San Francisco Airport Incoming Flight Patterns and Noise Pollution Palo Alto Issues, posted by Bill Stewart, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jul 14, 2012 at 11:12 am
Is it my imagination or have the incoming flight patterns changed such that more flights into San Francisco Airport are brought in directly over Palo Alto? Are planes flying lower than they have been? Why are the jets not flying higher and powering down to reduce the noise? Why arn't flights directed over Redwood City and Atherton? Are flights from the east being routed around San Francisco and brought in over Palo Alto from the north? Does anyone have historical records of flight patterns and how they have changed over the past 10 years? Are there repercussions for airlines that fly lower than they are supposed to as they come in over populated areas to land at the airport?
Posted by Read Often, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Jul 14, 2012 at 11:37 am
Bill: you obviously don't read these postings very often. See below a blog entitled: "Air Traffic Noise Increasing" and you'll find some 30 or more comments.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jul 14, 2012 at 1:42 pm
YES! All any Palo Alto resident needs to do to perceive this is to stand outside for 15-20 minutes and just listen to the number of airliners, small planes and helicopters that travel over our fair city - it is a lot and it is neverending.
Maybe they assume that since we already have an airport here that no one will notice, or that people will assume this is normal … but it was not always so loud. (another of may reason to shut down the Palo Alto airport) In the 80's San jose neighborhoods sued and got compensation and even housing upgrades to fix the noise from the SJ airport.
There is virtually an airplane going overhead almost every minute of the day in Palo Alto now … and I feel sure that someone made a deal to allow that to happen, again dump the losses and liabilities on the public, and privatize whatever gain there is to be made to a few fat cats.
Posted by Anna, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jul 14, 2012 at 3:54 pm
While it may not be strictly and literally "true" that there is an airplane overhead every minute of the day, it is definitely true that there is continual overflight of both jetliners and small planes in many parts of Palo Alto. It is also manifestly true that this phenomenon has become MUCH more pronounced over the last decade or so.
It is also a fact that about a decade ago, San Mateo County cities negotiated an agreement with SFO where SFO agreed that (with minor limitations) overflight in San Mateo county would be kept above 10,000 feet. Naturally, the response of the airport was to route airplanes over the northernmost part of Santa Clara county, namely Palo Alto.
If Palo Alto officials had been on the ball back then, or if they would push the issue now, we could doubtless reach an agreement with SFO to counteract the parade of jets that increasingly affect our quality of life. Whether whey will or not depends in part on the extent of public pressure. Perhaps the posts here on this forum are an indicator of an increasing awareness of the issue and an unwillingness to tolerate these assaults on our peace and serenity.
Public pressure might similarly affect the city's willingness to subsidize the Palo Alto airport with its buzzy weekend noisemakers affecting our outdoor activities in the summer.
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton, on Jul 14, 2012 at 4:11 pm Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
Look at the web site above - there is far less traffic than the posters suggest.
**********************
This feature allows you to watch the movement of flights and air traffic patterns currently in use within the Bay Area. This map will show flight tracks of aircraft arriving and departing from SFO, Oakland, and San Jose Airports as well as other nearby general aviation airports. Red aircraft are arrivals, green aircraft are departures, and blue aircraft are General Aviation or small propeller aircraft and helicopters. The white aircraft are transiting the area and bypassing local airports. The icon aircraft sizes are uniform regardless of the actual size of the aircraft.
These flight tracks, although taken from actual radar data, are not in real time. There is a delay of ten minutes, as indicated in the lower left corner of the map window. This can be helpful if you notice an unusual overflight in your neighborhood and you need time to bring up this website to study its altitude and flight path. It is not uncommon to see tracks occasionally disappear as the information is updated.
Posted by Not Peter, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Jul 14, 2012 at 7:08 pm
""There is virtually an airplane going overhead almost every minute of the day in Palo Alto"
Hyperbole and simply not true."
Carpenter's statement is unhelpful and simply misleading. Monitoring the air traffic through the site on a lazy Saturday afternoon, I count one every 3-5 minutes coming directly over LAH and PA. Aside from simply being A LOT, that is vastly more than going over any other Peninsula community.
Posted by Not Peter, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Jul 14, 2012 at 7:40 pm
"Wrong - even more planes go over Redwood City , San Carlos and San Mateo and at a much lower altitude."
Plainly untrue and fabricated. They did not - anyone who observed the feed that I did would see that. The facts clearly pain Mr. Carpenter, I do not know why he makes such objectionable comments.
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton, on Jul 14, 2012 at 7:46 pm Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
Look at the actual radar - planes arriving from the north and west transit Palo Alto at or above 5000 ft. Planes from the east and south arrive over Fremont. All of these planes then overfly Redwood City, San Carlos and San Mateo and do so at much lower altitudes. But don't let the facts get in the way of your deeply held feeling of being abused.
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton, on Jul 14, 2012 at 8:07 pm Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
The facts are the facts - look at the radar, note the flight paths and the altitude readouts.
Planes arriving from the north and west transit Palo Alto at or above 5000 ft. Planes from the east and south arrive over Fremont. All of these planes then overfly Redwood City, San Carlos and San Mateo and do so at much lower altitudes. This has also been true for the last 90 minutes.
It is not a question of opinion, the facts are there for all to see. And there is nothing ad hominen about expecting posters to be truthful in their postings - per the Editor.
