News


Federal Aviation Administration to work to reduce plane noise

Meeting with community groups, public officials seeks short- and long-term remedies

Four Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) representatives met with about 30 people at Palo Alto City Hall Friday about noise issues, which residents say have increased dramatically since the agency introduced new flight paths over the Bay Area. The new NextGen aviation program is designed to modernize U.S. airspace, prepare for future increased air traffic and reduce fuel consumption.

In response to her constituents' concerns, U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo convened the meeting with the FAA to allow the federal officials to understand the magnitude of the problem over Bay Area skies. The meeting was closed to the general public and the media.

"The FAA clearly knows something has changed dramatically," Eshoo said. "There's an acknowledgement of what the issues are. The next challenge is to identify with the FAA what are the short-term issues to be addressed."

FAA officials said the meeting was an excellent exchange of information.

"We felt we got a fairly good understanding from a personal level of why there is concern," said Glen Martin, Western-Pacific Region regional administrator for the FAA.

"There was a lot of discussion on the measurement of impacts and where current standards don't address the impacts. We will look into research to make changes to understand where that (gap) is," he said.

Noise complaints throughout the Bay Area have jumped during the past year. San Francisco International Airport's Noise Abatement office received about 14,000 noise complaints last year. In June 2015, they received about 16,000 and this July will exceed that number, officials said at the meeting, according to attendee David Fleck of residents' group Calm the Skies.

Palo Alto residents say they bear the brunt of the problem. Three flight paths from San Francisco International Airport cross directly above the city.

Martin said FAA officials plan to address the noise through short-term and longer-term changes. One possible shorter-term change might be to alter flights between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., he said.

"We can look at rates (of flights) and altitude, review those, and make changes to those," Martin said.

In the longer term, the FAA could look at flight routes, he said, but that is a more complex process. Officials had not yet identified which ideas they might try to implement – in the short or long term – but they were taking back all of the ideas and information for review.

"Right now we're working closely with Congress," Martin said. "We are having meetings that may include additional public meetings in the next couple of months to produce those (short term and long term) buckets."

The City of Palo Alto is considering funding a study that would look at flight data to analyze changes that have taken place since NextGen. The city might, alternatively, analyze flight traffic patterns and propose new routes, Councilman Tom Dubois said.

The possible study would go before the Policy and Services Committee for consideration and then to the City Council. The city is working to get other local governments to share the costs, Dubois said. If the city does press forward, Martin said FAA is open to looking at the study and to suggest parameters so that it would have outcomes the FAA would see as relevant.

Asked about complaints that have affected some cities more than others, such as flights by turbo-propeller planes by the air-shuttle company Surf Air, Martin said it was clear that the problem is much larger than one airline or airport.

The meeting largely focused on noise out of SFO, but San Mateo County Supervisor Don Horsley reportedly pressed the issue of Surf Air, and Martin agreed to a separate meeting with local FAA representatives present to specifically address that airline company. Horsley agreed to organize that meeting with Martin.

Members of Sky Posse, the Palo Alto-based citizens' group working to reduce airplane noise levels, said the meeting with FAA was productive.

"Congresswoman Eshoo was brilliant at working with everybody," said member Stewart Carl. "She put a lot of pressure on FAA to come back with some concrete plans. I felt it was productive. There were lots of good ideas and suggestions."

FAA officials did not comment on individual solutions, he added.

Sky Posse member Jim Herriot said having a facilitator at the meeting helped to keep the discussion moving forward.

"He was able to distill the right tones. Instead of handing us clichés, they wanted to hear personal testimony," Herriot said.

Palo Alto's representatives included Mayor Karen Holman, Councilmen Dubois and Eric Filseth, Assistant City Manager Ed Shikada and Senior Management Analyst Khashayar Alaee.

Holman appeared to be fairly satisfied with this first meeting, but she did not have illusions of a quick solution.

"There were some indications of where we can collaborate with the FAA and (where) we can work toward some progressive solutions. What has to happen is they have to address real impacts on the ground -- on physical and emotional well being," she said.

Dubois said the meeting was encouraging. "The FAA offered to work with our staff so as to not waste time and money (on data) that the FAA is going to ignore," he said.

Alternate flight routes, a major demand among residents and government officials, are a complex matter. There is a process for proposing new routes, and FAA officials said they would help propose the new routes in the right way, he said.

FAA's number one concern is safety, he said. Air traffic and fuel efficiency, two of the major objectives outlined in the 2012 Reauthorization Act that launched NextGen, would be the biggest challenges to changing flight paths.

If these flights could be moved they would probably go over the ocean, and those longer routes would negatively affect some of the Act's objectives.

"The tradeoff is the impact on the environment – noise vs. fuel costs," Dubois said.

Some attendees came away with a sense that the problem has much policy-related complexity.

"I learned that the problem is policy driven," Los Altos City Councilman Jean Mordo said, "and will require much more change at the congressional level. On some levels, it is a national and international problem."

But Eshoo thinks new legislation won't be necessary to fix the problems.

"I believe we can work within the jurisdictions and the statutes. We don't need to change the laws. I believe the FAA can implement changes that will bring relief regionally," she said.

The Bay Area could serve as a model for resolving the airplane noise issues that are plaguing metropolitan areas throughout the country, she said, but both Eshoo and Martin stressed that doesn't mean that "one size fits all."

From Eshoo's perspective, there is a potential to demonstrate that a partnership between the FAA and regions within the various metroplexes around the country can work. That hasn't been the case in some areas, such as Phoenix, which is now suing the FAA over the airplane noise.

FAA has made some changes in some of the other metroplexes, but Martin backed away from saying that there will be solutions.

"Solutions tend to say that people are satisfied. We've made adjustments when we've found procedures to make adjustments," he said.

Eshoo and FAA officials also attended a meeting in Santa Cruz. FAA will hold a separate meeting in Rep. Jackie Speier's district in San Mateo County next month.

Eshoo is conducting a survey from residents on airplane noise that she will give to the FAA. The survey can be taken here.

Related content:

Rep. Anna Eshoo to send airplane-noise survey to Federal Aviation Administration

Residents hope to drown out airplane noise with complaints

Palo Alto may study airplane noise

Residents, city officials gear up to fight increased airplane noise

Comments

72 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 26, 2015 at 1:00 am

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


85 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 26, 2015 at 4:01 am

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

Sky Posse Palo Alto: Web Link

Save Our Skies Santa Cruz: Web Link

Aviation Impact Reform: Web Link


24 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 26, 2015 at 4:34 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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


24 people like this
Posted by Grateful
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 26, 2015 at 7:49 am

This is a great step forward, thank you!


34 people like this
Posted by better PA
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 26, 2015 at 8:10 am

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

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

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


20 people like this
Posted by Fran
a resident of Barron Park
on Jul 26, 2015 at 9:00 am

Great news!


38 people like this
Posted by longing for quieter skies
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jul 26, 2015 at 11:08 am


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

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

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

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


18 people like this
Posted by perspective
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jul 26, 2015 at 12:31 pm

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

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


31 people like this
Posted by Roger Overnaut
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Jul 26, 2015 at 1:05 pm

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

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


29 people like this
Posted by Emersonstrez
a resident of Professorville
on Jul 26, 2015 at 1:44 pm

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


5 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 26, 2015 at 2:20 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"You can use these numbers to call regularly."

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


6 people like this
Posted by Skydoc
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 26, 2015 at 2:44 pm

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


7 people like this
Posted by ndn
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 26, 2015 at 2:44 pm

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


31 people like this
Posted by Skydoc
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 26, 2015 at 3:50 pm

NDN-

There is no inconvenience involved.

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

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


14 people like this
Posted by Grateful
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 26, 2015 at 4:47 pm

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

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

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


27 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 26, 2015 at 5:48 pm

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

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


10 people like this
Posted by Jean
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Jul 26, 2015 at 6:17 pm

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


20 people like this
Posted by longing for quieter skies
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jul 26, 2015 at 7:04 pm

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

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

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


8 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 26, 2015 at 11:35 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

This is an incorrect statement .

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

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

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

Web Link


18 people like this
Posted by Kerry55
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 26, 2015 at 11:46 pm

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


2 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 27, 2015 at 1:46 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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


49 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 27, 2015 at 2:29 am

Peter,

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

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


6 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 27, 2015 at 2:32 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

Good questions - please answer them.


9 people like this
Posted by mauricio
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jul 27, 2015 at 6:18 am

mauricio is a registered user.

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


4 people like this
Posted by ndn
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 27, 2015 at 6:55 am

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

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


7 people like this
Posted by how about PAO
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jul 27, 2015 at 7:07 am

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

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


30 people like this
Posted by Stanford
a resident of College Terrace
on Jul 27, 2015 at 7:50 am

@ndn

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


19 people like this
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 27, 2015 at 8:31 am

@Peter Carpenter,

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


6 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 27, 2015 at 8:38 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"As best as I can tell,"

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

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


25 people like this
Posted by Leland Manor neighbour
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Jul 27, 2015 at 8:46 am

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

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


9 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 27, 2015 at 9:10 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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


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


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

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

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


16 people like this
Posted by Leland Manor neighbour
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Jul 27, 2015 at 9:23 am

Who talks about "shifting the problem"?

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


8 people like this
Posted by Old Steve
a resident of St. Claire Gardens
on Jul 27, 2015 at 9:45 am

@ Leland:

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

NOMBY (Not Over My Back Yard)


9 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 27, 2015 at 10:18 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Who talks about "shifting the problem"?"

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

" It is that FAA is stupid and irresponsible."

That is your opinion.

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

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

1. Is this actually an opinion?

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

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

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


12 people like this
Posted by Not fooled
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jul 27, 2015 at 11:17 am

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


30 people like this
Posted by Stanford
a resident of College Terrace
on Jul 27, 2015 at 11:35 am

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

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

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


18 people like this
Posted by neighbor
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Jul 27, 2015 at 11:53 am

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

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

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


17 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 27, 2015 at 11:55 am

Good post "Stanford", thank you.

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

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

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

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


20 people like this
Posted by Thank you, US Rep Eshoo
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Jul 27, 2015 at 11:55 am

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

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

Thanks Anna Eshoo for taking this on!


5 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 27, 2015 at 11:56 am

Another good post by Neighbor! Thanks!


9 people like this
Posted by John
a resident of Barron Park
on Jul 27, 2015 at 12:17 pm

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


14 people like this
Posted by Paul
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 27, 2015 at 12:41 pm

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


5 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jul 27, 2015 at 1:00 pm

[Post removed.]


10 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 27, 2015 at 1:08 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


Like this comment
Posted by East Charleston Road
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 27, 2015 at 1:50 pm

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

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

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

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


8 people like this
Posted by YSK
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 27, 2015 at 2:07 pm

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


Like this comment
Posted by YSK
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 27, 2015 at 2:11 pm

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

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


21 people like this
Posted by Long-timer
a resident of Mayfield
on Jul 27, 2015 at 2:22 pm

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

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

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


14 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 27, 2015 at 2:29 pm

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

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


5 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jul 27, 2015 at 2:45 pm

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


Like this comment
Posted by Stanford
a resident of College Terrace
on Jul 27, 2015 at 2:50 pm

@Resident

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


5 people like this
Posted by SteveU
a resident of Barron Park
on Jul 27, 2015 at 2:53 pm

SteveU is a registered user.

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

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


40 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 27, 2015 at 3:02 pm

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


5 people like this
Posted by Dmitry
a resident of Mountain View
on Jul 27, 2015 at 3:04 pm

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


1 person likes this
Posted by the_punnisher
a resident of Mountain View
on Jul 27, 2015 at 3:08 pm

the_punnisher is a registered user.

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

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

Deal with it.

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


4 people like this
Posted by ndn
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 27, 2015 at 3:15 pm

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

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

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

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


23 people like this
Posted by About East Palo Alto
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jul 27, 2015 at 3:17 pm

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


2 people like this
Posted by P.A. Pa
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Jul 27, 2015 at 3:22 pm

[Post removed.]


Like this comment
Posted by About East Palo Alto
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jul 27, 2015 at 3:51 pm

@Stanford,

You might find this site helpful: Web Link

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


5 people like this
Posted by Stu Berman
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jul 27, 2015 at 3:57 pm

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

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

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


Like this comment
Posted by TIred and Cranky
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 27, 2015 at 4:01 pm

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


Gloria Pyszka
Palo Alto


10 people like this
Posted by Dmitry
a resident of Menlo Park
on Jul 27, 2015 at 4:09 pm

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


Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jul 27, 2015 at 4:20 pm

[Post removed.]


