One look at this map and I see why I hear plane noise all day and much of the night. My little swath of midtown has become fly-over central! It is absurd to arbitrarily subject us to this almost constant noise pollution.

Was at a friend's house/yard in Midtown this Sunday.
Was puzzled by the airplane noise; remembered our days at Redwood Shores when we were under the path of San Carlos airport flights.
After seeing this map, I understand why...

Thank you to SkyPosse, Anna Eshoo and all those working on this issue.

These are phone numbers for registering your complaint about air noise. Some of these complaint sites begin counting a new list of callers each month. If you are bothered from month to month then call each month.

I encourage all of us who are disturbed by air noise to keep calling to register our complaints. If the noise keeps coming we have the right to keep complaining. If the number of calls received is somehow used to estimate public sentiment your calls could prove to be very important.

SFO: 877 206-8290
PA Airport: 650 329-2405
San Jose Airport: 408 392-3501

San Carlos Airport-Surf Air 650 573-2666

FAA San Jose: 1408 291-7681
FAA for Oakland: 510 748-0122

Math is incorrect on total of flights listed. Adds up to 116 vs. 117 BEFORE subtracting the one Friday flight.

So what's the goal here? Trying to shut down Surf Air with laws made to not seem like they've been created solely to shut down Surf Air?

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

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

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

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

It is likely that this is just the first salvo in an attempt to shut down Palo Alto Airport. The presence of general aviation is a huge asset to both Palo Alto and the surrounding areas. Certainly the developers would like to turn the very valuable land in a prime location into office parks, but those can be developed in other parts of Palo Alto. Rather than shutter such a valuable facility - which is what all this airplane noise whining is really about - why don't we instead promote its use? I think Surf Air is great. It creates jobs and provides a valuable service. We can expand office floor space in other parts of Palo Alto by building up. There is a lot to be said for shiny new high rises.

To those throwing rocks at Atherton, what is up with that? If they don't like Atherton, don't like Palo Alto Airport and don't like Palo Alto, nobody is forcing them to stay. The Atherton=phobia, in particular, is misguided at best.

So who is behind Sky Posse really? Seems a little fishy to me, especially since it consists of three percent of Palo Altans at most, and likely far less.

@Somebody wrote:

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

That is because the "gigantic airplane noise" problem does not exist, and hence cannot be solved.

The purpose of all this is to change Surf Air's route to San Carlos. As all Palo Alto traffic comes in over the Bay perhaps there is a similar solution. I can hardly think of a worse one that flying directly above ECR over a series of peninsula communities.

The interactive flight map that I have been using shows a huge number commercial jet flights---UA, Canadian, international, etc flights coming into the PA skies from west, south and north. They converge at approximately the intersection of Embarcadero and Middlefield. Therefore, our neighborhood is suffering mightily from flight noise. During certain hours--approx 7-10 am, 11am-2pm, and 4-7 pm--there are flights EVERY 1 to 2 MINUTES. As soon as one plane is leaving, another arrives. This flight map also lists the altitude of the planes, which often are at 3500-3900', much lower than SFO claims these fly-overs to be. These decrease in frequency after 11 pm, but never stop. There are low fly-overs at 1:30 am. We are losing sleep, work time, and the ability to conduct business on the phone, etc. etc.
Additionally, there are almost NO birds at our bird feeder during the busy times. We all live near the Baylands Preserve. I have to assume that nature is being adversely affected,too.

Kazu,

If you think Surf Air is great then have them fly into Palo Alto, The tech execs would be happy to land there.

@ Kazu,

I have "good" news for you, Kazu. PAO will not close any time soon. Since it has accepted funds from the FAA, no one can make PAO close. The FAA gets the final word and it will not let it happen. On the other hand, if we do not watch it, we could end up with Surf Air or one of its competitors at PAO, much to the delight of Atherton.

Of course, you would probably think it is not a problem, based on your statements.

Palo Alto (and a couple adjoining communities such as East Palo Alto) has been on the receiving end of most of the SFO inbound traffic from the south, the west and the north - before it reaches the bay -, and traffic over Palo Alto has increased much more than overall SFO traffic, not mentioning even the traffic we get from SJC and OAK. Obviously it is not an issue for you and Palo Alto residents should accept to take the brunt of this according to what you say. Lucky you are that it is fine with you.

If Surfair decides to set up shop at PAO, there is nothing to stop them.

When the PACC decided to accept FAA airport improvement program (AIP) grants, they gave control of PAO to the FAA by entering into a contract with the FAA. The terms of the contract prevent Palo Alto from denying ANY aviation, use of the airport.

The PACC seems to be naively unaware of the limitation imposed by the FAA under the contractual terms of AIP grants, and one has to wonder what advice ex SFO Chief Council, and now Palo Alto City Attorney, Molly Stump gave council on this issue.

AIP grants are a scam. AIP grants use your federal tax dollars to buy control of local municipal assets, for the benefit of the aviation industry.


"Regional Affairs Brief: Santa Monica Municipal Airport"
AOPA ~ updated August 31, 2011 Web Link

[Post removed.]

