Taking a new approach in efforts to reduce airplane noise over Atherton, the town is sending a letter to the Federal Aviation Administration urging that planes fly at a higher altitude until closer to the San Carlos Airport.
Noisy planes became an issue soon after a new small airline, Surf Air, began flying passengers into the San Carlos Airport in June 2013. Cory Cozzens, co-founder of Surf Air, says the airline currently has nine daily arrivals in San Carlos on weekdays, four on Saturdays and eight on Sundays.
Surf Air, whose customers pay one monthly price for unlimited flights on small passenger planes, recently added flights to and from the Truckee airport to their weekend flight schedule.
At their May 21 meeting, City Council members agreed to have a letter signed by Mayor Cary Wiest sent to the FAA, urging the change in the GPS flight path that aircraft are asked to observe.
Mr. Cozzens says Surf Air has told the FAA the airline supports the proposed new GPS flight path.
“Adding a higher GPS approach would result in aircraft flying 25% higher over homes in the Atherton, North Fair Oaks and Menlo Park neighborhoods,” the letter to the FAA says. “We believe that this increase in altitude would greatly reduce the noise impacts.”
Councilman Rick DeGolia, who serves on the San Carlos Airport Noise Working Group along with Councilwoman Elizabeth Lewis, said the airline has promised to make another change to lessen noise. Pilots for the airline have been dropping their landing gear and powering up 6 miles from the airport, he said, while other pilots do that only 3 miles away. Surf Air officials have promised to start dropping the landing gear closer to the airport, he said. “That will be the most material change,” Mr. DeGolia said.
In December 2013, approximately 75 people attended a community meeting in Atherton to air their concerns about increased flight noise. Since then the working group has met several times to attempt to find a solution to the problem that would not move aircraft over other residential neighborhoods.
• Related article: Plan would send planes flying over Palo Alto
You are kidding of course ? The 1% is way too self absorbed !
Contrast Atherton’s very reasonable and sensible approach to that urged by some Palo Alto residents who want SFO bound planes not to fly over Palo Alto.
Yes, Peter.
Atherton is six miles from the San Carlos Airport; Palo Alto is 20 miles from SFO.
Perhaps you believe distance from an airport is not an important part of this issue?
You seem to think PA residents should expect the same interference from planes that cities much closer to the airport expect.
“Atherton is six miles from the San Carlos Airport; Palo Alto is 20 miles from SFO.”
Bingo – you are right and 99% of SFO bound planes cross Palo Alto at or above 4000 ft.
Yet some PA residents think that those planes should not cross Palo Alto at any altitude, i.e. much less interference than other cities experience.
Peter Carpenter,
“Yet some PA residents think that those planes should not cross Palo Alto at any altitude, i.e. much less interference than other cities experience.”
This sounds like your feisty remarks in similar threads about noise which have been locked down due to your behaviour. It’s not just your exclamation marks and calling people stupid, but random made up comments like this accusing imaginary PA residents.
I’m sure that people in Palo Alto are no less, and no more interested in less airplane noise than anyone else.
Has anyone actually measured the noise? Certainly people notice increased noise, but having measurements would go a long way to make a good case for having any offending airlines/pilots changing their ways.
I live in East Palo Alto and deal with planes constantly. Yes, I live in a poorer neighborhood. Regardless of that, the small planes are not supposted to take off and fly to the left over east palo alto BUT they do, constantly. Even after one crashed into homes with a Tesla founder inside they still take off and turn left, rather than heading over the bay. Jets from SJ or SF fly over Ikea regularly heading to the east, so low you can read which airline it is.
Measuring SPLs would go a long way towards quantifying actual vs. perceive noise levels.
@karen– Palo alto airport does not restrict pilot’s ability to turn left upon takeoff, and many pilots who are flying to places like half moon bay elect this option.
The standard north/west departure procedure from Palo Alto’s runway 31 is, after taking off, to turn right 10 degrees and maintain this heading until reaching the Dumbarton Bridge.