6 people like this
Posted by ndn
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 27, 2015 at 4:33 pm

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

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

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


11 people like this
Posted by FlyHigher
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 27, 2015 at 5:35 pm


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

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


4 people like this
Posted by mauricio
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jul 27, 2015 at 5:44 pm

mauricio is a registered user.

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


16 people like this
Posted by better PA
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 27, 2015 at 5:48 pm

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

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

Web Link

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



6 people like this
Posted by Dmitry
a resident of Mountain View
on Jul 27, 2015 at 6:55 pm

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


7 people like this
Posted by Stanford
a resident of College Terrace
on Jul 27, 2015 at 8:26 pm

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

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

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


7 people like this
Posted by Thoughtful
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 27, 2015 at 8:45 pm

Thoughtful is a registered user.

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

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

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

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



11 people like this
Posted by Neighbor
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 27, 2015 at 8:54 pm

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

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

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

I find myself rambling.

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


10 people like this
Posted by Michael Slack
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Jul 27, 2015 at 9:12 pm

Thank you, Stanford comment.

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

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

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

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

- Michael


2 people like this
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 27, 2015 at 10:26 pm

@Dmitry,

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


15 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 27, 2015 at 10:27 pm

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


4 people like this
Posted by sea reddy
a resident of College Terrace
on Jul 28, 2015 at 6:17 am

Good move.

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

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

Yes We Can!

respectfully


7 people like this
Posted by Tired and cranky
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 28, 2015 at 7:09 am

Dear Sea Reddy:

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

GP


50 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 28, 2015 at 8:25 am

Sea,

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

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

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

Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN): Web Link


8 people like this
Posted by anonymous
a resident of another community
on Jul 28, 2015 at 11:52 am

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

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


4 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 28, 2015 at 12:31 pm

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

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

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

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


8 people like this
Posted by Old Steve
a resident of St. Claire Gardens
on Jul 28, 2015 at 12:55 pm

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


8 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 28, 2015 at 1:30 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

How true.

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

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


10 people like this
Posted by HaHa
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 28, 2015 at 1:33 pm

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


7 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 28, 2015 at 1:40 pm

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


2 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 28, 2015 at 1:41 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

Here are the results:

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

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


6 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 28, 2015 at 1:44 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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


18 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 28, 2015 at 2:02 pm

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


16 people like this
Posted by Mike-Crescent Park
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 28, 2015 at 2:14 pm

Mike-Crescent Park is a registered user.

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

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

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


4 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 28, 2015 at 2:19 pm

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


12 people like this
Posted by Grateful
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 28, 2015 at 4:01 pm

Peter Carpenter,

4000 feet is LOW.

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

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

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

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

You mislead.


5 people like this
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Jul 28, 2015 at 4:38 pm

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


Like this comment
Posted by Neighbor
a resident of another community
on Jul 28, 2015 at 4:48 pm

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


5 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 28, 2015 at 5:16 pm

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

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


11 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 28, 2015 at 5:55 pm

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

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

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


13 people like this
Posted by anonymous
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jul 28, 2015 at 8:18 pm

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


61 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 28, 2015 at 10:03 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


2 people like this
Posted by Ham radio operator
a resident of Addison School
on Jul 28, 2015 at 11:34 pm

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

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

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

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

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


2 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 28, 2015 at 11:56 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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

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

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

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


10 people like this
Posted by Grateful
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 29, 2015 at 9:29 am

Ham radio Operator,

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

These ground beacons are supposed to be eliminated.

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

Nothing worst than having noise that is unnecessary.


8 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 29, 2015 at 11:17 am

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

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

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

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


2 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 29, 2015 at 11:26 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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


4 people like this
Posted by Grateful
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 29, 2015 at 12:49 pm

Peter Carpenter,

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

You do your homework and figure it out.

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

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


7 people like this
Posted by Old Steve
a resident of St. Claire Gardens
on Jul 29, 2015 at 1:30 pm

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


8 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 29, 2015 at 1:40 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

Personal convenience and comfort cannot trump safety.


10 people like this
Posted by OPar
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jul 29, 2015 at 1:51 pm

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

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

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

Old Steve,

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


12 people like this
Posted by Grateful
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 29, 2015 at 2:05 pm

Nice try Old Steve,

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


Like this comment
Posted by Pilot
a resident of another community
on Jul 29, 2015 at 2:45 pm

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


6 people like this
Posted by Old Steve
a resident of St. Claire Gardens
on Jul 29, 2015 at 3:34 pm

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

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

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

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


6 people like this
Posted by Paly Grad
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Jul 29, 2015 at 3:36 pm

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


6 people like this
Posted by Grateful
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 29, 2015 at 3:37 pm

Pilot,

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

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

Nextgen should be able to help the congestion.


2 people like this
Posted by Old Steve
a resident of St. Claire Gardens
on Jul 29, 2015 at 4:03 pm

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


Like this comment
Posted by Pilot
a resident of another community
on Jul 29, 2015 at 4:13 pm

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


3 people like this
Posted by Tim Buck II
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 29, 2015 at 4:14 pm

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

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


8 people like this
Posted by Paly Grad
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Jul 29, 2015 at 4:20 pm

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


10 people like this
Posted by Grateful
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 29, 2015 at 4:21 pm

Old Steve,

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

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

The air traffic jam over land is no joke.


14 people like this
Posted by Grateful
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 29, 2015 at 4:28 pm

Pilot,

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

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

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

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


Like this comment
Posted by Pilot
a resident of another community
on Jul 29, 2015 at 4:29 pm

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


2 people like this
Posted by Grateful
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 29, 2015 at 4:52 pm

Pilot,

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


6 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 29, 2015 at 5:02 pm

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

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

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

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

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


2 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 29, 2015 at 5:31 pm

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

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


15 people like this
Posted by About East Palo Alto
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jul 29, 2015 at 5:34 pm

@ Peter Carpenter

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

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

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

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


10 people like this
Posted by About East Palo Alto
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jul 29, 2015 at 5:40 pm

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


14 people like this
Posted by About East Palo Alto
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jul 29, 2015 at 5:45 pm

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


13 people like this
Posted by About East Palo Alto
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jul 29, 2015 at 5:49 pm

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


8 people like this
Posted by About East Palo Alto
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jul 29, 2015 at 5:54 pm

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


12 people like this
Posted by About East Palo Alto
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jul 29, 2015 at 5:59 pm

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


10 people like this
Posted by About East Palo Alto
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jul 29, 2015 at 6:02 pm

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


13 people like this
Posted by roll back NextGen
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 29, 2015 at 6:12 pm

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


Like this comment
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Jul 29, 2015 at 6:14 pm

What time zone are you in?


6 people like this
Posted by About East Palo Alto
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jul 29, 2015 at 6:31 pm

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


4 people like this
Posted by Tell it like it is
a resident of Green Acres
on Jul 29, 2015 at 6:43 pm

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

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

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




Like this comment
Posted by Tell It Like It Is
a resident of Green Acres
on Jul 29, 2015 at 6:46 pm

Correcton:

There are THREE INTERNATIONAL airports within sight of us


6 people like this
Posted by roll back NextGen
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 29, 2015 at 6:56 pm

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

Be a bit more sensitive before you start labeling people.


16 people like this
Posted by About East Palo Alto
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jul 29, 2015 at 7:45 pm

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

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


21 people like this
Posted by Fran
a resident of Barron Park
on Jul 29, 2015 at 9:00 pm

@Tell It Like It Is

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


54 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 29, 2015 at 9:02 pm

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

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

WebTrak: Web Link


30 people like this
Posted by OPar
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jul 29, 2015 at 9:46 pm

Old Steve,

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

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

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

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


70 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 29, 2015 at 10:00 pm

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

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


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


30 people like this
Posted by Grateful
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 29, 2015 at 10:36 pm

Tell it like is is,

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

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


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 30, 2015 at 8:06 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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

Sent from UA 931 enroute from London to SFO.


5 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 30, 2015 at 8:12 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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


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

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

[Portion removed.]


12 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 30, 2015 at 8:44 am

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

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

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


3 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 30, 2015 at 10:26 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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



37 people like this
Posted by joe giraffe
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jul 30, 2015 at 11:01 am

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

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

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

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


8 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 30, 2015 at 11:25 am

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

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

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


4 people like this
Posted by Grateful
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 30, 2015 at 12:51 pm

Peter Carpenter,

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

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

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

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


4 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 30, 2015 at 12:56 pm

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

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

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


6 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 30, 2015 at 12:56 pm

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

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


5 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 30, 2015 at 2:19 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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

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

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


56 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 30, 2015 at 3:03 pm

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


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 30, 2015 at 3:09 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Who said anything about concentrating the problem?

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


6 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 30, 2015 at 9:16 pm

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

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

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

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


Like this comment
Posted by redisent
a resident of another community
on Jul 30, 2015 at 10:27 pm

Peter,

Would that work for Surf Air?


3 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 31, 2015 at 7:34 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Peter,

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

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

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

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


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

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


Like this comment
Posted by Grateful
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 31, 2015 at 12:15 pm

Peter Carpenter,

How does the

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

and

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

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

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

Talk about darkness.


58 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 31, 2015 at 12:40 pm

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

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

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

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

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


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



2 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 31, 2015 at 1:13 pm

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

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

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

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

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


Like this comment
Posted by Non-resident
a resident of another community
on Jul 31, 2015 at 1:56 pm

resident 1

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

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


54 people like this
Posted by Grateful
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 31, 2015 at 2:23 pm

Thank you Jetman!

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

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

Peter Carpenter

How does this

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

square with this

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

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

Talk about darkness.


1 person likes this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 31, 2015 at 3:47 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

It is always useful to read an entire posting.


3 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 31, 2015 at 4:09 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

Web Link

I think that you would find it enlightening.


1 person likes this
Posted by Grateful
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 31, 2015 at 4:25 pm

Peter Carpenter,

No, I actually did not miss that.

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

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


3 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 31, 2015 at 4:47 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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


2 people like this
Posted by resident
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 31, 2015 at 9:49 pm

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

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

Where would that be in relation to Palo Alto?


12 people like this
Posted by About East Palo Alto
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jul 31, 2015 at 10:00 pm

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

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


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 1, 2015 at 1:05 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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

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


3 people like this
Posted by resident
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 1, 2015 at 1:56 pm

Peter,

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

For those that don't know,

Clean is flaps up, gear up,

Dirty is flaps down, gear down

Clean makes the plane quieter and visa versa


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 1, 2015 at 2:12 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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

Please read my comments more carefully.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 1, 2015 at 4:20 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

Web Link

Web Link

Web Link

Web Link

There is a lot of sharing going on.


2 people like this
Posted by About East Palo Alto
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Aug 1, 2015 at 6:04 pm

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


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 1, 2015 at 6:36 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

Here are the United, Virgin and Swiss flights:

Web Link

Web Link

Web Link


4 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 1, 2015 at 8:27 pm

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


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 2, 2015 at 10:38 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

Based on what evidence?

Have you seen any minutes from the meeting?

Did you attend the meeting?

What exactly was "negotiated"?


42 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 2, 2015 at 2:59 pm

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

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


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


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 2, 2015 at 3:21 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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


47 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 2, 2015 at 9:01 pm

PC,

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

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


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


14 people like this
Posted by Tired of the noise
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Aug 2, 2015 at 9:58 pm

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


8 people like this
Posted by Darlene
a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Aug 2, 2015 at 10:52 pm

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

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

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

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

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

Free parking for the first 100 to register.

Registration for the event is available here: Web Link

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


Like this comment
Posted by Surprised
a resident of another community
on Aug 3, 2015 at 2:42 pm

[Post removed.]


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 3, 2015 at 3:23 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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


Like this comment
Posted by Pilot
a resident of another community
on Aug 3, 2015 at 4:49 pm

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

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


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 3, 2015 at 5:39 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Airport approach designed by citizens of the community."

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

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


3 people like this
Posted by FAA
a resident of Barron Park
on Aug 3, 2015 at 5:42 pm

Pilot,

I think you are living in a parallel universe.

