Are they running more flights due to Chinese New Year?
This is traditionally the time Chinese nationals travel.
I agree, it was a noisy day.
I noticed that some planes were flying at a much lower altitude yesterday.

ditto, every day planes are roaring over the house every 5 minutes or less. Getting pretty disgusted with the situation, especially local pa airport noise too.

It started early and they were howling.

I was here most of the day yesterday, and didn't hear anything out of the ordinary. I like having planes overhead.

Lots of traffic on El Camino too. Danged machines!!!

I did not notice anything different either. I'd like to use this comment box to offer my own advice. A lot of things it the world can bother us. I have my pet peeves too. Many of them! I think there's a lot of noise around that's very bothersome.

I think its helpful to remember though that the noise isn't going anywhere, so we have to find other ways to focus our minds and energy so they don't bother us. I mean, if there were a 10% reduction in air traffic, which probably is not in any way feasible, there would still be a lot of planes. Or another way to look at it is that if there were a few percentage points of planes diverted, with the growth of the area and growth of air traffic, they'll probably be back in a few years anyway.

There are a lot of amazing techniques out there for stress reduction and "tuning out" annoyances that we all should look into. I'm not selling any one in particular - just ask or google-bing around for some different ones to try. Pretty soon you might not even notice it - planes, leaf blowers, motorcycles, cars, etc.

I think you'll find all these annoyances in life are like the proverbial "whack-a-mole" game - you push it down one place, and it comes up somewhere else. You deserve peace and relaxation, and I guarantee with some simple mental exercises you can find it. Your annoyance is real, and your feelings are real! I'm just trying to give you an alternative to fighting an uphill losing battle!

PowerMax - Great advice.

In my experience the individual response to any given type and level of noise varies dramatically. Some people are REALLY bothered by things that most people do not notice. Airplane noise is a perfect example of this phenomena. It does not work to show them that the planes are higher than they think or less frequent than they think because that is not their perception.

SFO is also transitioning to a new air traffic control system known as "NextGen". The FAA kicked-off the three-year roll-out of "NextGen" at SFO in January 2013. Under "NextGen", aircraft "coast" down from altitude at high speed along several precisely navigated approach routes.

The precision navigation used in the "Nextgen" system channels air traffic into several narrow flight paths on their way to SFO, and allows air traffic control to use much tighter aircraft-to-aircraft spacing. While the "Nextgen" approach may slightly reduce the noise emitted by an aircraft's engines, residents living under a "Nextgen" approach route will experience a dramatic increase in noise at ground level, due to the greater number of aircraft passing overhead, the lower altitudes flown by "NextGen" approach profiles, and the higher approach speeds, which produce more airframe noise.

The FAA has called the "NextGen" air traffic system "highways in the sky". Under the prevailing westerly wind pattern, there are five highways into SFO. Three of these highways pass over Palo Alto on their way to SFO, and then converge over northern Palo Alto.

As the various elements of NextGen are rolled out over the next few years, the aircraft noise over Palo Alto will progressively increase.

"NextGen Increases Aircraft Noise over Phoenix"
CBS This MOrning ~ January 30, 2015 Web Link

I've been reading the comments about aviation noise on TS for quite awhile, and contributing now and then. I'm beginning to wonder if the people who inevitably jump in to attempt to nullify observations about audible aviation noise are being paid to do so. I don't understand why, otherwise, these voices are so quick to repudiate commentary from people who object to noise pollution from overhead.

Whatever the politics behind such vehemence from the pro-aviation-noise-commentators, there is no denying that Palo Alto is subject to frequent, consistent noise from aircraft overhead.

As I have said in the past--please take note, Palo Alto officials--let's start monitoring noise in this city. We need objective data.

As long as those with an interest in denying we have a problem with aviation noise can claim that any objections to aviation noise are merely "subjective", we won't be rid of their unproductive distractions here on Town Square and in the civic conversation about noise pollution solutions.

From Web Link

Mapping

Geographic noise maps alter the informational environment and are one way to ensure that noise control policy is based on objective and accurate information. The NPS seeks to expand and increase access to information technology and integrated data systems. Governments in the European Union have already prepared noise maps of roads, railways, and airports (Commission to the European Parliament and the Council 2011). Although the U.S. government does not map noise levels to protect the public, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2012) has created a noise map of the world’s oceans to investigate the impact of noise on marine species. Cities such as San Francisco have mapped traffic noise, but most cities and states would need federal support and guidance to initiate comprehensive mapping. Measurement and mapping of noise levels—following the example of the CDC’s air and water quality databases—would identify priorities for additional evaluation and help inform protective measures. Congress can appropriate funding to the U.S. EPA, ONAC, or CDC to support this work. However, mapping efforts will require a substantially increased and ongoing noise monitoring effort.

"Loudness is the characteristic of a sound that is primarily a psychological correlate of physical strength (amplitude). More formally, it is defined as "that attribute of auditory sensation in terms of which sounds can be ordered on a scale extending from quiet to loud".[1]

Loudness, a subjective measure, is often confused with objective measures of sound strength such as sound pressure, sound pressure level (in decibels), sound intensity or sound power. Filters such as A-weighting attempt to adjust sound measurements to correspond to loudness as perceived by the typical human. However, loudness perception is a much more complex process than A-weighting."

As posted above:
"In my experience the individual response to any given type and level of noise varies dramatically. Some people are REALLY bothered by things that most people do not notice. Airplane noise is a perfect example of this phenomena. It does not work to show them that the planes are higher than they think or less frequent than they think because that is not their perception."

What is gaslighting?

"Gaslighting or gas-lighting is a form of mental abuse in which information is twisted/spun, selectively omitted to favor the abuser, or false information is presented with the intent of making victims doubt their own memory, perception and sanity. Instances may range simply from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred, up to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim.

The term owes its origin to the play Gas Light and its film adaptations, after which it was coined popularly."

Gaslighting in Wikipedia: Web Link

"Both noise and light pollution are growing far faster than the human population of the United States," Kurt Fristrup, senior scientist for the National Park Service's Natural Sounds and Night Skies Division, told reporters here at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on Monday. "They're somewhere between doubling and tripling every 20 to 30 years."

Web Link

We can lay all ills at population growth. Until that comes to a halt, we're just rearranging the deck chairs.

"We can lay all ills at population growth. Until that comes to a halt, we're just rearranging the deck chairs.'

i absolutely agree. Trying to curb emissions by 2% while the population is growing by 5% is lunacy

Population growth does not explain the dramatic increase in air traffic over Palo Alto. Air traffic over Palo Alto is up 350%, while total air traffic into SFO has only grown by 35% over the post-911 low, and is only up 1-2% over the pre-911 high.

"Air traffic over Palo Alto is up 350%"

Please provide documentation for this claim.

[Post removed.]

Thank you, Hal and Jetman, for your helpful posts. These are constructive, affirming responses to the original, Tiredofthenoise, post. Basicallly, Mr. Carpenter and PowerMax (hmmm, a lover of engines, perhaps?) are spending a lot of time trying to obfuscate the issue of plane noise. Could it be, that they are members of aviation groups who realize their reign over the skies above our homes is threatened by the prospect of noise measures? Because in my experience, the small planes produce a louder AND a more grating sound than jets. I don't like either, but for different reasons. I know air travel will not cease, but I do think it needs to be managed better. Both sources of noise and air pollution need to be addressed by the EPA, and Congress. Ultimately, the FAA has no reason to mitigate noise. Noise abatement offices exist only to deflect an angry, besieged public--not to lessen the noise. Still, if we don't log complaints they deny a problem.....hmmm.

Anyone can download a decibel meter to their smartphone and prove that many of the small planes blast us with 70 dB + and noise monitors will substantiate that fact. On the weekends, especially, the small planes and helicopters are out of control. Literally, no one can tell THEM how to fly and where.....

