Council votes to take over Palo Alto Airport

Its great that the city will now be in charge of this community resource.

If this is done well, it will be a great boon to our City. If it is done badly it will be another money pit. Please make sure that the right person with the right experience is at the helm in this. Then make sure that the right service amenities are introduced to enable Airport users to them.

A coffee shop, restaurant, shuttle, bike hire, all these services and probably more I can’t think of, are all likely to make this more successful.

Resident,

“A coffee shop, restaurant, shuttle, bike hire, all these services and probably more I can’t think of, are all likely to make this more successful.”

Please No investments in making this a success. Why would we want more private planes over our heads?

The more uncomfortable, and ugly it can be, the better.

Who is going to bike from their plane anyway?

> With 180,000 takeoffs and landings annually

This comes to about 40 an hour (365/12-hour days).

This is really hard to believe. If it’s false, then the source of this information needs to be fired, and possibly charged with a crime.

The two best days of an airport owners life. The day you own the airport and the day you sell it.

From an environmental point of view, there is little room for PAO to expand. The EPA has been studying lead emissions at general aviation airports, and PAO did not fair very well:

0.33 ug/m^3 (San Carlos, CA)
0.17 ug/m^3 (McClelland, CA)
0.12 ug/m^3 (Palo Alto, CA)
0.09 ug/m^3 (Reid-Hillview, CA)
0.07 ug/m^3 (Gillespie, CA)
0.07 ug/m^3 (Merril, AK)
0.06 ug/m^3 (Van Nuys, CA)
0.06 ug/m^3 (Auburn, WA)
0.04 ug/m^3 (Deer Valley, AZ)
0.03 ug/m^3 (Brookhaven, NY)
0.03 ug/m^3 (Stinson, TX)
0.02 ug/m^3 (Harvey, WA)
0.01 ug/m^3 (Republic, NY)

At 0.12 ug/m^3 Palo Alto Airport is only 0.02 below the EPA’s limit of 0.15 ug/m^3. Even a small increase in activity at PAO could push PAO over the limit.

A Duke University study found that children attending schools within one kilometer of an airport, had elevated levels of lead in their blood.

How can Palo Alto even consider expanding the airport, or encouraging people (especially kids) to congregate there, given how close the airport already is to the EPA limit?

Leaded Fuel Is a Thing of the Past—Unless You Fly a Private Plane
Mother Jones ~ January 3, 2013 http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/12/private-planes-still-use-leaded-gasoline

EPA Airport Lead Monitoring Program Update: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/aviation/420f13032.pdf

@Rational, so if I got my kicks riding a very noisy motorcycle past your house 200 times a day it would be fine with you because it’s a stuff of dreams?

Next time you see a 20 something from Europe building airport here, please ask why it’s so expensive to fly in Europe.

Correction – Building AIR time

> To the approximately 500 take-offs and landings per day at PAO,
> you need to add another 180-200 SFO bound aircraft transiting
> Palo Alto airspace every day to get a decent approximation of the
> total load on Palo Alto airspace.

Thank you for pointing that out. Airspace loading certainly is worth tracking—particularly where noise originating from aircraft is concerned. However, the takeoff/landing number was promoted as a metric of the traffic at the PAO—which was supposed to impress us. Unfortunately, as with so many number offered up by government—it’s very difficult to be certain that the data is valid.

For instance—it’s my impression that “touch-and-go” landings are included in the takeoff/landing numbers. Well—certainly anytime a plane/pilot uses the runway, that use should be noted. Assuming that a plane can make several touch-n-go landings where a true take off, or landing, will only get a tally of “1”—then the data would be skewed. There is currently no evidence of how this number is actually determined.

From doing a web-search on “touch-n-go” landings, it would seem that the flight instructors have mixed feelings on their use by beginning pilots. There is no suggestion that there is anything wrong with this practice—just that it needs to be accounted for differently that a “full” takeoff, or landing.

The problem of noise from aircraft is a well-known issue. The City has been involved in this matter for a couple of decades, but has not ever acquired noise measurement equipment to monitor airplane noise. Noise seems to affect Palo Alto on a geographic basis. For instance, the noise from the Bill Graham Center in Mountain View can be heard in the north end of town, and hardly at all in the south end of town.

What’s called for her is a weekly posting of take-off/landing data, so that the public can see what really is going on at this municipally-owned money pit.

> power outages

The fact that the City has only sustained two power outages in 75 years of airport activity in the baylands seems to be a proud point for at least one poster. For those of us who were denied access to our life for a whole day by the irresponsible actions of one pilot—it’s a very sore point.

The City Utility is, of course, responsible for the single point-of-failure that was the secondary cause of the power outage. The Council did not even bat an eye when this total power outage occurred. While the Council has, from time-to-time, gotten involved in all sorts of issues that have nothing to do with Palo Alto, it’s amazing that when there are substantive issues—like a total power outage—not a peep from the nine of these elected officials.

