Just curious, where do Palo Altans expect the planes to fly? Over poor people in another town?

BP,

If you knew anything about this issue you would know the air routes through Palo Alto continue on through East Palo Alto (at an even lower altitude) on their way to SFO.

Aircraft should not fly over any residential area at an altitude of less than 10,000 feet. SFO bound aircraft can and should proceed at 10,000+ feet to the southern most tip of the bay and then do final descent into SFO entirely over the Bay

I actually enjoy sitting outside at night and watching/hearing planes fly above. I, and most people I know just tune out the sound. [Portion removed.]

"Aircraft should not fly over any residential area at an altitude of less than 10,000 feet. SFO bound aircraft can and should proceed at 10,000+ feet to the southern most tip of the bay and then do final descent into SFO entirely over the Bay"
*********

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 should be 8000 ft,

Alternatively these aircraft could us the ILS or LOC RWY 28R approach and must enter at ARCHI IAF for which the minimum crossing altitude should be 8000 ft,

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 should be 8000 ft.,


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,


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

Correction:

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 8000 ft,

This is why the FAITH to SFO proposal makes so much sense:

Web Link

Is it possible that we could just end up with the FAA suing the city ?
Sometimes its best not to poke a hornets nest. We can't afford it.

"Just curious, where do Palo Altans expect the planes to fly? Over poor people in another town?"

This kind of incurious comment on a subject that has been widely discussed and analyzed is either just trolling, or is a result of someone commenting on something he knows nothing about just to make noise.

The fact is that most planes crossing the Peninsula on the way to SFO fly over Palo Alto. This was not always the case: before NextGen and before San Mateo cities lobbied for change, cross Peninsula airplane traffic was dispersed over many more cities. Now Palo Alto (along with Los Altos and East Palo Alto) suffer with a hugely disproportionate burden.

No one involved in the discussion thinks that ALL the traffic just be moved to another city. Jetman and Peter Carpenter both discuss alternatives. Just shifting back to the status quo ante where the flights would be dispersed over a much larger area - including San Mateo County - would be an equitable solution.

It is unfair for one city to bear the brunt of SFO's and the FAA's decision making process. To suggest that those complaining about this are rich people attempting to shift a problem to poorer towns or are just unreasonably sensitive to noise betrays a total misunderstanding of the issues and contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Legal advice,

"Is it possible that we could just end up with the FAA suing the city ?
Sometimes its best not to poke a hornets nest. We can't afford it."

What would the FAA sue Palo Alto for?

Palo Alto Airport?

Another fantastic use of City money and resources! Well done Palo Alto! Why bother repaving streets or building a new police building, when we can try to sue the FAA because planes dare to fly over on their way to the airport! I also think we should look into suing the Sun when it gets too hot, and the clouds when it rains too much. Keep up the great work City Hall!

"air routes through Palo Alto continue on through East Palo Alto (at an even lower altitude) on their way to SFO."

If altitude is lower over East Palo Alto, how come those residents are not enraged over the flight path? Is their tranquility worth less than people who live in PA,Menlo and Atherton? Or maybe it's because they do not have the means or desire to sue the FAA? If you want tranquility move to Idaho.

> I actually enjoy sitting outside at night and watching/hearing planes fly above. I, and most people I know just tune out the sound.

Sheesh, I thought the Palo Alto Online editors were so adept at editing out trolling? Get with it folks! This is deliberately provoking with no redeeming value.

@Peter have you reconciled the SJC LOUPE4 departure lost-comm procedures with SFO arrivals via FAITH? You might want to ask an arrival controller if they'd assign both procedures concurrently.

FAITH at 8000 is above the charted SJC departures.

FAITH at 7000 could create a conflict - that is why U am proposing 8000 ft and that gives a 3 deg glide slope to SFO.

"MyOpinion", go spend some time in the Palo Alto Baylands or East Palo Alto. You will soon understand the answer to your sarcastic and caustic question. East Palo Alto probably doesn't complain about SFO and SJC because they get constant and deafening take-offs and landings from PAO. the inappropriately placed and toxic Palo Alto Airport.

Not only are take-offs and landings from PAO loud, but they gas the terrain below with exhaust fumes. Fumes from the aviation fuel for propellor planes contain lead as well and have been depositing lead over the whole area for many decades. The CDC should be studying this area looking at frequencies or chronic diseases as a function of distance to flight paths.

I think your question show little regard for East Palo Alto and contempt for those who want to make this situation better for the people who live in these cities. Why don't you try to be more helpful and less sarcastic?

Thank you, Palo Alto.

As weather warms, with open windows and backyard dinners, we are once again subjected to the roar of overhead air traffic. There's a specific flight at 11:35 pm or so that interrupts sleep.

BP is exactly right in the first comment. Palo Alto isn't concerned who's homes the planes are affecting, as long as it isn't theirs.

As a long time resident of Palo Alto, it embarrasses me that our community considers this an issue worth taking up with the FAA. When we have so much to give others, it seems a shame that we are using talent, time, and money so selfishly. .

PS My grandkids and I look up at the planes flying over my backyard and make a game out of guessing where each plane originated and which airline it might be. I highly recommend this fun game.

Maybe some of the comments some of you deem sarcastic aren't?

Some of us really aren't bothered by the plane noise (or train noise which also goes in the middle of the night).

I am not saying people's concerns aren't valid, everyone has their own things that bother them, their own tolerance level, but I honestly can't say I've ever thought "god I hate that plane noise". However daily I do grumble about the bad driving skills and traffic planning around here.

The loud flightpath was cunningly *shifted* in recent years to be over Palo Alto - and we’re supposed to be fine with that!?
Northern Santa Clara County is dumped on by San MateomCounty and SFO, and our county HQ down in San Jose doesn’t care. It’s outrageous and we require higher quality political representation of our city and region.

By the way, I recall E. Palo Altans posting on Nextdoor that they are also bothered by this excessive noise. Just because your limited experience of reading - like on this particular forum - doesn’t happen to have noticed such concerns, does not mean they haven’t been expressed elsewhere.

I get the frustration with this. But right here and now, Council ought to be figuring out the grade separation issues. That's something we can move forward on, instead of pursuing lawsuits. Electification will lead to quieter trains, but more of them. Let's address what's possible. And yes, both issues are important, but grade separation doesn't involve expensive litigation.

My Opinion said:

"If you want tranquility move to Idaho"

You don't have to move to Idaho to escape the constant jet noise in Palo Alto. All you have to do is move to San Francisco. There's no jet noise up there.

We citizens expect our leaders to ACT on our behalf, not sit on our rights and do nothing. To say there's no legal action available would be laughable if it wasn't so alarming (one suggestion: cut and paste a complaint another city has already filed). This a huge public health time bomb with people's sleep getting disrupted every night due the FAA's arbitrary decision to change flight paths a few years back.

@BP bob

Not necessarily poor areas...just not over our special town.

So now let's watch CC and the committee play ping pong with this issue for a year or two.

Wow! I was really impressed by Michelle's presentation and solid answers to questions fired at her. She's groomed, polished, and ready for the top spot. She was clear on FAA's decision. It was based on technical, economic, and environmental reasons. And to benefit, and have the least impact on, the most people. Guess what? We, at the center of the universe, are just a tiny part of the people.

Kenny Rogers wrote and sang a great song...about knowing when to hold em and when to fold em. Let's save our money to take care of real problems, not to pay lawyers in a futile attempt to sue the FAA.

I'm writing this with my patio door wide open. I hear birds and Bayshore (101) traffic. Who can we sue to move 101 someplace else?

Why are we rocking the boat on this nonsense when we should be working the train issue ??!! Next thing you know we’ll be having another bike bridge design competition and remodeling city hall!

This is the time to be focused on the grade crossings and train electrification. NOT SUING the Federal Government over unwinnable issues with dubious grounds.

@Trains please, you could ask why the chair of the Rail Transportation Committee is wasting bis time on a soda tax instead of worrying about both the trains and the planes.

I was not at all trolling with my comment about enjoying watching and listening to the air traffic! Also an unrealistic yet totally effective solution suggestion was removed.

But I also gotta wonder...if an actual lawsuit was ever filed and I could sit alone with the attorney filing and had some magical truth want to wave over him or her....that they'd say "yeah I know this suit is never going to win. It'll probably be thrown out as frivolous or as lacking standing. BUT we satisfy those vocal few that we are trying something and besides, who knows, maybe suits will have a pitbull legal effect and the FAA will decide to make a change just to get us to leave them alone". I'd bet heavy and give goid odds that would be the truthful answer.

You can sue because a process was not followed correctly but if you "win" then all the FAA has to do is redo the process - not change the outcome.

A better idea would be to get all the South Bay communities to unite in a suit to seek a particular outcome and the only outcome that all the communities would support is one that moves the noise away from populated areas and put it over the Bay. The FAITH/ARCHIE at 8000 ft would do just that.

Peter Carpenter,

The fools errand to make all the communities support 1 thing has already been tried and it failed.

The "re-do" in Phoenix is that they are working with Phoenix (and the diverse communities in Phoenix who will be affected in different ways) to come up with alternatives and the court order was to "go back" to 2014.

"the court order was to "go back" to 2014."

good luck with that.

The City and County of San Francisco should be sued, they are profiting hundreds of millions of dollars per year while they export their noise to Palo Alto and Mountain View. ALL planes landing or taking off from SFO should stay either (1) over the bay or (2) over the City and County of San Francisco until they reach 10,000 feet. If the City and County of San Francisco insists on "sharing" their noise (more like distributing 90% of it away from their constituents) then we insist they "share" the profits.

I wonder if those of you who like listening to jet planes will still like it when your neighborhood ends up with SJC bound jets flying at about 2,000 overhead every two minutes between 10 and 11 PM or later...
This may be coming to your neighborhood if the City of Palo Alto does nothing about it.

Can you please provide a reference for the SJ proposal for the 2000 foot ceiling overflights. This is the first I’ve heard of them. Can we bring this up at the next SkyPosse meeting ?

So is there anyone out there with a viable compromise ? Is it even possible, or would it require something unreal like building a new airport ? I've yet to deal with FAA in any way, but I don't think they're any different from other federal agencies, and negotiating anything with them... can be tricky, to put it mildly.

@Mary

What was your experience like when you negotiated with the other Federal Agencies ? Do you think we have a chance with the FAA ?

"Over time, as air traffic increases, there will be less opportunity to shift the traffic" - the useful words in this rambling, repetitive article.

NextGen's #1: increasing capacity.

If people don't first challenge the assumption that aviation's expansion goals are okay for human health and the environment then this goes nowhere. Spread the air and noise pollution is willful ignorance of the scope of NextGen's impact for selfish arguments and pointless bickering. And even if it was genuine ignorance, it's incredibly shortsighted; check out the expansion plans of every US airport--that should wake you up from the uniquely burdened delusion. And for the sake of such an ugly argument, if Palo Alto found its water was uniquely burdened with lead but other cities' water wasn't would your fight be to spread the lead more equitably? No wonder this industry is going rogue.

