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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SFO approach and departure plan illustrated: Web Link

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

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

Resident 1...

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

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

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

Web Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

veroforyou at gmail.com

Resident 1,

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

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

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

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

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

Resident 1,

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

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

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

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

Attractive nuisance doctrine: Web Link

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

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

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

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

Win win,

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

Jetman-- please note the following:

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

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

Musical,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jetman-- regarding your attractive nuisance doctrine link:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Win win,

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

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

Win Win

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

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

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

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

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

Wrong neighbor

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resident1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neighbor,

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

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

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

LOL,

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

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

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

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

#firstworldproblems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also try the Menlo/Woodside flyover and east RC.

@ #firstworldproblems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A question for you #firstworldproblems

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

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

@Midtowner

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

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

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

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

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

There is no SFO noise monitoring station in Menlo Park:

Web Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even Atherton.

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

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

I couldn't hold back the laugh.

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

Amazing, isn't it? Whodathunkit?

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

And have quite the laugh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Web Link

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

Web Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resident 1,

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

CrescentParkAnon,

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

Map of noise monitoring stations: Web Link

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

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

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

Snikes!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SFO approach and departure plan illustrated: Web Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's in it for such posters?

Cresentparkanon,

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

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

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

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

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

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

CrescentParkAnon,

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

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

Raspbery Pi: Web Link

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

Web Link

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

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

Web Link

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

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

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

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

Web Link

Web Link

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

Web Link

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

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

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

Web Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ LOL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SFO approach and departure plan illustrated: Web Link

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

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

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

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

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

SFO approach and departure plan illustrated: Web Link

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

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

Cumulative radar dat for a year:
Web Link

Peter,

Cumulative radar data for a year? What year?

Probably 2011 or 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Web Link

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

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

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

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

Web Link

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

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

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

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

Peter,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Web Link

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

Web Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Web Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hence the noise issue in our area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anonymous,

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

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

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

Web Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Win win solution for Palo Alto and the airlines.

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

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

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

veroforyou

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Get over it.

Or get someone to measure the 'noise'.

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

#firstworldproblems,

So, this is a process like any other.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter Carpenter,

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

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

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

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

Okay.

Noted without comment (but significant amazement!)

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

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

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

Palo Alto is more than 15 miles from SFO.

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

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

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

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

"Why do these posters want excessive airplane noise"

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

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

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

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

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

Peter Carpenter,

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

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

@firstworld,

"Noted without comment (but significant amazement!)"

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

Is this the FAA formula for safety?

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

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

Clear enough?

Do you have ANY contrary evidence?

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

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

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

Third Worlder,

Please contact Midtowner at veroforyou@gmail.com.

Thanks,

Jetman

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

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

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

Woodside Noise Abatement Report: Web Link

SFO approach and departure plan illustrated: Web Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Portion removed.]

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

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

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

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

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

A passing resemblance is an excellent description.

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

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

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

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

@Trueblue

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anonymous,

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

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

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

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

I had to look up "yeoman."

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

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

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

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

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

@ True Blue

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter,

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

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

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

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

@ Third World we

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

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

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

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

Web Link

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

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

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

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

Web Link

Peter Carpenter,

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


They need 15 miles to stabilize?

"They need 15 miles to stabilize?"

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

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

Let's be clear on something here.

DNL = Day Night Average Sound Level.

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

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

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

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

Third Worlder,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter Carpenter,

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

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

Translation please.

Ideally with language that is not from the yeoman days.

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

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

third - what exactly is not clear?

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

resident 1

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

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

Peter,

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

Midtown,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter Carpenter,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palo Alto!!

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

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

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

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

Soundproofing,

Please include East Palo Alto.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is exactly my agenda - to provide factual information.

Peter,

Really?

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

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

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

Soundproofing,

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

Apparently it is,

Web Link

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

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

Win WIn,

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

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

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

And True Blue - where are you in the phonebook?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some actual flight tracks:

Web Link

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

win win, and Peter Carpenter,

Thank you. Merci beaucoup, muchas gracias.

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

That makes first hand complaints real.

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

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

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

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

Peter Carpenter,

It must be this third world thing.

Fuzzy.

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

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

win win,

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

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

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

You apparently don't get to EPA very often.

SFO approach and departure plan illustrated: Web Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And even that is not true:

Web Link

Only 53% of this traffic even touches Palo Alto.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Portion removed.]

Peter Carpenter,

"Only 53%"

Only 53%, you have some gems.

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

Web Link

[Post removed.]

@ Third worlder

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

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

Jetgirl,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Haven't heard a thing.

Tim,

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

Jetman,

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

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

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

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

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

Web Link

Of course that is only if you want the facts.

Jetman,

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Website for SFO's noise monitoring system: Web Link

Woodside VOR Reports: Web Link

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

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

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

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

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

Web Link

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

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

Peter -

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

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

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

Where is YOUR data?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me know if it does not work.

Here is a sample:

Web Link

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

Web Link

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

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

4 inbound to SFO.
None even near Palo Alto.

Web Link

Peter Carpenter,

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

For which day and hour of the day is that?

4 inbound SFO.

Two cross over Menlo Park/

None touches Palo Alto.

Web Link

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

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

April 14, 2014 at 15:39:54

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

Peter,

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

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

Link to Peter's map: Web Link

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

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

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

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

Here is the source:
Web Link

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

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

"The map is too small to read,"

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

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

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

Web Link

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

" is created with unknown methodology,"

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

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

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

Peter,

Absence of proof, is not proof of absence.

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

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

Win win,

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

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

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

Win win,

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

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

The information Peter offers as proof is from 2011 and cannot prove anything about what happened in 2012, 2013, or what is currently happening in 2014. In fact many Palo Alto observers noticed a dramatic increase in jet noise starting in the early fall of 2013.

If you are not hearing any noise, I am happy for you, but the only thing that proves is; you are not hearing any noise.

Jetman - you are hopelessly or intentional ignorant.

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

I am not measuring anything but providing the interested readers of this forum measurements which have been made by radar and by experts. In contrast you provide anecdotal observations made by untrained observers without any instrumentation - no contest.

I hear the aircraft noise because many of them pass within line of sight of my home but I accept that noise as an inevitable consequence of where I have chosen to live and my desire to be close enough to SFO to use it for my travels. You can make your own choices but you do not get to create your own facts.

"The information Peter offers as proof is from 2011 and cannot prove anything about what happened in 2012, 2013, or what is currently happening in 2014."

I have provide you information not only from 2011 but also from as late as today April 14, 2014 - you just refuse to accept either independent professional noise analysis or contemporary radar tracks.

Sadly I must conclude that you not a jetman but a jester.