Sadly, the pilot did not survive his last takeoff. Had he, he would have been the target of millions of dollars of lawsuits seeking compensation. As it turned out—this pilot didn’t have much in the way of reserves, or insurance, to pay those whose property he damaged, or whose lives he terminated.

Zaharias,

Fun at the expense of leaded gas and noise to the surrounding community?

> THIS IS AMERICA, the land of the plane, the land whose airplane
> production and use has won wars against fascism
> and opened the world to global trade and improved living
> conditions the likes of which our species has never before seen

Well .. yes, this is America .. but as to the rest of these claims .. not so sure.

Airplanes are not great cargo carriers. Ships and trains get the credit for carting the raw materials to the worlds’ factories, and the finished goods to the worlds’ markets. Airplanes are great for carting people here and there—for vacations or business, but not for carting coal, oil, or cars.

It’s true that airplanes were very important in the conduct of WWII. WWI, not so much. Strategic Bombing of Germany, and Japan resulted in diminishing both countries’ ability to conduct their wartime activities, but conventional strategic bombing alone did not win WWII.

> My 17yo son just got his pilot’s license at PA Airport

Do you think your son will join the US Airforce, and use his piloting skills to defend this great land?

Here in California, the promoters of the HSR have made it clear that they want to put an end to air traffic—forcing people to ride in a state-owned train, instead. It’s unlikely that this will happen, but there are significant forces at work that don’t seem to see air traffic as good for the future.

Certainly General Aviation has a role to play in rural areas. The DC3, for instance, introduced in the 1930s, is still flying cargo into remote areas all over the world. For those folks, it’s a life saver, and a life giver. But here in Palo Alto—there is certainly no evidence that the airport has ever been little more than a nuisance for most of us. The original airstrip, by the way, on the Stanford Campus, was such a nuisance that the residents of College Terrace were about to sue Stanford (or the air school)—presumably to shut them down. It was about that time that some people in Palo Alto decided to make land available outside of Palo Alto (over in the bay lands) to the air school. Subsequent history showed a lack of financial success. The airport was about to close when it was taken over by the County, to be subsidized by Palo Alto and the County ever since.

> My 17yo son just got his pilot’s license at PA Airport

Could your son have gotten his license at the San Carlos airport? Would that have been less of an “experience” for him?

> Noise abatement procedures state that aircraft fly
> 1,500 feet or above WEST (town side) of the US-101
> and make an immediate right turn over the bay on
> take-off (which is typically to the NW out of Palo Alto).

That’s nice to know—but is it true? What enforcement is in place to insure that EVERY airplane using the PAO flies the required flight path, at the required height? Answer—NONE!

Without municipal enforcement, all of the claims about the airport having no impact on Palo Alto (and its residents) are simply hot air.

Well .. now that Palo Alto has declared to the world that it is rich enough to afford to operate an airport for mostly non-resident users—it most certainly is rich enough to re-open the yacht harbor, which it close in the 1980s—

Palo Alto Yacht Harbor Closure:
http://www.paloaltohistory.com/the-palo-alto-yacht-harbor.php

It would pay for everyone to read this short history of the harbor’s closure. There are some names of political insiders that seem to have been very hostile to boaters, but not so much to pilots. Might be interesting to find out why some special interest groups get so much financial support from the City, and others–well, they get nothing.

No pilot flying out of PAO has ever been disciplined, to the best of my knowledge, for not taking the recommended flight path or for flying to low, buzzing , etc. INo pilot will ever be disciplined for it. t’s actually a clique which protects each other and doesn’t allow outsiders to effectively regulate their behavior. This farce is particularly outrageous because the users of the POA are overwhelmingly non residents. A pilot who is a resident of Atherton, Woodside, Los Altos Hill would be laughed out of his town if he/she requested they build for him and fellow hobbyists a general aviation airport, but they love having the Palo Alto tax payer subsidize their hobby and they don’t seem to mind too much spraying leaded fuel particulates on us residents, with the active support of our hubristic and hapless city council.

Rational,

I have a lot of sympathy for your dream (or at least used to), but the aviation industry has become its own worst enemy.

By protecting the aviation industry from market forces and community input, the FAA has allowed the aviation industry to stagnate in the 1950s in many areas important to the community.

Lead should have been phased out of aviation gas years ago, when lead was phased of automobile gas. Why are we even having a discussion about leaded fuel in 2014? Leaded avgas is the number-one source of lead in the environment, and PAO is only 0.02 below the EPA’s limit of 0.15 ug/m^3. How can anyone defend that with silly arguments about paint and toys? Think about it… were your kids sucking on lead toys, and eating paint chips when they grew up?

In the 1960s the US military developed a prop-driven plane (the YO-3) that was virtually silent from 70 feet away. Fifty years later, why hasn’t this technology found its way into general aviation? Would your kid’s experience have been any different it they had learned to fly in a YO-3 burning lead-free gas?