Web Link


4 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Aug 3, 2015 at 8:26 pm

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


3 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 3, 2015 at 8:37 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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

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

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


2 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Aug 3, 2015 at 8:55 pm

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

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


2 people like this
Posted by Grateful
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 3, 2015 at 8:57 pm

Peter Carpenter,

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

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


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 3, 2015 at 9:00 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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

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


1 person likes this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 3, 2015 at 9:03 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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


2 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Aug 3, 2015 at 9:15 pm

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

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


2 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 3, 2015 at 9:23 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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

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

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

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


5 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Aug 3, 2015 at 9:36 pm

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

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

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


7 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Aug 3, 2015 at 10:15 pm

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


2 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 4, 2015 at 6:49 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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

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


5 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 4, 2015 at 6:52 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"but bypassing the neighborhoods entirely seems unfair."

The herringbone proposal does not do this.

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

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

[Post removed.]


33 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 5, 2015 at 9:26 am

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

KSCO 1080 Radio: Web Link


2 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 5, 2015 at 12:24 pm

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

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


3 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 5, 2015 at 12:46 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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

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

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

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


Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 5, 2015 at 2:53 pm

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


2 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 5, 2015 at 4:44 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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

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

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


33 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 5, 2015 at 7:13 pm

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

KSCO 1080 Radio: Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by Confused
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 6, 2015 at 9:25 am

Peter Carpenter,

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

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

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

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

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

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


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 6, 2015 at 9:33 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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

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


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

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


Like this comment
Posted by Confused
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 6, 2015 at 9:50 am

Peter Carpenter,

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

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

and you have said

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

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


2 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 6, 2015 at 11:11 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

Here is the approach plate:

Web Link

How would you describe the location of DUMBA?

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

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

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


2 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 6, 2015 at 11:21 am

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

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

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

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

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

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


18 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 6, 2015 at 12:21 pm

Resident 1,

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


33 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 6, 2015 at 12:25 pm

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


3 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 6, 2015 at 1:32 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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


4 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 6, 2015 at 1:35 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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


3 people like this
Posted by Grateful
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 6, 2015 at 2:34 pm

Peter Carpenter,

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

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

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

Web Link

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


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 6, 2015 at 4:00 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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


5 people like this
Posted by Long-timer
a resident of Mayfield
on Aug 6, 2015 at 4:11 pm

FYI, posted on another thread:

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

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

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

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


1 person likes this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 6, 2015 at 5:27 pm

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

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

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

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


2 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 6, 2015 at 5:53 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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

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


Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Aug 6, 2015 at 8:56 pm

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


3 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 6, 2015 at 9:09 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

Web Link

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

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

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


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 6, 2015 at 9:28 pm

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

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

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


Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Aug 6, 2015 at 10:27 pm

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

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

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

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

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


8 people like this
Posted by the_punnisher
a resident of Mountain View
on Aug 6, 2015 at 10:39 pm

the_punnisher is a registered user.

Sigh.

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

Web Link

Web Link

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

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

Web Link

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

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


Noise levels in fanjets and turboprops:

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

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

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


Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Aug 6, 2015 at 11:03 pm

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

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


Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Aug 6, 2015 at 11:42 pm

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

Web Link

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

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


4 people like this
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Aug 7, 2015 at 1:57 am

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

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

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


1 person likes this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 7, 2015 at 8:11 am

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

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

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

[Portion removed.]

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

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


6 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 7, 2015 at 9:31 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


5 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 7, 2015 at 9:33 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

NO.

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


3 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 7, 2015 at 10:14 am

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

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

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


9 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 7, 2015 at 10:18 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


1 person likes this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 7, 2015 at 11:23 am

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

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

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

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

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

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


12 people like this
Posted by Paly Grad
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Aug 7, 2015 at 10:28 pm

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


33 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 7, 2015 at 11:11 pm

Paly Grad,

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

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


4 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 10, 2015 at 7:51 am

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

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

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

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


3 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 10, 2015 at 8:10 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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

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

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


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 10, 2015 at 9:08 am

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

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

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


1 person likes this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 10, 2015 at 9:38 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

[Portion removed.]

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


10 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 10, 2015 at 10:45 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

[Portion removed.]

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


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

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

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


Let me know if you need more details.


Peter Carpenter


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 10, 2015 at 10:55 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

And I received a personal reply within six minutes!!


6 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 10, 2015 at 12:22 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 10, 2015 at 3:40 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Another useful approach to the issue:

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

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

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

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


2 people like this
Posted by frustrated
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 10, 2015 at 3:40 pm

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


4 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 10, 2015 at 3:56 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


Like this comment
Posted by frustrated
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 10, 2015 at 4:00 pm

Peter Carpenter,

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




1 person likes this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Barron Park
on Aug 10, 2015 at 4:41 pm

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

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

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

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


46 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 10, 2015 at 4:52 pm

Frustrated,

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

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

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


Regulatory Capture: Web Link

Sky Posse Palo Alto: Web Link

Save Our Skies Santa Cruz: Web Link


6 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 10, 2015 at 5:54 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


Like this comment
Posted by Kazu
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 10, 2015 at 6:15 pm

@resident 1 wrote:

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

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

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


4 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 10, 2015 at 6:26 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


4 people like this
Posted by Roger Overnaut
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Aug 10, 2015 at 6:36 pm

[Post removed due to deletion of referenced comment.]


Like this comment
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Aug 10, 2015 at 7:50 pm

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


2 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 10, 2015 at 8:30 pm

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


29 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 10, 2015 at 9:21 pm

Res 1,

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

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

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


7 people like this
Posted by Old PA Resident
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 10, 2015 at 9:29 pm

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

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

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


Like this comment
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Aug 10, 2015 at 10:05 pm

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

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


2 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Aug 10, 2015 at 10:26 pm

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


5 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 10, 2015 at 11:42 pm

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


1 person likes this
Posted by solon
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 10, 2015 at 11:43 pm

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

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






3 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 11, 2015 at 12:08 am

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


Like this comment
Posted by Kazu
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 11, 2015 at 12:20 am

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

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


7 people like this
Posted by Long-timer
a resident of Mayfield
on Aug 11, 2015 at 12:22 am

@ Peter Carpenter,

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

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

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


9 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 11, 2015 at 7:33 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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

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

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


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 11, 2015 at 9:09 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 11, 2015 at 10:23 am

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


1 person likes this
Posted by anon
a resident of Monroe Park
on Aug 11, 2015 at 12:03 pm

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

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


1 person likes this
Posted by Sayyy
a resident of Community Center
on Aug 11, 2015 at 12:12 pm

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


Like this comment
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Aug 11, 2015 at 12:59 pm

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

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


Like this comment
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Aug 11, 2015 at 1:05 pm

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


12 people like this
Posted by Long-timer
a resident of Mayfield
on Aug 11, 2015 at 1:39 pm

@ Musical,

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

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

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

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


4 people like this
Posted by Sayyy
a resident of Community Center
on Aug 11, 2015 at 1:44 pm

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

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


5 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 11, 2015 at 4:06 pm

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


9 people like this
Posted by Evergreen Park Resident
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Aug 11, 2015 at 5:14 pm

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

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



6 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 11, 2015 at 5:21 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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

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

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



3 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 11, 2015 at 5:44 pm

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

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

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

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


Like this comment
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Aug 11, 2015 at 5:45 pm

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

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


8 people like this
Posted by Old Steve
a resident of St. Claire Gardens
on Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 pm

@Evergreen,

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


1 person likes this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 11, 2015 at 7:16 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Better to light a candle than curse the darkness

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

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


41 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 11, 2015 at 8:27 pm

Old Steve,

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

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

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


19 people like this
Posted by Pilot
a resident of College Terrace
on Aug 11, 2015 at 10:06 pm

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

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

A Silicon Valley solution at last.


16 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Aug 11, 2015 at 10:28 pm

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

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


27 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 11, 2015 at 10:39 pm

Pilot,

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

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

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


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


16 people like this
Posted by the whine
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 11, 2015 at 11:52 pm

Pilot,

Please go to this link Web Link

Pilots with good ideas especially welcome.


5 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 12, 2015 at 8:13 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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

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

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


1 person likes this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 12, 2015 at 8:43 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 12, 2015 at 10:40 am

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

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

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


5 people like this
Posted by Pilot
a resident of College Terrace
on Aug 12, 2015 at 11:47 am

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

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

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


22 people like this
Posted by Long-timer
a resident of Mayfield
on Aug 12, 2015 at 2:22 pm

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

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

In Europe,

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

Fast, simple, effective.

What is wrong with this country?


21 people like this
Posted by Airplane parade
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 12, 2015 at 3:01 pm

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


18 people like this
Posted by anonymous
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 12, 2015 at 3:16 pm

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


6 people like this
Posted by P.A. Native
a resident of Mountain View
on Aug 12, 2015 at 3:17 pm

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


25 people like this
Posted by Airplane parade
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 12, 2015 at 3:40 pm

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

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

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


4 people like this
Posted by P.A. Native
a resident of Mountain View
on Aug 12, 2015 at 3:49 pm

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

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


6 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 12, 2015 at 4:19 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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


6 people like this
Posted by Eileen Wright
a resident of Crescent Park
on Aug 12, 2015 at 4:19 pm

"What is wrong with this country?"

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


12 people like this
Posted by Airplane parade
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 12, 2015 at 4:20 pm

"I'm just saying have some perspective."

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

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


9 people like this
Posted by the whine
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 12, 2015 at 4:35 pm

Native,

For some perspective Web Link


15 people like this
Posted by Long-timer
a resident of Mayfield
on Aug 12, 2015 at 4:58 pm

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

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


6 people like this
Posted by OPar
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 12, 2015 at 6:27 pm

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


2 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 12, 2015 at 7:25 pm

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

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

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

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


4 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 12, 2015 at 7:52 pm

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

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

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


21 people like this
Posted by Paly Grad
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Aug 12, 2015 at 7:57 pm

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

Web Link

Web Link


5 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 12, 2015 at 8:13 pm

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

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


6 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 12, 2015 at 8:44 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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

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


16 people like this
Posted by Thoughtful
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 12, 2015 at 9:38 pm

Thoughtful is a registered user.

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

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

At what cost, who knows?


Like this comment
Posted by Kazu
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 12, 2015 at 9:51 pm

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

You are referring to the chemtrail theory?


Like this comment
Posted by Can they?
a resident of Community Center
on Aug 12, 2015 at 9:57 pm

Peter Carpenter,

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

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



1 person likes this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 12, 2015 at 10:48 pm

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


41 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 12, 2015 at 10:51 pm

Eileen said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


22 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 13, 2015 at 12:20 pm

Good points, Jetman.

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


6 people like this
Posted by Paly Grad
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Aug 13, 2015 at 9:03 pm

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

Web Link


6 people like this
Posted by Thoughtful
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 13, 2015 at 9:38 pm

Thoughtful is a registered user.

To Kazu,

No absolutely not referring to the chemtrail theory.

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

Far more a serious concern to me than noise.

Just think about it and research it yourself


27 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 14, 2015 at 12:06 pm

More siren whistle of free-enterprise:

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


23 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 14, 2015 at 12:10 pm

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


6 people like this
Posted by Sparty
a resident of another community
on Aug 14, 2015 at 1:08 pm

Sparty is a registered user.

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

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

You realize Eshoo is taking input from others right?

Web Link



10 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 14, 2015 at 1:21 pm

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

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

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

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


4 people like this
Posted by Sparty
a resident of another community
on Aug 14, 2015 at 1:30 pm

Sparty is a registered user.

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

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


13 people like this
Posted by Long-timer
a resident of Mayfield
on Aug 14, 2015 at 1:33 pm

@ Sparty from another community

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

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

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


11 people like this
Posted by frustrated
a resident of Barron Park
on Aug 14, 2015 at 1:33 pm

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

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


4 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 14, 2015 at 1:40 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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

Web Link

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


13 people like this
Posted by Long-timer
a resident of Mayfield
on Aug 14, 2015 at 1:45 pm

@ Peter Carpenter

Your one screen-shot does not prove much.

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


6 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 14, 2015 at 2:11 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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

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

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

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


4 people like this
Posted by Old Steve
a resident of St. Claire Gardens
on Aug 14, 2015 at 2:38 pm

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

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


6 people like this
Posted by Paly Grad
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Aug 14, 2015 at 4:33 pm

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

Web Link

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

Web Link

In 2015 Frankfurt had 59,566,000 passengers.

