> but you are correct that there is "void of facts"
Yeah, I know.
> and encourage you to get facts from someone you trust.
That seems sarcastic and condescending ...
Crescent Park
on Jul 28, 2019 at 5:39 pm
on Jul 28, 2019 at 5:39 pm
> I agree with Ms. Landesmann's comments regarding not discounting filing complaints.
The installation of muliple monitors for jet noise throughout Palo Alto would stop putting
a burder on residents to have to get up when they are awakened by jet noise or vibration,
make it to their computers, or telephones, make the call or post the complaint, and then
try to go back to sleep. Or losing data because people are worn out or sleep deprived and
not able to wake up to file those complaints.
This seems like a no-brainer that should be the responsibiity of all City's governments to
monitor quality of life and environment issues to detect problems ASAP and start
discussion on them to add value to their communities and make life better.
Do we monitor air-quality?
Do we monitor crime statistics?
Do we monitor the quality of the water?
Do we monitor creek level? ......
All these things are the latest and newest, and easiest technologies. Most of them
involve finding a sensor of some sort, polling the sensor or parsing reports and then
decyphering the data and determining its quality.
> The ONLY thing that politicians and Government entities listen to is money.
That may be true, or it may not. There may still be room and channels to make
citizen's complaints and ideas heard and acted on. But we concentrate on the
minutia it seems to put off citizen involvement - at all levels instead of developing
our "democracy" ... whatever that means anymore. I used to feel this cynical,
but politicians and governments are manipulatable by those with means, money
and power. It may not be so simply.
Is there a way to nail down some official communications with our government.
Maybe we need a City Council that Tweets obnoxiously like Trump to activate some
interest and involvement.
Used to be we had news, now we just get propaganda, Data is what news used to
be, but we never get data, and we certainly never get access to raw data. That is
always someone little tinhorn gate that they get to keep. For everyone gatekeeper
we can un-employ, it is more data that we can access, and more citizens who can
explore it and play around with it, and learn about how to manage data.
The future has a lot of opportunities, so why is our great technology driven area
getting pushed backward to the past. Why is Palo Alto Online supporting mostly
editorials who censor and delete people and push a business-only, development
only intolerant agenda? We don't need you to tell us what to think, with the data
we can figure it out ourselves.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 29, 2019 at 10:31 am
on Jul 29, 2019 at 10:31 am
I agree that it would make sense for a city department to create a series of noise monitoring stations. Be forewarned: the station data will probably be accessed via RF of one kind or another (e.g. WiFi). These could be done for very low cost/labor. OTOH, just seeing the raw noise numbers won't be that helpful to the cause, because, most SFO-bound aircraft are not "that loud", compared to all the truck traffic, for example, or helicopters. But, in any case, for someone to do the data analysis and tie actual noise measurements to aircraft tracks will take some more expensive labor.
Registered user
Atherton
on Jul 29, 2019 at 10:44 am
Registered user
on Jul 29, 2019 at 10:44 am
All the noise monitors in the world won’t change the SFO flight patterns until there is area wide agreement to put all SFO flights over the Bay starting at FAITH with a crossing altitude of at least 7000 ft.
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jul 29, 2019 at 11:21 am
on Jul 29, 2019 at 11:21 am
Haven't heard plane noise as loud as embarcadero road noise in the early am/late pm.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 29, 2019 at 1:24 pm
on Jul 29, 2019 at 1:24 pm
Carpenter said: All the noise monitors in the world won’t change the SFO flight patterns until there is area wide agreement to put all SFO flights over the Bay..."
Mr. Carpenter's comment just highlights the simple fact that this is no longer a technical problem. Almost everyone, and any reasonable person, would agree the solution to "nextgen" noise is some flavor of Sky Posse's "over the Bay" solution that Sky Posse has been pushing for well over two years now.
The real problem is political. The stakeholders with all of the real political power (SF, SFO, Airlines) have no interest in any change that might in any way threaten airport through-put and profits. For the FAA it is just too much work and risk, especially if their "customer" (SF, SFO, Airlines) like the approach routes just the way they are.
Locally, our elected officials (Kniss, Eshoo, Speier, etc) just don't have the courage to challenge the San Francisco based party leadership (Pelosi, Newsom, Breed, etc) on this issue which would highlight the party's hypocrisy of campaigning in 2020 on a "green new deal" while operating and profiting from the largest polluter and contributor to global warming on the planet.
AOC naively touched this political third rail and received a painful shock several months ago when she proposed a formulation of the "green new deal" that would eliminate air travel altogether.