Aviation is stuck in the 1950s because of Soviet-style top down protection of the aviation industry by the FAA. If Palo Alto wants to move into the future with PAO, it must first free itself from the moribund rules imposed by the FAA through AIP grants.

If PAO is truly a financially viable operation, they should be able to find plenty of low interest capital in the commercial financial markets.

“Leaded Fuel Is a Thing of the Past—Unless You Fly a Private Plane”
Mother Jones ~ January 3, 2013 http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/12/private-planes-still-use-leaded-gasoline

EPA Airport Lead Monitoring Program Update: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/aviation/420f13032.pdf

One day of air traffic over Palo Alto: https://pd-oth.s3.amazonaws.com/production/uploads/attachments/12g847yh8kqo.644/Request_5-31__6-02_Tracks___Airports.pdf

Listen all you nay Sayers, this is a good thing, negatives will be worked out and this little airport will grow just like this great area is and has to be to create the tech giant that it is. Progress and development is happening all around us and all modes of transportation to and from this area will require growth and advancement. Good city leadership is all that is required along with the vision of what a superb aviation hub our airport could be for locals and business alike.

Goodness gracious me Dennis. You think this area needs MORE growth?

Anonymous,

Thank you for reminding me. Car drivers have some pretty specific rules. They can’t do this, can’t do that. In particular with regard to traffic and safety. State and local rules apply.

With aircraft, the traffic and safety rules are largely up to the FAA. They get to decide what’s pollution, they get to decide what’s noise, and they get to decide who can fly in and out of your community. No traffic or safety (pollution) boundaries for pilots.

I think the way air traffic and car traffic is managed is VERY different.

By the way, I’m amazed how private airplane owners have known about the leaded fuel deal, and have done nothing to change what appears to be a very very wrong way to operate. Now, now we hear “let’s” get lead out of AVgas?

“Just two weeks ago a 90 year old man injured five people parking his car downtown. It’s likely his excursion was recreational and not essential business. Worse yet, the driver’s a non-resident from San Jose. Shut down the roads to car traffic?”

Could this citizen get a third-class FAA medical certificate?

No?

Thought not.

PAO has no benefit for anybody in his situation, which is shared by a great many of us who get PAO’s nuisance and danger, but none of its benefits.

Shut this misbegotten enterprise down and use the land for all Palo Altans.

Oh and sorry-

AVGAS SHOULD NOT HAVE LEAD. END OF STORY. WE NEED TO PUSH THE FAA TO FIX THIS.

Neeraj.

Rational

“Then bash the FAA.”

Palo Alto Airport appears to be, by most counts, the FAA.

I can’t see how air recreation is really “transportation,” by the way, it’s just recreation. We obsess about housing near trains, walking and biking, but we have average one/two persons per vehicle in the air.

Not talking down, at least wasn’t the intent. Intelligence and authority in specific subject matter are different though. Note that I am not claiming authority either … Merely pointing out that some statements appeared inappropriate. But certainly when calling a group irresponsible (as some did) one needs to take perspective.

I won’t defend the FAA, hey when I forgot to mention the avgas thing I double posted a shout about that. But there is another side to the story.

The FAA’s first goal is to make air transport safe and efficient for airplanes and cargo. Not to keep pilots flying. I think the level of safety they have delivered was only possible because they are in a free market environment that makes it easy to hold people accountable. Improvement opportunities abound with this government office just as with many other agencies. I have heard stories of pilot action and medical certification issues etc which make it hard to believe there is justice. But, comparing them to Soviet era high handedness appears excessive, esp from you who appears knowledgeable.

By the way, enforcement action on noise abatement procedures is also limited. Pilots appear to be generally flying in accordance with noise procedures because “they don’t want complaining neighbors” …

Third, all pilots have heard on the radio someone getting that solemn call: “Airplane so and so can you copy a number down? I want you to give me a call when you land” … Boy you better call to explain or else hate mail is coming. So the FAA does give tickets! It just doesn’t make a scene that you can see because tour are not pulled over.

Less is More: completely different issue! Not pertinent to PAO alone. Agree that one-four people per vehicle is not efficient, just like cars. By the way note that mileage on small planes is about that of a guzzling SUV … 12 mpg. Not that bad considering there are probably 10 guzzlers driving for each small plane. And to counter that is not to say don’t fly, is to make it expensive tax-wise. Put a lead tax. Put a guzzler tax … Drive behavior based on true economics to the environment rather than “Don’t do this here!” Rules. That’s my free market perspective 🙂

@150/95 (?), nobody needs a medical certificate to ride in airplanes out of Palo Alto. Anybody can go tomorrow and arrange a sightseeing flight. Or does that not qualify as a benefit of a local airport?

In fact one doesn’t need a medical anymore to become a pilot of aircraft less than 1320 pounds — the Sport Pilot Certificate only requires a valid driver license. Although I haven’t seen ab initio Light Sport Aircraft training advertised at Palo Alto. It’s offered at Reid-Hillview — http://www.aerodynamicaviation.com/training_sport_pilot.php

Peter Carpenter,

“pilots who failed to follow the noise reduction flight patterns were counseled”

This is good to know, would you have a link to the way noise reduction flight patterns work?