"When the PACC decided to accept FAA airport improvement program (AIP) grants, they gave control of PAO to the FAA by entering into a contract with the FAA."

Correct and this was a voluntary action by the PACC without any coercion by the FAA - who would be happy to spend the AIP dollars elsewhere.

Kazu, how do know the percentage of Palo Alto residents actually bothered by the noise?

And if this were the case, that only a small minority of PA residents have a problem with airplane noise, what do you make of the Atherton residents who complain about Surf Air? I am really curious to know.

Can we somehow stop taking the AIP grants? Or when does the contract expire? Stinks that we ceded local control over our airport, argh.

Quit whining people! I have to commute using this service on a weekly basis for business. This is a great avenue for people like me to get there and back quickly without fussing with SfO or SJC. You all should be grateful that there are affluent folks here with jobs that are pouring $$$$$ into this area through taxes which helps PA as a whole.

The alternative would be unemployment, living off public funds, or just becoming a sleepy retirement community. Take your pick.

[Post removed.]

[Portion removed.]

Somebody, the 97 percent figure is derived from a survey the plane whiners originally cited as evidencefor their position (but which actually countered their claims). It is in another thread around here somewhere. A tiny minority making more noise by far than the planes doesn't magically make them more numerous. Not even a bunch of sock puppets can do that. [Portion removed.]

"Can we somehow stop taking the AIP grants?" Yes

" Or when does the contract expire? " Usually about 20 years after the last grant that was accepted or about 2034.

In the other thread on this platform it has been determined that in PA the airspace up to 2,000 ft. is under the control of the PAO/ATC/FAA.

So if Surf Air is crossing PA at less than 2,000 ft. than it has requested and been given permission to do so? Please verify. So complaining to San Carlos is only part of the action - also need to complain to PAO about giving permission to cross the PA airspace - correct?

Surf Air can be over the bay and conduct their business - they chose not to.
If they do not chose to fly over the bay water that they are fair game if they are flying over the PA airspace.

Note that we have an FAA office and ATC at PAO.

Commuter,

If pollution were calculated on a per passenger basis, it would be considered ridiculous to commute by Surf AIr.

You can afford Surf Air because it is a really cheap way to get by.

As I have stated repeatedly an individual's reaction to noise in general and to specific types of noises is varied. I understand that some people are very sensitive to noise just as some people are very sensitive to light. I understand that some people are more sensitive to airplane noise than to leaf blowers.

Public policy is a balancing act between the needs of all and the concerns of some.

In the case of airplane activity public policy gives, appropriately I believe, a much higher priority to safety than it does to the understandable and real concerns of a small number of people to the noise created by those airplanes. It is remarkable to think of the millions of aircraft flights in the Bay area over the years with so few if any mid air collisions - an outcome not to be taken lightly given the frequency with which all other forms of transportation have such encounters.
As noted the Bay area airspace is both very complicated and very congested - it is not possible to make one change without having an impact on all the other parts of the system.

It is a balance and so far the advantages of safety far outweigh the disadvantages of noise.

"Note that we have an FAA office and ATC at PAO."

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

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

"So if Surf Air is crossing PA at less than 2,000 ft. than it has requested and been given permission to do so?"

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

What's up with all the SJC flights being routed over Palo Alto this morning? Every two minutes or so, and low. I noticed it last night as well, around 11:30pm. I figured it was due to the storm, but it's still happening.

Also, can someone point me to the moderation guidelines? How is it that expressing gratitude for rich people is against the moderation guidelines, while demanding gratitude for rich people is okay?

SJC is landing to the South with winds at 9 knots from the South

SFO is landing to the North with tailwinds of 12 mph from the SSE.

SFO inbounds are forcing SJC inbounds lower over Palo Alto.

There is NO excuse for both airports not landing in the same direction.

Peter Carpenter

"SurfAir does this by requesting the IFR approach from Tracon which controls all of the Bay area airspace."

"IFR approach which takes priority over all other forms of airspace control and the altitudes for that approach are fixed by the "approach plate""

In other words a highly polluting business model which serves a few people - fewer than the people being impacted by the noise and the chemicals gets to ask Tracon whatever, and Tracon complies.

Is it a wonder that the Bay Area airspace is "complicated" when airlines get to request, request, request and Tracon and the FAA are obligated to comply in the name of safety.

Please Peter - the free-for all- for airlines is making things unsafe and the FAa is scuttling about to serve these interests.

So in this case of Surf Air Tracon is the approver of objectionable flight paths.

Where is Tracon locate? That is who we need to complain to.

Are they also the approver of San Jose flights diverting over Palo Alto at a lower altitude in good weather? The original flight path for San Jose keeps the San Jose planes in their territory - so what is the point of diverting over PA in good weather?

So Tracon has an agenda.

meant to say, No wonder the airspace is "complicated"

Cheap polluting airlines like Surf Air are in charge of traffic decisions with a simple request.

"Please Peter - the free-for all- for airlines is making things unsafe "

Actually air travel in general and air travel in the Bay area is probably the safest form of travel per passenger mile.

