I'm not surprised at all. The more people complain about airplane noise, the more noise they perceive. The complaints are far more annoying than any airplane passing overhead. One thing that really frustrates me is how everyone here is all of a sudden an FAA certified air traffic controller. Most couldn't tell the difference between a 767 and an A320. You have no idea if the plane you are seeing is departing San Jose, arriving at San Francisco, possibly a military or NASA plane from Moffett. In the words of former NFL coach Jim Mora, "You think you know, but your really don't know...and you never will."

Read a little about the mid-air collision of PSA 182 down in San Diego, and some of the changes that were made to keep the skies safer. Then, maybe you'll understand why things are the way they are, and you might actually say "thanks!" to the FAA for their hard work.

Note that this is the city of Atherton - not Palo Alto.

That tells us that San Mateo County - of which Atherton is a part - has successfully moved the flight line down to Santa Clara County.

As to knowing what plane is in the sky most people at this time know that they can access the flight trackers that tells them the information on any plane going over - Flight number, destination, type plane, and altitude as the plane is going over. It also indicates which airports are the destination.

Since Atherton has been a rigorous complainer against Surf Air where does that come into the calculation here. Atherton would have us believe that Surf Air is their main noise element.

Resident 1 "Note that this is the city of Atherton - not Palo Alto. "

Fine - just show us the real Palo Alto airplane noise data. I have asked for this for years and there is none.

And when that data is collected I am confident that Palo Alto will be well below the 65 bd CNEL.

Peter Carpenter,

You mean be careful what you wish for, with FAA numbers.

FAA numbers are meant to dismiss and ignore actual noise. How else does 71.5 become 43.13.

It's not real experience - FAA numbers are ONLY meant for airlines to disturb the peace at no cost.

"It's not real experience"

Laws always have to have a specific standard.

The police use Blood Alcohol Level to determine if you are over the legal limit - it does not measure the peak level but the biologically smoothed level at some point after you drank alcohol.

The City of Palo Alto measures noise over a six minute period:
"(d) "Local ambient" means the lowest sound level repeating itself during a six-minute period as measured with a precision sound level meter, using slow response and "A" weighting. The minimum sound level shall be determined with the noise source at issue silent, and in the same location as the measurement of the noise level of the source or sources at issue. However, for purposes of this chapter, in no case shall the local ambient be considered or determined to be less than: (1) Thirty dBA for interior noise in Section 9.10.030(b); (2) Forty dBA in all other sections. If a significant portion of the local ambient is produced by one or more individual identifiable sources which would otherwise be operating continuously during the six-minute measurement period and contributing significantly to the ambient sound level, determination of the local ambient shall be accomplished with these separate identifiable noise sources silent."

"So be careful what you wish for when you demand a professional noise study."

So back off, Kiddies. Peter and the federal bureaucrats have ginned up a bunch of numbers (with decimal points, no less. WooHoo!!!) that say you got no problem. That 747 is all in your head.

"An engineer is a professional practitioner of engineering, concerned with applying scientific knowledge, mathematics, and ingenuity to develop solutions for technical, societal and commercial problems. "

Peter Carpenter,

The City of Palo Alto has other ordinances which don't allow you to - for example- run construction at night.

There are some basic respect and decency guidelines to respect someone's right to the quiet enjoyment of their home.

The FAA has funny numbers which are known to be bad for people and only good for their protected noise makers - the airlines.

' "An engineer is a professional practitioner of engineering, concerned with applying scientific knowledge, mathematics, and ingenuity to develop solutions for technical, societal and commercial problems." '

Yup. That's me. No bureaucrat, nor in their thrall.

And you?


(Geez, don't you have anything better to do than troll this forum?)

"The FAA has funny numbers which are known to be bad for people "

Please cite your references for this claim.

"That 747 is all in your head."

True - here is an excellent explanation:
"Sound is energy — energy that
conveys information to the listener.
Although measuring this energy is a
straight- forward technical exercise,
describing sound energy in ways that
are meaningful to people is complex.
This TIP explains some of the basic
principles of sound measurement
and analysis.
NOISE -
UNWANTED SOUND
Noise is often defined as unwanted
sound. For example, rock-and-roll
on the stereo of the resident of
apartment 3A is music to her ears,
but it is intolerable racket to the next
door neighbor in 3B. One might
think that the louder the sound, the
more likely it is to be considered
noise. This is not necessarily true. In
our example, the resident of apartment
3A is surely exposed to higher
sound levels than her neighbor in
3B, yet she considers the sound as
pleasant while the neighbor considers
it “noise.” While it is possible to
measure the sound level objectively,
characterizing it as “noise” is a subjective
judgement.
The characterization of a sound as
“noise” depends on many factors,
including the information content
of the sound, the familiarity of the
sound, a person’s control over the
sound, and a person’s activity at the
time the sound is heard."

Peter Carpenter,

The FAA does not even count children - they only measure "annoyance" for an average adult.

That is the reference I am providing to show how funny the FAA numbers are.

Not funny.

FAA numbers are ONLY to protect the noise makers - the airlines.

Oh I forget, they protect people by sometimes affording insulation. Cheap airlines.

Oops - did I confuse the FAA with Airlines?

Sometimes I can't tell the difference.

Federal Airlines Agency

"Sound is energy"

Wrong at the very beginning. Sound is energy FLUX, measured in Watts per unit area.

The remainder of your posting does, however, give an excellent explanation why numbers by themselves are meaningless in this topic.

As Richard Hamming notes at the front of his classic Numerical Methods for Scientists and Engineers: "The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers."

That in a nutshell is the difference between engineers and your bureaucrats.

It is very disingenuous for the FAA to use dB as the unit of measure for CNEL, because CNEL is an average over a 24 hour period. Db/24hr would be a better unit for CNEL, but still not correct since CNEL is actually a weighted average.

The only measurement taken for which it is appropriate to use dB for the unit of measure is SEL (Single Event Level), and the SEL measurements are actually quite high (61.3-71.5dB).

60-65dB is generally considered to be the sound level of a "normal" conversation, so another noise source of 60dB or greater will certainly disrupt a conversation, listening to music, the radio, TV, or even sleep...

If someone walked into your bedroom and had a 30-60 second conversation in your bedroom, would that wake you up?

Bottom line - There is no data for airplane noise over Palo Alto.

Lots of opinions and beliefs but no data.

Peter Carpenter,


Facts are that the FAA, airports, and airlines have failed to measure noise in Palo Alto but are dumping it freely.

"Facts are that the FAA, airports, and airlines have failed to measure noise in Palo Alto "

Atherton measured the noise and now Portola Valley is going to do the same - why is Palo Alto unwilling or afraid to do the same?

I suspect because they know, from the basic physics involved, that the Palo Alto noise levels will be substantially lower than those experienced by East Palo Alto, eastern Menlo Park, Redwood Shores, Foster City, etc.

Are you calling measuring one person's house noise data?

Peter Carpenter,

"Beginning at 2 pm on May 13 through 11 am on May 14, Coffman Associates (Airport Consultants) conducted noise monitoring at 37 Holbrook Lane"

Not even 24 hours, 1 address.

This is the Atherton data?

Why is Peter Carpenter scooping the Almanac and Palo Alto Online on this story, and how did Peter Carpenter get access to the report before it is even published on Atherton's aircraft noise webpage?

Atherton Aircraft Noise webpage: Web Link

Here is the complete report:

Web Link

Here is Palo Alto's report:
ZERO

"how did Peter Carpenter get access to the report before it is even published on Atherton's aircraft noise webpage?"

I got it from the Atherton web site - you just have to look. Other posters might try doing the same.

Peter Carpenter,

I am not seeing the scoop here.

I see the "full report" of noise at 1 address.

I don't see anything else.

1 Atherton house's noise.

"I am not seeing the scoop here. "

It just some data vs no data - no scoop, just facts

"Lots of opinions and beliefs but no data."

There is no difference among these three. The FAA "data" is meaningless. Neither the bureaucrats that collect it nor those that purport to analyze it know jack about sound or acoustics.

That goes double for their flack on this thread.

@FAA Numbers wrote:

"Facts are that the FAA, airports, and airlines have failed to measure noise in Palo Alto but are dumping it freely."

Facts are that when given the chance to complain about the airplane noise, only three percent of Palo Altans did so.

Kazu,

Complaining about leaf blowers would probably be ok, but when it gets to airplanes.....

This whole thing smells really fishy...

1. Even though the "study" was somehow published on the Atherton City website, the "study" results are addressed to Gretchen Kelly, manager of the San Carlos Airport... this would lead one to believe that Gretchen Kelly commissioned the study, not the City of Atherton.

2. The contractor is headquartered in Missouri, and has an office in Arizona... so the contractor comes all the way from Missouri, or Arizona, to instrument ONE house in Atherton? What kind of contractor would design, and carry out such an meaningless study, and who paid for it.

3. Peter Carpenter "scoops" the Palo Alto Weekly and The Almanac, and breaks the story on Palo Alto Online instead of the Almanac, even though this is really a story about Atherton.

One begins to wonder if this whole BS "study" is just some infantile stunt cooked up by Peter Carpenter, Gretchen Kelly, and whoever lives at 37 Holbrook Lane.

Atherton and San Mateo officials need to answer some serious questions about how this unscientific "study" came about, how it came to be published on the official City of Atherton website, and what was San Mateo County employee, Gretchen Kelly's role in this whole affair.

San Carlos Airport has a financial interests in increasing the air traffic at their airport. San Mateo County has a financial interest since county airports are subsidized by the county. Given the location of the airport there is current and proposed building planned for the CALTRAIN corridor in that area, as well as the entire CALTRAIN corridor. The newspapers are advertising a new housing development on the San Mateo baylands which would be impacted by airport flight routes.

The city of Atherton has interjected itself into the county subsidized airport effort. This study is concerned with redirecting Surf Air flight routes and is working with the FAA to accomplish this. This directly affects the cities since Surf Air uses Middlefield Road as it's flight path. All cities from Mountain View to San Carlos have schools located in proximity to Middlefield Road.

Thank you for the heads up. It points again to the continued desire to have noise monitors in Palo Alto. The FAA has offices at the Palo Alto Airport so assume the reference to FAA personnel is people from that office. Palo Alto should be working with the FAA office to coordinate the overall effort.

The city of Palo Alto needs to get on the ball and put noise monitors in at strategic locations - the hills over which the western flights arrive and valley floor.

Side note: the FAA is activating a number of newer air control systems - En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM), Automated Flight Service Station (AFSS), and Direct User Access Terminal services (DUATS) so now is the time for the city to actively get involved in the overall flight traffic over the city.

San Jose Airport is leaning in to reverse it's flight routes part of the day over the southern part of the city and use the PAO as a rotation point to access the San Jose Airport. This then affects the SFO traffic. Oakland is increasing it's Hawaii flights which come over the southern part of the city to head out over the ocean.

All airports are seeking to increase the number of airlines and number of planes in the traffic pattern. The City of Palo Alto needs to get in the conversation with the FAA and be an active participant in the decisions as to flight traffic.

So typical - people demand data and then when the data does not support their preconceived bias they try yo discredit the data:
"One begins to wonder if this whole BS "study" is just some infantile stunt cooked up by Peter Carpenter, Gretchen Kelly, and whoever lives at 37 Holbrook Lane."

IF you take time to read the Coffman Study you will note that they recorded 381 discrete events of which 124 were roadway, 98 jet aircraft and 38 propeller aircraft - it would be a lot more work to fake these events than it was to actually record them.

