Tonight: Aircraft noise over Atherton on council agenda

When are Atherton residents going to figure out they don’t live in the country? They live within the Bay Area where there are three major airports within 20 miles and two smaller airports to the “north” and “south.” Get a grip folks. I’m betting you all knew these airports were there when you bought your homes. Did you honestly think there would never be planes landing and taking off there?

Move to Foster City, or San Bruno, and find out what noise really is.

Or get relative: spend a night in San Carlos or Belmont and notice how quiet they are.

Oh wait, that’s trains and track signals making all the noise…. Sorry can’t hear the planes due to all the clanging and horns!!!!

To Judyjudyjudy: Thanks for your comment. It made me laugh. We live right next to the RR tracks, and after a decade, we have gotten used to the trains, well, as much as you can get used to them. The thing we have NOT gotten used to is those noisy little single-engine planes that take off all day long from the San Carlos Airport. You know what I’m talking about, those little planes, as they ascend, making that annoying nnnneeeeeyaaahhhhh sound. It’s particularly bad on weekends. I called the San Carlos Airport once to tell them about those noisy little planes, and the guy on the other end of the line said they are constantly reminding the pilots to keep the noise down as much as possible. I haven’t noticed any improvement over the years.

One thing I have noticed is the large passenger jets that are now flying over the Peninsula just to the west side of El Camino Real. On a quiet day here, the noise really bothers me. But, I guess there’s nothing we can do, except grin and bear it — or move, which I’m not going to do. I was born and raised here on the Peninsula, and this is where I plan to stay.

I also noticed, several days ago, two large, dark brown planes that took off at the same time mid-afternoon from the San Carlos Airport. (At first, I thought they were military airplanes.) They were flying very low. As they ascended and headed south, one plane arced to the left, the other to the right, both spewing forth great billows of brown smoke into the air. It was very alarming. I hope these planes were not from the SurfAir fleet.

To Peter Carpenter: Thanks for trying to mitigate the noise problem. Your efforts are much appreciated.

In Ladera, I too have noticed increasing airplane noise. At times it feels as if the plane is going to land in my back yard. To be jolted awake by low flying planes is particularly annoying at night. On occasion, I’ve had ornaments be vibrated off shelves. What is Ladera doi8ng about this? What is our near neighbor Portola Valley doing about this?

If you think commercial jet noise has increased in the last few months… you are correct. In August 2013 the South China Morning Post reported that the FAA, in response to the Asiana crash at SFO, had begun advising Foreign Airlines to stop using the 5,000′ visual approach to SFO, and to only fly 3,000′ GPS final approach routes. These overseas flights, which typically use older four engined aircraft, are the jets rattling your windows, and vibrating your walls.

The smaller two-engined jets that emit a high pitched whistle are flying a new approach to SFO known as “NextGen” which the FAA began to roll-out at Bay Area airports in January 2013. Under “NextGen”, aircraft “coast” down from altitude at high speed along several precisely navigated approaches. If you live under one of the “NextGen” approach routes, you better get used to it. The precision navigation used in the “Nextgen” system will channel air traffic into several narrow flight paths, and allow air traffic control to use much smaller aircraft-to-aircraft spacing. While the “Nextgen” approach may slightly reduce the noise level of an individual aircraft, residents living under a “Nextgen” approach route will experience a much greater number of aircraft passing overhead.

Menlo Voter brings up a valid point about the pre-existing airports. For as long as I can remember, there’s been commercial jet traffic over the east part of Atherton; it is on the approach for landing at SFO. Certainly, residents have know or should have known about this noise.

What’s changed is the volume of traffic and capacity of the airport. SFO of today is much larger and busier than the same airport of the 1960s. Likewise, San Carlos airport has always catered to private, light aircraft. It appears to have gone into the commercial business.

It’s those changes that are causing this outcry. SFO has responded reasonably by instructing pilots to modify their approaches. Yet, there are still some noisy aircraft or pilots who don’t care.

The public should have some say about using San Carlos airport for commercial flights. This new operator has a direct impact on the environment, yet there’s been no due process regarding whether that business should be allowed.

So, yes, it’s true the airports have always been there. But, when those airports substantially change, the public should have a right to be heard about the nature of those changes and whether they should be allowed. That did not appear to have happened for the San Carlos Airport and the regular operation of commercial flights.

If the residents can get ambulance companies to shut off their sirens once they are south of 5th Ave on ECR, they can certainly get airplane noise under control so they aren’t disturbed in their state of the art double insulated window and often concrete wall fortified fortresses. Have them fly over Sims Metal!

The FAA is what is known as a “captive” federal agency. The FAA has been infiltrated and is controlled by lobbyists, and revolving-door agents of the industry it charged with regulating.

The aircraft industry, with the help of the FAA, has been laboring for several years to prepare the political battlefield for the increase in aircraft noise we are experiencing today.

In September of 2010, the FAA established an advisory committee to help with implementation of “Nextgen” air traffic control. Members of the committee are: Air Line Pilots Association, Air Transport Association of America, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Boeing, DoD, MITRE Corp, Garmin, Honeywell, Rockwell, Harris Corp, NASA, National Business Aviation Association, Raytheon, Alaska Airlines, and FedEx.

A September 2010 GAO report on environmental impacts at airports indicated that the changes in aircraft flight paths that will accompany “NextGen” efforts would affect some communities that were previously unaffected or minimally affected by aircraft noise and expose them to increased noise levels, which could raise community concerns, and trigger the need for environmental reviews.

In 2011 the “Nextgen” committee lobbied for, and received, Congressional legislation allowing any changes to air routes below 3,000′, near core airports, to be granted a “categorical exclusion” from any environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

To all of you bitching about aircraft noise. It’s due to increased air traffic. Increased air traffic generated by the increased population of the bay area. If by some strange turn of events you actually have some effect on it I fully expect you’ll be on here bitching about how hard it is to get a timely flight out of the bay area. You’ll have yourselves to thank for that.

Mr. Carpenter usually just cites the facts or the law when discussions on these pages get irrational and hysterical. But then there are those who persist with conspiracy theories or other versions of “don’t confuse me with the facts.”

I suppose all the complaining and conspiracy talk on these pages makes for interesting reading for some folks — but actually it is very distressing that citizens of this wealthy and educated community, who should at least occasionally feel good about being able to live here, do nothing but complain about absolutely everything.

Landing Protocols Changed after Fatal Asiana Crash
South China Morning Post Thursday, 01 August, 2013
“…The shift away from side-by-side landing came as the FAA started advising foreign airlines to use a GPS system instead of visual reckonings when landing at San Francisco. The agency said it had noticed an increase in aborted landings by some foreign carriers flying visual approaches…”

Linked visual Approach Plate specifies an altitude of 5,000′ at Menlo INT:
http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/SFO/IAP/TIPP+TOE+VISUAL+RWY+28L_R/pdf

Linked (GPS) Approach Plate specifies an altitude of 3,000′ at Menlo IAF:
http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/SFO/IAP/RNAV+%28GPS%29+Z+RWY+28R/pdf

Pilot instructors reported after the Asiana crash that the foreign pilots they were training had very poor manual flying skills due to the complete lack of private aviation in their home countries, and the widespread use of social media to cheat on examinations. Instructors also reported that when they switched off the auto-pilot, to test manual flying skills, the pilots would often panic.

If these pilots are not skilled enough to fly a visual approach to SFO, they are not skilled enough to fly a 900,000 pound aircraft at over a highly populated area. What if one of these pilots with poor manual flying skills hits a bird and actually has to fly the plane? These pilots should have been grounded.

SAFETY ISSUES / NORTH FAIR OAKS – Surf Air is conducting flights over NORTH FAIR OAKS – people here are generally working class and not very wealthy. Flights over my street include two day care homes. Pilots may or may not be fully licensed or following the guidelines. Safety oversight for small commercial companies are not the same standard as for large companies.
Also – – home atmosphere becomes toxic from abundant low flying jets ( keeping their gear adjusted – who is going to make sure of that over time for every plane ? !! )
Right – FAA be what it may – we deserve due process, safety and environmental discussions – from comments, it does seem like David against goliath.

Peter,

I agree the answer is with the Pilots, most will work with the public if they are reminded and can be safe. I had a Cessna 210 out of San Carlos for several years and I lived in Redwood Shores under the flight path.

Residents are concerned and wisely so that there will be a growing increase in the number of commercial and low-flying jets over our homes , day care centers , and schools. I hope people will Keep their arrogant attitudes to themselves as we humbly try to protect our selves.

I live in a working class neighborhood nearby, not Atherton, and I’m directly under both flight paths. The small aircraft overhead are flying low and are way noisier than the high-altitude jumbos descending into SFO. Way noisier.

The “get over this petty stuff” comment from the Surf Air member above, who is “west of Alameda” seems particularly odd. The flight path in question seems to be roughly over Middlefield. I vote that Surf can fly over his house instead.

Julie:

I’m betting the airport was there when you bought your house.

Jetman, and Peter Carpenter – can you explain why you refer to descent and coasting down? I could be wrong but my impression is, the noisiest moments are when aircraft are ascending, heading away from the airport.

I also could be wrong about whether the flight path reaches the west-of-Alameda neighborhood – but if it does, I’d expect their altitude would be considerably higher by the time the aircraft reached those foothills.

Of course the pilots on this forum have no sympathy for the citizen non-pilots. If you grew up admiring aviation science and fly planes yourself, it’s no surprise that the increasing airplane noise and environmental pollution does not bother you. And make no mistake who the chief beneficiaries of the dramatic increase in air traffic are: the airline industry as well as wealthy hobbyist pilots. Their financial gains and recreational enjoyment come at our expense.

I would imagine that NONE of us Atherton residents do our own lawns and the gardeners we hire use leaf blowers that EXCEED the decibels from the aircraft you are complaining about. Think about that and please get out your rakes the noise coming from your yards is REALLY annoying……because whne I bought my house there were no leaf blowers and you have all ruined the country like atmosphere I wanted when I bought my house.

So get out there and start raking….or you could stop bitching about living in the 21st century.

To Jetman:

Thanks for your comment. I really enjoyed your analysis/metaphor. So true.

If you want to talk about noise pollution, lets talk about banning leaf blowers. All day, I hear the buzz, hum, and whining of the laziest, smelliest, loudest invention of all time.

At least the airplanes are productive. I don’t mind the noise. I leave near the railroad tracks and under the flight path for SFO and PA Airport. Sometimes I even see military aircraft going to/from Moffett. I don’t mind them one bit. I get to see tons of interesting planes a low altitudes. It’s exciting!

Menlo Voter:

Unfortunately, what you say is true. The thought of moving from an area where one is established is not a pleasant one, however. It is clear, this area has become congested. No easy solutions here.

But, if the small aircraft operating out of the local airports here are louder than Regulations permit…and their frequencies higher than common sense dictates…there should be some recourse or compromise available for the populations affected.

We will most likely have to suffer through it. At least now we are not suffering in silence: there are many people whose quality of life is being impacted. I am glad to see a public discourse on it. At least now, those of us who are impacted, know we are not alone. We will no longer need to ask: “Is it me?…or is it noisy in here?”

Reply: Peter Carpenter

Your answer to what I said is precisely the point:

“if the small aircraft operating out of the local airports here are louder than Regulations permit.” , I wrote. “They are not since no such regulations exist.”, you write.

No such regulations exist. My question is: why shouldn’t there be some regulation.

Your comparison to freeway road noise is imperfect since there exist many laws regarding the operation of motor vehicles,…speed, etc., And those freeway cars are not doing wheelies on my property, unlike the aircraft that circle over my house…making repeated sound-loops for hours on end.

I have nothing against airplanes or airports. Noise is a reality we need to adjust to…in all forms…I know. And I admit, I don’t care for it much in any of its forms. But I think there are unnecessary excesses that could be adjusted, if the people who manage these things cared about the overall welfare of everyone.

Maybe the question is not ….noise or no noise. The question is: how much noise and how often.

To Diane: you have given me my first big chuckle of the day!
To Menlo Voter: to me it sounds more like engine/motor sound. But it could be what you said. It makes sense that the sounds can’t be stopped.

To All With Whom I’ve Exchanged Posts:

It is apparent that you know much more about aviation than I do. I have found the information helpful and interesting. But to tell me WHY my thumb hurts when it is hit by a hammer doesn’t make the throbbing stop. And it gives the holder of the hammer no incentive to stop. “Your thumb is going to hurt…because we need to hammer…and it’s unfortunate that that is where your thumb is..”….is the justification we get.

There can be “no excess” when there are no parameters set for measurement and no suggestions forthcoming to ameliorate what has obviously become a problem for more than just a few people. The way I see it: ..too much noise is too much noise. Period. But there can NEVER be “too much noise” in a discussion that does not recognize the definition “too much” as being valid. How many businesses do you know of (I assume there are flight schools at our small airports)…who can operate their businesses with “no regulation”? …and no measurement of activity. Or for that matter how it affects neighboring communities.

I don’t get it. It’s just life in the big city, I guess. Time to invest in a pair of regulation-grade ear protectors.

Who was here first? The FAA only just “broke ground” (their words) for their “Nextgen” highways in the sky in January of 2013.

“FAA Plan Seeks More Direct Air Routes in Bay Area”
SF Gate ~ Tuesday, January 15, 2013 http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/FAA-plan-seeks-more-direct-air-routes-in-Bay-Area-3419362.php

The FAA claims these “highways” in the sky, will reduce noise. What these “highways” will actually do, is increase the total amount of noise, but concentrate it over a fewer number of people. At the end of the day, “NextGen” air traffic control is not a technical solution to the problem of aircraft noise, it is a political solution, and all of the FAA’s bluster about reducing noise is just camouflage.

The reduction of aircraft noise was never really the goal of these new highways in the sky. The real goal was to open vast amounts of airspace to a new industry. An industry operating a new type of aircraft. A new type of aircraft whose operations are fundamentally incompatible with piloted commercial air traffic. The FAA calls this new type of aircraft an “unmanned aerial system” or UAS. Everyone else calls them drones.

“FAA Told to Make Room for Drones in U.S. Skies”
USA Today ~ February 7, 2012 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-06/unmanned-drones-share-faa-airspace/52994752/1

The FAA’s drone plan, has been an active topic of discussion among private pilots, for several years now.

“Drones a Coming Crisis for General Avaition”
Flying Magazine ~ February 7, 2012 http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/going-direct/drones-coming-crisis-ga

The aircraft industry can produce prop drive aircraft that are almost silent, when they have to:

The single engined Lockheed YO-3A was designed to a U.S. Army specification of 1968, which called for an observation aircraft that would be acoustically undetectable from the ground when flying at an altitude of 1,200 feet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YO-3

They actually have a YO-3A on display in the Hiller Aviation Museum… at the San Carlos Airport!

Palo Alto has the heaviest commercial air traffic of any community south of SFO, and is the least prepared to cope with the expected increase in traffic, brought on by the forthcoming “NextGen” roll-out.