"The only proof we have so far is provided by the Palo Alto residents who are making direct observations, and reporting frequent loud aircraft over Palo Alto."
Anecdotal observations do not equal " proof".
How many residents noticed a dramatic increase in noise? Again this claim is not proof of anything.
Do you have sound measurements for the years you claim are so important? Peter has provided proof of where the planes are flying. He has provided results of studies and real time information.
I guess this does not constitute " proof" for you since it does not fit with your agenda.
Once again, let me say, that you have been caught over and over again making outlandish claims ( I.e. Constant air traffic over Stanford), bogus statements (listening stations in menlo park) and phony proof ( cartoons showing flight paths that do not actually show where the cities in question are).
Bottom line, you have no proof for your claims, so you must dismiss all real evidence that refutes your story as not being " proof". And your proof involves anecdotal evidence from 1 poster

Jetman provided excellent research citations about the situation that was essentially ignored.

Narrative research is absoutely a valid scientific method.

It is sad to hear personal experience and accounta of aircraft noise being dismissed rather than validated.

Once I heard an expert define emotional abuse as "denying another person's perception of reality". There is sure a lot of that on this list.

Too bad a power struggle is initiated rather than a coming together of bright minds to solve a serious problem that increases the danger of climate change and diminishes the quality of life in Palo Alto in a major way.

Very amusing post, jet girl. Anecdotal stories are not proof-- personal experiences and stories about aircraft noise ( I.e. Constant airplane noise over Stanford) while interesting to hear does not constitute proof that there is a problem-- all it indicates is that people are unhappy about something. But I assume you define jetmans comments as not being " emotional abuse" since it fits your scenario ( though I do find that comment extremely amusing).
This is not a serious problem. But feel free to approach SFO with your concerns. I am sure the complaints of 1 person will be taken seriously

"Narrative research is absoutely a valid scientific method."

The fact that you believe this is frankly scary.

Try getting a PhD in any scientific subject using 'narrative research'.

Catherine, thank you for sharing a concern you have and seeking to understand if your community shares your concern. Clearly there are a lot of other Palo Alto residents that are experiencing what you are (17 of the people posting on this thread, versus 11 who wish to drown you out). It's clear there is also a very vocal minority bent on discrediting you and your neighbors based on their own agenda. Sadly, these lonely dissenters have a lot of time on their hands to flood this forum with noise.

As I mentioned, we don't have a particular problem with noise at our home, but I am offended at the tone and attitude taken by the online bullies who are working overtime to further their own agenda.

Peter, you said you wished to inform, and you've done that. You have posted 54 comments on this thread! That is 19 more than anyone else and almost 20% of the comments overall! How about letting the rest of the community get a word in?

I have a few comments relative to the noise map posted by Peter Carpenter.

First of all, since noise is not measured in towns such as Menlo Park or Palo Alto, how can the airport know the noise level from SFO traffic or any airplane traffic in those towns?

Second, I note that all the gray areas are for a DNL equal to or below 45 (DNL being an average noise level calculated over 24 hours and having not much to do with the actual amount of noise a single plane generates when flying over). Still, let's assume DNL is a good representation of noise level for the sake of this discussion. We have a huge gray area on the map for noise at or below 45 DNL. This does not tell us much. For all I know, Palo Alto could be subjected to a DNL of 44 while Atherton could have a DNL of 30. That would be a huge difference that the map offered would not show.

In other words, that map is not a very good representation of the level of the noise problem in individual communities as compared to others. It only shows us that noise is extremely high right next to airports (such as in San Bruno or in some San Jose neighborhoods). We would logically expect that. However, it does not tell us anything about the difference in noise level between the Palo Alto/PA/Eastern Menlo Park area and the noise level in those other southern San Mateo County such as Atherton or Woodside.

" It's clear there is also a very vocal minority bent on discrediting you and your neighbors based on their own agenda. Sadly, these lonely dissenters have a lot of time on their hands to flood this forum with noise."
It's pretty clear that a couple of people ( who pretend that they are 17) who have an agenda that involves pretending that their is a problem in PA. Note how all the recent posts supporting this claim all say the same thing

"As I mentioned, we don't have a particular problem with noise at our home, but I am offended at the tone and attitude taken by the online bullies who are working overtime to further their own agenda. "
So those that disagree with Catherine are " bullies" because they disagree with your agenda?

"! How about letting the rest of the community get a word in?"
No one is preventing anyone from posting their opinion.

Note how now that the person who is stirring the pot regarding the non existent airplane noise in PA has been exposed as a charlatan,he makes claims about others agendas and claims they are bullies?????

"How about letting the rest of the community get a word in?"

Speak up, I am not stopping you. But I will challenge any absence of facts or inaccuracies in your postings

" This does not tell us much. For all I know, Palo Alto could be subjected to a DNL of 44 while Atherton could have a DNL of 30. That would be a huge difference that the map offered would not show."

This difference between a DNL of 44 and 30 is imperceptible to the human ear.

"However, it does not tell us anything about the difference in noise level between the Palo Alto/PA/Eastern Menlo Park area and the noise level in those other southern San Mateo County such as Atherton or Woodside."

Please do your homework. The map does precisely that - look at it again:

Web Link

Win Win: For someone who is not concerned about the complaints of "1 (sic) person," you are sure spending a lot of time belittling others and stating your case over and over. Are you sure you're not concerned?

Let's see

30 decibel = quiet library
40 decibel = quiet conversation
50 decibel = average office noise

Of course, people can tell the difference, and this is averaged over 24 hours, which means than in reality the difference is even greater. Anyone could tell the difference between being in a library for 24 hours and having to listen to a conversation between quiet and average for 24 hours.

As I said, the map offered does not say anything about the potentially significant difference in noise between such places as PA/EPA and Atherton/Woodside.

Win Win, One can indeed get a Phd using narrative methodology. Although not the point of this discussion, it is relevant to pointing out the unfortunately hostile tone of some of the discussants. Please see below.



.

Web Results
[PDF]
The Narrative Interview - London School of Economi...

www.lse.ac.uk/methodology/pdf/.../Bauer-NARRAT1SS.pdf - Similar to The Narrative Interview - London School of Economi...

London School of Economics and Political Science. Methodology Institute ... became the focus of a veritable method community in Germany during the 1980s. The original ... The narrative interview is classified among the qualitative research methods (Lamnek, 1989;. Flick et al, 1991), ...... Swiss bank, PhD manuscript, LSE.


Scandinavian seminar series in narrative methods | Department ...

ki.se/en/nvs/scandinavian-seminar-series-in-narrative-methods

Narrative methods have been brought forth as a method and tradition with potential to capture these aspects and offer a complementary perspective.

[PDF]
Narrative Science - IJARCSSE

www.ijarcsse.com/docs/papers/Volume_3/10.../V3I9-0324.pdf

Narrative science is branch of NLP which turns data into stories.Narrative is defined ... organizations to generate it themselves using traditional method. Figure 1 Narrative .... PhD thesis, Northwestern University, June 2010. Google Analytics,.


[PDF]
A Review of Narrative Methodology - University of ...

www.cnr.uidaho.edu/.../ review%20of%20narritive%20methodology%20aust... - Similar to A Review of Narrative Methodology - University of ...

truth, and the application of scientific empirical methods to problem solving. Instead, ... Administration (Makerere, Uganda), a Graduate Diploma in. Education ...