Given the statement in the report "noise measurement services for San Carlos Airport." it appears that the study was done for the airport and, I presume, in response to a request from the Town of Atherton. Here is an excerpt from the Town Manager's Report that led me to the document:
"3. Surf Air Noise Monitoring (Attachment)
Beginning at 2 pm on May 13 through 11 am on May 14, Coffman Associates (Airport Consultants) conducted noise monitoring at 37 Holbrook Lane. Attached is a summary of the findings. Staff will place this Report n the Town’s Aircraft Noise webpage."

No conspiracy, no stunt, just facts - and facts that discredit the claim that there is a significant airplane noise problem.
****************
"The city of Palo Alto needs to get on the ball and put noise monitors in at strategic locations - the hills over which the western flights arrive and valley floor."

I agree but caution that it is, given the physics of sound from airplanes that are usually at least 4000 ft overhead, very unlikely that such a study will show a greater than 65 CNEL db. and it is very likely that such a study will show that the ground noise footprint in Palo Alto is substantially less than that of East Palo Alto, eastern Menlo Park, Redwood Shores, Belmont and Foster City.

Peter Carpenter,

You are creating a silly competition of who has the most noise data, and who has more/less noise with a noise report of ONE house in Atherton.

Using ONE house in Atherton to make your case is very similar to how the FAA fails to really count noise.

The Coffman Report recorded 98 jet aircraft and 38 propeller aircraft - not exactly nothing.

There is ZERO professionally recorded airplane noise data for Palo Alto.

146 events vs ZERO = no contest.

But the more important point was that many of the airplane events recorded over Atherton were from flights that were lower over Atherton than they were when those flights were over Palo Alto and they still did not come anywhere close to the 65 CNEL db level - so when and IF Palo Alto every bothers to record such data it is highly likely that their nose levels will be even lower.

>> As it relates to aircraft noise, Federal and State guidelines state that a CNEL of 65 decibels or lower is compatible for residential use.

Ih great a number from the government. Clearly that number is a number to please the industry. That has nothing to say about measurements and again, typical dismissiveness from the poster.

Also, one measurement is one measurement. Surely someone must have mentioned that statistics tend to work in the other direction ... take a lot of measurements and then you "might" be able to have in idea about other single measurements, or the issue under discussion.

" one measurement is one measurement"

Please read the Coffman Report - they recorded 98 jet aircraft and 38 propeller aircraft - not exactly one event.

" typical dismissiveness from the poster." - only because my facts do not agree with your opinion.

I have repeatedly stated that I acknowledge that a small number of people in Palo Alto, and elsewhere, are sensitive to and impacted by airplane noise. The issues are 1) should their acknowledge problem be solved by giving it to someone else and 2) is their problem worse than that of other people in other communities.

In my opinion the answer to the first question is No and the answer to the second question is that there is no data to show that Palo Alto residents, even the noise sensitive ones, are more impacted by aircraft noise than are their fellow citizens in other communities.

Peter Carpenter,

Yes we have noticed, you repeatedly state things related to Palo Alto airplane noise.

Now you keep trying to egg a contest with your noise report from ONE house in Atherton.

Why is this so important to you?

"Why is this so important to you?"

Because I believe that public debate and decision making should be driven by facts - and so far Palo Alto has contributed no facts regarding documented ground level noise from airplanes.

[Post removed.]

@ Peter Carpenter

Was this study done at your home? At your request?

"What kind of contractor would design, and carry out such an meaningless study, and who paid for it."

Contractors do what their customers pay them to do. Follow the money trail to its source.

"@ Peter Carpenter

Was this study done at your home? At your request?"

No and No.

I certainly would not fault anyone who wants to know the noise levels at their house and orders such a study.

What I will venture to say is that I agree that it would be nice to have measurements for Palo Alto. In all likelihood, our noise levels would turn out to be higher than the ones in the Atherton study, since flight trackers clearly show more SFO flights and lower SFO flights over PA than over Atherton, as well as many Surf Air flights in PA as well, not counting PAO flights and SJC flights that we also get.

"In all likelihood, our noise levels would turn out to be higher than the ones in the Atherton study, since flight trackers clearly show more SFO flights and lower SFO flights over PA than over Atherton, as well as many Surf Air flights in PA as well, not counting PAO flights and SJC flights that we also get."

Remember the physics of sound - the higher the plane the lower the sound level on the ground. ALL of the planes that fly over Palo Alto are at higher altitudes than when those planes proceed to SFO. At the ground sound level decreases by the square of the distance so a plane at 4000 ft creates 16 times less ground noise than a plane at 1000 ft. . Even if you double the density of flights over Palo Alto at 4000 ft you would still have less total ground noise than another community with half the density but planes flying lower.

Please do the actual measurements since that is what has now been done in Atherton and will be done in Portola Valley.

IF it is proven that Palo Alto has a higher ground level CNEL than Redwood Shores or Foster City I will donate $1000 to the charity of the Publisher's choice.

But see, Peter,

Redwood Shores, and especially Foster City are MUCH closer to SFO than Palo Alto. People who decide to go live in Foster City do so knowing that they will be only 7 or 8 miles away from the airport, directly south of it, and will have noise from it. Palo Alto is TWENTY miles away and should not have to deal with such noise. As a matter of fact, Palo Alto did not deal with that kind of noise until the mid- to late nineties when much of the inbound SFO traffic was shifted away from San Mateo county to northern Santa Clara County, ie Palo Alto (I am fully aware that the problem is also acute in East Palo Alto and eastern Menlo Park).

Peter,

No measurement have been taken for Town of Atherton. The study you link to only measures one day, at one address, in Atherton (37 Holbrook Lane). Your questionable study could not possibly represent the Town of Atherton.

Furthermore, YOU do not represent the Town of Atherton. Next time, get your facts straight before publishing a fake news story, and come back to Town Square for a fact based discussion when the City of Atherton has completed a professional, well designed study, that represents the whole Town of Atherton.

Speaking of facts... the cover letter to the your study is addressed to San Carlos Airport Manager Gretchen Kelly. I am still waiting for you to tell us the facts about who commissioned your study, and who paid for it?

"No measurement have been taken for Town of Atherton. The study you link to only measures one day, at one address, in Atherton (37 Holbrook Lane)."

Whenever the proponents are faced with real data they become deniers.

What is not real about the professionally recorded ground sound levels from 98 jet aircraft and 38 propeller aircraft?

" I am still waiting for you to tell us the facts about who commissioned your study, and who paid for it?"

I did not commission the study and I did not pay for it.

Why am I expected to do your homework?

You don't like the facts so you are trying to change the subject!

Deal with the data?

Where is the comparable Palo Alto data?

Amazing how the weekly deletes any questioning of the people who constantly complain about the noise, yet leave untouched the rude comments by jetman et Al. How much has sky posse donated to the weekly?

This is what I figure would happen with any Palo Alto noise measurement -- arguing that we need a professional independent monitor at every single address in the City, running 24/7 in perpetuity.

The useful part of the 37 Holbrook Lane data would be the sound profiles of the specific 98 jet aircraft and 38 propeller aircraft, given their distances, altitudes, and aircraft type. I know what they say about assumptions, but such data would go a long way in modeling the dB levels of every flight path recorded by a radar service like WebTrak, which is a 24/7 monitor already in place.

The Holbrook Lane data may also verify the sound vs distance relationship, whether or not inverse square. Yes, there will probably be a couple dB variation dependent on meteorological conditions, but a few more data sets and we'd be able to fold those in also.

While CNEL is one aggregate measure, even with night time more heavily weighted, the fact that it remains within FAA guidelines is unsatisfactory to those bothered by all the peak events. I suspect we could throw in a couple sonic booms every day and still be below the CNEL limit.

All I am / have been looking at here is a bunch of "absolutes" which have no basis in reality over the long haul - day in and day out.
1. I keep seeing these altitude "rules" which are broken every day. Large planes do go over the DB Bridge at less than 4,000 feet - more typically 3,700 ft.
2. Large planes do go over PA from San Jose at extremely low altitudes - see 06/21 and 06/22 - San Jose flights over PA. On any one day you have "commute" periods with slow periods in between. During the commute periods with heavy traffic then everyone is trying to get into a position for landing. Planes are staging themselves to get into the line for arrivals and are using different altitudes in the wait line.
3. Noise on the ground is affected by the amount of canopy overhead. Some areas have few trees and some areas have solid canopy. The amount of canopy interferes with the transmission of noise.
4. Some areas are in a wind belt, usually in the area of tall buildings - which channel wind, air and noise down a street. You all have been in those situations where the wind almost knocks you over. There are variations that modify the ability to monitor noise effectively. It has to be done for a long period to accommodate the variations.
5. People who do not live directly under the flight line - that means visual observation on the plane that is directly overhead - can sit and make comments but anyone who looks at the trackers can see that certain areas of the city get no overhead flights. It would be appreciated that if you do not get any direct overhead flights then display some courtesy in your comments - you are coming from a different experience of what is going on.

@resident 1, regarding items 1-4 above, do you have sound measurements from even one location in Palo Alto?

"It would be appreciated that if you do not get any direct overhead flights then display some courtesy in your comments - you are coming from a different experience of what is going on."

Appreciated by whom? Certainly not by me. That not living directly underneath overhead flights has nothing useful to contribute is both illogical and incorrect. Those claiming aircraft noise in Palo Alto is excessive have provided zero evidence that they are anything other than a tiny minority.

Well this "tiny minority" must be on to something, Kazu. Otherwise, such people as Peter Carpenter and yourself, who are OFFICIALLY not bothered by airplane noise, would not spend near as much time and energy on these threads disparaging this "tiny minority". You would ignore it instead. That you are here is a testimony that there IS indeed a noise problem. You just do not want it addressed.

"Otherwise, such people as Peter Carpenter and yourself, who are OFFICIALLY not bothered by airplane noise, would not spend near as much time and energy on these threads disparaging this "tiny minority"."

On the contrary, we will continue to challenge those who claim that there is a disproportionate impact on Palo Alto because we refuse to allow you to pursue the Big Lie technique of continuing to claim there is a problem without being challenged. And your attempt to claim that only those who feel impacted are legitimate posters is simply a vain attempt to silence your critics. So far the data is not on your side.

Peter Carpenter,

"we will continue to challenge those who claim that there is a disproportionate impact on Palo Alto because we refuse to allow you to pursue the Big Lie technique of continuing to claim there is a problem without being challenged."

Peter - who is "we" ?

You and kazu, you and Atherton?

Pretty strong words about "refuse to allow."

I think you have an imaginary contest going on in your head, and "some thoughts" whoever you are are- are you aware you have a "we" after you?

"Peter - who is "we" ?"

Those of us who believe that this discussion should be based on facts and data rather than emotion and propaganda.

Peter Carpenter,

Noise is a subjective thing and how people react to it will vary.The FAA numbers on how they measure noise do not help the situation - since they barely count the effects. The discount the effects.

Anyway, the FAA can't make science out of people's emotions and reactions to noise. Neither can you. It just is what it is, and what you are promoting is just as much propaganda.

Propaganda to justify the noise.

Sound levels are objective facts.

Perception to noise is, as acknowledged many times, very individual.

The Palo Alto airplane noise claimants have yet to produce facts and data.

Public policy decisions and standard setting for acceptable levels of any irritant must be made on the basis of facts rather than on the basis of opinions or emotions.

Peter Carpenter,

How can pubic policy be made on the basis of the noise measurements of ONE house in Atherton?

Or a contest between one house in Atherton and another in Palo Alto.

There has been no lack of trying to integrate into the SFO Roundtable and get the city to install noise monitors. We must be close to that goal I sense a desperation here.
Folks - power on with your complaints to the various airport locations.- we must be gaining ground.

@Peter,

I'm not saying you don't have valid arguments, but for someone who lives in Atherton you spend an awful lot of time posting about noise in Palo Alto. It's so much that I suspect you have a financial stake in this topic. Do you? If so, perhaps you should disclose it.