@Peter, What are noise reduction flight patterns?

I find it odd that the only way to catch noise perps is only if another airplane above is tattling on them. Is that the case?

> Palo Alto Utilities has been actively working with
> PG&E and the CAL ISO to come up with a solution.

This is a questionable statement. At the time of the big outage a couple of years ago the papers reported that the PAU had conducted two studies over the years (20-odd years) that had looked how to reduce the vulnerability of the high tension line feeding Palo Alto. The papers claimed that the PAU claimed that the cost was in the area of $40M to run this cable underwater. (A second feed to the city was discussed, but can’t remember the details at this moment.)

So—who is responsible? Who should pay?

When PAU customers who had lost money because of the power outage filed claims against the PAU for compensation—all of these claims were reported in the local papers to have been rejected. The PAU’s reasoning: “It is not responsible for delivering continuous, uninterrupted power, to its customers” (or words to that effect).

So—we have a Utility that is nothing more that redistributes power it buys from various sources on the grid, and which is transmitted to the city by power distribution lines that it does not own. As customers of a municipally owned utility company, that does not have much oversight by the CA Public Utilities Commission, and seems to have NO OVERSIGHT by the Palo Alto City Council—we’re left with the reality that the PAU is not very responsible to its customers.

Some years ago, when CA Electricity Deregulation went into effect, the transmission line companies began to charge their end customers (in this case the PAU) fees for the passage of power. The PAU began to complain about this—via some very inane comments by one City Council member. Over time, we all have become accustomed to paying these fees, which appear on our power bill.

The underlying issue becomes—what good is a municipal utility that does not see itself as responsible to its customers? And why should PG&E invest $40M (or more) in “hardening” the line to Palo Alto, if Palo Alto is not willing to pay for, or at least share, these costs?

Anyone who believes that they don’t pay for everything that they buy, or consume, needs to take a course in economics. In this case, the PAU, with virtually no input from the City Council, has failed to do something about reducing the vulnerability of its access to electricity—making it as culpable as the actual owner of the transmission line, PG&E.

Big,

“Emails show PG&E and regulator (PUC) have illegal, unethical relationship”
Mercury News ~ July 29, 2014 http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_26230236/san-bruno-demands-fines-against-pg-e-and

Big-Mistake,
There is a lot of misinformation in your post. First of all, the $40 million cost for the new transmission line would not be paid by PG&E, but would be shared by Stanford University and Palo Alto as they are the beneficiaries of this project. Palo Alto’s share would come out of Utility reserves. The line would NOT be run underwater by the way as it would be crossing Stanford land.

This is an active project – it requires approval of CMRs, and CMR approvals are in the Council minutes if you would make the effort to search for them.

I can tell you from personal experience that projects like this have oversight from the Council AND Utilities Advisory Committee, and sometimes the Finance Committee. Are you saying Utilities should have CPUC oversight? Why would you want that? Palo Alto has lower electric rates, and higher gas and electric reliability than surrounding communities served by PG&E (see April 2010 UAC Minutes).

Remember the San Bruno pipeline explosion happened under CPUC “oversight”. Nothing like that has happened on Palo Alto’s gas system. It is easy to make a case that Council and UAC do a better job of oversight that the CPUC.

Boscoli has a really good point. The airport could never payback the value of the land it was given free of charge. The airpost also needs to account for the hidden costs to the health and welfare of Palo Alto residents due to the noise, and air pollution that could have been mitigated if Palo Alto’s ability to control airport operations had not been “sold” in exchange for FAA AIP money.

“Airport Noise Linked to Heart Risk”
NYTimes ~ October 8, 2013 http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/08/airport-noise-linked-to-heart-risks/

OK Peter, same thing – few people can afford to rent planes by the hour.

Southbay,

Palo Alto has not “proudly proclaimed itself the poster child for HSR opposition”. Palo Alto is generally very supportive of transportation that would reduce carbon, but currently is divided on HSR. People who live close to the proposed HSR line are understandably concerned.

The construction of the National Interstate and Defense Highway system precipitated urban blight in many urban areas. San Francisco wisely prevented highways 280 and 101 from cutting across San Francisco.

If HSR is truly a benefit to the communities served (and I believe it is), then those communities would be wise to take advantage of Palo Alto’s recalcitrance, by encouraging HSR to route up the east side of the bay to Oakland. Oakland could use the economic boost.

Palo Alto currently hosts more aircraft-miles of air traffic than any other city in the SFBA Metroplex. 50% of SFO bound traffic cuts through Palo Alto airspace, and the Reyes route from the north (also called the “teardrop”) does a full 180 degree u-turn over Palo Alto, to orient for a northwesterly approach to SFO’s runway 28.