If you’re headed to Half Moon Bay, this is what you’re supposed to do:
Left Dumbarton Departure: Turn right 10 degrees after take-off until reaching Dumbarton Bridge. Then initiate left crosswind departure, crossing Bayshore Freeway (US 101) at or above 1500 feet MSL.
http://www.countyairports.org/pao-noise.html
Atherton is so special that you can’t sneeze on the weekends without getting a complaint! This gives a new meaning to “entitlement”. Sound-proof your windows and it won’t be an issue. Small plans can’t make that much noise nor be overhead for more that a few seconds. Atherton and parts of Palo Alto share the same noise sensitivity. I just don’t understand!
Money is power.
“made up comments like this accusing imaginary PA residents.”
Like these postings?
Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 7, 2014 at 9:01 pm
Win Win
No one is asking that all flights stop coming above Palo Alto. If you look at diagrams released by the SFO airport itself, you’ll see that Palo Alto has been on receiving end of a disproportionate number of flights coming into the airport for landing. We are bearing the brunt of it.
It is perfectly reasonable to ask for some relief from the constant noise of airplanes continually flying at 4000 feet above us.
****************
Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 10, 2014 at 9:57 am
Well, the other night I sat out on my patio and within a ten minute period I counted 8 planes. It’s all types of planes in all different directions. I’m really not exaggerating and as the plane gains distance it still hums in the air and then a brief quiet moment and then another one starts again.
*************
Posted by Catherine, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 13, 2014 at 12:52 pm
Seriously not exaggerating, the plane noise is almost non-stop. Constant rumbles in the sky of planes coming and going, some louder than others, and all different types going in different directions.
**************
Folks – the topic of SFO Airplane Noise has been addressed with the Palo Alto City Council by Andrew Swanson, Manager of the Palo Alto Airport and Bert Ganoung – Manager – SFO Noise Abatement. This occurred at a Monday night scheduled CC meeting. A letter has been sent signed by the Mayor of PA in response to the comments requested by the FAA and SFO.
Andy Swanson is the appointed Palo Alto representative with the SFO Roundtable.
Everyone knows what is going on and we don’t need to go through another rendition of the Airplane Noise problem in this on-line site. Andy and Bert are dealing with this.
However if you want to register an official noise problem there is a form on a different site.
You do not need to go through this exercise with the Atherton group. It is being dealt with at an official Palo Alto level.
Wait till the quiet little spy drones start appearing in the sky over rich neighborhoods. Shotgun sales will go up.
Could any of those PAO planes buzzing Karen’s neighborhood be owned/flown by Athertonistas?
Some people will blithely drop rocks onto other people’s mattresses, but whine about a pea under their own.
Welcome to the real world, Carpenter et al.
Scholar – there are a substantial number of small planes that are located at the San Carlos Airport, presumably owned by San Mateo residents, that spend a lot of time flying around the San Mateo towns on the weekend. That is probably where your drones will come from.
Karen – there is a flight tracker for the San Jose airport. Looking at the flight tracker there are a number of planes that are housed at the San Carlos Airport that spend their weekends flying around the San Mateo area.
East Palo Alto is in San Mateo County. It is next to the Baylands so in a scenic place going over the bay. San Carlos Airport – SQL – has a lot of little planes.
“Welcome to the real world, Carpenter et al.”
The real world is data and facts, not imaginative speculation.
You want to know where planes are flying to and from and their altitudes just use the excellent San Jose Airport webtrak:
http://webtrak.bksv.com/sjc
You can even go back prior known time point.
Of course imaginative speculation is easier and more fun.
OK, OK, I apologize for that pea.
But one must wonder what the Venn union of Athertonistas complaining about Surf Air over their homes and private aircraft owners buzzing EPA might be.
At least that problem has a simple, direct solution. Close PAO and use the land for the public good.
I’m a pilot based at Palo Alto Airport
@resident1–SQL could account for some of the plane traffic over Palo Alto, but probably not very much of it. These small planes don’t need to start lining up to land all the way down in East Palo Alto, and to do so is a pain because you need to co-ordinate with Palo Alto Tower and SQL Tower as well.
@Don–I’ve been flying out of Palo Alto Airport for many years where I go left of the runway right after takeoff, then climb to a less noisy altitude over the more industrial sections of EPA. Are you referring to an IFR flightpath? If you’re supposed to go right then left for VFR departures too, it is the first I’ve heard of it, and I’d appreciate better guidance from the KPAO administration in that regard.
“If you’re supposed to go right then left for VFR departures too, it is the first I’ve heard of it, and I’d appreciate better guidance from the KPAO administration in that regard.”
