News


Editorial: Permanent solution needed for noisy planes

Surely there is a way for the Federal Aviation Administration to address the sea-change in noise impact caused by a small airline's eight flights per day over North Fair Oaks and Atherton into the San Carlos Airport.

This small, public-use airport has traditionally served privately owned recreational aircraft, but now is hosting a small airline called Surf Air, which flies noisy, single-engine turboprops eight times a day on a northbound incoming route that often follows Middlefield Road on final approach. Homeowners along the route say they never experienced any noise impact before, but now can't hear themselves think when a Surf Air plane is descending into San Carlos. They are livid and have rightly been taking their concerns to the Atherton City Council, the owners of Surf Air, San Carlos Airport officials and anyone else who will listen.

The problem is that when the Surf Air planes line up at 2,000 feet over Palo Alto, their noisy northbound descent reverberates on either side of Middlefield Road. The lower the aircraft fly, the more noise impact that is felt over a wide swath of homes below. Residents also are quick to point out that there are numerous local schools along the route, including Menlo-Atherton High, Encinal elementary, Summit Preparatory and Taft School, near Bay Road.

Some strategies to try to mitigate the noise have been put in place. For example, Surf Air representatives and the FAA agreed that whenever possible, the planes would use a visual flight approach into San Carlos on a route east of Middlefield Road, which will move most of the noise over some other neighborhoods and uninhabited areas or the Bayshore Freeway. At a Dec. 9 meeting with Atherton officials and some 75 neighbors, Surf Air representatives said its pilots were instructed "not to fly over the same house in the same day," when possible. These are steps in the right direction, although weather conditions must be right for pilots to descend using the visual flight approach.

By all reports, Surf Air is an innovative start-up airline that in particular appeals to business travelers who fly frequently to other California cities. Rather than a ticket for every flight, fliers purchase an "all-you-can-fly" membership. And boarding is simple, with no security checks or baggage fees. For the right type of passenger, Surf Air is a perfect way to reach Santa Barbara, Burbank and other Southern California cities.

But while Surf Air is a way for some travelers to avoid the challenges of flying out of San Francisco, Oakland or San Jose, the airline should not be permitted to do so while damaging the quality of life of those beneath its glide-path into San Carlos Airport. And a solution is even more important since Surf Air has announced that it may soon double the number of flights per day. We wonder if the airline ever considered other nearby airports, like Palo Alto, for example?

When the San Carlos Airport was built, it was not surrounded by residential development. And even today, residents say prior to Surf Air's arrival, there was rarely, if ever, concerns about noisy traffic. But Surf Air changed all that. We hope the airline and the FAA will hear the neighbors' concerns and approve a permanent remedy that will move Surf Air planes east of Middlefield Road for good.

Comments

Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 20, 2013 at 5:55 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"a permanent remedy that will move Surf Air planes east of Middlefield Road for good."

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

How arrogant can we be?


Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Dec 20, 2013 at 7:06 pm

When SFO, OAK and SJC were built they weren't surrounded by residential neighborhoods either, yet they've expanded and so have residential neighborhoods. To say that smaller airports like San Carlos shouldn't be able to operate for all aircraft they are capable of accepting is ridiculous. When I was a kid the neighborhood I lived in was surrounded by orchards. Not any more. Guess what? There's a lot more noise there too. Except for the over flights of the P-3 Orions that used to fly over our house at least 12 hours a day. Nobody bitched about those. Everyone knew that they were in Moffett Field's traffic pattern.

Things change. The bay area has changed and will continue to do so. These airports have existed longer than many of the homes the people complaining about have been there. I'd be willing to bet that some of these homes were less expensive because they were close to an airport. Imagine that? Real estate values based on location. Who knew?!

For people in the bay area to think that they can pretend they live in the countryside and will not hear any aircraft flying overhead is naïve at best and plain stupid at worst. Your editorial ranks right up there with that naïveté or stupidity. You call it. Of course, given the fact the noise item on the forum saw more than 12000 hits, but of late has slowed down, could this just be your attempt to stir the pot?


Posted by Jetman, a resident of another community
on Dec 20, 2013 at 10:54 pm

It would not look good for a wealthy community like Atherton to shove the Surf Air noise problem off on their less affluent neighborhoods to the east. It would look a lot better, if they were to shove the noise problem off on the somewhat more affluent communities of Menlo Park, and Palo Alto to the south.

Since the FAA is already rolling out the low-and-loud "NextGen" SFO approach routes over Palo Alto, they probably won't even notice the addition 10-20 Surf Air flights per day.

"New technology promises less noise from jet engines, but to whose ears?"
The Almanac ~ August 29, 2012 by Dave Boyce Web Link


Posted by matt, a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Dec 21, 2013 at 12:03 pm

Shameless pandering -- and remarkably uninformed/ignorant of reality. There are dozens of other aircraft flying the same approach every day. Go to the airport and you'll see identical Pilatus aircraft at all times -- and others with 2 engines. I understand this kind of selfish, me-first attitude from individuals, but not from a newspaper that's supposed to represent all sides of an issue.


Posted by neighbor, a resident of Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Dec 21, 2013 at 1:05 pm

Talk about moving it to less affluent areas. Come over to North Fair Oaks when Surf is flying over at 700 feet..... The noise is terrible.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 21, 2013 at 1:12 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Come over to North Fair Oaks when Surf is flying over at 700 feet."

This is a direct result of forcing SurfAir to abandon the IFR approach during VFR conditions; on the IFR approach no plane is allowed below 1200 ft over NFO. Under VFR rules they can legally go as low as they want.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 21, 2013 at 2:23 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Come over to North Fair Oaks when Surf is flying over at 700 feet."