One day track of air traffic over Palo Alto: https://pd-oth.s3.amazonaws.com/production/uploads/attachments/12g847yh8kqo.644/Request_5-31__6-02_Tracks___Airports.pdf

Peter Carpenter,

I’m not sure you can label an opinion as myth.

In my opinion, renting airplanes by the hour, or owning them is not a public amenity.

Yes it’s for a certain type of public, but it’s not like a park or a pool.

How may women are in those 10,000 by the way. It’s probably mostly guys.

The airport could never afford to operate if it had to lease the land at market value. It’s not a city park that’s used by mostly residents for free. It serves largely non residents who are subsidized by us, although some of them are quite rich. In a small city where real estate is so scares and horribly expensive, a large swat of land is given, rent free, to a highly polluting operation that serves mostly non residents.

University Ave and Embarcadero are traffic arteries. If they are closed down, a traffic nightmare would ensue. The airport is used by relatively few. mostly as a subsidized hobby, and even fewer would be impacted if it is closed down and the public’s quality of life would improve. Wrong equivalency. Try again.

> “”Please show any Palo Alto City budget prior to 2012 that allocated a penny to KPAO”.

For starters—Peter Carpenter has no understanding of the Palo Alto Budget, or how money is NOT shown in the Budget. There are services that have been provided the Airport that are not directly line-itemed in the budget—largely because the airport has been under County control. Services like Police, Fire, and other safety related activities relating to the levees.

Every time there is a crash, or theft at the airport—the City of Palo Alto, not the Santa Clara County public safety authorities has responded. The dollars that provide for these services come out of the Palo Alto General Fund. There have been many incidents involving pilots and the City over the years—all of the Staff time to handle these problems comes out of the City Budget.

Let’s look at a real airport-related expense that did not make it into the budget–
—-
P.A. BLAMES TOXIC SPILL ON OIL FIRM 3 AIRPORT FUEL TANKS INSTALLED 30 YEARS AGO
San Jose Mercury News (CA)
December 26, 1989
Author: LISA LAPIN, Mercury News Staff Writer
Estimated printed pages: 2

Unable to settle their dispute over who should clean up toxic soil contamination at the Palo Alto Airport, the city of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County appear to have found a new strategy: Blame someone else.

In this case, it’s a major, and so far, unnamed oil company. Recently discovered city records indicate that the company installed the tanks more than 30 years ago.

“Everybody sat up and said, ‘Oh my goodness! Maybe we’re not responsible after all,’ “ said Palo Alto City Manager Bill Zaner of the find.

For more than a year, the two governments have haggled over who is responsible for the soil saturated with oil from three leaking fuel tanks at the county-run airport.

Palo Alto has spent nearly $300,000 to remove the tanks and to hire a consultant to design a cleanup program.
——
And then there is the $1 (or so) a year for rent. This is the real drag—lost opportunity for not being able to obtain a reasonable rent for the property, by renting it out to people who are willing to pay for it—rather than the elitists who believe the public has an obligation to subsidize them.

If an honest financial analysis of the airport were to be ever conducted that looked at lost opportunity costs, as well as environmental remediation costs that were never repaid by the users, or previous operators, of the airport—would show a “loss” to the City and the taxpayers in the tens of millions of dollars.

There are many, many, expenditures that Palo Alto makes that don’t show up as line items in its yearly budget. Sometimes we find out about these expenditures via the local newspapers, and sometimes—the City hides them very effectively from view. This $300K is on record as having been spent by Palo Alto, but never repaid by the pilots/operators who were irresponsible in the handling of fuel at the site.

Peter Carpenter does not live in Palo Alto, and most likely has not ever read a budget, cover-to-cover. He really should stick to contributing to things that he knows something about—like the state of the flowers in his garden.

Anonynous,

“You’ve described University Ave and Embarcadero perfectly. Not a bad fit for the golf course either.

Serves mostly non-residents. Check.
Large swath of land. Check.
Rent free. Check.
Some users are quite rich. Check.
Highly polluting. Check.”

As far as I know the golf course does not have fuel or noise pollution. It is however exclusive in the way that the public has to have proper equipment and knowledge to play golf.

University and Embarcadero are critical roads for all Palo Alto residents. It would be unlikely that mostly non-residents use it.

How did it go from an airport not being an amenity like a park or a pool to being as essential as a major thru-way which service hundreds of thousands. It’s understandable that aficionados want to defend this awkward amenity, but why go to these extremes of justifying it. What the FAA and the Club has in mind is should be up for discussion. Is this really a Children’s Theater type of amenity or a public nuisance and expense, or a major threat to the area from out of control practices?

It’s kind of amusing to watch the arguments go by. I think we understand that boscoli, lessismore and a few others don’t like the airport. But rather than simply saying, “I don’t like the airport”, you say, “Shut down the airport BECAUSE it does this or that bad thing.” Then when it turns out other facilities do the same bad thing (land use, pollution, use by non-residents), you say, “Well sure they do the same bad thing, but the airport is categorically different.”

