A big thank you to Congresswoman Eshoo and to Palo Alto's Sky Posse for working so hard and diligently on this issue.

More information on Sky Posse and the aircraft noise problems "nextgen" has brought to Palo Alto, and the region, can be found at Sky Posse's website, at the website of Save Our Skies Santa Cruz, and Aviation Impact Reform:

Sky Posse Palo Alto: Web Link

Save Our Skies Santa Cruz: Web Link

Aviation Impact Reform: Web Link

A comment by Eshoo demonstrates a proper appreciation that this is a regional issue:

"Eshoo said any fixes would have to take the entire region into account and asked the FAA to develop short- and long-term strategies."

This is a great step forward, thank you!

I attended the SkyPosse meeting yesterday. It was a great turn out and people were sharing their concern about the noise.

The noise problem is real to them, it impacts their mental health in a negative way.

Kudos to Skyposse members for pulling this together. We need to keep up the pressure on FAA in order to eventually bring some relief to these folks and our community.

Great news!

Thank you Anna Eschoo,SkyPosse and others for their great work in representing our community!!
This list is for those who have found it difficult to locate the phone numbers to call and complain about airplane noise.

Please keep up our protest whenever disturbed by the air noise. You can use these numbers to call regularly. Some of the complaint lines count each call and some count the same person just one time each month.

SFO Airport complaint line: 877-206-8290
Palo Alto Airport: 650 329-2405
San Jose Airport: 408-392-3501
San Carlos Airport-Surf Air: 650 573-2666

THE FAA
San Jose: 408 291-7681
Oakland (This station covers SFO): 510 748-0122

Hoping that the usual crowd of people complaining about this problem (and, presumably, complaining about other topics such as Caltrain noise) understand that not all residents are aligned with them.

I know that I and many other residents would be happy with more air traffic and more train noise if it stemmed from more flights available out of SFO and more trains out of downtown and Cal Ave. I'm not a pilot, but there are also plenty of residents who use and appreciate the Palo Alto airport, since general aviation has been an important part of our city for a long time.

"I and many other residents would be happy with more air traffic and more train noise... "

Happy to oblige. I'll put some .mp3s of those sounds on the web for your listening pleasure. Watch this space for the URL.

Prior to Friday's meeting the ONLY data the FAA had about the severity of the jet noise and air pollution problem over our area was the complaint log from SFO.I know this because I had a lengthy phone conversation with the FAA's Glen Martin prior to Friday's meeting and that is what he told me. He also told me that the FAA never did any actual noise analysis prior to designing the three jet superhighways that now pass overhead. They used "computer modeling" to gage the new routes' impact over our area, and their modeling was obviously deeply flawed. Because Palo Alto was never part of the SFO Roundtable where adjustments to arrival and departure routes are discussed our community was unprepared to respond to the NextGen noise onslaught. It is essential that the Palo Alto City Council and Palo Alto City Management FINALLY become aggressive and relentless leaders on this quality of life issue. I applaud Congresswoman Eshoo for her continued leadership on our behalf. The FAA has shown that they cannot be relied upon to accurately assess the impact of their actions on our community. Our region requires a comprehensive independent aviation noise and pollution study to inform all stakeholders about reasonable options to balance regional peace and aviation progress. Please contact City Manager James Keene James.Keene@cityofpaloalto.org (650)329-2563 and City Council Members city.council@cityofpaloalto.org And don't forget to continue to log complaints with SFO Web Link The SFO monthly complaint report is STILL the only metric the FAA recognizes when assessing jet noise impact for our area.

"You can use these numbers to call regularly."

This is exactly the reason that aviation professionals heavily discount multiple complaints from a single individual.

I agree with Peter Carpenter! One complaint from each of 100 people carries much more weight than 100 complaints from one person.

I'm with Perspective. I have never felt the noise is excessive. To please a small percentage of residents are we going to inconvinence many more? It looks like it.

NDN-

There is no inconvenience involved.

I am glad that you do not feel that the noise is excessive, but you cannot reasonably say that the complaints of others, for whom the noise is excessive, are invalid.

We feel that every community that benefits from SFO should bear an equitable burden of the noise cost. Over the past few years, the number of flights over Palo Alto has increased at three times the rate of general increase in SFO traffic and the altitudes of flights over Palo Alto have lowered significantly. These routes should be redistributed so that all communities are affected more or less evenly.

And not just evenly among communities, but distributed by flying higher.

If planes would go back to flying higher, and spread out, the noise would dissipate.

Flying higher seems to be a problem for the airlines, and worth looking into, why do they have to fly so low because of these new technologies?

The solution to pollution is dilution. Spread out the tracks and share the burden. Everybody gets impacted equally, but not so much as the elect few are now.

In Europe, airline pilots fly much steeper descent tracks. This keeps them at altitude longer, where airliners operate at peak efficiency. It also reduces the noise footprint. Why not here?

I don't find the airplane noise excessive, just as I don't find train noise excessive, even though I live close to the railroad tracks. I love looking up at the sky, trying to identify each plane, and wondering where each plane originated. I find it exciting.

In response to the note suggesting that we call the complaint lines only once.

If the airplanes continue to bombard us with noise on a daily basis I feel that complaining on a regular basis is appropriate. We would not want FAA to think that the communities are getting used to the noise or that they don't care enough to follow through with pursuing the problem. KEEP CALLING!. At the other end the calls are being sorted. Some will know that the complaints are repeated when they are. However, 1000 people complaining each month will let the FAA know that their problem with the public is not going away. It actually was suggested to me on one of the calls (sorry I don't remember which) that a new complaint list is begun each month so I should call one time each month if the noise continues to bother me. I will!

Change happens through people joining together and making their voices heard.

"In Europe, airline pilots fly much steeper descent tracks."

This is an incorrect statement .

" Today, ICAO PANS-OPS states, that:
 a) glide path or approach angles should not require an approach to
be made:
1) above the ILS glide path angle;
2) above the glide path angle of the visual approach slope indicator system;
3) above the normal PAR final approach angle; and
4) above an angle of 3° except where it has been necessary to establish, for operational purposes, an ILS with a glide path angle greater than 3°;
 Yet, ICAO did not adopt a preferred ILS glide path of 3 degrees until 1978 (up from 2.5 degrees), many years after 3 degrees was already a de-facto standard."

Various airports are experimenting with steeper glide paths but 3% remains the international standard.

However, there ARE many other excellent alternatives to the current approach path procedures and some are detailed in this excellent report - note both the Advanced -CDA and the Herringbone or Trident Approach Pattern:

Web Link

Thank you Anna Eshoo and Skypossee. For residents who like the noise come to Colorado and Louis or my backyard and listen to planes hammering overhead. Our family was trying to enjoy supper in our patio area at 7:30pm. There were so many low flying planes, around 1 every 3 minute so, complete deterioration of quality of life. Our City needs to aggressively do all they can to uphold our quality of life......including noise and air pollution.

"in our patio area at 7:30pm. There were so many low flying planes, around 1 every 3 minute so,"

There were 10 planes inbound to SFO over Palo Alto between 7:15 and 7:45 PM yesterday and during that time a total of 23 planes landed at SFO - so the other 13 did not fly over Palo Alto.

Peter,

So, according to your own count, between 7:15 and 7:45 yesterday an SFO bound aircraft crossed over Palo Alto once every 3.0 minutes! And, during that time period, 43.5% of ALL SFO bound traffic crossed over Palo Alto.

This is pretty impressive in itself, but needs context to be put into perspective. How many SFO bound craft crossed over Atherton during that same time period? Menlo Park? Redwood City? San Carlos? Mountain View?

"How many SFO bound craft crossed over Atherton during that same time period? Menlo Park? Redwood City? San Carlos? Mountain View?"

Good questions - please answer them.

@Perspective: general aviation has not been an important part of Palo Alto. It contributed absolute nothing to Palo Alto except noise, polution and danger. On the other hand, it managed to lose money for years despite being allowed to operate rent free, a permanent welfare recipient.

Maybe it's just me but I do like to fly safely. SFO is a tricky airport to fly into and demanding a steeper approach for the sake of those in a narrow corridor in Palo Alto strikes me as a case of not caring about what happens as long as I can eat dinner outside in relative silence.

I live near the train tracks. It's fine by me. I got used to it and it's neither that loud nor that disturbing. It's just a fact of urban life. The planes do not pass all over Palo Alto. It's just a narrow slice of it that gets noise. Maybe the noise it's really intense, I don't know, but please do not dismiss the dangers that go with changing the route for the sake of few.

We leave in a large metropolitan area so commercial airport noise is a fact of life. We should feel fortunate to have 3 large airports so close to us for all the flight options they offer us to travel.

However what irks me is flights at Palo Alto airport ( PAO). Why should my weekend enjoyment be impacted by buzzing small planes operated by recreational flyers? The voluntary noise abatement guidelines are a joke with even the contacts at PAO saying they have no ability to enforce them. What do 99% of the citizen of Palo Alto gain from having an airport operated by the city of palo alto????

@ndn

The noise is really intense. I've lived in South San San Francisco and downtown San Jose before so I'm used to plane noise. The difference here seems to be the planes fly lower and comes at higher frequency. I also hear a random mixture of jets and prop planes, making it hard to filter out. So what used to be background noise to me now becomes an aggravation.

@Peter Carpenter,

As best as I can tell, your agenda is to convince people in Palo Alto to NOT complain about airplane noise so the flights are not moved north to Atherton. It's pure self-interest.

"As best as I can tell,"

You simply haven't read my postings so you clearly have no basis for knowing what my agenda is.

Feel free to post direct quotes from my postings which prove you allegation.

I couldn't sleep properly this night. Horrendous plane noise has waked me up, and i had trouble falling asleep again. So far nothing changed since the FAA meeting and i continue to file noise complains with SFO when my pain and frustration goes beyond a certain point. It seems planes fly along a very particular sky highway greatly effecting people who happen to live just under. Also some people are more sensitive to the noise then others. Also some houses have better sound proofing then others. It amazes me that some people who happen to live outside the effected area waste their time here trying to claim there is no problem. Well there is no problem for them. So why they not go and spend their time elsewhere??

By the way, this is the first time in my more than 10 years life in Palo Alto when i feel compelled to write on the Townsquare and file complains about anything. Only this indicates how great pain and frustration is for me and some other people!!

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 7, 2013 at 1:08 pm
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
Everyone should realize that just shifting the flight path to the East simply means moving the noise problem to someone else's neighborhood. In this case that means to East Palo Alto and Eastern Menlo Park. The articulate and more powerful residents of Lindenwood and NFO win but our neighbors to the East lose.


*****************
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 11, 2013 at 11:06 am
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
"Not sure what the agenda here is" - Primarily to help interested individuals understand the facts and the law.


"you are defending their right to irritate everyone? "
No, I am just making it clear the the FAA has FULL control of this issue.

And it is my opinion that shifting the perceived noise problem to less vocal and less wealthy communities is both selfish and wrong.
**********

So, is my agenda now clear? And that my agenda has been clear for years?

Who talks about "shifting the problem"?

We didn't have this problem a couple of years ago. It is that FAA is stupid and irresponsible. And their priorities like "fuel efficiency" that trumps noise and environmental pollution are plain wrong, especially now when oil prices are so low. They want plane efficiency, why not to work to produce more efficient engines, etc. It is not that Palo Alto is 2 miles from the airport and physically speaking nothing can be done!! They should move planes to fly over the ocean or they should make them fly on much higher altitudes so nobody sees and hears them 20 miles away from the airport. Now they have this new powerful navigation system but they have no brains to use it properly!!

@ Leland:

YOU did not have the problem a couple of years ago. East Palo Alto, Fair Oaks, Redwood City, Foster City have had this problem for years, and have less of it now, as do Woodside and Atherton. NexGen is supposed to reduce the carbon footprint of the airline industry. I guess that is no longer an important issue to formerly Green Palo Altans!

NOMBY (Not Over My Back Yard)

"Who talks about "shifting the problem"?"

The whole point of this thread is that Palo Alto gets more than its share of airplane noise and therefore some of that noise should be "shifted" to others.

" It is that FAA is stupid and irresponsible."

That is your opinion.

Here is a wonderful article on "opinions":
Web Link

"There’s a common conception that an opinion cannot be wrong. My dad said it. Hell, everyone’s dad probably said it and in the strictest terms it is true. However, before you crouch behind your Shield of Opinion you need to ask yourself two questions.

1. Is this actually an opinion?

2. If it is an opinion how informed is it and why do I hold it?"

"In other words, you can form an opinion in a bubble, and for the first couple of decades of our lives we all do. However, eventually you are going to venture out into the world and find that what you thought was an informed opinion was actually just a tiny thought based on little data and your feelings. Many, many, many of your opinions will turn out to be uninformed or just flat out wrong. No, the fact that you believed it doesn’t make it any more valid or worthwhile, and nobody owes your viewpoint any respect simply because it is yours.

You can be wrong or ignorant. It will happen. Reality does not care about your feelings. Education does not exist to persecute you. The misinformed are not an ethnic minority being oppressed. "

"Perspective" is a plant. And I bet he doesn't live in Old PA.

We're not suggesting that flights gets shifted onto others. In fact, the flights got shifted onto Palo Alto in the first place. And not just PA, Santa Cruz and Los Gatos as well. What people are trying to do is to figure out constructive ways to reduce plane noise overall (fly higher, over water, herringbone approach, etc). There are a lot of smart people here in the Bay Area. There must be better solutions than just claiming there's not a problem. The SkyPosse meeting with the FAA is one of those productive solutions.

I wish the FAA had done a better impact study before implementing the new flight plans. From what I understand, they used computer simulations which predicted that there would be no impact to the communities under the new flight path. Obviously those models they used are wrong judging by the complaints being generated. I understand though that they are a federal govt organization can pretty much do what they want.

Imagine if PGE has the same powers with the issue regarding the removal of 1400 trees around the gas lines in Menlo Park and Atherton. According to PGE the trees needs to go to improve the safety of our gas lines which is a reasonable goal. What if PGE unilaterally decide to remove those trees one day without community consultation, just because they can. I feel the FAA did the same with the new flight plans.

For those not bothered by the excessive, low-flying planes, count your lucky stars. But remember, just because it doesn't bother you doesn't make the issue invalid. And for Peter, a resident of Atherton, your comments are self-serving. Atherton complaints regarding airplane noise has dropped to almost zero because air traffic has been re-routed to avoid Atherton and increase over Palo Alto. Moving air traffic far enough east means over the water, not over East Palo Alto, etc.

For those worried about safety -- the changes in routing and altitude has nothing to do with safety and will neither increase or decrease safe flights. It is about efficiency, at the expense of residents. There is no reason to be flying over a densely populated area this far from the airport at 3000ft. It used to be 5000ft and that altitude posed no safety problems.

As for being "green" -- the changes may save the airlines money, but the greater frequency and lower altitudes increase air pollution in our area caused by aircraft exhaust. Add in the noise pollution and going "green" is a fallacy.

Good post "Stanford", thank you.

Peter says "Everyone should realize that just shifting the flight path to the East simply means moving the noise problem to someone else's neighborhood. In this case that means to East Palo Alto and Eastern Menlo Park."

The lowest altitudes of planes on the Big Sur Route as they pass over the Menlo Intersection are going over East Palo Alto. So what is the protection you are trying to offer them Peter? They are already dealing with the brunt of it.

The planes on the Big Sur Route pass over Los Altos around 6,000 feet, then over Barron Park at about 5,000 feet, then over North Palo Alto at about 4,500 feet, then over the Willows in Menlo Park at about 4,000 feet, and then over East Palo Alto under 4,000 feet.

If you want to protect East Menlo and East Palo Alto then you should look into moving the Menlo Intersection.

This is great news. As I work at my desk in my home office the frequent flight noise interrupts my train of thought and wears me down. Occasionally, it is so loud it drowns out conversation. At night it wakes me. I can live with some of this, but the frequency has become hard to live with.

Please expedite change. I realize flights are necessary. People have to travel, but I hope we can do a better job distributing the flight patterns so that some areas are not so much more heavily impacted than others. Let's share the burden fairly.

Thanks Anna Eshoo for taking this on!

Another good post by Neighbor! Thanks!

The best we can hope for is that the noise problem is evened out over the area. It seems unlikely the number of airplane flights will decrease.

I think these are new Palo Alto residents that are complaining. They overpaid for their houses and now are up to their ears in mortgage debt. At those prices they apparently expected no-fly zones over their houses.
[Portion removed.]

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

Thank you, Peter Carpenter, for your logical, savvy advice on these problems. And, for gently correcting those people who really don't get it.

No, folks, it IS affecting more than just a few Palo Altans. At l AM, I love to lie awake and listen to the down thrust roar of those huge jets as they lumber down. Sweet dreams.....

Not quite on point but.......But, for those of you who speak so bravely about "living near the tracks" and bearing it so gallantly. Come over to the Charleston/Alma intersection when the roar of one or more freight trains go by between 1-4 AM; sweet dreams.....

And, then there's the RR loud, warning bell that clangs incessantly, often for several minutes. I live two blocks away, and I feel badly for those who live very near the any Alma/cross-street intersection.

I am in Community Center. I also have Flight Tracker. Planes do NOT come in every 2-3 minutes. Last night, in the hour I was outside, about 4 lower flying commercials came in, and 4 that were up so high as to almost not be heard. It's not the commercial aircraft that's the problem, it's the private jets and small aircraft. Those things buzz overhead all day long, some repeatedly just over our yard...I don't appreciate the invasion of privacy and the loud buzzing of the engines.

AND, I lived at Alma and Churchill for 15 years...after a while, you don't hear the railroad noise anymore. The only time that became an issue is when they did construction on the tracks at night. That was loud and bothersome.

Yanno, the trains and airport were there when most of you moved in. Really the only thing that has become more intrusive are the private flights...much the same as they were a nuisance during the last bubble.

As a long time Palo Alto resident, I can tell you that we did not used to have SFO traffic over us, and should not have had to expect such traffic over us, since Palo Alto is 20 miles away from SFO.

What actually happened is that SFO bound flights used to fly above Woodside and Atherton, as well as other South San Mateo County towns. These towns complained about it and obtained to have the traffic shifted down to... you guessed it, Palo Alto, a number of years ago.

Yes, the very Atherton of Peter Carpenter is the town (along with a couple others) that managed to shift SFO bound traffic down to Palo Alto. Now, Mr Carpenter spends all this time here telling us to stop whining and that traffic ought not to be shifted to other towns. How ironic.

YSR - At peak flight times there are planes on the Big Sur Route that fly one right after the other. This is the point of NextGen. It's happening and you can find plenty of times on the tracker where the parade of planes are spread out 3-4 minutes apart. Look at some of the historical data.