Under prevailing westerly winds, three out of five arrival routes for commercial aircraft bound for SFO, cross over Palo Alto on their way to the airport. Aircraft arriving from the north, west, and south all converge on an area 3,000′ above highway 101 between Embarcadero and Willow roads, to begin their final approach for landing at SFO.

Several communities north of the San Mateo County border have preexisting agreements, or FAA policies, in place that will help limit any increase in commercial traffic over San Mateo County. In 2012 Anna Eshoo negotiated a policy agreement with the FAA to limit commercial traffic over Woodside, to no less than 8,000′ whenever possible (note: this policy is frequently ignored)

The SFO Noise Abatement Office has “peppered” the Peninsula, north and west, of SFO with 20+ automated “noise monitoring stations” to continuously monitor aircraft noise. Menlo Park has one station. Palo Alto has none.

In the late 1990s Palo Alto Mayor Gary Fazzino asked the airport’s Roundtable group to allow Palo Alto to be represented on the group, but Mayor Fazzino’s request for membership in the group was rebuffed.

Doesn’t sound like the YO-3A was much of a “travelling machine.”

In Palo Alto we have an on-going controversy about building a two building high rise in the Paige Mill / El Camino corridor. This is the same company that is going to build a two building high rise at the Redwood City site – formerly the Malibu raceway next to 101. This controversy is well documented on the Palo Alto On-Line system which is the same as this system. Managing the air space is both a concern from the ground-up as well as the air-down. At some point here the problem appears both for Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties – a concern that should be addressed at the government level since the two concepts are running on separate discussions but collectively have a big impact on how projects are approved and where they are approved – in the vicinity of government directed air lanes.

So it says in fine print. At 4:30 AM the first trans-pacific jumbo jet that has been in the sir for over 10 hours passes over – it is dark and or fog and they cannot see where they are. A jumbo jet covers a lot of air space. Meanwhile at day light some trainer plane at Palo Alto airport is taking off – circling the area at a very low altitude. There are specific time of the day when the commute traffic in the air is an on-going event. The range of activity covers a lot of territory and a lot of altitude variations. Meanwhile the San Jose Airport is equal distance to the south and has its own jumbo jet from Asia activity. It is all observable. I can see it and hear it – if I go downtown PA it is observable.

“Millions of flights to date and not a single mid air collision” you say.

Maybe the definitive 2-words here are…”to date”. Conditions have changed and will probably keep heading in the same direction: that is: more planes and more flights.

We keep pushing the envelope and then when unnecessary accidents occur we wonder why and then establish committee on investigative committee to tell us what was the shortsightedness or carelessness that caused yet another sad tradjedy.

No, I don’t think this is a good time to relax at all.

Re: to the person who posted about building density. Yes on that!! Where are our City Planners and just what are they doing with their time and expertise! In the 70’s it was all about “open space”. I was involved in a construction project where the builders needed to provide a certain amount of open-air square feet in ratio to the amount of residential square feet. So that units would not be stacked and jammed together. Zoning laws were adhered to and only “variances”, if approved could change requirements. Our City Planners and Building Departments are approving EVERYthing—as evidenced by what you see when you drive down El Camino. Awful architecture and buildings which should be torn down, not built up. No concern for aesthetics. The more units = the more money.

More, more, more seems to be the “manifest destiny” these days.

With all the wealth that is being generated around here, Surf Air sounds like a good alternative to the SFO-SJC-OAK mess, growing air travelers. Checking out their website, good deal to me if you have the money. The rest of us will get stuck in those cattle cars with the cramped seats.

3:41pm and one of those dark blue noisy planes just buzzed my house, flying north parallel to Middlefield Road. I am on board to fight against this.

To: Enough

Good for you !

Oh yeah, aren’t they just having a field day? I was downtown Redwood City when I saw a plane flying around the City Hall dome…just as casual and cavaliere as could be. Much too low. WHAT more do these people think they can get away with!

Sorry Julie, but the airport is never going to assume responsibility for the physical laws of the universe. Airplanes make noise (propeller driven anyway) because the tips of their propellers exceed the speed of sound. You can’t legislate the speed of sound nor is it the airport or pilots’ responsibility to control something beyond their control.

Julie… please don’t feed the trolls. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

Julie:

the county cannot control the volume of traffic at San Carlos. The FAA will not allow them to do so. A number of years ago a bunch of folks in Redwood Shores were up in arms about the noise and the county tried to take some action reducing flights or restricting hours. The FAA told them forget it and because the county has taken federal funds for the airport the county cannot do anything about it.

Jetman: pot this is kettle, your black.

> If California had a high speed rail system, then that would cut down on many of the flights, especially the smaller aircraft.

Oh gawd. High Speed Rail will have virtually no impact on flights (or traffic for that matter, a lie HSR and it’s minions continue to trumpet) for several reasons, including:

1) HSR won’t be price competitive, unless taxpayers are forced to subsidize HSR, which violates Prop 1a.

2) flights can go to/from many, many more towns and cities than HSR. HSR isn’t going to Half Moon Bay, Stockton, Lake Tahoe, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, Monterey, Redwood, Reno, Portland, Salt Lake City and on and on and on.

Looks like the communities of Prospect Park, and Brooklyn are also suffering the ill effects of the FAA’s disastrous “NextGen” air traffic system. The FAA promised “NextGen” would bring quieter skies, but “NextGen” is delivering the just the opposite to Prospect Park and Brooklyn… more noise!

Prospect Park Quiet Skies Website: http://www.prospectparkquietskies.org/

Planes are flying so low over Prospect Park that the FAA, and the Mayor quietly had a flock geese in a local park gassed to death for fear they could bring down a jet. Local citizens had to file a freedom of information request to solve the mystery of the mass die off. Meanwhile… huge tracts of land in the mid-peninsula, along the western shore of San Francisco Bay, are being redeveloped into natural wetlands, with the hope of attracting large numbers of migratory birds. How is that going to work?

Activists in Prospect Park/Brooklyn were also able to obtain an FAA Powerpoint in which they admits “NextGen” produces MORE noise. http://www.prospectparkquietskies.org/faa.html

Anything approved in 1990 needs obvious update to coordinate with the growth in the bay area since that time, including the growth in the size and traffic at SFO. We are in a mega-growth mode now. Palo Alto is at the “arrival” side of the equation. Relatives in the San Bruno area are in the “departure” side of the equation. You have more, bigger planes now and more housing. I think a challenge to the FAA order should be part of the current upgrades to the overall decision regarding flight paths.
Another qualifier is that the San Jose Airport is a “destination airport” while SFO is a HUB airport for both national and international travel which means it has 24 hour activity.

Please join us to share your comments and complaints- I agree it is bothersome and we have formed a community group to modify the flight path. The FAA is working with us to reduce the noise and modify the path.
Disruptive Airplane Noise Over Our Neighborhoods
PLEASE JOIN US IN A CONVERSATION
December 9th at 6PM Holbrook-Palmer Park, Atherton
Did you know:
• Your home is under (or near) a flight path that allows noisy aircraft to land at San Carlos Airport (KSQL) at any time of day or night.
• Surf Airlines, a charter members only airline startup, flies over (or near) your home and cur- rently lands 7 times per day. They will have 10 flights each day starting on December 9th.
• Surf Airlines is planning to expand service to more cities that will result in even more flights over our neighborhoods each and every day, including weekends.
Why are you receiving this notice?
A large and growing group of your neighbors are working to solve the noise problem related to Surf Air, and we want you to stay informed, and get involved. Atherton City Council has formed a sub committe to work with residents of Menlo Park, NFO, Atherton, Redwood City, Palo Alto and any other communities interested in helping. The mayors of Atherton and Menlo Park are personally involved and we have additional support from San Mateo County.
Why You Should Care
Excessive noise is not healthy, regardless of whether it occurs from vehicle traffic, leaf blowers or aircraft. In addition, aircraft noise decreases your property value and creates a harsher environment for those that work at home or want to enjoy their back yards. Aircraft flying the exact same route ten times a day poses a higher safety risk for anyone living near the flight path, or attending one of the many nearby schools.
See the map on the reverse side for how you may be affected. What You Can Do To Help
It’s easy. Voice your concerns, let your opinions be heard. You can do that by the following:
Sign the petition: http://chn.ge/1fhCGEG
Call the San Carlos Airport Noise Hotline: 650-573-2666
Join the conversation on Nextdoor.com: http://www.nextdoor.com
Attend the upcoming community meeting where representatives from Surf Air, San Carlos Airport, the Mayors from Atherton and Mentlo Park, and residents will discuss the problem.
When: December 9th, 6 to 8 PM
Where: The Pavillion at Holbrook-Palmer Park, 150 Watkins Ave, Atherton
Get involved. Stay Informed.

There are dozens if not hundreds of other flights that come in and out of SQL, Palo, SFO, San Jose, and other local airports every day. SurfAir flights are a drop in the bucket compared to other flights that have existed for years and will continue to exist. It’s blatantly unfair to single them out — but they’re an easy target because their planes are marked and identifiable.

I bet that most of these noise complaints don’t even correspond to actual SurfAir departures and landings. Have any of our town officials released data on that?

As a matter of fact. The director of operations at San Carlos said 32-34% of all noise complaints received are specifically about Surf Air. That was when they were flying 6 flights a day. Do the math at 20 flights a day.

“What I didn’t count on was a commercial Airline using San Carlos a general aviation airport as a destination Airport.”

Then shame on you as nothing precludes or precluded anyone from commercial operations at San Carlos. If you didn’t count on that then you gambled and lost. Just so you know, commercial operations have been happening at San Carlos for quite some time. That would be the King Airs you see and hear landing there. Just not to the level at which they are today.

Don’t spend hours training me, Just explain to everyone where that 10,000 lb plane is going to land if it loses its engine over Palo Alto or Menlo Park.

Key point being engine(s),multiple, they can continue to fly and land if they lose an engine and they’re not flying 20 flights a day 1000 ft. over Menlo Park.

Key point: the likelihood of an engine failure in a Pilatus is infinitesimally small. Commercial aircraft are maintained to very high standards. As I said, the people under the approach path to San Carlos are far more likely to be injured by a car crash or other accident than they are to have a plane fall on them. There are far more aircraft landing and passing over Menlo Park and Atherton in bound to SFO on any given day than 20.

A search of the NTSB accident database shows a total of 15 accidents in the last 30 years for this type of aircraft in the entire United States. Only 2 of those were related to loss of engine power. Two in thirty years. Neither of the two engine failures in thirty years resulted in injury or fatality. One is more likely to be struck by lightening than they are to die by having one of these aircraft fall on them. It’s a non-issue.

resident:

drinking the conspiracy koolaid I see. The investigation hasn’t been completed yet and probably won’t be for another six months at least. A pilot miss-identifying an airport isn’t going to cause the airport to lose any “grants.” It’s called pilot error.

The complaint doesn’t have to originate at the time of the flight. Someone might call 30 minutes or an hour later. I was told 1/3 of all complaints were about Surf Air. Considering they fly less than 1/10 of 1% of flights in to San Carlos thats a lot.

For Menlo Voter. You don’t want to answer the question about where the single engine 10,000 lb. plane ends up if engine failure, other equipment failure and or pilot error. This in not a cessna or a piper cub.

Just because Surf Air can, does not mean it is safe to fly such a large plane at an altitude that does not allow them to recover.

Referring to SFO does not answer the question. They fly at an altitude that allows them to recover in an emergency and they are multi engined. Regardless the question is about Surf Air.

resident:

clearly you don’t wish to acknowledge the odds of the “need” to recover from an engine failure by a Pilatus PC12 is so small as to be meaningless.

You also might want to talk to Skully Skulenberger about the ability to “recover” when a multi engine jet aircraft loses both engines. He ended up in the Hudson. By the way, the likelihood of a Pilatus losing its engine is about as likely as a Airbus losing two engines to a bird strike.

Clearly you are operating at an emotional level. Those big scary airplanes might “fall” out of the sky and land on people below. The odds of you getting hit by lightening are higher than the odds of either of the above noted occurrences.

By the way, most people like you are incapable of identifying an aircraft in flight. Since some people are complaining about Surfair, automatically many of the people that are complaining about aircraft noise complain about Surfair. Most of them couldn’t differentiate between a Pilatus and a King Air.

King Air is a twin engine,

Pilatus is a single engine,

I think you underestimate the ability of the people complaining about surf air to differentiate.

Residents of Woodside have been complaining about loud transpacific flights for over a decade. Due to public pressure from Woodside residents and their political leadership (including a Grand Jury Report) the SFO Noise Abatement Office continuously monitors noise over Woodside, and issues daily reports which are available on the Noise Abatement Office’s website. http://www.flysfo.com/community-environment/noise-abatement/reports-and-resources/woodside-vor

A typical report looks like this: http://media.flysfo.com/NAPM_OSI_20131124_W4B.pdf

If you go to page 2 of the report, you will find a map which records the arrival routes of aircraft for the day of the report. After studying several maps I found the following to be noteworthy:

1. The Point Reyes arrival route is bent to avoid flying over the City of San Francisco.
2. The Point Reyes arrival route is concentrated along a narrow path until it crosses the coastline. After crossing the coastline, arriving flights spread out to transit the extreme southwest corner of San Francisco County, Daly City, and Brisbane.
3. The Point Reyes arrival route, crosses the coastline at 10,000″ (not on the report, but available from other sources).
4. The Modesto arrival route, is bent to avoid the most highly populated regions in the East Bay, and is somewhat more spread-out than the Oceanic Arrival route, or the Big Sur arrival route.
5. The Oceanic arrival route transits Woodside at 7,000-8,000′, and flights are concentrated along a narrow path.
6. The Oceanic arrival route cuts across a very broad populated portion of southern San Mateo, and northern Santa Clara counties.
7. The Big Sur arrival route cuts across the broadest populated region of any arrival route (also in Santa Clara County)
8. The Big Sur, and Oceanic arrival routes both converge over Palo Alto. The GPS guided “NextGen” Continuous Decent Approach (CDA) requires an altitude of 3,000-3,100′ over Palo Alto to begin final approach to SFO (not in the report, but available from other sources)
9. Citizen concerned about noise from San Carlos Airport may find the “Turbo Propeller” approach from the north of interest.

The City and County of San Francisco, which owns and operates SFO as a for profit corporation, is taking very effective measures to virtually eliminate arrival jet noise over San Francisco. While the City and County of San Francisco derives enormous financial benefit from the operation of SFO, it does not subject itself to the same ill effects it callously expects the citizens of the the Peninsula to bear for the “greater good”.

9:23 am December 2, 2013 and, again, a dark blue plane with white tips just buzzed my house – noisy and low – flying north parallel to Middlefield Road. Could hear the plane engine clearly, even through the noise cloud of my neighbor’s mow and blow gardener.

resident:

what you don’t seem to understand is that the Surfair planes are not “intermixing” with the flight arrivals into SFO. Both are under ATC control. ATC has very specific separation requirements for IFR flight. There are two different approach paths to San Carlos and SFO. In addition, most if not all commercial aircraft carry traffic alert technology which alerts them to other aircraft in their vicinity.