Peter Carpenter,

The noise levels and pollution inflicted on the ground are not safe.

Those costs don't figure in your propaganda about air travel.

That is evident by the impact a polluting cheap air shuttle service like Surf Air which gets to influence air traffic decisions for an entire region.

Imagine if we could request cut through neighborhoods to make a buck.

Peter Carpenter,

"There is NO excuse for both airports not landing in the same direction."

Maybe Surf Air knows why.

"Maybe Surf Air knows why. "

SurfAir and its flights have no impact on the SFO and SJC landing patterns.

Peter Carpenter,

The relevant airlines must know why, since they get to request and receive.

Who knew that air travel is directed, on demand, by the airlines.

"Who knew that air travel is directed, on demand, by the airlines."

No intelligent and well informed person. Air travel is directed by the FAA; individual flight request to use an established, approved route.

Peter Carpenter,

Is there a pecking order when airlines receive their requests for how and where to fly?

First come first serve, or do they negotiate?

And how did they get non-discriminatory status - just based on them being an airline, or that any business goes.

Peter Carpenter,

And how does the FAA come up with routes?

"Is there a pecking order when airlines receive their requests for how and where to fly?"

I presume you meant is there a pecking order to the clearances granted to specific airplanes by the FAA?

The ATC system issues clearances on a first come first served basis with two exceptions - emergency medical flights (Angel Flights) receive priority and when there is congestion on the ground at a particular airport planes asking for a clearance to that airport are frequently given a ground hold at their departure airport until a slot is averrable for them at their destination airport.

A plane arriving in the Bay area but not on a filed flight plane - which frequently happens for private pilots - are often told to hold outside a particular airspace until the controller has the time/capacity to properly handle them.

"And how does the FAA come up with routes?"

By a lot of hard work to verify the absence of obstacles and adequate clearance from other already approved routes. And the specially equipped FAA planes fly the proposed routes numerous times to verify their safety. Only then is the route officially published.

Peter Carpenter,

What types of obstacles are considered?

And who makes the decisions?

Is it a department at Tracon, 2 or 20 people?

Do airport have any input?

Google puts the Terminal Radar Approach Control(TRACON)facilites at Mather, Sacramento - (formerly Mather AFB). Other TRACON locations in California are Fresno, Santa Barbara, and San Diego.
If you go on Google and put in TRACON you can also access the FAA site and view some videos on Next Gen. They show the revised flight paths for the east coast and Seattle but the west coast - California did not have a video. They note the stakeholders in this process - but people on the ground are not noted as stakeholders.

So that is where the legislative connection comes in - that is a stakeholder.

For this all to work the planes need the proper equipment to communicate via computer vs voice command. Most of the planes now are older and most US carriers are in process of replacing their planes for newer models, leasing their older models out to regional and foreign airlines.

Somebody wrote about PAO AIP grants - "Correct and this was a voluntary action by the PACC without any coercion by the FAA - who would be happy to spend the AIP dollars elsewhere."

However, going forward, that will no longer be true. As part of the Consent Calendar this past June, the PACC passed resolution 9533. This gives Palo Alto's City Manager authority over approving both state and federal grants for the Palo Alto Airport. PACC will likely never vote on another AIP grant again.

Neither the staff report, nor the ordinance contain a hint that this obligates the City to extending the life of the airport for 20 years beyond the award date of the grant. See: Web Link

@Resident wrote:

"Also, can someone point me to the moderation guidelines? How is it that expressing gratitude for rich people is against the moderation guidelines, while demanding gratitude for rich people is okay?"

Just click on the 'Report objectionable content link' and half the time the post will be deleted regardless of whether it is offensive or not. Of course, the problem with that is that opposing posters often get into "delete wars". But what does wealth have to do with airplane noise debate? Absolutely nothing, as far as I can tell. Besides, Palo Alto and the surrounding communities are all ridiculously rich.

@ jlanders

Resolution 9533 makes things even worse then!

It puts the decision of accepting FAA money into the hands of someone who is appointed and not answerable to the average Palo Alto citizen. It has become a non political decision. It means FAA money is even more likely to be accepted, rather than less likely.

God help us!

"Neither the staff report, nor the ordinance contain a hint that this obligates the City to extending the life of the airport for 20 years beyond the award date of the grant."

Maybe they don't but it is clearly part of the federal rules and no one can overrule this. See what is happening in Santa Monica. We are almost powerless with the FAA.

Speaking of the Faa, my friend who is training at San Carlos said that the airport is under federal investigation. He thinks it has to do with Surf Air. They're all tight lipped. I think our electeds need to report with more information if this is true.

It is a travesty of "journalism" that the Weekly allows such rumor mongering.

Trying to stay on topic. Is anyone sincerely looking for a way to quickly reduce Surf Air flights over Palo Alto? The best way is to upgrade the facilities at Palo Alto airport and invite SurfAir to move to Palo Alto. A 500 foot runway extension and a new terminal are probably all it would take. Shouldn't be hard to pick up the phone and ask what they would want.