Actually I have tracked numerous SurfAir flights that were using their new highway 101 approach and they all crossed Marsh Road and 101 at about 1300 ft. and Woodside Road and 101 at about 915 ft.

Web Link


Posted by Jetman, a resident of another community
on Dec 21, 2013 at 5:44 pm

Plane Exhaust Kills More People Than Plane Crashes
National Geographic News ~ October 5, 2010

"In recent years, airplane crashes have killed about a thousand people annually, whereas plane emissions kill about ten thousand people each year, researchers say.
Earlier studies had assumed that people were harmed only by the emissions from planes while taking off and landing. The new research is the first to give a comprehensive estimate of the number of premature deaths from all airline emissions." Web Link


Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Dec 21, 2013 at 6:12 pm

How many die from automobile exhaust?


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 21, 2013 at 6:14 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"According to new research from MIT, in 2005 air pollution accounted for a staggering 200,000 premature deaths in the United States, more than 58,000 of which can be attributed to vehicle emissions."

vs 10,000 deaths worldwide from aircraft emissions.


Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Dec 21, 2013 at 9:09 pm

Thanks Peter. That's what I thought.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of another community
on Dec 22, 2013 at 1:06 am

Leaded Fuel Is a Thing of the Past—Unless You Fly a Private Plane
Mother Jones ~ January 3, 2013 Web Link

"...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 may have a plan to phase out lead 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?


Posted by Jetman, a resident of another community
on Dec 22, 2013 at 1:21 am

Atherton is not the only "toney" neighborhood suffering from aircraft noise and air pollution. East Hampton, NY has a website with lots of links and resources focusing on aircraft noise and air pollution:

Quiet Skies Coalition of East Hampton, NY Web Link


Posted by Reality Check, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Dec 22, 2013 at 7:28 am

I flew out of John Wayne last night. The pilot announced the noise control measures he would take upon take off. Shortly after we started climbing out of the airport, the pilot throttled back the engines and kept them that way until the aircraft was out over the ocean.

Right after the engines were cut, an irreverent Southwest cabin crew member got on the public address system and said, "Shhhh, quiet. There are some very expensive houses below us."

If Newport Beach can have enough clout to force these kind of procedures, you can bet Atherton does too. It occurs to me that sitting Presidents tend to siphon cash from both of these communities several times during their terms. The influence is substantial.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 22, 2013 at 7:57 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Just like the successful airplane noise control efforts at Palo Alto Airport required a lot of hard work over more than two decades by the PAO Joint Community Relations Committee John Wayne Airport has a very structured noise abatement program:

"A 1985 settlement agreement defined the scope of operation for John Wayne Airport in how it affects the local community. The area that lies directly South of John Wayne Airport is considered a noise sensitive area. The agreement in conjunction with a Phase 2 Commercial Airline Access Plan and Regulation controls the number of noisier operations (mainly commercial aircraft) allowed from the airport. Noise abatement enforcement is carried out with the aid of 10 permanent noise monitoring stations. These stations are placed in areas that exceed a community noise equivalent level (CNEL) of 65 dB.

The short primary runway (19R/1L), coupled with the local noise restrictions, can require a takeoff at or near full power (95–97% power). Some aircraft departing from the airport may cycle to full power while holding at the runway then release the brakes when engines are fully spooled up. (shortfield procedure) On operations from runway 19R a steep climb may also be required to allow for a power reduction at about 500–700 feet for a quieter overflight over the city of Newport Beach. For 19R departures a left turn after departure to 175 degrees allows for a passage over Newport Beach within the confines of the noise abatement profile. Departures from 1L (normally during Santa Ana wind conditions) are not affected by these noise abatement procedures. Landings almost always include full flap extensions, and the use of full reverse thrust.

The county prohibits commercial departures between 10:00PM and 7:00AM (8:00AM on Sundays) and commercial arrivals between 11:00PM and 7:00AM (8:00AM on Sundays). Exceptions can be made for an emergency, mechanical, air traffic control or weather delay, which is beyond the control of the airline.

In 2003, the settlement agreement was amended to increase operations, but focused on increases only for aircraft meeting the lowest noise signatures.

Access and noise reports are published by the airport and are available to the public. These reports are generated on a regular basis and outline curfew exceptions per carrier and overall noise impact."


Posted by Julie, a resident of another community
on Dec 22, 2013 at 3:56 pm

Peter Carpenter:

Thanks for posting the link to liveflightracker.com in your above post. (Check Peter's link because mine ,here, may not be accurate or complete)

I have used other Flight Trackers before but was not aware of this one, showing all types of flights including general aviation flights. I will enjoy it. iPhone doesn't get you there but I will use my desktop.


Posted by Al, a resident of Portola Valley: Ladera
on Dec 23, 2013 at 12:19 pm

I agree with Matt. This is journalism at its worst. The Almanac editor should be ashamed to put out such drivel. Instead of some good investigative work by its staff, getting facts off the internet, they take the easy way out. why not investigate whether engine noise suppression is feasible on such aircraft as the Pilatus, see what glide angle may be adjusted to maximize the altitude over housing, glide path over bay instead of land, etc??


Posted by Sully, a resident of Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Dec 23, 2013 at 1:08 pm

Landings are the Most quiet. What a load of Manure!


Posted by Linda, a resident of Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Dec 25, 2013 at 1:22 pm

Thank you for this article. My outside /inside North Fair Oaks life changed last year with more, bigger, lower flying planes on a regular basis. Along with my grand daughter this neighbor hood is full of families and day care homes. I am overwhelmed with this occurence and support changes to make this go away. We are entitled to peaceful (safe) enjoyment of our homes.