[PDF]
The place of personal writing in a PhD thesis ... ...

eprints.qut.edu.au/1353/1/1353.pdf

and learning in Year 8 science students, this has led her to present her PhD ... scientific method, multilevel research, narrative inquiry as an alternative research .

[PDF]
Telling Stories: Narrative Approaches in Qualitati...

academic.son.wisc.edu/courses/N701/.../sandelowski_tellingstories.pdf - Similar to Telling Stories: Narrative Approaches in Qualitati...

typical science reports and the severing of method from results and from ... margarete sandelowskl, R.N., Ph.D., Alpha Alpha is Associate Pro~ fessor. Dept. of ...



Narrative Medicine | Curriculum | School of Continuing Education

ce.columbia.edu/narrative-medicine/curriculum - Similar to Narrative Medicine | Curriculum | School of Continuing Education

Master of Science inNarrative Medicine ... The Narrative Medicine graduate degree requires 38 points to complete. ... on whether the student must take Research Methodology—see below) of coursework in Narrative Medicine, four to six points ...


phd - Yishay Mor

www.yishaymor.org/phd - Similar to phd - Yishay Mor

The main outcome of this study is a methodological framework for design science of TEME which combines design narratives and design patterns into structured ...


King's College London - Doctoral Training Centre courses

Web Link

Doctoral Training Centre courses. ... Centre (DTC) will open its programme of advanced methods training for doctoral social scientists. ... Key concepts & methods - Political discourse analysis - Critical discourse analysis - Narrative analysis ...


Cheryl Mattingly PhD | USC Occupational Science and ...

ot.usc.edu/faculty/directory/Cheryl_Mattingly - Similar to Cheryl Mattingly PhD | USC Occupational Science and ...

Doctor of Philosophy (Ph D) in Anthropology and Urban Studies Massachusetts ... In J. Clandinin (Ed.), Handbook of narrative inquiry methodologies. Thousand

Actually, looking at the map closely I see many less gray dots in the Woodside and Atherton areas than in PA. So, that would presumable show that it is quieter in Woodside and Atherton than PA (and of course EPA). This goes to support what we have been saying all along. Our area bears a disproportionate amount of noise from inbound SFO traffic, based on the number of gray dots. Thanks for the info.

Really-- I am really not concerned. But you are.
Midtowner-- so if PA has a DNL of 44, that is between quiet conversation and average office noise. So this is what one person is upset about????
Jet girl-- why are you addressing your last post to me? I made Jo mentions of PhDs.

"Our area bears a disproportionate amount of noise from inbound SFO traffic, based on the number of gray dots."

Look again - the most impacted areas are eastern Menlo Park and East Palo Alto AND the communities closer to SFO.

Why do you try to lie about the facts when they are so clear?

Jetgirl - all your citations are social science and not the physical sciences.

And even in the social sciences narrative research requires these steps:

1. Develop a research question

A Qualitative study seeks to learn why or how, so the writer’s research must be directed at determining the why and how of the research topic. Therefore, when crafting a Research Question for a Qualitative study, the writer will need to ask a why or how question about the topic.[12]
2. Select or produce raw data

The raw data tend to be interview transcriptions, but can also be the result of field notes compiled during participant observation or from other forms of data collection that can be used to produce a narrative.[13]
3. Organize data

4. Interpret data

Neither you or Jetman has done ANY of the above.

Win Win: OK, you're pretty funny.

>> It's pretty clear that a couple of people ( who pretend that they are 17 (sic))

The Weekly will catch people posting multiple times as different users - but betting you already know that. Or maybe you don't, and the Weekly is asleep this week, and there is really only one person arguing that there is no airplane noise problem in Palo Alto...

>> who have an agenda that involves pretending that their is a problem in PA. Note how all the recent posts supporting this claim all say the same thing

Why would anyone do that? Talk about conspiracy theory... Maybe many of the posts say the same thing because that is the REALITY.

>> So those that disagree with Catherine are " bullies" because they disagree with your agenda?

No, the people that are belittling others, telling people they are "not paying attention," name-calling, and posting twice as much as any other user are bullies (you can call that name-calling back, if you like). Which side they are arguing is irrelevant, but in this case it seems to be the *one person* (to your point) claiming there is no noise problem in Palo Alto.

>> Note how now that the person who is stirring the pot regarding the non existent airplane noise in PA has been exposed as a charlatan,

"The person?" This is my third post to this discussion, and I'm pretty sure I have not "stirred the pot."

>> about the nonexistent airplane noise.

Really? You think people have nothing better to do than complain about something that doesn't exist?

>> "exposed as a charlatan?"

More name-calling (but kudos for the drama)!

>> he makes claims about others (sic) agendas and claims they are bullies?????

Yes, if you don't experience any problem with plane noise in Palo Alto there is no reason to be dominating the posts on this thread unless you have your own agenda (e.g. live in a nearby town, like Atherton, and are afraid the airline traffic will shift that way), and the tone of the messages have been bullying - ridiculing, belittling, and name-calling of those who have a problem with the noise.

I'm done with this thread, but the tactics of Win Win / Peter Carpenter (obviously the same person) have pushed me to stand with neighbors who have a problem with the noise - they are the only ones playing fair in this thread.

Cheers!

Hey all - make sure you check out the moon tonight.

We are in a high traffic time of night - I was looking at Flight tracker and a Hawaiian airline went over the top of an AA commuter - which then scattered over the bay. Other planes were moving around at off angles.

This discussion started last year because SFO was updating runways which appears to cause mayhem at the busy times of the day and night. We can look forward to that May through September when it is hottest and everyone is outside.

The SFO TAC provides high and low altitude values - but all planes are not equal. A 747-400 is a big plane.

Possibly the FAA can come up with new criteria based on airline size. I am trying to figure out how fast one can descend. I think a number of reasonable approaches can happen now since SFO is going to shut down some runways. They are negotiating with the affected cities - we just became an affected city.
1. Redefine the upper and lower altitudes based on airline size
2. Request that equipment to determine noise level be installed. PA, Los Altos Hills - friends there say they get the noise from the planes coming over, East PA. Those are reasonable requests - we can call it a scientific study. Given that we are located between SFO and San Jose Airports then we should be good for a request for equipment.
3. Peter - does the PA Airport have any noise measuring equipment?

Per Peter Carpenter

On April 14, 2014 at 15:39:54, "there were 4 inbound SFO. Two cross over Menlo Park/None touches Palo Alto."

Thank you Peter

True Blue,

Please contact Midtowner at veroforyou at gmail.com. Midtowner will not send you spam, and will not contact you again, if that is your preference.

Thank you,

Jetman

Tax day is no fun... could it be any more complicated?. Hope everyone is ready for tomorrow. Until tomorrow, good luck to all, and God help us!

" Win Win / Peter Carpenter (obviously the same person)"

No - I ONLY post under my real name and I am a registered user so the Almanac has my ip address/email and would not permit me to also use another name,

"3. Peter - does the PA Airport have any noise measuring equipment?"

Not that I am aware of.

True Blue, Thank you for confronting the bullies. The airplane noise is too serious of an issue to be sidetracked by power struggles.