Going back to the runway being too short for the PC-12 Specs. Peter brought up a point of using less fuel. Is this a calculation the pilot makes. Does he say this runway is 50 ft. too short so drop 50 gallons of fuel, or one less passenger, or less baggage, remember the 2650 ft. runway length is a minimum per Pilatus. No cushion for error, downdraft, bad weather, etc. Does the pilot use a computer or does he wing it. Does he have to log his weight anywhere. Does the manual state this is is o.k. Does it have a set formula for adjusting. Is this common with Airlines? Any other insight from other aviation experts would be appreciated.
If anyone from Surf Air knows how far out from airport you’re flying clean I would appreciate it.

Thanks

Matt – I am in commuter inter-island planes on a regular basis. I know small planes and where and how they integrate into regular airports. People do not think up “emotional” points – they just point out a comparison that other commuter planes function in a fairly standard manner. There is already a pre-existing expectation of how this is suppose to work. Also helicopters – those are typically owned and manned by ex-military personnel and everything is run very professionally. They understand risk and know how to manage risk. If you have had exposure to commuter airlines then there is a basis of comparison.
Half the people that express frustration in comments made appear to have a business interest in Surf Air and feel compelled to defend what ever they are doing. I am sure the Surf Air people are big boys and can listen and integrate some new ideas into what they are doing.

Thanks Stu:

I really was curious about that. So they weren’t even flying here yet. That is good to know.
Their arrival on the scene at this point in time may saddle them with all of the past frustrations
people are feeling about noise issues from the San Carlos Airport and other airports in this area.

Fairness is important. For them AND for us.

How to figure out all of this is going to be a large task.

What I hope is that there will be sensitivity and validity
given to all involved.

Thanks again for the information.

No financial interest here. Just an interest in facts vs emotion.

To answer resident’s question regarding who decides regarding fuel vs passengers vs length of necessary runway: every aircraft manufacturer provides an operating manual with their aircraft. In that manual are charts which are produced from years of flight test data to document aircraft performance in many different conditions and configurations. The pilot in command (PIC) uses these charts to calculate weight and balance, required runway lengths etc. The PIC will calculate all of those things to make certain he or she has enough runway, enough fuel, the aircraft is loaded in balance, etc. These are professional pilots that do this every day for a living. Many use computers/software to make these calculations. All charter operations are required to operate to set rules and guidelines governing how they conduct their flights. In no imaginable scenario is a pilot going to place his or her aircraft into a configuration that will not allow him or her to safely take off, safely conduct the flight and safely land. Remember, the pilot is the first person to the accident scene. I haven’t met a pilot yet that’s interested in making stupid choices which could result in his or her death. Not to mention their passengers or people on the ground. This whole “safety issue” is a non-issue. The Pilatus PC-12 is one of the safest aircraft flying and the NTSB statistics back this up.

So let’s return to what this is really about, not safety – it’s noise. It’s not going away and no one is going to get the FAA to agree to have aircraft operate in less than safe manner so some people on the ground don’t get disturbed by aircraft noise. Especially when those people live in a city with multiple sources of loud noise.

So get a grip folks. You bought homes in a major metropolitan area, not the countryside. A major metropolitan area with three international airports and at least five smaller airports. If you didn’t think you were going to be bothered by aircraft noise and that there was no chance of commercial operations or growth in aircraft traffic, then you were foolish or naïve. You all bought homes near a hog farm. Quit complaining about the smell.

I know this is a little bit off topic but if you think it is crowded and noisy now wait till ABAG gets through with us. They say we need to build 188,000 housing units in the Bay Area in the next 7 years.

http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/housingneeds/pdfs/2014-22_RHNA_Plan.pdf

I find this long thread to follow the same pattern as other public forums discussing airplane noise. There tends to be two groups that are active: those that hear a lot of noise and want to do something about it vs those that are aviation experts/enthusiasts that share factual information and take a position that it can’t be changed.

The “noise people” can’t seem to make the aviation folks understand or acknowledge their position that these aircraft are loud and bothersome to their lives. They are frustrated because safety, noise, pollution, property values and anything else presented are not a good enough reason to support their position.

According to the aviation side, the noise people are complainers and have no right to complain. They need to accept what has been going on in the skies because it’s been happening far longer then the complainers have lived in the area. Get over it, move on, nothing can be done. And some even belittle those with little or no expertise. Knowledge is power I guess.

And so it goes, back and forth, back and forth, back and for….

This isn’t about SFO/SJC/OAK noise. This isn’t about closing down KSQL or suggesting that all other GA pilots are to blame for the increased noise. This is about one operator that is the new kid on the block and making way too much noise. The noise from the Surf Air flights and the regular schedule they fly is the reason that residents are complaining.

The noise issue is real, and the neighborhoods affected have taken notice starting this past June since Surf Air started flying. To argue that KSQL has always had a lot of noisy traffic is irrelevant. A lot of that traffic is VFR and means that it doesn’t fly the IFR approach that residents are complaining about.

Surf Air flies the exact same approach path on all their flights. Exactly the same. Let me repeat, exactly the same, no variation. Seven times a day, about to go to 10 times a day, seven days a week. They are the only scheduled high volume commercial airline that does that. If I’m wrong on that, and there is another airline that flies more then 49 flights per week on a schedule, I’d like to know about it.

Other aircraft that use the published approach that Surf uses, vary their flight path considerably. I see and hear those other planes typically much further west of Middlefield in the NFO/Atherton/Menlo Park area. The random offset by the other aircraft are the reason that residents have not complained until the arrival of Surf Air. Those other aircraft don’t consistently fly over their homes 49 times per week in a noisy Pilatus aircraft.

I’ve lived here for a while, and I have never heard anyone complaining about KSQL air traffic in our neighborhoods. And that includes me. As it turns out, I live directly under the approach, so I would know about the noise these aircraft would be making. Interestingly, until Surf Air started using KSQL, I had no idea that I lived under the approach. I just thought aircraft were heading to San Carlos airport and occasionally and randomly they flew over my house. For me, that’s totally acceptable.

So can it be changed?

If we listened to everyone in the past who claimed that smokers had rights and could smoke anywhere, that woman had no business in business, that we shouldn’t place limits on air pollution and fine anyone for polluting too much or that voting should be a white mans domain, we’d still be living in really crappy times. Global warming, gay rights and gun control are just a few of the same type of mega issues that will coalesce in the near future.

What’s all that got to do with aircraft noise? Typically the detractors of changes in laws have their own motives to not let that change occur and are at risk if those laws go through, so they push back, and push back hard. There are a lot of people whose livelihood in aviation depends on the current system. And the FAA is managed by a lot of people who are pro aviation and whose jobs are to keep aircraft flying. But noise is not their problem because if it was, they may have to make difficult decisions balancing air safety vs acceptable noise levels on the ground. The FAA has conveniently sidestepped noise issues because it would place them in a quandary. So noisy is ok, as long as the aircraft is safe. And don’t try to change those laws because they have friends in powerful places.

But what really pisses me off, is that the FAA has used MY tax dollars to fund local airports (again, in the name of safety upgrades and other much needed work) while conveniently taking away the airports rights to implement restrictions that can mitigate noise. Now that should be against the law.

Eventually the public will come together and force the laws to change, just like they did with so many things in the past and that we now take for granted.

And to be clear, if it wasn’t for Surf Air, I doubt any of us would be having this conversation.

Let the vitriol begin…

Dear Noise Problem, In response to your posting earlier this evening. I have read every comment on this thread (133 to date.) Many several times. I have written 1/2 dozen or so.

I have to say yours is the best written i’ve seen by far. You were thoughtful, objective, non accusatory, and well informed about your comments,They were factually based. You did your homework. You were unemotional, non-reactive used excellent grammar, and it was easy to read. What a breathe of fresh air amongst the bickering back and forth. I’m sure you touched a lot of other people that may not respond as such. I’m assuming you are some type of professional writer. Perhaps those of us sincerely interested can follow your lead and take a more civil approach to this discussion.

I don’t possess these skills and my point may not come across as well as yours. I’ll take a couple of your points and leave your comments to stand on their own for people to read. You mentioned the regularity of the flights and noise. This has been much more disturbing than the constant irregular flights by other local traffic. You have some knowledge of aviation by stating local traffic flies VFR and can vary landing approaches. Flying into the prescribed pattern as opposed to Surf Airs constant low straight in approach. I have lived hear 40 years and my wife was born in Palo Alto 59 years ago. Neither one of us has ever complained about local aircraft traffic noise. It all started with the Surf Air flights. I hope they get the message and change their route to approach farther north closer to the bay which would also allow for a safer landing in case of an emergency. Personally I have nothing against surf air, although if challenged I’m sure their lawyers are ready with a bully mentality if needed.

Thank you for bringing a well informed common sense discussion to what had become a brawl at times,

I hope everyone takes the time to read your comments, Please add more this is important, It’s not just noise its a major safety issue.

So now the issue is about taxation without representation and “Big Government” taking away our rights? All because of 10 extra flights a day?

Jetman, you sarcastically wished me good luck selling my home with all these planes flying overhead. Um, have you looked at median home prices in SMC? I’ll take that risk 100 times out of 100!

Matt, your response is baseless.

When did I quantify the number of total flights over my home? Apparently you are very familiar with those numbers, even though you don’t have a clue where I live.

You should stick to facts. I don’t have “lots and lots of single engine flights” coming over my house, nor do I experience “dozens of those flights”, and if I did, I doubt I would be happy with that much traffic. I made it really clear that the majority of aircraft using the published approach are offset from the path that Surf flies. That means they don’t fly over my house.

For the record, there are on average 6 flights per day that fly directly over my house, not including Surf Air. Those aircraft range from twins, single and even the occasional personal jet. All are much quieter then the Surf flights, and I’m able to accept the noise they create.

It’s too bad you refuse to accept that Surf is the problem. That is illogical when there is so much evidence that they are the problem. Apparently over 200 residents agree with me: http://chn.ge/1fhCGEG

Just like to clarify the business model here – any company doing business that has a tax return has to stand up to an audit to justify the travel expense. The Surf model will not get you there. Any person who is a sole proprietor with a tax return will be audited for travel expense. The Surf model will not get you there.

Travel expense is the most heavily audited element in any tax return. That leaves a bunch of people who will not submit a tax return including travel on Surf Air. That narrows your field of who is on the plane and why they are there.

Any Executive with any company will use a recognized commercial airline with travel arrangements made through their company using a standard set of regulations that have been pre-negotiated with the IRS and the company CFO.
And they will not put anyone of value on a small plane for business travel. That is contrary to the company regulations and policy.

So someone – A Silicon Valley CEO – is ON VACATION with his family – is an experienced pilot with a plane – and in the news today goes down somewhere in Idaho – yet to be found.

As of a few weeks ago surf air had 350 active members and 6000 on the waitinlg list i would like to hear from surf how that translates to the number of additional flights into san carlos

Matt- You are accurate on all points. I live directly under the landing path and made calls to the airport. I’ve never complained about noise until this summer when Surf Air began their flights- I didn’t know who was causing it when I called San Carlos- but they identified and my further tracking confirmed it is Surf Air- they are extremely loud, you can hear their approach before the pass in landing mode, it is beyond disturbing. Please sign the petition and voice your concerns.
http://www.change.org/petitions/surf-air-inc-stop-or-reroute-surf-air-flights-that-are-using-ksql-san-carlos-airport

FAA’s Next Big Issue Is Acting on Its Next-Gen Air Traffic Control Dreams
Associated Press ~ November 1, 2013
“NextGen was originally forecast to cost $40 billion, split between government and industry, and to be completed by 2025. But an
internal FAA report estimates it will cost three times that much and take 10 years longer to complete, Scovel said. FAA officials have
largely stopped talking about end dates and completion costs as the technologies that make up NextGen continue to evolve. The
agency currently spends about $800 million a year on the program.” http://skift.com/2013/11/01/the-faas-next-big-issue-is-acting-on-its-next-gen-air-traffic-control-dreams/

That’s right… the FAA is going to spend $60 billion of your tax dollars on “NextGen”, so the Airlines can save fuel by relentlessly flying noisier routes over your homes, and to free up airspace for drones which will be used to spy on you… and deliver pizzas (or both, if you are foolish to have one make a delivery to your home).

Jetman:

you act as if no one benefits from fuel savings but the airlines. We all benefit. Passengers benefit from lower costs to fly and the world benefits due to the lower introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere. Cost/benefit.

Menlo Voter…

If “NextGen” makes sense from a cost/benefit point of view, why can’t the airlines do it on their own, without a $60 billion subsidy from the American taxpayers? Read the article. The airlines are already worrying that it doesn’t make sense, even with the taxpayer paying half of the bill.

How much do you want to bet, the airline never even pay their half of the $120 billion? The airlines have the FAA over a barrel. The airline know if they back out now, the federal government will have to pay for it all, or all of the three-letter agencies won’t get the airspace for their drones.

And no, everyone does not benefit from the $60 billion taxpayer subsidy. Some benefit enormously, and some not at all. Taxpayers who don’t live in areas polluted by commercial air traffic, and who don’t fly, don’t benefit. What’s wrong with letting the free market work in the airline industry?

Reply to : Follow The Money

Re: ” it is a constant background noise that is subtle and invasive. ”

Yes! Like a form of water torture—one drop at a time (one plane at a time). San Carlos Airport’s unique version of “water boarding”. They are ” shoving it down our throats” ignoring whatever effects we must endure.

The Use of Aircraft Noise in Psychological Warfare

In the later stages of the war in the Pacific the Japanese Imperial Navy devised a devious plan, which used aircraft to degrade the readiness and moral of the embattled Marines on the Island of Guadalcanal.

“During the campaign, the Japanese sent solitary aircraft on nighttime missions over Guadalcanal for various reasons. The reasons included scouting, dropping flares over Allied positions to assist Japanese naval or ground forces operating on or near the island, to bomb the airfield or Allied installations, and/or to harass the Allied troops and disrupt their sleep.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washing_Machine_Charlie

The loud aircraft, often with detuned or unsynchronized engines became known collectively as “Washing machine Charlie”, after the loud washing machines of the period.

Re: The Use of Aircraft Noise in Psychological Warfare

Wow. Interesting.

In a staff report, City Manager George Rodericks said the town last month assisted with a decibel reading at 20 Holbrook Lane, and measured the noise from a Surf Air plane flying about 1,500 feet overhead at 68-72 decibels. The town’s noise ordinance restricts noise at that time of day — about 7:30 a.m. — to 60 decibels, the report said. The ambient noise at that location registered 48.5-51.5 decibels.

According to Aviation Safety Network, Google it, There have been 29 PC-12 Accidents reported in the last 15 years with 74 fatalities. Not a chance I would prefer to take in an area as densely populated as the Middlefield Corridor. Flying from the South over San Jose, continue North at a safe altitude. Then make a left turn with an approach from 680/101 intersection flying over the freeway/bay front to SQL. Not 1200 ft. AGL down Middlefield Rd.