Could it be that a few citizens are very defensive of the aviation industry as a necessary part of modern life, because they see a threat to their flying hobby or private getaway method? Quiet your engines, and the "subjective," hearing folks won't have to meditate away the problem.

Groundling - I stopped flying my own plane 6 years ago. I am speaking from years of experience dealing with this issue as a Palo Alto City Council appointee to the Joint Community Relations Committee of the Palo Alto Airport.

[Portion removed.]

Noise, a subjective measure, and sound, an objective measure, are different things and need to be recognized as such.

Peter Carpenter,

What was confirmed by the press is that SFO arrivals going over Palo Alto have gone up from 70 to 200 arrivals per day. That's only 1 airport. As you know, there are Oakland, San Jose, San Carlos, Palo Alto overflights, and all these airports have introduced new services. The abnormality in growth of traffic over Palo Alto should indeed be looked at.

"Over the past 15 years, SFO arrivals have increased 23%, but flight paths have shifted, increasing flights over Palo Alto 185%, from 70 to 200 arrivals per day."

That's the statistic cited in Skyposse's petition. @Jetman, do you double that to 350% for effect or do you have different statistics?

Musical,

I believe the numbers on the Sky Posse website compare the year 2013 to the pre-911 high in air traffic, in 1999 or 2000. The figures I cite come from the Palo Alto City Staff's report to the Policy and Services Committee, which I believe compares 2014 to the post-911 low in air traffic.

Either way, there has been a dramatic increase in air traffic over Palo Alto, that far out paces the overall growth in air traffic.

If you want to dig deeper into this subject, the website linked below has a lot of good information:

"U.S. Commercial Aviation Operations in Decline"
Aviation Impact Reform ~ April 23, 2013 Web Link

"The figures I cite come from the Palo Alto City Staff's report to the Policy and Services Committee, which I believe compares 2014 to the post-911 low in air traffic."

Please provide direct quotes from the staff report and a link to that report.

"Over the past 15 years, SFO arrivals have increased 23%, but flight paths have shifted, increasing flights over Palo Alto 185%, from 70 to 200 arrivals per day."

This is enough info to discuss airline traffic above Palo Alto. Discussing this vs. 350% is a diversionary tactic meant to elude the real issue.

Why should we, in Palo Alto and vicinity, bear a 185% (or 350%) increase in traffic when overall SFO traffic has increased only 23% (or 35%)? The increase over Palo Alto is at least EIGHT times the increase in overall traffic. What gives here?

This is the real question. It has become unbearable in Palo Alto in a way that someone who lives in another community such as Atherton cannot possibly be able to address, not having to bear this day in day out, around the clock.

I asked for the original source because I believe the cited data is questionable,

There is no value in having a discussion based on questionable data.

@Peter Carpenter - The 350% number is from the skyposse presentation to the Policy and Services Committee, it is on page 51 or 52 of the PDF.

Web Link

You could have googled in 10 seconds, like I did...

This is not source data.

This is data attributed to a source but it does not provide the original data. And it includes all altitudes so it is meaningless when talking about ground level sound levels.

Musical:

Human population growth is a problem for many reasons, but logic does not demand that population growth be inextricably linked to the growth of aviation noise.

Air traffic is regulated. Aviation regulation in the U.S. lies ultimately with Congress. The reauthorization of the FAA is scheduled for this year.

Congressman Bill Shuster, Chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, has called for a "transformative reauthorization" in 2015.

I suggest that everyone who objects to noise pollution generated by air traffic make their objections known to their local, state, and federal representatives immediately and repeatedly. Write a letter to Bill Shuster.

And Palo Alto city officials: we need permanent noise monitors citywide. We need data.

It's anecdotal, yes, but in my experience here in PA, the commercial aircraft flights and noise has increased incredibly over recent years. It has been a SURPRISE.

The vast majority of jet aircraft in Palo Alto airspace are SFO bound, and are maneuvering to rendezvous with an imaginary point in the sky called the Menlo IAF, which is located a little south of the intersection of Willow and 101. Once they intersect the Menlo IAF, they begin final approach to SFO.

Air traffic control's target altitude for aircraft on approach to SFO's runway 28 is 4,000'at Menlo IAF. Many aircraft are able to hit the 4,000' target, but some are a little higher, and some are a little lower. Some pass directly over the Menlo IAF, and some pass over to the northwest, or southeast of the Menlo IAF.

As NextGens precision navigation system is rolled out, progressively more aircraft will hit their mark, further concentrating air traffic over northern Palo Alto.

A very small percentage of aircraft bound for Oakland, or departing SFO, pass over Palo Alto at significantly higher altitudes.

In the flight tracks below, SFO arrivals are shown in red, flights to or from Oakland are shown in blue or magenta, and overflights are shown in black.

24 flight tracks over Palo Alto: Web Link

Looks like Caltrain is beginning to boil over, moving our noise issues to the back burner.

musical,

The tragedy at the Ravenswood crossing is terrible, and f you read the comments, there are 2 schools of thought. Many have posted with frustration about the fixes that crossing has been needing for a long time, and there are many accounts of bad experiences there. Others fault the woman's driver's ed, and if you missed the long thread on The Almanac which was removed, it had one notorious poster with this latter school of thought. The backlash this poster got was not pretty, and there may be some parallels in community reaction, terms of how we react to problems.

With increased population growth, and with increasingly challenging situations, denial of human experience may run as the highest obstacle to improvements, to better address changing circumstances (such as traffic, congestion, be it on the ground or in the air). it would be much more constructive to use our experiences to work together to get ahead of certain problems, or fixing them. If you look a the chart with the 350% it says it's for Hanover Avenue, and distinguishes SFO traffic to say that growth was the 70 flights to 200 (185%). What this chart tells me is that increases of air traffic over Palo Alto vary. Some areas are more hard hit than others. But if you look at the hairball jetman posted, there are so many paths, that this is not just a problem for a few people. And it's not just noise, it's air pollution. What I have heard is that allergy problems are at a high in our area. With the lower flying planes, nobody is spared from the air pollution. Is this measured? It should be, and it would not be a bad idea for us all to help make that happen.

Last night I was awoken by low flying aircraft at 11:55pm and then another one about five minutes later. Both shook my lights and closet doors. That's too loud by any measure if the planes rattle windows/doors. There is usually another one that rattles in the early morning around 5am. These are the ones that bother me most.

True, probably not everyone is bothered, but there is a definite problem. Maybe, if you are listening to music or watching a film, you don't notice the plane noise. But if you are just reading, it can be intrusive. I have noticed an increase in air traffic over the years.

I think the large increase in air traffic makes the case that there is a problem.

pares,

Be sure to log in your complaint.

Complaints serve to confirm to the airports and the FAA that there is a problem.

Without complaints, airports and the FAA conclude that there is no problem. Lack of complaints are used to deny a problem.

You can complain the next day.

Web Link
SFO Noise Complaint Hotline: 650.821.4736
SFO Toll Free Noise Complaint Hotline: 877.206.8290
SFO Noise Complaint Email: [email protected]

Not sure it’s worth jumping into this discussion…

If you look at the Bay Area airspace - SFO, OAK, SJC + the reliever airports (San Carlos, Hayward, Palo Alto, Moffet, Reid Hillview, Napa, Gnoss Field, Petaluma, Santa Rosa) AND you look at the terrain with 2000 foot hills on both sides of the bay AND you consider aviation issues (3 degree glideslope, stabilized approaches, 2000 feet above mountainous terrain, aircraft horizontal and vertical spacing rules) AND you take into account weather (frequent morning fog into SFO) then you have a very complicated airspace design with a lot of moving parts. You can’t raise the crossing altitude at the Menlo Intersection because that’s dictated by the 3 degree glideslope into SFO. You probably can’t move Menlo Intersection south because then SFO arrivals will interfere with SJC departures. You can’t switch all the SFO arrivals from the north over the Bay because you have to keep them high to separate from SFO departures to the east.

