News

Surf Air co-founder sues airline and backers for $125 million

David Eyerly says financial backers forced him out and took his equity

It appears it is not only the Peninsula residents who live under the flight path of Surf Air, the small commuter airline that uses the San Carlos Airport as one of its destinations, who are angry with the airline.

One of Surf Air's co-founders, David Eyerly, has sued the company and its backers for at least $125 million, saying they forced him out and took the equity he had been promised.

In the lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on Nov. 12, Mr. Eyerly says he came up with the idea for Surf Air, which flies in and out of small California airports offering unlimited flights for a monthly fee. He founded the company in November 2011 with his brother, Wade Eyerly, but after the two brought in financial partners he was forced out, he says.

In addition to Surf Air, the lawsuit names financial backers Anthem Venture Partners and William Woodward; Velos Partners and Raj Ganguly; and Base Ventures and Erik Moore.

The lawsuit says Surf Air is "a successful, rapidly growing airline" and currently valued at more than $1 billion. "It is projected to grow seven-fold and in the next five years will be worth multiple billions of dollars," it says.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

That growth has worried local residents, who have been protesting the noise made by Surf Air's Pilatus PC-12 single-engine turboprop planes since soon after the airline began flying into San Carlos. As the airline has grown, the number of flights in and out of San Carlos has steadily increased, as have complaints.

According to Charles Sipkins, speaking for Surf Air, the company "will always defend itself against meritless litigation and is confident this case will ultimately be dismissed." Mr. Sipkins, former chief communications officer for Sony Pictures, has a public relations firm that handles corporate communications and crisis management.

The lawsuit says that David Eyerly came up with the concept for the airline, which started flying in and out of San Carlos in June 2013, while he was a student at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Florida. In addition to having passengers pay a monthly subscription fee, he wanted to use small airports that do not require TSA screening.

The lawsuit says that David Eyerly spent two years getting FAA approval for the concept. "The FAA told Dave it had never seen" the regulations Surf Air operates under "used in the way he was proposing," the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit claims that David Eyerly was forced out by board members representing the company's financial backers, first from his position as Surf Air's chief operating officer, and then as a board member. He left, it says, after being promised he would retain a 12.5 percent stake in the company, but later found he had only a .75 percent stake.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Later his brother, Wade Eyerly, and other early employees were also forced out, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit asks for damages "believed to be in excess of $125 million" plus punitive damages.

Follow AlmanacNews.com and The Almanac on Twitter @almanacnews, Facebook and on Instagram @almanacnews for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Surf Air co-founder sues airline and backers for $125 million

David Eyerly says financial backers forced him out and took his equity

by Barbara Wood / Almanac

Uploaded: Fri, Dec 4, 2015, 10:31 am

It appears it is not only the Peninsula residents who live under the flight path of Surf Air, the small commuter airline that uses the San Carlos Airport as one of its destinations, who are angry with the airline.

One of Surf Air's co-founders, David Eyerly, has sued the company and its backers for at least $125 million, saying they forced him out and took the equity he had been promised.

In the lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on Nov. 12, Mr. Eyerly says he came up with the idea for Surf Air, which flies in and out of small California airports offering unlimited flights for a monthly fee. He founded the company in November 2011 with his brother, Wade Eyerly, but after the two brought in financial partners he was forced out, he says.

In addition to Surf Air, the lawsuit names financial backers Anthem Venture Partners and William Woodward; Velos Partners and Raj Ganguly; and Base Ventures and Erik Moore.

The lawsuit says Surf Air is "a successful, rapidly growing airline" and currently valued at more than $1 billion. "It is projected to grow seven-fold and in the next five years will be worth multiple billions of dollars," it says.

That growth has worried local residents, who have been protesting the noise made by Surf Air's Pilatus PC-12 single-engine turboprop planes since soon after the airline began flying into San Carlos. As the airline has grown, the number of flights in and out of San Carlos has steadily increased, as have complaints.