There is a sign at the departure end of Runway 31 that specifies a 10 deg right turn – been there for years.
And here is Rich Acuff’s Palo Alto Airport page guidance:
“All departures off runway 31 are to turn right 10º as soon as possible after liftoff (runway heading is 308º, so 318º plus any wind correction if you want to be precise;”
And here is the guidance from the KPAO web site – very clear:
“Noise Abatement Policy/
Recommended Procedures
PALO ALTO: PILOTS ARE REQUESTED TO:
RUNWAY 31:
Right Dumbarton Departure: Turn right 10 degrees after take-off until reaching Dumbarton Bridge. Then initiate right crosswind turn with departure.
Right Downwind Departure: Turn right 10 degrees after take-off until reaching 500 feet MSL, then turn to right downwind departure.
Left Dumbarton Departure: Turn right 10 degrees after take-off until reaching Dumbarton Bridge. Then initiate left crosswind departure, crossing Bayshore Freeway (US 101) at or above 1500 feet MSL.”
>> @Don–I’ve been flying out of Palo Alto Airport for many years where I go left of the runway right after takeoff, then climb to a less noisy altitude over the more industrial sections of EPA.
Look at the map of East Palo Alto, wherever you are flying over there are people living. They should not have to living with crappy airport noise. Go for a walk in the Baylands sometime to figure out what this is like for people.
I find it so ironic that it is Atherton that gets to make this complaint. Money talks. I am sick of these big airplanes flying overhead in Palo Alto, seems like we get most of them. I can hardly believe how low they are and how loud. The addition of the private plane flyovers is extremely annoying as well.
Again, I just wish there was an avenue to pursue to get the Palo Alto airport shut down.
Then Palo Altans could use the Baylands for something pleasant instead of just a junk area of town that people can go relieve their dogs in. It’s about time that Palo Alto wised up to at least the Mountain View level and started to take advantage of our waterfront. How valuable is that? What a waste to have a bunch of spoiled rich AH’s ruin the whole area just so a few of them can get to their planes a little faster.
Palo Alto residents have had enough of the SFO aircraft noise that has increased significantly over Palo Alto. The reason for this is that inbound SFO traffic coming from the north, south and east has been rerouted to fly above Palo Alto, where they previously did not fly, This is the direct result of actions taken by some South San Mateo County cities to minimize the noise over their neighborhoods. Now the Surf Air traffic into San Carlos is being added to the mix.
However, Palo Alto residents are now fighting back against airplane noise. We have formed a group that has started holding regular meetings, taking action and interacting with our city government on this issue.
We invite you to join our group and help us in this fight.
Contact us at veroforyou@gmail.com
* traffic coming from the north, south and WEST (not east). Sorry…
” The reason for this is that inbound SFO traffic coming from the north, south and east has been rerouted to fly above Palo Alto, where they previously did not fly,”
A factually incorrect statement – I challenge you to provide proof.
There is more traffic into SFO and therefore more traffic over Palo Alto – AND Menlo Park AND East Palo Alto AND Redwood City AND San Carlos, etc. etc. etc.
And, of course, no one from Palo Alto uses SFO.
I would suggest that nobody bother taking Peter Carpenter’s challenges to “prove” this or that. There are about 4-5 locked threads to refer to Mr. C’s challenges of sorts, and I’m not seeing anything new here.
How about discussing something new.
I’m very intrigued by various comments here suggesting to shut down PA Airport. Could people elaborate (you too Mr. Carpenter) about why that could be a good idea or a bad idea?
Thank you for the guidance that on take-off at PAO you make a right turn. I am about to report that white plane that always is flying over houses. It is the left turn plane.
The comments on planes over PA should not be challenged – it is very accurate.
Midtowner – you were at the CC meeting when this was discussed. Hopefully we will hear from Andy since the cc put him in as the PA person for this effort. We need to see if the PAO airplane noise group can be started up again.
I think that the planes at SQL – San Carlos are recreational – you see a lot flying around on the weekends. They are flying all over, including East Palo Alto. I was just by there and there are a lot of small planes parked.
I get the feeling that the PAO planes are more commuter planes. There is a difference in who is in the air on the weekdays versus the weekends.