The implication in the last year of increasingly shrill aviation posts is that something nefarious and calculated is happening to “dump” air traffic over Palo Alto. While it’s not impossible, it’s unlikely there have been backroom deals to change air traffic routing. It’s more likely that increased traffic using existing procedures is the root cause for more overflights. If there were only a few flights per hour in and out of SFO and SJC didn't exist it would be relatively easy to bring arrivals down the bay or push them farther north over the Peninsula. With the traffic volumes they have now, that’s just not possible.

So what do you want to see happen? Do you want fewer flights in and out of SFO? Do you want hard curfews at SFO? Do you want SFO, OAK or SJC to move? Do you want to build HSR to Sacramento International and shift all the air traffic over the Central Valley? Do you want to fast-track HSR to reduce flights to SoCal? Do you simply want to declare the end of the jet age?

Yes, noise monitoring is a good idea, just so we’re talking about the same things. But after that, it’s not clear what we expect to see happen in a region that can’t coordinate transportation on the ground, let alone in the air. Do you really think you’ll win any allies with spurious arguments about jet fuel aerosols, sleep disturbance because your windows rattle (pro tip: you’re losing heat through those gaps), reports to SFO’s hotline that “I heard an airplane” or breathless reports of “near misses over Midtown”?

We all get it, that you don’t like seeing and hearing air traffic and you are hearing and seeing more of it than you expected. What do you want to happen?

Anon,

HIGHER - the higher aircraft fly , the less noise they make at ground level. 4,000' at Menlo IAF is a 2.8 glide slope not 3.0. In the year 2000 SFO/FAA entered into an agreement with Anna Eshoo to maintain 5,000' at the Menlo IAF, but SFO/FAA no longer abide by that agreement. Aircraft regularly fly as high as 6,500' over Palo Alto and still go on to land at SFO.

SHARE - The noise should be shared by all of the communities served by the airport, not concentrated over Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, and northeasten Menlo Park. No matter how this came about, the growth in air traffic over Palo Alto, far out paces the overall growth in air traffic. The Menlo IAF is just a coordinate in a computer, not a physical beacon.

CURFEW - The profit SFO and the airlines make from the handful of flight that cross over Palo Alto at low altitude between the hours of midnight and 5:00am is out-weighted by the cost to the health and productivity of the people on the ground.

An over the bay approach should be investigated. Over water approaches are used in several other areas to mitigate noise. New technology may make this a viable solution in the Bay Area.

Anonymous,

What do I want?

For starters, it would be good to know if what you just wrote is your opinion or an official analysis.

If it's official, that there is no other place for air traffic to go, except for Palo Alto (due to geographic reasons?) - is this published by the relevant authorities or the FAA?

I would like to hear, from the relevant authorities if what you said is true. Including the jab about sleep and insulated windows.

The standard should not be for "Anonymous" to let Palo Alto know about traffic management, be it on the ground or in the air.

Was hoping to not dwell on technical details... The ILS Glideslope angle for SFO is 3 degrees. The "Visual Glide Slope Indicator" angle is 2.85 degrees. In other words if an airplane stays on the ILS glideslope they'll see three white lights and one red light on the Precision Approach Path Indicator next to the runway on what's called "short final" .
Comparing a 2005 approach chart for SFO ILS28L to today, the minimum altitude at Menlo Intersection has changed from 4200 feet to 4000 feet. What's important after Menlo is aircraft need to intercept the glideslope from below so they are descended to 3100 feet until "established" on the glideslope. 6500 feet would keep them above the glideslope when they intercept the localizer after they cross Menlo Intersection. It's all a matter of timing - typical descent rates at that point in the flight are 1000 feet per minute, which is enough time to cover 3 to 4 miles. Controllers are expected to "vector" aircraft to intercept the localizer path within 60 degrees and below the glideslope. Menlo Intersection is 4.3 miles from the localizer path at a 60 degree intercept angle.
The net is that "HIGHER" and "SHARE" work in the context of overall Bay Area airspace redesign. "CURFEW" is possible, but that'll take some interesting negotiating with the airlines, SFO and the FAA. No one can say it's impossible, but can you think of precedents for curfews at primary airports in a region?
Feel free to contact the FAA to open a dialog with professionals about airspace redesign options for the Bay Area. The Flight Service District Office in San Jose Airport may be able to give you pointers to the responsible group.
If your noise problem is rattling windows, that's easy to fix by snugging up the windows so they don't rattle. And you'll save money on home heating as a bonus.
No one is trying to minimize the annoyance several of you have expressed. The question is what tangible steps do you expect anyone - CPA, SFO, City of SF, other Peninsula cities and counties, FAA, airlines - to take?

When someone says their house rattles when a plane flies over, the snide remark to insulate their windows is uncalled for. It is not always windows that rattle, and not everyone has the time or money to insulate their windows. But even if they did, I have changed my windows out several years ago to brand new vinyl windows, and it does help with noise ... to the tune of I would estimate 10-15% ... not that much.

There was a plane that flew over Crescent Park at least about 4am or so that was very loud and caused vibrations. I don't know what it was it because I was asleep. That's why we need monitoring. I am all for that ... perhaps at all city buildings where it is easy put in a noise monitoring setup that can send data to a central server over the internet. That would be a start.

You cannot always tell what the noise is. Today in the Baylands there was a plane coming in that was tremendously loud, it was a dual propellor plane that had both props pointing backwards on it in an unusual configuration. I have seen this plane before and some others like it. Some propellor planes, even small ones can be very very loud.

I am really tired of the attack tactics that flying supporters have been using to dismiss and discredit the testimony of people who have been explaining their experiences with airplane noise. Complaining about the person, their house, making all kinds of implications, but doing everything but realizing it is to everyone's advantage not to have all this noise in our town.

When I cannot listen to an audiobook or music through earphones out in the baylands because of airplane noise ... there is something wrong. Maybe we should just have designatied hours that the airport can operate for takeoffs. One would think pilots would want to be as quiet as possible in order not to bother people, but I guess our pilots feel entitled because they seem to make as much noise as possible and fly over the most populated spaces.

"I guess our pilots feel entitled because they seem to make as much noise as possible and fly over the most populated spaces."

When I flew out of Palo Alto I did everything I could to reduce my noise footprint and to avoid populated areas. In my experience most other PAO pilots do the same thing.

If you note a small plane flying out of PAO that does respect populated areas then report it to the PAO airport manager.

Anon,

I think an important tangible first step would be to establish lines of communications, and responsibility. A good start would be for the Mayor of SF, and/or the responsible government employee within the FAA, to step forward, pick up the phone, and call the Mayor of Palo Alto.

This issue has gotten a lot of viability in the press... national and local, print and broadcast. People with the FAA, and SFO read these forums. SFO and the FAA, know there is problem smoldering in Palo Alto.

Jetman,

No one denies there should be communication. But realistically what's the ask? HIGHER and SHARE appear hard given all the other aviation constraints (let the experts weigh in on possibilities). CURFEW doesn't solve the OP's daytime issue.

The only reliable, long-term solutions are REDUCE AIRLINE TRAFFIC or MOVE/CLOSE AIRPORT(s). If you can get agreements, they’ll take decades to implement.

@CPA - entitlement cuts both ways. What do you say to someone who complains “I’m standing next to a public airport that’s been here for more than 50 years, and I can’t hear my music when planes pass overhead.” How’s that different from “Golf balls keep hitting me when I take a walk on the golf course?”

The one thing that can happen without a lot of disagreement is the flights that occur from 12:00 AM - 5:00 AM. The number of flights at that time is reduced so there is not a lot of competition for airspace. The flights should come up the bay - starting at the bottom of the bay - which is a reduced population area - over the water to SFO approach.

We currently have planes coming in while it is still dark over highly populated areas.

That should be a no-brainer change that is consistent with other airports that discourage flights during those hours - example SJX.