You want to fly and ship by air on demand this is your reward. If you don't like it then send a message by hitting this industry's profits. Unfortunately, it's not just elected officials who are captured by this industry and its dependents.

Mary,

"So is there anyone out there with a viable compromise ? Is it even possible, or would it require something unreal like building a new airport ? "

Hong Kong moved their airport in 1998 to an island.
Web Link

"A 1974 planning study by the Civil Aviation and Public Works departments identified the small island of Chek Lap Kok, off Lantau Island, as a possible airport replacement site. Away from the congested city centre, flight paths would be routed over the South China Sea rather than populous urban areas, enabling efficient round-the-clock operation of multiple runways. The Chek Lap Kok (CLK) airport master plan and civil engineering studies were completed towards the end of 1982 and 1983 respectively. In February 1983, however, the government shelved the project for financial and economic reasons. In 1988, the Port & Airport Development Strategy (PADS) Study was undertaken by consultants, headed by Mott MacDonald Hong Kong Limited, reporting in December 1989. This study looked at forecasts for both airport and port traffic to the year 2011 and came up with three recommended strategies for overall strategic development in Hong Kong. One of the three assumed maintaining the existing airport at Kai Tak; a second assumed a possible airport in the Western Harbour between Lantau Island and Hong Kong Island, and the third assumed a new airport at Chek Lap Kok. The consultants produced detailed analyses for each scenario, enabling Government to consider these appraisals for each of the three "Recommended Strategies". In October 1989 the Governor of Hong Kong announced to the Legislative Council that a decision had been made on the long-term port and airport development strategy for the territory. The strategy to be adopted was that which included a replacement airport at Chek Lap Kok and incorporating new container terminals 8 and 9 at Stonecutters Island and east of the island of Tsing Yi respectively.[10]"

By the way, not being bothered by noise and air pollution doesn't stop it from killing you. And there are countless studies if you care to educate yourself and care about not only your health but the health of other people and the environment. You want all-you-can-eat when it comes to mealtime, fine, you get the health problems all on your own. You want all-you-can-eat flying and shipping by air, now it's not just your health whether you give a damn or not. This is the most polluting and inefficient form of mass transportation and it's in unfettered expansion. Our legislators are unquestioningly facilitating this, and so is everyone who wants all-you-can-eat flying and shipping by air.

A guy gets dragged unconscious off a plane for not giving up his seat, stock value plummets for that airline and it changes its policy and our legislators ape the airline and get some protection written into law to prevent it from happening again. This industry’s 24/7 low-altitude flight paths destroy the lives of millions since its inception spewing incessant noise and air pollution and … nada.

We are already getting San Jose (SJC) bound flights under 2000 feet in Midtown, particularly when the weather is bad and jets are flying under the ceiling - I am using stop.jetnoise and Flight Aware etc. to verify this. In fact we are getting SFO traffic from all four directions, east, west, north and south (when it was advertised to be only north, south and west), and we are already getting Oakland and San Jose airport traffic at times too. I really hate KE 213, a 747 that turns around above my house every night at 1am. This new-since-2015 scourge of jet noise is bad for mental health and the very noticeable increase in petrochemical pollution drenching Midtown is alarming as well.

Thanks to PA City Council for finally adopting a more pro-active strategy to combat the jet noise and emissions that have greatly impacted many in this city and our neighbors.

To those who profess concern for poorer communities, I guess you don’t care that reducing congestion at MENLO waypoint and requiring higher flying altitudes would also benefit East Palo Alto?

To those who say the city has other priorities, don’t you think it can tackle several issues at a time?

To those who say they like seeing the planes overhead, do you also enjoy the nitrogen oxide, sulphur, and particulate matter being dumped in your backyards?

To those who say suing the FAA is futile, do you realize that the only cities that have obtained meaningful relief from NextGen problems are those that have sued?

[Portion removed.]

@ Bothered : "I guess you don’t care that reducing congestion at MENLO waypoint and requiring higher flying altitudes would also benefit East Palo Alto?"

Thats good, but what poor community gets the traffic when you move it ?

"To those who say the city has other priorities, don’t you think it can tackle several issues at a time? "

No. I really don't think so.

"To those who say they like seeing the planes overhead, do you also enjoy the nitrogen oxide, sulphur, and particulate matter being dumped in your backyards?"

Of course not. But your not talking about eliminating the places that produce that pollution. You are just moving them to some other communities.

"To those who say suing the FAA is futile, do you realize that the only cities that have obtained meaningful relief from NextGen problems are those that have sued?"

That's not true.

[Portion removed.]

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

@Answered: You obviously know nothing about the history and concerns regarding NextGen. The FAA relocated diverse routes and concentrated them over certain highly-populated neighborhoods, moving the associated noise/emissions to fewer communities. No one is asking that ALL jets be moved to different communities, just that there be a more equitable distribution, in particular to less-populated areas. And if you don't think the City can handle multiple problems at once, sounds like you can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Also, regarding emissions, those objecting to NextGen are pushing the FAA to better monitor and control pollutants -- what are you doing to protect the environment? And provide one example of a city that has successfully challenged NextGen without suing, just saying nuh-uh is hardly convincing. [Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

I have never spoken to anyone personally who is at all bothered by the airplane noies we have. I have lived in Palo Alto since 1986. I doubt it affects my health at all because I just tune it out. I have lived in downtown area with an apartment right next to the railroad tracks in years past and also tuned it out. I also lived again next to a railroad tracks PLUS had a aerial application service next door with airplanes revving up at 4AM, plus the house I rented that room in had a small kid and one of those yippy terriers. I think that yeah there may be some bothered by the airplane noise (plus dogs and neighbor kids playing too loud and maybe the crows and maybe coyotes if they were in a rural area) who are just neurotic anxiety ridden self-centered people. But perhaps most bothered by this are just people who have genes that code for a high level of alertness. Just like some people had a reaction to even a picture of a snake or a spider, which is actually hard-wired. For those people yeah once the noise becomes a bother it self-perpetuates and can't be tuned out. But for all of this the real solution, just like with snakes and spiders, is to undergo desentization training! Othewise, no ma;tter how much noise you make at City Council meetingsthe FAA is probably never going to satisfy you and every time you hear an airplane, or a dog barking, or kids playing too loud....it will just remind you that YOU ARE NOT IN CONTROL!

A Noun Ea Mus,

Could you be highly sensitive to this issue getting attention? You posted at about 4 AM and unless you are not in this time zone, that takes keen interest. Or maybe you were awoken by one of the Oceanic flights and couldn't sleep.

Another thing...a while back on another thread on this issue someone upset about the airplane noise (such as it is) opined that those weighting in against those raising a fuss should just keep quiet and that to do otherwise is evidence of psychopathy on their part---and that post was not removed. I would like to weigh in on why this upsets me that fellow Palo Altans are going on and on about this with the FAA. Palo Alto is known as a liberal city and one in California. We are often labeled "snowflakes" and usually without merit. But if/when this gets any national press oh boy will that label stick hard and fast and with much justified derision. Many people live near railroad tracks which bring dangerous loads of tar sands oil and regularly blow up and kill people and lay waste to cities.

We do not have just a "noise" issue. We have flights on a regular basis in the night hours in which the vibration goes right through you. I have flights directly over my home and I often wonder if they are the large Asian flights in which the pilots are extremely tired or are disoriented as to where they are. Recent articles about problems at SFO on which planes are trying to land on the wrong runway are due to poor coordination with the tower or exhausted pilots, inexperienced pilots. SFO appears to have many problems of near misses due to poor tower control. Many planes end up doing a "go over" due to high traffic and those are the planes that are disoriented and flying lower to get direction for landing on their second pass for a position in the landing sequence. Human error is becoming a huge issue at SFO. The more international airlines they bring on board the more variation on experienced pilots appear in this scenario and that needs to be addressed.

“And provide one example of a city that has successfully challenged NextGen without suing”

Menlo Atherton

agreed if planes were falling out of the sky then we'd have a problem. But if you are worried about those Asian pilots, hey I used to live near the freeway in Oakland and could hear cars driven by presumably black people and those Asians!, and well you know....Seriously this is what desensitization would be useful for.

A Noun Ea Mus

"We are often labeled "snowflakes" and usually without merit. But if/when this gets any national press oh boy will that label stick hard and fast and with much justified derision."

The often cited "tool" to undermine Palo Altans - shaming any peep that has to do with looking out for quality of life.

Quite the opposite, speaking up is a good thing. There are plenty of things that the state is being derided for, not all justified but working to reduce noise and air pollution is not one of them.

A Noun Ea Mus

"We are often labeled "snowflakes" and usually without merit. But if/when this gets any national press oh boy will that label stick hard and fast and with much justified derision."

The often cited "tool" to undermine Palo Altans - shaming any peep that has to do with looking out for quality of life.

Quite the opposite, speaking up is a good thing. There are plenty of things that the state is being derided for, not all justified but working to reduce noise and air pollution is not one of them.

@resident : “I have flights directly over my home and I often wonder if they are the large Asian flights in which the pilots are extremely tired or are disoriented as to where they are”

The Asian, but not European flights, right ?
Wow!

Quinn,

The Asian flights are the longest, you can ask the US, UK, Australian or European pilots who fly United Airlines or any international airline from Asia.

Asian flights are the longest and the pilots are tired.

@ MoveSFO: “The Asian flights are the longest, you can ask the US, UK, Australian or European pilots”

That is not true.

The top 3 are NOT.
Half of the top 10 are NOT.

SFO to
1. Dubai. 16 hrs
2. Sydney 15 hrs
3. Manila 14.5
6. Auckland 13
10. Munich

Web Link

[Post removed.]

For those that are concerned sign up at
stop.jetnoise.net and start reporting! Numbers count!

For those that aren’t bothered by the 300+ freighter and passenger
jets rumbling over our heads on the highway in the sky between 4000 & 5000 feet (SJO at 2000 ft)
move on and enjoy
your peace and quiet.
they roam all over the place on their way to the way point
off the Dumbarton Bridge (MENLO)

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

Quinn,

The "worry" is tired pilots not that they are Asian or flights from Asia, except that flights from Asia are the longer ones and more frequent than Dubai.

Sydney, Manila, Auckland are on the Oceanic route which as you pointed out was moved south by Atherton (without litigation).If this sounds better - it can be said that the pilots coming in on the OCEANIC route are more "tired" than the pilots flying in from Los Angeles.

I'm jealous that rest of the world where many of the planes are coming from, have curfews, most if not all. That is one of the reasons Hong Kong moved their airport.

Steve Edmiston is taking on the Port of Seattle one briefing at a time, by giving them the briefing they did not get from the FAA:

Briefing #1: Web Link
Briefing #2: Web Link
Briefing #3: Web Link
Briefing #4: Web Link
Briefing #5: Web Link

Jet noise over Midtown over Midtown just started getting really, really bad again just yesterday, May 11th, 2018. It was better for awhile, now it is back to every two minutes directly overhead.