If you want to fight Surf Air’s right to fly into San Carlos airport it will take years, millions of dollars and possibly multiple trips to the Supreme Court. And/or an act of Congress. Surf Air is flying in airspace and routes that have been published for many years and designed in accordance with the FAA’s charter to manage US national airspace. Surf Air appears to be a responsible operator choosing the best, safest and most cost-efficient aircraft for the routes they’ve chosen. Choose the stick if you want, but expect it to take a long time.

Or you can choose the carrot and invite them to Palo Alto Airport. The instrument approach into Palo Alto Airport crosses the downtown Mountain View business district at 2000 feet and continues to 101 and Rengstorff just west of the Googleplex. No flight over residential Palo Alto. The instrument departures are to the east over the Bay. Surf Air reportedly wanted to operate out of Palo Alto, so this is a win for the community, a win for the airport and a win for Surf Air.

Trying to shame Surf Air will probably backfire and pleading for mercy is a weak tool. So remember we can sit down with Surf Air as an equal and negotiate a solution. We can probably organize a public-private partnership to defray the costs. Or we can plead, beg and threaten to sue with a long wait and an uncertain outcome.

Airplanes flying along 101 at landing altitudes for PAO will impact a wide swath of the eastern section of PA at very minimum.

Secondly, it is hard to believe that no Surf Air traffic would be directly above PA if taking off and landing at SFO. Then Surf Air would be above us at really low altitude along with all other PAO traffic, SFO and SJC traffic. A nightmare.

Do you truly live in Palo Alto? I have a hard time believing that any true PA resident would want what you advocate, unless you are maybe in the hills.

Meant to say "landing at PAO" of course, not SFO.

"Secondly, it is hard to believe that no Surf Air traffic would be directly above PA if taking off and landing at SFO."

It is very easy for flights to access PAO from the South without ever being over a single residence in Palo Alto.

The problem is obvious. SurfAir pilots need these long, straight-in approaches because they lack the skills to execute more complex approaches.

Self acclaimed pilot obviously does not understand the value and safety of stabilized straight in approaches when in communication with ATC and the airport tower.

Probably because she is not IFR rated - or perhaps not even a pilot

@Somebody wrote:

"Do you truly live in Palo Alto? I have a hard time believing that any true PA resident would want what you advocate, unless you are maybe in the hills."

I have lived here for over 50 years, and think Anonymous' suggestion makes a lot of sense. We can whine and stamp our feet, try to threaten Surf Air, or work together with them towards a mutually beneficial solution. Which do you think is best? One would hope that the correct answer would be obvious. Aviation and the services and jobs it provides aren't a problem, they are a very valuable asset.

@Pilot wrote:

"The problem is obvious. SurfAir pilots need these long, straight-in approaches because they lack the skills to execute more complex approaches."

Do you have evidence to support that claim? If so, please cite it. If not, then your claim is baseless.

Plumeria,

I suggest the airport management release copies of all the communications between them and Surf Air.

@Somebody - draw a line from Costco to the Palo Alto airport. Flights would stay on or east of that line at their lowest power setting. Most departures would turn right over the Bay before they reached Cooley's Landing.

@Pilot - very funny! Surf Air pilots are of course commercial pilots and they've demonstrated all the advanced maneuvers required for that license. No problem with skills.

I'm floating this idea as a thought experiment. It completely solves the Surf Air problems everyone claims to be worried about. It shifts the low altitude flying over business districts. It potentially costs very little to implement and could be done in less than a year. Yet I suspect the usual suspects will not say "Great solution to that problem. Let's move on to solve other solvable problems."

Kazu, It was said at one of the meetings that they are training new pilots and want them to fly the straight in. My feeling is after one or two flights if you can't feel comfortable flying a route so simple as Burbank to San Carlos you should find another profession.

"I suggest the airport management release copies of all the communications between them and Surf Air."

Please post a copy of your request to the airport management for that information.

[Post removed.]

[Post removed due to deletion of referenced comment.]

@"It is very easy for flights to access PAO from the South without ever being over a single residence in Palo Alto."


Surf Air would be closer to Stanford, Google, FB, Palo Alto,

A true win, win As I'm sure most of their tech passengers would prefer it.

@resident1,

Maybe random searches is not a bad idea

@Resident - warrantless random searches of cars on Alma and University would find a lot of interesting stuff. Possibly a few constitutional questions. We'll deal with that later.

[Post removed.]

I encourage all of us who are disturbed by air noise to keep calling to register our complaints. If the noise keeps coming we have the right to keep complaining. If the number of calls received is somehow used to estimate public sentiment your calls could prove to be very important.

SFO: 877 206-8290
PA Airport: 650 329-2405
San Jose Airport: 408 392-3501

San Carlos Airport-Surf Air 650 573-2666

FAA San Jose: 1408 291-7681
FAA for Oakland: 510 748-0122

[Post removed.]

Anonymous,

"Many of us will work with you if you actually want to solve the problem."

Who is "many" of you?

Sounds ominous, kind of like extraterrestrials. This whole process is bizarre as it is, all of a sudden many of you appear?

We have been complaining about noise for some time now, this is the first time I hear of some front of sorts ready to "work with us."