So say how it’s categorically different! Perhaps the reasons you think it’s categorically different are true and perhaps they’re false, but we can’t discuss them rationally if we don’t know what they are. You surely don’t believe that every city facility and service has to generate fees to pay for its own land use (4500 acres of parks, here we come. Watch out horse and mountain bike trails because those things aren’t cheap).

Just saying, “It’s a hobby that uses gas, makes noise and is dangerous” doesn’t distinguish flying from 1000 other things that are subsidized: roads for motorcycles and cars, motorboat ramps, or even driving to the shopping center or the golf course (which uses its share of fertilizer, water and gasoline). Can’t say if you two are part of it, but some local people complain about bicycles on the road that DON’T make noise, use gas or expose most other road users to any hazard. Is your core argument that the only “normal” behavior is driving a smaller than Chevy Suburban car to Safeway to pick up a package of Rancher’s Reserve burgers?

There’s just an underlying sourness to this discussion. Rather than saying “Here’s a great amenity we can add to our list of parks, open space, libraries, art centers, schools, adult education, recreational programs, golf, community spaces…” you are saying “I don’t like the variety and richness of experience that’s available to all of us.” That’s sad!

>How may women are in those 10,000 by the way. It’s probably mostly guys.

When I was at WVFC, some of my instructors were women. There were also quite a few women pilots. Should it make a difference?

Regarding land use issues, I never use public swimming pools, anymore, and rarely use public parks, and never go to a public library, etc., etc.. Yet I am forced to be taxed for their use by others…doesn’t bother me…it makes for a vibrant and happier town.

Anonymous,

“There’s just an underlying sourness to this discussion.”

I initially tuned into the noise about the airport because of the noise that I perceive from airplanes. Plenty of threads on the noise topic, so going back to the airport.

It was news to me, and appreciate Jetman and others’ postings, to learn that leaded fuel is still used by airplanes. Something that airport cheerleaders never brought up, and only now are jumping on the “let’s get rid of it” bandwagon. But then quickly want to move into the fun, recreational and amenity aspects of the airport. One sentence is about leaded fuel, and a lecture follows about apple pie.

Calling everyone sour is a way to bully and close the conversation. I can see how decades have gone by with people in the know deflecting to have leaded fuel. I have some questions.

Is leaded fuel cheaper?
Why not outlaw it immediately?
Why can’t the airport decide what fuel it sells?

@Less

Sorry if you feel bullied.

Leaded fuel is not cheaper. Leaded aviation gas averages $2 to $3 per gallon more expensive than unleaded motor gas. Everyone wants a replacement. So what’s the hangup?

Under federal law a pilot can only use fuel the manufacturer authorizes. That’s a safety rule. A few planes have been legally converted to burn motor gas, but not many. The planes authorized to burn motor gas are NOT authorized to use gas blended with ethanol like the California E10 CARB-mandated blend.

If you ban the sale of leaded aviation gas then the fleet is legally grounded. There’s no direct substitute in the approval pipeline. If you said, “Let’s ban leaded aviation gas on January 1, 2026,” you might find a lot of support for that idea. Some planes would get converted to unleaded gas (if they solve the ethanol problem). For substantially more money some planes would get converted to diesel, jet, or possibly even electric motors. Some planes would fly for 12 more years and then get scrapped.

For autos the 25 year lead phaseout started in the 1970s and finalized in 1996. California started banning lead hunting ammunition in 2007. Final ban is scheduled for July 2019. Lead paint was banned in 1977, but non-lead paint was already widely available.

If leaded fuel is your concern, there’s common ground.

Santa Monica Airport is an interesting case study of how the aviation industry uses the FAA and AIP grants to control a municipal asset:

“Council Puts Measure to Keep Local Control of SMO Airport on Nov Ballot”
Santa Monica Next ~ July, 2014 http://www.santamonicanext.org/2014/07/city-council-puts-measure-to-keep-local-control-of-santa-monica-airport-on-november-ballot/

The article’s comments section has a link to Templehofer Airport in Berlin. The airport was shut down and turned into an natural open space. The runways were left in place in case they might be need in an emergency, and serve as a place for recreational bicycling through the open space.

Tempelhofer Airport Webpage: http://www.tempelhoferfreiheit.de/en/visit/tours/building-tours/

Since you all brought up the Santa Monica Airport the history is that it was originally McDonnell Douglas Corporation. There were areas where aircraft wings were being built, and a separate section for the development of the space program. This facility was eventually closed down and moved to Huntington Beach, CA to a new facility for the space element of the business. The aircraft part of the business was located in Long Beach. After the successful Apollo Program the facility was sold to Boeing.

Likewise the Burbank Airport was originally Lockheed Martin Corporation which had successful contributions to the war efforts. Still does.
The history of airports are linked to strategic locations – in this area Moffett Field – where people who are involved can maintain their credentials and flying skills.
The previous generations that put this city together were in the thick of numerous war efforts, and Stanford and UC Berkley were in the thick of supporting those efforts. Guess what – they are in the thick of supporting current efforts. The airport is doing what it is suppose to do – more power to them. Stuff happening is not just in your newspaper – it is in your whole country – especially where the major money markets are located.