"Just curious, where do Palo Altans expect the planes to fly? Over poor people in another town?"
Yes! This is Palo Alto after all, and everybody knows we are extra special. As for the commoners in the Santa Cruz mountain communities, noted at the end of the article, let them eat cake.

Since we are all so special, our tax dollars are also extra special. Since everyone's tax dollars would go towards a lawsuit against the FAA, the issue should be decided at the ballot.

@ Donster

""Just curious, where do Palo Altans expect the planes to fly? Over poor people in another town?"
Yes! This is Palo Alto after all, and everybody knows we are extra special. As for the commoners in the Santa Cruz mountain communities, noted at the end of the article, let them eat cake.

Since we are all so special, our tax dollars are also extra special. Since everyone's tax dollars would go towards a lawsuit against the FAA, the issue should be decided at the ballot."


Just stop it. We are not special. We do not claim to be special. We just want a fair deal and we are not getting it right now. As a matter of fact, we have not been getting a fair deal since ATHERTON, where people truly think of themselves as special, managed to push the noise down to us, here in the first city this side of San Mateo County. It is too easy for you to dis Palo Alto residents as privileged. Not even everybody is privileged here. My spouse and I have lived here for many years on a federal government salary plus my part time job income barely above minimum wage.

I do not know why we would deserve any worse a deal than Atherton or Redwood City get. This is all we are asking for. Enough already.

Please, be serious for once and go read this article published just today:

Web Link

The City and County of San Francisco is operating an airport. The airport is operated exclusively for the benefit of the City and County of San Francisco, so I expect that negative effects from the airport should be carried exclusively by the City and County of San Francisco. It's unconscionable that the City and County of San Francisco would export its airport noise two counties south because their own constituents complained. The ones trying to be "special" here are the City and County of San Francisco. Deal with your own airport noise, stop sending your problems to Santa Clara County!

I noted the Asian flights because SFO is a favored transition point for those flights - it is a hub - and those flights have to start at strange times to interconnect at the SFO Hub. They are a big customer for SFO. Forget the racist stuff - this is a logistics problem. That is a big customer for SFO. Can you please think logistics and business, as well as the human element - articles on this topic say that the pilots body clocks are way off due to the time transition.

Juan,

"The ones trying to be "special" here are the City and County of San Francisco."

Don't fall for Donster's - Palo Alto trying to be special trap

It's what people who have an interest in keeping aviation polllution going say. Makes a happy place for airports and polluters to not take responsibility for the noise they make.

Besides Special San Francisco, it's Special San Mateo County (SFO landlord) and Special Santa Clara County who turn a blind eye to SFO and SJC respectively.

@Quinn: Re your post about a city that has successfully challenged NextGen, where exactly is "Menlo Atherton?" If you mean Atherton, precisely what relief has the city obtained from the FAA related to NextGen and what is your source of information? (You probably have it confused with SurfAir flights to San Carlos Airport, which is an entirely different matter). And if you really live in Menlo Park as you claim, I would think you would be supporting Palo Alto efforts to deconcentrate congestion and increase altitudes at MENLO waypoint.

Interesting interview, sounds like "Checkmate"

Web Link

Overall yes air traffic will increase and this needs to be addressed on a nationwide global warming perspective and a need to upgrade technology and priorities.

But "Quality of Life" when all you are complaining about is aircraft way above which can easily be tuned out, as the vast majority of the upright primates do? Really?!! If anyone has a right to complain it would be the thousands of citizens of East Palo Alto who live nearby the PA Airport. Some people's perception of the "quality of life" they are entitled to goes way beyond any reasonable bounds. As one very frustrated and very disgusted PA Police Officers once remarked to me "People here pay a lot for their houses and they then think this entitles them to special priveleges"

"Noise Pollution" is in the eardrums of the beholder. If "Noise Pollution" is just the sound of urban life--dogs barking, kids playing, airplanes soaring, crows cawing, well then the only real solution is for those "afflicted" people to move and/or undergo desentization training.

I will enjoy watching this idiotic escapade go further into more depths of frustration and absurdity. Off to make popcorn!

SFO is not only a people site - it is also a commercial freight site. We in the past have recorded a freight carrier that comes in from Shanghai at unnerving hours and tended to fly very low in the night hours. In the past we had many discussions concerning the aspect of freight traffic which was early to avoid the human traffic. And since it is in a low point of human scheduled traffic it does not appear to get much attention from the SFO tower control. That particular flight was the source of many complaints. As an aside at one point Federal Express wanted to take over Moffat Field which would have had mostly night traffic to coordinate delivery. That got fought off. I think Oakland is a Federal Express location but have seen planes at SJX. So you have a logistics problem as well as a human element problem in which a number of business operations require a night flight in order to get to the next stage of their business operations. If you want your fed=ex or Amazon package in the start of the business day then it came in the middle of the night. When a contract with a carrier is signed with any airport location then that relationship drives the bigger picture of what they will do to meet a schedule. And the airport will go along with it. SFO has not been big in the past on dictating requirements.

resident,

"When a contract with a carrier is signed with any airport location then that relationship drives the bigger picture of what they will do to meet a schedule. And the airport will go along with it. SFO has not been big in the past on dictating requirements."

San Francisco Airport is dismal with noise and environmental issues, unless their improved air quality inside the terminals counts. San Francisco and San Mateo County leadership (SFO landlord) along with cousin Santa Clara County allow giant SFO and SJC polluting and health impairing facilities, probably the largest in the country to get a pass and tell Baby Palo Alto to tell people that the problem is increased traffic.

A Noun Ea Mus,

Jet noise bothering people is not from increase in traffic. The interview you referenced didn't explain Nextgen. For a 30 second version, see this explanation

Web Link

Notice which airports this is happening with:

Boston,
Charlotte,
Chicago,
New York,
Phoenix,
San Diego,
San Francisco,
Seattle
Washington, DC and

Suggesting the noise is from increased traffic is a handy "tool" to divert attention from the reason changes have become noticeable.

Palo Alto Online Editors,

Please explain why you have removed two of my posts.

The FAA likes to blame the increases in noise on an increase in air traffic instead of their ill-conceived 'nextgen" plan, but the real truth is the airline business has never fully recovered from 911.

There are only a handful of airports that have more operations than they had in 1999 (peak year). The handful of airports that have exceeded their 1999 level of operations have only exceed the 1999 number by a few percent.

For the last eight years total airport operations have been stalled at about 73% of the peak year of 1999.

The FAA will blame the "nextgen" noise problem on anything and everything except their own incompetence and capitulation to the interests of the aviation industry.

"Debunked: FAA’s Latest 20-Year Forecast"
AIReform ~ March 21,2018 Web Link

"I will enjoy watching this idiotic escapade go further into more depths of frustration and absurdity. Off to make popcorn!"

What is idiotic and absurd is that the Peninsula should endure nightly low and loud flights of at least one Korean B747 between midnight and one AM that rushes to SFO so that it can move on and arrive at Seoul before... Seoul's airport goes into its nightly curfew.

We have a foreign country basically exporting its noise here so that its citizens have peace and quiet, and we, Peninsula residents, are the "entitled" ones?

"Noise Exportation"! You have solved the legal attack problem of how to sue and what over. City attorneys have to huddle and decide what to sue for apparently (hey isn't that evidence of frivolous nature?) but now we can take this to the Hague.

Just like to mention that freight planes do not come with all of the niceties that a human carrier does - they are bare bones and typically older planes no longer used for human passengers who would not tolerate the noise level. And when they are coming in you can hear them "downshifting" - that is a vibration that goes through the house - and you.

Dear Weekly,
Since so many posters over and over again seem to misunderstand what happened with NexGen and why it has caused problems, perhaps you could include a visual and explanation with any subsequent articles? This is not a situation of moving a river from one place to another, but FAA creating that river from what used to be small flows everywhere and placing that river right over Palo Alto. One solution is to go back to the small flows everywhere. This is technically possible, but is not happening for reasons I have never seen discussed in the articles or posts. There are other technical answers that could help significantly requiring relatively small amounts of money to prove in a way the FAA would accept. (Maybe if the City Council and staff here treated everyone in town as they would like to be treated in other arenas, they would have residents with the capacity to help them more effectively, with the time and inclination to do so. I am not speaking hypothetically.)

Where we are, airplane noise regularly drowns out normal conversation outside. It's difficult to take a walk and converse with anyone (this of course encouraging car travel over walking).

Looking In,

"Since so many posters over and over again seem to misunderstand what happened with NexGen and why it has caused problems, perhaps you could include a visual and explanation with any subsequent articles?"

Good idea but airports, FAA, and other apologist type sources prevent real information, what FAA and airports are feeding is

Obsfuscation
Misinformation
Excuses

What's the visual for that?

Looking In,

"Since so many posters over and over again seem to misunderstand what happened with NexGen and why it has caused problems, perhaps you could include a visual and explanation with any subsequent articles?"

Good idea but airports, FAA, and other apologist type sources prevent real information, what FAA and airports are feeding is

Obsfuscation
Misinformation
Excuses

What's the visual for that?

" One solution is to go back to the small flows everywhere. This is technically possible, but is not happening for reasons I have never seen discussed in the articles or posts."

It has been discussed many times - here is just one such posting:

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on May 20, 2017 at 12:40 pm
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
There are two alternative solutions to the noise problem. The first distributes the noise more uniformly over all South Bay communities and the second moves the noise either over the Bay and, South of the Bay, to higher altitudes over populated areas.

The equal distribution proposal:

Using the concept of a herring bone pattern and Advanced (or curved) Controlled Descent Approaches (CDA’a)

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.

Talking about the river flow of planes being consolidated into one massive flow is happening. So the problem is to create a dam to stem the flow and direct it over the bay. The entry point to the area should be moved down below the bay. When you fly to LA you can see the obvious lack of homes in areas where you have watershed. Bring the planes into the area with lowest number of homes from the coast then fly up the bay over the water. Then the planes would be queued up in their sequence at the beginning of the bay vs the current scenario of staging the incoming over PA. At this time planes coming in from the west make their turn north over PA. And if the queue is filled up the planes have to go into a "go around" over the peninsula to get an assigned space. Those are the planes that fly lower and in a more random pattern.

". So the problem is to create a dam to stem the flow and direct it over the bay. The entry point to the area should be moved down below the bay."

As posted above"
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 should be 8000 ft,

Alternatively these aircraft could us the ILS or LOC RWY 28R approach and must enter at ARCHI IAF for which the minimum crossing altitude should be 8000 ft,

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 should be 8000 ft.,


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 8000 ft,


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

Nextgen is about the current on the river, where the river ends, and how it ends.

The river should end over the water, not overfly land at low altitudes, and allow planes to descend with minimal need to vector.

Vectoring is ad hoc creation of many rivers, puddles, and whirlpools of noise.

Oh wait...this would mean re-design for reducing noise... not what FAA is willing to do, and largely because everyone is OK to keep the festering pools of noise in Palo Alto. SFO and SJC for sure, and their respective enablers.