Web Link


31 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 14, 2015 at 4:48 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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


12 people like this
Posted by Old Steve
a resident of St. Claire Gardens
on Aug 14, 2015 at 4:55 pm

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

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


2 people like this
Posted by Old Steve
a resident of St. Claire Gardens
on Aug 14, 2015 at 6:51 pm

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


17 people like this
Posted by Long-timer
a resident of Mayfield
on Aug 14, 2015 at 6:59 pm

@ Old Steve,

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


3 people like this
Posted by Can they?
a resident of Community Center
on Aug 14, 2015 at 7:10 pm

Old Steve,

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

Jetman,

According to Peter Carpenter,

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

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

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

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


8 people like this
Posted by Old Steve
a resident of St. Claire Gardens
on Aug 14, 2015 at 7:48 pm

@Long-Timer:

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

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

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


9 people like this
Posted by Long-timer
a resident of Mayfield
on Aug 14, 2015 at 8:21 pm

@ Old Steve

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

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


3 people like this
Posted by Paly Grad
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Aug 14, 2015 at 8:29 pm

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


Like this comment
Posted by frustrated
a resident of Barron Park
on Aug 14, 2015 at 8:34 pm

@Paly Grad,

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


9 people like this
Posted by Fran
a resident of Barron Park
on Aug 14, 2015 at 9:09 pm

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


1 person likes this
Posted by Thoughtful
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 14, 2015 at 9:20 pm

Thoughtful is a registered user.

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

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

Anyone else have a problem with this?


9 people like this
Posted by Long-timer
a resident of Mayfield
on Aug 14, 2015 at 9:38 pm

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


2 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 14, 2015 at 10:35 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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

Web Link

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

This sounds like the FAA cannot help with speeds"

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

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

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

Web Link

Web Link

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


25 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 15, 2015 at 12:12 am

PC,

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

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


2 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 15, 2015 at 7:17 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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


5 people like this
Posted by Paly Grad
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Aug 15, 2015 at 7:26 am

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

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

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

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


3 people like this
Posted by Fran
a resident of Barron Park
on Aug 15, 2015 at 7:54 am

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

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

Web Link

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

Web Link


2 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 15, 2015 at 8:07 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

This is clearly a flight to complain about.


4 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 15, 2015 at 8:29 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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


2 people like this
Posted by Fran
a resident of Barron Park
on Aug 15, 2015 at 8:46 am

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


6 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 15, 2015 at 9:05 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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

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


10 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 15, 2015 at 10:02 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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

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

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


10 people like this
Posted by Can they?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 15, 2015 at 10:13 am

Fran,

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

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

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

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

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

No apologies from the peanut gallery.






10 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 15, 2015 at 10:18 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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

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

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

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


2 people like this
Posted by Can they?
a resident of Community Center
on Aug 15, 2015 at 10:43 am

Peter Carpenter,

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

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

What a mess.




8 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 15, 2015 at 10:51 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 15, 2015 at 10:53 am

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

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

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


6 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 15, 2015 at 11:04 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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

TRACONs do not make policy but implement established policy.


8 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 15, 2015 at 11:06 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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

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


Like this comment
Posted by Can they?
a resident of Community Center
on Aug 15, 2015 at 11:21 am

[Post removed.]




21 people like this
Posted by Jetmman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 15, 2015 at 11:25 am

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

Question (Jetman):

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

Answer (Peter Carpenter):

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

I suspect that pilots appreciate that flying the IFR approach and putting your wheels and flaps down earlier is, as is proven by the facts, safer. Late deployment of flaps and wheels increases the odds of not being properly configured for landing".


"Surf Air adds 31 flights a week at San Carlos Airport"
The Almanac ~ Apr 14, 2015 Web Link


1 person likes this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 15, 2015 at 11:50 am

I understand technology just fine thank you - I come from technology. And based on my experience technology sometimes goes off the deep end and does not factor in the human element.

Associated Press articles this week on air controllers who are sleep deprived tells you that the FAA doe not understand the human element. They - the FAA / ATC management who allows that situation should be fired on that alone. There is a blank space in the DNA chip there.

I understand that if technology companies get contracts to perform certain functions they are required to meet those specifications in order to get paid - but the government specifies the requirements up front.

In the technology world there are certain factors that are not measureable so not added into the required specifications. However - in order to win the contract to begin with the bidding company is required to provide a totally compliant Human Resources plan consistent with both state and federal requirements. See - the problem here is the government does now follow their own requirements.

I understand that the Government is moving their agencies to lower cost areas - both the state and federal offices are moving their functions to lower cost areas which then begs the question on all of the projections on growth in the state of California - like why do we need the HSR? I have direct relatives who are managing those moves. We in PA think the world is spinning here but there is a whole movement to spin the world outward to regional areas so that the newer workers can buy homes and establish families.

So what is not to understand? The people who are directing traffic do not live under the traffic - they are displaced from the traffic - their world is taking off and landing at certain specifications which do not include the human requirement. They get graded and promoted on that alone.

So hello to the human element - time to step up.

Some of this reminds me of my Hollywood background - remember the show RAWHIDE. We have a lot of wranglers trying to switch the brands on those cows. And where those cows are roaming.


14 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 15, 2015 at 12:47 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Patience and persistence pay off.

SurfAir has done much better in the last two months.

Moving the Tracon to the Bay Area will never happen so spend your time working on feasible solutions.


10 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 15, 2015 at 1:48 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

I just talked with a Korean American executive in the transportation industry. He assures me that it is totally appropriate to hold Korean Airlines up for scrutiny and that he was embarrassed that they don't follow the rules and are not more sensitive to the people on the ground.


5 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 15, 2015 at 3:06 pm

People have made many complaints to SFO concerning the specific Korean Airline plane. Change the altitude! Change the flight path!
Has anything changed?
The question to SFO is what have they done concerning this specific flight - or any of the problem flights in the midnight hours. Are they in conversation with Korean Air? Or are they blowing off the people on the ground? In conversation with some flight school personnel at PAO they sere aggravated by that plane. People in the business of flying have no sympathy for that plane - or Surf Air.

So next step is request info from SFO on what their role is here - a lot of this is looking like the Pointer Sisters - someone else is suppose to do something.


6 people like this
Posted by Contrarian
a resident of University South
on Aug 15, 2015 at 4:22 pm

"I am trying to do something about it [global warming], and for one, I am all for electrifying Caltrain."

Electrifying Caltrain will increase its carbon footprint. Given your climate stance, why do you want to do that?


2 people like this
Posted by Can they?
a resident of Community Center
on Aug 15, 2015 at 4:42 pm

Peter Carpenter,

Did you clarify to this person that your sentiment does not represent Palo Alto?

That many of us hold the entire aviation industry HERE accountable for this mes?

That we ADMIRE that they have curfews in Seoul and that shamefully we have deniers of the real problems who would rather distract and make themselves self-important?




Like this comment
Posted by Can they?
a resident of Community Center
on Aug 15, 2015 at 4:44 pm

Peter Carpenter,

Meant to say MESS that the aviation industry has created with what a strategy that Res1 calls the Pointer Sisters.


Like this comment
Posted by Long time resident
a resident of Menlo Park
on Aug 15, 2015 at 4:51 pm

So Jetman, I read your posting about you and PC,

To you and PC, What distance and altitude do you recommend for Surf Air PC-12 to go flaps and gear down,


8 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 15, 2015 at 7:22 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

No one on this forum speaks for anyone else or for any community.

One person = one opinion


6 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 15, 2015 at 7:25 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Just landed in Wash DC arriving on the Potomac Visual Approach - easy to see from all the lights how close we were to populated areas.


1 person likes this
Posted by Can they?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 15, 2015 at 8:27 pm

Peter Carpenter,

Please call on Bill Shuster - he would be far more important to convince about being "more sensitive to the people on the ground" than the Korean American executive you called on here.

I'm sure you all will share a laugh or two about the wins. Yes you are winning.


10 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 15, 2015 at 8:32 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Please be constructive in your postings.


11 people like this
Posted by Can they?
a resident of Community Center
on Aug 16, 2015 at 10:39 am

Paly Grad

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

Web Link

In 2014 San Francisco had 22,756,000 passenger boardings.

Web Link

In 2015 Frankfurt had 59,566,000 passengers.

Web Link"

Like Seoul, Frankfurt also has a curfew. And it handles much more traffic than SFO.

It's really not to be "cute, clever or cynical" [portion removed], but it's very concerning that there is only so much that the FAA can do.

The suggestion that the airlines need to be contacted directly makes it sound like the FAA can't do anything at all.

Is that true? That the airlines call the shots, and may as well work with them directly, as Peter suggests?


6 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 16, 2015 at 11:16 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"The suggestion that the airlines need to be contacted directly makes it sound like the FAA can't do anything at all. "

Only if you failed to read the many postings on the respective roles of the FAA and the airlines.


6 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 16, 2015 at 11:32 am

I am under the impression that when an airline signs a contract with an airport - which it has to do to allocate space and services - the airport can make specifications as to the type plane which the airport is expected to accommodate and service. Service in this case includes space for ticketing agents, gate availability, tracking for announcement on boards, on / off loading baggage, food services, etc.

An airline is charged for those services - one reason a number of airlines are moving to Oakland from San Jose who is trying to recoup the cost of their expansion - they are charging too much. They are also passing that cost on to the passengers - your ticket costs more in San Jose vs. Oakland.

From where I am sitting SFO should be stating the requirements for that airport which includes planes that have been updated for current noise abatement features. It should be a negotiating position on a airline by airline basis. The biggest airlines have a maintenance crew on site - they should be using those crews to implement updated features. This puts the situation onto the airline to invest some money in their planes.

Airports get graded for on-time service, noise abatement, efficient baggage handling, clean up of planes between flights, provision of food services.
We should be pushing the airports to negotiate better contracts.


6 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 16, 2015 at 11:58 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"It should be a negotiating position on a airline by airline basis."

FAA supported airports cannot impose noise regulations so what leverage do they have to negotiate something that they don't control?


26 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 16, 2015 at 12:05 pm

The FAA has a dual mandate to both promote, and regulate the aviation industry, but is controlled by the aviation industry through the influence of lobbyists, and "revolving door" relationships between top decision-makers and the aviation industry. It's called "regulatory capture".

The FAA and the aviation industry have essentially been fused into one organization, but retain the ability to take on the appearance of two separate organizations when it serves their purpose.

That being said... it is probably better to deal with the FAA, because they actually have quite a bit of statutory power, and a mandate from Congress to regulate the aviation industry. If the public outcry focuses too much attention on the corrupt relationship between the FAA and the industry, the FAA (and their political supporters) will be embarrassed into letting the FAA act like a regulatory agency, at least for a while.

In the long run, the corrupt relationship between the industry and the FAA is more valuable to the industry, than a few short term concessions that might be required to maintain the charade.


"Regulatory Capture"
Wikipedia ~ May 7, 2007 Web Link

"It's Normal for Regulators to Get Captured"
Bloomberg ~ October 1, 2014 Web Link


2 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 16, 2015 at 1:06 pm

I do not agree that the individual airports do not have any negotiating position as to noise abatement. The portrayal sounds like a victim situation. The airline is contracting with the airport who should be able to impose the local regulations.

If you go to the airport individual sites they discuss noise abatement. If the commercial airport has to pay and get downgraded for continually inflicting noise on the community and the management gets called on the carpet then the airport is going to act to protect their ratings. They are going to go to the individual airline and tell them that they need to upgrade in compliance with local regulations.

We need to define local regulations and expect they are followed. Airlines cannot send junk planes to SFO. We are not a junk plane airport. If anything else old, junk planes are a major security issue for the FAA and airport - allowing planes that are below the threshold of current operating standards. No airport is expected to put themselves in that situation. Any situation that has the potential of damage or loss of lives is a major issue if not protected before it happens.

My guess is that the San Jose Airport is receiving continual noise complaints and that is why they are sending their planes over Palo Alto - remove the planes / noise and remove the complaints. That makes them look good.

Is that what happened a couple of years ago when the planes went over Woodside and Atherton? Continual complaints caused the flight path to change - remove the noise - remove the complaints. SFO wants to look good, San Jose wants to look good and they will exercise a number of strategies to do that.

The FAA wants to look good too - so the "complaint department" has to be directed to all of the participants. No government agency today can sustain complaints that indicate ineffective management.


3 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 16, 2015 at 1:27 pm

In talking with the SFO noise abatement office, they mentioned that countries overseas usually fly bigger planes that hold more passengers and are louder but they don't fly as frequently like they do here in the U.S. A problem here, in terms of noise frequency, is that we offer many flights at many times of the day to accommodate travelers needs and give them more options. This can be a negative in trying to control noise.


4 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 16, 2015 at 1:53 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"The airline is contracting with the airport who should be able to impose the local regulations."