So PA resident declines to document the assertions that Palo Alto is being disproportionately impacted by SFO bound airplanes/
The myth struggles to survive in the absence of facts – yes, there is nothing new here just unfounded assertions.
On the PAO Airport – there is a FAA office there. I believe that is because the SFO planes are making their turns at that juncture – arriving from the west and turning north for arrival; also some now going from the east to the west (Oakland to Hawaii?); also go-arounds which circle very low. Also arrivals from the south – LAX.
Peter – San Mateo County has already made their assertions to SFO. We can make assertions too.
Snarky comments are not needed here – it devalues anything of value that you can offer.
“On the PAO Airport – there is a FAA office there”
The FAA PAO “office” is called a control tower and all it does is control planes landing and departing from the Palo Alto airport and only during daylight hours.
This is a great example of ignorant misinformation.
Why did resident 1 post the same information FIVE times? repitition does not equal truth.
Karen,
The aircraft noise over Palo Alto is horrible, and East Palo Alto is even worse. I was in Ikea about a month ago, when an airliner flew over so low that the whole Ikea building shook, and the building’s floor wobbled up and down like there was an earthquake.
Several Palo Alto residents attended the recent FAA workshop in San Jose. FAA staff at the San Jose Workshop estimated nearly half of the 17,000+ arrivals into SFO every month fly over Palo Alto, on their way to SFO. Many of these arriving flights also pass over East Palo Alto after crossing the northern Palo Alto border.
A number of Palo Alto residents are currently working with the Palo Alto City Council to reduce the noise over Palo Alto. The group is also working with other groups in Woodside, Portola Valley, and other communities.
If you, or anyone you know, would like to work together to reduce the concentration of noise over East Palo Alto, please contact: veroforyou@gmail.com
Aircraft noise is a public health issue. Many reputable studies have shown a clear link between cardiovascular disease and aircraft noise, and the statistics show people are afflicted whether they say they are disturbed by the noise, or not.
“Noise from aircraft increases cardiovascular disease risk”
Medical News Today ~ October 9, 2013 http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/267102.php
SFO departure & arrival plan under prevailing westerly winds: http://www.aviationexplorer.com/ATC%20Photos/air-traffic-control-baytracon-sfo.jpg
“The aircraft noise over Palo Alto is horrible, and East Palo Alto is even worse. I was in Ikea about a month ago, when an airliner flew over so low that the whole Ikea building shook, and the building’s floor wobbled up and down like there was an earthquake.”
Here we go again with the over exaggerations about airplane noise in palo alto. Do you realize that if a plane was flying as low as you claim it would have crashed soon after? Now is this the same plane that was reported to almost crash into the building at the corner of el camino and California avenue?
” Many of these arriving flights also pass over East Palo Alto after crossing the northern Palo Alto border.”
Actually MOST of them they fly over the MENLO waypoint which is, guess what, in Menlo Park.
Here is the typical approach paths for SFO inbound aircraft – the ones from the East fly over Fremont and then the bay and the ones from the South fly over Stanford, Palo Alto, Menlo Park and then East Palo Alto:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3stcmkzqj9xqhv2/April%2015%232.tiff
“I’m very intrigued by various comments here suggesting to shut down PA Airport. Could people elaborate…”
Glad to. PAO is a playground for the wealthy & privileged, and a nuisance (or even menace–recall the February 2010 crash in EPA) for the rest of us.
Supporting the first point, consider that new Cessna models 172 and 182, two very common 4-seater private aircraft, cost in the range $450,000 http://www.controller.com/list/list.aspx?catid=6&Manu=CESSNA&MDLGrp=172 to $550,000 http://www.controller.com/list/list.aspx?catid=6&Manu=CESSNA&MDLGrp=182. Then there are the operating and maintenance costs, which are much higher than for the family car.
Instead of being reserved for the select few who can afford these hyper-expensive toys, the 100+ acres that PAO occupies could (and should) be opened to the whole community as playing fields and/or plain old open space.
“the 100+ acres that PAO occupies could (and should) be opened to the whole community as playing fields and/or plain old open space.”
Wrong – the Palo Alto airport has been a continuous recipient of FAA airport improvement grants and as a condition of these grants the City of Palo Alto has contractual agreements to maintain the airport for 20 years from the date of the latest grant.