Try 7/12/15 from 18:30 - 19:00. There were 9 planes over Palo Alto flying the Big Sur Route one right after the other approx. 2-3 minutes apart in a 30 minute span.

Mr. Carpenter, a non resident of Palo Alto, should stick to involving himself in the politics and issues in the town he lives in. He lives in Atherton. [Portion removed.]

@Resident

Do you have a link to check for historical flight data. Would be a good resource to have. Thanks.

Might I remind those that are personally not 'bothered' by the Air and Train noise today that they must disclose said Air and Train noise is nearby when they go to sell their house.

Some folk never get 'used to' those levels of noise. San Jose bought out (and removed) all the landing path homes near the South SJO back in the late 70's

There are a lot of interesting historical analogies between the aircraft industry and the railroad industry. They are both "regulated" by Federal Agencies, and governed by Federal laws which supersede local regulations.

So many of the people complaining here do not even come close to realizing how much work goes into designing approaches and how complex SFO approaches already are. Some foreign airlines (eg Asiana) do not even allow all their pilots to do SFO visual approaches, given this. If you're really curious about what goes into designing an approach and why it is currently over Palo Alto, read up on the TERPS (google "TERPS FAA") or click this link: Web Link The reality is that only some paths can exist, while others cannot. There are limits to descent rates, turns, obstruction clearance, etc. It is easy to vilify FAA, Planes, Pilots, etc. But that is simply discarding the complexity of the issue.

Before most of your histories, Moffett Field was open and both the P3 turboprops and NASA test flights were a constant source of noise. Most of the other flights AFTER DARK were commercial jets out of SJC. Then we finally got a curfew on flights leaving SJC.
SFO and SJC to use approach and takeoff patterns that brought traffic OVER THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY. That was our traditional " Inverted Wedding Cake " approach and departure pattern and the one I was trained with.
Looking at new traffic patterns, it looks like the best new pattern would be right over Menlo Park out to the initial climb and return over the SFBA at near high altitude climb & speed. For GA out of PAO, a hard climb out over the Bay would also eliminate noise ( I used to live in EPA and most pilots of GA would ignore Noise Abatement rules. )

Conclusion: Money talked. People in Menlo Park and other $$$ areas got what they wanted.

Deal with it.

Oh, near Denver: DIA solved many problems with Stapleton & LowraY1m4y Field being near downtown. I only get GA and Flight For Life choppers. Usually Forestry choppers when there is a fire. I'm on the direct line for DIA approach and departures of the runway. No noise, just the light show.

So, I arrive to the conclusion that the Palo Alto complainers were happier and will be happier still when airplaines route passes over Other communities....

They are an unhappy bunch, pushing their agenda and exagerating to make it more compeling.

a) Please provide the facts, not your opinion
b) Ear plugs are great for a peaceful night
c) not everybody is on your side, remember that
d) the same people complain over and over again, subjectively

I get that there is a problem (for you). I also get that your solution seems to be higher polution, hazardous landings
and moving the problem elsewhere....
oh, I forgotten, and labelling others when they have an opinion that's different from yours.

I've lived in East Palo Alto in the Gardens Neighborhood, which is between IKEA and the bay, since 2005. When I moved here, I rarely saw or heard SFO/SJC planes. Now I see them daily and hear them round the clock. I purposefully bought a house that was not under the SFO flightpath, so I don't get the opinion that those of us affected should just accept this serious degradation to our quality of life.

[Post removed.]

@Stanford,

You might find this site helpful: Web Link

I've seen some other links but don't recall them. Hopefully @Resident or someone else can point you in the right direction.

I haven't yet read everyone's comments. Here is my personal take:

• We have recently experienced greatly increased low-flying air traffic over our house.
• The worst offender, especially on a cost-benefit basis, is Surf Air. It's planes fly far lower and are far noisier than the big jets (maybe because the planes are so low, I'm not sure). And these planes are carrying 6 or 8 passengers, not 200 or 400 like the big planes. To me the trade-off in environmental degradation for the residents of the Peninsula vs. the benefit to the airplane passengers isn't worth it.
• The article quotes council member Dubois, "The tradeoff is the impact on the environment – noise vs. fuel costs." I suggest that maybe the tradeoff is noise & fuel vs. number of passengers carried.

In any case I say that the total increase in low flying aircraft over Palo Alto has significantly lowered the quality of the environment in this city.

Boys and Girls: we're getting a little touchy. Isn't it possible to disagree w/o making caustic remarks that you do not agree with? The FAA problem IS a serious topic, but let's listen to each other. Congratulations to you, Peter, for
listing your name and city and not hiding behind anonymity.


Gloria Pyszka
Palo Alto

@Stu Berman
You got your house after the airport existed I bet (SQL has been there a while). Airport location is no secret. Much like you'd not complain about spiders if you bought a house in the Amazon, or about cars if you choice to live on the highway median, I am afraid your complaint options are rather limited. This was part of your realtor's disclosure packet you read and signed before you paid for your house. I know buyer's remorse sucks, but you had all the chances to do the research. Airport traffic can increase and decrease. You do not get to complain about an airport being used for what it is designed for - planes. It was there first. Sorry.

[Post removed.]

What we have here is competing interests. As a frequent flier and as a human being I want less polution, more safety.
I generally travel with at least 200 other fellow travellers in the same plane.
How many people exactly are affected by airplane noise? And is this airplane noise coming from the big planes or the smaller ones? We need some objectivity, not indignation. We need to understand the people complaining but in order not to dismiss their complains I need to know that they are accurate, not just the result of perception or agenda.

Please lay off Peter Carpenter (I don't know him personally). I have never seen any opinions of his (some of which I disagree) that are less than fair and objective. He always strikes me as not being self-serving. But even if he was, on this issue, aren't the complainers doing exactly what they accuse him of- not wanting planes overhead?

Actually, planes also go over parts of Atherton (Lindenwood, for example)

With all the criticism of the FAA, Regional Director Glenn Martin, VP of Mission Support Elisabeth Lynn Ray, and the many other FAA officials need to be commended for flying to Palo Alto to take the time to listen to our community, and for their sincere commitment to alleviate the problem as quickly as they can. It is hard to wait an additional month or two, when the concentration of air noise over Palo Alto is felt with great pain almost constantly by many, but the FAA has now recognized the problem, and they are working on solutions, immediate and longer-term. 20 years of noise shifting to Palo Alto needs to be rectified, and it's finally being done. These people are competent and fair, and they can solve the problem, now that the correct information is being provided to them in a manner that is not misleading. Our complaints need to continue until then.

Of course, our Representative Anna Eshoo, and also Santa Clara Supervisor Joe Simitian, deserve our biggest share of gratitude as they have both been instrumental in driving the unfair dumping of SF Bay Area airplane noise onto Palo Alto to the forefront of the FAA's agenda, and are committed to see the problem to its just resolution.
.

Dmitry, the Ohlone ingenious people were here in the Palo Alto first too, but were removed so others could settle on their land. Many animals that were here first were eliminated by humans. Sorry but you need to try again.

Please go sign the online petition, we are almost there:
Web Link

Also, it is still not too late to take Eshoo's survey, we need to keep the momentum going!

Web Link

Please pass these links to your neighbors and friends in our community. It is a matter of awareness, and I truly don't give a damn about how people from other communities dismiss this as "small number of complainers".

@mauricio - Palo Alto airport brings $$ millions to the city monthly in tiedown fees, fuel taxes and plane property taxes. Probably a lot more than the complainers. Plus, even if complainers move out (doubt it), their houses will easily sell to new owners who would be OK with it, so there would in fact be no financial loss to the city to ignore the complaints. As long as that is the case, nothing will be done. Sorry, facts.

I saw this article from 2000. Anyone know why this has changed?

"After years of complaints from mid-Peninsula residents, San Francisco International Airport officials have agreed to raise jet altitude requirements in an effort to reduce flight noise over their neighborhoods.
The new policy requires pilots coming into the airport to fly at least 5,000 feet above the "Menlo Park interchange" -- the airspace directly above the Menlo Park-Palo Alto border, said airport spokesman Ron Wilson. The previous guideline called for 4,000 feet."

SFO Will Require Jets to Fly Higher to Reduce Noise / Airport OKs rules after years of complaints
Web Link

I can't comprehend that we are into the Sixth Extinction and planes continue to increase and people sit in parked cars running engines for air conditioning.

We enable FAA's pollution and noise for airline profits from which many stock owners benefit financially.

The entire economic system is to blame. It is distanced from the natural working of nature.

We have met the enemy and he is us........{Pogo

I live in Atherton for full disclosure, It doesn't matter where you live or how much money you make, Let's stop attacking people on a personal basis.

My complaint is about Surf Air, They are beyond annoying and fly so low and are so noisy it has gotten to the point they are affecting our quality of life. Their frequency has been growing. Approaching 200 flights a week, 7 days a week. Being outside is no longer an option as they approach. I would like to say thanks to our local representatives for conducting these meetings on our behalf. In particular to Mr. Horsley for representing the North Fair Oaks area as they have it the worst and are under represented as they are in an unincorporated part of San Mateo County. SurfAir flies as low as 1,000' over Atherton/ Menlo Park and 800' over parts of Redwood City. The plane they fly (Pilatus PC-12) is a turboprop and extremely loud.

Our suggestion to them has been to spread out their approaches to San Carlos Airport. I am not annoyed by Large commercial flights but I have complete empathy for those that are. I think it's only fair to spread out the flights and not use the funnel affect of nex gen.

I find myself rambling.

Thank you Stu Berman for spelling it out clearly and concisely.

Thank you, Stanford comment.

I don't know who this Peter Carpenter guy is, but the point is - nobody wants noise moved from one community to another.

Nobody, clearly, really studied the impact of noise changes of aircraft noise on Palo Alto, Mountain View, etc. when changes were proposed. Computer models - please. They suck and always have.

People want people to share with each other a good, quiet, friendly community. That's all.

And no Anna Eshoo PC meetings are going to help. Lawsuits will.

- Michael

@Dmitry,

As part of the deal for Palo Alto taking over the airport, the city is putting a substantial funds into it. It's going to take many years to payback the approximately $12.5 million in repairs and improvements.

About East Palo Alto - please spread the word in your community to sign the Sky Posse petition and take Anna Eshoo's survey. Your community deserves some relief, as the planes fly extremely low over East Palo Alto as they cross the Menlo Intersection.

Good move.

The other day, around 2-3am, I hear an aircraft noise.
Unless it is an emergency or military need, why do we allow big aircrafts that make noise in our skies that early the morning.

We are special people; we need sleep and/or quietness.
We demand that from FAA and SF Airport Authority.

Yes We Can!

respectfully

Dear Sea Reddy:

Palo Altans are "special people". Oh me. This city has enough of an image problem
w/o statements like that. Many see us as a community of over-privileged folks, which certainly does not
help build a base of support for serious issues.

GP

Sea,

In addition to the survey, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo is also calling for resolutions from all levels of local government, and civic organizations. Perhaps you could help get a resolution from the College Terrace Residents Association (CTRA)?

Other posters who are concerned about this issue, could also help by working with their neighborhood associations, or civic organizations on a resolution.

A list of Palo Alto Neighborhood Associations can be found by going to the PAN webssite and clicking the "who we are" button.

Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN): Web Link

I hope Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport (SJC) is also being looked at too. Huge issue with FAA laws not being followed for years. Noise loud at night and over the weekend, almost sounds like the plane will be landing in my bedroom or in my back yard. Scares the kids outside.

If we could all keep San Jose airport in the loop of this effort to reduce FAA noise in Santa Clara City and County.

Dmitry - I think you are missing the point of this survey and action. We are focused on the SFO and San Jose Airport traffic. That does not bring any revenue into the city of Palo Alto - only pollution and noise.

The PAO at this time is not a big component of this action. However - the San Carlos City airport could be as they have a commercial business called Surf Air - for which the city of Atherton, et all are very upset and vocal.

The Nex Gen air control system is focused on realigning air traffic patterns in narrow paths that are controlled by satellite vs the air control system - people. Cities all over the US are being affected by this and complaining. Those narrow paths tend to occur over the most heavily populated areas of the country.

Get over the idea that this is a Palo Alto problem - it is a national problem for large cities affected by this activity.

Too bad all this fuss over NextGen did not arise as it was going through Congress. Satellites don't control planes, but newer aircraft are equipped with GPS, just like cars and phones. Longer, smoother approaches improve safety and reduce air pollution, but it is a change from the old routes. If one only read the Weekly, one could get the impression that greater good for the greater number is a foreign concept in Palo Alto. Other aspects of NextGen will reduce weather related delays and cancellations at SFO. Apparently, most of these folks will never fly out of SFO and thus not benefit from these changes. Mountain View and Sunnyvale used to have the P3 Squadrons out of Moffett. Woodside and San Bruno have had SFO noise issues for years. What makes Palo Alto so special as to be exempt from the impact of regional transportation facilities. Making all of SFO's transpacific flights do a down spiral over the Bay, like landing in Baghdad, would not really make much sense. Folks are certainly entitled to lodge their complaints, but demanding specific actions to the detriment of the rest of us hardly seems like a mature response.

"Folks are certainly entitled to lodge their complaints, but demanding specific actions to the detriment of the rest of us hardly seems like a mature response."

How true.

The Bay area airspace is the 3rd most complicated and congested airspace in the US (after New York and Los Angeles) with three major airports and more than a dozen smaller airports. Operating tens of thousands of flights a year into these airport is a complex and difficult task and the number one priority is SAFETY. There are very few degrees of freedom available in managing this airspace as each of the three major airports require large areas of totally controlled airspace and all of the smaller airports also require a smaller but finite airspace that is totally dedicated to those airports. It is not possible to "just" shift flight paths from one location to another without impacting the flight paths and airspace for one of the other airports.

The next time that you or your family fly do you want your flight to be routed in the safest manner or do you want it routed to reduce the ground noise even if that increases the risk of an inflight collision?

I'll believe the FAA when I see the appropriate results

Peter - the airspace is not congested at 1 am in the morning so please don't tell me that the FAA has no better choices than to fly low altitudes over sleeping residential neighborhoods.

"I'll believe the FAA when I see the appropriate results"

Here are the results:

The last mid-air collision in the US was 2009 Aug 8 between Piper PA-32 / Eurocopter AS350 Tour Helicopter at a Low level over the Hudson River, New York, U.S..

There have been hundreds of thousands of flights in the US since 2009 without a single mid-air collision - thanks to a well managed and safety oriented air traffic control system.

" FAA has no better choices than to fly low altitudes over sleeping residential neighborhoods."

There are NO low altitude SFO inbound air flights over Palo Alto at any time. The minimum altitude required to intercept the SFO glide slope at the Dumbarton bridge is 4000 ft. and SFO bound aircraft passing over Palo Alto must be at least at or above 4000 ft.

Peter, I have sent in complaints of late night flights at 3,900 feet. It does happen. And it surely happens in East Palo Alto. Even an altitude of 4,000 feet is still too loud when our city is sleeping. Let's get back to the comment you made about congested air space. There is no congestion at 1am or even 2am for that matter.

Peter clearly has an agenda here. I don't know what it is but it is not the same as residents affected by the airplane noise and especially its frequency certain times of the day.

A little while back when you submitted the noise complaint form and asked for a confirmation you would get back an acknowledgement email that told the flight and altitude of the plane you reported. That is not happening for me now. But previously there were several reported at less than 4000 feet.

That said, the altitude is not the key factor here-its the level of noise. Some flights are incredibly noisy, especially the flight that seems to occur each day right after 5am. Next most important is the frequency of flights-some times during the day there will be 3-5 flights spaced less than a minute apart constituting a real noise problem. If you are using your yard it will be a problem.

Mike-Cresent Park - The SFO complaint office is 5 weeks behind because they have received a large amount of complaints this past couple of months. Keep sending in your complaints because they are recording them. It is just taking a long time to respond to each complaint if you asked for a call back or return email.

Peter Carpenter,

4000 feet is LOW.

It is lower than 5000, lower than 8000, and certainly lower than the community arrangements that San Mateo has for SFO bound altitudes. What are those?

You have a way of summarily dismissing things with one number. How about the planes that need to fly BELOW 4000 because of the planes flying at 4000, for example.

If the FAA needs any information, ever since we have been hearing this 4000 feet business, our quality of life has been trashed. That 4000 feet must be a mistake.

And please do not use the "nothing has changed" line.

You mislead.

Off-topic aside to Peter, knowing your penchant for being factual,
re: "The last mid-air collision in the US was 2009"
There was an F-16 vs Cessna earlier this month over Charleston.
I'll agree to not count air-show and air-race collisions.

Didn't make it to the meeting, Any discussion about Surf Air?

I hate to break it you but next gen has been in the planning stages for years. The time to have argued against it was probably 4-5 years ago. It slipped through and was never really made public. While I don't live under one of the paths I would have know problem going back to the way it was and sharing the noise. As Peter Carpenter says with only one accident in billions of miles flown, that included the time before next gen. so I don't think safety is an issue going back to the flight paths before next gen.

I wish you all luck but getting Washington to move on anything is unlikely. Plenty of homes for sale here in Atherton.

PC is sticking to his story on 4,000 ft. If anyone spends any time looking at the trackers many of the larger planes are lower than 4,000 ft. And that is the SFO planes.

Let's talk about the San Jose planes when in a reverse landing path they cross PA at 2,000 ft., go down Embarcadero to the PAO, out over the bay then circle back to San Jose.

Trying to create these absolute numbers is meaningless. When SFO planes are in a go-around mode - have to make a second attempt to get in the landing queue because there is too much traffic at commute time then they are much lower. The commute periods in the morning and early evening are chock full of planes waiting to get into line.
And expect it to get worse. SFO and SJ are working to get additional airline contracts - and these are Asian companies which are notorious for poor training of pilots.
This is not a clean picture and it will get messier.

Old Steve/St. Claire Gardens referenced that Sunnyvale used to have P-3 planes flying in there; I used to live in Sunnyvale and - in my experience (had small kids and worked at home) - testify that the recent increase in loud SFO air traffic is FAR WORSE than anything we ever heard in Sunnyvale. We even saw Air Force One flying in with Bill Clinton; was a special occasion and not offensive in any way. Not comparable to what is happening over Palo Alto now.
Now, about HERE: for the past 10 + years it was very quiet in N Palo Alto; then in the past couple of years we have been STUNNED at the AWFUL increase in loud, sometimes incredibly frequent commercial flights over N Palo Alto heading to SFO.