As I have frequently stated I understand that some people in Palo Alto are bothered by airplane noise but I cannot find any data that supports the contention that Palo Alto is disproportionally impacted by airplane noise compared to its more northern neighbors.

And when posters ask the same question time and time again after the answer has been posted time and time again then they are clearly not paying attention.

If you feel bullied because you are unable or unwilling to defend your position then that is your problem, not mine.

Peter - "On April 14, 2014 at 15:39:54, "there were 4 inbound SFO. Two cross over Menlo Park/None touches Palo Alto."

Palo Alto Avenue borders Menlo Park so how do you know that the planes are not heard in downtown North even though they are said to be flying over Menlo Park? To say that the planes are flying in a perfect line with no deviation is probably not true.

"To say that the planes are flying in a perfect line with no deviation is probably not true. "

Well, Catherine on April 11 th you wrote:
"Jetman's flight path diagram illustrates paths and from what I see in the sky above me the paths the planes are taking seem to fit the diagram exactly"

So when the diagram fit your scenario it was okay. But when it does not support the exaggerations regarding airplanes in PA then t is not true!!!

LOL! Fits the diagram in the fact that they loop over downtown north to fly into SFO. I never talked about the actual distance of the traffic lane. Is it one lane or thousands of lanes in which they can fly? I don't really know. I only talked about the pathway of coming southbound along the hills and then looping over Downtown North northbound towards SFO. They do, and I see them. I'm sure Menlo Park residents can see the same loop because we are so close. Sometimes the loop starts farther south of me, but the loop over to SFO happens and it's frequent. I was at Cubberely over the weekend and in 2 hours I only heard plane noise 3 times. Seems like they get less noise over there.

"Palo Alto Avenue borders Menlo Park so how do you know that the planes are not heard in downtown North even though they are said to be flying over Menlo Park?"

When planes are flying over Menlo Park they probably are heard, but at much lower sound levels, over downtown North - and that is reflected in the NorCal OAPM map posted many times above.


"To say that the planes are flying in a perfect line with no deviation is probably not true. "

No one made such a statement. The radar tracks speak for themselves - they show exactly where the plane is flying as they are real time depictions , not "illustrations".

Thank you to all the posters that are accepting and understanding of what I'm experiencing and trying to figure out. The noticeable change baffles me, and I was just looking for answers as to why that was. It's not hard to figure out there is a change in the frequency of planes flying over my home over the past year. All I have to do is open my eyes, and any data that says I don't see what I see, is simply not believable. I'm convinced through these posts that Peter has an agenda and he has ever right to defend his area from taking more of the plane load if that is what his agenda is. However, more and more people in Palo Alto are seeing and hearing a difference and over time the burden of airplane traffic may shift. We'll see.

Thank you Peter for agreeing that planes flying over Menlo Park can be heard by residents of Palo Alto North. We actually agreed on one thing. Like I said, plane noise is constant with one rumble dissipating and then another rumble starting. Even if I hear and not see a plane going over Menlo Park, it still is plane noise. So I'm not exaggerating when I say I hear plane noise every few minutes.

Peter Carpenter,

"I cannot find any data that supports the contention that Palo Alto is disproportionally impacted by airplane noise compared to its more northern neighbors."

What data do you have that shows the different noise levels - for example between Menlo Park and Woodside?

I don't think there is any noise measuring data to compare Palo Alto, since there are no measuring devices here.

To compare airplane noise, shouldn't you actually have measured noise levels to compare?

"any data that says I don't see what I see, is simply not believable." Thank you for acknowledging that you will not allow the facts to alter your perceptions. Therefore presenting you with facts is clearly a waste of time.

I would note that the folks at SFO will have a hard time accepting your perceptions over their documented facts.

" I'm convinced through these posts that Peter has an agenda and he has ever right to defend his area from taking more of the plane load if that is what his agenda is."
As previously stated my agenda is to inform those which open minds of the documented facts regarding local air traffic and ground noise levels and to help them understand how well off or worse off they are than their neighboring communities, and to try to help them understand the many constraints on making any change in the air traffic control system.

My home is actually closer than yours to the east Menlo Park areas that have the higher DNL levels and I have NO concern about even more traffic over my home. As stated above "I accept that noise as an inevitable consequence of where I have chosen to live and my desire to be close enough to SFO to use it for my travels. You can make your own choices but you do not get to create your own facts."

"To compare airplane noise, shouldn't you actually have measured noise levels to compare?"

PLEASE read the NorCal OAPM Draft Environmental Assessment that I have posted the link to many times - particularly Section 4.3.1 Noise.

Note:"4.3.1.1 Noise Modeling Methodology
To comply with NEPA requirements, the FAA has issued guidance on the assessment of
aircraft noise in FAA Order 1050.1E. This guidance requires that aircraft noise analysis use
the yearly Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) metric. The DNL metric is a single value
representing the aircraft sound level over a 24-hour period and includes all of the sound
energy generated within that period. The DNL metric includes a 10 decibel (dB) weighting
for noise events occurring between 10:00 P.M. and 6:59 A.M. (i.e., nighttime). This
weighting helps account for the greater level of annoyance caused by nighttime noise
events when ambient noise levels are lower. Accordingly, the metric essentially equates
one nighttime flight to 10 daytime flights."

"In addition to requiring the use of the DNL metric, FAA Order 1050.1E also requires that
aircraft noise be evaluated using one of three noise models: (1) the Integrated Noise Model
Environmental Assessment for Northern California Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex (INM), (2) the Heliport Noise Model (HNM), or (3) the Noise Integrated Routing System (NIRS). NIRS is typically used for flight track changes over large areas and at altitudes over 3,000 feet AGL. For this EA, the FAA uses NIRS, Version 7.0b to analyze noise associated with the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative."

"NIRS requires a variety of inputs, including local environmental data (e.g., temperature and
humidity), runway layout, number and type of aircraft operations, runway use, and flight
tracks. Accordingly, detailed information on aircraft operations for the Study Airports was
assembled for input into NIRS. This includes specific aircraft fleet mix information, including
aircraft type, arrival and departure times, and origin/destination airport."

That effort yielded the map of actual ground level DNLs that I have posted above many times. This is exhibit 4.2 labelled 2011 Baseline DNL Noise Exposure by Census Blocks in the referenced study.

"As discussed in Section 4.3.1.1, the NIRS model was used to compute DNL values for 2014
and 2019 Proposed Action and No Action Alternative conditions at three sets of data points
throughout the General Study Area:
1. 53,141 2010 Census block centroids;
2. 94,046 uniform grid points at 0.5-nautical mile (nm) intervals on a uniform grid
covering the General Study Area, which were also used to calculate DNL values
at potential Department of Transportation Act (DOT), Section 4(f) resources and
historic sites; and,
3. 12,215 unique points representing Section 4(f) resources too small to be
captured in the uniform grid, including 8,892 unique points representing National
Register listed historic sites."

I urge those concerned with aircraft noise to submit public comments on this draft - that is why it was published.

Peter - "I would note that the folks at SFO will have a hard time accepting your perceptions over their documented facts."