"Anonymous",

Ha-ha... good one, you had me going there for a while!

I moved sort of close to 1 airport, Palo Alto, and nobody said that air traffic would triple from an airport that is not even that close, SFO.

Can somebody explain the logic that an airport being there 50 years means that nobody has a right to complain? Is that a law?

The same things get repeated by the Anonymous experts, airport was there first, you should have known. What exactly should I have known?

Looks like CrescentParkAnon got to see the fancy Italian-built Piaggio P180 Avanti owned by one of those venture capital type firms up on Sand Hill Road. Normally hidden away in a Palo Alto hangar, this aircraft manufactured in 2009 sports two 950-horsepower turboprop engines that are variants of the type used by our favourite Surf Air Pilatus commuters. It is actually a touch quieter than a Beech King Air (a more common PT6A-powered twin turboprop) but higher pitched due to exhaust flows through the pusher propellers, resulting in more noise complaints. Value on the used market is 3 to 4 million. With a good tailwind it could make Chicago non-stop.

Anonymous,

Can you still answer the questions about an airport being there 50 years - what does that mean?

What is reasonable to expect from an airport nearby? And what is "nearby"?

According to the FAA Environmental Assessment, it says that there will be no impacts from recent changes, (though many would disagree completely with that).

See below - no change in number of aircraft operations, "slight increase" in emissions and no change in air quality.

This sounds very general, maybe you would have a better explanation of what one should expect.

Web Link

"The Proposed Action would not change the number of aircraft operations compared with the No
Action Alternative. Although the Proposed Action would result in more efficient air traffic routes
and operations, there would be a slight increase in emissions when compared with the No
Action Alternative. The slight increase in fuel burn (as reported above for "Energy Supply") was
used as an indicator that the Proposed Action would result in a slight increase in emissions from
aircraft operations compared with the No Action Alternative. However, the Proposed Action is
presumed to conform to the State of California's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone (03),
PM10, and PM2.s. Implementation would not cause or contribute to a new violation of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), worsen an existing violation, or delay meeting
the NAAQS."

The root cause of more airliners flying over Palo Alto is likely to be relatively small (20 or 30%) increases in traffic causing traffic to be spread further down the Peninsula. That's airspace design and the mathematics of congestion. Not malice. You should probably consult some experts in airspace design to see if they have any ideas. If they have simple ideas: great! You can ask them how joining up SFO arrivals higher and farther south would fit in with San Jose departures and reverse flow arrivals. And how the airlines would respond.
BTW I really like resident 1's suggestion to reduce nighttime impacts. That's an easy first thing to ask if our Mayor talks to SFO and/or the FAA. The airlines will complain that it costs them more fuel for Pacific and southern arrivals and CalEPA will complain that it increases ozone emissions.
To your other point: you're right. Without a lot of airspace knowledge and a computer traffic model you probably couldn't have known air traffic would increase over Palo Alto. Just like you probably couldn't have known 101 would grow to 5 lanes, Page Mill would turn into a daily parking lot and a bankrupt freight track would turn into a high speed rail corridor. What recourse do you expect to have about all these public transportation changes?
@CPA had a very specific complaint: he was standing next to a 50+ year old public airport and there was noise from nearby airplanes. What did he expect?

20-30% over what period of time?

101 and 280 growth is very different from the air highways because there was an agreement to keep flights above 5000 feet and there was never a reason to think airplanes would fly so low. The altitudes are way off.

"agreement to keep flights above 5000 feet"

There is not prohibited flight zone over Palo Alto. The limit is 1000 ft except when landing or taking off. Be very happy that the planes flying into SFO are as high as they are over Palo Alto because the are lower over Menlo Park, East Palo Alto and points north.

A 1000 rock bottom feet limit is ludicrous for the quantity of planes.

That should not make anyone "happy"

That's plain silly.

Anonymous said:
> @CPA had a very specific complaint: he was standing next to a 50+ year old public airport and there was noise from nearby airplanes. What did he expect?

That is not correct, Anonymous.

First, that is not what I said, I had three complaints, one of them was about airplane noise inside my house in Crescent Park. Palo Alto used to be a very very quiet place at night, not any longer.

The second thing was just what you are trying to do here, mischaracterizing posts by people you disagree with so you can dismiss everything they say in the dishonest ways.

Finally, for the Baylands, when there is a plane taking off or circling overhead in the Baylands every minute, the whole area, includes the golf course and other locations, is useless for recreation. When I cannot hear what I am listening to with headphones while some of these planes are even in sight that ruins the recreational value of the Baylands. It rarely stops.

Anonymous, if you do not care about that, this is what you should be telling us instead of wrongly spinning the comments of others, and you can honestly come out and cast your vote treating the Baylands and the City as the under flight area of the PA and SFO airports. Just be honest.

In the long term the Baylands is of much greater value to the City and people of Palo Alto than the airport, and the airport is now unable to manage itself, to make intelligent decisions about how to regulate its pilots ( as Peter Carpenter has admitted many times about the take-off flight path not being changed to be over the Bay ) and the airport is a liability and risk to residents of the nearby towns.

Palo Alto ought to come out and say our priorities are with the airplane owners and we have no intention of making the Baylands fit to be an enjoyable place for residents OR that the City is going to begin a switch towards restoring the wetlands and maximizing the recreational value of the Baylands and phasing out the airport. Just let us know that our City government only cares about the few of us who own airplanes ... at least we would know who to oppose in elections.

That is, the City should do its job and instead of giving lip service to the Baylands and building overly ornate bridges to a place they do not really care about and are not going to manage properly the City should look at the long term and what is best for the most residents of the City and as Mountain View as done sensibly develop the Bay to restore the environment for people and nature.

It is easy to tell others to suck it up from one's comfy, quiet house in Atherton.

A few things:

- In the early 1990s, there was no SFO traffic above Palo Alto to speak of (yes there was SOME Moffett Field traffic, but it was rather tame compared to what we get today from SFO).

- Some time in the 1990s, Atherton residents and people from other communities in southern San Mateo County started complaining loudly about SFO airplane traffic above their communities.

- In the late 1990s, Atherton and the rest of South San Mateo County were admitted to the SFO Roundtable.

- In the late 1990s, all of a sudden there was a massive influx of SFO traffic above Palo Alto.

- Fast forward to 2015: Massive SFO traffic above Palo Alto and no more complaints about SFO traffic from Atherton and other towns in that area (although East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park do have a problem still).

In the year 2000 SFO and the FAA agreed to raise the minimum altitude at the Menlo IAF from 4,000' to 5,000'. In a letter to UPROAR, Anna Eshoo says that the new procedures had already been implemented as of May 12, 2000.

When did SFO and the FAA stop honoring this agreement? Why did SFO and the FAA stop honoring this agreement, and why were none of the parties to the agreement notified?

Anna Eshoo's letter to UPROAR 5/12/2000: Web Link

The SFO planes are actually closer to my home than they are to most Palo Alto homes.

Sorry Peter, but not really. The planes are closer to North Palo Alto than Lindenwood.

Most Palo Alto homes are not North Palo Alto. Just the most expensive ones.

There is heavy low SFO traffic directly overhead above several Palo Alto neighborhoods, including Barron Park, College Terrace, Crescent Park, Midtown, North Palo Alto.

If you live close to Palo Verde School, in the south of Palo Alto you may be among the lucky few with lighter traffic.

A very large portion of Palo Alto is severely affected by SFO traffic, including from the south. The latter one rarely if ever gets anywhere close to Atherton.

Brutal air traffic returns to Palo Alto. Only a 2-4 minutes of relative quiet between jets this evening, and it has been going on for about 3 hours now.

"This issue has gotten a lot of viability in the press... national and local, print and broadcast. People with the FAA, and SFO read these forums. SFO and the FAA, know there is problem smoldering in Palo Alto."

