Pilots’ group urges tighter procedures at airport

Who needs the airport when we’ll have High Speed Rail?

Time to post a KPAO countdown clock:
2664 days until Sunday, June 11, 2017

To add to Sheri’s comment, let’s compare the number of lives saved when critically ill or injured patients are flown into Palo Alto and transferred to Stanford by helicopter, to the number of lives on the ground that have been lost due to the presence of the airport over the past 5, 10, 20 years (uhh – isn’t that number zero, or really close to it?).

Then let’s look at the number of people in surrounding communities over the same period who have died as the result of car crashes or deliberate violence. Drivers crash cars into houses too, or kill innocent drivers or pedestrians. And, East Palo Alto doesn’t have a “Shot-Spotter” system to pinpoint air crashes.

There are lots of ways to get killed or injured living in a congested region such as this. To me, at least, the proximity of an airport is so far down on the list of concerns, that I don’t even think about it.

Palo Alto airport is a safe neighbor for our communities. Its benefits far outweigh its risks. I hope the antis will desist in their scare tactics, but I fear that they will influence people who know little or nothing about general aviation (that means private aircraft, not commercial traffic). We can all mourn the loss of Tesla’s three men last week without forgetting how rare such an incident is. Compared to traffic fatalities, fatal airplane accidents aren’t in the same league, whether you measure by trip or by miles traveled.

The pro airport camp keeps dismissing the anti playing-ground-for hobbyists-and-playboys as people “who know little or nothing about general aviation”, which just indicates are weak their case is. The notion that with Moffett so near by this playground is crucial for emergency is laughable. Ask the residents of Woodside, Portola Valley or Atherton, as well as any number of small towns and cities if they feel any less safe because their towns don’t have airports. This airport is a bonanza for a tiny privileged minority at the expense of the safety and quality of life of the vast majority. And why exactly didn’t the pilot group demand tighter procedures before the latest crash? Their general arrogance was interrupted by the realization that the overwhelming majority of Palo Altans who up until the crash payed no attention to the airport travesty started to pay attention. One last point, the pilot from Woodside was asked several times if he would be willing to have a general aviation airport built in his town. He never responded and don’t hold your breath.

“Leave the PA airport alone..”

Were the Palo Alto Airport “left alone” – without the explicit and implicit subsidies (in the form of a $1/year lease, etc.) – it would quickly fall into bankruptcy. Even the County, which has experience in running general aviation facilities, has given up on it as a money loser.

Let’s take the puffing pilots deal: We’ll get an appraisal of the airport and its real estate. They pony up the money to buy it from us, and then run the operation without taxpayer subsidy of any kind…and buy insurance for the endangerment to surrounding communities. And if you violate local noise ordinances, you pay the fines just like the working class gardeners do when they run leafblowers too loudly.

“Get over yourselves” indeed. What hypocrisy.

whine , whine, whine, it’s actually you who believes that the world revolves around you or the groups of a privileged few you identify with so much. I can’t explain otherwise your ultra-arrogant attitude which demands that this group be entitled to the use of a facility which the PA tax payers subsidize at the tune of a $1/year lease. You demand that the land owners just keep their mouth shut and “get over yourself”. Speak of being a hopelessly self absorbed narcissist.

Whine,etc, you don’t really want a detailed analysis of the average income of the PAO user- you will be badly wounded if such an analysis is ever published. Not every user is rich, well, compared to Steve Jobs or Sergei Brim, but even those who aren’t, have incomes acceding the national average average by quite a bit, and I personally know a few who are very, very wealthy. Most, actually a very large majority users of this airport are hobbyists, and you won’t be able to get from under that one. This is one case of many in which the rich are subsidized by those with less money, a unique American phenomenon of Socialism for the wealthy. Airport supporters like you have failed to make even one convincing argument for the existence of this giveaway for the few, so you resort to demanding that we just pipe down, otherwise, heaven forbid, you will labeled us self absorbed Palo Altans.

Whine & friends: I don’t see any of you responding to the perfectly reasonable proposal that the users foot the bill for the facility. The real bill, not the $1/year lease.

Well?

And I am asking again:why didn’t the Pilot’s group suggest tighter procedures BEFORE the crash. All past complaints about excessive noise, let’s set aside safety concerns for now, used to be met with snarky remarks from this group.

Boris, to answer your question, none. The airport is virtually rent free, since it’s leased for $1/year. If it were based on economics and the airprort had to show profit, the user fees would be much, much higher. You may or may not choose to call this very small minority a privileged group, but they are certainly getting preferential treatment while most of them aren’t even PA residents. In real economic terms, the airport is a money loser.