Registered user
Atherton
on Jul 29, 2019 at 2:21 pm
Registered user
on Jul 29, 2019 at 2:21 pm
"Mr. Carpenter's comment just highlights the simple fact that this is no longer a technical problem. Almost everyone, and any reasonable person, would agree the solution to "nextgen" noise is some flavor of Sky Posse's "over the Bay" solution that Sky Posse has been pushing for well over two years now."
Actually my proposals predate those of Sky Posse by at leat a year:
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Nov 13, 2015 at 10:24 am
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
"Eshoo's constituents have come up with some sensible solutions of increasing the altitude at which planes cross over populated areas before reaching the bay and distributing the arrival flight paths over a larger area so the impact is shared more equally among communities."
Yes we have and here are the two proposals that do just that - the first increases the altitude of arriving flights over most of the populated areas and the second distributes arriving flights more uniformly over all the South bay communities:
The higher altitude proposal:
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,
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,
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.,
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,
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.
The uniform distribution proposal:
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 - that is on the 284 deg radial from SFO
2 - that has at least ten Curved Continuous Descent Approaches (Advanced CDA) that link to that 284 deg radial with five on the Northeastern side of the radial and five on the Southwestern side of the radial
3 - that the closest of these ACDA's connect to the 284 deg radial no closer than the DUMBA intersection
4 - that the connection point for each of these ACDA's be at least one mile apart on each side of the radial
5 - that between 6 AM and 10 PM each incoming aircraft be randomly assigned to one of the ten individual ACDAs
6 - that between 10 PM and 6 AM incoming aircraft be assigned only to the two farthest out ACDAs
Crescent Park
on Jul 29, 2019 at 2:41 pm
on Jul 29, 2019 at 2:41 pm
> All the noise monitors in the world won’t change the SFO flight patterns until there is area wide agreement to put all SFO flights over the Bay starting at FAITH with a crossing altitude of at least 7000 ft.
No such proposition has ever been made, so as one who has condescendingly posted for years on this subject it just seems odd for someone supposedly so knowledgeable to rebut something no one has ever said.
The basis of the problem must be proved and applied to a legal basis at some point. You also in your early statements years ago went through all the "denier" positions, through "minimizing", til I don't even know where you stand today.
You made the claim, ... who has confirmed this is the only solution, what is the proof, and who agrees with it. Finally who has to agree with it for something to happen with it, assuming it is a solution.
>> until there is area wide agreement to put all SFO flights over the Bay starting at FAITH with a crossing altitude of at least 7000 ft.
Crescent Park
on Jul 29, 2019 at 3:01 pm
on Jul 29, 2019 at 3:01 pm
Jetman, I agree with most of what you say, but touching on global warming pushes a bit too far.
> the party's hypocrisy of campaigning in 2020 on a "green new deal" while operating and profiting from the largest polluter and contributor to global warming on the planet.
Here is a comment returned from Googling "how much does aviation contribute to climate change".
Aircraft greenhouse emissions will continue to rise and could contribute up to 15% of global warming from all human activities within 50 years. Nitrogen oxides(NOx) and water vapour have a more significant effect on the climate when emitted at altitude than at ground level.
--
This includes military which I thought was at least at one time the largest net contributor.
Unless there is a complete global economic collapse airline travel is not going away, which will include the military last most likely. If AOC actually said that, which I doubt, or her proportional interest of that non-binding non-policy document? It has certainly been attacked enough by ridiculous claims made about it, or that it has made about the problem.
It doesn't seem productive to talk about the Democratic's party ( do you mean only Democrats ) hypocrisy in global warming to the issue of local airplane noise People to often make the argument - if so-and-so cared about global warming -whatever- otherwise they are a hypocrite and you can dismiss anything they do, or feel free to hold a chip on your shoulder forever about them.
The global warming component of local airplane noise is irrelevant to the problem. And calling Democrats or Republicans for matter names is also irrelevant.
If the Democratic party itself is a source of the problem then please, how? You don't need to get subliminal about it. ;-)
Crescent Park
on Jul 29, 2019 at 6:41 pm
on Jul 29, 2019 at 6:41 pm
Peter Carpenter,
"Actually my proposals predate those of Sky Posse by at leat a year:
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Nov 13, 2015 at 10:24 am
......"
Peter - I don't understand why this matters but if you want to get picky about who presented potential solutions when, to precede Sky Posse, your post would have had to be dated April 2014.
Sky Posse proposed an Over the Bay solution on February 10, 2015 found on Page 21 of the Sky Posse presentation to Palo Alto City Council (last document on the City of Palo Alto staff report found on this link Web Link The February 2015 slide presents a "Potential Comprehensive Solution" with the Final 20 miles Over the Bay.
The original Over the Bay solution however was actually presented by the Federal Aviation Administration in April 2000. As mentioned in this correspondence from one of the leaders of the UPROAR initiative, a resident of Atherton.