FAA numbers,

"How can pubic(sic) policy be made on the basis of the noise measurements of ONE house in Atherton?
Or a contest between one house in Atherton and another in Palo Alto."

No one is trying to do that. But I have yet to see any data from Palo Alto. I spend quite a bit of time in Atherton and I reside in Palo Alto. IMO sound from aircraft is a much larger issue in Atherton, at least where I am, compared to where I am in Palo Alto. Granted the sounds from aircraft I hear in Palo Alto might be getting drowned out by CalTrain, which probably disturbs more people in Palo Alto than any aircraft, but that's another issue.

Cities, airports, FAA, and other similar organizations can't operate off of perceptions and emotions. Give them hard data and prove them wrong.

". It's so much that I suspect you have a financial stake in this topic. Do you?"

None - as I have posted numerous times.

My concern is with having an open dialogue and with making good public policy decisions.

Peter Carpenter,

Why do you need to be involved in a dialogue about Palo Alto complaints about airplane noise?

You have called Palo Alto comments "the Big Lie technique" - you really have no place in any dialogue with people's concerns that you call a lie.

And public policy decisions should not be based on noise measures for ONE house in Atherton.

Noise is the human perception of sound. Noise measurements only measure sound. CNEL is a way the FAA ESTIMATES noise, based on sound measurements (or more typically computer models of sound). The human being is the standard for noise. If the ESTIMATE say something is not noisy, and people say it is... then it is noisy, and ESTIMATE is wrong.

Before Moffett Field closed and the constant stream of Navy P-3's stopped flying over Palo Alto, airliners used to take "the Woodside Cutoff" over the Santa Cruz mountains. This cutoff took the planes over Atherton and Woodside. After the P-3's left, the air space was reallocated and flight paths moved further south.

Moving the flight paths south was a political decision and it can be readdressed by political means. However, there will probably be resistance from residents of Woodside and Atherton.

Why do you need to be involved in a dialogue about Palo Alto complaints about airplane noise?"

Because every citizen has a responsibility to engage on issues which will impact others.

You are trying to silence your critics - sorry, but democracy doesn't work that way.

Peter, your town got itself snookered big time with a meaningless "noise survey" and a shiny meretricious report. You should be demanding an investigation into the wilful waste of your tax money instead of holding Atherton up to ridicule in the forums.

There's a bright side, though. Atherton's decorum will be eternally grateful that those consultants weren't posing as purveyors of magical attire visible to only the elect.

Cur - How do you know who paid for this study?
How much did it cost?
What right do you as a Palo Alto resident have to question anything that the Town of
Atherton may or may not have done? Or do you agree with me that place of residency
does not define or limit a citizen's responsibility of inquiry?

@FAA numbers, you keep saying ONE house in Atherton. It was really just one square inch of one yard of one house. Clearly no validity for adjacent square inches.

"Cur - How do you know who paid for this study? How much did it cost? What right do you as a Palo Alto resident have to question anything that the Town of Atherton may or may not have done?"

I had no idea I was inquiring into something so personally perturbing. Take it easy--town government goofups like this are not uncommon.

But do you agree with me that place of residency does not define or limit a citizen's responsibility of inquiry?

@Some thoughts wrote:

"Well this "tiny minority" must be on to something, Kazu. Otherwise, such people as Peter Carpenter and yourself, who are OFFICIALLY not bothered by airplane noise, would not spend near as much time and energy on these threads disparaging this "tiny minority". You would ignore it instead. "That you are here is a testimony that there IS indeed a noise problem. You just do not want it addressed."

In other words, if we dare to disagree with you, then you must be right? What kind of pretzel logic is that? Or do you have some concrete facts to back that up?

"who are OFFICIALLY not bothered by airplane noise, would not spend near as much time and energy on these threads"

We spend our time here in order to counter an attempt by a small number of individuals to proclaim a problem that does not exist (that Palo Alto is disproportionately impacted by ground level airplane noise compared to other communities) and then to selfishly attempt to solve that alleged problem by giving it away to other communities.

I am sick to my stomach over the noise my family has endured this evening from 8pm until after 11pm. Continual planes flying low over our home one after the other. Not only is this a noise issue, but it is a pollution issue too.

Another loud plane over my home at 11:45 and 11:47 and 11:53pm. How can anyone sleep and get up for work tomorrow? Pali Alto has a serious problem for the residents that live under these flight paths.

@Disgusted, I also live in Downtown North, but have not heard any loud airplane noise. And I have the windows open, too. Also no chemtrails as far as I can tell. The local traffic noise is greater, and that isn't loud at all.

Kazu - what side of Downtown North are you on? Near train tracks or Middlefield?

Another loud plane at 12:23 and 12:27pm! I'm sure I will be sleeping through my meetings tomorrow. Thanks FAA for the good night sleep!

Peter - you are a small number who spends a huge amount of time on this thread that is oriented to Palo Alto residents. I do not see other people from Atherton who are on this thread. So the complaining that "we" have a duty to counter the small number of PA residents is from where I am sitting a small number vs a small number.

Maybe all of the PA residents should jump on the Almanac and start complaining about the airplane noise. Then you could respond on your own city forum.

Resident - The problem is that the small number of complainers simply have never been able to provide any data that shows that Palo Alto is disproportionately impacted by ground level airplane noise compared to other communities and yet they insist that their perceived problem be solved by shifting it to somewhere else.

I don't care if I am the only one that points out that you have no comparative data - the fact remains that you have no comparative data.

And over the years only a few dozen individual posters have registered their complaints about this problem on this Forum.

Bottom line - you individually may well have a high sensitivity to airplane noise but your community does not rate this as a priority problem and any proposed solution would simply be giving your problem to someone else.

We have no comparative data because the city does not get a noise monitor despite our requests to get one.

The FAA seems reluctant to do that - they will not like the results.

SFO will not let us participate in the roundtable - they will not like the results.

They collectively do not want to upset the status quo because it may affect their job status. But you already know that.

What does KAZU mean - sounds like a airplane call sign. Or in Google a Sushi restaurant. I suspect that KAZU is a loud airplane noise.

Why should the FAA give Palo Alto a noise monitor when so many cities closer to SFO do not have an FAA provided noise monitor?

Why doesn't Palo Alto put in its own noise monitor or hire a professional company to do monitoring on a periodic basis?

If the issue is that important to those who are affected perhaps you should get to together take your own measurements. It's not that difficult. I did it as an undergraduate. Even if it is done unofficially at least you would have some data to present. With data in hand your requests to the city, the FAA, & SFO might carry more weight.
And Kazu is common Japanese name. There's no need to make fun of somebodys name here.

Ventura - if you have already done this then why don't you offer your services to the city and get them to install come noise monitors.

I am not making fun of the name - I am asking if that is airplane call letters. Kazu has more that a passing interest in what is going on here and has taken other people to task and challenged them. He should sign up for what his interest is here.

As I stated I did sound measurements as an undergraduate. It is not my profession. Any measurements I make would not be official. Besides, I personally do not believe the City of Palo Alto should be spending my tax dollars on something I feel has effect on so few people.
If you are not trying to make fun of Kazu's name why do you bring up sushi restaurants in a discussion about aircraft? As for him taking other people to task and challenging them, I'll just say he is not the only one here challenging people.

@Disgusted wrote:

"Kazu - what side of Downtown North are you on? Near train tracks or Middlefield?"

About midaway between the two, a little closer to the train tracks than Middlefield. Walking around the neighborhood, sound from the planes seems pretty consistent, and does not stand out from the other background noise. The same is true in the area south of University, as well. That only 3 percent of Palo Altans seem to object to the planes is evidence that this is what most people experience. Just think of them as the 97 percent noise level sensors throughout the entire city. Unless a disinterested third-party were to provide sound level measurements to the contrary, things are generally just fine as it is.

It appears what @Peter Carpenter said in one of his posts is quite accurate: Some people are a lot more sensitive to noise than others. I am not claiming that the 3 percent are actually OK with the status quo and are complaining simply to complain. Since they are only a tiny (but very vocal) minority, it is highly unlikely that the airplane flight paths will be changed. That being the case, their best option would be to find ways to cope. That could be earplugs, noise cancelling headphones, moving, extra insulation in their houses, etc.

@resident 1 wrote:

"What does KAZU mean - sounds like a airplane call sign."

Aaaaaaiiiiiiiieeeeeee, conspiracy! ;-) It's Kazu, not KAZU. Not an airplane call sign or in any way affiliated with the radio station.

"Or in Google a Sushi restaurant. I suspect that KAZU is a loud airplane noise."

So being unable to present a logical, well-reasoned argument, you resort to ad hominem attacks? That proves my point a lot more than it "proves" yours. But thanks for playing!

Please do let us know when you have some concrete, factual evidence, along with sound logic. Actually, that goes for any of those claiming airplane noise in Palo Alto is excessive.

BTW I enquired and found that the Atherton noise measurements were paid for by San Mateo County - as was implied by the fact that the report was addressed to the county employee who is the San Carlos Airport manager.

I am sure that the same company would be pleased to do a noise survey for Palo Alto or any of its residents for a suitable fee.

Kazu - so let's see here - first you provide some calculations to the number of people affected by the noise - based on your vast experience with this topic - then provide guidance as to how to cope. You and Peter are a team. We are so fortunate to have both of you in our presence. No end of entertainment.

"You and Peter are a team. We are so fortunate to have both of you in our presence."

Thank you.

"I am sure that the same company would be pleased to do a noise survey for Palo Alto or any of its residents for a suitable fee."

Naw, we got more than our quota of meaningless studies already. Have fun with your toy.

Have to agree with Curmudgeon... "we got more than our quota of meaningless studies already", but it would be interesting to know how much San Mateo County wasted on this publicity stunt.

It is interesting that those who think that there is a Palo Alto airplane noise problem don't want any facts - "we got more than our quota of meaningless studies already".

1. There are no airplanes over Palo Alro.
2. There are airplanes, but no noise.
3. There is noise, but no one can hear it.
4. People can hear it, but only some are bothered by it.
5. People are bothered by it, but there is nothing anyone can do about it.
6. There is something you can do about it, but it's only fair that Palo Alro gets more noise than any other city as far from the airport as it is.
7. The planes could make more noise elsewhere instead of Palo Alto, but that would make more noise over Atherton.
8. The only thing that matters is that social media only contains my facts. Atherton has nothing to with it.

Argument,

Ha-ha, funny, but you forgot 4.5: A lot of people can hear it, but they are all crazy.

1. There are airplanes over Palo Alro.
2. These airplanes make noise.
3. Some people are very sensitive to noises, particularly airplane noise.
4. Most people are either unaware of the airplane noise or are not bothered by it..
5. There are numerous things that noise sensitive people can do to reduce the level of noise in their environment including better insulation, multi-pane windows, etc.
6. People who still find the current airplane noise levels intolerable can choose to relocate.
6. We do not know if Palo Alro gets more noise than any other cities that are as far from the airport as it is.
7. The planes could make more noise elsewhere instead of Palo Alto, but that would make more noise over other communities.
8. An intelligent discussion of this issue requires actual sound data since opinions are by definition not calibrated or standardized.
9. Some people want controversy not action and therefore they do not want to be impeded by actual sound data.

The designated flight paths are a political decision. So whatever community can muster the most objections can have the flight paths moved. Of course, when NextGen goes into effect, planes will fly down their own paths, mostly to save fuel. But even then there will be flight restrictions.

If Palo Alto wants to have a say in these flight paths, it has to play the political game. Same with Atherton which has done quite well in the game. Lubrication always helps.

"Lubrication always helps."

The best "lubrication" for any meaningful discussion and decision is facts.

Other communities have been willing to invest in professional collection of ground airplane noise - why has Palo Alto not done so?