Could some of these comments be hitting too close to home? That commercial traffic using GA air space is a polluting business model that serves even less than the 1%, but it has an OK to make use of residential neighborhoods to make a buck?

Sorry, I do not buy for one second that Surf Air at PAO is a good idea.

We have heard it all before about PAO flights being east of 101 and over the bay. In reality, it does not work that way. They are very often smack above us.

For the sake of "efficiency" and "fuel savings" for example, I cannot imagine for one second that the flights would not quickly veer left and over us at take off when heading for Southern California.

As to landing planes, those low PC12s are even just east of 101, you better believe that we will hear them in our neighborhoods. We do hear SFO bound traffic when it is 4000-5000 feet just east of 101 (of course, most of the time SFO traffic is just above us instead).

Again, Atherton and others would love to dump the problem on us, as they have already done in the past with SFO traffic.

No thank you.

I read under surf air pilot requirement these guys start at $29.75 an hour and work up to $32 an hour, Is that possible?

I suspect the plan Anonymous floated to extend PAO's runway by 500', then invite Surfair to operate out of PAO, and "spin" it a solution to the aircraft noise problem, is actually City Manager Keene's plan.

With resolution 9533 in hand, Keene won't even need PACC's approval to do it. He can finance the whole thing by selling control of PAO to the FAA. The FAA will be more than happy to spend your federal tax dollars, to buy control of PAO, on behalf of the aviation industry.

Of course, to pull off a scam like this, you need a very clever, and experienced attorney. Ex SFO general council, and now Palo Alto City Attorney Molly Stump, would be perfect.


Resolution 9533: Web Link

Palo Alto City Attorney Molly Stump: Web Link

Neighbor said:

"I read under surf air pilot requirement these guys start at $29.75 an hour and work up to $32 an hour, Is that possible?"

Younger pilots, and pilots flying for regional airlines are very poorly paid. Pilots are only paid from the time they release the brakes at the departure airport, until the time they set the brake at the destination airport. Pilots don't get paid for all the time they spend waiting for a flight to get under way, or for the time they spend "dead-heading" to reach an airport to pilot a flight.

Starting pilot salaries at regional carriers average around $22,400 a year, and some smaller carriers pay as little as $15,000 a year.


"Airline Pilots Get Paid Crap"
Gawker ~ February 12, 2014 Web Link

The best jobs in the world are the ones that are so much fun you can't believe they are really paying you for it.

Justifying low paid pilots is actually yet another sign of the arrogance and abusiveness of this whole Air business.

@Neighbor wrote:

"I encourage all of us who are disturbed by air noise to keep calling to register our complaints."

And when all four of you call 200 times each, it will be quite obvious that this is a problem only for a handful of individuals out of tens of thousands vof Palo Altan. The oft-proposed solutions of eliminating flights or throwing the "problem" into someone else's backyard are equally unworkable.

Kazu,

Nobody wants to throw traffic into anyone's back yard in the way it is being thrown over here.

"Nobody wants to throw traffic into anyone's back yard in the way it is being thrown over here."

First, there is no data to support the assertion that Palo Alto is being disproportionately exposed to more ground level airplane noise than are other communities closer to SFO.

Second, the proposed remedy to this alleged problem, as stated repeatedly in this Forum, is to move this traffic away from Palo Alto/somewhere else.

Kazu and Peter Carpenter,

Your characterizations are what likely caused this problem in the first place.

People asking for reasonable attention and relief never get anywhere because apparently there are "many of you" who call the shots on how the Air business works.

Not impressed. None of it sounds right and Surf Air may as well be the poster child of the cheap rides "many of you" are getting.

Anyone - show us the data.

The only scientific study done of ground level noise in the mid peninsula was done by San Mateo County at a site in Atherton for a 20 hr period. The results of that study (which has been posted on the Forum) certainly do not support the claim that airplanes create more ground level noise in Atherton than 1) they do in communities closer to SFO or) than other noise sources like automobiles, trucks, trains and leaf blowers.

Here is the San Mateo County noise study that was done in Atherton from 2:00 p.m. on May 13 through 11:00 a.m. on May 14, 2015.


Web Link

"• Roadway Noise - The most frequently recorded events were classified as roadway noise (124), most likely from traffic on Holbrook Lane in front of the residence or Middlefield Road, located south of the residence. The Lmax within this grouping is 77.31 dB.
• Jet Aircraft - The second most frequent type of noise identified is that of jet aircraft (98 events). The residence is located approximately 14 miles southeast of SFO and based on a review of the SFO VOLANS flight tracking system, commercial jet aircraft arriving to and departing from SFO were operating in the vicinity of the residence during the measurement period. Based on a review of FAA’s flight plan database, which includes records of flight plans filed, no private jet operations occurred at San Carlos Airport during the measurement period. Therefore, it is assumed that the jet operations identified from the recordings could be attributed to aircraft arriving at SFO. The Lmax within this grouping is 74.64 dB.
• Noise from the Caltrain commuter train accounted for 48 of the noise events. The train tracks are located approximately 1⁄2-mile southwest of the residence. For the purposes of safety, a horn is used when the train approaches at-grade crossings, one of which is located on Fair Oaks Lane, also 1⁄2-mile southwest of the residence. The Lmax within this grouping is 67.66 dB.
• Propeller-driven aircraft accounted for 38 of the noise events. Further analysis of these events was conducted using the SFO VOLANS system, which allows public review of flight track information. Using the event time from the noise monitor, each of the time periods for which propeller aircraft events were identified, was reviewed to correlate the noise events with specific aircraft. Of the 38 noise events, 16 were identified as Surf Air flights (Pilatus PC-12 single engine turboprop), eight were identified as single-engine piston aircraft, such as the Cessna 182, four were privately operated turboprop aircraft, such as the Beech King Air 200, one was a helicopter, and the remaining nine were not identified within the VOLANS system. The Lmax within this grouping is 71.48 dB."