SCA told me planes are flying as low as 1500 (but watching them it seems much lower). I think any expansion of this airport should be put to a vote by the community at large that is or could be impacted. The FAA should respect our growing communities.


Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Dec 25, 2013 at 9:04 pm

Linda:

it isn't up to you or your communities. It's up to the FAA. Talk to them. Voting by your community isn't going to do anything. By the way, neither will talking to the FAA. They're interested in safety not noise.


Posted by Linda, a resident of Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Dec 25, 2013 at 10:27 pm

We can (or should be able to) vote per construction / expansion at the airport on county land. This IS a safety issue and a health issue. Not sure why people want to discourage potential solutions.


Posted by Julie, a resident of another community
on Dec 26, 2013 at 1:37 am

Linda:

I sure hope that solutions can be found also. I have posted on this thread quite a bit exploring what solutions people believed could be found. Some thought that no solutions could be found.

The last three days have been more noisy than usual. I have started making phone calls and sending emails. I have also started wearing ear protectors when I'm home because now my ears are ringing on a daily basis like they do after I've attended concerts with amplification levels too high.

For me, it is the repetitive nature of the sound that is wearing me out.

Monday I called the San Carlos Airport Hotline. Sometimes you just get a recording but on Monday I was able to get through to talk to someone there.

They were very helpful and very courteous. They went to their onscreen information and they told me that they could see planes flying over my house...they said the planes were crisscrossing and that my house was in a "transitional" location...I think he said that that is the location point where planes change direction...and that is why they were so noisy.

He said that those planes (the ones he saw) were not coming from San Carlos Airport. I asked him from where he thought they were coming. He said that he didn't know.

Surf Air planes have been an issue on this thread and in the community. But the planes that were loud and active the day I called the airport, I am almost positive, were NOT Surf Air.

If the FAA cares about safety...and not noise, then people bothered by noise from too much overhead flight need to contact the agency that deals with noise.

If San Carlos Airport had no way of knowing where those planes came from...chances are that this will not be an easily solvable problem.

Maybe Surf Air deserves some of the blame...maybe. But, as I said in my very first post, there have been days of endless and repetitive noise. I don't think Surf Air is responsible for that noise.

So who is? And is any relief possible? Both good questions.


Posted by Julie, a resident of another community
on Dec 26, 2013 at 2:40 am

First, I want to thank you for this Editorial and for keeping attention focused on this important subject of concern.

Talking about Surf Air you say, in part:

Re:"...the airline should not be permitted to do so while damaging the quality of life of those beneath..."

I would just like to add that I think no airline...and no air traffic...should be allowed to do that. Not just Surf Air.

And regarding what you write here:

Re:"Homeowners along the route say they never experienced any noise impact before..." (Meaning before Surf Air).

I just want to say that my experience has been different. I HAVE experienced noise impact...hour after hour of small aircraft flying overhead. That was happening in Feb. 2013 . Someone posted in The Almanac that Surf Air had not yet started operating out of San Carlos in Feb. 2013.

My caution is that if the people exploring the noise problem focus solely on one airline, namely Surf Air, they may miss something in the analysis.


Posted by neighbor, a resident of another community
on Dec 26, 2013 at 9:33 am

Judging from the time-stamps of the last 2 messages (4 and 7 hrs. ago), they were written at 5 AM & at 2AM after Christmas. Not to mention that the 3 messages earlier were written on Christmas Day. No planes were flying into San Carlos airport at these times.

No Christmas recess? This thread has become an obsession for some.


Posted by Julie, a resident of another community
on Dec 26, 2013 at 10:37 am

Neighbor:

Re: "No Christmas recess?"

That was MY question too. EVEN on Christmas morning there were planes.

Tuesday, the day of Christmas Eve, the planes over my neighborhood were a sound-loop. From 9 in the morning until 5 PM

I know they were not San Carlos planes! I stated that in my post. I could not believe the number of planes I not only heard...but saw too. That is why I contacted the San Carlos Airport...and let me emphasize this: he confirmed what I saw...because he said he saw the planes too.

Why is it that some people just don't believe these accounts---even when they are verified by airport personnel.

I had a very nice Christmas...thank you. Except for the 3 days before Christmas whenI got to wrap presents to the sound of airplane engines fluttering and zooming overhead.


Posted by neighbor, a resident of another community
on Dec 26, 2013 at 11:04 am

You live in a major urban area....there are planes. There are 3 international airports + several smaller airports in the metro area. If you can't tolerate that, move to a less urbanized area.

Trying to move the flightpaths or demand crazy landing protocols could impact flight safety -- the one and only reason I won't fly into the Orange Co. airport.

Also, this would simply move the issue onto another area so that the planes would fly over someone else's house.
Incredibly self-centered.

As this area continues to become more densely urbanized (and it will), there will be more planes. This is one of the trade-offs that come with prosperity and we live in Silicon Valley.

Again: it seems the clear answer for you is to move. Consider HMB, the Central Valley, Tahoe -- whatever. Just move away from any airports since you seem to be super-sensitive.


Posted by Julie, a resident of another community
on Dec 26, 2013 at 1:31 pm

Neighbor:

Well, let's see now, so far today I have been characterized as "obsessive", "super-sensitive" and "self-centered.

Then it is suggested that I just "Get out of Dodge"


Posted by neighbor, a resident of another community
on Dec 26, 2013 at 1:56 pm

Just try to get some perspective. Planes fly over urban areas.

You are in Atherton, most planes flying at audible altitudes are private planes who fly over the town in a minute or two. Occasionally there are jets at higher altitudes going to the major airports. My daughter and I were in Atherton over Christmas -- we heard nothing inside or outside from these sources and we have no hearing deficits at all.