Please provide the actual contractual language used by any US airport to impose noise regulations on an individual carrier as a requirement for access to that airport.

Thank you.


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 16, 2015 at 5:59 pm

The people that have access to that information are the business managers at SFO and the plane companies legal department. Those contracts are proprietary information. But you already know that.

Older contracts can always be modified to update to current rules and regulations - which are changing at periodic events.


6 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 16, 2015 at 6:03 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"The people that have access to that information are the business managers at SFO and the plane companies legal department. "

Please post a copy of your request to them for copies of these contracts.

Thank you.


18 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 17, 2015 at 9:56 pm

The FAA's redesign of the national airspace called "nextgen" isn't a technology, it is a collection of technologies that must all work together. One of the most essential technologies underpinning "nextgen" is the En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM) system.

From the very beginning, The FAA has always understood that ERAM could never fail. If the ERAM failed, huge sections of the system would collapse, so ERAM was designed to be redundant, and to switch instantly, and seamlessly, to a backup system in the event of a failure.

On Saturday (8/15/15), ERAM failed, forcing the cancellation of nearly 500 flights, and stranding tens-of-thousands of passengers.


"Software limits exposed in air traffic outage"
The Hill ~ August 17, 2015 Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Aug 17, 2015 at 10:14 pm

Pesky software updates.


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 17, 2015 at 10:23 pm

An article on the system failure at the high-altitude radar facility in Leesburg, VA was in the WSJ today. The FAA indicated that the failure was not related to the ERAM system itself and is investigating further. The failure is attributed to a software upgrade at the facility - it is viewed as an automation failure. Be very careful here. The ERAM system has a greater that 99.99% availability rate.


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 19, 2015 at 11:39 am

The WSJ today - 08/19 has front page discussion on the airline industry - "Dark Clouds Loom for Airlines Even as Their Profits Take Off". This discussion has no reference to Next Gen but does discuss the legal problems with fare fixing, fare gouging, and associated unions who want more for their piece of the pie. All airport services for the airlines are union activities, as well as the pilots and crew.

Not said is that airlines have to upgrade their equipment to interact with Next Gen technology - that is newer planes that are "more efficient" - their interpretation (shrinking seat size). Airports have to upgrade their equipment to interact with the planes on the ground, on/off load baggage, and refuel. How much for air fuel - that is a game changer. Food served on board - another locally priced service.

When the state of California raises the minimum wage to $15 that flows through the price each airport is charging for their services.
Contracts have to be modified for all of the contingencies that are passed on to the airline for the use of the airport facilities.

A consideration for the PAO - a lease cost for a tie-down space needs to be compliant with state law, consistent for the city to make a profit, and pay airport personnel a minimum wage as a starting point. Other services provided for fuel and maintenance if provided come into play here.

These changing variables are dictated by federal standards which are then priced to address state by state requirements, and union requirements.
This continually changing price matrix should allow individual airports within the state to dictate the use of modern technology which would result in better air quality. The state watchdogs on air quality should be working these issues on a airport by airport basis.


2 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 19, 2015 at 11:57 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"This continually changing price matrix should allow individual airports within the state to dictate the use of modern technology which would result in better air quality."

Please provide the contactual language in any US airport agreement that requires any specific equipment on an aircraft as a condition of use of that airport. I do not believe that any airport can requires or has such language.

Here is a typical airport agreement :

Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 19, 2015 at 12:07 pm

This is for the County airports. PAO is no longer a County Airport - it is owned by the City of Palo Alto. Hopefully the city lawyer has reviewed and updated the contract for the city.

I am referencing major airline industry issues for major airports. The WSJ article is not concerned with privately owned county airports. It is addressing major airlines -United Delta, American, etc. Don't expect to see those any time soon at your local county airport.


2 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 19, 2015 at 12:15 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Please provide the actual contractual language used by ANY US airport to impose noise regulations on an individual carrier as a requirement for access to that airport.

Thank you.


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 19, 2015 at 1:01 pm

The city of Palo Alto voted and approved a $15 minimum wage. That appears to be a city by city movement now but is flowing through the state as a whole - like the UC system - one of the bigger employers in the state. This affects the CALPERS system.

Any increase in cost for the employees of the PAO airport, including any health insurance changes, need to be filtered through the lease cost of the tie down and general maintenance costs. The city is running this airport as a profit center - losing money is not a choice.

Any budget problems at the state level for the increase in the minimum wage and health care are well documented in the continuing negotiations across the board.

At the federal level states are ranked for cost-of living - that includes union participation. Planes are built in Texas, Washington - lower cost states.

Ford is moving the building of small cars to Mexico - shutting down a major facility is the mid US-car belt.

The cost of doing business in a region is passed on to the users of the business. SFO is not a shrinking violet - they are the big boys here. They have powerful unions who negotiate their contracts based on the current cost of living. If you want to fly into SFO then you will pay the going rate.

They can call the shots - we just need to give them the ammunition.


2 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 19, 2015 at 3:44 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

I keep seeing proposals regarding airport contracts which, to my knowledge and after considerable searching, have never been done before and which seem to violate the FAA's rules.

Can anyone post the actual contractual language used by ANY US airport to impose noise regulations on an individual carrier as a requirement for access to that airport?


12 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 19, 2015 at 5:08 pm

"Long Beach Airport noise violations fund library and local nonprofits"
KPCC Busines & Economy ~ July 29 2015 Web Link


1 person likes this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 19, 2015 at 5:12 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Long Beach Airport's noise limits are 102.5 decibels per flight during the day or 79 decibels per flight at night.


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 19, 2015 at 8:38 pm

Let's take this from your points made - where in the FAA rule book does it discuss noise abatement?

Large airports have a dedicated section on their official web sites that discusses noise abatement. If SFO has a noise abatement office and manger then does it not follow that they are working in compliance with a federal agency that is concerned with noise abatement? The Manager of Noise Abatement has been to the Palo Alto council meetings to support noise abatement issues. He is a good guy. Would the SFO management have this office on their web site if it was not a federal concern?

There is a SFO Roundtable - unfortunately Palo Alto keeps getting rejected for membership. They talk about NOISE.

Now the San Jose Airport is a different issue - they do not appear to be embracing noise abatement in such an obvious way - they are still trying to grow up to be a big boy airport.


23 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 19, 2015 at 8:58 pm

PC said,

"Long Beach Airport's noise limits are 102.5 decibels per flight during the day or 79 decibels per flight at night"

Yes, and in spite of these incredibly lenient noise standards, cargo hauler Kalitta Charters, agreed to pay $54,000 to settle 13 criminal noise complaints, and Jet Blue paid $300,000 in 2014, where each of the first six violations in a year costs $3,000, and subsequent violations are billed at $6,000 each.

If my math is right, that was 53 violations by Jet Blue in 2014.

The bad part of this is, the City of Long Beach has essentially gone into business with the noise polluters by funneling the fines into City properties, instead of to the people harmed by the violations. With the kind of money the City is making from the fines, they probably don't really care whether these companies are in violation, or not.

Individualized harm... socialized compensation.


2 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 19, 2015 at 10:21 pm

Jetman - excellent points. Airlines are penalized for exceeding noise limits. So now we need to find out if our favorite airports are penalizing airlines. Long Beach is California so maybe a state requirement? Need to check this out. Excellent.


Like this comment
Posted by resident
a resident of another community
on Aug 19, 2015 at 11:13 pm


Is Surf Air an Airline or a Charter company, orrrr an Airline operating under a charter rating?


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 19, 2015 at 11:27 pm

Surf Air is a membership airline - you have to pay to be a member - but you do not get unlimited flights - there is a limit per month. They fly into Oakland - maybe need to check with Oakland since they are not a county airport so different rules apply. SFO does have a section for private airplanes so think they would fall into that category. My guess is that the plane is not big enough for SF - it is not really a jet - SFO's private jets are the big executive jets.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 20, 2015 at 7:21 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

The Long Beach Airport noise fine ordinance had to be approved by an act of the US Congress.

It is the only US airport with such authority.

Other airports have tried and failed to get the same authority.


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 20, 2015 at 7:39 am

So back to the FAA - is there any mention in the FAA scriptures about noise abatement? If the FAA bible is quiet on that question then it is not part of their area of control.

We should mention that many attended meetings put on by the airports and FAA last year at various points around the bay area to determine where complaints were occurring. So they are concerned but not sure if it is a topic they formally address.

This reminds me of the IRS and Health Care fiascos - the top people lost their jobs for trying to manipulate their formal roles - or by sheer incompetency. Embarrass the White House at your own peril.


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 20, 2015 at 9:33 am

The Long Beach Airport is on Donald Douglas Drive - formally the Douglas Aircraft location.

The Santa Monica Airport was formerly the McDonnell Douglas facility that moved to Huntington Beach and later was sold to Boeing.

The Burbank Airport was formally a Lockheed facility. What a great history.


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 21, 2015 at 8:09 am

There is another excellent recap on this problem today. This just gives you some history of the type discussion that goes on here.

Another factor in this overall topic - Real Estate Development. Note that there is a new development being touted in the papers - The Tidelands in San Mateo. This large condominium development on the bay lands, San Mateo is in direct proximity of the SFO arrival path.

Think about the permits required to build in this location which is in a potential flood zone. It is touted as luxury living. A county lives in part on the tax assessment of property so wants to sell more development and more property.

This creates "the push" with backroom negotiating at the county level to make this all happen.

Any argument that Palo Alto is pushing the flight pattern to lower cost areas - there are no lower cost areas - the planes have to cross higher cost areas to get out over the bay into the flight path.

So managing the push has to happen with the people that approve real estate development at the city and county level - that would include San Jose who is pushing their flights up to PA vs their regular path over the city.

So the City of Palo Alto needs to push back, the County of Santa Clara needs to assist in this effort.


2 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 21, 2015 at 8:16 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"So managing the push has to happen with the people that approve real estate development at the city and county level - that would include San Jose who is pushing their flights up to PA vs their regular path over the city. "

Is there any evidence to support this speculation? Any donations to political campaigns? Any letters to public officials? Any lunches with public officials?


2 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 21, 2015 at 8:48 am

Two cities are busy suing the FAA - in San Mateo County. And you are sitting in Atherton, San Mateo County defending "the lower cost cities". There are no lower cost cities.

Not sure any more who you are defending - it appears to be shifting.
Was the "lower cost cities" and now it is the FAA?

We know for sure the Surf Air is on your hit list because they fly over your house - or proximity - and the "lower cost cities" of San Mateo. Also the higher cost cities of San Mateo - Menlo Park, Atherton, Redwood City.


2 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 21, 2015 at 9:03 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"We know for sure the Surf Air is on your hit list because they fly over your house"

Wrong - I have repeatedly and long ago posted my support for the Surf Air operations and my opposition to moving them away from my house to "lower cost" communities.

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 15, 2015 at 8:17 am
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
"It does seem elitist that Atherton people keep complaining"

Please note that only SOME Atherton residents are complaining.

I have often stated my belief that I live in a vibrant, connected place and with that come certain tradeoffs. And I have repeatedly stated that I think it would be wrong for Atherton to simply push this traffic off on another, less vocal and less influential community.
****************
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 24, 2015 at 11:41 am
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
"The Surf Air comes up the valley (101) and crosses over to enter the bay area at the bottom of the bay to avoid the San Jose traffic. They could come up in the same pattern to the vicinity of the Hayward airport then cross over the bay."

Oh yes - solve your problem by pushing it elsewhere. Why do you disregard all the people who live under the alternate route that you propose.?

****************
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 9, 2013 at 7:08 am
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
I live, as is always clearly noted, in Lindenwood and am slightly to the east of the IFR approach to San Carlos. I am also a former pilot (no longer flying) with 15 years of experience flying in the Bay Area out of Palo Alto Airport.

I was a project manager on the development of the world's first silent airplane (Prize Crew QT-1) developed by ARPA and have spent almost 20 years , 10 as chair, on the Joint Community Relations Committee (JCRC) at the Palo Alto airport. I understand the physics of airplane noise from my ARPA work and I deeply understand the social and political aspects of airplane noise from my JCRC work. During my ten years as Chair of the JCRC I personally talked to EVERY person who complained of aircraft noise. Almost all of the solvable noise problems were dealt with by changing pilot behavior.


First, based on my experience, the FAA will be very slow to change anything, particularly any published approaches.

Second, simply moving the SurfAir flight paths to the East is just causing the noise to move east - not to Palo Alto but to EastPalo Alto and East Menlo Park. The fairness, politics and optics of dumping Atherton's noise problems on East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park are obvious.