"It is interesting that those who think that there is a Palo Alto airplane noise problem don't want any facts - "we got more than our quota of meaningless studies already". "

Fact one: I am the author of the "quota" quote quoted above, and I have never said there is a Palo Alto airplane noise problem. My thesis has always been that Peter Carpenter and his favorite bureaucrats ain't got the facts about airplane noise problems. Math-plated bogosities are not acceptable substitutes.

Fact two: Measurements cooked per the bureaucrats' recipe are pseudoscientific fictions, not facts.

Fact three: What matters is the peak sound flux measured during flyovers, including the 3 dB acoustic enhancement at ground level. Analyses should be based on density distributions of these plotted for a reasonable sample of flyovers.

Kazu - If you live between Bryant and the train tracks you won't hear the plane noise as much. And if you live on Hawthorne back to Palo Alto Ave you won't hear the plane noise either.

The planes cross University Ave in a diagonal a little east of Johnson Park. So if you live East of Johnson Park closer to Middlefield you will hear the noise loud and clear.

The dwelling in which you reside has an affect on the amount of noise you hear too.

"Fact three: What matters is the peak sound flux measured during flyovers, including the 3 dB acoustic enhancement at ground level. Analyses should be based on density distributions of these plotted for a reasonable sample of flyovers."

True Curmudegon, and many people in Downtown North live in high rise apartment/condo building, so we can add another 40-50 feet closer to the airplane noise.

"Analyses should be based on density distributions of these plotted for a reasonable sample of flyovers."


How exactly is that going to be accomplished when so may of the noise protestors don't want any studies:""we got more than our quota of meaningless studies already".?

How do you do analysis without having data?

I want data, Peter, not the meaningless bureaucratic obfuscations that you're peddling.

Data, Peter, data. Gimme data.

[Portion removed.]

Peter - This is like reading a Playbook. Same arguments over and over. Kazu is using the same playbook - if you can recognize the same sentence sequencing and pattern of response then it is following the playbook. The pages must be getting dog-eared.

Realities -
1. PA citizens - US - have been asking for a noise monitor - it is the cities job to make this happen. It is not the individual citizens job to contract out for this service. Beating on us is nonsense. Making insulting comments to us regarding this topic is pointless.

2. The PAO is increasing the number of planes that are located on-site and planning on adding more. The paper reported that it has more flights than San Jose Airport. Based on that then assume that the PAO should have a noise monitor. The fact that it does not - or if it does and not advertising same - is a major error. It cannot be adding more planes with no accountability as to the cause and effect regarding the addition of more planes.

3, In this city we are dealing with flights from San Jose, Oakland, SFO, PAO and of course Surf Air. That is not the same combination of airports that anyone in Atherton is dealing with. Atherton has SFO and San Carlos with a smattering of PAO. PAO flights are heading out over the bay.

4. The FAA has an office at the PAO. If they are the ones that are required to place the noise monitors then they need to get on with it. If PAO has more flights then San Jose then move some of the noise monitors that are visible on the trackers over to the PAO. They do not need that many at San Jose.
5. There are obvious solutions here but the "people in charge" have some other agenda. We need to keep complaining to change up the game.

6. If someone is bothered by the noise then go to the SFO official web page and look at the section called "Tracker". You will see all of the planes in the air - click on the plane icon and it will tell you who the plane is and information specific to the plane required to report it. Go to the Noise abatement section and report the plane. Get familiar with the information that is available to ANYONE who looks at the official web page.
Each person needs to address their complaints with an action - the action is there on the official web page for the airport. Don't expect someone else to do that job for you.

There is no need to know flight details OR to use the flight tracker to complain to SFO.

To file a complaint Web Link

Here is a perfect example of relevant data:

This map

Web Link

is based on the actual radar tracks and aircraft types for 421,400 flights for the course of a year:

Web Link

And if you have any interest in the data compilation and analysis both are well described here:

Web Link

Note that the nearest the CNEL 65 db curve comes to Palo Alto is about 18 miles.

Since the same radar track data is available for the airspace over Palo Alto an interested local government or individual could produce the same CNEL map for Palo Alto - but realize, given the physics of sound, that the probable Palo Alto ground level CNEL will be far lower than 65 db.

And if you think the CNEL 65 standard is too high then get the laws that set that standard changed.

If you cannot get the standard changed then recognize that if you have an aircraft noise problem that your concern does not rise to a level that the community is compelled to do something to solve your problem.

"Note that the nearest the CNEL 65 db curve comes to Palo Alto is about 18 miles."

So what? CNEL is that meaningless product of bureaucracy I've been warning you and the readership about.

Again, meaningful data consists of the peak SPL recorded during each flyover. The recording bandpass is also needed.

So they demand data and when data for every flight for a year, over 420,000 flights, is provided and analyzed they say "so what".

So the demand us not for data but data that proves their point. Hint - it does not exist because there is no data that shows Palo Alto has a ground level airplane noise problem.

DNL/CNEL supposedly got cooked up based on "attitudinal surveys" which were considered very scientific way back when a survey itself was probably considered a big deal.

And now the FAA will conduct new surveys which will probably take forever and just long enough for the FAA to cook up something else to justify airplane noise.

CNEL has zero to do with attitude surveys.

"CNEL is the acronym for Community Noise Equivalent Level.

CNEL is a single number result that is calculated for a complete 24-hour period and usually made up of results taken at shorter intervals such as 5 minutes or 1 hour and then averaged over the whole 24 hours.

CNEL is the average sound level over a 24 hour period, with a penalty of 5 dB added between 7 pm and 10 pm. and a penalty of 10 dB added for the nighttime hours of 10 pm to 7 am.

The logic behind these applied penalties is that since most citizens living in a given area are very sensitive to noise in the early morning hours and somewhat sensitive to noise during evening hours, a weighting factor is applied.

CNEL depends not only on the noise level of individual aircraft approaches, but also on the number of aircraft approaches during the measurement period.

Impacts of CNEL are both actual and perceived for noise in specific localities around airports. Contour lines are used when depicting existing CNEL noise exposure. "

@resident 1 wrote:

"Kazu - so let's see here - first you provide some calculations to the number of people affected by the noise"

Which is more than the Three Percent Club has provided...

"based on your vast experience with this topic"

Which, given that I deal with facts and logic rather than diatribe, is apparently much greater than the handful complaining about airplane noise.

"then provide guidance as to how to cope."

The solutions I suggested do work better than just sitting around and complaining.

"You and Peter are a team."

Peter and I, along with the 97 percent of Palo Altans who declined to complain about aircraft noise.

"We are so fortunate to have both of you in our presence."

Why thank you!

@Disgusted wrote:

"Kazu - If you live between Bryant and the train tracks you won't hear the plane noise as much. And if you live on Hawthorne back to Palo Alto Ave you won't hear the plane noise either."

So you are claiming that airplane noise is only a problem in a 4-6 square block corner of Palo Alto along San Francisquito Creek? Why aren't folks from Menlo Park, also adjacent to the creek, complaining about the noise? They are literally a stone's throw away. The planes travel pretty close to overhead where I live. Keep in mind that the sound footprint from aircraft at those altitudes is more than 1 block - or one house - wide. If you are claiming otherwise, do you have any proof to support that claim? If so, then please provide it. Otherwise, your claims ring hollow.

"The planes cross University Ave in a diagonal a little east of Johnson Park. So if you live East of Johnson Park closer to Middlefield you will hear the noise loud and clear."

It does not seem very loud to me. Which of your sound measurements showed excessive noise levels? Numbers, please.

"The dwelling in which you reside has an affect on the amount of noise you hear too."

Yet the plane noise is not excessive even when I am outside. Sure, it is less when I am inside and close all the windows, but the rest of the background noise is also diminished. Since folks downtown are frequently out and about, one would expect a hue and cry if the noise outside was annoying. Complaints from the masses have not materialized, though. Of course, if you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

@resident 1 wrote:

"PA citizens - US - have been asking for a noise monitor - it is the cities job to make this happen. It is not the individual citizens job to contract out for this service."

Only a tiny handful of Palo Alto citizens are claiming there is a problem. If they really wanted to prove their point in a timely manner, they would contract out the project. Why have they not done so? Saying it is not their job sounds like a smokescreen to me.

"Each person needs to address their complaints with an action - the action is there on the official web page for the airport. Don't expect someone else to do that job for you."

Yet you claim that it is not the individual citizen's job to contract a study of the issue? Nobody is stopping the anti-plane folks from commissioning such a study. If they think the results would bolster their claims, then why not do so?

@Peter Carpenter wrote:

"So they demand data and when data for every flight for a year, over 420,000 flights, is provided and analyzed they say "so what"."

They are nothing if not consistent. People were demanding they provide data over a year ago here Web Link . They refused to do so. When data was provided for them, they ignored it.

Besides, why should they listen to reason when they can make fun of my name instead? ;-)

Is this actually about airplane noise or is there something else going on here? If so, what? Given the lack of evidence re excessive noise, the questions are reasonable.

Peter Carpenter,

Are you 100% sure that surveys are not central to the science that the FAA uses for measuring the effects of aircraft noise?

This is from Airportnoiselaw site Web Link

"The FAA and other Federal agencies use DNL as the primary measure of noise impacts on people and land uses. This cumulative metric is the Federal standard because it:

Correlates well with the results of ATTITUDINAL SURVEYS of residential noise impact;
Increases with the duration of noise events, which is important to people's reaction;
Takes into account the number of noise events of the full 24 hours in a day, which also is important to people's reaction;......"

And

from an FAA press reease Web Link

"Beginning in the next two to three months, the FAA will contact residents around selected U.S. airports through mail and telephone to SURVEY public perceptions of aviation noise throughout the course of a year. This will be the most comprehensive study using a single noise SURVEY ever undertaken in the United States, polling communities surrounding 20 airports nationwide. To preserve the scientific integrity of the study, the FAA cannot disclose which communities will be polled."

Everything will then go into a giant black pot to be mixed by someone with a pointy hat and another 100 years will go by with a mysterious FAA measure.

Kazu - there have been many postings on this platform concerning airplane noise going back many years, as well as the Almanac version (San Mateo County) of this program.

There have been meetings with the PACC which were supported by the SFO Noise Abatement Office. This is not a new topic that just popped up. We have letters from the local political representatives.

Peter has a long history with these discussions based on his prior residence in Palo Alto and association with the PAO. There has been a lot of time invested by many people on this topic.

If you do not hear any noise then you don't need to complain about the noise - it is that simple. And the rest who do hear noise will complain - it is that simple. So why are you wasting your time on this topic if you have no complaints? You cannot offer anything new here except saying you are not bothered by the noise.

The FAA report on the 20 locations is tied to my comments on June 26 - initiating the new programs. As luck would have it there will be a transition in management of the Air control systems. That is the good news - bring in the professionals.

"Are you 100% sure that surveys are not central to the science that the FAA uses for measuring the effects of aircraft noise?"

Yes. The CNEL maps are pure data regrading objectively and careful measured sound levels( technically sound pressure) and involve no opinion surveys. As I have posted many times the perception of and response to any particular level and type of noise is highly individualistic and variable.

The FAA has activated a new air traffic control system at the 20 regional centers that direct high altitude aircraft between airports. It is called the En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM). Expect to see some positive changes.

Since the FAA is stepping up it's game then the city should also get on board and step up their game - finance noise monitors. The PAO should be aware of this and should be actively supporting what ever is required to assist the city is supporting this effort.

Lockheed Martin is the contractor for this effort and they have facilities in Stanford Research Park. They will also be supporting the associated programs that are being implemented at this time - though not necessarily from the Palo Alto facility. A lot of time and effort by a lot of people.