“What are Grant Assurances?
When airport owners or sponsors, planning agencies, or other organizations accept funds from FAA-administered airport financial assistance programs, they must agree to certain obligations (or assurances). These obligations require the recipients to maintain and operate their facilities safely and efficiently and in accordance with specified conditions. The assurances may be attached to the application or the grant for Federal assistance and become part of the final grant offer or in restrictive covenants to property deeds. The duration of these obligations depends on the type of recipient, the useful life of the facility being developed, and other conditions stipulated in the assurances.”
Peter,
Your https://www.dropbox.com/s/3stcmkzqj9xqhv2/April%2015%232.tiff is actually a pretty good depiction of the eastern and southern approach routes into SFO, but your Webtrak “snapshot” does not show the heavy traffic along the approach route from the north, which is known as the as the “teardrop”. Aircraft approaching SFO from the north, fly SSW over SFO, and then do a “teardrop” shaped u-turn over Palo Alto to start a northwesterly approach to SFO.
Aircraft flying the Oceanic approach route from the west also fly over Palo Alto on their way to SFO. The Oceanic route from the West only accounts for about 5% of the traffic into SFO, but the Oceanic flights tend to be the noisier four-engined aircraft.
At the recent FAA workshop, FAA staff estimated that about 50% of the traffic into SFO come in along the eastern route, and about 50% comes in along the southern, northern, and western routes combined.
“Aircraft flying the Oceanic approach route from the west also fly over Palo Alto on their way to SFO.”
They fly over Woodside, then Portola Valley, then western Menlo Park, then Stanford and then Palo Alto. After Palo Alto some go to the bay and others cross over eastern Menlo Park and/or East Palo Alto and then go up the bay.
Here are four examples:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2ut8b8l95el35eb/April%2017%236.tiff
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ysrz26oo1wv5aup/April%2018%233.tiff
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xipqlv78csfrd0a/April%2018%232.tiff
https://www.dropbox.com/s/16sed1bvcgffll9/April%2019%2008.05.tiff
“Wrong – the Palo Alto airport has been a continuous recipient of FAA airport improvement grants and as a condition of these grants the City of Palo Alto has contractual agreements to maintain the airport for 20 years from the date of the latest grant.’
Then buy them out. That land is worth far more than any federal buy-in.
In fact, pre-recover that money by raising the tie-down and hangar rents. Anybody who can afford a private plane can surely pay.
“Then buy them out”
The Grant Assurances are non-negotiable, non-cancellable contracts – lots of communities have tried and failed to cancel them.
I said buy out, not cancel.
“I said buy out, not cancel.”
Again, lots of communities have tried and failed to do that.
A contract is a BINDING AGREEMENT, even for Palo Alto, and both parties must agree to any changes in a contract. The FAA has never agreed to a such buy out.
Here what the CONTRACT states:
“1. Airport development or Noise Compatibility Program Projects Undertaken by a
Public Agency Sponsor.
The terms, conditions and assurances of this grant agreement shall remain in full
force and effect throughout the useful life of the facilities developed or equipment
acquired for an airport development or noise compatibility program project, or
throughout the useful life of the project items installed within a facility under a noise
compatibility program project, but in any event not to exceed twenty (20) years from
the date of acceptance of a grant offer of Federal funds for the project. However,
there shall be no limit on the duration of the assurances regarding Exclusive Rights
and Airport Revenue so long as the airport is used as an airport. There shall be no
limit on the duration of the terms, conditions, and assurances with respect to real
property acquired with federal funds. Furthermore, the duration of the Civil Rights
assurance shall be specified in the assurances. “
“Here what the CONTRACT states:”
I think you ought to consult an attorney that you’re paying.
Interesting that communities want to get rid of their GA airports, ain’t it?
Any legal agreement has loopholes.
The airport has already proven to be a risk to the community,
and since pilots do not follow take-off rules and buzz the city
disturbing the peace it could be argued that development and
population has run the useful life of the facility.
I’ve been writing here and saying for years we need to get rid
of the airport, but also the “entitlement mentality” that
accompanies financial success that everyone that lives around
them is some kind of parasitic pest and there needs, safety
and comfort do not matter.