Why is there no comparable noise data from Palo Alto?

Peter Carpenter,

"show us the data."

Again, the arrogance.

Who are "you"? Is "you" Peter Carpenter, and Kazu?

Or when you speak of "us" do you speak about that group that Anonymous referred to - the "many of us" willing to work with the complainers. The invisibles who rule the skies.

It makes perfect sense that you suggest bypassing the FAA - to instead "show" "you" whatever it is you need for who knows what.

Really, who are you?

[Portion removed.]

"Really, who are you?" I am one of the best documented poster on this Forum. I use my real name and I have frequently posted many facts about myself - many of them related to my experience and expertise in aviation in general and in airport/community relations issues in particular.

It's funny all this grief could be avoided if Surf Air just spread out their approach.

Actually SurfAir IS spreading out their approachs (as long as visual flight rules prevail) and they are flying more of their approaches clean (with the wheels and flaps up) until they are closer to the airport.

Originally all of their approaches were precisely on the AMEBY IFR centerline and most were flown with flaps and wheels down as early at northern Palo Alto.

Progress - the result of ongoing discussion between the community and SurfAir, not the FAA, not law suits, not boycotts.

I hope that's not true Jetman, You mean after all that money and time spent training I could make more at Burger King at the end of the year considering the down time and dead heading, than flying a plane? Doesn't make any sense.

Peter, Do you know what the db, level was of the 16 Surf Air events?

" If Surf Air decides to set up shop at PAO, there is nothing to stop them.AIP grants are a scam. AIP grants use your federal tax dollars to buy control of local municipal assets, for the benefit of the aviation industry."


"Regional Affairs Brief: Santa Monica Municipal Airport"
AOPA ~ updated August 31, 2011 Web Link



Jetman do you know when the agreement expires and PAA becomes independant again?

Does San Carlos have one of these agreements?

"do you know when the agreement expires and PAA becomes independant again?"
In 2035 - as has been noted in this Forum many times.

Does San Carlos have one of these agreements?
Yes - as has been noted in this Forum many times.

"Peter, Do you know what the db, level was of the 16 Surf Air events?"

PLEASE read the report which has already been posted at least 4 times.

"Based on flight track information reviewed from the SFO VOLANS, 16 of the recorded
events were related to Surf Air flights (nine arrivals and seven departures). The Lmax for
these events ranged between 60.28 dB and 71.48 dB."

"Dogs 21 events 81.13 max
Roadway 124 77.31
Landscaping 25 76.40
Jet Aircraft 98 74.64
Propeller Aircraft 38 71.48"

' "The problem is obvious. SurfAir pilots need these long, straight-in approaches because they lack the skills to execute more complex approaches."

Do you have evidence to support that claim? If so, please cite it. If not, then your claim is baseless. '

Yep. Discount by demonstration.

If the SurfAir "pilots" think my claim is baseless, let them prove it by flying non-long-straight approaches.

"let them prove it by flying non-long-straight approaches."

The skill of a really good pilot is control - not wandering all over the sky.

The burden of proof is on the self-proclaimed pilot. What ratings do you hold and how many hours in what types of airplanes?

As for me single engine,tailwheel, high performance, glider and IFR with over 1000 hrs of bay area flight experience.

Neighbor said:

"Jetman do you know when the agreement expires and PAA becomes independant again?"

The terms of AIP grant contracts are generally 20+ years, although in Santa Monica's case the FAA has concocted an argument that the terms of the contract continue in perpetuity.

Do the math... for Palo Alto's most recent AIP grant of $1.6M (used to resurface the runway), Palo Alto sold control of PAO to the FAA for about $80k/year, and remember as a resident of California, the state that pays more federal income tax than any other state in the country, you paid for the FAA's purchase.

The crazy thing is... the readers of Town Square are actually better informed about this issue than the PACC. Most of the PACC members have the childlike belief that AIP grants are like gifts from the Easter Bunny, with no strings attached. I don't even think they realize Keene is selling control of PAO to the FAA.


"Council votes to take over Palo Alto Airport"
Palo Alto Weekly ~ Aug 12, 2014 Web Link

Federal money is being used for the new 101 bridge over San Francisquito Creek. How many years is that expected to keep functioning for its intended purpose?