I don’t think there is an overwhelming advatnage to PAO, from the economic point of view. Not at this point. There is also no particular benefit to the golf course, or city parks. PAO has the potential to be of very significant economic benefit, but that depends on how it is positioned.

I flew for recreational reasons. I am very happy that I did. It was a great experience, and my family really enjoyed our various flying vactations. I do not play golf or tennis, and I do not use city parks. It is just one of the several benefits of living in Palo Alto. Before we start shutting down such benefits, we need to think about how the mix benefits minority segments of our population. For example, I never had a kid in PACT, but I don’t begrudge those parents who do. Palo Alto subsidizes PACT to the tune of over $1M per year. Should we shut down PACT?

Palo Alto is special, because we actually do allow certain ‘elitist’ activities. We want to attract and hold various elites, such as doctors and venture capitalists and professors, and lawyers, even middle class guys like me. We even have our own private park (Foothills), which costs us a lot of money to maintain. Yes, we could develop the airport and the golf course and the city parks, and get rid of PACT, but would that make us a better place to live?

… back when aviators were admired. And thousands of kids wished that they, too, could learn to fly. Everyday people could name a dozen current pilots, Lindbergh, Earhart, Doolittle, Post, Hughes, Byrd…

The Golden Age is gone. In this century people can muster the name Sullenberger, and may be aware that Harrison Ford and John Travolta are avid pilots, but that’s about all. Even astronauts are passé. Must be discouraging to be a child today, point at the moon, and have your parents say “No dear, too dangerous, too expensive, and why bother.”

Whine-yes, indeed, let’s redo the lease agreement and adjust it to real market value. Let’s use the Stratford school lease of the Garland site as a basis. I believe that Stratford pays $400,000, or maybe it’s $600,000 I don’t remember the exact sum) per year for a much smaller parcel of land. That means that the airport can be leased for millions dollars per year. People like you utter “free market”, “nothing is free”, “don’t expect government handouts” with every verb and noun, so put you money where your mouth is. Let the users pay market value and so the free market system can really work. Nothing is free, remember?

The letter mentioned in this article suggests that since no one was hurt on the ground, that jangled nerves was all the damage that was caused in EPA. The lack of injuries was really a miracle. Many people came within inches of debris from the plane or tower going through a bedroom window.

However, there was a WHOLE LOT more damage. I was with a group of EPA residents who met with the pilot’s insurance company yesterday. That company has just begun collecting the list of potential claimants, but here is the list they mentioned: EPA residents with damaged property, PG&E, the estates of the passengers in the plane who lost their lives, AND all the businesses and organizations who lost power in PA, including Stanford, the hospitals, schools, etc. They also mentioned that the pilot had limited amounts of insurance. It didn’t take us too long to figure out that the money is going to run out quickly, and those residents who did not have insurance, or had insurance that did not cover planes falling out of the air on their property, were going to get the short end of the funds given the size and power of the other organizations making claims.

Yes, the airport is a valuable resource. But last week showed us that its close proximity to a residential area and important power lines makes it an extreme danger to life and property. I don’t think the change in engine sounds, or the flight path is going to change any of that.

> Yet the airport will be a critical component in a larger
> disaster, providing an entry point for emergency
> responders and supplies, as well as life-flight helicopters.

http://stanfordhospital.org/clinicsmedServices/medicalServices/lifeFlight/overview.html

At present, we complete between 600-700 flights per year, going as far as 250 miles to the northern California coast, to Reno, NV, Bakersfield in the Central Valley, and to the central coast at Santa Maria, all from the Bay Area.

History in Photos:
http://stanfordhospital.org/clinicsmedServices/medicalServices/lifeFlight/historyInPhotographs.html

Not many photos of the Palo Alto Airport in this lot, but a number of the program’s helocopters operating on the Stanford Campus/Hospital property.

Not clear why any flights into/out of the Palo Alto Airport couldn’t just as easily operate out of the San Carlos Airport, and reduce the danger of crashes to Palo Alto/East Palo Alto residents.

One more thing…when the power went out that morning, I said to my wife I thought a plane hit the power lines that come across the bay near the Dumbarton bridge. That was before they announced it WAS a plane crash on our battery-operated radio.

Dear SP or anyone else who may have been present at last night’s meeting with the pilot’s insurance company –

I’m a writer for the Mercury News and we’re trying to wrap our heads around the insurance coverage issue. Could you contact me, either on or off the record? lkrieger@mercurynews.com

Thank you!