Posted by Not Peter, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Jul 14, 2012 at 8:31 pm
Carpenter: "there is nothing ad hominen"
Outright lie - "... your deeply held feeling of being abused" is both ad hominen and abusive.
Carpenter: "planes ... arrive over Fremont"
Irrelevant - we are talking about Peninsula communities.
Carpenter: "planes then overfly Redwood City, San Carlos and San Mateo"
Misleading to just wrong. The planes skirt the unpopulated waterline at the edge of the Bay on their way to SFO. I did not see any go over San Mateo or San Carlos - a few flew over the waters edge of Redwood Shores. It would be the equivalent of overflying the edge of the Palo Alto Baylands. In fact they fly over the densely populated Palo Alto neighborhoods.
There seems to be no dispute about the "every 3 to 5 minutes part" which would be 12 to 20 flights an hour.
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton, on Jul 14, 2012 at 8:37 pm Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
You are entitled to your opinion but the facts are there for all to see. How easily you dismiss low altitude flights over East Palo Alto and Redwood Shores and eastern Belmont and San Carlos - and the fact that all of the planes from the south and the east never overfly Palo Alto but all of them overfly parts of the northern peninsula communities.
Posted by Palo Altan on vaction, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 15, 2012 at 4:49 am
@Peter Carpenter
There are plenty of loud planes overflying Palo Alto. Where they come from and the fact that airplanes also fly over San Mateo county does not take anything away from the fact that planes are very noisy over PA. Additionally, there are periods of time when planes do fly above PA every 2 minutes or so. I don't understand your insistence that PA does not have a jet plane noise problem, when you don't even live in PA. Do you have some connection with the powers that be at SFO maybe?
I must say that I am currently vacationing in the 4th largest city in France, a city with an international airport. Not a single plane flies over our neighborhood. It is so much quieter and we sleep so much better at night. The contrast is unbelievable. The quality of life so much better.
We should not have to deal with such noise pollution in PA, 20 some miles away from SFO.
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton, on Jul 15, 2012 at 7:51 am Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
"I don't understand your insistence that PA does not have a jet plane noise problem"
I just believe that it is preferable to have a fact based discussion rather than talking about perceptions. The vast majority of people living on the peninsula do not perceive that there is an aircraft noise problem. The facts allow us to put their and your perceptions in perspective.
" Do you have some connection with the powers that be at SFO maybe?"
None.
"Additionally, there are periods of time when planes do fly above PA every 2 minutes or so. "
There are time when planes fly over Palo Alto two minutes apart but there are seldom times of day when this occurs repeatedly. What I think is occurring is that the few people who are sensitized to this issue perceive it differently than others and also differently from the known facts.
Posted by Read Often, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Jul 15, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Folks, get used to it because it ain't going to improve; infact it will probably get a lot worse. How about if they turn Moffett Field into a hub for overnight postal services and commercial carriers, we'll have planes coming in all night long.
The only answer is to move right away from the Bay area.
Posted by double-paned windows, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jul 15, 2012 at 2:27 pm
We have so many planes over, turning here, that if we didn't have double-paned windows we would really suffer. It can be annoying to be outside in the backyard. I have directly witnessed lowflying commercial planes turn right over our home - noisy - not sure if heading to land at SFO or Oakland. It appears we take the brunt of the arrival traffic. Sometimes the noise is frequent.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jul 15, 2012 at 9:25 pm
The other error is that Peter Carpenter is looking at numbers but it is not understanding the experience, because he is biased and attacks those that disagree with him unfairly.
An airplane takes a certain amoint of time to fly over, it is not one discrete event a spike that makes most of a minute seem like empty space … it is a long event, first you hear it, then it builds, then it blares and then it starts to fade. So even if that is one every fine minutes that is 20% of the time.
There is no ultimate unbiased data source, so trying to create your own facts is typical dishonest arguing. I am not lying or exaggerating, the plane noise is a nuisance. I am sitting here writing this in my office and in the space of writing this I have heard 3 planes flying overhead - right now.
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton, on Jul 15, 2012 at 10:16 pm Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
Anon - sorry that you can't/won't deal with the actual data including the fact the just as many planes fly over Atherton as Palo Alto and at a lower altitude.
Posted by Not Peter, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Jul 15, 2012 at 10:27 pm
"Sorry that you can't/won't deal with the actual data including the fact the just as many planes fly over Atherton as Palo Alto and at a lower altitude."
Just plain wrong. My data showed nothing of the kind. I wish Carpenter would not make outlandish statements like this without any supporting data. I guess he can't handle the truth!
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton, on Jul 16, 2012 at 7:10 am Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
" just as many planes fly over Atherton as Palo Alto and at a lower altitude."
This statement was based on actual flight path radar data from 1-4 PM yesterday.
Go run the tapes.
Interesting that I am the only poster that has actually posted real data with flight numbers and yet everyone else feels that their perceptions are more accurate than actual flight track data.
"The color-coded density plot represents the distribution of aircraft arrivals. ONE YEAR of radar flight tracks are averaged, and then color-coded to show the distribution of flights that use the given track."
This is all flights over an entire year. It is clear that Menlo Park and Atherton get as much traffic as Palo Alto. And because MP and Atherton are closer to SFO flights over those communities are lower than the ones over Palo Alto, i.e. planes descend when in the landing pattern.