I am blanking out some of the personal info but am happy to provide the source if interested.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: < .> Date: Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Subject: UNFINISHED SF MAYORAL BUSINESS To: wbrown@sfchronicle.com
Dear Sir:
If someone came to you and offered to show you how to reduce traffic on the Willie Brown Bridge, I'll bet you would listen.
I don't have that to suggest, but something equally important to peninsula residents near the City and County of San
Francisco's airport.
In April 2000, just after Congresswoman Eshoo arranged with the FAA to increase the altitude over Woodside of arriving commercial flights to 8000 feet, the FAA announced SOIA, its own beautiful solution to aircraft landing noise--bring the flights in over the bay not the land.
It was rejected, as you most certainly will recall, overwhelmingly by the mayor of San Jose and some 500 residents. According to press reports resolution of the matter was between you and the mayor of San Jose and you two agreed that SOIA could be used when weather conditions at SFO were such that use of SOIA would increase SFO's landing rate. This was estimated to be about 15% of the time.
I have been involved as a citizen in reducing commercial aircraft landing nose since the mid-nineties and UPROAR, an organization I co-founded has been credited by Congresswoman Eshoo as being instrumental in gaining her attention and action on this issue.
Now, the unfinished mayoral business. We now have some 14 years of history on part time use of SOIA and an upgraded STAGGERED version that is even more efficient. During this time period I have been asked from time to time to assist a Portola Valley/Woodside group and attended many SFO Roundtable meetings and am not aware of any complaints from San Jose
The 8000 feet arrival altitude over Woodside continues to serve us well where I live, but as noise complaints from Portola Valley/Woodside continue, the FAA has just proposed their latest landing path and presumably because of the opposition in 2000 did not consider use of the SOIAs.

As a leading voice of San Francisco, would you consider picking up on what I call your "unfinished business" on this noise issue.
Putatively, gradually increasing the use of the SOIAs would hardly be noticeable and if and when fully adopted would eliminate virtually all of the SFO aircraft landing noise over the entire S.F. Peninsula.
A tidy gift of the owners of SFO to its neighbors
Sincerely,
Crescent Park
on Jul 29, 2019 at 6:59 pm
on Jul 29, 2019 at 6:59 pm
Sorry, I brought up April 2014 and meant that to say that precede the Sky Posse proposal for Over the Bay, the date would have to have been February 2014.
April 2014, is when FAA concluded the Environmental Review for the NorCal OAPM (Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex) which resulted in a Finding Of No Significant Impact announced in August of 2014 Web Link
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 4, 2019 at 5:59 pm
on Aug 4, 2019 at 5:59 pm
Party leaders attempt to green-wash SFO with plastic bottle ban.
A little over a month after Jetman called SFO's nextgen plans "a huge festering election year embarrassment for the San Francisco political machine and their presidential candidate Kamala Harris" the San Francisco based party leadership is attempting to preemptively green-wash the San Francisco owned and operated facility that is the largest industrial polluter in the bay area with a plastic bottle ban (see Jetman's comments from 6/11, 6/13, & 6/24).
The move comes only weeks after party firebrand Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez drew the ire of the San Francisco based Party leadership with her own formulation of a "green new deal" that called for the reduction or elimination of air travel, and days after the San Francisco political machine's candidate for president Kamala Harris was humiliated on the debate stage by presidential rival Tulsi Gabbard who accused Harris of keeping prisoners in California's prison-industrial complex beyond their release date in order to increase the amount of free prison labor available to the State.
"Plastic bottle sales banned at San Francisco airport"
USA Today ~ August 2, 2019 Web Link
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 5, 2019 at 12:54 pm
Registered user
on Aug 5, 2019 at 12:54 pm
The sky above right now is crisscrossed with plane trails. 12:53 PM. Interesting.
another community
on Aug 8, 2019 at 10:16 pm
on Aug 8, 2019 at 10:16 pm
This message is for Jennifer Landesmann,
I am a resident in SoCal impacted by Nextgen - Burbank & Van Nuys Airports. I would like to connect with you to further discuss some strategies under consideration. If you would be interested, let me know if there is a way to PM to connect.
Thanks
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 9, 2019 at 9:39 am
Registered user
on Aug 9, 2019 at 9:39 am
So helicopters are now crisscrossing the city. One just went over my house traveling west to east. That means the helicopter has crossed many residential areas in it's path. Is there some altitude level that they are required to meet? This one was extremely low. If they are flying out of PAO as a business then they have to have some set of requirements to be a business - follow the rules. What are the rules?
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 9, 2019 at 10:40 am
on Aug 9, 2019 at 10:40 am
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, a resident of Adobe-Meadow
>> So helicopters are now crisscrossing the city.