Again, a slightly off topic aside to Peter... Aviation Impact Reform has reported on at least four midair collisions in just the last 2-3 years:

"Midair Collision at Moncks Corner, SC,"
AIReform ~ July 8, 2015 Web Link

"Midair Collision Between a Cirrus and a Helicopter in Frederick, MD"
AIReform ~ October 23, 2014 Web Link

"An Unusual Midair Collision"
AIReform ~ March 11, 2014 Web Link

"Three Survive Midair at College Station, TX"
AIReform ~ February 25, 2013 Web Link

And, of course, the discussion of midair collisions (which are relatively rare) only serves to distract from the far larger problem of crashes between aircraft and the ground, or more and more frequently, a home.

"Why so many fatal air crashes into populated areas?"
AIReform ~ August 12, 2013 Web Link

Palo Alto and the nearby cities have many aircraft over flights because the main aircraft navigation beacon into SFO and OAK (the Woodside VOR) is right above us on the west ridge line. It has been there many years. See the VOR references below. Aircraft noise is not new: see the portolavalley.net website below. Finally if you want to listen to pilot-air traffic controller conversations and you have the proper scanner, see the frequency list in radioreference.com below.

Web Link
VOR, short for VHF Omni-directional Radio Range, is a type of radio navigation system for aircraft. VORs broadcast a VHF radio composite signal including the station's morse code identifier (and sometimes a voice identifier), and data that allows the airborne receiving equipment to derive a magnetic bearing from the station to the aircraft.

Web Link
look up VOR in document
The Woodside VOR is the main radar installation for flights approaching SFO and OAK located near Skyline and Woodside Road. Flights over the VOR generally also cross Portola Valley. Between 2005 and 2010 jet aircraft arrivals over the Woodside VOR increased 70 percent.

WOODSIDE VORTAC WOODSIDE, CA
Location Lat/Long: 37-23-32.998N / 122-16-52.678W (37.3924994/-122.2812994)
Elevation: 2270.0 ft. Variation: 17E (1965)

Look at bottom of this page to see frequencies for SFO aircraft approach control:
Web Link

"If anyone spends any time looking at the trackers many of the larger planes are lower than 4,000 ft"

Please start posting the date and time of such flights - I don't seem to see them when I look.

" San Jose planes when in a reverse landing path they cross PA at 2,000 ft., go down Embarcadero to the PAO, out over the bay then circle back to San Jose."

As I have posted repeatedly this should NOT be allowed to happen - it occurs when SFO is landing to the North and SJC is landing to the South. Traditionally the landing directions of all the Bay area airports have been "turned around" at the same time.

This IS something that the FAA can do something about and I have urged people to complain about it yet there is no sign that anybody else except me has even raised the issue.

Ham radio Operator,

The irony - Nextgen is the new technology which eliminates the old radio system. But we have posters misleading people about the flight paths being stuck to something, on the ground, and impossible to go any other way.

These ground beacons are supposed to be eliminated.

We are getting the raw end of Nextgen when Nextgen can actually solve the problem.

Nothing worst than having noise that is unnecessary.

PC - I have been posting specific situations of low altitude on a continual basis - you just chose to ignore if it does not comply with your story line.
I am not looking for agreement / approval from you on what the airlines are doing - they are doing it. No lack of specific postings on my part.

Note to readers - this conversation has been going on for a couple of years now so many streams on this topic with many examples and siting's of specific planes.

Good article today in the SJM on the drone studies at NASA / Moffett Field.
The FAA is part of these meetings so their presence in the area is in part related to the drones and what their role is to be. The altitude levels are part of the discussion and examples of drone types.

There is a lot of investment by a lot of people in the drone business (Amazon, Google, etc.) so a number of different perspectives with different end goals and objectives get thrown into the mix here.

"PC - I have been posting specific situations of low altitude on a continual basis "

Please be so kind as to provide dates and times of specific SFO bound flights that crossed Palo Alto below 4000 ft.

Peter Carpenter,

Low altitude for noise in Palo Alto is the LOW point of 4000 for SFO flights, and the domino of the rest froM SJC, and other airports BELOW that.

You do your homework and figure it out.

All the flights at 4000 for SFO are "THE" noise problem and why new routes to get to SFO are in order.

Notice all the ways you can enter the Bay without using Palo Alto as SFO's personal landing pad.

As I understand the new approach patterns, the goal is to have about 20 miles for that last 4000 ft, so that planes are using less fuel. Not to save airlines money per se, but to reduce greenhouse emissions. Normally PA is a pretty green place, but apparently not when considering global greenhouse impacts vs local noise impacts. So much for thinking globally, I guess that is for others. When you line up 20 miles straight in, with the runway layouts and the prevailing winds, this is what you get. If those are the constants in the equations for approach routes, what should we suggest to the FAA as variables?

Old Steve - Thank you. There are some PA residents who [portion removed] refuse to accept the fact that a 3% glide path to SFO requires planes to be at 4000 ft before they cross over the Dumbarton bridge.

Personal convenience and comfort cannot trump safety.

Gee Peter, so you don't see those flights when you look. I suggest you move to midtown, then the noise of the planes will alert you as to when they're below 5,000 and you will see it.

I had a nice evening walk last week--over a 15-minute period, I saw and *heard* three low planes--I was close enough to home that I was able to check the last one--not only had it been under 5,000 feet, during its time over Palo Alto, it had dropped to just over 4,000.

As for dates and times--if we provide you these times, what will YOU do about it?

Old Steve,

If you want to be "green" then the planes shouldn't be flying this far south to land at SFO. The paths aren't efficient because the San Mateo communities that had extra input basically fought efficient paths. You want efficiency? Look at the paths from the east, which pretty much go over Niles Canyon, the baylands and then up the bay, none of these out of the way loops you get over the Peninsula.

Nice try Old Steve,

If you want to be more fuel efficient, the best crossing point would be North, where the international flights used to cross, by Atherton and Woodside.

Go to your local airport and get an introductory flight lesson. You would learn a lot about local traffic, altitudes, landing slopes and how unbelievably congested local airspace is. Many FAA rules are written in blood and pilots are not evil people that enjoy making noise.

I don't understand why Palo Altans think that the old, steeper approach patterns that required throttle adjustments several times on final approach could possibly require less fuel than NextGen (roughly an 8 minute straight glide if my old pilot math is correct). I do understand that in the perfect world of Palo Alto, any negative change must be somebody's fault and be fought over. After all, I've lived under various patterns of PAO, Moffett, SJC and SFO for over 50 years, so I am not unfamiliar with aircraft noise.

One man's progress is almost always another's negative impact, and I am tired of all the whining on this thread. Mr. Carpenter -- I suggest we have done what we can, and must let these folks whistle past themselves until the FAA decides to make some announcement. You folks go ahead charting flights and complaining to SFO, I am moving on with life.

The fifty years above have also been spent within 1/4 mile of our railroad by it's various names. I've never been awakened by a train either. I'll just be grateful for being an easy sleeper.

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Discussion of solutions is easier when we try to work from a common set of facts. This discussion is not there yet.

On July 2, 2015 Asiana Flight 284 (Boeing 757) was at 3,675 feet over East Palo Alto before Highway 84.

Pilot,

When there is congestion, all the more reason to look at things.

From both the pilot's point of view and the point of view (and ear) from down here.

Nextgen should be able to help the congestion.

Shucks, I can't resist! Paly Grad -- I am impressed you have access to sealed Flight data recorders! No, any other measurement of Altitude is an ESTIMATE. 10% margin of error is pretty good for ESTIMATING is most fields of engineering. 3675 is within 10% of 4,000.

Go to South San Francisco to hear what the real aircraft noise is when airplanes take off. Compare that to the noise in Foster City or go to Coyote Point in San Mateo where landing airplanes are at 1000 ft or so. To me landing aircraft even at 1000 ft are pretty quiet. How can they be louder over Palo Alto at 4-5 thousand feet? I just do not understand.

"No, any other measurement of Altitude is an ESTIMATE."

Transponded altitudes are real time barometric altitudes. No FDR access needed.

The altitude was from the Flightradar24 Flight Tracker app. When this very same flight landed at SFO the altitude was shown as 0.

Old Steve,

And unfortunately, those "margins of error" are noisy.

As you have pointed out there is congestion - everyone knows what a traffic jam sounds like. And how fuel inefficient they can be.

The air traffic jam over land is no joke.

Pilot,

Thank you for admitting you do not live in Palo Alto, and that you do not understand how 4000 can be noisy.

Until 2013 there seemed to be no audible problems, but since the altitudes of planes SFO bound went to this 4000 floor +/- margins of error, it's a mess.

I think the congestion may have something to do with it.

My handle is Grateful - Grateful that the FAA is working to reduce plane noise and what I cannot understand is why anyone would be against it.

Are there any objective measurements of aircraft noise over Palo Alto? How much louder is it compared to background noise over there?

Pilot,

I can only say that without the planes, the background noise is quiet here. That must make the plane noise so bad - the contrast.

Pilot - I was down in LA / Burbank and talking to some pilots. They indicated that the head of SFO Noise Abatement questioned them and others as to how things were going in the aggravation level. They indicated if a lot of people complain then they will move the airport to Livermore. Of course that is silly but it tells you that SFO does know what is going on out there - they get it. SFO gets it - San Jose gets it.
Everyone gets it. Everyone may play dumb here but the people in the business get it.

Reported in the Wall Street Journal the airlines are now having problems with getting qualified pilots - the existing pilots are moving up to the mandatory retirement age. And SFO is considered a problem for new pilots - they do not want to fly into SFO. The younger pilots are not paid much so "being a pilot" is not such a big draw as a career path.

Will see tomorrow how the NASA drone department is coming along - lot of investment in this technology.

Bottom line is that the industry does get it - just cannot afford to admit it and change it up.

As to planes crossing the Dumbarton Bridge the large planes are crossing on a regular basis at 3.700; and some just skip the bridge and make their turn over 84 and 101. Those tend to be the planes coming in from the west side approach. The planes coming in from the east coast - on a different approach path over Fremont enter the arrival path from a different approach.

Livermore is not so farfetched. We are going to have an El Nino this winter - all the signs are there. Could be the 100 year flood zone time.
San Jose is remodeling the Guadalupe River in preparation for this.

SFO has at time has flooded runways - if this becomes a gigantic problem then and the bay starts moving up into the SFO property then Livermore looks good.
It is possible they are already looking at a long term plan for this. It makes sense

@ Peter Carpenter

"There are NO low altitude SFO inbound air flights over Palo Alto at any time. The minimum altitude required to intercept the SFO glide slope at the Dumbarton bridge is 4000 ft. and SFO bound aircraft passing over Palo Alto must be at least at or above 4000 ft."

This morning, 8:13 a.m., N369SW (SWA4290, , B733) at 3,500 ft before reaching Dumbarton Bridge according to Web Link It was at 4,100 ft. crossing 101.

This calls into question your claim that somehow planes absolutely have to be at or above 4,000 ft. before reaching the bridge.

I don't see why you're so dead set against an effort to reduce this recently acquired aircraft noise focused over parts of Palo Alto and neighboring communities. No one's saying we want things to be less safe. There's more than one way to get the aircraft safely across the Peninsula, and I'm sure if a startup could make a billion dollars doing it, it would be done already. Why do you refuse to believe that this is a significant quality of life issue for many of us affected? Why argue so vehemently against trying to do something about it?

@Peter Carpenter and other deniers: Another one this morning, 8:19 AM, N843VA (VRD022, A320) at 3,900 ft. above my house in East Palo Alto. I'm sure you're familiar with the whine from the A320s. Note this was just a few minutes after the one in my post above.

8:21 AM, oh what a relief, this aircraft, a mere two minutes after the one above, was at a grand 4,500 ft. I didn't hear a thing. <sarcasm>

It's been two minutes (8:22 am) so it's time to enjoy another whiny A320 (VRD219). Hooray, this one's at 5,500 ft. What the heck am I complaining about? It was like a kitten purring two rooms away. Not!

8:25 am, three minutes have gone by. Ding! Another A320, this one at 3,900 ft. above East Palo Alto. Quick, get Superman, this plane's too low to intercept the SFO glide slope at the Dumbarton Bridge!!

8:27 AM, aw a cute little CRJ7 (N712SK) crossing 101 at Willow at 3900 ft. Hey Superman, we need some help over here, too!

8:29 AM: Whoowhee, another A320, at a grand 4,300 ft and a tad over the bay. Get with the program, dude, you are being so unsafe not flying directly over Palo Alto!!

Facebook HQ is directly below the flight paths and they are building a huge corporate apartment complex to accommodate their ever-growing number of employees. Maybe with the moneny Zuckerberg has, this would be a good opportunity to contribute back to the community?

What time zone are you in?

@Musical, I'm assuming you're question is directed at me. I'm in East Palo Alto, and therefore Pacific time. I was doing a historical play-by-play of one random half hour of air traffic this morning. Sorry for the confusion. Those were all planes that were overhead EPA this morning from about 8 to 8:30 AM.

What a town of complainers this has become.
This is THE most expensive and desirable place in the country. It is that way because of the jobs and weather. It is going to get crowded, people and money is going to continue to flow into the area chasing the few properties that are available. The roads are going to get congested, people are going to park in front of your house, land owners are going to develop their property, lazy neighbors are going to employ gardeners who use gas powered leaf blowers, it is going to get more expensive to live here, and it is going to get noisy.

There are two INTERNATIONAL airports within sight of us, and a few smaller ones as well, serving the industry and all the millions of people that make your home worth so much money. More and more planes are going to fly over this area and some of them are going to fly over your house.

You won't be happy if 10 or 20 or 30 less planes fly over your house.
You won't be happy if the planes fly 1000, or 2000 or 3000 feet higher.

Correcton:

There are THREE INTERNATIONAL airports within sight of us

@Tell It Like It Is
I can tell you I was a happy camper up until 3/15/2015 when NextGen kicked in.
Go figure.

Be a bit more sensitive before you start labeling people.

@Tell It Like It Is, hm, sounds like you're complaining. Join the club, I guess?

The difference being that the complainers you're complaining about are, on top of complaining, actively doing something to try to address a significant decrease in quality of life in their neighborhoods. Isn't that a good thing, to be actively involved trying to keep one's neighborhood a pleasant and healthy place to live? I guess I don't see why you'd complain about that. Is money, rather than quality of life, your bottom line? As long as your house value keeps going up, who cares about what it's actually like to live here?

@Tell It Like It Is

Why generalize it to a Palo Alto though. If you do a search on the SF Chronicle, you'll find articles on all the complaints on airplane noise going back 20 years by the towns in the Bay Area. Berkeley, San Rafael, San Jose, Pacifica, Marin, Woodside, Atherton, Palo Alto, San Mateo. You'll also read about the steps that has been taken by SFO to reduce plane noise in subsequent years due to such complaints. Bottom line is without complaints nothing gets done.

I've spent a lot of time watching WebTrak over the last two years since I first started to notice a dramatic increase in aircraft noise, and I have seen plenty of jetliners cross Embarcadero in Palo Alto at 6,500' and still go on to land at SFO.

It doesn't happen that often, but they can do it when they want to, and the sacred 3.00 glide slope goes right out the window. By the way... the FAA's target glide slope for SFO is now 2.85, not 3.00 (thanks nextgen!)

WebTrak: Web Link

Old Steve,

If you are "tired of all the whining in this thread", I suggest you quit reading it. I mean, I get that the airline noise doesn't bug you, but it does bug me and many other people. It's arrogant to be dismissive in that way.

I attend the Palo Alto Children's Theatre Hot Dog shows every year. This year, each production I saw was drowned out multiple times over 45 minutes by airplane noise. This wasn't the case before.

I get that next to SFO it can be noisier, but I didn't CHOOSE to live next to the airport. I live 20 miles away and the increase in noise is recent. It's one thing to decide to live with a nuisance for various reasons, but airplane noise has never been a big issue in PA. Until now. And it correlates with a change in flight patterns. And, yes, I was here back when Moffett Field was open--and, yes, there were some low-flying cargo planes over 101. But it wasn't this day-in/day-out, night-in/night-out pattern of noise. *That's* what's getting me down--I can predict that a plane around 4:30 a.m. will wake me up. EVERY. SINGLE. NIGHT.

Oh, and to add to About East Palo Alto's list--VX945 around 9:27 was listed at 4,025 feet and descending.

Talk about whining... Airbus actually builds two whistles into the bottom of each wing on the A320 family of aircraft. The whistles are used to relieve fuel over-pressure, but they are responsible for the characteristic high-pitched whistle of the A320 family of aircraft.

Airbus has designed a fix, which airlines can retrofit to stop the whistle, and Luftansa has retrofitted their entire fleet of A320s, but US airline don't seem to give a damn. Why spend money on a retrofit, when the money could go into the airline executive's bonus pool?


"A320 family FOPP Air Flow Deflector - Noise reduction on approach"
Airbus ~ May, 2014 Web Link

Tell it like is is,

Very funny that you make it seem the airports appear so close - "within sight" maybe when you are flying.

Sorry, but kids fall asleep on the way to the international airports "within sight of us." It's a boring long drive to SFO, OAK, SJC. at least 1/2 hour to one, over that much to the other, and at least an hour or more to another.

What most posters are missing is that NextGen is a tool - not a policy decision.

Instead of cursing the darkness please light a candle and work to incorporate ACDA and herringbone approaches into the implementation of NextGen approaches into SFO.

Sent from UA 931 enroute from London to SFO.

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 11, 2013 at 11:06 am
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
"Not sure what the agenda here is" - Primarily to help interested individuals understand the facts and the law.


"you are defending their right to irritate everyone? "
No, I am just making it clear the the FAA has FULL control of this issue.

And it is my opinion that shifting the perceived noise problem to less vocal and less wealthy communities is both selfish and wrong.

[Portion removed.]

PC - we agree on one of your statements - shifting noise problems to a less vocal and less wealthy community is selfish and wrong.

In this scenario Woodside, Portola Valley, and Atherton qualify as the wealthy communities. What has happened is that the wealthy cities have done just that. There is a tipping point in which the less wealthy cities start becoming vocal. Palo Alto is less wealthy then Atherton, Woodside, and Portola Valley.

Santa Cruz is getting hit hard - it is not Carmel or Monterey.

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 7, 2013 at 1:08 pm
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
Everyone should realize that just shifting the flight path to the East simply means moving the noise problem to someone else's neighborhood. In this case that means to East Palo Alto and Eastern Menlo Park. The articulate and more powerful residents of Lindenwood and NFO win but our neighbors to the East lose.

Peter Carpenter pointed out earlier that on July 26 between 7:15PM and 7:45PM, 10 SFO inbound flights passed over Palo Alto. Jetman then asked

"How many SFO bound craft crossed over Atherton during that same time period? Menlo Park? Redwood City? San Carlos? Mountain View?"