@move SFO : "Oh wait...this would mean re-design for reducing noise... not what FAA is willing to do"

Actually not what FAA is chartered to do.
NEXGEN is about increasing passenger miles, on time flights, and improving Safety.

Priority,

"Actually not what FAA is chartered to do.
NEXGEN is about increasing passenger miles, on time flights, and improving Safety."

You are parroting what the FAA and airports want you to believe about the legislation. The 2012 Nextgen legislation mandates reduction in noise, and emissions. It's just not held up as something to be accountable for.

Airlines hold FAA accountable for efficiency and the public is made to parrot the party line that FAA is not responsible for anything else and that is why the courts are needed.

I would rather hear it from the courts that all FAA is responsible for is improving safety.

By the way, reducing distance between planes and making the river currents run wild is less safe. FAA makes up for it with whatever they say they need to do to then claim they are increasing safety (after they made things less safe first).

The FAA really only has one mission. The FAA's only mission is the promotion of aviation commerce. Keeping the the system safe enough that people are not afraid to fly, is just one of the ways they accomplish the mission.

@move SFO
Insulting other posters by accusing them of "parroting" wins you no support. You need to read the charter and legislation. Noise reduction is not a goal of NextGen.

"NextGen is the FAA-led modernization of our nation's air transportation system. Its goal is to increase the safety, efficiency, capacity, predictability, and resiliency of American aviation. "

Web Link

Noise reduction is "emagined" by abgry Palo Altans.

"
Fewer travel delays and flight cancellations
Reduced passenger travel time
Additional flight capacity
Reduced fuel consumption and aircraft exhaust emissions
Decreased air carrier and FAA operating costs
Fewer general aviation injuries, fatalities, and aircraft losses and damages in areas such as Alaska, where radar coverage is limited
"

Web Link

You need to be honest in your dialog. Noise reduction is NOT a goal of NextGen.

Priority

"You need to read the charter and legislation. Noise reduction is not a goal of NextGen."

I have read the legislation

The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 Web Link

The win that FAA got in this 2012 legislation was that Nextgen procedures which demonstrate *measurable* reductions in environmental impacts could be deemed as "no significant impact."

The legislation did not say that efficiency is the "only" goal of Nextgen.

The STATED goal in evading NEPA was to reduce noise,among other things.

"NEXTGEN PROCEDURES.—Any navigation performance or other performance based navigation procedure developed, certified, published, or implemented that, in the determination of the Administrator, would result in measurable reductions in fuel consumption, carbon dioxide emissions, and noise, on a per flight basis, as compared to aircraft operations that follow existing instrument flight rules procedures in the same airspace, shall be presumed to have no significant affect on the quality of the human environment and the Administrator
126 STAT. 49 shall issue and file a categorical exclusion for the new proce- dure."

Sure FAA and enablers will pervert the concept of noise reduction and turn it into everything but.

BTW - have you seen measureable reductions in noise? All I have seen are general numbers bandied about which mean not a whole lot. No noise numbers.

Per the Inspector General Web Link

"Inspector general’s report says the FAA has bungled a $36 billion project

The Federal Aviation Administration has mishandled a $36 billion project to modernize the antiquated aviation management system, according to a harshly critical inspector general’s report released Thursday.

It was the fourth inspector general’s critique in as many years of a program known as NextGen, on which more than $7 billion in federal funds has already been spent.

This latest report says the FAA lacks “a clearly established framework for managing the overall oversight of NextGen.”

Much of the 50-page report — done for the House Appropriations Committee and prepared by Matthew E. Hampton, assistant inspector general for aviation audits — focuses on specific examples of program mismanagement.

The report said the FAA “has lacked effective management controls” in awarding contracts, sometimes spent money on low-priority projects and allocated an estimated $370 million for projects that were still awaiting approval.

The FAA denounced the report as “inaccurate and contradictory,” rejecting all but two of its six recommendations.

NextGen has long been a cause of consternation and frustration in Congress and with commercial airlines that are expected to invest billions of dollars in their own cash to complete the system."

Jetman

"The FAA really only has one mission. The FAA's only mission is the promotion of aviation commerce. Keeping the the system safe enough that people are not afraid to fly, is just one of the ways they accomplish the mission."

Agree that FAA's mission is commerce and "safe enough that people are not afraid to fly, is just one of the ways they accomplish the mission"

But the 2012 "modernization" Act was passed with a lot of other fronts. Safety, efficiency, etc. They even stuck noise reduction in the legislation...

@move SFO

You are really wrong on this.

The IG report is about financial oversight and management, NOT noise.

The IG rails on most agencies about same (financial oversight) each year. Its their job. If you have Project management experience you know this is a common issue with commitments, obligations and accruals within the government where budgets are not approved (Continuing resolutions which prevent new program starts and paralysis due to shutdowns and threats of...). IG audits are like IRS audits. They do them and find things to justify their existence.

It is wishful thinking tho believe that noise reduction is a goal of NextGen. It is merely an extrapolation of the "environmental impact" words that Palo Altan's like to point at as if reduction is an inviolable requirement. It is not.

Priority,

"It is wishful thinking tho believe that noise reduction is a goal of NextGen. It is merely an extrapolation of the "environmental impact" words that Palo Altan's like to point at as if reduction is an inviolable requirement."

Ditto for your extrapolation that "Actually not what FAA is chartered to do (to reduce noise).
NEXGEN is about increasing passenger miles, on time flights, and improving Safety."

To by-pass federal laws, NEPA, the "Nextgen" legislation states *measurable* reduction in environmental impacts. NEPA being federal law, not FAA law.

Federal actions are bound by considering imapcts on the human and natural environment.

Your comments that passenger miles (?) on time flights (?) are in the Nextgen charter are the extrapolation - if you read the legislation.

The FAA is an Orwellian bureaucracy. The FAA literally has its definitions for words like "efficiency" and "noise" that sleazy attorneys and PR flacks cleverly weave into all FAA's communications to deceive the public and cloak the FAA's subservience to the industry.

Is the FAA in violation of the Plain Writing Act of 2010 Web Link ?

Jetman,

"Is the FAA in violation of the Plain Writing Act of 2010?"

So many Nextgen fibs...

Here's one: "Aircraft will operate more efficiently, cleanly and QUIETLY, he said."

"Down a banister"

"The FAA is implementing systemic changes meant to reduce the number of people on the ground exposed to "significant noise around U.S. airports in absolute terms, notwithstanding aviation growth," according to an FAA study.

This system uses satellite guidance. Aircraft are assigned "tighter flight tracks ... (to) reduce the ground noise footprint," FAA spokesman Ian Gregor told the Almanac for an earlier story.

The new system includes tailored arrival, in which a plane is given a 200-mile glide path to the runway, "like sliding down a banister rather than walking down steps," Mr. Gregor said. Aircraft operate more efficiently, cleanly and quietly, he said.

But air traffic controllers need flexibility, Mr. Gregor said in an email. "We stated in the Northern California Metroplex Environmental Assessment that even with the new ... procedures, controllers would still require the ability to vector aircraft for sequencing, spacing, weather etc.," he said. "We received a number of public comments about vectoring, which we addressed in the final EA."

Web Link

I have seen articles which suggest moving the SFO to Livermore is the way to go. Water issues are therefore eliminated and new runways created that do not create confusion. The pilots would not have to come in over the bay which creates apprehension for newbie pilots. It turns out that a lot of our international visitors want to go to the giant shopping centers going out in that direction. Those shopping centers have all of the up-scale shops and that is where they want to go. Look at all of the troubles that could be eliminated if the planes were coming in over the I-5 inner area which does not have big development. They would then come into the city via BART.

"City Attorney Molly Stump said on Monday there hasn't been a procedural error with which to pursue a legal strategy. 'In federal law, there is not a federal right to be free from noise on the ground,' she said."

If this is the case, if federal preempts, then why does every municipality have a noise ordinance?

An individual citizen inflicting the noise levels of the aviation industry on other citizens would be dealt with swiftly and severely, as Ben and Jerry’s Co-founder Ben Cohen’s arrest for protesting the F35 noise levels in downtown Burlington Vermont this past March demonstrates.

What we are seeing is an embodiment of the essence of the Supreme Court decision in 2010’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. We know a corporation is not a person, but the feds say it is so it is so and we are therefore increasingly experiencing the silencing of the individual citizen vis-à-vis the corporation. When money decides rather than real democracy, how much individual money would it take for instance to match just one major airline’s wealth, especially as they’ve consolidated to the point of raising the anti-trust alarm bells? Now add the wealth of every entity tied in with this aviation industry expansion.

The political process is broken. We don’t have real democracy. We have the illusion of it, the empty verbiage. We have no say, no effective vote, and what most critically affects our lives. The NextGen program was conceived, made legal by Congress, and implemented under the radar. To this day major newspapers don’t touch it and if they do it doesn’t do justice to the impact and scope and often repeats the misinformation and confusion that furthers the objectives of the programs key stakeholders.
A politician quipped about NextGen that if you weren’t at the table then you’re probably the meal. That the case with much that matters for American citizens.

Hit the money. Hit their profits and watch what happens. If you care about what this means for your life, those you love, the planet, future generations, then cut your flying and shipping by air to the barest minimum you can.

Stump's statement " there is not a federal right to be free from noise on the ground,' she said."

That's not what other cities around the country are suing about. The lawsuits are about observing federal laws for environmental review. Phoenix sued the FAA for the slick CATEX that Nextgen relies on to do all the fibbing.

The D.C. court thought it was pretty obvious that FAA was not so "free" to pre-judge no significant impact.

Jetman has it right

"The FAA is an Orwellian bureaucracy. The FAA literally has its definitions for words like "efficiency" and "noise" that sleazy attorneys and PR flacks cleverly weave into all FAA's communications to deceive the public and cloak the FAA's subservience to the industry."

add the enablers that repeat what FAA says, as if it were truth

@Peter Carpenter,
I appreciate your post, all options shoukd be restated more frequently. But no, the technical solutions of which I am referring are not those, or include details about why the FAA would not go with those kinds of recommendations you mention - I have never seen those discussed.

Thanks for all the informed comments about how horrible the air traffic is over Palo Alto and the causes. My neighborhood seems to be ground zero for flight traffic, but I have made field trips into other neighborhoods, such as Old Palo Alto and Crescent Park, and the noise levels are just as bad. Today, Wednesday, May 16, is particularly bad due to the cloud cover, which I think amplifies the noise and directs the air traffic even lower overhead.

If anyone has any ideas about how to encourage the Palo Alto City Council to sue the FAA, you can count on me for support. The idea that we should only sue if the FAA made procedural errors in implementing NextGen seems unimaginative considering the detriment to the quality of life for so many in our community.

We were in Palo Alto today and you are so right the jet traffic is mind boggling. All over a narrow band of sky.

Really, really loud jet plane noise today. Sue the FAA for what they did in conjunction with the SFO and the Round Table. If the CC cannot uphold our quality of life, who can?