According to Charles Sipkins, speaking for Surf Air, the company "will always defend itself against meritless litigation and is confident this case will ultimately be dismissed." Mr. Sipkins, former chief communications officer for Sony Pictures, has a public relations firm that handles corporate communications and crisis management.

The lawsuit says that David Eyerly came up with the concept for the airline, which started flying in and out of San Carlos in June 2013, while he was a student at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Florida. In addition to having passengers pay a monthly subscription fee, he wanted to use small airports that do not require TSA screening.

The lawsuit says that David Eyerly spent two years getting FAA approval for the concept. "The FAA told Dave it had never seen" the regulations Surf Air operates under "used in the way he was proposing," the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit claims that David Eyerly was forced out by board members representing the company's financial backers, first from his position as Surf Air's chief operating officer, and then as a board member. He left, it says, after being promised he would retain a 12.5 percent stake in the company, but later found he had only a .75 percent stake.

Later his brother, Wade Eyerly, and other early employees were also forced out, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit asks for damages "believed to be in excess of $125 million" plus punitive damages.

Comments

Anneke
another community
on Dec 4, 2015 at 12:25 pm
Anneke, another community
on Dec 4, 2015 at 12:25 pm

My goodness.....it seems that everything nowadays is only about money.


Good luck
Menlo Park: Menlo Oaks
on Dec 4, 2015 at 12:38 pm
Good luck, Menlo Park: Menlo Oaks
on Dec 4, 2015 at 12:38 pm
matt
Woodside: Mountain Home Road
on Dec 4, 2015 at 1:03 pm
matt, Woodside: Mountain Home Road
on Dec 4, 2015 at 1:03 pm

Interesting spin in the lead -- implies that everyone is angry at SurfAir when in truth, it's a few hundred NIMBY residents. The hundreds of thousands of "other" people who support the airline don't count because we don't make hysterical statements that sell newspapers.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 4, 2015 at 1:11 pm
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2015 at 1:11 pm

The lead paragraph is indeed missing a key word:

"It appears it is not only the Peninsula residents who live under the flight path of Surf Air, the small commuter airline that uses the San Carlos Airport as one of its destinations, who are angry with the airline."

The facts suggest that:
"It appears it is not only SOME Peninsula residents who live under the flight path of Surf Air, the small commuter airline that uses the San Carlos Airport as one of its destinations, who are angry with the airline.


Gern
Registered user
Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Dec 4, 2015 at 1:56 pm
Gern, Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2015 at 1:56 pm

'The hundreds of thousands of "other" people who support the airline ...'

It is highly unlikely that even 50,000 people are aware Surf Air exists, given it is an exclusive, regional "airline" with just north of 1,400 members (as of April of this year). The notion that Surf Air has hundreds of thousands of supporters is patently absurd, of course.

As a general aviation enthusiast and fan of smaller businesses I want to support Surf Air -- I'm not a member of the airline -- but I live directly under the flight path and I assure you the planes are a growing nuisance. I'm not yet sure how best to address the problem but a problem does exist, much as it pains me to trouble our Woodside neighbors with these petty quality-of-life concerns.

Gern


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 4, 2015 at 2:06 pm
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2015 at 2:06 pm

Of the almost 2.5 million people who live in San Mateo and Santa Clara County less than 1% are impacted by SurfAir's flight paths and only a small percentage of that less than 1% are actually disturbed by SurfAir's flights.

No, those 2.5 million people or even the less than 1% of them under SurfAir's flight paths do not "support" SurfAir but they also do not necessarily "oppose" SurfAir.


Gern
Registered user
Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Dec 4, 2015 at 2:31 pm
Gern, Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2015 at 2:31 pm

"... and only a small percentage of that less than 1% are actually disturbed by SurfAir's flights."

So either you've canvased all affected neighborhoods or you have a source for this statement? Our favorite Purveyor of Facts Only wouldn't let fly opinion couched as fact, surely.

'No, those 2.5 million people or even the less than 1% of them under SurfAir's flight paths do not "support" SurfAir but they also do not necessarily "oppose" SurfAir.'