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton, on Jul 16, 2012 at 7:56 am Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
Very little SJC traffic overflies Palo Alto EXCEPT when the winds are from the south and SJC planes are landing to the south ( and then SFO is also 'turned around'. ATC rules preclude mixing SFO and SJC traffic over Palo Alto - they would conflict with each other.
The link is not simplistic but a excellent visualization of the actual flight paths of all planes arriving SFO within a year. This is the same radar that guides the planes to the airport so I doubt that they are cheating - unless you are totally paranoid.
First you claim that there is no data, then that the data is wrong and then you claim the data is bogus -- why not just accept the fact that your perceptions are not confirmed by reality.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jul 16, 2012 at 8:09 am
That link has virtually nothing to do with or say about noise over Palo Alto, and your dishonest lying ways to defend the airport around here are famous, and pretty pathetic. As I sit here again at my computer in my office I can hear another plane going over. The fact that this may not go on solidly for 24 hours is not some measure of my flippancy or exaggeration, it is a real annoyance. As soon as one plane stops another one can be heard approaching.
Your argument is basically it is nothing, and you point to a link that really is not relevant to the issue at all. As as I said every flight I have taken from San Jose flys up the peninsula and then turns around. I know they are going over Palo Alto because I can see the city below me. Who knows why. I don't appreciate being told I am lying or exaggerating or having my views discounted based on your useless charts.
As I prepare to hit submit on this yet another plane is overhead.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jul 16, 2012 at 8:17 am
There is another plane now.
> Life is tough sometimes - get over it.
Yeah, so that's your bottom line, you really do not give a damn whatever the numbers are or what people say for some reason you have to troll these articles and attack people who say anything bad about airplanes.
Posted by Anna, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jul 16, 2012 at 1:26 pm
The SFO Noise Abatement site to which Peter Carpeter cited at one time had a function where a user could put in a time and date range and see simultaneously all the flight data for that time range. I did this a couple of years ago and it was plain that about half the SFO traffic was funneled over Palo Alto on a line running roughly from Foothill Park to the intersection of Middlefield and Embarcadero and then on to the bay where (as one poster described) it flew up the baylands coast to SFO. This was a marked and unmistakable pattern no matter what day one used data for. Nighttime there was less traffic (about 4-5 planes per hour during the 1am to 4pm time frame), but it still was funneled directly over the residential areas of Palo Alto. Other cities did not have this kind of constant assault on residential areas (though some areas of Redwood Shores and Foster City surely are affected by airplanes flying off the peninsula shoreline - even if they aren't directly overhead as they are in PA.
For some reason the SFO Noise Abatement discontinued the ability to access historical data. If one were conspiracy-minded, a case could be made that the graphic representation of the noisey overflights might be a political problem they wanted to avoid.
"The color-coded density plot represents the distribution of aircraft arrivals. ONE YEAR of radar flight tracks are averaged, and then color-coded to show the distribution of flights that use the given track."
This is all flights over an entire year. It is clear that Menlo Park and Atherton get as much traffic as Palo Alto. The primary path over the peninsula is across Stanford, then a pit of Pa and then Menlo park and a bit of Atherton. And because MP and Atherton are closer to SFO flights over those communities are lower than the ones over Palo Alto, i.e. planes descend when in the landing pattern.
Posted by Bill Stewart, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jul 17, 2012 at 8:58 pm
I didn't realize the extent of the vitriol I would incite with my remarks. In looking at the takeoff and landing charts that a neighbor directed me to, there appears to be another approach to SFO from north to south that horseshoes from east to west over the bay as opposed to west to east over Palo Alto. If this approach were used then no traffic would circle over Palo Alto or Atherton, for that matter. Similarly, if the Moffet Airfield approach pattern were used for SFO, it would shift the traffic from the south over Moffet and eliminate a lot of the commuter traffic from LA and San Diego. Similarly, if the overseas traffic were routed further south before they turned into the landing pattern northwards into SFO or were routed north of the SFO and landed using the east to west horseshoe arrival flight path perhaps a lot of this traffic would avoid populated areas. It would seem to me that you could minimize overflight of populated areas and raise the elevations if a few air plane operations knowledgeable folks would put their collective gray matter to work with the goal of mitigating noise. How about objective comments.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jul 17, 2012 at 9:33 pm
Is it only a coincidence that every time I sit down to read or write these comments there is a plane flying overhead. One right now off to the south or Crescent Park.
I don't think the numbers tell the whole story, even if they are not cooked or massaged in some way. Also a plane does not have to go right over a place to be loud or annoying.
And there goes another one right now … really I am not making this up.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jul 17, 2012 at 9:40 pm
Another thing those numbers above are totally bogus as usual.
Those are complaints to SFO. If I heard an airplane I would not know who to call about it and never had. How do I know where the plane is leaving or arriving from and why or where would I call SFO?
Of course the complaints spike right at the end of the SFO runway. This is all SFO-centric and not a good measure at all for the argument being made that there is not a lot of noise over Palo Alto.
Being familiar with the airplane system I guess gives on the quickness to manufacture and argument out of nothing if one so wants and is dishonest enough.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jul 17, 2012 at 9:45 pm
> who gave become overly sensitized to certain stimuli .