Lisa Krieger

Jason, when was the last time the golf course took out a child care center and only miraculously didn’t wipe out scores of children with it? When was the last time the golf course or FH park created the kind of noise and air pollution those small airplanes create? When was the last time the golf course, or FHP damaged houses, businesses and terrified local neighborhoods? Your equivalence is so hypocritical and misleading and that I’m avoiding using some choice words for it only because they will get censured here.

andrea,

I think one needs to look at the overall situation. Many motorists and bicyclists have been injured going up and down Page Mill Road, to Foothiils Park. The automobile trip up there, and back, creates a lot of pollution. The maintenance costs to the city are much higher than those of the airport, thus far. There is very little upside economic potential to FH Park…who comes to Palo Alto for that park? It is a local elitist thing.

I will now ask a rhetorical question, since you have brought up some scare tactics: Have more EPA or PA ground level residents died in plane crashes, compared to the number that died in Ted Kennedy’s car at Chappaquiddick? How many people have died in gang violence in EPA and PA, compared to the number from plane crashes (on the ground) in EPA or PA? How many people have been jacked, with guns, on the PA golf course? How many people have been terrorized at Baylands Athletic Center? I am willing to bet you that plane crashes, from PAO, finish last in all these categories.

sarlat,

How about: If you want your kid to be in PACT, then pay for it! The overall costs, as subsidized by the Palo Alto budget is over $1M. This means that if there are 1000 kids served by this project, then each kid needs to pony up for $1k. Same thing for youth sports on our city parks. Imagine what the market price is for those fields. Greer Park, for example, could be developed with a great monetary return to our city coffers. Heck, Byxbee Park, which is less used than the airport, could generate tens of millions of dollars…why are we saving it for the birds? We could at least put a major recylcing plant there. Speaking of libraries, why are wasting money on them, in the age of the Internet?

BTW, I do not know a single pilot who is a “thrill seeker”. That is a cheap shot.

And on and on….

I seem to recall several light plane crashed around the Bay in the last years, these incidents are not so rare. And so what if they were, crashing into power towers and houses is just pure luck that no one living underneath was hurt. The cost of more of these incidents is too high, and the cost of the airport as compared to what the Bayland area could be recreationally is too high as well.

As long as the airport is there and operational there really can be nothing useful out by the Bay. The noise level is just too high to carry on a conversation with someone right next to you. These small planes routinely fly over Palo Alto as well.

No, we do not know what caused the crash, but look at a map of the airport, and where it points relative to where the crashsite was? The pilot would have had to take a very sharp left turn over the city instead of the obvious right turn at the end of the runway to head out over the Bay?

This was a supposed very experienced pilot with 1000+ hours of flying experience, rated to fly by instruments … so what was he doing over the city, flying at the level of the power towers … in the wrong place, at the wrong altitude with the wrong heading?

The rich pilot crowd just seems to think they are chartered to fly over our heads and on occasion crash their planes if things go wrong, and that is our of cost them doing business.

An airport in Palo Alto makes no sense. What does make sense are some recreational facilities and natural areas that allow us to appreciate our Bay, not have to steer clear of it because it is so industrial, noisy, stinky, and off limits to actually people.

I am sitting here typing this at 9:39pm Wednesday, and there is a small plane flying overhead as I type this.

This does not even mention that large jets that fly over the city at night and that rattle doors and windows. By the time you wake up from your deep slumber the plane is gone and you think nothing of it, except that you have had the quality of your sleep lowered by planes flying over civilian areas when they could just as well fly over the Bay.

I don’t believe there’s one good reason to have an airport so close to residential neighborhoods, it’s a major tragedy waiting to happen. The question is not if, but when. I am also terribly unconvinced by the attempts to explain how the community has benefited from the airport. I don’t think my 5 year old would buy them. The discussion shouldn’t be whether we should keep this white elephant, but how fast we can we shut it down. Setting aside this argument for a moment, I’d like the pilot’s group and perhaps the airport’s management to explain to us all why the use of the airport wasn’t contingent on every pilot carrying comprehensive insurance in case of catastrophic crashes in the adjacent residential neighborhoods.

I was doing some research on taking-off in dense fog, the type we had on the morning of the crash. I also discussed the issue with a retired commercial airline acquaintance of mine. Apparently, the main danger is actually that once in the air, if any mechanical breakdown occurs and landing is required, the pilot is pretty much blind and can’t land. This is to my understanding the reason why commercial flights are grounded when we get the infamous Tule fog. Just from monitoring the discussions here since the crash, I don’t see much change in the brouhaha attitude of many flight enthusiasts as far as taking off in dense fog which makes me very, very concerned.

“…small airports are successful because they are situated near to the communities they serve …”

This illustrates perfectly the myopia of the airport supporters. The PAO airport cannot, under any circumstances, be considered a “successful” city enterprise. In fact, despite huge subsidies from multiple levels of government, the County has abandoned its operation of the Palo Alto Airport because of its financial unsustainability.