Third, the best and easiest to implement change is for SurfAir to move the beginning of their approach to a point west of the Stanford stadium where the floor of the SFO Class B airspace is 4000 Ft rather than the 2500 Ft floor east of the stadium. From that more western point SurfAir can perform a Controlled Descent Approach in VFR conditions that will, at all times prior to short final, be higher than the current lower, step down high power approach path and will be a much lower powered, hence less noise, approach. The net effect of this approach would be to significantly reduce the noise footprint for ALL the communities under the Surf Air flight path.

In summary, in order to decrease aircraft noise you can either increase the distance from the ground or reduce the noise generated or both - the CDA I have suggested does both. Moving the flight path east to East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park does neither,


1 person likes this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 21, 2015 at 9:21 am

We at this time - 9:11 AM are in a blitz of B737's coming across PA and circling around at a very low altitude - 2,900. The San Jose Mineta Airport tracker does not report these planes as Arrivals and they do not have the San Jose colors - red or green. But I am noting that San Jose has gotten into a more defensive mode of late by not indicating who the planes are except for type and tail number.

Tail Number: N290WN and a flock of others. I suspect these are private jets that are owned by teams? Visiting political hopefuls coming to tap the California ATM machine?

What is even more weird is that they circle over the San Jose Airport, as well as the PAO airport.

So that is what is going on out there.

PC = remind me - your years of "service" at the PAO - was that 2009? A lot of changes since 2009.


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 21, 2015 at 9:48 am

Both SFO and San Jose have listed Arrivals which are their commercial flights - United, American, Delta, Southwest, etc. They do not list the private jets in the Arrivals Section, or the Fed-Ex, Freight.

That is not a universal practice - in Hawaii they list the Aloha Airline freight flights because there needs to be pick-up and deliveries for those flights. What is listed is particular to the needs of the area.

We have many more flights on the weekend which are not listed in the Arrivals - these are large planes for teams and other visiting political folks. These planes do not follow typical flight paths - they are not Next Gen driven.
I do not think that they are connected in the standard flight path scenarios, I think they are getting permission to tour the area - government personnel.


2 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 21, 2015 at 11:04 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

For those readers who want, hope and expect this Forum " to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion" please note the previous for postings and the damage that they do to this being " a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion".

First, an anonymous poster falsely states my position on an issue about which I have clearly and frequently stated a contrary opinion.

Second, I provide clear evidence that my position has been falsely stated.

Third, the anonymous poster refuses to acknowledge his falsehood and simply tries to change the subject.

This behavior does not enhance our understanding of an important issue.


17 people like this
Posted by Groundling
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 21, 2015 at 12:30 pm

Between 8:45 and 9:47 this morning, Midtown, just east of Middlefield was pummeled by planes from both San Jose and SFO. My list below. Egregious, low flights to SJC, which come over us below 2000 ft and stay at that altitude over the Bay until very far south. They could easily fly higher over us, IF we weren't also taking SFO traffic and PAO pleasure flyers. The WebTrak today lacked Airline info.
Time Airline Dest Type Altitude over Midtown
8:45 SJC GLF4 2500
8:49 SJC B737 2900
8:53 SJC B737 1900
8:58 SFO B739 5200
8:59 SJC A319 1900
9:03 SJC ? 2000
9:08 SJC ? 2500
9:10 SJC CRJ9 1900
9:13 SJC CRJ9 2000
9:15 SFO B739 4000
9:17 SJC CRJ9 2700
9:18 SFO B739 4800
9:19 SWA SJC B733 2000
9:20 SFO ? 3900
9:22 SJC E170 1900
9:25 SJC E45X 2700
9:27 SFO E170 4500
9:27 SWA SJC CL60 2000
9:29 SWA SJC B737 2000
9:35 SWA SJC B733 2300
9:38 SJC ? 2900
9:42 SFO CRJ7 4700
9:47 SJC B738 2500

That is 22 overflights in one hour! Nine of these were at 1900-2000 ft! That is less than 1/2 mile up. How is that safe? These are not small planes--huge jets. Unbearable noise for anyone at home. I worry for the sanity and learning of children in classrooms through this part of town-- at least 4 elementary schools, a middle school, and other private schools. This is so unhealthy.


2 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 21, 2015 at 12:39 pm

Groundling - good work. I sent in a complaint to San Jose concerning the low planes over PA and requested which ATC is providing those directions. I do not expect a response.

I am noticing that if you have a complaint on file with San Jose they block out the plane information on their in-flight system. They are essentially removing information needed concerning specific flights - like the flight plan.
I think they are going into a defensive mode of operation here.
I do not think these planes are listed in their "Arrivals" panel - I think these are private flights for teams or political people.


4 people like this
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Aug 21, 2015 at 4:08 pm

@Res1, you can google N290WN and find out it's Southwest. FAA registrations are not as private as DMV registrations. Some obfuscation is possible using LLCs or shell-corporations; and the owner, lease-holder, or financier may be different entities.


6 people like this
Posted by neighbor
a resident of another community
on Aug 21, 2015 at 9:52 pm


Surf Air flies most of their flights directly on what is known as the Ameby IFR approach,

They pick up this approach on a GPS locator in Mtn. View,

On VFR days (VFR stands for visual flight rules) From this spot they could easily vary this route to multiple approaches in to San Carlos Airport. Varying as much as 3 miles laterally at 3 miles out.

This is what is called Sharing the noise and safety risk, not as some people would have others believe
that the only other option than what they are doing now is to push the flights east over East Menlo and East Palo Alto. (Not true)

Flights can go left of Ameby, over Ameby and right of Ameby, Please stop saying everyone is trying to push the Surf Air flights over the less affluent areas. This is a red herring to keep the flights where they are over Ameby.


2 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 21, 2015 at 11:27 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Peter,

Would that work for Surf Air?"
*******************

Using both A-CDAs and herringbone approaches with the NextGen technology would work perfectly to better distribute both the SurfAir flights and flights into SFO and SJC":

"In the Netherlands, the NLR (a government research agency) has also started a research project on A‐CDA. The curved approach path consists of straight and circular segments. A constant glide path angle (normally 3°) is maintained along the entire path, including the turns.

"But while curved CDAs offer greater flexibility in designing approach routes they still suffer from the issue of concentration. Some respite could be provided to residents if more than one CDA approach can be used for each runway. This is possible if aircraft can turn on to the final straight leg of a CDA at different intervals, creating a series of approach paths with different entry points. This would maintain many of the benefits of CDA while creating greater flexibility to reduce the number of overflights at any given location and to provide respite periods.
These entry points could be either side of the straight leg, creating a "herringbone" effect"


from An AEF Report for HACAN on:
Approach Noise at Heathrow: Concentrating
the Problem

*****
It is time to stop cursing the darkness and to start applying the tools we have like NextGen and the superb operational analysis that has already been done in studies like the above cited HACAN report.


Like this comment
Posted by neighbor
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 22, 2015 at 2:08 am

Resident 1

Who are the 2 cities suing the FAA


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 22, 2015 at 8:11 am

There is an excellent stream now on the system - Groundlings. Read the whole presentation concerning specifics of law suits and actions to date with the SFO and FAA.


4 people like this
Posted by Paly Grad
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Nov 5, 2015 at 7:57 pm

Lots of "Low and Loud" jet flights this evening including China Airlines CAL4 flying under 3,000 feet at 7:45 pm.


4 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Nov 5, 2015 at 10:42 pm

Tonight has been a relentless stream of planes. Unbelievable considering all the work that has gone into complaints. At one point I heard the freight train, whistles blowing, and I could hear it and I am not even close to it. Then it became confused with the sounds of planes. It was all rolling along together.

It concerns me that the Russian plane exploded in air and the news said that the US is now exercising caution on foreign flights coming in. And we have foreign flights coming in over our heads. And they are lower. So where is the caution here? The planes are over the most heavily populated section of the valley. And since we are always in the news it is like we ae a target.

This isn't just noise that is a problem - it also security.


17 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 6, 2015 at 12:01 am

I've noticed that lately you don't just hear the jet aircraft... you can also feel them. When the larger planes pass directly overhead the low frequency sound vibrates your internal organs a little bit, like when you get too close to a powerful sub-woofer.

Possibly the result of dense cold air, an inversion layer, or more atmospheric humidity?


9 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 6, 2015 at 9:40 am

The plane noise has been horrible this past week. My nerves are frazzled and my family is exhausted from losing sleep.


3 people like this
Posted by Paly Grad
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Dec 17, 2015 at 7:03 pm

Asiana Cargo flight AAR284 was flying at 256 knots over Palo Alto and at 3,700' over East Palo Alto this evening at 6:54 pm on December 17, 2015


14 people like this
Posted by tt
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 17, 2015 at 7:10 pm

I just couldn't understand the rationale of those who dismiss the aircraft noise while labeling others who are suffering as NIMBY.

If they deny there is a noise problem in the first place, why do they care about moving the "problem" to other neighborhoods. In their mind, the problem is non-existent, does it mater where is it moved to? This is just illogical.


5 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Dec 18, 2015 at 11:01 pm

Tonight there have been flights every few minutes at 2500 feet or so, going over South Palo Alto into San Jose. Boy am I glad we are going out of town for the holidays, as I expect this will be continuing for the next few days due to the rain.

This app makes it super easy to report noisy flights: Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by Paly Grad
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Dec 19, 2015 at 8:20 am

At 9:06 pm on December 18, 2015 Southwest Airlines flight 103 was at 1,950' as it crossed over the Bayshore Freeway on its way to San Jose, flying low to allow for adequate separation for an SFO bound jet in the vicinity.


Like this comment
Posted by issue?
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Dec 19, 2015 at 8:32 am

@Paly Grad,
What was the issue if it's flying to avoid other aircraft?


5 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Dec 19, 2015 at 8:42 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 10, 2015 at 10:45 am
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

I have sent the following to Cong. Eshoo's office:


From: Peter Carpenter
Subject: This should be an easy fix
Date: August 10, 2015 at 10:42:58 AM PDT
To: "karen.chapman@mail.house.gov"

Karen,
Historically the FAA has always coordinated the landing patterns at SFO and SJC so that planes at both airports are landing in the same direction. Recently they have gotten into the habit of allowing landing from the North at SJC while still landing from the South at SFO. This overlaps traffic over Palo Alto and forces the SJC inbound traffic to fly very low to stay below the SFO inbound traffic.

There is no reason for this change from the long practiced process of coordinating the landing direction at these two airport.


Let me know if you need more details.


Peter Carpenter


3 people like this
Posted by When
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 19, 2015 at 8:54 am

I think the issue is that if the SFO planes would fly higher, then the San Jose airplanes would not have to duck down as low as 1,950.


6 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Dec 19, 2015 at 8:59 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

The altitiude of inbound SFO flights is dictated bythe required 3 deg glide slope.

Commercial flights seldom exceed a 3 deg glide slope for reasons of passenger safety and comfort. Stepper approaches would require either abrupt transitions as they approach the runway or much faster landing speeds. - neither would be safe or comfortable.


1 person likes this
Posted by when
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 19, 2015 at 10:17 am

Planes used to fly higher, used to be you would not even see an airplane. Now they look like they are flying right above trees or not far.

Were they previously flying unsafely?







14 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Dec 19, 2015 at 11:06 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Planes used to fly higher, used to be you would not even see an airplane."

Most SFO bound planes are using the very long standing approaches into SFO. All of these approaches have the same 3 deg glide angel so, in general,these planes are not lower than they were before. The exception is the unjustifable procedure of landing SJC planes to the South while also landing SFO planes to the North which DOES bring the SJC bound planes over the peninsula much lower than they would normally be flying.


Increased personal sensitivity to an irritant significantly increases ones awareness of that irritant - this is neither right or wrong, good or bad but just a fact of human behavior. Some people exposed to the same potential irritant develop tolerance. Both are understandable responses.


10 people like this
Posted by Kerry
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 19, 2015 at 11:46 am

So scary yesterday morning driving my daughter to school, At 7:50am, an Alaska airlines 737 from Guadalajara to San Jose Airport crossed over my home at 1,900 feet. It seemed to be flying just over the tree line. No way that this can be acceptable as a safe flying procedure.
Wish we were going on vacation away from the constant roar of 200+ planes a day ofon their way to SFO, along with SJC arrivals flying way too low.