Last night - the 18th - was all night noise and rumbling. And some were very low. At least there should be a way to control the hours for flights that are crossing heavily populated areas. Our PA lawyer used to work for SFO so do we have a conflict of interests here? I am wondering why decisions to pursue legal action keep getting stymied. Conflict of Interests is a favored underlying motivator as to how legal actions get either pushed ahead or pulled back. Whose interests are being served here? - Not the interests of the citizens.

Do you hear that? It's not airplane noise. It's the noise of reality informing you that you're not a quiet rural village. It's only going to get worse. Why not move to an actual small town in a less economically desirable area if you want peace and quiet?

Reality:
It's one Google search away to know that rural areas are as afflicted by NextGen low-altitude flights paths as urban and suburban, right next to airports and miles and miles away from them. Telling people to move to rural areas with little to no employment opportunities is a constant refrain of the anything-goes-aviation-industry camp and it is pure myth and distraction from reality, no pun intended. Hard to believe this late into NextGen you're not well aware of the scope of impact, or could be.

You may not care about air and noise pollution, but we shouldn't have laws and ordinances that cater to those whose standards are okay and even enthusiastic about what is well known to cause damage to human health and the environment. The economy is based on what we choose to base it on. An economic model is chosen, it's not absolute. Human health and the environment must come before profits.

And if economics is the utmost concern, above our health and the environment, whose economics? Or more bluntly, whose profits? I seriously doubt millions of sleep deprived Americans are as productive to the economy as they could be. But if the aviation industry and its key stakeholders are raking in the dough and those in government helping them do it are keeping office and being financially rewarded so be it?

A society worthy of the name must be better than this?

Oh my goodness, you people act like you're right at the end of the runway. The airplane noise in Palo Alto is no different from what it is around San Jose or south San Francisco or Oakland. You're just looking for anything to be upset about and then harrumph about having to be subject to such things when your property values are what they are.

Reality,

You don't have to move to a small town to escape the constant jet noise in Palo Alto. You can just move to San Francisco. San Francisco, which owns and operates SFO, has very little jet noise.

So where does "Reality" live? And does "Reality" work for a carrier or SFO/SJX/OAK? Self interest tends to tip the scales for most people. I assume Reality has a vested interest in airplane noise however I do not have a vested interest in airplane noise. We did not have it when we moved here - it is a more recent activity. So telling people they were stupid for choosing this location does not make sense. What makes sense is to provide input to those "in charge" that recent activities are non-productive.

resident 1,

"Conflict of Interests is a favored underlying motivator as to how legal actions get either pushed ahead or pulled back. Whose interests are being served here? - Not the interests of the citizens."

this comment apparently got "reality" going

reality - people don't move to Palo Alto for "rural" quiet, and nobody moved here for noise like South San Francisco. Isn't S. S.F. the end of the runway?

Airplane noise was not here before (not before Nextgen), it may be worse than South San Francisco because of SFO.

Maybe Baby Palo Alto can eventually get some help from the City's Attorney with what has to be a crazy coincidence was SFO's counsel, and special transition counsel to former San Francisco Mayor, future Governor?

Web Link

"Palo Alto concluded its search for a new city attorney Thursday, naming San Francisco Airport General Counsel Molly S. Stump as its choice to succeed retired attorney Gary Baum.

Stump will take over the City Attorney's Office at a time when Palo Alto is preparing to take over operations of its own airport from Santa Clara County. Before working at SFO she spent 15 years in the San Francisco City Attorney's Office, where she supervised the public protection team and served as chief counsel to the Police Commission and the police chief.

Stump has also served on San Francisco's labor employment team, where she defended the city in labor lawsuits and negotiated labor agreements, according to the city's statement. She was also a "special transition counsel" to former San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom."

At least Rep Eshoo, while not garnering any substantive change for her constituents on the intolerable NextGen noise and air pollution, didn’t vote yes on the latest FAA reauthorization bill, rightly stating that more studies are not going to result in relief.

Well Eshoo and all our members of Congress ought to know because as they mandated the FAA to implement the current levels of the NextGen program’s deadly abuse, while playing baffled in the face of their constituents about how they could legislate to stop what they unleashed, they’re more than capable of flexing their legislative muscle to ADD to it:

"The FAA has launched two rulemakings that the agency said are designed to pave the way for development of civil supersonic aircraft."

"The FAA efforts come as Congress has drafted measures calling on the agency to work with the international community on potential means to foster development of supersonic travel." (Aviation International News, 5/17/2018, "FAA Rulemakings Will Pave Way for New Supersonic Era"):
Web Link

Nothing is going to result in a significant reversal of the significant impact of NextGen on human health and the environment except people talking with their money and their votes. If there is no loss in profits and if the NextGen collaborators keep getting voted in then the NextGen nightmare will not end, only your quality of life and your very life. Whether you’re bothered or not, it’s well studied and documented that the effects will cause illnesses, disease, and premature death. Noise is not a nuisance. It’s pollution and as deadly as the toxins raining down on us constantly from these low-flying aircraft.

Does flying and shipping by air on demand really matter more than quality of life, human health and the environment? If you don't think so then exercise your individual power for change. Do what you hope others suffering will do and maybe, just maybe we can overturn Citizens United without the Supreme Court...

HTM,

"The FAA efforts come as Congress has drafted measures calling on the agency to work with the international community on potential means to foster development of supersonic travel."

Congress drafting a plan to promote international noise pollution to "foster development" of supersonic travel..

the usual Congress' marching orders that everything that fosters "development" or technology is OK to do irrespective of any consequences to the environment or to people getting polluted or harmed along the way

guns create jobs too remember

Move SFO,

It seems like San Francisco has wormed their operatives into every part of government (local and national) to keep SFO's profitable status quo in place.

Outgoing FAA head Michael Huerta came up through the San Francisco political system having served as the executive director of the Port of San Francisco from 1989 until 1993.


"FAA Chief to Step Down Days After Donald Trump Tweet"
Bloomberg ~ January 5, 2018 Web Link

"Macquarie Capital Appoints Michael Huerta Senior Advisor"
Business Wire ~ January 17, 2018 Web Link

"Delta Board Names Michael Huerta as Newest Member"
PR Newswire ~ April 20, 2018 Web Link

Jetman,

"It seems like San Francisco has wormed their operatives into every part of government (local and national) to keep SFO's profitable status quo in place."

creepy as it is, it's made to look almost natural

from the Macquire Capital article

"Michael has an exceptional reputation as a federal administrator in US transportation. His deep industry experience, relationships and insights will greatly benefit our clients and partners as we pursue initiatives in US airport and other transportation infrastructure,” said Nick Butcher, Global Co-Head of the Infrastructure and Energy Group in Macquarie Capital.

"relationships and insights" mastering the art of polluting to serve the benefit of their clients, airports

Please do not sue the FAA.
The rest of this town does not support your aggressive tactics.

Ha, I was thinking the opposite -- Stop the Madness, PLEASE sue the FAA. (I don't see any other way to stop the madness of this flying highway of noise and air pollution over our heads.)

If the PA city lawyer has a conflict of interests concerning lawsuits against SFO due to previous employment with that agency then we should be using a different lawyer for the pursuit of a lawsuit. That is the only way this will get done. And as I am typing this planes are flying over non-stop. We have pursued every other action available with roundtables, meetings, discussions with SFO noise people, etc. Note that the previous SFO manager Mr. Martin has retired and the new person is not a well informed or seasoned manager appropriate for SFO. I had the fortune/misfortune of sitting next to an individual at a charity event who is responsible for mentoring the new SFO manager. I at least know that the manager at SFO is on shaky ground. And the SF mentor is also on shaky ground. Time to zoom in because the PA lawyer's friends are no longer in charge. They are safely retired and reaping the benefit of a government salary.

resident,

The former SFO manager John Martin got the job done already with all the shifts to Palo Alto.

&FAA seems to pay attention to the San Mateo/SFO Roundtable.

When someone (in SF) says shaky ground it could be that the new manager isn't as "deeply" connected to the San Mateo boss (SFO Landlord) or the SF bosses.

Stop the Madness,
So you think a lawsuit by Palo Alto would qualify as aggressive tactics. How then would you describe Congress, at the behest of industry, passing legislation in 2012 making it lawful for the FAA Administrator to categorically exclude the human environment when implementing NextGen procedures by filing a FONSI--like the 24/7 low-altitude flight path procedures by anything that flies shore? And all this done as under the radar as could be managed until people woke to the NextGen soundscape hell. Not aggressive?

@resident,

Given the city attorney's employment history outlined above by "move SFO", I suspect the city attorny's roots in the SF political establishment run much deeper than the new airport manager, or even the old airport manager.

These types of delicate political appointments are only given to the most loyal and trusted operatives.

SF politics appears to reward loyal employees regardless of experience - one of the joys of identity politics. Mayor Lee appointed the current manager and the newspapers at that time concluded that he was not experienced in airport management. That is what SF politics is all about - they appoint loyal servants - not people who have the proven track record to manage a huge facility the size and complexity of SFO. The internal upgrades are good - have to say good job on esthetics. But muscling carriers not so good. How hard is it to impose a minimum altitude over populated areas? How hard is it to put the planes on the east side of 101 over the water vs the west side of 101 over homes? The choices have been dissected to death but the obvious answers just don't happen. Someone is not going to get to the gate on time? Sorry - the changes we are looking for are not jaw breakers - they are just common sense and the airport should be able to include some stipulations in the contracts with the carries to implement some common sense rules. If the current manager is not up to it then he needs a legal nudge to give him some cover. He can blame it on everyone else. We would be helping him and he would get a raise for doing "such a good job".

"How hard is it to impose a minimum altitude over populated areas? How hard is it to put the planes on the east side of 101 over the water vs the west side of 101 over homes? "

The airport management has ZERO control over airplanes until after they land and reach their parking area.

Peter - I find that hard to believe. Why are there people in the tower? Why do some airports have down times to have quiet. Sorry - not buying any conclusion that says the giant freeway above has no policemen or mileage requirements. Or that they just fly around willy nilly. Every airport has a contract with the carrier where they specify the requirements for the specific location. If not then we should make it happen. Government contracting is very specific as to requirements. And who do you represent? You have a lot of ideas but where and how are those ideas implemented?

Did someone miss the Memo?

The former FAA Adminstrator Michael Huerta's just took a job to cater to Airport as his clients.

Who is the FAA's real boss? Airlines and Airports.

Airports have more than zero influence (they caused Nextgen) but they have this nice cover that it's the FAA, and then the FAA has the other cover, that it's congress.

"Why are there people in the tower?"

Those people work for the FAA not SFO and they have zero interest in noise management - their job is the safe and efficient movement of airplanes.

There will be no change in flight paths until all of the impacted communities agree on a better solution - and that is unlikely to happen.

Note that the current concentration of the noise over Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park and a small portion of Atherton absolutely guarantees that the majority of the population in both San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties have less noise and thus those communities would never agree to a shift in flight paths.

Carpenter said:

"The airport management has ZERO control over airplanes until after they land and reach their parking area"

SFO management has ZERO control over airplanes, but as a major international airport and one of the few growing airports in the US, SFO's owner and operator (City of SF) has lots of influence over the FAA.