Resident seems to liken Palo Alto to San Carlos (and implicitly to Reid Hillview Airport, which the County also operates, and is NOT abandoning). But PAO is different: it’s a money loser.

Those flyboys who are receiving huge benefits from taxpayers for their joyriding may consider this operation a “success”; but the rest of us taxpayers who freight the bill for these relatively well off denizens of Atherton and other neighboring towns, and who suffer the noise pollution and uninsured danger from their Saturday morning hobby can hardly blamed for disagreeing.

Let’s close PAO and let the pilots peddle their warped sense of balance on this issue somewhere else.

Resident, I wonder how you define success. PAO, despite practically being given away for free by the P.A. tax payers for the benefit of mostly out-of-towners who would never allow an airport to be built in THEIR own town, and given various other subsidies, is losing so much money that S.C. County is abandoning running it. I’d consider it a failure, at least economically. Your equivalency of libraries, a source of knowledge and enlightenment that benefit the entire community, don’t pollute and don’t put others in mortal danger vs. flying airplanes which is practiced by a very small minority largely as a hobby doesn’t make sense either. Your snarky argument live-someplace=else-if-you-don’t-like the noise could be applied to the white people who came here and committed genocide against the indigenous people-they indigenous were here first and didn’t invite the new comers who should have gone someplace else. It’s absolutely normal for people to wish to improve their quality of life and reduce danger and pollution where it’s possible, and PAO, being too close to residential neighborhoods, too close to low power-lines, a money loser and highly unessential is a perfect target. Just because something existed for many years doesn’t mean it has to exist forever.

Just to take on a few of the nuggets:

1. The airport is a public facility, just like a library. Anybody can come down there and watch the planes take off, take flight lessons, hire a charter flight, shop in the store, talk to pilots, etc. The real difference is that the city of Palo Alto subidizes the libraries, and punishes the airport (by not allow those changes that allow it to be more financically capable, such as buildiing better hangers). Imagine how much more open to the public the airport would be, if the city subsidized to the same level as the libraries. In fact, in the age of the Internet, why are we still subsidizing libraries? I am willing to bet that our youth would be more willing to have semi-free flights lessons, than to have free access to an outdated structure like a library. Same thing for our youth being enthused to trek up to Foothills Park…they would choose PAO 90% of the time! Times have indeed changed, and our next generation is more interested in three dimensions, not two…they LOVE the notion of flying, even without drugs.

2. If tule fog is the issue on takeoff, I am willing to bet anybody, anywhere, that taking off in tule fog is MUCH safer, statistically, than driving in tule fog. It is not even a close call on this one, so if you all want to lose some money, just let me know. However, I don’t think anybody should take off, or drive, in tule fog. In the recent crash, it was not tule fog. Both pilots and drivers could see the ‘road’ in front of them, at least enough to maintain their ‘lane’.

3. Now let me address the recent crash. If the experienced pilot had a medical event, then he cannot be blamed, any more than a driver who has a medical event can be blamed for a car accident. There may well be liability issues, but not blame. On the other hand, if the pilot got panicked, and turned left, or ignored his intruments, even with mechanical failure, then blame can be assigned.

Personally, I am not bitter about Palo Alto supporting things I don’t, personally, use. I only wish that those who cannot imagine three dimension were not so bitter.

“Anybody can come down there and watch the planes take off, take flight lessons, hire a charter flight, …”

gerald is right on point. Jason’s vivid “Let them eat cake..” statement defies parody. So insulated are our local flyboys from the realities faced by the rest of us who pay for their hobby, that they don’t realize the extent of their privileged existence. How many East Palo Alto residents, who bear the brunt of the noise and danger of the airport can waltz down to the airport with enough money for flying lessons. (It takes thousands of dollars to earn a pilot’s license.) How many Palo ALto residents, who pay the bills for Jason’s cloud climbing can (or desire to) charter a plane?

Yes Palo Alto has libraries and parks, which benefit the many, are free to use and are something almost all cities do. But we don’t subsidize ocean cruises for Atherton residents or maintain Polo Fields for the use of Los Altos Hills equestrians. That Jason and the rest of the pilots posting here can’t see the difference between these two kinds of municipal activities only serves to show how truly out of touch they are.

For the same reasons that we don’t maintain a Luxury Box at Candlestick Park for the use of Woodside sports fans, we should close the Palo Alto airport.