Mark, I stand corrected on the capacity. It appears to be six although some web sites list it as eight passengers. In order to remain in the FAA licence category they are in they cannot carry more than nine passengers.

Comments on the tax base relative to airports – I believe that is really specific to SFO which is one of the biggest employers in San Mateo county.
If you put commercial in SFO and private in San Carlos that would be a good position to take. Problem is that Surf’s business plan is trying to stage themselves as a private airline versus a commercial airline. That changes up their tax base. They are passing on a high initiation and monthly charge to the member whether they use the plane or not. It is not a pay-as-you-go system so it is by-passing any meaningful metric in comparison to other airline ventures. You s a member will not get any meaningful data out of this organization. So that leaves you with NOISE.

the reality is that planes are flying over everyones homes – just watch them

http://www.flightradar24.com/37.4,-122.18/12

Gwen,

Thanks for updating us. The important item is changing their approach location. Can you give any more details on when, if, under what circumstances and how often they would use the freeway approach?

Thanks again,

if they file under an instrument flight plan can they change to a vfr approach if conditions allow, is it pilots choice,
90% of our weather would allow for local vfr conditions

Above comment says that Santa Monica is not the SOCAL base for Surf Air due to complaints. So where are they flying from in SOCAL? Is there focus now on San Carlos as the permanent base?

In Palo Alto air space Surf is moving in a south to north path over Middlefield Road – approximate only – could be El Camino south to north – somewhere in between. Yes – I can hear it from here – noisy plane. Meanwhile the commercial incoming to SFO are moving west to east and making their turn northward for approach – approximately at 101. These paths are crossing at Oregon Expressway to Embarcadero, approximate. They are visually intersecting in their paths in this area. These are not planes going to PA Airport – those are on the other side of 101 and much lower at this point.
There are also commercial planes going east to west in this same path – presumably Oakland to Hawaii.

Surf Air is talking Burbank Airport in their ads – that is good – a real airport which is a Southwest base so has good control system. People have to go through Security to get to the airline boarding areas.

They use the word “Disruptive” in their ads – latest buzzword typically used in the development of Apps and software programs. However – translated to airline travel it is attempting to undo any safety feature that has been put in place to protect the traveling public. The word Disruptive is their choice – they are hyping their disregard for any accountability and security related effort. I do not think the FAA will be pleased with the “disruptive” take on their business plan and policies. It is attempting to undo all of the latest efforts in safety and security.

PVrez:

resident is grasping at straws. He or she couldn’t make the PC-12 an “unsafe” aircraft so there went their “safety” argument. Guess they had to come up with some other supposed “safety” argument. Weak as it may be.

Hi Gwen,

Did Surf Air Reps. give any idea how many flights they would have into San Carlos in the future?

resident:

you need to work on your reading comprehension. There have been two crashes of PC-12’s due to engine failure in FIFTEEN YEARS. Read the NTSB reports. The likelihood of one of these planes falling on your head is lower than your being struck by lightening. I can guarantee you that throughout your day there are aircraft passing over your head that have safety records that are not as good as the PC-12. This isn’t about safety. It’s about you and your neighbors self absorbed belief that you should be able to pretend you live in the countryside when you don’t. Get over yourselves.

In another episode of “follow the money” it is apparent there in an upcoming clash between the wealth in Atherton against the startup airline, Surf Air who is noisly disrupting the lives of Atherton residents. It is clear they are scrambling to put a lid on their problem with VFR approaches that are a temporary fix to public outcry. Their business plan calls for many more landings and is required to make the company economically viable. As a few aviation types (Peter Carpenter etc) have pointed out San Carlos is mixed into very crowded airspace and a PC-12 is not exactly suited to this VFR approach. San Carlos airport was not designed to be a commercial commuter airport nor is the approach pattern over a quiet residential town suitable for a noisy turbofan airplane.
So do you think Paul Allen who just purchased a $27 million house near the IFR route was unaware or is now pleased to find this is no part of his new purchase? I would guess not nor do the other eight billionaires and lesser types who chose and have invested money in Atherton because of its rural, open space and quiet nature. So this will be an interesting road in the follow the money game.

Julie:

no they’re not “right.” You live next to a hog farm. You knew it was there when you bought your house. Quit complaining about the smell.

I have to agree with Peter on this:
“The best outcome is to change the vertical profile of the VFR flights and not just move the horizontal flight path somewhere else.”

Sound is subject to the inverse square law. That means distance is the most powerful tool in the war against noise. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/acoustic/invsqs.html

The only other option that would be fair to East Menlo, and East Palo Alto, would be to shut down Surfair operations at SQL altogether.

Distance is also the solution to the increase in commercial jet noise people are experiencing due to the FAA’s recent roll-out of “NextGen” flight profiles at SFO. The “NextGen” flight profiles cross 101 at ~3,000’. The Visual approach profile used to cross 101 at 5,000’. The reduction in engine and airframe noise you get with “NextGen” cannot make up for the 2,000’ reduction in altitude.

resident:

not a member or investor. Just someone that believes in factual information. something that has been greatly lacking in your posts as regards safety. Yes there are other causes of crashes. Obviously. Pilot error is the most common cause of airplane crashes. And it doesn’t matter what aircraft it occurs in. You have thousands of flights passing over your head every day. Any one of those could experience catastrophic pilot error resulting in a crash. In your neighborhood. But that’s a red herring and you know it. This isn’t about safety, it’s about noise. If it was REALLY about safety you’d be whining about all of the other aircraft flying over your head, but you’re not, are you? No, you’re whining about one particular aircraft flown by one particular operator because it’s disturbing your misguided notion that you live in the countryside. You don’t. Get over it.

Julie:

no need to be clairvoyant. The airport was there thirty five years ago when you bought your house. No secret. It’s the big 2500 foot paved strip about five miles north of Atherton. Been there since at least 1950.

Menlo Voter:

Well, okay, then there are at least two possibilities here: 1. The airport was not as noisy then; or 2. I wasn’t as cranky.

However, since you reference the year 1950, I suggest you go down to San Mateo County and take a look at the plat maps of that year. This area was not developed any where near what it is now.

The noise was not bothering as many people. The flights were not flying over densely populated areas.

But I give up. You win.

This is not a charter airline. It is a commercial venture as it is flying a proscribed route on a proscribed timetable. Individual members do not get to dictate the route and schedule. The problem here is that each customer has put up a fee – buy-in – and monthly payment whether they use the service or not. They have effectively moved the risk to the paid membership. Membership should consider themselves as share holders but not set up that way. Sweet deal. Something goes wrong then the membership has each individually lost their initial investment and proration of monthly payment. I am laughing. Reading their input on Google they even have a plan that says people will be limited on the number of flights per month.
Sweet deal. I am laughing even harder now. Do not expect to see any executive from any major company who has to run a business on the plane.
You will be seeing a very different clientele. That I am not laughing at – hope San Carlos Airport gets some security staff and dogs.

Resident:

Empathy is a wonderful quality. It is the starting point of resolving many problems in the world.

No sure where you’re going with that one? Sounds to me like they very connected.

Spelling correction: Speier. (Jackie Speier)

resident:

what difference does it make what is out west or northeast of Stanford? Private aircraft (yes single engine) fly over those areas quite regularly. I’ve even flown over that area. I don’t understand why you don’t understand the difference. The PC-12 has a better safety record than most if not all of the single engine private aircraft flying over your head every day. Yet, you don’t complain about those. I don’t know why you can’t simply acknowledge that your issue is with noise and not with safety. The facts regarding safety simply don’t add up in favor of your opinion.

Your contention that an engine failure turns an airplane into a “missile” is false. Airplanes, all airplanes can and do glide. they don’t just fall out of the sky nose first. that only happens in movies.

The bottom line is you bought a house under the flight path to an airport. There’s going to be some noise. We live in a city. Have you instructed your gardener to stop using their leaf blower?

Surf Air seems like a pretty small company. How does Surf Air do background checks?

Forbes/August 2013/Contributor: John Goglia

With all the media hoopla surrounding Surf Air’s all-you-can fly business model and comparisons to Netflix, there seems to be some basic information missing that passengers need to be aware of before they decide to spend thousands of dollars – between membership fees and a three-month commitment – to join up. That basic information is that Surf Air does not hold the same FAA air carrier certificate, and is not required to meet the same safety standards, as most scheduled airlines, including commuter or regional airlines.
Surf Air holds an FAA certificate issued under Part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. While most commuter airlines were required to upgrade to Part 121 standards – after a series of accidents in the 1990s – scheduled operations using aircraft with 9 or less seats were allowed to continue to operate under Part 135. Since Surf Air operates three Pilatus aircraft – with less than 9 passenger seats –it is legally allowed to operate as a commuter under Part 135.
But there are significant differences in safety standards between Part 135 operations and Part 121, which include different pilot qualification requirements, crew member flight and duty and rest requirements, flight following, weather, airport and maintenance requirements. For example, a Part 135 commuter captain is not required to hold an airline transport pilot certificate, the highest pilot’s license granted by the FAA, but can fly with just a commercial pilot certificate. In addition, the recent changes in pilot qualifications mandated by Congress as a direct response to the Colgan Air crash in Buffalo, New York in February 2009 – significantly increasing the number of hours required for co-pilots and increasing the number of hours required for co-pilots to upgrade to captain – would not apply to commuter operations under Part 135.
While Surf Air is experimenting with a new business model that may eliminate some of the hassles of flying, passengers should know that the company is not required to meet the same safety standards as the scheduled airlines they usually book tickets on. So when the New York Times quotes an elite United and Southwest flyer enthusiastically endorsing Surf Air’s flying experience, someone needs to tell her she’s traded some significant safety standards for convenience. Passengers have every right to make those trade-offs – they should just be knowingly made.

Julie:

did you bother reading the comments below the one sided article? Especially those from one of the founders of Surfair answering many if not all of the straw men Goglia put up? Didn’t think so.

No, Surfair is not required to meet Part 121 Standards, but as a company philosophy, they go the extra mile so that they DO. Their pilots are ATP rated. They fly two pilots in an aircraft rated for single pilot operations, they aren’t required to do so. They have maintenance schedules similar to those of 121 carriers.

Sorry, safety is not an problem with Surfair. As I said before, I would have no problem flying on, putting my family on or even putting my 2 1/2 year old grandson on any of Surfair’s aircraft. I would be far more concerned for my family’s safety while they are driving to and from the airport. The facts simply bear out that the car drive to and from is more dangerous than the flight. That applies to private aircraft as well.

Does anyone know the other sites being used to post on re; Surf Air?

Menlo Voter

According to the information that Jetman provided, even with the CLEAR system TSA screenings are still required.

Surf Air says no, not on their airlines:

·” To further promote safety among Surf Air members (and because they aren’t required to pass through TSA screenings before boarding) we run background checks on every member who flies with us”

So…I don’t know the definitive answer.

I did read the comments below John Goglia’s article.

I was at the meeting last night when a person living in the community asked a Surf Air pilot/manager if Surf Air is certified Part 121 or whether they are Part 135.

He responded that they are not Part 121. They are certified Part 135.

Unless I misunderstood his answer, they are not Part 121.

And, yes, I read what the co-founder of SurfAir said about his airlines trying to match or approximate or even supersede Part 121 requirements.

Re:Posted by Michael G. Stogner, a resident of another community
13 hours ago
2 sites that were mentioned at the meeting tonight were Nextdoor.com and Change.com

Just a FYI: it’s. http://www.change.org

http://www.change.org

I attended the meeting last night and was very impressed. The organization of the meeting was great and I think every one who had something to say was able to. The speakers were generally from the Atherton area so incoming SFO traffic is already lined up over the bay at this point and was not a problem. Meanwhile back in PA the SFO incoming in part is arriving west to east and making their turn up into the northbound arriving for SFO. Surf is working south to north over Middlefield so there really a lot of cross traffic and noise in the PA area.
One concern is that San Carlos says it will be available 24 hours a day. San Jose Airport has a 11:00 PM Curfew due to noise – so there is a precedent for noise control.
Surf is going to work on moving their approach over 101. I have talked to other pilots who think Surf could come up the bay then cut over to San Carlos to eliminate the problem – they would be lower than the SFO traffic.

I am impressed with the running of the meeting and especially the mayor of Menlo Park who wants the problems resolved. There was a discussion of a 2:30 AM flight – no more of those.

Resident asked.
“Did anyone else at the meeting last night hear Surf Air say they were planning on “basing” a crew at San Carlos Airport?”

I heard the speaker say that they are basing….not planning on basing. I also heard the Mayor of Menlo Park express his strong desire to cancel the 5AM flight. I thought that was a little over the top since San Carlos Airport operates 24 hours a day.

Resident (Linfield Oaks) says

“If six flights a day bothers you, Think 20,30,40, 50…..flights a day. Perfectly legal perfectly within their rights. When they expand to Sacramento, Tahoe, Napa, Las Vegas, Hawthorne etc. San Carlos will change from a destination airport to a hub.”

After going to the meeting this post really resonates with me. The meeting I suppose is necessary to establish community support but it is just blah,blah. Resident is right the content of the meeting was just lip service by Surf Air and group therapy by those offering comments. Nothing will come of this meeting except more meetings and studies. Both the councils of Menlo Park and Atherton and other surrounding affected communities might as well hire attorneys at this stage specializing in area of the law that will stop Surf Air from operating from San Carlos. Eventually this is where it will end as there is no solution to the noise.
Ultimately Atherton had to resort (with many others) to legal action (successfully) against HSR and by all accounts HSR is only slightly alive.
Lets cut to the chase and cut the head off this snake now.

Was Mr. Carpenter at the meeting? Not sure what the agenda here is – you are defending their right to irritate everyone? This is the only airline that has managed to cause a disturbance that brings so many people out.

Yes – I did hear that Surf is locating people in San Carlos. I also know that San Carlos – the city – wants to build a hotel. I think this whole event is backed by the city. Also – the funding that the airport keeps alluding to – both federal and commercial – it is a profit center for the city. Time to tap into local politicians and find out what the county of San Mateo thinks about all of this.

As to Lockheed in Burbank – half the population in that area worked for Lockheed and are very proud of it. Today the city of Burbank enjoys increased tax base from all of the corporations that have subsidiaries in that local because of the airport.
Surf will not do the same for San Carlos – the proximity to SFO will limit their expansion.

Quote from the FAA policy on noise and the responsibility of airport proprietors (San Carlos Airport in this case)

C. Legal Responsibilities of Airport Proprietors

The responsibilities of state and local governments as airport proprietors are far less restricted. Under the Supreme Court decision in Griggs v. Allegheny County, 369 U.S. 84 (1962), proprietors are liable for aircraft noise damages resulting from operations from their airport. The proprietor, the court reasoned, planned the location of the airport, the direction and length of the runways, and has the ability to acquire more land around the airport. From this control flows the liability, based on the constitutional requirement of just compensation for property taken for a public purpose. The Court concluded: “Respondent in designing the Greater Pittsburgh Airport had to acquire some private property. Our conclusion is that by constitutional standards it did not acquire enough,” The role of the proprietor described by the Court remains the same today.