I realize that everyday is not a holiday with a reduced schedule. But this discussion does seem very odd indeed. Writing posts in the middle of the night on Christmas, when there are no San Carlos planes overhead, is obsessive.

There are lots of things you might do, rather than move. Earplugs are a start. Ask your physician for more suggestions. Or.....consider moving.


Posted by Julie, a resident of another community
on Dec 26, 2013 at 2:43 pm

Neighbor:

With all due respect: I know what I hear and what I see. I am not hallucinating. My neighbors hear and see it too.

I made that post at that hour because I saw Linda's post and responded to it. I was not complaining about any airplanes that I was hearing at that hour---but was referencing the noise of the previous 3 days.

Isn't what hour I post at my business?, by the way.

It is clear to me that ( from your account of it) what you heard in Atherton is very different than what I heard on the days immediately preceding Christmas.

I may go back to doing sound recordings with date and time stamps. Plane traffic over this house is excessive and I can objectively display that if and when I feel it will do anything to improve the situation.

I agree with your not wanting pilots to navigate in unsafe ways or difficult approaches. The airplane noise I am hearing and seeing appears to have little to do with their landing approaches. From what I've heard about the FAA they would not approve of risky approaches.


Posted by neighbor, a resident of another community
on Dec 26, 2013 at 2:57 pm

Your homemade sound recordings will be anecdotal, unscientific and will therefore not be evidence. Request a proper sample from the FAA (or County Health Dept.??) for accurate measurements.

Having lived directly under the approach to LAX for many years, I can assure you that I understand aircraft noise -- but it's really hard to be sympathetic to your exaggerated complaints (especially after witnessing the "noise" in Atherton).

I really suggest that you take a break from this crusade. You may be damaging your health more than the planes.


Posted by Julie, a resident of another community
on Dec 26, 2013 at 3:15 pm

Neighbor:

Thanks for your concern.

I am just seeking "the truth". The current statistics. The facts.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 26, 2013 at 4:19 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

The facts are that the airports are not going to close and the overflights will continue just as highway 101 is not going to be closed and the traffic will continue.

We each need to decide if the benefits of living in a dynamic and bustling metropolitan area outweigh the costs - and everyone will weigh the benefits and costs differently.


Posted by Julie, a resident of another community
on Dec 26, 2013 at 6:58 pm

Re: Hwy 101. Sound walls had to be constructed.

Re: overflight noise: my niece had a complimentary sound proofing of her home in S. San Francisco.

Measures have been implemented.


Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Dec 26, 2013 at 8:11 pm

Julie:

soundproofing of homes may be the only solution. The airports and aircraft aren't going away.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 28, 2013 at 4:34 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Soundproofing cannot help those who complain about the aircraft noise when they are outside of their homes. They need to decide if the benefits of living in a dynamic and bustling metropolitan area outweigh the costs - and everyone will weigh the benefits and costs differently.


Posted by Downtowner, a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Dec 28, 2013 at 5:58 pm

At big portion of the noise some of the most persistent posters complain about comes from private planes, not SurfAir. Clear, sunny weekends & holidays bring out hobbyist pilots in small private planes which fly at lower altitudes & some with noisier engines than any SurfAir flights. Think about your friends & neighbors taking flying lessons & building up hours toward licensing, using rented planes. They fly from Palo Alto and Half Moon Bay, as well as San Carlos, even Reid-Hillview. Be fair & don't put all the blame on a single source.

By the way, all the 101 sound walls do is bounce freeway noise farther from the streets nearest the freeway. Some of us never had freeway noise until after the sound walls went up. When the single story house next door to mine was replaced with a new 2-story one, I for the first time in 15 years heard noise from CalTrain & Alameda inside my house. Every new building provides a new hard surface for sound waves to bounce off. Wait until the proposed multi-story buildings on El Camino go up & see where sounds land. Some of you can your blissful silence goodbye.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of another community
on Dec 28, 2013 at 6:30 pm

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 tighter aircraft-to-aircraft spacing. While the "Nextgen" approach may slightly reduce the engine noise of an individual aircraft, residents living under a "Nextgen" approach route will experience increased noise due to the greater number of aircraft passing overhead, the lower altitudes flown by "NextGen" approach routes, and the higher approach speeds, which produce more airframe noise.

"FAA Plan Seeks More Direct Air Routes in Bay Area"
SF Gate ~ Tuesday, January 15, 2013 Web Link

"New Technology Promises Less Noise from Jet Engines, but to Whose Ears?"
The Almanac ~ August 29, 2012 Web Link


Posted by Julie, a resident of another community
on Dec 28, 2013 at 8:58 pm


Re: "At big portion of the noise some of the most persistent posters complain about comes from private planes, not SurfAir"

And: "Be fair & don't put all the blame on a single source."

I so totally agree with these two statements.

Today... Because the day started with alot of aircraft noise, out of curiousity I started keeping track of planes flying overhead.

The results: from 10:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. there were a total of 33 planes flying over our house. That computes to about 6 planes per hour---EVERY hour---for a consecutive 5 hours. One plane every 10 minutes approximately.

Someone told me that they think that Surf Air doesn't even fly on weekends but I cannot confirm that. And I don't know if they do or not.

From what I have read, Surf Air traffic would be 6 - 8 planes per DAY. The planes that were flying today were flying 6 planes PER HOUR.

San Mateo County Airport flights far exceed Surf Air Flights and maybe some of the frustration people are feeling ought to be assigned accordingly.

Maybe some people don't find 33 overflights...continuously flying---for a time bracket of 5 straight hours...disturbing. I do.