According to Web Link the answer is one for San Carlos, Redwood City, and Atherton - a UAL flight from Portland flew down Middlefield before u-turning over Palo Alto.

So this is just another example of support for the claim that Palo Alto/East Palo Alto/East Menlo Park get more noise from SFO inbound traffic than do other nearby communities. I just don't see how anyone can disagree with that after seeing the apparently actual data shown on the flight tracking websites.

Here you go Peter, here is one of the many planes that fly over Palo Alto below 4,000 feet.

1:02am in the morning I was awaken by this plane over my home.

Flight: AAL590
PHX to SFO
Altitude: 3,700 ft

Peter Carpenter,

Yet another line of misleading comments. That by moving traffic around, it will be bad for somebody else. It all depends on how much, how low, and how concentrated.

If traffic is diluted to go East, North, South, or West - we are still talking about traffic levels which are basically FLAT fro the 90's.

As far as Nextgen being a tool. That is something that should be tested. What is the tool being used for?

Maybe after figuring out how it's used we can see if it's policy or not.

PC - you keep producing one-sided arguments and making declarations about absolutes that do not pan out in reality.

Palo Alto does have the bulk of the air traffic. The air traffic is over people's houses / businesses - not so once the planes are over the baylands and water in San Mateo County. Anyone that flies in can see that both from the plane and on the tracker. A plane over baylands - a sponge - and water makes less noise.

I have seen planes come down from the mountains and bottom out in the rotation and increase altitude to go over the Dumbarton bridge. There is a correction point in which they either increase or decrease altitude so they are reporting the proper attitude at the check points.

East Palo Alto is already the most impacted from the Big Sur route, in terms of altitude. The lowest altitudes occur over their community before reaching the bay. However, the frequency of planes on the Big Sur Route is about the same as Palo Alto because what passes Palo Alto then passes East Palo Alto.

Peter - How would moving the planes East and over the bay impact East Palo Alto anymore than they already are?

As previously posted NextGen can easily solb=ve many of the current distribution and altitude problems by using a Curved A-CDA that has potential environmental and economical benefits compared to the
present‐day approach procedures including:
a) higher altitude during larger part of the approach;
b) lower power settings / clean aircraft configuration;
c) more flexibility in definition of approach path geometry, enabling the procedure designer to
define approach paths away from residential area (with an additional advantage of reducing
third party risk, a safety issue).

In addition the use of Herringbone approaches where flights intercepted the alignment of the rumway at varying and somewhat random degrees would do wonders to reduce concentration over any one point - and this can only be done with NextGen technology.

Of course the alternative is to take great joy in continuing to complain.

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

Concentrating the problem, does not solve the problem. Concentrating the problem just creates a political minority, dumps the whole problem on them, and then uses the collectivist argument of the "greater good" to justify the enrichment of an elite, and the sacrifice of the minority.

Who said anything about concentrating the problem?

I stated: "In addition the use of Herringbone approaches where flights intercepted the alignment of the rumway at varying and somewhat random degrees would do wonders to reduce concentration over any one point " ACDA and herringbone NextGen approaches could dramatically spread the air traffic around.

The end result we are looking at here is planes flying at a lower altitude in a more concentrated pattern. The proof is in the pudding - so to speak.
Argue on - we just want results. We want change now. Higher altitude, less concentrated flight path. If that is the goal then do it.

I went to the "event" today for drones - local people congratulating themselves on "disruptive technology" - that is our Silicon Valley Leadership Group. Videos of drones going down the street with their little packages. Mayor from Cupertino there and other local gurus on the topic.

Given the proximity of three major airports and small airports - PAO with planes moving in the same altitude threshold in their take-off and landing patterns - aimless - I see total confusion. Comments on the FAA not favorable - the FAA owns the airspace. One person from DC was talking about the number of air controllers increasing - so many moving parts here.

We are concentrating on one element of airspace while a whole group is concentrating on another element of airspace.

Peter,

Would that work for Surf Air?

"Peter,

Would that work for Surf Air?"
*******************

Using both A-CDAs and herringbone approaches with the NextGen technology would work perfectly to better distribute both the SurfAir flights and flights into SFO and SJC":

"In the Netherlands, the NLR (a government research agency) has also started a research project on A‐CDA. The curved approach path consists of straight and circular segments. A constant glide path angle (normally 3°) is maintained along the entire path, including the turns.

"But while curved CDAs offer greater flexibility in designing approach routes they still suffer from the issue of concentration. Some respite could be provided to residents if more than one CDA approach can be used for each runway. This is possible if aircraft can turn on to the final straight leg of a CDA at different intervals, creating a series of approach paths with different entry points. This would maintain many of the benefits of CDA while creating greater flexibility to reduce the number of overflights at any given location and to provide respite periods.
These entry points could be either side of the straight leg, creating a “herringbone” effect"


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

*****
It is time to stop cursing the darkness and to start applying the tools we have like NextGen and the superb operational analysis that has already been done in studies like the above cited HACAN report.

Peter Carpenter,

How does the

"Using both A-CDAs and herringbone approaches with the NextGen technology would work perfectly to better distribute both the SurfAir flights and flights into SFO and SJC":"

and

"But while curved CDAs offer greater flexibility in designing approach routes they still suffer from the issue of concentration."

It sounds like a lot of mumble jumble to basically say - yes things can be better "distributed" but they are still "concentrated." Your quotes go on to say if you do this and you do that and then the other (including using multiple approaches)- only then do you fix the problem.

That other stuff no longer seems to be related to the original approaches used to fix the problem.

Talk about darkness.

While it is technically correct to say the FAA COULD use "nextgen" to spread-out the flight paths and provide some relief to those impacted on the ground, the FAA has implemented "nextgen" routes at dozens of airports throughout the country, and in NO case has the FAA used "nextgen" to spread-out the flight paths.

The FAA is using "nextgen" to achieve "efficiency". When the FAA talks about "efficiency" they are talking about at least three different kinds of efficiency:

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

2. MANAGEMENT efficiency - this means managing as many planes as possible, with as few air traffic controllers as possible.

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


"The FAA’s Enormous Drone Problem"
Left Seat ~ November 13, 2013 Web Link

Where this all going - driverless cars; driverless drones; robots that clean the house (a good thing) and planes that function on auto-pilot from take-off to landing because we will not have enough qualified pilots.

And that will all occur within a highly congested section of land that is bordered by mountains and water - ocean is fierce and bay is muddy - an area difficult to navigate. Said congested land space has a highly ranked university and commercial companies that are the head of their industry.

That is a recipe for disaster - a bunch of people with blinders on who can only see the immediate action they are involved in. We are not in middle America with miles of flat corn fields. Maybe some of this will work in an area with no impediments and is fairly flat but that is not where we are.

The FAA and their supporters - SFO and SJ need to realize that they cannot
just plunder along with a one size fits all operation across the country.

They may find this out when El Nino hits the PAO and SFO - hello bay water.

resident 1

"That is a recipe for disaster - a bunch of people with blinders on who can only see the immediate action they are involved in. "

You were writing about some people at Palo Alto. Right?

Thank you Jetman!

That makes a lot more sense than what Mr. Carpenter is saying - and what he is saying is very confusing.

A tool is anyway only good for what it's used for.

Peter Carpenter

How does this

"Using both A-CDAs and herringbone approaches with the NextGen technology would work perfectly to better distribute both the SurfAir flights and flights into SFO and SJC":"

square with this

"But while curved CDAs offer greater flexibility in designing approach routes they still suffer from the issue of concentration."

It sounds like a lot of mumble jumble to basically say - yes things can be better "distributed" but they are still "concentrated."

Talk about darkness.

Grateful - perhaps you missed this part of the statement:
"Some respite could be provided to residents if more than one CDA approach can be used for each runway. This is possible if aircraft can turn on to the final straight leg of a CDA at different intervals, creating a series of approach paths with different entry points. This would maintain many of the benefits of CDA while creating greater flexibility to reduce the number of overflights at any given location and to provide respite periods.
These entry points could be either side of the straight leg, creating a "herringbone" effect""

It is always useful to read an entire posting.

Grateful - I suggest that you read the entire AEF Report for HACAN on:
Approach Noise at Heathrow: Concentrating the Problem

Web Link

I think that you would find it enlightening.

Peter Carpenter,

No, I actually did not miss that.

That part sounds more like a policy decision to have respites and use the tool for minimizing noise.

Basically, if you roll back the policy of concentration, than its the old way of traffic management (more considerate) and really it may matter very little what the tool is.

Grateful - the "old way" of traffic management offers far fewer approach alternatives than does NextGen. And therefore the old way means more and more concentrations on fewer approaches as air traffic increases - in fact that is what is happening right now at SFO where few of the approaches are actually using the flexibility provided by NextGen.

Remember the wise saying - Don't blame your tools if you don't use the tools properly.

Peter C. keeps mentioning clean approach, Means landing gear in up position and flaps in up position. It results in a quieter footprint.

Peter can you tell us at what distance from SFO the large jets have to be before they have to safely put gear and flaps down?

Where would that be in relation to Palo Alto?

@resident, I don't think Peter Carpenter is much of an expert, I wouldn't rely on him for accurate information. He claimed that there was no way possible SFO planes would be over Palo Alto under 4000', yet it happens frequently.

For example, about a half hour ago, N38446 (UAL1247, B739) crossed El Camino/Embarcadero intersection at 3700'. It was down to 2800' when it went over 84.

"Peter can you tell us at what distance from SFO the large jets have to be before they have to safely put gear and flaps down?"

There is no reason for airplanes inbound to SFO to put their landing gear down until they are out over the Bay.

However many larger planes will need to deploy their flaps as they descend to slow their speed and to lose altitude - and that could be even before they cross the peninsula.

Peter,

Just to be clear then they can't come in clean as you suggested? Please stop offering this as a suggestion

For those that don't know,

Clean is flaps up, gear up,

Dirty is flaps down, gear down

Clean makes the plane quieter and visa versa

"Just to be clear then they can't come in clean as you suggested? Please stop offering this as a suggestion"

My comments regarding coming in clean referred to SurfAir flights which are already on their approach path to San Carlos and which do not need their flaps or their landing gear until they are closer to San Carlos.

Please read my comments more carefully.

Here are 4 big jets that flew over my Atherton home today and never even touched Palo Alto:

Web Link

Web Link

Web Link

Web Link

There is a lot of sharing going on.

@Peter, fyi, three of those big jets are the same flight, DAL1151.

Thanks for catching my upload error. One Delta, one United, one Virgin and one Swiss

Here are the United, Virgin and Swiss flights:

Web Link

Web Link

Web Link

I read the minutes of the Santa Cruz meeting with the FAA. I went away with
a disappointing view of the government attendees at the meeting. I don't think they appreciate being held up so to speak.
I think that the Palo Alto group did a good job. Negotiation is a finesse job and a team work job.

"I think that the Palo Alto group did a good job."

Based on what evidence?

Have you seen any minutes from the meeting?

Did you attend the meeting?

What exactly was "negotiated"?

The Washington Post published an article by reporter Ashley Halsey in May, on the findings of a National Research Council report on "nextgen". The reporter seems to have a pro-privatization agenda, has but has culled some damning quotes from the NRC's report:

●“The original vision for NextGen is not what is being implemented today.”
●“This shift in focus has not been clear to all stakeholders.”
●“Airlines are not motivated to spend money on equipment & training for NextGen.”
●“Not all parts of the original vision will be achieved in the foreseeable future.”
●“NextGen, as currently executed, is not broadly transformational.”
●“NextGen has become a misnomer.”


"Scathing report: FAA isn’t delivering on promises in $40 billion project"
Washington Post ~ May 1, 2015 Web Link

Why are the brilliant people in Silicon Valley unable to harness the capabilities of NextGen to produce better results?

Please read the AEF Report for HACAN on: Approach Noise at Heathrow: Concentrating the Problem and see what could be accomplished with leadership [portion removed.]

PC,

There are a lot of smart people in Silicon Valley (and all over the country) working to fix the FAA's "nextgen" failures. Unfortunately, unlike the FAA, they don't have a $40 billion budget. Most of them don't have a budget at all. They volunteer a few hours in the evening after working a full time job, or give up time with their family on the weekend in an effort to improve the quality of life in their community.

So far, the FAA has none nothing to help, and in most cases has done everything they can, to obstruct constructive change.


"Congressman Gallego's floor speech on NextGen in Phoenix"
You Tube ~ June 4, 2015 Web Link

I am sitting at my desk with the window open, and I've heard overhead flights about every 3 minutes the past hour. It is crazy, the amount of flight noise we have now. We are going to have to work ceaselessly with our neighbors to effect change by the FAA, a slow-moving and bureaucratic organization. And we are going to have to work together. Ignore the naysayers and carpers; instead help and thank the folks who have time and expertise to make the arguments. This is a huge shift in air traffic. You can see on flightradar the planes lined up to follow the few set routes into SFO, and all but those from the east go over Palo Alto. Just click on a plane that is nearly to SFO, and its route will be highlighted, and you will see all the others queued up along that same route, waiting to fly over Palo Alto on their way to SFO, almost regardless of where they are coming from. You'd think the folks who constructed these routes were paid for every flight that went over Palo Alto.

A not-for-profit A Quieter Future is hosting a free public outreach workshop: Community Noise and Natural Quiet on August 10th in San Francisco at the Marriott Marquis. Join us and let your voice be heard.

The conference will feature 12 different speakers. Dr. Arline Bronzaft, psychologist and co-author Why Noise Matters, how noise impairs learning for children. Arline has been in touch with advocacy group on air traffic noise in Palo Alto and will be discussing it in her talk. Erik Lindbergh, aviator Charles Lindbergh’s grandson, will talk about his Quiet Flight Initiative using electric aircraft over National Parks. Deanna Meinke, from Univ of Northern Colorado and Dangerous Decibels, will present her program that teaches kids how to protect their hearing.Other speakers include National Park Service, Cal Poly, Naval Postgraduate School, University of Northern Colorado, Audubon and more. We will also have Public Health from City of San Francisco, and an organization that mediates noise conflicts between neighbors.

After the conference, Arline Bronzaft is offering a workshop to talk about local issues on noise and children and solutions.

Ranger Lou is offering a special night hike at Muir Woods for conference attendees. Space is limited. Hike is after conference 6-7:30pm. Once registered you will be emailed more information.

Deanna Meinke is offering a fun interactive workshop on the Dangerous Decibels program designed to engage students and adults to protect their hearing.

Free parking for the first 100 to register.

Registration for the event is available here: Web Link

Further information about the event and location can be found here: Web Link

[Post removed.]

I propose that all of the concerned citizens and local officials formally request that the FAA establishes as the default SFO NextGen arrival procedure a herringbone design:

1 - that is on the 284 deg radial from SFO
2 - that has at least ten Curved Continuous Descent Approaches (Advanced CDA) that link to
that 284 deg radial with five on the Northeastern side of the radial and five on the
Southwestern side of the radial
3 - that the closest of these ACDA's connect to the 284 deg radial no closer than the DUMBA
intersection
4 - that the connection point for each of these ACDA's be at least one mile apart on each side
of the radial
5 - that between 6 AM and 10 PM each incoming aircraft be randomly assigned to one of the
ten individual ACDAs
6 - that between 10 PM and 6 AM incoming aircraft be assigned only to the two farthest out ACDAs

Airport approach designed by citizens of the community. What could possibly go wrong.

I still have not seen any facts about noise levels. If we do not know what noise levels are acceptable then we have no goal.

"Airport approach designed by citizens of the community."

Actually by an instrument rated pilot with years of experience in the Bay Area airspace.

Feel free to critique the proposed approach if you find faults in it.

Pilot,

I think you are living in a parallel universe.

Web Link

The proposed herringbone is indeed an excellent plan to keep SFO flights away from Atherton. I prefer plans that distribute the load more fairly, so residents nearer to SJC aren't bearing so much of the burden and residents nearer to SFO are bearing their share.

"The proposed herringbone is indeed an excellent plan to keep SFO flights away from Atherton."

You clearly do not understand either the geometry or the geography of the herringbone proposal which would involve many flights coming from the North being vectored over Atherton prior to intercepting the 284 deg inbound radial.

You reject every proposal that is presented and yet you fail to offer a concrete alternative.

There is NO doubt that residents nearer to SFO in East Palo Alto,Redwood Shores and Burlingame (for example) experience far more ground level airplane noise than does Palo Alto.

Hey, I only understand as much as you explained. See restriction (3), "that the closest of these ACDA's connect to the 284 deg radial no closer than the DUMBA
intersection". My reading is that is south of DUMBA, which means south of Atherton.

I'm not a pilot. Consider phrasing your posts in a way that's a bit less condescending.

Peter Carpenter,

Last I noticed, Palo Alto and East Palo Alto are geographically and geometrically connected.

By re-directing some planes to herringbone through you, maybe we can reduce the racket over here.

"My reading is that is south of DUMBA, which means south of Atherton."

Note the wording " Curved Continuous Descent Approaches" which means that a flight arriving from the North would CURVE to intercept the 284 radial thus bringing it over the peninsula anywhere from Redwood City to Mountain View.

If you don't understand something then just ask for clarification - don't just assume that " south of DUMBA, which means south of Atherton."

"Last I noticed, Palo Alto and East Palo Alto are geographically and geometrically connected. "

Yes but East Palo Alto is closer to SFO and most SFO inbound planes that fly over Palo Alto then fly over East Palo Alto at a lower and therefore noisier altitude.

Right. Curved or not, look at the distribution of flights over various neighborhoods as they link up to those common arterials on the herringbone, with the northernmost pegged at DUMBA. Those arterials closest to SFO and SJC get the least traffic, while those in the middle (Palo Alto) get the most. And with SJC neighborhoods getting SJC traffic, it really seems to me that this plan keeps flight traffic away from the northern neighborhoods. Though I'm curious about the 10pm-6am proposal.

You ask for an alternative. I'm not a pilot, so there's a lot I could come up with that would be infeasible. But I'd start with allowing the arterials to join closer to SFO than DUMBA.

" But I'd start with allowing the arterials to join closer to SFO than DUMBA."

Inbound flights must be at 4000 ft at DUMBA to intercept the 3 deg glide slope. An interception further North would require the plane to cross over residential areas at well below 4000 ft.

"Those arterials closest to SFO and SJC get the least traffic, while those in the middle (Palo Alto) get the most."

That is exactly why I proposed that between 6 AM and 10 PM each incoming aircraft be randomly assigned to one of the ten individual ACDAs - do distribute the flights evenly.

"Though I'm curious about the 10pm-6am proposal." With much less traffic during that time period it could all be accommodated with the southern most ACDA thereby keeping those flights high until they intercept the 284 radial near MEHTA (which is at the southern tip of the bay).