But the proprietor’s responsibilities do not end there. A three judge district court observed in Air Transport Association v. Crotti, 389 F. Supp. 58 (N.D. Cal., 1975):

“It is now firmly established that the airport proprietor is responsible for the consequences which attend his operation of a public airport; his right to control the use of the airport, is a necessary concomitant, whether it be directed by state police power or by his own initiative …. That correlating right of proprietorship control is recognized and exempted from judicially declared federal preemption by footnote 14 [of the Burbank opinion] . Manifestly, such proprietary control necessarily includes the basic right to determine the type of air service a given airport proprietor wants its facilities to provide, as well as the type of aircraft to utilize those facilities….”
The Crotti case upheld in part a California airport noise statute imposing noise abatement duties on airport proprietors and established the principle that a state statute could reach proprietors that are governmental agencies and hence arms of the state. The Burbank preemption rule thus has not extended to proprietors, except with respect to regulations that actually affect the flight of aircraft. The portion of the California statute struck down by the court provided for criminal sanctions against the operator of an aircraft that exceed a single-event noise standard on takeoff or landing, a clear interference with the FAA’s control over flight operations in the navigable airspace.

The Crotti principle has recently been upheld in National Aviation v. City of Hayward, No. C-75-2279 RFP (N.D. Cal., July 13, 1976), a case in which an air freight company sought to enjoin a curfew on noisier aircraft imposed at the municipally owned Hayward Air Terminal in California. The court addressed squarely the legal issue of the rights of a proprietor and found that the curfew had not been preempted:

[T]his court cannot, in light of the clear Congressional statement that the amendments to the Federal Aviation Act were not designed to and would not prevent airport proprietors from excluding any aircraft on the basis of noise considerations, make the same findings [as the Burbank Court] with respect to regulations adopted by municipal airport proprietors…” Slip opinion, 14, citing S. Rep. No. 1353, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 6-7.

The court went on to indicate that the FAA had the authority to preempt such proprietor regulation, although it had not yet exercised it. The court also found that the ordinance, which required some of the plaintiff’s aircraft to use another airport between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., had an effect on interstate commerce, but that the effect was:

“…incidental at best and clearly not excessive when weighed against the legitimate and concededly laudable goal of controlling the noise levels at the Hayward Air Terminal during late evening and morning hours.” Slip opinion, 19.
The power thus left to the proprietor — to control what types of aircraft use its airports, to impose curfews or other use restrictions, and, subject to FAA approval, to regulate runway use and flight paths — is not unlimited. Though not preempted, the proprietor is subject to two important Constitutional restrictions. He first may not take any action that imposes an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce and, second may not unjustly discriminate between different categories of airport users.

These limitations on the proprietor’s control over the use of the airport have not been addressed by the Supreme Court, and it remains unclear the extent to which Constitutional limitations would prevent some of the restrictions that have been imposed or proposed by proprietors in recent years.

Our concept of the legal framework underlying this policy statement is that proprietors retain the flexibility to impose such restrictions if they do not violate any Constitutional proscription. We have been urged to undertake — and have considered carefully and rejected — full and complete federal preemption of the field of aviation noise abatement. In our judgment the control and reduction of airport noise must remain a shared responsibility among airport proprietors, users, and governments.

The legal framework with respect to noise may be summarized as follows:

1.The federal government has preempted the areas of airspace use and management, air traffic control, safety and the regulation of aircraft noise at its source. The federal government also has substantial power to influence airport development through its administration of the Airport and Airway Development Program.

2.Other powers and authorities to control airport noise rest with the airport proprietor – including the power to select an airport site, acquire land, assure compatible land use, and control airport design, scheduling and operations — subject only to Constitutional prohibitions against creation of an undue burden on interstate and foreign commerce, unjust discrimination, and interference with exclusive federal regulatory responsibilities over safety and airspace management.

3. State and local governments may protect their citizens through land use controls and other police power measures not affecting aircraft operations. In addition, to the extent they are airport proprietors, they have the powers described in paragraph 2.

I had better jump in here before I have too many posts to respond to. Actually, after attending the meeting on Monday night I lost my will to say anything more.

Resident: I am feeling and thinking the same things as you.

BUT: I think, for the most part, Peter Carpenter knows what he’s talking about. He is stating some “hard to accept” facts and realities.

BUT: That said, I also believe “Never say never”.

I was heartsick when (at the meeting) Surf Air Manager made the joke about only flying over the same house once…or…hold on….twice in the same day.

I have a good sense of humor ordinarily. But his response indicated to me just how little he is seriously taking our discomfort. He doesn’t have to take it seriously.

Surf Air has been said to be “disruptive”—that is. They are really shaking up the airlines industry. The word “disruptive”, a new buzzword in the corporate world meaning good or innovative.

I say this airlines is “dysfunctional” AND disruptive—but in the traditional meaning of the word. Dysfunctional because it requires so much of our attention. It may just be the new dripping faucet in our lives: even when it’s quiet, we wait in expectancy for the next drop. We may have to live with it. The FAA says we can’t call the plumber.

Have we had a minute of peace since all of this started? Did we want to go to a meeting on a Monday night in 37 degree weather?

I have not seen such public discontent since Colombia Hospitals—a for profit hospital with a shaky reputation—wanted to take over Sequioa Hospital in Redwood City, I think about 20 years ago. Thank goodness they didn’t succeed, thanks to community protest and investigation of there track record.

Same thing: all of a sudden they appeared on the scene.
Until the residents of the community said: Wait a minute here—Not so fast!

But then, the FAA was not a factor.

As far as law suits, I’m no expert. Peter might be right. It doesn’t have to be a City lawsuit though.

Last but not least, I’m sure that there are alot of community residents who are happy that Surf Air is in town.

People are so hysterical that they won’t listen to reason or facts. The SurfAir CEO wasn’t making callous jokes about flying over people’s houses. His point was, they are flying the exact routes that the FAA requires them to fly. Otherwise known as obeying the rules.

The FAA REQUIRES them to fly this flight path. Period. There is no choice. If the FAA would let them come in over the bay, they would. Of course, that would alleviate about 5 flights a day for you, and it would also compromise public safety by putting planes too close to SFO traffic, but what do you care? It’s all about your own backyards.

Here’s another fact to consider: SurfAir is under no obligation to attend these ridiculous, one-sided hearings. They chose to attend, and have spent lots of time dealing with these complaints because they actually care about the community and want to do whatever they can to alleviate noise.

Only in the perverse, privileged logic of Atherton could this be considered a bad thing.

Peter Carpenter:

Re: “a. It will make the airport available as an airport for public use”

Are you sure that a membership airlines would fit the classification of “public use”?

Matt – you sound like someone who has already made the investment and are getting defensive about it. You have three months to pull out – unless you are one of the employees. The CEO was not at the meeting – the general manager was.
Bottom line is you only get 4 trips per month for what you pay – that is not a BIG SAVINGS compared to being a member of any airline like Southwest that will throw all kind of bargains at you. If you rode Southwest 4 times a month then you would have a substantial number of free trips to anywhere.
Landing in San Carlos or Hawthorne has NO APPEAL. The only thing you are paying for is not going through the TSA line. Anyone who is paying to avoid the TSA line has some real problems – or is carrying something that would cause a problem. My thinking says this is where this whole thing is going.
Especially if they are landing at weird times of night – there is no car rental at weird times of night for an airport the size of San Carlos. I have already checked out the airport – I know what is there.

As to flying over the bay lower than the commercial flight line is it done in Hawaii – they work very hard to keep air traffic sideways from the major hotels on the beaches. I don’t think the FAA makes up different rules for different states. Their goal is to reduce congestion, confusion and traffic. That is the approach to come from. It can be done. On a case by case basis there is a very good case here. We are talking 2013 here.

Peter – are you an employee of Surf? Or receiving any benefits for warding everyone off any negotiation on this matter? Everything is negotiable. I like the mayor of Menlo Park – I think he can negotiate a workable approach.
He comes from the “disruptive” generation – I will give him points for disrupting the disrupters.
All in all it was good meeting and the general manager who came seems like a good guy who understand the problem. I think the city can work with him. I think he gets it. He has only been onboard for a month – I think he can provide good direction to the pilots.

Menlo Voter:

Re: Redwood Shores

Part of my education was from my mother, in the form of proverbs. She always used to say:

“It is always better to learn on the shoulders of others—to see what their experience has been, before potentially making the same mistake they have.”

So what you say may be a useful cautionary tale.

People may start to wonder what side of this issue I am aligning myself with. I think I’ve made myself clear on that.

There is alot to think about here. But what’s true is true.

Neighborhood:

Re: “What part of “No” do you not understand?”

I have no idea what you mean by this. I read and understood the information regarding the FAA.

And, by the way, I have nothing but respect for Peter Carpenter and have stated as much in my posts.

When Menlo Voter posted that it would be an exercise in futility to try to legally challenge the FAA, I agreed with her.

So…whose posts are you reading?? Not mine. Unless you have misinterpreted my statements.

Noise always gets worse as population density increases. All of it. Freeways, traffic on suburban streets, leaf blowers, sirens, construction, etc. It also takes about twice as long to get into & out of SFO & SJC as it did 20 years ago. There’s a clear time-saving & convenience factor for some to use San Carlos airport for some short flights. Bypassing SFO or SJC is very appealing since, unlike someone upthread, most of us don’t view time spent at SFO another shopping mall opportunity & just want to get to our destinations as efficiently as possible.

Please consider the impact our local population growth has on the issue of noise. Please think very hard about promoting or allowing increased housing density on the Peninsula. The audio disturbances this thread discusses will get worse – more cars, small aviation planes and leafblowers & gas mowers will be used by more people here. Think hard about who you vote for and watch out for your local planning commissions. Beware of zoning changes or conditional use permits.

Surf Air wouldn’t find a market here if it didn’t fill a need to facilitate transportation between smaller towns. This is a harbinger of more to come unless there’s a stop to ongoing mass housing development.

I feel the pain of noise pollution. In years past, the incoming flight from Japan @ 5 am (route/height later changed in response to complaints) and some distinctive sounding, single engine plane out of San Carlos (maybe giving lessons over MP early on weekend mornings) which needed a muffler drove me nuts. My noise hotline phone calls changed nothing.

For the sake of peace, quiet, and even health & safety, please don’t support high-rise or high density residential construction.

“The FAA has been cited as an example of regulatory capture, in which the airline industry openly dictates to its regulators its governing rules, arranging for not only beneficial regulation but placing key people to head these regulators” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

The FAA is not solely concerned with safety. The FAA works to advance a broad range of issues that are in the interest of the Airline Industry, while ignoring it mandated role in “developing and carrying out programs to control aircraft noise and other environmental effects of civil aviation.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Administration

Diane:

you and Julie can knock yourselves out. Let me know how it works out for you.

To those who say forget it. Think positive. Anything can be accomplished when good people come together for a just cause.
Surf Air will not be kept out of San Carlos. Nor will they change the type of plane they fly. These planes cost well over 3 million dollars each.

When Surf Air makes commitments in those meetings hold them to it. Get it in writing.

It’s unfortunate it may take an accident to make real changes to their approach to the airport. I would like to hear from some aviation experts other than Peter. Peter I have total respect for your history but please quit telling us your credentials and it Can’t be done. It’s getting boring and repetetive. I’ve heard you say twenty five times that the FAA can’t and won’t change the approach. Let’s start with they can and work on how we accomplish doing it.
San Carlos Airport already has a noise abatement program in place. Don’t say it can’t be modified

Personally I see this is a safety issue. I think the FAA made a mistake when they approved this approach. Did money, power, influence play a role in their decision to grant this approval? Only a very small group of people would know.

Can someone who has the knowledge and experience do some models on what the procedures are along with the results of a mechanical failure on the last 5 miles of their approach. I think the cities affected, Menlo Park, Atherton, Redwood City, unincorporated Fair Oaks area should hire an expert so do these models. An independent person, not Surf Airs’.

I know first hand what it’s like as a pilot to lose an engine in flight. There are a prescribed set of procedures that are followed specific to each aircraft. It takes time to go through the list. It must be followed. Don’t say it can’t happen. It does. I know. I was fortunate and was able to restart the engine but I was at an altitude high enough to make the recovery work.

Don’t say the Pilatus is such a safe plane it can’t have an engine failure or one of many other mechanical failures or it’s such a small chance we shouldn’t worry about it. There have been 29 accidents and 74 fatalities passengers and people on the ground worldwide in this plane as a result. I know our skies are filled with a lot of aircraft big and small overhead. Is that an excuse for allowing these planes to fly in an unsafe manner. I have aviation experience. I know this type of plane at this speed and low altitude will allow the pilots very little time to go through their recovery procedures. There is no place to land on this route in the event of a loss of power, engine failure, or 25 other things that can go wrong leaving the pilots seconds to realize and react.

There are modifications that can be made very simply to lower the chance of an accident on this approach or allow more time for the pilots to respond.

I wouldn’t fly on one of these planes, I wouldn’t let my kids go to a school under this flight path, nor would I insure this business under the current flight configuration, I don’t oppose general aviation or commercial airlines. However both should be operated in the most safe configuration available and the route, speed and altitude Surf currently flies are unsafe. I’m not trying to keep Surf Air out of San Carlos I just want them to have the respect for us to fly in the most safe manner possible. For all the naysayers safety is the FAA’s number one priority. Hold them accountable. Just because they approved it doesn’t mean it can’t be modified.

I take this very seriously. If you can’t say something constructive, please don’t respond, No smart aleck remarks, hog farms, move to the country, or people who say it can’t be done. I’m tired of reading it. Let’s have an adult conversation.

get real:

piston driven aircraft. pilot error. Unfortunately, probably the most common pilot error there is in general aviation. As Peter points out how many car crashes and deaths from same?

Resident,

I agree that safety is a major issue in this debate and that the FAA made a huge mistake in approving that approach path for Surf Air. Until the community meeting I didn’t realize how many schools are directly under that flight path. Is it possible that the FAA considered this insignificant?!

In my opinion the noise annoyance is just as big of a concern as it relates to the health and well-being of the community. According to WHO, impairment of early childhood development and education caused by noise may have lifelong effects on academic achievement and health. Studies and statistics on the effects of chronic exposure to aircraft noise on children have found:

consistent evidence that noise exposure harms cognitive performance;

consistent association with impaired well-being and motivation to a slightly more limited extent;

moderate evidence of effects on blood pressure and catecholamine hormone secretion.

Two very recent studies published in the British Medical Journal have found a significant association between aircraft noise exposure and increased risk of hospital admission for cardiovascular disease and stroke.

http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5432

http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5561

Peter,

That approach path may have worked well in the past, but now that the San Carlos Airport is approving commercial carriers to operate out of that airport, with regularly scheduled flights that will be ever increasing, that is no longer viable…at least, NOT for the residents who are impacted.