What if the airports decided to do 60 flights? 70 flights?

There are no established limits or threshold and no sensitivity shown to the community that it serves and that supports it. To this extent: it is up to us to sell and leave an oppressive situation...or to stay and swallow the pill with a spoonful of sugar.

In my opinion, that is not equitable. And I don't believe those should be the only two choices. I think the San Mateo County airports should have some degree of accountability for how many planes they fly over these underlying communities.


Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Dec 28, 2013 at 9:31 pm

Julie:

no limit can be placed on the number of flights. San Carlos has noise abatement procedures for departing aircraft. Seriously, if you didn't want planes flying overhead why did you buy a house in the departure path of an airport?


Posted by Julie, a resident of another community
on Dec 28, 2013 at 10:46 pm


"Seriously, if you didn't want planes flying overhead why did you buy a house in the departure path of an airport?"

I live about one mile South of Woodside Road. Am I in the departure path of an airport? Was not aware of that.
What is the length of a departure path? I never thought I was in the county airports ( San Carlos or Palo Alto) departure paths.

Then, as I've mentioned before, the frequency of overflights was much less.

Let me ask you this: do you believe plane flights should be potentially unlimited from county airports? ...There should be no limit on any amount of planes flying over underlying communities?


Posted by Julie, a resident of another community
on Dec 28, 2013 at 10:55 pm


Re: "no limit can be placed on the number of flights"

I don't understand this. Why? The FAA funding to the airport? Is that why?

So the Working Group organized to mitigate the noise that people are upset about is working only with changing flight paths then? They are not examining how many flights go out or come in?


Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Dec 29, 2013 at 12:12 pm

Julie:

no limits can be placed on flight operations due to federal funding having been accepted by the airport. The FAA will not allow restrictions.

I don't know what the working group has come up with, but if it involves restricting flights the FAA will not allow it. Frankly, this whole thing is beginning to look like the huzza a number of years ago regarding noise at the San Carlos airport. It went nowhere. The FAA doesn't really care about noise.

The only reason there is any discussion with Surfair around operations is because of Surfair's good will and willingness to work with their neighbors. They would be well within their rights to tell everyone to "stuff it." The fact they're not speaks well of them and their desire to be a "good neighbor."

So far, from what I've seen of the changes in flight patterns, it's just a wealthy community pushing its "noise" off on adjacent communities.

Now isn't that nice?


Posted by Julie, a resident of another community
on Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 pm

Menlo Voter:

Not nice, no.

I'm just sorry that anyone has to suffer. To move the problem to some other location is still not solving it.

I understand more clearly now how all of these things work: FAA, etc.

Thanks for your response.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of another community
on Dec 29, 2013 at 5:01 pm

Hmmm... so the FAA (which is completely controlled by the airline industry) is using federal funds (your tax dollars), to completely eliminate local citizen's (taxpayers) influence over how an airport in their community should operate?


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 29, 2013 at 5:06 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

The FAA is mandated to provide a NATIONAL aviation system.
Wikipedia:
"The FAA's roles include:

Regulating U.S. commercial space transportation
Regulating air navigation facilities' geometry and flight inspection standards
Encouraging and developing civil aeronautics, including new aviation technology
Issuing, suspending, or revoking pilot certificates
Regulating civil aviation to promote safety, especially through local offices called Flight Standards District Offices
Developing and operating a system of air traffic control and navigation for both civil and military aircraft
Researching and developing the National Airspace System and civil aeronautics
Developing and carrying out programs to control aircraft noise and other environmental effects of civil aviation"


Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Dec 29, 2013 at 7:00 pm

Jetman:

you need to stop drinking the conspiracy Koolaide.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of another community
on Dec 29, 2013 at 10:05 pm

"Regulatory capture is a form of political corruption that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure; it creates an opening for firms to behave in ways injurious to the public (e.g., producing negative externalities). The agencies are called "captured agencies"." Web Link

Scroll down in the linked page to see the FAA cited as an example of a "captured agency".


Posted by Julie, a resident of another community
on Jan 7, 2014 at 3:17 pm


Jetman:

Re:

"Hmmm... so the FAA (which is completely controlled by the airline industry) is using federal funds (your tax dollars), to completely eliminate local citizen's (taxpayers) influence over how an airport in their community should operate?"

Hmmm. I second that thought. That does not feel democratic.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of another community
on Jan 16, 2014 at 1:18 pm

As corporations increasingly use captured Federal Agencies to circumvent the local democratic process, and wrest control of local communities away from the citizens, States are turning to "nullification" to regain control of their communities.

A citizens group in Utah is pushing a bill to cut off the water supply to the enormous NSA spy complex in Bluffdale, Utah, and California is apparently supporting their effort with its own legislation.

"Some NSA Opponents Want to 'Nullify' Surveillance With State Law"
USNews ~ December 3, 2013 Web Link

"Effort To Shut Off The NSA's Water Supply Goes Bipartisan In California"
TPM ~ January 6, 2014 Web Link

Could "nullification" somehow be used to regain local control of regional airports, and the surrounding airspace, from the bureaucratic grip of the FAA?


Posted by Julie, a resident of another community
on Jan 16, 2014 at 2:00 pm

Note: I just posted this same comment, in response to Jetman's posting---on the other thread re: Airport Noise.

Jetman:

Thanks for those great links re "nullification"...and State's rights and local rights. Water rights, way back when, we're important in territorial control of land. And now, here's a new application of the issue. Fascinating.

And the question, could nullification be applied for local controls---including regional airports?, is an interesting one.

The NSA material is important to know. Wow.