I invite you to come to Palo Alto and relax with a video recorder in Eleanor Park and then sit and watch the sky for any random hour and count the planes passing overhead.
You are quite willing to grab those numbers from SFO, and who knows what those mean in terms of actual noise? I am sure you do not. The actual experience of being in Palo Alto is that we are subject to a lot of airplance noise.
It is slightly worse in the Baylands where planes are constantly making so much noise one cannot carry on a conversation.
And yes, there is another plane now going by as well, sounds like west to east.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jul 17, 2012 at 10:00 pm
So this is pretty much a random sample kicked off by an email that Bill Stewart posted. I listed all the planes I heard since I am sitting at my computer. There has been about 1 every 4 minutes.
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton, on Jul 18, 2012 at 7:30 am Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
I actually had dinner last night outside at a friend's house in Palo Alto who lives near Middlefield and Embarcadero. I noted about 6 six planes per hour, only one of which was load enough to interrupt conversation.
Posted by David H, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jul 20, 2012 at 11:11 am David H is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
Without in any way being dismissive of the sensitivity to noise that we all feel (yes, I regularly hear a jet over my house at 3:00am in the morning) I think it behoves us to also look at the bigger picture:
(1) Traffic has declined at Palo Alto Airport (KPAO) in recent years due to the economic situation in which we find ourselves.
(2) In years gone by there was an extensive waiting list for tie down spots at KPAO. Now there are at least 115 empty spots available.
(3) The airport is the home to many skilled businesses providing much needed employment, and flight training for student pilots.
(4) The airlines have publicly stated their concern for the future over the decline in the number of new pilots being trained (AOPA - the Aircraft Owner's and Pilot's Association) consider's reversing this decline a key priority
(5) Please take a look at the website of the Palo Alto Airport Association Web Link to learn more about KPAO
(6) The FAA has just issued a report entitled: General Aviation Airports: A National Asset. The link is on the front page of the PAAA website
Posted by Whining, a member of the Walter Hays School community, on Jul 20, 2012 at 11:31 am
Yo, Anon!
I just heard a dog bark.
A moment ago I heard a car drive by.
Dang, my neighbor's pool inlet pipe is splashing water while topping off her pool.
Yesterday morning, another neighbor had a radio on outside while clipping a tree (SF vs ATL, 9am start, we lost, bummer...)
The other day I heard a garbage truck AND a recycling truck.
What's that?!? Omigosh, a siren in the distance!
Shall i post every time I hear a train whistle?
PA whiners. Amzing. Just amazing.
"This is all flights over an entire year. It is clear that Menlo Park and Atherton get as much traffic as Palo Alto." And as PC points out, if anything, they aare lower at that point. Try Foster City for a couple hours.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jul 20, 2012 at 11:56 am
> (1) Traffic has declined at Palo Alto Airport (KPAO) in recent years due to the economic situation in which we find ourselves.
Interesting, but you are bypassing all kinds of other considerations in order to make a general and I think unsupported logical claim that because there is or may be more "spots" at the PA airport that this is some kind of general and probably temporary trend worthy of extrapolating well into the future for your particular claim … in other words - propaganda.
Next you delve into how "job creators" must be given carte blanche in every aspect of their lives, extended to the airport or course or we will lose jobs. When is this illogical argument going to go away along. It should take with it the ridiculous and disproven by our last decade of experience, reasoning of how tax cuts create jobs.
And if those arguments are blown away, well, then consider the people who work at the PA airport themselves. We can fire a whole nation of manufacturing workers, but somehow Palo Alto airport workers should get more consideration than every other American worker.
Was it the "AIRLINES" were we talking or airplane noise over Palo Alto we were concerned abut here. If the airlines are concerned about pilots I am sure they will do like most other industries and cut training costs by letting other countries who invest in their economy train the world's pilots, at least until our own airlines corporations are forced to in house, which they will put off as long as possible. They could also pay pilots better and give them more job security. Ask Sully Sullenberger about a career in flying planes.
All other things being equal this is a question of airlines disregard for civilian noise they create, and how and why it is somehow cheaper for airlines to fly their planes over Palo Alto than other areas, preferably less populated areas and why there is no facility, no governmental or other agency to coordinate measurements and public opinion into changing things that are a problem.
It really is important that somehow corporations be made to change their charters so that they are incentivized not to act, and act dishonestly, for their own bottom line, and where is all these profits going really - to unknown, unnamed sources, the great accomplishment of sending a whole nation's money to unnamed sources that then take over the government. It all starts to crumble when local people get fed up of being ignored and cheated.
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton, on Jul 20, 2012 at 12:16 pm Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
"his is a question of airlines disregard for civilian noise they create, and how and why it is somehow cheaper for airlines to fly their planes over Palo Alto than other areas, preferably less populated areas"
This is uninformed nonsense. The current flight paths were NOT chosen by the airlines but by the FAA with lots of community input. Every single one of these flights is monitored for compliance with flight paths and noise abatement.
"this is a question of airlines disregard for civilian noise they create, and how and why it is somehow cheaper for airlines to fly their planes over Palo Alto than other areas, preferably less populated areas"
This is also uninformed nonsense. The airlines are spending millons to buy FAA required quieter airplanes and both the FAA and the SFO Roundtable closely monitor the airlines operations.