Jason, you must live in a galaxy far, far away. My kids, who are very adventurous, have absolutely no interest in learning how to fly, although they have been all over the world and flew in small aircrafts over jungles and deserts. On the other hand they use the library for both school assignment and to check out books, cd’s and dvd’s, and no, the Internet cannot replace libraries. Their friends are very cool, smart and worldly kids, and I don’t believe even of them ever expressed an interest in learning how to fly a plane. If you told them they were 2/dimensional because they have no interest in flying, while you are superiorly 3/dimensional(again, what does it mean) they would advise you to get back on your meds. I know that some kids would like to learn to fly, but neither you nor I have any idea how many. Actually, since we live in such an affluent area, you would think that there would be much more interest among youth in flying. You are projecting, possibly because you don’t like to read (not enough dimensions in that?)

BTW, because of the aiport’s location and ground level, its runway would be among the very first to get flooded in a “perfect storm” or just heavy rains. Instead of being a hub of relief and rescue, plane owners will be scrambling to evacuate their expensive possessions to higher grounds, creating even more chaos and using up essential resources. The same will be true if a serious earthquake damages local roads, as it will surely buckle the runway as well, and the airport will become even more useless than it already is. This is one of the reasons I have a hard time keeping a straight face when the pro airport guys tell us about its importance in case of floods and earthquakes.

Thanks, George, for the reminder about the runway getting flooded. I recall helping PA friends get sandbags by the airport and pilots there talked about the flooded runway. I asked about using it for emergencies and their response was that it depended on the conditions of the airport vs the roads, as well as neighboring small craft airports as well as the larger bay area airports.

Hmmm. in case of an emergency like major floods and earthquake, the planes on the ground in PAO will have to be rescued and evacuated. Since their owners are mostly wealthy and influential people, you pretty much know that important rescue resources would be diverted toward that, and I believe that it has already happened a couple of times in the past. So in essence, the only real argument for keeping it in business, namely that it will be an important asset in case of earthquake/flooding, becomes a major argument FOR shutting it down.

“Jason, you must live in a galaxy far, far away”

gerald, that could be true. I enjoyed experiencing the skies. Most youth like to get off the ground, especially if they are in control. The issue is that they are not subsidized to make their own choices. Why not provide a choice: Any Palo Alto or East Palo Alto youth is allowed to gain a voucher from the city of Palo Alto or East Palo Alto to help pay for flight lessons? The money will come directly out of the current library subsidy, including all bond support. If you are right, there will be very few takers, and the aviation adventure will be diminished; if I am right, the libraries will go the way fo the Dodo bird. Do you believe in choice?

Earth to Jason, I’m in one of the nearly defunct libraries right now. It has free internet, which I’m using, and there are quite a few folks taking advantage of it before it shuts down for good in order to provide funds for the airport. I too have adventurous kids who have no interest in flying. Also, although in the event of a medical problem, a pilot may have had no warning, he did choose to take a dangerous contraption up in the air over countless homes, business, schools, etc., thereby endangering them all should anything go wrong. A person who does this is not blameless when something goes wrong, as he knew the risks before he flew. Just because he was allowed to do so does not make it okay. Okay you can return to your faraway cloud now.

You airplane/flying haters harp on this myth of someone subsidizing one’s “hobby”. Those folks pay to keep their planes at PAO, as they do at almost every public use airport. They pay for fuel and maintenance, which keeps the fixed base operators, flight schools, and aircraft maintenance shops in business thus providing jobs. They pay a hefty fuel tax on that fuel, which puts money into the federal, state, and local coffers, some of which might find its way to supporting local services such as libraries. You also pay tax dollars to subsidize parks for example. Why is your use of a park more important than my use of an airport? Your value judgement is no more or less valid than mine. You pay to subsidize a highway, which not everyone may use, and those who do may not use to the same extent. There has to be a certain amount of support for infrastructure that benefits the public, including airports. If you were living near San Francisco or Los Angeles International would you also be harping for its closure? No, only you do for PAO because of those big bad “rich” folks flying their aircraft. Since you are so arrogant thinking you (as a non-flyer) are more important, you can expect the pilots and aircraft owners to be so as well in some cases. That crash, regrettable as it is, caused relatively little damage. There were no fatalities or injuries on the ground, regrettably only to those in the aircraft. A house was damaged – big deal. This is what insurance is for. There was a power failure for a few hours. Big deal – the power was restored. You couldn’t watch TV for a few hours, so what. Thankfully these incidents are rare because of the great emphasis on safety and risk management that is instilled in pilots from the very first flight lesson. If you engage in constructive dialogue to improve the safety of the airport’s operations, you will find that the aviation community is more than willing to listen.

“Surprisingly, the library was absolutely mobbed”

I don’t doubt you, given that the libaries are almost 100% funded by us city taxpayers, and that they are a haven for the lonely hearts and homeless, even some serious resource seekers. However, if vouchers were to be given out to all those youth (and adults) who could choose between the libraries and aviation, it would be a level playing field, even in two vs three dimensions. It is completely unfair to argue that libraries are used by all comers, rich or poor, etc. , when they are completely subsidized from the public trough.