Someday someone with the right knowledge is going to latch
on to these discussions and the ball is going to get rolling
on kicking the unsafe and noisy Palo Alto airport out of here
so the Palo Alto waterfront can be the shining resource everyone
can use to the benefit of all.
“Any legal agreement has loopholes.”
Much smarter people than you have tried and failed to find any loopholes in the Grant Assurance agreements.
But it is interesting that upstanding citizens would advocate subterfuge to back out of a contract. What other civic obligations would you like to walk away from?
I don’t need an attorney to tell me to never enter into a contract with either curmudgeon or crescent park anon – their words speak for their lack of respect for contracts.
Attorney, Peter. Consult an attorney.
I don’t need an attorney to know enough not to make agreements with people who want to use loopholes to get out of their contracts.
curmudge – exactly what don’t you understand about this clause in the Grant Assurance agreement that the city signed:
“1. Airport development or Noise Compatibility Program Projects Undertaken by a
Public Agency Sponsor.
The terms, conditions and assurances of this grant agreement shall remain in full
force and effect throughout the useful life of the facilities developed or equipment
acquired for an airport development or noise compatibility program project, or
throughout the useful life of the project items installed within a facility under a noise
compatibility program project, but in any event not to exceed twenty (20) years from
the date of acceptance of a grant offer of Federal funds for the project. However,
there shall be no limit on the duration of the assurances regarding Exclusive Rights
and Airport Revenue so long as the airport is used as an airport. There shall be no
limit on the duration of the terms, conditions, and assurances with respect to real
property acquired with federal funds. Furthermore, the duration of the Civil Rights
assurance shall be specified in the assurances. “
> Much smarter people than you have tried and failed to find any loopholes in the Grant Assurance agreements.
Editor, please delete Peter Carpenters comment to remove this insult,
Peter Carpenter has no idea how smart I am, so his disparagement of my intelligence is merely more of his spam that has been deleted through this and other forum discussions. Carpenter is positively irrational on this subject and cannot seem to refrain from nasty and insulting comments when he is at a loss for a factual response.
First he denies people’s experience with airplane noise.
Then he distracts with irrelevant and sometime erroneous facts.
Then he talks like a lawyer and an authority, but really does not have the authority, skills or knowledge that he claims. I guess he has to get points for perseverance because he has jumped on every one of these board to defend the flyers of Palo Alto and lobby for keeping the airport open, polls and posts at 10 minute intervals. Maybe he should think a bit longer before snapping back rudely.
He should get to do that, but outside of that everything he says is some kind of combative insult or dig that those he disagrees with, and since he does not live in Palo Alto, I don’t see why he should get to insult Palo Altans about our airplane/airport complaints with impunity.
Again, please delete his comment and please put a little pressure on his so he will think and not post these kinds of rude comments to encourage him to keep the discussion positive. His rudeness has a chilling effect that keeps Palo Altans from feeling comfortable posting here because they do not want him jumping on them or to have to defend themselves about their opinions, which they should not have to do.
By the way Peter, who are these smart people who have tried to get rid to the airport.
Do tell … maybe we can create a bit more effective a lobby if we all get together and
press for change in Palo Alto?
What was their strategy to get rid of the airport? I am sure something will work, after
all the people of a city should be able to control its destiny.
“after all the people of a city should be able to control its destiny.”
Your City Council had this discussion last year when they decided to take over the Palo Alto airport from the County – so the people of the city are controlling its destiny via your elected officials.
As for who has tried and failed and why I leave that up to you to do your own research – just takes a few key words and you don’t need a lawyer.
“First he denies people’s experience with airplane noise.”
Wrong, I clearly stated again and again that while some people do have problem with airplane noise but I do not think that their personal subjective response proves that Palo Alto is being disproportionately impacted by SFO inbound traffic.
“Then he distracts with irrelevant and sometime erroneous facts.”
Please provide ONE erroneous fact that I have posted.
The sky is Falling:
What I experienced in the Ikea building is no exaggeration (and no the plane didn’t crash). The whole Ikea building shook, and the floor wobbled (up and down) in a way that I would compare to the result of a nearby 3.0 earthquake.
Vibration that stimulates movement in a structure at its natural resonate frequency can cause dramatic motions in the structure. The classic example can be seen in the video below.
Tacoma Narrows Bridge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mclp9QmCGs