"The Airport/Community Roundtable was established in 1981 as a voluntary committee to address community noise impacts from aircraft operations at San Francisco International Airport (SFO). The Roundtable monitors a performance-based noise mitigation program implemented by airport staff, interprets community concerns and attempts to achieve noise mitigation through a cooperative sharing of authority among the aviation industry, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), SFO management and local government.
The authority to control aircraft in flight and on the ground is vested exclusively in the FAA. The FAA, however, cannot control the number of flights nor the time of day of aircraft operations. Federal law preempts any local government agency from implementing any action that is intended to control the routes of aircraft in flight. Neither the Roundtable, local elected officials nor airport management can control the routes of aircraft in flight or on the ground."
"POLICY STATEMENT
The Airport/Community Roundtable reaffirms and memorializes its longstanding policy regarding the “shifting” of aircraft-generated noise, related to aircraft operations at San Francisco International Airport, as follows: “The Airport/Community Roundtable members, as a group, when considering and taking actions to mitigate noise, will not knowingly or deliberately support, encourage, or adopt actions, rules, regulations or policies,
that result in the “shifting” of aircraft noise from one community to another, when related to aircraft operations at San Francisco International Airport.” (Source: Roundtable Resolution No. 93-01)"
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jul 20, 2012 at 1:48 pm
> Every single one of these flights is monitored for compliance with flight paths and noise abatement.
That's typical, "everything's fine, nothing to see here" … that is what is uninformed nonsense.
And yet again focused exclusively on SFO, more nonsense. There are 3 main sources that I know of for Palo Alto airplane noise, SFO, San Jose and the Palo Alto airport. Possible Moffet Field or San Carlos airport or others?
Something is broken in this plan, most likely put together by the SFO and the airlines. Are there any metrics, are their any fines, are there any consequences, and when was the last violation of these guidelines and what happened?
I am all for involved people contributing what information they have, but what I perceive we get on these community forums are PR, spokespeople or friends of the airport and airplane community - which is fine, except that numbers are consistently being cherry picked or misinterpreted it seems to me.
What are the variables here … I think one is that airplanes that fly higher generate less noise, but use more fuel. If there are measurements being taken, how are they checked?
To be fair as well, I mentioned many times when a plane was going overhead, there is not one now, although I hear something off in the distance over the yard trimmer and construction noise that sounds like a small plane.
And I don't think anyone is saying shift noise from one community to another, although why is that ruled out if the change would result in more equal burden of noise?
As we have seen in other areas of the government or enterprise most of the rules that everyone thought we in place and doing the job do not seem to be working, in a chronic and general way. Why is anything to do with planes any different?
Posted by New World Order, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Jul 20, 2012 at 2:15 pm
Anon:
Damn, you found out. We really thought we could keep it a secret, but you must have spied on the NWO for years, successfully infiltrating and discovering our vast conspiracy!
Curses!
Yes, indeed, our top plans do involve re-routing planes from all 5 airports to fly directly over Crescent Park.
Drats! Now you know!
Hold on a sec - HEY HONEY, TELL THOSE GARDENERS TO STOP WITH THE BLOWERS!!!
Posted by Anna, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jul 20, 2012 at 2:26 pm
I think Anon. has the better of this argument. It may be true that airplanes are quieter than in the past and that the airlines are following all noise abatement standards and procedures. As the posts in this forum indicate, many still are bothered by airplane noise in Palo Alto. And other cities, which in the past were more proactive than Palo Alto, managed to convince SFO and the FAA to route planes away from their airspace. Why is it wrong for us to urge our representatives to do the same, and to start the process by pointing out the problem in forums like this?
It's also true that the airlines try to conserve fuel and that the fuel conserving practices can be at odds with minimization of ground noise. The airlines try to do what they can to save fuel dollars while playing within the rules of noise abatement and flight path restrictions. This doesn't mean that the flight paths can't be altered to avoid more people (or as Anon suggests, to share the burden), or that noise standards can't be changed to permit less noise.
All the nonsense posting about the value of the airport, or air commerce, or jobs at the airport, and about the economic necessity of airports and airplanes are misdirection. Aluminum smelting similarly is essential to the modern economy, but I'm sure P. Carpenter et. al could find reasons to complain if a smelter were built next door to them.
Similarly, the fact that there are other noise nuisances like barking dogs and sirens doesn't mean we can't do something about what many consider a greater harm. We restricted leaf blowers for this very reason.
Posted by Anna, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jul 20, 2012 at 2:39 pm
It might also be pointed out that the "SFO Community Roundable" to which Peter Carpenter refers is a member organization composed of San Francisco and San Mateo Counties and virtually every city in San Mateo County. Is it any wonder that the results of negotiations between this group and SFO have resulted in a disproportionate fraction of airport noise being born by Palo Alto....the closest non-member city?
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton, on Jul 20, 2012 at 2:48 pm Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
"As the posts in this forum indicate, many still are bothered by airplane noise in Palo Alto."
Actually less than 1/10th of 1 percent of the Palo Alto population has posted any concern about this issue - and that counts posters who may well be using multiple names.
This is simply not an issue to the vast majority of people who see this in the perspective that we llve in a populated area with a number of attendant benefits and costs.
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton, on Jul 20, 2012 at 3:32 pm Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
"a disproportionate fraction of airport noise being born by Palo Alto."