I did not say the flight path was not being used before Surf Air. I said the FAA should not have approved that flight path for Surf Air. There is a difference.

Peter,

I am not going to engage with you anymore on this topic because I find you insufferable.

I will just state once more, that it is MHO that the FAA should have (at the time of Surf Air’s approval process), and should now devise a more suitable approach path for Surf Air and any future commercial air carriers who might come to San Carlos Airport.

I must comment on all of this talk lately on who’s paying who. I, for one, can categorically state that I am not being paid by anyone and haven’t been paid by anyone for anything for a long, long time. I don’t even get accused anymore either. : 0)

I just want to say I read and enjoyed the web links that Jetman posted on the FAA and on the concept of “capture”, and ont the link Diane posted on research studies done in reference to the effects of airport noise and health. There are all kinds of “safety” issues, including this one: a quote from Diane’s link:

“Two very recent studies published in the British Medical Journal have found a significant association between aircraft noise exposure and increased risk of hospital admission for cardiovascular disease and stroke.”

Having just started having to take blood pressure medication, I can relate.

When Peter states that he would try to avoid dumping this noise on less vocal people and possibly those in lower socio-economic neighborhoods, I couldn’t agree more. It’s not fair.

But then I started thinking about it and I have to wonder: why is it a question of who is going to have to suffer more…or less? My question is: why should anyone, or any neighborhood, have to be encumbered by this daily barrage of unwanted noise?

Just some thoughts. Monday and Tuesday was pretty quiet around here, comparitably speaking. Today? Small aircraft flew over this house all day long, starting at 7:30 a.m.

Here are some sound files. I only uploaded a few. These were recorded BEFORE Surf Air was flying here. The day I recorded this, planes flew practically every 15 minutes…for a total of roughly 17 or so planes. It was already bad then. Or, maybe I am being too sensitive. I don’t know. I’m sure that some of you have had the same experience.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3udxhqyuj1xt1lq/w5TWomEeVz

Julie:

I don’t think it’s a matter of who “has” to put up with airport noise. If people don’t want to put up with it they can move. The airports have been there for a very long time and they aren’t going anywhere. These airports have not operated in secret. In fact, I’d hazard a guess that people buying in those locations purchased those homes for less than they would have, had they not been under the approach and departure ends of an airport. As long as these airports are going to continue to operate, aircraft will continue to overfly the approach and departure real estate that exists under those places. Not to mention others under the pattern.

Given the glide ratio of this aircraft, were it to lose an engine at CUZUP, they would be able to glide 5.2 nautical miles. The minimum crossing altitude on that approach at CUZUP is 2000 feet. That would place them over the marshland off the “south” end of the runway. So, I don’t think anyone needs to worry about a Pilatus that loses an engine crashing into people or structures on the ground.

The MDA (minimum decent altitude) on the approach is 1260 feet. So, even if the PC12 lost it’s engine at MDA, it would likely be able to make the runway.

I’m sorry, I don’t see how anyone can seriously claim that these aircraft are “unsafe” or that they are being operated in an “unsafe manner.”

These particular aircraft may be new, but this model has been around since at least the mid 90’s. The fact that these particular aircraft are new is a good thing. Just like cars, aircraft can develop problems as they age and the mileage/hours pile up. In the case of aircraft there are regulations which require those issues to be addressed, unlike cars. In this particular case, Surfair is maintaining their aircraft to airline standards even though they are not required. Again, hardly “unsafe.”

Menlo Voter:

Re:
” If people don’t want to put up with it they can move”

Or, conversely,…If people don’t want to move, they can put up with it ?

It just may be that people neither want to move nor do they want to put up with.

It just may be…that people cannot move…nor can they put up with it.

We are so accustomed to dualistic thinking: either…or.

This may be similar to not feeling well yet not wanting to go to the doctor. We wait it out. We hope that tomorrow we will feel better. We don’t want to admit that we are feeling THAT bad. Because once we make that doctor appointment we can no longer deny that we have a problem that only a doctor can fix—and maybe not even a doctor can fix.

But we don’t want to have to take the antibiotics, we don’t want to have to suffer through the X-rays and scans, we fear the surgery and all of this will be costly too.

In spite of all of the good reasons not to make that doctor appointment, we do it anyway. Why? Because we have had enough discomfort and pain.

The doctor in this case is the attorney.

We are waiting to see if we will “feel better” (or worse) tomorrow.

Diane:

The point you keep missing is that there hundreds if not thousands of commercial flights passing over schools, hospitals and any other manner of building you want to choose. The number of those overflights has increased in the past and will likely increase in the future.

The safety issue regarding Surfair is a red herring that people are throwing out because it’s really about noise.

Julie:

Often we have to learn to live with things. This is one of them. I wish the train didn’t go by so many times a day but it does. I knew the tracks were there when I bought my house. Should my neighbors and I sue CaltrIn because we don’t want to be exposed to the noise anymore? That makes as much sense as trying to sue to stop aircraft flying over your neighborhood. It’s a nonstarter.

My prediction is that people are going to waste a bunch of time, angst and money just like the Redwood Shores residents with the same outcome.

get real Councils,

Thank you for that great link!

Menlo Voter:

I know that on one level you are very right. I mean, I know that those things you point out are true.

You compare this situation to what happened in Redwood Shores. Even though my heart was never in it, a long time ago I was in Real Estate. My Broker’s first advice to me was: remember, no two transactions are ever the same. So there might be some pertinent differences in the Redwood Shores example and this one.

You predict that people will waste alot of time and energy. Not if they prevail. It is not beyond possibility. But I truly hope that everyone can find a less traumatic way to reach solutions.

As far as angst, we have experienced enough of that
already.

I know there are conditions everywhere with which we need to try to cope. I’ll go along with you on that. Whether or not this is one of those…is the question.

What I find very difficult to understand—sort of on a democratic and a philosophical level is this: if an entity chooses to enter an arena and their entry causes considerable upset, some people are saying that they have no accountability? Worse yet, the federal agency who is supposed to act as a watchdog, rather than at least EXAMINING the issues—even–inactivates whatever oversight powers the San Carlos Airport might have. And what about the City of San Carlos?? So what it boils down to is we might as well be a Federal Province—since neither the local governments nor the citizens have any say in this—even though they are being impacted by it.
We have no, or little, recourse. That is not democracy. That is “plantation” mentality.

I’m sorry, but I feel that there is more than just noise at issue here.

I got involved because of noise. But I can see now that it is more intricate—shedding light on things that perhaps we should notice.

Get real Councils:

Thanks.

Julie:

I can tell you the Redwood Shores was different. They were complaing about aircraft taking off. This is a far noisier phase of flight than landing. They got nowhere.

Menlo Voter:

I understand.

I have no details re: Redwood Shores. It was just a thought.

Matt:

Why are you singling me out?

All of these groups, citizens’ groups, were already formed before I even knew anything about it! I saw it in the San Mateo Times about people in Atherton being upset and that it was on the Agenda at the Atherton Council meeting. That was my first contact and my first knowledge.

I have stated that I have been bothered by the noise…even before Surf Air arrived. I am not objecting solely to Surf Air plane noise—I don’t care whose plane wakes me up at 2:30 a.m.

You’ve got to know that I am not the only person upset by Surf Air…and the fear people have that it will create even more noise in the already noisy local sky.

The community meeting had 75 attendees. I was not the only one in attendance that has concerns.

Freedom of speech is a 1st Amendment freedom. I think we still live in a country where people are free to express themselves.

I’m sorry if you don’t like or don’t agree with my statements.

I am only one solitary person: what people used to call “a majority if one”. There are people and City Govenments who are far more vocal than me who are not at ease with this situation.

After the meeting, resident wrote “Surf is going to work on moving their approach over 101. I have talked to other pilots who think Surf could come up the bay then cut over to San Carlos to eliminate the problem – they would be lower than the SFO traffic”

Peter, Jetman, anyone who understands nextgen…are 101 or the Bay legal approaches? Would such an approach require new regulations? Would Surf find it practical?

<<the thing you fail to realize is that, YES there were hundreds of other commercial and general aviation flights flying over your homes. You weren’t complaining about safety then were you? Nope. This is about NOISE. The PC12 is not unsafe and Surfair is not operating in an unsafe manner. Safety is a red herring in this discussion.>>

The point you seem to be missing is that this discussion is about Surf Air and not about other operators out of San Carlos Airport. Some of the many people who have voiced their concerns are troubled by the noise that Surf Air is generating in their ever increasing flights over our neighborhoods. Others are concerned about Surf Air’s operations from a safety standpoint. Some have voiced concern about reduction in property values.

I believe the problem with Surf Air’s operation is safety and noise. I gather from your posts, that you believe that no problems exist at all.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this, Menlo Voter, unless you truly believe you can bully and badger me into silence. In that case, you would be mistaken.

Jetman,

You are absolutely right. San Francisco City and County own SFO. All flights in and out avoid the city like the plague.
Powerful people in high places answering to a wealthy mandate.
You may have noticed we haven’t heard much from reps from the San Mateo County who owns and controls SQL. A guy showed up from one of the sup’s offices at the meeting. Said hello at the podium and walked away never to be seen again.

We have a situation here of money, power, and influence on both sides. You can go to the list of investors for Surf on the web. It’s a lot of the big hitters. I suspect Menlo Voter is involved with Surf in one form or another, Employee, investor, directly or indirectly, Knows people in the company, Some connection. Sup’s our side don’t represent their constituents. At least nowhere I can find them. Where are you Mr. Supervisor?

Mr. Cole from Surf Air said no more than 2 flights a day over any house. Can we hold you to that Mr. Cole. Would Surf agree to that in a memorandum to the Airport. I have it on good authority that Surf has plans already in place to have 20 flights into SQL per day.
If you thought 6 were noisy or unsafe. Triple that.

Any experts out there with a legal opinion other than Menlo voter re; liability once noticed,
In my uneducated sole humble opinion the only way to get Surf to really sit down at the table and make some concrete commitments is with lawyers and threats of suit and issuing constructive and actual notice of their operations causing an unsafe condition. If an event ever happens where someone is injured or killed as a result of anything they were considered to have actual or constructive notice of. They will be held
liable.
This may sway some of their investors to reconsider and their insurance carrier to not insure or rewrite the policy. Not my goal to disrupt Surf’s operations but to get them to agree to do the right thing, sit down and negotiate in good faith backed up in writing with SQL’s blessing.

Diane:

please provide some factual information that Surfair flights are “unsafe.” I hear a lot of opinion from the anti-surfair crowd about safety. Peter and I have both posted factual information regarding the safety of both the aircraft and its operation. You all just keep ignoring it and going on about how unsafe it is. Please provide some facts to back up your statements. Otherwise it’s just the opinions of a person that is not cognizant of the facts or is simply choosing to ignore them. You’re entitled to your opinion, but without some factual basis it is simply an opinion. This is about noise.

resident:

as I have previously said, I have zero financial interest in Surfair. My interest is in facts which those not liking Surfair are in short supply of or which they simply wish to ignore. The PC12 is one of the safest aircraft in the world and Surfair is operating them in an extremely safe manner. Those are facts. If you have some facts to provide that indicates that is not true, please do so.

Menlo Voter,

It is not my obligation to prove to you that Surf Air’s operations are unsafe. Nor is it your obligation to prove to me it is safe. This is a good thing, because obviously, neither of us has convinced the other.

I have stated why I believe it is unsafe very clearly. If you are having trouble comprehending that, I guess that’s just unfortunate. I do not feel I must repeat myself ad nauseam, simply because you command it.

Here’s my command to you: if you set the rules here, prove it. Otherwise, quit bullying and badgering the people who don’t agree with your point of view.

Enough states “Oh, and with amazing irony, my house just got buzzed by a SurfAir plane AS I WAS TYPING THIS! 10:44am December 14, 2013.”

Yep, I was just coming into my house to type this and I heard the same flight. Very noisy and I have lousy hearing to boot. It is Saturday morning and very little ambient noise here in Lindenwood so maybe louder than a weekday flyover. And yes, it annoys the hell out of me also and I am probably a mile from the flight path.

For those who are tired of all the reasons why you can’t do anything I would suggest you write your District US Representative, Anna Eshoo and voice your displeasure with the noise caused by Surf Air. You can call her local office or
she may be contacted by email at:
https://forms.house.gov/eshoo/webforms/issue_subscribe.htm

It is my belief that Rep Eshoo now resides very near the Roger Reynolds Nursery site and if correct is smack on the IFR center line approach. She is likely in Washington most of the time but if she does come home in the next couple of weeks when Congress is in recess she too can enjoy the Surf Air noise for herself.

Peter,

If your post was directed at me, I was actually requesting prove that Menlo Voter in in charge of this forum, controls the agenda, and can dictate what others can and cannot say and what others can and cannot think about this issue.

I have already read the links helpfully provided about the Pilatus from prior posts.

I am glad that we can agree on this
:
“thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion.”

Peter,

As I have already stated, I will not repeat myself ad nauseum. Please refer to my prior posts to refresh your memory on why I believe Surf Air’s operation is unsafe.

Peter,

Please look up the definition of badgering and then tell me again (with a straight face)that you are not participating in that behavior.

Peter,

As I have already stated, refer to my prior post to refresh your memory on why I believe it is unsafe. Your efforts to squash opposition Surf Air’s operations under the guise of advanced knowledge of all thing air related are not appreciated by me, nor do I find them constructive.

Some of us would like to find a solution that satisfies ALL parties, including Surf Air.

The people with concerns about this are not Surf Air’s enemies. Please quit treating us as such.

Peter,

I have not refused to answer you. I have told you to look at my prior posts to refresh your memory. If you do not want to take the time to do that, that’s fine. Continuing to insist on a response from me when I have already given it, is indeed badgering, whether you chose to admit it or not.

Folks – this is turning into a food fight. Mr Carpenter is reading a rule book and trying to point Surf air over the west side of the peninsula. Sorry – does not make sense. It is easier to point Surf air over the lower population of the east side of the state / bay then let them cross the bay to San Carlos. There is a designated route there. They get to stay in business – however they are more anonymous in this approach so are not “disruptive”.
Does that make too much sense? Or is this the circus coming to town?

Diane:

I have not dictated anything to you regarding posting here. All I have asked for are facts in support of your opinion. I’ve read your prior posts. Nowhere in those posts do I find any FACTS. Just opinion. You’re clearly entitled to your opinion, but that’s all it is. An uninformed one at that. And I know that because the facts don’t support your opinion and you have never presented a single fact in support of said opinion.

Sorry if you think being asked to support your opinion with facts is “badgering.”

resident:

as a former pilot you should know all commercial traffic in and out of SFO, SJC and OAK are under positive control by ATC. As is Surfair. There’s no “juggling” involved. ATC has rules that designate allowed spacing of aircraft and they follow them.

As to being based in Hayward, I would imagine Surfair researched where the best locations would be. I think San Carlos was probably better because their market is closer to San Carlos. It creates a great time savings. Driving to Hayward just adds time. Especially if you’re doing it in rush hour traffic.