If you re-read my posts, from the beginning, you will see that I am not opposed to various assets in Palo Alto being funded, even though I do not, personally, use them. What I object to is the notion that aviation at PAO is, somehow, unfair and discriminatory. It is exactly the opposite. A voucher system would be a fair approach to deciding who votes with their own ticket…libraries or golf courses or city parks or PAO.

I thought they’d gone too far comparing the airport to providing the opportunity for an 8 year to get on stage. Now the airport supporters want to use library funds to build hangers at the airport!

Wow! How out of touch with reality can you be?

To @George, who said: “Since their owners are mostly wealthy and influential people, you pretty much know that important rescue resources would be diverted toward that, and I believe that it has already happened a couple of times in the past.”

Again, source please? Where is the evidence (and not just what’s rattling around in your mind) that the owners are wealthy, influential, or that rescue resources would be diverted there first?

Or is this just more blowhard garbage coming from anti-growth, Yoriko-heads?

Honestly, debating these anti-airport people feels like an argument with a bunch of name-calling five-year olds. Never let annoying things like facts and reality get in the way of your small-minded crusade, folks!

Bottom line, flying by instruments in the fog … what on Earth was this pilot doing veering off into the city instead of out over the bay?

There is no other question I think ??? is there ? Aside from some possible failure, what was he doing.

I still think it is not coincidence that he flew nearby the house of one of his passengers … I am thinking that the pilot wanted to give the passenger a view of his house, and did not think about the power lines or made some kind of mistake.

In other words, I think he does what a lot of these pilots do, they make unauthorized runs over the city for what is basically sight-seeing purposes – in this case it would mean using very very bad judgement, but a failure of judgement typical of the arrogance of the elite few wealthy who utilize the airport.

Shut the thing down.

AND … for the clueless who say that San Carlos Airport is no different .. just drive by there some day … it is on the other side of the freeway and there is not a residential area near it or beside it. The comments I read about San Carlos are misleading at best and out and out disinformation at worst.

Hey Anon-
Veering over his passengers house in 1/4 mile visibility??? You truly know nothing about flying. Palo Alto airport is as far from residential areas as it possibly could be. You obviously have never been there. I don’t discrminate against your hobby of filling online forums with misinformation, so stop discriminating against mine.

Thanks, Peter Carp. Wasn’t spreading rumors, just posted what I heard in the hopes someone knew more.

Sharon – why is the PAO an asset for local homeowners??

Jason, here’s another idea. Do what the library supporters did and get a bond proposal together and get it passed by 72% of the residents in Palo Alto. If you’re so convinced they’re on par!

Every single airplane owner I personally know is a multi millionaire. I’m sure that not all of them are and I know that some pilots pull their resources together to buy an airplane. Even in the heavily subsided Palo Alto airport, owning a plane must be quite expensive-hangar fees, insurance, fuel, maintenance, taxes and any other kind of fees I’m not aware of. To suggest that airplane owners are just average income people pursuing their dream is ridiculous, even when owing a plane with other partners, the expenses are great and require a top or near the top income. One poster quoted a statistic that the average airplane owner makes over $250,000 per year, which sounds about right, although I think it’s probably higher, at least in the Bay Area. I don’t begrudge anybody their money, but subsidizing top income people is crazy and immoral. I don’t think we should have an airport here because of the proximity to residential areas, unlike the San Carlos airport, but we should let the voters decide. Regardless, we should set real market value to the land and force the owners to pay what the market will bear. We should also force the tightening up of insurance, noise and safety requirement. No more show-off low flying over houses nonsense and absolutely no more early and late take-offs and landings.

No, Peter, the dead owe an apology to me and my community for what happened, as well as apologies to their loved ones for the foolish choice they made which cost them their lives.

Did you hear the crash and explosion? Did you witness any of it? Was any of your property damaged? There is a lot going on in EPA to help these families, thankfully. The fallout – excuse the pun – has been heartrending and extensive, affecting many, many people in addition to the loved ones of the victims.

I’m for keeping PAO open. As tragic as this accident is, it’s an accident. Life will have no fun nor advancement if we eliminated all risks.

I’m completely on Hmmm’s side when he says that the crash victims, or at least the pilot owe his community an apology. Yes, I know that the airport has been there since 1924 but such an airport should never be allowed to exist that close to residential neighborhoods. It’s not like the residents of EPA have an option of moving to another place. These are people who are often poor and underemployed, struggle with existential crime issues and are among the weakest in our society don’t need any additional oppression. EPA is their home. The fact that such accidents had not happened before is a miracle and a classic 9 lives kind of thing, and I thing this crash was the 9th live being spent and none are left. I’m not even touching the issues of obnoxious noise and pilots flying too low over both PA and EPA. There are absolutely no reasons, none at all, why this subsidy for the rich and for flight enthusiasts should not be shut down immediately and I hope that EPA residents will organize and fight to get Palo Alto to shut it down, for all our sakes. This Palo Altan will be happy and proud to support them in any way possible.