8 people like this
Posted by when
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 19, 2015 at 12:39 pm

Peter Carpenter,

It has been several months since the airplane "irritant" started for me, and I have not developed "tolerance."

Is tolerance building an airline thing? Who comes up with this nonsense?

I would call it a freak experiment to play/gamble with human behavior to make a case for airline profits.

Air pollution also something one tolerates? Last news on cancer is that it's not bad luck but environmental - like chemicals in the air?


50 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 19, 2015 at 1:12 pm

Why have most of the members of the PACC been so sheepish about advocating aggressively on behalf of Palo Alto on this issue? I find it strange that senior members of the PACC have been happy to let Anna Eshoo, Joe Simitian, and even the mayors of other cities take the lead, and the lime-light, on this issue.

Could it be that for most of the 3-4 years that the FAA was involved in rolling out the "nextgen" superhighways over Palo Alto, several members of the PACC were very actively involved in obsequious negotiations with the FAA to obtain FAA "Airport Improvement Program" funds to next-gentrify Palo Alto Airport?

When the PACC agreed to the transfer of "sponsorship" (not ownership) of PAO from Santa Clara County, they ceded governance of PAO to the FAA, and gave away the only political leverage any city government has over the FAA.


FAA - Nextgen for Airports: Web Link


7 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Dec 19, 2015 at 1:28 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Could it be that for most of the 3-4 years that the FAA was involved in rolling out the "nextgen" superhighways over Palo Alto, several members of the PACC were very actively involved in obsequious negotiations with the FAA to obtain FAA "Airport Improvement Program" funds to next-gentrify Palo Alto Airport?"

Do you have any evidence to support this obsequious allegation?


1 person likes this
Posted by tt
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 20, 2015 at 1:01 pm

what the freak !! Since when is Palo Alto under the departing flight path of SFO?
Web Link


59 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 21, 2015 at 10:17 pm

The aircraft noise over Palo Alto is worse than ever.

It is time for the Palo Alto City Council to stop hiding behind Anna Eshoo's skirt.

It is time for the Palo Alto City Council to stop cowering in the shadows, while Palo Alto residents carry the fight for quiet skies against a tyrannical federal agency.

It is time for the Palo Alto City council to stop pretending there is nothing the City Council can do.

The FAA desperately wants to nextgen-trify Palo Alto airport.

It is time for the Palo Alto City Council to send a strong message to the FAA... no more AIP grants, and no more nextgen-trification of Palo Alto Airport, until the FAA stops using Palo Alto as a toxic waste dump for SFO & SJC bound aircraft noise pollution.


PACC Resolution Authorizing City Manager to Execute Future FAA Grants: Web Link


6 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Dec 22, 2015 at 10:14 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"It is time for the Palo Alto City Council to send a strong message to the FAA... no more AIP grants, "

That would mean that the City's current grant obligations would expire in 2034.

And that would also mean that the City of Palo Alto would have to bear the full costs of all future airport improvements and runways repairs and resurfacing.


8 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Dec 22, 2015 at 10:17 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

And that none of the aviation fuel taxes paid at Palo Alto Airport could be used at Palo Alto Airport.


2 people like this
Posted by Paly Grad
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Mar 4, 2016 at 7:41 pm

What are the elevation and airspeed limits for commerical jets flying into SFO? VRD945 (N636VA) was flying at 240 knots over Willow Road at 7:27 this evening at 3,225'.


10 people like this
Posted by Midtowner
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 4, 2016 at 8:05 pm

@ Paly Grad

You may find it shocking, as I do, but unfortunately it is legal for large commercial jets to fly very low above us. Here is the minimum altitude requirement:

"Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft."
Web Link

So, there you have it. Above Palo Alto/Menlo Park, it is barely over 1,000 feet. (What is the height of the highest building here?).

When the weather is bad, Palo Alto gets San Jose bound jets that fly as low as 1,900 feet.

It is all ridiculous. There is no heed paid to the many people on the ground having to bear this.


6 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 4, 2016 at 11:18 pm

"And that would also mean that the City of Palo Alto would have to bear the full costs of all future airport improvements and runways repairs and resurfacing."

Naw. Just close the thing and put the land to community-serving uses.


18 people like this
Posted by adrastos
a resident of another community
on Apr 25, 2016 at 12:41 pm

while I sympathize with all you people, and I do. i totally cant stand what the FAA has done t us. We have the same problem here in the NY, Brooklyn and Queens Long island area.
Our elected officials have ignored us since 2012 when this horrible nextgen was implemented.
Hopefully Phoenix and your area will help OUR people here to do something about it also.
planes fly at 30 second intervals for 20 hours a day landing at LGA in Queens. meddening to say the least. Shame on congress for allowing this.


21 people like this
Posted by Unimpressed
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 25, 2016 at 1:13 pm

So nothing has been done to reduce the noise levels since NextGen was introduced.

The pollution from low-flying jets falls on us several times daily and nightly.

Someday, one of these jets will fall on us-- and whose fault will that be? The FAA's!

People, kids included, are suffering from sleep deprivation due to interruptions of sleep several times nightly-- causing poor performance at work, at school, while driving! This is also a safety issue-- and whose fault is that? The FAA's!


People who have homes under these newly changed flight patterns are finding they can't sell their homes in the hot, hot housing market. If they do, they have to settle for a price below the market value. Whose fault is this? The FAA's!

It seems that it is about time a large, class action law suit ( probably several of them all over the nation) be filed against the FAA.
They refuse to take responsibility or get rid of NextGen, so if they lose a precedent-setting lawsuit, it will be no one's fault but their own.


33 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 25, 2016 at 3:42 pm

adrastos,

When I first started noticing a dramatic increase in aircraft noise here in Palo Alto in September of 2014, I investigated, and found the Queens Quiet Skies website. At that time, the areas around LaGuardia and JFK had already been suffering from the effects of the FAA's "nextgen" implementation for more than a year.

It is shameful, that in all of that time, the FAA has done NOTHING to reduce the noise. FAA Chief Michael Huerta and NY Senator Chuck Schumer do what the airline industry lobbyists tell them to do, and give the the public nothing but excuses and empty promises.

Queens Quiet Skies: Web Link


6 people like this
Posted by Priorities
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 25, 2016 at 4:34 pm

Senat panel calls for ban on funding Air Traffic Control Privatization
Web Link

Air Traffic Control priorities Web Link

>NATCA (National Air Traffic Controllers' Association) has publicly stated that any FAA restructuring must achieve the following:

In order to maintain NATCA’s support, any new system must ensure that our members are fully protected in their employment relationship. Maintaining our members’ pay and benefits, including retirement and health care, along with our negotiated agreements for their work rules, are crucial to us.

Safety and efficiency remain the top priorities. This means that we cannot allow maintenance to lag, and cannot reduce staffing to save money. The NAS must remain fully staffed in order to ensure both safety and efficiency.

A stable, predictable funding stream must adequately support air traffic control services, staffing, hiring and training, long-term modernization projects, preventative maintenance, and ongoing modernization to the physical infrastructure. The stop and go funding crises create staffing shortages, which slow the hiring and training process. Inadequate funding also prevents NextGen modernization projects from timely implementation. Any new system must improve upon the status quo, by providing an environment that promotes growth in the system and allows us to lead the world in aviation innovation.

A dynamic aviation system that continues to provide services to all segments of the aviation community, from commercial passenger carriers and cargo haulers, to business jets, to general aviation, from the major airports to those in small communities and rural America. We cannot emphasize enough how important it is that a new system continues providing services to the diverse users of the NAS. The United States has a vibrant general aviation community that relies on us. At the same time, rural America’s economic success is connected to the access we create with our comprehensive NAS that serves even the most remote areas.<


Any mention of us here??????????

Mr. Huerta answers to the airlines, then the people managing air traffic manage Mr. Huerta with their Union. Maybe before we should buy a few airlines, and negotiate directly with the Union.


4 people like this
Posted by Question
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 25, 2016 at 8:19 pm

Who actually decides that a given commercial flight into San Francisco airport flies under 4000 feet over residential areas in Palo Alto?

Is it in the flight's original flight plan on take-off? Does someone in Sacramento say "lower altitude to 3700 feet?" Or does someone at SFO give this permission or guidance?


7 people like this
Posted by fight jetnoise
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 25, 2016 at 8:32 pm

Please go to stop.jetnoise.net to complain about the aircraft noise. It eventually ends up in SFO's database and the DB is leveraged by our elected officials as a bargaining chips to deal with the FAA.

Also like Skyposse Palo Alto's FB page:
Web Link


5 people like this
Posted by Mary
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 26, 2016 at 11:17 am

If one looks at this issue from a purely political point of view, the FAA's NextGen system may be optimal from the standpoint of minimizing the political fallout from jet noise. If the noise is spread out over a wider area, many more people are affected than in the concentrated NextGen flight pattern. More people complain, and the FAA has to deal with more politicians who respond to the complaints of their constituents. With NextGen, many fewer people are affected albeit to a much greater degree. More vigorous complaints but from many fewer people.

If you were the FAA and some Skyposse members suggested spreading the noise out over a much greater population of potential complainers, what would your calculation be? I think they will think, "if I leave the flight path like it is, I'll have to deal with this small group of whiners and their couple of politician allies. I already know how to put them off: I've been doing it for years already. If I change the flight paths, they'll be a bunch more people and more politicians making my life difficult. Who knows where that might lead? I might have to rethink this whole thing. I might have to go before Congress. I might lose my job and pension. No thanks: I'll stick with the devil I know."

I wish Skyposse the best of luck. The jet noise over my house is unbearable lately. But I think I'll be better off selling and moving away from the noise than waiting for the FAA to respond intelligently...as much as I hate to leave Palo Alto where I've lived for 35 years.


4 people like this
Posted by Paly Parent
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Apr 26, 2016 at 11:55 am

Paly Parent is a registered user.

@Mary: I think Sky Posse has a solution which doesn't entail simply transferring the noise to others. The planes can do as they had in the past, which is to fly into SFO over the water. Also, they don't need to fly as low. I'm worried about the air pollution we are breathing as well as the disruptive noise.


7 people like this
Posted by Mary
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 26, 2016 at 12:32 pm

@Paly Parent: If you read the article that was the genesis for this thread, you'll notice it is dated July of 2015: 9 months ago. Mr. Martin of the FAA is quoted spewing a lot of bureaucratic gobbledygook about looking for solutions. Rep Eshoo is quoted as saying that a solution can be found that doesn't require new legislation. What's happened in the three quarters of a year since the meeting described in the article? Well, judging by the tenor of the posts on this thread, and by the number of complaints to the SFO noise complaint dept, the problem is actually worse. And it doesn't appear that we are any closer to seeing anything done about the problem.

Meanwhile, your Paly kids are breathing the pollution you mention. My husband and I are awakened at night by low flying planes and can't entertain outside on weekends because of the noise. My husband and I both are retiring in the next couple of years and we don't intend to spend our retirement dodging this noise....and we don't see any possibility of a solution on a time frame that would allow us to enjoy a "quiet" retirement here. Do you really think there will be a solution before your kid(s) graduate from Paly?

As I said, I truly hope Skyposse's efforts bear fruit, but the FAA operates on a time line that doesn't match the real people's life paths. I love Palo Alto and but for the noise would stay....but I think I'll be better off in a quieter place.


5 people like this
Posted by Midtowner
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 26, 2016 at 12:52 pm

@ Paly Parent and others.

In the past, SFO bound planes did not just magically fly above water. They have to get to the bay first, somehow crossing the Peninsula for all planes coming from the south (Southern California), the west (trans Pacific flights) and the north (from "Point Reyes, i.e. planes from the north but also from Europe and often from the East Coast). So, the question is, where did these planes cross the Peninsula in the past?

The crossed it over San Mateo County. Then, San Mateo County rebelled and the planes were sent just south of San Mateo County, i.e. Palo Alto. This happened in the late nineties, and happened without proper studies or environmental reviews.

Traffic has since only gotten worse, and the noise has been compounded by a lowering of plane altitudes to 4,000 feet above Palo Alto (while they used to be at 5,000 feet or above) and of course, now, NextGen and its narrow flight paths.

However, you cannot say that planes just used to be above water. They actually used to cross to the Bay over San Mateo County.


1 person likes this
Posted by Paly Parent
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Apr 26, 2016 at 12:55 pm

Paly Parent is a registered user.