Flights over Palo Alto at a higher elevation effect far fewer people than would those same flights at lower altitudes over cities closer to SFO. The sound footprint area at any given decible level changes logarithmically with distance - at half the altitude the impacted area is four times greater.
Posted by Anna, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2012 at 11:03 am
Peter Carpenter's previous two posts are markedly silly and simply wrong respectively.
Any discussion on this forum is participated in by a tiny fraction of the population of Palo Alto. To suggest, as Carpenter does, that the participation on this forum represents the entirety of the population concerned with this issue - or with any and every topic on this forum - is beyond illogical. It's silly. There are a lot of people concerned with airport noise, or we wouldn't get the spontaneous response we see here. I should note that it is the participation by proponents of airplane related issues that is questionable in the sense that every time a subject related to the Palo Alto airport comes up, we hear from the Pilot's organizations' members statewide - responses obviously astroturfed by the email alerts put out by local members.
The agreement between SFO and San Mateo county provides that with few exceptions overflights of San Mateo County must be above 10,000 feet. (The exceptions are approach and take off flight paths immediately adjacent to the runways, and the area over the bay that skirts Foster City and Redwood Shores where the planes fly lower but adjacent to, not directly over residential areas.) By contrast, in Palo Alto, the overflights of residential areas on the approach paths to SFO are generally between 4,000 and 5,000 feet - which as Carpenter notes, result in much more noise. Thus, Carpenter is simply wrong when he contends that flights over Palo Alto are at higher altitudes than San Mateo County. They are not for the vast majority of affected residents.
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton, on Jul 23, 2012 at 11:29 am Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
"Thus, Carpenter is simply wrong when he contends that flights over Palo Alto are at higher altitudes than San Mateo County. They are not for the vast majority of affected residents."
Look at the historical data of all flights over the populated areas of the peninsula - almost half of them are over Menlo Park and East Palo Alto and ALL of those are at lower altitudes than the flights over Palo Alto.
The original posting asks is there a problem with aircraft flights over Palo Alto.
Here is the data on noise complaints by community:
Monthly Calls by Community
Source: Airport Noise Monitoring System
San Francisco International Airport -- Director's Report
Monthly Noise Complaint Summary
Period: April 2012
Number of complaints and number of callers
Atherton 8 1
Brisbane 476 33
Burlingame 1 1
Foster City 3 2
Hillsborough 1 1
Pacifica 72 2
Portola Valley 22 2
San Bruno 1 1
San Francisco 32 11
San Mateo 6 2
South San Francisco 36 18
Woodside 1 1
Daly City 201 3
Oakland 2 1
Orinda 1 1
Palo Alto 9 calls from 2 callers
Total 872 82
******************
Evidently there is not much of a problem in Palo Alto.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Is it a Republican tactic to keep offering the same information when it has been discredited? Or, the other way to state that is if numbers are going to be offered they should be qualified and justified by the people involved. Do they really do that because it works or is that just the myth that I keep hoping it is?
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Your numbers do not prove or disprove your statement that his is a minority opinion Peter of Atherton. They are irrelvant, and if you were honest instead of trying to sell a bill of goods all the time you would either realize that or make a case why I should believe that the numbers of airplane complaints out of SFO has anything to do with Palo Alto airplane noise - because if you are honest that is an impossible case to make. You might claim there is some relationship between the two, but to what extent and how to scale that would be quite impossible. Your thought process is only to repeat your argument, not to think about it or prove it - prove it.
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton, on Jul 23, 2012 at 1:51 pm Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
SFO had Total 872 noise complaints in a recent month from 82 different people but only 9 calls from 2 callers in Palo Alto - that represents about 1 % of all the complaints. 1% is a very small minority.
Facts are stubborn things - particularly if they conflict with your deeply held opinions.
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton, on Jul 23, 2012 at 3:09 pm Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
I have yet to see a single fact posted by the very small minority of people who 'feel' that there is an airplane noise problem over Palo Alto.
All the posted facts show the contrary.
****
"Sound is defined as any pressure variation that the human ear can detect, from barely perceptible sounds to sound levels that can cause hearing damage. The magnitude of the variations of the air pressure from the static⎯or normal⎯air pressure is a measure of the sound level. The number of cyclic pressure variations per second is the frequency of sound. When sounds are unpleasant, unwanted, or disturbingly loud, we tend to classify them as noise.
The "dB" measurement is a logarithmic conversion of air pressure level variations from Pascal to a unit of measure with a more convenient numbering system. This conversion not only allows for a more convenient scale, but is also a more accurate representation of how the human ear reacts to variations in air pressure. Measurements made using the decibel scale will be denoted dB.
The smallest noise level change that can be detected by the human ear is approximately 3 dB. A doubling in the static air pressure amounts to a change of 6 dB, and an increase of 10 dB is roughly equivalent to a doubling in the perceived sound level. Under free-field conditions, where there are no reflections or additional attenuation, sound is known to decrease at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance. This is commonly known as the inverse square law. For example, a sound level of 70 dB at a distance of 100 feet would decrease to 64 dB at 200 feet, or 58 dB at 400 feet. "
The color-coded density plot represents the distribution of aircraft arrivals. One year of radar flight tracks are averaged, and then color-coded to show the distribution of flights that use the given track.