SF's city supervisors are essentially SFO's board of directors, and SF's mayor is the chairman of SFO's board. Right now SFO's board has no reason to use their influence at the FAA to help us.

We need to give them a reason.

So why exactly would the SF Board of Supervisors care about the impact of SFO flights on a small number of Peninsula residents?

Right on Jetman - the city of Santa Monica sued to reduce the type of planes that fly out of their small airport. Other cities are creating legal actions to curtail the noise level.
Peter - why are you so unhelpful in this matter? You have provided lots of good input in the past and now you are anti-legal activity. Whose toes are we stepping on?
The problem is that the FAA is stepping on our toes, as is the SFO. Cleaning up this mess would be good PR for SF, SFO, and their Board of Supervisors. Those people need some good PR right now - they are making a mess of everything else. And if our PA Law Department has any connections left who have not yet left the scene then it would be good PR for us as a city.Put your PR hat on - everyone can win here - even the FAA. I even think the FAA could use some good PR right now instead of them being the bad guy.

"Peter - why are you so unhelpful in this matter?"

I am not being unhelpful but rather encouraging you to face the reality of the situation.

The facts are that a small number of peninsula residents have no influence in this matter and the FAA has no legal requirement to address their concerns.

If you do not like the facts don't blame the messenger.

Peter - you need to get more creative than that. You have been a participant in all of this for YEARS. A lot of people are into this and the FAA knows it.

The facts are that a small number of peninsula residents have no influence in this matter and the FAA has no legal requirement to address their concerns.

If you do not like the facts don't blame the messenger.

Peter Carpenter,

"The facts are that a small number of peninsula residents have no influence in this matter and the FAA has no legal requirement to address their concerns."

One way to get more action on this is for Palo Alto residents to close Palo Alto Airport.

That would take a few years but it would be worth it.

"One way to get more action on this is for Palo Alto residents to close Palo Alto Airport.

That would take a few years but it would be worth it. "

Given that the city has just accepted another Airport Improvement Grant it wold take 20 years to close PAO.

Palo Alto Airport seems like the jinx that brought SFO's heavy hand over here.

Sigh. As a boy living in EPA, MOST AIRCRAFT LANDING AT SFO USED AN OVER THE BAY APPROACH TO LAND! This was a compromise when Noise Abatement rules for airports kicked in.
I was taught in Ground School that GA planes can be no lower than 1500 feet unless they were in a TCA controlled airspace. I have charts for the SFO airspace and surrounding areas. My only comment: we have TOO MANY AIRPORTS IN TOO LITTLE SPACE! An outer marker was placed on the San Mateo Bridge for landing guidance to SFO. The local VOR is in the center " box " of the runways at SFO.

It appears that the SFBA is a victim of it's own success. Oakland and SFO are how close to each other? SJC is how close to SFO? Back in WI, EAU is the closest controlled airspace airport and that is over an hour's drive away.
When Moffett Field was operating, I had many P-3 and NASA experimental aircraft making noise. Now, no longer. Now we have turbofan heavies and they are a bit quieter. Except for the occasional fan disk uncontained explosion, these are quieter than the shrieking jet engines of the past.

When you want to file suit, make sure it is against the FAA AND THE NTSB. That covers BOTH agencies that are involved with air travel.
The onus is on YOU to prove damages in any civil suit. That means using a calibrated sound meter to record sound levels at your residence ( yes, I have one to set up home theaters ) a log of each time and place the meter reading was made and personal reactions to the sound measured.
FLOOD the FAA and NTSB with these complaints and ask for relief. That may be the best way to get changes made. It would be very unhappy situation if a lo low flying aircraft accidentally sucked a drone into one of the turbofan engines on a landing approach. But be prepared for the consequences if that actually happens. In short, that kind of incident WILL force action at the FAA and NTSB. Right now, a very close look is at SFO right now because of the 30 foot close call with that Canada airframe and the " Bang Ding Ow " incident. Looking at NEXTGEN is a PITA to all us GA people. Or even drone flyers. Or other vehicle designers.

Peter Carpenter,

"Given that the city has just accepted another Airport Improvement Grant it wold take 20 years to close PAO."

Atherton residents would know more about Palo Alto Airport than Palo Alto residents.

"Atherton residents would know more about Palo Alto Airport than Palo Alto residents. "

No, informed citizens know more than uninformed citizens.

One way we can put pressure on the San Francisco Mayor and Board of Supervisors is simply by exposing them and their hypocrisy.

For decades the San Francisco Mayor and Board of Supervisors have been able to hide behind the FAA, the aviation industry, SFO management, the SFO Round-table, and the slick quislings they have operating within Peninsula governments, all while profiting from the largest industrial polluter on the Peninsula.

The San Francisco mayor and supervisors are for all practical purposes the board of directors of one of the most profitable and influential businesses in the aviation industry. SFO is more profitable than many airlines. The Mayor of San Francisco, Nancy Pilosi, and Diane Feinstein have more political influence than any airline executive.

We need to expose their environmental hypocrisy and we need to expose their duplicity in so-called "regional cooperation" arrangements that are really just bad deals they have struck with political lightweights on the Peninsula that allow the City of San Francisco and San Francisco's political elites to profit at the expense of their neighbors on the Peninsula.

There are over three million residents in San Francisco, San Mateo County and Santa Clara County.

There are only about 150,00 residents in East Palo Alto, Atherton, Menlo Park and Palo Alto - 5% of the three county population.

Why would the residents or the elected officials of any other Peninsula community want to move airplane noise away from East Palo Alto, Atherton, Menlo Park and Palo Alto if it meant increasing the noise over their community?

PAO - given the articles in the big papers about the encroachment of the bay due to rise in the water level then PAO is in a big problem. It won't be there in 20 years. And SFO has flooding problems during the rainy part of the year. I go up there on a regular basis and construction work is in process in the vicinity to upgrade due to water intrusion. If the papers told you that then it must be true? That is why articles concerning moving SFO inland are starting to appear. It appears that many people who are "in charge" of that area have major concerns. I have been on flights during the rainy season where gate location became an issue due to excess water in areas of the airport. However the City of SF is so sunk in it's weird mess that the Tourist Department is screaming about they are distracted from the business of doing business. Maybe after their elections for a new mayor they will settle down. Meanwhile PAO hopefully is not looking for future expansion because it is throwing city resources down the drain.

Peter Carpenter,


"There are over three million residents in San Francisco, San Mateo County and Santa Clara County.

There are only about 150,00 residents in East Palo Alto, Atherton, Menlo Park and Palo Alto - 5% of the three county population.

Yet

@ election time, SF and San Mateo pols come to Palo Alto and Atherton for $$$money, and some photo opps in East Palo Alto

our local elected officials host them - same politicians who complain that Palo Alto has rich cranky people who don't want to grow.

When you are writing these big bosses checks for their campaigns, just remember the partially burn jet fuel you are sprayed with every day and night from what Jetman appropriately describes

SFO - THE LARGEST INDUSTRIAL POLLUTER ON THE PENINSULA

Politicians from the South too

Ro Khanna had fundraisers in Palo Alto

In case you have not noticed FB is located next to HWY 84 and is expanding at a rapid rate. That takes over MP, and SU is now encroaching into RWC with a major hospital and second campus. Oracle is in RWC and Google is in MV. So you can talk about the "residents" but the business base is part of the FANG Silicon Valley rich people and if they want to exert some opinions then SFO will probably listen. Time to get Zuck involved as well as our Google residents. They all live under the flights. FB is helping with logistical upgrades - a bridge over 101 as well as the Ferry service so a lot of logistical power in play.

resident,

"Time to get Zuck involved as well as our Google residents."

How would that work? some cities are looking to tax tech,

"Mountain View, East Palo Alto, Cupertino and San Francisco blame the industry for inequality and overcrowding."

Web Link

Here is an idea

MOVE SFO and use the new available space for housing, offices, and relieve the pressures on the cities.

Your not going to get Tech giants, or tech period, on board. It's estimated that approximately 60 to 70 percent of Silicon Valley's STEM workers are sourced via the H1-B Program. The H1-B Program was created by the Immigration Act of 1990. The Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 is the foundation on which our federal legislators built the NextGen program: preempts local control. Labor policy in the STEMs is no small player; H1-Bs don't rock the boat about conditions, pay and benefits, they skyrocket competition for jobs, suppress wages, and overall aid the goal of a pliant, desperate labor force. How do you move those H1-Bs around as fast as you please? Planes. And with India being the major pool for H1-Bs--I believe the last Davos summit, where the richest of the world come together every year to schmooze and strategize on increasing wealth, there was a segment just called INDIA.

So wouldn't keep your fingers crossed on enlisting the likes of Google.

Last post addressed to "Realist" on why you won't get Tech on board to fight this

Move SFO,
Tech should pay taxes. Businesses, industries etc. should pay their fair share of taxes. Even what's being discussed is a joke, a pittance, not their fair share. Bezos, the richest man in the world, no surprise paid zero taxes while you've got people all over this country losing the homes they OWN because of property taxes designed to make the average citizen who's worked their whole life end up homeless and who gobbles up these properties left and right--financial institutions and speculators who snatch them up for a song. Sorry, no tears for just taxation of industries. But again, legislators have rigged it so the richest pay the least and often nothing at all while the majority works to create the wealth they get the smallest possible slice of, often in a state of constant financial insecurity. One illness or accident shy of going bankrupt. California's cities are exploding with homeless, WORKING homeless!

So again, tech isn't going to get on board about NextGen's aircraft noise and pollution. I'd wager those at the top of the tech industry are heavily invested in aviation expansion, as pure investment and labor policy.

Flying Taxi backed by Google Founder

Web Link

Tech titans also probably have an airline worth of planes at the airports

These are not the type of people who are measuring the consequences of their ideas or habits.

HTM,

I agree with you cities the big businesses are right

Rest assured Baby Palo Alto will never tax businesses

typo

to HTM
I agree with you cities TAXING the big businesses are right

and taxing polluters would not be a bad idea either

Sorry, this morning's first post addressed to "Resident" NOT Realist. Chalking it up to the heavies that kick in hard over my roof from 10pm to 1am and then knock me out of sleep here and there until they kick off again just before 5am!

Move SFO,
Indeed. The tech titans are heavily involved in the airspace redesign of NextGen. Tip of the iceberg examples. Facebook/Zuckerberg's internet-beaming drones ("Aquila") and Uber and Google's VTOL and drone programs, Amazon's drone program. Google's Project Wing, UAS Airspace System, is basically the privatization of the airspace in which drones operate, and other giants like Boeing, GE and so on are involved, and NASA too (that public money and resources always making an appearance for private profit). Every morsel of airspace they can profit on will be taken and our legislators have been VERY busy little bees to ensure the "densification"--got to love those sanitized words for skies packed with flying objects low to high--goes ahead full speed and the public made to swallow it one way or the other.

The BIG MONEY behind the hell in our skies is no joke, and the hell is set to grow and grow. And elected officials barely pay lip service to their constituents. They know who butters their bread. And it's not the "vote" rendered impotent by the industry giants they serve.