More on the objective basis of CNEL:
"4.4.6 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)
The cumulative noise descriptor required for aircraft noise analyses in the State of California is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). CNEL is used to describe cumulative noise exposure for an annual-average day of aircraft operations. The CNEL is calculated by mathematically combining the number of single events that occur during a 24-hour day with how loud the events were and what time of day they occurred.
As shown on Exhibit 4-2, CNEL includes additional sound weightings, or penalties, applied to noise events occurring after 7:00 p.m. and before 7:00 a.m., when noise is considered more intrusive. The penalized time period is further subdivided into evening (7:00 p.m. through 9:59 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m.). CNEL treats every evening operation as though it were three operations and every night operation as though it were ten operations. This “weighting” adds a 4.77 dB penalty during the evening hours and a 10 dB penalty during the nighttime hours.
Because of the interrelationship between the weighted number of daily noise events and the noise levels generated by the events, it is possible to have the same CNEL value for an area exposed to a few loud events as for an area exposed to many quieter events.
The CNEL metric used for this aircraft noise analysis is based on an average annual day of aircraft operations, generally derived from data for a calendar year. An annual-average day (AAD) activity profile is computed by adding all aircraft operations occurring during the course of a year and dividing the result by 365. As such, AAD does not reflect activities on any one specific day, but represents average conditions as they occur during the course of the year. The evening weighting is the only difference between CNEL and DNL. For purposes of aircraft noise analysis in the State of California, the FAA recognizes the use of CNEL, and the metric is used to assess potential significant impacts."

I see lots of somewhat esoteric talk about sound levels etc. Sure that matters - if the airplanes were as loud as the leaf blowers, we would all be insane by now. But frequency also matters - lots of low level noise is annoying to lots of people.

From what I have read, NextGen is funneling flights that used to be more spread out into narrow corridors, three of which are over Palo Alto. So it gets worse for us and better for surrounding areas. I don't have any pre-NextGen data, but it sure seems like we hear a lot more airplanes now than we used to.

This AM, I noted each time when I heard an airplane (near the main library). I might have missed some (especially when the leaf blowers were blowing). See list below. Some of these were directly overhead, but probably most were not.
I also notice a peculiar gap in my data - no planes between 10:35 and 10:53. I must have been distracted or something. Anyway, this is a LOT of traffic!
Possible solutions:
- make the planes quieter
- new technology
- fly higher or slower or ...
- reduce the number of flights over any one area
- spread them out more ala pre NextGen
- bigger (but not noiser) planes, fewer flights
- reduce people's need to fly

July 3, AM:
9.56
9.57
9.59
10.04
10.06
10.07
10.09
10.11
10.13
10.19
10.23
10.25
10.28
10.29
10.33 heli
10.35 prop
10.53 heli
10.54
10.55 prop
10.57
10.58
11.00
11.06
11.14
11.16
11.18 prop
11.25
11.27
11.30
11.33 prop
11.34 prop
11.35
11.37
11.38
11.40
11.41
11.44 prop
11.50
11.53
11.55
11.56 prop
11.57
11.59
12.00 prop
12.01
12.04
12.12
12.25

"CNEL is a single number result that is calculated for a complete 24-hour period and usually made up of results taken at shorter intervals such as 5 minutes or 1 hour and then averaged over the whole 24 hours"

That is precisely the fatal flaw in this bureaucrats' number shoveling exercise. People don't experience TIME-AVERAGED noise, they experience noise EVENT BY EVENT. People put conversations on hold, and maybe curse, during individual excessive noise events. They do not silence and curse on avergae throughout the day.

The unstated, but very real, mission of the FAA is to hide flaws in the national air transport system until they cannot avoid reality any longer, then to obfuscate them with baffling BS like CNEL numbers.

In acknowledgement of Joe's July-3 flight data, I went to WebTrak and found probably all of the 48 listed. (Times did not align well for 6 of the 48.) Three were the Stanford helicopter, inbound from the east bay at 10:33, then a refueling run (I assume) to PAO, out at 10:53 and back at 11:18. Joe heard three Surf Air flights, 9:56, 11:44, and 11:53, not all identified as prop. A couple of the props were general aviation "left-downwind" departures from PAO, which is a short west then southward turn to follow 101 out of here. The SFO arrivals that were heard had flight paths mostly within a mile of the main library at 4300-5300 ft altitudes, but not really funneled onto a tight track. The noted gap between 10:35 and 10:53 was real.

Regarding CNEL, I see it as analogous to rankings of colleges, or rankings of best places to live. Some aggregate metric is formulated to give a single numerical value to compare. Then everyone argues that all the factors are not being accurately considered. As they say, your mileage may vary.

Very interesting discussion. Lots of thoughts, opinions, data, etc. Several times, Peter C has asked people to back up their statements with data. I agree. Data is good. But, opinions count too. And, it is important to be able to distinguish between facts and opinions. It is really easy to make a statement as if it were fact, when it is just an opinion. Peter does this himself from time to time. On July 1, he said:

4. Most people are either unaware of the airplane noise or are not bothered by it..

I don't see how there could be data to back this up unless everyone in Palo Alto were asked about it or some sort of statistical survey were done. Given that there are lots of ways to complain about the noise, at the SFO website, at the change.org petition, email to local/state/national officials etc, I doubt that anyone even has a good sense of how many people have actually complained (just my opinion :-). And just because someone hasn't formally complained, doesn't mean he/she isn't bothered. He/she doesn't know how to complain, is too busy, think what's the use, it won't do any good, etc et.

Peter also said

6. We do not know if Palo Alro gets more noise than any other cities that are as far from the airport as it is.

I think that that this is technically correct - apparently, there are no official sound level meters in Palo Alto (and probably other cities too), so we don't know what the CNELs actually are. Peter says

8. An intelligent discussion of this issue requires actual sound data since opinions are by definition not calibrated or standardized.

Actual data would be nice (although I have seen lots of questions about how meaningful CNEL is), but we are not completely without data. IE, if no planes fly over or near point A during some time period, and 10 planes fly over or near point B in that time period. I think we can infer that people at point B PROBABLY hear more plane noise than those at point A. Of course, it gets complicated because perceived noise is affected by altitude, distance, duration, type of plane, weather, what kind of building one is in, etc etc.

Luckily, we have the excellent Web Link site where you can see flights pretty much in real time I think (and I am not 100% sure of the accuracy here, but when I hear a plane, I generally see it on this website.) And even better, we have Web Link in which you can go back in time and watch flights in a fast forward mode. This makes it easy to see flights over Palo Alto and other areas over a span of time. Based on this, there is no doubt in my mind that there are more SFO inbound flights over Palo Alto/East Palo Alto/East Menlo Park than over other nearby cities. Looks like probably lots of noise at Redwood Shores and Foster City too. If someone has some data to contradict this, I'd like to hear/see it.

And so, based on the above, I would say that yes, Palo Alto gets more noise - more traffic = more noise. Seems logical to me.

But, is the traffic over Palo Alto worse than it used to be? Have 'they' really funneled traffic from nearby areas into a 'super highway' over Palo Alto? That is what I read that NextGen does/is doing. But I can't prove it since I have no data from prior years. But, there is this interesting picture:

Web Link

that purports to show the bay area traffic patterns. Peter dismissed this picture as not being based on data, and I agree - it is just a graphic depicting the general ideas of the traffic patterns, but it does give one the general idea. However, it turns out that this picture is not current - here is a reference to it from 2008
Web Link

I believe 2008 predates NextGen, so that picture is as Peter said, just a general idea of the routes and doesn't depict anything about changes wrought by NextGen. But, there is one interesting thing about the picture. Notice that path that comes over the bay from the north and does a u-turn near the Dumbarton . I remeber reading several years back that that was the normal northern path, and that they would only use the path that goes over the peninsula and u-turns over Palo Alto in certain conditions. I don't know what these conditions were - heavy traffic, weather, ?? The interesting thing is that I read that after the Asiana crash in 2013, 'they' decided to abandon this path over the bay and send ALL the traffic from the north down the peninsula to u-turn over Palo Alto. I don't know why they decided that, but if this is indeed correct, then the real situation is that 3 out of 4 normal condition SFO approach paths go over Palo Alto. If this is indeed correct, then one would presume that there is more traffic over Palo Alto than there used to be because of this change, even without the NextGen superhighway change. Study the flight paths on the above websites and see if you see any planes flying down the bay and u-turning by the Dumbarton bridge. I don't see any.

So
- Are more planes flying over Palo Alto than there used to be? Seems like the answer is yes, just based on the above mentioned change not even counting the superhighway
- Are more planes flying over Palo Alto than surrounding communities? Observations of flight paths at the above tracking websites indicates yes.
- Are residents of Palo Alto/East Palo Alto/East Menlo Park hearing more noise than they used to? I think yes - more traffic = more noise
- Are residents of Palo Alto/East Palo Alto/East Menlo Park hearing more noise than those in surrounding communities? I think yes - but I would have to go to San Carlos or Atherton or ... and listen during a busy time to see what I hear compared to what I hear at home. YES Peter, not scientific, but ... :-)

Joe - you have outdone yourself - good work.

Joe - excellent commentary and good questions.
If you look at the the ATAC NorCal report I posted earlier I think that you will find a lot of the answers. That report is based on every flight into SFO over a one year period - over 420,000 flights. It then extrapolates that data using the proposed NextGen flight patterns.

In my opinion it is clear that:
1 - The changes from the proposed NextGen flight paths are negligible
2 - Palo Alto is not disproportionately impacted compared to many other communities.

Thank you Joe! Good work!

Joe,

Thanks for the research. A couple of points:

1. There is no before and after "nextgen"... at least not yet. "Nextgen" is optimistically scheduled for a three year roll-out, and the roll-out was kicked-off at SFO in January 2013. So far only 3-4 "nextgen" approach routes have been implemented. Pre-nextgen SFO had something like 20 approach plates.

2. SFO's noise Abatement Office was passing out the earlier version of the "Approach and Departure Plan" illustration as late as 2013, to people filing complaints. Where did you find the 2008 referenced version? Any chance of posting a higher resolution version?

3. I believe the FAA began changing things even before the "nextgen" kick-off at SFO in January 2013, to grease-the-slide for "nextgen". By the FAA's way of thinking... if they (the FAA) changed their "policy" and abandoned the 5,000' at Menlo IAF agreement with Eshoo, within the context of the pre-nextgen plan, then the the FAA could more easily claim there was "no significant change" between "nextgen", and its immediate predecessor.

Also, the aircraft noise problem that the deniers on this forum claim doesn't exist, now reaches as far south as Santa Cruz, and as far north as the Point Reyes National Seashore in Marin County (see excellent article from the East Bay Express linked below).


"Superhighways in the Sky"
East Bay Express ~ June 24, 2015 Web Link

"Pre-nextgen SFO had something like 20 approach plates."

Actually there are 26 SFO approaches of which only 4 are used on a regular basis. NextGen will have the capability of having many more different approaches.

IAPs - Instrument Approach Procedures
ILS OR LOC RWY 19L download
ILS OR LOC RWY 28L download
ILS OR LOC RWY 28R download
ILS RWY 28R (SA CAT I) download
ILS RWY 28R (CAT II - III) download
ILS RWY 28L (SA CAT II) download
RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 28R **CHANGED** download
RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 10R download
RNAV (GPS) RWY 10L download
RNAV (GPS) RWY 19L download
RNAV (GPS) RWY 19R download
RNAV (GPS) RWY 28L download
RNAV (GPS) X RWY 28R download
RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 10R download
RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 28R download
LDA/DME RWY 28R download
VOR RWY 19L download
VOR-B download
PRM AAUP 2 pages: [1] [2]
PRM AAUP, CONT.2 download
ILS PRM RWY 28L download
RNAV (GPS) PRM RWY 28L download
RNAV (GPS) PRM X RWY 28R download
LDA PRM RWY 28R download
QUIET BRIDGE VISUAL RWY 28L/R download
TIPP TOE VISUAL RWY 28L/R

"IAPs - Instrument Approach Procedures
ILS OR LOC RWY 19L download
ILS OR LOC RWY 28L download
ILS OR LOC RWY 28R download
etc., etc., etc."