@Mary: No need to be rude to me, I'm on your side; show some respect. I grew up here and remember the days of little traffic on our streets. I am a stay-at-home mom and I have the same gripes as you do and agree it's gotten worse since publicized. But perhaps that's the only way to increase complaints. Look at the Sky Posse petition and they can't even acquire 2500 signatures in a city of 60,000. I think a lot of people don't care because they work elsewhere or they love feeling like they are in the middle of a "happening" Silicon Valley. It's like the NYC noise that people thrive on.


1 person likes this
Posted by Paly Parent
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Apr 26, 2016 at 12:56 pm

Paly Parent is a registered user.

@Midtownet: Thanks for the clarification.


Like this comment
Posted by SEA_SEELAM REDDY
a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 26, 2016 at 1:37 pm

SEA_SEELAM REDDY is a registered user.

Great start.

Hope it happens rather soon.

respectfully


5 people like this
Posted by Priorities
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 26, 2016 at 1:52 pm

Mary, Paly Parent,and Midtowner,

The planes were certainly flying over other places before(like San Mateo), **and** the number of planes into SFO has not really increased much over the years (maybe flat in most recent years), so it is 100% baloney that "spreading" the traffic or noise is about causing harm to others.

The harm is TO US,taking planes which were flying over other places and dumping them here.

Practically, the same amount of planes were flying spread about before (with no complaints from the "others").

Sky Posse website has documented the changes. The worst happened recently but it has happened before.

Mary - in the 35 years that you have lived here, nobody bothered to find out what was going on because I have heard that some people noticed the changes before but were ignored or they were dismissed.

Being worried and shy about where the noise will go, given the gross negligence to allow it being dumped here is really what the FAA and the politicians must be counting on.

Palo Alto will be too polite, and will take a hit for the team! Not even the local press speaks to the real problem. There have been more appearances about our concerns in the LA Times than in the local press.

I do agree with you Mary about who will listen to any ideas when there is FEAR about where the noise will go to. Much easier for everyone for us to move. I've even heard that might be a desirable thing for those who could benefit from that.


2 people like this
Posted by Priorities
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 26, 2016 at 2:06 pm

OK maybe there have been more stories on this Weekly, but this issue is not really covered the way one would expect. Is that what also happened in years past?

I did notice a story about real estate prices going up in nearby areas, but taking longer to sell houses in PA - that one never knows, there are things like life events that influence the market. Airplane noise may be under that category, "life events."

Sorry, but (for me) there is no other town as beautiful as Palo Alto so why would the market be weaker here. It will be with complete and awful regret that we may also move. But being SFO's slave is not an option either.


8 people like this
Posted by Plane Speaker
a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 26, 2016 at 2:13 pm

A lot of dishonest, naive and ignorant comments here.

The NextGen project is responsible for having planes
coming in lower all over the area so they can save fuel.

What this means is that they are externalizing their fuel
costs by making a lot of people in the Bay Area and the
country miserable.

Saying that this is somehow normal or fair is untrue.
It is not the case that planes that used to plaque other
areas are not better for those areas and that Palo Alto
is not taking its fair share of plane noise. These are the
kind of dishonest arguments we get from people who
know better but have these stupid arguments ready to
go one after the other to just stall and waste everyone's
time.

That is pretty much it.

But last night about 4am there was a very loud plane, I
don't think it was a commercial airliner because it was
extremely low, slow and loud ... even vibrational and took
a long time to go by. The local airport is a problem too
because these pilots just do not know or care what they
are doing.


11 people like this
Posted by Midtowner
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 26, 2016 at 2:41 pm

@ Plane Speaker

Is the lower altitude really about cost savings? A pilot told me that the lower a plane flies, the more fuel it uses. It seems to me that the real reason for the lower altitude is passenger comfort. In any case, we can agree that planes fly lower and it is egregious, especially at night when we are trying to sleep.

On another topic, I looked up the flights over Palo Alto this morning between 4 and 5 AM. The only one I could find on Webtrak, was actually a helicopter coming from the south, crossing Palo Ato south to north around 4:34 AM, at an altitude of 2,400 feet. This seems to match your description of the nuisance. It continued on north to at least SFO or past SFO, above land.

You can track planes and other flights on Webtrak.


23 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 26, 2016 at 2:43 pm

Mary,

Your analysis of the the FAA's political calculation is correct. The FAA (which is controlled by the aviation industry), would rather contend with a small group of very vocal citizens, than a larger group of slightly less vocal citizens. The strategy is as old as the hills... "divide and rule".

However, there are other political calculations in play. The Palo Alto City Council recently agreed to take over "sponsorship" of Palo Alto Airport (PAO) from Santa Clara County. At the time, Santa Clara County was embroiled in a dispute with the FAA over who had the authority to regulate a noisy sky-diving operation at another County "sponsored" airport. The FAA said they had sole right to regulate operations at the airport, based on the 20-year contract the County signed when it applied for, and received, FAA grant funds. In retaliation, the FAA cut off grant funds to ALL Santa Clara County "sponsored" airports (including PAO).

When the PACC voted to take over "sponsorship" of PAO from the County, Palo Alto also inherited the County's troubled 20-year contractual obligations to the FAA.

The City's plans for PAO are not self-funding. To maintain and develop PAO, Palo Alto has to beg for money from the FAA every year, and each grant extends the FAA's control of PAO for another 20 years.

Bottom line... the FAA has the Palo Alto City Manager, and the City Council by the short hairs.


2 people like this
Posted by Priorities
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 26, 2016 at 3:06 pm

From Air Traffic Control

"We cannot emphasize enough how important it is that a new system continues providing services to the diverse users of the NAS. The United States has a vibrant general aviation community that relies on us."

Air Traffic Control says that General Aviation is *relying* on them. And that the system should provide "services" to the diverse users.

Literally, Air Traffic Control is in the ****Service*** industry. The SFO dump work on Palo Alto is by-product from all these services and priorities.

Does it matter if it's fuel savings or more leg room for passengers?

What really should not be emphasized enough that this is about who is getting serviced and who is getting dumped on.


8 people like this
Posted by Priorities
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 26, 2016 at 3:13 pm

I have heard too that they burn more fuel over Palo Alto with the noise dump site over Palo Alto, so it's bogus that this is about fuel costs.

Not to mention the planes go out of their way to turn over Palo Alto - that is more fuel, not less.



14 people like this
Posted by Mary
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 26, 2016 at 5:26 pm

Paly Parent - I'm not sure what part of my post you found rude to you: that certainly wasn't my intention. I only meant to point out that for all of the terrific work done by the very impressive Skyposse organization, nothing seems to be moving on jet noise from SFO in a time frame that will make a meaningful difference in the lives of those of us in Palo Alto whose lives are being affected.

I don't think that if my husband and I stay here, we'll have nights conducive to restful sleep or be able to carry on a normal conversation in our yard like we did when we moved here. And I don't think your kids - or any others under the NextGen flight paths - will have the threats to their health alleviated before they graduate from high school.

I think we're fooling ourselves that the relatively small number of people who are affected (compared to the total number of people on the Peninsula or in the Bay Area) and one or two Congressional Representatives and a few City Council Members (even if they could be induced to take action) will make any difference at all to the FAA who will continue to send their bureaucratic goons out to mollify and delay while they do what they want in the skies over our homes.

Maybe I'm wrong: I really, really hope I am. But should I spend whatever healthy years I have left waiting for something to happen? Or should my husband and I find a place where we can enjoy a quiet and productive retirement? I don't mean to be flippant: this is a difficult decision. Our friends and connections are mostly here. But there are places in the Bay Area (e.g. Marin County) that don't have any airplane noise at all to speak of. And - as has been well documented in the many threads here - almost any place on the Peninsula now has less noise than the NextGen infected areas of Palo Alto. I love my house, but I value my peace of mind more.


9 people like this
Posted by Prioriites
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 26, 2016 at 7:39 pm

Mary,

The "relatively small number of people" (including yourself) are getting hammered enough to move.

What level of abuse is NOT ok for the FAA and the airports to dole out?

And is it really the FAA who is in charge of the noise? Noise is not even their business.This toxic waste is special delivery from many many other people to a "relatively" small number of people.

Please try to sway your sale to very busy people who are never home, have lost their hearing, do not plan to have kids. Or sell to pilots who love the noise and looking at airplanes up close. Do not sell to an asthmatic, or someone who needs their sleep.


3 people like this
Posted by Plane Speaker
a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 27, 2016 at 1:06 am

Midtowner:
>> Is the lower altitude really about cost savings?
>> A pilot told me that the lower a plane flies, the more fuel it uses.

I've heard that too, I may have misheard the info presented in this You-Tube video

What's Happening in our Sky
Web Link

They are saving fuel costs on the long haul, but apparently they have to
stack low altitude approaches differently in landings.

I know there have always been gets going over Palo Alto and remember
seeing and hearing them over the decades (there goes one now 12:58am)
but they used to be much higher and quieter, or less bothersome.

In the distant past the Navy had the very loud and very low-flying P-3s
flying over the area. At that time I lived in Mountain View, They had very
loud and powerful propellor engines. Those are gone now. Why do we
hear so much more airplane noise?

It seems odd that the new jet engines are supposed to be quieter, yet
they are making so much more noise.

What is the difference between flights from decades ago with louder
less fuel efficient engines and today?

What has changed? Is it that more flights are going over the Bay Cities
in order to spare noise over places like Woodside, Portola Valley where
the billionaires with political pull live? Or is it that flights are configured
lower in general?


9 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Apr 27, 2016 at 6:32 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Nov 13, 2015 at 10:24 am
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Eshoo's constituents have come up with some sensible solutions of increasing the altitude at which planes cross over populated areas before reaching the bay and distributing the arrival flight paths over a larger area so the impact is shared more equally among communities."

Yes we have and here are the two proposals that do just that - the first increases the altitude of arriving flights over most of the populated areas and the second distributes arriving flights more uniformly over all the South bay communities:

The higher altitude proposal:
1 - All SFO inbound traffic from the North and the East must use the RNAV (GPS) X RWY 28R approach and must enter that approach at the ANETE Initial Approach Fix (IAF) for which the minimum crossing altitude is 7000 ft,

Alternatively these aircraft could us the ILS or LOC RWY 28R approach and must enter at ARCHI IAF for which the minimum crossing altitude is 7000 ft,


2 - All SFO inbound traffic from the South and the West must use the RNAV (GPS) X RWY 28L approach and must enter that approach at the Faith IAF which has a minimum crossing altitude of 7000 ft.,


Entry to this approach via MENLO intersection would not be permitted.

Alternatively these aircraft could us the ILS or LOC RWY 28L approach and must enter at the FAITH IAF for which the minimum crossing altitude is 7000 ft,


Entry to this approach via MENLO intersection would not be permitted.


3 - SFO and SJC must be landing in the same direction unless the wind differential between them is greater than 1o knots.

The uniform distribution proposal:
Using the concept of a herring bone pattern and Advanced (or curved) Controlled Descent Approachs (CDA'a) here is a Draft SFO Arrivals Protocol:


1 - that is on the 284 deg radial from SFO
2 - that has at least ten Curved Continuous Descent Approaches (Advanced CDA) that link to that 284 deg radial with five on the Northeastern side of the radial and five on the Southwestern side of the radial
3 - that the closest of these ACDA's connect to the 284 deg radial no closer than the DUMBA intersection
4 - that the connection point for each of these ACDA's be at least one mile apart on each side of the radial
5 - that between 6 AM and 10 PM each incoming aircraft be randomly assigned to one of the ten individual ACDAs
6 - that between 10 PM and 6 AM incoming aircraft be assigned only to the two farthest out ACDAs


20 people like this
Posted by Crash
a resident of Stanford
on Apr 27, 2016 at 4:39 pm

Mr. Carpenter,

You don't seem to be able to understand that the problem with nextgen is not a purely technical problem. You, many people in the community, and many people within the FAA, know how to mitigate aircraft noise, but nothing changes... why?

And, why was it done the wrong way in the first place?


2 people like this
Posted by Paly Grad
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Aug 5, 2016 at 6:51 pm

Flying loud and low over Palo Alto:

UAL 481
3,699' at 6:45 pm on 8/5/2016


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

He said – she said – who is lying? Justice Brett Kavanaugh or PA resident Christine Ford
By Diana Diamond | 71 comments | 3,039 views

Global Warming Diet
By Laura Stec | 8 comments | 1,331 views

Couples: "Taming Your Gremlin" by Richard Carson
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,213 views

Preparing for kindergarten
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 670 views

 

Pre-registration ends today!

​On Friday, September 21, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run, or—for the first time—half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.

Learn More