Surf Air, local officials ask FAA to let airline keep flying over Bay | January 11, 2017 | Almanac | Almanac Online |


News - January 11, 2017

Surf Air, local officials ask FAA to let airline keep flying over Bay

by Barbara Wood

Local residents, officials and Surf Air are all trying to convince the Federal Aviation Administration to let the commuter airline continue to fly an alternate route that has allowed Surf Air flights to go over the Bay instead of Midpeninsula neighborhoods 60 percent of the time, while the federal agency evaluates a six-month trial of the route.

San Mateo County officials announced last week that the route over the Bay the commuter airline had been using as it headed to the San Carlos Airport, when weather and air traffic conditions allowed, is no longer an option while the FAA evaluates the six-month trial of the route. The trial began in July.

A letter from San Mateo County Assistant County Manager Mike Callagy says that starting Thursday, Jan. 5, Surf Air no longer had FAA permission to use the alternate route, at least until the FAA evaluation of the trial is over.

Instead Surf Air must go back to using the original GPS route that takes it over residential neighborhoods and a number of schools in Menlo Park, Atherton, North Fair Oaks and other parts of the Peninsula as it heads to the San Carlos Airport, the letter says.

The letter, dated Dec. 30, but distributed via email on Jan. 3, says the alternate flight path, known as the Bayside approach, "was developed for use by Surf Air in an effort to reduce aircraft noise for approximately 140,000 residents living near the GPS approach into the San Carlos Airport." The letter says Surf Air used the alternate route for about 60 percent of its flights during the trial period.

Surf Air started using the San Carlos Airport in June 2013 and now schedules as many as 38 flights a day arriving at or departing from San Carlos. Its customers pay a monthly fee for unlimited flights within California and to Las Vegas. The airline recently started a separate operation in Europe.

Soon after Surf Air started up with only a few flights a day, local residents began complaining about the noise from the Pilatus PC-12 turboprop planes used by the airline, which have been tested to be louder than jets.

Although all involved admit they knew that use of the Bayside route was a trial, most seemed surprised by its abrupt halt.

"We've known from the beginning that this was a six-month test," said Jim Sullivan, Surf Air's senior vice president of operations. "We really didn't know what was going to happen at the end."

He said Surf Air pilots "are going to be pretty disappointed" to no longer be able to use the Bayside route. "They enjoyed flying it."

Mr. Sullivan said he had been in touch with the FAA and other officials to make sure Surf Air can't keep using the route during the evaluation. He said he does not know how long the FAA's evaluation of the trial will take.

County officials also said they also were not sure of details of the evaluation. Mr. Callagy said the county hopes the FAA sees the continuation of the alternative route "as not the perfect solution to this ongoing issue, but rather the best solution for now to bring some relief to those most impacted by commercial flights coming into the San Carlos Airport."

Atherton Mayor Mike Lempres said he had received numerous emails from residents upset about the ending of the Bayside route trial. He said the town would let the FAA know "we don't want this to go back to the old way" and try to get permission to continue to use the route during the evaluation period. "It's clearly important to our residents," he said.

Adam Ullman, a resident of North Fair Oaks who lives directly under Surf Air's GPS flight path to the San Carlos Airport, said he was "not surprised, but I'm obviously very disappointed" about the ending of the trial.

Use of the Bayside route meant "we would still hear the planes but the frequency was reduced — absolutely reduced," he said. "Instead of it being a constant nuisance, it became a more infrequent one."

However, he admitted, "we've always known that this was a six-month test period and we could go back to square one. Here we are at square one."

Board of Supervisors President Don Horsley said he at first had believed the FAA's approval of the Bayside route was permanent. "Only later did the county become aware that this was a 'test' and the county didn't necessarily know that the FAA would abruptly end the test," he said.

In March, the county's Board of Supervisors authorized a study of noise issues connected to the San Carlos Airport. Issuing of the final report and recommendations from the study has been delayed several times, and in December Supervisor Horsley said the report should be back before the supervisors in January or February.

Mr. Callagy's letter says the FAA's analysis will look at "environmental, operational and community impacts and will include an opportunity to provide public comments."


There are no comments yet for this post

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?

Choose a category: *

Since this is the first comment on this story a new topic will also be started in Town Square! Please choose a category that best describes this story.

Comment: *

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

*Required Fields


Meet the winners!

The results are in. Check out The Almanac readers' favorite foods, services and fun stuff in the area.

View Winners