Jetman, I hope this is true and happening

Still going strong at 10:15pm. Exhausting!

Four minutes on CBS this Morning. It doesn't get much bigger than that, and the FAA will not even publicly defend what they are doing, because they know they can't.

The FAA is in total bunker mode right now, and has abandoned their PR effort to a small group of self-appointed GA pilots foolish enough to try to defend this mess.

We need to demand the resignation FAA head Micheal Huerta. Huerta is the first non-pilot to head the FAA, and had no prior aviation experience before taking the top job at FAA. Huerta's lack of experience has lead to a leadership vacuum, that is being filled by the aviation industry, who now effectively control the FAA.

"NextGen Increases Aircraft Noise over Phoenix"
CBS This Morning ~ January 30, 2015 Web Link

Another thing that does not get mentioned here is that the sound properties of Palo Alto are different from Atherton, so it's really not relevant what jet noise is like in Atherton and the argument that noise is tolerable in Atherton so it should not be bad in Palo Alto is a bogus one.

Go driving through Atherton, it is almost all trees, and narrow roads, much less hard surfaces, pavement, and must more sound deadening bushes and trees. More lawns, shrubs, dirt, less concrete and cement, and of course for the main part bigger houses farther apart. The sound level in Atherton in general is much like the country, whereas Palo Alto is getting much more urbanized, harder surfaces that reflect and transmit sound.

Why are so many people trying to undermine and dismiss the experience and testimony of Palo Altans who are saying they get too much noise? That is not a valid way to find out if there is a problem, just have a bunch of anonymous bullies show up and tell us we should just get used to the noise or expect it. I've been in Palo Alto since the 70s, and airplane noise was much less. There were the P3-A submarine hunters if anyone remembers from Moffet Field always going over Palo Alto, and people were bugged then ... but that was almost nothing, and mostly during the day.

The nights in Palo Alto were almost too silent. Why shouldn't that be my expectation, instead of someone saying we chose to move where an airport was so take what you get?

The perception of and response to noises of all kind differs dramatically among any given population of people. I readily acknowledge that some people find the current level of airplane induced ground level noise to be obtrusive and, for some, unacceptable. However, over the years of discussion on this topic a critical mass of concerned residents has never been created. It will continue to be the subject of Forum topics but there will be no definitive action until significantly more people consider airplane noise a more important problem than local budgets, building projects, quality of schools etc..

Ranking airplane noise as a contender problem to solving world peace will of course keep the treatment at the level it has been, and this allows for others to profit from the problem. Would be nice if we could walk and chew gum at the same time, and I would disagree that fixing something as obvious as this would require popular vote.

I think there is a lobby to prevent the problem from being solved. Plenty of exhibits here from the deniers. So, maybe the first place to start is to identify who has an interest in not having this solved.

>> So, maybe the first place to start is to identify who has an interest in not having this solved.

Begin with the 47 million passengers who used SFO last year.
Or a million people using it 47 times.
Without them, you'd have a different problem.

"It was brutal"
> the first place to start is to identify who has an interest in not having this solved.

"musical"
>> Begin with the 47 million passengers who used SFO last year.


As an airline passenger into many, many cities I have never had any interest
in making the people under the path of the plane I was taking suffer noise or
being woken up in the middle of the night. Nor have I had any control over it.
If I did I would vote for some kind of standards for airport noise and travel.

" Nor have I had any control over it."

You could fly from other airports.

Don't let the gas lighters triumph.

What a robust Sunday air parade we're experiencing today.

Thought I'd share an old but good description of the FAA's "noise abatement" process. The more things change...etc.

The quote is from a site called ourairspace.org, seemingly quiescent since 2013.

"The FAA's Noise Abatement guidelines are flimsy at best. It is evident that the FAA regards aviation noise as a nuisance rather than as a public health issue. The responsibility for noise abatement has been handed over to the airports, who may have no noise abatement program at all. The airlines are exempt from responsibility. They blame the FAA for noise because the FAA's Air Traffic Controllers tell them where to fly. The FAA says they are not responsible for noise. So who will take the burden of responsibility? Local and regional governments who pass noise ordinances are left with no real way to enforce them. There is a legislative black hole around this public health issue.

The FAA asks local government to form "Noise Response Process" to address incidents where noise levels become intolerable. So, for example, if you are a resident of a community who is under a flight path, the FAA then makes it YOUR responsibility to call a local hotline, lodge a noise complaint with visual sighting of said aircrafts' tail number. The airport then has the responsibility of contacting the aircraft carriers owner and levying a fine against them for violating the noise abatement procedures.

If a copious amount of calls are made then, in theory, the air traffic controllers will be more apt to redirect flights away from the 'problem' area."

We have met the enemy and it is us. Remember that when you ride an airliner.

I propose an international no-fly pledge. If enough people commit to riding only trains, buses, or cars, the airlines will fold and 98.6% of the airplane noise will go away.

No airplane noise over Palo Alto today.

Nothing to hear,

Could very well be that you can't hear, but your neighbors are bothered. Some day you may have something that you want your neighbors to care about. Would it hurt you to resolve the airplane noise issue for your neighbors who are bothered by it?

Worth repeating re aviation noise pollution:

"There is a legislative black hole around this public health issue."

"Would it hurt you to resolve the airplane noise issue for your neighbors who are bothered by it?"

Yes, if solving their problem simply meant giving that problem to different neighbors.

Peter Carpenter,

Sounds like you are open to sharing the burden though.

"Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 2, 2014 at 7:16 pm
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
The lawsuit is an exercise in hubris and futility.

We all share the benefits of easy access to a great aviation system and we should all willingly SHARE the associated burdens."

Web Link

I agree with sharing, and to willingly be open to it.

"Sounds like you are open to sharing the burden though."

Absolutely.

And the burden is the total amount of airplane created noise at ground level, not the number of flights above a specific point. Higher flights create less ground level noise. SFO bound flights are always higher over Palo Alto than they are after the pass over Palo Alto.

And I have repeatedly and publicly opposed moving SurfAire flights over another community in order to get them away from Atherton.

Congress has passed a law specifying that all airplane disturbances are not health hazards, even if science concludes with certainty that some airplane disturbances are indeed health hazards.

We should work to get congress to change those laws, so that airlines become responsible to prevent such damage, just as other companies must.

Peter Carpenter,

"And the burden is the total amount of airplane created noise at ground level,"

Just to make sure, is this code for hearing noise with the FAA's deaf ear?

Average noise over 24 hours, integrated noise models and and all that.

"Just to make sure, is this code for hearing noise with the FAA's deaf ear? "

No, it is exactly what I posted "And the burden is the total amount of airplane created noise at ground level, not the number of flights above a specific point. Higher flights create less ground level noise. SFO bound flights are always higher over Palo Alto than they are after the pass over Palo Alto."

No code words were used or suggested.

I have noticed strange activity while in Redwood City - some planes actually rise up, increase altitude after they have made the turn to go up to SFO. I am wondering if they are lower as they descend down from the hills then correct as they go over Menlo / RWC so that they are registering the correct altitude. There is definitely some corrective action that takes place as they are higher as they go into the northward stretch.
They have to be running in tangent with the other airplanes that are arriving from the east coast / other runway.

"I have noticed strange activity while in Redwood City - some planes actually rise up, increase altitude after they have made the turn to go up to SFO."

Please document this observation with specific radar tracks. I have never seen a SFO bound plane heading towards SFO increase its altitude on any radar track.

Legislative Requirement says:

"Congress has passed a law specifying that all airplane disturbances are not health hazards, even if science concludes with certainty that some airplane disturbances are indeed health hazards.

We should work to get congress to change those laws, so that airlines become responsible to prevent such damage, just as other companies must."


I would be most interested in a cite to the law you mention, if you can provide it.