So much information...

So little meaning.


For a fuller story of FAA incompetance and arrogance on this point, see Jetman's link: Web Link

Information plus thought = meaning.

NextGen has the potential for providing many more approach paths than the few that are currently used and could therefore distribute arrivals over a broader area.

Curse the darkness or turn on the light - your choice.

I was at an event in Mill Valley - Panorama Highway at top - and low and behold a plane is going over head towards SFO. Given the altitude the plane was very low relative to the land. It was noted that the residences are very aware of airplane noise and complain about it.

It occurs to me that the staging of aircraft could be conducted over the ocean until they have permission to enter the arrival path - and they could do that from the ocean - over HWY 84 / 92 so the stream of planes is over land for a minimal period of time.

The stream was evident on July 4th weekend with the lights of the planes in stream coming in over PA and then making the turn north. The turn north takes them out over the San Mateo baylands and ocean - minimal residential impact.

" over HWY 84 / 92 so the stream of planes is over land for a minimal period of time."

Once again Palo Alto posters want to solve their perceived problem by giving it to someone else.

And planes crossing skyline at 84 would have to fly at very low altitudes from the skyline to the bay to intercept the glide slope for SFO.

"Information plus thought = meaning."

It all depends on the thought part.

Long lists of esoteric symbols often fascinate the thoughtless. Everyone else discerns their meaninglessness.

As this thoughtful article Web Link documents, Nexgen has been implemented by bureaucrats with little to no thought. FAA enlightenment is an oxymoron.

NextGen has the potential for providing many more approach paths than the few that are currently used and could therefore distribute arrivals over a broader area.

Curse the darkness or turn on the light - your choice.

"NextGen has the potential for providing many more approach paths than the few that are currently used and could therefore distribute arrivals over a broader area."

But the FAA bureaucrats apparently ain't using that potential, are they?

"But the FAA bureaucrats apparently ain't using that potential, are they?"

Too soon to say but if they don't one of the reasons will be that you and others spend all of your time attacking NextGen rather than more appropriately focussing on using NextGen to spread out the air traffic.

NextGen is a reality but I have yet to see any specific proposals from the public as to how it can be used to spread out the traffic.

By its own admission, the FAA is using NextGen primarily for two reasons:

- Save airlines money, via fuel savings (including using the straightest line for routes but not always, as some towns are interestingly protected, Atherton for example).
- Cut back on air control workload

This goes counter to using a fanned out system that would reduce noise for the worst affected areas, spreading it more equally over everyone.

By the way, NextGen as it is applied at SFO saves the airlines pennies per passenger only, when it saves anything. Again, planes coming from the north and dipping south of San Mateo County, skirting Atherton, to land at SFO are actually wasting fuel and money doing this.

In a democracy we get exactly the kind of government that we deserve.

I challenge anybody to post any communications to the FAA asking that NextGen approaches to SFO be designed to distribute the impact over neighboring communities.

The Palo Alto Process is to complain rather than to engage in constructive policy development.

Curse the darkness or turn on the light - your choice.

"NextGen is a reality but I have yet to see any specific proposals from the public as to how it can be used to spread out the traffic."

Here's one:

"NextGen has the potential for providing many more approach paths than the few that are currently used and could therefore distribute arrivals over a broader area."

Curmud - It is very telling that the only example you can give is my comment.

What specific proposals have you made to the FAA re NextGen?

PC - your last few postings concede that the major flight path is over PA. I think in the next go around of complaints about planes that go over at 12 midnight - only plane in air at the time - that it should not be directed over high population residential areas. Especially if it is an old, noisy plane that sounds like it can barely stay in the air.

I will suggest that it comes in over HWY 84 since that is a low residential population area.

Yes - a good selection - don't you think? Then it would go over Atherton. And don't worry about the plane having problems landing - not a lot of competition for air space at that time.

I think Santa Clara County has hogged the limelight for a while now so time to pass the torch back to San Mateo County. Since they carried the torch for quite a while in the past then the 11:00 PM through 7:00 Am time period - which is low commute - can fit in well at that location.

Any accomplished grifter knows to sells "potential", instead of achievements. In no case has "nextgen" been used to spread flight paths out over a larger area. In every case it has been used to concentrate the routes into a small number of narrow elevated freeways.

The FAA will never voluntarily spread out the flight paths, because if they did, they would no longer be able to pretend they are reducing noise.

"We the People – Petitioning the White House to End NextGenHell"
AIReform ~ June 14, 2014 Web Link

"PC - your last few postings concede that the major flight path is over PA."

Not true. I have always stated that there is no evidence to support the assertion that Palo Alto is disproportionately impacted by ground level airplane noise compared to other communities, particularly those closer to SFO.

What I do believe is that IF you feel otherwise then why haven't you petitioned the FAA to use multiple NextGen approach routes to distribute the flights over a broad area.

"I will suggest that it comes in over HWY 84 since that is a low residential population area."
As already pointed out the Highway 84 route DOES come over heavily populated areas and a flight on that route would need to cross 101 at about 3000 ft to intercept the glide path to SFO.
So just shoving your perceived problem off on others and doing so in a way that creates more ground level noise for more people.

Curmudgeon,

Giving Peter Carpeter too much credit for pointing to "NextGen has the potential for providing many more approach paths than the few that are currently used and could therefore distribute arrivals over a broader area"


We've seen this on the Sky Posse Palo Alto website for months.

Sky Posse Palo Alto states
"NextGen’s precision routing technologies could in fact dramatically improve the situation to the benefit of both the flying and the residential public. .. Better design can be achieved with community input to assist the FAA in developing a more flexible and thoughtful route system. Improvements for both the residential and the flying public are possible - better flight routing, more equitable sharing of noise impacts, and the continuation of the FAA’s work on the modernization of other methods of noise abatement."

Peter Carpenter's comments over the year long squabbles about the FAA have been mostly to defend the FAA's integrated noise model that was used to come up with the funny FAA noise numbers. The "data" used to justify FAA actions to NOT "distribute over a wider area."

Jetman is 100% correct.

" In no case has "nextgen" been used to spread flight paths out over a larger area. In every case it has been used to concentrate the routes into a small number of narrow elevated freeways."

What is unclear is why?

Why did they need to make the routes concentrated? Why did they take away the routes that were previously used "distribute arrivals over a broader area" ?

There should be data and a clear rationale to back up the concentration of routes into a small number of elevated freeways.

Peter Carpenter - do you have some data to explain why the choice was made to use precision technology to concentrate noise over a few people?

"" In no case has "nextgen" been used to spread flight paths out over a larger area. In every case it has been used to concentrate the routes into a small number of narrow elevated freeways.""

This is an allegation without verification so there is no need to comment on it.

In some cases, the routes don't even make sense.

Like the route which comes from the East - most European flights come over Chico, Santa Rosa at way high altitudes, then over San Francisco, PAST SFO, then over San Mateo (at over 11,000 feet).

All this to come to Palo Alto (altitudes reduce just right after the San Mateo border) to turn and slash through Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, and to return to SFO.

I've heard this is called a teardrop because of the shape -

Peter Carpenter,

The FAA website on Nextgen may help you catch up on how the distribution of flights (for noise abatement) have been killed with the excuse of precision technology.

It's subtle how they sold it.

Web Link

Enjoy the music!

Why post conjectures on what the SFO flight paths are?

This map

Web Link

is based on the actual radar tracks and aircraft types for 421,400 flights for the course of a year:

Web Link

And if you have any interest in the data compilation and analysis both are well described here:

Web Link

Note that the nearest the CNEL 65 db curve comes to Palo Alto is about 18 miles.

Since the same radar track data is available for the airspace over Palo Alto an interested local government or individual could produce the same CNEL map for Palo Alto - but realize, given the physics of sound, that the probable Palo Alto ground level CNEL will be far lower than 65 db.

Claiming there is a Palo Alto ground level airplane noise problem without utilizing this already available data to clearly answer the question is irresponsible.

Peter Carpenter,

"Not true. I have always stated that there is no evidence to support the assertion that Palo Alto is disproportionately impacted by ground level airplane noise compared to other communities, particularly those closer to SFO."

Let me pretend to be PC himself for a minute here:
"Do you have any evidence to support that Palo Alto IS NOT disproportionately impacted by ground level airplane noise compared to other communities?"

"The FAA website on Nextgen may help you catch up on how the distribution of flights (for noise abatement) have been killed with the excuse of precision technology."

If you actually LOOK at this web site and at all of the examples posted on that site you will see that the NextGen paths appear to, among other things, create lower aggregate ground level noise impacts.

The problem is that the Palo Alto objectors sat quietly in front of their TVs and computers when the FAA had the comment period forBay Area NextGen development. Democracy requires participation and public comment periods have well defined windows for that input. So please post the Palo Alto inputs that were made during the FAA's Bay Area NextGen comment period.

"Let me pretend to be PC himself for a minute here:
"Do you have any evidence to support that Palo Alto IS NOT disproportionately impacted by ground level airplane noise compared to other communities?"

It is not my job to prove that your allegation is false but rather your job to prove that it is true.

You and others have made this unverified claim and have NEVER provide data to support your claim. I have even showed you where the data is but, interestingly, no one wants the actual facts because it will, I predict, prove that you are making a false claim.

Peter Carpenter,

For commercial interests to lobby to discount, disregard, dismiss and ignore the impacts of one's actions is irresponsible.

Your tactic to use authoritarian mumble jumble about FAA funny numbers which deeply severely unhealthily discounts airplane noise impacts should be grounded. No more of this nonsense should be allowed to fly.

Peter Carpenter,

Tricky tricky again

"Reduce noise" impacts selectively, and increase it on others. And then use FAA funny numbers to say it's no big deal.

Ground the nonsense.

Peter Carpenter,

During the comment period about Nextgen (which was NOT made public) you actually posted and posted and posted about there not being any noise problem over Palo Alto.

You distracted the conversation as you are doing now.

The fact that Palo Alto was not paying attention only proves they trusted too much.

For you to now tell people they were too busy watching TV, really? That's what Palo Alto has been doing the last 5 years?

Do your homework like San Mateo County did in their Atherton study which actually measured ground level noise and then you could create at least some real data points for Palo Alto.

Or use the actual flight tracks and the available noise data for each type of aircraft and produce a noise contour map for Palo Alto.

If you cannot do either of the above then realize that your complaints will continue to fall on deaf ears - so to speak.

"the comment period about Nextgen (which was NOT made public)"

Public comment period are exactly that PUBLIC. The FAA had a public comment period and all of the above posters slept through it and they now want a Rip von Winkle redo.

Please post here any specific proposal that anyone has made to the FAA regarding Palo Alto and NextGen routes.

Peter Carpenter,

In a million years would I want to be Atherton or follow their example on this issue.

But I will reserve comments since it's unclear if you are Atherton or Atherton is you.

Peter Carpenter,

Placing announcements in the public Library and fine print ads in who knows where is NOT PUBLIC.

Not this day and age.

And what exactly was placed in the public libraries is unclear.

If what was announced had zero warning of the consequences, it is really bad.

Where did you learn about Nextgen? Also from the public library?

Peter Carpenter,

You know you keep pointing to the map for data ONLY in San Mateo County.

The FAA made decisions about the Nextgen routes based on data for San Mateo County.

Yes, that's another problem.

[Post removed.]

"
You know you keep pointing to the map for data ONLY in San Mateo County.

The FAA made decisions about the Nextgen routes based on data for San Mateo County."