SurfAir pilots don't need to prove anything to the self-proclaimed pilot above - they have already proven themselves to a much higher standard by being tested for and passing an Instrument Rating and either an Air Transport Pilot Rating or a Commercial Rating.

Here are SurfAir's minimum hiring standards:
"CAPTAINS

Minimum Qualifications:

Air Transport Pilot (ATP) License
FAA first class medical (or able to obtain one before training)
Valid driver's license
Impeccable safety record
Previous 121/135 experience
2000 total time
100 turbine time
Preferred Qualifications

Previous PC-12 experience
CRM experience
FIRST OFFICERS

Minimum Qualifications:

Commercial Pilot License with Instrument rating
FAA first class medical (or able to obtain one before training)
Valid driver's license
Impeccable safety record
800 total time
Preferred Qualifications:

Previous PC-12 experience
Previous 121/135 experience
CRM experience
These qualifications are the minimum requirements. The most successful applicants exceed these minimums."

I suggest everyone read Jetmans posting above, and go to the web link,

It refers to an article from PA Online about the airport being taken over by the city from the County. Aug. 14th 2014,
If the city also had the chance to turn down a small amount of money from the FAA and be independent
then they were foolish and lost a very rare oppartunity in todays society to be truly independent.

Wow, I can't believe it...

Peter, [portion removed] I understand the FAA will always control the airspace, but imagine, controlling your own land.

"The burden of proof is on the self-proclaimed pilot. What ratings do you hold and how many hours in what types of airplanes?"

The issue is that SurfAir pilot fly only long, straight, nearly flat, baby-simple approaches over the south peninsusa. Let them prove they can do therwise by doing otherwise.

"As for me single engine,tailwheel, high performance, glider and IFR with over 1000 hrs of bay area flight experience."

Easy to say. OK, I'll see that and I'll raise you multiengine, helicopter, floatplane, commercial, ATR, 1000+ hours close-terrain alpine, and 5000 Bay Area (note the caps) hours.

Got any DC3 in that tailwheel?

" Let them prove they can do therwise by doing otherwise."

They did that by passing their respective ATP, Commercial and IFR flight tests.

"Got any DC3 in that tailwheel?"

No - primarily my tailwheel time was in a Cessna 185.

All of my DC-3 time was jumping out of them as a USFS Smokejumper, USAF Master Parachutist and USMC Parachutist.

Oh, and how can you prove that you have the ratings that you claim?

"If the city also had the chance to turn down a small amount of money from the FAA and be independent"

The city did not have that choice - the airport came with existing 20 year AIP grant encumbrances. All the city could have done is to have paid the full cost to pave the runways itself and thereby not extend those encumbrances from 2034 to 2035.

"I understand the FAA will always control the airspace, but imagine, controlling your own land."

Everybody who has a home mortgage or a home improvement loan does not have uncontrolled ownership of their land so that is very easy to imagine.

Everybody who lives with zoning ordinances does not have uncontrolled ownership of their land.

[Post removed.]

@PlumeriaGarden wrote"

"Speaking of the Faa, my friend who is training at San Carlos"

In other words, based on second hand information...

"said that the airport is under federal investigation."

Did he provide any evidence to that effect, or is it just unsubstantiated rumor.

"He thinks it has to do with Surf Air."

He thinks or he knows? Sounds like guesswork to me.

"They're all tight lipped."

So they refuse to say anything? Making such a statement is one way to prevent rumors from being disproven. It also means they cannot be verified and remain gossip.

"I think our electeds need to report with more information if this is true."

Since there is not the slightest shred of evidence that the rumors are true, our elected officials can instead attend to matters of actual importance.

Your friend might as well as said a flying saucer full of aliens landed and the San Carlos airport. It would be every bit as verifiable as his alleged claims you posted.

@Anyone wrote:

"Nobody wants to throw traffic into anyone's back yard in the way it is being thrown over here."

Sure they do, and suggestions to that effect are frequently posted on Town Square. Palo Altans, or at least a tiny handful claiming to be Palo Altans, often propose shifting anythign they see as a problem onto neighboring communities. It is simply more of the unworkable Palo Alto NIMBY approach to a wide range of issues.


"Kazu and Peter Carpenter,

Your characterizations are what likely caused this problem in the first place."

You are claiming that Peter Carpenter and I caused a few people to be hypersensitive in the extreme to airplane noise? Not hardly.

"People asking for reasonable attention and relief never get anywhere because apparently there are "many of you" who call the shots on how the Air business works."

It is not people asking for reasonable attention and relief. [Portion removed.]

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

@Anyone wrote:

"What's your main point?"

That the airplane noise problem is something that effects just a handful if individuals, and is not a larger problem as is claimed by that vocal few.

[Portion removed.]

[Post removed.]

Kazu,

I disagree that the problems of the few (which in this case is in the hundreds or maybe thousands) are not worth paying attention to.

The health and well being of even 1 person counts, and is worth considering. Noise has impacts on quality of life.

To learn more, there is an event tomorrow that may be of interest.