Except for the odd news or CHP helicopter that is there because of some law-enforcement "news" event, almost all the other helicopters are going to and from Stanford Hospital.
>> One just went over my house traveling west to east. That means the helicopter has crossed many residential areas in it's path. Is there some altitude level that they are required to meet? This one was extremely low. If they are flying out of PAO as a business then they have to have some set of requirements to be a business - follow the rules. What are the rules?
They are following the rules, and, they land at the heliport on top of the hospital. You can't miss it on your favorite map app with satellite imagery -- it is the big white cross. These are air ambulance trips.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 9, 2019 at 10:46 am
on Aug 9, 2019 at 10:46 am
Follow-up (left-off info):
Stanford Hospital Heliport, 820 Quarry Road, Palo Alto, CA
Palo Verde
on Aug 9, 2019 at 2:31 pm
on Aug 9, 2019 at 2:31 pm
> Stanford Hospital Heliport, 820 Quarry Road, Palo Alto, CA
No permit for storage or sales of aviation fuel. Closest gas pump is KPAO.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 9, 2019 at 4:36 pm
on Aug 9, 2019 at 4:36 pm
Anon said:
"Except for the odd news or CHP helicopter that is there because of some law-enforcement "news" event, almost all the other helicopters are going to and from Stanford Hospital"
This is simply not true. There is a helicopter training school operating out of PAO and people have been complaining about the noise from the school's helicopters flying and hovering over residential neighborhoods for several years now.
Sirius Flying: Web Link
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 9, 2019 at 5:13 pm
Registered user
on Aug 9, 2019 at 5:13 pm
There is also the new helicopter service that people can use to go to Oakland or else where in order to avoid traffic. That is a new business that was written up in the papers. It is like a taxi service. They plan on adding planes to their taxi service.
So there still has to be rules on altitude level over residential areas. If uber helicopters are flying all over then there still has to be a base altitude. At this point we are going to be inundated with all type flying objects and there has to be some qualifying level of activity.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 9, 2019 at 5:24 pm
on Aug 9, 2019 at 5:24 pm
Posted by Jetman, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
>>There is a helicopter training school operating out of PAO and people have been complaining about the noise from the school's helicopters flying and hovering over residential neighborhoods for several years now. -Sirius Flying-
I stand corrected.
Palo Verde
on Aug 10, 2019 at 2:53 am
on Aug 10, 2019 at 2:53 am
Most people wouldn't know the difference between a Robinson 44 and a Eurocopter 145.
another community
on Aug 10, 2019 at 2:03 pm
on Aug 10, 2019 at 2:03 pm
Has anyone heard of, or read about "success stories" where planes have been re-routed to reduce the overhead plane noise? Please exclude things like "the FAA has agreed to hear..." or "the FAA will consider...." type responses, as they do not actually reduce overhead noise.
Thank you.
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 11, 2019 at 10:03 am
Registered user
on Aug 11, 2019 at 10:03 am
So there is a new bill directed at SFO/all to clean up many missteps of late, including the Air Canada plane that directed itself to an outgoing runway that had 4 full planes waiting for take-off. It includes having at least two air controllers vs the current one air controller. The extensive list of issues was reported in the SFC article 9 August - "Sully aids bill to stop disasters on runway". The problems are not only attributed to the airport but also to the airlines and how they manage the flights incoming to airports. It noted a number of times in which the flight crews did not function in accordance with any semblance of direction from anyone including the FAA rules. They are flying by sight.
So we complain to the airport about noise and low altitude flights that have facilitated reckless activity - only one flight controller for a major airline hub. Add foreign airlines which have pilots of questionable training. Add long range flights in which the pilots are fatigued and have not yet been to SFO and do not understand how to land there. It is scary when you approach over water on the assumption that there will be a land location at the end. Many situations to address - all of which suggests that our approach has to take on an strategy which figures in all of the unpredictable actions which have been documented to date.
Calling in for loud planes is talking to no one out there. Requirements for altitude limitations appears to have no one listening. We assumed there was technology at work but someone has to turn the "technology" on for it to work. We have some major problems here. Back to the law suit approach as that has consequences which are monetary for all concerned, including the airlines which do not conform to the required approach limitations for each airport.
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 11, 2019 at 11:23 am
Registered user
on Aug 11, 2019 at 11:23 am
Just like to add that I flew out of Orange County Airport and they announced before take-off that they would be at an upward stance to reach altitude very quickly since there was a noise abatement rule for that airport. And the plane did indeed assume a very high climb immediately. Also there are government air fields located in that area. So someone out there is calling the shots. But that was for take-off. Arrival was over the ocean so not sure what they had in place for that. It can de done - just need someone to step to to the plate here. Orange County is the home of Disneyland which has a lot of flights so imagine that they helped in negotiations here.