Please read the entire report - it include flight tacks over the ENTIRE Bay area for over 400,000 flights including at least one ground reference point in Palo Alto - as noted above.

Why are you so resistant to actually reading the reports which have been posted?

And why do you think Palo Alto has a ground level airplane noise problem when the closest 65 CNEL db contour line is over 18 miles away.?

Peter Carpenter,

Tricky tricky again

You are mixing noise data -the noise contour map you posted Web Link for ONLY San Mateo County

with flights tracks (for all of the Bay Area) they selected for the cheesy modeling.

Not fun that somebody else's blood pressure is being used, to see if I will have a heart attack.

Actually they never measured or cared if I would have a heart attack,

Only enough "data" was used to say that it wasn't even necessary to look into my situation.

PC - you keep arguing the case as to who has the most noise, least noise, and moving said noise from one community to another.

So if we take your queues - and there is no noise and we are making this all up - then we all get on and request that the flight paths revert to San Mateo County - where they were to begin with - then you can argue with your favorite neighbors as which neighbor can hear the noise and it is all a matter of personal peculiarities and preferences. Does a west Atherton person hear more than a east Atherton person? What a debate that could be - suspect that debate took place years ago.

And you and your neighbors can argue if leaf blowers make more noise - you have more property in Atherton so must have more leaf blower noise - correct? A competition of non-noise in Atherton.

And Caltrain noise - you all have a law suit on that noise competition - and how about Surf Air - I think someone in your area must hear some noise - but not from SFO airplanes.

So every argument you have made points to putting the planes above your head so you can track them by site - you can see them if you do not have a lot of canopy.

And based on your great partnership with the FAA you can conjecture with your FAA neighbors about the noise level - all imaginary - you all are making it up.

And then you can dispense advice to your favorite neighbors as to how they can avoid the perceived noise - and if bothered they can move. They will love that suggestion. I am sure that your advice will be most gratifying to them - they could not have thought that up themselves. And your witticism - a source of wonderment and joy to your favorite neighbors.

[Post removed.]

" and how about Surf Air - I think someone in your area must hear some noise - but not from SFO airplanes."

[Portion removed.]


From Atherton Town Manager's Report

"Beginning at 2 pm on May 13 through 11 am on May 14, Coffman Associates (Airport Consultants) conducted noise monitoring at 37 Holbrook Lane. Attached is a summary of the findings. Staff will place this Report n the Town's Aircraft Noise webpage.
In summary, Coffman Associates recorded single event noise and then used the Federal Aviation Administration's approved method of calculating the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is an average decibel level of all aircraft overflights. CNEL is the standard that is mandated by both the Federal and State governments for calculating aircraft noise. As it relates to aircraft noise, Federal and State guidelines state that a CNEL of 65 decibels or lower is compatible for residential use. The noise monitoring study conducted by Coffman Associates determined the following:
• 48.71 CNEL: Average of all noise events recorded by monitor
• 47.78 CNEL: Average of all aircraft overflights (including SFO overflights)
• 43.13 CNEL: Average of all propeller-powered aircraft (including 16 Surf Air overflights)
The "single event" noise for the Surf Air flights ranged from 60.3 db to 71.5 db. The weighted
average over a 24-hour period is 43.13 db, which is how the FAA measures aircraft noise."

So be careful what you wish for when you demand a professional noise study.

[Portion removed.]

In today's Almanac (7/10/15), Peter Carpenter has reported the results of measurements taken at Atherton's Holbrook Palmer Park, which show aircraft noise was the single largest source of noise recorded in the park.

Summary of May 13-14 Noise Sources
Noise Source Count Lmax
Emergency Sirens 3 63.89
Residents 4 66.53
Birds 20 61.02
Dogs 21 81.13
Landscaping 25 76.40
Propeller Aircraft 38 71.48
Train 48 67.66
Jet Aircraft 98 74.64
Roadway 124 77.31
Total 381

"Surf Air continues plans to expand local flights"
The Almanac ~ May 21, 2015 Web Link

[Post removed.]

@ Jetman, I can draw a different conclusion.

Aircraft: Jet 98 + prop 38 = 136
Ground transportation: Roadway 124 + train 48 = 172

Aren't statistics great?

musical,

Emergency Sirens 3 63.89.......Emergency
Residents 4 66.53...................generally respectful
Birds 20 61.02........................welcome
Dogs 21 81.13........................depends but generally no problem
Landscaping 25 76.40.............not at night
Propeller Aircraft 38 71.48.....
Train 48 67.66........................generally scheduled -not stacked with one train on top of the other AT THE SAME TIME
Jet Aircraft 98 74.64..............
Roadway 124 77.31.................depends where you live, and pretty much quiet at night (very quiet and much of it can be white noise)

For those who do not live near the train, or the airport, the noise from Jet aircraft is much more intrusive.I am suspicious about the numbers for jet aircraft noise - there are jets and there are jets, and there are pilots who can be noisier, less trained, and careless.

It's kind of stunning how the FAA and the related industry has gotten away with writing laws to fail to protect people from the impacts. Telling is that the FAA does not even consider cumulative impacts - actually does not even consider impacts anymore. They are only looking at "reduction" using the FAA funny numbers.

Can anyone answer why the routes (including the weird non-new legacy routes) are concentrated? Why this Web Link

musical, do you enjoy the music?

I think Peter is being facetious when he keeps mentioning "petitioning" the FAA. The FAA does not listen to anyone. Well, anyone in the public. Airlines are a different matter. Plus another exception that I will mention shortly. Look at what is happening at Phoenix with NextGen. Oh, boy, did they try to petition the FAA there, and we know the result.

Can Peter enlighten us on petitioning the FAA otherwise?

My personal guess is that it goes along this kind of line: Donate generously to your local congressperson (generally your representative) and then your congressperson will fix things for you behind closed doors in Washington. Some kind of democracy we have here.

Funny that, it is towns like Hillsborough and Atherton that SFO traffic generally avoids.

Musical,

Not really a different conclusion, just another perspective. Here is another interesting perspective... industries that lobbied for, and received, federal laws shielding them from local noise ordinances: Aviation 136 + Rail 48 = 184.

FAA Numbers said:

"Can anyone answer why the routes (including the weird non-new legacy routes) are concentrated?"

The commercial airline routes are being concentrated, because the FAA wants to conserve as much airspace as possible for other types of commercial exploitation by their "customers" (the aviation industry).

@ Jetman, clever perspective.

" The "single event" noise for the Surf Air flights ranged from 60.3 db to 71.5 db."

Finally, some real data.

Those numbers are in the loud conversation range, which means Surf Air trashes any attempt at conversation. Case closed, Surf Air is a noise nuisance, eh? A human being might think so, but how naive we mere creatures be.

In this instance, the FAA cooks the noise data by averaging in a mean 189 seconds of silence (more than 3 minutes) with every 1 second of airplane noise. (Do the math) The result is the official CNEL:

"The weighted average over a 24-hour period is 43.13 db, which is how the FAA measures aircraft noise."

See, kiddies, no problem. The solution to pollution is dilution. Just tell your ears to average tons of silence with the noise before they let your brain hear that airplane.

[Portion removed.]

A typical airplane passage time is 20-30 seconds.
Hardly a conversation stopper compared to the other listed noise sources.

And telling that the Atherton data that people were trashing last week is now determinative.

Curmudgeon's numbers check out, Mr. Carpenter. I suspected the government was hiding the noise problem, but I had no idea their methods were this egregious.

Peter Carpenter,

Your assumption that airplanes are not noisy would of course cause no interruption.

Now, pretend there is airplane noise (the one louder than most noises), the conversation stopper happens upon impact - holy macaroni, was that really necessary?! What the .....? Really? Some time is spent recovering from the disturbance. Oh, ok, let's pretend it was nothing, you need to put on the pretend face.

It's at the very least a joy stopper.

As far as the Atherton noise study goes, it's still one address. Nothing determinative about that.

Peter presented this link Web Link and referenced Exhibits 2 and 6 I guess as evidence in support of his claims that Palo Alto has no more SFO west approach traffic than do surrounding communities, and that the traffic over Palo Alto is no worse than it was in 2011.

But to me , these picture contain no info on these questions because there just isn't enough resolution. The areas near the bay from the south bay to maybe Millbrae( but one can't really tell due to the lack of resolution) are all colored - I think all pixels in these areas are colored the same.. So, does this mean that every square foot of this land has the same number of overflights each year? Obviously not. And what if point A had 3,000 exact overflights / year and point B had only 300? It seems like even if these pictures had more resolution, the line over each of these points would look about the same even though point A has 10x flights. So, this picture reminds me of The Hunting of the Snark:

He had bought a large map representing the sea,
Without the least vestige of land:
And the crew were much pleased when they found it to be
A map they could all understand.

IE, it is information free for the issue in question.

I still think that watching flights on Web Link gives us actual data that clearly shows that Palo Alto/East Menlo Park/East Palo Alto do get more overflights than most surrounding towns. A lot more. Look at July 13 from 11am to 1pm. I count about 52 SFO inbound flights between Willow Rd and San Antonio more or less, and about 2 over Redwood City/Atherton. More flights = more noise. QED. I just don't see why the deniers continue to deny this.

And, I think this discussion has outlived its usefulness. There are two sides here and I have seen no evidence of anyone changing sides. Yeah, it is satisfying to convince others of the error of their ways, but in reality it doesn't really matter if the deniers are converted or not, unless they have some power over the situation which I think they do not. The believers have to convince government officials that there is a problem and something should be done about it. Complain to local/state/federal officials. Sign petitions. Get your neighbors to complain. If you are a pilot, fly circles over Palo Alto for a few hours towing a big sign that says "DON'T LIKE AIRPLANE NOISE? COMPLAIN!" Etc. Etc. Etc.

Congresswoman Ashoo has a survey, I encourage those of you Palo Alto folks who are suffering from the aircraft noise go there to take the survey.

Web Link

jsun,

Thank you for notifying us about the survey. Spread the word!

The survey also works for those NOT suffering from aircraft noise.

And there is an "additional comments" box.

The Sky Posse petition is moving along with a jump in signatures today, James Keene has asked lobbyists to help with Palo Alto's airplane noise, and Anna Eschoo has released a noise abatement survey today.

This has been a good day!

musical,

Would be nice if those who want to report no problem would disclose they are pilots, industry, and so forth.

I have noticed a strong correlation between noise deniers and their affiliation with aviation.

I've noticed a strong correlation between Palo Altans and air travel.

musical,

You apparently haven't been in Union Square lately.

Thank you fro providing the survey. Time to roll here.

Peter Carpenter

"Oh, and careful scientific measurements have shown that my Atherton neighborhood receives exactly the same level of airplane noise as does Palo Alto."

.....from a post you made today on a related thread about aircraft noise.

Are you referring to this study?

"Are you referring to this study?"

No but rather a new study that has multi-day noise study on both a Palo Alto site and a Lindenwood site - to be published soon.

Peter Carpenter,

Guess I'm being nosy but why have a study about your neighborhood when you don't seem to think there is a problem, maybe it's a Surf Air study?

"Guess I'm being nosy but why have a study about your neighborhood when you don't seem to think there is a problem,"

As noted it is not my study.

The researcher who is doing the study understands the fundamental truth that it is impossible to determine if Palo Alto has a worse noise problem than other communities without collecting actual sound level data for multiple communities.

And the research protocol is not to ask people if they have a noise problem but rather to collect actual sound level information.

Web Link

Why does Peter Carpenter insist there's "no data" when Sky Posse has this link on it's website?

I would add, simply: If my neighbor bangs his drum once very, very loudly, I'm not going to be too bothered. If he bangs it 100 times half as loud as the very loud one, I'm going to be bothered.