A PICTURE IS WORTH 1000 WORDS … I think this image:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56644143@N00/4390251671/

This map says it all relative to where the plane taking off from the Palo Alto airport crashed in East Palo Alto.

To get to that location from takeoff that plane had to make an extreme left turn over the city, instead of the normal right turn to head out over the bay.

What is the reason we are not hearing more about this? I cannot avoid wondering if the pilot was engaged in “non-standard” activities.

Since one of the passengers in the planet lived just blocks away the question of whether this was a flyover is not absurd or unwarranted.

petercarp, you are always civil and polite so lease indulge someone like me who isn’t a pilot. You mentioned “zero visibility” in your latest comment. However, a number of flight enthusiasts, pro-airport posters dismissed any talk of zero visible, stating that the visibility was not zero and that taking off in such foggy conditions were routine and no big deal, which implies to me that they would do it themselves next time they take off in similar conditions. I don’t know about you, but if I were living near the airport I would be scared to death of such talk, which unfortunately is a manifestation of the jock/macho attitude of some flying enthusiasts(not you). I am acquainted with a nymber of EPA residents and had been aware for years, a long time before the crash of how terrified they had been of exactly such a crash and how powerless and helpless they felt. I would appreciate your comments.

PA airport is an asset for EPA, Stanford and PA.

The main danger are the gangs in EPA look at the evidence http://paloalto.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Palo+Alto&s1=CA&c2=East+Palo+Alto&s2=CA

These thugs murder many in EPA, the planes from the airport killed no one on the ground.

Let us deal with evidence, facts and reality rather than the alternative.

If you you live in EPA you are a 10 million times more at risk of being killed by a drug gang member than by a small plane from PA airport.

Let us get a grip on reality, risk and rationality.

small airplanes use a lot of fuel. 100LL avgas contains two grams of lead per gallon. Much more than the auto gas of the 70’s. And airplanes use a lot of gasoline, 4 gallons per hour and upwards, often much more. And that’s quite the amount of lead. They have to add special chemicals so the lead goes out the exhaust, and doesn’t clog up the engine or ignition.
For a Cessna 152 (a small two seater), flying at around 100 knots, the amount of air raised to EPA limits for airborne lead is equal to all the air that passes under the aircraft’s wings to a height of four meters.
For every 227 gallons consumed by a small plane, 1 pound of lead is sprayed into the atmosphere as millions of highly toxic microscopic particles are rained down on us. Lead is one of the very worst toxic environmental hazards, you may recall that millions of toys made in China were recalled in 2007 because of the presence of lead, and lead is gone from house paint because of its high toxicity. We are actually subsidizing a facility that causes us to be on the receiving end of one of the worst environmental toxins in existence. Anyone who is unclear about how dangerous lead is should run a simple Google search.

Mr. Fein, the lead issue is minuscule. The amount of lead contributed by all the piston engine aircraft in the United States is a tiny fraction – less than one millionth – of that put into the atmosphere by coal fired power plants, cement production, oil furnaces and power plants, and others. Additionally, the lead in engine exhaust is primarily lead oxide and lead bromide, which are lead salts. These are not biologically active, as are organic lead. The lead poisoning caused by children eating paint is well documented. There are no documented cases of lead poisoning or any cases of health effects from the tiny lead emissions of aircraft. Besides, future engines will run on either unleaded gasoline or jet fuel. It is a matter or time, economics and the chemistry/engineering required to produce the fuel and engines. If you are harping on lead as an attempt to get people to dislike the airport as you probably do, those who know better won’t buy your argument. – Regards, Michael, Ph.D., Consulting Engineer

TwingPilot, the largest current source of lead in the air and indoors comes from piston-engine aircraft – small propeller planes. Tests done in some SF Bay Area school class rooms for example, indicated levels 54 times higher than the EPA standards, and that’s the Bush administration’s EPA. The contamination has been linked to small airplanes. This is hardly minuscule, this is pretty deadly stuff. Are you aware that used small aircraft engine oil can be disposed of only by a special process(because of the presence of lead in it) reminiscing of disposing radio-active materials, that’s how toxic it is.