What you appear to be saying is that we don't know where most people stand on the issue, which is something I agree with, but you can't also claim with certainty that those flight path residents who oppose Surf Air is necessarily a small minority. Perhaps a small minority has been vocal in this forum and at city council meetings but there are others -- many of my neighbors included -- who are unhappy with Surf Air noise and who have not yet spoken up about the matter, rendering definitive statements such as yours and Matt's premature, at best.

Gern


Henry
Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Dec 4, 2015 at 2:48 pm
Henry, Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Dec 4, 2015 at 2:48 pm

"seems that everything nowadays is only about money"

Not true. Many also seek power. And some seek fame.

So, no, things have not changed much.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 4, 2015 at 3:31 pm
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2015 at 3:31 pm

"Of the almost 2.5 million people who live in San Mateo and Santa Clara County" - that is a fact

"less than 1% are impacted by SurfAir's flight paths" - that is my estimate based on the footprint of the population living under the AMEBY approach. I would welcome other people's estimates.

"and only a small percentage of that less than 1% are actually disturbed by SurfAir's flights." - that is my opinion. I see no evidence that more than 5000 people are "angered" by SurfAir based on attendance at Council meetings and the number of unique individuals posting their concerns. I would welcome other people's estimates.


Too much noise,
Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Dec 4, 2015 at 4:27 pm
Too much noise,, Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Dec 4, 2015 at 4:27 pm


Tsk, Tsk, Tsk, poor Surf Air, I wish Wade the best of luck,


Too much noise
Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Dec 4, 2015 at 4:31 pm
Too much noise, Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Dec 4, 2015 at 4:31 pm



and Who cares how many people live in San Mateo County, What does that have to do with anything?

It bothers people and is inherently dangerous given the size of the plane and no security checks.


Didny
Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on Dec 4, 2015 at 5:34 pm
Didny, Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on Dec 4, 2015 at 5:34 pm

" is inherently dangerous "

Hyperbole alert!!!!

The nimby-ist exaggeration begins...


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 4, 2015 at 5:38 pm
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2015 at 5:38 pm

As part of each membership application, SurfAir conduct thorough security checks on all members and guests.


too much risk
Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Dec 4, 2015 at 5:48 pm
too much risk, Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Dec 4, 2015 at 5:48 pm



Back up what you say, What is the security check?

This plane weighs 10,00 lbs travels at 300 mph, filled with gasoline, with no security door between passengers and pilots.

How much damage would that do to a building?


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 4, 2015 at 5:50 pm
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2015 at 5:50 pm

" What is the security check?"

Fill out a membership application and you will find out.


Henry
Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Dec 4, 2015 at 5:56 pm
Henry, Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Dec 4, 2015 at 5:56 pm

"How much damage would that do to a building?"

I'll tell you, once you innumerate all the damage done by all surfair (and similar) flights to date.

Wow. Didny was correct - hyperbole AND red herrings! You should be a GOP pretzeldent candidate!


Too much risk
Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Dec 4, 2015 at 6:12 pm
Too much risk, Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Dec 4, 2015 at 6:12 pm

I have no interest in flying with them, You present yourself as you know from which you speak?

Tell us what is involved [part removed.]

Still doesn't protect us from unsearched bags, and no security door. Is alcohol served.


Menlo Voter
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Dec 4, 2015 at 6:21 pm
Menlo Voter, Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2015 at 6:21 pm

Yep. Hyperbole and red herrings. So much nonsense.


Chance
Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on Dec 4, 2015 at 7:58 pm
Chance, Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on Dec 4, 2015 at 7:58 pm

No golden parachute when he was pushed out of the plane?


Too much to risk
Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Dec 4, 2015 at 10:55 pm
Too much to risk, Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Dec 4, 2015 at 10:55 pm


The alcohol question was rhetorical. I can't believe they actually serve.

A couple of guys with a few too many and we will be discussing weights and balances after the fact.


Menlo Voter
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Dec 5, 2015 at 7:48 am
Menlo Voter, Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2015 at 7:48 am

More red herrings. More nonsense.