Anna Eshoo, Palo Alto's Congresswoman, published a press release last year announcing "Eshoo Joins Quiet Skies Caucus to Combat Aircraft Noise".
Web Link

"As a founding member of the recently created caucus, Eshoo will raise awareness on the issue of aircraft noise and work to find meaningful solutions to the problem. The caucus consists of Members of Congress from across the country whose constituents are adversely affected by incidents of airplane and helicopter noise."

Disappointingly, she doesn't list her membership in the caucus on her "committees and caucuses" page: Web Link

She has not made any further statements about her work on this issue.

It was brutal states:
"
Could very well be that you can't hear, but your neighbors are bothered. Some day you may have something that you want your neighbors to care about. Would it hurt you to resolve the airplane noise issue for your neighbors who are bothered by it?"

Since we do not know who " it is brutal" and " nothing to hear" are, how can the poster claim that their neighbors are bothered?
All the claims of noise are anecdotal-- no real measurements or data. One person may be bothered by the noise, others may not.
Just because 3 or 4 posters constantly post on this forum that Palo Alto has an airplane noise problem, does not make it so.
I suggest these vexatious complainers gat her some real data and present it to the authorities. Posting on this forum will do you no good.

I travel all over the bay area and have lived the past 16 years in Palo Alto near both Stanford and south Palo Alto. I don't think the level of noise has increased as much as the posters on this site are claiming. No is it anything near brutal. And several places in the Bay Area experience much more noise that Palo Alto and have less complaints from people living there. Millbrae is one example. When planes are taking off from the runway into the bay (due to weather) you can hear much more noise there than here since those planes are at full throttle to get off the runway. Planes flying over Palo Alto are at cruise speed and have the throttle way back since they are in a slow descent to a landing about 30 miles away.


By my observation, what has increased in Palo Alto over the past 15 years, isn't the level of plane noise, but rather the types and number of people that feel entitled to complain about small things. These people will never admit that other people have bigger problems than they do, so instead the exaggerate something minor.

Similar complaints from those who can't hear the noise. Entitlement about noise is interesting, must be the same for air pollution.

If you don't live under the path and you don't have planes flying over your home every 4-5 minutes at altitudes as low as 3,300 feet then you can't relate. Alan doesn't experience what North Palo Alto is experiencing and therefore sees no problem. Over the past ten years there are way more flights and at much lower altitude. My suggestion is that if you don't have a problem with plane noise in your area then there's really no need to post on this forum. It's really not a debate. Some neighborhoods are affected and some are not.

"My suggestion is that if you don't have a problem with plane noise in your area then there's really no need to post on this forum. It's really not a debate. Some neighborhoods are affected and some are not. "
Sounds like the few who constantly complain about plane noise do not want to hear any opinions that differ from theirs. Sorry, but it is a debate.
Unless you have spoken with all of your neighbors and they all agree with you, I do not think you can conclude that everyone in North palo alto has a problem with plane noise. And as others have pointed out you are not providing any real evidence of how much noise--just complaints about noise.
I suggest that those that have a problem get in touch with the people that matter--you are accomplishing nothing by posting on this forum.

[Post removed.]

While there is a some variation in the perception of noise among individuals, the biggest factor effecting the perception of noise among individuals with the same hearing acuity is the volume.

No problem with airplanes in Palo Alto - what neighborhood do you live in?

"It's really not a debate"

The Forum IS "a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion" and it is not restricted to opinions on just one side of an issue.

"biggest factor effecting the perception of noise among individuals with the same hearing acuity is the volume."

Do you mean the volume of the sound or the number of times the sound occurs?

Another important factor in the perception of noise is the task at hand. For instance an individual tasked with solving a complex mathematical equation, or creating a work of art, will perceive a given sound to be much noisier than someone tasked with washing a window.

@Jetman, I definitely agree regarding "the task at hand." But that is straying into the "distraction" value of the noise, which for me is not so much the loudness as the information content. Ocean waves on the beach are less distracting than somebody on a cell phone.

This is pretty cool... someone has put together a YouTube video that compresses 15 hours of air traffic over Palo Alto into 10 minutes.

You can see the commercial traffic attempting, and mostly succeeding, at executing SFO's approach plan that brings the Big Sur route (from the south), the Oceanic route (from the west), and the Point Reyes route (from the north all over Palo Alto on their way to SFO.

You can also see how in the evening when air traffic eases up on the rest of the area, the air assault on Palo Alto, eastern Menlo Park, and East Palo Alto continues throughout the evening, and up until midnight when the video ends.

15 hours of Palo Alto air traffic in 10 minutes: Web Link

SFO approach and departure plan illustrated: Web Link

That is a super presentation - good work.

This You Tube compilation is a superb resource - Thank you.

And, in my opinion, it clearly demonstrates that Palo Alto is not being disproportionately impacted by SFO traffic. Note that any such traffic is at a higher altitude when over Palo Alto than when over any city closer to SFO.

Interesting 75x time-lapse concatenation of 9:00am - 9:30pm Sunday Feb 22 WebTrak replays (date of the original post above). Nice work Lee. YouTube says 13 views so far. Must have been a little tedious pulling down and putting together all the segments. Final product speaks for itself but might be more effective with a sound track. Next project?

The original post called it "an exceptionally bad day". Best practices (among scientists anyway) are to call your most persuasive data a "typical day".

Peter,

The only areas along the three SFO approach routes that are closer to SFO than north Palo Alto are; eastern Menlo Park, and East Palo Alto. After crossing over East Palo Alto the planes descend over the Bay. With the SFO bound jets descending along a 2.85-3.0% glide path, the difference in altitude between north Palo Alto, and eastern Menlo Park, or East Palo Alto is real, but insignificant.

A rising tide lifts all boats. Any increase in altitude over Palo Alto, would also increase the altitude over eastern Menlo Park, and East Palo Alto.

15 hours of Palo Alto air traffic in 10 minutes: Web Link

SFO approach and departure plan illustrated: Web Link

"The only areas along the three SFO approach routes that are closer to SFO than north Palo Alto are; eastern Menlo Park, and East Palo Alto"

Redwood Shores, eastern San Mateo, Foster City and Burlingame would certainly disagree. Even when aircraft are directly over the bay the slant distance to these communities is far less than the altitude of these planes over Palo Alto. And many planes fly over these communities that never fly over Palo Alto.

"the difference in altitude between north Palo Alto, and eastern Menlo Park, or East Palo Alto is real, but insignificant."
Sound level increases as the inverse square of the distance ("the inverse square law is the logical first estimate of the sound you would get at a distant point in a reasonably open area.") so this statement is factually incorrect.

The more objective data is displayed on the area wide impact of SFO bound airplanes the more it is clear that Palo Alto does not bear a disproportionate share.

Unbelievable... Airbus actually builds whistles into the wings, on the A320 family of aircraft.

A320 wing whistle locations: Web Link

A320 wing whistle closeup: Web Link

Fuel Over Pressure Protector (FOPP) cavities are installed NOT to create noise but to prevent fuel overpressure when in the landing configuration.

This is identical to the use of flaps to prevent stalls when slowing for landing.

Both FOPP cavities and flaps create noise but increase safety of flight - would you prefer crashes?

Furthermore, the close-up photo shows the add-on deflector (technically a vortex generator) that was specifically designed to stop the whistling. I never cease to be amazed at the conclusions people jump to when they have preconceived notions.

Musical has accurately noted the Air Flow Deflectors fitted just forward of the FOPP relief holes.
These Air Flow Deflectors can reduce the subject tonal noise by up to 11 dBA, (depending to the approach trajectory).

Safety is retained while noise is reduced - well done Airbus.

The characteristic high pitched whistle from the A320's poorly designed FOPPs can be heard about 30 seconds into the attached video. The whistle is tuned to 500-600Hz, which is very close to peak sensitivity of the human ear. Way to go Airbus!

A320 high pitched whistle at 30 sec mark: Web Link

A320 wing whistle closeup: Web Link

Musical,

The Closeup shows a retrofitted fix developed by Lufthansa, which is only fitted to their aircraft.