I am not suggesting that Surf relocate to Hayward – I am pointing out that there is an existing flight line on the east side of the state / bay and Hayward serves a fairly sophisticated set of equipment requirements – more so than San Carlos. That is a given – the rationale is that Surf can avoid all of this controversy by following the designated flight line on the east side of the peninsula then cross over the bay in vicinity of San Carlos. They can base themselves in San Carlos. San Carlos wins, the west peninsula wins. Everybody wins – Except Surf air wants to be controversial and is getting a lot of attention. If and when it suites them – when enough negative pressure is exerted then they can modify their approaches.

A 9 person commuter plane went into the water in Hawaii due to engine failure – 1 person died. That happened this week.

Diane:

you haven’t “justified” anything. All you’ve done is provide an uninformed opinion. That’s your right. I’m just trying to keep the discussion factual. You aren’t. That’s ok too. I’m also not trying to silence you at all. Just confirming what I thought. You have an opinion unsupported by facts. As it is your right to have that opinion and pronounce it to the world it is my right to my freedom of speech as well. I choose to use my right to point out that yours is an uninformed opinion unsupported by facts. Flame away.

Peter:

that plate is for GPS Z. It is my understanding they are using the GPS Y. I could be wrong, but the GPS Y has a higher MDA.

Menlo Voter, Peter Carpenter
Quoting Menlo Voter’s statement to Diane:

” I choose to use my right to point out that yours is an uninformed opinion unsupported by facts. Flame away.”

This is what you call…”factual material from public sources”.

This is inflammatory and derisive.

Julie:

I’m sorry you find it derisive. I don’t appreciate being called a bully or being accused of trying to silence someone here. I’m not and I didn’t. I responded to the accusation. Perhaps more forcefully than I should have, but I get tired of people accusing anyone of being a “bully” when during a debate they are asked to back up their statements with facts. Diane has been repeatedly asked to do so. She hasn’t, won’t or can’t. That request doesn’t make me a bully. It makes me someone trying to have a factual conversation with someone unwilling to do so. Hence my frustration.

Menlo Voter,

If you want to deny the fact that planes crash, experience mechanical failure in one form or another that’s fine. If you want to deny that an increase in the number of flights, increases risk, that’s fine. If you want to dismiss all of this as highly unlikely and hardly worth bothering to worry about, that’s fine.

I simply do not agree with you. And no amount of lecturing and pounding of your so called “facts” will make me agree with you.

Go ahead and call me ignorant and uninformed all you like. I grew up on that hog farm you keep referring to, so I know how to roll around in the mud. Oink! 🙂

Diane:

I invite you to show where in any of my posts that I have “denied” that planes crash. I base my opinion on the facts surrounding the aircraft and it’s operators. The PC12 has an extremely high safety rating. It has a very low accident rating, something like .22 fatalities per 100,000 flight hours. One needs to look at facts like those to make an informed opinion as to inherent risk. I’ve done it and I know that even if Surfair was to increase its flight volume to 40 a day there would still be a greater likelihood of someone on the ground being killed in a car crash or any other number of mundane things like slipping in a bath tub than to be hit by a PC12 operated by Surfair.

To anyone it may concern:

Any questions addressed to me right now will have to remain rhetorical only, for the time being.

Sometimes silence truly is golden.

Diane:

saying that “planes crash” is a fact to justify your opinion is like saying “it rains.” No kidding? What’s important is how often, how likely is it to have an impact on you and how likely are you to get caught in it, not the fact it rains.

Life is about risk management. Expecting that we should never be exposed to ANY risk is unrealistic.

Over 360 comments by 4-5 people who go back and forth with the same arguments — hardly a groundswell of shared opinion on this issue. The only clear thing from the thread is that you will never convince each other you’re right, and you’ll never agree on anything. However it’s clear that the principal participants all seem to have lots of ego.

Why not hash it out in person, face-to-face over a cup of coffee (and spare us this nonsense)?

Get outside and enjoy the beautiful day….BTW, I did go outside and didn’t hear a single plane.

good point neighbor.

By the way I was outside today. Heard and saw all kinds of airplanes.

Peter.

Would it be a fact that
That Surf Air is responsible for 33% of all noise complaints to SQL, if the Airports Director of Operations states it.
With your extensive knowledge, How many total operations are flown out of SQL a year
What is the % of total operations that Surf Air flies out of SQL
What percentage of total operations accounts for 33% of all noise complaints?
Surf Air flies 6 flights a day

I appreciate your help on this I’m having a difficult time coming up with this number

Surf Air accounts for —-% of all operations but 33% of all complaints, Is that possible,

I’d like to get some facts straight if you can help me.

Peter, What does “who pays” mean?

I have no financial obligation or responsibilty to anyone on this matter.

Having settled that lets go to your next line,

“even if my facts are correct,”

i thought this has become all about FACTS, At least that what you keep telling us to defer to,

So not that you agree that my facts are correct. Can you answer the question please,

Peter I don’t know you but Your getting very defensive. Lets go back to the facts.

The number is astronomical,

I’ll let my facts stand on their own.

Do commercial aircraft avoid flying over San Francisco? Decide for yourself:

This diagram http://www.aviationexplorer.com/ATC%20Photos/air-traffic-control-baytracon-sfo.jpg illustrates the approach and departure plan for bay area airports under the prevailing westerly wind pattern.

Keep in mind when viewing the above diagram that the pale purple approach route shown arriving from the north crosses San Francisco at 11,000′. This same route descends to 3,000-3,200 by the time it crosses 101 in Palo Alto.

Sure looks like commercial aircraft avoid flying low and loud over San Francisco to me… but decide for yourself.

Peter Carpenter:

Re:”Do you consider another poster stating “I find you insufferable” to be inflammatory and derisive?”

I will answer your question now.

Yes, I certainly do.

Jetman:

if you would bother to go to the link I provided and spend a little time looking at the flight tracks you will notice that aircraft overfly SF all the time. In addition, I have spent part of five days a week in the city over the last year and can attest to the fact that aircraft overfly SF all the time. In fact,I was up there yesterday at 6th and Brannan and what did I see? A Hawaiian Airlines flight passing overhead at about 4000 feet. Not only have I seen regular commercial airliners, but the helicopter tour operators overfly multiple times a day at about 500 feet AGL. Now do you really think if “big SF money” was in control of air traffic they would be allowing the overflights of these helicopters?

SFO lands in the direction of the prevailing winds. That’s toward the northwest. Meaning they have to make their final approach from the southeast. Take a look at the airspace around the bay area, SJC, OAK and the others and tell me how you would route the volume of air traffic landing at SFO without routing it the way they do.

Again, this isn’t some sinister plot to put noise over some places and not others. All of the bay area airports have some form of noise abatement procedures in place. Even San Carlos.

Thank you Jetman for the web link illustrating the approach and departure plan for the bay area airports. It was very illuminating.

Also, thank you Gwen for continuing to post updates on the progress and efforts being made to solve this problem. It is very appreciated!

Just curious, what routing is Surfair using when using VFR approaches? Are they just moving the noise and supposed lack of safety to another neighborhood?

Peter:

CDAs seem like a good idea in theory, but at least with commercial flights into SFO, the FAA’s implementation under “Nextgen” has problems:

1. The ~3,000′ altitude at which the CDA begins final approach is significantly lower than the 5,000′ altitude at which the VFR begins final approach. The reduction in engine and airframe noise associated with the CDA does not make up for the 2,000′ lower altitude.

2. The precision guidance concentrates the lower/louder (see above) flights over a smaller population, subjecting them to unrelenting, incessant aircraft noise. The visual approach distributed the burden over a wider population, as each individual pilot charted their own course to final approach.

So now we have IFR approaches and VHR approaches. Part of the problem is that Surf Air is trying to define itself as a private charter airline. It can use a VHR up the east side of the bay and cross over under those definitions. I went over the HWY 92 bridge last night – if they used the east side of the bay they would be on the low part. Saw some other small planes working that route. That is no different than saying that Surf can use VHR over Stanford Stadium AS An EXPERIMENT. I think Peter is a CAL person – other wise why focus on Stanford as a incoming flight path? A lot of time and energy is going into this. My vested interest is that I went over to the PA Airport to find out about flight paths – over PA.

So, I just watched the Surfair flight on the flight tracker coming in from down south to SQL. Passed over the Stanford stadium at about 2100 feet. About the same altitude they’d be passing over the south end of Lindenwood. They then gradually shifted “east” as they continued to descend. They do have to line up with the runway after all. They passed over North Fair Oaks at about 700 feet. Of course, they completely avoided Lindenwood. How do all of you in Lindenwood feel about pushing your noise over another neighborhood?

This is like a soap opera. If you look at a map the Hayward Airport is directly across the bay from San Carlos next to the HWY 92. It is a very large executive airport with a lot of designated runways and solid surroundings – golf course. Then look at San Carlos on the map – it is a tiny, limited airport that will not be able to grow – in fact my suspicion is that it would have been shut down. So Surf is picking the smallest, least equipped airport. That tells a story in itself – it is not good.
I talked to the people at Palo Alto – not sure why that fell apart but they are also not in a position to grow based on their location.
At the Community meeting they were talking about Surf flying over 101. Now you are saying it is flying over Stanford. I do not understand the disconnect in the meeting and now what is happening. Who is talking to Surf?
If they know they are irritating everyone why are they compounding it? Any notions on that?

Menlo Voter states
So, I just watched the Surfair flight on the flight tracker coming in from down south to SQL. Passed over the Stanford stadium at about 2100 feet. About the same altitude they’d be passing over the south end of Lindenwood. They then gradually shifted “east” as they continued to descend. They do have to line up with the runway after all. They passed over North Fair Oaks at about 700 feet. Of course, they completely avoided Lindenwood. How do all of you in Lindenwood feel about pushing your noise over another neighborhood?

I do not know if it is the same aircraft you saw on flight tracker but about dusk last evening I had a Surf Air fly over my house and it was low. It was very noisy. I live in Lindenwood close to Marsh Road and Bay Road (as the crow flies) and this is where the Pilatus was crossed and it not avoid Lindenwood. It was heading to the northwest and into North Fair Oaks flying over more Atherton around Middefield Road.
You people who make snide comments about Atherton are wrong. We did not suggest VFR routes elsewhere. That was on Surf Air. We did not ask to have Surf Air land in San Carlos and the meeting we had recently was open to all and attended by non-Atherton people as evidenced by Mayor asking for a show of hands. The Mayor of Menlo Park attended and publicly stated Surf Air would not overfly Menlo Park if he could help it.
Surf Air is a community problem and Atherton was impacted the most by the IRF route. Whether spreading the noise around is a solution remains to be seen but right now most people are inside because of the cold. Just wait until spring and 20 landings a day and see what the reaction is whether IRF or VFR routes.
At the end of the day San Carlos is a tiny airport in a impossible place for operating a hub with commercial aircraft on a regular schedule. For all the wrong reasons they got started and this has to play out. It is apparent to me the community outcry will likely trump all the FAA regulations and San Carlos Airport as a revenue source for the city and county. It will be messy and take time.

ort of envision it

I agree with Get Real. Woodside High – he is not flying over your head. I am in PA and he is flying over PA High School. Hays Elementary, and Jordan Middle School. I do not think that is classed as entertainment. Flying over Stanford west of the stadium is the core of the campus and student housing. I can just see this on a major football day – all of the Surf “owners” will want to fly over the stadium. I am sure there will be a lot of change up on routes depending on activity on campus.
This will just have to wait until after the holidays then pursue this from the Santa Clara County side to join up with the San Mateo County so there is a uniform approach on this.
Happy Holidays.

Love these latest melodramatic comments about a few extra planes “tormenting” us and making it “impossible” to enjoy life outdoors. People in this town don’t have the slightest inkling about torment or sacrifice or disadvantage.

You do yourselves a disservice — and undercut your own valid arguments — by the constant hyperboles and false innuendos.

Next Surf Air will be arriving San Carlos at 5:31, If you care to see which path it takes adjust for time over your home and time to land at 5;31

“People in this town don’t have the slightest inkling about torment or sacrifice or disadvantage. ”

Wow. That’s a pretty powerful statement. I don’t even live in Atherton, and find that statement offensive.

Are you certain that everyone living in Atherton was born into money and privilege? Isn’t it possible that there are some who come from more modest beginnings and have had to work for what they have?

I see that, if the crowd can’t be convinced there is no problem with noise or with safety, then the next approach is to attempt to impeach the character of a whole community!

I find that pretty outrageous. It also smacks of desperation to me

I commend all of the people who are directly involved in working toward a solution and that you for your commitment and integrity.

RE:
“”People in this town don’t have the slightest inkling about torment or sacrifice or disadvantage. ”

So true – thanks Matt.”

I can’t believe what I’m reading. 1. That anyone would make such a statement; and 2. That it would be given validity by an “I 2nd the motion”.

First: How many people in Atherton do you actually know? Or are you basing your opinion on a 2-dimensional “idea” of what you THINK “Atherton people” are like?

When do we get out the white sheets and torches??!

This is dangerous thinking. Rosa Parks wouldn’t approve, that’s for sure. She had been through all of that mambo-jumbo before. Silly me—I thought we had actually evolved passed that kind of thinking.

By the way: I don’t know anyone in Atherton either. I’m not defending their reputation for that.

This is what I think: people in Atherton DO have torment.. just as all people have, or HAVE had or WILL have. We are all in the same boat. Some boats are fancier than other boats. So what?

We are all living in a risky world…and sometimes a very painful world. Nobody knows another’s pain.

It just may be that “someone from Atherton” may save your life some day.

I couldn’t even believe what I read on this thread today.

Diane:

Atherton is one of the wealthiest, if not the wealthiest, zip code in America. We have the highest home prices. San Mateo county has the lowest unemployment rate in California. Those are facts.

Now, not everyone in our town is a millionaire. I get that. But at the same time, we are far better off than most other communities in the country and area who face real poverty and crime on a daily basis. We don’t.

It’s fair to call these planes an unpleasant nuisance. It’s completely unfair — and silly — to call them a “torment” that makes life impossible. It’s 4 minutes a day, at most!

Julie:

sorry, mistyped. should have been “niece.”

Matt, Menlo Voter and Peter are like the school yard bullies. If you ignore them they will go away,

resident:

did we bruise your little ego by calling you on your hyperbole? Tormented! As Peter and Matt have noted, you do a disservice to those that have actually suffered torment by trying to compare your few overflights a day as “torment.” Sorry, ask a Marine that’s served in combat what torment is. This ain’t it.

resident:

actually when we follow the noise abatement procedure at PAO there are very few complaints, which I think Peter can attest to. Do you have some data to the contrary?

Yes, a pilot flew his plane into an electrical tower. Because he took off in zero visibility. Visibility was so bad the tower couldn’t even see the runway. In fact, the tower could not clear him for take off and told the pilot if he wanted to take off he “was on his own.” The pilot made a huge mistake trying to take off in these conditions. In addition, one would have to question his IFR currency given how poorly he executed his departure procedure. Please note this was not an ATP rated pilot as the pilots of Surfair aircraft are.