Rational
Registered user
Menlo Park: University Heights
on Dec 5, 2015 at 11:05 pm
Rational, Menlo Park: University Heights
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2015 at 11:05 pm

@Peter Carpenter

You estimate that Surf Air 'only' angers 5,000 people. You didn't use the the word "only" but implied as much, noting that it's just a fraction of San Mateo County's residents. Meanwhile someone in a post above you noted that Surf Air has 1,400 members. Why does this service, which is simply a convenience for 1400 people, outweigh the concerns of five thousand residents? I would also note that probably less than half of those 1400 are Bay Area residents (I'm making an educated guess that >half are in Southern California and other locations), and fewer still are San Mateo residents.


Menlo Voter
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Dec 6, 2015 at 8:36 am
Menlo Voter, Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2015 at 8:36 am

Rational:

of all the thousands of over flights by planes bound for SFO, how many do you think contain San Mateo County residents? Why should their convenience outweigh the SMC residents they disturb?


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 6, 2015 at 9:38 am
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2015 at 9:38 am

To demand that a useful activity that provides significant benefits some people be stopped because it bothers/annoys/angers another group of people is the slippery slope of intolerance.

Everything that we do has an impact on others and living in a highly populated urban area means that we all must tolerate certain perceived irritants in order to enjoy the very real benefits of living in a dynamic urban area. Just because I find motorcycles noisy does not give me the right to demand that motorcycles be banned from our highways. Just because bright lights bother me does not mean that I have the right to demand that bright lights be banned.

In my opinion the benefits that accrue to SurfAir passengers and to our communities far outweigh the irritation that SurfAir's flight cause to some people. That said, I urge SurfAir to continue to work to reduce its noise footprint via operational changes and equipment modifications.


Gern
Registered user
Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Dec 6, 2015 at 9:38 am
Gern, Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2015 at 9:38 am

"Why should their convenience outweigh the SMC residents they disturb?"

It shouldn't, and if you've been following the Almanac news and forums pages over the past few months you would know there's a larger movement afoot, one spearheaded by Anna Eshoo, to address this very problem:

Web Link

Whether any meaningful solutions will come from Eshoo's two bills, if passed, is another matter.

Gern


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 6, 2015 at 9:41 am
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2015 at 9:41 am

"Rep. Eshoo's proposed bills don't spell out a remedy for the airplane noise; instead, they propose new rules that would require both the FAA and the EPA to study the topic and consider mitigations."


Menlo Voter
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Dec 6, 2015 at 9:47 am
Menlo Voter, Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2015 at 9:47 am

Let me know how that works out for you Gern. This "problem" arises every 10 years or so. The conclusion is always that the FAA is not willing to sacrifice safety to appease a tiny minority of people that are bothered by airplane noise. I'll put up with some noise if it means safer aircraft movement overhead. You should too.


Gern
Registered user
Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Dec 6, 2015 at 10:00 am
Gern, Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2015 at 10:00 am

"Rep. Eshoo's proposed bills don't spell out a remedy for the airplane noise; instead, they propose new rules that would require both the FAA and the EPA to study the topic and consider mitigations."

It's unclear whether your comment is intended to corroborate, clarify, or refute mine, Peter, but the quoted text jibes with my final sentence, "Whether any meaningful solutions will come from Eshoo's two bills, if passed, is another matter."

Gern


Gern
Registered user
Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Dec 6, 2015 at 11:52 am
Gern, Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2015 at 11:52 am

@Menlo Voter, it's a shame Eshoo's camp didn't consult you before cobbling together those two bills -- might have saved the taxpayers a few pennies. Because, as we all know, aircraft technology and technology in general doesn't change much decade over decade so why bother looking for noise abatement solutions where none can exist (part removed.)

Seriously, airport traffic (both passenger and cargo) to and from the Bay Area has increased dramatically during the past two decades and will only continue to increase (Web Link The notion that there are no reasonable noise mitigations we can pursue now and in the future, mitigations which do not jeopardize safety, is patently ridiculous.