Anyone who reads this post, check out Jetman's links (just previous to my post).

They are important and informative.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jan 16, 2014 at 2:59 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Please give examples of where nullification actually happened vs just being talked about.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jan 16, 2014 at 3:16 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

The facts on nullification from Wikipedia:

"Courts at the state and federal level have generally rejected the constitutionality of nullification, including the Supreme Court.[2] The courts have decided that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, according to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Supremacy Clause, the power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal courts, not the states, and the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws."


Posted by Jetman, a resident of another community
on Jan 16, 2014 at 4:32 pm

"In the 1850s the northern states used nullification to fight against the federal Fugitive Slave Act. So-called "slave hunters" from southern states would go to northern states and bring back escaped slaves and also abduct free blacks to sell as slaves. Michigan in 1855 passed a law that nullified the Fugitive Slave Act and required anyone leaving the state to do so under their own free will and other northern states soon followed Michigan's lead."

"The simple plan for We The People to stop the NSA's growing police state"
The Washington Times ~ December 20, 2013


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jan 16, 2014 at 4:36 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Citing an 1855 action as proof of anything in 2014 is reflective of how out of touch with reality are some of the ideas posted being posted here.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of another community
on Jan 16, 2014 at 4:46 pm

Thomas Jefferson was the first to use the idea in the 1790s to fight against the Alien and Sedition Acts which, among other things, outlawed criticism of the federal government. Jefferson called the act of a state passing a law that contradicted and overruled an unconstitutional federal law, nullification.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jan 16, 2014 at 4:49 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

I asked "Please give examples of where nullification actually happened vs just being talked about."

So far there is one example from 1885 and a quote from 1790 - real modern thinking.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jan 16, 2014 at 5:06 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

There has also been a lot of misleading information posted about how NextGen will make the noise problems worse - here are the facts:

"NextGen in Motion: Optimized Profile Descent (OPD)
As a component of its Trajectory-Based Operations NextGen initiative, FAA has authorized development of arrival procedures with vertical profiles optimized to facilitate a continuous descent from the top of descent to touchdown. OPD is designed to reduce fuel consumption, emissions, and noise during descent by allowing pilots to set aircraft engines near idle throttle while they descend. OPDs use the capabilities of the aircraft Flight Management System to fly a continuous, descending path without level segments. Where possible, we are implementing OPDs with RNAV to make them environmentally-friendly or "green."


Posted by Jetman, a resident of another community
on Jan 16, 2014 at 7:42 pm

The FAA's PR about "NextGen" CDA's being quieter is complete bull. When the FAA talks abut "NextGen" CDA's be quieter, they mean the source is less noisy, not the destination is less noisy. The "NextGen" CDA is much noisier at ground level because the "NextGen" CDA is 2,000' lower at the point it begins final approach, than the stepped visual approach which began final approach at 5,000'. No amount of reduction of airframe and/or engine noise can make up for the 2,000' lower altitude of the "NextGen" CDA.

The jets flying the "NextGen" CDA are also flying faster, and emitting an irritating high-pitched whistle, and if the airlines have their way, they will be much more frequent. The only reason the airlines signed up for "NextGen" is because it will allow them to cram more aircraft into SFO in a given day.

As I sit typing this a commercial jet just rumbled overhead so low, and so loud, that it set off two car alarms on the street! Believe your own ears folks. Is your neighborhood quieter than it was 14 months ago, before the FAA rolled out "NextGen" at SFO?

"New Technology Promises Less Noise from Jet Engines, but to Whose Ears?"
The Almanac ~ August 29, 2012 Web Link


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jan 16, 2014 at 8:40 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Opinion:"The jets flying the "NextGen" CDA are also flying faster, and emitting an irritating high-pitched whistle,"

Fact:"NextGen in Motion: Optimized Profile Descent (OPD)
As a component of its Trajectory-Based Operations NextGen initiative, FAA has authorized development of arrival procedures with vertical profiles optimized to facilitate a continuous descent from the top of descent to touchdown. OPD is designed to reduce fuel consumption, emissions, and noise during descent by allowing pilots to set aircraft engines near idle throttle while they descend. OPDs use the capabilities of the aircraft Flight Management System to fly a continuous, descending path without level segments. Where possible, we are implementing OPDs with RNAV to make them environmentally-friendly or "green."

Take your choice.


Posted by Julie, a resident of another community
on Jan 16, 2014 at 9:55 pm


Maybe there is cause for a little healthy skepticism.

From Wikipedia:

Rodney Stich (born 1923) is an American author and former Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) investigator (1962â€"1968). According to Burnett's Conspiracy Encyclopedia, "his work led him to believe that there was major corruption at the heart of the aviation business. His "whistle-blowing" campaign was carried out for over 30 years, in which he filed his own "federal actions" in courts throughout the United States. His book Unfriendly Skies (1968) led to a "tale of Job-like proportions in which Stich doggedly filed private lawsuits against the FAA and eventually lost his business, money, home, and ultimately his liberty." In 1986 he was imprisoned for six months for contempt of court.[1] Christopher Story's conspiracy journal, International Currency Review (ICR), considers that Stich was a pioneer in exposing the crimes committed by the United States government and their concealment. ICR compared the United States federal government actions against Stich to political repression in the Soviet Union.[2]


Posted by Julie, a resident of another community
on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:27 pm


Re: Rodney Stich, "Unfriendly Skies".

Just reading the customer reviews of this book on Amazon.com provides insight on the subject.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jan 17, 2014 at 8:32 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Julie makes reference to a book that was published by Doubleday; 1st edition (April 29, 1989) - long, long before the age of modern GPS and NextGen. What exactly is her point???