A diet of Mother Jones explains some of the vituperation on this thread. The thrice referenced article is followed by a link to another Mother Jones story calling all commercial travel in any aircraft immoral due to its exacerbation of climate change. Wherein the erstwhile frequent-flyer author comprehends her environmental hypocrisy and swears off flying for any reason short of family member on deathbed. Is that where we are going with this?

Questions like “Why doesn’t AOPA use their political organizing to get rid of lead?” are understandable given that the topic is too boring for mainstream media. Thank you Peter for calmly addressing AOPA’s participation in the present status. Mark Baker’s page of commentary in the current (September) issue of AOPA Pilot is wholly on this topic. And an additional article identifies the producers of the five unleaded fuel candidate formal submissions.

Nobody is dragging their feet. I foresee a substantial increase in the number of new pilots and the number of general aviation hours flown when an unleaded fuel suitable for the entire fleet becomes available.

As a random piece of information, if it were not for the post of the Mother Jones article, I would not further investigated that leaded fuel is outlawed in every other part of the world.

And then I would not have learned that airports like Palo Alto are run by aficionado lobbies.

That the fact that it took decades to phase out lead in cars is used as an excuse to still spray lead now.

I’m sorry it’s irrational.

“But I don’t trust anybody who reads Mother Jones, and relies on it for reference material”- Because they should get their news from The Wall Street Journal and Fox.

Craig,

I am not a Mother Jones reader (just found the article online), nor do I rely (solely) on MJ for reference material. There is plenty of other reference material available (if you look).

“Aviation last big source of toxic lead in U.S.”
Chicago Tribune ~ May 20, 2014 http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-05-20/news/ct-leaded-gas-planes-met-20140520_1_airborne-lead-avgas-lead-emissions

“EPA Airport Lead Monitoring Program Update”:http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/aviation/420f13032.pdf

“Mogas: The Great Missed Opportunity”
AVWeb ~ October 6, 2013 http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/Mogas-The-Great-Missed-Opportunity-220693-1.html

Jetman,

I support getting the lead out. The issue, IMO, is safety. If an automobile engine goes bad, because of bad gas, it can coast to a stop at the edge of the road. Not so with planes…yes, they can glide some, but the outcome is questionable…often fatal. Put another way, engine integrity is HUGE in planes.

I think there should be a glide path (pun intended) to no-lead. The slope of that curve should be determined by safety, not atmospheric lead levels.

musical.

“And my apologies to Peter — I don’t really want to belabor the lead issue,”

You mean the lead issue that Peter doesn’t want associated with the airport the city has just voted to take on? Why would there be any conflict about wanting to have something safe, and not polluting from the airport? Many of you agree but then you post about how others are polluting in Canada, as if that makes it ok.

“Avgas now looks like the tall pole in regards to airborne lead. When it goes away, all the airport detractors can go back to complaining about noise and economics while we raise a new generation of aviators.”

Economics and noise would also be worth looking at, but no time because everyone is too busy justifying lead. I don’t see any numbers except over $1.6 million already going to the airport. I would like to know more about the concerns expressed by Council – “I have some real concerns about it,” Kniss said. “This is not a slam-dunk money maker.”

I think what this story needs is a follow up, and I would hope more from the City to see if the lead is coming from the friends of the airport. What does Planning say?

Well, I’ve put in all I care to at this point. Hope some lurkers, whether pro or con, now have a better picture. The thread views-to-comments ratio is dropping, indicating an audience weary of commenters going around in circles.

And now we have this… it looks like general aviation aircraft operators are not required to carry insurance to cover the cost of property damage:

“Atherton community rebuilds plane-crash victim’s home” (see comments)
Palo Alto Weekly ~ August 15, 2014 http://www.paloaltoonline.com/print/story/2014/08/15/atherton-community-rebuilds-plane-crash-victims-home

Peter,

Do you know when the insurance requirements were put in place? The minimum requirements seem a little low, considering the amount of death and destruction that is likely to occur from a plane crash in a residential area.

Peter,

So “BIG-MISTAKE” is correct when hes says:

“Most airports require that people housing their planes carry insurance, in case they do damage to the airport. But there is no requirement by the FAA that pilots carry very much insurance—in order to have a license, or to use public-access (FAA subsidized) airports. While prudent pilots might carry more insurance than an airport minimum, there is no requirement that they declare this extra insurance. So, there is no way to know what kinds of financial reserves pilots have when they fly their airplanes into/out of the Palo Alto Airport.”

This sounds like just another giant loop-hole to let GA pilots off from being financially responsible for the damage that would result from an accident. If a pilot flies into PAO from an airport that doesn’t require insurance, or from an airport that only requires minimal insurance, they are flying over Palo Alto without adequate insurance to cover the cost of a crash?