Gern


Rational
Registered user
Menlo Park: University Heights
on Dec 6, 2015 at 12:41 pm
Rational, Menlo Park: University Heights
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2015 at 12:41 pm

@Menlo Voter: You wrote, "of all the thousands of over flights by planes bound for SFO, how many do you think contain San Mateo County residents? Why should their convenience outweigh the SMC residents they disturb?"

SFO is not an airport of convenience. Every major metropolitan area needs a major commercial airport. The Bay Area has three (SFO, SJC, and OAK) already.

@Peter Carpenter: You write, "To demand that a useful activity that provides significant benefits some people be stopped because it bothers/annoys/angers another group of people is the slippery slope of intolerance." With respect, that is clearly hyperbole. Most conveniences in life do not impact neighbors in any meaningful way. Those that do are usually well regulated, including motorcycle noise (which you mentioned). A Harley driving through a suburban neighborhood occasionally is not a big deal. A motorcycle club full of Harleys driving through your neighborhood seven days a week from morning until evening is clearly a different matter. Is Surf Air that bad? Probably not. But clearly there is a difference.

It seems to me the real slippery slope is opening the door for commercial airlines to operate out of local airports. Not only does Surf Air have major plans to expand, but what happens when a competitor wants equal access to San Carlos airport? Are we granting a monopoly to Surf Air or will we allow the number of commercial flights to double or triple if a couple of well funded competitors decide they want similar access?


Menlo Voter
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Dec 6, 2015 at 1:48 pm
Menlo Voter, Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2015 at 1:48 pm

Gern:

Eshoo is doing what politicians do. Anything to appear to be "doing something." That way when nothing happens she can still claim she tried to "do something."

Technology has already mitigated aircraft noise to a very large extent. I think we are now into stage 4 aircraft which are significantly quieter than much older models. Aircraft have become quieter over time, not noisier.

Yes air traffic has increased dramatically. So has the population of the Bay Area. What would you expect? One follows the other.


Menlo Voter
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Dec 6, 2015 at 1:50 pm
Menlo Voter, Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2015 at 1:50 pm

Rational:

I disagree that San Carlos is an airport of "convenience." I would argue it is functioning as a reliever airport. As the three major airports reach capacity people and businesses are finding an alternative to the use of these airports. Thus relieving some of the pressure on those airports.


JimO
another community
on Dec 6, 2015 at 1:57 pm
JimO, another community
on Dec 6, 2015 at 1:57 pm

Surf Air is modifying their planes with five bladed props in 1016. This will make their planes significantly quieter!


JimO
another community
on Dec 6, 2015 at 1:59 pm
JimO, another community
on Dec 6, 2015 at 1:59 pm

My Last post, I meant Prop mods in 2016!


private pilot
Menlo Park: other
on Dec 6, 2015 at 3:26 pm
private pilot, Menlo Park: other
on Dec 6, 2015 at 3:26 pm


If Surf Air can go from a value of zero to a billion dollars as claimed by Wade Erley you can bet other companies are looking at duplicating the model. SQL was built and designed to accomodate general aviation/private pilots. Not for Commuter Airlines. Better to address it now than later.

As to jimo can you quantify "significantly quieter" in decibels.


Menlo Voter
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Dec 6, 2015 at 3:43 pm
Menlo Voter, Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2015 at 3:43 pm

private pilot:

the commuter airlines will have to stick to aircraft below a gross weight of 12500. Anything over that is prohibited.

Per this info from Pilatus: Web Link time to climb is reduced by 10%. That should also result in a lower required prop speed during approach and landing, thus reducing noise. Decibels aren't provided.


Menlo Voter
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Dec 6, 2015 at 3:57 pm
Menlo Voter, Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2015 at 3:57 pm

private pilot:

according to this: Web Link the change from 4 balde to 5 balde prop results in a 6db reduction in noise. Given the db scale is logarithmic, 6db IS significant.


flyer
Menlo Park: Stanford Hills
on Dec 6, 2015 at 9:12 pm
flyer, Menlo Park: Stanford Hills
on Dec 6, 2015 at 9:12 pm

The worlds largest airline, United, has a market capitalization of something in the vicinity of $18B and David Eyerly asserts that Surf Air is currently valued at $1B. Yeah, right. Good luck convincing a jury or mediator that you can do math.