Web Link

Anyone - Kazu, I and others have certainly paid a lot of attention to the problems of a few and have repeatedly acknowledged that their personal sensitivity to noise is real.

What is missing is any documentation to support the claim that the ground level noise footprint from aircraft noise is greater in Palo Alto than it is in any community nearer to SFO.

Anybody can complain about any nuisance but that does not mean that such a complaint is automatically elevated to the basis of fact and that action is taken to move that nuisance to another location where it will impact other equally sensitive people.

[Post removed.]

Musical said:

"Everybody who lives with zoning ordinances does not have uncontrolled ownership of their land"

Well, the airport is subject to the same zoning ordinances as everyone else. Hope you understand that when you say "everybody" that includes the PAO, and that the FAA is buying control, that the City would retain, if not for the AIP contract.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Something is being bought, and something is being sold... that is why the transaction is formalized under contract law.


"Santa Monica versus the FAA over airport"
LA Times ~ November 14, 2014 Web Link

[Post removed.]

@Anyone wrote:

"I disagree that the problems of the few (which in this case is in the hundreds or maybe thousands) are not worth paying attention to."

You might disagree, but have yet to offer any evidence that this is a problem for more than the tiniest fraction of Palo Altans. Furthermore, survey results and noise complaints indicate this is the case. Ironically, both were cited by the anti-aviation crowd as evidence for their position.

"The health and well being of even 1 person counts, and is worth considering. Noise has impacts on quality of life."

True, but it is also true that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one. Air travel and services are vital to our region. If the health and well being of the one is being so adversely impacted, then why does he or she remain in Palo Alto? Palo Alto is a city, not some isolated village in the middle of nowhere. It exists amid the San Francisco-San Jose conurbation, and as such will never be virtually silent.

Ambient street noise is also present, and typically at a higher volume than passing planes. Does anyone complain about that? Not that I have ever heard. If so why not? Why is noise from a plane so infinitely worse than noise generated by motor traffic? [Portion removed.]

Peter Carpenter,

FIrst of all, you can't pin this on "sensitive people" who are bothered by the nuisance because a nuisance is considered a nuisance for it's own reasons.

A nuisance which interferes with the quiet enjoyment of your own home will get resolved in the real world. And that is whether you are sensitive to it or not. When a neighbor blasts music at all hours, every day, nobody asks whether you are sensitive to the music or if you like the songs.

That's the real world of nuisance. Somehow aircraft noise has a protective culture that interestingly enough includes calling a pilot who disagrees with you a girl.

The simple answer to your dilemma about where the nuisance should go, from one sensitive person to another is to not pile it one one to protect the other.

As far as documentation about noise footprints. If the AIr business wasn't so cheap, maybe they would be tracking their waste. Can you imagine Surf Air working on their noise footprint?

When you fly, you should document your nuisance level. And if there is no law about that, there should be one.

Kazu,

That equation of a few people having to suck up the waste of businesses that others benefit from is really messed up.

"Now is there any chance the anonymous "pilot" can document her/his claims about the competence of SurfAir pilots who are all accident free and who all have ATP or commercial ratings?"

That's better.

" Can you imagine Surf Air working on their noise footprint?"

Yes, they have been doing that every day in response to community input.

" calling a pilot who disagrees with you a girl."
I have no idea who the self named "pilot" is including his her sex? Why do you presume that a pilot must be a male? Do you address all anonymous posters as male? Why?

"A nuisance which interferes with the quiet enjoyment of your own home will get resolved in the real world. And that is whether you are sensitive to it or not"
Wrong - we have lots of nuisance ordinances and they all have a legally defined threshold. The legally defined threshold for airplane noise is a level above 65 CNEL db. If you don't like the legal standard then change it.

[Portion removed.]

Interested readers can use SJC's web track to note that ALL of the SurfAir flights follow the multiple turn departures from SQL that are required by ATC to avoid the SFO Class B airspace - so much for self proclaimed "pilot's" claim that the SurfAir pilot can only fly straight and level.

Peter Carpenter,

"What is missing is any documentation to support the claim that the ground level noise footprint from aircraft noise is greater in Palo Alto than it is in any community nearer to SFO. "

Palo Alto is not near SFO. And why would Surf Air noise have to be compared to SFO communities?

But you say "Yes, they (Surf Air) have been doing that (working on their noise footprint) every day in response to community input."

So, is there documentation for that noise "footprint"?

What is noise footprint documentation?

"What is noise footprint documentation?"

Read these reports:

Web Link

Web Link

I have posted both of these reports numerous times and excerpts from them dozens of times - please do your homework.

"Palo Alto is not near SFO. And why would Surf Air noise have to be compared to SFO communities?" Because Atherton and Fair Oaks get much more ground level noise from Surfair than does Palo Alto.

[Post removed.]

Peter Carpenter,

The noise footprints you posted look like footprints around SFO airport.

And apparently you don't have any documentation of Surf Air's footprint even though you claim they work on it every day.

If this is all the documentation there is on noise footprints, that's pretty shabby. Especially if they are being used to claim there is no noise.

[Post removed.]