If you diagram a set of uniform curved paths adjoining to the spaced arterials, you will see that the air space over the central neighborhoods get more traffic.

Ah, so 10-6 is only for the ACDAs nearest SJC. Of course. (I misread that "farthest out" was the extremes, northernmost and southernmost. Which of course would make no sense given your priorities.)

Re the 4000 feet at DUMBA, absolutely. A consequence of the glide slope is that the neighborhoods closest to the airports get more noise, right? I can see arguing for some kind of backoff on frequency to account for the (exponential) impact of elevation on noise, but bypassing the neighborhoods entirely seems unfair. Again, though, quite consistent with your priorities.

Now that I think about it, the objective function for distributing flights over (many more) fixed routes should be based on impact on people and on proximity to airport (aka expectation). So while Atherton would have fewer flights due to lower elevation causing greater impact, it would have more flights due to lower density of people and greater proximity to SFO. (See me virtually ducking...) More generally, this proposal to wholesale move flights away from the residences closest to SFO and dump it fully on those at medium distance makes no sense.

More generally, this proposal to wholesale move flights away from the residences closest to SFO and dump it fully on those at medium distance makes no sense.

IF you are referring to the herringbone proposal it makes NO change in the number or concentration of flights on the 284 radial North of DUMBA. So I see no wholesale moving of flights away from residences closest to SFO in the herringbone proposal - in fact it was designed to mathematically distribute the existing flight paths more evenly over more communities.

Perhaps you can propose a better design that conforms to the requirements of the SFO glide slope and the geography of the South Bay?

"but bypassing the neighborhoods entirely seems unfair."

The herringbone proposal does not do this.

" Again, though, quite consistent with your priorities."

Sadly you have no idea of my priorities - which in this case was to design an approach pattern that more evenly spread the incoming traffic while respecting the realities of the required SFO glide slope.

[Post removed.]

At a Save Our Skies Santa Cruz community meeting last week a KSCO radio host stood up and said he would be doing a one hour radio show on aircraft noise tonight (Wednesday) at 7:00pm, and would take calls from listeners at 831-479-1080. KSCO is on 1080 AM, or you can listen live on the internet by clicking on the "listen live" link on KSCO's home page.

KSCO 1080 Radio: Web Link

PC - you keep talking about the "golden Number" of 4,000 at DUMBA. Many planes are crossing at lower than 4,000 - and they tend to be the bigger planes - the smaller ones are more maneuverable. The bigger the plane if arriving from the west side of the peninsula then the higher the tendency to be lower. Yesterday the Jet Blue flight 915 at 8:16 was at 3,299 ft over PA.

All of the talk on glide slopes are not absolutes to the pilot flying the plane. That is where the problem is - pilots are not following the "rules" - or ATC is not functioning in a responsible manner. ATC is not following the rules.

The 3 deg glide slope altitude at DUMBA IS 4000 ft.

If planes are rooted to MENLO they must cross MENLO at 4000 ft and then they can descend to 3000 before intercepting the 3 deg glide path at CEPIN - which is 4.2 miles closer to SFO than DUMBA

Flying a stabilized approach, i.e. on the glide path, wings level is a cardinal principle of good airmanship.

If pilots or ATC choose not to use good airmanship that is not my problem.

Planes that are below the approach plate altitudes should be reported.

@Peter - you know better than your last comment! The Pilot-Controller Handbook requires altitude assignments to intercept glide slope from BELOW. Normal vectors to final approach course will be at assigned altitudes above the MVA and below glideslope.

It is always useful to quote the official source on disagreement like this:

FAA has released InFO 11009, "Failure to Comply with Minimum Crossing Altitudes at Stepdown Fixes Located on Instrument Landing System (ILS) Inbound Courses:

"The ILS glide slope is intended to be intercepted AT (emphasis added) the published glide slope intercept altitude. This point marks the precision approach final approach fix (PFAF) and is depicted by the “lightning bolt” symbol on U.S. government charts or the beginning of the feather in the profile view on Jeppesen charts. Intercepting the glide slope at this altitude marks the beginning of the final approach segment and ensures required obstacle clearance during descent from the glide slope intercept altitude to the lowest published decision altitude for the approach. "

And I would also point out that an aircraft approaching DUMBA at 4000 ft WILL intercept the glide path from below and will be at 4000 ft at DUMBA - the two conditions are not mutually exclusive.

KSCO show on aircraft noise on live now, with Save Our Skies Santa Cruz in studio;

KSCO 1080 Radio: Web Link

Peter Carpenter,

"And I would also point out that an aircraft approaching DUMBA at 4000 ft WILL intercept the glide path from below and will be at 4000 ft at DUMBA - the two conditions are not mutually exclusive."

So why were you challenging that there are no planes flying under 4000 feet over Palo Alto ?

Where is DUMBA? If planes are intercepting "below" to be at 4000 at DUMBA, then planes could be below 4000 in Palo Alto (as they are frequently).

With the amount of air traffic crossing here, and this issue of "below" 4000 feet, sounds like the 4000 rule is not much of a rule (for limiting going lower).

It's clear that you don't believe that there is more noise but if you can pretend there is more noise, what would you think the problem is about? Have planes always been flying at 4000 and below? Either planes used to fly higher, and why this was not a problem before, or the noise has increased because there are more airplanes crossing.

In an Almanac report there was also mention that the step down approach was supposed to be replaced by Nextgen, can you explain why these rules for step-down approaches are still being used?

"And I would also point out that an aircraft approaching DUMBA at 4000 ft WILL intercept the glide path from below and will be at 4000 ft at DUMBA - the two conditions are not mutually exclusive."

Confused - asks "So why were you challenging that there are no planes flying under 4000 feet over Palo Alto ?"

I never challenged the fact that some planes fly under 4000 ft over Palo A;to. I did state that "Planes that are below the approach plate altitudes should be reported."


"Where is DUMBA?"
Over the Bay near the eastern side of the Dumbarton bridge.

"can you explain why these rules for step-down approaches are still being used?" The rules I posted are not for step down approaches but for glide slope approaches. NextGen approaches are more like glide slope approaches than step downs as they generally involved continuos descent rather than step down descents.

Peter Carpenter,

"Where is DUMBA?"
"Over the Bay near the eastern side of the Dumbarton bridge."

Confused again here - when I have landed at SFO I observe the planes on the West side of the bridge, by East Palo Alto, not across East and why would a plane go to the East side of the Bridge?

and you have said

"If planes are rooted to MENLO they must cross MENLO at 4000 ft and then they can descend to 3000 before intercepting the 3 deg glide path at CEPIN - which is 4.2 miles closer to SFO than DUMBA"

Is it 4000 at MENLO or at DUMBA - are these 2 different routes or the same?

"Where is DUMBA?"
"Over the Bay near the eastern side of the Dumbarton bridge."

Here is the approach plate:

Web Link

How would you describe the location of DUMBA?

"Is it 4000 at MENLO or at DUMBA - are these 2 different routes or the same?"

There are two different ways to get to CEPIN (see above approach plate) - via MENLO or via DUMBA and the crossing altitude of both is 4000 ft.

And note that this is only one of 26 pre-NextGen approaches to SFO so planes flying other charted approaches would fly over these and/or other navigation points. For example, on the RNAV GPS approach planes would fly over either MENLO or ROKME (both have crossing altitudes of 4000 ft) before proceeding to HEMAN.

We do have a problem here - the Air Traffic Control (ATC) is presumably under the direction of the FAA. If ATC is authorizing or allowing altitudes than we are to assume that the FAA is aware of it. The FAA has an office at the PAO as well as a Santa Clara office - 408 area code.

So who is in charge here? The people that are paid to do the job or us all speculating on why the situation is as it appears to be and reading a rule book. The planes are not going by the rule book.

The obvious problem we have here is that the FAA / ATC is testing the boundaries of the "rule book" and working to desensitize everyone as to what is suppose to be going on. If they keep doing it then we are to assume that they know what they are doing?

I do not appreciate being set-up for some agenda that benefits the airplane industry and their supposed profits or the SFO which is shoving their profits into the San Francisco city coffers. Now SJN is getting their licks in by changing their approach path and going over the whole of Palo Alto at 2,000 ft or less in perfectly good weather.

This geographic area is not a punching bag for airline profits, coal trains, oil trains - all focusing on running all over us with dangerous implications. Who is at the top of all this? We need to follow the money upward because the people who are running the show at the state level are not doing the job. Throw in the UC system out for sale to non-residents and foreign students.

That is more than one topic but there is a pattern here.

Resident 1,

I don't think the FAA has an "office" at PAO. A couple of air traffic controllers, employed by the FAA, man the control tower... that's about it. If you live in Palo Alto, a visit to PAO to investigate, might be in order to get the facts, and clear up any confusion.

Best quote from last night's KSCO radio show was made by someone from Save Our Skies Santa CRuz, who called the "nextgen" air routes "sonic sewers".

The sole FAA facility in Palo Alto is at the control tower at the Palo Alto Airport. They do a superb job of directing the traffic in the Palo Alto airspace - which is quite small as it is bounded by the SFO, SJC, Moffat and San Carlos airspace. They are not policy makers.

Since 9/11 the tower is no longer open to the public.

"Best quote from last night's KSCO radio show "

If that was the best quote then it suggests that there was not a substantiative discussion of the issues. Certainly the Santa Cruz citizens who made presentations to the FAA in their meeting produced much more meaningful input.

Peter Carpenter,

"Certainly the Santa Cruz citizens who made presentations to the FAA in their meeting produced much more meaningful input."

They interviewed the people who met with the FAA - SOS Save Our Skies Santa Cruz. It was a substantive discussion.

That's where the quote about "sonic sewers" came from.

Web Link

I agree that is the best quote - Nextgen air routes are sonic sewers.

The current poorly designed NextGen air routes may be sonic sewers; well designed NextGen air routes reduce and distribute the ground level noise much more evenly.

FYI, posted on another thread:

"Atherton, having a lot of clout, already sent the SFO flights down to Palo Alto. They were rerouted south of San Mateo County starting in the late 1990s. The diagram is deceptive. Most of the planes actually descend above Palo Alto, not above Atherton/Menlo Park.

Now, just watch. Atherton will get rid of its San Carlos airplane noise problem at the expense of other communities, including ... Palo Alto. Just mark my word. I am ready to bet on it.

Meanwhile, even Sky Posse are playing way too nice with SFO and the FAA, politely requesting a study that will be years in the making, if it happens at all.

There is no solution in sight any time soon for the gigantic airplane noise issue in Palo Alto."

I have been to the PAO - the FAA is behind a gate that requires you to have an appointment to get in the gate. Drive around the small street between the airport and the golf course to the back. They are listed in the phone book. I have been there.

It is noted above that they do not establish policy at this location but they do direct air traffic. They cannot direct traffic in an illegal flight path unless they have instruction from someone - or are they making this up as they go along? They cannot have this both ways - if there is a "rule / policy book" that directs height limitations and they are continually dropping below those height limitations then who is issuing the order to do that?

We need to locate where this problem is occurring - who is authorizing it - and the rationale for operating contrary to policy. Talking to SFO and San Jose may be a distraction from the actual point of the problem. Out direct concern is the height limitation in the Palo Alto corridor - is it safe to assume that the FAA / ATC at the PAO are directing that height limitation?

PC - you know the answer to this - don't you.

"Out direct concern is the height limitation in the Palo Alto corridor - is it safe to assume that the FAA / ATC at the PAO are directing that height limitation?

PC - you know the answer to this - don't you."

No, the top of the PAO airspace is 2000 ft.. The PAO tower has NO control over traffic inside SFO and SJC airspace - which is everything above Palo Alto above 2000 ft.

Can anyone summarize the height rules, if any, for planes flying over Palo Alto, Atherton, etc? I've seen indications that (at least some) planes aren't allowed below 5000 over Palo Alto. And there are implications that (at least some) planes cannot fly below 4000 over Atherton. But what is it?

The Bay area airspace is VERY complicated and cannot be easily described in words. Here is a good description with pictures:

Web Link

VERY simplistically (and hence full of exceptions and errors) planes inbound to SFO flying under Instrument Flight Rules must be above 4000 ft.

Planes inbound to SFO flying under Visual Flight Rules may fly lower but cannot go below 2000 ft over Palo Alto without clearance from the Palo Alto airport tower.

Most airlines approach SFO using instrument approaches and hence are at or above 4000 ft over Palo Alto.

Thank you - that is a start.
Please clarify:
1. Is ATC at the SFO airport or some other centrally located place? If so where?

2. I am under the impression that some central location controls SFO, San Jose and Oakland as a region vs individual airports - or are each of those airports controlled individually? If we need to address this problem then it is either regionally or airport specific.

3. Would SFO have the authority to direct an action that is inconsistent with the existing policy in the normal course of the day - assuming that it is not an emergency?

Interesting, thanks. Then there's also the 2000 policy that requires(?) pilots coming into SFO to fly 5000 ft above the Menlo Interchange (Web Link

Doesn't that pretty much imply no more flights at all over that area, given NextGen's 3% glide path, which would require something more like 4000 there (similar to DUMBA)?

From what I understand, the glide path combined with the height restrictions is pretty much forcing air traffic south, and Palo Alto is the first place where the glide path and the height restrictions line up. We get all the love...

So choices for reducing the sky-high (no pun intended) frequency of SFO-inbound flights over Palo Alto seems to be:
- push at least some of the problem further south -- higher flights there would be less noisome, and spend more time over the bay, but would cost airlines more and use more fuel
- push at least some of the problem further north -- get the glide path rule relaxed (similar issue with cost, I'm guessing) or get the 4000-ft limit relaxed (I'm guessing the rationale here is about safety)
- push at least some of the problem west -- fuel cost again

As an aside, I wonder why the runways at SFO are set up the way they are. I vaguely wonder if planes took off to the south (over the bay), and landed from the north, if noise impact over residential areas would be smaller. Referring to Web Link

Sigh.

I took ground school to be an informed ultralight pilot. I got to see SFO Flight Control Operations, including getting questions answered. I was taught the Inverted Wedding Cake ATC controlled airspaces. It looks like Nexgen is going carve that cake into individual slices.
Yes pilots flying out of PAO RARELY obeyed the rules of height over populated areas, the loss of those TESLA Engineers in my back yard ( we used to live on Garden Street ) pointed this out and the pilots should follow height restrictions when flying over residential areas.
SFO Flight Operations have some interesting ways to improve operations on their four runways: incoming flights on the 28L AND 28R runways and outgoing flights on 1L AND 1R runways ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

Web Link

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1508/00375AD.PDF

The crash at Tenerife made sure that SFO has ground radar for Operation Areas.

Mountain areas and slots up from the south ( think Gilroy ) makes the least amount of people get the more aircraft noise. Flights landing OVER SF BAY WATER WERE THE NORM. Flights TAKING OFF TOWARD THE EAST made the least amount of noise when flying over the East Bay Hills. Note: if a plane had to crash, you would want it to affect the least number of ground people, right?
Mountain View had this problem when a Navy jet exploded decades ago, on approach to Moffett Field.

Web Link

Therefore FLYING AIRCRAFT OVER LESS DENSE POPULATED AREAS is the best safety you can have. Bothering less people on the ground has a built in factor of safety. I'll bet that fact wasn't considered when drawing up computer models for this Nexgen operating in the SFBA.

The LOW FLYING LEVELS over populated areas also adds a loss of safety factors. Remember that recent crash when bird strikes had an aircraft splash down in the Hudson River? ( Bird Strikes are collisions, Paul C ) That heroic Pilot took the safest route possible and saved many lives. So Over Water and Less Populated Areas should have been factors in the Nexgen ATCC designs in the software design areas.


Noise levels in fanjets and turboprops:

Turboprops can have variable propellers that can even act as a thrust reverser when landing. That also can create TAKEOFF NOISE PROBLEMS. To save fuel and gain height quickly, the prop setting is for MAXIMUM POWER. The undesirable effect: MAXIMUM NOISE! The quick solution: LOWER THE EFFICIENCY AND TAKEOFF SETTINGS. A margin of safety lost by a small group of people in the airplane, a large number of people with noise relief.

On fan jets: the same rules apply because the same noise is created by the " propellers " inside the engine casing. The same rule apply only more people are involved in this case.

The latest technology fix: INEXPENSIVE DRONES. ALL AIRCRAFT MUST GAIN HEIGHT TO AVOID DRONES. This problem will show up as the first fan jet ingests a drone during a take-off or landing.

Why is the direction on 28L and 28R the way it is, instead of the opposite? Given takeoffs are already happening on 1L and 1R, you'd have many fewer flights going south, and they'd go over the water anyway. What would it look like to arrive (land) from the northwest direction instead of the southeast direction? Better? Worse?

I assume 1L and 1R are too short for landings?

Incidentally, the "Fair Skies" initiative at MSP has had some real victories here.

Web Link

Would be interesting to see an update on their noise level map for SFO... Web Link

Wonder how they made it. Has Sky Posse reached out to them?

Trivia: runway numbers are generally the magnetic compass heading, in tens of degrees. SFO's 28-left and 28-right are pointed at 280 degrees. Coming the other direction is 180 degrees different, thus labeled 10-left and 10-right. The single runway at Palo Alto is 31 or 13, depending on your point of view. (Years ago it was 30 and 12 before the magnetic field drifted.)

Simplistically speaking, getting a plane off the ground is similar to getting a kite off the ground. It's much easier if you run into the wind rather than trying to run downwind. Planes also want to land traveling upwind, because they touch down on the runway at a lower relative speed and come to a quicker stop.

Of course the wind won't necessarily align with any runway, so there's a bit of trigonometry to figure the helpful head-wind component and the possibly challenging cross-wind component (nemesis of student pilots).

Let's clarify this over PA - the San Jose Southwest arrivals that periodically go into a reverse landing pattern cross the whole of PA - go down Embarcadero, cross the PAO out to the bay and circle back into the San Jose Airport. They are under 2,000 ft. That means that the PAO / ATC has given permission for that whole scenario of activity. They cannot take that action without permission. So complaining to the San Jose Airport - which I have done on numerous occasions also needs to have a complaint issued to the PAO / FAA/ ATC. Correct?

I am angry this morning about a white small plane that has been circling the area in an incessant pattern at a very low altitude. If that is a flying school providing a lesson at 7:00 AM then think again - they need to go circle out over the bay - not people's homes.

That takes us to Surf Air - they cross PA at less than 2,000 ft. That means that the PAO/FAA/ATC has given them permission to cross the air space. Is that correct? So complaining to San Carlos is only part of the solution (?) - complain to PAO about them crossing our airspace. Correct? They could be over the bay but they do not choose to do that and we are letting them get away with that.

[Portion removed.]