“Atherton community rebuilds plane-crash victim’s home” (see BIG-MISTAKE’s comments)
Palo Alto Weekly ~ August 15, 2014 http://www.paloaltoonline.com/print/story/2014/08/15/atherton-community-rebuilds-plane-crash-victims-home

Peter,

Unlike automobiles, pilots are not required by their licensing or registration authority (the FAA) to have insurance. In California the state requires insurance of all registered drivers, while the only insurance requirements imposed on pilots are determined by their home airport.

Imagine if the automobile drivers insurance requirements were only determined by the requirements imposed by their regular gas station, or parking garage!

“Atherton community rebuilds plane-crash victim’s home”
Palo Alto Weekly ~ August 15, 2014 http://www.paloaltoonline.com/print/story/2014/08/15/atherton-community-rebuilds-plane-crash-victims-home

Peter Carpenter,

“True – so what is your point? My point was that the City of Palo Alto now has the authority to change the insurance requirement for new and renewed leases.”

Would you know how the insurance requirements are at SFO? and how they compare to Palo Alto?

Is there a link to the level of requirements and change over time?

Anyone new to the airport issue will find the comments section of this article very informative:

“Council votes to take over Palo Alto Airport”
Palo Alto Weekly ~ August 12, 2014 http://www.paloaltoonline.com/square/2014/08/12/council-votes-to-take-over-palo-alto-airport

Measure LC is a major victory for the citizens of Santa Monica in their effort to regain control of their own municipal property from the clutches of the FAA, which is controlled by the aviation industry.

It is also a victory, because it reveals to the world how the AIP grant scam works. Too bad the current PACC was not smart enough to figure it out… or is this just more business as usual, with the PACC playing dumb, and continuing to serve their masters?

For a more balanced report on this issue, see the Santa Monica Mirror article linked below.

“With Measure LC Victory, Council To Take Control Of Santa Monica Airport”
Santa Monica Mirror ~ November 7, 2014 http://www.smmirror.com/articles/News/With-Measure-LC-Victory-City-Council-To-Take-Control-Of-Santa-Monica-Airport/41664

Consent calendar in June 23, 2014; August 18, 2014

Summer consent calendars. Sounds like a double pane smoky window.

The Palo Alto Group campaigning to reduce the dramatic increase in aircraft noise over Palo Alto, and for a ban on the sale and use of leaded fuel at Palo Alto Airport marked a major victory this month for the residents of East Palo Alto, northeastern Palo Alto, and the visitors and wildlife in the bay-lands surrounding Palo Alto Airport.

On December 10th, The Center for Environmental Health won a legal agreement with 30 companies that sell and/or distribute lead-containing aviation gas at 23 California airports, including Palo Alto Airport.

Under the agreement with CEH, the fuel distributors will offer for sale the lowest-lead fuel that is commercially available in sufficient quantity. The companies will also make lead-free Mogas available to airport-based fuel companies that request it, subject to certain terms (eg, coverage under liability insurance) and availability. The companies are also required to warn residents living within one kilometer of the airports where they operate of the lead risk, and to post warning signs at the airports.

“Legal Settlement Aims at Reducing Lead Poisoning Risks From CA Airports”
Center for Environmental Health ~ December 10, 2014 http://www.ceh.org/news-events/press-releases/content/legal-settlement-aims-reducing-lead-poisoning-risks-california-airports/

Sky Posse Palo Alto: http://www.skypossepaloalto.org/

@Less is more – it helps to pick examples that support your argument,

The FAA is committed to approving drones (by act of Congress) and to replacing leaded fuel. For many reasons they’re moving slower than we’d all like in both projects. You can’t complain they haven’t approved a replacement fuel yet AND when they try to speed up a process complain they’re ignoring safety.

The auto fleet took 25 years to phase out leaded fuel. Duck hunters are taking 10 years to phase out lead shot. Regulatory processes take time.

Anonymous,

The FAA is funded by billions of dollars of tax money, and the citizens of the United States have a right to expect the FAA to be able to “walk and chew gum at the same time”.

Safety and Lead pollution are not an either or situation… in fact lead pollution IS a health and safety issue, that the FAA has been dragging its feet on for decades, in order to protect the financial interests of the aviation industry, and the suppliers of leaded fuel.

The FAA needs to start making the health and safety of people on the ground a priority. The FAA’s current definition of safety, and the metrics used to measure safety, minimize, or completely ignore, the long term chronic health and safety of residents living on the ground.

“Leaded Fuel Is a Thing of the Past—Unless You Fly a Private Plane”
Mother Jones ~ January 3, 2013 http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/12/private-planes-still-use-leaded-gasoline

“Mogas: The Great Missed Opportunity”
AVWeb ~ October 6, 2013 http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/Mogas-The-Great-Missed-Opportunity-220693-1.html

Esperienze Cialis Generic Viagra Testimonials Finasteride Propecia Achat [url=http://genericcial.com ]cialis[/url] Macrobid Fedex Low Dose Viagra