Posted by Thank you ! Editor & PSA pre check, a resident of Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Jan 17, 2014 at 9:15 am

Safety and healthy home / school environment should come first. There are additional schools (to what you mentioned) along the low SA decent path. There are a lot of schools / day care homes in the North Fair Oaks area. I have read about several small plane crashes over the last few months. My home feels less like a landing pad when planes have occasionally changed route. It's a sea change in living with peace of mind and quality of life. But it should be made to be permanent – not just to keep us quiet for now. And pollution could also be a big issue for us- especially the little ones. ALSO, those SA passengers can get permanent PSA security checks and avoid them at a regular airport like the rest of us.


Posted by Julie, a resident of another community
on Jan 17, 2014 at 10:58 am


In my post, I was not specifically commenting on NextGen.

My statement was about the FAA. Jetman has expressed concern about NextGen and the FAA's statements...(or PR) regarding NextGen.

All I am saying is that we should know whether or not we can trust our national agencies to do what they were created to do, namely, protect and advance the welfare of the people. They should be able to withstand our scrutiny and we should be able to trust them...without having to "verify".

Just examining the smoke to see if "Where there's smoke...there's fire" applies.

Regarding Randy Stich's book: just because a book's publish date is 1989 does not invalidate its contents.

To be fair: I have not read his book yet. But I will.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of another community
on Jan 17, 2014 at 1:12 pm

The FAA is a Federal Agency with a long history of corruption and subservience to the airline industry. From Wikipedia:

"A report by the Department of Transportation found FAA managers had allowed Southwest Airlines to fly 46 airplanes in 2006 and 2007 that were overdue for safety inspections, ignoring concerns raised by inspectors. Audits of other airlines resulted in two airlines grounding hundreds of planes... The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee investigated the matter after two FAA whistleblowers, inspectors Charalambe "Bobby" Boutris and Douglas E. Peters, contacted them. Boutris said he attempted to ground Southwest after finding cracks in the fuselage, but was prevented by supervisors he said were friendly with the airline."

If lowly supervisors enjoy cozy relationships with the airlines, just imagine how cozy the relationships are at the top.

"Inspectors for F.A.A. Say Violations Were Ignored"
NYT ~ April 3, 2008 Web Link

"FAA Whistleblower Says He Was Threatened"
CBS News ~ April 3, 2008 Web Link


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jan 17, 2014 at 1:15 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"If lowly supervisors enjoy cozy relationships with the airlines, just imagine how cozy the relationships are at the top."

There is no logic to your statement or evidence to support it --"just imagine" is so true.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of another community
on Jan 17, 2014 at 3:20 pm

Members of 2013 "NextGen" Tactical Operations Committee:

Jim Bowman (chair) ~ FedEx
Lynn Ray ~ FAA
Chris Baum ~ Airline Pilots Assoc.
Peter Cerda ~ IATA
Bruce DeCleene ~ FAA
Scott Foose ~ Regional Airline Assoc.
Christian Kast ~ United Parcel Service
Margaret Jenny ~ RTCA
Nancy Kalinowski ~ FAA
Bob Lamond ~ National Business Aviation Assoc.
Joe Miceli ~ ADF
Doug Molin ~ MITRE Corp.
Juan Narvid ~ USAF
David Newton ~ Southwest Airlines
Chris Oswald ~ ACI-NA
Dale Wright ~ NATCA
Andy Cebula ~ RTCA

The full list and additional information can be found here: Web Link


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jan 17, 2014 at 3:32 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Posting selected/censor information always gives the impression that the poster wants.

Here is the Terms of Reference for the Tactical Operations Committee:
"Purpose and Scope: The purpose of the Tactical Operations Committee (TOC) is to provide an open venue for FAA and those who operate in the NAS to work in partnership to identify and resolve near- term, tactical issues affecting the efficiency of the NAS, and to recommend resolutions to those issues and challenges. The TOC is comprised of senior leaders from key stakeholders who operate in the NAS. The TOC approves the establishment of Task Groups, tracks their progress, provides important oversight in guiding their work and approves their final products for submittal to the FAA. TOC members are appointed by the RTCA President in consultation with the FAA. The committee is structured to ensure a balance of expertise. The TOC functions as a Federal advisory committee with meetings that are open to the public."

Note - the output of this committee does not establish policy but rather is provided to the FAA so that the FAA can make policy.
- The committee is structured to ensure a balance of expertise.
- The TOC functions as a Federal advisory committee with meetings that are open to the public.

Would you rather have government policies made by people with no input from those with the most knowledge about the matter and behind closed doors?


Posted by Jetman, a resident of another community
on Jan 17, 2014 at 3:37 pm

Members of the 2013 "NextGen" Advisory Committee can be found here: Web Link


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jan 17, 2014 at 3:41 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Thanks, note that the 2013 "NextGen" Advisory Committee has wide representation from all of the groups who have expertise in this matter. This is a great way to develop input to the FAA so that it can then make better policy decisions - and the public has access to every meeting along the way.


Posted by Jetman, a resident of another community
on Jan 18, 2014 at 11:51 pm

"Minneapolis Man Takes On Feds Over Proposed (NextGen) Flight Path"
KAAL TV6 News ~ June 09, 2013 Web Link

"The Federal Government has not disclosed how many airplanes could soon fly over Southwest Minneapolis and Edina, if a newly proposed flight path change is approved. But, one man who has crunched numbers and analyzed data for the CIA and the Defense Department's Intelligence Division says he has a pretty good idea how many planes will be over his neighborhood... if the change is adopted. Kevin Terrell says he's dissected data of the Federal Aviation Administration and he estimates Southwest Minneapolis and Edina could have as many as 135 flights overhead every day. Right now, he says, there are only about 20 to 30 daily flights near his home..."