Not really, all I would have to do is take time stamped photos and video and send them to SFO to prove my point. That would show the real facts. The way you repeat and relay your facts have a bias tone. It's quite noticeable. Even your commenting on how SFO will not accept my perception, is defensive in nature. Defend yourself, have an opinion, it's all fine. It won't change the fact that I hear and see planes more than I used to.

"all I would have to do is take time stamped photos and video and send them to SFO to prove my point."

Remember the claim is that Palo Alto is being disproportionately impacted by aircraft noise compared to other communities. All your pictures would prove is what you saw at some unknown distance. It tells nothing about what you heard and what people in other communities heard.

" The way you repeat and relay your facts have a bias tone." I repeat the facts because people keep asking me the same question and because people refuse to read what has already been posted - I have no intention of allowing ignorance of the facts to prevail.

As for any bias tone - that clearly is in the eyes of each reader. What specific bias do you perceive?

Again, I urge those concerned with aircraft noise to submit public comments on the NorCal OAPM Draft Environmental Assessment - that is why it was published.

For those who question how the FAA makes changes in its air traffic system here is the introduction to the NorCal OAPM:

"The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) [42 United States Code (U.S.C.) §
4321 et seq.], requires federal agencies to disclose to decision makers and the interested
public a clear, accurate description of the potential environmental impacts that could arise
from proposed federal actions. Through NEPA, Congress has directed federal agencies to
consider environmental factors in their planning and decision-making processes and to
encourage public involvement in decisions that affect the quality of the human environment.
As part of the NEPA process, federal agencies are required to consider the environmental
effects of a proposed action, reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Action, and a No
Action Alternative (i.e., analyzing the potential environmental effects of not undertaking the
proposed action). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has established a process to
ensure compliance with the provisions of NEPA through FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1,
Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures (FAA Order 1050.1E).

This Environmental Assessment (EA), prepared in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E,
documents the potential effects to the environment that may result from the optimization of
Air Traffic Control (ATC) procedures that would standardize aircraft routing to and from
airports in Northern California, including San Francisco International Airport (SFO),
Metropolitan Oakland International Airport (OAK), Norman Y. Mineta San José International
Airport (SJC), and Sacramento International Airport (SMF). The Proposed Action, the
subject of this EA, is called the Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Northern
California Metroplex or “NorCal OAPM” Project. The procedures designed for the NorCal
OAPM Project would be used by arriving and departing aircraft operating under Instrument
Flight Rules (IFR) at the study area airports (“the Study Airports”), using currently available
navigational technology."

6 inbound to SFO.
3 over Newark.
3 over Palo Alto.

That 50:50

Web Link

>>> Not really, all I would have to do is take time stamped photos and video and send them to SFO to prove my point.

This is INSANE!

Reading this thread - it's about perceived noise, yet posters keep deluding themselves with out any facts (LOOK, in the sky! it's a bird! No, it's a plane! Omigosh! And now another, I can SEE with my very own eyes, I mean ears!)

Where are the facts on the actual NOISE LEVEL??????

6 inbound SFO
4 over Newark
2 over Palo Alto

That is a ratio of 2:1

The optimal number of flights over Palo Alto is zero, so take the information Peter has collected and go complain to the city council with it. It doesn't particularly matter if Palo Alto is being disproportionately affected. I'm not sure we need the city motto to become 'not quite as noisy as Newark'.

Resident 1,

I don't know if Palo Alto has any noise monitoring equipment, but that is a good question.

SFO has four portable noise monitoring stations. As far as I know they are not currently deployed. Web Link

Bruel & Kjaer provides the equipment that a lot of the airports use. They make noise measuring instruments, as well as systems that can log and distribute the collected noise data to the public. They can also integrate the noise data into Flight-tracker. Bruel & Kjaer's website is an interesting read: Web Link

Peter,

I reviewed the map showing the locations of SFO's 29 automated noise monitoring stations which is on SFO's website. I believe the map show a station Redwood City.

If you review the map, there is an inset in the upper right hand corner. In the lower right hand corner of the inset there appears to be a station next to the word "Redwood City". It id hard to read but it could possibly be station number "28". Please confirm if you agree.

Also, are you aware of any larger maps showing the locations of SFO's automated noise monitoring stations? If you are, please post a link. Thanks!

Map of Noise monitoring stations (scroll to bottom of page): Web Link

Folks - if you go the SFO site - Tracker you can follow specific planes. It shows speed, type plane, altitude, latitude, longitude. You can follow the plane as it enters the SFO airspace to the point it lands. You can watch the altitude at which it enters the area and as it de-accelerates and lands. It tells you exactly where it is at all times. You can also tell where it is relative to the other planes that are in the airspace.

You can see who is in transit - and if coming from Hawaii you can see it as it transitions through to landing. 747-400'd tend to be lower and slower while the commuter planes from LAX to SFO are higher and quicker. Virgin Airlines have interesting patterns.

If Flight Tracker is the tool provided by SFO it represents the "official" record for any one plane that trumps whatever else you are looking at.
And you can do this all by yourselves - you do not need any advise from anyone else as to what the program is saying - it totally self-explanatory.
It is also very entertaining to watch the arrivals and departures - little planes flying around.

When all is said and done not all planes are equal, not all travel at the same speed, not all have the same equipment, not all are on the same flight path. The Hawaii flights tend to travel as a group. They are bigger planes and are typically code share flights.

There are periods of the day which are prime time and other times that are more quiet.

As to who has equipment - NASA is a Moffatt Field, other key players would know where to find the right equipment. We are not in the corn fields of Kansas here. The FAA people at Palo Airport should know who has what equipment. And the FAA people know who is in the sky at any time and where they are. And SFO should be on-board to the concerns - they are focusing on departures vs arrivals. Our issues are in the "arrivals" category.

Finally, someone ( mr. Recycle) honest enough to state what this is about. A small group,of people do not feel that any planes should fly over palo,alto-- even those going to PA airport. Let them disturb less important cities in the area. And once you get rid of all the airplanes, you can start a thread about too many cars in the city.

LOL - you have totally misread what this is about. Another exaggeration on your part. We just need higher altitude for starters. SFO knows it has a problem and is working on solutions. We are not in a void of activity.

Jetman - I have enlarged the SFO Noise Monitoring Station Map. I think that you are correct - the insert show something near Redwood City but I cannot make out the #:


Web Link

There are no noise monitoring stations any further south.

"And SFO should be on-board to the concerns - they are focusing on departures vs arrivals. Our issues are in the "arrivals" category."

Departures are where the highest DNLs are recorded; in contrast arrivals are much quieter because they are flown at much lower power settings. So SFO IS focussing exactly where the problem is - departures.

This is from the January and February 2014 noise complaint reports to the SFO Roundtable:

Web Link

Web Link

From SFO's perspective it sure doesn't look like Palo Alto has a aircraft noise problem.

Noisy nosys - I said photos and video. I think that a video would capture the sound. Don't you?

6 inbound to SFO.
3 over Newark.
3 over Palo Alto.