"Why does Peter Carpenter insist there's "no data" when Sky Posse has this link on it's website? "

The title of the study says it all:

"Report on Some Quantitative Measurements of Aircraft Overflight Noise IN PALO ALTO"

If you want to claim that Palo Alto is being disproportionately impacted by airplane noise then you also have to have noise data from other communities. The data recently collected in Lindenwood will, when published, provide a second set of data points.

Unless I missed it in the thread somewhere, your initial post was not about frequency, but about noise level--so where is the comparative data on frequency in Lindenwood v. Palo Alto?

That said, disproportionality is essentially irrelevant. It doesn't matter if my neighbor's neighbor is banging his drum or not--if mine is banging it hundred times.

" disproportionality is essentially irrelevant."

Finally somebody admits that the goal is not to reduce airplane noise but rather to move that noise someplace else.

There is little logic and no political appeal to "solving" Palo Alto's perceived noise problem simply by giving that problem to some other community.

Let's talk data, if you want data:

The Atherton Town Manager report, which you cited to begin the post, cited the study with a 21 hour reporting period. In that report, which I have read, there were 136 airplane "events." That is an hourly rate, on average, of 6.5.

The Sky Posse report, which I cited above, and you said does not address proportionality (and which was done by a Stanford emeritus scientist) CLEARLY shows, on its page 9, a much higher frequency, on average, than 6.5 airplane events per hour. As that study notes, the "mode" of frequency is in the 12 events per hour range. And if you actually look at the distribution, most hours generously exceeded 6.5.

Data.

Peter Carpenter,

I agree that it's better to reduce noise instead of giving it to another community.

Noise should anyway be shared.

How else do you reduce aircraft noise, unless it's shared?

"The Sky Posse report, which I cited above, and you said does not address proportionality (and which was done by a Stanford emeritus scientist) CLEARLY shows, on its page 9, a much higher frequency, on average, than 6.5 airplane events per hour."

I agree and the forthcoming report will show that "the overflight measurements (noise levels, overflight frequencies, diurnal variations, and noise peak widths) are essentially indistinguishable between " the Palo Alto site and the Lindenwood site.

Uhh, Mr. Carpenter, you have been crying for data, and I gave you some, and now you say, the data is "essentially indistinguishable"? The data I gave you was NOT.
Please comment directly to the data I provided.

Scott the 21 hr Atherton study was not conducted using the same protocol as the week long Palo Alto and Lindenwood studies. Also the Lindenwood site is closer to major SFO routes than was the site of the 21 hr Atherton study.

In short, the 21 hr study is not comparable to the Palo Alto and Lindenwood studies.

The Palo Alto and Lindenwood studies are exactly comparable and the "the overflight measurements (noise levels, overflight frequencies, diurnal variations, and noise peak widths) are essentially indistinguishable between " the Palo Alto site and the Lindenwood site.

First of all, you began your post by citing the 21-hour study--Is it valid or not?
If your chief criticism of it is that its site is not--and the Palo Alto or Lindenwood studies are--on a "major SFO route," that is tautological, or no criticism at all. Airplanes don't observe city boundaries. If Palo Alto/Lindenwood are on a trajectory that is getting much higher flight frequency than the "21 hour" study site (Holbrook), then there IS disproportionality somewhere in the flight distribution system that needs to be addressed.

Scott - I am confused. First your state that " disproportionality is essentially irrelevant." and then you state "there IS disproportionality somewhere in the flight distribution system that needs to be addressed."

Please tell me which Scott to respond to.

I have long ago posted two very different solutions for the redistribution of airplane noise. One randomly assigning inbound airplanes to different intercept points on the 284 radial from SFO and the second assigns all inbound aircraft to one of three Initial Approach Points each at 7000 ft and all at the south end of the Bay.

My first comment about disproportionality being essentially irrelevant is a subjective one--if I, or anyone, experiences distress from noise, it essentially doesn't matter if it is disproportionate or not--The noise from, say, Shoreline theater will bother me even if I know that the whole of Palo Alto is getting blasted by it.

But you wanted data, and I provided it--in order to be objective, and show that, in fact, there is disproportionality--which is important to you and, I admit, should be to all of us.

Your last paragraph, if you are honest, seems to concede that there needs to be some redistribution?

And which Peter Carpenter is to be trusted about this issue, the one who posts solutions for a problem that he has long fought to justify, and up to this post suggested not worth studying ("be careful what you wish for when you demand a professional study").

To the Peter Carpenter now studying his own neighborhood which is apparently under the path.

I see other inherent conflicts in what Peter Catpenter posts which is usuallly to enter into arguments about Palo Alto. We fall short, in data, noise, solutions, only Atherton knows best and has more data, noise, solutions but the worst is the double standard of accusing Palo Alto about moving noise to another community when that is exactly what happened TO Palo Alto.

Yet another distraction to the public, I feel completely duped.

It is noisy here.

I have always supported equitable sharing of airplane noise.

But I have never supported simply moving airplane noise from one community to another without knowing the relative impact of such a move.

And I have long ago proposed two solutions to the sharing and shifting problem:

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 27, 2015 at 3:35 pm
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
IF you want a simple solution then Palo Alto should just request that the FAA do the follow three things:

1 - All SFO inbound traffic from the North and the East must use the RNAV (GPS) X RWY 28R approach and must enter that approach at the ANETE Initial Approach Fix (IAF) for which the minimum crossing altitude is 7000 ft,

Web Link

Alternatively these aircraft could us the ILS or LOC RWY 28R approach and must enter at ARCHI IAF for which the minimum crossing altitude is 7000 ft,

Web Link

2 - All SFO inbound traffic from the South and the West must use the RNAV (GPS) X RWY 28L approach and must enter that approach at the Faith IAF which has a minimum crossing altitude of 7000 ft.,

Web Link

Entry to this approach via MENLO intersection would not be permitted.

Alternatively these aircraft could us the ILS or LOC RWY 28L approach and must enter at the FAITH IAF for which the minimum crossing altitude is 7000 ft,

Web Link

Entry to this approach via MENLO intersection would not be permitted.


3 - SFO and SJC must be landing in the same direction unless the wind differential between them is greater than 1o knots.

These recommendations use existing and established procedures and do not impinge on the SJC airspace.

If these recommendations were to be adopted then Palo Alto's problem would go away. Some communities further to the South would see significant increases in overflights but these would be at higher altitudes.

********************
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 23, 2015 at 10:58 am
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
OK, let's develop a Draft SFO Approach Protocol which is based on simplicity, equity and technical feasibility.

As a starting point I recommend the following report:

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

Here is the full report:
Web Link

Here are some highly relevant excerpts:

"And the solution that has been championed concerns air traffic management, specifically the more
widespread use of Continuous Descent Approaches (CDAs). Traditional approach paths involved
aircraft descending through different blocks of airspace in a series of steps, using flaps and power
changes to manage speed. In CDAs, in contrast, aircraft descend into the airport at a steady 3
degrees; while there will still be some noise from the engine, additional noise from the aircraft itself
is reduced. This procedure, combined with the use of P‐RNAV and changes to the joining point for
final approach, have increased the concentration of aircraft along corridors. For pilots, this reduces
the number of factors having to be taken into account when landing. For Government, it helps to
satisfy the environmental objective of minimising the number of people affected by aircraft noise
when determining arrival and departure paths and airspace revisions.
Changes in the joining point to optimise Continuous Descent Approaches have produced as many
losers as winners: it has resulted in more concentration of flight paths many miles from the airport."

"But alternative approaches do existÂ…..a number of schemes are being trialled at airports around
the world or at least being assessed.

To deal with the issue of concentration of traffic, some airports have been trialling curved CDA
approaches. This gives the benefit of a continuous descent but allows air traffic controllers to have
several CDA approaches – more akin to the fanning effect of traditional approach paths – reducing
the number of overflights in any given place. Other airports have also looked at using curved CDA to
join the final straight approach at different points, effectively a herring bone pattern."

Here is a diagram of such a herring bone pattern:
Web Link

****************************
So using the concept of a herring bone pattern and Advanced (or curved) Controlled Descent Approachs (CDA'a) here is a Draft SFO Arrivals Protocol:

1 – Establish two 25 mile plus 284 degree radials form SFO – one as an extension of Runway 28 Right and the second as an extension of Runway 28 Left.

2 – Place intercept points on each of these 284 deg radials at ½ mile intervals starting 10 miles from SFO where the 3 degree glide path interception point would be at 3000 ft and continuing out to the 25 mile point for a total of 32 interception points on both radials.

3 – ATC to randomly assign Curving CDAs to airplanes from the North and East to the 16 interception points on 28 Right radial.

4 - ATC to randomly assign Curving CDAs to airplanes from the South and West to the 16 interception points on 28 Left radial.

5 – Between 2100 (9 PM) and 0600 (6 AM) aircraft would be randomly assigned to interceptions point no closer than 20 miles from SFO.

6 - Future improvements could be made when and if steeper glide paths ( greater than 3 degrees) are approved.

*************************************

What are the specific problems with this DRAFT proposal?

How can it be improved?

Is it simple?

Is it equitable?

Is it technically feasible?

Peter: Technically impressive--truly. And all very good questions. I don't have the know-how to begin answering them. My simple hope, I guess, is that all the relevant "players"--the FAA, groups such as "Sky Posse," and concerned citizens such as yourself--find a way to fairly and clearheadedly look at the issue. My impression--granted, partial--from Sky Posse is that the FAA is unwilling to do this. If a fair review of the issue is done, and if the data prove out that in fact the noise is being shared equitably--and what many of us "complainers" are experiencing is simply a new norm--then we either live with it or move.

Not sure I believe any of this since fudging the data is the new science.
And Peter Carpenter is still protecting his town of Atherton and supporting
planes over Palo Alto, imagine that.

"And Peter Carpenter is still protecting his town of Atherton and supporting
planes over Palo Alto, imagine that."

Not at all.

As an individual airplane noise does not bother me but that reflects my personal sensitivities.
**********************
As a citizen I have spoken out against moving SurfAir flights from Atherton to other less affluent and politically less powerful communities.

"Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 20, 2013 at 5:55 pm
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
"a permanent remedy that will move Surf Air planes east of Middlefield Road for good."

Sure, just shove the problem off on our less vocal and less affluent neighbors to the east.

How arrogant can we be?"

"Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 12, 2013 at 1:45 pm
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
The FAA has already made it clear that the MOST they could change this approach is 10 degrees East - which would simply put the approach over other people's homes.

" I find you insufferable." That is your right but my preference is to stick with the facts and not to engage in self serving arguments. The opponents of SurfAir's use of San Carlos just ignore the facts of the approach's demonstrated safety, SurfAir higher than required operating standards and the obligation of the airport to permit SurfAir's operations.

As previously stated I, who lives near the flight path in question, would be ashamed if the solution to 'my' problem was to give the noise to less vocal and less affluent residents."
***********************
As a citizen I have proposed new flight paths which either spread the SFO load more evenly or raise the flight paths over populated areas.

Lindonwood gets the same airplane noise as Palo Alto.

But midtown is about 25% further from the airport than Lindonwood. Should be more than 50% less disruption (varies by the square of the distance) on midtown.

So it is far worse than proportional impact from airplane noise on Midtown.

"But midtown is about 25% further from the airport than Lindonwood. Should be more than 50% less disruption (varies by the square of the distance) on midtown."

Wow - a totally new definition of proportional impact.

The protestors have long argued that Palo Alto is more impacted by noise than other communities and now that the data shows that this is not the case the NEW argument is that Palo Alto should have less noise than other communities.

Some may claim that proportional means essentially the same thing as equal in their analysis, but this would be faulty use of terms and math.

"...and now that the data shows that this is not the case..."

The purported data does not show anything, since the data is nowhere to be seen.