The wild west ends here - we have coal trains that are planned to go to an area of Oakland that is next to a planned giant new stadium development - thank you to Jerry Brown who is the business partner to the person who is doing this; oil trains which will go by the Levi stadium, through San Jose! - why isn't the county of Santa Clara and the stadium screaming fowl on that move. It is a giant security issue.
And planes flying all over that are out of control relative to the guidelines set up for the region - that is a giant security issue.

There is noise and there is irresponsible actions by people who could result in giant security / safety issues.

[Post removed.]

"That takes us to Surf Air - they cross PA at less than 2,000 ft. That means that the PAO/FAA/ATC has given them permission to cross the air space. Is that correct?"

NO.

SurfAir is flying a published IFR approach which takes priority over all other forms of airspace control and the altitudes for that approach are fixed by the "approach plate". SurfAir does this by requesting the IFR approach from Tracon which controls all of the Bay area airspace. Tracon gives the clearance and then passes off control of the flight to an individual airport. KPAO tower cannot change the specifications of the published San Carlos IFR approach.

PC - you are incessant on commenting - you can keep repeating the same stuff over and over - so time to ask the questions that matter - where is TRACON?

San Jose is now in a reverse landing pattern bringing their planes across the whole of Palo Alto, down Embarcadero - over the PAO, out over the bay then back in for a landing. They are at about 2,900 ft average. - They actually go lower then adjust upward at points.

There is no other significant traffic in the air so what is the point of this?

[Post removed.]

Google is telling me that the Northern California TRACON is located at Mather, Sacramento (formerly Mather Air Force Base). Other locations in California include Fresno, Santa Barbara, and San Diego. If you go to their site you can click into FAA and see some videos on Next Gen. the videos showed traffic patterns on the east coast and Atlanta, however none on San Francisco posted. Maybe the local airports are not up to speed yet.

Their video discusses the pluses for the stakeholders in the revised system - however the people on the ground are not mentioned as stakeholders.

So people in the bay area have to be talking to someone at SFO, SJN and PAO / FAA.

It is noted that the success of Next Gen is dependent on the airplanes having the correct interfaces to the system so that communication is by a computer screen vs direction from a person.

I am going to assume that a majority of the planes now landing at SFO and SJN are older and probably do not have the new interfaces. The WSJ reports that many Asian airlines are buying the older planes belonging to the US carriers so they probably have the older dashboards.

Meanwhile we are trying to increase our business with many Asian airlines.

Even at 4,000 feet the Airbus A321-211 is loud, especially in the evening when it is relatively quiet outside.

Paly Grad,

The Airbus A320 family of craft are horrible. They sound like the incoming artillery sound effect, used in movie sound tracks. See my earlier post for why.

"Artillery Shell Sound Effect"
You Tube ~ April 3, 2011 Web Link

For all of you people who don't hear plane noise what did you think of Saturday morning? Beautiful weather - everyone outdoors. Planes from SFO and SJ were using the PAO as their transition point.

When two planes were heading to the PAO (SFO and SJN) you could see that the SJN could make the turn over Sunnyvale if pushed. SJN can make a tighter turn instead of heading to the PAO. One plane overhead was so low with the brakes panels extended it look like it was going to drop a bomb.

So a pattern is emerging - PAO is a designated turn point for everyone out there - if you watch over time it is a consistent pattern for the SJN and SFO planes using the western approach. IS PAO getting any extra money from the FAA for using their control tower as a "beacon"?

That is the question we need to ask here - is Next Gen using the FAA presence at the PAO as a control point? This affects the whole city - except those people who claim to live in "Another Palo Alto Neighborhood".

"Planes from SFO and SJ were using the PAO as their transition point. "

This ONLY happens when SFO is landing to the North and SJC is landing to the SOUTH. In the past this was never allowed and all the Bay Area airports were coordinated to be landing in the same general direction.

This reverse pattern for SJC forces their planes to stay under the SFO landing planes and is a very bad policy decision - it has nothing to do with NextGen but is simply bad management.

If you want to complain about a real and easily solvable problem then require the FAA to coordinated the landing patterns of SFO and SJC to prevent this problem.

Yes PC - we have already had that discussion. Does not need to be repeated.
Forget the winds - this is every Saturday morning. EVERY SATURDAT MORNING - NO WINDS - PERFECT WEATHER.

Let's get beyond that discussion - the question on the table is if Next Gen is creating a pattern that brings SFO and SJN over the PAO. If you look at the FAA site the traffic pattern for SFO is not yet published on their site - so this is a work in progress. Based on your previous comments the FAA is testing a number of approaches so consider this a test in process.

If a test in process and the PAO / FAA / ATC is working tests then we need to know and get our input in. This affects the whole city in the east of El Camino area.

[Portion removed.]

The ONLY way the conflicting SFO SJC landing pattern problem will be fixed if is everyone complains.

[Portion removed.]

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


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

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

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


Let me know if you need more details.


Peter Carpenter

And I received a personal reply within six minutes!!

Thank you - that was a good letter.
Just to clarify this point to other readers when both a SFO and SJN planes are in the same arrival path heading to the PAO then the SFO plane takes precedent and the SJN plane moves over above Sunnyvale and Mountain View.

That proves the point that the SJN plane can come in over the Sunnyvale Golf Course - Moffett Field, make the turn into the SJN airport. There is no real need for the SJN plane to cross over the whole of PA, go down Embarcadero to the PAO, and out over the bay at 2,000 or less. That is a manufactured story line - if doing this therefore we need to do that.

Reality says there is no need for the SJN planes to make deliberate turns over PA - they can stay in their Sunnyvale / Mountain View paths just fine.
Then the SFO planes can stay in their flight path at 4,000 to 5,000 ft.

The further wrinkle here is when they are in this pattern of arrivals the SFO planes are running at a higher altitude to accommodate the SJN planes below them. That proves the point that the SFO Arrivals can run at 5,000 ft just fine - they are doing this every Saturday morning.

That only works if Sunnyvale and Mountain View have made no complaints to the San Jose Airport. If they have then SJN is accommodating their complaints. And the PAO/FAA/ATC is going along with this.

This gets worse since there is a ground control group at Moffett who could manage the SJN flights over their cities.

I can see San Jose complaining about the arrivals coming in over San Jose as the new soccer stadium is next to the airport and the new Levi Stadium is in that vicinity. The normal SJN arrival path does not work well if you have huge crowds at those locations. So that is the perfect storm for flight arrivals.

Another useful approach to the issue:

"LONDON, England - Heathrow today announced plans to trial a steeper approach for aircraft landing at Heathrow.

This trial is one of 10 practical steps Heathrow is taking through its Blueprint for Noise Reduction to explore ways to improve the noise climate around Heathrow. If adopted, it will be the only airport in the UK to introduce steeper approaches as a means to reduce noise on the ground.

The international standard approach for most airports in the world is set at 3 degrees, except for obstacle clearance (e.g. buildings, mountains etc.).Heathrow believes a steeper angle is possible and will lead to quieter approaches to the airport. This has been the experience at Frankfurt airport that has introduced steeper approach angles to reduce noise for people living nearby.

To test whether the implementation of steeper approaches of up to 3.5 degrees at the airport is possible, starting on 14 September 2015 Heathrow will be trialling a slightly steeper approach angle of 3.2 degrees. The trial has been approved by the Civil Aviation Authority and is planned to run until 16 March 2016. "

Sigh, the original article was titled as "FAA to work to reduce plane noise" and here we are talking about more traffic and more noise over PA with SJC joining the party with no turn around time in sight from FAA.

[Post removed.]

Peter Carpenter,

I have emailed and wrote to Eshoo and got a letter from her with her signature. I have complained to SFO and SJC several times. I feel like I am out of options at the point, I don't know what else I can do at this point besides sit and wait.

Note on Heathrow - they want to add another runway and are running into great resistance from the locals - they have had it with the status quo at Heathrow. The locals are protesting.

Another thought - PA is stuck in some building height limitation - meanwhile Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Redwood City are plowing ahead with new buildings which exceed 4 stories. Check Mathilda Blvd / Maude and general area. Visit Redwood City - they are becoming a real city with a major port - they are getting on with it. They just need a good ferry anchorage in their harbor.

Bottom line is that PA is not helping itself here - we are creating the lowest possible profile for flight paths. The area between San Antonio to Ellis Street is a low area that the SJN planes can use when needed - so why are they coming to PA? That is a question I will post to SJN.

We are being set-up here for SJN traffic. SFO traffic can work at 5,000 ft - they just need to enter the area at a lower speed. Note on radio news - Air Traffic Control says that air speed has been the biggest problem they have had in collision control.

Frustrated,

The FAA is a profoundly corrupt federal agency, that has been captured and is controlled by the industry it is supposed to regulate.

The Palo Alto City Council has been preoccupied with catering to the wishes of real-estate developers, while other local players were busy rearranging the aircraft noise deckchairs, on the regional airspace Titanic.

I am sorry, but you cannot expect quick results. Keep filing complaints, keep writing letters, support your local voluntary associations who are working to roll back the aircraft noise, sign Sky Posse's petition, and be cautious about who you ask for advise.


Regulatory Capture: Web Link

Sky Posse Palo Alto: Web Link

Save Our Skies Santa Cruz: Web Link

[Post removed.]

@resident 1 wrote:

"Another thought - PA is stuck in some building height limitation - meanwhile Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Redwood City are plowing ahead with new buildings which exceed 4 stories. Check Mathilda Blvd / Maude and general area. Visit Redwood City - they are becoming a real city with a major port - they are getting on with it. They just need a good ferry anchorage in their harbor.

Bottom line is that PA is not helping itself here - we are creating the lowest possible profile for flight paths. The area between San Antonio to Ellis Street is a low area that the SJN planes can use when needed - so why are they coming to PA? That is a question I will post to SJN."

If that were true, then wouldn't increased building heights - and increased development of tall buildings - make sense if one wanted the planes fly higher? Yet a number of those complaining about aircraft noise also vehemently oppose development. Regardless of the impact on aircraft flyovers, I think your observation that PA is not helping itself here is spot on.

[Post removed.]

[Post removed due to deletion of referenced comment.]

Let's put to rest the Palo Alto building height red herring. 525 University is 237 feet. Hoover Tower is 285 feet. Neither shows up on aviation charts or has any effect on air traffic. We could build a Transamerica Pyramid (850 ft) and it still wouldn't affect SFO or SJC traffic, or even have much impact on PAO other than being a landmark.

Sorry Musical - not convinced on that. Everyone else is making better use of space - we are not. Hoover Tower has been there forever - planes do not cross that segment of the campus. And planes do not go down University - if they do then they enter it at Middlefield. Those two areas are off limits for plane traffic.

Res 1,

Musical got the building height thing right. Buildings of a few hundred feet have no effect on the flight paths of planes at several thousand feet.

I have seen SFO bound commercial aircraft (and GA) fly over Hoover tower on multiple occasions, and all kinds of aircraft fly over University Avenue all of the time.

If you were to sit outside at either location for an hour or so, you could easily confirm this for yourself.

My family is in Old Palo Alto and the noise seems constant.
Early this morning a large orange colored plane banked right over our home and scared the hell out of us.
These planes are coming in SO LOW it is frightening.
This did not look like a Surf Air plane.

It is summer and our windows are open, but the noise is ridiculous.
The air pollution seems to have gotten much worse too.

Thank you to everyone who has taken the lead on this, and the time to complain.

For general aviation from the west, the usual VFR check-in point for initial radio contact with Palo Alto Tower is over SLAC. From there, the shortest path is a straight line over Stanford and downtown Palo Alto. Departing traffic heads out the same direction.

Stanford Stadium is a nice landmark for the corner of SFO airspace where the base altitude jumps from 2500 feet to 4000 feet.

Has anyone else been looking at flightradar recently? I've seen some *very* different routes lately. Just now (10pm Monday night), several flights heading into SFO are staying west of Stanford, turning up around MTV, heading to the bay (around NASA), and coming up over the bay. I do think they are testing some new routes that do not all converge over Palo Alto. Do I believe my eyes? It could not come soon enough.

Resident, I wish it was true that they may be testing new routes, but for me I just experienced my usual late night over flights. Nothing has changed over here in downtown north yet.

thank you all for posting so many facts,sources,and perspectives

and i thank the WEEKLY for creating threads and editing threads that allow "the wisdom of many" as well to some degree cross-examination! this confirms to me one great value of the paper and its staff.

Resident of Fairmeadow, That was interesting to see. I looked at the tracker at 10pm and the planes were indeed taking an unfamiliar route. However, closer to 11pm they were back over Palo Alto again as usual.

"Early this morning a large orange colored plane banked right over our home and scared the hell out of us."

What is so scary about an orange plane? Regardless, you can send him to Downtown North. I think it would be pretty cool if an orange plane banked over my house. BTW - All quiet here. You could hear a church mouse dropping a pin.

@ Peter Carpenter,

Pray say, what did the response you received from Congresswoman Eshoo say regarding reverse traffic at San Jose? Anything about a change in how SJC will operate? Any relief for Palo Alto and vicinity from reverse SJC traffic?

I do appreciate your writing to Ms. Eshoo. Note that you are not the only one who did.

I am very curious as to what concrete action you will have obtained to remedy this issue.

"The FAA is a profoundly corrupt federal agency, that has been captured and is controlled by the industry it is supposed to regulate."

Is this the same FAA that runs the busiest and safest air traffic control system in the world?

"The Palo Alto City Council has been preoccupied with catering to the wishes of real-estate developers, while other local players were busy rearranging the aircraft noise deckchairs, on the regional airspace Titanic. "

Is this the same Council that was elected, many of them to a second term, by the citizens of Palo Alto?

The papers today are awash in stories about the FAA -Associated Press "Study of air traffic controllers finds persistent fatigue"; Report: "Study on fatigue of controllers kept secret".

These are studies requested by the National Transportation Safety Board to the FAA and the National Air Controllers Association.

What a mess - if this occurred in any defense company on the stock exchange then the government would be sticking it to them. Any major company that bids on a government contract is held to the highest standards regarding both technical requirements and human resource requirements. They get graded on that in the bidding process. Is the cost of some companies high - you bet - it is because there are so many regulations that have to be satisfied to get a product bought off by the government.

So we have some here doubling down on what a paragon of virtue the FAA is. Time to recognize that there is a major problem that needs to be dealt with - for us that is making sure that we have pushed for the safest skies for us.

That means no San Jose flights using PA airspace when they have their own airspace. That means flights in the area at 5,000 altitude. Slow down the flights so they are not in a dive mode. - I have been on some of those flights and the passengers are looking around clapping that we made it to the ground. And the pilots on those planes were not flying the original planes assigned to that flight so they were relieved that they made it.

We need to clarify what the FAA is responsible for at the PAO. Is the city trying to expand their role at that location? Is the FAA trying to expand their role a that location?

Are the local ATC personnel getting enough rest? Where is their union? That is what a union is suppose to be protecting for it's union members. If the union cannot do better for it's members then why are they paying them dues?

I am a fan of the PAO and do not want to see the city assume responsibilities above and beyond those they currently have - still to be defined.

Side note on unions and SFO = it has some of the strongest union personnel at that airport. This is "old time" union personnel. This is a tough environment.

Somebody wrote upthread about observing flights arriving at SJC crossing PA on their way. I've also noticed (on Flightradar24.com) departing SJC flights passing over PA.. the early morning Hawaiian Air flight does that often.. and yesterday around 1 pm an Air Nippon 787 heading to Japan from SJC crossed over at 3,900 ft. When that happens SFO bound flights seem to be a bit higher and a bit farther north.

On a different note - I first became aware of the increasing plane traffic while swimming at Rinconda in the early morning. Planes pass directly overhead one after another, seemingly aligned with the Embarcadero/Middlefield intersection.

Is SJC runnung planes in opposite directions on the same runway? It's technically feasible in light winds, and the PA path would keep the noise away from their own residential neighborhoods.

@Sayyy, uh yes, but generally not at the same time. When they are landing south, they are also taking off south, so neighborhoods are just trading one kind of noise for the other kind of noise.

The nearest downtown San Jose noise monitor (St John Street) I've seen show 80dB for an arriving 737 crossing it at 600 feet. Later in the day, a departing 737 shows 82dB crossing at 1600 feet (departures are louder, but steeper).

Correction: the southbound 737 SJC departure was *earlier* in the day (7am).

@ Musical,

You would be right about neighborhoods trading one kind of noise for another, but it is not entirely accurate given SJC's curfew.

See, Palo Alto often gets SJC reverse traffic late at night, after the 11 PM curfew. At that time, there are no take-offs to speak of from SJC.

I am convinced it is a way for them to get around the curfew while protecting San Jose residents from noise as much as possible.

Resident 1's observation that Saturday mornings regularly bring reverse traffic also bears this out. Or is it that winds are in the "habit" of shifting on Saturdays rather than on other days (sarcasm intended)?

80 dB is very loud, but CNEL averaging will make it seem like a baby's whisper on the record.

Still, SJC is missing an opportunity to use nextgen to its fullest.

That is a good point about the SJN planes using PA Airspace during their curfew. That is really sneaky. And their flights tend to be very low.
We need to get on that point - maybe we are blaming SFO for some SJN planes late at night.
In any case they are getting permission to do that from someone - need to identify who is giving out get out permission slips.

Between 1:51 and 2:51 pm this afternoon, I counted 15 airplanes flying overhead loud enough to disturb my reading outside. I did not just recently buy my house for an exorbitant price -- we bought it 20 years ago -- and I did not buy it 'knowing' that it would become a major flight path 20 years into the future. I did know that the trains passed close by, and I live with that - and their horns that are often loud in the middle of the night. However, trains do not pass by every 4 minutes. I also did not buy my house because it was in an "urban" setting. I bought it because it was a suburban setting that also had a lot of amenities without a big city density. The City is busy trying to change this situation with more cars, more traffic, more office buildings, etc. Doesn't make it pleasant to live here.

The fact is, wherever you live, we need to have a better solutions. It is not 'screw a small slice of Palo Alto" so others can benefit. It is "let's work to find a solution that does not adversely impact any one neighborhood disproportionately." If it were your neighborhood, I would speak up for you. We need a creative response rather than blame and problem shifting.

"We need a creative response rather than blame and problem shifting."

That has already been proposed in this forum - ACDA's and herringbone entries would distribute the flights much more evenly over a broader area.

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 30, 2015 at 8:06 am
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
What most posters are missing is that NextGen is a tool - not a policy decision.

Instead of cursing the darkness please light a candle and work to incorporate ACDA and herringbone approaches into the implementation of NextGen approaches into SFO.

ALL- if you go to the FAA web site you will see that Next Gen is a policy to begin with and a tool to implement the policy. It is a national policy and the tools are catching up with the policy. The SF region is busy catching up with the east coast. But you already know that.