Jetman
another community
on Dec 7, 2015 at 12:36 am
Jetman, another community
on Dec 7, 2015 at 12:36 am

PC said:

"less than 1% are impacted by SurfAir's flight paths" - "and only a small percentage of that less than 1% are actually disturbed by SurfAir's flights. - that is my opinion. I see no evidence that more than 5000 people are "angered" by SurfAir"

What kind of ethical system can justify ruining the lives and property of 5,000 peoples, as long as those 5,000 are less than 1% of the county they live in?

It sounds like the philosophy of the "greater good" underlying fascism and communism, which justifies the sacrifice of a minority, if it benefits the majority, instead of the American constitutional republic which protects the rights of the individual and political minorities.

Peter... if someone ruined your life and property would that be OK since you are only <1% of the population of San Mateo County?


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 7, 2015 at 7:34 am
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2015 at 7:34 am

" ruining the lives and property of 5,000 peoples" just is not happening.

Hyperbole is not a substitute for rational, fact based discussion.


Can you show us a single property whose value has gone down because of SurfAIr operations?


Jetman
another community
on Dec 7, 2015 at 5:16 pm
Jetman, another community
on Dec 7, 2015 at 5:16 pm

Every residential property experiencing noise from SurfAir is worth less than it would be without the noise.

For a "high" class property (see link below), like a residence in Atherton or Menlo Park, the diminution in value of the property is 16% for a property within a 35-45dB NNI contour, and 29% for a residence within a +45dB NNI contour, when compared to a residence within a -35dB contour.

The relationship between real-estate values and aircraft noise is well understood. Every study, including studies by the FAA, show an inverse relationship between aircraft noise and real-estate values.


"The Impact of Airport Noise on Residential Real Estate"
The Appraisal Journal ~ July 2001 Web Link


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 7, 2015 at 5:40 pm
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2015 at 5:40 pm

"NNI combines measures of loudness and number of events into a single cumulative index. 30 NNI equals 73 planes a day at 82 PNdB–about as loud as a vacuum cleaner at 10 feet. "


I challenge anyone to provide data that shows that any Atherton residence has ever been exposed to 82 PNdB from a SurfAir plane. And it would take 73 flights a day at 82 PNdB to yield a NNI of 30 which is far less than an NNI of 35 or 45 where property values were impacted.

The cited report actually proves that the SurfAir flights do NOT impact property values.

It is actually very useful to actually read the entire cited report.


Jetman
another community
on Dec 7, 2015 at 6:18 pm
Jetman, another community
on Dec 7, 2015 at 6:18 pm

SurfAir is not the only airline flying over Atherton/Menlo. In addition to SurfAir, parts of Atherton, and especially Menlo Park are also exposed to hundreds of SFO bound aircraft, as well as GA operating out of PAO and SCL, and the occasional flight into, or out of, SJC and OAK.

24 flight tracks over PA/MP Region: Web Link


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 7, 2015 at 6:28 pm
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2015 at 6:28 pm

"hundreds of SFO bound aircraft"

All of which are flying above at least 3500 ft and with ground noise levels of less than 65 dB.

", as well as GA operating out of PAO and SCL,"

Which create the most ground level noise but that noise is seldom above 65 dB.

" and the occasional flight into, or out of, SJC and OAK."

All of which are above 4500 ft and with ground noise levels far less than 65 dB.

Look at the Rindfleisch data on the Sky Posse web site:

Web Link

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

So please keep tossing in all the possible new problems.


PrivatePilot
Menlo Park: other
on Dec 7, 2015 at 7:02 pm
PrivatePilot, Menlo Park: other
on Dec 7, 2015 at 7:02 pm

Peter you're not admitting the obvious. (Part removed)

If you live directly under the Ameby approach and there are enough flights using that approach it will and would bother you. (part removed)


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 7, 2015 at 7:06 pm
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2015 at 7:06 pm

"If you live directly under the Ameby approach and there are enough flights using that approach it will and would bother you"

I DO live under the Ambey approach and I can see the underside of every plane using that approach.