That 50:50

Peter - What part of Palo Alto are they flying over?

"I think that a video would capture the sound. Don't you?"

Yes but it would be an uncalibrated sound and there would be no way to know how loud the sound you heard actually was. Aircraft noise monitoring systems are all carefully calibrated to produce well defined sound level results.

Have you posted any complaints to the SFO Noise Monitoring Office?

Have you filed written comments in response to the NorCal OAPM Draft Environmental Assessment?

Catherine - You are not paying attention.

I posted a radar map of their exact flight paths - what more can I do.

PLEASE look at the information which has been posted:

Web Link

Peter - I'm in the learning and gathering information phase and will do some research and possibly pursue it further. Maybe we need aircraft noise monitoring systems in Palo Alto. I don't know, but thank you for all the information.

According to this data you posted, can you tell me where in Palo Alto they are flying over?

6 inbound to SFO.
3 over Newark.
3 over Palo Alto.

That 50:50

Catherine - Did you look at the radar map that I posted?????

I see your information, but I want to know what you think? When those 3 planes flew over Palo Alto, what neighborhoods were affected?

" but I want to know what you think?"

What I think is irrelevant; the radar tracks are 'ground truth' and, since you need someone to tell you what you anyone can clearly see, the three airplanes flying over at 10:41 on April 15, 2014 were respectively:

1 - flying over west Menlo Park, then Stanford, then downtown Palo Alto and then over East Palo Alto

2 - flying over Woodside then Los Altos Hills, then south Palo Alto and then East Palo Alto

3 - flying over west Menlo Park, then Stanford, then downtown Palo Alto and then over East Palo Alto

Why is this not clear from the radar tracks that I posted?

When planes arrive from the south this is the most common route across Stanford, downtown Palo Alto, east Menlo Park and East Palo Alto:

Web Link

My home is shown as the "house" on this map - I am closer than most people in Palo Alto to this track and the planes are also at a lower altitude, hence more noise, when passing near my home.

Planes arriving from the north and pacific usually fly more northerly and less predictable tracks.

According to this link Downtown Palo is in the direct flight path of the Surf Air planes and I do see and hear Surf Air planes also. I wonder why Palo Alto wasn't included in the bar graph photo?

Looks like there is some history regarding plane noise in Atherton.....


Web Link

"When planes arrive from the south this is the most common route across Stanford, downtown Palo Alto, east Menlo Park and East Palo Alto:"

I agree, the planes cross over Stanford and at night one right after the other right over my home. So to the back of my home I get the influx of planes coming over the Stanford Hills towards SFO and the front of my home gets the Northbound loop back to SFO. It's like a double whammy! But I have lived here for so many years and never noticed it before until fairly recently.

Catherine,
That is a great link -thanks.

Palo Alto is not included because the report was produced for the SFO Roundtable which does not, unfortunately, include Palo Alto. Getting Palo Alto on that roundtable would be a very constructive effort for concerned Palo Alto residents.

The SJC WebTRak does record SurfAir flights:

Web Link

Catherine,
Note on page 8 of that report that the wealthy communities like Atheron and Palo Alto want to 'solve' the SurfAir noise problem simply by moving iy=t over less affluent communities - I strongly disagree even though my home is quite near the current SurfAir flight path.

Does anyone out there remember the Shoreline noise problems?

Just thought of it, and if I remember correctly it had some similarities to the current plane noise issue. People living on one block, were saying it sounded like Shoreline was next door, while two block away you could hardly hear a thing.

Shoreline and/or the City eventually brought in sound engineers to study the problem, and they ended up saying it had to do with a peculiar inversion layer over Palo Alto that could reflect and focus the sound from Shoreline onto certain neighborhoods, or even blocks in Palo Alto.

Shoreline made some adjustments to their acoustics, and it really has not been a big problem, since the adjustments were made.

In August 2013 the South China Morning Post reported that the FAA, in response to the Asiana crash at SFO, "temporarily" banned Foreign Airlines from using the visual approach routes into SFO which begin final approach at IAF Menlo at 5,000' and instead advised them to only fly GPS final approach routes into SFO. Some of the GPS approach routes begin final approach at IAF Menlo at around 3,000'.

Just wondering if this change in final approach altitude is allowing some of these larger overseas flights to slip beneath the Palo Alto inversion layer, so the noise is reflected to the ground, and onto certain neighborhoods?

FAA bans foreign pilots from visual approaches at SFO
Air Traffic Management ~ July 30, 2013 Web Link

TIPP TOE VISUAL RWY 28L/R: http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1404/00375TIPPTOE_VIS28LR.PDF

RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 28R: http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1404/00375RZ28R.PDF

>>> I think that a video would capture the sound. Don't you?

No. Your cell phone camera is hardly a calibrated monitoring device.

Does Palo Alto ever measure noise, anywhere? (loud parties? blowers? construction noise?)

" Some of the GPS approach routes begin final approach at IAF Menlo at around 3,000'."

Any approach which begins at MENLO does NOT overfly Palo Alto at all.

My take on this is that the altitude should be raised to 5,000 feet over this area until they cross the two bridges. They have the ability to de-accelerate fairly quickly. That would get everyone off the hook for the majority of the noise.

As to Surf Air it is going down Middlefield over many schools from grammar to high schools in that specific area - Palo Alto through Atherton, Redwood City to San Carlos. There are other private charter planes - Delta has a fleet of them - and others that are using different equipment. They are quieter. Surf made a bad choice in equipment - they are the only that is getting complaints. And SFO does have an area for the smaller private jets so they are not restricted to a low altitude like Surf Air.

Surf Air should be moved over the bay - not hug Middlefield. The area it would be over is industrial - not schools and homes.

Crossing the San Mateo bridge at 5000 ft when mean descending at almost 900 ft/min which is a dangerous and uncomfortable rate of descent.

Putting SurfAir east if 101 put then both over other people' s homes and in direct conflict with PAO traffic.

About fifteen years ago, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo established a 5000 ft rule. It was adhered to for a while, but gradually, the altitude creeped back down to even lower than before that rule. I saw a flight coming through College Terrace to turn toward San Fracisco directly over the intersection of California Ave and El Camino. It was so low and headed so close to the red brick building on the corner I was sure it was going to hit it-or so it appeared from my spot in my car. BTW--I used to attend the Roundtable until it became apparent that it was a space created to contain complaints with no change

That's why it is so important to keep the 55-ft limit on new buildings in Palo Alto.

Jet girl-- yours is the funniest and biggest whopper of all the over exaggerations posted on this thread. A plane at the corner of California and el camino that was headed to SFO, that was so low that it was going to hit the " big red building" on the corner???? Wow and you are saying that with a straight face????
And I thought it was the FAA that determines altitudes etc. when did congress pass this law??

Jetgirl,

Please contact Midtowner at veroforyou at gmail.com. No spam, and you will not be contacted again without your approval.

Thanks!

Jetman

Can anyone out there confirm the exact location of IAF Menlo. I have read reports placing it as far north as the intersection of Willow and 101, and as far south as the intersection of Embarcadero and 101.