Our job is to insure our safety and make sure that all type agendas do not get implemented on our heads. This is not a religious experience and lighting candles will not help.

This is not about placing blame - it is about upping the conversation to determine where the authority chain of command is and engaging with the correct chain of command.

Above all I do not want to see the PAO become and arm of the FAA as a regional ATC. That is already happening on Saturday mornings. A lot of horse power goes into arranging those planes from San Jose crossing the city in total to cross over the PAO. Don't under estimate the number of agencies that are involved in that type of activity.

Ok, @Long-timer, I'll have to look for that SJC reverse traffic late at night. Curfew? Edit: good thing I looked more carefully before hitting submit. I was about to say Stage-3 jets were exempt, but actually only certain models of Airbus 319/320, MD-80/90, and various smaller commuters and business jets are authorized to operate all night, whether arriving or departing as far as I can tell.

As for Saturday mornings, I'd think reverse SJC traffic would dump even more noise on downtown San Jose and adjacent neighborhoods. I don't have Saturday data in front of me, but this morning (Tuesday) from 6:30 to 9:00am SJC had 28 arrivals and 39 departures according to FlightAware, plus whatever private aircraft were flying.

@Evergreen,

If you bought your house 20 years ago, like mine, it must be worth at least 4 times what you paid. Too bad we could not predict that SFO and SJC would both be major airports, bringing tourists and tech folks to our Bay Area. The planes have actually gotten quieter. Part of NexGen is emissions reduction, also a good thing right? We can't go back, but many suggestions have been made as to how to go forward. Like anything else in our democracy you care about, work for it, vote for it, but I'm not sure whining about it brings the rest of us to your cause. This weekend I paid special attention to the planes while outside, I certainly heard them, but please recognize that not everybody is bothered equally. Also, please don't whine about living in Palo Alto. It is a first world problem with a trivial solution!

Better to light a candle than curse the darkness

" Several people are associated with this proverbial saying, notably John F. Kennedy. It was first spoken in public by Peter Benenson, the English lawyer and founder of Amnesty International, at a Human Rights Day ceremony on 10th December 1961.

Darkness has long been a metaphor for ignorance or evil."

Old Steve,

In the time it took me to read your sour one-paragraph post, my concentration was twice broken by the very real, and very loud, whine of a Airbus A320.

Although I am sure the real-estate agents would love it, if your "trivial" solution to the aircraft noise problem is moving... there is nothing "trivial" about moving.

On the other hand, your problem really is trivial. If don't like the silent "whining" on this thread, you don't have to read it.

"very real, and very loud, whine of a Airbus A320"

The whine is audible because they're operating the engines on idle. A quieter and smarter option would use a power setting that puts the whine above the audible range. The added power would flatten the glide path slightly, which would allow the planes to come off cruise power sooner and thereby make up for the additional fuel consumed during the modified descent.

A Silicon Valley solution at last.

Or just add a small piece of metal above the fuel pressure vent: Web Link

My heart goes out to the folks living around Oregon&101, Midtown, Crescent Park, Duveneck, etc. We can hear the seemingly constant overhead flights in Fairmeadow -- I really miss the quiet evenings with windows open -- but I can only imagine how disturbing it must be with the constant barrage of even lower flights in those areas. We have got to keep the pressure on for a fairer and better distribution.

Pilot,

Wow, very intriguing suggestion, thanks for the insight. The FAA advertises "nextgen" as being more fuel efficient and QUIETER, because on approach the engines are at "idle" (although they are vague about what they mean by idle).

This is the first I've heard of the engines actually being NOISIER at idle because they are operating in the audible, instead of inaudible range.

Is this just true for the A320s, is it primarily fan noise, and what role does the A320's FOPP play in the A320's unique high pitched whine? Thanks in advance for your response.


"A320 family FOPP Air Flow Deflector - Noise reduction on approach"
Airbus ~ May, 2014 Web Link

Pilot,

Please go to this link Web Link

Pilots with good ideas especially welcome.

When petitioning for changes recognize that different organizations have control over and responsibility for different parts of the noise problem.

Changes in approach plates/routes and the distribution of flights to different approaches are the responsibility of the FAA.

Non-safety related changes in operational procedures for a particular aircraft(such as engine speeds during descents) are the responsibility of the airline operating that aircraft.

A great deal of progress has been made with SurfAir by spreading its visual flight rules (VFR) flights out over a larger area and not lowering the aircraft flaps and wheels until closer to SQL - these changes did not involve the FAA.

Getting good comments here - sorting out who is responsible for what and engineering features that can lessen noise.

I think we have forgotten a group in this mix - the Palo Alto Business Manager and his staff - which includes a manager that was previously on the San Jose City staff. A new San Jose mayor - surely some opinions of the SJN which has not been doing well of late - many airlines decamping to Oakland airport which is cheaper for the airline. SJN's business model must be under review to improve profitability.

If you look at the PAO which is now a Palo Alto owned facility - yes with funding from some government sources - any business operation at that airport would have to get approval from the city business manager. Many city expenditures spin off of that facility so some forward plans are required to be in place for future budgeting and planning. Did the sudden switching of flight paths arise when the San Jose new mayor took over and the existing staff in part arrived in Palo Alto?

The PAO run under the county had one set of requirements - but the PAO now run by the city must be self sustaining as to the generation of income and expenses in the day to day management of the airport. It has to be profitable.

Not to be missed is that a new employee of the PAO was previously at the San Carlos Airport so is very familiar with the Surf Air issues.

Where is the Santa Clara Supervisor's in this mix - they are sitting down with each other over policy decisions which affect the county overall, including future tax assessments which affect the county's growth.

Do they all have some input here - you bet they do. The city council is fragmented with individual opinions that may or may not affect the profitability of the city in total so suspect that staff runs that element of the overall city functions.

I was outside and had to laugh - a flight of geese went over headed to Palo Alto Golf Course from the Sunnyvale Golf Course so low they were barely clearing the trees. They are now getting attuned to the lower fights and managing their migrations from golf course to golf course in a more prudent manner. Is that important - yes - geese are a major problem at SJN as well as PAO that both employ tactics to get them off the facility grounds. The PA Golf Course had a dog that loved that.

That is part of running airports. The other part is the upcoming surge of people who will be here for Super Bowl. Also future planning for any Olympic events which would include SF, SU, and San Jose. How to move people effectively. And in the case of San Jose an airport that is in direct proximity of the stadium(s) for these events.

The mayor of San Jose, as well as the Silicon Valley Groups are counting on a very successful series of events and have to struggle with known people mover issues and figure out how to resolve them. PA has got to be in that mix - all planes leading to the PAO indicate that there is a role developing there.

"Is this just true for the A320s, is it primarily fan noise, and what role does the A320's FOPP play in the A320's unique high pitched whine? Thanks in advance for your response."

It apples to all high-bypass fanjet engines. Every modern underwing engined airliner uses them. They have a big many-bladed fan in front just inside the engine cowling, which you can easily see when the engine is not running. In flight it is driven at high speed by a separate turbine "pinwheel" in the exhaust stream at the rear of the engine core.

When the engine is idling in flight, as on approach, the fan is turned mainly and relatively slowly by the slipstream air (aka windmilling), and it generates that annoying whine.

The A320 whine. There is a much more fail proof fix than that suggested by pilot.

It is the plug in add on for the wings. Cost: one time $3,000 per plane and it can be done during routine maintenance.

In Europe,

* governments mandated the add on.
* airlines added the fix
* noise is down (6 db) for such flights.
* end of story.

Fast, simple, effective.

What is wrong with this country?

I am at home from work for a rare day today. If I didn't know better, I'd have thought there was an air show in the area. Flights going overhead about every 1-2 minutes. It's horrible.

3:15PM Wednesday, terrible air noise overhead.
A BIG change from even several years ago in N Palo Alto.
Outrageous.

I wish that some of the energy spent here cursing the sky could be used in a more productive manner. If this is a real problem in your life, maybe you should consider expanding your view to outside of Palo Alto where you might be able to use that energy to assist those with more pressing matters. Many would say it's actually mutually beneficial to do so. We have it pretty good here.

"If this is a real problem in your life, maybe you should consider expanding your view to outside of Palo Alto where you might be able to use that energy to assist those with more pressing matters."

Well, there are many ways I could go with that. But, for starters, consider that you do not know what I do on the large majority of days when I'm not at home mid-afternoon.

More generally, belittling or disparaging the people who are under the new flight paths is probably not a winning strategy.

I'm not belittling or disparaging anyone. I just don't think it's as bad as some are making it out to be. Planes from SJC fly right over my house on rainy and cloudy days. I have a baby who is less than a year old, and it still doesn't bother me. It actually makes me happy to know people are moving about and going places all around me.

I'm just saying have some perspective. That's all.

The Forum is intended "to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion " however posters who challenge the prevailing sentiment are quickly labelled as being disparaging or dismissive. And if such labeling does not intimidate them then they are personally attacked. And if they have the audacity to respond to those personal attacks then their responses are removed. And eventually the thread is shut down because properly supervising it requires too much time from the moderators.

We need to find a better way to share information and opinions.

"What is wrong with this country?"

Nothing. Europe is liberal socialist. Their governments regulate everything. The USA is free enterprise. Freedom isnt free. That sound is the siren whistle of freedom.

"I'm just saying have some perspective."

Good advice. My perspective, given the global and local nature of the various issues we face, is that respectful and thoughtful discourse is very important. As you suggest, airplane noise is not the biggest issue that many of us face, as Palo Alto residents (or Mountain View for you), as United States residents, as citizens of the Earth. But it is clearly a very important issue to some, across the US under the new flight paths, as it significantly impacts quality of life; and it should be respected as such. And the implication that people who care about a new highway built next to their house, or over their house, don't care about other things is just silly.

It can be hard for people not under the new flight paths to understand their impact. I see you live in MTV, and so are not impacted by the new flight paths. Objective noise and flight traffic metrics may help for some. You can get a sense for it by looking at a tool like flightradar, though it does not reflect the impact of plane elevation. Helping folks understand the impact of this new routing is a work in progress. That's partly why we post messages like this. But we should be able to do better than anecdotes.

Native,

For some perspective Web Link

I beg to differ with Eileen Wright. Corporations own the government in this country. This is not real freedom other than for big business. The average person has no real voice. At least, in Europe, they are a tad more mindful of the health of citizens on the ground below airplane highways.

It is not just Europe. Do you know why we have an SFO bound Korean B 747 barreling down on us at midnight every single night? It is because it is speeding to try and make it back to Seoul ... before the night curfew goes into effect at the airport there. Presumably, that curfew has teeth unlike SJC's curfew. Of course, SFO has NO curfew. So, we, in Palo Alto and vicinity, are actually paying with lost sleep for the peace and quiet of people in Seoul, Korea. Is this freedom? Not in my book.

Interesting about the A320 whine--since it was brought up, I realize that the planes that annoy me the most are the A320s--the combination of high-pitched whine and deep rumble is particularly disruptive. A required fix would be a good thing.

I was over at the PAO today talking to the groups that have the flight schools. They confirm that the planes from SJ and SFO are vectoring in on the PAO as part of their routines. For us in PA when that occurs the SJ planes are at about 2,000 ft over the whole of Palo Alto and at 1600 over the PAO. They have the challenge that the Surf Air planes runs at 2,000 ft and that is a problem they all have to deal with.

Imagine - one plane company has been given the privilege of creating the conditions for the larger commercial planes. The Surf Air problem has a huge impact on how the SJN and SFO flight paths are managed.

We are going to work to move those planes back into the Sunnyvale / Mountain View transit corridor where they belong. Then the MV individual can form a more realistic opinion of how this all works.

Some people love trains, some love cars, some people love planes. That is all part of individual tastes and interests. Perspective is very individual.

I would like to point out that most people in this area have real jobs and real interests which do not always allow them to participate in the local city issues. So everyone picks some interests that allows conversation with others on a topic outside their regular daily routine - which then becomes part of their regular routine.

If the children are graduated and out of school then that topic has to be left to those who have children still in school.

So the people that gather on this topic have engineering skills, city planning skills, and some background in major industries where these products are designed. Everyone here typically already has an involvement with the topic at large and appreciates the forum so that some impact can be made to improve a city problem.

Airlines received $ 38 Billion in extra fees last year. Airlines can certainly afford $ 3,000 per plane to quiet down the Airbus A320s in their fleets.

Web Link

Web Link

"They have the challenge that the Surf Air planes runs at 2,000 ft and that is a problem they all have to deal with."

Us too. That's in the heart of Cessna skies. Low, fast SurfAir approaches and errant private planes don't mix very well. Everybody near the SurfAir flight path be sure to keep your fire and life insurance paid up.

All of the planes operating in the PAO airspace (surface to 2000 ft) during the hours that the FAA tower is operating (0700-2100 ) MUST be in communication with the tower and therefore they receive traffic advisories to maintain safe separation.

Any plane above the PAO airspace and below 10,000 ft is either in the SFO Class B airspace or the abutting SJC Class C airspace and must be in communication with those facilities or Tracon. There is a very narrow corridor going to the NE where planes can fly beneath the floor of the SFO Class B airspace which is 4000 ft over the Bay and further East.

PAO is not a navigation point for either SFO or SJC flights and does not appear as a navigation point on any SFO or SJC approach plates.

I would like to see a study of incidences of cancer for those living under the extreme flight paths and compared to those not exposed. Jet fuel is not regulated and contains carcinogens such as benzene.

Like lighting a gas station on fire and flying it over your head every two minutes.

At what cost, who knows?

"I would like to see a study of incidences of cancer for those living under the extreme flight paths and compared to those not exposed."

You are referring to the chemtrail theory?

Peter Carpenter,

"Non-safety related changes in operational procedures for a particular aircraft(such as engine speeds during descents) are the responsibility of the airline operating that aircraft."

This doesn't sound very good. On two fronts, how can speed not be related to safety, and if speed is related to noise, can the FAA do anything about noise?

What is the status of Moffett Field at this point? They have the airfield and planes do land there. The corridor for that field is typically over the Sunnyvale golf course. Has anything changed that prevents that corridor to be used by San Jose VS Palo Alto for arrivals?

Eileen said:

"The USA is free enterprise. Freedom isnt free. That sound is the siren whistle of freedom"

Your whistle of freedom (the aviation industry) is one of the most heavily subsidized industries in the United States. The aviation industry is so heavily subsidized that it is not free-enterprise at all, but is actually a quasi-state industry:

1. Half of the $40 billion spent so far on "nextgen" was paid by the US taxpayers, and the aviation industry is complaining about paying their half because they say "nextgen" is not cost effective. Costs are expected to rise to $60-80 billion before "nextgen" is completed. Will the aviation industry even pay their half?

2. The US taxpayers just paid for a $200 million renovation of the runway at SFO through an FAA AIP grant, even though SFO is a for profit corporation that generates $770 million a year in revenues, and is profitable enough to kick $38 million a year into the SF City general fund, and still have substantial retained profits.

3. The US taxpayers just paid for a $1.6 million renovation of PAO's runway, and the PACC has just authorized the PACM to seek as many Federal hand-outs as possible, in exchange for handing control of PAO to the FAA.
This isn't just happening at SFO and PAO. This kind of "free enterprise" is happening at airports all over the country, and is costing the US taxpayer billions per year.

4. The US taxpayers fund a whole federal agency, the FAA, to promote the aviation industry, and keep it running.

5. Every major US airline has failed, and been bailed out by the US taxpayers at one time, in the not too distant past.

6. Airbus has successfully argued that the US's bloated, taxpayer funded, financial support for the defense industry is in effect a giant subsidy to Boeing's commercial aircraft division, as taxpayer funded innovations trickle down into Boeing's commercial aircraft production.

7. Young pilots, and pilots working for regional airlines make on average $24,400/year, and some regional carriers pay as little as $15,000/year. In spite of these incredibly low wages, US carriers complain that they cannot compete against the even more heavily subsidized carriers in Asia, and the Middle East. However, these heavily subsidized carriers in Asia and the middle East are a boon to Boeing, because the subsidies provided by these foreign governments, are frequently funded by foreign-aid from the US (taxpayer) that is tied to the purchase of US products (Boeing aircraft).

Before you wave the freedom flag of "free enterprise", you should check the facts.

Good points, Jetman.

Ironically, Airbus planes are built by a multi-socialist-country consortium. And I believe the last prior airplane to feature a siren was the German Stuka dive bomber. It aprovided some extra terror for the people in its target zone.

As I hear the Airbus A320s flying over my neighborhood, I find it interesting that Lufthansa has chosen to retrofit 157 aircraft in the A320 family so that they will fly more quietly!

Web Link

To Kazu,

No absolutely not referring to the chemtrail theory.

Referring to the fact that jet fuel is not regulated and contains chemicals
that are known carcinogens.

Far more a serious concern to me than noise.

Just think about it and research it yourself

More siren whistle of free-enterprise:

8. The net result of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 has been oligopoly (near monopoly). At many large airports, just a single airline controls 75% to over 85% of all domestic flights. The airline industry has subdivided the country into fiefdoms, with tacit boundaries that are not crossed. The few domestic airlines that remain have more market power than ever. UAL dominates Houston and Chicago, DFW International is controlled by American, Atlanta is dominated by Delta... the list goes on.

"The Failure of the 1978 Airline Deregulation Act"
AIReform ~ May 27, 2013 Web Link

Has anyone mentioned the planes have to go SOMEWHERE? OK I guess so.

So you all realize there are other people in other areas who all want the planes to fly over someone else's house, right?

You realize Eshoo is taking input from others right?

Web Link

It always amazes me that people from "Another Palo Alto Neighborhood" are contrarians. Is "Another Palo Alto Neighborhood" the PAO airport?
However the people I talked to did not seem that pleased with the current status quo. They are not thrilled with Surf Air and SJN planes overhead at 1600 altitude.

San Jose planes do have a place to go - their own neighborhood. They have no reason to cross PA - that is only a current situation.

SFO plane do have a place to go - they can slow down, circle over the ocean / bay if they are waiting for a place in the cue, and fly overhead at a higher altitude.
There are places for everyone - they don't need to crowd into a single area and speed around at a low altitude to get ready to land.

Common sense has flown out the door. And someone in Sacramento is orchestrating all of this? No connection to the bay area, no flack for a bunch of unhappy people.

"It always amazes me that people from "Another Palo Alto Neighborhood" are contrarians."

So, someone else's neighborhood is where planes should go. Got it.

@ Sparty from another community

I think everybody realizes that no one wants airplanes and we, in Palo Alto, also know that Atherton sent its SFO plane problem down to Palo Alto some time ago.