I've got nothing against the lawsuit angle, but I truly believe that the best way to wake up people who do deadly harm for profit is to hurt what they care about most - THEIR PROFITS. And we don't need a single industry lap dog, lawsuit or ballot to do that.

Cut your flying and air shipments to the barest, barest minimum. Seriously, enough people do this and things could turn around. And if there's only this program's collaborators to vote for on the next ballot, then don't vote for any of them. Don't legitimize this farce of democracy.

We have a large number of cities that participated in the noise pollution discussions. Reps from the peninsula cities participated. It is a collective effort - not singular. And it is not to shut down an airport - that will happen in it's own time due to water control, but to get the planes higher in the air and over the bay vs the homes. The current round table is located high enough up the bay so the planes are already over the water at that point. Starting the planes over the water lower down where the bay begins is not a problem for them. We are not suggesting that planes fly over their homes so should not be an issue. It is a matter of nudging next gen from a sloppy execution to a more refined execution. Any system requires fine tuning so any position that a system is absolute in the current execution is faulty. We can be working with the FAA and SF City to help fine tune the system so that it is maximizing benefit to all. That is a PR approach. I can't imagine that a new mayor of SF would not be open to making any system more functional for all.

resident,

"It is a collective effort - not singular."

Noise pollution discussions may have been a collective but FAA focused on the needs of Santa Cruz and San Mateo residents. Palo Alto did not have a seat. Joe Simitian, being from Palo Alto didn't help.

FAA is still only focused on San Mateo and Santa Cruz or whoever has real pull.

FAA knows who the bosses are and Palo Alto is nothing to them. Baby Palo Alto maybe gets some lip service from the City federal lobbysits, (waste of money). Apparently Palo Alto's lobbyst was a big shot at the DOT.

Web Link

"He was the key legislative strategist for the Secretary of Transportation, working with the Congress, White House, OMB, and Administrators of each of the DOT modal agencies."


"modal agencies" hmmm probably knows FAA like the back of his hand but has been totally useless because

CHORUS: the only people who count are San Mateo and Santa Cruz in the "collective"

If anything, Palo Alto is made to quiet down and not interfere.

The new person hired for the City Manager also worked at the DOT. Web Link

"In 2001, when Mineta was appointed Secretary of Transportation, she was recruited to serve as his Deputy Chief of Staff"

"Flaherty’s husband, John A. Flaherty, the ex- chief of staff to Department of Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta, the former congressman and San Jose mayor, is expected to follow his wife to the valley.

Web Link

Coincidence or nightmare?

HTM

Don't bet on the problem being solved by a few thousand people cutting down on travel or Amazon orders because the rest of the Bay Area doesn't have noise problems.

Everyone else can continue to enjoy travel and not think about how much it harms their neighbors.

resident,

"It is a collective effort - not singular."

Noise pollution discussions may have been a collective but looked to me like FAA focused on the needs of Santa Cruz and San Mateo residents.

Palo Alto did not have a seat. Joe Simitian, being from Palo Alto didn't help. FAA is only focused on San Mateo and Santa Cruz (whoever has real pull).

FAA knows Palo Alto is nothing to big bosses. Baby Palo Alto gets some lip service but nothing else.

I looked up the City federal lobbysits, (waste of money). Apparently Palo Alto's lobbyst was a big shot at the DOT.

Web Link

"He was the key legislative strategist for the Secretary of Transportation, working with the Congress, White House, OMB, and Administrators of each of the DOT modal agencies."

"modal agencies" FAA? probably knows FAA like the back of his hand, still useless.

CHORUS: the only people who count are San Mateo and Santa Cruz in the "collective"

If anything, Palo Alto is made to quiet down and not interfere.

The new person hired for the City Manager apparently also worked at the DOT. Web Link

"In 2001, when Mineta was appointed Secretary of Transportation, she was recruited to serve as his Deputy Chief of Staff"

"Flaherty’s husband, John A. Flaherty, the ex- chief of staff to Department of Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta, the former congressman and San Jose mayor, is expected to follow his wife to the valley.

Web Link

Coincidence or nightmare?

HTM

Don't bet on the problem being solved by a few thousand people cutting down on travel or Amazon orders because the rest of the Bay Area doesn't have noise problems.

Everyone else can continue to enjoy travel and not think about how much it harms their neighbors.

Since no one mentioned my comments, silence means acceptance.

That is why I mentioned Oakland, SFO and SJC by name ( I have never flown out of Oakland )and EAU, MSP and PHX for Cray Research.

When I was attending Ground School, the SFBA was a mess of conflicting airports. Oakland was/is the local Air Traffic Control Center. That is the local SKY HIGHWAY continental endpoint.

Since I have been doing a Failure Analysis on commercial fights, pilot errors continue to plague the industry. That includes the Air Canada close call that would surpass the Tenerife disaster.

Having said that, the SFBA needs to go on a diet, airport wise. The chance of an airport/ airframe disaster climbs every day. We actually have seen drones " watching and landing " with commercial aircraft. The latest mechanical failure is turbofan disks fails around the globe.
However the most problems seen are from the human factor: pilot error. How can we eliminate or reduce the human factor? LESS AIRPORTS that reduce that possibility!
The City of Denver opened DIA when the Stappleton (sp?) got swallowed up by the City of Denver. Now , DIA is over a 20 mile trip from Denver. But not land-locked by other dwellings to crash into. Even a new contractor fixed that embarassing baggage handler. When the time comes, DIA wants to handle spacecraft landings! FACTS!
SFO has made a good profit for many years; my father worked as a A&P on Connies for every airline, some of which are gone now. We have just outgrown SFO and that almost disaster ( bad star ) is a wake-up call. People, drones and aircraft do not mix well.
Build a new LARGE airport, then close ALL other commercial airports and leve a few GA airports to fly out of. If necessary, REOPEN Moffett Field, as it is still here with a minimum of money spent. I, personally do not care about commercial aircraft after listening to P-3s and NASA testing every day. Yes, we have had military planes crash in our neighborhood.
How about a joint effort from the three big airports and share the wealth in 3 parts? That would be a SAFE solution to all.

P.S. Please add a wall to the landing/takeoff runway to reduce jet blast on 101 and hope nobody buries a fortune in gold bullion there like they did at SFO. ( old news coverage ).

Move SFO,

"Don't bet on the problem being solved by a few thousand people cutting down on travel or Amazon orders because the rest of the Bay Area doesn't have noise problems."

Absolutely it will take more than a few thousand. As it gets worse and worse hopefully greater numbers of people will wake up, and not just from aircraft noise...

That Palo Alto is somehow suffering a unique burden, sorry, NextGen 24/7 low altitude flight paths in this country are like death, no respecter of person, no respecter of city. Granted, a community in Santa Cruz has gotten really quiet after its initial burst of activity; it thinks it's going to get special treatment come August I believe. If it does, which I doubt, it will likely not last. Keep an eye on the historic neighborhood of Phoenix that got a win at the expense of other areas--will be very surprised if it lasts.

“ low altitude flight paths in this country are like death, no respecter of person, no respecter of city. Granted, a community in Santa Cruz has gotten really quiet after its initial burst of activity; it thinks it's going to get special treatment come August I believe. If it does, which I doubt, it will likely not last. Keep an eye on the historic neighborhood of Phoenix that got a win at the expense of other areas--will be very surprised if it lasts”

Um,... Yeah ?
Or ... Palo Alto thinks it's going to get special treatment come August I believe. If it does, which I doubt, it will likely not last.

OK. Then there’s that.
But I doubt it too.

So what is the plan, in that case and going forward ?

Wing man,

"Or ... Palo Alto thinks it's going to get special treatment come August I believe. If it does, which I doubt, it will likely not last."

"Special treatment" from San Mateo or SFO you mean?

Fat chance that SFO - the largest industrial polluter on the Peninsula - or San Mateo (SFO landlord) will do anything "special" for Palo Alto except to keep dumping.

Wing Man,
Congress members legislating to right the wrong unleashed by their CATEX of the human environment granted to the FAA in 2012 for starters, and legislating to undo the take of local control by the 1990 ANCA. It's not the technology that's killing us, but how it's being used.

So far Congress is just kicking the ball down the road with studies etc., its agency the FAA being allowed to police itself on this. No conflict of interest there.

Lawsuits could work. But there'd have to be a lot of lawsuits. And suing the FAA is in effect suing ourselves since the agency uses public money to fight us with backing by DOJ counsel, courts and so on. Sue the commercial airlines, the flight schools, the air tourism outfits and entities like Surf Air popping up left and right like plague boils to feed at the trough of FAA funding for expansion. This will require people with deep pockets or groups pooling resources. Class action suits would be the best. But basically you're up against your own government and powerful industries either directly or indirectly reliant on aviation. Sad thing is, these industries were more than profitable without doing this to people on the ground but it's never enough is it?

Boycott is the most logical when you don't like something. E.g. many people recently dumping their Facebook accounts because of questionable use of personal data. Air travel is highly subsidized while ground travel is made as expensive and impractical as can be. So I get that no use at all is highly unlikely but what if millions affected cut all inessential flying and air shipments. And what if everyone affected refused to vote into office officials who have done nothing substantive to rectify this.

We're about 5 years in from the official start of NextGen. It waits to be seen just how much people are willing to take of this.

HTM,

Why so easy on FAA?

If they abuse any laws, you retreat because it's our tax dollars? Our tax dollars are subsidizing Airlines to pay lobbysts to make Congress do magic for them.

Those tax dollars that go to airlines could be better spent in suing FAA for the SFO dumping.

Move SFO,
I have no soft spot for the FAA. If Dante lived under these NextGen skies he would have had Huerta in the Inferno. But I'm just saying the FAA is a tool. Congress is the bigger tool and oversees and funds it. Both are serving industry at the expense of the public good on this program. We need a nationwide solution, not patchwork deals here and there. So if people fight selfishly, for a neighborhood, one city, one mountain community and so on rather than on the basis that's blighting the nation I can't see how that's effective. Congress and the FAA are playing groups off each other. Anything to keep the program full steam ahead.

I won't lie though. I enjoyed seeing Phoenix sue the FAA, and Georgetown, something is better than nothing I agree.

Seriously can't believe they're getting away with this...

East Palo Alto, Atherton, Menlo Park and Palo Alto are bit players in this drama and have no effective political power and no effective leadership on this issue.

The majority of the residents of East Palo Alto, Atherton, Menlo Park and Palo Alto do not consider airplane noise to be a priority issue.

Therefore nothing will change so the only solution for those who find airplane noise a serious problem is to move.

I am not arguing that this right, but rather that that it is the reality.

Peter Carpenter,

"Therefore nothing will change so the only solution for those who find airplane noise a serious problem is to move."

Some things could change for SFO could find a new location

more SFO near misses due to "pilot" errors

more noise and more people affected

more lawsuit wins like Phoenix

Some of us can't just pick up and move, but will be interesting to see how many politicians it takes to keep the largest industrial polluter on the Peninsula (with the San Francisco brand) dumping daily over our pets, parks and people
Probably not even that many.