And those flights do NOT bother me.

I understand that those flights may bother other people who are more sensitive to specific noises.


Private Pilot
Menlo Park: other
on Dec 7, 2015 at 7:13 pm
Private Pilot, Menlo Park: other
on Dec 7, 2015 at 7:13 pm

You do not live under Ameby, It is not over Lindenwood. (Part removed.)


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 7, 2015 at 7:19 pm
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2015 at 7:19 pm

"You do not live under Ameby, It is not over Lindenwood"

Wrong. AMEBY crosses East of Middlefield just before Marsh Road = Lindenwood.

I can look up and see the bottoms of the planes and I can certainly hear them.

Where is Menlo Park "other"?


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 7, 2015 at 8:36 pm
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2015 at 8:36 pm

It is always nice to have real data:

Web Link

A SurfAir flight on the AMEBY approach showing that it crosses over Middlefield before reaching Marsh Road = over Lindenwood.


Menlo Voter
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Dec 7, 2015 at 8:57 pm
Menlo Voter, Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2015 at 8:57 pm

private pilot:

Surfair flies over my house frequently when they are not using the AMEBY approach. They don't bother me either. Unlike others would have you believe, they also don't disrupt my conversations when I am outdoors and they pass over. They're not that loud. I suppose if someone routinely speaks in a whisper then maybe, but we know that's unlikely. Don't we? Fess up. It just annoys you.


Private Pilot
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Dec 7, 2015 at 9:55 pm
Private Pilot, Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2015 at 9:55 pm



Menlo Voter, Jetman, Anybody who flys into SQL

Please confirm to Peter Ameby is not over Lindenwood, Lindenwood is 3 miles out. Surf Air varies their approach on VFR days, several miles apart. Including over Lindenwood. The flight you showed is over Lindenwood but is not on Ameby.
Don't know how to make it any simpler.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 8, 2015 at 9:27 am
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Dec 8, 2015 at 9:27 am

" Surf Air varies their approach on VFR days, several miles apart. Including over Lindenwood."

Thank you for acknowledging the proven fact that SurfAir does fly over Lindenwood. And even when a plane is not directly overhead it can still be seen and heard in a rather wide cone beneath the aircraft. Sound travels in all directions, not just straight down.

It is interesting that the anti-airplane posters try to disqualify from the discussion anbody who does not share their opinion - why?

How can we have a discussion if only one perspective is allowed?

Are the anti-airplane folks demanding a "safe space" for their monologue?


Menlo Voter
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Dec 8, 2015 at 10:00 am
Menlo Voter, Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Dec 8, 2015 at 10:00 am

Jetman:

We're still waiting for your links to the "scathing" report on aircraft noise you have previously mentioned. Where are they?


Private Pilot
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Dec 8, 2015 at 10:37 am
Private Pilot, Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Dec 8, 2015 at 10:37 am



You still won't acknowledge Ameby is not over Lihdenwood


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 8, 2015 at 10:41 am
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Dec 8, 2015 at 10:41 am

AMEBY does fly over Lindenwood - here is the proof of the approach course supeimposed on the ground map:

Web Link

So please show exactly where you live vs the AMEBY course.


Private Pilot
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Dec 8, 2015 at 10:09 pm
Private Pilot, Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Dec 8, 2015 at 10:09 pm


Ameby flys over Linfield Oaks, Over Felton Gables, over Holbrook Palmer, West of Encinal, about 1.5-2.0 miles West of your house. You may get the occasional VFR flight but not IFR Ameby flights.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 9, 2015 at 7:05 am
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2015 at 7:05 am

Where is Menlo Park "other"?

Please show exactly where you live vs the AMEBY course.

" Ameby flys .... about 1.5-2.0 miles West of your house"

Actually the centerline of the Ameby course is 0.62 miles from my home as is shown in this map:

Web Link


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.