The truth is the increase in SFO traffic above Palo Alto, especially at lower altitudes, has been not only dramatic but also both out of proportion with the increase in overall SFO traffic and much larger than that over most other communities, some of which have actually experienced a decrease in such traffic.

What we want is a bit of fairness, which we have not had. It is time to do something about this.

"So, someone else's neighborhood is where planes should go."

Yes, if it means everyone in the area gets a fair share of the noise disturbance.

"that Atherton sent its SFO plane problem down to Palo Alto some time ago."

Not true - SFO bound airplanes fly over my home every day and most of them haven't flown over Palo Alto before they passed over my home:

Web Link

As long as posters look only at what happens over Palo Alto they will never be able to make the case that Palo Alto gets more traffic than other communities and certainly not more ground level noise. A numerator without a denominator does not give you a percentage.

@ Peter Carpenter

Your one screen-shot does not prove much.

Atherton gets some SFO traffic, but much less than Palo Alto, especially at the lower altitudes, the ones that generate the most noise. The numbers are soon going to come out. They are startling.

" Atherton gets some SFO traffic, but much less than Palo Alto"

You do NOT have any comparative numbers - being Palo Alto myopic will not make the case that Palo Alto is disproportionately impacted.

"Atherton gets some SFO traffic, but much less than Palo Alto, especially at the lower altitudes,"

SFO planes flying over eastern Atherton are at or below the altitude those planes were at IF they also flew over Palo Alto.

" The numbers are soon going to come out."
I have already seen these numbers are there is not a single comparative number in the very excellent study of what happens over one location in Palo Alto.

If we spread out all the approach patterns as PC has suggested do with then need noise monitors in every Peninsula committee so that noise events can be correlated with the radar data to determine which aircraft are exceeding the noise threshold? I suspect, just from my own backyard experience that cars on the street and the various noises produced by Caltrain will be bigger sources of noise pollution up and down the Peninsula.

@PC -- You've got way more expertise than I, but I am losing patience with those who suggest here that planes into SFO and SJC can just take any old route over the foothills or the bay. From the east maybe, but from the west, clearly they have to go up the Peninsula to SFO and over residential San Jose to SJC. Is there an easy on-line tutorial that could explain approach and departure wind conditions, lift, thrust, etc. The fundamentals have not changed much in forty years, only the avionics.

In Frankfurt noisier aircraft have higher landing and take-off charges. There are also higher charges for aircraft arriving or departing late in the evening or early in the morning. The Frankfurt airport also has a curfew between 11:00 pm and 5:00 am.

Web Link

In 2014 San Francisco had 22,756,000 passanger boardings.

Web Link

In 2015 Frankfurt had 59,566,000 passengers.

Web Link

The self-appointed apologists for the aviation industry want to pit neighbor against neighbor, but there are solutions that offer relief, without shifting noise:

1. HIGHER - All aircraft on approach, should fly as high as possible to reduce ground level noise impacts. Sound obeys the inverse square law, so distance has a dramatic effect on sound. SFO bound aircraft regularly fly over Palo Alto at >6,500' and still go on to land at SFO, so we know this can be done.

2. SLOW DOWN - Air-frame noise is proportional to velocity to the fifth power. A 25-50nm/hr reduction in velocity can have a dramatic effect on noise. KAL213 which passes over the Peninsula every evening between 1:00-2:00am, is routinely violating the 250nm/hr speed-limit for class B airspace by as much as 50nm/hr.

3. SHARE, DON'T SHIFT - Aircraft traffic and noise should not be shifted from one community to another, or from a larger number of people, and onto to a smaller number of people. That's just not fair. Everyone should help share the burden. Imbalances due to prior shifting of noise, should be re-balanced.

4. CURFEW - There should be a sensible nighttime limits on flights over populated areas and dwellings when people are sleeping. This should be easy to do, since there are only a handful of planes in the air between Midnight and 6:00am.

5. BAY APPROACH - The FAA should transition to a plan where all aircraft begin their approach to SFO starting at the southern tip of the Bay, and avoid flying over populated areas or dwelling at less than 10,000'. This is done in other cities like Washington DC, where approach routes fly along the Potomac River, to minimize impact on populated areas.

So our airlines would not pass on those "noise charges" to passengers? The FAA is on record as to not supporting any new airport curfews. That means we need this Congress to do a favor for the most liberal area in the country, with Pelosi in firm opposition? Sure they will. Some aircraft are exempt from the SJC curfew, so we still would not get perfect quiet.

We live between two busy, booming Metro areas, each with their own airport. Data as to health impacts are certainly worth gathering and presenting, so are actual noise measurements. All that needs money extracted from SFO & SJC. By order of whom?

Hey Jetman, At least two of those probably increase climate change over the current set up. Al Gore only matters to Palo Alto when it is somebody else's noise? Geography and winds are different in DC, ask somebody who has flown in there!

@ Old Steve,

For your information, flying as low as the planes do here actually uses more fuel than flying at higher altitudes. So, having the planes fly higher would actually help with fuel savings as well as fighting pollution and climate change.

Old Steve,

If you're worried about emissions, at least calculate the footprint of Surf Air passengers.

Jetman,

According to Peter Carpenter,

"When petitioning for changes recognize that different organizations have control over and responsibility for different parts of the noise problem.

Changes in approach plates/routes and the distribution of flights to different approaches are the responsibility of the FAA.

Non-safety related changes in operational procedures for a particular aircraft(such as engine speeds during descents) are the responsibility of the airline operating that aircraft."

This sounds like the FAA cannot help with speeds. If they are not looking out for speeding or safety arising from speeding, what can they do?

@Long-Timer:

They call it a 3% GLIDE Slope because less fuel is used by reducing the number of throttle changes during the approach. Let's measure air pollution over our entire airshed, not just below aircraft. In Palo Alto I am certain Caltrain's diesels produce more hydrocarbon pollution. As for noise, same as fuel, the more throttle changes, the more noise, likely over somebody.

When somebody goes to get more FAA money from Congress, I'm sure the climate deniers will have much glee over US being the one's pitching a fit over reduced airline emissions, OH well...

BTW -- I believe in climate change, but I choose to let my son fight that battle. After all, he and his kids will be here, I won't. I just want to work long enough to pay back what I borrowed to put kids through college.

@ Old Steve

"BTW -- I believe in climate change, but I choose to let my son fight that battle. After all, he and his kids will be here, I won't. I just want to work long enough to pay back what I borrowed to put kids through college"

How "sweet" of you to pass the problem on your your kids. I am trying to do something about it, and for one, I am all for electrifying Caltrain. But Caltrain isn't our topic of conversation.

United Air Lines Flight 1263, N57868, flying over Palo Alto at less than 3,500 at 8:26 this evening!

@Paly Grad,

Even if they fly lower than 1,000 ft, can we do anything about it? Are we screwed?

This is just getting comical. Earlier today when I looked up I could see 2 planes at the same time in my field of view. One jet airliner and one propeller plane. The airliner was doing a turn over the area which makes a hell of a racket. The prop plane kept on going straight. Just right before the prop plane left my sight, another small plane entered on the same flight path. That split second, there were 3 planes overhead at the same time. Reminded me of being a spectator of an airshow. I assume the jetliner was probably going to SFO. I have no idea where the prop planes were heading to.

We humans are incomprehensibly insane to be having this conversation of fairness about where to fly airplanes.

We are on the cusp of climate change that will devastate life as we have known it while seemingly calmly discussing where to send more carbon producing machines.

Anyone else have a problem with this?

You are right Thoughtful. Well, the interesting thing is that planes from the north and the west used to take the shortest route, over Woodside and Atherton, and now most of them take the longer, more polluting route, over Palo Alto and Mountain View. Go figure.

There is so much false information being posted on this topic!
1 - "United Air Lines Flight 1263, N57868, flying over Palo Alto at less than 3,500 at 8:26 this evening!"

In fact the only flight over Palo Alto at that time was UAL 995 which was at 5000 ft over Palo Alto as shown here:

Web Link

2 - "Non-safety related changes in operational procedures for a particular aircraft(such as engine speeds during descents) are the responsibility of the airline operating that aircraft."

This sounds like the FAA cannot help with speeds"

No - my comment specifically stated ENGINE SPEEDS. ATC does control all airspeeds in the Class B airspace around SFO.

3 - " avoid flying over populated areas or dwelling at less than 10,000'. This is done in other cities like Washington DC, where approach routes fly along the Potomac River, to minimize impact on populated areas."

In fact the Potomac River Visual 19 Approach is over a narrow portion of the Potomac River and all of the time planes on this approach are much closer than 10,000 ft to populated areas in Arlington VA and Washington DC.

Web Link

Web Link

******
We cannot have a thoughtful discussion if posters continue to misrepresent the facts.

PC,

Washington DC, was offered as an example of a place where approach routes fly along a body of water, to minimize impact on populated areas, not as an example of a place where aircraft avoid flying over populated areas or dwelling at less than 10,000' (sorry if this was not clear).

I try to make my postings on Town Square accessible to the general reader, so you should not read them as if they are a technical specification, or legal document. I hope you don't think the detailed re-engineering of the SFBA airspace is being done on Town Square?

"Washington DC, was offered as an example of a place where approach routes fly along a body of water, to minimize impact on populated areas,"

Note on the Potomac River Visual 19 Approach Plate that the altitudes are 1800 ft at Chain Bridge ( 6 miles from airport) and 1200 ft at the GeorgeTown Reservoir ( 4 miles from airport) and 900 ft at Key Bridge ( 3 miles from airport). There is more ground level noise in populated areas from this approach than from any approach to SFO - and it fact it is one of the noisiest approaches in the entire US. It is a horrible example of a noise reduction approach,

Last evening (Friday August 14th) there were three low flying aircraft over Palo Alto:

UAL 1263 / N57868 / < 3,500 feet / @ 8:24 pm

UAL 1197 / N 12221 / < 4,000 feet / @ 8:54 pm

Aeromexico 664 / XA-MIA / < 3,900 feet / @ 9:00 pm

> There is so much false information being posted on this topic!
> 1 - "United Air Lines Flight 1263, N57868, flying over Palo Alto at less than 3,500 at 8:26 this evening!"
>
> In fact the only flight over Palo Alto at that time was UAL 995 which was at 5000 ft over Palo Alto as shown here:

The website flight aware is showing different information. It says UAL 1263 flew over PA (37.4483 -122.1406) at 3500 ft at 8:24PM last night. It arrived at SFO at 8:29PM.

Web Link

UAL 995 flew over PA later at 8:37PM at 5200 ft.

Web Link

UAL 1263 crossed 101 at 3400 ft and crossed East Palo Alto at 3300 ft (at the tip of Dumbarton Bridge).

This is clearly a flight to complain about.

Correction - UAL 1263 crossed 101 at 3400 ft and crossed East Palo Alto and then eastern Menlo Park at 3300 ft (at the intersection of 84 and Willow Road).

This is clearly a flight to complain about - particularly for Menlo Park and East Palo Alto.

Definitely complained about it many times. Funny thing is the FAA says this is the responsibility of the airport, in this case SFO. SFO says there's nothing they can do about it as they are just following the FAA's plans. The complaint process just seems broken.

"Definitely complained about it many times. "
Then this is the type of flight that needs to be well documented for Congresswoman Eshoo.

If anyone sends me the date and time of a problem flight then I will verify the details, and if the altitude is too low or the airspeed is above 250 its, I will send the documentation to Cong. Eshoo's office.

I suggest that people focus in on the worst repeat offenders like this flight and the KAL flight.

I would note that "working with" a particular air carrier can be very effective.

For example, if we bring lots of attention to United Airline's management and the media about specific repeat offender UA flights I predict that management will see that changes are made.

And if we in general and the local Korean community in particular bring lots of attention to Korean Air's management and the media about specific repeat offender KAL flights I predict that management will see that changes are made.

In all my years on the PAO JCRC the only effective solution was working with individual pilots to get them to change flight patterns and engine settings to reduce their impact on the community.

Fran,

I agree with you that it's very frustrating for the PING PONG between the airports, and the FAA.

Now Peter Carpenter suggests "we" have to work with the airlines,

Last year people laughed and ridiculed a poster who begged corporate neighbors like Samsung to see if they had any pull over there - with KAL

Now the suggestion from Peter Carpenter - "if we in general and the local Korean community in particular bring lots of attention to Korean Air's management "

Anyway, what a MESS. Nobody is really in charge, and it's all excuses, excuses, excuses - not even "aplogists" jetman,

No apologies from the peanut gallery.

Working with SurfAir has been very effective in getting them to spread out heir flights and to stay "clean" as long as possible.

Repeat offending flights can most effectively be dealt with via the carrier involved.

Changing approach paths and routings can only be accomplished via the FAA.

Offerring proven courses of action is not an excuse; doing nothing is an excuse.

We need to be smart not cute, clever or cynical.

Peter Carpenter,

Catching speeders or low flyers one by one. We would need an Office of Airline Relations? Or are you suggesting you would be the savior by talking to each of them.

Maybe the Secreatary of Transportation Bill Shuster, dating the top airline lobbyist would want to give us tips.

What a mess.

[Post removed.]

I want to reiterate that TRACON - the upcoming ATC California control point has locations at Mather (formerly Mather AFB) Sacramento, Fresno, Santa Barbara, and San Diego. San Diego makes sense - the others do not make sense. You are moving major control points out of the vicinity of the main population centers that are most affected by transportation issues in general. No one sitting in Sacramento is bothered by noise - or streams of commercial planes doubling down on their heads in a continual basis. So people orchestrating the movement of planes are oblivious to the impact - they only see a line being measured by fuel costs and airline profits. We need to change that and re-enter the human cost of business.

At a Moffett meeting this week I posed the question as to change in commercial flight paths - are the transitions at Moffett driving any changes in the FAA designated air paths in that area. Generally a NO - but some did recognize that a change is occurring - hello Mountain View - the planes can come back to your place as a transition point into the San Jose Airport. Since MV City Council, Sunnyvale CC, NASA attends these meeting a general silence but on record is a concern that is being watched and investigated, including the Anna Eshoo participation.

Note on above - individual, recreational plane owners want to be close to their planes so are willing to make changes to insure proximity. I do not see how that translates to commercial airline companies who are functioning world wide. Would like to see focus on the Korean plane that everyone hates as a test case. That is low hanging fruit for a law suit.

"the others do not make sense. You are moving major control points out of the vicinity of the main population centers that are most affected by transportation issues in general"

You do not understand modern technology. There is no reason to locate TRACONs within major metropolitan areas. The rent in major metropolitan areas is higher. The cost of living for TRACON staff major metropolitan areas is higher.

TRACONs do not make policy but implement established policy.

"Would like to see focus on the Korean plane that everyone hates as a test case. That is low hanging fruit for a law suit."

Why go for and fund (and who will actually pay for it) a very expensive law suit when you have an a national airline from a very publicity sensitive nation and culture that you could much more easily persuade into better behavior?

[Post removed.]

On April 14, 2015 the following exchange took place between Jetman and Peter Carpenter in the comments section of The Almanac's Town Square...

Question (Jetman):

You have been working with Surfair for close to a year now, to get them to fly "clean"... why isn't it working?

Answer (Peter Carpenter):

"I have given them advice but I am not working with them. They have elected not to take my advice.

I suspect that pilots appreciate that flying the IFR approach and putting your wheels and flaps down earlier is, as is proven by the facts, safer. Late deployment of flaps and wheels increases the odds of not being properly configured for landing".


"Surf Air adds 31 flights a week at San Carlos Airport"
The Almanac ~ Apr 14, 2015 Web Link

I understand technology just fine thank you - I come from technology. And based on my experience technology sometimes goes off the deep end and does not factor in the human element.

Associated Press articles this week on air controllers who are sleep deprived tells you that the FAA doe not understand the human element. They - the FAA / ATC management who allows that situation should be fired on that alone. There is a blank space in the DNA chip there.

I understand that if technology companies get contracts to perform certain functions they are required to meet those specifications in order to get paid - but the government specifies the requirements up front.

In the technology world there are certain factors that are not measureable so not added into the required specifications. However - in order to win the contract to begin with the bidding company is required to provide a totally compliant Human Resources plan consistent with both state and federal requirements. See - the problem here is the government does now follow their own requirements.

I understand that the Government is moving their agencies to lower cost areas - both the state and federal offices are moving their functions to lower cost areas which then begs the question on all of the projections on growth in the state of California - like why do we need the HSR? I have direct relatives who are managing those moves. We in PA think the world is spinning here but there is a whole movement to spin the world outward to regional areas so that the newer workers can buy homes and establish families.

So what is not to understand? The people who are directing traffic do not live under the traffic - they are displaced from the traffic - their world is taking off and landing at certain specifications which do not include the human requirement. They get graded and promoted on that alone.

So hello to the human element - time to step up.

Some of this reminds me of my Hollywood background - remember the show RAWHIDE. We have a lot of wranglers trying to switch the brands on those cows. And where those cows are roaming.

Patience and persistence pay off.

SurfAir has done much better in the last two months.

Moving the Tracon to the Bay Area will never happen so spend your time working on feasible solutions.

I just talked with a Korean American executive in the transportation industry. He assures me that it is totally appropriate to hold Korean Airlines up for scrutiny and that he was embarrassed that they don't follow the rules and are not more sensitive to the people on the ground.

People have made many complaints to SFO concerning the specific Korean Airline plane. Change the altitude! Change the flight path!
Has anything changed?
The question to SFO is what have they done concerning this specific flight - or any of the problem flights in the midnight hours. Are they in conversation with Korean Air? Or are they blowing off the people on the ground? In conversation with some flight school personnel at PAO they sere aggravated by that plane. People in the business of flying have no sympathy for that plane - or Surf Air.

So next step is request info from SFO on what their role is here - a lot of this is looking like the Pointer Sisters - someone else is suppose to do something.

"I am trying to do something about it [global warming], and for one, I am all for electrifying Caltrain."

Electrifying Caltrain will increase its carbon footprint. Given your climate stance, why do you want to do that?

Peter Carpenter,

Did you clarify to this person that your sentiment does not represent Palo Alto?

That many of us hold the entire aviation industry HERE accountable for this mes?

That we ADMIRE that they have curfews in Seoul and that shamefully we have deniers of the real problems who would rather distract and make themselves self-important?

Peter Carpenter,

Meant to say MESS that the aviation industry has created with what a strategy that Res1 calls the Pointer Sisters.

So Jetman, I read your posting about you and PC,

To you and PC, What distance and altitude do you recommend for Surf Air PC-12 to go flaps and gear down,

No one on this forum speaks for anyone else or for any community.

One person = one opinion

Just landed in Wash DC arriving on the Potomac Visual Approach - easy to see from all the lights how close we were to populated areas.