Posted by Jetman, a resident of another community
on Jan 19, 2014 at 12:05 am

The Real Impacts of NextGen
Aviation Impact Reform ~ June 10, 2013 Web Link

"A short article by a TV station in Minnesota helps illustrate the problem with FAA's huge (and very costly) NextGen program. Simply put, NextGen is designed to narrow the flight paths, which will intensify noise impacts under those thin flight paths. In this story, a local citizen pointed out that this would be problematic to those living under the narrower flight paths; FAA's response was to do nothing, and just play dumb."


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jan 19, 2014 at 6:56 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Like any tool NextGen can be used to make things better or worse. Given strong public input NextGen can significantly reduce aircraft ground noise levels.

Here are some facts about NextGen:
"Why NEXTGEN MATTERS
NextGen is a comprehensive overhaul of our National Airspace System to make air travel more convenient and dependable, while ensuring your flight is as safe, secure and hassle-free as possible.
In a continuous rollout of improvements and upgrades, the FAA is building the capability to guide and track air traffic more precisely and efficiently to save fuel and reduce noise and pollution. NextGen is better for our environment, and better for our economy.
• NextGen will be a better way of doing business. Travel will be more predictable because there will be fewer delays, less time sitting on the ground and holding in the air, with more flexibility to get around weather problems.
• NextGen will reduce aviation's impact on the environment. Flying will be quieter, cleaner and more fuel-efficient. We will use alternative fuels, new equipment and operational procedures, lessening our impact on the climate. More precise flight paths help us limit the amount of noise that communities experience.
• NextGen will help us be even more proactive about preventing accidents with advanced safety management to enable us, with other government agencies and aviation partners, to better predict risks and then identify and resolve hazards.
• NextGen boils down to getting the right information to the right person at the right time. It will help controllers and operators make better decisions. These data will assist operators in keeping employees and passengers better informed.
• Our nation's economy depends on aviation. NextGen lays a foundation that will continually improve and accommodate future needs of air travel while strengthening the economy with one seamless global sky.
• NextGen will help communities make better use of their airports. More robust airports can help communities attract new jobs and help current employers expand their businesses. By doing this, the United States will strengthen its economy and help communities realize all the benefits that aviation can bring.
• NextGen will allow us to meet our increasing national security needs and ensure that travelers benefit from the highest levels of safety."

Web Link


Posted by Jetman, a resident of another community
on Jan 19, 2014 at 6:50 pm

Cutting and pasting PR bullets from a "puff-piece" brochure published by the FAA, only reinforces the impression expressed by a commenter on another page, that the poster is some sort of "apologist" or "closer" with an undisclosed financial interest. Web Link (see comments posted at Jan 3, 2014 at 1:49 pm)

I would imagine, a company like Intel, stands to benefit from the "NextGen" rollout, and the subsequent spy-drone program, that will follow on the heels of "NextGen" implementation.

How many more Bluffdale, Utah sized data centers will the NSA need to build, to stores all of the image data collected by government/corporate spy drones strip-mining American's fourth amendment privacy rights 24/7?

More on the NSA's Bluffdale data center: Web Link


Posted by jetman, a resident of another community
on Jan 19, 2014 at 6:51 pm

More on the "NextGen" boondoggle:

"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." Web Link


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jan 19, 2014 at 6:56 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"poster is some sort of "apologist" or "closer" with an undisclosed financial interest."

Asked and answered - I have no financial interest in any airline or SurfAir and I am not a SurfAir customer.

Too bad that jetman objects to facts and prefers to simply speculate:
"How many.."
"I would imagine...."


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jan 19, 2014 at 7:08 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Since jetman is so interested in disclosure by other posters why doesn't she to us who she is, where she lives and what her financial interests are?


Posted by Jetman, a resident of another community
on Jan 22, 2014 at 12:55 am

Re: "poster is some sort of "apologist" or "closer" with an undisclosed financial interest."

When someone cuts and pastes PR bullet points from a FAA "puff piece" brochure, the question raised is not whether they have an undisclosed financial interest in Surf Air (Surf Air is small potatoes). The real question is... if they have an undisclosed financial interest in the $800 million/yr "NextGen" boondoggle, the $82 billion domestic spy-drone industry that is expected to follow on the heels of "NextGen" implementation, or the massive data centers that will be required to store, and process the hi-res image data captured by domestic spy-drones?

Let's just call this wild speculation... but I would imagine a company like Intel would stand to benefit from at least one of the above.

Air Force Chief: It'll Be 'Years' Before We Catch Up on Drone Data
Wired Danger Room ~ April 05, 2012 Web Link
"We're clearly playing catch-up, Donley said. It's not just the pilots and manning the aircraft. It's also the [data] processing exploitation behind that. We're collecting data at rates well above what we had in the past."


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jan 22, 2014 at 7:27 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Since jetman is so interested in disclosure by other posters why doesn't she to us who she is, where she lives and what her financial interests are?


Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Jan 22, 2014 at 5:16 pm

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

Don't hold your breath Peter. Those who drink the conspiracy koolaid are loathe to actually identify themselves.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Scott’s Seafood Mountain View to close, reopen as new concept
By Elena Kadvany | 14 comments | 4,254 views

Freshman Blues Don't Mean Wrong College
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 823 views

When Grandparents Visit
By Cheryl Bac | 4 comments | 788 views

Background and Ideas for the Comp Plan
By Steve Levy | 14 comments | 709 views

Aging and Training
By Paul Bendix | 0 comments | 48 views