Posted by Anna, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2012 at 4:47 pm
I looked at the site that Carpenter referenced. Looking at both density arrivals and flight tracks overlays, it is clear that a major approach to SFO goes right over Palo Alto and then (passing over EPA and East Menlo...a lot of which is industrial) to the bay where it heads to SFO mostly skirting any residential areas in the bayside cities of San Mateo County.
Palo Alto is getting the brunt of residential overflight noise on the peninsula by any measure available from the data in the charts.
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton, on Jul 23, 2012 at 4:58 pm Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
Anna - look again the majority of the flights go over Palo Alto AND then the residential parts of Menlo Park and touch on the western most residential parts of East Palo Alto AND , and at a lower altitudes over EPA and Menlo Park.
Are you saying that the people in EPA and east Menlo Park are less important than the people in Palo Alto?
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2012 at 4:59 pm
I am really getting tired of the same old re-tread arguments and obfuscation PC.
I've worked with statistics in a corporate setting and I know most of what gets passed to the public is rarely raw honest data, it is a desired image to project. First you talk about complaints, then when I call you on that you turn around and switch to your pathetic lo-res graphs that could really mean anything - and again they do not track San Jose or Palo Alto airport traffic either.
None of those graphs tell the altitude, noise level, speed, duration of exposure, type of engine - all data that would really be needed to make any claims to counter first hand data of Palo Altans who experience the noise, first ear!
I also doubt many Palo Altans think to contact the SFO airport to complain about plane noise, and I also doubt there is as much exposure to noise as cities closer to SFO where SFO becomes more of a dominant factor. Also there is likely a discouragement function where people who live closer to SFO prefentially contact it more because they believe it will do something, whereas Palo Altans are more likely to think what is the point of making a complaint if it will not be listened to. These are three variables you cannot control for and do not even mention - except to dodge and shift your argument back and forth as you have been doing.
I just came in from working outdoors where I was talking to my neighbor who was about 8-10 feet away, and we were speaking in very loud voice to be heard over airplane traffic, so quit trying to tell me it doesn't exist.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2012 at 5:03 pm
> Are you saying that the people in EPA and east Menlo Park are less important than the people in Palo Alto?
Where would you get that? What would possible cause you to make that silly statement? Anna has not made one single statement that would imply that is what she is talking about. Do you even bother trying to respond to people's real intent or so you just spend most of your time trying to spin and distort data and spin what people are saying?
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton, on Jul 23, 2012 at 6:15 pm Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
"> Are you saying that the people in EPA and east Menlo Park are less important than the people in Palo Alto?
Where would you get that?"
Because the dominant flight paths goes over RESIDENTIAL areas of Menlo Park and East Palo Alto which Anne dismisses as " skirting ANY residential areas in the bayside cities of San Mateo County." Obviously Anne considers the most densely populated RESIDENTIAL areas of Menlo Park and East Palo Alto as 'industrial'.
Anon - you still haven't provided proof that you undertand the data.
Posted by Anna, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2012 at 6:41 pm
I think I can speak for myself about the subject of what I meant, PC.
In fact the flight path under discussion goes for a much longer distance over Palo Alto than East Menlo Park or East Palo Alto. As you note the flight path "touches" the Westernmost part of EPA. And though some of the East Menlo portion of the flight path has residential areas, it's primarily over the industrial section - including the new Facebook campus.
The most amusing part of your contributions to this discussion are - as Anon. notes - your habit of ascribing to others something that could not reasonably inferred from their actual words and then going on a riff about how that person "thinks the people of EPA are less important than the people in PA," or other such diversionary nonsense.
This kind of failure to stick to the thread of the discussion is either a mark of intellectual incapacity or an admission that one is losing the argument and so must resort to distortion and diversion.
For the record, contrary to your ridiculous interpretation of my remarks I think EVERYONE who's affected by living under the flight paths to SFO ought to be upset - including the relatively fewer people living in EPA and East Menlo. It would even include those living in privileged places like Atherton if they didn't have the clout to see that the noise was funneled away from their tony estates.
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton, on Jul 23, 2012 at 6:48 pm Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
" And though some of the East Menlo portion of the flight path has residential areas, it's primarily over the industrial section "
Wrong, the dominant flight path crosses the Palo Alto - Menlo Park border just north of Middlefield and traverses ENTIRELY residential areas until it crosses the Dumbarton rail line near 101 and the portion of East Palo Alto that the dominant flight path crosses is ENTIRELY residential.
I ask again - Are you saying that the people in EPA and East Menlo Park are less important than the people in Palo Alto?
Posted by Anna, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2012 at 7:37 pm
"I ask again - Are you saying that the people in EPA and East Menlo Park are less important than the people in Palo Alto?"
What I actually am saying is that people in Atherton appear to be more self important than almost any other people in the area. From the evidence available in this forum, they're certainly more dense than everybody else.
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton, on Jul 23, 2012 at 7:44 pm Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
"including the relatively fewer people living in EPA and East Menlo."
I just went back and measured the length of the dominant flight path that crosses residential areas and the length in Palo Alto (not counting the industrial area of Stanford Research Park )is EXACTLY equal to the length in Melo Park (not counting the area east of the Dumbarton rail line) but the Menlo Park portion has a higher population density. The East Palo Alto portion is much shorter but is also a very high density residential area.
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton, on Jul 23, 2012 at 7:46 pm Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
Anna - deal with the facts, don't attack the messenger. Unless you can't deal with the facts and then I guess attacking the messenger is your only alternative.