Waypoint Menlo is 37 deg 27' 49N and 122 deg 9' 13W which is about 1 mile north of Stanford Hospital and 1 mile west of PAO

That MENLO point maps to the Willows neighborhood of Menlo Park.
O'Keefe St and Laurel Ave is nearest road intersection, then move 250 feet northeast.
Say 0.36 mile south-southeast of Willow and 101.

Anna Eshoo has been very active helping some local communities get relief from airplane noise. Congress does not vote on plane altitudes, but Washington politicians do have their connections in the administration and can get some things to change if they really want to push the idea with the proper authorities. I am sure that Win Win knows this.

Unfortunately, it seems Ms. Eshoo, a former Atherton and current Menlo Park resident, plays favorites with some communities in her district.

Peter,

OK, thanks. I'm getting the same location as Musical.

What I am observing is a steady stream of commercial jets flying north over the Southgate and Evergreen neighborhoods of Palo Alto. This is an area bounded by El Camino, Alma, Churchill, and Page Mill. If these aircraft continue on their path north, they would pass over the Old Palo Alto, Community Center and Crescent Park.

Since many of these aircraft have the distinctive orange Southwest livery, I have assumed these aircraft were the commuter flights arriving from the south along the Big Sur Arrival route, and they were heading to IAF Menlo, and final approach.

Flightracker traces confirm heavy traffic along this flight path, and Southwest even requires their pilots to perform virtual check-rides along the Big Sur route to Menlo IAF, to maintain their pilot status.

Palo Alto Neighborhood Map: Web Link

1hr Flightraker Trace 02/04/14: Web Link

Virtual SWA Check ride for Chief Pilot Status: Web Link

I am using FlightStats - download from the SFO site. It shows the planes -arrival are yellow, departures are blue. It has a program problem in the area between Woodside and Portola Valley - the image freezes in that area but you can click on the image and get the altitude. I was looking at a Japan Airlines 787-8 that was coming in around 5:00 and the image froze - then said that no information would be provided on that plane.
A lot of SkyWest and Compass Airlines in the commute traffic mixed in with the larger planes. One SkyWest was 2,300 over Menlo Park. It has a graph which shows all of the planes that are expected in that hour. I am going to email SFO and indicate the problem in that area since this comes from their site.

Y'all keep talking numbers of flights, tracks, altitude....

Isn't it about NOISE?

Who's going to measure the NOISE?

The minimum permitted altitude on the Big Sur route from BOLDR to MENLO IAF is 6000 ft and the 3000 ft from MENLO to localizer interception.

"I am using FlightStats - download from the SFO site."

I find the SJO WebTrak more user friendly and it covers most of the SFO airspace south of SFO and it works on a Mac:

Web Link

8 inbound SFO
5 over Newark
1 over Los Altos Hills and Mountain View
1 over Menlo Park and East Palo Alto
1 over west Menlo Park, Stanford and south Palo Alto

Web Link

Peter - you keep saying what the requirements are but it is not being followed. The planes are doing whatever they need to do in high traffic areas and time periods. Virgin Airlines is a "hurry up and wait". The Sky West commuters fitting in, half the time doing fly overs. They approach at a very high altitude then circle back down the peninsula and turn north. The 747-400's are sometimes higher, sometimes lower. If they are drifting past behind my tree line then they are lower.

And since we are the topic what is the requirement for the PA airport. There is this white airplane that goes over very low - it is suppose to be closer to the freeway and east of 101. That plane needs a complaint.

resident - use SJO WebTrak to see the actual flight paths and altitudes and then both report the specific low ones her and to SFO.

Re the PAO complaint - again use SJO WebTrak to get the data including the tail number and report it to the PAO office.

On WebTrak you can go back to any previous time to get data on a particular flight that you feel is operating inappropriately.

Facts count, impressions are easily dismissed.

Peter,

I think your perception of this problem may be colored by your over reliance on the FlightStats tool, but is not necessarily in conflict with what people in Palo Alto are observing.

The FlightStats tool is showing a snapshot in time. During that snapshot there may only be one plane over Palo Alto, but if you took another snapshot 5-10 minutes later, you find another, different plane over Palo Alto, an so on, and so on.

This is what people on the ground are reporting... a plane flying over Palo Alto every 5-10 minutes, and creating 60-90 seconds of noise as it passes over.

The Flighttraker tool can do timed captures of flight tracks. In the example below, a one hour capture shows 13 flights over Palo Alto. 10 in the heavy track from the south, 2 from the north making a u-turn over Palo Alto, and 1 from the west.

1hr Flightraker Trace 02/04/14: Web Link

Here is YOUR opportunity to both be better informed and to voice your opinion:

Web Link

FAA invites comment from residents under flight paths
by Dave Boyce / Almanac



A strong turnout from Portola Valley, Ladera and Woodside is expected at the workshop hosted by the Federal Aviation Administration in the San Mateo Public Library at 55 W. 3rd Ave. at 4 p.m. on Thursday, April 17.

At issue: the noise made by a gradually increasing number of commercial aircraft as they pass over Peninsula communities, some of higher altitude, as they approach the San Francisco International Airport.

Jetman - your web link does not work

1hr Flightraker Trace 02/04/14: Web Link

Jetman - Thanks. Are you running this on a PC or a Mac? I cannot get it to run on a Mac.

Peter,

A PC. Maybe you can get to work on a Mac using Bootcamp?

"FAA invites comment from residents under flight paths"
The Almanac/Dave Boyce ~ April 16, 2014 Web Link

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

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

I prefer the FLIGHTSTATS though not totally accurate. I was looking at the map and there was no plane over Palo Alto on the map, but overhead was an Airbus, LAX to SFO which showed up on the screen a bit later. Opinion I have been in a Airbus and it is noisy inside. Cheap Plane - stick with Boeing.
I accessed this from the SFO site, Arrivals - which provides a list - click on a right side box nest to any plane and it will provide the whole map with all planes in the vicinity - arrivals and departures. It is entertaining. The planes that get trapped between Woodside and Portola Valley are the planes that have arrived from the north and are going down the peninsula to get back in a north approach. Compass Airlines and SkyWest get caught here. I think there is a cell phone blank out here also.

I used the SFO flight tracker to track flights for numerous time periods. When one becomes familiar with the data, it is clear that Palo Alto bears a disproportionate burden of SFO bound air traffic. When winds are out of the usual direction - 80-90 percent of the time - the majority of flights transversing the peninsula fly over Palo Alto and East Palo Alto. There are no other cities on the peninsula for which this is true.

So for all those in this thread who want to dispute whether Palo Alto suffers a disproportionate number of jet overflights, I have a challenge: specify one 24 hour period when the majority of flights crossing the peninsula do not cross over Palo Alto. The data exists to prove or disprove this empirical statement in the form of the SFO Flight Tracker information (unlike all the musing about "sound levels" and "slant distances", etc.) You won't do this because there is no such 24 hour time period.

It's wrong that San Mateo County cities have used the political process to foist SFO air traffic problems onto Palo Alto. There is no reason, other than political reasons, why SFO couldn't return to a system where most flights fly over other cities on the Peninsula, like they did 20 years ago.