Just watched another Surfair flight on the flight tracker. Flew pretty much the same route and altitude I observed last night. It flew very close to overhead my house. Didn’t hear a thing.

Menlo Voter:

The reading on your torment meter at my nieces house would say Loud with a capital “L”…and then some.

Peter Carpenter:

I get what you’re saying.

neighbor, over 200 signatures and growing…read comments

http://www.change.org/petitions/surf-air-inc-stop-or-reroute-surf-air-flights-that-are-using-ksql-san-carlos-airport?share_id=FfHyTOSHBh&utm_campaign=mailto_link&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition

Thank you Resident for your insight. It sounds like there are some valid safety concerns to me.

<<very few people complain about the sounds of a mosquito>>

Many people complain when it it buzzing right in your ear and won’t be swatted away.

The FAA knows “NextGen” air routes are destroying property values, but uses collectivist argument of the “the greater good” to defend the program.

“June 4th brought two news articles about the FAA implementing new RNAV or RNP routes despite community protests, one at LaGuardia and the other at Boston’s Logan Airport. In both cases the FAA put the new, much narrower, departure paths into place to save aircraft operators time and fuel, but the unavoidable side effect was to reduce the noise footprint’s area but concentrate the exposure onto a smaller number of homes—and those residents are protesting. In the LGA case, they already have two members of Congress on their side.”

Full story scroll down to: “RNP and Noise: Some Progress, but Not Enough” http://reason.org/news/show/1013419.html

Thanks Jetman for the link.

Here is an article that people may find interesting. It is about SFO…not San Carlos…but addresses some similar frustrations.

Noise is a greater disturbance from SFO…I have heard the loud planes while visiting my niece in So. San Francisco. But I think people feel the same sort of frustration but at a lesser degree perhaps.

SFO IS ABUSIVE TO NEARBY RESIDENTS!
Posted by Cheryl Pet , December 04, 2013 at 12:42 AM

The SFO noise abatement complaints do NOTHING! They IGNORE THEM, and pretend they don’t know what you are talking about! Then, there is a snotty SFO operator (calls herself 1760), who tells you that “you live in an airport town, you have to just live with it!” (WHAT A TERRIBLE ATTITUDE!) NO WE DON’T! Airports are supposed to benefit people, but not at the EXPENSE of people! So, technology to determine what is disturbing to residents must change along with the airplane technology; otherwise there will never be an accurate assessment of what is bothersome about the noise coming from the airport and the airplanes! Does anyone even know what impact this rumbling, booming, undulating sound, that comes in waves, has on people? Personally it bothers my ears, makes me feel dizzy, nauseated, off balance, and raises my irritability level. 12/03/2013, 12:30 am, and it sounds like business as usual at the airport! It is AWFUL! I spoke with an SFO manager, Charles Navigante on the phone, and he had nothing helpful to say about the To me, it sounds like the rumbling after a bomb has gone off! It is making me feel I am living in a war zone! It’s making my nerves ragged! Millbrae has high property taxes, but this increasing airport noise is lowering the property value! How could it not? Let Millbrae lower our taxes and let the airport make up for it! The airport removed trees that were at least a bit of sound barrier, WHY? It is thumbing their noses at residents! Why can’t the airport put up a noise barrier wall? Basically, because they are greedy, and don’t want to spend the money for the comfort and health of mere residents! They gave a few Millbrae residents double pane windows and insulation, but that was a token effort! Those residents still suffer greatly, and have their nerves and dishes rattled! No one ever anticipated the type of planes, the noise and influx of traffic, when the airport opened! The noise and the traffic have increased exponentially since the 1940’s. My family has had this home since 1940, and believe me, Millbrae has been battered, bruised and abused by SFO, and it must STOP! They are showing a great contempt, lowering property values, and making people ill to what degree, we don’t even know at this time! It is uncomfortable, and keeps people from sleeping decently! I feel like I have PTSD, and I live around a mile from the airport! SFO”s GREED, is NOT more important than the welfare of the people! They are a money making business! Who ever heard of a business getting away with bothering so many people? IT IS OUTRAGEOUS! PEOPLE NEED TO RISE UP AND TELL SFO, ENOUGH! WE WON’T TAKE YOUR LIES, NOISE, OR ABUSE FOR GREED ANY LONGER! They supposedly keep track of complaint calls, so PLEASE CALL THE SFO NOISE ABATEMENT NUMBER EVERY DAY! HAVE A RECORD NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS LISTED! How do I File a Noise Complaint? Noise Complaint Hotline: 650.821.4736 Toll Free Noise Complaint Hotline: 877.206.8290 Noise Complaint Email: sfo.noise@flysfo.com. IF THEY DON’T STOP ABUSING US, WE SHOULD FILE A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAIST SFO! PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN GREEDY COMPANIES!terrible noise, nor anything about my suggestion about the airport putting up a noise barrier wall! He basically wanted to get off the phone with me, and wanted me to speak with the ineffective noise abatement dept. He said they would give me a call….they NEVER did! He is an ineffective manager! I have noticed that the airport traffic has gotten heavier, and goes longer into the night, or just not ending at all! When I told him about the weird rumbling sound, like in waves, he acted like he was puzzled by my comment, and said that it must be the way the sound echoed around the hills. Well, since then, I read that the airplane technology had changed, and the sound emitting from the planes are more vibration, than noise. “…But noise may have given way to vibration.
“I think when they engineered these new engines it actually made more of a vibration,” said Gary Aronson, a Millbrae resident who has spent most of his 60 years living right next to the airport on the other side of U.S. Highway 101.
Neither SFO nor the FAA measure vibrations. To do so would require airport officials to install pricey accelerometers in homes and “watch families in their living rooms” to determine whether vibrations were coming from planes or people walking around the house, said SFO’s noise abatement director, Burt Ganoung. (I’ve spoken with Burt, what a dud!)

The recent civil grand jury report on airport noise says the airport should publish data about single noise events — such as one airplane screaming overhead. Currently, the airport only reports the average daily noise level over a three-month period…” SF Examiner July 17, 2012

To me, it sounds like the rumbling after a bomb has gone off! It is making me feel I am living in a war zone! It’s making my nerves ragged! Millbrae has high property taxes, but this increasing airport noise is lowering the property value! How could it not? Let Millbrae lower our taxes and let the airport make up for it! The airport removed trees that were at least a bit of sound barrier, WHY? It is thumbing their noses at residents! Why can’t the airport put up a noise barrier wall? Basically, because they are greedy, and don’t want to spend the money for the comfort and health of mere residents! They gave a few Millbrae residents double pane windows and insulation, but that was a token effort! Those residents still suffer greatly, and have their nerves and dishes rattled! No one ever anticipated the type of planes, the noise and influx of traffic, when the airport opened! The noise and the traffic have increased exponentially since the 1940’s. My family has had this home since 1940, and believe me, Millbrae has been battered, bruised and abused by SFO, and it must STOP! They are showing a great contempt, lowering property values, and making people ill to what degree, we don’t even know at this time! It is uncomfortable, and keeps people from sleeping decently! I feel like I have PTSD, and I live around a mile from the airport! SFO”s GREED, is NOT more important than the welfare of the people! They are a money making business! Who ever heard of a business getting away with bothering so many people? IT IS OUTRAGEOUS! PEOPLE NEED TO RISE UP AND TELL SFO, ENOUGH! WE WON’T TAKE YOUR LIES, NOISE, OR ABUSE FOR GREED ANY LONGER! They supposedly keep track of complaint calls, so PLEASE CALL THE SFO NOISE ABATEMENT NUMBER EVERY DAY! HAVE A RECORD NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS LISTED! How do I File a Noise Complaint? Noise Complaint Hotline: 650.821.4736 Toll Free Noise Complaint Hotline: 877.206.8290 Noise Complaint Email: sfo.noise@flysfo.com. IF THEY DON’T STOP ABUSING US, WE SHOULD FILE A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAIST SFO! PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN GREEDY COMPANIES!

By what authority do you issue what amounts to a “gag order” to the editors of this publication regarding this thread?

They are providing a forum for people to speak. THAT is the responsibility of “responsible journalists”. What they do about this thread is THEIR decision, not yours and not mine.

There is a term in journalism with which you may or may not be familiar: “Gatekeepers”

Gatekeepers decide what news or opinion gets to appear in media.

There are no agendas here, unless you have one.

Why are you trying to act as gatekeeper?

Why are you even reading this thread if you so much disapprove of it?

Stop issuing gag-orders, first: to posters; now: to The Editors.

Go take a course in journalism and learn what responsibilities journalists have.

Your sarcastic efforts to “educate” me are absurd. And, your snide comments illustrate the problems with this thread — very little civility, and an ignorance of facts.

Throughout this “discussion,” I’ve tried to calm things down — albeit with humor sometimes and maybe that was an error because now you are attacking me for participating. You chased Peter Carpenter and the others who tried to understand your position or disagreed with you off the thread. This is not civil.

As mentioned previously — To find the reality of the noise problem, I went to mid-Atherton to witness an incoming flight yesterday. The sound was minimal and brief. That is why I believe there is some other agenda here.

A lot of people live in the path of planes — we live in an urban area with 3 large airports and many smaller ones. Flight paths are crowded and carefully managed for safety reasons. If the occasional sound of small airplanes is something you can’t live with turn up your radio/tv or wear earplugs, or sell your home and move elsewhere.

Editors: please be responsible journalists. The thread has become weird and is monopolized by 1-3 people who are grandstanding and bullying. It has slid away from civil community discussion. Something else is going on.

I think that most of my posts have been civil.

You give me much more power than I even come close to having. I chased people away, you claim.

I have only posted my opinion or provided links to information.

It is not my nature to be snide or sarcastic. I don’t have much taste for that.

But when someone “puts me down” for unwarranted reasons, I respond in kind.

Diane:

Sorry, but I am disappointed by the Silent Skies Act. Any new legislation needs to focus on noise at the destination (the human ear on the ground), not at the source. Most of the two-engined jets whistling overhead already meet the “stage 4” standards, and the airlines are probably planning on phasing out the older planes by 2015 anyway. The Silent Skies Act is just a big gift to the airlines, masquerading as help for the folks on the ground.

This legislation plays right into the hand of the airlines. The FAA, and the airlines, have been claiming all along that with the “NextGen” approach, aircraft would emit less noise, while knowing all along that the folks on the ground would be hearing more noise because the “NextGen” approach is lower, the planes are more frequent, and the flights would be concentrated over a smaller population.

Rep. Joseph Crowley is just another sleazy politician serving the airlines, and screwing his constituents, while pretending to do the opposite.

I feel sorry for the people of Queens. They are going to have to suffer with jet noise for two years only to find out the Silent Skies Act does nothing to relieve their plight.

To the people of queens I say… don’t be a schmuck. Focus on noise at the destination, not at the source. The people of Queens are going to be very disappointed when 2015 rolls around.

Does anyone know if there is a secure door between cockpit and cabin on the PC-12
No lectures please, a simple yes or no would be appreciated.

Thanks

Apparently you can purchase a ticket for “Colleaques friends or guests”. Anyone know if those people are vetted first and asked to show proof of who you are before boarding.

Trying to seek information. Any one besides Peter that knows, Maybe a member. Trying to keep this calm,

Elevating the approach path: How would we go about advocating this?

(Earlier in the thread there is some discussion of reducing decibels by increasing distance between aircraft and ground, along a new approach.)

Resident:

Yesterday, after reading your post and seeing Peter Carpenter’s suggestion, it occurred to me that there were a couple of things that I, too, have been unclear about regarding Surf Air. My questions are not exactly the same as yours but they are regarding security issues too.

I emailed them my 2 questions. I first went to their website to see if that would provide any answers. It did. But not fully.

When I get an email back from their office, I will post the information.

Did anyone hear a loud plane over Encinal this morning around 11:30 a.m. in bound to San Carlos, Was that a Surf Air flight. It rattled my Windows.

Does Lead in Aviation Fuel Endanger Public Health and the Environment?
Scientific American ~ September 3, 2012

“Lead was long ago phased out of automobile gasoline, but it is still in aviation fuel and is now the largest source of lead emissions in the U.S. What’s being done?.. aviation fuel emerged as the largest source of lead emissions in the U.S. once lead was phased out of automotive gasoline beginning in the 1970s.

Leaded Fuel Is a Thing of the Past—Unless You Fly a Private Plane
Mother Jones ~ January 3, 2013 http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/12/private-planes-still-use-leaded-gasoline

“…there are 16 million people living within one kilometer of those airports, and 3 million children attend schools in the same radius. According to a 2011 study by Duke University researchers, kids who live near airports have elevated levels of lead in their blood…”

Don’t worry though, the FAA might have a plan to phase it out by 2028. That’s right, if your kid just started school near an airport, they will spend their entire K-12 inhaling lead. What is wrong with this industry?

Another “toney” neighborhood suffering from the aircraft industry’s toxic air and noise pollution. East Hampton, NY has a website with lots of great links and resources focusing on aircraft air pollution:

Quiet Skies Coalition of East Hampton, NY
Website: http://quietskiescoalition.org/STUDY-RESEARCH_LINKS.html

Jetman:

Correction: the article I referenced was a “National Geographic” article.

Peter Carpenter:

Re:
“Nothing in life – vaccinations, fire, transportation, food, etc. – is risk free and we individually and collectively decide if the benefits outweigh the risks.”

That’s true. Believe me, I have experienced that firsthand. I have been in the position of having to do risk assessment more times than was comfortable when the stakes were high.

As far as your other statement, I need to think about that one. Are people suggesting “bans”? Or adjustments?

Maybe fire is banned in certain circumstances?? I don’t know. Maybe what is banned is predicated by what the circumstances are in each case and/or location…i.e.,nothing flamable allowed where oxygen is being used. Just thinking out loud here).

Long story short: I don’t know what my answer is to that question. But it is something to think about.

I am reading suggestions that people individually contact Surf Air. I am under the impression from attending the city meeting that there is a committee that is coordinating a unified response to Surf Air and plan of action. I suggest that the individuals coordinate their questions and participate in the meetings so that a unified plan of action is presented. The committee is responsible for working with the local government officials to coordinate any legal actions required. I am sure that Surf Air is not reading the postings here and the postings do not represent any official city position. Participate in the meetings so that an official city position is developed.

Could “nullification” be used to regain local control of regional airports, and the surrounding airspace, from the bureaucratic grip of agencies of the federal government like the FAA?

“Some NSA Opponents Want to ‘Nullify’ Surveillance With State Law”
USNews ~ December 3, 2013 http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/12/03/some-nsa-opponents-want-to-nullify-surveillance-with-state-law

“Effort To Shut Off The NSA’s Water Supply Goes Bipartisan In California”
TPM ~ January 6, 2014 http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/nsa-nullification-california

Aircraft noise has lately become invasive and oppressive throughout the day and into the evening in the Midtown neighborhood here in Palo Alto.