A320 wing whistle closeup: Web Link

Air Flow Deflectors fitted just forward of the FOPP relief holes are available as standard fit on new Airbus deliveries and as a retrofit for ALL in-service aircraft.

Whether something is well-designed depends on how the problem was defined. Understandable to me that noise would not be a foreseeable consideration next to a pair of 30,000-pound-thrust jet turbofan engines. In hindsight the FOPP solution had its unintended consequence. And so another aeronautical engineering problem to mitigate. The pictured band-aid was not actually developed by Lufthansa, but by DLR, sort of the German equivalent to NASA.

Complex engineering design is extremely difficult to execute successfully. I am in awe that airliners can be built so safe that passengers worry more about leg-room than fastening their seatbelts. Worldwide annual airline traffic is something like 6 trillion (with a T) revenue-passenger-kilometers (ICAO data).

I am impressed with all of the technical discussion that goes on here. I will note that I flew to Paris in that plane - A320 and it was noisy INSIDE the plane. I made note to self while on that lengthy flight that I needed ear plugs and a different carrier with a Boeing plane. Now I am picky about the plane I am on and the model of the plane - not all Boeings are so great either. Noise is a big issue.

@Res1 -- I'm looking forward to whether $30K gets spent on a consultant study as the Policy & Services Committee voted a few weeks ago to recommend for City Council approval. Some interesting people lurking at that meeting. The study should come up with a good baseline data set of the present traffic situation, and hopefully suggestions for feasible SFO flight approach adjustments to pitch at the FAA. Then you'll see technical discussion hit the fan. Airspace allocations, initial approach fixes, glideslopes, ILS intercepts, NextGen implementation, performance based navigation, traffic growth projections -- or maybe not.

Off-topic sort of curious where your A320 Paris segment originated, given that it's not a particularly long-range aircraft. The A320 is the narrow body (single-aisle) plane that Sully ditched in the Hudson. The A300/A310 or A330 would be a more likely Airbus product on trans-Atlantic operations, but I don't really know.

It was an Air France SFO connection to SLC (Boeing 737-800) - at which point it was an Air France plane (A330-200) to Paris. SLC is a hub for Delta and it's partners. This was a Delta Airlines code share flight so we have already gone through the contortions of the San Mateo (aka SM) group concerning that flight.

Paris was not the final destination. Connecting flight was a A320-100/200 to Yerevan (EVN). We had many family members coming from all over for this trip. For some luggage lost in Moscow. Those on east coast using the flight on a Russian airline through Moscow reported very loud, whiney flight. I do not think they pack enough sound buffer for those planes.

Other note today - shipment of Lithium batteries. The first Malaysian flight that went down was carrying lithium batteries which were not on the manifest. United and Delta will no longer ship batteries in the hold.

Since the FAA is conducting this study then that raises the question as to the overnight freight shipments that cross over residential areas. If a plane is a freight carrier then assume that it is carrying batteries. Safety is still the key here.

There are no air France flights from slc. There are delta flights that code share with air France. You can check the SLC website and see which airlines we've that airport.
But you told this same story on a similar thread last year!!!!!!

We were discussing equipment, not the operator which could be anybody. The planes are mostly leased, as are the crews sometimes. At any rate, when it comes to noise details we will need to differentiate among aircraft models, as well as flight paths, altitudes, power settings, and approach configurations (slats, flaps, landing gear). Adjusting standard operating procedures can have a measurable effect on noise signature. Hoping the FAA is flexible enough to let us find out.

I miss those great P-3 Orions. Also the sonic booms were wonderful to hear as I walked to elementary school. And the wind tunnels at Ames during the Shuttle re-entry program. Gentle, soothing sounds from a distance.
Glowing skies from experimental rockets, the occasional Flying Wing sighting and the Blue Angels. Good times. Anybody else remember? Oh wait...that was the original Palo Alto.

Peter,

You say: "Air Flow Deflectors fitted just forward of the FOPP relief holes are available as standard fit on new Airbus deliveries and as a retrofit for ALL in-service aircraft"

What do you mean by "available as standard fit"? I know what "standard" means, and I know what "available as an option" means, but what does "available as standard fit" mean?

And, what about all of the A320s put into service without the fix. There is a big difference between "available" and retrofitted. There are plenty of A320s still out there that have not been retrofitted... you can hear the characteristic high-pitched whistle when they go over.

How did such an acoustically flawed design ever get into production in the first place? Isn't the FAA supposed to be regulating the aircraft industry?

A320 high pitched whistle at 30 sec mark: Web Link

Jetman - I am not your personal researcher; I suggest that you contact Airbus and the FAA and then share what you find.

Excuse me - why the compulsion to argue over a flight. It was SLC to CDG, AF3641 operated by Delta as DL0089. I already said it was a code share.
I just pay for the ticket and they tell me what it is. Someone from Menlo Park last year went into contortions over this. Delta is smarter than you and knows how to operate their system. They are there to make money.

If you look at the SFO arrivals on their web page half of the passengers on any flight are ticketed on foreign airlines as a code share. Their ticket reflects the foreign airline since people are using miles on those airlines.
Those are their airline partners and they have contracts with those other carriers.

The problem on the table is that the airplane is noisy inside and is not as well made as a Boeing plane. I brought up noise since noise was a topic. It was universally agreed by everyone that the planes were very noisy inside which made the trip exhausting.

The problem I am talking about is the lithium batteries being transported as freight - that is a major problem that United and Delta now recognize and are prohibiting it. My feeling is that the foreign airlines are caring it - especially if the are a freight carrier.

Resident1 stated first:
"at which point it was an Air France plane (A330-200) to Paris"

Then when I pointed out that it was delta flight, code shared with air France, resident 1 says:
"Excuse me - why the compulsion to argue over a flight. It was SLC to CDG, AF3641 operated by Delta as DL0089. I already said it was a code share."

How the passengers were ticketed and whether it is noisy inside or not is irrelevant to the discussion of airplane noise in Palo Alto. And what lithium batteries have to do with this topic of discussion, I do not know.

Regardless, please provide factual data for claims of airplane noise over Palo Alto, not anecdotal comments

BTDT,

To understand the relevance of lithium batteries to this discussion, please see the story below:

"New Investigative Report on Boeing Dreamliner and the Li-ion Battery Fires"
Aviation Impact Reform ~ September 12, 2014 Web Link

[Post removed.]

I am looking at the SF Chronicle 03/04 - "Airlines - Volatile Battery Shipments rejected". Associated Press. Page A6

"To understand the relevance of lithium batteries to this discussion.."

There is no relevance to this discussion of airplane noise over Palo Alto.

Noise is only one issue - altitude is an issue, and safety is an issue.
I am looking at safety. My treat.

Please feel free to start a new topic on the matter of your interest.

flygirl,

Are you talking about the days when people would dress up to travel?

Some planes are lower over Palo Alto then have to increase altitude to go over the Dumbarton Bridge and the electrical grid, as well as the San Mateo Bridge. I observed that again in Redwood City - plane arriving nose up - not nose horizontal or nose down. Need to check if there is a minimal altitude for going over those key locations in the SFO arrival path.
There has to be a point in that location - Menlo check that triggers an air controller advisement if too low that is causing that readjustment.
I can see that they have to get into alignment with the other planes that are arriving from the east coast and are on the other runway. So there is definitely maneuvering in that location to avert key ground impediments.

"plane arriving nose up"

The plane is simply raising its nose to slow its speed - it is not raising its nose to climb.

The controllers will frequently call for speed reductions while a plane is on approach to SFO in order to maintain safe spacing between that aircraft and the one in front of it.

Look at the radar data.