Since there is much chatter about pollution from small planes, supposedly due to “frivilous” acitvity, why don’t we require that all residient ride bicycles to our local libraries and parks? Imagine all that CO2 and CO and NOx released into our air due to frivilous activities? We don’t really need libraries, because we can get most of that stuff from our own keyboards. Why do we need parks, when we can just walk around the block, with our dogs on leash? Why do we need a frivilous childrens theatre…think about all the pollution that is caused by parents dropping off/picking up kids? Foothills Park can be shut down, thus preventing frivilous pollution by all those cars heading up there (for the exclusive and elitist use of local nature people).

Gawd, we could just shut down most amenities in this city, in order make it pollution free. Don’t forget to ban cars for shopping and dropping the kids off at school.

Of course, I think such pollution issues are a mere excuse to run a private agenda, and I support all of our city ammenities, so don’t expect me to support such a shutdown.

CessnaTwinPilot states:”My use of an airport is of just as much importance and value as someone else’s use of a library, school, mall, or anything else.”

That may well be, but the use of a library, school or mall does not place other people involuntarily at risk. Pilots should certainly have the opportunity to enjoy their airplanes but they also have an obligation to do so in a manner which does not impose risks on others who are not sharing their enjoyment.

“the use of a library, school or mall does not place other people involuntarily at risk”

Peter Carpenter,

Not true! My aunt was hit in a crosswalk, as the driver was rushing to the local library, in order get her book in before the penalty began on her overdue book. My son was bitten by a dog, as the dog owner was walking his dog to the park (on a public sidewalk).

The biggest risk, for any amenity, is the drive to the amentiy. This is true of parks, libraries, airports, golf courses, parks, malls, etc.

There are risks in life, including the urban environomnet. Airports have a pretty good track record, with regard to innocents getting hurt or killed. The biggest risk of local airports is the drive to the airport.

CessnaTwin from “another community” thinks WE in Palo Alto are selfish because we object to subsidizing HIS hobby which in addition to adding to the financial risks the city faces, poses a mortal danger to those on the ground, spews poisons on to our homes and playgrounds, and is a constant nuisance to those living near the airport or its flight paths.

One hardly knows how to react. Others have commented on the sense of entitlement displayed by airport supporters. But I haven’t seen it expressed in such naked narcissistic language heretofore. The idea that someone who doesn’t live here, and so bears none of the burden of having the airport here would complain about the “selfishness” of those of us who are tired of subsidizing his hobby is priceless in its degree of blind solipsism.

Ms. Andrea and Anna, you are selfish, and what I said about lead is true. There are absolutely no scientific studies that link any kind of illness to the use of leaded fuel in aviation engines. My use of the airport is not for personal fun and joy, it is for furtherance of my business. That economic input, plus that of others using the airport for similar purposes contributes to your local economy. And don’t lecture me on the Nazis. My grandmother was an Auschwitz survivor. I will refrain from using derogatory language here as both of you did because I have a little more class and likely much more education than either of you. Most pilots, including myself, are perfectly willing to alter our flight paths and fly in a manner that minimizes exposure to those on the ground. If my past language was a little strong it was only because you, and others, cling to an “all or nothing” stance with respect to closing a vitally important center of transportation. If you are unwilling to compromise, as the airport community is, then you will find your goals of abating noise and traffic exposure to be that much more difficult. I am sure you will agree with that.

TwinPilot, you are using a facility that belongs to us, that exists because we Palo Altans finance it, to spray deadly lead into our air and homes and then badmouth us for wanting to take it away from you?! This is as outrageous as a stranger coming into your house, eating your food and then attacking you when you voice your displeasure. You have taken the word Chutzpah to a different level.

Yes, just as PA residents have the privilege and right to fly and drive to my community in furtherance of their businesses. The public infrastructure, whether roads, public utilities, highways, or airports is there for the common good of America. I still maintain that you are selfish if you espouse otherwise.

PAO is a useful asset to Palo Alto. However, it could be much more useful, if it was positioned correctly as a destination for business conferences. The golf course is there. A major hotel, with conference facilities, would be a multiplier. Tourists could fly in, by charters, in order to avoid the long drive (from anywhere). Appropriate development of the hangers would help to defray the costs, currently being paid by the county. The yaught harbor should be re-opened.

Palo Alto could have a world class recycling and co-generation system at the current dump site. Byxbee Park should be re-negotiated, in order to faciliate the best practices of recycling and energy generation. Imagine a research center dedicated to such issues. Many energy executives would flock to Palo Alto, landing at PAO, and staying in the 4-5 star hotel. A little golf on the side would provide for some good face-to-face time. Perhaps a little walk out into the bay, along the existing trails. East Palo Alto could really help themselves by being first in line to offer such facilities…the Palo Alto Process gives them a great opportunity to be first.

Let’s consolidate this discussion on the new topic/thread:

Web Link