SFO will move to accommodate a small vocal minority of Palo Alto citizens right around the time you guys finally build that Caltrain trench.

Every one has a vested interest in outcomes for their specific location. People on this site have fought HSR going through their urban city, talked about protecting "the little people" while denying the sharing of water with their next door neighbor, and take all type positions based on their knowledge and connections in the government and industry. Some are paid to promote an agenda. So much for the little people vs the giant goliath SFO/FAA. However any giant newspaper that is reporting on "Climate Change" has a take on the situation that says the specific location of SFO was okay back in the day they thought it up but the law of unintended consequences says the rise in sea level will overcome that specific location. No - SFO will not go away as it's use as a freight handler is always there, as well as a back-up location. But time says that a more inland location will be required to guarantee moving people faster without down times related to climate. Airlines have to move people effectively and that means a location that has less liabilities. It is a business move. That could be said for the PAO that has water at high tide lapping in streams next to the runway. Eventually effective management and the profit motive will drive a location inland and the faster the FAA gets on board with effective management and the profit motive the better. It serves no purpose to irritate the very people who are making decisions on building and support services. And while you list locations who have an interest you can add SU and national labs SLAC and Livermore. All have an interests in protecting their investments and promoting better use of the available land.

One of the business proposals for HSR is it's location relative to SFO and the connecting feeders to the airport. Same for Oakland and BART. However the route for HSR is becoming more tax efficient if it runs along HWY 5 as the HWY already has dealt with the environmental issues and has the through way. If HSR goes up 5 it will intersect in Livermore and cross into SFO through the Altamont Pass to reduce traffic in that area. Also BART is contemplating a Livermore station. So the business logic is already moving major transportation connectors into the inland area. SFO is not only an end destination it is a major hub for connecting flights. As a HUB it has to be more efficient relative to climate and water issues to insure that people are being moved along in a very efficient manner. All of the transportation aspects that try and move large numbers of people through the eye of the needle - the peninsula and bay is a major cost driver that at some point does not make sense. All of your FANG companies are stating to move their locations to firmer land south. Each of these transportation activities which are planned to intersect have to move people collectively instead of piecemealing each topic as an isolated item.

Many "loud and low" jets flying into SFO this evening!

>> Many "loud and low" jets flying into SFO this evening!

Just like very other night, look at the Stop Jet Noise website: https://stop.jetnoise.net

By the way the Stop Jet Noise website should display summary results without requiring a login on its home page.

Once one plane wakes you up, does it really matter how many more go by in the next ten minutes - only to be repeated in the next hours throughout the night and morning?

We really notice when we go away how quiet it is, and how whiny and noisy it is when we get home. So sad. Should be beautiful to have windows open on spring mornings and evenings. It's not.

@Quiet weekend away from Palo Alto : " We really notice when we go away how quiet it is, and how whiny and noisy it is when we get home."

Yes!!!!
This is what we have been saying for years !
The solution for those unhappy with living in a noisy environment is to move to an environment that is quieter.
Silicon Valley is an industrial center, economic powerhouse, and population magnet. Move to a less "happening place" and you will be much happier.

"You should just move!" is certainly one response to the noise pollution that was foisted on our (and neighboring) cities a few years ago.

Another would be to strive to right the wrong, and chip in to help clean it up.

I know which type of world I want to live in.

"Stop the Madness" like many of the trollish commenters here, either through laziness and not reading through the comments or through perversity, completely misunderstands and misstates the complaints of those objecting to jet noise over Palo Alto from SFO bound flights, and the basic facts.

We all know that living in a busy suburban/urban metroplex involves a certain amount of noise that one doesn't see in rural less busy areas. Had stop read all the comments here, he would have seen that what we are objecting to is a situation where a disproportionate amount of the jet noise from SFO is concentrated over Palo Alto and a couple of adjacent cities.

This situation is well documented and supported by copious evidence. Nobody familiar with the issue disputed this, why the City Council and other politicians have taken notice and started to try to do something. These efforts may fail: the FAA, SFO and the airlines are powerful political players. But none of this vitiates the fact that we have a problem in Palo Alto relating to SFO generated noise. "Stop" and others aren't really contributing to the discussion by trying to pretend that the problem does not exist.

>> The solution for those unhappy with living in a noisy environment is to move to an environment that is quieter.

The fallacy here is that the Bay Area is only full of people that are happy there is so much noise.

Why are twisted statements like this the standard for setting public policy instead of the actual noise standards that are already in place and not being enforced. Our noise standards exist. It is a recognized health problem. Why should our standards be set so that people must have their windows closed to apply? Yes, on a hot summer nght we should have the right to have our windows open AND be able to sleep. It also creates less energy demand, pollution, green house gases and wear and tear on home appliances.

The majority of people living here do not enjoy noise. For reasons of jobs, family, networks, and life they live here and should have a right to the healthiest environment possible. We went through industrrial polluion 100 years ago and decided to set standards. Who are the people defending all this noise? The people who say they love the sound of jets flying over in the middle of the night are liars or trolls.

Mary:
>> we are objecting to is a situation where a disproportionate amount of the jet noise from SFO is concentrated over Palo Alto and a couple of adjacent cities.

Though that is part of it, that is not what I am objecting too. Nor do I believe most people believe that.

I reject that because a solution to that would be to make everyone's city and residence equally noisy. There are health limits set for noise, and those limits should be periodically reviewed and enforced. If not, we end up like China where the air is so smoggy people are dying from it. Maybe we are heading that way, and the snarky and snide remarks by those who profit are the same way China got there?

This is the same things as "too big to fail" being forced on the whole country because of the outlook of a few bought and paid for policy makes that our democracy is too weak to get at and switch out. The solution is to look to what our current laws say, and what other areas are doing, and other countries that have a better result. We need a democratic and responsive government, and if we cannot count on our government to pursue health and environmental regulations that protect people, and their investments in home and family, then we do not have a government we have a ruling junta.

CrescentParkAnon,

"I reject that because a solution to that would be to make everyone's city and residence equally noisy. There are health limits set for noise, and those limits should be periodically reviewed and enforced. If not, we end up like China where the air is so smoggy people are dying from it. Maybe we are heading that way, and the snarky and snide remarks by those who profit are the same way China got there?"

The noise problem started with Nextgen during a time when SFO operations were down. Nextgen concentrates noise which means it takes noise from one place to concentrate it in another. That is how the noise "grew" over Palo Alto.

There isn't enough noise to make everyone's city "equally noisy," it's noisy over Palo Alto because Palo Alto and adjacent cities are being dumped on.

While I would agree that a stronger democracy would look to protect everyone, the truth is that it's SFO and neighbors who are deciding to dump on Palo Alto.

Palo Alto has the noise because the powerful politicians in the party are in cities that benefit financially from owning and operating noisy airports. The party lightweights in Palo Alto have to fall in line with party leadership or risk being cut off from the various benefits that come from towing the party line.

Loyal party functionary benefit from endorsements, professional polling data, party crafted electoral strategies, campaign funding, and the opportunity to use the revolving door that connects government employment and the sweetheart employment opportunities available to trusted party members.

Jetman -

Do any of our council members have any political clout? Clearly the manager, attorney, and staff are not likely to do anything to stop this.

I too notice the problem more when I return from business trips, on which I magically sleep through the night and sometimes feel refreshed!

Hopeful,

Liz Kniss is sitting on a lifetime of accumulated political capitol but much of it is derived from her relationship with party leaders who like the planes right where they are, so don't expect her to expend any political capital on this issue.

The FAA also owes Kniss a huge favor for helping to end the deadlocked situation between the County and PAO which was preventing PAO from receiving the FAA AIP grants it needed to be developed into a "reliever" airport.

What is a "reliever" airport"? A "reliever" airport is an airport that relieves major airports like SFO of unprofitable air traffic. Yes, Palo Alto is actually helping SFO to be profitable while SF owned SFO is using Palo Alto as a toxic waste dump!

Noisy aircraft do not have to wake you to full conscientiousness to disturb your sleep. The repeated intermittent noise can prevent you from falling into the deep state of sleep that makes you feel rested and refreshed. This is probably why people who say they are not disturbed by aircraft noise suffer the same adverse cardiovascular effects as those who say they are disturbed.

The noise isn't just an annoyance, it is killing you, whether you think you hear it, or not.

Just last night, actually in the mid-early morning, around 3-4 AM there was a plane that went over the Crescent Park area that vibrated the whole area - one of the loudest flights I have ever heard. I was not by my computer, so a lot of these incidents do not get reported. This was astounding, it sounded like a giant banging on my roof. And these are happening regularly, the majority of the week, though some days there are not these huge rumbling vibrations, it is more often than not.

This is why I think Palo Alto has to have some unbiased noise measuring/sampling devices throughout the city instead of relying on people to wake up, grasp what is going on, summon the energy to wake up, get out of bed, go downstairs to another room, log in and report airplane noise ... and then try to go back to sleep. And that assumes one wakes to consciousness.

This way the noise could be calibrated to the level of people's complaints - at least somewhat.

I agree with Jetman too ... lots of these grumpy people who think they do not hear the jets do not realize it is probably what makes them so grumpy ... grumpy enough to say they love the sound of jet planes in the night. Hah!

@CPA, probably the imfamous KAL213 at 1:09 am. A 747 freighter at 5000 ft dead center over Crescent Park. Nothing later until 4:30-5:00 when the usual suspects arrive from Kahului, Honolulu, Kona, and Lihue.

Not all airports operate 24/7. The Frankfurt airport bans flights between 11:00 pm and 5:00 am. The Frankfurt airport had 64,000,000 passengers last year. SFO has 58,000,000 passengers last year.

Sue the FAA ... fuhgeddaboudit - we need barrage balloons!

Just today there has been plane after plane passing overhead ... and then
since 6:30, five very loud planes in the space of 15 minutes, and this is
the new norm ... constant airplane noise ... and that does not even count
the private planes and helicopter traffic over our town!

May 31, 18:44:46 AC 781 (YUL:SFO B38M 238k, 5695ft)
May 31, 18:40:52 AA6012 (LAX:SFO E75L 219k, 4459ft)
May 31, 18:38:46 WN1536 (SAN:SFO B737 225k, 4350ft)
May 31, 18:36:44 AS1279 (SJD:SFO A320 202k, 5407ft)
May 31, 18:31:40 UA2148 (SNA:SFO B738 185k, 4681ft)

As soon as I get ready to click submit another one flies over.

May 31, 18:52:01 PR 104 (MNL:SFO B77W 205k, 5299ft)

[Post removed.]

Emirates A380s are majestic aircraft. Quite distracting, especially with binoculars.
They have a hundred of them, costing way more than a city-length Caltrain tunnel.
Daily 2pm arrival into SFO non-stop from Dubai. Around 8000 miles in 16 hours.
Lufthansa, British Air and Air France also have A380 arrivals.
Wish Airship Ventures was still flying so I could compare size to a Zeppelin.