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton, on Jul 23, 2012 at 8:47 pm Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
My conclusion is that a number of peninsula communities are impacted by SFO aircraft noise but Palo Alto is not disproportionately impacted. In fact the biggest impact in on the shoreline communities further north where the planes are considerable lower.
I rest my case.
All of the necessary facts have been posted above - anyone who is seriously interested can review them and come to their own conclusion.
Posted by Anon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 20, 2012 at 4:33 pm
I have seen the data on the frequency and altitudes of airplanes descending into SFO, and clearly there is a trend towards increasing number of airplanes over Palo Alto and the vast majority of planes are flying above us at <5,500 feet. Of course, some people are bothered by certain types of noise more than others. Either Peter Carpenter is someone who is not bothered by aircraft noise at all or, as a resident of Atherton, he has a vested interest in airplanes to continue to fly over PA rather than over his neighborhood. Regardless, he should not be so inconsiderate in constantly dismissing PA residents whose genuine perception is that the noise problem has worsened over the years.
Posted by Whining, a member of the Walter Hays School community, on Aug 21, 2012 at 10:09 am
Spent the night in San Mateo; as is my choice, I sleep with the windows open most of the year.
3am, all the way down here in San Mateo, a thunderous rumble as a plane throttles up for takeoff. And now, I hear the planes near constantly and I can view them over the trees as they fly over the base of the bridge.
I continue with my point that PA is just hypersensitive. If you disagree, call the cops and have them do a sound measurement in front of your house, then do likewise in Foster City, Millbrae, San Bruno, South City, Burlingame, Hillsborough, Belmont, RWC, San Mateo or MP.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Aug 21, 2012 at 11:24 am
Whiner, you don't make any sense. You say the plane wakes you up at all hours, but that saying anything about it is whining. If people realized how much their sleep is affected by these planes they would be whining too. I never realized how much noise these planes make until for a time I stayed up early in the morning programming, and then I really realized how often a plane goes by and wakes people up, but by the time they are awake the plane is gone and they do not really know what happened and then doze off to sleep.
You may say it is whining to want to have good uninterrupted sleep in one's own house the one pays the highest prices in the country for around here, but I don't consider it whining, in fact I consider you and Peter and those who condemn anyone who mentions a problem as somehow being wrong or inferior or just too sensitive.
I don't know what is wrong with you, but I suppose you are entitled to your opinions, I just do not think that is your sincere opinion, I think it is the psychological tactic of a certain kind of amoral anti-social personality.
Again as I write this a jet is flying over Crescent Park ... odd coincidence that the random sample time that I respond this thread most of them have a plane flying over.
Posted by Whining, a member of the Walter Hays School community, on Aug 21, 2012 at 12:00 pm
Anon: please reread my statement. At no point did I say it woke me up. At no point am I whining about the planes flying by the window here in San Mateo. It is an observation, about your whining.
Even you admit you were awake when you heard early morn planes.
Now you attempt to cast aspersions with "your sincere opinion, I think it is the psychological tactic of a certain kind of amoral anti-social personality."
Feel better now? Some sort of "amoral" superiority complex?
Want my sincere opinion?
The airport has been here longer than you. You made, and continue to make a free choice to live here. You have buyers remorse and are whining about it. Go ahead, take that apart with your anonymous amateur shrink wannabe personality.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Sep 12, 2012 at 10:41 pm
I just heard of a whole bunch of studies that are starting to show that all this noise is a cause of and aggravated high-blood pressure. Trucks, cars and particularly airplanes. People's blood pressure spikes when they are asleep and a plane goes overhead.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Sep 13, 2012 at 10:29 am
Do your own investigation, I'm not wasting my time spoon feeding someone who insults me so you can insult me some more. I'm just making people aware of the effort.
But the planes are low and are turning, and provide essentially an almost continuous stream of airplane noise.
Many times, the noise is loud enough to disrupt a conversation inside a house with double-paned windows.
These are empirical facts as well. I'd be happy to look at your window onto the data to see why this information is not clearly represented there, if you point me to a working web page.
Posted by exaggerated noise, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 27, 2012 at 6:27 pm
I live in midtown and do not hear any planes, most of the time. And when I do it is referent and not that Loud. But by all means, let's demand that SFO be closed. After all the world revolves around Palo alto and its needs.
Posted by Downtown PA, a resident of the University South neighborhood, on Jan 3, 2013 at 9:23 pm
It seems like the air traffic has increased since I began living downtown 18 months ago. It is pretty regular and causes noise and vibrations. It is enough of an annoyance to make me search the Internet and find this thread. I've heard two planes fly over while writing this post.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jan 3, 2013 at 9:38 pm
Hey downtown .... I told you and everyone here.
Somehow we seem to think if the pace of life is frenetic enough that people won't notice or will think it is OK or normal, but it is toxic to people.
And when you look at it, the only reply people have is to say stuff like the guy above you said "let's demand that SFO be closed". No one is asking for SFO to be closed ... planes to fly higher over residential areas, or avoid them by flying over the bay or taking other routes.
If we actually had calm fact-based discussions things would change ... and that is why smart asinine comments are made to oppose anything that seeks raise the quality of life.
View in an RSS Reader
E-mail this topic.
Print this topic.