The questions of the day:
1. Is there a minimum altitude the planes need to be at to go over the Dumbarton Bridge with the associated power grid in that location and the San Mateo Bridge?
2. Is there a location point at which the air controllers advise the planes they are too low and need to increase altitude?
3. What part does the FAA at PAO interact in this process? If at all?
The fact that they are there suggests that they are interacting with the planes that are commercial - to SFO / San Jose/ Oakland.
Do you know the answer?

"1. Is there a minimum altitude the planes need to be at to go over the Dumbarton Bridge with the associated power grid in that location and the San Mateo Bridge? "
The crossing altitude at ROKME ( which is quite near the western end of the Dumbarton Bridge) is 4000 ft.
The crossing altitude at MENL is also 4000 ft.

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1503/00375R28L.PDF

"2. Is there a location point at which the air controllers advise the planes they are too low and need to increase altitude?"
Anytime a plane on an instrument approach descends below the proscribed glide path they are given an alert by the controller.

"3. What part does the FAA at PAO interact in this process? If at all?"
All the FAA facilities in the Bay Area are in direct communication with Bay Control. Bay Control coordinates the interaction between all the Bay Area airports and hands off particular flights to specific airports.

It took me a while to find it but here is the FAA policy on low altitude alerts:
"2-1-6. SAFETY ALERT

Issue a safety alert to an aircraft if you are aware the aircraft is in a position/altitude that, in your judgment, places it in unsafe proximity to terrain, obstructions, or other aircraft. Once the pilot informs you action is being taken to resolve the situation, you may discontinue the issuance of further alerts. Do not assume that because someone else has responsibility for the aircraft that the unsafe situation has been observed and the safety alert issued; inform the appropriate controller.

NOTE-
1. The issuance of a safety alert is a first priority (see para 2-1-2, Duty Priority) once the controller observes and recognizes a situation of unsafe aircraft proximity to terrain, obstacles, or other aircraft. Conditions, such as workload, traffic volume, the quality/limitations of the radar system, and the available lead time to react are factors in determining whether it is reasonable for the controller to observe and recognize such situations. While a controller cannot see immediately the development of every situation where a safety alert must be issued, the controller must remain vigilant for such situations and issue a safety alert when the situation is recognized.

2. Recognition of situations of unsafe proximity may result from MSAW/E-MSAW/LAAS, automatic altitude readouts, Conflict/Mode C Intruder Alert, observations on a PAR scope, or pilot reports.

3. Once the alert is issued, it is solely the pilot's prerogative to determine what course of action, if any, will be taken.

a. Terrain/Obstruction Alert. Immediately issue/initiate an alert to an aircraft if you are aware the aircraft is at an altitude that, in your judgment, places it in unsafe proximity to terrain and/or obstructions. Issue the alert as follows:

PHRASEOLOGY-
LOW ALTITUDE ALERT (call sign),

CHECK YOUR ALTITUDE IMMEDIATELY.

and, if the aircraft is not yet on final approach,

THE (as appropriate) MEA/MVA/MOCA/MIA IN YOUR AREA IS (altitude),"

Web Link

Thank you for the information. What I am getting out of this is that the area between Menlo Park and San Mateo is protected to an altitude level by virtue of the bridges and power lines. There is nothing we would do from Santa Clara county to impact that FAA designated altitude level.

The bottom line for that area is 4,000 altitude, and I am seeing higher for that area. However - prior to entering that designated area we can see lower altitudes that then have to adjust to the higher altitude.

Maybe we can eliminate the argument that we are impacting those areas - including Atherton - since the planes are at least at 4,000 altitude through FAA direction.

So that area may be doing better that Santa Clara county on any busy day.

"However - prior to entering that designated area we can see lower altitudes that then have to adjust to the higher altitude."

I see very little evidence on the radar tracks of SFO bound flights being lower than 4000 ft before they cross the county line.

"Maybe we can eliminate the argument that we are impacting those areas - including Atherton - since the planes are at least at 4,000 altitude through FAA direction."

North bound SFO bound planes are often just descending below 4000 ft as they pass over eastern Atherton, eastern Menlo Park and East Palo Alto. SFO bound planes over western Atherton are usually headed south prior to turning north for their final approach to SFO and this portion of their flight is almost always above 4000 ft.

Look at the vertical flight profile in the lower right of this chart:

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1503/00375R28L.PDF

And note the altitudes for the ROMKE-HEMAN and MENLO-HEMAN flight segments - both go from 4000 ft down to 3100 ft.

I am not opening any more cite lines. Did that and my computer is very unhappy - especially when I am in the PA ON-Line system. Someone has used an incompatible cite line.

I check the cite used for the San Jose system and I can pick out on any day what is going on thank you.

I would appreciate it if you would not cherry pick my comments - rather look at the total intent. Yes - we have the planes coming south to rotate back up to the SFO arrival path - they are rotating over my house. That has been pointed out 100 times.

For the purposes of this discussion whether they rotate over my house - South PA - is just more of the same. By the time they cross up back to SFO they are required to be at least at 4,000 altitude. That is the same for the trans-pacific planes - they have to increase altitude to get over the mountains then come barreling down and have to get back up in the SFO turn.

So the theory that Santa Clara is somehow affecting the Menlo to San Mateo cities and we are the perpetrators does not cut it.

The planes are bottoming out at the point they make the rotation and then have to gain altitude to get over the bridges and electrical grid. This is not about you or Atherton - it is about the bridges and the electrical grid.

"The planes are bottoming out at the point they make the rotation and then have to gain altitude to get over the bridges and electrical grid."

Come on - I have already shown that the planes have to be at or ABOVE 4000 ft at ROMKE and there is no radar track data to show that they go below 4000 ft before ROMKE.


" That is the same for the trans-pacific planes - they have to increase altitude to get over the mountains then come barreling down and have to get back up in the SFO turn."

That is simply not supported by the radar track data. These planes approach skyline ridge from well over 6000 ft and are in a constant descent from the time they leave their cruise altitude.

Going down and coming back up costs fuel = costs money - so the airlines simply do not do that.

This link has been verified:

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1503/00375R28L.PDF

How many thousand feet off of the ground are the bridge and electrical grid?????? Are these the same planes that were seen flying so low over california avenues and el camino that they were going to crash into the buildings.
What about the air France flight from SLC to Paris-- how low does that fly?

Agenda - I have no idea how high the bridges are - Dumbarton Bridge and San Mateo Bridge - much higher. That is not the issue -the issue is what is the FAA requirement for altitude required for that area. They have to make sure that planes are not flying in to the bridges. The power grid in that area is very tall and is a key electrical grid.
Any flight in mid- process is a different topic - not part of this discussion.
We are talking about planes that are in preparation for arrival and landing.
Our discussions do include objective view of the flight tracker systems that are available on the SFO web site. There are anomalies in the systems which are commercial systems - if a plane is in a go-around - making a second attempt to land then it tends to drop off the tracking system.

"the issue is what is the FAA requirement for altitude required for that area"

Question asked and answered - again and again.

What is not clear?

"The power grid in that area is very tall and is a key electrical grid."
Since you claim that it is very tall, how tall? 100 feet? 500 feet? 1000 feet?
Are you claiming that planes are flying 1000 feet off of the ground in that area ? This is another version of the unproven claims that planes are flying very low over the area.
Peter has shown what the altitude is over that area. What part of those facts are not clear?
Bottom line, there is no real airplane noise problem in this area. Just 2-3 people constant,y complaining on this forum about a non- existent problem.
Maybe you should direct your claims to the proper authorities instead of posting on this forum, if you really think there is a problem and really want a solution,

Agenda,

Who are the proper authorities?

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

The tallest towers near the Dumbarton are charted as 381 feet (above mean sea level).
These are the ones holding the high voltage electrical cables over the boat channel.

Towers at the San Mateo Bridge are charted as 320 feet.
The KNBR radio tower out past Redwood Shores, near San Carlos airport, is 563 feet.

Such heights are immaterial for the commercial aircraft tracks under discussion.