"When one becomes familiar with the data, it is clear that Palo Alto bears a disproportionate burden of SFO bound air traffic. When winds are out of the usual direction - 80-90 percent of the time - the majority of flights transversing the peninsula fly over Palo Alto and East Palo Alto. "

This is simply not true - I challenge you to provide evidence which shows ALL flights over the peninsula and what % of those cross over Palo Alto vs crossing over Menlo Park, East Palo Alto and Foster City.

Unfortunately the SFO tracker is not Mac compatible so hopefully Jetman with his PC can record a complete 24 hour period showing ALL of the SFO arrivals and we will see what is the truth.

Here is the classic SFO approach from southern California:

Web Link

Note that after these planes cross over Palo Alto they then fly over Menlo Park and East Palo Alto AT A LOWER ALTITUDE.

Now tell me again why you claim that Palo Alto gets more noise than its northern neighbors even from these southern California approaches?

Peter,

Web Link
Your link (above) is showing exactly what I am seeing. Classic Big Sur route from SoCal heading for IAF Menlo, and final approach to SFO.

Once they pass Stanford Stadium the floor for class B airspace drops from 4,000' to 2,500 so Northern Palo Alto is in the same boat as eastern Menlo Park, and East Palo Alto, although you can argue that in practice they need time to get to the lower floor after crossing the boundary.

Jetman and I agree - Note that after these planes cross over Palo Alto they then fly over Menlo Park and East Palo Alto AT A LOWER ALTITUDE - which means higher ground level noise footprint.

Now tell me again how anyone can claim that Palo Alto gets more noise than its northern neighbors even from these southern California approaches?

Well - the true "season" is upon use. Marked by the flowers in bloom, longer days, and a change in the way sound moves. as it gets warmer the way sound moves changes.

Yes - very early the planes are rolling in. Like the waves in the ocean. We are now starting the real season of airplanes rolling in with their attendant noise.

Why you all are analyzing the situation note that the problem on hand is not who has more noise - but how to address the situation to reduce the noise. Isn't that the goal here?

"The FlightStats tool is showing a snapshot in time. During that snapshot there may only be one plane over Palo Alto, but if you took another snapshot 5-10 minutes later, you find another, different plane over Palo Alto, an so on, and so on.

This is what people on the ground are reporting... a plane flying over Palo Alto every 5-10 minutes, and creating 60-90 seconds of noise as it passes over."

Jetman - you are correct. Different planes, different directions, non-stop every 3-4 minutes. There is maybe 1 minute of quiet before another one starts. Downtown North is getting it's fair share as I'm sure Menlo Park and East Palo Alto are too.

"Jetman and I agree - Note that after these planes cross over Palo Alto they then fly over Menlo Park and East Palo Alto AT A LOWER ALTITUDE - which means higher ground level noise footprint.

Now tell me again how anyone can claim that Palo Alto gets more noise than its northern neighbors even from these southern California approaches?"

Peter - do you realize how close Palo Alto Avenue is to Menlo Park? A few blocks maybe? There is even a bridge that connects us. The altitude in which the plane is flying is pretty darn close and I'm sure we are experiencing fairly the same amount of noise. Planes don't descend that fast.

Clearly, Palo Alto, East Palo Alto and EASTERN Menlo Park are getting much more noise than the rest of southern San Mateo County from SFO bound planes.

Part of the reason is that, through the intervention of Anna Eshoo, southern San Mateo has obtained changes that have pushed inbound airplanes into Palo Alto.

It is silly to argue that Palo Alto does not have a particular noise issue, especially coming from people who do not live in Palo Alto. Those people much have an agenda other than "educating" Palo Alto residents.

We all need to work together for a fairer spreading of airplane noise between all of our communities. I believe it is time for PA residents to take this issue to the political arena.

If Anna Eshoo represents Menlo Park who is representing Palo Alto? We need to lock into the people that have our interest at heart.

"It is silly to argue that Palo Alto does not have a particular noise issue, especially coming from people who do not live in Palo Alto"

I live in Atherton and I live closer to the souther arrival flight track that do most do residents of Palo Alto - and when the planes pass my home they are lower than when they are over Palo Alto. So quit trying to disenfranchise me from the discussion.

My home is shown on here relative to the southern approach track:

Web Link

Peter, you are wrong. You are not even close to those planes, which don't fly at all over Atherton. PA/EPA/Eastern MP are the communities that bear the brunt of those flights that fly directly above them.

Midtown - You are so egocentric that you refuse to accept that anyone except Palo Alto has airplane noise; look again:

Web Link

Closer to my home than to most Palo Alto homes and at a lower altitude.

Peter Carpenter,

"Now tell me again how anyone can claim that Palo Alto gets more noise than its northern neighbors even from these southern California approaches?"

Not sure, I'm not an expert, but

The reason Palo Alto gets more noise is because the loudest airplanes are the ones changing altitude above Palo Alto. Their equipment changes make noise. It may as well be SFO the way some of the planes sound.

There is a big difference between silent planes flying over (we have some of those) and the ones making a racket.

I have a theory that Peter Carpenter has a plane of his own, and he's the one with the buzzing noise that we also get from time to time, clanky little planes from yesteryear.

The data remains fuzzy but the noise is loud an clear.

"I have a theory that Peter Carpenter has a plane of his own, and he's the one with the buzzing noise that we also get from time to time, clanky little planes from yesteryear."

No, I stopped flying my own plane almost 10 years ago.

So what is your next shot of trying to dismiss anyone who does not agree with your perspective?

@Catherine

"This is what people on the ground are reporting... a plane flying over Palo Alto every 5-10 minutes, and creating 60-90 seconds of noise as it passes over."

I have lived in the Midtown area for over 20 years. Additionally, I have an interest in gardening and aviation. Thus, when I am outside gardening I usually pause to look up and check out any plane as it passes overhead. I have noticed very little difference in aviation traffic over the past several years. As far as the noise itself, my experience is that there is enough noise for me to look up when I am outdoors, but not enough that I hear it indoors. In fact, the noise from the Oregon Expressway and Bayshore is more of an issue for me. Far worse than aviation noise, or the car noise I experience in my neighborhood, is the daily noise of a gardener mowing or blowing and the noise of houses being remodeled or rebuilt. I wish that the city much more actively enforced the laws we have on the books regarding these sounds.

I agree with some of the other comments here that suggest that people hear things differently, but since I have a reputation in my family for being extremely noise intolerant, I am surprised to hear that our local aviation noise is bothering that many of you. Many years ago I lived outside London in the flight path to Heathrow. During that time the Concorde flew in and out regularly - now that was noisy!!! And uncomfortable for the ears.

@ Peter Carpenter

Thank you for all of the web links you have provided. Facts are always helpful when trying to examine a problem or dispute. I appreciate the time you spend sharing the web links to maps, flight paths, etc...

Here is a 747, one of those complained about above, that crosses Menlo Park and East Palo Alto and never touches Palo Alto.

Web Link